Page 1

Andropogon Associates, Ltd. ÂŁ colo,(!ical P/alll/i//x & J)cs({!/l 374 S /Jlm LaJl e

Philaddphia PA 19128

OPERATIONAL LANDSCAPE PLAN FRESH KILLS LANDFILL City of New York Department of Sanitation Staten Island, New York

Prepared for SCS Engineers 2 Crosfield Avenue, Suite 422 West Nyack NY 10994 /

/ Prepared by Andropogon Associates, Ltd. ,

, \

\

June 1990

A rchitects, LaJld"ape A rdlit ects & Plalili m

(2"J5) 487-0700

Fa x: (215) 483-7520

\

\ \


OPERATIONAL LANDSCAPE PLAN FRESH KILLS LANDFILL City of New York Department of Sanitation Staten Island, New York

Prepared for SCS Engineers 2 Crosfield Avenue, Suite 422 West Nyack NY 10994

Prepared by Andropogon Associates, Ltd. 374 Shurs Lane Philadelphia PA 191 28

June 1990

Project Director: Leslie Saue r; Project Ma nager: Cla re Bill ett; Principal Planners : Colin Fra nkl in & Ro lf Sau er; Planning Staff: Jeremy Foster, Erik Kar lsson, Mitra Noo rani & Marita RODs

Contents 1. OPERATIONAL LANDSCAPE PLAN 1.1 Purpose 1.2 Overview of the Operational Landscape Plan & Pilot Projects Program

1 1

2. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1 Principal Land Types 2.2 Recommendations for Landfill Areas 2.3 Recommendations for Surrounding Land

3 3 6

3. VISUAL & ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 3.1 Overview 3.2 Visual Impact Zones 3.3 Illustrative Plan for Landfill Areas 3.4 Surrounding Land 3.5 Phase One Operational Landscape

8 18 23 23 28

4. PILOT PRO]ECfS PROGRAM 4.1 Purpose 4.2 Pilot Projects Program

32 37


Contents

5. PROPOSED COVER TYPES 5.1 Field Cover Types: Cool-Season Grass Existing Areas of Cool-Season Grasses 5.2 Proposed Cool-Season Grass Installations in 1990 5.3 Field Cover Types: Warm-Season Grass Existing Areas of Warm-Season Grasses 5.4 Proposed Warm-Season Grass Installation in 1990 5.5 Woody Cover Types: Shrub land 5.6 Woody Cover Types: Woodland 5.7 Future Evaluations

52 54 57 61

6. REFERENCES

63

46 49 51

Exhibits 1 2-6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

Principal Land Types Scenic Design Principles Shaded Relief: Mid-Morning Aspect Terrain Visual Corridor 440 North Visual Corridor 440 South Visual Impact Zones Slope Visibility Illustrative Plan for the Landfill Areas Surrounding Land Illustrative Plan for the Landfill Areas & Surrounding Land Phase One Operational Plan Typical landfill mound section Short turf grass Cool- and warm-season test plots Bioengineering pilot project Vegetation Trials Key Plan Table 1: Vegetation Trials Spreadsheet Cool-season grass Warm-season grass Warm-season grass field Shrubland Shrubland detail Native woodlands Sassafras grove

4 9-13 14 16 17 19 20 21 22 24 25 30 31 34 35 40 41 42 43-45 47 50 53 55 56 59 60


1.0

OPERA TIONAL LANDSCAPE PLAN

1.1

Purpose

SCS Engineers (SCS) has been retained by the City of New York Department of Sanitation (DOS) to prepare engineering, design, and construction documents for the closure of portions of the Fresh Kills Landfill (DOS Capital Project No. S197-242). The project involves studies, analyses, engineering, design, management planning, contract document preparation, and construction oversight for the following work areas: drainage improvements; grading; final cap & cover; access roads; wetlands remediation; shoreline improvements; landscaping; end-use; and landfill gas. This report was initiated under Task 2, Information Search and Assimilation, and is intended to provide information to DOS and the planning team coordinated by SCS for the development of Task 3, The Conceptual Design Report.

1.2

Overview of the Operational Landscape Plan & Pilot Projects Program

The need for an Operational Landscape Plan for the Fresh Kills Landfill was identified during the Key Informant Survey phase of this project. The Operational Landscape Plan includes interim and final cover establishment, plantings along roadside edges and site boundaries, landscaping around buildings and facilities, and habitat enrichment in highly visible areas. Its main purpose is to address immediate site needs which relate to its use as a landfill, such as slope stabilization and cover type management, as well as reconciling current scenic and environmental concerns. The operational landscape does not address long-term concerns, and is intended to serve as a basis for, and eventually be integrated with, the End-Use Plan [see"Site and Off-Site Analyses Report" and End-Use Plan for the Fresh Kills Landfill prepared by SWA], which addresses Landfill closure and the continuing operational requirements, such as gas and leachate management as well as the addition of park-related facilities.

Operational Landscape Plan

1


The major criteria for the Opera tional Landscape Plan, as identified in the Key Informant Survey, are: compliance with state regulations, increased habitat and sceni c values, and greater cost-effec tiv eness in the lon g term by reducing maintenance requirements. A Pilot Projects Program has been established to assess the effectiveness of the proposed cover types and to provide information for the development of the Landscape Management Manuals for the Fresh Kills site. This report summarizes the Conceptual Design for the Operational Landscape Plan and the Pilot Projects Program which has been developed to assess techniques to implement the plan.

Operational Landscape Plan

2


2.0

FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1

Principal Land Types

Exhibit 1: Principal Land Types of the Fresh Kills Landfill can be divided into three units: (1) Landfill Areas

(2) Wetlands (3) Surrounding Land

The landfill areas include Sections 1/9,2/8,3/4, and 6/7, which will be completed and closed on a phased schedule. The Operational Landscape Plan for these mounds must meet the requirements of New York State DEC 6 NYCRR Part 360 regulations for solid waste management to provide stability and protect the integrity of the capping system in addition to meeting community needs.

The wetlands and wetland-related areas include all delineated wetlands. The surrounding land includes all remaining land areas, roads, roadside edges, landfill-related and other facilities, and land available for scenic and habitat enhancement as well as immediate and eventual park uses.

This report describes the recommended strategies for the Operational Landscape Plan for the Conceptual Design of the Landfill Areas and the Surrounding Land. A "Recommended Wetlands Remediation and Protection Activities Report" has been prepared by EcolSciences, Inc. for Fresh Kills.

2.2

Recommendations for Landfill Areas

The recommendations which follow represent an effort to describe an effective ..' design response to the immediate landscape concerns raised about the Landfill. These proposals are also, in part, based on the findings of the conceptual design for

Operational Landscape Plan

3


,,~I.---:!'l

EXHIBIT 1. PRINCIPAL LAND TYPES -- FRESH KILLS LANDFILL May 199Q

MltU

EB

The major land types including the Landfill areas, wetlands, and the: remaining s urrounding land within Ihe D.O.S property (sec additional maps (or furth er details of the Landfill and s urrounding land).

LANDFILL AREAS

0.0.5. BOUNDARY

SURROUNDING LAND

D.D.T. RIGHT路DF-WAY

~ WETLANDS

Operational Landscape Plan

4


Landfill closure currently being developed. Beca use portions of the Landfill are being closed on an ongoing basis and greater site buffering is required immediately, these proposals are needed before the completion of the conceptual d esign report and before the End-Use Plan being developed by SWA. Therefore, the following guidelines may be revised and the illustrative plans may differ from that which is eventually proposed.

2.2.1

Native Plant Communities Should be Established on the Landfill

The use of native plant communities and significant plantings of woody vegetation was strongly recommended in the Key Informant Survey (Andropogon Associates, Ltd., May 1990). In order to realize this scenario a series of cover type test plots is proposed to develop cost-effective establishment and stabilization techniques and to ensure protection of the Landfill closure system.

2.2.2

Woody vegetation should be established on the ridges lines which define the profiles of the mounds from any given direction.

This will camouflage the artificiality of the slope grades and dramatize the larger topographic forms of the mounds. These woodlands on the sloping ridges and summit also will create enclosed large open grasslands which will establish a mid-scale geometry that will diminish the huge scale of the Landfill areas. Additional soil may be required for effective stabilization in these areas.

2.2.3

Landfill slopes with high visibility should be further upgraded with the addition of wildflowers, shrubs, and trees to the recommended final cover.

This will increase scenic values by enriching the foreground and middleground zones where the Landfill areas are seen by the most people, while serving to enrich habitat values in selected areas.

Operational Landscape Plan

5


2.2.4 The criteria for assessing the proposed cover types should include compliance with DEC regulations, long-term maintenance requirements, scenic and habitat values, and cost effectiveness. Initial efforts should focus on native grassland and wildflower establishment and management in a manner that provides cost-effective stabili za tion. The initial assessment of woody vegetation should focus on addressing concerns about protecting the impermeable cap. A series of root penetration test plots has been established to evaluate potential impacts and options for mitigation of potential impacts. Recommended plant species have been proposed for the three major environmental conditions found on the Landfill -- mesic species for use in swales and on benches, xeric species for north- and east-facing slopes, and more xeric, or species suited to even dri er conditions, on the south- and west-facing slopes. 2.3

Recommendations for Surrounding Land

Land which is not active landfill or wetland is divided into three major types: Industrial Facilities, Edges, and Parkland. 2.3.1

Industrial Facilities should be concentrated to the west of 440 and are intended to serve the ongoing and long-term requirements of DOS.

The object should be to separate DOS and eventual DPR facilities as much as possible. DOS facilities should be grouped with other industrial uses in areas that are less frequently viewed by the community. Because of site constraints, no further siting of any facility, either city or community-related, which is not landfill-dependent, is recommended.

Operational Landscape Plan

6


2.3.2

Surrounding Land includ es prop e rty boundari es which should be effectively screened and road s ide corridors which should b e appropriately landscaped.

Negotations should be initi a ted w ith the Ne w York Sta te De p a rtm en t of Transpo rta tion (N YSDOT) con cerning land scape impro vem ents alon g the Route 440 corridor. Larger-scal e plantin g o n th e 440 ri ght-of-way to es tablish a den se foreground, would more effec tively screen th e Landfill th an plantings at the site's p erime ter. Improvem ents along this corridor should be given immediate priority.

2.3.3

The remaining area in Surrounding Land has been designated for p a rk u se and includes areas suitable for facilities development as well as remnant lands.

Both upl and and lowland sites are included in the surrounding land and when r es tored will provide a continuous G reenway Corridor connecting the upland habita ts of the closed landfill mound s and wetlands areas. Additional wetlands created for stormwater managem ent purposes will be included in the Greenway.

Operational Landscape Plan

7


3.0

VISUAL & ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

3.1

Overview

Beyond the goal to establish stable native cover there is a need to address the scenic issues surrounding an opera ting landfill . Any landfill is li kely to create conflicts with adjacent land uses, but these are greatly compo und ed by the si ting of Fresh Kills iIi a m ajor metropolitan area where parkland, residences, as well as commercial and industrial uses immediately abut the landfill. Fresh Kills is viewed by a very large audience. The sheer size of this Landfill makes it all the more difficult to integrate into what was once a low-lyi ng and fl at marshland. Yet most of those interviewed urged th at every effort be made to make the Landfill look like a natural landscape. The es tablishment of native plant co mmunities, including woodlands, will help greatly to blend the site into its surroundings, es pecially when viewed from the immediate proximity and where proposed land scapes include woody and herbaceous vegetation. If the Landfill is very far away, and only g limpsed in the distance, its appearance is relatively beni gn . An interes ting foreground which separates the viewer from the Landfill beyond, reduces the nega tive visual impact of the Landfill. The Landfill, however, will also be seen in the near distance from many places on adjacent highways and local hillsides. In these circumstances, it looms very large and is a dominating presence. The ar tifi cial form of the active landfill mounds will be very obvious, as the uniform slope allows the viewer to see the entire height, unlike a natural hill where th e view is usually cut off at a lower elevation. A major goal of the operational land scape is to reconcile th ese design conflicts. At this pOint, and based upon informa tion avai lable, some sound design principles can be followed. Several of these scenic design principles are illustrated in Exhibits 2-6. The once flat marshland area now supports four landfill mounds, all of which will be in excess of 180 feet and some exceeding 300 to 400 feet. The most dramatic

Operational Land scape Plan

8


, EXHIBIT 2. SCENIC DESIGN PRINCIPLES

SECTION

a. SUMMIT Planting on ridge breaks up outline and provides scale comparison, which reduces the apparent size of the Landfill mound. VIEW

b. SLOPING RIDGE Sloping ridges form the profiles of the mounds. Planting softens the outline and gives the illusion of maximum vegetation for the minimum investment, while also giving a structure to the overall landscape.

PLAN

VIEW

Operational Landscape Plan

9


EXHIBIT 3. SCENIC DESIGN PRINCIPLES

a. BASE OF MOUND

Planting at the base of the mound reduces the apparent height of the mound and provides scale. VIEW

SECTION b. ADJACENT LAND

Planting close to the Landfill mound toe on adjacent land provides similar advantages to base planting and also helps disguise the artificial mound shape, . blending it into the general landscape. VIEW

Operational Landscape Plan

10


EXHIBIT 4. SCENIC DESIGN PRINCIPLES

SECTION

a. BUFFERS

Continuous planting close to a viewpoint, such as a road, can almost completely screen a mound for a minimal investment. VIEW

SECTION b. FRAMED VIEWS For a more visually interesting and natural effect, roadside plantings can be intermittent, giving framed glimpses of the mounds, breaking up the massive scale of the Landfill. VIEW Operational Landscape Plan

11


EXHIBIT 5. SCENIC DESIGN PRINCIPLES

a. Typical Landfill mound along Route 440.

b. Landfill mound with planting on sloping ridge and summit camouflages the geometry of the Landfill's slope in the distance. Operational Landscape Plan

12


EXHIBIT 6. SCENIC DESIGN PRINCIPLES

a. Landfill plantings at the toe and on the enhanced high-visibility slopes upgrade the middleground views.

b. Additional plantings along the Route 440 right-of-way creates a foreground and completes the visual transformation of the Landfill's appearance.

Operational Landscape Plan

13


EXHIBIT 7, SHADED RELIEF: MID MORNING -- FRESH KILLS LANDFILL May /990

r-1.!.---J..!, "'' '

E9

The shaded relief map emphasizes the basic fonn of the landfill mounds and their essential artificiality. as stark fonns rising directly from flat land with no variation in the slope ,,,mg le. ~ APPROXIMATE AREAS OF MOUNDS IN ~ SHADE AT MID-MORNING (sun due SE)

Operational Landscape Plan

14


shows, for example, th e area th a t will typi ca lly be s had ed by th e Landfill in mid-morning. The amount of sun received by a slope will also effec t vegetative growth. Drought is often a problem on landfills because of shallow soil depths, and this will be more severe on the south- and west-facing slopes where insolation levels cause higher soil and plant temperatures. On these slopes, freeze/ thaw cycles are more pronounced and erosion is typically more severe. Such slopes support less dense vegetation. All these iss ues impact effec tive si te stabilization. The plant species recommended for use at Fresh Kills are grouped under three main headings -- mesic (moist ), xeric (dry), and more xeric (drier) . The more xeric species are especially suited to the south- and west-facing slopes as well as to the upper slopes, while the xeric species are better suited to the north- and and east-facing slopes and lower slopes of the Landfill. There is likely to be only a slight moisture gradient down each slope segment because of the uniform grading and drainage proposals for each bench. Immediately adjacent to the swale benches, however, there will be a wetter environmen t suited to the more mesic species -- see Exhibit 8: Aspect. The same slopes that define aspect on the si te also define its terrain. In addition to the slope faces, there are a sequence of ridges th at are like the skeleton for the site, giving it structure. They include the summit ridges at the top of the landfill mounds, and saddles, which connect two mounded forms, as well as sloping ridges, which occur where aspect changes. These are shown on Exhibit 9: Terrain. Summits and sloping ridges (referred to as spines) form the profiles of the mounds and are thus of great visual Significance.

By establishing woody vegetation on these spines, the Landfill, when viewed in profile, would present an irregular woodland canopy, rather than the very artificial stepped slope that so clearly identifies the site as a landfill. Woody vegetation would also dramatize the terrain and develop a mid-scale geometry to diminish the otherwise uninterrupted large scale of a landfill mound. The woody vegetation on these ridges would also create a sense of enclosure for open fields on the slope faces, further helping to reduce the perceived scale of th e mounds by creating the opportunity for articulated viewpoints. The woody landscapes that are established

Operational Landscape Plan

15


EXHIBIT 8. ASPECT - FRESH KILLS LANDFILL M"'J 1990

The direction in which a s lope faces de termines the amount of solar radiation it receives. This map s hows the four cardinal directions. Because all Landfill slopes arc of s imilar steepness, areas shown with a particular hatching will receive approximately the same amount of insolation .

•m

1/01

NORTH FACING SLOPES

<.---'

RIDGE TOPS OR SADDLES WITHOUT DIRECTIONAL SLOPES

EAST FACING S LOPES

CElJ

WEST FACING SLOPES

[]]

SOUTH fACING SLOPES

Operational Landscape Plan

16


, ~I.___,J,.1

EXHIBIT 9. TERRAIN - FRESH KILLS LANDFILL May 1990

MILES

EB

This map overlays ridges and s ummit on aspect to describe the habitat and visual considc r.llions of the physiograph ic character, which serve as a rationale for the placement of vegetation types.

â&#x20AC;˘m [] OJ]

N SLO I'ES

~

NE & NW SLOPING RIDGES

E SLOPES

~

SE & SW SLO PING RID GES

W SLOPES

~ [Q

SUMM IT RIDGES

S SLO I'ES

Operational Landscape Plan

SADDLES

17


features in a naturally hilly landscape are the terrain (or physiographic character) and the aspect or the shading effect it creates. Exhibit 7: Shaded Relief: Mid-Morning on the most prominent landforms will have the highest level of general visibility and maximize the cost-effectivness of planting woody species. This approach would not preclude additional planting or other design-modifications for the End-Use Plan. Deeper soil is recommended

to

provide a suitable growing medium for

the dense woody thickets that would naturally typify these windswept sites. Coppicing of

the vegetation (cutting of woody stems to induce multistemmed

growth) may also be desirable to increase density and reduce wind throw. 3.2

Visual Impact Zones

As the terrain was used to determine the larger geometry of forest and field, the nature and level of scenic impact on the surrounding community have been used to determine where further enrichment of the landscape is appropriate. A simplified assessment of the visual impact of the Landfill was made by examining the visual corridors from adjacent areas and Route 440. Exhibits 10 & 11: Visual Corridors of 440 North & South show the visual corridors of Route 440 with those slopes hatched which are highly visible. In conjunction with this, the visual impact zones of the surrounding areas were mapped on Exhibit 12: Visual Impact Zones. Some of the visual impact zones overlap, which is revealed in this diagram. For example the long east-facing slope along 1/9 is highly visible from Route 440 and the southern residential area. The visual impact zones and visual corridor were combined to develop Exhibit 13: Slope Visibility which rates slope visibility to determine the Landfill slopes that have the most significant visual impact on the adjacent constituencies. It is in areas such as these that a scenic upgrade could be proposed that would include adding wildflowers to interim and final cover seed mixes and adding plantings of woody vegetation to further reduce the perceived scale of the slope and enrich the view. These same measures will also serve to upgrade the immediate habitat value of these sites by adding species diversity. Elsewhere on less visually sensitive areas of the Landfill, woody vegetation may be

Operational Landscape Plan

18


EXHIBIT 10. VISUAL CORRIDOR 440 NORTH -- FRESH KILLS LANDFILL May

1m

,nL----:J..l ~ILES

E9

Approximate line of sigh t vicwshcd from Rt. 440 driving norLh. So lid lines show positive visual cut路off points (ridges). Dotted lines approximate area of view across {Iat land assuming no other obs lntclions. Hatched iltcas show highly visible slopes. VIEWSHED

RIDGES -- I'OSITIVE CUT-OFF OF VIEW

AJJjJROXIMATE AREA OF VIEW

HIGHLY VISIBLE SLO I'ES

ACROSS FLAT LAND

Operational Landscape Plan

19


EXHIBIT 11. VISUAL CORRIDOR 440 SOUTH -- FRESH KILLS LANDFILL

,r.l.----:i..l

MILU

EB

Approximate line of sight view s hed !rOIll Rt. 440 driving south. Solid lines s how pos itive vis ual cut路oH points (ridges), Dotted lines approximate area of view across flat land assuming no other obstruction s. Hatched areas show highly visible slopes. VIEWSHED

RIDGES -- POSITIVE CUT路OFF OF VIEW

APPROXIMATE AREA OF VIEW AC ROSS FLAT LAND

HICI-Il Y VI SJULE SLOPES

Operational Landscape Plan

20


EXHIBIT 12. VISUAL IMPACT ZONES -- FRESH KILLS LANDFILL Ml'y 1990

,!-:-L----:!l

MILLS

ffi

Approximate areas in the vicinity of the Landfill where Ihe mound slopes have significant visual impact. Distan t views, as from the west, and inlo the int erior zone, arc possible but do not have the same impact. 440 CORRIDOR

D

EAST RESIDENTIAL ICOMMERC IA L

SOUTH RESIDENTIAL

[JJ]

NORTH RESI DENTIAL

NOTE: Other hatching represen ts the overlap of visual impact zones.

Operational Landscape Plan

21


EXHIBIT 13. SLOPE VISIBILITY -- fRESH KILLS LANDFILL Mfly 1990

TIle Landfill slopes that have the most s ignificant visual impact on adjacent neighborhoods.

[[[l]]

VISIBLE FROM NEAR DISTANCE (LOW EST IMPACT)

VISIBLE FROM BOTH CLOSE UP & NEA R DISTANCE (IMMEDIAT E LOOM ING PRESENCE) EAST RESIDENTIAL ICOMMERCIAL

NORTH RESIDENTIAL

Operational Landscape Plan

mil

VISIBLE CLOSE UP & NEAR DISTANCE AND ALSO VIS IBLE FROM MORE THAN ONE CONSTITUENCY (HIGH EST IMPACT) 440 CO RRIDOR

SOUTH RESIDENTIAL

NOTE: Other hatching represe nts the overlap of vis ual impact zo nes.

22


more simply and cos t-effectiv ely achi eved by relying on vegetation management practices to encourage native species to volunteer while controlling invasive exotics. Once a suitable seed source has been es tablished in those areas that are enhanced by planting, a program for management of succession is more likely to succeed. 3.3

Illustrative Plan for the Landfill Areas

Exhibit 14: Illustrative Plan for the Landfill Areas shows the initial recommended planting scope for the landfill mounds, which focuses on es tablishing woodlands on the ridge lines and enhancing the grasslands established on th e slopes with wildflowers, shrubs, and trees. All woody planting techniques and proposals will be reconciled with DEC before proceeding. Additional habitat d evelopment will proceed over time, and may include considerable ex pansion of shrubland and woodland landscapes. 3.4

Surrounding Land

The land that remains, once consideration has been made of the active Landfill Areas and Wetlands, is referred to here as Surrounding Land (see Exhibit IS: Surrounding Land). These areas comprise virtually all of the flatl and that is not wetland, and are the preferred sites for virtually all existing or proposed buildings and facilities for DOS or DPR. Much of this land may have been subjected to an unspecified amount of filling in the past, but none is currently considered active landfill. The land available, while fairly extensive in area, is quite fragmented and poorly configured for effective use. In addition to areas suited for siting of facilities, there are two major corridors that are contained in the Surrounding Land. The roadside edge of property boundaries comprise corridors related to community use. There is also a corridor of land that fringes existing wetlands. Lastly, there are some undeveloped uplands which were created by early filling.

Operational Landscape Plan

23


EX HIll IT 14. ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN: LANDFILL AREAS -- FRESH KILLS LANDFILL

,~!.----:J,! MI~n

EB

Woodlands principally on slo ping ridges and su mmit ridges build a framework for the landscape of th e mounds. He rbaceous covcr on the rem aining slopes is enhanced with wildflowe rs, s hrubs &: trees on the most hig hly visible slopes.

~

WOODLANDS & SHRUBLANDS

I.~};~f.~

GRASSLANDS EN HA NCED WITH THE ADDITION OF WILDFLOW ERS, S HRUBS & TREES

Operational Landscape Plan

NOTE: This plan is concept ual only, and subject to review and modification during the conceplu.ll design phase of this projcel.

24


,i-;L---o;il MI~U

EXHIBIT 15. SURROUNDING LAND - FRESH KILLS LANDFILL May 1990

EB

n,is map identifies the principal potential uses within Ih e s urround ins I.l nd, and includes boundaries that need buffering or specia l attention to vis ual problems, and Ihe D.D.T. Route 440 right-of-way .

â&#x20AC;˘

INDUSTRIAL

~

PARK CO RRIDOR

~

D.O.T. ROW (RT 440)

Operational Landscape Plan

~ ~

DUFFER

EDGE

25


Surrounding Lands are divided into three land uses: 'Industrial Park', which includes DOS and other municipal facilities; 'Edges', which include roadside corridor and property boundaries; and 'Parkland', which incorporates remnant and fringing landscapes and land suited for development of active and/or passive receation park facilities. A description of each of these categories is given below, together with landscape strategies for their development and improvement. Regardless of eventual proposals for future park use, interim guidelines for the Operational Landscape are reviewed here.

3.4.1

Industrial Facilities

An ongoing DOS presence will be required at the Landfill, at least through the 30-year regulatory period, in order to adequately address continuing maintenance responsibilities. DOS is also planning to site other associated industrial facilities at Fresh Kills. In accordance with the Preliminary End-Use proposals, developed by SWA in conjunction with the planning team, these industrial facilities are shown west of Route 440 in an attempt to minimize conflict between DPR- and DOS-related activities. The proposals described below conform to the March 1990 Preliminary End-Use diagram already proposed by SW A. In the industrial areas adjacent to the Fresh Kills Creek and west of Route 440, wetlands, wetland buffers, and adjacent uplands on the southern shore have been proposed for maintenance where they still exist, or creation where they no longer remain. This is obviously the habitat optimum. If the industrial zone on the northern shore is developed, there will probably be great pressure to develop a bulkhead along that section of Fresh Kills Creek, unless an alternative site along Arthur Kill can be negotiated. If this conflict develops, a compromise solution should be developed with input from DOS, DEP and the Harbor Herons Project. The southern shore poses greater dilemmas than the northern shore in terms of land use. From a visual and habitat perspective, it would be preferable to site any industrial facilities that need to be located in this area around the point of the

Operational Landscape Plan

26


shoreline, beyond the viewshed of the Route 440 bridge. There are currently plans to site a major industrial plant facility (econfigured Plant 1) in what would be the most visually sensitive area of this shoreline. These proposals should be reviewed to assess the scenic impact of the project and to develop appropriate habitat connections and landscape improvements. There is also debate about the exact alignment of the Section 1/9 footprint. Even the suggestion that old refuse be dug out to clear space for the footprint of the new industrial facility cannot be discounted. This area has already suffered great degradation of the wetland edge, due to bulkheading and shoreline scraping to remove litter. Even if little can be aesthetically accomplished in the face of industrial facility development pressures, some level of habitat connectivity is desirable and should be incorporated in the design of the overall area. By proposing habitat connectivity between the Isle of Meadows and the Richmond Creek area, the importance of stream and shoreline corridors is highlighted. Even if the optimum habitat proposals cannot be implemented in these areas due to industrial facility pressure, every effort should be made to maximize the wildlife habitat area available. At the very least, investigation should be undertaken to ascertain the feasibility of establishing a viable wetland edge in conjunction with any proposed or existing bulkheading. 3.4.2

Edges

The closest views of the Landfill occur at the edge of DOS land, and so it is here that the most pressing conflicts will occur. Virtually all property boundaries become important in this context and should be appropriately buffered. In addition, all roadside edges; Route 440, Richmond Avenue, Arthur Kill Road, Travis and Arden avenues, offer the opportunity to develop buffers to screen visually sensitive areas of the landfill mounds. By planting in areas adjacent to the roads to develop 'foreground', the strong visual impact of the landfill mounds can be diminished. The Route 440 corridor currently provides the most extensive views of the Landfill and is travelled daily by very large numbers of people. The beautification of this

Operational Landscape Plan

27


corridor is one of the mos t important strateg ies that DOS could undertake to redress the nega tive impac t of th e impaired views that are evident here. This goal is complicated by the fact that some of the most effective planting areas are not on DOS property, but lie within the NYSDOT right-of-way. Negotiations should be initiated immediately to develop a cooperative p rogram to implement these proposed landscape improvements. 3.4.3 Parkland & Greenspace The remaining land area provides the basis for the major park-related facilities . When these parkland corridors are added to the 'Designa ted Wetl ands', as mapped by EcolSciences, Inc., and the closed Landfill section s, which have been stabilized with native plant communities, a greenspace network will be crea ted across the site that essentially represents potential habitat. Development in this manner will ensure that every effort has been made to reinforce and create parkland corridors to maximize habitat continuity and contiguity. This will provide for greatly increased habitat value compared to smaller, disjunct natural areas. The portion of Surrounding Land in parkland corridors includes proposed areas for storm water retention areas, which simultaneously offer the opportunity for wetlands mitigation, as well as for wetland buffers and adjacent uplands. Sites for park facilities which may include marinas, ballfields and other active recreational facilities have also been designated.

3.5

Phase One Operational Landscape Plan

Exhibit 16: Illustrative Plan for the Landfill Areas & Surrounding Land shows the addition of the proposed improvements to Surrounding Land to the planting recommendations for the landfill mound areas. Exhibit 17: Phase One Operational Landscape Plan shows that portion of the operational landscape which could be completed within approximately five years, based on best estimates of the closure

Operational Landscape Plan

28


schedule. Capital Project S 111/214 'Site Improvements Landscape Contract', which is concurrently being prepared by DOS, and will be submitted to contractors for bid in the nex t two months, provides an effec tive capital budge t vehicle by which implementation of the Phase One Operational Landscape Plan may begin. Wetlands are considered a separate budgetary issue at this point in time, until negotiations with the regulatory agen cies are initiated and the Concep tu al Design Plan is completed.

Operational Landscape Plan

29


EXHIBIT 16. ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN OF LANDl'lLL AREAS & SURROUNDIN G LAND - FRESH KILLS LANDl'lLL IIl1dfUpogOfl I\.ssocial~s, LId.

,~!'----:!.J

M"y 1990

MllU

EB

TIlis illus trative plan shows the add ition of the landscape improvements proposed for the surrou nd ins land, .1ddcd to the recommended cover & hab itat types proposed (or Ihe Landfill areas.

r.

WOODLANDS & S HRUBLANDS

rn

GRASSLANDS

Ij:}~~:·2"1

GRASSLANDS EN HANCED WITH THE ADDITION OF WILDFLOWERS, S HRUB S & TREES

~

WEllANDS

NOTE: This pl.lIl is co nceptual onl y, and s ubject 10 review and mod ifi cat ion during the conceptu al design phase of Ihis project.

Operational Landscape Plan

ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPE IMI'ROVEMENTS INCLUDING SCREENS, BUFFER & PARKLAND

30


EXHIBIT 17. PHASE ONE OPERATIONAL PLAN -- FRESH KILLS LANDFILL

I

.---:iJ

"l7

MILlS

EB

This map illus trates short-tcnn strategic landscape upgrade areas. D.O.T. ROUTE 440 ROW I'LANTING AREAS

HIGH VI SIUILITY S LOPE UP G RADE AREAS ON ACfIVE LANDFILL AR EAS HIGH VI S IUILITY AREA S DESlRhDLE fOR PLANTING NOT ON ACfIVE LANDFILL AREAS

Operational Landscape Plan

31


4.0

PILOT PROJECfS PROGRAM

4.1

Purpose

The general guidelines for landfill revegetation include the establishment of grass cover to acheive erosion and sediment control. In a study prepared for the United States Environmental Protection Agency, 24 inches (or 60 cm) of cover soil above an im'p ermeable clay, or geomembrane liner, is recommended to sustain long-term growth of grasses for cover. Wherever tree growth is anticipated or desired, 36 inches (or 90 cm) is recommended in order to provide better anchorage for larger specimens, as well as for more favorable growing conditions, such as better moisture retention (Gilman, Flower, & Leone 1983, Standardized Procedures for Planting

Vegetation on Completed Sanitary Landfills), In New York State, a depth of 30 inches of cover soil over the impermeable layer is the current regulatory requirement (NYCRR Part 360 Regulations), Regardless of the depth of cover soil or vegetation initially established, empirical evidence suggests that many landfills gradually succeed to woody vegetation over time, due to limited maintenance. The cover eventually develops into a mixture of invasive exotics, which in the northeast include Japanese knotweed (Polygonum

cuspidatum), white mulberry (Morus alba), and tree-of-heaven (Ailanthus aitissima), which colonize well under disturbed conditions. Ubiquitous native species, such as common reed (Phragmites australis) and black locust (Robinia

pseudoacacia), are also frequently found. The habitats that such species produce are typically degraded, compared to native communities, and are of less value ecologically. This standard scenario, however, does not adequately address the requirements of the closure design for the Fresh Kills Landfill for several reasons, as discussed in the following subsections.

Operational Landscape Plan

32


4.1.1

Current regulatory standards for landfill maintenance are costly over time.

In New York State, the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has adopted management practices that conform to federal hazardous-waste landfill standards, which are very restrictive regarding vegetation, exceeding the requirements typically recognized for municipal landfills. The state presently recommends limiting the vegetative growth to grass or herbaceous cover, precluding trees for the thirty-year regulatory review period. Current practices for landfill closure in New York State typically entail hydroseeding a mixture of non-native cool-season grasses, such as perennial rye, on the 30 inches of cover soil. Continuous management, such as mowing and annual liming and fertilizing, is required to maintain healthy turf cover, at least until all regulatory review requirements are met. This is very costly and, in practice, compliance at landfi lls in the region appears to be inconsistent. Due to its size and visibility, Fresh Kills is likely to be subject to close and continued scrutiny by DEC. 4.1.2

Improved establishment techniques are required for effective stabilization at Fresh Kills.

Although the cost of hydroseeding cool-season grasses appears to be low, $.05 to $.08 per square foot, the results are variable. Complete reseeding is frequently required, with additional patching also necessary. Erosion is high and sediment control is generally poor, at least initially (see Exhibit 18). Actual costs are clearly higher but accurate information is not available. Effective stabilization to protect the capping system is manqatory and is not addressed adequately by current practices. 4.1.3

Native plant communities are recommended for cover types.

The mown-grass cover type does not satisfy the goals set by either DPR or local environmental and community groups. Uniform grass cover, with a few areas planted in trees, is biotically and scenically impoverished (see Exhibit 19). As discussed in the Key Informant Survey (Andropogon Associates, Ltd., May 1990),

Operational Landscape Plan

33


Exhibit 18: Typical landfill mound section

Operational Landscape Plan

34


Exhibit 19: Short turf grasses do little to minimize the artificial look of the landfill mounds. In contrast, the mixed native grasses and occasional shrublands would help integrate the landfill forms into the surrounding landscape. Operational Landscape Plan

35


real restoration of the Landfill was perceived to be the return of natural landscapes, which are of value as parkland, habitat, and scenery, and which are also largely self-sustaining. This intent is also refl ected in the Order of Consen t recently signed by DOS & DEC, in the goals identified in Appendix A-13, Environmental Benefits Projects, which include: " b) use of indegenous plants for vegetative cover, [and] c) development of wildlife habitat areas." The original RFP for this project also acknowledged th e utility of native plant communities: "The Operations Plan's planting plan proposes a naturalistic planting scheme in order to preserve the Greenbelt link between the William T. Davis Wildlife Refuge and Latourette Park. It is the desire of th e Department as well as DPR to continue with this scheme in an attempt to restore th e landfill -- after closure -- to parkland, and to recreate -- as closely as realistically possible within the constraints of landfill conditions -- a visually and aesthetically appealing, naturally vegetated appearance." 4.1.4

Some initial investment is warranted toward the development of installation techniques for native grasslands.

The use of warm-season native grasses is neither encouraged nor precluded by DEC, but has not yet been adopted for widespread use at landfills. Cool-season grasses typically require higher levels of maintenance than native warm-season grasses. Once established, warm-season grasses should be significantly less costly to maintain over time. The Fresh Kills site is large enough to warrant the initial inves tment required to develop more cost-effective es tablishment and maintenance procedures for warm-season grasses. This could save millions of dollars during the closure and 3D-year regulatory review periods. If cool-season grass cover, for example, were maintained according to current recommendations, the long-term costs including installation could translate to over $260 million, assuming mowing four times per

Operational Landsca pe Plan

36


year and fertilizing and liming annua lly. Even with the more cos tly es tablis hment m e thod s fo r warm-season g rasses, the long -term cost savings cou ld be approximately $150 to $200 million, assumin g mowing once every three years and a single application of fertili zer during the first year after planting ( Andopogon Associates, Ltd ., in-house draft cost-estimate docum ent for landsca pe installation and maintenance at Fresh Kills Landfill, January 1990). 4.1.5

Native grasses are better adapted to the stressful growing conditions on the Landfill.

There is a growing body of evidence that the locally available clay, which has been used at Fresh Kills to create the impermeable cap, produces soil conditions which stress vegetation by way of high acidi ty and, therefore, high levels of available heavy metals. However, it is known tha t a wide variety of native plant communities are far more tolerant of such conditions than most cool-season grasses. Native grasslands are also more tolerant of the droughty conditions that prevail on the Landfill. Gilman, Flower & Leone 1983, Standardized Procedures for Planting

Vegetation on Completed Sanitary Landfills, consistently recommends the use of irrigation on landfills. However, since this would be extremely expensive, it would be beneficial to investigate drought-tolerant cover types as a more cost-effective option. 4.2

Pilot Projects Program

In response to the concerns raised above, an experimental program has been initiated by DOS to develop appropriate techniques for establishing and maintaining native plant communities, as an alternative to the conventional approach. The initial focus has been on es tablishing native grasslands and reestablishing valuable wildlife habitat, which has diminished sharply in recent years on Staten Island.

Operational Landscape Plan

37


The intent is to extend the pilot projects into a full-scale program to assess establishment and management techniques for the recommended cover types for the Fresh Kills Landfill (see Exhibits 20 & 21). All existing vegetation on the Landfill, whether volunteer or planted, represents an important source of information, and all presently vegetated Landfill areas should be considered a pilot project (see Exhibit 22 & Table 1). The following general guidelines are proposed for evaluating the cover types, current installation and establishment techniques, and eventual management procedures for the Fresh Kills Landfill: 1.

The proposed cover types should require as little maintenance over time as feasible and proposed maintenance recommendations should be prioritized to permit flexible budgetary programming.

2.

All procedures should be evaluated over time, and long-term costs should be compared with initial establishment costs. Because of the uncertainty of funding, it is generally advisable to acheive as high a level of stabilization as possible during the capital-cost phase. This may include lengthening the term of the capital project budget to include maintenance of the vegetation during its most critical establishment period.

3.

The development of new planting techniques and management procedures should be appropriate for large-scale application, favoring single-season procedures and simple adaptations of existing technologies and equipment.

4.

The scenic values of a cover type should be recognized when evaluating its cost effectiveness and performance. For example, an aesthetically acceptable cover type may reduce the need for screening, buffer planting, and fencing which might otherwise be required to offset scenic concerns. It may, therefore, prove more cost effective to redirect a portion of monies, which

Operational Landscape Plan

38


may have been allocated for sceni c remediation, to developing aesthe tically improved landfill cover types. 5.

Habitat value should also be recognized as an economic value. The maintenance req uirements of a stable native community are lowe r than those of disturbed landscapes, w here the cover effec tiveness is more variable. Habitat qu ality is also of value to DPR and this should be recognized as an asset in any futur e negotiations with DOS involving the return of any or all of the landfill site for park use.

6.

The experimental program should include monitoring of all cover types. A memorandum dated 6 September 1989, Proposed Monitoring Program summarizes both shor t and long- term monitoring goals for the following factors: site hydrology, soil fertility, soil pH, soil moisture, erosion, percent cover,soil amendments, vegetation succession, and costs. This information may be required by DEC for review, and will also provide valuable information to help determine what cover types will be best to use at the Fresh Kills Landfill in the future. The recomm ended cover types include those suited to current conditions and in conformance with existing DEC expectations, as well as on-site evaluation of any proposed alternatives, such as woody cover types. Effective erosion and sediment control strategies should be developed which are suitable for use at any time of the year, and tests of various methods to achieve this goal are included in the Pilot Projects Program.

7.

A diversity of cover types is strongly recommended to avoid the problems of a monoculture and to favor overall site diversity. Ideally, the cover types should provide a vocabulary of landscape installations which can be fl exibly applied at the site in response to seasons, changing conditions or new inform a tion .

Operational Landscape Plan

39


Exhibit 20: Cool- and warm-season grass test plots have already been established on the Landfill to ascertain cost-effectiveness of different installation techniques and effectiveness of erosion control. Operational Landscape Plan

40


Exhibit 21: Bioengin eering pilot projects ha ve also been un dertaken to d emonstrate rev ege ta tion and s tab ili za tion of newly cut dr ainage swa le b a nk s. Despite unfavorable conditions, the res ults look en cou ra gin g at present. Operational Landscape Plan

41


SEC 1/9

NOTE:!

: SIIAOEOIAIlEAS • 1990

IINS1 "LLAlIONS

VEG ETATION TRAilS KEY PLAN

s,,, /~

NTS

f),nwius N",

FRESH KILLS

1);./(

4 MAY 1990

"wilc/ Nil,

6926/8

8926

LANDFill

EXHIU IT 22: Vege la li on Tri a ls Key PI"n

Operational Landscape Plan

42


VEGETAT ION TRIALS - FRESH KILL LANDFILL - 8926 (6/21 /90)

o is ;;: o·

·ALLATION PLANTING DATE MIX ~S9tni tiJ IlatiOn$~;tn:· hP':~n:M'·nl": tQ:a::~:r~:~:f.!~:r:~~: WARM SEASON GRASSES

SEC 3/4

'"" :;

June 89

""

RESULTS FEB 1990 SITE REVIEW

Seedin on or soil Heavy rates of

150-60%_

:::;:::::~:

Standard DOS s Little bluestem . •Aldous· or

I

~

.

6~l slac

__

crass

4.5 acres

BIQ bluestem -NlaQara 6pls/ac ,II" 4els/ac ,·401s/ac Sand lo~ass ·~E · 2r or "Bend" .?pls/ac

ill

"

REMARKS

i

~

""""'" 0;-

INSTALLATION TECHNIQUES

2 SEC 218

I WARM SEASON GRASSES

-l.

WARM

3

J.

-l-

J

Oct-89

SOUTHSW I

1 -+

Standard DOS specs rye

wjtll ~JD_~er

EAST

Nov-89

E-xcellent

OraD Seed & Tracked

soil; composted Ie at mulch added to topsoil, 1 :4

Drop Seed & Tracked ---

I leaf Imulch added to

DO~

180% IWinter rye on of warm seasor shou ld be ~Ii n=J"u"'n"e-""9"9"'0

soil;

Iwith winter rye

Strip 1 of Test Plots

Dormant seeding

SEC 3/4

itopsoil.

with lbare spots IWinter rye predomina nt

1:4 rototilled

· ~~~~~:·.· .· •·I,.,i~,jl~lt~lil!1 11it(lillll~!i;~~:;:;J------------l 3

- -- -

WARM SEASON GRASSES

Stri s 3 & 4 ot Test Plots

-- ----

- - - - Dri lled - --- ,seeding

cs

1 Ma ·1 Jut only

Standard DOS 5

1 May - 1 July onlv

Andropogon scopar ius with and wi thout Sheep fescue

1 May - 1 July onlv

Standard DOS specs

1 May - 1 July

IStandard DOS specs

1.6

rate-s--tobe

acres

SEC 3/4 3A & 3B SEC 3/4

WARM SEASON GRASSES

EAST I

...

11 & 12 SEC 3/4

WARM SEASON GRASSES

13 SEC 3/4

WARM SEASON

14 SEC 218

I I

EAST

:>uUTH

Drilled and

1

Broadcast

T - Drop Seed -1.

& Tracked

ro ee & Tracked

only

WARM SEASON I EAST TOI 1 May - 1 July only GRASSES I SOUTH I

~

i

Standard DOS specs 21 acres

Drop Seed & Tracked

v.>

Table 1 - 1 of 3

TCool-season grass still to be j!nstalled on 1 acre

iSevere erosion on lower slope

-lot area

12

J£I;Iv caD u~m~


VEGETATION TRIALS - FRESH KILL LAN DF ILL - 8926 (6/21/90)

f

tt.

ib;' "

0-

Q

-g

pe r. ry

::;1

'""

Table 1 - 2 of 3

::::


VEGETATION TRIALS - FRESH KILL LANDF ILL - 8926 (6/21/90)

o

'"g

0:

::r. o

ยง. b;'

5-

Q

'"g

";j

;;:;l

....

'" Table 1 - 3 of 3


5.0

PROPOSED COVER TYPES

The proposed cover types are divided into two major groups: field cover & woody cover. Field cover types provide primary stabilization with grasses. All the field cover types conform to current DEC management guidelines. Additional field cover types are being developed. Woody cover types could be direct-planted or managed to develop from field cover types over time upon review and approval by DEC. The only woody installations currently proposed for installation over a certified landfill mound cap will be for the assessment of root penetration. Additional woody plantings will reflect the criteria determined in these evaluations. Existing areas of installed woody vegetation are discussed under 5.5 Woody Cover Types: Shrubland. 5.1

Field Cover Types: Cool-Season Grass Existing Areas of Cool-Season Grasses

There are four existing areas of cool-season grasses, all of which are sited over a clay cap on closed Landfill slopes (see Exhibit 22 & Table 1). Area 7 is located on Section 1/9 and was sown with a native tree and shrub mix, a wildflower seed mix, as well as fescue, rye, and bluegrass. Areas 4, 5 and 6 are all located on Section 3/4 and include legumes and grasses sown in 1988 & 1989.

The present rate of coverage for cool-season installations ranges between 60% and 85% despite numerous overseedings of several areas (see Exhibit 23). Projected maintenance costs are high. Additional seeding, as well as regular liming, fertilizing, and watering would be required to improve coverage and sustain adequate cover. The exact seeding rates used in these areas are not known. The specification then in use called for a very low seeding rate, which was apparently being increased by the contractors under their performance contracts. Specifications prepared by Andropogon Associates, Ltd. for the Pilot Projects Program increase the

Operational Landscape Plan

46


Exhibit 23: Close-up view of the non-native cool-season grasses which are typically established on the Landfill. Fescues an d legum es appear to dominate. Operational Landscape Plan

47


recommended seeding amounts. The long-term maintenance requirements of the existing areas of cool-season grasses may be complica ted by problems associated wi th the sulfur content of the clay currently used to es tablish an impermeable cap on the Landfill.

It is not known a t this tim e what the mos t cos t-effec tive remedia tion

s trategy for the sulphur-clay problem m ay be; how ever, a monitoring and evalua tion p rogram has recently been proposed by Dr. Dest of th e University of Connecticut. Soil acidity m ay stabili ze a t a level sufficient to support native warm-season grasses, such as Broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus,) which has some acid tolerance. N ative grasses are already volunteering in pa tches at the Brookfield Landfill, which was capped with the same clay and where soil pH levels are as low as 3.9 in vegetated areas. The transition to native grasses may occur naturally (see Exhibit 24) or could be enhanced by m anagement. It is not known at the present time to wh at level the pH may eventu all y drop, or a t wha t pH stabilization may occur. Although cool-season g rass cover types are no t recommend ed for ex tensive use because of maintenance requirem ents and lack o f habita t value, continued development of cool-season seeding techniques is still warranted in order to address the following issues:

5.1.1

The installation and management of cool-season grasses, which provide the most rapid cover and are well suited for use as interim cover, should be modified to increase effective cover and erosion control.

Several techniques, including drop-seeding, mini-terracing, and a modified two-step hydroseeding proce dure, will be evaluated u sing precipitation simulation for a variety of storm events in association with the capping system pilot program (See "Overview of the Demons tra tion Program Proposed for the Fresh Kills Landfill Closure System", prepared by GeoServices, Inc., 13 February 1990).

5.1.2

The capital cos t of establishing a cool-season grass meadow, with subsequent maintenance and management to fo ster the d evelopment of stable native

Operational Landscape Plan

48


grassland, should be compared with the cost and effectiveness of establishing a native grassland directly. 5.1.3

The cool-season grass cover type should be compared with other cover types in the root penetration studies with regard to impact on the Landfill cap.

5.1.4

An upgraded interim cover type should be developed for those areas that are sensitive to off-site views and especially where interim cover may be sustained for more than one year.

For relatively little cost, additions such as wildflower seed could make a significant improvement to the Landfill's appearance, especially as the mounds rise into view above the screening berms. 5.2

Proposed Cool-Season Grass Installations in 1990

In order to address the problems of poor erosion and sediment control caused by rilling and furrowing on sown slopes, a series of erosion test plots are included in the capping system pilot program. Two specification modifications to the current cool-season g rass installation methods are proposed for assessment: 1.

A modified hydroseed and hydromulch specification which includes a two-step installation where the seed is hydraulically applied first, before the mulch. This ensures improved soil-seed contact to foster germination.

2.

A land-imprinting specification is intend ed to provide mini-terracing of the soil surface to achieve better erosion control, as well as better moisture retention. This technique may also be evaluated for use on interim cover where the low quality soils m ake vege ta tion es tablishment and soil stabilization difficult to achieve. The imprinter has a hopper attachment for

Operational Land scape Plan

49


Exhibit 24: Local unmaintained open areas typically succeed to native warm-season grasses which are well adapted to stressful conditions. Operational Landscape Plan

50


simultaneous seeding if required . Both techniques will be tested as part of the proposed pilot projects program. An upgraded interim cover specification with wildflowers will also be evaluated. Cool-season grasses will be established with the other recommended cover types for the Root Penetration Test Plots. 5.3

Field Cover Types: Warm-Season Grass Existing Areas of Warm-Season Grasses

There are three existing areas of native warm-season grasses (see Exhibit 22 & Table 1). Area 1 is located on Section 3/4, where in June 1989 a mix of native grasses was sown by drop-seeding and tracking. Switchgrass (Panicum

virgatum) is

predominant with 50 to 60% coverage, almost comparable to the existing cool-season grass sites, despite poor soil conditions . Very light seeding rates were specified. It is not known exactly what application rates were used by the contractor. Area 2 is located on Section 2/8, where the same seed mix was dormant-seeded, with winter rye for temporary cover and erosion control. This area was also drop-seeded and tracked. Soil conditions are very good, although it is too early to see warm-season grass germination. The effectiveness of dormant seeding is, therefore, not yet known. Winter rye, however, has provided approximately 70 to 80% coverage. Additional dormant seeding was installed in Section 3/4, Area 3 where a variety of soil amendments are being assessed. Because of the suitability of native grasslands to the soil conditions at Fresh Kills, the low level of maintenance anticipated for them, and their greater scenic and habitat value (see Exhibit 25), continued development of appropriate establishment techniques is strongly recommended.

Operational Landscape Plan

51


5.3.1

Recommended Species: Grasslands

Andropogon scopariu s â&#x20AC;˘ Andropogon virginicus' Coreopsis pairnata Echinacea purpu rea Gerardia purpurea Panicum virgaturn' Ratibida pinnata Rudbeckia hirta Parthenocissu s quinquefolia Pteridium aquilinurn Sorghastrum nutan s

Little bluestem Broomsedge Stiff coreopsis Purple coneflower Purple gerardia Switchgrass Yellow coneflower Black-eyed Susan Virginia creeper Bracken Indian grass

* Especially suited for use over pyritic clay cap 5.4

Proposed Warm-Season Grass Installations in 1990

The warm-season installations proposed for 1990 installa tion include both seed drilling and modification to the existing drop seed specification. The high winds typically encountered on the landfill mounds have discouraged contractors from hydroseeding as a method to establish warm-season grasses, because the seed is so light and fluffy. However, a two-s tep hydroseed m ethod is being proposed for testing. In addition, native grass plug planting will be evaluated for use in visually sensitive areas where very rapid, effective cover is required by native species. This will be installed on Strip 2 of the Vegetation Test Plots on Section 3/4. Warm-season grasses will also be es tablished on the Root Penetration Tes t Plots. In order to develop the most cost-effective seed drilling specification, DOS, the contractor, and the design team are working closely with Carlos Montoya, a native grass specialist from Martha's Vineyard, who has developed a modified seed drill for use with native grasses. Warm-season grasses will be installed on strips 3 & 4 of the Vegetation Test Plots on Section 3/4. Embedd ed seed is preferable to broadcast seed, especially for native grasses; however, only minimal experimentation has been undertaken in the local area.

Operational Land scape Plan

52


Exhibit 25: The native w arm- season g rasses d evelop into exp ansive fi elds. Where they become w ell established, they can look like ripenin g wh ea t fi elds. Ope rational Land sca pe Plan

53


5.5

Woody Cover Types: Shrubland

Shrubland cover types native to Staten Island occur both in early successional communities and as relatively stable habitats. If analogous communities could be established on the Landfill, they would be very economical to maintain and would have very high habitat and scenic value. The species that typify these communities are also characterized by a very dense network of shallow roots and provide excellent stabilization on the droughty sandy soils similar to those found on the Landfill (see Exhibits 26 & 27). It is possible that these communities would present no greater threat to the impermeability of the Landfill cap than cool-season grasses, although test plots are required for verification before proceeding with extensive planting. Modifications to planting specifications, such as additional soil depth, will also be evaluated with regard to protecting the Landfill cap impermeability. 5.5.1

Recommended Species: Shrublands More Xeric Shrublands Comptonia peregrina* Myrica pensylvanica* Prunus maritima Rhus copallina Quercus ilicifolia *

Sweet fern Bayberry Beach plum Shining sumac Scrub oak

Xeric Shrublands Amelanchier canadensis Gaylussacia baccata* Juniperus virginiana Prunus pensylvanica Rhus glabra

Shadblow Black huckleberry Red cedar Pin cherry Smooth sumac

Mesic Shrublands Aronia arbutifolia Baccharis halimifolia Cephalanthus occidentalis Comus amomum Ilex opaca Iva frutescens Lindera benzoin Lyonia ligustrina Lyonia mariana

Chokeberry Groundsel bush Buttonbush Silky dogwood American holly Marsh elder Spicebush Maleberry Staggerbush

Operational Landscape Plan

54


Exhibt 26: Shrubland communities are es peciall y appropri ate for the Landfill because of their adaptability to extreme conditi ons: infer tili ty, ac id soil s, periodic drought, and high winds. Many thi cket species are also charac terized by shallow, interlaced roo t systems which w ill be assessed in the Root Penetration Tes t Plo ts. Operational Land sca pe Pl an

55


Exhibit 27: Hig hbu sh blueberry (Va cc ini 1l111 corymbos1I111) is a co mpon e nt of the mesic shrubland community proposed for the Lan dfill. Operational Land sca pe Pl an

56


Magnolia virgIn/ana Prunus virginiana Sambucus canadens~ Vaccinium angustifolium Vaccinium corymbosum* Vaccinium Vacillan s Viburnum prunifolium

Sweetbay Chokecherry Elderberry Early low-bush blueberry High-bush blueberry Late low-bush blueberry Blackhaw

* Especially suited for use over pyritic clay cap 5.5.2

Existing Areas of Shrubland

Two existing shrubland plantings exist (see Exhibit 22 & Table 1). In the fall of 1988 a test plot on the northwest corner of section 3/4 was oversown with sumac, bayberry, wildflowers, and native grasses as well as grass plugs. A small red cedar was also planted. Erosion control was poor at the outset and b are patches persist. In the fall of 1989, container-grown shrub species were planted over a clay layer, which was created to simulate a clay cap, on the northeas t corner of Section 3/4. Additional shrubs and scrub tree species have been planted in spring 1990 for future evaluation.

5.5.3

Proposed Shrubland Installations in 1990

1.

Species evaluation on Section 3/4 (Areas 8 and 13A)

2.

Root Penetration shrubland cover type evaluation on Section 3/4 and Section 6/7 (Areas 13A and IDA)

5.6

Woody Cover Types: Woodland

Low maintenance could result in a gradual return of forest cover, although at present there is no existing woodland cover on closed landfill areas of the Fresh Kills Landfill (see Exhibits 28 & 29). Even if high maintenance levels are carried out during the 3D-year regulatory review interval, the re turn to woodland is the most likely long-term scenario.

Operational Landscape Plan

57


5.6.1

Recommend ed Species: Woodland s More Xeric Woodlands Pinu s ech inata* Pinus rigida* Quercus stellata * Xeric Woodlands Acer rubrum Betula populifo lia Castanea dentata

Short-leaf pine Pitch pine Post oak

Gleditsia triacanthos Prunus serotina Populus deltoides Robinia pseudo-acacia Quercus mari/andica* Quercus prinus Quercus velutina Sassafras albidum

Red maple Grey birch Ameri ca n chestnut (disease resistant hybrid spp. developed by the American Ches tnut Foundation) Honey locust Black cherry Co ttonwood Black locust Black jack oak Chestnu t oak Black oak Sassafras

Mesic Woodlands Acer negundo Betula lenta Cel tis occiden tal is Diospyra virginiana Juglans nigra Liquidambar styraciflua* Nyssa sylvatica * Ostrya virginiana Quercus alba Quercus bicolor Quercus borealis Quercus palustris Quercus phellos Salix fragi/is Salix nigra

Box elder Black birch Hackberry Persimmon Walnut Sweet gum Sourgum Hop hornbeam White oak Swamp white oak Northern red oak Pin oak Willow oak Crack willow Black willow

â&#x20AC;˘ Especially suited for use over pyritic clay cap

Operational Land scape Plan

58


Exhibit 28: Native woodlands on Staten Island illustrate potential habitats that could be developed at Fresh Kills Landfill if planting strategies can be developed which minimize threat to the integrity of the Landfill cap. Operational Landscape Plan

59


Exhibit 29: The driest Landfill slopes could support oak, pine, and, as shown here, sassafras, while moister slopes may support oak, maple, and sweet gum. Operational Landscape Plan

60


5.6.2

Proposed Woodlands Installation in 1990

At this time, the only proposed tree plots are those of th e Root Penetration Test Plots. These will be installed in the fall of 1990. Trees which are known for d eep roots, such as tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima), a frequent invad er of landfill sites, will be include d among th e species te sted. Techniques

s uch

as

container-growing and root-pruning which may inhibit taproot development will also be assessed.

5.7

Future Evaluations

5.7.1

Topsoil Improvements

In addition to assessing modifications to the installation techniques, an important topsoil specification has been prepared which requires more ex tensive soil tes ting, a higher organic content, and a revised installation technique when compared to the existing DOS specifications. The most significant change in the specification is to assure compliance with appropriate soil tes ting procedures to produce a more reliable and consistent product. Assuring effective compliance with soil specifications will become increasingly important as reliance on made-soils, such as the yard-waste compost that will be processed at Fresh Kills, increases. All compost should be used as a soil amendment on site and the product specification should reflect this anticipated use. From initial review of the test plots on Section 3/4, it appears that no other soil amendment has produced better results than organic matter.

5.7.2

Wind Protection

Wind patterns on the Landfill are likely to be severe enough to affect vegetative establishment, exacerbate drought conditions, and cause wind throw. Conventional landfill tree planting techniques, which typically limit root growth to containers and favor specimen trees, may actually maximize the likelihood of windthrow. Future

Operational Landscape Plan

61


assessm e nts should address protec tion m e thod s a nd d e ve lop man age m e nt techniques whi ch could redu ce wind th row, su ch as fo ste ring thi cket growth. 5.7.3

Tree & Shrub Establishment Techniques

A variety of less costly installation techniques for woody plant material should be explored, including direct tree and shrub seeding and direct es tablishment of shrub cuttings which may lend themselves to such establishment, such as bayberry (Myrica

pensylvanica) and sumac (Rhu s spp.). 5.7.4

Exotic Vegetation Control

The stressful conditions typi cal of landfills make them vulne rable to invasion by certain pest species of exotic vegetation whi ch, once es tabli shed, may provide significantly reduced scenic, habitat, and stabilization values. Once entrenched, these species are difficult to control. Emphasis should, therefore, be given to preventing their initial establishment.

Operational Landscape Plan

62


6. REFERENCES Airhart, Douglas L. 1980. Revegeta ti on Massachu se tts Hi ghways With an Array of Wildflower Sods [In] Weeds, Trees, & Turf, November 1980, pp. 47-49. Andropogon Associates, Ltd. 6 September 1989. Memorandum on Proposed Monitoring Program, to John McGl aug hlin and Bill Young, New York Department of Sanitation. Andropogon Associates, Ltd. January 1990. In-house draft cost-estimate document; Installation and maintenance costs for landscape at Fresh Kills Landfill. Andropogon Associates, Ltd. May 1990. Key Informant Survey. Arthur, J.J., LA. Leone, and F.B. Flower. 1981. Flooding and Landfill Gas Effects on Red and Sugar Maples. [In] Journal of Environmental Quality, Vol. 10, No. 4, 1981, pp. 431-433. Arthur, J.J., LA. Leone, and F.B. Flower. 1985. Response of Tomato Plants to Simulated Landfill Gas Mixtures. [In] Journal of Environmental Science and Health, pp. 913-925. Bakelaar, R.G. and E.P. Odum. 1978. Community & Population Level Responses to Fertilization in an Old Field Ecosystem [In] Ecology, 59:4, pp. 660-665. Bard, G.E. 1952. Secondary Succession on the Piedmont of New Jersey [In] Ecological Monographs. Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 195-215. Barlow, E. Undated. "Days Afield on Staten Island" [In] The Forests and Wetlands of New York City. pp. 83-105. Belcher, CR., D.W. Hamer, Sr., and W.C Sharp. 1981. Effect of Topsoil on Revegetating Acid Subsoil [For] Northeast Branch American Society of Agronomy, Orono, Maine, July 12-14, 1981. Berndt, Herbert W. and Robert D. Gibbons. 1958. Root Distribution of Some Native Trees and Understory Plants Growing on Three Sites Within Ponderosa Pine Watershed in Colorado. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experimental Station Paper No. 37. Boone, J., E. Furbish, K. Turner, and S. Bratton. 1988. Clear Plastic: A New Chemical Herbicide [In] Restoration and Management Notes. 6:2 pp. 94-95. Bratton, S.P. 1982. The Effects of Exotic Plants and Animal Species on Nature Preserves [In] Natural Areas Management Journal. 2(3):pp.3-13. Browning, J.5. III. February 2,1989. Stabilizing a Landfill for Future Site Use. Drexel University, manuscript.

Operational Landscape Plan

63


Bruns, D. and L. Frieder. 1988. Im provement of Wildlife Habitat Ne tworks in Agricultural Landsca pes: Exampl es fr om Wes t Germany. Pa per presented at IFLA (Intern ation al Federation of Land sca pe Architects) Conference, Boston, 1988. Buegler, Rand S. Parisio. 1982. A Co mparative Flora of Sta ten Island, 1879-1981. Staten Island Institute of Arts an d Sciences . Staten Island, NY. Davidson, W.H. 1979. Results of tree and Shrub Pl antings on Low pH Strip-Mine Banks [In] Forest Service Resea rch No te NE-2855. Forest Servi ce, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Broomall, PA ODC 114.449.8:232.11 . Dixon, RM. 1988. Land Imprinting for Vegetation Res toration [In] Res toration and Management Notes. 6:1, pp. 24-25. Duell, RW., LA Leone and FB. Flower. 1986. Effect of Landfill Gases on Soil and Vegetation. [In] Pollution Engineering, June 1986, pp. 38-40. EcolSciences, Inc. 2 March 1990. Recom mended Wetl ands Remed iation and Protection Activities Report. Evans, J.E. 1984. Japanese Hon eys uckle (Lonicera japoni ca ): A Literature Review of Management Practices [In] Natural Areas Journ al, 1984, Volume 4. No.2, pp.4-10. Fahselt, D. 1988. The Dangers of Transportation as a Conservation Technique [In] Restoration and Management Notes, 8:4, pp. 238-244. Falk, J.H. 1976. Energetics of a Suburban Lawn Ecosystem [In] Ecology, Vol. 57, No.1, pp. 141-150. Flower, F.B., E.F. Gilman, and LA Leone. 1981. Landfill Gas, What It Does to Trees and How Its Injurious Effects May Be Prevented. [In] Journal of Arboriculture, February 1981, Vol. 7, No.2, pp. 43-52. Flower, F.B., L A Leone, E.F Gilman, and J.J. Arthur. 1978. A Study of Vegetation Problems Associated with Refu se Landfills. EPA 600/2-78-094. Grant No. R803762-02. GeoServices, Inc. 13 February 1990. Draft -- Overview of the Demonstration Program Proposed for the Fresh Kills Landfill Closure System. Gilman, E.F. 1981. Guidelines for Planting Vege tation on the 30-Acre Park on the Bergen County Landfill. Gilman, E.F, F.B. Flower, and LA Leone. August 1983. Project Summary: Standardized Procedures for Planting Vegetation on Compl eted Sanitary Landfills. EPA-600/S2-83-055. USEP A Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.

Operational Landscape Plan

64


Gilman, E.F., F.B. Flower, and l. A. Leone. 1985. Standardi zed Procedures for Planting Vegetation on Completed Sa nitary Landfills. [Tn] Waste Mana gement & Resea rch, 1985, Vol. 3, pp. 65-80. Gilman, E.F., LA. Leone, and F.B. Flower. 1981. The Adaptab ility of 19 Woody Species in Vegetating a Former Sanitary Landfill. [In] Fores t Science, 1981, vol. 27, No.1, pp. 13-18. Glass, S. 1989. The Role of Soil Seed Bank in Restoration and Management [In] Restoration and Management Notes, 7:1, pp.24-29. Greenbelt Na tive Plant Center. 1987. Rare or Endangered Ta xa Hi storically Known To Have Occurred on Staten Island. Greenbelt Resource Management Team. 1986. Greenbelt Forest Assessment. Harty, F.M. 1986. Exotics & Their Ecological Ramifications [In] Natural Areas Journal, Vol. 6, No.4, pp. 20-26. Hollick, A. and N.L. Britton. 1879. The Flora of Ri chmond Cou nty, New York. Horn, HS. 1975. Forest Succession [In] Scien tifi c Ameri can, May 1975, pp. 90-98. Houghton, RA. and G .M. Woodwell. 1989. Global Climatic Change [In] Scientific American, April 1989, Vol. 260, No.4, pp. 36-44. Howell, E. 1986. Woodland Restoration: An Overvi ew [In] Restoration and Management Notes, 4:1, pp.13-17. Hynson, J.R., P.R. Adams, J.O. Elmer, T. Dewan, and D. Shields, Jr. 1985. Environment Features for Streamside Levee Projects. Department of the Army Corps of Engineers, Technical Report E-85-7. Insley, H. and R. Carnell. 1982. The Influence of Depth and Type of Cover Material on Tree Establishment on a Domestic Refuse Landfill Site. [In] Reclamation and Revegetation Research, 1982, Vol. 1, pp. 225-232. International Technology Corporation. 1987. Secondary Compatibility Evaluation of Dredged Materials Collected from the 59th Street and Gansevoort Street Marine Transfer Stations. New York City Departmen t of Sanitation #551542. International Technology Corporation. 1987. Sediment Testing of 59th Street Marine Transfer Station for Upland Proposal Permit. New York City Department of Sanitation #58880-1542. International Technology Corporation. 1987. Sediment Tes ting on the Great Fresh Kills Project Site for Upland Disposal Permit. New York City Department of Sanitation #581542/E711167.

Operational Land scape Plan

65


Karel, J. 1981. Community Management [In] Natural Areas Management Journal, 1(4):7-9. Krebs, c.J. 1978. Ecology, The Experimental An alysis of Distribution and Abundance. Harper and Row, New York. Lang & Davis. Undated. Na tural History of Staten Island /Staten Island and its People. pp. 28-41 . Leone, LA. and F.B. Flowe r. 1982. Soil Gas Problems for Woody Plants Growing on Former Refuse Landfills. Presented at the International Symposium on Remote Sensing of Environment: Second Them ati c Conference, Remote Sensing for Exploratin Geology, Fort Worth, Texas, December 6-10, 1982. Lombardo & Associates. August 1986. Mayo Pen insul a Water Reclamation Facilities, Department of Utilities, Anne Arund el County. Luke, A. Rand T.K. Macpherson. 1983. Direct Tree Seeding: A Potential Aid to Land Reclamation in Centra l Scotland [In] Arboricultural Journal, Vol. 7, pp. 287-299. Lynch, RT. Greenbelt Native Plant Center - Bibliography. Lynch, RT. Greenbelt Native Plant Cen ter - Inventory. Lynch, RT. 1986. Untitled . Vegetative descriptions for Sections 2/8 of Fresh Kills Landfill. The Greenbelt Na tive Plant Center. Manomet Bird Observatory. 1989. Master Bird Lis t - 1988; Pralls Island, Shooters Island, Isle of Meadows and Goethal's Bridge Pond. Draft List. Manomet Bird Observatory, Manomet, MA. Martin, J.L. 1959. The Birth of a Barren [In] Journal of Education, April-June 1959, pp. 3-6. McMahan, L.R and B.s. Manheim. 1985. A Model Plant Protection Act [In] Natural Area Management Journal, 5(2): 14-21. Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Land Reclamation Commission Proceedings: Conference on Reclamation of Abandoned Acid Spoils (a collection of presentations given on September 12-13, 1984, Osage Beach, MO). pp. 70-83. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Water Resources. 1984. Mitigation Procedures for Acid-Producing Deposits. January 1984. MP:BM:bev:o/s6. New York City Department of City Planning. October 1988. Adapting South Richmond's Open Space network: A proposal for a Storm wa ter Management System. [Preliminary Draft] . Opera tiona l Landscape Plan

66


N ew York City Department of Parks and Recrea ti on. Re vi sed 1988. Manual of Plant Formation Entitation . New York City Department of Parks and Recreation, Natural Resources Group,. 1987. Pelham Bay Park Managem ent Study. New York City Department of Parks and Recrea tion, Natural Resources Group. Draft in Progress, 1987. Natural Areas Maintenance Guide. New York City Department of Sanitation. 1985. Fresh Kills Landfill Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement. New York City Department of Sanitation. 1985. Fresh Kills Landfill Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix D-Ecology, December 1985. New York City Department of Sanitation. 1986. Map Plans for Site Improvements at Fresh Kills Landfill, Capital Project No. S-111/214C-265. Sheets 2-8 and 24 of 26. New York City Department of Sanitation, Office of Resource Recovery and Was te Disposal Planning. March 1989. Request for Proposal , (RFP), Fresh Kills Landfill: Investigation, Design and Construction m anagement Services for Final Cover, Landscaping and Associated Landfill Activities (S197/242). New York City Department of Sanitation. 1985. Specifications: Project S-197/163, Veterans Avenue West Leachate Control and Site Security System . New York City Planning Commission. 1983. The Staten Island Greenbelt Study: Final Report, Phase One, Data Analysis and Recommendations. NYC DCP 83-03. New York City Department of Planning. 1987. (Draft) South Richmond Open Space Network Report. New York City Department of Planning. 1988. (Executive Summary) South Richmond Open Space Network Report. New York Natural Heritage Program and New York State Museum. July 31,1986. Preliminary New York Rare Plant Status List. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. December 4,1985. Fresh Kills Landfill Consent Order Requirements. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 1985. Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Executive Summary) - Fresh Kills Landfill, Richmond County, NY. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Solid Waste Management Facilities (effective December 31, 1988) 6 NYCRR Part 360.

Operational Landscape Plan

67


Newell, S.J. and E.F. Tramer. 1978. Reprodu ctive Strategies in H erbaceous Plant Communi ties During Succession [In] Eco logy, 59:2 pp. 228-234. Nieri ng, W.A. and R.H. Goodwin. 1974. Crea ti on of Relatin g Stab le Shrublands w ith H erbicides: Arresting "Succession" on Rights-of -Way and Pas tureland [In] Ecology 55: pp. 784-795. Niering, W.A. 1983. Prescribed Burning in So uthern New England: 1968-1 983. Conncticut College Arboretu m , Department of Botany. Niering, W.A. 1975. Species Class ified as In creasers, Persis ters or Decreasers in Abandoned Old Field Plots Subjected to Seven Annual and Four Biennial Prescribed Burns 1974-1988. Connecticut Coll ege Arbore tum, Department of Botany. Niering, W.A., S.L. Taylor, and M.J. McDoanell. 1977. Effects of Prescribed Burning on Oak Forests and Grassland s in the Conn ec ti cut Arboretum. Paper presented at 72nd annual mee ting AlES. Michigan State University, Michigan. Niering, W.A. 1981. The Role of Fire Management in Altering Ecosystems [In] Five Regimes and Ecosystem Prope rties. PROCEEDINS of the conference in Honolulu, Hawaii, December 11 -15, 1978. pp. 489-510. USDG Fo res t Servi ce General Technology Report No. 26. Niering, W.A., R.H. Goodwin, and S. Taylor. 1970. Prescribed Burning in Southern New England: Introduction to Long-Range Studies. [In] PROCEEDINGS of Annual Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference. August 20-21,1970. Patterson, J.C Undated. Soil Compaction & its Effects Upon Urban Vegetation. Ecological Servi ces Laboratory, Na tional Capital Parks, Na tional Park Service, Washington, D.C Peroni, P.G. and W.G Abrahamson. 1985. A Rapid Method for Determining Losses of Native Vegetation [In] Natural Area Management Journal, 5(1):20-24. Perry, T. O. 1982. The Ecology of Tree Roots and the Practical Significance Thereof [In] Journal of Arboriculture, Vol. 8, No. 8. Plass, W.T. 1976. Direct Seeding of Trees and Shrubs on Surface-Mined Lands in West Virginia [In] PROCEEDINGS of Conference on For. of Disturbed Areas, Birmingham, AL, April 14-15, 1976. USDA Forest Service, Southeastern Area State & Private Forestry, Atlanta, GA. pp. 32-42. Rossi, J.M. 1984. An Investigation of Species Diversity in the Staten Island Greenbelt [from] PROCEEDINGS, Staten Island Institute of Arts and Sciences. Samson, F.B. 1983. Minimum Viable Populations - A Review [In] Natural Areas Management Journal, 3(3):15-23.

Operational Land sca pe Plan

68


Schaller, F.W. and P. Sutton. 1978. Recla m ation of Drastica ll y Disturbed Lands. Am erica n Socie ty of Agronomy, Crop Sciences of America, Soi l Scie nce Society of America, 742 pp. Schiechtl, H. 1980. Bioengineering for Land Reclamation & Conserva tion. University of Alberta Press. Schram, J.R. 1966. Plant Coloniza tion Studies on Black Wastes from Anthracite Mining in Pennsylvania. Transactions of the Am eri can Philosophical Society. Vol. 56. Part 1. Seaker, E.M. and W.E. Sopper. 1984. Reclamation of Bituminous Strip Mine Spoil Banks With Municipal Sewage Sludge [In] Reclamation and Revegetation Research, Vol. 3, 1984, pp. 87-100. Seaker, E.M. and W.E. Sop per. 1983. Reclamation of Deep Mine Refuse Banks With Municipal Sewage Sludge [In] Waste Management & Research, Vol. 1,1983, pp. 309-322. Sharp, W.e. Use of Lime and Soil Cover To Provide Vegetation On Extremely Acid Soils. Technical Note: Plant Materials No.9. USDA Soil Conservation Service, Broomall, PA, May 15, 1981. Skaller, M.P. 1981. Vegetation Management by Minimal Intervention [In] Landscape Planning, pp. 149-174. Sopper, W.E. and S.N. Kerr. 1980. Revege tation of Mined Land Using Wastewater Sludge. The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA. Sopper, W.E. and S.N. Kerr. 1980. Strip Mine Land Reclamation Using Municipal Sludge [From] Symposium on Surface Mining Hydrology, Sedimentology and Reclamation (University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, December 1-5, 1980). pp. 179-186. Sopper, W.E. and S.N. Kerr. 1980. Strip Mine Reclamation Demonstration Project: Blue Lick Site-Somerset County. Report prepared for Water Department, City of Philadelphia and Modern-Earthline Companies, Philadelphia, PA. June 1980. Stalter, R. 1984. The Plant Communities on Four Landfill Sites, New York City, New York. [In] PROCEEDINGS of the Northeastern Weed Science SOciety. 38:64-71. SWA. 1 March 1990. Preliminary End-Use Diagram. SW A. June 1990. Site and Off-Site Analyses for the Fresh Kill Landfill. Taylor, S. and G. Dryer. 1988. Techniques to Control Vegetation [In] The Public Garden, April 1988.

Operational Land scape Plan

69


Tourbier, J.T. and R. Westmacott. 1980. Small Surface Coal Mine Operations Handbook-Water Resources Protec ton Techniques. Water Resources Center, Uni versity of Delaware, U.s. Departmen t of the In terior. U.5. Congress. 1973. Endangered Species Act of 1973. Public Law 93-205; 87 STAT. 884. USDA Fores t Service and Inters tate Mining Compact Commission. 1980. Trees for Reclamation Symposium (a collection of presentations given during October 27-29, 1980, Lexing ton, KY). General Technical Report NE-61. USDA, SCS. 1979. Annual Technical Report, Plant Materials Center: Quicksand, Kentucky. USDA, SCS Engineers . 1982. Atlantic Coas tal Panicgrass, Program and N umber 1318. USEPA Region III. 1987. Palmerton Zinc Superfund Site, Blue Mountain Project, Remedial Investigation /Feas ibility Study, April 1987. Vogel, W.G. Undated. Requirements and Use of Fertilizer, Lime, and Mulch for Vegetating Acid Mine Spoils [In] Nat' l. Coal Assoc. Surface Mining and Reclam. Symp. 3 (Vol. 2): 152-170. Wanless, H. R 1989. The Inundation of our Coastlines [In] Sea Frontiers, SeptemberOctober 1989, pp. 264-271. Wehran Engineering. 1983. Hydrogeologic Investiga tion: Fresh Kills Landfill Solid Waste Disposal Operations Plan, Volume I, Hydrogeologic Report. New York City Department of Sani tation. White, P.5. 1987. Natural Disturbance Patch Dynamics and Landscape Pattern in Natural Areas [In] Natural Areas Management Journal and No tes, 7(1):14-22. Woods, F. 1957. Factors Limiting Root Pe netration in Deep Sands of Southeastern Coastal Plain. Ecology 38:357-359. Young, H.E., J.H. Ribe, and K. Wainwright. 1980. Weig ht Tables for Tree & Shrub Species in Maine. University of Maine Miscellaneous Report 230. Zaremba, R 1987. (Draft) Historical Review of Species' Status on Staten Island. Zedaker, S.M., J.Lewis, D.W. Smith, and RE. Kreh. 1987. Impact of Season of Harvest and Site Quality on Cut-Stump Treatment of Piedmont Hardwoods [In] Southern Journal of Appalachian Forestry II. pp.46-49.

Operational Landscape Plan

70

Operational landscape plan fresh kills landfill  
Operational landscape plan fresh kills landfill