ECOLOGICAL REVITALIZATION:
Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets
A pocket park at a
former service station !•'
Former RCRA Corrective Action facility,
restored to a wetland
Constructed wetland on a
Superfund landfill site
Former weapons manufacturing site
now a national wildlife refuge
Former RCRA Corrective
Action facility,
now part of
the Audubon Trail
Former Brownfields
property, transformed -"1
intrt o notiirol hohitot
into a natural habitat
Former array-
ammunition plant,
now a national
Former Brownfields property
restored to natural habitat
-------
About the cover page: Ecological Revitalization in Action
Descriptions are in a clock-wise direction, starting with top right.
1. Former RCRA Corrective Action facility, restored to a wetland: Ecological revitalization at the
AMAX Metals Recovery Inc. (now Freeport McMoRan) in Braithwaite, Louisiana, where a water
retention pond was dewatered to form a wetland that provided a home to alligators relocated due to
Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Photograph courtesy of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Corrective Action Program.
2. Former weapons manufacturing site, now a national wildlife refuge: Nearly 27 square miles at
Rocky Mountain Arsenal (RMA) in Colorado, one of the worst hazardous waste sites in the country,
have been transformed into one of the nation's largest urban national wildlife refuges. The open space
surrounding a former weapons manufacturing facility at RMA provides a home for nearly 300 species
of wildlife including birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and fish. Photograph courtesy of EPA Office
ofSuperfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (OSRTl).
3. Former RCRA Corrective Action facility, now part of the Audubon Trail: At England Air Force Base
in Louisiana, areas excavated during cleanup became part of the Audubon Trail, provided habitat and
a stopping point for migratory birds, and expanded an 18-hole golf course. Photograph courtesy of EPA
RCRA Corrective Action Program.
4. Former army ammunition plant, now a national tallgrass prairie: At the Joliet Army Ammunition
Plant (JOAAP) in Illinois, nearly 19,000 acres of land contaminated with explosives and other
chemicals were remediated and transformed into the Midewin national tallgrass prairie, one of the
first in the country. About a third of Midewin is now open to the public with trails for hiking, biking,
or horseback riding, and areas to observe habitat revitalization. Photograph obtained from a JOAAP
brochure titled "From War to Peace" provided by EPA Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office (FFRRO).
5. Former Brownfields property, restored to natural habitat: With assistance from an EPA Brownfields
Assessment grant, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, was able to turn blighted land into natural and
recreational greenspace. The 23.5-acre former industrial property has been transformed into hiking
trails, picnic grounds, scenic overlooks of the Susquehanna River, and nesting habitat that fostered the
reemergence of the Bald Eagle in this area. Photograph courtesy of EPA Office of Brownfields and Land
Revitalization.
6. Former Brownfields property, transformed into a natural habitat: At the Hoquarton Natural
Interpretive Trail in Tillamook, Oregon, a former lumber mill was transformed into a recreational and
educational greenspace using an EPA Revolving Loan Fund. Weeds and invasive plants were
removed, more than two tons of trash was disposed of, and over 2,000 native plants were introduced
in riparian areas. A nature trail provided walking and bird watching opportunities. Photograph
courtesy of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.
7. Constructed wetland on a Superfund landfill site: At the 1.2-acre landfill at the Naval Amphibious
Base Little Creek Superfund Site in Virginia Beach, Virginia, 29,000 tons of non-hazardous soil and
debris were removed and 6,300 cubic yards of clean fill were imported to convert the landfill to a tidal
wetland. Plants were placed along designated elevations to establish tidal wetland vegetation, using
the neighboring marsh as a reference. Photograph courtesy of Bruce Pluta, EPA Region 3, Biological
Technical Assistance Groups (BTAG).
8. A pocket park at a former service station: The small West Ogden Pocket Park property in urban
Chicago, Illinois, was a former service station that included a derelict building where underground
storage tanks (UST) ranging in size from 600 to 10,000 gallons were dumped illegally. At this site,
eleven USTs containing gasoline, diesel, heating oil, and used oil were present. UST removal, site
cleanup, and revitalization led to the opening of the pocket park in summer of 2001 and added much-
needed greenspace to the surrounding neighborhood. Photograph courtesy of EPA Office of Underground
Storage Tanks and Wildlife Habitat Council fact sheet, EPA-510-F-04-007.
9. (Center) Former Superfund site, restored to natural habitat: At the Jacks Creek/Sitkin Smelting &
Refining, Inc. Superfund Site in Maitland, Pennsylvania, wetlands were recreated in the riparian
corridor along Jacks Creek. Vernal pools were created, woody debris was placed in the wetland as
invertebrate habitat, and a wet meadow seed mix was used. Photograph courtesy of Bruce Pluta, EPA
Region 3, BTAG.
-------
Office of Solid Waste EPA 542-R-08-003
and Emergency Response February 2009
www.epa.gov/tio
http://clu-in.org
Ecological Revitalization:
Turning Contaminated Properties
Into Community Assets
-------
Table of Contents
Sect/on Page
Notice and Disclaimer ii
EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Organizational Chart iii
Executive Summary ES-I
1.0 Introduction I -1
1.1 Ecological Revitalization and Ecological Reuse 1-2
1.2 General Program Initiatives 1-3
1.3 General Process Considerations 1-4
2.0 Ecological Revitalization Under EPA Cleanup Programs 2-1
2.1 General Programmatic Considerations 2-1
2.2 Superfund Sites 2-5
2.3 Federal Facilities 2-8
2.4 RCRA Corrective Action Facilities 2-10
2.5 Brownfields Properties 2-13
2.6 Underground Storage Tank Sites 2-15
3.0 Technical Considerations for Ecological Revitalization 3-1
3.1 Considerations When Selecting Cleanup Technologies for Ecological Revitalization 3-1
3.2 Cleanup Planning and Design Issues and Ecological Revitalization 3-3
3.3 Minimizing Ecological Damage During Cleanups 3-4
4.0 Wetlands Cleanup and Restoration 4-1
5.0 Stream Cleanup and Restoration 5-1
6.0 Terrestrial Ecosystems Cleanup and Revitalization 6-1
7.0 Long-Term Stewardship Considerations 7-1
8.0 References 8-1
Appendices
Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies
Appendix B: Additional Ecological Revitalization Resources
Appendix C: Acronyms
-------
Notice and Disclaimer
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) funded preparation of this document under Contract
No. EP-W-07-078. It was prepared by EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER)
cleanup programs, including the Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (OSRTI),
Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery (ORCR) (formerly known as Office of Solid Waste),
Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office (FFRRO), Office of Brownfields and Land Revitalization
(OBLR), and Office of Underground Storage Tanks (OUST).
This document has undergone EPA and external review by subject matter experts. All web links
provided in this document were accurate and valid at the time of publication. Mention of trade names or
commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. If you have questions
about this document, please contact Ms. Michele Mahoney, EPA, by phone at 703-603-9057 or via e-mail
at mahoney.michele@epa.gov.
To view or download a portable document format (PDF) version of Ecological Revitalization: Turning
Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets (EPA 542-R-08-003), visit the Hazardous Waste Clean-up
Information (CLU-IN) system Web site at www.clu-in.org/download/issues/ecotools/
Ecological_RevitaHzation_Turning_Contarninated_Properties_into_Cornrriunity_Assets.pdf. A limited
number of printed copies are available free of charge and may be ordered via the Web site, by mail, or by
fax from:
EPA/National Service Center for Environmental Publications
P.O. Box 42419
Cincinnati, OH 45242-2419
Telephone: 800-490-9198
Fax: 301-604-3408
Web site: www.epa.gov/nscep
-------
EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response Organizational Chart
(As of January 2009)
Federal
Facilities
Restoration
and Reuse
Office
Innovation
Partnership and
Communication
Office
Center for
Program
Analysis
Office of
Superfund
Remediation and
Technology
Innovation
Immediate
Office of the
Assistant
Administrator
Organizational
Management
and Integrity
Staff
Office of
Program
Management
Office of Resource
Conservation and
Recovery
Office of
Underground
Storage Tanks
Information
Management
and Data Quality
Staff
Policy Analysis
and Regulatory
Management
Staff
Acquisition and
Resources
Management
Staff
Office of
Brownfields
and Land
Revitalization
Office of
Emergency
Management
Note: Highlighted EPA offices contributed to the development of this document.
MI
-------
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets
Executive Summary
Ecological revitalization refers to the process of returning land from a contaminated state to one that
supports a functioning and sustainable habitat. Although the final decision on how a property is reused
is inherently a local decision that often rests with the property owner, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) actively supports and encourages ecological revitalization, when appropriate, during and
after the assessment and cleanup of contaminated properties under its cleanup programs. This document
(1) provides an overview of EPA's cleanup programs and resources available to support ecological
revitalization; (2) addresses technical considerations to help cleanup project managers and other
stakeholders carry out ecological revitalization at contaminated properties; and (3) presents general
planning and process considerations for ecological revitalization of wetlands, streams, and terrestrial
ecosystems as well as successful long-term stewardship. Appendix A at the end of the document
presents additional case studies on ecological revitalization.
Ecological Revitalization Under EPA Cleanup Programs. Ecological revitalization of
contaminated properties is consistent with EPA's mission to protect human health and the environment,
and it is an integral component of EPA's cleanup programs. Under its cleanup programs, EPA ensures
that (1) ecological revitalization does not compromise the protectiveness of the cleanup and (2) the best
interests of stakeholders are considered. EPA's cleanup programs have established initiatives that
support ecological revitalization and provide a variety of tools, information resources, and technical
assistance. Collaboration and coordination with stakeholders is important for promoting ecological
revitalization across EPA's programs.
Technical Considerations for Ecological Revitalization. Technical considerations for ecological
revitalization include selecting appropriate cleanup technologies, addressing waste left in place, and
minimizing ecological damage during the cleanup. When selecting a cleanup technology, the following
may reduce ecosystem impacts during cleanup:
• Preventing access by animals that could cause damage to a cleanup technology
• Locating equipment and utilities to minimize disruption to on-site and surrounding habitat
• Selecting surface vegetation that will thrive and not interfere with the cleanup
• Evaluating the effects of amendments
Excavation and earthmoving equipment can significantly disrupt existing habitat during cleanup.
Cleanup project managers are encouraged to consider the following steps to minimize habitat effects and
encourage successful ecological revitalization:
Developing and communicating ecology awareness
Designing property-wide work zones and traffic plans
Minimizing excavation and retaining existing vegetation
Phasing work to stabilize one area of the property before another is disturbed
Considering property characteristics
Protecting on-site fauna
Locating and managing waste and soil piles to minimize erosion
Designing containment systems with habitat considerations
Reusing indigenous materials whenever practical
Controlling erosion and sedimentation
Ensuring that borrow areas minimize effects on habitat
Avoiding the introduction of new sources of contamination or undesirable species
Executive Summary ES-I
-------
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets
For properties where waste is left in place, this document provides solutions and considerations for
certain ecological revitalization issues that may arise. These include restoring soils, stabilizing metals,
maintaining surface vegetation, and managing attractive nuisance issues.
Wetlands Cleanup and Restoration. Wetlands are of particular concern because in addition to
intercepting storm runoff and removing pollutants, they provide food, protection from predators, and
other vital habitat factors for many of the nation's fish and wildlife species. Important considerations for
planning and designing wetland cleanup and restoration include:
• Evaluating the characteristics, ecological functions, and condition of wetlands
• Determining beneficial wetland functions and structures after the cleanup
• Developing a wetlands design that will achieve the stated ecological functions
• Ensuring that cleanup activities and wetland features have minimal effects on existing wetlands
• Specifying and implementing explicit maintenance requirements
Stream Cleanup and Restoration. Stream cleanups often disrupt stream flow and habitat.
Considerations for (1) designing and implementing cleanups that facilitate ecological revitalization of
streams and stream corridors and (2) mitigating adverse ecological effects of constructing cleanup
features include:
• Stream channel restoration decisions about channel width, depth, cross-section, slope, and alignment
• Streambank stabilization measures (temporary and permanent)
• Streambank vegetation approaches
• Management of watershed processes such as increased runoff or sediment loading from construction
Bioengineering techniques that stabilize the soil or Streambank by establishing sustainable plant
communities have become an increasingly popular approach to Streambank restoration. Stabilization
techniques may include using a combination of live or dormant plant materials, sometimes in conjunction
with other materials such as rocks, logs, brush, geotextiles, or natural fabrics.
Terrestrial Ecosystems Cleanup and Revitalization. Establishing a plant community that will
thrive with minimal maintenance is a critical step in developing a healthy terrestrial ecosystem on
cleanup properties. Factors to consider when establishing terrestrial plant communities in disturbed
areas include:
• Soil suitability and the need for soil amendments or soil stabilization
• Property-specific plant selection with a preference for native plants
• Protection from disturbances (such as from grazing animals and vehicles)
• Timing to ensure optimal plant establishment
Long-Term Stewardship Considerations. On cleanup completion, operation and maintenance
(O&M) activities through responsible stewardship protect the integrity of the cleanup and the functioning
of the associated ecosystems. Specifically for properties where waste is left in place, long-term
stewardship is necessary to ensure protectiveness of the remedy. When designing a successful O&M
program for ecological revitalization, it is important to consider the following:
• Planning early for long-term stewardship
• Incorporating ecological revitalization components into general maintenance activities
• Establishing a monitoring program that incorporates the ecological revitalization components
• Using institutional controls to prevent activities that could potentially interfere or disturb ecologically
revitalized areas
Executive Summary ES-2
-------
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets
1.0 Introduction
Revitalizing properties for ecological purposes helps to achieve U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)'s goal of restoring contaminated properties to environmental and economic vitality. The term
"ecological revitalization" refers to the process of returning land from a contaminated state to one that
supports functioning and sustainable habitat. Although the final decision on how stakeholders will reuse
a property is inherently a local decision that often rests with the property owner, EPA supports and
encourages ecological revitalization as part of the cleanup of contaminated properties across all of its
cleanup programs. Ecological revitalization has many positive effects that apply to a variety of
stakeholders (see text box below). The objectives of ecological revitalization and those of the remediation
process are best accomplished if they are carefully coordinated. To this end, this document provides
general information for coordinating ecological revitalization during the cleanup of contaminated
properties, as well as technical considerations for implementing ecological revitalization of wetlands,
streams, and terrestrial ecosystems during cleanup.
The purpose of this document is to assist cleanup project managers and other stakeholders to better
understand, coordinate, and carry out ecological land revitalization at contaminated properties during
cleanup. The focus of this document is primarily on planning-level issues, not detailed design
approaches, along with technical information and references for executing ecological revitalization
activities at contaminated properties. This document highlights (1) several considerations and initiatives
under EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) cleanup programs that support
ecological revitalization, (2) a variety of tools and resources that are available to assist cleanup project
managers and other stakeholders, and (3) case studies that provide examples of ecological revitalization
at cleanup properties. Another purpose of this document is to help facilitate cross-program networking
while planning, designing, and implementing cleanups to help increase valuable ecosystems that are
created or improved through ecological revitalization. To that end, Appendix A provides case studies on
ecological revitalization approaches taken at various cleanup properties and identifies specific points-of-
contact who can provide valuable insights for those interested in implementing ecological revitalization
at their properties.
Ecological Revitalization Benefits a Variety of Stakeholders
Cleanup Project Managers. A restored habitat can reduce long-term operation and maintenance
(O&M) requirements without compromising the effectiveness of the cleanup action. A restored
habitat can also help optimize property engineering controls, such as using vegetation to reduce surface
water infiltration or using wetlands as part of stormwater controls.
Potentially Responsible Parties. A valuable restored habitat could enhance a company's image and
reputation in the community. Getting a property cleaned up and reused can also ease liability
concerns, which in turn may have a positive financial impact.
Local Government. An ecological reuse may increase tourism, tax revenues, property values, and
quality of life for residents.
Local Citizen Groups and Individuals. Increasing habitat and passive recreational activities can
improve the character of the neighborhood, employment opportunities, and area air and water quality.
Environmental Organizations. Ecological revitalization projects may provide the opportunity to
protect or improve local and regional habitats.
Section I: Introduction
l-l
-------
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets
The document is organized into the following sections:
• Section 2 presents an overview of EPA's cleanup programs and their revitalization initiatives,
tools, and resources available to support ecological revitalization.
• Section 3 provides general technical considerations for implementing ecological revitalization,
including cleanup technology considerations, cleanup planning and design issues, and
considerations for minimizing ecological damage during cleanups.
• Section 4 provides technical considerations for planning and designing wetland cleanups and
restoration efforts.
• Section 5 provides technical considerations for designing and implementing cleanups that
facilitate ecological reuse of streams and stream corridors and for mitigating potential adverse
ecological impacts of constructing cleanup features.
• Section 6 presents factors to consider for establishing terrestrial plant communities in disturbed
areas, including general revegetation principles; protecting or creating natural terrestrial
ecosystems, meadows, or prairies; and establishing vegetation on semi-arid or arid lands.
• Section 7 provides considerations for operation and maintenance (O&M) activities to ensure the
ongoing integrity of the cleanup and functioning of the associated ecosystems after cleanup
completion.
This document was developed by EPA's OSWER cleanup programs, including the Office of Superfund
Remediation and Technology Innovation (OSRTT), Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery (ORCR)
(formerly known as Office of Solid Waste), Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office (FFRRO), Office of
Brownfields and Land Revitalization (OBLR), and Office of Underground Storage Tanks (OUST) (see the
OSWER organizational chart, shown on page iii). Figure 1-1 on the following page identifies specific elements
of each OSWER program office's strategic plans, action plans, or program policies that establish support for
ecological revitalization. EPA also encourages other public and private interests, including state and local
governments and land trusts, land banks, and nonprofit organizations to participate in ecological
revitalization activities, particularly in long-term stewardship at cleanup properties. While the scope of this
document includes the EPA offices listed above, the information could be useful to a wide variety of
additional stakeholders with an interest in the reuse or redevelopment of a cleanup property, specifically to
create, restore, improve, or protect ecological resources. Therefore, this document also provides information
that can be applicable to cleanup project managers, potentially responsible parties, Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) corrective action facility 1111111111111111111111111
owners/ operators, local governments, citizen groups, * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
environmental organizations, and other interested Ecological Revitalization
individuals. and Ecological Reuse
/./ Ecological Revitalization and
Ecological Reuse
The terms "ecological revitalization" and "ecological reuse"
are often used interchangeably. However, there is a subtle
distinction between the terms. Ecological revitalization refers
to the technical process of returning land from a contaminated
state to one that supports functioning and sustainable habitat.
Ecological reuse refers to the outcome of a cleanup process and
includes those areas where proactive measures (such as a
conservation easement) have been implemented to create,
restore, protect, or enhance a habitat for terrestrial or aquatic
plants and animals (EPA 2006e). In this sense, the process of
ecological revitalization of a property can lead to an ecological
reuse outcome.
There is a distinction between the
terms ecological "revitalization"
and "reuse" but they are related.
Ecological revitalization returns
land to a functioning and
sustainable habitat Ecological
revitalization of a site can lead to
an ecological reuse, where
proactive measures have been
implemented to create, restore,
protect, or enhance a habitat for
terrestrial or aquatic plants and
animals (EPA 2006e).
Section I: Introduction
1-2
-------
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets
Figure I -1. Ecological Revitalization as a Component of EPA Cleanup Programs
OBLR Action Plan
"Promote and provide targeted
support to sustainable brownflelds reuse
efforts by encouraging green planning,
design, and construction methods. Facilitate
regional revitalization projects and strengthen
partnerships with other EPA programs to
ensure land revitalization and long tei
stewardship planning and
execution."
OUST
Petroleum Brownfields
Revitalization Action Plan
"Action4.1: In an effort to further reuse
opportunities that would promote the use of
green space or habitat, EPA will seek to
collaborate with the owners of abandoned
oilfields and wildlife habitat organizations ...
converting former oil fields to wildlife
habitats.'
t
Superfund Site
Redevelopment
"EPA places a high priority on land
revitalization as an integral part of its
Superfund cleanup program mission. Site
cleanup that is designed to protect human
health and the environment also can
lenerate beneficial reuse opportunities
and impacts."
OSWER Action Plan
"Restore contaminated
properties to environmental
and economic vitality."
ORCR Action Plan
"Encourage innovative and
results-based approaches to
cleaning up and revitalizing
RCRA facilities."
FFRRO Mission
"To lead the federal government
in building partnerships to provide
effective, efficient, and timely
cleanup and reuse of federal
facilities."
Ecological reuse is different from greenspace use in that, in addition to habitat, the latter can include
parks, playgrounds, and gardens; ecological reuse strives to restore native habitat and does not include
active recreation activities. However, low-impact or passive recreation, such as hiking or bird watching,
may occur at ecological reuse properties. In addition, ecological revitalization can occur on a portion of a
cleanup property adjacent to greenspace use (for example, a golf course with native plant species
surrounding the course), commercial operations, or industrial use. Further, ecological revitalization can
occur at varying degrees; some areas of a property may be restored to relatively pristine, historic
conditions, while other areas may be planted with native or other compatible species. Both degrees of
ecological revitalization lead to habitat that one may accurately characterize as ecological reuse.
1.2 General Program Initiatives
EPA's 2006-2011 Strategic Plan (EPA 2006a) restates EPA's commitment to protect human health and the
environment, including restoring the nation's contaminated land and enabling communities to return
restored properties safely to beneficial economic, ecological, and social use. As part of the strategic plan,
EPA established five goals, including:
• Clean Air and Global Climate Change (Goal 1)
• Clean and Safe Water (Goal 2)
• Land Preservation and Restoration (Goal 3)
• Healthy Communities and Ecosystems (Goal 4)
• Compliance and Environmental Stewardship (Goal 5)
Section I: Introduction
1-3
-------
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets
Interstate Technology and Regulatory
Council (ITRC) Collaboration on Ecological
Revitalization
ITRC, a state-led coalition working with the federal
government, industry, and other stakeholders to achieve
regulatory acceptance of environmental technologies, has
compiled a wealth of information on ecological
revitalization. ITRC's document "Planning and Promoting
Ecological Land Reuse of Remediated Sites" (ITRC 2006)
provides recommendations that are applicable to active and
inactive properties and all programs. Visit the following
Web site for more information: www.itrcweb.org.
Ecological revitalization contributes
to each of these goals. For example,
EPA's cleanup programs (under Goal
3) have set a national goal of
returning formerly contaminated
properties to long-term, sustainable,
and productive use (EPA 2006a).
These programs include Superfund
(under authority of the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act [CERCLA] of 1980, as
amended), Corrective Action (under
authority of RCRA), Underground
Storage Tanks (UST), Federal
Facilities Restoration and Reuse, and
Brownfields (under Goal 4). In 2003,
EPA introduced the Land
Revitalization Initiative to (1) promote cross-program coordination on land reuse and revitalization
projects and (2) ensure that stakeholders clean up contaminated properties and make them available for
productive use. At properties that involve multiple cleanup programs, land revitalization encourages a
"one cleanup program" approach to improve consistency, management, and cost-effectiveness of the
program. Cleaning up previously contaminated properties for reuse reinvigorates communities,
preserves open space, and prevents sprawl. This initiative goes beyond ecological revitalization, and
stakeholders can use land in many ways, including new public parks, restored wetlands, and new
businesses. For more information on land revitalization, visit the following Web site:
www.epa.gov/oswer/landrevitalization/basicinformation.htm.
In 2006, OSWER issued the Interim Guidance for OSWER Cross-Program Revitalization Measures (CPRM)
(EPA 2006b, 2006e) to help track land revitalization at the national level. These revitalization measures
show how EPA cleanup programs currently track their revitalization activities, as shown in Table 1-1.
While all environmental restoration activities that lead to reuse options are beneficial, this document
focuses on ecological revitalization, which is becoming even more important as communities are
increasingly seeing ecological revitalization as a desirable process to achieve a viable reuse outcome.
1.3 General Process Considerations
Ecological revitalization activities can occur on a wide variety of properties and could be compatible with
several types of end uses. When considering ecological revitalization at a property, it may be useful to
consider the following:
• It is important to begin the ecological revitalization process early in the cleanup.
• Ecological revitalization is not a short cut for cleanup and can have strict cleanup standards.
• Habitat can be created on an entire property or on a portion of a property, and can be created
adjacent to other end uses such as intermodal centers or industrial areas.
• Ecological revitalization is not typically considered an "enhancement," so it can generally be
funded by EPA (under the Superfund Program, for example), and may be needed under Section
404 of the Clean Water Act.
• Ecological revitalization provides a variety of environmental, economic, and social benefits.
The remainder of this document further discusses these considerations.
Section I: Introduction
1-4
-------
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets
Table I-I. Cross-Program Revitalization Measures Tracked by Each EPA
Cleanup Program
EPA Cleanup Program
Performance Measures and Indicators
OSRTI ORCR FFRRO OBLR OUST
Universe Indicator: The number of contaminated, potentially
contaminated, or previously contaminated properties and surface , ,
acres for which OSWER's cleanup programs have an oversight
role for assessment or response action.
Protective for People (PFP) measure: The number of acres
at which there is no complete pathway for human exposures to , ,
i i i i r • • ii a b a c d
unacceptable levels of contamination based on current property
conditions.
Ready for Anticipated Use (RAU) measure: The number
of acres at a property that meets the criteria for the PFP
measure, as well as (I) all cleanup goals have been achieved for a b a c d
current and reasonably expected land uses and (2) all institutional
or other controls have been put in place.
Status of Use Indicator: How the acres at a property subject
to the Universe Indicator are being used at the point in time a ** a ~ ~
when the determination is made.
Type of Use Indicator: For programs, regions, states, local
governments, or tribes that are looking for measures they could
use to help describe in more detail how contaminated or .,..,.
3 ^^ 3 C
potentially contaminated properties under their jurisdiction are
currently being used. For example, "ecological use" is a type of
use under this indicator.
EPA f; g and EPA
Notes:
** Reporting of Indicator is voluntary at this time.
~ Indicator not tracked.
a New Land Reuse Module in Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System
(CERCLIS) used to track CPRM information, independent of Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) goals.
OSRTI reports "Ready for Reuse" as a GPRA measure (based on status of cleanup and institutional controls [1C]), which
equates to both PFP and RAU.
b Through 2008, the RCRA facility Indicator Universe will consist of all RCRA Corrective Action 2008 GPRA baseline
facilities. For 2009 and beyond, the RCRA facility Indicator Universe will consist of all RCRA Corrective Action 2020
facilities. The Current Human Exposures Under Control Environmental Indicator (HE El) will be used to report the PFP
measure. A "RCRA RAU Documentation" form has been developed to assist in implementing this performance measure.
Status of Use and Type of Use indicators are not being required at a national level. Universe and RAU data elements have
been incorporated into the RCRA Information System (RCRAInfo Version 4.0 released in December 2008).
c OBLR is using Property Profile Form data to report on the Universe Indicator (properties and acres where assessment or
cleanup are reported as complete for the first time under a Brownfields grant) and Type of Use Indicator (Greenspace,
Residential, Commercial, Industrial, and Mixed Use). OBLR is also using their Property Profile Form to collect information
on the "Ready for Reuse" measure (based on status of cleanup and 1C), which equates to both PFP and RAU measures and
is being reported as a Government Performance and Results Act measure by OBLR. Indicator and measure information is
being tracked in the EPA OBLR Assessment, Cleanup, and Redevelopment Exchange System (ACRES) database.
d OUST's "Confirmed Release" will equal one site and one acre for the Universe Indicator; OUST's "Cleanup Completed"
will equal one acre for both the PFP and RAU performance measures.
Section I: Introduction
1-5
-------
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets
Figure 1-2: Before and after photographs of the Bunker Hill Superfund Site in Idaho where contamination
was left on-site and capped with biosolids compost and wood ash. A long-term O&M plan was established to
ensure that attractive nuisance (see definition on page 3-2) issues did not result. See Appendix A for
additional information. Photographs courtesy of Dr. Sally Brown, University of Washington.
Ideally, the process of ecological
revitalization begins during the
assessment or investigation
phase of a cleanup rather than
after the remedy is underway;
this allows for the greatest
range of potential options and
end uses. As discussed
throughout this document,
ecological revitalization needs
additional considerations to
ensure protection of wildlife
that could end up inhabiting the
cleaned up property, in addition
to protecting human health and
the environment. Some of these
additional considerations are
included in Figure 1-3.
Ecological revitalization is not a
short cut for property cleanup,
but rather a viable and
productive reuse option that
also ensures protection of
human health and the
environment. Potential
challenges to consider early in
the process include (1) liability
if additional cleanup or
maintenance is needed,
especially in the long term;
Figure 1-3: Considerations When Planning for
Ecological Revitalization
Contaminant
bioaccumulation
and ecotoxicity
Ecological revitalization
planners will generally be
/ concerned with five
broad issues:
Threatened,
endangered, sensitive
or commercially
important species
Avoiding unintended
consequences
Section I: Introduction
1-6
-------
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets
(2) public health and access if the cleanup property is converted to habitat; (3) how ecological
revitalization, which can be slower than other reuse alternatives, will impact surrounding areas, and (4)
transfer of land and long-term stewardship. Therefore, while ecological revitalization can be considered
at all contaminated properties, it may not be appropriate for all properties. There are a variety of
considerations needed to ensure protectiveness (further discussed in Section 2), including conducting an
ecological risk assessment (ERA), avoiding attractive nuisances (see definition on page 3-2), and
bioaccumulation issues. For example, at the Bunker Hill Superfund Site in Idaho (shown in Figure 1-2),
attractive nuisance issues were taken into account while ecological revitalization was being considered as
an option. For additional information on bioaccumulation and EPA's persistent, bioaccumulative, and
toxic chemical program, visit the following Web site: www.epa.gov/pbt/index.htm. In addition,
ecological revitalization may require other considerations to ensure successful creation of habitat, such as
controlling invasive plant species. Technical performance measures (TPM) are available to determine the
success of ecological revitalization as part of a cleanup process. For additional information on TPMs, visit
the following Web site: www.clu-in.org/products/tpm.
Although commercial, industrial, residential, and some recreational uses are not ecological reuse, habitat
can be incorporated as a portion of or adjacent to these redeveloped areas. For example, at the Joliet
Army Ammunition Plant QOAAP), a tallgrass prairie was created among large intermodal centers and
other industrial areas. British Petroleum (BP) also plants native vegetation at its refineries adjacent to
areas where occasional spills may occur to provide phytoremediation, if necessary. See Appendix A for
additional information regarding the JOAAP in Illinois and the BP Former Refinery in Wyoming (a
photograph of JOAAP revitalization is also included on the cover of this document).
Ecological revitalization provides a variety of positive environmental, economic, and social impacts.
Some positive impacts of ecological revitalization are as follows (Interstate Technology and Regulatory
Council [ITRC] 2006; EPA 2006d):
• Repairs damaged land
• Improves soil health
• Supports diverse vegetation
• Reduces erosion
• Sequesters carbon
• Controls landfill leachate
• Protects surface and ground water from potential contamination
• Helps remove stigma associated with prior waste site
• Enhances property values and raises tax revenue
(www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/recycle/pdf/method.pdf)
• Provides passive recreational opportunities
• Contributes to a green corridor or infrastructure
Additional environmental, economic, and social impacts are listed in the ITRC's document, "Making the
Case for Ecological Enhancements" at www.itrcweb.org/Documents/ECO-l.pdf.
The remainder of this document provides background information on ecological revitalization in relation
to EPA's cleanup programs, and technical information and resources to assist in implementing ecological
revitalization at contaminated properties.
Section I: Introduction I -7
-------
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets
2.0 Ecological Revitalization Under EPA
Cleanup Programs
EPA's mission across its cleanup programs is to protect human health and the environment. Ecological
revitalization of contaminated properties is consistent with this mission and is an integral component of
EPA's cleanup programs. EPA recognizes the important role that it plays in helping communities and
other stakeholders clean up and reclaim contaminated properties, which has led to specific programs and
initiatives that support the revitalization and reuse (or continued productive use) of properties as part of
their assessment and cleanup. The nature and extent of EPA involvement in supporting ecological
revitalization varies from program to program, as well as from property to property. Moreover, the
decision on whether and how stakeholders will reuse a property for ecological or other purposes is
inherently a local decision that usually rests with the property owner.
This section presents an overview of each cleanup program under EPA OSWER (see the organizational
chart on page iii of this document) and its revitalization initiatives, which provides the programmatic
context for evaluating and taking steps to support ecological revitalization as part of cleaning up
contaminated properties. Section 2.1 provides several considerations that are common to each cleanup
program; Sections 2.2 through 2.6 address each program separately.
2. / General Programmatic Considerations
Depending on the specific circumstances at a contaminated property, EPA's OSWER cleanup programs
manage, oversee, or provide assistance with investigation and cleanup under one of several different
programs, including the Superfund, Federal Facilities, RCRA Corrective Action, Brownfields, and UST
programs. In some cases, individual contaminated properties can be subject to multiple OSWER
programs. For example, the Rocky Mountain Arsenal involves the RCRA Corrective Action, Superfund,
and Federal Facilities programs (Appendix A provides a case study on this site; a photograph is also
included on the cover of this document). As illustrated in Table 2-1 below, a variety of property types
can fall under the purview of one or more programs. With proper planning, these programs can support
ecological revitalization as part of, or following, cleanup.
Table 2-1: Property Types Commonly Managed Under EPA Cleanup Programs
EPA Cleanup Programs
^v%.cmi i iui^> i i vsu^i \,j
Type
Foundry
Gas Station
Landfill
Manufacturing Facility
Industry/Solvent Use
Military Installation
Other Federal
Facilities*
Mining
Refinery
Tannery
Superfund
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Federal
Facilities
X
X
X
X
RCRA Corrective
Action
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Brownfields
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
UST
X
X
X
X
X
X
* Non-military use facilities owned or operated by the federal government
Section 2: Ecological Revitalization Under EPA Cleanup Programs 2-1
-------
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets
Whether being addressed under one or
several of EPA's cleanup programs,
several factors determine whether and
how ecological revitalization can be
supported at a specific property.
These factors are discussed below.
Protectiveness. An important
consideration when evaluating the
ecological revitalization of a property
is ensuring protectiveness for both
human health and the environment.
EPA does not lower its standards of
protection for a property that will be
reused, nor does it allow reuse to
reduce effectiveness of cleanup
measures. Under its cleanup
Ecological Revitalization Cleanup Standards
in the Calumet Region, Chicago, Illinois
On the south side of Chicago, Illinois, a roundtable team of
federal, state, and local agencies developed the Calumet
Area Ecotoxicology Protocol to specifically address
ecological revitalization activities in this region (Calumet
Ecotoxicology Technical Roundtable Team 2007). The
protocol includes cleanup standards that are protective for
both human health and ecological receptors, which may be
more stringent than federal and state industrial and
commercial cleanup goals. Sites being cleaned up in the
Calumet Region follow the protocol to ensure
protectiveness of human health and the environment as
well as streamline the cleanup process.
programs, EPA ensures that
contamination is either completely removed, cleaned up to acceptable levels, or managed using
protective measures that reduce the possibility of exposure to the contamination. If all contamination is
eliminated, then human health and the environment are fully protected and the land or water body is
available for ecological or others types of use. Where protective measures are in place for waste that
remains after the cleanup, EPA determines whether such measures will continue to provide protection
for ecological reuse, or whether that use might impair the protective measures. In some cases, the
presence of certain contaminants (for example, persistent pollutants that are readily bioavailable, such as
metals and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons [PAH]) remaining after the cleanup may preclude
ecological revitalization efforts on those portions. Cleanup project managers will make these
determinations on a case-by-case basis. One of the key challenges to implementing ecological
revitalization under EPA's cleanup programs is that cleanup goals applicable to habitat creation can
necessitate complex analyses. Cleanup goals for ecological protection may also need to be more stringent
than for protection of human health (see text box above). Another challenge stems from a lack of
familiarity with ecological end uses and ways in which to quantify the value of such end uses (EPA 2005).
Enhancement. The extent of EPA's involvement in supporting ecological revitalization at a
contaminated property depends on the cleanup program involved, the legal authorities under which the
property operates, and the specific property at issue. For example, under the Superfund Program, EPA
cannot fund ecological enhancements (that is, activities not necessary for the protection of human health
and the environment); rather, it can encourage enhancement activities funded by other stakeholders and
can fund aspects of a cleanup project that are necessary for the anticipated future uses of a property.
Under the Superfund Program, EPA can fund activities to better understand the reasonably anticipated
future land use, which informs remedy selection and implementation and helps support long-term
protectiveness. Anticipating the future use of a Superfund site after cleanup completion is of key
importance in selecting and designing a remedy that will be consistent with that use. Similarly, EPA's
Brownfields Program provides, among other things, technical assistance to communities to support plans
for ecological and other "green" enhancements to the cleanup and reuse of properties (for example,
designing rain gardens, native landscaping, or green infrastructure), but not the actual revitalization or
reuse activities themselves. Other programs, such as RCRA Corrective Action or UST, encourage and
support ecological revitalization through their established relationships with states that have delegated
programs and through collaborative efforts with governmental and non-governmental organizations.
State programs may also have limitations for funding activities that are not directly needed for the
protection of human health and the environment. Property owners may see the benefits of supporting
the reuse of properties, including the ecological revitalization of the land, particularly when it affects
public perception of their business operations and commitment to the environment. Moreover, EPA may
Section 1: Ecological Revitalization Under EPA Cleanup Programs
2-2
-------
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets
Empire Canyon, Daly West Mine Site, Summit County, Utah
A resort development company has proposed the construction of a hotel, spa, and condominium
project at the Daly West Mine Site, to be known as the Montage Resort & Spa. The development will
contribute to the cleanup of contamination at this former mining site in Park City, Utah. The
developer agreed to participate in EPA's Environmentally Responsible Redevelopment and Reuse (ER3)
Initiative for contaminated properties. As an ER3 participant, the Montage Resort & Spa will
incorporate extensive "green" features into the design, construction, and operation of the
development, including several ecological revitalization components. For example, the project involves
treatment of ground water collected by foundation drains using a constructed wetland; a native
vegetation management plan to improve ecosystem health and reduce the risk of wildfires around the
site; and a conservation easement for 2,800 acres of open space to offset additional density from the
project. By incorporating sustainable practices and principles into the project, the developer has
minimized the impact of the project on the environment without sacrificing profitability.
be able to offer certain incentives to support ecological revitalization under its initiatives, such as EPA's
Environmentally Responsible Redevelopment and Reuse (ER3) Initiative.
In general, most ecological revitalization efforts are not considered enhancements if the activities are
necessary for the anticipated future ecological use of the property or to restore ecological function and,
therefore, can be considered and incorporated into property cleanup plans. Even costs for extensive
revitalization efforts to create or restore the function of an ecosystem can be justified if the revitalization
is needed because of environmental stressors or adverse impacts to the property caused by the cleanup.
For example, grasses, shrubs, and other native plants serve a practical function of stabilizing soil to
prevent erosion, while also improving
the property's aesthetics and ecological
function.
Other Cross-Cutting Ecological
Revitalization Considerations for EPA
Cleanup Programs
Liability: Consider who will be responsible if
additional cleanup or maintenance is required,
especially in the long-term.
Public Health and Access: Consider whether the
public will safely be allowed to use the property if it is
converted to habitat.
Surrounding Areas and Time: Ecological
revitalization can impact surrounding areas because,
while ecological revitalization can be a more cost-
effective process, the time required to return a
property to functioning and stable habitat can take
longer than other reuse alternatives.
Transfer of Land and Long-Term Stewardship:
Ensure that institutional controls are in place and
operating effectively, and consider who will be the
long-term landowner responsible for stewardship of
the ecological revitalization and associated natural
resources.
Stakeholder Involvement.
Regardless of which EPA program is
involved in the assessment, cleanup,
and revitalization of a contaminated
property, numerous stakeholders may
have an interest in the actions taken at
the property, including the following:
• Other federal, state, local, or
tribal agencies
• Parties responsible for the
contamination
• Current landowners
• Neighboring property owners
and the surrounding
community
• Prospective purchasers or
future users of the property
With different stakeholders potentially
involved at a contaminated property,
the ecological revitalization of the
Section 1: Ecological Revitalization Under EPA Cleanup Programs
2-3
-------
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets
property will need to consider the varied interests, objectives, and requirements of those stakeholders.
Successful ecological revitalization efforts have typically resulted from well-facilitated processes that
encourage open communication and the exchange of information among the stakeholders at a property.
Additional Initiatives That Support Sustainable Cleanup and Reuse. In addition to specific
initiatives that are supported by EPA's cleanup programs (and described in the following sections), there
are other EPA initiatives that can also support ecological revitalization at contaminated properties
regardless of which OSWER program is supporting the cleanup. These initiatives include the following:
EPA's EcoTools Initiative provides a variety of resources for cleanup project managers, especially under
the Superfund program. In addition to technical information, the EcoTools Web site provides cleanup
project managers access to ecological experts via a technical assistance service. For more information,
visit www.clu-in.org/ecotools.
EPA's ER3 Initiative uses enforcement and other EPA-wide incentives to promote sustainable cleanup
and redevelopment of contaminated properties. Under the ER3, EPA collaborates with federal, state,
public, and private partners to identify, develop, and deliver incentives to encourage developers and
property owners to implement sustainable practices during the redevelopment of contaminated
properties. The primary components of ER3 are to (1) identify and provide enforcement and EPA-wide
incentives to developers and property owners to encourage sustainable cleanup and development; (2)
develop partnerships with federal, state, public, and private entities to establish a network of expertise on
sustainable development issues; and (3) promote sustainable redevelopment of contaminated properties
through education and outreach. For more information on ER3, visit
www.epa.gov/compliance/cleanup/revitalization/er3/index.html.
EPA's Five Star Restoration Program brings together students, conservation corps, other youth groups,
citizen groups, corporations, landowners, and government agencies to provide environmental education
and training through projects that restore wetlands and streams. The program provides challenge grants,
technical support, and opportunities for information exchange to enable community-based restoration
projects. Visit www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/restore/5star for additional information about the Five
Star Restoration Program.
EPA's GreenAcres Initiative promotes natural and sustainable landscaping practices using native plants
and other green landscaping strategies. The GreenAcres Initiative is a component of EPA's Great Lakes
National Program Office and its efforts to promote an integrated, ecosystem approach to protect,
maintain, and restore the chemical, biological, and physical integrity of the Great Lakes. Under
GreenAcres, EPA provides information and resources on using native plants and natural landscape
approaches in urban, suburban, and corporate settings. For more information, visit
www.epa.gov/greenacres.
EPA's Green Infrastructure Partnership is an initiative to work with partners to promote green
infrastructure as an environmentally preferable approach to stormwater management. In January 2008,
EPA and its partners released an action strategy for managing wet weather with green infrastructure.
The strategy provides a collaborative set of actions that promote the use of green infrastructure and
outlines efforts to bring green infrastructure technologies and approaches into mainstream wet weather
management. For more information about this partnership and the action strategy, visit
http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/home.cfm?program_id=298.
EPA's Green Remediation Initiative promotes the use of best management practices (BMP) to maximize
the net environmental benefits of cleanup actions. With the help of public and private partners, EPA
OSWER is documenting the state of BMPs, identifying ways to improve BMPs, and forming a community
of BMP practitioners. Technical assistance is offered to cleanup project managers to find new
opportunities for reducing the environmental footprint of cleanup actions. For more information about
this initiative, visit www.clu-in.org/greenremediation.
Section 1: Ecological Revitalization Under EPA Cleanup Programs 2-4
-------
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets
EPA's GreenScapes Program identifies cost-efficient and environmentally friendly solutions for
landscaping. Designed to help preserve natural resources and prevent waste and pollution, GreenScapes
encourages companies, government agencies, other entities, and homeowners to make more holistic
decisions regarding waste generation and disposal and the associated impacts on land, water, air, and
energy use. Visit www.epa.gov/greenscapes for additional information on the GreenScapes Program.
2.2 Superfund Sites
EPA's OSRTI carries out the Superfund Program, which addresses contamination from uncontrolled
releases at hazardous waste sites that threaten human health and the environment. EPA manages the
Superfund Program under the authority of the CERCLA, 1980, as amended. Under the Superfund
Program, abandoned, accidentally released, or illegally dumped hazardous wastes that pose a current or
future threat to human health or the environment are cleaned up. To accomplish its mission, EPA works
closely with communities, potentially responsible parties, and other federal, state, local, and tribal
agencies. Together with these groups, EPA identifies hazardous waste sites, investigates the conditions
of the sites, formulates cleanup plans, and deans up sites to ensure that they are protective of human
health and the environment.
Superfund cleanups include both long-term and short-term response actions. Long-term cleanups or
remedial actions are conducted on sites that, following an evaluation, are listed on the National Priorities
List (NPL). Once on the NPL, EPA follows a thorough process to carefully investigate the site and select
and carry out a remedy specific to that site. Short-term cleanups called removal actions, fall into three
categories: (1) non-time critical responses at sites where on-site activities do not need to be initiated for
more than six months; (2) time critical responses at sites where on-site activities must begin within six
months; and (3) emergency removal actions at sites that need initiation of on-site activities within hours
of the decision that action is necessary. EPA's role and ability to support ecological revitalization may
vary across these different site types, as discussed below.
Coordinating Ecological Revitalization Efforts in the Superfund Remediation Process.
OSRTI established the Superfund Redevelopment Initiative (SRI) to ensure that at every Superfund site,
EPA and its partners have the necessary tools and information to return the country's most hazardous
sites to productive use, including information related to natural resources and ecological revitalization.
In addition to cleaning up Superfund sites and making them protective of human health and the
environment, communities and other partners are involved in considering future use opportunities and
integrating appropriate reuse options into the cleanup process. At previously cleaned sites, communities
are also involved to ensure the long-term stewardship of the site remedies. For more information on the
SRI, visit the following Web site: www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/recycle.
When investigating, designing, and implementing a cleanup, remedial project managers (RPMs) are
encouraged to consider, to the extent practical, anticipated future land uses. With careful planning, many
Superfund sites can accommodate ecological revitalization while still meeting the requirements under
CERCLA and other federal and state regulations. Stakeholders best accomplish the objectives of
ecological revitalization and those of the remediation process through careful coordination. For example,
under CERCLA EPA needs to coordinate with all affected Natural Resource Trustees (Trustees) when
conducting a remedial investigation (RI). Trustees are designated under Executive Order 12580 and
defined under CERCLA as other federal, state, or tribal governments that act on behalf of the public for
natural resources under their trusteeship. Trustees often have information and technical expertise about
the biological effects of hazardous substances, as well as the location of sensitive species and habitats that
can assist EPA in evaluating and characterizing the nature and extent of site-related contamination.
Coordination at the investigation and planning stages provides the Trustees early access to information
they need to assess injury to natural resources. This assists Trustees in making early decisions about
whether sites need restoration in light of the response actions.
Several types of ecological studies, including ERAs and Natural Resource Damage Assessments
Section 1: Ecological Revitalization Under EPA Cleanup Programs 2-5
-------
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets
Multiagency Coordination at the Atlas Tack Superfund Site,
Fairhaven, Massachusetts
Agency coordination is an essential part of the Atlas Tack Superfund Site remediation. As part of
planning for the ecological revitalization, EPA coordinated with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USAGE) and used the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Damage
Assessment, Remediation, and Restoration Program (DARRP), which acts as a Federal natural
resource trustee. NOAA contributed to the development of site-specific sediment remedial goals and
the wetland removal plan, and greatly assisted in the design of the mitigation resulting in ecological
revitalization at no additional cost to EPA. USAGE and NOAA jointly designed separate fresh and salt
water marshes to outcompete an invasive species at the site. Using remedial funding, three Federal
agencies worked cooperatively to create an effective, natural remedy for the site. For more
information, see Appendix A and visit www.epa.gov/ne/superfund/sites/atlas.
(NRDAs), support cleanup and ecological revitalization decisions at a Superfund site. EPA utilizes an
ERA as part of its process for assessing the risks of site-related contamination. ERAs are usually
conducted during the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) phase of the Superfund response
process and inform RPMs about the risk associated with the site. While physical impacts of site cleanup
activities are assessed during the FS, ERAs specifically evaluate the likelihood that adverse ecological
effects are occurring or may occur because of exposure to chemical (for example, release of hazardous
substances) stressors at a site. These assessments often contain detailed information regarding the
interaction of these "stressors" with the biological community at the site. Part of the assessment process
includes creating exposure profiles that describe the sources and distribution of harmful entities, identify
sensitive organisms or populations, characterize potential exposure pathways, and estimate the intensity
and extent of exposures at a site. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), a
natural resource trustee, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) played an important role in
remediation of the Atlas Tack Superfund Site in Massachusetts, including conducting a site-specific ERA
(EPA 2008h) based on the cleanup goals that were established for this site (see text box on this page and
Figure 2-1). Additional information about this remedy is available at http://www.clu-
in.org/download/newsltis/tnandtl208.pdf.
Trustees also conduct NRDAs, at sites with viable responsible parties, to calculate the monetary cost of
restoring natural resources injured by releases of hazardous substances. They evaluate damages to natural
resources by identifying the functions or "services" provided by the resources, determining the baseline level
of the services provided by the injured resource(s), and quantifying the reduction in service levels because of
the contamination. ERAs form the basis for establishing cleanup goals and may contain important
information that EPA, Trustees, and risk assessors can use to evaluate ecological revitalization at a site.
While property owners and communities generally conduct land use planning with input from
stakeholders, it is important for EPA to understand the anticipated future uses for the site when planning
and implementing the remedy. Establishing remediation goals for ecological receptors can be
challenging if there is limited data on toxicity, effects on receptor species, and contaminant
bioavailabifity. These challenges can be overcome by planning ahead and collecting appropriate
ecotoxicological data (such as contaminant bioavailability and site-specific toxicity), reviewing the open
literature and previous ERAs for data, and coordinating with stakeholders to identify site-specific
receptors and past incidents of exposure. Uncertainties that cannot be addressed may be documented as
part of the site-specific ERA and considered when selecting the site remedy or reuse. Stakeholders have
the greatest reuse flexibility if remediation and reuse plans are coordinated prior to cleanup. EPA plays
an important role in the planning process by communicating key information about the nature of
contamination at the site, remedy options, and long-term protectiveness issues.
Section 1: Ecological Revitalization Under EPA Cleanup Programs
2-6
-------
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets
Stakeholders can still implement ecological revitalization even after the cleanup is complete. In 2004,
EPA developed the Return to Use (RTU) Initiative to remove barriers to appropriate reuse at the
hundreds of Superfund sites where cleanup has been completed. A focus of RTU has been on
establishing partnerships with communities and other stakeholders to address potential obstacles to
reuse. Through site-specific partnerships, referred to as demonstration projects, EPA is working with key
stakeholders at RTU sites to identify potential reuse barriers and appropriate solutions for those obstacles
(EPA 2008a). For more information on the RTU, visit
www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/recycle/activities/rtu.html.
Coordinating Ecological Revitalization Efforts in the Superfund Removal Action Process.
EPA has prepared a reuse assessment guidance for non-time critical removal actions (see Reuse Assessments
Directive, OSWER 9355.7-06P, at www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/recycle/policy/reuse.html); however,
guidance is not currently available regarding reuse assessment for time-critical and emergency removal
actions. The accelerated and time sensitive nature of these cleanups creates a challenge, as removal teams
often complete their activities before there is an opportunity to consider reuse. In some cases, cleanup project
managers can quickly conduct an ERA for a removal action, if there is an eminent threat to ecological
receptors. However, these instances are rare and the removal action ERA follows the same process outlined
for long-term ERAs conducted during the RI/FS. Because the time critical removal process is much faster than
the remedial process, implementing reuse planning involves creating a targeted, expedited approach so that
reuse can inform the removal action. For example, at the Calumet Container Superfund Site in Hammond,
Indiana, EPA conducted a time critical removal action where ecological revitalization drove the reuse strategy
for the site. In addition to contaminated soil removal, the removal action also included restoring wetlands and
planting native plants. EPA worked successfully and expeditiously with stakeholders to determine future
anticipated use of the site (see Appendix A for additional information about this site.)
Tools and Resources. The Superfund Program has developed and made available a variety of tools
and resources supporting site reuse in general and ecological revitalization in particular (see
www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/recycle/tools/index.html for a list of specific tools and resources
that are available). In general, site managers can use SRI guidance documents to create and integrate
reuse processes at sites undergoing either a remedial and removal action. SRI has also developed a
community involvement process to advance reuse at remediation sites, which could be helpful at removal
sites.
The Superfund Program has also developed several resources for site managers, consultants, and others
interested in restoring disturbed sites. The Ecotools Web site (www.clu-in.org/ecotools) provides
information on soil health, principles of ecological land reuse, and links to various federal, state,
academic, and nonprofit agencies and organizations that support ecological revitalization. Through the
Ecotools Web site, technical assistance is available for Superfund sites on various ecological revitalization
topics, including ecological reuse of contaminated sites, use of soil amendments, use of native plants,
control of invasive species, and re-vegetation. Fact sheets and Web-based seminars that focus on tools,
methods, and technologies for implementing ecological reuse are also available. Answers to frequently
Technical Assistance for Ecological Revitalization
at Superfund Sites
Regardless of the scope of the revitalization project, technical assistance can be obtained from the
EPA's regional Biological Technical Assistance Groups (BTAG) (EPA 1991; see Appendix B for links to
regional BTAG Web sites), EPA's Emergency Response Team (www.ert.org). EPA's Office of
Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (OSRTI; www.epa.gov/tio). EPA's Ecotools Web
site (www.clu-in.org/ecotools). and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources
Conservation Service (www.nrcs.usda.gov).
Section 1: Ecological Revitalization Under EPA Cleanup Programs
2-7
-------
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets
Figure 2-1: Before and after photographs of the Atlas Tack Superfund Site in Massachusetts where the
remedy resulted in preservation of wetland sediment and created a functioning wetland. See Appendix A
for additional information. Photographs courtesy of Elaine Stanley, EPA Region I.
asked questions related to ecological revitalization, re-vegetating landfills and waste containment areas,
and attractive nuisance issues are available online at www.clu-in.org/publ.cfm (EPA 2006c, d; EPA
2007c). The Green Remediation Web site (www.clu-in.org/greenrernediation) provides various resources
for cleanup project managers interested in incorporating green remediation strategies into cleanup
actions. Resources include information on the use of BMPs; contracting and administrative toolkits;
decision-making tools; links to initiatives involving green remediation applications; technical resources;
and site-specific case studies. Technical assistance is also available for cleanup project managers in
answering general inquiries about green remediation and for Superfund RPMs to build site-specific green
remediation strategies. A useful resource available through this Web site is a technology primer on
Green Remediation (EPA 2008J) that outlines the principles of green remediation and describes
opportunities to reduce the carbon footprint of cleanup activities throughout the life of a project.
In addition, groups such as regional Biological Technical Assistance Groups (BTAG), which are typically
composed of biologists, ecologists, and ecotoxicologists from EPA, and agencies such as the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS), NOAA, and state environmental departments, could provide assistance during
cleanup of a site to support ecological revitalization efforts.
2.3 Federal Facilities
EPA's FFRRO works with other EPA offices and federal entities to facilitate faster, more effective, and
less costly cleanup and reuse of federal facilities. The federal facilities universe includes NPL sites and
certain Base Realignment and Closure (BRAG) facilities (each subject to their respective provisions of
CERCLA). The main difference between federal facilities and private Superfund sites is that at federal
facilities, EPA has an oversight role rather than primary cleanup authority, which falls to the other federal
agency. Many of the site-specific considerations for Superfund sites listed in Section 2.2 also apply to the
federal facilities listed on the NPL as well as federal facilities not listed on the NPL (non-NPL sites).
Additional challenges that might apply to federal facilities include special circumstances based on the
contamination at that facility, such as munitions constituents.
Section 2: Ecological Revitalization Under EPA Cleanup Programs
2-8
-------
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets
FFRRO and Interagency Coordination
In addition to EPA, FFRRO works with the following federal agencies to coordinate initiatives related to
the cleanup of federal properties:
Federal Aviation Administration
Defense Logistics Agency
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Guard
Small Business Administration
U.S. Air Force
U.S. Army
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Coast Guard
U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. Department of Defense
U.S. Department of Energy
U.S. Department of Interior
U.S. Department of Transportation
U.S. Navy
FFRRO's BRAC Program develops policies, plans, and initiatives to expedite the cleanup and reuse of
closing military installations. Since 1993, the BRAC Program has worked with U.S. Department of
Defense (DoD), state environmental programs, local governments, and communities to achieve its goal of
"making property environmentally acceptable for transfer, while protecting human health and the
environment." For more information, visit the following Web site:
www.epa.gov/fedfac/about_ffrro.htm.
To implement congressionally mandated actions, EPA issued guidance on how to transfer federal
facilities contaminated with hazardous wastes before cleanup completion. In the past, contaminated
federal facilities had to undergo complete cleanup at least one year before transfer if hazardous waste
was released from, disposed of, or stored on-site. Now, federal agencies can transfer properties prior to
cleanup, as long they meet certain conditions. By transferring property that poses no unacceptable risks,
communities benefit from faster reuse and redevelopment (EPA 2008c).
Ecological revitalization is a part of many Department of Energy (DOE) and DoD facility reuse projects.
Examples include Pease Air Force Base, JOAAP, Rocky Mountain Arsenal, Fernald, and Rocky Flats,
which all have major ecological reuse components. See Appendix A for additional information on these
case studies; the cover of this
document includes a photograph of
JOAAP.
Coordinating With Other EPA
Offices and Programs. In carrying
out its mission, FFRRO works closely
with other EPA headquarters offices,
including OSRTI, which manages the
Superfund Program; ORCR, which
manages the RCRA Corrective Action
Program; and the Federal Facilities
Enforcement Office (FFEO), which
oversees compliance with
environmental laws and guidance.
EPA's Regional offices are also key
partners in accomplishing EPA's
federal facilities mission. RPMs and
Midewin Tallgrass Prairie at the
Joliet Army Ammunition Plant,
Will County, Illinois
After working with the community and other
stakeholders, the remediation team cleaned up
contaminated soil through excavation and bioremediation.
More than 19,000 acres of land was transferred to the
Forest Service to create the Midewin Tallgrass Prairie, the
first national tallgrass prairie in the country. While it will
take years to fully restore the land, about a third is now
open for the public to observe ongoing habitat restoration,
as well as to hike, bike, or ride horseback on interim trails.
For more detailed information about this example, see
Appendix A.
Section 1: Ecological Revitalization Under EPA Cleanup Programs
2-9
-------
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets
A Wildlife Refuge at the Rocky Mountain
Arsenal in Commerce City, Colorado
EPA is partnering with the Army, Shell Oil, and the
Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment to transform the Rocky Mountain Arsenal
facility, one of the worst hazardous waste sites in the
country, into one of the largest urban national wildlife
refuges. The partnership is addressing contaminated
ground water, surface water, soils, and buildings. Under
the management of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS), 27 square miles of open space surrounding
the manufacturing facility is home to nearly 300 species
of wildlife. After the cleanup is complete, the property
will become a permanent part of the National Wildlife
Refuge System (EPA 2008b). For more detailed
information about this example, see Appendix A.
Community Involvement Coordinators
(CICs), as well as toxicologists; attorneys;
and reuse, tribal, and environmental
justice coordinators based in each
regional office work closely with EPA
headquarters staff to coordinate site-
specific cleanup activities. For issues
requiring specialized expertise, FFRRO
also collaborates with related EPA
headquarters offices on a project-specific
basis. Additionally, FFRRO co-chairs the
Federal Facilities Leadership Counsel
(FFLC), a coordinating body within EPA
that provides direction and leadership on
federal facility cleanup efforts. The FFLC
is a forum for addressing a wide
spectrum of federal facility cleanup
issues, including compliance, technical,
enforcement, financial, budgeting, and
legislative issues. The FFLC includes
EPA regional federal facility program
and project managers, regional counsels, and headquarters staff from FFRRO and FFEO.
Coordinating With Other Agencies. FFRRO's partners include governmental and non-
governmental groups that are involved in federal facilities cleanup. FFRRO works directly with other
federal agencies, primarily DoD and DOE, to coordinate initiatives related to cleanup of federal
properties.
FFRRO partners also include state, local, and tribal governments; community groups; environmental
justice communities; and advocacy organizations. Local stakeholders include individuals, community
groups and any other entities that might be affected by contamination, cleanup activities, or both. FFRRO
encourages early and meaningful community involvement at all federal facilities.
Tools and Resources. FFRRO provides a variety of information resources about its programs, policies,
and partners. The following Web sites provide access and information about its resources:
Visit www.epa.gov/fedfac/info.htm for access to EPA FFRRO's publications, newsletters, information
centers, and other information resources.
Visit www.epa.gov/swerffrr/policy.htm for access to federal facilities related laws, regulations, policies,
and guidance.
Visit FFRRO's comprehensive, searchable library of resources related to federal facility restoration and
reuse topics at http://cfpub.epa.gov/fdrl/index.cfm.
2.4 RCRA Corrective Action Facilities
EPA's ORCR regulates all household, industrial, and commercial solid and hazardous waste under
RCRA, 1981, as amended. One important objective of EPA's RCRA Program is to protect the public from
the management and disposal of hazardous wastes that RCRA facilities generate as part of normal
operations. Examples of RCRA facilities include metal finishing operations, auto body repair shops, dry
cleaners, chemical manufacturers, foundries, locomotive and railcar maintenance operations, and
steelworks. In some cases, these facilities are no longer operational, have no significant activity, or are
now vacant. Accidents or activities by hazardous waste generators or at hazardous waste treatment,
Section 1: Ecological Revitalization Under EPA Cleanup Programs
2-10
-------
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets
BP Former Refinery, Casper, Wyoming
Under a RCRA Corrective Action Consent Decree, BP and the Wyoming Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ) cleaned up this 4,000-acre former refinery located along the banks of the
North Platte River and incorporated several ecological revitalization components, creating wildlife
habitat and allowing recreational reuse of the facility. Soda Lake, which was once used to dispose of
waste water from the refinery, has been revitalized. BP worked with local citizens and the Audubon
Society to design a bird sanctuary and resting ground for migrating birds. The reuse plan also
incorporated a wetland treatment system into the design of a golf course constructed on the facility.
The team planted more than 2,000 a trees as part of phytoremediation approach for cleaning up of
portions of the property (EPA 2007a). This facility is a good example of how ecological revitalization
measures can be incorporated at a facility with ongoing manufacturing activities. For more detailed
information about this facility, see Appendix A.
storage, and disposal facilities regulated under RCRA may release contaminants into the environment.
The RCRA Corrective Action Program ensures that regulated facilities that accidentally or otherwise
release hazardous waste investigate and clean up such hazardous releases. The RCRA Corrective Action
Program differs from Superfund in several ways. First, RCRA facilities often have viable owners and
operators and on-going operations. As such, how best to use/reuse the property is ultimately the
decision of the property owner, including whether to incorporate ecological revitalization elements on
the facility. Second, EPA has delegated the RCRA Program to 43 states and territories that directly
manage and oversee the Corrective Action Program; EPA implements the program in other unauthorized
states.
In 1998, EPA established the RCRA Reuse and Brownfields Prevention Initiative to encourage the reuse of
facilities subject to corrective action under RCRA so that contaminated or otherwise under-used land
Figure 2-2: Before and after photographs of England Air Force Base in Louisiana where contaminated areas
were excavated and became part of the Audubon Trail, providing habitat and a stopping point for migratory
birds. See Appendix A for additional information. Photographs courtesy of RCRA Corrective Action Program.
Section 1: Ecological Revitalintion Under EPA Cleanup Programs
2-11
-------
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets
DuPont-Remington Arms
Facility, Lonoke, Arkansas
The DuPont-Remington Arms
Facility continues to manufacture
munitions on 385 acres of the
1,116-acre facility. The company
manages the remaining 731 acres as
a wildlife habitat. In cooperation
with Ducks Unlimited, the cleanup
team constructed a 20-acre moist
soil impoundment for waterfowl
habitat (EPA 2007b). See Appendix
A for more detailed information
about this facility.
transitions back into productive use or greenspace (EPA
2008a). Several activities under this initiative support the
ecological revitalization of RCRA facilities. One such
activity is a cooperative agreement between EPA and the
Wildlife Habitat Council (WHC). Under this agreement, the
WHC works with EPA and other stakeholders to
incorporate ecological revitalization into the cleanup design
for end uses, hence providing wildlife habitat (WHC 2008).
For example, corrective action at the Ford Rouge Center in
Dearborn, Michigan, included ecological components to
minimize impacts to the Rouge River. The cleanup team
restored or created new wildlife habitat, including
hedgerow wildlife corridors and wetland and grassland
restoration. In addition to wildlife habitat, the project
included other sustainable elements, such as installing a
vegetated roof, using pervious pavement, and including
phytoremediation. Because many aspects of the project
involved ecological enhancement activities, the Ford Motor
Company funded most of the activities on the property,
with some additional funding provided through a state grant (for a stormwater swale) and an EPA grant
to the Dearborn Public Schools System under its Five Star Restoration Grants Program (to support
wetlands restoration activities). See Appendix A for a case study regarding this facility.
EPA introduced RCRA Cleanup Reforms in 1999 (EPA 1999b) and additional Reforms in 2001 (EPA 2001)
to more effectively meet the goals of the RCRA Corrective Action Program and speed up the pace of
cleanups. One initiative of the 2001 Cleanup Reforms is capitalizing on the redevelopment potential of
RCRA Corrective Action facilities. In addition, the RCRA program issued guidance to tailor cleanups to
facility-specific end uses, including ecological end uses, while maintaining the ultimate goal of protecting
human health and the environment. The "Guidance on Completion of Corrective Action Activities at
RCRA Facilities" 68 FR 8757 (Feb 25, 2003) describes how corrective actions can be completed with
contaminants remaining, using controls tailored to protection for a specific end use for the property (EPA
2005).
In most cases, facilities that are subject to RCRA corrective action continue their operations throughout the
cleanup process. Although operations continue at these facilities, opportunities to incorporate ecological
revitalization measures still may exist at parts of the property where there are no ongoing operations (see the
DuPont-Remington Arms Facility text box). Facilities that are no longer continuing their current industrial or
waste management operations may also provide opportunities for ecological revitalization. Some examples
include the Ford Rouge Center in Michigan, the BP Oil facility in Lima, Ohio, and the Hopewell Plant
(Honeywell) in Hopewell, Virginia. See Appendix A for additional information on these case studies. In
Reuse at RCRA Corrective Action Facilities
In Spring 2001, a survey to determine trends in reuse potential of the 155 RCRA federal lead corrective
action facilities in EPA Region 5 identified that 32 percent of all facilities (a total of 49) have potential for
habitat or natural area restoration as a sole option or in combination with other reuses (EPA 2002b).
While current, nationwide data is not available for ecological reuse of RCRA facilities, at least two
regions (EPA Regions 3 and 10) recently conducted studies regarding their RCRA facilities' status and
type of use. The results show that, even though most land use on RCRA facilities is industrial, as
stakeholders reuse more RCRA facilities, a broader range of use is occurring. Visit the following Web
site to review the results from EPA Region 3's study:
www.eDa.gov/region03/revitalization/R3 land use final/data results.pdf.
Section 1: Ecological Revitalization Under EPA Cleanup Programs
2-12
-------
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets
some cases, especially with large properties, parcels of the property may provide special reuse opportunities
(for example, riverfront location, road or rail access, or community reuse interest). In particular, many large
RCRA facilities are federal facilities that may include large tracts of land that could be suitable for ecological
revitalization or conservation easements. Stakeholders may be able to reuse uncontaminated parcels or those
parcels on a shorter cleanup schedule more quickly than the entire facility (EPA 2008e). For example, at the
former England Air Force Base in Alexandria, Louisiana, areas excavated as part of a remedial action became
part of the Audubon Trail, providing habitat and a stopping point for migratory birds (see Figure 2-2). See
Appendix A for additional information on this case study.
Tools and Resources. ORCR provides a variety of information resources about its programs, policies,
and partners. The following Web sites provide access and information about its resources:
Visit www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/correctiveaction/bfields.htm for information on the RCRA
Brownfields Prevention Initiative and case study examples of successes under the initiative.
Visit www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/correctiveaction/resources/index.htm for guidance and other
information about RCRA corrective action.
2.5 Brownfields Properties
EPA's OBLR manages the Brownfields Program under the authority of Small Business Liability Relief and
Brownfields Revitalization Act of 2002 (the "Brownfields Law"). EPA designed its Brownfields Program
to empower states, communities, and other stakeholders to work together in a timely manner to prevent,
assess, safely clean up, and sustainably reuse brownfields properties.
Brownfields are real property1, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by
the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant. Included in the
definition of Brownfields properties are sites contaminated with petroleum that represent a relatively low
risk, including properties where the contamination resulted from an UST (Section 2.6 provides
information on EPA's UST Program). An estimated 450,000 brownfields properties are located
throughout the country (www.epa.gov/brownfields/about.htm). Cleaning up and reinvesting in these
properties relieves development pressures on undeveloped, open land while both improving and
protecting the environment.
The Brownfields Program is a grant-based program that promotes green, ecological, and open space uses
as part of its competitive grants process. These grants support revitalization efforts by funding
environmental assessment, cleanup, i
and job training activities. I
Brownfields funds can support Sequim Bay Estuary,
sustainable remediation measures and Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, Washington
planning for ecological revitalization
(as the reuse of the property), but
typically not actual revitalization or
reuse activities. EPA's grant review
process generally favors grant
proposals that include ecological reuse
as part or all of the ultimate reuse
goals, especially with respect to
greenspace and sustainable use
criteria. The ultimate decision on ,
The Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe used an EPA Brownfields
Cleanup grant to clean up and restore estuary function to
82 acres of Sequim Bay. Cleanup activities included
removing pilings, contaminated soil, and solid waste from
the shoreline and riparian wetlands. The bay now
provides clean sediment and habitat for shellfish, salmon,
and other species. See Appendix A for more detailed
information about this case study.
1 "Real property" is a term indicating a property consisting of lands of all appurtenances to lands, as buildings, crops,
or mineral rights (distinguished from personal property).
Section 1: Ecological Revitalization Under EPA Cleanup Programs
2-13
-------
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets
Figure 2-3: Before and after photographs of the Grace Lease Property in Pennsylvania, where a former
industrial area was revitalized to natural habitat. See Appendix A for additional information. Photographs
obtained courtesy of Office of Brownfields and Land Revitalization.
whether a brownfields property will include ecological revitalization remains with the community
receiving the grant. Although data specifically on the ecological revitalization of brownfields properties
are not available, data reported by grantees on reuse measures for OBLR from fiscal year (FY) 2003 to
FY2007 indicated that an estimated 4,756 acres were ready for reuse, and more than 507 acres of
greenspace or open space were created (EPA 2008i). The Grace Lease property in Pennsylvania (see
Figure 2-3) is an example of a restored Brownfields property, which had been dormant for nearly a
century and was then converted into a natural habitat. A Brownfields Assessment Grant allowed
stakeholders to study contaminant levels at the blighted property, remove uncertainties associated with
property contamination, and transform the dormant property into usable greenspace for the community.
The Brownfields Program also encourages the incorporation of green infrastructure into brownfields
redevelopment projects. Green infrastructure techniques, such as bioswales, green roofs, and rain
gardens, present an opportunity to return land to functioning and sustainable habitat. Other green
infrastructure practices can also retain, treat, and release stormwater without exposing it to contaminated
soils. For more information about this effort, visit
www.epa.gov/brownfields/publications/swdp0408.pdf.
Brownfields and Land Revitalization Technology Support Center (BTSC)
Coordinated through EPA's Technology Innovation Program, the BTSC ensures that Brownfields
decision makers are aware of the full range of technologies available to make informed or "smart"
technology decisions for their properties, including support for ecological revitalization. BTSC provides
a readily accessible resource for unbiased assessments and supporting information on options relevant
to specific properties, including a technology-oriented review process for investigation and clean-up
plans for these properties. The BTSC also provides information about other available support activities,
such as those conducted by the Technical Assistance to Brownfields (TAB) Program located at five
regional Hazardous Substance Research Centers. Direct support is available to EPA regional staff, state
staff, and local governments. For more information, visit www.brownfieldstsc.org.
Section 1: Ecological Revitalintion Under EPA Cleanup Programs
2-14
-------
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets
The Brownfields Program also provides Training, Research, and Technical Assistance Grants to fund
projects that explore innovative ideas in the areas of protection of human health and the environment,
sustainable development, and equitable development. Each assistance project will receive between
$100,000 and $150,000 in annual funding for up to five years. Recipients can use the grants to support a
variety of projects including, ecological revitalization, sustainable uses of land, and green jobs in
communities. For more information about these grants, visit www.epa.gov/brownfields/trta.htm.
Other initiatives under the Brownfields Program can also contribute to ecological revitalization of
brownfields properties. For example, through its partnership with Groundwork USA and the National
Park Service Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program, OBLR works with communities to
improve their environment, economy, and quality of life through local action. This partnership also
results in the ecological reuse of brownfields properties through Groundwork Trusts. Visit
www.groundworkusa.net/index.html for more information about the Groundwork USA network.
Under the Sustainable Sites Initiative, EPA is currently working with the U.S. Green Building Council to
provide a framework for the green development of brownfields properties. The framework is similar to
what the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) system has accomplished for green
buildings. The framework includes considerations for cleaning or mitigating all hazardous substances
from prior use, supporting sustainable landscape principles and practices, and preventing the creation of
future brownfields. For more information, see the following document:
www.sustainablesites.org/report/SSI_Guidelines_Draft_2008.pdf.
Tools and Resources. OBLR provides a variety of information resources about its programs, policies,
and partners. The following Web sites provide access and information about these resources:
Visit www.brownfieldstsc.org for information on strategies, technologies, and technical assistance
available to support the investigation and cleanup of brownfields properties.
Visit www.epa.gov/swerosps/bf/toolsandtech.htm for access to a variety of tools and technical
resources available to support property reuse.
Visit www.epa.gov/swerosps/bf/initiatives.htm for information on the various EPA and related
initiatives that may be applicable at brownfields properties.
Visit www.epa.gov/swerosps/bf/partnr.htm to learn more about the partnerships that EPA has entered
in support of brownfields revitalization and reuse.
2.6 Underground Storage Tank Sites
EPA's OUST manages and oversees the UST Program, which seeks to prevent leaks or releases of
petroleum or certain hazardous substances from USTs, and ensures that contamination from USTs is
cleaned up. OUST manages the program under the authority of several statutes, including Subtitle I of
RCRA, as amended by the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments, the 1986 Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act, and the Energy Policy Act of 2005. States and territories
primarily implement the UST Program, while EPA implements the UST Program in Indian Country.
OUST administers the Leaking UST Trust Fund, which provides money for (1) overseeing and enforcing
corrective action taken by a responsible party, who is the owner or operator of the leaking UST; and (2)
implementing cleanups at UST sites where the owner or operator is unknown, unwilling, or unable to
respond, or which need emergency action.
A key provision of the 2002 Brownfields Law allocates 25 percent of funding each year to assess, cleanup,
and make ready for reuse petroleum brownfields properties that are relatively low risk. Of the estimated
450,000 brownfields properties in the U.S., approximately half are affected by USTs or some type of
petroleum contamination (EPA 2008f). OUST is responsible for promoting the cleanup of sites with
Section 1: Ecological Revitalization Under EPA Cleanup Programs 2-15
-------
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets
Pocket Park at a Former Service Station,
Chicago, Illinois
A former service station in Chicago was transformed into
a small pocket park using native plantings. This pocket
park initiative is a joint effort by BP, the City of Chicago,
and the local community. The contaminants of concern at
the site were benzene, toluene, xylenes, and ethylbenzene
(BTEX) at levels above maximum contaminant levels
(MCLs) but not at levels that would pose a risk to the
surrounding community. Once the site received "no
further remediation" letters and was considered cleaned
up, the team planted native species to create pockets of
habitat for wildlife, expand greenspace for the community,
and reduce stormwater runoff by reducing paved surfaces.
See Appendix A for more detailed information about this
example; this document's cover also includes a photograph
of this pocket park.
leaking USTs and coordinates with
OBLR to refine the implementation of
the law's petroleum provisions to
allow more sites to support
appropriate reuse or revitalization
(EPA 2008d).
To encourage the reuse of abandoned
properties contaminated with
petroleum from USTs, OUST created
the USTfields Initiative in 2000.
USTfields are abandoned or
underused industrial and commercial
properties where revitalization is
complicated by real or perceived
environmental contamination from
USTs. The purpose of these pilots was
to promote the importance of public-
private partnerships; the critical role of
the state as the primary implementing
agency; and the leveraging of private
funds to maximize cleanups.
Although OUST will not award any new USTfields pilots beyond the original 50 pilots, sites may receive
funding for similar assessment and cleanup projects through the Brownfields assessment, cleanup, and
revolving loan fund grants and through the Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) Trust Fund.
Coordinating with Other Agencies. A major component of OUST's efforts to support the
revitalization of contaminated sites caused by leaking USTs is collaboration with federal, state, and local
agencies, and tribal and private partners to foster the revitalization and reuse of petroleum-contaminated
sites. OUST also works with numerous grant recipients to enhance their efforts to revitalize petroleum
brownfields. For example, OUST collaborated with the Indiana Brownfields Trails and Parks Initiative,
which uses EPA grant funding to provide environmental assessments to local governments and non-
profits for brownfields properties (including petroleum brownfields) where parks, trails, or other green
uses are planned (see www.in.gov/ifa/brownfields/files/TPI Fact Sheet 6-18-08.pdf for more
information on this state program). OUST is also partnering with EPA's Office of Policy, Economics, and
Innovation (OPEI) to utilize several assistance mechanisms, such as the SmartGrowth America National
Vacant Properties campaign. This campaign provides local planners with the information needed to
consider viable reuse options, such as green or open spaces, at abandoned or under-utilized service
stations and other petroleum brownfields.
OUST entered into a cooperative agreement with the WHC to help maximize the ecological benefits of
reusing petroleum brownfields. One goal of the agreement is to demonstrate how federal, state, and local
governments, tribal partners, industry, and community groups can use ecological revitalization to
facilitate the restoration of petroleum brownfields for a variety of uses, including wildlife habitat. Under
the agreement, the WHC will demonstrate the use of the latest technologies for applying ecological
enhancements to site cleanups. Specific objectives for the partnership include: (1) achieving greater
regulatory flexibility and support for ecological enhancements; (2) developing a strategy for obtaining
constructive and meaningful stakeholder involvement; (3) ensuring sound scientific and technical
support for ecological enhancement practices; and (4) promoting the value of ecological enhancements
through a broad range of communication tools. OUST works with the WHC to identify opportunities to
include ecological enhancements in end use plans at petroleum-contaminated sites. The pocket park
project highlighted in the text box on the previous page is one of several successes resulting from this
collaboration. WHC documents and provides case studies on a variety of programs on the following
WHC Web site: www.wildlifehc.org/brownfield restoration/lust pilots.cfm.
Section 1: Ecological Revitalization Under EPA Cleanup Programs
2-16
-------
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets
OUST collaborated across all levels of government and with private industry to develop a Petroleum
Brownfields Action Plan that improves stakeholder communications; expands technical assistance to
states, tribes, and local governments; explores potential policy changes; and builds upon existing
successes by expanding partnerships and testing new and innovative approaches to petroleum
brownfields revitalization (EPA 2008d). The Action Plan provides a comprehensive framework for
enhancing revitalization efforts at petroleum brownfields and promoting information sharing from both
public and private sector efforts to revitalize petroleum brownfields. Four initiatives outlined in the
Action Plan cover broad areas and can further EPA's collective efforts to highlight all applicable reuse
options. Tasks within three of those initiatives are applicable to ecological revitalization and include the
following:
• Action Item 1.3 provides a basis for developing a "petroleum reuse/options catalogue" that could
help compile and update information on reuse options and associated partnerships, as well as
provide insights for interested parties to consider when addressing comparable sites.
• Action Item 2.3 provides a framework to help eligible entities develop voluntary inventories of
petroleum brownfields that complement local end use planning efforts.
• Action Item 4.2 promotes the use of greenspace or wildlife habitat through collaboration with
wildlife habitat organizations and property owners (of abandoned oil fields or urban petroleum
brownfields) to support converting these properties to wildlife habitats.
OUST does not currently track the indicators listed in Table 1-1 related to the status and type of end use.
However, OUST is committed to tracking the mandatory measures and has developed the OUST Cross-
Program Measures commitment memorandum (EPA 2007e). Petroleum brownfields sites are difficult to
track and coordinate because of their small size, scattered distribution, variable ownership, and
associated uncertainties in cleanup costs and liability. Continued coordination with organizations, such
as the WHC, could help to provide a consistent means of tracking site reuse. Revitalizing petroleum sites
also remains a local endeavor, and by enhancing public-private coordination, OUST intends to promote
the appropriate use of petroleum brownfields sites to help meet community, end user, and stakeholder
needs. Ultimately, though, local organizations drive the end use of each site.
Tools and Resources. OUST provides a variety of information resources about its programs, policies,
and partners. The following Web sites provide access and information about its resources:
Visit www.epa.gov/swerustl/pubs/index.htm for publications that support the investigation and
cleanup of leaking USTs.
Visit www.epa.gov/swerustl/rags/ustfield.htm to learn more about the USTFields Initiative and to
access case studies on the pilot projects for examples and lessons learned associated with the reuse of
former UST properties.
More information about the issues and opportunities associated with petroleum or UST brownfields
cleanups is also available at www.nemw.org/petroleum%20issue%20opportunity %20brief.pdf
(Northeast-Midwest Institute 2007; EPA 2008e).
Section 1: Ecological Revitalization Under EPA Cleanup Programs 2-17
-------
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets
3.0 Technical Considerations for Ecological
Revitalization
There are several technical considerations for implementing ecological revitalization while cleaning up a
property that are common to each of the cleanup programs discussed in Section 2.0. The objectives of
ecological revitalization and those of the cleanup process are best accomplished if they are coordinated
carefully. This section summarizes technical considerations for common cleanup and revitalization
technologies that stakeholders can use during planning and design with the intent to minimize ecological
damage during cleanups. Specifically:
• Section 3.1 presents factors to consider when selecting cleanup technologies for ecological
revitalization.
• Section 3.2 addresses issues that may occur when waste is left in place at a cleanup property, how
they could affect ecological revitalization, and potential approaches to mitigate these issues.
• Section 3.3 identifies ways to minimize ecological disruptions during cleanups.
3. / Considerations When Selecting Cleanup Technologies for Ecological
Revitalization
When designing and implementing any cleanup action at a contaminated property, it is necessary to
consider certain factors related to natural resources or ecological revitalization (see text box below).
Numerous in situ cleanup technologies can be used to ensure that contaminated properties are managed
in a manner that protects human health and the environment; complies with federal, state, and local
cleanup requirements; and allows for safe ecological revitalization. These cleanup technologies can
include source control treatment (for example, soil vapor extraction and bioremediation), source control
containment (for example, caps and barriers), institutional controls, and monitored natural attenuation.
For additional information on a variety of cleanup technologies, visit EPA's CLU-IN Web site (www.clu-
in.org/techfocus) and the Annual Status Report (www.clu-in.org/asr). These cleanup technologies can
affect ecosystems such as wetlands, streams, and upland areas such as meadows, prairies, and
woodlands; therefore, it is important to consider their possible effects during ecological revitalization.
While many of these effects are technology and property-specific, some general considerations apply,
including the following:
• Amendments: Some in situ treatments involve adding amendments to the contaminated media.
Project managers could evaluate their effects in the subsurface, their potential for eventual
transport to surface waters,
and their possible subsequent
adverse effects on plant and When designing and implementing
a cleanup action, it is important to
consider the following:
animal communities. Some
examples of soil amendments
include organic matter
additions such as biosolids,
compost, manures, digestates,
pulp sludges, yard wastes,
and ethanol production by-
products; lime; wood ash; coal
combustion products; foundry
sands; steel slag; dredged
materials; and water treatment
residuals. At the California
Gulch Superfund Site in
Physical and biological condition of the property and
its location in relation to local and regional plant and
animal species
Regulatory requirements governing cleanup and
protection or creation of ecologically significant areas
Temporary and long-term ecological impacts
Types of habitats that are to be protected, restored,
or created at the property
Section 3: Technical Considerations for Ecological Revitalization
3-1
-------
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets
Colorado, the remediation team applied lime and municipal biosolids to reduce the acidity of
mine tailings and to reduce the bioavailability of heavy metals at the site (see Figure 3-1). For
additional information on soil amendments, see the following document: www.clu-
in.org/download/remed/epa-542-r-07-013.pdf.
• Regulatory requirements: Federal and state regulations may apply to organic amendments such
as biosolids, manures, and pulp sludges. State and local regulations apply to pH-adjusting
amendments such as lime and wood ash as well as mineral amendments, such as foundry sand
and dredged materials. For additional information, see the following document: www.clu-
in.org/download/remed/epa-542-r-07-013.pdf (EPA 2007d).
• Attractive nuisance: An attractive nuisance is an area, habitat, or feature that is attractive to
wildlife, where waste or contaminants that have been left on site after a property is cleaned up
that may be harmful to plants or animals. One objective of cleaning up such a property is to
remove the pathway from a contaminant to a receptor. Some cleanup technologies, such as
amended covers, are designed to prevent contact exposure, but they are not a barrier against
burrowing animals. Preventing burrowing animals that could cause damage to a cleanup
technology from entering the area, through fencing or other means, would help to keep the
remedy intact, and protect the animals from coming in contact with the waste left on site. For
additional information, see the following document: www.clu-in.org/s.focus/c/pub/i/1438.
• Equipment and utility location: Equipment generally needs periodic maintenance and
monitoring. The cleanup team can maximize potential for habitat formation and biodiversity,
and minimize disruption, by carefully considering the location of equipment. This might mean
placing equipment near the edge, rather than in the middle, of a valuable habitat. For example,
confining property disturbance to areas within 15 feet of roadways.
• Hydrology and surface water management: Cleanup technologies that could affect hydrology
need to be designed carefully to avoid adverse effects on existing and anticipated habitat. For
example, over pumping by ground water pump and treat (P&T) systems can cause dewatering of
wetlands because over pumping lowers the water table (EPA 1993). Alternatively, discharging
process water to surface waters and wetlands changes water depth, turbidity, circulation, and
temperature. The use of settling basins and other such measures can help moderate discharges to
wetlands and streams.
• Surface vegetation: Cleanup project managers are encouraged to consult technical experts to
determine appropriate surface vegetation that will thrive but not interfere with the cleanup. For
example, revegetation designed to emulate the native plant communities in the surrounding area
would increase chances of success. However, vegetation growing near equipment related to a
cleanup technology, such as a diversion wall, may prevent access to the equipment for
maintenance and could cause performance issues. In addition, it is important to consider
ecological succession when determining appropriate vegetation. Plant communities will
naturally shift toward a climax community unless periodic maintenance is performed. When the
cleanup technology, such as phytoremediation, employs vegetation, the plants selected to
phytoremediate can also serve as a buffer to control runoff or stabilize soil or streambanks.
Stakeholders can obtain technical assistance through a variety of sources, including EPA's
regional BTAG (www.epa.gov/oswer/riskassessment/ecoup/pdf/vlnol.pdf), EPA's
Emergency Response Team (www.ert.org), and EPA's Ecotools Web site (www.clu-
in.org/ecotools).
The considerations mentioned above, in addition to others shown in Table 3-1 at the end of this section,
play a role in addressing cleanup planning and design issues when considering ecological revitalization
at properties where waste is left in place.
Section 3: Technical Considerations for Ecological Revitalization 3-2
-------
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets
Figure 3-1: Before and after photographs of the California Gulch Superfund Site in Colorado where site
managers used high rates of lime amendment to neutralize the acidity of the mine tailings and applied
municipal biosolids directly into the tailings along the Upper Arkansas River. See Appendix A for additional
information. Photographs courtesy of Michael Holmes, EPA Region 8.
3.2 Cleanup Planning and Design Issues and Ecological Revitalization
The text box at the right outlines some
general steps when planning and
carrying out ecological revitalization
projects during cleanup planning and
implementation. However, a number of
issues associated with the application of
a cleanup technology can alter the
effectiveness of the cleanup or the
ecological revitalization of a property.
Table 3-1 at the end of this section
presents several issues that may occur
when waste is left in place at a cleanup
property, how they could affect
ecological revitalization, and potential
approaches to mitigate these issues. By
carefully accounting for these issues at
the outset, cleanup project managers can
ensure the long-term success of the
cleanup and minimize the potential
negative effects of the cleanup approach
on future uses of the property.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^H
General steps when planning and
implementing an ecological
revitalization project
Determine pre-disturbance and reference
conditions
Conduct a property inventory
Establish revitalization goals and objectives
Evaluate revitalization alternatives
Develop a property-specific ecological design
Prepare specifications for construction contractors
Construct habitat features
Conduct maintenance and monitoring activities
Section 3: Technical Considerations for Ecological Revitalization
3-3
-------
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets
3.3 Minimizing Ecological Damage During Cleanups
Cleanups that include excavation and require earthmoving equipment can disrupt the surface area of a
property and cause considerable loss of existing habitat as well as erosion, sedimentation, and
colonization by invasive plants. These disruptions may also cause sedimentation or otherwise adversely
affect ground water and nearby surface waters. To minimize the effects on habitat and encourage
successful ecological revitalization, cleanup project managers may take steps to minimize excavation and
other surface disruptions, avoid erosion and sedimentation, and protect the existing flora and fauna, by
considering the following approaches (EPA 1993; Natural Resources Council [NRC] 1992; Kent 1994):
Develop and Communicate Ecology Awareness and Procedures. The process of ecological
revitalization begins in the assessment or investigation phase, not after the remedy has been designed
and is underway. Contractors and construction engineers are often not cognizant of sensitive ecological
areas or aware that they can minimize disturbance and protect the ecology. Cleanup project managers
can articulate a preservation policy and distribute it to everyone involved with on-site activities. Cleanup
project managers can also incorporate requirements to protect habitat or species into construction plans,
specifications, and contracts, as appropriate.
Design a Property-Wide Work Zone and Traffic Plan. The cleanup project manager can
delineate staging areas, work zones, and traffic patterns to minimize unnecessary disruption of sensitive
areas and existing habitat on or near a property. The cleanup team can delineate areas not requiring
surface disruption and areas off-limits to disturbance, such as steep slopes, sensitive habitats, and clean
stream corridors, with fences, tape, or signs to avoid disturbance by property workers and equipment.
Minimize Excavation and Retain Existing Vegetation. Earthmoving can destroy the roots of trees
and other plants as well as disturb vegetation in uncontaminated areas. In addition, compaction of soil is
also damaging to roots. These activities can be restricted to areas essential for the cleanup and avoided in
all other areas. Some areas with low contamination levels or immobile contaminants posing no
unacceptable risk to human health or the environment may be better off left undisturbed, if the disruptive
effects of excavation outweigh the benefits of further cleanup, especially in valuable habitats (EPA 1998).
Treatment and monitoring technologies are less invasive cleanup measures than excavation.
Phase Site Work. Sometimes
Myers Property Superfund Site, New Jersey cleanup project managers can phase
construction by stabilizing one area of
At the Myers Property Superfund site in Hunterdon the property before disturbing another.
County, New Jersey, (see case study in Appendix A), This approach can reduce total soil
RPMs are saving select trees in areas with low levels of erosion for the entire property and
contamination by hand digging around the roots to a level aUows for revegetation or
of six inches. Excavated soil will be replaced with clean redevelopment of some areas
topsoil from off site. The site will be monitored in case immediately after cleanup. The
large trees fall and expose soils deeper than six inches. cleanup project manager can also
schedule construction to minimize the
area of soil exposed during periods of
heavy or frequent rains, and avoid
sensitive periods (breeding, nesting, etc.) of certain species. For example, project managers at the Rocky
Mountain Arsenal site (see case study in Appendix A and a photograph on the cover of this document)
suspended cleanup activities during certain seasons to avoid disturbing the nesting and breeding of the
bald eagle and other sensitive species.
Consider Property Characteristics. During the ecological revitalization of a property and to
increase chances of successful revitalization, it is important that ecologists consider the following
property characteristics: property size, existing habitat, proximity to undisturbed areas, topography,
natural water supply, access, biodiversity (preserved by establishing connections between habitats or
enlarging habitats), contaminant bioaccumulation (assessed during an ERA [EPA 1998,1999a]), health of
Section 3: Technical Considerations for Ecological Revitalization 3-4
-------
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets
Rock/ Mountain Arsenal, Colorado
At the Rocky Mountain Arsenal, project managers
recognized that cleanup-related traffic and road building
could have major effects on the existing habitat at the 27-
square-mile property. To facilitate reuse of the property
as a wildlife refuge, they developed a property-wide traffic
plan that routed traffic around valuable habitat and
sensitive areas, minimized the potential for erosion and
sedimentation, and used existing roads wherever possible.
See the Rocky Mountain Arsenal case study in Appendix A
for additional details.
species and ecosystems, and
threatened and endangered species
(usually involves the assistance of a
professional biologist or ecologist).
Consider surrounding habitat when
selecting native species for
revegetation to increase chances of
success. Urban properties pose
additional challenges because they are
typically small and may be subject to
heavy runoff containing pollutants.
Protect On-Site Fauna. In some
cases, the project team may
temporarily relocate on-site fauna that
is being protected. Relocation may
involve humane trapping and release, but less disruptive techniques may also be effective. For example,
to relocate beavers and alligators at the French Limited Superfund Site in Crosby, Texas (see case study in
Appendix A), project managers reduced their food supply in areas to be treated and increased the food
supply in other suitable areas of the property. To protect fauna such as snakes, turtles, and some nesting
birds that prefer edge habitat, it is necessary to consider careful use and parking of construction
equipment in sensitive areas. For example, using construction equipment on edge habitat, or even using
it to store equipment or fill material can adversely affect these species.
Locate and Manage Waste and Soil Piles to Minimize Erosion. Property cleanup may include
the creation of temporary waste or soil piles to store contaminated soil for treatment or to store treated
soil before redeposition. To minimize disruption of the local habitat, the cleanup project manager can
structure stockpiles to minimize runoff; locate them away from steep slopes, wetlands, streams, or other
sensitive areas; place them away from tree root zones to avoid soil compaction; and cover or stabilize
them to control erosion and dust.
Design Containment Systems with Habitat Considerations. Building containment systems
usually removes existing biota but can greatly improve the habitat, especially if the contamination
present has severely degraded the area. While revegetation over containment areas or treatment systems
must not detract from the effectiveness of the cleanup, cleanup project managers can design the cleanup
components with ecological revitalization in mind. Cleanup project managers may also want to consider
the type of contaminants, their stability, the media through which they travel, and the anticipated future
land use. In addition, they may choose to avoid features that could damage the containment system or
create an attractive nuisance. Where feasible, plan to allow enough soil above the protective cover to
support the root systems of the intended vegetation. The use of fencing, removing access to potential
food sources, or providing sufficient soil cover over the contaminated material can discourage wildlife
from coming into contact with the contaminated material or from damaging a containment area.
Reuse Indigenous Materials Whenever Practical. Reusing logs, rocks, brush, or other materials
found on site can provide logistical and ecological advantages as well as cost savings. Topsoil from on-
site sources is usually well suited to support native vegetation. Treated soil and other materials can also
be used as backfill, reducing the need for borrow areas for clean fill. Green waste, such as logs and
branches can be used on site, to a limited degree, to create structure within the new habitats. Excess
woody material can be shredded, composted, and used as a soil amendment. For example, at Loring Air
Force Base in Northeastern Maine (see case study in Appendix A), boulders and cobbles, larger than 15
centimeters in diameter, were removed from the streambed and nearby trees during cleanup and later
used in stream reconstruction, after completion of cleanup activities. Reuse of native materials at this
property significantly reduced the need for additional materials and thereby achieved cost savings.
Section 3: Technical Considerations for Ecological Revitalization
3-5
-------
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets
Control Erosion and Sedimentation. Revitalization areas usually need erosion and sedimentation
control measures to avoid disturbing sensitive areas, even when state or local regulations do not require
them. These measures can include retaining sediment on the property and managing runoff using filters,
such as compost or other organic materials.
Ensure that Borrow Areas Minimize Impact on Habitat. Borrow areas, locations where cleanup
teams excavate clean soil for use elsewhere during a cleanup, may be located and used with ecological
revitalization objectives in mind. For example, borrow areas can be located in low-value areas to create
or improve habitat and be designed, contoured, and vegetated to meet aesthetic and habitat
considerations. Based on consultations with the USFWS, project managers at the Rocky Mountain
Arsenal (see case study in Appendix A and a photograph on the cover of this document) designed
borrow areas to establish the habitat of a planned wildlife refuge.
Avoid Introducing New Sources of Contamination. If not properly managed, cleanup activities
can introduce new sources of contamination that may affect habitat and ecological receptors.
Contamination can result from materials used on the property, fugitive dust emissions, and operations of
equipment and sanitation facilities. Materials that can cause contamination include pesticides, herbicides,
fertilizers, petroleum products, treatment agents, and solid wastes. To avoid introducing these new
sources, storage areas can be sheltered from the elements, lined with plastic sheeting, surrounded by
berms, and regularly inspected for releases. In addition, equipment maintenance can be done in suitable
staging areas and adequate sanitation facilities for property workers can be provided away from streams,
wetlands, and other sensitive areas.
Prevent the Introduction of Undesirable Species. Non-native plant species can invade and
destroy native species. To prevent introducing undesirable species, monitor barren and disturbed areas,
which are susceptible to colonization by undesirable plants, and remove undesirable species where
necessary. In addition, equipment operators can wash trucks and equipment before entering a property
to avoid introducing invasive plant seeds. Clothing and shoes can also be managed to avoid introducing
invasive plant seeds.
Section 3: Technical Considerations for Ecological Revitalization 3-6
-------
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets
TABLE 3-1: Cleanup Planning and Design Issues When Waste is Left on Site and Other Considerations for Ecological
Revitalization
Issue
Property Type2
Potential Impact
Solution/Consideration
Attractive Nuisance
Issues: An area, habitat, or
feature that is attractive to
wildlife and has, or has the
potential to have, waste or
contaminants left on site that
are harmful to plants or
animals after a property is
cleaned up
Managing Gases:
Depending on the waste
composition, some
containment sites have the
potential to generate gas
Restoring Soil: Soils,
especially those found in
urban, industrial, mining, and
other disturbed areas suffer
from soil toxicity, too high
or too low pH, lack of
sufficient organic matter,
reduced water-holding
capacity, etc.
Landfill
Mining Site
Brownfield
Military Installation
Foundry
Gas Station
Metal Plating Facility
Refinery
Tannery
Landfill
Mining Site
Manufacturing Facility
Metal Plating Facility
Brownfield
Refinery
Tannery
Harm wildlife if (I) an exposure
pathway exists from contaminants left
on site that could directly harm
wildlife or travel up the food chain; or
(2) wildlife interfere with the cleanup,
thereby creating an exposure pathway
• Provide fuel for fire or explosions
• Stress vegetation
• Damage cover system
• Infiltrate nests or other wildlife homes
• Create other health or safety hazards
Decrease ability to support
vegetation, which can lead to
increased erosion and offsite
movement of contaminants by wind
and water
• Consider potential ecological risks throughout the cleanup process
• Conduct a thorough ecological risk assessment to avoid potential
attractive nuisance issues
• Carefully consider plant species and the type of animals that those
species will attract; protect newly planted species until they are
established
• For additional information, refer to EPA's fact sheet titled "Ecological
Revitalization and Attractive Nuisance Issues" (EPA 2007c)
Determine ability of waste to generate gas during planning stage (EPA
1991)
Build gas collection systems
Place components where they (I) do not interfere with planned uses,
(2) minimize noise and odors, and (3) are not easily accessible to
trespassers or wildlife
For additional information, refer to the EPA fact sheet "Reusing
Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Commercial Use Where Waste is Left
On Site" (EPA 2002a) and "Landfill Gas Control Measures"
(www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/landfill/PDFs/Landfill_2001_ch5.pdf)
Consider appropriate soil amendments (inorganic, organic, or a
mixture) to limit contaminant bioavailability and restore appropriate
soil conditions for plant growth by balancing pH, adding organic
matter, restoring soil microbial activity, increasing moisture retention,
and reducing compaction
2 See Table 2-1. for EPA Programs that can apply to each property type.
Section 3: Cleanup Considerations for Ecological Revitalization
3-7
-------
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets
TABLE 3-1: Cleanup Planning and Design Issues When Waste is Left on Site and Other Considerations for Ecological
Revitalization, Continued
Issue
Property Type2
Potential Impact
Solution/Consideration
Settlement: The
consolidation of subsurface
materials at closed-in-place
sites due to compaction or
degradation
Landfill
Stabilizing Metals: Some
property soils contain toxic
levels of metals that can be
harmful to plants or animals
Surface Vegetation: Used
to limit soil erosion, promote
evapotranspiration and
surface water management,
and, in some cases, may be a
component of the cleanup
(for example,
phytoremediation)
Mining Site
Metal Plating Facility
Brownfield
Refinery
Tannery
Landfill
Mining Site
Brownfield
Military Installation
Foundry
Gas Station
Metal Plating Facility
Refinery
Tannery
• Rate and magnitude of settlement
may affect the type of habitats
that will be successful
• Damage containment systems,
alter slopes, cause gullies to form,
and disturb other property
features
• Municipal landfills can settle up to
30 percent of the landfill depth
over 15 to 30 years
• Metals taken up by plants which
are eaten by animals causing a
potential attractive nuisance
• Metals leach into ground water
Not all plants are well-suited to
property conditions
Roots can physically damage
equipment for a cleanup
treatment technology, such as a
barrier or well
Consult with geotechnical engineer during cleanup planning to estimate
settlement magnitude, distribution, and rate
If necessary, delay ecological revitalization until settlement has largely
ceased, but under long-term settlement scenarios, vegetation will likely
adapt to the changing property conditions
Use a nurse crop like oats, to control erosion and provide greenspace
Use construction techniques, such as preloading, vibrocompaction, and
dynamic compaction, to accelerate settlement (these approaches will not
affect settlement caused by biodegradation); however, do not compact
topsoil because over-compaction of topsoil will result in vegetative failure
Use soil amendments to chemically precipitate or sequester metals that are
present in the soil; this can reduce metal availability to plants and metal
leaching into water
Select plant species based not only on availability but also on their ability to
establish and grow in a newly created root zone and the species' inability to
uptake metals
For wetlands, study the proper hydrology, tidal elevation, and height of a
newly constructed wetland profile; these factors are of great importance to
allow the new wetland (both saline and fresh) to flourish
When selecting plants, consider Executive Order (EO) 13 148, which
promotes use of native species
Place equipment away from areas where deep-rooted vegetation will be
planted
Choose native plants found in the surrounding natural areas because they
have the most chance of success, require the least maintenance, and are the
most cost-effective in the long term
Ensure the waste containment system is properly designed and
implemented to maintain system integrity while supporting a variety of
plants
For additional information, refer to EPA's fact sheet titled "Revegetating
Landfills and Waste Containment Areas Fact Sheet" (EPA 2006d)
2 Table 2-1 for EPA Programs that can apply to each property type.
Section 3: Cleanup Considerations for Ecological Revitalization
3-8
-------
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets
TABLE 3-1: Cleanup Planning and Design Issues When Waste is Left on Site and Other Considerations for Ecological
Revitalization, Continued
Issue
Property Type2
Potential Impact
Solution/Consideration
Surface Water
Management: Includes a
variety of activities that
protect the natural functions
and beneficial uses of surface
waters
Timing: The time at which
ecological revitalization is
considered during the
remedial planning process
Utilities: Can include
sanitary sewers, water,
telecommunications, natural
gas, and electricity
Landfill
Mining Site
Brownfield
Military Installation
Foundry
Gas Station
Metal Plating Facility
Refinery
Tannery
Landfill
Mining Site
Brownfield
Military Installation
Foundry
Gas Station
Metal Plating Facility
Refinery
Tannery
Brownfield
Landfill
Manufacturing Facility
Military Installation
Foundry
Gas Station
Metal Plating Facility
Refinery
Tannery
• Affects nearby vegetation,
streams, lakes, and wildlife
migration routes through erosion
or sedimentation
• Runoff controls and water
diversions implemented as part of
a cleanup influence water tables
and the rate of flow into streams
or wetlands
• Erodes the top layer of a cover
system
• Percolates into a cap
• The longer planning is delayed,
the greater the possibility that
fewer reuse options will be
available
• Act as a conduit for gas migration
• Facilitate water infiltration into a
waste containment area
• Require excavation into a waste
containment area and
contaminated material if utility
repairs are necessary
• Increase the quantity of leachate
generated if sewer lines below a
waste containment area begin to leak
• Can be damaged by settlement
• Design protective caps to prevent precipitation from infiltrating into the subsurface
and grade the cap to establish an effective slope (usually 3-5 percent)
• Route runoff through settling basins to collect sediment to reduce impacts
to property hydrology and construct runoff controls to reduce the volume
and rate of runoff to low-lying areas, wetlands, or streams
• Use rerouted runoff to create new wetland habitat or enhance existing
habitat to provide natural controls and reduce contaminant transport
• Build drainage channels and swales and design diversions where possible to
minimize changes to natural drainage patterns or the quantity of surface
water flows to wetlands or streams
• For additional information, refer to EPA's fact sheet titled "Controlling the
Impacts of Remediation Activities in or Around Wetlands" (EPA 1993)
• Begin revitalization planning as early as possible
• Begin developing a revitalization project on parts of a property before a
cleanup is completed, if possible
• Consider advice from a restoration ecologist to determine the proper
season to plant grasses, shrubs, and trees
• Consider breeding seasons and other timing issues to avoid affecting
sensitive species when scheduling remedial or revitalization activities
Include special provisions to ensure utilities do not hinder the effectiveness
of the cleanup or ecosystem functions; for example, avoid burying a utility
line in a protective cap or placing it in an area where trees will be planted
For additional information, refer to the following EPA report: "Reusing
Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Commercial Use Where Waste is Left On
Site" (EPA 2002a)
2 See Table 2-1 for Programs can apply to property type.
Section 3: Cleanup Considerations for Ecological Revitalization
3-9
-------
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets
4.0 Wetlands Cleanup and Restoration
Wetlands are of particular concern for cleanups because in addition to intercepting storm runoff and
removing pollutants, they provide food, protection from predators, and other vital habitat factors for
many of the nation's fish and wildlife species (EPA 2008g). Section 3.0 discusses the general
considerations that apply during planning and design of a wetland cleanup and restoration. This section
summarizes wetland cleanup and restoration, focusing on specific considerations during planning and
design.
Whether a cleanup involves restoring an existing wetland or creating a new one, a cleanup project
manager must typicaUy take the following steps (EPA 1988; USFWS1984):
• Evaluate the characteristics, ecological functions, and condition of wetlands related to the
property
• Determine the type of wetland functions and structures that would be beneficial in the area after
the cleanup
• Develop a wetland design that will achieve the stated ecological functions
• Design the cleanup and wetland features to ensure that cleanup activities have minimum effect
on existing wetlands and other ecosystems and do not create an attractive nuisance (see Table 3-1
for additional information on attractive nuisance issues)
• Specify and implement maintenance requirements
Once it has been determined that a cleanup will affect a wetland, several key factors need to be
considered, including the following:
Wetland Characteristics. The cleanup project manager may wish to determine wetland
characteristics to develop a thorough understanding of the role of the wetland in the overall ecosystem
and the relationships between the various plant and animal species within the wetland. It is also
important to determine if any endangered, sensitive, or commercially important wetland species are
present.
Wetland Regulatory Requirements. Several regulatory requirements generally apply when a
cleanup or reuse project affects wetlands, including Sections 401,402, 403, and 404 of the dean Water
Act; Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act; and the Federal Agriculture Improvement
and Reform Act, commonly known as the Farm Bill. Depending on the type of cleanup and the law
under which action is taken, permits may
be needed prior to conducting any
cleanup activities.
Wetland Vegetation and Hydrology.
Analyses of hydrologic and soil
conditions help define the property's
wetland vegetation associations (a known
plant community type, uniform habitat
conditions, and uniform appearance).
Generally, restoring hydrology and re-
establishing a previous vegetation
association tends to lead to a successful
wetland ecosystem. For properties where
the historical native vegetation association
cannot be determined, use nearby
wetlands with similar soil and hydrology
Wetland Mitigation and
Ecological Revitalization
Cleanup project managers may consider ecological
revitalization part of wetland mitigation depending on
the property-specific habitat. However, if the wetland
mitigation is part of a contaminant treatment system
and is not intended to provide habitat, it cannot be
considered ecological revitalization. For additional
information on wetland mitigation requirements, go to
www.epa.gov/wetlandsmitigation. For additional
information on wetlands in general, go to
www.eDa.gov/wetlands.
Section 4: Wetlands Cleanup and Restoration
4-1
-------
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets
Use of Neighboring Wetlands
as Reference at Naval
Amphibious Base Little Creek,
Virginia Beach, Virginia
After removing a 1.2-acre landfill, the
Navy, in partnership with EPA and
Virginia Department of Environmental
Quality, constructed a tidal wetland in
the Chesapeake Bay. The team
achieved tidal wetland hydrology by
constructing two connecting channels
to the nearby Little Creek Cove. In
addition, they used a neighboring
marsh as a reference wetland to
determine appropriate plants to place
along designated elevations to establish
tidal wetland vegetation. See
Appendix A for additional information
on this case study.
as a guide. See example in text box to the right and
Figure 4-1 at the end of this section. For additional
information on reference wetlands, visit the Society for
Ecological Restoration's Web site under Section 5 of the
Ecological Restoration Primer:
www.ser.org/content/ecological_restoration_primer.asp.
Also, consider water availability and soil type when
selecting and placing the vegetation. Where appropriate,
seeded species that establish quickly may be planted first,
followed by species that are more difficult to establish.
Where available, a natural seed bank in existing wetland
soils is often adequate for establishing wetland
vegetation.
Wetland Wildlife. Wetlands provide valuable wildlife
habitat. The ability of a wildlife species to thrive in a
wetland is dependent upon a number of factors, including
the minimum habitat area necessary for the species, the
minimum viable population of the species, the species'
tolerance for disturbance (for example, excavation or
installation of ground water pumps), and the wetland
ecosystem's functional relationship to adjacent water
resources and ecosystems. Thus, three factors will play a
major role in determining the effectiveness of a wetland
for long-term wildlife use: (1) the size of the wetland, (2) the relationship of the wetland to other
wetlands, and (3) the level and type of disturbance (Kent 1994; NRC1992; EPA 1994).
Wetland Maintenance. A variety of wetland maintenance activities are needed to ensure long-term
success, including weed control and management of aggressive exotic species, such as common reed
(Phragmites australis), purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), water hyacinth (Eichornia crassipes), and
salvinia (Salvinia molesta). In addition, installing wire screens or other barriers around the plants or the
planted area to control deer, rabbit, or beaver grazing can help protect vegetation until the ecosystem
becomes established. Periodic monitoring of the wetland for plant loss, erosion, insect or disease
infestations, and litter or debris buildup is also important. For properties near populated areas, public
education efforts can help reduce maintenance issues associated with litter or debris dumping, off-road
vehicle use, or other human activities that may threaten the long-term success of a wetland project.
Treatment Wetlands. Wetlands created to treat contaminants have some additional considerations
regarding ecological revitalization and attractive nuisance issues. Conducting an ERA and monitoring of
the treatment wetland until it meets cleanup goals can help to identify any potential attractive nuisance
issues. Cleanup project managers are employing this approach on a variety of cleanups. For example, a
public-private partnership is installing a series of passive treatment systems, including treatment wetlands,
to treat acid mine drainage from
— abandoned surface and underground
coal mines in western Pennsylvania.
After passing through a series of
limestone-lined ponds to neutralize pH,
At the West Page Swamp area of the Bunker Hill the water is sent through an aerobic
Superfund Site, EPA contractors spread a cap composed of constructed wetland to remove iron
compost and wood ash over the soil to reduce accessibility hydroxides. The system can even
and bioavailability of the underlying tailings and to restore recover metals removed from the water
wetland function. so recovered metal can be sold (see
• Appendix A for additional information
on this case study).
Bunker Hill Superfund Site in the Coeur
d'Alene River System in Kellogg, Idaho
Section 4: Wetlands Cleanup and Restoration
4-2
-------
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets
Figure 4-1: Before and after photographs of Naval Amphibious Base Little Creek in Virginia, where the
remediation team converted a landfill into a tidal wetland. See Appendix A for additional information.
Photographs courtesy of Bruce Plata, EPA Region 3.
Treatment wetlands are also used as the final polishing treatment step of a remediation scheme. For
example, stormwater or effluent from ground water treatment systems can be sent through restored or
created wetlands before being released to nearby waterways. This step helps remove suspended solids
and other pollutants from the stormwater or effluent.
Ideally, cleanup goals will be met when using a treatment wetland to assist in property cleanup. Once
the property meets its cleanup goals, components of the remedy, including a wetland, may no longer be
necessary for further treatment. At this stage, coordinating with co-regulatory partners to determine
long-term maintenance and stewardship responsibility for the wetland is critical. Section 7.0 discusses
long-term stewardship.
For additional information on treatment wetlands, visit the following Web site:
www.epa.gov/owow/weflands/watersheds/cweflands.html.
Section 4: Wetlands Cleanup and Restoration
4-3
-------
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets
5.0 Stream Cleanup and Restoration
Stream cleanup and restoration are important because streams serve as corridors for migratory birds and
fish, and they provide habitat to many unique species of plants and animals (EPA 2008g). Cleaning up a
stream corridor can be complicated, as cleanups often disrupt the stream flow and habitat. This section
provides an overview of considerations for designing and implementing cleanups that facilitate
ecological restoration of streams and stream corridors and mitigating adverse ecological impacts of
constructing cleanup features. A successful stream cleanup, combined with appropriate restoration
strategies can hasten the recovery of degraded stream corridors and begin the natural process of restoring
their ecological functions (EPA 1995).
Importance of Stream
Corridors
Healthy stream corridors can
provide important habitat for fish
populations; erosion and
sedimentation control; high-quality
water for wildlife, livestock, flora,
and human consumption;
opportunities for recreationists to
fish, camp, picnic, and enjoy other
outdoor activities; and support for
diverse plant and wildlife species.
An important first step in cleaning up a stream corridor is
to assess the possible sources of disturbance from cleanup
activities. Baseline data can be gathered on existing
species, in-stream and riparian habitat, soil characteristics,
and stream function to characterize potential degradation.
Other disturbances to characterize include stream channel
alteration, water quality impairment, invasion by exotic
species, loss of riparian vegetation, and compaction or
undercutting of streambanks. Defining the conditions of
the stream corridor prior to the disturbance can help to
identify the cause of the disturbance. Another important
step is to determine the type of ecosystem that can be
established in the stream corridor. When historical records
are unavailable, information on undisturbed, nearby
stream corridors with similar physical characteristics can
help determine the type of ecosystem that will likely be
successful at the property. The following considerations
are critical to a successful stream cleanup and restoration:
Stream Channel Restoration. Removing contaminated sediment and soil from stream channels and
banks during a cleanup typically results in severe alteration of stream flow. In such instances,
reconstruction of stream channels and banks is usually necessary. Decisions about stream channel width,
depth, cross-section, slope, and alignment profoundly affect future hydrology (and the resulting ecology)
of the stream system. Restoration design typically considers factors such as the physical aspects of the
watershed, hydrology, sediment size distribution, average flood flows, and flood frequency. When
designing a stream channel restoration, the cleanup project manager can try to anticipate the effects of
future land uses on the watershed. For example, the restoration of riverbanks along the Poudre River
was designed to accommodate heavy recreational use while providing ecological benefits (see case study
in Appendix A). For additional information, refer to
resources listed in Appendix B and the following
publication at www.clu-in.org/download/newsltis/
tnandtl208.pdf.
Tidal Channels
Stream channel restoration can
include tidal channels. After removing
contaminated sediment at the Atlas
Tack site in Fairhaven, Massachusetts,
site managers used coconut coir fiber
logs to stabilize the salt marsh tidal
channels. See Appendix A for
additional information on this case
study.
Streambank Stabilization. Disturbed or reconstructed
streambanks often need temporary stabilization to prevent
erosion. Temporary stabilization can consist of natural
materials such as logs, brush, and rocks, and property
planners can design it so as not to hinder permanent
revegetation. At the Cache La Poudre River Superfund
Site, EPA incorporated boulders and snags into the
cleanup to stabilize the Streambank while providing
habitat (see Figure 5-1 and case study in Appendix A). In
Section 5: Stream Cleanup and Restoration
5-1
-------
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets
Figure 5-1: Before and after photographs of the Cache La Poudre River Superfund Site in Colorado, where
EPA implemented an ecological remedy to preserve the riverine habitat and restore the streambank. See
Appendix A for additional information. Photographs courtesy of Paul Peronard, EPA Region 8.
some cases, geotextiles, natural fabrics, and bioengineering techniques may be necessary. Revegetating
streambanks using seeding or bare root planting techniques will often fail if the stream floods before
vegetation is fully established. Consequently, temporary vegetation for stabilizing streambanks may be
more successful using anchored cuttings or pole plantings (that is, woody cuttings or poles inserted and
anchored into the streambank) taken from species that sprout readily, such as willows. For additional
information, refer to resources listed in Appendix B.
Streambank Vegetation. Wherever possible, it is important to protect existing native vegetation,
especially mature trees, during cleanup and restoration activities; however, many properties will need
some revegetation. Cleanup project managers may select species for revegetation for their ability to
establish a long-lasting plant community rather than as quick fixes for erosion or sedimentation
problems. For example, fast growing non-native species may quickly stabilize a denuded stream bank,
but over the long term, they may end up invading the entire stream corridor to the detriment of desirable
native species. Approaches that attempt to establish ecosystems similar to pre-disturbance conditions
tend to have more long-term success and need less maintenance than more highly engineered solutions
(for example, gabions or riprap) that
reduce the amount of viable habitat.
For additional information, refer to
resources listed in Appendix B.
Watershed Management. The
entire watershed ecosystem affects the
health and condition of a water body.
Therefore, cleanup and revitalization
may need to address watershed
processes that degrade ecosystems,
such as sediment loading from road
cuts or construction, increased runoff
from impervious areas, and other
point and nonpoint sources of
Fort Collins Stream Corridor Restoration
In Fort Collins, Colorado, soil and ground water
contamination migrated to the Cache La Poudre River and
contaminated the sediments of this wild and scenic river.
Cleanup activities included temporarily re-routing the river
and excavating the contaminated sediments. The
remediated portion of the river was not channelized, and
EPA made an effort to create an unobtrusive remedy by
consulting ecological restoration experts to create natural
stream characteristics. See Appendix A for additional
information on this case study.
Section 5: Stream Cleanup and Restoration
5-2
-------
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets
pollution. Effective watershed management could even eliminate the need for in-stream restoration
approaches.
Bioengineering techniques have become an increasingly popular approach to streambank restoration and
maintenance. Bioengineering refers to stabilizing the soil or streambank by establishing sustainable plant
communities. Stabilization techniques may include using a combination of live or dormant plant
materials, sometimes in conjunction with other materials such as rocks, logs, brush, geotextiles, or natural
fabrics. Bioengineering techniques can be more labor intensive than traditional engineering solutions and
sometimes take longer to control streambank erosion. Nevertheless, over the long term, they often have
lower maintenance costs and create important habitat.
Finally, maintenance such as erosion control, reseeding, and soil amendments may be needed after
evaluating the initial progress of stream corridor recovery. Allowing natural processes to shape the
ecosystem in the stream corridor will generally lead to self-sustaining, long-term recovery of in-stream,
riparian, and upland terrestrial habitats in the stream corridor. Because this process takes time,
providing short-term riparian and upland habitats may hasten the return of wildlife to the disturbed area.
Cleanup project managers may use engineered habitat structures such as weirs, dikes, randomly placed
rocks, riffles and pools, fish passage structures, and off-channel pools to enhance in-stream habitat during
the short term. Engineered habitat structures are most effective when installed as a complement to a
long-term recovery strategy. For additional information on engineered habitat structures, see Section 8G
of the Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group's Stream Corridor Restoration Guide at
www.nrcs.usda.gov/Technical/stieam restoration/newtofc.htm.
Section 5: Stream Cleanup and Restoration 5-3
-------
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets
6.0 Terrestrial Ecosystems Cleanup and
Revitalization
Grading or earthmoving operations at cleanup properties can seriously disturb terrestrial plant and
animal life at properties. The cleanup process can denude some contaminated properties of all vegetation
and topsoil. Establishing a plant community that will thrive with minimal maintenance is a critical step
in developing a healthy terrestrial ecosystem on these properties. This section discusses factors to
consider when planning terrestrial plant communities in disturbed areas. It addresses (1) general
revegetation principles and factors to consider in the course of protecting or creating natural terrestrial
ecosystems and (2) specific considerations when creating meadows or prairies and establishing
vegetation on semi-arid or arid lands. Section 3.1 presents general cleanup planning and design issues
that may also be applicable to the revitalization of terrestrial ecosystems.
Native Plantings at College Park Landfill
At the College Park Landfill in Beltsville, Maryland, cleanup
project managers used recycled waste materials such as fly
ash and animal and plant by-products as land cover as part
of the landfill cap. In addition, the vegetative cover
includes diverse native plantings. See Appendix A for
additional case study information.
General Revegetation Principles.
While restoring terrestrial ecosystems,
it is recommended that cleanup project
managers consider soil type, plant
selection, and timing.
Soil Type. Soil testing is generally
necessary to evaluate whether the pH,
nutrient availability, toxicity, salinity,
and organic material content are
appropriate for successful plant
establishment. Several organizations
provide assistance in soil testing, including U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)'s Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) and the WHC. The soil can then be prepared or amended, as necessary, to
ensure proper soil texture and conditions. Soil amendments, or residuals from other processes that have
beneficial properties when added to soil, may be used in areas without adequate topsoil; if fertilizer is
needed, it is important to choose a formulation that meets the growing needs of the selected species (EPA
2007d). The cleanup team may also have to stabilize the soil and apply compost to hold seed in place, aid
in establishing plants, mitigate the effect of rainfall on newly seeded areas, preserve soil moisture, and
control erosion. Soil stabilization methods include mulching with straw or wood-fiber product, or
installing synthetic matting. Cleanup project managers may wish to select soil amendments and
stabilization techniques for their ability to improve conditions for germination of the selected species. In
addition, some types of soil amendments may help adjust the pH of the soil in preparation for seeding
(EPA 2007d). Refer to the following document for more information on soil testing:
www.nrcs.usda.gov/feature/backyard/pdf/nutrient.pdf.
Plant Selection. Seed mixtures and plants can be adjusted to suit the soil, climate, hydrology, exposure
(to both sun and wind), and topography of an area. Local native populations of plant and seed usually
result in higher survival rates and maintain the integrity of
the local gene pool. As discussed in Section 3.0, cleanup
project managers are encouraged to avoid using non-native
species. These species can out-compete and displace native
species, disrupt ecological processes, and significantly
degrade entire plant communities, both on and off the
property.
Amending Soils with
Biosolids at a Refinery
After seeding, cleanup project managers can protect the
seeded areas from grazing animals, vehicles, and other
disturbances until plants are well established. Techniques
for protecting plantings include fencing, clearly marked
access roads, animal repellants, trenches or berms to control
run-on and runoff (if they are already part of stormwater
In Lima, Ohio, a refinery undergoing
RCRA Corrective Action is using
biosolids to help create prairie
habitat with native grasses, flowers,
and trees over a soil cover. See
Appendix A for additional case
study information.
Section 6: Terrestrial Ecosystems Cleanup and Revitalization
6-1
-------
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets
control features at the cleanup property), and interim surface stabilization methods such as mulching or
matting. Cleanup project managers may need to reseed the area within the planting season to replace
damaged vegetation or to achieve the desired plant density. For additional information on seed mixtures
and plant selection, visit EPA's GreenAcres Web site (www.epa.gov/greenacres), the Plant Conservation
Alliance (PCA) Web site (www.nps.gov/plants), and the Bureau of Land Management's Seeds of Success
Program (www.nps.gov/plants/sos).
Timing. It is important to seed during the optimum periods for plant establishment, which are property-
specific and vary depending on the type of terrestrial habitat that is being restored. Information on
seeding techniques and conditions for individual species is available from NRCS technical guides
(www.nrcs.usda.gov), university extension offices, and seed suppliers. If planting cannot occur during
optimum periods, cleanup project managers may use a nurse crop, such as annual rye or oats, as ground
cover until the appropriate planting season.
Meadows and Prairies. A few additional considerations apply when restoring meadows or prairies.
Generally, when seeding an area with native grass species, specialized planting equipment, such as a
native grass drill, is needed to ensure good seed to soil contact. Seeds need to be certified and purchased
on a pure live seed basis. Grass stands usually do not need fertilizer or irrigation. However, they may
need periodic maintenance activities, such as controlled burning, mowing, and removing plant litter, to
suppress woody growth and encourage vigorous new growth. To maximize benefits to wildlife, conduct
these activities outside of the primary nesting season, preferably in late winter or early spring.
Semi-Arid and Arid Areas. Cleanup project managers may consider a number of additional factors
when establishing vegetation in semi-arid and arid areas, including the following:
• Soil treatment is important because damage to soil structure and function is a common and serious
problem in degraded semi-arid and arid areas. Arid soil, compacted soil, and nutrient-poor soil may
need to be improved by adding organic amendments, such as leaf and litter compost, composted
manure, biosolids, or mulch that is certified contaminant and weed-free. These amendments could help
bind recalcitrant organic compounds and metals and increase the much-needed water holding capacity
and fertility. Other measures to improve soil structure and function include soil surface treatments, such
as creating pits in soil, to improve water retention in arid land and imprinting, to increase soil moisture
and gully control to improve plant establishment.
• Water availability for plants may improve if the ground is shaped to collect and retain water.
Transplanted seedlings may need limited irrigation to survive until established. Species selections can
also be adapted to local hydrology. Too much irrigation may encourage invasive weeds, leave salts at
the soil surface that kill plants, or cause infiltration into subsurface contaminated materials.
• Seed selection for arid areas is hampered by the limited availability of commercial stocks of dry land
seeds. If possible, the project manager may hire a commercial seed collector to collect seed from the local
area or an area with similar climate. The alternate collection area needs to be within a 100-mile radius
and 500 feet of the altitude of the area to be planted; where the average rainfall is within two inches per
year of the annual rainfall for the area; and have similar soil characteristics (Department of the Interior
[DOI] 1995). Seed testing can help cleanup project managers ensure that the seeds are of high quality.
Proper seed storage will also help maintain the seed's viability until sowing. Visit the Plant
Conservation Alliance Web site for a directory of restoration experts and native seed suppliers
(www.nps.gov/plants).
• Planting techniques primarily include direct seeding and transplanting. Direct seeding is generally less
expensive. However, in dry areas this technique is more vulnerable to seed loss from exposure to wind,
insects, and rodents, as well as declines in germination rates and plant growth because of insufficient
rainfall in the months following planting. The installation of an erosion blanket consisting of straw or
coco fiber with biodegradable netting can help prevent seed loss and retain moisture while plants are
established. Cleanup project managers may also consider using collected seed to grow container plants
for drier areas. If container plants are used, additional time will be necessary to allow the plants to
germinate and achieve the desired growth in a greenhouse or nursery before planting. Using container
plants can be costly and labor intensive. Because plant losses usually occur, it is prudent to budget for
monitoring and replacement.
Section 6: Terrestrial Ecosystems Cleanup and Revitalization 6-2
-------
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets
7.0 Long-Term Stewardship Considerations
Cleanups are risk-based and, when waste is left in place, long-term stewardship is necessary to ensure
protectiveness of the remedy; therefore, long-term stewardship responsibilities are an integral part of the
cleanup process. O&M activities through responsible stewardship protect the integrity of the cleanup
and the functioning of the associated ecosystems after cleanup completion. For example, at the
Woodlawn Landfill Superfund Site, WHC and Bridgestone Americas Holding, Inc. conducted ecological
revitalization activities at the site to create wildlife habitat. Local volunteers manage the site. In addition,
Chicago's pocket park project highlighted earlier in Section 2 incorporated (1) ICs and (2) community
involvement in site planning and maintenance, which reduced costs and helped ensure the success of
ecological revitalization. See Appendix A for case studies regarding these sites.
There are four major components for a successful O&M program:
• Plan early for long-term stewardship
• Identify and complement general O&M activities
• Establish a monitoring program
• Use ICs
Long-Term Stewardship. EPA's co-regulatory partners, including states, local governments, and
tribes, have increasing responsibility and oversight for property assessment and cleanup planning. This
property knowledge is particularly important for long-term stewardship as state voluntary cleanup
programs and property owners typically have primary responsibility for carrying out maintenance of
engineering controls and ICs for the long-term. Therefore, it is essential to prepare for safeguarding the
effectiveness of the ecological revitalization activities as early in the cleanup planning process as possible.
Regardless of who is responsible for O&M, stakeholders can make agreements to have general
maintenance tasks as well as those specific to ecological revitalization implemented by property owners,
a local government agency, Trustees, or the community. It may be practical to have the same
organization undertake general O&M activities as well as those relating specifically to the ecosystem. For
example, at the Silver Bow Creek/Warm Springs Ponds Superfund Site in Montana, the Montana
Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, a Trustee, conducts many general and specific monitoring and
maintenance tasks (see case study in Appendix A).
Cleanup project managers can also enlist a local group or guardian to conduct long-term stewardship of a
property. Such groups are committed to follow-through and have knowledge of local conditions. They
can also monitor the ecological revitalization component and look for early signs of any emerging issues.
Local government agencies can also provide expertise, equipment, supplies, or other resources to help the
local community or group conduct long-term stewardship; this can reduce costs, provide interpretive
educational benefits, and help encourage a sense of property ownership by the community.
Stakeholder Collaboration at a Former Refinery in Casper, Wyoming
Stakeholders are successfully achieving cleanup of a BP former refinery in Casper, Wyoming through a
collaborative process. The group redeveloped the former refinery into a business park and golf course
where the wetland treatment system also functions as a golf course water hazard. To reach
agreement on the cleanup, BP worked closely with stakeholders, including the local Audubon Society
and the community. The Audubon Society used its local expertise to help determine an appropriate
shoreline elevation to maintain the wetlands and mud flats. See Appendix A for a case study regarding
this site.
Section 1: Long-Term Stewardship Considerations
7-1
-------
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets
General O&M Activities. In some cases, appropriately designed ecosystem revitalization may be self-
sustaining and need little or no maintenance after an initial establishment period. In most cases,
however, O&M will be necessary. O&M activities depend on the type of cleanup as well as the ecological
revitalization component and, depending on the situation, are often necessary for a long period of time
(up to 20, 50, or 100 years). O&M for the overall cleanup typically includes inspection, sampling and
analysis, routine maintenance and small repairs, and reporting, as necessary. Cleanup project managers
can incorporate ecological revitalization measures into each of these tasks.
• Inspection needs to occur on a regular basis. Inspectors can also perform non-routine inspections
after unusual events such as earthquakes or large storms. Typically, inspectors check for invasive
species, erosion, and dead or dying vegetation, among other items, when assessing the ecological
revitalization component of the cleanup. For properties with cover systems in place, inspectors also
check for settling, burrowing animals, and pooling water. Cleanup project managers typically
include performance standards to measure the success of the project, as well as a detailed
description of how team members will conduct inspections, sampling, and maintenance activities.
• Regular sampling and analysis helps monitor habitat, ground water, and surface water quality.
Monitoring habitat indicators such as plant species composition and percentage of cover helps to
determine the success of the revitalization measures. In addition, making a determination of the
amount of invasive plant species in the area helps to ensure that they are not overtaking the area.
Sampling and analysis includes collecting and chemically analyzing water samples from surface
water, wetlands, or ground water wells; soil samples may also be collected and analyzed to
evaluate soil conditions. For properties with cover systems in place, sampling would include
leachate formation and gas release concentrations. The frequency of sample collection can vary
widely and needs to be determined on a property-specific basis.
• Routine maintenance may consist of simple activities such as burning, using herbicide, or
mowing to control invasive species; maintaining a cover; or repairing perimeter fencing. On
properties that have operating treatment plants, routine maintenance may be more complex and
may need a full- or part-time plant operator. Typical activities include operating ground water
and gas treatment systems, repairing erosion damage, and maintaining rainwater collection and
diversion systems. Based on inspection results and plant species composition and cover at the
revitalization area, reseeding or replanting may be necessary as well as periodic mowing or
controlled burns. Manual or natural controls or herbicides or insecticides applications can also
control invasive plants and undesirable insects and diseases. For additional information on
maintaining a variety of habitat types, review
ITRC's Planning and Promoting Ecological Land
Reuse of Remediated Sites (ITRC 2006).
• Reporting requirements depend on the cleanup
program, and cleanup project managers generally
write and submit reports to regulatory authorities
after both routine and non-routine inspections. The
reports typically include information on the general
condition of the cleanup measures, test results from
samples collected, and operational data from
treatment processes (for example, ground water
extraction rate, gas flow rate).
Loring Air Force
Base in Maine
Monitoring Program. A monitoring program,
established as part of post-cleanup activities, evaluates the
effectiveness of the cleanup in restoring ecological function
and reducing ecological risks (EPA 1998,1999a).
Information from baseline surveys and ERAs conducted
during the planning process can be the starting point for
developing the monitoring program. For example, periodic
monitoring of sediment contamination and benthic
Cleanup project managers for
Loring Air Force Base consulted
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) to identify useful
indicator species such as dragon fly
nymphs, midge flies, dace minnow,
and brook trout to monitor the
recovery of the stream system after
remedial activities. These species
were selected because they are
sensitive to contaminants and are
quick to manifest symptoms of
exposure. See Appendix A for
additional case study information.
Section 7: Long-Term Stewardship Considerations
7-2
-------
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets
communities following the removal of contaminated
sediment in a stream can provide indications of the
protectiveness of the cleanup features as well as the
ecosystem's recovery to a more natural condition. At the
Revere Chemical Company Superfund Site in Pennsylvania,
ground water and stream monitoring is used to evaluate the
risks of heavy metals getting into the ground water and
migrating off site. Cleanup project managers also use the
monitoring program to help evaluate the recovery of
important aquatic species. Monitoring habitat indicators
such as plant species composition and percent cover could
indicate the success of the revitalization measures. See
Appendix A for a case study regarding this site.
Designing and
Implementing
Institutional Controls
Many factors may influence the
design and implementation of ICs,
such as state policies, whether the
property is a federal facility, or
whether regulatory authorities,
such as RCRA or CERCLA, are
involved. An EPA guide addresses
many of these issues (EPA 2000).
Visit the following Web site to
view the guide:
http://epa.gov/superfund/policy/ic/
guide/guide.pdf
Institutional Controls. ICs are designed to limit land or
resource use, and provide information to help modify or
guide human behavior, and complement engineering
controls. They can also protect ecological revitalization
properties by restricting public access to parts of a property
that are particularly sensitive to erosion or contain sensitive
or establishing habitats; or to achieve human protectiveness or other revitalization goals. A key to
success is to identify and evaluate as much information as possible about the needed ICs early in the
planning process. Generally, major considerations with 1C use at ecological revitalization properties
include the following:
• Consider what the 1C is intended to accomplish and establish clear objectives. A common 1C
objective for ecological purposes involves controlling human activities in a particular area that
could potentially interfere with sensitive habitats or the ecosystem balance that supports the
cleanup features.
• Consider the appropriate types of ICs. These can include governmental controls (zoning, building
codes, and ground water use restrictions), proprietary controls (easements, covenants, and
conservation trusts), enforcement tools (consent decrees and administrative orders), and informational
devices (fishing advisories, deed notices, and state registries of contaminated properties). For
example, a conservation easement for catch and release fishing and a local health department fishing
advisory could accomplish the same 1C objective to reduce fish consumption. For information about
different types of ICs, see EPA's guide titled Institutional Controls: A Site Manager's Guide to
Identifying, Evaluating, and Selecting Institutional Controls at Superfund and RCRA Corrective
Action Cleanups at http://epa.gov/superfund/policy/ic/guide/guide.pdf (EPA 2000).
• Ensure that the specified ICs are effective and remain in place over the long term through
proper implementation, monitoring, and enforcement. For example, at the Silver Bow Creek
Superfund Site in Butte, Montana, the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks enforces
a fish consumption prohibition. In addition, at the BP Former Refinery in Casper, Wyoming,
project managers implemented several ICs including a "use control area" through a resolution to
limit use on the property, a ground water restriction area, and a soil management overlay district.
Within one of these defined areas, a constructing entity has to contact the state or BP if they have
been issued a building permit. See Appendix A for additional information on these case studies.
Section 7: Long-Term Stewardship Considerations
7-3
-------
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets
8.0 References
Calumet Ecotoxicology Roundtable Technical Team. 2007. Calumet Area Ecotoxicology Protocol,
Protecting Calumet's Plants and Animals. June.
Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC). 2006. Planning and Promoting Ecological Land
Reuse of Remediated Land ECO-2. Washington D.C.: ITRC and Wildlife Habitat Council (WHC).
www.itrcweb.org/Documents/ECO-2.pdf.
Kent, D.M. (ed.). 1994. Applied Wetlands Science and Technology. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
National Research Council (NRC). 1992. Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and
Public Policy, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Northeast-Midwest Institute and the National Brownfields Coalition. 2007. EPA Brownfields Program —
Issues and Opportunities. Petroleum/UST Brownfield Cleanups. September.
www.nemw.org/petroleum%20issue%20opportunity%20brief.pdf.
U. S. Department of Interior. 1995. A Beginner's Guide to Desert Restoration, National Park Service,
Desert Restoration Task Force, Denver Service Center.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1988. America's Wetlands: Our Vital Link between Land
and Water. OPA-87-016.
EPA. 1991. Design and Construction of RCRA/CERCLA Final Covers. EPA 625-4-91-025.
EPA. 1993. Environmental Fact Sheet: Controlling the Impacts of Remediation Activities in or Around
Wetlands. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. EPA 530-F-93-020.
EPA. 1994. Considering Wetlands at CERCLA Sites. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
EPA 540-R-94-019. www.epa.gov/superfund/policy/remedy/pdfs/540r-94019-s.pdf.
EPA. 1995. Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality. November. EPA 841-F-95-007.
www.epa.gov/OWOW/NPS/Ecology (viewed on 01/12/2009).
EPA. 1998. Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance. EPA 630-R-95-002F. April.
http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=12460 (viewed on 01/12/2009).
EPA. 1999a. Issuance of Final Guidance: Ecological Risk Assessment and Risk Management Principles
for Superfund Sites. OSWER 9285.7-28. October.
www.epa.gov/oswer/riskassessment/ecorisk/pdf/final99.pdf.
EPA. 1999b. RCRA Cleanup Reforms. Faster, Focused, More Flexible Cleanups. OSWER. EPA530-F-
99-018. July, www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/ca/reforms/reformsl.pdf.
EPA. 2000. Institutional Controls: A Site Manager's Guide to Identifying, Evaluating, and Selecting
Institutional Controls at Superfund and RCRA Corrective Action Cleanups. EPA 540-F-00-005.
http://epa.gov/superfund/policy/ic/guide/guide.pdf.
EPA. 2001. RCRA Cleanup Reforms, Reforms II: Fostering Creative Solutions. OSWER. EPA530-F-01-
001. January.
EPA. 2002a. Reusing Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Commercial Use Where Waste is Left on Site. EPA
540-K-01-008. February, www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/recycle/pdf/c_reuse.pdf.
Sections: References 8-1
-------
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets
EPA. 2002b. Region 5 Corrective Action Sites: Majority of RCRA Federal Lead Sites Have Reuse
Potential. Waste, Pesticides and Toxics Division. February.
www.epa.gov/swerosps/rcrabf/pdf/surveyfs.pdf.
EPA. 2005. Ecological Reuse of Remediated Sites: Some Resources. Office of Solid Waste. December.
www.clu-in.org/conf/tio/ecoresources3/prez/ecoresources3pdf.pdf.
EPA. 2006a. 2006-2011 EPA Strategic Plan-Charting Our Course.
www.epa.gov/ocfo/plan/2006/entire_report.pdf.
EPA. 2006b. Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America's Communities: Past
Accomplishments and Future Opportunities. OSWER. EPA 500-R-06-002. September.
EPA. 2006c. Frequently Asked Questions about Ecological Revitalization of Superfund Sites. EPA 542-F-
06-002. www.clu-in.org/download/remed/542f06002.pdf.
EPA. 2006d. Revegetating Landfills and Waste Containment Areas Fact Sheet. EPA542-F-06-001.
www.clu-in.org/download/remed/revegetating fact sheet.pdf.
EPA. 2006e. Interim Guidance for OSWER Cross-Program Revitalization Measures. October.
www.epa.gov/landrevitalization/docs/cprmguidance-10-20-06covermemo.pdf.
EPA. 2007a. BP Former Refinery, Casper, Wyoming. October.
www.epa.gov/waste/hazard/correctiveaction/pdfs/casperll-07.pdf.
EPA. 2007b. DuPont Remington Arms Facility. October.
http://epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/correctiveaction/pdfs/remll-07.pdf.
EPA. 2007c. Ecological Revitalization and Attractive Nuisance Issues. EPA 542-F-06-003. www.clu-
in.org/download/remed/542f06003.pdf.
EPA. 2007d. The Use of Soil Amendments for Remediation, Revitalization, and Reuse. EPA 542-R-07-
013. December, www.clu-in.org/download/remed/epa-542-r-07-013.pdf.
EPA. 2007e. Memorandum Regarding the Underground Storage Tanks Program Plan for Implementing
OSWER's Cross-Program Revitalization Measures. February.
EPA. 2007f. Guidance for Documenting and Reporting RCRA Subtitle C Corrective Action Land
Revitalization Indicators and Performance Measures. February 21.
www.epa.gov/reg3wcmd/ca/pdf/finalRCRA_CPRM_guidance2_21_07.pdf
EPA. 2007g. Memorandum Regarding the Update and Next Steps for Superfund and Federal Facilities
Cross-Program Revitalization Measures (CPRM) Implementations. From James Woolford,
Director, OSRTI, and John Reeder, Director, FFRRO, to Superfund National Policy Managers,
Regions 1-10. June 20.
EPA. 2008a. Superfund Redevelopment, www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/recycle/info/index.html
(viewed on 01/12/2009).
EPA. 2008b. Land Revitalization—Integrating Reuse Into Cleanup.
www.epa.gov/oswer/landrevitalization/ai_integratingreusel.htm (viewed on 01/12/2009).
EPA. 2008c. Underground Storage Tanks, www.epa.gov/swerustl (viewed on 01/12/2009).
EPA. 2008d. U.S. EPA's Petroleum Brownfields Action Plan: Promoting Revitalization and
Sustainability. October, www.epa.gov/oust/rags/petrobfactionplan.pdf.
Section 8: References 8-2
-------
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets
EPA. 2008e. RCRA Brownfields Prevention Initiative, www.epa.gov/swerosps/rcrabf (viewed on
01/12/2009).
EPA. 2008f. OUST. Cleaning Up and Reusing Abandoned Gas Station Sites.
www.epa.gov/oust/rags/index.htgi (viewed on 01/12/2009).
EPA. 2008g. River Corridor and Wetlands Restoration. Benefits of Restoration.
www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/restore/benefits.html (viewed on 01/12/2009).
EPA. 2008h. Atlas Tack Corporation Superfund Site, Fairhaven, Massachusetts. Final Interim Remedial
Action Report (O&F Completion Report) for Phases II and III. September.
www.epa.gov/regionl/superfund/sites/atlas/ATLAS_TACK_TARGET_SHEET.pdf
EPA. 2008L Information based on monthly database reports generated in February 2008 and
communicated via e-mail by Stacy Swartwood, OBLR to Tetra Tech EM Inc., dated September 26,
2008.
EPA. 2008j. Green Remediation: Incorporating Sustainable Environmental Practices into Remediation of
Contaminates Sites. EPA 542-R-08-002. April. www.clu-in.org/download/remed/Green-
Remediation-Primer.pdf
EPA. 2009. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response FY2009 National Program Manager's
Guidance (draft). February.
www.epa.gov/ocfo/npmguidance/oswer/2009/draft_npm_guidance.pdf
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1984. An Overview of Major Wetlands Functions and Values.
FWS OBS-84-18.
Wildlife Habitat Council (WHC). 2008. Brownfields/Remediation.
www.wildlifehc.org/brownfields/index.cfm (viewed on 01/12/2009).
Section 8: References 8-3
-------
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets
Appendices
Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies
Appendix B: Additional Ecological Revitalization Resources
Appendix C: Acronyms
Appendices
-------
Ecological tevitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets
Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies
Properly Name
and Location
Property Type
Cleanup Type
Revitalization/Reuse
Component
Problems/Issues
Solutions
Point of Contact
Notes/Links'
REGION 1
Atlas Tack
Superfund Site,
Fairhaven, MA
Fort Devens: OU2
Devens
Consolidation
Landfill, Sudbury,
MA
Fort Devens: OU9
AOC57, Sudbury,
MA
Superfund
Manufacturing
Facility
Superfund
Military Base
Superfund
Military Base
Ground water contaminated with
cyanide and toluene that
leached from the site lagoon anc
soils contaminated with VOCs,
heavy metals, pesticides, RGBs,
and PAHs were cleaned up by
removing buildings,
contaminated soil, and
sediment.
Numerous small historical
landfills were remediated and
the waste was consolidated in a
new state-of-the-art landfill.
Soils and debris disposed at the
Devens Consolidation Landfill
included those contaminated
with petroleum, pesticides,
PCBs, PAHs, and asbestos. A
total of approximately 365,000
cubic yards of waste was
disposed of in the new landfill.
The historic landfill sites were
then backfilled and regraded to
restore the sites to pre-
construction conditions.
AOC 57 consists of 2 areas that
were affected by stormwater
runoff and wastes from vehicle
maintenance activities at a
historic storage yard upgradient
of the site. The areas are
sloped along Cold Spring Brook.
Soils and ground water were
contaminated with petroleum
hydrocarbons, chlorinated
VOCs, PCBs, and arsenic.
Contaminated soils were
removed and disposed off-site,
and ground water will be
remediated via MNA.
The cleanup preserved as
much of the wetland sediment
as possible and provided the
necessary mix of fresh and
salt water sources to create a
functioning wetland, in additior
to protecting human health
and the environment.
Three of the historic landfills
had waste or debris in wetland
areas. For these areas, the
remedy included waste and
debris removal, followed by
wetland restoration. The
wetlands were restored by
backfilling with clean fill and
manufactured wetland soil.
Materials were stabilized with
a custom wetland seed mix, in
accordance with a Habitat
Restoration Work Plan. The
site was monitored and
evaluated during the next
three growing seasons to
ensure it achieved restoration
success measures.
Soil excavation at one of the
areas included excavation
within delineated wetland
areas along Cold Spring
Brook. The remedy required
that the wetland areas be
restored in accordance with an
appropriate mitigation and
restoration plan and that the
wetland restoration area be
monitored for 5 years to
ensure that restoration
success measures were
achieved.
1) The original ROD
contained sediment
cleanup values that would
require complete
excavation of the entire
marsh.
2) The initial remediation
plan included lowering the
ground watertable to
prevent it from flowing
through residual
contamination.
Not specified
Not specified
1) The bioavailability study showed
that it was not necessary to remove
all sediments, and therefore only
necessary sediment was removed,
thereby preserving the marsh to the
extent possible.
2) The remediation approach was re-
evaluated during wetland design, and
risks from ground water flowing
beneath the site were minimal.
Not specified
Not specified
Elaine Stanley, RPM
EPA Region 1
1 Congress Street
Suite 1100
Mail Code: HBO
Boston, MA 02114-2023
617-918-1332
stanley.elainet@epa.gov
Ginny Lombardo, RPM
EPA Region 1
1 Congress Street
Suite 1100
Mail Code: HBT
Boston, MA 02114-2023
617-918-1754
ombardo.ginny@epa.gov
Ginny Lombardo, RPM
EPA Region 1
1 Congress Street
Suite 1100
Mail Code: HBT
Boston, MA 02114-2023
617-918-1754
lombardo.ginny@epa.gov
http://www.epa.gov/ne/superfu
nd/sites/atlas/
http://vosemite.epa.aov/r1/npl
pad.nsf/51dc4f173ceef51d85
256adf004c7ec8/df7d91 Off9a9
3fab8525691f0063f6c9!Open
Document&HiahliahtO.deven
s
http://vosemite.epa.aov/r1/npl
Pad.nsf/51dc4f173ceef51d85
256adf004c7ec8/df7d91 Off9a9
3fab8525691f0063f6c9!Open
Document&HiahliahtO.deven
s
* Links valid at time of publication.
Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies
A-1
-------
Ecological tevitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets
Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies, continued
Properly Name
and Location
GE-Housatonic
River, Pittsfield,
MA
Industri-PlexSite,
Woburn, MA
Iron Horse Park,
North Billerica, MA
Jamaica Island
Landfill OU3,
Kittery, ME
Loring Air Force
Base, Northeastern
ME
Property Type
Superfund
Manufacturing
Facilities
Superfund
Manufacturing
Facility
Superfund
Manufacturing
Facility
Landfill
Superfund
Remedial Action
Landfill
Superfund
Air Force Base
Cleanup Type
Site remediation involved clean
up of Housatonic River
sediments and floodplain soils
contaminated with PCBs and
other hazardous substances.
Remediation included
excavating and disposing of
sediment and soil and full-scale
capping of Silver Lake.
The remedy included
remediating approximately 110
acres of soil contaminated with
lead, arsenic, and chromium;
demolishing onsite buildings;
and constructing clay, soil, and
synthetic layers, concrete
foundations, and asphalt to
cover contamination. In
addition, gases at a hide pile
were collected and treated, and
wetlands and open spaces were
created.
On-site ground water and
surface water were
contaminated with organic and
inorganic chemicals, asbestos,
and heavy metals. The soil at
the site was contaminated with
PCBs, petrochemicals, and
heavy metals. Remediation
activities included capping on-
site landfills and excavating and
removing contaminated soil and
sediment.
A variety of organic and
inorganic constituents were
detected in soil and ground
water and included VOCs,
SVOCs, PCBs, pesticides,
metals, and petroleum
hydrocarbons. Remediation
included installation of a cap anc
shoreline erosion controls.
Ground water contaminated with
VOCs and fuel-related
compounds and surface water
and sediment contaminated with
VOCs, PCBs, and heavy metals
were remediated. Activities
included capping on-site landfills
and excavating and removing
contaminated soil and sediment.
Revitalization/Reuse
Component
GE is providing economic aid
to the City of Pittsfield for 10
years and making upgrades to
the Housatonic River, its
floodplain, and Silver Lake
that will have aesthetic value
and enhance local habitat.
Wetlands and open space
were created adjacent to
redeveloped areas, which
included a regional
transportation center, highway
interchange, and land
developed for retail and
commercial use.
Wetlands were restored.
Wetlands were constructed.
Boulders and cobbles from the
streambed and nearby trees
larger than 15 centimeters in
diameter that were removed
during cleanup were later usec
in stream reconstruction, after
completion of cleanup
activities. Reuse of native
materials significantly reduced
the cost of restoration
materials.
Problems/Issues
Issues relating to flood
storage compensation are
under discussion with EPA.
None
Not specified
Minimizing the effect on
existing mudflats in the
area and locating
appropriate backfill to
maximize the potential for
success.
Not specified
Solutions
Not specified
None
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Point of Contact
Thomas Hickey, Jr.
Pittsfield Economic Development
Authority
81 Kellogg Street
Pittsfield, MA 01201
413-494-7332
thickey@peda.cc
Joseph LeMay, RPM
EPA Region 1
1 Congress Street
Suite 1100
Mail Code: HBO
Boston, MA 02114-2023
617-918-1323
lemay.joe@epa.gov
Don McElroy
EPA Region 1
1 Congress Street,
Suite 1100
Mail Code: HBO
Boston, MA 021 14-2023
617-918-1326
mcelroy.don@epa.gov
Fred Evans, RPM
Navy
Portsmount Naval Shipyard
Kittery, ME 03904
61 0-595-0567 ext. 159
evansfj@efane.navfac.navy.mil
Mike Daly, RPM
EPA Region 1
1 Congress Street
Suite 1100
Mail Code: HBT
Boston, MA 02114-2023
617-918-1386
daly.mike@epa.gov
Notes/Links'
http://www.epa.gov/reaion1/ae
/redevelopment. html
http://vosemite.epa.aov/r1/npl
Pad.nsf/f52fa5c31fa8f5c8852
56adc0050b631/1 E8F7D6FFC
D9B61B85256AOF00067136?
OpenDocument
http://vosemite.epa.aov/r1/npl
Pad.nsf/51dc4f173ceef51d85
256adf004c7ec8/e334fff032ce
e1e78525691f0063f6dO?Open
http://www.wildlifehc.ora/eweb
editpro/items/O57F3078.pdf
http://cfpub.epa.aov/supercpa
d/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=010
1074
* Links valid at time of publication.
Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies
A-2
-------
Ecological tevitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets
Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies, continued
Properly Name
and Location
Materials
Technology
Laboratory,
Watertown, MA
Pease Air Force
Base, Portsmouth,
NH
Saco Municipal
Landfill, Saco, ME
Tibbetts Road Site,
Barrington, NH
Property Type
Superfund
Arsenal
Superfund
Air Force Base
Superfund
Landfill
Superfund
Rural/Farmland
Cleanup Type
Remediation included removal
and off-site disposal of
contamination sources related to
weapons and ammunition
manufacture and storage, and
demolition and cleanup of the
nuclear reactor, including
radiological contamination,
PAHs, PCBs, and pesticides.
Soils and ground water were
contaminated with solvents and
fuel.
Soil and ground water
contaminated from landfill
activities were remediated.
Site soils and ground water were
contaminated by chlorinated anc
Remediation included source
removal, building demolition,
water supply extension, and
phytoremediation.
Revitalization/Reuse
Component
Wetlands restoration was
completed adjacent to the
redeveloped area. Fifty-five
acres of the property have
been used to build the Arsena
Mall, Harvard Community
Health Center, Arsenal
Apartments, a public park with
walking and bike trails, and a
playground.
A wildlife refuge was created
in addition to a public airport.
A portion of the site adjacent
to the redeveloped area was
reserved for a wetland. The
site is ready for reuse and the
City of Saco plans to develop
a community recreation area
for hiking, biking, ice skating,
and soccer.
The wooded phytoremediation
area is providing increased
biodiversity through new
wildlife habitat for various
birds and small mammals.
Problems/Issues
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Solutions
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Point of Contact
Christine Williams, RPM
EPA Region 1
1 Congress Street
Suite 1100
Mail Code: HBT
Boston, MA 02114-2023
617-918-1384
williams.christine@epa.gov
Mike Daly, RPM
EPA Region 1
1 Congress Street
Suite 1100
Mail Code: HBT
Boston, MA 02114-2023
617-918-1386
daly.mike@epa.gov
Ed Hathaway, RPM
EPA Region 1
1 Congress Street
Suite 1100
Boston, MA 02114-2023
617-918-1372
hathaway.ed@epa.gov
JeromeS. Amber, P. E.
Ford Motor Company, retired
248-765-1044
jamber@comcast.net
Notes/Links'
http://vosemite.epa.aov/r1/npl
pad.nsf/701b6886f189ceae8
5256bd2001 4e93d/d98829ad2
Oe19d6f852568ff005adb08!0o
enDocument
http://vosemite.epa.aov/r1/npl
pad . nsf/f52f a5c3 1 f a8f5c8852
56adc0050b631/9E95FBADO
CEC73E0852568FF005ADBO
9?OpenDocument
http://cfpub.epa.aov/supercpa
d/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=010
1010
http://www.wildlifehc.ora/eweb
editpro/items/O57F3072.pdf
REGION 2
Asbestos Dump,
Millington, NJ
DeRewal Chemical
Co., Kingwood
Township, NJ
Superfund
Landfill
Superfund
Chemical
Company
Asbestos from 4 sites was
collected, consolidated, and
treated on-site to prevent
release of contaminants. A soil
cover was then placed over the
site.
Contaminated soil and ground
water from chemical spills was
cleaned up through excavation
and treatment of soil and
extraction and treatment of
ground water.
A barn was converted into an
environmental awareness
center. Most of the property
will be preserved and will help
expand the Great Swamp
National Wildlife Refuge.
The site now contains walking,
canoe, and biking trails, and
bird watching opportunities.
The Kingwood Township also
plans to convert a house on
the site into a historical,
environmental, and
recreational center.
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Carla Struble, RPM
EPA Region 2
290 Broadway
New York, NY 10007-1866
212-637-4322
struble.carla@epa.gov
EPA Region 2
290 Broadway
New York, NY 10007-1866
http://vosemite.epa. aov/opa/a
dmpress. nsf/b853d6fe004ace
bf852572a000656840/3f082ae
6d59bb9ac85257 1 65006bc50
7!OpenDocument
http://www.epa. aov/reaion02/s
uperfund/npl/0200792c.pdf
* Links valid at time of publication.
Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies
A-3
-------
Ecological tevitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets
Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies, continued
Properly Name
and Location
Lipari Landfill,
Pitman, NJ
Marathon Battery,
Cold Spring, NY
Myers Property
Superfund Site,
Hunterdon County,
NJ
Property Type
Superfund Landfill
Superfund
Manufacturing
Facilities
Superfund
Manufacturing
Facility
Cleanup Type
A slurry wall and cap were
constructed for the landfill, which
accepted wastes contaminated
with VOCs and heavy metals. A
ground water and leachate P&T
system was installed, and
contaminated soil and sediment
were excavated and treated.
The factory and surrounding
soils, a nearby marsh, and
adjacent river sediments were
contaminated with heavy metals.
Remediation included
excavating, capping, and
restoring the marsh; excavating
contaminated soils; dredging
cove and river sediments; and
demolishing the plant.
Soil and ground water
contaminated with VOCs,
pesticides, semiVOCs, metals,
and dioxins were cleaned up by
excavating contaminated soil
and sediment, treating soil, and
extracting and treating ground
water.
Revitalization/Reuse
Component
Revitalization included
recreational use of a park and
ake as well as development
of streams and marshes.
The marsh is now used for
recreational and educational
purposes, and the factory
grounds are ready for
redevelopment.
RPMs are saving existing
trees above a certain size in
areas with low levels of
contamination by hand digging
around the roots to a depth of
six inches. Excavated soil will
be replaced with clean topsoil
from off site.
Problems/Issues
nthe RODforOLG,
changes in the remedy flow
rates, equipment sizes, and
estimated costs in design
were made to the on-site
containment facilities. The
RODforOUS included
changes to the soil and
sediment volumes handled
and methods for removing
sediment.
Difficulties included
experienced goose
predation, destructive ice
flows, invasive plant
species, and bare areas
due to differential
settlement within the marsh
Subsurface soil
contamination remains, so
if a tree falls, contaminated
soil could be exposed.
Solutions
Changes in the ROD did not change
the functionality of the remedies.
Each problem was dealt with
individually. Some areas were
replanted, coir logs were used to
encourage natural plant coverage anc
sediment build-up in bare areas, and
beetles were used to retard the
growth of invasive species.
The property will be monitored in case
large trees fall and expose soils
deeper than six inches.
Point of Contact
Melissa Friedland
EPAHQ
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue
Mail Code: 5204P
Washington, DC 20460
703-603-8864
friedland.melissa@epa.gov
Pam Tames, RPM
EPA Region 2
290 Broadway
New York, NY 10007-1866
212-637-4255
tames.pam@epa.gov
Stephanie Vaughn, RPM
EPA Region 2
290 Broadway, 19th Floor
New York, NY 10007-1866
212-637-3914
vaughn.stephanie@epa.gov
Notes/Links'
http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpa
d/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=020
0557
http://www.epa. ciov/Reaion2/s
uperfund/npl/0201 491 c.pdf
http://www.epa. aov/reaion02/s
uperfund/npl/0200774c.pdf
REGION 3
Army Creek
Landfill, DE
Superfund
Landfill
Remediation of soil and ground
water contaminated with VOCs,
chromium, and mercury includec
a multi-layer protective cover
over a municipal and industrial
landfill and a ground water
treatment system. Army Creek
was also contaminated with
cadmium, chromium, mercury,
iron, and zinc.
Native vegetation was planted
to create a bird and wildlife
habitat. In addition, discharge
pipes from the ground water
treatment system were routed
to create wetlands to help
prevent flooding and create
additional habitat.
Not specified
Not specified
Deb Rossi, RPM
EPA Region 3
1 650 Arch Street
Mail Code: 3HS23
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029
215-814-3228
rossi.debra@epa.gov
http://www.epa.aov/superfund/
proarams/recvcle/live/casestu
dv armvcreekhtml
* Links valid at time of publication.
Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies
A-4
-------
Ecological tevitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets
Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies, continued
Properly Name
and Location
Avtex Fibers, Front
Royal, VA
Berks Landfill,
Berks County, PA
Butz Landfill,
Monroe County,
PA
Chisman Creek,
York County, VA
College Park
Landfill, Beltsville,
MD
Property Type
Superfund
Manufacturing
Facilities
Superfund
Landfill
Superfund
Landfill
Superfund
Mining site
Superfund Landfill
Cleanup Type
The principle contaminants
found in the ground water were
carbon disulfide, ammonia,
arsenic, antimony, phenol, and
high pH. Arsenic, lead, and
PCBs have been identified in
soils. PCBs associated with the
plant were also detected in the
Shenandoah River.
Remediation was completed by
demolishing or decontaminating
onsite buildings, removing and
treating onsite hazardous and
nonhazardous chemical waste,
excavating contaminated soil
and debris, and constructing a
low-flow wastewater treatment
system.
Ground water was contaminated
with VOCs and metals. The
monitoring of ground water,
operation and maintenance of
the leachate system, and repair
to the landfill cap.
A former municipal dump
contaminated the ground water
with a solvent, TCE, and other
organic compounds. Nearly
82,720,000 gallons of water
were treated using a P&T
system.
Ground water and surface water
were contaminated with heavy
metals from the disposal of fly
ash. The cleanup plan
eliminated contact with the fly
ash and contaminated water,
restored ground water, and
protected nearby wetlands.
Remediation included installing
a cap over a landfill that
accepted household trash, as
well as commercial, industrial
and some agricultural and
research waste.
Revitalization/Reuse
Component
The site was used to create a
river conservancy park, active
recreation park, and an eco-
business park.
The former residential property
at the site is being reused as
open green space with trees
and vegetation. ICs were
implemented in order to
prevent on-site ground water
use and to protect the landfill
cap.
Revitalization involved
creating wetlands to mitigate
potential loss of wetlands
caused by the P&T system.
The site is being reused as a
recreational complex,
including ponds and the
County Memorial Tree Grove.
The site cleanup also protects
nearby ponds, a creek, and an
estuary, and it is part of a
large water quality
improvement that has led to
the reopening of the Chisman
Creek estuary for private and
commercial fishing.
The vegetative cover will
include diverse native
plantings.
Problems/Issues
Not specified
Not specified.
Not specified
Not specified
The stakeholders were
concerned about whether
the vegetation would be
killed by methane from the
landfill, and if the vegetation
would be able to
adequately prevent
leachate generation.
Solutions
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
A pilot study is being conducted to
ensure these concerns are
addressed.
Point of Contact
Bonnie Gross, RPM
EPA Region 3
1650 Arch Street
Mail Code: 3HS23
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029
215-814-3229
gross.bonnie@epa.gov
Kristine Matzko
EPA Region 3
1650 Arch Street
Mail Code: 3HS21
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029
215-814-5719
matzko.kristine@epa.gov
Romuald A. Roman, RPM
EPA Region 3
1650 Arch Street
Mail Code: 3HS22
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029
215-814-3212
roman.romuald(o)epa.oov
Andrew C. Palestini
EPA Region 3
1650 Arch Street
Mail Code: 3HS23
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029
215-814-3233
palestini.andrew@epa.gov
Karen Zhang, PhD, PE, RPM
USDA
10300 Baltimore Avenue
Bldg. 003, Rm. 117
Beltsville, MD 20705
301-504-5557
zhangk@ba.ars.usda.gov
Notes/Links'
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/
accomp/success/avtex. htm
http://www.epa.aov/superfund/
sites/fivevear/f05-0301 8. pdf
http://www.epa. aov/reci3hscd/s
uper/sites/PAD981 034705/
http://www.epa.aov/superfund/
proarams/recvcle/live/casestu
dv chisman.html
http://www.wildlifehc.ora/eweb
editpro/items/O57F3070.pdf
* Links valid at time of publication.
Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies
A-5
-------
Ecological tevitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets
Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies, continued
Properly Name
and Location
Craig Farm Drum,
Parker, PA
DeSale
Restoration, Butler
County, PA
E.I. DuPont
Nemours & Co.,
Inc. (Newport
Pigment Plant
Landfill), Newport,
DE
Former Elf
Atochem North
America
(Bensalem
Redevelopment),
Cornwell Heights,
PA
Grace Lease
Property,
Lancaster County,
PA
Property Type
Superfund
Landfill
Pennsylvania
Department of
Environmental
Protection Mining
Site
Superfund
Landfill
RCRA Corrective
Action
Manufacturing
Facility
Refinery
Brownfields
Cleanup Type
Ground water and soil were
contaminated with resorcinol
and VOCs, such as benzene
and toluene. Site remediation
consisted of excavating and
stabilizing contaminated soils
onsite from two former waste
disposal pits.
A passive treatment system was
used to capture and treat acid
mine drainage and included an
anoxic collection system, vertica
flow ponds, a settling pond and
wetland complex, and horizontal
flow limestone bed.
Soils, sediments, ground water,
and surface water were
contaminated with various
metals. Contaminated
sediments were excavated, the
two landfills were capped, and
soil at the ballpark was
removed.
Site soils and ground water are
contaminated with chlorinated
organics, PAHs, PCBs,
pesticides, and arsenic.
Remediation included removing
contaminated soil and reusing
concrete from demolished
buildings as fill for basement
areas in buildings that had been
razed.
A Phase II Environmental Site
Assessment found that no
contaminants were present at
levels above state standards, so
cleanup was not necessary.
Revitalization/Reuse
Component
Wetlands were built on site to
replace a smaller area of
wetlands lost during
construction of the on-site
landfill.
In addition to creating a
treatment wetland complex, 1 1
miles of streams that were
once devoid of life because of
acid mine drainage are now
teeming with fish.
The cleanup is protecting
Delaware's natural resources
and wildlife habitat. Over 35
acres of wetlands and wildlife
habitat have been restored as
part of the site's overall
cleanup.
The site is planned to be
redeveloped as a mixed-use
area with greenspace for
passive and active recreation
along the Delaware River
waterfront.
The area, previously
abandoned and unused, now
provides natural habitat and
recreational greenspace with
hiking trails, picnic grounds,
and a scenic overlook of the
Susquehanna River. In
addition, Bald Eagle nesting
sites have reemerged on the
land.
Problems/Issues
Not specified
Not specified
Ground water appeared to
be seeping over the sheet
pile wall in several areas of
the north landfill.
This created a concern
regarding possible vapor
intrusion into structures
above the contaminated
ground water plume.
The property is in an area
where many industries
have downsized or
discontinued operations
over the last 20 years.
Unemployment rates in the
area are among the highest
in Bucks County.
Site remediation was not
necessary.
Solutions
Not specified
Not specified
Evaluation of vapor intrusion potential
and appropriate mitigation steps was
conducted. Ground water table
elevation at the north landfill was
continuously monitored; water, soil
and/or sediment sampling was
conducted; and the need for more
recovery wells was evaluated.
The redevelopment authority received
a grant and loan from the Brownfields
Program to help with the cost of the
cleanup. A mixed-use area is
planned for the site.
Not applicable
Point of Contact
John Epps
EPA Region 3
1650 Arch Street
Mail Code: 3HS33
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029
215-814-3144
epps.john@epa.gov
Scott Roberts
Pennsylvania Deparament of
Environmental Protection Office of
Mineral Resources
P.O. Box2063
Harrisburg, PA 17105-2063
717-783-5338
jayroberts@state.pa.us
Randy Sturgeon
EPA Region 3
1 650 Arch Street
Mail Code: 3HS23
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029
215-814-3227
sturgeon.randy@epa.gov
Andrew Clibanoff
EPA Region 3
1 650 Arch Street
Mail Code: 3WC22
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029
215-814-3391
clibanoff.andrew@epa.gov
Andrew Kreider
EPA Region 3
1 650 Arch Street
Mail Code: 3HS51
Philadelphia, PA 191 03-2029
215-814-3301
kreider.andrew@epa.gov
Notes/Links'
http://www.epa. aov/reci3hscd/s
uper/sites/PAD980508527/
http://www.srwc. ora/proiects/d
http://www.epa.aov/superfund/
sites/fivevear/f0503006. pdf
http://www.epa.aov/rea3wcmd/
ca/pdf/elf atochem.pdf
http://www.epa. aov/reaion03/r
evitalization/newsletter/sprinaO
7/Lorax.html
* Links valid at time of publication.
Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies
A-6
-------
Ecological tevitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets
Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies, continued
Properly Name
and Location
GSA Southeast
Federal Center,
Washington D.C.
Honeywell
(Formerly Allied
Signal) Baltimore
Works Facility,
Baltimore, MD
Jacks Creek/ Sitkin
Smelting &
Refining, Inc,
Maitland, PA
Hopewell Plant
(Honeywell),
Hopewell, VA
Property Type
RCRA Corrective
Action
Manufacturing
Facility
RCRA Corrective
Action
Industrial Facility
Superfund
Metals
Reclamation
Facility
RCRA Corrective
Action
Manufacturing
Facility
Cleanup Type
Contamination resulted from
shipbuilding and ordnance
production activities. Eleven of
the 14 buildings were
decontaminated and
demolished; the remaining
buildings will be renovated and
reused. Contaminated soil was
removed, and ground water is
being treated to break down
gasoline constituents.
Manufacturing buildings and
associated hazardous waste
were removed. The
containment area was
surrounded by a slurry wall and
capped, and ground water is
being pumped and treated off
site. Chromium and PAH-
contaminated soil was removed.
The former smelting and
precious metals reclamation
facility contained several
buildings, waste piles, and large
areas of soil contaminated with
lead, copper, zinc, cadmium,
and PCBs. Floodplain wetlands
on site and Jacks Creek
sediment near the site were
contaminated with runoff from
the waste piles and soil. The
cleanup involved dredging
contaminated sediment from the
adjacent Jacks Creek,
excavating contaminated soil,
and removing USTss and
drums. Contaminated soil,
sediment, and waste piles were
consolidated and capped.
Drums and waste were removed
from the site.
This industrial chemical and
fertilizer manufacturing facility is
being cleaned up to control
ground water releases and
current human and ecological
exposure to contaminated
media.
Revitalization/Reuse
Component
Revitalization includes
developing a waterfront park
that includes wildlife habitat.
A waterfront park will be
constructed and is planned to
include wildlife habitat.
The floodplain remediation
required removing vegetation
in a segment of the riparian
corridor of the creek.
Because soil excavation
affected existing wetlands on
site, wetlands were recreated
in the riparian corridor along
Jacks Creek. RPMs created
vernal pools, placed woody
debris in the wetland as
invertebrate habitat, and used
a wet meadow seed mix. A
monitoring plan will help
document the effectiveness of
the created wetland.
A portion of the facility has
been converted to a wildlife
habitat area and has been
certified as such by the
Wildlife Habitat Council.
Problems/Issues
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Solutions
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Point of Contact
Barbara Smith
EPA Region 3
1 650 Arch Street
Mail Code: 3LC20
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029
215-814-5786
smith.barbara@epa.gov
Russell Fish
EPA Region 3
1650 Arch Street
Mail Code: 3LC20
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029
215-814-3226
fish.russell@epa.gov
Rashmi Mathur, RPM
EPA Region 3
1 650 Arch Street
Mail Code: 3HS22
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029
215-814-5234
mathur.rashmi@epa.gov
Russell Fish
EPA Region 3
1650 Arch Street
Mail Code: 3LC20
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029
215-814-3226
fish.russelliaeoa.aov
Notes/Links'
http://www.epa.aov/rea3wcmd/
ca/dc/pdf/dc8470090004. pdf
http://www.epa.aov/rea3wcmd/
ca/md/pdf/mdd0693967 1 1 . pdf
http://www.epa.aov/rea3hwmd
/risk/eco/restoration/cs/JacksC
reek, htm
http://www.wildlifehc.ora/Reais
try CertifiedSites/cert sites d
etail2.cfm?LinkAdvlD=95327
* Links valid at time of publication.
Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies
A-7
-------
Ecological tevitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets
Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies, continued
Properly Name
and Location
Mill Creek Dump,
Erie, PA
Morgantown
Ordnance Works
Disposal Area -
OU1 , Monongalia
County, WV
Naval Amphibious
Base Little Creek,
Virginia Beach, VA
Ohio River Park,
Neville Island, PA
Property Type
Superfund
Landfill
Superfund
Chemical
Production Facility
Landfill
Superfund
Landfill
Superfund
Landfill
Cleanup Type
A former freshwater wetland thai
was used as a landfill for
foundry sands, solvents, waste
oils, and other industrial and
municipal waste was capped
and flatter slopes were created.
Remediation activities included
constructing a cap, removing soi
and sediment contaminated with
heavy metals and PAHs, and
constructing three wetlands.
Approximately 29,000 tons of
were removed from the landfill
and 6,300 cubic yards of clean
fill were imported.
A previous municipal landfill
operating from the 1930s until
the 1950s was capped with a
protective cover.
Revitalization/Reuse
Component
The former landfill is now a
golf course. Eight acres of
wetlands were constructed
adjacent to the course.
Wetlands were constructed
and provided leachate
treatment.
The landfill was converted to a
tidal wetland. Two connecting
channels were constructed to
allow tidal inundation into the
site from Little Creek Cove.
Plants were placed along
designated elevations to
establish tidal wetland
vegetation, using the
neighboring marsh as a
reference.
The site will be transformed
into a sports complex, with
areas of habitat for wildlife;
visitors will also be able to
enjoy numerous walking,
hiking, and biking trails.
Problems/Issues
Not specified
Contaminated sediment
and soil were intended to
be cleaned through
bioremediation. However,
bioremediation did not meet
the clean up standards
within a reasonable time
frame and was not cost
effective.
Not specified
Not specified
Solutions
Not specified
Three consecutive treatment wetland;
were constructed to treat landfill
leachate. Monitoring was
implemented to ensure the
effectiveness of wetlands.
Not specified
Not specified
Point of Contact
Romuald A. Roman, RPM
EPA Region 3
1650 Arch Street
Mail Code: 3HS22
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029
215-814-3212
roman.romuald@epa.gov
Mr. Hilary Thornton, RPM
EPA Region 3
1 650 Arch Street
Mail Code: 3HS23
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029
215-814-3323
thornton.hilary@epa.gov
Bruce Pluta
EPA Region 3
1 650 Arch Street
Mail Code: 3HS41
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029
215-814-2380
pluta.bruce@epa.gov
Romuald A. Roman, RPM
EPA Region 3
1650 Arch Street
Mail Code: 3HS22
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029
215-814-3212
roman.romuald@epa.gov
Notes/Links'
http://www.epa.gov/rea3hscd/
nol/PAD980231690.htm
http://epa.aov/rea3hwmd/npl/
VWD000850404.htm
http://public.lantops-
ir.ora/sites/public/nablc/Site%
20Files/IRhistorv.aspx#Site%2
08
http://www.epa.aov/superfund/
proarams/recvcle/live/casestu
dv ohioriver.html
* Links valid at time of publication.
Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies
A-8
-------
Ecological tevitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets
Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies, continued
Properly Name
and Location
Palmerton Zinc Pile
SuperfundSite,
Palmerton, PA
Resin Disposal,
Jefferson Borough,
PA
Revere Chemical,
Nockamixon
Township, PA
Saltville Waste
Disposal Ponds,
Saltville, VA
Property Type
Superfund
Mining Site
Superfund
Landfill
Superfund Waste
Processing
Facility
Superfund
Manufacturing
Facility
Cleanup Type
Former smelting operations
resulted in soil and shallow
ground water contamination by
heavy metals, such as lead,
cadmium, and zinc, and created
a defoliated area on the
adjacent Blue Mountain, a cinde
bank, and additional defoliation
along Stoney Ridge. Heavy
metals were being transported tc
nearby stream segments
through erosion. Biosolids were
applied to accelerate
revegetation of the defoliated
areas, to stabilize the area,
reduce soil erosion caused by
wind and surface water, and
increase evapotranspiration to
prevent percolation of water and
contaminants to the ground
water. In addition, a system was
installed to divert surface water
around the cinder bank and treal
leachate before discharge to the
creek.
The landfill, which accepted
industrial waste including
benzene and toluene, was
covered with multi-layer cap.
Leachate was collected and
separated, and oil was recycled
as fuel for a nearby plant.
The site was contaminated with
benzole acid, VOCs, solvents,
and PAHs. Remediation
included disposing of debris and
solid wastes off-site, cleaning
VOC-contaminated soil by
vacuum extraction, and installing
a slurry wall and cap over an
area contaminated with
hazardous waste associated
with an acid and metal-plating
waste processing facility.
Elevated mercury levels were
present in soil and ground water
in the area beneath the former
chlorine plant. Remediation
activities included constructing a
water treatment plant and
capping the ponds.
Revitalization/Reuse
Component
For the Blue Mountain
revegetation, site managers
constructed a self-sustaining
meadowland because of
minimum metal uptake from
the plants. Also, ree species
with high metal uptake were
removed. For the cinder bank
revegetation, the team used a
grass seed mixture that
included a nitrogen-fixing
legume to maintain nitrogen
fertility without the need for
fertilizer.
The site now contains native
wild flowers and is habitat to
migratory birds.
Revitalization activities
included planting wildflowers
and other foliage to attract
migratory birds and other
wildlife.
A wildlife habitat area was
created on the former disposa
ponds.
Problems/Issues
Attempting to establish
forestland at the site was
extremely challenging
because of competition
from grasses, animal
grazing, and insects.
Some grass species were
not desirable because of
metals uptake. Use of
sludge as a soil
amendment caused a
negative public perception.
Not specified
Treatment of VOC-
contaminated soil by in situ
vacuum extraction did not
meet requirements of the
Pennsylvania Land
Recycling and Remediation
Standards Act.
Not specified
Solutions
Forestland was ultimately abandoned
in favor of meadowland.
The types of grass seeds were
replaced with those having minimal
metals uptake.
Sludge application was replaced with
mushroom compost.
Not specified
Protective levels of contaminant
concentrations in ground water were
established usingthe Synthetic
Precipitation Leaching Procedure to
determine the extent of capping. Soil
contaminated with VOCs was treated
by ex situ vacuum extraction.
Not specified
Point of Contact
Charlie Root, RPM
EPA Region 3
1 650 Arch Street
Mail Code: 3HS21
Philadelphia, PA 191 03-2029
215-814-3193
root.charlie@epa.gov
Rashmi Mathur, RPM
EPA Region 3
1 650 Arch Street
Mail Code: 3HS22
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029
215-814-5234
mathur.rashmi@epa.gov
Melissa Friedland
EPAHQ
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue
Mail Code: 5204P
Washington, DC 20460
703-603-8864
friedland.melissa@epa.gov
Eric Newman
1650 Arch Street
Mail Code: 3HS23
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029
215-814-3237
newman.eric@epa.gov
Notes/Links'
http://costperformance.ora/Pdf/
20070522 396.pdf
http://cfpub.epa.aov/supercpa
d/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=030
1042
http://cfpub.epa.aov/supercpa
d/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=030
0982
http://www.epa. aov/rea3hscd/s
uper/sitesA/AD0031 27S78/
* Links valid at time of publication.
Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies
A-9
-------
Ecological tevitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets
Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies, continued
Properly Name
and Location
Seaford Nylon
Plant, Seaford, DE
Site 46 Landfill A,
Stump Dump
Road, Dahlgren,
VA
Tybouts Corner
Landfill, New
Castle, DE
Walsh Landfill, PA
Wildcat Landfill,
Dover, DE
Property Type
RCRA Corrective
Action Site
Manufacturing
Facility
Superfund
Landfill
Superfund
Landfill
Superfund
Landfill
Superfund
Landfill
Cleanup Type
Wastes include fly ash,
corrosives, ignitables, spent
halogenated solvents, and
discarded commercial chemical
products. Ground water
contains low levels of metals
and VOCs and low pH.
Remediation included MNA of
ground waterwith ICsaswellas
installing a protective cover over
solid waste. Fly ash from the
site was used as fill at an
adjacent golf course.
Ground water and surface water
contained contaminants such as
cadmium, lead, mercury, and
PCBs from municipal waste at
the site. Contaminated waste
from the site was removed to an
appropriate off-site landfill.
Remediation activities included
installing water lines for
residents in the area and
installing a protective cap over
the landfill, which accepted
municipal and household waste.
Residential well water off-site
was contaminated with
chloromethane, chloroform,
xylenes, and other VOCs, as
well as lead, mercury, and zinc.
Remediation included removing
waste and installing an
evapotranspiration cover system
to protect against migration of or
site ground water contaminated
with mercury, toluene, and other
VOCs from former disposal
practices.
Contaminated soil and ground
water from the previous landfill
were capped with a protective
cover.
Revitalization/Reuse
Component
Reuse includes expansion of
the neighboring golf course.
The remedial design includes
the integration and
establishment of tidal wetland;
in the low areas of the site.
Revitalization included
planting wildflowers and other
vegetation on the cap to
stabilize the ground and
prevent erosion.
Revitalization included
replanting a vegetative layer o'
a variety of native hardwood
and coniferous trees.
A mixture of native plants and
wildflowers were planted on
the cap, and Kent County is
evaluating plans to allocate a
part of the site as a greenway,
which is an open space for
recreational purposes.
Problems/Issues
There was concern that the
fly ash placed at the golf
course may cause a grounc
water problem.
Uncovering UXO caused a
safety issue at the site.
Not specified
The site was planned for
reuse originally. However,
because both the site
owner and community were
unresponsive, the team
installed an
evapotranspiration cover
with trees as an integral
part of the remedy.
Therefore, reuse options
are minimal.
Not specified
Solutions
Evaluations of the ground water at the
golf course indicated that the fly ash
did not impact the ground water.
EOD support and screening at all
times was required.
Not specified
Trees planted as the vegetative layer
of the evapotranspiration cover have
provided excellent habitat for birds
and small mammals. Current plans
are for the site to remain as is.
Not specified
Point of Contact
Douglas Zeiters
Delaware Department of Natural
Resources and Environmental
Control
89 Kings Highway
Dover, DE 19901
302-739-9403
douglas.zeiters@state.de. us
Neal Parker
1314 HarwoodSt, SE
Washington Navy Yard
Washington, D.C. 20374
202-685-3281
parkern m@efaches. navfac. navy, mil
Katherine Lose, RPM
EPA Region 3
1650 Arch Street
Mail Code: 3HS23
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029
215-814-3240
lose. kate@epa. gov
Frank Klanchar, RPM
EPA Region 3
1650 Arch Street
Mail Code: 3HS22
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029
215-814-3218
klanchar.frank@epa.gov
Hilary Thornton
EPA Region 3
1 650 Arch Street
Mail Code: 3HS23
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029
215-814-3323
thornton.hilary@epa.gov
Notes/Links'
http://www.epa.aov/rea3wcmd/
ca/de/pdf/ded002348845. pdf
http://www.wildlifehc.ora/eweb
editpro/items/O57F3079.pdf
http://cfpub.epa.aov/supercpa
d/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=030
0035
http://www.epa.aov/rea3hwmd
/super/sites/PAD980829527/in
dex.htm
http://cfpub.epa.aov/supercpa
d/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=030
0101
* Links valid at time of publication.
Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies
A-IO
-------
Ecological tevitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets
Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies, continued
Properly Name
and Location
Woodlawn County
Landfill, MD
Property Type
Superfund
Landfill
Cleanup Type
The ground water is
contaminated with VOCs,
primarily vinyl chloride and 1,2-
dichloroethane, and with PAHs,
pesticides, and metals, primarily
manganese. Initially RPMs
nstalled an impermeable cap
and ground water P&T system.
Later they replaced the cap with
a vegetative soil cap to help
sustain naturally occurring
bacteria in the soil that degrade
the contaminants. In addition to
P&T, the remedy included MNA
with monitoring of the ground
water and the vegetative soil
cover. The team planted wildlife
enhancements such as trees
and native wildflowers after
installing the vegetative cap.
Revitalization/Reuse
Component
The closed landfill was used to
create wildlife habitat called
'New Beginnings, the
Woodlawn Wildlife Habitat
Area." It is currently used as a
nature and science study area
by local schools and as an
area for projects by the Boy
Scouts and Girls Scouts of
America.
Problems/Issues
Analyses showed
contamination of on-site
and off-site ground water,
soil, and sediment and
surface water of a stream
that crosses the site.
MNA posed a difficulty due
the scarcity of its use at the
time.
Solutions
The original remedy included
extraction and treatment of
contaminated ground water.
However, continued monitoring
showed that MNA effectively removec
or immobilized contaminants from
ground water.
Two remedial designs were
completed in parallel in case the MNA
process failed to perform as
expected.
Point of Contact
James J. Feeney, RPM
EPA Region 3
1650 Arch Street
Mail Code: 3HS22
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029
215-814-3190
feeney.jim@epa.gov
Notes/Links'
http://www.wildlifehc.org/brow
nfields/woodlawn.cfm
REGION 4
Black Warrior-
Cahaba Rivers
Land Trust, AL
Milan Army
Ammunition Plant,
Milan, TN
Northwest 58th
Street Landfill,
Miami, FL
Solitron
Microwave, Port
Salerno, FL
Brownfields
Mining Site
Superfund
Ammunitions
Plant
Superfund
Landfill
Superfund
Manufacturing
Facility
Soils contaminated with lead
and heavy metals. Remediation
included a recreational park and
community stream cleanup
events.
Two wetland systems were
created, a subsurface flow
surface flow lagoon wetland, to
degrade explosives and their
byproducts. Specifically, ground
water was contaminated with
explosives constituents including
TNT, RDX, HMX, 2,4-DNT and
2,6-DNT.
Ground water contaminated with
heavy metals and toxic
chemicals from previous landfill
activities was cleaned up
through remediation and closure
of the landfill.
Ground water contaminants
consist of PCE and its
breakdown products.
Remediation activities include
water line extensions, soil
removal, in situ chemical
oxidation, and natural
attenuation.
Transformed a former
greenway with parks and
paths along the Five-Mile
Creek.
Revitalization included
creation of wetlands and use
of phytoremediation as a
re medial technology.
Through careful design, a lake
was constructed at the site for
wading birds; trails were
created with lookout centers.
Six acres at the site have
been reserved for wetland
areas, an upland preserve for
native plant habitat, and a 50-
foot natural buffer between the
site and surrounding
residential areas.
It could take 20 years to
complete the entire
greenway project.
Weather was an obstacle
because it affects the
efficiency of
phytoremediation.
Not specified
Not specified
Many of the targeted former industrial
areas have been cleaned up and
made available to communities as
natural and recreational land.
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
EPA Region 4 Brownfields Team
61 Forsyth Street, S.W.
Atlanta, GA 30303-8960
404-562-8493
www.epa.aov/reqion4/waste/bf/index
htm
Laurie Haines
U.S. Army Environmental Center
251 1 Jefferson Davis Highway
Taylor Building NC3-
Arlington, VA 22202-3926
703-601-1590
aurie.haines@us.army.mil
Bill Denman
EPA Region 4
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303
404-562-8939
denman.bill@epa.gov
Bill Denman
EPA Region 4
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303
404-562-8939
denman.bill@epa.gov
http://www.epa.aov/brownfield
s/success/fultondale al BRA
G.pdf
http://www.wildlifehc.ora/eweb
editpro/items/O57F3081.pdf
http://www.epa.aov/reaion4/wa
ste/reuse/fl/nw58reuse. pdf
http://www.epa. aov/Reaion4/w
aste/npl/nplfls/solmicfl.htm
* Links valid at time of publication.
Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies
A-l I
-------
Ecological tevitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets
Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies, continued
Properly Name
and Location
Allied Chemical &
Ironton Coke,
Ironton, OH
Bowers Landfill,
Circleville, OH
Calumet Container
Site, Hammond, IN
Broverman Landfill,
Christian County,
IL
Dupage County
Landfill, IL
E-Pond Solid
Waste
Management Unit,
Lima, OH
Property Type
Superfund
Chemical and Tar
Manufacturing
Facility
Superfund
Landfill
Superfund
Industrial Facility
Illinois EPA
Corrective Action
Landfill
Superfund
Landfill
RCRA Corrective
Action
Refinery Landfill
Cleanup Type
Solid wastes and wastewater
including crude tar and ammonia
contaminated the ground water
at this site. Remediation
activities included excavating
and disposing of contaminated
soil, installing containment
systems, and constructing a
water treatment plant.
Soil, ground water, and surface
water contaminated with VOCs
and PCBs. Remediation
ncluded removing debris and
installing a clay cap.
Remediation consisted of
cleaning up soil contamination
caused by previous drum and
pail reconditioning operations at
the site.
Cleanup included repair of the
protective cap placed over an
abandoned municipal landfill.
Ground water contamination
associated with the landfill was
cleaned up.
Synthetic root barrier and soil
cover will be placed over the
site, which is contaminated with
chromium, antimony, thallium,
PCB-1248, benzo(a)pyrene, and
dibenz(a,h)anthracene.
Revitalization/Reuse
Component
This area is being converted
into a wetlands system, taking
advantage of its natural
flooding conditions and
predisposition to wetlands-
type vegetation.
Wetlands were created
around the site to protect the
cap from flooding.
The area will be restored as a
native habitat area with
opportunities for passive
recreation, including walking
trails, and increasing biologica
diversity of native plants for
prairie and wetland habitats.
Prairie plants were seeded to
stabilize the soil cover and
reduce maintenance
requirements.
The site is now being used as
a recreational area with picnic
and camping areas, trails, and
a lake. The previous landfill is
used for sledding during the
winter months.
Prairie habitat constructed witt
native plants. Interpretive
areas and educational
opportunities will be created.
Problems/Issues
REGION 5
Not specified
The nearby Scioto River
was prone to flooding,
which could affect the
andfill cap.
Not specified
Deep gullies were eroding
down the landfill's sparsely
vegetated sides and low
areas were holding pools of
stagnant water.
Not specified
Not specified
Solutions
Not specified
Wetlands were created in the area
between the landfill and river, where
clay was taken to create the cap, to
control flooding.
Not specified
The cleanup team filled in large
surface irregularities, added rip-rap in
drainage ways to deter future erosion,
installed vegetation mats, and seedec
the area with native grasses and
wildflowers. The remedy was cost-
effective because nitrogen and
phosphorous did not have to be
added to the soil, additional topsoil
and tilling was not required, and
maintenance only included occasiona
prescribed burns.
Not specified
Not specified
Point of Contact
Syed Quadri
EPA Region 5
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Mail Code: SR-6J
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
312-886-5736
quadri.syed@epa.gov
Sirtaj Ahmed, RPM
EPA Region 5
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
312-886-4445
ahmed.sirtaj@epa.gov
Thomas Bloom
EPA Region 5
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Mail Code: SE-4J
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
312-886-1967
bloom.thomas@epa.gov
Jody Kershaw
Illinois EPA
1021 North Grand Avenue East
P.O. Box19276
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
217-524-3285
jody.kershaw@epa.state.il. us
Thomas Williams, RPM
EPA Region 5
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Mail Code: SR-6J
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
312-886-6157
williams.thomas@epa.gov
Thomas Matheson, RPM
EPA Region 5
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Mail Code: DM-7J
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
312-886-7569
matheson.thomas@epa.gov
Notes/Links'
http://www.epa.ciov/reaion5/sit
es/alliedchemical/pdfs/allied-
chemical-5vr-review-200409-
report.pdf
http://www.epa.aov/superfund/
proarams/recvcle/live/casestu
dv bowers.html
http://www.epa.aov/reaion5su
perfund/redevelop/pdf/Calume
t.pdf
http://www.epa.state.il.us/envir
onmental-
proaress/v25/n 1 /abandoned-
landfill. html
http://cfpub.epa.aov/supercpa
d/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=050
0606
http://www.epa.aov/epaoswer/
hazwaste/ca/curriculum/downl
oad/eco-rec. pdf
* Links valid at time of publication.
Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies
A-I2
-------
Ecological tevitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets
Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies, continued
Properly Name
and Location
Fernald, Southwesl
OH
Ford Rouge
Center, Dearborn,
Ml
Former Brass
Foundry and Eljer
Park, Marysville,
OH
Former Ford
Michigan Casting
Center Landfill, Flat
Rock, Ml
Former Gulf
Refinery Site,
Hooven, OH
llada Energy
Company, East
Cape Girardeau, IL
Property Type
Superfund
Uranium Metal
Production
MDEQ/ RCRA
Corrective Action
Automobile
Manufacturing
Complex
RCRA Corrective
Action
Foundry
Brownfields
Landfill
RCRA Corrective
Action
Refinery
Superfund
Waste Oil
Reclamation
Facility
Cleanup Type
Remediation and closure project
addressing uranium
contamination in soil and ground
water. Remediation included
treatment and disposal through
an on-site disposal facility and
off-site disposal. The treated
silos and waste pit materials
were all disposed of off-site.
The on-site disposal facility
contains primarily contaminated
soil and building debris.
Remediation included removal
of soils contaminated with
SVOCs, PCBs, metals, and
organics as well as containment
strategies.
Remediation included removing
soil and stream sediments
contaminated with VOCs and
metals, demolishing buildings,
capping residual areas, and
improving site drainage to
prevent erosion.
A wooded leachate
collection/management system
was used to treat contaminated
soil and ground water.
Phytoremediation consisting of a
vegetative cap was used to treat
soil contaminated with a mixture
of petroleum hydrocarbons,
including PAHs.
Water and soil were
contaminated with VOCs, PCBs,
and heavy metals. Remediation
activities included the removal of
1 ,742 cubic yards of soil and
865, 700 gallons of water. Oil
and sludge were incinerated.
Revitalization/Reuse
Component
End use of the entire 1 ,000-
acre site is an educational
park focusing on site history
and ecology. Deep
excavations are being
converted to wetland and
open water habitat.
Excavations into the subsoil
are being converted to native
grasslands.
Ecological enhancements
include a vegetated roof,
pervious pavement, vegetated
drainage swales, hedgerow
wildlife corridors, wetland
restoration, sunflower
plantings, and grassland
restoration. When it was built,
this was the world's largest
green roof at 10 acres in size.
Honey bee hives have been
added to enhance pollination
for new plantings.
Revitalization included
creating a park with athletic
fields, playground equipment,
a walking trail, and a wetlands
area.
Wooded phytoremediation
area providing increased
biodiversity via
creation of wildlife habitat for
various birds and small
mammals.
Activities at the site include
constructing a wetland habitat
for wildlife and extending the
park planned for the adjacent
area by providing community
access.
The site is part of an
ecological preservation area.
The Land Conservancy
bought land around the site
and planted bottomwood trees
adjacent to the site.
Problems/Issues
The primary problems have
been invasive species
control, geese and deer
browsing, and germination
success.
Issues encountered
included coordinating
remediation with ongoing
plant expansion activities.
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Solutions
Invasive control was initially
implemented through mechanical
removal. Selective use of herbicides
provides on-going control. Deer
exclosures have been installed to
fence the deer out of new restoration
areas where woody plants were
installed. Goose fencing, flagged
twine, and coyote decoys have been
used to discourage geese.
Germination success is being
evaluated and in some cases has
required reseeding.
Early negotiations with MDEQ helped
the process go smoothly.
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Point of Contact
Thomas A. Schneider
Ohio EPA, Office of Federal Facility
401 East Fifth Street
Dayton, OH 45402-2911
937-285-6466
torn. schneider@epa. state. oh. us
Dan Ballnik
Ford Motor Company
One American Road
Dearborn, Ml 48126
313-248-8606
dballni1@ford.com
Jan J. Chizzonite, Managing
Executive Partner
Environmental Strategies Consulting
LLC
11911 Freedom Drive
Reston, VA 20190
703-709-6500
jan.chizzonite@wspgroup.com
Jeff Hartlund
Ford Motor Company
One American Road
Dearborn, Ml 481 26
313-322-0700
ihartlun@ford.com
Lucinda Jackson
ChevronTexaco Corporation
100 Chevron Way
P.O. Box1627
Richmond, CA 94802-0627
510-242-1047
luaj@chevron.com
Sam Chummar
EPA Region 5
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Mail Code: SR-6J
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
312-886-1434
chummar.sam@epa.gov
Notes/Links'
http://www.wildlifehc.org/eweb
editoro/items/O57F3069. pdf
http://www.wildlifehc.ora/eweb
editpro/items/O57F3071.pdf
http://www.epa.aov/ne/national
caconf/docs/Chizzonite. pdf
http://www.wildlifehc.ora/eweb
editpro/items/O57F3059. pdf
http://www.wildlifehc.ora/eweb
editpro/items/O57F3061.pdf
http://www.epa.aov/reaion5su
perfund/npl/illinois/ILD980996
789.htm
* Links valid at time of publication.
Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies
A-I3
-------
Ecological tevitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets
Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies, continued
Properly Name
and Location
Industrial Excess
Landfill (IEL),
Uniontown, OH
Joliet Army
Ammunition Plant,
Joliet, IL
Petersen Sand and
Gravel, Libertyville,
IL
Pocket Parks at
Former Service
Stations, Chicago,
IL
Property Type
Superfund
Landfill
Superfund
Ammunitions
Plant
Superfund
Quarry
IEPA Corrective
Action
Former Service
Station
Cleanup Type
Remediation activities such as
extraction and treatment,
capping the landfill, and installing
a landfill gas extraction system
were used to treat ground water
contaminated by VOCs.
Remediation included
excavation and off-site disposal
of soils contaminated with
metals and on-site
bioremediation of explosives-
contaminated soils.
The former Petersen quarry was
used during the 1950s as a
dumping ground for solvents anc
paints causing extensive
contamination. Cleanup
activities included removing
drums, paint cans, and
contaminated soil and surface
water.
The sites were contaminated
with BTEX, and contaminated
soil was removed. Each of the
sites received "No Further
Remediation" letters through
lEPA's Voluntary Cleanup
Program.
Revitalization/Reuse
Component
The site's remedy involves
enhancing wildlife habitat and
creating greenspace. Almost
10,000 native trees and
shrubs were planted.
Midewin National Tall Grass
Prairie was created for
recreational, educational, and
agricultural benefits to the
public. Also, revitalization
activities included restoring
native wildlife populations and
habitat.
The cleanup enabled
Independence Grove Forest
Preserve to create a 1 1 5-acre
lake and establish an
education center at the site.
Greenspace was created to
reduce paved areas, which
decreased the amount of
stormwater that reaches the
combined storm sewers.
Problems/Issues
Not specified
Remediation goals were
questioned as possibly not
protecting ecological
resources of the Midewin
National Tall Grass Prairie
due to the uncertainty of the
risk posed by chemical
constituents.
Not specified
Local politics favored
commercial use over
recreational use.
Solutions
Not specified
Site representatives are still working
to establish proper remediation goals
and costs.
Not specified
Multiple meetings with community
groups helped to achieve consensus.
Point of Contact
Timothy Fischer, RPM
EPA Region 5
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Mail Code: SR-6J
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
312-886-5787
fischer.timothy@epa.gov
Laurie Haines
U.S. Army Environmental Center
251 1 Jefferson Davis Highway
Taylor Building NC3-
Arlington, VA 22202-3926
703-601-1590
aurie.haines@hqda.army.mil
David Seeley, RPM
EPA Region 5
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Mail Code: SR-6J
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
312-886-7058
seely.david@epa.gov
Kelly Kennoy
City of Chicago
30 North Lasalle Street, 25th Floor
Chicago, IL 60602-2575
312-744-8692
kkennoy@cityofchicago.org
Notes/Links'
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/
sites/fivevear/f2006050001 133
jxtf
http://www.epa.goV/R5Super/n
pl/illinois/IL0210090049.htm
http://www.epa.gov/region5su
perfund/npl/illinois/ILD003817
137.htm
http://www.wildlifehc.org/eweb
ed itpro/item S/O57 F3057 . pdf
REGION 6
AMAX Metals
Recovery (Freeport
McMoRan),
Braithwaite, LA
Brooks City-Base,
San Antonio, TX
RCRA Corrective
Action
Metals Recovery
Facility
RCRA Corrective
Action
Former Medical
Research and
Development
Facility
A LIST and waste pile area was
cleaned up and designated
"ready for reuse."
A portion of the base was
cleaned up by installing soil
vapor extraction and ground
water P&T systems, removing
and installing a cover over
garbage and construction debris
excavating contaminated soil,
and incorporating ICs.
A water retention pond was
dewatered to form a wetland
that provided a home to
alligators relocated due to
Hurricane Katrina in 2005.
The former air force base was
ssued a "ready for reuse"
determination, which was the
first of its kind issued in Texas
and the first for a federal
facility nationwide. The
remedial process incorporated
ecological revitalization into
the cleanup plan.
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
U.S. EPA Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue
Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality
Galvez Building
602 North Fifth Street
Baton Rouge, LA 70802
Jeanne Schulze
EPA Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Mail Code: 6PD-F
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
214-665-7254
schulze.jeanne@epa.gov
http://findarticles.eom/p/article
s/mi gn4200/is 20080604/ai
n25483065?tag=artBodv:co!1
http://enviro.blr.com/displav.cf
m/id/25919
* Links valid at time of publication.
Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies
A-I4
-------
Ecological tevitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets
Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies, continued
Properly Name
and Location
DuPont Remington
Arms Facility,
Lonoke, AK
England Air Force
Base, LA
French, Ltd.,
Crosby, TX
Heifer International
New World
Headquarters,
Little Rock, AR
Property Type
RCRA Corrective
Action
Manufacturing
Facility
RCRA Corrective
Action Air Force
Base
Superfund
Industrial Waste
Storage
Brownfields
Industrial Facility
Cleanup Type
Remediation included
excavation and treatment of
approximately 6,080 cubic yards
of contaminated soils.
A portion of the former air force
base was cleaned up by
removing contaminated soil,
ncorporating ICs, and instituting
MNA of contaminated ground
water. The site was designated
' ready for reuse."
Remediation included treating
soil and ground water
contaminated with VOCs and
heavy metals and creating 23
acres of new wetlands.
Petroleum contaminated soil
was removed from the site.
Revitalization/Reuse
Component
Remington Arms continues to
manufacture ammunition at
the facility. The remaining 731
acres are managed as a
wildlife habitat. Ecological
revitalization efforts include
construction of a 20-acre
moist soil impoundment for
waterfowl habitat in
cooperation with Ducks
Unlimited.
Areas excavated as part of a
remedial action became part
of the Audubon Trail, providing
habitat and a stopping point fo
migratory birds, and an
expanded 18-hole golf course.
Wetlands and surrounding
habitat can be used as
recreation for outdoor
enthusiasts and as habitat for
vegetation and wildlife.
Activities at the site included
the creation of retention ponds
and a wetland habitat.
Problems/Issues
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
The primary issue at this
site was funding.
Solutions
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Support from federal, state, and local
sources, along with existing funds
allowed cleanup.
Point of Contact
Jeanne Schulze
EPA Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Mail Code: 6PD-F
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
214-665-7254
schulze.jeanne@epa.gov
Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality
Public Records Center
Galvez Building, Room 127
602 N. Fifth Street
Baton Rouge, LA 70802
Ernest Franke, RPM
EPA Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue
Suite 1200
Mail Code: 6SFRA
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
214-665-8521
franke.ernest@epa.gov
Gerald Cound
Director of Facilities Management
Heifer International
1 World Avenue
Little Rock, AR 72202
501-907-2965
gerald.cound@heifer.org
Notes/Links'
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/
hazwaste/ca/success/rem 1 1 -
07.pdf
http://www.epa.gov/reaion6/re
adv4reuse/england rfr.pdf
http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpa
d/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=060
2498
http://www.wildlifehc.org/eweb
editpro/items/O57F5385. pdf
REGION 7
3-D Investments,
Inc., Alda, NE
RCRA
Brownfields and
Superfund Former
Gas Station,
Battery Cracking
and Lead
Recovery Facility
The 3.65-acre site was
investigated under RCRA
authority. The facility went
bankrupt and cleanup costs
exceeded monies in the facility's
trust fund, so EPA RCRA
referred the facility to Region 7
EPA Superfund. Region 7
Superfund evaluated the site
and conducted removal
activities of lead-contaminated
soils. The site was cleaned up
to residential or near residential
standards.
EPA sent a letter stating the
facility was cleaned up, and
the property was deeded to
the Crane Meadows Nature
Center, a nonprofit
organization dedicated to
natural resource education
and the preservation of
Sandhill cranes.
During the cleanup
response, EPA discovered
areas of contamination that
were previously unknown.
Neighbors and Crane
Meadows Nature Center
also had a concern
regarding excess tree
removal.
EPA Region 7 RCRA received a
RCRA Brownfields Prevention
Initiative Targeted Site Effort grant to
assist with characterization, public
involvement and other activities. EPA
worked with neighbors and Crane
Meadows Nature Center to alleviate
their concerns about removing
perimeter trees. Crane Meadows
Nature Center wanted perimeter trees
to remain to serve as a wind-break.
EPA obliged this request. Mulch from
some of the trees was also left onsite.
Andrea R. Stone
EPA Region 7
901 North Fifth Street
Mail Code: ARTDRCAP
Kansas City, KS 66101
913-551-7662
stone.andrear@epa.gov
httpV/www.epa.gov/swerosps/r
crabf/html-doc/tsefac03. htm
* Links valid at time of publication.
Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies
A-I5
-------
Ecological tevitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets
Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies, continued
Properly Name
and Location
Cherokee County,
Galena, KS
Times Beach,
Times Beach, MO
Wheeling Disposal
Service Co, Inc.
Landfill, Amazonio,
MO
Property Type
Superfund
Mining Site
Superfund
Contaminated
Urban Area
Superfund
Landfill
Cleanup Type
Remediation consisted of
burying surface mine wastes
contaminated with lead,
mercury, and cadmium in
abandoned mine pits,
subsidence areas, and mine
shafts on site; diverting streams
away from waste piles;
recontouring land surface; and
revegetating with native prairie
grasses to control runoff and
erosion.
A temporary incinerator was
nstalled to burn soil
contaminated with dioxin. The
waste ash from the treated soil
was buried on site. People were
relocated and all homes and
businesses were demolished.
Soil contaminated with municipa
and industrial wastes was
remediated by upgrading the
existing landfill cap with a clay
and soil cover. Ground and
surface water were monitored.
Revitalization/Reuse
Component
Native prairie grassland
habitat encouraged the return
of wildlife.
A state park now exists on the
site and acts as a bird
sanctuary.
During the cleanup, the owner
dug a pond and planted native
wild grasses and other foliage
that would attract birds and
wildlife.
Problems/Issues
Potential for cave-in of filled
mine shafts after heavy rain
or freezing and thawing
cycles.
Numerous problems and
issues resulted from this
contentious Superfund site.
See the Web site provided
under "Notes/Links" for
more information.
Not specified
Solutions
Avoided development in the areas
with potential for cave-in or collapse.
See the Web site provided under
'Notes/Links" for more information.
Not specified
Point of Contact
David Drake, RPM
EPA Region 7
901 North Fifth Street
Mail Code: SUPRFFSE
Kansas City, KS 66101
913-551-7626
drake.dave@epa.gov
Bob Feild, RPM
EPA Region 7
901 North Fifth Street
Mail Code: SUPRMOKS
Kansas City, KS 66101
913-551-7697
feild.robert@epa.gov
Amer Safadi, RPM
EPA Region 7
901 North Fifth Street
Mail Code: SUPRMOKS
Kansas City, KS 66101
913-551-7825
safadi.amer@epa.gov
Notes/Links'
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/
procirams/recvcle/live/casestu
dv cherokee.html
http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpa
d/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=070
1237
http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpa
d/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=070
0780
REGION 8
BP Former
Refinery, Platte
River Commons,
Casper, WY
RCRA Corrective
Action
Former Petroleum
Refinery
Cleanup included removal of
trash and waste from the river to
contain the flow of contaminated
ground water, excavation of
contaminated soils, addition of
P&T wells and construction of a
wetland treatment system.
Nearly 2,000 trees were planted
to assist with phytoremediation.
After the river was cleaned up,
a recreational kayak course
was created. A portion of the
site was used to create an 18-
hole golf course. Wetlands
were incorporated into the golf
course design to assist in
treating contaminated ground
water. Trees were planted for
phytoremediation.
Not specified
Not specified
Vickie Meredith
WDEQ
Solid & Hazardous Waste Division,
Hazardous Waste Permitting and
Corrective Action Program
250 Lincoln Street
Lander, WY 82520
vmered@state.wy.us
307-332-6924
Tom Aalto, EPA Region 8
1595 Wynkoop Street
Mail Code: 8P-HW
Denver, CO 80202-1129
aalto.tom@epa.gov
303-312-6949
http://www.epa.gov/waste/haz
ard/correctiveaction/pdfs/casp
* Links valid at time of publication.
Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies
A-I6
-------
Ecological tevitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets
Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies, continued
Properly Name
and Location
Cache La Poudre
River Superfund
Site, Fort Collins,
CO
California Gulch
Superfund Site,
Upper Arkansas
River Operable
Unit, Leadville, CO
East Helena Site,
Helena, MT
Kennecott North
and South Zone
Sites, Salt Lake
County, UT
Milltown Reservoir
Sediments,
Milltown, MT
Property Type
Superfund
Superfund
Mining Site
Superfund
Smelting Site
Superfund
Mining Site
Superfund
Mining Site
Cleanup Type
Soil and sediments in the
Poudre River, and ground water
were contaminated with gasoline
mixed with coal tar. Cleanup
activities included sediment
excavation and temporary re-
routing of the Poudre River, a
vertical sheet pile barrier to stop
ground waterflow, and ground
water treatment.
The mining district's soil, surface
water, and sediments were
heavily contaminated with lead,
zinc, and other heavy metals
from mine tailings. Biosolids
and lime were applied directly to
the tailings along Upper
Arkansas River.
Ground water, surface water,
and soil contamination from
decades of lead smelting
activities was cleaned up by
removing waste, treating soil,
and capping the area.
Soil and ground water were
contaminated with mining
wastes, including sulfates and
heavy metals. Soil was
removed, and ground water was
pumped and treated in the
mine's tailings slurry line.
Six million cubic yards of mining
waste that had piled up at the
base of the Milltown Dam was
poisoning the reservoir and
affecting drinking water. A new
drinking water system was
installed at the site.
Revitalization/Reuse
Component
EPA completed an intact but
unobtrusive remedy of the
Poudre River to preserve the
riverine habitat.
The area along the river has
been restored and supports
vegetation and wildlife, and is
available for agricultural use
and recreational use such as
hiking and fishing.
In addition to mixed
commercial and residential
use, portions of the site are
being used fora neighborhooc
park, a baseball field, and
some wetlands
redevelopment.
Open space, wetlands, and
wildlife habitat were created.
A residential area was also
created.
In addition to adding a new
drinking water system, 2.5
miles was added to existing
hiking trails in Missoula to
complete a loop around the
University of Montana and
Missoula's waterfront.
Problems/Issues
Beavers ate about half of
the tree plantings.
Tailings could not be
excavated because of the
risk of tailings entering the
river and the difficulty of
finding a repository for the
contaminated soil. Also,
replacement of topsoil
would be costly. Mobilizing
materials to the site was
difficult due to the elevation
of the site. Waterwasalso
scarce due to low rainfall
and high elevation.
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Solutions
Site managers used wire on the first 6
to 8 feet of tree plantings, and paintec
the wire to be easily visible.
Biosolids were spread over the
tailings, reducing the potential for
tailings to migrate to the river.
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Point of Contact
Paul Peronard, OSC
EPA Region 8
1595 Wynkoop Street
Mail Code: 8EPR-SR
Denver, CO 80202-1129
303-312-6808
peronard.paul@epa.gov
Rebecca Thomas, RPM
EPA Region 8
1595 Wynkoop Street
Denver, CO 80202-1129
303-312-6552
thomas.rebecca@epa.gov
Mike Holmes, RPM
EPA Region 8
1595 Wynkoop Street
Denver, CO 80202-1129
303-312-6607
holmes, michael@epa.gov
Scott Brown
EPA Region 8
Montana Operations Office Federal
Building
1 0 West 1 5th Street
Suite 3200
Mail Code: 8MO
Helena, MT 59626
406-457-5035
brown.scott@epa.gov
Rebecca Thomas, RPM
EPA Region 8
1595 Wynkoop Street
Mail Code: 8EPR-SR
Denver, CO 80202-1129
303-312-6552
thomas.rebecca@epa.gov
Scott Brown
EPA Region 8
Montana Operations Office Federal
Building
10 West 15th Street
Suite 3200
Mail Code: 8MO
Helena, MT 59626
406-457-5035
brown.scott@epa.gov
Notes/Links'
http://www.clu-
in.ora/conf/tio/ecocasestudies
080207/
http://www.epa.aov/superfund/
proarams/recvcle/pdf/cal aulc
h.pdf
http://cfpub.epa.aov/supercpa
d/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=080
0377
http://www.epa.aov/superfund/
proarams/aml/tech/kennecott.
pdf
http://cfpub.epa.aov/supercpa
d/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=080
0445
* Links valid at time of publication.
Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies
A-I7
-------
Ecological tevitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets
Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies, continued
Properly Name
and Location
Monticello Mill
SuperfundSite,
Monticello, UT
Rocky Flats Plant,
Golden, CO
Rocky Mountain
Arsenal,
Commerce City,
CO
Silver Bow Creek
and Warm Springs
Ponds, Butte, MT
Property Type
Superfund
Former DOE
Processing
Facility
Superfund Former
DOE Weapons
Facility
Superfund Army-
Lead Remedial
Action
Ammunition Plant
Superfund
Mining Site
Cleanup Type
A cover system was constructed
to contain radioactive material
removed from the site. The
cover design mimics and
enhances the natural ground
water balance and uses a
capillary barrier. Native
vegetation was planted to
maximize evapotranspiration.
At one time the site stored more
than 14 tons of plutonium. All
special nuclear materials were
packaged and shipped to
licensed repositories. Over 800
structures were cleaned up, as
necessary, and removed. 690
tanks were decontaminated and
removed, and onsite landfills
were covered. Three
contaminated ground water
plume barriers and passive
treatment systems were
installed. Finally, wastes and
contaminated soils were
removed and shipped to
permitted facilities.
P&T systems were installed to
remediate ground water
contaminated with wastes from
production of chemical warfare
agents, industrial and
agricultural chemicals, and
pesticides.
Remediation included
excavating sediment
contaminated by copper mining
activities and installing a water
treatment system.
Revitalization/Reuse
Component
The native vegetation chosen
was designed to emulate the
structure, function, diversity,
and dynamics of native plant
communities in the area.
Part of the site that has been
remediated has been
transferred from DOE to DOI
and the USFWS to manage
as a National Wildlife Refuge.
Congress passed the Rocky
Mountain Arsenal National
Wildlife Refuge Act, requiring
the site to become part of the
national wildlife refuge system
once cleanup is complete.
Extensive wetlands are now
home to a variety of wildlife.
Nesting platforms were built to
protect birds. The wetlands
are also used for recreation
such as fishing, hiking, and
biking.
Problems/Issues
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Solutions
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Not specified
Point of Contact
Mark Aguilar
EPA Region 8
1595 Wynkoop Street
Mail Code: 8EPR-F
Denver, CO 80202-1129
303-312-6251
aguilar.mark@epa.gov
Mark Aguilar
EPA Region 8
1595 Wynkoop Street
Mail Code: 8EPR-F
Denver, CO 80202-1129
303-312-6251
aguilar.mark@epa.gov
Greg Hargreaves, RPM
EPA Region 8
1595 Wynkoop Street
Mail Code: 8EPR-F
Denver, CO 80202-1129
303-312-6661
hargreaves.greg@epa.gov
Ron Bertram, RPM
EPA Region 8
1595 Wynkoop Street
Mail Code: 8EPR-F
Denver, CO 80202-1129
406-441-1150
bertram.ron@epa.gov
Notes/Links'
http://www.clu-
in.ora/PRODUCTS/NEWSLTR
S/ttrend/view.cfm?issue=tt050
O.htm
http://www.epa.pov/reaion8/su
perfund/co/rkvflatsplant/index.
html
http://www.rma.armv.mil/clean
up/clnfrm.html
http://cfpub.epa.pov/supercpa
d/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=080
0416
* Links valid at time of publication.
Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies
A-I8
-------
Ecological tevitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets
Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies, continued
Properly Name
and Location
Summitville Mine,
CO
Property Type
Superfund
Mining Site
Cleanup Type
Gold mining released cyanide
and acidic mine water to the
Alamosa River. Cleanup
activities include permanently
stabilizing the site and reversing
the effects of mining on the river.
Revitalization/Reuse
Component
The Alamosa River and
tributaries flow through
wetlands, forested and
agricultural land, and into the
Terrace Reservoir, which
supplies irrigation water to
vestock and farms. The site
has been revegetated with
grasses that promote the
recolonization of native plants.
The river, which was void of
life because of contamination,
now supports some types of
aquatic life.
Problems/Issues
Not specified
Solutions
Not specified
Point of Contact
Victor Ketellapper, RPM
EPA Region 8
1595 Wynkoop Street
Mail Code: 8EPR-F
Denver, CO 80202-1129
303-312-6578
ketellapper.victor@epa.gov
Notes/Links'
http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpa
d/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=080
1194
REGION 9
Atlas Asbestos
Mine, Fresno
County, CA
A West Coast
Refinery, Location
not provided
Alameda Naval Air
Station, Alameda,
CA
Superfund
Mining Site
EPA Research
Technology
Development
Forum Site
Refinery Effluent
Treatment System
Superfund
Landfill, Lagoon
The remedy included the
removal of contaminated
material, stabilization of erosion-
prone areas, and structural
mprovements to clean up the
asbestos contaminated soil and
water.
A phytoremediation
demonstration was conducted at
the site, which was
contaminated with
hydrocarbons. The remediation
also included enhancing and
planting wetlands, and installing
a vegetation cap.
Remediation included using
dredged sediment from the
lagoon as part of a landfill cap
for parts of the site that were
contaminated with PCBs, heavy
metals, and PAHs.
The site is a wildlife sanctuary
and a popular recreational
area for hikers, campers, and
hunters.
The site includes a clean
stormwater holding basin.
Natural vegetation was
planted over the 90-acre
vegetation cap.
A golf course is being planned
in the landfill area, and a
marina will be constructed in
the lagoon area.
At the Atlas Mine Area, the
road to the Rover
Pit/Channel A is likely to fail
sometime in the future due
to an active landslide. In
addition, the road to Pond
A may also fail in the future
due to erosion.
Selenium was identified on
site and in bird eggs, which
can be harmful to the
wildlife, especially bird
embryos.
Not specified
Alternate access roads to the Rover
Pit/Channel A and to Pond A will be
dentified prior to failure of the existing
roads.
The site was turned into a treatment
zone and habitat zone. Birds were
discouraged from the treatment zone
where selenium was to be removed.
After testing, selenium was found to
be greatly reduced in bird eggs.
Not specified
Anna Lynn Suer
EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
Mail Code: WTR-2
San Francisco, CA 94105
415-972-3148
suer.lynn@epa.gov
Kim Beman
Chevron
6001 Bollinger Canyon Road
San Ramon, CA 94583,
KBGS@chevron.com
Anna Marie Cook
EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
Mail Code: SFD-8-3
San Francisco, CA 94105
415-972-3029
cook.anna-marie@epa.gov
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/
sites/fivevear/f2006090001 092
JDdf
http://www.wildlifehc.org/eweb
editpro/items/O57F3055. pdf
httpV/www.epa.gov/oerrpage/s
uperfund/programs/recvcle ol
d/pilot/facts/r9 38.htm
REGION 10
American
Crossarm &
Conduit Co.,
Chehalis, WA
Superfund
Wood Treatment
Facility
Remediation activities include
removing contaminated site
material, disposing of the site
facilities, removing lagoon
sediment, and excavating soil.
The contaminants of concern
are carcinogenic polyaromatic
hydrocarbons, PCP, and
dioxin/furans.
Wetlands restoration.
Not specified
Not specified
Anne McCauley
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Mail Code: ECL-113
Seattle, WA 98101
206-553-4689
mccauley.anne@epa.gov
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/
sites/fivevear/f04-1 0004. pdf
* Links valid at time of publication.
Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies
A-I9
-------
Ecological tevitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets
Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies, continued
Properly Name
and Location
Commencement
Bay, Tacoma, WA
Harmony Mine and
Mill, Baker, ID
Hoquarton Natural
Interpretive Trail,
Tillamook, OR
Old Jensen Texaco
Station, Rosalia,
WA
Property Type
Superfund
Industrial
Activities
Superfund Mining
Site
Brownfields
Lumber Mill
OUST
Abandoned Gas
Station
Cleanup Type
Industrial activities resulting in
hazardous waste contamination
of the waterways within
Commencement Bay were
addressed.
A diversion ditch was created
and pipes laid to divert
Withington Creek from tailings
piles. After they were dry,
10,000 cubic yards of tailings
were excavated and hauled to a
repository location. A
sedimentation pond was also
constructed below the tailings
pile to catch any runoff that
occurred. Tailings were then
capped with a 2-foot layer of
compacted rock followed by a
one-foot layer of uncompacted
rock.
Using an EPA Revolving Loan
Fund, contaminated soil was
excavated and treated.
Through the USTFields Pilot
Program, this abandoned gas
station site was remediated by
removing five USTs and
contaminated soil to make the
site ready for future reuse.
Contaminated soil treated and
disposed of off-site. Additional
contamination is being
addressed through ground water
monitoring and possible MNA.
Revitalization/Reuse
Component
In addition to navigational
improvements to the port, nine
acres of wetlands were
restored as a result of the
cleanup. EPA also worked
with Washington Department
of Environment to create
seven acres of essential mud
flats habitat where fish, birds,
wildlife, and plant species
thrive.
Where the tailings were
removed, the area was
graded, a stable creek bed
with the ability to withstand
large debris flow was
constructed, and disturbed
areas were seeded.
Withington Creek is a
designated cold water
community and salmonid
spawning habitat forthe
endangered Chinook salmon.
The former lumber mill was
transformed into a recreational
and educational greenspace.
Volunteers removed weeds
and invasive plants, disposed
of over two tons of trash, and
planted over 2,000 native
plants in riparian areas. A trail
was also installed to provide
walking and bird watching
opportunities.
Stakeholders plan to convert
the former gas station site into
a visitor and community center
with green infrastructure.
They plan to incorporate
native plant communities that
are part of the the distinctive
Palouse ecosystem, including
grasslands, scrub thickets,
ridges, and slope
communities. The community
center could be used to
educate visitors about the
unique geology and ecology of
the region.
Problems/Issues
Not specified
Not specified
It was unclear how long-
term maintenance of the
park would be achieved.
Additional contamination
could not be removed
without destroying the
historic building this project
was intended to restore, in
situ treatment options have
been considered but will no-
be pursued until additional
ground water data is
evaluated. MNA of the
remaining contamination
may prove to be an
adequate and appropriate
cleanup alternative.
Solutions
Not specified
Not specified
Long-term maintenance of the park
was supported by school groups and
other volunteers.
Not specified
Point of Contact
Chris Bellovary
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Mail Code: ECL-111
Seattle, WA 98101
206-553-2723
bellovary.chris@epa.gov
Greg Weigel
EPA Region 10, Idaho Operations
Office
1435 North Orchard Street
Boise, ID 83706
208-378-5773
weigel.greg@epa.gov
Mike Slater
EPA Region 10
805 SW Broadway
Mail Code: OOO
Portland, OR 97205
503-326-5872
slater.mike@epa.gov
Wildlife Habitat Council
8737 Colesville Road, Suite 800
Silver Spring, MD 20910
301-588-8994
whc@wildlifehc.org
Notes/Links'
http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpa
d/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=100
0981
http://epaosc.net/site profile. a
sp?site id=10BN
http://www.landcurrent.com/co
ntemporarv/landscape design.
php?in=Hoguarton&work=publ
jc
http://www.wildlifehc.org/eweb
editpro/items/O57F7008.pdf
* Links valid at time of publication.
Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies
A-20
-------
Ecological tevitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets
Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies, continued
Properly Name
and Location
Port Hadlock
Detachment,
Jefferson County,
WA
SeQuential
Biofuels, Eugene,
OR
Sequim Bay
Estuary, Clallam
County, WA
West Page Swamp
(Bunker Hill NPL
Site), Shoshone
County, ID
Wyckoff-Eagle
Harbor, Puget
Sound, WA
Property Type
Superfund
Landfill
OUST Fueling
Station
Brownfields
Superfund
Mining Site
Superfund
Wood Treatment
Facility
Cleanup Type
Soil, ground water, sediment,
and shellfish were contaminated
with heavy metals, PCBs, and
pesticides. As part of the
remediation, the portion of the
landfill that had leaked into the
surrounding beaches was
contained and capped.
USTs from the closed fueling
station were removed and
contaminated soil was
excavated. A Brownfields grant
assisted in cleaning up the
remainder of the site and getting
it ready for reuse.
Cleanup activities involved
removing 99 creosote-treated
pilings from the estuary and
removing 350 tons of
contaminated soil and 600 tons
of solid waste from an adjacent
shoreline and riparian wetlands.
Remediation included
constructing a cap over soil
contaminated with lead and zinc
tailings. The cap consisted of
biosolids compost and wood
ash.
EPA worked with USAGE to
obtain clean silt to cap
contaminated sediments from a
previous wood treatment facility
and shipyard to stop further
release of toxins into Puget
Sound. EPA also removed on-
site buildings and polluted
sediments from the harbor.
Revitalization/Reuse
Component
Beaches and tribal fishing
grounds were re-opened.
The new station is bordered
with grassy bioswales that
help to contain stormwater
runoff from the site, remediate
contamination biologically
before it leaves the site, and
slow the flow of stormwater
into the storm-sewer system.
In addition, green building
technologies were used
including a vegetated roof,
solar panels, purchased wind
energy, and use of available
natural light through window
design to reduce the need for
heating and cooling.
The bay water now provides
clean sediment and habitat for
shellfish, salmon, and other
natural species. The project
also has the economic
benefits for the Jamestown
S'Klallam Tribe with increased
revenue from the sale offish
and an expanded tourist area
for kayaking and bird
watching.
Wetland is now habitat to
wildlife.
After contaminated sediment
was removed, EPA and state
officials lined the area with
gravel to attract mussels and
barnacles and created a 2-
acre estuarine habitat.
Problems/Issues
None
Not specified
Not specified
Stakeholders were
concerned that remediation
is only a short-term solution
because contaminants
were not completely
removed from site.
Not specified
Solutions
None
Not specified
Not specified
Ground water and surface water wells
were installed and are being
monitored quarterly or annually.
Not specified
Point of Contact
Nancy Harney, RPM
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Mail Code: ECL-115
Seattle, WA 98101
206-553-6635
harney.nancy@epa.gov
Jim Glass
Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality
750 Front Street NE, Suite 120
Salem, OR 97301-1039
503-378-5044
glass.jim@deq.state.or.us
EPA Region 10 Brownfields Team
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
206-553-2100
Harry Compton
EPA Facilities Rariton Depot
2890 Woodbridge Avenue
Mail Code: 101MS101
Edison, NJ 08837-3679
732-321-6751
compton.harry@epa.gov
Ken Marcy
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Mail Code: ECL-112
Seattle, WA 98101
206-553-2782
marcy.ken@epa.gov
Notes/Links'
http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpa
d/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=100
1117
http://www.neiwpcc.org/lustlin
e/lustline pdf/lustline 55.pdf
http://www.epa.gov/brownfield
s/03g rants/seg u i m . htm
http://www.wildlifehc.org/eweb
editpro/items/O57F3063. pdf
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/
programs/recvcle/live/casestu
dv wvckoff.html
* Links valid at time of publication.
Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies
A-2I
-------
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets
Appendix B: Additional Ecological
Revitalization Resources
Sect/on /: Introduction
Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council (ITRC): www.itrcweb.org
Land Revitalization Initiative: www.epa.gov/oswer/landrevitalization/basicinformation.htm
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Hazardous Waste Cleanup Information (CLU-IN). Tools
for Ecological Land Reuse: www.cluin.org/ecotools
EPA One Cleanup Program Initiative: www.epa.gov/oswer/onecleanupprogram
Sect/on 2: Ecological Revitalization Under EPA Cleanup Programs
Atlas Tack Superfund Site Information: www.epa.gov/ne/superfund/sites/atlas
Brownfields Green Infrastructure Fact Sheet: www.epa.gov/brownfields/publications/swdp0408.pdf
Biological Technical Assistance Groups (BTAG) Regional Web sites:
EPA Region 3: www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/risk/eco/index.htm
EPA Region 4: www.epa.gov/region4/waste/ots/index.htm
EPA Region 5: www.epa.gov/region5superfund/ecology/index.html
EPA Region 8: www.epa.gov/region8/r8risk/eco.html
Cross Program Revitalization Guidance:
www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/recycle/pdf/cprm_guidance.pdf
Emergency Response Team: www.ert.org
EPA CLU-IN Publications Search Web site: www.clu-in.org/publ.cfm
EPA CLU-IN Tools for Ecological Land Reuse: www.cluin.org/ecotools
EPA Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment:
http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=12460
EPA Land Revitalization Web site: www.epa.gov/landrevitalization/index.htm
EPA Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation: www.epa. gov/ tio
EPA Region 3 — Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites Land Use & Reuse Assessment, Data Results:
www.epa.gov/region03/revitalization/R3_land_use_final/data_results.pdf
EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER). 1991. ECO Update-The Role of
Biological Technical Assistance Groups (BTAG) in Ecological Assessment. Publication number 9345.0-
051. September, www.epa.gov/oswer/riskassessment/ecoup/pdf/vlnol.pdf
EPA OSWER. 2008. Green Remediation: Incorporating Sustainable Environmental Practices into
Remediation of Contaminates Sites. www.clu-in.org/download/remed/Green-Remediation-Primer.pdf
Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office (FFRRO) Web site: www.epa.gov/fedfac/about ffrro.htm
Appendix B: Additional Ecological Revhalization Resources B-l
-------
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets
Interim Guidance for OSWER Cross-Program Revitalization Measures:
www.epa.gov/landrevitalization/docs/cprmguidance-10-20-06covermemo.pdf
Local native plant societies: www.michbotclub.org/links/native_plant_society.htm
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): http://response.restoration.noaa.gov
Superfund Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse Performance Measure:
www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/recycle/pdf/sitewide a.pdf
Underground Storage Tank (UST) Brownfields Cleanups:
www.nemw.org/petroleum % 20issue % 20opportunity % 20brief.pdf
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS):
www.nrcs.usda.gov
Wildlife Habitat Council (WHC) Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Cleanups Web site:
www.wildHfehc.org/brownfield_restoration/lust_pilots.cfm
Sect/on 3: Technical Considerations for Ecological Revitalization
EPA CLU-IN. The Use of Soil Amendments for Remediation, Revitalization, and Reuse:
www.clu-in.org/download/remed/epa-542-r-07-013.pdf
EPA Tech Trends. Fort Wainwright:
www.clu-in.org/PRODUCTS/NEWSLTRS/ttrend/view.cfm?issue=tt0500.htm
Sect/on 4: Wetlands Cleanup and Restoration
EPA, Office of Water, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds: www.epa.gov/OWOW/wetlands
EPA OSWER. Considering Wetlands at Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA) Sites (EPA 540/R-94/019,1994):
www.epa.gov/superfund/policy/remedy/pdfs/540r-94019-s.pdf
EPA OSWER. Environmental Fact Sheet: Controlling the Impacts of Remediation Activities in or Around
Wetlands (EPA 530-F-93-020).
Society of Wetland Scientists (SWS), Wetlands Journal: www.sws.org/wetlands
U.S. Department of Interior (DOI), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wetlands Inventory:
www.nwi.fws.gov
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), National Wetlands Research Center: www.nwrc.gov
Wetlands Research Program and Wetlands Research Technology Center:
http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/wetlands
Wetland Science Institute, Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture:
www.wli.nrcs .usda. go v
Appendix B: Additional Ecological Revhalization Resources B-2
-------
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets
Sect/on 5: Stream Cleanup and Restoration
EPA Office of Water. River Corridor and Wetland Restoration Web site:
www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/restore
EPA Office of Water and OSWER. Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds:
www.epa.gov/superfund/resources/integrating.htm
EPA OSWER. Contaminated Sediment Remediation Guidance:
www.epa.gov/superfund/health/conmedia/sediment/guidance.htgi
Federal Interagency Stream Corridor Restoration Guide:
www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/stream restoration/newgra.html
University of Nebraska-Lincoln: www.ianr.unl.edu/pubs/Soil/gl307.htm
Sect/on 6: Terrestrial Ecosystems Cleanup and Revitalization
Clemants, Stephen. 2002. Is Biodiversity Sustainable in the New York Metropolitan Area? University
Seminar on Legal, Social, and Economic Environmental Issues, Columbia University, December 2002.
EPA OSWER. 2008. Green Remediation: Incorporating Sustainable Environmental Practices into
Remediation of Contaminates Sites. www.clu-in.org/download/remed/Green-Remediation-Primer.pdf
Handel, Steven N., G.R. Robinson, WFJ Parsons, and J.H. Mattei. 1997. Restoration of Woody Plants to
Capped Landfills: Root Dynamics in an Engineered Soil, Restoration Ecology, 5:178-186.
North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service: www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/hort/hil/hil-645.html
Plant Conservation Alliance: www.nps.gov/plants
Robinson, G.R. and S.N. Handel. 1993. Forest Restoration on a Closed Landfill: Rapid Addition of New
Species by Bird Dispersion, Conservation Biology, 7: 271-278.
Society for Ecological Restoration. Ecological Restoration Reading Resources:
www.ser.org/reading_resources.asp
USD A, NRCS. Plant Materials Program: http: / /plant-materials .nrcs .usda. go v
USD A, NRCS. PLANTS Database: http://plants.usda.gov
Weed Science Society of America: www.wssa.net
Sect/on 7: Long-Term Stewardship Considerations
EPA. Superfund - Operation and Maintenance Web site:
http: / / epa. go v/ superfund/ cleanup / postconstruction/ operate .htm
EPA OSWER. 2005. Long Term Stewardship Task Force Report and the Development of Implementation
Options for the Task Force Recommendations. www.epa.gov/LANDREVITALIZATION/docs/lts-
report-sept2005.pdf.
Institutional Controls: A Site Manager's Guide to Identifying, Evaluating, and Selecting Institutional
Controls at Superfund and RCRA Corrective Action Cleanups, available at
http://epa.gov/superfund/policy/ic/guide/guide.pdf
Appendix B: Additional Ecological Revhalization Resources B-3
-------
Appendix C: Acronyms
ACRES Assessment, Cleanup, and
Redevelopment Exchange System
AOC Area of Concern
BMP Best Management Practices
BP British Petroleum
BRAC Base Realignment and Closure
BTAG Biological Technical Assistance
Group
BTEX Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and
Xylenes
BTSC Brownfields and Land Revitalization
Technology Support Center
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act
CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and
Liability Information System
CIC Community Involvement
Coordinator
CLU-IN Hazardous Waste Clean-up
Information
CPRM Cross-Program Revitalization
Measure
DARRP Damage Assessment, Remediation
and Restoration Program
DEQ Department of Environmental
Quality
DNT Dinitrotoluene
DoD U.S. Department of Defense
DOE U.S. Department of Energy
DOI U.S. Department of Interior
EO Executive Order
EOD Explosives Ordnance Disposal
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
ER3 Environmentally Responsible
Redevelopment and Reuse
ERA Ecological Risk Assessment
FFEO Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
FFLC Federal Facilities Leadership Council
FFRRO Federal Facilities Restoration and
Reuse Office
FS Feasibility Study
FY Fiscal Year
GPRA Government Performance and Results
Act
HE El Human Exposures Under Control
Environmental Indicator
HMX High Melting Explosive (or
Cyclotetramethylenetetranitramine)
1C Institutional Control
IEPA Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency
ITRC Interstate Technology & Regulatory
Council
JOAAP Joliet Army Ammunition Plant
LEED Leadership in Energy and
Environment Design
LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
MDEQ Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality
MNA Monitored Natural Attenuation
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
NPL National Priorities List
NRC National Research Council
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation
Service
NRDA Natural Resource Damage
Assessment
O&M Operation and Maintenance
OBLR Office of Brownfields and Land
Revitalization
OPEI Office of Policy, Economics, and
Innovation
ORCR Office of Resource Conservation and
Recovery
OSC On-Scene Coordinator
OSRTI Office of Superfund Remediation and
Technology Innovation
Appendix C Acronyms
C-l
-------
OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response
OU Operable Unit
OUST Office of Underground Storage Tanks
P&T Pump and Treat
PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon
PCA Plant Conservation Alliance
PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl
PCE Perchloroethylene (or
Tetrachloroethene)
PDF Portable Document Format
PFP Protective For People
RAU Ready for Anticipated Use
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act
RDX Royal Demolition Explosive (or
Cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine)
RI Remedial Investigation
RMA Rocky Mountain Arsenal
ROD Record of Decision
RI/FS Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study
RPM Remedial Project Manager
RTU Return To Use
SRI Superfund Redevelopment Initiative
SVOC Semi-Volatile Organic Compound
SWS Society of Wetland Scientists
TAB Technical Assistance to Brownfields
TCE Trichloroethylene
TNT Trinitrotoluene
TPM Technical Performance Measure
USAGE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
UST Underground Storage Tank
UXO Unexploded Ordnance
VOC Volatile Organic Compound
WHC Wildlife Habitat Council
Appendix C Acronyms C-2
-------
PO
o
o
00
o
(N
LO
o
ON P
o
o
(N
rt
111 II
a*
-a
c
rt
(U (U
O
(U
(U
Q.
O
'§ § S
^ c <
.S E ^
'
•SUE
1/1
Jj
(^
1/5
-0
+J
'E
u
c
(U
W)
.0
u
^j
g
Q_
1
C
(U
1
o
.^
c
o
SO
s
fS
u
d
c"
Q
oo
2s .E
PO _C
o
(N ^
o
o
PO
.EcE
3 S-
CQ ^2
~rt ^
!y "«
SI
------- |