EPA 600-R-21-317 | December 2022 | www.epa.gov/research
East Mount Zion Superfund Site:
Revitalization to Benefit
the Community
oEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Research and Development
-------
East Mount Zion Superfund Site:
Revitalization to Benefit the Community
U.S Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
www.epa.gov/research
EPA 600-R-21-317
December 2022
-------
Disclaimer
The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the
views or policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Any mention of trade names,
products, or services does not imply an endorsement by the U.S. government or the U.S. EPA. The
U.S. EPA does not endorse any commercial products, services, or enterprises.
Cover Photo
EPA planted a native wildflower and grass seed mix that included the Ox Eye Sunflower (genus
Heliopsis) to replace undesirable and non-native ground covers that had taken over the East Mount
Zion Landfill site. Photo credit: Bruce Pluta, EPA Region 3.
-------
Table of Contents
Disclaimer ii
Abbreviations v
Executive Summary vi
Introduction 1
Background 2
Who's Involved 3
Project Process 4
Technical Workshop 4
Invasive Vegetation Removal 5
Native Species Revegetation 5
Landscape Maintenance 6
Groundhog Management 6
Methane Gas Vent Maintenance 6
Ecosystem Service Enhancement 7
Workshop Outcomes 7
Ecosystem Services Modeling and Expert Consultation 8
InVEST Carbon Storage 9
InVEST Crop Pollination 9
InVEST Threatened and Endangered Species 11
Bird Populations 11
ESII Tool 12
Pest Regulation 12
Stakeholder Workshop 12
One-on-One Conversations 14
Virtual Webinar 14
Polling 17
Key Takeaways 18
Plan Implementation and Monitoring 18
Vegetation Removal 18
Plantings 18
Wildlife Structures 19
Overall 20
Next Steps 21
Quality Assurance 22
References 23
iii
-------
List of Appendices
Appendix A : Ecosystem Goods and Services Matrix
Appendix B : ESII Tool Glossary
Appendix C : Polling Questions and Results
List of Tables
Table 1. Options and costs for East Mount Zion landfill revitalization 5
Table 2. Stakeholder engagement objectives and how they were achieved 13
Table of Figures
Figure 1. Before the revitalization project, invasive vegetation required frequent mowing, which
enhanced the habitat for burrowing groundhogs 2
Figure 2. Methane vents are located throughout the East Mount Zion landfill site 7
Figure 3. Carbon sequestration in the status quo mowed grass scenario and the native grassland
scenario (in milligrams carbon per hectare) from the InVEST model 9
Figure 4. Abundance of American bumblebees (top) and early hairstreak butterflies (bottom).
Legend identifies per-pixel relative abundance in baseline vs. native grassland scenarios in the
spring and summer 10
Figure 5. Abundance of monarch butterflies. The legend identifies per-pixel relative abundance in
baseline vs. native grassland scenarios in the spring and summer 11
Figure 6. Percent performance of ecosystem functions and services, comparing the status quo (blue
bars) and the native grassland (orange bars) scenario. Circled categories indicate notable increases.
("Erosion Control—Mass..." = erosion regulation—mass wasting; "WQ" = water quality. See
Appendix B for information on the terms used in this figure.) 13
Figures 7a-7b. Vegetative revitalization at a site similar to the EMZ site, where shorter-lived and
more easily established species become dominant by years two and three 19
Figures 7c-7d. Vegetative revitalization at the EMZ site, where there was less bare ground because
an oat cover crop was planted 19
iv
-------
Abbreviations
CBI
Consensus Building Institute
CEMM
Center for Environmental Measurement and Modeling
EGS
ecosystem goods and services
EMZ
East Mount Zion
EPA
Environmental Protection Agency
ERG
Eastern Research Group, Inc.
ESII
Ecosystem Services Identification and Inventory
GDIT
General Dynamics Information Technology, Inc
InVEST
Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs
NGO
nongovernmental organization
O&M
operation and maintenance
ORD
Office of Research and Development
OTIS
One-dimensional Transport with Inflow and Storage
QAPP
Quality Assurance Project Plan
RESES
Regional Sustainability and Environmental Sciences
V
-------
Executive Summary
This report provides a general overview of revitalization efforts undertaken at the East Mount Zion
landfill site, a closed 10-acre Superfund site in Springettsbury Township, York County, Pennsylvania.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Research and Development (ORD); the
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection; York County, Pennsylvania; and the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service partnered under the Regional Sustainability and Environmental Sciences
(RESES) research program to pursue this site revitalization.
Although remedial actions at the East Mount Zion site have protected human health and the
environment, site managers wanted the site to provide additional social and ecological value to the
community, reduce colonization by burrowing mammals, and reduce operations and maintenance
costs. A steering committee was established with members from federal, state, and local agencies
who worked with community members to 1) identify potential revitalization options at the site, 2)
identify community values for future use of the site, and 3) identify options for the site that best
meet managers' needs and community values. This project demonstrates how nature's benefits to
people (also referred to as ecosystem services) can be incorporated into community engagement
and site revitalization.
This report describes the background and goals of the project, the work done by the team and
community members, and future plans for the site. Specifically, this report provides an overview of
the four-step project process:
1. Technical workshop
2. Ecosystem modeling
3. Stakeholder workshop
4. Plan implementation and monitoring
The report also includes appendices with more
information on ecosystem goods and services, terms
used in the Ecosystem Services Identification and
Inventory (ESII) tool, and community polling
questions and results. A fact sheet and a detailed
case study project report will also be produced in the
future to expand on this report.
The project's next steps include continuing to
implement the revitalization option chosen as a
direct result of community input. Project partners wil
keep the community updated as that work progresse:
This project was funded through the Regional Sustainability and Environmental Sciences (RESES)
program, part of ORD's Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research Program. RESES is a
competitive EPA award program and promotes and facilitates collaboration between ORD, EPA
Regions, and external organizations.
Report Goals
• Continue open communication with
the community about project
progress.
• Explain why the project is being
undertaken, how community input
was incorporated, and the final plan
for the site.
vi
-------
Introduction
The East Mount Zion (EMZ) landfill is a 10-acre Superfund site in Springettsbury Township, York
County, Pennsylvania. The landfill was capped in 1999, creating a barrier between landfill waste and
the environment to effectively isolate contaminants from the surrounding earth and groundwater.
Remedial actions have protected human health and the environment, but site managers were
interested in whether the site could provide additional social and ecological value to the community
as well as addressing other management concerns.
To pursue revitalization, project partners from federal, state, and local agencies worked with
members from the community to 1) identify potential revitalization options at the site, 2) identify
what the community values for future use of the site, and 3) identify the option for the site that is
protective of human health and the environment and best reflects community values.
This report presents the background and goals of the effort, the work done by the project team and
community members, the utility of the four-step project process, and future plans for the site.
1
-------
Background
Capping of the EMZ landfill was completed in 1999 and monitoring and evaluation reports are
released every five years. The remedial action on the site protects human health and the
environment by eliminating direct contact with the waste and protecting groundwater from
contamination. The site is currently overgrown by invasive vegetation and harbors a large
population of invasive groundhogs. The frequent mowing prescribed in the operations and
management plan created a desirable habitat for these animals (Figure 1), which now pose a threat
to the continued effectiveness of the landfill cap. Their burrows could damage the structure of the
cap or create space for more invasive vegetation growth.
The goal of the EMZ revitalization project is to make the site an asset to the community and to
improve the social-ecological value of the ecosystem by creating a space for education, recreation,
wildlife habitat, and enhanced biodiversity. Revegetation offers an opportunity to enhance the
ecosystem services the site provides to the community. Identifying and monitoring potential
ecosystem services associated with the site informs decision-making for creation of the benefits
most valued by the community. The proposed native-plant-dominated landscape could lead to
reduced landscaping costs and disturbance, reduced groundhog population and burrows, and the
creation of an aesthetically appealing native meadow. The plan for the project optimizes
community benefits while maintaining the landfill cap, protecting human health and the
environment, and enhancing the ecological value of the site. Producing new and enhancing existing
ecosystem services at EMZ will contribute to revitalization and health of the local community by
providing a recreational, educational, and ecological resource—and it will help reduce annual
maintenance costs at the site.
Figure 1. Before the revitalization project, invasive vegetation required frequent mowing, which
enhanced the habitat for burrowing groundhogs.
2
-------
Who's Involved
The revitalization project is a collaborative effort across multiple federal, state, and local agencies
and organizations. A key goal was to ensure community involvement and input throughout the
planning and decision-making process. Key partners and their roles to support the community and
the effort include the following.
• The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Office of Research and Development
(ORD) demonstrated the use of ecosystem goods and services (EGS) decision support tools
and the benefit of considering EGS and community engagement in environmental decision-
making.
• EPA's Regions 2 and 3 demonstrated how managers of contaminated sites can use EGS tools
and approaches.
• The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service provided extensive expertise on managing natural
habitats. This expertise was critical for informing invasive species elimination planning,
native species seeding, healthy plant establishment and maintenance, and creation of
habitat for native pollinators and birds.
• The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection is responsible for site operations
and maintenance and will continue to maintain the site under new plans for the
revegetated landscape.
• The York County Parks and Recreation Department is responsible for properties adjacent to
the site and provides local expertise about the site and the surrounding areas.
• Ecologists from CSS Inc. provided modeling support as part of the EcoService Models Library
team.
• Other local community organizations and community members were invited to participate
and share crucial local information and concerns that help shape the project direction.
3
-------
Project Process
The EMZ project team has organized its work around four major components:
1. A technical workshop to identify the potential options for site revitalization and the ecosystem
services to be analyzed.
2. Ecosystem modeling and expert consultation to analyze the potential impacts of revitalization
on ecosystem services of interest.
3. A stakeholder workshop to get community input on revitalization options and ecosystem service
impacts.
4. Plan implementation and monitoring to move forward on an option—chosen based on
community input—and monitor the results.
The team designed this approach to allow for informed discussion on technically complex issues and
a revitalization plan that reflects community priorities.
The team also sought to make these components transferable to other revitalization projects. This
project was funded through a competitive ward process by the Regional Sustainability and
Environmental Sciences (RESES) research program, part of EPA ORD's Sustainable and Healthy
Communities Research Program. RESES facilitates collaboration with EPA Regions and external
organizations, so the project team was interested in using this effort to show how including EGS in
decision-making can lead to revitalization of the community and the environment.
Technical Workshop
Over two days in February 2020, experts assembled in an online technical workshop. The 18
attendees included experts from ORD, EPA Region 3, EPA Region 2, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, York County Parks and
Recreation, Springettsbury Township, and facilitators and support staff from CBI, GDIT, and ERG.
During the workshop, experts presented information on the site, ecosystem services, and lessons
learned from similar projects. The goal was to identify the limits for work on the site given fiscal,
regulatory, and logistical constraints; to identify the full range of potential ecosystem services that
the site could support; and to identify all feasible options for removing invasive vegetation and
restoring native vegetation at the site. Workshop participants developed alternative options for site
revitalization: invasive vegetation removal, native species revegetation, landscape maintenance,
groundhog management, methane gas vent maintenance, and ecosystem services enhancement.
4
-------
Invasive Vegetation Removal
1. Herbivory. Bringing herbivores (e.g., goats or sheep) on the site to remove vegetation through
grazing. This approach would require 80 animals (a mix of sheep and goats) that would remain
on the site for 90 days. Animals would be rented because the logistics of a government agency
purchasing animals are problematic. Workshop attendees estimated the cost for this option,
based on similar projects, at around $7,200.
2. Synthetic herbicide. This option is the least expensive, most effective, and fastest method for
removing invasive plants. Attendees estimated its cost at $616 per application; it would require
two applications.
3. Natural herbicide. This option is the most expensive because it will likely require many
applications, but (unlike use of synthetic herbicides) it requires little to no lag time before
seeding. The estimated cost of using natural herbicides is $11,550.
Native Species Revegetation
Workshop attendees developed revegetation options based on different seed mixes and shrubbery
placement. They considered three seed mix options, differing in terms of ratios of native grasses to
wildflowers (Table 1). The seed mix with the highest percentage of native grasses is the least
expensive, estimated to cost about $3,200. The seed mix with even ratios of native grasses and
wildflowers is estimated to cost about $4,480. The final seed mix option, dominated by wildflowers,
is the most expensive option, estimated to cost about $8,000. Tall native grasses offer more weed
control and root stability; wildflowers can attract more wildlife, particularly pollinators.
Table 1. Options and costs for East Mount Zion landfill revitalization.
Category
Option and Cost
Weed removal
Synthetic herbicide
$1,232
Natural herbicide
$11,550
Grazing sheep/goats
$7,200
Seed mix
Tall grasses with some
wildflowers
$3,200
Even mix of grass and
wildflowers
$4,480
Highest % and diversity
of wildflowers
$8,000
Shrubs
Inside fence border
$650
Wetland edge
$250
Wildlife structures
Adding structures
$300
Mowing regime
One-third per year
$l,500/year
Every three years
$694/year
Every five years
$416/year
Attendees also discussed shrubbery options (Table 1). The two options for shrubbery placement are
along the wetland edge for $250 and/or inside the fence border for $650. The height of the full-
grown vegetation will differ slightly based on which species are included.
5
-------
Landscape Maintenance
The site needs occasional mowing to ensure that desired plants establish themselves and deter
growth of unwanted weeds and invasive plants. Site managers can do this by monitoring the growth
and adjusting mowing height. The landscape maintenance regime will change over the first three
years of revitalization. In the first year, the site will be mowed two to three times to prevent weed
growth; the cost will remain the same as the current maintenance schedule at about $6,250. In the
second year, the site will be mowed one to two times, which is expected to reduce the cost to
about $2,083. In the third year, a long-term landscape maintenance plan will be implemented.
Three options for the long-term landscape maintenance plan were considered (see Table 1 above):
• Mow a third of the site per year, at a cost of about $1,500 per year.
• Mow the entire site once every three years, at a cost of about $694 per year.
• Mow the entire site once every five years, at a cost of about $416 per year.
The choice between these options depends on the needs of the new native vegetation.
Groundhog Management
A dense population of groundhogs lives on the EMZ site, where frequent mowing and the
protection of a fence have created a habitat they prefer. They pose a threat to the continued
efficacy of the landfill cap: their burrows could directly damage the cap or allow problematic weeds
to grow in bare areas created by their digging. Accordingly, workshop attendees prioritized
vegetation and mowing regime options that discouraged groundhog presence. These included
increased vegetation height and reduced mowing to render the habitat less attractive to
groundhogs. Other possible groundhog deterrents were briefly discussed, like physical barriers,
fencing that would allow predator passage, and live or kill trapping, but these methods would be
considered only if the planned habitat change does not sufficiently manage the groundhog
population.
Methane Gas Vent Maintenance
During site revitalization, workshop participants discussed two key concerns about monitoring the
methane vents that are located on the site (Figure 2). First, agency personnel must have access to
the vents for the monitoring activities critical for continued protection of human and environmental
health. Second, access to the site for non-agency personnel must be restricted to reduce risks,
liability, and potential disturbance of the cap. Risk of public exposure to methane and potential
damage to the vents are the top concerns with public access to the site.
Participants discussed other types of site access, including a viewing platform outside the fence,
trails inside the fence, and limited access by permitted groups. Because public access to the EMZ
site is not a priority at this time, these ideas are being held for future consideration when the
methane vents have been removed and the new native vegetation cover has been established.
6
-------
Figure 2. Methane vents are located throughout the East Mount Zion landfill site.
Ecosystem Service Enhancement
Finally, the technical workshop explored the range of ecosystem services that the site might be able
to support and that might be of interest to the community. They used an iterative process to
develop a list of these services (see Appendix A). First, ORD researchers used ecosystem service
classification tools to list ways the community could potentially benefit from the site and the
aspects of the site that would be providing that benefit (Newcomer-Johnson et al. 2020; Sharpe
2021). For example, bird watching was a potential benefit; birds are the aspect of the environment
necessary for bird watching to occur. ORD researchers presented this initial list to workshop
participants for review, discussion, and modification. Once modifications to the list were complete,
participants evaluated each potential service on three dimensions:
• Likely level of community interest in that benefit.
• Likelihood that revitalization of the site would affect the service.
• Likelihood of being able to model, or otherwise predict, changes to that service.
These discussions resulted in the final list of ecosystem services. (ORD researchers then explored
and modeled the ecosystem services and their potential development, presenting their results at
the stakeholder workshop; see sections below).
The results of the technical workshop were crucial for developing a project foundation rooted
strongly in the ecological and social conditions of the site and the community. This foundation
prepared the project team for the stakeholder workshop, which addressed community values and
explored the complete set of revitalization options.
Workshop Outcomes
The technical workshop includes community input on what services the community values and had
two key results:
7
-------
• A clear set of vegetation removal and revegetation options that were feasible, affordable,
logisticaMy possible, and acceptable to managers.
• A clear set of ecosystem services to be analyzed via ecosystem modeling and expert
consultation.
These clearly defined options were then used as the basis for modeling activities and were
presented at the stakeholder workshop for discussion and evaluation.
Ecosystem Services Modeling and Expert Consultation
The technical workshop identified ecosystem services the EMZ site might support. ORD researchers
then modeled those ecosystem services to estimate how the new revitalization scenarios would
affect them. The models applied were aimed at informing decision-making and increasing the
overall understanding of the benefits revitalization can provide the community. (The modeling
results were discussed during the stakeholder workshop to help participants understand the
benefits they are likely to receive under the revitalization options and to determine which options
will best serve the community's needs and values.)
Researchers ran five ecosystem services models based on the ecosystem services identified in the
technical workshop; they also consulted experts in one area for which no model was available. Each
model compared the current site scenario to the
potential site scenario after revitalization.
• The team used three models based on the
Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services
and Tradeoffs (InVEST) software, developed
by the Natural Capital Project at Stanford
University (Tallis et al. 2014). InVEST models
were used for estimating the revitalization
scenario's effects on carbon storage and
sequestration, pollinator populations, and
rare species.
• The team used grassland bird models
developed by the U.S. Geological Survey and
Iowa State University to model bird
populations (Otis et al. 2010). The team also examined local bird sightings that citizen
scientists recorded in eBird (Sullivan et al. 2009).
• The Ecosystem Services Identification and Inventory (ESII) tool was used to estimate a
variety of functions and services.
• Expert consultation was used to estimate the impact on pest populations.
Models and Expert Consultation
• Carbon storage: InVEST model
• Pollination: InVESTmodel
• Rare species: InVEST model
• Ecosystem services: ESII tool
• Birds: grassland bird models (and
eBird (citizen science sighting tool)
• Pest regulation: expert consultation
8
-------
In VEST Carbon Storage
Terrestrial ecosystems, which store more carbon than the atmosphere, are vital to regulating
Earth's global climate by storing carbon and moderating carbon dioxide-driven climate change. At
EMZ, carbon can be stored in plants, their roots, dead plant material, and the soil.
The InVEST carbon model estimates the changes in carbon sequestration based on four vegetation
scenarios: 1) the status quo mowed grass, 2) the proposed native grass, 3) a combination of mowed
and native grasses, and 4) and a combination of mowed grasses and native grasses with wetland
shrubs. Although carbon storage is more effective with woody species, the site cannot support trees
because roots might damage the landfill cap. However, the change to native grass is expected to
increase carbon storage by about 40 percent compared to the status quo mowed field (Figure 3).
The model indicated that the native grassland scenario will be the most effective at storing carbon
at the EMZ site. The predicted increase in carbon storage is attributed to increases in aboveground
biomass, dead organic matter, and rooting structure of the native grass including perennial tallgrass
species.
InVEST
Estimated -40% increase in carbon storage
ITS
-------
availability/quality, floral resources, and feeding flight ranges to derive an index of pollinator
abundance.
The model results estimated that, under the proposed native grassland scenario, both monarch
butterfly and American bumblebee populations will likely increase in local abundance in the spring
and summer (Figure 4). Orchard mason bee abundance varied by season and scenario, but the
proposed native grassland provides one of the best foraging sources for this species and increased
population densities are expected (Figure 5).
InVEST
American Bumble bee rfovnabundance
by season and alternative EMZ cap scenarios
RnnrJinc
feVwxul Grass
Scenario 1
Native trass
IriVEST
paLhnilion made* predicts increased palliriator abundance
Lariy Hai (streak (Ei&rg /getpj abundance
1. Status Quo Mowed Grass 2, native Grassland Scenario
Spring
.Sunnr^r
Figure 4. Abundance of American bumblebees (top) and early hairstreak
butterflies (bottom). The legend identifies per-pixel relative abundance
in baseline vs. native grassland scenarios in the spring and summer.
10
-------
Figure 5. Abundance of monarch butterflies. The legend identifies per-pixel
relative abundance in baseline vs. native grassland scenarios in the spring
and summer.
InVEST Threatened and Endangered Species
ORD researchers chose to model the early hairstreak butterfly and the monarch butterfly because
they depend on specific host plants, and because they are rare: the early hairstreak butterfly has a
Xerces Society for invertebrate Conservation Red List status of "Vulnerable" (Vaughan et al. 2005);
and the monarch butterfly was designated as a candidate for protection under the Endangered
Species Act in December 2020 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2020).
Researchers estimated that the early hairstreak butterfly abundance may surpass monarch butterfly
abundance in the proposed native grassland scenario. The planned revitalization will support
increases in monarch butterfly population as well and could be modified through focused milkweed
plantings to attract and amplify the repopulation potential.
Bird Populations
Birds are essential to ecosystem function and increase services like bird watching and aesthetic
appeal, ORD estimated possible changes to bird populations by examining models for two
grassland-dependent bird species: bobolink and grasshopper sparrow. ORD also drew on eBird, a
citizen science database of bird sightings.
The grassland bird models were developed (for the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program)
by team from U.S. Geological Survey and Iowa State University that used landcover data for the
surrounding 400-meter area combined with species-specific coefficients (Otis et al. 2010). The
bobolink population density model predicted that the 10-acre EMZ site is large enough to attract
and support bobolink but would not be large enough to support grasshopper sparrows. Bobolinks
prefer tall, dense vegetation, so they would likely benefit from the revitalized native grassland.
11
-------
The team used eBird to determine which bird populations are likely to recover under the revitalized
native grassland scenario. The eBird data, in combination with the models available, revealed that
sites allowed to persist in a more natural state are likely to be more attractive to a greater number
of bird species. There are multiple birding hotspots in the region surrounding EMZ; 150 species
were recorded on eBird from 2019 to 2020, including grassland, edge, and forest species that could
benefit from the revitalized native grassland. Five grassland-dependent species—bobolink, vesper
sparrow, chipping sparrow, eastern meadowlark, horned lark—were recently observed in the
surrounding region (but not in Rocky Ridge County Park next to the EMZ site).
Partners in Flight is a network of organizations involved in land bird conservation that keep a list of
conservation statuses of bird species (Rosenberg et al. 2016, p. 119). Nine forest bird species
observed in Rocky Ridge County Park are listed as being of continental concern. Forest songbirds
are known to use neighboring grassland resources, which the proposed revitalization could provide.
Overall, there is potential for a number of bird species to return to the area, including raptors,
grassland species, and forest species.
ESI I Tool
ORD used the ESII tool to model multiple ecosystem services for the status quo scenario, as well as
two revitalization scenarios: 1) converting the grass cap to native vegetation and 2) including shrub
border and wetland revitalization with the converted grass cap. The model inputs that changed for
these scenarios were related to vegetation height, root depth, and root density. The ESII model is a
planning-level tool for estimating 33 different ecosystem services and functions. ORD presented
results for 13 ecosystem services that the technical committee identified as of interest for the site.
Compared to the status quo, both revitalization scenarios estimated improvements (typically less
than 10 percent) in erosion regulation, water filtration, nitrogen removal, and carbon uptake
(Figure 6). These results were primarily based on the predicted change in vegetation height and
root characteristics; they do not account for changes to the composition of the plant community as
native grasses and flowers replace invasive grasses.
Pest Regulation
Finally, ORD investigated natural control of the extensive groundhog population inhabiting the site.
Due to the lack of models addressing this issue, the team consulted a biologist from the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service's Pennsylvania Field Office. This consultation confirmed the benefits of a
reduced groundhog population on the site and the likelihood that these revitalization options would
reduce the site's appeal as groundhog habitat.
Stakeholder Workshop
Initially envisioned as an in-person event in Springettsbury, the workshop was adapted to the
limitations of the COVID-19 pandemic. To maximize participation without excessive demands on
participants' time, the workshop took place in two phases: a series of one-on-one virtual
conversations and a single virtual group webinar. Although participation in both phases was
encouraged, participants only able to participate in one or the other were welcomed.
12
-------
FRTT
f / y /
&
-------
One-on-One Conversations
The stakeholder workshop process began with one-on-one conversations with stakeholders
including York County residents, educators, and representatives from federal/state/local agencies
and NGOs. Participants included all stakeholders who had expressed interest when the site's
community involvement coordinator reached out to them. Interviews took place over the first two
weeks of November 2020. Each of the 12 participants offered a perspective that was helpful in
ensuring that the community was aware and involved in the plans and engaged in the process.
Overall, participants expressed enthusiasm for the project and viewed it as an opportunity for the
site to do more for the community, particularly for education. They strongly supported increased
species diversity, improved aesthetics, more habitat for pollinators and birds, more wildflowers,
and less mowing. Conversations also revealed a range of opinions and concerns for the resources
needed for ongoing maintenance of the site, fencing options, and weed removal methods. The
overall enthusiasm and interest in the project gave the team the opportunity to have productive
conversations with local stakeholders about what they wanted to see at the site and which possible
option could best accomplish those goals.
Virtual Webinar
The virtual webinar, held November 16, 2020, was
aimed at having meaningful group discussions with
stakeholders about the details of each revitalization
option and potential changes to ecosystem services.
Time was also devoted to answering questions and
addressing concerns from the one-on-one
conversations. The webinar was broken down into
eight sections.
The webinar began with a brief introduction and
orientation including background about the EMZ
site, the project process, and the concept (and
importance) of EGS. Discussions included previous
groundhog trapping efforts at the site, noting that
trapping is not a viable long-term solution to the
groundhog problem.
Eight-Step Webinar
1. Openings and introductions
2. Orientation: process/site/ecosystem
services
3. What we care about—stakeholder
interviews
4. Results from other sites
5. Ecosystem services and community
values
6. Making it happen: implementation
options
7. Making choices: tradeoffs
8. Next steps and adjournment
The third step was a discussion of the results and input from the one-on-one conversations. In
addition to reemphasizing the overall enthusiasm for the project, this conversation revealed the
desire for a diverse wildflower community and warm-season grasses on the landfill cap.
Before moving into a discussion of options for the site and its ecosystem services, webinar hosts
gave a presentation on 10 similar ecological restoration sites in the region. This allowed participants
to have a clear understanding of what was possible for EMZ. Each site had ecological outcomes
similar to those possible for the EMZ site or had similar landscapes that could be used as examples
when planning EMZ revitalization. The discussion following this presentation focused again on the
groundhog issue. It was identified that no other site had a groundhog problem as significant as the
EMZ site.
14
-------
Once the possible futures for the EMZ site had been clarified, discussion moved to the results of the
ecosystem service analysis. To simplify the discussion, the presentation focused on comparing two
scenarios investigated with five ecosystem service models and one expert consultation: the status
quo versus a proposed native meadow (based on the revitalization examples from other sites). The
results of the analyses were presented, and community members were invited to provide input on
their values and preferences related to ecosystem benefits. The modeled results allowed
participants to explore the range of possible options for the site and to engage in open discussion
about the impacts and tradeoffs of each option.
The InVEST carbon storage model and its results were presented first. The group was asked to
identify how much they value carbon storage at the site. Most participants recognized the
importance of carbon storage, but they put a lower priority on increasing carbon storage than on
other ecosystem services.
Next, webinar hosts shared the InVEST pollination model results, which showed that the native
grassland scenario will help increase both monarch butterfly and American bumblebee abundance.
They began discussion by asking stakeholders which pollinators they valued most at this site
(because different revegetation options would support different pollinator types). As discussion
continued, stakeholders noted that the various pollinator preferences could be a good opportunity
for continued community and school involvement, fostering interest in the local plant community
and offering opportunities for citizen science. A participant offered the opportunity to view a 7-acre
pollinator meadow at an environmental preserve in southern York County that could serve as an
example for the EMZ site revitalization.
The InVEST threatened/endangered species model indicated that introducing new habitat might
attract threatened or endangered species. Participants were asked how they value threatened or
endangered species, which revealed an interest in the federally listed rusty patched bumblebee.
The EMZ site is not their preferred habitat and is not within their current known range, so no model
had been made for this species. The pollinators that were modeled, including the early hairstreak
butterfly, are expected to increase in abundance and other species listed in the Pennsylvania
Natural Heritage Inventory may also increase in abundance in the revitalized site.
The ESII tool modeled multiple ecosystem functions and services, comparing two revitalization
scenarios. It revealed many benefits, most notably increases in erosion regulation, nitrogen
removal, carbon uptake, and water interception, as well as better water filtration, under both the
native-meadow scenarios compared to the status quo. Workshop participants noted that these
changes were expected with any site remediation involving native plant species.
Discussion from the bird models revealed that participants would like to see an increase in the bird
populations at the site—specifically raptors and grassland species—and an increase in general
nesting opportunities. Similar cases indicate that an increase in bird populations will result from the
native meadow scenario; however, the size of the site will likely limit what types of species it
attracts.
The final set of results shared were the results of the expert consultation, which confirmed that the
dense population of groundhogs needed to be controlled and indicated that the native grassland
scenario was a potentially effective approach for doing so. Stakeholders offered various ideas and
15
-------
solutions when asked about groundhogs on the site. Methods to naturally deter groundhogs from
the site were discussed including undesirable vegetation, physical barriers, or allowing for more
predators to enter the site. Another suggestion was to control rather than eradicate the groundhog
population on the site. The last suggestion was to try trapping methods that have not been
attempted at the site, like kill trapping rather than trapping and releasing.
Once the ecosystem services models and tradeoffs were understood, the discussion shifted to
implementation options. The three major steps to creating a native meadow at the site are weed
removal, revegetation, and maintenance. The alternatives had been identified in the technical
workshop but refined and specified for the stakeholder workshop (Table 1, above). Three weed
removal options were presented to the group for discussion: synthetic herbicide, natural herbicide,
and grazing sheep/goats. Participants suggested ways to avoid synthetic herbicide after discussion
revealed concerns about its use.
• The first suggestion involved intensive mechanical treatments like frequent mowing to
control invasive plants. Some limitations to this suggestion are the high cost of frequent
mowing, the need to use specialized mowing equipment on the landfill cap slope, and the
fact that frequent mowing would produce groundhog-favorable habitat.
• Another suggestion involved limited intensive herbicide use followed by targeted herbicide
application for areas with hard-to-manage vegetation.
A major, repeatedly mentioned benefit of synthetic herbicide was the speed and certainty with
which it could remove the unwanted vegetation. This benefit is significant, given the project's
timeline and the need to be certain that invasive plants are removed before investing in
revegetation efforts. Multiple participants advised managers to develop a careful vegetation
management strategy that balances effectiveness and risk management.
Revegetation options included a variety of seed mix and shrub options. Several participants
indicated that the option producing the highest percentage and diversity of wildflowers did not
seem worth the high cost. Stronger support was expressed for a mix of grasses and a slightly higher
percentage of wildflowers (to receive the wildflowers' ecosystem services while still including a
broader range of grasses). Some participants suggested applying different combinations of seed
mixes on the property to target specific types of plants. Participants supported the use of shrubs to
create a soft border with the woodland, providing more habitat for nesting birds and fruit-eating
wildlife. They also supported putting funds toward shrubbery rather than wildlife structures like
artificial bird and pollinator habitats.
Finally, options for mowing were discussed. The stakeholder interviews had shown that the
community preferred less mowing to allow taller grasses and native species to develop. Discussion
revealed that some mowing will be needed, though it will become less frequent as the native
habitat develops.
The next section of the virtual stakeholder workshop was about making choices and understanding
tradeoffs. Discussions explored the participants' understanding of tradeoffs and balance between
cost and managing expectations of desired outcomes. Participants also noted the importance of
monitoring neighboring woodlands to keep invasive plant species from spreading onto the EMZ site.
16
-------
Polling
In addition to the discussions themselves, the webinar facilitator solicited stakeholder input
through polling exercises (Appendix C). Only three or four of the eight webinar participants
responded to any given question—a response pool too small to reliably reflect a majority
stakeholder opinion. Nonetheless, the polling results were useful, and they were supplemented by
discussions among the full group of each question.
The first polling exercise took place during the ecosystem model presentation. Participants were
asked to rank how they value different EGS at the site. Polling respondents generally ranked
pollinators, endangered/threatened butterflies, native plants, and grassland birds as very important
to them. Reduced water infiltration was valued less. On average, carbon storage and groundhog
population control were also valued less, but there was a greater spread in respondents' rankings.
During the second polling exercise, participants were asked to rank how important changes were to
meadow seeding, shrubs around wetlands, providing structures for wildlife, and noise reduction
due to less mowing. Meadow seeding, shrubs around wetlands, and providing structure for wildlife
were ranked very highly, while noise reduction was considerably less valued.
Another set of exercises involved participants voting for which weed removal, seed mix, shrub
planting, and mowing regime they preferred:
• Two participants voted for synthetic weed removal, while one chose natural/organic weed
removal.
• There was a split on which seed mix to use. Half of the participants chose a high percentage
of wildflowers while the other half chose an even mix of native grasses and wildflowers.
• Every polling participant voted for planting shrubs around the fence and the wetland.
• Mowing regime results were varied. Two participants preferred mowing once every three
years. One participant preferred mowing one-third of the site every year. The last
participant preferred mowing once every five years.
Finally, participants were asked which combination of actions they preferred. They were given three
options:
• Synthetic weed removal (lowest cost) with the most diverse seed mix (most expensive).
• Natural/organic weed removal (the highest cost) with tall grasses with some wildflowers
(low cost).
• Animal grazing plus spot synthetic treatment, with an even mix of grass and wildflowers
(both medium cost).
Two of the three polling participants voted for the synthetic weed removal option with the most
diverse seed mix. There was no support for natural/organic weed removal with tall grasses and
some wildflowers. Participants were asked one final question about which additional action they
would like to see. All participants preferred seeing additional expenditures on shrub planting rather
than wildlife structures.
17
-------
Key Takeaways
The key takeaways from the stakeholder workshop were as follows:
• There was broad support for revitalization of the site. All participants supported site
revitalization and saw it as an opportunity to bring increased value to the community.
• While participants saw the potential value of natural weed removal options, overall, they
felt that the increased effectiveness and speed associated with synthetic herbicides made
them the reasonable choice given the time frame and resources associated with the project
overall.
• Participants were in favor of the revegetation seed mix containing both a diverse mix of
wildflowers as well as some grasses and shrubs.
These key takeaways were used to guide development of the work plan for the site.
Plan Implementation and Monitoring
Ecological revitalization experts relied on the key takeaways from the stakeholder workshop and
their previous experience with similar revitalization to develop a vegetation removal and
revegetation plan for the site.
Vegetation Removal
Vegetation removal is the first stage in the revitalization process. Synthetic herbicides were the
chosen removal option due to their effectiveness, speed, and cost. The first synthetic herbicide
application occurred in spring 2021 using two active ingredients (glyphosate and imazapyr). This
herbicide mix was applied to eliminate all vegetation on the site except in the wetland basin. The
herbicide was applied to most of the site using a tractor-mounted sprayer, with backpack
application along the perimeter. Routine mowing continued through summer 2021 to prevent the
weeds from going to seed. A second synthetic herbicide application using the same methods
occurred in the late summer or early fall. Spot treatments in spring 2022 eliminated any persistent
weeds or new growth before revegetation.
Plantings
A cover crop of cereal rye was planted in the fall of 2021, after the second herbicide application, to
stabilize the site for the winter. The native wildflower and grass seed mix was planted in spring of
2022. The landfill cover consists of Northeast native wildflowers, grasses, and pollinator species.
The perimeter of the landfill was seeded with creeping red fescue and alsike clover. Shrubs were
planted along the fence perimeter and wetland. Various shrub species were planted along the fence
depending on availability; there is a total of 244 shrubs along the fence perimeter. Four species of
wetland shrubs were planted in clusters of three on the cap side of the wetland, to make a total of
12 wetland shrubs.
18
-------
Note that the full benefits from native revitalization efforts can take time to accrue. Figures 7a
through 7d illustrate vegetative revitalization at two sites. Figures 7a and 7b show years 1 and 2
after planting at a site similar to the EMZ site. In year 1, bare ground and low vegetation are
expected. Then in years two and three, shorter-lived and more easily established species become
dominant.
Figures 7a-7b. Vegetative revitalization at a site similar to the EMZ site, where shorter-lived and
more easily established species become dominant by years two and three.
Figures 7c and 7d show progress at the EMZ site. Figure 7c shows how the oat cover crop is
becoming established among the foxtail, which is a persistent cover that has been hard to control.
Figure 7d is a closeup of the same area, showing the foxtail, oat cover crop, and partridge pea,
which is part of the perennial mix that was planted-
Figures 7c-7d. Vegetative revitalization at the EMZ site, where there was
less bare ground because an oat cover crop was planted.
19
-------
Wildlife Structures
Funding provided for inclusion of other habitat enhancements on the site. Four pairs of
bluebird/tree swallow boxes will be placed around the site perimeter. A kestrel box will be placed
on the western fence at a 20-foot height and one owl box will be set in the northeast corner at a 20-
foot height.
Overall
This project is expected to produce a variety of favorable outcomes for the environment and the
community. Not only will there be increased measures to protect the landfill cap from groundhog
activity, but increased native vegetation will also help prevent erosion, limit infiltration, and reduce
mowing costs. It will also increase pollinator and native songbird populations, and an overall
ecological revitalization will improve the ecosystem services that will create a beautiful asset for the
community. Finally, the structured approaches in the EMZ project can function as a template for
other revitalization projects.
20
-------
Next Steps
The ultimate goal of this project is to revitalize the EMZ landfill site in a way that increases its value
to the community. The technical workshop identified the full set of options to be considered. The
ecosystem service modeling and expert consultation estimated the potential impacts of those
options on ecosystem service production. The stakeholder workshop then allowed community
members to see the connections between these revitalization options and ecosystem services and
express their preferences for revitalization of the site.
The chosen revitalization option should lead to a more aesthetically appealing site with increased
bird and pollinator populations, reduced pest species populations, and significant maintenance cost
savings. The site should also see some modest increases in erosion control, water interception, and
carbon storage.
The project team will continue to communicate with the community as work on the site progresses.
For further updates and answers, visit the EMZ site webpage (https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/
cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0301426) or reach out to EPA Region 3 community involvement
coordinator Alex Mandell at mandell.alexander(5)epa.gov.
21
-------
Quality Assurance
The information in this report was gathered and generated under a Center for Environmental
Measurement and Modeling (CEMM) Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) titled East Mount Zion
Landfill Cap Ecological Revitalization, J-GEMM-0032570-QP-1-0, effective date 6/17/2020. This
report has been reviewed by the ORD/CEMM/Ecosystem Processes Division Quality Assurance
Manager and it has been determined to be consistent with EPA Category B quality assurance
requirements. There are no significant deviations from the approved QAPP.
The data in this report are limited by level of community participation. Although every effort was
made to maximize community input, the data collected cannot be assumed to cover the
perspectives of segments of the community that did not participate.
22
-------
References
Newcomer-Johnson T., et al. (2020) National Ecosystem Services Classification System (NESCS Plus).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/600/R-20/267. https://www.epa.gov/eco-
research/national-ecosystem-services-classification-system-nescs-plus
Otis D, Crumpton W., et al. (2010) Assessment of Environmental Services of CREP Wetlands in Iowa
and the Midwestern Corn Belt. USDA Farm Services Agency.
https://doi.Org/10.13140/2.l.3471.6484
Rosenberg K., et al. (2016) Partners in Flight Landbird Conservation Plan: 2016 Revision for Canada
and Continental United States. Partners in Flight Science Committee.
https://partnersinflight.org/
Sharpe LM (2021) FEGS Scoping Tool User Manual. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
EPA/600/X-21/104. https://www.epa.gov/eco-research/final-ecosystem-goods-and-
services-fegs-scoping-tool
Sullivan B. et al. (2009) eBird: A citizen-based bird observation network in the biological
sciences. Biological Conservation 142(10): 2282-2292.
https://doi.Org/10.1016/i.biocon.2009.05.006
Tallis H. et al. (2014) Integrated Valuation of Environmental Services and Tradeoffs (InVEST) 3.1.0
User's Guide. Natural Capital Project, Stanford University.
https://naturalcapitalproiect.stanford.edu/software/invest
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2020. Monarch (Danaus plexippus) Species Status Assessment Report.
V2.1 96 pp + appendices.
Vaughan D., Shepherd M. (2005) Species Profile: Erora laeta. In Shepherd M., Vaughan D., Black S.
(eds.) Red List of Pollinator Insects of North America. CD-ROM Version 1. The Xerces Society
for Invertebrate Conservation.
23
-------
Appendix A: Ecosystem Goods and Services Matrix
Ecosystem
Service
Human Beneficiaries
Means or Method to
Achieve
Cross Cutting Issues,
Constraints, or Co
benefits
Improved water
quality
Downgradient well
users
Vegetation to increase
evapotranspiration and
decrease erosion
Additional eco-impacts:
stream biota that
benefit from clean
groundwater into
surface water
Reduction of pest
rodents
(groundhogs)
Management agencies
through reduced O&M
costs/issues and
downgradient well
users
Tall (18"—24")
vegetative cover; higher
density of vegetative
cover; traps
Helps with erosion
control; If groundhogs
are displaced, will they
negatively impact
another property
Aesthetics
Nearby residents; park
users
Attractive vegetative
cover
Local economy from
potential increase in
recreational visitors
Bird watching
Bird watchers; park
users; school groups;
residents; NGOs;
photographers
Through direct or
indirect access; seed
mix and structure of
vegetation create bird
habitat
Benefit may be limited
due to lack of site
access
Walking or hiking
Nearby residents; park
users
Through direct access
or path along the
outside and in adjacent
parks
Benefit may be limited
due to lack of site
access
Butterfly
watching
Park users; school
groups; residents;
NGOs; photographers
Through direct and
indirect access; seed
mix promotes nectar
variety and host plants
Benefit may be limited
due to lack of site
access
Pollination
Gardeners; farmers;
honey producers
Seed mix; nesting
habitat
Carbon
sequestration
General public
Vegetation and
increased soil organic
matter
Nutrient
retention
General public
Vegetation types;
maintenance practices
Heat
mitigation/reduct
ion
Nearby residents; local
users
Vegetation types;
maintenance practices
Co-benefit to localized
biota
24
-------
Ecosystem
Service
Human Beneficiaries
Means or Method to
Achieve
Cross Cutting Issues,
Constraints, or Co
benefits
Stormwater
retention
Nearby residents; local
users; downstream
users
Vegetation types;
maintenance practices
Reduced noise
Nearby residents; local
users; management
agencies through
reduced O&M costs
Reduced mowing due
to type of vegetation
and changes in
maintenance practices
Vegetation
Reduce costs
Management agencies
Vegetation changes;
reduced mowing
Reduced air
emissions
Nearby residents; local
users; general public
Reduced mowing
Reduced invasive
weeds
Nearby residents; local
park users
Reducing invasive
weeds leads to reduced
O&M practices; fewer
weeds in residential
yards
Co-benefit is reduced
herbicide use
Improved
amphibian
habitat
Nearby residents; local
users; NGOs
Enhance habitat quality
of retention basis
Increased attraction of
birds; reduced insects
Increased usage
of adjacent parks
Park users
More attractive site
draws more visitors
Co-benefits might be
economic from
increased revenues
from visitors
25
-------
Appendix B: ESII Tool Glossary
Reprinted here with permission from EcoMetrix Solutions Group, developer of the ESII tool.
Aesthetics — Noise Attenuation: A measure of a site or landscape's potential to attenuate sound
from anthropogenic sources as it travels across a site to a potential recipient.
Air Temperature Regulation: A measure of the ability to help moderate extreme ambient air
temperatures. The function focuses primarily on moderating high temperatures.
Air Quality-Nitrogen Removal: A measure of the landscape's position to improve air quality through
the removal of airborne nitrogen.
Carbon Uptake: A measure of the landscape's potential to uptake and store carbon compounds,
both aboveground and below ground, in vegetative structures and soil.
Nitrogen Removal: A measure of the landscape's ability to improve air quality through the removal
of airborne particulate matter.
Nitrogen Storage: A measure of the ability of a landscape to store nitrogen.
Soil Mobility: A measure of the ability of the landscape to provide and mobilize sediment through
aeolian or fluvial erosive processes.
Soil Quality: A measure of the ability of soil to support the dynamic processes necessary to
promote terrestrial plant growth.
Water Filtration: A measure of the ability of vegetative or soil structures to filter particulate matter
from water.
Water Temperature Regulation: A measure of the landscape's ability to maintain cool surface
water temperatures.
Water Quantity Control: A measure of the landscape's ability to adequately manage and convey a
25-year storm event. This service includes elements that predict both water storage and water
transport potential.
26
-------
Appendix C: Polling Questions and Results
Q1. Please rank the following goods and
services.
4 Msnbmetor
0!
e
p
e
i
&
~
£
1. Carbon storage
«©
2, Reduced water mflltratlon (reduces impacts to t he ondfH rented vt
3 Groundhog reduction
4. Pottnotors
5- Endangered or threatened butterflses ike the Ear ly Harstn
6. Endangered or threatened plants
7 More rare grassland b/ds
o
©
E
2
¦:
t?
O
8
$
0
a
D
a
v>
B
a
0
a
1
o
2
1 Meadow seeding
2. Shrubs around wetlands
3. Providing structure for wildlife
4, Noise reduction duefry less mowing over time
23
as
o>
c
o
.c
u
-------
Q2, Part 2. Which Weed Removal option do you prefer to
prepare the site? (Choose One)
Q2, Part 3. Which Seed Mix/Planting option do you
prefer? (Choose One)
High pe reentage of nvddfkawef s •
• Even mix erf grass ar>d
wildftowefs
23
-------
Q2, Part 4. Which Shrub Planting option do you
prefer? (Choose One)
100%
Shrub pta nitng around fence
artd wetland
Q2, Part 5. Which Mowing option do you prefer?
(Choose One)
Mowing once every 3 years •
29
-------
Q3, Part 1. Which "Package" of actions do you
prefer? (Choose One):
Synthetic wood renriowi (,th« lowest cost; wSh lite Anmd grasing plus tfxfl. synthetic Ireafrnerrt with an Nafcar-a/Oganc wood removal (the hic^ies! coat] with
ros*d»vere® wedm»xiv©5t cost J
0
¦
Q3r Part 2. Which additional option for a "package" of
actions do you prefer? (Choose One):
100%
Additional
expenditures on
shrub planting
0%
Wildlife
structures
30
-------
&EFK
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. (6207J)
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
EPA 600-R-21-317
December 2022
------- |