Watershed-based Plan To Restore the Hackensack Meadowlands:

The Meadowlands Comprehensive Restoration Implementation Plan

Terry Doss and Karen AppellThe Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Bill Shadel and Pete WepplerU.S. Army Corps of Engineers, N.Y. District

Introduction

Purpose: develop solutions to ecosystem degradation

in the Meadowlands at a watershed scale

Mill Creek Wetland Enhancement Site

Key Project Participants

The Public

Non-Federal SponsorNew Jersey Meadowlands Commission

Lead Federal AgencyU. S. Army Corps of Engineers

Cooperating AgenciesU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

N.J. Department of Environmental ProtectionNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Study Authority

Resolution of 15 April 1999:

“Resolved by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the United States House of Representatives, That, the Secretary of the Army is requested to review the reports of the Chief of Engineers on the New York and New Jersey Channels…with a view to determining the feasibility of environmental restoration and protection relating to water resources and sediment quality within the New York and New Jersey Port District, including but not limited to creation, enhancement, and restoration of aquatic, wetland, and adjacent upland habitats.”

Project Status

STEPS TARGET DATE

Overall Hudson-Raritan Estuary (HRE)Reconnaissance January

2000

Project Management Plan April 2003

Meadowlands Environmental Site Information Compilation (MESIC) May

2004

Public scoping meeting February 2005

Meadowlands Comprehensive Restoration Implementation Plan (MCRIP) Underway

Project Cooperation Agreement

Study Process

Request for Federal Assistance

Study Problem and Report Preparation

Project Management Plan

Feasibility StudyMCRIPEIS

Implementation

Operation and Maintenance

Interim Project Cost Sharing Agreements (PCSAs)

Separate Construction Projects

Problem Identification

Preconstruction Engineering and Design Federal Authority and Funding

Project Need

Habitat Loss/Alteration

• Tidal Restrictions • Channelization • Fill • Channel Siltation• Dredging• Sea Level Rise • Marsh Accretion • Marsh Subsidence • Habitat Fragmentation • Infrastructure/Shoreline

Hardening

Example of Tidal Restriction in the Meadowlands

Project Need (cont’d)

Sediment and Water Pollution• Toxic Contaminants in Water/Sediment• Non-Point Source Pollution/Discharge• Landfill Leachate• Sewage Treatment Plant Outflows /Combined Sewer Outfalls (STP/CSO)• Floatable Debris

Invasive, Exotic, Nuisance Species• Invasive Vegetation • Monoculture Plant Associations • Predator/Prey Imbalance • Feral Animal Species • Disease Vector Species

Non-Sensitive Public Use• Personal Water Craft

Harrier Meadow Wetland

Enhancement Site

Project Goals and Objectives

Goal 1: Identify Historical Ecological Functions of the Meadowlands

Goal 2: Identify Impairments to Ecological Functions of the Meadowlands

Goal 3: Identify Physical Impairments to the Meadowlands

Goal 4: Identify Quantifiable Restoration Performance Metrics• Water Quality• Wetland Acreage• Sediment Quality• Vegetative Diversity• Wildlife Species Abundance and Diversity• Public Access

Project Goals and Objectives (con’t.)

Goal 5: Identify Conceptual Restoration Opportunities

Goal 6: Conduct Site Characterization and Selection

Goal 7: Evaluate Restoration Alternatives and Functions Restored

Goal 8: Assess Cost/Benefit

Goal 9: Select Restoration Opportunities Goal 10: Monitor and Measure Performance

Mill Creek Wetland

Enhancement Site

PotentialRestoratio

n Sites

Restoration Plan Components

• Restore Wetland Hydrology• Remove Tidal Restrictions• Restore Creek Morphology• Remove Fill• Dredge Contaminated

Sediments• On-site Contamination

Attenuation• Invasive Vegetative Species Control

• Plant Native Species• Nuisance Wildlife Control• Control Landfill Leachate• Control Non-Point Source Runoff• Control STP Discharge

Quality• Manage Motorized Watercraft

Evaluating Wetlands and Restoration Alternatives

Habitat Evaluation Techniques• HGM – Hydrogeomorphic Assessment (tidal fringe wetlands)

• IVA – Indicator Value Assessment (all wetland types)

• Best Professional Judgement

• Compare existing conditions at Reference Restoration Site and Potential Restoration Sites

• Selection based on:

• Meadowlands-wide goals

• Initial Critical Restoration Sites

• Anderson Creek Marsh• Lyndhurst Riverside Marsh• Meadowlark Marsh• Metro Media• Others? Riverbend Wetlands Preserve

Benefits: Meadowlands-wide and Site Specific

• Water Quality

• Wetlands

• Sediment Quality

• Wildlife Habitat

• Cultural Resources

• Air Quality

• Public AccessKearny Marsh

Anderson Creek Marsh

Fragmented

Contamination

Impaired Hydrology

Invasive Species

Non-Point Source Runoff

Anderson Creek Marsh - Historical

Local sponsor support

Enhance and improve hydrology

Plant with native species

Control any potential remobilization of buried contaminants

Potential Restoration Alternatives

Conceptual Design for Anderson Creek Marsh