Harrier Meadow

Category:  Existing Restoration/Preservation, and/or Mitigation Site Harrier Meadow

Location:  Located along the western border of the Meadowlands District, west of the Kingsland Impoundment, south of Erie landfill and north of 1-E landfill in North Arlington, Bergen County.

Latitude/Longitude: 40.78632/ -74.11761

Current Land Use:  Tidal marsh and pedestrian trail

Size:  77.5 acres

Current Ownership: NJMC

Site Description: Harrier Meadow is located within the Saw Mill Creek Basin, and was initially part of a large marsh system influenced by Kingsland Creek and Sawmill Creek. The wetland has been cut off from full tidal inundation due to the construction of a pipeline and the New Jersey Turnpike – Western Spur. In the 1960′s, the site was bermed and used for rock and soil disposal. Wetland enhancement activities, which were completed in 1998, included the excavation of 20 acres of shallow impoundments that are hydrologically connected to the surrounding Kingsland mudflats. The impoundments were designed to help control the invasion of common reed (Phragmites australis) and purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria). Spoils from the excavation were used to create higher elevation areas for suitable nesting and resting habitats. Upland improvements included the creation of a scrub-shrub border along the base of the Meadows Path extension on the site’s western and southern boundaries, as well as around the margins of the impounded areas. Additional public access features at the site include benches, wildlife viewing blinds, and interpretative signage.

Existing Site-Specific Data Inventory

A. Survey, Maps, and GIS

HMD regional data exists inclusive of this site. As-built survey developed in 1998.

B. Real Estate/Ownership

Owned by NJMC

C. Site History & Land Use

Site-specific history and land use data presented in 1983 report for Saw Mill Creek Basin.

D. Biological Studies – Fauna

Post-restoration site-specific monthly and annual monitoring reports prepared from 1999 to 2003.

E. Biological Studies – General Environmental

Site-specific monthly and annual monitoring reports prepared from 1999 to 2003. Comparative study conducted in 2002 on vegetative uptake of heavy metals. Wetland assessments performed in 2003.

F. Geotechnical

Baseline data and wetland quality assessments conducted between 1998 and 2003.

G. Hydraulics and Hydrology

Pre-restoration site-specific hydrologic data presented in 1983 report for Saw Mill Creek Basin. Post-restoration hydrological assessment conducted in 2002.

H. Water and Sediments

Pre-restoration site-specific hydrologic data presented in 1983 report for Saw Mill Creek Basin. Soil sampling study conducted in 1998 and comparative study conducted in 2001 and 2002 on vegetative uptake of heavy metals.

I. Historical/Cultural Resources

No data obtained.

J. Restoration/Remediation Design Plans

As-built survey developed in 1998.

 

Site Reports

Site #3 – Harrier Meadow

Category: Existing Restoration, Preservation, and/or Mitigation Site

Location: Located along the western border of the Meadowlands District, west of the Kingsland Impoundment, south of Erie landfill and north of 1-E landfill in North Arlington, Bergen County.

Latitude/Longitude: 40.78632 / -74.11761

Current Land Use: Tidal marsh and pedestrian trail

Size: 77.5 acres

Current Ownership: NJMC

Site Description: Harrier Meadow is located within the Saw Mill Creek Basin, and was initially part of a large marsh system influenced by Kingsland Creek and Sawmill Creek. The wetland has been cut off from full tidal inundation due to the construction of a pipeline and the New Jersey Turnpike – Western Spur. In the 1960’s, the site was bermed and used for rock and soil disposal. Wetland enhancement activities, which were completed in 1998, included the excavation of 20 acres of shallow impoundments that are hydrologically connected to the surrounding Kingsland mudflats. The impoundments were designed to help control the invasion of common reed (Phragmites australis) and purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria). Spoils from the excavation were used to create higher elevation areas for suitable nesting and resting habitats. Upland improvements included the creation of a scrub-shrub border along the base of the Meadows Path extension on the site’s western and southern boundaries, as well as around the margins of the impounded areas. Additional public access features at the site include benches, wildlife viewing blinds, and interpretative signage.

Existing Site Specific Data Inventory

* – Report repeated under multiple data categories and/or sites.

A.  Survey, Maps, and GIS

Relevant survey, mapping, and GIS data for the Meadowlands can be found in the Meadowlands-wide site report under data category A.

1.      GEOD Surveying and Aerial Mapping.  As-Built of Harrier Site.  8/24/1998. [1a]As-built survey of enhancement activities completed in 1998 of Harrier Meadows Site.  Contours are at one foot intervals.

B.   Real Estate/Ownership

NJMC acquired a portion of the Harrier Meadow site on May 28, 1996, obtaining the remainder on October 8, 1999.

C.  Site History & Land Use

2.      *BSC Engineering. Sawmill Creek Basin Water Quality Management: Basin Hydrology and Pond Hydraulics Report. July 1983. [2a] One of five reports prepared for the HMDC as part of an overall Water Quality Management effort that was part of the DeKorte Park planning process. This report details existing hydrologic and hydrology data for the Sawmill Creek Basin and the proposed recreation pond components.

3.      *BSC Engineering. Sawmill Creek Basin Water Quality Management: Recreation Pond Design Report. HMDC. 1983. [1a] One of five reports prepared for the HMDC as part of an overall Water Quality Management effort that was part of the DeKorte Park planning process. Discusses background and existing hydrology of the site of a proposed 160-acre pond between present day Harrier Meadow and 1-E Landfill. Contains the same leachate and sediment data as its companion BSC Engineering reports.

4.      *BSC Engineering. Sawmill Creek Basin Water Quality Management: Wastewater Treatment Design Report. HMDC. 1983. [1a] One of five reports prepared for the HMDC as part of an overall Water Quality Management effort that was part of the DeKorte Park planning process. Proposed a wetland-based leachate/wastewater treatment system, which was never built. Covers purpose, goals, problems, background, and current conditions. Contains a map of sampling sites. Analyzed surface water, landfill leachate, and sediment. Focused on area west of turnpike (i.e. in and around present day Kingsland Impoundment, Harrier Meadow, and the 1-E landfill).

D.  Biological Studies – Fauna

5.      *Donald J. Smith Environmental Consultants. Monthly Reports: Harrier Meadow, Mill Creek, Skeetkill Creek Marsh, Oritani Marsh, Riverbend Wetlands Preserve and Secaucus High School. July – September 2001. [1a] Monthly observation reports summarizing site conditions, management recommendations, and wildlife monitoring data at the Harrier Meadow, Mill Creek, Skeetkill Creek Marsh, Oritani Marsh, Riverbend Wetlands Preserve, and Secaucus High School sites. Include photographs documenting environmental conditions.

6.      *Donald J. Smith Environmental Consultants. Monthly Report: Harrier Meadow, Mill Creek, Skeetkill Creek Marsh, and Secaucus High School. October 2001. [1a] Monthly observation report summarizing site conditions, management recommendations, and wildlife monitoring data at the Harrier Meadow, Mill Creek, Skeetkill Creek Marsh, and Secaucus High School sites. Includes photographs documenting environmental conditions.

7.      *Donald J. Smith Environmental Consultants. Monthly Report: Harrier Meadow, Mill Creek, and Skeetkill Creek Marsh. November 2001. [1a] Monthly observation report summarizing site conditions, management recommendations, and wildlife monitoring data at the Harrier Meadow, Mill Creek, and Skeetkill Creek Marsh sites. Includes photographs documenting environmental conditions.

8.      *Donald J. Smith Environmental Consultants. Monthly Report: Harrier Meadow and Mill Creek. December 2001. [1a] Monthly observation report summarizing site conditions, management recommendations, and wildlife monitoring data at the Harrier Meadow and Mill Creek sites. Includes photographs documenting environmental conditions.

9.      *Donald J. Smith Environmental Consultants. Monthly Reports: Harrier Meadow, Mill Creek, and Skeetkill Creek Marsh. May – December 2002, & January – October 2003. [1a] Monthly observation reports summarizing site conditions, management recommendations, and wildlife monitoring data at the Harrier Meadow, Mill Creek, and Skeetkill Creek Marsh sites. Include photographs documenting environmental conditions.

10.  *Feltes, R. M., Jean Marie Hartman, & Andrew Krivenko (eds.). Progress on Monitoring Tidal Restoration Projects in the Hackensack Meadowlands District for the Period January 1, 2001 to June 30, 2001. Report Number 5. Rutgers University. 2002. [5] Describes progress made on the following five post-restoration tasks at Harrier Meadows, Skeetkill Creek Marsh, and Mill Creek Marsh during the first half of 2001: vegetation monitoring, bird monitoring, system function monitoring (soils, hydrology, fauna), common reed (Phragmites australis) control, and monitoring reports.

11.  *Feltes, R. M., Jean Marie Hartman, & Andrew Krivenko (eds.). Progress on Monitoring Tidal Restoration Projects in the Hackensack Meadowlands District for the Period July 1, 2001 to December 31, 2001. Report Number 6. Rutgers University. 2002. [5] Describes progress made on the following five post-restoration tasks at Harrier Meadows, Skeetkill Creek Marsh, and Mill Creek Marsh during the second half of 2001: vegetation monitoring, bird monitoring, system function monitoring (soils, hydrology, fauna), common reed (Phragmites australis) control, and monitoring reports.

12.  *Feltes, R. M., & Jean Marie Hartman (eds.). Progress on Monitoring Tidal Restoration Projects in the Hackensack Meadowlands District for the Period January 1, 2002 to June 30, 2002. Report Number 7. Rutgers University. 2002. [5] Describes progress made on the following five post-restoration tasks at Harrier Meadows, Skeetkill Creek Marsh, and Mill Creek Marsh during the first half of 2002: vegetation monitoring, bird monitoring, system function monitoring (soils, hydrology, fauna), common reed (Phragmites australis) control, and monitoring reports.

13.  *Hartman, J. M. Progress on Monitoring Tidal Restoration Projects in the Hackensack Meadowlands District for the Period July 1, 1999 to December 31, 1999. Report Number 2. Rutgers University. 2000. [5] Describes progress made on the following five post-restoration tasks at Harrier Meadows, Mill Creek Marsh, and Skeetkill Creek Marsh during the second half of 1999: vegetation monitoring, bird monitoring, system function monitoring (soils, hydrology, fauna), common reed (Phragmites australis) control, and monitoring reports.

14.  *Hartman, J. M. & Kelly J. Smith. Progress on Monitoring Tidal Restoration Projects in the Hackensack Meadowlands District. Report Number 1. Rutgers University. 1999. [5] Describes work through February 1999 beginning prior to reconstruction of Harrier Meadows, Mill Creek Marsh, and Skeetkill Creek Marsh. The goal of restoration was to obtain cover by wetland vegetation (other than common reed (Phragmites australis)) within two years. Five tasks are addressed: vegetation monitoring, bird monitoring, system function monitoring (soils, hydrology, fauna), common reed (Phragmites australis) control, and monitoring reports.

15.  *Hartman, J. M., Ross M. Feltes, & Andrew Krivenko (eds.). Progress on Monitoring Tidal Restoration Projects in the Hackensack Meadowlands District for the Period January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2000. Report Numbers 3 & 4. Rutgers University. 2001. [5] Describes progress made on the following five post-restoration tasks at Harrier Meadow, Skeetkill Creek Marsh, and Mill Creek Marsh during the year 2000: vegetation monitoring, bird monitoring, system function monitoring (soils, hydrology, fauna), common reed (Phragmites australis) control, and monitoring reports.

E.   Biological Studies – General Environmental

16.  *Cai, H. and Hahn, D. Assessing Microbial Indicators for Heavy Metal Contamination using Automated Image Analysis. MERI. 2002. [1a] Sediment and saltmarsh hay (Spartina patens) samples were collected at a site in Harrier Meadow in April, June and August 2000. The samples were analyzed for Ni, Cu, Cd, Cr, Pb, and Zn. Control samples of S. patens were grown in a greenhouse in Ni-amended and fungicide-treated soils. Plant uptake of Ni, Cu, Cd, Cr and Pb were compared among the samples. Sediment samples were also collected from Kearny Freshwater Marsh and the bacterial populations were analyzed.

17.  *Donald J. Smith Environmental Consultants. Monthly Reports: Harrier Meadow, Mill Creek, Skeetkill Creek Marsh, Oritani Marsh, Riverbend Wetlands Preserve and Secaucus High School. August – September 2001. [1a] Monthly observation reports summarizing site conditions, management recommendations, and wildlife monitoring data at the Harrier Meadow, Mill Creek, Skeetkill Creek Marsh, Oritani Marsh, Riverbend Wetlands Preserve, and Secaucus High School sites. Include photographs documenting environmental conditions.

18.  *Donald J. Smith Environmental Consultants. Monthly Report: Harrier Meadow, Mill Creek, Skeetkill Creek Marsh, and Secaucus High School. October 2001. [1a] Monthly observation report summarizing site conditions, management recommendations, and wildlife monitoring data at the Harrier Meadow, Mill Creek, Skeetkill Creek Marsh, and Secaucus High School sites. Includes photographs documenting environmental conditions.

19.  *Donald J. Smith Environmental Consultants. Monthly Report: Harrier Meadow, Mill Creek, and Skeetkill Creek Marsh. November 2001. [1a] Monthly observation report summarizing site conditions, management recommendations, and wildlife monitoring data at the Harrier Meadow, Mill Creek, and Skeetkill Creek Marsh sites. Includes photographs documenting environmental conditions.

20.  *Donald J. Smith Environmental Consultants. Monthly Report: Harrier Meadow and Mill Creek. December 2001. [1a] Monthly observation report summarizing site conditions, management recommendations, and wildlife monitoring data at the Harrier Meadow and Mill Creek sites. Includes photographs documenting environmental conditions.

21.  *Donald J. Smith Environmental Consultants. Monthly Reports: Harrier Meadow, Mill Creek, and Skeetkill Creek Marsh. May – December 2002, & January – October 2003. [1a] Monthly observation reports summarizing site conditions, management recommendations, and wildlife monitoring data at the Harrier Meadow, Mill Creek, and Skeetkill Creek Marsh sites. Include photographs documenting environmental conditions.

22.  *Feltes, R. M., Jean Marie Hartman, & Andrew Krivenko (eds.). Progress on Monitoring Tidal Restoration Projects in the Hackensack Meadowlands District for the Period January 1, 2001 to June 30, 2001. Report Number 5. Rutgers University. 2002. [5] Describes progress made on the following five post-restoration tasks at Harrier Meadows, Skeetkill Creek Marsh, and Mill Creek Marsh during the first half of 2001: vegetation monitoring, bird monitoring, system function monitoring (soils, hydrology, fauna), common reed (Phragmites australis) control, and monitoring reports.

23.  *Feltes, R. M., Jean Marie Hartman, & Andrew Krivenko (eds.). Progress on Monitoring Tidal Restoration Projects in the Hackensack Meadowlands District for the Period July 1, 2001 to December 31, 2001. Report Number 6. Rutgers University. 2002. [5] Describes progress made on the following five post-restoration tasks at Harrier Meadows, Skeetkill Creek Marsh, and Mill Creek Marsh during the second half of 2001: vegetation monitoring, bird monitoring, system function monitoring (soils, hydrology, fauna), common reed (Phragmites australis) control, and monitoring reports.

24.  *Feltes, R. M., & Jean Marie Hartman (eds.). Progress on Monitoring Tidal Restoration Projects in the Hackensack Meadowlands District for the Period January 1, 2002 to June 30, 2002. Report Number 7. Rutgers University. 2002. [5] Describes progress made on the following five post-restoration tasks at Harrier Meadows, Skeetkill Creek Marsh, and Mill Creek Marsh during the first half of 2002: vegetation monitoring, bird monitoring, system function monitoring (soils, hydrology, fauna), common reed (Phragmites australis) control, and monitoring reports.

25.  *Hartman, J. M. Harrier Meadow Wetlands Mitigation Site First Annual Monitoring Report. Rutgers University. 1999. [5] First year of annual monitoring for Harrier Meadow required under the Consolidated Rail Corporation’s USACE Permit No. 91-0322-RS. Describes vegetation monitoring in 27 permanent plots at Harrier Meadow during the first growing season, post-construction.

26.  *Hartman, J. M. Harrier Meadow Wetlands Mitigation Site Second Annual Monitoring Report. Rutgers University. 2000. [5] Second year of annual monitoring for Harrier Meadow required under the Consolidated Rail Corporation’s USACE Permit No. 91-0322-RS. Describes vegetation monitoring in 25 permanent plots at Harrier Meadow during the second growing season, post-construction.

27.  *Hartman, J. M. Harrier Meadow Wetlands Mitigation Site Third Annual Monitoring Report. Rutgers University. 2001. [5] Third year of annual monitoring for Harrier Meadow required under the Consolidated Rail Corporation’s USACE Permit No. 91-0322-RS. Describes vegetation monitoring in 28 permanent plots at Harrier Meadow during the third growing season, post-construction.

28.  *Hartman, J. M. Harrier Meadow Wetlands Mitigation Site Fourth Annual Monitoring Report. Rutgers University. 2001. [5] Fourth year of annual monitoring for Harrier Meadow required under the Consolidated Rail Corporation’s USACE Permit No. 91-0322-RS. Describes vegetation monitoring in 27 permanent plots at Harrier Meadow during the fourth growing season, post-construction. Continued management of common reed (Phragmites australis) and purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) was recommended.

29.  *Hartman, J. M. Progress on Monitoring Tidal Restoration Projects in the Hackensack Meadowlands District for the Period July 1, 1999 to December 31, 1999. Report Number 2. Rutgers University. 2000. [5] Describes progress made on the following five post-restoration tasks at Harrier Meadows, Mill Creek Marsh, and Skeetkill Creek Marsh during the second half of 1999: vegetation monitoring, bird monitoring, system function monitoring (soils, hydrology, fauna), common reed (Phragmites australis) control, and monitoring reports.

30.  *Hartman, J. M., and David. J. Bart. Phragmites Control: Progress on Monitoring Tidal Restoration Projects in the New Jersey Meadowlands, District – Summary Report for Task 4. Report Number 8. Rutgers University. 2003. [5] Describes methods for controlling common reed (Phragmites australis) at the Harrier Meadow, Skeetkill Creek Marsh, and Mill Creek Marsh sites. Greenhouse and field experiments were used to understand site conditions and human activities that promote invasion, so that a model might be developed to predict when a site is likely to be invaded.

31.  *Hartman, J. M. & Kelly J. Smith. Progress on Monitoring Tidal Restoration Projects in the Hackensack Meadowlands District. Report Number 1. Rutgers University. 1999. [5] Describes work through February 1999 beginning prior to reconstruction of Harrier Meadows, Mill Creek Marsh, and Skeetkill Creek Marsh. The goal of restoration was to obtain cover by wetland vegetation (other than common reed (Phragmites australis)) within two years. Five tasks are addressed: vegetation monitoring, bird monitoring, system function monitoring (soils, hydrology, fauna), common reed (Phragmites australis) control, and monitoring reports.

32.  *Hartman, J. M., Ross M. Feltes, & Andrew Krivenko (eds.). Progress on Monitoring Tidal Restoration Projects in the Hackensack Meadowlands District for the Period January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2000. Report Numbers 3 & 4. Rutgers University. 2001. [5] Describes progress made on the following five post-restoration tasks at Harrier Meadow, Skeetkill Creek Marsh, and Mill Creek Marsh during the year 2000: vegetation monitoring, bird monitoring, system function monitoring (soils, hydrology, fauna), common reed (Phragmites australis) control, and monitoring reports.

33.  *The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) Functional Assessment Model and Guidebook for Tidal Fringe Wetlands in the New Jersey Meadowlands. 2003. [1a](http://merilibrary.meadowlands.state.nj.us/dbtw-wpd/FullText/HGM_guidebook_RVSD.pdf) A hydrogeomorphic functional assessment model and guidebook for tidal fringe wetlands in the Hackensack Meadowlands was completed. The HGM model can be used as a tool to help determine wetland functions and values and to approximate compensatory wetland mitigation. Map-based and on-site field data (including amount of aquatic edge, channel density, vegetative cover, habitat, soil texture, and tidal inundation) were collected from the reference wetlands and used to refine data collection forms, calibrate model variables, and improve the conceptual HGM functional models. Reference sites included Skeetkill Creek Marsh, Meadowlark Marsh, Lyndhurst Riverside Marsh, MRI, Western Brackish Marsh, Mill Creek Marsh, Eastern Brackish Marsh, Mori Tract, Walden Marsh, Oritani Marsh, Harrier Meadow, Anderson Creek Marsh, Kearny Brackish Marsh, and Riverbend Wetlands Preserve.

F.   Geotechnical

34.  *Ducks Unlimited, Inc. Baseline Monitoring Program: Soil and Sediment Contamination at Wetland Enhancement Sites within the Hackensack Meadowlands. March 1998. [1a] Describes the results of soils sampling and analysis at several wetland restoration sites in the HMD, including Berry’s Creek Canal site (also known as Oritani Marsh), Harrier Meadow, Mill Creek Marsh, and the Saw Mill Creek Wildlife Management Area. Preliminary surveys were conducted to screen soils at the sites for detection of the presence of potential chemical contaminants that might affect future plans for wetland restoration.

35.  *Feltes, R. M., Jean Marie Hartman, & Andrew Krivenko (eds.). Progress on Monitoring Tidal Restoration Projects in the Hackensack Meadowlands District for the Period January 1, 2001 to June 30, 2001. Report Number 5. Rutgers University. 2002. [5] Describes progress made on the following five post-restoration tasks at Harrier Meadows, Skeetkill Creek Marsh, and Mill Creek Marsh during the first half of 2001: vegetation monitoring, bird monitoring, system function monitoring (soils, hydrology, fauna), common reed (Phragmites australis) control, and monitoring reports.

36.  *Feltes, R. M., Jean Marie Hartman, & Andrew Krivenko (eds.). Progress on Monitoring Tidal Restoration Projects in the Hackensack Meadowlands District for the Period July 1, 2001 to December 31, 2001. Report Number 6. Rutgers University. 2002. [5] Describes progress made on the following five post-restoration tasks at Harrier Meadows, Skeetkill Creek Marsh, and Mill Creek Marsh during the second half of 2001: vegetation monitoring, bird monitoring, system function monitoring (soils, hydrology, fauna), common reed (Phragmites australis) control, and monitoring reports.

37.  *Feltes, R. M., & Jean Marie Hartman (eds.). Progress on Monitoring Tidal Restoration Projects in the Hackensack Meadowlands District for the Period January 1, 2002 to June 30, 2002. Report Number 7. Rutgers University. 2002. [5] Describes progress made on the following five post-restoration tasks at Harrier Meadows, Skeetkill Creek Marsh, and Mill Creek Marsh during the first half of 2002: vegetation monitoring, bird monitoring, system function monitoring (soils, hydrology, fauna), common reed (Phragmites australis) control, and monitoring reports.

38.  *Hartman, J. M. Progress on Monitoring Tidal Restoration Projects in the Hackensack Meadowlands District for the Period July 1, 1999 to December 31, 1999. Report Number 2. Rutgers University. 2000. [5] Describes progress made on the following five post-restoration tasks at Harrier Meadows, Mill Creek Marsh, and Skeetkill Creek Marsh during the second half of 1999: vegetation monitoring, bird monitoring, system function monitoring (soils, hydrology, fauna), common reed (Phragmites australis) control, and monitoring reports.

39.  *Hartman, J. M. & Kelly J. Smith. Progress on Monitoring Tidal Restoration Projects in the Hackensack Meadowlands District. Report Number 1. Rutgers University. 1999. [5] Describes work through February 1999 beginning prior to reconstruction of Harrier Meadows, Mill Creek Marsh, and Skeetkill Creek Marsh. The goal of restoration was to obtain cover by wetland vegetation (other than common reed (Phragmites australis)) within two years. Five tasks are addressed: vegetation monitoring, bird monitoring, system function monitoring (soils, hydrology, fauna), common reed (Phragmites australis) control, and monitoring reports.

40.  *Hartman, J. M., Ross M. Feltes, & Andrew Krivenko (eds.). Progress on Monitoring Tidal Restoration Projects in the Hackensack Meadowlands District for the Period January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2000. Report Numbers 3 & 4. Rutgers University. 2001. [5] Describes progress made on the following five post-restoration tasks at Harrier Meadow, Skeetkill Creek Marsh, and Mill Creek Marsh during the year 2000: vegetation monitoring, bird monitoring, system function monitoring (soils, hydrology, fauna), common reed (Phragmites australis) control, and monitoring reports.

41.  PS&S, Sadat Associates Inc. BCUA Residual Ash Landfill Site. July 1989. [1a]Subsurface investigation report for Harrier Meadows.

G.  Hydraulics and Hydrology

42.  *BSC Engineering. Sawmill Creek Basin Water Quality Management: Basin Hydrology and Pond Hydraulics Report. July 1983. [2a] One of five reports prepared for the HMDC as part of an overall Water Quality Management effort that was part of the DeKorte Park planning process. This report details existing hydrologic and hydrology data for the Sawmill Creek Basin and the proposed recreation pond components.

43.  *BSC Engineering. Sawmill Creek Basin Water Quality Management: Recreation Pond Design Report. HMDC. 1983. [1a] One of five reports prepared for the HMDC as part of an overall Water Quality Management effort that was part of the DeKorte Park planning process. Discusses background and existing hydrology of the site of a proposed 160-acre pond between present day Harrier Meadow and 1-E Landfill. Contains the same leachate and sediment data as its companion BSC Engineering reports.

44.  *BSC Engineering. Sawmill Creek Basin Water Quality Management: Wastewater Treatment Design Report. HMDC. 1983. [1a] One of five reports prepared for the HMDC as part of an overall Water Quality Management effort that was part of the DeKorte Park planning process. Proposed a wetland-based leachate/wastewater treatment system, which was never built. Covers purpose, goals, problems, background, and current conditions. Contains a map of sampling sites. Analyzed surface water, landfill leachate, and sediment. Focused on area west of turnpike (i.e. in and around present day Kingsland Impoundment, Harrier Meadow, and the 1-E landfill).

45.  The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Harrier Meadows Wetland Enhancement Site: Tidal Assessment Report. January 2002. [2a] A tidal assessment was conducted to determine if tidal influences to Harrier Meadows had been recently altered. The assessment consisted of field investigations to observe the tides during various phases, tidal monitoring and hydraulic analyses, as well as a review of past studies conducted for the Sawmill Watershed Basin and surrounding area.

46.  Wetland and Water Resource Engineering Consultants. Harrier Marsh Wetland Response Letter. September 1997. [2a] A letter response to a request from NJMC to determine if the proposed modifications to the Saw Mill Creek Trail would reduce the volume of water that supplies the new Harrier Marsh Project (now known as Harrier Meadow). It was determined that replacement of the existing pipes with an equal number of pipes of equal diameter, installation of the pipes at an invert elevation of 0.0 feet, and incorporation of the existing bridge into the dike will provide adequate volume of water to allow the Harrier Marsh Wetland to function as designed.

H.  Water and Sediments

47.  *BSC Engineering. Sawmill Creek Basin Water Quality Management: Wastewater Treatment Design Report. HMDC. 1983. [1a] One of five reports prepared for the HMDC as part of an overall Water Quality Management effort that was part of the DeKorte Park planning process. Proposed a wetland-based leachate/wastewater treatment system, which was never built. Covers purpose, goals, problems, background, and current conditions. Contains a map of sampling sites. Analyzed surface water, landfill leachate, and sediment. Focused on area west of turnpike (i.e. in and around present day Kingsland Impoundment, Harrier Meadow, and the 1-E landfill).

48.  Cai, H. and D. Hahn. Assessing Microbial Indicators for Heavy Metal Contamination using Automated Image Analysis. MERI. 2001. [1a] Sediment and bacterial populations in samples from Harrier Meadow and artificially contaminated Ni samples were incubated under sulfate-reducing conditions and analyzed. Compared to non-amended samples, Ni-amended samples generally displayed lower cell numbers, but a larger range of cell size distributions.

49.  *Cai, H. and Hahn, D. Assessing Microbial Indicators for Heavy Metal Contamination using Automated Image Analysis. MERI. 2002. [1a] Sediment and saltmarsh hay (Spartina patens) samples were collected at a site in Harrier Meadow in April, June and August 2000. The samples were analyzed for Ni, Cu, Cd, Cr, Pb, and Zn. Control samples of S. patens were grown in a greenhouse in Ni-amended and fungicide-treated soils. Plant uptake of Ni, Cu, Cd, Cr and Pb were compared among the samples. Sediment samples were also collected from Kearny Freshwater Marsh and the bacterial populations were analyzed.

50.  *Ducks Unlimited, Inc. Baseline Monitoring Program: Soil and Sediment Contamination at Wetland Enhancement Sites within the Hackensack Meadowlands. March 1998. [1a] Describes the results of soils sampling and analysis at several wetland restoration sites in the HMD, including Berry’s Creek Canal site (also know as Oritani Marsh), Harrier Meadow, Skeetkill Creek Marsh, and Mill Creek Marsh. Preliminary surveys were conducted to screen soils at the sites for detection of the presence of potential chemical contaminants that might affect future plans for wetland restoration.

I.    Historical/Cultural Resources

No data obtained.

J.   Restoration/Remediation Design Plans

51.  GEOD Surveying and Aerial Mapping.  As-Built of Harrier Site.  8/24/1998. [1a]As-built survey of enhancement activities completed in 1998 of Harrier Meadows Site.  Contours are at one foot intervals.

K. Bibliographic Updates                   

Site #3: Harrier Meadow

Additional Images

Balloon Image