ML072060400
Text
Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program 2005 State of the Bay Technical Report August 2005 Cýq SljSv4ý-q 7,OK 6
The creation of the 2005 State of the Bay Report was the collaborative work of many partnering organizations and committed individuals. The indicators adopted by the Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program, six of which are presented in this report, were selected by the BBNEP Science and Teclmical Advisory Committee. These indicators were incorporated in a Monitoring Program Plan, which was approved by the Environmental Protection Agency in 2003. Information on the status and trends for each indicator was provided by appropriate organizations and individual experts, as listed below. The technical adequacy of the report was reviewed by the BBNEP Science and Technical Advisory Committee. Numerous individuals contributed additional content and/or provided valuable feedback, and their contributions are gratefully acknowledged.
Coordination and Oversight Bathing Beaches Robert Scro, Director Robert Ingenito Shannon Shinnault, Public Outreach Occean Cotnty-HealltI DeparNmert Coordinator Barueat .Bay National Estuaril Prograni OW'ie, Ocean Cou.n i,! Colle,-e Algal Blooms Robert Dieterich, Barnegat Bay National Michael Kennish Estuary Program Coordinator Rutoers Lhnivcrsityi, Institnte of Marine and Coastal Li.S. Enrvironmnental Protection Aencii, Region H ScieitcSx Robert Nicholson Mary Downes Gastrich U.S. Geolo, ial Surwei/ Neuw Jersey Water Science Nael Jersey,Dlepartmneut of Erivironmiental Center Protection Division of Scicuce, Research, an1d Technologi/
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Freshwater Inputs Richard Lathrop Rutgers Urtiversity, Grant F. VIA/lton Center "fo Robert Nicholson Reiote Sensing and Spatial Analilsis LI.S. Geological Stnrveiy Nie jerseiy VWater Science Cei ter Michael Kennish Rutgers University, Insttitute of Marine and Coastal Sciences Land Use/Land Cover Paul Bologna Richard Lathrop Montclair State University Rn tiers Ulniversity~
Grant F. WV'allorn Center fon' Remote Sensing and Spatial Analylsis Shellfish Beds Mike Cu rtis New ]ersey Departm it of Euviroimental Proteclion Ba real, of Mari-inc Water Molniloriug Disclaimer This report is based solely on data provided by outside entities. The quality of tbe information provided by these entities has not been evaluated by the BBNEP.
i
Update on Six Environmental Indicators The Barnegat Bay-Little Egg Harbor estuary is a dynamic, complex system that greatly influences the region's economy, communities, quality (f life, and environment. To gauge its relative health and the progress of eftorts to protect and restore estuarine resources, the Barnegat Bay' National Estuarv Program has established plans to track key environmental indicators and evaluate their status and trends. This report communicates the status and trends of six of these indicators.
- 1. Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Seagrasses are an important element of tie bay ecosystem, because they harness energy and nutrients that are consumed by other organisms. The seagrass beds. also provide a critical structural component in an otherwise barren sandy bottom, serving as essential habitat for a host of orga nisms, such as shell-fish, finfish, and waterfowl. Seagrasses rank among the most sensitive indicators of. long-term water quality and can be used as a barometer of coastal ecosystem health.
During the last 30 years, significant declines in SAV have occurred in New lersey estuaries, resulting in the reduction of essential fish habitat and the potential loss of commercially and recreationally impor-tant species. SAV surveys showed evidence of a decline in the seagrass extent between the late 1970's and the mid-1990's, especially in the northern reaches of the bay.
Additional information is needed to address uncertainties in SAV mapping efforts, to determine the con-trols on SAV health, and to better understand the value of SA\V species as habitat.
- 2. Shellfish Beds Although shellfish harvests continue in Barnegat Ba.; increasing pressure on the industry has resulted from the growing human population along its shores and throughout its watershed. As a result, com-mercial shellfishing has been severely curtailed. Along with the increase in development and human activity comes the potential for shellfish to be contaminated with-pollutants. The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protectionfs Bureau of Marine Water Monitoring monitors shellfish grow-ing, waters to ensure that shellfish within these and other State waters are safe to consume. Shellfish growing water classifications are updated on a yearly basis to produce Shellfish Growing Waters Classification Charts for the State of New Jersey.
The status of shellfish growing waters classifications provides a good indicator of progress in improving estuarine water quality because it integrates results of water quality testing and pollution source surveys to establish.the shellfish water classifications. A limitation of the indicator is that although it provides a measure of water quality in terms of public health and potential for disease transmission, it is not geared towards measuring the status of shellfish populations or the ecological health of the estuary.
Shellfish water classifications in New Jersey consist of four main types: Approved, Seasonal, Special Reshricted, and Prohibiled.In determining classifications, the potential impacts froom possible sources of contamination are considered. Most of the waters within the Barnegat Bay and Little Egg Harbor estu-iii
ary (80%) are of high water quality and are classified as Approved for shellfish harvesting. Of the changes in shellfish classifications for these waters during 2000 - 2004, 80% (336 acres) were upgraded, and 20% (84 acres) were downgraded.
- 3. Bathing Beaches For the past twenty-five years, the Ocean County H-ealth lDepartment (OCI-ID) has obtained and ana-lyzed water-quality samples from all public bathing beaches in the county on a weekly basis between Memorial Day and Labor Day. Results are used by the OCHD to determine whether beaches are to remain open for bathing or closed to bathing. Results of bathing beach monitoring, provide al indication of the bacterial health of the waters that are utilized for recreational bathing. The number of brackish water beach closures in a particular year provides an indication of the extent to which the use of the bay for recreational bathing is impaired by these various sources. Closure statistics also provide a general indication of the non-point source loadings from these sources that have been shown to include contanvi-nants other than bacteria.
The number of closures varies widely from year to year. From 1995 to 2004, the number of closures ranged from a low of 18 in 2001 to a high of 135 in 2004. This variability is attributable primarily to the number, duration, and intensity of rainfall events occurring immediately before and during the recre-ational bathing season. The highest number of annual closures occurred during three of the past four y ea rs.
It hasbeen observed and documented that non-point source pollution delivered to the waters through stormxwater discharges are the major contributing factor to beach closores. It is anticipated that imple-mentation of the new stormwater regulations and other non-point source control efforts will favorably affect the current situation.
- 4. Algal Blooms Recurring algal blooms have been documented in Barnegat Bay, which are symptomatic of eutrophica-tion problems. The blooms have included serious brown tides and accelerated growth of drifting macroalgae. Rapid growth of other macroalgal species can also be detrimental. The spread.of certain brown macroalgal species along the sediment surface of seagrass beds can hinder exchange of gases and promote the development of hypoxic/anoxic conditions that can be detrimental to the vascular plants.
However, comprehensive studies of benthic macroalgae in the estuary are lacking, reflecting a significant information gap.
The presence of the brown tide-forming phytoplankton species (A. anopmoeff ren's) was first reported in New Jersey coastal bays in 1988, with initial blooms documented in 1995, '1997 and '1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002. No significant bloom occurred in 2003.
More information is needed to understand the causes of brown tide and benthic algal blooms and how to control them. Monitoring and studies are needed to determine algal bloom occurrence, identify rele-vant environmental factors, assess shellfish stocks (which may be affected by algal blooms), and to eval-iv
uate effects on seagrass health and productivity.
- 5. Freshwater Inputs The role of freshwater in estuarine health is pivotal. The mixing of freshwater with ocean water in the estuary results in the salinity regimes that support estuarine habitats. The rate of freshwater flow into the estuary also affects the rate at which the estuary is flushed, which in turn affects many water-quality and ecological processes. Freshwater inputs also dilute contaminants from a wide variety of sources.
As a result of the potential for human alteration of freshwater inputs, tracking freshwater flows and maintaining an adequate rate of freshwater flow is critical to meeting estuarine water-quality and habi-tat goals.
Average freshwater inputs from streams and ground-water discharge are estimated by the U.S.
Geological Survey to total about 590 million gallons per day. During typical drought conditions, the total freshwater inflow to the estuary is about one-third to one-half of the average inflow. Fluctuations in annual surface discharge of freshwater at a long-term monitoring station on the Toms River range from about 60 to 155 percent of the average discharge. Below-average annual discharges since the mid-1980s have been more frequent than above-average discharges. This recent trend is likely the result of both climatic variability and the effects of human activities.
Freshwater withdrawals from surface- and ground-water sources in Ocean County for various human uses have increased from about 56 million gallons per day in 11985 to about 71 million gallons per day in 2000. Most of the withdrawri water (7(0)%l is for public supplV. The a mount of freshwater removed from the watershed through regional sewerage ouffall to the ocean averages about 60 million gallons per day during high-demand summer months, equivalent to about one-third of the freshwater inflow to the estuary under extreme low-flow conditions.
Management efforts aimed at minimizing adverse effects of human activities on freshwater inputs are underway or under consideration. New stormwater regulations are being implemented that are intend-ed to maintain natural rates of recharge in developing areas. Other approaches, including beneficial reuse of reclaimed wastewater; conjunctive use of surface water, unconfined aquifers, and confined aquifers; and aquifer storage and recovery, are being considered to help limit the effects of water demand on water resources.
- 6. Land Use/Land Cover Land use by humans is a primary cause of ecological change at many scales. Several land use/change indicators have been identified as potentially valuable to the Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program.
These indicators include changes in the extent of t) altered vs. unaltered land, 2) interior forest land, 3) public open space, and 4) impervious surface cover.
Based on satellite imagery, The Rutgers University Center for Remote Sensing & Spatial Analysis (CRSSA) has mapped land cover at varying levels of detail for the Bamegat Bay watershed for the years of 1972, 1984, 1995 and more recently 2001. Data for 2001 show that development represents approxi-V
mately 30% of the watershed area and that development within the Barnegat Bay watershed increased by 7,255 acres since 1995. The amount of altered land (total of developed, cultivated/grassland and bare land) in 2001 is estimated to be 1131,311 acres or approximately 37% of the watershed. As of March 2004, there were approximately '122,500 acres of publicly owned land in the Barnegat Bay watershed (approxi-mately 34% of the watershed). Development within the Barnegat Bay watershed has increased from 18%
to 21% to 28% to 30% during the years 1972, 1984, 1995 and 2001 respectively.
Additional information is needed on recent changes in impervious surface cover within the bay water-shed. The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Land Use Mapping Program was estab-lished to map landuse and impervious surface statewide. When recent imagery has been interpreted, a closer examination of trends in altered vs. unaltered land use and impervious surface cover will be pos-sible.
vi
RIIJ~ I I~hI ~ mi~TS1A~4 [~1 ~t ISV~U S71 used as a barometer of coastal ecosystem health (Dennison et al., 1993). Changes in the vitality and distribution of these vascular plants gener-ally signal a decline in aquatic ecosystem health. During the last 30 years, significant declines in SAV have occurred in New Jersey estuaries (Lathrop and Bognar, 2001), resulting in the reduction of essential fish habitat and the potential loss of commercially and recreational-ly important species. Nutrient enrichment has Explanation of the Indicator caused blooms of phytoplankton (e.g.,
Aureococcus anophagefferens) and benthic Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) is a key macroalgae (e.g., Ulva, Gracilaria,and Codium).
indicator of the environmental health of the Dinotlagellate and brown-tide blooms can Barnegat Bay-Little Egg Harbor Estuary. reduce light availabilify, adversely affect SAV Seagrasses are an important element of the bay (e.g., Zostera marina) (Dennison et al., 11989), and ecosystem because they harness energy and cause negative impacts on other living nutrients that are consumimed by other organ- resources (Bricelj and Lonsdale, 1997). Brown-isms. The seagrass beds also provide a critical tide blooms are now a recurring phenomenon structural component in an otherwise barren in the coastal bays of New Jersey, New York, sandy bottom, serving as essential habitat for a and Maryland. In response to shading stress, it host of organisms such as shellfish, finfish, and appears that Z. marina may also be susceptible waterfowl. Hoowever, in recent years seagrasses to infection by "wasting disease"(Labyrinthula in the estuary have suffered due to declining zosterae) (Bologna and Gastrich, unpublished water quality dredging, brown tides, benthic data). This disease, which decirnated Z. marina algal infestation, boat scarring, and disease. To beds worldwide during the .1930's (den IHartog, remain healthy, seagrasses are dependent on 1987), may signal a significant decline in water comparatively clear, transparent water. As bay quality. Aside from the impacts of "wasting waters become more turbid due to algal blooms disease" on Z. marina, large-scale losses of the and suspended sediment, the light levels need- SAV habitat might occur due to the additional ed to sustain photosynthesis and seagrass pro- physiological stress associated with harmful ductivity decrease. Nutrient enrichment of the algal blooms (HABs).
bay's waters, whether from runoff, atmospheric deposition or boat wastes, promotes algal Another factor that can affect the distribution of blooms, as well as infestations of epiphytic SAV is the availability of suitable substrate. A algae that coat the seagrass blades and threaten study was conducted to examine possible rela-the longevity of the seagrass beds. ThLis, tio~ns between SAV and bottom sediment in the heal thy and abundant seagrasses are indicators estuary. The study, conducted by the Ocean of good estuarine water quality. County Soil Conservation District (OCSCD), in cooperation with the Natural Resources Seagrasses rank among the most sensitive indi- Conservation Service, concluded that the accu-cators of lonm-term water quality and can be mulation of fine particles and organic debris in I
S~ m erge A- ti* Ve'`aI*6ý C bottom sediment can be detrimental to SAV. ca) were also mapped. The resulting maps doc-growth, and that management of the watershed umented 5,184 ha (12,804 acres) of seagrass to lessen runoff containing fine particles and beds at the aforementioned levels of density nutrients may help restore SAV in the estuary (Table 1.,Figure 1).
(OCSCD, 2005).
Assessment of the present overall condition of Status and Trends the indicator shows that the SAV distribution has remained reasonably stable over the past CRSSA/JCN ERR Mapping five years. There does not appear to be any wholesale loss of beds when compared with the Investigators at the Grant F:'Walton Center for maps of the 1990-2000 period. This stability is a.
Remote Sensing and Spatial Analysis (CRSSA) positive outcome considering the continued at Rutgers University (Cook College) and the development of the watershed, as well as the Jacques Cousteau National Estuarine Research severe brown-tide blooms that occurred in the Reserve (JCN ERR) are monitoring SAV beds in the estuary. They conducted an extensive [
SAV mapping project during 2003 to better understand the present status of the seagrass habitats. This project, directed by Dr. 5e Richard G. Lathrop of CRSSA,.was conduct-ed using advanced digital camera equip- ,>,
ment flown in an airplane along the entire length of the estuary. Color imagery was flown in the spring (May 4 and 5, 2003) before bay waters became too turbid, there-by enabling the researchers to visualize the bay bottom and determine the location of the seagrass beds. The aerial overflight was complemented with boat-based surveys up and down the bay to determine species type (i.e., eelgrass, Zostera marina,or widgeon grass, Ruppia maritima), percent cover, blade height, and sediment type. Advanced com-puter-aided interpretation techniques were used to map the location, areal extent, and percent cover of the. seagrass beds in much greater detail than ever before possible.
Seagrass beds were mapped at three levels of density: (1) dense (80-100% coverage); (2) moderate (40-80% coverage); and (3) sparse*
(10-40% coverage) (Figures 1 and 2).
Shallow sand/mud flats (< 10% seagrass) and "Figre1. A 21003) SV nap overlaid on diuital aerial imavery 1o61CCenral Barnegat Bay.
benthic macroalgae (e.g., sea lettuce, Ulva lactu-2
S gag ~~A, 0 ere Aw o Total Seagrass 5,184 Shallow Sand/Mud Flat .11,202 Macro Algae 353 Deep Water 19,125 Total Study Area 35,864 Table 1. Bottom type classification results for the Barnegat Bay-Little Egg Harbor Estuary.
bay during 2001 and 2002. However, the condi-tion of the indicator appears to have changed substantially in previous years. Since 1968, for example, mapping surveys con-ducted periodically to monitor SA Vin BarnegatBay -
the extent and status of seagrass Little Egg Harbor- Great Bay, beds in the Barnegat Bay-Little Bottom Classification Egg Harbor Estuary indicated M ::,."
D Dense s( .(80 - 100 %) "
significant shifts in distribution. -0 Moderate (40 - 80 %)
Of particular note, earlier str- Sparse (10 -.40 /)
fe !Shallow Sand/Mud Flats veys showed evidence of a
- Macro Algae decline in the seagrass extent Deep Water/Channels between the late 1970's and the mid-1990's, especially in the northern reaches of the bay New (Figure 3). 'ei" Boat-based surveys conducted between 1996 and 1999 mapped 6,083 ha (15,025 acres) of sea-grass. When comparing the ., Lj A 2003 and the late 1990's mnaps, a decline of approximately 900 ha -
(2,220 acres) or 15% of seagrass beds appears to be evident.
Rather than representing a sig-nificant decline in seagrass, the t difference in area figures is most likely due to a change in map- ,
ping techniques and the timing s,*: G-,,ar F. Wait, C,, ,,,* ,Rot of the aerial imagery acquisition.'[ & spi As 2o3 The 1990's boat-based survey Figure 2. A 2003 SAV\nap tior ihe 13arnec at Iay-I.it IC1.71 1 arbor studv area.
3
T le aa ig coga widgeon grass beds, which general-ly do not reach their peak density I until later in the summer growing season.
Detailed Investigations eagrass There are major information gaps as to the relative importance of eutrophication and brown-tide blooms on diminished water clarity and potential impacts on seagrass health. The significance of epiphytic algae, benthic macroalgae, wasting
- disease, and other disturbance fac-tors on seagrass health and abun-dance is also uncertain. Studies by eBaJ researchers at Rutgers University and Montclair State University are underway to help fill some of these gaps. As part of ongoing work at the JCNERR, the remote sensing-We Eg based mapping is being comple-41] [ mented with in situ sampling to assess seagrass abundance and health and the impact of the afore-mentioned disturbance factors.
I Investigators at JCNERR established g9 Harbor a series of permanent field plots in Figure 3. Time series of SAV maps for the Bay-Little E; Estuary: 1979, 1985-1987, 1996-1998 and 20 303. Little Egg Harbor, where intensive sampling of seagrass beds was mapped SAV by following the exterior perime-undertaken over the growing season during ter of seagrass beds and recording waypoints 2004. This in situ effort will be expanded using a GPS. This technique tends to homoge-northward into Barnegat Bay proper during nize characteristics within a bed, creating a con-2005. In addition, Dr. Paul Bologna of tinuous SAV coverage where it may actually be Montclair State University has been conducting discontinuous. Aerial photographic imagerx detailed investigations (as well as restoration) and the image segmentation/classification tech-of seagrass beds in the estuary since '1998.
niques adopted in the 2003 study permitted a These investigations are described in more much finer delineation of exterior boundaries detail below.
and internal bed discontin uities. In addition, the early May 2003 aerial imagery may have underestimated the spatial extent and cover of 4
3 J qua
- on -(o S S ub ic Ngetat cw Montclair State University Investigations exceeded 397 g ash free dry weight m-2 . This massive accumulation of algae and detrital mat-Dr. Bologna and his colleagues at Montclair ter smothered Z. marina and led to the elimina-State University are currently monitoring SAVs tion of both aboveground and belowground at five permanent sites in the Barnegat Bay- biomass from several locations in the bay Little Egg Harbor Estuary including Shelter (Bologna et aL., 2001). Since that event, numer-Island, Marsh Elder, Ham Island, Barnegat ous brown-tides have impeded the recovery of Inlet, and Seaside Heights. Of these sites, the these beds to pre-impact levels. Currently, first four represent eelgrass (Zostera marina) these beds continue to be monitored to assess dominated sites, whereas Seaside Heights is a how their recovery is progressing.
widgeon grass (Ruppia maritima) habitat. At each of these sites, monthly core samples are Appendix I (Tables 1-3) provide the results of being collected from May through September. sampling at the four Zoslera marina sites in 2001 The cores are separated into plant and animal (Table 1), 2002 (Table 2), and 2003 (Table 3).
portions and assessed in the laboratory. One of the most important trends identified in Seagrass shoot abundance is counted from these data is the relative relationship of brown-cores, in addition to several demographic meas- tide occurrence in the system and the develop-urements (i.e., blade length, blade width, leaf ment and spread of the "wasting disease" in the.
biomass, root/rhizome biomass, and algal bio- populations of Z. marina. It appears that during mass), and eelgrass is visually inspected for the brown-tide events, added light stress allows the assessment of "wasting disease". Monitoring of spread of the disease among the populations. It some of these sites began as early as 1998, but is not clear yet how this occurs, and whether it all sites have been continu6usly monitored is an immediate response or a delayed reaction since 2001. Additionally during the summer, in the plants. The other important trend is the bay-wide assessments of SAV are conducted to lack of site stability. SAV is inherently variable assess various community-level questions in shoot density and plant biomass. As such, regarding the value of SAV as habitat for asso- there is significant inter-annual variation in ciated fauna. these parameters at the monitoring sites. It will be necessary, therefore, to monitor these sites in While seagrass coverage has appeared to the future to detect any larger temporal cycle in remain relatively stable over the last several the plant demographics.
years, greater fluctuations have occurred for seagrasses on a localized scale. For example, The primary limiting environmental factor for Bologna et al. (2001), investigating the relation- SAV in New Jersey is adequate light. It is well ship between Zostera marina and bay scallops recognized that significant reduction of light (A ropecten irradians)in coastal New Jersey dur- transmission negatively impacts seagrass ing 1998, found that a significant macroalgal growth and production. Additionally, it has bloom occurred. The initial high biomass of been demonstrated that various sources of light algae in June and subsequent algal-detrital frac- attenuation components exist and include phy-tion created a significant algal-detrital loading toplankton, epiphytes, and macroalgae, as well to the Z. marina bed, which continued through- as land runoff causing general turbidity.
out the summer and into the fall. Loading rates Coastal bays that Undergo eutrophication fre-5
er e Atic, Ve' tat wn.voyt lei_
quently experience some degree of light attenu-ation from all of these sources (Hauxwell et aL.,
2003). These supplemental stresses, while impacting the growth, production, and health of expansive beds, may also greatly affect seedlings (Bintz and Nixon, 2001.) and patchy or low shoot density beds (Tamaki et al., 2002).
Consequently, light attenuation may significant-ly impair the natural recovery of SAV in regions that have undergone losses and may reduce the effectiveness and survival of expansive beds. It is this light attenuation that is the most critical control of SAy, in Barnegat Bay.
JCNERR Investigations In 2004, researchers at the Jacques Cousteau National Estuarine Research Reserve conducted 6c Kn.
detailed sampling of SAV in Little Egg Harbor to determine: (1) the demographic characteris- Figure 4. Map of the JCNERR and adjoining tics and spatial habitat change of SAV (Zostera watersheds that drain into the marina and Rippia mnarilitia)in the system over Barnegat Bay-Little Egg Harbor Estuary.
an annual growing period; (2) the species com-position, relative abundance, and potential A impacts of benthic macroalgae on the SAV beds; and (3) the potential impacts of brown tide (AiUreococczis anophag:effranus)on the SAV. Two disjunct SAVbeds in Little Egg Harbor, cover-ing a total area of about 1700 ha, were sampled at ten equally spaced points along six, east-west trending transects in spring, summer, and fall of 2004 (Figures 4 and 5). Sampling was con-ducted during June, August, October, and SLille EggV November. More than 175 samples were col- 1H.n bor lected at 60 transect sites during the sampling period. At each sampling site, the following demographic data were collected: percent cover per SAV species, aboveground and
- ' *"'. " L"! :': " N "¢'0 1 22; I21cometers belowgroupd biomass per SAV species, sheath and stem biomass per SAV species, leaf biomass
~.~*ERR~*RSSA.:NJDEP per SAV species, average shoot height, average Figure 5. Map of Little Egg Harbor showing shoot width, number of shoots, as well as abun- SAV bed 1 (-1260 ha) and SAV bed 2 (-430 ha).
6
S" m r..em," Ag at V metafi g'"n~o0 dance and percent cover by macroalgae species. environmental factors?
In addition, physico-chemical data (tempera-ture, salinity, pH, dissolved oxygen, turbidity, Can the surveys differentiate natural vari-and percent sand, silt, and clay) were collected ability of the SAV from that induced by at each sampling site. Nutrient data (ammoni- anthropogenic activities?
um, nitrate, nitrite, total organic nitrogen, and orthophosphate) were likewise collected along This project is in response to multiple coastal the sampling transects. These data are being management needs. SAV is recognized as a analyzed through spring 2005, with a report of critically important benthic habitat that receives findings scheduled for summer 2005. special consideration in New Jersey. Because of the criticfil importance of SAV as habitat, the The major objective of this project is to deter- same type of study will be conducted in mine the changes that occur in demographic Barnegat Bay during spring, summer, and fall characteristics of the SAV during an annual of 2005.
growing period in Little Egg Harbor. The ulti-mate goal is to develop a better understanding Information Gaps of the natural variability of the SAV beds and to assess potential anthropogenic impacts on Additional information is needed to address them. Some of the questions that are being uncertainties in SAV mapping efforts and to addressed by this investigation include the fol- determine the controls on SAV health.
lowing: Additional study also is needed to better understand the value of SAV species as habitat.
" What quantitative changes take place in There is some indication of the loss of SAV beds aboveground and belowground biomass, in the estuary during the past few decades, shoot or stem density, leaf and shoot although differences in mapping methods make width, and maximum canopy height of it difficult to unequivocally establish the occur-SAV beds over a growing season? rence of a major dieback and loss of eelgrass area. Results of the GIS spatial comparison
- How variable is the percent cover by each analysis of SAV surveys reported by Lathrop et SAV species within the field survey areas? al. (11999) and Lathrop and Bognar (2001) sug-Is seasonal dominance evident among the gest that there has been loss of eelgrass in the species? Are shifts in spatial distribution deeper waters of the estuary culminating in the of the S/\V species significant within a contraction of the beds to shallower subtidal growing season? flats (< 2 m depth) during the period between the 1960s and 1990s. The loss appears to have
" Do the SAV bed boundaries expand, con- been most severe in Barnegat Bay north of tract, or remain unchanged over a seasonal Toms River and in southern Little Egg Harbor.
sampling period? Because of some uncertainty surrounding the conclusions of this analysis, however, periodic
" Where is the maximum species abundance investigations of SAV beds in the estuary are observed in the sampling segments and recommended.
can this abundance be related to specific 7
S
- ge' Ag quw1,,
tg* V eC leaio :
The major information gaps necessary to assess Dennison, W., G. Marshall, and C. Wigand.
the health of the SAV resource include deter- 1989. Effect of brown-tide shading on eel-mining the relationships among brown-tide and grass (Zostera marina L.) distributions. In:
macroalgal blooms and the health and biomass E. Cosper, V. Bricelj, andE. Carpenter of SAV in Barnegat Bay. Thliese two factors -- (eds.), Novel Phytoplankton Blooms.
brown-tide and macroalgal blooms -- have been Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 675-692.
shown to negatively impact SAV and other liv-ing resources. To detennine the future success Dennison, W. C., R. J. Orth, K. A. Moore, J. C.
of SAV in the bay, it will be necessary to under- Stevenson, V. Carter, S. Kollar, P.
stand how these variables impact seagrass beds.. Bergrsrom, and R. Batiuk. 1993. Assessing Perhaps the most critical data gap relates to the water quality with submersed aquatic veg-value of widgeon grass as a habitat. While etation: habitat requirements as barome-studies have focused on eelgrass, there is little ters of Chesapeake Bay health. BioScience understanding of the role of widgeon grass in 43: 86-94.
Bamegat Bay. It will be important to link the value of each seagrass species to the health of Hauxwell, J., J. Cebrian, and I. Valiela. 2003.
the bay. Eelgrass Zostera marina loss in temperate estuaries: relationships to land-derived References nitrogen loads and effect of light limitation imposed by algae. Marine Ecology Progress Bintz, J. and S. W. Nixon. 2001. Responses of Series 247: 59-73.
eelgrass Zostcra 10arina seedlings to reduced light. Marine Ecology Progress Lathrop, R. G., Jr., J. A. Bognar, A. C.
Series 223: 133-141. Henrickson, and P. D. Bowers. 1999.. Data synthesis effort for the Barnegat Bay Bologna, P., A. Wilbur, and K. Able. 2001. Estuary Program: habitat loss and alter-Reproduction, population structure, and ation in the Barnegat Bay region.
recruitment limitation in a bay scallop Technical Report, Center for Remote (Argopecten irradiansLamarck) population Sensing and Spatial Analysis, Rutgers from New Jersey, USA. Journal of Shellfish University, New Brunswick, New Jersey.
Research 20: 89-96.
Lathrop, R. G., Jr. and J. A. Bognar. 2001.
Bricelj, M. and D. Lonsdale. 1997. Aurcococcis Habitat loss and alteration in the Barnegat anophagefferens: causes and ecological con- Bay region. Journal of Coastal Research S132:
sequences of brown tides in U.S. Mid- 212-228.
Atlantic coastal waters. Liu11molog/y and Oceanography 42:1023-1038. Ocean County Soil Conservation District, 2005, Sub-aqueous vegetation sediment classifi-den Hartog, C. -1987. Wasting disease and cation system and mapping study for the other dynamic phenomena in Zostera beds. Barnegat Bay (SCMS), Ocean County Soil Aquatic Botany 27: 3-14. Conservation District, in cooperation with the USDA - Natural Resources 8
- 0*
Conservation Service, 31p. (report available online at http://www.bbep.org/
dwnloads/sediment.pdf)
Tarnaki, H., M. Tokuoka, W. Nishijima, T.
Terawaki, and M. Okada. 2002.
Deterioration of eelgrass, Zostera marila L.,
meadows by water pollution in Deto Inland Sea, Japan. Marine Pollution Bulletin 44: 1253-1258.
Exam ple of submerged aquatic vegetation-Zosteramarina (eelgrass)
Photograph by Dr. Paul Bologna, Montclair State University
.Liiikst6 Other Infoirmation Sources Additional informatiin about SAV' mapping atthe University Grant GRutgers L. Walton Center for
. Remnote Sensing and Spatial Analysis (CRSSA) is available at
.....* 2 >~:http://wxvaw.*crssa~rutg:ers.edui/jiOje~ts/ninj/sawv *''*?**= ..
Additional information about research activities at the -Jacques Cousteau National EstuarineK1 '
Research Reserve (JCNERRl.) is available at Additional information about tie Ocean County Soil Conservation District stiiyd of sub-aqueous v:egetation sedinient is available at fit tp:iAv wivwbbeporg/dwnloadslsedirent pdf N.ii-.P lnuts ,> In r Ii h\toplanknm V I In ,r~4AI I urbiiity
- Li
~ d Buuoin Lii~ht wci~li Productonl~ iubt 9
the shellfish resource for the entire estuary.
Ceniitral Question(s)
Shellfisheries of New Jersey's coastal waters are 1,sthe areage of sh(elltish be,;oýnfi ham- managed by the New Jersey Department of
~vest changing? Environmental Protection's Bureau of Shellfisheries.
Explanation of the Indicator Although shellfish harvests continue in Barnegat Bay, increasing pressure on the indus-Shellfish harvesting has been a part of the life of try has been created from growing human pop-the Barnegat Bay-Little Egg Harbor Estuary for ulation along its shores and throughout its as long as humans have occupied its shores. watershed. With this growth comes the poten-However, the demise of the bay scallop tial for shellfish to be contaminated with pollu-(Ai-gopecten irradians)fishery during the 1950s tants from human activities (Figures 1, 2).
and 1960s, ongoing limited abundance of the Shellfish-borne infectious diseases generally soft clam (Mya arenaria),and rapidly declining stocks of hard clams since the mid-1980s have severely curtailed corn-mercial shellfishing in this system. Both *. :
the soft clam and hard clam (Mercenaria ..
mercenaria) remain only recreationally important in the estuary. As a result, most baymen working shellfish beds in the estuary during past years have shift-ed their activity to Great Bay or else-where or they have found other means of li,,elihood. The decline of shellfish hat-Figur e I. Stormwater drainage into New Jersey's back bay areas vesting in the Barnegat Bay-Little Egg [sour is a source of contamination for the shellfish residing in these Harbor Estuary may be attributed to var- water S.
ious factors, including the effects of the growing human population along its shores and in upland areas of the water-shed. Historically, two molluscan species {,
have been of greatest commercial impor-tance in New Jersey's back bay waters. .
These are the bard clam and the soft clam, although the hard clam population is more prevalent today. There have been some signs of the possibility of the bay scallop's return to Barnegat Bay, but hard clam abundance in Little Egg Harbor was assessed in 2001 showing a significant
- 2. Boat n decline in standing stock. More study is Iiothre 1n>[Is hack
" and related actMitics associated with marinas can add haIN atets needed to determine the overall status of II
a ;aA begin with fecal contamination of the shellfish growing waters by direct sources (pollutants from plants such as wastewater treatment facili- Shellfish water classifications in New Jersey ties) or indirect sources (such as stormwater consist of four main types:
runoff from urban or agricultural areas).
Shellfish ingest these contaminants, and if they " Approved waters are the highest water qual-in turn are ingested by humans, this could lead ity. In Approved waters, shellfish can be to illness or death. It is imperative that a system harvested for consumption without any is in place to reduce the human health risk of restrictions.
consuming shellfish from areas of contamina- " Seasonal waters, as the name implies, are tion. open to harvest for a portion (season) of each year when water quality meets the The New Jersey Department of Environmental same criteria as Approved waters.
Protection's Bureau of Marine Water Monitoring " Special Restricted areas are moderately pol-monitors the shellfish growing waters contained luted waters that are condemned for the within the Barnegat Bay National Estuary harvest of oysters, clams, and mussels Program (BBN EP) to ensure that shellfish with- EXCEPT harvesting for further processing in these and other State waters are safe to con- and purification prior to consumption.
sume. Back bay and ocean waters are analyzed Further processing involves placing the for coliform bacteria, which are used to indicate shellfish in high quality water for a period the presence of human waste. From sample col- of time sufficient to purge the shellfish of lection, monitoring, and analysis, back bay and pollutants.
ocean water classifications are updated on a " Prohibitedwaters exist where the harvest of yearly basis to produce Shellfish Growing oysters, clams, and mussels cannot occur Waters Classification Charts for the State of under any circumstances.
New Jersey. These charts are provided to any-one who purchases a license for shellfish har- Status and trends: Barnegat Bay -Little vest in New Jersey. Egg Harbor Classifications for 2000-2004 The status of shellfish growing waters classifica-tions provides a good indicator of progress in The overwhelning majority of waters within improving estuarine water quality because it the Barnegat Bay and Little Egg Harbor estuary integrates results ot water quality testing and are of high water quality and are classified as pollution source surveys to establish the shell- Approved. Of the changes in shellfish classifica-fish water classifications. A limitation of the tions for these waters from 2000 - 2004, 80%
indicator is that although it provides a measure (336 acres) were upgraded, and 20% (84 acres) of water quality in terms of public health and were downgraded. Figure 3 shows the actual potential for disease transmission, it is not breakdown of the various classifications. Maps geared towards measuring the status of shellfish of the overall classifications for this region can populations or the ecological health of the estu- be seen in Figures 4 and 5. All upgrades or arv].* downgrades were primarily based on water quality (as reflected in levels of total coliform 12
p 10 bacteria), with the exception of a three-acre risk through consumption of shellfish are downgrade which was made to reduce poten- appropriately classified to preclude harvest.
tial impacts from an adjacent marina, as well as to create a protective buffer. Table I provides a Information gaps more detailed summary of the upgrades and downgrades during this time period. The comprehensive program of sampling, analysis, and reporting of the NJDEP Bureau of Controls Marine Water Monitoring provides a continu-As with most back bay waters in New Jersey, ously updated indicator, and therefore, there the waters of the Barnegat Bay-Little Egg are no information gaps for this particular indi-1 larbor estuary have great variation in water cator.
quality that is reflected in the broad range of shellfish harvest classifications assigned to this area -- from Approved to Prohibited. In deter-6 -7Linksl to Other Inform~atimn <*n mining classifications, the potential impacts if i~Sources~
from possible sources of contamination are con-sidered. Permit and discharge data from the A~dditional iformation on the water quality Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station are or. shellfish cla ssifications ini Barnegat Bay routinel, monitored. Additionally, there are and Little EggHarbor may be obtained froimn
- ,the Bureau0of JMarineiWater Monitorinigi's-instances where seasonal use by humans, tidal
-:,i, -. wat;stat~.nilds/dep/wmm/
action, or rainfall and subsequent stormwater inputs can create higher coliform counts within specific areas of Barnegat Bay and Little Egg Harbor. T'his often occurs in areas such as lagoons, marinas, streams, and rivers. Again,,
these and any waters where there is a poten-tial human health ElApproved El Seasonal (Nov-Apr)
El Special Restricted 03 Prohibited FiVUre 3,. Shellfish (Irowvin,_ Water Cklssifications Ibr Barnieat iBa\'
Little FLe Haurbor. 2000-2O(04 13
Sh"Alf~~~ ilags. c'n I
Double Creek Dinne-Poinit Creek.
Westecu nk Creek Parker Rug Jesse Creek Wvater Thompson Creek. "ontrol
/Tickerton Creek., arge Pipe
~r-iee k
,N Inlet:
~A~N \
~ -~
~
3 .0 3 6 Miles
- Ocean County Direct Discharge: Locations 2005 Shellfish Classification Approved CurrentClassifications for.the South - Central
- Seasonal (Nov-Apr) Shellfish Growing Areas Located within the Seasonal (Jan-Apr) Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program (i.e. Point Special Restricted Pleasant Canal to Little Egg Harbor Inlet -
Prohibited Southeastern Monmouth and Ocean Counties, New Jersey)
NJDEP Bureau of Marine Water Monitoring
-7 Figure 4: Current Classifications for the South - Central Shellfish Growing Areas of ihe Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program 14
S ' h " "'," e ,(on
(
tal Oyster Creek Nuclear Forki Generating iStation Exelon C orporation . .,
Oyster C
(. ,Miles o Ocean County Direct Discharge Locations 005 Shellfish Classification
- Approved Current Classifications for the North - Central
- Zi Seasonal (Nov-Apr) Shellfish Growing Areas Located within the I' Seasonal tJan-Apr)
I Special Restricted Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program (i.e. Point Prohibited Pleasant Canal to Little Egg Harbor Inlet -
Southeastern Monmouth and Ocean Counties, New Jersey)
NJDEP Bureau of Marine Water Monitoring F'igtre 5: Current Classifications for the North - Central Shellfish Growing Areas of Ihe Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program 15
Location Classification Change Tuckerton Cove Upgrade of 44 acres from Seasonal (January -
April) to Seasonal (November - April)
Beach Haven West Upgrade of 132 acres from Seasonal (January -
April) to Seasonal (November - April)
High BarHarbor Upgrade of 1.60 acres from Special Restricted.to Approved Vicinity of Whleelhouse Marina Administrative downgrade of 3 acres from Approved to Seasonal Havens Cove Downgrade of 811acres from Approved to Seasonal (November - April)
"'Table 1. Summ'ary of upgraded and downgraded shellfish growing waters within the Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program area 2000-2004.
16
ATHING*a~."BEACHES'___________________
NJDEP, is fecal coliform bacterium. This organ-ism is present in the digestive tract of warm-blooded animals. The NJDEP beach closure standard for this organism is 200 colonies per 100 milliliter of water. The standard must be Explanation of the Indicator exceeded in two consecutive samples for the beach to be closed. One re-sample meeting the.
For the past twenty-five years, the Ocean standard is sufficient to open the beach to County Health Department (OCHID) has bathing.
obtained and analyzed water-quality samples from all public bathing beaches in the county on In 2004, the NJDEP, at the suggestion of the a weekly basis between Memorial Day and USEPA, changed the required indicator organ-Labor Day. Results are used by the OCHD to isms. The organism now utilized for brackish determine whether beaches are to remain open and salt water beaches is enterococcus, also a for bathing or closed to bathing. Figures 1-3 bacterium found in the digestive tracts of show the locations of bathing beach sites where warm-blooded animals. Enterococcus is consid-samples are collected. Results of bathing beach ered to persist longer in the environment. The monitoring provide an indication of the bacteri- NIDEP beach closure standard for this organ-al health of the waters that are utilized for recre- ism is 104 colonies per 100 ml of water. iThe ational bathing. Closure statistics for beaches standard mustbe exceeded in two consecutive on the bay, freshwater lakes and rivers provide samples for the beach to be closed. One resam-an indication of the amount of bacteria from pie meeting the standard is sufficient to open various sources that is being flushed from the the beach to bathing. Fresh water samples con-watershed into the waterways that eventually tinue to be analyzed for fecal coliform.
flow into the bay. The number of brackish water beach closures in a particular year pro- Samples are obtained in a sterile 120ml bottle.
vides an indication of the extent to which the The sampler attempts to proceed to chest depth use of the bay for recreational bathing is (approximately four feet) and the sample is impaired by these various sources. Closure sta- obtained using NJDEP methods. All samples tistics also provide a general indication of the are cooled and transported to a certified labora-non-point source loadings from these sources tory. Chain of custody forms are always used to that include contaminants other than bacteria. transfer the samples. If the OCHD is notified of Stormwater typically contains suspended solids, a sample result that exceeds the state standard, nutrients, organic carbon, petroleum hydrocar- then a re-sample is immediately obtained.
bons, heavy metals, and pesticides, in addition While obtaining the re-sample the sampler will to bacteria (NJDEP, 2004) also obtain two other samples at the site, on either side of the original sample. 1his proce-The status and trends on beach closures are dure is followed to determine if a pollutant characterized in this report by examining statis- source may be indicated.
tics, for the years 1995 through 2004. For the years 1995 through 2003, the indicator organism utilized by the OCHD, at the direction of the 17
WW F 3.dhig 0 0'dleg(,cpt V
/ Ni 01W N N, 47 LQTh1~OODThP N :4 Not) 4*
NI/ N
- ~NN z214 k7 NN~ N A 4.,
<N 4Kt~
-UOVICR(WI
,I,1-,*1"1 E
47 OK3(
I'l- I'llN'R INC 11111 RLN(IIINIXYIN 154)41) *7-4 NI'): iNNINI4*4)4*)
,Ii;,tc1.rI II SKI Figure I. Map showing' locations of Northern Ocean County sites samples as part of the Cooperative Coastal Monitoring Program.
18
3 ,B3ig a n s '11( ý 1
/
/
01<4;)IIi(O3flBOfl).
7 3/4
,,I-A,
'NK'
'V.-
'I t-I Figure 2. Map showing locations of Central Ocean County sites samples as part of the Cooperative Coastal Monitoring Program.
19
pBM pn"Bi'ce
- ch.
Figure 3. Map showing locations of Southern Ocean County sites samples as part of the Cooperative Coastal Monitoring Program.
20
p p B'
- lad S Status is proportional to the density of development in the area serviced by the storm drain system Lakes that empties into the lake. Lakes such as Harry The bathing areas at the lakes usually make up Wright Lake in Manchester (MCJ-1-5 and MCH-50% of the total number of exceedences during 6) which are surrounded with a lower density the bathing season. Two factors, stormwater of housing, recover fairly quickly in compari-runoff and waterfowl, influence the occurrence son to Lake Barnegat in Lacey Twp (LAC-3),
of elevated bacterial counts in lakes of the which receives stormwater from a relatively Barnegat Bay-Little Egg Harbor watershed: higher density area.
" Stormwater runoff--The amount of indica- Creeks tor organisms found in a lake after a rain- Cedar Creek is the only freshwater creek in fall event is directly influenced by the Ocean County that contains public bathing amount of stormwater that is channeled areas. T[he creek is sampled at two locations; in into the lake. Lakes that receive little or no Berkeley Twp. at William Dudley Park, and in storlnwater can be expected to show much l.,acey Twp. at Forest Ave.
lower bacteria counts than lakes that receive a greater inflow of stormwater. Cedar Creek is an indicator of how bacteria-free Without outside influence of waterfowl, the a water body can be Without the influence of numbers of bacteria can be expected to storm drains. Cedar Creek could almost be con-recede within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> after the rain event. sidered a control regarding stormwater influ-ence and non-point source pollution. The
- Waterfowl--Several of the inland lakes in stream is not encumbered with storm drains, the watershed are home to great numbers and as a result, it seldom has an elevated bacte-of gulls, geese and ducks (Figure ria count.
4). The fecal material from these birds are considered to be the cause of 75 of the 86 lake clo-sures in 2004. Park visitors often ignore the signs that implore people not to feed the waterfowl at lakes such as those in county parks and Pine Lake in Manchester.
Without external factors such as ,A~ ~
waterfowl, the lakes appear to recov - -
er within approximately 24 to 36 hours4.166667e-4 days <br />0.01 hours <br />5.952381e-5 weeks <br />1.3698e-5 months <br /> after a rainfall event. With an Figutre 4.
I lerf\\iI such ais gulls, geese. and ducks are a significull soLurce of abundance of waterfowl, the lake fecal colifi rim bacteria and are considered a najor CaISe O" C!osurets of nay hbathing may take several days to recover. The hcadlhes on Iakes. FecdiIn1 \\aterftt r vl ii thcse loca.tfions contlibutes to 1hi, problem hv elltirai* <_,iw.:'
\Va;rII to con'rcgate near recreational likes. Prk visitors irt severity of the initial influx of bacteria Siked [ih waltrlbwl.
LIIVC M 21
Bati B* ,a Sieg,.(ý The site at William Dudley Park is totally free in the lakes, if the sampling point (beach) is of discharges from storm drains, while the site located in a cove Where the water circulation is at Forest Ave. is under the influence of one poor, the duration of the event may be extend-storm drain that drains an area of Route #9 that ed by several days. Sampling points such as the is not influenced by human activities other than two Beachwood beaches, Money Island beach traffic and road maintenance. During the past in Dover and Windward Beach in Brick fall into five years the Berkeley site was closed once the poor circulation category.
while the Lacey site was closed three times.
Usually the bacteria counts at both.of these sites Noll-point source pollution delivered via are measured at less than 10 colonies per 100m]. stormwater is the primary source of contamina-of water, which is extremely clean. tion at these beaches. The OCHD has per-formed several analytical surveys of marinas, Rivers beaches, and storm drain outfalls. Results of Brackish rivers in the watershed with public these surveys indicate that the primary bacteria recreational bathing areas are the Manasquan source is the outfalls. Other surveys conducted River, the NMletedeconk River, and the Toims bxy the OCHED have observed that septic system River. One site on the Toins River that is not a malfunctions are not a contributor to the overall bathing beach, Central Ave. in Island Heights bacteria load. Sanitary sewer networks service (site #0113) is an environmental site which was most if not all structures in the vicinity of the previously designated a beach but is no longer beaches.
utilized as such.
Until the change of indicator organism that It has been observed that water quality at the occurred in the spring of 2004, it could be river beach sites is affected by stormwater and assumed that these beaches would receive and geographic factors. Immediately following a retain bacteria counts exceeding state standards rain event that causes the storm drains to flow, for between 24 and 36 hours4.166667e-4 days <br />0.01 hours <br />5.952381e-5 weeks <br />1.3698e-5 months <br />. With the change most if not all of these sites will exhib-it elevated bacteria, 6- ,,:,,*T,, 4.5 4
counts. Figure 5 3.5*
0 illustrates the relation 4
between precipitation Z 2.5 Z and elevated bacteria 03 2 '0 I--
counts. The duration w 1.5.0*
F, 2 0 of an elevated bacte- ] U 0
ria level depends O,,
upon the flow of 0 5+31 .0 8131/04 water through the 5131/04 6/30/04 7/31/04 site. While there is a Figure 5. Enterococcus bacteria counts at the East Beach in Beachwood and considerably larger relation to daily precipitation amounts measured at Toms River, Mav 31 - August rate of water circula- 31, 2004. Rainfall events that produce non-point source runoff are typically tion in the rivers than tollowed bv elevated bacteria counts at beaches on waterbodies receiving the runoff.
22
pe 3e (c--on I.ting * 'a' of indicator to enterrococcus, several subtle but the rate at which they recover is generally changes have been observed. While most of the faster than that of the rivers.
river beaches have shown the same patterns of bacterial influx after a rain event, the beaches at The water quality at these beaches is influenced Windward Beach in Brick Twp (0103); two by nearby storm drain outlets and tidal circula-beaches in Pine Beach Borough (0117 & 0118); tion. Because of the greater volume of circulat-and Maxon and River Ave beaches in Point ing water in the bay, heavy concentrations of Pleasant (0109 & 0110) have shown substantially bacteria at these sites tend to be quickly dilut-lower bacteria counts after a rainfall. At the ed. The exception to this pattern is the bay present time this phenomenon cannot be beach at Hancock Avenue in Seaside Heights, explained, and further research is needed in where tidal action and circulation are low.
these areas. Because this beach is isolated between the Tunney Bridge, Middlesedge Island, a Jet Ski The drought year of 2002 yielded only nine (9) rental establishment, and also because approxi-beach closures of river beaches while the heavy mately 13 storm drain outlets are located in the rainfalls of 2004 resulted in fifty-eight (58) clo- vcinitv of this beach, it is slow to recover after sures. This further implicates non-point source a storm event.
via storm drainage as the major contributor to bacterial pollution. Trends Bays Figure 6 shows the number of closures for The OCHD samples nineteen bay beaches freshwater lake and creek beaches and for through the recreational bathing season. There brackish water beaches in Ocean County during are five bay sites that are not beaches that are 1995-2004. The number of closures varies wide-sampled as environmental sites: Amherst Dr. in lv from xear to year, and this variability is Berkeley Twp., three sites on the Bay side of attributable primarily to the number, duration, Island Beach State Park, and L St. in Seaside and intensity of rainfall events occurring imme-Park.
160 The souirces of bacterial 140 contamination at bay 120 beach sites are essen-0 100
-J tiallv the same as those of the river beaches. ILj 80
'0 However, the water cir- 60 w
culation at the bay sites 40 is generally higher than Z 20 at the river sites. 0 Consequently, the bay :p A c§1 Zýl <
'ý' 'g Sý5 541 Ncý f '1ý '1ý 10 f beaches also show an ----------------
increase in bacteria counts after a rainfall, Figure 6. Annual bathing beach closures in Ocean County, 1995-2004.
23
a Is.. ac diately before and during the recreational bathing season. The highest number of annual closures occurred during three of the past four years.
It has been observed and documented that non-point source pollution delivered to the waters through stormwater discharges are the major contributing factor to beach closures. It is antici-pated that implementation of the new Stormwater Regulations and other non-point source control efforts will favorably affect the current situation.
Reference New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, 2004, New Jersey Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Watershed Management, Trenton, NJ, 9 chapters (sep-arately paginated), 4 appendices.
( Links to Other Information Sources WIter quality updates during tle recreational bathiin season areavailable on0-lne at Ocean, CountItVi I healt *.Dpartnient Beach Report web site-at Or by Calling [the Ocean count 1Health Department Bathing Beach Hotline T thenes available 24 lhours per day and can be reached at 732-341i-900 ext,l76 in northeni Ocean Couneiu and at 800-342-97381n southern *Ocean County.
I1The New Jersey Stormwa*mýter Management Rules and Regulations and theNew Jersey Stormwater Best
.Management Practices Manual are availableon-line at httpv/*/,ww, state.nj.us/dep/stormwater*
24
ALGL BLOM species have been recorded in the Barnegat C2entralOiestiori(s)§ Bay-Little Egg Harbor Estuary, including Dinophysis spp., Gymnodinium (Karlodoniuni) spp., Heterosigma sp., and Prorocentrum spp.)
(Olsen and Mahoney, 2001).
- .~r e sgover time More recently, emphasis has been placed on macroalgal blooms in shallow eutrophic estuar-Explanation of the Indicator ies. Green-tide forming taxa (e.g., Enteromorpha and Ulvm) may be particularly problematic.
Nutrient enrichment of estuarine waters is When exposed to elevated nutrient levels, these closely linked to a series of cascading environ-plants can grow very rapidly to form sheet-like mental problems, notably increased growth of masses that drift along the estuarine floor.
phytoplankton and benthic macroalgae (includ-Such high biomasses of macroalgae often ing.both harmful and nuisance forms), loss of degrade benthic habitats and communities.
submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), and reduced dissolved oxygen levels. These prob-FHABs, however, comprise the most serious lems can then lead to a deterioration of sedi-algal blooms in estuaries, with blue-green ment and water quality, loss of biodiversity, and algae, diatoms, dinoflagellates, pyrmnesio-disruption of ecosystem health and function.
phytes, and raphidophytes well represented.
Human uses of estuarine resources can also be They exist in three general forms (Hallegreaff et seriously impaired.
al., 1995; Livingston, 2000):
Nutrient loading, particularly nitrogen, is gen-
- 1. Nontoxic bloom populations reaching con-erally correlated with the occurrence of both centrations that eventually affect important nuisance and toxic algal blooms. Severe toxic environmental factors such as dissolved oxy-and noxious phytoplankton blooms are on the gen, with resulting hypoxia/anoxia ending in rise worldwide due to accelerated coastal devel-debilitation and/or extirpation of other popula-opment and associated nutrient inputs to tions.
receiving waters. These blooms are typically characterized by the explosive growth of a sin-
- 2. Toxic bloom species that introduce toxic gle phytoplankton species, which is responsible agents into associated food webs to the extent for an array of negative impacts. Excessive that upper trophic levels (including humans) growth of some phytoplankton species gener-are adversely affected.
ates harmful algal blooms (HABs), which vari-ously encompass brown tides, yellow tides, red
- 3. Toxic bloom species that produce and release tides, and other types. The toxic forms are par-substances having direct and/or indirect effects ticularly dangerous to numerous organisms on associated populations. These species are such as macroalgae, shellfish, finfish, as well as usually not harmful to humans, but are known humans. Secondary impacts include shading to adversely affect other aquatic plant and ani-effects, altered grazing patterns, and changes in mal species.
trophic dynamics that are detrimental to estuar-ine function. A number of IHAB-forming 25
Alg ALB100m Although there is general correlation of HABs beds and other phanerogams serving as benthic with elevated nutrient levels, the blooms cannot habitat (M. Kennish, personal observation, always be coupled to nutrient overenrichment. 2004). Rapid growth of other macroalgal It is also unclear if dissolved organic or dis- species in the estuary, such as the rhodophytes solved inorganic nitrogen forms play a more Agardhiella subulata, Ceraniumn spp., and significant role in their generation. Gracilariatikvahiae, can also be deterimental. In addition, the spread of certain brown macroal-Eutrophication, defined as a long-term increase gal species along the sediment surface of sea-in organic matter input to a water body as a grass beds can hinder exchange of gases and result of nutrient enrichment, is responsible for promote the development of hypoxic/anoxic insidious degradation of estuarine systems conditions that can be detrimental to the vascu-worldwide (Nixon, 1995; Boesch et al., 2001). lar plants. However, comprehensive studies of Generally linked to nutrient loading from benthic macroalgae in the estuary are lacking, adjoining coastal watersheds and local airsheds, reflecting a significant information gap.
eutrophication has been deemed a priority problem of the Barnegat Bay-Little Egg Harbor Other significant biotic changes linked to nutri-Estuary (Kennish, 2001). Nutrient enrichment ent enrichment of estuaries are shifts from large is problematic for the estuary because it can to small phytoplankton species and from over-stimulate the growth of phytoplankton as diatoms to dinoflagellates that can adversely well as benthic rnicrophytes and macrophytes. affect shellfish species. Additional impacts The result is often recurring phytoplankton include a shift from filter-feeding to deposit-blooms and the excessive proliferation of epi- feeding benthos, and aprogressive change from phytic algae and benthic macroalgae. Negative larger, long-lived benthos to smaller, rapidly impacts often arise, such as reduced dissolved growing but shorter-lived species. The net oxygen, loss of SAV, and impacted benthic fau- effect is the potential.for a permanent alteration nal communities. Tracking the occurrence of of biotic communities in the systemii.
algal blooms provides an indication of the severity of eutrophication, as well as an indica- Schramm-(1999) and Rabalais (2002) described tion of the likelihood that the related negative a predictable series of changes in autotrophic impacts of algal blooms may also be occurring. components of estuarine and shallow marine ecosystems in response to progressive eutrophi-Status cation. For those systems that are uneutro-phied, the predominant benthic macrophytes Symptoms of eutrophication problems have inhabiting soft bottoms typically include peren-surfaced in the Barnegat Bay-Little Egg Harbor nial seagrasses and other phanerogams, with Estuary. Recurring phytoplankton blooms long-lived seaweeds occupying hard substrates.
have been documented, including serious As slight to medium eutrophic conditions brown tides (Aureococcus anophageffrrans)(Olsen develop, bloom-forming phytoplankton species and Mahoney, 2001; Gastrich et al, 2005). and fast-growing, short-lived epiphytic Accelerated growth of drifting macroalgae (e.g., macroalgae gradually replace the longer lived Ulma lactuca) has produced extensive organic macrophytes; hence, perennial macroalgal com-mats that pose a potential danger to seagrass munities decline. Under greater eutrophic con-26
z, a';I OS'(ýn.
xw ditions, dense phytoplankton blooms occur in New York since the mid-1980's, and the along with drifting macroalgal species (e.g., Maryland coastal bays since 1998. These algal Enteromorphaand Ulva), ultimately eliminating blooms can discolor the water brown and may the perennial and slow-growing benthic macro- cause negative impacts on shellfish, notably the phytes, a situation that may be taking place in ecologically and commercially important hard the Barnegat Bay-Little Egg Harbor Estuary. clam and scallop, as well as on seagrasses.
With hypereutrophic conditions, benthic macro- During 2000-2002, the levels of brown-tide phytes become locally extinct, and phytoplank- blooms in the Barnegat Bay-Little Egg Harbor ton overwhelmingly dominate the autotrophic Estuary were elevated as compared to levels in communities. other estuaries that exhibited negative impacts on natural resources (Gastrich et al., 2004, Howarth et al. (2000a, b) and Livingston (2002) 2005). Gastrich and Wazniak (2002) showed not only correlated hypereutrophication with that elevated levels of brown tide may cause proliferation of nuisance and toxic algal blooms negative biotic impacts, such as a reduction in but also with increased algal biomass, dimin- the growth of juvenile and adult shellfish (e.g.,
ished seagrass habitat, increased biochemical hard clams and mussels), reduced feeding rates oxygen demand, hypoxia/anoxia, degraded sed- in adult hard clams and other shellfish, recruit-iment quality, and loss of fisheries. Excessive ment failures, and even mortality of shellfish.
nutrification problems are on the rise in U.S. The dense shading of these blooms may also waters and abroad, and they are impacting sec- contribute to the loss of seagrass beds, which ondary production through altered food web serve as important habitat for fish and shellfish.
interactions (Livingston, 2002). These effects may be occurring today in the Barnegat Bay- The Division of Science, Research and Little Egg Harbor Estuary. Tecl-hology of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), in collabo-Frequent phytoplankton blooms can lead to ration with several partnering institutions, shading effects and potentially dangerous oxy- established the Brown-Tide Assessment Project, gen depletion. Both may result in indirect which.resulted in the systematic monitoring of impacts on seagrass beds and other vital habitat brown-tide blooms from 2000-2004 at selected in the Barnegat Bay-Little Egg Harbor Estuary. water-quality network stations in Barnegat Bay Because excessive growth of benthic macroalgae and Little Egg Harbor (Figure 1). Water sam-may have greater direct impacts on seagrass ples were collected by the New Jersey Marine beds, it is also critically important to assess the Science Consortium from April through effects of this algal group on seagrasses (notably September using boat and USEPA helicopter Zostera marina) in the estuary. monitoring. The samples were enumerated for A. anophiageff'rensby the University of Southern Trends California, and environmental data were ana-lyzed by the Center for Remote Sensing and Brown-Tide Blooms Spatial Analysis at Rutgers University and the Brown-tide blooms, caused by the minute alga, NIDEP. The objectives weie: (]) to assess the Atireococcus anopliagefferens, have continued to spatial and temporal extent of brown tide in plague Barnegat Bay since 1995, the coastal bays several coastal bays; (2) to determine the rela-27
00 c0*
M p)of thle NJRf,-ovn TIde* years of sampling and covered significant geo-
,, m*n
- A~~ Pr'je*c *s N I " graphic areas of the estuary, especially in Assss en P N c St4 AI-e Little Egg Harbor (Figure 3). While Category Area of De " ........... 3 blooms were generally associated with
' .warmer water temperatures (> 160 C) and
< 5' higher salinities (> 25-26 ppt), these factors were not sufficient alone to explain the timing
- : or distribution of A. anophagiefferenis blooms.
S* . There was no significant relationship between 0 brown-tide abundances and dissolved organic (0, nitrogen measured in 2002, which was consis-New w Je~rsey............. I ti,***;i,,< : . . tent with results of other studies.
_- " __.... _[: .Extended drought conditions, with correspon-2 t ding low freshwater inputs (Figure 4) and ele-
.... : ... vated bay salinity that occurred during the
.i:-<**}.*' )+!';ii'"eat'}{t' : 2000-2004 petid were conducive to blooms.
- , o. o' : ........ ,.... Abundances of A. anophalgeffererswere well
.... . ,¢ ," above those reported to cause negative
- ,A TEOR j l <35-000
-- 4ureucoccits Vilolýaopltclleffelcln' cells mfil (No obser'ed .
' .ii'impacts).. . . ...
- ,,' . -. .CATE(GORY 2:9>3000-to <200.000 .
'~~1 Cells mIll1 Figure I.Map of the NJDEP brown-tide assessment project 2000-2004. - Re(Rduction inl grow,thllofjuVeniilChr I clari s.ý111 Ie4!eCenalWiI17c-crria recnlaN, tionship between the abundance of A. anophasg- Reduced feedti rates inl adult hard clams efferens and environmental data; and (3) to ana- . Growth reduction ill m (Iloilu&.edii) lyze the risk of brown-tide blooms to SAV. i*:and bay Scallops :..tgopc'tn it'adians)
CAIEGORY,3: Ž>200,000 cells ml 1 Abundances of A. a,,ophageffere,,s were classi- b d dw fied using the Brown Tide Bloom Index '* becoins discoorcd ater ,ello\4bro\ýw n (Gastrich and Wazniak, 2002) (Figure 2) and *<,eedini rates of mussels severely reduced
('Recruitrnient'fAilures of baisc'allops anid hiohi mapped, along with salinity and temperature I"iortalities parameters, to their georeferenced location _No siqnificant orowth ofjuvenile hard cdlias.
using the ArcView GIS.
- Negative impacts to eelgrass due.to algal shiadiine Copepod production reduced and negative The highest A. anophioef/iUreu5s abundances (>106 impacts to protozoa.
cells/ml), Category 3 blooms (>200,000 cells ml-I), and Category 2 blooms (>35,000 to <200,000 Figurte 2' Brown.tide bloom index.(from Gastrich canWazniiak 2002).
cells mil-I), recurred durinIg each of the three 28
Brown Tide Median Number 2000-2002 impacts on shellfish. Category 3 blooms 2000 2001 2002 generally occurred at water temperatures above 13-17 -C and within a salinity range
)
between 25 and 31 ppt. 1lthere was a sig-nificant difference in temperature of
--.r occurrence between the three bloom cate-gories (F-value = 5.6759 and p = 0.0037).
Brown Tide Maximum Number 2000-2002 Category 3 blooms were generally 2000 2001 . 2002 observed where salinity was above 25 ppt and below 31 ppt. However, while the highest abundances of A. anoplmgefferens
/ were generally observed at > 25-26 ppt, this salinity range did not always result in a Category 3 bloom. In summary, these data support the view that Category 3 blooms are positively associated with Bloom Category warmer temperatures (> 160 C). Category V.
I, M'r I"-%-11 3 brown-tide blooms suppress water transparency from a mean Secchi depth of 0.6 m.
An assessment of the risk of SAV habitat Firb 2re -)oct rn. co nFbr.'
- 2. -I.d( bIooms.
o in id. rna O-Jx. ul' Harbor Estuary during the 2000.2002 period. to brown-tide bloom categories indicates that 35% of.
the SAV habi-tat located in
- - - -20C:.
- 2001 Barnegat Bay-
- - 2002 Little Egg
- A*g 1928-2C0D2 Harbor C Estuaryhad a 0
to U
0
..... ... high frequen-L3 (I)
- - cy of 1~
(D 0
0~ 150 .z Category 2 or 0
0 3 blooms for
'a-100 I .. . . . all three years of study 50 . .........
...... (Figure 5).
Ihis is impor-0 tant consider-
-tr, Feb, M~r,-- April lliv June July AUg S-epFt Ck:t Nov Bs ing that over 70% of the Figulre 4. A\vefare montt hh stream discharg~e of the oins Riher Itr the 2000- New lersev's 2002 survey period.
29
h *a ld~S C
.' I 002 eelgrass beds are located in this system trol them. The usual factors in algal removal (Lathrop et al., 2001), and brown tides may are not effective for brown tides. While numer-pose a risk to these seagrass resources. ous studies have addressed some factors that may promote blooms (e.g., high salinity, Although the presence of A. anophagefferens was warmer temperatures, organic nutrients), infec-first reported in New Jersey coastal bays in tion by viruses may aid in the demise of brown 1988, with blooms documented in 1995, 1.997 tide. For example, a virus specific to A.
and 1999, there were insufficient data to devel- anophagefferens isolated during brown-tide op trends. The current monitoring program of blooms in New Jersey and New York coastal NJDEP has shown a trend in elevated abun- bays has the ability to lvse healthy brown-tide dances of brown tide from 2000-2002. Since cells (Gastrich et al., 2002, 2004). The percent of there was no significant bloom in 2003, brown- brown-tide cells infected by the virus appears tide blooms do not occur every year in the estu- highest at the end of the blooms (Gastrich et al.,
ary. While our GIS analysis has shown that 2004). These results support the hypothesis seagrass habitat areas are located in the High- that viruses may be a major source of mortality Risk Category 3 bloom "hotspot" areas, no for brown-tide blooms in regional coastal bays.
direct causal link has yet been established between brown-tide blooms and seagrass Major Information Gaps decline in the Barnegat Bay-Little Egg Harbor Estuary. Major information gaps on brown tide andben-thic macroalgae include:
Controls
- Continuous and long-term monitoring data Managers would like to know more about the on their spatial and temporal occurrence in causes of brown-tide blooms and how to con- the coastal bays;
- Identification of environmental factors that promote, initiate, maintain, Bloom Category over SAV Beds . and terminate these 2000 2001 2002 blooms;
- More frequent shellfish stock assessments, A;
along with studies that dis-J. tinguish the potential negative impacts of brown-tide and benthic macroal-gal blooms (as opposed to other causes of shellfish Bloom Category decline in these areas).
o 5 10 15 Miles
- Assessments that'pro-2' vide a greater understand-ing of the relative impor-tance of mnaximum brown-Figure 5. 11rown-lide bloom categories recoded during the 2000-2002 survey period.
30
tide bloom abundance and bloom duration, Hallegreaff, G. M. 1995. Harmful algal blooms:
and the effects of specific levels of blooms a global overview. In: Hallegreaff, G. M.,
on seagrass health and productivity. D. M. Anderson, and A. D. Cembella (Eds.), Manual ou Harmfid Marine References Microalgae. IOC Manual and Guides No.
33, UNESCO, pp. 1-22.
Boesch, D. F., R. H. Burroughs, J. E. Baker, R. P.
Mason, C. L. Rowe, and R. L. Siefert: 2001. Howarth, R. W., D. Anderson, J. Cloern, C.
Marine Pollution in the United States. Elfring, C. Hopkinson, B. Lapointe, T.
Technical Report, Prepared for the Pew Malone, N. Marcus, K. McGlatherv, A.
Oceans Commission, Arlington, Virginia. Sharpley, and D. Walker. 2000a. Nutrient 49 pp. Pollution of Coastal Rivers, Bays, and Seas.
Ecological Society of America, Issues in Gastrich, M. D. and C. E. Wazniak. 2002. A Ecology. 15 pp.
brown-tide bloom index based on the potential harmful effects of the brown-tide Hlowarth, R. W., D. M. Anderson, T. N1. Church, alga, Aureococcus anophageffereus.Aquatic Ii. Greening, C. S. Illopkinson, W. C.
Ecosystems Health & Management 33: 175- Huber, N. Marcus, R. J. Nainman, K.
190. Segerson, A. N. Sharpley, and W. J.
Wiseman. 2000b. Clean Coastal Waters:
Gastrich, M. D., 0. R. Anderson, and E. M. Understanding and Reducing the Effects of Cosper. 2002. Viral-like particles (VLPs) in Nutrient Pollution. Ocean Studies Board the alga, Aureococcus aiiophagefferens and Water Science and Technology Board, (Pelagophyceae), during 1999-2000 brown National Academy Press, Washington, D.
tide blooms in Little Egg Harbor, New C. 391 pp.
Jersey. Estuaries. 25 (5): 938-943.
Kennish, M. J. (ed.). 2001. Barnegat Bay-Little Gastrich, M. D., J. A. Leigh-Bell, C. J. Gobler, 0. Egg Harbor, New Jersey: Estuary and R. Anderson, S. W. Wilhelm, and M. Bryan. Watershed Assessment. journal of Coastal 2004. Viruses as potential regulators of Research, Special Issue 32, 280 pp.
regional brown-tide blooms caused by the alga, Aureococcus anophagefferens. Estuaries Lathrop, R., R. Styles, S. Seitzinger, and J.
27: 112-119. Bognar. 2001. Use of GIS mapping and modeling approaches to examine the spa-Gastrich, M. D., R. Lathrop, S. Haag, M. P. tial distribution of seagrasses in Barnegat Weinstein, M. Danko, D. A. Caron, and R. Bay; New Jersey. Estuaries 24: 904-916.
Schaffner. 2005. Assessment of brown-tide blooms, caused by Aiureococciis anophagef- Livingston, R. J. 2000. EutrophicationProcesses in
-ferens,and contributing factors in New Coastal Systems: Oriý,ihi and Succession of Jersey coastal bays: 2000-2002. Accepted Plaiiktou Blooms and Sccondary Prodn ction in for Harmful Algal Bloom Special GtifCoast Estuarics. tBoca Raton, USA:
Publication. CRC Press. 327 pp.
31
Al ' l"O-(cn.1 Brown tide in Tuckerton Bay, NJ in 1999 (Photograph courtesy of Dr. Mary Downes Gastrich, NJDEP)
Ulva Lactuca, or sea lettuce, is a dr-ifting macroal-gal species that has produced extensive organic Brown tide alga, Aureococcus mats and may threaten benthic habitats.
anophagefferens (Courtesy of Di. Mary Downes Photograph courtesy of NI. Vis, Ohio University Gastrich, NJDEP) 32
Al a ' SBo
',ni" Livingston, R. J. 2002. Trophic Organization in Barnegat Bay-Little Egg Harbor,New Jersey:
Coastal Systems. Boca Raton, USA: CRC Estuary and Watershed Assessment. Journal of Press. 388 pp. Coastal Research, Special Issue 32, pp. 115-143.
Nixon, S. W. 1995. Coastal eutrophication: a definition, social causes, and future con- Rabalais, N. N. 2002. Nitrogen in aquatic cerns. Ophelia 41: 199-220. ecosystems. Ambio 21: 102-1112.
Olsen, P. S. and J. B. Mahoney. 2001. Schramm, W. 1999. Factors influencing seaweed Phytoplankton in the Barnegat Bay-Little responses to eutrophication: some results Egg Harbor estuarine system: species from EU-project EUMAC. Journal of Applied composition and picoplankton bloom Phycology 11: 69-78.
development. In: Kennish, M. J. (Ed.),
Links to Other Information Sources New Jersey Brown-Tide Websites Ruters/RSSandNjDE..
",; ... * .... http:'// WWW state njt s/dep/dsr/broxwntide '
.Maryland Brown-Tide WebsiLte lhttp://ývv~wwwdir.n state md.dus/s/coastalbays/Lt resutltsl* tmli New York Browni-Tide Websit:s: 1
~~'>""' Suffolk Comity Depairtmneiit of Hlealth Services:,.2
$ A Brown-Tide Clearnghou :
http :/:ww:s::gr:::k:e*d:: :, i,:i l:e/de fault*htm
,Harmful Algal Bloom WVebsites:
NY Se~a G ran t:
N
, ttP,//odHeeangraphy; n nsteu\te. ,
V'Woods Hole Oceano-raphi'c insltitue: §
- ,
- http://wwwx.w4oi.edu/red ti de!
Ecology and Oceanographv of lIlarmfulfAlgal Blooms:
htt p://ww~ Wiedtide whoi.edu/hab/nationplan/ECOHAB/ECOil04ABhtml .html
- :Big*low Laboratory for Ocean Sciences' (West Boothbay Harbor, ME):
htt tp:-/ww%bigelow org/hab/
NOAA HarmfulIAigl Bloom'iProject:
http://wwvw.csc.noaa.gov/crs/habf/
33
A intense. Demand for freshwater for human use is supplied primarily from ground-water wells but also from surface-water intakes. Supply wells in the watershed withdraw water from the unconfined Kirkwood-Cohansey aquifer system and deeper confined aquifers.
The role of freshwater in estuarine health is pivotal. The mixing of freshwater with ocean water in the estuary results in the salinity Explanation of the Indicator regimes that support estuarine habitats. The rate of freshwater flow into the estuary also The Bamegat Bay-Little Egg Harbor watershed affects the rate at which the estuary is flushed, provides freshwater from streams, lakes, and which in turn affects many water-quality and ground water for many human usesi including ecological processes. Freshwater inputs also drinking water, recreation, irrigation, and vari- dilute contaminants from a wide variety of ous industrial and commercial activities, as well sources. The importance of freshwater inputs as for freshwater fish and wildlife habitats. to estuarine health leads to a central question:
Freshwater from the watershed also is needed Is the flow of freshwater from streams into the as inflow to the estuary to maintain an ecosys- estuary changing over time? Tracking and tem where freshwater and saltwater mix and maintaining an adequate rate .of freshwater create a vital nursery for life along the Atlantic flow is critical to meeting estuarine water-quali-coast. ty and habitat goals.
Freshwater inputs from the watershed include Status the flow of rivers and streams that drain to the estuary, and the direct seepage of ground water Flow measurements of rivers and streams that into the estuary (Figure 1). Ground-water dis- contribute to the estuary have been made at 14 charge from the unconfined Kirkwood- stations, and these measured inputs account for Cohansey aquifer system to major streams in about 79 percent of the surface-water discharge the watershed accounts for a high percentage of from the watershed (Figure 1). Additional surface-water flow and is the largest source of freshwater enters the estuary as runoff from freshwater input to Barnegat Bay. The rate of ungaged areas and as discharge of ground direct ground-water discharge to the estuary water from the Kirkwood-Cohansey aquifer and small streams as seepage is significant, but system to the estuary and minor streams. On less than the rate of ground-water discharge to average, these inputs are estimated to total larger streams (Hunchack-Kariouk and about 26 cubic meters per second, or about 590 Nicholson, 2001). Some of the freshwater flow -million gallons per day (Hlunchack-Kariouk originates in the protected Pinelands Area and Nicholson, 2001). During typical drought (Figure 1), and some originates in areas outside conditions, the total freshwater inflow to the the Pinelands where population and develop- estuary is about one-third to one-half of the ment pressures on water resources are more average inflow, and so considerably less fresh-35
4ý,
Fre*snwaber, d. hnin uts"'(co, 0, n
Bamegat Bay-Little Kirkwood-Cohansey Egg Harbor watershed aquifer system No. Stream Name 1 North Branch Matedeconk River 2 South Branch "Metdeconk River MctcecnlRiver 4 Wranciel Brook 5 Davenport Branch 6 Cedar Creek t.44... 7 North Branch Forked River 8 South Branch Q Forked River 0 Oyster Crock 10 Mill Crook 11 Fourmile Branch 12 Cedar Run ri 10 13 Weslecunk Creek 14 Mi3Branch (tr~butary to N* luckerton Creekr
- .' . 13 ---.-
S .EXPLANATION Area contributing to direct ground-water discharge A Streamflow-gauging station 0 2 4 8g 10 Kit (MFTHRS t o,,eHarbor estuary and w\atershed, Fic-,ure I L~ocation of the Barne,,at Bay-Li.ttle Egz a Kirkw\ ood-Cohansey aquifer systern. Pinelands Area. streamflow gauging stations and areas contributing to direct ground-water discharge to the estuary and minor streams.
36
a 7, F"eSn u s(otY water is available for mixing with ocean water sewered flow, however, is originally withdrawn and for diluting contaminant loads, and flush- for water supply from surficial sources within ing times tend to be longer. Elevated salinity the watershed; therefore, this remaining portion regimes that accompany drought conditions are of the sewered flow represents a loss of fresh-known to have coincided with brown tide water input to the estuary. In addition to water blooms (Cosper and others, 1997). lost through sewering, some water is lost through crop and lawn irrigation and evapora-Maintaining adequate freshwater flow in tive industrial cooling. The question of how the streams and to coastal waters has become a water withdrawn from the watershed for concern with the increasing demands for water human use is changing over time is critical to supply in the Barnegat Bay watershed. The assessing the health of the estuary.
New Jersey Statewide Water Supply Plan has identified the Barnegat Bay watershed as an In addition to the effects of human use of fresh-area of substantial projected water-supply water for water supply, modifications to the deficit by the year 2040, an indication that pres- landscape, such as the development of impervi-sure for additional withdrawals from the water- ous surfaces, can change the natural hydrology shed for water supply is expected to increase of the watershed by changing recharge and over coming decades (New Jersey Department runoff rates and altering the hydrologic pat-of Environmental Protection, 1996). At the terns. Storm runoff from impervious areas may same time, the withdrawal of potable fresh increase the rate of freshwater inputs during water for this area is almost totally consump- wet periods at the expense of reduced recharge tive in regard to the watershed, as most of the and subsequently lower stream base flow dur-water is discharged to the ocean as treated ing dry periods. A summary of the status and wastewater, bypassing the estuary. This water trends in land use and land cover (including loss has resulted in reduced streamflows impervious cover) is presented in another sec-(Nicholson and Watt, -1997) and saltwater intru- tion of this report.
sion into confined and unconfined aquifer sys-tems in coastal areas (Watt, 2000). Monitoring surface-water discharge is a cost-effective means of tracking freshwater inputs.
The amount of freshwater removed from the The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) maintains a watershed through regional sewerage outfall to network of stream-gauging stations (Figure 2) the ocean averages about 2.6 cubic meters per that measure the rate of flow in some of the second (60 million gallons per day) during major.streams and serves the data on a continu-high-demand summer months, equivalent to ous basis. These streams include North Branch about one-third of the freshwater inflow to the Metedeconk River, Toms River, Cedar Creek, estuary under extreme low-flow conditions and Westecunk Creek (Stations 1, 3, 6, and 13, (IFunchack-Kariouk and Nicholson, 2001). Figure 1): These gauging stations transmit data Some of this sewered water is originally with- via satellite telemetry, and the streamflow data drawn from confined aquifers or imported are served online in near real time at from other sources, and therefore, this portion http://nj.usgs.gov. The other stations shown in of the sewered flow does not represent a loss of Figure I (Stations 2, 4,5, 7-12, and 14) are either freshwater input to the estuary. Much of the discontinued or are used to make measure-ments less frequently.
37
ffs w arnpu ,(C,,i the largest stream draining to the estuary. It drains 319 square kilometers upstream from this station, and the average flow passing this station, referred to as stream discharge, is 6.3 cubic meters per second (140 million gallons per day), or about 24 percent of the freshwater flowing into the estuary. The long period of record for this station provides a valuable resource for understanding long-term trends and fluctuations in freshwater inputs.
Fluctuations in annual surface discharge of freshwater at this site range from about 60 to 155 percent of the average discharge (Figure 4).
Below-average annual discharges since the mid-1980s have been more frequent than above-average discharges. This recent trend is likely the result of both climatic variability and the effects of human activities.
Figure 2. Typical U.S. Geological Survey streamllow-gauging station. Freshwater withdrawals from surface- and ground-water sources in Ocean County for var-Trends ious human uses have increased from about 56 million gallons per day in 1985 to about 71 mil-In order to understand changes that occur in lion gallons per day in 2000 (Figure 5). Most of streamflows, long-term monitoring is required. these withdrawals (about 70 percent) are for The strearnflow-gauging station that measures public supply with additional withdrawals for the flow of the ToIms River (station 3 in Figure other uses (Figure 6). Most of the increase in
- 1) has been in continuous operation by the withdrawals during 1985-2000 is attributable to USGS since 1929 (Figure 3). The Toms River is increases in withdrawals for public supply.
Continued increases in demand for water are expected to result in increased stress on the supply of freshwater to the estuary.
Freshwater Management and Information Gaps Figure 3. USGS streamllow-gaitging station on the Toins River as Although changing land use and increasing it appeared in 1930( 'le lTois River is the largest stream flowino water demand can affect freshwater flow to the into 13arnegat Bay. The slation has heen used to measure the flow o1'the rivCr oil n cotinUoUS basis lor 75 ywars.
estuary, managiement e(forts aimed at minirniz-38
ff*sw npu cont ing adverse effects are underway or under con-160.
140 sideration. New stormwater regulations are 120U_ -- being implemented that are intended to main-LL 120 80 V _ !! tain natural rates of recharge in developing 603
- 111molw alareas (New Jersey Department of 2
- Environmental Protection, 2004a). Other
- 0. approaches, including beneficial reuse of S 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2"0 CALENDAR YEAR I reclaimled wastewater; conjunctive use of sur-S...... ..... . . ...................... ....
--- face w ater, unconfined aquifers, and confined Figure 4. Annual stream discharge of the Tonts River. Below average annual aquifers; and aquifer storage and recovery, are discharges since the late 1980s have bcen nmorelwequent than above average being considered to help limit the effects of discharges. Average annual stream discharge is 6.3 cubic meters per second.
water demand on water resources (New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Z 2004b). These efforts also are intended to help 80
- I70 protect aquifers from excessive drawdown and "60 saltwater intrusion. The success of these efforts 50 in helping to maintain the natural water bal-LU 40-ance and adequate freshwater flow to the
< 30 d 0 Barmegat Bay-Little Egg Harbor estuary, as well 0 as to maintain the viability of confined and 10 " tinconfined aquifers, will depend on the effec-u 1985 1990 1995 2000 tiveness of the underlying resource-manage-
....... m e rit p rincip les an d th e ex ten t to w h ich th ey Fiure 5. Frcshwxaler wvithdrawvals. Ocean County New Jersey. are implemented. In order to evaluate the suc-1985-2000. (Source: U.S. Geological Survey Aggregated Water- cess of these efforts, a broad hydrologic " moni-Use Data Syst1om) toring and evaluation program will be required FRESHWATER WITHDRAWALS OCEAN COUNTY, N.J., IN 2000 TOTAL WITHDRAWALS = 70.8 Million Gallons per day Values are percent of total A~~ KPu ubtic- _Su p-pl-y-
- - - U Domestic I'D Mining I D Industrial
-~ Commercial f,0Irrigation
- ,U Thermoelectric F'igure 6. D)istribultion of 2000 fIleshwvaler withdrawvals among diflteren1 water-use categories. (lcentn "ot'otv. Ne\\ Jcrsey. ( Source: UJ.S. GcotltiCaI Survey Aggregated Water-Use Data svsleIn )
39
5h W d sS in areas where development stresses are antici- Trenton, N.J., New Jersey Department of pated to track changes over time. This program Environmental Protection, Policy and will require additional continuous stream gaug- Planning, Office of Environmental ing stations for tracking surface discharges and Planning, August 1996, 173 p., 6 appendix-monitoring wells to track water-level declines es.
and saltwater intrusion.
New Jersey Department of Environmental References Protection, 2004a, Watershed Focus, New Jersey Department of Environmental Cosper, E.M., Gastrich, M.D., Anderson, O.R., Protection, Division of Watershed and Benmayor, S.S., 1997. Viral infection Management, Winter 2004, 16 p.
and brown tide, In Flimlin, G.E., and Kennish, M.J. (eds.), Proceedings of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Barnegat Bay Ecosystem Workshop, Protection, 2004b, Draft Water Supply November 14, 1996. Toms River, N.J., Action Plan 2003-2004-New Jersey Cooperative Extension of Ocean County, Statewide Water Supply Planning Process:
p.233-242. Trenton, N.J., New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, 17 p.
Hunchak-Kariouk, K., and Nicholson, R.S.,
2001, Watershed contributions of nutrients Nicholson, R.S., and Watt, M.K., 1997, and other nonpoint source contaminants to Simulation of ground-water flow in the the Barnegat Bay-Little Egg Harbor estu- unconfined aquifer system of the Torns ary: Journal of Coastal Research, Special River, Metedeconk River, and Kettle Creek Issue 32, p. 28-82. Basins, New Jersey: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 97-Gillespie, B.D., and Schopp, R.D., 11982, Low 4066, 100 p.
flow characteristics and flow duration of New Jersey streams: U.S. Geological Watt, M.K., 2000, A hydrologic primer for New Survey Open-File Report 81 -1110, 164 p. Jersey watershed management: U.S.
Geological Survey Water-Resources Gordon, A.D., 2004, Hydrology of the uncon- Investigations Report 00-4140, 108 p.
fined Kirkwood-Cohansey aquifer system, Forked River and Cedar, Oyster, Mill, Watt, M. K., Johnnson, M.L., and Lacombe, P.J.,
Westecunk, and Tuckerton Creek basins 1994. Hydrology of the unconfined aquifer and adjacent basins in the southern Ocean system, Toms River, Metedeconk River, County area, New Jersey, 1998-1999: U.S. and Kettle Creek Basins, New Jersey, 1987-Geological Survey Water- Resources 90: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Investigations Report.03-4337, 5 pl. Resources Investigations Report 93-4110, 5 pl.
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, 1996, TFhe vital resource-New Jersey statewide water supply plan:
40
resýPAA:,,wArerp.FI u New Jersev has i f~rmal watter-siuplv plning process. The Newv Jersey Statewide VWattr SUPPIV Plan (NJSWSP) provides a framework to guide the management of Potable i sarecreational, nId k2cqbic-aIUses intiate water conservatiomstrategies; and developSheStates water-supply resources,, to ensure tait afSate and adeqLuate water suppIy wVll be a1Vilable into the foreeeable
,ftueinlcludilng during. times of diought th cuirent NJSW'Al was completed in 1996 and is avail 1e iat*httpI/,Nvwwwstate nju s/dep/watershed mgt/pubblicahons. itm ill VWhIle the NJSWSP i~s being ~upda ted, an Action Man i~s being developed to identify those actions that
'cainot be delavedincludingactions p*roposed foi-tlhe Barnegat Bay-Little Egg Haibor watershed are Th T, e draft Newdere jWater$ lVppIy Action Plan 2003-2004 is available tat
,htt*£/!*v;WW1st ti Ijusdcl
'watershed mg1tý(_)(_$ "dfs )J, aterdu-pplyActioniilain033[04.pdcit .*.**:>.
The New Jersey Stormw ater Best Maniagemen~t Practices Manual (B*MF manual) has been developed to provide guidance to addes.s the taiidarnd in the proposed Stormwvater Managemenict Rules. The New nJrsey Stormwater Bes iManagement Amt Practices MN,1ual1,11 is avai*lb* e at littp://w%\%%vnjstormivwiter org/tier A/bmnpmanual htm -'
_I 41
ý,LAND`USVLANUAý,' VER land or land used for agriculture or surface Central QueCStion(S) mining. Unaltered land refers to forests and HIo io,smhuman deve,1omen changingth wetlands. The interior forest indicator looks at hii ii/1and cover of the B~aregat Bayý the amount of both the upper watershed and wetland areas and subtracts out a 90m bound-ary around these areas adjacent to altered areas.
I ow much ofi theli egtBywaese The public open space indicator tracks that has beeni preserved aS pbLIHcly own1edl open amount of publicly owned land, both land that
. p. c.. . is developed and undeveloped.
The Rutgers University Center for Remote Explanation of the Indicator Sensing & Spatial Analysis (CRSSA) has an ongoing land cover mapping and monitoring Land use by humans is a primary cause of eco-program for the Barnegat Bay watershed and logical change at many scales. The effects of adjacent Jacques Cousteau National Estuarine some land use change on water quality and Research Reserve. Land cover represents the habitat quality may not be evident for decades.
biophysical material or features covering the Poorly planned growth of urban areas through-land surface and includes such categories as out the nation has been responsible for frag-High Intensity developed, grassland, forest-mentation of landscapes and disruption of land, etc. Greater detail as to the vegetation hydrologic and other natural cycles. Research community or habitat type is also mapped (e.g.,
has linked the degradation of estuarine habitat Pitch pine lowland, high salt marsh). Based on quality, as measured by the condition of benthic satellite imagery, CRSSA has mapped land communities, sediment contamination and the cover at varying levels of detail for the-Barnegat frequency of hypoxia, to increased urbanization Bay watershed for the years of 1972, 1984, 1995, and loss of forested uplands within the-nearby and more recently, 2001.
watershed. Examination of the extent and frag-mentation of habitats as it relates to land cover GIS data for publicly owned open space and/or and use is important to understand long-term park lands were assembled from variety of change iin estuarine systems. The amount of sources, including: New Jersey Green Acres; the publicly owned open space lands provides Ocean County Planning Office; the U.S. Fish &
some indication of those lands that will see a Wildlife Service; the New Jersey Conservation minimum of future development.
Foundation; and the Trust for Public Land.
Data from 1.999 was used to provide a pre-Several land use/change indicators have been BBEP baseline, and March 2004 data were used identified as potentially being valuable to the for the update. This publicly owned land may Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program not have necessarily been set aside for natural (BBN EP). These land use / change indicators resources conservation purposes, but, due to its include changes in the extent of 1) altered vs.
existing uses and conditions, it does serve that unaltered land, 2) interior forest land, 3) public purpose. A prime example in the Barnegat Bay open space, and 4) impervious surface cover.
watershed is Lakehurst Naval Air Station, Altered land would be defined as land that has which includes extensive areas of \?aluable been altered by humans, such as developed 43
L4 n" SUeILn--~vr (cqnt wildlife habitat. The Table 1. Year 2001 land cover in acres and as 'N of watershed study area impervious surface for the Barnegat Bay Watershed.
cover indicator indi- Land Cover Land cover description Acres 1 %of Area cates the extent of sur- Code faces that are covered
.L Developed: High intensity 23.924 5.6 by impervious materi- 112_ Developed: Moderate intensity 48,493 11.3 als which would 113 Developed: low intensity 24.727 5.8 (wooded),
..... e....i"
...... ~isi y......
include such things as 114 Developed: low intensity 9.088 2.1 parkinglots, roadways, (unwooded).
and building structures. - t-oI-al D'evielop)j"_ed 106,2321 24.8 Status 3.2 120 -1Cultivated/Grassland 131829 1 140 Upland Forest 125,641 -29.4 The developed/altered 160 Bare Land (qluarres, transitional) 11.250 2.6 land cover indicator 200 Unconsolidated Shore. 5,734 1.3 and the public open Estuarine Emergent Wetland 24.551 5-.7 space indicators have 240 Palustrine Wetland 71,186 16.6 been updated. for this 250 Water' 69,660 16.3 State of the Bay report.
Total 428.083 The acreage estimates from the 2001 Land Cover Update are enumerated in Table 1. The Trends 2001 data show that development within the Barnegat Bay watershed increased by 7,255 The changes in land cover mapped by CRSSA acres since 1995. Development represents for 1972, 1984, 1995 and 2001, are displayed in approximately 30% of the watershed area Figure 1. Results show development within the (excluding the water area). Most of the new Barnegat Bay watershed (excluding the water development has taken place on forested land. area) has increased from 63,542 ac to 75,395 ac Also of note is the increase in the amount of .to 98,977 ac to 106,232 ac during the years 1972, Bare Land (i.e. extractive mining/quarries and 1984, 1995 and 2001, respectively (Table 2). As a transitional land cleared for development or percentage of the watershed area (excluding some other land use). At 11,250 acres, this rep- water), development within the Bamegat Bay resents an increase of approximately 5,200 acres watershed has increased from 18% to 21% to over that mapped in 1995. The amount of 28% to 30% during the years 1972, 1984, 1995 altered land (total of developed,. and 2001, respectively (Table 2, Figure 3). The cultivated/grasslhnd and bare land) in 2001 is Altered land indicator also shows a steady estimated to be 131,311 acres or approximately increase from 23%, to 30% to 34 to 37" of the 37/. of the watershed (excluding water). watershed (excluding water) during the years 1972, 1984, 1995 and 20011, respectively (Table 2, As of March 2004, there were over 122,500 acres Figure 3).
of publicly owned land in the 13arnegat Bay watershed or approximately 34°/%of the water- In 1999, there were approNiniatelN' 103.100 acres shed land area (Figure 2).
44
'Cb r Laand C'over of the.
Barnegat'Bay Watershed
- Deveoped Cufltivated/Grasslanid
- UPland Forest
- Bare Land Palustrin*e.Wetiand
., S:alt Marsh water 1799 20012 l1"Unre 1. Land cover of lBarnegat B~ay N\\tershed. 1972 1984. 199-5. and 2001 .
45
.ab',U ':/ LiS'o e (coS Public Land Within the Barnegat Bay Watershed Public land, as of 1999 Public land acquired since 1999 New j/
SJersey 0'hýr j Filure 2. PubliclIy owned land in the Barnegat 13ay watershed.
46
Table 2. Developed and altered land totals and percentage of watershed area (excluding water) by year for the Barnegat Bay watershed.
Category 1972 1984 1995 2001 Developed Area 63,542 75,395 98,977 106,232 land (acres)
% of 18% 21% 28% 30%
watershed Altered land Area 83,441 106,705 122,198 131,311 (acres)
% of 23% 30% 34% 377%
watershed of publicly owned land in the Barnegat Bay produce digital orthophotography. Based on Watershed. As of March 2004, approximately this aerial photographic data, the NJDEP has 19,400 acres of additional publicly owned land contracted out the detailed mapping of land were added in the intervening period (Figure use. The first land use mapping for the, 2). These new lands were primarily purchased Barnegat Bay watershed is for 1986. In 1995, as public open space by a variety of govern- imagery was acquired, and in addition to land ment and non-government organizations, use type, estimates of impervious surface cover including: Ocean County, New Jersey were mapped. This data set has been updated Department of Environmental Protection, The recently with 2002 photography. Once the 2002 Nature Conservancy, the Trust for Public Land imagery has been interpreted (expected to be and individual municipalities. These additional completed in 2005), a closer examination of acres included some major new purchases trends in altered vs. unaltered land use and and/or easements in the Berkeley Triangle, impervious surface cover will be possible.
Forked River Mountains, and Turkey Swamp Comprehensive, up-to-date information with area in the bay's upper watershed, as well as accurate boundaries on the publicly owned several key sites along the bayshore, including land is still not readily available in a digital GIS Good Luck.Point and Kettle Creek. format. There is no single repository of such data across all ownerships (e.g., federal, state, Major Information Gaps county, municipal and non-governmental organization).
Additional information is needed on the more recent changes in impervious surface cover within the bay watershed. The New Jersey Department of Environmental Developed Land Protection Land Use Mapping Program was 20- .Atered Land .
established to map land use and impervious surface statewide. The NJDEP has contract- OW 0 ed to have color-infrared aerial photogra- 1972 1984 1995 2001 phy acquired statewide. This aerial photog-raphy has then been further processed to Faigre 3. Developed amd altercd land- 1972-2001 47
a
- 6 a I ~
. Cattus Island County Park Photograph by Bob Nicholson Cattus Island and nenarby development 48
APPENDIX 49
Appendix 1 Table 1 Plant Demographic Summary for Donor and Reference Sites 2001 Data presented in the table represent the average value of the parameter measured within the core with an error value of +/- I standard deviation: Wasting Disease Infection (Presence presented as a decimal fraction), Shoot Density (# shoots/core), Leaf Biomass (grams ash free dry weight (g AFDW)/core), Below Ground Biomass (g AFDW/core), Algal Biomass (g AFDW/core), Blade Length (cm), Blade Width (mm).
Barnegat Inlet Date May 21 June 4 June 29 July 13 July 23 August 7 August 21 September 28 Wasting Disease 0.22 +/- 0.15 0.24 +/- 0.24 0 0.0256 +/-0.0256 0 0 0 0 Infection (% Presence)
Shoot Density (#/core) 7.0 +/- 2.08 7.33 + 2.33 4.0 +/- 1.52 16.33 +/- 2.027 8.66 +/- 2.6 9.66 +/- 1.33 13.33 +/- 3.71 22.0 +/- 5.0 Leaf Biomass (g/core) 0.58 +/- 0.14 2.10 +/- 1.53 0.19 +/- 0.02 0.84 - 0.048 0.35 +/-0.11 0.26 +/-0.006 0.803 +/-0.27 2.14 +/-0.56 Below Ground 0.32 +/-0.11 0.18 +/- 0.027 0.42 +/- 0.24 0.5 +/-0.12 0.67 +/-0.26 0.64 +/-0.021 0.13 +/- 0.087. 0.37 +/-0.12 Biomass (g/core) ___1_1_1_1 Alual Biomass (g/core) 0.67 0.187 0.53 +/-0.28 0.31 +/-0.14 0.19+/-0.155 1.79+/- 1.52 0.038+/-0.02 0.227+/-0.13 0.17+/-0.062 Blade Length (cm) 22.12+/-3.77 16.16 5.04 17.41 +/- 1.63 17.69+/- 1.61 15.02+/- 1.32 14.44+/- 1.49 21.43+/- 2.59 29.4+/-3.41 Blade Width (amm) 2.26+/-0.082 2.156 0.156 2.33+/-0.166 2.36+/-0.055 1.86+/-0.13 1.63 +/-0.11 1.96+/-0.36 1.84+0.01 Date May 21 June 4 June 29 July 13 July 23 August 7 August 21 September 28 Wasting Disease 0 0 0.109 +/- 0.093 0.06 +/- 0.03 0.166 +/- 0.059 0 Infection (% Presence)
Shoot Density (#/core) 4.3 +/- 0.33 27.0 +/-1.53 18.33 +/- 6.39 11.0 +/- 1.53 20.33 +/- 4.09 9.67 +/- 3.84 Leaf Biomass (g/core) 0.089 +/-0.026 1.79 +/- 0.21 0.72 +/-0.23 0.85 +/- 0.11 0.78 0.10 0.54 +/- 0.25 Below Ground Biomass 2.66 +/- 2.56 1.67 +/- 0.17 0.602 + 0.23 0.36 +/- 0.069 0.62 +/- 0.12 0.204 +/- .098 (g/core)
Algal Biomass (g/core) 0.033 +/- 0.02 0.005 +/- 0.003 0 0.031 +/- 0.031 0.0003 +/- 0.0003 0.107 +/- 01.02 Blade Length (cm) 11.87.+/- 0.59 26.4 +/- 0.38 17.19 1.77 22.55+/- 1.55 19.37 2.03 24.48 0.26 Blade Width (amm) 1.61+/-0.18 2.28 +/-0.049 2.10+/- 1.00 2.55 +/-0.029 2.12 0.15 1,88 0.14 Ham Island
Table I Plant Demographic Summary for Donor and Reference Sites 2001 Data presented in the table represent the average value of the parameter measured within the core with an error value of+/- I standard deviation: Wasting Disease Infection (% Presence), Shoot Density (# shoots/core), Leaf Biomass (grams ash free dry weight (g AFDW)/core), Below Ground Biomass (g AFDW/core), Algal Biomass (g AFDW/core), Blade Length (cm), Blade Width (mm).
Marsh Elder Date May 21 June 4 June 29 July 13 July 23 August 7 August 21 September 28 Wasting Disease 0.37 +/- 0.019 0.052+/-0.032 0 0.12+/-0.068 0.21+0.024 0.115 - 0.038 0.059+/-0.059 0 Infection (% Presence)
Shoot Density (#/core) 19.33 +/- 2.19 28.33 -5.17 16.5 +/- 11.5 19.0 -1.53 6.5 +/- 6.5 25.67 4.70 14.0 +/- 4.04 19.33 +/-2.19 Leaf Biomass (g/core) 0.91 0.292 0.71 +/-0.18 0.84 +/-0.052 0.76 +/-0.029 0.846 +/- 0.136 1.53 0.33 1.90 +/- 0.48 1.72 0.33 Below Ground Biomass 1.964 0.205 2.14 0.84 0.67 0,30 1.59 0.167 0.334 +/- 0.305 1.47 0.242 0.947 +/- 0.288 1.32 +/-0.21 (g/core)
Algal Biomass (g/core) 0.64 -0.63 0.15 -0.027 0.003+/- 0.003 0.13 0.13 14.41 +/- 14.41 0.139 0.035 .0.207 +/- 0.044 0.286 -0.096 Blade Length (cm) 12.68+ 1.09 12.51 - 1.50 23.0 0.296 17.54 1.13 12.08 +/- 9.61 23.38 -2.16 33.81 +/- 3.40 28,06 +/-0.56 Blade Width (mm) 2.03 0.13 2.21 0.13 1.96+0.24 1.89+ 0.13 +/- 2.59 0.404 2.15 +/-0.11 2.75 0.042 1.695- 0.106 Shelter Island Date May 21 June 4 June 29 July 13 July 23 August.7 August 21 September 28 Wasting Disease 0.167+-0,104 0.155 +/-0.052 0.063+/-0.06 0.148+/-0.15 0.013+/-0.013 0.047+0.028 0 0 Infection (% Presence)
Shoot Density (#/core) 9.33 +/- 2.33 9.67 +/- 2.19 17.67 +/- 3.18 10.33 +/- 2.40 28.33 +/- 12.47 24.67 +3.18 19.0 +/- 6.24 37.33 +/- 11.84 Leaf Biomass (g/core) 0.29 0.054 0.177 +/- 0.048 0.54 +/- 018 0.408 + 0.12 0.88 +/- 0.38 3.155 2.361 0,738 +/- 0.259 1.34 +/- 0.44 Below Ground 0.173 0.017 0.46 +0.178 0.46 +/- 0.15 0,349 +/- 0.12 0.57 0.014 2.86 +2.21 0.456 +/- 0.212 0.76 +/- 0,24 Biomass (g/core)
Algal Biomass (g/core) 0.164 0.05,3 0.36 + 0.17 0.077 +/- 0.07 0.65 + 0.05 0.236 +/- 0.095 0.0007+0.0007 0.005 +/- 0.005 0 Blade Length (cm) 16.89+ 1.013 14.507+0.649 13.49+/- 1.28 14.86+0.28 15.53 + 2,84 17.82 +/- 1.85 20.45 0.67 18.29+ 1.63 Blade Width (ram) 2.02-0.172 1.61+-0.100 1.90+-0.013 2.19+-0.024 2.23 +/-0.053 1.94+-0.055 1.79+0.13 1.739+0.122
Table 2 Plant Demographic Summary for Donor and Reference Sites 2002 Data presented in the table represent the average value of the parameter measured within the core with an error value of +/- I standard deviation:
Wasting Disease Infection (% Presence), Shoot Density (# shoots/core), Leaf Biomass (grams ash free dry weight (g AFDW)/core), Below Ground Biomass (g AFDW/core), Algal Biomass (g AFDW/core), Blade Length (cm), Blade Width (mm).
Barnegat Inlet Date May 29 June 25 July 12 August 14 September 13 October 4 Wasting Disease Infection 0 0.0196 +/- 0.019 0 0 Shoot Density 12.0 +/- 1.73 13,33 +/- 3.67 0 10.67 +/- 2.33 Leaf Biomass 3.197 +/- 1.469 1.66+0.396 9.0 4.51 4.22 2.66 Below Ground Biornass 0.708 +/- 0.165 0.316 0.108 1.79 + 0.41 2.72 +2.32 Algal Biomass 0.014 +/- 0.009 0.097 + 0.093 0.185 +/- 0.044 0.61 +/- 0.56 Blade Length 37.69 + 6.76 25.9 +/- 1.94 36.99 + 4.77 37.22 + 2.01 Blade Width 3.23 0.266 1.93 0.33 2.24+/- 0.24 __3.11 + 1.12 Ham Island Date May 29 June 25 July 12 August 14 September 13 October 4 Wasting Disease Infection 0.03 +/- 0.03 0.11 +/- 0.057 0 0.042 + 0.042 Shoot Density 20.67 + 4.84 19.67 + 6.98 9.33 +/- 2.60 10.33 +/- 2.96 Leaf Bionlass 1.4 + 0.23 2.016 - 0.418 1.30 +/- 0.25 1.026 +0.114 Below Ground Biomass 1.51 +/- 0.58 1.42 + 0.104 0.913 +/- 0.249 3,79+/- 2.39 Algal Biomass 0.077 +/- 0.156 0.081 +/- 0.0599 0 0.0017 +/- 0.0017 Blade Length 21.88 + 1.09 34.09 +/- 2.10 27,69 +/- 2.19 19.08 +/- 1.81 Blade Width. 2.37 0.15 2.51 +/- 0.176 1:67 +/- 0.309 2.22 0.11
Table 2 Plant Demographic Summary for Donor and Reference Sites 2002 Data presented in the table represent the average value of the parameter measured within the core with an error value of+/- I standard deviation:
Wasting Disease Infection (% Presence), Shoot Density (# shoots/core), Leaf Biomass (grams ash free dry weight (g AFDW)/core), Below Ground Biomass (g AFDW/core), Algal Biomass (g AFDW/core), Blade Length (cm), Blade Width (mm).
Marsh Elder Date May 29 June 25 July 12 August 14 September 13 October 4 Wasting Disease Infection 0.064 + 0.064 0.14 +/- 0,079 0.078 +/- 0.078 0 Shoot Density 16.33 +/- 6.49 16.00 +/- 2.52 14.00 2,08 7.67 +/- 1.86 Leaf Biomass 0.88+/-0.36 0.98 + 0.19 1.68 +/- 0.144 0.87 +/- 0.23 Below Ground Biornass 1.64 +/- 0.17 2.01 + 1.06 0.87 +/- 0.17 0.73 +/- 0.18 Al-al Biomass 0.24 +/- 0.067 0.0053 +/- 0.0039 0.104 +/- 0.056 0.13 +/- 0.04 Blade Length 16.56 +/- 0.94 21.43 +/- 3.87 27.33 +/- 2.27 19.88 +/- 1.30 Blade Width 1.91 +/-0.32 2.19 +/-0.15 2.41 +/-0.24 2.37 0.096 Shelter Island Date May 29 June 25 July 12 August 14 September 13 October 4 Wastinu Disease Infection 0.133 +/- 0.133 0 0 0 Shoot Density 3.67 +/- 0.88 9.67 - 1.20 4.33 +/- 0.33 6.00 +/- 1.15 Leaf Biomass 0.403+/--0.132 0.85+/-0.077 1.69+/--0.45 1.79 +/-0.65 Below Ground Biomass 0.169 +/- 0.052 0.302 +/- 0.043 0.14 +/- 0.096 0.638 +/- 0.196 Algal Biomass 0.308 +/- 0.222 0.103 + 0.040 0.517 +/-0.162 16.42 +/- 15.85 Blade Length 27.42 - 1.55 24.52 + 2.21 36.20 1.06 37.45 +/- 4.39 Blade Width 2.32 +/- 0.16 1.88 + 0.259 2.41 0.48 2.89 - 0.18
Table 3 Plant Demographic Summary for Donor and Reference Sites 2003 Data presented in the table represent the average value of the parameter measured within the core with an error value of+/- I standard deviation:
Wasting Disease Infection (% Presence), Shoot Density (# shoots/core), Leaf Biomass (grams ash free dry weight (g AFDW)/core), Below Ground Biomass (g AFDW/core), Algal Biomass (g AFDW/core), Blade Length (cm), Blade Width (mm).
Barnegat Inlet Date 5/29/2003 6/23/2003 7/25/2003 8/14/2003 9/17/2003 Wasting Disease Infection (% Presence) 0 0 0 0 0.11 +/- 0.19 Shoot Density (#/core) 9.67 +/- 4.04 18.0 +/- 7.0 14.67 +/- 11.24 6.0 +/- 4.58 4.67 +/- 1.53 Leaf Biomass (g/core) 0.99 + 0.62 0.92 +/- 0.27 0.79 +/- 0.25 0.19 + 0.09 0.33 +/- 0.3 Below Ground Bioniass (g/core) 3.44 +/- 1.42 2.06 +/- 0.64 2.31 +/- 0.92 0.74 + 0.83 0.49 +/- 0.39 Algal Biomass (g/core) 0.51 +/- 0.61 0,14 0.14 0.15 +/- 0.08 0.16 0.20 0.11 +/- 0.09 Blade Length (cm) 28.01 + 19,68 15.20 +/- 7.41 12.18 +/- 3.9 13.55 +/- 4.29 17.91 +/- 2.56 Blade Width (amm) 2.58 +/- 0.25 2.85 +/- 0.2 1.88 + 0.26 2.04 +/- 0.04 1.98 - 0.13 Ham Island Date 5/22/03 6/12/03 7/25/03 8/13/03 9/17/03 Wasting Disease Infection (% Presence) 0 0.04 +/- 0.07 0 0 0.39 +/- 0.35 Shoot Density (#/core) 21.33 +/- 15.57 6.0 + 1.73 22.67 +/- 3.79 31.0 +/- 8.66 17.0 +/- 6.0 Leaf Biomass (g/core) 1.19 +/- 0.59 1.09 +/- 0.44 0.94 +/- 0.14 1.83 +/- 0.43 0.95 +/- 0.66 Below Ground Biomass (g/core) 2.73 +/- 0.53 7.39 +/- 6.81 2.99 +/- 0.51 2.03 +/- 0.76 2.01 + 0.5 Algal Biomass (g/core) 0.27 +/- 0.12 0.06 + 0.05 0 0.01 +/- 0.01 0.02 +/- 0.01 Blade Length (cm) 25.34 +/-4.18 17.1 +/- 2.8 14.74+/- 1,35 15.85 +/- 3.97 17.78 4 1.79 Blade Width (mm) 2.44 +/- 0.24 2.47 0.06 2.53 +/- 0.11 2.72 +/- 0.2 2.36 +/- 0.44
Table 3 Plant Demographic Summary for Donor and Reference Sites 2003 Data presented in the table represent the average value of the parameter measured within the core with an error value of +/- 1 standard deviation:
Wasting Disease Infection (% Presence), Shoot Density (# shoots/core), Leaf Biomass (grams ash free dry weight (g AFDW)/core), Below Ground Biomass (g AFDW/core), Algal Biomass (g AFDW/core), Blade Length (cm), Blade Width (mi).
Marsh Elder Date 5/22/03 6/12/03 7/25/03 8/13/03 9/17/03 Wasting Disease Infection (% Presence) 0 0 0 0 0 Shoot Density (#/core) 18.0 +/- 4.36 10.0 + 2.83 16.33 +/- 5.51 13.0 +/- 1.73 5.33+/- 2.52 Leaf Biomass (g/core) 0.32 +/- 0.04 0.6 0,15 0.83 - 0.26 0.34 0.04 0.22 - 0.1 Below Ground Bioniass (g/core) 2.13 +/- 0.58 2.57+/- 0.39 1.41 + 0.45 1.33 +/- 0.19 1.81 - 0.16 Alual Biomass (g/core) 0.04 +/- 0.06 0.06 +/- 0.02 0.01 - 0.01 0.66 + 0.7 0.05 - 0.04 Blade Length (cm) 14.58 +/- 0.56 15.58 - 1.13 17.62 +/- 10.21 14.68 +/- 4.85 15.69 - 4.37 Blade Width (mm) 2.09 0.18 2.31 +/-0.44 2.25 +/-0.26 2,27 +/-0.31 2.28 +/-0.3 Shelter Island Date 5/22/03 6/12/03 7/25/03 8/13/03 9/17/03 Wasting Diseiase Infection (% Presence) 0 0 0 0.03 +/- 0.04 0.06 +/- 0.06 Shoot Density (#/core) 27.33 - 22.68 8.0 - 7.55 10.67 +/- 7.09 26.0 - 5.2 20.0 +/- 6.56 Leaf Biomass (g/core) 0.57+/- 0.2 0.25 +/- 0.08 1,16 +/- 0.85 1.35 - 0.51 0.61 +/- 0.23 Below Ground Biomass (g/core) 1.73 - 0.59 0.95 +/- 0.55 1.04 - 0.22 1.55 +/- 0.58 1.23 +/- 0.1 Algal Biomass (g/core) 0.11 +/- 0.09 0.18 +/-L0.06 0.76 +/-0.09 0.3 +/- 0.25 Blade Length (cm) 15.16 +/- 3.64 8.52 - 0.74 14.45 +/- 1.24 16.26 +/- 1.89 14.34 +/- 1.66 Blade Width (inmm) 1.8 +/- 0.2 2.29 - 0.25 2.93 +/- 0.35 2.24 - 0.31 2.11 +/- 0.31