2015 albany landfill compliance report print copy

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

Albany Rapp Road Landfill Ecosystem Mitigation, Restoration & Enhancement Plan
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.

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

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

Carex comosa Longhair sedge
Carex lupulina Hop sedge
Carex swanii Swan's sedge
Carex vestita Velvet sedge
Danthonia spicata Poverty grass
Diervilla lonicera Bush honeysuckle
Diodia teres Rough buttonweed
Eupatorium altissimum Upland boneset
Helianthus strumosus Woodland sunflower
Hieracium scabrum Rough hawkweed
Ionactis linariifolius Stiff aster
Lobelia siphilitica Blue lobelia
Lupinus perennis Blue lupine
Lycopus americanus Water horehound
Lysimachia ciliata Fringed loosestrife
Melampyrum lineare Cow wheat
Mimulus ringens Monkey flower
Monarda fistulosa Wild bergamot
Monarda punctata Dotted horsemint
Penstemon hirsutus Hairy foxglove
Potentilla arguta Prairie cinquefoil
Pseudognaphalium obtusifolium Rabbit tobacco
Quercus ilicifolia Scrub oak
Solidago nemoralis Gray goldenrod
Soidago puberla Downy goldenrod

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.

Ecosystem Mitigation, Restoration & Enhancement Plan
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.

Albany Rapp Road Landfill, Albany NY
Rapp Road Landfill Ecosystem Mitigation, Restoration & Enhancement Plan
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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

Fig. 4 Frequency of adventive and native plant species in the plots
Figure 5 Number of plant species by test plot

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.

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.

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).

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

2015 albany landfill compliance report print copy

Documents