Cayuga Inlet Dredge Material:

Opportunities for Restoring Ecosystem Functions & Services

Fall 2011 Cornell University Restoration Ecology Class Report

Table of Contents:
Introduction:
Ben Hedstrom

Executive Summary Project Introduction

Tim Lynch

4 Methane Production in Inlet 5 9

Methane Analysis:

Brick Production
Amy McLean

47 49 50 51

Jack Mascharka, Rebecca Montross, Nadia Pierrehumbert

Sediments: Spatial Variability and 30 Alternatives for Mitigation

Lightweight Aggregate
Amy McLean Amy McLean

Cement Lock

Watershed:
Matthew Gonser

Hydrilla verticillata:

Southern Cayuga Lake Watershed

Managing Hydrilla verticillata for the 36 Cayuga Inlet

Trinity Boisvert & Yong Seuk Peter Kwon

Dry Sites: Introduction

Matthew Horvath

Dredge Material Analysis:

Dredge Material
Jamie Nassar & Hayden Stebbins

Dryden Site Plan Communities

Becky Mikulay, Jamie Nassar & Hayden Stebbins

16 Alternatives & Reference Becky Mikulay Sites: Introduction 44 Times Beach: Buffalo, NY 26 Gene Fifer Andrew Miller
Industrial Products: Introduction
Matthew Horvath

Cornell Lake Source Cooling Project: Dryden, NY 52

53 54 56
2

Cuyahoga River & Dike 14: Cleveland, OH 45 Andrew Miller

Synthetic Soils
Becky Mikulay

46 Ithaca, NY

Dredge Infill Project at Stewart Park:

Becky Mikulay

Dredge Infill Project at Cass Park: Ithaca, NY 58

Becky Mikulay

Appendices:

A: Landslide Susceptibility Analysis Methods B Soil Health Test Results C: Dryden Site Species Curves

67 68 69 72

Wetland Sites: Introduction

Gene Fifer

59

Manning and Cowett Proposal at 60 Stewart & Cass Park

Amy McLean

Acknowledgments:

Poplar Island: Chesapeake Bay, MD

Amy McLean

62 64

Living Shorelines: St. Michaels, MD

Amy McLean

Montezuma National Wildlife Refuge: 65 Seneca Falls, NY

Gene Fifer

Catherine Creek Natural Area: Watkins Glen, NY

Gene Fifer

66
3

Executive Summary:
Ben Hedstrom (consisting of undergraduate and graduate students in the schools of Earth Systems Science, Natural and Environmental Systems, Landscape Architecture, and City and Regional Planning) spent the Fall 2011 semester investigating the Cayuga Inlet Dredging Project and the complications it has faced with the discovery of Hydrilla verticillata. Doctor Thomas Whitlow of the Cornell University Department of Horticulture led this course. Our report includes findings from studies on local dredge material, Hydrilla, the southern Cayuga Lake watershed, and several case studies on successful projects involving the productive reuse of dredge material. Dredge Material At the Cornell Soil Health Lab, we analyzed samples of local dredge material for many qualities including toxicity and potential use as a plant growing or structural material. While restricted access to the inlet was a limitation to our study, our findings conclude that this material is not generally hazardous and the existing nutrient levels are self-stabilizing. There do however appear to be local hotspots for lead so it is not a recommend-

Our Restoration Ecology class

ed medium for food production. With more intensive testing, and mixing it with other soil or compost, much of the material could potentially be used in this way. Previous studies have indicated that the dredge material is a silty-clay, but we have found it is actually more a sandy-loam. This material contains a higher percentage of organic material than was expected and has the ability to support terrestrial plant species similar to those found on a 12-year old dredge disposal site in Dryden. The material we tested has low aggregate stability and would make a poor structural material. Additionally, we measured the dredge materials potential to release methane into the atmosphere. The overall anthropogenic impact would be small compared to releases from local dairy operations, even given the largest scope of the dredging project. Hydrilla verticillata Samples of Hydrilla verticillata were tested over a period of several weeks for desiccation tolerance to understand the species survival ability in dewatered dredge material. Generally, our tests indicate that short term desiccation alone cannot kill Hydrilla. A management plan for Hydrilla eradication should absolutely be made in conjunction

to the plan to dredge the inlet. Given that some reports indicate Hydrilla can live for up to five years in dry material, the current plan to store dewatering dredge material for one year with subsequent use across the landscape has a great potential to proliferate the infestation in waterways throughout the county. Solarization, a method of soil sterilization beneath plastic sheeting, is potentially more effective at killing Hydrilla than mere drying. Simultaneously, certain areas of the inlet should potentially be managed individually, namely Cascadilla Creek. Under the conditions encountered this October, our light extinction readings show that below 2.5 feet, light intensity is below the light compensation point and would be unlikely to support vigorous stands of Hydrilla. However, since Cascadilla Creek and the small tributary creek across the Inlet in Cass Park are shallow and generally have clear water, they are more prone to infestation and a separate management plan should be created for any dredge material from these areas. Our Local Watershed Sedimentation in the inlet is a natural geomorphologic process that has existed since the end of the glacial retreat. Human
Introduction

activity has accelerated the pre-settlement condition. Replacing our native flood plain and wetland habitats at the outfalls of tributaries at the south end of the lake with paved or turf surfaces, and stripping stream edges of bank-stabilizing vegetation for development over the past century decreases functionality to the already accreting system. While our analysis of area forest cover levels indicate that there may be slightly lower levels of sediment in the future due to decreasing levels of farming, history has shown that sedimentation will continue to occur. Dating back to the sand bar that was removed from the inlet at the beginning of the nineteenth century to allow boat traffic, dredging has been a part of Ithacas history and will remain so as long as humans need to navigate the waterfront. Our recent tendency to defer maintenance demonstrates that perhaps a lack of action is the most significant effect of humans on the inlet. At this time, we have a chance and a duty to make human actions that attempt to relieve this situation and instigate a plan that works with the evident natural process. Our report provides several practical and successful examples of productive dredge use and restoration projects that collectively describe opportunities to:

Use the dredge material in ecologically and economically productive ways. Define an efficient plan for the future that understands sedimentation in the inlet as a persistent issue. Increase project innovation utilizing the expertise of diverse agencies and levels of government. While we probably do not need to restore the channel to its original configuration for the maximum potentials of navigability, recreation, and flood-control, our legacy to the Cayuga Inlet Dredging Project should aim to create a better situation than the one that has materialized. Potentially a wetland site, with small cells that could easily be monitored and solarized, with installation of a silt fence to retain Hydrilla from other parts of the lake, remains the most viable option. Similar to Poplar Island, but on a much smaller scale, this plan has the highest ability to confine the material, while creating a new species habitat and still limiting the distance material would travel.

If we dont allow someone to try something to see if it works, how will we move ahead? Mark Sudol USACOE Regulatory Program Chief Science Magazine, April 2008

Introduction

Project Introduction:
Tim Lynch and approval stage for a dredging project that will remove accumulated sediment from the inlet. The inlet consists of the Cascadilla Creek, Cayuga Inlet and the Flood Control Works. These three entities perform a variety of ecological, infrastructural, commercial and recreational functions. The Army Corps of Engineers has estimated that a total of 660,000 cubic yards of sediment have accumulated within the channels. The City will be collaborating with multiple agencies including the US Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and the New York State Canal Corporation (NYSCC). The city is currently planning a dewatering facility to be located on a 23-acre portion of city owned land behind Lowes and Wal-Mart known as the Southwest Site. This Sediment Management Facility (SMF)

The City of Ithaca is in the planning

will use earthen berms to create multiple cells for the processing of dredge material at different stages of dewatering. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) prepared for the City by Ecologic LLC estimates that the SMF would have an annual processing capacity of 80,000 cubic yards. The DEIS proposes utilizing this material for a variety of beneficial re-uses including habitat restoration and being mixed with yard waste to produce topsoil. The City does not currently have a firm plan for the beneficial re-use of material. The city plans to construct the SMF beginning in the spring of 2012 and begin the first stage of the project with the dredging of an estimated 25,000 cubic yards of sediment from the Cascadilla Creek section of the Inlet. The DEIS submitted by the City of Ithaca in November of 2011 involves this initial stage of the larger planned project and the related construction of the SMF.

Report

This report was produced by Cornell University students as part of a semester long study of the dredge project as part of a Restoration Ecology (HORT 4400) class taught by Professor Tom Whitlow. The report intends to summarize the findings of the class research on this subject, to provide the Ithaca Community with information pertinent to the dredge project, to investigate the possible beneficial uses of the dredge material and to add to the body of knowledge related to the aquatic invasive Hydrilla verticillata. Regional Geologic History The processes of erosion and sedimentation have been an integral part of the natural history of the central NY region. Prior to the Ice Age, the Finger Lakes were north flowing rivers that were fed by a series of perpendicular streams. The rivers were

Our Class Visit to the Southwest Dewatering Site, September 2011

Introduction

deepened and widened by the glaciers and the stream valleys were filled with glacial debris. Since the retreat of the glaciers, these streams have been constantly moving this debris into the lake and have formed the gorges unique to the area.

of large areas of cattails and other aquatic plants. Decades of filling, bulwark construction and channelization created the inlet in its current form.

Control Channel that was begun 30 years later in 1965 and completed in 1970. A major dredge in 1982 removed over 200,000 yards of material that was used to create the Hogs Hole Natural Wildlife Area in Allen H. Treman Marine Park. In 1999 the ACOE removed 75,000 CY from the flood control channel. Dredging Process The current plan for the inlet dredging is to use a hydraulic dredge rather than the mechanical dredge method used for the Lake Source Project. Hydraulic dredging is a vacuum process that mixes water with the material to create a slurry mix that has the ability to be pumped. There are cost advantages to this method and it reduces the immediate trucking of material. The primary disadvantage is that it requires an extended period of time and a large site for the dewatering process. Lake Source Cooling Precedent Project Also in 1999, Cornell University dredged 3,000 CY of material from the southeast of Cayuga Lake as part of the Lake Source Cooling project. This project used a clamshell dredge to mechanically remove material. This allowed the dewatering to occur within hours on shore in containers. The
Introduction

Renwick Marsh, 1906 (Ithaca Historical Society)

Inlet History and Flooding During the nineteenth and earlytwentieth centuries the inlet experienced a massive amount of man-made alterations. Significant de-forestation of the area led to soil destabilization and subsequent erosion within the watershed as well to as an increase in flood occurrence and damage. At the same time, development of the floodplain continued into Renwick Marsh, now known as Tompkins Park. At the turn of the twentieth-century, the marsh consisted

Dredge in Cayuga Inlet near Cascadilla Creek, early 1900s (Ithaca Historical Society)

Dredging History Over the last two centuries the inlet has been dredged and re-configured as part of different projects that aimed to improve navigability and in attempt to control the common occurrence of flooding. Between 1860 and 1900 the inlet was dredged on several occasions to maintain a depth of seven feet. Between 1910 and 1965 the inlet was dredged every 20-25 years. The severe flood of 1935 set in motion the plans for the Flood

material was then truck transported to a site in Dryden. Dredge Material The class was able to use the Dryden site to test the different properties of the dredge material using the existing material as a control subject. Samples collected from the Six Mile Creek Reservoir and the inlet itself were also tested. Testing included analyzing plant species at the two Dryden plots as well as numerous testing on all samples to analyze physical, biological and chemical properties of materials from different dredge sites. These experiments sought to determine the ability of these different dredge materials as plant growth mediums. Methane The dredging project will be removing anaerobic sediments from the inlet. These sediments contain methane and the disturbance has the potential to release this greenhouse gas into the atmosphere. Using sediment samples collected from various locations in the inlet the class conducted experiments to determine the level of potential methane release and looked at the feasibility of potential mitigation methods.

Hydrilla verticillata The recent discovery of the aquatic invasive Hydrilla verticillata proposes additional challenges to the Ithaca Inlet. The highly invasive species has to potential to create major disruption to the ecology of the inlet and Cayuga Lake and to have a negative impact on the recreational industry in the area. Hydrilla spreads easily and has the ability to regenerate from small plant fragments. The potential for dredging to spread Hydrilla from its current locations is a cause for concern. Following the August discovery of hydrilla in multiple locations in the Inlet, the City put together a task force to deal with this issue. The locations were mapped and beginning in September the inlet was closed to boat traffic. In October the aquatic herbicide Aquathol K was applied in the affected areas. Over the next several months the City will continue monitor the known stands of Hydrilla. This report will summarize the studies into the reproduction, survivability and the possible management of Hydrilla within the inlet.

References Armstrong, Victoria. A Cultural History Survey of the Cayuga Waterfront. Print. Ithaca Dredging Project Website. EcoLogic LLC. EcoLogic LLC, Nov. 2011. Web. 11 Dec. 2011. <http://www.ecologicllc.com/ithacadredging.html>. Ithaca, NY - Parks. Official Website of Ithaca, NY. City of Ithaca. Web. 11 Dec. 2011. <http://www.ci.ithaca.ny.us/parks/index. cfm>. Lawyer, Liz. Hydrilla Treatment Starts in Cayuga Inlet. Ithaca Journal [Ithaca, NY] 11 Oct. 2011. Print. New York State Geology - Page 4. Museum of the Earth. Paleontological Research Institution. Web. 11 Dec. 2011. <http://www.priweb.org/ed/finger_lakes/ nystate_geo4.html>. Wiedorn, William S. The Plans for the Development of Stewart Park. Ithaca: Cornell University, NY. Print. Thesis

Introduction

Southern Cayuga Lake Watershed

Matthew Gonser
KEYNOTES: (1) The Lake is an accreting system a. In-stream and channel erosion and sedimentation is the result of large-scale geomorphologic processes, a geologic legacy of glaciations b. Human land use practices have historically aggravated upland soil erosion contributing to sediments in the hydrologic system, a process known as legacy sediment development (2) Accretion is a natural process (modified by human activity) and unlikely mitigated (3) Continuous sedimentation creates a maintenance issue (4) Sediment in the inlet is a resource: SPOILS SOILS

South Cayuga Lake Inlet Complex

(Figure 2.1.a-c), from large bodies of water and their surrounding environments (1), the waterways that flow through them (2), and the geologic matrix that composes the edges and bottoms of the hydrologic channels (3). A watershed is the upslope area that drains to a specific point, typically the outlet of a stream, river, or lake or the point where a lower order stream meets a higher order stream (Hollingshead, Anderson, and Haith, 2008.). The South Cayuga Lake Inlet Complex is fed by four (4) subwatersheds: Cayuga Inlet, Buttermilk

Watersheds operate at several scales

Creek, Six Mile Creek, and Cascadilla Creek (Figure 2.2 The four subwatersheds that feed the South Cayuga Lake Inlet Complex (hillshade vertical exaggeration 5x)). Cayuga Inlet is the second-largest in area, receives flows from Treman State Park and outlets through the Flood Control Channel. Buttermilk Creek is the smallest in area, flows through Buttermilk Falls State Park, and outlets into the Flood Control Channel. Six Mile Creek is the largest in area, provides the citys drinking water supply, and is channelized through its lower reaches through South Ithaca. Cascadilla Creek is the second smallest in area, runs through Collegetown, Downtown, and outlets into the inlet at the Farmers Market.

To understand the process of sedimentation in the Cayuga Inlet system it is necessary to step back, look upstream and consider what the contributors to the system are. Through a watershed approach it is possible to qualify what the hydrologic and material inputs are and ask whether it is possible to prevent the sediments from entering the system, thus reducing the need for dredging maintenance. As found through this investigation sedimentation in the inlet is the legacy of geologic and glacial processes, with contributions from human activity in recent history. These effects are observed today and the ability to influence and/or reduce them is unlikely.
Figure 2.1 a Figure 2.1 b Figure 2.1 c

Watershed

Table 2.1 - Sediments potential impact on water resources (adapted: G/FLRPC and EcoLogic, 2001a, Table 3.1.1, p.3-2)

Pollutant
Sediment: - From Natural erosion of stream channels, construction, urban runoff, gravel operations, agriculture, logging, hydromodification

Impact
On Fisheries: - Decreases transmission of light, which affects plant production (food and cover), behavioral activities (nesting, feeding, mating), respiration, digestion, reproduction - Increases surface water temperature, which decreases dissolved oxygen concentration in water - Decreases spawning habitat (fills pools and nest sites) - Transports absorbed contaminants On Water Supply: - Damages water treatment pumps, equipment - Increases treatment costs - Reduces reservoir volume - Toxic substances may adhere to sediment - Nutrients increase, which stimulates algae growth - Decreases river bottom infiltration, which reduces well yield On Wetlands: - Reduces flood storage - Increases peak discharge - Alters habitat On Recreation: - Decreases clarity of water (public health and safety) - Reduces aesthetic and recreational value - Reduces sport fishing populations

Figure 2.2 - The Four Watersheds that Feed South Cayuga Lake Inlet

Sedimentation Contributors to the South Cayuga Lake Inlet Complex

The proximate cause of sedimentation in the inlet system is erosion. Erosion is the process by which soils are worn away by wind, water, and other natural agents; human activity can aggravate this process. However, the ultimate cause of sedimentation in the inlet system is the geologic legacy of glaciations and a period of legacy sediment development in the recent history of European settlement in the area (ca. 1790). The Cayuga Lake Watershed Restoration and Protection Plan (2001) and the Cayuga Inlet Dredging Project Site Reconnaissance Report (2010) identified sediment (erosion of stream beds and banks, and not current land use practices) as the most-signification non-point source (NPS) pollutant affecting Cayuga Lake and its tributary streams. Sediment, as a pollutant, has several impacts on water resources (Table 2.1): The concept of legacy sediments identifies sediment eroded from upland areas after and during centuries of intensive land uses. Deposited in valley bottoms along stream corridors, legacy sediments bury pre-settlement streams, floodplains, wetlands, and valley

bottoms (Figure 2.3 Diagram of legacy sediment development (Maryland piedmont floodplain development model. Jacobson, B.D. and Colemen, D.R. 1986. Figure 7: 635)). They alter and continue to impair the hydrologic, biologic, aquatic, riparian, and water quality functions of pre-settlement and modern environments (Hartranft, n.d.). The period of greatest legacy sediment development in Tompkins County occurred between 1790 (i.e., approximate period of major European settlement) and 1900. From a 1790 baseline figure for forest cover of nearly 100%,
Watershed

10

1940 Cover

Two other major contributors are roadbanks and streambanks (Figure 2.5.a-b Streambank and roadbank erosion following Tropical Storm Lee, Banks Rd., Six Mile Creek, Ithaca NY (30 September 2011 Photo: M. Gonser)) . Roadside ditches are sources of sedimentation and erosion. Generally, the closer they are to the lake the more erosion is occurring mainly due to steep gradients from the upland portions of the watershed down to the lake (G/FLRPC and EcoLogic, 2001a, p.14). With the exception of the Buttermilk and Cascadilla

Figure 2.5 a - Roadbank erosion

2011 Cover

Figure 2.3 - Diagram of legacy sediment development

Figure 2.4 - Canopy cover of South Cayuga Lake area

forest cover dropped to 19% by 1900 (Smith, Marks, and Gardescu, 1993). However, this percentage increased to 28% in 1938 and 50% by 1980 (Figure 2.4 Canopy cover of the South Cayuga Lake area). This fact indicates that the majority of forests in Tompkins County today are post-agricultural, and of these reforested areas

it is predominantly on the steeper lakeside and streamside slopes rather than the flatter uplands (Smith et al., 1993). Yet, the impacts of the historical forest clearance are being felt today, as legacy sediments are transferred downstream including the inlet complex, and are mostly irremediable.

Figure 2.5 b - Streambank erosion

Watershed

11

In the southern tributaries of Cayuga Lake, the primary source of sediment appears to be streambank erosion, not runoff from construction sites or cultivated fields (G/FLRPC and EcoLogic, LLC. 2001a, p.2). The southern portions of Tompkins County are generally steeper and less amenable to agriculture. The Cayuga Inlet is characterized as very severe and contains some of the highest stream ranks in the watershed (Figure 2.6 Erosion classification by subwatershed: Streambank Inventory and Average Stream Rank (G/FLRPC and Ecologic, 2001a, Map 3.4.3)). Though qualitatively ranked, is it possible to quantify the material flows through the South Cayuga Lake Inlet Complex?

Soil Mass Loading/Wasting

The Cayuga Lake Generalized Watershed Loading Function Geospatial Database (GWLF) (Haith and Shoemaker, 1987) was designed to quantify factors associated with non-point source (NPS) pollutants in the Cayuga Lake watershed at the landscape scale. The database contains information on land use, land cover, soil characteristics, climate, sewer and septic systems, impervious surfaces, and topography for the entire Cayuga Lake watershed. Focusing the model on the four (4) subwatersheds of the Cayuga Inlet system we can extract the following sediment yield estimates (Table 2.2):

Table 2.2 - Sediment yield estimates per subwatershed generated by the GWLF (Haith and Shoemaker, 1987)

Subwatershed
Figure 2.6 - Erosion classification by subwatershed
Buttermilk Creek Cascadilla Creek Cayuga Inlet Six Mile Creek Totals

Sediment Yield Estimates (kg/ha/yr)

49 40 91 54 234

Area (ha)
2942 3451 10,336 13,306 30,035 7,028,190 kg/yr

Creek watersheds, the southern subwatersheds have numerous road ditches classified as very severe. Six Mile Creek roadbanks are areas of concern, with numerous sites documented as moderately eroded or severely eroded. Cayuga Inlet appears to have serious roadbank erosion. G/FLRPC and Ecologic (2001a) found a number of road ditches documented as having moderate or severe erosion problems, and a few very severe sites.

Watershed

12

These numbers, though not necessarily equating to sedimentation in the inlet itself, are useful when considering maintenance and management regimes in light of the current issue of deferred maintenance, and this and future dredging projects. That is, this model can be applied to an approximate mass balance of the inlet system, quantifying the inputs and outputs against some time component (i.e., number of years of dredging project or frequency of maintenance dredging). With known erosion classifications and sedimentation estimates for the four (4) subwatersheds the next question is are certain places more susceptible and is it possible to intervene? One measure of such soil mass wasting events is landslide susceptibility. In general, a landslide is the downward movement of a slope and materials under the force of gravity. As may be expected with the topography of the local gorge channel systems there is potential for stream bank and wall failures resulting in greater-than-normal erosion. The team conducted a landslide susceptibility analysis adapted from a USGS/ NYSGS preliminary landslide analysis algorithm (NYS Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Services, 2007). The two inputs into the model are slope and soil conditions, from which six (6) weighted factors are derived and used to determine a hazard range. The factors are derived from two (2) data sources: digital elevation models (DEMs) (1) slope;

USDA SSURGO Digital Soil Survey (2) American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) soil classification, (3) liquid limit, (4) hydrologic group, (5) physical soil properties (as % silt and clay), and (6) hazard of erosion (see Appendix X for an abridged methodology). The resultant output (Figure 2.7 Landslide susceptibility for the four (4) South Cayuga Lake subwatersheds (hillshade exaggeration 5x)) illustrates that the areas highest hazard zones are along gorge channels and stream banks. As previously noted, these fragile systems undergo a natural erosion process that is unlikely to be influenced through human intervention.

However, this model is merely a depicted of the susceptibility of land to mass wasting and is not a determination of occurrence. Though the landslide susceptibility analysis is useful in identifying areas of concern, field checks are necessary for validation. Current canopy cover (estimated at 55-60%), which suggests slope stability, qualitatively appears to correspond with the areas of higher landslide susceptibility indicating that land cover and use is an important additional factor to consider, and is a condition that is perhaps improving (Figure 2.8 Current canopy cover within the four (4) South Cayuga Lake subwatersheds with hydrography).

Figure 2.7 - Landslide susceptibility for the four (4) South Cayuga Lake subwatersheds (hillshade exaggeration 5x)

Figure 2.8 - Current canopy cover within the four (4) South Cayuga Lake subwatersheds with hydrography

Watershed

13

Mass Balance Maintenance and Management Regime

The issue surrounding the inlet system is an extended period of deferred maintenance. As a naturally accreting system, the inlet experiences annual sediment inputs that either fall out of solution in the inlet or are transported to the lake (Figure 2.9 Sediment plume in South Cayuga Lake, 1993 (G/FLRPC and Ecologic, 2001a, Figure 4.2.8)). This sedimentation necessitates dredging of the material to ensure the ecosystem services of navigation and recreation within the inlet. So, what does this all mean? What has

Figure 2.9 - Sediment plume in South Cayuga Lake, 1993 (G/FLRPC and Ecologic, 2001a, Figure 4.2.8)

been learned from the investigation of sediment inputs and the specifications of the Cayuga Inlet Dredging Project? The GWLF estimates 7,028,190 kg/yr of sediments move through the South Cayuga Lake Inlet Complex. This equates to approximately 4,167 yd3 annually. Though this volume is not all deposited in the inlet complex, it provides a conservative number to conduct a mass balance of the inputs versus the outputs over some period of time. The high-end estimate for material needed to be dredged is 660,000 yd3. Given that the decided upon dewatering site at Southwest Park has a capacity to process 80,000 yd3/yr, if conducted on a continuous schedule, the dredging project will take over 8 years. During that time the inlet will accumulate additional material (though not the total estimate of 4,167 yd3/yr ). That means the net removal of material will not actually be 80,000 yd3/yr, thus extending the timeframe of the dredging project. These rough calculations demonstrate the limitations of the dewatering facility and suggest that alternative processing methods in conjunction with the site at Southwest Park should be investigated accelerating the extraction of material and potentially demonstrating other beneficial re-uses of dredged material. The ultimate challenge is to develop a continued maintenance and management regime for dredging and the dredged material.

Conclusions and Lessons Learned

This section posed the questions of what the hydrologic and material inputs to the inlet system are. Additionally, it sought to articulate whether anything could be done about preventing sediments from reaching the South Cayuga Lake Inlet Complex. From the findings presented above, there are four (4) main conclusions: (1) The Lake is an accreting system a. In-stream and channel erosion and sedimentation is the result of largescale geomorphologic processes, a geologic legacy of glaciations b. Human land use practices have historically aggravated upland soil erosion contributing to sediments in the hydrologic system, a process known as legacy sediment development (2) Accretion is a natural process (modified by human activity) and unlikely mitigated (3) Continuous sedimentation creates a maintenance issue (4) Sediment in the inlet is a resource: SPOILS SOILS Acknowledging that the sediment will continue to move to and/or through the system and that interventions in the landscape are not likely to halt the process should not be discouraging.
Watershed

14

Once dredged, the material should be viewed as a resource, as parent material or soil in the making. This stresses that this is a maintenance and management issue and opportunity for considering alternative beneficial re-uses of the material, changing the mind-set that this material is a waste product (spoil), but is in fact a resource (soil). To better understand the potentials of the dredged material as a resource, the team conducted numerous physical, biological, and chemical tests on samples from the watershed, as well as other reference projects and disposal sites.

Genesee/Finger Lakes Regional Planning Council and EcoLogic, LLC. 2001b. Cayuga Lake Watershed Wetlands Management Project (http://www. cayugawatershed.org/Cayuga%20Lake/wetland/ Final%20Report.pdf). Hartranft, J. n.d. Big Spring Run Natural Floodplain, Stream and Riparian Wetland Restoration Research Project, Lancaster, PA. Hollingshead, N., Anderson, S., and Haith, D. 2008. The Cayuga Lake Watershed Generalized Watershed Loading Function, Department of Biological and Environmental Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. International Association of Dredging Companies (IADC). n.d. (http://www.iadc-dredging.com). Jacobson, R.B. And Coleman, D.J. 1986. Stratigraphy and Recent evolution of Maryland Piedmont flood plains, American Journal of Science, 286(8): 617-37. Karig, D., Miller, T., Hackett, K., and Johnston, R. 2007. Six Mile Creek: A Status Report. Six Mile Creek Partners. New York State Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Services. 2007. New York State Hazard Mitigation Plan, Section 3.13 Landslide Hazard Profile: 3-3623-391 (http://www.semo. state.ny.us/programs/planning/CEMP_Final/S3.J_

Landslide_Hazard_Profile.pdf). Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 2006. Chesapeake Bay Tributary Strategy Steering Committee Meetings (March 27). Legacy Sediment Workgroup Meeting (http://files.dep.state.pa.us/Water/ Chesapeake%20Bay%20Program/lib/chesapeake/ pdfs/legacy_sediment_definitions.pdf). Smith, B.E., Marks, P.L., and Gardescu, S. 1993. Two hundred years of forest cover changes in Tompkins County, New York, Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club, 120(3): 229-47.

References
EcoLogic, LLC. 2010. Site Reconnaissance Report: Southern Tributaries to Cayuga Lake Dredging Project Genesee/Finger Lakes Regional Planning Council and EcoLogic, LLC. 2000. Cayuga Lake Watershed Preliminary Watershed Characterization (http://www.cayugawatershed. org/characterization/#pwc_index). Genesee/Finger Lakes Regional Planning Council and EcoLogic, LLC. 2001a. Cayuga Lake Watershed Restoration and Protection Plan (http://www. cayugawatershed.org/Cayuga%20Lake/RPP/ cayindex3.htm).

Acknowledgements
Thanks to Todd Walter and Rebecca Marjerison in the Department of Biological & Environmental Engineering at Cornell University.

Watershed

15

Dredge Material Analysis

Jamie Nassar & Hayden Stebbins
KEYNOTES: (1) Nutrients found in dredge material are self stabilizing based on its chemical characteristics. (2) Dredge material is low in Organic Matter and contains High pH levels. (3) Previous testing indicated that inlet sediment was mostly clay, based on our findings inlet sediment is a sandy loam. (4) Dredge material has the ability to sustain plant life. (5) Aggregate Stability of Dredge material demonstrates a low quality for structural material.

Introduction

dredge material was to find out what quality dredge in the Cayuga Inlet is so that we could recommend potential beneficial uses for it. The goal was to establish if the dredge material is able to sustain plant life and if there are any limitations with potentially using the dredge material for various productive uses. Sample Sites Six Mile Creek Reservoir The original plan was to collect samples from the Cayuga Inlet, but the Inlet was closed once Hydrilla verticillata was discovered. We made the decision to use the Six Mile Creek Reservoir as a sample site because dredging is already planned to increase the depth of the reservoir, and it is very similar as it is simply upstream. It is also used by the City of Ithaca as a reservoir for drinking water, so it would provide a useful data set. A total of 16 samples were gathered. 10 samples were tested; 3 from the left transect, 4 from the center, and 3 from the right [Fig 3.1].

The purpose of performing tests on

Cayuga Inlet and Flood Control Channel Once the inlet was reopened, this sample site was selected because it is the location of the dredging project. These samples were intended to provide a better understanding of what the dredge material consists of and what it could be used for. Three samples were tested throughout the Inlet and Channel, as denoted by the red tags in the photo below [Fig 3.2].

Figure 3.1 - Location of sample sites in Six Mile Creek Reservoir

Figure 3.2 - Location of sample sites in Cayuga Inlet

Dredge Material

16

Three samples from each side were tested. Species diversity was also studied and compared between the dredge field and the nondredge field. This site provided an opportunity to test whether there are persistent, long-term differences in soil characteristics and plant community composition between dredge and non-dredge material. Materials and Methods The Materials and Methods section for soil analysis has been adapted from the Cornell Soil Health Assessment Training Manual, since the tests were carried out in the Cornell Soil Health Lab. The samples from the Inlet and the Reservoir were taken using an Eckman dredge dropped from a canoe onto the substrate [Fig 3.4]. The samples at

the Dryden site were taken by digging up soil samples. Cornell Soil Health Labs The Cornell Soil Health Test was performed on the samples from the Dryden, Inlet, and Six Mile Creek sample sites with the help and guidance of Extension Associate Bob Schindelbeck. Tests were performed on the physical, biological, and chemical characteristics of the soil samples. The physical tests included testing rapid soil texture, wet aggregate stability, available water capacity, and field penetration. Biological tests included an active carbon test, potentially minerizable nitrogen, and root health rating. Chemical tests included organic matter and nutrient analysis.

Figure 3.3 - Dredge and Non-dredge sample sites

Lake Source Cooling Dredge Disposal Site, Dryden, NY (Intersection of Hanshaw Rd. & Niemi Rd.) This sample site was chosen as a reference site to assess what happens to dredge that is left on a field and treated with a zero-order restoration approach. This was the site where Cornell spread dredge material from the Lake Source Cooling project on Cayuga Lake in 2000. Dredge material was spread onto an old cornfield and left undisturbed. Six samples were taken from the dredge material and six samples were taken from the field directly adjacent [Fig 3.3].

Figure 3.4 - Students harvesting dredge material from inlet

Dredge Material

17

and boulders), which are not considered in the textural class because they are relatively inert. Methods A portion of the soil sample is oven-dried at 60 C and sieved past 2mm. About 14g (+/- 0.1g) of sieved soil is added to a 50ml centrifuge tube containing 42ml of 3% soap (sodium hexametaphosphate) solution. Shake vigorously on reciprocating shaker for 2 hours to fully disperse soil into suspension. Entire contents of centrifuge tube are washed onto a 0.053mm soil sieve assembly. Sieve assembly consists of 0.053mm sieve on top of a plastic funnel above a 600ml beaker.
Figure 3.6 - Critical tests performed on the dredge material

Soil Texture Purpose Soil particles are the building blocks of the soil skeleton. Most of a soils particles are a mixture of variously sized minerals that define its texture. A soils textural class such as clay, clay loam, loam, sandy loam, or sandis perhaps its most fundamental

inherent characteristics. It affects many of the important physical, biological, and chemical processes in a soil and changes little over time. The textural class is defined by the relative amounts of sand (0.05 to 2 mm particle size), silt (0.002 to 0.05 mm), and clay (less than 0.002 mm), as seen in the textural triangle. Particles that are larger than 2 mm are rock fragments (pebbles, cobbles, stones,

Figure 3.7 - Students performing Soil Texture test

Dredge Material

18

Rinse all material through the sieve using fingers or rubber policeman. Sand captured on top of the sieve is washed into a tarred metal can and set aside. Silt and clay particles collected in the 600ml beaker are re-suspended by stirring and allowed to settle for 2 hours. The clay in suspension is then carefully decanted. The settled silt at the bottom of the beaker is washed into a second tarred can. Both tarred cans (one containing the sand fraction and the other the silt fraction) are dried overnight at 105 C to constant weight before weighing. Calculate percent sand, silt clay from: Sand (%) = dry wt. sand (g) / dry wt. (g) soil added to centrifuge tube Silt (%) = dry wt. silt (g) / dry wt. (g) soil added to centrifuge tube Clay (%) = 100% - Sand (%) - Silt (%) Conclusion Another preconceived notion about the dredge material was that it would be predominantly clay and fine particle material. However, our testing found that the Cayuga Inlet is a sandy loam, which contains very little clay (only 6.82%) [Table 3.1].

Table 3.1 - Soil Texture Triangle with Inlet, Dryden, and Reservoir soil range in red.

Table 3.2 - Graph of Aggregate Stability results between the reservoir and Dryden samples.

Aggregate Stability Purpose This tests the soils physical quality with regard to its capacity to sustain its structure during most impacting conditions: a heavy rainstorm after surface drying weather. Soils with low aggregate stability tend to form surface crusts, which can reduce both water infiltration and air exchange. This poor soil aggregation also makes the soil more difficult to manage, and reduces its ability to dry off quickly. In heavy soils, enhanced friability and crumbliness from good aggregation makes the soil seem lighter. Methods A portion of the soil is oven-dried at 40 oC. Using stacked sieves of 2.0 mm and 0.25 mm with a catch pan, the dried soil is shaken for 10 seconds on a Tyler Coarse Sieve Shaker to separate it into varied size fractions; small (0.25 - 2.0 mm) and large (2.0 - 8.0 mm). A single layer of small aggregates (0.25 2.0 mm) is spread on a 0.25 mm sieve (sieve diameter is 200 mm (8 inches)) (A). Sieves are placed at a distance of 500 mm (20 inches) below a rainfall simulator, which
Dredge Material

19

delivers individual drops of 4.0 mm diameter (B). The test is run for 5 minutes and delivers 12.5 mm depth of water (approximately 0.5 inches) as drops to each sieve. This is equivalent to a heavy thunderstorm. See soils starting to wet in (C). A total of 0.74 J of energy thus impact each sieve over this 5-minute rainfall period. Since 0.164 mJ of energy is delivered for each 4.0 mm diameter, it can be calculated that 15 drops per second impact each sieve. The slaked soil material that fell through the during the simulated rainfall event, and any stones remaining on the sieve are collected, dried and weighed, and the fraction of stable soil aggregates is calculated using the following equation: WSA = Wstable / W total, where Wstable = Wtotal - (Wslaked +Wstones) where W = weight (g) of stable soil aggregates (stable), total aggregates tested (total), aggregates slaked out of sieve (slaked), and stones retained in sieve after test (stones). Corrections are made for stones. Conclusion Aggregate Stability of the Reservoir was much lower than the control site, 8.91% compared to 87.33%. This means that the

dredge material will probably have a very weak ability to sustain its physical structure. This can be attributed to many things, but mainly its low organic matter content. Organic matter helps soils maintain physical structure, so adding organic matter to the dredge material, which will be discussed in the Alternatives section, could ameliorate this (Refer to appendix B for charted results). Available Water Capacity (AWC) Purpose Water storage in soil is important for plant growth. Water is stored in soil pores and in organic matter. In the field, the moist end of water storage begins when gravity drainage ceases (field capacity). The dry end of the storage range is that the permanent wilting point. Water held in soils that is unavailable to plants is called hygroscopic water. Clay soils tend to hold more water than sandy soils. Sandy soils tend to lose more water to gravity than clay soils Methods Soil is placed on ceramic plates that are inserted into high-pressure chambers to extract the water at field capacity (10 kPa) and

at the permanent wilting point (1500 kPa) (A and B). After the sample equilibrates at the target pressure; the sample is weighed and then oven-dried at 105oC overnight (C). The sample dry weight is then determined and soil water content at each pressure is calculated. The available water capacity is the soil water loss between the 10 and 1500 kPa pressures.) Conclusion In the end the results showed that the dredge material that was taken from the reservoir had a higher AWC than that of the dredge material that was tested on from the Dryden site. The samples that had the highest AWC were the ones from the control site in Dryden. Several factors could be contributed to the results but one should look at the soil texture to understand the numbers. The fact that the non-dredge material has the highest percentage of clay in the soil would confirm that this soil has the highest AWC rating. Next the dredge material in Dryden has the highest percentage of sand, which would allow the water to flow through the soil profile, thus lower the AWC. (Refer to appendix B for charted results)

Dredge Material

20

Organic Matter Purpose Organic matter is any material that is derived from living organisms, including plants and soil fauna. Total soil organic matter consists of both living and dead material, including well-decomposed humus. The percent organic matter is determined by loss on ignition, based on the change in weight after a soil is exposed to approximately 950F in a furnace. Organic matter content is often provided by soil analysis laboratories in conjunction with the analysis of major and minor nutrients. Methods The Cornell Nutrient Analysis Laboratory measures the percent organic matter using loss on ignition. A sample is dried at 105C to remove all water. The sample is then ashed for two hours at 500C and the percent of weight lost is calculated. The % loss on ignition (LOI) is converted to % organic matter (OM) using the following equation: % OM = (% LOI * 0.7) - 0.23

Active Carbon Purpose Active carbon is an indicator of the fraction of soil organic matter that is readily available as a carbon and energy source for the soil microbial community (i.e., food for the soil food web). The soil is mixed with potassium permanganate (deep purple in color) and as it oxidizes, the active carbon the color changes (becomes less purple), which can be observed visually, but is very accurately measured with a spectrophotometer. Methods From the larger thoroughly mixed composite bulk soil, a subsample is collected and allowed to air dry. The soil is ground and sieved to 2 mm. A 2.5 g sample of air-dried soil is placed in a 50 ml centrifuge tube filled with 20 ml of a 0.02 M potassium permanganate (KMnO4) solution, which is deep purple in color The soil and KMnO4 are shaken for exactly 2 minutes to oxidize the active carbon in the sample. The purple color becomes lighter as a result of this oxidation. The sample is centrifuged for 5 minutes, and the supernatant is diluted with distilled water and measured for absorbance at 550 nm.
Dredge Material

Table 3.3 - Graph of Organic Matter results between the reservoir and Dryden samples.

Conclusion Originally, it was thought that there would be no organic matter in the dredge material, however we found that there was 2.2% organic matter in the Reservoir site samples. This is not a very high amount, but around a 5% OM content is recommended for agricultural uses, and it is much higher than the expected content of 0%. [Table 3.3] (Refer to appendix B for charted results)

21

The absorbance of a standard dilution series of the KMnO4 is also measured to create a calibration curve for interpreting the sample absorbance data. A simple formula is used to convert sample absorbance value to active C in units of mg carbon per kg of soil. Conclusion Active Carbon was low in both the reservoir and the Dryden dredge material; the non-dredge material was in range of a healthy level according the Cornell Soil Health Test. This could be expected by looking back at the levels of the organic matter and aggregate stability in the soil, which is an indicator of Active Carbon levels in a soil, the lower the levels of organic matter the lower levels of active carbon. The fact that the dredge material has lower levels of active carbon would result in prolong periods of management to increase the organic matter content (Refer to Appendix B for charted results). Potentially Mineralizable Nitrogen Purpose Potentially Mineralizable Nitrogen (PMN) is an indicator of the capacity of the

soil microbial community to convert (mineralize) nitrogen tied up in complex organic residues into the plant available form of ammonium. Soil samples are incubated for 7 days and the amount of ammonium produced in that period reflects the capacity for nitrogen mineralization. Methods As soon as possible after sampling, the mixed composite bulk soil sample (stored at 40F) is sieved and two 8-g soil samples are removed and placed into 50 ml centrifuge tubes. 40 ml of 2.0 M potassium chloride (KCl) is added to one of the tubes, shaken on a mechanical shaker for 1 hour, centrifuged for 10 minutes, and then 20 ml of the supernatant is collected and analyzed for ammonium concentration (time 0 measurement). 10 ml of distilled water is added to the second tube, it is hand shaken and stored (incubated) for 7 days at 30C (86F). After the 7 day anaerobic incubation, 30 ml of 2.67 M KCl is added to the second tube (creating a 2.0 M solution), the tube is shaken on a mechanical shaker for 1 hour, centrifuged for 10 minutes, and then 20 ml of the supernatant is collected and analyzed for ammonium concentration (time 7 days

measurement). The difference between the time 0 and time 7-day ammonium concentration is the rate at which the soil microbes are able to mineralize organic nitrogen in the soil sample. Results are reported in units of micrograms nitrogen mineralized per gram dry weight of soil per week. Conclusion The PMN results were unforeseen due to the fact every other test has been in line with conventional wisdom, which would lead you to think that since the reservoir material is low in organic matter, aggregate stability and active carbon it would have a low PMN. So when the results showed that the reservoir had almost double the amount of PMN compared to that of the non-dredge material it seemed like an anomaly. This high score tells us that the reservoir has a higher amount nitrogen rich organic matter, as a result an abundant amount of soil microbes. Further tests would be needed to confirm these findings since they are not in line with conventions (Refer to appendix B for charted results).

Dredge Material

22

plant. The selection of other indicator plants might be needed for the proper assessment of root health of soils under different production systems. Methods A sub-sample from the composited bulk soil sample is thoroughly mixed. Approximately 200 cubic cm of soil is placed in each of 7 cone-tubes (A), which have a light cotton ball, paper towel, or small rock placed in the bottom to prevent soil loss through the drainage holes. Each tube is planted with one snap bean seed such as cv. Hystyle or others. The seeds are treated with a combination of fungicides to prevent seed decay and seedling diseases (B). The helium (curved side) of the seed is placed flat/horizontally to encourage successful seed germination and emergence (straight vertical shoots). The plants are maintained in a greenhouse under supplemental light or in a screen house and watered regularly for 4 weeks (C). The plants are removed from their containers and the roots washed under running water and rated for root health on a scale of 1 to 9. For example: 1 = white and coarse textured hypocotyl and roots; healthy (D);

3 = light discoloration and lesions covering up to a maximum of 10% of Hypocotyl and root tissues (E); 5 = approximately 25% of hypocotyl and root tissue have lesions, but the tissues remain firm. There is little decay or damage to the root system (F); 7 to 9 = 50 to 75% of hypocotyl and roots severely symptomatic and at advanced stages of decay (G). Conclusion Root Health Assessment is measured on a scale of 1 -9, with 1 being the most and 9 being the least functional. All three-sample sites (reservoir, Dryden dredge and Dryden non-dredge) fell with in the 5-6 ranges with the Dryden dredge being the lowest at 5.1 and the Dryden non-dredge being the highest at 5.9. The results show us that all three of these soil fall within the average, which was a little unexpected at least for the Dryden non dredge material (Refer to Appendix B for charted results).

Root Health Assessment Purpose Root health assessment is a measure of the quality and function of the roots as indicated by size, color, texture and the absence of symptoms and damage by root pathogens including the fungi Fusarium, Pythium, Rhizoctonia, Thielaviopsis, and plant-parasitic nematodes such as northern root-knot. For vegetable production systems, a soil bioassay with beans was shown to be highly effective in assessing root health as a component of overall soil health. Beans are susceptible to the major pathogens that impact vegetable, legume, and forage crops grown in New York and the Northeast region, thus their suitability as an indicator

Dredge Material

23

Chemical Analysis Purpose The chemical analysis as part of the Cornell Soil Health Test is a traditional soil fertility test analysis package that measures levels of pH and plant macro- and micronutrients. Measured levels are interpreted in the framework of sufficiency and excess but are not crop specific. Conclusion Nutrients (see appendix C) pH was also found to be high in the Reservoir samples. Luckily, this acts as a buffer to the uptake of unusually high levels of Manganese, Aluminum, Iron, Copper, and
Chemical Analysis Methods

the Inlet is dredged, these hotspots will be dispersed. Also, if the dredge material is mixed with organic material such as compost, the Calcium and Magnesium were also found in high levels, however Calcium acts as concentrations of these toxins will be diluted a buffer to the uptake of Magnesium, so they and the organic matter could make much of shouldnt be of concern. The dredge material it biologically unavailable, according to Murray McBride. The high pH level also means is suitable for plant growth, but should be made more stable by adding organic matter copper will not be very biologically available [Fig. 3.9]. if it is to be used for planting medium. Zinc also found in the samples, as shown in Table 3.5. Metals According to the Ecologic LLC report, several hotspots were found for Lead, Copper, PAHs, and PCBs, qualifying the dredge material from Cayuga Inlet as Class B [Fig 3.9/3.10]. However, the majority of the samples tested at Class A levels, and when

Plant Available Nutrients:

Extractable phosphors Extractable potassium Magnesium Iron Manganese Zinc pH The available nutrients are extracted with Morgans solution, a sodium acetate/acetic acid solution, well buffered at pH 4.8. Activated carbon is added to the extraction to aid in the removal of organic matter and to help decolorize the extraction solution. After shaking, the extraction slurry is filtered and analyzed for K, Ca, Mg, Fe, Al, Mn, and Zn on the ICP (Jyobin Yvon). The plant available PO4-P is measured using an Alpkem Automated rapid flow analyzer. The pH of a suspension of one part water to one part soil is determined either manually, using standard pH meter and electrodes, or automatically using a Fisher CATTM titrimeter.

Figure 3.8 - pH Nutrient Chart

Dredge Material

24

Measurements
Phosphorus(P)(lbs./A) Potassium (K)(lbs./A) Magnesium(Mg)(lbs./A) Iron(Fe)(lbs./A) Manganese(Mn)(lbs./A) Zinc (Zn)(lbs./A) Calcium (Ca)(lbs./A) Aluminum(Al)(lbs./A)

Reservoir
10.2 473.5 1107.5 116.9 1048.3 8.1 84597.0 90.1

Dryden Dredge Site Dryden Control Site

5.3 401.7 498.3 16.0 108.0 5.0 12846.7 34.0 11.3 446.7 570.0 14.7 68.3 2.6 4363.3 135.3

Table 3.5 - Nutrient Levels of site samples

Figure 3.9 - EcoLogics Metal Test Results: Analytes detected in Cayuga Inlet sediments exceeding TOGS 5.1.9 Class A Sediment Quality Threshold values (Courtesy

Figure 3.10 - Location of samples on Cayuga Inlet by ECOLOGIC for metals testing

Dredge Material

25

Dryden Site Plant Communities

Jamie Nassar & Hayden Stebbins
Purpose his study was performed at the Dryden dredge disposal site. The study of plant communities looks at one of the pressing questions when analyzing the dredge material: can dredge material sustain plant growth with out any additional management practices? The answer to this question could have a direct influence on how the dredge material can be used in the future. We tested to see what plants would be found in the dredge material compared to the non-dredge material, and which plant would be shared between the two sites. Methods The rarefaction method was used in setting boundaries for establishing the respective plant communities for the dredge and nondredge material. A location was selected at each site Starting with a .25 meter square quadrant, the quadrant were progressively enlarged according to the chart [Fig 4.2] Species in each quadrat were recorded and collected in the field Species collected from each quadrat were keyed out to the most precise taxonomic name possible

Figure 4.2 - Nested Quadrant

Figure 4.1 - Dryden Site Species Area Curve

Conclusions It was found that dredge material left untouched to a zero order management practice does have the ability to sustain plant growth on its own. The dredge sediment was found to have roughly 20 identifiable plant species with 12 of those species being exclusive to the dredge material. Out of the 12 species half of them were non-native plants. The non-dredge or Old Field Site had 25 total plant species with 17 species being exclusive to the non-dredge material. Out of those 17 species 7 of them were non-native.

Combined between the two sites there was a total of 37 identifiable species with 8 of the species shared between the two sites and a total of 17 species being non-native [Fig 4.1]. Looking closer at the plant communities, there is a difference not just in the numbers, but in the actual plants that were found with the site. The dredge material has a different plant community that the nondredge, which could be due to the fact that dredge material has different parent material and possibly carried some seeds with it when it was removed from the lake. No conformation was gained into weather or not the dredge material contains a seed bank.
Dredge Material

26

A/B - Both Soils

Aster lateriflorus Cirsium vulgare Galium mollugo Prunella vilgaris Solidego rugosa Solidego tenuifolia Stellaria media Trifolium repens Unknown Grass 1 Unknown Grass 3 Unknown Rush 1 Veronica Spp. Vicia spp.

A - Old Field Soil

Aster larvis Aster novae-angliae Cornus spp. Daucus pusillus Dipsacus sylvestrus Fragaria virginiana Fraxinus pensylvanica Hieracium spp. Lonicera tatarica Onoclea sensibilis Oxalis spp. Phleum pratenvse Polygonum pensylvanicum Potentilla indica Ranunculus bulbosus Rhamnus cathartica Solidago canadensis Unknown Aster 1 Viburnum dentatum Vitis spp.

Figure 4.3 - Dryden Plant Communities

Aster simplex Chrysanthemum leucanthemum Convolvulus arvensis Fragaria chiloensis Geranium maculatum Hieracium longipilum Lonicera involucrata Lotus corniculatus Penstemon digitalis Penstemon hirsutus Pontentilla simplex Salix alba Unknown Aster 2 Unknown Grass 2 Unknown Grass 4 Unknown Rush 2 Viburnum var. cassinoides

Ambrosia artemisiifolia Asclepias syriaca Gentianposis crinita Phalaris arundinacea

B - Sediment Soil C - Outside Sample Area

Dredge Material

27

Figure 4.4 - Dryden Plant Communities

Dredge Material

28

References Delhaize, Emmanuel and Peter R. Ryan. Aluminum Toxicity and Tolerance in Plants. Plant Physiology. Vol. 107, No. 2 (Feb., 1995), pp. 315-321 EcoLogic, LLC. 2010. Site Reconnaissance Report: Southern Tributaries to Cayuga Lake Dredging Project Genesee/Finger Lakes Regional Planning Council and EcoLogic, LLC. 2000. Cayuga Lake Watershed Preliminary Watershed Characterization (http://www.cayugawatershed.org/characterization/#pwc_ index). Environmental Enhancement through Recycling of Natural Materials. Minnesota Mulch and Soil, 2010. Print. (http://www.mnmulchandsoil.com/uploads/3/7/7/4/3774799/dredged_pp.pdf) Schulte, E.E., and K.A. Kelling. Soil Calcium to Magnesium Ratios-Should You Be Concerned. University of Wisconsin Extension (1993). Print. (http://www.soils.wisc.edu/extension/pubs/ A2986.Pdf)

Gugino, Beth K., George S. Abawi, Omololu J. Idowu, Robert R. Schindelbeck, Larissa L. Smith, Janice E. Thies, David W. Wolfe, and Es Harold M. Van. Cornell Soil Health Assessment Training Manual. Geneva, NY: Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, 2009. Print. {http://soilhealth.cals.cornell. edu/extension/manual.htm} Thompson, Louis Milton. Soils and Soil Fertility. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1973. Print. http://organicgarden.org.uk/gardening/soil/ soil-chemistryCalcium

Acknowledgements Murray McBride and Bob Schindelbeck, Crop and Soil Science, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell University

Students Identifying Plant Samples from the Dryden Site

Dredge Material

29

Methane Productionfor MitigationSediments: in Inlet Spatial Variability and Alternatives

Jack Mascharka, Rebecca Montross, & Nadia Pierrehumbert
KEYNOTES: (1) Methane-producing microorganisms inhabit anaerobic (low-oxygen) sediments, such as those in the Cayuga Inlet (2) Laboratory tests indicate that if anaerobic conditions in sediment persist after dredging, up to 30,300 kg of methane could be released into the atmosphere (3) A number of methane mitigation measures, such as promoting aerobic conditions during dewatering or capturing any methane produced, could be incorporated into the dewatering process to prevent the release of this greenhouse gas.

Introduction

most significant greenhouse gasses after carbon dioxide. Since pre-industrial times, atmospheric methane concentrations have increased from approximately 715 parts per billion (ppb) to 1774 ppb in 2005 as a result of human activity. This has contributed a radiative forcing of 0.48 W/m2, nearly a third the radiative forcing of carbon dioxide despite methanes much lower atmospheric concentration (IPCC 2007). Thus, the release of even a small amount of methane is of concern for global climate change. Dredging the Cayuga Inlet has the

Methane (CH4) is one of the

potential to release methane into the atmosphere. Low-oxygen sediments are home to a community of methanogenic archea, microorganisms which produce methane as the final step of fermenting organic matter in anaerobic respiration. This sort of methane biogenesis constitutes most of the recent methane production (Reeburgh 1996). Inlet sediments, like most sediments at the bottoms at lakes, are likely to be anaerobic, or low in oxygen, and thus home to methanogens. How much methane production can we expect from the dredging of the Cayuga Inlet? Is this production uniform, or are there hotspots of particular concern? To find out, we collected sediment samples from a variety of locations and measured their total methane production over a month. Methods Sediment samples were collected from above the 60-foot dam at the Six Mile Creek Reservoir (Fig. 5.1) and the Cayuga Inlet (Fig. 5.2) using canoes and a small Ekman dredge. Initial plans called for sample collection only from the inlet, but the presence of Hydrilla verticillata in the inlet postponed sample collection, so samples were first collected from the reservoir. Sediment samples were placed in mason jars and the headspace

Figure 5.1 - Sediment collection sites, Six Mile Creek Reservoir

filled with water, following standard FaheyYavitt lab procedures. Samples were left to rest and settle in a dark cabinet for approximately a week after collection. After a week of rest, samples were stirred to free any methane produced and briefly left to settle again before the water filling the headspace was drained. Then the mason jars were sealed and all air evacuated to create an anoxic environment. Approximately every week (for reservoir samples) or twice a week (for inlet samples) for a month following, a 20 milliliter gas sample was drawn through a septum in the lid of each jar using a syringe. Each gas sample was then
Methane Analysis

30

injected into a gas chromatograph to measure methane concentration. Samples of lab air and standard 2000 parts per million methane were also measured to test for anomalous conditions in the lab and establish proper calibration, respectively. Parts per million of methane were converted to micromoles and standardized to the amount of sediment in each sample, thus returning results in micromoles of methane production per liter of sediment over time. Results Reservoir samples Because methane production in the inlet, not the reservoir, was the primary concern, reservoir samples were used to test and refine methods. Methane production in all reservoir samples increased substantially over the testing period (Table 5.1), confirming the presence of methanogens and organic carbon in the samples. Because jar headspace was not recorded for reservoir samples, meaningful comparisons between samples was not possible; however, all samples showed significant methane production over the testing period. Taking into account the reservoir sample results, methods were altered as follows:

Sample ID R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 L1 L2 L3 L4

Concentration Concentration Concentration [ppm] [ppm] [ppm] 10.31.2011 10.21.2011 10.14.2011 83094 max max 1175 4081 8756 1221 11871 38779 55942 91305 max 2139 13358 41613 4418 17011 47511 106537 max max 21986 58476 104395 3752 22871 57598 52594 114861 max 23330 69842 max 8283 38066 82299 20677 59468 100834 6675 31150 59371 6795 23605 20551 2979 22868 53980

Table 5.1 - Methane production in Reservoir samples, parts per million

sample testing increased in frequency, from once to twice per week; the sensitivity of the gas chromatograph was adjusted to be able measure higher expected methane concentrations; future sediment samples were collected in larger jars, to facilitate drawing off gas samples; and headspace in the jars was measured to allow conversion from parts per million to moles. Inlet samples Most inlet samples produced methane over the testing period, with the only exMethane Analysis

Figure 5.2 - Sediment collection sites, Cayuga Inlet

31

ception being sample 1W (Table 5.2). Methane production in inlet samples sorted into three groups and two anomalous samples. The first group, consisting of samples 1C, 2C, 3C, 4C, and 6C, produced very little methane throughout the experiment, with total methane production remaining below 200 umol per liter of wet sediment. The second group, comprising samples 1E and 2E, produced very little methane initially, but slowly increased production to 500-1000 umol/L wet sediment over the course of the month. The third group, samples 5W and from the adjoining culvert, produced methane rapidly during the first week before tapering off to a final production between 1000 and 2000 umol/L wet sediment. Sample 1W appears to
Sample ID 1E 1C 1W 2E 2C 3C 4C 5C 5W 6C Culvert 11-Nov-11 117.94 15.20 429.78 60.95 118.54 96.66 30.17 729.42 408.34 105.94 251.57 15-Nov-11 25.08 46.54 50.42 89.95 105.9 63.7 26.24 1764.37 963.74 68.25 692.45

have reached its peak methane production before testing even began and methane concentration in the jar declined for unknown reasons over the month. Finally, sample 5C produced methane in substantial quantities throughout the month, peaking at about 4,700 umol/L wet sediment at the end of the testing period with no definite signs of tapering off. With the exception of 5C, center samples showed very low methane production (Fig. 5.3). Samples showing appreciable methane production (Fig. 5.4) were generally located near the east and west banks of the channel. In addition, higher methane production is concentrated in certain hotspots, such as the narrow Six Mile Creek inlet, while
18-Nov-11 191.35 63.65 64.45 311.11 68.1 7.82 32.85 2726.77 1357.89 15.59 1109.23 22-Nov-11 29-Nov-11 2-Dec-11 404.38 675.49 850.74 57.06 48.82 55.85 7.07 0 4.3 454.02 607.89 602.64 3.59 2.87 2.03 2.81 72.35 126.26 50.44 174.68 151.56 3699.59 4761.17 4733.22 1532.43 1498.98 1708.33 1.09 1 1229.57 1311.65 1267.82

lower methane production is scattered in the center of the wider flood control channel (Fig. 5.5). Discussion and conclusions The results suggest several alterations to the procedure for future studies of methane production in the Cayuga inlet. The peculiar pattern of methane production over time in inlet sample 1W, which peaked before testing started and apparently consumed methane throughout the testing period, suggests that methane concentrations should be measured sooner than a week after samples are prepared; in fact, establishing a baseline methane concentration immediately after evacuating the air in the jar might be a good idea. In addition, a more thorough study would continue measurements of methane concentration until all samples had ceased production, unlike sample 5C, whose methane concentration was still increasing when the experiment was ended. The non-uniform spatial distribution of methane production also suggest that a more thorough survey is necessary to accurately estimate potential methane production from inlet sediments. In particular, the hotspot of methane production in Six Mile Creek is also the only source of sample from
Methane Analysis

Table 5.2 -Methane production in Inlet samples, umol methane per liter of wet sediment

32

Methane Evolution of Inlet Samples over Time

Methane Evolution of Inlet Samples over Time

5000.00

5000.00

4500.00

4500.00

4000.00

4000.00

3500.00

3500.00

3000.00
1C 2C umol CH4 per L wet sediment 3C

3000.00
1E 1W umol CH4 per L wet sediment
4C 5C

2E

2500.00

2500.00
5C 5W

2000.00

6C

2000.00

Culvert

1500.00

1500.00

1000.00

1000.00

500.00

500.00

0.00 8-Nov

13-Nov

18-Nov

23-Nov
Date

28-Nov

3-Dec

8-Dec

0.00 8-Nov

13-Nov

18-Nov

23-Nov
Date

28-Nov

3-Dec

8-Dec

Figure 5.3 -Total methane production in center Inlet samples over time

Figure 5.4 - Total methane production in higher-range Inlet samples over time

Six Mile Creek; most samples were taken from the Flood Control Channel, which the city of Ithaca is not responsible for dredging. Are methane production values in the hotspot typical of the Six Mile Creek channel? Does methane production further downstream in the Inlet more closely resemble that in the Flood Control Channel or in Six Mile Creek channel? To be able to accurately assess the methane output of the dredging project, these questions must be addressed,

and more thorough sampling throughout the inlet would do so. Input of organic matter may contribute to the observed geographical distribution of hotspots of methane production (Fig. 5.5). The only hotspot in the flood control channel occurs near the west bank; the Six Mile Creek hotspot, near the Buffalo Street Bridge, is in a narrow channel. Both these locations will receive a higher input of organic matter than the center of the broad

flood control channel, thus providing more food for the methanogens. In addition, the Six Mile Creek hotspot is downstream of a wooded area with overhanging vegetation, which will also contribute substantial quantities of organic matter to the channel sediments. This stands in contrast to the flood control channel, whose rip-rapped banks and grassy verge can contribute relatively little organic matter for decomposition. Several possible approaches to preMethane Analysis

33

Peak Methane Production of Inlet Samples

Key 2000-4000 umol CH4 per uL Air 500-2000 umol CH4 per uL Air 150-500 umol CH4 per uL Air 0-150 umol CH4 per uL Air
1E = 009 1C = 007 1W= 011 2E = 012 2C = 013 3C = 014.5 4C = 015 5C = 005 5W=006 6C = 017 Culvert = 014

Figure 5.5 - Geographical distribution of methane production

venting or mitigating methane release from dredging might be incorporated into the sediment dewatering and reuse plans. The first option is to artificially hasten the onset of aerobic, rather than anaerobic, conditions in the sediment. This would shift the microbial community from methanogens to CO2 -producing bacteria. Three possibilities for promoting the diffusion of oxygen into the sediment are turbation, aeration, and spreading the sediment thinly. Periodic turbation, or mixing, of the sediment would incorporate oxygen further down into the sediment column, thus promoting aerobic conditions. Aeration could be done either mechanically or biologically, using pipes, roots, or burrowing worms to let oxygen penetrate further down. However, dense vegetation growing on the sediment is likely to decrease oxygen diffusion. Finally, since the most anaerobic conditions are deep in the sediment and oxygen diffusion is highest near the surface, simply spreading the sediment thinly would increase oxygen concentration and prevent anaerobic conditions. Methane capture has been used on landfills (Bracmort et al, 2009). This approach sees methane production as a resource rather than a liability. The dewatering site would be capped and methane collected as it rose. The methane could then be
Methane Analysis

34

burned as biofuel. However, since methane production in most samples was relatively low and ceased after approximately two weeks, methane capture might not be economically viable. In fact, methane production may be low enough to consider methane mitigation as only a secondary concern in sediment dewatering and processing, taking a back seat to more pressing concerns such as Hydrilla treatment. If the low methane production of the samples taken from the center of the flood control channel are typical, then dredging would produce approximately 100 or 700 kg of methane for 100,000 and 670,000 cubic yards of sediment, respectively. Even if all the sediment dredged produced methane at a high rate comparable to 5C, methane production would be approximately 4,500 kg, for the lower dredging volume, or 30,300 for the higher. Especially considering that dredging will be spread over several years, this may not be enough production to justify incorporating elaborate mitigation strategies into dewatering. However, if methane mitigation can easily be incorporated into some other aspect of the project, such as Hydrilla treatment, then it might be worth taking into account.

References Bracmort, Kelsi et al. Methane Capture: Options for Greenhouse Gas Emission REductionL R40813. Congressional Research Service: Report; 9/17/2009, p6-25 IPCC, 2007: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Reeburgh, W.S. Soft spots in the global methane budget. In Eighth International Symposium on Microbial Growth in C1 Compounds, pp. 334-342. Edited by M.E. Lindstom & F.R. Tabita. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1996. Acknowledgements Thanks to Alexis Heinz and the Fahey/ Yavitt lab at Cornell University.

Methane Analysis

35

Managing Hydrilla verticillata for the Cayuga Inlet

Trinity Boisvert & Yong Seuk Peter Kwon
KEYNOTES: (1) Hydrilla verticillata is an invasive aquatic plant species. (2) Dessication alone cannot kill fragments. (3) Additional treatment will be needed. (4) Not all existing turions will sprout after drying and natural recreation attraction. (5) To ensure proper control, we require a monitoringmanagement plan

Introduction

aquatic invasive from Eastern Asia, which has taken over much of the Southeastern and some Western US watersheds. Known to grow in almost any freshwater body and in only 1% of full sunlight, Hydrilla is an invasive capable of outcompeting most native species in areas where it colonizes. Its cold-tolerant, monoecious biotype was discovered in the Cayuga Inlet of Ithaca, NY in early August. Initial identifier R. Johnson derived its population to be less than two

Hydrilla verticillata is an aggressive

Figure 5.1 - Cayuga Inlet Hydrilla distribution (August 29, 2011). Open white circles indicate dense infestations and purple circles indicate presence of rooted fragments. Image from Dr. Holly Menninger

Figure 5.2 - Turion growth from Hydrilla verticillata

years old as of 2011 (Menninger 2011). Hydrilla populations were limited to the immediate inlet area as of August 2011. However, additional colonies of Hydrilla have been discovered further upstream in the inlet channel as well as channelized portions of Cascadilla creek since the initial August recording. This demonstrates Hydrillas capability to spread relatively quickly, emphasizing the importance of a well-maintained quarantine and eradication protocol. Its high potential for spread using waterways as vectors is a critical hindrance in utilizing dredge material from the Cayuga Inlet in aquatic settings. Monoecious Hydrilla verticillata utilizes its subterranean tubers, growing up to 1/2 inches long, to overwinter and re-sprout in the spring. Hydrilla produces turions, or overwintering buds, which will sink to lake bottoms during winter and sprout again when spring arrives. Finally, external force, like traveling boats, fragment Hydrilla stems deeper into waterways. These fragments will attach to boat exteriors or enter ballast water and will potentially spread to other waterways, where the individual nodes (areas where leaves are attached) on a fragment are capable of taking root. In order to execute a proper management protocol it is necessary to create a plan that will simultaneously account for fragments, turions, and tubers as negligence of one or more of these items will increase probability of Hydrilla introduction to any given water body.
Hydrilla verticillata

36

Materials and Methods

Hydrilla is present at the site to be dredged, so fragments of Hydrilla stems, turions, and tubers will also be present in the dredge material. If the Hydrilla in the dredge material is still viable, Hydrilla could be spread during the dredging process, at the dewatering site, when the dredged material is trucked, or when it is reused. The presence of Hydrilla verticillata is the very reason the DEC wants the dredge material kept away from water bodies. However, if desiccation itself could effectively kill the Hydrilla, then no such restriction would be necessary. To test this, we performed three quasi-experiments. We collected Hydrilla verticillata from the Farmers Market dock at the beginning of the semester by hand and shovel. Two buckets of soil were also collected at the docks. The Hydrilla were then kept in a greenhouse kept at 70 F in a large bucket full of water. All Hydrilla used in the following experiments were from this collection.

but would not fall out of the flat, and filled the flats with three samples each. The fragments had either 5 or 10 nodes (aka the point where the leaves formed a swirl). The fragments were buried 5 centimeters deep, which was nearly the bottom of the tray, 2.5 cm deep, or placed on the surface. They were either buried horizontally, so they would be completely covered, or vertically, so some of the Hydrilla fragments would be exposed to air. The flats were left undisturbed in the greenhouse for one week. At the end of the week, the Hydrilla verticillata fragments were carefully dug up. The soil material did not dry evenly. The surface was almost completely dried out, grey, and caked, but at lower levels the soil was darker, granular, and slightly damp. Parts of the Hydrilla that were left exposed appeared dried out and grey or yellow, while the segments that were buried

Figure 5.4 - Hydrilla verticillata in flats - picture 2

Stem Fragment Experiment

For the fragments of the plant itself, we wanted to test whether the length of the plant, the depth it was buried, and how completely it was buried affected its ability to re-grow. To test this, we created 12 samples with 20 fragments each buried in soil material collected from the Farmers Market dock. We lined four plastic flats with fabric, so that the contents would drain,
Figure 5.5 - Hydrilla verticillata in flats - picture 3

Figure 5.3 - Hydrilla verticillata in flats - picture 1

still appeared green. The fragments were almost completely recovered; some nodes and leaves were lost digging them up. Each sample was placed in a mason jar half-full of water. It was left to rehydrate for two weeks. To act as a control, two samples each of twenty 5 and 10 node Hydrilla that had been
Hydrilla verticillata

37

sitting in the bucket were put in half-full mason jars as well. At the end of those two weeks, algae was growing in most of jars. The samples were removed and placed in shallow dishes. Each sample was visually divided into living and dead. Hydrilla fragments were classified as living if they retained shape out of water or were green, versus becoming limp and

Figure 5.5 - Hydrilla verticillata fragment in a mason jar

Figure 5.6 - Mason jars containing Hydrilla verticillata

brown. They were also called alive if there was new growth or a turion off the original fragment. New growths and turions were also collected if they were not connected to a fragment. Each jar was rinsed out and refilled with water and a squirt of fertilizer. The living samples were put back in their respective jars. The process was repeated the next week, but no fertilizer was added. The following graphs show the results by treatment, depth, and number of nodes. We observed the fragments for an additional week. No new growths formed. However, one sample decomposed, one turion sprouted, and one node grew further. The Controls continued to grow as well. Our results showed that the dried Hydrilla did not survive as well as the controls (Fig 5.7, 5.8, & 5.9 on the following page). The number of life signs increased with the depth of the sample, presumably because moisture content increased. This would also explain why the samples that were buried completely did better than those that were vertically planted and partially exposed to air. The Hydrilla fragments that were longer survived better than the five-node Hydrilla. This might be because the longer fragments have more matter in them, so they can retain turgor and have enough storage to create new growths. The second experiment involved only turions. These turions grew in the bucket of Hydrilla over several weeks. Ninety-eight

turions were used in this experiment. Some were completely free-floating, some were still attached to short stems, and some were still fully attached to Hydrilla plants. The turions were divided equally between two flats lined with fabric. One flat was left to dry for a week, the other was left out to dry for two weeks. After the drying period was complete, the turions were placed in jars full of water. The free-floating turions were divided between two jars, the turions with some stem were placed in one jar, and the turions attached to plants were divided between two jars as well. After drying, the turions seemed bleached, but were still green. The leaves were very distinct. However, none of the turions sprouted. This is interesting when contrasted with our first experiment, where one of the turions did sprout. The sprouted turion grew after the fragment had been dried. This suggests there might be a stress response. We found one tuber in the dredge material. It was dried for one week during the stem fragment experiment at about 2.5 cm. It was then rehydrated in its own mason jar. It sprouted. This agrees with the literature, which suggests drying induces growth in tubers. Our results are not concrete. All our Hydrilla were only dried for one or two weeks. It will take at least a year for the dredge material to dewater. Considering that the dredge will not dry evenly, further studies should consider the water content of the soil the Hydrilla is drying
Hydrilla verticillata

38

in. Re-growth, while easy to measure, is also not a concrete measure of survivability, especially for turions and tubers. The literature suggests tubers can remain dormant for up to five years. Dewatering can induce growth and end this dormancy period in Hydrilla, but more studies would need to be done to see what percentage of tubers would grow, and the length and severity of the desiccation needed. From all of this, it seems unlikely desiccation alone will kill the Hydrilla verticillata, so some other treatment method is necessary. Treatment methods are discussed later in the report. We were unable to do a light-curve for the Hydrilla. However, the literature says the plant has a Light Compensation Point (LCP) of 15 mol/m2/s. Light extinction measurements were done at 13 points along the inlet. These measurements were performed with a secchi disk. Most reached this point between 1.5 and

2.5 feet. However, two points, the Cascadilla Creek boat docks and near the Science Center, reached bottom before this level of turbidity was reached. The Hydrilla infestation was heavy near these places. These two points were also the deepest parts of the channel that were measured. Hydrilla verticillata can grow past the LCP, but it is difficult for the plant to establish itself past these depths. This means that while Hydrilla will still float in the water column, it is

Figure 5.11 - Hydrilla verticillata turions in flats

Figure 5.10 - Hydrilla verticillata tuber

Figure 5.12 - Hydrilla verticillata turion closeup

Figure 5.7 - Hydrilla verticillata life signs by treatment

Figure 5.8 - Hydrilla verticillata life signs by depth

Figure 5.9 - Hydrilla verticillata life signs by node

Hydrilla verticillata

39

unlikely the Hydrilla will root in deep waters or persist in turbid areas. It would also be highly improbably for sprouting tubers in turbid sections of the channel to survive long enough to grow past the LCP without being able to gain energy from photosynthesis.

Potential Management Plan

Management plans for Hydrilla in aquatic settings range from physical removal to chemical treatment to natural predator introduction. Due to the scope of our study, Hydrilla management will be a problem of what to do with fragments, tubers, and turions once dredge material has been taken out of the Inlet area. Thus Hydrilla should be treated as undesirable weed material within dewatering dredge material, and it would be more accurate to discuss potential strategies

Figure 5.13 - Light extinction measurements with secchi disk

to treat Hydrilla as belonging to an independent terrestrial system with high risk of spread to aquatic systems. For the purposes of dredge material management, establishing complete eradication of Hydrilla from dewatering sites as the primary goal would be ideal. If the dredge material will enter water-bodies that already have populations of Hydrilla, the Hydrilla could be managed to a certain level. As the threat of spreading Hydrilla will remain, it is important to establish control measures for spread out dredge materials. One possible example of control measures for nearwater usage would be the installation of silt fences around the site boundaries to ensure Hydrilla doesnt escape to the nearby water bodies. The first item to note is that spreading dredge material over multiple locations for dewatering will also increase the potential for Hydrilla to enter any nearby waterways or streams. The dewatering processes typically involves dredge material being spread out over large areas of land, which means that during heavy rain, it is possible the runoff will contain Hydrilla. Thus, it would be more beneficial to minimize the number of dewatering sites and limit the spread of dredge material to watersheds where Hydrilla is already existent, at least until monitoring can confirm that Hydrilla reintroduction is unlikely. The National Invasive Species Council dictates that there needs to be three phases

to a monitoring program: detection, rapid assessment, and rapid response. Assuming the dredge material is under controlled surveillance, detecting Hydrilla in drying dredge material should be given top priority. Hydrilla requires constant human input and an adaptive management mindset. One potential monitoring method would be to combine Hydrilla monitoring with dewatering monitoring, which is a required process for dredge material usage. Hydrilla is very similar on sight to local Elodea canadensis (Fig 5.14), and monitors will have to account for the fact that both species are likely to be in the dredge material. A key note on identifying the differences between the two is the number of leaves on individual nodes. Hydrilla stems will typically have whorls of five leaves, whereas elodea stems typically has whorls of three leaves. It is to be expected that Hydrilla will not be growing or expanding in dewatering sites as they would in aquatic settings. Because of this, Hydrilla observation is difficult. It might be worth it taking soil column samples at randomly designated locations within the dewatering sites and sample for Hydrilla within the columns. Lastly, Hydrilla propagule growth seasons and dredging seasons should not overlap. Hydrilla sprouts turions and produces tubers during the fall season in the Northeastern US, which means dredge material movement should be avoided during the months of August to October.
Hydrilla verticillata

40

Figure 5.14 - Hydrilla-Elodea comparisons

Potential Treatment Methods

Some potential treatment methods for Hydrilla in dewatering dredge material include physical removal, chemical treatment, and solarization. Although relevant, we will not discuss in detail other recognized means of Hydrilla management in aquatic environments such as biological control through grass carp or water level drawdown as they do not apply to terrestrial environments. We chose to focus on Hydrilla removal from the drying dredge material, and therefore terrestrial, setting. It is important to remember that all potential methods are fully theoretical; further experimentation and field trials will be necessary to ensure that Hydrilla do not spread after any such treatments.

Physical Removal Physical removal of Hydrilla in aquatic environments is carried out by employing divers who use suction dredges to remove the invasive or by raking stems and rooted material by mechanical harvesters. Mechanical harvesters have been criticized as creating more fragments, which are capable of spreading the species. However, a different means of harvesting may be possible. Assuming that the dredge material is spread out on a field for dewatering, we can allow for the material to dry out to a certain period where we can employ machinery to till the land. Monitors will ensure Hydrilla do not spread while drying occurs. Ploughing the land with machinery will loosen and aerate the land, hastening the dewatering processes, but also upturn any vegetative matter hidden within the top layers of dredge material. If a monitor were to follow the ploughing vehicle along chosen plots and observe for any Hydrilla parts, the observers could make note of this and assign removal as parts are discovered. The advantage to this method is that the process will be highly target specific while allowing for dewatering and aeration of the dredge material at the same time, decreasing overall time taken to ready the material for further usage. Disadvantages here are the fact that intensive manual labor might not be cost effective and if the material is spread out too thick, the upturned top layer may not reveal all the Hydrilla. Thus, it may be possible to combine this method with the chemical treatment to be explained below.

Figure 5.15 a - Physical removal

Figure 5.15 b - Chemical treatment

Figure 5.15 c - Solarization

Hydrilla verticillata

41

Chemical Treatment Hydrilla chemical treatment typically involves the use of Aquathol K; a contact herbicide endothall, to kill Hydrilla growth. The City of Ithaca has deployed Aquathol K in the Cayuga Inlet area to remove biomass and stop turion and tuber production with mixed results; although biomass loss has been noted further treatment for turion and tuber removal will be necessary. Success cases for Hydrilla removal all indicate repeated spraying over multiple seasons, and tuber removal has been noted to be especially difficult. This in part has to do with the fact that Hydrilla cannot be efficiently sprayed due to water currents and the presence of subterranean organs like roots and tubers. Any Hydrilla biomass that does not come into proper and sufficient contact with Aquathol K will not be removed. If dredge material is spread out on a terrestrial patch, a similar method of chemical spray can be utilized with common herbicides such as Roundup, but as terrestrial patches would be more accessible, a more thorough application of chemicals will be possible. This will also remove any other weeds that could grow in the soil, and the method can be combined with monitoring efforts to ensure proper dewatering of dredge material. Soil Solarization Soil solarization involves controlling in-soil agents by capturing heat and energy from sunlight; the controller would cover the

soil with plastic covers like polyethylene to trap solar energy for several weeks during the hot season of the year. Solarization has been known to increase soil temperature up to 131F (55C) at 2 inches deep and 99F (37C) at 16 inches deep. Hydrilla growth, tuber and turion production has been shown to cease at 86F (30C). Given that our experiments saw most, but not all, of the Hydrilla dry out at 70 F (21C), there is a likelihood that this procedure, if properly conducted, will allow for sufficient desiccation of Hydrilla that can properly eliminate fragments and tubers as well. Again, further experimentation will be necessary to determine at what soil temperature and relative water content tubers, the hardiest propagule, will die out. In short, it would be worth investigating whether it is possible to cook the Hydrilla to death in the soil. This will also assist in soil aeration and any other weed elimination from within the dredge material, both of which are known effects of soil solarization.

Menninger, Holly. (2011) Hydrilla verticillata in the Cayuga Inlet: A Science-Based Review to Guide Management Actions. New York Invasive Species Clearninghouse Cornell Cooperative Extension Invasive Species Program. http://www.egovlink. com/public_documents300/ithaca/published_ documents/Clerks_Office/NYISRI%20Hydrilla%20 %20Briefing_Outreach.pdf Rybicki, Nancy B. and Carter, Virginia. (2002) Light and Temperature Effects on the Growth of Wild Celery and Hydrilla. Journal of Aquatic Plant Managment, 40:92-99. Spencer, David and Ksander, Gregory. (March 2000) Field Evaluation of Degree-Day Based Equations for Predicting Sprouting of Hydrilla Turions and Tubers. The Western Aquatic Plant Management Society, 19th Annual Meeting Abstracts. http://www.wapms.org/ abstracts/2000_WAPMS_abstracts.pdf United States National Park Service. Updated 11.11.2010. Aquatic Plants: Hydrilla. http://www. nps.gov/plants/alien/pubs/midatlantic/hyve.htm University of California Statewide Integrated Pest Management Program. (October 2008) Soil Solarization for Gardens & Landscapes. http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/PESTNOTES/ pn74145.html

References
Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants (June, 2001) Hydrilla verticillata: Non-Native to Florida. http://plants.ifas.ufl.edu/node/183 McFarland, Dwillette G. and Barko, John W. (1999) High-Temperature Effects on Growth and Propagule Formation in Hydrilla Biotypes. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management, 37: 17-25.

Hydrilla verticillata

42

Van, T.K et al. (1978) The Effect of Daylength and Temperature On Hydrilla Growth and Tuber Production. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management, 16:57-59 Westerdahl, Howard E. (1983) Effects of Hydout and Aquathol K on Hydrilla on Gatun Lake, Panama. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management, 21:17-21. The Wild Classroom (2007) Weedy Plants of the U.S.: Exotic, Invasive and Problem Plants. http://www.thewildclassroom.com/biodiversity/ problemplants/species/Elodea.html

Hydrilla verticillata

43

Alternative and Reference Sites

Gene Fifer
here are several potential uses for the sediments that will be removed from Cayuga Inlet. These fall into three categories: building material production, dry land fill or amendments, and wetland creation. There are thousands of dredging projects underway worldwide and the products that our restoration ecology class found are described in this section.

Alternatives & Reference Sites

44

Industrial Products: An Introduction

Matthew Horvath
reuse are prevalent, off-site product creation is certainly a viable option. The various alternatives include using dredge material in conjunction with other materials to create valuable products such as synthetic soil, lightweight aggregate, cement, and bricks. While this option reduces the need for a large disposal site, it might require new infrastructure in some cases since many of these products require specialized machinery to be created. The city should not overlook these options because they have the ability to provide jobs and perhaps revenue from a continuous dredging process. This alternative has the potential to create a powerful image for the city. By taking a seemingly useless sludge, and reforming it into a valuable product, the city would be promoting sustainability, profiting, as well as improving its built environment.

In a sustainable city where recycling and

Mixing mineral and organic soil components at LI Firewood and Mulch in Suffolk County, New York

Alternatives & Reference Sites

45

Synthetic Soils
Becky Mikulay
KEYNOTES: (1) 7,000 cubic yards available between Cayuga Compost and Cornell Compost, and 2,000 cubic yards coarse organic material available. (2) This should bring pH closer to 7, which may make Zn, Fe, Mn, and Al more bioavailable, but it will dilute concentrations of all nutrients. (3) Addition of compost would also dilute and stabilize lead levels, possibly making material acceptable as topsoil for lawns, golf courses, etc. but not garden soil or high human contact soil.

he process of manufacturing a synthetic topsoil requires fine-tuning the balance of sand, silt and clay content of the soil with the nutrient content and the organic matter content to blend a soil which can be used as a growing medium or for another specified purpose on a landscape project. Adding organic matter to a dredged sediment medium improves the quality of the soil and dilutes the quantity of any less desirable nutrients in the soil. A study by Ruiz Diaz and Darmody of the University of Illinois finds that dredged sediment can make excellent growing medium. Using a manufactured topsoil on a landscape project is considered more environmentally friendly than harvesting a topsoil from agricultural fields for use in residential or commercial growing mediums. This is a green industry that Ithaca could be involved in continuously in conjunction with the ongoing Inlet dredging effort. While the dredged

Figure 6.1 a - Intervale Compost Product, Burlington, VT

Figure 6.1 b - Average production rate for the Canal Corporation sediment removal by hydraulic dredge = 80,000 cy per season

material on its own may not have desirable properties it can be considered a structureless minute soil which can transform quickly from a concrete-like consistency to a highly liquid sludge the addition of organic matter (i.e. compost) begins to give the mineral dredge material some structure. The city of Ithaca could work with Cayuga Compost, Cornell compost and Ithaca Brewing compost to transform a waste product into a useable product and a revenue stream, which would help cover the expense of dredging. It is estimated that about 7,000 cubic yards of organic matter are available in Ithaca and 2,000 cubic yards to course organic matter, which could be combined with the Inlet sediment.

Depending on the quantity of the annual dredged material and the required dilution of the sediment, a significant portion of the dredged sediment could be transformed into a new soil product. This process must be undertaken cautiously so as not to dangerously alter the pH balance of the soil material and suddenly make the heavy metals bioavailable. This synthetic soil product could become an acceptable material for lawns and golf courses, especially within Tompkins County, but would not be recommended for use in garden beds where more human contact occurs.

Alternatives & Reference Sites

46

Brick Production
Amy McLean
KEYNOTES: (1) Hanseaten-Stein Brickworks industrially processes dredged sediment to bricks. (2) Brick products are in compliance with German brick standards. (3) Heavy metals are immobilized. (4) The Georgia Institute of Technology found that brick samples consisting of 100% dredged material to be in compliance with ASTM criteria for building brick.

100% Dredged Material Sand and Clay Substitution Bricks, Georgia

Researchers at Georgia Institute of Technology recently performed studies on the viability of making fired bricks from materials dredged from the Savannah River. Whereas most of the scientific literature focuses on using dredged materials as a partial clay and sand replacement, this study uses dredged materials as the primary component. Other additives include soybean oil, to improve lubricity, and barium carbonate to prevent the formation of scum. Brick properties were in compliance with ASTM criteria for building brick. The research concludes with identifying the potential for marine and river sediment

Hanseaten-Stein Brickworks Bremen, Germany

example of dredged material that can be processed into bricks at an industrial scale. Hanseaten-Stein uses a mixture comprising (by weight) 50% harbor sediments, 10% crushed bricks and 40% of two clays. 21,189 cubic feet per year of dredged material is collected from the Bremen Harbor and converted to over 5 million structurally stable bricks complying with German building standards. In 2002 a study was conducted analyzing the dredged sediment contaminant pathways in the environment during brick production. Little environmental impact was found and arsenic and other heavy metals were immobilized during the process.

Hanseaten-Stein Brickworks is an

Figure 6.2 b - Brick processing method used by Hanseaten-Stein

Figure 6.2 a - Composition of raw brick material from the Bremen Harbor (Both Images: Hamar & Volker)

Alternatives & Reference Sites

47

as an alternative source for manufacturing bricks and the recognition that these products comply with construction standards and legislative environmental requirements.

Inlet Applications
Hanseaten-Stein Brickworks offers insight to industrial scale brick production as the amount of dredged sediment is similar to the amount that has been predicted of

dredged sediment from the Cayuga Inlet to be removed per year over a period of approximately 20 years. More studies would be needed to determine the location, environmental impact and economic feasibility of a brick processing facility in Ithaca. In addition, Georgia Institute of Technology researchers show that it is possible to manufacture bricks that are structurally sound and in compliance with U.S. building standards.

Figure 6.2 d - Effect of raw mix composition on formation of shrinkage cracks. Mix 1: 100%clay/silt dredged sediment, 45% water; Mix 4: 80% clay/silt and 20% sand dredged sediment, 36% water, 0.1% soybean oil, 0.5% BaCO3

References
Hamer, Kay, and Volker Karius. Brick Production with Dredged Harbour Sediments. An Industrialscale Experiment. Waste Management 22.5 (2002): 521-30. Print. Mezencevova, Andrea, Nortey N. Yeboah, Alex Crotty, Susan E. Burns, Lawrence F. Kahn, and Kimberly L. Kurtis. Assessment of Bricks Produced from Savannah River Sediment: A Case Study in 100% Recycled Content Brick. GDOT. NAMC Conference (2011): 1-12. Print.
Alternatives & Reference Sites

Figure 6.2 c - Average compressive strengths of bricks made of dredged sediment from the Savannah River. Error bars (standard deviations). (All images: Mezencevova)

48

Lightweight Aggregate: Glen Mills, Pennsylvania

Amy McLean
KEYNOTES: (1) The thermal process destroys organic compounds and binds metals within the aggregate. (2) The end product has been proven to be inert and pass all environmental tests. (3) Plants process sediments ranging from 250,000 to over 2,000,000 cubic yards per year.

Inlet Applications
This process is currently unsuitable within the Cayuga Inlet context. HarborRock plants process sediments ranging from 250,000 to over 2,000,000 cubic yards per year. In addition, there are no local processing facilities.

References
Company Summary. Harbor Rock. Web. 16 Nov. 2011. <http://www.harborrock.com/ HarborRockSummary.pdf>.

HarborRock Glen Mills, PA

developed a process for manufacturing lightweight aggregate from dredged materials. Lightweight aggregate has applications in the construction industry including masonry blocks, structural grade concrete, hot mix asphalt, and geotechnical fill. The thermal process destroys organic compounds and binds metals within the aggregate and the end product has been proven to be inert and pass all environmental tests. HarborRock has partnered with state and federal agencies, including the Maryland Port Authority and the states of New Jersey and Delaware, to perform pilot tests on dredged material from various rivers and harbors. The tests ensure that the lightweight aggregate meets all ASTM standards as well as environmental regulations.

HarborRock is a company that

Figure 6.3a - Lightweight aggregate manufacturing process.

Alternatives & Reference Sites

49

Cement Lock
Amy McLean
KEYNOTES: (1) This process creates an opportunity where dredged material can be used as a partial replacement for Portland Cement. Construction grade cement product is ideal for general construction applications (2) Organic contaminants are destroyed during manufacturing process. (3) Heavy metals are immobilized. (4) Demonstration plants are suited for treating 10,000 cubic yards/year.

and would create a product useful to the community. However, a processing facility near the inlet would be required.

References:
Jones, Keith W. Cement-Lock Technology for Decontaminating Dredged Estuarine Sediments. (2008). Gas Technology Institute, Nov. 2008. Web. 16 Nov. 2011. <http://www. bnl.gov/wrdadcon/publications/reports/GTIFR-11-2008/FinalReport-15372-Cement-Lockapproved.pdf>.

Gas Technology Institute Des Plaines, Illinois

ement Lock is a thermochemical manufacturing process developed by the Gas Technology Institute, that decontaminates and processes dredged material to be used as a partial replacement for Portland cement. During the manufacturing process, organic contaminants are destroyed and heavy metals are immobilized. A construction grade cement product is created, which is ideal for general construction applications. Demonstration plants are suited for treating 10,000 cubic yards per year.

Figure 6.4 b - Demo Plant in Bayonne, NJ.

Inlet Applications
This process could potentially be applied to fit within the dredging process
Figure 6.4 a - Cement Lock manufacturing process. (All images: Jones)

Alternatives & Reference Sites

50

Dry Sites: An Introduction

Matthew Horvath
to physically create dry land for the city, especially along the edges of Cayuga Lake. This process is not a new one; in the past both Stewart Park and Cass Park were constructed using dredge material. First an edge of large stone is constructed in the water, which is then filled with dredge material. The edge acts as a barrier, reducing the risk of diffusion of dredged material back into the lake. Creating dry land has multiple beneficial effects for the city. First, it reduces the distance that the dredge material has to be freighted, thus reducing the carbon footprint. Additionally, creation of land on the lake has the ability to increase property values while creating additional property for the city. Cayuga Lake is used mostly by residents as a recreational destination, and the city profits from this use. This alternative would certainly strengthen the user interface with Cayuga Lake by giving residents further reason to visit this public commodity, benefitting both residents and the city alike.

Dredge material can be used

Alternatives & Reference Sites

51

Cornell Lake Source Cooling Project: Dryden, New York

Becky Mikulay
KEYNOTES: (1) Approximately 3,000 cubic yards of sediment. (2) After 12 years, similar vegetation is found in the dredged sediment as on the adjacent old field soil. (3) Refer to Dredge Material Section for more information.

Project Description

report (in the Dredge Material tests), after the installation of Cornells Lake Source Cooling project in Cayuga Lake 12 years ago, approximately 3,000 cubic yards of subaqueous soil slurry was spread over the western half of the old agricultural field in nearby Dryden, NY. After the site was left to a

As has been discussed earlier in this

zero-order restoration for over a decade, our class surveyed the plant communities on two sides of this field to compare the plant species that had established in the old field soil as compared to those growing in the sediment. While at first glance, plant communities in the two soils appeared the same, upon closer inspection, less species overlap was found than initially expected. However, plants classified as invasive did not give overwhelming preference to one soil condition or the other. (See Dredge Material section of this report)

Inlet Application
Applying a layer of dredge sediment to this previously disturbed agricultural site doesnt appear to have negatively impacted plant succession through this primary stage. This suggests that the dredge material taken from the Inlet could be distributed locally with very little flow-up at no real consequence if the site was previously disturbed and not a sensitive habitat or of prime aesthetic concern. However, no net benefit was made through this disposal approach either no park or habitat intentionally created, no erosive hillside restored, no profit made, no beneficial reuse to speak of. As well, the sheer volume of dredge material that needs to removed from the inlet would be very hard to truck all over the county, even if there were sites that could take it. The cost of trips and carbon footprint would be enormous. If handled correctly, some dredge material from the Inlet could be used in upland sites such as here in Dryden, but a more purposeful use should be considered.

References
LSC EIS 2.3.5 Lake Sediments. Energy & Sustainability. Cornell University. Web. 17 Nov. 2011. <http://energyandsustainability.fs.cornell. edu/util/cooling/production/lsc/eis/ lakesediments.cfm>.
Alternatives & Reference Sites

Figure 6.5 a - Sediment spread across field. 10 1999. Courtesy of Patrick McNally, Associate Director - EHS Compliance.

Figure 6.5 b - Restoration Ecology class inventorying the plant community on the Dryden site. 9 2011.

52

Times Beach: Buffalo, New York

Andrew Miller
KEYNOTES: (1) 1972-1976, functioned as a 50-acre Confined Disposal Facility (CDF) to accommodate sediment from lake Erie (2) Since disposal operations ended, wildlife, vegetation, and aquatic species have prospered a. 2004 - designated as a nature preserve (3) Four distinct habitat zones observed: silt flat, marshland, woodlands, and upland. (4) Seen as helping to improve Buffalos waterfront and natural recreation attraction.

Project Description

presently known as Times Beach functioned as a sand beach where locals could go for recreational entertainment. The area was located next to a disenfranchised neighborhood that began to disappear just after World War II. Due to its strategic location, the local newspaper and future basis for the areas name, the Buffalo Times, promoted the sites use as a beach. However, as people began to flock to the site so did industry. Shortly thereafter, the waterways became polluted and recreational bathing was discouraged at Times Beach. Fast-forward a few decades, and by 1972, much of the citys industry had disappeared. As a result, the Army Corps of Engineers used the site from 1972 to 1976 as a confined disposal facility (CDF). Here, dredged sediments from the Buffalo River and harbor were pumped and

In the early 20th century, the site

stored. The dewatered sediments remain within the site today. Despite the area being concentrated with many contaminated soils, since 1976 nature has reclaimed Times Beach. Presently, four distinct habitat zones have been identified within the site: a silt flat, marshland, woodland, and upland. The Niagara River and Buffalo shoreline area are part of a flyway for migratory birds and the established zones have become a haven for more than 240 species of birds such as great blue heron, great egret, wild turkey, common goldeneye, lesser yellowlegs, downy woodpecker, Carolina wren, belted kingfisher, and red-tail hawk. Due to the vast array of species, three bird-watching locations have been constructed on-site. With the success of Times Beach, growth is beginning to reoccur along the Buffalo waterfront, and the sites future is uncertain. At any rate, the preserve is playing a critical role in the natural regeneration of the waterside habitat and could further Buffalos economy as the city hopes to benefit on waterfront and natural recreation.

Figure 6.6a - Times Beach Nature Preserve plan

of a CDF into the Cayuga Lake watershed could be a very real consideration, and, like Dike 14 and Times Beach, may even become a nature preserve after the sites functional use as a CDF.

References
Burney, Jajean (2011). Times Beach Nature Preserve - A Waterfront Jewel in Downtown Buffalo. Friends of Times Beach Nature Preserve. Available: <http:// thegoodneighborhood.com>.

Inlet Applications
Similar to Dike 14, although the scale of the Confined Disposal Facility approach would need to be down-sized to fit the smaller area of Cayuga Lake, the basic concept and benefits would remain the same. Thus, the incorporation

Alternatives & Reference Sites

53

Cuyahoga River & Dike 14: Cleveland, Ohio

Andrew Miller
KEYNOTES: (1) 200,000-300,000 cubic yards of sediment dredged annually (2) Prior to Clean Water Act of 1972, dredged sediments were placed in the open lake or along shoreline as fill. (3) Became a Confined Disposal Facility from 1979 to 1999. One of 45 CDFs in the Great Lake Region. (4) Today, dike 14 is an 88-acre Cleveland Lakefront Nature Preserve. (5) Quick Facts: a. Perimeter: 5,400 feet b. Height: 39 feet c. Capacity: 6,130,000 cubic yards

Project Description
ike 14 is a former Confined Disposal Facility (CDF) located approximately 4.5 miles east of the Cuyahoga River and is adjacent to the northern end of the Cleveland Lakefront State Park. The Cuyahoga River has a natural depth of six feet and so the U.S. Army Corps for Engineers is responsible for dredging the lower 5.5 miles of the river to maintain a necessary navigational depth of 27 feet. This results in between 200,000 to 300,000 cubic yards of annually, dredged sediments from the Cuyahoga River and harbor, combined. Much of the sediments are the result of some upstream erosional process and runoff of the Cuyahoga River watershed (813 square miles in size) and are mostly polluted with various heavy metals, chemicals, organics, and

oils. Needing a place to be disposed, from 1979 to 1999, much of these sediments were placed within dike 14. The dike, itself, was originally designed to contain 6,130,000 cubic yards of dredge at a cost of about $29 million. However, in 1994, the structure was raised 7 feet and providing an additional capacity of 880,000 cubic yards to allow for another CDF (Dike 10B) to be constructed along the Cleveland harbor waterfront. Since disposal operations ceased on the dike in 1999, the site has become a naturalized 88-acre wildlife haven. The city of Cleveland even recently deemed the area a nature preserve. Over 280 bird species, numerous butterflies, 16 mammal species, 26 plant and 9 tree and shrub species have been identified inhabiting the dike due to its strategic coastal location and access to Lake Erie.

Figure 6.7 a - Cleveland harbor waterfront with the Cuyahoga River in the right-foreground

Confined Disposal Facilities (CDFs)

Until the 1960s, many dredged sediments from the Cuyahoga River and Cleveland Harbor were disposed in Lake Eries open waters. However, after the River and Harbor Act was passed in 1970, engineered structures deemed Confined Disposal Facilities were built for contaminated dredge material. In fact, half of the 3-5 million, annually dredged materials from the Great Lakes is determined to be polluted. Since 1968, all government-dredged material in Cleveland has been placed in CDFs named Dike 9,

Dike 12, Dike 13, Dike 14, and Dike 10B. Including the ones in Cleveland, there are currently 45 CDFs throughout the Great Lakes - 16 are similar to Dike 14, and another 29 function as in-water or shoreline, underwater facilities. Most of these facilities, Dike 14 included, have no liner. Instead, as sediments are pumped or mechanically placed into the dike, the water percolates or evaporates through the walls and the sediments consolidate thereby creating a predetermined, site-specific landmass.

Inlet Applications
Although the Confined Disposal Facility approach would need to be down-sized to fit the much smaller size of Cayuga Lake, the basic concept and benefits would remain the same. Due to the great abundance of CDFs in
Alternatives & Reference Sites

54

the Great Lake regions (45) and several acting as nature preserves, they have clearly shown to provide benefits beyond their use as a dredge disposal site. Furthermore, since these are confined sites the risk of contamination of other ecosystems with heavy metals, chemicals, and organics within the material would be limited. Although, it should be noted that much of our material has been found to be benign in character from the tests we have performed, thus far.

Figure 6.8 f - Cut-away of Dike 14 for basic construction elements

References
Cleveland City Planning Commission. (2006) Dike 14 Master Plan. Nov. 2008. (Online) 16 Nov. 2011. <http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/ lakefront/dike14.html>.
Figure 6.8 b - Dike 14 perimeter construction (1975) Figure 6.8 d - Dike 14 with mud flats (1984)

Figure 6.8 c - Dike 14 perimeter completed (1983)

Figure 6.8 e - Dike 14 vegetation growth (1986)

Alternatives & Reference Sites

55

Dredge Infill Project at Stewart Park: Ithaca, New York

Becky Mikulay
KEYNOTES: (1) 1894 Renwick Park created (2) c.1911 Land reclaimed with fill from Inlet Channel dredgings. (3) 1921 Stewart Park became the first municipal park on the lake front (grand opening postponed due to flooding). (4) 1934 Comprehensive plan calls for raising grade by 2-4 ft by infilling with dredge material from the Inlet; results in a more abrupt land/water edge condition. (5) 1960s 80-100 ft. added to shoreline and planted with willows after Rt. 13 construction.

dredge fill from the inlet to finish the job of wetland eradication throughout most of the park. While Wiedorns 1921 photographs still show aquatic plants reaching out from the Stewart Park shore to the lake, the fulfillment of the 1934 master plan created the much more abrupt land/water edge condition that is seen today. Further extensive fill work was done in the 1960s after the Route 13 construction when an additional 80-100 feet was added to the shoreline, which is now planted with willows.
Figure 6.8 b Dump site in Stewart Park, 1921. Photo: William Wiedorn

Project Description
thacas Stewart Park has a long history associated with dredging the Inlet. William Weidorns 1921 thesis, The Plans for the Development of Stewart Park, spoke of reclaiming land within then Renwick Park from Inlet channel dredgings at least as early as 1911. Stewart Park has been accumulating Inlet sediment on an ongoing basis for over a century. In the summer of 1921, Stewart Park became Ithacas first municipal lakefront park, filling in the wetland habitat in exchange for this ecosystem service was viewed as beneficial to residents at the time. In 1934 a comprehensive master plan was proposed for the park. It called for raising the grade an additional 2-4 feet in various places with more

Figure 6.8 a - The 1934 Master Plan for Stewart Park. Image: History Center in Tompkins County

Figure 6.8 c - Stewart Park after the flood of 1935. Image: History Center in Tompkins County

Alternatives & Reference Sites

56

Inlet Applications
Stewart Park demonstrates that there is a history of creating dry land from the Inlet dredge material. Currently there are regulations that prohibit this type of land creation. Stewart Park does show however, that without much fuss, this dredge sediment can be easily used to create relatively flat, nonstructural fill material that supports standard park vegetation.

References
Armstrong, Victoria. A Cultural History Survey of the Cayuga Waterfront. Rep. Ithaca: Cayuga Waterfront Trail Initiative, 2001. Trowbridge. Stewart Park: 1987 Preservation Goals and Guidelines. Rep. Ithaca: Dept. of Planning and Development & the Dept. of Public Works, 1987.

Wiedorn, William S. The Plans for the Development of Stewart Park. Thesis. Cornell University, 1921. Ithaca, NY - Parks. Official Website of Ithaca, NY. Web. 17 Nov. 2011. <http://www.ci.ithaca. ny.us/parks/index.cfm>. Various historic photographs of Stewart and Cass Parks. The History Center in Tompkins County, Ithaca.

Figure 6.8 d - Wetlands off the shore of Stewart Park, 1921. Photo: William Wiedorn

Alternatives & Reference Sites

57

Dredge Infill Project at Cass Park: Ithaca, New York

Becky Mikulay
KEYNOTES: (1) c.1906 West side of park infilled with dredge material from Barge Canal. (2) 1930s WPA project to build airport runway over swampy area filled by Inlet dredge material. (3) 1966 Dredge material used to fill southern portion of park. (4) 1971 Cass Park developed; southern portion of park filled with soil from Channel project.

Project Description

Park has a long history of association with dredging the Inlet. In 1906, the city began acquiring and infilling land in what is now Cass Park. A failed peach orchard was eclipsed by the rail line and airport that dominated the

As with Ithacas Stewart Park, Cass

area. During the Depression, a WPA project was implemented to build an airport runway over a swampy area after, once again, filling the swap with dredge sediment from the Inlet. The 1960s brought the construction of the adjacent and long-awaited flood control channel; the soil generated from this project was used to fill the southern portion of Cass Park in 1971. Along with Stewart Park, the filling of Cass Park made the ecology of the southern tip of Cayuga Lake unique from sister sites in the Finger Lakes. Although Conesus, Hemlock, Honeoye, Canandaigua, Owasco, Skaneateles and Seneca still maintain some of their natural sediment accretion into wetlands, the only place left for this natural process to happen in Ithaca is within the flood control channel.

Inlet Applications
As with Stewart Park, past dredge material infill projects in Cass Park suggest that it is certainly possible to use the dredged sediment as a viable fill to create relativity flat ground suitable to parkland and similar uses. It is worth noting, however, that in much of the previous work done in Cass Park, sediment was used to fill holes and depressions in the landscape, any proposal to build up from a flat ground plane would require a different design approach to make sure that the earthwork stayed in place rather than melting back into a minute soil slurry in the first heavy rainfall. Also with Hydrilla being an issue, a silt curtain could be used to keep it contained in the land.

Conesus

Hemlock

Honeoye

Canandaigua Owasco

Skaneateles

Figure 6.9a - Cayugas sister lakes maintain some amount of natural wetland at the southern end of the lakes. Images: Google Earth.

Alternatives & Reference Sites

58

Wetland Sites: An Introduction

Gene Fifer
been depositing sediments at the southern end of Cayuga Lake since the end of the glacial period. Marshes were continuously created, altered, and filled in through thousands of years of flooding events. The marshes that existed in Ithaca were drained and isolated from their water sources for residential and commercial development at the expense of native flora and fauna. This loss of wetland habitats occurred throughout the Finger Lakes region and has been partially remediated through restoration projects like the Montezuma National Wildlife Refuge. The lessons of the following case studies could provide an approach appropriate for the inlet dredge project.

Erosion from upland watersheds has

Alternatives & Reference Sites

59

Manning and Cowett Proposal at Stewart & Cass Park

Amy McLean
KEYNOTES: Cass Park (1) Reduce erosion and control flooding. (2) Enable CU and IC to continue to watch crew races. Stewart Park (1) Enhance wildlife habitat. (2) Provide amenities- bird watching, hiking, fish access. (3) NYDEC states that this would negatively impact fish habitat.

Project Description

Inlet Applications
As an alternative use that has already been explored, this project serves to reexamine the feasibility and benefits of creating wetlands from dredged material. A wetland edge along Cass Park will reduce the risk of flooding, especially in the downtown residential areas. A stabilized bank would also enable continual viewing of Cornell University and Ithaca College crew races. In addition, peninsula off to the west end of Stewart Park would be a beneficial reuse of the dredge material by enhancing wildlife habitat and providing amenities such as hiking, bird

Ecologic, an environmental consulting company, to suggest ideal locations and assess environmental implications for those sites receiving dredge material. Evaluated sites include Treman State Marina Park, Cass Park, Newman Golf Course, and Stewart Park. Working from an earlier Cornell University Landscape Architecture studio proposal, designed by Fred Cowett, they suggested an alternative of using dredged material to create wetlands off of Stewart Park and Cass Park.

In 2008, the city of Ithaca hired

Figure 6.10 a - Cass Park: bank loss and erosion. Courtesy of the City of Ithaca.

Figure 6.10 b - Cass Park: bank loss and erosion. Courtesy of the City of Ithaca.

Alternatives & Reference Sites

60

Figure 6.10 d - Stewart Park Conceptual Plan. Designed by Fred Cowett.

watching, and fish access. Sediment from Six-mile Creek, Cascadilla Creek and Fall Creek would be pushed further to the north in Lake Cayuga, away from the Stewart Park shoreline, which could allow for safer swimming conditions. However, it is perceived by NYDEC that this would negatively impact fish habitat. Recreating wetlands reintroduces ecosystem function that has been lost with the draining of wetlands and creates new ecosystem services and potentially contains dredge material that contains Hydrilla to one location, with the use of a in water silt curtain.

References
City of Ithaca. Planning & Design For Sediment Removal in The Flood Control Channel, Cayuga Inlet and the Lower Reaches of Six Mile, Fall & Cascadilla Creeks. EPF Grant Application. 23 May 2006. Web. 14 Nov. 2011. <http://www.ecologicllc.com/pdf/ dredginggrantapp.pdf>.
Figure 6.10 c - Context Map Figure 6.10 e - Stewart Park Wetland Phasing. Drawn by Fred Cowett.

Manning, Rick. Stewart Park Rehabilitation Action Plan. Rep. City of Ithaca, Strategic Tourism Planning Board, and Tompkins County Chamber of Commerce Foundation, Dec. 2009. Web. 14 Nov.2011.<http://www. cayugawaterfronttrail. com/file_uploads/SPRAP_Report_12-7-09_ LowRes.pdf>.
Alternatives & Reference Sites

61

Poplar Island: Chesapeake Bay, Maryland

Amy McLean
KEYNOTES: (1) 1847- over 1,000 acres. (2) 1994- over 4 acres of remnant islands. (3) 1998- Project begins. (4) 2029- Last year of dredge shipment. (5) 2039- Habitat restoration complete process. Construction Process (1) Dredge material shipped from Baltimore Harbor. (2) Built like jigsaw puzzle in manageable size cells. (3) Crust management. (4) Planting. (5) Cells connected.

Project Description

and US Army Corps of Engineers were contracted by the Port of Baltimore to rebuild Poplar Island to its 1847 footprint, as it had begun disappearing due to deforestation. Other participating agencies include National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, USACE, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Maryland Department of Environment, Maryland Department of Natural Resources. Initiated in 1998, Poplar Island will receive dredge up to 2029 and habitat restoration will be completed by 2039. Poplar Island was first surveyed in 1847 and it comprised of over 1,000 acres, supporting a diverse array of wildlife habitat. When the project was started it had eroded to about 4 acres of remnant islands. The Maryland Environmental Service aspired to recreate
Figure 6.11 a - Context. Figure 6.11 b - Phasing.

The Maryland Environmental Service

the island to improve water quality, restore wildlife habitat, and reduce erosion from the mainland. They formed a complimentary relationship with the Baltimore Harbor- in order for the Harbor to remain navigable and economically viable they need to dredge the shipping channel annually. The island borders were first reconstructed with armored rock edges and then filled with slurry of dredge material. From there, the island was divided into cells, based on what could be a workable dredge load over a manageable period of time. The first deposited substrate consisted of sand, and is now filled with material from the dredge

approach channels leading to the Baltimore Harbor. Dredge material is not used from the Harbor in order to minimize heavy metals or toxic conditions. The material arrives at Poplar Island from November to March and it pumped through 24 pipes at a concentration of 10% sediment to 90% water to its destined cell. Once there, the water is left to drain and dry out. Oxygen, pH, salinity, and turbidity are monitored every hour to ensure proper functioning of the constructed environment. Once the desired conditions are reached, planting occurs. At the end of the construction all cells will be connected.

Figure 6.11 c - Aerial view, 1994.

Figure 6.11 d - 2009 Master Plan. (all images from USACOE)

Alternatives & Reference Sites

62

Inlet Applications
Poplar Island exemplifies what can be accomplished with multiple agencies working toward a common goal. In addition, this partnership enables the Baltimore Harbor to remain economically viable while enhancing the ecological services and functions by recreating wildlife habitat.

References
Introduction. Baltimore District - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Updated 9 Mar. 2011. Web. 15 Nov. 2011. <http://www.nab.usace.army.mil/ Projects/PoplarIsland/Intro.htm>.(1994) Master Plan. Digital image. US Army Corp of Engineers and the Port of Baltimore, Feb. 2009. Web. 15 Nov. 2011. <http://www. talbotcountymd.gov/uploads/images/EconDev/ Poplar_Island.jpg>.
Figure 6.11 e - Reconstructed wetland, November 2011.

Photo Library. Baltimore District - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Updated 9 Mar. 2011. Web. 15 Nov. 2011.http://www.nab.usace.a rmy.mil/Projects/PoplarIsland/Photos.htm Project Information. Baltimore District - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Updated 9 Mar. 2011. Web. 15 Nov. 2011. <http://www.nab. usace.army.mil/Projects/PoplarIsland/ProjectInfo. htm>.

Figure 6.11 f - Diamondback Terrapin

Figure 6.11 g - Great Blue Herons

Figure 6.11 h - Snowy Owl (Nyctea scandiaca)

Figure 6.11 i - Striped Bass (Morone saxatilis) ( all fauna images USACOE)

Figure 6.11 j - Reconstructed wetland, November 2011.

Alternatives & Reference Sites

63

Living Shorelines: St. Michaels, Maryland

Amy McLean
KEYNOTES: Living Shorelines effectively: (1) Absorb wave impact. (2) Reduce and filter nutrients. (3) Foster wildlife habitat.

Project Description
ounded in 1972, Environmental Concern is a 501(c)3 public non-profit institution focused on protecting and enhancing wetlands in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Restoration methods have been developed and refined over the past 39 years by the founder, Dr. Garbisch and other scientists and engineers. Environmental Concerns main objective is to advocate wetland stewardship and understanding through educational outreach and wetland construction. Educational activities include curriculum development, schoolyard habitat development, publications, and community programs at their Wetland Learning Center. A major component of Environmental Concerns work is constructing wetlands. Their Living Shoreline refers to a constructed salt marsh, typical to the Chesapeake Bay region. These gently sloping marshes absorb the impact of waves and reduce nutrients such as nitrogen (through denitrification) and phosphorus from the water, thus reducing

algae blooms, eutrophication, and dissolved oxygen levels. Prior to construction, the site is first analyzed and state and local permits are obtained. Next the sill is constructed by placing filter cloth and stone at the desired location. The existing bank is then graded and sand is placed as a growing medium. Typically, marsh grasses are installed; Spartina alterniflora below the Mean High Water Table and Spartina patens above the Mean High Water Table. Exclusion fences are then installed to protect the new plants from geese.

Inlet Applications
Although the living shoreline approach would require slight modifications if applied to creating wetlands within the inlet, the basic concept and benefits to the Chesapeake remain the same to Cayuga Lake.

References
EC Restoration - Living Shorelines. Environmental Concern - Dedicated to Working with All Aspects of Wetlands; the Most Active and Fascinating Ecosystems in the World. Web. 08 Nov. 2011. <http://www. wetland.org/restoration_livingshorelines_ build.htm>.

Figure 7.12 c - Sill construction. Figure 7.12 a - Typical plan.

Figure 7.12 e - Marsh grasses installed.

Figure 7.12 b - Typical section.

Figure 7.12 d - Existing bank is graded and sand is placed.

Figure 7.12 f - Exclusion fences installed to protect the new plants from geese.

Alternatives & Reference Sites

64

Montezuma National Wildlife Refuge: Seneca Falls, NY

Gene Fifer
KEYNOTES: (1) 50,000 acre wetland preserve. (2) Drained in 1910, restored in 1937. (3) Tolerates natural seasonal fluctuations of water level.

The wildlife refuge is now designated a National Natural Landmark and is managed for education, recreation, and migratory bird habitat.

References
Montezuma National Wildlife Refuge - USFWS www.fws.gov/r5mnwr/ Montezuma National Wildlife Refuge www.fws.gov/refuges/profiles/index. cfm?id=52550 Friends of the Montezuma Wetlands Complex friendsofmontezuma.org/

Project Description
he Montezuma Wetlands Complex (MWC) is a joint project of the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and Ducks Unlimited to restore wetland wildlife habitat. It covers 50,000 acres at the northern end of Cayuga Lake and includes both state and federal wildlife refuges, as well as property owned by private landowners and conservation organizations. The widening and extension of the New York State Barge Canal in 1910 drained much of the marshland. A dam was built at the north end of Cayuga Lake and the level of the Seneca River was lowered eight to ten feet with locks to allow barges to continue operating. The remaining river course was straightened and deepened for better navigation and flood surge control. In 1937, the US Fish and Wildlife Service bought almost 6,500 acres of the former marsh and the Civilian Conservation Corps built low dikes around the area to restore wetland habitat.

Figure 6.13 a - Site Map (MNHR)

Figure 6.13 b - Aerial: Montezuma National Wildlife Refuge by Bill Hecht

Figure 6.13 c - Sandhill Cranes by Doug Racine at Montezuma National Wildlife Refuge

Alternatives & Reference Sites

65

Catharine Creek Area: Watkins Glen, New York

Gene Fifer
KEYNOTES: (1) A naturally occurring Finger Lakes wetland. (2) 1,000 acre wetland operated by NYS DEC. (3) Still dredged for navigation and flood control.

References
Catharine Creek - NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation <www.dec.ny.gov>. Queen Catharine Marsh Willow Walk Trail | Watkins Glen New ... <www.trails.com/tcatalog_trail. aspx?trailid=XFP001-030>. Watkins Glen - Hiking and Biking in Schuyler County <www.watkinsglenchamber.com>.

Project Description
ueen Catharine Marsh, between Watkins Glen and Montour Falls at the southern end of Seneca Lake, is the last remaining headwater marsh in the Finger Lakes region. It is approximately 1,000 acres and is administered by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. In 2008 it was designated a part of New York States Bird Conservation Area (BCA) program. The marsh was threatened by the construction of the Chemung Canal in 1833. The canal connected Watkins Glen with Elmira linking the Erie Canal system with Pennsylvanias Susquehanna River watershed. The section of Catharine Creek adjacent to the marsh is still dredged for navigation and flood control by the US Army Corps of Engineers. Both the Montezuma Wetlands Complex and Catharine Creek Wildlife Management Area are examples of drained or threatened wetlands that have been restored and protected in the Finger Lakes watershed through joint federal, state, and local government actions in partnership with local and national wildlife protection organizations.

Figure 6.14 a - Trail Map: CCWMA

Figure 6.14 b - Queen Catharine Marsh by Mark Moskal

Figure 6.14 c - Dark blue, current wetlands

Alternatives & Reference Sites

66

Appendix A - Landslide Susceptibility Analysis Methods

Matthew Gonser
6 Weighted Factors Derived from DEMs 1) Slope Derived from USDA SSURGO Digital Soil Survey 2) American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Soil Classification 3) Liquid Limit 4) Hydrologic Group 5) Physical Soil Properties (as % silt + clay) 6) Hazard of Erosion

Figure A.1 - Abridged methodology of landslide susceptibility analysis (adapted from a USGS/NYSGS preliminary landslide analysis algorithm (NYS Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Services, 2007)).

Appendices

67

Appendix B - Soil Health Test Results

Jamie Nassar & Hayden Stebbins

Appendices

68

Appendix B - Soil Health Test Results

Jamie Nassar & Hayden Stebbins
7.7 7.7 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.7 7.9 7.8 7.9 7.7 6.2 6.4 5.9 7.7 7.6 7.4 3.7 4.5 4 2.8 3.4 4 3.8 3.7 1.4 3.7 7.4 10.3 10.8 4.3 3.9 5.1 2.3 2.9 2.5 1.7 2.2 2.6 2.4 2.3 0.7 2.4 4.9 7 7.4 2.8 2.5 3.3 C1 C3 C5 C6 R1 R4 R6 L1 L2 L4 F1 F2 F4 D2 D3 D4 % 0.59 0.6 0.61 0.61 0.59 0.58 0.64 0.61 0.32 0.69 1.43 1.76 1.62 0.91 0.68 0.84 P lbs/Ac 15 12 11 9 12 11 11 11 6 4 3 4 27 6 5 5 K lbs/Ac 870 400 415 320 660 515 455 410 230 460 375 400 565 335 420 450 Mg lbs/Ac 1550 1365 1230 1120 1225 1370 1315 950 435 515 300 390 1020 555 490 450 Ca lbs/Ac 167270 102560 104730 95200 143820 102020 36430 44170 36710 13060 2160 2600 8330 13620 11320 13600 Fe lbs/Ac 215 71 133 101 178 153 69 108 74 67 7 5 32 13 18 17 Al lbs/Ac 119 82 89 76 102 102 96 97 52 86 140 91 175 36 37 29 Mn lbs/Ac 1725 1622 1226 1184 1263 1625 587 737 228 286 54 68 83 116 109 99 Zn lbs/Ac 13.1 9.7 8.7 7.2 8.7 9.3 9 6.8 3.4 5.1 1.7 1.6 4.6 4 5.8 5.3 SAMPLEID MOISTURE pH_H2O LOI % OM %

< det = below etection limit

ABID

23876-1

23876-2

23876-3

23876-4

23876-5

23876-6

23876-7

23876-8

23876-9

23876-10

23876-11

23876-12

23876-13

23876-14

23876-15

23876-16

Appendices

69

Appendix C - Dryden Site Species Curves

Jamie Nassar & Hayden Stebbins

Appendices

70

Appendix C - Dryden Site Species Curves

Jamie Nassar & Hayden Stebbins

Appendices

71

Thank You
Brian Eden Tompkins County Environmental Management Council Darby Kiley Lisa Nicholas Planning and Development, City of Ithaca Laura Kerrigan Eric Whitney Scott Gibson Water and Sewer Division, City of Ithaca Dan Karig Water Resources Council Joseph P. Kreitinger US Army Corps of Engineers, Ithaca Liz Moran EcoLogic LLC Michelle Palmer TG MIller P.C. Wade Wykstra Board of Public Works, City of Ithaca Fred Cowett Craig Cramer Bryan Emmet Randy Wayne Department of Horticulture, Cornell University Susan Hoskins Department of Soil Sciences, Cornell University Holly L. Menninger Joe Yavitt Alexis Heinz Lars Rudstam Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University Patrick McNally Associate Director, EHS Compliance, Cornell University Murray McBride Bob Schindelbeck Harold Van Es Department of Crop and Soil Science, Cornell University Todd Walter Rebecca Marjerison Department of Biological & Environmental Engineering, Cornell University Matthew Barnes Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame Robert L. Johnson Racine-Johnson Aquatic Ecologists Phil Cimmins Puddledockers, Ithaca Jim Curatolo Chris Yearlock Upper Susquehana Coalition for supplying Bath-imagery Equipment Dennis Montgomery Captain, Floating Classroom, Ithaca Jim Curatolo Chris Yearlock Upper Susquehana Coalition for supplying Bath-imagery Equipment Rich & Phyllis Pouyat Bryan Harrison Dana Hills & Professor Tom Whitlow Restoration Ecology (Hort 440), Department of Horticulture, Cornell University

72

Fall 2011 Restoration Ecology Class: Hort 440

(Left-Right) Matthew Gonser, Becky Mikulay, Tim Lynch, Yong Seuk Peter Kwon, Jack Mascharka, Jamie Nassar, Matt Horvath, Hayden Stebbins, Andrew Miller, Ben Hedstrom, Gene Fifer, Bryan Harrison, Trinity Boisvert, Rebecca Montross, Nadia Pierrehumbert, Dana Hills, Amy McLean 73