Waste Manage Res 1999 17 51I-519 Copynght © ISWA 1999

Pnnted In UK - all nghts reserved Waste Management 8~ Research

ISSN 0734-242X

Restoration of landfill sites for ecological diversity

Agricultural grassland is still the most common after-use for Elizabeth Simmons BSc MSc M Inst WM
landfill sites. This paper examines reasons for considering Aspinwall & Co Ltd, Sanderson House, Horsforth, Leeds, UK
alternative after-uses. Opportunities for increasing
Keywords - Aftercare, biodiversity; conservation; diversity,
biodiversity should be taken wherever possible and landfill ecology, habitat, landfill; restoration
restoration can assist this objective if the correct techniques

are used. The paper outlines practical techniques for

achieving ecological diversity through landfill restoration

aimed after-uses that include nature conservation and
at

amenity. It emphasises the importance of predevelopment

ecological surveys of both species and habitat characteristics.
This will identify the essential characteristics of the habitat
to be re-created. The suitability and application of a full

range of techniques from non-intervention, through

techniques that combine intervention and natural
development, to habitat creation are described.
Techniques for creation and aftercare of species-rich
grassland, heathland and wetland habitats are included.
The application of such techniques to landfill restoration is
assessed using the practical experience of the author. The
advisability of planting trees on landfill sites is explored with
reference to research carried out by the UK Forestry
Commission. The different constraints placed upon landfill
restoration as compared with mineral site restoration and the
Corresponding author Elizabeth Simmons, Aspmwall & Co
effect of these constraints on restoration for ecological Ltd, Sanderson House, Station Road, Horsforth, Leeds LS 188
diversity are described. 5NT, UK Email elizabeth simmons@enviros com

Introduction Agriculture is not always the most suitable after-use for

landfill sites. On many sites the lack of suitable available
In the past, landfill usually been restored to
sites have soils for restoration may make successful agricultural
grassland, either for agriculture or public open space for restoration difficult if not impossible. Agricultural restora-

casual recreation. For the most part, this is still true today: tion should be evaluated in the light of current and

pasture agriculture tends to predominate in rural locations
with public open space in urban areas. In the past 10 years m
the UK there has been an increasing public interest m ‘green’
issues which has been reflected in government support. Not
least of these has been an understanding of the need to
protect and enhance ecological diversity.
anticipated demand for restored agricultural land within the
locality. In many areas there is no need for further
agricultural land, especially if that land is of low productivity
and requires significant inorganic fertilizer applications each
year to maintain productivity. There are practical difficulties
to agricultural restoration that may indicate the need to

511
 consider alternative after-uses. The impact of settlement,
landfill gas and leachate control systems is potentially greater
on agricultural after-use - particularly arable and productive
grassland - than on other after-use sites.
Landfill sites are often located m areas where alternative
after-uses are most welcome. The increased demand for
amenity land for public enjoyment and passive recreation
~ means that for many sites, especially those near to urban
.
areas, a restoration that provides an attractive settmg for
_
such pursuits is most suitable. Many local authorities have
nature conservation strategies or plans that identify sites of
nature conservation importance and habitats which are
worthy of protection within their area. The importance and
even location of ’green corridors’ connecting areas of wildlife
value may also be identified.
Landfill restoration for ecological diversity can respond to
these local objectives and aspirations, and thereby make a
positive contribution to the locality m which the landfill is
situated. It can also help to make the landfill development
less unacceptable to the local population.
Advantages of alternative after-uses
There are distmct advantages to restoring landfill sites to
nature conservation after-use sites m addition to increasing
ecological diversity.
Visual amenity
One of the principal objectives of restoration is to improve
the appearance of the site and make its location a more
attractive place to lme, work and invest m. Expenence has
shown that a restoration scheme giving a bland, featureless
green space does not meet these objectives, and is more
likely tobecome abused and degraded than a site restored to
include areas of mterest.
Sites restored with an abundance of wildflowers, shrubs
and trees present a more attractive appearance than species-
~ poor grassland, and thereby contribute to the visual amenity
of the area (Simmons 1990). Such sites will also help to
encourage a greater awareness of the importance of the
environment and nature conservation.
Soil conditions
Nature conservation after-uses require less demanding soil
conditions than agriculture, and on sites where there is little
or no on-site soil, nature conservation is a very cost-effective
alternative to importing significant quantities of subsoil and
topsoil for restoration. Nature conservation after-uses can be
512
successfully established on soil profiles that are much
shallower than for agriculture use, which needs a total
depth of over 1 m of soil, mcludmg up to 250 mm of topsoil.
Ecological diversity is improved with the use of infertile soils
such as subsoil and soil-formmg materials.
Nature after-use may also encourage the use
conservation
of previously derelict land (which has no soils for
restoration) for waste disposal, thus promoting the beneficial
re-use of this land. The income derived from landfillmg may
also fund the reclamation of such sites which might
otherwise remain derelict for years.
Landscape design
Good agricultural restoration should include the creation of
an agricultural landscape, not just agncultural land. This is
usually a fairly structured landscape of regularly shaped fields
of similar size, bounded by hedges, fences or walls. The land
within the fields should be free of features that will obstruct
cultivation and harvesting operations. On landfill sites that
have taken biodegradable wastes the need to control landfill
gas migration, and possibly utilize the gas commercially,
to
places a requirement on the operator to mamtam a system of
landfill gas wells and connecting pipework. The potential for
this to cause significant adverse effects on agricultural
aftercare operations is great. These effects mclude loss of
cropping area, restnction m the choice of crop, damage to
farm equipment and increased cost of farming operations
(Jewson 1995). Ideally the design of the gas system and the
design of the after-use should go hand m hand, so that the
gas system design does not make the after-use financially
non-viable because of the frequency of obstructions, but
allows it to contmue profitably. In reahty this is difficult to
achieve successfully.
With a nature conservation after-use the landscape design
can be more flexible, and the aftercare operations are less
frequent and extensive. Features such as tree and shrub areas,
steep slopes, wetland or water features can be sited where
most appropriate given the constraints of the site. The
landscape design can more easily accommodate the landfill
gas system without serious compromise.
Where wildlife habitats are being created, areas of
settlement and poor drainage can be positively beneficial.
These areas develop different conditions and a slightly
altered microclimate which will favour species which it
would not otherwise be possible to establish. They can
become an asset rather than a problem to be solved at some
expense and inconvenience.
Cost benefits
Savings may be realized through the use of less topsoil, or no
topsoil all. If there is no on-site topsoil, as in the case of
at
much previously derelict land, the cost of importing
sufficient for restoration may represent the highest single
item of expenditure in any restoration work.
Savings may also be realized during the establishment and
maintenance period. The fertiliser requirements for nature
conservation after-uses will almost certainly be less than for
areas of productive agriculture. There will not be the same
requirement for drainage works which will also enable
significant savings to be made. In the case of casual
recreation areas restored to a mown grass sward, the mam
item of mamtenance expenditure will be grass cutting (Land
Capability Consultants 1989). Sites being restored and
maintained for a more naturalistic appearance will be cut
more infrequently.
It should be remembered that restoration for ecological
diversity option. Such sites will
is not a no-maintenance
require a small maintenance input to become self-sustaining
and to retam their attractiveness, otherwise they will
become untidy, a target for unauthorized tipping, and
generally misused by motorcyclists and travellers. This will
result in loss of visual amenity and secondary dereliction.
Wildlife areas also require some mamtenance to control
undesirable invasive weed species. and to manage the
intended habitats.
Public perception
In the present climate of mcreasmg public consciousness of
the environment there is concern about the loss of our
wildlife habitats, either to housing or industry, or through
modern farming methods. Schemes to restore land for pubhc
open space and wildlife will often attract more pubhc
acceptance and support than schemes where agriculture is
the after-use. This is particularly true for sites on the urban
frmge or where there is a history of previous public usage.
,-, .
Restoration techniques
There are three mam approaches to restoring landfill sites for
ecological diversity (Simmons 1992):
9 non intervention: natural regeneration with no human
interference;
. mtervention followed by natural development: creation of
basic habitat requirements, including establishment of
suitable vegetation, followed by natural habitat develop-
ment with a mmimum of human interference;
9 habitat creation: creation and management of the chosen
habitat type.
These techniques all have their advantages and dis-
advantages, and may be more or less suitable m different
circumstances and locations. Nevertheless, whichever
technique is chosen a predevelopment ecological survey
should be carried out.
Pre-development ecological survey
This is an essential step m the restoration strategy and should
be undertaken before any site development works have
commenced. The survey results should be used to influence
and inform both the site engineering design and phasmg and
the choices about restoration design and techniques. It will
identify areas which may need to be protected from landfill
development works by virtue of their ecological significance.
It will also indicate where sensitive or locally important
species and habitats exist, so that arrangements can be made
for their protection.
The survey should fulfil three main ob~ectmes:
0 to identify, locate and map existing species;
9 to
identify and evaluate the significance of habitats and
species on site;
. to characterize the conditions which prevail and are
therefore necessary for the continuance of each habitat
type.
This latter objective is crucial if the existing habitats are
to be re-created on site, with any degree of success, durmg or
after landfilling operations have ceased. Elements such as the
soil type, aspect, degree of exposure to sun and shade, and
dramage all affect the microclimate and influence the
ecology of different areas of the site.
The survey should ideally be carried out over several
months during the spring and summer to enable all species to
be found and recorded. It should result m maps and plans
which will indicate where the ecologically important
features are. From this the landfill design team will be able
to develop a strategy to protect, rescue and transplant the
elements to be preserved, be they plants, insects or other
fauna. They should also be able to identify what essential
features must be provided by the restoration scheme to
recreate the chosen habitats.
The ecological importance of proposed landfill sites
should never be under-estimated. Intensively managed
agricultural land may provide valuable feeding, breeding or
over-wintering sites for birds. Poorly drained pasture may be
important for flocks of migrant waders even if resident
ornithological mterest is limited. Derelict land may have
513
very little vegetation, but the unusual conditions to be found
m the substrates may encourage species that are locally or
regionally rare. Orchids on pulverized fuel ash lagoons are a
case m pomt. Some unreclaimed derelict sites become
designated for protection on the basis of their wildlife.
Non-intervention technique
On sites which
already have significant areas of ecological
value it may be possible to identify and protect key areas, and
modify the landfill footprint to avoid these areas. The
contours may needbe raised over the landfill area
to to
compensate for any lost volume. Care must be taken to
preserve, as far as possible, the existmg conditions to
mamtain the habitat which is to be preserved. For example,
the water source for a stream or wetland must not be diverted
away from the wetland. It may be difficult to ensure that
changes to the groundwater regime (perhaps necessary as
part of the landfill construction) will not adversely affect
wetlands on or near the site.
It will probably be necessary to physically protect areas to
be preserved and to be vigilant during the site development
works and the operation of the site. Plant species may not
be visible all year round, migrant or hibernating creatures
may not be present or apparent either and this means that
at certain times of the year even relatively important areas
may have no distinguishing features to denote their value.
Fencing is essential, and must be rigorously maintained to
prevent unauthorized access by contractors and operatives.
Contractor’s compounds and permanent site facilities
should not be located near ecologically sensitive areas.
On-site haul routes and site roads should also avoid
sensitive areas.
Natural recolonization, which relies on the natural
successional processes of plant establishment, is of great
mterest to conservatiomsts because it allows a completely
natural ecosystem to develop. It has the great disadvantage
of being a very slow method of re-vegetation. To be
successful it also relies on a source of seed and faunal species
close enough to the site to allow natural seeding or migration
of mobile species to occur. This mitigates against it being
successful in or near built-up areas. The soils must also be
similar to those in the surrounding areas otherwise those
same species will not successfully establish.
If the site is restored using imported subsoil it is likely that
natural recolonization will initially result m the growth of
invasive species and rank undesirable perennials such as
dock (Rumex spp.), thistle (Cirsium or Carduus spp.),
Japanese knotweed (Reynoutria japonica), pioneers such as
514
plantain (PLantago spp.), knotgrass (Polygonum aviculare),
dandelion (Taraxacum officiale) and w1110wherbs (Chamenon
and Epilobium spp.), together with a range of short-lived
annuals. If topsoil has been used in the restoration process
the site may initially colonize with agricultural escapees such
as oats or oilseed rape or annual farmland weeds. These
species are usually associated with neglected land and are
generally considered to have a low ecological and visual
value.
The slow and uncertain nature of the re-vegetation makes
this method unsuitable in many landfill situations. Most
landfill sites are now capped to control rainwater infiltration
and the vegetation plays a role in reducing the amount of
water passing through the soil profile and reaching the top of
the cap. Water losses by evapotranspiration are an essential
part of the water balance calculation. Capping systems also
need to be protected against desiccation and damage and a
good vegetative cover can assist in this.
The length of time that may elapse before the site
becomes vegetated may also be unacceptable to local
residents. During the time the site is becoming colonized
it may continue to look unattractive, thus failing to achieve
one of the objectives of restoration.
Intervention and natural development
This method is transitional between non-mtervention and
habitat creation, and the amount of intervention and the
timing of that process will vary from site to site. In its
simplest form this method relies on introducing species by
seed and plants to create a particular effect, followed by
minimal management allowing the site to develop fairly
naturally. Over time the habitats created by the initial
restoration may change and develop into other, more stable,
ecosystems. This method is also less demanding in terms of
ecological authenticity. It recognizes that the primary aim of
restoration is to improve the appearance of the site by
establishing wildflowers, trees and shrubs which will in turn
attract a range of insects, amphibia, birds and small mammals
to the site. Such sites will be capable of supporting a wide
range of species making them both attractive and valuable
for wildlife.
This technique depends on the successful establishment of
different vegetation types and the remainder of this section
of the paper will describe the methods of establishing
grassland, trees and shrubs. Plants may be introduced to the
site as seed or plants, or transplanted turfs.
Species-rich grassland
This isthe easiest and most common way of restoring sites for
ecological diversity (Ash et al. 1992). Topsoil should not be
used on areas where wildflower seed are to be sown. The
fertility of topsoil will encourage the grasses to grow at the
expense of the flowers, and the diversity will be lost. Low
competition grasses such as meadowgrass (Poa), bent
(Agrostis) and fescue (Festuca) should be sown with the
wildflower seeds to act as a nurse for the establishing
wildflowers. The grass will also reduce and control invasive
weed species. If possible a local seed source should be used to
ensure that locally occurring plants and plant types are used
in the restoration. If commercially available seed mixes are
used the seed mix should be chosen with the soil type and
other issues such as shade, shelter and drainage in mind.
Seed may also be introduced by cutting a species-rich
grassland or heather when the plants are seeding, and
spreading the cut vegetation, including the seed, directly
onto the receptor site as a mulch (Jones et al. 1995). The hay
may be raked up and collected for disposal after about a week
by which time the seed will have dropped onto the soil. This
technique relies on the direct transfer of cut grass onto the
receptor site; even very short-term storage will lead to a rapid
reduction in seed viability. The hay meadow technique has
been used to great success to establish replicate species-rich
grassland. Heather establishment using this technique has
been practised by different restoration specialists to re-
establish moorland and heath. These techniques may be very
useful in landfill site restoration because they enable a
grassland that will be lost to landfill to be re-created on a
restored phase before the source area is lost. Thereafter, the
same technique can be used to restore later phases of the site.
A further technique for introducing grassland plant
communities is turf transplanting. Turf cutting buckets,
purpose-built to be attached to tracked or wheeled
excavators, are designed to take turfs of up to 2 m2in area
and up to 200 mm in depth. Turf transplanting is easiest and
most successful when carried out on short grassland, such as
on the chalk downlands in southern England, where the
grass roots will hold the turf together and enable it to be
moved to the receptor site without breaking up. It is essential
that the conditions on the receptor site, particularly slope,
aspect and soil conditions, are as close as possible to those on
the donor site. This method has the advantage of moving the
whole community relatively intact, including soil fauna and
invertebrates that live among the plants and in the surface
layers of the soil. Certain special plants, such as orchids, can
be moved as smaller hand-cut turfs which are then replanted
into specially prepared areas onthe receptor site. This
technique, large or small scale, also useful for rescuing and
is
moving important species and plant associations from areas
to be landfilled onto areas that are being restored.
Tree and shrub areas
Tree and shrub areas provide attractive features which will
not only give shelter and food for a wide variety of birds and
insects, but which are essential m most landscapes if the
restored site is to become integrated mto its surroundings.
However, the restoration guidance published by the UK
government m 1986 (DOE 1986) strongly advised against
planting trees, although many operators continued to do so.
In 1990 it was considered important to research the potential
of landfill sites for tree planting to gam a better under-
standing of the rooting habits of trees and the risk they
represent to the landfill cap.
Landfill site restoration guidance advised against planting
trees on capped landfills because it was believed that tree
roots could penetrate the landfill cap allowmg ingress of
water and hence increased leachate production. It was also
believed that tree roots could dry out clay caps which would
then shrink and crack. It was thought that tree roots would
penetrate the landfill and be adversely affected by landfill gas
and high temperatures within the fill. Fmally it was thought
that trees on landfills would be more susceptible to
windthrow which might expose or rupture the cap.
This guidance has now been reconsidered because UK
planning guidance and strategies for sustamable develop-
ment and rural land use all encourage increased tree planting
and landscape integration. Changes m agricultural practices
mean that agriculture may not always be the most
appropriate after-use. Limiting the choice of after-uses and
flexibility of landfill restoration design reduces its accept-
ability as a sustamable means of waste disposal, and tree
planting enables more interesting and natural landscape
design, thus improving the public perception of landfill. The
latest government guidance on landfill restoration (Waste
Management Paper 26E, still m draft) recommends that trees
may be planted on all types of landfill to the extent that it is
necessary for landscape mtegration, and providing that the
needs of environmental protection systems throughout the
post-closure period are fully recogmzed and taken mto
account.
Research undertaken by the Forestry Commission for the
UK Department of the Environment (Dobson & Moffat
1993) indicated that a well-constructed clay cap (recom-
mended bulk density of between 1.8 and 1.9 g cni 3) forms
515
an effective barrier to root growth due to its compaction,
anaerobic conditions and mfertility; also, tree roots do not
exert enough pressure to puncture or tear synthetic (HDPE)
capping materials. Tree do not cause dessication
roots
cracking m a properly constructed cap because they cannot
extract enough moisture for significant shrinkage to occur. If
the cap is well-constructed, landfill gas, leachate and high
temperatures will not adversely affect tree growth. Most
significantly, tree roots commonly extend no deeper than 1
to 2 m, and about 90% of all tree roots, including virtually
all the larger roots, are found m the upper 1 m of soil.
The mam reasons for poor tree growth on restored landfills
are soil compaction, waterlogging, drought, shallow soil and
poor soil quality (Dobson & Moffat 1995). These aspects are
now addressed.
Successful tree and shrub establishment requires the
following:
. landform that will promote natural drainage and minimize
waterloggmg; a minimum slope gradient of 1 m 10 will
usually provide this and trees can be established on slopes as
steep as 1 m 3;
9 Soils must not be
compacted, and if the soil has become
compacted during restoration preplanting ripping is very
beneficial m improving the early survival rate of newly
planted trees;
. A soil
depth of 1.5 m over a compacted clay cap and 1 m
over a geomembrane is recommended by the Forestry
Commission research.
Trees have been successfully established on shallower soil
depths but their long-term wmd resistance has not yet been
tested, and m areas of lower rainfall and very dry years these
plants suffer from lack of soil moisture because the shallower
soils do not provide enough reserve moisture.
It is recommended that on landfill sites a ground cover of
grass, and perhaps suitable wildflowers should be established
before plantmg. This will prevent erosion, reduce rainwater
mflitration and control invasive weeds. Before planting each
planting station should be cleared of vegetation either by
herbicides or mechamcally (screefing) so that the tree is
planted into bare ground. Trees are best planted as forestry
transplants and shrubs as bare root or container-grown
depending on the species. Larger trees, such as standards or
whips are not only expensive to plant m mass
schemes, but establish less well and their initial growth can
be very slow.
For ecological value and more rapid and successful
establishment, native tree and shrub species should be
chosen. Tree areas should have a high proportion of shrubs
516
to give added food and shelter for birds and msects. A variety
of tree and shrub species will result m a mixed woodland, and
eventually a variety of canopy heights thus giving greater
diversity of habitats. More tolerant nurse species, which will
grow rapidly, should be included m the planting mix to
provide shelterto the slower-growmg climax species. In the
UK useful nurse species for growth on landfills mclude alder
(Alnus spp.), birch (Betul.cr, spp.) and willow (Salvx spp.).
Climax species mclude oak (Quercus spp.), ash (Fraxinus
excelsior), maple (Acer spp.), whitebeam (Sorbus alba), pine
(PmM~ spp.) and larch (Lanx spp.).
Woodland and woodland edge herbaceous species should
be introduced wherever possible. These are usually most
successful if mtroduced as contamer-grown plants or plugs,
such as foxglove (Digttahs purpurea), but bulbs of species such
as bluebell (Endymion nonscriptans) are also easily planted.
Areas of open grass within the woodland will give the
opportumty for different plant species, and being very
sheltered are often attractive to a wide variety of msects.
Habitat creation techniques
This techmque is aimed at creating and mamtammg a
particular target habitat. All habitats are to some extent
transitory, being subject to physical changes and ecological
succession. The most interesting habitats are often those that
are infrequent, such as wetlands and damp meadows, and
these are generally uncommon because they are very
susceptible to change. Wetlands dry out and their
predommant species change from aquatic to margmal and
finally grassland or scrub species. In the northern hemi-
sphere, grassland if left unmanaged will ultimately revert to
scrub and finally woodland. Habitat creation therefore
necessitates a degree of management or intervention to
arrest the ecological succession.
For any habitat it is essential to provide the right
conditions of soil, slope, aspect, drainage and shade.
Techmques for the initial establishment of grassland and
woodland habitats have been described m the two earlier
sections of this paper (’Species-rich grassland’, and ’Tree and
shrub areas’) Techniques for the mamtenance of these
habitats are now described.
planting Maintenance of habitats
Species-rich grassland
This habitat is relatively easy to maintain. Perenmal weeds
such as dock (Rumex) and thistle (Carduus and Cardamine
spp.) should be eradicated by spot treatment with a suitable
herbicide. The grass should be cut for hay m late sprmg after
the plants have flowered but before the seed is dropped.
Thereafter the grass may be grazed for the summer or cut
again in September.
~ -4&dquo; l
Woodland
Authentic woodland is probably the most difficult habitat to
create, as the woodland plant community develops by
gradual succession over many years. To establish a woodland
habitat it is necessary to do more than just plant trees. The
ground flora establish because the seasonal conditions of
shade and light intensity favour them. Without the mature
tree canopy it would not survive the invasion of more
aggressive species no longer suppressed because of the shade
effect.
&dquo;
Research has been undertaken by Wye College, London
University, as part of the Channel Tunnel construction
project to re-establish woodland flora by taking soil from an
existmg woodland lost to the works and spreading it on a
receptor site. Early results gave a good establishment of a
wide range of typical woodland species, but it may prove
necessary to provide some artificial shade to mamtain these
species.
The most effective way of creating a woodland habitat is
to establish good tree and shrub growth, and to introduce
woodland ground flora species when the canopy is providing
a suitable degree of shade. This will be a long-term project, as
it may take 15 to 20 years before a partially closed canopy is
attained. At this time it may also be necessary to thin out
any nurse species which were mcluded m the original
planting mix to provide shelter to the long-term climax
species.
Heathland
Soil conditions are critical to the success of creatmg either
lowland or upland heath habitats. These should only be
attempted if the natural soil can be conserved for restoration.
This will have the advantage of contaming seed and plants
which will enable an authentic plant community to
establish. The principal plant species is likely to be heather
(Enca or Calluna spp.), but other herbaceous plants and
grasses may be indicated.
Techniques for establishing heather from locally sourced
seed have already been described, but heather can also be
established from commercially available seed and cuttings.
In order to ensure that the local genotype is preserved, local
heather should propagated and then returned to the restored
area. Importing heather from other areas, either as seed or
plants, may result in unsuitable or atypical species being
mtroduced.
When seeding heather it has generally been found to be
advantageous to establish a grass sward, using species such as
fescue and bent, to stabilize bare ground and suppress more
competitive species (Hollms 1994; Pywell et al. 1996). This
also suitable microclimate for heather germmation.
creates a
Mamtaming heathland habitat may necessitate cutting the
a
grass to favour the emerging heathland species, and
controllmg invasive herbaceous and shrub species. Grazing
establishing heathland is very detrimental to the heather. A
phased introduction of shrubs and small trees such as gorse
(Ulex europaea), broom (Sarothamnus scopanus), bilberry
(Vaccwum myrtillus), mountam ash (Sorbus aucupana) and
sessile oak (Quercus petraea) may be appropriate.
Wetlands
Wetland features, ponds, streams and wet pastures are usually
established m conjunction with other wildlife habitats. On
landfill sites it is not advisable to locate ponds over capped
areas of biodegradable fill, but there are frequently areas of
the site that have not been landfilled where ponds can be
located without increasing the risk of leachate generation
(Barker 1994b). On land raising sites ponds may be necessary
to control surface water run-off and these lend themselves to
design and management for amenity (fishmg) and nature
conservation.
Ponds and stream beds should be deep enough and lined to
contam water throughout the year, or to impede dramage
sufficiently to mamtam the wetland for the necessary period.
A natural appearance is more easily achieved using
compacted clay rather than a membrane for the lmer.
Pond and stream edges should be gently shelvmg in some
areas at least to enable birds and amphibia to get mto and out
of the water. Shelving edges also allow margmal plants such
as reed (Phragmvtes commums), rush (Juncus spp.), bulrush or
reedmace (Typha latlfolza), flag (Iris pseudacorus) and water
crowfoot (Ranunculus aquatihs) to be established. This
improves the visual appearance and ecological diversity of
the pond. Aquatic plant and animal species may also be
successfully introduced once the pond is established.
Streams can be designed for increased species diversity by
providing wider shallow stretches where the flow rate will be
slower. These stretches may have gently sloping edges.
Varying the stream bed by introducing areas of shingle or
gravel can also be very beneficial.
Subsequent mamtenance is necessary to control vigorous
species like reedmace which might otherwise become
517
dominant the expense of other species. It may also be
at
necessary to dredge the pond or stream to prevent silting up.
Care should be taken not to allow heavy tree and shrub
growth too close to the southern banks of ponds as the shade
effect may reduce the aquatic species diversity.
Constraints upon landfill restoration
The fundamental difference between mineral extraction or
other derelict sites and landfill sites is the blo-reactive nature
of the underlying fill, and this is responsible for many of the
problems encountered m the restoration of landfill sites
(Simmons 1997). Integrating the restoration works with
other landfill activities through programmmg and planning
is essential to minimize or avoid potential conflicts and
impacts (Barker 1994a). Unless very defimte steps are taken
to change the normal sequence of works following cessation
of landfillmg, restoration works will comcide with the
installation of the landfill gas control system. Both have to
be done after the capping system has been laid. It is usually
necessary to protect the cap with soil at the earliest
opportunity after it has been laid, which signals the start of
the restoration process. It is also necessary to mstall, modify
or complete the gas control system as soon as the cappmg
layer is down to either prevent migration or allow utilization,
or both.
The timing of these works means that they are both
carried out before settlement, which may be rapid and
pronounced on certain sites. Settlement affects the efficiency
of the gas extraction system by distorting vertical wells,
disturbing the fall on gas collection pipework and damaging
connections and fittings. Remedial works to the gas system
are usually necessary during the first 3 to 5 years after
landfilling has ceased, and these works may have to be
repeated.
The effects of carrying out these works on restored areas
are seriously adverse (Barker 1996) for example:
o compaction of soil by heavy plant and dnlling ngs;
o contammation of soil
by refuse and cappmg materials
during the course of excavation and dnllmg;
o loss of soil and
plants.
It is extremely difficult to carry out piecemeal restoration
to the same standard as the original work, particularly if
specific habitats or plant associations have been established.
It may be necessary to abandon the initial restoration and
start agam when the remedial works to the gas control
system are completed.
518
Gas control is essential for sitesafety and so a way forward
must be found to allow the system to be developed on site,
but without compromising restoration standards. To over-
come the problems caused by settlement and subsequent
remedial works to gas control systems the new draft guidance
(WMP 26E) recommends delaying final restoration until
after the period of most active settlement. It recommends a
period of interim restoration during which a grass cover is
established on a minimum soil thickness to protect the cap
and no final landscape features are put in place. In most
cases, providing the gas control system has been designed
and constructed properly, after an initial period of about
5 years the need for significant remedial works is past and
final restoration can take place.
Thus tree planting, and the establishment of wildlife
habitats and wetland features should be delayed on sites
which have taken biodegradable waste until it can be shown
that the period of initial and most rapid settlement has
passed and the landfill gas control system will no longer
require significant unplanned repair or modification.
Interim restoration should be part of an agreed and
planned programme for restoration, discussed and agreed
with regulators in advance, and implemented as part of an
overall strategy for long-term restoration and sustainable
after-uses.
Conclusions
Landfill sites have been restored to amenity and nature
conservation after-uses, increasing their ecological diversity
and improving their visual appearance. The techniques have
been demonstrated, by practical example, by a number of
landfill restoration experts in the UK, drawing upon the
research and trial work carried out by practitioners and
researchers.
The most appropriate techniques for restoration for
ecological diversity is considered to be a combination of
intervention followed by natural progression, unless a
particular habitat type needs to be established. Active
vegetation establishment fulfils some of the key objectives of
restoration, improvement of visual appearance and control
of rainwater infiltration. It may mitigate against ecological
authenticity but does not preclude ecological diversity. The
restoration works must take post-closure opera-
timing of
tional and environmental protection works into account to
minimize conflicts and wasted effort.
 Landfill restoration represents an important opportunity
for mcreasmg the ecological diversity of both rural and semi-
urban locations.
, I
References
Ash, H J , Bennett, R & Scott, R (1992) Flowers m the Grass Creating and
Encouraging Grassland With Wild Flowers. Peterborough, UK.
Nature
Barker, C (1994a) Landfill gas control and restoration Wastes Management
84 (2), 37-38
Barker, C. (1994b) Creation of wetland habitats on landfill sites.
Environmental Managers Journal 3 (2), 40-44.
Barker, C (1996) The effects of installing landfill gas control systems upon
landfill restoration planning and practice. Waste Planning 18,
Dobson, M C & Moffat, A J. (1993) The Potential for Woodland
Establishment on Landfill Sites Report for DOE. London, UK: HMSO.
Dobson, M C & Moffat, AJ (1995) Site Capacity Assessment for
Woodland Creation on Landfills Forestry Authority Research
Information Note 263 -Farnham, Surrey, UK Forestry Authority.
DOE (1986) Landfilling Wastes a Technical Memorandum for the Disposal of
Wastes on Landfill Sites Waste Management Paper 26 London, UK-
HMSO.
Hollins, D (1994) Lowland heath restoration. Putting concepts
practice Mineral Planning 58, 31-35
Jewson, K. A.(1995) Evaluation of Landfill Infrastructure on The Farmability
English of Agricultural LandADAS Research Report
Jones, G H., Trueman,IC & Millet, P (1995) The use of hay strewing to
create species rich grassland Land Contamination and Reclamation 3 (2),
104-107
Land Capability Consultants (1989) Cost-effective Management of Reclaimed
Derelict Land Report for DOE London, UK HMSO
Pywell, R. F , Putwain, P D. & Webb, N R (1996) Establishment of
12-16 heathland vegetation on mineral workings. Vegetation management
in forestry, amenity and conservation areas. Managing for Multiple
Objectives Aspects of Apphed Biology 44, 285-292
Simmons, E (1990) From rubbish tip to wildlife reserve Wastes
Management 80 (3), 220-221
Simmons, E (1992) Landfill site restoration for wildlife. Waste Planning 3,
3-7
Simmons, E (1997) Improving standards of landfill restoration Land
Contamination and Reclamation 5 (1), 63-67
into
519