Former Brownfields property,

restored to natural habitat

ECOLOGICAL REVITALIZATION:

Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets

Former RCRA Corrective Action facility, 

restored to a wetland

Constructed wetland on a 

Superfund landfill site

Former army 

ammunition plant, 

now a national 

tallgrass prairie 

Former weapons manufacturing site, 

now a national wildlife refuge

Former Brownfields 

property, transformed 

into a natural habitat

Former RCRA Corrective 

Action facility, 

now part of

the Audubon Trail

A pocket park at a 

former service station

Former Superfund site February 2009 restored to natural habitat
About the cover page: Ecological Revitalization in Action 

Descriptions are in a clock-wise direction, starting with top right. 

1. Former RCRA Corrective Action facility, restored to a wetland: Ecological revitalization at the 

AMAX Metals Recovery Inc. (now Freeport McMoRan) in Braithwaite, Louisiana, where a water 

retention pond was dewatered to form a wetland that provided a home to alligators relocated due to 

Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Photograph courtesy of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Corrective Action Program.

2. Former weapons manufacturing site, now a national wildlife refuge: Nearly 27 square miles at 

Rocky Mountain Arsenal (RMA) in Colorado, one of the worst hazardous waste sites in the country, 

have been transformed into one of the nation’s largest urban national wildlife refuges. The open space 

surrounding a former weapons manufacturing facility at RMA provides a home for nearly 300 species 

of wildlife including birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and fish. Photograph courtesy of EPA Office 

of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (OSRTI).

3. Former RCRA Corrective Action facility, now part of the Audubon Trail: At England Air Force Base 

in Louisiana, areas excavated during cleanup became part of the Audubon Trail, provided habitat and 

a stopping point for migratory birds, and expanded an 18-hole golf course. Photograph courtesy of EPA 

RCRA Corrective Action Program.

4. Former army ammunition plant, now a national tallgrass prairie: At the Joliet Army Ammunition 

Plant (JOAAP) in Illinois, nearly 19,000 acres of land contaminated with explosives and other 

chemicals were remediated and transformed into the Midewin national tallgrass prairie, one of the 

first in the country. About a third of Midewin is now open to the public with trails for hiking, biking, 

or horseback riding, and areas to observe habitat revitalization. Photograph obtained from a JOAAP 

brochure titled “From War to Peace” provided by EPA Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office (FFRRO).

5. Former Brownfields property, restored to natural habitat: With assistance from an EPA Brownfields 

Assessment grant, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, was able to turn blighted land into natural and 

recreational greenspace. The 23.5-acre former industrial property has been transformed into hiking 

trails, picnic grounds, scenic overlooks of the Susquehanna River, and nesting habitat that fostered the 

reemergence of the Bald Eagle in this area. Photograph courtesy of EPA Office of Brownfields and Land 

Revitalization.

6. Former Brownfields property, transformed into a natural habitat: At the Hoquarton Natural 

Interpretive Trail in Tillamook, Oregon, a former lumber mill was transformed into a recreational and 

educational greenspace using an EPA Revolving Loan Fund. Weeds and invasive plants were 

removed, more than two tons of trash was disposed of, and over 2,000 native plants were introduced 

in riparian areas. A nature trail provided walking and bird watching opportunities. Photograph 

courtesy of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.

7. Constructed wetland on a Superfund landfill site: At the 1.2-acre landfill at the Naval Amphibious 

Base Little Creek Superfund Site in Virginia Beach, Virginia, 29,000 tons of non-hazardous soil and 

debris were removed and 6,300 cubic yards of clean fill were imported to convert the landfill to a tidal 

wetland. Plants were placed along designated elevations to establish tidal wetland vegetation, using 

the neighboring marsh as a reference. Photograph courtesy of Bruce Pluta, EPA Region 3, Biological 

Technical Assistance Groups (BTAG). 

8. A pocket park at a former service station: The small West Ogden Pocket Park property in urban 

Chicago, Illinois, was a former service station that included a derelict building where underground 

storage tanks (UST) ranging in size from 600 to 10,000 gallons were dumped illegally. At this site, 

eleven USTs containing gasoline, diesel, heating oil, and used oil were present. UST removal, site 

cleanup, and revitalization led to the opening of the pocket park in summer of 2001 and added muchneeded greenspace to the surrounding neighborhood. Photograph courtesy of EPA Office of Underground 

Storage Tanks and Wildlife Habitat Council fact sheet, EPA-510-F-04-007.

9. (Center) Former Superfund site, restored to natural habitat: At the Jacks Creek/Sitkin Smelting & 

Refining, Inc. Superfund Site in Maitland, Pennsylvania, wetlands were recreated in the riparian 

corridor along Jacks Creek. Vernal pools were created, woody debris was placed in the wetland as 

invertebrate habitat, and a wet meadow seed mix was used. Photograph courtesy of Bruce Pluta, EPA 

Region 3, BTAG. 
Office of Solid Waste EPA 542-R-08-003 

and Emergency Response February 2009 

www.epa.gov/tio

http://clu-in.org

Ecological Revitalization: 

Turning Contaminated Properties 

Into Community Assets 
i

Table of Contents 

Section Page 

Notice and Disclaimer ...................................................................................................................ii

EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Organizational Chart .........................iii 

Executive Summary.................................................................................................................ES-1

1.0 Introduction....................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Ecological Revitalization and Ecological Reuse ................................................................................... 1-2

1.2 General Program Initiatives.................................................................................................................... 1-3

1.3 General Process Considerations ............................................................................................................. 1-4

2.0 Ecological Revitalization Under EPA Cleanup Programs ............................................. 2-1

2.1 General Programmatic Considerations ................................................................................................. 2-1

2.2 Superfund Sites......................................................................................................................................... 2-5

2.3 Federal Facilities ....................................................................................................................................... 2-8

2.4 RCRA Corrective Action Facilities........................................................................................................2-10

2.5 Brownfields Properties ...........................................................................................................................2-13

2.6 Underground Storage Tank Sites ..........................................................................................................2-15

3.0 Technical Considerations for Ecological Revitalization ............................................... 3-1

3.1 Considerations When Selecting Cleanup Technologies for Ecological Revitalization ................... 3-1

3.2 Cleanup Planning and Design Issues and Ecological Revitalization ................................................ 3-3

3.3 Minimizing Ecological Damage During Cleanups .............................................................................. 3-4

4.0 Wetlands Cleanup and Restoration ................................................................................ 4-1

5.0 Stream Cleanup and Restoration .................................................................................... 5-1

6.0 Terrestrial Ecosystems Cleanup and Revitalization ...................................................... 6-1

7.0 Long-Term Stewardship Considerations........................................................................ 7-1

8.0 References.......................................................................................................................... 8-1

Appendices 

Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies 

Appendix B: Additional Ecological Revitalization Resources 

Appendix C: Acronyms 
ii

Notice and Disclaimer 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) funded preparation of this document under Contract 

No. EP-W-07-078. It was prepared by EPA’s Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) 

cleanup programs, including the Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (OSRTI), 

Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery (ORCR) (formerly known as Office of Solid Waste), 

Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office (FFRRO), Office of Brownfields and Land Revitalization 

(OBLR), and Office of Underground Storage Tanks (OUST). 

This document has undergone EPA and external review by subject matter experts. All web links 

provided in this document were accurate and valid at the time of publication. Mention of trade names or 

commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. If you have questions 

about this document, please contact Ms. Michele Mahoney, EPA, by phone at 703-603-9057 or via e-mail 

at mahoney.michele@epa.gov. 

To view or download a portable document format (PDF) version of Ecological Revitalization: Turning 

Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets (EPA 542-R-08-003), visit the Hazardous Waste Clean-up 

Information (CLU-IN) system Web site at www.clu-in.org/download/issues/ecotools/ 

Ecological_Revitalization_Turning_Contaminated_Properties_into_Community_Assets.pdf. A limited 

number of printed copies are available free of charge and may be ordered via the Web site, by mail, or by 

fax from: 

EPA/National Service Center for Environmental Publications 

P.O. Box 42419 

Cincinnati, OH 45242-2419 

Telephone: 800-490-9198 

Fax: 301-604-3408 

Web site: www.epa.gov/nscep 
iii

EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency 

Response Organizational Chart 

(As of January 2009) 

Note: Highlighted EPA offices contributed to the development of this document.

Federal 

Facilities 

Restoration 

and Reuse 

Office 

Innovation 

Partnership and 

Communication 

Office 

Center for 

Program 

Analysis 

Immediate 

Office of the 

Assistant 

Administrator 

Organizational 

Management 

and Integrity 

Staff 

Office of 

Program 

Management 

Information 

Management 

and Data Quality 

Staff 

Policy Analysis 

and Regulatory 

Management 

Staff 

Acquisition and 

Resources 

Management 

Staff 

Office of 

Emergency 

Management 

Office of 

Superfund 

Remediation and 

Technology 

Innovation 

Office of Resource 

Conservation and 

Recovery 

Office of 

Underground 

Storage Tanks 

Office of 

Brownfields 

and Land 

Revitalization 
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets 

Executive Summary ES-1 

Executive Summary 

Ecological revitalization refers to the process of returning land from a contaminated state to one that 

supports a functioning and sustainable habitat. Although the final decision on how a property is reused 

is inherently a local decision that often rests with the property owner, the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) actively supports and encourages ecological revitalization, when appropriate, during and 

after the assessment and cleanup of contaminated properties under its cleanup programs. This document 

(1) provides an overview of EPA’s cleanup programs and resources available to support ecological 

revitalization; (2) addresses technical considerations to help cleanup project managers and other 

stakeholders carry out ecological revitalization at contaminated properties; and (3) presents general 

planning and process considerations for ecological revitalization of wetlands, streams, and terrestrial 

ecosystems as well as successful long-term stewardship. Appendix A at the end of the document 

presents additional case studies on ecological revitalization. 

Ecological Revitalization Under EPA Cleanup Programs. Ecological revitalization of 

contaminated properties is consistent with EPA’s mission to protect human health and the environment, 

and it is an integral component of EPA’s cleanup programs. Under its cleanup programs, EPA ensures 

that (1) ecological revitalization does not compromise the protectiveness of the cleanup and (2) the best 

interests of stakeholders are considered. EPA’s cleanup programs have established initiatives that 

support ecological revitalization and provide a variety of tools, information resources, and technical 

assistance. Collaboration and coordination with stakeholders is important for promoting ecological 

revitalization across EPA’s programs. 

Technical Considerations for Ecological Revitalization. Technical considerations for ecological 

revitalization include selecting appropriate cleanup technologies, addressing waste left in place, and 

minimizing ecological damage during the cleanup. When selecting a cleanup technology, the following 

may reduce ecosystem impacts during cleanup: 

• Preventing access by animals that could cause damage to a cleanup technology 

• Locating equipment and utilities to minimize disruption to on-site and surrounding habitat 

• Selecting surface vegetation that will thrive and not interfere with the cleanup 

• Evaluating the effects of amendments 

Excavation and earthmoving equipment can significantly disrupt existing habitat during cleanup. 

Cleanup project managers are encouraged to consider the following steps to minimize habitat effects and 

encourage successful ecological revitalization: 

• Developing and communicating ecology awareness 

• Designing property-wide work zones and traffic plans 

• Minimizing excavation and retaining existing vegetation 

• Phasing work to stabilize one area of the property before another is disturbed 

• Considering property characteristics 

• Protecting on-site fauna 

• Locating and managing waste and soil piles to minimize erosion 

• Designing containment systems with habitat considerations 

• Reusing indigenous materials whenever practical 

• Controlling erosion and sedimentation 

• Ensuring that borrow areas minimize effects on habitat 

• Avoiding the introduction of new sources of contamination or undesirable species 
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets 

Executive Summary ES-2 

For properties where waste is left in place, this document provides solutions and considerations for 

certain ecological revitalization issues that may arise. These include restoring soils, stabilizing metals, 

maintaining surface vegetation, and managing attractive nuisance issues. 

Wetlands Cleanup and Restoration. Wetlands are of particular concern because in addition to 

intercepting storm runoff and removing pollutants, they provide food, protection from predators, and 

other vital habitat factors for many of the nation’s fish and wildlife species. Important considerations for 

planning and designing wetland cleanup and restoration include: 

• Evaluating the characteristics, ecological functions, and condition of wetlands 

• Determining beneficial wetland functions and structures after the cleanup 

• Developing a wetlands design that will achieve the stated ecological functions 

• Ensuring that cleanup activities and wetland features have minimal effects on existing wetlands 

• Specifying and implementing explicit maintenance requirements 

Stream Cleanup and Restoration. Stream cleanups often disrupt stream flow and habitat. 

Considerations for (1) designing and implementing cleanups that facilitate ecological revitalization of 

streams and stream corridors and (2) mitigating adverse ecological effects of constructing cleanup 

features include: 

• Stream channel restoration decisions about channel width, depth, cross-section, slope, and alignment 

• Streambank stabilization measures (temporary and permanent) 

• Streambank vegetation approaches 

• Management of watershed processes such as increased runoff or sediment loading from construction 

Bioengineering techniques that stabilize the soil or streambank by establishing sustainable plant 

communities have become an increasingly popular approach to streambank restoration. Stabilization 

techniques may include using a combination of live or dormant plant materials, sometimes in conjunction 

with other materials such as rocks, logs, brush, geotextiles, or natural fabrics. 

Terrestrial Ecosystems Cleanup and Revitalization. Establishing a plant community that will 

thrive with minimal maintenance is a critical step in developing a healthy terrestrial ecosystem on 

cleanup properties. Factors to consider when establishing terrestrial plant communities in disturbed 

areas include: 

• Soil suitability and the need for soil amendments or soil stabilization 

• Property-specific plant selection with a preference for native plants 

• Protection from disturbances (such as from grazing animals and vehicles) 

• Timing to ensure optimal plant establishment 

Long-Term Stewardship Considerations. On cleanup completion, operation and maintenance 

(O&M) activities through responsible stewardship protect the integrity of the cleanup and the functioning 

of the associated ecosystems. Specifically for properties where waste is left in place, long-term 

stewardship is necessary to ensure protectiveness of the remedy. When designing a successful O&M 

program for ecological revitalization, it is important to consider the following: 

• Planning early for long-term stewardship 

• Incorporating ecological revitalization components into general maintenance activities 

• Establishing a monitoring program that incorporates the ecological revitalization components 

• Using institutional controls to prevent activities that could potentially interfere or disturb ecologically 

revitalized areas
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets 

Section 1: Introduction 1-1 

Ecological Revitalization Benefits a Variety of Stakeholders 

Cleanup Project Managers. A restored habitat can reduce long-term operation and maintenance 

(O&M) requirements without compromising the effectiveness of the cleanup action. A restored 

habitat can also help optimize property engineering controls, such as using vegetation to reduce surface 

water infiltration or using wetlands as part of stormwater controls. 

Potentially Responsible Parties. A valuable restored habitat could enhance a company’s image and 

reputation in the community. Getting a property cleaned up and reused can also ease liability 

concerns, which in turn may have a positive financial impact. 

Local Government. An ecological reuse may increase tourism, tax revenues, property values, and 

quality of life for residents. 

Local Citizen Groups and Individuals. Increasing habitat and passive recreational activities can 

improve the character of the neighborhood, employment opportunities, and area air and water quality. 

Environmental Organizations. Ecological revitalization projects may provide the opportunity to 

protect or improve local and regional habitats.

1.0 Introduction 

Revitalizing properties for ecological purposes helps to achieve U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA)’s goal of restoring contaminated properties to environmental and economic vitality. The term 

“ecological revitalization” refers to the process of returning land from a contaminated state to one that 

supports functioning and sustainable habitat. Although the final decision on how stakeholders will reuse 

a property is inherently a local decision that often rests with the property owner, EPA supports and 

encourages ecological revitalization as part of the cleanup of contaminated properties across all of its 

cleanup programs. Ecological revitalization has many positive effects that apply to a variety of 

stakeholders (see text box below). The objectives of ecological revitalization and those of the remediation 

process are best accomplished if they are carefully coordinated. To this end, this document provides 

general information for coordinating ecological revitalization during the cleanup of contaminated 

properties, as well as technical considerations for implementing ecological revitalization of wetlands, 

streams, and terrestrial ecosystems during cleanup. 

The purpose of this document is to assist cleanup project managers and other stakeholders to better 

understand, coordinate, and carry out ecological land revitalization at contaminated properties during 

cleanup. The focus of this document is primarily on planning-level issues, not detailed design 

approaches, along with technical information and references for executing ecological revitalization 

activities at contaminated properties. This document highlights (1) several considerations and initiatives 

under EPA’s Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) cleanup programs that support 

ecological revitalization, (2) a variety of tools and resources that are available to assist cleanup project 

managers and other stakeholders, and (3) case studies that provide examples of ecological revitalization 

at cleanup properties. Another purpose of this document is to help facilitate cross-program networking 

while planning, designing, and implementing cleanups to help increase valuable ecosystems that are 

created or improved through ecological revitalization. To that end, Appendix A provides case studies on 

ecological revitalization approaches taken at various cleanup properties and identifies specific points-ofcontact who can provide valuable insights for those interested in implementing ecological revitalization 

at their properties. 
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets 

Section 1: Introduction 1-2 

Ecological Revitalization 

and Ecological Reuse 

There is a distinction between the 

terms ecological “revitalization” 

and “reuse” but they are related. 

Ecological revitalization returns 

land to a functioning and 

sustainable habitat. Ecological 

revitalization of a site can lead to 

an ecological reuse, where 

proactive measures have been 

implemented to create, restore, 

protect, or enhance a habitat for 

terrestrial or aquatic plants and 

animals (EPA 2006e). 

The document is organized into the following sections: 

• Section 2 presents an overview of EPA’s cleanup programs and their revitalization initiatives, 

tools, and resources available to support ecological revitalization. 

• Section 3 provides general technical considerations for implementing ecological revitalization, 

including cleanup technology considerations, cleanup planning and design issues, and 

considerations for minimizing ecological damage during cleanups. 

• Section 4 provides technical considerations for planning and designing wetland cleanups and 

restoration efforts. 

• Section 5 provides technical considerations for designing and implementing cleanups that 

facilitate ecological reuse of streams and stream corridors and for mitigating potential adverse 

ecological impacts of constructing cleanup features. 

• Section 6 presents factors to consider for establishing terrestrial plant communities in disturbed 

areas, including general revegetation principles; protecting or creating natural terrestrial 

ecosystems, meadows, or prairies; and establishing vegetation on semi-arid or arid lands. 

• Section 7 provides considerations for operation and maintenance (O&M) activities to ensure the 

ongoing integrity of the cleanup and functioning of the associated ecosystems after cleanup 

completion. 

This document was developed by EPA’s OSWER cleanup programs, including the Office of Superfund 

Remediation and Technology Innovation (OSRTI), Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery (ORCR) 

(formerly known as Office of Solid Waste), Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office (FFRRO), Office of 

Brownfields and Land Revitalization (OBLR), and Office of Underground Storage Tanks (OUST) (see the 

OSWER organizational chart, shown on page iii). Figure 1-1 on the following page identifies specific elements 

of each OSWER program office’s strategic plans, action plans, or program policies that establish support for 

ecological revitalization. EPA also encourages other public and private interests, including state and local 

governments and land trusts, land banks, and nonprofit organizations to participate in ecological 

revitalization activities, particularly in long-term stewardship at cleanup properties. While the scope of this 

document includes the EPA offices listed above, the information could be useful to a wide variety of 

additional stakeholders with an interest in the reuse or redevelopment of a cleanup property, specifically to 

create, restore, improve, or protect ecological resources. Therefore, this document also provides information 

that can be applicable to cleanup project managers, potentially responsible parties, Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act (RCRA) corrective action facility 

owners/operators, local governments, citizen groups, 

environmental organizations, and other interested 

individuals. 

1.1 Ecological Revitalization and 

Ecological Reuse 

The terms “ecological revitalization” and “ecological reuse” 

are often used interchangeably. However, there is a subtle 

distinction between the terms. Ecological revitalization refers 

to the technical process of returning land from a contaminated 

state to one that supports functioning and sustainable habitat. 

Ecological reuse refers to the outcome of a cleanup process and 

includes those areas where proactive measures (such as a 

conservation easement) have been implemented to create, 

restore, protect, or enhance a habitat for terrestrial or aquatic 

plants and animals (EPA 2006e). In this sense, the process of 

ecological revitalization of a property can lead to an ecological 

reuse outcome. 
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets 

Section 1: Introduction 1-3 

Figure 1-1. Ecological Revitalization as a Component of EPA Cleanup Programs 

Ecological reuse is different from greenspace use in that, in addition to habitat, the latter can include 

parks, playgrounds, and gardens; ecological reuse strives to restore native habitat and does not include 

active recreation activities. However, low-impact or passive recreation, such as hiking or bird watching, 

may occur at ecological reuse properties. In addition, ecological revitalization can occur on a portion of a 

cleanup property adjacent to greenspace use (for example, a golf course with native plant species 

surrounding the course), commercial operations, or industrial use. Further, ecological revitalization can 

occur at varying degrees; some areas of a property may be restored to relatively pristine, historic 

conditions, while other areas may be planted with native or other compatible species. Both degrees of 

ecological revitalization lead to habitat that one may accurately characterize as ecological reuse. 

1.2 General Program Initiatives 

EPA’s 2006-2011 Strategic Plan (EPA 2006a) restates EPA’s commitment to protect human health and the 

environment, including restoring the nation’s contaminated land and enabling communities to return 

restored properties safely to beneficial economic, ecological, and social use. As part of the strategic plan, 

EPA established five goals, including: 

• Clean Air and Global Climate Change (Goal 1) 

• Clean and Safe Water (Goal 2) 

• Land Preservation and Restoration (Goal 3) 

• Healthy Communities and Ecosystems (Goal 4) 

• Compliance and Environmental Stewardship (Goal 5) 
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets 

Section 1: Introduction 1-4 

Interstate Technology and Regulatory 

Council (ITRC) Collaboration on Ecological 

Revitalization 

ITRC, a state-led coalition working with the federal 

government, industry, and other stakeholders to achieve 

regulatory acceptance of environmental technologies, has 

compiled a wealth of information on ecological 

revitalization. ITRC’s document “Planning and Promoting 

Ecological Land Reuse of Remediated Sites” (ITRC 2006) 

provides recommendations that are applicable to active and 

inactive properties and all programs. Visit the following 

Web site for more information: www.itrcweb.org. 

Ecological revitalization contributes 

to each of these goals. For example, 

EPA’s cleanup programs (under Goal 

3) have set a national goal of 

returning formerly contaminated 

properties to long-term, sustainable, 

and productive use (EPA 2006a). 

These programs include Superfund 

(under authority of the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act [CERCLA] of 1980, as 

amended), Corrective Action (under 

authority of RCRA), Underground 

Storage Tanks (UST), Federal 

Facilities Restoration and Reuse, and 

Brownfields (under Goal 4). In 2003, 

EPA introduced the Land 

Revitalization Initiative to (1) promote cross-program coordination on land reuse and revitalization 

projects and (2) ensure that stakeholders clean up contaminated properties and make them available for 

productive use. At properties that involve multiple cleanup programs, land revitalization encourages a 

“one cleanup program” approach to improve consistency, management, and cost-effectiveness of the 

program. Cleaning up previously contaminated properties for reuse reinvigorates communities, 

preserves open space, and prevents sprawl. This initiative goes beyond ecological revitalization, and 

stakeholders can use land in many ways, including new public parks, restored wetlands, and new 

businesses. For more information on land revitalization, visit the following Web site: 

www.epa.gov/oswer/landrevitalization/basicinformation.htm. 

In 2006, OSWER issued the Interim Guidance for OSWER Cross-Program Revitalization Measures (CPRM) 

(EPA 2006b, 2006e) to help track land revitalization at the national level. These revitalization measures 

show how EPA cleanup programs currently track their revitalization activities, as shown in Table 1-1. 

While all environmental restoration activities that lead to reuse options are beneficial, this document 

focuses on ecological revitalization, which is becoming even more important as communities are 

increasingly seeing ecological revitalization as a desirable process to achieve a viable reuse outcome. 

1.3 General Process Considerations 

Ecological revitalization activities can occur on a wide variety of properties and could be compatible with 

several types of end uses. When considering ecological revitalization at a property, it may be useful to 

consider the following: 

• It is important to begin the ecological revitalization process early in the cleanup. 

• Ecological revitalization is not a short cut for cleanup and can have strict cleanup standards. 

• Habitat can be created on an entire property or on a portion of a property, and can be created 

adjacent to other end uses such as intermodal centers or industrial areas. 

• Ecological revitalization is not typically considered an “enhancement,” so it can generally be 

funded by EPA (under the Superfund Program, for example), and may be needed under Section 

404 of the Clean Water Act. 

• Ecological revitalization provides a variety of environmental, economic, and social benefits. 

The remainder of this document further discusses these considerations. 
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets 

Section 1: Introduction 1-5 

Table 1-1. Cross-Program Revitalization Measures Tracked by Each EPA 

Cleanup Program 

EPA Cleanup Program 

Performance Measures and Indicators 

OSRTI ORCR FFRRO OBLR OUST 

Universe Indicator: The number of contaminated, potentially 

contaminated, or previously contaminated properties and surface 

acres for which OSWER’s cleanup programs have an oversight 

role for assessment or response action. 

a b a c d 

Protective for People (PFP) measure: The number of acres 

at which there is no complete pathway for human exposures to 

unacceptable levels of contamination based on current property 

conditions. 

a b a c d 

Ready for Anticipated Use (RAU) measure: The number 

of acres at a property that meets the criteria for the PFP 

measure, as well as (1) all cleanup goals have been achieved for 

current and reasonably expected land uses and (2) all institutional 

or other controls have been put in place. 

a b a c d 

Status of Use Indicator: How the acres at a property subject 

to the Universe Indicator are being used at the point in time 

when the determination is made. 

a ** a -- -- 

Type of Use Indicator: For programs, regions, states, local 

governments, or tribes that are looking for measures they could 

use to help describe in more detail how contaminated or 

potentially contaminated properties under their jurisdiction are 

currently being used. For example, “ecological use” is a type of 

use under this indicator. 

a ** a c -- 

References: EPA 2007e; f; g and EPA 2009 

Notes: 

** Reporting of Indicator is voluntary at this time. 

-- Indicator not tracked. 

a New Land Reuse Module in Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System 

(CERCLIS) used to track CPRM information, independent of Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) goals. 

OSRTI reports “Ready for Reuse” as a GPRA measure (based on status of cleanup and institutional controls [IC]), which 

equates to both PFP and RAU. 

b Through 2008, the RCRA facility Indicator Universe will consist of all RCRA Corrective Action 2008 GPRA baseline 

facilities. For 2009 and beyond, the RCRA facility Indicator Universe will consist of all RCRA Corrective Action 2020 

facilities. The Current Human Exposures Under Control Environmental Indicator (HE EI) will be used to report the PFP 

measure. A “RCRA RAU Documentation” form has been developed to assist in implementing this performance measure. 

Status of Use and Type of Use indicators are not being required at a national level. Universe and RAU data elements have 

been incorporated into the RCRA Information System (RCRAInfo Version 4.0 released in December 2008). 

c OBLR is using Property Profile Form data to report on the Universe Indicator (properties and acres where assessment or 

cleanup are reported as complete for the first time under a Brownfields grant) and Type of Use Indicator (Greenspace, 

Residential, Commercial, Industrial, and Mixed Use). OBLR is also using their Property Profile Form to collect information 

on the “Ready for Reuse” measure (based on status of cleanup and IC), which equates to both PFP and RAU measures and 

is being reported as a Government Performance and Results Act measure by OBLR. Indicator and measure information is 

being tracked in the EPA OBLR Assessment, Cleanup, and Redevelopment Exchange System (ACRES) database. 

d OUST’s “Confirmed Release” will equal one site and one acre for the Universe Indicator; OUST’s “Cleanup Completed” 

will equal one acre for both the PFP and RAU performance measures. 
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets 

Section 1: Introduction 1-6 

Figure 1-3: Considerations When Planning for 

Ecological Revitalization 

Figure 1-2: Before and after photographs of the Bunker Hill Superfund Site in Idaho where contamination 

was left on-site and capped with biosolids compost and wood ash. A long-term O&M plan was established to 

ensure that attractive nuisance (see definition on page 3-2) issues did not result. See Appendix A for 

additional information. Photographs courtesy of Dr. Sally Brown, University of Washington. 

Ideally, the process of ecological 

revitalization begins during the 

assessment or investigation 

phase of a cleanup rather than 

after the remedy is underway; 

this allows for the greatest 

range of potential options and 

end uses. As discussed 

throughout this document, 

ecological revitalization needs 

additional considerations to 

ensure protection of wildlife 

that could end up inhabiting the 

cleaned up property, in addition 

to protecting human health and 

the environment. Some of these 

additional considerations are 

included in Figure 1-3. 

Ecological revitalization is not a 

short cut for property cleanup, 

but rather a viable and 

productive reuse option that 

also ensures protection of 

human health and the 

environment. Potential 

challenges to consider early in 

the process include (1) liability 

if additional cleanup or 

maintenance is needed, 

especially in the long term; 
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets 

Section 1: Introduction 1-7 

(2) public health and access if the cleanup property is converted to habitat; (3) how ecological 

revitalization, which can be slower than other reuse alternatives, will impact surrounding areas, and (4) 

transfer of land and long-term stewardship. Therefore, while ecological revitalization can be considered 

at all contaminated properties, it may not be appropriate for all properties. There are a variety of 

considerations needed to ensure protectiveness (further discussed in Section 2), including conducting an 

ecological risk assessment (ERA), avoiding attractive nuisances (see definition on page 3-2), and 

bioaccumulation issues. For example, at the Bunker Hill Superfund Site in Idaho (shown in Figure 1-2), 

attractive nuisance issues were taken into account while ecological revitalization was being considered as 

an option. For additional information on bioaccumulation and EPA’s persistent, bioaccumulative, and 

toxic chemical program, visit the following Web site: www.epa.gov/pbt/index.htm. In addition, 

ecological revitalization may require other considerations to ensure successful creation of habitat, such as 

controlling invasive plant species. Technical performance measures (TPM) are available to determine the 

success of ecological revitalization as part of a cleanup process. For additional information on TPMs, visit 

the following Web site: www.clu-in.org/products/tpm. 

Although commercial, industrial, residential, and some recreational uses are not ecological reuse, habitat 

can be incorporated as a portion of or adjacent to these redeveloped areas. For example, at the Joliet 

Army Ammunition Plant (JOAAP), a tallgrass prairie was created among large intermodal centers and 

other industrial areas. British Petroleum (BP) also plants native vegetation at its refineries adjacent to 

areas where occasional spills may occur to provide phytoremediation, if necessary. See Appendix A for 

additional information regarding the JOAAP in Illinois and the BP Former Refinery in Wyoming (a 

photograph of JOAAP revitalization is also included on the cover of this document). 

Ecological revitalization provides a variety of positive environmental, economic, and social impacts. 

Some positive impacts of ecological revitalization are as follows (Interstate Technology and Regulatory 

Council [ITRC] 2006; EPA 2006d): 

• Repairs damaged land 

• Improves soil health 

• Supports diverse vegetation 

• Reduces erosion 

• Sequesters carbon 

• Controls landfill leachate 

• Protects surface and ground water from potential contamination 

• Helps remove stigma associated with prior waste site 

• Enhances property values and raises tax revenue 

(www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/recycle/pdf/method.pdf) 

• Provides passive recreational opportunities 

• Contributes to a green corridor or infrastructure 

Additional environmental, economic, and social impacts are listed in the ITRC’s document, “Making the 

Case for Ecological Enhancements” at www.itrcweb.org/Documents/ECO-1.pdf. 

The remainder of this document provides background information on ecological revitalization in relation 

to EPA’s cleanup programs, and technical information and resources to assist in implementing ecological 

revitalization at contaminated properties. 
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets 

Section 2: Ecological Revitalization Under EPA Cleanup Programs 2-1 

2.0 Ecological Revitalization Under EPA 

Cleanup Programs 

EPA’s mission across its cleanup programs is to protect human health and the environment. Ecological 

revitalization of contaminated properties is consistent with this mission and is an integral component of 

EPA’s cleanup programs. EPA recognizes the important role that it plays in helping communities and 

other stakeholders clean up and reclaim contaminated properties, which has led to specific programs and 

initiatives that support the revitalization and reuse (or continued productive use) of properties as part of 

their assessment and cleanup. The nature and extent of EPA involvement in supporting ecological 

revitalization varies from program to program, as well as from property to property. Moreover, the 

decision on whether and how stakeholders will reuse a property for ecological or other purposes is 

inherently a local decision that usually rests with the property owner. 

This section presents an overview of each cleanup program under EPA OSWER (see the organizational 

chart on page iii of this document) and its revitalization initiatives, which provides the programmatic 

context for evaluating and taking steps to support ecological revitalization as part of cleaning up 

contaminated properties. Section 2.1 provides several considerations that are common to each cleanup 

program; Sections 2.2 through 2.6 address each program separately. 

2.1 General Programmatic Considerations 

Depending on the specific circumstances at a contaminated property, EPA’s OSWER cleanup programs 

manage, oversee, or provide assistance with investigation and cleanup under one of several different 

programs, including the Superfund, Federal Facilities, RCRA Corrective Action, Brownfields, and UST 

programs. In some cases, individual contaminated properties can be subject to multiple OSWER 

programs. For example, the Rocky Mountain Arsenal involves the RCRA Corrective Action, Superfund, 

and Federal Facilities programs (Appendix A provides a case study on this site; a photograph is also 

included on the cover of this document). As illustrated in Table 2-1 below, a variety of property types 

can fall under the purview of one or more programs. With proper planning, these programs can support 

ecological revitalization as part of, or following, cleanup. 

Table 2-1: Property Types Commonly Managed Under EPA Cleanup Programs 

EPA Cleanup Programs 

Example Property 

Type Superfund Federal 

Facilities 

RCRA Corrective 

Action Brownfields UST 

Foundry X X X 

Gas Station X X 

Landfill X X X X 

Manufacturing Facility X X X X 

Industry/Solvent Use X X X X 

Military Installation X X X X 

Other Federal 

Facilities* X X X X 

Mining X X X 

Refinery X X X X 

Tannery X X X 

* Non-military use facilities owned or operated by the federal government 
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets 

Section 2: Ecological Revitalization Under EPA Cleanup Programs 2-2 

Ecological Revitalization Cleanup Standards 

in the Calumet Region, Chicago, Illinois 

On the south side of Chicago, Illinois, a roundtable team of 

federal, state, and local agencies developed the Calumet 

Area Ecotoxicology Protocol to specifically address 

ecological revitalization activities in this region (Calumet 

Ecotoxicology Technical Roundtable Team 2007). The 

protocol includes cleanup standards that are protective for 

both human health and ecological receptors, which may be 

more stringent than federal and state industrial and 

commercial cleanup goals. Sites being cleaned up in the 

Calumet Region follow the protocol to ensure 

protectiveness of human health and the environment as 

well as streamline the cleanup process. 

Whether being addressed under one or 

several of EPA’s cleanup programs, 

several factors determine whether and 

how ecological revitalization can be 

supported at a specific property. 

These factors are discussed below. 

Protectiveness. An important 

consideration when evaluating the 

ecological revitalization of a property 

is ensuring protectiveness for both 

human health and the environment. 

EPA does not lower its standards of 

protection for a property that will be 

reused, nor does it allow reuse to 

reduce effectiveness of cleanup 

measures. Under its cleanup 

programs, EPA ensures that 

contamination is either completely removed, cleaned up to acceptable levels, or managed using 

protective measures that reduce the possibility of exposure to the contamination. If all contamination is 

eliminated, then human health and the environment are fully protected and the land or water body is 

available for ecological or others types of use. Where protective measures are in place for waste that 

remains after the cleanup, EPA determines whether such measures will continue to provide protection 

for ecological reuse, or whether that use might impair the protective measures. In some cases, the 

presence of certain contaminants (for example, persistent pollutants that are readily bioavailable, such as 

metals and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons [PAH]) remaining after the cleanup may preclude 

ecological revitalization efforts on those portions. Cleanup project managers will make these 

determinations on a case-by-case basis. One of the key challenges to implementing ecological 

revitalization under EPA’s cleanup programs is that cleanup goals applicable to habitat creation can 

necessitate complex analyses. Cleanup goals for ecological protection may also need to be more stringent 

than for protection of human health (see text box above). Another challenge stems from a lack of 

familiarity with ecological end uses and ways in which to quantify the value of such end uses (EPA 2005). 

Enhancement. The extent of EPA’s involvement in supporting ecological revitalization at a 

contaminated property depends on the cleanup program involved, the legal authorities under which the 

property operates, and the specific property at issue. For example, under the Superfund Program, EPA 

cannot fund ecological enhancements (that is, activities not necessary for the protection of human health 

and the environment); rather, it can encourage enhancement activities funded by other stakeholders and 

can fund aspects of a cleanup project that are necessary for the anticipated future uses of a property. 

Under the Superfund Program, EPA can fund activities to better understand the reasonably anticipated 

future land use, which informs remedy selection and implementation and helps support long-term 

protectiveness. Anticipating the future use of a Superfund site after cleanup completion is of key 

importance in selecting and designing a remedy that will be consistent with that use. Similarly, EPA’s 

Brownfields Program provides, among other things, technical assistance to communities to support plans 

for ecological and other “green” enhancements to the cleanup and reuse of properties (for example, 

designing rain gardens, native landscaping, or green infrastructure), but not the actual revitalization or 

reuse activities themselves. Other programs, such as RCRA Corrective Action or UST, encourage and 

support ecological revitalization through their established relationships with states that have delegated 

programs and through collaborative efforts with governmental and non-governmental organizations. 

State programs may also have limitations for funding activities that are not directly needed for the 

protection of human health and the environment. Property owners may see the benefits of supporting 

the reuse of properties, including the ecological revitalization of the land, particularly when it affects 

public perception of their business operations and commitment to the environment. Moreover, EPA may 
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets 

Section 2: Ecological Revitalization Under EPA Cleanup Programs 2-3 

Empire Canyon, Daly West Mine Site, Summit County, Utah 

A resort development company has proposed the construction of a hotel, spa, and condominium 

project at the Daly West Mine Site, to be known as the Montage Resort & Spa. The development will 

contribute to the cleanup of contamination at this former mining site in Park City, Utah. The 

developer agreed to participate in EPA’s Environmentally Responsible Redevelopment and Reuse (ER3) 

Initiative for contaminated properties. As an ER3 participant, the Montage Resort & Spa will 

incorporate extensive “green” features into the design, construction, and operation of the 

development, including several ecological revitalization components. For example, the project involves 

treatment of ground water collected by foundation drains using a constructed wetland; a native 

vegetation management plan to improve ecosystem health and reduce the risk of wildfires around the 

site; and a conservation easement for 2,800 acres of open space to offset additional density from the 

project. By incorporating sustainable practices and principles into the project, the developer has 

minimized the impact of the project on the environment without sacrificing profitability. 

Other Cross-Cutting Ecological 

Revitalization Considerations for EPA 

Cleanup Programs 

• Liability: Consider who will be responsible if 

additional cleanup or maintenance is required, 

especially in the long-term. 

• Public Health and Access: Consider whether the 

public will safely be allowed to use the property if it is 

converted to habitat. 

• Surrounding Areas and Time: Ecological 

revitalization can impact surrounding areas because, 

while ecological revitalization can be a more costeffective process, the time required to return a 

property to functioning and stable habitat can take 

longer than other reuse alternatives. 

• Transfer of Land and Long-Term Stewardship: 

Ensure that institutional controls are in place and 

operating effectively, and consider who will be the 

long-term landowner responsible for stewardship of 

the ecological revitalization and associated natural 

resources. 

be able to offer certain incentives to support ecological revitalization under its initiatives, such as EPA’s 

Environmentally Responsible Redevelopment and Reuse (ER3) Initiative. 

In general, most ecological revitalization efforts are not considered enhancements if the activities are 

necessary for the anticipated future ecological use of the property or to restore ecological function and, 

therefore, can be considered and incorporated into property cleanup plans. Even costs for extensive 

revitalization efforts to create or restore the function of an ecosystem can be justified if the revitalization 

is needed because of environmental stressors or adverse impacts to the property caused by the cleanup. 

For example, grasses, shrubs, and other native plants serve a practical function of stabilizing soil to 

prevent erosion, while also improving 

the property’s aesthetics and ecological 

function. 

Stakeholder Involvement. 

Regardless of which EPA program is 

involved in the assessment, cleanup, 

and revitalization of a contaminated 

property, numerous stakeholders may 

have an interest in the actions taken at 

the property, including the following: 

• Other federal, state, local, or 

tribal agencies 

• Parties responsible for the 

contamination 

• Current landowners 

• Neighboring property owners 

and the surrounding 

community 

• Prospective purchasers or 

future users of the property 

With different stakeholders potentially 

involved at a contaminated property, 

the ecological revitalization of the 
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets 

Section 2: Ecological Revitalization Under EPA Cleanup Programs 2-4 

property will need to consider the varied interests, objectives, and requirements of those stakeholders. 

Successful ecological revitalization efforts have typically resulted from well-facilitated processes that 

encourage open communication and the exchange of information among the stakeholders at a property. 

Additional Initiatives That Support Sustainable Cleanup and Reuse. In addition to specific 

initiatives that are supported by EPA’s cleanup programs (and described in the following sections), there 

are other EPA initiatives that can also support ecological revitalization at contaminated properties 

regardless of which OSWER program is supporting the cleanup. These initiatives include the following: 

EPA’s EcoTools Initiative provides a variety of resources for cleanup project managers, especially under 

the Superfund program. In addition to technical information, the EcoTools Web site provides cleanup 

project managers access to ecological experts via a technical assistance service. For more information, 

visit www.clu-in.org/ecotools. 

EPA’s ER3 Initiative uses enforcement and other EPA-wide incentives to promote sustainable cleanup 

and redevelopment of contaminated properties. Under the ER3, EPA collaborates with federal, state, 

public, and private partners to identify, develop, and deliver incentives to encourage developers and 

property owners to implement sustainable practices during the redevelopment of contaminated 

properties. The primary components of ER3 are to (1) identify and provide enforcement and EPA-wide 

incentives to developers and property owners to encourage sustainable cleanup and development; (2) 

develop partnerships with federal, state, public, and private entities to establish a network of expertise on 

sustainable development issues; and (3) promote sustainable redevelopment of contaminated properties 

through education and outreach. For more information on ER3, visit 

www.epa.gov/compliance/cleanup/revitalization/er3/index.html. 

EPA’s Five Star Restoration Program brings together students, conservation corps, other youth groups, 

citizen groups, corporations, landowners, and government agencies to provide environmental education 

and training through projects that restore wetlands and streams. The program provides challenge grants, 

technical support, and opportunities for information exchange to enable community-based restoration 

projects. Visit www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/restore/5star for additional information about the Five 

Star Restoration Program. 

EPA’s GreenAcres Initiative promotes natural and sustainable landscaping practices using native plants 

and other green landscaping strategies. The GreenAcres Initiative is a component of EPA’s Great Lakes 

National Program Office and its efforts to promote an integrated, ecosystem approach to protect, 

maintain, and restore the chemical, biological, and physical integrity of the Great Lakes. Under 

GreenAcres, EPA provides information and resources on using native plants and natural landscape 

approaches in urban, suburban, and corporate settings. For more information, visit 

www.epa.gov/greenacres. 

EPA’s Green Infrastructure Partnership is an initiative to work with partners to promote green 

infrastructure as an environmentally preferable approach to stormwater management. In January 2008, 

EPA and its partners released an action strategy for managing wet weather with green infrastructure. 

The strategy provides a collaborative set of actions that promote the use of green infrastructure and 

outlines efforts to bring green infrastructure technologies and approaches into mainstream wet weather 

management. For more information about this partnership and the action strategy, visit 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/home.cfm?program_id=298. 

EPA's Green Remediation Initiative promotes the use of best management practices (BMP) to maximize 

the net environmental benefits of cleanup actions. With the help of public and private partners, EPA 

OSWER is documenting the state of BMPs, identifying ways to improve BMPs, and forming a community 

of BMP practitioners. Technical assistance is offered to cleanup project managers to find new 

opportunities for reducing the environmental footprint of cleanup actions. For more information about 

this initiative, visit www.clu-in.org/greenremediation. 
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets 

Section 2: Ecological Revitalization Under EPA Cleanup Programs 2-5 

EPA's GreenScapes Program identifies cost-efficient and environmentally friendly solutions for 

landscaping. Designed to help preserve natural resources and prevent waste and pollution, GreenScapes 

encourages companies, government agencies, other entities, and homeowners to make more holistic 

decisions regarding waste generation and disposal and the associated impacts on land, water, air, and 

energy use. Visit www.epa.gov/greenscapes for additional information on the GreenScapes Program. 

2.2 Superfund Sites 

EPA’s OSRTI carries out the Superfund Program, which addresses contamination from uncontrolled 

releases at hazardous waste sites that threaten human health and the environment. EPA manages the 

Superfund Program under the authority of the CERCLA, 1980, as amended. Under the Superfund 

Program, abandoned, accidentally released, or illegally dumped hazardous wastes that pose a current or 

future threat to human health or the environment are cleaned up. To accomplish its mission, EPA works 

closely with communities, potentially responsible parties, and other federal, state, local, and tribal 

agencies. Together with these groups, EPA identifies hazardous waste sites, investigates the conditions 

of the sites, formulates cleanup plans, and cleans up sites to ensure that they are protective of human 

health and the environment. 

Superfund cleanups include both long-term and short-term response actions. Long-term cleanups or 

remedial actions are conducted on sites that, following an evaluation, are listed on the National Priorities 

List (NPL). Once on the NPL, EPA follows a thorough process to carefully investigate the site and select 

and carry out a remedy specific to that site. Short-term cleanups called removal actions, fall into three 

categories: (1) non-time critical responses at sites where on-site activities do not need to be initiated for 

more than six months; (2) time critical responses at sites where on-site activities must begin within six 

months; and (3) emergency removal actions at sites that need initiation of on-site activities within hours 

of the decision that action is necessary. EPA’s role and ability to support ecological revitalization may 

vary across these different site types, as discussed below. 

Coordinating Ecological Revitalization Efforts in the Superfund Remediation Process. 

OSRTI established the Superfund Redevelopment Initiative (SRI) to ensure that at every Superfund site, 

EPA and its partners have the necessary tools and information to return the country’s most hazardous 

sites to productive use, including information related to natural resources and ecological revitalization. 

In addition to cleaning up Superfund sites and making them protective of human health and the 

environment, communities and other partners are involved in considering future use opportunities and 

integrating appropriate reuse options into the cleanup process. At previously cleaned sites, communities 

are also involved to ensure the long-term stewardship of the site remedies. For more information on the 

SRI, visit the following Web site: www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/recycle. 

When investigating, designing, and implementing a cleanup, remedial project managers (RPMs) are 

encouraged to consider, to the extent practical, anticipated future land uses. With careful planning, many 

Superfund sites can accommodate ecological revitalization while still meeting the requirements under 

CERCLA and other federal and state regulations. Stakeholders best accomplish the objectives of 

ecological revitalization and those of the remediation process through careful coordination. For example, 

under CERCLA EPA needs to coordinate with all affected Natural Resource Trustees (Trustees) when 

conducting a remedial investigation (RI). Trustees are designated under Executive Order 12580 and 

defined under CERCLA as other federal, state, or tribal governments that act on behalf of the public for 

natural resources under their trusteeship. Trustees often have information and technical expertise about 

the biological effects of hazardous substances, as well as the location of sensitive species and habitats that 

can assist EPA in evaluating and characterizing the nature and extent of site-related contamination. 

Coordination at the investigation and planning stages provides the Trustees early access to information 

they need to assess injury to natural resources. This assists Trustees in making early decisions about 

whether sites need restoration in light of the response actions. 

Several types of ecological studies, including ERAs and Natural Resource Damage Assessments 
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets 

Section 2: Ecological Revitalization Under EPA Cleanup Programs 2-6 

Multiagency Coordination at the Atlas Tack Superfund Site, 

Fairhaven, Massachusetts 

Agency coordination is an essential part of the Atlas Tack Superfund Site remediation. As part of 

planning for the ecological revitalization, EPA coordinated with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(USACE) and used the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Damage 

Assessment, Remediation, and Restoration Program (DARRP), which acts as a Federal natural 

resource trustee. NOAA contributed to the development of site-specific sediment remedial goals and 

the wetland removal plan, and greatly assisted in the design of the mitigation resulting in ecological 

revitalization at no additional cost to EPA. USACE and NOAA jointly designed separate fresh and salt 

water marshes to outcompete an invasive species at the site. Using remedial funding, three Federal 

agencies worked cooperatively to create an effective, natural remedy for the site. For more 

information, see Appendix A and visit www.epa.gov/ne/superfund/sites/atlas.

(NRDAs), support cleanup and ecological revitalization decisions at a Superfund site. EPA utilizes an 

ERA as part of its process for assessing the risks of site-related contamination. ERAs are usually 

conducted during the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) phase of the Superfund response 

process and inform RPMs about the risk associated with the site. While physical impacts of site cleanup 

activities are assessed during the FS, ERAs specifically evaluate the likelihood that adverse ecological 

effects are occurring or may occur because of exposure to chemical (for example, release of hazardous 

substances) stressors at a site. These assessments often contain detailed information regarding the 

interaction of these "stressors" with the biological community at the site. Part of the assessment process 

includes creating exposure profiles that describe the sources and distribution of harmful entities, identify 

sensitive organisms or populations, characterize potential exposure pathways, and estimate the intensity 

and extent of exposures at a site. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), a 

natural resource trustee, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) played an important role in 

remediation of the Atlas Tack Superfund Site in Massachusetts, including conducting a site-specific ERA 

(EPA 2008h) based on the cleanup goals that were established for this site (see text box on this page and 

Figure 2-1). Additional information about this remedy is available at http://www.cluin.org/download/newsltrs/tnandt1208.pdf. 

Trustees also conduct NRDAs, at sites with viable responsible parties, to calculate the monetary cost of 

restoring natural resources injured by releases of hazardous substances. They evaluate damages to natural 

resources by identifying the functions or “services” provided by the resources, determining the baseline level 

of the services provided by the injured resource(s), and quantifying the reduction in service levels because of 

the contamination. ERAs form the basis for establishing cleanup goals and may contain important 

information that EPA, Trustees, and risk assessors can use to evaluate ecological revitalization at a site. 

While property owners and communities generally conduct land use planning with input from 

stakeholders, it is important for EPA to understand the anticipated future uses for the site when planning 

and implementing the remedy. Establishing remediation goals for ecological receptors can be 

challenging if there is limited data on toxicity, effects on receptor species, and contaminant 

bioavailability. These challenges can be overcome by planning ahead and collecting appropriate 

ecotoxicological data (such as contaminant bioavailability and site-specific toxicity), reviewing the open 

literature and previous ERAs for data, and coordinating with stakeholders to identify site-specific 

receptors and past incidents of exposure. Uncertainties that cannot be addressed may be documented as 

part of the site-specific ERA and considered when selecting the site remedy or reuse. Stakeholders have 

the greatest reuse flexibility if remediation and reuse plans are coordinated prior to cleanup. EPA plays 

an important role in the planning process by communicating key information about the nature of 

contamination at the site, remedy options, and long-term protectiveness issues. 
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets 

Section 2: Ecological Revitalization Under EPA Cleanup Programs 2-7 

Technical Assistance for Ecological Revitalization 

at Superfund Sites 

Regardless of the scope of the revitalization project, technical assistance can be obtained from the 

EPA’s regional Biological Technical Assistance Groups (BTAG) (EPA 1991; see Appendix B for links to 

regional BTAG Web sites), EPA’s Emergency Response Team (www.ert.org), EPA’s Office of 

Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (OSRTI; www.epa.gov/tio), EPA’s Ecotools Web 

site (www.clu-in.org/ecotools), and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (www.nrcs.usda.gov). 

Stakeholders can still implement ecological revitalization even after the cleanup is complete. In 2004, 

EPA developed the Return to Use (RTU) Initiative to remove barriers to appropriate reuse at the 

hundreds of Superfund sites where cleanup has been completed. A focus of RTU has been on 

establishing partnerships with communities and other stakeholders to address potential obstacles to 

reuse. Through site-specific partnerships, referred to as demonstration projects, EPA is working with key 

stakeholders at RTU sites to identify potential reuse barriers and appropriate solutions for those obstacles 

(EPA 2008a). For more information on the RTU, visit 

www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/recycle/activities/rtu.html. 

Coordinating Ecological Revitalization Efforts in the Superfund Removal Action Process. 

EPA has prepared a reuse assessment guidance for non-time critical removal actions (see Reuse Assessments 

Directive, OSWER 9355.7-06P, at www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/recycle/policy/reuse.html); however, 

guidance is not currently available regarding reuse assessment for time-critical and emergency removal 

actions. The accelerated and time sensitive nature of these cleanups creates a challenge, as removal teams 

often complete their activities before there is an opportunity to consider reuse. In some cases, cleanup project 

managers can quickly conduct an ERA for a removal action, if there is an eminent threat to ecological 

receptors. However, these instances are rare and the removal action ERA follows the same process outlined 

for long-term ERAs conducted during the RI/FS. Because the time critical removal process is much faster than 

the remedial process, implementing reuse planning involves creating a targeted, expedited approach so that 

reuse can inform the removal action. For example, at the Calumet Container Superfund Site in Hammond, 

Indiana, EPA conducted a time critical removal action where ecological revitalization drove the reuse strategy 

for the site. In addition to contaminated soil removal, the removal action also included restoring wetlands and 

planting native plants. EPA worked successfully and expeditiously with stakeholders to determine future 

anticipated use of the site (see Appendix A for additional information about this site.) 

Tools and Resources. The Superfund Program has developed and made available a variety of tools 

and resources supporting site reuse in general and ecological revitalization in particular (see 

www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/recycle/tools/index.html for a list of specific tools and resources 

that are available). In general, site managers can use SRI guidance documents to create and integrate 

reuse processes at sites undergoing either a remedial and removal action. SRI has also developed a 

community involvement process to advance reuse at remediation sites, which could be helpful at removal 

sites. 

The Superfund Program has also developed several resources for site managers, consultants, and others 

interested in restoring disturbed sites. The Ecotools Web site (www.clu-in.org/ecotools) provides 

information on soil health, principles of ecological land reuse, and links to various federal, state, 

academic, and nonprofit agencies and organizations that support ecological revitalization. Through the 

Ecotools Web site, technical assistance is available for Superfund sites on various ecological revitalization 

topics, including ecological reuse of contaminated sites, use of soil amendments, use of native plants, 

control of invasive species, and re-vegetation. Fact sheets and Web-based seminars that focus on tools, 

methods, and technologies for implementing ecological reuse are also available. Answers to frequently 
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets 

Section 2: Ecological Revitalization Under EPA Cleanup Programs 2-8 

asked questions related to ecological revitalization, re-vegetating landfills and waste containment areas, 

and attractive nuisance issues are available online at www.clu-in.org/pub1.cfm (EPA 2006c, d; EPA 

2007c). The Green Remediation Web site (www.clu-in.org/greenremediation) provides various resources 

for cleanup project managers interested in incorporating green remediation strategies into cleanup 

actions. Resources include information on the use of BMPs; contracting and administrative toolkits; 

decision-making tools; links to initiatives involving green remediation applications; technical resources; 

and site-specific case studies. Technical assistance is also available for cleanup project managers in 

answering general inquiries about green remediation and for Superfund RPMs to build site-specific green 

remediation strategies. A useful resource available through this Web site is a technology primer on 

Green Remediation (EPA 2008j) that outlines the principles of green remediation and describes 

opportunities to reduce the carbon footprint of cleanup activities throughout the life of a project. 

In addition, groups such as regional Biological Technical Assistance Groups (BTAG), which are typically 

composed of biologists, ecologists, and ecotoxicologists from EPA, and agencies such as the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS), NOAA, and state environmental departments, could provide assistance during 

cleanup of a site to support ecological revitalization efforts. 

2.3 Federal Facilities 

EPA’s FFRRO works with other EPA offices and federal entities to facilitate faster, more effective, and 

less costly cleanup and reuse of federal facilities. The federal facilities universe includes NPL sites and 

certain Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) facilities (each subject to their respective provisions of 

CERCLA). The main difference between federal facilities and private Superfund sites is that at federal 

facilities, EPA has an oversight role rather than primary cleanup authority, which falls to the other federal 

agency. Many of the site-specific considerations for Superfund sites listed in Section 2.2 also apply to the 

federal facilities listed on the NPL as well as federal facilities not listed on the NPL (non-NPL sites). 

Additional challenges that might apply to federal facilities include special circumstances based on the 

contamination at that facility, such as munitions constituents. 

Figure 2-1: Before and after photographs of the Atlas Tack Superfund Site in Massachusetts where the 

remedy resulted in preservation of wetland sediment and created a functioning wetland. See Appendix A 

for additional information. Photographs courtesy of Elaine Stanley, EPA Region 1. 
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets 

Section 2: Ecological Revitalization Under EPA Cleanup Programs 2-9 

FFRRO and Interagency Coordination

In addition to EPA, FFRRO works with the following federal agencies to coordinate initiatives related to 

the cleanup of federal properties: 

• Federal Aviation Administration 

• Defense Logistics Agency 

• National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

• National Guard 

• Small Business Administration 

• U.S. Air Force 

• U.S. Army 

• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

• U.S. Coast Guard

• U.S. Department of Agriculture 

• U.S. Department of Defense 

• U.S. Department of Energy 

• U.S. Department of Interior 

• U.S. Department of Transportation 

• U.S. Navy 

Midewin Tallgrass Prairie at the 

Joliet Army Ammunition Plant, 

Will County, Illinois 

After working with the community and other 

stakeholders, the remediation team cleaned up 

contaminated soil through excavation and bioremediation. 

More than 19,000 acres of land was transferred to the 

Forest Service to create the Midewin Tallgrass Prairie, the 

first national tallgrass prairie in the country. While it will 

take years to fully restore the land, about a third is now 

open for the public to observe ongoing habitat restoration, 

as well as to hike, bike, or ride horseback on interim trails. 

For more detailed information about this example, see 

Appendix A. 

FFRRO’s BRAC Program develops policies, plans, and initiatives to expedite the cleanup and reuse of 

closing military installations. Since 1993, the BRAC Program has worked with U.S. Department of 

Defense (DoD), state environmental programs, local governments, and communities to achieve its goal of 

“making property environmentally acceptable for transfer, while protecting human health and the 

environment.” For more information, visit the following Web site: 

www.epa.gov/fedfac/about_ffrro.htm. 

To implement congressionally mandated actions, EPA issued guidance on how to transfer federal 

facilities contaminated with hazardous wastes before cleanup completion. In the past, contaminated 

federal facilities had to undergo complete cleanup at least one year before transfer if hazardous waste 

was released from, disposed of, or stored on-site. Now, federal agencies can transfer properties prior to 

cleanup, as long they meet certain conditions. By transferring property that poses no unacceptable risks, 

communities benefit from faster reuse and redevelopment (EPA 2008c). 

Ecological revitalization is a part of many Department of Energy (DOE) and DoD facility reuse projects. 

Examples include Pease Air Force Base, JOAAP, Rocky Mountain Arsenal, Fernald, and Rocky Flats, 

which all have major ecological reuse components. See Appendix A for additional information on these 

case studies; the cover of this 

document includes a photograph of 

JOAAP. 

Coordinating With Other EPA 

Offices and Programs. In carrying 

out its mission, FFRRO works closely 

with other EPA headquarters offices, 

including OSRTI, which manages the 

Superfund Program; ORCR, which 

manages the RCRA Corrective Action 

Program; and the Federal Facilities 

Enforcement Office (FFEO), which 

oversees compliance with 

environmental laws and guidance. 

EPA's Regional offices are also key 

partners in accomplishing EPA's 

federal facilities mission. RPMs and 
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets 

Section 2: Ecological Revitalization Under EPA Cleanup Programs 2-10 

A Wildlife Refuge at the Rocky Mountain 

Arsenal in Commerce City, Colorado 

EPA is partnering with the Army, Shell Oil, and the 

Colorado Department of Public Health and 

Environment to transform the Rocky Mountain Arsenal 

facility, one of the worst hazardous waste sites in the 

country, into one of the largest urban national wildlife 

refuges. The partnership is addressing contaminated 

ground water, surface water, soils, and buildings. Under 

the management of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS), 27 square miles of open space surrounding 

the manufacturing facility is home to nearly 300 species 

of wildlife. After the cleanup is complete, the property 

will become a permanent part of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System (EPA 2008b). For more detailed 

information about this example, see Appendix A. 

Community Involvement Coordinators 

(CICs), as well as toxicologists; attorneys; 

and reuse, tribal, and environmental 

justice coordinators based in each 

regional office work closely with EPA 

headquarters staff to coordinate sitespecific cleanup activities. For issues 

requiring specialized expertise, FFRRO 

also collaborates with related EPA 

headquarters offices on a project-specific 

basis. Additionally, FFRRO co-chairs the 

Federal Facilities Leadership Counsel 

(FFLC), a coordinating body within EPA 

that provides direction and leadership on 

federal facility cleanup efforts. The FFLC 

is a forum for addressing a wide 

spectrum of federal facility cleanup 

issues, including compliance, technical, 

enforcement, financial, budgeting, and 

legislative issues. The FFLC includes 

EPA regional federal facility program 

and project managers, regional counsels, and headquarters staff from FFRRO and FFEO. 

Coordinating With Other Agencies. FFRRO's partners include governmental and nongovernmental groups that are involved in federal facilities cleanup. FFRRO works directly with other 

federal agencies, primarily DoD and DOE, to coordinate initiatives related to cleanup of federal 

properties. 

FFRRO partners also include state, local, and tribal governments; community groups; environmental 

justice communities; and advocacy organizations. Local stakeholders include individuals, community 

groups and any other entities that might be affected by contamination, cleanup activities, or both. FFRRO 

encourages early and meaningful community involvement at all federal facilities. 

Tools and Resources. FFRRO provides a variety of information resources about its programs, policies, 

and partners. The following Web sites provide access and information about its resources:

Visit www.epa.gov/fedfac/info.htm for access to EPA FFRRO’s publications, newsletters, information 

centers, and other information resources. 

Visit www.epa.gov/swerffrr/policy.htm for access to federal facilities related laws, regulations, policies, 

and guidance. 

Visit FFRRO’s comprehensive, searchable library of resources related to federal facility restoration and 

reuse topics at http://cfpub.epa.gov/fdrl/index.cfm. 

2.4 RCRA Corrective Action Facilities 

EPA’s ORCR regulates all household, industrial, and commercial solid and hazardous waste under 

RCRA, 1981, as amended. One important objective of EPA’s RCRA Program is to protect the public from 

the management and disposal of hazardous wastes that RCRA facilities generate as part of normal 

operations. Examples of RCRA facilities include metal finishing operations, auto body repair shops, dry 

cleaners, chemical manufacturers, foundries, locomotive and railcar maintenance operations, and 

steelworks. In some cases, these facilities are no longer operational, have no significant activity, or are 

now vacant. Accidents or activities by hazardous waste generators or at hazardous waste treatment, 
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets 

Section 2: Ecological Revitalization Under EPA Cleanup Programs 2-11 

BP Former Refinery, Casper, Wyoming

Under a RCRA Corrective Action Consent Decree, BP and the Wyoming Department of 

Environmental Quality (DEQ) cleaned up this 4,000-acre former refinery located along the banks of the 

North Platte River and incorporated several ecological revitalization components, creating wildlife 

habitat and allowing recreational reuse of the facility. Soda Lake, which was once used to dispose of 

waste water from the refinery, has been revitalized. BP worked with local citizens and the Audubon 

Society to design a bird sanctuary and resting ground for migrating birds. The reuse plan also 

incorporated a wetland treatment system into the design of a golf course constructed on the facility. 

The team planted more than 2,000 a trees as part of phytoremediation approach for cleaning up of 

portions of the property (EPA 2007a). This facility is a good example of how ecological revitalization 

measures can be incorporated at a facility with ongoing manufacturing activities. For more detailed 

information about this facility, see Appendix A. 

storage, and disposal facilities regulated under RCRA may release contaminants into the environment. 

The RCRA Corrective Action Program ensures that regulated facilities that accidentally or otherwise 

release hazardous waste investigate and clean up such hazardous releases. The RCRA Corrective Action 

Program differs from Superfund in several ways. First, RCRA facilities often have viable owners and 

operators and on-going operations. As such, how best to use/reuse the property is ultimately the 

decision of the property owner, including whether to incorporate ecological revitalization elements on 

the facility. Second, EPA has delegated the RCRA Program to 43 states and territories that directly 

manage and oversee the Corrective Action Program; EPA implements the program in other unauthorized 

states. 

In 1998, EPA established the RCRA Reuse and Brownfields Prevention Initiative to encourage the reuse of 

facilities subject to corrective action under RCRA so that contaminated or otherwise under-used land 

Figure 2-2: Before and after photographs of England Air Force Base in Louisiana where contaminated areas 

were excavated and became part of the Audubon Trail, providing habitat and a stopping point for migratory 

birds. See Appendix A for additional information. Photographs courtesy of RCRA Corrective Action Program.
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets 

Section 2: Ecological Revitalization Under EPA Cleanup Programs 2-12 

Reuse at RCRA Corrective Action Facilities

In Spring 2001, a survey to determine trends in reuse potential of the 155 RCRA federal lead corrective 

action facilities in EPA Region 5 identified that 32 percent of all facilities (a total of 49) have potential for 

habitat or natural area restoration as a sole option or in combination with other reuses (EPA 2002b). 

While current, nationwide data is not available for ecological reuse of RCRA facilities, at least two 

regions (EPA Regions 3 and 10) recently conducted studies regarding their RCRA facilities’ status and 

type of use. The results show that, even though most land use on RCRA facilities is industrial, as 

stakeholders reuse more RCRA facilities, a broader range of use is occurring. Visit the following Web 

site to review the results from EPA Region 3’s study: 

www.epa.gov/region03/revitalization/R3_land_use_final/data_results.pdf. 

DuPont-Remington Arms 

Facility, Lonoke, Arkansas 

The DuPont-Remington Arms 

Facility continues to manufacture 

munitions on 385 acres of the 

1,116-acre facility. The company 

manages the remaining 731 acres as 

a wildlife habitat. In cooperation 

with Ducks Unlimited, the cleanup 

team constructed a 20-acre moist 

soil impoundment for waterfowl 

habitat (EPA 2007b). See Appendix 

A for more detailed information 

about this facility. 

transitions back into productive use or greenspace (EPA 

2008a). Several activities under this initiative support the 

ecological revitalization of RCRA facilities. One such 

activity is a cooperative agreement between EPA and the 

Wildlife Habitat Council (WHC). Under this agreement, the 

WHC works with EPA and other stakeholders to 

incorporate ecological revitalization into the cleanup design 

for end uses, hence providing wildlife habitat (WHC 2008). 

For example, corrective action at the Ford Rouge Center in 

Dearborn, Michigan, included ecological components to 

minimize impacts to the Rouge River. The cleanup team 

restored or created new wildlife habitat, including 

hedgerow wildlife corridors and wetland and grassland 

restoration. In addition to wildlife habitat, the project 

included other sustainable elements, such as installing a 

vegetated roof, using pervious pavement, and including 

phytoremediation. Because many aspects of the project 

involved ecological enhancement activities, the Ford Motor 

Company funded most of the activities on the property, 

with some additional funding provided through a state grant (for a stormwater swale) and an EPA grant 

to the Dearborn Public Schools System under its Five Star Restoration Grants Program (to support 

wetlands restoration activities). See Appendix A for a case study regarding this facility. 

EPA introduced RCRA Cleanup Reforms in 1999 (EPA 1999b) and additional Reforms in 2001 (EPA 2001) 

to more effectively meet the goals of the RCRA Corrective Action Program and speed up the pace of 

cleanups. One initiative of the 2001 Cleanup Reforms is capitalizing on the redevelopment potential of 

RCRA Corrective Action facilities. In addition, the RCRA program issued guidance to tailor cleanups to 

facility-specific end uses, including ecological end uses, while maintaining the ultimate goal of protecting 

human health and the environment. The “Guidance on Completion of Corrective Action Activities at 

RCRA Facilities” 68 FR 8757 (Feb 25, 2003) describes how corrective actions can be completed with 

contaminants remaining, using controls tailored to protection for a specific end use for the property (EPA 

2005). 

In most cases, facilities that are subject to RCRA corrective action continue their operations throughout the 

cleanup process. Although operations continue at these facilities, opportunities to incorporate ecological 

revitalization measures still may exist at parts of the property where there are no ongoing operations (see the 

DuPont-Remington Arms Facility text box). Facilities that are no longer continuing their current industrial or 

waste management operations may also provide opportunities for ecological revitalization. Some examples 

include the Ford Rouge Center in Michigan, the BP Oil facility in Lima, Ohio, and the Hopewell Plant 

(Honeywell) in Hopewell, Virginia. See Appendix A for additional information on these case studies. In 
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets 

Section 2: Ecological Revitalization Under EPA Cleanup Programs 2-13 

Sequim Bay Estuary, 

Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe, Washington 

The Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe used an EPA Brownfields 

Cleanup grant to clean up and restore estuary function to 

82 acres of Sequim Bay. Cleanup activities included 

removing pilings, contaminated soil, and solid waste from 

the shoreline and riparian wetlands. The bay now 

provides clean sediment and habitat for shellfish, salmon, 

and other species. See Appendix A for more detailed 

information about this case study. 

some cases, especially with large properties, parcels of the property may provide special reuse opportunities 

(for example, riverfront location, road or rail access, or community reuse interest). In particular, many large 

RCRA facilities are federal facilities that may include large tracts of land that could be suitable for ecological 

revitalization or conservation easements. Stakeholders may be able to reuse uncontaminated parcels or those 

parcels on a shorter cleanup schedule more quickly than the entire facility (EPA 2008e). For example, at the 

former England Air Force Base in Alexandria, Louisiana, areas excavated as part of a remedial action became 

part of the Audubon Trail, providing habitat and a stopping point for migratory birds (see Figure 2-2). See 

Appendix A for additional information on this case study. 

Tools and Resources. ORCR provides a variety of information resources about its programs, policies, 

and partners. The following Web sites provide access and information about its resources: 

Visit www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/correctiveaction/bfields.htm for information on the RCRA 

Brownfields Prevention Initiative and case study examples of successes under the initiative. 

Visit www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/correctiveaction/resources/index.htm for guidance and other 

information about RCRA corrective action. 

2.5 Brownfields Properties 

EPA’s OBLR manages the Brownfields Program under the authority of Small Business Liability Relief and 

Brownfields Revitalization Act of 2002 (the “Brownfields Law”). EPA designed its Brownfields Program 

to empower states, communities, and other stakeholders to work together in a timely manner to prevent, 

assess, safely clean up, and sustainably reuse brownfields properties. 

Brownfields are real property1, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by 

the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant. Included in the 

definition of Brownfields properties are sites contaminated with petroleum that represent a relatively low 

risk, including properties where the contamination resulted from an UST (Section 2.6 provides 

information on EPA’s UST Program). An estimated 450,000 brownfields properties are located 

throughout the country (www.epa.gov/brownfields/about.htm). Cleaning up and reinvesting in these 

properties relieves development pressures on undeveloped, open land while both improving and 

protecting the environment. 

The Brownfields Program is a grant-based program that promotes green, ecological, and open space uses 

as part of its competitive grants process. These grants support revitalization efforts by funding 

environmental assessment, cleanup, 

and job training activities. 

Brownfields funds can support 

sustainable remediation measures and 

planning for ecological revitalization 

(as the reuse of the property), but 

typically not actual revitalization or 

reuse activities. EPA’s grant review 

process generally favors grant 

proposals that include ecological reuse 

as part or all of the ultimate reuse 

goals, especially with respect to 

greenspace and sustainable use 

criteria. The ultimate decision on 

 

1 “Real property” is a legal term indicating a property consisting of lands and of all appurtenances to lands, as buildings, crops, 

or mineral rights (distinguished from personal property). 
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets 

Section 2: Ecological Revitalization Under EPA Cleanup Programs 2-14 

Brownfields and Land Revitalization Technology Support Center (BTSC)

Coordinated through EPA's Technology Innovation Program, the BTSC ensures that Brownfields 

decision makers are aware of the full range of technologies available to make informed or "smart" 

technology decisions for their properties, including support for ecological revitalization. BTSC provides 

a readily accessible resource for unbiased assessments and supporting information on options relevant 

to specific properties, including a technology-oriented review process for investigation and clean-up 

plans for these properties. The BTSC also provides information about other available support activities, 

such as those conducted by the Technical Assistance to Brownfields (TAB) Program located at five 

regional Hazardous Substance Research Centers. Direct support is available to EPA regional staff, state 

staff, and local governments. For more information, visit www.brownfieldstsc.org. 

whether a brownfields property will include ecological revitalization remains with the community 

receiving the grant. Although data specifically on the ecological revitalization of brownfields properties 

are not available, data reported by grantees on reuse measures for OBLR from fiscal year (FY) 2003 to 

FY2007 indicated that an estimated 4,756 acres were ready for reuse, and more than 507 acres of 

greenspace or open space were created (EPA 2008i). The Grace Lease property in Pennsylvania (see 

Figure 2-3) is an example of a restored Brownfields property, which had been dormant for nearly a 

century and was then converted into a natural habitat. A Brownfields Assessment Grant allowed 

stakeholders to study contaminant levels at the blighted property, remove uncertainties associated with 

property contamination, and transform the dormant property into usable greenspace for the community. 

The Brownfields Program also encourages the incorporation of green infrastructure into brownfields 

redevelopment projects. Green infrastructure techniques, such as bioswales, green roofs, and rain 

gardens, present an opportunity to return land to functioning and sustainable habitat. Other green 

infrastructure practices can also retain, treat, and release stormwater without exposing it to contaminated 

soils. For more information about this effort, visit 

www.epa.gov/brownfields/publications/swdp0408.pdf. 

Figure 2-3: Before and after photographs of the Grace Lease Property in Pennsylvania, where a former 

industrial area was revitalized to natural habitat. See Appendix A for additional information. Photographs 

obtained courtesy of Office of Brownfields and Land Revitalization. 
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets 

Section 2: Ecological Revitalization Under EPA Cleanup Programs 2-15 

The Brownfields Program also provides Training, Research, and Technical Assistance Grants to fund 

projects that explore innovative ideas in the areas of protection of human health and the environment, 

sustainable development, and equitable development. Each assistance project will receive between 

$100,000 and $150,000 in annual funding for up to five years. Recipients can use the grants to support a 

variety of projects including, ecological revitalization, sustainable uses of land, and green jobs in 

communities. For more information about these grants, visit www.epa.gov/brownfields/trta.htm. 

Other initiatives under the Brownfields Program can also contribute to ecological revitalization of 

brownfields properties. For example, through its partnership with Groundwork USA and the National 

Park Service Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program, OBLR works with communities to 

improve their environment, economy, and quality of life through local action. This partnership also 

results in the ecological reuse of brownfields properties through Groundwork Trusts. Visit 

www.groundworkusa.net/index.html for more information about the Groundwork USA network. 

Under the Sustainable Sites Initiative, EPA is currently working with the U.S. Green Building Council to 

provide a framework for the green development of brownfields properties. The framework is similar to 

what the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) system has accomplished for green 

buildings. The framework includes considerations for cleaning or mitigating all hazardous substances 

from prior use, supporting sustainable landscape principles and practices, and preventing the creation of 

future brownfields. For more information, see the following document: 

www.sustainablesites.org/report/SSI_Guidelines_Draft_2008.pdf. 

Tools and Resources. OBLR provides a variety of information resources about its programs, policies, 

and partners. The following Web sites provide access and information about these resources: 

Visit www.brownfieldstsc.org for information on strategies, technologies, and technical assistance 

available to support the investigation and cleanup of brownfields properties. 

Visit www.epa.gov/swerosps/bf/toolsandtech.htm for access to a variety of tools and technical 

resources available to support property reuse. 

Visit www.epa.gov/swerosps/bf/initiatives.htm for information on the various EPA and related 

initiatives that may be applicable at brownfields properties. 

Visit www.epa.gov/swerosps/bf/partnr.htm to learn more about the partnerships that EPA has entered 

in support of brownfields revitalization and reuse. 

2.6 Underground Storage Tank Sites 

EPA’s OUST manages and oversees the UST Program, which seeks to prevent leaks or releases of 

petroleum or certain hazardous substances from USTs, and ensures that contamination from USTs is 

cleaned up. OUST manages the program under the authority of several statutes, including Subtitle I of 

RCRA, as amended by the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments, the 1986 Superfund 

Amendments and Reauthorization Act, and the Energy Policy Act of 2005. States and territories 

primarily implement the UST Program, while EPA implements the UST Program in Indian Country. 

OUST administers the Leaking UST Trust Fund, which provides money for (1) overseeing and enforcing 

corrective action taken by a responsible party, who is the owner or operator of the leaking UST; and (2) 

implementing cleanups at UST sites where the owner or operator is unknown, unwilling, or unable to 

respond, or which need emergency action. 

A key provision of the 2002 Brownfields Law allocates 25 percent of funding each year to assess, cleanup, 

and make ready for reuse petroleum brownfields properties that are relatively low risk. Of the estimated 

450,000 brownfields properties in the U.S., approximately half are affected by USTs or some type of 

petroleum contamination (EPA 2008f). OUST is responsible for promoting the cleanup of sites with 
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets 

Section 2: Ecological Revitalization Under EPA Cleanup Programs 2-16 

Pocket Park at a Former Service Station, 

Chicago, Illinois 

A former service station in Chicago was transformed into 

a small pocket park using native plantings. This pocket 

park initiative is a joint effort by BP, the City of Chicago, 

and the local community. The contaminants of concern at 

the site were benzene, toluene, xylenes, and ethylbenzene 

(BTEX) at levels above maximum contaminant levels 

(MCLs) but not at levels that would pose a risk to the 

surrounding community. Once the site received “no 

further remediation” letters and was considered cleaned 

up, the team planted native species to create pockets of 

habitat for wildlife, expand greenspace for the community, 

and reduce stormwater runoff by reducing paved surfaces. 

See Appendix A for more detailed information about this 

example; this document’s cover also includes a photograph 

of this pocket park.

leaking USTs and coordinates with 

OBLR to refine the implementation of 

the law’s petroleum provisions to 

allow more sites to support 

appropriate reuse or revitalization 

(EPA 2008d). 

To encourage the reuse of abandoned 

properties contaminated with 

petroleum from USTs, OUST created 

the USTfields Initiative in 2000. 

USTfields are abandoned or 

underused industrial and commercial 

properties where revitalization is 

complicated by real or perceived 

environmental contamination from 

USTs. The purpose of these pilots was 

to promote the importance of publicprivate partnerships; the critical role of 

the state as the primary implementing 

agency; and the leveraging of private 

funds to maximize cleanups. 

Although OUST will not award any new USTfields pilots beyond the original 50 pilots, sites may receive 

funding for similar assessment and cleanup projects through the Brownfields assessment, cleanup, and 

revolving loan fund grants and through the Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) Trust Fund. 

Coordinating with Other Agencies. A major component of OUST’s efforts to support the 

revitalization of contaminated sites caused by leaking USTs is collaboration with federal, state, and local 

agencies, and tribal and private partners to foster the revitalization and reuse of petroleum-contaminated 

sites. OUST also works with numerous grant recipients to enhance their efforts to revitalize petroleum 

brownfields. For example, OUST collaborated with the Indiana Brownfields Trails and Parks Initiative, 

which uses EPA grant funding to provide environmental assessments to local governments and nonprofits for brownfields properties (including petroleum brownfields) where parks, trails, or other green 

uses are planned (see www.in.gov/ifa/brownfields/files/TPI_Fact_Sheet_6-18-08.pdf for more 

information on this state program). OUST is also partnering with EPA’s Office of Policy, Economics, and 

Innovation (OPEI) to utilize several assistance mechanisms, such as the SmartGrowth America National 

Vacant Properties campaign. This campaign provides local planners with the information needed to 

consider viable reuse options, such as green or open spaces, at abandoned or under-utilized service 

stations and other petroleum brownfields. 

OUST entered into a cooperative agreement with the WHC to help maximize the ecological benefits of 

reusing petroleum brownfields. One goal of the agreement is to demonstrate how federal, state, and local 

governments, tribal partners, industry, and community groups can use ecological revitalization to 

facilitate the restoration of petroleum brownfields for a variety of uses, including wildlife habitat. Under 

the agreement, the WHC will demonstrate the use of the latest technologies for applying ecological 

enhancements to site cleanups. Specific objectives for the partnership include: (1) achieving greater 

regulatory flexibility and support for ecological enhancements; (2) developing a strategy for obtaining 

constructive and meaningful stakeholder involvement; (3) ensuring sound scientific and technical 

support for ecological enhancement practices; and (4) promoting the value of ecological enhancements 

through a broad range of communication tools. OUST works with the WHC to identify opportunities to 

include ecological enhancements in end use plans at petroleum-contaminated sites. The pocket park 

project highlighted in the text box on the previous page is one of several successes resulting from this 

collaboration. WHC documents and provides case studies on a variety of programs on the following 

WHC Web site: www.wildlifehc.org/brownfield_restoration/lust_pilots.cfm. 
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets 

Section 2: Ecological Revitalization Under EPA Cleanup Programs 2-17 

OUST collaborated across all levels of government and with private industry to develop a Petroleum 

Brownfields Action Plan that improves stakeholder communications; expands technical assistance to 

states, tribes, and local governments; explores potential policy changes; and builds upon existing 

successes by expanding partnerships and testing new and innovative approaches to petroleum 

brownfields revitalization (EPA 2008d). The Action Plan provides a comprehensive framework for 

enhancing revitalization efforts at petroleum brownfields and promoting information sharing from both 

public and private sector efforts to revitalize petroleum brownfields. Four initiatives outlined in the 

Action Plan cover broad areas and can further EPA’s collective efforts to highlight all applicable reuse 

options. Tasks within three of those initiatives are applicable to ecological revitalization and include the 

following: 

• Action Item 1.3 provides a basis for developing a "petroleum reuse/options catalogue" that could 

help compile and update information on reuse options and associated partnerships, as well as 

provide insights for interested parties to consider when addressing comparable sites. 

• Action Item 2.3 provides a framework to help eligible entities develop voluntary inventories of 

petroleum brownfields that complement local end use planning efforts. 

• Action Item 4.2 promotes the use of greenspace or wildlife habitat through collaboration with 

wildlife habitat organizations and property owners (of abandoned oil fields or urban petroleum 

brownfields) to support converting these properties to wildlife habitats. 

OUST does not currently track the indicators listed in Table 1-1 related to the status and type of end use. 

However, OUST is committed to tracking the mandatory measures and has developed the OUST CrossProgram Measures commitment memorandum (EPA 2007e). Petroleum brownfields sites are difficult to 

track and coordinate because of their small size, scattered distribution, variable ownership, and 

associated uncertainties in cleanup costs and liability. Continued coordination with organizations, such 

as the WHC, could help to provide a consistent means of tracking site reuse. Revitalizing petroleum sites 

also remains a local endeavor, and by enhancing public-private coordination, OUST intends to promote 

the appropriate use of petroleum brownfields sites to help meet community, end user, and stakeholder 

needs. Ultimately, though, local organizations drive the end use of each site. 

Tools and Resources. OUST provides a variety of information resources about its programs, policies, 

and partners. The following Web sites provide access and information about its resources: 

Visit www.epa.gov/swerust1/pubs/index.htm for publications that support the investigation and 

cleanup of leaking USTs. 

Visit www.epa.gov/swerust1/rags/ustfield.htm to learn more about the USTFields Initiative and to 

access case studies on the pilot projects for examples and lessons learned associated with the reuse of 

former UST properties. 

More information about the issues and opportunities associated with petroleum or UST brownfields 

cleanups is also available at www.nemw.org/petroleum%20issue%20opportunity%20brief.pdf

(Northeast-Midwest Institute 2007; EPA 2008e).
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets 

Section 3: Technical Considerations for Ecological Revitalization 3-1

When designing and implementing 

a cleanup action, it is important to 

consider the following: 

• Physical and biological condition of the property and 

its location in relation to local and regional plant and 

animal species 

• Regulatory requirements governing cleanup and 

protection or creation of ecologically significant areas 

• Temporary and long-term ecological impacts 

• Types of habitats that are to be protected, restored, 

or created at the property 

3.0 Technical Considerations for Ecological 

Revitalization 

There are several technical considerations for implementing ecological revitalization while cleaning up a 

property that are common to each of the cleanup programs discussed in Section 2.0. The objectives of 

ecological revitalization and those of the cleanup process are best accomplished if they are coordinated 

carefully. This section summarizes technical considerations for common cleanup and revitalization 

technologies that stakeholders can use during planning and design with the intent to minimize ecological 

damage during cleanups. Specifically: 

• Section 3.1 presents factors to consider when selecting cleanup technologies for ecological 

revitalization. 

• Section 3.2 addresses issues that may occur when waste is left in place at a cleanup property, how 

they could affect ecological revitalization, and potential approaches to mitigate these issues. 

• Section 3.3 identifies ways to minimize ecological disruptions during cleanups. 

3.1 Considerations When Selecting Cleanup Technologies for Ecological 

Revitalization 

When designing and implementing any cleanup action at a contaminated property, it is necessary to 

consider certain factors related to natural resources or ecological revitalization (see text box below). 

Numerous in situ cleanup technologies can be used to ensure that contaminated properties are managed 

in a manner that protects human health and the environment; complies with federal, state, and local 

cleanup requirements; and allows for safe ecological revitalization. These cleanup technologies can 

include source control treatment (for example, soil vapor extraction and bioremediation), source control 

containment (for example, caps and barriers), institutional controls, and monitored natural attenuation. 

For additional information on a variety of cleanup technologies, visit EPA’s CLU-IN Web site (www.cluin.org/techfocus) and the Annual Status Report (www.clu-in.org/asr). These cleanup technologies can 

affect ecosystems such as wetlands, streams, and upland areas such as meadows, prairies, and 

woodlands; therefore, it is important to consider their possible effects during ecological revitalization. 

While many of these effects are technology and property-specific, some general considerations apply, 

including the following: 

• Amendments: Some in situ treatments involve adding amendments to the contaminated media. 

Project managers could evaluate their effects in the subsurface, their potential for eventual 

transport to surface waters, 

and their possible subsequent 

adverse effects on plant and 

animal communities. Some 

examples of soil amendments 

include organic matter 

additions such as biosolids, 

compost, manures, digestates, 

pulp sludges, yard wastes, 

and ethanol production byproducts; lime; wood ash; coal 

combustion products; foundry 

sands; steel slag; dredged 

materials; and water treatment 

residuals. At the California 

Gulch Superfund Site in 
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets 

Section 3: Technical Considerations for Ecological Revitalization 3-2

Colorado, the remediation team applied lime and municipal biosolids to reduce the acidity of 

mine tailings and to reduce the bioavailability of heavy metals at the site (see Figure 3-1). For 

additional information on soil amendments, see the following document: www.cluin.org/download/remed/epa-542-r-07-013.pdf. 

• Regulatory requirements: Federal and state regulations may apply to organic amendments such 

as biosolids, manures, and pulp sludges. State and local regulations apply to pH-adjusting 

amendments such as lime and wood ash as well as mineral amendments, such as foundry sand 

and dredged materials. For additional information, see the following document: www.cluin.org/download/remed/epa-542-r-07-013.pdf (EPA 2007d). 

• Attractive nuisance: An attractive nuisance is an area, habitat, or feature that is attractive to 

wildlife, where waste or contaminants that have been left on site after a property is cleaned up 

that may be harmful to plants or animals. One objective of cleaning up such a property is to 

remove the pathway from a contaminant to a receptor. Some cleanup technologies, such as 

amended covers, are designed to prevent contact exposure, but they are not a barrier against 

burrowing animals. Preventing burrowing animals that could cause damage to a cleanup 

technology from entering the area, through fencing or other means, would help to keep the 

remedy intact, and protect the animals from coming in contact with the waste left on site. For 

additional information, see the following document: www.clu-in.org/s.focus/c/pub/i/1438. 

• Equipment and utility location: Equipment generally needs periodic maintenance and 

monitoring. The cleanup team can maximize potential for habitat formation and biodiversity, 

and minimize disruption, by carefully considering the location of equipment. This might mean 

placing equipment near the edge, rather than in the middle, of a valuable habitat. For example, 

confining property disturbance to areas within 15 feet of roadways. 

• Hydrology and surface water management: Cleanup technologies that could affect hydrology 

need to be designed carefully to avoid adverse effects on existing and anticipated habitat. For 

example, over pumping by ground water pump and treat (P&T) systems can cause dewatering of 

wetlands because over pumping lowers the water table (EPA 1993). Alternatively, discharging 

process water to surface waters and wetlands changes water depth, turbidity, circulation, and 

temperature. The use of settling basins and other such measures can help moderate discharges to 

wetlands and streams. 

• Surface vegetation: Cleanup project managers are encouraged to consult technical experts to 

determine appropriate surface vegetation that will thrive but not interfere with the cleanup. For 

example, revegetation designed to emulate the native plant communities in the surrounding area 

would increase chances of success. However, vegetation growing near equipment related to a 

cleanup technology, such as a diversion wall, may prevent access to the equipment for 

maintenance and could cause performance issues. In addition, it is important to consider 

ecological succession when determining appropriate vegetation. Plant communities will 

naturally shift toward a climax community unless periodic maintenance is performed. When the 

cleanup technology, such as phytoremediation, employs vegetation, the plants selected to 

phytoremediate can also serve as a buffer to control runoff or stabilize soil or streambanks. 

Stakeholders can obtain technical assistance through a variety of sources, including EPA’s 

regional BTAG (www.epa.gov/oswer/riskassessment/ecoup/pdf/v1no1.pdf), EPA’s 

Emergency Response Team (www.ert.org), and EPA’s Ecotools Web site (www.cluin.org/ecotools). 

The considerations mentioned above, in addition to others shown in Table 3-1 at the end of this section, 

play a role in addressing cleanup planning and design issues when considering ecological revitalization 

at properties where waste is left in place. 
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets 

Section 3: Technical Considerations for Ecological Revitalization 3-3

General steps when planning and 

implementing an ecological 

revitalization project 

• Determine pre-disturbance and reference 

conditions 

• Conduct a property inventory 

• Establish revitalization goals and objectives 

• Evaluate revitalization alternatives 

• Develop a property-specific ecological design 

• Prepare specifications for construction contractors 

• Construct habitat features 

• Conduct maintenance and monitoring activities 

Figure 3-1: Before and after photographs of the California Gulch Superfund Site in Colorado where site 

managers used high rates of lime amendment to neutralize the acidity of the mine tailings and applied 

municipal biosolids directly into the tailings along the Upper Arkansas River. See Appendix A for additional 

information. Photographs courtesy of Michael Holmes, EPA Region 8.

3.2 Cleanup Planning and Design Issues and Ecological Revitalization 

The text box at the right outlines some 

general steps when planning and 

carrying out ecological revitalization 

projects during cleanup planning and 

implementation. However, a number of 

issues associated with the application of 

a cleanup technology can alter the 

effectiveness of the cleanup or the 

ecological revitalization of a property. 

Table 3-1 at the end of this section 

presents several issues that may occur 

when waste is left in place at a cleanup 

property, how they could affect 

ecological revitalization, and potential 

approaches to mitigate these issues. By 

carefully accounting for these issues at 

the outset, cleanup project managers can 

ensure the long-term success of the 

cleanup and minimize the potential 

negative effects of the cleanup approach 

on future uses of the property. 
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets 

Section 3: Technical Considerations for Ecological Revitalization 3-4

Myers Property Superfund Site, New Jersey

At the Myers Property Superfund site in Hunterdon 

County, New Jersey, (see case study in Appendix A), 

RPMs are saving select trees in areas with low levels of 

contamination by hand digging around the roots to a level 

of six inches. Excavated soil will be replaced with clean 

topsoil from off site. The site will be monitored in case 

large trees fall and expose soils deeper than six inches. 

3.3 Minimizing Ecological Damage During Cleanups 

Cleanups that include excavation and require earthmoving equipment can disrupt the surface area of a 

property and cause considerable loss of existing habitat as well as erosion, sedimentation, and 

colonization by invasive plants. These disruptions may also cause sedimentation or otherwise adversely 

affect ground water and nearby surface waters. To minimize the effects on habitat and encourage 

successful ecological revitalization, cleanup project managers may take steps to minimize excavation and 

other surface disruptions, avoid erosion and sedimentation, and protect the existing flora and fauna, by 

considering the following approaches (EPA 1993; Natural Resources Council [NRC] 1992; Kent 1994): 

Develop and Communicate Ecology Awareness and Procedures. The process of ecological 

revitalization begins in the assessment or investigation phase, not after the remedy has been designed 

and is underway. Contractors and construction engineers are often not cognizant of sensitive ecological 

areas or aware that they can minimize disturbance and protect the ecology. Cleanup project managers 

can articulate a preservation policy and distribute it to everyone involved with on-site activities. Cleanup 

project managers can also incorporate requirements to protect habitat or species into construction plans, 

specifications, and contracts, as appropriate. 

Design a Property-Wide Work Zone and Traffic Plan. The cleanup project manager can 

delineate staging areas, work zones, and traffic patterns to minimize unnecessary disruption of sensitive 

areas and existing habitat on or near a property. The cleanup team can delineate areas not requiring 

surface disruption and areas off-limits to disturbance, such as steep slopes, sensitive habitats, and clean 

stream corridors, with fences, tape, or signs to avoid disturbance by property workers and equipment. 

Minimize Excavation and Retain Existing Vegetation. Earthmoving can destroy the roots of trees 

and other plants as well as disturb vegetation in uncontaminated areas. In addition, compaction of soil is 

also damaging to roots. These activities can be restricted to areas essential for the cleanup and avoided in 

all other areas. Some areas with low contamination levels or immobile contaminants posing no 

unacceptable risk to human health or the environment may be better off left undisturbed, if the disruptive 

effects of excavation outweigh the benefits of further cleanup, especially in valuable habitats (EPA 1998). 

Treatment and monitoring technologies are less invasive cleanup measures than excavation. 

Phase Site Work. Sometimes 

cleanup project managers can phase 

construction by stabilizing one area of 

the property before disturbing another. 

This approach can reduce total soil 

erosion for the entire property and 

allows for revegetation or 

redevelopment of some areas 

immediately after cleanup. The 

cleanup project manager can also 

schedule construction to minimize the 

area of soil exposed during periods of 

heavy or frequent rains, and avoid 

sensitive periods (breeding, nesting, etc.) of certain species. For example, project managers at the Rocky 

Mountain Arsenal site (see case study in Appendix A and a photograph on the cover of this document) 

suspended cleanup activities during certain seasons to avoid disturbing the nesting and breeding of the 

bald eagle and other sensitive species. 

Consider Property Characteristics. During the ecological revitalization of a property and to 

increase chances of successful revitalization, it is important that ecologists consider the following 

property characteristics: property size, existing habitat, proximity to undisturbed areas, topography, 

natural water supply, access, biodiversity (preserved by establishing connections between habitats or 

enlarging habitats), contaminant bioaccumulation (assessed during an ERA [EPA 1998, 1999a]), health of 
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets 

Section 3: Technical Considerations for Ecological Revitalization 3-5

Rocky Mountain Arsenal, Colorado

At the Rocky Mountain Arsenal, project managers 

recognized that cleanup-related traffic and road building 

could have major effects on the existing habitat at the 27-

square-mile property. To facilitate reuse of the property 

as a wildlife refuge, they developed a property-wide traffic 

plan that routed traffic around valuable habitat and 

sensitive areas, minimized the potential for erosion and 

sedimentation, and used existing roads wherever possible. 

See the Rocky Mountain Arsenal case study in Appendix A 

for additional details. 

species and ecosystems, and 

threatened and endangered species 

(usually involves the assistance of a 

professional biologist or ecologist). 

Consider surrounding habitat when 

selecting native species for 

revegetation to increase chances of 

success. Urban properties pose 

additional challenges because they are 

typically small and may be subject to 

heavy runoff containing pollutants. 

Protect On-Site Fauna. In some 

cases, the project team may 

temporarily relocate on-site fauna that 

is being protected. Relocation may 

involve humane trapping and release, but less disruptive techniques may also be effective. For example, 

to relocate beavers and alligators at the French Limited Superfund Site in Crosby, Texas (see case study in 

Appendix A), project managers reduced their food supply in areas to be treated and increased the food 

supply in other suitable areas of the property. To protect fauna such as snakes, turtles, and some nesting 

birds that prefer edge habitat, it is necessary to consider careful use and parking of construction 

equipment in sensitive areas. For example, using construction equipment on edge habitat, or even using 

it to store equipment or fill material can adversely affect these species. 

Locate and Manage Waste and Soil Piles to Minimize Erosion. Property cleanup may include 

the creation of temporary waste or soil piles to store contaminated soil for treatment or to store treated 

soil before redeposition. To minimize disruption of the local habitat, the cleanup project manager can 

structure stockpiles to minimize runoff; locate them away from steep slopes, wetlands, streams, or other 

sensitive areas; place them away from tree root zones to avoid soil compaction; and cover or stabilize 

them to control erosion and dust. 

Design Containment Systems with Habitat Considerations. Building containment systems 

usually removes existing biota but can greatly improve the habitat, especially if the contamination 

present has severely degraded the area. While revegetation over containment areas or treatment systems 

must not detract from the effectiveness of the cleanup, cleanup project managers can design the cleanup 

components with ecological revitalization in mind. Cleanup project managers may also want to consider 

the type of contaminants, their stability, the media through which they travel, and the anticipated future 

land use. In addition, they may choose to avoid features that could damage the containment system or 

create an attractive nuisance. Where feasible, plan to allow enough soil above the protective cover to 

support the root systems of the intended vegetation. The use of fencing, removing access to potential 

food sources, or providing sufficient soil cover over the contaminated material can discourage wildlife 

from coming into contact with the contaminated material or from damaging a containment area. 

Reuse Indigenous Materials Whenever Practical. Reusing logs, rocks, brush, or other materials 

found on site can provide logistical and ecological advantages as well as cost savings. Topsoil from onsite sources is usually well suited to support native vegetation. Treated soil and other materials can also 

be used as backfill, reducing the need for borrow areas for clean fill. Green waste, such as logs and 

branches can be used on site, to a limited degree, to create structure within the new habitats. Excess 

woody material can be shredded, composted, and used as a soil amendment. For example, at Loring Air 

Force Base in Northeastern Maine (see case study in Appendix A), boulders and cobbles, larger than 15 

centimeters in diameter, were removed from the streambed and nearby trees during cleanup and later 

used in stream reconstruction, after completion of cleanup activities. Reuse of native materials at this 

property significantly reduced the need for additional materials and thereby achieved cost savings. 
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets 

Section 3: Technical Considerations for Ecological Revitalization 3-6

Control Erosion and Sedimentation. Revitalization areas usually need erosion and sedimentation 

control measures to avoid disturbing sensitive areas, even when state or local regulations do not require 

them. These measures can include retaining sediment on the property and managing runoff using filters, 

such as compost or other organic materials. 

Ensure that Borrow Areas Minimize Impact on Habitat. Borrow areas, locations where cleanup 

teams excavate clean soil for use elsewhere during a cleanup, may be located and used with ecological 

revitalization objectives in mind. For example, borrow areas can be located in low-value areas to create 

or improve habitat and be designed, contoured, and vegetated to meet aesthetic and habitat 

considerations. Based on consultations with the USFWS, project managers at the Rocky Mountain 

Arsenal (see case study in Appendix A and a photograph on the cover of this document) designed 

borrow areas to establish the habitat of a planned wildlife refuge. 

Avoid Introducing New Sources of Contamination. If not properly managed, cleanup activities 

can introduce new sources of contamination that may affect habitat and ecological receptors. 

Contamination can result from materials used on the property, fugitive dust emissions, and operations of 

equipment and sanitation facilities. Materials that can cause contamination include pesticides, herbicides, 

fertilizers, petroleum products, treatment agents, and solid wastes. To avoid introducing these new 

sources, storage areas can be sheltered from the elements, lined with plastic sheeting, surrounded by 

berms, and regularly inspected for releases. In addition, equipment maintenance can be done in suitable 

staging areas and adequate sanitation facilities for property workers can be provided away from streams, 

wetlands, and other sensitive areas. 

Prevent the Introduction of Undesirable Species. Non-native plant species can invade and 

destroy native species. To prevent introducing undesirable species, monitor barren and disturbed areas, 

which are susceptible to colonization by undesirable plants, and remove undesirable species where 

necessary. In addition, equipment operators can wash trucks and equipment before entering a property 

to avoid introducing invasive plant seeds. Clothing and shoes can also be managed to avoid introducing 

invasive plant seeds. 
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated 

TABLE 3-1: Cleanup Planning and Design Issues When Waste is Left on Site and Other Considerations for 

Revitalization 

Section 3: Cleanup Considerations for Ecological Revitalization 

Issue Property Type2 Potential Impact Solution/Considerati

Attractive Nuisance Issues: An area, habitat, or feature that is attractive to wildlife and has, or has the potential to have, waste or contaminants left on site that are harmful to plants or animals after a property is cleaned up 

Landfill Mining Site Brownfield Military Installation Foundry Gas Station Metal Plating Facility Refinery Tannery 

• Harm wildlife if (1) an exposure 

pathway exists from contaminants left on site that could directly harm wildlife or travel up the food chain; or (2) wildlife interfere with the cleanup, thereby creating an exposure pathway 

• Consider potential ecological risks through• Conduct a thorough ecological risk assessm

attractive nuisance issues 

• Carefully consider plant species and the typ

species will attract; protect newly planted established 

• For additional information, refer to EPA’s f

Revitalization and Attractive Nuisance Issu

Managing Gases: Depending on the waste composition, some containment sites have the potential to generate gas 

Landfill • Provide fuel for fire or explosions 

• Stress vegetation • Damage cover system • Infiltrate nests or other wildlife homes • Create other health or safety hazards 

• Determine ability of waste to generate gas du

1991) 

• Build gas collection systems • Place components where they (1) do not in

(2) minimize noise and odors, and (3) are ntrespassers or wildlife 

• For additional information, refer to the EPA 

Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Commercial On Site” (EPA 2002a) and “Landfill Gas Co(www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/landfill/PDFs/Lan

Restoring Soil: Soils, especially those found in urban, industrial, mining, and other disturbed areas suffer from soil toxicity, too high or too low pH, lack of sufficient organic matter, reduced water-holding capacity, etc.

Mining Site Manufacturing Facility Metal Plating Facility Brownfield Refinery Tannery 

• Decrease ability to support 

vegetation, which can lead to increased erosion and offsite movement of contaminants by wind and water 

• Consider appropriate soil amendments (ino

mixture) to limit contaminant bioavailability soil conditions for plant growth by balancinmatter, restoring soil microbial activity, incand reducing compaction 

_____________________________ 2 See Table 2-1 for EPA Programs that can apply to each property type.
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated 

TABLE 3-1: Cleanup Planning and Design Issues When Waste is Left on Site and Other Considerations for 

Revitalization, Continued 

Section 3: Cleanup Considerations for Ecological Revitalization 

Issue Property Type2 Potential Impact Solution/Consideration 

Settlement: The consolidation of subsurface materials at closed-in-place sites due to compaction or degradation 

Landfill • Rate and magnitude of settlement 

may affect the type of habitats that will be successful 

• Damage containment systems, 

alter slopes, cause gullies to form, and disturb other property features 

• Municipal landfills can settle up to 

30 percent of the landfill depth over 15 to 30 years 

• Consult with geotechnical engineer during clean

settlement magnitude, distribution, and rate 

• If necessary, delay ecological revitalization until 

ceased, but under long-term settlement scenarioadapt to the changing property conditions 

• Use a nurse crop like oats, to control erosion a• Use construction techniques, such as preloading

dynamic compaction, to accelerate settlement (affect settlement caused by biodegradation); howtopsoil because over-compaction of topsoil will 

Stabilizing Metals: Some property soils contain toxic levels of metals that can be harmful to plants or animals

Mining Site Metal Plating Facility Brownfield Refinery Tannery 

• Metals taken up by plants which 

are eaten by animals causing a potential attractive nuisance 

• Metals leach into ground water 

• Use soil amendments to chemically precipitate o

present in the soil; this can reduce metal availableaching into water 

• Select plant species based not only on availabilit

establish and grow in a newly created root zone uptake metals 

Surface Vegetation: Used to limit soil erosion, promote evapotranspiration and surface water management, and, in some cases, may be a component of the cleanup (for example, phytoremediation) 

Landfill Mining Site Brownfield Military Installation Foundry Gas Station Metal Plating Facility Refinery Tannery 

• Not all plants are well-suited to 

property conditions 

• Roots can physically damage 

equipment for a cleanup treatment technology, such as a barrier or well 

• For wetlands, study the proper hydrology, tidal 

newly constructed wetland profile; these factors allow the new wetland (both saline and fresh) to 

• When selecting plants, consider Executive Orde

promotes use of native species 

• Place equipment away from areas where deep-r

planted 

• Choose native plants found in the surrounding n

have the most chance of success, require the leamost cost-effective in the long term 

• Ensure the waste containment system is proper

implemented to maintain system integrity while plants 

• For additional information, refer to EPA’s fact s

Landfills and Waste Containment Areas Fact Sh

_____________________________ 2 See Table 2-1 for EPA Programs that can apply to each property type.
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated 

TABLE 3-1: Cleanup Planning and Design Issues When Waste is Left on Site and Other Considerations for 

Revitalization, Continued 

Section 3: Cleanup Considerations for Ecological Revitalization 

Issue Property Type2 Potential Impact Solution/Consideration 

Surface Water Management: Includes a variety of activities that protect the natural functions and beneficial uses of surface waters 

Landfill Mining Site Brownfield Military Installation Foundry Gas Station Metal Plating Facility Refinery Tannery 

• Affects nearby vegetation, 

streams, lakes, and wildlife migration routes through erosion or sedimentation 

• Runoff controls and water 

diversions implemented as part of a cleanup influence water tables and the rate of flow into streams or wetlands 

• Erodes the top layer of a cover 

system 

• Percolates into a cap 

• Design protective caps to prevent precipitation from 

and grade the cap to establish an effective slope (usu

• Route runoff through settling basins to collect s

to property hydrology and construct runoff conand rate of runoff to low-lying areas, wetlands, o

• Use rerouted runoff to create new wetland hab

habitat to provide natural controls and reduce c

• Build drainage channels and swales and design d

minimize changes to natural drainage patterns owater flows to wetlands or streams 

• For additional information, refer to EPA’s fact s

Impacts of Remediation Activities in or Around 

Timing: The time at which ecological revitalization is considered during the remedial planning process 

Landfill Mining Site Brownfield Military Installation Foundry Gas Station Metal Plating Facility Refinery Tannery 

• The longer planning is delayed, 

the greater the possibility that fewer reuse options will be available 

• Begin revitalization planning as early as possible • Begin developing a revitalization project on part

cleanup is completed, if possible 

• Consider advice from a restoration ecologist to 

season to plant grasses, shrubs, and trees 

• Consider breeding seasons and other timing issu

sensitive species when scheduling remedial or re

Utilities: Can include sanitary sewers, water, telecommunications, natural gas, and electricity 

Brownfield Landfill Manufacturing Facility Military Installation Foundry Gas Station Metal Plating Facility Refinery Tannery 

• Act as a conduit for gas migration • Facilitate water infiltration into a 

waste containment area 

• Require excavation into a waste 

containment area and contaminated material if utility repairs are necessary 

• Increase the quantity of leachate 

generated if sewer lines below a waste containment area begin to leak 

• Can be damaged by settlement 

• Include special provisions to ensure utilities do 

of the cleanup or ecosystem functions; for examline in a protective cap or placing it in an area w

• For additional information, refer to the followin

Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Commercial Use WSite” (EPA 2002a) 

_____________________________ 2 See Table 2-1 for EPA Programs that can apply to each property type.
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets 

Section 4: Wetlands Cleanup and Restoration 4-1

Wetland Mitigation and 

Ecological Revitalization 

Cleanup project managers may consider ecological 

revitalization part of wetland mitigation depending on 

the property-specific habitat. However, if the wetland 

mitigation is part of a contaminant treatment system 

and is not intended to provide habitat, it cannot be 

considered ecological revitalization. For additional 

information on wetland mitigation requirements, go to 

www.epa.gov/wetlandsmitigation. For additional 

information on wetlands in general, go to 

www.epa.gov/wetlands. 

4.0 Wetlands Cleanup and Restoration 

Wetlands are of particular concern for cleanups because in addition to intercepting storm runoff and 

removing pollutants, they provide food, protection from predators, and other vital habitat factors for 

many of the nation’s fish and wildlife species (EPA 2008g). Section 3.0 discusses the general 

considerations that apply during planning and design of a wetland cleanup and restoration. This section 

summarizes wetland cleanup and restoration, focusing on specific considerations during planning and 

design. 

Whether a cleanup involves restoring an existing wetland or creating a new one, a cleanup project 

manager must typically take the following steps (EPA 1988; USFWS 1984): 

• Evaluate the characteristics, ecological functions, and condition of wetlands related to the 

property 

• Determine the type of wetland functions and structures that would be beneficial in the area after 

the cleanup 

• Develop a wetland design that will achieve the stated ecological functions 

• Design the cleanup and wetland features to ensure that cleanup activities have minimum effect 

on existing wetlands and other ecosystems and do not create an attractive nuisance (see Table 3-1

for additional information on attractive nuisance issues) 

• Specify and implement maintenance requirements 

Once it has been determined that a cleanup will affect a wetland, several key factors need to be 

considered, including the following: 

Wetland Characteristics. The cleanup project manager may wish to determine wetland 

characteristics to develop a thorough understanding of the role of the wetland in the overall ecosystem 

and the relationships between the various plant and animal species within the wetland. It is also 

important to determine if any endangered, sensitive, or commercially important wetland species are 

present. 

Wetland Regulatory Requirements. Several regulatory requirements generally apply when a 

cleanup or reuse project affects wetlands, including Sections 401, 402, 403, and 404 of the Clean Water 

Act; Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act; and the Federal Agriculture Improvement 

and Reform Act, commonly known as the Farm Bill. Depending on the type of cleanup and the law 

under which action is taken, permits may 

be needed prior to conducting any 

cleanup activities. 

Wetland Vegetation and Hydrology. 

Analyses of hydrologic and soil 

conditions help define the property’s 

wetland vegetation associations (a known 

plant community type, uniform habitat 

conditions, and uniform appearance). 

Generally, restoring hydrology and reestablishing a previous vegetation 

association tends to lead to a successful 

wetland ecosystem. For properties where 

the historical native vegetation association 

cannot be determined, use nearby 

wetlands with similar soil and hydrology 
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets 

Section 4: Wetlands Cleanup and Restoration 4-2

Use of Neighboring Wetlands 

as Reference at Naval 

Amphibious Base Little Creek, 

Virginia Beach, Virginia 

After removing a 1.2-acre landfill, the 

Navy, in partnership with EPA and 

Virginia Department of Environmental 

Quality, constructed a tidal wetland in 

the Chesapeake Bay. The team 

achieved tidal wetland hydrology by 

constructing two connecting channels 

to the nearby Little Creek Cove. In 

addition, they used a neighboring 

marsh as a reference wetland to 

determine appropriate plants to place 

along designated elevations to establish 

tidal wetland vegetation. See 

Appendix A for additional information 

on this case study. 

Bunker Hill Superfund Site in the Coeur 

d’Alene River System in Kellogg, Idaho 

At the West Page Swamp area of the Bunker Hill 

Superfund Site, EPA contractors spread a cap composed of 

compost and wood ash over the soil to reduce accessibility 

and bioavailability of the underlying tailings and to restore 

wetland function. 

as a guide. See example in text box to the right and 

Figure 4-1 at the end of this section. For additional 

information on reference wetlands, visit the Society for 

Ecological Restoration’s Web site under Section 5 of the 

Ecological Restoration Primer: 

www.ser.org/content/ecological_restoration_primer.asp. 

Also, consider water availability and soil type when 

selecting and placing the vegetation. Where appropriate, 

seeded species that establish quickly may be planted first, 

followed by species that are more difficult to establish. 

Where available, a natural seed bank in existing wetland 

soils is often adequate for establishing wetland 

vegetation. 

Wetland Wildlife. Wetlands provide valuable wildlife 

habitat. The ability of a wildlife species to thrive in a 

wetland is dependent upon a number of factors, including 

the minimum habitat area necessary for the species, the 

minimum viable population of the species, the species’ 

tolerance for disturbance (for example, excavation or 

installation of ground water pumps), and the wetland 

ecosystem’s functional relationship to adjacent water 

resources and ecosystems. Thus, three factors will play a 

major role in determining the effectiveness of a wetland 

for long-term wildlife use: (1) the size of the wetland, (2) the relationship of the wetland to other 

wetlands, and (3) the level and type of disturbance (Kent 1994; NRC 1992; EPA 1994). 

Wetland Maintenance. A variety of wetland maintenance activities are needed to ensure long-term 

success, including weed control and management of aggressive exotic species, such as common reed 

(Phragmites australis), purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), water hyacinth (Eichornia crassipes), and 

salvinia (Salvinia molesta). In addition, installing wire screens or other barriers around the plants or the 

planted area to control deer, rabbit, or beaver grazing can help protect vegetation until the ecosystem 

becomes established. Periodic monitoring of the wetland for plant loss, erosion, insect or disease 

infestations, and litter or debris buildup is also important. For properties near populated areas, public 

education efforts can help reduce maintenance issues associated with litter or debris dumping, off-road 

vehicle use, or other human activities that may threaten the long-term success of a wetland project. 

Treatment Wetlands. Wetlands created to treat contaminants have some additional considerations 

regarding ecological revitalization and attractive nuisance issues. Conducting an ERA and monitoring of 

the treatment wetland until it meets cleanup goals can help to identify any potential attractive nuisance 

issues. Cleanup project managers are employing this approach on a variety of cleanups. For example, a 

public-private partnership is installing a series of passive treatment systems, including treatment wetlands, 

to treat acid mine drainage from 

abandoned surface and underground 

coal mines in western Pennsylvania. 

After passing through a series of 

limestone-lined ponds to neutralize pH, 

the water is sent through an aerobic 

constructed wetland to remove iron 

hydroxides. The system can even 

recover metals removed from the water 

so recovered metal can be sold (see 

Appendix A for additional information 

on this case study). 
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets 

Section 4: Wetlands Cleanup and Restoration 4-3

Treatment wetlands are also used as the final polishing treatment step of a remediation scheme. For 

example, stormwater or effluent from ground water treatment systems can be sent through restored or 

created wetlands before being released to nearby waterways. This step helps remove suspended solids 

and other pollutants from the stormwater or effluent. 

Ideally, cleanup goals will be met when using a treatment wetland to assist in property cleanup. Once 

the property meets its cleanup goals, components of the remedy, including a wetland, may no longer be 

necessary for further treatment. At this stage, coordinating with co-regulatory partners to determine 

long-term maintenance and stewardship responsibility for the wetland is critical. Section 7.0 discusses 

long-term stewardship. 

For additional information on treatment wetlands, visit the following Web site: 

www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/watersheds/cwetlands.html. 

Figure 4-1: Before and after photographs of Naval Amphibious Base Little Creek in Virginia, where the 

remediation team converted a landfill into a tidal wetland. See Appendix A for additional information. 

Photographs courtesy of Bruce Pluta, EPA Region 3. 
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets 

Section 5: Stream Cleanup and Restoration 5-1

Importance of Stream 

Corridors 

Healthy stream corridors can 

provide important habitat for fish 

populations; erosion and 

sedimentation control; high-quality 

water for wildlife, livestock, flora, 

and human consumption; 

opportunities for recreationists to 

fish, camp, picnic, and enjoy other 

outdoor activities; and support for 

diverse plant and wildlife species. 

Tidal Channels 

Stream channel restoration can 

include tidal channels. After removing 

contaminated sediment at the Atlas 

Tack site in Fairhaven, Massachusetts, 

site managers used coconut coir fiber 

logs to stabilize the salt marsh tidal 

channels. See Appendix A for 

additional information on this case 

study. 

5.0 Stream Cleanup and Restoration 

Stream cleanup and restoration are important because streams serve as corridors for migratory birds and 

fish, and they provide habitat to many unique species of plants and animals (EPA 2008g). Cleaning up a 

stream corridor can be complicated, as cleanups often disrupt the stream flow and habitat. This section 

provides an overview of considerations for designing and implementing cleanups that facilitate 

ecological restoration of streams and stream corridors and mitigating adverse ecological impacts of 

constructing cleanup features. A successful stream cleanup, combined with appropriate restoration 

strategies can hasten the recovery of degraded stream corridors and begin the natural process of restoring 

their ecological functions (EPA 1995). 

An important first step in cleaning up a stream corridor is 

to assess the possible sources of disturbance from cleanup 

activities. Baseline data can be gathered on existing 

species, in-stream and riparian habitat, soil characteristics, 

and stream function to characterize potential degradation. 

Other disturbances to characterize include stream channel 

alteration, water quality impairment, invasion by exotic 

species, loss of riparian vegetation, and compaction or 

undercutting of streambanks. Defining the conditions of 

the stream corridor prior to the disturbance can help to 

identify the cause of the disturbance. Another important 

step is to determine the type of ecosystem that can be 

established in the stream corridor. When historical records 

are unavailable, information on undisturbed, nearby 

stream corridors with similar physical characteristics can 

help determine the type of ecosystem that will likely be 

successful at the property. The following considerations 

are critical to a successful stream cleanup and restoration: 

Stream Channel Restoration. Removing contaminated sediment and soil from stream channels and 

banks during a cleanup typically results in severe alteration of stream flow. In such instances, 

reconstruction of stream channels and banks is usually necessary. Decisions about stream channel width, 

depth, cross-section, slope, and alignment profoundly affect future hydrology (and the resulting ecology) 

of the stream system. Restoration design typically considers factors such as the physical aspects of the 

watershed, hydrology, sediment size distribution, average flood flows, and flood frequency. When 

designing a stream channel restoration, the cleanup project manager can try to anticipate the effects of 

future land uses on the watershed. For example, the restoration of riverbanks along the Poudre River 

was designed to accommodate heavy recreational use while providing ecological benefits (see case study 

in Appendix A). For additional information, refer to 

resources listed in Appendix B and the following 

publication at www.clu-in.org/download/newsltrs/ 

tnandt1208.pdf. 

Streambank Stabilization. Disturbed or reconstructed 

streambanks often need temporary stabilization to prevent 

erosion. Temporary stabilization can consist of natural 

materials such as logs, brush, and rocks, and property 

planners can design it so as not to hinder permanent 

revegetation. At the Cache La Poudre River Superfund 

Site, EPA incorporated boulders and snags into the 

cleanup to stabilize the streambank while providing 

habitat (see Figure 5-1 and case study in Appendix A). In 
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets 

Section 5: Stream Cleanup and Restoration 5-2

Fort Collins Stream Corridor Restoration

In Fort Collins, Colorado, soil and ground water 

contamination migrated to the Cache La Poudre River and 

contaminated the sediments of this wild and scenic river. 

Cleanup activities included temporarily re-routing the river 

and excavating the contaminated sediments. The 

remediated portion of the river was not channelized, and 

EPA made an effort to create an unobtrusive remedy by 

consulting ecological restoration experts to create natural 

stream characteristics. See Appendix A for additional 

information on this case study. 

some cases, geotextiles, natural fabrics, and bioengineering techniques may be necessary. Revegetating 

streambanks using seeding or bare root planting techniques will often fail if the stream floods before 

vegetation is fully established. Consequently, temporary vegetation for stabilizing streambanks may be 

more successful using anchored cuttings or pole plantings (that is, woody cuttings or poles inserted and 

anchored into the streambank) taken from species that sprout readily, such as willows. For additional 

information, refer to resources listed in Appendix B. 

Streambank Vegetation. Wherever possible, it is important to protect existing native vegetation, 

especially mature trees, during cleanup and restoration activities; however, many properties will need 

some revegetation. Cleanup project managers may select species for revegetation for their ability to 

establish a long-lasting plant community rather than as quick fixes for erosion or sedimentation 

problems. For example, fast growing non-native species may quickly stabilize a denuded stream bank, 

but over the long term, they may end up invading the entire stream corridor to the detriment of desirable 

native species. Approaches that attempt to establish ecosystems similar to pre-disturbance conditions 

tend to have more long-term success and need less maintenance than more highly engineered solutions 

(for example, gabions or riprap) that 

reduce the amount of viable habitat. 

For additional information, refer to 

resources listed in Appendix B. 

Watershed Management. The 

entire watershed ecosystem affects the 

health and condition of a water body. 

Therefore, cleanup and revitalization 

may need to address watershed 

processes that degrade ecosystems, 

such as sediment loading from road 

cuts or construction, increased runoff 

from impervious areas, and other 

point and nonpoint sources of 

Figure 5-1: Before and after photographs of the Cache La Poudre River Superfund Site in Colorado, where 

EPA implemented an ecological remedy to preserve the riverine habitat and restore the streambank. See 

Appendix A for additional information. Photographs courtesy of Paul Peronard, EPA Region 8.
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets 

Section 5: Stream Cleanup and Restoration 5-3

pollution. Effective watershed management could even eliminate the need for in-stream restoration 

approaches. 

Bioengineering techniques have become an increasingly popular approach to streambank restoration and 

maintenance. Bioengineering refers to stabilizing the soil or streambank by establishing sustainable plant 

communities. Stabilization techniques may include using a combination of live or dormant plant 

materials, sometimes in conjunction with other materials such as rocks, logs, brush, geotextiles, or natural 

fabrics. Bioengineering techniques can be more labor intensive than traditional engineering solutions and 

sometimes take longer to control streambank erosion. Nevertheless, over the long term, they often have 

lower maintenance costs and create important habitat. 

Finally, maintenance such as erosion control, reseeding, and soil amendments may be needed after 

evaluating the initial progress of stream corridor recovery. Allowing natural processes to shape the 

ecosystem in the stream corridor will generally lead to self-sustaining, long-term recovery of in-stream, 

riparian, and upland terrestrial habitats in the stream corridor. Because this process takes time, 

providing short-term riparian and upland habitats may hasten the return of wildlife to the disturbed area. 

Cleanup project managers may use engineered habitat structures such as weirs, dikes, randomly placed 

rocks, riffles and pools, fish passage structures, and off-channel pools to enhance in-stream habitat during 

the short term. Engineered habitat structures are most effective when installed as a complement to a 

long-term recovery strategy. For additional information on engineered habitat structures, see Section 8G 

of the Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group’s Stream Corridor Restoration Guide at 

www.nrcs.usda.gov/Technical/stream_restoration/newtofc.htm. 
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets 

Section 6: Terrestrial Ecosystems Cleanup and Revitalization 6-1

Native Plantings at College Park Landfill

At the College Park Landfill in Beltsville, Maryland, cleanup 

project managers used recycled waste materials such as fly 

ash and animal and plant by-products as land cover as part 

of the landfill cap. In addition, the vegetative cover 

includes diverse native plantings. See Appendix A for 

additional case study information.

Amending Soils with 

Biosolids at a Refinery 

In Lima, Ohio, a refinery undergoing 

RCRA Corrective Action is using 

biosolids to help create prairie 

habitat with native grasses, flowers, 

and trees over a soil cover. See 

Appendix A for additional case 

study information. 

6.0 Terrestrial Ecosystems Cleanup and 

Revitalization 

Grading or earthmoving operations at cleanup properties can seriously disturb terrestrial plant and 

animal life at properties. The cleanup process can denude some contaminated properties of all vegetation 

and topsoil. Establishing a plant community that will thrive with minimal maintenance is a critical step 

in developing a healthy terrestrial ecosystem on these properties. This section discusses factors to 

consider when planning terrestrial plant communities in disturbed areas. It addresses (1) general 

revegetation principles and factors to consider in the course of protecting or creating natural terrestrial 

ecosystems and (2) specific considerations when creating meadows or prairies and establishing 

vegetation on semi-arid or arid lands. Section 3.1 presents general cleanup planning and design issues 

that may also be applicable to the revitalization of terrestrial ecosystems. 

General Revegetation Principles. 

While restoring terrestrial ecosystems, 

it is recommended that cleanup project 

managers consider soil type, plant 

selection, and timing. 

Soil Type. Soil testing is generally 

necessary to evaluate whether the pH, 

nutrient availability, toxicity, salinity, 

and organic material content are 

appropriate for successful plant 

establishment. Several organizations 

provide assistance in soil testing, including U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)’s Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (NRCS) and the WHC. The soil can then be prepared or amended, as necessary, to 

ensure proper soil texture and conditions. Soil amendments, or residuals from other processes that have 

beneficial properties when added to soil, may be used in areas without adequate topsoil; if fertilizer is 

needed, it is important to choose a formulation that meets the growing needs of the selected species (EPA 

2007d). The cleanup team may also have to stabilize the soil and apply compost to hold seed in place, aid 

in establishing plants, mitigate the effect of rainfall on newly seeded areas, preserve soil moisture, and 

control erosion. Soil stabilization methods include mulching with straw or wood-fiber product, or 

installing synthetic matting. Cleanup project managers may wish to select soil amendments and 

stabilization techniques for their ability to improve conditions for germination of the selected species. In 

addition, some types of soil amendments may help adjust the pH of the soil in preparation for seeding 

(EPA 2007d). Refer to the following document for more information on soil testing: 

www.nrcs.usda.gov/feature/backyard/pdf/nutrient.pdf. 

Plant Selection. Seed mixtures and plants can be adjusted to suit the soil, climate, hydrology, exposure 

(to both sun and wind), and topography of an area. Local native populations of plant and seed usually 

result in higher survival rates and maintain the integrity of 

the local gene pool. As discussed in Section 3.0, cleanup 

project managers are encouraged to avoid using non-native 

species. These species can out-compete and displace native 

species, disrupt ecological processes, and significantly 

degrade entire plant communities, both on and off the 

property. 

After seeding, cleanup project managers can protect the 

seeded areas from grazing animals, vehicles, and other 

disturbances until plants are well established. Techniques 

for protecting plantings include fencing, clearly marked 

access roads, animal repellants, trenches or berms to control 

run-on and runoff (if they are already part of stormwater 
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets 

Section 6: Terrestrial Ecosystems Cleanup and Revitalization 6-2

control features at the cleanup property), and interim surface stabilization methods such as mulching or 

matting. Cleanup project managers may need to reseed the area within the planting season to replace 

damaged vegetation or to achieve the desired plant density. For additional information on seed mixtures 

and plant selection, visit EPA’s GreenAcres Web site (www.epa.gov/greenacres), the Plant Conservation 

Alliance (PCA) Web site (www.nps.gov/plants), and the Bureau of Land Management’s Seeds of Success 

Program (www.nps.gov/plants/sos). 

Timing. It is important to seed during the optimum periods for plant establishment, which are propertyspecific and vary depending on the type of terrestrial habitat that is being restored. Information on 

seeding techniques and conditions for individual species is available from NRCS technical guides 

(www.nrcs.usda.gov), university extension offices, and seed suppliers. If planting cannot occur during 

optimum periods, cleanup project managers may use a nurse crop, such as annual rye or oats, as ground 

cover until the appropriate planting season. 

Meadows and Prairies. A few additional considerations apply when restoring meadows or prairies. 

Generally, when seeding an area with native grass species, specialized planting equipment, such as a 

native grass drill, is needed to ensure good seed to soil contact. Seeds need to be certified and purchased 

on a pure live seed basis. Grass stands usually do not need fertilizer or irrigation. However, they may 

need periodic maintenance activities, such as controlled burning, mowing, and removing plant litter, to 

suppress woody growth and encourage vigorous new growth. To maximize benefits to wildlife, conduct 

these activities outside of the primary nesting season, preferably in late winter or early spring. 

Semi-Arid and Arid Areas. Cleanup project managers may consider a number of additional factors 

when establishing vegetation in semi-arid and arid areas, including the following: 

• Soil treatment is important because damage to soil structure and function is a common and serious 

problem in degraded semi-arid and arid areas. Arid soil, compacted soil, and nutrient-poor soil may 

need to be improved by adding organic amendments, such as leaf and litter compost, composted 

manure, biosolids, or mulch that is certified contaminant and weed-free. These amendments could help 

bind recalcitrant organic compounds and metals and increase the much-needed water holding capacity 

and fertility. Other measures to improve soil structure and function include soil surface treatments, such 

as creating pits in soil, to improve water retention in arid land and imprinting, to increase soil moisture 

and gully control to improve plant establishment. 

• Water availability for plants may improve if the ground is shaped to collect and retain water. 

Transplanted seedlings may need limited irrigation to survive until established. Species selections can 

also be adapted to local hydrology. Too much irrigation may encourage invasive weeds, leave salts at 

the soil surface that kill plants, or cause infiltration into subsurface contaminated materials. 

• Seed selection for arid areas is hampered by the limited availability of commercial stocks of dry land 

seeds. If possible, the project manager may hire a commercial seed collector to collect seed from the local 

area or an area with similar climate. The alternate collection area needs to be within a 100-mile radius 

and 500 feet of the altitude of the area to be planted; where the average rainfall is within two inches per 

year of the annual rainfall for the area; and have similar soil characteristics (Department of the Interior 

[DOI] 1995). Seed testing can help cleanup project managers ensure that the seeds are of high quality. 

Proper seed storage will also help maintain the seed’s viability until sowing. Visit the Plant 

Conservation Alliance Web site for a directory of restoration experts and native seed suppliers 

(www.nps.gov/plants). 

• Planting techniques primarily include direct seeding and transplanting. Direct seeding is generally less 

expensive. However, in dry areas this technique is more vulnerable to seed loss from exposure to wind, 

insects, and rodents, as well as declines in germination rates and plant growth because of insufficient 

rainfall in the months following planting. The installation of an erosion blanket consisting of straw or 

coco fiber with biodegradable netting can help prevent seed loss and retain moisture while plants are 

established. Cleanup project managers may also consider using collected seed to grow container plants 

for drier areas. If container plants are used, additional time will be necessary to allow the plants to 

germinate and achieve the desired growth in a greenhouse or nursery before planting. Using container 

plants can be costly and labor intensive. Because plant losses usually occur, it is prudent to budget for 

monitoring and replacement. 
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets 

Section 7: Long-Term Stewardship Considerations 7-1 

Stakeholder Collaboration at a Former Refinery in Casper, Wyoming

Stakeholders are successfully achieving cleanup of a BP former refinery in Casper, Wyoming through a 

collaborative process. The group redeveloped the former refinery into a business park and golf course 

where the wetland treatment system also functions as a golf course water hazard. To reach 

agreement on the cleanup, BP worked closely with stakeholders, including the local Audubon Society 

and the community. The Audubon Society used its local expertise to help determine an appropriate 

shoreline elevation to maintain the wetlands and mud flats. See Appendix A for a case study regarding 

this site. 

7.0 Long-Term Stewardship Considerations 

Cleanups are risk-based and, when waste is left in place, long-term stewardship is necessary to ensure 

protectiveness of the remedy; therefore, long-term stewardship responsibilities are an integral part of the 

cleanup process. O&M activities through responsible stewardship protect the integrity of the cleanup 

and the functioning of the associated ecosystems after cleanup completion. For example, at the 

Woodlawn Landfill Superfund Site, WHC and Bridgestone Americas Holding, Inc. conducted ecological 

revitalization activities at the site to create wildlife habitat. Local volunteers manage the site. In addition, 

Chicago’s pocket park project highlighted earlier in Section 2 incorporated (1) ICs and (2) community 

involvement in site planning and maintenance, which reduced costs and helped ensure the success of 

ecological revitalization. See Appendix A for case studies regarding these sites. 

There are four major components for a successful O&M program: 

• Plan early for long-term stewardship 

• Identify and complement general O&M activities 

• Establish a monitoring program 

• Use ICs 

Long-Term Stewardship. EPA’s co-regulatory partners, including states, local governments, and 

tribes, have increasing responsibility and oversight for property assessment and cleanup planning. This 

property knowledge is particularly important for long-term stewardship as state voluntary cleanup 

programs and property owners typically have primary responsibility for carrying out maintenance of 

engineering controls and ICs for the long-term. Therefore, it is essential to prepare for safeguarding the 

effectiveness of the ecological revitalization activities as early in the cleanup planning process as possible. 

Regardless of who is responsible for O&M, stakeholders can make agreements to have general 

maintenance tasks as well as those specific to ecological revitalization implemented by property owners, 

a local government agency, Trustees, or the community. It may be practical to have the same 

organization undertake general O&M activities as well as those relating specifically to the ecosystem. For 

example, at the Silver Bow Creek/Warm Springs Ponds Superfund Site in Montana, the Montana 

Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, a Trustee, conducts many general and specific monitoring and 

maintenance tasks (see case study in Appendix A). 

Cleanup project managers can also enlist a local group or guardian to conduct long-term stewardship of a 

property. Such groups are committed to follow-through and have knowledge of local conditions. They 

can also monitor the ecological revitalization component and look for early signs of any emerging issues. 

Local government agencies can also provide expertise, equipment, supplies, or other resources to help the 

local community or group conduct long-term stewardship; this can reduce costs, provide interpretive 

educational benefits, and help encourage a sense of property ownership by the community. 
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets 

Section 7: Long-Term Stewardship Considerations 7-2 

Loring Air Force 

Base in Maine 

Cleanup project managers for 

Loring Air Force Base consulted 

with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS) to identify useful 

indicator species such as dragon fly 

nymphs, midge flies, dace minnow, 

and brook trout to monitor the 

recovery of the stream system after 

remedial activities. These species 

were selected because they are 

sensitive to contaminants and are 

quick to manifest symptoms of 

exposure. See Appendix A for 

additional case study information.

General O&M Activities. In some cases, appropriately designed ecosystem revitalization may be selfsustaining and need little or no maintenance after an initial establishment period. In most cases, 

however, O&M will be necessary. O&M activities depend on the type of cleanup as well as the ecological 

revitalization component and, depending on the situation, are often necessary for a long period of time 

(up to 20, 50, or 100 years). O&M for the overall cleanup typically includes inspection, sampling and 

analysis, routine maintenance and small repairs, and reporting, as necessary. Cleanup project managers 

can incorporate ecological revitalization measures into each of these tasks. 

• Inspection needs to occur on a regular basis. Inspectors can also perform non-routine inspections 

after unusual events such as earthquakes or large storms. Typically, inspectors check for invasive 

species, erosion, and dead or dying vegetation, among other items, when assessing the ecological 

revitalization component of the cleanup. For properties with cover systems in place, inspectors also 

check for settling, burrowing animals, and pooling water. Cleanup project managers typically 

include performance standards to measure the success of the project, as well as a detailed 

description of how team members will conduct inspections, sampling, and maintenance activities. 

• Regular sampling and analysis helps monitor habitat, ground water, and surface water quality. 

Monitoring habitat indicators such as plant species composition and percentage of cover helps to 

determine the success of the revitalization measures. In addition, making a determination of the 

amount of invasive plant species in the area helps to ensure that they are not overtaking the area. 

Sampling and analysis includes collecting and chemically analyzing water samples from surface 

water, wetlands, or ground water wells; soil samples may also be collected and analyzed to 

evaluate soil conditions. For properties with cover systems in place, sampling would include 

leachate formation and gas release concentrations. The frequency of sample collection can vary 

widely and needs to be determined on a property-specific basis. 

• Routine maintenance may consist of simple activities such as burning, using herbicide, or 

mowing to control invasive species; maintaining a cover; or repairing perimeter fencing. On 

properties that have operating treatment plants, routine maintenance may be more complex and 

may need a full- or part-time plant operator. Typical activities include operating ground water 

and gas treatment systems, repairing erosion damage, and maintaining rainwater collection and 

diversion systems. Based on inspection results and plant species composition and cover at the 

revitalization area, reseeding or replanting may be necessary as well as periodic mowing or 

controlled burns. Manual or natural controls or herbicides or insecticides applications can also 

control invasive plants and undesirable insects and diseases. For additional information on 

maintaining a variety of habitat types, review 

ITRC’s Planning and Promoting Ecological Land 

Reuse of Remediated Sites (ITRC 2006). 

• Reporting requirements depend on the cleanup 

program, and cleanup project managers generally 

write and submit reports to regulatory authorities 

after both routine and non-routine inspections. The 

reports typically include information on the general 

condition of the cleanup measures, test results from 

samples collected, and operational data from 

treatment processes (for example, ground water 

extraction rate, gas flow rate). 

Monitoring Program. A monitoring program, 

established as part of post-cleanup activities, evaluates the 

effectiveness of the cleanup in restoring ecological function 

and reducing ecological risks (EPA 1998, 1999a). 

Information from baseline surveys and ERAs conducted 

during the planning process can be the starting point for 

developing the monitoring program. For example, periodic 

monitoring of sediment contamination and benthic 
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets 

Section 7: Long-Term Stewardship Considerations 7-3 

Designing and 

Implementing 

Institutional Controls 

Many factors may influence the 

design and implementation of ICs, 

such as state policies, whether the 

property is a federal facility, or 

whether regulatory authorities, 

such as RCRA or CERCLA, are 

involved. An EPA guide addresses 

many of these issues (EPA 2000). 

Visit the following Web site to 

view the guide: 

http://epa.gov/superfund/policy/ic/

guide/guide.pdf

communities following the removal of contaminated 

sediment in a stream can provide indications of the 

protectiveness of the cleanup features as well as the 

ecosystem’s recovery to a more natural condition. At the 

Revere Chemical Company Superfund Site in Pennsylvania, 

ground water and stream monitoring is used to evaluate the 

risks of heavy metals getting into the ground water and 

migrating off site. Cleanup project managers also use the 

monitoring program to help evaluate the recovery of 

important aquatic species. Monitoring habitat indicators 

such as plant species composition and percent cover could 

indicate the success of the revitalization measures. See 

Appendix A for a case study regarding this site. 

Institutional Controls. ICs are designed to limit land or 

resource use, and provide information to help modify or 

guide human behavior, and complement engineering 

controls. They can also protect ecological revitalization 

properties by restricting public access to parts of a property 

that are particularly sensitive to erosion or contain sensitive 

or establishing habitats; or to achieve human protectiveness or other revitalization goals. A key to 

success is to identify and evaluate as much information as possible about the needed ICs early in the 

planning process. Generally, major considerations with IC use at ecological revitalization properties 

include the following: 

• Consider what the IC is intended to accomplish and establish clear objectives. A common IC 

objective for ecological purposes involves controlling human activities in a particular area that 

could potentially interfere with sensitive habitats or the ecosystem balance that supports the 

cleanup features. 

• Consider the appropriate types of ICs. These can include governmental controls (zoning, building 

codes, and ground water use restrictions), proprietary controls (easements, covenants, and 

conservation trusts), enforcement tools (consent decrees and administrative orders), and informational 

devices (fishing advisories, deed notices, and state registries of contaminated properties). For 

example, a conservation easement for catch and release fishing and a local health department fishing 

advisory could accomplish the same IC objective to reduce fish consumption. For information about 

different types of ICs, see EPA’s guide titled Institutional Controls: A Site Manager’s Guide to 

Identifying, Evaluating, and Selecting Institutional Controls at Superfund and RCRA Corrective 

Action Cleanups at http://epa.gov/superfund/policy/ic/guide/guide.pdf (EPA 2000). 

• Ensure that the specified ICs are effective and remain in place over the long term through 

proper implementation, monitoring, and enforcement. For example, at the Silver Bow Creek 

Superfund Site in Butte, Montana, the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks enforces 

a fish consumption prohibition. In addition, at the BP Former Refinery in Casper, Wyoming, 

project managers implemented several ICs including a “use control area” through a resolution to 

limit use on the property, a ground water restriction area, and a soil management overlay district. 

Within one of these defined areas, a constructing entity has to contact the state or BP if they have 

been issued a building permit. See Appendix A for additional information on these case studies. 
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets 

Section 8: References 8-1

8.0 References 

Calumet Ecotoxicology Roundtable Technical Team. 2007. Calumet Area Ecotoxicology Protocol, 

Protecting Calumet’s Plants and Animals. June. 

Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC). 2006. Planning and Promoting Ecological Land 

Reuse of Remediated Land ECO-2. Washington D.C.: ITRC and Wildlife Habitat Council (WHC). 

www.itrcweb.org/Documents/ECO-2.pdf. 

Kent, D.M. (ed.). 1994. Applied Wetlands Science and Technology. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. 

National Research Council (NRC). 1992. Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and 

Public Policy, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. 

Northeast-Midwest Institute and the National Brownfields Coalition. 2007. EPA Brownfields Program—

Issues and Opportunities. Petroleum/UST Brownfield Cleanups. September. 

www.nemw.org/petroleum%20issue%20opportunity%20brief.pdf. 

U. S. Department of Interior. 1995. A Beginner’s Guide to Desert Restoration, National Park Service, 

Desert Restoration Task Force, Denver Service Center. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1988. America’s Wetlands: Our Vital Link between Land 

and Water. OPA-87-016. 

EPA. 1991. Design and Construction of RCRA/CERCLA Final Covers. EPA 625-4-91-025. 

EPA. 1993. Environmental Fact Sheet: Controlling the Impacts of Remediation Activities in or Around 

Wetlands. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. EPA 530-F-93-020. 

EPA. 1994. Considering Wetlands at CERCLA Sites. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. 

EPA 540-R-94-019. www.epa.gov/superfund/policy/remedy/pdfs/540r-94019-s.pdf. 

EPA. 1995. Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality. November. EPA 841-F-95-007. 

www.epa.gov/OWOW/NPS/Ecology (viewed on 01/12/2009). 

EPA. 1998. Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance. EPA 630-R-95-002F. April. 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=12460 (viewed on 01/12/2009). 

EPA. 1999a. Issuance of Final Guidance: Ecological Risk Assessment and Risk Management Principles 

for Superfund Sites. OSWER 9285.7-28. October. 

www.epa.gov/oswer/riskassessment/ecorisk/pdf/final99.pdf. 

EPA. 1999b. RCRA Cleanup Reforms. Faster, Focused, More Flexible Cleanups. OSWER. EPA 530-F99-018. July. www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/ca/reforms/reforms1.pdf. 

EPA. 2000. Institutional Controls: A Site Manager’s Guide to Identifying, Evaluating, and Selecting 

Institutional Controls at Superfund and RCRA Corrective Action Cleanups. EPA 540-F-00-005. 

http://epa.gov/superfund/policy/ic/guide/guide.pdf. 

EPA. 2001. RCRA Cleanup Reforms, Reforms II: Fostering Creative Solutions. OSWER. EPA 530-F-01-

001. January. 

EPA. 2002a. Reusing Cleaned Up Superfund Sites: Commercial Use Where Waste is Left on Site. EPA 

540-K-01-008. February. www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/recycle/pdf/c_reuse.pdf. 
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets 

Section 8: References 8-2

EPA. 2002b. Region 5 Corrective Action Sites: Majority of RCRA Federal Lead Sites Have Reuse 

Potential. Waste, Pesticides and Toxics Division. February. 

www.epa.gov/swerosps/rcrabf/pdf/surveyfs.pdf. 

EPA. 2005. Ecological Reuse of Remediated Sites: Some Resources. Office of Solid Waste. December. 

www.clu-in.org/conf/tio/ecoresources3/prez/ecoresources3pdf.pdf. 

EPA. 2006a. 2006–2011 EPA Strategic Plan—Charting Our Course. 

www.epa.gov/ocfo/plan/2006/entire_report.pdf. 

EPA. 2006b. Measuring Revitalization of Contaminated Properties in America’s Communities: Past 

Accomplishments and Future Opportunities. OSWER. EPA 500-R-06-002. September. 

EPA. 2006c. Frequently Asked Questions about Ecological Revitalization of Superfund Sites. EPA 542-F06-002. www.clu-in.org/download/remed/542f06002.pdf. 

EPA. 2006d. Revegetating Landfills and Waste Containment Areas Fact Sheet. EPA 542-F-06-001. 

www.clu-in.org/download/remed/revegetating_fact_sheet.pdf. 

EPA. 2006e. Interim Guidance for OSWER Cross-Program Revitalization Measures. October. 

www.epa.gov/landrevitalization/docs/cprmguidance-10-20-06covermemo.pdf. 

EPA. 2007a. BP Former Refinery, Casper, Wyoming. October. 

www.epa.gov/waste/hazard/correctiveaction/pdfs/casper11-07.pdf. 

EPA. 2007b. DuPont Remington Arms Facility. October. 

http://epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/correctiveaction/pdfs/rem11-07.pdf. 

EPA. 2007c. Ecological Revitalization and Attractive Nuisance Issues. EPA 542-F-06-003. www.cluin.org/download/remed/542f06003.pdf. 

EPA. 2007d. The Use of Soil Amendments for Remediation, Revitalization, and Reuse. EPA 542-R-07-

013. December. www.clu-in.org/download/remed/epa-542-r-07-013.pdf. 

EPA. 2007e. Memorandum Regarding the Underground Storage Tanks Program Plan for Implementing 

OSWER’s Cross-Program Revitalization Measures. February. 

EPA. 2007f. Guidance for Documenting and Reporting RCRA Subtitle C Corrective Action Land 

Revitalization Indicators and Performance Measures. February 21. 

www.epa.gov/reg3wcmd/ca/pdf/finalRCRA_CPRM_guidance2_21_07.pdf 

EPA. 2007g. Memorandum Regarding the Update and Next Steps for Superfund and Federal Facilities 

Cross-Program Revitalization Measures (CPRM) Implementations. From James Woolford, 

Director, OSRTI, and John Reeder, Director, FFRRO, to Superfund National Policy Managers, 

Regions 1–10. June 20. 

EPA. 2008a. Superfund Redevelopment. www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/recycle/info/index.html

(viewed on 01/12/2009). 

EPA. 2008b. Land Revitalization—Integrating Reuse Into Cleanup. 

www.epa.gov/oswer/landrevitalization/ai_integratingreuse1.htm (viewed on 01/12/2009). 

EPA. 2008c. Underground Storage Tanks. www.epa.gov/swerust1 (viewed on 01/12/2009). 

EPA. 2008d. U.S. EPA’s Petroleum Brownfields Action Plan: Promoting Revitalization and 

Sustainability. October. www.epa.gov/oust/rags/petrobfactionplan.pdf. 
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets 

Section 8: References 8-3

EPA. 2008e. RCRA Brownfields Prevention Initiative. www.epa.gov/swerosps/rcrabf (viewed on 

01/12/2009). 

EPA. 2008f. OUST. Cleaning Up and Reusing Abandoned Gas Station Sites. 

www.epa.gov/oust/rags/index.htm (viewed on 01/12/2009). 

EPA. 2008g. River Corridor and Wetlands Restoration. Benefits of Restoration. 

www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/restore/benefits.html (viewed on 01/12/2009). 

EPA. 2008h. Atlas Tack Corporation Superfund Site, Fairhaven, Massachusetts. Final Interim Remedial 

Action Report (O&F Completion Report) for Phases II and III. September. 

www.epa.gov/region1/superfund/sites/atlas/ATLAS_TACK_TARGET_SHEET.pdf 

EPA. 2008i. Information based on monthly database reports generated in February 2008 and 

communicated via e-mail by Stacy Swartwood, OBLR to Tetra Tech EM Inc., dated September 26, 

2008. 

EPA. 2008j. Green Remediation: Incorporating Sustainable Environmental Practices into Remediation of 

Contaminates Sites. EPA 542-R-08-002. April. www.clu-in.org/download/remed/GreenRemediation-Primer.pdf

EPA. 2009. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response FY2009 National Program Manager’s 

Guidance (draft). February. 

www.epa.gov/ocfo/npmguidance/oswer/2009/draft_npm_guidance.pdf 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1984. An Overview of Major Wetlands Functions and Values. 

FWS OBS-84-18. 

Wildlife Habitat Council (WHC). 2008. Brownfields/Remediation. 

www.wildlifehc.org/brownfields/index.cfm (viewed on 01/12/2009). 
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets 

Appendices B-1

Appendices 

Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies 

Appendix B: Additional Ecological Revitalization Resources 

Appendix C: Acronyms 
Ecological Revitalization: 

Property Name 

and Location Property Type Cleanup Type Revitalization/Reuse Component Problems/Issues Solutions Point of Contact 

Atlas Tack 

Superfund Site, 

Fairhaven, MA

Superfund 

Manufacturing 

Facility

Ground water contaminated with cyanide and toluene that leached from the site lagoon andsoils contaminated with VOCs, heavy metals, pesticides, PCBs, and PAHs were cleaned up by removing buildings, contaminated soil, and sediment.

The cleanup preserved as much of the wetland sediment as possible and provided the necessary mix of fresh and salt water sources to create a functioning wetland, in addition

to protecting human health and the environment.

1) The original ROD contained sediment cleanup values that would require complete excavation of the entire marsh.2) The initial remediation plan included lowering the ground water table to prevent it from flowing through residual contamination.

1) The bioavailability study showed that it was not necessary to remove all sediments, and therefore only necessary sediment was removed, thereby preserving the marsh to the extent possible.2) The remediation approach was reevaluated during wetland design, and risks from ground water flowing beneath the site were minimal. 

Elaine Stanley, RPMEPA Region 11 Congress Street Suite 1100 Mail Code: HBO Boston, MA 02114-2023 617-918-1332stanley.elainet@epa.gov

Fort Devens: OU2 

Devens 

Consolidation 

Landfill, Sudbury, 

MA

Superfund

Military Base

Numerous small historical landfills were remediated and the waste was consolidated in a new state-of-the-art landfill. Soils and debris disposed at the Devens Consolidation Landfill included those contaminated with petroleum, pesticides, PCBs, PAHs, and asbestos. A total of approximately 365,000 cubic yards of waste was disposed of in the new landfill. The historic landfill sites were then backfilled and regraded to restore the sites to preconstruction conditions.

Three of the historic landfills had waste or debris in wetland areas. For these areas, the remedy included waste and debris removal, followed by wetland restoration. The wetlands were restored by backfilling with clean fill and manufactured wetland soil. Materials were stabilized with a custom wetland seed mix, in accordance with a Habitat Restoration Work Plan. The site was monitored and evaluated during the next three growing seasons to ensure it achieved restoration success measures.

Not specified Not specified Ginny Lombardo, RPM

EPA Region 1 1 Congress Street Suite 1100 Mail Code: HBT Boston, MA 02114-2023 617-918-1754lombardo.ginny@epa.gov 

Fort Devens: OU9 

AOC 57, Sudbury, 

MA

Superfund

Military Base

AOC 57 consists of 2 areas that were affected by stormwater runoff and wastes from vehicle maintenance activities at a historic storage yard upgradient of the site. The areas are sloped along Cold Spring Brook. Soils and ground water were contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated VOCs, PCBs, and arsenic. Contaminated soils were removed and disposed off-site, and ground water will be remediated via MNA.

Soil excavation at one of the areas included excavation within delineated wetland areas along Cold Spring Brook. The remedy required that the wetland areas be restored in accordance with anappropriate mitigation and restoration plan and that the wetland restoration area be monitored for 5 years to ensure that restoration success measures were achieved.

Not specified Not specified Ginny Lombardo, RPM

EPA Region 1 1 Congress Street Suite 1100 Mail Code: HBT Boston, MA 02114-2023 617-918-1754lombardo.ginny@epa.gov 

Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies 

REGION 1

* Links valid at time of publication.Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies 
Ecological Revitalization: 

Property Name 

and Location Property Type Cleanup Type Revitalization/Reuse Component Problems/Issues Solutions Point of Contact 

Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies, continued 

GE-Housatonic 

River, Pittsfield, 

MA

Superfund

Manufacturing 

Facilities

Site remediation involved clean up of Housatonic River sediments and floodplain soils contaminated with PCBs and other hazardous substances. Remediation included excavating and disposing of sediment and soil and full-scale capping of Silver Lake.

GE is providing economic aid to the City of Pittsfield for 10 years and making upgrades to the Housatonic River, its floodplain, and Silver Lake that will have aesthetic value and enhance local habitat.

Issues relating to flood storage compensation are under discussion with EPA.

Not specified Thomas Hickey, Jr.

Pittsfield Economic DevelopmeAuthority81 Kellogg StreetPittsfield, MA 01201413-494-7332thickey@peda.cc

Industri-Plex Site, 

Woburn, MA

Superfund

Manufacturing 

Facility

The remedy included remediating approximately 110 acres of soil contaminated with lead, arsenic, and chromium; demolishing onsite buildings; and constructing clay, soil, and synthetic layers, concrete foundations, and asphalt to cover contamination. In addition, gases at a hide pile were collected and treated, and wetlands and open spaces were created.

Wetlands and open space were created adjacent to redeveloped areas, which included a regional transportation center, highway interchange, and land developed for retail and commercial use. 

None None Joseph LeMay, RPM

EPA Region 1 1 Congress Street Suite 1100 Mail Code: HBO Boston, MA 02114-2023 617-918-1323lemay.joe@epa.gov 

Iron Horse Park, 

North Billerica, MA

Superfund

Manufacturing 

Facility

Landfill

On-site ground water and surface water were contaminated with organic and inorganic chemicals, asbestos, and heavy metals. The soil at the site was contaminated with PCBs, petrochemicals, and heavy metals. Remediation activities included capping onsite landfills and excavating and removing contaminated soil and sediment.

 Wetlands were restored. Not specified Not specified Don McElroy

EPA Region 11 Congress Street,Suite 1100Mail Code: HBO Boston, MA 02114-2023617-918-1326 mcelroy.don@epa.gov

Jamaica Island 

Landfill OU3, 

Kittery, ME

Superfund 

Remedial Action

Landfill

A variety of organic and inorganic constituents were detected in soil and ground water and included VOCs, SVOCs, PCBs, pesticides, metals, and petroleum hydrocarbons. Remediation included installation of a cap andshoreline erosion controls.

Wetlands were constructed. Minimizing the effect on 

existing mudflats in the area and locating appropriate backfill to maximize the potential for success. 

Not specified Fred Evans, RPM

NavyPortsmount Naval Shipyard Kittery, ME 03904610-595-0567 ext.159evansfj@efane.navfac.navy.mil

Loring Air Force 

Base, Northeastern 

ME

Superfund

Air Force Base

Ground water contaminated with VOCs and fuel-related compounds and surface water and sediment contaminated with VOCs, PCBs, and heavy metals were remediated. Activities included capping on-site landfills and excavating and removing contaminated soil and sediment.

Boulders and cobbles from the streambed and nearby trees larger than 15 centimeters in diameter that were removed during cleanup were later used

in stream reconstruction, after completion of cleanup activities. Reuse of native materials significantly reduced the cost of restoration materials.

Not specified Not specified Mike Daly, RPM

EPA Region 11 Congress StreetSuite 1100Mail Code: HBT Boston, MA 02114-2023617-918-1386daly.mike@epa.gov

* Links valid at time of publication.Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies 
Ecological Revitalization: 

Property Name 

and Location Property Type Cleanup Type Revitalization/Reuse Component Problems/Issues Solutions Point of Contact 

Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies, continued 

Materials 

Technology 

Laboratory, 

Watertown, MA

Superfund

Arsenal

Remediation included removal and off-site disposal of contamination sources related to weapons and ammunition manufacture and storage, and demolition and cleanup of the nuclear reactor, including radiological contamination, PAHs, PCBs, and pesticides.

Wetlands restoration was completed adjacent to the redeveloped area. Fifty-five acres of the property have been used to build the Arsenal Mall, Harvard Community Health Center, Arsenal Apartments, a public park with walking and bike trails, and a playground.

Not specified Not specified Christine Williams, RPM

EPA Region 11 Congress Street Suite 1100 Mail Code: HBT Boston, MA 02114-2023 617-918-1384williams.christine@epa.gov 

Pease Air Force 

Base, Portsmouth, 

NH

Superfund

Air Force Base

Soils and ground water were contaminated with solvents and fuel.

A wildlife refuge was created in addition to a public airport.

Not specified Not specified Mike Daly, RPM

EPA Region 11 Congress Street Suite 1100 Mail Code: HBT Boston, MA 02114-2023617-918-1386daly.mike@epa.gov 

Saco Municipal 

Landfill, Saco, ME

Superfund

Landfill

Soil and ground water contaminated from landfill activities were remediated.

A portion of the site adjacent to the redeveloped area was reserved for a wetland. The site is ready for reuse and the City of Saco plans to develop a community recreation area for hiking, biking, ice skating, and soccer. 

Not specified Not specified Ed Hathaway, RPM

EPA Region 11 Congress Street Suite 1100 Boston, MA 02114-2023617-918-1372hathaway.ed@epa.gov

Tibbetts Road Site, 

Barrington, NH

Superfund

Rural/Farmland

Site soils and ground water were

contaminated by chlorinated and non-chlorinated solvents. Remediation included source removal, building demolition, water supply extension, and phytoremediation.

The wooded phytoremediation area is providing increased biodiversity through new wildlife habitat for various birds and small mammals.

Not specified Not specified Jerome S. Amber, P.E.

Ford Motor Company, retired248-765-1044jamber@comcast.net

Asbestos Dump, 

Millington, NJ

Superfund

Landfill

Asbestos from 4 sites was collected, consolidated, and treated on-site to prevent release of contaminants. A soil cover was then placed over the site. 

A barn was converted into an environmental awareness center. Most of the property will be preserved and will help expand the Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge.

Not specified Not specified Carla Struble, RPM

EPA Region 2 290 Broadway New York, NY 10007-1866 212-637-4322struble.carla@epa.gov 

DeRewal Chemical 

Co., Kingwood 

Township, NJ

Superfund

Chemical 

Company

Contaminated soil and ground water from chemical spills was cleaned up through excavation and treatment of soil and extraction and treatment of ground water.

The site now contains walking, canoe, and biking trails, and bird watching opportunities. The Kingwood Township also plans to convert a house on the site into a historical, environmental, and recreational center.

Not specified Not specified EPA Region 2 

290 Broadway New York, NY 10007-1866 

REGION 2

* Links valid at time of publication.Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies 
Ecological Revitalization: 

Property Name 

and Location Property Type Cleanup Type Revitalization/Reuse Component Problems/Issues Solutions Point of Contact 

Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies, continued 

Lipari Landfill, 

Pitman, NJ

Superfund Landfill A slurry wall and cap were 

constructed for the landfill, whichaccepted wastes contaminated with VOCs and heavy metals. A ground water and leachate P&T system was installed, and contaminated soil and sediment were excavated and treated.

Revitalization included recreational use of a park and lake as well as development of streams and marshes.

In the ROD for OU2, changes in the remedy flow rates, equipment sizes, and estimated costs in design were made to the on-site containment facilities. The ROD for OU3 included changes to the soil and sediment volumes handled and methods for removing sediment.

Changes in the ROD did not change the functionality of the remedies.

Melissa FriedlandEPA HQAriel Rios Building1200 Pennsylvania AvenueMail Code: 5204PWashington, DC 20460703-603-8864friedland.melissa@epa.gov 

Marathon Battery, 

Cold Spring, NY

Superfund

Manufacturing 

Facilities

The factory and surrounding soils, a nearby marsh, and adjacent river sediments were contaminated with heavy metals.Remediation included excavating, capping, and restoring the marsh; excavating contaminated soils; dredging cove and river sediments; and demolishing the plant.

The marsh is now used for recreational and educational purposes, and the factory grounds are ready for redevelopment.

Difficulties included experienced goose predation, destructive ice flows, invasive plant species, and bare areas due to differential settlement within the marsh.

Each problem was dealt with individually. Some areas were replanted, coir logs were used to encourage natural plant coverage andsediment build-up in bare areas, and beetles were used to retard the growth of invasive species.

Pam Tames, RPMEPA Region 2 290 Broadway New York, NY 10007-1866 212-637-4255tames.pam@epa.gov 

Myers Property 

Superfund Site, 

Hunterdon County, 

NJ

Superfund 

Manufacturing 

Facility

Soil and ground water contaminated with VOCs, pesticides, semiVOCs, metals, and dioxins were cleaned up by excavating contaminated soil and sediment, treating soil, and extracting and treating ground water.

RPMs are saving existing trees above a certain size in areas with low levels of contamination by hand digging around the roots to a depth of six inches. Excavated soil will be replaced with clean topsoil from off site. 

Subsurface soil contamination remains, so if a tree falls, contaminated soil could be exposed.

The property will be monitored in case

large trees fall and expose soils deeper than six inches.

Stephanie Vaughn, RPMEPA Region 2290 Broadway, 19th FloorNew York, NY 10007-1866212-637-3914vaughn.stephanie@epa.gov

Army Creek 

Landfill, DE 

Superfund

Landfill

Remediation of soil and ground water contaminated with VOCs, chromium, and mercury includeda multi-layer protective cover over a municipal and industrial landfill and a ground water treatment system. Army Creek was also contaminated with cadmium, chromium, mercury, iron, and zinc.

Native vegetation was planted to create a bird and wildlife habitat. In addition, discharge pipes from the ground water treatment system were routed to create wetlands to help prevent flooding and create additional habitat.

Not specified Not specified Deb Rossi, RPM

EPA Region 31650 Arch StreetMail Code: 3HS23Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029215-814-3228rossi.debra@epa.gov

REGION 3

* Links valid at time of publication.Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies 
Ecological Revitalization: 

Property Name 

and Location Property Type Cleanup Type Revitalization/Reuse Component Problems/Issues Solutions Point of Contact 

Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies, continued 

Avtex Fibers, Front 

Royal, VA

Superfund

Manufacturing 

Facilities

The principle contaminants found in the ground water were carbon disulfide, ammonia, arsenic, antimony, phenol, and high pH. Arsenic, lead, and PCBs have been identified in soils. PCBs associated with the plant were also detected in the Shenandoah River. Remediation was completed by demolishing or decontaminating onsite buildings, removing and treating onsite hazardous and nonhazardous chemical waste, excavating contaminated soil and debris, and constructing a low-flow wastewater treatment system.

The site was used to create a river conservancy park, active recreation park, and an ecobusiness park. 

Not specified Not specified Bonnie Gross, RPM

EPA Region 31650 Arch StreetMail Code: 3HS23Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029215-814-3229gross.bonnie@epa.gov 

Berks Landfill, 

Berks County, PA

Superfund

Landfill

Ground water was contaminated with VOCs and metals. The remedy included ICs, long-term monitoring of ground water, operation and maintenance of the leachate system, and repair to the landfill cap.

The former residential property

at the site is being reused as open green space with trees and vegetation. ICs were implemented in order to prevent on-site ground water use and to protect the landfill cap.

Not specified. Not specified Kristine Matzko

EPA Region 3 1650 Arch Street Mail Code: 3HS21Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029215-814-5719matzko.kristine@epa.gov

Butz Landfill, 

Monroe County, 

PA

Superfund

Landfill

A former municipal dump contaminated the ground water with a solvent, TCE, and other organic compounds. Nearly 82,720,000 gallons of water were treated using a P&T system.

Revitalization involved creating wetlands to mitigate potential loss of wetlands caused by the P&T system.

Not specified Not specified Romuald A. Roman, RPM

EPA Region 3 1650 Arch Street Mail Code: 3HS22 Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029215-814-3212roman.romuald@epa.gov 

Chisman Creek, 

York County, VA

Superfund

Mining site

Ground water and surface water were contaminated with heavy metals from the disposal of fly ash. The cleanup plan eliminated contact with the fly ash and contaminated water, restored ground water, and protected nearby wetlands.

The site is being reused as a recreational complex, including ponds and the County Memorial Tree Grove. The site cleanup also protects nearby ponds, a creek, and an estuary, and it is part of a large water quality improvement that has led to the reopening of the Chisman Creek estuary for private and commercial fishing.

Not specified Not specified Andrew C. Palestini

EPA Region 31650 Arch StreetMail Code: 3HS23 Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029215-814-3233palestini.andrew@epa.gov

College Park 

Landfill, Beltsville, 

MD

Superfund Landfill Remediation included installing 

a cap over a landfill that accepted household trash, as well as commercial, industrial and some agricultural and research waste.

The vegetative cover will include diverse native plantings.

The stakeholders were concerned about whether the vegetation would be killed by methane from the landfill, and if the vegetationwould be able to adequately prevent leachate generation.

A pilot study is being conducted to ensure these concerns are addressed.

Karen Zhang, PhD, PE, RPMUSDA10300 Baltimore AvenueBldg. 003, Rm. 117Beltsville, MD 20705301-504-5557zhangk@ba.ars.usda.gov

* Links valid at time of publication.Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies 
Ecological Revitalization: 

Property Name 

and Location Property Type Cleanup Type Revitalization/Reuse Component Problems/Issues Solutions Point of Contact 

Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies, continued 

Craig Farm Drum, 

Parker, PA

Superfund

Landfill

Ground water and soil were contaminated with resorcinol and VOCs, such as benzene and toluene. Site remediation consisted of excavating and stabilizing contaminated soils onsite from two former waste disposal pits.

Wetlands were built on site to replace a smaller area of wetlands lost during construction of the on-site landfill.

Not specified Not specified John Epps

EPA Region 31650 Arch StreetMail Code: 3HS33 Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029215-814-3144epps.john@epa.gov

DeSale 

Restoration, Butler 

County, PA

Pennsylvania 

Department of 

Environmental 

Protection Mining 

Site

A passive treatment system was 

used to capture and treat acid mine drainage and included an anoxic collection system, verticalflow ponds, a settling pond and wetland complex, and horizontal flow limestone bed.

In addition to creating a treatment wetland complex, 11miles of streams that were once devoid of life because of acid mine drainage are now teeming with fish.

Not specified Not specified Scott Roberts

Pennsylvania Deparament of Environmental Protection OfficMineral ResourcesP.O. Box 2063Harrisburg, PA 17105-2063717-783-5338jayroberts@state.pa.us

E.I. DuPont 

Nemours & Co., 

Inc. (Newport Pigment Plant 

Landfill), Newport, 

DE

Superfund

Landfill

Soils, sediments, ground water, and surface water were contaminated with various metals. Contaminated sediments were excavated, the two landfills were capped, and soil at the ballpark was removed.

The cleanup is protecting Delaware's natural resources and wildlife habitat. Over 35 acres of wetlands and wildlife habitat have been restored as part of the site's overall cleanup.

Ground water appeared to be seeping over the sheet pile wall in several areas of the north landfill.This created a concern regarding possible vapor intrusion into structures above the contaminated ground water plume.

Evaluation of vapor intrusion potential and appropriate mitigation steps was conducted. Ground water table elevation at the north landfill was continuously monitored; water, soil and/or sediment sampling was conducted; and the need for more recovery wells was evaluated.

Randy SturgeonEPA Region 31650 Arch Street Mail Code: 3HS23 Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029 215-814-3227sturgeon.randy@epa.gov

Former Elf 

Atochem North 

America 

(Bensalem 

Redevelopment), 

Cornwell Heights, 

PA

RCRA Corrective 

Action

Manufacturing 

Facility

Refinery

Site soils and ground water are contaminated with chlorinated organics, PAHs, PCBs, pesticides, and arsenic. Remediation included removing contaminated soil and reusing concrete from demolished buildings as fill for basement areas in buildings that had been razed.

The site is planned to be redeveloped as a mixed-use area with greenspace for passive and active recreation along the Delaware River waterfront.

The property is in an area where many industries have downsized or discontinued operations over the last 20 years. Unemployment rates in the area are among the highest in Bucks County.

The redevelopment authority received a grant and loan from the Brownfields Program to help with the cost of the cleanup. A mixed-use area is planned for the site.

Andrew ClibanoffEPA Region 31650 Arch Street Mail Code: 3WC22 Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029 215-814-3391clibanoff.andrew@epa.gov

Grace Lease 

Property, 

Lancaster County, 

PA

Brownfields A Phase II Environmental Site 

Assessment found that no contaminants were present at levels above state standards, so cleanup was not necessary.

The area, previously abandoned and unused, now provides natural habitat and recreational greenspace with hiking trails, picnic grounds, and a scenic overlook of the Susquehanna River. In addition, Bald Eagle nesting sites have reemerged on the land.

Site remediation was not necessary.

Not applicable Andrew Kreider

EPA Region 31650 Arch Street Mail Code: 3HS51 Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029 215-814-3301kreider.andrew@epa.gov

* Links valid at time of publication.Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies 
Ecological Revitalization: 

Property Name 

and Location Property Type Cleanup Type Revitalization/Reuse Component Problems/Issues Solutions Point of Contact 

Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies, continued 

GSA Southeast 

Federal Center, 

Washington D.C.

RCRA Corrective 

Action

Manufacturing 

Facility

Contamination resulted from shipbuilding and ordnance production activities. Eleven of the 14 buildings were decontaminated and demolished; the remaining buildings will be renovated and reused. Contaminated soil was removed, and ground water is being treated to break down gasoline constituents.

Revitalization includes developing a waterfront park that includes wildlife habitat.

Not specified Not specified Barbara Smith

EPA Region 31650 Arch StreetMail Code: 3LC20 Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029 215-814-5786smith.barbara@epa.gov

Honeywell 

(Formerly Allied 

Signal) Baltimore 

Works Facility, 

Baltimore, MD

RCRA Corrective 

Action

Industrial Facility

Manufacturing buildings and associated hazardous waste were removed. The containment area was surrounded by a slurry wall and capped, and ground water is being pumped and treated off site. Chromium and PAHcontaminated soil was removed.

A waterfront park will be constructed and is planned to include wildlife habitat.

Not specified Not specified Russell Fish

EPA Region 31650 Arch Street Mail Code: 3LC20 Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029 215-814-3226fish.russell@epa.gov

Jacks Creek/ Sitkin 

Smelting & 

Refining, Inc, 

Maitland, PA

Superfund

Metals 

Reclamation 

Facility

The former smelting and precious metals reclamation facility contained several buildings, waste piles, and large areas of soil contaminated with lead, copper, zinc, cadmium, and PCBs. Floodplain wetlands on site and Jacks Creek sediment near the site were contaminated with runoff from the waste piles and soil. The cleanup involved dredging contaminated sediment from the adjacent Jacks Creek, excavating contaminated soil, and removing USTss and drums. Contaminated soil, sediment, and waste piles were consolidated and capped. Drums and waste were removed from the site.

The floodplain remediation required removing vegetation in a segment of the riparian corridor of the creek. Because soil excavation affected existing wetlands on site, wetlands were recreated in the riparian corridor along Jacks Creek. RPMs created vernal pools, placed woody debris in the wetland as invertebrate habitat, and used a wet meadow seed mix. A monitoring plan will help document the effectiveness of the created wetland.

Not specified Not specified Rashmi Mathur, RPM

EPA Region 3 1650 Arch Street Mail Code: 3HS22 Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029215-814-5234mathur.rashmi@epa.gov 

Hopewell Plant 

(Honeywell), 

Hopewell, VA

RCRA Corrective 

Action

Manufacturing 

Facility

This industrial chemical and fertilizer manufacturing facility is being cleaned up to control ground water releases and current human and ecological exposure to contaminated media.

A portion of the facility has been converted to a wildlife habitat area and has been certified as such by the Wildlife Habitat Council.

Not specified Not specified Russell Fish

EPA Region 31650 Arch StreetMail Code: 3LC20 Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029215-814-3226fish.russell@epa.gov

* Links valid at time of publication.Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies 
Ecological Revitalization: 

Property Name 

and Location Property Type Cleanup Type Revitalization/Reuse Component Problems/Issues Solutions Point of Contact 

Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies, continued 

Mill Creek Dump, 

Erie, PA

Superfund

Landfill

A former freshwater wetland that 

was used as a landfill for foundry sands, solvents, waste oils, and other industrial and municipal waste was capped and flatter slopes were created.

The former landfill is now a golf course. Eight acres of wetlands were constructed adjacent to the course.

Not specified Not specified Romuald A. Roman, RPM

EPA Region 3 1650 Arch Street Mail Code: 3HS22 Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029215-814-3212roman.romuald@epa.gov 

Morgantown 

Ordnance Works 

Disposal Area - 

OU1, Monongalia 

County, WV

Superfund

Chemical 

Production Facility 

Landfill

Remediation activities included constructing a cap, removing soil

and sediment contaminated with heavy metals and PAHs, and constructing three wetlands.

Wetlands were constructed and provided leachate treatment.

Contaminated sediment and soil were intended to be cleaned through bioremediation. However, bioremediation did not meet the clean up standards within a reasonable time frame and was not cost effective.

Three consecutive treatment wetlands

were constructed to treat landfill leachate. Monitoring was implemented to ensure the effectiveness of wetlands.

Mr. Hilary Thornton, RPMEPA Region 3 1650 Arch StreetMail Code: 3HS23 Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029215-814-3323thornton.hilary@epa.gov 

Naval Amphibious 

Base Little Creek, 

Virginia Beach, VA

Superfund

Landfill

Approximately 29,000 tons of non-hazardous soil and debris were removed from the landfill and 6,300 cubic yards of clean fill were imported.

The landfill was converted to a tidal wetland. Two connecting channels were constructed to allow tidal inundation into the site from Little Creek Cove. Plants were placed along designated elevations to establish tidal wetland vegetation, using the neighboring marsh as a reference.

Not specified Not specified Bruce Pluta 

EPA Region 3 1650 Arch Street Mail Code: 3HS41Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029215-814-2380pluta.bruce@epa.gov 

Ohio River Park, 

Neville Island, PA

Superfund

Landfill

A previous municipal landfill operating from the 1930s until the 1950s was capped with a protective cover.

The site will be transformed into a sports complex, with areas of habitat for wildlife; visitors will also be able to enjoy numerous walking, hiking, and biking trails.

Not specified Not specified Romuald A. Roman, RPM

EPA Region 3 1650 Arch Street Mail Code: 3HS22 Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029215-814-3212roman.romuald@epa.gov 

* Links valid at time of publication.Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies 
Ecological Revitalization: 

Property Name 

and Location Property Type Cleanup Type Revitalization/Reuse Component Problems/Issues Solutions Point of Contact 

Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies, continued 

Palmerton Zinc Pile 

Superfund Site, 

Palmerton, PA

Superfund

Mining Site

Former smelting operations resulted in soil and shallow ground water contamination by heavy metals, such as lead, cadmium, and zinc, and created a defoliated area on the adjacent Blue Mountain, a cinder

bank, and additional defoliation along Stoney Ridge. Heavy metals were being transported tonearby stream segments through erosion. Biosolids were applied to accelerate revegetation of the defoliated areas, to stabilize the area, reduce soil erosion caused by wind and surface water, and increase evapotranspiration to prevent percolation of water and contaminants to the ground water. In addition, a system wasinstalled to divert surface water around the cinder bank and treat leachate before discharge to the creek.

For the Blue Mountain revegetation, site managers constructed a self-sustaining meadowland because of minimum metal uptake from the plants. Also, ree species with high metal uptake were removed. For the cinder bank revegetation, the team used a grass seed mixture that included a nitrogen-fixing legume to maintain nitrogen fertility without the need for fertilizer.

Attempting to establish forestland at the site was extremely challenging because of competition from grasses, animal grazing, and insects.Some grass species were not desirable because of metals uptake. Use of sludge as a soil amendment caused a negative public perception.

Forestland was ultimately abandoned in favor of meadowland.The types of grass seeds were replaced with those having minimal metals uptake.Sludge application was replaced with mushroom compost.

Charlie Root, RPMEPA Region 31650 Arch StreetMail Code: 3HS21 Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029215-814-3193root.charlie@epa.gov

Resin Disposal, 

Jefferson Borough, 

PA

Superfund

Landfill

The landfill, which accepted industrial waste including benzene and toluene, was covered with multi-layer cap. Leachate was collected and separated, and oil was recycled as fuel for a nearby plant.

The site now contains native wild flowers and is habitat to migratory birds.

Not specified Not specified Rashmi Mathur, RPM

EPA Region 3 1650 Arch Street Mail Code: 3HS22 Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029215-814-5234mathur.rashmi@epa.gov 

Revere Chemical, 

Nockamixon 

Township, PA

Superfund Waste 

Processing 

Facility

The site was contaminated with benzoic acid, VOCs, solvents, and PAHs. Remediation included disposing of debris and solid wastes off-site, cleaning VOC-contaminated soil by vacuum extraction, and installinga slurry wall and cap over an area contaminated with hazardous waste associated with an acid and metal-plating waste processing facility.

Revitalization activities included planting wildflowers and other foliage to attract migratory birds and other wildlife.

Treatment of VOCcontaminated soil by in situ vacuum extraction did not meet requirements of the Pennsylvania Land Recycling and Remediation Standards Act.

Protective levels of contaminant concentrations in ground water were established usingthe Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure to determine the extent of capping. Soil contaminated with VOCs was treated by ex situ vacuum extraction.

Melissa FriedlandEPA HQAriel Rios Building1200 Pennsylvania AvenueMail Code: 5204PWashington, DC 20460703-603-8864friedland.melissa@epa.gov 

Saltville Waste 

Disposal Ponds, 

Saltville, VA

Superfund

Manufacturing 

Facility

Elevated mercury levels were present in soil and ground water in the area beneath the former chlorine plant. Remediation activities included constructing a water treatment plant and capping the ponds.

A wildlife habitat area was created on the former disposal ponds.

Not specified Not specified Eric Newman

1650 Arch Street Mail Code: 3HS23 Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029 215-814-3237newman.eric@epa.gov

* Links valid at time of publication.Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies 
Ecological Revitalization: 

Property Name 

and Location Property Type Cleanup Type Revitalization/Reuse Component Problems/Issues Solutions Point of Contact 

Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies, continued 

Seaford Nylon 

Plant, Seaford, DE

RCRA Corrective 

Action Site

Manufacturing 

Facility

Wastes include fly ash, corrosives, ignitables, spent halogenated solvents, and discarded commercial chemical products. Ground water contains low levels of metals and VOCs and low pH. Remediation included MNA of ground water with ICs as well as installing a protective cover over solid waste. Fly ash from the site was used as fill at an adjacent golf course.

Reuse includes expansion of the neighboring golf course.

There was concern that the fly ash placed at the golf course may cause a ground water problem.

Evaluations of the ground water at thegolf course indicated that the fly ash did not impact the ground water.

Douglas ZeitersDelaware Department of NaturaResources and Environmental Control89 Kings HighwayDover, DE 19901302-739-9403douglas.zeiters@state.de.us 

Site 46 Landfill A, 

Stump Dump 

Road, Dahlgren, 

VA

Superfund

Landfill

Ground water and surface water contained contaminants such as cadmium, lead, mercury, and PCBs from municipal waste at the site. Contaminated waste from the site was removed to an appropriate off-site landfill.

The remedial design includes the integration and establishment of tidal wetlands

in the low areas of the site.

Uncovering UXO caused a safety issue at the site.

EOD support and screening at all times was required.

Neal Parker1314 Harwood St., SEWashington Navy YardWashington, D.C. 20374202-685-3281parkernm@efaches.navfac.nav

Tybouts Corner 

Landfill, New 

Castle, DE

Superfund

Landfill

Remediation activities included installing water lines for residents in the area and installing a protective cap over the landfill, which accepted municipal and household waste.

Revitalization included planting wildflowers and other vegetation on the cap to stabilize the ground and prevent erosion.

Not specified Not specified Katherine Lose, RPM

EPA Region 3 1650 Arch Street Mail Code: 3HS23 Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029 215-814-3240lose.kate@epa.gov 

Walsh Landfill, PA Superfund

Landfill

Residential well water off-site was contaminated with chloromethane, chloroform, xylenes, and other VOCs, as well as lead, mercury, and zinc. Remediation included removing waste and installing an evapotranspiration cover system to protect against migration of on

site ground water contaminated with mercury, toluene, and other VOCs from former disposal practices. 

Revitalization included replanting a vegetative layer of

a variety of native hardwood and coniferous trees.

The site was planned for reuse originally. However, because both the site owner and community were unresponsive, the team installed an evapotranspiration cover with trees as an integral part of the remedy. Therefore, reuse options are minimal.

Trees planted as the vegetative layer of the evapotranspiration cover have provided excellent habitat for birds and small mammals. Current plans are for the site to remain as is.

Frank Klanchar, RPMEPA Region 3 1650 Arch Street Mail Code: 3HS22 Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029 215-814-3218klanchar.frank@epa.gov

Wildcat Landfill, 

Dover, DE

Superfund

Landfill

Contaminated soil and ground water from the previous landfill were capped with a protective cover.

A mixture of native plants and wildflowers were planted on the cap, and Kent County is evaluating plans to allocate a part of the site as a greenway, which is an open space for recreational purposes.

Not specified Not specified Hilary Thornton

EPA Region 31650 Arch StreetMail Code: 3HS23 Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029215-814-3323thornton.hilary@epa.gov

* Links valid at time of publication.Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies 
Ecological Revitalization: 

Property Name 

and Location Property Type Cleanup Type Revitalization/Reuse Component Problems/Issues Solutions Point of Contact 

Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies, continued 

Woodlawn County 

Landfill, MD

Superfund

Landfill

The ground water is contaminated with VOCs, primarily vinyl chloride and 1,2-dichloroethane, and with PAHs, pesticides, and metals, primarily manganese. Initially RPMs installed an impermeable cap and ground water P&T system. Later they replaced the cap with a vegetative soil cap to help sustain naturally occurring bacteria in the soil that degrade the contaminants. In addition to P&T, the remedy included MNA with monitoring of the ground water and the vegetative soil cover. The team planted wildlife enhancements such as trees and native wildflowers after installing the vegetative cap.

The closed landfill was used to

create wildlife habitat called "New Beginnings, the Woodlawn Wildlife Habitat Area." It is currently used as a

nature and science study area by local schools and as an area for projects by the Boy Scouts and Girls Scouts of America.

Analyses showed contamination of on-site and off-site ground water, soil, and sediment and surface water of a stream that crosses the site.MNA posed a difficulty due the scarcity of its use at the time. 

The original remedy included extraction and treatment of contaminated ground water. However, continued monitoring showed that MNA effectively removed or immobilized contaminants from ground water.Two remedial designs were completed in parallel in case the MNA process failed to perform as expected.

James J. Feeney, RPMEPA Region 3 1650 Arch Street Mail Code: 3HS22 Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029 215-814-3190 feeney.jim@epa.gov 

Black WarriorCahaba Rivers 

Land Trust, AL

Brownfields 

Mining Site

Soils contaminated with lead and heavy metals. Remediation included a recreational park and community stream cleanup events.

Transformed a former industrial region into a 27-mile greenway with parks and paths along the Five-Mile Creek. 

It could take 20 years to complete the entire greenway project.

Many of the targeted former industrial areas have been cleaned up and made available to communities as natural and recreational land.

EPA Region 4 Brownfields Tea61 Forsyth Street, S.W. Atlanta, GA 30303-8960 404-562-8493www.epa.gov/region4/waste/bf/

htm

Milan Army 

Ammunition Plant, 

Milan, TN

Superfund 

Ammunitions 

Plant

Two wetland systems were created, a subsurface flow ground-bed wetland and a surface flow lagoon wetland, to degrade explosives and their byproducts. Specifically, ground water was contaminated with explosives constituents includingTNT, RDX, HMX, 2,4-DNT and 2,6-DNT.

Revitalization included creation of wetlands and use of phytoremediation as a remedial technology.

Weather was an obstacle because it affects the efficiency of phytoremediation.

Not specified Laurie Haines

U.S. Army Environmental Cent2511 Jefferson Davis HighwayTaylor Building NC3-Arlington, VA 22202-3926703-601-1590laurie.haines@us.army.mil

Northwest 58th 

Street Landfill, 

Miami, FL

Superfund 

Landfill

Ground water contaminated with heavy metals and toxic chemicals from previous landfill activities was cleaned up through remediation and closure of the landfill.

Through careful design, a lake was constructed at the site for wading birds; trails were created with lookout centers.

Not specified Not specified Bill Denman

EPA Region 461 Forsyth Street, SWAtlanta, GA 30303404-562-8939denman.bill@epa.gov

Solitron 

Microwave, Port 

Salerno, FL

Superfund

Manufacturing 

Facility

Ground water contaminants consist of PCE and its breakdown products. Remediation activities include water line extensions, soil removal, in situ chemical oxidation, and natural attenuation.

Six acres at the site have been reserved for wetland areas, an upland preserve for native plant habitat, and a 50-foot natural buffer between the site and surrounding residential areas.

Not specified Not specified Bill Denman

EPA Region 461 Forsyth Street, SWAtlanta, GA 30303404-562-8939denman.bill@epa.gov

REGION 4

* Links valid at time of publication.Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies 
Ecological Revitalization: 

Property Name 

and Location Property Type Cleanup Type Revitalization/Reuse Component Problems/Issues Solutions Point of Contact 

Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies, continued 

Allied Chemical & 

Ironton Coke, 

Ironton, OH

Superfund

Chemical and Tar 

Manufacturing 

Facility

Solid wastes and wastewater including crude tar and ammonia

contaminated the ground water at this site. Remediation activities included excavating and disposing of contaminated soil, installing containment systems, and constructing a water treatment plant.

This area is being converted into a wetlands system, taking advantage of its natural flooding conditions and predisposition to wetlandstype vegetation.

Not specified Not specified Syed Quadri

EPA Region 577 West Jackson BoulevardMail Code: SR-6J Chicago, IL 60604-3507312-886-5736quadri.syed@epa.gov

Bowers Landfill, 

Circleville, OH

Superfund

Landfill

Soil, ground water, and surface water contaminated with VOCs and PCBs. Remediation included removing debris and installing a clay cap.

Wetlands were created around the site to protect the cap from flooding.

The nearby Scioto River was prone to flooding, which could affect the landfill cap.

Wetlands were created in the area between the landfill and river, where clay was taken to create the cap, to control flooding.

Sirtaj Ahmed, RPMEPA Region 577 West Jackson BoulevardChicago, IL 60604-3507312-886-4445ahmed.sirtaj@epa.gov 

Calumet Container 

Site, Hammond, IN

Superfund 

Industrial Facility

Remediation consisted of cleaning up soil contamination caused by previous drum and pail reconditioning operations at the site.

The area will be restored as a native habitat area with opportunities for passive recreation, including walking trails, and increasing biologicaldiversity of native plants for prairie and wetland habitats.

Not specified Not specified Thomas Bloom

EPA Region 577 West Jackson BoulevardMail Code: SE-4J Chicago, IL 60604-3507312-886-1967bloom.thomas@epa.gov

Broverman Landfill, 

Christian County, 

IL

Illinois EPA 

Corrective Action

Landfill

Cleanup included repair of the protective cap placed over an abandoned municipal landfill.

Prairie plants were seeded to stabilize the soil cover and reduce maintenance requirements. 

Deep gullies were eroding down the landfill's sparsely vegetated sides and low areas were holding pools of stagnant water.

The cleanup team filled in large surface irregularities, added rip-rap in drainage ways to deter future erosion, installed vegetation mats, and seeded the area with native grasses and wildflowers. The remedy was costeffective because nitrogen and phosphorous did not have to be added to the soil, additional topsoil and tilling was not required, and maintenance only included occasionalprescribed burns.

Jody KershawIllinois EPA1021 North Grand Avenue EastP.O. Box 19276Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276217-524-3285jody.kershaw@epa.state.il.us

Dupage County 

Landfill, IL

Superfund

Landfill

Ground water contamination associated with the landfill was cleaned up.

The site is now being used as a recreational area with picnic and camping areas, trails, and a lake. The previous landfill is used for sledding during the winter months.

Not specified Not specified Thomas Williams, RPM

EPA Region 577 West Jackson BoulevardMail Code: SR-6J Chicago, IL 60604-3507312-886-6157williams.thomas@epa.gov

E-Pond Solid 

Waste 

Management Unit, 

Lima, OH

RCRA Corrective 

Action

Refinery Landfill

Synthetic root barrier and soil cover will be placed over the site, which is contaminated with chromium, antimony, thallium, PCB-1248, benzo(a)pyrene, and dibenz(a,h)anthracene.

Prairie habitat constructed with

native plants. Interpretive areas and educational opportunities will be created.

Not specified Not specified Thomas Matheson, RPM

EPA Region 5 77 West Jackson BoulevardMail Code: DM-7JChicago, IL 60604-3507312-886-7569matheson.thomas@epa.gov 

REGION 5

* Links valid at time of publication.Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies 
Ecological Revitalization: 

Property Name 

and Location Property Type Cleanup Type Revitalization/Reuse Component Problems/Issues Solutions Point of Contact 

Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies, continued 

Fernald, Southwest 

OH

Superfund

Uranium Metal 

Production

Remediation and closure project addressing uranium contamination in soil and ground water. Remediation included treatment and disposal through an on-site disposal facility and off-site disposal. The treated silos and waste pit materials were all disposed of off-site. The on-site disposal facility contains primarily contaminated soil and building debris.

End use of the entire 1,000-acre site is an educational park focusing on site history and ecology. Deep excavations are being converted to wetland and open water habitat. Excavations into the subsoil are being converted to native grasslands.

The primary problems have been invasive species control, geese and deer browsing, and germination success. 

Invasive control was initially implemented through mechanical removal. Selective use of herbicides provides on-going control. Deer exclosures have been installed to fence the deer out of new restoration areas where woody plants were installed. Goose fencing, flagged twine, and coyote decoys have been used to discourage geese. Germination success is being evaluated and in some cases has required reseeding.

Thomas A. SchneiderOhio EPA, Office of Federal Fa401 East Fifth StreetDayton, OH 45402-2911937-285-6466tom.schneider@epa.state.oh.us

Ford Rouge 

Center, Dearborn, 

MI

MDEQ/ RCRA 

Corrective Action 

Automobile 

Manufacturing 

Complex

Remediation included removal of soils contaminated with SVOCs, PCBs, metals, and organics as well as containment strategies.

Ecological enhancements include a vegetated roof, pervious pavement, vegetated drainage swales, hedgerow wildlife corridors, wetland restoration, sunflower plantings, and grassland restoration. When it was built, this was the world's largest green roof at 10 acres in size. Honey bee hives have been added to enhance pollination for new plantings.

Issues encountered included coordinating remediation with ongoing plant expansion activities.

Early negotiations with MDEQ helped the process go smoothly.

Dan BallnikFord Motor CompanyOne American RoadDearborn, MI 48126313-248-8606dballni1@ford.com

Former Brass 

Foundry and Eljer 

Park, Marysville, 

OH

RCRA Corrective 

Action

Foundry

Remediation included removing soil and stream sediments contaminated with VOCs and metals, demolishing buildings, capping residual areas, and improving site drainage to prevent erosion.

Revitalization included creating a park with athletic fields, playground equipment, a walking trail, and a wetlands area.

Not specified Not specified Jan J. Chizzonite, Managing 

Executive PartnerEnvironmental Strategies ConsLLC11911 Freedom DriveReston, VA 20190703-709-6500 jan.chizzonite@wspgroup.com

Former Ford 

Michigan Casting 

Center Landfill, Flat 

Rock, MI

Brownfields 

Landfill

A wooded leachate collection/management system was used to treat contaminated soil and ground water.

Wooded phytoremediation area providing increased biodiversity viacreation of wildlife habitat for various birds and small mammals.

Not specified Not specified Jeff Hartlund

Ford Motor CompanyOne American RoadDearborn, MI 48126313-322-0700

jhartlun@ford.com

Former Gulf 

Refinery Site, 

Hooven, OH

RCRA Corrective 

Action

Refinery

Phytoremediation consisting of a vegetative cap was used to treat soil contaminated with a mixture of petroleum hydrocarbons, including PAHs. 

Activities at the site include constructing a wetland habitat for wildlife and extending the park planned for the adjacent area by providing community access.

Not specified Not specified Lucinda Jackson

ChevronTexaco Corporation 100 Chevron Way P.O. Box 1627 Richmond, CA 94802-0627510-242-1047luaj@chevron.com 

Ilada Energy 

Company, East 

Cape Girardeau, IL

Superfund

Waste Oil 

Reclamation 

Facility

Water and soil were contaminated with VOCs, PCBs, and heavy metals. Remediation activities included the removal of

1,742 cubic yards of soil and 865,700 gallons of water. Oil and sludge were incinerated.

The site is part of an ecological preservation area. The Land Conservancy bought land around the site and planted bottomwood trees adjacent to the site.

Not specified Not specified Sam Chummar

EPA Region 577 West Jackson BoulevardMail Code: SR-6J Chicago, IL 60604-3507312-886-1434chummar.sam@epa.gov

* Links valid at time of publication.Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies 
Ecological Revitalization: 

Property Name 

and Location Property Type Cleanup Type Revitalization/Reuse Component Problems/Issues Solutions Point of Contact 

Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies, continued 

Industrial Excess 

Landfill (IEL), 

Uniontown, OH

Superfund

Landfill

Remediation activities such as extraction and treatment, capping the landfill, and installing

a landfill gas extraction system were used to treat ground water contaminated by VOCs. 

The site's remedy involves enhancing wildlife habitat and creating greenspace. Almost 10,000 native trees and shrubs were planted.

Not specified Not specified Timothy Fischer, RPM

EPA Region 577 West Jackson BoulevardMail Code: SR-6J Chicago, IL 60604-3507312-886-5787fischer.timothy@epa.gov

Joliet Army 

Ammunition Plant, 

Joliet, IL 

Superfund

Ammunitions 

Plant

Remediation included excavation and off-site disposal of soils contaminated with metals and on-site bioremediation of explosivescontaminated soils.

Midewin National Tall Grass Prairie was created for recreational, educational, and agricultural benefits to the public. Also, revitalization activities included restoring native wildlife populations and habitat. 

Remediation goals were questioned as possibly not protecting ecological resources of the Midewin National Tall Grass Prairie due to the uncertainty of therisk posed by chemical constituents.

Site representatives are still working to establish proper remediation goals and costs.

Laurie HainesU.S. Army Environmental Cent2511 Jefferson Davis HighwayTaylor Building NC3-Arlington, VA 22202-3926703-601-1590laurie.haines@hqda.army.mil

Petersen Sand and 

Gravel, Libertyville, 

IL

Superfund

Quarry

The former Petersen quarry was used during the 1950s as a dumping ground for solvents and

paints causing extensive contamination. Cleanup activities included removing drums, paint cans, and contaminated soil and surface water.

The cleanup enabled Independence Grove Forest Preserve to create a 115-acre lake and establish an education center at the site.

Not specified Not specified David Seeley, RPM

EPA Region 577 West Jackson BoulevardMail Code: SR-6J Chicago, IL 60604-3507312-886-7058seely.david@epa.gov

Pocket Parks at 

Former Service 

Stations, Chicago, 

IL

IEPA Corrective 

Action

Former Service 

Station

The sites were contaminated with BTEX, and contaminated soil was removed. Each of the sites received "No Further Remediation" letters through IEPA's Voluntary Cleanup Program. 

Greenspace was created to reduce paved areas, which decreased the amount of stormwater that reaches the combined storm sewers.

Local politics favored commercial use over recreational use.

Multiple meetings with community groups helped to achieve consensus.

Kelly KennoyCity of Chicago30 North Lasalle Street, 25th FlChicago, IL 60602-2575 312-744-8692kkennoy@cityofchicago.org 

AMAX Metals 

Recovery (Freeport 

McMoRan), 

Braithwaite, LA

RCRA Corrective 

Action

Metals Recovery 

Facility

A UST and waste pile area was cleaned up and designated "ready for reuse."

A water retention pond was dewatered to form a wetland that provided a home to alligators relocated due to Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

Not specified Not specified U.S. EPA Region 6

1445 Ross Avenue Suite 1200 Dallas, TX 75202-2733 Louisiana Department of Environmental QualityGalvez Building602 North Fifth StreetBaton Rouge, LA 70802

Brooks City-Base, 

San Antonio, TX

RCRA Corrective 

Action

Former Medical 

Research and 

Development 

Facility

A portion of the base was cleaned up by installing soil vapor extraction and ground water P&T systems, removing and installing a cover over garbage and construction debris,

excavating contaminated soil, and incorporating ICs.

The former air force base was issued a "ready for reuse" determination, which was the first of its kind issued in Texas and the first for a federal facility nationwide. The remedial process incorporated ecological revitalization into the cleanup plan.

Not specified Not specified Jeanne Schulze

EPA Region 61445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200Mail Code: 6PD-F Dallas, TX 75202-2733214-665-7254schulze.jeanne@epa.gov

REGION 6

* Links valid at time of publication.Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies 
Ecological Revitalization: 

Property Name 

and Location Property Type Cleanup Type Revitalization/Reuse Component Problems/Issues Solutions Point of Contact 

Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies, continued 

DuPont Remington 

Arms Facility, 

Lonoke, AK

RCRA Corrective 

Action

Manufacturing 

Facility

Remediation included excavation and treatment of approximately 6,080 cubic yards of contaminated soils.

Remington Arms continues to manufacture ammunition at the facility. The remaining 731acres are managed as a wildlife habitat. Ecological revitalization efforts include construction of a 20-acre moist soil impoundment for waterfowl habitat in cooperation with Ducks Unlimited.

Not specified Not specified Jeanne Schulze

EPA Region 61445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200Mail Code: 6PD-F Dallas, TX 75202-2733214-665-7254schulze.jeanne@epa.gov

England Air Force 

Base, LA

RCRA Corrective 

Action Air Force 

Base

A portion of the former air force base was cleaned up by removing contaminated soil, incorporating ICs, and instituting MNA of contaminated ground water. The site was designated "ready for reuse."

Areas excavated as part of a remedial action became part of the Audubon Trail, providinghabitat and a stopping point for

migratory birds, and an expanded 18-hole golf course. 

Not specified Not specified Louisiana Department of 

Environmental QualityPublic Records CenterGalvez Building, Room 127602 N. Fifth StreetBaton Rouge, LA 70802

French, Ltd., 

Crosby, TX

Superfund

Industrial Waste 

Storage

Remediation included treating soil and ground water contaminated with VOCs and heavy metals and creating 23 acres of new wetlands.

Wetlands and surrounding habitat can be used as recreation for outdoor enthusiasts and as habitat for vegetation and wildlife.

Not specified Not specified Ernest Franke, RPM

EPA Region 6 1445 Ross Avenue Suite 1200 Mail Code: 6SFRA Dallas, TX 75202-2733 214-665-8521 franke.ernest@epa.gov 

Heifer International 

New World 

Headquarters, 

Little Rock, AR

Brownfields 

Industrial Facility

Petroleum contaminated soil was removed from the site. 

Activities at the site included the creation of retention ponds and a wetland habitat. 

The primary issue at this site was funding. 

Support from federal, state, and local sources, along with existing funds allowed cleanup.

Gerald CoundDirector of Facilities ManagemeHeifer International1 World AvenueLittle Rock, AR 72202501-907-2965gerald.cound@heifer.org

3-D Investments, 

Inc., Alda, NE

RCRA 

Brownfields and 

Superfund Former 

Gas Station, 

Battery Cracking 

and Lead 

Recovery Facility

The 3.65-acre site was investigated under RCRA authority. The facility went bankrupt and cleanup costs exceeded monies in the facility’s trust fund, so EPA RCRA referred the facility to Region 7 EPA Superfund. Region 7 Superfund evaluated the site and conducted removal activities of lead-contaminated soils. The site was cleaned up to residential or near residential standards.

EPA sent a letter stating the facility was cleaned up, and the property was deeded to the Crane Meadows Nature Center, a nonprofit organization dedicated to natural resource education and the preservation of Sandhill cranes.

During the cleanup response, EPA discovered areas of contamination that were previously unknown. Neighbors and Crane Meadows Nature Center also had a concern regarding excess tree removal.

EPA Region 7 RCRA received a RCRA Brownfields Prevention Initiative Targeted Site Effort grant to assist with characterization, public involvement and other activities. EPA worked with neighbors and Crane Meadows Nature Center to alleviate their concerns about removing perimeter trees. Crane Meadows Nature Center wanted perimeter trees to remain to serve as a wind-break. EPA obliged this request. Mulch from some of the trees was also left onsite.

Andrea R. StoneEPA Region 7901 North Fifth Street Mail Code: ARTDRCAP Kansas City, KS 66101 913-551-7662stone.andrear@epa.gov 

REGION 7

* Links valid at time of publication.Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies 
Ecological Revitalization: 

Property Name 

and Location Property Type Cleanup Type Revitalization/Reuse Component Problems/Issues Solutions Point of Contact 

Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies, continued 

Cherokee County, 

Galena, KS

Superfund

Mining Site

Remediation consisted of burying surface mine wastes contaminated with lead, mercury, and cadmium in abandoned mine pits, subsidence areas, and mine shafts on site; diverting streams away from waste piles; recontouring land surface; and revegetating with native prairie grasses to control runoff and erosion.

Native prairie grassland habitat encouraged the return of wildlife.

Potential for cave-in of filled mine shafts after heavy rain or freezing and thawing cycles.

Avoided development in the areas with potential for cave-in or collapse. 

David Drake, RPMEPA Region 7 901 North Fifth Street Mail Code: SUPRFFSE Kansas City, KS 66101 913-551-7626 drake.dave@epa.gov 

Times Beach, 

Times Beach, MO

Superfund

Contaminated 

Urban Area

A temporary incinerator was installed to burn soil contaminated with dioxin. The waste ash from the treated soil was buried on site. People were relocated and all homes and businesses were demolished. 

A state park now exists on the site and acts as a bird sanctuary. 

Numerous problems and issues resulted from this contentious Superfund site. See the Web site provided under "Notes/Links" for more information.

See the Web site provided under "Notes/Links" for more information.

Bob Feild, RPMEPA Region 7 901 North Fifth Street Mail Code: SUPRMOKS Kansas City, KS 66101913-551-7697feild.robert@epa.gov 

Wheeling Disposal 

Service Co, Inc. 

Landfill, Amazonio, 

MO

Superfund

Landfill

Soil contaminated with municipaland industrial wastes was remediated by upgrading the existing landfill cap with a clay and soil cover. Ground and surface water were monitored.

During the cleanup, the owner dug a pond and planted native wild grasses and other foliage that would attract birds and wildlife.

Not specified Not specified Amer Safadi, RPM

EPA Region 7901 North Fifth Street Mail Code: SUPRMOKS Kansas City, KS 66101 913-551-7825safadi.amer@epa.gov 

BP Former 

Refinery, Platte 

River Commons, 

Casper, WY

RCRA Corrective 

Action

Former Petroleum 

Refinery

Cleanup included removal of trash and waste from the river to contain the flow of contaminated ground water, excavation of contaminated soils, addition of P&T wells and construction of a wetland treatment system. Nearly 2,000 trees were planted to assist with phytoremediation.

After the river was cleaned up, 

a recreational kayak course was created. A portion of the site was used to create an 18-hole golf course. Wetlands were incorporated into the golf course design to assist in treating contaminated ground water. Trees were planted for phytoremediation.

Not specified Not specified Vickie Meredith

WDEQSolid & Hazardous Waste DivisHazardous Waste Permitting anCorrective Action Program250 Lincoln StreetLander, WY 82520vmered@state.wy.us307-332-6924Tom Aalto, EPA Region 81595 Wynkoop Street Mail Code: 8P-HW Denver, CO 80202-1129 aalto.tom@epa.gov303-312-6949

REGION 8

* Links valid at time of publication.Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies 
Ecological Revitalization: 

Property Name 

and Location Property Type Cleanup Type Revitalization/Reuse Component Problems/Issues Solutions Point of Contact 

Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies, continued 

Cache La Poudre 

River Superfund 

Site, Fort Collins, 

CO

Superfund Soil and sediments in the 

Poudre River, and ground water were contaminated with gasoline

mixed with coal tar. Cleanup activities included sediment excavation and temporary rerouting of the Poudre River, a vertical sheet pile barrier to stop ground water flow, and ground water treatment.

EPA completed an intact but unobtrusive remedy of the Poudre River to preserve the riverine habitat.

Beavers ate about half of the tree plantings.

Site managers used wire on the first 6 to 8 feet of tree plantings, and painted the wire to be easily visible.

Paul Peronard, OSCEPA Region 81595 Wynkoop StreetMail Code: 8EPR-SR Denver, CO 80202-1129303-312-6808peronard.paul@epa.gov

California Gulch 

Superfund Site, 

Upper Arkansas 

River Operable 

Unit, Leadville, CO

Superfund 

Mining Site

The mining district’s soil, surface water, and sediments were heavily contaminated with lead, zinc, and other heavy metals from mine tailings. Biosolids and lime were applied directly to the tailings along Upper Arkansas River.

The area along the river has been restored and supports vegetation and wildlife, and is available for agricultural use and recreational use such as hiking and fishing.

Tailings could not be excavated because of the risk of tailings entering the river and the difficulty of finding a repository for the contaminated soil. Also, replacement of topsoil would be costly. Mobilizing materials to the site was difficult due to the elevation of the site. Water was also scarce due to low rainfall and high elevation.

Biosolids were spread over the tailings, reducing the potential for tailings to migrate to the river. 

Rebecca Thomas, RPM EPA Region 8 1595 Wynkoop StreetDenver, CO 80202-1129303-312-6552thomas.rebecca@epa.govMike Holmes, RPMEPA Region 8 1595 Wynkoop StreetDenver, CO 80202-1129303-312-6607holmes.michael@epa.gov 

East Helena Site, 

Helena, MT

Superfund

Smelting Site

Ground water, surface water, and soil contamination from decades of lead smelting activities was cleaned up by removing waste, treating soil, and capping the area.

In addition to mixed commercial and residential use, portions of the site are being used for a neighborhood park, a baseball field, and some wetlands redevelopment.

Not specified Not specified Scott Brown

EPA Region 8Montana Operations Office FedBuilding10 West 15th StreetSuite 3200 Mail Code: 8MOHelena, MT 59626406-457-5035 brown.scott@epa.gov

Kennecott North 

and South Zone 

Sites, Salt Lake 

County, UT

Superfund

Mining Site

Soil and ground water were contaminated with mining wastes, including sulfates and heavy metals. Soil was removed, and ground water was pumped and treated in the mine's tailings slurry line.

Open space, wetlands, and wildlife habitat were created. A residential area was also created.

Not specified Not specified Rebecca Thomas, RPM

EPA Region 8 1595 Wynkoop StreetMail Code: 8EPR-SR Denver, CO 80202-1129303-312-6552thomas.rebecca@epa.gov 

Milltown Reservoir 

Sediments, 

Milltown, MT

Superfund

Mining Site

Six million cubic yards of mining waste that had piled up at the base of the Milltown Dam was poisoning the reservoir and affecting drinking water. A new drinking water system was installed at the site.

In addition to adding a new drinking water system, 2.5 miles was added to existing hiking trails in Missoula to complete a loop around the University of Montana and Missoula's waterfront.

Not specified Not specified Scott Brown

EPA Region 8Montana Operations Office FedBuilding10 West 15th StreetSuite 3200 Mail Code: 8MOHelena, MT 59626406-457-5035 brown.scott@epa.gov

* Links valid at time of publication.Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies 
Ecological Revitalization: 

Property Name 

and Location Property Type Cleanup Type Revitalization/Reuse Component Problems/Issues Solutions Point of Contact 

Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies, continued 

Monticello Mill 

Superfund Site, 

Monticello, UT

Superfund

Former DOE 

Processing 

Facility

A cover system was constructed 

to contain radioactive material removed from the site. The cover design mimics and enhances the natural ground water balance and uses a capillary barrier. Native vegetation was planted to maximize evapotranspiration.

The native vegetation chosen was designed to emulate the structure, function, diversity, and dynamics of native plant communities in the area.

Not specified Not specified Mark Aguilar

EPA Region 81595 Wynkoop StreetMail Code: 8EPR-F Denver, CO 80202-1129303-312-6251aguilar.mark@epa.gov

Rocky Flats Plant, 

Golden, CO

Superfund Former 

DOE Weapons 

Facility

At one time the site stored more than 14 tons of plutonium. All special nuclear materials were packaged and shipped to licensed repositories. Over 800 structures were cleaned up, as necessary, and removed. 690 tanks were decontaminated and removed, and onsite landfills were covered. Three contaminated ground water plume barriers and passive treatment systems were installed. Finally, wastes and contaminated soils were removed and shipped to permitted facilities.

Part of the site that has been remediated has been transferred from DOE to DOI and the USFWS to manage as a National Wildlife Refuge.

Not specified Not specified Mark Aguilar

EPA Region 81595 Wynkoop StreetMail Code: 8EPR-F Denver, CO 80202-1129303-312-6251aguilar.mark@epa.gov

Rocky Mountain 

Arsenal, 

Commerce City, 

CO

Superfund ArmyLead Remedial 

Action

Ammunition Plant

P&T systems were installed to remediate ground water contaminated with wastes from production of chemical warfare agents, industrial and agricultural chemicals, and pesticides.

Congress passed the Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge Act, requiring the site to become part of the national wildlife refuge system once cleanup is complete.

Not specified Not specified Greg Hargreaves, RPM

EPA Region 8 1595 Wynkoop StreetMail Code: 8EPR-F Denver, CO 80202-1129303-312-6661hargreaves.greg@epa.gov 

Silver Bow Creek 

and Warm Springs 

Ponds, Butte, MT

Superfund

Mining Site

Remediation included excavating sediment contaminated by copper mining activities and installing a water treatment system.

Extensive wetlands are now home to a variety of wildlife. Nesting platforms were built to protect birds. The wetlands are also used for recreation such as fishing, hiking, and biking.

Not specified Not specified Ron Bertram, RPM

EPA Region 8 1595 Wynkoop StreetMail Code: 8EPR-F Denver, CO 80202-1129 406-441-1150bertram.ron@epa.gov 

* Links valid at time of publication.Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies 
Ecological Revitalization: 

Property Name 

and Location Property Type Cleanup Type Revitalization/Reuse Component Problems/Issues Solutions Point of Contact 

Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies, continued 

Summitville Mine, 

CO

Superfund

Mining Site

Gold mining released cyanide and acidic mine water to the Alamosa River. Cleanup activities include permanently stabilizing the site and reversing the effects of mining on the river.

The Alamosa River and tributaries flow through wetlands, forested and agricultural land, and into the Terrace Reservoir, which supplies irrigation water to livestock and farms. The site has been revegetated with grasses that promote the recolonization of native plants. The river, which was void of life because of contamination, now supports some types of aquatic life.

Not specified Not specified Victor Ketellapper, RPM

EPA Region 81595 Wynkoop StreetMail Code: 8EPR-F Denver, CO 80202-1129303-312-6578ketellapper.victor@epa.gov

Atlas Asbestos 

Mine, Fresno 

County, CA

Superfund

Mining Site

The remedy included the removal of contaminated material, stabilization of erosionprone areas, and structural improvements to clean up the asbestos contaminated soil and water.

The site is a wildlife sanctuary and a popular recreational area for hikers, campers, and hunters. 

At the Atlas Mine Area, the road to the Rover Pit/Channel A is likely to fail sometime in the future due to an active landslide. In addition, the road to Pond A may also fail in the future due to erosion.

Alternate access roads to the Rover Pit/Channel A and to Pond A will be identified prior to failure of the existingroads.

Anna Lynn SuerEPA Region 975 Hawthorne StreetMail Code: WTR-2San Francisco, CA 94105415-972-3148suer.lynn@epa.gov 

A West Coast 

Refinery, Location 

not provided

EPA Research 

Technology 

Development 

Forum Site

Refinery Effluent 

Treatment System

A phytoremediation demonstration was conducted at the site, which was contaminated with hydrocarbons. The remediation also included enhancing and planting wetlands, and installing a vegetation cap.

The site includes a clean stormwater holding basin. Natural vegetation was planted over the 90-acre vegetation cap.

Selenium was identified on site and in bird eggs, which can be harmful to the wildlife, especially bird embryos.

The site was turned into a treatment zone and habitat zone. Birds were discouraged from the treatment zone where selenium was to be removed. After testing, selenium was found to be greatly reduced in bird eggs. 

Kim Beman Chevron6001 Bollinger Canyon RoadSan Ramon, CA 94583,KBGS@chevron.com

Alameda Naval Air 

Station, Alameda, 

CA

Superfund

Landfill, Lagoon

Remediation included using dredged sediment from the lagoon as part of a landfill cap for parts of the site that were contaminated with PCBs, heavy metals, and PAHs.

A golf course is being planned in the landfill area, and a marina will be constructed in the lagoon area.

Not specified Not specified Anna Marie Cook

EPA Region 975 Hawthorne StreetMail Code: SFD-8-3San Francisco, CA 94105415-972-3029cook.anna-marie@epa.gov 

American 

Crossarm & 

Conduit Co., 

Chehalis, WA

Superfund

Wood Treatment 

Facility

Remediation activities include removing contaminated site material, disposing of the site facilities, removing lagoon sediment, and excavating soil. The contaminants of concern are carcinogenic polyaromatic hydrocarbons, PCP, and dioxin/furans.

Wetlands restoration. Not specified Not specified Anne McCauley

EPA Region 101200 Sixth AvenueMail Code: ECL-113 Seattle, WA 98101206-553-4689mccauley.anne@epa.gov

REGION 10

REGION 9

* Links valid at time of publication.Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies 
Ecological Revitalization: 

Property Name 

and Location Property Type Cleanup Type Revitalization/Reuse Component Problems/Issues Solutions Point of Contact 

Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies, continued 

Commencement 

Bay, Tacoma, WA

Superfund

Industrial 

Activities

Industrial activities resulting in hazardous waste contamination of the waterways within Commencement Bay were addressed.

In addition to navigational improvements to the port, nine acres of wetlands were restored as a result of the cleanup. EPA also worked with Washington Department of Environment to create seven acres of essential mud flats habitat where fish, birds, wildlife, and plant species thrive.

Not specified Not specified Chris Bellovary

EPA Region 101200 Sixth AvenueMail Code: ECL-111 Seattle, WA 98101206-553-2723bellovary.chris@epa.gov

Harmony Mine and 

Mill, Baker, ID

Superfund Mining 

Site

A diversion ditch was created and pipes laid to divert Withington Creek from tailings piles. After they were dry, 10,000 cubic yards of tailings were excavated and hauled to a repository location. A sedimentation pond was also constructed below the tailings pile to catch any runoff that occurred. Tailings were then capped with a 2-foot layer of compacted rock followed by a one-foot layer of uncompacted rock. 

Where the tailings were removed, the area was graded, a stable creek bed with the ability to withstand large debris flow was constructed, and disturbed areas were seeded. Withington Creek is a designated cold water community and salmonid spawning habitat for the endangered chinook salmon.

Not specified Not specified Greg Weigel

EPA Region 10, Idaho OperatioOffice1435 North Orchard StreetBoise, ID 83706208-378-5773weigel.greg@epa.gov

Hoquarton Natural 

Interpretive Trail, 

Tillamook, OR

Brownfields 

Lumber Mill

Using an EPA Revolving Loan Fund, contaminated soil was excavated and treated. 

The former lumber mill was transformed into a recreational and educational greenspace. Volunteers removed weeds and invasive plants, disposed of over two tons of trash, and planted over 2,000 native plants in riparian areas. A trail was also installed to provide walking and bird watching opportunities.

It was unclear how longterm maintenance of the park would be achieved.

Long-term maintenance of the park was supported by school groups and other volunteers.

Mike SlaterEPA Region 10805 SW Broadway Mail Code: OOO Portland, OR 97205 503-326-5872slater.mike@epa.gov

Old Jensen Texaco 

Station, Rosalia, 

WA

OUST 

Abandoned Gas 

Station

Through the USTFields Pilot Program, this abandoned gas station site was remediated by removing five USTs and contaminated soil to make the site ready for future reuse. Contaminated soil treated and disposed of off-site. Additional contamination is being addressed through ground water

monitoring and possible MNA. 

Stakeholders plan to convert the former gas station site into a visitor and community center with green infrastructure. They plan to incorporate native plant communities that are part of the the distinctive Palouse ecosystem, including grasslands, scrub thickets, ridges, and slope communities. The community center could be used to educate visitors about the unique geology and ecology of

the region.

Additional contamination could not be removed without destroying the historic building this project was intended to restore. In situ treatment options have been considered but will not

be pursued until additional ground water data is evaluated. MNA of the remaining contamination may prove to be an adequate and appropriate cleanup alternative. 

Not specified Wildlife Habitat Council

8737 Colesville Road, Suite 80Silver Spring, MD 20910 301-588-8994whc@wildlifehc.org 

* Links valid at time of publication.Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies 
Ecological Revitalization: 

Property Name 

and Location Property Type Cleanup Type Revitalization/Reuse Component Problems/Issues Solutions Point of Contact 

Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies, continued 

Port Hadlock 

Detachment, 

Jefferson County, 

WA

Superfund

Landfill

Soil, ground water, sediment, and shellfish were contaminated with heavy metals, PCBs, and pesticides. As part of the remediation, the portion of the landfill that had leaked into the surrounding beaches was contained and capped.

Beaches and tribal fishing grounds were re-opened.

None None Nancy Harney, RPM

EPA Region 10 1200 Sixth Avenue Mail Code: ECL-115 Seattle, WA 98101 206-553-6635harney.nancy@epa.gov 

SeQuential 

Biofuels, Eugene, 

OR

OUST Fueling 

Station

USTs from the closed fueling station were removed and contaminated soil was excavated. A Brownfields grant assisted in cleaning up the remainder of the site and getting it ready for reuse. 

The new station is bordered with grassy bioswales that help to contain stormwater runoff from the site, remediate contamination biologically before it leaves the site, and slow the flow of stormwater into the storm-sewer system. In addition, green building technologies were used including a vegetated roof, solar panels, purchased wind energy, and use of available natural light through window design to reduce the need for heating and cooling.

Not specified Not specified Jim Glass

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 750 Front Street NE, Suite 120Salem, OR 97301-1039503-378-5044glass.jim@deq.state.or.us

Sequim Bay 

Estuary, Clallam 

County, WA

Brownfields Cleanup activities involved 

removing 99 creosote-treated pilings from the estuary and removing 350 tons of contaminated soil and 600 tons of solid waste from an adjacent shoreline and riparian wetlands.

The bay water now provides clean sediment and habitat for shellfish, salmon, and other natural species. The project also has the economic benefits for the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe with increased revenue from the sale of fish and an expanded tourist area for kayaking and bird watching.

Not specified Not specified EPA Region 10 Brownfields Te

1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 206-553-2100

West Page Swamp 

(Bunker Hill NPL 

Site), Shoshone 

County, ID

Superfund

Mining Site

Remediation included constructing a cap over soil contaminated with lead and zinc tailings. The cap consisted of biosolids compost and wood ash.

Wetland is now habitat to wildlife.

Stakeholders were concerned that remediation is only a short-term solution because contaminants were not completely removed from site.

Ground water and surface water wells were installed and are being monitored quarterly or annually.

Harry ComptonEPA Facilities Rariton Depot 2890 Woodbridge AvenueMail Code: 101MS101Edison, NJ 08837-3679732-321-6751compton.harry@epa.gov 

Wyckoff-Eagle 

Harbor, Puget 

Sound, WA

Superfund

Wood Treatment 

Facility

EPA worked with USACE to obtain clean silt to cap contaminated sediments from a previous wood treatment facility and shipyard to stop further release of toxins into Puget Sound. EPA also removed onsite buildings and polluted sediments from the harbor. 

After contaminated sediment was removed, EPA and state officials lined the area with gravel to attract mussels and barnacles and created a 2-acre estuarine habitat.

Not specified Not specified Ken Marcy

EPA Region 101200 Sixth AvenueMail Code: ECL-112 Seattle, WA 98101206-553-2782marcy.ken@epa.gov

* Links valid at time of publication.Appendix A: Ecological Revitalization Case Studies 
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets 

Appendix B: Additional Ecological Revitalization Resources B-1

Appendix B: Additional Ecological 

Revitalization Resources 

Section 1: Introduction 

Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council (ITRC): www.itrcweb.org

Land Revitalization Initiative: www.epa.gov/oswer/landrevitalization/basicinformation.htm 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Hazardous Waste Cleanup Information (CLU-IN). Tools 

for Ecological Land Reuse: www.cluin.org/ecotools

EPA One Cleanup Program Initiative: www.epa.gov/oswer/onecleanupprogram

Section 2: Ecological Revitalization Under EPA Cleanup Programs 

Atlas Tack Superfund Site Information: www.epa.gov/ne/superfund/sites/atlas

Brownfields Green Infrastructure Fact Sheet: www.epa.gov/brownfields/publications/swdp0408.pdf

Biological Technical Assistance Groups (BTAG) Regional Web sites: 

EPA Region 3: www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/risk/eco/index.htm

EPA Region 4: www.epa.gov/region4/waste/ots/index.htm

EPA Region 5: www.epa.gov/region5superfund/ecology/index.html

EPA Region 8: www.epa.gov/region8/r8risk/eco.html

Cross Program Revitalization Guidance: 

www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/recycle/pdf/cprm_guidance.pdf

Emergency Response Team: www.ert.org 

EPA CLU-IN Publications Search Web site: www.clu-in.org/pub1.cfm 

EPA CLU-IN Tools for Ecological Land Reuse: www.cluin.org/ecotools

EPA Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment: 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=12460

EPA Land Revitalization Web site: www.epa.gov/landrevitalization/index.htm 

EPA Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation: www.epa.gov/tio 

EPA Region 3—Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites Land Use & Reuse Assessment, Data Results: 

www.epa.gov/region03/revitalization/R3_land_use_final/data_results.pdf

EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER). 1991. ECO Update—The Role of 

Biological Technical Assistance Groups (BTAG) in Ecological Assessment. Publication number 9345.0-

051. September. www.epa.gov/oswer/riskassessment/ecoup/pdf/v1no1.pdf

EPA OSWER. 2008. Green Remediation: Incorporating Sustainable Environmental Practices into 

Remediation of Contaminates Sites. www.clu-in.org/download/remed/Green-Remediation-Primer.pdf

Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office (FFRRO) Web site: www.epa.gov/fedfac/about_ffrro.htm
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets 

Appendix B: Additional Ecological Revitalization Resources B-2

Interim Guidance for OSWER Cross-Program Revitalization Measures: 

www.epa.gov/landrevitalization/docs/cprmguidance-10-20-06covermemo.pdf 

Local native plant societies: www.michbotclub.org/links/native_plant_society.htm 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): http://response.restoration.noaa.gov

Superfund Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse Performance Measure: 

www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/recycle/pdf/sitewide_a.pdf 

Underground Storage Tank (UST) Brownfields Cleanups: 

www.nemw.org/petroleum%20issue%20opportunity%20brief.pdf

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS): 

www.nrcs.usda.gov

Wildlife Habitat Council (WHC) Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Cleanups Web site: 

www.wildlifehc.org/brownfield_restoration/lust_pilots.cfm

Section 3: Technical Considerations for Ecological Revitalization 

EPA CLU-IN. The Use of Soil Amendments for Remediation, Revitalization, and Reuse: 

www.clu-in.org/download/remed/epa-542-r-07-013.pdf

EPA Tech Trends. Fort Wainwright: 

www.clu-in.org/PRODUCTS/NEWSLTRS/ttrend/view.cfm?issue=tt0500.htm 

Section 4: Wetlands Cleanup and Restoration 

EPA, Office of Water, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds: www.epa.gov/OWOW/wetlands

EPA OSWER. Considering Wetlands at Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act (CERCLA) Sites (EPA 540/R-94/019, 1994): 

www.epa.gov/superfund/policy/remedy/pdfs/540r-94019-s.pdf 

EPA OSWER. Environmental Fact Sheet: Controlling the Impacts of Remediation Activities in or Around 

Wetlands (EPA 530-F-93-020). 

Society of Wetland Scientists (SWS), Wetlands Journal: www.sws.org/wetlands

U.S. Department of Interior (DOI), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wetlands Inventory: 

www.nwi.fws.gov

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), National Wetlands Research Center: www.nwrc.gov

Wetlands Research Program and Wetlands Research Technology Center: 

http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/wetlands

Wetland Science Institute, Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture: 

www.wli.nrcs.usda.gov 
Ecological Revitalization: Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets 

Appendix B: Additional Ecological Revitalization Resources B-3

Section 5: Stream Cleanup and Restoration 

EPA Office of Water. River Corridor and Wetland Restoration Web site: 

www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/restore

EPA Office of Water and OSWER. Integrating Water and Waste Programs to Restore Watersheds: 

www.epa.gov/superfund/resources/integrating.htm

EPA OSWER. Contaminated Sediment Remediation Guidance: 

www.epa.gov/superfund/health/conmedia/sediment/guidance.htm

Federal Interagency Stream Corridor Restoration Guide: 

www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/stream_restoration/newgra.html

University of Nebraska-Lincoln: www.ianr.unl.edu/pubs/Soil/g1307.htm

Section 6: Terrestrial Ecosystems Cleanup and Revitalization 

Clemants, Stephen. 2002. Is Biodiversity Sustainable in the New York Metropolitan Area? University 

Seminar on Legal, Social, and Economic Environmental Issues, Columbia University, December 2002. 

EPA OSWER. 2008. Green Remediation: Incorporating Sustainable Environmental Practices into 

Remediation of Contaminates Sites. www.clu-in.org/download/remed/Green-Remediation-Primer.pdf 

Handel, Steven N., G.R. Robinson, WFJ Parsons, and J.H. Mattei. 1997. Restoration of Woody Plants to 

Capped Landfills: Root Dynamics in an Engineered Soil, Restoration Ecology, 5:178-186. 

North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service: www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/hort/hil/hil-645.html

Plant Conservation Alliance: www.nps.gov/plants

Robinson, G.R. and S.N. Handel. 1993. Forest Restoration on a Closed Landfill: Rapid Addition of New 

Species by Bird Dispersion, Conservation Biology, 7: 271-278. 

Society for Ecological Restoration. Ecological Restoration Reading Resources: 

www.ser.org/reading_resources.asp

USDA, NRCS. Plant Materials Program: http://plant-materials.nrcs.usda.gov

USDA, NRCS. PLANTS Database: http://plants.usda.gov

Weed Science Society of America: www.wssa.net

Section 7: Long-Term Stewardship Considerations 

EPA. Superfund – Operation and Maintenance Web site: 

http://epa.gov/superfund/cleanup/postconstruction/operate.htm

EPA OSWER. 2005. Long Term Stewardship Task Force Report and the Development of Implementation 

Options for the Task Force Recommendations. www.epa.gov/LANDREVITALIZATION/docs/ltsreport-sept2005.pdf. 

Institutional Controls: A Site Manager’s Guide to Identifying, Evaluating, and Selecting Institutional 

Controls at Superfund and RCRA Corrective Action Cleanups, available at 

http://epa.gov/superfund/policy/ic/guide/guide.pdf
Appendix C: Acronyms C-1

Appendix C: Acronyms 

ACRES Assessment, Cleanup, and 

Redevelopment Exchange System 

AOC Area of Concern 

BMP Best Management Practices 

BP British Petroleum 

BRAC Base Realignment and Closure 

BTAG Biological Technical Assistance 

Group 

BTEX Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and 

Xylenes 

BTSC Brownfields and Land Revitalization 

Technology Support Center 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act 

CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Information System 

CIC Community Involvement 

Coordinator 

CLU-IN Hazardous Waste Clean-up 

Information 

CPRM Cross-Program Revitalization 

Measure 

DARRP Damage Assessment, Remediation 

and Restoration Program 

DEQ Department of Environmental 

Quality 

DNT Dinitrotoluene 

DoD U.S. Department of Defense 

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

DOI U.S. Department of Interior 

EO Executive Order 

EOD Explosives Ordnance Disposal 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency 

ER3 Environmentally Responsible 

Redevelopment and Reuse 

ERA Ecological Risk Assessment 

FFEO Federal Facilities Enforcement Office 

FFLC Federal Facilities Leadership Council 

FFRRO Federal Facilities Restoration and 

Reuse Office 

FS Feasibility Study 

FY Fiscal Year 

GPRA Government Performance and Results 

Act 

HE EI Human Exposures Under Control 

Environmental Indicator 

HMX High Melting Explosive (or 

Cyclotetramethylenetetranitramine) 

IC Institutional Control 

IEPA Illinois Environmental Protection 

Agency 

ITRC Interstate Technology & Regulatory 

Council 

JOAAP Joliet Army Ammunition Plant 

LEED Leadership in Energy and 

Environment Design 

LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank 

MCL Maximum Contaminant Level 

MDEQ Michigan Department of 

Environmental Quality 

MNA Monitored Natural Attenuation 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

NPL National Priorities List 

NRC National Research Council 

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation 

Service 

NRDA Natural Resource Damage 

Assessment 

O&M Operation and Maintenance 

OBLR Office of Brownfields and Land 

Revitalization 

OPEI Office of Policy, Economics, and 

Innovation 

ORCR Office of Resource Conservation and 

Recovery 

OSC On-Scene Coordinator 

OSRTI Office of Superfund Remediation and 

Technology Innovation 
Appendix C: Acronyms 

C-2

OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency 

Response 

OU Operable Unit 

OUST Office of Underground Storage Tanks 

P&T Pump and Treat 

PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon 

PCA Plant Conservation Alliance 

PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl 

PCE Perchloroethylene (or 

Tetrachloroethene) 

PDF Portable Document Format 

PFP Protective For People 

RAU Ready for Anticipated Use 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act 

RDX Royal Demolition Explosive (or 

Cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine) 

RI Remedial Investigation 

RMA Rocky Mountain Arsenal 

ROD Record of Decision 

RI/FS Remedial Investigation/Feasibility 

Study 

RPM Remedial Project Manager 

RTU Return To Use 

SRI Superfund Redevelopment Initiative 

SVOC Semi-Volatile Organic Compound 

SWS Society of Wetland Scientists 

TAB Technical Assistance to Brownfields 

TCE Trichloroethylene 

TNT Trinitrotoluene 

TPM Technical Performance Measure 

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

UST Underground Storage Tank 

UXO Unexploded Ordnance 

VOC Volatile Organic Compound 

WHC Wildlife Habitat Council 
United States

Environmental Protection Agency(5203P)Washington, D.C. 20460Official BusinessPenalty for Private Use $300

Ecological Revitalization:Turning Contaminated Properties Into Community Assets

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

EPA-542-R-08-003February 2009www.epa.gov/tio

http://clu-in.org