Restoration of Phragmites Dominated Marshes

Along the Delaware Estuary

Presented by:

Gary Bickle, Sr. Vice President

AKRF, Environmental and Planning Consultants

Note: The presentation provided herein is provided for informational

purposes only. Any use or replication of the images, information, or
data provided herein without the express written consent of the author
is prohibited.

EEP Sites

NEW JERSEY:
5 Wetland Restoration Sites
1 Preservation Site
4 Fish Ladders

DELAWARE:
2 PSEG Wetland Restoration
Sites
3 DNREC Wetland
Restoration Sites
10 Fish Ladders

Phragmites

Executive Order 13112 identifies Phragmites as an

invasive species

In the last several decades, there has been a rapid

expansion of its distribution and coverage within
tidal wetlands along the coastline of the
Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states

Ecological Effects of Phragmites

Reduces or eliminates access to marsh areas for

forage fish and invertebrates

Reduces the amount of food available through the

detrital pathway

Reduces the diversity of the aquatic ecosystem

Lowers the habitat value for birds and wildlife

Interferes with nutrient cycling processes, binding

limiting nutrients in forms unavailable to other plants

1951 Phragmites Coverage

Figure 11
1951 Phragmites Coverage

1962 Phragmites Coverage

Figure 12
1962 Phragmites Coverage

1972 Phragmites Coverage

Figure 13
1972 Phragmites Coverage

Pre Treatment Conditions

Alloway Creek Watershed Restoration Site

Summary of Treatments Evaluated

Grading limited because of size of properties

Microtopography

Sulfur addition soil chemistry change

Mowing

Grazing

Various herbicide application methods

Regulatory Requirements for Treatment

Alternatives

NJDEP Land Use Regulation Program

Tidal Wetlands
Aquatic Pesticide
Waterfront Development

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 404 Program

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
National Marine Fisheries
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Local Site Plan Approval

Soil Conservation District

Initial Aerial Application of Glyphosate-based

Herbicide - 1996

Note: Aerial application of herbicide is not

being considered for use at Piermont Marsh.

Ground Application of Herbicide

Burning Operations

Note: Prescribed fire is not being

considered for use at Piermont Marsh.

Prescribed Burn Results

Note: Prescribed fire is not being

considered for use at Piermont Marsh.

Test Area Program

Implemented in 1999 following initial 1996-1997 Phragmites

control efforts

Objective to determine whether alternative treatments alone

or in combination with herbicide application were more
effective in control than continued herbicide application alone

Implemented to provide as many different combinations as

possible

Vegetative response to treatments based on thorough

statistical evaluation of field data and remote sensing data

Over 80 various combinations evaluated

Test Area Treatments

Single mowing

Multiple Mowing

Microtopographic Alterations

Herbicide Timing

Grazing

Combinations of the Above

Rigorous monitoring

Microtopography Modifications

Phragmites Mowing

Wicking Application

Grazing

Test Area Treatments

Test Area Treatments

Test Area Treatments

Test Area Conclusions

Phragmites coverage significantly reduced within

areas receiving glyphosate-based herbicide
treatment

Mechanical/biological treatments did not result in

measurable reduction of Phragmites

No combination of treatments resulted in better

control than herbicide alone

ACW TA-43 1999

ACW TA-43 2001

ACW TA-43 2003

Selected Herbicide Effects

1996 Vegetation Coverage Mapping

Figure 4

Figure 7
1996 Vegetation Coverage
Mapping

2003 Vegetation Coverage Mapping

Phragmites-dominated Restoration Sites

Phragmites-dominated Restoration Sites

Phragmites-dominated Restoration Sites