2015 Annual Restoration Plan Compliance Report Albany Rapp Road Landfill Ecosystem Mitigation, Restoration & Enhancement Plan City of Albany, New York Permit #4-0101-00171/00011 Submitted to: Mr. Peter Innes Supervisor of Natural Resources NYSDEC Region 4 1130 N. Westcott Rd. Schenectady, NY 12306 Submitted by: City of Albany Department of General Services Rapp Road Waste Management Facility 525 Rapp Rd. Albany, NY 12205 December 1, 2015
2015 Annual Restoration Plan Compliance Report Albany Rapp
Road Landfill
Ecosystem Mitigation, Restoration & Enhancement Plan City of
Albany, New York
Permit #4-0101-00171/00011
Submitted to:
Schenectady, NY 12306
Rapp Road Waste Management Facility 525 Rapp Rd.
Albany, NY 12205
December 1, 2015
Attachments
2015 Annual Restoration Plan Compliance Report Albany Rapp
Road Landfill
Ecosystem Mitigation, Restoration & Enhancement Plan City of
Albany, New York
Permit #4-0101-00171/00011
I. Introduction
The Albany Rapp Road Landfill Ecosystem Mitigation,
Restoration & Enhancement Plan (restoration plan) has been
created pursuant to NYSDEC, USACE, and USFWS permit requirements
associated with the expansion of the City of Albany Rapp Road
Landfill. The NYSDEC Permit #4-0101- 00171/00011 requires that the
City prepare an Annual Restoration Plan Compliance Report to be
submitted to the NYSCEC by December 1 of each project year.
The purpose of the compliance report is to:
Describe the work accomplished during the year according to
the annual work plan and work schedule prepared and submitted at
the beginning of each project year (refer to the 2015 Work Plan,
Albany Rapp Road Landfill Ecosystem Mitigation, Restoration &
Enhancement Plan dated May 8, 2015. [A draft of the 2015 Work Plan
was submitted electronically on January 19, 2015, followed by IHMT
review and meeting on March 10, 2015 at the APBP Discovery Center.
The revised plan dated May 8, 2015 was submitted as hard copies on
May 15, 2015 and approved by DEC). A Temporary Revocable Permit was
issued by the Albany Pine Bush Preserve Commission via email dated
June 15, 2015 and expiring June 30, 2016. See the Phase III Work
Plan Context Map and Work Schedule in Attachments A and B of this
compliance report.]
Describe deviations from the annual work plan, including the
cause, outcomes, and implications of such deviations.
Summarize and supplement the weekly onsite activity reports
submitted to the Interagency Habitat Management Team.
From late 2012 through 2013, restoration enhancement activities in
Phase III of the project have largely completed the major upland
tree and shrub canopy clearing and thinning and the forested
wetland understory clearing of invasive shrubs, required to create
the desired open understory settings of the Pitch Pine Scrub Oak
Barrens (PPSOB) community in those formerly closed canopy settings
on either side of the Phase II wetland and stream restoration.
During 2014, final enhancement seeding was conducted in Phase III,
in addition to undertaking wetland enhancement work in Phase II
locations, conducting ongoing maintenance of the onsite native
nursery and offsite collections of native seed, site- wide
invasive species management, and ecological monitoring of the site
hydrology, vegetation, fauna, test plots, and wetlands. With this
restoration and enhancement work completed, a significant habitat
link has been effectively made between the Preserve properties on
either side of the project. This link will be further
expanded with the completion and restoration of the PPSOB community
on the closed landfill cap, in future phases of the project.
S:090636:120115 1 2015 Albany Rapp Road Landfill Compliance
Report
Key restoration elements of the 2015 Work Plan included tasks to 1)
continue maintenance activities in PIII and PII areas, including
control of invasive woody and herbaceous species, 2) complete
limited wetland and stream enhancement actions to improve
hydrological conditions in selected locations, 3) continue
maintenance and operations in the onsite native nursery, 4) monitor
and maintain the test plots, 5) ; and maintenance and monitoring in
the constructed streams, wetlands, and uplands.
As previously reported in the 2014 Compliance report,
approximately 50-75% of the sand needs for capping and restoring
the landfill have been acquired and stockpiled on the site,
depending on actual sand depth requirements. This is sufficient to
cover the GAL portion of the landfill. Future sand needs will be
determined based on outcomes of the test plot study that is looking
at appropriate sand depth requirements for supporting Pitch Pine
Scrub Oak barrens vegetation.
Other documents useful for viewing the compliance report within the
context of the larger restoration program include:
NYSDEC Permit #4-0101-00171/00011 (containing Article 24
Freshwater Wetlands: 4-0101- 00171/00015; Article 15 Section 401
Water Quality Certification: 4-0101-00171/00016; and Article
11-0535, 6 NYCRR 182, Endangered/Threatened Species License renewed
annually): includes requirements, stipulated conditions, roles and
responsibilities, performance requirements and outcomes to guide
the permittee.
Temporary Revocable Permit issued by the Albany Pine
Bush Preserve Commission (2010 TRP issued March 22, 2010; 2011 TRP
issued February, 2011; 2012 TRP issued April 18, 2012, and 2013 TRP
issued April 5, 2013 and addendum May 20, 2013; 2014 TRP issued
April 1, modified October 16, 2014 and extended to May 29, 2015;
2015 TRP issued June 28, 2015).
New York District USACE Permit # NAN-2005-01137.
USFWS Biological Opinion dated May 20, 2010; revised August
4, 2010; and revised August 26, 2015.
Albany Rapp Road Landfill Ecosystem Mitigation,
Restoration & Enhancement Plan (June 2009; revised January 3,
2014): describes the target restoration zones, technical
specifications, and ecological monitoring and performance
measures.
Plan set drawings: provide the location of the primary
restoration and management treatment zones, grading limits, and
phasing plans, as well as critical features related to the landfill
construction plans.
Integrated Pest and Invasive Species Management Plan (IPM
Plan, June 2009): provides strategies and techniques for
controlling and managing invasive plant and animal species known to
occur or that could potentially occur in the project area
II. Overview of the 2015 Compliance Report
A brief summary of the information contained in the following
compliance report sections (A-L) is presented below. These sections
reflect those of the 2015 Work Plan, but differ in that we
emphasize the work activity undertaken and completed, and provide
an explanation of deviations from the work plan. In some cases, the
graphics in the compliance report are updated to show outcomes,
changes or modifications that resulted during the construction
season. Please refer to the 2015 Work Plan for the original
graphics and other details.
S:090636:120115 2 2015 Albany Rapp Road Landfill Compliance
Report
2015 Context Map (Phase III Enhancement Seeding) and Work Plan
Schedule
Attachment A. 2015 Context Map —with completion of the
PIII enhancement activities at the close of 2014, work in 2015
largely focused on maintenance activities in PIII and PII areas,
including control of invasive woody and herbaceous species. Limited
wetland and stream enhancement actions were planned to improve
hydrological conditions in selected locations. Other maintenance
and vegetation and faunal monitoring activities continued to take
place in all restored areas of the site, including maintenance and
operations in the onsite native nursery; maintenance and monitoring
in the test plots; and maintenance and monitoring in the
constructed streams, wetlands, and uplands. These areas are
depicted in Context Map immediately following this section.
Attachment B. 2015 Work Plan Schedule —the work schedule
enumerates tasks that were to be conducted during the 2015 work
season. Several tasks are ongoing, such as invasive species
control, seed collection, faunal surveys, and vegetation and
hydrological monitoring. The schedule timeline projects work
activity into 2016. Significant deviations from the schedule are
explained in each of the following compliance report technical work
plan sections.
Technical Work Plans
Attachment C. Nursery Operations &
Maintenance —discusses the status of production in the onsite
nursery beds and maintenance activities undertaken for controlling
weeds and pests, with a listing of herbicides and other products
needed to control weeds and pests.
Attachment D. Seed/Plant Collection &
Acquisition —provides a listing of species seed collections
during 2015 from the Preserve and from the approved 50-mile
geographic radius surrounding the Preserve. Quantities of 2015 seed
collections will be reported at the end of the cleaning process
that is currently underway at the end of the year.
Attachment E. Test Plot Planting, Maintenance &
Monitoring —provides data and analysis from the fourth year
monitoring effort to assess sand depths and sand quality needed to
support the establishment of the native pitch pine scrub oak
barrens on the restored landfill cap.
Attachment F. Phase II Wetland and Stream Enhancement —
describes wetland and stream enhancement activities undertaken to
improve hydrological performance in selected areas of Phase II.
These activities, which had included 1) potential followup to
accelerate establishment of Sphagnum moss in the Vernal Pond
initiated in 2013/2014, 2) application of soil amendments (PAM and
bentonite) in approved transitional areas of forested wetland as
planned in 2014, 3) re- grading in the vicinity of the Pump House
to improve wetland performance, 4) removal of access roads and
culverts within the Phase II and III restoration area, 5) repair of
the log vane grade controls within the Phase II relocated stream,
and 6) repair/enhancement of log vanes within the NYSDEC-owned
property located to the east of the landfill, were completed in
part, with some tasks remaining to be completed in 2016.
Attachment G. Invasive Plant Management — discusses
invasive species control activities conducted throughout the site
during 2015, following protocols for treatments in the vicinity of
establishing lupine populations
S:090636:120115 3 2015 Albany Rapp Road Landfill Compliance
Report
Attachment H. Phase III Enhancement — describes Phase
III enhancement activities undertaken to maintain the newly
restored Phase III areas completed in 2013/2014.
Attachment I. Soil & Hydrologic
Monitoring —summarizes and discusses the hydrological
monitoring activities and outcomes for 2015.
Attachment J. Ecological Monitoring —provides the data
and analysis from the fourth year vegetation monitoring in
the PII and PIII restoration areas, including the results of the
faunal surveys conducted during 2015.
Attachment K. Phase IV GAL Planning —describes initial
analysis and considerations for the final closure actions of the
landfill.
Attachment L. USACE Compliance Monitoring
— provides a status report under separate cover of the
mitigation activities as required by the USACE permit
NAN-2005-01137-M3, Special Conditions I/1 – 7, in meeting the
performance criteria for wetland establishment (USACE permit
conditions G and H). This report also provides the results of a
wetland delineation conducted in 2015 in the Phase III enhancement
area.
S:090636:120115 4 2015 Albany Rapp Road Landfill Compliance
Report
Albany Rapp Road Landfill Ecosystem Mitigation, Restoration
& Enhancement Plan
City of Albany, New York
Introduction
The onsite plant nursery was constructed and planted in
mid-2011 to provide a source of locally scarce native seed for the
restoration project, particularly for those Albany Pine Bush
species that serve as important nectar and food plants for the
Karner Blue butterfly. By 2015, eleven beds are growing and
producing seed for 15 perennial forb species. Established nursery
beds range in size from a small 0.007 acre bed of arrow-leaf violet
( Viola sagittata ) to larger beds of wild lupine
( Lupinus perennis ) and butterfly milkweed
( Asclepias tuberosa ) (adjacent top photo),
both 0.6 acres or more in size. Many of the nursery production beds
have reached their third full season of growth, while others have
required remedial seeding (see Attachment C-1 nursery bed layout
and composition).
In order to supplement bed production, most of the beds received
additional enhancement seeding, planted manually within rows. This
enhancement seeding occurred in the beds of lupine, butterfly
milkweed, stiff aster ( Symphyotrichum
linearifolium ), goat’s rue ( Tephrosia
virginiana ), spreading dogbane ( Apocynum
androsaemifolium ), frostweed ( Helianthemum
canadense ), and New Jersey Tea ( Ceanothus
americanus ). Enhancement seeding occurred in May, and
substantial germination was evident by June, particularly in the
lupine and milkweed beds, which now offer much higher bed densities
(see adjacent butterfly milkweed bed in flower, bottom
photo).
Seed production of lupine, butterfly milkweed, blunt milkweed
( Asclepias amplexicaulis ), goat’s rue, and
gray goldenrod ( Solidago nemoralis ) all increased
in comparison with previous years. Production of the remaining
species held steady or declined somewhat, likely due to normal
annual variation. Browse damage continues to interfere in some
cases with seed production, such as with the small stiff aster bed,
heavily browsed likely by rabbits or smaller rodents not deterred
by the fence nor by deer repellent placed seasonally along the
nursery fence in spring and summer as a secondary deterrent. The
deer repellent was applied for the purpose of preventing damage to
lupine, which proved to be effective. The spreading dogbane bed
flourished, though it also produced no seed, as this species does
not produce regularly each year. More than balancing out these
shortfalls however, the lupine beds grew twice the weight as that
collected in 2014, while butterfly milkweed
S:090636:120115 8 2015 Albany Rapp Road Landfill Compliance
Report
produced 15 to 20 times as much seed as previously collected. Exact
numbers will be known once the final cleaning and weighing is
completed.
Another challenge in bed production has been the growth of a
common leaf spot fungus in the butterfly milkweed bed, which first
appeared in 2013 during an extended period of cooler and
wetter-than-normal, early to mid-spring growing conditions. While
the presence and severity of such leaf spot diseases is typically
variable from year to year, the infestation has persisted into 2015
and has possibly also infected the spreading dogbane
( Apocynum androsaemifolium ) bed. This year,
a foliar fungicide treatment regime was initiated to address this
issue. Beginning in June at the onset of symptoms, and continuing
weekly through mid-summer, the fungicide treatments held the leaf
spot in check and allowed the milkweed to flower and fruit
normally, leading to a subsequently large harvest. The leaf spot
reemerged in the fall after treatments were suspended, and it is
expected that this regime will have to continue in future years to
ensure adequate harvests. However, burning of overwintering
inoculum and detritus in a prescribed fire may mitigate the effects
of the leaf spot and reduce the level of effort necessary to
control it.
Work Activity
Pre-emergent herbicide pendimethalin (trade name LESCO PRE-M
AquaCap; MSDS attached) applications were conducted in April
to prevent weed establishment, though these were only possible in
the Helianthus and Monarda beds
(adjacent top photo). Enhancement seeding in the remaining beds
prevented the use of pre- emergent herbicide in those locations.
Spot-spraying of post-emergent weeds using a glyphosate formulation
(trade name Cornerstone PLUS; MSDS attached) occurred throughout
the growing season. To further augment plant vigor and seed
production, a 10-10-10 granular fertilizer was applied twice at a
rate of 1 lb/1000 ft2 to all but the lupine beds.
A seasonal increase in lupine aphids ( Macrosiphum
albifrons ) occurred across the Pine Bush in 2015,
including in the nursery (see adjacent lupine photo, second from
top). Despite treatments with safer soap, aphids proliferated and
caused damage to flower and seed production. It is anticipated that
the aphid population will again reach seasonal highs in 2016,
unless natural predators begin to respond to control the
population. Continued monitoring and treatment will otherwise be
necessary to mitigate damage.
S:090636:120115 9 2015 Albany Rapp Road Landfill Compliance
Report
The overseeding efforts conducted in 2013 were also
successful. In the slow to perform New Jersey tea
( Ceanothus americanus ) bed, newly
established rough goldenrod plants flourished and were heavy seed
producers in 2014 (bottom photo on previous page). The nursery
borders, which were seeded with a simple erosion control mix in
fall 2013, also showed abundant germination by little bluestem
( Schizachyrium scoparium ), dotted horsemint
( Monarda punctata ), and poor-joe
( Diodia teres ).
Processing and cleaning of seed collections remains ongoing at the
time of submittal of this compliance report. Final clean, collected
weights for nursery species in 2015, as with other off-site seed
collections, will be determined and reported at the end of the seed
cleaning process by mid to late December.
Deviations from Work Plan
1206030
AESProj.#:
Date:
File:
CheckedBy:
CoordinateSystem:
R a p
p
A l b
a n y ,
N e w Y
o r k
09-0636
f A
l b
a n y
, D e
p
l S
e r v
i c e
s
O n e C
o n n o
r s B
l v d .
A l b
a n y ,
N e w Y
o r k
JL
WCC
JL
17921SmithRoad,P.O. Box256
Brodhead,WI 53520
(608)897-8641 (608)897-8486
N u r s
e r y O
p e r a
t i o n
s a n d
M a i n
t e n a
n c e
C.1 SHEET_X_OF_Y
Nursery Composition
Monard fistulosa (0.16 Ac.) Lupinus perennis (0.76 Ac.) Helianthus
strumosus (0.09 Ac.) Helianthus divaricatus (0.09 Ac.)
Solidago nemoralis (0.12 Ac.)
Ceanothus americanus (0.12 Ac.)
Aster linariifolius (0.04 Ac.)
Lupinus perennis (0.6 Ac.)
Lupinus perennis (0.16 Ac.)
Monard fistulosa (0.16 Ac.)
Page 1 of 6 March 27, 2007
1. CHEMICAL PRODUCT AND COMPANY IDENTIFICATION
Product Name: Razor ® Pro Synonyms:
Isopropylamine Salt of Glyphosate; Glyphosate IPA Salt EPA Reg.
No.: 228-366
Company Name: Nufarm Americas Inc. 150 Harvester Drive, Suite
200 Burr Ridge, IL 60527
Date of Issue: March 27, 2007 Supersedes: March 23,
2005 Sections Revised: New or updated information all
sections
2. HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION
Emergency Overview: Appearance and Odor: Clear, viscous
greenish/yellow solution with little odor. Warning
Statements: Keep out of reach of children. CAUTION. Causes
moderate eye irritation. Harmful if swallowed or inhaled. Do not
get in eyes or on clothing. Avoid breathing vapor or spray
mist.
Potential Health Effects: Likely Routes of
Exposure: Skin contact and inhalation. Eye Contact: The
undiluted product may cause pain, redness and tearing based on
toxicity studies. Skin Contact: Slightly toxic and slightly
irritating based on toxicity studies. Ingestion: Slightly
toxic based on toxicity studies. No significant adverse health
effects are expected to develop if only small amounts (less than a
mouthful) are swallowed. Inhalation: Low inhalation toxicity.
Medical Conditions Aggravated by Exposure: None known.
See Section 11: TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION for more
information.
Potential Environmental Effects: Available data on
similar formulations suggest that this product would be slightly to
moderately toxic to aquatic organisms and practically non-toxic to
avian species, honeybees and earthworms.
See Section 12: ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION for more information.
3. COMPOSITION / INFORMATION ON INGREDIENTS
COMPONENT CAS NO. % BY WEIGHT Glyphosate, N-(phosphonomethyl)
glycine, in the form of its
isopropylamine salt 38641-94-0 41.0
Other Ingredients Including: 59.0 Ethoxylated Tallowamines
61791-26-2
For Chemical Emergency, Spill, Leak, Fire, Exposure, or Accident,
Call CHEMTREC Day or Night: 1-800-424-9300.
For Medical Emergencies Only, Call 1-877-325-1840.
S:090636:120115 31 2015 Albany Rapp Road Landfill Compliance
Report
Page 2 of 6 March 27, 2007
4. FIRST AID MEASURES
If in Eyes: Hold eye open and rinse slowly and gently with
water for 15 to 20 minutes. Remove contact lenses, if present,
after the first 5 minutes, then continue rinsing eye. Call a poison
control center or doctor for treatment advice. If Swallowed: Call a
poison control center or doctor immediately for treatment advice.
Have person sip a glass of water if able to swallow. Do not induce
vomiting unless told to do so by the poison control center or
doctor. Do not give anything by mouth to an unconscious person. If
Inhaled: Move person to fresh air. If person is not
breathing, call 911 or an ambulance, then give artificial
respiration, preferably by mouth-to-mouth, if possible. Call a
poison control center or doctor for further treatment advice. If on
Skin: Take off contaminated clothing. Rinse skin immediately with
plenty of water for 15 to 20 minutes. Call a poison control center
or doctor for treatment advice.
5. FIRE FIGHTING MEASURES
Flash Point: Not applicable due to aqueous formulation
Autoignition Temperature: Not determined Flammability
Limits: Not determined
Extinguishing Media: In case of fire, use water (flood with
water), dry chemical, CO2, or alcohol foam. Special Fire Fighting
Procedures: Firefighters should wear NIOSH/MSHA approved
self-contained breathing apparatus and full fire-fighting turn out
gear. Dike area to prevent runoff and contamination of water
sources. Dispose of fire control water later. Unusual Fire and
Explosion Hazards: Containers will burst from internal
pressure under extreme fire conditions. If water is used to fight
fire or cool containers, dike to prevent runoff contamination of
municipal sewers and waterways. Hazardous Decomposition Materials
(Under Fire Conditions): May produce gases such as oxides of
carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorous.
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Hazard Rating: Rating
for this product: Health: 1 Flammability: 1
Reactivity: 0 Hazards Scale: 0 = Minimal 1 = Slight 2 =
Moderate 3 = Serious 4 = Severe
6. ACCIDENTAL RELEASE MEASURES
Personal Precautions: Wear appropriate protective gear for
the situation. See Personal Protection information in Section 8.
Environmental Precautions: Prevent material from entering
public sewer systems or any waterways. Do not flush to drain. Large
spills to soil or similar surfaces may necessitate removal of
topsoil. The affected area should be removed and placed in an
appropriate container for disposal. Methods for
Containment: Dike spill using absorbent or impervious
materials such as earth, sand or clay. Collect and contain
contaminated absorbent and dike material for disposal. Methods for
Cleanup and Disposal: Pump any free liquid into an
appropriate closed container. Thoroughly scrub floor or other
impervious surface with a strong industrial detergent and rinse
with water. Collect washings for disposal. Decontaminate tools and
equipment following cleanup. See Section 13: DISPOSAL
CONSIDERATIONS for more information. Other Information: Large
spills may be reportable to the National Response Center
(800-424-8802) and to state and/or local agencies.
7. HANDLING AND STORAGE
Handling: Do not get in eyes or on clothing. Avoid breathing vapor
or spray mist. Users should wash hands before eating, drinking,
chewing gum, using tobacco or using the toilet. Remove clothing
immediately if pesticide
S:090636:120115 32 2015 Albany Rapp Road Landfill Compliance
Report
Page 3 of 6 March 27, 2007
gets inside. Then wash thoroughly and put on clean clothing. Remove
Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) immediately after handling this
product. Wash the outside of gloves before removing. As soon as
possible, wash thoroughly and change into clean clothing.
Spray solutions of this product should be mixed, stored and applied
using only stainless steel, aluminum, fiberglass, plastic or
plastic-lined containers.
DO NOT MIX, STORE OR APPLY THIS PRODUCT OR SPRAY SOLUTIONS OF THIS
PRODUCT IN GALVANIZED STEEL OR UNLINED STEEL (EXCEPT STAINLESS
STEEL) CONTAINERS OR SPRAY TANKS. This product or spray solutions
of this product react with such containers and tanks to produce
hydrogen gas which may form a highly combustible gas mixture. This
gas mixture could flash or explode, causing serious personal
injury, if ignited by open flame, spark, welder’s torch, lighted
cigarette or other ignition source.
Storage: STORE ABOVE 10ºF (-12ºC) TO KEEP PRODUCT FROM
CRYSTALLIZING. Crystals will settle to the bottom. If allowed to
crystallize, place in a warm room 68ºF (20ºC) for several days to
redissolve and shake, roll or agitate to mix well before using. Do
not contaminate water, foodstuff, feed or seed by storage or
disposal.
8. EXPOSURE CONTROLS / PERSONAL PROTECTION
Engineering Controls: Where engineering controls are
indicated by specific use conditions or a potential for excessive
exposure, use local exhaust ventilation at the point of
generation.
Personal Protective Equipment: Eye/Face Protection: To avoid
contact with eyes, wear chemical goggles or shielded safety
glasses. An emergency eyewash or water supply should be readily
accessible to the work area. Skin Protection: To avoid contact
with skin, wear long pants, long-sleeved shirt, socks and shoes. An
emergency shower or water supply should be readily accessible to
the work area. Respiratory Protection: Not normally required.
If vapors or mists exceed acceptable levels, wear NIOSH approved
air-purifying respirator with cartridges/canisters approved for use
against pesticides. General Hygiene Considerations: Personal
hygiene is an important work practice exposure control measure and
the following general measures should be taken when working with or
handling this material: 1) do not store, use and/or consume foods,
beverages, tobacco products, or cosmetics in areas where this
material is stored; 2) wash hands and face carefully before eating,
drinking, using tobacco, applying cosmetics or using the
toilet.
Exposure Guidelines:
OSHA ACGIH
Isopropylamine Salt of Glyphosate NE NE NE NE
Ethoxylated Tallowamines NE NE NE NE
NE = Not Established
Appearance and Odor: Clear, viscous greenish/yellow solution with
little odor. Boiling Point: Not determined Solubility in
Water: Soluble
Density: 9.67 pounds/gallon Specific Gravity: 1.160 @ 20ºC
Evaporation Rate: Not determined Vapor Density: Not
determined
S:090636:120115 33 2015 Albany Rapp Road Landfill Compliance
Report
Page 4 of 6 March 27, 2007
Freezing Point: 10ºF (-12ºC) Vapor Pressure: Not determined
pH: 4.5 – 5.5 Viscosity: 29.5 cps @ 20ºC
Note: Physical data are typical values, but may vary from
sample to sample. A typical value should not be construed as a
guaranteed analysis or as a specification.
10. STABILITY AND REACTIVITY
Chemical Stability: This material is stable under normal
handling and storage conditions. Conditions to
Avoid: Excessive heat. Do not store near heat or flame.
Incompatible Materials: Strong oxidizing agents: bases and
acids. This product reacts with galvanized steel or unlined steel
(except stainless steel) to produce hydrogen gas that may form a
highly combustible gas mixture which could flash or explode.
Hazardous Decomposition Products: Under fire conditions may
produce gases such as oxides of carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorous.
Hazardous Reactions: Hazardous polymerization will not
occur.
11. TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION
Toxicological Data: Data from laboratory studies conducted on a
similar, but not identical, formulation:
Oral: Rat LD50: >5,000 mg/kg Dermal: Rat LD50:
>5,000 mg/kg Inhalation: Rat 4-hr LC50: >2.05 mg/l Eye
Irritation: Rabbit: Moderately irritating Skin
Irritation: Rabbit: Slightly irritating Skin
Sensitization: Not a contact sensitizer in guinea pigs
following repeated skin exposure.
Subchronic (Target Organ) Effects: Repeated overexposure to
glyphosate may decrease body weight gains and effects to liver. The
surfactant component of this product is reported to cause
irritation to the eyes and skin and may contribute to the
irritation potential reported for this herbicide. Ingestion may
produce gastrointestinal irritation, nausea, vomiting and diarrhea.
Carcinogenicity / Chronic Health Effects: Prolonged overexposure to
glyphosate may cause effects to the liver. There was no evidence of
carcinogenicity in animal studies using glyphosate. EPA has given
glyphosate a Group E classification (evidence of
non-carcinogenicity in humans). Reproductive Toxicity: In
laboratory animal studies with glyphosate, effects on reproduction
have been seen only at doses that produced significant toxicity to
the parent animals. Developmental Toxicity: In animal
studies, glyphosate did not cause birth defects in animals; other
effects were seen in the fetus only at doses which caused toxic
effects to the mother. Genotoxicity: Glyphosate has produced
no genetic changes in a variety of standard tests using animals and
animal or bacterial cells.
Assessment Carcinogenicity: None listed with ACGIH, IARC, NTP
or OSHA.
See Section 2: HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION for more information.
12. ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION
Ecotoxicity: Data on Glyphosate technical:
96-hour LC50 Bluegill: 120 mg/l Bobwhite Quail 8-day Dietary
LC50: >4,500 ppm 96-hour LC50 Rainbow Trout: 86 mg/l
Mallard Duck 8-day Dietary LC50: >4,500 ppm 48-hour
LC50 Daphnia: 780 mg/l
S:090636:120115 34 2015 Albany Rapp Road Landfill Compliance
Report
Page 5 of 6 March 27, 2007
Environmental Fate: In the environment, salts of glyphosate rapidly
dissociate to glyphosate, which adsorbs strongly to soil and is
expected to be immobile in soil. Glyphosate is readily degraded by
soil microbes to AMPA (aminomethyl phosphonic acid) that is further
degraded to carbon dioxide. Glyphosate and AMPA are unlikely to
enter ground water due to their strong adsorptive characteristics.
Terrestrially-applied glyphosate has the potential to move into
surface waters through soil erosion because it may be adsorbed to
soil particles suspended in the runoff. Aquatic applications
registered for certain formulations may also result in glyphosate
entering surface waters. Complete degradation is slow, but
dissipation in water is rapid because glyphosate is bound in
sediments and has low biological availability to aquatic organisms.
These characteristics suggest a low potential for bioconcentration
in aquatic organisms and this has been verified by laboratory
investigations of glyphosate bioconcentration in numerous marine
and freshwater organisms with and without soil. The maximum whole
body bioconcentration factors for fish were observed to be less
than 1X. Bioconcentration factors for sediment dwelling mollusks
and crayfish tended to be slightly higher, but were always less
than 10X. In addition, any residues accumulated in organisms were
rapidly eliminated.
13. DISPOSAL CONSIDERATIONS
Waste Disposal Method: Wastes resulting from the use of this
product that cannot be used or chemically reprocessed should be
disposed of in a landfill approved for pesticide disposal or in
accordance with applicable Federal, state or local procedures.
Emptied container retains vapor and product residue. Observe all
label safeguards until container is destroyed.
Container Handling and Disposal: Plastic Bottles and Non-Returnable
Plastic Drums: Do not reuse container. Triple rinse
container. Then puncture and dispose of in a sanitary landfill, or
by incineration, or, if allowed by state and local authorities, by
burning. If burned, stay out of smoke. Returnable/Refillable
Containers: Close all openings which have been opened during use
and replace all caps. Contact Nufarm Customer Service at
1-800-345-3330, to arrange for return of the empty refillable
container.
14. TRANSPORTATION INFORMATION
Follow the precautions indicated in Section 7: HANDLING AND STORAGE
of this MSDS.
DOT Non Regulated – See 49 CFR 173.132(b)(3)
IMDG Non Regulated – See IMDG 2.6.2.1.3
IATA Non Regulated – See IATA 3.6.1.5.3
15. REGULATORY INFORMATION
U.S. Federal Regulations:
TSCA Inventory: This product is exempted from TSCA because it
is solely for FIFRA regulated use.
SARA Hazard Notification/Reporting: Hazard Categories Under
Criteria of SARA Title III Rules (40 CFR Part 370):
Immediate
Section 313 Toxic Chemical(s): None
S:090636:120115 35 2015 Albany Rapp Road Landfill Compliance
Report
Page 6 of 6 March 27, 2007
Reportable Quantity (RQ) under U.S. CERCLA: None
RCRA Waste Code: None
State Information: Other state regulations may apply. Check
individual state requirements.
California Proposition 65: Not listed
16. OTHER INFORMATION
This Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) serves different purposes
than and DOES NOT REPLACE OR MODIFY THE EPA-ACCEPTED PRODUCT
LABELING (attached to and accompanying the product container). This
MSDS provides important health, safety and environmental
information for employers, employees, emergency responders and
others handling large quantities of the product in activities
generally other than product use, while the labeling provides that
information specifically for product use in the ordinary
course.
Use, storage and disposal of pesticide products are regulated by
the EPA under the authority of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) through the product labeling, and all
necessary and appropriate precautionary, use, storage, and disposal
information is set forth on that labeling. It is a violation of
Federal law to use a pesticide product in any manner not prescribed
on the EPA-accepted label.
Although the information and recommendations set forth herein
(hereinafter “Information”) are presented in good faith and
believed to be correct as of the date hereof, Nufarm Americas Inc.
makes no representations as to the completeness or accuracy
thereof. Information is supplied upon the condition that the
persons receiving same will make their own determination as to its
suitability for their purposes prior to use. In no event will
Nufarm Americas Inc. be responsible for damages of any nature
whatsoever resulting from the use of or reliance upon Information.
NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, OF
MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR OF ANY OTHER
NATURE ARE MADE HEREUNDER WITH RESPECT TO INFORMATION OR THE
PRODUCT TO WHICH INFORMATION REFERS.
Razor is a registered trademark of Nufarm Americas Inc.
S:090636:120115 36 2015 Albany Rapp Road Landfill Compliance
Report
Material Safety Data Sheet MSDS No:
1050 Domestic Emergency Phone
800-424-9300
Woodstream Corporation International Emergency
Phone 703-527-3887 69 North Locust Street
Information Phone 800-800-1819 Liti tz, PA
17543 Intl Info Phone: 717-626-2125 SECTION
I: MATERIAL IDENTIFICATION
Product Number/Size: 5118GAL 1 Gallon Trade
Name: Safer® Brand Insect Killing Soap CONC II
Also Known As: Insecticidal Soap Killer
Description: Liquid Insecticide Concentrate
Chemical Composition: Liquid Concentrate Regulatory
Licenses: EPA Reg. No. 42697-60
SECTION II: INGREDIENTS
Hazardous Ingredient (s) % BY WT AS #C
OSHA/TWA PEL/STEL ACGIH/ WAT TLV/STEL
Potassium S lts of Fatty Acids <50.0 N/A
NE NE NE NE a
Ethyl alcohol <30.0 64-17-5 1900
mg/m3 NE 1880 mg/m3 NE
SECTION III: PHYSICAL DATA Boiling Point: 80°C
(176°F) Viscosity: 3 cSt.
Vapor Pressure (mm Hg): Not Determined
Odor: Alcohol, Lardy
Vapor Density (AIR=1): Not Determined Specific Gravity
(Water=1): 0.93 Bulk Density: 7.6750 Percent,
Volitile by Volume %: Not Determined
Freezing Point: Not Determined Evaporation Rate
(Xylene=1): Not Determined Solubility in
Water: Complete Physical State: Liquid
Appearance: Amber Liquid
pH: 10.6-10.8
SECTION IV: FIRE AND EXPLOSION HAZARD DATA Flash Point
(method): 72 F NFPA Health Rating: 2
Autoignition Temp.: N/A NFPA Fire Rating: 3
Flammable Lel: Not Determined NFPA Reactivity
Rating: 0 Flammable Uel: Not Determined
Extinguishing Material: Alcohol Foam
Hazardous Products
SECTION V: HEALTH HAZARD DATA General
Statement: Material is considered hazardous per 29 CFR
1910.1200. Avoid contact with skin, eyes and clothing.
Occupational Exposure Limit: See Section II Effects of
Over Exposure: Not Determined
Carcinogenicity: None listed per OSHA, NTP, or IARC.
Chronic Effects: Ethanol has been shown to be a developmental
toxin from chronic ingestion; such effects are not anticipated
from
appropriate use of this product.
Rec. Exp. Limits: See Section II Potential Health
Effects: None Expected
Acute Oral: >5000 mg/kg Acute Dermal: > 2000
mg/kg
Acute Inhalation: >5.00 mg/l Eye Irritation:
Irritation clearing in 8-21 days
Skin Irritation: Severe irritation at 72 hours
Sensitization: Not a sensitizer
Tuesday, January 24, 2012 Page 1 of 3
S:090636:120115 52 2015 Albany Rapp Road Landfill Compliance
Report
Route of Entry Symptoms/Effects of First Aid
Skin Irritation Wash with plenty of soap and water. Get
medical attention.
preferably mouth to mouth. Get medical attention.
Inhalation None Expected Remove victim to fresh air. If
not breathing, give artificial respiration,
minutes. Get medical attention. Eye Irritation
Hold eyelids open and flush with a steady, gentle stream of water
for 15
unconscious person. Get medical attention. Ingestion
None Expected If swallowed, promptly drink large amounts of
water. Never give liquids to an
SECTION VI: REACTIVITY DATA
Stability: Stable
Conditions to avoid: HEAT AND OPEN FLAME Materials to
avoid: Concentrated mineral supplements (fertilizers), strong
oxidizers, acids.
Hazardous Decomposition: Not Determined Conditions to
avoid: HEAT AND OPEN FLAME
Hazardous Polymerization: None Will Occur
Conditions to avoid: HEAT AND OPEN FLAME
SECTION VII: SPILL OR LEAK PROCEDURES Steps to be taken if
material is Rinse with abundant water and mop up.
released or spilled:
Waste Disposal Method: Be aware that the waste owner has
responsibility for final disposal. Regulations may also apply to
empty
from Federal regulations. This information applies to materials as
manufactured; contamination or processing may containers,
liners, or rinsate. Laws may change or be reinterpreted; state and
local regulations may be different
change waste characteristics and requirements.
Product Disposal Method: PESTICIDE DISPOSAL: Wastes resulting
from use of this product may be disposed of on site or at an
approved
CONTAINER DISPOSAL: waste disposal facility.
If Empty: Do not reuse this container. Place in trash or offer for
recycling if available. If Partly Filled: Call your local solid
waste agency for disposal instructions. Never place unused product
down any indoor or outdoor drain.
SECTION VIII: SPECIAL PROTECTION INFORMATION Respiratory
Protection: In typical applications, no engineering contrls
should be needed; if industrial hygiene surveys show that
occupational exposure limits may be exceeded, use NIOSH approved
respirator with organic vapor/dust/mist
Protective Gloves: Protective gloves (nitrile)
recommended Eye Protection: Recommended to avoid contact
of material directly into eyes.
Protective Clothing: None required under normal use
conditions. Ventilation: None required under normal use
conditions.
Other Protective Equipment: None required under normal use
conditions. Protection Note: Personal protection
information provided in this Section is based upon general
information as to normal uses and
industrial hygienist or other qualified professional be sought.
conditions. Where special or unusual uses or conditions
exist, it is suggested that the expert assistance of an
SECTION IX: SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS Storage and
Handling: Store away from heat, out of reach of children. Do
not contaminate water, food or feed by storage or disposal.
Do
not reuse container.
Other Precautions: None Precaution
Note: None
SECTION X: ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION Ecotoxicity: May be
hazardous to aquatic invertebrates. Do not apply directly to water;
do not contaminate water by cleaning of
equipment or disposal of washwaters.
Environmental Fate: Not persistent.
S:090636:120115 53 2015 Albany Rapp Road Landfill Compliance
Report
DOT Proper Shipping Name: Ethanol Solution
Identification Number: UN1170
DOT Hazard Class/Division: Class 3, Flammable
Liquid Packaging Group: II
Packaging Instructions: 49 CFR 173.242 Special
Instructions: Label Code 3- Flammable Sticker
Required
Placard: Flammable Emergency Response Guide#:
129
US Surface Freight Class: Not Available
IATA CLASSIFICATION IATA Proper Shipping Name: Ethanol
Solution IATA Identification Number: IATA Hazard
Class/Division: Class 3 (flammable liquid)
Packaging Group: II IATA Bulk Packaging Inst:
305
IATA Shipping Notes: None
Packaging Group: II IMO Shipping
Notes: None
IMO Bulk Packaging Inst: P001 IMO Stowage
Category: A
SECTION XII: REGULATORY INFORMATION SARA Title III: Not
Regulated
SARA Product Classification: Reporting not required unless TPQ
exceeded in inventory Acute: N/A
Chronic: N/A Fire: N/A
311/312 Hazard Categories: Not Subject 313 Reportable
Ingredients: Not Subject
TSCA Regulatory: None Listed State Regulations: In
the U.S.A. states such as Pennsylvania, New Jersey, California,
Vermont, Massachusetts and Rhode Island
may all have components of this product listed; consult specific
state regulatory requirements for additional
Proposition 65 Statement: None listed
European Classification:
SECTION XIII: OTHER INFORMATION Memo: While this
information and recommendations set forth are believed to be
accurate as of the date hereof,
Woodstream Corp. makes no warranty with respect hereto and
disclaims all liability from reliance thereon.
Date MSDS Prepared: 1/24/2012 Contact: Mark
Mongiovi Supercedes Date: Title: Regulatory
Affairs
Tuesday, January 24, 2012 Page 3 of 3
S:090636:120115 54 2015 Albany Rapp Road Landfill Compliance
Report
Albany Rapp Road Landfill Ecosystem Mitigation, Restoration
& Enhancement Plan
City of Albany, New York
Introduction
Since the start of the restoration project in 2009, the City’s
Ecological Consultant has annually hand collected native seed as
necessary to meet the needs of each construction phase of the
project, particularly when specified seed is not commercially
available. By the start of the 2015 season, we have collected more
than 200 species and 2,000 lbs of seed for use on the restoration
project.
Seed collecting activities are conducted on approved sites only,
including the Albany Pine Bush Preserve. Collections target only
those native vascular plant species identified and known to grow in
and provide various functions in Albany Pine Bush habitats1, such
as nectar and food plants for Lepidoptera species and other
pollinators, and species that enhance erosion control in sandy
soils. Collections also target those species with populations that
are large enough to tolerate short-term collection pressure. To
ensure genetic fidelity, a 50-mile radius centered over the Albany
Landfill project site and within the range of the Albany Pine Bush
landform was established to delimit seed collection activities.
Currently, a total of 51 approved seed source sites have been
scouted, with permits negotiated with land owners and managers as
needed (see site listings in Table 1).
Table 1. Collection locations within the 50-mile approved
radius centered over the Albany Landfill project site, indicating
distance in miles from the project site.
ID Site Site Name Origin State Distance in
miles
NY01 Albany Pine Bush Preserve, Albany, NY Albany NY 0
NY02 Hwy 88, Richmondville, NY Schoharie County NY 40
NY03 Bernie Braun Property, Richmondville, NY Schoharie County NY
40
NY04 Saratoga National Monument, Stillwater, NY Saratoga County NY
20
NY05 Constantine Construction & Farm, Inc., Albany
NY Albany NY 0
NY06 Albany Rd Power lines, Albany, NY From RR tracks to
Albany Rd NY 0
NY08 Rogers Island, Fort Edward, NY Columbia County NY 45
NY09 Peebles Island Waterford, NY NY 10
1 Vascular Plant Species List compiled and edited by George
R. Robinson and Kathleen Moore, State University of
New York at Albany, in Natural History of the Albany Pine Bush by
Jeffry K. Barnes, New York State Museum.
S:090636:120115 55 2015 Albany Rapp Road Landfill Compliance
Report
miles
NY11 Rensselaer Lake Rest Area, Fulton Rd, Albany,
NY Albany County NY 0
NY12 Kings Rd, Colonie, NY Albany NY 0
NY13 Hwy 88, Cobleskill, NY Schoharie County NY 35
NY14 Cobleskill Water Treatment Plant, Cobleskill,
NY Schoharie County NY 40
NY15 Hwy 88 Bog Otsego County NY 45
NY16 Route 146, Rotterdam, NY Albany County NY 10
NY17 Diesels property, Nassau, NY Rensselaer County NY 12
NY18 Powerlines, Glens Fall, NY Warren County NY 45
NY19 Construction area, Albany, NY Albany Pine Bush NY 0
NY20 Nassau Powerlines, Rice rd, Nassau, NY Rensselaer County NY 12
NY21 Rose Sneiders, School House Rd, Nassau, NY Rensselaer County
NY 12
NY22 Willow Street Powerlines, Albany, NY Albany County NY 0
NY23 Lake Desolation Rd, Lake Desolation, NY Saratoga County NY 35
NY24 Crossgate Powerlines, Albany NY Albany County NY 0
NY25 88 Brickhouse, Duanesburg, NY Schenectady County NY
14
NY26 Hwy 10, Mureau, NY Saratoga County NY 50
NY27 Peggy Ann Road Powerlines, Warren County NY 45
NY28 Route 7 RR tracks, Richmondville, NY Schoharie County NY
40
NY29 Pine Bush Bog, Albany, NY Albany Pine Bush NY 45
NY30 Fred Shaven Property, Nassau, NY School House Rd NY
12
NY31 Herb Dytric Property, Rice Rd, Nassau, NY Rensselaer County NY
12
NY32 Kings Rd RR, Colonie, NY Albany County NY 0
NY33 Vly Creek, New Scotland, NY Albany County NY 7
NY34 Benson Rd, Caroga Lake, NY Fulton County NY 49
NY35 Tom Snyder, Rice RD, Nassau NY Rensselaer County NY 12
NY36 Tom Bushinski's property, Rt 145,
Middleburgh, NY Schoharie County NY 29
NY37 Hwy 81, Greenville, NY Green County NY 20
NY38 Wolf Creek Falls Preserve, Altamont, NY Albany County Ny
15
NY39 Madison Ave Extension, Albany, NY Albany County NY 0
NY40 Apollo Rd, Albany, NY Albany Pine Bush NY 0
NY41 Old State Rd, Albany, NY Albany Pine Bush NY 0
NY42 Tivoli Park, Albany, NY Albany County NY 0
NY43 Ravena Powerlines, Ravena, NY Albany County NY 13
NY44 Mureau Powerlines, Mureau, NY Saratoga County NY 40
S:090636:120115 56 2015 Albany Rapp Road Landfill Compliance
Report
miles
NY45 58 Lester Parkway, Greenwich NY Saratoga County NY 32
NY46 Joralomen Park, Ravena, NY Albany County NY 14
NY47 Winn Preserve, Knox, NY Albany County NY 18
NY48 Saratoga Airfield, Saratoga Springs, NY Saratoga County NY
30
NY49 Curry Rd Powerlines, Albany, NY Albany County NY 0
NY50 Barren Field, Dollar Gen, Cocksackie, NY Green County NY
20
NY51 Hwy 9W, Ravena, NY Albany county NY 15
NY51 RPI Tech Park, Troy, NY Rensselaer County NY 6
NY52 Duanesburg Church Rd, Duanesburg, NY Schenectady County NY
25
ME01 TNC, Kennebunk preserve, Kennebunk, NY York County MA
140
Work Activity
The following native seed collection activities were
scheduled during the 2015 project season, including a collaborative
effort coordinated with the Albany Pine Bush Preserve Commission
targeting wild lupine. Seed collections from this season are
intended for future seeding of the landfill (GAL and AIL), as well
as for ongoing enhancement, as needed, in the Phase II and III
wetland areas.
May Renew permits
June – October/November Scout and monitor
native species populations and gather seed; coordinate woody plant
production for future Phase III Enhancement plantings
November – December Clean, weigh, process, and
store seed at the AES facility in Albany, NY
Table 2 presents a list of 47 native forb, grass, sedge,
tree, and shrub species for which seed was collected during the
period May through November 2015. Cleaned seed weights and
quantities for these species will be reported in December, at the
end of the seed cleaning and processing period.
Table 2. Native species collected in 2015.
Scientific Name Common Name
Aronia melanocarpa Black chokeberry
Asclepias amplexicaulis Blunt milkweed
Scientific Name Common Name
Tephrosia virginiana Goat's rue
Vaccinium pallidum Lowbush blueberry
Verbena hastata Blue vervain
Viola sagittata Arrow-leaved violet
Deviation from Work Plan
No significant deviations in the scheduled seed collection work
plan activities occurred during 2015.
S:090636:120115 59 2015 Albany Rapp Road Landfill Compliance
Report
Ecosystem Mitigation, Restoration & Enhancement Plan
City of Albany, New York
Introduction
This section presents the fourth-year monitoring and
statistical analysis results in the constructed
test plots on the landfill cap, as detailed in the following report
in Attachment E-1. Test plot
maintenance and monitoring activities are summarized in the work
activities section below. There
were no seeding or planting activities conducted in the test
plots in 2015.
Work Activities
Work activities conducted in 2015 in the test plots included
weed control and monitoring, as
summarized in the following table.
Date Description of Activity Comment 7/8 Woody survivorship census
71% survivorship (compared to
96% in 2014) Week of
7/13 – 7/17 Herbicide control of sweet clover
( Melilotus spp), spotted knapweed ( Centaurea
maculosa ), crown vetch ( Coronilla
varia )
To control seed dispersal; crown vetch control is
difficult as stems twine among lupine
Week of 8/3 – 8/7
Week of 8/31 – 9/4
Mowing to control partridge pea ( Cassia
fasciculata ) Mowing to prevent seed development and
dispersal
Week of 10/5 – 10/9
Phragmites herbicide control Treatment of
Phragmites population on south slope; invasives
monitoring and treatments in 2016 will continue to target
sweet clover, crown vetch, knapweed, and phragmites to control seed
dispersal
Deviations from Work Plan
No significant deviations occurred in conducting the scheduled work
in the test plots in 2015.
S:090636:120115 60 2015 Albany Rapp Road Landfill Compliance
Report
Albany Rapp Road Landfill, Albany NY
Rapp Road Landfill Ecosystem Mitigation, Restoration &
Enhancement Plan
City of Albany, New York
Prepared for:
Applied Ecological Services, Inc
2.
3.
4. Biomass: ANOVA for Natives
...................................................................................
357
5.
6. Root Depth Summary Analysis, Photos, & Statistical
Results .................................. 416
7. Test Plot Monitoring Layout & Sampling Summary
................................................ 438
8. Master Species List & Floristic Analysis (Quadrat
& Species Search) ..................... 439
9. Quadrat Data
..............................................................................................................
444
This report documents compliance with the construction and
fourth year monitoring results of the
test plot program according to the Albany Rapp Road Landfill
Ecosystem Mitigation, Restoration &
Enhancement Plan (AES 2009) and subsequent annual work plans for
2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013,
2014, and 2015 (see Attachment 1 and Figures 01, 02, 03, and 04 for
test plot plans and monitoring
methods).
Phase I of the restoration plan required the establishment of test
plots of varying sand depths to
measure and evaluate minimum sand depth and sand quantity needs for
restoring desirable open
native barrens grassland vegetation, the preferred Karner blue
butterfly (KBB) habitat, on all current
and future closed landfill cap surfaces.
For this project, the study plots and plantings have been designed
to test the following variables:
1. Substrate depth — In the interest of
economizing and balancing sand importation needs and
costs with restoration outcomes, we are testing sand placement
depths over a final approved
cap, with 12”, 18” and 24” sandy substrate depths.
2. Substrate chemistry — Pine Bush sand prairie and
savanna/barrens substrates have a very
unique chemistry that has been characterized in previous AES
baseline conditions reports, and
for purposes of testing, a substrate matching the Pine Bush
substrate chemistry and one not
matching the chemistry have been evaluated. Soil pH matching the
Pine Bush community
ranges from pH 4.7 – 6.3.
3. Slope position and slope aspect — We have
learned that varying slope position (upper, middle,
lower) and slope aspect (South, North, and level ridge top) require
different seeding rates and
species mixes because of exposure, abrupt moisture gradients, and
competition from other plant
species, including adventives (non-native species).
4. Plant species composition — In this study
we have introduced a standard seeding rate and mix
of the dominant grasses and key forbs of the Pitch Pine Scrub Oak
Barrens community, and
have applied this mix across the entire test plot (including
intervening subplot borders). The
seed mix includes key KBB nectar plants — Asclepias
species, Ceanothus americana , Helianthemum
canadense , Lespedeza
capitata , Monarda species, Tephrosia
virginiana , and Vaccinium pallidum — and
the
KBB host plant Lupinus perennis , as found in the Pine Bush
ecosystems that are targeted as the
final cover on the landfill.
5. Plant biomass sampling and root
development — As measures of plant
performance,
biomass sampling and root development measurements were conducted
in 2013, 2014, and
2015. Because plantings at the time of sampling in 2012 were only
two months old, it was not
desirable to conduct those measurements at that time. These
measurements were completed to
determine the preferential soil depth needs of key plant species of
the Albany Pine Bush
ecosystem when planted on the Albany Landfill.
S:090636:120115 63 2015 Albany Rapp Road Landfill Compliance
Report
Methods
Construction of the test plots occurred beginning in 2010 with
placement of the first run of 24-inch
depth high pH sand. The remaining placement of low pH sand and
cover crop seeding for winter
stabilization was conducted in late 2011. Treatment block layout
and alpha-numeric coding was
based on a series of seven blocks arranged over varying depths of
sand (12”, 18”, and 24”) and sand
quality —high pH (B, indicating “bad” or unfavorable
conditions for supporting the target native
community) versus low pH (G, indicating “good” or favorable
conditions for supporting the
targeted Pine Bush ecosystem chemistry) — with 12
blocks positioned on a north-facing aspect (N),
12 on a south-facing aspect (S), and four on the landfill ridge top
(R) (see test plot layout in Figure
02 in Attachment 1).
Soil preparation and seeding of the native mix using a 5-foot-wide
Truax no-till drill (supplied by
APBPC) was conducted from June 26 – 29, 2012
(see species mix in the table in Attachment 1). All
test plot sub-plots of varying sand depths were seeded at a uniform
rate using native seed collected
and documented within a 50-mile radius of the Albany Pine Bush
Preserve. Due to safety concerns
regarding operation of equipment on sloped settings, the drill was
pulled up and down (parallel to)
the slopes in the steepest areas; otherwise, a perpendicular
trajectory was desirable and employed
elsewhere to minimize erosion.
Plot dimensions were adjusted from the original plan following
storm damage, resulting in a slightly
smaller size than the original approved plans (see Figure 01 in
Attachment 1). Resulting rill erosion
features were repaired and an approved erosion control system of
dispersing swales and straw
wattles, in addition to a berm at the base of the test plot
“toe of slope”, was designed and installed
to stabilize sand on the test plot’s steep slopes (see Figure 03 in
Attachment 1). This adjustment of
the test plot layout was determined to have no significant effect
on the test plot program
experimental evaluation.
Final installation of woody plants, including trees and shrubs,
occurred during 2014, following initial
native herbaceous establishment and weed control in years 1 and 2.
A subplot was established in the
18” and 24” depth, low pH sand plots (see Figure 04 in
Attachment 1) to limit woody plantings in
the test plot to those plots with likely suitable substrates.
Quadrat Sampling
Plant species composition, frequency, and cover were measured
within 10, randomly placed meter
square circular quadrats within each of the 28 treatment blocks.
Sampling occurred during the week
of August 3 – 7. Sampled data from each quadrat
included an estimate of percent cover for each
species rooted witin each quadrat, and cover by other ground cover
features including bare soil, fine
and coarse litter, rock, and Bryophytes (mosses). Details of test
plot layout and sampling activity are
summarized and tabulated in Attachment 7.
S:090636:120115 64 2015 Albany Rapp Road Landfill Compliance
Report
Species Search
As a measure of diversity, a listing of vascular plant
species growing in the test plot was completed
by systematically walking through twelve defined sets of the
subplots, grouped by slope aspect, soil
depth, and soil quality. Thus, one set included the three subplots
on the south-facing slope with 12”
sand depth and low pH, and the listing therefore was labeled
TP-S12G. The resulting lists are
presented in Attachment 10. This methodology differs from the
original Timed Meander Search
method, which is time-equated.
Data Summary and Statistical Analysis
Raw vegetation data from the quadrat sampling and species searches
was entered into an Excel
spreadsheet and QA/QC checked for entry errors and confirmation of
plant species identifications
for any specimens collected during the field sampling. Plant taxa
were floristically analyzed using
several classification criteria (Attachment 8) and raw data
tabulated and analyzed (Attachment 9),
using absolute and relative frequency (AF, RF; frequency measured
as the number of times a species
was found in each of the 10 one-meter square quadrats in each
treatment block), absolute and
relative cover (AF, RF; cover measured as the cumulative projected
photosynthetic area of each
species of plant in each of the ten one meter square quadrats in
each block), and importance values
(IV, the sum of RF and RC). The methods for statistical analysis
are discussed in the results section.
Photo Documentation
Digital color photos were taken from a position at the west central
boundary of each subplot, to
represent conditions within each treatment block at the time of
monitoring (Attachment 11).
Biomass Sampling
In each subplot, 3 of the sampled quadrats (quadrats 3, 6, and 9)
were evaluated for standing crop
biomass. All plant species rooted within the sample quadrats were
clipped to within 2.54 cm of the
ground surface with hand clippers. Clipped native and nonnative
plant species were bagged
separately in large paper bags. These were then removed to the AES
field office where they were
immediatedly weighed and air-dried on ventilated drying racks to
constant dry weight. A final weight
of the air-dried plant biomass was computed by subtracting the tare
weight of the bags. These data
were entered into EXCEL and a basic summary statistical
analysis was conducted to determine if
quadrat plant biomass varied accross slope position, substrate
depth, substrate quality or slope
aspect conditions in the test plots.
S:090636:120115 65 2015 Albany Rapp Road Landfill Compliance
Report
Root Depth Documentation
Root development was evaluated by selecting one native grass with
fibrous root structure little
bluestem ( Androgopogon scoparius ) and one
native forb with a tap root structure round headed
bushclover ( Lespedeza capitata ), both of which
were broadly establishied across the test plots. In each
test plot block, an individual of each species was dug completely
to preserve its entire root system
and fanned-out on a white plastic sheet to approximate the original
two-dimensional distribution in
the soil. Measurements were taken at the point of greatest width
and depth of the plant roots to
calculate an approximate area, and composite samples were
photographed. Measurements were
entered into EXCEL and statistical analysis was conducted to
determine if plant root growth varied
across slope position, substrate depth, and substrate quality in
the test plots.
Soil Sampling and Analysis
Soil samples were not collected from the test plots in 2015. In
2013, soil samples were collected
from the same quadrat hoops as the biomass samples within each
subplot and combined to create a
composite sample from each subplot for analysis.
Plant Community Ordination Analysis
We examined relationships between plant species in each of
the test plots, to understand how plant
community affinities have continued to develop by year four of the
test plot vegetation
establishment. More specifically, whether or not certain species of
plants are associating more
commonly with others and in certain locations on landfill, based on
position, soil depth, and quality.
Results
Data Summary
Based on a summary analysis of vascular plant species recorded in
the quadrats and during the species searches in the 28 test plots
in 2015 (see the summary analysis table at the bottom of the
species list in Attachment 8), species numbers in all categories of
the summary analysis have once again increased. Forty-seven
vascular plant families were recorded in 2015. This is an increase
of 14 families since 2013, with 10 of those occurring since 2014.
Aster, grass, pea, and rose families continue to be the largest
families represented. A total of 179 species were identified in
2015, 109 (60.9%) of which are natives and 70 (39.1%) of which are
adventive. This represents an increase of 34 species since 2013.
Since 2014, the ratio of native to non-native species has remained
nearly constant (in 2014, 87 out of 143 (60.8%) were native
species). Of the physiognomic groups, the number of perennial forbs
dominate and grasses continue to be important, although the number
of annual forbs and annual grasses increased in number this year,
along with small increases in the number of biennial forbs. The
number of woody plants (trees, shrubs, and vines) has increased
from a total of 17 in 2013, and 25 in 2014, to 33 in 2015. The
number of seeded and planted species
S:090636:120115 66 2015 Albany Rapp Road Landfill Compliance
Report
and nectar species also continue to increase, with 24 (77%) of the
31 native test plot species (both herbaceous and woody)
documented.
Analysis of Cover and Frequency of the Vegetation in the
Test-Plots
In 2015, 97 species were found with measurable percent cover in the
28 test plots. A descriptive analysis indicated that the plot
(S24GL) located at the south lower slope with 24 inches depth of
good sandy soil had the highest mean vegetation cover of all the
species. In contrast, two plots (S24BM and S24BU) located at the
south middle and upper slopes with 24 inches depth of bad sandy
soils resulted in the lowest cover (Fig. 1). On the other hand, the
plot N12GU had the highest number of individual plant species
observations (Fig. 2). Across all the plots, vegetation cover
rather than species composition has a stronger response to the site
conditions, as indicated by large variability of the mean cover
among the plots (Fig. 1&2). Among the 10 physiognomy groups of
the vegetation, in terms of cover and frequency of each vegetation
type present in samples at each plot, perennial grass was the
dominant type across all the plots. By contrast, cover of perennial
forbs was not high and was inconsistent across the plots, but
frequency was high and similar across all test plots (Fig.
1-2).
A comparison of native and adventive species shows that
frequency rather than cover of the majority native species was
higher than that of non-native species (Fig. 3-4). The actual
number of plant species in each plot varied, with less diversity
present in the upper north slope test plot with 24 inches soil
depth (Fig. 5).
Fig. 1 Mean vegetation cover in the plots by physiognomy
types
S:090636:120115 67 2015 Albany Rapp Road Landfill Compliance
Report
Fig. 2 Number of the plants with cover greater than zero in the
plots by physiognomy types
Fig. 3 Mean cover of the vegetation in the plots by types of
adventive and native species
S:090636:120115 68 2015 Albany Rapp Road Landfill Compliance
Report
Fig. 4 Frequency of adventive and native plant species in the
plots
Figure 5 Number of plant species by test plot
S:090636:120115 69 2015 Albany Rapp Road Landfill Compliance
Report
In order to do statistical analysis of the data on how cover and
frequency of the vegetation responded to different site conditions,
26 plant species were analyzed based on 1) their presence in 2013,
2014, and 2015, 2) whether they had a sum of cover across all the
plots greater than 5%, and 3) frequency of presence greater than 1.
This analysis was focused on how the cover and frequency of each
species were affected by site conditions of position (seven levels
of NL, NM, NU, RU, SL, SM, and SU), soil depth (three levels of 12,
18 and 24 inches), and soil quality (two levels of B and G) by
using variance analysis procedure PROC GIM in SAS. Because of the
unbalanced factorial experiment design, we compared means of the
cover and frequency with the least-square mean (LSMEAN) method. In
an initial analysis of the data, graphic diagnostics of the PROC
GLM procedure suggested that assumptions of normality and
homogeneity of variance associated with variance analysis
were violated, and the degree of violation varied by species. To
accommodate this, we transformed the data by logarithm
function with a base of 10.
The variance analysis showed that cover rather than frequency
of the species was affected more by
the three factors. Number of species having p-values less than 0.05
by factors of position, depth,
and quality were 22, 20, 10 for cover, and 9, 10, and 4 for
frequency, respectively (Table 1). Cover
of five species was significantly affected by all the three
factors. On the contrary, frequency
measures of none of the species were affected by the three factors.
No factors had significant
effects on the frequency of Andropogon gerardii, Artemisia
vulgaris, Equisetum arvense, Populus
deltoides, Rudbeckia hirta, and Solidago canadensis. But, at least
one factor had an effect on the
cover of these dominant species. Only Centaurea maculosa grew
independatly of all factors based
on on its cover and frequency.
Details about how each factor affected the cover and frequency of
each species are presented in the ANOVA, fit statistics, and
model ANOVA outputs, in Attachments 2 and 3. Following these output
tables, five figures are presented for diagnosing how the analysis
of variance assumptions were met and evaluated for
outliers.
S:090636:120115 70 2015 Albany Rapp Road Landfill Compliance
Report
Table 1 p-values of the type III SS by the three
factors from cover and frequency variance analysis. Red dots
indicated significant effects of the factors on the cover and
frequency with a significance level of α =0.05.
Post-hoc analysis with the Tukey-kramer method also revealed how
the mean cover or frequency differed using pairwise comparison
analysis for each factor (e.g. NL vs. SU, 12 inches vs. 24 inches,
or B vs. G). For example, for one of the important seeded native
legumes, Desmodium canadense , its mean cover in the
plot at the south lower slope (LSMEANSL=0.37) was significantly
different from its cover in a plot in the north lower slope
(LSMEANNL=1.81, pNL vs. SL=0.0248, df 1=7, and
df 2 =265). Among the three soil depths of 12, 18
and 24 inches, the cover of Desmodium canadense in plots with 12
inches of soil depth ( LSMEAN12=0.331) significantly
differed with plots with a soil depth of 18 inches
(LSMEAN18=1.47, p12 vs. 18<0.0008, df 1=3,
and df 2 =265) and 24 inches
(LSMEAN24=1.76, p12
vs. 24<0.0001, df 1=3, and df 2 =265), but
between 18 and 24 inches depths, cover was not significantly
different ( p18 vs. 24=0.7826, df 1=3, and
df 2 =265). Between the two levels of soil quality,
percent cover of Desmodium canadense was not significantly
different, with cover in the good soil pH plot being higher
(LSMEANG=1.38) than the cover in the plot with lower pH site
conditions (LSMEANB=0.83, pG vs. B=0.1215, df 1=2, and
df 2 =265). The same post-hoc pairwise comparison of the
other dominant plant species showing how each of the three factors
affected the cover and frequency is tabulated in Attachments 2 and
3.
S:090636:120115 71 2015 Albany Rapp Road Landfill Compliance
Report
To evaluate the appropriateness of soil depths for the land
restoration, we summarized p-values of the pairwise comparison
of cover and frequency by the three levels of depth only (Table 2).
This analysis indicated that the mean percent cover of 62% of the
species was significantly different between 12 and 18 inches, as
well as between 12 and 24 inches of soil depths. But cover of only
27% of the species was significantly different between 18 and 24
inches of soil depths.
The frequency of the dominant species was less affected by
soil depth compared to percent cover (Table 2), about 15%, 35%, and
8% by depth pairs 12 vs. 18 inches, 12 vs. 24 inches, and 18 vs. 24
inches.
Table 2 p-values of post-hoc pairwise comparisons
of mean cover and frequency by three levels of depths. Red dots
indicate significant difference of the paired-means for plant
species percent cover with a significance level of α
=0.05.
The mean cover and frequency of plant species were not only
affected by site conditions, but also differed by types of native
and adventive species (Fig. 6-9). Even though percent cover in each
soil depth varied slightly by landscape position, the mean cover in
12 inch plots was the lowest among the three soil depths,
regardless of the slope or aspect position, for native species. But
for adventive species, the mean percent cover in the 12 inch plots
in all seven positions was higher than in the18 inch plots (Fig.
7). The frequency of adventive species showed similar patterns
(Fig. 9).
S:090636:120115 72 2015 Albany Rapp Road Landfill Compliance
Report
Fig. 6 Mean cover of the 19 dominant adventive and native species
by three levels of soil depth
Fig. 7 Mean cover of the 19 dominant adventive and native species
by three levels of soil depth and seven levels of position
S:090636:120115 73 2015 Albany Rapp Road Landfill Compliance
Report
Fig. 8 Mean frequency of the 19 dominant adventive and native
species by three levels of soil depth
Fig. 9 Mean frequency of the 19 dominant adventive and native
species by three levels of soil depth and seven levels of
position
Species comparison in 2013, 2014, and 2015
During the years 2013, 2014, and 2015, a total of 175 species were
identified as present in the test plots based on the quadrat data
alone. During 2013, a total of 118 were found in the sampled
quadrats; 115 in 2014, and 97 in 2015. Among all 175 plants, 67
plant species were present in the quadrats in all three years, but
the others appeared in one or in two years only (Table 3). The
following tables indicate a general trend of increasing diversity
in the test plots.
S:090636:120115 74 2015 Albany Rapp Road Landfill Compliance
Report
Juncus dudleyi Lespedeza capitata Lotus corniculatus Lupinus
perennis Medicago lupulina Medicago sativa Melilotus alba Melilotus
officinalis Monarda fistulosa Monarda punctata Oenothera biennis
Oxalis stricta Panicum virgatum
Phleum pratense Plantago lanceolata Poa pratensis Polygonum
pensylvanicum Populus deltoides Rhus typhina Robinia pseudoacacia
Rudbeckia hirta Schizachyrium scoparium Setaria pumila Solidago
canadensis Solidago gigantea Solidago graminifolia Solidago juncea
Solidago rugosa Sorghastrum nutans
Taraxacum officinale Trifolium arvense Trifolium
hybridum Trifolium repens Verbascum Thapsus Vitis
riparia
Table 3. Species present in all three years: 2013, 2014 and
2015
Anemone cylindrica Convolvulus sepium Elymus canadensis
Elymus virginicus
Festuca elatior Fragaria virginiana Geum canadense
Juncus effusus
Parthenocissus inserta Salix humilis
Table 4. Species not present in 2013, but present in 2014 and
2015, indicating advances in establishment of species.
Apocynum cannabinum
Aster lateriflorus
Aster novae-angliae
Berteroa incana
Bidens vulgata
Crataegus sp
Cuscuta gronovii
Galium triflorum
Hypericum boreale
Lysimachia ciliata
Prunus serotina
Rhus glabra
Rosa multiflora
Rubus allegheniensis
Sporobolus vaginiflorus
Vaccinium angustifolium
Vitis aestivalis
Table 5. Species not present in 2013 and 2014, but in
2015
S:090636:120115 75 2015 Albany Rapp Road Landfill Compliance
Report
Analysis of Biomass on the Test-Plots
Effects of three factors of position, soil depth, and soil quality
on biomass of native and adventive plants were assessed at 28
test-plots established on the site. The data were analyzed with
PROC GLM procedure in SAS 9.3, a professional statistical software
package developed by SAS Institute Inc. (http://www.sas.com/). The
factor of position has seven levels of North Lower (NL), North
Middle (NM), North Upper (NU), Ridge Top (RU), South Lower (SL),
South Middle (SM), and South Upper (SU); soil depth has three
levels of 12 inches, 18 inches, and 24 inches; and soil quality was
characterized by pH, with two levels of high (bad quality (B)), and
low pH (good quality (G)). The analysis model was designed to
quantify main effects of the three factors and interaction effects
of position vs. depth and position vs. soil quality. Interaction of
soil quality vs. depth was not analyzed because of the lack of the
other two soil depths (12 and 18 inches) on the bad soil condition.
In an initial analysis of the data, graphic diagnostics of the PROC
GLM procedure suggested that assumptions of normality and
homogeneity of variance associated with variance analysis were
violated. Therefore, in order to meet the assumptions, the
biomass was transformed by logarithm function (log10). A number of
tables and graphical outputs from the final run are found in
Attachments 4 and 5.
The analysis (Type III SS) showed that, for native plants,
means of the biomass significantly differed by the factor of soil
quality (F= 16.22, p=0.0002, df 1=1, and
df 2 =56). Meanwhile, both slope position and soil depth
did not have significant effects on the mean biomass. No
significant interactions between position and depth, as well as
between position and soil quality were identified
( p position*depth =0.8290;
p position*quality =0.1031). When we aggregated the
position factors into two groups of North and South (ridge top
excluded), the measured biomass were significantly different (F=4.8
and p=0.0327).
Among the two soil quality categories of good and bad,
Post-hoc analysis with Tukey-kramer method indicated that mean of
biomass at good plots (236.5 g with a 95% confidence limits of
198.5 and 280.8 g) was significantly higher than the biomass at bad
plots (104.0 g with a 95% confidence limits of 71.4 and 150.4
g).
For the 14 experimental conditions defined by combination of the
two factors of position and soil quality, Post-hoc analysis
revealed significant interactions of the two factors among 6 pairs
of the condition combinations: SM-G vs. NM-B, SU-G vs. NM-B, SM-G
vs. NM-G, SU-G vs. NM-G, SM-G vs. NU-G, and SU-G vs. NU-G.
Among those pairs, only one condition (NM-B) included the bad (high
pH) soil quality, indicating that position rather than soil quality
was more critical in determining biomass production of native
plants. Among the 24 combinations of position with depth, only one
pair showed significant difference, confirming an uncorrelated
relationship between position and depth for biomass of native
plants.
As compared to native plants, the analysis for adventive
plants (Type III SS) indicated that both depth and quality did not
have significant impacts on the biomass (F= 1.87, p=0.1636,
df 1=2, and df 2 =56; F= 2.7, p=0.1061,
df 1=1, and df 2 =56), but position did (F=
2.80, p=0.0188, df 1=6, and df 2 =56). The
analysis also indicated that there was no interaction between
factor of position and depth, as well as between position and
quality. Post-hoc Tukey-kramer analysis indicated the mean biomass
between those pairs: SU-G vs. NL-G, SL-G vs. NM-G, SM-G vs. NM-G,
and SU-G vs. NM-G, was significantly different. These pairs
were associated with good soil quality, indicating that when site
condition was good (low pH), position was a dominant factor
affecting biomass accumulation of non-native vegetation.
S:090636:120115 76 2015 Albany Rapp Road Landfill Compliance
Report
Overall, the analysis indicated that non-native rather than native
vegetation was more adaptive to divergent environmental and site
conditions. Factors of position, soil quality and depth had less
effect on growth of non-native vegetation.
Analysis of Root Growth in the Test-Plots
Measurements and photographs of all root samples are presented in
Attachment 6. Effects of three
factors of position, soil depth, and soil quality on root size (W ×
D, logarithm transformed) were
analyized with Proc GLM, separately.
For forbs, the analysis (Type III SS) showed that, by 2015, none of
the three factors of soil depth, position, and quality
significantly affected root size
( pdepth =0.0725,
ptpositiony =0.3455,
and pquality =0.0708.
For grasses, the analysis (Type III SS) showed that none of the
three factors had significant effects on root size of the grasses
either
( pdepth =0.5730, p position =0.2057
and pquality =0.9695).
Fig. 10 Root area(square inches) have been used to compare root
growth of the grass species, Andropogon
scoparius ), and forb species,Lespedeza
capitata, in the three levels of soil depths and seven slope
positions.
Plant Community Ordination Analysis
Nonmetric Multidimensional Scaling (NMS) ordination analysis using
PC-ORD v.6 was used as a
means of visualizing the level of difference (or similarity) of
plant species cover and frequency in the 28
plots, allowing inferences to be made on how plants are associating
and assembling across the various
contions within the test plot.
S:090636:120115 77 2015 Albany Rapp Road Landfill Compliance
Report
In the NMS data matrix, rows represented the 26 dominant plant
species (previously selected based on
1) their presence in 2013, 2014, and 2015, 2) whether they had a
sum of cover across all the plots
greater than 5%, and 3) frequency of presence greater than 1), and
columns were the cover and
frequency of these plant species in the 28 test plots.
Dissimilarity