Category: Existing Restoration/Preservation, and/or Mitigation Site 
Location: Bordered on the west and south by Bellman’s Creek, and south of Bellman’s Creek Marsh and Meadowlands Field in Ridgefield, Bergen County.
Latitude/Longitude: 40.82617 / -74.01744
Current Land Use: Tidal Marsh
Size: 16 acres
Current Ownership: NJMC
Site Description: Prior to restoration by NJMC, Skeetkill Creek Marsh was undeveloped (although surrounded by industrial development), was not subject to daily tidal inundation, and supported a monoculture of common reed (Phragmites australis). The restoration design included excavating previously filled areas, creating low marsh and tidal channels, and the excavation of shallow pools to provide open water habitats. Upland waterfowl habitat nesting areas were created and provided with access to open water areas. The design included the creation of a nature park and viewpoint along Pleasantview Terrace.
Existing Site-Specific Data Inventory
A. Survey, Maps, and GIS
HMD regional data exists inclusive of this site. Pre-restoration survey developed in 1997. As-built survey developed in 1999.
B. Real Estate/Ownership
Owned by NJMC. Acquisition data obtained from NJMC website.
C. Site History & Land Use
No data obtained.
D. Biological Studies – Fauna
Monthly and annual monitoring data compiled from 1999 through 2002.
E. Biological Studies – General Environmental
Monthly and annual monitoring data compiled from 1999 through 2003. Wetland assessments conducted in 2003.
F. Geotechnical
Annual monitoring data compiled from 1999 through 2003.
G. Hydraulics and Hydrology
No data obtained.
H. Water and Sediments
Annual monitoring data compiled from 1999 through 2003.
I. Historical/Cultural Resources
No data obtained.
J. Restoration/Remediation Design Plans
Restoration design plan developed in 1997.
Site Reports
Site #8 – Skeetkill Creek Marsh
Category: Existing Restoration, Preservation, and/or Mitigation Site
Location: Bordered on the west and south by Bellman’s Creek, and south of Bellman’s Creek Marsh and Meadowlands Field in Ridgefield, Bergen County.
Latitude/Longitude: 40.82617 / -74.01744
Current Land Use: Tidal Marsh
Size: 16 acres
Current Ownership: NJMC
Site Description: Prior to restoration by NJMC, Skeetkill Creek Marsh was undeveloped (although surrounded by industrial development), was not subject to daily tidal inundation, and supported a monoculture of common reed (Phragmites australis). The restoration design included excavating previously filled areas, creating low marsh and tidal channels, and the excavation of shallow pools to provide open water habitats. Upland waterfowl habitat nesting areas were created and provided with access to open water areas. The design included the creation of a nature park and viewpoint along Pleasantview Terrace.
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. Wetland and Water Resource Engineering Consultants. Survey of Original Conditions at Skeetkill Creek Marsh Wetlands Mitigation Site. 1997. [1a] Pre-restoration survey performed at Skeetkill Creek. All contours are at one-foot intervals.
B. Real Estate/Ownership
Skeetkill Creek Marsh is owned by NJMC.
2. NJMC. Skeetkill Marsh Acquisition Information. September 2003.
(from http://www.hmdc.state.nj.us/eip/wl-skeetkill.html)
Date of Acquisition: March 18, 1996
Cost of Acquisition: None
Acquired from: Russo Development Corporation
C. Site History & Land Use
No data obtained.
D. Biological Studies – Fauna
3. *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.
4. *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.
5. *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.
6. *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.
7. *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.
8. *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.
9. *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.
10. *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.
11. *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.
12. *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.
13. *Weis, J.S., L. Windham, and P. Weis. 2002. Growth, Survival, and Metal Content in Marsh Invertebrates Fed Diets of Detritus from Spartina alterniflora Loisel and Phragmites australis Cav. Trin. Ex Steud. from Metal-Polluted and Clean Sites. Wetlands Ecology and Management, v10 n1 pp71-84. 2002. [1a] Detritus samples were collected from the marsh surface under common reed (Phragmites australis), natural cordgrass (Spartina), and restored Spartina in the Meadowlands and Eastern Long Island. Ground-up detritus was fed to groups of two species of fiddler crabs and to grass shrimp. The survival, limb regeneration rate, molting, and weight gain of the crabs on the different diets was monitored, as was survival and growth of the grass shrimp.
E. Biological Studies – General Environmental
14. *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.
15. *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.
16. *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.
17. *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.
18. *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.
19. *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.
20. *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.
21. *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.
22. *Hartman, J. M. Skeetkill Creek Marsh Wetland Mitigation Site First Annual Monitoring Report for Russo Development Corporation. Rutgers University. 1999. [5] First year of annual monitoring for Skeetkill Creek Marsh as required under Russo Development Corporation’s NJDEP Waterfront Development Permit and Water Quality Certificate. Describes vegetation monitoring in 24 monitoring plots during the first growing season, post-construction.
23. *Hartman, J. M. Skeetkill Creek Marsh Wetland Mitigation Site Second Annual Monitoring Report for Russo Development Corporation. Rutgers University. 2000. [5] Second year of annual monitoring for Skeetkill Creek Marsh as required under Russo Development Corporation’s NJDEP Waterfront Development Permit and Water Quality Certificate. Describes vegetation monitoring in 24 monitoring plots during the second growing season, post-construction.
24. *Hartman, J. M. Skeetkill Creek Marsh Wetland Mitigation Site Third Annual Monitoring Report for Russo Development Corporation. Rutgers University. 2000. [5] Third and final year of annual monitoring for Skeetkill Creek Marsh as required under Russo Development Corporation’s NJDEP Waterfront Development Permit and Water Quality Certificate. Describes vegetation monitoring in 24 monitoring plots during the third growing season, post-construction. Demonstrates that the mitigation goals were met through increased habitat diversity, increased plant diversity, and dominance of wetland species.
25. *Hartman, J. M. & 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.
26. *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.
27. *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.
28. *Weis, J.S., L. Windham, and P. Weis. 2002. Growth, Survival, and Metal Content in Marsh Invertebrates Fed Diets of Detritus from Spartina alterniflora Loisel and Phragmites australis Cav. Trin. Ex Steud. from Metal-Polluted and Clean Sites. Wetlands Ecology and Management, v10 n1 pp71-84. 2002. [1a] Detritus samples were collected from the marsh surface under common reed (Phragmites australis), natural cordgrass (Spartina), and restored Spartina in the Meadowlands and Eastern Long Island. Ground-up detritus was fed to groups of two species of fiddler crabs and to grass shrimp. The survival, limb regeneration rate, molting, and weight gain of the crabs on the different diets was monitored, as was survival and growth of the grass shrimp.
F. Geotechnical
29. *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.
30. *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.
31. *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.
32. *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.
33. *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.
34. *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.
G. Hydraulics and Hydrology
No data obtained.
H. Water and Sediments
35. *Weis, J.S., L. Windham, and P. Weis. 2002. Growth, Survival, and Metal Content in Marsh Invertebrates Fed Diets of Detritus from Spartina alterniflora Loisel and Phragmites australis Cav. Trin. Ex Steud. from Metal-Polluted and Clean Sites. Wetlands Ecology and Management, v10 n1 pp71-84. 2002. [1a] Detritus samples were collected from the marsh surface under common reed (Phragmites australis), natural cordgrass (Spartina), and restored Spartina in the Meadowlands and Eastern Long Island. Ground-up detritus was fed to groups of two species of fiddler crabs and to grass shrimp. The survival, limb regeneration rate, molting, and weight gain of the crabs on the different diets was monitored, as was survival and growth of the grass shrimp.
I. Historical/Cultural Resources
No data obtained.
J. Restoration/Remediation Design Plans
36. NJMC. Proposed Planting Plan for Seating Area. February 2003. [1a] Restoration design plan for Skeetkill Marsh.
37. Wetland and Water Resource Engineering Consultants. Restoration Design Plan for Skeetkill Marsh. 1997. [1a] Restoration design plan for Skeetkill Marsh. Contour lines are at one-foot intervals.
K. Bibliographic Updates
Site #8: Skeetkill Creek Marsh