19 landscape management plan prospect park by Andropogon Associates, Ltd

A Landscape Management Plan for The Natural Areas ofProspect Park .

prepared by The Prospect Park Landscape Management Office 95 Prospect Park West Brooklyn, New York 11215 Edward Toth, Director

Andropogon Associates, Ltd 374 Shurs Lane Philadelphia, PA 19128 Leslie Sauer, Principal

This report wa. supported in part by II graDt from the National Endowment for the Arts, II federalilgency.

Prospect Park Alliance, Inc.

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments Introduction I. Historic Landscape Character

A. Historic Extent of Woodlands -- 1865 Geology Soils Vegetation History Map I -- Historic Extent of Woodlands -- 1865 B. Olmsted and Vaux Design Intent Map II -- Olmsted and Vaux Design Intent

Page

4 6 15 15 15 16 18 19 23 24 26

II. Current Landscape Conditions A. Current Cover Types Map III -- Current Cover Types B. Soil Disturbance -- 1992 Map IV -- Soil Disturbance -- 1992 C. Woodland Condition -- 1992 Map V -- Woodland Condition -- 1992 D. Canopy Gaps -- 1992 Map VI -- Canopy Gaps -- 1992

27 27 29 30 33 34 36 37 38

III. Landscape Management Plan

39 40 41 45 46 46 46 52

A. The Forest Core Natural Area B. Proposed Cover Types -- 1994 Map VII -- Proposed Cover Types -- 1994 C. Landscape Action Strategies Recommended Strategies Stabilization,Restoration, etc. Actions Related Actions

Table of Contents, continued

IV. Implementation Plan A. Stabilization Techniques B. Phasing Criteria Map VIII -- Management Units C. Sample Stabilization Scenario Table IV-I: Management Unit 4 Summary Table Table 1V-2: Management Unit 4 Work Calendar Table 1V-3: Management Unit 4 Phasing Table D. Staffing Requirements E. Equipment and Materials Requirements F. Cost Summaries Table 1V-4: Total Costs G. Monitoring and Ongoing Maintenance

Page

55 56 60 66 67 71

72 74 79 82 85 85 87

Acknowledgments This study was made possible by a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts, through its Design Arts Program, to the Prospect Park Alliance. The development of this Plan and the writing of this report was truly a collaborative effort. The development of the Plan grew out of the actual experience of the Park's Natural Resources Crew in attempting to stabilize sections of the woodlands. These experiences were enumerated and codified into strategies in a series of meetings between this office and Leslie Sauer, principal of Andropogon Associates who were retained as consultants for the project. This was followed by a period of field mapping by the Natural Resources Crew that led to the production of the eight maps in the report and the tabulation of all of the raw data needed to proceed. The broad details of the Management Plan were worked out in a series of meetings in 1992 and 1993. The original report was prepared by Andropogon Associates with several extensive revisions back and forth between their office and the Landscape Management Office, including the insertion by this office of the entire discussion on geology, soils and vegetation and the development of the plant list. Andropogon Associates prepared an initial cost estimate for implementation of the Plan. While useful, this office felt the need for a much more detailed estimate, one that went beyond the agreed upon scope of work. Therefore it was decided to independently pursue the development of the detailed Implementation Plan that concludes this report and makes up the bulk of the appendices. I would like to thank the following people: The Prospect Park Alliance and its chairman Henry Christensen III for making this study possible. Leslie Sauer and Carol Franklin of Andropogon Associates for their vision, guidance, and wisdom in developing and preparing this Plan. Thanks also to those members of their staff most directly involved in the project Yaki Miodovnik, Brian Lee, and Karen Finan. I would like to thank my staff, most especially Ainsley Caldwell, Natural Resources Crew Supervisor. His practical and theoretical knowledge of forestry made this Plan possible. He and his staff, field technicians Anne Wong and Darwin Cornell labored tirelessly to produce all of the raw maps, data, and finished tables and charts that are the heart of this document. They know the woodlands in Prospect Park as no one else ever will. 4

The Natural Resources Crew is one of five such crews operating citywide and constituting the Urban Forest & Education Program (UFEP), a project of City Parks Foundation and New York City Parks & Recreation financed by the Lila Wallace Reader's Digest Fund. Additional support is provided by the Prospect Park Alliance. Sid Burke, who interned in this office in the Summer of 1993 and now is a staff landscape architect in the Design and Construction Office, is responsible for most of the research and writing of the sections on geology, soils, and vegetation and for compiling the plant list and bibliography. This report would be incomplete without these documents which provide an essential resource for the future. Elliott Maltby who interned in this office through the Spring and Summer of 1994 performed tirelessly in helping to assemble the implementation plan. Bruce Nash, Jr. a volunteer from John Jay High School, ably assisted with xeroxing and collating- in fact he is the king of xeroxingl Eileen Farmarco, my administrative assistant, whose mastery of spreadsheets and all things computerish and whose long hours of help made it possible and enjoyable to assemble this document. Tupper Thomas, Prospect Park Administrator, for providing leadership and direction, and most importantly, the atmosphere within which innovation is not only possible, but nurtured. Rex Wassermann, RLA and Chris DiMatteo, former Park Arborist and current grad student provided crucial historical information and input on the Olmsted and Vaux design and were active participants in the rounds of meetings that formulated the Plan as were Ainsley Caldwell and Sid Burke. Valuable reviews of this Plan and document were provided by Tupper Thomas, Rex Wassermann, Charles Gili, Chief of Operations, Mary Fox, Director of Design and Construction, Barbara Caldwell, Director of Public Information , Scott Lundius, Director of Visitor Services, and Barbara McTiernan, V.P. for Development of the Prospect Park Alliance. Lastly, I'd like to thank all of my coworkers for their patience, understanding, and endurance during what has been a prolonged and arduous journey, but one that has been vastly rewarding. Edward Toth 8/94 Director ofLandscape Management

A Landscape Management Plan for the Natural Areas of Prospect Park

Introduction Prospect Park, a New York City landmark on the National Register of Historic Places, is considered by many to be Frederick Law Olmsted and Calvert Vaux's finest work. Its picturesque design epitomizes the modern urban park with a winding path system through a pastoral setting of specimen trees and broad meadows enclosed by woodlands that buffer the adjacent urban landscape. Dramatic natural features were as important to their design as the more intensively managed areas. Their proposal sought to protect the bulk of the remnant forest on the site and included the creation of a lake and several small ponds connected by a stream channel flowing through a wide array of habitats. The beauty of these natural areas contributed immeasurably to the character of the landscape, creating some of the feelings of nature in the heart of Brooklyn. Olmsted and Vaux managed these landscapes by design, with a careful editing and enhancement of the native woodlands. Like many other urban natural areas, the quality of these landscapes has deteriorated steadily over time. Today, these last remaining woodlands in Brooklyn are faced with extinction if action is not taken soon. Fortunately, the past fourteen years have seen a focus on renewal in the Park. In 1980, in response to perhaps the last desperate cries from the community to save one of Brooklyn's treasures, a first-ever Park Administrator was appointed by the mayor of New York to serve as the principal advocate and manager for the 526-acre park. Prior to 1980 the Park was in terrible shape, most of the infrastructure -- including buildings, bridges, and path systems were in utter decay. Usership was at an all-time low. Most people were afraid to use the Park. From the outset, the Administrator, Tupper Thomas, focused attention on the need to increase Park attendance, realizing that only a rejuvenated and active usership would save the Park. Efforts through most of the 1980's focused on the most visible signs of decay -- the many landmarked buildings and bridges. As people witnessed this renewal attendance sky-rocketed. Today, it approaches 6 million visits a year and Prospect Park is truly 'Brooklyn's backyard' again. However, this renewed interest has not been without its price. The landscape, neglected for over 50 years, 6

now suffers a second assault from the sheer volume of people walking over almost every square inch of soil within the Park's boundaries. This heavy usership has influenced the Park's management staff in its formulation of management strategies. Very early on it lead them to question how best to manage the whole park - how to preserve its woodlands and other natural features while accommodating the vital, but intense usership. And so the focus has been on addressing the Park's problems, not in isolation, but on a Park-wide basis. Simultaneous with the restoration of individual structures, efforts were made to systematically explore the Park's history and design intent with the same goal of understanding the Park as a whole, and to come to understand how to repair the Park's troubled landscape. A series of Historic Landscape Reports (HLR's) were commissioned to explain, inventory, and assess the Park's historical, cultural and natural resources and to guide its restoration. The first of these reports was published in 1984 and focused on the Ravine district -the core setting for the whole of the Park, where the forested slopes of morainal hills formed by glaciers ten thousand years ago were interspersed with the Park's magnificent, man-made water course. These woodlands, remnants of the original vegetational coverage of Western Long Island, had been largely neglected for the entire history of the Park with the exception of the earliest years of construction. While the HLR focused on the historic aspects of the design for the Ravine, it did little to address the ecological state and needs of the forest itself. Out of an effort to come to grips with these ecological issues, a Landscape Management Office was formed in the late 1980's and it began to address not only the needs of the forests, but sought an understanding of how the entire landscape -- its broad, sweeping lawns, its buffering perimeter woodlands, and its forested core not only combined to define the Park, but formed an interdependent landscape as well. One of its first efforts was to conduct a parkwide survey of all non-woodland trees which created a 10,000 record database of these trees for use in their management. With this database as a foundation a Tree Planting Master Plan was created that utilized all available historic information on Olmsted & Vaux's placement of specimen trees to guide future replanting of the open meadow landscape in the Park. Simultaneously, the Park's first Design and Construction Office was formed and a full time staff of Landscape Architects, Architects and other professionals focused on restoration projects throughout the

Park, and engaged in preparing a Park-wide Master Plan as well. In the 1990's Park Management has come of age in Prospect Park. In 1987 the Prospect Park Alliance was formed as a not-for-profit fundraising arm for the Park. Through their efforts several grants have been secured that have resulted in management studies of the Park. This present study was made possible through a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts to develop a Landscape Management Plan for the Natural Areas of Prospect Park. Through this study we have examined the problems affecting the woodlands and have proposed not only broad strategies for managing them, but have also put forth a very specific implementation plan to carry out the strategies. We have defined the Park's Core Natural Areas and have placed them within the landscape context of the whole Park. The resultant zonal definitions will not only guide landscape management policy, but usership policy as well, as the Administrator's Office seeks to manage how and where the public interacts with the landscape. Out of this effort it is hoped that the Park will function as a unified whole -- embracing Olmsted's original sweeping design for the Park, protecting its landscape (in particular its Natural Areas) with sound ecological management methods and preserving its future. CURRENT STATE OF THE WOODS But what is the current condition of the Park's forests, and what is their future if we do not intervene? Today, a tour by even the most casual observer would reveal a horrible scene of neglect and decay. The woods have become increasingly fragmented and open as stressed trees topple to the ground leaving light gaps in the forest. Severe soil compaction, especially on the Park's highly-erodable hillsides have caused huge gullies to form. The eroded soils from these gullies have moved downslope and silted all parts of the Park's intricate water course -its ponds, streams and lakes. And if we do not act? Every windstorm topples more trees. Examination reveals almost no surviving root structure. The root systems are slowly dying as they are cut off from air and water by the mere act of millions of people walking and biking over the soils that the trees are dependent on to live and grow. Such traffic causes the soil to lose its structure and collapse, closing up the air

and water spaces within which the roots must live. Slowly the trees are strangled, become malnourished, and die. The loss of ground-level or understory vegetation is associated with trampling, downslope erosion, and even earlier management strategies that called for understory or "brush" clearing, and have denied these forest woodlands the next generation of trees that should be quietly growing in this layer, waiting to replace their progenitors overhead in the forest canopy. Meanwhile, very aggressive non-native weed trees are occupying ground formerly dominated by native vegetation. These plants are capable of growing in the present-day poor soil conditions and form extensive monocultures. The collapse of these woodland ecosystems is at hand. The future holds the promise of large tracts of monocultures consisting of three or four species, largely devoid of the variety and richness that once was here. Such woods would hold little value for wildlife, depriving migratory birds of an important stopover on their yearly migrations. In addition, very little resident wildlife would survive, having been deprived of food, shelter and cover. PLANNING FOR THE WOODS The future can be quite different. With a carefully executed plan to first stabilize and then restore these woodlands to a state of health, environmental integrity and diversity can be restored. The educational, recreational, and health benefits of such a setting would be immeasurable to the millions of annual visitors to the Park. These woodlands will not become pristine reserves, but they can become working ecosystems, managed for diversity and sustainability and available to Brooklynites and other New Yorkers as a place to enjoy nature much as Olmsted and Vaux hoped for. In the late 1980's planning for the first landscape restoration project, Ravine Phase I, was initiated. Framed in the historical context of the Olmsted and Vaux design it will utilize the native vegetation of the original park setting and the concept of ecological park management as the unifying principles for restoration. The strategy seeks to minimize labor-intensive management practices by

maximizing the ability of the Park's ecosystems to sustain themselves. l It is within this framework that this present study was undertaken

as well. Building on experience gained by the Park's recently created Natural Resources Crew, concrete prescriptions for stabilization of the Park's woodland environments have been tested and then quantified. This information has provided one of the key building blocks for this management plan. Upon receiving the NEA grant, the Administrator's Office commissioned Andropogon Associates of Philadelphia, Pa. to act as project coordinators to work closely with the Landscape Management Office in developing this Plan. This report, which is an important component of the larger foreseen Master Plan of Prospect Park, is intended to describe the proposed program for restoring and managing the Natural Areas of Prospect Park and is comprised of four sections: 1. Historic Landscape Character - An assessment of the overall vegetation cover type and character of the natural landscapes of the site prior to the construction of Prospect Park, and secondly, of the landscape types originally proposed by Olmsted and Vaux for the Park.

2. Current Landscape Conditions - A series of maps and descriptions that illustrate the condition of the Park's landscapes today, including current cover type, woodland condition, canopy gaps, and soil disturbance. These maps also give dimension and scale to the landscape impacts and management requirements that are proposed. 3. A Landscape Management Plan - A description of the proposed Natural Area designation and proposed cover types for it and for the entire Park, as well as recommended Action Strategies for the stabilization, restoration, and management of the Natural Area. These methods also will be applicable for use throughout the Park in areas of similar cover type outside the Natural Area boundary, including many of the more formal and intensely used landscape zones.

lSee: Toth, Edward; "An Eosystem Approach to Woodland Management: The Case of Prospect Park"; National Association for Olmsted Parks, Workbook Series, Volume 2 Technical Notes; National Association for Olmsted Parks; Bethesda, MD; 1991.

4. An Implementation Plan - A detailed Implementation Plan for the first phase of management- the initial stabilization of the designated Natural Areas. It includes a cost estimate for implementation. Most of the technical data from this section is contained in a separate volume of Appendices and includes budgets for staffing, equipment, and materials. The work process during this project was intended to optimize the involvement of those who are responsible for the on-going care and management of the landscape. All of the inventory mapping of the existing conditions analysis as well as the determination of the Implementation Plan was accomplished by the Prospect Park Landscape Management Office including Ainsley Caldwell, Natural Resource Crew Supervisor, Ann Wong and Darwin Cornell, Natural Resource Crew Field Technicians, under the direction of Edward Toth, Director of Landscape Management. The historic conditions mapping and analysis was undertaken,by Chris DiMatteo under the direction of Rex Wassermann, R.L.A., archivist and historian of Prospect Park, and Edward Toth. Additional meetings and working sessions included Tupper Thomas, the Prospect Park Administrator, Charles Gili, Chief of Operations, and other Park program directors. This Plan reflects the best knowledge we have at this time. Strategies and estimates for the management of the Natural Areas will become more sophisticated and accurate with time and experience, and will be modified when appropriate. As the Park's Master Plan proceeds, design decisions will be made which will also modify this Plan and its proposed management zones. This will include the careful management of the woodlands to preserve the many historic vistas which are a part of the original design of the Park. This report in intended to demonstrate to the public at-large as well as to those more intimately engaged in the Park's welfare that a carefully-conceived, well-documented, rational plan exists to carry the management of this invaluable resource from vision to reality. The report will also be used by the Prospect Park Alliance to better understand the commitment it has made. In 1994 the Alliance will launch its most ambitious fundraising effort to date: a "Save the Forest" Campaign that will seek to fund the restoration effort described in this report. This document will serve as the blueprint for that effort which will span the next quarter-century. To meet that goal the Alliance will attempt to reach a $600,000 per year

level of funding for the program within the next five years and then maintain that level of funding for the next twenty-five years. The Alliance can not act alone. As its name implies, it is intended to act in partnership with the City of New York to secure the future of Prospect Park. While this Plan addresses the costs of restoring the landscape of the Natural Areas, it does not address the restoration of the infrastructure in these areas. It is estimated that an additional $30 to $35 million dollars in city capital construction funds over the next 20 years will be required to simultaneously repair the paths and bridges and to dredge the waterways of these sections It will take the full and dedicated partnership of all interested

parties: The Prospect Park Administrator's Office, the New York City Parks & Recreation, the Prospect Park Alliance, the elected officials of Brooklyn and a vocal, committed, and actively involved public to restore Olmsted and Vaux's glorious vision and to provide Brooklynites for generations to come with a vital and thriving forest -- a place to experience and appreciate nature in the very heart of one of the great urban areas of the world.

WHY USE NATIVE PLANTS? Part I of this report, "Historic Landscape Character", will describe the confluence of geology, soils and vegetation that combined to form a unique setting for the original siting of the Park. Olmsted and Vaux sought to enhance but maintain this natural setting. They used a combination of native and non-native species of plants in their efforts. This report proposes the exclusive use of plants native to the site. There are three strong arguments for the use of native plants in the landscape management of the Natural Areas and of the Park as a whole. Practicalitv. Those plants found inhabiting the site by early colonists and subsequently recorded over the next few centuries by botanists had evolved there over the 10,000 years since the retreat of the last glacier. They came to colonize the site and later to dominate it as a result of the interactions of the local geology, hydrology, climate and possible disturbances of earlier native inhabitants. All of these forces acted over ten thousand years to select those species best adapted to survive the site's environmental constraints and opportunities. Each species contributed in its own ways to define the natural system of the site. The science and practice of Ecological Restoration seeks to restore native habitats in all their diversity in an attempt to rebuild the ecosystems destroyed by human activity. The practical reasons for such an effort are based on the recognition that the closer we come to restoring the fully functioning ecosystem the more sustainable that system will be. As park managers, the greatest implication of a functioning ecosystem and self sustaining landscape lies in reduced levels of maintenance and input of resources. If those plant species that evolved on the site are utilized and if the

progenitors are chosen from populations within the Park or from those populations closest to the Park and/ or in most similar soil, hydrologic and climatic conditions, then they will contain the genetic information that should make them the most successful candidates for establishing, thriving, and most importantly, reproducing in the restoration projects initiated in the Park.

On the most practical level then, the use of native plants should maximize our efforts at managing these landscapes by minimizing the inputs necessary to sustain the effort. Experiential. There is a growing awareness that our public spaces are losing their regional character. In many urban centers of the United States one encounters the same very limited palette of horticultural plants (plants mostly without ties to the region) being used repeatedly. Rarely do we experience the rich diversity of local plant communities that originally inhabited the area. The unique set of physical and biological conditions described in this report for Prospect Park could be similarly investigated and described for any site. Such investigation would reveal that all sites are locally unique and as such define our experience of that site, if only on a subconscious level. The loss of local plant assemblages contributes to our loss of sense of place and to the definition of our regionality, our uniqueness. Parklands, that is large-scale developed open spaces as well as undeveloped tracts of land, define our natural environment. They should be distinguished from the "Garden"-- that unique, highly defined, and very human construct that is important but separate from our experience of nature unbridled. In urban settings, where large open spaces are extremely rare, parkland is all the more important and must be preserved if we urban-dwellers are to maintain our regional identities. Interpretations of nature could then be left to our smaller city spaces developed as gardens. Ethical. As more and more of our landscape becomes urbanized and suburbanized we face greater and greater loss of biodiversity. As we enter the 21st Century we must face the reality that whatever significant tracts of open space remain must function as refuge for species that once roamed freely in our regions. Prospect Park, small by any standard as a refuge, is an extremely isolated island of green. Its greatest practical significance is as a resource of food and shelter for migratory bird species on the Eastern Flyway. This is reason enough to see to its preservation, but of even greater significance is its educational value. All issues of global loss of biodiversity are localized issues of biodiversity. For humans to understand what it means to preserve biodiversity, they must learn what it means to do so in their own community, since that is where every struggle ultimately occurs. For the two million inhabitants of Brooklyn, that lesson is largely confined to the upland woods of Prospect Park and the surviving wetlands of

Jamaica Bay. Prospect Park can and should playa vital role in educating Brooklynites and New Yorkers in general to the needs and costs of maintaining biodiversity. The lessons learned locally can then start to be applied to the same issues regionally and globally. Preservation of the Olmsted Landscape Perhaps the greatest challenge in restoring the natural areas of Prospect Park lies in respecting the Olmsted landscape that subtly influenced the native ecosystems of the site. Utilizing the native palette of plant species will in no way compromise the efforts to reproduce the Olmsted experience of the site. Natural communities of these plant species will provide the backdrop for the Park, much as they did in Olmsted's original design intent. Those areas called for by Olmsted to present a heightened experience of nature (his "sublime" landscapes) can still be accomplished utilizing the species listed here and arranged horticulturally for effects of shape, shade, color, etc. Over 200 species of trees and shrubs are listed here - a rich and diverse palette of plants. The challenge in restoring these sites lies in learning to use these plants to accomplish the design needs of the Olmsted landscape.

Historic Landscape Character

The Landscape of the Park today has been shaped by both natural and human forces - in particular by the glaciers of the Ice Age and the creation of the Park by Frederick Law Olmsted and Calvert Vaux.

Historic Extent of Woodlands - 1865

(see Map I, pg. 23)

identified as a 'terminal moraine', is where the glacier deposited sand, gravel, loam and large masses of rock, including boulders, to great thicknesses as it melted. When a glacier melts it fluctuates north and south, over the course of many years to create a complex topography of ridge crests with hills and ponds called 'knobs and kettles'. The 'knobs' or hills vary in size, while the 'kettles' or ponds may be wet only part of the year and dry the remainder. The flat southern portion of the Park is the beginning of the outwash plain of the glacier - an area where sand, gravel and clay spread over the land as the sediment of a great river of ice. Unlike the site of Central Park in Manhattan, bedrock is well below the surface, about 350 feet below ground level. 3

Soils Soil type also conforms to the work of the glacier, however one can only make generalizations as soil type can vary greatly within short distances. On hilly moraines soils are generally deep and retain sufficient moisture for extensive woods to develop. Soils of the outwash plain are shallow and drain more quickly. The woods of outwash plains are floristically "poorer" (more homogeneous) than those of the moraine. 4 The last official soil survey, completed for all of Long Island in 1905, categorized the soils of the upland moraine in the area of Prospect Park as "Miami Stony Loam." A description of this soil type follows:

"... Miami Stony Loam, derived from glacier-deposited materials (till). Brown loam extends from the surface to a depth of20-35 cm., while yellow loam forms the subsoil to a depth of 76 cm. Both topsoil and subsoil consist mainly of fine-textured materials. On the moraine the till is 3 to 6 meters deep and is underlain with coarse sand and gravel. The surface is strewn with diabase boulders (erratics)... This soil type was considered by Bonsteel et al. to be the most droughtresistant on Long Island. "5

\Walmsley & Company, "The First Historic Landscape Report for the Ravine, Prospect Park, Brooklyn, New York, prepared for the NYC Parks & Recreation, 1986, p. 136)

4(Greller, Andrew M. & Calhoon, Robert E.; "The upland, oak dominated community of Forest Park, Queens County, New York; Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. Vol. 106, No.2, pp. 135-139, April-June 1979, p.135) 5(Greller, 1975, p.63)

The soils outwash plain were classified as "Hempstead Loam":

"The surface soil of the Hempstead loam, to a depth of 8 inches, consists of a friable brown or black loam containing a small amount of white quartz gravel and locally becoming somewhat sandy. From 8 to 24 inches the subsoil consists ofa heavy yellow to reddishyellow silt loam, slightly gravely. It is very uniformly underlain at a depth ofabout 24 inches by a bed ofrounded quartz gravel embedded in a sandy loam matrix, all considerably stained by a coating of hydrated iron salts. The Hempstead loam constitutes the chief soil type of the Hempstead plain. A slightly heavier phase of this type also occurs in southern Kings County. '6 For any present-day analysis the above categorizations of soil type should be treated as broad generalizations. A limited "Soil Testing Program" conducted in 1981 as part of the First Historic Landscape Report for the Ravine found wide variation in the texture and depth of the topsoil and subsoil. A quote from the report states: "It should be emphasized that the soils distribution appears highly random, exhibiting little rational pattern, best described as 'discontinuous'."7 Furthermore, the Landscape Management Office recognizes the great degree to which the soils of the Park were altered to create the Park, and to undertake new construction projects over the past century of its history. Therefore, the Office has conducted a limited sampling of soil types to determine if there still exists within the Park a distinction between the soils of the morainal uplands and those of the outwash plain. Based on the findings, it's clear that such a distinction in soil types can still be discerned between the morainal lands and the outwash plain. This information will help to guide the selection of plant species used in restoration efforts in the Park. However, a great deal of man-made soil disturbance was also encountered. This further complicates the delineation of soil type distribution and points out the need for detailed soil analysis as each restoration project is undertaken (see pg. 31). A significant volume of soil will be required to replace that lost from the Natural Areas over time. If 'topsoil' were used throughout, it is possible that this restoration effort could indirectly have serious negative impacts on local soil resources. Every effort should be made to expand current facilities and efforts to develop an on-going soil making program. A variety of materials, including sub-soils and 6(Bonsteel, Jay A. and Party; SoU Survey of the Long Island Area. New York; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington,Govt. Printing Office, 1904, p.13 7Walmsley & Company; p.136

compost, can be used to make high-quality soil and soil amendments.

Vegetation The work of the glacier contributed to the development of a diversity of plants which comprise the native flora. The species of the upland hills belong to the floristic group of plants called the 'Eastern Deciduous Forest' while the plants of the lowland plain belong to the floristic group called the 'Coastal Plain'.8 As the meeting ground of these two major vegetation types, many plant species reach the limits of their habitat distribution here on Long Island. In addition the complex topography of the end moraine creates habitats for a variety of plant communities to develop from dry upland woods to low wetland swamps. In pre-Colonial times the upland woods were probably dominated by species of Oak (Quercus), Chestnut (Castanea) and Hickory (Carya), while Red Maple (Acer rubrum), Sweet Gum (Liquidambar styraciflua) and Sour Gum (Nyssa sylvatica) trees would have covered lowland swamps. The botanical literature has been researched to obtain lists of the native plant species which would have dominated the lands of western Long Island in pre-Colonial times. 9 Lists compiled by Botanist Roland Harper in two articles written in 1917 in "Torreya", The Journal of the Torrey Botanical Club, distinguish between species of the morainal lands and those of the outwash plain. 1o Harper studied the areas at a time when the last remnants of habitat for native vegetation were rapidly disappearing. More recent work by Botanist Andrew Greller of the Department of Biology of Queens College confirms the validity of Harper's species list for the morainal lands. In a 1975 article which included proposals for the conservation of natural vegetation in Northern Queens County, Mr. Greller wrote, "Harper's (1917) original discussion of the Flora of Northern Queens County can serve to indicate potential natural vegetation when restoration is undertaken." 11 In addition, Norman Taylor's Flora of the Vicinity of New York from 1915 gives valuable, but broader information about plant distributions in the region. 8(Greller; "Persisting Natural Vegetation in Northern Queens County, New York, with Proposals for its Conservation"; Env. Cons. vol. 2 no. 1 Spring 1975, p.64) 9In all 2 dozen articles and books were reviewed and consulted (see bibliography)(Appendix II). lO(Harper, Roland M.; "The Natural Vegetation of Western Long Island South of the Terminal Moraine"; Torreya; Vol. 17 No.1, Jan. 1917; pp. 1-13, and "The Native Plant Population of Northern Queen's County, Long Island"; Torreya; vol. 17, no. 8. Aug. 1917,pp. 131-143.) 11(Greller, 1975, p. 68.)

The major components of the pre-settlement flora of the morainal lands can also be verified through scientific analysis of pond sediments. Such a study would identify species through identification of preserved pollens found in undisturbed sediment layers of small ponds that existed in the Park before 1865, but were subsequently filled during construction,12 Because the area of the outwash plain is now such a densely developed urban region, the only other means to confirm or deny Harper's species list for this area is to study plant collections from early time periods that are preserved in herbaria. Steve Clements, taxonomist at the Brooklyn Botanic Garden, is currently reviewing herbarium records for a new flora of NYC, and this information will be incorporated as available. Two issues arise that require consideration: 1. To what degree is the historical information on plant species relevant to restoration in the face of significant alteration of the soils of the Park? The recent soil investigations confirming that preconstruction soil types still exist within the Park validate the use of Harper's and other's plant lists of these soil types for natural area restorations in the Park. A synthesis of all these lists has been compiled by the Landscape Management Office and is reproduced in Appendix I. They are intended to serve as the basis for all ecological restorations in the Park. 2. How clearly can one draw a boundary through the complex topography of the Park to indicate where species of the 'Eastern Deciduous Forest' on morainal lands would have ceded their dominance to species of the 'Eastern Coastal Plain' on the outwash plain? Nature rarely draws its boundaries as clearly as man would like it to. As stated above, to resolve the issues, it will be the policy of the Landscape Management Office to conduct site specific soil testing prior to selecting the species for individual restoration projects in the Park. History

Early accounts of European colonists indicate that in pre-Colonial time the natives cultivated portions of the plains for crops, while the hilly land remained as woods. The first European settlers, (especially the Dutch), followed a similar practice as they were more 12Arrangements to perform the analysis are currently being formulated by the Landscape Management Office.

familiar with farming the lowland than clearing forested land. 13 Their efforts were successful as an early account states, (referring to Kings County, the present-day Borough of Brooklyn):

"tbe soil oftbis county is possessed ofgreater natural fertility, tban tbat oftbe otber portions oftbe island and it is bigbly cultivated. It is well-adapted to borticulture, and fruits and Bowers arrive at great perfection. " 14 The Revolutionary War had a great impact on the vegetation of Long Island and the future site of Prospect Park. Not only was a part of the Battle of Long Island fought within the bounds of the Park in August of 1776, but seven years of war greatly altered the landscape. British occupying forces requisitioned great quantities of firewood from settlers and encouraged them to clear new lands to grow vegetables. As a result the forests of Long Island were almost completely cut down. IS It is uncertain how much disturbance these actions caused within the area of the Park, but the effect was likely to have been considerable. In the mid 1800's at the time of the creation of the Park, woods covered a significant extent of the hilly land that was to become the core of the Park. The existing conditions of the initial planned bounds, prior to the Park's construction, were described in the first Annual Report in 1861 as follows by Egbert Viele, the engineer first hired to submit a design for the Park:

"Nearly one balf tbe area is wooded witb trees oflarge growtb, many oftbem noble specimens oftbe oak, maple, bickory, dogwood, cbestnut and otber varieties. '(16 Later in 1866 Olmsted and Vaux wrote of the existing conditions:

"Its most important circumstance to be tbe fact tbat a large body of trees already exist upon it, not too old to be improved, yet already old enougb to be of considerable importance in a landscape. '(17

13(Svenson, Henry K.; "The Early Vegetation of Long Island"; Brooklvn Botanic Garden Record, Vol. XXV. p.210) 14(lbid.; p. 209) Is(Greller, 1975, p.62) 16(First Annual Report of the Commissioners of Prospect Park; Brooklyn, N.Y., 1861, p.25) 17(Slxth Annual Report of the Commissioners of Prospect Park; Brooklyn, N.Y., 1866, p.l00)

A list of trees marked and noted in the Park in 1866 included the following: 18 Acer rubrum (Red Maple) Betula lenta (Sweet Birch) Carpinus americana (caroliniana?) (Ironwood) Carya alba (tomentosa) (Mockernut Hickory) Castanea vesca (dentata?) (nomenclature unknown, Chestnut sp.) Juglans cinerea et nigra (Butternut & Black Walnut) Liquidambar styraciflua (Sweet Gum) Liriodendron tulipifera (Tulip Tree) Nyssa sylvatica (Sour Gum) (nomenclature unknown, Pinus mitis* Pine sp.) (American Sycamore) Platanus occidentalis Populus grandidentata (Bigtooth Aspen) Prunus cerasus* (Sour Cherry) Quercus alba (White Oak) Quercus palustris (Pin Oak) (Black Locust genus) Robinia Sassafras (Sassafras genus) Tilia europus (europaea)* (European Linden) Tilia heterophylla (americana)* (Basswood) Ulmus campestris (procera) (English Elm) (American Elm)19 Ulmus americana Again in 1874 Olmsted and Vaux wrote of the existing conditions of the woods, but in less glowing terms:

"There were originally two main bodies of natural wood on the site of the Park connected by a narrow belt at the point where the Long Meadow is now most contracted; ... The trees had grown thickly, their lower limbs were dead or dying and two-thirds of all, though yet of but moderate size were decayed in the trunk, many, had also been mangled by violence. "20 In the flat southern portion of the Park covered by the outwash plain of the glacier, interpretation of a map and historic photo suggest that the area was farmers' fields, a part of the Village of

18Those trees marked with * are non-native species 19(Library of Congress, Manuscripts Division, Frederick Law Olmsted, Sr_ Papers, #128-69) 20(Fourteenth Annual Report of the Commissioners of Prospect Park; Brooklyn, N.Y., 1874, p.24)

Flatbush. 21 Additionally, a Quaker cemetery about 25 acres in size existed in an area in the central part of the Park. To allow for the creation of the Park, the Quakers agreed to retain only two-fifths or 10 acres of their existing property for continued use as a cemetery.22 The cemetary still exists today. By the mid-1800's, Brooklyn was becoming a dense urban area with a population of 266,661 in 1860, making it the third largest city in the United States. 23 Development had begun to reach the area of the present-day Park. A partial grid of roads had been laid primarily in the western section on an area of gently sloping upland. The Litchfield Villa, which now houses the Brooklyn Borough Offices of NYC Parks & Recreation, and the Prospect Park Administrator, was representative of the wealthy, suburban development envisioned for the area. However, government leaders in Brooklyn had the foresight to give Olmsted and Vaux the opportunity to develop this unique site, formed by the movement of glaciers and enriched with a diversity of plant species, into a public park. As such Prospect Park reads as a text of the natural and social history of Long Island.

21(Prellminary Map Showing Lineal and Topographical Surveys of Prospect Park, Brooklyn; Benjn. D. Frost, Engr. in Charge; and Photo, circa 1867 showing excavation of the Lake from papers of Frederick Law Olmsted at the National Historic Site, Brookline, Ma.) 22(Lancaster, Clay; Prospect Park Handbook; Long Island University Press, New York, 1972; pp. 51-52.) 23(Rosenwaike, Ira; Population History of New York City, Syracuse, New York, 1972, pp. 49-50.)

Present Day Features Lit c h fie I d V i I I a, 2

,, ' '

,/:'' "

-.-----;".

~ ,-

\ .. , .

F r i end see me I er y

1857

1849-1851

, '. '

'.:\ ,

"", ' , ' , ' ",

.,-:: "

-"""'. "'=: ..,

, --:'-. '

-'-.:: ::- --'.::-,

'::"--':' ,',

, "-,

" ' .. '

,.----' ",

' ,

' .. ---

,, "' , , ' , ,, '' ,, ,, ' ' ,,

--, -'

'. '.

, ,I. \

, ' , , ' , , ' ,

,'-.......

\\<\'::", ,~::: -,'

!,',';:,',:'::-:

',',',:,:,~""~~~;=::--:::--- ... '

, :'-

,'..",

-- ....

- : ,:,: : :~,:, ~, ',",";: :,: ~ >: : :

Map I '::::,'

,--::: .. -'

s tor icE X t en t o f Woodlands 1 865

1 I 1=1 Now

Woodland

", -- --' - _., .. -

in 1865

Historic Streets

and Roads

Defunct

I::::::::: I Current Park Features

Prepared by Andropogon Associates, Ltd, PA

and The Prospect Park Landscape Management Office

Olmsted and Vaux Design Intent

(see Map II - pg. 26}

Olmsted, Vaux and Company's 1874 plan for Prospect Park appears to be the most refined depiction of the landscape character envisioned by the designers. The original plan utilized a variety of different drafting techniques that have been interpreted as follows for purposes of making map II: closely-spaced circles, each indicating a single tree, were assumed to designate a grove of canopy trees in turf or at least without any shrub or understory layers; a rough textured pattern, showing a large mass of woody vegetation, was assumed to indicate a more complex woodland structure including a multi-layered forest condition in places. Map II, that follows, is a composite based primarily on the 1874 plan, with aspects of the 1871 and 1888 plans. It also reflects concepts delineated in Olmsted and Vaux's Annual Reports issued as summaries to the Park Commissioner's during the years of construction. The map attempts to portray the Park's canopy coverage as the designers ultimately wished it to be. Where there was existing woodland, Olmsted and Vaux sometimes sought to create a greater perception of space by managing the woodland to open up and expand the sense of edge, as here described in the 6th Annual Report in 1866 -" that the observer may not see all the boundaries of free sunlight before him a glance. "24 They proposed to achieve that quality by "cutting in upon the borders of the woods, where the ground lies in gentle slopes, leaving only the finer trees to stand out singly, or in small groups".25 Elsewhere, a more layered structure was desired and extensive understory planting was proposed.

"In other parts of the woods, where trees which possessed either dignity or picturesqueness were more rare, it has been sought by planting young trees and underwood about and among them, to develop bosky masses of foliage .... Effects which are very satisfactory were thus obtained with great rapidity in those portions of the East Woods where visitors are confined to the walks". 26 The changes in the landscape brought about by the Park's creation are very notable. The isolated stand of remnant forest in 1865 had been enhanced to create a larger and more continuous expanse of

24(Sixth Annual Report of the Commissioners of Prospect Park, 1866, p_l0l} 25(Ibid., p.l00} 26(Fourteenth Annual Report of the Commissioners of Prospect Park, 1874, p.24}

woodland core and a woodland buffer at the Park's edges that enclosed and created a setting for the whole Park. By 1874, the vision of the design was beginning to take shape. In the 1874 Annual Report, Olmsted and Vaux note:

"The general character of the scenery of the Park, even in its present formative condition, is undeniably broad, simple, and quiet, yet the variations of the surface, and the disposition of open woods, thickets, glades, meadows, and of still and running waters, is such that it cannot be deemed monotonous. "27 Olmsted and Vaux greatly expanded the site's water features as well by creating a 60-acre lake with a soft and undulating shoreline with an array of coves and beaches. Emergent aquatic vegetation and woody plants along the water's edge alternated with turf around the lake margin. In addition, a naturalistic stream channel feeding the lake was crafted to include a steep forested ravine as well as a pastoral setting. These natural, but managed landscapes remain unique in the Brooklyn area. It should be noted that Riverine or "river's edge" habitat's are artificial to the Park. There were no naturally occurring, well-developed stream channels on the site prior to the Park's construction. Consequently, most of the plant species that would have composed this habitat type would not have been found in the Park either. There were also notable changes in circulation. The old grid roads were removed by Olmsted who instituted a system of drives, bridle paths and pedestrian trails. This circulation system has been somewhat altered in the intervening twelve decades. As stated earlier, Olmsted's plant vocabulary included both native and non-native species. Evergreen plantings were the least successful. Many of the exotics he used have since disappeared from the Park while others have been all too successful, having naturalized at the expense of native plant communities. Today, the only extant Olmsted plant list for the Park is that for a small section of the extreme southern end of the Long Meadow and consists of a very diverse grouping of native and non-native trees in a nonwoodland setting.

27(Fourteenth Annual Report of the Commissioners of Prospect Park, 1874, p.23)

Present Day Features 1

Prospect

Friends

Lake Cemetery

Carr i age Concourse

Prospect Park Zoo

The Nelhermead

The Pool s

The Long Meadow Maintenance Compound Bandshell/llth S t Playground

8 9

1 0 Litchfield Villa 1 1 3 r d St.

Playground

Map II

Olmsted and Vaux Design Intent Historic Extent of Woodlands

1111111111111

Prepared by

Andropogon Associates, Ltd. Philadelphia PA

and The Prospect Park Landscape Management Office NY

Can 0 p yeo v e r -

S pee i me n P 1 an lin g s

5r~1

Paths,

Bldg.,

Extant 1874 Now Defunct or Never Built

Drives,

Shorelines,

II.

Current Landscape Conditions

A major goal of this project was to develop comprehensive documentation of the current environmental conditions in Prospect Park and more detailed inventory in the Natural Areas. Extensive field mapping was undertaken throughout 1992 to produce a series of baseline inventory maps that graphically portray the major management concerns today.

Current Cover Types (see Map III, pg. 29)

The mapping of current cover types includes the location and extent of woodland, parkland, tall grass meadow, turf and horticultural zones. The seven current cover types are described below: Woodland: Where there is a nearly continuous canopy cover and at least a partially multi-layered woodland structure - no systematic management is undertaken to restrict growth of understory vegetation. Parkland: Where there are specimen trees and groves of trees in an open canopy condition. The ground layer is either mown periodically to maintain open, usually turf conditions or there is sufficient shade to restrict turf growth. Tall Grass Meadow: Where tall grasses and wildflowers are maintained by periodic mowing in an open condition. Turf: Where turf is maintained by regular mowing. Horticultural Zone: Where maintenance of the landscape is intensive due either to a high level of visitor uses, historic precedent, or because of previous, uninformed establishment of horticultural plantings in Natural Areas. These all result in designed environments that utilize horticultural materials and maintenance techniques. Many include a variety of cover types. Several significant changes from Olmsted and Vaux's design intent can be discerned by comparing Map III with Map II. The simple broad expanse of woodland that would have enclosed the whole park and comprised the major setting for the open turf meadows has

become more fragmented and discontinuous with a consequent loss of unity in this envisioned simple and sweeping landscape. The original landscape design was, at the same time, more richly detailed. The once gently undulating woodland edges that were setoff by adjacent specimen groves are now replaced by a simplified and unelaborated mow-line with a fraction of the original number of trees in the meadows. A similar loss of landscape diversity has occurred along the lake shoreline which is now continuously edged with stone, replacing the earlier shoreline of natural banks, beaches, and a variety of little coves and inlets. In addition the streamcourse of the Ambergill exists in a modified version of its original design. Siltation and purposeful filling have covered areas which once were small ponds. What has happened to the forests and other natural areas in Prospect Park is mirrored throughout the New York City region where habitat fragmentation and destruction are contributing to ecosystem decline. There is a new emphasis on the importance of re-establishing viable wildlife corridors and managing remnant natural areas to favor indigenous plants and animals. Restoration of much of the original structure now lost from the Olmsted and Vaux design would greatly increase habitat value and diversity as well as scenic character in the Park, while expanding educational opportunities to interpret the geologic features and vegetation characteristic of the terminal moraine of Long Island.

Present Day Features 1

Prospect

Lake

Friends Cemetery

Carriage Concourse

Prospect Park Zoo

Tbe Nelhermead

The

Pools

The

Long

Maintenance Compound

Band,hell/ll1h Sl Playgro.und

Meadow

Lilchfield Villa

3rd Sl.

Playground

Map III 4

Current Cover Types 1992 ~

Woodland

Parkland

t路" ....... ]

Tall Grass Yeadow Horticultural Zone

Prepared by

Andropogon Associates, Ltd. PA

and The Prospect Park Landscape Management Office NY

IIII IIIII

Tu r f

Soil Disturbance - 1992 (see Map IV, pg.

33)

Direct disturbance to the ground layer from trampling, stormwater, bicycles and vehicles accounts for much of the degradation found in urban natural areas. Soil compaction and erosion eventually damage young seedlings and severely inhibit the reproduction of the next generation of plants in the landscape. The larger existing plants left in place suffer the effects of reduced availability of water and air. No effective stabilization of these areas can be sustained until these stresses can be eliminated. Remarkably, these problems were documented in turf and woodland areas in the Park as early as 1871.

"During the first two years of the work, interest in what was promised, curiosity as to the progress of construction, led many to visit the park, and ... most of these visitors were driven to find a place of more quiet and comfort, in uninclosed woods a little on one side of the line ofoperations. In the parts of these to which the largest numbers came, and where there though all convenient pains were taken to preserve order and neatness, and prevent injury to the trees and shrubs, all of the herbage, and the foliage growing within six feet of the ground, except a few briery thickets, wholly disappeared; the soil was worn to dust, and blown and washed away so much, that, within two years, the roots of the trees everywhere protruded, and many withered in consequence. Whenever it rained, the old wood trails were gullied, the hollow places sloughs, and the whole surface slimy and disagreeable to see or to walk upon" 28 Again in 1885, the Annual Reports noted:

issues - visitor impacts, inadequate access, stormwater management, and the need for a soil survey. First, it is evident that the visitor impacts are unacceptably high and must be addressed effectively if any restoration is to be sustained. The proposed extensive replanting of native understory vegetation will help discourage off-trail use but undertaken alone cannot be expected to provide total control and prevent degradation of the forest environment. Current efforts to lessen visitor impacts include a major public relations and enforcement program aimed at controlling the off-trail use of mountain bicycles which is being undertaken by the Prospect Park Administrator's Office and The Park Enforcement Patrol. Secondly, this map illustrates the need for a more comprehensive circulation system. Several key visitor journeys, such as that to Lookout Hill, are not adequately served by the existing trail system which, in turn, aggravates off-trail trampling. This problem appears in part to have been incorporated into Olmsted and Vaux's original design concept, which did not anticipate the extent of trampling and the amount of damage that resulted. The 6th Annual Report noted about the system of walks that -

"When once fairly in among the trees and grass stretches, they {pedestrians] should be able to ramble over the whole extent of the property with as much apparent freedom as if the whole park had been intended solely for their enjoyment".30 In a later report it was recognized that better control of trampling was necessary and that replanting was most successful "where visitors are confined to walks".31 During the mapping process, the probable routes associated with observed trampling were noted for each major area of disturbance. A comprehensive review of circulation needs in the park should be undertaken to reconcile these conflicts. Unfortunately, except for the secondary path system discussed in general terms below, this issue can not be fully dealt with as part of this plan. It will be addressed in the Master Plan. Thirdly, a comprehensive stormwater management plan should be developed for the whole of the Park to address the full range of relevant factors - from restoring rainwater infiltration that has been restricted by soil compaction, to ensuring that the volumes and velocities of water that reach the stream and the Lake approximate 30(8ixth Annual Report of the Commissioners of Prospect Park, 1866, p.110) 31(Fourteenth Annual Report of the Commissioners of Prospect Park, 1874, p.24)

the hydrologic regimen of an analogous natural system. Investigation, determination, and mapping of the surviving historic drainage system, and a thorough mapping of all man-made drainage features are also critical to hydrologic management of the Park. Without such information only guesses can be made about what should be the engineering standards for new infrastructure or the restoration of damaged features impacted by stormwater. Renewal of lost features, such as the small stream-related and aquatic habitats are completely dependent upon hydrology, and should not be undertaken at all until adequate information is available. Lastly, when stabilization and restoration measures are implemented on specific sites, detailed mapping of the site's soils should occur. As stated above, it is essential to have delineated the extent of the two major soil types found in the Park prior to initiation of revegetation efforts. In addition, over a century of episodes of soil disturbance have resulted in many anomalies such as compacted buried layers of soil and extensive fill that will effect the hydrologic regimen. Such anomalies effectively alter the site's suitability for certain plant communities. For instance a site thought to be well-drained may in reality be poorly-drained due to a buried layer of compacted soil. Discovery of such a compacted layer would radically change the selection of plant species, or require the removal of the layer. Failure to map these anomalies can result in serious and unpredicted alteration of the hydrology of the site. In several erosion control projects started in-house by the Park's Natural Resources Crew, the fragile and eroded steep slopes have been stabilized and native species replanted. These projects have afforded important opportunites to assess a variety of soil stabilization strategies as well as long term visitor control. They are already yielding valuable information about strategy and implementation and have made it possible to construct a detailed scenario for initial stabilization of the Park's Natural Areas habitats. In addition, the Ravine Phase I restoration project, located in one of the most disturbed areas of the Park will be enclosed behind chainlink fence for up to a period of ten years. This project will provide essential information on the role of visitor impacts by providing a control area to contrast with other stabilization projects not afforded this level of protection.

Present Day Features Prospect

Lake

Friends Cemetery

Carriage

Concourse

Prospect

Park Zoo

The

Nethermead

The

Pools Long Meadow

The

Maintenance Compound

Bandshell/11th St

Litchfield Villa

3rd St.

Playground

MaplY

Soil

Disturbance

1 992

_ _ Erosion

Prepared by

and

Andropogon Associates, Ltd.

The Prospect Park Landscape Management Office NY

. PA

1--1 1--1

Bare

Soil

Major Desire

Desire

Lines

Woodland Condition - 1992 (see Map V,

pg. 361

2. Declining - Where native plant species are predominant but exotic-species are invading and native regeneration is negligible. Typically the canopy may still retain some native species but the understory and shrub-layers and most current regeneration are predominantly exotic or non-existent. 3. Degraded - Where exotic invasive species are entrenched and there is no reproduction of native species. In these instances, both canopy and understory layers are predominantly exotic where an understory exists at all.

The map reveals the severity of the exotics problem very clearly. It holds out a specter of the future where the forest has been reduced to a very few super-abundant species with commensurate losses in habitat types and scenic values. In many areas of the Park there may be no regeneration of native or exotic species. There is a total loss of the understory layer. The same environmental richness that fosters a diversity of plant and wildlife species is integral to the larger aesthetic experience of the Park and the educational and interpretive programming that can be offered.

Present Day Features

, , ,, ,, ' : : ,, '' ,, '' , ,'

Prospect Lake

,,'"

Friends Cemetery

Carr i age Concourse

Prospect Park Zoo

The Nelhermead

The Pools

The

Maintenance

Bandshell/llth St Playground

Long

',"

.', "

"--",

---,

, " "' , '::' ,

" ::

-'"

Compound

Litchfield Villa

11 3rd St.

Meadow

Playground

,, '. ,

'. , '- ,

",, ' ,

,, ''' ,, '

,, ,,

,, ,, ,, ,, , ,

\,'-., , ,

,, , , ,, , , , ,

, '

:"'.'_:-. _::- ______

:~;);;:,-"i;?fi)路路

MapV

--;::::--;.;-j:~

=;:

,.,',

Woodland

CondItIon

1 992

Stable Dec lining

Degraded

Prepared by Andropogon Associates, Ltd,

and The Prospect Park Landscape Management Office

PA 36

Canopy Gaps - 1992 (see Map VI, pg. 38)

A common characteristic of urban woodlands is a thinner canopy than would be typical of an analogous natural forest. Many factors are involved, including poor regeneration which might be due to damage by trampling and stormwater, competition from exotics, browsing by rabbits and even over consumption of local seed by squirrels and other wildlife. At the same time, mortality is often higher in urban woodlands, especially where stormwind tunneling has resulted in excessive blow-downs and where construction and other activities have damaged trees. These problems were noted as early as 1885, where the Annual Report referred to - "the gradual decline of the forest trees ."32 Today, with the wholesale loss of forest topsoil, almost all mature trees are left perched in eroded subsoils with their roots exposed. Many young to middle-aged trees are rooted in the impoverished subsoil strata as a result of the loss of topsoil. The Canopy Gap Map locates 53 acres of open canopy out of a total of about 226 acres of Natural Area Cover Type. The canopy gaps mapped herein measure at least 20' in diameter and include numerous large standing dead trees. Some of these gaps will close rapidly without management through the growth of existing large sub-canopy trees, although in many cases this replacement canopy is likely to be composed of invasive exotic species. Only minimal replacement by native species is likely to occur without significant replanting of indigenous vegetation. Even when desirable canopy tree seed sources are present, reproduction from seeds may be restricted by poor rooting conditions in subsoils. Achieving a closed canopy has long been a goal in the management of Prospect Park. Canopy gaps were first mapped in concert with the proposed stabilization of Ravine I, which includes removal of invasive exotic species, and extensive replanting of trees, shrubs and groundlayer plants, all from a list of native species and grouped according to appropriate ecological conditions. Because the removal of invasive exotic species will create further canopy gaps, the process must be carefully phased with the replanting of native vegetation. Otherwise their removal would only add to the problems associated with canopy gaps. At the same time, canopy gaps are the areas where significant regeneration and regrowth of native species is most favorable if exotics are appropriately controlled. As such these sites are opportunities and are a focus of replanting priorities.

32(Twentyfifth Annual Report of the Commissioners of Prospect Park, 1885, p.21)

Present Day Features

,, ,,

, , \, "

Prospect

'~.~:---'.::: ::'" ,

, ,,

, " , ,--, , ,~', :

Lake

Friends

Ca.rriage Concourse

Cemetery

Prospect Park Zoo

The

Nelhermead

The

Pools

The

Long Yeadow

Maintenance Compound

Bandshell/l1lh Sl

Litchfield

3rd St.

Playground

Villa

Playground

., ' , '

,--,

, ' , '

, <.- ' "

" "

--:..

,-,

,, ' ' , ,

, "

, ,, ,, , , '. , ,

..., '.' ,, '' ,, ',

,--'

\ "

,, ,,

"... "", ", '. ,

"""

"""--'''..''..:''- :',: .

-~-.,-

";'":.>--

3 '

":\,};;:::',: '--.,'

Prel,ar.,dby

4 ",

, '. , '. "

A~ldrc'po!?on

,,-

,"./ ",

, ,

'-, "

MapYI

Canopy Gaps ~

1 992

Woodland Gaps

and

Associates, Ltd. - The Prospect Park Landscape Management Office

III. Landscape Management Plan Maintenance has been an issue as long as there have been parks. At the time of the Park's creation, Olmsted and Vaux envisioned a far more intensively maintained park than was feasible even then. Their recommendations called for extensive soil renovation both in woodland and turf areas as well as an extraordinary degree of visitor control, including restricting walking on turf when soils were saturated. This was to be effected "only by special efforts for the purpose made by an active, vigilant, faithful, and a numerous body of keepers." 33 Their hopes for such a high level of landscape care were soon dashed here as well as in Central Park and elsewhere. While Olmsted himself did not have the benefit of modern ecological understanding, he distinguished himself in his time and among his peers by being one of the designers most sensitive to environmental concerns. Olmsted and Vaux had a profound regard and respect for natural landscapes, many of which are protected today because of their park systems and others modeled on their efforts. Despite the enduring beauty and satisfaction of their designs, neither Olmsted and Vaux's work, nor the natural habitats that are integral to the site, will survive without creative intervention by those responsible for their care and for real change in the approach underlying management policy and implementation. This report describes a vision of Prospect Park that seeks to restore the landscape character and scenic qualities of the Park in Olmsted's day, as well as the health and diversity of the forested Natural Area that today exists in a degraded state at the core of the Park. The goal is to implement a comprehensive management plan that sustains the grandeur and drama of the historic landscape, as well as the environmental values and cost-savings potential of selfsustaining native plant communities. This Plan is comprised of four major components: first, the designation of Natural Areas within the Park boundaries that will be the object of these restoration efforts. The principal Natural Area is designated the Forest Core; second, the designation of Proposed Cover Type Zones (see Map VII below) that delineates the proposed landscape structure for all areas of the Park, including the Forest Core and a second Natural Area designation, the Perimeter 33(Fourteenth Annual Report of the Commissioners of Prospect Park, 1874, p.26)

Woodlands; third, Action Strategies that outline recommended restoration and management techniques for the Forest Core and Perimeter Woodlands; and fourth, an Implementation Plan that outlines a detailed scenario for execution of the Action Strategies. This proposal is intended to sustain the natural, cultural, recreational and aesthetic resources of the Park over time while providing for a high level of public access and participation. The recommendations included here, while directed toward the more natural landscapes of the Park, are also directly applicable for use elsewhere in the Park. The program is intended to provide a framework for consistent and sustained management. Nevertheless, the Cover Type Zones are Management Zones only. They reflect design and use concerns but are not designs themselves - the Master Plan will design areas that may modify these zones.

The Forest Core Natural Area

The most significant feature of the proposed landscape management program is the establishment of a designated Natural Area, the Forest Core, where the primary goal will be to attain the highest quality native forest habitat possible and to sustain these values over time. This does not represent a significant change in the original design intent but is rather a refinement of the management plan. There are two key policy statements and goals that underlie the proposed Forest Core. 1. There is a delineated Natural Area boundary, the Forest Core, within which the visitor experience is focused on enjoyment of the natural landscape character of Prospect Park. The boundary is intended to define the area where both use and management should be guided by this goal.

2. An overall goal is to reduce the fragmentation of the existing woodland by restoring, insofar as possible, the extent of closed canopy, layered forest in the original plan for Prospect Park by Olmsted and Vaux. This will include joining other areas not historically joined, in those instances where overriding ecological needs occur. This will be limited to areas with historic features of minor significance to the original design.

The delineation of the Forest Core boundary incorporates the following design guidelines in an effort to meet these goals: • to maximize the contiguous area of closed canopy and minimize the amount of edge where forest meets turf or other open landscape cover types and where disturbance impacts are most severe. The Forest Core represents the largest contiguous forested area. • to simplify and optimize the continuity of the forest. In the Forest Core, the highest priority should be given to providing closed canopy conditions with the multi-layered, multi-aged, multi-species structure characteristic of a healthy forest. The proposed pattern and extent of forest also seeks to restore the aesthetic character established by Olmsted in his dramatic interpretation of this site's terrain along the ridge of the terminal moraine of the last glacier.. • to exclude turf and other high use/high maintenance landscape types from the Forest Core. These features, some of which are historic and some of which are former woodlands that have degraded into turf, have long standing as high use areas. They are incompatible with a natural area and have been either excluded from the area of the Forest Core or have been incorporated into the Forest Core with the intention of restoring woodland conditions. In general it is proposed that any excessive, unnecessary, and/or nonhistoric infrastructure should be gradually phased out of the Forest Core and this goal should be reflected in future master planning. New education and volunteer programming should also be developed for the Natural Areas to encourage visitor use without undue impacts. • to include the full range of habitats that characterize the Natural Areas of Prospect Park from uplands to lowlands, from young successional landscapes to mature forest, utilizing those species native to the site, as best as can be established.

Proposed Cover Types - 1992 (see Map VII, pg. 45}

The Proposed Cover Type plan seeks to respect the overall character of the landscape as proposed by Olmsted and Vaux, without strictly replicating the conditions at each particular site. The overall Preservation Policy adopted by Prospect Park can be described as 'Rehabilitation', which, according to the National Park Service Guidelines,

''retains the landscape as it has evolved historically, by maintaining and repairing the historic features, while allowing additions and alterations for contemporary and future uses".34 According to the Landscape Management Policy of the Park, the site is to "be managed in a way that is ecologically and economically sound". (Edward Toth, Director of Landscape Management, Prospect Park) In this context, this Plan also proposes a use and management gradient across the Park - ranging from intensive use/high maintenance areas (designated as horticultural zones in this report) to less intensively used Natural Areas that require less maintenance. This gradient is necessary to provide an adequate buffer to the Natural Areas from impacts from adjacent, more intensive uses, and also serves to foster more cost-effective management by concentrating maintenance in smaller areas. Further, a far greater sensitivity in the implementation of maintenance is needed to sustain the landscape character of the more fragile adjacent Natural Areas and to retain the dramatic and mysterious design character. Traditionally, in the Olmstedian landscapes, the sweeping blanket of turf that characterized the open areas extended right to the boundary of the forest or the lake which was then elaborated with a subtle and undulating edge. The loss of key specimens and the practice of continual mowing, however, has over time grossly simplified these once rich transition areas. Reestablishment of landscape transition zones represents a relatively minor change that could have an important impact on the sustainability of the landscape. The modifications proposed in this program seek to restore the earlier character by refining boundaries over time and managing the landscape in a way that is ecologically and economically sound. In general the same cover types that were proposed by Olmsted and Vaux and that still characterize the Park today are proposed in the future. The Woodland Cover Type has been expanded to include both the Forest Core as well as surrounding Perimeter or Buffer Woodlands. The Turf cover type has been retained. Horticultural Zones, a reflection of areas in need of higher, sustained levels of management, is a current cover type that is retained, though modified. The extent of Tall Grass Meadow, also retained from 34(Draft, Guidelines for the Treatment of Historic Landscapes, Prepared by U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Preservation Assistance Division, Technical Preservation Services Branch, Washington, D.C., May 1992,

p.7) 42

current management practices, has been enlarged in places to discourage trampling, slow runoff, increase infiltration and sediment collection, and to also provide habitat for a variety of native plants and associated wildlife. The Parkland designation has been eliminated, although Parkland (referring to groves of specimen trees in turf) as a landscape ~ will be retained. In practice, the Tree Planting Master Plan (described at the start of this report, see pg. 7), reflects the locations originally proposed by Olmsted and Vaux, and will be used to determine the precise placement of trees and groves in all historic open areas such as the Long Meadow and the Nethermead. Lastly the water features that occurred in the original plan are proposed for rehabilitation as noted below under the proposed cover types.

Proposed Cover Types The proposed cover types include the following: Forest Core - where a closed canopy, multi-layered native forest is proposed. This cover type represents a largely self-sustaining, ecologically functional, landscape structure. It contrasts with the more open woodland with limited understory vegetation that characterizes the woodland cover type that predominates today. The extent of this cover type reflects the largest nearly contiguous area of forest in Prospect Park that is consistent with a Natural Areas management focus and historic design intent. Perimeter Woodland - where a closed canopy, native woodland is proposed as a landscape setting for the Park and as a transition from the city. This cover type is more fragmented as well as more intensely used than Core Forest and is not expected to achieve as high a level of ecological integrity. Tall Grass Meadow - where tall grasses, wildflowers and other sunloving native herbaceous plants are maintained by periodic mowing in an open condition. This is an existing cover type and is only slightly enlarged in extent. Turf with Specimen Trees- where turf is maintained by mowing, this category combines the Turf and Parkland designations of the Current Cover Type mapping (map III). The extent of mown turf has been reduced by the expansion of the Tall Grass Meadow Cover Type and by the restoration of historically forested areas. Water Features - where there was an historic water feature that is proposed for renewal to increase the habitat diversity of the Natural

Area. This cover type includes portions of the shoreline of the lake, the lake itself, as well as the Ambergill, a stream course through the forested area that once included occasional ponds. Some of the original ponds, which are now silted, may be managed as wet meadows or swamps to increase diversity of habitat. Horticultural Zones - where use is intensive and requires more intensive design and maintenance of the landscape than is included in the recommendations for the other cover types. These areas generally occur along the perimeter of the Park, at historic entrances, and in proximity to architectural structures which comprise the only openings in the historical perimeter of the woodlands. These areas are intended to serve multiple functions; however, they should meld seamlessly with adjacent areas and other cover types. For this reason, to the extent feasible, native plant communities will be used in horticultural zones. Horticultural Zones might include small patches of Perimeter Woodland, Tall Grass Meadow and Turf Cover Types. In no instance will invasive nonnative species be planted.

Present Day Feat ures Prospect

La k e

F ri ends Cemelery

Carr iag e Concou r se

Prospect

The Ne the rmea d

The

Pools Long

Park

Zoo

The

Maintenan ce Compound

Bandshell/llth

Litchfield

3rd St.

Mea dow

P laygr oun d

V i l la

Playgroun d

Map VII

Propose d Cover Types 1992 4 Forest

mo Pre'oared by An!drc)po:~on

Perimete r Wo odl an ds Tur f

wi th

Spec imen

[ ~~ -.~- J

H0 r tic u 1 t u r a 1 Z0 n e

Ta ll

l~b:

alld

Associates, Ltd.

COfe

Grass

1 Aq uatic

Trees

Meadow .

Habi Lills

Th e ProspeCT Park Lalldscape MallagemenT Office NY

Landscape Management Action Strategies

The following Action Strategies describe the landscape management techniques that are recommended for the Natural Area as well as for the whole of the Park. The recommendations proposed herein are directed specifically to the stabilization, restoration, and management of the Forest Core, however, they are also appropriate throughout the Park for analogous cover types.

Recommended Strategies Throughout this section two different tiers of action are recommended: 1) stabilization, restoration, and maintenance actions and 2) related actions. 1. Stabilization, Restoration and Maintenance Actions. These actions comprise the bulk of the program and are either currently underway, proposed to be initiated at this time or planned to be implemented over the course of many years. All reflect on-going management requirements of the Natural Area and the Park as a whole that will need appropriate labor allocations and funding to fully implement the Landscape Management Program. 1. Continue and expand the current program to stabilize bare soil and eroded areas, including desire-line trails.

The task of restoring stability and vegetation to those areas that have been disturbed by trampling, vehicles, and stormwater is one of the most tangible efforts of the management plan. Even if all future disturbance could be controlled, the areas where soil structure has been destroyed, severely compacted, or eroded will not simply get better on their own. No real restoration can happen until the ground is stable. The work itself is quite labor intensive because of the care that must be taken to keep from further disturbing adjacent soils and root systems. The scope of damage is staggering- with 97 acres of light gaps and bare soil in the 226 acres designated as Natural Areas and over 9 acres of desire line paths. It will require 768,000 manhours of labor over a 23 year period to stabilize this amount of acreage and set the forest on the road to recovery. Costs are estimated at $14.5 million dollars. (See section D below, Implementation Plan.) Work on stabilization was initiated over three years ago by the Park's Natural Resources Crew. Current procedures include creating 46

a fertile topsoil by loosening compacted soil and back filling, where needed, with a rich organic soil mix, and as necessary, stabilizing the surface with cribwork, erosion blanket, and! or mulch. Replanting with native, canopy and understory trees, shrubs, and ground layer vegetation is also required. Some desire-line trails may be warranted due to restrictive access and should be formalized as secondary paths on trails. These trails will be stabilized with wood chips and evaluated over time. (These techniques are desribed in full detail in Section IVA, pg. 56). The on-going program to control the use of mountain bikes is one of the most important related actions that will influence long term site stability. This effort already includes the expansion of public relation efforts, new signage and enhanced enforcement of existing regulations. In addition, the use of a low rustic fence along the margins of the pathways is proposed for use and evaluation in the Natural Area. The objective is to underscore the importance to the visitor of keeping on the trail and to make the trailless conducive to casual movement of bicycles. However such a proposal would have to be approved by the NYC Landmark and Art Commissions, and the construction and maintenance costs must be considered as well. Temporary site fencing will be a key strategic tool in the effort to stabilize the disturbed area. The length of time required will vary with the intensity of user pressure, the steepness of the slope, the fragility of the landscape, and the species and ages of new plantings. There is some historic precedent for temporarily fencing off an area as the following paragraph from the Twenty-fifth Annual Report describes:

"To restore to portions of our already limited forest areas a desirable means ofrecuperation, the most radical proposition and one most thorough in its possible results, would be to sequester specific parts of the woods for a season, and work over and refertilize the surfaces. 'as In Ravine Phase I, which is one of the most overused and treasured landscapes in the Park, a full ten years of fencing with limited, controlled access has been planned for. This is needed, not only to allow for full re-establishment of multi-layered vegetation, but also to displace long established habits and patterns of use. Every effort will be made to facilitate some level of public use and enjoyment of 3s(Twentyfifth Annual Report of the Commissioners of Prospect Park, 1885, p.221

this landscape despite these necessary restrictions. At the same time, this project will have many visitor benefits during the restoration phases as well as in the long run that should not be underestimated. 2. Continue and expand the current efforts to control invasive exotics. The task of controlling invasive exotics is not one that can be completed in a short period of time, it is on-going and should not necessarily be rushed. To simply remove up to 40% of the vegetation in these landscapes will potentially create conditions that ultimately favor even greater levels of exotics. Rather the task is incremental and will be implemented gradually over the next 23 years. Its rate will depend in part on the levels of replanting and maintenance that can be undertaken simultaneously. The methodologies employed will change over time as new approaches are refined. Similar efforts are presently being undertaken and documented by many other area agencies as well, including The Urban Forest and Education Program (UFEP) and the Natural Resources Group (NRG) both of the NYC Department of Parks and Recreation, and The Central Park Conservancy. They are working on many sites that range from Inwood Park in Manhattan to the Staten Island Greenbelt. The current levels of information exchange are excellent between these groups and Prospect Park. The current efforts focus on woody exotic species, however there is also a serious threat posed by shade-tolerant, invasive, herbaceous species such as Goutweed (Aegopodium podagraria), and Orchard Grass (Dactylis glomerata). In addition within the last two years, an extremely pernicious herbaceous weed, Garlic Mustard (Alliaria petiolata), has started to colonize the Park. These plants may threaten the re-establishment of the overstory by inhibiting the germination and development of overstory seedlings and deter the growth and establishment of native understory vegetation. An assessment of the full impact of exotic herbaceous species is beyond the scope and resources of this study, but must be integrated into management strategies at the outset. 3. Eliminate Canopy Gaps. The re-establishment of closed canopy conditions will favor those species characteristic of mature forest conditions, while providing better erosion control and restricting the spread of some, but not all, of the prevalent invasive exotic species. At present the canopy is open in approximately 25% of the Natural Area. In addition,

there is very little regeneration of native trees in the Park, providing very few canopy replacement trees. Therefore, without significant replanting, the canopy could become gradually even more open, assuming that the control of exotic trees is a continuing effort. The long-term goal is to manage the forest in a way that it becomes more self-sustaining. This requires a significant enhancement of seed and root-stock source materials through managed propagation efforts, as well as the creation of conditions more conducive to plant survival and diversity. It is important to remember that techniques for planting in woodland conditions are not wellperfected and maintenance during the establishment period will be crucial. Careful observation and assessment will be very important as well as an experimental approach. 4. Re-establish native plant communities. A variety of native plant communities should be used throughout the Park as well as the Forest Core in distribution patterns and environmental conditions that characterize their occurrence in the natural landscape of the immediate region. (See previous section, "Historic Landscape Character.") Native plant communities are increasingly becoming the design standard throughout Prospect Park for their aesthetic, as well as ecological values. New installations in Prospect Park, such as adjacent to the Vanderbilt Street Playground, reflect this growing sensibility. As discussed in the introduction, native species are the most well adapted to the overall site conditions (with the exception of a few highly invasive exotic species). A list of species recommended for use in the Natural Areas as well as throughout the park is included in Appendix I. 5. Revise the mowing regimen of the whole Park to reflect the proposed cover types, including expanded areas of Tall Grass Meadow and Forest Core. This is recommended for immediate action and will have several benefits. â&#x20AC;˘ Reduce the total amount of turf with commensurate reductions in required labor, which can then be reallocated to other management activities.

â&#x20AC;˘ Provide more consistent and focused management in a more cost-effective manner. â&#x20AC;˘ Provide immediate feedback on the "recoverability" of areas where mowing has been reduced or ceased, and tall grass meadows or woodlands have been allowed to establish. (See Item 7 on monitoring below.) 6. The potential of the stream and other aquatic habitats should be developed as major capital projects. Olmsted's description of the Ambergill from the 6th Annual Report illustrates the potential of these landscape features.

"The stream furnished by the spring is intended to take first the character ofa series ofpools /Swan Boat Lakes], overhung on the one side by the trees upon the north-side ofFriends Hill, and margined on the other banks by turf. /LOng Meadow side] It would then assume more of the usual character ofa small mountain stream, taking a very irregular course, with numerous small rapids, shoots, and eddies, among rocks and ferns, until it emerged from the shadow of the wood upon a grassy slope JNethermead], thence it would Bow more quietly until, after falling over a body of rock, in connection with a foot-bridge on the side of the park opposite that on which it started, it would assume the appearance of a small river with high and shaded banks, and at length empty into the lake. Here, on the North Shore, would be a low Bat meadow JPeninsula] with a few large trees and small thickets of bushes overhanging the water. In the coves would be beds ofpond lilies and other aquatic plants, and on the shores near them, Bags, cat-tails, bulrushes, and the like. This arrangement would give opportunity for every variety of water scenery which is practicable within the space of the park, with any moderate supply ofwater".36 The Lake, smaller ponds, and stream course that characterized the historic landscape were far richer landscapes than those that persist today. The opportunity to re-create more varied habitats can greatly enhance the Forest Core as a Natural Area. This effort should be incorporated into the on-going master planning process. The aquatic areas face similar problems to the woods with the problem of invasive exotic species crowding out native species. In general the exotic species are of less value to wildlife as a source of food and habitat. Unfortunately a management plan for the aquatic areas is a complex endeavor that is beyond the scope of this report. Ravine 36(Sixth Annual Report of the Commissioners of Prospect Park, 1866, p. 107.)

Phase I and Ravine Phase II are planned, capitally-funded projects that will, among other things, initiate dredging and repair of the water system, starting at its outlet, the waterfall on Quaker Hill, and proceeding downstream through time and projects. These projects should proceed simultaneously, with the stabilization and restoration of the surrounding woodland slopes to prevent the further loss of their soils and the consequent siltation of the waterbodies. 7. Continue and expand the existing on-site monitoring program. From its inception the Prospect Park Landscape Management Plan has been built on a foundation of detailed documentation of the historic designs as well as current conditions, including environmental factors, use, etc. This information is incrementally being logged on a computer database and being developed as a resource for management. Several levels of monitoring are recommended at this time. a. Baseline monitoring with periodic updating. This information records what 'is' in the Park and allows change to be recorded and assessed. The current effort to develop a Landscape Management Plan has expanded the mapping of existing conditions and provides a crucial baseline for assessing the effectiveness of the management program. There are three gaps in the baseline monitoring of the woodlands that should be addressed in the near future: A Canopy Tree Inventory of major trees of the woodlands to compliment the existing Tree Planting Master Plan, a Plant Community Map for the Natural Area, as well as Periodic Photographic Records from permanent surveyed points. This will create a comprehensive source of data on the condition of the woodlands which today only exists in part. b. Monitoring of the Ravine Project, Phase I. The planned Ravine I project will provide a comprehensive opportunity to assess and refine many of the restoration strategies proposed in this report under a controlled environment, since the site will be fenced for a prolonged period. As noted by Edward Toth in a comprehensive management plan report for Prospect Park about this project: "The intent was to systematically apply the methodology developed for woodland restoration in the Ravine Phase I project to all such areas of the Park". The whole project

should be assessed in light of technique, costs, long-term maintenance, and environmental value. Similarly, projects undertaken before Ravine I, such as the completed soil stabilization and replanting on the North and South Slopes of the Lullwater, and the slope leading to the Boulder Bridge should also be evaluated and this information applied to Ravine I. The contrast between controlled and accessable sites should provide valuable information on visitor impacts on the restoration process. 8. Conduct related studies to broaden the understanding of the natural systems of the Park Three other related studies, that are crucial to the on-going success of the Landscape Management Plan, should be undertaken as soon as possible: a Soils Survey of Prospect Park, a Hydrologic Analysis of Prospect Park and an Aquatic Systems Management Plan. Though costly to initiate, these studies are necessary to understand the complex interactions between water quality, vegetation and wildlife for the water features of the Park, and may result in project savings or prevent failures worth several times their cost. 2. Related Actions. These are related actions that are outside the scope of this program but on which the full realization of this management program is dependent. 1. To establish a planning process with the input of community leaders. naturalists and concerned citizens. the Landscape Management Office has established a Woodlands Advisory Board. The Advisory Board represents both those who use the Park. and those who are responsible for the care of the Park. This body is to meet quarterly and function in a continuous advisory role on the policy. implementation. and monitoring of the Natural Areas Master Plan.

The first meeting of the Advisory Board was held on 26 April 1993 at the Picnic House in Prospect Park and consisted of a major overview of the on-going Master Planning process and the status of current efforts. The following persons attended: Paul Berizzi, Chief of Environmental Services, New York City Parks & Recreation Charles Beveridge, Historian Marc Busciano, Urban Forest and Education Program, Deputy Project Manager Una Clarke, Councilwoman

Steve Clemants, Brooklyn Botanic Garden, plant taxonomist Tony Emmerich, Urban Forest and Education Program, Project Manager Mike Feller, Head Naturalist, Natural Resource Group, New York City Parks & Recreation Joseph Fishman, member of community Jim Gardella, Asst. to the Bor. Pres., Brooklyn Borough President's Office Gordon Helm, NYS Dept. of Environmental Protection Liam Kavanagh, Deputy Chief of Operations-Brooklyn, New York City Parks & Recreation Marc Matsil, Dir. of Natural Resources Group, New York City Parks & Recreation Patrick McMullan, member of community Tom Phillips, member of community Greg Owens, NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation Gerald Posner, The Arbor Barber, Inc., owner Marcia Reiss, Director, The Parks Council Marie Sarchiapone, Landmarks Preservationist, NYC Landmarks Commission Leslie Sauer, Andropogon Associates, Ltd., Principal Theresa Yap, Central Park Soil Lab, Central Park Conservancy John Yrizarry, Brooklyn Bird Club Future meetings will also include smaller scale workshop sessions to focus on specific issues. In addition, annual meetings will be held to discuss the progress of implementation and to outline proposed new work. A major goal of this effort is educational - to inform people of the roles they actually play in the health of this landscape and to engage them in its restoration. Equally important is the role the Advisory Board will play in challenging the plan, lending real breadth to the planning process. 2. Continue and expand the existing public relations outreach and education programs related to the Forest Core/Natural Area. Since the creation of the Prospect Park Alliance, the relationship between the Park and its community has been growing more positive and becoming more integrated. Like any other aspect of change, saving the landscape from certain destruction by its users will require some sacrifices, but will also afford many rewards that should be communicated to the public. Those members of the public who understand and buy into the larger vision are the most likely to be supportive.

The restoration and management of the Core Natural Area is one of the most important opportunities to create new programs and build new user constituencies. The issues are timely and of great concern to the urban dweller. The activities of restoration are rewarding and provide an opportunity for another kind of urban gardening appropriate for all age groups. The visitor who is actively involved in the act of restoration will then be more in-tune with the needs of the natural systems. Restoration efforts in other parks are becoming a major focus of new educational and interpretive programming and could undoubtedly enrich the user experience of Prospect Park. Currently, the Brooklyn Center for the Urban Environment (located in the Tennis House building within the Park) uses the Natural Areas of the Park as outdoor classrooms for many of its youth and adult education programs. Additionally the Park's Natural Resources Crew supervises the work of high-school age youth in various employment and educational programs, and runs a program of Weekend Woodland Volunteers. These programs will be expanded and others initiated to meet educational and public relation needs. 3. A long-term commitment to a stable funding base for longterm woodland management is required. In 1994 the Board of Directors of the Prospect Park Alliance dedicated itself to a four year fundraising campaign for the woodlands called "Save the Forest." The goal of the campaign is to increase the annual operating budget of the Prospect Park Landscape Management Office by $600,000 a year over the next twenty-five years. This increase is wholly to be dedicated to measures connected with woodland management. Though this increase is substantial, it does not necessarily reflect the expected costs associated with managing the woodlands as outlined in this report. Over 6 million visits are made annually to Prospect Park and for many this includes a visit to at least a portion of the Natural Area. Today there is growing recognition of the value of this wilder landscape and the need to sustain it for future generations. A major objective for this report is in part intended to address the development of a comprehensive budget and program for both restoration and on-going management. The following section concludes with projected costs for initial stabilization efforts.

IV. Implementation Plan

Completing this study is the presentation of a detailed scenario for implementation of the stabilization phase of the Landscape Management Plan for the Natural Areas, based on the Action Strategies developed above. The discussion begins with a description of the specific techniques used in the Implementation Plan. This information forms the basis for constructing the phased schedule of work. A discussion of the criteria for phasing follows. Also included is a detailed look at one management sector to illustrate how the Plan will be implemented. The work scheduled for this area will be described from year one to year twenty-three including the three-year intensive stabilization process. This is followed by specific discussions on staffing requirements, plant needs, material needs, and vehicle and heavy equipment requirements. The appendices contain the detailed tables, calendars, and charts used to assemble the Implementation Plan. They provide detailed descriptions of the criteria, units of measure and assumptions used in calculating work volumes, and manpower, material and equipment needs. They also provide summaries of quantities and man-hour requirements, area by area, as well as three-year implementation scenarios for each area. These scenarios were used to construct phasing tables that begin in Year 1 (1995) and end in Year 23 (2017) with the completion of all stabilization work in the Core Forest and Perimeter Woodlands. Once the phasing was established, total cumulative estimates for labor, material, and equipment were developed. These tables and estimates make up the bulk of the remainder of the appendices. From this data, and concluding this report, a cost estimate for the entire project is presented, along with a discussion of monitoring and assessment of future needs.

â&#x20AC;˘

Stabilization Techniques

The goal to restore the Forest Core and other Natural Areas of Prospect Park to its former grandeur and to manage it as a significant natural landscape for the Park visitor is dependent upon repairing much of the damage incurred over the past century from over-use, mis-use, and neglect. The current levels of disturbance, documented by the series of inventory maps developed for this report, required the development of techniques to re-establish the basic conditions and environmental structure necessary to develop more sustainable landscapes in the Natural Area as well as throughout the Park. These techniques, which are remedial in nature and relate to neglect, include stabilization of all eroded soils, replanting of native species lost over the last century and control of the invasive exotic species that are over-running large areas of the landscape. This work is concentrated over a three year period of intensive work in each subsector area of the designated Natural Area. The work should leave the subsector stable and ready for further management interventions. These techniques do not include on-going maintenance, such as trail maintenance, nor do they reflect any future damage. The actual costs will likely vary considerably from these initial estimates, because the long-term recoverability of such landscapes is simply unknown. There are no successful, completed models. Similar projects elsewhere, such as in Central Park, provide useful information, but none has been underway long enough to provide accurate long-term costs. At the same time, however, these figures are indicative of the scope of the restoration. The specific techniques employed are as follows:

1. Stabilization of Eroded Slopes - (2,069,536 sq. ft. mapped as eroded soils, 827,814 sq. ft. requiring intensive treatment) Two levels of deteriorated conditions were assumed: steep slopes where active erosion is a serious problem, and steep slopes where erosion is just beginning.

Steep slopes, actively eroding On steep slopes that are actively eroding, there is essentially no topsoil layer. The ground has been eroded to the level of subsoils and the roots of trees are exposed. Such conditions are a detriment to the health of the woodland vegetation and do not allow for the regrowth of the woodlands. The measures outlined are aimed at creating a topsoil layer to establish healthier conditions for plants to thrive and grow. The stabilization measures include placing a site protection fence to deter access, breaking up the compacted soil and incorporating on average 12" of topsoil and 4" of organic matter. Erosion blankets and cribbing (two or three logs stacked on top of each other and pegged and wired in place) are used to hold the soil in place. Shrubs are planted to deter access to the area and ground cover is planted at a density of 1 per 1 sq.ft. to develop a root mass to bind the soil. Steep slopes, erosion is just beginning On steep slopes where erosion is just beginning, similar measures are taken as outlined in the above category. The compacted soil is broken up and mixed with compost however no new soil is needed. Since the problem is less severe, only a single log, called a water bar, is placed along the slope to trap soil. Erosion control blankets are spread to hold the soil in place. Ground cover is planted on a 1 per 4 sq.ft. grid and shrubs are planted at the same density as an area of active erosion. For all areas where there are desire lines, site protection fence is used to deter people from damaging the stabilization effort and from walking up and down the slopes.

2. Restoration of Bare Soil Areas (2,135,747 sq. ft.) On flat areas, the compacted soil will be loosened to a depth of four inches to increase aeration, porosity and moisture retention. two inches of composted organic matter will be worked into the soil and topped with one inch of leaf mulch. Trees and shrubs will be planted at a density of 1 per 25 sq. ft. and herbaceous plants will be broadcast seeded into the area. Site protection fences are placed around the site to protect the plantings and if desire lines are evident more extensive fencing is incorporated.

3. Establishment of Secondary Paths

As stated earlier some desire line trails may be needed for varying lengths of time to allow access to an area. Secondary paths will be established on flat areas where the only work needed to establish a path is to spread wood chips on an existing desire line. The work needed to establish a secondary path on a steep slope is more extensive. Decisions about establishing secondary paths on steep slopes will await completion of a comprehensive Master Plan for Prospect Park. In addition, any secondary paths established under this landscape management plan will be subject to change according to decisions made in completing a comprehensive Master 4. Removal of Exotic Invasives (from 236 acres of woodlands)

The management of invasive exotics is difficult to quantify in part because there is as yet no full accounting of large (greater than 6" caliper), mature exotic canopy trees in the Natural Area. As noted earlier, it would not be desirable to remove all invasive exotic species in a short period of time due to impacts on forest structure and canopy cover. This estimate reflects the scale of activity that is likely to be reasonable and feasible to carry out over time based on similar efforts recently undertaken here and in Central Park. 5. Canopy Gap Closure - (58.13 acres of canopy gaps)

Young trees will be planted at a density of 1 per 9 sq. ft. in all existing canopy gaps. These trees will include understory and overstory trees in an effort to create a multi-layered forest. Much of the area of desire lines, bare soil and erosion will overlap with these areas of canopy gaps. Thus the shrubs and ground cover planted in the measures outlined above will contribute to the establishment of a multi-layered forest and native plant communities. The replanting of a wide variety of native plants is necessary to offset the accumulated plant losses due to natural causes and disturbance, as well as to replace gaps in the canopy from exotics that will be removed. Planting in the existing canopy gaps will create conditions more analogous to those in a healthy native forest and augment the plantings in stabilized bare soil areas and desire line trails. The plants will provide a crucial source of regeneration which is currently hampered by the relatively low diversity of woody species that regenerate in the Park today.

Because urban woodland restoration is such a recent issue, there are few proven techniques and a high degree of research and development as well as trial and error are necessary. There should be an on-going assessment program for success/failures of techniques and plant species recommended. Many native species are unavailable or less available from commercial sources than conventional exotic species. This report assumes all propagation will be done in-house in Prospect Park and by the New York City Parks & Recreation (see section IV E. below, pg. 83). However, area nurserymen and agency personnel should be given copies of the list of recommended species and their support sought in developing adequate and appropriate supplies of plants. The appendix contains a list of native plants recommended for use in Prospect Park. The list is based on the research of the native flora discussed in the section of this report titled, "Historic Landscape Character." (see pg. 15). Collection of wild plants for landscape use has decimated native populations in the past, extreme care will be taken to ensure that any plants purchased for use in Prospect Park have been responsibly propagated with no impact to naturally occurring populations. 6. On-going Monitoring

The documentation prepared for this report represents a very significant level of baseline inventory when added to other mapping and archiving efforts including the historic design documentation, and the Specimen Tree Survey, and constitutes an invaluable database that if kept up will permit effective assessment and modification of management strategies and their relative costs and values. The success of this endeavor is completely dependent on the quality of the data that is collected and the importance of the questions that are asked of it. A keen interest in and commitment to high quality monitoring characterize all the Prospect Park staff at present. Their effort is most limited by the equipment and computer software available to them. Monitoring activities have been budgeted into the yearly work scenarios outlined below. A more detailed discussion of monitoring concludes this report in Section G.

7. Establishment Period Maintenance

Like new plantings anywhere, the native trees, shrubs and ground cover planted in the Natural Area will require extra maintenance during the first years after planting. This establishment period typically lasts about three years, decreasing in labor requirements incrementally until only on-going maintenance described later is proposed. These three years of maintenance are accounted for as part of this implementation plan. A much more detailed description of all of the above techniques is described in Appendix 111- "Criteria, Units of Measurement, and Assumptions for Calculations".

Phasing Criteria

The critical task in preparing the Implementation Plan has been the careful construction of a phasing scheme for the implementation of the proposed work. Mapping of those areas requiring corrective measures (see maps I through VII) provided the raw data on total acreage to be treated. Once the boundaries of the Core Forest and Perimeter Woodlands were established, artificial sub-units of these areas were designated. These units are termed Management Units and are shown on the following Management Unit Map (map VIII, pg. 66). There are 18 management units in the Forest Core and they are labeled Management Units 1 - 18. There are 12 management units in the Perimeter Woodlands and they are labeled Management Units A - L. The total acreage of each Management Unit was determined in order to prepare the phasing scheme. Work activities of the Natural Resources Crew over the last three years provided the detailed information on manpower, materials and equipment required to complete various stabilization activities. This data was used to construct unit measures of labor and materials to complete specific tasks (see Appendix III: Criteria, Units of Measure and Assumptions). Once unit measures were established, detailed Management Unit Summaries were constructed (see Appendices IV and VI). These tables provided the detailed information, Management Unit by Management Unit, on all manpower and materials needed to carry out the Plan. Calendars were constructed to show the hours of labor required through time to carry out the stabilization in a given Management

Unit (See Appendices V and VII). All stabilization activities in a Management Unit were assumed to involve three year scenarios, and work on a new Unit typically would start in September of a given year. (The start of the cycle is tied to the collection in the fall of the year of the seeds needed for propagation of erosion control plants for planting on the newly stabilized site the following fall). Once Unit Summaries & Calendars were made, a phasing for all work in the Natural Areas was devised. The phasing is summarized in Appendices VIII and IX and is graphically illustrated in phasing charts in Appendices XV and XVI. In order to construct the phasing, the following guidelines and assumptions were adopted. With regards to staffing levels the following criteria were set: First, through the first four years of the stabilization efforts, staffing levels would gradually increase to some maximum level. This stepped implementation would allow for fund raising efforts to gradually and realistically increase to meet the staffing needs. Second, staffing was set at a maximum level that was deemed optimal. Too large a staff would be too difficult to coordinate and manage, as the logistics of the project are complex. Also, too large a staff would soon outstrip our ability to provide plant material and cribbing logs. Phasing of the project must coincide with our ability to provide these 2 key materials. Lastly, too large a staff would depersonalize and overwhelm the process. Staff members who care for the Park and for the process are critical components for its success. The strategy outlined here is largely experimental and correctives will have to be applied through time. These correctives will largely be provided by the new members themselves as they carry out, monitor and assess the work. Proceeding with a paced, even timetable of stabilization will provide the staff with the time to assess and change methods as necessary. Optimal staffing levels were set. (See Appendix XIV A). This staffing level, once maximized, will allow for 17,380 hours of labor per year to carry out the phased stabilization in both the Forest Core and the Perimeter Woodlands. Phasing Criteria: The next consideration in determination of the phasing plan was the designation of the order in which areas of the Forest Core and Perimeter Woodlands should be stabilized, assuming the staffing levels specified above. 61

In preparing the phasing scheme the following guidelines were followed: (1) 17,380 hours of labor were assumed to be available per year for stabilization activities. (2) It was assumed that three years were needed to reach this level of staffing, with gradual increases in staffing every year. (3) Those areas where in-house stabilization has already begun had on-going projects scheduled starting in Year 1 of the Plan to continue the stabilization process. (4) Those projects currently under capital reconstruction that include woodland stabilization, were phased into this management scheme on their targeted completion dates. It was assumed that these projects will be taken over by the Natural

Resources Crew after what is essentially "Year 1" of the three year stabilization scheme is completed by the contractor. "Year 2" and "Year 3" and on-going maintenance loads will be assumed by the Natural Resources Crew and were included in labor estimates for this phasing plan. A list of those projects and the Management Units in which they are located follows:

Project Willink Entrance Lincoln Rd. Playground Vanderbilt St. P.G.

Proposed Construction Completion Date

Located in Management Units

5/94 9/94

1993

(5) Those capital projects within the Core Forest Area or the Perimeter Woodlands with existing projected dates for design and construction were prioritized so that stabilization of the surrounding landscape will be completed prior to the capital's initiation or as part of the capital project.

A list of those projects, their scheduled construction dates and the Management Unit(s) in which they are located follows:

Project Ravine Phase I Ravine Phase II Lullwater Dredge Phase II

Proposed Construction Completion Date

Located in Management Units

9/97 2004 2006

1,18 17,10 7,8,9,6

Up to this point in time, capital projects in the Forest Core or Perimeter Woodlands included restoration of all hardscape features as well as the landscape. This report recommends that all future capital projects in these areas include only: a) the hardscape features such as paths and bridges; b) dredging of any waterways; c) landscape restoration adjacent to construction and limited to a reasonable distance from the capital reconstruction, e.g. five feet on either side of a path, etc. The exception being Ravine Phase I which is funded and scheduled to begin work in Spring of 1995. In some instances, capitally-funded projects should have their current boundaries redefined. Capital boundaries should not be as arbitrary as they have been, but rather should reflect the drainage of the area, that is all slopes likely to contribute to erosion in the project area should be included in the project area for stabilization. Stated differently, no hardscape restoration should be included for capital funding that has not had its erosion problems stabilized prior to the start of construction. (6) Capitals without projected dates were ordered through time (for the purposes of establishing landscape stabilization phasing) to follow the stream course so that upstream capitals occur before downstream ones. However, it is possible that this will not be the absolute ordering for the phasing of woodland stabilization and restoration, as the following ecological imperatives should overrule (see #7 below). It should only be guaranteed that the drainage affecting a capital will have been stabilized before the capital is undertaken. Some of these areas may be stabilized long before the capital is undertaken, others may only occur just prior to the capital. 7) Two overriding ecological imperatives for deciding the phasing of woodland stabilization and restoration are:

a) Work from existing centers of stability outwards. Enhance the stable centers to continue to drive them towards a state of ecological health and spread out from those centers of health. This should prove to be the least labor intensive and most economically advantageous strategy. b) Work to stabilize the largest contiguous woodland areas first. The larger the woodland area the greater the ecological integrity. Again, working with the largest contiguous areas should prove to be the least labor intensive and the most economical method in the long run. These two imperatives were adopted in determining the restoration phasing. 8) Some simple tasks were started now because they can be. Relatively flat, stable grasslands on tree and turf landscapes that are to be converted to woodlands will have their mowing regimens altered in Year 1 of the Plan. Wherever possible, mowing will stop so that ecological succession can be driven forward. Only exotic invasives will be removed. Supplemental planting or seeding (especially in light gaps) of desirable successional species are low labor, low-cost steps that will help speed the successional stages and will also be phased-in starting in Year 1 of the Plan. It is neither possible nor desirable given a finite staffing level to

undertake the most difficult, labor intensive projects all at once. Some rational combination of complex, labor intensive tasks and simple low-labor tasks is desirable. In addition, a variety of tasks in more than one site allows for flexibility in execution. If one particular task or work in one area must be halted, there should be alternative sites and alternative tasks. These guidelines were also adopted in determining the phasing. NOTES: Areas with seriously decayed infrastructures such as paths and â&#x20AC;˘ drains should have temporary corrective measures taken as soon as possible to minimize ongoing impact to the landscape. Cost effective "patches" such as asphalt fill to degraded hex-block paths will help alleviate impacts to the areas of the Core Forest that will not be restored for some years to come. Funds to temporarily correct all these deficiencies in the near future should be sought as

an attractive proposition to private or public sources in the context of this Natural Areas Master Plan. â&#x20AC;˘ Certain sites within the Core Forest are old abandoned building sites filled with rubble. There is no suitable soil in these areas for restoration of healthy forests. Prior to stabilization and restoration in these areas the extent of rubble must be fully investigated and removed to a sufficient depth to allow for healthy forest growth. In some instances, especially if they form impervious soil layers, they may need to be removed entirely. Since most of these sites are not currently known or are not fully mapped, detailed information about the extent and cost of remediation must wait for the comprehensive soil survey recommended on page 31. In any event, the scope of this work is beyond that which is feasible for in-house funding. Funds to carry out this work should be sought once the necessary information is gathered.

Present Day Features Prospect

Lake

Friends

Carriage Concourse

Cemetery

Prospect Park

The

The Pools

Zoo

Nethermead

The

Maintenance Compound

Bandshell/l1th

Long Meadow

Playground

Litchfield Villa

11 3rd St. Playground

Map VIII

Management Units 4

Prepared by

Andro'po),onAssociates, Ltd. . PA

Forest" Core

Perimeter

Woodlands

and The Prospect Park Landscape Management Office NY

Sample Stabilization Scenario

To clearly illustrate the process that was involved in constructing the phased implementation of stabilization work throughout the Natural Areas, we have selected only one Management Unit, Unit #4, will be fully illustrated. The relevant tables and calendars for the Management Unit, found in the appendices, have been reproduced here for ease of following the narrative. Keep in mind that there are 29 other units just like this. Management Unit #4 consists of the southern slopes of Lookout Hill, the highest point in the Park. It is 8.63 acres in size and is blanketed in forest cover. In 1992 it had 1.87 acres of canopy gaps, 3.21 acres of erosion and 0.32 acres of bare soil. (See Table Lion pg. 71). It does not include the flattened top of the hill, the former site of the Park's reservoir. At the base of the hill is the Wellhouse, the original pumping station for the reservoir, and across the Wellhouse Drive, further to the south, is Prospect Lake. (See Map VII, pg. 45. Lookout Hill is perhaps the most severely eroded site in the Park. Originally designed with paths for carriages, pedestrians, and horseback (bridle paths), it is a confusion of paths, including some added in the 20th century. Even with all of these paths it has not been adequately designed to accommodate modern usership-evidenced by the many desirelines that have developed up and down its slope. The three-year stabilization scenario for Management Unit #4 has not been phased in to the Plan until year 14. The reasons are several. First, it is at the terminus of the Park's watercourse and so all upstream topography has been scheduled for stabilization ahead of it. (See Point 6 of the section on Phasing, pg. 50). Secondly, the complex issue of circulation up and down the slopes of Lookout Hill must be addressed in a capitally-funded construction project. To date (1994) this work has not been scheduled or funded. Thirdly, two features of historic importance to the Olmsted design occupied the hilltop: the above mentioned reservoir (which was demolished and filled early in this century) and a designed but unbuilt observation tower that was to afford Park visitors views of New York harbor. How to interpret these two important features must be addressed by the Park's Master Plan process. Consequently, the 3year stabilization process was phased well into the future of the Plan to allow for these developments. Management Unit #4 is bisected midway up the slope by a hardsurfaced path that leads out of the unit and up to the hilltop. The drainage along this path has failed and as a consequence downslope 67

erosion gullies have been formed by stormwater draining off of the path. These erosion gullies enabled desireline paths to develop up the slope. They are now used as foot and cross-country bike paths, further excellerating the erosion process. On the upper portion of the slope (between the path and the hilltop), the canopy consists of old specimens of oaks and red maples in poor condition, having been seriously compromised by compaction and erosion. Many windstorms result in some of these trees toppling over or splitting apart. Sharing the canopy, and dominating it, are mature specimens of Norway and Sycamore Maples. These trees are younger in age than the oaks and maples and are largely growing on eroded subsoils. The understory is almost completely dominated by the progeny of these two invasive species. The upper portion of the slope has few desire lines and no serious erosion gullies. It is dotted with breaks in the canopy (light gaps). The lower slope (from the path to Wellhouse Drive) is slightly different in character. Crisscrossed by desirelines and erosion gullies, soil is actively moving downslope, exacerbated by the failed drainage on the path above. This constant soil disturbance has resulted in very little understory. The canopy has many light gaps and is otherwise dominated by the two invasive maple species. At the base of the hill, at the woodlands edge, a dense barrier of invasive roses and vines grow in the intense sunlight, except where it is pierced by desirelines. Beyond this, where the slope flattens out, large volumes of soil have deposited in noticeable slumps. Beyond the slumps, where the topography is essentially flat, the area is devoid of trees and is currently maintained as turf. Implementation Plan. In the years leading up to year fourteen, 240 hours of labor per year have been set aside to work at stabilization of the area. Activities over these years will center on easily achieved goals that will make the eventual task of stabilization in year 14 much easier. (See Point 8 of the section on Phasing, pg. 64). These tasks will be low-impact in nature so as not to further aggravate the existing problems. One of the first activities will be to investigate the catch basins on the path. If they are merely clogged, attempts will be made to clear them. If this proves successful, routine cleaning of them will be incorporated into the 240 hours per year spent on the site. In non-eroded areas invasive trees will be selectively removed and replanted with native sapling trees and shrubs. Light gaps in non-eroded areas will similarly be replanted. Invasive European bittersweet and Japanese honeysuckle vines, as well as Japanese Rose shrubs, growing in the full sun of the woodland edge at the base of the hill, will be eradicated.

The grass at the base of the hill will no longer be mown. As woody saplings of pioneer tree species (such as cherry and ash) move in to these "old fields" they will be allowed to grow except for invasive species, which will be culled. Saplings of native species will be planted and! or seeded in to accelerate the conversion process. By year 14, when serious stabilization work begins up slope, a young native forest should be well established in this limited area, as well as in the non-erosional areas of the slope. With the arrival of year 14, the three year cycle of concentrated stabilization efforts will be underway. (It should be understood that all of Management Unit #4 will not be treated at once, since other projects will be in various stages of completion in Year 14. It will take 5 years to complete Unit 4, but every square foot will have undergone the same 3 year treatment. (See Table 1.2, pg. 72.) The following narrative can be followed on Table 1.2 as well. The 3 year effort begins in September of Year 14 with a detailed reevaluation of the site, since the collected data for the site will be 16 years old. New numbers for square footage of erosion control, for soil volumes required, for light gaps to be planted, etc. will be tallied and corrections made to the work calendar and other estimates. In the course of the fall, seeds for all of the plants required for stabilization will be collected and processed for spring germination. From January through March procurement of logs and pegs for cribbing, and of soil, leaf mold, etc. will occur, as will any remaining vegetation control. In early March all needed supplies will be ordered. From mid-March through early June any remaining nonerosional sites will be planted with trees and shrubs and propagation of all other plant material will begin. From early June through August all erosion control work will be completed and fences for user-control and plant protection will be erected and maintained. Work on plant propagation will continue and a second round of procurement will occur in midsummer. New plantings will be watered through the hot summer months. Year 2 begins with the fall planting of herbaceous materials into the erosion control areas for initial stabilization. Some woodies will also be planted. These help with discouraging trampling through the new herbaceous plantings. The late fall will be occupied with procurement of logs for the following year to repair damaged or failed cribbing, with a new round of vegetation control, fence repair, maintenance of secondary paths, and seed collection for use in the next season for failed plantings. In the spring, failed tree and shrub plantings will be replaced. Propagation for failed erosion control plantings will begin. Failed cribbing will be replaced in June and maintenance will continue through the summer months.

September (the start of Year 3) will be occupied with monitoring the site and planting the new cribs with herbaceous plants. One last round of procurement will occur in November for use the following June. Vegetation control will continue as will fence repair and other maintenance activities. In the spring one last infilling of failed woody plant material will occur and in June the same effort for failed cribbing will take place. The 3 year cyCle ends with ongoing maintenance activities being initiated. Table 1.1 fully summarizes for Management Unit #4, the total amount of work to be done, the number of man hours required, task by task, as well as the number of plants needed. Appendix X lists all quantities of materials required for the work. Lastly, a careful reading of Table 1.3 (or Appendix VIII) will reveal the phasing sequence of the Unit, year by year. On-going Maintenance. Some on-going maintenance activities can be assumed from even this distant point in time. New desire lines will start to develop and must be controlled before they are fully formed. Perhaps the need for a permanent secondary path will become evident and that work will have to be undertaken. On-going invasive removal will be necessary. Perhaps invasive herbaceous plant species such as garlic mustard will prove to be inhibiting reforestation and so eradication strategies will need to be developed. If a degree of stability is obtained, activities more akin to traditional

forestry practices may be necessary- such as selective thinning or additional planting. Plantings to increase wildlife habitat or to enrich the herbaceous layer of the forest may be undertaken. Work related to interpretation of the two historic features on top of Lookout Hill may be necessary as well. Lastly, there will be a great deal of work to be done that can not be foreseen from this point in time. None of these activities are accounted for by this Plan and will require additional planning and funding.

Table IV-I MANAGEMENT UNIT 14

ACRES

_....;T;.;O;.;T;.;AL;;:.;A_C;.;RES;;:;;;.-~--_._ CANOPY GAP EROSION

8.63 1.87

3.21

BARE SOIL

0.32

SQ.FT.

375,922.80 81,457.20 139,827.60 13,939.20

55,931.04 ..

EROSION CONTROL AREA TOTALS

CRIBBING AREA

22,372.42 '" HERBACEOUS FOR CRIBBING

22,372

33,558.62 ..

WATER BAR AREA HERBACEOUS FOR WATER BAR

8,390 30,7621

TOTAL HERBACEOUS

WOODY PLANT REQUIREMENTS TREES CANOPY GAP AREA (SQ.FT.I/9 DESIRE LlNE+BARE SOIL+TOTAL EROSION AREA (ALL SQ.FT./251/2

SHRUBS

II OF PLANTS

9,051 3,075 12,126 3,075

DESIRE LINE+BARE SOIL+TOTAL EROSION AREA fALL SQ.FT./25)12 TOTAL WOODY

15,20"

MAN HOURB

207 385 518

DETAILED EVALUATION

SEED COLLECTING VEGETATION CONTROL

6,712

PROCUREMENT OF MATERIALS

ORDERING SUPPLIES FENCING

1,726 1ft

WATERING

2,027

69 AMEND BARE

son.

279 1,013 246 1.477 22,372 923 56 78 31

PLANTING waODIES

NURSERY SEED SOWING NURSERY TRANSPLANTING EROSION CONTROL PLANTING HERBACEOUS EVALUATION OF EROSION CONTROL

FENCING REPAIR

BROADCAST SOWING INFILLING PLANTING

HERBACEOUS 19 12 74 46 51

SEED COLLECTION SEED SOWING

TRANSPLANTING PLANTING

TREES BARE

son. MAINTENANCE

PER YEAR YEAR 2 &3

EROSION CONTROL MAINTENANCE YEAR 2 YEAR 3 TOTAL

TOTAL MAN HOURS

35 70 3,356 2,237 5,593

42,281

* ACTUAL FIELD EXPERIENCE INDICATES THAT ONLY 40% OF THE AREA MAPPED AS "EROSION" WILL REQUIRE EROSION CONTROL MEASURES. OF THAT 40%, 60010 wn.L REQUIRE WATERBARS & 40% Wll.L REQUIRE CRIBBING.

SEPTEMBER

OCTOBER

, , , '" '" " " " " ,

TASKS Detailed Evaluation Seed Collection Vegetation Control Procurement Order Supplies Amending Bare So~ Planting Woodies Seed Sowing Transplant Fence Erection Fence Repair Erosion Control Planting Herbaceous Monitor Erosion lnfill Seed Collecting Bare Soil Maintenance Infill Plant. Herbaceous Broadcast Seeding TOTALS MONTH TOTALS

WEE

!MANHOURSI

" "

FEBRUARY

TASKS Detailed Evaluation Seed Collection Vegetation Control Procurement Order Supplies Amending Bare Soil

WEE

Planting Woo dies Seed Sowing Transplant Fence Erection Fence Repair Erosion Control Planting Herbaceous Monitor Erosion Infill Seed Collecting Bare Soil Maintenance tnfil! PlantingfTrees Infil! Sowing Infill Transplanting Erosion Maintenance TOTALS MONTH TOTAL

, , ,

" " "

!MANHOURSI

" " "

MARCH

, , •

(MANHOURSI

"." '"" '"" '""

NOVEMBER

WEE

"."

" "" ""

" " "" "" ""

APRIL

(MANHOURSJ

WEE

WEE I( {MANHOURSI

., .,

, , ,

(MANHOURSJ

., ., '"

MAY

'" '" '"

2.060

, ,

" "

'" '" '"

'" ,

•

1.296

WEE

, ,

1----

•

" " " "

2657

2750

507 3283

- ~

2657

2770

507 3761 12.564

, , •

" " " " " " " "

'" '" '"

'" ".

". '"

YEAR #1 TOTAL:

" " "

2657

3274

3257

"" " " " '" '" '"

"" '"

YEARLY WORK CALENDAR MANAGEMENT UNIT #4

2060

WEE k (MANHOURS)

IMANHOUflS)

Detailed Evaluation -

'" '" '"

AUGUST WEE I( (MANHOURSI

'" JUNE

" "

!MANIiOURSI

, , •

(MANHOURSJ

" " " '" ",. '"

" " " " "" " " " " " "

WEE

, , , •

....

TASKS

, , , •

~ •

JANUARY

, , ,

!MANHOURSJ

JULY

Seed Collection Vegetation Control Procurement Order Supplias Amending Bare Soil Planting Woo dies Seed Sowing Transplant Fence Erection Fence Repair Erosion Control Waterlng TOTALS MONTH TOTAL

DECEMBER

, , ,

WEE

2657

2750 3257 12,538

34,149

m 1.597

~;SEPTEMBER

TASKS Detailed Evaluation Seed Collection Vegetation Control Procurement Order Supplies Amending Bare Soil Planting Waodles Seed Sowing Transplant Fence Erection

WEE

OCTOBER

, ,

!MAHHQURSJ

•

WEE

NOVEMBER

, ,

tMANHOURS)

•

- - - - - .• ---------... 23

" "

" " "

DECEMBER

, ,

•

, , , •

" " "

" " " "

WEE Ii:. (MAHHOURS)

WEE

Fence Repair Erosion Control

JANUARY WE £

(MANHOURSI

Monitor Erosion

" " "

Infill Seed Collecting Bare Soil Maintenance Infill Plant. Herbaceous Broadcast Seeding

Eros.Cnul.Area Maint. TOTALS MONTH TOTALS

,'" ,'" ,'"

FEBRUARY

TASKS

" "

wee

Detailed Evaluation

,'" ,'" ,'" ,'" ,

" " "

, ,

WEE

" " " "

, , •

IMANHOURSI

-----. ",

APRIL

, , • (MANHOuRS)

,,0

MARCH

" " "

" " " ~

Planflng Herbaceous

, , •

I( [MANHOURS)

, , •

WEE K [MANHOURS)

, , n

'" MAY

" "

, , , • W E £ It (MANHOUI\S)

" " "

JUNE

, , •

WEE K rMANHOURS)

Seed Collection

Vegetation Control Procurement Drdll. Supplies

Amending Bare Soil Planting Woodies Seed Sowing Transplant Fence Erection Fence Repa;r Erosion Control Planting Herbaceous Monitor Erosion Inli!! Seed Collecting Bare Soil Maintenanca Infill PlantingiTraes Infill Sowing Infill Transplanting Erosion Maintenance Infill Prop.lstart seed) Eros.Cntrl.Area Main!. TOTALS MONTH TOTAL

" " "

Detailed Evaluation

WEE

, , •

IMANHOURSI

" -

AUGUST

, •

" 0

, "

YEARLY WORK CALENDAR MANAGEMENT UNIT #4

Vegetation ContrOl Procurement Order Supplies Amanding Bare Soil Planting Woodles Seed Sowing Transplant Fence Erection Fence Repair Eros.Cntrl.Area Maint. Watering TOTALS MONTH TOTAL

YEAR #2 TOTAL:

" 0

'" " '"

" '" '" '" '" '" '"

W £ £ IC {MANHOURSI

Seed Collection

---

•

JULY TASKS

" "

0 0

5,473

3.'170

. SEPTEMBER

TASKS Detailed Evaluation

OCTOBER

, , ,

WEE K

Seed Collection Vegetation Control

NOVEMBER

, , ,

WEE K

DECEMBER

~ !;'

JANUARY

, , ,

, , , ,

", " "

" " " "

" " "

" " " " " '" " "

" " "

WEEK

-----.

Procurement Order Supplies Amending Bare Soil

WEEK

, , ,

Planting Woodies Seed Sowing Transplant Fence Erection Fence Repair Erosion Control Planting Herbaceous Monitor Erosion Control Infill Seed Collecting

I--~

Bare Soil Maintenance

r-----~

Broadcast Seeding Totals

Month Totals

, , " " "

FEBRUARY

TASKS Detailed Evaluation Seed Collection Vegetation Control Procurement

0 0

, ,

" " "

WEEI(

MARCH

Order Supplies Amending Bare Soil Planting Woodies Seed Sowing Transplant

, , , ,

WEEK

WEE II::

, , ,

" "

, ,

-~---

" " "

WEEK

, ,

,--

" " "

" AUGUST

WEEK

, "

, , ,

Seed Collection Vegetation Control Procurement Order Supplies Amendin9 Bare Soil Planting Woodiss Seed Sowing Transplant Fence Erection Fence Repair

• 0

YEAR 1f3 TOTAL: GRAND TOTAL:

Watering

'" '"

'" '" '" '" '" '" ""

YEARLY WORK CALENDAR MANAGEMENT UNIT #4

Detailed Evaluation

TOTALS MONTH TOTAL

, , ,

JULY

JUNE

MAY WEEK

----.

•

", "

APRIL

, , ,

WEEK

Fence Erection Fence Repair Erosion Control

TASKS

I--

Infill Plant. Herbaceous

Planting Herbaceous Monitor Erosion Control Infill Seed Collecting Bare Soil Maintenance lnfill PlantingfTrees Infill Sowing Infill Transplanting Erosion Contr. Area Maint. Broadcast Seeding TOTALS MONTH TOTAL

•

0 0

2,797 42,419

Table IV-3a FOREST CORE - PHASING TABLES 1995

YEAR 1 AVAILABLE MANHOURS

7,680 FT 4,000 V 11,680

MANHOURS NEEDED

UNIT

1,307 9,966 370 42 240

EQBA SENIC'93 (*17) *7 MARINE PARK

COMMENTS CAPITAL PROJECT 100% YEAR 3 MAINT. 100% U1 YR.2; US& U6 100% OF EROS CNTRL/YR. 2 10% OF ALL n 7 TASKS YR.3 LONG TERM MAINTENANCE

11,92S FT = FULTIME STAFF S = SEASONAL STAFF V = VOLUNTEERS

3 crew and 1 working supervisor

1996

YEAR 2

AVAILABLE MANHOURS

11,S20 FT 4,000 V lS,S20

MANHOURS NEEDED

UNIT #

1,810 S,674 3,237 39 4,486

#17 U6 US #12

11 42

EQBA SENIC'93 *7

COMMENTS 4% YR1 (RUNNING TOTAL 14%) 100% YR1 NON-EROSION TASKS 100% yr.1 NON路EROSION TASKS LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 100% U1 YR3; US & #16 100% OF ERSN TASKS 10% U 7 LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE

lS,299

5 Crew & 1 Working Supervisor YEAR 3

1997

AVAILABLE MANHOURS

MANHOURS NEEDED 240 240

9,600 FT 7,200 S 4,000 V 20,800

UNIT * #3

COMMENTS

YR1 YR1

240 240 240

*2 *S #9

YR1 YR1 YR1

240 240 240 240 240 16,290 287 893 466 39 160 11 42

U4 *8 UO #13 *6 #17 #17 #16 US #12 EQBA SENIC *7

---..

& every year through Year 13

tlYRl" indicates work that will contribute to completion of "Year 1" stabilization activities

YR1 YR1 YR1 YR1 YR1 36% YR1 (RUNNING TOTAL SO%)

4%YR2 100% YR2 NON-EROSION TASKS 100% YR2 NON路EROSION TASKS LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 100% U1, US & #6/100% EROS CNTRL/LTM 10% #17 LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE

20,588

Table lV-3b 1998

YEAR 4 AVAILABLE MANHOURS

•

9,600 FT 11,520 S 4,000 V 25,120

MANHOURS NEEDED 240 240

UNIT # #3 #4

240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 9,502 2,582 148 9,079 693 492

#2 #5 #9 #14 #8 UO #13 #6 #17 #17 #17 RAVINE 1 (18,1) #16 #15 #12

39 160 11 42

&QBA SENIC #7

COMMENTS YR1 YR1 YR1 YR1 YR1 YR1 YR1 YR1 YR1 YR1 21% YR_1 (RUNNING TOTAL 71%) 36%YR2 4%YR3 YR3 100% NON-EROSION YR3 100% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 100% #11; U5 & U6 100% EROS CNTRL/LTM 10% #17/ LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE

25,148

YEAR 5

1999

AVAILABLE MANHOURS

MANHOURS NEEDED

UNIT # #3

9,600 FT 11,520 S 4,000 V

240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 6,152 13,122 1,506 1,332 4 272 21 15 39 160 11 42

25,120

24,836

#4 #2 #5 #9 U4 #8 #10 #13 #6 #17 #17 #17 #17 RAVINE 1 #16 #15 #12 &QBA SENIC #7

COMMENTS YR1 YR1 YR1 YR1 YR1 YR1 YR1 YR1 YR1 YR 1 (INCLUDING 480) 93% YR 1 (RUNNING TOTAL) 29% 21% YR2 36% YR3 4'%) LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE NON-EROSION/LONG TERM MAINTENANCE NON-EROSION/LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE

Table IV-3c YEAR 14

2008

AVAILABLE MANHOURS

9,600 FT 11,520 S 4,000 V 25,120

MANHOURS NEEDED 240 6,239

UNIT f f3 f4

8,716 2,412

f2 #2

423 980 11 5 91 41 116 40 23 100 272 21 15 39 160 11 42

f2 fS f5 f9 U4 f8 UO U3 f6 U7 RAVINE 1 U6 #15 U2 EQBA SENIC f7

19,997 5,123

PERIMETER PROJECTS

25,120

TOTAL MANHOURS

YEAR 15

COMMENTS YRI YRI 26% (INCLUDING +2640)

33%YRl 57%YR2 20%YR3

1 - - "YR1" tasks completed in Year 3 through Year 13

72%YR3 28% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 100% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 100% LONG T ERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 90% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE

2009

AVAILABLE MANHOURS

9,600 FT 11,520 S 4,000 V 25,120

MANHOURS NEEDED 240

UNIT f f3

15,026 1,423

#4 f4

1,397 1,206 13 41 5 91 41 116 40 23 100 272 21 15 39 160 11 42

f2 f2 f2 f5 f9 U4 f8 UO #13 #6 U7 RAVINE 1 U6 #15 #12 EQBA SENIC #7

20,322 4,798

PERIMETER PROJECTS

25,120

TOTAL MANHOURS

COMMENTS 44% YR 1 (RUNNING TOTAL 70%)

26%YR2 33% YR 2 57% YR 3 20% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 100% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 90% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE

Table IV-3d YEAR 16 AVAILABLE MANHOURS

MANHOURS NEEDED

9,600 FT 11,520 S 4,000 V 25,120

5,035 10,245 2,408 727 698 36 13 41 5 91 41 116 40 23 100 272 21 15 39 160 11 42 20,179 4,941 25,120

YEAR 17

2010 UNIT f *3 f4 #4 f4 #2 #2 #2 #5 #9 n4 f8 no #13 #6 #17 RAVINE 1 #16 #15 n2 EQBA SENIC #7

COMMENTS

27%

YR 1 (INCLUDING +3120)

30% YR1 (RUNNING 100%) 44% YR 2 26%YR3

33%YR3 57% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 20% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 100% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 90% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 100% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE

PERIMETER PROJECTS TOTAL MANHOURS

2011

AVAILABLE MANHOURS

MANHOURS NEEDED

9,600 FT 11,520 S 4,000 V 25,120

UNIT

# #3 #3 #4 f4 #4

15,102 1,300 1,642 1,231 22 63 41 5 91 41 116 40 23 100 272 21 15 39 160 11 42 20,377 4,743

PERIMETER PROJECTS

25,120

TOTAL MANHOURS

#2 #5 #9 #14 #8 no n3 #6 #17 RAVINE 1 #16 #15 #12 EQBA SENIC #7

COMMENTS

50% YR l(RUNNING TOTAL 77%) 27%YR2 30% YR 2

44% YR 3 26% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE

100% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE

Staffing Requirements

It will take a substantial and dedicated staff to carry out the phased

stabilization and restoration proposed in this document. Although a great deal of the work outlined here can be accomplished by volunteer and youth employment programs, the bulk of the work and the technical expertise and direction, will come from a full-time staff forming the Park's Natural Resources Crew. The core of this crew should consist of full-time employees, secure in their jobs, and dedicated to the tasks at hand, and drawn from various fields of expertise. The supervisor of the crew should possess a post graduate degree in either Forestry, Forest Ecology, or a related field. This person should have considerable administrative skills to plan, execute, record and monitor the complex Plan put forth. Lastly, this person should have good human relations skills to relate the Plan to the public at large and to volunteer and youth groups as well. It is proposed that a full time permanent crew of five field technicians are required to execute the Plan. It is imperative that

these five crew members possess the same human relations skills as mentioned above, as they will be the park personnel most directly in contact with the public and so must be effective communicators. In addition, it is imperative that these permanent staff members contribute expertise in varied fields of practical and academic knowledge to insure the Plan is not oversimplified in its goals and execution. Specifically, crew members with appropriate academic and! or life experience in the following areas should be incorporated into the Natural Resources Crew: -Equipment Operation, Maintenance and Repair -Native Plant Propogation and General Nursery Operation -Aquatic Biology & Limnology -Wildlife Management -Soil Science, including soil sampling and testing -Meadow Management The permanent staff will utilize winter months to maintain and repair equipment, stock materials (especially cribbing logs) for the coming season, and carry out winter-time plant propagation activities. In addition they will utilize this time to assess and record the previous year's activities and to plan for next year's

restoration activities as well as activities in their particular areas of expertise. In addition to the permanent staff, 10 seasonal staff persons will be required. These 10 workers will be hired on a nine-month basis from March through November. Their primary function will be to work alongside the permanent staff in executing the bulk of the restoration and maintenance work detailed in this plan. Their ranks will hopefully be drawn largely from youth programs operated in the Park as part of the stabilization effort. Exceptional and enthused participants in these youth programs should be utilized as paid employees. Such employment opportunities can act as significant stepping stones to academic training and full time careers in Natural Areas Management in either urban or rural settings. Fostering an interest in this area as a career goal amongst inner city youth should be an important component of this program. As this Plan progresses, it is hoped and anticipated that it will become more sophisticated in its techniques and in its goals. It is not perceived that this process is either static, unchanging or finite with some determinable end point. As such, increased staff hours dedicated to activities not outlined in this Plan (and in addition to this plan) most certainly will be required. As such, it is not unreasonable to assume a need for increased permanent staff beyond what it outlined here. However, the size and scope of duties for such additional staff can not be accounted for at this time and in this plan. Volunteers: As mentioned above, volunteer and youth employment programs are seen as important components of this plan. Urban youth and adults, mostly denied a significant exposure to and appreciation for natural areas must be sensitized to the functioning of, needs of, and need for urban natural areas. No better way exists to accomplish this than through active participation in the restoration and care of these systems. As such a significant component of volunteer and youth hours (4,900 manhours per year) have been incorporated into our phasing and manpower estimates. The following discussion details the staffing requirements necessary to execute this plan. The staffing levels reflect the needs for manpower as detailed in Appendix XIV A. Phasing: Phasing assumes a reasonable increase in staffing over four years to allow for fund raising efforts to gradually meet the financial needs of staffing the plan.

In addition, the phasing assumes that during the first two years of the Plan the supervisor will contribute significant hours to actual stabilization efforts, but that beyond that his or her efforts will largely be administrative and supportive and beyond that point his or her efforts are not counted towards hours dedicated to restoration activities. In the third year of the plan, full time staffing will reach its maximum. Seasonal staffing will gradually increase through the fourth year where it will reach its maximum level. Of the ten seasonals utilized, two are required, starting in the third year, to account for stabilization work in the Perimeter Woodlands, which will be phased into the Plan starting in this year (1997). This maximum staffing level is maintained through the seventeenth year of the Plan (2011). In the eighteenth year seasonal help starts to be phased out, until all seasonal hiring is halted in year twentyone (2015). This decrease in seasonal staffing corresponds with the completion of the various stabilization tasks in the Management Units. Indeed, by the twenty-first year stabilization activities no longer account for the full manhours available from the five permanent staff members. However, as stated earlier, it is reasonable to assume that on-going restoration and maintenance work not accounted for in this Plan will occupy all of the extra manhours available in those years, if not more. Therefore, it is reasonable to show maintained staffing levels of one supervisor and five full time field technicians through the twenty third year of the Plan (2017) when the last of the stabilization activities outlined here are completed. Appendix XIV A shows the phased introduction of additional staff and their sustained levels for the life of the plan. Salary Costs: In order to arrive at costs estimates for the plan, certain employment scenarios and assumptions were made. Starting salaries for three categories of employees were assumed: Supervisor (SUI), Field Technician (FTl) and Seasonals (SEl). It is assumed, for purposes of this estimate, that all employees will receive 5% salary increases yearly for the duration of their employment and that fringe benefit expenses for each employee will total 20% of their gross earnings for full time employees and 17% of their gross earnings for seasonal employees.

It is further assumed, for purposes of this estimate, that the average length of employment for each category of employment will be as follows: Supervisor: eight years (SU1 through SU8); Field Technician: five years (FT1 through FTS); Seasonal: three years (SE1 through SE3). Appendix XIV-B details a staffing scheme that incorporates the above assumptions into a twenty-three year plan. Appendix XIV-C shows estimated salary costs for the twenty three year life of this Plan, given the above-stated assumptions and based on typical salary costs for similar positions in New York City in 1994. Average salary costs per year are $162,699. Total salary costs over twenty three years are $7,113,926. Costs are not adjusted for inflation. Facilities: A critical issue to address at the outset of the Plan is the need for a facility to house locker rooms, indoor work space, and storage areas for this increased level of staffing. There are currently no available facilities within the Park capable of housing an additional 16 staff members and all their equipment and supplies. Furthermore, it is essential to the smooth operation of the Landscape Management Office that these facilities be incorporated into one site with the other three crews operating under this office (the Horticulture, Turf and Arboriculture Crews) for logistical efficiency.

Equipment and Materials Requirements

Adequate equipment and materials must be provided according to a phased schedule that is synchronized with the work schedules and staffing levels detailed in the previous sections. Plant Material: A separate discussion of plant material requirements is warranted. It is assumed that all herbaceous plants required to carry out the program will be propagated and grown inhouse by the staff of the Natural Resources Crew. In the spring of 1994 a propagation facility was erected in the Park with funds secured through a New York State "Environmental Quality Bond Act of 1986" grant for stabilization ofa section of the woodlands. The facility is of sufficient capacity to produce the yearly quantities of herbaceous plants required for the plan. (See Appendices IV and VI) The labor to propagate these plants is accounted for in the yearly staffing requirements layed out in this plan. A table of yearly herbaceous plant requirements is provided in Appendices XV lA, lB.

Space does not currently exist within Prospect Park to propagate the trees and shrubs required for the project. Furthermore, extensive woody nursery operations exist within The New York City Department of Parks and Recreation. Natural areas restorations in the park as well as other parks in all five boroughs are currently utilizing woody plants propagated by New York City Parks & Recreation from wild collected seed stocks. It is hoped that these efforts will continue and will expand to meet the growing needs of this Park as well as the others in the system. However, the costs of propagating these woody plants must be included as part of the total cost of the restoration effort. The man hours and labor costs for these woody plants is therefore tabulated separately (see Appendices XV IB and XV 2B) and the totals are included in the final cost estimate (see pg. 85). If the agency does not meet these needs, the additional space to

propagate these plants must be found within Prospect Park and the additional costs of constructing an expanded propagation range and staffing it over the life of the project must be incurred by the Program. The labor costs to grow the plants should equal those listed in the report for woody propagation. Vehicles and Heavy Equipment Requirements: Vehicles will be necessary to transport crews, equipment and materials to various sites in the Park. In addition vehicles will be necessary to haul materials such as soil, plants, cribbing logs etc. from locations outside of the Park. A small "Cushman"-type utility vehicle and small "Bobcat"-type loader will be necessary for the operation of the in-house propagation facility. Lastly, a watering truck for maintaining new plantings through first year drought conditions is essential. Unfortunately, most of this equipment is needed soon after mobilization is begun on the plan. An incremental purchasing schedule over the first four years of the Plan was devised, in recognition of the need to slowly increase funding efforts in the early years of implementation. Information on 1994 purchase prices as well as projected replacement rates for the various pieces of equipment was obtained from Ron Weber, Assistant Coordinator of Vehicle Acquisition for the NYC Department of Parks & Recreation. All estimates of price

and replacement rates are approximate. Prices are not adjusted for inflation. Appendix XVI-A lists all the heavy equipment required and all relevant information for pricing. Appendix XVI-B graphically represents a schedule of purchasing and replacement for all the equipment over the 23 years of the Plan. Lastly, Appendix XVI-C lists yearly, total, and average expenditures for all heavy equipment over the same 23 years. It is assumed that most of this equipment will be necessary on a similar replacement cycle beyond the twenty three years to equip the staff for on-going restoration and maintenance efforts. Other Materials: All other materials required to execute the Plan are listed in Appendix XV-3A and -3B. The tables list all yearly and total quantities and costs for both the Core Forest and the Perimeter Woodlands. (Two items are accounted for as labor-only costs: cribbing logs and all plant materials., The labor costs are accounted for elsewhere in this report.

F. COST SUMMARIES Table IV-4: Total Costs I) Department of Parks & Recreation I DPR) Capital Expenditures for Landscape 38 Ravine Phase I Landscape Costs39 Phase I-A Phase I-B 10% Contingency Subtotal

$ 1,065,000 879,000 $ 1,944,000 194,000 $ 2,138,400

II) DPR Capital Expenditures for Infrastructure Repairs40 $28,000,000

III) DPR Operating Expenditures 41 Woody Plant Propagation Forest Core Perimeter Woodlands 10% Contingency Subtotal

720,000 721,110 $ 1,441,110 144,111 $ 1,585,000 $

This expenditure is from estimated costs for a capitally funded project budgeted in an area of the Forest Core. The estimate is for those activities roughly equivalent to "Year 1" stabilization activities as defined in this document, since the scope of work in this capital project roughly approximates that work encompassed by Year 1 work. Year "2" and "3" activities are accounted for as inhouse work in this Plan. 39 Best estimate of those costs from scope estimates from Contract No. B-73-781, The Reconstruction of the Upper Pools in the Ravine. Prospect Park, Brooklyn. New York. 40 Expenditure for non-landscape repairs paths, bridges, dredging of water ways, etc. with the Forest Core and Perimeter Woodlands. 38

Table IV-4: Total Costs, continued IV) Prospect Park Alliance Expenditures Staffing Forest Core Perimeter Woodlands

$ 6,743,686 370,240 $ 7,113,926

Materials Forest Core Perimeter Woodlands

$ 1,276,612 2,781,369 $ 4,057,981

Vehicles & Heavy Equipment 20% Contingency & Administrative Costs Subtotal Total Alliance & City Capital & Expense Budget over 25 years

$ 934,000 $12,105,907 2,421,181 $14,527,088 $46,250,709

Monitoring and Ongoing Maintenance

It is beyond the scope of this document to include a lengthy

discussion and detailed plan for these two crucial activities. However, a brief recognition of their importance is warranted. One of the most critical tasks of the immediate future will be to develop an ongoing maintenance and assessment program. The oldest restoration efforts in the Park were completed only three years ago. That has been sufficient time to assess the short-term success of the techniques used and to feel confident in their ability to perform as needed. However, what is proposed in this Plan is only triage- an initial bandaid to stop the decline of these ecosystems and hopefully start them on the road to recovery. If the soils are restored to a healthy condition and the worst assaults on the environment stopped, the ecosystems will do a great deal to restore themselves, but clearly not without assistance. Monitoring of the completed work and of the changes set in motion must be constant and ongoing. It will be necessary to assess what the ecosystems are becoming and apply correctives if necessary or develop further strategies to aid the processes if the direction of development is satisfactory. If these woodlands were developing in a pristine setting we would

only have to react to those natural events that were shaping the forest ecosystems. But since they are surrounded by some of the most densely populated urban environments in the world, we will need to monitor and react to intensive urban pressures as well. Some of these pressures will be obvious, such as the continued assault on the woodland environments by the sheer volume of usership. Others will be less obvious, such as the effects of air pollution on the environment and some cannot be predicted, let alone anticipated from this point in time. Earlier, this report made two recommendations for on-site monitoring: baseline monitoring and monitoring of the Ravine Phase I project (see pg. 51). These will become components of a system of monitoring that is now under developed. The resources outlined in this document will not be the only ones required over the next twenty-three years. The on-going monitoring of these ecosystems will reveal additional needs for which Park Management will have to respond with new initiatives and additional dollars. These needs will help define an On-Going 87

Maintenance Program that will pick up where this Implementation Plan has left off and which must become fully integrated into the Landscape Management Plan developed in this report.

viii). On-going Management

On-going maintenance is perhaps the most difficult to quantify, in part because so little has actually been done in the past. Woodlands and other natural area parklands throughout the country were, for the most part, abandoned by managers who in times in fiscal crisis could not even keep up with the more primary maintenance tasks of mowing lawns and maintaining facilities. Another hurdle is a general lack of awareness of the fact that urban natural areas actually require a relatively high degree of management to make up for lost natural functions. Fragmented woodlands, poorly connected to other larger natural areas, do not have adequate seed exchange for example, because of reduced wildlife and other restrictions. People, instead, must deliberately gather and distribute seed and other propagules. In addition the sheer numbers of people using this landscape necessitates a degree of continuous care and repair. Even when all the identified corrective measures are undertaken and the infrastructure is complete and appropriate, maintenance will be required.

A Landscape Management Plan for The Natural Areas ofProspect Park Appendices to Report

prepared by

The Prospect Park Landscape Management Office 95 Prospect Park West Brooklyn, New York 11215 Edward Toth, Director

Andropogon Associates, Ltd 374 Shurs Lane Philadelphia, PA 19128 Leslie Sauer, Principal

This report was supported in part by a grant from tbe National Endowment for tbe Arts, a federal agency.

Prospect Park Alliance, Inc.

Appendices I through III and VIII through XVI have been reproduced in their entirety. The Management Unit Tables and Calendars (Appendices IV through VII) have only had one representative of each reproduced here. The specific details contained in these tables and calendars will be of little interest outside of the Landscape Management Office. Anyone wishing to understand our methods or incorporate our strategies for their own uses should be able to follow our procedures from the examples presented and by reading Section IV-C, "Sample Stabilization Scenario" on pgs. 67- 78 of the report.

Appendix Index

Appendix I Appendix II Appendix III Appendix IV Appendix V Appendix VI Appendix VII Appendix VIII Appendix IX Appendix X Appendix XI Appendix XII Appendix XIII Appendix XIV Appendix XV Appendix XVI

Species List Bibliography Criteria, Units of Measurement Management Unit Tables - Forest Core Management Unit Calendars - Forest Core Management Unit Tables Perimeter Woodlands Management Unit Calendars Perimeter Woodlands Phasing Tables - Forest Core Phasing Tables - Perimeter Woodlands Management Unit Summary Table Forest Core Management Unit Summary Table Perimeter Woodlands Staffing Tables Materials Equipment Phasing Chart - Forest Core Phasing Chart - Perimeter Woodlands

p. 1 p.20 p.25 p.32 p.51 p. 106

p. 120 p. 157 p. 168 p. 177

p. 179 p. p. p. p. p.

181 184 197 202 204

APPENDIX I

SPECIES LIST

This species list is the product of research conducted by the Landscape Management Office of Prospect Park. It represents to the best of the Office's knowledge the species which would have been found in this part of Long Island prior to European Colonial settlement. This list was derived from several sources including Harper, Greller, Taylor, Beitel and the Natural Resources Group. Steve Clements, plant taxonomist at the Brooklyn Botanical Garden, was consulted in the process of preparing this list. In addition the Natural Resources Crew of Prospect Park, Ainsley Caldwell, Ann Wong, and Darwin Cornell provided input based on their ongoing stabilization efforts of the Natural Areas of Prospect Park. The list is arranged by habitat, including xeric, mesophytic, swamp, marsh, meadow and aquatic conditions. To varying degrees all of these habitat conditions are represented within the bounds of Prospect Park. A distinction is made between habitats dominated by species associated with the vegetation type, 'Eastern Deciduous Forest', found on upland morainal soils, and habitats dominated by species associated with the vegetation type, 'Coastal Plains', found on soils of the outwash plain. From an overview of the topography of the Park, one would expect the majority of the Forest Core/Natural Area to be located on soils of the morainal uplands. However before the Landscape Management Office selects species for a site which is to be stabilized, it will conduct a soil test of the site to guide the selection of species. A long-term goal of the Landscape Management Office should be to produce a habitat map of the Park based on topography and a comprehensive soil survey of the Park. An attempt was made to list the species in order of their relative abundance per habitat type. The term abundance refers not specifically to numbers, but to relative importance in the structure of the habitat type. Although the list is made in the relative order of dominance for all the plant types, (i.e. Canopy Trees, Understory Trees, Shrubs, and Herbaceous), the importance of the order in any stabilization/restoration effort should be adhered to closely only for the list of Canopy Trees per habitat type. The Landscape Management Office is less certain of the order of abundance of the other plant types, (i.e. Understory Trees, Shrubs, and Herbaceous) because the order represents a compilation of two or three lists from different sources. These sources should be consulted before plants are chosen for a stabilization/restoration site. The list could simply have been made in alphabetical order, however this would not provide the Landscape Management Office with an understanding of the structure of the Natural Areas by habitat type. The same species can be found in several different habitat types. What differs is the relative dominance of the species by habitat type. This list represents an ideal as many of the species are not to be found in commercial nurseries. The Natural Resources Crew of the Landscape Management Office has been operating a native plant nursery to grow plants for use in its stabilization efforts. Hopefully, this list will guide the 2

Natural Resources Crew to expand the variety of plant species which it is propagating. These efforts are by nature an experimentation as there are few sources of information available on the propagation of native species. The process is one of trial and error. In addition as with other natural restoration efforts across the country, it is hoped that such projects will encourage commercial nurseries to expand their selection of native plants. (The Botanical Names of the species listed below is based on the nomenclature used in the reference: Manual of Vascular Plants of Northeastern United States and Adjacent Canada; Second Edition by Henry A. Gleason and Arthur Cronquist. I) The lists will be further enhanced and corrected as more information is gained on individual species and their distributions.

l(Gleason, Henry A, and Cronquist, Arthur; Manual ofYascular Plants of Northeastern United States and Adjacent Second Edition; N,Y, Botanical Garden, Bronx, New York; 1991)

XERIC WOODLAND (Morainal Lands -A hardwood forest that occurs on well-drained sites, usually on ridge tops, upper slopes, or south- and westfacing slopes. The soils are usually loams or sandy loams.)2 Canopy Trees Quercus rubra Quercus velutina Quercus alba Betula lenta Fagus grandifolia Liriodendron tulipifera Quercus coccinea Acer rubrum Carya tomentosa Carya glabra Liquidambar styraciflua Sassifras albidum Acer saccharum Quercus palustris Ulmus americana

Red Oak Black Oak White Oak Sweet Birch American Beech Tuliptree Scarlet Oak Red Maple Mockernut Hickory Pignut Hickory Sweet Gum Sassafras Sugar Maple Pin Oak American Elm

Understory Trees Cornus florida Ostrya virginiana Amelanchier canadensis Amelanchier laevis Cornus alternifolia Betula populifolia

Flowering Dogwood American Hophornbeam Shadblow Serviceberry Allegheny Serviceberry Pagoda Dogwood Gray Birch

Shrubs Viburnum acerifolium Viburnum prunifolium Rubus alleghensis Rubus occidentalis Corylus americana Rosa caroliniana

Mapleleaf Viburnum Blackhaw Viburnum Common Blackberry Black Raspberry American Hazel-nut Pasture Rose

Herbaceous Aster divaricatus Solidago caesia Solidago rugosa Geranium maculatum Maienthemum canadense Polygonatum pubescens Smilacina racemosa Thelypteris novaboracensis Uvularia sessilifolia

White Woodland Aster Woodland Goldenrod Rough-stemmed Goldenrod Wild Geranium Canada Mayflower Hairy Solomon's Seal False Solomon's Seal New York Fern Sessile-leaved Bellwort

2(Natural Resources Group, p. 25)

Polystichum acrostichoides Polyganatum biflorum Lysimachia quadrifolia Potentilla canadensis Juncoides campestre Aster macrophyllus Aster cordifolius Aralia nudicaulis Carex digitalis Scrophularia spp. Carex virescens

Christmas Fern Smooth Solomon's Seal Whorled Loosestrife Dwarf Cinquefoil (nomenclature unknown) Big-leaved Aster Common Blue Heart-leaved Aster Wild Sarsaparilla Sedge Figwort species Sedge

MESOPHYTIC WOODLAND (Morainal lands -A hardwood or mixed forest that occurs on rich, moist well-drained soils which are favorable for the dominance of a wide variety of tree species.)3 Overstory Trees Liriodendron tulipifera Fagus grandifolia Quercus rubra Acer rubrum Betula lenta Carya glabra Carya tomentosa Quercus velutina Quercus palustris Acer saccharum Fraxinus americana Liquidambar styraciflua Quercus alba Sassafras albidum Robinia pseudoacacia Diospyros virginiana Tilia americana Tsuga canadensis Pinus strobus

Tuliptree American Beech Red Oak Red Maple Sweet Birch Pignut Hickory Mockernut Hickory Black Oak Pin Oak Sugar Maple American Ash Sweet Gum White Oak Sassafras Black Locust Common Persimmon Basswood Hemlock White Pine

Understory Trees Cornus florida Amelanchier canadensis Amelanchier laevis Ostrya virginiana Carpinus caroliniana Hex opaca Cornus alternifolia Hamamelis virginiana

Flowering Dogwood Shadblow Serviceberry Allegheny Serviceberry American Hophornbeam Ironwwod American Holly Pagoda Dogwood Witch-hazel

3(Ibid.; p. 27)

Shrubs Viburnum acerifolium Rubus alleghensis Sambucus canadensis Rubus occidentalis Lindera benzoin Viburnum dentatum Vitis riparia

Maple-leafed Dogwood Common Blackberry Common Elder Black Raspberry Spicebush Arrowwood Viburnum Riverbank Grape

Herbaceous Osmunda claytoniana Thelypteris hexagonoptera Thelypteris noveboracensis Athyrium filix-femina Allium tricoccum Trillium erectum Arisaema triphyllum Geranium maculatum Polygonum virginianum Actaea alba Thalictrum pubescens Erythronium americanum Polygonatum biflorum Smilacina racemosa Maianthemum canadense Aralia nudicaulis Monotropa uniflora Dryopteris intermedia Polystichum acrostichoides Geranium robertianum Medeola virginiana Isotria vertic illata Goodyera pubescens Anemonella thalictroides Aquilegia canadensis Phytolacca americana Aster divaricatus Collinsonia canadensis

Interrupted Fern Broad Fern New York Fern Lady Fern Wild Leek Purple Trillium Small Jack-in-the-Pulpit Wild Geranium Jumpseed White Baneberry Tall Meadow-rue Trout Lily Smooth Solomon's Seal False Solomon's Seal Canada Mayflower Wild Sarsaparilla Indian Pipe Wood-fern Christmas Fern Herb Robert Indian Cucumber Root Whorled Pogonias Downy Rattlesnake Plantain Rue-anemone Canada Columbine Pokeweed White Woodland Aster Northern Horse-balm

KETTLE PONDS AND SWAMPS (Morainal lands -Found in depressions left from the glacial period on poorly drained peat and muck soils. One or two tree species typically dominate a stand.1 4 Canopy Trees Liquidambar styraciflua Quercus palustris Quercus rubra Acer rubrum Sassafras albidum Betula lenta Quercus velutina Carya glabra Nyssa sylvatica Platanus occidentalis Quercus bicolor Fraxinus americana Liriodendron tulipifera Ulmus americana

Sweet Gum Pin Oak Red Oak Red Maple Sassafras Sweet Birch Black Oak Pignut Hickory Sour Gum American Sycamore Swamp White Oak American Ash Tuliptree American Elm

Understory trees Carpinus caroliniana

Ironwood

Shrubs Clethra alnifolia Eubotrys racemosa Viburnum dentatum Vaccinium corymbosum Rhododendron viscosum Lindera benzoin Decodon verticillatus

Sweet Pepper-bush Fetterbush Arrowwood Viburnum Highbush-blueberry Swamp Honeysuckle Spicebush Swamp Loosestrife

Herbaceous Symplocarpus foetidus Peltandra virginica Osmunda cinnamomea Polygonatum biflorum Onoclea sensibilis Osmunda regalis Maianthemum canadense Rubus hispidus

Skunk-cabbage Arrow-arum Cinnamon Fern Smooth Solomon's Seal Sensitive Fern Royal Fern Canada Mayflower Swamp Dewberry

4(Greller, Andrew M., 1975, p. 64.) (GreJler; "Major Forest Types on Long Island;" Unpublished table from course Biology 617 taught at Queen's College, C.U.N.Y. Flushing, N.Y. 11367; obtained through Steve Clemants of the Brooklyn Botanical Garden)

XERIC WOODS (Outwash Plain - The soil in the Xeric Woods of the Outwash Plain is sandy, gravelly, very porous, generally with a thin top layer of organic material such as leaves, twigs, etc. S ) Canopy Trees Quercus velutina Quercus alba Quercus coccinea Carya glabra Quercus prinus Sassafras albidum Carya tomentosa Quercus rubra Populus grandidentata Betula populifolia

Black Oak White Oak Scarlet Oak Pignut Hickory Chestnut Oak Sassafras Mockernut Hickory Red Oak Bigtooth Aspen Gray Birch

Understory Trees Cornus florida

Flowering Dogwood

Shrubs Vaccinium pallidum Gaylussacia baccata Myrica heterophylla Rosa virginiana Myrica pennsylvanica Viburnum acerifolium

Hillside-blueberry Black Huckleberry Southern Bayberry Virginia Rose Northern Bayberry Maple-leaved Viburnum

Herbaceous Carex pensylvanica Panicum dichotomiflorum Solidago caesia Solidago bicolor Baptisia tinctoria Desmodium nudiflora Fragaria virginiana Potentilla canadensis Angelica venenosa Helianthus divaricatus Aralia nudicaulis Aureolaria pedicularia Panicum commutatum Aster paternus Pteridium aquilinum Solidago juncea Helianthemum spp.

Sedge Switch Grass Woodland Goldenrod Silver-rod Goldenrod Yellow Wild-indigo Naked Tick-trefoil Thick-leaved Wild Strawberry Dwarf Cinquefoil Hairy Angelica Woodland Sunflower Wild Sarsaparilla Annual False Foxglove Switchgrass Toothed White-topped Aster Bracken Fern Early Goldenrod Frostweed Species

5(Hostek, Albert; Native and Near Natiye. An Introduction to Long Island Plants. Where to See Them How to lise Them; Copyright, The Environmental Centers of Setauket-Smithtown, inc.; Shannon and Sons, inc. Ronkonkoma, N.Y.; 1976; p. 34

Galium circaezans Agrimonia spp. Desmodium paniculatum Antennaria plantaginifolia Aster patens Desmodium rigidum Lespedeza hirta Eupatorium sessilifolium Carex vestita Anemone quinquefolia Deschampsia flexuosa Anthoxanthum odoratum Lysimachia quadrifolia Maienthemum canadense

Forest Bedstraw Agrimony Species Tick-trefoil Plantain Pussytoes Clasping Aster Stiff Tick-trefoil Hairy Lespedeza Upland Boneset Sedge Wood Anemone Hairgrass Sweet Vernal Grass Whorled Loosestrife Canada Mayflower

MESOPHYTIC WOODS (Outwash Plain - Moist woodlands in which a rich, deep, loamy soil predominates. Soils of this nature contain more humus or organic matter, composed of fallen leaves and woodland debris, than the soil of the xeric woods. 6 ) Canopy Trees Liriodendron tulipifera Sassafras albidum Quercus rubra Quercus velutina Carya tomentosa Acer rubrum Nyssa sylvatica Quercus palustris

Tuliptree Sassafras Red Oak Black Oak Mockernut Hickory Red Maple Sour Gum Pin Oak

Understory Trees Cornus florida

Flowering Dogwood

Shrubs Viburnum acerifolium Lindera benzoin Rubus allegheniensis Sambucus canadensis

Maple-leaved Viburnum Spicebush Common Blackberry Common Elder

6Ibid.; p. 47)

Herbaceous Smilacina racemosa Lysimachia quadrifolia Solidago caesia Geranium maculatum Aster divaricatus Amphicarpaea bracteata Desmodium nudiflora Collinsonia canadensis Silene stellata Veronicastrum virginicum Smilax herbacea Circaea lutetiana Sanicula marilandica Polygonatum biflorum Prenanthes spp. Eupatorium sessilifolium Juncoides campestre Desmodium cuspidatum

False Solomon'S Seal Whorled Loosestrife Woodland Goldenrod Wild Geranium White Woodland Aster Hog-peanut Naked Tick-trefoil Northern Horse-Balm Starry Campion Culver's Root Herbaceous Catbrier Common Enchanter's Nightshade Black Snakeroot Smooth Solomon's Seal White Lettuce Species Upland Boneset (nomenclature unknown) Big Tick-trefoil

HARDWOOD SWAMP (Outwash Plain - Wooded wetland dominated by Red Maple (Acer rubrum) and Sour Gum (Nyssa sylvatica) with sub-acidic pH. Well-developed canopy and shrub layer. Soil moist to saturated, with much organic matter. Develops in areas with impeded drainage or where water table is at ground level along river's ponds and springs. Water supply continuous all year. Often transitional between marsh and oakhickory or pine barrens. Many ferns and other herbs, as well as mosses and liverworts.)7 Canopy Trees Acer rubrum Nyssa sylvatica Liquidambar styraciflua Quercus palustris Quercus bicolor Fraxinus americana Liriodendron tulipifera Ulmus americana Sassafras albidum

Red Maple Sour Gum Sweet Gum Pin Oak Swamp White Oak White Ash Tuliptree American Elm Sassafras

Shrubs Clethra alnifolia Eubotrys racemosa Rhododendron visco sum

Sweet Pepper-bush Fetterbush Swamp Honeysuckle

7(Beitel, Joseph; Unpublished notes on the vegetation of Long Island from deceased employee of the New York Botanical Garden;)

Vaccinium corymbosum Magnolia virginiana Viburnum dentatum Lindera benzoin Aronia melanocarpa Aronia arbutifolia Ilex vertic illata Alnusincana Gaylussacia frondosa Sambucus canadensis

HighbushBlueberry Sweetbay Magnolia Arrowwood Viburnum Spicebush Black Chokeberry Red Chokeberry Winterberry Speckled Alder Black Huckleberry Common Elder

Herbaceous Osmunda cinnamomae Osmunda regalis Dryopteris intermedia Dryopteris cristata Onoclea sensibilis Woodwardia areolata Thelypteris simulata Lycopodium obscurum Symplocarpus foetidus Maienthemum canadense Caltha palustris Rubus hispidus Lobelia cardinalis Lilium superbum

Cinnamon Fern Royal Fern Wood-fern Crested Wood-fern Sensitive Fern Netted Chain Fern Massachusetts Fern Tree Clubmoss Skunk Cabbage Canada Mayflower Marsh Marigold Swamp Dewberry Cardinal Flower Turk's-Cap Lily

FLOODPLAIN FOREST (Morainal lands or Outwash Plain - A hardwood forest that occurs on mineral soils in the lowlands of river floodplains and river deltas. These sites are characterized by their flood regime; low areas are annually flooded in spring and high areas are flooded irregularly.) Canopy Trees Acer negundo Acer saccharinum Salix nigra Acer rubrum Fraxinus americana Liquidambar styraciflua Nyssa sylvatica Platanus occidentalis Quercus bicolor Quercus palustris Tilia americana

Box Elder Silver Maple Black Willow Red Maple White Ash Sweet Gum Sour Gum American Sycamore Swamp White Oak Pin Oak Basswood

Understory Trees Carpinus caroliniana

Ironwood 11

Shrubs Alnus spp. Cephalanthus occidentalis Aronia arbutifolia Clethra alnifolia Cornus amomum Ilex vertic illata Kalmia angustifolia Lyonia ligustrina Rhododendron viscosum Rosa palustris Sambucus canadensis Vaccinium corymbosum Decodon verticillatus

Alder species Buttonbush Red Chokeberry Sweet Pepperbush Silky Dogwood Winterberry Sheep Laurel Maleberry Swamp Honeysuckle Swamp Rose Common Elder Highbush-blueberry Swamp Loosestrife

Herbaceous Impatiens capensis Poa palustris Equisetum arvense Viola cucullata Cuscuta spp. Onoclea sensibilis Osmunda cinnamomae Calamagrostis canadensis Carex crinita Carex pensylvanica Carex vulpinoides Deschampsia cespitosa Juncus canadensis Scripus atrovirens Asclepias incarnata Aster novae-angliae Aster novi-belgii Caltha palustris Chelone glabra Eupatorium maculatum Eupatorium perfoliatum Eupatorium rugosum Helianthus angustifolius Lobelia cardinalis Lobelia siphilitica Penstemon digitalis Rudbeckia triloba Tradescantia virginiana Vernonia noveboracensis

Touch-me-not Fowl Meadow Grass Common Horsetail Blue Marsh-violet Dodder species Sensitive Fern Cinnamon Fern Bluejoint Crinkled Sedge Pennsylvania Sedge Fox Sedge Tufted Hairgrass Canada Rush Black Bulrush Swamp Milkweed New England Aster New York Aster Marsh Marigold Turtlehead Spotted Joe-Pye Weed Boneset White Boneset Swamp Sunflower Cardinal Flower Great Lobelia White Beardtongue Thin-leaf Coneflower Spiderwort New York Ironweed

MARSH - (Morainal lands or Outwash Plain - open wetland community along ponds, rivers, bogs and undrained depressions. Dominated by grasslike plants, trees usually absent, shrubs along margins. Experiences a series of successional stages form shrub to swamp to woodland. High soil moisture, much organic material, usually acidic pH.ls Graminoids Typha latifolia Typha angustifolia Carex stricta Zizania aquatica Iris versicolor Acorus calamus

Common Cat-Tail Narrow-leaved Cat-Tail Saw-Grass Wild Rice Blue Flag Sweet Flag

Herbaceous Thelypteris palustris Onocleis sensibilis Lysimachia terrestris Aesclepias incarnata Lycopus virginicus Scutellaria laterifloria Eupatorium perfoliatum Impatiens capensis Juncus effusus Juncus acuminatus Eleocharis ovata Sparganium androcladum Lysimachia ciliata Lysimachia hybrida

Marsh Fern Sensitive Fern Swamp Candles Swamp Milkweed Water Horehound Skullcap Boneset Touch-me-not Soft Rush Rush Blunt Spike-rush Bur-reed Fringed Loosestrife Mississippi-valley Loosestrife

Shrubs Alnus spp. Hex vertic illata Rhododendron viscosum Chamaedaphne calyculata Aronia melanocarpa Cephalanthus occidentalis

Alder species Winterberry Swamp Honeysuckle Leatherleaf Black Chokeberry Buttonbush

8(Beitel)

MEADOW (Morainal lands or Outwash Plain -Open condition without trees of secondary succession on well-drained, sandy, acidic soil. Dominated by clump-forming sedges and grasses.)9 Graminoids Andropogon scoparius Panicum virgatum Sorghastum nutans Andropogon virginicus Andropogon gerardii

Little Blue-stem Switch Grass Indian Grass Broom-sedge Tall Blue-stem

Herbaceous Asclepias Tuberosa Aster novae-anglae Cirsium discolor Eupatorium perfoliatum Helenium autumnale Helenium nudiflorum Penstemon digitalis Pycnanthemum incanum Pycnanthemum tennifolium Rudbeckia hirta Solidago nemoralis Solidago odora

Butterfly-weed New England Aster Field Thistle Boneset Sneezeweed Purple-headed Sneezeweed Hairy Beard-tongue Hoary Mountain Mint Mountain Mint Black-eyed Susan Gray Goldenrod Sweet Goldenrod

WOODLAND EDGE (Morainal lands or Outwash Plain - Open conditions on the edge of woods that grade into areas of meadow.) Canopy Trees Betula populifolia

Gray Birch

Understory Trees Amelanchier canadensis Amelanchier laevis Carpinus caroliniana Cornus florida Ostrya virginiana

Shadblow Serviceberry Allegheny Serviceberry Ironwood Flowering Dogwood American Hophornbeam

Shrubs Aronia arbutifolia Ceanothus americanus Cornus racemosa Corylus americana Rhus glabra Rubus odorata Sambucus canadensis

Red Chokeberry New Jersey Tea Gray Dogwood Hazelnut Smooth Sumac Purple Flowering Raspberry Elderberry

9(Beitel)

Spirea latifolia Vaccinium vacillans Viburnum lentago Viburnum prunifolium

Meadowsweet Late Low Blueberry Nannyberry Blackhaw Viburnum

Herbaceous Aster laevis Penstemon digitalis Helianthus divaricatus

Smooth Aster Hairy Beard-tongue Woodland Sunflower

AQUATICS (In Running Water) Submerged Rooted Aquatics Isoetes engelmanni Isoetes tuckermanni Vallisneria americana Elodea canadensis Potamogeton spirodela

Quillwort Quillwort Tapegrass Waterweed Pond weeds

AQUATICS (In Quiet Bodies of Water) Floating Unrooted Aquatics Lemna minor Spirodella polyrrhiza Utricularia purpurea Utricularia vulgaris

Common Duckweed Greater Duckweed Spotted Bladderwort Common Bladderwort

Submerged Rooted Aquatics Isoetes engelmanni Isoetes tuckermanni Vallisneria americana Elodea canadensis Potameogeton spirodela

Quillwort Quillwort Tapegrass Waterweed Pond weeds

Floating Rooted Aquatics (warm quiet muddy-bottomed lakes and rivers) Nymphaea odorata White Waterlilly Nuphar spp. Yellow Pond Lilly Callitriche heterophylla Water Starweed Emergent Rooted Aquatics Sagittaria latifolia Sparganium americanum Pontederia cordata Eriocaulon septugulare Acorus calamus Hibiscus moscheutos Iris versicolor Peltandra virginica

Arrowhead Bur Reed Pickerel weed Seven-angled Pipewort Sweet Flag Rose-mallow Blue Flag Arrow-arum 15

Scirpus americanus Typha latifolia Typha angustifolia

Threesquare Bulrush Common Cat-tail Narrow-leaved Cat-tail

EROSION CONTROL PLANTS (Morainal lands or Outwash Plain - Species found to be successful by the Natural Resource Crew of Prospect Park for use on sites where the Crew has implemented erosion control measures.) Shrubs Viburnum dentatum Lindera benzoin

Arrowwood Viburnum Spicebush

Herbaceous Aster divaricatus Solidago caesia Heuchera americana Eupatorium rugosum Aster cordifolius Aster laevis Penstemon digitalis

White Woodland Aster Blue-stem Goldenrod Allum root White Snakeroot Heart-leaved Aster Smooth Aster Beard Tongue

GENERAL NOTES Differences between the species of the morainal lands and the area of the outwash plain were noted in two articles written by Roland Harper in 1917 entitled, "The Native Plant Population of Northern Queen's County, Long Island", and "The Natural Vegetation of Western Long Island South of the Terminal Moraine."l0 Two general differences in the vegetation are that south of the terminal moraine in the outwash plain, 41% of the shrubs belong to the Ericaceae and allied families (Clethracea and Vacciniaceae), and 8% of the herbaceous species are leguminous. l l On morainal lands and north of the moraine only 15 % of the shrubs belong to the Ericaceae and allied families, and there are few leguminous plants. 12 Harper notes a reason for the probable scarcity of leguminous plants on morainal lands as their aversion to humus, which is more abundant in this area,13 Harper also notes that three tree species, which are common just north of the moraine, are rare or wanting in the outwash plain: Betula lenta (Sweet Birch), Fagus grandifolia (American Beech) and Liquidambar styraciflua (Sweet Gum).14 A common characteristic of the vegetation of each area is the scarcity of evergreen tree species, about 1% for each area. IS Harper notes the following species as more abundant in the morainal lands and north of the moraine than the unglaciated portion of the outwash plain. Trees Liriodendron tulipifera Liquidambar styraciflua Ulmus americana Quercus bicolor

Tulip Tree Sweet Gum American Elm Swamp White Oak

Small Trees Viburnum prunifolium Carpinus caroliniana

Blackhaw Viburnum Ironwood

Vines Toxicodendron radicans Celastrus scan dens

Poison Ivy American Bittersweet

IO(Harper, Roland M,; "The Native Plant Population of Northern Queen's County Long Island"; Torreya: Vol. 17, No, 8, Aug, 1917, pp, 131-143) (Harper, Roland M,; "The Natural Vegetation of Western Long Island South of the Tenninal Moraine"; Torr~ya;Vol. 17, No, I, Jan, 1917, pp, 1-13) II(Harper; Jan, 1917; p, II) 12(Harper, Aug, 1917, p, 138) 13(Ibid,) 14(Harper, Jan,1917, p,12 15(Harper;Aug, 1917,p, 137-138 and Harper, Jan, 1917,p,13)

Shrubs Rubus alleghenensis Decodon verticillatus Viburnum dentatum Sambucus canadensis Lindera benzoin Rubus occidentalis Herbaceous Aster divaricatus Geranium maculatum Osmorhiza longistylis Arisaema triphyllum Falcata comosa Carex rosea Osmorhiza claytonii Polygonum virginianum Allium tricoccum Circaea lutetiana Thelypteris noveboracensis Juncoides campestre

Common Blackberry Swamp Loosestrife Arrowwood Viburnum Common Elder Spicebush Black Raspberry White Woodland Aster Wild Geranium Long-styled Sweet Cicely Small Jack-in-the-Pulpit (nomenclature unknown probably Amphicarpaea bracteata) Sedge Bland Sweet Cicely Jumpseed Wild Leek Common Enchanter's Nightshade New York Fern (nomenclature unknown)

Harper notes the following species as more abundant in the unglaciated portion of the outwash plain than in the morainal lands and north of the moraine. Trees Quercus alba Carya tomentosa Acer rubrum Quercus coccinea Quercus prinus

White Oak Mockernut Hickory Red Maple Scarlet Oak Chestnut Oak

Small Trees Betula populifolia Populus grandidentata

Gray Birch Bigtooth Aspen

Vines Vitis aestivalis Smilax rotundifolia Rubus hispidus Lonicera sempervirens

Summer Grape Catbrier Swamp Dewberry Trumpet honeysuckle

Shrubs Vaccinium pallidum Clethra alnifolia Gaylussaccia baccata Myrica heterophylla Iva frutescens Toxicodendron vernix Gaylussaccia frondosa

Hillside-blueberry Sweet Pepper-bush Black Huckleberry Southern Bayberry Maritime Marsh-elder Poison Sumac Black Huckleberry

Herbaceous Ammophila arenaria Carex pensylvanica Panicum dichotomiflorum Solidago bicolor Baptisia tinctoria Desmodium nudiflora Symplocarpus foetidus Fragaria virginiana Angelica venenosa Helianthus divaricatus Aralia nudicaulis Unifolium canadense Osmunda cinnamonae Aureolaria pedicularia

Marram-grass Sedge Switch Grass Silver-rod Goldenrod Yellow Wild-indigo Naked Tick-trefoil Skunk-cabbage Thick-leaved Wild Strawberry Hairy Angelica Woodland Sunflower Wild Sarsaparilla ( nomenclature unknown) Cinnamon Fern Annual False Foxglove

APPENDIX II

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Beitel, Joseph; Unpublished notes on the vegetation of Long Island from deceased employee of the New York Botanical Garden Bonsteel, Jay A. and Party; Soil Survey of the Long Island Area, New York; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington,Govt. Printing Office, 1904 Fuller, Myron L.; The Geology of Long Island. New York; U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper, No. 82,231 p.; 1914 Gleason, Henry A. and Cronquist, Arthur; Manual of Vascular Plants of Northeastern United States and Adjacent Canada; Second Edition; N.Y. Botanical Garden, Bronx, New York; 1991 Greller; Andrew M.; "Persisting Natural Vegetation in Northern Queens County, New York, with Proposals for its Conservation"; Env. Cons. vol. 2, no. 1; pp. 61-68; Spring 1975, Greller, Andrew M.; "A Vascular Flora of the Forested Portion of Cunningham Park, Queens County, New York, with notes on the vegetation"; Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club, vol. 104, no. 2, pp_ 170-176; Apr. June 1977 Greller, Andrew M.; "A Classification of Mature Forests on Long Island, New York"; Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club, vol. 104, no.4, pp.376-382 Greller, Andrew M., Calhoon, Robert E. and Mansky, James M.; "Grace Forest, A Mixed Mesophytic Stand on Long Island, New York"; Botanical Gazette;vol. 139(4); pp. 482-489; The University ofChicago;1978 Greller, Andrew M., Calhoon, Robert E. and Iglich, Esther; "The Upland, Oak-dominated Community of Forest Park, Queens County, New York; Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club, Vol. 106, No.2, pp. 135-139, April-June 1979 Greller, Andrew M., Mansky, James M. and Calhoon, Robert E.; "An Oak, Hickory-Dogwood Foreset on Central Long Island, New York"; Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club, vol. 109, no. 2, pp. 219-225; April-June 1982 Greller, Andrew M.; "Vascular Flora of the Kalbfleisch Field Research Station of the American Museum of Natural History, Suffolk County, Long Island, New York"; Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club, vol. 116, no. 2 ,pp. 174-181; 1989 Greller, Andrew M., Locke, David C., Kilanowski, Victoria and Lotowycz, G. Elizabeth; "Changes in Vegetation Composition and Soil Acidity between 1922 and 1985 at a Site on the North Shore of Long Island, New York"; Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club; vol. 117, no. 4, pp. 450-458,1990 Greller; "Major Forest Types on Long Island;" Unpublished table from course Biology 617 taught at Queen's College, C.U.N.Y. Flushing, N.Y. 11367; obtained through Steve Clemants of the Brooklyn Botanical Garden Harper, Roland M.; "The Natural Vegetation of Western Long Island South of the Terminal Moraine"; Torreya; Vol. 17 No.1, Jan. 1917 Harper, Roland M.; "The Native Plant Population of Northern Queen's County, Long Island"; Torreya; Vol. 17 No.8. Aug. 1917, pp. 131-143.) Hostek, Albert; Native and Near Native, An Introduction to Long Island Plants, Where to See Them, How to Use Them; Copyright, The Environmental Centers of SetauketSmithtown, Inc.; Shannon and Sons, Inc. Ronkonkoma, N.Y.; 1976; p. 34 Lancaster, Clay; Prospect Park Handbook; Long Island University Press, New York, 1972

Lefkowitz, Audrey and Greller; Andrew M.; "The Distribution of Tree Species on the Uplands of Cunningham Park, Queens County, New York"; Bulletin of the Torrev Botanical Club, vol. 100, no. 5, pp. 313-318, Sept.-Oct. 1973 Natural Resources Group: Luttenberg, Danielle; Lev, Deborah and Feller, Michael; Native Plant Species Guide for New York City and Vicinity; City of New York Parks and Recreation; David N. Dinkins, Mayor; Betsy Gotbaum, Commissioner; 1993 Rosenwaike, Ira; Population History of New York City, Syracuse, New York, 1972 Svenson, Henry K.; "The Early Vegetation of Long Island"; Brooklyn Botanic Garden Record, Vol. XXV., no. 3, pp. 207-227; July 1936 Taylor, Norman; Flora of the Vicinity of New York, Th" New York Botanical Garden, 1915 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Preservation Assistance Division, Technical Preservation Services Branch; Draft, Guidelines for the Treatment of Historic Landscapes, Washington, D.C., May 1992, Walmsley & Company, "The First Historic Landscape Report for the Ravine, Prospect Park, Brooklyn, New York, prepared for the City of New York, Parks & Recreation, 1986 Historic Documents of Prospect Park: First Annual Report of the Commissioners of Prospect Park; Brooklyn, N,Y" 1861 Sixth Annual Report of the Commissioners of Prospect Park; Brooklyn, N.Y., 1866 Eleventh Annual Report of the Commissioners of Prospect Park; Brooklyn, N.Y. 1871 Fourteenth Annual Report of the Commissioners of Prospect Park; Brooklyn, N.Y., 1874 Library of Congress, Manuscripts Division, Frederick Law Olmsted, Sr. Papers, #128-69 Twentyfifth Annual Report of the Commissioners of Prcspect Park, 1885 Preliminary Map Showing Lineal and Topographical Surveys of Prospect Park, Brooklyn; Benjn. D. Frost, Engr. in Charge Photo, circa 1867 showing excavation of the Lake from papers of Frederick Law Olmsted at the National Historic Site, Brookline, Ma. HISTORIC DOCUMENTS ARCHIVED IN PROSECT PARK ADMINISTRATOR'S OFFICE Publications: Annual Reports of the Commissioners of Prospect Park, (#s 1-13), 1861-1873. Single bound original plus separate soft cover edition of Eigth Annual Report (1867-8). Annual Reports of the Brooklyn Park Commlsioners, (#s 14-25), 1874-1886. Bound originals (1874, 1881, 1884, 1886). Bound facsimiles of all. Annual Reports of the City of Brooklyn Department of Parks, (#s 25-37), 1887-1898. Bound originals (1887,1889-1892, bound as one 1895-98). Bound facsimiles of all. 1908 Annual Report of the City of New York, Department of Parks.

Pect, Louis Harmon. Trees and Shrubs of Prospect Park. New York, 1902, 1906. Prospect Park Centennial Committee. Prospect Park 1866-1966. Produced by Chilton Ryan. Lancaster, Clay. Prospect Park Handbook. New York, Greensward Foundation, Inc. 1967, 1988. Toth, Edward. An Ecosystem Approach to Woodland Management: The Case of Prospect Park. National Association for Olmsted Parks Workbook Series, Volume 2 Technical Notes. Bethesda, Md, 1991. Unpublished Historic Landscape Reports for Litchfield Villa, Grace Hill, The Long Meadow, Perimeter and Lake. Drawings (aside from those which appear in the reports): Olmsted, Vaux and Co., enlarged to 200 scale).

Design Plans, 1866 - 1867, 1869 (paper copy), 1874 (mylar

Olmsted, Vaux and Co., Meadow.

Brooklyn Park Planting Map for the Southern Part of th~ Long

"Map showing Progress of the Works Indicated Below up to January I, 1868" (paper orignial, mounted and framed). 1868 Enlargement of the Children's Playground Vincinity with 1895 penciled notes (tracing of original from Fairsted). "Plan of Prospect Park Brooklyn, NY 1888, Charles Woodruff Delinear" (mylar enlargement at 200 scale and mylar at 50 scale, 14 sheets). "Prospect Park, Borough of Brooklyn, New York City 1901"' (vellum copy). "Map of Prospect Park, Borough of Brooklyn, New York City 1909" (paper copy). Partial Layout and Utilities Plan, c. 1920 from Borough President's Office. Topographical Map of Prospect Park, Borough of Brooklyn, May - November 1935 (sepia mylar). Topographical Map of Propsect Park, Borough of Brooklyn, April 1980 (sepia mylar). A series of Plans, all 200 scale, showing plant and soil conditions, 1992-1993 (all paper). Miscellaneous: Numerous letters from the Library of Congress (Papers of Frederick Law Olmsted). An 1866 List of the species found on site. An undated (1860's?) list of species to be viewed from walks. Photographs: Over 400 views including 8xl0 Parks Department originals from the 1920's and 1930's, and new 8xl0 views in several collections (Library of Congress, New York

Historical, Brooklyn Historical, New York and Brooklyn Public Libraries, Museum of the City of New York, etc.), postcards, and photocopies of others, such as the Mitchell Stereoscopic views.

APPENDIX III

CRITERIA, UNITS OF MEASUREMENT & ASSUMPTIONS FOR CALCULATIONS

Detailed descriptions of the components of the stabilization process are outlined below. All subsequent appendices are tabulations of these activities. Additionally, information regarding time of year for restoration activities, number of man-hours, etc. that provide the basis for the detailed scheduling that follows is provided. 1. Detailed evaluation of site: Since site conditions will undergo changes from the time this survey was done, a detailed reassessment will be needed to quantify manpower, materials, tools and equipment required, just prior to the start of work on a new management unit. Examples of estimates that will have to be recalculated include square feet of erosion control areas, soil quantities, plants required, etc. This assessment will be done at a rate of 24 mh/ acre.

Scheduled for - 2 weeks: 1st and 2nd weeks in September.

2. Herbaceous seed collection and cleaning: Most seeds will be collected and processed (i.e., cleaning and stratification) in the fall at a rate of 100 mh/ 8,000 plants. There are a few species, with seeds that ripen in the summer, that will be collected and sown immediately at a standard rate of 40 mh/ management unit. These are seeds of other species we will be experimen~ing with for use in erosion control projects. Quantities of seeds collected is expected to be small and time allocated per management unit is small. Seeds will be collected from local populations. Collection and propagation of seeds of other herbaceous species commonly found in woodland ecosystems (see pgs. 5 to 7) are not included in these estimates. Clearly, it will be desirable over time to establish populations of these other components of the native flora as well. This will have to be accomplished using additional man-hours not accounted for under this scheme (see pg. 87-Executive Report ). Scheduled for Fallyear 1: 25% of total over 8 weeks; Sept. /Oct. 75% of total over 8 weeks; Nov./Dec. Scheduled for Summeryear 1: 2 weeks; 3rd week July to 1st week Aug.

3. Nursery-sowing of seeds (herbaceous): Seeds will be sown in flats then transplanted as seedlings to pots. The rate is 64 mh/ 8,000 plants. Scheduled foryear 1: 7 weeks- 3rd week April to 1st week June

4. Nursery- transplanting/herbaceous) This involves the stepping-up of seedlings to larger pots. All other activities associated with the nursery operation including fertilization, watering, and weeding are included. The rate of transplant is 384 mh/ 8,000 plants. Scheduled for year 1: 16 weeks- 1st week May to 4th week Aug.

5. Woody propagation: At this point in time it is assumed that all woody plant propagation will be done by the NYC Department of Parks and R~creation 26

(see pg. 83 - Executive Report). These estimates are based on discussions with personnel at the NYC/DPR Victory Nursery in Staten Island. To grow 3 year old containerized woodies from seed- 250 mh/ 1000 plants over 3 years Scheduled forSee Table XV 1B on pg. 189. 6. Planting: The planting scheme for this initial stabilization phase of

restoration focuses on 2 areas- replanting of light gaps with woody overstory tree species to rapidly obtain canopy closure and re-establishment of the understory layer, primarily with its woody components. These woody species are of practical managerial importance that necessitates their replanting early in the revegetation scheme. Firstly, they are essential in the effort to control cross-country traffic through the woodlands. Secondly, they are structurally important for their ability to trap leaf litter and thus build forest soils. Herbaceous plantings in this first phase are utilized primarily for initial stabilization of slopes, prior to planting with woody species. Canopy gaps require trees to be planted at a 3'x3' density to quickly achieve canopy closure and minimize the impact of vandalism. In most lightgap areas there is some understory and so no additional understory planting is included in the estimates for replanting of those areas. All trees are assumed to be containerized and will be planted at a rate of 1 mh/ 15 trees. Ifbareroot trees are used, planting will be at a rate 1 mh/50 trees. The rate for planting containerized shrubs is 1 mh/ 15 shrubs. Understory trees and shrubs will be planted on a 5'xS' density. Since bare soil, eroded areas, and 'desire lines as bare soil' are all lacking understory vegetation, shrubs and trees will be planted in equal quantities to hasten the establishment of an understory layer. As stated earlier, herbaceous components of the understory playa crucial role in the overall health of the woodland ecosystem. However, their role is less structural and as such they playa lesser role, bveyond their use for slope stabilization, in this first phase of the plan. The importance of the herbaceous layer will have to be reflected in future refinements of on-going maintenance needs and estimates. Herbaceous plants for water bars are on a 2'x2' ft. density and for cribbing, on a l'x1' density. A higher density is needed in the cribs to knit soil placed upslope of the crib. Woody planting: Planting rate-1mh/15 plants Scheduled foryear 1: 75% of total over 10 weeks- 3rd week March to 4th week May. year 2: 25% of total over 11 weeks- 2nd week Sept. to 4th week Nov. 27

Herbaceous planting: Planting rate- 3 mh/100 plants. Scheduled for year 2: 12 weeks- 1st week Sept. to last week Nov.

7. InDO Planting: Due to loss of plants to expected mortality and vandalism, some replanting is anticipated. Both containerized woody plants and herbaceous plants will be replaced at a rate of 5% in the Forest Core and 10% in the Perimeter Woodlands. Replanting is assumed to be at a higher rate in the Perimeter Woodlands due to higher usership. Woody plants: infill planting Scheduled forYear 3: 1 week- 4th week Sept. Herbaceous plants: infill planting. (Infilling herbaceous also requires additional in-house seed collection, seed sowing, and transplanting as well as planting). Scheduled for: Infill Seed Collection: Year 2: 1 week- 1st week Nov. Infill Sowing: Year 2: 1 week- 1st week May. Infill Transplanting: Year 2: 2 weeks- 1st and 2nd weeks June. Infill Planting: Year 3: 1 week- 4th week Sept.

8. Broadcast seeding: Broadcast seeding of the same herbaceous species that are used for erosion control will be done on a limited basis in bare soil areas. This is an experimental procedure to try to accelerate revegetation in these areas. The expenditure in manhours is negligible. This activity will be carried out on flat areas only, where broadcast seeds are less likely to be washed away. Seeds are worked into soil with rakes (included in manhour estimate). Areas selected are bare soil and "desire lines as bare soil" on flat areas, seeded at a rate of 24 mh/.25 acre. Scheduled foryear 3: 1 week- 1st week Dec.

9. Vegetation control: Trees, tree seedlings, and vines of invasive species such as Norway Maple, Sycamore Maple, Paper Mulberry, and Tree-of-Heaven will be culturally and or chemically controlled at a rate of 60 mh/ acre. Eradication is, in some instances, staggered over three years to minimize the negative impacts on any given management unit. Also, successful eradication requires successive years of scouting for and control of new stump sprouts, seedlings, and saplings. Scheduled foryear 1: 16 weeks- 3rd week Nov. thru 2nd week March

year 2: year 3:

" "

10. Procurement ofmaterials: Procuring logs and pegs to be used in the installation of water bars and cribbing requires 120 mh per 1,000 sq. ft. oflogs required. Ordering and pick-up of supplies such as jute matting, metal pin, twine. etc., is estimated at 24 mh/management unit. Procurement of materials: Scheduled foryear 1: 90% of total over 12 weeks- 1st week Jan. thru 2nd week March; plus 4th week of July thru 1st week Aug. year 2: 7% of total- 1 week; 2nd week Nov. year 3: 3% of total- 1 week; 2nd week Nov. Ordering: Scheduled for year 1: 1 week- 1st week March

11. Amending bare soil: Bare soil and "desire lines as bare soil" will have compacted soil broken-up to an average depth of 4 inches with the use of an auger or pick-ax. Leaf mold will be spread approximately two inches deep. These task can be accomplished at a rate of 6 mh/ 300 sq. ft. Scheduled foryear 1: 6 weeks- 3rd week March to 4th week April

12. Bare soil maintenance: In order to increase porosity, holes will be augured and leaves spread over the soil. .25 mh/ 100 sq. ft (use total bare soil sq. footage) each year, years 2 and 3. Scheduled foryear 2: 6 weeks- 1st and 2nd week Dec., 3rd week Feb. to 2nd week March. year 3: 6 weeks- 1st and 2nd week De'c., 3rd week Feb. to 2nd week March.

13. Erosion control installation: Waterbars are logs pegged in place perpendicular to eroded gullies on slopes. If gullies are deeper than six inches two or more logs will be stacked on each other to form a 'crib'. The purpose of both structures is to trap soil, restore grades, and slow the rate of surface runoff, and thus erosion. Based on field work to date, areas needing waterbars and cribbing represent 40% of that which was mapped. Of that 40%, 60% is assumed to require water bars and 40% is assumed to require cribbing. Since water bars and cribbing are installed at the same time and cribbing is a minimal expansion of the effort to install a water bar, their rate of construction is the same, 400 mh/ 1,000 sq. ft. Scheduled foryear 1: 5% of total over 4 weeks- June.(for yearly training of new youth and volunteers). 95% of total for 8 weeks; 1st week of July thru last week of Aug. 29

14. Initial Monitoring of cribbing/water bars: To determine the immediate effectiveness of erosion control structures installed, the degree of vandalism sustained, and to do minor alterations as needed. Monitoring will be 1 mhl 1,000 sq. ft. On-going maintenance is accounted for under item #15. Scheduled foryear 2: 1 week- 3rd week Nov.

15. Erosion control area maintenance: This involves replacing pegs and logs as needed. It was assumed, based on field observation that projects in the Perimeter Woodlands would require less cribbing and more water bars than those in the Core Forest and therefore less maintenance of logs as well. Schedule for- CORE FORESTyear 2: 15% of installation time: over 4 weeks in June year 3: 10% of installation time: over 4 weeks in June Schedule for-PERIMETER WOODLANDSyear 2: 5% of installation time: over 4 weeks in June. year 3: 2% of installation time: over 4 weeks in June

16. Fencing: Snowfencing is required to protect young plants. Of equal or greater importance is its use to modify the behavior of park users. This is especially true in the eradication of established or developing desire line paths. Repeated repair of vandalized fencing and redeployment of new fencing is often required to successfully eliminate desire lines. Excessive, prolonged vandalism reveals those "informal" paths that will have to be not only tolerated, but maintained as a secondary path system. However, the man-hours to maintain secondary paths is not accounted for in this plan ( see pg. 48 - Executive Report for discussion secondary paths. Two hundred linear feet of snow fence per acre is required as well as 2 mhl 50 ft. of fence to erect. Repair of damaged snow fence is 3 mhl 50 ft. It is estimated that twenty -five percent of total fence installed will need repair in the first year, with equal amounts done in years 2 and 3. Installation Scheduled foryear 1: 2 weeks; 2nd and 3rd weeks June. Repair Scheduled foryear 1: 1 week- 2nd week July. year 2: 2 weeks- 4th week Nov.; 2nd week July. year 3: " " " II

17. Watering containerized trees and shrubs: Depending on summer drought conditions it may be necessary to water trees and shrubs through their first year to ensure survival. Under the worst drought conditions watering will be done four times per summer and require 2 mhl 15 plants. (For purposes of calculating manpower requirements, this plan assumes these conditions as a constant, worst-case scenario). 30

17. Watering containerized trees and shrubs: (cant.) Scheduled foryear 1: 4 weeks- July/Aug. 2nd and 4th week in each month (4 times per summer) 2 mh/IS plants/watering

APPENDIX IV

MANAGEMENT UNIT TABLES FOREST CORE

MANAGEMENT UNIT

ACRES

10.10 0.92 l.80

CANOPYQAP EROSION BARE BOIL

1.87

* OF PLANT

SQ. FT. 439,956.00 40,075.20 78,408.00 81,457.20 31,363.20 *

EROSION CONTROL AREA TOTALS

12,545.28 *

CRIBBING AREA HERBACEOUS FOR CRIBBING

12,545

WATER BAR AREA

18,817.92

HERBACEOUS FOR WATER BAR

4,704 17,2501

TOTAL HERBACEOUS WOODY PLANT REQUIREMENTS TREES CANOPY GAP AREA (SQ.F"""9 DESIRE LINE + BARE SOn.+TOTAL EROSION AREA (ALL SQ.FT./251/2 SHRUBS

4,453 3,197 7,650 3,197

DESIRE LINE +BARE SOn.+TOTAL EROSION AREA (ALL SQ.FT./25)/2 TOTAL WOODY

10,8471

MAN HOURS DETA.D..ED EVALUATION SEED COLLECTING VEGETATION CONTROL PROCUREMENT OF MATERIALS ORDERING SUPPLIES FENCING

242 216 606 3,764

24 2,020 1ft

81 WATERING AMEND BARE SOn. PLANTING WOODIES NURSERY SEED SOWING NURSERY TRANSPLANTING EROSION CONTROL PLANTING HERBACEOUS EVALUATION OF EROSION CONTROL FENCING REPAIR BROADCAST SOWING INFn.LING PLANTING HERBACEOUS SEED COLLECTION SEED SOWING TRANSPLANTING PLANTING TREES BARE SOn. MAINTENANCE PER YEAR YEAR 2 &3 EROSION CONTROL MAINTENANCE YEAR 2 YEAR 3

1,446 1,629

723 138 828 12,545

517 31 91 180

11 7 41 26 36

204 407 1,882 1,255

TOTAL TOTAL MAN HOURS

3,136 26,726

* ACTUAL FIELD EXPERIENCE INDICATES THAT ONLY 40% OF THE ARA MAPPED AS "EROSION" wn.L REQUIRE EROSION CONTROL MEASURES. OF THAT 40%, 600/e> wn.L REQUIRE WATERBARS & 40% wn.L REQUIRE CRIBBING.

APPENDIX V

MANAGEMENT UNIT CALENDARS FOREST CORE

TASKS

Detailed Evaluation Seed COllection Vegetation Control

, ,

WEE K (MAHHOU1IS)

•

'", '", , ,

--~

, , • , , ,

WEE K (MAM10URS)

=_m Order Supplies

-_.

-~-~"'-

, , • " " " " "

""'''"U'''-''T

, , ,

WEE K \MANHOURS)

, •

'""

'"" '""

" " '"

'" '" ,

, •

WEE K \MANHOURS)

"" " " " "

• ""

AA1ending Sare Soil

WEE K (MAHHOURS)

Planting Woodies Seed SowIng Transplant Fence Erection

Fence Repair Erosion Control Planting Hertlaceous

Momer Erosion Intift Seed Coftec1!ng Bare Soil Maintenance Infjij Plant. Herbaceous Broadcast seeding Eros.Cn1r1Area Mainl Broadcast SoY.ing TOTAlS MONTHTQTAl

P,,,,,,,,,,,,, oro.-_" Amending Bare Soil

, , ,

'" MARCH

FEBRUARY TASKS Detailed Evaluation SeedColfection Vegetation COntrol

, ,

, , •

WEE K (MANHOiJRS}

, , •

WE £ K {MAHIfOURS)

•

" '"" '" '"" '""

" '"" '""

Planting Woodes Nurs. seed Sowing Nursery Transplant Fence Ered!on

" " " " • APRIL , , • •

" " " MAY

, ,

•

" " " "" " " " "

" "

WEE K (MAHHOURS)

'"" '""

'"" '"" '"" '"" " "

Fence Repair ErOSion Control

WElt!: K (MANHOURS)

•

...

JUNE

Planting Herbaceous

Monitor Erosion Inti! Seed Collecting

WEE K (MNIHOUR8J

40.5

.os

.. '"

249.5

" " ."

Bare Soil Maintenance Infil PlantingfTrees

Intil Sowing Inril Transplanting Erosion Maintenance InfifF>rop.(start seed) Eros.Cn1r1Area Mainl TOTALS MONTH TOTAL

'" '" '" '" JULY WEEK(MAHHOURS)

•

TASKS Detailed Evaluation Seed CoDection Vegetation Control

"""""rem Order Supplies

...

, , • " ..... '"

'" '" ".

AUGUST

, WEE K,(MANHOURSJ , •

" '"

Nurs. Seed So\I1ng

Waler1ng Erosion Control TOTAlS MONTH TOTAL

en I»

" " " '" ., '" '"

" " " "

1490 1490 1490 193<1 15042 2206

....

1490

10(90 1490 1490 1904 1542 1904

YEARLY WORK CALENDAR MANAGEMENT UNIT #1 YEAR #1 TOTAL (MANHOURS)

Amending Bare Soil PlarrtingWoodies NlEs.Transplant Fence Erection Fence Repair Eros.Cntl'tArea Maim.

". ". '" '" ". .'" '" ".

"'-' '"

21,365

SEPTEMBER

TASKS Detailed Evaluation

OCTOBER

WEE K lMA~HOURS)

•

NOVEMBER

, ,

WEE II( (MANHOURS)

Seed Collection Vegetation Control Procurement Dreier Supplies

•

WeE

DECEMBER

Amending Bare Soil Planting Woo dies Seed Sowing Transplant

" " "

Bare Soil Maintenance

-_.

I-----

Jnfil! Plant. Herbaceous

•

" "

JANUARY W £ E II: (MANlfOURS)

, •

, ,

•

" "

" " '" " JUNE , , , • ,

" "

, ,

•

WEE II: (MANHOURS!

" " " "

" " "

Fence Erection Fence Repair Erosion Control Planting Herbaceous Monitor Erosion Infill Seed Collecting

(MANHOURS)

•

" " " " "

" "

---.

" "

Broadcast Seeding Eros.Cntll.Area Maint.

Broadcast Sowing TOTALS MONTH TOTAL

" " "

FEBRUARY

TASKS Detailed Evaluation

Seed Collection Vegetation Control Procurement Order Supplies Amending Bare Soil PJanting woo dies Nurs. Seed Sowing Nursery Transplant Fence Erecflon Fence Repair Erosion Control Planting Herbaceous Monitor Erosion Infill Seed Collecting Sare Soil Maintenance Inlill PlantinglTrees lnlil1 Sowing Inlill Transplanting Erosion Maintenance tnfill Prop.(slart seed) Eros.Cnlrl.Area Maint. TOTALS MONTH TOTAL

weE

, , •

" " "

(MANHOURSI

" " " , , •

WEE Ii:. (MANHQUI'ISI

" "

" ,

Detailed Evaluation

WEE

, , •

(MANHOURSI

" " MAY

W £ E J( IMANHOURSI

" " "

---.

, , •

AUGUST

, , ,

" ,

WEE K (MANHOURSI

WEE I( IMANHOURSI

.. --~

, '"

, , ,

20.5

.w .w

, ." '"

'" '"

, 1921

, "

WEE K lMANHOUl\S)

, , •

YEARLY WORK CALENDAR MANAGEMENT UNIT #1 YEAR #2 TOTAL {MANHOURSJ

Seed Collection

C/I W

" "

JULY

Vegetation Control Procurement Order Supplies Amending Bare Soil Planting Woodies Nurs. Seed Sowing Nurs.Transplant Fence Erection Fence Repair Eros.Cnlrl.Area Main!. Watering Erosion Control TOTALS MONTH TOTAL

" APRil

TASKS

" MARCH

, ,

3,349

SEPTEMBER

TASKS

OCTOBER

, ,

WEE K IMANHOURSj

NOVEMBER

, ,

WEE K (MANHOURS)

Detailed Evaluation Seed Collection Vegetation Control Procurement Order Supplies Amending Bare Soil

DECEMBER

, , ,

.-----.

..-

I---~---

, ,

WEE It IMANHOURS)

JANUARY

WEE Ii: (MANHOURSj

" "

, •

" "

, ,

'" '"

'"'" ". '"

•

" " " "

WEE Ii: (MANHOURSI

Planting Woodies Seed Sowing

Transplant Fence Erection Fence Repair

Erosion Control

Planting Herbaceous Monitor Erosion Infill Seed Collecting

Bare Soil Maimenance (nfill Plant. Herbaceous

-.---~

Broadcast Seeding Eros.Cntr!.Area Maint. Broadcast Sowing TOTALS MONTH TOTAL

FEBRUARY TASKS

" "

" MARCH

'" " '"

APRil

, , ,

" " "

WEE K IMANHOURSI

0 0

, , ,

WEE K (MANHOUfIS)

'" m

, , ,

Procurement Order Supplies Amending Bare Soil Planting Woodies Nurs. Seed Sowing Nursery Transplant Fence Erection Fence Repair Erosion Control Planting Herbaceous Monitor Erosion Infill Seed Collecting Bare Soil Maintenance Infill PlantingfTrees Inlill Sowing Inlill Transplanting Erosion Maintenance Inlill Prop.(start seedl Eros.Cntrl.Area Maint. TOTALS MONTH TOTAL

WEE

, , ,

IMANHOUIIS)

AUGUST

Detailed Evaluation

(II

JUNE

WEE Ie (MANHOURS)

" JULY

TASKS

" "

, , , ,

WEE It (MANHOURS)

Detailed Evaluation

Seed Collection Vegetation Control

MAY

, , •

WEE I( (MANHOUIIS)

YEARLY WORK CALENDAR MANAGEMENT UNIT #1

Seed Collection

YEAR #3 TOTAL (MANHOURS)

vegetation Control

GRANO TOTAL

Procurement Order Supplies Amending Bare Soil Planting Woodies Nurs. Seed Sowing Nurs.Transplant Fence Erection Fence Repair Eros.Cntrl.Area Mainl. Watering Erosion Control TOTALS MONTH TOTAL

'" '"

weE K IMANHOURS)

" 0

0 0

2,017 26,731

1256

APPENDIX VI

MANAGEMENT UNIT TABLES PERIMETER WOODLANDS

106

APPENDIX VII

MANAGEMENT UNIT CALENDARS PERIMETER WOODLANDS

120

APPENDIX VIII

PHASING TABLES FOREST CORE

157

TABLE VIII FOREST CORE - PHASING TABLES

1995

YEAR 1 AVAILABLE MANHOURS

7,680 FT 4,000 V

11,680

MANHOURS NEEDED

UNIT #

1,30;

#12

9,966 370 42 240

EQBA SENIC'93 (#17) #7 MARINE PARK

COMMENTS

CAPITAL PROJEcT idOL/o yEAR 3 MAiNT. 100% #11 YR.2; #15& #16 100% OF EROS CNTRL/Y

10% OF ALL #17 TASKS YR.3 LONG TERM MAINTENANCE

11,925 FT = FULTIME STAFF S = SEASONAL STAFF V = VOLUNTEERS

3 crew and 1 working supervisor

1996

YEAR 2 AVAILABLE MANHOURS

MANHOURS NEEDED

UNIT

1,810

#1'1

4u/o VRl (RONNING TOTAL 140/0)

#16 #15

11,520 FT 4,000 V

5,674 3,237 39 4,486 11 42

100% YR1 NON-EROSION 100% yr.1 NON-EROSION TASKS LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 100% 1111 YR3; #15 & #16 100% OF ERSN TASK 10% #17 LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE

15,520

15,299

COMMENTS

#12 EQBA SENIC'93 #7

5 Crew & 1 Working Supervisor

1997

YEAR 3 AVAILABLE MANHOURS

9,600 FT 7,200 S 4,000 V

20,800

MANHOURS NEEDED

UNIT #

240

240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 16,290 287 893 466 39 160 11 42

114 #2 115 119 #14 #8 #10 #13 #6 #17 #17 #16 #15 #12 EQBA SENIC #7

COMMENTS

VRI YR1 YR1 YR1 YR1 YR1 YR1 YR1 YR1 YR1 36% YR1 (RUNNING TOTAL 50%) 4%YR2 100% YR2 NON-EROSION TASKS 100% YR2 NON-EROSION TASKS LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 100% #11, #15 & #6 /100% EROS CNTRL/LT 10% #17 LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE

20,588 158

1998

YEAR 4 AVAILABLE MANHOURS

9,600 FT 11,520 S 4,000 V

25,120

MANHOURS NEEDED

240

240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 9,502 2,582 148 9,079 693 492 39 160 11 42

#4 #2 #5 #9 #14 #8 #10 #13 #6 #17 #17 #17 RAVINE 1 (18,1) #16 #15 #12 EQBA SENIC #7

COMMENTS

i'RI YR1 YRl YR1 YR1 YR1 YR1 YR1 YR1 YR1 21% YR. 1 (RUNNING TOTAL 71%) 36%YR2 4%YR3 YR3 100% NON-EROSION YR3 100% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 100% #11; #15 & #16 100% EROS CNTRL/LTM 10% #17/ LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE

25,148

YEARS AVAILABLE MANHOURS

UNIT #

1999 MANHOURS NEEDED

UNIT #

240

9,600 FT 11,520 S 4,000 V

240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 6,152 13,122 1,506 1,332 4 272 21 15 39 160 11 42

#4 #2 #5 #9 #14 #8 #10 #13 #6 #17 #17 #17 #17 RAVINE 1 #16 #15 #12 EQBA SENIC #7

25,120

24,836

COMMENTS

fA 1 YR 1 YR 1 YR 1 YR 1 YR1 YR 1 YR 1 YR 1 YR 1 (INCLUDING 480) 93% YR 1 (RUNNING TOTAL) 29% 21% YR2 36% YR3 4% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE NON-EROSION/LONG TERM MAINTENANCE NON路EROSION/LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE

159

2000

YEAR 6 AVAILABLE MANHOURS

9,600 FT 11,520 S 4,000 V

26,120

MANHOURS NEEDED

UNIT #

240

240 240 240 240 240 240 240 17,730 499 970 2,080 777 40 4 272 21 15 39 160

#4 #2 #5 #9 #14 #8 #10 #13 #6 #6 #17 #17 #17 #17 RAVINE 1 #16 #15 #12 EQBA SENIC #7

11 42

9,600 FT 11,520 S 4,000 V

25,120

YR 1 YR 1 YR 1 YR 1 YR 1 YR1 YR 1 100%YR1 7% YR1 (RUNNING TOTAL 100%) 93%YR2 29%YR2 21% YR3 36% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 4% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE NON路EROSION/LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE

24,580

YEAR 7 AVAILABLE MANHOURS

COMMENTS

VR i

2001 MANHOURS NEEDED

UNIT #

240

240 240 240 240 240 240 18,130 2,736 73 724 1,073 23 40 4 272 21 15 39 160

#4 #2 #5 #9 #14 #8 #10 #13 #6 #6 #17 #17 #17 #17 RAVINE 1 #16 #15 #12 EQBA SENIC #7

11 42

COMMENTS

iK 1 YR 1 YR 1 YR 1 YR 1 YR 1 YR 1 45% YR1 (INCLUDING 960) 100%YR2 7%YR2 93%YR3 29%YR3 21% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 36% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE NON路EROSION/LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE

25,043

160

YEARS

2002 MANHOURS NEEDED

UNIT #

240

#3 #4 #2 #5 #9 #14 #8 #10 #10

9,600 FT 11,520 S 4,000 V

240 240 240 240 240 240 18,243 2,934 1,326 55 22 100 272 21 15 39 160 11 42

25,120

24,920

AVAILABLE MANHOURS

YEAR 9 AVAILABLE MANHOURS

#13

#6 #6 #17 RAVINE 1 #16 #15

#12

EQBA SENIC #7

COMMENTS

43% YRI 45%YR2 100%YR3 7%YR3 93% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 90% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE NON-EROSION/LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE

2003 MANHOURS NEEDED

UNIT #

240

9,600 FT 11,520 S 4,000 V

240 240 240 240 240 13,213 5,091 2,804 1,741 40 23 100 272 21 15 39 160 11 42

#4 #2 #5 #9 #14 #8 #10 #10 #10 #13 #6 #17 RAVINE 1 #16 #15 #12 EQBA SENIC #7

25,120

25,012

COMMENTS

iR 1 YR 1 YR 1 YRI YR 1 YR 1 88% YR 1 (INCLUDING +1440) 12% YR 1 (RUNNING TOTAL 100%) 43% YR 2 45% YR 3 100% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 100% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 90% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE

161

2004

YEAR 10 MANHOURS NEEDED

UNIT #

240

9,600 FT 11,520 S 4,000 V

240 240 240 240 16,267 1,998 2,317 783 1,664 52 40 23 100 272 21 15 39 160 11 42

#4 #2 #5 #9 #14 #8 #8 #10 #10 #10 #13 #6 #17 RAVINE 1 #16 #15 #12 EQBA SENIC #7

25,120

25,004

AVAILABLE MANHOURS

YEAR 11 AVAILABLE MANHOURS

COMMENTS

iR i YR 1 YR 1 YR 1 YR 1 56% YR 1 (RUNNING TOTAL 56%) 12% YR 1 (RUNNING TOTAL 100%) 88%YR2 12%YR2 43%YR3 45% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE

2005 MANHOURS NEEDED

UNIT #

240

9,600 FT 11,520 S 4,000 V

240 240 2,797 1,737 14,102 2,863 316 1,198 464 50 52 40 23 100 272 21 15 39 160 11 42

#4 #2 #5 #9 #14 #14 #8 #8 #10 #10 #10 #13 #6 #17 RAVINE 1 #16 #15 #12 EQBA SENIC #7

25,120

25,022

COMMENTS

VK i YR 1 YR 1 28% YR 1 (INCLUDING +1920) 100% YR1 44%YR 1 56% YR 2 12%YR2 88%YR3 12%YR3 43% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 45% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE NON-EROSION/LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE

162

YEAR 12 AVAILABLE MANHOURS

2006 MANHOURS NEEDED

UNIT #

240

9,600 FT 11,520 S 4,000 V

240 3,122 12,128 797 262 2,250 1,690 163 36 116 40 23 100 272 21 15 39 160 11 42

#4 #2 #5 #5 #9 #14 #14 #8 #8 #10 #13 #6 #17 RAVINE 1 #16 #15 #12 EQBA SENIC #7

25,120

21,761 3,353

25,120 YEAR 13 AVAILABLE MANHOURS

COMMENTS

VRI YR1 20% YR1 (INCLUDING +2160) 72% YR 1 (RUNNING TOTAL 100%) 28% YR 2 100%YR2 44% YR 2 56%YR3 12% YR3 88% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 100% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE NON-EROSION/LONG TERM MAINTENANCE

LONG LONG LONG LONG LONG

TERM TERM TERM TERM TERM

MAINTENANCE MAINTENANCE MAINTENANCE MAINTENANCE MAINTENANCE

PERIMETER PROJECTS TOTAL MANHOURS

2007 MANHOURS NEEDED

UNIT #

240

9,600 FT 11,520 S 4,000 V

240 15,054 846 1,906 381 161 1,328 51 41 116 40 23 100 272 21 15 39 160 11 42

#4 #2 #2 #5 #5 #9 #14 #14 #8 #10 #13 #6 #17 RAVINE 1 #16 #15 #12 EQBA SENIC #7

25,120

21,081 4,033

25,120

COMMENTS

iRl YR1 57% YR1 (RUNNING TOTAL 77%) 20%YR2 72%YR2 28%YR3 100% YR3 44%YR3 56% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 100% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE

PERIMETER PROJECTS TOTAL MANHOURS

163

2008

YEAR 14 AVAILABLE MANHOURS

9,600 FT 11,520 S 4,000 V

25,120

MANHOURS NEEDED

UNIT #

240

6,239 8,716 2,412 423 980 11 5 91 41 116 40 23 100 272 21 15 39 160 11 42

#4 #2 #2 #2 #5 #5 #9 #14 #8 #10 #13 #6 #17 RAVINE 1 #16 #15 #12 EQBA SENIC #7

YR1 26% (INCLUDING +2640) 33% YR1 57%YR2 20%YR3 72%YR3 28% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 100% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 100% LONG T ERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 90% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE

19,991 5,123

25,120

PERIMETER PROJECTS TOTAL MANHOURS

2009

YEAR 15 AVAILABLE MANHOURS

COMMENTS

rRt

MANHOURS NEEDED

UNIT #

240

9,600 FT 11,520 S 4,000 V

15,026 1,423 1,397 1,206 13 41 5 91 41 116 40 23 100 272 21 15 39 160 11 42

#4 #4 #2 #2 #2 #5 #9 #14 #8 #10 #13 #6 #17 RAVINE 1 #16 #15 #12 EQBA SENIC #7

26,120

20,322 4,798

2S,120

COMMENTS 44% YR 1 (RUNNING TOTAL 70%) 26%YR2 33%YR2 57% YR 3 20% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 100% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 90% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE

PERIMETER PROJECTS TOTAL MANHOURS

164

YEAR 16 AVAILABLE MANHOURS

9,600 FT 11,520 S 4,000 V

25,120

2010 MANHOURS NEEDED

UNIT #

COMMENTS

6,096

:2 {l'/o iK I (INCLUDING +9120)

10,245 2,408 727 698 36 13 41 5 91 41 116 40 23 100 272 21 15 39 160 11 42

#4 #4 #4 #2 #2 #2 #5 #9 #14 #8 #10 #13 #6 #17 RAVINE 1 #16 #15 #12 EQBA SENIC #7

20,119 4,941

25,120 YEAR 17 AVAILABLE MANHOURS

9,600 FT 11,520 S 4,000 V

25,120

30% YRI (RUNNING 100%) 44%YR2 26% YR 3 33% YR 3 57% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 20% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 100% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 90% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 100% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE

PERIMETER PROJECTS TOTAL MANHOURS

2011 MANHOURS NEEDED

UNIT #

16,102

1,300 1,642 1,231 22 63 41 5 91 41 116 40 23 100 272 21 15 39 160 11 42

#3 #4 #4 #4 #2 #5 #9 #14 #8 #10 #13 #6 #17 RAVINE 1 #16 #15 #12 EQBA SENIC #7

COMMENTS

SOL/o iR liRUNNING TO'tAL 770/0) 27%YR2 30% YR 2 44% YR 3 26% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 100% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE

20,377 4,743

25,120

PERIMETER PROJECTS TOTAL MANHOURS 165

YEAR 18 AVAILABLE MANHOURS

9,600 FT 11,520 S 4,000 V

25,120

2012 MANHOURS NEEDED

UNIT #

6,94:;

29U;0 VR i (RONNING TOTAL 1000/0)

2,406 664 839 37 22 63 41 5 91 41 116 40 23 100 272 21 15 39 160 11 42

#3 #3 #4 #4 #4 #2 #5 #9 #14 #8 #10 #13 #6 #17 RAVINE 1 #16 #15 #12 EQBA SENIC #7

27%YR2 30% YR 2 44%YR3 26% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 100% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE

11,995 13,125

25,120

YEAR 19 AVAILABLE MANHOURS

9,600 FT 11,520 S 4,000 V

25,120

COMMENTS

PERIMETER PROJECTS TOTAL MANHOURS

2013 MANHOURS NEEDED

UNIT #

1,16 ;

1,230 20 84 63 41 5 91 41 116 40 23 100 272 21 15 39 160 11 42

#3 #3 #4 #2 #5 #9 #14 #8 #10 #13 #6 #17 RAVINE 1 #16 #15 #12 EQBA SENIC #7

COMMENTS

L/o

iK 2

50% YR 3 27% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 100% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE

3,521 21,562

25,083

PERIMETER PROJECTS TOTAL MANHOURS

166

YEAR 20 AVAILABLE MANHOURS

9,600 FT 5,760 S 4,000 V

19,360

2014 MANHOURS NEEDED

UNIT #

666

37 20 84 63 41 5 91 41 116 40 23 100 272 21 15 39 160 11 42

#3 #3 #4 #2 #5 #9 #14 #8 #10 #13 #6 #17 RAVINE 1 #16 #15 #12 EQBA SENIC #7

19,350

YEAR 21

9,600 FT OS 4,000 V

13,600

vu a

50% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 27% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 100% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE NON-EROS LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE

1,78'1 17,573

AVAILABLE MANHOURS

COMMENTS

2!}Lfo

PERIMETER PROJECTS TOTAL MANHOURS

2015 MANHOURS NEEDED

UNIT #

',4

84 62 41 5 91 41 116 40 23 100 272 21 15 39 160 11 42

#4 #2 #5 #9 #14 #8 #10 #13 #6 #17 RAVINE 1 #16 #15 #12 EQBA SENIC #7

COMMENTS

100'90 LONG 1ERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM LONG TERM LONG TERM LONG TERM LONG TERM LONG TERM LONG TERM LONG TERM LONG TERM LONG TERM LONG TERM LONG TERM LONG TERM LONG TERM LONG TERM LONG TERM LONG TERM

MAINTENANCE MAINTENANCE MAINTENANCE MAINTENANCE MAINTENANCE MAINTENANCE MAINTENANCE MAINTENANCE MAINTENANCE MAINTENANCE MAINTENANCE MAINTENANCE MAINTENANCE MAINTENANCE MAINTENANCE MAINTENANCE MAINTENANCE

1,237 12,363 13,600

PERIMETER PROJECTS TOTAL MANHOURS

167

APPENDIX IX

PHASING TABLES PERIMETER WOODLANDS

168

TABLE IX PERIMETER WOODLANDS - PHASING TABLES YEAR 3 AVAILABLE MANHOURS

1997 MANHOURS

2,880 S 800 V

494 1,952 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120

3,680

3,646

UNIT D K H L B E C F J G I A

sII

YEAR 4 AVAILABLE MANHOURS

2,880 S 800 V 3,680 YEARS AVAILABLE MANHOURS

COMMENTS VANDERBILT YR3 23% YRI YRI YRI YRI YRI YRI YRI YRI YRI YRI YRI SEASONAL STAFijti

V= VOLUNTEERS

1998 MANHOURS NEEDED 15 2,207 221 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 3,643

UNIT D K K H L B E C F J G I A

COMMENTS LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 26% YRI (running total 49%) 23%YR2 YRI YRI YRI YRI YRI YRI YRI YRI YRI YRI

1999 MANHOURS NEEDED

UNIT

LUNd TERM MAINTENANCE

2,880 S 800 V

2,037 250 143 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120

K K K H L B E C F J G I A

24% YRI (running total 73%) 26%YR2 23%YR3 YRI YRI YRI YRI YRI YRI YRI YRI YRI YRI

3,680

3,646

COMMENTS

169

2000

YEAR 6

AVAiLABLE

MANHUORS

MANHOURS

NEEDED

9,600 11,520 4,000

15 2,207 231 143 4 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120

25,120

3,900

YEAR 7

AvAlLADLE

MANHOORS

MANHOURS

NEEDED

2,880 S 900 V

!3,i7BO

UNIt COMMENTS D K K K K H L

B E C

F J G I A

LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 26% YR2 (running total 99%) 24%YR2 26%YR3 23% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE YRI YRI YRI YRI YRI YRI YRI YRI YRI YRI

2001 ON11 COMMENTS

LUNd TERM MAINTENANCE

85 240 150 5 4 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 272 21

K K K K K H L B E C

1% YRI (including 480) 25%YR2 24%YR3 26% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 23% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 22%YRI YRI YRI YRI YRI YRI YRI YRI YRI YRI

F J G I A

1,:;S2

170

YEARS

AvAILABLE

1VlANHOORS

MANHOURS

NEEDED

2,880 S 900 V

15 6 156 4 5 4 290 2,261 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120

a,'180

3,821

YEAR 9

2002 dNrt COMMENTS D K K K K K H H L

B E C

F J G I A

YRl YRI YRI YRI YRI YRI YRI YRI YRI YRI YRI YRI YRI YRI YRI YRI YRI

2003

AVAILABLE

MANAGORS

MANHOURS

NEEDED

UNIT COMMENTS

LUNd TERM MAINTENANCE

6 5 4 5

K K K K K H H H L

I%YR3 25% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 24% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 26% LONG TEMR MAINTENANCE 23% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 19% YRI (running total 60%) 19%YR2 22% YR 2 YR 1 YR 1 YR 1 YR 1 YR 1 YR 1 YR 1 YR 1 YR 1

2,880 S 900 V

2,261 250 165 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120

3,'}80

S,ij9S

B E C

F J G I A

171

:2<l54

YEAR 1<l

AvAILABLE

MANDOORS

MANHOURS

NEEDED

UNIT COMMENTS

LONG TERM MAINTENANCE

2,880 S 900 V

19 2,380 250 142 5 60 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120

K H H H H L B E C F J G I A

LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 20% YR1 (running total 80%) 19% YR2 19%YR2 22% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 100% YR1 (including 840) YR 1 YR 1 YR 1 YR 1 YR 1 YR 1 YR 1 YR1

!J,7BD

~,B:11

YEAR 11

AVAILADLE

MANHOORS

MANHOURS

NEEDED

20<l5 oN11 COMMENTS

LONG TERM MAINTENANCE

2,880 S 900 V

19 2,142 263 142 4 5 177 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120

K H H H H H L B E C F J G I A

LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 18% YR1 (running total 98%) 19%YR2 19%YR3 19% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 22% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 100% YR2 YR 1 YR 1 YR 1 YR 1 YR 1 YR 1 YR 1 YR 1

3,780

3,727

YEAR 12

:200(;

AVAILAHLE

MANHOURS

NEEDED

UNIT COMMENTS

LONG TERM MAINtENANCE

3,353 ? 2,880 S 900 V

19 238 237 150 4 4 5 123 3,153 2,485 120 120 120 120 120 120

K H H H H H H L B E C F J G I A

1,133

1,153

LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 2% YR1 (running total 100%) 18%YR2 20% YR 3 19% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 19% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 22% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 100% YR3 100% YR1 (including 1080) 93% YR1 (including 1080) YR 1 YR 1 YR 1 YR 1 YR 1 YR 1 172

2007

YEAR 13 AVAILABLE MANHOURS

MANHOURS NEEDED

UNIT

D K H H H H H H L

4,033 ? 2,880 S 900 V

15 19 26 135 4 4 4 5 4 613 268 459 5,652 120 120 120 120 120

'7,BI~

",BDB

YEAR 14

AVAILABLE

MANHOORS

MANHOURS

NEEDED

VEAR

COMMENTS

B E E C

F J G I A

LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 2%YR2 18% YR3 19% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 19% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 19% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 22% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 100% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 100% YR2 7% YR1(running total 100%) 93%YR2 85% YR1 (including 1200) YR 1 YR 1 YR 1 YR1 YR 1

2008 UNIT COMMENTS

LONG TERM MAINTENANCE

~ H H H L

5,123 ? 2,880 S 900 V

19 15 4 18 4 489 35 381 1,209 715 5,479 120 120 120 120

LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 2%YR3 18% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 80% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 100% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 100% YR3 7%YR2 93%YR3 15% YR1 (running total 100%) 85%YR2 47% YR1 (including 1320) YR 1 YR 1 YR 1 YR 1

B,gC:.1

B,BIS3

AVAILABLE

MANHOORS

MANHOURS

NEEDED

B E E C C

F J G I A

2009 UNI1' COMMENTS

LONG TERM MAINTENANCE

19 22 4 15

K H L E E C C

4,798 ? 2,880 S 900 V

11 29 126 315 6,510 1,015 120 120 120 120

LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 100% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 100% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 93% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 7%YR3 15% YR2 85%YR3 45% YR1 (running total 92%) 47%YR2 YR 1 YR 1 YR 1 173 YR 1

8,518

8,561

F F J G I A

YEAR 16

2010

AVAILABLE

MANHOORS

MANHOURS

NEEDED

UNIT COMMENTS

LUNd TERM MAIN IkNANCE

K H L B E C C F F F

4,950 ? 2,880 S 900 V

19 22 4 15 12 56 9 1,157 972 723 5,377 120 120 120

LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 100% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 100% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 100% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 15%YR3 85% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 8% YR1 (running total 100%) 45%YR2 47%YR3 28% YR1 (including 1560) YR 1 YR 1 YR 1

8,730

8,741

YEAR 17

J G I A

2011

AVAILADLE

MANHUORS

MANHOURS

NEEDED

UNIT COMMENTS

LUNG TERM MAINTENANCE

19 22 4 15 12

K H L B E C F F F J J G I A

LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 100% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 100% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 100% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 100% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 8%YR2 45%YR3 47% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 26% YR1 (running total 54%) 28%YR2 YR 1 YR 1

4,743 ? 2,880 S 900 V

173 692 22 6,441 826 120 120 120

8,623

8,612

174

YEAR 18 AVAILABLE MANHOURS

2012 MANHOURB NEEDED

UNIT

LONG TERM MAINTENANCE

13,125 ? 900 V

19 22 4 15 12 11 173 692 22 11,892 826 120 120 120

K H L B E C F F F J J G I A

12s:,D26

l:2J,Dl)~

YEAR 19

2013

AVAILABLE

MANHOURS

NEEDED

21,562 ? 900 V !:!!2,~r;!2

COMMENTS

19 22 4 15 12 11 123 21 22 5,946 1,416 503 179 13,849 322

!:!!2,'II,g

YEAR 20

UNIT COMMENTS

LUNd tERM MAINTENANCE

LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 100% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 100% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 100% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 100% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 8%YR3 45% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 47% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 24% YRI (running total 100%) 48%YR2 28%YR3 100% YRI (including 1920) 100% YRI (including 1920) 14% YRI (including 1920)

H L B E C

F F F J J J G I A

2014

AVAILABLE

MANHOURS

NEEDED

17,573 ? 900 V

19 22 4 15 12 11 46 708 863 15 329 1,624 13,777 265

18,4';3

tiJ, :;:25

oN11 COMMENTS

LONG TERM MAIN IENANet;

LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 100% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 100% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 100% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 100% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 100% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 24%YR2 48%YR3 28% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 100%YR2 100%YR2 86% YRI (running total 100%) 14%YR2 175

H L B E C

F J J J G I A A

YEAR 21

2015

AVAILABLE

MANHOORS

MANHOURS

NEEDED

UNIT COMMENTS

LUNd 'tERM MAIN I ENANCE

K H L B E C

12,363 ? 900 V

19 22 4 15 12 11 46 431 26 15 339 686 1,629 161

LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 100% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 100% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 100% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 100% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 100% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 24%YR3 48% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 28% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 100%YR3 100% YR3 86%YR2 14%YR3

I~,!Z~~

:1,:!J~ I

YEAR 22

2016

AVAILABLE

MANHOORS

MANHOURS

NEEDED

12,363 ? 900 V 1:J,!2r>~

COMMENTS

LUNG TERM MAINTENANCE

19 22 4 15 12 11 46 54 10 21 986 5

K H L B E C

LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 100% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 100% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 100% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 100% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 100% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 100% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 100% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 100% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 86%YR3 14% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE

F J G I A A

1,22D

YEAR 23

2017

MANHOORS

MANHOURS

NEEDED

13,263

oNI1'

AVAILADLE

12,363 ? 900 V

F J J J G I A A

UNIT COMMENTS

LONG TERM MAIN'tENANC:E

19 22 4 15 12 11 46 54 10 21 34

K H L B E C

LONG TERM MAINTENANCE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 100% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 100% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 100% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 100% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 100% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 100% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 100% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 100% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE 100% LONG TERM MAINTENANCE

F J G I A

263 176

APPENDIX X

MANAGEMENT UNIT SUMMARY TABLE FOREST CORE

177

.~'

B I

MANAGEMENT UNITS

1 2

Management Unit

unit

totals

unit

FOREST CORE

10.10

5.01

5.05

8.63

3.58

5.60

5.87

439,956.00

218,235.60

219,978.00

375,922.80

155,944.80

243,936.00

0.92

0.77

0.59

1.87

0.90

1.55

40,075.20

33,541.20

25,700.40

81,457.20

39,204.00

67,518.00

195,148.80

51,836.40

17,424.00

159,429.60

63,162.00

1.80

2.57

2.93

3.21

1.56

0.30

1.50

0.10

3.30

0.00

78,408.00

111,949.20

127,630.80

139,827.60

67,953.60

13,068.00

65,340.00

4,356.00

143,748.00

0.00

4.86

1.93

11.93

11.48

5.97

5.32

21.94

255,697.20

211,701.60

84,157.92

519,670,80

500,068.80

260,053.20

231,739.20

4.48

1.19

0.40

3.66

1.45

1.51

2,17

65,775.60 1.00 43,560.00

6.33

12.12

6.61

19.19

151.52 acres

955,706.40

275,734,80

527,947.20

287,931.60

835,916.40

6,600,298.32 sq ftt

3.36

1.10

2.19

1.38

1.23

94,525.20

146,361.60

47,916.00

95,396.40

60,112.80

53,578.80

1.50

2.47

2.02

3.94

4.31

7,30

65,340.00

107,593.20

87,991.20

171,626.40

187,743.60

317,988.00

4 Total Acres

acres

.q ft

total square feet

6 canopy gap in acres

acres

canopy gap in sq ft

sq ft

erosion in acres

acres

9 erosion in sq ft

.q ft

30.72 acres 1,338,163.20 .q ft 41.31 acres 1,799,463.60 .q ft

10 bare soill desire lines

acres

1.87

0.11

0.47

0.32

0.38

2.06

0.57

0.44

0.19

5.07

2.BO

1.94

0.55

2.97

1.07

1.49

1.05

4.72

11 bare soil in sq ft

.q ft

B1,457.20

4,791.60

20,473.20

13,939.20

16,552.80

89,733,60

24,B29.20

19,166.40

B,276.40

220,849.20

121,96B.OO

84,506.40

23,958.00

129,373.20

46,609.20

64,904.40

45,738.00

205,603.20

1,222,729.20 .q ft

14 erosion control area

.qft

31,363.20

44,779.68

51,052.32

55,931.04

27,1B1.44

5,227.20

26,136.00

1,742.40

57,499.20

0.00

17,424.00

26,136.00

43,037.28

35,196.48

68,650.56

75,097.44

127,195.20

719,785.44 .qft

15 cribbing area

.qft

12,545.28

17,911.87

20,420.93

22,372.42

10,872.58

2,090.88

10,454.40

696.96

22,999.68

0.00

6,969.60

10,454.40.

17,214.91

14,07B.59

27,460.22

30,038.98

50,878.0B

287,914.18 .q ft

16 water bar area

.q ft

18,817.92

26,867.81

30,631.39

33,558.62

16,308.86

3,136.32

15,681.60

1,045.44

34,499.52

0.00

10,454.40

15,681,60

25,822.37

21,117.89

41,190.34

45,058.46

76,317.12

431,871.26 sqft

28.07 acres

12 13 following #5 in sq ft

0.00

18 following are #8 of plants

0.00

19 herbaceous for cribbing

plants

12,545

17,912

20,421

22,372

10,873

2,091

10,454

697

20 herbaceous for wb

plants

4,704

6,717

7,658

8,390

4,077

7B4

3,920

261

21 total herbaceous

plants

17,250

24,629

7,658

8,390

4,077

2,875

14,375

95B

22 trees, canopy gap area

plants

4,453

3,727

2,856

9,051

4,356

7,502

21,683

5,760

1,936

17,714

23 trees, erosion, bare soil

plants

3,197

2,335

2,962

~,075

1,690

2,056

1,803

1..!.~

253

7,292

24 shrubs

plants

3,197

2,335

2,962

3,075

1,690

2,056

1,803

1,690

253

7,292

25 total woody

plants

10,847

8,396

8,780

15,201

7,736

11,614

25,290

9,140

2,441

26 fencing, in linear feet

Ilnear f

2,020

1,002

1,010

1,n6

716

1,120

1,174

972

3B5

---

23,000

6,970

10,454

17,215

14,079

27,460

8,625

3,920

6,456

5,279

8,625

2,614

3,920

6,456

5,279

7,018

7,308

10,503

16,262

6,679

10,600

2,439

2,561

1,786

4,739

2,692

4,731

2,439

2,561

1,786

4,739

2,692

4,731

4,670

32,298

11,897

12,431

14,075

25,741

10,708

20,061

16,018

26,897

2,386

2!...~96

1,194

1,064

4,388

1,266

2,424

1,322

3,838

30,039

50,878

10,298

11,265

19,079

109,274.62 plants

37,758

41,304

69,957

270,498.89 plants

6,679

5,953

150,040.00 plants

4,670

10,472

60,443.86 plants

10,472 L_

60,443.86 plants

-----

269,5?~.51

plants

30,304.40 linear ft 0.00

28 following #s are man hours

287,914.18 plants

0.00

29 detailed evaluation

242

120

121

207

134

141

117

30 seed collecting

215

30B

351

385

1B7

180

1BO

31 vegetation control

505

301

121

518

335

352

292

115

32 procurement of materials

3,764

5,374

6,126

6,712

3,262

527

3,136

209

6,900

33 order of supplies

34 fencing, installation

35 amend bare soil

1,629

409

279

331

1,795

497

3B3

155

4,417

36 tree and shrub planting

723

550

5B5

1,013

515

774

1,686

509

153

2,153

793

37 nursery seed sowing

13B

197

225

246

120

115

253

38 nursery transplanting

B28

1,182

1,348

1,4n

718

13B

690

590

1,518

39 erosion control

12,545

17,912

20,421

22,372

10,873

2,091

10,454

597

23,000

6,970

40 herbaceous planting

517

739

B42

923

448

431

949

2B7

431

41 evaluation of erosion control

10,454

42 fencing repair

107

103

43 broadcast sowing

1BO

19B

4B7

259

1B5

44 infill seeds, herbaceous

seed collection

seed sowing

transplanting

planting

49 infill trees, planting

10B

50 watering

1,446

1,120

1,171

2,027

1,032

1,549

3,372

1,219

325

4,306

1,586

1,657

51 erosion control maintenance

3,136

4,478

5,105

5,593

2,718

523

2,614

174

5,750

1,742

52 bare soil maintenance

407

102

1,104

510

423

52,352

6,507

17,050

26,726

32,723

37,302

-mh

515

B74

4,948.52 mh

397

1,151

6,513.72 mh

8,238

9,012

15,263

86,374.25 mh

432.00 mh

154

1,212.18 mh

2,587

932

1,298

915

4,112

24,454.58 mh

1,716

714

1,337

1,068

1,793

17,971.50 mh

159

296

242

472

527

152

727

3,136

5,164

4,224

175

1,690

479

829

938

115

1B9

155

302

330

550

3,167.06 mh

450

590

1,136

929

1,812

1,983

3,358

19,002.34 mh

10,454

17,215

14,079

27,460

30,039

50,878

287,914.18 mh

710

5B1

1,133

1,239

2,099

11,876.46 mh

17,215

14,079

127

42,363.32 mh

197

109

173

1,363.70 mh

2B5

103

143

101

453

2,694.72 mh

248.44 mh

24 15

158.35 mh

15B

950.12 mh

105

593.82 mh

898.58 mh

1,877

3,432

1,428

2,675

2,136

3,586

35,943.00 mh

2,614

4,304

3,520

6,865

7,510

12,720

71,978.54 mh

120

647

233

325

229

1,028

6,113.65 mh

32,029

56,550

41,783

53,630

56,100

99,248

630,810 mh

12B

395

120

1BO

2B5

275

143

12B

2,091

92 2,439

527

0.00 mh

53 54 TOTAL Man Hours

3,636,53 mh

291

143

2B5

451

152

275

42,279

449

124

20,716

8,936

24,145

20,612

-~-

2,122

178

APPENDIX XI

MANAGEMENT UNIT SUMMARY TABLES PERIMETER WOODLANDS

179

Management Unit

unit

Total Acres

acres

PERIMETER WOODLANDS

F---'-'---' G

MANAGEMENT UNITS

1 2

TOTALS

units

3 4 5

total square feet

sq It

canopy gap In acres

acres

canopy gap in sq ft

sq It

erosion in acres

acres

erosion in sq ft

sq It

10 bare soUl desire lines

acres

11 bare soli in sq ft

sq ft

12.00

4.27

3.18

5.70

3.90

14.11

2.38

5.70

7.50

18.80

4.31

2.70

522,720.00

186,001.20

138,520.80

248,292.00

169,884.00

614,631.60

103,672.80

248,292.00

326,700.00

818,928.00

187,743.60

117,612.00

3.05

1.29

1.61

2.27

1.10

7.83

0.05

1.62

2.52

4.62

1.07

0.38

132,858.00

56,192.40

70,131.60

98,881.20

47,916.00

341,074.80

2,178,00

70,567.20

109,771.20

201,247.20

46,609.20

16,552.80

1.00

0.09

0.58

0.09

0.12

0.00

0.83

1.28

1.55

0.55

0.02

43,560.00

3,920.40

25,264.80

3,920.40

5,227.20

0.00

36,154.80

55,756.80

67,518.00

23,958.00

871.20

84.55 acres 3,682,998.00 sq It 27.41 acres 1,193,979.60 sq It 6.20 acres 270,072.00 sq ft

2.40

1.56

0.67

1.28

1.40

4.49

1.23

1.75

0.61

3.80

1.67

0.10

104,544.00

67,953.60

29,185.20

55,756.80

60,984.00

195,584.40

53,578.80

76,230.00

26,571.60

165,528.00

72,745.20

4,356.00

913,017.60 sq It

27,007.20

9,583.20

348.48

108,028.80 sq It

20.96 acres

13 following #s in sq ft

14 erosion control area

sq It

15 cribbing area

sq It

1,742.40

156.82

1,010.59

156.82

209.09

0.00

1,446.19

2,230.2.7

2,700.72

958.32

34.85

10,802.88 sq It

16 water bar area

sq It

15,681.60

1,411.34

9,095.33

1,411.34

1,881.79

0.00)

13,015.73

20,072.45

24,306.48

8,624.88

313.63

97,225.92 sq It

1,446

2,230

2,701

958

10,802.88 plants

3,254

5,018

6,077

2,156

24,306.48 plants

4,700

7,248

8,777

3,115

113

35,109.36 plants

17,424.00

1,568.16

10,105.92

1,568.16

2,090.88

0.00

14,461.92

22,302.72

18 following are #s of plants 19 herbaceous for cribbing

plants

1,742

157

1,011

157

20 herbaceous for wb

plants

3,920

353

2,274

353

209 . 470

21 total herbaceous

plants

5,663

510

3,284

510

680

22 trees, canopy gap area

plants

14,762

6,244

7,792

10,987

5,324

37,897

242!

7,841

12,197

22,361

5,179

1,839

132,664.40 plants

23 trees, erosion, bare soil

plants

2,962

1,437

1,089

1,194

1,298

',ti16

1,O72!

2,248

1,647

4,661

1,934

105

23,661.79 plants

24 shrubs

plants

2,962

1,437

1,089

1,194

1,298

4,016

1,072:

2,248

1,647

4,661

1,934

105

23,661.79 plants

25 total trees and shrubs

plants

20,686

9,119

9,970

13,374

7,920

45,930

2,385:

12,336

15,490

31,683

9,047

2,048

179,987.98 plants

26 fencing, in linear feet

linear ft

2,400

854

636

1,140

780

2,822

476'

1,140

1,500

3,760

862

540

16,910.00 linear ft

..-

28 following #5 are man hours

29 detailed evaluation

288

102

137

339

57i

137

180

451

103

2,029.20 mh

30 seed collecting

110

438.87 mh

31 vegetation control

1,200

427

318

570

390

1,411

238i

570

750

1,880

431

270

32 procurement of materials

2,091

188

1,213

188

251

1,735

2,676

3,241

1,150

33 order of supplies

288.00 mh

34 fencing, installation

113

19.

150

676.40 mh

35 amend bare soil

2,091

1,359

584

1,115

1,220

3,912

1,072

1,525

531

3,311

1,455

18,260.35 mh

36 tree and shrub planting

1,379

608

665

892

528

3,062

159:

822

1,033

2,112

603

137

11,999.20 mh

37 nursery seed sowing

280.87 mh

38 nursery transplanting

272

158

226

348

421

149

1,685.25 mh

39 erosion control

6,970

627

4,042

627

836

5,785

8,921

10,803

3,833

139

43,211.52 mh

40 herbaceous planting

170

141

217

263

1,053.28 mh

41 evaluation of erosion control

108.03 mh

42 fencing repair

108

127

21!

169

760.95 mh

43 broadcast sowing

230

150

123

134

431

11s!

168

365

160

2,012.16 mh

44 infill seeds, herbaceous

seed collection

43.89 mh

seed sowing

28.09 mh

transplanting

168.52 mh

planting

105.33 mh

138

306

1ÂŁ

103

211

1,199.92 mh

1,216

1,329

1,783

1,056

6,124

3".

1,645

2,065

4,224

273

23,998.40 mh

283

405

624

756

268

3,024.81 mh

26E

381

133

828

364

4,565.09 mh

10,079

1,150

137,357 mh

50 watering

2,758

488

523

340

erosion control maintenance

52 bare soil maintenance

49 inti II trees, planting

......

146

279

305

53 54 TOTAL Man Hours

19,014

5,275

9,231

6,025

4,786

978 . 18,048

. _42 - _.

- 1,206 ._-

2,310

0.00 mh

8,455.00 mh .... 12,963.46 mh

13,900

18,035

29,504

....

..-

_._-

180

APPENDIX XII

STAFFING TABLES

181

Appendix XII Staffing

TABLE XInal

STAFFING LEVELS FOR THE FOREST CORE YEARS

1995

1996

1997

1998

•

2000

1999

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

:2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

STAFF SUPERVISOR

1,920

HUMBER OF PEOPLE

HOURS IN FmLD

CREW NUM.BER OF PEOPLE

•

HOURS IN FIELD

•

9,600

11,520

5,760

0 0

4,000

13,125

21,562

17,573

12,363

25,120

19,360

13,600

6 8

6 4

6 0

0 0

9,600

0 0

7,200

11,520

3,500

4,000

3,353

4,033

5,123

4,796

4,941

4,743

25,120

6 8

9,600

5,760

9,600

SEASONAL lIUMBltR OF PEOPLE

HOURS IN FIELD VOLUNTEERS/YOUTH

HOURS HOURS AVAILABLE TO PERIMETER WOODLANDS PROJECTS TOTAL HOURS

TOTAL PAID STAFF

11,160

15,020

20,600

25,120

4 0

6 0

6 S

6 8

FULLTIME SEASONAL

25,120

6 8

•8

25,120

• 8

•8

STAFFING LEVELS FOR PERIMETER WOODLANDS ADDITIONAL SEASONALS

0 0

2,860

2,680

2,860

2,660

2,860

2,880

2,680

800

900

11,180

15,020

24,480

26,800

26,600

26,900

28,900

26,900

28,900

26,900

26,020

20,260

14,500

28,900

•

NUMBER OF PEOPLE HOURS IN FIELD VOLUNTEERS

NUMBER OF PEOPLE HOURS IN FIELD

GRAND TOTAL HOURS GRAND TOTAL STAFF

ASSUMPTIONS - NEW SUPERVISOR EVERY 8 YEARS (SU! - SU8) - NEW FIELD TECHNICIAN EVERY S YEARS (FT! - FTS) ~ NEW SEASONAL WORKER EVERY 3 YEARS (SI ~ S31 ~ 5% SALARY INCREASES EVERY YEAR ~ 20% FRINGE BENEFITS FOR FULL TIME PERMANENT EMPWYEES

TABLE XInb)

17% FRINGE FOR 9 MONTH TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES

POSITION

YEARS

SUPERVISOR

1 8U1

FIELD TECH 4

2 SU2 FT2 FT2 FT2 FT1

FIELD TECH 5

FT1

FIELD TECH 1 FIELD TECH 2 FIELD TECH 3

SEASONAl" 1 SEASONAL 2 SEASONAL 3 SEASONAL 4 SEASONAL 5

FT1 FT1 FT1

SEASONAL 6 SEASONAL 7 SEASONAL 8

BEASONAL9 SEASONAL 10

YEARS

YEARS 3 SU3 FT3 FT3 FT. FT2 FT2 51 81 81 51 81

81 81

4 SU4 FT4 FT4 FT4 FT3 FT3 82 82 82 82 82 81 81 81 82 82

5 SUS FTS FTS FTS FT4 FT4 83 83 83 83 83 82 82 82 83 83

6 SU6 FT1 FT1 FT1 FTS FTS 51 81 81 81 81 83 83 83 81 81

7 SU7 FT2 FT2 FT2 FT1 FT1 82 82 82 82 82 51 81 81 82 82

SU8 FT3 FT3 FT3 FT2 FT2 83 83 83 83 83 82 82 82 83 83

9 SU1 FT4 FT4 FT4 FT3 FT3 81 81 51 51 81 83 83 83 81 81

10 8U2 FTS FT. FTS FT4

11 SU3 FT1 FT1

FT4 82 82 82 82 82 81 81 81 82 82

FTS 83

FT1

FTS

83 83 83 83 82 82 82 83 83

12 SU4 FT2 FT2 FT2 FT1 FT1 81 81 81 81 81 83 83 83 81 81

13 SUS FT, FT3 FT3 FT2 FT2 82 82 82 82 82 81 81 81 82 82

14 8U6 FT4 FT4 FT4 FT3 FT3 83 83 83 83 83 82 82 82 83 83

15 SU7 FTS FTS FTS FT4 FT4 81 81 81 81 81 83 83 83 81 81

16 SU8 FT1 FT1 FT1 FTS FTS 82 82 82 82 82 81 81 81 82 82

17 SU1 FT2 FT2 FT2 FT1 FT1 83 83 83 83 83 82 82 82 83 83

18 SU2 FT3 FT3 FT3 FT2 FT2 51 81 81 81 81 83 83 83

19 SU3 FT4 FT4 FT4 FT3 FT3 82 82 82 82 82 81 81 81

20 SU4 FTS FTS FTS FT4 FT4 83 83 83 83

sus FT1 FT1 FT1 FTS FTS

22 SU6 FT2 FT2 FT2 FT1 FT1

23 8U7 FT3 FT3 FT3 FT2 FT2

182

TABLE XII - C ESTIMATED SALARY COSTS BY YEAR FOR PROJECT FOREST CORE YEAR YEAR YEAR YEAR YEAR YEAR YEAR YEAR YEAR YEAR YEAR YEAR YEAR YEAR YEAR YEAR YEAR YEAR YEAR YEAR YEAR YEAR YEAR

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

GRAND TOTALS AVERAGE YEARLY COSTS

SECONDARY WOODS

TOTALS

$122,400 $186,120 $259,870 $310,618 $325,992 $316,488 $293,335 $299,888 $304,994 $314,369 $314,016 $303,913 $305,274 $320,382 $309,326 $303,002 $302,081 $299,339 $308,430 $323,696 $314,076 $307,989 $298,088

$0 $0 $25,272 $26,536 $27,800 $25,272 $26,536 $27,800 $25,272 $26,536 $27,800 $25,272 $26,536 $27,800 $25,272 $26,536 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

$122,400 $186,120 $285,142 $337,154 $353,792 $341,760 $319,871 $327,688 $330,266 $340,905 $341,816 $329,185 $331,810 $348,182 $334,598 $329,538 $302,081 $299,339 $308,430 $323,696 $314,076 $307,989 $298,088

$6,743,686

$370,240

$7,113,926

FOREST CORE

$293,204

SECONDARY WOODS

TOTAL

$16,097

$309,301

183

APPENDIX XIII

MATERIALS

184

TABLE XIII - 1A FOREST CORE - HERBACEOUS PLANTS PER YEAR Calculations

Plant Totals

Man Hours

1995

#15 (100% erosion) yr 2 infilling #16 (100% erosion)

2,856

196

1996

#17 (4%)

1,652

113

1997

#17 (36%) = 14,869 plants infilling = 83 plants

14,952

1,024

1998

#17 (21%) = 8,674 plants infilling = 743 plants

9,417

645

1999

#17 (29%) = 11,978 plants # 6 (93%) = 2,674 plants infilling = 434 plants

15,086

1,033

2000

# 6 (7%) = 201 plants #13 (100%) = 14,375 plants infilling = 733 plants

15,309

1,049

2001

#10 (45%) = 14,231 plants infilling = 729 plants

14,960

1,025

2002

#10 (43%) = 13,598 plants infilling = 712 plants

14,310

980

2003

#10 (12%) = 3,795 plants # 8 (83%) = 12,650 plants infilling = 680 plants

17,125

1,173

2004

# 8 (12%) = 1,725 plants #14 (56%) = 13,256 plants infilling = 822 plants

15,803

1,082

2005

#14 (44%) = 10,415 plants # 9 (100%) = 958 plants # 5 (28%) = 4,186 plants infilling = 749 plants

16,308

1,117

185

TABLE III - 1A pg.2 Calculations

Plant Totals

Man Hours

2006

#5 (72%) = 10,764 plants #2 (20%) = 4,926 plants infllling = 778 plants

16,468

1,128

2007

#2 (57%) = 14,039 plants infllling = 785 plants

14,824

1,015

2008

#2 (33%) = 8,128 plants #4 (26%) = 7,998 plants infllling = 702 plants

16,828

1,153

2009

#4 (44%) = 13,535 plants infllling = 806 plants

14,341

982

2010

#4 (30%) = 9,229 plants #3 (27%) = 7,581 plants infllling = 677 plants

17,487

1,198

2011

#3 (50%) = 14,039 plants infllling = 840 plants

14,879

2012

#3 (23%) = 6,458 plants infllling = 702 plants

7,160

490

2013

infllling = 323 plants

323

PLANT TOTAL

240,088

MAN HOUR TOTAL

16,444

Average plants per year Average man hours per year

12,636 865

186

TABLE XIII - 2A PERIMETER WOODLANDS -HERBACEOUS PLANTS PER YEAR Man Plant Totals Hours Calculations 1997

23%K = 716 plants

716

1998

26%K = 810 plants infilling = 72

810

1999

24%K = 747 plants infilling = 81

828

2000

26%K = 810 plants infilling = 75

822

2001

l%K = 31 plants 26% H = 1,046 infilling = 81

1,158

2002

19% = 765 infilling = 105

870

2003

10%H = 765 iniilling 76

841

2004

20% H = 805 10%L = 113 infilling = 76

994

2005

18%H = 725 infilling = 92

817

2006

2%H = 80 100%B = 510 93%E = 474 infilling = 72

1,136

2007

7%E= 36 85%L = 2,792 infilling = 106

2,934

201

2008

15%L = 493 47%F = 319 iniilling = 283

1,095

187

TABLE XIII - 2A pg.2 Plant Totals

Calculations

Man Hours

2009

45%F = 306 infilling = 81

387

2010

8%F = 54 28%J = 2,458 inf'illing = 31

2,543

174

2011

26% J = 2,282 infilling = 251

2,533

174

2012

48%J = 4,213 infilling = 228

4,441

304

2013

24%J = 966 100%G = 510 100%J = 7,248 14%A = 5,662 infilling = 421

14,807

1,014

2014

86%A = 4,869 infilling 1,439

6,308

432

2015

infilling

487

= 487

PLANT TOTAL

44,527

MAN HOUR TOTAL

3,055

Average plants per year Average man hours per year

2,474 170

188

TABLE XIII - 1B FOREST CORE - WOODY PLANTS PER YEAR Year

Calculations

Plant Totals

Man Hours

Yearly Costs

1995 117,780

1996

#17 (4%) = 641 plants #16 (100% non erosion) = 20,061 plants #15 (100% non erosion) = 10,708 plants

31,410

7,852

1997

# 17 (36%) = 5,766 plants infilling = 1,570

8,906

2,227

1998

#17 (21%) = 3,364 plants infilling = 228

3,652

913

13,695

1999

#17 (29%) = 4,645 plants # 6 (93%) = 10,801 plants infilling = 168 plants

15,614

3,903

58,545

2000

# 6 (7%) = 813 plants #13 (100%) = 14,075 plants infilling = 772

15,660

3,915

58,725

2001

#10 (45%) = 14,534 plants infilling = 744 plants

15,278

3,820

57,300

2002

#10 (43%) = 13,888 plants infilling = 727 plants

14,615

3,654

54,810

2003

#10 (12%) = 3,876 plants # 8 (88%) = 8,043 plants infilling = 596 plants

12,613

3,135

47,025

2004

# 8 (12%) = 1,097 plants #14 (56%) = 14,415 plants infilling = 596 plants

16,108

4,027

60,405

33,405

62,655 2005

#14 (44%) = 11,326 # 9 (100%) = 2,441 plants # 5 (28%) = 2,166 plants infilling = 776 plants

16,709

4,177

189

TABLE XV - 1B pg.2 Year

Calculations

Plant Totals

Man Hours

Yearly Costs

2006

#5 (72%) = 5,570 plants #2 (20%) = 1,679 plants infilling = 797 plants

8,046

2,011

30,165

2007

#2 (57%) = 4,786 plants infilling = 362 plants

5,148

1,287

19,305

2008

#2 (33%) = 2,771 plants #4 (26%) = 3,952 plants infilling = 239 plants

6,962

1,741

26,115

2009

#4 (44%) = 6,688 plants infilling = 336 plants

7,024

1,756

26,295

2010

#4 (30%) = 4,560 plants #3 (27%) = 2,370 plants infilling = 334 plants

7,264

1,816

27,240

2011

#3 (50%) = 4,390 plants infilling = 346 plants

4,736

1,184

17,760

2012

#3 (23%)

2,239

560

8,400

2013

infilling

101

375

= 2,019 plants

= 101 plants

WOODY PLANT TOTAL MAN HOUR TOTAL TOTAL SALARY COSTS Average woody plants per year Average man hours per year Average salary costs per year

192,085 48,003 $720,000 10,671 2,666 $31,304

190

TABLE XIII . 2b Year

PERIMETER WOODLAND路 WOODY PLANTS PER YEAR

Calculations

Plant Totals

Man Hours

Yearly Costs

1995 1996 1997

#K (23%) = 2,081 plants

2,081

520

$7,800

1998

#K (26%) = 2,352 plants infllling = 208 plants

2,560

640

9,600

1999

#K (24%) = 2,171 plants infllling = 235 plants

2406

600

9,000

2000

#K (26%) = 2,352 plants infllling = 217 plants

2,569

642

9,630

2001

#K (1%) = 90 plants #H (22%) = 2,714 plants infllling = 235 plants

3,039

760

11,400

2002

#H (19%) = 2,344 plants infllling = 280 plants

2,624

655

9,825

2003

#H (19%) = 2,344 infllling = 234 plants

2,578

645

9,675

2004

#H (20%) = 2,467 plants #L (100%) = 2,048 plants infllling = 234 plants

4,749

1,187

17,805

2005

#H (18%) = 2,220 plants infllling = 451 plants

2,671

667

2006

#H (2%) = 247 plants #B (100%) = 9,119 plants #E (93%) = 7,366 plants

16,954

4,237

63,555

2007

#E (7%) = 554 plants #C (85%) = 8,474 plants infllling = 1,673 plants

10,701

2,675

40,125

10,005

191

TABLE XIII - 2b pg.2 Calculations

2008

# C (15%)

= 1,495 plants

Plant Totals

Man Hours

Yearly Costs

23,985

5,995 $89,92 5

# F (47%) = 21,587 plants infilling = 903 plants 2009

# F (45%) = 20,668 plants infilling = 2,308 plants

22,976

5,744

86,160

2010

# F (8%) = 3,674 plants # J (28%) = 8,871 plants infilling = 2,067 plants

14,612

3,652

54,780

2011

# J (26%) = 8,238 plants infilling = 1,254 plants

9,492

2,372

35,580

2012

# J (48%) = 15,208 plants iniilling = 824 plants

16,032

4,007

60,105

2013

#J (24%)

29,896

7,474

112,11 0

20,627

5,157

77,355

1,779

445

6,675

= 7,604 plants

#G (100%) = 2,385 plants #1 (100%) = 15,490 plants #A (14%) = 2,896 plants infilling = 1,521 plants 2014

#A (86%) = 17,790 plants infilling = 2,837 plants

2015

infilling

= 1,779 plants

WOODY PLANT TOTAL MAN HOUR TOTAL SALARY COST TOTAL Average woody plants per year Average man hours per year Average salary costs per year

192,331 47,496 $721,110 10,122 2,500 $31,353

192

Appendix XDI - 3B I

L UNLTI:i

FOREST CORE - MATERIALS FOR MANAGEMENT 'UNIT

UNIT

IUNIT PRICE

--.

' 5-

~~~~======~~~~~~~~::Q:;ffgt::CC~OS'~::==Q1Y~'t:C~OS"T~t:==QTY~t:~COS~Tt:==Q'~~t:"':jc.JsT~t:<l==rr~::JCOST~j:::JQff~,t-_~COS~T+-Q~TY~_C~O~~+-Q~TY~_~CO~~+-~Q~ff~_~CC~OST~r-~Q~ff __~_~CC~O~~ Irolls 'per roll 41 $1,005 2' $515 2' $515 35 $858 15 $3680564 _ 24 ,5.. 20 $490 • $196 48 $1.176-

~FENCE

f.:~~C~:EE~~~R~'~~FESN~CE----~:~~:~~,.ft~~'~II..~SO).~er'~~.t~+-~~~__~$~506~___~~:~t-~$~251~___~~,,~.8__~$25~2__~:~74~8--_~$43~2--~~~~:---~$'I~~~-~,I7."3~--~$28~1~~~::~~$~~4~-~2:~~L2,~--~$24~3----~~----~$96+-------~::~~--~$59"7~ ~ftP'''OIl

0.16

0.08

5.1

$401

2.5

Irolls

1$38 ...rroll

l . .lloDS

1$78.60 per gal

for·

linear ft

IN/C'

7,527

PEGS IWIRE for Lo.. 2,900 LI •• ~ ft p'''oll

...,. linear ft rolls

IN/C' IN/C' 1$38 per roll

,,-;-409

!:~~: yd :~~':rper box

0:-'"

$197

$338-

$30.08 $1'7

10.747

12,253'3;423

0.05$2

l.75

-$i38

0.04

0.09

0.07

0.03

+,*$.8

$236

2.43

$191

0.95

$75

-.,523

-"27

5,227

$7 6

418

$472

13,8001

~fo~r'~'W'~'A1r~ER'~ BAR~====~:::~::~::~:~:~~~::'~=====+=J:,5~3',"'64~1725t=====t~:~:~:,,~L~S*8'======t=~2~~~~+:~-=-=-=-=i".::-=~~~~~t=====t="i~ti~~~======t=j~~:::~=====~f=t::,g337'CO~25f=====jfjb::~::~~l:+=-==-=-=-=-j+-=-==-~~~7~:314~2f=====5=====j~'~.350~I------1 rE:

rolls cubic ft

,Ian"

I~ 'UNIT

,N, I '

IN/C'

IUNIT

UNIT PRICE

I..... Ilinear ft rolls

..nons

ITOPSQiLIJUTE ~VES

linear ft peg. linear ft rolls box.. cubic vd Irolls Icubic ft

IPLANTS

.1.... plan"

SHRUBS TREES

It i.

plan" totala

: th.t 10 •• of

,I ••,

fo, u.d.. , I ~ltl&l

but, the

I alL ~.t

'·1 ..•·

of thl. I.bor I. I

$123

,,8~~

$306

2,6~~$I!t.~%-

$'~

26 108 17,250

Itow.

rs \¥IRE FORFENCE 2,900 Ii••~ It per 'oll

IN, I ' 'N/C'

,Ian" ,Ian"

~rolls

OTAL LOGS IpEGS IWIRE forlo.. 2,900 Ii •• ~ ft po< roll

'36 per roll I/C'

~~~______+-~17~r . 0~16_ _ _ _ _t-_~'0)~ .. 210~____~~1~l.,~.ii:8~6____-4__~5,4~~____-4__~'L,,~986t-_ _ _4-~~'~227~____-+_~5',,~227~_ _ _~___~M8~____~_____~~'i~';~tl=====j 25,525 15,3' 55.930 8.154 2,979 7,841 7,841 522 17.2501 37

$1.332

$201

a.o*t -$5to~~

-i54

43 17'

34,704

2.807

$7333

~ ~

$:..548

47 193

-...h

$1.6.2

30.762

23 94

m7 $259

314

S828

$39

$103

0.18

$9,:~

,,5!~

$47:~

,,5!~

$235

105

$180

4,051

14,375

$226 $541-

$3-;ffi3,4~ -:+______+-______~ 481---,$!!1~,,728~

..E.t__...:$=792'+_..E.+-___=$792'+_ _ _ 90 90

14,950

198

958

31.625

~~~----~~-~:,:,~036927+-----~--~:::.~986112~----+--~123~1.;~~~----+-~~~'.~04~·60------+-~9~, ~1------t~2~3';,:,~.::+-----~~~~.:,46~9~0-----+---20:,,~~L~8~93-----4------2~~'~',002~927----~ -$55,414

$83,799

'per roll $].50 . .r~.t $38 po, roll I

.er .a1

IN/C' IN/C' IN/C • 38 per roll '23.50 p.r box ':JIl..••r cu vd 136por roll

11 QTY 46 383 508 0.18

11 COST $1,12' $575

$7 $452

0 0 0 0 0 0

7,318 3,485 5,228 2 7 1,046 15 60

0 2,439 9,457

12 COST $588 $299

,.ith.r from

is -COST $515 $266

177 2~

0.08

$2~

2.6 2.6

$204 $140

$162

$69 $165 $31,380 ~

9,584 2,561 9,869 $2,47]

'1••••1....... will b. lOVC)

QTY 24 199 265 0.09

0 N/C • N/C' N/C'

'12

10,977 5,227 7,840 3 10.5 1,568 21.5

-14

-i.

Qff

COsT

QTY

C()ST

88 73] .74

$2,156 $1.097

iiM

$13

25 2]

2,582 ~

$162

$77,460 51.296

$324

3.:

2,112 29

27 4,119 57 2~

-9ri

148

23,66' 4.73'

19,357 2.692

$49,291

539 0.19

14.374 1,789 12,289

220 293

L8,023 13,518 31,54: 15,020 22,530 8 30 4,506 63 253

$270 $635 $123~

$2,052

17 COST $662 $330

18 Qff

640 853 0.29

$25._ $178

9.5 9.

$2.5 $705

30,527 22,895 53,4221 25,439 38,159 13 51

$2,250

18 COST $1,887 $960 $1 $747 $513

$500 $1,19'

7,~;::

.__ 438

$3,816

$3,599

TOTAL QTY

TOTAL ICOST

5,05] IPO'" 6,565 Ilinear ft 2 Irolls 74 gallon. 74.aIlon. linear ft linear 309,1211lnear ft 152:956 p.,. linear ft 93 rolls

$7,577

7576.5

$86 $5,8ii $3,992

$3,519 $6,803

43,189 cnblcyd. 600 rolls , ft

~~--t~~~:::.:~~~---4-~~~:,~4] I~p~--·+_-------~---~ U-,--M9

16,425

plants

$129,1~

$66,202

$84,049

17 QTY

4,730 15,330

..ai'.

2l.OO1

404

16 COST $1,201 $606

13,730 20,595

10,559

16 Qff

16,476 12,357

8.447 6,335 14.782 7,039

"i.,m $103 $247 $47,040 $774

$613 $317

28] 0.10

$865 $594 10.328 7.747 18,07S 8.607

$33.423 ,Park or From oth.r Parka I. the NYC .y.t.m ...-." ~.t;W;.' t" h......',-;nd' I I

I I I I I I I I b. o ••It••t the Park: R..... L.bo, to ,",ow th••• pl . .t. lOV C). It I. , th.t all woody pL .... wILL b. .bvDPR.t th.i, .u,..... Ii. the total ~.t ofth••roi.ctlSe. ' 2.·2bl I I

"'"W.

$49,228

$4',476

I. ,

: I"

I fo,-;;;;;I ;; . to

I ....

~.,

'ISe. ,

'" , •. 1b)'

193

Appendix xm - 3A

,ANDS B Q'r'

ISNOW 131

•

[ALS FOR MANAGEMENT UNITS

~'38' ~73 ~3"

-1i

MA'!,

$46,500

$39

uft

105

.06

'94

!>4

"( .30

141

,ft

24-

-;:

o 2.

152

$706

0$12

lis

.ble

3,284

',9.'

'1'"

1,43'

',,,!,,

I COST 4, IFENCE

!,582

..•

ICO~

$73

2 2:

.,48

~ o :' $2,7' tioga

,.t

,.I"'u~'Y

194

Appendix XIII - 4

FACTORS FOR MATERIALS snow fence: divide # of feet by 50 to obtain number of rolls fence posts: divide # of feet by 6 wire (for fence): 1.333 x fence post number herbicides: .5 gallon Garlon and .5 gallon Roundup per acre logs:

cribbing - .6 linear feet logs per square feet of cribbing area water bars - .3 linear feet logs per sqaure feet of wb area

pegs: .2 pegs per square feet (cribbing + water bar area) wire for logs: 1.5 x number of pegs pins: 1 box (1,000 per box) per 1,000 square feet of cribbing soil: .15 cubic yard per square feet of cribbing jute matting: 1.87 square feet matting per 1 square foot of cribbing divide by 900 for # of rolls (based on 56 sq ft matting per 30 sq ft area leaves: .0086 x the number of square feet of cribbing (cubic ft) (actual # .0069 + 25% extra)

195

Other Materials All other materials required to execute the Plan are listed in Tables XV-3A and XV-3B. The tables list all yearly and total quantities and costs for both the Forest Core and the Perimeter Woodlands. Two items are accounted for as labor only costs: cribbing logs and pegs and all plant materials. The labor costs are accounted for elsewhere in this report.

196

APPENDIX XIV

EQUIPMENT

197

Appendix XIV - A

Required Vehicles and Heavy Equipment

Vehicle/Equipment

Quantity Needed Useful Life

1) Compact Pickup Truck

Cost

8 years

$14,000

9 years

$18,000

8 years

$65,000

8 years

$56,000

12 years

$67,000

for use by the Natural Resources Crew Supervisor

2) Crew Cab Pickup Truck w / lift hydraulic lift gates for day to day transportation of crews and lighter equipment and around the Park

3) __ Yd. Dump Truck

For transportation of bulk items both within the Park and from without

4) Crew Cab Rack Truck w/hydraulic lift gate

For transportation of bulk materials plants, logs and crews largely outside of the

Park, but also within the Park 5) Water Truck

For watering first year plantings in drought conditions in the various planting locations around the Park

6) 4 WD Tractor w/front end loader

8 years

$36,000

6 years

$14,000

10 years

$18,000

10 years

$5,000

For moving bulk materials such as soil and cribbing logs from staging areas to

work sites in the Park

7) "Cushman"- type Utility Truc w/small dump body For transportating plants and materials around the propagation range

8) "Bobcat"- type Loader For transporting bulk materials and larger plants, etc. around the propagation range.

9) Portable 250 Gallon Sprayer (transported on a pick-up truck For weed control projects within

the project areas and within the propagation range

198

Appendix XIV - B

Purchase and Replacement Schedule for Vehicles & Heavy Equipment

Pickup Truck-Superviso Crew Cab Pickup # l' Crew Cab Pickup #2 Crew Cab Pickup #3 Dump Truck Crew Cab Rack Truck Water Truck 4wd Tractor w /bucket Cushman Utility Truck Bobcat with Loader Portable Sprayer-250gal

PUSU CPUiIl CPUil2 CPUil3 DUMP RACK WATR TRAC CUSH BOBC SPRY

Useful Life 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8

'Already acquired_ Needs to be replaced in year 5

...

10 10

Appendix XIV- C

Yearly Equipment Expenditures*

Year 1 1 SMALL PICKUP 1 CUSHMAN UTILITY VEHICLE

Year 2 1 CREW CAB PICKUP 1 DUMP TRUCK

Year 3 1 WATER TRUCK 1 BOBCAT W /LOADER 1 PORTABLE SPRAYER Year 4 1 CREW CAB PICKUP 1 CREW CAB RACK TRUCK 1 4 WD TRACTOR W /BUCKET

$14,000 $14,000 $28,000

$18,000 $65,000 $83,000

$67,000 $18,000 $5,000 $90,000 $18,000 $56,000 $36,000 $110,000

Year 5 1 CREW CAB PICKUP

$18,000

Year 7 1 CUSHMAN UTILITY VEHICLE

$14,000

Year 9 1 SMALL PICKUP TRUCK

$14,000

Year 10 1 CREW CAB PICKUP TRUCK 1 DUMP TRUCK

Year 12 1 CREW CAB PICKUP TRUCK 1 CREW CAB RACK TRUCK 1 4WD TRACTOR W/BUCK

$18,000 $65,000 $83,000

$18,000 $56,000 $36,000 $110,000

200

Appendix XIV- C (cant.)

1 1 1 1

Year 13 CREW CAB PICKUP TRUCK CUSHMAN UTILITY VEHICLES BOBCAT W /LOADER PORTABLE SPRAYER

$18,000 $14,000 $18,000 $5,000 $55,000

Year 15 1 WATER TRUCK

$67,000

Year 17 1 SMALL PICKUP TRUCK

$14,000

Year 18 1 CREW CAB PICKUP 1 DUMP TRUCK

Year 19 1 CUSHMAN UTILITY VEHICLE

Year 20 1 CREW CAB PICKUP 1 CREW CAB RACK TRUCK 1 4 WD TRACTOR W /BUCKET

Year 21 1 CREW CAB PICKUP

Year 23 1 BOBCAT W/LOADER 1 PORTABLE SPRAYER

TOTAL EXPENDITURES AVERAGE YEARLY EXPENDITURES

$18,000 $65,000 $83,000

$14,000

$18,000 $56,000 $36,000 $110,000

$18,000

$18,000 $5,000 $23,000

$934,000 $40,609

*NOT ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION

201

APPENDIX XV - PHASING CHART - FOREST CORE

202

Appendix XV

FOREST CORE

PHASING CHART MANAGEKENT UNITS

IlARINB

1995

..,

1996

PARK

SZNIC IQB.\ 11

1997

.....

'"'

'.'"

Ti•

." .....,

".21'

"....

,.'"

11.925

15.299

'"'

I.'

--,,-

'"'

'DO

,DO

--,;;

'.m

,;40.

'.'"

,....

-"j-"

'.m

•

'L'"

,.m

,..,

IO'

".'"

".,"

'.m

"'.

...

..,

l<O ,

...

"' ,

..,

24.836

..,

25.146

...

20.588

1I TOTAL MAN HOURS

..,

...

..,

11l

,..

271

..,

2015

2014

2013

!iii

2012

2011

2010

2009

..,

2008

11l

..,

21 -

2007

172

..,

2006

11l

,,"

•

'.'"

-,..

...

'.U'

RAVINE I U,ll

2005

2004

'" 1

2003

..".

-..

2002

o. 12

2001

2000

.....

1999

1996

24.580

25.043

24.920

--..;m

-,,,

25.012

25 .004

2,ID

25.022

".00'

21.767

• .,

L'"

,.,

." II.'"

......

"~,,

.., 21.067

19.997

20.322

20.179

20.377

11.995

3.521

1.787

.. .. ,. 1.237

203

APPENDIX XVI PHASING CHART - PERIMETER WOODLANDS

204

Appendix XVI

PERIMETER WOODLANDS

PHASING CHART KANAGIMlINT '""ITS

1997

...

1998

2000

1999

2001

A TOTAL MAN HOUBS

2009

2011

2010

I .I!)!

I.AU

1.'"

U ..

...

2.1l8

l,&51

2...7.

2;171

2.55'

110

3.646

3.643

3.645

2,152

117

5,371

7.2117

12.711

7,1&5

1....

5.'52

I,.

•

7,52&

'" '" 7.153

3 .727

•

...

3.831

•

3.795

•

.s,I"

3.821

2017

2016

•

3 .717

--;;-

2015

•

3.600

" r-

2014

2013

2012

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

7 .808

'" 1.124

.,."

8.863

• I.

.. '"

8.561

B.741

8.812

• "

13.844

1.5'1

171

1.'24

III

1,710

.11

.•~ 14.083

22.474

17.725

3.431

1.220

-..263

205

Andropogon Associates, Ltd. Ec%,(!ical PfaHl/iII,!! & Oes(!11 . 374 SiI,"'s Lalle

Pililadelpilia fJA 19128

A LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE NATURAL AREAS OF PROSPECT PARK

, â&#x20AC;˘ .1

Prepared by Andropogon Associates, Ltd 374 Shurs Lane Philadelphia PA 19128 and The Prospect Park Landscape Management Office 95 Prospect Park West Brooklyn NY 11215

Arcilitects, Lamlseapc Ar(ilitCCls & PIII/llicrs

(215) 487-0700

Fax: (2 15) 483-7520

\ \

Table of Contents Introduction

Page 1

1. Historic Landscape Character A. Map I - Historic Extent of Woodlands -1865** B. Map II - Historic Extent of Woodlands -1874**

4-10 11-13

2. Current Landscape Conditions A. Map III - Current Cover Types -1992** B. Map IV - Soil Disturbance - 1992** C. Map V - Woodland Condition - 1992** D. Map Vl- Canopy Gaps - 1992**

14-16 17-20 21-22 23-24

3. Landscape Management Plan A. Map VII - Proposed Cover Types - 1992** B. Landscape Management Action Plan C. Preliminary Cost Estimates

25-27 27-30 31-38 38-43

Appendix I-Preliminary Opinions of Probable Construction Cost

44-47

Appendix II-Species List

48-65

Bibliography

66-69

**PLEASE NOTE THAT THE MAP IS AT THE END OF THIS SECTION

A Landscape Management Plan for the Natural Areas of Prospect Park

Introduction Prospect Park, a New York City landmark on the National Register of Historic Places, is considered by many to be Frederick Law Olmsted and Calvert Vaux's finest work. Its picturesque design epitomizes the modern urban park with a winding path system through a pastoral setting of specimen trees and broad meadows enclosed by woodlands that buffer the adjacent urban landscape. Dramatic natural features were as important to their design as the more intensively managed areas. Their proposal sought to protect the bulk of the remnant forest on the site and included the creation of a lake, and several small ponds, connected by a stream channel flowing through a wide array of habitats. The beauty of these natural areas contributed immeasurably to the character of the landscape, creating some of the feelings of nature in the heart of Brooklyn. Olmsted and Vaux managed these landscapes by design, with a careful editing and enhancement of the native woodlands. Like many other urban natural areas, the quality of these landscapes has deteriorated steadily over time with the proliferation of invasive vegetation, soil trampling and resultant increased runoff and erosion. Increased use and decreased maintenance have taken the same toll on the more natural areas as elsewhere in the Park, and in virtually every other public landscape. The past decade, however, has focused on the renewal of the Park, in both the formal and informal landscapes. The purpose of this report is to focus on the natural values of Prospect Park, to provide a crucial update to the original design and management efforts, to assess current conditions and needs and to provide for appropriate management in the future to sustain these more natural resources for the Park users today and tomorrow. A Park-wide Master Plan effort is currently being undertaken of which this Landscape Management Plan for the Natural Areas of Prospect Park is a part. This larger on-going master planning, design, and implementation effort is being coordinated by the Prospect Park Administrator's Office of the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation and the Prospect Park Alliance. A concurrent planning project is the Tree Planting Master Plan that directs the restoration of the specimen trees and groves found in the original Olmsted and Vaux design. In addition, foreseen planning projects involve the eventual development of management plans for all the landscape zones developed in this report, including long-term reconstruction and maintenance for the Parks' horticultural features. In 1980 a precursor to this Landscape Management Plan for the Natural Areas of Prospect Park, a phased restoration of the Ravine, was initiated. The Ravine is a woodland feature of the Park, through which the Ambergill stream runs. Over many A Landscape Management Plan for the Natural Areas of Prospect Park

years the environment of the Ravine had become degraded, with erosion, compacted soil and proliferation of exotic species as major problems. Plans are now underway to implement the first phase of work in a capital project of the NYC Department of Parks and Recreation named Ravine-Phase 1. Construction will start in 1994 and will include a period of up to ten years during which much of the site will be fenced to restrict use until the vegetation is well established. Many of the stabilization and restoration techniques developed in Ravine Phase I planning have formed the basis for this Parkwide natural areas management effort. This report, which is an important component of the larger foreseen Master Plan of Prospect Park, is intended to describe the proposed program for restoring and managing the Natural Areas of Prospect Park and is comprised of four sections: 1. Historic Landscape Character - An assessment of the overall vegetation cover type and character of the natural landscapes of the site prior to the construction of Prospect Park, and secondly, of the landscape types originally proposed by Olmsted and Vaux for the Park. 2. Current Landscape Conditions - A series of maps and descriptions that illustrate the condition of the Park's landscapes today, including current cover type, woodland condition, canopy gaps, and soil disturbance. These maps also give dimension and scale to the landscape impacts and management requirements that are proposed. 3. A Landscape Management Plan - A description of the proposed Natural Area designation and proposed cover types for it and for the entire Park, as well as recommended strategies for the stabilization, restoration, and management of the Natural area. These methods also will be applicable for use throughout the Park in areas of similar cover type outside the Natural Area boundary, including many of the more formal and intensely used landscape zones. This section also includes a description of the implementation of the program and preliminary cost estimates. The work process during this project was intended to optimize the involvement of those who are responsible for the on-going care and management of the landscape. All of the inventory mapping of the existing conditions analysis was accomplished by the Prospect Park Landscape Management Office including Ainsley Caldwell, Natural Resource Crew SUpervisor, Ann Wong and Darwin Cornell, Natural Resource Crew Field Technicians, under the direction of Edward Toth, Director of Landscape Management. The historic conditions mapping and analysis was undertaken by Chris DiMatteo under the direction of Rex Wassermann, R.L.A., archivist and historian of Prospect Park, and Edward Toth. Additional meetings and brainstorming sessions included Tupper Thomas, the Prospect Park Administrator, Charles GHi, Chief of Operations, and other Park program directors.

A Landscape Management Plan for the Natural Areas of Prospect Park

This plan reflects the best knowledge we have at this time. Strategies and estimates for the management of the Natural Areas will become more sophisticated and accurate with time and experience, and will be modified when appropriate. As the Park's Master Plan proceeds, design decisions will be made which will also modify this plan and its proposed management zones. This will include the careful management of the woodlands to preserve the many historic vistas which are a part of the original design of the Park.

A Landscape Management Plan for the Natural Areas of Prospect Park

Historic Landscape Character

The Landscape of the Park today has been shaped by both natural and human forcesin particular by the glaciers of the Ice Age and the creation of the Park by Frederick Law Olmsted and Calvert Vaux.

Map I-Historic Extent of Woodlands -1865

Geology The Park could not occupy a more interesting site in terms of the geology of Long Island. As stated by naturalist Norman Taylor in 1915, "On Long Island is the unique juxtaposition of the coastal plain and the glaciated country."1 The grounds of Prospect Park occupy the Harbor Hill Moraine which runs the length of Long Island. The hills of the northern part of the Park mark the advance of the Wisconsin Glacier approximately 10,000 years ago. This ridge, identified as a 'terminal moraine', is where the glacier deposited sand, gravel, loam and large masses of rock, including boulders, to great thicknesses as it melted. When a glacier melts it fluctuates north and south, over the course of many years to create a complex topography of ridge crests with hills and ponds called 'knobs and kettles'. The 'knobs' or hills vary in size, while the 'kettles' or ponds may be wet only part of the year and dry the remainder. The flat southern portion of the park is the beginning of the outwash plain of the glacier - an area where sand, gravel and clay spread over the land as the sediment of a great river of ice. Unlike the site of Central Park in Manhattan, bedrock is well below the surface, about 350 feet below ground level. 2

I(Taylor, Norman; FlO!] of the Vicinity of New York, The New York Botanical Garden, 1915, p.3) 2(Walmsley & Company, "The First Historic Landscape Report for the Ravine, Prospect Park, Brooklyn, New York,prepared for the City of New York, Dept. of Parks & Recreation, 1986, p. 136) 3(Greller. Andrew M. & Calhoon, Robert E.; "The upland. oak dominated community of Forest Park. Queens County, New York; Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Clyb. Vol. 106. No.2. pp. 135-139, April-June 1979. p.l35)

A Landscape Management Plan for the Natural Areas of Prospect Park

The last official soil survey completed for all of Long Island in 1905, categorized the soils of the upland moraine in the area of Prospect Park as "Miami Stony Loam." A description of this soil type follows: "... Miami Stony Loam, derived from glacier-deposited materials (till). Brown loam extends from the surface to a depth of 20-35 cm., while yellow loam forms the subsoil to a depth of 76 cm. Both topsoil and subsoil consist mainly of fine-textured materials. On the moraine the till is 3 to 6 meters deep and is underlain with coarse sand and gravel. The surface is strewn with diabase boulders (erratics) ... This soil type was considered by Bonsteel et al. to be the most drought-resistant on Long Island. "4

The soils outwash plain were classified as "Hempstead Loam":

"The surface soil of the Hempstead loam, to a depth of 8 inches, consists of a friable brown or black loam containing a small amount of white quartz gravel and locally becoming somewhat sandy. From 8 to 24 inches the subsoil consists of a heavy yellow to reddishyellow silt loam, slightly gravely. It is very uniformly underlain at a depth of about 24 inches by a bed of rounded quartz gravel embedded in a sandy loam matrix, all considerably stained by a coating of hydrated iron salts. The Hempstead loam constitutes the chief soil type of the Hempstead plain. A slightly heavier phase of this type also occurs in southern Kings County. "5 For any present-day analysis the above categorizations of soil type should be treated as broad generalizations. A limited "Soil Testing Program" conducted in 1981 as part of the First Historic Landscape Report for the Ravine found wide variation in the texture and depth of the topsoil and subsoil. A quote from the report states: "It should be emphasized that the soils distribution appears highly random, exhibiting little rational pattern, best described as 'discontinuous'." 6 Furthermore, the Landscape Management Office recognizes the great degree to which the soils of the Park were altered to create the Park, and to undertake new construction projects in the Park over the past century of its history. Therefore, the Office has conducted a limited sampling of soil types in the Park to determine if there still exists a distinction between the soils of the morainal uplands within the Park and the soils of the outwash plain. Based on the findings, it's clear that such a distinction in soil types can still be discerned between the morainal lands and the outwash plain. This information will help to guide the selection of plant species used in restoration efforts in the Park. However, a great deal of man-made soil disturbance was also encountered. This further complicates the delineation of soil type distribution in the Park and points out the need for detailed soil analysis as each restoration project is undertaken (see below).

4(GreIler, 1975, p.63) 5(Bonsteel, Jay A. and Party; Soil Survey of the Long Island Area. New York; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington.Govt Printing Office. 1904. p.13 6Walmsley & Company; p.l36

A Landscape Management Plan for the Natural Areas of Prospect Park

A significant volume of soil will be required to replace that lost from the Core Natural Areas over time. If 'topsoil' were used throughout, it is possible that this restoration effort could indirectly have serious negative impacts on local soil resources. Every effort should be made to expand current facilities and efforts to develop an on-going soil making program. A variety of materials, including sub-soils and compost, can be used to make high-quality soil and soil amendments.

Vegetation The work of the glacier contributed to the development of a diversity of plants which comprise the native flora. The species of the upland hills belong to the floristic group of plants called the 'Eastern Deciduous Forest' while the plants of the lowland plain belong to the floristic group called the 'Coastal Plain'? As the meeting ground of these two major vegetation types, many plant species reach the limits of their habitat distribution here on Long Island. In addition the complex topography of the end moraine creates habitats for a variety of plant communities to develop from dry upland woods to low wetland swamps. In pre-Colonial times the upland woods were probably dominated by species of Oak (Quercus), Chestnut (Castanea and Hickory (Carya), while Red Maple (Acer rubrum), Sweet Gum (Liquidambar styraciflua) and Sour Gum (Nyssa sylvatica) trees would have covered lowland swamps. The Landscape Management Office has researched the botanical literature to obtain lists of the native plant species which would have dominated the lands of western Long Island in pre-Colonial times. s Lists compiled by Botanist Roland Harper in two articles written in 1917 in "Torreya", The Journal of the Torrey Botanical Club, distinguish between species of the morainal lands and those of the outwash plain.9 Harper studied the areas at a time when the last remnants of habitat for native vegetation were rapidly disappearing. More recent work by Botanist Andrew Greller of the Department of Biology of Queens College confirms the validity of Harper's species list for the morainal lands. In a 1975 article which included proposals for the conservation of natural vegetation in Northern Queens County, Mr. Greller wrote, "Harper's (1917) original discussion of the Flora of Northern Queens County can serve to indicate potential natural vegetation when restoration is undertaken." 10 In addition, Norman Taylor's Flora of the Vicinity of New York from 1915 gives valuable, but broader information about plant distributions in the region. The major components of the pre-settlement flora of the morainal lands can also be verified through scientific analysis of pond sediments. Such a study would identify species through identification of preserved pollens found in undisturbed soil layers of 7(Greller; "Persisting Natural Vegetation in Northern Queens County, New York, with Proposals for its Conservation"; Env. Cons. vol. 2 no. 1 Spring 1975, p.64) SIn all 2 dozen articles and books were reviewed and consulted (see bibliography) 9(Harper, Roland M.; "The Natural Vegetation of Western Long Island South of the Terminal Moraine"; Torreya: Vol. 17 No.1, Jan. 1917; pp. 1-13, and "The Native Plant Population of Northern Queen's County, Long Island"; Torreva; vol. 17, no. 8. Aug. 1917, pp. 131-143.) !O(Greller, 1975, p. 68.)

A Landscape Management Plan for the Natural Areas of Prospect Park

small ponds that existed in the Park before 1865, but were subsequently filled during construction. II Because the area of the outwash plain is now such a densely developed urban region, the only other means to confirm or deny Harper's species list for this area is to study plant collections from early time periods that are preserved in herbaria. Steve Clements, taxonomist at the Brooklyn Botanic Garden, is currently reviewing herbarium records for a new flora of NYC, and this information will be incorporated as available. There are two issues arise that require consideration: 1. To what degree is the historical information on plant species relevant to restoration in the face of significant alteration of the soils of the Park? The recent soil investigations confirming that pre-construction soil types still exist within the Park validate the use of Harper's and other's plant lists of these soil types for natural area restorations in the Park. A synthesis of all these lists has been compiled by the Landscape Management Office and is reproduced in Appendix II. They are intended to serve as the basis for all ecological restorations in the Park. 2. How clearly can one draw a boundary through the complex topography of the Park to indicate where species of the 'Eastern Deciduous Forest' on morainal lands would have ceded their dominance to species of the 'Eastern Coastal Plain' on the outwash plain? Nature rarely draws its boundaries as clearly as man would like it to. As stated above, to resolve the issues, it will be the pOlicy of the Landscape Management Office to conduct site specific soil testing prior to selecting the species for individual restoration projects in the Park.

History Early accounts of European colonists indicate that in pre-Colonial time the natives cultivated portions of the plains for crops, while the hilly land remained as woods. The first European settlers, (especially the Dutch), followed a similar practice as they were more familiar with farming the lowland than clearing forested land.12 Their efforts were successful as an early account states, (referring to Kings County, the present-day Borough of Brooklyn):

"the soil of this county is possessed of greater natural fertility, than that of the other portions of the island and it is highly cultivated. It is well-adapted to horticulture, and fruits and flowers arrive at great perfection." 13 The Revolutionary War had a great impact on the vegetation of Long Island and the future site of Prospect Park. Not only was a part of the Battle of Long Island fought 11 Arrangements to perform the analysis are currently being formulated by the Landscape Management Office. 12(Svenson, Henry K.; "The Early Vegetation of Long Island"; BrOOklyn Botanic Garden Record, Vol. XXV. p.21O) J3(Ibid.; p. 209)

A Landscape Management Plan for the Natural Areas of Prospect Park

within the bounds of the Park in August of 1776, but seven years of war greatly altered the landscape. British occupying forces requisitioned great quantities of firewood from settlers and encouraged them to clear new lands to grow vegetables. As a result the forests of Long Island were almost completely cut down.14 It is uncertain how much disturbance these actions caused within the area of the Park, but the effect was likely to have been considerable. In the mid 1800's at the time of the creation of the Park, woods covered a significant extent of the hilly land that was to become the core of the Park. The existing conditions of the initial planned bounds, prior to the Park's construction, were described in the first Annual Report in 1861 as follows by Egbert Viele, the engineer first hired to submit a design for the Park:

"Nearly one half the area is wooded with trees of large growth, many of them noble specimens of the oak, maple, hickory, dogwood, chestnut and other varieties. "15 Later in 1866 Olmsted and Vaux wrote of the existing conditions:

"Its most important circumstance to be the fact that a large body of trees already exist upon it, not too old to be improved, yet already old enough to be of considerable importance in a landscape.''16 A list of trees marked and noted in the Park in 1866 included the following:17 Acerrubrum Betula lenta Carpinus americana (caroliniana?) Carya alba (tomentosa) Castanea vesca (dentata?) Juglans cinerea et nigra Liquidambar styraciflua Liriodendron tulipifera Nyssa sylvatica Pinus mitis* Platanus occidentalis Populus grandidentata Prunus cerasus* Quercus alba Quercus palustris Robinia Sassafras Tilia europus (europaea)*

(Red Maple) (Sweet Birch) (Ironwood) (Mockernut Hickory) (nomenclature unknown, Chestnut sp.) (Butternut & Black Walnut) (Sweet Gum) (Tulip Tree) (Sour Gum) (nomenclature unknown, Pine sp.) (American Sycamore) (Bigtooth Aspen) (Sour Cherry) (WhiteOak) (Pin Oak) (Black Locust genus) (Sassafras genus) (European Linden)

14(GrelIer, 1975, p.62) lSCFirst Annual R"4lort of the Commissioners of Prospect Park; Brooklyn, N.Y., 1861, p.25) 16(Sixth Annual Report of the Commissioners of Prospect Park; Brooklyn, N.Y., 1866, p.lOO) 17Those trees marked with â&#x20AC;˘ are non-native species

A Landscape Management Plan for the Natural Areas of Prospect Park

Tilia heterophylla (americana) Ulmus campestris (procera)* Ulmus americana

(Basswood) (English Elm) (American Elm)18

Again in 1874 Olmsted and Vaux wrote of the existing conditions of the woods, but in less glowing terms:

"Thl:Te were originally two main bodies of natural wood on the site of the Park connected by a narrow belt at the point whl:Te the Long Meadow is now most contracted; ... The trees had grown thickly, their 10wI:T limbs were dead or dying and two-thirds of all, though yet of but modl:Tate size were decayed in the trunk, many, had also been mangled by violence. "19 In the flat southern portion of the Park covered by the outwash plain of the glacier, interpretation of a map and historic photo suggests that the area was farmers' fields, a part of the Village of Flatbush. 2o Additionally, a Quaker cemetery about 25 acres in size existed in an area in the central part of the Park. To allow for the creation of the Park, the Quakers agreed to retain only two-fifths or 10 acres of their existing property for continued use as a cemetery.21 By the mid-1800's, Brooklyn was becoming a dense urban area with a population of 266,661 in 1860, making it the third largest city in the United States. 22 Development had begun to reach the area of the present-day Park. A partial grid of roads had been laid primarily in the western section on an area of gently sloping upland. The Litchfield Villa, which now houses the Brooklyn Borough Offices of the NYC Dept. of Parks and Recreation, and the Prospect Park Administrator, was representative of the wealthy, suburban development envisioned for the area. However, government leaders in Brooklyn had the foresight to give Olmsted and Vaux the opportunity to develop this unique site, formed by the movement of glaciers and enriched with a diversity of plant species, into a public park. As such Prospect Park reads as a text of the Natural and Social History of Long Island.

18(Library of Congress, Manuscripts Division, Frederick Law Olmsted, Sr. Papers, #128-69) 19(fourteenth Annual Report of the Commissioners of Prospect Park; Brooklyn, N. Y., 1874, p.24) 2째(Preliminary Map Showing Lineal and Topographical Surveys of Prospect Park, BroOklyn; Benjn. D. Frost, Engr. in Charge; and Photo, circa 1867 showing excavation of the Lake from papers of Frederick Law Olmsted at the National Historic Site, Brookline, Ma.) 21(Lancaster, Clay; Prospect Park Handbook; Long Island University Press, New York, 1972; pp. 51-52.) 22(Rosenwaike, Ira; Population History of New York City, Syracuse, New York, 1972, pp. 49-50.)

A Landscape Management Plan for the Natural Areas of Prospect Park

Map I Historic Extent of Woodlands - 1865

A Landscape Management Plan for the Natural Areas of Prospect Park

(."

" ~:',:

.:,, :,,

Litchfield Viii •

, ,' , ' ,;.:.:.::~:: ....

.. ..

Friends Cemetery

"':'.

.... , '

,-- -

.. '

....

.. .........•. '

." .,' ~ '.'

.. -- .,.-

,-: ..

-::"-" ....~-- -- -.:.~. "_.. ::.. -.. ::---_ .. --------... ....

.....

.' '

.-."

....

/:::Y;{;:;:'> ""\,\,\, :• ~•

.-.

. . "., .......

... \

.::

':.-.'

..... '.

,',

•

'. ' '.

•

""'.

......:..:.: •.•.•••...•. .- --.

....

\..'\\. i.r··.. ....:..:.... " ·.. . ','

\ ...

~',

. .. ._-_.......

....

,:, :-.: ....

.. ,. "

,',",

'.'

-'. ',: -'':.::':'' ~

-':.':-:.1 . .:::. . . :.......'.......;: ;::::5~~~:::-'::::;-

". ,;:::>"

.<>..,

:,:~,;;::--:::::--:----./ :' .. ...... '.-.:/ .. . ......

..,

.~.,

-' ..

..... :..:.-. ..

'. " .

: •• ___ ••••• -

Historic Extent of Woodlands 1865

,- .. ,-Woodland

1865

Historic Streets and Roads NoW' DeCunct

I::::::::: I Current Park Features Prepared by

I=J Andropogon Associates, Ltd.

e·.:: ......,:'". 6:::J

".",

,-.:':"---':"

::/-

. : ......., ." :.:':.-\ ~t,~,,::::~<'

. ",

\.-------_ ....

.... .

··.......... .. " " "., ... -. ::.. ............ . ........ .....

\. \:~.~ ""': :",:::::

-"'-

• I

;

.....

~ ~ •

..:::~ \:::~.. ,.

._-

...

::..

}\>~::::::::\ . . . . .. :./'

.......... . '.

-'::'.

,--.

\;'\,

.'. .'

'. ' .

" '

... '.

... , .'., ". ""--':' :.... '\>..'. ''''':':-~.':'::..

\""""'"

. '.

1.'

... ..

and The Prospect Park Landscape Management Office NY

Map II-Olmsted and Vaux Design Intent

Olmsted, Vaux and Company's 1874 plan for Prospect Park appears to be the most refined depiction of the landscape character envisioned by the designers. The original plan utilized a variety of different drafting techniques that have been interpreted as follows in making map II: closely-spaced circles, each indicating a single tree, were assumed to designate a grove of canopy trees in turf or at least without any shrub or understory layers; a rough textured pattern, showing a large mass of woody vegetation, was assumed to indicate a more complex woodland structure including a multi-layered forest condition in places. Map II, that follows, is a composite based primarily on the 1874 plan, with aspects of the 1871 and 1888 plans. It also reflects concepts delineated in Olmsted and Vaux's Annual Reports issued as summaries to the Park Commissioner's during the years of construction. The map attempts to portray the Parks canopy coverage as the designers ultimately wished it to be. Where there was existing woodland Olmsted and Vaux sometimes sought to create a greater perception of space by managing the woodland to open up and expand the sense of edge as described in the 6th Annual Report in 1866 _n that the observer may not see all the boundaries of free sunlight before him a glance."23 They proposed to achieve that quality by "cutting in upon the borders of the woods, where the ground lies in gentle slopes, leaving only the finer trees to stand out singly, or in small groups".24 Elsewhere, a more layered structure was desired and extensive understory planting was proposed.

"In other parts of the woods, where trees which possessed either dignity or picturesqueness were more rare, it has been sought by planting young trees and underwood about and among them, to develop bosky masses of foliage .... Effects which are very satisfactory were thus obtained with great rapidity in those portions of the East Woods where visitors are confined to the walks". 25 The changes in the landscape brought about by the Park's creation are very notable. The isolated stand of remnant forest in 1865 had been enhanced to create a larger and more continuous expanse of woodland core and a woodland buffer at the Park's edges that enclosed and created a setting for the whole Park.

23(Sixth Annual Report of the Commissioners of Prospect Park, 1866, p.lOl) 24(Ibid., p. I (0) 25(Fourteenth Annual Report of the Commissioners of Prospect Park, 1874, p.24)

A Landscape Management Plan for the Natural Areas of Prospect Park

By 1874, the vision of the design was beginning to take shape. In the 1874 Annual Report, Olmsted and Vaux note:

"The general character of the scenery of the Park, even in its present formative condition, is undeniably broad, simple, and quiet, yet the variations of the surface, and the disposition of open woods, thickets, glades, meadows, and of still and running waters, is such that it cannot be deemed monotonous. "26 Olmsted and Vaux greatly expanded the site's water features as well by creating a 60acre lake with a soft and undulating shoreline with an array of coves and beaches. Emergent aquatic vegetation and woody plants along the water's edge alternated with turf around the lake margin. In addition, a naturalistic stream channel feeding the lake was crafted to include a steep forested ravine as well as a pastoral setting. These natural, but managed landscapes remain unique in the Brooklyn area. It should be noted that Riverine or "river's edge" habitat's are artificial to the Park. There were no naturally occurring, well-developed stream channels on the site prior to the Park's construction. Consequently, most of the plant species that would have composed this habitat type would not have been found in the Park either. There were also notable changes in circulation. The old grid roads were removed by Olmsted who instituted a system of drives, bridle paths and pedestrian trails. This circulation system has been somewhat altered in the intervening twelve decades. Olmsted's plant vocabulary included both native and non-native species. Evergreen plantings were the least successful. Many of the exotics he used have since disappeared from the Park while others have been all too successful, having naturalized at the expense of native plant communities. Today, the only extant Olmsted plant list for the Park is that for a small section of the extreme southern end of the Long Meadow and consists of a very diverse grouping of native and non-native trees in this, a nonwoodland setting.

26(Fourteenth Annual Report of the Commissioners of Prospect Park, 1874, p.23)

A Landscape Management Plan for the Natural Areas of Prospect Park

Map II

Historic Extent of Woodlands- Olmsted and Vaux Design Intent

A Landscape Management Plan for the Natural Areas of Prospect Park

Prospect Lake

Fr i ends C'emetery

Carriage Concourse

Prospect Park Zoo

The Neibermead

The Pools

The Long Meadow

Maintenance Compound

- 9

Band,hell/llth St Playground

10 Litchfield Villa 11

3rd St.

Playground

Olmsted and Vaux Design Intent 1111111111111l!a p II Historic Extent of Woodlands路

!~ Prepared by

Andropogon Associates, Ltd.

and The Prospect Park Landscape Management Office

, NY

bMI

Canopy cover - Specimen Plantings Paths,

Drives,

Bldg.,

Shorelines,

Extant 1874 Now Defunct or Never Built

Current Landscape Conditions

Map III-Current Cover Types

The mapping of current cover types includes the location and extent of woodland, parkland, tall grass meadow, turf and horticultural zones. The current cover types are described below: 1. Woodland: Where there is a nearly continuous canopy cover and at least a partially multi-layered woodland structure - no systematic management is undertaken to restrict growth of understory vegetation.

2. Parkland: Where there are specimen trees and groves of trees in an open canopy condition. The ground layer is either mown periodically to maintain open, usually turf conditions or there is sufficient shade to restrict turf growth. 3. Tall Grass Meadow: Where tall grasses and wildflowers are maintained by periodiC mowing in an open condition. 4. Turf: Where turf is maintained by regular mowing. 5. Horticultural Zone: Where maintenance of the landscape is intensive due either to a high level of visitor uses, historic precedent, or because of previous, uninformed establishment of horticultural plantings in Natural Areas. These all result in designed environments that utilize horticultural materials and maintenance techniques. Many include a variety of cover types. Several significant changes in Olmsted and Vaux's design intent can be discerned by comparing Map III with Map II. The simple broad expanse of woodland that would have enclosed the whole park and comprised the major setting for the open turf meadows has become more fragmented and discontinuous with a consequent loss of unity in this envisioned simple and sweeping landscape. The original landscape design was, at the same time, more richly detailed. The once gently undulating woodland edges that were set-off by adjacent specimen groves are now replaced by a simplified and unelaborated mow-line with a fraction of the original number of trees in the meadows. A similar loss of landscape diversity has occurred along the lake shoreline which is now continuously edged with stone, replacing the earlier shoreline of natural banks, beaches, and a variety of little coves and inlets. In addition the streamcourse of the Ambergill exists in a modified version of its original design. Siltation and purposeful filling have covered areas which once were small ponds. A Landscape Management Plan for the Natural Areas of Prospect Park

What has happened to the forests and other natural areas in Prospect Park is mirrored throughout the New York City region where habitat fragmentation and destruction are contributing to ecosystem decline. There is now emphasis on the importance of reestablishing viable wildlife corridors and managing remnant natural areas to favor indigenous plants and animals. Restoration of much of the original structure now lost from the Olmsted and Vaux design would greatly increase habitat value and diversity as well as scenic character in the Park, while expanding educational opportunities to interpret the geological features and vegetation characteristic of the terminal moraine of Long Island.

A Landscape Management Plan for the Natural Areas of Prospect Park

Map III

Current Cover Types

A Landscape Management Plan for the Natural Areas of Prospect Park

Prospect Lake

Friends Cemetery

Carriage Concourse

Prospect Park Zoo

The Nethermead

The Pools

The Long Meadow

Maintenance Compound

B. n d she I 1/ III h S l

Pl. Y g r o.u n d

10 Litchfield Villa

II 3rd St. Playground

Current Cover Types 1992 ~

Woodland

Parkland

t··········} Tall Grass Meadow

Prepared by

Andropogon Associates, Ltd.

and The Prospect Park Landscape Management Office l\'Y

~~~I

Horticultural

IIII 11111

Turf

Zone

Map N-Soil Disturbance - 1992

"During the first two years of the work, interest in what was promised, curiosity as to the progress of construction, led many to visit the park, and ... most of these visitors were driven to find a place of more quiet and comfort, in uninclosed woods a little on one side of the line of operations. In the parts of these to which the largest numbers came, and where there though all convenient pains were taken to preserve order and neatness, and prevent injury to the trees and shrubs, all of the herbage, and the foliage growing within six feet of the ground, except a few briery thickets, wholly disappeared; the soil was worn to dust, and blown and washed away so much, that, within two years, the roots of the trees everywhere protruded, and many withered in consequence. Whenever it rained, the old wood trails were gullied, the hollow places sloughs, and the whole sU1jace slimy and disagreeable to see or to walk upon" 27 Again in 1885, the Annual Reports noted:

"In the west woods or picnic grounds, and elsewhere, the turf has been trodden out and the earth so compacted and hardened by continuous use, as doubtless to deprive many of these trees of the nourishment through the medium of natural sources, air and moisture, which is unquestionably essential to their vitality" .28 The current mapping of soil disturbance encompasses the whole of the Park and designates both linear elements of disturbance such as major and minor 'desire-line' trails that were created by pedestrians walking off the paths as well as other areas of bare soil due to runoff and! or excess trampling. The amount of soil disturbance in Prospect Park shown on the map is severe - comprising over 22% of the land in the Natural Areas of the Park - and underscores three crucial management issues - visitor impacts, inadequate access, and stormwater management. It is evident that the visitor impacts are unacceptably high and must be addressed effectively if any restoration is to be sustained. The extensive replanting of native understory vegetation proposed will help discourage off-trail use but undertaken alone cannot be expected to provide total control and prevent degradation of the forest environment. Current efforts include a major public relations and enforcement program 27(Eleventh Annual Report of the Commissioners ofProspcct Park, 1871, pp. 426-427) 28(Twentyfifth Annual Report of the Commissioners of Prospcct Park, 1885, p. 22)

A Landscape Management Plan for the Natural Areas of Prospect Park

aimed at controlling the off-trail use of mountain bicycles which is being undertaken by the Prospect Park Administrator's Office and The Park Enforcement Patrol. Secondly, this map illustrates the need for a more comprehensive circulation system. Several key visitor journeys, such as that to Lookout Hill, are not adequately served by the existing trail system which, in turn, aggravates off-trail trampling. This problem appears in part to have been incorporated into Olmsted and Vaux's original design concept, which did not anticipate the extent of trampling and the amount of damage that resulted. The 6th Annual Report noted about the system of walks that -

"When once fairly in among the trees and grass stretches, they [pedestrians] should be able to ramble over the whole extent of the property with as much apparent freedom as if the whole park had been intended solely for their enjoyment" .29 In a later report it was recognized that better control of trampling was necessary and

that replanting was most successful "where visitors are confined to walks ".30 During the mapping process, the probable routes associated with observed trampling were noted for each major area of disturbance. A comprehensive review of circulation needs in the park should be undertaken to reconcile these conflicts. Unfortunately, except for the secondary path system discussed in general terms below, this issue can not be fully dealt with as part of this plan. It will be addressed in the Master Plan. Lastly, a comprehensive storm water management plan should be developed for the whole of the Park to address the full range of relevant factors - from restoring rainwater infiltration that has been restricted by soil compaction, to ensuring that the volumes and velocities of water that reach the stream and the Lake approximate the hydrologic regimen of an analogous natural system. Investigation, determination, and mapping of the surviving historic drainage system, and a thorough mapping of all man-made drainage features are also critical to hydrologic management of the Park. Without such information only guesses can be made about what should be the engineering standards for new infrastructure or the restoration of damaged features impacted by stormwater. Renewal of lost features, such as the small stream related and aquatic habitats are completely dependent upon hydrology, and should not be undertaken at all until adequate information is available. In addition, as stabilization and restoration measures are implemented on specific sites,

detailed mapping of the site's soils should occur. Over a century of episodes of soil disturbance has resulted in many anomalies such as compacted buried layers of soil and extensive fill that will effect the hydrologic regimen. Such anomalies effectively alter the site's suitability for certain plant communities. For instance a site thought to be welldrained may in reality be poorly-drained due to a buried layer of compacted soil. Discovery of such a compacted layer would radically change the selection of plant

29(Sixth Annual Report of the Commissioners of Prospect Park, 1866, p.11 0) 3D(Fourteenth Annual Report of the Commissioners of Prospect Park, 1874, p.24)

A Landscape Management Plan for the Natural Areas of Prospect Park

Map IV

Soil Disturbance -1992

A Landscape Management Plan for the Natural Areas of Prospect Park

Prospect Lake

Friends Cemetery

Carriage Concourse

Prospect Park Zoo

The Nethermeed

Tbe Pool s

The

Long Mell.dow

B Mainlenance Compound 9

Bandsbell/lltb Sl Pl ayground

10 Lilcblield Villa 11 3rd

st.

Playground

S 0 i 1 Disturbance Erosion

Bare Soil Major Desire Lines

1--1 Prt'varea by An!dr()pOi~On

Associates, Ltd.

and The Prospect Park Landscape Management Office

Des j r eLi Des

1 992

Map V-Woodland Condition - 1992

One of the most severe ecological problems for natural landscapes is the proliferation of invasive exotic plant species. Like weeds in a garden, these plants can easily overwhelm more desirable native vegetation and result in a degraded forest structure and reduced habitat value for many species. While Olmsted and Vaux wrote eloquently about native plants, they also used many exotics, some of which are invasive today as well as others that were simply unsuitable and have since disappeared. Only a few non-native species naturalize aggressively, but those that do are thoroughly entrenched throughout the region and will be a continuing problem in the Park. The most problematic species, such as Norway and Sycamore Maple, (Acer platanoides and Acer pseudoplatanus), which are reproducing the most rapidly and inhibiting native reproduction, were once widely planted throughout the Park. Two other problem species in Prospect Park, the Paper Mulberry (Broussonetia papyrifera) and Japanese Knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum), spread naturally today. (Nor do non-invasive exotics contribute to the sustainability of the landscape because they do not regenerate at all or as readily as native species.) The map illustrates the condition of the forest structure today and the current extent of invasive exotics. It portrays not only the vegetation but also addresses what species are reproducing. Three different levels of forest condition related to exotics disturbance are indicated: 1. Stable - Where native plant species are predominant and are, in a few instances, reproducing. In most cases the canopy is still largely native but usually exhibits poor reproduction and is very vulnerable to exotic invasion. Although areas show serious impacts they represent the most stable native communities in Prospect Park at this time. Stable conditions exist only in a small area of the Park. 2. Declining - Where native plant species are predominant but exotic-species are invading and native regeneration is negligible. Typically the canopy may still retain some native species but the understory and shrub-layers and most current regeneration are predominantly exotic or non-existent. 3. Degraded - Where exotic invasive species are entrenched and there is no reproduction of native species. In these instances, both canopy and understory layers are predominantly exotic where an understory exists. The map reveals the severity of the exotics problem very clearly. It holds out a specter of the future where the forest has been reduced to a very few super-abundant species with commensurate losses in habitat types and scenic values. In many areas of the Park there may be no regeneration of native or exotic species. There is a total loss of the understory layer. The same environmental richness that fosters a diversity of plant and wildlife species is integral to the larger aesthetic experience of the Park and the educational and interpretive programming that can be offered.

A Landscape Management Plan for the Natural Areas of Prospect Park

Map V

Woodland Condition -1992

A Landscape Management Plan for the Natural Areas of Prospect Park

Prospect Lake

, ' ,, ' '

:<:'

Friends Cemetery

Carriage Concourse

Prospect Park Zoo

The Netherrnead

The Pools

Th e

, '

Maintenance Compound

:'/

, ': ,, ''

Long MeadoW'

9 Bondshel I/llth St PI,yground 10 Litchfield Viii, 11 3rd st. Playground

WClodland stable

Declining Degrflded f'r<'parea

and

Arlan)po:?on Associates, Ltd,

The Prospect Park Landscape Management Office

, NY

Condition

1 9 9 2'

Map VI-Canopy Gaps - 1992

A common characteristic of urban woodlands is a thinner canopy than would be typical of an analogous natural forest. Many factors are involved including poor regeneration which might be due to damage by trampling and stormwater, competition from exotics, browsing by rabbits and even over consumption of local seed by squirrels and other wildlife. At the same time, mortality is often higher in urban woodlands, especially where storm wind tunneling has resulted in excessive blow-downs and where construction and other activities have damaged trees. These problems were noted as early as 1885, where the Annual Report referred to - "the gradual decline of the forest trees ."31 Today, with the wholesale loss of forest topsoil, almost all mature trees are left perched in eroded subsoils with their roots exposed. Many young to middle-aged trees are rooted in the impoverished subsoil strata as a result of the loss of topsoil. The Canopy Gap Map locates almost 33 acres of open canopy out of a total of about 150 acres of Core Forest Cover Type. The canopy gaps mapped herein measure at least 20' in diameter and include numerous large standing dead trees. Some of these gaps will close rapidly without management through the growth of existing large sub-canopy trees, although in many cases this replacement canopy is likely to be composed of invasive exotic species. Only minimal replacement by native species is likely to occur without significant replanting of indigenous vegetation. Even when desirable canopy tree seed sources are present, reproduction from seeds may be restricted by poor rooting conditions in subsoils. Achieving a closed canopy has long been a goal in the management of Prospect Park. Canopy gaps were first mapped in concert with the proposed stabilization of Ravine I. The proposed stabilization includes removal of invasive exotic species, and extensive replanting of trees, shrubs and groundlayer plants, from a list of native species, grouped according to appropriate environmental conditions. Because the removal of invasive exotic species will create further canopy gaps, the process must be carefully phased with the replanting of the native vegetation. Otherwise their removal would only add to the problems associated with canopy gaps. At the same time, canopy gaps are the areas where significant regeneration and regrowth of native species is most favorable if exotics are appropriately controlled. As such these sites are opportunities, are the focus of replanting priorities.

31(Twentyfifth Annual Report of the Commissioners of Prospect Park, 1885, p.21) A Landscape Management Plan for the Natural Areas of Prospect Park

Map VI

Canopy Gaps - 1992

A Landscape Management Plan for the Natural Areas of Prospect Park

'.~

c·

, ,

"~ ~

, ,

,'I~'"

Prospect Lake 2

3 Carriage Concourse Prospect Park Zoo 5 The Nelhermead 6 The Pool s 7 The Lon g Meadow

' . _' •

.......... ::: ..

.. .'

Friends Cemetery

Maintenance Compound

Band,hell/llth S t Playground

10 Litchfield V i l l a I 1 3rd Sl.

Playground

.-:~:;"<:" .,,,

,A~t~~-::: .."

.-'

Canopy Gaps ~

and Prepared by Andropogon Associates, Ltd, . The Prospect Park Landscape Management Office PA NY

Woodland Gaps

1 992

Prospect Lake 2

Fr iends Cemetery

Carriage Concourse

Prospect Park Zoo

The Nethermead The Pools The Long Meadow

8 Mainlenance Compound 9 Bandshell/11lh S l Playground 1 0 Lilchfie1d V ill a 1 1 3rd Sl. Playground

Changes

In Canopy Extent

1865 Forest

11111111111111

~ Prp:nnr.,dby

AndrclPo!conAssociates, Ltd.

and The Prospect Park Landscape Management Office flY

1874 Forest Present Forest

Landscape Management Plan

Maintenance has been an issue as long as there have been parks. At the time of the Park's creation, Olmsted and Vaux envisioned a far more intensively maintained park than was feasible even then. Their recommendations called for extensive soil renovation both in woodland and turf areas as well as an extraordinary degree of visitor control, including restricting walking on turf when soils were saturated. This was to be effected "only by special efforts for the purpose made by an active, vigilant, faithful, and a numerous body of keepers." 32 Their hopes for such a high level of landscape care were soon dashed here as well as in Central Park and elsewhere. While Olmsted himself did not have the benefit of modern ecological understanding, he distinguished himself in his time and among his peers by being one of the designers most sensitive to environmental concerns. Olmsted and Vaux had a profound regard and respect for natural landscapes, many of which are protected today because of their park systems and others modeled on their efforts. Despite the enduring beauty and satisfaction of their designs, neither Olmsted and Vaux's work, nor the natural habitats that are integral to the site, will survive without creative intervention by those responsible for their care and for real change in the approach underlying management policy and implementation. This report describes a vision of Prospect Park that seeks to restore the landscape character and scenic qualities of the Park in Olmsted's day, as well as the health and diversity of the forested Natural Area that today exists in a degraded state at the core of the Park. The goal is to implement a comprehensive landscape management program that sustains the grandeur and drama of the historic landscape, as well as the environmental values and cost-savings potential of self-sustaining native plant communities. The Natural Area Management Program is comprised of three major components: the designation of a Natural Area within the Park boundaries called the Forest Core; a Proposed Cover Type map produced below that delineates the proposed landscape structure for all areas of the Park, including the Forest Core, and an Action Plan that outlines recommended restoration and management strategies and budgets for the Forest Core. This proposed Landscape Management Plan is intended to sustain the natural, cultural, recreational and aesthetic resources of the Park over time while providing for a high level of public access and participation. The recommendations included here, while directed toward the more natural landscapes of the Park, are also directly applicable for use elsewhere in the Park. TI1e program is intended to provide a framework for consistent and sustained management. Nevertheless, the Cover Type Zones are Management Zones only. They reflect design and use concerns but are not designs themselves - the Master Plan will design areas that may modify these zones. 32(Fourteenth Annual Report of the Commissioners of Prospect Park, 1874, p.26)

A Landscape Management Plan for the Natural Areas of Prospect Park

The Forest Core Natural Area The most significant feature of the proposed landscape restoration and management program is the establishment of a designated Natural Area, the Forest Core, where the primary goal will be to attain the highest quality native forest habitat possible and to sustain these values over time. This does not represent a significant change in the original design intent but is rather a refinement of the management plan. There are two key policy statements and goals that underlie the proposed Forest Core. 1. There is a delineated Natural Area boundary, the Forest Core, within which the visitor experience is focused on enjoyment of the natural landscape character of Prospect Park. The boundary is intended to define the area where both use and management should be guided by this goal. 2. An overall goal is to reduce the fragmentation of the existing woodland by restoring, insofar as possible, the extent of closed canopy, layered forest in the original plan for Prospect Park by Olmsted and Vaux. This will include joining other areas not historically joined, in those instances where overriding ecological needs occur in areas with historic features of minor significance to the original design. The delineation of the Forest Core boundary incorporates the following design guidelines in an effort to meet these goals: â&#x20AC;˘ to maximize the contiguous area of closed canopy and minimize the amount of edge where forest meets turf or other open landscape cover types and where disturbance impacts are most severe. The Forest Core represents the largest contiguous forested area. â&#x20AC;˘ to simplify and optimize the continuity of the forest. In the Forest Core, the highest priority should be given to providing closed canopy conditions with the multilayered, multi-aged, multi-species structure characteristic of a healthy forest. The proposed pattern and extent of forest also seeks to restore the aesthetic character established by Olmsted in his dramatic interpretation of this site's terrain along the ridge of the terminal moraine of the last glacier.. â&#x20AC;˘ to exclude turf and other high use/high maintenance landscape types from the Forest Core. These features, some of which are historic, some of which have developed as woodland degraded into turf, have long standing as high use areas and are incompatible with a natural area and have been excluded from the area of the Forest Core. In general it is proposed that any excessive, unnecessary, and/or non-historic infrastructure should be gradually phased out of the Forest Core and this goal should be reflected in future master planning. New education and volunteer programming should also be developed for the Natural Areas to encourage visitor use without undue impacts.

A Landscape Management Plan for the Natural Areas of Prospect Park

â&#x20AC;˘ to include the full range of habitats that characterize the Natural Areas of Prospect Park from uplands to lowlands, from young successional landscapes to mature forest, utilizing those species native to the site, as best as can be established.

Map VII-Proposed Cover Types - 1992

"retains the landscape as it has evolved historically, by maintaining and repairing the historic features, while allowing additions and alterations for contemporary and future uses ".33 According to the Landscape Management Policy of the Park, the site is to "be managed in a way that is ecologically and economically sound". (Edward Toth, Director of Landscape Management, Prospect Park) In this context, this plan also proposes a use and management gradient across the Park ranging from intensive use/high maintenance areas (designated as horticultural zones in this report) to less intensively used Natural Areas that require less maintenance. This gradient is necessary to provide an adequate buffer to the Natural Areas from impacts from adjacent, more intensive uses, and also serves to foster more cost-effective management by concentrating maintenance in smaller areas. Further, a far greater sensitivity in the implementation of maintenance is needed to sustain the landscape character of the more fragile adjacent Natural Areas and to retain the dramatic and mysterious design character. Traditionally, in the Olmstedian landscapes, the sweeping blanket of turf that characterized the open areas extended right to the boundary of the forest or the lake which was then elaborated with a subtle and undulating edge. The loss of key specimens and the practice of continual mowing, however, has over time grossly simplified these once rich transition areas. Reestablishment of the management of landscape transition zones represents a relatively minor change that could have an important impact on the sustainability of the landscape. The modifications proposed in this program seek to restore the earlier character by refining boundaries over time and managing the landscape in a way that is ecologically and economically sound. In general the same cover types that were proposed by Olmsted and Vaux and that still characterize the Park today are proposed in the future. The Woodland Cover Type has been expanded to include both the Forest Core as well 33(Draft Guidelines for the Treatment of Historic Landscanes, Prepared by U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Preservation Assistance Division, Technical Preservation Services Branch, Washington, D.C., May 1992, p.7)

A Landscape Management Plan for the Natural Areas of Prospect Park

as surrounding Woodland Buffer. The Horticultural Zones and Turf cover types have been retained. The extent of Tall Grass Meadow has been enlarged in places to discourage trampling, slow runoff, increase infiltration and sediment collection, and to also provide habitat for a variety of native plants and associated wildlife. The Parkland designation has been eliminated, although Parkland (referring to groves of specimen trees in turf) as a landscape ~ will be retained. In practice, the Tree Planting Master Plan, reflecting the location originally proposed by Olmsted and Vaux, will be used to determine the precise location of trees and groves in all historic open areas such as the Long Meadow and the Nethermead. Lastly the smaller water features that occurred in the original plan are proposed for rehabilitation as noted below under the proposed cover types.

Proposed Cover Types The proposed cover types include the following: Forest Core - where a closed canopy, multi-layered native forest is proposed. This cover type represents a largely self-sustaining, ecologically functional, landscape structure. It contrasts with the more open woodland with limited understory vegetation that characterizes the woodland cover type that predominates today. The extent of this cover type reflects the largest nearly contiguous area of forest in Prospect Park that is consistent with a Natural Areas management focus and historic design intent. Perimeter Woodland - where a closed canopy, native woodland is proposed as a landscape setting for the Park and as a transition from the city. This cover type is more fragmented as well as more intensely used than Core Forest and is not expected to achieve as high a level of ecological integrity. Tall Grass Meadow - where tall grasses, wildflowers and other sun-loving native herbaceous plants are maintained by periodic mowing in an open condition. This is an existing cover type and is only slightly enlarged in extent. Turf with Specimen Trees- where turf is maintained by mowing, this category combines the Turf and Parkland designations of the Current Cover Type mapping (map III). The extent of mown turf has been reduced by the expansion of the Tall Grass Meadow Cover Type and the restoration of historically forested areas. Water Features - where there was an historic water feature that is proposed for renewal to increase the habitat diversity of the Natural Area. This cover type includes portions of the shoreline of the lake as well as the Ambergill, a stream course through the forested area that once included occasional ponds. Some of the original ponds, which are now silted, may be managed as wet meadows or swamps to increase diversity of habitat. Horticultural Zones - where use is intensive and requires more intensive design and maintenance of the landscape than is included in the recommendations for the other cover types. These areas generally occur along the perimeter of the Park, at historic A Landscape Management Plan for the Natural Areas of Prospect Park

entrances, and in proximity to architectural structures which comprise the only openings in the historical perimeter of the woodlands. These areas are intended to serve multiple functions; however, they should meld seamlessly with adjacent areas and other cover types. For this reason, to the extent feasible, native plant communities will be used in horticultural zones. Horticultural Zones might include small patches of Perimeter Woodland, Tall Grass Meadow and Turf Cover Types. In no instance will invasive non-native species be planted.

A Landscape Management Plan for the Natural Areas of Prospect Park

Map VII

Proposed Cover Types

A Landscape Management Plan for the Natural Areas of Prospect Park

1992

Prospect Lake 2

Friends Cemeiery

Carriage Concourse

Prospeci Park Zoo

The Neihermead

The Pools

The Long MeadoW'

Maintenance Compound

Eandshell/illb St Playground

10 Litchfield Villa 11

3rd St.

Playground

Proposed Cover Types 1992 ~

Forest Core

Perimeter Woodlands

IIIII IIII

Turf with Specimen Tree,

Horticultural

I... . . ....J Prepared by

Andropogon Associates, Ltd. Philadelphia PA

and The Prospect Park Landscape Management Office Brooklyn },ry

Tall

Zone

Grass MeadoW'

Aquatic Habitats

Landscape Management Action Plan

The following Action Plan describes the landscape management strategies that are recommended for the Natural Area as well as for the whole of the Park. The recommendations proposed herein are directed specifically to the stabilization, restoration, and management of the Forest Core, however, they are also appropriate throughout the Park for analogous cover types. Throughout this section - two different tiers of action are recommended: A. Stabilization, Restoration and Maintenance - These actions comprise the bulk of the program and are either currently underway, proposed to be initiated at this time or planned to be implemented over the course of many years. All reflect on-going management requirements of the Natural Area and the Park as a whole that will need appropriate labor allocations and funding to fully implement the Landscape Management Program. B. Related - These are related actions that are outside the scope of this program but on which the full realization of this management program is dependent.

Recommended Actions A. STABILIZATION, RESTORATION AND MAINTENANCE MEASURES: 1. Continue and expand the current program to stabilize bare soil and eroded areas, including desire-line trails. The task of restoring stability and vegetation to those areas that have been disturbed by trampling, vehicles, and stormwater is one of the most tangible efforts of the management plan. Even if all future disturbance could be controlled, the areas where soil structure has been destroyed, severely compacted, or eroded will not simply get better on their own. No real restoration can happen until the ground is stable. The work itself is quite labor intensive because of the care that must be taken to keep from further disturbing adjacent soils and root systems. The scope of the damage is staggering - with 63 acres of bare soil in the 150 acre Natural Area and over 15 linear miles of desire-lines. If this work were completed today by outside contractors, these rough cost estimates would exceed 34 million dollars. The use of an in-house crew, however, will be able to cut these costs substantially over time by as much as 40% or more. A more detailed cost estimate of this effort is given in the last section of this report. Work on stabilization was initiated over three years ago by the Natural Resources Crew. Current procedures include creating a fertile topsoil by loosening compacted soil and back filling, where needed, with a rich organic soil mix, and as necessary, stabilizing the surface with cribwork, erosion blanket, and! or mulch. Replanting with native, canopy A Landscape Management Plan for the Natural Areas of Prospect Park

and understory trees shrubs, and ground layer vegetation is also required. Some desireline trails may be warranted due to restrictive access and should be formalized as secondary paths on trails. These trails will be stabilized with wood chips and evaluated over time. The on-going program to control the use of mountain bikes is one of the most important related actions that will influence long term site stability. This effort already includes the expansion of public relation efforts, new signage and enhanced enforcement of existing regulations. In addition, the use of a low rustic fence along the margins of the pathways is proposed for use and evaluation in the Natural Area. The objective is to underscore the importance to the visitor of keeping on the trail and to make the trailless conducive to casual movement of bicycles. However such a proposal would have to be approved by the NYC Landmark and Art Commissions, and the construction and maintenance costs must be considered as well.

Temporary site fencing will be a key strategic tool in the effort to stabilize the disturbed area. The length of time required will vary with the intensity of use pressure, the steepness of the slope, the fragility of the landscape, and the species and ages of new plantings. There is some historic precedent for temporarily fencing off an area as the following paragraph from the Twenty-fifth Annual Report describes:

Park, a full ten years of fencing with limited, controlled access has been planned for. This is needed, not only to allow for full re-establishment of multi-layered vegetation, but also to displace long established habits and patterns of use. This will also provide a bench mark or control against which to measure the success of restoration projects that are not fenced off for a long time period. Every effort will be made to facilitate some level of public use and enjoyment of this landscape despite these necessary restrictions. At the same time, this project will have many visitor benefits during the restoration phases as well as in the long run that should not be underestimated. 2. Continue and expand the current efforts to control invasive exotics. The task of controlling invasive exotics is not one that can be completed in a short period of time, it is on-going and should not necessarily be rushed. To simply remove up to 40% of the vegetation in these landscapes will potentially create conditions that ultimately favor even greater levels of exotics. Rather the task is incremental and is 34(Twentyfifth Annual Report of the Commissioners of Prospect Park, 1885, p.22)

A Landscape Management Plan for the Natural Areas of Prospect Park

projected to cost upwards of 1 million dollars over the next 20 years. Its rate will depend in part on the levels of replanting and maintenance that can be undertaken simultaneously. The methodologies employed will change over time as new approaches are refined. Similar efforts are presently being undertaken and documented by many other area agencies as well, including the Natural Resources Group of the NYC Department of Parks and Recreation, The Central Park Conservancy, and the Urban Forest and Education Program on many sites from Inwood Park in Manhattan to the Staten Island Greenbelt. The current levels of information exchange are excellent between these groups and Prospect Park. The effort here and on each other site will benefit greatly from the work undertaken elsewhere. The current efforts focus on woody exotic species, however there is also a serious threat posed by shade-tolerant, invasive, herbaceous species such as Goutweed (Aegopodium podagraria), and Reed Canary Grass (Phalaris arundinacia). In addition within the last two years, an extremely pernicious herbaceous weed species, Garlic Mustard (Alliaria petiolata), has started to colonize the Park. These plants may threaten the reestablishment of the overs tory by inhibiting the germination and development of overstory seedlings, and they have a profound effect to deter the growth and establishment of native understory vegetation. An assessment of the full impact of exotic herbaceous species is beyond the scope and resources of this study, but must be integrated into management strategy at the outset. 3. Canopy Gap Closure

The re-establishment of closed canopy conditions will favor those species characteristic of mature forest conditions, while providing better erosion control and restricting the spread of some, but not all, of the prevalent invasive exotic species. At present the canopy is open in approximately 20% of the area of the Natural Areal Forest Core. In addition, there is very little regeneration of native trees in the Park, providing very few canopy replacement trees. Therefore, without significant replanting, the canopy could become gradually even more open, assuming that the control of exotic trees is a continuing effort. The long-term goal is to manage the forest in a way that it becomes more selfsustaining. This requires a significant enhancement of seed and root stock source materials through managed propagation efforts, as well as the creation of conditions more conducive to plant survival and diversity. It is important to remember that techniques for planting in woodland conditions are not well-perfected and maintenance during the establishment period will be crucial. Careful observation and assessment will be very important as well as an experimental approach. The rough costs for replanting all existing canopy gaps at a density of 1 canopy tree or understory per 9 square feet is approximately $6.6 million dollars.

A Landscape Management Plan for the Natural Areas of Prospect Park

4. Re-establish native plant communities. A variety of native plant communities should be used throughout the Park as well as the Forest Core in distribution patterns and environmental conditions that characterize their occurrence in the natural landscape of the immediate region. (See previous section, "Historic Landscape Character.") Native plant communities are increasingly becoming the design standard throughout Prospect Park for their aesthetic, as well as ecological values. New installations in Prospect Park, such as adjacent to the Vanderbilt Street Playground, reflect this growing sensibility. Native species are the most well adapted to the overall site conditions, with the exception of a few highly invasive exotic species. A list of species recommended for use in the Forest Core as well as throughout the park is included at the end of this section. 5. Revise the mowing regimen of the whole Park to reflect the proposed cover types, including expanded areas of Tall Grass Meadow and Forest Core. This is recommended for immediate action and will have several benefits. â&#x20AC;˘ Reduce the total amount of turf with commensurate reductions in required labor, which can then be reallocated to other management activities. â&#x20AC;˘ Provide more consistent and focused management in a more cost-effective manner. â&#x20AC;˘ Provide immediate feedback on the "recoverability" of areas where mowing has been reduced or ceased, and tall grass meadows or woodlands have been allowed to establish. (See Item 7. on monitoring below.) 6. The potential of the stream and aquatic habitats should be developed as major capital projects. Olmsted's description of the Ambergill from the 6th Annual Report illustrates the potential of these landscape features.

"The stream furnished by the spring is intended to take first the character of a series of pools [Swanboat Lakes], overhung on the one side by the trees upon the north-side of Friends Hill, and margined on the other banks by turf. [Long Meadow side] It would then assume more of the usual character of a small mountain stream, taking a very irregular course, with numerous small rapids, shoots, and eddies, among rocks and ferns, until it emerged from the shadow of the wood upon a grassy slope [Nethermead], thence it would flow more quietly until, after falling over a body of rock, in connection with a foot-bridge on the side of the park opposite that on which it started, it would assume the appearance of a small river with high and shaded banks, and at length empty into the lake. Here, on the North Shore, would be a low flat meadow [Peninsula] with a few large trees and small thickets of bushes overhanging the water. In the coves would be beds of pond lilies and other aquatic plants, and on the shores near them, flags, cat-tails, A Landscape Management Plan for the Natural Areas of Prospect Park

bulrushes, and the like. This arrangement would give opportunity for every variety of water scenery which is practicable within the space of the park, with any moderate supply of water ",35 The Lake, smaller ponds, and stream course that characterized the historic landscape were far richer landscapes than those that persist today. The opportunity to re-create more varied habitats can greatly enhance the Forest Core as a Natural Area. This effort should be incorporated into the on-going master planning process. The aquatic areas face similar problems to the woods with the problem of invasive exotic species crowding out native species. In general the exotic species are of less value to wildlife as a source of food and habitat. Unfortunately a management plan for the aquatic areas is a complex endeavor that is beyond the scope of this report. Ravine Phase I and Ravine Phase II are planned, capitally-funded projects that will, among other things, initiate dredging and repair of the water system, starting at its outlet, the waterfall on Quaker Hill, and proceeding downstream through time and projects. These projects should proceed simultaneously, with the stabilization and restoration of the surrounding woodland slopes to prevent the further loss of their soils and the consequent siltation of the waterbodies. 7. Continue and expand the existing on-site monitoring program.

From its inception the Prospect Park Landscape Management Master Plan has been built on a foundation of detailed documentation of the historic designs as well as current conditions, including environmental factors, use, etc. This information is incrementally being logged on a computer database and being developed as a resource for management. Several levels of monitoring are recommended at this time. a. Baseline monitoring with periodic updating. This information records what 'is' in the Park and allows change to be recorded and assessed. The current effort to develop a Landscape Management Plan has expanded the mapping of existing conditions and provides a crucial baseline for assessing the effectiveness of the management program. There are three gaps in the baseline monitoring of the woodlands that should be addressed in the near future: A Canopy Tree Inventory of major trees of the woodlands to compliment the existing Tree Planting Master Plan, a Plant Community Map for the Natural Area, as well as Periodic Photographic Records from permanent surveyed points. This will create a comprehensive source of data on the condition of the woodlands which today only exists in part.

35(Sixth Annual Report of the Commissioners of Prospect Park, 1866, p. 107.)

A Landscape Management Plan for the Natural Areas of Prospect Park

b. Monitoring of the Ravine Project, Phase 1. Ravine I will provide the most comprehensive opportunity to assess and refine many of the restoration strategies proposed in this report. As noted by Edward Toth in a comprehensive management plan report for Prospect Park about this project: "The intent was to systematically apply the methodology developed for woodland restoration in the Ravine Phase I project to all such areas of the Park". The whole project should be assessed in light of technique, costs, long-term maintenance, and environmental value. Similarly, trial projects undertaken before Ravine I, such as the completed soil stabilization and replanting on the North and South Slopes of the Lullwater, and the slope leading to the Boulder Bridge should also be evaluated and this information applied to Ravine I. 8. Conduct related studies to broaden the understanding of the natural systems of the Park Three other related studies, that are crucial to the on-going success of the Landscape Management Plan, should be undertaken as soon as possible: a Soils Survey of Prospect Park, a Hydrologic Analysis of Prospect Park and an Aquatic Systems Master Plan. Though costly to initiate, these studies are necessary to understand the complex interactions between water quality, vegetation and wildlife for the water features of the Park, and may result in project savings or prevent failures worth several times their cost. B. RELATED RECOMMENDATIONS 1. To establish a planning process with the input of community leaders, naturalists and concerned citizens, the Landscape Management Office has established a Woodlands Advisory Board. The Advisory Board represents both those who use the Park, and those who are responsible for the care of the Park. This body is to meet quarterly and function in a continuous advisory role on the policy, implementation, and monitoring of the Natural Areas Master Plan. The first meeting of the Advisory Board was held on 26 April 1993 at the Picnic House in Prospect Park and consisted of a major overview of the on-going Master Planning process and the status of current efforts. The following persons attended: Paul Berizzi, Chief of Environmental Services, NYC DPR Charles Beveridge, Historian Marc Busciano, Urban Forest and Education Program, Deputy Project Manager Una Clarke, Councilwoman Steve C1emants, Brooklyn Botanic Garden, plant taxonomist Tony Emmerich, Urban Forest and Education Program, Project Manager Mike Feller, Head Naturalist, Natural Resource Group, NYC DPR Joseph Fishman, member of community Jim Gardella, Asst. to the Bor. Pres., Brooklyn Borough President's Office A Landscape Management Plan for the Natural Areas of Prospect Park

Gordon Helm, NYS Dept. of Environmental Protection Liam Kavanagh, Deputy Chief of Operations-Brooklyn, NYC DPR Marc Matsil, Dir. of Natural Resources Group, NYC DPR Patrick McMullan, member of community Tom Phillips, member of community Greg Owens, NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation Gerald Posner, The Arbor Barber, Inc., owner Marcia Reiss, Marie Sarchiapone, Landmarks Preservationist, NYC Landmarks Commission Leslie Sauer, Andropogon Associates, Ltd., Principal Theresa Yap, Central Park Soil Lab, Central Park Conservancy John Yrizarry, Brooklyn Bird Club Future meetings will also include smaller scale workshop sessions to focus on specific issues. A major goal of this effort is educational - to inform people of the roles they actually play in the health of this landscape and to engage them in its restoration. Equally important is the role the Advisory Board will play in challenging the plan, lending real breadth to the planning process. 2. Continue and expand the existing public relations outreach and education programs related to the Forest Core/Natural Area. Since the creation of the Prospect Park Alliance, the relationship between the Park and its community has been growing more positive and becoming more integrated. Like any other aspect of change, saving the landscape from certain destruction by its users will require some sacrifices, but will also afford many rewards that should be communicated to the public. Those members of the public who understand and buy into the larger vision are the most likely to be supportive. The restoration and management of the Core Natural Area is one of the most important opportunities to create new programs and build new user constituencies. The issues are timely and of great concern to the urban dweller. The activities of restoration are rewarding and provide an opportunity for another kind of urban gardening appropriate for all age groups. The visitor who is actively involved in the act of restoration will then be more in-tune with the needs of the natural systems. Restoration efforts in other parks are becoming a major focus of new educational and interpretive programming and could undoubtedly enrich the user experience of Prospect Park. Currently, the Brooklyn Center for the Urban Environment (located in the Tennis House building within the Park) uses the Natural Areas of the Park as outdoor classrooms for many of its youth and adult education programs. Additionally the Natural Resources Crew of the Park supervises the work of high-school age youth in various employment and educational programs, and runs a program of Weekend Woodland Volunteers. These programs initiated by the Natural Resources Crew will be expanded and others initiated to meet educational and public relation needs. A Landscape Management Plan for the Natural Areas of Prospect Park

3. A long-term commitment to and stable funding base for long-term woodland management is required. In January of 1993 the Board of Directors of the Prospect Park Alliance dedicated itself to a four year fundraising campaign for the woodlands called "Save the Forest." The goal of the campaign is to increase the annual operating budget of the Prospect Park Landscape Management Office by $500,000 within five years. This increase is wholly to be dedicated to measures connected with woodland management and specimen tree care. Though this increase is substantial, it does not necessarily reflect the expected costs associated with managing the woodlands as outlined in this report. Over 5 million visits are made annually to Prospect Park and for many this includes a visit to at least a portion of the Natural Area. Today there is growing recognition of the value of this wilder landscape and the need to sustain it for future generations. A major objective for this report is in part intended to address the development of a comprehensive budget and program for both restoration and on-going management. The following section summarizes the projected costs for initial stabilization and restoration efforts.

Preliminary Cost Estimates

The following cost estimates reflect four major levels of funding and implementation that relate to this Natural Areas Management Program: 1. Stabilization Measures 2. On-Going Monitoring 3. Establishment Period Maintenance 4. On-Going Management. 1. STABILIZATION MEASURES

The goal to restore the Forest Core of Prospect Park to its former grandeur and to manage it as a significant natural landscape for the Park visitor is dependent upon repairing much of the damage incurred over the past century from over-use, mis-use, and neglect. The current levels of disturbance, documented by the series of inventory maps developed for this report, represent the first actions required to re-establish the basic conditions and environmental structure necessary to develop more sustainable landscapes in the Natural Area as well as throughout the Park. These actions, which are remedial in nature and relate to neglect, include stabilization of all eroded soils, replanting of native species lost in the last century and control of the invasive exotic species that are over-running large areas of the landscape. The estimates developed here reflect the prices of work completed by an outside contractor, in the New York City region, and as such represent higher costs than would A Landscape Management Plan for the Natural Areas of Prospect Park

be incurred for any work completed by in-house crews. As noted earlier, it is likely that these estimates could be reduced by as much as 40% over outside contracting. The actual savings will be more accurately quantifiable as the Prospect Park Natural Resource Crew completes more work on site. They do not include on-going maintenance, such as trail maintenance, nor do they reflect any future damage. The actual costs will likely vary considerably from these initial estimates, because the long-term recoverability of such landscapes is simply unknown. There are no successful, completed models. Similar projects elsewhere, such as in Central Park, provide useful information, but none has been underway long enough to provide accurate long-term costs. At the same time, however, these figures are indicative of the scope of the restoration. The following stabilization efforts and assumptions are included in the cost estimate: (The Roman numeral subtitles are keyed to the subtitles used in the cost estimate table路 contained in Appendix I.)

A Landscape Management Plan for the Natural Areas of Prospect Park

I. Stabilization of Desire Lines - (84,900 1.ÂŁ. of compacted and eroded soil)

Three levels of deteriorated conditions were assumed - 20% on flat areas without serious erosion problems, 40% on steeper slopes where active erosion is a serious problem, and 40% on steep slopes where erosion is just beginning. The Desire Lines were mapped as 'Major Desire Lines' that are 4' feet wide and 'Minor Desire Lines' that are 2' feet wide. Desire lines, flat area On flat areas, the compacted soil will be loosened to increase aeration, porosity and moisture retention. Four inches of composted organic matter will be worked into the soil and topped with one inch of leaves as mulch. Shrubs will be planted at a density of 4 per 100 s.f. and herbaceous ground cover at 1 per 4 s.f. Desire lines, steep slopes, actively eroding On steep slopes that are actively eroding, first the compacted soil is broken up, and then, on average, twelve inches of topsoil is added to re-establish the natural contour of the slope. As above four inches of compos ted organic matter is worked into the surface soil, and erosion control blankets and cribbing is used to hold the soil in place. Ground cover is planted at a thicker density of 1 per 1 s.f. to establish a thick root system capable of binding the soil on the slopes in a very short period of time. Shrubs are planted at a density of 4 per 100 s.f. to discourage traffic through the area. Desire lines, steep slopes, erosion is just beginning On steep slopes where erosion is just beginning, similar measures are taken as outlined in the above category - steep slopes, actively eroding. The compacted soil is broken up with compost and new soil added. However, because the problem is less severe, on average only four inches of soil is needed rather than twelve inches. Erosion control blanket is spread to hold the soil in place, but no cribbing is needed because the erosion gullies are not as deep. Ground cover and shrubs are planted at the same density as an area of active erosion. For all areas where there are desire lines, site protection fence is used to deter people from damaging the stabilization effort. II. Establishment of Secondary Paths

As stated earlier some desire line trails may be needed for varying lengths of time to allow access to an area. Secondary paths will be established on flat areas where the only work needed to establish a path is to spread wood chips on an existing desire line. It is assumed that one-half of the length of 4' wide 'Major Desire Lines' on flat areas will be established as paths. Only one-quarter of the length of 2' wide 'Minor Desire Lines' will be established as paths because a narrower path suggests that there is less need for access.

A Landscape Management Plan for the Natural Areas of Prospect Park

The work needed to establish a secondary path on a steep slope is more extensive. Decisions about establishing secondary paths on steep slopes will await completion of a comprehensive Master Plan for Prospect Park. In addition, any secondary paths established under this landscape management plan will be subject to change according to decisions made in completing a comprehensive Master Plan for the Park. III. Restoration of Bare Soil Areas There are three levels of degradation for areas of bare soil which parallel the three levels established for 'desire lines': Bare soil, flat area, Bare soil, steep slopes, actively eroding Bare soil, steep slopes, erosion is just beginning. Bare soil, flat area - (17.78 acres) On a flat area the measures include placing a site protection fence around the area, breaking up the compacted soil and incorporating 4" of compost into the soil with a 1" cover of leaves as mulch on top. Ground cover is planted at a density of 1 per 4 s.f. and shrubs at 4 per 100 s.f. Bare soil steep slopes, actively eroding - (39.77 acres) In areas of bare soil on steep slopes where there is active erosion, there is essentially no topsoil layer. The ground has been eroded to the level of subsoils and the roots of trees are exposed. Such conditions are a detriment to the health of the woodland vegetation and do not allow for the regrowth of the woodlands. The measures outlined are aimed at creating a topsoil layer to establish healthier conditions for plants to thrive and grow. The stabilization measures include placing a site protection fence to deter access, breaking up the compacted soil and incorporating on average 12" of topsoil and 4" of organic matter. Erosion blankets and cribbing are used to hold the soil in place. Shrubs are planted to deter access to the area and ground cover is planted at a density of 1 per 1 s.f. to develop a root mass to bind the soil. Bare soil steep slopes, erosion is just beginning - (5.92 acres) On a steep slope where erosion is just beginning similar measures are taken as for the above category - steep slopes, actively eroding. However only 4" inches of topsoil is used and cribbing is not necessary. Erosion blankets are pinned down to hold the soil in place and ground cover is planted at a density of 1 per 1 s.f. with the density of shrubs at 4 per 100 s.f. IV. Removal of Exotic Invasives (150 acres of woodlands, the Forest Core/Natural Area) The management of invasive exotics is difficult to quantify in part because there is as yet no full accounting of large (greater than 6" caliper), mature exotic canopy trees in the Natural Area. As noted earlier, it would not be desirable to remove all invasive exotic A Landscape Management Plan for the Natural Areas of Prospect Park

species in a short period of time due to impacts on forest structure and canopy cover. This cost estimate reflects the scale of activity that is likely to be reasonable and feasible to carry out over time based on similar efforts recently undertaken in Central Park. V. Canopy Gap Closure - (29.62 acres of canopy gaps) Young trees will be planted at a density of 1 per 9 s.f. in all existing canopy gaps. These trees will include understory and overstory trees in an effort to create a multi-layered forest. Much of the area of desire lines, bare soil and erosion will overlap with these areas of canopy gaps. Thus the shrubs and ground cover planted in the measures outlined above will contribute to the establishment of a multi-layered forest and native plant communities. The replanting of a wide variety of native plants is necessary to offset the accumulated plant losses due to natural causes and disturbance, as well as to replace gaps in the canopy from exotics that will be removed. Planting in the existing canopy gaps will create conditions more analogous to those in a healthy native forest and augment the plantings in stabilized bare soil areas and desire line trails. The plants will provide a crucial source of regeneration which is currently hampered by the relatively low diversity of woody species that regenerate in the Park today. Because urban woodland restoration is such a recent issue, there are few proven techniques and a high degree of research and development as well as trial and error are necessary. There should be an on-going assessment program for success/failures of techniques and species recommended. Many native species are unavailable or less available than conventional exotic species. Some propagation will be necessary. Area nurserymen and agency personnel should be given copies of the list of recommended species as soon as possible and their help may be sought in developing adequate and appropriate supplies of plants. The appendix contains a list of native plants recommended for use in Prospect Park. The list is based on the research of the native flora discussed in the section of this report titled, "Historic Landscape Character." Because collecting wild plants for landscape use has decimated native populations in the past, extreme care will be taken to ensure that any plants purchased for Park use have been responsibly propagated with no impact to natural landscapes. 2. ON-GOING MONITORING The documentation prepared for this report represents a very significant level of baseline inventory when added to other mapping and archiving efforts including the historic design documentation, the Specimen Tree Survey, and constitutes an invaluable database that if kept up will permit effective assessment and modification of management strategies and their relative costs and values. The success of this endeavor is completely dependent on the quality of the data that is collected and the importance of the questions that are asked of it. A keen interest in and commitment to high quality monitoring characterize all the Prospect Park staff at A Landscape Management Plan for the Natural Areas of Prospect Park

present. Their effort is most limited by the equipment and computer software available to them. A monitoring budget of 10% of the total budget is recommended. 3. ESTABLISHMENT PERIOD MAINTENANCE COSTS Like new plantings anywhere, the native trees, shrubs and ground cover planted in the Natural Area will require extra maintenance during the first years after planting. This establishment period typically lasts about three years, decreasing in cost incrementally until only on-going maintenance described later is proposed. These costs should be included in any associated capital project budget in order to ensure that this burden is not simply transferred to on-going maintenance where it could only be accomplished at the expense of other, programmed, high priority maintenance actions. However, it should be recognized that the majority of the stabilization and restoration work will not be funded as capital projects. Thus maintenance costs will have to be met with an increase to the operating budget of the Landscape Management Office. For the purposes of this estimate, the establishment period budget has been calculated at 30% of the cost of installation, 15% in year one, 10% year two, and 5% year three. (We don't understand these figures.) This figure is comparable to what a contractor would charge for a three year maintenance guarantee on plant material. This would be added to the on-going maintenance calculations which are perceived as relatively constant, and would still be necessary such as trash clean-up during the establishment period. 4. ON-GOING MANAGEMENT On-going maintenance is perhaps the most difficult to quantify, in part because so little has actually been done in the past. Woodlands and other natural area parklands throughout the country were, for the most part, abandoned by managers who could not keep up with the maintenance even on turf and facilities. Another hurdle is a general lack of awareness of the fact that urban natural areas actually require a relatively high degree of management to make up for lost natural functions. Fragmented woodlands, poorly connected to other larger natural areas, do not have adequate seed exchange for example because of reduced wildlife and other restrictions. People, instead, must deliberately gather and distribute seed and other propagules. In addition the sheer numbers of people using this landscape necessitate a degree of continuous care and repair. Even when all the identified corrective measures are undertaken and the infrastructure is complete and appropriate, maintenance will be required. The Landscape Management Office is preparing an in-house document that would estimate the annual maintenance costs for the Natural Areas of the Park. It is hoped that this document will be ready to publish and release simultaneously with this document. The appendices that follow contain a cost estimate for the initial stabilization and restoration measures, and a plant list of recommended species. A Landscape Management Plan for the Natural Areas of Prospect Park

APPENDIX I-Preliminary Opinions of Probable Construction Cost

I '

A Landscape Management Plan for the Natural Areas of Prospect Park

.' .......

A Landscape Management Plan for the Natural Areas of Prospect Park

APPENDIX II-Species List This species list is the product of research conducted by the Landscape Management Office of Prospect Park. It represents to the best of the Office's knowledge the species which would have been found in this part of Long Island prior to European Colonial settlement. This list was derived from several sources including Harper, Greller, Taylor, Beitel and the Natural Resources Group. Steve Clements, plant taxonomist at the Brooklyn Botanical Garden, was consulted in the process of preparing this list. In addition the Natural Resources Crew of Prospect Park, Ainsley Caldwell, Ann Wong, and Derwin Cornell provided input based on their on-going stabilization efforts of the Natural Areas of Prospect Park. Dennis Burton, the Manager of the Woodlands Program of Central Park also provided input on the selection of species for erosion control. The list is arranged by habitat, including xeric, mesophytic, swamp, marsh, meadow and aquatic conditions. To varying degrees all of these habitat conditions are represented within the bounds of Prospect Park. A distinction is made between habitats dominated by species associated with the vegetation type, 'Eastern Deciduous Forest', found on upland morainal soils, and habitats dominated by species associated with the vegetation type, 'Coastal Plains', found on soils of the outwash plain. From an overview of the topography of the Park, one would expect the majority of the Forest Core/Natural Area to be located on soils of the morainal uplands. However before the Landscape Management Office selects species for a site which is to be stabilized, it will conduct a soil test of the site to guide the selection of species. A long-term goal of the Landscape Management Office should be to produce a habitat map of the Park based on topography and a comprehensive soil survey of the Park. An attempt was made to list the species in order of their relative abundance per habitat type. The term abundance refers not specifically to numbers, but to relative importance in the structure of the habitat type. Although the list is made in the relative order of dominance for all the plant types, (i.e. Canopy Trees, Understory Trees, Shrubs, and Herbaceous), the importance of the order in any stabilization/restoration effort should be adhered to closely only for the list of Canopy Trees per habitat type. The Landscape Management Office is less certain of the order of abundance of the other plant types, (i.e. Understory Trees, Shrubs, and Herbaceous) because the order represents a compilation of two or three lists from different sources. These sources should be consulted before plants are chosen for a stabilization/restoration site. The list could simply have been made in alphabetical order, however this would not provide the Landscape Management with an understanding of the structure of the Natural Areas by habitat type. The same species can be found in several different habitat types. What differs is the relative dominance of the species by habitat type. This list represents an ideal as many of the species are not to be found in commercial nurseries. The Natural Resources Crew of the Landscape Management Office has been operating a native plant nursery to grow plants for use in its stabilization efforts. A Landscape Management Plan for the Natural Areas of Prospect Park

Hopefully, this list will guide the Natural Resources Crew to expand the variety of plant species which it is propagating. These efforts are by nature an experimentation as there are few sources of information available on the propagation of native species. The process is one of trial and error. In addition as with other natural restoration efforts across the country, it is hoped that such projects will encourage commercial nurseries to expand their selection of native plants. (The Botanical Names of the species listed below is based on the nomenclature used in the reference: Manual of Vascular Plants of Northeastern United States and Adjacent Canada: Second Edition by Henry A. Gleason and Arthur Cronquist. 36 )

36(Gleason, Henry A. and Cronquist, Arthur; Manual Qf Vascular Plants of Nonheastem United States and Adjacent

Canllila; Second Edition; N.Y. Botanical Garden, Bronx, New York; 1991) A Landscape Management Plan for the Natural Areas of Prospect Park

XERIC WOODLAND (Morainal Lands -A hardwood forest that occurs on well-drained sites, usually on ridgetops, upper slopes, or south- and west-facing slopes. The soils are usually loarns or sandy loams.)37 Canopy Trees Quercus rubra Quercus velutina Quercus alba Betula len ta Fagus grandifolia Liriodendron tulipifera Quercus coccinea Acerrubrum Carya tomentosa Carya glabra Liquidambar styraciflua Sassifras albidum Acer saccharum Quercus palustris Ulmus americana

Red Oak Black Oak WhiteOak Sweet Birch American Beech Tuliptree Scarlet Oak Red Maple Mockernut Hickory Pignut Hickory Sweet Gum Sassafras Sugar Maple Pin Oak American Elm

Understory Trees Comus florida Ostrya virginiana Amelanchier canadensis Amelanchier laevis Comus alternifolia Betula populifolia

Flowering Dogwood American Hophornbeam Shadblow Serviceberry Allegheny Serviceberry Pagoda Dogwood Gray Birch

Shrubs Viburnum acerifolium Viburnum prunifolium Rubus alleghensis Rubus occidentalis Corylus americana Rosa caroliniana

Mapleleaf Viburnum Blackhaw Viburnum Common Blackberry Black Raspberry American Hazel-nut Pasture Rose

Herbaceous Aster divaricatus Solidago caesia Solidago rugosa Geranium maculatum Maienthemum canadense Polygonatum pubescens

White Woodland Aster Woodland Goldenrod Rough-stemmed Goldenrod Wild Geranium Canada Mayflower Hairy Solomon's Seal

37(Natural Resources Group, p. 25) A Landscape Management Plan for the Natural Areas of Prospect Park

Smilacina racemosa Thelypteris novaboracensis Uvularia sessilifolia Polystichum acrostichoides Polyganatum biflorum Lysimachia quadrifolia Potentilla canadensis Juncoides campestre Aster macrophyllus Aster cordifolius Aralia nudicaulis Carex digitalis Scrophularia spp. Carex virescens

False Solomon's Seal New York Fern Sessile-leaved Bellwort Christmas Fern Smooth Solomon's Seal Whorled Loosestrife Dwarf Cinquefoil (nomenclature unknown) Big-leaved Aster Common Blue Heart-leaved Aster Wild SarsapariIla Sedge Figwort species Sedge

MESOPHYTIC WOODLAND (Morainal lands -A hardwood or mixed forest that occurs on rich, moist well-drained soils which are favorable for the dominance of a wide variety of tree species.)38 Oversto!:Y Trees Liriodendron tuli pifera Fagus grandifolia Quercus rubra Acerrubrum Betula lenta Carya glabra Carya tomentosa Quercus velutina Quercus palustris Acer saccharum Fraxinus americana Liquidambar styraciflua Quercus alba Sassafras albidum Robinia pseudoacacia Diospyros virginiana Tilia americana Tsuga canadensis Pinus strobus

Tuliptree American Beech Red Oak Red Maple Sweet Birch Pignut Hickory Mockernut Hickory Black Oak Pin Oak Sugar Maple American Ash Sweet Gum WhiteOak Sassafras Black Locust Common Persimmon Basswood Hemlock White Pine

Understory Trees Comus florida Arnelanchier canadensis Arnelanchier laevis

Flowering Dogwood Shad blow Serviceberry Allegheny Serviceberry

38(Ibid.; p. 27) A Landscape Management Plan for the Natural Areas of Prospect Park

Ostrya virginiana Carpinus caroliniana Ilex opaca Comus alternifolia Hamamelis virginiana

American Hophornbeam Ironwwod American Holly Pagoda Dogwood Witch-hazel

Shrubs Viburnum acerifolium Rubus alleghensis Sambucus canadensis Rubus occidentalis Lindera benzoin Viburnum dentatum Vitis riparia

Maple-leafed Dogwood Common Blackberry Common Elder Black Raspberry Spicebush Arrowwood Viburnum Riverbank Grape

Herbaceous Osmunda claytoniana Thelypteris hexagonoptera Thelypteris noveboracensis Athyrium filix-femina Allium tricoccum Trillium erectum Arisaema triphyllum Geranium maculatum Polygonum virginianum Actaea alba Thalictrum pubescens Erythronium americanum Polygonatum biflorum Smilacina racemosa Maianthemum canadense Aralia nudicaulis Monotropa uniflora Dryopteris intermedia Polystichum acrostichoides Geranium robertianum Medeola virginiana Isotria verticillata Goodyera pubescens Anemonella thalictroides Aquilegia canadensis Phytolacca americana Aster divaricatus Collinsonia canadensis

Interrupted Fern Broad Fern New York Fern Lady Fern Wild Leek Purple Trillium Small Jack-in-the-Pulpit Wild Geranium Jumpseed White Baneberry Tall Meadow-rue Trout Lily Smooth Solomon's Seal False Solomon'S Seal Canada Mayflower Wild Sarsaparilla Indian Pipe Wood-fern Christmas Fern Herb Robert Indian Cucumber Root Whorled Pogonias Downy Rattlesnake Plantain Rue-anemone Canada Columbine Pokeweed White Woodland Aster Northern Horse-balm

A Landscape Management Plan for the Natural Areas of Prospect Park

KETILE PONDS AND SWAMPS (Morainal lands -Found in depressions left from the glacial period on poorly drained peat and muck soils. One or two tree species typically dominate a stand.)39 Canopy Trees Liquidambar styraciflua Quercus palustris Quercus rubra Acerrubrum Sassafras albidum Betula lenta Quercus velutina Carya glabra Nyssa sylvatica Platanus occidentalis Quercus bicolor Fraxinus americana Liriodendron tulipifera Ulmus americana

Sweet Gum Pin Oak Red Oak Red Maple Sassafras Sweet Birch Black Oak Pignut Hickory Sour Gum American Sycamore Swamp White Oak American Ash Tuliptree American Elm

Understory trees Carpinus caroliniana

Ironwood

Shrubs Clethra alnifolia Eubotrys racemosa Viburnum den tatum Vaccinium corymbosum Rhododendron viscosum Lindera benzoin Decodon verticillatus

Sweet Pepper-bush Fetterbush Arrowwood Viburnum Highbush-blueberry Swamp Honeysuckle Spicebush Swamp Loosestrife

Herbaceous Symplocarpus foetidus Peltandra virginica Osmunda cinnamomea Polygonatum biflorum OnocJea sensibilis Osmunda regalis Maianthemum canadense Rubus hispidus

Skunk-cabbage Arrow-arum Cinnamon Fern Smooth Solomon's Seal Sensitive Fern Royal Fern Canada Mayflower Swamp Dewberry

39(Greller, Andrew M., 1975, p. 64.) (Greller; "Major Forest Types on Long Island;" Unpublished table from course Biology 617 taught at Queen's College, C.U.N.Y. Flushing, N.Y. 11367; obtained through Steve Clcmants of the Brooklyn Botanical Garden)

A Landscape Management Plan for the Natural Areas of Prospect Park

XERIC WOODS (Outwash Plain - The soil in the Xeric Woods of the Outwash Plain is sandy, gravelly, very porous, generally with a thin top layer of organic material such as leaves, twigs, etc. 40) Canopy Trees Quercus velutina Quercus alba Quercus coccinea Carya glabra Quercus prinus Sassafras albidum Carya tomentosa Quercus rubra Populus grandidentata Betula populifolia

Black Oak WhiteOak Scarlet Oak Pignut Hickory Chestnut Oak Sassafras Mockernut Hickory Red Oak Bigtooth Aspen Gray Birch

Understory Trees Cornus florida

Flowering Dogwood.

Shrubs Vaccinium pallidum Gaylussacia baccata Myrica heterophylla Rosa virginiana Myrica pennsylvanica Viburnum acerifolium

Hillside-blueberry Black Huckleberry Southern Bayberry Virginia Rose Northern Bayberry Maple-leaved Viburnum

40(Hostek, Albert; Native and Near Native, An Introduction to Long Island Plants, Where to See Them, How to Use Them; Copyright, The Environmental Centers of Setauket-Smithtown, Inc.; Shannon and Sons, Inc. Ronkonkoma, N.Y.; 1976; p. 34 A Landscape Management Plan for the Natural Areas of Prospect Park

Aster paternus Pteridium aquilinum Solidago juncea Helianthemum spp. Galium circaezans Agrimonia spp. Desmodium paniculatum Antennaria plantaginifolia Aster patens Desmodium rigidum Lespedeza hirta Eupatorium sessilifolium Carex vestita Anemone quinquefolia Deschampsia flexuosa Anthoxanthum odoratum Lysimachia quadrifolia Maienthemum canadense

Toothed White-topped Aster Bracken Fern Early Goldenrod Frostweed Species Forest Bedstraw Agrimony Species Tick-trefoil Plantain Pussy toes Clasping Aster Stiff Tick-trefoil Hairy Lespedeza Upland Boneset Sedge Wood Anemone Hairgrass Sweet Vernal Grass Whorled Loosestrife Canada Mayflower

MESOPHYTIC WOODS (Outwash Plain - Moist woodlands in which a rich, deep, loamy soil predominates. Soils of this nature contain more humus or organic matter, composed of fallen leaves and woodland debris, than the soil of the xeric wOOdS. 41 ) Canopy Trees Liriodendron tulipifera Sassafras albidum Quercus rubra Quercus velutina Carya tomentosa Acerrubrum Nyssa sylvatica Quercus palustris

Tuliptree Sassafras Red Oak Black Oak Mockernut Hickory Red Maple Sour Gum Pin Oak

Understory Trees Cornus florida

Flowering Dogwood

Shrubs Viburnum acerifolium Lindera benzoin Rubus allegheniensis Sambucus canadensis

Maple-leaved Viburnum Spicebush Common Blackberry Common Elder

41Ibid.; p. 47)

A Landscape Management Plan for the Natural Areas of Prospect Park

Herbaceous Smilacina racemosa Lysimachia quadrifolia Solidago caesia Geranium macula tum Aster divaricatus Amphicarpaea bracteata Desmodium nudiflora Collinsonia canadensis Silene stellata Veronicastrum virginicum Smilax herbacea Circaea lutetiana Sanicula marilandica Polygonatum biflorum Prenanthes spp. Eupatorium sessilifolium Juncoides campestre Desmodium cuspidatum

False Solomon's Seal Whorled Loosestrife Woodland Goldenrod Wild Geranium White Woodland Aster Hog-peanut Naked Tick-trefoil Northern Horse-Balm Starry Campion Culver's Root Herbaceous Catbrier Common Enchanter's Nightshade Black Snakeroot Smooth Solomon's Seal White Lettuce Species Upland Boneset (nomenclature unknown) Big Tick-trefoil

HARDWOOD SWAMP (Outwash Plain - Wooded wetland dominated by Red Maple (Acer rubrum) and Sour Gum (Nyssa sylvatica) with sub-acidic pH. Well-developed canopy and shrub layer. Soil moist to saturated, with much organic matter. Develops in areas with impeded drainage or where water table is at ground level along river's ponds and springs. Water supply continuous all year. Often transitional between marsh and oak-hickory or pine barrens. Many ferns and other herbs, as well as mosses and Iiverworts.)42 Canopy Trees Acerrubrum Nyssa sylvatica Liquidambar styraciflua Quercus palustris Quercus bicolor Fraxinus americana Liriodendron tulipifera Ulmus americana Sassafras albidum

Red Maple Sour Gum Sweet Gum Pin Oak Swamp White Oak White Ash Tuliptree American Elm Sassafras

Shrubs Clethra alnifolia Eubotrys racemosa Rhododendron viscosum

Sweet Pepper-bush Fetterbush Swamp Honeysuckle

42(Beitel, Joseph; Unpublished notes on the vegetation of Long Island from deceased employee of the New York Botanical Garden;)

A Landscape Management Plan for the Natural Areas of Prospect Park

Vaccinium corymbosum Magnolia virginiana Viburnum den tatum Lindera benzoin Aronia melanocarpa Aronia arbutifolia llex verticillata Alnus incana Gaylussacia frondosa Sambucus canadensis Herbaceous . Osmunda cinnamomae Osmunda regalis Dryopteris intermedia Dryopteris cristata Onoc1ea sensibilis Woodwardia areolata Thelypteris simulata Lycopodium obscurum Symplocarpus foetidus Maienthemum canadense Caltha palustris Rubus hispidus Lobelia cardinalis Lilium superbum

Highbush Blueberry Sweetbay Magnolia Arrowwood Viburnum Spicebush Black Chokeberry Red Chokeberry Winterberry Speckled Alder Black Huckleberry Common Elder Cinnamon Fern Royal Fern Wood-fern Crested Wood-fern Sensitive Fern Netted Chain Fern Massachusetts Fern Tree Clubmoss Skunk Cabbage Canada Mayflower Marsh Marigold Swamp Dewberry Cardinal Flower Turk's-Cap Lily

FLOODPLAIN FOREST (Morainal lands or Outwash Plain - A hardwood forest that occurs on mineral soils in the lowlands of river floodplains and river deltas. These sites are characterized by their flood regime; low areas are annually flooded in spring and high areas are flooded irregularly.) Canopy Trees Acer negundo Acer saccharinum Salix nigra Acerrubrum Fraxinus americana Liquidambar styraciflua Nyssa sylvatica Platanus occidentalis Quercus bicolor Quercus palustris Tilia americana

Box Elder Silver Maple Black Willow Red Maple White Ash Sweet Gum Sour Gum American Sycamore Swamp White Oak Pin Oak Basswood

A Landscape Management Plan for the Natural Areas of Prospect Park

Understory Trees Carpinus caroliniana

Ironwood

Shrubs Alnus spp. Cephalanthus occidentalis Aronia arbutifolia Clethra alnifolia Comus amomum Hex verticillata Kalmia angustifolia Lyonia ligustrina Rhododendron viscosum Rosa palustris Sambucus canadensis Vaccinium corymbosum Decodon verticillatus

Alder species Buttonbush Red Chokeberry Sweet Pepperbush Silky Dogwood Winterberry Sheep Laurel Maleberry Swamp Honeysuckle Swamp Rose Common Elder Highbush-blueberry Swamp Loosestrife

Herbaceous Impatiens capensis Poa palustris Equisetum arvense Viola cucullata Cuscuta spp. Onoclea sensibilis Osmunda cinnamomae Calamagrostis canadensis Carex crini ta Carex pensylvanica Carex vulpinoides Deschampsia cespitosa Juncus canadensis Scripus atrovirens Asclepias incarnata Aster novae-angliae Aster novi-belgii Caltha palustris Chelone glabra Eupatorium macula tum Eupatorium perfoliatum Eupatorium rugosum Helianthus angustifolius Lobelia cardinalis Lobelia siphilitica Penstemon digitalis Rudbeckia triloba

A Landscape Management Plan for the Natural Areas of Prospect Park

Tradescantia virginiana Vernonia noveboracensis

Spiderwort New York Ironweed

MARSH - (Morainal lands or Outwash Plain - open wetland community along ponds, rivers, bogs and undrained depressions. Dominated by grass-like plants, trees usually absent, shrubs along margins. Experiences a series of successional stages form shrub to swamp to woodland. High soil moisture, much organic material, usually acidic pH.)43 Graminoids Typha latifolia Typha angustifolia Carex stricta Zizania aquatica Iris versicolor Acorus calamus

Common Cat-Tail Narrow-leaved Cat-Tail Saw-Grass Wild Rice Blue Flag Sweet Flag

Herbaceous Thelypteris palustris Onoc1eis sensibilis Lysimachia terrestris Aesc1epias incarnata Lycopus virginicus Scutellaria laterifloria Eupatorium perfoliatum Impatiens capensis Juncus effusus Juncus acuminatus Eleocharis ovata Sparganium androc1adum Lysimachia ciliata Lysimachia hybrid a

Marsh Fern Sensitive Fern Swamp Candles Swamp Milkweed Water Horehound Skullcap Boneset Touch-me-not Soft Rush Rush Blunt Spike-rush Bur-reed Fringed Loosestrife Mississippi-valley Loosestrife

Shrubs Alnus spp. Ilex verticillata Rhododendron viscosum Chamaedaphne calyculata Aronia melanocarpa Cephalanthus occidentalis

Alder species Winterberry Swamp Honeysuckle Leatherleaf Black Chokeberry Buttonbush

4\Beitel) A Landscape Management Plan for the Natural Areas of Prospect Park

MEADOW (Morainal lands or Outwash Plain -Open condition without trees of secondary succession on well-drained, sandy, acidic soil. Dominated by clump-forming sedges and grasses.)44 Graminoids Andropogon scoparius Panicum virgatum Sorghastum nutans Andropogon virginicus Andropogon gerardii

Little Blue-stem Switch Grass Indian Grass Broom-sedge Tall Blue-stem

Butterfly-weed New England Aster Field Thistle Boneset Sneezeweed Purple-headed Sneezeweed Hairy Beard-tongue . Hoary Mountain Mint Mountain Mint Black-eyed Susan Gray Goldenrod Sweet Goldenrod

WOODLAND EDGE (Morainal lands or Outwash Plain - Open conditions on the edge of woods that grade into areas of meadow.) Canopy Trees Betula populifolia

Gray Birch

Understory Trees Amelanchier canadensis Amelanchier laevis Carpinus caroliniana Comus florida Ostrya virginiana

Shadblow Serviceberry Allegheny Serviceberry Ironwood Flowering Dogwood American Hophombeam

Shrubs Aronia arbutifolia Ceanothus americanus Comus racemosa Corylus americana

Red Chokeberry New Jersey Tea Gray Dogwood Hazelnut

44(Beilel)

A Landscape Management Plan for the Natural Areas of Prospect Park

Rhusglabra Rubus odorata Sambucus canadensis Spirea latifolia Vaccinium vacillans Viburnum lentago Viburnum prunifolium

Smooth Sumac Purple Flowering Raspberry Elderberry Meadowsweet Late Low Blueberry Nannyberry Blackhaw Viburnum

Herbaceous Aster laevis Penstemon digitalis Helianthus divaricatus

Smooth Aster Hairy Beard-tongue Woodland Sunflower

AQUATICS (In Running Water) Submerged Rooted Aquatics Isoetes engelmanni Isoetes tuckermanni ValJisneria americana Elodea canadensis Potarnogeton spirodela

Quillwort Quillwort Tapegrass Waterweed Pond weeds

AQUATICS (In Quiet Bodies of Water) Floating Unrooted Aquatics Lemna minor Spirodella polyrrhiza Utricularia purpurea Utricularia vulgaris

Common Duckweed Greater Duckweed Spotted Bladderwort Common Bladderwort

Submerged Rooted Aquatics Isoetes engelmanni Isoetes tuckermanni Vallisneria americana Elodea canadensis Potarneogeton spirodela

Quillwort Quillwort Tapegrass Waterweed Pond weeds

Floating Rooted Aquatics (warm quiet muddy-bottomed lakes and rivers) Nyrnphaea odorata White Waterlilly Nuphar spp. Yellow Pond Lilly Callitriche heterophylla Water Starweed Emergent Rooted Aquatics Sagittaria latifolia Sparganium americanum

Arrowhead Bur Reed

A Landscape Management Plan for the Natural Areas of Prospect Park

Pontederia cordata Eriocaulon septugulare Acorus calamus Hibiscus moscheutos Iris versicolor Peltandra virginica Scirpus americanus Typha latifolia Typha angustifolia

Pickerel weed Seven-angled Pipewort Sweet Flag Rose-mallow Blue Flag Arrow-arum Threesquare Bulrush Common Cat-tail Narrow-leaved Cat-tail

Arrowwood Viburnum Spicebush

Herbaceous Aster divaricatus Solidago caesia Heuchera americana Eupatorium rugosum Aster cordifolius Aster laevis Penstemon digitalis

White Woodland Aster Blue-stem Goldenrod Allum root White Snakeroot Heart-leaved Aster Smooth Aster Beard Tongue

A Landscape Management Plan for the Natural Areas of Prospect Park

GENERAL NOTES Differences between the species of the morainal lands and the area of the outwash plain were noted in two articles written by Roland Harper in 1917 entitled, "The Native Plant Population of Northern Queen's County, Long Island", and "The Natural Vegetation of Western Long Island South of the Terminal Moraine."45 Two general differences in the vegetation are that south of the terminal moraine in the outwash plain, 41 % of the shrubs belong to the Ericaceae and allied families (Clethracea and Vacciniaceae), and 8% of the herbaceous species are leguminous. 46 On morainal lands and north of the moraine only 15 % of the shrubs belong to the Ericaceae and allied families, and there are few leguminous plants.47 Harper notes a reason for the probable scarcity of leguminous plants on morainal lands as their aversion to humus, which is more abundant in this area. 48 Harper also notes that three tree species, which are common just north of the moraine, are rare or wanting in the outwash plain: Betula lenta (Sweet Birch), Fagus grandifolia (American Beech) and Liquidambar styraciflua (Sweet Gum).49 A common characteristic of the vegetation of each area is the scarcity of evergreen tree species, about 1 % for each area. 50 Harper notes the following species as more abundant in the morainal lands and north of the moraine than the unglaciated portion of the outwash plain.

Ir.e.es Liriodendron tulipifera Liquidambar styraciflua Ulmus americana Quercus bicolor

Tulip Tree Sweet Gum American Elm Swamp White Oak

Small Trees Viburnum prunifolium Carpinus caroliniana

Blackhaw Viburnum Ironwood

Vines Toxicodendron radicans Celastrus scandens

Poison Ivy American Bittersweet

45(Harper, Roland M.; "The Native Plant Population of Northern Queen's County Long Island"; Torreya: Vol. 17, No.8, Aug. 1917, pp. 131路143) (Harper, Roland M.; "The Natural Vegetation of Western Long Island South of the Tenninal Moraine"; Torreya;Vol. 17, No. I, Jan. 1917, pp. 1路13) 46(Harper; Jan. 1917; p. 11) 47(Harper, Aug. 1917,p.138) 48(1bid.) 49(Harper, Jan.1917, p.12 50(Harper; Aug. 1917, p. 137路138 and Harper, Jan. 1917, p.13)

A Landscape Management Plan for the Natural Areas of Prospect Park

Shrubs Rubus alleghenensis Decodon verticillatus Viburnum den tatum Sambucus canadensis Lindera benzoin Rubus occidentalis Herbaceous Aster divaricatus Geranium macula tum Osmorhiza longistylis Arisaema triphyllum Fa1cata comosa Carexrosea Osmorhiza claytonii Polygonum virginianum Allium tricoccum Circaea lutetiana Thelypteris noveboracensis Juncoides campestre

Common Blackberry Swamp Loosestrife Arrowwood Viburnum Common Elder Spicebush Black Raspberry White Woodland Aster Wild Geranium Long-styled Sweet Cicely Small Jack-in-the-Pulpit (nomenclature unknown - probably Amphicarpaea bracteata) Sedge Bland Sweet Cicely Jumpseed Wild Leek Common Enchanter's Nightshade New York Fern (nomenclature unknown)

WhiteOak Mockernut Hickory Red Maple Scarlet Oak Chestnut Oak

Small Trees Betula populifolia Populus grandidentata

Gray Birch Bigtooth Aspen

Vines Vitis aestivalis Smilax rotundifolia Rubus hispidus Lonicera sempervirens

Summer Grape Catbrier Swamp Dewberry Trumpet honeysuckle

Shrubs Vaccinium pallidum Clethra alnifolia

Hillside-blueberry Sweet Pepper-bush

A Landscape Management Plan for the Natural Areas of Prospect Park

Gaylussaccia baccata Myrica heterophylla Iva frutescens Toxicodendron vernix Gaylussaccia frondosa

Black Huckleberry Southern Bayberry Maritime Marsh-elder Poison Sumac Black Huckleberry

A Landscape Management Plan for the Natural Areas of Prospect Park

BIBLIOGRAPHY Beitel, Joseph; Unpublished notes on the vegetation of Long Island from deceased employee of the New York Botanical Garden Bonsteel, Jay A. and Party; Soil Survey of the Long Island Area. New York; U.s. Department of Agriculture, Washington,Gov\. Printing Office, 1904 Fuller, Myron L.; The Geology of Long Island. New York; U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper, No. 82, 231 p.; 1914 Gleason, Henry A. and Cronquist, Arthur; Manual of Vascular Plants of Northeastern United States and Adjacent Canada; Second Edition; N.Y. Botanical Garden, Bronx, New York; 1991 Greller; Andrew M.; "Persisting Natural Vegetation in Northern Queens County, New York, with Proposals for its Conservation"; Env. Cons. vol. 2, no. 1; pp. 61-68; Spring 1975, Greller, Andrew M.; "A Vascular Flora of the Forested Portion of Cunningham Park, Queens County, New York, with notes on the vegetation"; Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. vol. 104, no. 2, pp. 170176; Apr. June 1977 Greller, Andrew M.; "A Classification of Mature Forests on Long Island, New York"; Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. vol. 104, no.4, pp.376-382 Greller, Andrew M., Calhoon, Robert E. and Mansky, James M.; "Grace Forest, A Mixed Mesophytic Stand on Long Island, New York"; Botanical Gazette;vol. 139(4); pp. 482-489; The University of Chicago;1978 Greller, Andrew M., Calhoon, Robert E. and Iglich, Esther; "The Upland, Oak-dominated Community of Forest Park, Queens County, New York; Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. Vol. 106, No.2, pp. 135139, April-June 1979 Greller, Andrew M., Mansky, James M. and Calhoon, Robert E.; "An Oak, Hickory-Dogwood Foreset on Central Long Island, New York"; Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. vol. 109, no. 2, pp. 219-225; AprilJune 1982 Greller, Andrew M.; "Vascular Flora of the Kalbfleisch Field Research Station of the American Museum of Natural History, Suffolk County, Long Island, New York"; Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. vol. 116, no. 2, pp. 174-181; 1989 Greller, Andrew M., Locke, David c., Kilanowski, Victoria and Lotowycz, G. Elizabeth; "Changes in Vegetation Composition and Soil Acidity between 1922 and 1985 at a Site on the North Shore of Long Island, New York"; Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club: vol. 117, no. 4, pp. 450-458, 1990 Greller; "Major Forest Types on Long Island;" Unpublished table from course Biology 617 taught at Queen's College, C.U.N.Y. Flushing, N.Y. 11367; obtained through Steve Clemants of the Brooklyn Botanical Garden Harper, Roland M.; "The Natural Vegetation of Western Long Island South of the Terminal Moraine"; Torreya; Vol. 17 No.1, Jan. 1917

A Landscape Management Plan for the Natural Areas of Prospect Park

Historic Documents archived in Prop sect Park Administrator's Office Publications; Annual Reports of the Commissioners of Prospect Park. (#s 1-13), 1861-1873. Single bound original plus separate soft cover edition of Eigth Annual Report (1867-8). Annual Reports of the Brooklyn Park Commisioners. (#s 14-25), 1874-1886. Bound originals (1874,1881, 1884, 1886). Bound facsimiles of all. Annual Reports of the City of Brooklyn Department of Parks. (#s 25-37),1887-1898. Bound originals (1887,1889-1892, bound as one 1895-98). Bound facsimiles of all. 1908 Annual Report of the City of New York. Department of Parks. Pect, Louis Harmon. Trees and Shrubs of Prospect Park. New York, 1902, 1906. Prospect Park Centennial Committee. Prospect Park 1866-1966. Produced by Chilton Ryan. Lancaster, Clay. Prospect Park Handbook. New York, Greensward Foundation, Inc. 1967, 1988. Toth, Edward. An Ecosystem Approach to Woodland Management: The Case of Prospect Park. National Association for Olmsted Parks Workbook Series, Volume 2 Technical Notes. Bethesda, Md, 1991. Unpublished Historic Landscape Reports for Litchfield Villa, Grace Hill, The Long Meadow, Perimeter and Lake. Drawings (aside from those which appear in the reports);

Olmsted, Vaux and Co., Design Plans, 1866 - 1867, 1869 (paper copy), 1874 (mylar enlarged to 200 scale). Olmsted, Vaux and Co., Brooklyn Park Planting Map for the Southern Part of the Long Meadow. "Map showing Progress of the Works Indicated Below up to January 1, 1868" (paper orignial, mounted and framed). 1868 Enlargement of the Children's Playground Vincinity with 1895 penciled notes (tracing of original from Fairsted). "Plan of Prospect Park Brooklyn, NY 1888, Charles Woodruff Delinear" (mylar enlargement at 200 scale and mylar at 50 scale, 14 sheets). "Prospect Park, Borough of Brooklyn, New York City 1901" (vellum copy). "Map of Prospect Park, Borough of Brooklyn, New York City 1909" (paper copy). Partial Layout and Utilities Plan, c. 1920 from Borough President's Office. Topographical Map of Prospect Park, Borough of Brooklyn, May - November 1935 (sepia mylar).

A Landscape Management Plan for the Natural Areas of Prospect Park

Topographical Map of Propsect Park, Borough of Brooklyn, April 1980 (sepia mylar). A series of Plans, all 200 scale, showing plant and soil conditions, 1992-1993 (all paper). Miscellaneous;

Numerous letters from the Library of Congress (Papers of Frederick Law Olmsted). An 1866 List of the species found on site. An undated (1860's?) list of species to be viewed from walks.

Photographs: Over 400 views including 8xl0 Parks Department originals from the 1920's and 1930's, and new 8xl0 views in several collections (Library of Congress, New York Historical, Brooklyn Historical, New York and Brooklyn Public Libraries, Museum of the City of New York, etc.), postcards, and photocopies of others, such as the Mitchell Stereoscopic views.

A Landscape Management Plan for the Natural Areas of Prospect Park