Beneficially Using Dredged Materials to Create/Restore Habitat and Restore Brownfields, and Team Collaborative Efforts that have Achieved Success Examples/Case Studies May, 2010 Prepared for: The Great Lakes Commission Prepared by: Craig Vogt Inc. Preface Dredged material management in the Great Lakes is continuing to face the challenge of where to place the dredged material; existing confined disposal facilities are full or are filling rapidly and open water disposal is being phased out by permit authorities. The solutions are not always obvious, as many interested stakeholders have very different opinions on the best approach for placement of dredged material from needed dredging projects. The objective of this report is to provide examples and case studies of beneficial use of dredged material that might be useful models for dredging projects in the Great Lakes; the specific focus is upon projects that have used dredged material to create or restore habitats or to restore brownfields. In addition, the report provides information on collaborative team efforts across the country between port authorities, the Corps of Engineers, other federal and state agencies, and other stakeholders. Successful dredging and dredged material placement projects do not come easy. In many cases, the way forward was the formation of formal or informal teams of interested stakeholders to gather and talk through the issues and potential solutions, to understand positions of other stakeholders, and to build those relationships that contribute to finding workable solutions. Note: This work was sponsored by the Great Lakes Commission. The request was for case studies/examples/models of beneficial use of dredged material for creation or restoration of habitat. The Great Lakes Commission also requested examples of collaboration and coordination efforts that have helped in finding solutions to dredging issues. Much of the reported case study information has been copied and directly included in this report from sources on the internet. References are cited. Cover Page: Photo of Peanut Island, Florida Inter‐Coastal Waterway 2 Table of Contents Page # Preface 2 3 Executive Summary 6 Section 1 Introduction 8 Section 2 Use of Dredged Material for Restoration or Creation of Habitat and for Brownfields Restoration 11 Habitat Creation/Restoration 11 11 13 19 21 22 24 28 29 29 32 39 Table of Contents •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
40 Runyan Shipyard Penscola, Florida Brownfields Restoration in New Jersey o Bayonne Golf Club, New Jersey o Riverwinds Gold Club, New Jersey 40 41 3 Poplar Island, Maryland Lake Worth, Florida o Munyon Island o Peanut Island o Snook Islands o Johns Islands Sonoma Baylands, San Francisco Bay, California Deer Island, Mississippi Craney Island, Virginia Port Fourchon, Louisiana o Maritime Forest Ridge: bayous Cochon and Moreau o Bayou DuPont Ridge Tennessee‐Tombigbee Waterway, Mississippi Mobile Battleship Park, Alabama Galveston Bay, Texas Big Egg Marsh, NY Harbor Jamaica Bay Marsh Islands, Brooklyn, NY o Elders Point East Marsh o Elders Point West Marsh Brownfields Restoration •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
o Prologis Port Reading Business Park, New Jersey o Landfill Closures, New Jersey Flushing Airport Wetlands Brownfield Restoration, Brooklyn, NY White Island Brownfield Restoration, Brooklyn, NY Fort Mifflin, Pennsylvania Bark Camp Demonstration Project, Pennsylvania Maple Beach, Bristol Township, New Jersey DREAM Park, Logan township, Gloucester County, New Jersey 44 44 45 46 49 50 Section 3 Collaboration and Cooperation via Teams for Successful Dredging Projects 52 References •
•
•
•
•
•
•
Houston Galveston Project Lower Columbia Solutions Group Port of Baltimore Dredged Material Management Program San Francisco Bay Los Angeles Contaminated Sediment Task Force (CSTF) New York/New Jersey Harbor‐‐‐‐Port of NY/NJ Boston Harbor‐Massport: Aquatic Confined Disposal Facilities Appendices (Appendices B‐E are pdf files and in a separate document) 52 54 56 59 61 64 64 66 68 A. Acknowledgements B. Lower Columbia Solutions Group • Group Charter • Declaration of Cooperation (sample agreement on actions resulting from a workshop) C. Port of Baltimore: • Membership of Committees • Poplar Island Monthly Newsletter D. San Francisco Bay • Dredged Material Management Office (DMMO) MOU • DMMO Operating Principles • LTMS Executive Summary http://www.spn.usace.army.mil/ltms2001/execsummary.pdf • Delta Dredging and Reuse Management Team draft MOU E. Los Angeles Contaminated Sediments Task Force • CSTF Action Plan • MOU • CSTF Advisory Committee Operating Guidelines F. NY/NJ Harbor Regional Sediment Management Plan 4 List of Figures Figure: 1. Poplar Island, Port of Baltimore, Chesapeake Bay, Maryland 2. Sonoma Baylands San Francisco Bay, California 3. Deer Island Marsh Creation in Process, Mississippi 4. Craney Island, Virginia 5. Maritime Ridge at Port Fourchon 6. Using Dredged Material in a CDF as Construction Materials 7. Dredged Material Used as a Dike in Alabama 8. A swing‐ladder dredge with high‐pressure spray: Big Egg Marsh, New York 9. Control of Runoff: Big Egg Marsh, New York 10. First Growing Season: Big Egg Marsh, New York 11. Volunteers: Big Egg Marsh, New York 12. Off‐loading a Barge: Dredged Material Processing in New Jersey 13. Dredged Material Processing Facility in New Jersey 14. Bayonne Golf Course, New Jersey, NY/NJ Harbor 15. Riverwinds Golf Course, New Jersey, Delaware Bay 16. Prologis Port Reading Business Park, New Jersey 17. White Island Brooklyn, NY 18. Bark Camp Before , During, and After Restoration Using Dredged Material 19. Maple Beach section of Rohm & Haas Company: Brownfields Restoration 20. Signing of the Houston‐Galveston Ship Channel Project Cooperation Agreement 21. The LTMS Organizational Structure—San Francisco Bay 22. Los Angeles Contaminated Sediments Task Force Organizational Structure 5 Executive Summary Dredging must happen in the Great Lakes to keep the channels open. Material dredged from those channels needs to be placed somewhere. Dredged material is an asset that can be used for many purposes other than merely filling a confined disposal facility. Most parties agree that dredged material should be used beneficially. This statement raises issues that need to be resolved: 1. What particular beneficial use (e.g., habitat creation or brownfields restoration) would be appropriate for the specific project under consideration? 2. What mechanism should be used to bring interested stakeholders together to find solutions? 3. Who will pay for the additional cost of the selected beneficial use alternative? The objective of the information in this report is to provide examples using dredged material beneficially to create/restore habitat or to restore brownfields. The information provided in this report does not attempt to solve the issues of how to use dredged material beneficially and how to manage the additional costs. These are not simple straight‐forward issues. There are usually numerous potential alternatives, none without difficulty, and many “correct” opinions on the next steps forward. The examples and case studies demonstrate that “beneficial use happens” in many places across the U.S., and habitat creation and restoration is a common objective in many navigation dredging projects. Rising out of controversy over dredging projects across the country have been numerous collaboration and communication mechanisms, i.e., teams, which eventually result in successful dredging projects. These efforts usually did not begin because someone had a good idea of gathering the stakeholders together to seek input and solutions. Most began after the usual processes/procedures failed to get dredging projects started because of issues related to the dredging itself but, more frequently, the disposal options that were under consideration. Seven different team efforts are included in this report. Each of these teams is different, but of course has similar characteristics. Most have formal charters or memorandums of agreements, and a number of them have operating rules or principles. The key to the success of the team is leadership by the port and the Corps of Engineers, and an overall membership that is willing to listen and work with others on the team. In one notably successful effort the local National Estuary Program was the facilitator of the team effort, but the Port Authority and the Corps of Engineers were active members of the team. Building relationships with other members of the team is the key to success, and this is not a simple process. Frank discussions over many meetings usually lead to finding solutions. One characteristic of all the teams is that the processes are consensus‐driven, without the need to “take a vote.” 6 Given the frequently controversial nature of dredged material placement even for creation or restoration of habitat, successful efforts attempt to find multi‐faceted solutions, such as Galveston Bay or Peanut Island, which created habitat but also built recreational boat harbors and parkland. The other key part of team efforts is transparency, not just within the team but for the project as a whole. Outreach to the public is important, and workshops, meetings, appearances at events, and monthly email newsletters are clearly effective in getting the information distributed. 7 Section 1 Introduction to Restoration Beneficially Using Dredged Material The objective of this report is to provide a few examples or case studies of the use of dredged material in restoration or creation of habitat that can be used as models for beneficial use in the Great Lakes. Examples and case studies of using dredged material in brownfields projects are also included. In addition, the report provides examples or case studies of cooperative efforts among stakeholders that have brought success to moving dredging projects forward including beneficial use of dredged material. The Great Lakes have a long history of using dredged material beneficially, and much effort has been expended in the Great Lakes to find placement options for dredged material that use the material as an asset for another purpose, such as beach nourishment, wetland creation, or cover for landfills. More effort is on‐going as disposal options are narrowing given that many confined disposal facilities are filling up, availability of land for new CDFs is very limited, and open water disposal is being phased out. Fundamentally, all interested stakeholders agree that dredged material should be used beneficially, but there is a real cost factor, given that beneficial use usually costs more than simple disposal in a CDF or at a disposal site in the Lakes. Call it the Beneficial Use Conundrum, as noted in the text box. The Beneficial Use Conundrum •
Dredged material is a resource. •
Dredging happens. •
Federal dredging projects must use the least cost environmentally acceptable disposal or placement location/technique. •
Most stakeholders would like to use the dredged material in a beneficial manner. •
Use of dredged material in a beneficial manner usually costs more than mere disposal/placement. •
The issue: how to find solutions and bridge the economic gap between disposal and beneficial use (i.e., who pays?). 8 The information provided in this report does not attempt to solve the issues of how to use dredged material beneficially and how to manage the additional costs. These are not simple straight‐forward issues. There are usually numerous potential options, none without difficulty, and many correct opinions on the next steps forward. The examples and case studies demonstrate that “beneficial use happens” in many places across the U.S., and habitat creation and restoration is a common objective in many navigation dredging projects. Rising out of controversy over dredging projects across the country have been numerous collaboration and communication mechanisms, i.e., teams, which eventually result in successful dredging projects. These efforts usually did not begin because someone had a good idea of gathering the stakeholders together to seek input and solutions. Most began after the usual processes/procedures failed to get dredging projects started because of issues related to the dredging itself but, more frequently, the disposal options that were under consideration. Probably, the most famous team effort was in the 1990s and continuing today in Houston‐
Galveston. An Interagency Coordination Team with subteams was formed when the proposed dredging project generated huge controversy over the initial project proposal for open water in‐bay disposal. One of the subteams was the BUG, Beneficial Uses Group, which was led by the Port of Houston and Corps of Engineers‐Galveston District and included members from all the interested federal, state, and local agencies, environmental groups, and the public. The process took time, but worked. Solutions were identified and funding was found. Other successful team efforts include dredged material management in San Francisco Bay which created the Long Term Management Strategy and the Dredged Material Management Office (one stop federal, state, and local permitting), the Contaminated Sediments Task Force in Los Angeles, the Lower Columbia Solutions Group, multiple teams in the Port of Baltimore, Boston project team for their aquatic confined disposal cells for contaminated sediments, and the Port of NY/NJ Regional Sediment Management Team. Each of these teams is different, but of course has similar characteristics. Most have formal charters or memorandums of agreements, and a number of them have operating rules or principles. The key to the success of the team is leadership by the port and the Corps of Engineers, and an overall membership that is willing to listen and work with others on the team. Building relationships with other members of the team is the key to success, and this is not a simple process. Frank discussions over many meetings usually lead to finding solutions. One characteristic of all the teams is that the processes are consensus‐driven, without the need to “take a vote.” 9 The other key part of team efforts is transparency, not just within the team but for the project as a whole. Outreach to the public is important, and workshops, meetings, and appearances at events are clearly effective in getting the information distributed. The Port of Baltimore generates a monthly newsletter for the Poplar Island Project, which is distributed by email (See Appendix B). The appendices include a number of the charters, MOUs, operating guidelines, and other pertinent information for these teams. Two examples: the Lower Columbia Solutions Group sponsors workshops targeted to specific problems; the outcome of the workshop is the “Declaration of Cooperation” which is essentially an action plan resulting from the meeting and signed by workshop participants. Another example is the Regional Sediment Management Plan for the Port of New York/New Jersey. The team members that generated that document are the same people that have been fighting for years over dredging and dredged material management in NY/NJ Harbor. The key to this was leadership by the NY/NJ Harbor National Estuary Program in close cooperation with the Port and Corps of Engineers. 10 Section 2 Use of Dredged Material for Restoration or Creation of Habitat and for Brownfields Restoration This section includes brief descriptions of projects that have beneficially used dredged material for restoration or creation of habitat or for restoration of brownfields. Descriptions are brief and the reader is referred to the references or appendices for additional information. Creation or Restoration of Habitat Poplar Island, Maryland Poplar Island is located in the upper middle Chesapeake Bay approximately 34 nautical miles southeast of the Port of Baltimore and 2 miles northwest of Tilghman Island in Talbot County, Maryland. From a size probably exceeding 1,100 acres in the 1800s, the original natural island eroded and split into four separate islands (North Point Island, Middle Poplar Island, South Central Poplar Island, and South Poplar Island) collectively referred to as Poplar Island. These remnant islands together totaled only 5 acres in the mid‐1990s. The two larger nearby islands are Coaches Island, which in 1847 was part of Poplar Island, and Jefferson Island, which by 1847 was already separate. The project consists of reconstructing Poplar Island using clean dredged material from the Chesapeake Bay approach channels (Figure 1) to the Port of Baltimore. The plan for rebuilding the island was developed through the cooperative efforts of many federal and state agencies, as well as private organizations. The Baltimore District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the Maryland Port Administration (MPA) prepared a Feasibility Report (FR) and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), dated February 1996, which the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) approved in September 1996. Under the 1996 plan, the restoration of the island involves placing approximately 42 million cubic yards of dredged material behind 40,000 feet of containment dikes to create a 1,140‐acre island with equal areas of tidal marsh and upland habitat. The wetland areas will be developed as 80 percent low marsh and 20 percent high marsh. Small islands, ponds, mudflats, and dendritic guts or channels will be created within the marshes to increase habitat diversity. Primary habitats on the uplands will be forest, scrub/shrub, and meadow. Habitat diversity will be increased in the upland areas by constructing small ponds and freshwater wetlands. The wetland areas will eventually be connected directly to Poplar Harbor through tidal openings in the dikes, and runoff from the upland areas will be discharged through the wetland areas as specified in the 1996 EIS. 11 The containment dikes for the dredged material are being constructed in phases. The first phase, which was completed in March 2000, involved the construction of dikes enclosing 640 acres for the northern portion of the island and a breakwater running from Phase 1 to the western edge of Coaches Island to protect Poplar Harbor. The second phase, which was completed in February 2002, involved the construction of dikes around the remaining 500 acres of the island. In the spring 2004, the dikes around Cell 2 were raised from an initial elevation of +10 feet at mean lower low water (MLLW) to an interim elevation of +23 feet MLLW. In 2008, the 1,000 foot opening that remained in the Cell 6 dike for offloading dredged material was closed. The final phase of dike construction involves raising the dikes around Cell 6 to a temporary height of +23 feet. After filling of the upland cells is complete and the dredged material has dried and consolidated to its final elevation, the upland dikes will be lowered to +20 feet MLLW (per Corps regulations at least 2 feet of freeboard is required to maintain dike integrity during any filling activities). Placement of dredged material at Poplar Island began in spring 2001. Through the 2006‐2007 inflow season, approximately 17 million cubic yards of dredged material from the Port of Baltimore approach channels have been placed at Poplar Island. Future dredged material placement will occur annually over the life of the project. As the dredged material continues to be placed and shaped on the island, wetland and upland cells will be graded to final elevations and planted. The first wetland planting occurred in a small test cell (Cell 4D) in April 2002. In the spring and summer of 2003, the Corps planted a larger wetland demonstration cell (Cell 4DX) with a sand substrate, and the rest of Cell 4D was connected to the tidal channel of Cell 4DX. The first full wetland cell with a dredged‐material substrate (Cell 3D) was graded to target elevations, opened to tidal flow, and planted in 2005. 12 Figure 1: Poplar Island, Port of Baltimore, Chesapeake Bay, Maryland Lake Worth Lagoon, Florida Intercoastal Waterway Three projects have been completed in the Lake Worth Lagoon using the authority provided by Section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986. Munyon Island was the first, followed by Johns Island, and finally Peanut Island, which also included the Snook Islands Natural Area. Each project was studied, designed, and constructed by a partnership between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Palm Beach County Department of Environmental Management. 13 The Florida Inland Navigation District was heavily involved in the Peanut Island and Snook Island projects. Palm Beach County secured funding from a variety of sources at the State and Local level. Each project has been a great success by restoring and enhancing the Lake Worth Lagoon environment. However, each project also had problems associated with schedule, funding, authorization, permitting, design, and construction. Lessons were learned from each problem and applied to the next project. The following text provides project background information; discusses some the problems and solutions associated with each project; and includes detailed histories, schedules, costs, problems, and lessons learned from each project. Munyon Island, Florida Munyon Island, located in the Lake Worth Lagoon Estuary in North Palm Beach, Florida, has been the site of major restoration efforts since 1992. The Island is part of the 225 acre John D. MacArthur Beach State Park. Munyon Island has been significantly enlarged by dredged material placement from construction and maintenance of the Intracoastal Waterway in the 1930’s and 1960’s. Originally only 15.5 acres, currently the Island is 45 acres in size. This project is the third of three phases to restore portions of the Island. The sponsor (Palm Beach County) had completed restoration of 9.6 acres of wetland habitat prior to this project. The third phase resulted in restoration of approximately 9.6 acres of mangrove and spartina wetland habitat. The wetland habitat was created by grading down the dredged material to wetland elevations. The material removed during this operation was placed in an anoxic dredged hole north of the Island effectively bringing the bottom depth to an elevation commensurate with the surrounding area. A wave break and vegetative buffer was also constructed as part of the project. The total project cost was $1,714,000 cost shared 75 percent Federal and 25 percent non‐Federal. Island wetland restoration involved exotic plant removal, grading down to wetland elevations by removing dredged spoil material, excavating tidal channels and ponds, and planting native wetland and upland vegetation. Dredged material generated through project construction was removed from the island and placed in a nearby anoxic dredged hole to enhance 9 acres of submerged lands. In addition to the wetland work, restoration efforts on the Island include 23 acres of upland restoration involving extensive exotic plant removal, chipping and revegetation with native hammock plant species to restore a maritime hammock located on the original island. The Munyon Island Environmental Restoration Project is designed to provide habitat for fisheries and wildlife to rejuvenate Lake Worth Lagoon Estuary by increasing habitat and food supply for estuarine dependent fauna and flora. After project construction, the newly created 14 wetland areas were sampled. The top five families of fish caught were Mojarras, Sardines, Mullet, Pinfish, and Snapper, mostly mangroves, and lane. Other notable fish species included Snook, Barracuda, and Pipefish. The fish were generally juveniles except for the sardines. Spartina and Mangroves were planted during each phase totaling 50,000 Spartina plugs and 75,000 Mangrove Seedlings. A large variety of Hammock and Transitional Vegetation were planted or protected including Sabal Palms, Florida Privet, Smooth Cordgrass, Gumbo Limbo, White Indigo Berry, Salt jointgrass, Satin Leaf, Marlberry, Saltmeadow, Cordgrass, Piegeon Plum, Black Ironwood, Seacoast Marsh Elder, Strangler Fig, Snowberry, Sea Purslane, Mastic, Spanish Stopper, Saltgrass, Lancewood, White Stopper, Sea Oxeye, Red Mulberry, Jamaica Caper, Sea Oats, Blolly, Fiddlewood, Railroad Vine, Willow Bustic, Crabwood, Dune Sunflower, Paradise Tree, Wild Lime, Sea Grape, Leather Fern, Green Buttonwood, and Saw Palmetto. The project construction bidding was accomplished via a traditional low bid process. This process resulted in a contractor submitting the low bid that had little maritime construction experience and no experience working on the east cost of Florida. The process required awarding the contract to lowest responsible bidder. The contractor was determined to be responsive after a short verbal pre‐award survey. This pre‐award survey would later be determined to be inadequate. In future projects, different contract acquisition strategies were used to avoid this problem. Peanut Island, Florida Peanut Island is located in the north‐central Lake Worth Lagoon Estuary. The island was created by the Lake Worth Inlet District in 1918 with dredged material from the original excavation of the channel between Lake Worth and the ocean. The island has been used by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the Florida Inland Navigation District (FIND), and the Port of Palm Beach for placement of dredged material. The area that includes Peanut Island was a submerged shallow water habitat. The entire island has become an impacted upland dominated by the exotic species known as Australian pine due to fill placed from numerous dredging projects. The Florida Inland Navigation District (FIND) and the Port of Palm Beach are the primary land owners of the 79 acre island and have generously made the perimeter of the island available to the public as a park. Peanut Island has always been a very popular destination for boaters. With the opening of the County’s Peanut Island Park in 1999, the island currently offers a boat dock, fishing pier, campsites, picnicking, grills, and restroom/shower facilities. The environmental enhancement of Peanut Island will provide integral habitat for fisheries and wildlife in the Lake Worth Lagoon, while interfacing with the Island’s function as a dredged material management site and popular boating and recreational destination for the public. 15 Project construction included removing of exotic vegetation, excavating tidal channels, creating a shallow water reef, and planting native wetland and upland vegetation. The project was expanded significantly at the request of FIND, to include the original restoration project plus offloading the FIND Disposal area on Peanut Island. The material will be placed in an anoxic hole located adjacent to the Lake Worth Municipal Golf Course. The project was impacted by the hurricanes in 2004. Repairs were required and completed by the construction contractor. The environmental restoration project at Peanut Island includes restoration of 43 acres of habitat in the Lake Worth Lagoon. The project consists of clearing/chipping 60 acres of exotic vegetation and excavating/removing approximately 1.2 million cubic yards of dredged material deposits to create upland/wetland habitat and public access features. A shallow‐water reef is teaming with reef fish and manatees (in the winter). Shallow‐water lagoons provide much needed seagrass and fisheries habitat. Mangroves provide essential fisheries, bird, and wildlife habitat. Tidal channels and pond provide tidal flushing to the mangroves and an opportunity for kayakers to cruise the interior channels. Maritime Hammock is essential habitat (food/shelter) for birds and wildlife. Beach Dune/Coastal Strand provides shoreline stabilization and habitat for birds and wildlife. Over 125,000 native plants have been installed on Peanut Island to create the habitats, which provide a tropical paradise and unique opportunity for environmental education/recreation, while highlighting Florida’s unique and threatened habitats. Public access features were also constructed because this island is heavily utilized by the public and the designed wanted to ensure continued public use and education. A mangrove boardwalk provides a 240 foot walkway over tidal channels and through mangrove habitat. Bridges allow viewing and access to the reef and lagoon system. Observation deck/floating platforms allow the public to view, enter, and snorkel in the reef habitat. Rock crib breakwater and public access platform provide a 300 foot walkway over the water surrounding the reef system. Floating dock facilities provide water taxi and small boat access plus docking for up to 12 boats. The $32 million project is a product of the partnering efforts of Palm Beach County, United States Army Corps of Engineers, and Florida Inland Navigation District. A different contract acquisition strategy was used in selecting a contractor for this massive project. The project team utilized a request for proposal process. The process required the potential contractors to submit construction methodologies, equipment, qualitications, and past project references. A team reviewed the proposals and recommended a contractor for the project. The selected contractor is not necessarily the lowest price contractor. The project still experienced significant issues even after utilizing the new contractor selection process. 16 Snook Islands, Florida Snook Islands Natural Area was created with the 1.2 million cubic yards of material removed from Peanut Island. The area is located waterward of the Lake Worth Golf Course. In the early 1920s, dredging and filling along the western edge of Lake Worth Lagoon adjacent to what is now the City of Lake Worth Municipal Golf Course left a series of oxygen‐poor deep holes which accumulated many feet of silt and muck, contributing to poor water quality and providing minimal habitat value. The Snook Island project has effectively added 100 acres of good quality wetland habitat to the central part of Lake Worth Lagoon and is expected to improve the poor water quality in this area. Seagrasses are already recruiting in the shallow‐water habitat, birds are utilizing the open areas of shoreline and mud flats, and fishermen have reported catching numerous large snook, redfish, snapper, jacks, and flounder. Exotic plant species were removed from the project area including Australian pine, Brazilian pepper, and seaside mahoe. Approximately 1.2 million cubic yards of material from Peanut Island was placed and graded to wetland elevations to create mangrove islands and seagrass habitat. Rock revetments were placed to protect the newly constructed islands from waves. Significant construction issues emerged during the placement of the 1.2 million cubic yards of the material transported to the site. The project intent was to cap the existing sediments with the sandy material transported to the site. The intentions were not realized. The inability to cap the material required changes in the project design and also resulted in a significant cost increase. The final project is an excellent example of restoration but could have been even better had the designers intent been realized. Johns Island, Florida John’s Island is an Audubon‐managed island located within the Town of Palm Beach, southeast of West Palm Beach, and immediately east of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. Originally, a portion of Johns Island was a submerged shallow‐water habitat. Because of the numerous dredging activities, most of the island has become an impacted upland dominated by exotic species such as, Seaside Mahoe, Australian Pine, and Brazilian Pepper. The purpose of the project is to restore the submerged shallow water habitat for fisheries and wildlife. The project was a coordinated effort between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Palm Beach County, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Town of Palm Beach, and the Audubon Society. Historically, the island was approximately 3 acres in size as depicted in the 1884 U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey but was later expanded to approximately 7 acres as a result of fill placement from numerous dredging projects. The additional fill placement made the island vulnerable to 17 an invasion of exotic plant species most notably seaside mahoe and Australian pines that now occupy 5 acres of the 7 acre island. The restoration project included the following features: 1) restoration of approximately 1.7 acres of existing mangroves, 2) creation of approximately 3.3 acres of red mangroves, and 3) enhancement of approximately 1.4 acres of maritime hammock. All exotic plant species were removed and chipped on site with the mulch used as a ground cover for the new maritime hammock plantings. The flushing was enhanced by constructing a tidal channel system with a total length of approximately 0.25 mile that included excavation, grading to wetland elevation, and removal of approximately 17,000 yds3 of spoil material. The clean spoil was removed from the island by barge and placed within the Snook Islands Natural Area used in the creation of mangrove islands and seagrass habitat. Approximately 500 tons of 1‐3 foot diameter boulder rip‐rap was used to stabilize the entrance to the tidal channels. The project included planting approximately 8,000 red mangrove seedlings (Rhizophora mangle), 11,400 plugs of smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora), and 1,000 maritime hammock trees and shrubs. Approximately 17,000 cubic yards of excavated material was placed in the anoxic hole located adjacent to the Lake Worth Golf Course as part of the Snook Islands Natural Area. The mangrove seedlings for this project were collected by many volunteer groups including the Forest Hill and Jupiter High School Environmental Academies. Volunteers were utilized to plant the newly restored wetland areas when final elevations were achieved. The $826,000 in funds for project construction will come from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection Lake Worth Lagoon Partnership Program, and Palm Beach County. The construction contract was completed in September 2004. The island was damaged by Hurricane Francis. Palm Beach County, the project sponsor, is performing repairs including replanting and some minor earthwork. A different contract acquisition strategy was used to select a contractor for this project. A small business contractor was matched to the project. The contractor was selected based upon experience and capability. The government entered into direct negotiations with the contractor to determine the contract methodology, price, and schedule. This selection process helped but issues did arise. Issues concerning quality control and change orders caused problems between the government, Palm Beach County, and the contractor. The contractor cleared areas and destroyed vegetation in areas designated to be saved. This action resulted in intense negotiations between the project parties. Conclusion The restoration projects completed in the Lake Worth Lagoon have enhanced the lagoon environment. The projects have performed as intended and been showcases restoration projects across the county. The project delivery process has been quick for Federal standards 18 but could be improved to provide an even better product in a quicker timeframe for less funding. The partnership between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Palm Beach County should be continued and expanded for the benefit of the Lake Worth Lagoon and the Nation. Sonoma Baylands, California Approximately 85% of the tidal marshes that once surrounded San Francisco Bay have been converted over the past 150 years to salt production ponds, agricultural lands, and urban development. San Francisco Bay is ecologically important both nationally and globally, supporting commercial and recreational fisheries, providing key habitat for migratory shorebirds and waterfowl along the Pacific Flyway, and providing vital habitat for endangered species. San Francisco Bay is a shallow estuary with high sediment loads from natural sources and from California’s legacy of hydraulic gold mining. The Bay’s major ship channels require frequent dredging to maintain safe and efficient navigation. Channel deepening is occasionally required as the ships used for international trade increase in size. In recent decades, nearly all non‐contaminated dredged material was dumped at open water disposal sites in the Bay, with the expectation that the dredged sediments would be dispersed by strong tidal currents. During the 1980’s, it became apparent that the capacity of the main disposal site near Alcatraz Island was being exceeded and that alternative disposal options were sorely needed. A Congressionally‐authorized project to deepen Oakland Harbor’s channels to 42 feet was stymied in the early 1990’s by the lack of an environmentally acceptable and economically feasible plan for disposal of the dredged material. The Sonoma Land Trust and the California State Coastal Conservancy conceived and developed the Sonoma Baylands project to protect and restore agricultural lands, seasonal wetlands and tidal salt marsh on a 830‐acre parcel of land. As part of that overall project, the Conservancy funded the development of a plan to restore tidal salt marsh on a 320‐acre hayfield on the shoreline of San Pablo Bay. The Conservancy’s restoration consultant recommended the use of dredged material to accelerate the restoration of salt marsh on lands that had subsided up to six feet. Initial plans anticipated that only a small quantity of dredged material would be available for use in the restoration project. Planners from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, California Department of Fish and Game, and other agencies recognized that the Sonoma Baylands project could help resolve the dredging deadlock that had stalled Oakland Harbor and other economically‐important dredging projects. The Coastal Conservancy’s final plan for the Sonoma Baylands project called for the use of about two million cubic yards of dredged material to provide the optimum base elevation for the natural formation of a salt marsh through tidal action, sediment deposition, channel formation and colonization by native marsh vegetation and wildlife. In late 1992, Congress directed the Corps of Engineers to construct the Sonoma Baylands Wetland Demonstration Project. The Coastal Conservancy and the Port of Oakland Port of Oakland, local environmental organizations, labor organizations and maritime industries in 19 seeking Congressional approval of the entire Sonoma Baylands salt marsh provided 25% of the total project cost. After the Coastal America program was initiated in 1992, a 39‐acre pilot project at Sonoma Baylands was identified as one of the first two Coastal America projects that would be implemented by the Corps of Engineers. As the Corps completed detailed planning and engineering for the pilot project, the Coastal Conservancy enlisted the support of the by the Coastal Conservancy and under the Coastal America program, the Corps of Engineers was able to award the first construction contract for the Sonoma Baylands project just one year after receiving funding for the project. Within a few months of starting construction, 207,000 cubic yards of dredged material from the Petaluma River navigation channel were placed in the pilot unit. During the next year, 1.7 million cubic yards of clean material from the deepening of Oakland Harbor were placed in the main unit. Both units were opened to the tidal action of the Bay in 1996, beginning the process of natural marsh formation. Construction of the project was completed for about half of the total amount authorized by Congress. The Sonoma Baylands project began attracting large numbers of shorebirds and waterfowl even before the restoration of tidal action. The Corps and Coastal Conservancy are continuing to closely monitor the development of the marsh. The tidal channels that connect the project to the open waters of the Bay have gradually expanded, increasing the range of tidal action and the amount of sediment deposition in the restoration area. Salt marsh vegetation quickly colonized the entire perimeter of the restoration area and is gradually expanding further toward the center of the site as additional sediment is naturally deposited over the dredged material. The site continues to provide a feeding and resting area for large numbers of shorebirds and waterfowl as development of the young marsh continues to progress (Figure 2). The success of the Sonoma Baylands project has provided the basis for a continuing and productive partnership between the California State Coastal Conservancy and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Conservancy, Corps and cooperating stakeholders are currently pursuing several other larger restoration projects in San Francisco Bay. Examples of key partners include Sonoma Land Trust, California State Coastal Conservancy, Port of Oakland, Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Coastal America, Save The Bay, and others. 20 Figure 2 Sonoma Baylands site after placement of dredged material and restoration of tidal action from San Francisco Bay (on left). Curved berms were designed as wind‐wave barriers to enhance additional sediment deposition. Photo courtesy of Philip Williams and Associates. Deer Island, Mississippi The ecosystem restoration project site is located on the northern shoreline of Deer Island in the Mississippi Sound. This site is about one‐half mile from the shoreline of Biloxi. Deer Island is located in Harrison County, Mississippi, between Biloxi and Ocean Springs. Dredged material from maintenance of Biloxi Harbor was used to create approximately 30 acres (300 feet by 4300 feet) of tidal marsh on the north shore of the east end of the island (See Figure 3). Material removed from the channel by hydraulic dredge was deposited inside a containment levee constructed of natural material from the adjacent bottom. Deposited fill material was managed to achieve drying, settlement, and consolidation at the desired final elevation of +2 ‐ ‐
.5 NGVD, a range suitable for marsh establishment. The final grade of the restoration matches the elevation of the existing shoreline and provides drainage away from the island. Once the desired elevation was achieved, the containment dikes were lowered to match the elevation of the restored marsh. Total project cost was $1,000,000. The containment dike was completed in March 2003. The containment dike was filled with the maintenance dredged material from the Biloxi Harbor maintenance dredging operation beginning in May 03 and was completed in August of 03. After a consolidation period estimated at less than two years, the marsh elevation was finalized and native marsh plants were planted. 21 Figure 3: Deer Island Marsh Creation in Process Craney Island, Virginia Craney Island is a dredged material confined disposal facility (CDF) located approximately 2.25 to 2.5 miles (3.6 to 4 km) inland along the James and Elizabeth Rivers near Portsmouth, VA. The island was established in 1950 by the Corps to accept the dredged material obtained through routine dredging operations along the navigational portion of the rivers. Long‐term monitoring of the avian communities has occurred on these islands since 1974. Data collected during monitoring efforts include avian use during the breeding, migratory, and wintering seasons. The Craney Island CDF consists of three large cells: north cell, center cell, and south cell. There is 3‐year cell rotation for dredged material deposition activities. Dredged material deposition can create good habitat with suitable substrates for the Least Tern. Furthermore, vegetation is controlled by re‐applying dredged material. However, the location of the birds on the island can change year‐to‐year depending upon the rotation schedule of the deposition activities. When the Least Terns arrive in April, areas are closed to the public, buffer zones are established to protect the nesting birds where possible, and signs are posted to keep the public out of critical nesting sites. Observations during the nesting season have documented the use of many shells in the tern nests, and based on foraging observations, the vicinity around Craney Island has an excellent prey base promoting a high reproductive success rate for nesting terns. 22 Figure 4 Craney Island, Virginia Continuous dredged material deposition activities occur at the Craney Island facility year‐round. It has been the researchers’ experience that dredged material deposition operations and nesting birds can coexist. Management efforts include plans for all seasons, including managing cells for nesting, migrating, and wintering seasons. For example, water levels in the cells can be raised during the migration season and lowered during the wintering season. On occasion, the site has supported large numbers of birds; for example, on one evening approximately 18,000 birds (mixed species flock) spent an evening at the site. Other management concerns include a Phragmities removal program to protect vital wetland habitats from this noxious, introduced plant. Predation on nesting birds has become a challenging management problem. Four years ago, the Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes) population undertook a large population increase and became a problem on the island. Other predators include the Herring Gulls (Larus argentatus), Laughing Gulls (L. atricilla) (a problem on another site because of the large population) and even Ruddy Turnstones (Arenaria interpres) that occasionally prey on terns during migration. The current management approach includes seven principal features: • Yearly joint planning sessions with Corps’ representatives • The creation of suitable habitat for beach nesting species using dredged material • Continued maintenance of sites • Identifying, posting, and protection of all active nesting sites • Frequent monitoring of the seasonal bird communities • Predator management and control • Production of weekly reports and recommendations to on‐site management of cells. Summary of avian management efforts on the Chaney Island CDF: Good: Habitat creation using dredged material works. The maximum of 287 pairs of nesting Least Terns constitutes the most successful Least Tern site in Virginia. Also there were five pairs of nesting Piping Plovers. Bad: Predation has been significant, especially from foxes, feral cats, and wild dogs. Predation control has had limited or no success. Ugly: Greater than half of the shoreline foraging area has been removed due to the addition of riprap; this is particularly important for the Piping Plover. Moreover, increased dredging operations are removing the 3‐year rotational cell concept; now all three cells receive dredged material every year. This practice is adversely impacting previously successful nesting sites. 23 Port Fourchon: Restoration of a Maritime Forest Ridge and Marsh Habitats at Fourchon, LA Maritime Ridge Building in Bayous Cochon and Moreau In early 2001, the Barataria‐Terrebonne National Estuary Program and the Greater Lafourche Port Commission fostered a partnership with other organizations to reestablish a chenier ridge and associated coastal marsh habitats in south east Louisiana. This partnership was born from a desire to further the knowledge and expand the focus of habitat restoration in coastal Louisiana from purely a vision that supported marsh restoration to one that encompassed other natural landscape features. Louisiana’s unparalleled coastal wetland loss problem means dire consequences for many species of birds. But of as equal importance or the distributary ridges and chenier ridges that too are being lost at an alarming rate. These ridge habitats and associated wetlands are extremely important for millions of migrating Neotropical songbirds that cross the Gulf of Mexico in the spring each year on their way back to their breeding grounds in the eastern United States and Canada. This is especially true when migrating birds encounter inclement weather over the gulf. Exhausted birds, once reaching land, must feed and rest at the first land they encounter. That first land, in many cases, are the cheniers. This project includes pumping earthen material via hydraulic dredge and placed in shallow open water to a height of plus four feet. Constructed in phases, each of the three components when finished will mean the restoration of over 100 acres of chenier ridge/marsh habitat that will encompass some 12,000 linear feet in length by 400 feet in width. The earthen material once dried will be shaped into a marsh platform at a plus 1.6 feet elevation and the crown of the ridge at a plus eight feet. Both herbaceous grasses and woody plants that tolerate the harsh growing conditions of coastal Louisiana will be planted. The woody plants that are to be used are those that are known to be important to Neotropical migrant songbirds. Just recently identified as a sanctuary where no consumptive use is allowed, the area once finished will be one of the premier birding destinations in the State of Louisiana. Boardwalks, foot bridges, observation platforms, signage, and an interpretive center will be constructed to promote avian tourism at the site. Currently, the Greater Lafourche Port Commission is in the process of reestablishing a maritime forest ridge in the vicinity of Bayous Cochon and Moreau just north of the port at Fourchon, LA. BTNEP is serving as a co‐lead implementor of this project along with the Greater Lafourche Port Commission and is helping to coordinate discussions and on the ground planning and construction. In addition BTNEP is providing funding for this project. This project serves several purposes. First, it will help protect the mitigation areas to its south from the continual pounding of waves thereby helping preserve the existence of these newly developed mitigation sites. Second, it will serve as habitat not only for many fish and shellfish species but also for many neotropical migratory bird species and small furbearers. Third, it will provide for ecotourism opportunities once completed. 24 Recently, the Greater Lafourche Port Commission established the entire area north of the port as a sanctuary including the mitigation areas, the ridge, and fringe marsh, as well as the shallow open water and broken marsh habitats that exist further north. A number of project partners have now joined and support this project concept. They include, the Gulf of Mexico Program, the Gulf of Mexico Foundation, the Department of Natural Resources, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The project concept for reestablishing this maritime forest ridge and fringe marsh along Bayous Moreau and Cochon includes the construction of retaining dikes and the pumping of dredge sediments into the area. The first two phases of this project are currently being constructed. Ultimately six ridge segments will be constructed. The ridge’s segments will each have a dimension of 1,000 feet in length, by 200 feet in width, and eight feet in height, sloping to a, 100‐foot wide marsh fringe on each side for a total width of 400 feet. Gaps of 50 feet will be constructed between these ridge segments to serve as tidal creeks that will enhance access of marine species. During construction of the ridge it will be possible and desirable to establish different elevation gradients at predetermined sites, allowing for a vegetation gradient from woody species at higher elevations to low woody shrubs then subsequently marsh vegetation at lower elevations. During construction of the ridge, swales and different inclines will be constructed. Swales will serve as small freshwater ponds that are extremely important to many species of wildlife that will utilize this habitat. Shallow inclines will provide for different ridge geometries that will support different wooded habitats and provide for shallow gradients from the highest point of the ridge to shallow open water areas that provide for inundated hard bottom habitat that is important to many species of shorebirds. On the 100‐foot fringe around the ridge segments, marsh grass will be planted on five‐foot centers. Along the tidal creeks that run between ridge segments, a mixture of black mangrove and marsh grass will be planted. Once the salinities atop the ridge have moderated and compaction has slowed, the area would be planted with indigenous trees such as live oak, hackberry, and others. The entire project will be completed over three phases. The first and second phase, under construction now, will include development of the ridge and marsh fringe in the center and western edge of the project area and will support the planting of 30 acres of marsh around 30 acres of ridge. When fully constructed, the coastal ridge will stretch for approximately 12,750 linear feet and approximately 60 acres of marsh will be created. Phase three will likely be constructed within five years. Ridge Creation Bayou DuPont to Protect and Preserve Coastal Habitat Historically, projects conducted under the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act (CWPPRA) have focused on wetland rather than upland habitats. However, the program has long recognized the essential value of uplands in maintaining a sustainable, functional coastal ecosystem. Consequently, projects increasing the health and resiliency of marshes that protect cheniers and ridges score highly in the project selection process. 25 In late 2007, CWPPRA approved a novel project proposing to restore both a ridge and wetlands adjoining Bayou Dupont in Jefferson Parish. “No longer meandering slowly through the marshes, Bayou Dupont is fast deteriorating,” says Cheryl Brodnax, a biologist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. “Altered hydrology, erosion and subsidence have caused rapid land loss in the area. With water bodies coalescing, tidal surge and sheet flow move through quickly, washing away the natural ridges and eroding the bayou shoreline. Without preventative action, you soon won’t be able to tell where the bayou stops and the bay begins.” To halt the deterioration, the Bayou Dupont Ridge Creation and Marsh Restoration project, BA‐
48, plans to refurbish a section of the bayou’s natural ridge and rebuild areas of highly fragmented marsh. The resulting elevation and expanse of healthy marsh will redefine the bayou, helping to return it to a slow, meandering flow, and will provide the levee adjacent to the project area protection from wave‐induced erosion. Figure 5 Maritime Ridge at Port Fourchon Machines shape dredged material to rebuild the historic maritime forest ridge just north of Port Fourchon. At a final elevation of eight feet, the 60‐acre ridge shields adjacent wetlands from waves and storm surges and provides conditions suitable for the growth of woody plants — excellent habitat for migratory songbirds. “The first step is to decide the target elevation,” says Davie Breaux, Greater LaFourche Port, who serves as the federal project manager for BA‐48. “We’ll survey the surrounding habitats and other natural ridges to learn how high we want to build our ridge, then do tests on river materials to determine their rates of compaction and settlement. The project proposes to use material dredged from the nearby Mississippi River both to construct the ridge and to nourish the marsh. The technique has already been explored in a previous marsh creation project, but this will be the first attempt to rebuild a ridge with river sediment. Indeed, this is the first CWPPRA project to undertake rebuilding a ridge. 26 “The. Depending on the materials’ characteristics, we may have to stack materials five or six feet high initially to achieve a final ridge height of four feet.” Stacking material along waterways is not unusual in southern Louisiana. Spoil banks, the result of maintenance dredging, line miles and miles of navigation channels and oil and gas pipeline canals. The difference between spoil banks and natural ridges, according to Brodnax, is intention. “Spoil banks are an afterthought of maintenance,” says Brodnax. “They are built haphazardly and support whatever vegetation sprouts on them. We’re aiming to consciously re‐create the topography and vegetation of a natural ridge, to construct it so that it will supply optimal ecological services. At its maturation we expect it to provide the quality habitat of native, woody plants like live oaks and hackberries.” Although the ridge at Bayou Dupont is CWPPRA’s first ridge‐building endeavor, some of CWPPRA’s partners are seasoned ridge builders, having participated in creating the Port Fourchon Maritime Ridge. The idea for Port Fourchon’s ridge was spawned by the inadvertent success of a spoil bank. Shore birds that nest in bare sand, such as least terns, immediately populated the restored habitat at Port Fourchon, followed by marsh birds that prefer sparse vegetation. “As conditions change, the site attracts different species,” says Richard deMay, the senior scientist at the Barataria‐Terrebonne National Estuary Program. “At its maturity, the ridge will provide a forest canopy for migratory songbirds.” “Birders had discovered that a spoil bank of dredged material created during earlier port development provided terrific bird habitat,” says Davie Breaux, director of operations at Port Fourchon. “When we started to plan an expansion of the port, we decided to enhance the benefit for birds by using the dredged material to restore a maritime forest ridge.” While the project proved that rebuilding a natural ridge is possible, it also points to the relative ease and economy of preservation compared to reconstruction. “It is costly to pump materials,” Breaux says. “We had the advantage of industrial construction in close proximity to the ridge site.” Ridge builders underwent a learning process to make best use of those materials. “At first we tried to trap all the sediment we pumped into the site,” says Breaux, “but there was so much 27 water in it that we lost our elevation when it dried out. In the second phase we used an open‐
ended containment design. The lighter sediments floated out to create an adjacent marsh and left the heavier sands to form the ridge. We learned to couple building a ridge with building an apron of marsh around its perimeter.” Other lessons included the challenges of planting in salty soil. “The Natural Resources Conservation Service did test plantings here, as did the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources,” says Breaux, bringing up yet another lesson of the project: the importance of partnerships. Nonprofit organizations worked side‐by‐side with industrial heavyweights. Nature enthusiasts shared observations and insights with government scientists and engineers. Hundreds of volunteers contributed thousands of hours planting vegetation. And there’s the seemingly incongruous symbiosis between industrial activity and nature. “We’ve learned we need the natural system around us to protect us,” says Breaux, “so when we consider what we need to do to enhance our business, we look for ways to build it that can improve the environment.” Port Fourchon has established the entire area surrounding the maritime ridge as a sanctuary. When work is finished at the 970‐acre site, footpaths and boardwalks will invite visitors to view birds and other creatures benefiting from the newly created marsh and ridge habitats. Tennessee‐Tombigbee Waterway, Mississippi, Confined Disposal Facility Now a commercial operation, dredged material included in the CDF is being sold to local builders for fill and road construction (Figure 6). Figure 6 Removing Dredged Material in a CDF to be used as Construction Materials 28 Mobile Battleship Park, Alabama At the Mobile Battleship Park, an area frequented by Boy Scout troops for camping was frequently very wet or even flooded at times. A small project but a noteworthy effort brought 200 truckloads of dredged material to be graded into a dike. Figure 7 Dredged Material Used as a Dike in Alabama Houston Galveston Bay The Houston Galveston Project is probably the classic example of a successful beneficial use program that started with huge controversy which stopped the dredging and planned open water disposal in the Bay; after things came essentially to a stop, the Port of Houston and the Corps of Engineers created create an interagency coordination team that worked together (and is still working together) and eventually, after significant rework of disposal options which included beneficial use, the dredging project goals were achieved. Since the project was initiated, 4500 acres of marsh/habitat have been created, as well as a recreational boat island and harbor. Initially, the Port of Houston Authority and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers constructed a 220‐
acre demonstration marsh. As a result of this project, valuable information was gained for use in the development and management of future marsh creation projects from dredged material from the Houston Ship Channel. Great Lakes Dredge and Dock Co., using the dredge California, completed all placement area levees. Renda Marine, Inc., a sub‐contractor, completed placing beach fill on the bird island in mid‐August 2000. Placement of geotubes around the marsh at 29 Bolivar was completed in late September 2000. The project was awarded the 1996 American Association of Port Authorities Environmental Enhancement Award. They are here! The birds have arrived to take over their recently built island‐‐whether the Corps is ready for them or not. The bird island, built of dredged material, will soon have a beach and plantings. The electric dredge, the California. Geotubes are being placed to strengthen the marsh levees. Riprap for erosion control was placed on the exterior side slopes of the levees. Marsh grass was planted on the interior levee side slopes to cut down on levee erosion on the interior cells. 30 A bird's eye view. Traffic past the disposal area. A view of the new levee. Only one of the cells will become marsh during the initial construction. The rest will wait to be filled through routine maintenance. 31 Big Egg Marsh Experimental Restoration in Jamaica Bay, New York At Jamaica Bay, in the New York City harbor area, centuries of urbanization destroyed 90% of the wetlands. The remaining 400 ha of saltmarsh islands are disappearing at an accelerating rate. Currently, about 16 to 20 ha of saltmarsh islands are being lost every year, through internal decay and erosion (Gateway National Recreation Area 2001). The grassy interiors of the islands are transforming into mosaics of soft mud and isolated grass tussocks.
Investigations are underway to identify the causes of these losses and to find effective ways of restoring saltmarshes (Gateway National Recreation Area 2004). To address the question of what is an effective and long‐lasting method for saltmarsh restoration, Gateway National Recreation Area undertook the Big Egg Marsh experimental restoration. The project area comprises approximately 1 ha of restored saltmarsh and an adjacent 1 ha of control (or reference) marsh in the southern side of Jamaica Bay. This site was selected because the saltmarsh is well along in transforming to a bare mudflat. It also is conveniently located adjacent to Broad Channel village, where there is easy access for interpretive activities and for the public’s participation in the Volunteers‐in‐Parks (VIP) program. The Big Egg Marsh experimental restoration project is funded by the National Park Service, and is being carried out by Gateway NRA. The project location, Jamaica Bay, is at the southwestern end of Long Island. Jamaica Bay lies within the boroughs of Brooklyn and Queens. Jamaica Bay and its saltmarshes today measure about 6 km north to south, and 13 km east to west. Most of Jamaica Bay’s estuarine waters, wetlands, and artificial uplands lie within the Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge, now included within the national recreation area. Gateway was established as the nation’s first urban national park over three decades ago (U.S. Congress 1972). The park includes historic forts that defended New York harbor. It also includes natural resources that are important habitats for migratory birds and fishes. Several federal‐listed threatened and endangered birds and plants occur within Gateway. The New York portion of the park includes most of Jamaica Bay, large portions of the Rockaway barrier island, and parts of Staten Island. In New Jersey, most of Sandy Hook barrier island is included in the park. Overall, Gateway includes over 10,500 ha of ocean water, saltmarshes, beaches, and adjacent 32 uplands. Most of the fringing freshwater wetlands, however, are lost to urban development. Planning the experimental restoration An environmental assessment was prepared to recapitulate the issues, present alternative actions, and review the resources and impacts (Gateway National Recreation Area 2003). The “no action” alternative would allow the gradual transformation of the remnant saltmarsh into bare mudflats. Six “action” alternatives were considered, but four were immediately rejected because they were based on barging in sand from a distant source; such action would have necessitated dredging an access channel, which was prohibitively expensive, time‐consuming, and destructive. The remaining two “action” alternatives that were considered further depended on excavating sand from a trench in the adjacent tidal creek. One of these alternatives was to dredge a thin layer off the entire creek bottom, and the other was to dredge a deep narrow trench. The latter, the ecologically preferred alternative, was chosen because it was expected to provide the purest sand for the marsh surface while having the least impacts on the local fauna. The selected method for applying sand to the experimental restoration site is by means of a small barge with a swing‐ladder dredge and a high‐pressure spray (Figure 8). The intake end is the swing ladder, which moves side‐to‐side across a swath 6.7 m wide with a maximum depth of 1.8 m. The intake pipe has a rotating cutting head at its distal end. The slurry that enters is pumped through a 20‐cm diameter pipe, and then reduced to a 10‐cm diameter nozzle that sits 3 m above the stern. The slurry spray is supposed to deliver to a distance of around 60 m. This spray technique was chosen because it was expected to be less destructive to the remnant marsh than conventional dredging. The plan was to add layers of sand to elevate the treatment site generally a minimum of 20 cm above the plane of the highest existing remnant Prescribed places within the site were to receive an additional layer of sand up to 23 cm thick, to attain a maximum elevation of 43 cm above the reference plane. The lowest‐lying mudflats and drainages (which cut below the reference plane) were, therefore, to receive up to 100 cm of fill. The design was to place most of the sand in an L‐shaped ridge, paralleling a bend in the adjacent creek. The total volume of sand needed was estimated at 5,000 to 6,000 cu m. Sand was to be dredged from a trench along the deepest part of the creek bottom, and sprayed throughout 33 the fill site. The dredging and spraying were planned to start in summer 2003, immediately after the environmental compliance was completed. Figure 8. A swing‐ladder dredge with high‐pressure spray extracted 6,000 cubic meters of sand from a trench in the adjacent creek and sprayed it over the surface of Big Egg Marsh The finished fill elevation was designed so that most of the marsh would be covered by the daily high tide. The highest parts of the filled site are the same elevation as the lower edge of nearby common reed (Phragmites australis). If the fill were any higher, the treatment marsh would be at risk of invasion by the unwanted alien genotype of common reed. Ecological Monitoring Before beginning the restoration, one year of ecological monitoring was done. It was accomplished collaboratively through a cooperative agreement between the National Park Service (NPS) and the Aquatic Resources and Environmental Assessment Center (AREAC) at Brooklyn College, City University of New York. Coordination and carrying out the fieldwork was done by Gateway natural resources staff, assisted by AREAC student interns and by volunteers (local and international). Technical supervision and support were provided through the NPS Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit at the University of Rhode Island, and through the NPS Boston Support Office. Monitoring of the control site and treatment site began in autumn 2002, one year before the sand was applied—thus, we have comparisons of the control and treatment sites both before 34 and after. Monitoring is focused on physical and chemical changes of the marsh surface and creek bottom, changes in plant cover, and changes in animal occurrence. Each site has three surface elevation tables (SETs), more than 100 grid markers (many with elevations), and 30 permanent 1‐m2 vegetation plots. Also, on the treatment site there are sixteen 2‐m2 unplanted plots to monitor regrowth of the original vegetation and colonization by seedlings. There are ten places on each site where the water table is monitored, and where soil particle size and sulfides are monitored. The occurrence of birds, mammals, insects, and spiders are surveyed, as are the macroinvertebrates in the soil and water. Water quality (12 parameters) and fishes are sampled in the adjacent creek. Recovery of the excavated trenches that supplied the sand is being monitored, too. The monitoring in large part follows the guidelines specific to saltmarshes elsewhere (e.g. Niedowski 2000; Raposa et al. 2001; Roman et al. 2001). A SET is installed at three locations in the treatment site and another three in the control site. Each SET consists of a steel rod driven at least 15 m deep into the marsh; the rod is capped with a movable arm that holds nine sampling pins (Cahoon et al. 2000). Plots of either sand or bentonite are placed nearby. The SETs provide information on subsidence, upward expansion, erosion, and accretion. Before‐and‐after and control‐and‐treatment monitoring was accomplished by installing SETs in the treatment site and in the control site, with readings beginning one year before the dredging and continuing indefinitely thereafter. Doing the experimental restoration Before dredging and spraying sand on the marsh, a silt fence was installed around the low‐lying portions of the perimeter. About 240 hay bales, held in place by more than 1,000 wooden stakes and 2,000 m of sisal twine, provided the primary containment (Figure 9). Where silt runoff became apparent, supplemental containment was provided by installing 100 m of black plastic construction fence for silt control. The swing‐ladder dredge with high‐pressure spray was contracted to pump for 200 hours. During this time, over 6,000 cu3of sand were placed on the 1‐ha treatment site. The spray was effectively delivered to a distance of only 40 m. To gain additional distance, some slurry was streamed farther into the marsh interior by directing the nozzle horizontally across the surface of the fresh fill, causing the slurry to flow further inland. The placement of the fill was guided by white polyvinylchloride (PVC) pipes arranged in a grid pattern. Each pipe contained an elevation target marked with red duct tape and plastic flagging. Dredging was completed by the beginning of October 2003. Planting began on 3 October of that year. Over 20,000 peat pots of smooth cordgrass were planted by the volunteers and by park staff. These plants were grown on contract with the Native Plant Center, which is operated by the New York City Department of Parks & Recreation. Their seed sources were two locations on Staten Island, about 10–30 km from Jamaica Bay, but within the New York City harbor. Volunteers continued the planting for about six weeks, ending in late November 2003. Simultaneously with the planting, green plastic fence was erected to keep geese from devouring the new plants. Geese regularly dig out smooth cordgrass by the roots during the winter, and graze the fresh green growth throughout the growing season. To prevent this on the restoration site, volunteers and NPS staff installed about 700 m of fence on 260 wooden posts. The fences were arranged in cells of about 20 m diameter, to make it difficult for geese 35 to land or take off within the fences. Additionally, mason’s woven string with surveyor’s plastic flagging were stretched overhead to further subdivide the cells. Repairs had to be done repeatedly during the winter, due to damage from floating debris (wrack, wood debris, and ice), wind, and waves. Figure 9 Before spraying sand on the Big Egg Marsh restoration site, 240 hay bales were staked across the drainages to contain the runoff of silt and organics. Results The U.S. Geological Survey is reading the SETs at approximately three‐month intervals. On the restoration site their SETs recorded dredge‐filled sand 40 to 50 cm thick. In the year since placement of the sand, the ground surface at the SETs fell by several centimeters due to settling and surface erosion. The northwest edge of the filled area was impacted by wind‐driven waves, resulting in an erosion belt 60 m long by 3–5 m wide that lost 20–40 cm of elevation. Another place of long‐fetch is in the southeast, where eroding waves created another erosion belt 20 m long by 5 m wide that lost at least 20 cm of elevation. In the first spring after planting, the smooth cordgrass in peat pots, spaced 50 cm apart, showed nearly 100% survival and regrowth. The only significant mortality of potted plants was from erosion along the marsh edge, where pots washed away. Plastic fencing kept the geese out of the planted area during spring and summer 2004, but since then the geese have become an ever‐increasing problem. They seem habituated to the fences, and at high tide they swim freely through breaks in the fences to feed. Snow geese (Chen caerulescens), brants (Branta bernicla), and Canada geese (Branta canadensis) graze upon and dig out the smooth cordgrass. The migratory snow geese were present only during February and March, and the brants from October to May. Canada geese, however, were present all year round. Most of the treatment marsh also experienced germination of smooth cordgrass seeds, which washed naturally onto the sandy surface during the winter. During the last week in March 2004, there seemed to be more than 2,000,000 seedlings on the treatment site. By 20 April, there were still at least 300,000 seedlings on the treatment site; in some places, particularly in wet depressions, seedling density was up to 800 seedlings/m2. These seedlings filled in the spaces between the potted plants, at an average 36 density of 35 seedlings/m2 surviving in June 2004 (the range was 1 seedling/m2 to 230 seedlings/m2) in the plots that were unplanted. By September, the periphery of the treatment site outside the goose‐excluding fence was nearly 100% reworked by the geese, resulting in the loss of most plants (both the potted plants and the seedlings that germinated on site). Inside the fence, however, most plants were surviving, except where in May and June 2004, hundreds of horseshoe crabs (Limulus polyphemus) passed under the fences and laid eggs in the sand of the restoration site. In doing so, they dislodged many thousands of tiny seedlings. One of the expected advantages of thin‐
layer spray was that the original scattered clumps of smooth cordgrass would rebound and continue growing through the thin layer of sand. In the first year after the treatment, however, we observed that the smooth cordgrass survived only when it received 20 cm or less of sand cover. The thinner the layer, the greater the survival. The treatment marsh after one full growing season had silt accumulating on the sand. All but the highest places had a cover of algae. The grass was entirely smooth cordgrass (Figure 10). By October 2004, in most of the permanent vegetation plots the stems from seedlings were no longer distinguishable from the stems that arose from rhizomes of the potted plants—their combined density averaged 151 stems/m2, with a maximum of nearly 600 stems/sq m. The average stem density was nearly double that of the pretreatment plots and the control plots, due to more of the treatment plots having vegetation in them, i.e., there were fewer bare areas after restoration. The restored marsh already was being colonized by fiddler crabs (Uca sp.), eastern mud nassa (Ilyanassa obsoleta), common periwinkle (Littorina littorea), as well as fishes, worms, and insects. Figure 10 By the end of the first growing season, Big Egg Marsh regained a good carpet of smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora). The sandy soil already was accumulating silt, algae, and macroinvertebrates. Stakeholder participation The Big Egg Marsh experimental restoration is a collaborative effort that includes NPS permanent staff at Gateway and from the Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit at the University of Rhode Island. Other collaborators are AREAC, the Marine Sciences Institute at Rutgers University, Department of Oceanography and Marine Sciences at Dowling College, U.S. Geological Survey, Environmental Protection Agency, Natural Resources Conservation Service, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, New York City Department of 37 Parks & Recreation, and three contractors. NPS’s Jamaica Bay Institute is located at Floyd Bennett Field, a historic airfield at the west side of Jamaica Bay. The institute’s mission is to lead the way toward improved stewardship of the Jamaica Bay ecosystem by creating a bridge between science and decision‐making through research and education on the natural and cultural heritages of Jamaica Bay. The institute endeavors to connect people with the environmental consequences of their actions. During the past three years, the Jamaica Bay Institute has disseminated research results through publications and workshops, assisted new researchers, and fostered appreciation and accountability for the Jamaica Bay ecosystem in the urban community. The institute is participating in the experimental restoration of Big Egg Marsh. Since then, an additional 60‐plus volunteers assisted with the maintenance and monitoring of the site. Overall, the participants in the Big Egg Marsh experimental restoration number over 200 individuals, comprising volunteers, student interns, collaborators from government agencies, contractors, and NPS staff. Many of the volunteers came from local conservation groups such as the EcoWatchers, the American Littoral Society, the Audubon Society, and the Jamaica Bay Task Force. Others came from local businesses, colleges, schools, and community organizations. To all these stakeholders, we owe many thanks (Figure 11). Figure 11 In 2002–2003, more than 80 volunteers from local community groups, universities, and government agencies assisted in the pretreatment monitoring, site preparation, and planting. Conclusions The Big Egg Marsh experimental restoration is technically successful insofar as the sand is transforming into a silty and organic saltmarsh soil, there is a dense cover of smooth cordgrass, and an appropriate animal community is becoming established on the treatment site. Geese grazing and rooting increased in intensity inside the fenced treatment site after the first ten months, apparently due to habituation. Consequently the goose‐deterring fence will need to be rigorously maintained in place for an additional year, or alternative goose‐scaring methods will be needed. Although the results are good to date, it remains to be seen how many decades the restored site will last. The experimental restoration also was successful in a nontechnical way, by providing the opportunity for about 200 local stakeholders to become involved first‐hand in protecting wetlands. Gateway currently is collaborating with the Army Corps of Engineers to restore at least 12 ha of saltmarsh at Elder’s Point, in the north side of Jamaica Bay. The findings from Big Egg Marsh will be useful for designing and monitoring the Elder’s Point restoration. 38 Jamaica Bay Marsh Islands Brooklyn, NY Elders Point West Marsh Island Restoration Jamaica Bay is situated within the boroughs of Brooklyn and Queens, New York City. The Bay is about 8 miles long and 4 miles wide, covers 26 square miles, and opens into the Atlantic Ocean via the Rockaway Inlet. The Jamaica Bay Marsh Islands are at the heart of the complex urban ecosystem of Jamaica Bay that is a part of the Gateway National Recreation Area, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. Over the past century, the Bay’s fragile ecosystem has been degraded through human encroachment and increased urbanization. Combined Sewer Outfall (CSO) discharges have also exacerbated these effects. There is an existing Federally maintained navigation project within Jamaica Bay. Local interests are alarmed at the rate in which the intertidal salt marshes on these islands are being lost. Analyses conducted by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation confirmed this loss and its potentially deleterious effects on the ecosystem if the trend were to continue. The National Park Service, Gateway National Recreation Area, convened a panel of national experts to examine the problem. This Blue Ribbon Panel concurred with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation analysis and urged immediate action on two fronts: 1. First, it was recommended that investigations be conducted to determine the causes of the accelerating marsh losses in an effort to formulate an effective long‐term solution. 2. Second, it was recommended that a series of pilot projects be developed to stem further losses and re‐establish habitat while long‐term initiatives are being pursued. Under the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Continuing Authorities Program, the New York City Department of Environmental Protection and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation requested assistance in implementing one or more restoration projects. A feasibility report titled Jamaica Bay Marsh Islands, Jamaica Bay, N.Y., Integrated Ecosystem Restoration Report, Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact was approved in 2006, recommending restoration of three marsh islands: Elders Point East, Elders Point West and Yellow Bar Hassock. Construction of the Elders Point East marsh island took place in 2006‐2007, as mitigation for the New York & New Jersey Harbor Navigation Project. Implementation of restoration at Elders Point West and Yellow Bar Hassock has been proposed through beneficial use of dredged material from the New York & New Jersey Harbor Navigation Project per Section 207 authority and in cooperation with The Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, the non‐Federal sponsor. Approximately 34 acres of salt marsh habitat is proposed for restoration at Elders Point West via placement of approximately 200,000 cubic yards of dredged material, and up to 60 acres of 39 salt marsh habitat is proposed for restoration at Yellow Bar Hassock via placement of approximately 250,000 cubic yards of dredged material. Existing salt marsh plant hummocks are proposed to be re‐planted within the new, elevated substrate. An Engineering Documentation Report was completed in June 2008 to update the design and cost of Elders Point West marsh island restoration. Implementation of restoration of Elders Point West is pending approval and execution of an amendment to the existing Project Cooperation Agreement for the NY & NJ Harbor Navigation Project. The amendment would incorporate this dredged material placement alternative which is not the least cost disposal alternative. Selection of this alternative is justified by the environmental benefits that the project would provide to the harbor estuary. The New York District is also currently preparing an Engineering Documentation Report to update the design and costs for Yellow Bar Hassock marsh island restoration. Marsh island restoration projects are planned to link with source dredged material from the Anchorage and Ambrose dredging contract reaches of the NY & NJ Harbor Navigation Project. Estimated Total Project Cost for Elders Point West: $10,600,000. Authorization: Section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992, Public Law 102‐580, as amended by Section 207 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (codified as amended at 33 U.S.C. § 2326), and as amended by Section 2037 Regional Sediment Management of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007. Notes Regarding Restoration in Jamaica Bay: Over the last 20 years, the average loss of salt marsh in Jamaica Bay has been 50 acres per year. Ecological restoration using dredging material has been successful and more is planned. •
•
•
Big Egg Marsh: 2 acres‐‐‐completed. $500,00 per acre Elders Point Marsh West: 35 acres‐‐‐completed using 250,000 cubic yards of dredged material Elders Point Marsh West: 37 acres‐‐‐being planned. Cost projected to be about $350,000 per acre. Cost share: Corps: 65%, local sponsors: 35%. Intentions of the Corps and partners is to restore 1,000 acres in Jamaica Bay. Brownfields Restoration Using Dredged Material Runyan Shipyard Penscola, Florida A 13‐acre Bayou Chico site, including a former Runyan Shipyard long considered an industrial eyesore , is getting a $40 million face‐lift. A South Florida developer is moving ahead with plans to build Gulfview Marina, whose centerpiece will be a building providing dry storage for up to 40 1,000 boats. Site preparation and environmental cleanup are under way. The former Runyan's Shipyard site will be using dredged material to fill in low areas and to replace material that is to be removed due to metals and PAH contamination. The proposed dredged material has been tested for the USACOE Permit. The proposed dredged material is less contaminated than what is currently there. They will be placing the dredge material on their uplands for dewatering and then moving it behind a replacement and new seawall area. The seawall is to be a sealed seawall. Additional clean fill or impervious surface along with the sealed seawall will be used as engineering controls for the dredge material. The remedial action plan has been approved contingent on the receipt of the USACOE permit. Brownfields Restoration in New Jersey About 2‐3 million cubic yards of dredged material from navigation dredging in NY/NJ Harbor from federal navigation channels, Port Authority berths, and private port facilities needs to be managed at upland sites each year in New Jersey. Because the material from NY/NJ Harbor is mostly fine grained, to be effectively managed for upland uses it must be processed at a facility which adds Portland cement to the dredged material. Depending on the dredged material characteristics and the planned end use of the material, about 8% Portland cement is added. Some projects have needed up to 17%. Dewatering is not necessary. Cement is added and then cured 24‐48 hours before loading for transport to the end use site. Cost of processing is $42‐45 per cubic yard of dredged material. Cost of placement varies from $8‐12 per cubic yard. Total cost of dredging, processing, and placement is around $65 per cubic yard. There are five currently permitted facilities in NJ, two fully operational, with daily throughput of 3,000 cubic yards; each facility has truck or rail access (See Figures 12 and 13). Figure 12 Off‐loading of barge with hydraulic crane at dredged material processing facility and loading of feed hopper with raw dredged material. 41 Figure 13 Dredged Material Processing Facility in New Jersey On the New Jersey side of Delaware Bay, about 2‐3 million cubic yards of dredged material is placed in upland confined disposal facilities (CDFs); the material is mostly coarse grained. This material is available for use, with millions of cubic yards in CDFs along the Delaware Bay in New Jersey. Dredged material is used beneficially in New Jersey in the following manners: y
y
y
y
y
Grading Material Structural Fill Material Remediation Cap ‐ Brownfield Site Landfill Closure Topsoil Examples of these uses of dredged material are provided below: •
Grading Material ‐ Bayonne Golf Club used 2 million cubic yards of dredged material from NY/NJ Harbor for contouring the golf course (See Figure 14). •
Grading Material ‐ Riverwinds Golf Course on Delaware Bay used 190,000 cubic yards of raw dredged material from the adjacent Federal CDF on the Delaware River. The dredged material was then covered with other grading materials that supported growth of grass for the golf course development (See Figure 15). Figure 14 Bayonne Golf Course 42 Riverwinds - Completed
Project
Figure 15 Riverwinds Golf Course—Delaware Bay •
Structural Fill Material ‐ Prologis Port Reading Business Park used 130,000 cubic yards of dredged material as grading material and low permeability cap in remediation of three sites. The end uses of the sites are 1 million square feet of warehouse space (See Figure 16). Figure 16 ‐ Prologis Port Reading Business Park, New Jersey •
•
•
Overpeck Landfill in Bergen County, NJ, used 250,000 cubic yards as low permeability cap in the landfill closure. The end use of the landfill area will be a municipal Park. In the New Jersey Meadowlands District, 2 million cubic yards was used as grading material and cap for six landfills: 1E, Keegan, Avon, Lyndhurst, Rutherford, and Kingsland Landfills The Jersey Gardens Mall opened in 1999 and used 800,000 cubic yards in development at the 185 acre site of the closed Elizabeth Landfill. 43 •
Other Small Scale Projects included road construction: ‐ Ocean County ‐ edging fill material for County projects <1,000 cubic yards ‐ Lacey Township ‐ 12,000 cubic yards (sub‐fill) ‐ NJDOT ‐ <2,000 cubic yards topsoil Flushing Airport, New York Wetlands Brownfield Restoration Sponsored by the New York City Economic Development Corporation, the restoration of this brownfields site is a remediation activity so that other areas of the site can be developed. Using dredged material, 80‐90% sand with some silt, a freshwater wetland will be constructed. The dredged material is suitable for open ocean water disposal. The wetland will be 4.5 acres and use 50,000 cubic yards of dredged material (Steve Zahn, NY Department of Environmental Protection). White Island Brownfield Restoration The New York City Department of Parks & Recreation has been funded to create new grassland habitat on the upland areas of White Island (See Figure 17) as mitigation for the construction of the nearby Gateway Retail Center. The project is a condition of permits issued by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation for Gateway Center. The Parks Department's work seeks to support several important bird species by replacing low grassland bird habitat that was affected by the Gateway project. Figure 17 White Island Brooklyn, NY (#3 on map) 44 There are 2 phases to the reconstruction of White Island. Phase 1, which is already complete, involved the clearing of all vegetation above the 10' contour line, except for the two existing grassland areas, so that an updated survey could be performed. This survey is being used to finalize designs for the habitat creation project. Phase 2 will involve the clearing of remaining phragmites, an exotic invasive wetland plant with low habitat value, as well as trees and shrubs below the 10' contour line. This phase of the project will also include the stabilization of the island's shoreline edges and the capping of the island with clean sand. The sand substrate will provide a more hospitable environment for the native grassland habitat that the project proposes to create and will deter the reemergence of ph rag mites. The final element of work will involve the installation of the desired grassland plants. Project Goals 1. To provide permanent solutions for stabilizing the edges of the island to ensure that garbage will not breach into the surrounding creeks. 2. Cap the Island with approximately 120,000 ‐150,000 cubic yards of clean sand to create a low grassland habitat for nesting birds. This action should be complete in October 2009. Fine to medium grained sand from Jamaica Bay dredging is the source. It is 95% sand. The following list contains the targeted species of birds for grassland mitigation: •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Upland Sandpiper Savannah Sparrow Short‐Eared Owl Henslow's Sparrow Vesper Sparrow Northern Harrier Grasshopper Sparrow Eastern Meadowlark Bobolink Homed Lark Fort Mifflin, Pennsylvania Using Section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 as amended, the ecosystem being improved and protected is located in the west‐central portion of the City of Hazelton, Luzerne County, PA. The site is a 300 acre parcel of land that has been impacted by surface and deep mining operations. The project would reclaim land impacted by surface mining and backfill dangerous high walls in surface mining pits, re‐establish surface water drainage along a 4000 foot former reach of Cranberry Creek and re‐construction or enhancement of wetlands within the project area. The federal project being modified is the Corps’ Confined Disposal Facility (CDF) at Fort Mifflin, PA. The Fort Mifflin CDF is part of both the existing authorized Delaware River Philadelphia to 45 the Sea and the Schuylkill River projects. USACE Fort Mifflin is located in Southeast Pennsylvania in Philadelphia County. The site is at the confluence of the Schuylkill and Delaware Rivers on the former Hog Island. The facility and all of its operations are entirely within federally owned property. The project will advance the technology base and demonstrate the long‐term feasibility of transporting dredged material and re‐using it in combination with the cast‐off materials from the mining process. The result of this project will be a long‐term plan and program to advance the beneficial use of dredged material to restore, protect, and enhance abandoned lands damaged by mining. The project will quantify the ability of such a program to stabilize and re‐
vegetate the damaged lands, reduce acid mine drainage and restore the local ecosystem. The Fort Mifflin CDF is one of nine similar CDF’s in the Delaware River Philadelphia to the Sea Project and the only federally owned CDF in Pennsylvania. CDF’s occupy valuable riparian land, reduce the tax base and disturb adjacent properties. As CDF’s fill to capacity, new lands must be acquired to use for subsequent material storage. Removal of the confined dredge material and reuse of the regained capacity will reverse and improve this process. The immediate project will affect approximately 100 acres of land at the Fort Mifflin Facility and 330 acres of abandoned mine land and 4,000 feet of waterway at Hazelton. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) estimates that the state contains approximately 250,000 acres of similar abandoned mine lands and 2,500 miles of affected waterway within the commonwealth. Construction of the railway was completed in November 2006. Transport and placement of dredged material to Hazelton will follow with completion scheduled for December 2007. Bark Camp Demonstration Project, Pennsylvania Press Release: December 17, 2003 BARK CAMP PROJECT SHOWS SUCCESS IN USING DREDGED MATERIALS TO RECLAIM ABANDONED MINE SITE Dredged materials can remove health and safety hazards and enable a complete geological restoration of foothills that once were stripped away to mine embedded coal seams, according to an eight‐year abandoned mine reclamation project conducted by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), the New York/New Jersey Clean Ocean And Shore Trust (COAST) and Clean Earth Dredging Technologies Inc. At the Bark Camp Demonstration Project in Clearfield County (See Figure 18), two rows of dangerous highwalls, or sheer cliffs left behind by surface mining, were eliminated by re‐
grading land to its approximate original contour. The area, located in a state forest adjacent to state game lands, has been reseeded and restored to a meadow currently visited by bear, turkey, bobcat, deer and elk. 46 Figure 18: Bark Camp Before , During, and After Restoration Using Dredged Material Almost 500,000 cubic yards of dredged materials were mixed with coal ash that, when placed at the central Pennsylvania site, hardened to form an engineered fill with structural integrity, very low permeability and resistance to acid attack. This allows rainwater to run off the site instead of mixing with pyritic materials that otherwise would turn the water into polluted acid mine drainage, a leading cause of water pollution. Pyrite is a brass‐colored mineral that produces sulfuric acid and leads to acid mine drainage. Bark Camp is characterized by both abandoned surface and deep mines as well as mounds of mine spoils, usually waste coal and rock mixtures. As a result, 180,000 gallons of water coursing through the area become contaminated each day, and acid mine drainage is produced. Initiated in 1995 as a multi‐state, public‐private partnership, the Bark Camp project successfully brought the area back to grade and thereby removed physical hazards, returned surface waters 47 to their watersheds, restored natural vegetation and restored habitat and characteristics to a previously scarred strip of mine land about 1.5‐miles long. A comprehensive report on the project has been sent to experts for editorial review. The results: In five years of monitoring and after more than 100,000 analyses, there were no significant organic or metal contaminants detected other than those present in the general area prior to the project’s initiation. Aquatic life also seems to have benefited from the project. The lower sections of Bark Camp Run improved sufficiently to enable the return of aquatic insects. Despite a statewide one meal per week advisory for fish consumption, a survey by the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC) three years into the project found trout that spent the winter in another stream adjacent to the demonstration project to be suitable for unlimited consumption. The single statistically significant finding was a brief, slight elevation in chloride from salt (sodium chloride) during dredged material placement. The detected levels were within acceptable limits, falling below any water‐quality or aquatic‐habitat standard and posing no environmental or health risk. In the last phase of the eight‐year project, municipal waste incinerator ash was tested as a component of the blend of materials used on the site. Although the use of incinerator residue did not result in any environmental problems, it did release higher amounts of chloride detected at monitoring points. As a result, DEP has determined that this material should not be used in similar mine‐reclamation projects. The majority of dredged materials contain trace substances from agricultural and industrial runoff. These substances have limited disposal options for dredge materials, particularly in aquatic habitats, because sediments can be consumed by bottom‐dwelling aquatic life and possibly end up in the food chain. Dredged materials are beneficially used to create port facilities and airports as well as to close landfills and reclaim brownfields. The Bark Camp Demonstration Project shows that dredge also can very beneficially be used in land reclamation. DEP set strict standards for material that could be used on site and refused any dredge with more than trace levels of substances of concern. No hazardous waste was used in the reclamation project. The reclamation of abandoned mine lands is an environmental priority. Pennsylvania is home to some 5,600 mine sites with an array of associated hazards, including underground mine fires, water‐filled surface mining pits, dangerous highwalls and open mine entries that tempt the curious to test their luck in unpredictable and unstable abandoned underground mines. 48 Each year, several Pennsylvanians are among dozens of people killed or injured on abandoned mine sites throughout the country. Mine voids collapse under towns and homes, divert streams and groundwater and acidify thousands of miles of waterways. Surface mines despoil hundreds of thousands of acres while underground mine fires can burn for decades. A copy of the Bark Camp Demonstration Project report, as well as related items, can be found at COAST’s Web site at . http://www.nynjcoast.org/AMR/barkcampreport.html Maple Beach area of Bristol Township, Bucks County, PA. The Redevelopment Authority of the County of Bucks requested EPA to convene and facilitate a meeting with all relevant regulatory parties to discuss its redevelopment plans for the Maple Beach section of Bristol Township, Bucks County, PA. The Maple Beach area encompasses about 300 acres on the Delaware River waterfront, and is currently owned by Rohm & Haas Company. Rohm & Haas is in negotiations with EPA’s RCRA Corrective Action program to address areas of concern at this facility. The Maple Beach section of the Rohm & Haas Company property has never been used for industrial operations. A levee, constructed decades ago, exists around this area to protect it from the 100 year flood. The Authority intends to use its EPA Brownfields Assessment Grant funds to investigate this property and plan its re‐use (Figure 19). Figure 19 Maple Beach section of Rohm & Haas Company: Brownfields Restoration The Authority envisions a comprehensive redevelopment of the area to create a large amount of high quality space for office, flex, commercial and residential uses, taking advantage of this superior riverfront location. Their concept incorporates a significant gateway feature that 49 creates an attractive entrance into Bristol Township. The concept also incorporates public open space along the river’s edge, including a river walk connecting Bristol Borough with points south, and the restoration of Otter Creek and Hog Run to more natural conditions, with substantial wetlands preservation. To protect this area and its redevelopments, the Authority would like to raise the ground level to that of the existing levee to prevent the risk and impact of a potential New Orleans/Katrina breach scenario. Towards that end, it is interested in the beneficial use Delaware River dredge material. An estimated one to two million cubic yards of material would be required. Dream Park, Logan Township, Gloucester County, New Jersey When a 1600 acre site on Route 130 was re‐slated as a dredge spoil dumpsite, Gloucester County stepped in and took action. The site, now known as the Delaware River Equestrian Agriculture Marina (DREAM) Park, is in the process of being remediated from former dredge spoils into a very impressive public horseback riding and competition facility. Historically, the site received material dredged from the bottom of the Delaware River for roughly two decades, ending in the 1980’s. Additionally, portions of the site have been used for farming. The site had 36 owners, and upon facing the possibility of further dredge dumping in 1998, Gloucester County acquired the property in its entirety, preventing dumping by zoning it for recreational use. Prior to park construction, a remedial investigation was concluded in March 2006, which revealed that the soil was contaminated with arsenic and PCBs. Testing determined that the groundwater was contaminated with arsenic and other various heavy metals. All contaminants were associated with historic fill, most notably, the dredge spoils. Site remediation is being conducted in two phases. Phase 1 has been completed, and includes the 74.75‐acre area on which the Equine Park has been constructed. The surface soil was not contaminated on this portion of the property, but soils that were contaminated at depth were addressed via the implementation of a deed notice. A soils only letter of No Further Action will be issued for the phase 1 remediation after recording the final deed notice, as groundwater monitoring is still ongoing as per a specific monitoring schedule. Phase 2 of the remediation is currently in progress and addresses the remaining area, the Gloucester County Park, which will contain riding trails. DREAM Park opened on June 21, 2008, and while construction of the Gloucester County Park is still in progress, the Equine Park portion of the property boasts very impressive facilities and 50 amenities. There is a large indoor riding arena as well as four outdoor arenas, two of which are lit. The soil used in the arenas was specially brought in, and its compactness can be altered depending on the needs of specific competition events. Additionally, the park houses 298 horse stalls, an RV Park for competitors and spectators, and an instructional clinic. There are also plans to institute a therapeutic riding program for special needs children. With the property located on the Delaware River, 75% is composed of wetlands. Recognizing this fact, in conjunction with the phase 2 remediation and plans for the riding trails, a 300‐foot buffer will be preserved along the River and will not be accessible to riders. This buffer will aid in the survival of multiple species, including bald eagles, by preserving their habitat and foraging areas. There are additional plans to preserve other portions of the park through Farmland Preservation as well as to develop a flood control area and a 26‐acre tidal wetlands bank. However, DREAM Park is not only a facility for equestrians, but will also benefit the Logan Township community. The park will bring in many tourists, as it will be host to events and competitions. With these tourists staying in local hotels, eating from local restaurants, and purchasing local amenities, it is expected that there will be an increase in revenue and a boost to the township’s economy. In the future, there are plans to build a marina as well as institute an educational tour of the site, which should further increase the appeal of the park and increase tourist traffic, while also serving as community resources. 75% of the $345,000 remediation cost was funded by NJDEP’s Hazardous Discharge Site Remediation Fund (HDSRF) Parks and Recreation Grant. Today, what was an essentially unusable site of dredge spoils has been transformed into a state‐of‐the‐art equestrian facility and recreation area. Although the park has only recently opened, it is already a huge success; it is not only an asset to Logan Township, but also the entire state. Note: while not clear from the article, dredged materials were used in the reclamation and remediation needed to change a CDF to a park. More information can be found by contacting Suzanne Dietrick at the NJDEP: see References. 51 Section 3 Collaboration and Cooperation via Teams for Successful Dredging Projects This section includes brief descriptions of formal and informal mechanisms for developing collaborative and cooperative approaches to successful dredging projects that have beneficially used dredged material for restoration and enhancement or creation of habitat. Descriptions are brief and the reader is referred to the references or appendices for additional information. Houston Galveston Project The Houston‐Galveston Navigation Channel Project is an ambitious program to improve both Houston and Galveston Ship Channels to accommodate today's larger ships and to enhance navigational safety in the channels. Figure 20 Signing of the Houston‐Galveston Ship Channel Project Cooperation Agreement ‐‐ Officials witness the signing of the final agreement between the Port of Houston Authority and the Corps of Engineers, June 10, 1998 in Washington D.C. Pictured from left: Sen. Phil Gramm, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, Rep. Ken Bentsen, Rep. Sheila Jackson‐Lee, Rep. Chet Edwards, Col. Eric R. Potts, and John D'Aniello, Deputy Director of Civil Works. Seated are Ned Holmes, Port of Houston Authority and Dr. John Zirschky, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. Hidden at left is Rep. Kevin Brady. Several years of planning have produced a project that deepens and widens the Houston Ship Channel, and deepens the Galveston Channel (Figure 20). Both channels presently have an 52 authorized depth of 40 feet. The project will bring the shipping lanes to an authorized depth of 45 feet with a minimum 530 foot bottom width. To address the environmental concerns expressed about the proposed project, an Interagency Coordination Team (ICT) was formed. Members included, in addition to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Galveston District, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Natural Resource Conservation Service, Galveston Bay Estuary Program, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Texas General Land Office, Texas Water Development Board, Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission, Port of Houston Authority and the City of Galveston. ICT advisors included the U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Southwestern Division, Waterways Experiment Station (Corps of Engineers), Institute for Water Resources (Corps of Engineers), Office of the Governor of Texas, Texas Historical Commission, Galveston‐Texas City Pilots Association, Houston Pilots Association, Galveston Bay Foundation, and the Texas Waterway Operators Association. The team united environmental and government agencies in the discovery of the effects of the project upon the environment of Galveston Bay. Its purpose was to develop the environmental documentation that would fully address these concerns. Toward this effort, eight different areas were studied: 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
3‐dimensional Hydrodynamic and Salinity Model Study Ship Navigation Simulation Model Study Contaminants Study Oyster Model Study Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material Study Oyster Reef Study Cumulative Impacts Study Benthic Recovery Study The Interagency Coordination Team was so successful in this project that it was used as a model for problem solving in the environmentally sensitive Laguna Madre area in south Texas. The Limited Reevaluation Report (LRR) and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) on the Houston‐Galveston Navigation Channel Project received no negative comments from any agencies, due to the work of the ICT. The Chief of Engineers Report agreed with the findings of the LRR and SEIS and was approved on May 9, 1996. The project was authorized for construction on October 12, 1996, by the Water Resources Development Act of 1996. Project construction began with the receipt of Construction General funds in October 1997. The Project Cooperation Agreements with the Port of Houston Authority was signed June 10, 1998. The project divides into nine separate dredging contracts plus one contract for mitigation and three for grass planting. 53 Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material Study ‐This study investigated all possible uses for the dredged material. The Beneficial Uses Group (BUG) Subcommittee was headed by the Port of Houston Authority, the local sponsor. The BUG developed a dredged material plan for the bay and offshore reaches. This plan puts all the material dredged from the channel to a beneficial use or into confined upland sites. The ICT approved the BUG plan as the disposal plan for the project. The ICT Charter has not yet been located but the Corps’ staff in Galveston District are searching for it. Lower Columbia Solutions Group The Lower Columbia Solutions Group (LCSG) is a bi‐state partnership convened in 2002 by the governors of Oregon and Washington as a forum for nearly 30 local, state and federal stakeholders to raise issues, collaborate on policy, and develop solutions for sediment management in the lower Columbia River. The LCSG includes representatives from local, state and federal government, crabbing and fishing interests, coastal communities and conservation groups, and serves as the key bi‐state clearinghouse to coordinate policy, projects and research related to dredge material disposal and sediment management on the lower Columbia River. The LCSG’s work integrates economic, social and environmental objectives. The LCSG serves as the key bi‐state clearinghouse to coordinate policy, projects and research related to the management and disposal of dredged sand on the Lower Columbia River and nearshore areas. The LCSG has been officially supported by the White House Council on Environmental Quality under two Presidents and is facilitated by the National Policy Consensus Center at Portland State University. Funds to support the LCSG process have come from a variety of local, state and federal participants. Lower Columbia Solutions Group Members include representatives
from local, state and federal government, crabbing and fishing
interests, developers and conservation groups:
State of Oregon Governor’s Office
State of Washington Governor’s Office
Port of Portland
Port of Vancouver
Port of Astoria
Port of Ilwaco
Pacific County, Washington
Clatsop County, Oregon
Columbia River Crab Fisherman’s Association
Columbia River Business Alliance
Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership
Columbia River Estuary Study Task Force
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Department of Natural Resources
Oregon Department of State Lands
Salmon for All
54 LCSG is developing a Regional Sediment Management Plan for the lower Columbia River to help implement the West Coast Governor's Agreement on Ocean Health and maximize the beneficial use of sand to protect critical community economic and environmental infrastructure. As part of Regional Sediment Management Planning, the LCSG is doing projects to demonstrate how dredged sand can be beneficially used at the mouth of the Columbia River near the South Jetty in Oregon. This work aims to replenish sands in the eroding littoral cell to protect the jetty, restore crab and other fishery habitats and provide information to guide long‐term beneficial use of sand in the area. The LCSG is also managing a beneficial‐use project near the North Jetty at Benson Beach in Washington to use dredged sands to restore the eroding littoral zone, fishery habitats and coastal beaches. Scientists and policymakers reached consensus on conducting the project in 2007, and the LCSG is leveraging congressional and other funding to support the work. Some sands in the lower Columbia are contaminated with heavy metals, pesticides and other toxics, and when dredged, these sediments require careful disposal and permitting to protect the environment and people’s health. The LCSG is exploring a regional upland disposal facility for the Port of Astoria and other lower Columbia ports to use, to assist with the costly disposal of up‐river contaminants and to investigate cost‐sharing possibilities. The LCSG Charter includes: •
•
•
•
•
purpose and role of the LCSG, key policy areas of concern to the LCSG, organization and procedures of the LCSG, member names, and appendices. Of special interest in the Charter’s Appendices are the LCSG ground rules, which include: 1. Reach agreement through consensus 2. Focus on the future, not the past 3. Communicate honestly and openly in LCSG meetings (including project teams, subcommittees) 4. Help make the process as transparent as possible; put issues and concerns on the table; no hidden agendas 5. Use the Charter as a guiding document; adhere to the purpose and procedures. 55 6. Conduct an evaluation annually to determine what is working and what needs improvement. Appendix B of this report includes the LCSG Charter and a “Declaration of Cooperation,” which is a sample document that typically is the product of an LCSG sponsored workshop. It is essentially an action plan and all workshop participants sign off on the document. Port of Baltimore Dredged Material Management Program The Port of Baltimore has had a long history of dredging and dredged material disposal, which in recent years has had a major focus upon beneficial use of dredged material. Hart‐Miller Island was created over much controversy in the middle of Chesapeake Bay for a 20 year solution to disposal of contaminated dredged material from the Inner Harbor and federal channels. This long running series of issues resulted in an approach in more recent years to dredging projects and solutions that involved a collaborative effort of stakeholders. Partners at the Port of Baltimore are responsible for clearing approximately 4.7 million cubic yards of dredged material from the Harbor and its approach channels every year, just to remove sediment that washes into existing channels. Placing dredged material in new locations is a continuous challenge. For hundreds of years, dredged material was simply placed overboard into the open waters of the Chesapeake Bay. But concern about environmental impacts grew, and this practice began to stop. In recent decades, the placement and use of dredged material has changed dramatically. Options are now explored in detail and approved by participants in the state’s Dredged Material Management Program. Participants include scientists whose role is to ensure that the dredging program causes no harm to Maryland’s environment. “Beneficial use” is now the preferred management option in Maryland, as stated in the Dredged Material Management Act of 2001. Beneficial use means putting dredged material to work in ways that are not only safe, but beneficial to the environment—such as creating wetlands, improving wildlife habitat, and restoring eroded islands. These types of projects are underway at Hart‐Miller Island off the shore of Baltimore County and at Poplar Island in the mid‐Chesapeake Bay.“ The team that conducts dredge‐related monitoring programs includes scientists from the Maryland Department of the Environment, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Maryland Geological Survey, Maryland Environmental Service, and University of Maryland. “Innovative reuse,” another preferred management option, employs dredged material to produce bricks, cap brownfields and landfills, reclaim abandoned mines and quarries, and generate top soil for use in agriculture. The Maryland Port Administration and its partners are exploring other methods of innovative reuse that may increasingly transform dredged material from a problem into a resource. 56 Monitoring is a top priority. The construction of placement sites briefly disturbs the aquatic environment, but scientists and regulators have not detected any long‐term negative impacts associated with the placement of dredged material. And in some cases, the dredged material has delivered significant environmental benefits. The Hart‐Miller Island monitoring program has become a national model. Scientists conducted a baseline study from 1972‐78 to assess conditions on and around the island remnants before operations began. Scientists continue to track water quality and compare results. They collect and analyze fish tissue, as well as benthic organisms—tiny, bottom‐dwelling invertebrates that live in the sediment and indicate aquatic health. The studies have uncovered no long‐term chemical or physical changes in the sediment or water associated with operation of Hart‐Miller Island. The Port of Baltimore’s Dredging Program (i.e., Maryland Port Administration) has established and maintains an incredible number of committees all aimed at transparency and partnership with interested stakeholders. A brief description of each committee is provided below. Perhaps even more instructive is the actual membership list in each committee which is included in Appendix B. •
•
The Dredged Material Management Program (DMMP) Executive Committee is established in law (Chapter 627, Acts of 2001) to make decisions regarding the management of dredged material in Maryland. Membership is prescribed by the law. The committee is co‐chaired by the Secretary of the Department of Transportation and Secretary of the Department of Natural Resources. Meetings are held twice a year and the committee is staffed by the Maryland Port Administration. The Management Committee of the Dredged Material Management Program (DMMP) coordinates on the development and implementation of the dredging and placement activities of the Port of Baltimore. The committee is composed of senior managers from the relevant regulatory agencies at the state and federal level, as well as representatives of the research and business communities, and environmental organizations. It meets quarterly and is staffed by MPA. •
The Harbor Team was created in 2003 to advise Maryland Port Administration (MPA) on placement options for the Baltimore Harbor as part of the state’s Dredged Material Management Program. Members represent a broad spectrum of community, business, local government and environmental interests from around the harbor. The committee 57 •
completed its report to MPA in late 2003. It currently meets on an as‐needed basis to oversee implementation of its recommendations. It is staffed by MPA and consultants. The Bay Enhancement Work Group provides advice to the Maryland Port Administration (MAP) and its dredged material management program partners on environmental issues related to placement of dredged material. BEWG members represent resource management and regulatory agencies at the federal and state level, as well as stakeholder groups including fishermen and communities. BEWG meets monthly on the first Tuesday, only as necessary. Staff support is provided by MPA’s Harbor Development section and by Maryland Environmental Service. •
•
•
•
The Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) provides advice to the Maryland Port Administration (MPA) and its Dredged Material Management Program (DMMP) partners on dredging issues. Members represent communities, local governments, recreational and commercial users of the Bay and environmental interests. The chair of CAC sits on the Management Committee and reports to the Executive Committee. The committee meets every other month and is staffed by a consultant. The Cox Creek Citizens Oversight Committee oversees the implementation of the Cox Creek Dredged Material Containment Facility in Anne Arundel County, MD. The committee provides advice to the Maryland Port Administration (MPA) regarding the operation of the facility and the potential impacts is may have on the nearby communities, as well as the natural resources in the area. The committee meets approximately three times a year and is staffed by the MPA. The Masonville Citizens Advisory Committee was created in January 2008 to provide advice, oversight and support to the Maryland Port Administration (MPA) on Masonville Dredged Material Containment Facility as part of the State of Maryland’s Dredged Material Management Program. This project is the result of the efforts of the Harbor Team which selected Masonville as a preferred option to address the placement of material dredged from Baltimore Harbor. Members represent a broad spectrum of community, business, local government and environmental interests from around the Brooklyn, Curtis Bay and Cherry Hill communities. It is staffed by MPA and consultants. The Innovative Reuse Committee (IRC) was created in February 2006 to provide advice on the development of a strategy for recycling and reusing dredged material from the Baltimore Harbor. The committee issued its report to the Maryland Port Administration (MPA) in April 2007 and is currently engaged in advising on the implementation of its 58 recommendations. The IRC meets on an as‐needed basis. Staff support is provided by a team of consultants, MPA, and the Maryland Environmental Service. One key element of the Committees is the effort by the Corps of Engineers and the Port to keep the Committee members aware of current events. An example is in Appendix B, “The Paul S. Sarbanes Ecosystem Restoration Project at Poplar Island Monthly Update July 2009.” San Francisco Bay The competing needs of various San Francisco Bay user groups, the ports and related industries, sport fisherman, and the environment reached a crisis point in 1989 when dredging essentially was locked down is what some have termed “Mudlock.” A consensus‐based approach was initiated in 1990, i.e., the Long Term Management Strategy (LTMS), for dredged material management to address and resolve the “dredging problem.” Every year, an average of 3‐6 million cubic yards of sediments must be dredged to maintain safe navigation in and around San Francisco Bay. How to appropriately manage this large volume of dredged material has been a controversial environmental issue for many years. The San Francisco Bay Long Term Management Strategy (LTMS) (See Figure 21) is a cooperative effort of EPA, the US Army Corps of Engineers, the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, and stakeholders in the region to develop a new approach to dredging and dredged material disposal in the San Francisco Bay area. The LTMS serves as the “Regional Dredging Team” for the San Francisco area, implementing the National Dredging Policy in cooperation with the National Dredging Team. The major goals of the LTMS are • Maintain in an economically and environmentally sound manner those channels necessary for navigation in San Francisco Bay and Estuary and eliminate unnecessary dredging activities in the Bay and Estuary; • Conduct dredged material disposal in the most environmentally sound manner; • Maximize the use of dredged material as a resource; and • Establish a cooperative permitting framework for dredging and dredged material disposal applications. In 1996, the LTMS agencies completed a Final Policy EIS/Programmatic EIR selecting the new long‐term plan for achieving these goals. The new approach calls for reducing disposal within San Francisco Bay over time, and increasing recycling of dredged material for "beneficial uses" including habitat restoration, levee maintenance, and construction fill. The 2001 LTMS 59 Management Plan describes the detailed measures by which the LTMS agencies are implementing the EIS/EIR’s new long‐term plan. To implement the fourth goal above, the LTMS agencies established an interagency Dredged Material Management Office (DMMO). The DMMO serves as a "one stop shop" for Bay Area dredging permit applications. In 1998 the DMMO won a national Vice Presidential “Hammer” award for its success in streamlining the permitting process for dredging projects. Figure 21 The LTMS Organizational Structure Appendix C includes the LTMS Executive Summary, the DMMO MOU, and the DMMO Operating Principles. A “spin‐off” of the LTMS and the DMMO is the creation of the San Francisco Bay Delta Dredging Team, the official name: Interagency Delta Dredging and Reuse Management Team. Because many dredging and dredged material management issues in the SF Delta were unique and not 60 addressed by the LTMS, a separate team is being initiated in 2009. The draft charter for that team is included in Appendix C. The foundation of the Team is included in the draft MOU: •
•
Coordination: Dredging projects require consideration of both the dredging events, as well as, the subsequent placement, disposal and/or reuse of the resulting dredged material. In addition, dredging activities are restricted to narrow environmental windows, which require strict deadlines for beginning and ending projects. Dredging projects involve coordination among multiple state and federal agencies, and with multiple stakeholder groups and the general public. Coordination between these multiple groups and agencies can be complex and time consuming. Policy: Dredged material is a potentially valuable resource for the maintenance of levees and as foundation material for economically beneficial construction and development projects. Dredged material also has the potential to contain waste constituents that may negatively impact beneficial uses of surface and ground water. Policy, guidance and regulatory actions need to balance the utilization of this resource while ensuring that appropriate environmental safeguards are in place. The Delta Team aims to address these issues through achievement of the following goals: • Develop policy guidance on subjects related to dredging and dredged material reuse in the Delta region. • Outreach to the regulated community regarding pertinent laws, regulations and policies • Provide direct pre‐project interagency coordination for permitting • Provide public and inter‐agency forum for pre‐project planning and consultation • Establish dredged material reuse policy guidance for routine and emergency requirements. • Establish protocols for joint interagency review of dredging and reuse, projects and pre‐
projects. Los Angeles Contaminated Sediment Task Force (CSTF) On October 12, 1997, Governor Wilson signed into law SB 673 authored by Senator Karnette (Long Beach). This legislation requires the Commission and the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (Board) to establish a multi‐agency Contaminated Sediments Task Force (Task Force). It also requires the Commission and the Board to actively participate in the Task Force and assist in the preparation of a long‐term management plan for dredging and disposal of contaminated sediments in the Los Angeles area. That plan will consider aquatic and upland disposal alternatives, treatment, beneficial re‐use, and other management techniques. Additionally the plan will include a component focused on the reduction of contaminants at their source. 61 The Task Force includes representatives (See Figure 22) from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, California Coastal Commission, Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, California Department of Fish and Game, Port of Long Beach, Port of Los Angeles, City of Long Beach, Los Angeles County Beaches and Harbors, Heal the Bay, and other interested parties. The Task Force consists of an Executive Committee, a Management Committee, five Strategy Development Committees, a Technical Advisory Committee, and an Interim Disposal Advisory Committee. The Executive Committee consists of the head of the four regulatory agencies responsible for managing dredging activities (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. EPA, Regional Board, and Commission) and will conduct regular meetings to assess the progress of the Task Force. The Management Committee is the main evaluation and decision making body for the Task Force and will conduct meetings of the Task Force, which are open to the public. The five Strategy Development Committees are the Upland Disposal and Beneficial Re‐Use Committee, Aquatic Disposal and Dredge Operations Committee, Watershed Management and Source Reduction Committee, Implementation Committee, and Sediment Screening Threshold Committee. These Committees will prepare specific parts of the Strategy. The Technical Advisory Committee will meet on an as needed basis to provide technical support to the Task Force. Finally, the Interim Disposal Advisory Committee will evaluate dredging and disposal projects proposed before completion of the Strategy. Figure 22 Los Angeles Contaminated Sediments Task Force Organizational Structure 62 The members of the Contaminated Sediments Task Force agreed that the Contaminated Sediment Long‐Term Strategy will consider confined aquatic and upland disposal, sediment treatment, beneficial re‐use, other management techniques, and contamination source control. The Task Force identified five basic goals that it must accomplish in preparing the Strategy. These goals are as follows: 1. Identify the locations, sources, approximate quantities, and nature of contaminated sediments that may be dredged in the five‐year period following the completion of the Strategy. The Task Force will update these estimates annually 2. Identify environmentally preferable and feasible management and disposal alternatives for the Los Angeles County region, including multi‐user disposal sites and beneficial re‐
use. 3. Develop the unified set of policies that the various resource and regulatory agencies will need to evaluate dredging of contaminated sediments. 4. Promote and implement region‐wide efforts at source reduction through watershed management. 5. Seek funding for additional studies and implementation of the Strategy. The Task Force is to accomplish these goals through a set of study topics and work tasks implemented by subgroups of the Task Force and through interaction with the public. One of the key committees is the Advisory Committee, the purposes of which include: • Provide a forum for the resolution of contaminated dredge material management issues prior to or concurrent with the existing regulatory permitting program. • Provide for synergistic opportunities for the resolution of regional disposal of contaminated dredge material between different dredging projects when practicable. • Facilitate the permitting process for dredging projects involving contaminated sediments by promoting concurrent project review. • When practicable, provide an opportunity for the tailoring, collection and transfer of information obtained during project planning and implementation, to the benefit of the goals of the CSTF long term management strategy. • Participants in this process agree to participate in good faith in fulfilling these purposes. Advisory Committee participants include the following participants: Applicant (one of the following depending on the project jurisdiction) ° U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Planning/Operations ° Port of Los Angeles ° Port of Long Beach ° City of Long Beach ° County of Los Angeles ° Other 63 Regulatory (all should be present) ° U. S. EPA Region IX ° U. S. Army Corps of Engineers – Regulatory ° Los Angeles District Regional Water Quality Control Board ° California Coastal Commission Resource Agency (one or more representative at CDMDP meeting depending on issues) ° U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ° National Marine Fisheries Service ° California Department of Fish and Game Environmental Public Interest Group (at least one should be present) ° Heal the Bay ° Other Appendix D includes the following: CSTF Action Plan, CSTF MOU (pdf), and the CSTF Advisory Committee Operating Guidelines (pdf). New York/New Jersey Harbor‐‐‐‐Port of NY/NJ After years and years of controversy over dredging projects and dredged material management, all of the stakeholders have now come together under the leadership of the National Estuary Program’s Harbor Project to develop and sign on to a Regional Sediment Management Plan. If there are lessons to be learned from opposing sides to the issues, this is a major accomplishment. See Appendix E. Boston Harbor‐Massport: Aquatic Confined Disposal Facilities The Boston Harbor Navigation Improvement Project, a joint project between the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Massachusetts Port Authority (i.e., the Port of Boston), involved both maintenance and improvement dredging of Boston’s Inner Harbor, its tributary channels, and berth areas. The overall project included dredging of approximately 2 million cubic yards of material from the Harbor with disposal of 800,000 cubic yards (1 million cubic meters) of contaminated dredged material into in‐channel containment cells and disposal of clean sediments offshore at the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site. Nine cells were constructed, located in the channel area of the Mystic and Chelsea Rivers. The State Water Quality Certification required 3.3 feet (1 meter) layer of sand after completion of disposal as the cap. An informal team of Massport, the Corps of Engineers, and other federal, state, and local agencies, and other interests including environmental interest groups got together and made the project a 64 success. While not direct restoration of habitat using dredged material, this case study shows the power of sitting down with other interests and working through the issues. The issue: dredging navigation channels and where to put the contaminated dredged material. The solution was aquatic confined disposal cells in the middle of the channel‐‐‐‐a very unique and successful solution that works. The process is what helped achieve the results. The Massport process was informal without formal signings of MOUs and operating principles. Technical Review Group: Boston CAD Cells
MassPort Corps of Engineers State of Mass CZM Program EPA Coastal Advocacy Network Save the Harbor Save the Bay Boston Harbor Association MIT—Sea Grant Program City of Boston U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Marine Fisheries Service State of Mass Department of Environmental Protection State of Mass Department of Marine Fisheries US Coast Guard 65 References 1. Adaptive Management Plan, Paul S. Sarbanes Ecosystem Restoration Project at Poplar Island. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Maryland Port Administration. September 2008. 2. Bay Journal October 1996. 3. Section 1135 Environmental Restoration Projects, Completed in Lake Worth Lagoon, Tim Murphy, P.E.,Project Manager, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 4. Sonoma Baylands, http://www.cooperativeconservation.org/viewproject.asp?pid=334 5. Deer Island: Vern Gwin, Corps of Engineers‐Mobile. 6. Craney Island: Summary of First Regional Workshop on Dredging, Beach Nourishment, and Birds on the South Atlantic Coast; ERDC/EL‐TR‐06‐10. September 2006. 7. Port Fourchon: http://www.btnep.org/projects/printable.asp?id=94 8. Port Fourchon: http://www.lacoast.gov/WATERMARKS/2008‐09/5restoring_ridges/ 9. Tennessee‐Tombigbee Waterway, MS, Confined Disposal Facility: Vern Gwin, Mobile District Corps of Engineers. 10. Galveston Bay: http://www.swg.usace.army.mil/items/hgnc/#FACT 11. Dredging in New Jersey: NJ Office of Dredging and Sediment Technology Suzanne Dietrick,Chief ‐ North Jersey; [email protected]; 12. Big Egg: http://www.georgewright.org/0520frame.pdf 13. Elders Point West New York Harbor: http://www.nan.usace.army.mil/project/newyork/factsh/pdf/jambay.pdf; multiple references: http://usasearch.gov/search?affiliate=nan.usace.army.mil&v%3Aproject=firstgov&query
=Elders+Point&submit=Search&dom0=www.nan.usace.army.mil%2F 14. Flushing Airport Wetlands: Stephen Zahn, Natural Resources Supervisor, NYSDEC 47‐
40 21st Street, Long Island City, NY 11101. [email protected] 15. White Island Brooklyn, NY: http://www.gerritsenbeach.net/wp‐
content/uploads/White%20Island%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf 16. Fort Mifflin, Chuck MacIntosh, (215) 656‐6541 [email protected]. 17. Bark Camp Mine Reclamation: http://www.nynjcoast.org/AMR/barkcampreport.html, Kurt M. Knaus, PADEP (717) 787‐1323 18. Dream Park , http://www.gcianj.com/dream‐park‐welcome‐letter‐gcia‐nj.html, [email protected]; 19. Lower Columbia Solutions Group: http://www.lowercolumbiasolutions.org/. Mikell O’Mealy, LCSG Program Manager, 503‐229‐6590 or [email protected]. 20. Port of Baltimore Dredging Programs: http://www.mpasafepassage.org/ 21. San Francisco Bay Dredging Program‐LTMS: http://www.epa.gov/region09/water/dredging/ltms/index.html, 66 22. Los Angeles Contaminated Sediments Task Force: http://www.coastal.ca.gov/web/sediment/sdindex.html 23. NY/NJ Harbor Regional Sediment Management Plan: http://www.harborestuary.org/reports/Reg_Sed_Mgmnt_Plan0908.pdf 24. Boston Aquatic CAD Cells: International Review of Practices and Policies for Disposal in Ocean and Coastal Waters of Contaminated Dredged Material; prepared for Environment Canada, Craig Vogt Inc, March 30, 2009 25. “Identifying, Planning, and Financing Beneficial Use Projects Using Dredged Material; Beneficial Use Planning Manual; U.S. EPA, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; October 2007. 26. EPA‐Corps Website Beneficial Use of Dredged Materials. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/dots/budm/budm.cfm 67 Appendices A. Acknowledgements B. Lower Columbia Solutions Group B. Charter C. Declaration of Cooperation (sample agreement on actions resulting from a workshop) C. Port of Baltimore: a. Membership of Committees b. Poplar Island Monthly Newsletter D. San Francisco Bay a. Dredged Material Management Office (DMMO) MOU b. DMMO Operating Principles c. LTMS Executive Summary http://www.spn.usace.army.mil/ltms2001/execsummary.pdf d. Delta Dredging and Reuse Management Team draft MOU E. Los Angeles Contaminated Sediments Task Force a. CSTF Action Plan b. MOU c. CSTF Advisory Committee Operating Guidelines F. NY/NJ Harbor Regional Sediment Management Plan 68 Acknowledgements While much of the information in this report was derived from the internet, the conversations with numerous people helped greatly in identification and understanding the background of successful beneficial use projects pertinent to the Great Lakes, and in finding information on team efforts. Thanks much to the following colleagues: Barry Holliday Dredging Contractors of America Doug Clarke Corps of Engineers‐‐ERDC Jeff Waters Corps of Engineers‐‐ERDC Richard Fischer Corps of Engineers‐‐ERDC Joe Hrematz Corps of Engineers—Galveston Bob Blama Corps of Engineers—Baltimore Doris McKillip Corps of Engineers—Portland Greg Williams Corps of Engineers—Wilmington Robert Hienley Corps of Engineers—Galveston Doug Pabst EPA—Region 2 Mike Ott Corps of Engineers—Portland Larry Dandra EPA—Region 2 Tom Verna Corps of Engineers—IWR Betty Spinelli Hudson County Economic Development Corporation Tom Fredette Corps of Engineers—New England Vern Gwin Corps of Engineers—Mobile Mark Mendelson Corps of Engineers—Baltimore Suzanne Detrick State of New Jersey Steve Zahn State of New York Brian Ross EPA—San Francisco Also, David Knight of the Great Lakes Commission is recognized for sponsoring this effort and acknowledging the need to find case studies of restoration of habitat using dredged material and to identify examples of cooperative team efforts that made dredging projects successful. 69 Appendices B‐E Appendices B‐E are in pdf format and available in a separate Document. 70