Download Watershed-based Plan to Restore the Hackensack Meadowlands

Survey
yes no Was this document useful for you?
   Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Document related concepts
no text concepts found
Transcript
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
Introduction
Mill Creek Wetland Enhancement Site
Purpose: develop solutions to ecosystem degradation
in the Meadowlands at a watershed scale
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
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
Project Management Plan
Meadowlands Environmental
Site Information Compilation (MESIC)
Public scoping meeting
Meadowlands Comprehensive
Restoration Implementation Plan (MCRIP)
January 2000
April 2003
May 2004
February 2005
Underway
Study Process
Problem Identification
Request for Federal Assistance
Study Problem and Report Preparation
Project Management Plan
Feasibility Study
EIS MCRIP
Preconstruction Engineering and Design
Interim Project Cost Sharing
Agreements (PCSAs)
Separate Construction Projects
Federal Authority and Funding
Project Cooperation Agreement
Implementation
Operation and Maintenance
Project Need
Habitat Loss/Alteration
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Tidal Restrictions
Channelization
Fill
Channel Siltation
Dredging
Sea Level Rise
Marsh Accretion
Example of Tidal Restriction in the
Marsh Subsidence
Meadowlands
Habitat Fragmentation
Infrastructure/Shoreline Hardening
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
Potential
Restoration
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 Access
Kearny Marsh
Anderson Creek Marsh
Fragmented
Contamination
Impaired Hydrology
Invasive Species
Non-Point Source Runoff
Anderson Creek Marsh - Historical
Potential Restoration Alternatives
Local sponsor support
Enhance and improve
hydrology
Plant with native species
Control any potential
remobilization of
buried contaminants
Conceptual Design for Anderson Creek Marsh