America's Green Ports: Environmental Management and Technology at US Ports Urban Harbors Institute, University of Massachusetts Boston

University of Massachusetts Boston ScholarWorks at UMass Boston

Urban Harbors Institute Publications Urban Harbors Institute

3-1-2000 America's Green Ports: Environmental Management and Technology at US Ports Urban Harbors Institute, University of Massachusetts Boston

Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.umb.edu/uhi_pubs Part of the Land Use Planning Commons, Water Law Commons, and the Water Resource Management Commons

Recommended Citation Urban Harbors Institute, University of Massachusetts Boston, "America's Green Ports: Environmental Management and Technology at US Ports" (2000). Urban Harbors Institute Publications. Paper 34. http://scholarworks.umb.edu/uhi_pubs/34

This Research Report is brought to you for free and open access by the Urban Harbors Institute at ScholarWorks at UMass Boston. It has been accepted for inclusion in Urban Harbors Institute Publications by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at UMass Boston. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Am e r i c a ’s Gre e n Po rt s En v i ro n m e n t a l Ma n a g e m e n t and Tec h n o l o g y at US Ports P H O T O Cre d i t s Florida Fish & W ildlife Conservation Commission Port Everglades page 42 page 58 Illinois Inter national Por t District Port of Houston Authority pages 10, 56 pages 33, 59 Massachusetts Por t Authority Port of Long Beach pages 22, 28, 55 pages 11, 59 Northern Lights Studio Port of Los Angeles page 65 pages 6, 7, 60 Paul Bar tley Photography page 61 Port of New York/New Jersey cover, pages 23, 62 Port of Anchorage page 54 Port of Portland pages 8, 12, 13, 51, 62 Port Canaveral pages 20, 55 Port of Seattle page 64 Port of Cordova page 57 San Diego Visitors and Convention Bur eau pages 24, 63 Port of Corpus Christi pages 40, 57 Toledo-Lucas Por t Authority page 12 Am e r i c a ’s Gre e n Po rt s En v i ro n m e n t a l Ma n a g e m e n t and Tec h n o l o g y at US Ports

Urban Harbors Institute University of Massachusetts Boston March 2000 OF TA B L EContents

Acknowledgments ...... 1 Port of Boston: Right Whales...... 28 Port of Los Angeles: California Least Tern ....29 Introduction ...... 2 Methodology...... 2 Habitat Restoration Map of Project Sites...... 4 Issue/Problem...... 30 Environmental Impacts...... 30 Air Quality Applicable Federal and Environmental Regs.30 Issue/Problem...... 5 Management Options...... 31 Health and Environmental Impacts...... 5 Port Canaveral: Erosion Control and Beach Applicable Federal and Environmental Regs. .5 Restoration...... 32 Management Options...... 6 Port of Houston: Artificial Reef...... 33 Port of Los Angeles: Retrofitted Tug Boats...... 6 Port of Long Beach: Relocation of Heron Port of Portland: Swan Island Air Quality Colony...... 34 Project...... 7 Port of Los Angeles: Restoration of Batiquitos Lagoon...... 35 Brownfields South Jersey Port Corporation: Fish Issue/Problem...... 9 Enhancement Structures...... 36 Health and Environmental Impacts...... 9 Applicable Federal and Environmental Regs. .9 Land-based Water Pollution Management Options...... 9 Port of Chicago: Harborside International.....10 Issue/Problem...... 37 Port of Long Beach:TCL Corp. Site Cleanup .11 Health and Environmental Impacts...... 37 Port of Toledo: Ohio Voluntary Action Applicable Federal and Environmental Regs.38 Program...... 12 Management Options...... 38 Port of Seattle: Southwest Harbor Cleanup...12 Port of Anchorage: Risk Assessment...... 39 Port of Corpus Christi: Stormwater Community Relations and Environmental Collection ...... 39 Stewardship Port of Long Beach: Stormwater Collection...40 Issue/Problem...... 14 Port Manatee: Integrated Wastewater Port of Bellingham: Compliance and Management...... 42 Education...... 14 Port of Charleston: Stormwater Detention.....42 Port of Savannah:Savannah Harbor Oil Pollution Stakeholders Evaluation Group...... 15 Issue/Problem...... 44 Port of San Diego: Public Education...... 16 Health and Environmental Impacts...... 44 Dredged Material Disposal and Contaminated Applicable Federal and Environmental Regs45 Sediments Management Options...... 45 Port of Cordova: Used Oil Collection and Issue/Problem...... 18 Recycling...... 46 Health and Environmental Impacts...... 18 Port of Newport: Oil and Filter Recycling.....47 Applicable Federal and Environmental Regs.18 Management Options...... 19 Ship and Port Generated Solid Waste Port Canaveral: Nearshore Disposal...... 20 Issue/Problem...... 48 Port of Boston: Navigation Improvement...... 21 Health and Environmental Impacts...... 48 Port of NY/NJ: Orion Project...... 23 Applicable Federal and Environmental Regs49 Port of San Diego: Heavy Metal Treatment....23 Management Options...... 49 Endangered and Threatened Species Port of Newport: Marine Refuse Disposal Project...... 50 Issue/Problem...... 25 Port of Portland: Solid Waste Management...51 Environmental Impacts...... 25 Port of Los Angeles: Solid Waste Applicable Federal and Environmental Regs.25 Management...... 52 Management Options...... 26 Port of Canaveral: Manatee Protection...... 26 Port Descriptions...... 54 Port Everglades: Manatee Protection...... 27 References...... 66 A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S

his report was prepared by the Thanks are due to the American Association of Urban Harbors Institute (UHI) at Port Authorities (AAPA) which gave us access to the University of Massachusetts its research library and files and in particular to Boston. UHI is a public policy Tom Chase, AAPA Director of Environmental and scientific research institute Affairs, who provided valuable guidance and that conducts multidisciplinary advice in the early stages of the project. research, education, training, and public service activities focused We acknowledge with appreciation the support on issues and problems of port, and assistance of Dorn W. Carlson, Project Officer harbor, coastal, and marine areas. from the Office of Wetlands, Oceans and UHI staff and associates responsi- Watersheds in US EPA’s Office of Water. He pro- ble for this report are: Jack Wiggin, Project vided essential direction during the project and TManager, Chantal Lefebvre, Vandana Rao, Tracey valuable comments on drafts of the document. Morin, and Asavari Devadiga. Thanks also to US EPA’s Kathleen Hurld and Deborah Lebow who provided assistance at differ- The Urban Harbors Institute is most grateful to ent stages of the project. the directors and staffs of the over 100 port authorities and organizations around the nation This project was funded by a grant to the Urban who were visited or contacted during preparation Harbors Institute, University of Massachusetts of this report. Port staff were generous with their Boston from the US Environmental Protection time and expertise, in providing the material on Agency (US EPA Award No. X 825706-01-0). which the project descriptions are based, and in Requests for copies of this report or any other reviewing drafts of the project summaries. This inquiries can be directed to the Urban Harbors report would not have been possible without Institute, University of Massachusetts Boston, 100 their cooperation. Morrissey Boulevard, Boston, MA 02125-3393 or telephone (617)287-5570.

1 A M E R I C A ’ S G R E E N P O R T S I N T R O D U C T I O N

istorically, ports occupied the facility owners have begun taking aggressive steps center of the nation’s economic to remediate contaminated areas and prevent and urban life. Our regional and future incidences of pollution by employing envi- national economies were based on ronmentally sound technologies and best manage- the trade and commerce carried ment practices that allow for continued economic out in and around the country’s development of the port while minimizing the coastal and riverine ports. Over negative impacts to the environment and sur- time, changes in national and rounding communities. global economies, technological America's Green Ports: Environmental advances, and greater awareness of Management and Technology at US Ports is a Hthe environment have greatly altered the nature of compendium of case studies presenting a selec- port activities and their relationship to the host tion of innovative and cost-effective management community and region. practices and technologies employed by US ports In the past, port development and operations to avoid, prevent, minimize, mitigate or remediate often resulted in considerable alteration of and environmental impacts associated with port damage to the natural environment. Today, largely development and operations. This compendium in response to the national mandate for environ- of projects is one product of the US EPA, Office of mental protection, ports are more conscious of Water’s Green Ports Program. It follows the 1998 and responsive to the need to minimize impacts publication of the Environmental Management on natural resources and the surrounding commu- Handbook prepared by the American Association nities. In fact, the need to address environmental of Port Authorities, also funded by the US EPA's concerns is a top priority for US ports according Office of Water. That report provides practical to a recent poll of the membership of the information on incorporating environmental stew- Association of American Port Authorities. ardship into all aspects of port operations and The ports’ locations at the interface of land and development. The case studies presented here water—the fundamental characteristic of ports—is provide an illustration of the variety of approach- a heavily regulated environment due to the sensi- es that actually have been utilized with proven tivity of intertidal and marine resources, habitat results in US ports. value, and exposure to natural hazards. Port development and expansion often require signifi- M E T H O D O L O G Y cant alteration of the environment through dredg- The case studies included in this report were ing and filling and on-going port operations have selected from projects identified through contacts the potential to impact the quality of air, soil, and with over 120 sea, river and inland ports in the water resources. The common challenge faced by US and a comprehensive review of the literature all ports is the need to conduct all aspects of their and trade publications related to commercial operations in an environmentally sound yet eco- ports and their operations. Our focus was on proj- nomically productive and competitive manner. ects that have been implemented by port authori- Ports are facing-up to their responsibility to ties and port operators. This research and out- protect and clean up the environment. They are reach process yielded an initial list of 87 candi- doing this for economic and ecological reasons, date projects which were evaluated using a set of aesthetics and safety, and to improve integration criteria designed to select projects that cumula- and compatibility with the sur rounding commu- tively would best illustrate a range of desired nity. In some cases these acitivities are undertak- characteristics. These included: (1) degree of en in response to environmental regulations but, innovation of technology or operational proce- increasingly, ports are initiating projects and pro- dure, (2) effectiveness and measurable results, (3) grams voluntarily. Many port authorities and wide applicability and transferability, (4) respon- 2 siveness to US EPA or other government initia- Prevention and Control Act, which requires open tives, (5) initiatives exceeding regulatory require- ocean ballast water exchange for all ships enter- ments, (6) degree of complexity, (7) importance or ing into the Great Lakes system. In addition, in ubiquitousness of problem, (8) size of the port 1997, an executive order was drafted, requiring and its institutional capacity, (9) significance and federal agencies to review exisiting authorities breadth of benefits, (10) acknowledgement by oth- and activities to reduce the risk of nonindigenous ers of project benefits, and (11) regulatory approv- species. The primary option to open ocean ballast ability. water exchange is to treat the ballast water prior Ultimately, the final selection was also influ- to discharge at port. Treatment options include enced by the individual port’s responsiveness in filtration, ultraviolet radiation, and chlorine gas. providing the necessary information. It is impor- Treatment facilities can be either landside, ship- tant to note also that we did not include projects board, or mobile facilities capable of traveling to developed or initiatives undertaken solely by a more than one port. The problem with treatment government agency, such as the US Army Corps facilities is the high costs. of Engineers, or by an equipment manufacturer, Each section of the report begins with a brief though there exist many worthy innovations from description of the issue as it relates to port devel- these sources. Our interest was in highlighting opment and operations to provide a context for the activities being undertaken at and by those the project descriptions. The issue description is operating and managing the commercial ports of followed in most instances by a summary of the the US. human and environmental impacts associated The case studies in this report are organized by with the issue and a brief overview of the rele- environmental issue/problem. During the final vant legal and regulatory programs. The intro- stages of the evaluation process it was determined ductory section concludes with a discussion of that the selected projects could be catalogued the traditional management options for address- under one of the number of environmental issues ing the issue. which accurately reflects the environmental con- The final section of the report is a description cerns currently facing ports. These are: air quali- of each of the ports for which a case study is pre- ty, brownfields, community relations and envi- sented. A knowledge of the port, its location, size, ronmental stewardship, dredged material disposal facilities, types of cargo handled, and its institu- and contaminated sediments, endangered and tional capacity and resources are presented to aid threatened species, habitat restoration, land-based the reader in understanding and evaluating a spe- water pollution, oil pollution, and ship and port cific project and its potential transferability. generated solid waste. The Green Ports report is a testament that sig- One issue, nonindigenous aquatic species, is nificant advances in environmental management quickly attracting the attention of government, are taking place in US ports. The challenge for shipping interests, and environmentalists. the nation’s ports is to find the most cost-effective Nonindineous aquatic species (also called exotic and appropriate strategies for dealing with the or invasive species) are introduced into US port environmental impacts of its operations. The environments primarily through ballast water material in this report is intended to provide and transported during overseas shipping. These assist in the exchange of information on success- species subsequently can be spread locally ful experiences at US ports. Contact information through coastal shipping, transfering these organ- is provided for each port whose project(s) is fea- isms from an infected area to an uninfected area. tured. In response to the damage caused by the zebra mussel in the Great Lakes, in 1990 Congress enacted the Non- Indigenous Aquatic Nuisance 3 A M E R I C A ’ S G R E E N P O R T S

4 AIR QUALITY

A I R Qu a l i t y

Issue/Problem the environment by depleting upper-a t m o s p h e re It is estimated that millions of tons of pollutants ozone, damaging vital agricultural res o u rces, and are emitted into the air we breathe each year (US producing acid rain, which in turn changes soil EPA 1998). Polluting emissions may be accidental ch e m i s t ry, and endangers forest and plant commu- si n g l e - s o u rce events or they may be more rou t i n e . ni t i e s . They may emanate from man-made sources such as industries and vehicles or be released from nat- Applicable Federal Environmental Regulations ural sources. Regardless of the source or duration To control emissions from stationary and mobile of emission, it is certain that air pollutants have so u rces of air pollution and to protect air quality, profound negative effects on human health and the Co n g ress passed the Federal Clean Air Act in 1970, en v i ronment. with amendments in 1990. The Environ m e n t a l In 1996, at least 12 million marine engines were Protection Agency administers the Act. The Clean operated in the United States (US EPA 1996). Air Act currently lists six “Criteria Air Pollutants” Emissions from motor vehicles and vessels (CAPs) as indicators of outdoor air quality. These account for 80 percent of air pollution and are in are ozone, one-hour ozone, carbon monoxide, nitro- many regions among the highest contributors of gen oxides, sulfur dioxides, and particulate matter. hy d rocarbons and nitrogen oxides to the atmos- To protect human health and the natural environ- ph e re. Other major types and sources of air pollu- ment, primary and secondary maximum concentra- tants produced in a port environment include (US tion thresholds were established for each CAP, EPA 1998): ref e rred to as the National Ambient Air Quality •xylene, toluene, and methylene brom i d e St a n d a rds (NAAQS), which are published in the released during painting and cleaning at ship Federal Register. building and ship repair facilities; In addition to CAPs, the Clean Air Act identifies •benzene, toluene, xylene and other toxic pollu- 188 chemicals that it classifies as “Hazardous Air tants found in vapors released from fuel distri- Pollutants” (HAPs), also commonly ref e rred to as bution facilities; air toxics or toxic air pollutants. HAPs are legally •benzene, toluene, xylene, and chrom i u m distinguished from CAPs in the Clean Air Act and released from petroleum refining industries; include the most harmful air pollutants known or •benzene, toluene, xylene, hexane, and ethyl suspected to cause adverse environmental effe c t s , benzene released during loading and unloading ca n c e r, birth defects, and death. Examples of HAPs of marine tank vessels; include benzene, toluene and xylene (the light aro- •sulfur dioxide emitted from power plants; and matics found in crude oil and its by-prod u c t s ) ; •h y d rocarbon-based diesel soot from marine methylene chloride (used in solvents and paint en g i n e s . strippers) and methylene bromide (used as a bio- cide); asbestos; cadmium; and mercu ry. Health and Environmental Impacts Asbestos, beryllium, mercu ry, vinyl chloride, Adverse health effects of prolonged and/or high radionuclides, arsenic, and benzene are reg u l a t e d ex p o s u re to air pollutants include headaches, dizzi- th rough the National Emissions Standards for ness, res p i r a t o ry distress and disease, lung damage, Ha z a rdous Air Pollutants Program (NESHAP), ca rdiovascular disease, endocrine disruption, visu- which establishes concentration thresholds not to al impairment, diminished manual dexterity, learn- be exceeded. However, due to technical diffi c u l t i e s ing impairment, seizures, and death. Parti c u l a t e in establishing NESHAPs for other air pollutants, matter that is 10 microns or less in diameter— the remaining 181 HAPs are regulated by ref e rred to as PM10—is considered one of the most Maximum Allowable Emission Threshold (MACT) unhealthful components of air pollution because it St a n d a rds, which are based on the best available cannot be filtered by the human res p i r a t o ry sys- technology for reducing emissions or on the best te m ’s natural defenses. Air pollutants also degrade pe rf o rming facilities. Both NESHAP and MACT 5 A M E R I C A’S GREEN PORT S

st a n d a rds are intended to limit pollution discharge s st a n d a rds. An area where pollution thresholds are su fficiently to achieve NAAQS. exceeded is called a “nonattainment” area . To effectively tackle the air pollution prob l e m , As a final note, US EPA has an “offset” policy US EPA has identified Air Quality Control Regions for new, large-scale, stationary sources of pollution. (A Q C R ) — w h e re air quality appears to be a signifi- This policy enables polluters to trade any increa s e cant environmental concern. State governments are in pollution generated by a new facility in a reg i o n responsible for ensuring that the air quality req u i re- with reductions in emissions from either existing ments in AQCRs are met through an US EPA- facilities that they own with past reductions in pol- ap p roved State Implementation Plan. These plans lution, or with reductions from other source s . can go so far as to propose stricter standards than Pa rticular aspects of an offset policy are outlined in the federal law dictates, but cannot be less strict. each State Implementation Plan (SIP). Class I, II, and III AQCRs have been designated th roughout the US. The maximum allowable pollu- Management Options tion thresholds increase incrementally as class Th e re are several technological approaches to number increases. Class I areas, for example, are reducing air polluting emissions: (1) use of non- the most restrictive and reflect the most pristine polluting fuels (e.g., electricity, natural gas, photo- areas, while Class III designation is res e rved for voltaics); (2) control of emissions through filtra- areas that must necessarily accommodate a large tion, chemical reaction, and reuse; (3) scrub b i n g amount of human industrial activity and hence after combustion, and (4) source reduction and mo re pollution. Ports provide a good example of a en e rgy conservation. Legislation, economic incen- typical Class III AQCR. It is important to note that tives, governm e n t - s p o n s o red programs, (e.g., US most class designation thresholds are lower than EPA's Energy Star Program), and local planning NAAQS to prevent the degradation of all regions of initiatives also play an important role in control- the country down to the NAAQS, which—it should ling or eliminating emissions and reducing air pol- be emphasized—present only minimum air quality lu t i o n .

Emissions Reduction: Retrofitted Tug Boat Engines, Port of Los Angeles, Califor ni a Low-emission engines installed in tug boats are a success. Emissions from diesel engines have come under in c reased scrutiny due to concerns about ozone fo rming pollutants, particulate matter and air toxins. While the use of alternatively fueled engines such as electric and natural gas have been demonstrated as viable options for land-based vehicles, their adoption in marine vessels has been slow due to a lack of experience and air quality data. This pilot program was undertaken in an effo rt to Tugboat modified by the Port of Los Angeles reduce emissions from existing marine vessel engines and to demonstrate how the overall envi- products generated during painting, and eliminate ronmental impact of vessels can be red u c e d . the discharge of waste and oil. Alternative energy Two tug-boats were ret rofitted by the Port of Los so u rces were not considered because of concerns Angeles to incorporate state-of-the-art environ m e n- with reliability and safety at sea. tal equipment and design. These boats included Modifications to the engines included (1) chang- fe a t u res that reduce air emissions, reduce waste ing the injection timing sequence so as to enable

6 AIR QUALITY

any accidental or intentional discharge of waste from the boat, and a segregated bilge system with a holding tank was installed to collect engine waste oils. All of these features are cost effective and en v i ronmentally sound measures, particularly due to the reduced painting and maintenance req u i re- me n t s .

Vol u n t a ry Air Quality Study: Swan Island Air Quality Project, Port of Portland, Or eg o n Task force measurably reduces air pollution emanating from Port. Swan Island Industrial Park is a 580-acre inner- city “island” on the Willamette River. It is a major corporate center for approximately 170 distribu- Re t rofited engine inside tugboats. tion, warehousing, and manufacturing businesses. injection of diesel fuel at lower peak combustion In 1995, four district neighborhood associations te m p e r a t u res, and (2) supplying the lowest temper- rep resenting communities situated east and uphill at u re water by the jacket water-sea water keel cool- of Swan Island expressed concern to the Port of er to charge the air cooler. With earlier injection, Po rtland, the Oregon Department of Environ m e n t a l combustion temperature is lower and the adiabatic Qu a l i t y, and Freight-Liner Truck Manufacturing, a te m p e r a t u re increase is less. In addition, passing local industry, about air pollution and parti c u l a t e the engine water through the ocean bathes the emissions visible in their neighborhoods. In cylinders in a cooler solution and reduces the air response, the Port organized a community effo rt to te m p e r a t u re prior to compression, which furth e r ad d ress pollution emanating from industrial activi- de c reases the combustion temperature. Keeping ties on Swan Island. Since the neighborhood asso- the combustion temperature as low as possible ciations in Portland are very politically active, it optimizes engine effi c i e n c y, reducing nitrou s was not difficult for the Port to bring the stakehold- oxide, overall emissions, and fuel consumption. ers together. The boats now achieve a 25 percent reduction in Given the nature of the activities on Swan air emissions. The use of new electronically con- Island, most of the pollutants were presumed to be trolled diesel engines is expected to result in toxic, but there was no information on how much longer time between overhauls, reduced mainte- or what kind of air toxins were present. The stake- nance, better engine perfo rmance, and decrea s e d holders agreed that an evaluation of air emissions fuel consumption because of increased combustion was req u i red. A task force comprised of Port offi- efficiency and decreased mechanical wear. It was cials and rep resentatives and experts from the de t e rmined that this new design could be ret ro f i t- affected neighborhoods convened to determine the ted easily into all pilot boats to ensure that the air best course of action for such a study. The grou p emission standards are met. ag reed that pollution was a problem and that emis- In addition to engine ret rofitting, several modifi- sions from Swan Island had to be reduced reg a rd- cations to the body of the boat were made. The less of whether the study revealed pollutant con- hull of the boat was coated with a Tef l o n - b a s e d centrations lower than State or Federal toxic emis- material that is easily cleaned, contains no toxic sion req u i rements. They also agreed that they want- chemicals, and eliminates the need for periodic ed to collect real facts—facts that they could use to repainting. The deckhouse was constructed of alu- effect change and not just anecdotal informa t i o n . minum, which also eliminated the need for paint. The neighborhood associations played a central A holding tank for waste was installed to prev e n t role in all aspects of the air quality evaluation proj-

7 A M E R I C A’S GREEN PORT S

ect, from designing the scope and approach, to Since the air quality study was completed in selecting a contractor, to reviewing the data and 1997 and the above modifications have been in making recommendations for improv e m e n t s . effect, the Port has produced annual rep o rts based Toxic contaminants volatized during ship paint- on routine sampling throughout the affected neigh- ing and particulates emitted during paint stripping bo rhoods. The results of these rep o rts indicate an we re identified as the most problematic pollutants overall reduction in visible air pollution and parti c- di s c h a rged from Swan Island. The air quality study ulates. In addition, a Port-commissioned health risk also indicated that through the years, toxic air pol- assessment by experts from Harva rd Medical lution from these sources had been decreasing. The School confirmed that the concentration of pollu- decline in toxic emissions over time was attributed tants measured in the neighborhoods did not merit mostly to modifications in American-made anti- co n c e rn or further interve n t i o n . fouling paints, which no longer contain hexavalent The Port of Portland rep o rts significant econom- ch rome and other heavy metals considered highly ic benefits from this project, namely in the form of toxic. The fact that toxins were still present despite avoided costs. The Portland area has a very active the discontinued use of heavy metal paints was and organized environmental community. Had attributed to the use of non American-made paints these air quality concerns not been addressed in an by foreign flag ships while they were in port. Other ap p ropriate and concerted manner, it is likely the so u rces of pollution included general ship rep a i r Po rt and other polluting industries on Swan Island operations such as sand-blasting, cutting, and weld- would have been the subject of air permit and other ing—all activities that emit parti c u l a t e s . en v i ronmental advocate challenges, which can The conclusions of this study resulted in a num- slow-down production and reduce prof i t s . ber of modifications to operations on Swan Island. As with many environmental problems, public First, the Port contracted with foreign vessels call- co n c e rn comes before the necessary programs and ing on the Port to prohibit the application of non- regulations to ratify the problem are established. American-made anti-fouling paints that contain When this group first convened, there were no air heavy metals. While Port officials were initially toxic programs in place that it could use as a co n c e rned they might lose business as a result of model. Instead, because of its success, this proj e c t this provision, this was found not to be the case. In is now used by the Oregon Department of fact, other ports around the country are now adopt- En v i ronmental Quality as a model for technical and ing a similar req u i rement. Second, cruise ships that community feedback in its design of a state haz- apply high quantities of hexavalent chrome paints ardous air pollution program. The Port of Portl a n d are discouraged from calling on the Port. Third, received the 1997 Environmental Improv e m e n t sand-blasting, welding, and other equipment that Awa rd from the American Association of Port propel particles have been ret rofitted with covers, Au t h o r i t i e s . gu a rds, and shields to prevent particulates from becoming airborne. Fourth, shifting naval vessel maintenance operations from one side of the ship- ya rd to the other reduced particulate fallout on the affected neighborhoods. The Port is better equipped to arrange for cleanup of these toxic particles, while pre-existing Office of Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) safety measures prot e c t Po rt workers from inhalation. Finally, to ensure the ne i g h b o rhood associations that these prot e c t i v e me a s u res will not disappear as facility ownership on Swan Island changes over time, the Port has voluntarily tightened its own Federal emission permi t . Port of Portland, Oregon.

8 B R O W N F I E L D S Brownfields

Is s u e / P ro b l e m (SARA) in 1986, holds owners and operators of Brownfields are commonly defined as aban- facilities which release hazardous wastes or sub- doned, idled, or under-used industrial and com- stances liable and responsible for the costs of clean me rcial facilities where expansion or red e v e l o p- up. The Act also provides a mechanism for identi- ment is complicated by real or perceived environ- fying all liable parties and holding them account- mental contamination. This contamination increa s- able. CERCLA establishes a fund to clean up acci- es the costs and uncertainty of red e v e l o p m e n t . dental releases and prevent potential releases of Lenders, investors and developers, fearing liability ha z a rdous substances. for prior contamination, tend to avoid involvement CE R C L A’s cleanup standards first req u i re that a in redevelopment of these sites that results in some contaminated site be cleaned-up to, at a minimum, prime waterfront industrial prop e rties being aban- an adequate level to protect human health and the doned or underus e d . en v i ronment and, second, that the most cost-effe c- Brownfields site contamination includes sub- tive means to achieve this adequate level of prot e c- stances defined as hazardous or toxic under the tion is selected. Whether an adequate level to pro- Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Resource tect human health and the environment means Co n s e rvation and Recovery Act, and the Tox i c ret u rning the prop e rty to its predevelopment condi- Substances Control Act. Contamination of prop e r- tion has resulted in tremendous debate between ties is usually caused by past industrial, or com- en v i ronmental regulators and those perfo rming the me rcial activities. cleanups. Cleanup costs to predevelopment conditions can be prohibitively high, often exceeding the Health and Environmental Impacts pro p e rty value. Pro p e rty contaminated with hazardous or toxic Most states have laws similar in purpose and substances has a number of potential deleterious intent to CERCLA, and many have programs simi- human health and environmental impacts. lar to the Brownfield Initiative, discussed below, to Ex p o s u re to these substances can result in promote clean up and reuse of contaminated pro p- in c reased mortality rates or life-threatening and ert y. incapacitating illness in humans and wildlife. The effects can extend beyond prop e rty lines as con- Management Options taminates may seep into the underlying grou n d w a- In response to the reality that CERCLA (and sim- ter system, spreading to other regions and adversely ilar state “Superfund laws”) complications actually affecting drinking water supplies. slow the cleanup process, US EPA established a Cleaning up and reusing brownfield prop e rt y community-based brownfield revitalization pro- has a multitude of community benefits beyond gram known as the Brownfields Economic elimination of environmental and public health Redevelopment Initiative (BERI) and Action th reats. These include utilization of existing trans- Agenda. This initiative addresses the issue that lia- po rtation infrastruc t u re and utilities, job generation, bility concerns remain a central factor in prom o t i n g and elimination of blight and revitalization of the redevelopment of brownfields. Policies and ne i g h b o rhoods. Furth e r, brownfield reuse dimin- guidance stemming from BERI and its pilot pro- ishes the pres s u res to develop outlying pristine grams have resulted in increased flexibility in pro p e rt i e s . clean-up standards and practices, and in a host of new techniques to encourage investment in brow n- Applicable Regulatory Framework field prop e rties that include voluntary rem e d i a t i o n At the Federal level, the Compreh e n s i v e programs, flexible standards and proc e d u res, limit- En v i ronmental Response, Compensation, and ed liability provisions, and financial and technical Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly known as the su p p o rt. Su p e rfund Act of 1980 that was amended by the Po rts have been the recipients of a number of US Su p e rfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act EPA brownfields assessment pilot grants under 9 A M E R I C A ’ S G R E E N P O R T S

which they have negotiated prospective purch a s e r making brownfield redevelopment cost competitive ag reements, acquired and developed contaminated in terms of redevelopment potential and future pro p e rt y, and taken title to “impaired” prop e rt i e s pro p e rty value. for leaseback to companies. The proliferation of brownfield redevelopment is Brownfield prop e rties are often minimally con- one component of the solution to the growing prob- taminated and in advantageous locations such as lem of urban sprawl. By targeting once-built land wa t e rf ront areas. Many already have buildings, for new commercial and industrial activity, the docks, and transportation infrastruc t u re and utili- need to develop agricultural lands and other open ties that can be reused with simple modifications spaces—so called “greenfields”—is red u c e d .

Harborside International, Port of Chicago, Il l i n o i s Port converts landfill into world-class golf course using local materials. This innovative brownfields project involved the redevelopment of two former landfill sites along Lake Calumet on Chicago’s southeast side. The most notable and innovative aspects of this project were the Port’s use of locally available material to shape the terrain, clever soil mixing to optimize soil chemistry, inflatable dams to assist Harborside International as it appeared during construc t i o n . in the removal of fish while clay was excavated from the lakebed, and an irrigation system that co n s t ruction debris landfill, was converted to the uses lake water. The use of such materials 45 8 - a c re Harborside International Golf Center, with reduced remediation costs tremendously and also two 18-hole champion golf courses, a 58-acre prac- minimized air pollution and truck traffic to and tice facility, and a Golf Academy. The entire proj- from the site. Land marred by decades of digging, ect took three and a half years to complete. dumping, and filling activities was transforme d For construction of the golf courses, wastewater into a world-class golf course. biosolids found on-site were blended with trea t e d The southeast shore of Lake Calumet, owned by sludge brought in from off-site. Both have salinity the Illinois International Port District, was used for contents too high to grow grass so other locally over 20 years as Chicago’s primary municipal solid available materials were brought in to achieve a waste landfill. Later, it was used by the city to dis- soil chemistry that could serve as a healthy sub- pose incinerator ash and by the Metrop o l i t a n strate for sensitive golf course grasses. This soil Water Reclamation District to dispose trea t e d was installed in a complex layering process to cre- wastewater sludge. When these contracts expired , ate the varied topography necessary for a golf the Port was left with the responsibility of capping course. Before layering, a two-foot blue clay cap and securing the landfill in accordance with was created to seal-off the underlying contaminat- Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) ed landfill (210 acres of the 458-acre site) and min- cl o s u re req u i rements. Recognizing that securing imize leachate draining into the Lake, as req u i re d the site over a long period of time would be costly, by IEPA. Clay was obtained locally by dredging a the Port agreed to convert this land into something section of the adjacent Lake Calumet. No tree s mo re beneficial and aesthetic for neighboring com- we re planted on the course to avoid roots penetrat- munities. In-house engineering and prod u c t i o n ing the underlying clay cap. Drainage and irri g a- brought about a dramatic change in the landscape. tion systems were carefully designed to accommo- This contaminated landfill, along with an adjacent date the integrity of the clay cap, to allow for high

10 B R O W N F I E L D S

salinity sludges to be utilized, and to foster grow t h and fertility of the sensitive champion level golf course grasses. Over 200,000 fish were removed from their habitat while clay was excavated and the lakebed deepened and improved. An inflatable dam was used to aid in the capture of the fish for removal. Water from Lake Calumet is used for direct irrigation of the golf course. The irrigation system was fitted with sensors and controls to manage st o rmwater run o ff, and a pump with special TCL site during remediation. design features to prevent Zebra Mussel infesta- 1983 the TCL Corporation site was placed on the tion was installed. Six acres of new wetlands were National Priorities List (Superfu n d ) . created as mitigation for areas filled during con- Between 1992 and 1994, a Remedial Action Plan st ruction of the course. A portion of the site (238 was prep a red for UPRC by the Port of Long Beach ac res) has been previously operated by the Port as for 31-acres of the contaminated site. Development a clean landfill for construction materials and as a of the Plan was supervised by the Californi a co n c rete recycling site. Much of the concrete slat- De p a rtment of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). ed for recycling was reused during construction of This test parcel was successfully remediated and is the course for roadways, golf car paths, and build- cu rrently operated as an international vehicle distri- ing foundations. bution center. Between 1994 and 1995, a Remedial Prior to redevelopment, this site was a major Investigation and a Feasibility Study were prep a re d ey e s o re and a great environmental concern in the by UPRC for the remainder of the site, again under Chicago area. This innovative reuse succeeded not the supervision of DTSC. To advance the develop- only in visual enhancements and aesthetic ment proposed for the remainder of the site, the Port im p rovements, but also in reduced air and water implemented a phased remediation. The main goals pollution—all at relatively low costs. of the remediation were to eliminate any human health risks from exposure to contamination and TCL Corporation Site Cleanup, Port of Long minimize the risk of future impacts to grou n d w a t e r. Beach, Califor ni a The plan to separate contaminated soil from Contaminated site remediated with no off-site groundwater was one of the more notable aspects of disposal. the cleanup. The contaminated soil in the waste dis- In March 1994, the Port of Long Beach pur- posal sumps was to be completely excavated to chased 725 acres of land, previously operated most- depths below the groundwater table, effe c t i v e l y ly as an active oil and gas production field, from eliminating any contact between contaminants and the Union Pacific Resources Company (UPRC). The the shallow grou n d w a t e r. The sumps were then Po rt purchased the prop e rty for long-term Port- filled with clean fill. The contaminated soil rem o v e d related expansion, including a new 200 acre marine from below groundwater and a portion rem o v e d container terminal. This acquisition included a par- from above groundwater were dried and stabilized cel of land that had, in the past, been leased from by mixing with cement and other materials. The UPRC by TCL Corporation for the purpose of dis- remaining sump soil was treated and placed along posing off-site oil and gas drilling wastes in shal- with the stabilized soil. Stabilization took place in low impoundments (called “sumps”). Wastes per- transient mixing areas on-site that were moved as mitted for disposal on the site included rot a ry mud, the project prog ressed from one section of the site to crude oil tank bottoms, and oil and water. However, an o t h e r. No contaminants were carried off-site or in 1981, soil tests revealed that non-approved toxic req u i red off-site disposal. The soil was then placed substances were also disposed of on the site, and in in a layer above the previously placed clean fill, 11 A M E R I C A’S GREEN PORT S

above the shallow groundwater level. Three feet of and (5) it grants immunity from cleanup lawsuits. clean imported fill and an asphalt pavement section we re placed over the sump material to bring the site Southwest Harbor Cleanup and Redevelopment to the desired grade. Groundwater monitoring will Project, Port of Seattle, Was h i n g t o n be conducted periodically to ensure satisfactory Rapid remediation exemplified using Superfu n d water quality standards are maintained. Accelerated Cleanup Model and other innovative environmental assessment proc e s s e s . Ohio Vol u n t a r y Action Program, Port of T ol e d o , “This project is an outstanding example of a port Oh i o providing the impetus for redevelopment of vacant Po rt uses state program to mediate cleanup of and underutilized contaminated industrial no n - P o rt prop e rt y. [lands]...to sustain economic development and im p rove environmental conditions,” (1995 AAPA En v i ronmental Awa rds). Industrial prop e rty cleanup and marine termi n a l development of the Southwest Harbor by the Port of Seattle began in 1991. The main objective of the project was to rehabilitate, through cleanup and redevelopment, five large contaminated sites (a total of 180 acres), including a former shipbuilding and ship repair yard, a municipal landfill, and slag and Improved roadways at the Port of Toledo. scrap steel yards (State Superfund sites); a wood treatment plant (Federal Superfund site), as well as a In the late 1980s, in an effo rt to alleviate traffic con- series of smaller contaminated sites. Area-wide risk gestion in the Toledo-Lucas County Port area, the Port analysis revealed that it would not be technically or and the City of Toledo developed a plan to widen economically reasonable to ret u rn the lands to pris- roadways and construct overpasses. The Port and City tine condition. Instead, the proposed plan of action obtained the necessary funding, engineering design co n s i d e red the feasibility of mitigating identifiable work, and right-of-way only to discover seven acres of human health and environmental risks, and the rec- the right-of-way were contaminated. Consequently, ommended cleanup levels were set not at pristine the project stalled. levels, but at levels that would be non-threatening to No resolution was realized until 1996, several years humans and the environment. after the state of Ohio promulgated the Vol u n t a ry The five sites were to be redeveloped into a mod- Action Program (VAP), a statute designed to prom o t e ern container shipping terminal and intermodal rail vo l u n t a ry reuse and cleanup of contaminated land. ya rd to support increasing trade along the Pacific Se rving as mediator, the Port Authority used VAP and Rim. In addition to the infrastruc t u re and long-term the many advantages it affo rds to move the expansion economic benefits befitting such a project, it also project forwa rd. Advantages of Ohio’s VAP are that (1) provided an opportunity for habitat restoration and it is a privatized program not requiring direct cleanup oversight by US EPA, (2) it provides grants, low-interest loans, and tax credits to brownfield red e v e l o p m e n t projects, (3) it sets new and reasonable cleanup stan- da rds based on the intended future use of the brow n- field site; (4) it allows prop e rty owners and others to engage in redevelopment with liability assurance from the Federal government—in the form of covenants not to sue, “no further action” agreements, or consent de c rees—that such clean-up activities will be final; Southwest Harbor before redevelopment.

12 B R O W N F I E L D S

public access improvements at the Port. maintenance of a stringent drinking water stan- The project req u i red assessment of sediment qual- da rd in the underlying aquifer, to cleanup stan- ity prior to dredging and cleanup of sediments asso- da rds that were protective of the environ m e n t ciated with submerged areas of the former shipyard. given its future land use. A Submerged Nearshore Facility was proposed to • Previous prop e rty owners were made partners in se rve as a disposal and on-site containment site for the cleanup, which minimized litigation and all contaminated sediments. After capping with enabled a reasonable agreement on liability and clean sediments, the facility would provide 19 acres cleanup costs to be realized. The Partnership also of clean subtidal and intertidal habitat. allowed previous owners to review and approv e One important outcome of the project was that all documents prior to submission to reg u l a t o ry th rough the environmental impact assessment, the agencies and to participate in the selection of Po rt was able to establish guidelines for integrating cleanup options. en v i ronmental factors in all future decision-making • US EPA agreed to a prep u rchasers agreement and and design consideration. The EIS process also a Covenant Not to Sue prior to the purchase of the en s u red that project consensus among community Federal Superfund Site. groups and government agencies was achieved. As • The Port offe red to pay market value for the feder- noted in a letter from the Pres i d e n t ’s Council on al Superfund site as if it were clean, and req u e s t e d En v i ronmental Quality, the EIS for the Container that site cleanup be perfo rmed by the Port rather Terminal Development Plan is a “national model for than by Superfund contractors. This arra n g e m e n t policy level environmental impact analysis.” allowed cleanup to proceed without delay. Not without its share of difficulties, the challenges The Port of Seattle maximized the use of the and most innovative aspects of the project included: Su p e rfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SCAM) and 1. Establishing and implementing guidelines for presumptive remedy approaches and removal actions integrating environmental factors into the devel- previously developed by US EPA as part of SCAM. opment of Port infrastruc t u re ; Use of these pre- a p p roved techniques req u i red mini- 2. Developing cost-effective site cleanup approa c h- mal paperwork compared to a full scale US EPA es, sediment disposal and habitat mitigation; remedial action decision. In addition, the Port inte- 3. Minimizing liability and financial issues associ- grated the procedural and substantive req u i re m e n t s ated with the acquisition of the contaminated of four major environmental laws through an innova- sites; and tive environmental assessment process and the 4. Integrating reg u l a t o ry req u i rements for environ- preparation of a joint NEPA/SEEP EIS, which saved mental impact assessment with contaminated time and reduced the administrative and technical site cleanup within a short time period. costs associated with preparing an EIS. The Port also employed a number of innovative All these effo rts have used cost-effective mecha- ap p roaches during land acquisition that allowed it to nisms and saved millions of dollars in project delays obtain the prop e rties at fair market value, which and litigation. Savings of $16 million were possible enabled the Port to concentrate its financial from on-site containment as opposed to removal of res o u rces on timely completion of the proj e c t . low toxicity soil from contaminated prop e rt i e s . • The Port negotiated a purchaser consent decree (a vo l u n t a ry, unopposed agreement) with the Washington Department of Ecology and US EPA that specified limited liability. • The prop e rty deed restricted the use of the site to industrial development, and a non-potable aquifer designation was obtained from the state. These designations shifted the focus of the proj e c t from cleanup to pristine conditions, including Cleanup of Port of Seattle’s Southwest Harbor. 13 A M E R I C A ’ S G R E E N P O R T S

COMMUNITY RELAT I O N S A N D En v i ronmental Stewards h i p

Is s u e / P ro b l e m local, regional and national economies. It has Beginning with the host of environmental laws become an imperative that a port be rec o g n i z e d passed by the federal government in the 1970s, as a good neighbor in the ways it develops its the federal and state governments have sought to pro p e rties and in the way it operates. reverse decades of environmental negligence and Po rts have responded to these issues with vari- establish and implement policies leading to broa d ous initiatives to better manage their res o u rc e s , en v i ronmental res p o n s i b i l i t y, protection, and facilities, and operations and to educate the gen- restoration. Over the past several decades, port eral populace on the functional req u i rements and authorities, like other public agencies and private im p o rtance of ports. Port authorities are also par- industries, have incorporated environmental val- ticipating in a broader public process and con- ues into their organizations and decision-making tributing their expertise to addressing environ- apparatus and become more attentive to the envi- mental concerns within their regions. These ronmental impacts of their plans, decisions and eff o rts are not only yielding environ m e n t a l operations. im p rovement, they are helping to create a politi- Pollution prevention and reduction was initial- cal climate for support of port development and ly and largely pursued through a command and operations within the community. co n t rol reg u l a t o ry approach. A reduction in pollution was to be achieved through direct reg u l a- Compliance and Education, Port of Bellingham tion, requiring adherence to sets of objective envi- Ba y, Was h i n g t o n ronmental quality standards. Increa s i n g l y, grea t e r En v i ronmental Compliance and Education a priority emphasis is placed on economic incentives and at Bellingham. innovative management. The US EPA is a lead- In 1991, the Port of Bellingham developed a ing proponent of this transformation in environ- Co m p rehensive Environmental Program (CEP) to mental management, advocating greater flexibility help ensure that Port operations were conducted and intergo v e rnmental cooperation through ini- in compliance with federal, state, and local envi- tiatives such as Project XL, Brownfields, and ronmental laws. The program is based on educa- Community-based Environmental Prot e c t i o n . tion, compliance assessment, and prompt atten- Po rts must confront the legacy of past practices tion to environmental problems. One of the pri- while continually modernizing and expanding ma ry objectives of the program is to review over facilities. They are responding to problems of 300 tenant operations for potential environ m e n t a l past contamination with innovation and putting problems and liabilities that may impact the Port. in place programs and mechanisms to ensure on- Compliance reviews are perfo rmed by Port staff going operations and new projects are in compli- using established proc e d u res that are designed to ance with environmental regulations. Ports have highlight either permit compliance issues or signs adopted comprehensive environmental prog r a m s of contamination. Regular site inspections are that feature environmental audits and perfo rm- pe rf o rmed at tenant operations with a significant ance reviews to evaluate where they and their potential for compliance problems. In the event tenants stand with reg a rd to regulations, especial- an environmental concern is identified, the Port' s ly RCRA, CERCLA, Clean Air Act, and Clean assessment team leader works with the tenant to Water Act as well as on-going educational pro- ad d ress the problem promptly in accordance with gr a m s . applicable regulations. The Port has developed a Po rts are recognizing that they are part of a co m p rehensive database of tenant operations in la rger urban community and that they need to be order to track and manage its environmental com- attentive to public processes and issues beyond pliance assessment prog r a m . their boundaries. Ports do not have a natural con- A key aspect of the Port's CEP is the stituency and theref o re must work to increa s e En v i ronmental Compliance Assessment Prog r a m understanding of the importance of ports to the (ECAP) designed to educate Port staff and tenants 14 COMMUNITY RELAT I O N S

about the complexities of emerging environ m e n- offset the costs that would have been incurred tal regulations and to help develop approp r i a t e had erosion of the prop e rty continued and per- responses to any identified problems. For exam- sonal liability become an issue. The Center and ple, the Port has provided educational workshops its surrounding grounds are heavily used by the to help tenants understand the impact of new general public, particularly boaters, and are st o rmwater regulations on their commercial oper- demonstrative of the Port's continuing effo rts to ations. It has also implemented a number of upgrade the aesthetics of the working Harbor and remedial actions to clean up contaminated prop- Marina area . erty along the working waterfront. The prog r a m Among other of the Port's more ambitious proj- has been recognized in the Puget Sound region as ects is one covering a 50-acre section of the a model for addressing environmental issues wa t e rf ront being conducted as a pilot proj e c t la rge and small. under US EPA's Brownfields Initiative. The proj- In addition to the educational components of ect is designed to quickly clean up and red e v e l o p EC A P, the Port works to weave educational ele- a package of four individual prop e rties that are ments into each of its activities. The Port's “In the listed as contaminated sites under the state's Schools” program, for example, utilizes a non- su p e rfund legislation. The redevelopment goal technical educational videotape on Port opera- includes significant improvements in environ- tions, conducts field trips to various Port prop e r- mental, economic and local public access to the ties and facilities (the airport, the intermodal ter- working waterfront. minals, the waterfront and marina), and prov i d e s As the Port continued to bring additional envi- in - c l a s s room environmental, transportation, and ronmental projects on line, the need for a com- trade development curriculum support. The prehensive "baywide" strategy became evident. Marine Life Center touch-tank, located at the In the Puget Sound area, as in many urbanized Po rt's Squalicum Harbor Marina, is visited year- coastal port areas, contaminated marine sedi- round by school groups and tourists. ments have been recognized as a particularly dif- The construction of the Co m m e rcial Fleet ficult environmental problem. In 1996 In t e r p retive Center tr a n s f o rmed an underus e d Bellingham Bay was selected as the location for a pa rcel at the head of a commercial fishing loading demonstration pilot, sponsored by state and fed- dock into a useful public area. The Interpret i v e eral agencies, to explore new and innovative Ce n t e r, part of the Port's growing parks system on ap p roaches for baywide cleanup and habitat the Bellingham and Blaine waterfronts, has a restoration. The Port was identified as the local treated boardwalk constructed with handrail, project manager and has recently completed a built-in planter boxes, benches, and picnic tables. co m p rehensive plan that integrates multi-site In t e r p retive signage provides historical informa- cleanup, broad-scale habitat res t o r a t i o n , tion on the commercial fishing fleet, which has im p roved public access to the waterfront, and been a major industry in the Puget Sound area . dredging of federal channels to support local nav- The signs detail the fishing fleet's activities and igation and commerce. Regulatory approval of the include information about the various types of plan was anticipated in December of 1999. fishing vessels and the vast quantities of seafood once harvested throughout this area . Savannah Harbor Stakeholders Evaluation The Interpretive Center was built on a degrad- Group, Port of Savannah, Geor gi a ed parcel of land that had been contaminated Stakeholder group advises Port authority on impor- from oil and garbage dumping. Cleanup and red e- tant decisions. velopment enabled the Port to ret u rn the parcel to A 1996 Reconnaissance Study rep o rt prod u c e d a useful and aesthetically pleasing state, and to by the Georgia Port Authority revealed that cer- prevent the spread of contaminants. The total tain vessels were incurring significant transporta- cost of the project was $50,000, which more than tion costs when calling on Savannah due to

15 A M E R I C A ’ S G R E E N P O R T S

in s u fficient channel depths, and that vessel oper- identify impacts or specific environmental con- ating schedules would continue to be constrained ce rns that may result from the proposed deepen- by the present 42-foot channel unless the Harbor ing of the federal navigation channel. Consensus we re deepened. Furth e r, the rep o rt concluded "As in this case is the mutual belief that all concerns the average size of vessels in the world container- have been addressed and does not req u i re 100 ship fleet increases, vessels calling on Savannah pe rcent agreement on all points. will experience increased transportation costs due While there are consensus decisions, SEG rec- to light loading and tidal delays." Over 50 perce n t ognizes that the federal and state reg u l a t o ry agen- of the containership calls in Savannah Harbor are cies must retain their independence to ensure that delayed by the current depth of the channel. any proposed plans meet agency req u i re m e n t s . The need to deepen the Harbor was obvious, Nothing compromises or alters the legally defined and in 1997, the Port submitted a Feasibility responsibilities, authority, or operational proc e- Study and Tier I Environmental Impact Statement du res imposed on any organization. What SEG (EIS) to Congress for approval under the Wat e r does provide is a comprehensive identification Re s o u rces Development Act (WRDA) of 1986. In and discussion of concerns surrounding the proj- the interest of saving time and state and federal ect and an opportunity for public participation. mo n e y, the Port conducted the Feasibility Study At the time this is written, the project is not yet itself as authorized in Section 203 of WRDA, complete, so the overall success and lessons which enables preparation by a non-federal spon- le a rned from SEG cannot be fully evaluated. so r. These rep o rts evaluated the economic need Ne v e rtheless, this effo rt is an excellent example of and engineering feasibility of deepening Savannah an attempt to include interested parties in the EIS Harbor to 50 feet. process beyond the standard public comment Upon completion of these rep o rts, concerns req u i re m e n t s . about the project emerged from res o u rce agency rep resentatives, environmental groups, and local Public Education and Outreach Programs, Port businesses. The Stakeholders Evaluation Grou p of San Diego, Califor ni a (SEG) was a concept suggested during the agency Po rt Authority educates San Diego Bay community. review of the Tier I EIS by one of the natural The Port of San Diego has initiated a number of res o u rce agencies. The idea was to congregate all en v i ronmental education and outreach prog r a m s pa rties interested in this project in a collaborative that contribute community service and result in fo rum through which they could actively parti c i- positive Port/community relations. Collectively, pate in the remaining project phases. these programs educate, inform, and involve indi- The SEG group was established in 1998 with viduals, interest groups, businesses, industry, and rep resentatives from the Georgia Port Authority, go v e rnment in the cleanup, protection, monitoring the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), state and and management of the San Diego Bay area. The federal res o u rce agencies, the cities of Savannah breadth of involvement and leadership role the and Tybee Island, local and regional environ m e n- Po rt plays have become essential to these pro- tal organizations, members of the maritime com- grams' successes. mu n i t y, and other interested parties. SEG acts as St o rmwater drainage education has proven to an advisor to the Georgia Ports Authority to be one of their most successful endeavors. The en s u re that the project's investigations, studies, Po rt, in cooperation with the Resource and analyses are conducted adequately and pro- Co n s e rvation District (RCD), has established edu- vide the information needed by the natural cational partnerships with one school in each of res o u rce agencies to evaluate the project. the Port's five member cities. RCD provides the SEG req u i res consensus (rather than a majority training and the Port provides the necessary fund- vote) among the participants in the development ing support. Each partnership is developed to of the scientific studies and analysis necessary to meet the particular needs of both the school and

16 COMMUNITY RELAT I O N S

the Port. The school programs have included ul a r, the Task Force seeks to identify concerns wa t e r s h e d / s t o rmwater pollution prevention strate- wh e re collaborative effo rts would be beneficial to gies, outdoor laboratories, landscaping and moni- all interested parties within the watershed. All toring projects, and field trips. RCD also conducts Task Force members agreed that US EPA's water- st o rmwater management training outside the shed management approach would be incorporat- Po rt's member cities in schools located upstrea m ed in their effo rts to reduce water pollution. in the San Diego Bay watershed. Tog e t h e r, RCD The Port of San Diego also is a partner in a and the Port have educated 14,000 students and co m p rehensive environmental education cam- adults about stormwater management and San paign—the largest environmental education proj- Diego County's stormwater permit program. They ect in San Diego history—called "Think Blue." also have organized erosion control and strea m- Other partners include the City of San Diego, the bank restoration workshops for Port engineers and County of San Diego, Caltran, and KGTV Channel other municipalities within the watershed, coordi- 10. The campaign is designed to "generate aware- nated water quality conferences for high school ness and action among San Diego residents in students and teachers, and assisted and funded order to prevent the sources of storm drain pollu- student water quality proj e c t s . tion that have a severe impact on San Diego's In 1998, the Port took a leadership role in the en v i ronment, life-style and economy." Extending creation of the San Diego Bay Watershed Tas k beyond the usual array of workshops, websites, Fo rce. This group was established to addres s and educational literature, "Think Blue" will use st o rmwater pollution and other nonpoint source radio and television to provide tips and sugges- pollution that affects San Diego Bay and to seek tions for preventing stormwater pollution. A sur- solutions to problems arising from nutrients, vey conducted by the Center for Wat e r s h e d household hazardous wastes, pesticides, herbi- Protection found that television is the pref e rre d cides, fertilizers, organic carbon, bacteria and way to effectively reach target audiences with other pathogenic oils, and heavy metals. In parti c- en v i ronmental messages.

17 A M E R I C A’S GREEN PORT S

DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL A N D Contaminated Sediments

Issue/Problem of the affected underwater environments. For Ocean, river, and lakebed sediments can be con- example, the overlying water or underlying taminated by heavy metals (e.g., lead, zinc, mercu- “clean” sediments can be affected by contaminated ry, cadmium, copper), polychlorinated biphenyls sediment as biological and mechanical mixing of (PCBs), polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH s ) , the top layer remobilizes contaminants and mixes hy d rophobic organics (e.g, dioxins), pesticides (e.g, them back into the water column or into deeper DD T, chlordane), oils, greases, and organic matter sediment layers. Once released into the water col- that adsorb onto suspended particles, settle onto umn, contaminants present a considerable threa t the underwater floor, and alter the sediment’s com- to ecosystem health, particularly as they work position. Sediment contamination is a major envi- their way up the food chain through the plants and ronmental problem in the United States with an animals that live in the effected environ m e n t . estimated one-eighth to one-quarter of all Potential environmental impacts resulting from Su p e rfund sites being submerged sediment beds. dredged material disposal may be physical, chemi- Contaminated sediments threaten ecosystems, cal, or biological in nature. The sediments in urban human health, and natural res o u rces and also have harbors and ports are often highly contaminated by serious economic impacts. They are considered a industrial activities occurring in the ports and problem when concentrations are determined to th rough the deposition of upstream sediments bur- pose significant adverse effects on the environ- dened with pollutants from point and nonpoint ment. so u rces. Unless properly managed, dredging and Several hundred million cubic yards of sedi- disposal of contaminated sediments can adversely ment must be dredged from waterways and ports affect water quality and aquatic or terrestrial orga n- each year to improve and maintain the nation's isms. Sound planning, design, and management of wa t e r b o rne navigation. Port dredging is essential to projects are essential if dredged material disposal creating and maintaining sufficient depth for safe is to be accomplished with appropriate environ- operations. Disposal of the dredged material can be mental protection in an economically effi c i e n t di fficult and controversial, particularly if the sedi- ma n n e r. ments are contaminated by toxic pollutants. While po rts are not responsible for all of the contamina- Applicable Federal Environmental Regulations tion in harbor sediments, they are responsible for A number of federal environmental statutes and disposing of sediments they dredge in an environ- regulations apply to dredging and disposal opera- mentally sound and economically effective man- tions. Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of ne r. It has been estimated that almost 5 - 10 per- 1899 req u i res an Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) cent of all dredged sediments are contaminated. pe rmit for any work or struc t u re, including fill Al t e rnatives for the management of dredged mate- material discharges, in navigable US waters. rial from these projects must be carefully evaluated Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) , from the standpoint of environmental acceptabili- req u i res an authorization by the Corps for dis- ty, technical feasibility, and economics. ch a rges of dredged or fill material in “waters of the United States,” a term that includes wetlands and Health and Environmental Impacts other aquatic areas. The goal of the Section 404 Most present-day sediment contamination stems program is to ensure protection of the aquatic envi- from past human activity, before environ m e n t a l ronment while allowing for necessary economic regulations restricted the type and quantity of development. In evaluating permit applications the industrial and domestic waste discharges and Corps is req u i red by law to consider all factors emissions. Even though many pollution source s involving the public interest including: economics, have been removed today, problems persist en v i ronmental concerns, historical values, fish and because of the chemical nature of contaminants wildlife, aesthetics, flood damage prevention, land and because of physical and biological conditions use classifications, navigation, rec reation, water 18 DREDGED MAT E R I A L

su p p l y, water quality, energy needs, food prod u c- mented, and publicly disclosed. NEPA req u i re s tion and the general welfare of the public. The that government use all practicable means, consis- Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines are the substantive tent with the act and other essential considerations criteria by which proposed dredged material dis- of national policy, to fulfill the req u i rements of the ch a rge actions are evaluated. US EPA also main- Act. This req u i rement specifically applies to feder- tains general environmental oversight, including al agencies, their plans, regulations, programs, and Section 404(c) permit veto authority if it is deter- facilities. NEPA req u i res the preparation of a rep o rt mined that the activity will result in an “unaccept- that provides complete information about the envi- able adverse effe c t . ” ronmental impact of a proposed action. This docu- Di s c h a rges are also reviewed by the applicable ment is either an Environmental Impact Statement state, which must certify under Section 401 of (EIS) or an Environmental Assessment (EA)/ CWA that the disposal operations comply with Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). state water quality standards . Material dredged from waters of the United Management Options States and disposed in the territorial sea is evaluat- Challenges surrounding the treatment and dis- ed under the Marine Protection, Research, and posal of contaminated sediments are related to sci- Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (MPRSA). In general, entific uncertainty over the bioavailability of con- dredged material discharged as fill (e.g., beach taminants in both sediments and in the water col- nourishment, island creation, or underwa t e r umn, uncertainty as to the mobility of contami- be rms) and placed within the territorial sea is eval- nants within the sediments, and unpredictability of uated under the CWA. the total effects of contaminants in the top layer of Under Section 103 of MPRSA, the Corps must sediments. Other problems include the high cost evaluate proposed projects that req u i re the trans- and technical challenges of sediment and site char- po rtation of dredged material for the purpose of acterization, sediment removal, contaminant immo- disposal in the open ocean. The US Environ m e n t a l bilization and isolation, biodegradation, and dis- Protection Agency (US EPA) has the primary posal. The problem of contaminated sediments is responsibility for designating ocean-disposal sites im p o rtant for ports to overcome as it poses a threa t within and beyond the three-mile limit, i.e., within to essential maintenance and development. and beyond the territorial sea. The evaluation of In general, there are three major disposal alterna- these activities is based on criteria promulgated by tives available: open-water disposal, confined dis- US EPA after consultation with the Corps and posal, and beneficial use. Selection of the disposal other federal agencies. Non-Corps Federal proj e c t s al t e rnative is a function of environmental, engi- and private projects that are approved receive an neering, and economic considerations. ocean-dumping permit from the Corps. If a permi t Open-water disposal is the placement of dred g e d does not comply with established criteria, disposal material in rivers, lakes, estuaries, or oceans. Such of the material cannot proceed unless a waiver is disposal may involve appropriate management obtained from US EPA. actions or controls such as capping. Dredged mate- The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA rial can be placed in open-water sites using direc t (P. L. 91-190)) applies to major federal actions (e.g., pipeline discharge, direct mechanical placement, or proposals, permits, and legislation) that may sig- release from hopper dredges or scows. The poten- nificantly affect the environment. Corps activities tial for environmental impacts is related to the type in the areas of dredging and disposal, including of dredging and disposal operation used, the nature reg u l a t o ry actions, come under NEPA jurisdiction. of the material (physical characteristics), and the It is through the NEPA process that the dred g e d hy d rodynamics of the disposal site. material disposal alternatives including no action, Open-water disposal sites can be either pred o m i- open-water disposal, confined disposal of dred g e d nantly nondispersive or predominantly dispersive. material, or beneficial uses are evaluated, docu- At predominantly nondispersive sites, most of the

19 A M E R I C A’S GREEN PORT S

material is intended to remain on the bottom fol- Beneficial use includes a wide variety of lowing placement and may be placed to form options, which utilize the material for some pro- mounds. At predominantly dispersive sites, materi- ductive purpose. Dredged material can be a man- al may be dispersed either during placement or ageable and valuable soil res o u rce with beneficial eroded from the bottom over time and transporte d uses of importance that should be incorporated into away from the disposal site by currents and/or project plans and goals at the project's inception to wave action. Both types of disposal sites can be the maximum extent. managed to achieve environmental objectives or Broad categories of beneficial uses, based on the reduce potential operational conflicts. functional use of the dredged material or site, are: Capping is the controlled placement of contami- • Habitat restoration/enhancement (wetland, nated material at an open-water site followed by a upland, island, and aquatic sites including use covering or cap of clean isolating material. The fea- by waterfowl and other birds); sibility of capping is dependent on site bathymetry, • Beach nourishment; water depth, currents, wave climate, physical char- • Aquaculture; acteristics of contaminated sediment and capping • Parks and rec reation (commercial and non- sediment, and placement equipment and tech- co m m e rcial); niques. Precise placement of material is necessary • Agriculture, fores t ry, and horti c u l t u re; for effective capping, and use of other control • Strip mine reclamation and landfill cover for me a s u res increase the effectiveness of capping. solid waste management; Confined disposal is placement of dredged mate- • Shoreline stabilization and erosion control rial within diked nearshore or upland confined dis- (fills, artificial reefs, submerged berms, etc.); posal facilities (CDFs). CDFs are designed to pro- • Construction and industrial use (including vide for adequate storage capacity, to maximize effi- po rt development, airports, urban, and res i- ciency in retaining the solids and, if contaminants dential); and are present, control of contaminant rel e a s e s . • Material transfer (fill, dikes, levees, parking lots, and roa d s ) .

Ne a r s h o r e Disposal, Port Canaveral, Florida Disposal of dredged sand from the channel renour- ished beaches south of the Port. Po rt Canaveral was constructed in the early 1950s to facilitate trade in the relatively shallow waters of Canaveral Harbor. A federal navigation project created an ocean entrance channel with a depth of -46 feet mean low water (MLW), stabilized by two rock jetties. Not long thereafter it was recognized that the jetties interrupted the natural (Corps). Tra d i t i o n a l l y, this maintenance dred g i n g net southerly drift of sand causing significant ero- had been done with a hopper dredge and the total sion of the beach to the south of the Harbor. It is volume of dredged material disposed of at an off- estimated that each year approximately 200,000 sh o re disposal site nine miles at sea. In 1991, the cubic yards of sand accrete along the shorel i n e US Fish and Wildlife Service prohibited furth e r no rth of the jetties and that another 200,000 cubic use of hopper dredges due to potential impacts on ya rds of sand accumulate in the channel. en d a n g e red sea turtles that inhabit the area. The The entrance and channel basins are dred g e d Canaveral Port Authority developed and funded an annually by the US Army Corps of Engineers al t e rnative plan, known as the Nearshore Berm

20 DREDGED MAT E R I A L

Disposal Project, the purpose of which is to offs e t Boston Harbor Navigation Improvement Pr oj e c t the sediment deficit caused by the navigation proj- (BHNIP), Port of Boston, Massachusetts ect. Since a nearshore berm disposal project had Disposal Options Working Group collaborates to never been implemented in the State of Florida, determine innovative disposal option for contami- the Port’s Engineers had to convince the Corps and nated sediment. various state agencies that their proposal was safe The Boston Harbor Navigation Improvement and and operationally feasible. Once the agencies gave Be rth Dredging Projects involves the deepening of their support, the Port was able to fast-track dred g e two areas of the Main Ship and three tributary chan- and fill permits for channel maintenance. nels: Reserved Channel, Mystic River Channel and The Port’s plan was to segregate the beach-com- Chelsea Creek Channel as well as a number of berth patible sand dredged from the channel and trans- areas. Channel depths will be increased to -40 feet po rt and dispose of it at a site south of the Harbor MLW (except Chelsea Channel to -38 feet MLW) . about one-half mile offs h o re of the City of Cocoa The project, when complete, will allow greater use Beach. The sand was removed from the channel of the previously underutilized -40 feet MLW with a clamshell dredge that, unlike the hopper Entrance Channel and Main Ship Channel in dredge, allows segregation of sand from silt and Boston Harbor, thereby improving navigation and cl a y. After separation, the sandy material, which sa f e t y, reducing the cost of transporting goods, and contains less than 10 percent silt and no contami- im p roving effi c i e n c y. nants, was transported by tug and scow to the dis- The project will remove approximately 2.7 mil- posal site. The sand was placed in a berm configu- lion cubic yards (cy) of in-situ material. This ration with the expectation that it will migrate includes 1.0 million cubic yards of silt, 1.7 million sh o re w a rd and become part of the active littoral cy of parent material composed of clay and zone, renourishing the eroding shore. The berm sand/gravel and 88,000 million cy of rock. An addi- was designed to have a 100-300 foot crest with an tional 1.3 million cy of parent material will be elevation maximum at -10 feet MLW. Over 158,000 dredged to provide for in-channel disposal of the cubic yards of sandy material has been deposited silt as is described below. The average depth of cell at the berm site. excavation will be approximately -50 to -80 feet Th rough its Nearshore Berm Disposal Proj e c t , MLW with some cells reaching a depth of -100 feet Po rt Canaveral has devised a solution for ret a i n i n g MLW. much of the sand in the coastal system. Sand that The project was authorized by Congress in the is transported into the Harbor through natural Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (P.L. 101- physical processes is no longer shipped out of the 640). The Massachusetts Port Authority is the non- littoral zone but reaches the shore south of the federal sponsor and is providing the non-federal Po rt. Nourishment of the beaches in Brev a rd cost sharing portion. The total project cost is cur- County enhances nesting habitat for endangered rently estimated at $60 million including deepening species like sea turtles and least terns and adds to and maintenance dredging in the channels and the valuable storm protection that the beaches pro- be rth areas. Phase I of the project involving dred g- vi d e . ing of two areas at Conley Terminal with disposal in The Port has conducted monitoring of the pro- the Inner Confluence, was completed in the sum- je c t ’s effects on the littoral sand budget. One year mer of 1999. Phase II dredging operations began after the proj e c t ’s implementation, monitoring August, 1998 and are scheduled for completion by indicated that the berm’s sand, by moving land- December 31, 1999. wa rd, has already become an active part of the As with most dredging projects, the key environ- coastal system. mental issue was where and how to dispose of the dredged sediments. Generally, the level of diffi c u l t y in identifying and permitting a disposal site rel a t e s to the volume and quality of the sediment to be 21 A M E R I C A’S GREEN PORT S

dre d g e d . An extensive sediment sampling and testing program was conducted to determine the quality of the material to be dredged. The assessment rev e a l e d that the surficial silt layer (or “maintenance” material) was found to contain varying concentrations of metals, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH s ) , polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and other orga n- ics. Under stricter new protocols imposed in 1990 by the Corps and US EPA the silt material was found to be generally unsuitable for unconfined open water disposal. The underlying sediment (par- Channel dredging in Boston Harbor. ent material) is composed of clay and sand/gravel that is uncontaminated and suitable for unconfined clean sandy material. Construction of the in-channel open water disposal if no beneficial uses are identi- disposal cells will generate an additional 1.3 million fi e d . cubic yards of clean material that will be disposed A combined Massachusetts Environ m e n t a l of at the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site (MBDS), a Impact Report (EIR) and federal Environ m e n t a l US EPA-designated disposal site located approx i- Impact Statement (EIS) (June 1995) explored alter- mately 25 miles east of Boston in Massachusetts natives for disposal of the dredge material. One Ba y. innovative and productive aspect of thie project was The environmental res o u rces impacted for this the formation of a Disposal Options Working Grou p . disposal alternative are the same as for dredging the The technical expertise contributed by this grou p site. Because this disposal practice does not involve was reponsible for expanding the scope of sediment impacting any additional area beyond the dred g i n g sampling and testing and broadening the considera- footprint, and because the material will be capped tion of disposal options and the diposal sites to be with a three-foot layer of clean granular material, it sc re e n e d . results in no identified significant long-term Ul t i m a t e l y, the use of in-channel disposal cells impacts. The only environmental impacts that need- was selected as the least environmentally damaging ed to be addressed by the project mitigation plan practicable alternative (LEDPA). The original dispos- we re short- t e rm in nature, mostly related to turbidi- al plan entailed excavating approximately 54 dis- ty increases during dredging and disposal activities. posal cells beneath the federal navigation channels Benefits from this alternative include keeping the in the Inner Confluence, Mystic River, and Chelsea unsuitable material near its point of origin within Ri v e r. The project as carried out created nine cells the area impacted by the channel dredging, thereb y deeper (-20 to -65 MLW) and larger than the original reducing the amount of material exposed to biologi- configuration. It is important to note that the dispos- cal res o u rces elsewhere. Tra n s p o rtation costs, vessel al cells will only be constructed in the Inner Harbor tr a ffic disturbances and socio-economic impacts are wh e re channels will never be dredged deeper than - kept to a minimum. Newly-exposed substrate and 40 feet MLW due to existing navigational obstruc- clean capping materials will provide better substrate tions below this depth. No cells will be construc t e d conditions for benthic community development that in the Reserved Channel or outer harbor where is expected to recover rapidly. th e re are no restrictions on future dredging depths. As of the preparation of this rep o rt, all nine dis- The unsuitable material removed from the navi- posal cells have been constructed and filled with gation channels and berths is placed on barge s dredged material. Six have been capped and three while the cells are dug deeper into the parent mate- await capping which is schedules to occur in sum- rial of the channels. The silty material is then mer 2000. The cells are regularly monitored as placed in the cells and capped with a 3-foot layer of req u i red by the proj e c t ’s water quality certi f i c a t i o n .

22 DREDGED MAT E R I A L

Monitoring revealed some problems with the cap- disposal sites in the region, the Port initiated a ping as originally carried out and led to modifica- se a rch for new ways to dispose of dredged materi- tions of the process in later phases. Project man- als. As a result of this search, the Port identified an agers learned that it is necessary to allow the unsuit- upland site where they could convert dredged mate- able materials being disposed to consolidate within rials into beneficial use products. This upland site, the cells for a period of time (several months or named the Orion Project, has the technology to mo re) before the cap is placed on top. Allowing tr a n s f o rm 1.5 million cubic yards of dredged sedi- additional time for consolidation results in more ment into foundation fill for a parking lot. effective sequestering of the unsuitable material. To create the foundation fill from the sediments, In Februa ry 2000, the Massachusetts Port the Port first transports sediment material dred g e d Au t h o r i t y, the Corps, and Great Lakes Dredge & from various Port locations to an on-water proc e s s- Dock Company—the three partners in the proj e c t — ing site. There the dredged material is screened to received the “Hammer Awa rd” for the another inno- separate debris from sediment. The sediment is vation. Sand tha needed to be dredged from the then pumped to an on-shore site in New Jersey Cape Cod Canal is being used to cap the cells, pro- wh e re it is mixed with cement kiln dust to enhance viding a cost effective solution to the disposal of the its compressive strength. After this mixing proc e s s , sand and source of cap material that saved taxpay- the sediment mixture is used as fill for a 60-acre ers $1.5 million. parking lot foundation. Asphalt is applied over the treated material as a final cover. The Orion Project, Port of New York & New The Orion Project has provided the Port with a Jersey disposal option for sediment that must be dred g e d Beneficial use found for contaminated harbor for safe navigation in sediments. the harbor. Wit h o u t The Port of New York & New Jersey is a naturally the Orion disposal shallow harbor with heavy annual sediment option, dred g i n g deposits. Sediments entering the system from the could be halted and watershed settle into a network of artificially deep- many ships could be ened public and private channels and berths. To red i rected. In addition deepen these berths and maintain safe navigation to allowing for dred g- channels, the Port dredges approximately three to ing and disposal of five million cubic yards of sediment each year. contaminated sedi- Ap p ropriate disposal sites for these sediments are ments, the Orion de t e rmined according to the levels of toxicity and Project provided a bioavailability in the sediments. Historically, all beneficial use for the dredged material. As a res u l t , dredged material from the Port has been disposed of no virgin fill material will be req u i red to construc t in the ocean. However, under current federal reg u- the parking lot foundation. lations, not all of the dredged sediments from the Po rt of New York and New Jersey meet the stan- Heavy Metal Treatment Alternative for Marine da rds for the Remediation Material at the Historic Sediments, Port of San Diego, Califor ni a Area Remediation Site (HARS). In fact, less than Copper contaminated sediment treated and placed on e - t h i rd of the dredged sediment meets standards on - s i t e . for the Remediation Material at the HARS. Stricter From 1970 to 1988, copper ore concentrate was st a n d a rds for the Remediation Material have shipped on bulk carriers from San Diego to Japan. req u i red the Port to look for alternative dredge dis- The loading of copper onto the ships released sub- posal sites. stantial quantities of copper to San Diego Bay and to With a restriction on the placement req u i re m e n t the marine terminal storm drain system, contami- at the HARS and fewer existing adequate upland nating sediments adjacent to the marine termi n a l .

23 A M E R I C A ’ S G R E E N P O R T S

In small quantities, copper is essential to marine life as a key component of enzymes and normal metab- The intermediate fraction (-140 to +200) exceed- olism functions; however, high concentrations can ed the 4,000 ppm standard, but was not concentrat- damage gills, adversely affect the liver and kidneys ed enough for direct smelter recycling. Instead, this and cause neurological damage in fish. High con- material was subjected to a second stage of rem e d i a- centrations of copper are also hazardous to humans tion in which it was treated chemically, the first if ingested. time that this technique had been used on marine In response to a 1987 Cleanup and Abatement sediments. The sediment was treated with nitric order by the California Regional Water Quality acid in a heated reactor vessel. The solid from the Co n t rol Board, the Port of San Diego was req u i red to reaction was settled out, washed with water, and remove and dispose of 21,000 cubic yards of copper neutralized with sodium hydroxide. The solid contaminated sediment. Various cleanup and dis- material was then shipped offsite for smelter rec y- posal alternatives were considered, including (1) cling. The remaining material from the chemical shipping the dredged sediment to the copper mines extraction was placed onsite. in Arizona where the copper ore could be extracted Following successful completion of the pilot from the sediment and recycled, (2) placing the sed- st u d y, the Port proceeded with dredging and rem e- iment in offsite landfills, and (3) fixing it in situ. diation of 21,000 cubic yards of sediment. Due to a Initial studies showed that disposal of the sediment low volume of high copper content sediments and in an offsite landfill carried too much liability. In refinements in the physical separation process, the situ fixation would prevent future deepening of the chemical extraction process was not necessary dur- shipping channel. Of the alternatives, the Port ing full-scale remediation. At the end of the physi- found the best option to be recycling the sediment. cal separation process, cement was added to the low Ho w e v e r, rather than pay to have the sediment level and washed sediment and the material was shipped to the Arizona facility, the Port adapted the placed onsite. The innovative sediment trea t m e n t copper extraction system used at the mines to per- system implemented at the San Diego Unified Port fo rm remediation on site. Most of the sediment District not only remediated the sediment contami- could then be used safely onsite. nation, it also saved the Port approximately $1.5 Prior to remediation of the entire site, the Port million in cleanup costs over other, more conven- initiated a pilot study to test the system. A small tional methods. scale processing plant was built to process one hundred tons of highly contaminated (greater than 4,000 ppm copper, the California land-based hazardo u s waste designation) sediment. The sediment under- went a two-stage process. In the first stage the sediment was physically separated into diffe rent size fractions. After the sediment was passed through a feed hopper to remove any of the large material, like rocks and ship parts, it was passed through a +20 mesh size screen to remove the shell fraction. At this point, the sediment proceeded through a series of screens and hydrocyclones that separated the solids into three size fractions. The sand fraction, in compliance with California land-based hazardo u s waste standard for copper, req u i red no further processing. The sediment was reused onsite as fill. The fraction less than 200 mesh was dewatered and San Diego Bay. removed for direct smelter rec y c l i n g .

24 ENDANGERED SPECIES E N D A N G E R E D Th reatened Species

Issue/Problem It can be argued that some organisms could be Extinction of a species is an irreversible ecological lost without any immediately noticeable effect on tragedy attributable to habitat loss from pollution an ecosystem. But not enough is understood about and urbanization, unrestrained hunting and fishing species-species and species-ecosystem interactions that depletes stocks to unsustainable levels, poach- to argue that species extinction is tolerable or that ing and consumer demand for exotic animals and ecosystem impacts are always minimal. Moreo v e r, plants, and fish and other wildlife. There are more th e re is a lack of understanding of the impacts that than 1,000 species in the US listed as threatened or these losses could have as environmental condi- en d a n g e red, and there is a backlog of species waiting tions, such as global temperature, change over time. to be listed. Under the protection of the Endangered Until we better understand how a species is essen- Species Act (ESA), 36 percent of all threatened and tial to the functioning of that ecosystem, it cannot en d a n g e red species listed are in stable or improv i n g be argued that biodiversity is unimporta nt . condition. Examples of rec o v e red species include the American alligator, brown pelicans, and the bald Applicable Federal Environmental Regulations ea g l e . ESA, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Species provide a wide array of benefits; they are (FWCA), the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and essential to the natural function of ecosystems, pro- the Migratory Bird Treaty Act are the major federal vide rec reational and aesthetic benefits, and serve as statutes designed to protect plant and animal a potential source of important medical drugs. They res o u rces from adverse effects, such as population can also affo rd many economic benefits. For exam- en d a n g e rment, resulting from human activity. These ple, pacific salmon in the Northwest once support- laws req u i re consultation with wildlife authorities ed a lucrative $1 billion industry that employed be f o re committing res o u rces to certain types of proj- over 60,000 people. The salmon is currently listed ec t s . as threatened due to overfishing and pollution, and ESA was enacted by Congress in 1973 with the salmon industry is lagging as a consequence. amendments in 1984. It is the principal legislation Many animals find particular aspects of a port used to slow the process of species extinction in the en v i ronment appealing. Others are frequent visitors United States. The goals of ESA are to institute a to the highly industrial and heavily trafficked land reg u l a t o ry system to conserve simultaneously and waters surrounding a port. en d a n g e red and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. Endangered species Environmental Impacts are those in danger of extinction throughout all or a A high level of biodiversity is essential to the po rtion of its habitat range. Threatened species are lo n g - t e rm stability of an ecosystem. Species interac- those likely to become endangered in the fores e e- tions provide essential ecological services such as able future. Recognized insect pests are excluded the production of oxygen, removal of carbon diox- from these definitions. ide from air, cleaning and regulating of fresh water, ESA is administered by the Department of and production of organic matter and soil. To make In t e r i o r’s (DOI) US Fish and Wildlife Service, the an ecosystem work, all organisms establish a num- De p a rtment of Commerce ’s National Marine ber of interactions and mutually beneficial links Fisheries Service, and the US Department of with other organisms that they, in turn, depend Ag r i c u l t u re. The Act details prohibited acts (Section upon for survival. All of these mutual-dependent 9) and provides for both civil and criminal penalties links establish a network between species that has for violators, and the Secretaries of Interior, im p o rtant implications in both small-scale and Trea s u ry, and Tra n s p o rtation are given powers of la rge-scale ecosystems. The network is such that inspection and seizure. Private citizens may bring each organism has some small influence on the civil suit to preclude other citizens or governm e n t rest—the activities of one group will benefit others agencies from engaging in activities that violate the and the ecosystem as a whole. Act or to oblige the Secret a ry of the Interior to take 25 A M E R I C A’S GREEN PORT S

ce rtain actions. with the state agency that administers wildlife Several mechanisms exist to prevent a species res o u rces in the affected state to promote conserva- from becoming extinct once placed on the endan- tion of wildlife res o u rces by preventing loss of and ge red list. First, ESA req u i res the development of damage to such res o u rces, and to provide for the Re c o v e ry Plans for all listed species, which prov i d e development and improvement of wildlife specific guidance on how to ret u rn the species pop- res o u rces in connection with the agency action. ulation to a level that is not threatened or endan- These activities should be conducted in accorda n c e ge red. Approximately half the threatened and with plans approved by the federal agency, the en d a n g e red species have Recovery Plans at this Se c re t a ry of the Interior, and the head of the appli- time. Second, under the auspices of the US Fish cable state agency. and Wildlife Service, habitat is req u i red to be desig- The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) was nated as Critical Habitat if it is considered essential enacted in 1972 and amended in 1984. The purpose for the survival of an endangered or threa t e n e d of this Act is to protect and manage marine mammals species. Exceptions are made only if the costs of and their products (e.g., the use of hides and meat). doing so exceed the benefits and only if species The primary authority for implementing MMPA extinction can be avoided by some other mecha- belongs to the Department of Interior’s US Fish and nism. Third, importing, exporting, as well as harass- Wildlife Service (FWS) and the Department of ing, harming, capturing, or killing—collectively Co m m e rc e ’s National Marine Fisheries Servi c e called “taking”—of endangered species is strictly (NMFS). FWS manages walruses; polar bears; sea prohibited by ESA reg u l a t i o n s . otters; dugongs; marine otters; and West Indian, ESA directs all federal agencies to ensure that Amazonian, and West African manatees. NMFS their activities will not jeopardize a threatened or manages whales, porpoises, seals, and sea lions. en d a n g e red species and req u i res inter-agency coor- The Migratory Bird Treaty Act provides prot e c- dination to facilitate this objective. tion for migratory birds by prohibiting the taking, The goals associated with water-related proj e c t s im p o rting, exporting, possession, purchase, or sale (e.g., navigation, flood control) often conflict with of any migratory bird or its parts, including feathers, the goals associated with conserving fish and nests or eggs. wildlife res o u rces. The Fish and Wil d l i f e Co o rdination Act (FWCA), as amended, provides for Management Options equal consideration for fish and wildlife res o u rc e s Recognizing the diffe rent species that inhabit, with economic benefits during the planning of use, or approach a port environment is a first step water res o u rces development projects. to w a rds protecting both listed and non-listed Th e re are several key provisions of FWCA. en d a n g e red species. Other effo rts include modifica- Among these are: authorizing DOI to provide assis- tions to certain port struc t u res so that they are not tance to and cooperate with federal, state, and pub- ha rmful in any way, regulation of boat speeds to lic and private organizations in the development reduce collisions with protected mammals, and and protection of wildlife res o u rces and habitat; to education and outreach concerning the types of make surveys and investigations of wildlife; and to species at risk in a region and what can be done to accept donations of land and funds that further the prevent further harm. purposes of the Act. The Act req u i res consultation Manatee Protection Programs, Port Canaveral, line. These animals have a strong presence in Port Fl o r i d a Canaveral, using the Port's waters for playing, res t- Infrastructure improvements and awareness ing, feeding, mating, freshwater drinking and as a campaign protect Florida manatee. co rridor between the Indian River Lagoon and the The manatee is one of many mammals prot e c t e d Atlantic Ocean. The Port Canaveral Authority under ESA and is found all along Florida's coast- Manatee Protection Program was developed and is

26 ENDANGERED SPECIES

implemented voluntarily by the Port to increa s e Manatee Protection Program, Port Ever gl a d e s , aw a reness of these animals. The main goal of the Fl o r i d a program is to minimize manatee injury and morta l- Lagoon modifications improve manatee habitat. ity resulting from commercial and rec re a t i o n a l To accommodate migrating manatees attracted to uses. Highlights of the program include improv e- the heated effluent of the Florida Power and Light’s ments in the Port's fendering system, grating of Di s c h a rge Canal, Port Everglades modified a man- st o rm water outfalls to prevent manatees from grove area within its boundaries. Before the Port en t ry, and the implementation of an education and made modifications, manatees used the lagoon in aw a reness effo rt for Port users. the mangrove forest only during the highest porti o n Many existing fendering systems were ret ro f i t t e d of the tidal cycle. Because of shallow depths and with a three to four foot clearance space between mid to lower tides, the manatees could get stranded the vessels and bulkheads. All new piers were or trapped in the lagoon when the water level req u i red to have manatee safe fenders with at least dro p p e d . th ree feet of standoff space providing suffi c i e n t To allow manatees to safely utilize the lagoon at escape room for manatees. Port tenants were all stages of the tide, the Port res t o red the depth to - encouraged to use these three foot fenders as well. 5.0 MLW by dredging. No dredging was done with- Existing outfalls were grated while new ones were in 20 feet of the mangroves to minimize impact to redesigned and strategically placed to minimize the the forest. The Port also ensured that entrances to potential for small and mid-sized manatees to get the lagoon were closed to all boat traffic by caught in the various pipes around the Port. Many installing floating barricades and pilings. of the outfalls are under water at high tide and pose An observation platform was built in the center a danger to unsuspecting manatees as the tide goes of the lagoon. Scientific agencies and accred i t e d ou t . res e a rchers use the platform to observe manatees The voluntary effo rt expended by the Canaveral mating and nursing. These observations resulted in Po rt Authority to protect the Florida manatee and the designation of a protected manatee nursing to educate Port users about their presence has been are a . wo rthwhile and successful. All areas or activities in In addition to improving habitat for the mana- the Port that pose a potential threat to the safety of tees, the Port, in coordination with various environ- the manatee have been modified, resulting in the mental agencies, developed a Manatee Prot e c t i o n minimization of adverse impacts to these species. Plan to be utilized during dredging and blasting As awareness about the manatees’ movement with- projects. The plan involved educating the contrac- in the Port increases, so too will the number of Port tor about manatee habits, habitat, and migrations. users who watch for them and take action to avoid The education program included a slide pres e n t a- them. The program has been successful in that tion depicting manatees within the port area as many Port tenants and users have implemented the well as field observations in the waters of the pro- manatee safety suggestions outlined in the broc h u re posed project. Based on a review of scientific data, and video produced by the Port. Awa reness about a 300-foot zone was designated. manatees in Port Canaveral has increased dramati- The Manatee Protection Plan calls for observe r s cally and mortalities attributable to shipping to be placed in various areas around a prop o s e d impacts have been minimized. dredging or blasting project. Observers will be The Port Authority continues to develop the placed on all contractor work vessels, at locations Manatee Protection and Education Program in coor- 500 feet from the center of activity, and on boats dination with the Florida Department of within 300 feet of activity. If manatees are spotted En v i ronmental Protection and to educate lock oper- within the 500 foot zone, the intensity of the watch ators about manatees in coordination with the US is increased. If manatees are found within the 300 Army Corps of Engineers. foot zone, all operations are curtailed until the animal is sighted outside of the zone. Sightings of 27 A M E R I C A ’ S G R E E N P O R T S

manatees are rec o rded in a log. glements and ship strikes. As part of the North e a s t Manatee protection measures implemented by Right Whale Take Reduction Implementation Tea m , Po rt Everglades have led to benefits for both the the Port focused its effo rts on educating the manatee and the Port. Improvements to the lagoon mariners that pass through the Northeast whale have resulted in more manatees frequenting the feeding grounds on their way to the Port. MassPort area. In fact, once the modifications were complet- plays an active role in producing the educational ed, res e a rchers noticed that more manatees utilized materials and disseminating the information to the the lagoon in one season than in the previous five ma r i n e r s . years combined. In addition, implementation of a The Port has paid particular attention to the Po rt Protection Plan has allowed the Port to dred g e presentation of the information. They ensured that during the designated manatee season without the materials would be useful to the mariners by ha rming any manatees. reducing scientific jargon and creating an attractive design. One of the educational materials is a four Right Whale Protection, Port of Boston, page color broc h u re. Not only does the broc h u re Ma s s a c h u s e t t s describe the whale’s behavior, threats to whales, Effective information tools disseminated as part of and on-going res e a rch in the area, it also prov i d e s a comprehensive whale protection program. over a dozen photographs of the right whale that The Massachusetts Port Authority (MassPort) can be used in identification. Another educational has played an important role in the protection of tool is a one-page guide for mariners. The color, the North e rn right whale, whose population contin- laminated guide lists prec a u t i o n a ry measures for ues to dwindle despite increased reg u l a t o ry prot e c- mariners to take to avoid north e rn right whales. It tion. Essentially, the Port serves as a coordi n a t i n g includes a list of ways to identify right whales, rec- agency for the various right whale interest grou p s , ommendations for how to handle a whale sighting, including mariners, scientists, and regulators. The and several photos with text describing unique Po rt uses its established relationships with the right whale markings. The Port has also been shipping industry to transfer whale-related infor- involved in the production of a fifteen minute mation from scientists and regulators. Throu g h training video for mariners that includes intervi e w s financial and technical support, the Port is ensur- with ship’s masters and on-vessel footage. ing that mariners will be better equipped to handle In addition to assisting with the production of encounters with these endangered crea t u re s . in f o rmative broc h u res, guides, and videos, the Port At the request of the National Marine Fisheries se rves as the main distributor for these items. The Se rvice, the Port joined with Po rt distributes the materials to the shipping agents others such as the at both public and private berths. The materials are Ma s s a c h u s e t t s also included in paperwork packets for all of the Division of Fish Po rt-owned berths. Additionally, the pilots at and Wildlife, US Ma s s P o rt bring the guides and broc h u res on-board Coast Guard, and ships and personally inform the crew of the right New England whale presence in New England waters. The pilots Aquarium who have found an increasing awareness among the we re alrea d y ships’ crews since the materials were first dissemi- actively engaged na t e d . in red u c i n g Another way that the Port helps in the transfer injuries to the of information from scientists to mariners is right whale from th rough a sighting alert network. Vessels search the fishing gear entan- waters of the Massachusetts coast for right whales MassPort’s Guidelines for Mariners and, once spotted, send the location to MassPort. In turn, the sighting location is communicated elec-

28 ENDANGERED SPECIES

tronically to incoming vessels upon entry to im p o rtance of protecting the least tern while facili- Massachusetts Bay. NMFS air crafts also search the tating maritime commerce. The agreement speci- waters and fax any whale sightings to area agencies fies conditions for locating a fifteen acre nesting like MassPort. For the following 48 hours, area in the Harbor. With the cooperation of all par- Ma s s P o rt passes this information along to vessels ties involved, the nesting area is prep a red and pro- entering the area . tected from 1 April to 1 September. Conditions Ma s s P o rt has recognized its unique role in the listed in the agreement state that the site must be marine community as a point of coordination for reasonably level, within 0.5 miles of shallow water, scientists, mariners and regulators. The Port has and devoid of struc t u res. The agreement also used its res o u rces to effectively communicate to establishes guidelines for the necessary rel o c a t i o n mariners the steps they can take to avoid colliding and monitoring of the nesting site as req u i red by with north e rn right whales. The Port itself stays Po rt developments. updated on the latest right whale information by Responsibilities of each participating agency are pa rticipating in local conferences focused on right defined in the agreement. The Californi a whale protection and by hosting whale-related pre- De p a rtment of Fish and Game and the US Fish and sentations at its internal meetings. By continuing to Wildlife Service are responsible for rec o m m e n d i n g co o rdinate with scientists, shippers, fishers, and actions for successful nesting. They also monitor regulators, the Port aims to minimize and eventual- the nesting activities in the Harbor area. The Los ly eliminate whale mortalities due to ship strikes Angeles Harbor Department is charged with desig- off the Massachusetts coast. nating, creating, and maintaining the least tern Note: Port Canaveral initiated a similar Right Whale nesting site. The US Army Corps of Engineers, who Protection Program that received a 1994 AAPA handles various conservation, development, and En v i ronmental Improvement Awa rd. In its prog r a m , Po rt Canaveral coordinated with other Southeastern US management issues in the harbor area, will assure po rts to ensure consistency in Port plans and req u i re- compliance with the conditions in the agree m e n t . ments. For more information, contact Port Canaveral. Contacts for each of these agencies are designated in the agreement to ease communication among the Protection of the California least tern, Port of pa rt i e s . Los Angeles, California The Port also protects important shallow water Collaboration with federal agencies results in least tern feeding areas in Outer Los Angeles least tern habitat prot e c t i o n . Ha r b o r. These shallow water areas appear to be The California least tern is a small black and favorite feeding sites for terns, especially after their white migratory sea bird that nests along the south- young hatch. In 1984 as well as in 1996, the Port ern California coast from the middle of April to the co n s t ructed a 190-acre shallow habitat region to end of August. Sightings of the least tern at the Port mitigate certain infrastructural expansions. These of Los Angeles were first rec o rded in 1973, the feeding areas served as replacement habitat for same year that the tern was listed as endangered by shallow water lost as a result of construction and the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Through the dredging of a deep berth. The construction of the years, the Port has played an active role in prot e c t- shallow region covered nonhazardous contaminat- ing the least tern nesting and feeding areas within ed sediments present in the Harbor; thus this proj- the Port. ect serves the dual purpose of creating a least tern To protect the least tern nesting areas, parti c u l a r- feeding site and a Confined Aquatic Disposal site. ly the bare, sandy beach areas, the Port entered into Protection of nesting and feeding areas in the a Memorandum of Agreement with the US Fish Po rt has allowed least terns to coexist with one of and Wildlife Service, the US Army Corps of the largest industrial harbors in the nation. The Engineers and the California Department of Fish cooperative interagency coordination has led to and Game. This renewable Cooperative un p recedented success with 105 nests in 1997 and Ag reement, first signed in 1984, recognizes the 218 nests in 1998.

29 A M E R I C A ’ S G R E E N P O R T S

H A B I T A T Re s t o r a t i o n

Issue/Problem stances or with excessive nutrients, and throu g h Po rt development inevitably consumes a large the physical destruction of the seafloor. Some amount of prop e rty and res o u rces, requiring peri- obvious examples of habitat degradation include odic expansion and reshaping of the coastline to coral reef damage and wetland sedimentation. keep pace with technology and demand. In addi- Wetlands comprise the largest portion of habi- tion to filling, dredging, and in- and over-w a t e r tat restoration projects in the US. The reason for co n s t ruction, ports frequently install devices to this concentration of effo rt is clear: wetlands are co n t rol flooding, stabilize shorelines, red u c e vital to the rep roduction and migration of mil- wave energy, and improve water quality. The lat- lions of species, they control greenhouse gases, ter activities are designed to protect and enhance reduce flooding, filter pollutants, and provide a the port environment, but sometimes at a cost to natural storm buffe r, but they are disappearing local habitats. As a result, ports are often req u i re d mo re rapidly than any other habitat. One study to res t o re adversely impacted habitats or crea t e indicates that 22 states have lost 50 percent or additional habitat as compensation. mo re of their original wetlands (Dahl 1990). Th e re are differing points of view as to how Many ports are located in estuaries which pro- effective habitat restoration can be, and many vide food, shelter, and spawning grounds for 75 habitat restoration and creation projects stimulate pe rcent of the commercial fish landed in the US. co n t ro v e r s y. Although the functions of a wetland The primary threat to these habitats is water pol- are understood, for example, there is no consen- lution from land-based sources, water contamina- sus as to what constitutes a fully functional wet- tion through the resuspension of toxic sediments land. There also are disagreements over whether during dredging, chronic oil pollution from ports , res t o red habitats can function as productively as and episodic oil spills. Symptoms of estuarine natural habitats, or if these habitats will serve the habitat degradation include the destruction of same ecosystem function as before. The contro- seagrass or decline in seagrass production, an versy surrounding restoration projects often in c rease in numbers of diseased fish, a decline in results in lawsuits and legal injunctions that marine mammals, eutrophication of the water delay projects for many years. The debate will column, and large fish kills. likely continue until the distribution and abun- dance of species is understood well enough to Applicable Federal Environmental Regulations ad d ress these management questions and learn The US Army Corps of Engineers, US how to protect and provide habitats while pre- En v i ronmental Protection Agency, US Fish and se rving their natural attributes. Wildlife Service, Forest Service, Natural Di fficulties in obtaining the necessary permi t s Re s o u rces Conservation Service, and Federal also result in significant project delays. The per- Em e rgency Management Agency have jurisdiction mit process can be both frustrating and expen- over habitat restoration programs. Relevant feder- sive, and relationships between the reg u l a t o r s al laws include the National Environ m e n t a l and project proponents can be strained as a Policy Act, Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, result. For these reasons, in restoration proj e c t s , Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, Executive Orde r the permitting process becomes the focal point of 11990, Coastal Zone Management Act, National both the port industry and the regulating authori- Fishing Enhancement Act of 1984, Endangered ti e s . Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. Environmental Impacts Section 404 of Clean Water Act regulates the Sensitive and ecologically important coastal di s c h a rge of dredged or fill material into waters habitats such as wetlands, estuaries, mangrov e of the US, including wetlands. Section 10 of the fo rests and reefs are easily damaged by port activ- River and Harbors Act of 1899 req u i res a permi t ities through the pollution of waters by toxic sub- be obtained for any obstruction or alteration to 30 H A B I TAT RESTORAT I O N

navigable waters, including struc t u res in or over benefits such as cleaner water and biodiversity, the water. The US Army Corps of Engineers has reduced siltation, accret i o n a l - e rosional stability, the permitting authority under each of these and increased dissolved oxygen content. There statutes. The reg u l a t o ry discussion under the are several common types of habitat res t o r a t i o n Dredging and Contaminated Sediments issues and creation proj e c t s . section provides more detail on these prog r a m s . Wetland restoration and creation req u i res a Executive Order No. 11990, the Protection of th o rough understanding of the existing or dam- Wetlands, directs each federal agency to prov i d e aged system so that the functional processes of early public review of plans and proposals for the wetland that are/ w e re important to fish and co n s t ruction in wetlands. The main purpose of wildlife can be maintained. When restoring a this order is to ensure that proposed federal wet- wetland, it is important to identify prob l e m s land activities are adequately justified. related to erosion or sedimentation, channel or The federal consistency provision of the st ream obstructions, unsuitable or lacking vegeta- Coastal Zone Management Act req u i res all federal tion, and water quality. A substrate favorable to activities (projects, permits, plans) be carried out plant growth must be available along with the in a manner consistent with approved state right mix of sediments and organic materials. coastal zone management programs. State coastal Small creeks and channels are often construc t e d zone management programs are designed to bal- to maintain flushing, provide nutrients, and pre- ance protection of the environment with needed vent sedimentation of the wetland. economic development. The use of dredge material has become a wide- The National Fishing Enhancement Act of ly applied practice for restoring and crea t i n g 1984 establishes national standards for the devel- habitat. Specialized dredges and equipment have opment of artificial reefs and encourages the been developed for the careful placement of development of reefs that will enhance fishery dredge material to form berms, wetlands, ree f s , res o u rces. It also encourages state involvement in and beaches. Floating and tracked equipment these activities. have been designed to minimize impacts during Habitat restoration projects also must comply co n s t ruction. Artificial habitats created with with the Endangered Species Act, Marine dredge material have provided excellent environ- Mammal Protection Act, and the Fish and ments for sea birds and other animals. Wildlife Coordination Act. These laws are The construction of artificial aquatic habitats described in more detail in the discussion under using habitat enhancement struc t u res, fish aggre- the En d a n g e red and Threatened Species is s u e gating devices, and artificial reefs is another de s c r i p t i o n . widely used restoration technique. These struc- tu res can provide cover, shelter, and a stable envi- Management Options ronment for feeding, resting, nursing, and evading As compensation for the loss or reduction in predators. Examples of habitat enhancement value of natural habitat resulting from develop- st ru c t u res include in-water struc t u res such as ment activities, environmental laws req u i re proj- ca refully placed large rocks and rock aggreg a t e s , ect proponents to res t o re degraded or create new digger logs, deflectors and brush fences. Concret e , habitat. If properly designed, new or res t o re d old ships, and rubble are materials most com- habitat can provide equivalent environ m e n t a l monly used to create artificial reef habitats.

31 A M E R I C A’S GREEN PORT S

Erosion Control and Beach Restoration, Port Cocoa Beach Truck Haul, and the Sand By-pass Canaveral, Florida Phase II. Eroding dunes res t o red by massive beach grass One of the Port’s more celebrated erosion con- pl a n t i n g . trol effo rts—and winner of a 1995 AAPA Since the early 1990s, Port Canaveral has En v i ronmental Awa rd—was a massive dune un d e rtaken several large scale beach res t o r a t i o n restoration project. This effo rt provided an oppor- projects to counteract erosion resulting from Port tunity for homeowners and local residents to development and from the dual rock jetties that di rectly participate in an environmental res t o r a- protect the entrance channel to the Port. Studies tion project, generating positive publicity for the as far back as 1962 reveal a clear correl a t i o n Po rt and its historical commitment to beach between construction at the Port and significant restoration. erosion of sand from beaches on the south side of In 1995, the Army Corps of Engineers asked the the jetties in Brev a rd County. In some areas the Po rt Authority if it would be interested in pur- beaches have eroded as much as 15 feet per year. chasing any amount of 65,000 beach plant In 1991, the Port conducted a voluntary study seedlings (35,000 sea oats and 30,000 bitter panci- to determine the cause and effect of the impacts of um) intended for a project that had been delayed. erosion and to determine the feasibility and cost Unless they were planted soon, the seedlings were of restoring the beaches of Brev a rd County. The going to die. Recognizing that dune grass is a nat- results of this study were used to frame the Port ural buffer against erosion, the Port agreed to pur- Canaveral Inlet Management Plan in 1994. chase the entire res e rve of seedlings and plant Recommendations in this plan included ren o u r- them along the 72 miles of continuous beach ishing the eroded beaches south of Port Canaveral dunes in Brev a rd County. The Port offe red the and restoring the natural sand drift. The plan has seedlings for free to anyone willing to plant them. been implemented through a number of diffe re n t The challenge of distributing the plants was projects (see, for example, the Nearshore Berm resolved by rec ruiting local governments and res i- Disposal Project under Dredging and dents. Cape Canaveral, Cocoa Beach, and Contaminated Sediments), all of which were joint Indialantic planted 11,400 seedlings adjacent to eff o rts between the Canaveral Port Authority and public access crossovers where vegetation had federal, state, and local governments. been disrupted by pedestrians. The Brev a rd In order to generate continued legislative sup- County Commission used 8,500 seedlings to po rt for its beach restoration effo rts, the Port enhance the dune systems of several beachfron t Authority has created and produced a compreh e n- public parks, and the US Fish & Wildlife Servi c e sive briefing notebook and informational video planted 5,600 seedlings on the dunes of a wildlife outlining its Shore Protection Project. Several refuge. The Port Authority placed an adverti s e- presentations explaining the project and encourag- ment in the local newspaper announcing that the ing public support have been distributed to local seedlings were available to local residents free - o f - citizens, restaurants, chambers of commerce, and ch a rge. Hundreds of beachfront residents res p o n d- hotel and condominium associations. ed and the giveaway lasted only two hours. From 1992 to 1998, a series of jetty-tightening During the planting phase, the Port ensured projects using sand-filled geotextile tubes have that existing turtle nests on the beaches were not reduced shoaling effects and beach erosion from di s rupted and that seedlings were planted on the these struc t u res. Longshore drifting sand no la n d w a rd side of the dune crest where they longer filters through the jetties and instead is would be most beneficial. As the seedlings grow, available to replenish the beaches. The Port also their roots, stems and leaves will stabilize the sp o n s o red several beach renourishment proj e c t s — dunes and provide enhanced habitat for several Ne a r s h o re Berm Disposal Project, the Cape en d a n g e red species, including the nesting turtl e s . Canaveral Truck Haul, Sand By-pass Phase I, 32 H A B I TAT RESTORAT I O N

Coal Combustion Byproduct Oyster Reef plants were combined with cement to form golf Co n s t ruction, Port of Houston, Tex a s ball sized pellets. These pellets were designed to Habitat for reef climax community provided by simulate suitable cultch material upon which oys- innovative artificial substrate. ter spat can settle, attach, and eventually grow to In 1995, the Port of Houston Authority (PHA) market size. proposed widening and deepening the Houston Deployment of the entire reef was scheduled Ship Channel. One obvious impact was that for May, just prior to the peak oyster spawning ap p roximately 118 acres of primary oyster ree f period, but because of permit delays the reef had habitat that bisect the channel would be destroy e d to be deployed in two separate sections and at by the proposed project. Any potential indirec t separate times—one in May and one in August. impacts to neighboring reefs were ruled out by the Each section was deployed to an average depth of coupling of a hydrodynamic model designed by 18 feet. Combined, both parts of the reef formed a the US Army Corps of Engineers Wat e rw a y s rectangle approximately 300 x 700 feet, positioned Experiment Station and a population dynamics with the long side aligned with the prev a i l i n g model developed by Texas A&M and Old tidal movement. Dominion universities that permitted full-scale The test reefs were monitored for oyster attach- simulations of oyster populations in the area . ment and within six months the pellets were en c rusted with oysters, demonstrating the heavi- est rec o rded natural oyster set on a Galveston Bay reef substrate in at least 40 years. Oysters grew to th ree inches or larger (market size) in less than 18 months. Typ i c a l l y, it takes oysters four to seven years to reach market size. In addition, they found that finfish such as spadefish and snappers inhabited the reef in a short time and that after two years, the habitat was rep resentative of a reef climax community equitably shared among species. The highly favorable results of this project indicate that CCBs constitute environmentally safe and biologically sound artificial reef material. And th e re are additional benefits. First, using CCBs is a cost effective alternative to using natural oyster Port of Houston, Texas, Turning Basin Terminal. shells, the traditional artificial reef substrate (note: Mitigation req u i red the construction of six sep- the dredging of derelict oyster beds to obtain the arate 20-acre oyster reefs in Galveston Bay. In con- ne c e s s a ry shells has been banned in Galveston junction with the Houston Authority, the Houston Bay since 1970 because of environ m e n t a l Lighting and Power Company, the National impacts). Second, the disposal of CCBs presents a Marine Fisheries Service, and the Galveston Bay growing environmental problem in light of the National Estuary Program, the Port embarked on a amount of landfill space req u i red for disposal. 5- a c re demonstration project to determine the bio- Developing a new market for CCBs for reef con- logical feasibility and cost-effectiveness of using st ruction frees-up much needed landfill space. coal combustion by-products (CCBs) to construc t Th i rd, the transportation costs of the reef materi- artificial oyster reefs. Fly ash, bottom ash, boiler als to the site was economically more favorable slag, and flue gas desulfurization material are than placing the ash in a landfill, demonstrating examples of CCBs. In this project, 12,100 cubic advantages for both producers and consumers in ya rds of ash obtained from the Houston Lighting di v e rting CCBs from landfills. and Power Company’s coal and lignite power Note: While the demonstration project was suc- 33 A M E R I C A ’ S G R E E N P O R T S

cessful, the reefs were never built due to unsur- be lost entirely as a breeding res o u rce. Third, it mountable permitting hurdl e s . co n s i d e red leaving the colony in its current location and building the new terminal around the Relocation Plan for the black-crowned night nesting trees, an idea dismissed because it he ron nesting colony, Port of Long Beach, seemed unlikely that the herons could survi v e , Ca l i f o rn i a let alone nest, in a noisy and busy environ m e n t . Regionally significant species protected by reloca- The final and most plausible option was to move tion of heron habitat. the herons to a remote location. During delibera- In 1994, the Long Beach Naval Station adjacent tion over the potential for relocation, a sponta- to the Port of Long Beach, declared previously as neous recolonization of half of the heron colony mi l i t a ry surplus, was closed. The prop e rty was to a diffe rent location in the harbor area was subsequently transferred to the City of Long ob s e rved, affi rming the workability of this option. Beach for non-military commercial use. The Absent a plan of their own, FWS agreed that rel o- Ci t y ’s approved plan for reuse permitted the Port cation of the colony was the best alterna t i v e . to redevelop the prop e rty as a marine container The new nesting site was chosen after caref u l te rminal. consideration of (1) suitability for long term sur- Container handling is an intense activity vival of the trees, (2) proximity to the water to involving large cranes, expansive storage area , su p p o rt heron feeding, and (3) remoteness from nu m e rous tractors and trucks, and 24-hour light- human and industrial activities that could harass ing. Redevelopment of the site req u i red the dem- or harm the herons. The 8.5 acre Gull Park, locat- olition and removal of all existing struc t u res, util- ed 1.5 miles from the present site, met all these ities, and vegetation, resulting in the destruc t i o n qualifications. of the existing nesting habitat of a black-crow n e d The site was first prep a red by removing all night heron roo k e ry (Nycticorax nycticorax). This existing park struc t u res, planting windbrea k pa rticular colony is considered to be a reg i o n a l l y trees, installing windbreak walls, upgrading the significant species since, at its peak in 1996, it irrigation system, and amending the soil. Only was the largest known nesting colony in southern twelve trees similar to those at the old nesting Ca l i f o rnia. The bird is protected under the federal site existed at the new one so, following the 1998 Mi g r a t o ry Bird Treaty Act, and any demolition of nesting season, 50 of the largest trees from the old the nesting habitat during the nesting season site were moved to the new one and 20 addition- would be considered a “takings” of the species. al trees were purchased to ensure that there were While the regulations do not protect the habitat enough trees to support nesting activity. Some of outside of nesting season, as an act of good faith, the nests used in the 1998 season were salvaged, the Port agreed to prep a re a long-term mitigation st o red and later placed in the relocated trees to plan for the heron for the US Fish & Wil d l i f e help make the trees more attractive to the heron s . Se rvice (FWS). Bl a c k - c rowned night heron decoys also were The Port considered four alternatives for miti- installed and rec o rdings of heron vocalizations gating the loss of this habitat. First, it considered we re broadcast twice daily to encourage nesting. cancelling its redevelopment plans altogether, but Under agreement with FWS, the rec o l o n i z e d the waterfront prop e rty was considered too valu- he rons will be monitored by the Port of Long able to relinquish to a less economically prod u c- Beach for the next five years, at which point US tive commercial use. Second, the Port considered Fish & Wildlife will conclude whether the proj e c t ignoring the colony under the assumption that was a success or not. Monitoring began in early the herons would recolonize elsewhere during 1999. The first survey on 22-23 March 1999 co n s t ruction. This option was undesirable found approximately 18 active nests prod u c i n g because there was no proof that rec o l o n i z a t i o n 47 eggs. By the second survey on 4-5 May 1999 would take place and that the colony would not the colony had grown to 37 chicks and 200 eggs

34 H A B I TAT RESTORAT I O N

in 96 nests. By the third survey on 16-17 June, habitat following a proposed cargo termi n a l the population was 138 chicks and 227 eggs in development and channel improvements in the 147 nests. The 1999 numbers are the highest Outer Los Angeles Harbor of San Pedro, now ob s e rved since the peak in 1996, and the surve y s known as Pier 400. An interagency mitigation revealed that the birds are nesting in both the ag reement between the Port of Los Angeles and relocated and existing trees. If this trend contin- various municipal, state, and federal agencies ues, the Port will have succeeded in rel o c a t i n g req u i red the Port to fund all restoration activities, and maintaining the black-crowned night heron . including prel i m i n a ry design, environ m e n t a l rev i e w, final design, construction, monitoring, Restoration of Batiquitos Lagoon, Port of Los and maintenance in perpetuity. Angeles, Californi a The goals of the restoration project were to Marine resources reestablished in wetland restora- reestablish marine res o u rces in the lagoon tion project. th rough the restoration of tidal flushing, while Batiquitos Lagoon is a 600-acre coastal wetland p re s e rving important habitat and protecting sensi- located in north e rn San Diego County in the City tive species in the lagoon. Construction began in of Carlsbad. Less than 150 years ago, Batiquitos Ma rch 1994 and was concluded in December was fully tidal and supported an array of marine 19 9 6 . shellfish. Over time, development in the reg i o n The res t o red lagoon has since become typical has restricted water flows to and from the lagoon of other healthy California coastal habitats. and sediment from development has filled signif- Reestablishing the lagoon-ocean interface pro- icant portions of the lagoon. Until res t o r a t i o n vides natural flood and sediment control . began, the lagoon had ceased being tidal altogeth- Im p roved water quality prohibits eutrop h i c a t i o n er. It would fill with fresh water in the winter, and eliminates previous odor prob l e m s . T h e and was subsequently drained in the spring to lagoon now supports over 40 marine species and stop flooding and provide nesting sites for endan- functions as an important nursery area for fish. ge red birds, becoming completely dry or hyper- The number of birds inhabiting the lagoon has saline in the summer and fall. remained high, and the endangered tern and Despite the obvious functional degradation of plover have demonstrated a population increa s e the lagoon, migratory birds still visited in large since restoration began. In addition, the black numbers each year. It was home to several threa t- sk i m m e r, a species not previously nesting in all ened or endangered species including the of San Diego County, now inhabits the lagoon. Ca l i f o rnia least tern, Wes t e rn snowy plover, and Two features of this project are parti c u l a r l y Beldings savannah sparrow. But development innovative. First, dredges used to remove the sed- pre s s u res continued to persist for both the lagoon iment from the lagoon were modified to allow and its surrounding land. A land transaction in precision dredging to achieve specified acreage of the early 1980s deeded over most of the lagoon to ve ry flat slopes within specific elevation bands. the State of California, which recognized that Second, this contouring generated nearly one mil- without restoration the lagoon would continue to lion cubic yards of silts, clays and organic materi- fill with sediment and lose its remaining wetland al that needed to be disposed of. As an alterna t i v e values. to upland or offs h o re disposal, sandy material In 1985, the California Coastal Conserva n c y was dredged from another area in the Batiquitos pre p a red an Enhancement Plan for Batiquitos lagoon area and used to construct nesting sites Lagoon. The plan was completed in 1987, at and nourish local beaches. The large pit crea t e d which time California res o u rce agencies by the dredging was then used for disposal of the ap p roached the Port of Los Angeles to res t o re the finer grained and organic material removed from lagoon, in accordance with the Enhancement the lagoon and capped with sand. The total cost Plan, as mitigation for the loss of deepwater fish of the Batiquitos Lagoon restoration was $55.3

35 A M E R I C A’S GREEN PORT S

million, with substantial cost savings realized by ficial fish habitat to enhance spawning. The tires these innovative, cost-effective and time saving we re first radially mounted to steel collars in a pr a c t i c e s . ve rtical position—eight tires per collar. The tire The lagoon is leased to the Californi a collars were then slipped over the steel pipe piles De p a rtment of Fish and Game and used as an and down into the water prior to installing the Ecological Reserve with the use of maintenance top deck. Plumb lines were used to install the funds provided by the Port of Los Angeles. ti res at varying depths. This artificial habitat proved to be very suc- Be rth Expansion Fish Enhancement Struc t u re s , cessful. Over time, the interior of these tires were South Jersey Port Corporation, New Jersey silted with suspended river sediments and Steel pilings modified to serve as freshwater tidal became home to many organisms. The surface of migratory fish habitat. the tires were inhabited by numerous other In response to increased productivity and larg- species, and the tires provided a shelter and feed- er vessels, the South Jersey Port Corporation ing habitat for nursery fish which feed on these needed to expand its facilities. To do so req u i re d organisms. The smaller fish, in turn, are grazed that a portion of the Delaware River be filled, by larger anadromous fish. Aside from the suc- de s t roying intertidal and subtidal shallow habi- cess of the habitat, this project demonstrates tats. A traditional wetlands mitigation prog r a m additional benefits. The total cost of these struc- was designed and approved by the federal and tu res was less than 10 percent of what it would state reg u l a t o ry agencies. In addition, a pilot pro- have cost to create a traditional wetland. In gram was designed consisting of fish enhance- exchange for installing these tires, the permi t t i n g ment struc t u res to be placed in this tidal fres h agencies agreed to reduce the size of the mitiga- water environment. The goal was to find a suit- tion area by one quarter of an acre. The use of able, cost effective alternative to the typical high ti res not only saved time but also saved money cost, wetland mitigation creation in high cost rea l over other traditional methods of mitigation and estate areas. di v e rted a product destined to be landfilled. This Pa rt of the Port renovation involved the expan- design is simple and easily transferrable to other sion of berthing facilities and a high deck expan- po rts. It was the first pilot program conducted in sion of the pier, requiring the placement of steel freshwater tidal migratory fish habitat. pipe piles for support. Used automobile tires we re attached to these steel pilings to create arti-

36 WATER POLLUTION

L A N D - B A S E D Water Pollution

Issue/Problem each year (Hall-Arber 1991). Dioxins and furans Water pollution can result from either episodic originate from industrial sources such as pulp and events, e.g., catastrophic oil spills, or from more paper mills, dry cleaners, municipal waste incin- low-level and chronic point and non-point erators, and automobile exhaust. so u rces. The impacts of episodic events such as oil spills are readily observable and often sensa- Health and Environmental Impacts tionalized in the media. The presence of chron i c Once transported to coastal waters, land-based pollutants are often less obvious but their cumula- pollutants can seriously affect marine biodiversity, tive impacts in the marine environment can be resonate throughout the food chain, and interfe re equally or more detrimental over time. Chron i c with active and passive rec reational use of the pollution stems mainly from non-point source s , marine environment. Commercial and rec re a t i o n a l generating a diffuse problem that is difficult to fishing and shellfishing opportunities, for exam- mitigate. Most land-based pollution is classified as ple, can suffer from diminished or damaged ch ro n i c . stocks, aquatic vegetation can be destroyed, and An estimated 80 percent of pollutants identi- human health can be affected by contact with pol- fied in the marine environment are generated as a luted water. result of land-based activity. The byproducts of Pe rhaps one of the most serious impacts of these activities—nutrients, persistent organic com- land-based marine pollution—and the most seri- pounds, heavy metals, and pathogens—can be ous pollution problem of the coastal zone—is in t roduced directly into the ocean from point eu t rophication of the water column. so u rce discharges, such as controlled sewer out- Eu t rophication is a condition where unusually falls and wastewater pipes, or through non-point high levels of nutrients, presumably from land- so u rces, such as surface run o ff. These pollutants based sources, stimulates excessive biological pro- also can be introduced indirectly via rivers and duction of microalgae. One effect of eutrop h i c a- st reams that eventually discharge into the ocean. tion is a depletion of the oxygen supply in the Symptoms of water pollution include: foul odors, water column and its underlying sediments. The water discoloration, excessive algal growth, high depletion of oxygen can result in significant habi- fecal coliform counts, low dissolved oxygen lev- tat loss over time, especially the loss of valuable els, wetland loss, increased fish morta l i t y, contam- spawning and nursing grounds. Another affect is inated sediments and marine life, and eros i o n . an increase in the presence of certain nuisance In o rganic nutrients from land-based activities and toxic species, also called harmful algal enter the marine environment from wastewater blooms (HABs). HABs can cause water quality treatment plants, agricultural fertilizers, and deterioration and toxin bioaccumulation. The con- atmospheric deposition. Toxic pollutants such as sumption of contaminated fish that feed on toxic persistent organic compounds (particularly pesti- algae can cause illness and death. HABs can also cides, dioxins, furans, and PCBs) enter the envi- produce economic losses when beaches and shell- ronment primarily though various commerci a l fish beds have to be closed (Taylor et al. 1994), or and industrial sources. Heavy metals reach the th rough heightened consumer fears concerni n g marine environment through atmospheric deposi- the safety of eating seafood (Brooks 1992). tion, having formerly been released into the air Heavy metals are also a significant problem in a from automobiles or during mining, metal-plating, marine environment. Because of their basic ele- je w e l ry-making, textile milling, and other manu- mental form, heavy metals are very long-lived in facturing operations. Large agricultural operations the environment, resistant to degradation, they and the cumulative impacts of residential applica- tend to accumulate in sediments and marine life, tion are a significant source of pesticides to the and can be acutely toxic. In marine animals, long- marine environ m e n t — m o re than two billion te rm or intense exposure to heavy metals can pounds of pesticides are used in the United States result in impaired growth and deformi t i e s , 37 A M E R I C A’S GREEN PORT S

reduced rep roductive rates, and death. Human The 1987 reauthorization of the Clean Wat e r impacts include metabolic disruption, neurol o g i- Act established the section 319 Nonpoint Source cal damage, and increased incidents of cancer. Management Program. Under section 319, States and other jurisdictions receive funds to support a Applicable Federal Environmental Regulations variety of activities including technical assistance, The Clean Water Act (1977 amendments to the financial assistance, education, training, technolo- Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972) reg u- gy transfer, demonstration projects, and monitor- lates the discharge of pollutants, seeking eventual ing to address nonpoint sources of water pollu- elimination of all discharges of pollutants into tion. The Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization navigable waters—the “Zero Discharge” goal— Amendments of 1990 included provisions (section with an intermediate goal being water that is both 6217) requiring states with approved coastal zone “swimmable” and “fishable.” The Act classifies management programs to develop coastal non- water bodies, sets water quality standards, enables point pollution control programs. These prog r a m s US EPA to establish technology-based effl u e n t will be implemented through changes to the state limitations that are industry-specific, and man- nonpoint source programs under section 319 of dates certain technologies for controlling conven- the CWA and through changes to the state coastal tional and toxic pollutants. zone management prog r a m . All waters have been classified in terms of lev- Additional public laws relevant to the issue of els of certain pollutants. Every navigable body of land-based water pollution include the water is assigned a Water Quality Classification Co m p rehensive Environmental Response, and a corresponding Water Quality Standard. The Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA); the Ac t ’s nondegradation policy is designed to ensure Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) of 1990; the that the most pristine water bodies are not Re s o u rce Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) allowed to degrade below the minimum Wat e r of 1976; and the Toxic Substances Control Act Quality Standards . (TSCA) of 1976. To supplement the Water Quality Standards , US EPA has established maximum concentration Management Options levels for pollutants discharged from certa i n Strategies for understanding and managing industrial point sources. These “Effl u e n t water quality problems include: (1) designing a Limitations” are established based on the best co m p rehensive program for water quality manage- technology available to control the pollutant. For ment that includes an evaluation of pollution conventional pollutants, this technology is so u rces, a review of hydrogeographical factors that ref e rred to as the “Best Conventional Pollution affect pollution distribution, an assessment of Co n t rol Tec h n o l o g y,” and for toxic and non-con- water quality, prioritization of water pollution ventional pollutants, it is ref e reed to as the “Best problems, and identification of the best available Available Technology Economically Achievable.” co n t rol measures and management practices; (2) A permit is needed for point source discharge the use of less chemically-dependent methods for to waters of the US or its adjacent wetlands under co n t rolling pests (e.g., pest traps, natural pred a t o r s , the National Pollution Discharge Elimination and companion planting); (3) proper maintenance System (NPDES). An NPDES permit req u i res the of stormwater collection systems and combined use of technology to meet Effluent Limitations. No sewer overflows to improve their water carryi n g pe rmit can be issued without water quality certi f i- capacity and reduce the volume of untreated water cation, i.e., the state water pollution agency must released during overflow periods; (4) careful plan- ce rtify that the activity will have no adverse ning and controlling of Port development; (5) use impacts on water quality. A facility with a point of foliage buffer zones near water bodies to serve so u rce discharge must treat the wastewater to as natural water treatment for run - o ff; (6) diversion within the limits defined in the NPDES permi t . of stormwater into leaching basins, which also nat-

38 WATER POLLUTION

urally treat polluted run - o ff; (7) use of porou s di s c h a rge; and (8) redesigning of drainage systems pipes to reduce the overall volume of point-source to accommodate pollutant rem o v a l.

Po rt Area Petroleum Users Group Risk Another noteworthy aspect of the PUG prog r a m Assessment, Port of Anchorage, Alaska is the support from state reg u l a t o ry agencies Nontraditional approach featuring MOA results in which have supported the effo rt from the begin- community-wide support for regional cleanup. ning. The agencies’ support included prov i d i n g Faced with prohibitive costs to manage contam- verbal assurances that compliance orders would inated soils associated with a Port transporta t i o n not be sought while the PUG functioned. The im p rovement project, the Port of Anchorage spear- Alaska Department of Environ m e n t a l headed the creation of the Port Area Petrol e u m Co n s e rvation has expressed interest in the Users Group (PUG) for the purpose of encouraging ap p roach as a potential model for other large con- and enabling all Port area land owners and users taminated sites in the state. to work cooperatively in identifying and res o l v i n g en v i ronmental concerns related to contaminated St o rmwater Collection System, Port of Corpus soil and water. It was believed that a cooperative Christi, Texas ap p roach would be more successful and cost Successful storm water program includes infra- effective than each responsible party attempting to structure and management improvements. remediate pollution on its own. With increasing dry bulk materials traffic, the PUG entered into a Memorandum of Agree m e n t Po rt of Corpus Christi Authority (PCCA) has with the Alaska Department of Environ m e n t a l developed a Bulk Dock expansion master plan Co n s e rvation to provide for the assessment and that will rec o n f i g u re existing operations, rel o c a t e cleanup of petroleum-contaminated soils and water facilities, and build a third bulk dock. Increa s e d within a 300-acre area of the Port. PUG is com- bulk materials handling resulting from this prised of the Port of Anchorage, the Alaska expansion will add significant amounts of dust to Ra i l road, US Defense Fuels Supply, and several the terminal. To handle increased dust dispersal domiciled Alaska oil companies. Participation in and minimize its discharge into the ship channel the PUG does not indicate any assumption of liabil- with stormwater run o ff, the PCCA Engineering ity nor does it relieve any responsible party of any and Environmental staff collectively formulated a liability for hydrocarbon contamination. Members st o rmwater pollution prevention plan. The plan can withdraw from the process at any time. includes added operational controls and upgrad- This collaborative approach has resulted in ed stormwater drainage infrastruc t u re that will mo re res o u rces being directed at cleaning up con- im p rove the environmental quality of the taminated areas. Members of the collaborative st o rmwater run o ff from the PCCA facilities. jointly fund site assessments and related work and Traditional pollution control measures, such as sh a re administrative and management res p o n s i b i l- wa t e r-sprays at transfer drop and direc t i o n - ities for the projects. The Port staff has taken an change points, covered conveyor belts, and a active role by serving as chairs for both the solid waste recycling program, are currently in Executive and Public Relations Committee and by place at the Port. The PCCA is supplementing hosting the meetings at the Port’s facilities. these measures by sweeping and vacuuming the By combining technical and financial roadways, fitting vehicles carrying dust generat- res o u rces, the PUG members have developed a ing product with tarps, enforcing slower vehicle nontraditional approach to remediation that has speeds (10 mph) and improving truck washing. resulted in considerable cost and time savings. In These PCCA’s pollution control measures have this case, cost effectiveness is measured as avoid- been further enhanced by the stormwater pollu- ed costs. tion prevention plan.

39 A M E R I C A’S GREEN PORT S

filter traps are periodically removed. Since they do not need any additional disposal management, the sediments are recycled as base material for pet-coke pads. Monitoring of the stormwater run o ff, a req u i rement of the NPDES permit program, has shown that water quality has improved since the de s i g n ’s implementation. In addition to enhanc- ing environmental quality, the plan’s infrastruc- Stormwater filtration system and shiploader. tu re improvements have contributed to the aesthetic image of the Port. The Port has also found the improvements to be cost-effective. Through a co m p rehensive approach to multimedia pollution co n t rol, the PCCA has improved the quality of di s c h a rge water, improved the aesthetics of the Bulk terminal, separated and reclaimed solid wastes, captured and reused filtered stormw a t e r, su p p ressed dust emissions and saved money.

St o rmwater Program, Port of Long Beach, Ca l i f o rn i a Stormwater ditches. Several Port departments work together to implement comprehensive management program. The stormwater pollution prevention plan has In order to comply with req u i rements of been designed to exceed the minimum req u i re- NPDES permits for stormwater discharges, the ments mandated by the US EPA’s NPDES Po rt of Long Beach developed a Stormw a t e r Industrial Stormwater Program. The plan’s design Pollution Prevention Program. The goal of the includes stormwater infrastruc t u re improv e m e n t s program is to reduce the pollutants entering the such as construction of concrete-lined storm Po rt ’s storm drain system from run o ff at Port, ten- drains and ditches, stilling basins for run o ff ant, and privately-owned facilities. The Port wa t e r, and filtration before stormwater is rel e a s e d administers the program and facilitates the feder- into the channel or before pumping into storage al permit compliance of the fifty-five parti c i p a t- po n d s . ing facilities. Through the Stormwater Prog r a m , Sp e c i f i c a l l y, storm ditches have been cleared the Port strives to minimize redundancy and and then lined with concrete to control, direc t , waste, reduce pollutant loading, and lessen the and contain storm water flows. Runoff water is bu rden on tenants. di rected through the ditches to a filtration unit The Port serves as the single facilitator for the be f o re release into the ship channel. This filtra- program. Several Port departments are involved tion box consists of three diffe rent beds - lime- in implementing diffe rent components of the stone, geosynthetic fabric membranes and Program. The day-to-day administration of the anthracite coal. These filters remove sediments, Program is handled by the Port of Long Beach hy d rocarbons, insoluble heavy metals and aera- Planning Division. In addition, the Planning tion improves the Biological Oxygen Demand Division assists the participating facilities with (BOD) and Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD). The st o rmwater pollution issues. The Maintenance fi l t e red effluents can be reused by coke and coal Division assists the Planning Division in imple- pad operators for air pollution dust control . menting the Stormwater Program by maintaining Waste sediments accumulated in the basins and the storm drain system, conducting periodic

40 WATER POLLUTION

cleaning, stenciling inlets, and sweeping the Layers such as base map, basins, streets, land st reets. The Engineering Division designs and uses, pipes, storm drain nodes, and parcels are co n s t ructs struc t u res for tenants using Best included in the GIS maps. The associated data- Management Practices and obtaining NPDES per- base tables contain information on the facility mits when necessary. The Security Division names, rec o rds of previously known spills, best rep o rts on spills and tenant activities that may management practices, materials handled, as well impact stormwater quality. The Informa t i o n as other facility specific details. The Port uses the Management Division manages a Geographic database to identify areas or facilities where In f o rmation System database. im p rovements to stormwater pollution prev e n- A Master Stormwater Program document has tion measures may be necessary. been prep a red to serve as a comprehensive ref e r- The Port has also been actively engaged in ence manual for the Program. The document ensuring that tenants comply with federal reg u l a- includes history and documentation of the Port’s tions. For example, the Port assists the tenants in eff o rts to comply with federal req u i rements. It preparing and revising Stormwater Pollution has been organized into sections which describe Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) so that they meet the evolution and implementation of the various req u i rements of the General Permit. A copy of a elements of the Port’s Stormwater Program. In model SWPPP is included as an appendix in the addition, it contains supplementary materials Po rt ’s master document. In conjunction with with detailed information to assist parti c i p a t i n g these effo rts, the Port provides participating facil- facilities in understanding the Program. For ities with a compendium of Best Management instance, a Stormwater Pollution Prev e n t i o n Practices from the “California Storm Water Best Employee Training Manual is included in the Management Handbook”. To further assist ten- document appendix. ants, the Port distributes a video produced by the The Port initiated its effo rts in 1991 by educat- American Society of Civil Engineers entitled ing each of the facility operators about their need “S t o rm Water Regulations Employee Training: A to comply with the General Permit and inviting Clear Solution.” facilities to participate in the Stormw a t e r The Port’s comprehensive program also Program. Concurren t l y, the Port distributed a includes a water quality monitoring program. In St o rmwater Runoff Facility Questionnaire to gath- 1992, the Port modified its voluntary water quali- er information on each facility’s operations, activ- ty monitoring program to comply with federal ities, potential pollutants, and control measures . req u i rements. The monitoring program consists of In addition to these surveys, the Port now water sampling and analysis, wet and dry season requests that facilities fill out a washing practices visual observations, annual site inspections, su rv e y. Files of completed questionnaires and rec o rd keeping and preparation of annual rep o rt s su rveys and rec o rds of meetings with parti c i p a t- for submittal to the Regional Board. ing facilities have been maintained by the Port’s The Port has found that having a single facili- Planning Division. tator implement and maintain its compreh e n s i v e Once a baseline of the Port’s stormwater activi- program is far more effective than requiring each ties had been established, the Port submitted a facility to develop and implement its own pro- Notice of Intent to the State Water Resource s gram. Implementation of the program has crea t e d Co n t rol Board, on behalf of itself and parti c i p a t- a collaborative team environment between the ing facilities, in order to comply with federal Po rt and its tenants. This coordinated approa c h req u i rements. The Port’s next step involved provides cost savings to Port tenants, red u c e d development of a state-of-the-art GIS database. po l l u t a n t load in the storm water run o ff to meet The database integrates information on the Port’s federal req u i rements, and enhances the overall st o rm drain infrastruc t u re with facility-specific quality of the marine environment within the in f o rmation from the questionnaires and surve y s . Harbor District.

41 A M E R I C A ’ S G R E E N P O R T S

Integrated Wastewater Management System, grasses (Sp a rtina alterni f l o r a ) in the pond has Po rt Manatee, Florida been done by volunteers from several grou p s Local groups participate in integrated wastewater from the community including middle school treatment project. teachers (who were participating in a training The Manatee County Port Authority assisted workshop for the Florida School of the Florida Department of Environ m e n t a l En v i ronmental Studies), Youth Environ m e n t a l Protection (DEP) with implementation of an inno- Se rvices, and the Manatee County Chapter of the vative integrated management system for waste- Florida Conservation Association. Discharge water discharged from the agency's Stock water from the hatchery first enters a ret e n t i o n Enhancement Research Facility (fish hatchery) pond for aerobic treatment. The hatchery waste- which is located on Port pro p e rt y. The Port’s water typically has a low dissolved oxygen con- assistance was sought because of its experience in tent. This condition is improved in the ret e n t i o n engineering design and construction and because pond with the use of two submerged aerators. the Port Authority is a “certified governm e n t a l Each night the water in the detention pond is entity” which DEP could contract with at consid- pumped into the saltmarsh pond where the salt- erable cost savings. marsh plants remove nutrients from the wastewater before it is discharged to the bay over the course of the day. The regular flooding and draining of the saltmarsh pond simulates a tidal cycle to keep the plants healthy and thriving. This produces an additional benefit of the project. Once the saltmarsh grasses achieve maximum density and the efficiency curve in nutrient removal is optimized, some of the plants can be harvested for use in Tampa Bay saltmarsh restoration projects without damaging the pond’s wastewater treatment perfo rmance. Harvests of even one-tenth of the saltmarsh plants would provide more Spartina than cu rrently planted by both programs in a given ye a r.

Wando Terminal Storm Water Detention Project, Port of Charleston, South Car ol i n a Stormwater collection system design maximizes available Port space while providing useful wildlife habitat. In 1991, the South Carolina State Ports Authority approved a design to expand one of its te rminals to include a 70-acre container yard and Volunteers harvest saltmarsh grass at Port Manatee. a 1,373 foot wharf extension. This terminal, how- ev e r, is adjacent to sensitive wetland areas that The system provides two levels of trea t m e n t would be inundated with significant stormw a t e r prior to discharge of hatchery seawater to Tam p a flow generated on the newly paved surfa c e . Ba y. The Port created a 1.5 acre salt marsh pond Co n s e q u e n t l y, it became necessary for Port engi- by constructing earth berms and grading the inte- neers to give increased consideration to the rior to the proper elevation. Planting of saltmarsh design of the new wharf and to stormwater deten- 42 WATER POLLUTION

tion and release. cost $385,000 less than wall systems made from In the terminal's new stormwater control and sheet pile or concrete. The Wando Terminal is collection system, the first one inch of stormw a- located in a seismic zone and it became necessary ter that falls onto the expanded container area is to design a wall that can accommodate Zone 2 ga t h e red, treated and gradually released into the seismic loadings. A geogrid rei n f o rced modular su rrounding ecosystem, in a manner mimicking block can withstand high live loads and seismic natural processes. Stormwater is collected by an loading conditions in areas with low soil loading extensive underground network of concrete pipes and settlement conditions. In addition to prov i d- and then directed through filter cloth into a 17- ing significant cost savings, the use of geogrid ac re L-shaped detention pond. Sand filters in the rei n f o rced modular walls allowed the pond to pond naturally remove contaminants from the abut the container facility without a sloped land- wa t e r. Drains installed in the sand filtration bed scape, thus maximizing available acrea g e . around the perimeter of the pond were made Over the past 15 years, monthly water testing with geosynthetic materials designed to filter par- di rectly in front of the Wando Terminal by a ticulates from water and enhance soil rei n f o rc e- mobile monitoring station indicate that Port activ- ment. During low tide conditions, hydraulic pres- ities have not negatively impacted water quality. su re pushes collected storm water through the fil- In fact, the river's status has been upgraded and tration system and into the Wando river. A tide shellfish can be harvested in the Wando River gate prevents salt water intrusion into the pond to d a y. Wildlife in the area also benefit from this during high tides. new detention system. Osprey nest on the termi- One of the noteworthy features of the project is nal, ducks frequent the pond and alligators swim the use of geogrid rei n f o rcement soil walls. Port in the retention pond and sun bathe on the grassy analysts determined that geogrid walls would embankment.

43 A M E R I C A ’ S G R E E N P O R T S

O I L Po l l u t i o n

Issue/Problem ment, chronic pollution can be equally toxic to Oil pollution is one of the most serious envi- marine life if sustained over extended periods of ronmental problems in the marine environ m e n t . ti m e . Episodic pollution events, such as catastrop h i c Lighter and more refined oil typically disap- oil spills, in parti c u l a r, threaten water quality and pears quickly from the water column because of habitat with a suddenness and severity rarel y the volatility, biodegradability, and immiscibility matched by other pollutants. Catastrophic spills of hydrocarbons. Although refined oil may be typically result from transportation accidents sh o rt-lived in a marine environment, this grade of such as collisions or groundings of oil tankers. oil is more toxic than the heavier crude oils so its Most oil pollution stems from non-catastrop h i c immediate impacts can be severe. While less events, however, and occurs most frequently dur- toxic, heavier oil that sinks can persist for years ing cargo transfer operations. In fact, of the 3.5 in sediments and beach sand. Asphalt pavements million tons of oil that end up in the ocean every can form when heavy accumulations of emulsi- year worldwide, only a small percent is a conse- fied oil fills the voids between sediments, effe c- quence of tanker spills. About 70 percent of oil tively changing the biological function of the sub- pollution is due to chronic pollution from munic- strate. Furth e r, oily residues can rep e a t e d l y ipal and industrial wastes or run o ff, dumping of appear and disappear on marsh grass, shellfish, waste oil, release of oily bilge water, and from wo rms, invertebrates, and algae many years after ot h e r-than-tanker transporta t i o n . a spill as a result of persistence and res u s p e n s i o n . Most chronic oil pollution occurs in ports , Oil pollution reduces, fragments, and degrades wh e re tank vessels spend extended periods of coastal habitats and causes local and reg i o n a l time during routine operations, including load- extinction of species and reduction in plant and ing, off-loading, tank washing, and waste-water wildlife population. The immediate impacts of di s c h a rging. Oily discharges emanate from bilge oil can smother tidal pools and the interti d a l tanks, grease and oils used to maintain engines zone, killing marsh grass, shellfish, benthic and shipboard machinery, engine drippings, and wo rms, and invertebrates. The contaminants can devices used to clean oil-carrying cargo tanks. bioaccumulate in organisms unaffected by the Some of this oily waste is illegally mixed into toxicity and be transferred to higher and more ships’ ballast water and transferred to ballast sensitive organisms in the food chain. Sea and treatment plants, which are not designed to han- sh o re animals can be impaired and killed when dle oily residue. Disposal of these wastes has their feathers or fur are coated with oil. If the become an overwhelming problem even for facili- original impact is large enough, a perma n e n t ties equipped to cope with them. Most ports lack ecosystem imbalance may result. adequate facilities altogether. These discharge s The chemical contaminants in oil can poison contain hydrocarbons, including BTX compounds marine life, disrupt feeding, or cause chronic dis- (benzene, toluene, and xylene), and toxic metals ease, rep roductive failure and deformi t i e s — u l t i- (zinc, chromium, copper, and cadmium), which mately impacting the survival rates of the affe c t e d are hazardous to both humans and the environ- species. Contaminants concentrate in the sea sur- me n t . face microlayer which is an important area for the early development of many fish and other marine Health and Environmental Impacts species with planktonic life stages. Effects of con- Impacts from oil pollution vary, depending on taminants on eggs and larvae found at the sea sur- the amount (catastrophic v. chronic) and type face in sites along US coasts include morta l i t y, (refined v. crude) of discharged oil. While overall ma l f o rmation and chromosome abnorma l i t i e s . concentrations of oil toxins from chronic source s might be lower compared to concentrations following a catastrophic spill in the marine environ- 44 OIL POLLUTION

Applicable Federal Environmental Regulations reimbursement for damages; The Clean Water Act (1977 amendment to the 8. Enable states to enact oil pollution reg u l a t i o n s Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972), and mo re restrictive than those of OPA; the Oil Pollution Act (OPA) of 1990 are the pri- 9. Allow for third party claims for personal prop- ma ry federal laws that govern oil discharge s erty and environmental damages caused by affecting or threatening navigable waters of the pollution incidents; and United States. The US Coast Guard and US EPA 10. Increase penalties for violations of OPA. sh a re responsibilities under the Clean Water Act, OPA, and the Comprehensive Environ m e n t a l Management Options Response Compensation and Liability Act (CER- Established under OPA, the National Response CLA). The US Coast Guard also has res p o n s i b i l i t y System ensures that both state and federal for spills from foreign flag ships under the res o u rces are available for adequate and timely In t e rvention on the High Seas Act. cleanup of oil pollution. Under this system, ports OPA, which is the primary act dealing with oil can participate in the development of a req u i re d spills and spill response, was enacted in 1990 Area Contingency Plan, and vessels and facilities sh o rtly after the Exxon Valdez oil spill. OPA pro- within ports are req u i red to develop Ves s e l vides guidance on oil spill prevention, mitigation, Response Plans and Facility Response Plans. A cleanup, and liability. OPA established many new res e a rch plan should be developed that assesses req u i rements for pollution prevention and exten- the current status of knowledge, identifies sively amended the Federal Water Pollution res e a rch gaps, and estimates the res o u rces neces- Co n t rol Act to provide enhanced capabilities for sa ry to carrying out the plan. oil response and natural res o u rce damage assess- A contaminated sites strategy should be devel- ment. The major provisions of OPA are to oped that addres s e s : 1. Require foreign flag ships to demonstrate that 1. Implementation of reg u l a t o ry guidelines; they have sufficient res o u rces to respond to a 2. Need for and nature of a contaminated sites sp i l l ; reg i s t e r ; 2. Restrict the entry into a port of those vessels 3. Issue of financial liability for remediation of with a history of accidents, pollution inci- contaminated sites; and dents or serious repair prob l e m s ; 4. Need for planning controls that take actual or 3. Require US Coast Guard and US EPA potential contamination into account during ap p roved oil spill emergency response plans transfer of title and /or the rezoning of the to be developed by any vessel or facility land. owner who handles oil as cargo ; On June 5, 1996, The National Response Tea m 4. Require double hull tank barges and tank and US EPA published new guidance designed to ships in US waters, and the phasing-out of assist facilities in creating a single emerge n c y existing tankers by 2015; planning and response plan to be used to demon- 5. Establish the responsible party or vessel as strate compliance with emergency planning liable for the removal costs and damages; req u i rements set forth under the federal pro- 6. Establish unlimited liability for gross negli- grams. The integrated Contingency Planning gence, willful misconduct, violation of any Guidance known informally as the "One Plan" is federal operating or safety standard, failure to intended to provide a format for organizing emer- rep o rt a spill, or failure to participate in gency response information req u i red under sever- cl e a n u p ; al laws into a single functional plan. 7. Establish a $1 billion Oil Spill Liability Trus t While contingency planning for large oil spills Fund—funded by a tax on the petrol e u m is important and mandated by OPA, planning for in d u s t ry—to ensure legal and monetary the small and rec u rrent contributions to water issues do not impede cleanup measures or quality problems from chronic sources is equally 45 A M E R I C A’S GREEN PORT S

im p o rtant. In this reg a rd, preventing oil from dispense oil to individual mariners might want to entering the waste stream should be the first prior- consider requiring deposits on oil to encourage it y. ret u rn of used oil. Fuel intake devices to prev e n t Po rts should provide facilities for oil collection ov e rflows should be encouraged. and recycling, which are easily, accessible and Ru n - o ff from parking areas and roads that pick- inexpensive. Precautions must be taken to ensure up oil and other wastes from land should be oil is not contaminated with other port waste. It di rected into vegetation to naturally filter petrol e- should not be assumed that mariners are aware of um products and rec h a rge grou n d w a t e r. Useful the negative impacts of releasing oil into the infiltration devices include porous pavement, marine environment. All port users should be soak-away pits or dry wells, seepage or infiltration educated so that they understand the potential trenches, rec h a rge or percolation basins and grass damage of improper disposal of waste oil and the swales. Catch basins should be approp r i a t e l y benefits of recycling oil. Facilities in the port that placed and maintained.

Used Oil Collection and Recycling, Port of the oil can still be burne d . Co rdova, Alaska In an effo rt to reduce the illicit disposal of oil Used oil from harbor users and members of the in the harbor, on streets, and down storm drains, community is recovered for secondary use by a the Port allows the surrounding community to local utility. use its oil collection facility. The large storage The Port of Cordova collects used oil from its tank is not fenced or locked and the Port does not harbor users and from the surrounding communi- ch a rge a user fee unless the load exceeds 100 gal- ty, which it then transfers to a local utility com- lons of oil. An estimated 15 percent of contribu- pany which burns the oil for heat rec o v e ry. The tors are non-harbor users such as local garages, Po rt provides convenient dockside oil disposal contractors, and home owners use the facility. tanks where boaters can empty their used oil. A The Port director has noticed a significant red u c- bilge water vacuum pump is available for small tion in the amount of pollution attributable to oil boat users who want to empty and clean their in the harbor area with this program in place. bilge of oily water. This oily water is pumped “One pint of spilled oil can cause a sheen over into a holding tank where the water and oil are an acre of water, and kill the marine orga n i s m s separated. For ocean going ships over 400 gros s that live on the surface....Do the right thing!” The tons, including cruise ships, tank ships, ferri e s , Po rt educates both harbor and non-harbor users and tugs, a mobile facility is used for the collec- about the oil collection facility through signage tion of oily bilge water and used oil. The oil and posted around the Port area and through a local water are separated in a holding tank. ne w s l e t t e r. These also provide harbor users with All of the oil collected from harbor users is in f o rmation on how they can prevent oily spills tr a n s f e rred approximately once per week to a th rough regular maintenance, by properly drain- 12,000 gallon tank. When this tank approa c h e s ing oil filters, and using absorbent pads when ca p a c i t y, an oil sample is sent to a laboratory in ne c e s s a ry. Anchorage which tests for contaminants such as This program is extremely cost effective for the arsenic, chromium, PCBs, antifreeze, and unlead- Po rt. The only costs include the oil test, trans- ed gasoline. The Port receives the results of these po rtation of oil to the utility plant, and approx i- tests within two weeks, and the oil is then trans- mately 16 man-hours per week. These costs are fe rred to the local utility. The industrial boiler at rec o v e red in moorage fees and fees collected by this facility is US EPA- c e rtified to burn both on- non-harbor users depositing over 100 gallons of spec and off-spec oil, so even if some of the con- oil. Most importa n t l y, this program ensures a sec- taminants listed above are identified in a sample ond life for a vital non-renewable res o u rc e .

46 OIL POLLUTION

Oil and Oil Filter Recycling Program, Port of wa t e r. The oil is periodically pumped off the top Ne w p o rt, Oreg o n of these tanks and recycled with the other waste New facilities offer oil filter recycling and collec- oil. The Port accepts only waste oil in its collection tanks designed to minimize hazards. tion tanks. Other types of hazardous waste, The Port of Newport’s motor oil and oil filter including paints, thinners, and unleaded gasoline recycling program has been fully operational are discouraged. since July 1999. While oil recycling prev i o u s l y A unique component of this program is the was offe red at the Port, the new prog r a m — w h i c h availability of an industrial oil filter press, which includes oil filters—will increase and improv e crushes the filters and squeezes out the excess op p o rtunities for recycling oily waste generated oil. Both the oil rec o v e red from the filters and the by commercial fishermen and rec re a t i o n a l filters themselves are recycled by the Port. bo a t e r s . Pre v i o u s l y, used oil filters were drained only as The new facilities feature more environ m e n t a l- well as boat owner’s were willing to drain them ly sound systems for reception. Three 250 gallon and disposed of in the Port’s garbage dumpsters. double-walled steel tanks have been placed in The initial start-up costs for this program was both the commercial and rec reational marinas. $31,000—money that was obtained through an oil The tanks have been placed upland away from settlement grant from the Oregon Department of the water to avoid accidental spills into the estu- Justice. Installation req u i red little labor, and the ary. Special features of these tanks include dou- cost of continued maintenance and operation of ble-wall construction, a liquid level indicator to the facilities is minimal, involving occasional prevent overflows, a fire suppression system, and repairs and operation of the oil filter press. Costs ventilation. The tanks are kept within a three - for providing this service are factored into estab- wall covered shelter to prevent water from enter- lished Port user fees. Both the waste oil and the ing and to protect the tanks from weathering. Two filters are collected by a local environ m e n t a l 5,000 gallon tanks are used for the gravitational recycling company at no cost to the Port. separation of oil and water from vessel bilge

47 A M E R I C A ’ S G R E E N P O R T S

S H I P A N D P O R T Generated Solid Was t e

Issue/Problem vessels that call on many diffe rent ports due to Marine debris is generated by commercial fish- variations in garbage handling, garbage res t r i c- ing and merchant vessels, passenger cruise lines, tions, and fee struc t u re s . rec reational boats, and military and res e a rch ves- Po rt operator problems associated with imple- sels as well as from sources on land. Types of mentation of Annex V include difficulty in pre- marine debris include: glass, plastic, metal, paper, dicting future levels of demand for waste disposal fishing gear, cloth, food waste, wood, rub b e r, and and the uncertainty surrounding the local solid packing materials. With the exception of plastics, waste disposal site’s long-term capability to all these materials may be discharged overboard accommodate increased waste over time (US at prescribed distances from shore under MAR- Senate-Leach 1987). An increase in volume of POL Annex V. waste requiring handling could lead to an Studies characterizing debris generated by ves- in c rease in user fees that, in turn, may direct larg- sels in the US reveal that cargo ships alone gener- er ships to the least expensive off-loading facili- ate 111,700 million tons of garbage each year ties. As a consequence, waste disposal facility (NRC 1995) and that US ports can receive up to availability and fees could become a significant 368,000 tons of waste per year from foreign ves- competitive force among ports . sels (Brillat & Liffman 1991). A key section of the laws pertaining to disposal of ship generated Environmental Impacts solid waste req u i res ports and terminals to pro- Hu n d reds of thousands of marine mammals, vide adequate facilities to receive garbage from sea turtles, seabirds and fish die each year from ve s s e l s . ex p o s u re to marine debris, either through entan- A survey conducted by the National Research glement or ingestion. Animals may become entan- Council (1995) found the ship-to-shore waste gled in loops or openings of submerged, floating management interface in the US to be “clumsy, debris and consequently drown or lose their abili- inadequate, and at times non-existent. Each indi- ty to catch food or avoid predators. Some animals vidual port or terminal has to devise its own also can ingest plastic material resulting in chok- means to comply, and each has to pay for any ing, damage to stomach lining, intestinal blockage, related expansion.” Only a minority of vessels reduced capacity to forage effi c i e n t l y, inability to appear to be off-loading garbage at US port facili- digest food, reduced rate of absorption of nutri- ties. Moreo v e r, according to US Coast Guard ents, and other physiological effects from the (USCG) boarding officers, there is often “no trace absorption of toxics. Although accounting for less of garbage, separated plastics, or incinerated ash than one percent of the total amount of garbage on ships that doubtlessly generate large quantities disposed at sea (Brillat & Liffman 1991), plastics of garbage” (Federal Register, 1994, Vol. 59, p.18). comprise the most harmful elements of marine The apparent low usage of solid waste disposal debris and have been extensively res e a rched. Less facilities at ports are related to whether or not: (1) is known about the behavior and effects of pulped off-loading garbage is allowed at a port; (2) vessel garbage, paper, or cardb o a rd in the marine envi- operators are aware that reception facilities exist; ronment. and (3) facilities are convenient and affo rd a b l e . The raw materials from which plastic prod u c t s Additional issues related to the Animal and Plant are formed—called resin pellets—are the most Health Inspection Service (APHIS) program for common plastic materials in the marine environ- fo reign vessels include high disposal costs, confu- ment (US EPA 1989). Resin pellets enter the sion over the types of garbage that are subject to marine environment through the careless handling quarantine, a lack of integration of APHIS and of cargo and spilling of pellets onto loading docks, Annex V regimes, and the lack of a req u i re m e n t ships' decks, and cargo holds, which are eventual- for off-loading of APHIS waste at US ports . ly washed overboard into waterways (US EPA Disposal also can be burdensome for commerci a l 1992). Because plastic pellets are small, light- 48 SHIP AND PORT WA S T E

weight, buoyant, persistent, and ubiquitous in the sh o re. MPPRCA applies to merchant ships, rec re- aquatic environment, they are a potential hazard ational and commercial fishing vessels, offs h o re oil to aquatic organisms who ingest the pellets mis- rigs, and military vessels. All ports, marinas, fuel taking them for prey. Pellets are the most common docks, fish plants, and other rev e n u e - g e n e r a t i n g fo rm of plastic debris ingested by seabirds (US docking facilities are req u i red to provide garbage EPA 1990). Because the elements that cause plas- facilities to accept refuse. MPPRCA gives the US tic to deteriorate on land—heat, wind, and ultra Coast Guard primary enforcement authority for violet radiation—are less intense in the ocean, Annex V. Regulations reg a rding port rec e p t i o n plastic is essentially non-degradable there. Even facilities were promulgated by the US Coast Guard plastics considered “degradable” only disintegrate and are contained in 33 CFR 158. into smaller fragments of plastic and eventually To certify that a US port or terminal meets the into plastic dust. The impacts of plastic dust are req u i rements for reception facilities, the US Coast not known. Gu a rd issues a Certificate of Adequacy (COA). If a Another impact of solid waste debris in the po rt which is subject to the COA req u i rement does marine environment is aesthetic degradation, not have adequate reception facilities, the US which in turn can produce economic impacts Coast Guard may deny ships from entering the when rec reation areas are affected. Sewage-rel a t e d po rt. Though the regulations provide general guid- and medical-related debris are particularly dis- ance on adequacy, they do not include technical pleasing. st a n d a rds upon which to base the determination of Marine debris impacts and the environ m e n t a l adequacy (NRC 1995). damage incurred also can be measured in terms of Another federal law that may apply to the dis- economic costs to industry. Marine debris can posal of solid waste into the marine environ m e n t damage or disable vessel propellers and block is the Marine Protection, Research, and water intake valves, causing engines to overhe a t Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) of 1972 which is com- or burn-out. monly ref e rred to as the Ocean Dumping Act. MPRSA does not apply to waste generated from Applicable Federal Environmental Regulations the normal operation of vessels but rather only to The United States is a signatory (along with 78 wastes taken to sea for the express purpose of other nations) to Annex V of the Interna t i o n a l dumping. Under MPRSA, no US vessel may trans- Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from po rt any material for the purpose of dumping the Ships (MARPOL Protocol of 1973/78, herea f t e r material into the ocean unless the vessel has a per- ref e rred to as MARPOL Annex V). Annex V mit to dump from US EPA. applies to solid waste generated during norma l In addition to federal laws and interna t i o n a l vessel operations at sea and in port, as well as the treaties to which the United States is a signatory, solid waste generated by economic activities such states and local governments may regulate the dis- as fishing conducted aboard vessels. Annex V posal of wastes from vessels in waters under their imposes restrictions on the locations and materials ju r i s d i c t i o n . di s c h a rged, but does not specify how compliance is to be achieved. Port reception facilities for Management Options garbage also must be available. Re g a rding solid waste generated by vessels, man- The Marine Plastics Pollution Research and agement options include source reduction, on-board Co n t rol Act (MPPRCA), promulgated in 1988, is garbage handling techniques and treatment tech- the US federal law implementing Annex V in all nologies, disposal at sea within the law, and off- US waters. MPPRCA prohibits the disposal of any loading at ports where it is handled by the landside plastic from any vessel in the US Exclusive solid waste management system. Economic Zone (waters up to 200 miles offs h o re ) On - b o a rd technologies include compactors, and other types of garbage within three miles of pulpers, shredders, and incinerators. The technolo-

49 A M E R I C A ’ S G R E E N P O R T S

gy is well developed for certain types of ships and tors in ports in or near urban areas. All bottom and applications (cruise ships and navy vessels), but is fly ash produced during incineration is considered not readily transferable to other types and sizes of to be hazardous, requiring costly hazardous waste ve s s e l s . handling methods and disposal sites. Also, many So u rce reduction, particularly relevant to ships items burned are made from non-ren e w a b l e can be achieved by targeting plastic packaging and res o u rces. Reliance on incineration as a disposal disposable flatware. Recycling is one of the best option discourages proactive source red u c t i o n , ways for a port to lower costs, increase effi c i e n c y reuse and recycling systems (NRC 1995). and remain competitive. Many items brought to To help with compliance, ports need to prov i d e sh o re could have additional uses and economic facilities that have sufficient capacity and are likely benefits. Assuming that adequate on-board storage located close to docks. To be successful, port opera- is available for restricted waste under Annex V, port tors must identify the types of refuse materials that waste disposal volumes can be reduced if rec y c l a b l e are likely to be disposed of at the port and select materials are separated using coded containers. ap p ropriate vessel refuse handling and contaminant Easily recycled materials include aluminum and methods. Coordination of ship waste handling with steal cans, glass bottles, plastic bottles, paper, and sh o reside waste management practices is essential ca rd b o a rd packaging. Other materials that can be for effective and efficient operation. recycled include metal parts, fishing nets, rop e s , Recognizing that they are in a leadership position and other gear. to mitigate a visible marine pollution problem, ports Incineration is an available option that red u c e s can establish outreach programs to educate port the volume of waste intended for a landfill by 80-90 users about shoreside waste management practices pe rcent. However, incineration raises concerns and increase awareness of the problems of marine about toxic pollutants. The International Maritime de b r i s . Org a n i z a t i o n ’s guidelines for Annex V rec o g n i z e these concerns and discourage the use of incinera-

Marine Refuse Disposal Project, Port of the Port of Newport was to establish convenient Ne w p o rt, Oreg o n refuse reception facilities. Ten refuse facilities were Construction of marine refuse reception facilities co n s t ructed and strategically placed near the boat improve refuse system efficiency. be rths to encourage use by fishers and boaters; In 1987-88, the Port of Newport coordi n a t e d refuse bins that had been located in areas easily eff o rts with the National Marine Fishery Servi c e accessible to the surrounding community were (NMFS), West Coast Trawl fisherman, and the removed. Three galvanized dumpsters, each with a Oregon State University Extension/Sea Grant 1.5 cubic yard capacity, were housed in each facili- Program to conduct a pilot program to address the ty, replacing small, overflowing garbage cans. Each problem of ship generated waste becoming marine facility has a concrete pad flooring that provides a debris. The Marine Refuse Disposal Project was stable, easily cleanable surface. Three rec y c l i n g initiated to improve refuse system efficiency and to bins were also placed in each facility. Many of encourage use of these systems by mariners. The these recycling bins are reused products them- Po rt of Newport was selected as a demonstration selves, having been donated or bought at a low po rt because its diversity of activities simulate an price from local fish processing companies. These en v i ronment found at both small and large ports . bins have been successful in recovering metal, Po rts nationwide would benefit from the experi- wood, nets, and cardb o a rd from the waste strea m . ences of this pilot project to develop similar marine Many of the nets collected have even been picked refuse disposal proj e c t s . up and reused by fishermen and members of the As part of the Marine Refuse Disposal Proj e c t , local community. The new refuse collection facilities have decreased disposal costs while increa s i n g 50 SHIP AND PORT WA S T E

the aesthetic appeal of the Port. als is always the first alternative to disposal at the As part of the project, fishermen, Port workers Po rt. and Port management staff were consulted to deter- In response to the City of Portl a n d ’s mandatory mine existing refuse problems at the Port and recycling program, and as part of its own commit- devise the most convenient methods of disposal. ment to waste reduction, the Port has implement- Th rough these discussions, the Port identified the ed a recycling program that collects over twenty- options that would improve service, maximize effi- seven diffe rent materials. These materials ci e n c y, minimize costs, and benefit the community. include mixed paper, glass, plastics, dry-cell bat- Co n s e q u e n t l y, a water level barge was adapted to teries, mercu ry and mercu ry vapor lamps, sodium help fishermen off-load heavy items such as net, lamps, used oil, and solvents. With the imple- metal, cables, and wood. A main refuse and rec y- mentation of this program, the types of materials cling area was established near the Port’s servi c e recycled and reused and the tonnage of materials dock where a hoist was available. The high level of recycled has increased steadily. organization and efficiency of this area has In addition to maintaining its recycling pro- in c reased the Port’s refuse reception capacity. gram, the Port has initiated several innovative An education program tailored for rec re a t i o n a l projects that recover used materials for alterna t i v e boaters and fishers was successful at reducing the uses. In one project, old growth timbers were amount of waste thrown overboard by many rec o v e red from an old warehouse. In prep a r a t i o n mariners. An advisory group, composed of Port for redevelopment of a terminal area, the oldest users, Port management, fish and wildlife agencies, wa rehouse in the Port was carefully dismantled. boating safety groups, and other community inter- The rec o v e red timbers were remilled and then est groups was established to inform mariners and incorporated into other construction proj e c t s , the community members about the debris issue and such as Port building lobbies and meeting roo m s to generate peer pres s u re. The formation of the knowledgeable advisory group, the use of local media and the distribution of promotional items, such as posters,broc h u res, letters, and res o u rc e lists, resulted in enthusiastic support for the rec y- cling program and improved mariner-P o rt communi c a t i o n s . This pilot project has been valuable in prov i d i n g a framework for other ports to use in developing their own marine refuse programs. The Port of Ne w p o rt ’s experiences, documented in a rep o rt as pa rt of the project, have been used by a number of po rts along the west coast to streamline refuse systems and to educate mariners. Old growth timbers reused at the Port of Portland.

Solid Waste Management Program, Port of and nearby houses. Po rtland, Oreg o n Another innovative project involved the rec o v- Innovative engineering projects recover and reuse ery of a 600 foot long container freight station at available materials. one of the Port’s terminals. Rather than demolish The goal for solid waste management at the the steel struc t u re to make room for a new con- Po rt of Portland is to minimize the amount of tainer stacking facility, the Port chose to rel o c a t e waste directed to landfills and to continuously the entire building. Port engineers, in an effo rt to se a rch for new opportunities to recycle and reu s e avoid paying money to lose an asset, investigated di ff e rent materials. Recycling and reuse of material t e rnative Port locations for the struc t u re .

51 A M E R I C A’S GREEN PORT S

Ho w e v e r, due to its damaged appearance, the cled prod u c t s . building was not suitable for either of the two After perfo rming a full waste audit in 1993, the available sites at the Port. The engineers then City of Los Angeles determined that only 15 per- looked outside the Port for interested buyers who cent of the Port’s 25,000 tons of waste was being would dismantle and remove the struc t u re. The di v e rted from landfills. As part of its compreh e n- Po rt received several responses to their req u e s t sive program to increase this diversion rate to 50 for proposals and eventually sold the struc t u re to pe rcent, the Port implemented several waste Erickson Air-Crane Company of Central Point, reduction and recycling projects. One proj e c t Oregon. The building now functions as a heli- includes the implementation of a tracking system copter hangar and manufacturing wareh o u s e . to monitor the Port’s material rec o v e ry and red u c- A further example of Portl a n d ’s innovation tion effo rts. involves the reuse of World War II Liberty Ships Recycling projects have been implemented in as floating docks. Port engineers modified the many diffe rent areas of the Port. Organic waste, ships to serve as docks that would move with the for example, is rec o v e red and reused on site. yearly 20-foot river fluctuations that result from Trees and shrubs are chipped and then reused as snowmelt along the Columbia River. The wing mulch on Port prop e rt y. A collection area has walls and bows were removed from the ships. been established for wood from used pallets and The decks were then paved and the modified crates and Port users are encouraged to reuse the st ru c t u res attached to pilings with rings. Ramps material from this site. Office products, like connecting these floating docks to cargo vessels white and colored ledger paper, computer paper, in c rease the efficiency of transfer operations. For junk mail, magazines, and newspaper, are rec o v- instance, automobiles are now driven off the ered. In addition, toner cartridges are ret u rned to ships rather than being individually slung on their manufacturers for reconditioning and reuse. palettes. The Port has also acquired a dry dock The program also includes ferrous metals decomissioned by the Navy to accommodate the rec o v e ry and oil and tire collection. To furth e r in c reasing size of cargo ships. Two sections of develop the Port waste minimization program, a this dock, each 240 feet long by 101 feet wide, recycling committee has been established. we re put end to end to create a floating wharf Re p resentatives from various Port divisions,: that will support a full size car carri e r. En v i ronmental Management , Purch a s i n g , The Port’s commitment to recycling, rec l a m a- Pro p e rty Management, Construction and tion, and reuse have resulted in increased effi- Maintenance, Public Affairs, as well as Port ten- ciency and reduced costs throughout the Port. ants comprise the committee. The Port has also implemented education pro- Solid Waste Management Program, Port of Los grams as part of its waste reduction initiative. By Angeles, Californi a distributing updates and publishing articles in Variety of recycling and reduction projects move the employee newsletter about the office rec y- Port toward waste reduction goal. cling program, the Port keeps employees In 1989, California municipalities were man- in f o rmed of current recycling effo rts. In addition, dated to have fifty percent of their total waste an educational program was developed specifical- di v e rted from landfills by the year 2000. To ly for Port tenants. Prior to the development of as s u re compliance with the mandate, the Port of the educational program, Tenant Recycling Los Angeles, a branch of the Los Angeles munici- Su rveys were distributed to the tenants to collect pal government, has developed a compreh e n s i v e in f o rmation on their operations and waste diver- solid waste management program. The prog r a m sion practices. Within the next few years, the consists of projects to reduce waste generation Po rt intends to improve tenant recycling practices and increase recycling at Port facilities, on-site by serving as the waste reduction facilitator. educational programs, and initiatives to buy rec y- In addition to recovering used materials from

52 SHIP AND PORT WA S T E

the waste stream, the Port initiated a program that puter paper, paper towels, and toilet paper. encourages the proc u rement of recycled materi- The Port’s recycling effo rts are not confined to als. The Purchasing Division purchases rec y c l e d - Po rt boundaries. The Port has collaborated with content products whenever feasible. Recycled the city Environmental Affairs Department and materials have been used for a number of devel- the Recreation and Parks Department to sponsor a opment projects. For example, in 1991, the Port program that collects glass, aluminum, and plas- installed plastic pilings. Since then, 100 perce n t tic beverage containers in the surrounding mari- recycled plastic has been used for brea s t i n g nas and beach areas. The Port of Los Angeles has camels, fender piles, bull rails, walers, chocks developed and implemented a truly compreh e n- and wheel stops. Recycled materials have also sive program in an effo rt to reach its goal of a been purchased for Port office areas. These prod- fifty percent reduction of waste by the year 2000. ucts include photocopy paper, continuous com-

53 A M E R I C A’S GREEN PORT S P o rt D E S C R I P T I O N S

Port of Anchorage, Alaska as container, Roll On-Roll Off, bulk ca rgoes such as aluminum, pulp, www.ci.anchorage.ak.us/Services/ pe t roleum and dry bulk, and spe- logs, lumber, wood chips, and cot- Departments/Port cialized carriers for automobiles, ton seed. The Port has expanded to Roger K. Graves newsprint, and cement. An indus- include the Fairha v e n Government/Environmental Affairs trial park, for cargo staging and Tra n s p o rtation Center, an inter- Tel (907) 343-6200 storage, occupies 150 acres of Port modal facility that connects roa d , Fax (907) 277-5636 pro p e rt y. In 1998, the Port handled rail, sea, and air transporta t i o n . ap p roximately three million short The Port offers waterborne passen- tons of cargo. Imports — e v e ry t h i n g ger transportation facilities and from aluminum to zinc—comprise owns two full-service commerci a l 90% of the cargo handled. fishing and pleasure boat marinas, Cu rre n t l y, the Port mainly exports an international airport, industrial pe t roleum products, although sites and other leased prop e rt i e s . ex p o rts of timber, fish, and coal An n u a l l y, about 375,000 travelers, are increa s i n g . visitors, and community members Amidst all of the shipping activ- pass through the Port’s termi n a l s . ity and economic expansion, the The Port of Bellingham is direc t e d Po rt is committed to protecting its by an elected three-member com- su rrounding environment. In con- mi s s i o n . The Port of Anchorage, the junction with the Alaska Total tonnage handled by the no rt h e rnmost deep draft port in De p a rtment of Environ m e n t a l Po rt in 1998 was 281,576 short the United States, is located in the Co n s e rvation, the Port is involved tons. Major imports include salt upper Cook Inlet of Alaska. in an on-going program of environ- and wood chips; exports include Although Anchorage has been a mental assessment. The Port also lu m b e r, pulp, aluminum, and liq- po rt city since the early 1900s, it has initiated an effo rt to enhance uid chemicals. began its operation as a major en v i ronmental attributes of the The Port of Bellingham strives marine center in the 1960s. Wit h i n Po rt of Anchorage area, to mitigate to improve economic development the past few decades, the Port has past damage in a voluntary man- while maintaining a commitment expanded from a single-berth facil- ne r, and to involve the local com- to environmental stewardship. To ity to a five-berth terminal han- mu n i t y. The Port continues its counteract any adverse impacts dling three million short tons per commitment to environ m e n t a l from its commercial and industrial ye a r. As a flexible, general cargo pre s e rvation through the effo rts of activities, the Port is developing po rt, the Port provides facilities for its Governm e n t / E n v i ro n m e n t a l new ways to address environ m e n- the movement of containerized Affairs Offi c e . tal concerns while balancing habi- freight, iron and steel prod u c t s , tat restoration and aquatic land wood products, bulk petrol e u m Port of Bellingham Bay, Washington use. For instance, the Port is work- and cement. www.portofbellingham.com ing with government, industry, res- Al a s k a ’s only active forei g n Mike Stoner idents, and local businesses on the trade zone exists at the Port of Environmental Manager Bellingham Bay Demonstration Anchorage. Available foreign trade Tel (360) 676-2500 Pilot to clean up Bellingham Bay. se rvices include public wareh o u s- Fax (360) 671-6411 The Port is involved in the cre- ing, contract warehousing, and The Port of Bellingham, located ation of 10 to 15 acres of sub-tidal bulk petroleum product storage. near the Canadian borde r, was mud flats and smaller areas for The Port’s remaining facilities established in 1920 as a timber ma c ro algae production. In addi- include three multi-use termi n a l s and fishing port. Tod a y, the Port tion, as a result of Port effo rts, the and two petroleum berths that se rves as a marine cargo facility, Squalicum Harbor/Central handle standard cargo vessels such specializing in break bulk and bulk Wat e rf ront area— once an industri-

54 al landscape—is now an attractive minal, two shipyards, numerou s trolled warehousing, and Roll-On working waterfront with public pubic and private ferry operations, Ro l l - O ff capabilities. Major parks, scenic ocean views, prom e- marine res e a rch institutions, mari- im p o rts at the Port include steel, nades, and concert venues. nas, and a major Coast Guard facili- fresh fruit, wood products, and ty. The Port also serves as a high- cocoa; exports include scrap metal Port of Boston, Massachusetts valued fishing port. MassPort’s and petroleum coke. Total tonnage www.massport.com/portbos Maritime Department operates handled in 1998 measured 2.2 mil- Brad Wellock Conley Terminal for containerized lion short tons. The Port of Tel (617) 946-4413 ca rgo shipments. Moran Term i n a l , Camden, in combination with the Fax (617) 946-4422 cu rrently leased to Boston Po rt of Philadelphia, is curren t l y Au t o p o rt, is used for the import holding top cargo handling, and distribution of automobiles. In growth, and market share positions 1998, the Port processed nearly among all North Atlantic ports . 75,000 vehicles. The Maritime De p a rtment also owns and operates Port Canaveral, Florida the Black Falcon Cruise Term i n a l , www.portcanaveral.org located in the Boston Marine Lorraine Guise Industrial Park, which served 62 Assistant Director of Environmental cruise ships and over 105,000 Programs cruise passengers in 1998. Tel (407) 783-7831 Over 16 million short tons of Fax (407) 784-6223 ca rgo were handled by the Port in The Port of Boston is the oldest 1998. Imports include petrol e u m continually active major port in the products, liquefied natural gas, Wes t e rn Hemisphere. The Port is salt, gypsum, cement, and autos. owned and operated by the Ex p o rts include scrap metal and Massachusetts Port Authority pe t roleum prod u c t s . (M a s s P o rt), an independent public authority created by the Port of Camden, New Jersey Massachusetts legislature in 1959. www.southjerseyport.com In addition to managing the sea- Joseph Balzano po rt, Massport also develops and Executive Director manages Logan Airport and city Tel (856) 757-4969 tr a n s p o rtation infrastruc t u re . Fax (856) 757-4903 Po rt Canaveral is located in the Ma s s P o rt is an independent bond The Port of Camden is located no rt h e rn half of Brev a rd County in au t h o r i t y, and does not typically in southern New Jersey on the So u t h e rn Florida. Since its founda- receive any state tax money. De l a w a re River. The Port is owned tion in 1953, Port Canaveral has Ma s s P o rt facilities and operations by the South Jersey Port grown from a newsprint and petro- contribute more than $5 billion to Corporation and directed by a leum-based maritime industry into the state's economy annually. seven-member board of commis- a major deep water port capable of Twelve thousand people work sioners appointed by the Governo r. accommodating a variety of bulk di rectly for MassPort, another The Port maintains two termi- tank and dry bulk cargoes, includ- 20,000 jobs are generated by its nals, Beckett Street and Broa d w a y. ing orange juice, scrap steel, decid- operations and activities. The main features of these termi- uous concentrates, solar salt, sugar, Major features of the Port of nals include 5,884 feet combined fe rtilizers lumber, and cement. The Boston include a container termi- be rthing space, berthside rail serv- Po rt is directed by the Canaveral nal, auto terminal, cruise ship ter- ice, warehousing, temperature- c o n- Po rt Authority Board of 55 Commissioners, a quasi-govern- public boat launches, parking lots volume and physical size is the ment entity consisting of five and picnic areas—all for the bene- Wando Welch Terminal. This ter- elected officials from each of the fit of its local residents and its minal is recognized worldwide for Po rt districts. The Port’s jurisdic- many visitors. its overall productivity and pro- tion extends over 3300 acres of vides 3,800 continuous feet of land, with approximately 780 Po rt of Charleston, South Carol i n a be rth space. ac res of uplands devoted solely to ww w. p o rt - o f - c h a r l e s t o n . c o m As the Port continues to Po rt activities. Joe Brya n t expand its facilities, it uses Po rt Canaveral features two liq- Vice President Terminal Development designs that minimize adverse uid bulk facilities, eight dry cargo Tel (803) 577-8611 en v i ronmental impacts. For be rths and two Roll-On/Roll-Off Fax (803) 577-8626 instance, during the red e v e l o p- ramps. Dock space is available for The Port of Charleston, located ment of the Wando Wel c h frozen and perishable food ship- at the geographic center of the Terminal, the Port designed a ments and general cargo; dry Atlantic Coast, is the fourth st o rmwater collection system to freight storage is also available. la rgest container port in the protect sensitive wetland areas. In Warehouses, all covered by United States. All four of the ship- addition to pres e rving environ- Fo reign Trade Zone 136, offer ves- ping terminals at the Port of mental integrity, this effo rt to min- sel-side freezer/chill space as well Charleston are owned, operated, imize adverse impacts from devel- as dry vessel-side cargo space. and managed by the South opment has saved the Port money. Ca rgo tonnage handled by the Port Ca rolina State Port Authority. In for 1998 measured 3.9 million 1998, the Port moved more than Port of Chicago, Illinois sh o rt tons. The primary commodi- 12 million short tons of cargo val- Frank Kudrna ties imported through the Port ued at $29 billion. The large s t Chief Engineer include cement clinkers, im p o rts were paper and paper- Tel (773) 646-4400 newsprint, slate granite, and fres h bo a rd, fabrics, natural rub b e r, and Fax (773) 221-7678 fruit. Exports are citrus fruits, confu rn i t u re. The largest exports were centrate, frozen products, and paper and paperboard, wood fresh water. The Port also sup- pulp, poultry, and Benezoid po rts an extensive cruise industry ch e m i c a l s . with over 1.4 million cruise pas- The terminal closest to the sengers passing through the Port open sea, the Union Pier termi n a l , each year. is Charleston’s breakbulk and The Canaveral Port Authority Ro l l - O n / R o l l - O ff cargo facility, strives to be pro-active when it offering 2,470 continuous feet of comes to the environment. Some be rth space. The Columbus Stree t of their recent environ m e n t a l Terminal handles a variety of eff o rts include the development of ca rgo such as containers, common manatee and right whale prot e c- breakbulk, bulk, rolling stock, The Port of Chicago historically tion programs, a massive dune heavy lift and project cargo. There has been a major port for shipping grass distribution program, water is also container storage space at and commerce. The modern Port quality monitoring, and an ongo- this terminal. The North facilities were construc t e d ing beach nourishment prog r a m . Charleston Terminal is a container between 1955 and 1958. At that Po rt Canaveral also has developed handling facility with an on-termi- time, facilities included a turni n g mo re rec reational areas than all nal container freight station, an basin, docks, grain elevators and the other ports in Florida com- on - t e rminal intermodal rail yard, public terminals at Lake Calumet. bined, including four parks with and a Foreign Trade Zone. The Tod a y, the Port features two cargo beaches, campsites, harbor walks, Po rt ’s largest terminal in terms of handling areas and leases termi-

56 nals, docks, and prop e rties to pri- Port of Corpus Christi, Texas vate owners. The Port is owned www.cctexas.org/port and operated by the Illinois Dipak Desai In t e rnational Port District, a self- Environmental Manager su p p o rting municipal corporation. Tel (512) 882-5633 One of the Port’s cargo - h a n d l i n g Fax (512) 882-3079 areas, Iroquois Landing Lakefron t Terminus, is located at the mouth of the Calumet River at Lake Michigan, 13 miles from Chicago. It is a 100 acre, open-paved terminal with 3,000 linear feet of ship the southeastern edge of Prince and barge berthing space. The ter- William Sound and is the center minal features two transit sheds for commercial fishing vessels that have direct truck and rail within the Sound. The Port houses ac c e s s . a small boat harbor with 845 slips Another cargo handling area is for boats ranging from 20 feet to on Lake Calumet, located at the 160 feet, and three large docks— junction of the Grand Calumet and The Port of Corpus Christi is Municipal Dock, City Dock, and Little Calumet Rivers about 6 the fourth largest port in the US. It No rth Fill Dock—that prov i d e miles inland from Lake Michigan. is located along the southwestern moorage for large vessels, the The southwest part of Lake coast of Texas on the Gulf of Coast Guard, and the State of Calumet offers 3,000 linear feet of Mexico approximately 150 miles Alaska marine ferries. With con- ship and barge berthing space, no rth of the US-Mexico borde r. tainer Roll-On/Roll-Off facilities, th ree transit sheds, a wareh o u s e , The Port is comprised of four divi- staging areas, and storage and and two grain elevators. The sions: Harbor Island, Port industrial space, these docks also no rtheast area has a liquid bulk Ingleside, La Quinta, and Inner se rve as terminals for the transfer te rminal and two general cargo Ha r b o r. The Port of Corpus Christi of freight and fuel. The principal handling terminals. The north w e s t is directed by a commission of ca rgoes handled at the Port quadrant has two dry-bulk and seven members. They are res p o n- include salmon and general cargo . steel slag processing termi n a l s . sible for guiding the Port in accor- The Port has a demonstrated Major commodities handled by dance with provisions of the Tex a s commitment to the environ m e n t , the Port of Chicago include steel, state constitution under which the doing what it can to reduce the zinc, and aluminum. In 1998, Po rt district was created. en v i ronmental impacts of harbor 558,000 short tons of cargo were The Port of Corpus Christi and Port operations. Curren t l y, the handled by Port tenants. Note that Authority (PCCA) is a grantee- Po rt has in place a used oil collec- this figure does not reflect total operator of Foreign Trade Zone tion facility, bilge water vacuum tonnage of cargo handled by the No. 122. All of the Port's 7,275 pump, mobile bilge water collec- Po rt. They do not rep o rt total ton- ac res are located within this zone. tion system, and a reg u l a t e d na g e . PCCA provides a full service pub- garbage collection program for lic warehouse with covered floor ships arriving from outside of the Port of Cordova, Alaska space located directly acros s US. The Port produces a small Dave Muma Harbor Drive. The South side ter- newsletter available to all interes t- Harbormaster minal also offers warehouse stor- ed persons in the City of Cordo v a , Tel (907) 424-6400 age space. PCCA has a grain eleva- which often highlights its environ- Fax (907) 424-6000 tor with a storage capacity of 5 mental prog r a m s . The Port of Cordova is located at million bushels. Dry bulk com-

57 modities are handled at the Port' s tion center, and cargo - re l a t e d bulk terminal, which features one developments. Future develop- dock for unloading and another ments include a near-dock con- for loading. The Port also operates tainer transfer facility to enhance 11 oil docks, all located in the in t e rmodal connections. Tot a l Inner Harbor. In 1998, 89.5 mil- ca rgo tonnage handled by the Port lion short tons of cargo was han- in 1998 was 23 million tons. The dled by the Port. The primary major imports at the Port were im p o rts are steel, machinery, and gasoline and aviation fuel, cement fe rro alloys; exports are steel, and clinkers, petro and fuel oil, ma c h i n e ry, and heavy lift cargo . and fruit and vegetables. Major In the design of its projects, the ex p o rts include general cargo, gro- Bro w a rd County 23 miles north of Po rt includes environmental con- ce ry products, container cargo , Miami and 48 miles south of Wes t trols whenever possible. Facilities and gypsum. Palm Beach, is the deepest com- are designed to minimize the Over the past seven decades, me rcial harbor in Florida. Since potential for spillage, optimize Po rt Everglades has grown into its development in the 1920s, the product rec o v e ry, and lend to a one of the world’s premier cargo Po rt has become well established workable concept of zero waste and cruise ports, and also earned a in three maritime industry seg- disposal. Immediate collection reputation as a leader in environments: cruise, cargo, and military. and recycling of all waste from the mental res p o n s i b i l i t y. The Port’s Mo re than 2 million passengers a work areas is accomplished with programs have earned it several year pass through the Port, making the use of pollution control meas- national awards from the it the second-busiest cruise port in ures such as a baghouse, cyclone, American Association of Port the world. The Port handles over sc rubbers, water-sprays, and cov- Authorities. In the 1970s, Port 20 million tons of cargo a year and ered conveyor belts. In addition, commissioners and local offi c i a l s commodities such as cement, the Port has installed a stormw a t e r initiated protection effo rts for the scrap metal, gypsum, steel and system that holds, direc t s , manatee. The Port also formed an steel coils, lumber, and secondary decants, and mechanically filters en v i ronmental guidance advisory fi b e r. It is considered the second ca p t u red run o ff prior to discharge . committee to assist in Port devel- la rgest US petroleum storage and These environmental considera- opment projects. In the 1980s, the distribution port among nonref i n- tions allow the Port to expand Po rt continued its environ m e n t a l ery sites. In addition, the Port while maintaining the quality of eff o rts by establishing healthy offers a Foreign Trade Zone allow- the surrounding environ m e n t . ma n g rove wetlands, a tidal lagoon, ing duty-related advantages for Ac c o rding to the Port, "on one and an educational facility. Other im p o rters and exporte r s . pa rticular occasion the US Coast projects at the Port involve ree f Po rt Everglades’ harbor facili- Gu a rd ref e rred to the Port of monitoring and water testing and ties consist of 48 berths. Six con- Corpus Christi as one of the clean- programs to help sea turtles and tainer cranes, two rail-mounted est and most environ m e n t a l l y least terns. The Port continues to dockside bulk cement unloaders, sound ports in the United States." se rve the environment through its and 207 petroleum tanks are avail- En v i ronmental Programs Office in able for service. In addition, the Port Everglades, Florida the Construction Management/ facility offers warehouse space, www.co.broward.fl.us/port.htm Planning Division. Ro l l - O n / R o l l - O ff ramp facilities, Allan D. Sosnow and reefer/cold storage. Port Environmental Projects Manager Ev e rglades continues to expand, Tel (954) 523-3404 having recently added an addi- Fax (954) 468-3506 tional parking garage, a conven- Po rt Everglades, located in

58 Port of Houston, Texas tonnage, with an estimated 170 marsh, construction of rec re a t i o n- www.portofhouston.com million short tons handled in al boater access channels and Customer Service 1998. The Port earns $5.5 billion anchorages, construction and Tel (713) 670-2400 in annual business revenues, and restoration of island habitats, and Fax (713) 670-2614 an estimated 196,000 direct and restoration of oyster ree f s . in d i rect jobs are generated from ca rgo moving through the Port. Port of Long Beach, California The top imports are petrol e u m www.polb.com and petroleum products, crud e Robert Kanter fe rtilizers and minerals, iron and Manager of Environmental Planning steel, organic chemicals, and sug- Tel (562) 590-4154 ars. The top exports are petrol e u m Fax (562) 495-4925 and petroleum products, orga n i c Located in San Pedro Bay at the chemicals, cereals and cerea l mouth of the Los Angeles River, products, plastics, and animal or vegetable fat and oils. In recent years, the Port has The 25-mile long Port of expanded and added another Houston is a complex of both pub- wh a rf, extended its rail capacities, lic and private facilities. The Port added cranes, and opened a crui s e area includes the Houston Ship ship terminal. Current develop- Channel and its tributary channels ment plans include widening and and basins extending from deepening of the Houston Ship Mo rg a n ’s Point, at the Head of Channel. Throughout its develop- Galveston Bay, to and including a ment projects and operational tu rning basin within the city lim- activities, the Port Authority its of Houston; the Buffalo Bayou strives to pres e rve the integrity of the Port of Long Beach is the extending from the turning basin Galveston Bay. The Port of na t i o n ’s leading container port and to the Main Street Bridge; and the Ho u s t o n ’s Environmental Affa i r s the sixth busiest port in the world. Po rt facilities at Bayport on the De p a rtment, working with rep re- The majority of the Port’s trade west side of upper Galveston Bay. sentatives from both federal and passes through the Port on its way The public facilities—43 general state res o u rce protection agencies, to or from Asia. The Port has eight ca rgo wharves, six container has developed programs for using container handling terminals, five wh a rves, five liquid bulk wharve s , dredged material in beneficial of which have on-dock rail facili- and five dry bulk wharve s — a re ways and for better managing its ties. The largest container termi n a l located on the Houston Ship dredge material disposal sites, in the Port was opened in 1997. In Channel. They are owned and resulting in an increased capacity addition to containerized cargo, the operated by the Port of Houston of their existing confined disposal Po rt also has specialized facilities Au t h o r i t y, an autonomous politi- sites. A 220 acre salt marsh con- for handling liquid bulk, brea k- cal subdivision of Texas governe d st ructed by the Port serves as an bulk, dry bulk, and autos. by a board of seven appointed outdoor laboratory, and an envi- The Port of Long Beach is offi- co m m i s s i o n e r s . ronmental compliance program for cially recognized as the City of Over 5,000 vessels call at the po rt tenants has been established. Long Beach Harbor Departm e n t , Po rt ’s public and private termi n a l s The Port also has been involved in and is directed by the Long Beach each year, and it ranks as a number of restoration projects in Harbor Commissioners whose Am e r i c a ’s number one port in for- Galveston Bay, including con- members are appointed. The Port eign tonnage and second in total st ruction of 4,250 acres of salt receives no money from the city;

59 all revenue is generated from ter- lands as part of its habitat mitiga- Commissioners oversees the man- minal leases and Port fees. tion program, stormwater manage- agement and operations of the Port In 1998, 67 million short tons of ment and monitoring, water quali- of Los Angeles. Commissioners are ca rgo were handled by the Port ty monitoring for dredging and fill appointed by the Mayor and serve with a total value exceeding $80 projects, sediment evaluation and a five-year term. The Port is not billion. The Port handles tr a d i t i o n- protective disposal options for su p p o rted by municipal taxes, al breakbulk, neobulk, dry bulk, contaminated sediment, evalua- rather revenue is derived from ren t liquid bulk, and general cargo e s . tion of control measures for air and Port fees. The Port’s leading imports include pa rticulate emissions associated Los Angeles handles the Wes t bulk petroleum, electronics and with dry bulk cargo operations, an Co a s t ’s second largest cargo ton- electrical machinery, plastics al t e rnative fuels demonstration nage and is the eight busiest con- products, clothing, furni t u re, and project, and a brownfields proj e c t tainer port in the world. The Port ma c h i n e ry parts. The leading co n s t ructing a container termi n a l has eleven liquid bulk facilities, six ex p o rts include petroleum coke, on a former state superfund site. container facilities, four dry bulk bulk petroleum, chemicals, facilities, three automobile centers, wa s t e p a p e r, foods such as meat, Port of Los Angeles, California two omni facilities, and two brea k- fruits, and nuts, and machinery. www.pola.com bulk/neobulk facilities. The Port Trade through the Port generates Ralph Appy has direct links to two trans-conti- an estimated 260,000 trade-rel a t- Assistant Director of Environmental nental rail routes, a growing num- ed direct and indirect jobs—one in Management ber of on-dock rail facilities, a com- 30 regional jobs—in a five-county Tel (310) 732-3497 mon user intermodal yard, and region consisting of LA, Orange, Fax (310) 831-0439 high-tech information systems. A San Berna rdino, Riverside and The Port of Los Angeles was total value of $79.3 billion in cargo Ventura counties. The Port of Long established in 1907 and has since was handled by the Port in 1998. Beach is the grantee for Forei g n The top five imports at that time Trade Zone No. 50. included crude petroleum, petrol e- Th roughout its development um oils, iron and steel shapes, projects, the Port strives to main- ethers, bananas, and plantains. The tain compliance with state and top five exports were coal, petrol e- federal environmental reg u l a t i o n s , um coke, petroleum oils, iron and foster cooperation among parti c i- steel scrap, and waste paper. In pating groups, and enhance the addition, nearly one million people marine environment within the passed through the Port’s Wor l d Harbor District. The Port' s Cruise Center. En v i ronmental Planning section is In all of its development proj- responsible for protecting the nat- ects, the Port’s Environ m e n t a l ural res o u rces of the harbor area , grown into one of the largest ports Management department takes ensuring that Port operations com- in North America. Located in steps to minimize impacts to air, ply with environmental laws and So u t h e rn California, the Port of Los wa t e r, and land. Examples of the regulations, and supporting other Angeles extends for 35 miles along Po rt ’s environmental effo rt s Po rt divisions in permitting, envi- the waterfront. Over 2,500 vessels include use of a water-spray to ronmental contamination charac- call on the Port annually. The Port su p p ress coal dust during cargo terization, and cleanup, and other of Los Angeles is a department of transfer to maintain air quality areas. Environmental Planning is the City of Los Angeles, often st a n d a rds, transportation of cargo involved in several on-going pro- ref e rred to as the Los Angeles in enclosed conveyors to minimize grams, including the restoration of Harbor Department. The Los escape of the products, use of So u t h e rn California coastal wet- Angeles Board of Harbor dredged material from the channel

60 to res t o re shallow water habitat la rgest and busiest deep seaports , Port of Newport, Oregon and wetlands, participation in and is Del Monte’s largest US port www.portofnewport.com recycling programs; and use of fa c i l i t y. As a result, the Port has Maureen Keeler reduced emission diesel engines become a national leader in the Tel (541) 261-7758 and zero-emission electric and im p o rtation of frozen concentrated Fax (541) 265-4235 co m p ressed natural gas vehicles in orange juice and is rising in the Located in Yaquina Bay on the its transportation fleet. The Port im p o rtation of tropical fruits and central Oregon Coast, the Port of also recently fully funded the $55 vegetables. Other imports include Ne w p o rt provides shipping servi c- million restoration of Batiquitos vegetables, steel, and petrol e u m es to local, regional, and interna- Lagoon in San Diego County as products. Major exports from the tional vessels, moorage for com- mitigation for the construction of Po rt include phosphate, general me rcial and rec reational boats, and Pier 400. ca rgo, and container cargo. Port su p p o rt services. It is a deepwater Manatee also exports up to 24,000 po rt featuring a shipping termi n a l , Port Manatee, Florida used cars and trucks to Central co m m e rcial fishing moorage, and a www.portmanatee.com America each year. In 1998, 4.9 rec reational marina and science Bill Tiffany million short tons of cargo was ce n t e r. Director of Environmental Affairs handled by the Port. Ne w p o rt International Term i n a l , Tel (941) 722-6621 The Port has a number of expan- the Port’s shipping terminal, con- Fax (941) 729-1463 sion and enhancement proj e c t s sists of 17 acres of prop e rt y. proposed, all which exhibit the Facilities at the terminal include a Po rt ’s commitment to environ m e n- Ro l l - O n / R o l l - O ff concrete pad, a tal protection. They are curren t l y 265 foot wooden barge berth, a proposing a mitigation and man- ni n e - a c re log yard, and a agement plan to transplant sea storage/transit shed. Commerci a l grasses—prior to dredging—and to fishing is one of the major indus- enhance 420-acres of sea floor in tries that the Port supports . the bay, as well as a state-owned Moorage and support services are island and uplands currently not housed at the Port’s Bay Boulevard ca red for by anyone. The Port has a fa c i l i t y. Four-h u n d red and fifty co m p rehensive team of staff that fishing vessels can be accommo- pa t rols and examines every aspect dated at the Port at any one time. Po rt Manatee is located on of the Port's activities and the busi- The Port of Newport handles a Florida's West Coast at the entrance nesses to make sure that the cur- variety of activities, including of Tampa Bay and is the nearest US rent US EPA standards are met and shipping, res e a rch, and rec re a t i o n- deep water port to the Panama exceeded. The environmental com- al services. Because of these Canal. It is situated on 775 acres of mitment of the Port has earne d diverse functions, the Port was wa t e rf ront prop e rt y. The Port has them recognition from such orga n i- chosen as the site for a pilot proj- mo re than 5,400 linear feet of deep zations as the American ect to end marine debris prob l e m s water berthing, general and dry Association of Port Authorities, the at ports. The project has res u l t e d bulk cargo covered storage, cold Florida Department of in improved disposal effi c i e n c y storage, and liquid bulk storage. En v i ronmental Protection, and the and better-i n f o rmed mariners. Su p p o rt services include pilotage, Florida Division of Marine Other environmental projects at tugboats, stevedores, US Customs Re s o u rc e s . the Port include an oil collection Se rvice, custom house brok e r a g e , program and a program to press oil dockside fuel bunkering, and filters on-site. USDA services—to name a few. Po rt Manatee is one of Florida's

61 Port of New York/New Jersey Auto Marine Terminal is one of oped an innovative way to dispose www.panynj.gov the leading facilities in the US for of contaminated sediments by Thomas H. Wakeman automobile imports and exports , co n v e rting them to beneficial Dredging Program Manager handling over 400,000 vehicles reuse prod u c t s . Tel (212) 435-6618 each year. The Broo k l y n - P o rt Fax (212) 435-6030 Authority Marine Terminal com- Port of Portland, Oregon plex piers are used for wareh o u s- www.portofportland.org ing, bulk cargo handling and stor- Aaron Ellis age, and transient ship berth i n g . Public Relations The Howland Hook facility con- Tel (503) 944-7054 sists of 2,500 linear feet of berth Fax (503) 731-7080 space and has the capacity to handle 425,000 containers annually. The Newark/Elizabeth complex offers a full-range of other maritime services including major container handling termi n a l s , automobile processing and storage The Port of New York and New facilities, liquid and solid bulk ter- Jersey is the largest port complex minals, breakbulk facilities, ware- on the East Coast of North housing and distribution build- America. The Port consists of both ings, trucking firms, and an on- public and privately operated dock rail terminal. It is also the marine terminals that handle a site of Foreign Trade Zone No. 49. The Port of Portland is located at wide variety of cargo and passen- The Red Hook Container the confluence of the Columbia ger ships. The Port is operated and Terminal, located on the Broo k l y n and Willamette rivers in the Pacific maintained by the New Yor k / N e w wa t e rf ront, provides barge servi c e No rthwest. Portland is the third Jersey Port Authority, a bi-state to and from the Elizabeth-Port la rgest port and second largest vol- agency created in 1921. The Authority Marine Terminal and ume auto handling port on the Authority is directed by six com- has the capacity to handle deep West Coast. The Port of Portland is missioners from each state who draft vessels. a regional department of govern- are appointed to the agency’s The Port has a recognized rep u- ment formed by three separate Bo a rd of Commissioners tation for environmental prog r a m- Oregon counties. It is directed by a Nearly 5,000 ships called on ming, which according to US EPA nine member commission appoint- the Port in 1998, at which time it Region 2 rep resents "the most ed by the Governo r. The Port of handled about 63 million short extensive commitment by any Po rtland Marine Department is tons of general and bulk cargo . tr a n s p o rtation agency in the coun- responsible for channel dred g i n g , Im p o rts at the Port of New try to US EPA’s voluntary pollu- building public docks, acquiring York/New Jersey include alcoholic tion prevention effo rts." In 1998, it wa t e rf ront prop e rt y, and prom o t i n g beverages, organic chemicals, auto was recognized by US EPA for its world trade. vehicles and parts, cocoa beans, vo l u n t a ry conservation effo rt s , The Port owns five marine ter- and bananas. Exports include which include promotion of clean minals, four airports, the Portl a n d waste paper, lumber, plastic mate- ai r, alternative fuel vehicles, mass Ship Yard, six business parks, and rials, and paper and paperboard. transit and energy conserva t i o n the dredge OREGON. The marine The “Working Port” of New e ff o rts, as well as support for the te rminals offer industrial and ware- York and New Jersey is composed US EPA’s National Estuary housing operations, modern cargo of five regional terminals. The Program. The Port also has devel- te rminals, the largest grain elevator

62 on tide water west of the Port of San Diego, California dling more than 300,000 vehicles Mississippi River, mineral bulk www.portofsandiego.org a year and a major lumber import loading and storage facilities, auto Ruth Kolb fa c i l i t y. processing centers, and an inter- Tel (619) 686-6534 Fo reign vehicle imports rem a i n modal rail yard. Marine activities Fax (619) 686-6467 the strongest revenue source in at the Port generate more than $700 the Port’s maritime division. Other million in revenues for reg i o n a l im p o rts include lumber, cement, businesses. In 1998, 984 ships newsprint, and palm oil. Major called on the Port and it handled ex p o rts are soda ash, potash, and over 11 million short tons of cargo . sodium sulfate. Total tonnage han- Im p o rts include wheat, soda ash, dled by the Port in 1998 was 1.7 ba r l e y, and potash; exports include million short tons. alumina, limestone, cement, and En v i ronmental stewardship is sa l t . an important part of Port of San The Port is very proactive in Diego operations. The Port parti c i- en v i ronmental and natural pates in a number of real estate res o u rce programs, and is involved transactions intended to enhance with many environ m e n t a l The San Diego Unified Port and revitalize the environ m e n t . enhancement projects that include District was formed in 1963. The For example, the Port plans to reducing air emissions; rec y c l i n g Po rt district is comprised of Chula lease newly acquired land to the landscape debris, asphalt, and Vista, Coronado, Imperial Beach, US Fish and Wildlife Service to buildings; recycling non-potable National City, and San Diego. The create the largest wildlife and wet- water to rinse ships; improv i n g Po rt, directed by a seven-member land habitat pres e rve on the Bay. water quality in local lakes and appointed Board of The Port also has been involved st reams; creating wetlands; and Commissioners, oversees San with several environmental proj- using dredged sediment for benefi- Diego International Airport, tide- ects including a massive stormw a- cial uses. The Port’s Environ m e n t a l lands real estate activity, and mar- ter education and outreach pro- Affairs Department is constantly itime commerce. gram, management of urban run o ff looking to implement innovative The Port’s maritime commerce into San Diego Bay, installation of en v i ronmental projects. Proj e c t s is served by two major ocean oil-water separators at the airport, planned for the near future include ca rgo terminals, Tenth Ave n u e and the use of alternative fuel replacing petrol e u m - b a s e d Marine Terminal and National vehicles. The Port has collaborat- hydraulic fluids with non-toxic City Marine Terminal. Ten t h ed with local, state, and federal equipment lubricating fluid, using Avenue Marine Terminal handles agencies to produce several stud- non-potable well-water for irri g a t- most of the bulk and brea k b u l k ies to protect the Bay’s ecosystem ing common-area landscaping, and ca rgo including soda ash, cement, and to adopt a formal Integrated co n s t ructing new wetlands for fe rtilizers, cottonseed and Pest Management Policy. Such cooling ship engines. In addition to newsprint. This facility has ware- en v i ronmental projects allow the benefiting the environment, these houses and transit sheds, paved Po rt to balance economic develop- projects have benefited the eco- open space for laydown of steel ment with environmental pres e r- nomic activities of the Port by sav- and project cargo, 8 berths, three va t i o n . ing thousands of dollars in water liquid bulk storage tanks, an on- expenses, preventing prop e rt y site bunker fuel concession, and damage from floods, and increa s- an on-dock cold/freeze storage ing revenue from the sale of rec y- fa c i l i t y. The National City Marine cled dredged sediment. Terminal houses an automobile transfer facility capable of han-

63 Port of Savannah, Georgia include kaolin clay, linerboard, te rms of tonnage and rev e n u e , www.gaports.com woodpulp, and machinery. In making Washington the fifth Jamie McCurry 1998, 11.4 million short tons of la rgest exporting state in the Legislative Affairs ca rgo were handled by the Port in United States. The Port is a Tel (912) 964-3806 two-way trade. municipal corporation directed by Fax (912) 964-3615 GPA strives to be 100 perce n t a five-member elected commis- The Georgia Ports Authority en v i ronmentally compliant, main- sion. The Port owns 20 commer- (G PA) operates deepwater port tains an environmental staff, and cial marine terminals, including facilities in Savannah and has been involved in a number of six container terminals with 22 Brunswick, Georgia, and prov i d e s en v i ronmental projects. For exam- container cranes and 16 berths, an value added services to facilitate ple, the Port has made a commit- on-dock intermodal rail facility, in t e rnational trade. Inland barge ment to cleanup four of its sites and a 150 acre brea k b u l k / n e o b u l k te rminals operated under the aus- that are on the Georgia Hazardo u s complex with cold-storage. The pices of GPA are located in Sites Inventory (HSI) List. All four Po rt also operates Fisherma n ’s Bainbridge and Columbus. GPA is are in active remediation and two Terminal, a working commerci a l go v e rned by a nine-member board are in construction for major Port fishing port and an importa n t appointed by the Governo r. expansion. The Port is also in the public access site. GPA operates two deep water process of purchasing two brow n- In 1998, over 14 million short te rminals in Savannah. Everyd a y, field sites for future Port expan- tons valued at approximately $33 up to 30,000 containers arrive via sion—both sites are on the State billion passed through the Port in ship, truck or train at GPA facili- HSI List. Other projects include total two-way trade. The top ties in Savannah. The Garden City co n s t ruction and maintenance of ex p o rts from the Port included Terminal is located seven miles least tern nesting sites; beneficial beef, poultry, and pork, industrial west of downtown Savannah on resuse of dredge soils for beach equipment, paper, and motor vehi- the Savannah River. The termi n a l erosion, dikes, and roadways; and cle parts. The top imports were occupies 838-acres and houses a extensive wetland mitigation. clothing, office and DP machine co n t a i n e r-handling facility featur- pa rts, motor vehicle parts, and ing seven continuous berths, 13 Port of Seattle, Washington video games. container cranes, and Roll- www.portseattle.org The Port is participating in sev- On / R o l l - O ff ramps. Garden City David Aggerholm eral projects that combine eco- te rminal also is equipped with a Health, Safety, & Environmental Manager nomic development with environ- cold storage facility and a paved Tel (206) 728-3000 mental restoration. For instance, container yard. The terminal han- Fax (206) 728-3252 the Port is developing industrial dles liquid bulk cargoes, conven- land in the Southwest Harbor by tional general cargoes, and proj e c t capping contaminated soil and by ca rgoes. A liquid facility offers 2.2 adding fish and wildlife habitat million barrel storage capacity. and public access areas. This Ocean Terminal is a 208-acre gen- development will increase the eral and container cargo termi n a l container cargo capacity of the located in downtown Savannah. It Po rt and ensure the integrity of fe a t u res 10 berths, open storage, the natural res o u rces of the har- co v e red storage, one container bo r. Other environmentally con- crane, five gantry cranes, and 32 scious projects led by Port envi- reefer outlets. ronmental specialists include a Pr i m a ry imported cargo e s newly created intertidal slough include iron and steel, woodpulp, The Port of Seattle is the fifth and a redesigned pier that ret a i n s fo o d s t u ff, and machinery; exports la rgest container port in the US in existing fish habitat.

64 Port of Toledo, Ohio the Toledo-Lucas Port Authority shalling yards. The Port offe r s www.toledoportauthority.org fo rmed a partnership with the City facilities for public use, such as a John Loftus of Toledo and a prop e rty owner to hotel and restaurant and a public Seaport Director ad d ress environmental contamina- dock with moorings and an Tel (419) 243-8251 tion problems on a parcel outside am p h i t h e a t e r. In 1998, about 5.4 Fax (419) 243-1835 of the Port’s jurisdiction and to million short tons of total cargo The Port of Toledo is located at build an overpass to improve traf- we re handled at the Port. Imports the Mouth of the Maumee River fic conditions around the Port. include automobiles, steel prod- on Lake Erie. It is a full-servi c e The cleanup and overpass were ucts, dry bulk, liquid bulk, alu- po rt and the most diversified completed in 1998. minum, and cement. Exports ca rgo handling port on the Grea t include grain, woods prod u c t s , Lakes. It was the first port to Port of Vancouver, Washington aluminum, steel products, and establish a Foreign Trade Zone on www.portvanusa.com paper products. the Great Lakes and the first Heidi Rosenberg The Port’s mission statement ap p roved cargo delivery ware- Environmental Affairs Manager speaks to its environmental com- house for London Metal Exchange. Tel (360) 992-1118 mitment in that it continues to In addition, in 1996, the Port rev i- Fax (360) 735-1565 pa rticipate in projects that will talized cruise ship activity for the create economic development and Great Lakes. maximize environmental prot e c- Vessels of up to 800 feet can be tion. Curren t l y, the Port is improv- dry-docked at the Tol e d o ing its storm drainage systems at Sh i p y a rd. The Port has an over- its operating facilities. Wor k i n g seas cargo center that is located with the City of Van c o u v e r, the along one mile of wharf. Ships Washington Department of Health, calling on the Port use the center the Washington Department of to discharge and load a variety of Ec o l o g y, and Port tenants, the Port general, dry, and liquid bulk car- wants to ensure that the storm goes. Warehouse and storage space drain upgrades meet or exceed is available, and the entire Port is reg u l a t o ry req u i rements. The Port designated as an approved Forei g n The Port of Vancouver is locat- also recently received approval to Trade Zone. Three grain termi n a l s ed 106 miles from the Pacific use formerly contaminated soil as at the Port have 22 million bushel Ocean along the north shore of the embankment fill in the Port’s main capacity for storing corn, soy- Columbia River. Since its estab- entrance. Up to 14,000 cubic yards beans, and wheat prior to exporta- lishment as a state port in 1912, of soil contaminated with tion. Coal and iron are the large s t the Port has grown from a center tr i c h l o roethylene—a toxic chemi- im p o rted commodity, making for shipbuilding into the trans- cal used as an industrial solvent Toledo one of the largest coal and po rtation center of the Pacific by a former Port tenant—was iron ore ports in the world. In No rthwest. The Port has 600 acres treated and cleaned with soil 1997, the Port handled 13.5 mil- of developed industrial and vapor extraction technology. lion short tons of cargo . marine prop e rty and 1080 acres of Cleaning and reusing this soil is The Port’s environmental com- additional land. The Port is gov- an important part of an ongoing mitment includes the formation of erned by three elected commis- remediation project at the Port. a long-term dredge management sioners who serve six year terms . program and a soil conserva t i o n The Port maintains berth i n g management program. The Port space for thirteen vessels, dock- also has actively participated in side warehousing, a bulk storage brownfields restoration. In 1996, wa rehouse, open storage, and mar-

65 A M E R I C A’S GREEN PORT S R E F E R E N C E S

American Association of Port Authorities. 1998. Washington DC. 355 pp. Environmental Management Handbook. Prepared US EPA. 1998. Taking Toxics Out of the Air. by Camp Dresser & McKee for AAPA. Alexandria, Progress in Setting “Maximum Achievable VA. Control Technology” Standards. EPA/451/K-98- Brillat, T.H., M. Liffman. 1991. The Implications of 001. Environmental Protection Agency, Marpol Annex V on the Management of ports and Washington, DC. coastal communities. Coastal Man. 19(3): 37-390. US EPA. 1997. Managing for Better Environmental CEE. 1987. Plastics in the Ocean: More than a Litter Results. EPA/100-R-97-004. Environmental Problem. Prepared by the Center for Environment Protection Agency. Washington, DC. Education (now known as the Center for Marine US EPA. 1996. Boating Pollution Prevention Tips. Conservation) for US EPA. 128 pp. EPA/420-F-96-003. Environmental Protection Dahl, T.E. 1990. “Wetland losses in the United Agency, Washington, DC. States: 1780s to 1980s.” Washington, DC. US EPA. 1992. Plastic Pellets in the Aquatic [http://www.npwrc.usgu.gov/resource.orthrda- Environment: Sources and Recommendations. ta/wetloss/wetloss.htm] EPA/842-B-92-010. Environmental Protection Hall-Arber, M. 1991. Water Pollution and Water Agency, Washington, DC. Quality in the Massachusetts Coastal Zone. MIT US EPA. 1990. Methods to Manage and Control Sea Grant College Program (ISBN: 1-56172-005- Plastics. Report to Congress. EPA/530-SW-89-051. 4). Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, Klemm, B., and D. Wendt. 1990. Beach Confetti. Sea DC. Frontiers (3-4): 28-29. US EPA. 1989. Report to Congress on the New York McGregor, G.I. 1994. Environmental Law and Bight Plastic Study. Environmental Protection Enforcement. CRC Press Inc., Boca Raton, FL. Agency, Washington, DC. NRC. 1994. Restoring and Protecting Marine US EPA website [http://www.epa.gov] Habitat: The Role of Engineering and Technology. US Senate. 1987. Committee on Commerce, Science (ISBN 0-309-04843-5) National Academy Press, and Transportation, National Ocean Policy Study Washington, DC. 193 pp. hearing concerning Disposal of Plastic Wastes in NRC. 1995. Clean Ships, Clean Ports, Clean Oceans: the Marine Environment, July 27 and 29. Controlling Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea. Including testimony by Leach, R.P., chairman, (ISBN 0-309-05137-1) National Academy Press, American Association of Port Authorities.

Citations for federal statutes referenced in this document Coastal Zone Management Act (16 USC 1451-1465, (16 USC 1431-1445a, 1974, as amended through 1972, as amended through 1996) 1996) Comprehensive Environmental Response, Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 USC 703-712, 1918 as Compensation, and Liability Act (42 USC 9601- amended through 1989) 9675, 1980 as amended through 1996) National Environmental Policy Act 1969 (42 USC Endangered Species Act (16 USC §§ 1531-1544, 4321-4347, 1970, as amended through 1994) 1973, as amended through 1988) National Fishing Enhancement Act of 1984 (33 USC Federal Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C 7401-7671q, 1955, 2101) as amended through 1996) Oil Pollution Act 1990 (33 USC 2701-2761, 1990, as Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water amended through 1996) Act)(33 USC 1251-1387, 1972, as amended Pollution Prevention Act 1990 (42 USC 13101 and through 1996) 13102) Fish, Wildlife, Coordination Act (16 USC 661 et seq, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 1976 (42 1934 as amended through 1995) USC 6901-6992k, 1976, as amended through 1996) Marine Mammal Protection Act (16 USC 1361- Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 1421h, 1972, as amended through 1996) (33 USC 401 et seq) Marine Plastics Pollution Research and Control Act Toxic Substances Control Act (15 USC 2601-2692, 1988 (33 USC 1901-1912) 1976, as amended through 1995) Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act