Hackensack Meadowlands Restoration: Comprehensive Implementation Plan

1. Watershed-based Plan To Restore the Hackensack Meadowlands: The Meadowlands Comprehensive Restoration Implementation Plan Terry Doss and Karen Appell The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Bill Shadel and Pete Weppler U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, N.Y. District

2. Introduction Mill Creek Wetland Enhancement Site Purpose: develop solutions to ecosystem degradation in the Meadowlands at a watershed scale

3. Key Project Participants The Public Non-Federal Sponsor New Jersey Meadowlands Commission Lead Federal Agency U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Cooperating Agencies U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service N.J. Department of Environmental Protection National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

4. 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.”

5. 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

6. Study Process Problem Identification Request for Federal Assistance Study Problem and Report Preparation Project Management Plan Interim Project Cost Sharing Agreements (PCSAs) FeasibilityStudy Separate Construction Projects EIS MCRIP Preconstruction Engineering and Design Federal Authority and Funding Project Cooperation Agreement Implementation Operation and Maintenance

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. Potential Restoration Sites

12. 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

13. 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

14. Benefits: Meadowlands-wide and Site Specific • Water Quality • Wetlands • Sediment Quality • Wildlife Habitat • Cultural Resources • Air Quality • Public Access Kearny Marsh

15. Anderson Creek Marsh Fragmented Contamination Impaired Hydrology Invasive Species Non-Point Source Runoff

16. Anderson Creek Marsh - Historical

17. Potential Restoration Alternatives Local sponsor support Enhance and improve hydrology Plant with native species Control any potential remobilization of buried contaminants

18. Conceptual Design for Anderson Creek Marsh

19. Thank You