ML072670368

Jersey Central Power & Light Company. 1978. Oyster Creek and Forked River Nuclear Generating Stations 316(a) and (B) Demonstration, Seventh Progress Report, June 25, 1971, Through Eighth Progress Report, August 18, 1972

ML072670368
Person / Time
Site:	Oyster Creek
Issue date:	12/31/1978
From:	Jersey Central Power & Light Co
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
2130-07-20506, TAC MC7624
Download: ML072670368 (126)

Text

THE Q*UALITA'TIVE AND QUANTITAIIVE ANALYSIS OF THE BEN'FTHIC FLORA AND FAUNA OF BARNEGAT BAY BEFORE AND AFTER THE ONSET OF THERMAL ADDITION Seventh Progress Report June 25, 1971 R. E. Loveland, Department of Zoology K. Mountford, Department of Botany E. T. Moul, Consulting Algologist D. A. Busch, Department of Zoology P. H. Sandine, Department of Zoology M. Moskowitz, Department of Zoology Report #7 to N. J. Public Utilities Commission 0 Rutger's University, New Brunswick, New Jersey

Introduction The current report attempts to summarize much of the data for the past year and at the same time make comparisons with data of previous years. We have relied heavily on statistical procedures in analyzing the data; however, we have attempted to discuss the results as clearly as possible for the non-technical reader. Wherever possible, we have emphatically stated our conclusions, vhich, we hope, can be debated in an orderly fashion.

The report is similar to previous reports, with one exception in format; we have not listed the biological data extensively, station by station. This data is available in the Department of Zoology at Rutgers University. Much of our data is now on IBM cards for ease of data processing. The hydrographic, physical and chemical data are listed extensively in this report. Additional hydrographic and physical data are on file in the Department of Zoology.

Budget Statement For the period 1970-71 we were on shaky financial grounds because of uncertanties in the contract. However, recent confirmation of the contract has permitted us to enter this summer with sufficient funds and personnel to continue the contract at its desired level. Our biggest expense has continued to be salary; however, we are also experiencing increasing equipment problems, some of which will need to be replaced soon. We have not prepared a detailed budget report (although an estimate is available) since the prin-cipal investigator (and book-keeper) has not been able to obtain budget printouts from the research contract office (due to difficulties with the contract). As soon as a full budget statement for 1970-71 is available it will be sent out as a supplement to this report.

Personnel Mr. Kent Mountford completed his Ph.D. dissertation and is now employed at the Benedict Estuarine laboratory. His thesis is a comprehensive review of the phytoplankton species and productivity in the vicinity of the JCPL reactor for the period 1968-71.

The conclusions of that thesis are included in this report. The thesis is now on file in the Rutgers University library and in the Department of Zoology.

Mr. Phillip Sandine and Mrs. Donna Busch continue as the research assistants in charge of the benthic invertebrates. Both students are finishing up their masters theses.

Mrs. Sylvia Shafto has joined us to replace Kent Mountford during the summer. She is currently assisting Mrs. Busch in the statistical analysis of all data in this study.

Mr. Andrew Marinucci and Miss Jane McCarty are assisting us in sorting and iden-tifying specimens.

R.E. Loveland is taking a years leave in order to improve his knowledge of math-ematics at the University of British Columbia. He will be absent from the project from 1 September '71 'till 1 June '72.

Publications and Professional Activities

1. Two short abstracts will be published on the reports of Mrs. Busch (Sand *rin selection for tube building in populations of Pectinaria Rouldii from Barnegat Bay) and M4r. Sandine (Studies of entrainment of Calanoid copepods by a nuclear power plant on Barnegat Bay) in the Bulletin of the N.J. Academy of Sciences. These papers were delivered at the recent annual spring meetings of this society in Princeton, N.J.

2. Both Kent Mountford and Frank Phillipe have completed their Ph.D. dissertations on aspects of this project. It is hoped that publications will soon arise out of these theses.

3. K. Mountford, P. Sandine and R. Loveland spent three days in January at the

Entrainment Workshop at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland. It is our opinion that such professional activity is absolutely essential to a continuing under-standing of the environmental effects of thermal addition. We made a very strong appeal for investigators to look more into system effects (i.e., how does a power plant alter the estuarine system?) and pay less attention to local effects, which often are disastrous.

Benthic Algae Fourteen collecting cruises for benthic algae have been made since June 1969.

On each of these cruises 9 stations were collected along a transect from just north of Stouts Creek to Buoy G, which is south of Waretown Creek. On each station, a tow of 5 minutes with the "poaching" dredge was made. The entire sample was placed in a plastic bag, preserved and brought to the laboratory for analysis. This sample was in reality a qualitative sample; however, we were able to perform certain quantitative tests on the data. Each sample was sorted to species (generally by Dr. Moul, algal consultant);

the wet and dry weight of each species was then obtained.

1) Ordination. Of a total of 74 samples which had been completely sorted, iden-tified and weighed (i.e., there are still 52 samples backlogged), we computed for each species its frequency (percentage distribution) with the set of samples. We were able to do this for 38 species of benthic algae (includes Zostera which is not an alga, but appears regularly in the samples). The species with the greatest frequency of appearance was ranked number 1, and this ranking was continued for all species. Next we went back to the progress report of March 1969 (5th progress report) and looked up the rank of these 38 species for the period 1965-68. The results of this comparison is given on the following page(T&66 1.

It is interesting to note that the species which showed the highest dominance, and therefore ranked high in 1965-68, continue to remain as the dominants in the period 1969-70. Two exceptions are: a) Pol-vsiphonia nigrescens has not been reported at all for 1969-70, yet it was ranked 8th out of 128 species in 1965-68. b) Acrochaetium sp.

has also "fallen out of favor" and now ranks 19th. Ulva lactuca continues to rank as the most dominant species of algae. Although we cannot state that it contributes the most biomass (we are still computing biomass data), Uva is certainly the most probable species of benthic algae one would encounter in our study area. Another noticeable species change seemed to involve Codium fragile. hmia p , Enteromorpha intestin-alis and Enteromorpha linza. It is obvious that Codium is becoming more dominant in the bay; however, it appears to be increasing at the expense of Champia and the two Entero-morpha species. Codium is one of the heaviest species in wet weight, and thus, very bulky. It may be competing very successfully for space and therefore, excluding, pre-viously common species. One other interesting observation seems to be that very few epiphytic plants grow on Codium. It is reported that after Codium firmly establishes itself in an estuary, it becomes the substrate for other species of benthic algae. We haven't noticed this phenomenon, perhaps because Codium seems to be drifting along the.

bottom, as are most of the other algal species.

The number of algal species identified in 1969-70 (total = 38) is considerably less than for the period 1965-68 (total = 128). This is because we have spent more time sorting and estimating biomass of the species and less time observing the micro-algal forms, such as epiphytes. The decrease in species encountered in Barnegat Bay is thus to be interpreted as a change in technique-we have found no evidence for a drastic loss of algal species in Barnegat Bay.

2) Correlation. The figure titled "Frequency vs frequency", is interesting because it again indicates how the dominant algal species compared for the two time periods.

Those species that are above thefT/4 line have become relatively less frequent since 1968, while those that are below the line are relatively more frequent. Gracilaria verrucosa, for example, has moved from 5th in 1965-68 to 2nd in 1969-70. It should be added that many of the species (non-dominants) show almost no correlation between their frequency of distribution in 1965-68 in comparison to 1969-70. The correlation of the minor algae is even more complicated because of the different emphasis on iden-tification and taxonomy between the two periods.

3) Diversity. Since we had complete benthic algae samples from eight months (or a total of 72 samples), which were analyzed for dry weight and species composition, we attempted an analysis of diversity through time and space for the benthic algae.

We defined diversity by biomass (dry weight) rather than the number of individuals.

Thus for each sample we computed average diversity, maximum diversity and evenness.

We then ran a 2-factor analysis of variance (position in bay vs. month) on the data, the results of which are shown in Table Z and Figs. Z ) 3 )j /

B/\N[UAT ViALRHL ALIAE RANKLU . A[EORDING TL  !:i[EQULNLY UIF APFEARANLL, 1965-LU AND 1969-70 0 9-K PANK RANK RANK 65-68 bPECIES 69-70 65-68 SPCI ILb 1 1 Ulva lactuca 20]

21 19 [ELramitim rubrum 5 Gracilaria verrucosa 13 Enteromorpha intest.

Ulothrix fucca 22 22 Claetomorpha linum

.1.0 Codium fragile 23 29 Spyridia filament 3 Ceramium fastigium 24 129 Striatella unipunc.

2 Agardhiella tenera 25 52 Rhizoclonium 6 Fclyziphonia harveyi 26 63 AscophVllum nodosum/

9 Erjlcileria folifera scorpioOes 14 Ecillithamnion sp. 27 115 Dasya pedicellata (I 28 LI5 Ehainpia parvula 116 Lomentaria baileyana 135 Diddulphia pulchella 29 121 Spermothamnion sp.

Cladcphora sp. 30 124 Calothrix sp.

0L 1 31 E.alithamnion corymbosum 131 Fuppia maritima l.A 12 ,'clsyphonia denudata 32 134 Agmenellum quadricatum 80 [allithamnion byssoides 33 15 Enteromorpha linza

.1. 25 Callithamnion roseum 34 32/33 Ectocarpus confervoid./ 1 Cjphacelaria cirrosa h e ima 1 is 1.1 I chizor.emci gnerelli 130 35 49. Antithamnion cruciat.

-I Ac-,ochartium sp. 36 74 Ulothrix implexa 37 111 Callithamnion bai!eyi 38 133 Lndophytons sp.

1965-68 rank number is assigned from a total of 136 species.

S PT E :

I0O0

90. CodiLm Cer~miu~w~

rac.OLV-10, Ve(LrUe.Aok 70 9 Lik.

C~o~fick

(* -cv- i*'n oF

/

/" //

10 1o CI. V to .o 30 j9 i69 -140 1 0 50(pe 6o r 70 0o 9o 0__* -F4+cxk1005cL- m e 5-PFg: I. Fre-l9enC! vs. f0 o -+W f-e o 5) iOCAX o' 6avy-eqck+ Go,ýL m 0,,5+ -rcjev-n* rv-( ro a&qcke ~2C

To-L I r- ;Z.

Position Diversity Max. Diver. Evenness Stouts Creek 1.0701 1.5291 0.7101 Forked River 0.8673 1.6775 0.5363 Oyster Creek 0.8110 1.6411 0.5106 Waretown Creek 1.0263 1.7345 0.6385 Buoy G. 0.8703 1.7620 0.4878 Month June '69 1.1283 1.6547 0.6757 July 0.9068 1.4664 0.6386 Aug. 0.6369 1.4691 0.4389 Sept. 0.9669 1.6292 0.5871 Nov. 1.0822 1.8517 0.5917 Feb. '70 0.8199 1.7372 0.4574 May 0.7537 1.6919 0.4861 Aug. 0.6994 1.7360 0.4023 Grand .&an for diversity for all positions for eight months = 0.8743 Grand mean for maximum diversity for all positions and time = 1.6545 ( = 5.23 species)

Grand mean for evenness for all positions and tine = 0.5360

1.3-1

!.1-I .1I I I f.O.

2

• 0.7 0.6

-zr4ve 31,%ý muL9, Sort. rHo* Vfeb. Au,5-ICI(A [R'f 0 I I I I I

I'

(.7

- n- - S. -.

Jr&vi8e dul "1L. set o. ,,1 ,L,.

I q44,

.9 0.7-I.i I I I I E~ene~.us 0.L' I I OI

.Q0

-< I -~ ________

M4lý A 46 zd 0 U*

IiF-MlOU, tr v Velps 3

• Pigs ~3)

• s Mean +9lai for H, ., and Evemeau, rapectively, V13. time (Juns, 1969 - MAgustq 1970) for macro algae from Barn*gat B&yo

As in previous years, we have again found that the number of algal species reaches its lowest value during the warmest months of the year. In fact, no brown algae have ever been recorded from Barnegat Bay during the month of September. The greatest number of species occurs in June and December (Progress Report #5, March 1969); in the current year (1969-70) the same trend appears. From a baywide point of view it appears that there are no significant differences in position (i.e., from one station to another) whether one measures diversity, the number of species, or the contribution of each species to the sample. However, there are significant differences from month to month (as one would expect due to differences in algae abundance with seasons).

It appears that diversity is a good measure of the behavior of benthic algae in Barnegat Bay. Since we cannot quantify algae in any other way, we have some confidence that qualitative collections of benthic algae yield very good estimates of the quantita-tive behavior of the algae; even though the samples vary in total weight, they don't vary much in relative weight. Maximum diversity (or the number of species) is a poor estimate of the algae behavior, for two reasons: 1) there are a few ("-.iO) dominant species which repeatedly comprise the sample, thus the number of species at any station tends to be small (range: 2 to 8 species); and, 2) the variance in this character is much too large to be dependable. Evenness seems to be the most stable of all the algal characteristics measured; this measure of the contribution of each species to the sample remains very constant over time. We, therefore, conclude that the number of species and the proportion of each species in random samples taken in the study area does not vary significantly from point to point in the bay. Algae in the bay seem to be rather homogeneously distributed. However, communities of algae (i.e., the types of algae comprising the sample) may very well vary. A cluster analysis of species from each station will be attempted soon. With respect to time, the algae populations do vary, as expected, with season-however, they vary equally (i.e., no statistical differences) throughout the bay.

To be perfectly fair in our analysis, we have summarized the month of August both pre-operational (1969) and post-operational (1970) at Oyster Creek (thermally influenced) and Stouts Creek (not thermally influenced) in the following table:

Oyster Creek Stouts Creek Au. 16.. '70 Aug. '69 Aug. '70 Diversity 1.0240 0.8220 0.6880 0.9190 Max. Diversity 1.3860(= 4 app.) 1.9460(= 7 spp.)l.3860(=4 spp.) 1.7920(= 6 spp.)

Evenness 0.7390 0.4230 0.4960 0.5130 In this table there is a significant difference (5% level) only in the number of species from August 1969 to August 1970; however, this significance is true for both Oyster Creek and Stouts Creek. Why the number of species increased throughout the bay during the post-operational month of August is not known. We would have predicted that warmer water would have decreased the number of species to a yearly low during July; or, it would have accentuated the normal decrease (see Fig A-2 in Fifth Progress Report, Mrach 1969) during the summer months. Both diversity and evenness remained rather constant at both test areas for August of both years.

Benthic. Invertebrates August 1969 to September 1970:

Although the previous progress report covered the period 15 March 1969 to 1 June 1970, it is important to include the time period August 1969 to September 1970 in this report. During this period the project began a more intensive study of the statistical distribution of benthic invertebrates in Barnegat Bay than in any previous period. Also, the reactor went into operation in December 1969, so the data from this period (Aug. '69 to Sept. '70) represents bay conditions immediately preceding and following operation of the generating facility. It is important to note that the facility was not "on line" continuously during its early operation, however similar analysis of the data for Sep-tember 1970 to September 1971 will be made for comparison. Mrs. Marsha Moskowitz is responsible for many of the conclusions drawn for benthic invertebrates during this period.

Samples. At least 258 individual samples from Stouts Creek, Forked River and Oyster Creek (bay regions), plus the canals, were taken. Each sample was thoroughly analyzed for species composition (at least 123 species were identified) and number of individuals.

The dominant species continued to be Pectinaria gouldii and Mulinia lateralis, with significant numbers of Anpelisca and Elasmopus appearing at certain times of the year.

The parameters that were either measured or computed were: 1) salinity, 2) temperature,

3) depth, 4) sediments (characterized by the sorting coefficient, median grain diameter, and skewness), 5) average diversity (H' = R p.lnpi), 6) maximum diversity (H = In #

species, sometimes referred to as "species1richness"), and 7) evenness (J' =mF/Hma).

Analysis: The parameters were then subjected to statistical analysis, or were examined by inspection for trends.

1) Salinity-bottom salinities were generally lower on the bottom in all bay areas. However, in the canals, where thorough mixing occurred, the average salinity was slightly lower than in the bay. In the Oyster Creek region, bottom salinities were similar to other bay areas. In general, the variability in S%o throughout the study areas in the bay is equal at all points.

2) Temperature-the temperature in the Oyster Creek canal was from 1-8eC.

higher (during operation) than in the surrounding bay. However, this warmer water tended to stratify in the bay, with bottom temperatures around Oyster Creek not unlike other regions of the bay. This condition, of course, is sensitive to wind and current and, occasionally, stratification might not be obvious. The variability of bottom temperatures in the study area was about equal during this period.

3) Depth-the mean readings for the study area were: Oyster Creek, 6.4 feet; Forked River, 7.5 feet; Stouts Creek, 7.2 feet; Forked River at Route 9, 10 feet; and Oyster Creek at Route 9, 10.7 feet.

4) Sediments-the variability of the three sediment characteristics (sorting coef.,

skewnesS and median grain diameter) was similar at the three bay stations. That is to say, although the median grain diameter can be characterized for any particular region, there is a great amount of variability in sediment type within any one region. However, Forked River and Oyster Creek are more similar to one another with respect to mean median grain diameter (FR = 138 ; O.C. = 131 ) than either is to Stouts Creek (S.C. = 66 ).

There appears to be no significant difference in the sediments in any of the three areas, and all areas in this study can be considered to be in the silt-clay category.

When the values of median grain diameter of 145 samples were plotted against

.biological parameters there appeared to be no relationship at all between the two (viz.,

diversity does not correlate with sediment characteristics). However, further study of the relationship between sediments and biological parameters (especially with respect to single species) is being attempted. (N4ote: the raw data for salinity, temperature, depth and sediments are recorded under the section called Hvdrograph-y.)

5) Diversity and Everiness: Before any statistics were performed on these biolog-ical parameters, all of. the computed diversity indices were subjected to a chi-square test for normal distribution. H' withstood the normality test for 258 samples. How-ever, although evenness and maximum diversity did not test well for normality, their

distributions were examined by Professor H.P. Andrews (statistical consultant) who judged them to be amenable to statistical analysis. The range in H' values were from 0.00 (only one species present) to 2.8 (many species present). When average diversity was plotted against evenness, it was found that a correlation occurred between these parameters(r = 0.93, in the bay samples only). That is, as the diversity of a sample increases (viz., an increase in the number of species) the number of individuals in each species tends to be equal to the number of individuals in any other species.

However, even though most species are rather equally represented in the sample, there still occur the dominants, which generally far outweigh all other species within any sample. Therefore, many of our analyses were performed both in the presence and absence of the dominants.

For convenience, we have divided the time period into three eras, based primar-ily on what we think are important reproductive portions of the calendar year.. The number of samples within each era or sub-period (see Table LI) was balanced, such that the same number of observations occurred within each sub-period (roughly based on eighty samples per sub-period). The statistical results follow in the form of two tables.

Table tj. Statistical comparisons of the bay stations (comparing O.C. with F.R.

and S.C.) sub-periods, and for various biological parameters.

Bioll. Nb-period 27 Aug - 5 Dec (69) 9 Feb - 19 Jun (70) 30 Jun - 2 Sept (70) parameter ist period 2nd period 3rd period

1. Diversity (H) O.C. was sign. low- No differences No differences er

2. Evenness (J) No differences No differences

3. # species No differences No differences F.R. was sign. higher

1. Mulinia (M) O.C. was sign. No differences No differences higher

5. # Pectinaria No differences No differences F.R. had sign. lower (P) #Is

6. Total # in- F.R.)S.C.>O.C. F.R.)S.C., 0.C. F.R.>S.C., 0.C.

div. (P+M)

Discussion of Table '.

During the period immediately preceding the operation of the nuclear electric-generator, the region around Oyster Creek (in the bay) was characterized by a lower diversity than other regions of the bay. However, the species richness remained con-stant, as evidenced by a decreased evenness. Therefore, the lower diversity in the O.C. region during pre-operation can be attributed to the presence of the dominant bivalve Mulinia lateralis. Also, during pre-operation, as a general statement, it can be said that the Forked River region had consistently higher numbers of individuals of all species except the dominants than either Stouts Creek or Oyster Creek. This pattern was evident early in this study and has persisted to date.

The second sub-period is characterized by the presence of fewer species and in-dividuals throughout the bay. This is the winter season, with reproductive activity being much lower. Moreover, even though this period includes the early spring months when spawning is prevalent throughout the bay, many of the benthic organisms are too small to be detected. This part of the year is considered by our study group to be the low part of the year with regard to getting meaningful comparative data (viz.,

the samples are harder to get in freezing weather, and the numbers of individuals and species tends to be lower).

The third period in Table 9 is distinctly post-operational as is evidenced by

the higher surface temperatures in the ýOyster Creek region (see Hydrography). However, duringthis period we were not able to~etect any difference in the diversity around Oyster Creek. Forked River, on the other hand, did show significantly higher numbers of sýecies (these were primarily amphipods that settled in large numbers in this area). It must be pointed out, though, that while F.R. increased in species richness, neither Oyster Creek nor Stouts Creek decreased in total number of species. In fact, Forked River actually showed a decrease in one of the dominant species (Pectinaria).

Separate calculations of diversity of the subordinate species (i.e., all members of a sample except Pectinaria and Mulinia) for all samples demonstrated that there were no sifl.ficant differences for all of these species throughout the bay for this study period. In other words, although the numbers of individuals for all species in Barnegat Bay rise and fall with reproductive systems, there has not been a significant change in the benthic community of invertebrates for the time period August 1969 to September 1970. Evidence of F.X. Phillips (personal communication) indicates that this statement seems also to be true for the years 1965-69.

Table .. Statistical comparisons of the canal stations (comparing Forked River at Route 9 with Oyster Creek at Route 9) for three sub-periods.

Biol. .-5ub-period j.2f)LA (q)

)j,' P K7Vilk, 71)) ] jV-V1 CCt /0o) parameter .st period 2nd period 3rd period

1. Diversity (H') D.C.> F.R. No differences O.C.> F.R.

2. H' - (P&MI) No differences F.R.> O.C.

3. # P + M F.R.> O.C. No differences F.R.>>>> O.C.

4. # species no diff. (F.R. = No diff. (F.R.= F.R. (=14)>

11, 0.C. = 9) 6, O.C. = 7) O.C. ( --8)

Discussion of Table S.

During the pre-operational period, both of the canals were relatively similar.

Oyster Creek at Route 9 did have a higher diversity; however, this is a product of the index since Forked River at Route 9 actually had more species (not significantly different) and larger numbers of individuals of the dominant species. It was not until the third period that we detected the most significant changes in our entire study. InForked River canal at Route 9 the number oý Pectinaria and Mulinia reached extremely high levels (up to 20,000 individuals/meter of each species). These dominants did not increase in number in the Oyster Creek canal at Route 9, thus accounting for higher diversity in this region (recall that large numbers of dominants depress the index in information theory). Moreover, the number of species in Forked River canal increased, while the number of species in Oyster Creek canal remained rather constant.

Generally speaking, Oyster Creek canal at Route 9 (the effluent canal) is exemplified by a rather sparse community of benthic invertebrates with very few individuals.

Forked River at Route 9 (the intake canal) is very rich in the dominants and tends to have a greater variety of species present.

This section can best be summarized by quoting Marsha Moskowitz directly: "Thus, the Oyster Creek (bay) area, the only area receiving heated effluents, appears from the information available not substantially different from the Stouts Creek area, a region (of the bay) not so influenced (by warmer water).',

Community composition of Barnegat Bay In order to better understand the general distribution of communities of benthic invertebrates in the mid-region of Barnegat Bay, we conducted a qualitative survey of twelve points in the bay. These points were selected in order to characterize the western "muddy" portion of the bay and the eastern "sandy" portion. At each point a 5 minute qualitative dredge haul (Carribbean dredge, about 1 meter wide) was taken.

All species of invertebrates in the sample were identified to the lowest taxon. In all, about 70 species were collected for the entire 12 samples. The bay was divided arbitrarily into a North region (by combining samples N 1-4 + M 3-4) and a South region (by combinin samples M 1-2 + S 1-4). Alternately, we divided the bay into a West region (by combining samples N 1,4! M 1,4, and S 1,2) and an East region (by combining samples N 2,3 M 2,3 and S 3,45. Analyses were then performed on the total number of species from each of these four regions. Surprisingly, there were no sig-nificant differences (with respect to the number of species) within any region-of the bay. The number of species is as follows:

North (N 1-4 + M 3,4)= 18.7 species - 3.8 (95%CI)

South (M 1,2 + S 1-4)= 15.2 species 5.8 (95%CI)

East (N 2,3 + DM 2,3 + S 3,4) = 16.0 species ; 6.2 (95%CI)

West (N 1,4 + M 1,4 + S 1,2) = 17.8 species - 3.6 (95%CI)

We conclude, therefore, on the basis of this preliminary study (more qualitative ex-cursions are planned for this summer) that the species richness of Barnegat Bay is rather uniform from at least Good Luck Point south to Waretown Creek.

Another analysis of the same data was performed in order to discover whether distinct communities exist in Barnegat Bay. The method of analysis was the tech-nique of cluster analysis (two separate programs were used ; the one described here is that of S. Johnson's as modified by M.G. Shafto). The results of this analysis (Fig. 6 ) indicate that while the number of species remains rather constant throughout the bay, the kinds of species comprising the community vary considerably. In fact, the most striking feature that emerges from the cluster analysis is that the community to the north of Stouts Creek is decidedly different from that to the south. The greatest degree of clustering occurred between stations S 1 and S 4 ( in the vicinity of the main channel from Barnegat Inlet), where 8 species out of 18 were common to both stations (i.e., 44% overlap). The study area for this project also clustered very well, with station M4 (Stouts Creek) having 10 species in common with station Ml (Oyster Creek), out of a total 31 species between them (i.e., 3e overlap).

It is interesting to note that in the southern portion of the bay species tend to cluster in an east-west direction; whereas, in the northern portion of the bay species tend to cluster in a north-south direction. Our study area is more characteristic of the latter, thus lending credence to our comparison of Stouts Creek with Oyster Creek.

Also, the sediments north of the inlet are distinctly graded in an east-west direction; thus "muddy"communities are characteristic of the west portion of the bay, and "sandy" communities are more characteristic of the east side of the bay.

Station Latitude N. Longitude w.

Fj-T S N1 3 T54 740 07' 15" 390 54' 740 06' LIiCk PT.

" NI N2. 30" 390 52' 5511 740 08' 74" 390 52' 15" 06' 25" 740 N41 N3 39. 50' 50" 08' 15" 74*

39. 50' 45" 06' 45" 390 48' 20" 74* 10'

/13 390 48' 740 09' 10"

39. 47' 45" 740 10' 45" 390 47' 74* 09' 30" 740 390 46' 25" 740 0ll 09' 39" 46f 45" AllI Wc-K S5 SI TOWN

$3 F; 1. 6

Animal-sediment relationships and growth in populations of Pectinaria gouldii from Barnegat Bay In the present study, Pectinaria the golden bristled or mason worm, along with Mulinia lateralis (little macti2a comprise the dominant species in the vicinity of the reactor. Although Pectinaria is a deposit feeder (deposit feeders are positively correlated with the clay fraction of sediments (Sanders, 1958)) it is found in a variety of sediment types; muddy with a high clay fraction to sandy with an extremely low clay fraction. However, the worm inhabits muddy areas in greater numbers than in sandy areas.

Pectinaria, a tubicolous polychaete, utilizes sediment particles in construction of its tube. Its importance in reworking bottom sediments was established by Gordon (1964). Further investigations into Pectinaria-sediment relationships were carried out because of its importance as a dominant animal in Barnegat Bay, its role in sediment reworking,and the limited nature of the literature concerning the worm. Sand grain selection for tube building was studied in the following manner. Four areas in the Bay were sampled, two characterized by having muddy bottoms and two. with sandy bottoms. Ten worms per area were randomly collected without disturbing the tubes.

The worm tubes were dried, trisected and sonified in order to separate the grains; then the maximum diameter of 20 grains from each one third tube were measured.

Statistical analyses performed indicate that Pectinaria actively selects certain grains as it constructs its tube. Grains in the anterior end of the tube were significantly larger than those in the posterior end. Thus, as the worm grows, it uses progressively larger sand grains. Also, length of worm was positively correlated with anterior sand grain diameter. The longer the worm (from any area),

the larger the mean anterior grain size. So, only tubes of equal length may be compared with one another.

Although Pectinaria actively selects grains, populations are liai-Ated by the particular sediment they inhabit. Worms in muddy areas use generally smaller grains than worms in sandy areas due to the availability or lack of certain grain sizes in the two types of sediments.

Presently, growth measurements taken in 1970 (length of tube, weight of worm) on worms from muddy and sandy areas are being analyzed for 1) differences in muddy.

vs sandy-located populations 2) differences between Route 9 (F.R.) muddy-located populations and other muddy-located populations.

Analysis of the dominants: Pectinaria and Mulinia In order to assess the differences between years fox four positions in the bay system, we randomly chose six samples from data covering the period September-Decem-ber for both 1969 and 1970. This was done for the two dominant infaunal species (Pectinaria and M ), since both of these species can be estimated with high accuracy. The data used were corrected (for each position) to the number of indi-viduals per square meter. During the above time period at least six samples were taken in each of four positions (Forked River at Route 9, Oyster Creek, Forked River and Stouts Creek); these data were available for this time period during both 1969 (considered the immediate pre-operational period) and 1970 (a comparable "season" but about one year post operational). Thus, 48 samples (4 positions x 6 replicates x 2 years) were used to estimate differences in Pectinaria between 1969 and 1970.

The following table summarizes the data.

T ePectinaria o. ind.lm2) Mulinia (no. ind. /m2) 1969 ~1970 %chag 99lqO %cag Oyster Creek 216.5 47.8 - 78 w 1079.6 47.2 - 96***

Forked River 86.5 171.5 + 98 1359.2 16.5 - 99***

Stouts Creek 162.3 202.0 + 25 738.3 29.7 - 96 F.R. Route 9 161.8 2073.6 + 1179** 672.0 888.2 + 32

• significant interaction at 5%

• • significant at the 1% level

• • • significant at the 0.5% level

From the above table certain conclusions can be made.

1) Pectinaria tended to increase from 1969 to 1970; this was especially noticeable in Forked River at the Route #9 bridge, where very favorable growing conditions seem to prevail. On the other hand, this species showed a decrease of 7&)o at Oyster Creek, where the average temperature was higher during 1970. Such a decrease, although not statistically significant, was opposite in its tendency in comparison to all other bay stations. There was, therefore, a significant interaction at Oyster Creek; in other words, the Pectinaria at Oyster Creek failed to respond to 1970 (and all the variables of that year) in the same way that all other stations responded.

2) The difference in the number of Pectinaria is significantly greater from one position to another than it is from year to year. This is, again, primarily due to such rich areas as Forked River at Route #9 and such poor areas as Oyster Creek at Route #9. The Pectinaria in the bay do not appear to vary significantly from one position to another, at least for the period September through December.

3) Mulinia, a co-d6minant of Pectinaria, tended to be in much higher concentration for about a two year period prior to 1970. By the end of 1970 this species underwent a population "crash", especially in the bay stations. We noticed increasing numbers of dead Plulinia by the winter of 1970 (interestingly enough, every dead Mulinia yielded a spios. living within the closed valves!). As the data indicate, Mulinia decreased significantly at both Oyster Creek and Forked River (96% & 99% reduction in number).

Even though Stouts Creek diminished by 96% this change was not statistically significant.

Only one station showed an increase, and even at F.R. #9 the Mulinia were dying by the end of the 1970 collecting period. The reason for such a "crash" in Mulinia can only be guessed. It is very probable that we have witnessed a "year-class" phenomenon and that Mulinia will now begin to increase in numbers for the next two years.

We conclude from this analysis that whereas both of the dominant species diminished in the region of Oyster Creek during the first post-operational period, their decrease can be explained by reasons other than thermal stress. First the decrease in Pectinaria was not significant because it is offset by a huge increase in the Forked River canal at Route #9. Second, the almost total loss of Mulinia at Oyster Creek was also accom-panied by the loss of this species throughout the bay. It is predicted that Mulinia will continue to increase at Oyster Creek as the two year reproductive cycle is phased in.

Sampling program for benthic invertebrates.

Characterizing the benthic comuaunity of marine habitats is relatively difficult from a quantitative point of view. We have attempted to be as rigid and accurate as possible in our study, especially since most of our data analysis is done by statis-tical techniques. Therefore, in order to answer the question '1.'

reasonable sample?", we have performed the following field observations (based on a 1

hat constitutes a I bay-wide approach): 1) Four areas of the bay, within our study area, were chosen for two types of sampling. 2) At each area we either, a) anchored at a point and proceeded to take ten consecutive samples (this was done at Forked River at Route 9 and in the bay around the mouth of Oyster Creek), or b) anchored at a point, ob-tained one sample, moved to another point and took a second sample, and continued to move in a random manner until ten samples were obtained (this was done around the mouth of Forked River and, Stouts Creek). Each sample was treated individually, with the parameters listed in Table 7. being measured for each sample. This data was then subjected to a one-way analysis of variance, using the OiV program of IBN/360.

Table 7 : Mean values for eleven parameters measured for ten samples collected at four points in the study area.

Oyster Creek Forked River Stouts Creek F.R. Route 9 Character 5TN D S ST .. iTN I S4 i ." s'[ D B.N D T

1. Num. Pectinaris P',40o (','f3 .7N*5"5 .Z 22.31 /.3772 36..5O S 6O5

?- .i7011 880.Z 5 5% -.

2. Median grain 4o,8

/0TJ /781 /?7,- 1.3c. .7587 J*,c 3.'/- .oeW 3 .9.7.7 7..l size

3. Sediment volume loto 57ZC,* 4V9 /5176- 1,64.V, 6 2W I7Ro0 7-.,9. .4I 5 2.? .-

4. ikewness 11.-12 /-z3 lo7 lo.27 4/~.

6C 9- .5;3:5 C, ./,290 -?6 11. t~ e-9:3

5. Sorting Coeff. 2_'4 C) 4 s- ',76 o o. z / -

• l.'o5 o&. /96 i' 45%L 9 ?*5-4

7. Benthos volume .-7, - 2/ b' ,37I 6Z 3o,9 . *1.0 .,'9,o . /V 7*V/0 Z.*I/ _,,q 78Y

8. Diversity HBAR 53 1.s-oz .v_-9 .a947 7S .336/ .16-73  ? *3Si7

-. t,T? 'R , 11-3

9. I-ax diversity 4.,t ete 7 ,339

-Yo Y.. 7c/# , ./319 2, ?77Y .2o0P 0o9o ýf?_sz .33V -/zp7

10. Num. of species Y. 8o ?1,6 .6VcvU/6p .So. .3/97 k/

9 ,1 *-" 4,010(, ,.?.o 3.8973 z2777 From this table, and from independent analysis of significance, we conclude the following: 1) The relationship between the mean of any parameter and the variability (variance) of points which generate that mean seems to be rather constant throughout the bay. This is reflected by the ratio of the standard deviation to the mean; note that Figure 7., where the ratios are plotted, indicates wide variability. Therefore, we conclude that any area can be adequately characterized by either a) taking 10 con-secutive samples at a point within the region, or b) taking 10 different samples from 10 locations within a region.

Fig.  ;.

1.0

'8

.7 5T1 D) *

.4 FIR *9 0C FR ,C.

A separate analysis (not shown in this table) of the probability of obtaining 90(; of all species present in the region indicates that seven (maximum) consecutive samples (a sample is defined here as the contents of one ponar drop) are necessary.

Therefore, in light of the statement in the above paragraph, we are now taking seven consecutive samples (pooled) at three different points (within a region) in order to adequately characterize the region for any date. The sampling periodicity iS two weeks for any region.

2) There is an obvious relationship between the amount of sediment brought up by the ponar and the sediment characteristic: the finer the sediment, the more the ponar brings up per drop. In other words, at Oyster Creek, where the sediments are quite variable, but generally characterized by having a median grain diameter of 229,A, we must drop) the ponar at least seven times in order to obtain a "full" ponar

('10W0 mls). Of course, the area sampled increases with the number o,ýdrops ; how-ever, we have independently shown that one can chairacterize any area with seven con-secutive samples regardless of the sediment com:position or the number of ponar drops in excess of seven.

3) There appears to be good correlation between the number of individuals of the dominant worm (Pectinaria) and the sediment com:-osition: the finer the sediment, the more worms that are found. However, note that whereas the sediment at F.R. #9 is very fine (26.9,,,) it is also poorly sorted (S -- 5.24). It is quite possible that Pectinaria responds more to the presence of ?ine, poorly sorted sediments than it does to other environmental parameters. It is obviously not res~ionding to in-creased temperature at Oyster Creek since there is no significant difference between the Pectinaria 'at Oyster Creek and Stouts Creek. Further, the number of worms at Fore River at Route 9 might be anomalous, since they occur there in huge 0>20,000 per square meter) numbers; we feel that this locality is a region of optimum growing conditions for Pectinaria, given the soft bottom and the amount of organic matter presumed to be in the mud.

4) The diversity indices at the three bay stations were not significantly different from one another, while F.R. 4#9 showed a lowered diversity due to the

dominants (Pectinaria and MIulinia). The number of species at Oyster Creek was significantly lower than the other three areas. However, it must be recalled that the present analysis was the result for one day; it is previously stated in this report that the number of species at Forked River went up during late summer, even though the number of species at Oyster Creek remained the same. Also, whereas Oyster Creek had the lowest number of species in this study, it had the highest number of Mulinia in the bay (excluding F.R. #9), and, the benthos volume was about the same as at other bay stations. Under conditions of stress (viz., thermal at Oyster Creek) it is possible to have lowered diversity, lowered number of species and increased dom-inance-we do not believe that this trend has occurred at Oyster Creek.

In summary, then, we believe that characterizing the invertebrate community of Barnegat Bay requires at least seven samples per area on any day (we take 21) and that the biological parameters of the samples seem to be related more to the sediment composition than to the hydrographic (except current at P.R. #9) parameters.

Status report on benthic invertebrates.

During the period 1 June 1970 to 15 June 1971 a total of 25 cruises were taken with 242 samples collected and sorted. We did not obtain as many field samples in the ear'ly spring, as desired, because of severe engine trouble. However, we have managed to continue to keep abreast of the backlog. The following new species have been added to our checklist during this period:

number species 134 Sagartia modesta 139 Doridella obscura 140 Cerebratulus sp.

143 Goniadidae 144 Scoloplos fragilis 145 Sthenelais boa 146 Diadumene leucolena 151 Carinogammarus mucronotus 152 Phyllodoce arenae 153 Clymenella sp.

154 Paranaitis speciosa 156 Modiolus demissus 157 Nephtys picta 158 Eumida sanguinea 159 Batea secunda 160 Scoloplos sp.

161 Corophium cylindricum 162 Erichthonium difformis 163 Haliclona sp.

164 Microdeutopus gryllo talpa 166 Melita nitida 167 Elasmopus laevis 168 Spiochaetopterus sp.

169 Amphitrite cirrata 170 Cuthona concinna Although we have been primarily concerned with invertebrates and algae, it is worth mentioning that several new species of fish have appeared in Barnegat Bay for the first (recorded) time. One of these is somewhat tropical and is called the common butterfly fish (Chaetodon ocellatus). A single specimen of this species was found among shrimp-nets in the eel-grass beds off Sedge Island. It apparently strayed in from the Gulf Stream during an extremely hot spell in early September, 1970.

P]X.*OGIREcS Rl'.PORT: BA3hEGAT REIBoYTOR SURVEY, FOR THE PFRIOD JU1{E, 1970, TEI{OUGH MARCH. 1971.

(Plafkton Section)

Prepared b7 Kent 1Tountford, Ph.D., Nav 27, 1971

'1 13 BASIN

.'CONTOUR DEPTHS IN METERS

-irU8e1. The Barne.,at Reactor ;urvey Area, The five reg~ular transect stations are shown with Roman nui.erals "

SAMPLING During the period covered by this report, twelve regular cruises were made at an average interval o0f 14 days. Eihty-four olankton stations were occupied, and 1L4 samples analysed.

Reigular saxmpling at the, five transect stations initiated in February, 1969 was continued into Deceilber, 1970: a. which time the R/V "Clio" was decormissioned for repairs, At each station (Fig. 1) chlorophyll, cell count and hydrographic data were asseambled, and replicate lizht-dark bottle oroductivity exper-iments were daylight tank incubated. A ronlicate consisted of water drawn in a carboy from the bay fron which all parameters were measured. Two such samplinr's *ire iaade at each station at an approxinate interval of five -inutes. The entire tran-sect. including additional stations at the intake wnd outfall, was run in slightly over one hour.

PRODUCTIVITY DIFiPERE1CES During 1969, rross productivity was used to denonstrate position difforences along the transect. The observed differ-ences, particularly between itation III ( o = off Oyster Cr.)

and Station V (A = at Snuoy "G" in the ilid-basin area of the Bay)-Fig. 2-A - were associated both. writh *hLcvcyh11 differen-ces (rig. 2-B) and the nunber of cells per count (Pig. 2-C).

A sura.,er peak in cell numbers had also been observed in 1967 off Oyster Creek. During 1968, between) id-June and :iid-October.

-I i illi 16 1 i MG O2 "M 'HR' A. 9O(Ub P'I1UDUCTIVITY 800 0 Plant 0 per.fo ao a 600 o

400 200 0 O 'A" .00 . .. , , ,L _ .

III VI IX XIl III VI IX X11 PG.L B. CHLOROPHYLL 40 30 0 I2 0

/ I>

II' 20 l III

~,

V I Ix X1 IIIl V I IX

. X1 300 0, CELLS /IOFIELDS c. PHYTOPLANKTON /

200--

0 S0a.........i.i . * . ' .. 4 .. i S III VI IX XII III VI IX X11 1969 .1970 APure 2. Plankton ar-OLtArs, 0oN V 3 "t'artof-7-nneration,. -0 -- at* operating during fieldwork. exudaita forouth of discharn e canal.

in five of six eases where data for Station III are available, this area had cell counts higher than the ,"ean within-date.

This is believed to reflect naturally higher productivity off Oyster Creek. This does not exclude the possibility of eutroph-ication by stream and residential effluents.

The period mid-June through nrid-October was used to com-pare conditions before and after the onset of !eneration. It would havn been desirable to construct this co:pioarison oVer an entire annual cycle, but operations during the first winter.

Decenber, 1969, throuth-March, 1970, were so erratic that the data are nore confusin- than en!irhteninq.

The year 1970, in --enoral, was si-nificantly less pro-ductive alon- the entire transect than was 1969. This differ-ence is in no way connected with plant operations. It is probably related to lower values of solar energy income durirg 1970. This parameter itself is reflected in sliphtly cooler averay'e water te-iperatures. During 1970, however, the relation-shin of Station III to the -rand -mear. - (JLme throu-'h Octo-ber) chanres significantly (Pir1. 3-A). This su.7-ests a de-pression of the expected productivity level off Oyster Cr.

Thero was, in fact, a difference of - 5.4 mrg 02"-'-

between Stýatio n "[I (2'orked P.) 'n i

Station III (O-7ster Cr.).

Durin7 .ost of the June throu-Ih October noriod additional saniples inre taken i.x the nouths of the intake and discharge canals and analyses made for cell count, chlorophyll and productivity. \Jhen five available dates are compared for these two positions, productivity at the outfall avorares

90 MGO M-AHRg" A. TRANSECT POSITION EFFECTS 500-

.400______y 969 300 Y1970

+/-2 ys=

200 I I I I 0

I II III IV V ST"OUTS FORKED OYSTER UPPER MID-CR. RIVER CR. BASIN BASIN MG 02* M-3.HR- 1 B. DEPRESSION OF 0

15 *- GROSS PHOTOSYNTHESIS 100 0 50k 0 0 . . . . ... I 102 &-.L-"

104IIII METERS FROM OYSTER CREEK MOUTH S Fiaure -Pr-oduct4W y cghangea by positiofl. Juno - 0etober 1969 and June - October, 1970.

92.3 mg 0 *m -*hr-1 below the intake. Chlorophyll a dropped 2

froi a.i-iean of 7.60 pg/liter to 6.93 pg/liter, conrpared to 10.64 at the intake and 12.87 at the outfall during 1969 (

a difference of +2.23 pm/liter.)

Coll counts at the intake averaImed 1)13.3 cells/10 fields and at the outfall 115.6. Most of the observed difference resulted from the disanpearance of microflaFgollates ( Intake 127.6; Outfall 98.5 cells/10 fields), but a decrease in dino-flar-rellates, particularly naked forns, was also detected (seam counts 7.6 intake. 3.0 Outfall). The absence of species (Fig. 4) present in the intake water after transit sliI"btly depressed phytoplar.kton diversity between the two stations.

(Qualitative cha in the phytoplankton

Ues ( 5 ig. 5) from year to Tear during the survey we're primarily seasonal in nature, signalling essentially cold-rand warm-water floral shifts. Variability in occurrence dates was sufficient that no rgoneral displacenents attributable to plant operations could be distinguished in a sin-lle years experionce. The aver-age number of species occurring alon- the transect was also not si~nificantly altered, altbour-h a s

1all decline in 1970 nay reflect the selective loss of sever'l groups observed at itation II but not at III.

Htation it was considered l~ikely that plas1Actor. respiration would be elevated by nassa:e through the nlant and ca',al system.

• ince rross poroductivity as ncotiured in this investigation is expressed as the differential betw-een li,1ht and dark bottle oxyoen, values for a -iven rosition are sensitive to the mna,: nitude of resoirition. -.o look at eo.,fects through the

S CELLS / 10 FIELDS TOTAL MI CROFLAGELLATES DURING OPERATION 20 0 r /

or heat 100 0 INTAKE 0 ,CEL'S/ ,0,FIELDS 0 0 *

• 0 0 0

• 0 a TOTAL DINOFLAGELLATES DURING OPERATION See A above 0 10 [ - -* ,INTAKE

• ' O,

- ' " ---o OU TFALL 0-00 I I I I 0 a 0 0 0 0I 0 0 Vl VII VIII IX X

.irure 4. Plankton cell colint differences on either side of the Ila.t-Canaj. sy7to*.

,,' "i "II!o eI ,

I ",I' I. '" 0

': ii 'I I gel

,, I. .

' ' I! I

!' i a),

(D

> ()

!;I;  :.. I

~I I.

• I I'"'I

• ,:ie* I l~l'iIli..'.  : , I 11 1'~ t-

'Dug~l

(.0 m) 4 (ff3 U I U, zuJIhwz -1 W0 2 wo dq 1AJ IA/ m9 8.* 4- IU Z  !

Xza Z:U ZU a 0 4 80081-., Z ,-, , ,,,

,o0 oxý W- 5iep00-fl L H"_*

, - S*o-d 5*,,

r 0 0 ~

m~wS~wwt N.~-

~ N61w

>-en -J 4

4X 67

-4 Fi;.-ure 5. Pbh-ytoplankton CorýTosition shifts over a four-yeaa.r period, 1967 - 1970

canal systeri on net photoayntthesis, a fully replica-ted series wa s run usinm both the dissolved oxyren and 14o radioassay rnethods. (Fig. 6, open s-~ibols = 02; solid s.rrbols = 14C).

This indicated a highly significant decrease in net productiv-ity between intake and outfall ( -121.4 ng Cem- 3 .hrp 1 ). Since respiration (assayed by 02) was indeed about three-fold g-reater at th', outfall, the neasure':ient of -hotosynthetio change be-tween these two stations may have consistently underostinat#d.

The two methods of m*easurement were related to each other by a coefficient of correlation exceeding +.90.

HYDROGRAPHIC DATA The hydrographic data in i'ji* 7 sh'ow tel-7peratures and dissolved oxvyen at the outfall ( -.- ) a:'1d Station III ( o )

compared to the five station ir*ean ( _ ). The salinity re-lationship among stations, particularly between III ( o ) and V (A ),,was apparently unchanged, althou,-h at the outfall itself thm additional freshwater entrained from Forked R.

is detectable as an average salinity difference of 1.40 0/00.

W'ith the several years of salinity data now available it is possible to construct an average salinity profile for this portion of the Bay (Fig. 8 ).

Dissolved oxygern decreases between intake and outfall frozu a mean of 8.60 mg/liter to 7.Ll, a drop of 1 .19 mix. This must be considered a.. inst the back-round of surface-to-bottom differentials obsorved durin-in the proonerational period

9 0

>C a%

0

)W 0)

C-i .0

'0 20 w.

W WI 0

.0 a I l I 0 .0 0 0 CYJ I--Cr T1') O U1'

- 0 IT O~ C\1

-JI I

-j L o LU CL L .)I - I LU-0 0

E f..C.) 0

0) w 4 a:

0 LU

- I I

i (D 0 0 0 " 0 0 0 0 2 r . Cl -- C'j The Di.. soAlv.d Oxy-on and l.c.rbon .ethods Compared for the entire transect; open symbole = 02p

.Solid symibols C.. A e=hlorophyll a at each station.

3 PARTS PER THOUSAND A. SALINITY

'I A A A A A

-0 a

2OF 0 0 15j

-- -- -- m m m m m . . . . . . ( (

I

(

oI . V. . . .... ..

MG/L - OXGE-15 T OXYGEN 1o0 5

.t m . . . . . II I

IdI VI......

LEG.CELSIUIS TEMPERATURE %100 30 F /, ~0o I

I R\ '

201 /

I I0 I I

O- ii ii' i i J* I tI. _I ll i m l l .

i i m

a i

.m .E .i .J

• /*VI* ix *(I .1 V Xll

- .. 1969 .1970 PLANT OPERATING, ***" "

• go"" " " **

Hi-n~ire 7. Hydrographic data for the transect, 1 yr. before S and 1 yro. dirinr. operation. o = .* I-I-v, 3-=-ta V" -- -atfall,

=five-sta. neat, =onset of generation, I ran.me, 0a excluding Sta III wid outfallo

C)

I-NN Co*' _o. ,.

2* o tw 0 0*

i-i.-ure 3. Generalized S3alinity Profiles for the Tranaeot, in parts per thousand (o/oo) liote:isohalines indicate the inlet has beaun to ebb at hir<h-tide along the tran-Sect. "Jind in llix-ed -)rofile had blown-SSE at least 5 hri

(1967 throu..h 1968)o The narnitude of differences is no greater Sbut the plant effluent is already at the surface and therefoxe somewhat aerated by the tine it travels three km, to the outilI and the "supply" of water being partially deoxygenated is virtually continuous.

The distribution of plurme effects can be partially seen usinM temperture as a tracer (Fig. 9). In some cases the plune is deflected south, and back a-ainst the shore at Ware-town (Fig. 9-A) as predicted by Carpenter (1963). in calm weather Ot with westerly Tjinds, it will often orient straight toward the East (Fi7. 9-B),and under the influence of souther-ly winds, displacenent toward the north nay occur. making possible reeirculation of heated wateri Fig. 9-C). The ob-served pluin areas agreed closely with those predicted by Nor Uand Adans (1969). The bested layer was rarely more than 1.5 m thick at station III, 500M fron the outfall.

COI,!'UTFIR ANALYSES The availability of part-time lab assistance made it possible to keypunch a large portion of the plankton data.

Pollowinr the suspension of field collections in Decenber, 1970, several -months of intensive effort perrnitted analyses iO be run on the IBM-360. Correlation Analyses examined the relationship of each variable with every other variable on the data matrix. A multiple stepawise linear re.-ressiom technique developed equations for several data subsets that can serve as calculative (-redictive) nodels.

The enuation for .-ross productivity built fron data taken before operation included values for teýiperattire,

THERMAL PLUME CHARACTERISTICS STOUTS FORKED OYSTER UPPER MID-TRANSECT STATION, CR. RIVER CR. BASIN BASIN I Ii III IV V 0 +4 A. ÷ +

1 + + 7 15 MAR.,1970 5

4 3

3. I 7 DEC.,1969 2

3 01 C.

I 17 JUN.# 1970 METERS Figureo. Vertical Temperature Profiles along the transect.

Tenperaturos were taken each 0.5; each station.

sturface to bottom at S

c]*-!oropi-TII a, s-1li.nity, ý'icroflarellate cou-its, and the sta~o of tide at sa--mlin,. The resultin[r calcul-ted values for -:ross productivity correlated with observed data from2 the field at the lovol of +,92. This neans we wore able to account for some 85"' of the variability usin- five paraneters.

Teriperature was the variable jeost hiorhly related to

• ,ross productivity, with a correlation coefficient of + .803 during the oreoperational period. it was also strongl7 related to gross productiVit.7 diirin-. operation but the correlation fell to +.681, a value significantly different frort 1969 at the 5% level. This seens to reflect the association, Particularly at Otation III, of hird-h temperatures with reduced photosyn-thesis. 5ince a teriperature change, in the absenise of biocides, pui-pin.- and erosion-based turbidities, does not necessarily result in decreased productivity, the relationshiD is not a si:-..le one. Considerably deeper DrobinT is required before p*redi.ctive rlodelinrr will have much application to the 'real" world.

During the preoperational neriod., the equation for

,:gross photosynthesis) hen used to calculate annual curves for each station, clearly "predicted" the observed differences between :3tation II and Station V. The saue equation will now be applied to enviromnental pararieters .athnred durinr, operation, as a true predictive riodel. The possibilities su'-:-ested are exciting.

N~ote: The plankton work has been surznarized in a Ph.D. Thesi, Pll*-kton 3tudies in Barnegat Bay , by iKent hlountford, Riutr-ers Univ. Library of .cience and 7Medieine, 1L,7 p.

Effect of increased temperature on copepod e*g viability During the copepod bloom of Feb-Apr 1971, experiments were conducted to dete.'mine the following: I) the ability of adult copegods to lay viable eggs within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of experiencing a temperature increase of 10 C. above ambient (by passage through the cooling system of the plant), 2) the viability of copepod eggs after exposure to tem-perature elevations of ICP, 1,5 2d, & 250 (above an ambient of 5 0 C. in the laboratory).

The use of copepode was deemed appropriate on the basis that copepods exceed, in both numbers of individuals and number of species, all the rest of the metazoan plank-ton combined and are thus, extremely important in food chains . In Barnegat Bay the copepod Acartia is the dominant form in the region of the bay near the power plant and is the form dealt with in these experiments.

To compare the viability of eggs layed by those individuals having passed through the plant with those having not, adults were collected at the intake and the outfall of the plant. Upon return to the lab they were placed in bowls and held overnight at the ambient temperature of the intake. However, individuals collected from the out-fall were maintained at the outfall temperature for two hours to simulate passage time down Oyster Creek before being returned to intake temperature. Eggs from both treatments were removed the following day and placed in small bowls for observation of hatching. The results are shown in Table 8.

Thble 8  % eggs hatching from individuals collected at intake and outfall.

1. eggs  % hatching intake 75 73 outfall 75 78 Thus, (when the ambient was 50C.) the delta (i.e., increased temperature) ex-perienced by Acartia on passage through the cooling condensers did not seem to affect their ability to lay viable eggs within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of exposure to the delta.

To determine the effect of a delta upon eggs directly, eggs were obtained from individuals collected at the intake and then subjected in the laboratory to temperature elevations of 10', 15, 20, & 25 C. above ambient for a 2 hour2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> duration. As shown in Fig.

eggs subjected to deltas of ld & 150had a better hatching success than the controls, while those receiving a delta of 20Iwere about as successful as the controls. A delta of 250C. above the temperature at which the eggs were laid was definitely disastrous to the eggs.

Another finding of this experiment was that a synchronization of hatching occurred in those eggs subjected to deltas of lWand 15" i.e. they hatched within a shorter time span and also finished hatching sooner than the controls (Fig. 5 ).

Fig.-. Ave. % of eggs hatched vs. Fig. 9. # of hours from first to last temperature increase above egg hatching vs. temperature in-ambient (5 0C.). crease.

too r to OOL r

40

1. o fR I~

qVe 0/. Z0 1 611h J I"? SO 1.0 tr k00 16, temP. *ncreas 74enmf inrlcetOse

Thus exposure of Acartia eggs to a delta of l or 1!5 above ambient (50) not only re-sults in a significant shortening of the time span needed for a cohort of eggs to hatch, but also eggs so treated show a better % of hatching success than the controls.

In summary, at the winter timperatures of the bay, we have detected no significant effect on the viability of eggs of the dominant copepod Acartia a.. It should be cautioned, however, that these experiments were run for the cold months, so a delta of 150maY, in fact, result in an end point temperature of 15-20eC.

Summary For the time period covered in this report (through the end of 1970), it is our opinion that severe, radical, extreme or disastrous environmental changes have not occur-red in Barnegat Bay. Unfortunately, there are those who are stating that there is "boiling water" in Barnegat Bay-this is nonsense. We have, indeed, measured decreases in the number of some biological parameters in the vicinity of the Oyster Creek gener-ating station. However, in all cases but one, a decrease in number of species (or any other biological parameter) at Oyster Creek has not been statistically significant (in comparison to other regions of the bay) or such decreases have occurred simultaneously throughout the bay. The one exception involves the productivity of phytoplankton in the vicinity of Oyster Creek. There was a statistically significant decrease in the level of productivity in this area of the bay which seems to be correlated to the post-operational time period. Such a change is discussed fully in this report.

We are of the opinion that the period December 1969 to December 1970 represents the first post-operational year, which, unfortunately, was marked by frequent "ups" and "downs" in generator activity. There is some probability that the organisms that might be affected by the activities of the generating plant are adults that may have been spawned in the summer of 1969. Thus, the summer of 1970 was the first summer that the offspring of the bay populations could have been affected by plant activities. We are, therefore, very much interested in the data of the present summer (1971) since presumably we will now measure affects on the first generation. We feel that the significant year for detecting effects will be 1971-72, and, therefore, are submitting a proposal to con-tinue this study for yet another year. The latest proposal will accompany this report.

9

TilE QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE BENTIIIC FLORA AND FAUNA OF BARNEGAT BAY BEFORE AND AFTER THE ONSET OF THERMAL ADDITION Eighth Progress Report August 18, 1972 R. E. Loveland, Department of Zoology E. T. Moul, Consulting Algologist D. A. Busch, Department of Zoology P. H. Sandine, Department of Zoology S. A. Shafto, Department of Zoology J. McCarty, Department of Zoology Report #8 to N. J. Public Utilitites Commission Rutger's University, New Brunswick, New Jersey

Introduction The present progress report will use data drawn from previous progress reports.

However, this report is not an attempt to summarize our work of the past six years.

We expect to offer summary reports on each topic (viz, benthic algae; primary pro-ductivity; benthic invertebrates; zooplanton; phytoplankton; hydrography; sediments; and encrusting organisms) as the data of six years is condensed into a coherent "story" with the help of a computer. What follows, however, is an attempt to give a preliminary summation of our work in the respective areas. Notable among all of our work is the failure of any single parameter to respond differently from one position in the bay to another. We have witness huge variability over time and space--

but the causes of specific variability seem to operate over the entire study area.

There are two cases where the generating station may be having an effect on bay pop-ulations: 1) It is becoming more apparent that the biomass and number of organisms is lower around Oyster Creek, perhaps as a result of thermal mortality of the mero-plankton which then fail to re-populate the area off the outfall canal; 2) The primary productivity over four years has been lowest in the area of Oyster Creek.

Although these conclusions are based on an extremely complex situation and do not appear to be statistically significant, we should be aware of the general trend which is taking place. Should the generating plant remain functional for the next ten years, we would strongly recommend that a brief survey of the benthic inverte-brates and primary production in the study area be continued at a low level (e.g.,

one trirp per quarter year). We do not recommend that the study which is now in its sixth year be continued at its present intensity.

In some places in the composition of this report a single writer offers an opinion which may or may not be agreed upon by all of the writers. Dr. R.E. Loveland is primarily responsible for the editing of the information contained in this rerort. We

.apologize for the hand-draem graphs, but time and costs prohibit a more professional approach.

Budget. At the beginning of the current grant period (i.e., 1 September 1971) we estimate that we had a carry-over balance from the previous period of approximate-ly $3889.00. On 19 July 1972 we were credited for the amount of #23,199.42 in the office of the Bureau of Biological iýesearch. During the year, we lost funds due to the manner in which Rutgers University calculates salary. It is apparent from the budget table that nearly '3140.O0 was paid to our research assistants over and above the amount committed in the grant. Although we feel it reasonable and just for Rutgers to. maintain competitive salaries, this difference of over $30000.0 effective-ly wiped out our carry-over balance. Also, because our -r,-atest deLLand on this pro-ject is for skilled labor, we also had to ovwr-spend in the area of part-time labor by nearly :01000.00. Fortunate:ly, wc :*crience. little majo-r mechlanical pr~b~e*s

.hth our _eesearch vessel, sLi s-;_!:: of our loss is :_!.3e u in Lthis ar' n, !l,'is n~o balance in supplies. Due to the 1no:s of a Thonara cage aind the breakdo-ni of our sal-inolett(ýr, we experienced losses in the a' 1-.;;f eeui',en. Finally we had some dif-ficulties wiLh the University cc:ntract office re..ardi. the vehicle--in tl%, cn3, we were allowed only direct reinbursozi;ent fcr jieag_. We w,,,re rnot ner.:itted any rezia-bursements for insurance, depreciation and iaainten.ance.

The consulting algologist, Dr. .. T. .:oul, did not work as lorn as we ha:] ('xdezted because thie bulk of the sorting was d....e by 2arL-ti::o labor. Also, because Dr. R. .

Loveland returned rather late tc the project, he requested a decreased salary for the sumner.

One area uhich has been preserved is in the last budget item, publication and computing. We will need every a.,aount available at tie end of this grant period for computing time (at 500.00/hour). However, any funds how re.maining will have priority towards labor since we anticipate finishing this tenure with no backlog (rith three trips to gO, we can meet. this deadline). ,ny funds which are left will be used for computer time in 1972.

Budet Statement, 15 August 1972 I Salary Alloted Committed Balance a) Principal Investigator 1000.00 600.00 400.00 b) Full-time research assistant 8079.21 10,048 -1968.79 2 Half-time research assistants 8079.21 9,250 -1170.79 c) Part-time labor 1500.00 2,399.80 - 899.80 d) Consulting algologiet's fee 630.00 200.00 430.00 I Sub-balance = -j209.38 II Equipment 300.00 534.40 II Sub-balance -234.40 III Supplies 500.00 266.97 III Sub-balance = 233 .07 IV Operations

,-"-9.57 a) Vessel upkee-p and maintenance 1080.00 420.,43 b) Vehicle (salie as mileage) 1431.00 735. 2 IV -Ilb-balance =

V Publications and co:aputer time 600.00 C3.20 V Sub-balance 53 C.FX Grand balance = -131S.900 Note: S-ince we r,-tcrt-. Vi tTh~a~nL -ric-d -r.nI~~'r~e

.it La balanc of 320 : ~ v~:rv:L"i'

We do not expect to continue this project further. We feel that we have adequate post-operational data for valid comparisons and do not wish to continue the intensity of sampling we have experienced over the iast three years. However, we would like to discuss with the granting agency the possibility of getting additional funding for two aspects of this research which we feel should be continued. The first is with re-spect to the work of Sylvia Shafto on encrustin& and boring organisms. As her data indicates, the species of boring clam Bankia gouldi seems to show a significant "preference" for particular stations in our study area. We would like to continue her year-long study into at least two years, and we would anticipate, therefore, re-questing additional funding for a half-time research assistant for 1972-73. Also, we would like to place all of the data since August 169 on computer cards. We have been developing some mathematical models of Barnegat Bay, especially with respect to thermal addition. This study, supported by Jersey Central Power and Light, has been one of the most intensive studies of pre-operational and post-operational effects that we are aware of. The data for phyto-plankton especially are suitable for modelling.

We are, therefore, considering additiunal support in the area of computer simulation modelling of Barnegat Bay.

Personnel. We were fortunate to have Andy Marinucci continue on the project through the school year. He is now a graduate student at the University of Delaware. Kent Mountford now is heading up the phytoplankton andproductivity studies at the Benedict Laboratory, in association with Dr. Ruth Patrick. Nancy Mountford was hired by the University of Maryland to head up the uenthic invertebrate sampling program at Dr.

Joe Mihurski's laboratory. hiss Dale Palumbo has been a part-time employee with us, primarily involved in sorting specimens-she has been invaluable in the invertebrate area. IMIrs. Donna Busch will soon be working with Dr. Diana Ward on pesticide studies on the salt marsh; we will miss her dedicated spirit and devotion to this project.

Mr. Phil Sandine has been most helpful in administering this grant and in carrying on with the zooplankton studies. He will soon be working for Ichthyological Associates in Absecon, New Jersey. Miss Jane McCarty will continue on through nextyear with her physiological study of Codium fragile; she has also helped us extensively on the analysis of the benthic algae material. iIrs. Sylvia Shafto will continue with her work on the boring clam, Bankia gouldi, and encrusting organisms in the Oyster Creek area. Her study already covers a time span of one year, and we anticipate continuing for at least another year, with continuous monitoring through the winter period as well. Dr. E.T. Moul is still thinking about retiring, but seems to be more active than ever-his help in identifications of species of algae is quite welcome. Dr. R.

E. Loveland has returned from a year at the University of British-Columbia and is all fired up about mathematical modelling. We also appreciate the help received by two former students, Dr. Frank Phillips, now at Jacksonville College in Florida; and Dr.

Jon Taylor, who continues his work on benthic algae at the University of Delaware.

Thanks also to all those "part-time" students, many of whom are continuing their ed-ucation in the area of marine ecology. Finally, we wish to thank the continued support of Prof. Harold H. Haskin, Dr. Charles B. Wurtz, Dr. James Carpenter, and other members of the conrsittee responsible for reviewing this work.

Benthic Almae During the period covered by this progress report (May 1971 through June 1972),

we collected 99 samples of benthic algae from Barnegat Bay. These samples were collected at nine stations: Station I, off Stouts Creek at "Nun" can #C1; Station II, between "Nun" can #D and #Dl; Station III, off Forked River at "Nun" can #Dl; Station IV, at Buoy #E; Station V, off Oyster Creek at "Nun" can #El; Station VI, at "Nun" can #66, Station VII, off Waretown Creek, at "Nun" can #F; Station VIII, at I the distance between "Nun" cans #F and #G; and, finally our southern-.most Station IX, at "Nun" can #G. Unfortunately, two of the samples were either lost or not properly preserved, so this discussion is based on 97 samples. Each sample was obtained using a small hand dredge, which was dragged at a slow speed for 5 minutes. The entire sample was placed in a plastic bag and returned to the lab for sorting. Professor E.T. Moul made all final identifications to species.

After sorting and identification, each species was weighed (both wet and dry weight),

then the diversity index and evenness index were calculated for the sample.

1. Ordination. Table 1 gives a list of the species of algae (note the presence of micro-algae and vascular plants as well) collected during the above period. A total of forty species of algae and other benthic plants were identified during this period. We have stated previously the reason for fewer species being iden-tified since June 1969: we continue to place more emphasis on the quantitative aspects of our algae sampling program, and, therefore, do not identify the micro-algal species unless they are very abundant. We counted the number of times that a particular species appears in the 97 samples, and constructed a list of the frequency of occurrence for all species. The species with the greatest frequency is ranked #1 (in the case of equal frequency, we rank the two species la and lb).

Such a ranking of those species which appeared at least 5% of the time, or greater, is given in Table 2. Table 2 also includes the rank of a particular species for the time period December 1965-October 1968 (when John Taylor was emphasizing qualitative aspects of the algae), and the time period June 1969-December 1969 ediately pre-operational, when we began to emphasize the quantitative aspects of the algae). From this table, we have constructed a frequency plot in Figure 1 of the period 1965-1968 (on the X-axis) against the same species' rank in 1970-1972 (on the Y-axis).

From Table 2 and Figure 1, it is clear that at least eight dominant species of algae have not changed much in their frequency since 1965. Only Codium fragile has moved from a relatively rare species to a dominant species. Recent evidence suggests that even this species is diminishing from its once dominant position, although it is still abundant locally. Otherwise, Ulva lactuca, Agardhiella tenera Ceramium fastigiatum, Champia a . Gracilaria (both G. foliifera and G.

verrucos ), Enteromorpha intestinalis, Polysiphonia (both P. harveyi and P.

den tatj), and Ceramium rubrum continue to be the dominant forms of benthic algae in Barnegat Bay. The species listed in Table 2 are for only those species which were represented in at least 5% of the samples collected in the period 1970-72 (i.e., we collected 119 samples of benthic algae during this period, so any species on this list was present in at least 6 of these samples). We see that some species which were present at the 5% frequency level in 1965-1968 are no longer as common in 1970-72 (viz., Acrochaetium pp., polysirhonia nigescens, Entocladia viridens, Enteromorpha linza and Cladoihora RE.). However, three species which were not as common in 1965-68 are now being found at the 5," frequency level (viz., Sphacelaria cirrosa, Chaetonorpha linumr and Polysiphonia rigra). In addition, we are now in-cluding the vascular plants Zostera marina aid Ruopia maritima in our survey.

Zostera, of course, ranks very high in our list because of its abundance in the bay. Finally, some species of diatoms now appear on the list because of their

Table I - List of algae collected from Barnegat Bay during the period May 1971-June 1972.

Green If/ae (Chlorophyta) Red algae (Rhodophyta)

Codilun fragile Gracilaria foliifera Ulva lac tuca Gracilaria verrucosa Enteromorpla intes tinalis Agardhiella tenera Chr~ic t)ýiisrpha aurea Charapia parvula Ch1,1.- tomJorfpha linuai Ceramium fas tigiatum Cl c.Ii.u,,hra sP. Polysiphonia harveyi EIn I -r(n..-Arpha pluinosa Ceramium rubrum Entjrc:,.irha prolifera Polysiphonia nigra EnI .ccI,.%Iia viridis Spyridia filamentosa 7,n te-'cnrTrha linza Callithamnion sp.

Polysinhonia denudata Polysiphonia urceolata Acrochaetium sp.

Antithamnion plumule Bangia fuscopurpurea Ceramiun diaphanum Cera*nium stricture Porphyra Sp.

!*own al.gae (Phaeophyta) -Vascular nilants Spi,!-*,.-]:*.

Iriz cirrosa Zostera marina DesT:yt.'richiun imdtulatua Ruppia maritima Ectoc:*rir' sp.

Fuela:. ý' *iculo.iis T*.sce laneour, Biddulphia pu. chel'.a (ramm,-, torijora rvarina Licmo'rp]c'ra abbreviata Navicula Lyrevelli i,.itschia grevelli Vaucheria s,-..

TMhabdoenema arlriaticux

3 a

Table 2. Relative rank-order checklist of major algal species in Barnegat Bay, 1965-72.

Species- Rank in Rank in rhank in Dec. '5-Oct'68 Jmne-Dee. '69 Jan '70-,,ay '72 Codium fragile 10 3 la Gr,:.i*-JL.- verrucos3 4(comb.) lb (comb.)

Gracilria foliifra.

Ulva hactuca 1 2 2 Zo m~ar~iiia* 37 1 3 Agar:*ie~l] a tenera 2 6a 4 Cera-iurn fastigiata- 3 5 Champ" a parwila 4 9a 5b Entrjro,:.orpha intes tinalis 9 6 Biddui mhia pulchella 39 9b 7 Poiysnihrnia harveyi 6(comb.) 6b(comb.) 8(cx;*b.)

Polysiphonia denudata J Cerami=n rubrum 13 9a Sphaeelaria cirrosa 16 10 9b Chao Louorpha linuxa, 15 10(corib.) lOa(cemb.)

Rui~mia zmaritima~

• 10b Cal' ithawulion sp. 14b(comb.) 7(comb.) lla(comb.)

Cr~ariua t(, ,Iicra muarina llb PolJfi' i ,nia ri ft'a 21 12 12a 13a Rhabd--.)ona adriaticum 13b

• non-algal species

15 aka/

It 11 k/0 9 /

/

,/

v-ur LLfr¶ý 9 Ov \io Pc 0~~ ~~

7 CkcA.~ ~-

Er& Zrw. or 5-P~

ý -'-vle 3 (~o-~ ~o5+/-~xcx~

z Ulvo.

kL ric C7 cccdi&L*iwA ýY k-tl

/

P1r~i.

Kf T~ay -t I~1' V,

5 frequent association with the benthic algae (viz., Biddulphia and Mhabdonema).

We are unable to explain the decrease in frequency of a particular species of benthic algae. The increase in Codium is probably attributable to a recent introduction of the species into New Jersey waters. To our knowledge, no species of benthic algae has become mere or less common as a function of its position (i.e., station) within the bay.. To be sure, some species such as Codium are more common locally, especially in the region around Buoy G.

We are, therefore, interested in the question: "Have the populations of benthic algae in the area sampled changed significantly as a function of time or position?" In the past we have found the fewest number of algal species in the late summer. In particular, the three year average of 1965-68 showed about 10 species present. in September. During 1971-72 we found an average of 8 species of algae in September. Unfortunately, this kind of comparison is not too meaningful because of gross differences in sampling technique during the above periods. If we examine, however, the dominant forms of algae (i.e., those that occur with enough biomass to be accurately weighed) in the bay, we find that the number of species in the bay remains rather constant through time (see Fig. 2b).

An average of 7.74 dominant species can be fcund in a sample of benthic algae at any particular time(with a range of 5.3 in October to 10,7 in April). We have not observed any large changes in the number of species through time (except due to changes in technique). . Furthermore, the total biorass of algae doesn't seem to change significantly with time, although some species are more abundant in biomass at certain times of the year. The dry weight of the total sample for

• all stations in 1971 is plotted in Figure 2e from data in Table 4. Although extremely variable (note N~ovenber, 1971, where bionass ranred from 7 gus to over 550 gms. dry wt), there seems to be no statistical difference in the quantity of all species sampled through time. Perhaps one of the reasons for such variation in the amount of algae at a particular station (in dry weight) is due to the float-ing nature of the algae. Most of the algae on the western Side of Barnegat Bay seems to be moving along the bottom. Finally, when one looks at the average dry weight of algae for 1971 collected at each station (Table 3), we find that both Oyster Creek and Stouts Creek have the lowest overall concentration of algae.

These two stations are very similar in their bottom sediment composition, with Oyster Creek having a higher surface temperature.. Surprisingly, we find large amounts of algae off Forked River, but the sediments tend to be more sandy and there is an abundance of old oyster shell in this area that may serve as substrate for the algae. The large amount of algae at Buoy G is generally due to the in-creased .proportion of Codium which we find at this station.

Diversity and Evenness: We have stated in the past that the technique which we em-ploy for collecting beaithic algae is not precisely quantitative. We do not know exactly how much area has been samIled, nor do we knmow the col~c::ting efficiency of the dredge. However, each five minute tow collects a representative sample of the algae, which allows us to ieasu'1e the relative proportions .f each species of algae collected. This rejative quantity ca- be bent, xnresed by the diversity and evenness indices. The Shen,n-Wearcr 1ivrrnity In!7ex is ia a n,.iber whic.-

gives us an idea of the - oiticn *r.d tlfir 1tive

.el domirunicE; ".-.lp the evenness in3.: giwves uJ -n~ .-  : .. ".

.e -.-- (:<;i c-I

• c, i a'ibL tte tu !:r,: z :p e . Ic'" div .r_ ty .,.:: - ". ... flw :*pcio" e'.troe n , '; , u+/- --,,' ,s 'Lillie .f I ,.. - .at "i each species in te carah le ce+/-'t U.- amouAit )f bic.iass. We ar,- 1 :.,.

S IC 1.3- 0 lb S

' 1 1.0-S I nI.9- I *

• 4b S

Si /

/ /

'S -- 5/

4

£

-C .6, a 11 a 4 4

S S S

MRy ~JIJ 3JL ARUG SCP OCT NOV DEC APR mAY TON

)71 7Z S

I LA - IS S. S 0 0e - - - -

rn S.

S.

'4 10 0~ d@: f-~ ..

• MnAI VUtJ JTu L A uC,- z'EC OCT NOll DEC, RPR MAY iu-jf4 X,~

('1" .5 N*

1' (TI SW.- A-.-.

.5, /

/

m N /

(AAý:10 J YJL AU W-f OCT NOV DEC RfANZ MA?' 5W.

Fij. 2a Diver. ity vfs. fn-

" l

!lIC: i. i. t , a. 7 2c Avera je ov ,; ne .. -ss v --. ti,.- T 1! " cr . ll . lcc l 's  : L....  :.:;.: . " , - l

7 1.3 0 1.1 J.0

-c

.8

.7 STOU TS F0RKED OySTER WAARETOW4 BuOY G.

RVE R OP,.

.,R

(-)M.-) (ar) )

3ý 5o0 r

qoc

• m a

o00 a S

I.. ~.

I -

S

• A-a i A- S a

oo 0 a

K. * .; \~j~* r l l i l l *

• mpM JON 30 - ,A V 'CP ' O T ov 0 Q 19'11 S Fi 2. Di, 2d .rsit; o. ? it-.n , , ,.-r.. .,

2e Dry, wei-lit oI'ffj. I4

Table 3. Average dry weight of algae for 1971, diversity and evenness indices for 1969-72, as a function of position.

Position in Bay (Station) Average Dry Wt. of Algae in 1971 Stouts Creek (nI) 107.63 gin.

Forked River 209.48 Oyster Creek

(v) 108.20 Waretown Creek (vii) 171.80 Buoy G.

(ix) 191.73 Ave 157.77 Diversity for the period Overall Diversity June'69-Aug. '70 Nay'71-Dec. '71 April '72-June '72 since June 1969 i 1.070 1.028 .907 1.002 III

.C!7 .940 .618 .*908 V .866 Grand

.699 .792 VII 1.026 .625 .577 Ave.

.743 IX .870 .806 1.352 1.009 0.871 Ave = .929 Ave = .853 Ave =.831

-cnaless for the ;-eriod Overall Ovenness Ju"e ' -A^*. '70 iny' 71-*ec. '71 April '72-Jneq'72 since June 1969

.710 .716 .564 .663 III .605

.753 7)-i .507 Grand V .581 .386

. 193 Ave.

VII .406 .333 -459 j.2.

.587 .710 . 543 0.543 Ave = .577 Ave = .579 Ave = .474

V S

Table .4. Average dry weight of algae in 1971, diversity and evenness indices for 1969-72, as a function of time.

I-Ionth Average No. Diversity Evenness Weights of Species (for all (for all positions) positions)

June 1969 1.1283 °6757 July 1969 . 9068 .6386 August 1969 .6369 .4389 September 1969 .9669 .5871 November 1969 1.0822 .5917 February 1970 .8199 .4574 May 1970 .7537 .4861 August 1970 .6994 .4023 May 1971 131.15 gm. 9.0 .9287 .6026 June 1971 197.85 8.5 .8955 .5498 July 1971 193.95 7.1 .9739 .6137 August 1971 86.43 6.4 .9808 .6689 September 1971 210.98 7.7 .8916 .6418 October:1971 112.40 6.3 .8466 .6504 November 1971. 176.96 5.3 .6499 .5002 December 1971 120.98 8.1 .7518 .4896 April 1972 .7031 .4126 May 1972 .9194 .5406 June 1972 .8536 .5127 Grand mean = 0.8626 .5505

/0 doing a study of the rank of .ch spccies per samirle, but the result; of this analy-is are not yet available. Therefore, we have listed in Table 3 the diversity and even-ness indices by position in the bay for three time periods. These time periods re-flect differences in personnel sorting algae (alt:ouh Dr. E.T."*:oul identified all algae threughout the course of this study, dating back to 1965). In Table 4., we have listed the monthly averag:e di've.rsity and evenness indices for all TýositiCnz. Althcugh we have not completed the analy-sis of variance for the data of Tables 3 an. 4, w- have plotted these data in FiC,,res 2a, 2c, and 2d. It is evidcbt that the Oiversity indei.

exhibits wide variation from rtation to station and from month to ..ýonth. Hefoever, th.c pattern developed on a baywide basis (from Stouts Creek to Buoy G) seems to indicnte that there have been no significant changes through time in the diversity index for benthic al,7ae in Barnegat Bay. If one examines Table 2 and Figure 2 frow Progress Report 1,P7dated 25 June 1971), it is apparent that the diversity indices for samples of May 1971 through June 1972.have had little effect on the grand mean for diveroity for all positions. That is, the grand mean for diversity for all positions in the period June 1969 through August 1970 was 0.874; and the grand mean for diversity (all positions) for the period Mday 1971 through June 1972 was 0.854. The grand mean for the period June 1969 through Jane 1972 was 0.863. It is doubtful that ti:e slight drop in the diversity index is significant on a bay-wide basis. Similarly, if one examines Table 2 and Figure 4 of Progress Report #7, one finds that the evenness index has not changed significantly from 0.5347 in the period June 1969 through August 1970 to 0.562 in the period lay 1971 through June 1972)... Furthermore, direct comparison of Figure 2a of this report, with Figure 2 of Report ;f`7 shows that the diversity index has been rather stable over time. This conclusion is also reached for the evenness index if one compares Figure .4 of Report #7 with Figure 2c of this report.

In summary, we conclude that with respect to the benthic algae of Barnegat Bay:

1) the dominant species seem to remain constant in composition from year to year, both in number of species and amount of biomass.

2) only .one species, Codium fragile, has become more nuteroun in the past five years.

3) both the diversity index and evenness index remain highly variable from sample to sample, but the pattern of these indices, over time, has not changed significantly.

4) there has been no sudden "crash" or "explosion" in the benthic algae populations in the past three years; if anything, the algae seem to be ::ore stable than the benthic invertebrates in Barnegat Bay.

/ I Prizaar7 Productivity In the previous progress report, the topic of phytoplankton and primary productivity was covered extensively by Kent I.Iountford. Dr. o1iintford was employed on this project specifically to work on benthic algae and p.-hytoplankton, particular-I- the latter because of his exnertise in this subject. Since his resignation (he is now directing a marine labo]'atory in lla2ryland) we have had to de-el'hasize the inten.sity of his study. This is, iii 1.irt, due to the lack of another qualified per-

-on to fill his Poosition axd, also, to the shift of e.hasin towards encr'usting and boring organisms (which iz; being done -oy Syýlvil Shafto, Kent's iLxediate replac.':ont).

However, we have attempted, on a ,,onthl,, basis, to continue a suirvey of pri.:!carj' pro-luctivity in the region around Oyster ',reek. The technique used has b-eon that of Fenit Hointford, with a few logintic ch:anges described be2ow.

Methods Lrea sazpled. We continued to sample essentially the c*.e rsgml* toat Dr.

Mormltford selected. They are: St,*ut (.-L, , near the "IMile L..Iark"; For.ed R~iver-,

off Light 12; 0.-ster Creek, uff Light ,-3; Warc..toi., about 1-mile off the northern area of the town; the Int.Lke Canal, neaur Light //.2, and the Cutfaj-l Canal, i- the cove just inside the mouth of Cryster Creek.

Field Technique. Whereas KIent 11ountford collrcted his water a.w and set up the experiment].d bottles at each statio:-, we felt it was ixaoortalt to jather all of the water sam;:les as quick as rossible and then begin the experiment. The ration.e. was simply that the shift in light quality from the beginning of setting up cr- expri.'::ent mig2ht prove significant if the logistics of the extr:rir;nt took: too long. T1herefore, we have decided to collect all samrles in rapid sequence, beginning at Stouts Creek for one rin, and at "daretown for the next run. Collecting samples tock about 20-30 minutes. T:'ach sample was gathered by dip*ping a gallon, -. lastic, wide-mouth bottle beneath the surface and after a m:,iute or so for equilibration, we capped the bottle underwater. The samples were stored at ambient temperature until the settrig up of the bottles began. All bottles were incubated at ambient bay temp-erature for at least four hours in available daylight, beneath 10-15 cm. of sea water. All bottles re-ceived exactly the same treatmei.t-there were no temperature differ2..20s between bottles for any one run.

Design and nrocedure. At each of the four bay stations, two one-gallon s;L:rlos were taken. From each gallon bottle we filled six B.O.D. glass-stoppered bottleu:.

Of the six bottles filled by si honing, two acted as initial oxygen sa-il..les, two

.acted as light bottles and two acted as dark bottles. Thus for each bay station we had two d]luplicate saioles (i.e., two different sau-les of bay water) from which two replicate experiments were run. This gives a total of four experiments per station, or 16 experiments in the bay for a days run. The canals were also replicated, however only one gallon was collected, so the canal experiments were not duplicated on a run.

• The bottles were incubated in the field for four or more hours, beneath 10-15 cm.

of sea water, at ambient bay temperature. They were then fixed with the appropriate Winkler reagents, returned to the lab and titrated the following.morning. In the titration procedure, two independent titrations were run on each bottle in order to obtain an average titration value. The values reported in this section of the report are for uncorrected, average titration values. Since all of the thiosulfate reagent was prepared from commercially available "Acculutes", reagent corrections were gen-erally negligible. Also, we are primarily interested in differences between bottles, rather than absolute values for oxgen.

Discussion There is one unfortunate omission in the data collected for 1971-72: we failed to sample on all dates a station which Kent Mountford felt to be important in the comparison of positions within the bay; viz. Buoy "G". However, we have sufficient data for all other stations to make some general statements regarding primary pro-ductivity in Barnegat Bay.

1. Comparison of years. Figure 3 indicates the average values for gross pro-ductivity for four years and five bay stations. The plotted point is for all samples taken within the period from June through October. No table of data is offered since the comparison is not yet complete for 1972 (i.e. only June and July are available in 1972; also, only August, September and October are available for 1971). In addition, a plot is given for the four-year average gross productivity at each station, and for the entire area of the bay sampled. It will be seen :Umaediately. that 1969 was quite different within the four year period-with the exception of Stouts Creek in 1971, all stations in the bay were higher in 1969 (for gross productivity) than at any other time sampled. Although we have not performed the appropriate statistical tests, it appears that gross productivity is lower in Barnegat Bay during the post-operational period (as evidenced by having only two points out of 13 falling above the four-year average).. However, it must be pointed out that the general lowering of primary pro-ductivity has occurred throughout all stations. There appears to be little di fference in the four-year average for the three lower bay stations (viz., Oyster Creek, Ware-town and Buoy G). If we exclude tha' data from 169 and Buoy "G", then w,4 see that Oyster Creek does have the lowest rate of cross _-roductivity (Z.ee Table. ). Zince Stouts Creek and Waretown are considered to be out!-1e the irfluence -f the-i"!-il ad-dition, we conclude, ttntatively, that ,ver the past fcour year., Oyster Cr rek is not unlike the other bay positious with respect to gross productivity. A .uor- accuratr,:

statistical stater:jent will b*e offered1 i+/-: or las*t rep -'t.

it will be reca.lAd fUtat "e-.t arL-u.d t*..-; 0ountf~r)

C'.ter . . y .'

t.here: wn.*. a r;ignifica, :t O,.*' *..o asc

-" *r~c r-*i..," t":i ty" -~. . Q.stc:.r C v, .,-. .i,-, :- "f9O (pre-oper.'iti,_,'rva) and 1770 ( Thw.. -' we :,rer,.:u r...f. .

the realizati [,n that 1969 ,,xc%.:tio011P , .. :i. "i _o, .:. w age,, Waretown had the lowesýt preductivf.tj iL1 _ad C "." toie.:t in 1970; COster Creek .in.1971; and `tUits Creel i 11'2. te ?re:

f Zr., therefore, net consistently lowest through time. Siriae the dit tl,.. cf L-'n in Barnek-ft Ba' is "patchy", it is lik-ly that s.e ,ra.r: of thl bay will .~v high*:r (.r lowvr) proiluctivity, values, but th'* exact po*.tio, of s cling will b- :!.aracterizetl ,y variability. We will att,.-.pt through analy,;is --f this variability, to sort out effects of nositi,_: in th, last re!ocrt.

Dr. Mountford also f r.d t]'at Forýic! Ri3erC'.as cci.jsten1.iy hi.-her in i,.]'1uztiv-ity when compared t.to Oy.,c." ".reek. H71 f. .. uc t.his difJ;rence U. `.... mg .  !,,2' r.

Converaely, we hav.e found for all soaip..les of 1i71 and ?Q72 that ,,;y three out of eigh2t caml:les at Forked hivrr stction). e:.'C hi-her - than Oyster Cr'ck. Yet, the averame for Forked Liver wrs 21 ugr2./"2. hi0jher than Oyster Creek for all samples (seo, Table 5 ). " iu theroro, only three cut of ei'L ht swmr.len taken within tie intake canal had higher jrcss productivity values than co.f-,arablc canj:les taken frcn the outfall canal. Yet, the average i.rodu:nt'ivity in the intake cr,-.al was 86me 0M"/hr.

higher than the outfall canal. In addiitii.;. 1..th the in take canal nad the outfal canal were lower in gross orodurtion than the aveorage bay values.

'Vhile Kent Mountford found the iiusolved oxygen to .decrease between the A>tntake and outfall canal, we fo,,nd that in eleven nam-dles, taken at thie .same tines, there was no difference in the average dissolved oxygen in the two canals (both had izean values of 7.47 mg O./liter).  !,Iountford also found that because of increa.;ed res ir--

ation in the outfalI, the net ".'roductivity of the )utfall was 121 l 0./hr. less than the inake canal. In 1971-72, we al:.o found a redluction in .-et Iloducti-vit, (37 mg Oj/.r'/hr. ) across the tw*o canaln;,. ':'.babl'.due to increau;ed -espirat.io!- (114 Mg 7/ghr. in the cutfall canal, g.n al u vs..,

s 99 0 h.*n ig0..*.the. intakecaa)

" he .E canal)

13 Fir,. 3 . Gross irodu(: ivit,- fr fcour: f- ' alld ffv., bay stat I:'K a-, ¥:

0

-a J. -2 4

I I iI T

to) %44WI I I

8 wW

-s 0l 0-

-w- a 31jjo

.> CD U1 1:1 cr U' 0

0- 0~

-4 0

/

w I,

z0 3d HI wj I/

I C',

0 0 b0 i iii I-f 0

0 A C, 0o 0 0

1-GlRoss pizGDJQ(,Tl '41T'i (O&a O-L IMIA--)

/ ~74 Table 5. Primary prodJctivity data, f "oa:: four bay staUtioILs

-uabid the intAx-e-outfall cmaala.;, friu: 4 AuoLrit 1-.:71 to 27 July 197?.

Net P. j:-;,Itwivirty Grom'a P;oductivi t.-

mgc Lv"/., Ln8 O/,1!/hr. lag 0J/W'l/hr.

Stouts Creek 41. 277

• 9C 124 520 23 143 1*66

-82 *360

-C: 7) 7C

2. J1!

163

4. 38 124 280 356 Foi'ked Rivwr 7.1

5. 264 477 1 1rr 31U 1-5 142 142.

9

-60 75 Co 56 57 133

7. ,32 160

2. 39 1378 Oyster Creek 168 1(1

'O 229 2,5 120

4. 162 790 43 41 34 101 136 7.

6. 157

-90 2.

• 296,

5. 116

• 1 c'-*

Ware town 8.

2ib3 71 153

4. 84 139 -'7

2. 0; 7.2~. 78 261 115 133j 7? -3)7 4.

Intake Canal 1.

7. 52 136

i. 26?

40 .5?

12

'0 142 A2~ i.14

15 Table 5 ccn't.

Outfall Canal 1. 46 70 416

2. 2 92 90

7. 16 148 130

4. -138 72 66

5. 40 '4 7A U. 140 52 19.O0

7. 182 72 252

8. 254 72 326

• Time periods areas follows: 1. 4 AlzLst 1971; 2. 9 Sentermber 1371; 3. 11 October1971;

4. 11 ::ovember 1971; 5. 18 Apiril'1972; .6. 11 !:ay 1972; 7. 23 June 1972; 8. 27 July 1972.

Table of .Lecn Valu: (4 Aue. "71-27 July '72)

Ne t Prý,]uc tivi ty 2es~4:'a~+/-on Gros~s ircuctiV4 ty mýý M IN1hr "Stouts Creek 129 147 276 Forked River 124 104 228 Oyster Creek .91 117 207 Waretown 131 85 215 Intake Canal 104 o1 ?01 Outfall Can-al 67 114 193 Overall Bay Average (excludes canals) 119 j13 By Date (for 3ay Stations only) 1. 220 211 428

2. 208 125 -32 28 119 147

4. -34 182 154

-. 31 37 68

6. 07 40 137

7. 63 99 163

,-'7U ., 255 86

1971-72 Productivity Data. In Table 5 we have given the net wad gross productivity rates, plus respiration, for eight dates at each of six stations. A tablc of mean values both by station (for all dates) and by date (for all stations) is also given.

These data are plotted in Figures - and 5. For net productivity the pattern for all stations is consistent; i.e., the peak productivity occurs in the wartier Llonths of the year in Barnegat Bay. It is interesting to note that both Stouts Creek and Oy-ster Creek show a depression in net productivity during June 1972, a tirte when pro-ductivity should be rapidly increasing. On the other hand, both Forked ?River and Waretown show slight increases in net productivity in June. This supports oiur view that Forked River and Waretown are less influenced by fresh water runoff than is either Stouts Creek or Oyster Creek. We need to perfonrm more detailed analyses cf hydrographic data during the post-operational period to see if this assumption is cor-rect. At any rate, it is seen that net productivity eventually dips to zero. (or neL-ative) in most of the bay during the colder months of the year.

Figure 5 gives a plot of gross Productivity, by date and station fcor 1971-72. It is seen that the same pattern of productivity holds. In Fig. ' b we havw;plotted. the average for all bay stations (lazy B character). It is seen that most of the data clump around the average curve of the bay. One interesting exception is the very wide difference between Forked Itiver bay water and Intake canal watur on 11 Nov. 1971. We fail to see how the water quality could be sc affectod within.a distance of several thousand yards-perhaps this is a reflection of either patchiness or very high respir-ation values at both stations.

Ue have plotted Kent N1ountfords data for 1969 in Fig. 5a. Recalling that 1969 was an exceptionally high year for gross productivity during June through October it is remarkable to see how well the data which MIountford gives for all months of 1969 fits the data of all months sampled in 1971-72! The only notable exception is for June 1972. Mountford found in his studies a definite sharp increase in gross pro-ductivity during June. The increase in 1972 did not occur until July, possibly due to the very wet month of June 1972.

In summary, it appears that until we can perform more accurate statistical anal-yses of our data, only the following tentative conclusions can be made:

1. During the test period June through October, the primary productivity in Barnegat Bay is lower for 1970-72 than for 1969. That is, the average gross pro-duction at all stations is lower for the three-year period 1970-72 than for the four year period 1969-72.

2. The intake .and outfall canals generally exhibit lower productivity values.

than the bay, with net productivity being lower and respiration being higher in the outfall canal.

3. Dissolved oxygen never fell below 6ppm (=-6 mg 0 2 /liter) in any part of the bay samples; initial dissolved oxygen went as high as 12.00 ppm in the area off Forlked River during November 1971. In the :anals oxygen levels have fallen as low as 5.5ppm, although we have observed no .i+/-ference in mean value of dissolved oxygen between the canals in 1971-72 at the stations saripled.

4. The area of the bay off Oyster Creek had the lowest average value for I-oth net and gross productivity in 1971-72. 7owe*vr, we do -.ot kcwu if the di.,ffere.icc be-tween the average for this period is stati.tically different from the 3-year (Lost-.

operational) baywide average, or different fro, -Il o r static ns in the bay.

A I

I 44 I I

I I

I I

C CO lo

/

ii I.

I..,

i00 I,/..'

o -ox,"'

M '"5,M',

9St-P' I I 9 sept 1O NoV. 1*pR. iCM.Y Ze8 TJN. 27 JUL-.

)7j "71 '71 771 lq2 '72 "U

--4 U

0 C'

-- U /1.

-4. IO U-- - /

/

'I A

/ /

a'wT

,,/1,"1 N / rA no-0 U--_n I-----

Time PCPJCC)S SPS"E AS- RZCVCE

<I 0

LP

/"

9o00 I ,'

/

c..

A. ic NI '.

zoo -t .' I , * -",:.e,.

C

• K .......

a l C- t4 AI'JG. Sepr 1l. OCT. it Nov. iTiMAY ,8"]t;, ?_'l3"UL.

I"11 "71 07Z '7Z 711

'71. "'7Z i

T 0

tp kp I

-I 4rk

//

P /c 70 .. ,W. '.

-!zoo C t<~'in' ," oouI-r" 7-cj

\ ~ ~ - -

I I I TIM1E PERIODS SRMF- P:iS 149VVE 5- I..

Invertebrates We are again including data taken from two previous progress reports (Sixth Progress Report, dated 1 June 1970; Seventh Progress Report, dated 25 June 1971) in order to facilitate comparisons between time of sampling. The data in the present progress report will be discussed for six individual time periods, be-ginning 27 August 1969 and ending 26 June 1972. It will be recalled that in August of 1969, the project shifted from a more general survey of "middle" Barnegat Bay (i.e., from North at Stouts Creek to South at Buoy G) to more specific locations.

We iade a major change in our technique of sampling at that time (see Methods, below) and feel that our ýnost accurate quantitative data begins in August 1969.

Methods:

Location of stations. In August, 1969, we made the decision to concentrate our efforts on benthic invertebrates at five specific localities: Stouts Creek, out of the influence of thermal addition; Forked River, in the area supplying water to the generating plant; Oyster Creek, an area receiving heated effluents (these three stations are all in the _a); Forked Iliver at Route #9, the intake canal; and, Oy-ster Creek at ý'oute #9, the outfall canal. These stations were chosen because they are adja~ent to one another, yet hydrographically distinct. Stouts Creek serves as our "control." area because it is quite similar to Oyster Creek in its sediment com-position, but it receives no heated effluents. Forked River is a region where bay water is pulled into the Lntake canal, and may, therefore, be less exposed to fresh water run-off froi: the land. The region off 0Qster Creek is generally warmer than either of the other two bay stations, although thermal stratification is the rule.

We are thus interested in a statistical design which will allow us to detect differ-ences in the benthic invertebrate community, due to 1) the geographical position of the coimmunity in the bay. and 2) the effect of normal seasonal variation (time) on the three positions.

Samples. We found earlier that at least seven Ponar "grabs" had to be made at a fixed point in the bay in order to characterize 95% of the potential species at that point. Therefore, whenever a sample is taken at an anchor station (within one of the three localities in the bay) we drop the Ponar seven consecutive times; each volume of mud collected, per drop, is recorded. In the past we have characterized the sediments of the sample, but after hundreds of such analyses of our three bay locations we feel we have an adequate description of each study area with respect to sediements (see Progress Report #7). The sample is pooled and washed through screens.

While we have always ,fLxed" the sample in for-alin, we now keep the anrials alive and do all sorting and identification on 1liing speciienrz. This slight rhang, in sorting technique may introduce some error (with respect to ti:o) but it more accurate-ly characterizes species comporition of the Tpl. A total of 431 samples (of seven Ponar grabs each) were analyzed from AugLust 1969 to June 1.72. These s:3anples were collected in all but, the coldest months of the year, when it is itmossible to sample the bay.

Statistics. The data through September 1970 were analyzed statistically, using the rrocedure of analysis of variance. However, because of time limitations the data from October 1970 to date are still being comipiled for coui-uter analysis, so we will restrict our discussion to the simnle calculation of avezaies. Plots of the variabil-ity from one station to another indicate that any bay station is ets variable as any S other; however, confirmation of this conclusion awaits our snuxanarj analysis.

Diversity and Evenness. Each sample is sorted for the number of individuals of each species. Biomass of the sample is also estimated; and, in som;e instances, we have made measurements of the size-frequency of a particular species. With this

information ue have calculated an index of diversity (Shannon-Weaver) which allows us to characterize each sample by a number which incorporates both number of individuals arid number of species in a sample. Marsha Moskowitz has shown previously that the number representing diversity is amenable to normal statistical analysis. We have continued to use the concept of diversity even though there is serious debate over its utility in the ecological literature.

Hydrography Whenever a sample is taken we note 1) the position, estimated in yards and de-rees from a fixed buoy marker, nearness to a dredged channel, etc.; 2) time on station (for tidal reference); 3) weather; 4).water clarity; 5) salinity and temperature (usually a profile, but always top and bottom); and 6) sediment characteristics. 3uch data are listed in the appendix to this report.

Time periods. We have divided the data into two tine periods, based o. a Winter-Spring reproductive period and a Summer-Fall growth Period. The reproductive period begins with our earliest sample of the calendar year and ends around the end cf June.

The growth period starts around the beginning of July and ends with our last samlle of the calendar year. Obviously our best time for col'lecting samples is in the growth period because of weather, so the greatest number of samples will be for this period.

Three growth periods and three reproductive periods will be discussed.

Discussion New species. In the last year (June 1971-June 1972) we have identified 31 new invertebrate species for Barnegat Bay, bringing the tctal number of benthic species to 197 collected in the bay since 1965. These new 2pecies are 6iven in Table 7.

Number of individuals and species as a function of sam-,le size.

One concern in our sampling procedure has been accuracy. How well does a single sample (consisting of seven Ponar grabs) characterize a point in the bay? Unfortun-ately, the variability of organisms on the bottom of Barnegat Bay is very large, both in time and space. Two stations within 100 yards of one another will give very different results. For example, at Forked River it is possible to samlle sediments which are either very silty (north of the dredged channel), very sandy (south of the marker) or composed of almost pure Spartina debris (south of the dredoed channel).

Two samples within yards of one another will yield very different nrubrber_- of a single species (viz, a few Ylulinia, per zcuar, meter, to. tens of thousands). We, thzerefore, are fa.zed with the problem of e-Liz.ating whether thle ratterns of variabil-ity differ from ona region of the bay to another. Figure 6 demonstrates the kind of vrriabil.ity we obtain when we consider the number of individuals per square meter as a funztion of the volune of the sample taken. Recalling that the volume of the sa*iirle increases with decreasing grain size, we still see that there is no relaticnshif between the volume of the sample and the number of individuals present. This is as true for Stouts Creek as it is for Oyster Creek. However, if we examine the data carefully, we find that Stouts Creek has more samples which are larger than 20 liters (Fig.,' a vs. 6 b). Also, of 67 samples from Sto~ts Creek, 35.82o (or 24 samples) are characterized by having more than 1100 individuals/tl ; while a; Oyster Creek, only 11 sainples, out of 61 analyzed, had more than 1100 individuals/M-. Unfortunately, it is r.ost difficult to estimate the actual area sampled by the Ponar. Therefore, while one may onclude that there are fewer numbers of individuals at Qyster Creek (average = 724/M* for 61 samples) than at Stouts Creek (average = 1O79/H t for 67 samples), we are z.ore inter-ested to see if the pattern of change through time is similar. Fun'therniore, we must examine the species present at both places as a function of sample size. In Figur, 7, t see that, again, there is no distinct relationship between the volume of the sample and the number of species in that sazple (coin-are Fig. 7a with ;b) even thogh Stouts

Table 6 . New species recorded from July, 1971 through July, 1972.

Goniadella gracilis Corambella sp.

Glycinde solitaria Spisula solidissima Polycirrus eximius Lembos smithi Eteone lactea Unciola irrorata Etone heteropoda Leptosynapta roseola Polydora ligni 'Gamnarus locusta Scololelpis squamata Polycirrus sp.

Harmothoe extenuata Phyllodoce maculata 3coloplos robustus Onuphis quadricuspis Jassa mamorata Hypaniola grayi Calliopius laeviusculus Spio filicornis Talorchestia longicornis Leptochilia Savignyi Arbacia punctulata Bowerbankia gracilis Scolecolepides viridis Electra hastingsae Orbinia norvegica Euplana gracilis Tharyx acutus

a 3

a 4. 4 H

r-p7T

& 0 LhL .4

-4 5 00 Z 3500 "o00oo0o 600o 100o o 36o 10oo iloo NumL3 tý"R OF I.TDiVIDUALS PE 5QunRA MiTER R-T STOUTS CiP.

0 zo (ni' r

4.

0

-n

.3 r  % . a I mi 0  :

a

.t0o ZO 300. qo cc 50C GCO 700 8vo 3oo woo 1.too No~bFR cTND.vIDojRS PEý. *aR F*E

,3*

CsTR.CI, Fig. 5a, b. From 25 April 1970--26 June 1972.

a S.

• C) * . 0 3

• I.

rn S I

LCA P r tO4 ** S

.~ I r.

.5 5 0 S.

jo 4j0 50 4f0 N urn ~Z 0E ftT SmUTS CR.

0

• S H F C

• S

• I rn Hj 0 S

S a

U k-P S

• 10 +

• S.

555

• 5 5 S

• ~ S S *

-v 8 5 r U Fri S.

1o Ze 30 j40 Nujm~f- oý FC~ý AFl CYSTER C-R -

FiC. 7a, b.

Creek seems to have more samples of larger size than Oyster Creek. However, if we compute the average number of species over two years, we find that Stouts Creek has less than one species more than Oyster Creek (21.01 for 67 samples, vs. 20.61 for 61 samples, respectively). It is also interesting to note that we rarely find fewer than 10 species or more than 40 species in any one sample from the bay. We conclude, therefore, that whereas there is variability between samples from one point to another, this variability seems to be the same throughout the study area. Furthermore, this variability does not seem to be related to our sampling procedure, but rather to patchiness in the distribution of the benthic invertebrates. This patchiness of organisms may be secondarily due to the nature of the sediments in the study area.

Variability through time. A critical question to be eventually answered is with respect to how each region of the bay changes through time. Clearly the three regions are decidedly under different environmental influences: Oyster Creek is warmer, at the surface, at all times of the year; Forked River rarely receives fresh water run-off because the, current is generally upstream due to the puriping activity at the generating plant; and Stouts Creek is more exemplary of a control or "noraal" area of the bay. Yet, if we compare the diversity of organisms that are f-umd in these three regions, we find that all three regions are similar. In Table 7, we have divided time into six periods, alternating between renroductive and growth periods.

In this table we list for each period, the pooled or uean diversity index for all samples taken for the period. The data, when plotted in Figure -a, indicate that, for the three bay stations, there is practically no difference LI the diversity of organisms as a function of time. While diversity may differ from one time period to another, it appears that all three bay stations behave in the same way. In other words, the pattern of diversity is consistent in the study area, with each region showing the same kind of variability. Because diversity is yet an ill-defined.

biological concept, we have also plotted the number of species through time for each station. Figure 8b shows a distinct siailarity in the number of species taken from each region. WhiLe we would have expected the number of species to decrease during the colder months (and therefore influence the so-called "reproductive" period), we have found that there has been a general increase in the number of species in the study area through time. We attribute this increase, tentatively, to better sorting and identification techniques, and also to increased experience of the working staff. However, the pattern is the same for all three regions. Only a thorough statistical analysis will indicate whether there are real differences in diversity.

and species composition from one region to another through time.

The most unstable regions of the study area are the canals. Both the intake and outfall canal have fewer species and less diversity than the bays probably due to more restricted and stressful environmental conditions. For examrle, the outfall canal (Oyster Creek at Route #9) shows a pattern of lower diversity and species number in the warmer months of the year, when the temperature may exceed 300 C. So there are decided differences in both canals as a function of both time and position.

While the generating plant has a strong influence on the canals, it would be nost difficult to say that the variability in these canals is due only to the water currents and thermal load. We have .observed a distinct increase in the amount of "people pollution" in the canals. It is not uncommon to retrieve garbage in our samples, probably thrown there by careless people who use the baniks of the canal for recreation. Also, the increased bulk-heading and boat traffic could also be influenre-

• ing the ca.nals. These are factors .,ich are as diifficult to asess as is the simple ixncr(.~s' in tc._jxratu avon

'. so, the canals continu, to have ab-ut ,ne-hIt'if t-he niu,.bLr of species as th- bay. Some .f thee ..',ecios, sucu as MIlAzin *:d Ae'. sca reach ver, hii .,.r-itics on th', bottom. !Lthorih we have not dc.-z controoi.

u:.'

collections, we }-ivi, alao noticed ari incre!.;ne iJ the crab Call incctef7 5,i.u pop-ulations in these canals. We are currently d.,diig e::perimernts oi:-he encrustin, awd boring .irganics,- in these canals (see later section of this g-rg'.%r..7-z re.ort)o

rn F.R.

4,J S. A/ 0 - oO.C.

4-,I A-OUT.

7/,. O:: rT.li/

1.co 4 9 FEB13 I 0 3-04, i 8 P*, i  ?. JUL- i 27 PUG. il AIPR.

SDc.

- DE 39 /tiL: o Ze t4OV. 1ua.

16 j,. 11 DEC 4JuN.

t. Z(,

9 '70 1 '712 I l (P

"li A-Os. ". /

/

TI' CA

(,e / -7

."/ a ,. /

\

JD +

7

/ -

.7K /

k 2

- ~

a I I TItME PERLcP.S 5,RiE AS ABcv.

Fig. Sa, b.

Table 7. Number of invertebrate species and diversity indices for six time periods from 27 August 1969 through 26 June 1972.

27 Aug. - 5 Dec. '69 9 Feb. - 19 June '70 Position #samples Diversity #species #samples Diversity #species

1. Stouts Creek 19 1.2104 16.68 14 1.4165 12.71

2. Forked River 17 1.1543 18.59 2 1.5228 12.58

3. Oyster Creek 22 0.7960 20.27 9 1.3137 13.59 1:

4. Intake Canal 4 0.7330 10.75 9 1.0188 6.00

5. Outfall Canal 1.4011 9.00 L 1.0185 7.36 30 June - 20 Nov '70 8 Apr. - 16 June '71 2July - ll Dec. '71

1. sam-ples Diversity #:

species #samples Diversity #species dsamples Diversity #species

1. 31 1.8455 19.81 14 2.6877 26.21 24 1.8682 23.83

2. 29 2.0138 22.41 13 2.5629 23.85 23 1.7714 24.43

3. 31 1.9307 17.84 15 2.4198 20.33 22 1.8529 23.55 0

4. 13 0.8310 13.77 5 1.4922 7.20 8 1.1131 14.63

5. 12 1.3916 7.00 5 1.8618. 18.00 6 1.0798 7.50 Grand %lean Grand Mean Total Samples 11 Apr - 26 June '72 for diversity for #species Taken on Station

1. samples Diversity #species 27 Aug. '69a 26ý June '72

1. 11 2.2482 26.82 1.8794 21.01 113

2. 11 2.3315 28.45 1.8928 21.72 105

3. 11 2.1847 28.09 1.7496 20.61 130

4. 3 2.0020 15.67 1.1984 11.34 42

5. 4 1.8463 17.25 1.4332 11.02 41

• Forked River at Rt. J9 ** Oyster Creek at Rt. #0,

S In conclusion, it appears to us that in the two and one-half years since the be-ginning of thermal addition in Barnegat Bay in the region around Oyster Creek, we have observed no large differences in the benthic populations of invertebrates. Particular-ly, any variability which can be called "background" or "natural" variability seems to be operating uniformly at all three bay stations. While we have observed one popula-tion "explosion" of algae (see Codium in the benthic algae section) which started prior to the operation of the generating station, we have also witnessed one population "crash" of Mulinia. Still, this species of bivalve disappeared in all regions of the bay and is just now beginning to appear in significant numbers in our samples.

BORING CLAM bTUDY IN BARNEGAT BAY S The'purpose of this study is to investigate the effect the boring clam, Bankia pouldi is having on wood in Barnegat Bay particularly in the Oyster Creek area. The total impact of this species on an area could depend on any or all of the following factors: 1) larval distribution, 2) the rate of larval settlement and wood penetration, and 3) survival and growth rate of adults. This study has been designed to find the effect temperature and salinity have on tne second factor in the field, although the first and third factors are also being examined.

A second purpose of the study is to cnaracterize the general settling pop-ulation of invertebrates. This inciudes finding organisms that occur together and seeing if salinity or temperature influence the community present.

Pig. 9 S.,

MATERIALS & METHODS W Recruitment of settling organisms is being studied by placing boards in the water at the nine sampling stations shown in Fig. 9. Six stations were selected so as to observe the recruitment before ano after water travels through the power plant (stations no. 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 end 9), with three additional comparison stations removed fromimmediate effects of thermal-addi-tion to Barnegat Bay (1, 6 and 7). The stations were selected to give the widest range in salinity and temperature without becoming too distant from the power plant. Station I =t Waretown and station 7 at Stouts Creek represent high and low extremes in salinity. Stations 3, 5 Ond 7 were placed so as to be comparable distances from the bay; all three are.

on stream-fed, dredged canals. Stations 8 and 9 are at the power plant; boards are placed within 50 feet on either side of the pumps, with station 9 boards sampling outflow water before it is diluted.

Boards used for sampling are knot-free Douglas fir 2"x3"'s cut into six inch lengths. Two of these lengths are used for each sample. Boards are suspended on a rope and weighted by a brick, with one board above the mudline and the other just under low tide line. Boards are tied offdocks or bulwarks where the water is generally 2.5 - 4 feet deep. No samples including those of stations 8 and 9 are taken any deeper than four feet.

Boards were set out for a month at a ti-ie for the months of October, 1971, and January, February, March and April, 19.72. Since May, 1972, samples have been made for a month each so that they overlap in time periods by two weeks. In addition, since the second half of May, boards have been set out for consecutive two week intervals. Thus, every two weeks at each station, one sample is picked up for the previous two weeks ano one for the previous month.

From July through September, sample boards are being placed at each station that will be left for two months. Nine sample sets are presently being kept at the mouth of Forked River for a month. Each board will be examined for exact number of boring Bankia and then the samples will be distributed over the nine stations and left until December. Similar sets will be left until March ano June, 1973. These will be examined for remaining live organisms.

All boards are examined under a dissecting scope for any invertebrates larger than 250A. All organisms are speciated and counted, and dry weight of barnacles and other organisms as a whole are taken. Ectoprocts, however are not weighed; estimates of per cent, surface covered are made instead.

Boards from samples for the first half of July and the four weeks of June-July overlap were tallied surface by surface. In general, though, counts are made for a whole board. In this discussion, estimates for number of organisms for each sample are made by averaging top and bottom board counts and then expressed in number/meter-squared values.

Salinity, temperature and qualitative plankton samples have been taken every two w;-eks at stations 1-6 since Jan. 27, and since March 21 at stations 1-9.

S When possible, collected.

natural wood from the area near all stations has been In particular in August, 1971, stakes and posts attached to the bottom were collectedln Forked River and Oyster Creek.

HEtULTýD AND LIL)CUS5I0N A list of all species found attached or living on the boards with the per cent. of stations at which they occurred each month is given in Table ` . Species dominance oy number of individuals or per cent.

coverages varies over the year and from stution to station. In general, Balanus ano Membranipora are almost always present; during early spring especially (April and May) Corophium is a dominant; curing May and June Polydora ligni is a dominant; and during June-July Hydroides aianthus can be dominant. These last three are all tube-dwelling and can toke up large areas of the board with masses of tubes.

Total number of species found each month at each station is summarized in Figure Salinity and temperature data are summarized in Figure I.1 There appears to be a ret.rded increase of species occurring in Uyster Creek as compared to Forked River aftez the second half of June. As seen in temperature data, this coincides with a sharp increase in Oyster Creek temperature as the power plant resumed production after a six week operations halt.

Bankia and Balanus data for two sample periods, I) second nialf of June through first half of July, and 2) first half of July, is summarized in Table nq Values per meter squared are given for two depths, Top (T) boards and nudline 12) boards; these are broken into three board surfaces values Upper, Lower, and Side. A four-way analysis of variance was made of this data using the board as the unit of analysis with time, depth and stations as "between" factors of boards and three surfaces as "within" factors.

(The July samole for station 9 was lost so that no data from 9 was used in analysis). Transformed raw data was used for analysis. Since the analysis of vaxiince assumes a normal distribution of oata size frequency, data fre-quency thc.t is extremely skewed must be transformed. This data is similar to d Foisson distribution so tnat the Tukey-Freeman Transformation (N/* +\/v )

was used (Natrella, i96 6 ).snalysis resuits are summdrized in Table q,.

Essentially, the lowur the P value, the lower the pruodoiLity that the var-iance occurreu by chance.

Table maximum probability = P = 1.00 Time Depth Station Surface Balanus 0.048 1. 0U G.ClO 0.001 Bankia 0.022 0.049 0.001 0.326 "Station" is a very significant factor in the distribution of both Balanus "nd Hankia. According to Table ' , this significance for Bankia is due at least to the differznces in the number of organisms found at stations 4 and 5 (Forked River) as compared to all other ttations. The significance of station oifferences in Balanus distribution at least is due to differences oetween station 8 compared to stations 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Since a station could be aefined as its salinity and temperature values, the distribution of these two organisms may correlate with the hydrographic.data. However, a correla-tion analysis failec to show any siynificant correlation of the number of organisms appearing in salinity x temperature.

all July with either This could easily salinity or temperature or be due to as of yet insufficient I

data (again, too many zeroes).

TABLE 8 Per cent.of stations species occurred during a given time period species Oct. Nov. Jan. Feb. Mch. Apr. May May- JueJune-June June July

1. Ampelisca spinipes 0% 0% 0 16 0% 22% 0% 11% 11% 22%

2. Balanus balanoides 100 100 100 33 66 12 89 78 89 78

3. Bankia gouldi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 .66

4. Bittium alternatum 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 11 22

5. Botryllus schlosseri 66 0 0 0 0 11 0 22 0 0

6. Bowerbankia sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33

7. Caprella geometrica 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 B. Cirolana concharum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11

9. Corophium sp. 0 0 0 0 0 55 33 77 33 44

10. Crepidula fornicata 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 22

11. Cyathura polita 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11

12. Diopatra cuprea 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 11 11 66

13. Electra hastingsae 0 0 0 0

14. Erichsone1 J~..f.. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0

15. Euplana gracilis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22

16. Gammarus sp. 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 33

17. Hydroides dianthus 11 0 0 0 0 0 11 33. 88 88

16. Leptochelia savignyi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 22

19. Membranipora sp. 100 100 100 0 0 0 77 89 89 100

20. Mitrella lunata 0 0 0 0 0 i1 6 0 0 11

21. Molgula maniattensis 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 22 33

22. Mytilus edulis 0 0 11 0 0 22 0 0 0. 0

23. Nassarius obsoletus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 0

24. Nereis succinea 10O 100 0 0 0 11 11 33 44 88

25. Polydora ligni 11 0 0 0 0 0 11 33 88 77

26. Sabellaria vulgaris 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22

27. Styllochus ellipticus 22 0 0 0 Ii 0.. 44 33 55

I-C.

fCime. pa~rlodg CA%"I 01jrt-fMLP)

L. ~~AOL~ g. o~i~ C~-ee~~. - m ~ u. '3- 0 6ýs+ot t- Crr.-r- k lyý 0, t- ý r%.

w-" 15' 31 Ic: ~ -- i-I-m~rFi~ -__________

01 rV i 1ý2- In T. lFoy-VeA P, oe r - AwAL.L-.. Sý I vL f5c S Sis AV cv-e~l (oa*-

Ft-o L ed Cre 15~ c-ýrfoav-ki jr%

S. ~Y~4~Lk~ &~ ~+/-~L4)~ P~LOLV%+/- Gci-o cz-oA Pot~Iev-P~v

S :, -. 1 51; aL i; 3v TernerczA-0e-e &&fc jor a.Chý t WMI ii 1 period d F) 6 4-c:.

0 1?

a I oA '4 LL

5 0

• 1-IA 01 -!- ' od , b - (

1 0

.4-

+

0.

'I I.

9 q

0 U A-

'I I

U.

Pr- A~~ 6,i 0 I- I..

o 0 V1:~

'I C ) 6

'I A

.~ /* 9 U API a I.

4--

-4.

8 7 I4. 0

.4-I LI.

3 0 1*. In f-i i & I . . i o 9 - A 2 - .6, -0

TiBLE 9/

Number of organisms/meter squared for station, time oepth and surface.

Station number I. Bankia I 2 3 4, 5 0 7, 8: 9 A. 1/2 July-T-U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

. 0 0 0 2560 384 0 0 128 0 0 0 256 512 0 0 0 0 average :0 0 0 939 299 0 0 0

-B-U 0 0 0 128 128 0 0 0 0 LO 0 0 1405 .384 384 0 0 0 F 128 128 0 2176 128 640 0 0 0 average:43 43 0 1236 213 341 0 0 0 B. June/July-4-U 0 0 128 0 256 128 0 0 L 512 0 0 1024 896 1280 0 0 5 256 0 128 256 256 256 128 0 0 average:256 0 85 427 469 512 0 0

-B-U 128 0 128 512 512 0 0 0 LO 0 0 5760 344 1664 0 0 S 384 256 128 1405 896 256 0 0 average:171 95 85 2139 584 640. 0 0 II. Balanus A. 1/2 July-T-U 0 0 0 0 768 0 2560 0 L0 0 1920 512 9600 128 2816 14336 5 128 0 768 0 1280 128 3840 2176 average:43 0 8ý6 171 1003 85 3072 5504 B-U 0 0 0 0 128 0 0 384 L 256 256 0 384 3712 0 256 19072 5 128 0 0 0 0 0 128 3072 average:112 85. 0 128 1280 0 128 7509 B. June/July-T-U 5888 128 0 0 0 640 768 3456 L 12032 1536 1792 0 768 10752 768 14051 5.11520 384 640 0 i 1536 096 7956 average:9813 683 811 0 256 4309 811 8488 B-U 0 512 768 0 128 1280 1405 3840 L 128 0 5760 0 0 6400 7540 9984

.50 256 3080 0 384 768 6104 11392 average:43 256 3203 0 171 2816 5016 8405

"Depth" is significant for distribution of Bankia, as other studies have found for leredinids (see Clapp and Kenk, 1963, under Teredinics-Ecology).

The conclusion is that as depth increases, so does amount of settling.

This probably relates to an apparent negative phototropism of larvae (Quayle,al959)o Interestingly, it is of no significance for Balanus.

Board surfaces differences are significant for both species. Apparently settling numbers decrease for both in order of lower, side and upper surfaces. In the case of Bankia this could be due to light again. Balanus needs another explanation, though; perhaps therE is a negative geotropism of larvae.

The significance of "Time" as a varis-able. em hasizes that maximum settling does not occur within t-o weeks time. It will be worthwhile to further study time-dependent data to oetermine if ano when maximum density of organisqis occurs and whether there are interaction effects of species inhibiting each other's further settling.

Plankton samples have been preserved but not examined yet. They will be ex-amined qualitatively primariiiy for presence ov absence cf Bankia larvae.

Plankton samp-Les taken by Phil 5andine at thu powar plant outfall (before dilution) found what are proOably Bankia larvae appearing in the water on August 30, October 11, October 20, 1971, and June 8, June 25, July 12, 1972.

Natural wood collecteo in Oyster Creek ano Forked River in August, 1971,. showec six out of 8 pieces of wood in oyster Creek and one out of seven in Forked hliver as containing evidence.of adult aankia. Only one board, which was found in Oyster Creek had live Bankia; the others showing evidence had empty calcium-line tunnels.

Narrow wooden slats placed in Forked River, Oyster Creek and Stouts Creek last August by Chris Evans have shcwn adult Bankia appearing in all three areas near the bay. As of November, boards at the mouth of Forkeo River were beinc broken and lost because they were so weakened oy tunnels.

Wood collected in July at the Waretown station had sev:ral large empty tunnels measuring 5 mm. in diameter traveling the length of the wood; the number of clams that hao entereo the wood equalled approximately 230/meter squared.

PROJECTED ZTUDIES Throughout the following winter tnese proolems will be studied:

1) Determine the growth rate of aduit Bankia under differant salinity and temperature conditions. Pallet length gives some indication of growth (Quayle, b 1959). There is some difficu-ty in extracting tne pallets from wood,.but this analysis will be done as well as possible. Growth rate will also be studied in the laoor~tory usirg combinations of temperature and salinity extremes. Adults will be obtained from Bay samples.

2) Determine survival ability of adults during winter months. Boards with adults will be left at all stations in the fail and retrieved at three times curing the winter.

3) Estimate a. cepth constant for the rate of settling of Bankia ano other SA) dominant organisms.

5)

Estimate variance in Analyze variance for all sampling size.

oominant species in terms of station, depth time and surface. Continue to test for correlations of numoers with salinity, temperature anu interactions. Look for chanUes in settling rate with changes in exposure time in order to discern inhibition effects of species on itself or on other species.

REFERENCES 1963 Clapp, William F., and Roman Kenk./ Marine Borers, an annotated bibliography.

ACR-14,Office of Naval Research, Dept. of the Navy, Washington, D.C.

Quayle, D.B. a1959. The early development of Bankia setacea Tryon. In:

Dixy Lee Ray, ed. Marine Boring and Fouling Organisms. Univ. of Wash.

Press, Seattle, Wash.

Quayle, D.B. b1959. The Growth Rate of Bankia setacea Tryon. IN: Dixy Lee Ray, Ed. Marine Boring and Fouling Organisms. Univ. of Wash. Press, Seattle, Wash.

Natrella, Mary Gibbons. 1966. Experimental Statistics, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C. (Revised edition.)

Z.c;.:1Trhnktcn. CGn~ri':al Surey o,,,l "',--l".o. of Therm hCS-on Pmarped Z :. ')....

Me tho&.

ju.-- . .... Jnmeu y 1./.71, a biwe:hly .*..vey of Zo~o:lntr f I.. B"at Ba-* I.

been con.ucted. S.,ir:1 :les wer-* toaken at t',X C. tfall pi-,es and c.....ist..d :f tuc, 50 lit,,r samples which were c.,Ince*tnatod by a eof Iay 'water thl'ouch whch;llows for a realistic esti;Mate the _l*at reu tl,f

}c--- in thei tharough-- .,2 a tl:roujhil pa.

f.ixedtt-r th t2 z

!.et.

l e

size notwithstanding.

Thermal 3tudy--Expcrircants to detir the eIfc .f 1000. .-t100 eratau Cl}(oc abovte ambient on zoplamkton co:-ponents were co..... .zc...:. A differen..o of 1O"C. is al:,out the normal delta b:.-twt-een intakce and :ij.charL-c- water. ,--:kver, w'.X e f4 the circulating pua,.s was don.m, this ,ifference increasod to 13 C. The attt:_p.t to separ-ate the total effect of the ~lanit from th~at of temv.eratvre aloLe was by lab-ora tory ex-erinments run within 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> of c-llvcti4r,* ..n s&.,-.les, obta-ined fr,:,, the intake. Thee laboratoir oxjo-riments sin.lat-d the teupieratiu.-- regime -roduce2 by the plant on date of collection.

1. Holoplail--ton Field experiments consisted of replicated .ale- of from 5 to 50 l1 tort taken from the intake (= control) and the discharge (= tr(:atent). Mhe sam.:les w.ere con-centrated to 100 to 1,000 mls and m.-aintained at their respective ambieAt ter'.,eratures for 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />. This was the r~ximum time w,. would expect organisms to be e-:soed to the ele- ated temperatures in their pas.7ace down Cyrter Creek. When dilution punops were rwurinC, discharge sampIles were held for 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> at the temperature of the "di-luted" water, which was approximately ]'C. below discharge temperature. At the end of two hours, discharge samples were returned to thae control temperatu-e. Deter-mination of live and dead organisms in the controls and treatments was initiat.ed 2-4 hours after return of discharge smmples to the control temperature.  !,numeration of "dead" organisms was carried out under the scanning lens of a com:*ounld microscope.

In this study, organisms not showing norimal swi!a::ing behavior or that did not show an esca'e res.,onse when disturbed by a probe were also classified as dead. To express number dead as a percent, samples were "fixed" by the addition of formalin and a total count was made of the zooplankters under evaluation.

2. iieroplankton A. I*ulinia In order to determine the effect of temperature on meroplankton forn-s, the larvae of which do not usually occur in the D!lukton in sufficient numbkr for field ex*:*erimentation, it was necessary for the adults to be spawmed in the lab. An or-ganism suited for lab spawmi~ng is :Kulinia lateralis, a small clam. Adults of this species were collected frolim the Bay when amb.iont temperatures were between 80 and 15 0 C..

They were held in the lab at 150C. until needed. Spawning was induced by placi-g adults at temperatures of 22-24.5"C.. Frou a spa,..+/-, approximately equal subsam!-les of fertilized eggs were placed in culture tubes containing filtered Bay water. At inter-vals of 15 xinutes, 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> and 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> after spawniing, replicate tubes with devel-opiing larvae were 21aced in controlled temperature baths of 27.5" 30d, 32.5'and 35 0 C..

ContrOls were maiantained at 22-24.5" C.. lExposure to the elevated temperatures was for either 15 minutes or 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />, after wLich larvae were returned to the control 4Jmprature. When larvae wore 25 or 36 hours4.166667e-4 days <br />0.01 hours <br />5.952381e-5 weeks <br />1.3698e-5 months <br /> old they were killed by the addition of I.or;:lir., the contents of the sao.,Iler co*:centrated and total count of larvae -er n1q -:e n~Ae. All larnvae in the 15 .inute ex;)osures wfeIre obtained from the saLze spawn; thr:se in the two hour ex ;osures were fro::, se: arate spaiwoin-s.

To detor.,:ine the effect of te:i;cratvre on :?ulinia larvae which had already reached the strai6ht hinje stage, that is 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> old individuals, the followin" procedure was used: Twenty-four ,our oid larvae ..rere subjected to the test tem,:rratures for one hoiur, then returned to the control tecorature for 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />, after which time enumeration of live and dead was as 'reviously explained for zoo:I'lankton in -eneral.

Results:

Conei:ods--A compariscn of laboratory experiments sjmrulating the temperature regime created by the plant with those conducted in the field on the same day showed no significant differences in percent mortality of copepods. Thus, it is felt that the results from laboratory simulation experiments conducted when the P-lant was not on-line are indicative of what would have occurred had the -lant been on-line.

The average percent mortality of copepods resulting from passage through the plant's condensers or laboratory simulation there of for 14 dates is shown in Fig. 12.

A discernable pattern that emerges fr-)m this figure is the occu-rence of reaks in early June of both years. Furthermore, these peaks coincide with the be-inning of the replacement of Acartia clausi by Acartia torsa. The large values obtained at this time are most likely a function of the lethal tem-*rature of A. clausi having been exceeded during the two hour exposure. If t1.. ex.-osure tier.e is levned t.-)V. r .7-)

minutes, as w._,z r]on,- on June 8, 1972, th;i percent Liorti-i.lity i: .s ti,...- ..

(Table 10) 1. 32.cati.,, the i.L,,ortuace (f ti..e-tei. ,',itiue relrttiorn2rL, s. It o.,l be note . r thit, f the contentr of t]".- 15 arid 7) .'. .:.od - IL.cs had been ea, .. i.,.2e~laatel*y e.*ter -r to a*.1A.bnt tei.* erte, retr*n* t. ci "

90% would .hive been noted. 7Tis was cauzeO-! 1,' a t-morary lo:-f. of h_. o j .bi swi:LJJJi -- y. This z;henoleno.i lac been c,!:,rved b-. others .hen eve "mTerod's ".ien ex' osed to a :.blothal tiiae-term:crature regime.

Table Ia Averm.je rerc,ýi.t mortality of cojýapcoda exposed to a 1.0. . elevate4 tei.mperature above a,*bient for 15 mii,-

uter, 30 minutes and 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />. Date, of experiment June 8, 1972, intake tumi::eratuv'- 1. 8E C..

Kxposure Nauplier Copepodites A1ild ts Control 0.0 0.4 0.7 15 inut(- 3.3 4.8 5.9 30 11anutes 48.0 36.8 27.4 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> 85.0 9.0iO.

The large percent mortality of July 17, 1972 (Fig. 12) was due to an unus-su.y high ambi6nt temperature. The high temperature of the discharge (40.4 C. ) was a result of the hot spell occurring at the time, complicated by the possibility of the entrainment of discharge water. The latter phenomenon has been observed by us.

The need for lowering the delta created by the power -lant during such extreme tehi-perature conditions is stressed bý the results -resented in Table ll.

The effect of exposure to 10 C. above am;,bient for 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> on egg laying by A.

clausi is shown in Table 12. The results are that when the experimental egg lajing interval includes the exiposur'e period there is a temporary stimulation of ejg laying (note ezv.eriments of 18 and 26 April). But if the exposure period is not included during egg laying, then there is an apparent drop in eggs produced. (note e7periments of 15 and 21 Larch). Whether this temporary stiL-ulation of egg laying produces some non-viable eggs was not deten:rined.

It should also be noted that in Progress Report J17 (June 1971) it was stated that the production of viable eggs was comparable between individuals collected from the intake and discharge. However, in that experiment the egg laying interval did not in-clude the two hour exposure to the elevated temperature and thus, its results are presently questionable.

100 Nauplier A

60-A X,

rVItiy UA 9i~I Oct M~1r APP- P1 t y) 1 5 )IV A Lab simnulation X F, treatment A Lab simulation, 5 i~in. ex]pý,sure 8o 60 20 M'yl9a/Yu, , Oct Mlar APi Ple/y 5a4 9u Fig.12. Average percent mortality -f cope:-.ds e:..osed to '.:he elevated ten.,-.'ratua-es Je1.rt by,.i the power plant or laboratory siaulation thereof.

Tablell. Average percent mortality of zooplankters exposed for 5 or 15 minutes to 40 0.or 37.5 0 C.. The 40 C. exposure represents the abnormally high discharge temperature recorded on July 17, 1972.

CoDepods Other Zooulankters Length of Barnacle. Gastropod Unidentified Temperature Exposure ",auplier Copepodites Larvae Larvae Trocophores 40° 15 rin. 81.4 78.6 13.2 50 71.5 40e 5 1:ain. 77.8 61.8 0.0 100 23.4 37.5' 15 iin. 9.5 14.2 0.0 90 5.3 37.5 5 min. 1.0 0.0 0.0 16.6 0.0 Controls (250) 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o Table 12. Comnarison of egg laying rates of Acartia clausi females collected at the discharge (treatment) aid the intake (controls).

Duration of Control Treat,:ent Date e*g ly n (hrr) i females I eggs/feinale feiaales j, eggs/female 15 III '72 24* 78 9.2 25 4.6 28 11.0 1i 3.9 21 III 12* 59 5.3 48 54 5.5 80 24* 72 1.3 50 107 8.6 100 4 'D 18 2.6 73 <* 7 31 III 27 2.5 45 4.2 12** 56 2.7 70 5.3 56 6.0 /33 7

6.7 24 ** 49 8.6 66 13.7 10.5 .19 10.1 27 18 IV 80 0.8 61 1.9 26 IV 103 2.8 186 5.8 37 2.3 156 5.6

• Experi:aent not started until 4-5 liours afIt,r collocti,.n and Loe: not include the two hour interval of ex-)osure to elevated tez*pirature.

• • Experimrent started imnediately after collPcticn and includes two "*our ex_,osure to elevated temr.eratures above ambierit.

Bivalve larvae e

The results of exposing different age pre-straight hing Hulinia larvae to a set of 4 different temperatures for either 15 minutes or 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> is shoi'm in Fig. 1r.

Conclusions that can be made from these experiments are: 1) Two hour exuosures are significantly more devastating than a 15 midnute exposure at the same temperature (ex-cept for 15 minute old larvae exposed to 350C.) 2) The younger the larvae, the more sensitive they are to teraperature 3) Exposure to the higher test temneratures resil ts in a decrease in the nujbcr of larvae present at the termination of the ex,.;eriment, except for 8 hour9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> old individuals exposed for 15 minutes. This decrease in niuiber was the result of fragmentation of the developing embryo at the higher temperatures

4) Of the larvae which have reached the straight-hinge stage at the end of the ex-periment, the percent aprearing morphologically. normal is decreased at the higher test temperatures, regardless of age at time of exposure.

The results from exposing ]lulinia larvae already at the straight hinge stage (i.e. 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> old individuals) to the test teiiperatures for 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> are given in Table 13. It is obvious that at this age, o*r:ly 350 C. is high enougrh to exert a sic-nificanc lethal effect over a 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> exjosure.

Factors not eixplined by the 1,recedil- se: of cm-peri....ts ,ere t1.e .oam teri-effects the higher toe,.ýeraturaes, .. . 32.5uid 750C , may have o the sur-viving larvae in their abi lity to foed, grow %iid ta&ior',hose iLto adults.

Table 13. Results of a 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> exposure to various tenueratures on 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> old Yulinia lateralis larvae.

Teri Ave. I of Ave. S' of straight hinge Ave. P of straight larvae larvae appearng morpho.- hintge ]ainrnc con-o0ically abnor Lal. sidered dlad.

(control) 22.5 290 2 1.7 27.5 200 3 -.

30.0 328 7.6 8.0 32.5 424 12.7 35.0 179 23.8 34.8 Other Zoopluak-ters Three additional benthic forms which produce pliardktonic larvae in relatively large numbers are the polychaete worms, barnacles, and gastro7.ods (= snails). Of these three, the polychaetos and the barnacles have their peak spawning periods at water temperatures below 200C.. The gastroods though, have the bulk of their larvae present at temperatures above 200C. (Fig. 14).

At ambient temperatures of 20eC. or le'is, polychaete larvae survive a 10C. delta for 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />. However, at higher amibient temp;eratures results are inconclusive due to insufficient ntrnbers of polychaete larvae in the exoriments. Testing of gastropood larvae at higher temperatures has also been hindered by small nuabers present in the test saiples. Thus, it is recommended that sezie of the common species fr(:i the Bay of these 2 groups be spaxmed in the lab in order to test their survival whc-n exposed to 10a C. deltas at aibient temperatures above 20Y C..

Fig. 13

- z~oo b oo rbt". qoo Zoo

.0 '3Z.- '3ý.o 1.SZ' VSh '3cO ' 37.t '36.0 415 ' Z7-S ' 30.0

' "3z,6" 3S.o Tg-Tt-A.JTf (15 e SAe )

Z'oo LT-

"*300.

p S00 loo

\I~e .e .1, ,-

53.0 35.0~ Z! Z15 -%-0C 3.53.0 22.5 Z7.5 -3c.0 5-T5 355.0

-TREPITMEIWJý TEMPERATOR (- eFEbt

X Polychaete larvae

• Barncale larvae a

/0,000- x\

//

/ i0 19E \\

jOO

/0o0-I I K

/

100-

'I

~I.

S k

I I I I I -

M A?9M A oNo 0 F'1 M AM

_ ,a Bivalve l**vae o3 Gaatropod larvae I/o0o,-

A .'

/) 00 -

-A

-A MA I

\ I 12.i\ iI

/00 -f-

/ \i I, 1¶ DW ~ #

Ft..1: t-.-.![]

Fi,'-. 14. v,£-,r .- "I ': . l *.... :t of f;,t,.r .-r i)l',.a..,'- .4-- ..2 :'* O..:.

A -astropod species common in our Bay sampling area in 1970 was IUassarius obsoletus, the couiaon mud snail. The life history of this species includes a planktonic larval stae which does not hatch until water temperatures reach 20 C.

or above ( . ). In 1971 and 1972 the number of individuals of Ihis .orc.ies taken in our benthic samples are well below the values of 1970 (Table 24). Though not included in Table 14, the qualitative data from the latter half of i9 6 9 shiows that 11. obsoletus was pi'esent that year in numbers similar to those of 1970.

Barnacles, though also occurring in relatively low numbers when temperatures exceed 20PC., did occur in sufficient numbers on July 17, 1972 for testing. The re-sults of the short time exposures conducted on that date indicate the hardiness of barnacle larvae relative to the other groups present. (Tablell). Other workers have; also feound the larvae of barnacles to survive exposure to relatively high. temperat-_ires.

They felt that it was a result of their being brooded by a parent which, living in the in the intertidal, exposes both the parent and the developing young to high su::.mer air temperatures.

Table 14. Average ntLmber of Nassarius obsoletus per 100 drops of the Ponar at our 3 Bay sampling area3.

Stouts Creek Forked River Oyster Creek 1970 82 24 2 1971 18 0 0 1972* 22 1 1

• to the end of June.

Another benthic group producing planktonic larvae, but in relatively small num-bers, are the crabs and shrimp. The, need for fewer larvae in this group is due to the following adaptations which aid in the survival of their larvae: 1) the larvae hatch from eggs which are carried by the adults 2) the larvae are usually strong swimmers 3) some forms, like the crab zoea, with.its long spines, have a body structure which gives protection against predation. Because of these adaptations fewer young need to be produced to insure replacement of. the adults. But it is just this low level of reproduction that makes this group sensitive to any plant p~roduced mortality. Thus, it is imperative that members of this grdup' be spawned in the lab-oratory anjheir larvae subjected to the temperature regime produced by the plant.

A group of organisms which have not been examined in this study are the micro-zooplan]kters. This is primarily due to the fact that they are not conveniently dealt with in the manner that experiments were conducted for this study. Two forms of microzooplankters that can occur in large numbers in Barnegat Bay are rotifers and tinti neds. Li July 1972, the latter group was present in numbers exceeding 160,OO) per m , and this estimate is conservative since the width of these organismnszis about one half of the mesh opening in the plankton net used.

Among the iriacrozooplankton are such large fornz as the arrow worm Sagitta, the hydromedusae Sarsia mirabilis, the Ctenoi.hores 1.niewiopsis leidy and Beroe ovata and thie coelentexate Cyanea capillata. In additior. to a temnerature sl.ock, these forms encounter physical damage upon passage tlireugh the zooling condensers. For exaL...le, of 16 saiitta collected from the discharge only, one did riot have its body distorted.

It was also the only one that attempted to e2.C25_e if a rbe az >l~cud >.ear -. it. .1ine Sagitta collected fron the intahe in the -,ame  %.owed ro boiW distortio:n or lack

_m-..er

• 1962-a

of an escape reaction.

p Discuzsion It is the opinion of s.ome that a loss of sor.e fraction of the rar'.dly reproducing zoo~ln*Žters, such an* Oc*.e:C.2Is or *utintin.. ds, wi3]. nct iave ..uch influonce or. t::e :..-

arn-" co .:ui. . r ... .... ( e..ial., if their .r. are also pr. ,o 1 d.,~d. b' thP lan9It). wever,

-. the !C' f ero ;] .tm: larvae c.uZLd Lfuenceiý the aý-ilit" cf. the locl.(. adult u.T,1zlations to ,iuiutain n i . l va F*rior to plant operation). iuprtaIt I.*.u I,.pucia.l the 11 iflj.ence. of the rowir plant on i;;iportant (ecol -ically or econo'dcally) s .,ho hiave larvae v.,_ .urrin - in sma]l nIILbers. But such iu ses could go d.ct ue to recrui`acnt of larv-e f1om

.ie.

other .ras'. of t-- b-', or from ether bays b- tra r..:.lc.g the ,oazst (,r by oth-er environr.intal c aei) as long as the ]l.ss dii -.f ,-.cecd a critical ti'USI:old for te entire isnterwctirg systia.

Tied in with the vrecedingp rcblem ii: the adldi. tial prob*.L A of hing .. ble to differentiateý the -Jic-ct *i.'idiccc+/- ',ffects

-. f of Uh6 Oyster Ci>.-ok ý lh .Ilanl.

t.e bicta of Barnegat Týhy. To illusEtrate this :~int the. f] lowii.," discuw:2ion, which will -iivot pi'imarily aro,und the small clam Lu.in i. lr a... , i, *ivcn. In tie f-... half of 1970 lulinia was occurring, at dens-ities of up tc and -reater than IOoo/. in the Bay areas sampled. in July 9 u'f 1.970 the lNulinia nor.ul.%tion ,:x.erienced a "cr-ash", with densities of ov-r l00/I- becoming" the exccFtion. ThisI., density level has h,.ld throughout 1971. and is. continu+/-ng into 1572. Since k'ulinia has a rmaximum life span of about 18 ionths the "orash" was mainly a ft.mcti , of the 1969 po, uatiun dying off.

Yet at the same ti:rie there anearedjo be little recruitment of young Iul.irda from the spring spawn of 1970. 4lien analysis of the Nulinia data from 1970 is co:!,pleted we will be able to determine what percent of the 1-:.opulation consis ted of 1970 Eulinia when the "crash" occurred.

S But what effects night this drop in h'ulinia have on other components of the com-munity .that use this organis, as. a food, source? Known predators on s:nall bivalves are crabs and gastropod drills. A relative, deasity of these predators in our Bay sampling area is gýiven in Table 15. That a dro:) in the number of these forms has occurred is obvious. . The crabs, which have a plaxntonic larval stage, could also have their pop-ulation levels directly influenced by passage through the condenser-s, but the gastro-pod drill, Eupleura caudata would not be as it does not have a plankltonic larval. stage.

Table 15. Average number of somse bivalve prelators, crabs and Eupleura caudata per 100 drops of the Ponar. Values are for our bay sampling areas cox..bined.

year Neopanone and Rhithropan0oeus Callinectes sapidus Euoleura caudada 1970 12 8 35 1971 2 3 10 1972* 1 4 6

• to the end of June S

Again it should be stressed that, thoao. we have documented a drop in the .um.bers of sone or- iisns that have a plan]:tonic larval stage, we cannot unecuivocally state that the plant was the prime factor in causing the decline. The reason for this is we do not have information on the po~.*ulation dynsnics of these organisms from areas

totally outside the influence of the power plant (i.e., from adjacent bays).

Recommendations for possible regulation of thermal addition by the Oyster Creek Power Plant.

At present the laws governing the addition of heat to a body of water are in a state of flux, with the debate being over the size of the mixing zone. However, it is our feeling that the main criteria for regulation of thermal addition to the environ-ment should include the temperature elevation of the cooling water upon passage through the condensers. Before discussing this opinion, we want to stress the fact that our evidence is based not only on the mortality of pumped zooplankton, but also on the notable decrease which has occurred in the bay in the numbers of some benthic inverte-brate species that possess a planktonic larval stage.

The basis for our above recommendation is as follows:

1) The significant mortality of an ecologically important meroplankton form, i.e.

Mulinia lateralis, can occur at intake temperatures as low as 200C., even when ex-posure time to the elevated temperature is for 15 minutes.

2) The number of Mulinia and other larvae passing through the condensers can indeed be large. For example, the average number of straight hind gMulinia larvae pumped through the condensers during the 16 week interval in 1971 When intake temperatures exceeded 20 C., was 9 x 109/week! Note that this value does not includes the pre-straight hinge stage.

3) The inability of Mulinia to return to its population level of 1969/70, notwithstand-ing the fact that it has since undergone 3 seasonal spawns. It should be noted, how-ever, that there has been an increase in the Mulinia population this year. But then the plant was not on-line this spring when Mulinia began their spawn.

4) The drop in other benthic invertebrate species which are at least partially de-pendent upon Pulinia as a food source and which may or may not have a planktonic lar-val stage.

5) When intake temperatures exceed the normal maximum of the Bay, i.e. 27 -28oC., a lowering of the elevated temperature above ambient produced by the plant is needed because even a 5 minute exposure to such high temperatures is lethal to most organ-isms present (Fig. 10)..

At the expense of being repetitious, we again state that our data still does not allow for uniquivocal statements concerning the influence of the Oyster Creek Power Plant on the benthic biota of Barnegat Bay. Howrever, the above listed factc:-c, u-on which oir recommendations rest, are not without need of consideration.

A procedure which we recommend to be imvolemented ilin~ediately is that two dilution pumps be run when intake temperatures exceed 200C. and all thrqe at intake temperatures above 244 C. This simple procedure would lessen the significance of the tize-tzmper-ature interaction.

Recommendations for future student concerned with evaluating the effect of the Oyster Creek plant on the biota of Barnegat Bay.

The present investigation has produced ideas whichwe feel should be incor-porated into any future study. In attempting to determine the plant's effect on the biota of the Bay, our efforts have been coyiilicated by the random shutting down of the plant over the last two years. In addition, the application of a biocide (chlor-ine gas) and the use of the dilution pumps has also varied. Thus, we recoimiend that scheduling of plant shut-downs, use of biocide and dilution pumps be at least in con-cert with the investigators of the study. Two exauples to help illustrate the point.

1) To evaluate the plant's effect on primary productivity it would be advisable for tests to be conducted on consecutive days with the following plant procedure.

a) day 1: circulating pu;mps on, no heat, no C12 b) day 2: circulating puaps on, heat, no C12 P no dilution c) day 3: circulating pumps on, heat, oC12,no dilution d) day 4: circulating pumps on, heat, no C12 , dilution e) day 5: circulating pumps on, heat, C12,dilution

S To stage larval

2) the the evaluate plantt's idea following effect on benthic The is offered. invertebrates run for plant would which a calendar possess with no dilution pumps in operation (the State would need to approve this) and at year a planktonic maximum generating capacity. The following year it would run with all dilution pumps in operation. Chlorination levels and time of plant shut-downs would be com-parable for both years. It i-ay be necessary to repeat the cycle once again or change some of the parameters, but at least it could then be stated with more assur-ance whether the plant had the ability of influence the population levels of the previously described benthic invertebrates.

In brief, we are recommending that the plant be used in designed experiments in order that more precise information may be obtained. This in turn would decrease the amount of conjecture which presently surrounds the influence of the Oyster Creek Power Plant on the biota of Barnegat Bay.

Lit. Cited Scheltema, R.S., 1962a, Pelagic larvae of Pew England intertidal gastropods, I.

Nassarius obsoletus Say and Nassarrits vibex Say. Trans. Amer. microsc. Soc.,

81:1-11.

Station Locntions for Hydrographic Data: 1971 I.TiPir 71-;.

8 April 71-1

1. O.C. off derrick I-. StpCrk; c. 1.ile 1rkr :.00 ydso of

2. Route 9 0.C. 2.

3. rk; ý0 y of ,i .... kr

3. Route 9 F.R. ~rk; *. E. of Mi.MrIr.

4. Light 2; N. 75yds.

0 13 April 71-2 5. Light 2; 248 WSW 100 yds.

1. Just SE Light 1 S.C. 6. 1/3 way from Can 5 to BlnqckCan

7. 3400 NIZV Lt. 3; off Load. Der.

2. Due north of pos. 1 By the two inlets 8. 200NNE Lt. 3 180 yds.

3. 320 NNT7 Lgt, 2 F.R. 9. 2400 WSW Lt. 3, 150 yds.

4. 240WSIW Lgt. 2 F.R.

5. 270 0 W Lgt. 3 0.C, 10. O.C., Rt. 9

6. Due north of nun 2 11. F.R., Rt. 9 320*NW O.C. Lgt 3

7. O.C. Route 9

8. F.R. Route 9 /fJune 71-7

i. S.C., 2200 SV Light, 200 yds.

29 April 71-3 2. S.C., :?0°Sw LIght, 25 Yds.

3. S.C. 8o0 Z Light, 50 yas.

4. F.R.', 700 E Light, 50 yds.

1. 170°SE Mile marker 50 yds

2. 25°NE Lgt 1 75 yds. 5. F.R., 2600V'o Light, 150 yas.

3. 320°NW Lgt 2 150 yds from 6. F.R., 2400 SW Can 5, 50 y-*a.

light. N of black can 7. O.C., Between Derrick and

4. 240°WSW Lgt 2. S of black light; 100 yds. off can 200 yds from light Derrick

5. O'N Lgt 3 0.C. 100 yds 8., O.C., due N Light, 50 yds

6. 2400WSW Lgt 3 0.C. 100 yds 9. 0.C.,29' 0° W Light, 50 yds.

6 May 71-4 lo. O.C., Rt. 9

11. F.R., Rt. 9

1. 40o NE Mile marker 100 ft

2. Due north previous station 400 yds 2 July 71-8

3. 340'NNW O.C. Lgt 3. 300 yds

4. 2400 WSW O.C. 3 300 yds 1. S.C. 60 0°U Light, 300 yds.

5. Route 9 Oyster Creek 2. S.C. 60 0 NE Light, 100 yas.

6. 230'WSW F.R. Lgt 2 200 yda 3. S.C. 150 0 SE Light, 300 yds.

7. 3400 NNUV F.R. Lgt 2 150 yds 0.0. 550NE Light, 122 0 SE Der.

8. Route 9 Forked River 5. O.C.

1?5°0BE Light, 100 y(Is.

6. 0.C. .260NW Light , 200 yils.

18 May 71-5 7. O.C. 70ONE Light,1400 Derrick

8. O.C. Rt. 9

1. i.ext to !',ile marker. 120° ESE 9. F.R.,  ?-.O.... Light, 230" yds.

S.C. Lgt 1 75-100 yds 10. F.*R. 40 0 NELight, 100 yds.

2. Due E of Lgt 1 100-125 yds F.R.

11. 315 0 N'V Light, 350 yds.

3. 12 0 SESE F.R. Lgt 2 50 yds 12. F. B. Rt. 9

4. 220 0 SW F.R. Lgt 2 125 yds

5. 340°NINV O.C. Lgt 3 100 ft from nun buoy.

6. 220' S.W O.C. Lgt 3 75-100 yds from Lgt. So. of nun buoy.

7. Route 9 Oyster Creek

8. Route 9 Forked River

St ot'Lon Loc,,ti(.,ns, for Hydr o.r) , hl D,itu: : 1q 71 15.July 71-9 18 Aug 71-12

.1. F.1. 240° Li0LI, - 150 yds. 7. Stouts Creek 105'ESE Light 1,

2. F.R. 200°0 SW Light, 200 ydas. 250 yds 3200 Light, 75 yds. 8. Forked River 60 ITE Light 2 S.C. 9. Forked River 180C S. Light 2

4. S.C. 2203SW Pole, 100 yds. 10. Forked River 27d'I. Light 2

5. S.C. 40°Nj.' Pole, 50 yds. 11. Forked River Route 9

6. l60 0 Si-S Pole, 100 yds.

7. 0.C. 9, NE Light, 100 yds. 2 Sept 71-13

8. 0.C. 330oNW Light, 50 yds.

91 50 N Light, 140 yds. 1. Oyster Creek Route 9 0.C.

2. Oyster Creek due west Light 3,

10. .0C. Rt. 9 100 yds

11. Rt. 9 3. Oyster Creek 340eHUi Light 3 T way between loading derrick and light

4. Oyster Creek 200NHE Light 3 25 yds 29 July 71-10 5. Stouts Creek due south of the mile

1. Stouts Creek, 11O0 ESE 50 yds from marker 50 yds.

mile marker. 6. Stouts Creek 40"IlflTE mile marker

2. Oyster Creek, 210'SSE 30O yds from 7. Stouts Creek 140Q3E mile rmarker 50 yds Light 3. 8. Forked River 40 ITE Light 2 50 yds

3. Oyster Creek Route 9. 9. Forked River due south Light 2 100 yds

4. Forked River, Route #9. .10. Forked River 260Nw Light 2, 100lyds

11. Forked River, Route 9.

6 Aug 71-11 22 Sept 71-14

1. Stouts Creek, IO0ESE Light 1, 1. Stouts Creek 2003SSW mile marker 25 yds 200 yds. 2. Stouts Creek due east of mile marker

2. Stouts Creek, 12UGESE Light 1, 25 yds midway between mile marker and 3. Forked River due north of Light 2, 100 ft.

Light 1. 4. Forked River 2005SS'W of Light 2 75 yds

3. Stouts Creek, 130 SE Light 1, 5. Oyster Creek 600 EIMZ Light 3 50 yds.

40 yds from mile marker. 6. Oyster Creek 2200 3W Light 3 50 yds

4. Oyster Creek, Route #9. 7. Oyster Creek Route #9.

5. Oyster Creek, 29C0° MM 150 yds 8. Forked River Route #9.

off Light 3.

6. Oyster Creek, ON Light 3, 150 yds 4 October 71 -15

7. Oyster Creek, 20" NNE Light 3, 100 yds.

8. Forked River, 24'WSEW Light 2, 250 yds. 1. Forked River 240UWS', Light 2

9. Forked River, 270 W Light 2, 150 yds. 2. Forký River 140. SSE Light 2 from first can in from Light. 3. Oyster Creek 1200 SE Light 3

10. Forked River, 335"off Light 2, 300 yds. 4. Oyster Creek 18& S. Light 3

11. Route #9, Forked River. 5. Stouts Creek 120E- ESE Light 1.

6. Stouts Creek 180' S. mile marker 18 Aug 71-12 26 October 1971

1. Oyster Creek Route 9

1. Stouts Creek 340e NIUW Mile marker.

2. Oyster Cree]ý, 2800 WeIFrLight 3, 150 yds from light Jo. of can 5, 150 yds

2. -touts Creek 120 ESE mile marker

3. Oyster Creek, 20*0NH Light 3, 75 yds from marker 75 yds

3. Forked rdver 60lN+/-i Light 2 50 ft.

4. Oyster Creek, _'way between derrick from light.

and creek.

4. Forled River 240'WSW Light 2, 75 to

5. Stouts Creek south of Light,100 yds

• 6. Stouts Creek 50lrTE of Light 1, 100 yds.

5. oyster Creek, iKoite 19 50 yds 6. Oyster Creek 200 ýýW Light 3, 30 yds.

Station Locations for Ilydrographic Data: 1971 26 October 1971

7. Cyster Creek 60 ITE Light 3, 60 yds.

8. Forked River Route #9.

9 Deceuber 1971

1. Stouts Creek, 150";E' Light 1, 300 yds.

2. Stouts Creek, 30OMi Light 1, 75 yds from mile marker.

3. Forked ýiver,80"E Light 2, 20:) vds.

4. Forked River, 130 S Light 2, 100 yds.

5. Cyster Creek, Route 9.

6. Cyster Creek, 140(SE Light 3, 100 yds.

Station Loc:itionil for Iiydrogralhic Data: 1972 11 April 1072 72-1 12 July 1972 72-6

1. 20 N. Li-:ht, Oyster Creek, 100 yds. 1. 110 SE Light 1, Stouts creek, 50 yds off

2. 270C'.d. Light 3, Oyster Creek, 75 yds. mile marker.

3. 140 SE Light 1, Stouts Creek, 75 yds. 2. 70'I and 200 ydz off mile arr.r:cr, Stouts from mile marker. Creek.

4. 100 E. Light 1, Stouts Creek, 200 ydo. .3. 220'S1, 20 ydo off Light 1, Stouts Creek

5. 40 0°ýE Li-;ht 2, Forked Liver, 100 yds. 4. Oyster Creek, Route #9

6. I-$*5. Light 2, Forked River, 200 yds. 5. 2& 0 'W., 400 yds off Light 3, Cyzter Creek

6. 240' dW., 100 yds off Light 3, 0yster Cr&ee 26 A-ril 1972 72-2 7. 20'N., 200 yds off Light 3, Cyster Creek

8. 220` .W, 300 ydn off Light 2, Forked

1. 1903SS3W mile marker, 200 yds. Piver.

2. 170' SE of mile marker, Stouts Creek, 75yds. 9. 320'IM1 Light 2, 400 ydz, Forked River.

3. 700 E Light 2, Forked River, 100 yds. 10. 2W00' Light 2, 180 S Black buoy h'7,

4. 2000 SS3W Light 2, Forked River, 100 yds. 50 yds off buoy.

5. Route .19, Oyster Creek 11. Forked River, Route 9.

6. 2200 SW Light 3, Oyster Creek

7. 1003ES7 Light 3, Oyster Creek, 75 yds.

8. Route ;9, Forked River 1 Augrust 1972 72-7 16 May 1972 7 1. 160, SjE 3 :ile marker, 200 yds fro:.i Light 1

1. 140'SE Light 1, Stouts Creek, 30 yds from 2. 40"HL Light 1, 150 yds from Light.

mile marker 3. Oyster Creek, i(oute 9.

4. 225'S$J Oyster Creek, Light 3, 75 yds.

2. 16002E Light 1, Stouts Creek, 75 yds from mile marker 5. 210'SSW. Oyster Creek Light 3, 100 yds.

3. 220"-)W Light 3, Oyster Creek, 75 yds. 6. 1 00South Light 2, 300 yds.

4. 20" N. Light 3, Oyster Creek 7. 0°`. Light 2, 75 yds, Forked River.

5. Route i/9, Oyster Creek 8. Forked River,. Route J9.

6. 240c WSW Light 2, Forked River, 75 yds.

.from light

7. 8V N*3 Light 2, Forked River, 75 yds. 16 A,-2jst 1972 72-8

8. Route /9, Forked River 1. 1400S. of !Mile :Iarlker, Stouts Creek, 25 yds.

2 June 1972 72-4 2. 60WE* Light 1, Stouts Creek, 290 yds.

1. 40° YE, 100 yds off Light 1, Stouts Creek 3. Cyster Creek, Route *19.

2. 1150 ESE , 100 yds off Light 1. Stouts Creek 4. 25d W.' Light 3, Cyster Creek, 300 ycls.

3. 60* E, 150 yds off Light 3 Oyster Creek 5. 2*0 N Lieht 3, Oyster Creek, 200 yds.

4. 1400 SE, 50 yds off Light 3, Oyster Creek 6. 250v.W3, Light 2, Forked River, 350 yds.

5. 2200 S31,25 yds off Light 2, Forked River 7. 33e0 IPfI Light 2, Forked diver 200 yds.

6. 450 N, 75 yds off Light 2 Forked River 8. Forked River, Route #9.

26 June 1972 72-5

1. 2000 SZ7.', 200 yds off Light 1, Stouts Creek

2. 1300 L2, 50 yds off Light 1, Stouts Creek

3. 900 N3, 150 yds off Light 1 Stouts Creek'

4. 250 'J, 50 yds off Light 3, Oyster Creek

5. 55" "1, 200 yds off Light 3, Oyster Creek

6. 1100 ESE, 25 yds off Light 3, Oyster Creek

7. 190' S, 75 yds off Light 2, Forked River

8. 400 N, 200 yds off Light 2, Forked River

9. 70 0 E, 75 yds off Light 2, Forked River

,. II HYDROGRAPHIC DATA FOR STUDY AREA IN BAR14EGAT BAY: 1971 Station Depth Temnerature Salinltt Secchi Date Cruise Time (EST) (o/oc) (feet)

(feet) (oc) 8 Apr. 71-1 0910 1. 0.0 6.3 2.5 6.56 *6.0 1010 2. 0.0 1~3.5 20.0 16.0 0.0 6.7 3.

21.0 6.6 13 Apr. 71-2 0845 1 0.0 10.9 20.18 4.5 3.28 ]0.9 6.56 10.4 7.38 10.1 21.68

2. 0.0 10.5 20.52 4.0 0930 3.28 10.3 6.56 I0.2 7.38 9.9 20-54 3 0"; 0 132 21.24 4.0 3.28 11.9 6.56 13.0 8.2 10.4 21.19 4 0.0 13.2 21.17 4.5 3.28 T3.7 (5.56 12.9 7.38 11.2 21.44 1205 0.00 13.7 22.36 2.0 1.64 13.5 3.28 13.4 4.92 13.4 6.56 13.9 22.13 2.5 1240 6 0.00 1,4.6 22.47 1.64 13.4 3.28 13.3 4.92 13.2 6.56 12.6 22.25 7 0.0 21.1 17.43 3.28 6.56 21.9 21.9 8 0.0 21.09 1.64 13.2 3.28 12.8 6.56 13.0 8.2 12.6 0

Date C rui se T !r.-,e St titrn Donth T:vnr,,r &ur'c S3 Ltty S2 chi 1 0.0 11.2 5.0 a 29 Apr 71-3 0930 1.0 2.0 11.1 11.0 22.39 3.0 11.0 4.0 11.0 5.0 11.1 6.0 11.0 7.0 11.0 7.75 10.9 25.46 1000 2 0.0 22.25 5.0 2.0 ii. 2 3.0 11.2 4.0 II11.1 10.7 5.0 I1.I 6.0 11.1 7.0 8.0 11.1 24.52 1030 3 0.0 10.7 18 .I 23.60 5.0 1.0 10.9 A.0 10.9 5.0 10.9 6.0 10.9 10.9 7.0 8.0 11.7 8.5 10.7 25.41 1100 4 0.0 10.7 23.58 6.5 1.0 10.8 2.0 10.9 3.0 10.9 4.0 10.9 5.0 10.9 6.o 10.9 7.0 10.9 8.0 10.9 25.06 1200 5 Left-- 0.0 11.6 22.92 6.0 1.0 12.7 2.0 12.7 3.0 12.7 Ill. 0 12.7 5.0 12..2 6.0 12.0 7.0 11.7 7.5 11." 24.33 Right-- 0.0 18.7 i.0 17.0 2.0 14.7 3.0 13.7 4I.0 12.5 5.0 12.0 6.0 12.0 7.0 11.7 8.0 11.7

Date Cruise T ime Stntlon Depth Temrnri'ature S]J!nity Secchi (0C) (o/co) ( fc t )

(EST) (- : e t) 29 Apr 71-3 1230 6 0.0 I*.i 22.53 6.0 1.0 19.5 19.0 3.0 13.5 4.0 14.6 5.0 12. 5 6.0 12.0 7.0 11.0 24.43 6 M ay 71-4 0820 1 C.0 13.5 22.16 5.0

13. 5 1.0 2.0 16 . 5 3.0 13.5 4.0 13.5 5.0 13.5 6.0 13.7 7.0 13.7 7.75 13.7 23.33 0900 2 0.0 13.4 22.37 1.0 13.4 2.0 13.4

• 15.4 3.0 4.0 13.4 5.0 6.0 13.4 7.0 13.7 7.5 13.7 23.39 0945 0.0 20.6 22.86 5.0 1.0 20.6 2.0 19.9 3.0 14.7 4.0 14.6 5.0 14.7 6.0 14.7 6.75 14.7 23.51 1020 4 0.0 22. 7 22.70 5.0 1.0 20.5 2.0 14.9 3.0 14.0 4.0 14.2 5.0 14.4 5.75 14.2 23.06 1100 5 0.0 24.4 21.33 1.0 24.7 2.0 24.7 3.0 25.0 4.0 25.6 5.0 25.6 6.0 25.7 7.0 25.8 4.0 25.8 12.0 26.0 22.55

Da -.e Crul se Ti o Station Tempera.ture Sailinty S7ecch.

(-;SST) (feet) (cC). (fee t) 0 6 i,.qy 71-4 1137 6 0.0 1.0 2.0 10.4 10.2 10.0 22.88 5.25 3.0 9.6 4.0 14.7 5.0 14.7 6.0 14.6 7.0 14.6 23.98 1205 7 0.0 14.9 22.95 1.0 15.0 2.0 14.7 3.0 14.7 4.0 14.8 5.0 15.1 6.0 15.2 7.0 15.0 7.75 14.7 24.16 1240 8 0.0 16.0 23.46 1.0 16.0 2.0 16.0 3.0 16.0 4.0 16.0 5.0 16.0 6.0 16.0 23.39 18 May 71-5 0805 1 0.0 16.6 5.0 1.0 15.9 2.0 15.7 3.0 15.7 4.0 15.7 5.0 15.7 6.0 15.8 7.0 16.1 8.0 16.0 0840 2 0.0 16.9 5.0 1.0 16.2 2.0 16.0 3.0 15.9 4.0 15.7 5.0 15.9 6.0 16.0 7.0 16.0 8.0 16.0 0920 3 0.0 16.7 1.0 16.2 2.0 16.0 3.0 15.9 4.0 15.9 5.0 15.7 6.0 15.5 7.0 15.3 8.0 15.5

Date Cruise Ti me Station Depth Temnerature Salln'Ity Becohi.

(EST) (Fe et) (OC) (feet) 18 May 71-5 0950 4 0.0 16.9 5.0 1.0 16.5 2.0 16.2 3.0 16.0 4.0 16.0 5.0 15.7 6.0 15.7 7.0 15.6 7.5 15.5 1035 5 0.0 23.7 5.0 1.0 19.0 2.0 18.9 3.0 17.3 4.0 17.1 5.0 17.0 6.0 16.7 7.0 16.6 1125 6 0.0 24.0 5.0 1.0 24.0 2.0 21.7 3.0 22.7 4.0 17.0 5.0 16.7 6.0 16.5 7.0 16.9 1215 7 0.0 24.2 1.0 25.2 2.0 26.0 3.0 26.2 4.0 26.4 5.0 26.4 6.0 26.4 8.0 26.7 10.0 26.7 1300 8 0.0 18.0 4.5 1.0 17.7 2.0 17.6 3.0 17.6 4.0 27.5 5.0 17.4 6.0 17.4 8.0 17.4 10.0 17.4 3 June 71-6 0820 1. 0.0 20.0 21.47 3.25 1.0 19.7 2.0 19.7 3.0 19.6 4.0 19.6 5.0 19.5 6.0 1.-. f5 7.0 19.2 8.0 1.S.7 21.80

Daze CruiLse T i me Station Depth Tempe r, tuxre SrIr, 1 ty cchI cŽ (EST) (fe 0) ( c/oc) (fet) 3 June 71-6 0850 0.0 19.6 3.75 1.0 19.5 2.0 19.45 3.0 13. 45 4.0 19. 4:5 5.0 19.45 6.0 19.2 7.0 18.9 8.0 16.7 0913 3 0.0 19.7 4.0 1.0 19.6 2.0 19.45 3.0 19.2 4.0 19.2 5.0 19.2 6.'J 19.2 7.0 19.2 0940 4 0.0 20.6 21.56 3.25 1.0 20.2 2.0 20.2 3.0 20.2 4.0 19.95 5.0 19.95 6.0 16.7 7.0 18.2 8.0 17.7 22.01 1005 5 0.0 21.7 4.25 1.0 21.2 2.0 21.2 3.0 21.0 4.0 5.0 20.7

'C.2 7.0 18.7

?.5 1028 6. 0.0 21.7 3.75 1.0 21.7 2.0 21.7 3.0 21I.

21.77 5.0 5.0 'J". 6 6.0 18.7

?.0 ila. 4 1115 7 0.0 22.2 21.15 1.0 22.2 2.0 22.0 3.0 21L.2 4.0 19.2 5.0 1i.5 6.0 18.3 6.5 18.2 22.36

Date Cruise Ti me 3 trti on ITopt ' mT)'prr f" ur e (re c Ce,.L (EST) (foot) (°C) (o/oo) ( fe e t) 3 June 71-6 1135 8 1.0 3 .25 2.0 leJ. 7 3.0 22.2 z4.0 10.0 5.0 18.7 6.0 18.2 6.5 9 0.0 2:;.

1155 1.0 21.77 3.0 2.0 20.6 3.0 20.2 4.0 19.5 5.0 1. 3 6.0 18.2 10 6.5 18.2 1230 0.0 29.2 17.61 1.0 28.7 2.0 28.7 3.0 28.7 4.0 30.2 5.0 30.2 6.0 30.2 7.0 30.2 8.0 .30.6 8.5 30.6 18.86 1300 11 0.0 22.7 18.01 1.0 22.7 2.0 22.7 3.0 22.7 4.0 22.5 5.0 22.0 6.0 21.7 7.0 21 .7 21.7 8.0 21.7 9.0 21.7 10.0 18.17 19.3 16 June 71-7 0820 1 0.0 19.3 22.63 4.5 1.0 1,9.3 2.0 3.0 19.3 19.3 4.0 19.3 5.0 19.3 6.0 19.3 7.0 7.5 19.5 24.45

Date Cruise Time S taIt Ion Sec c'k-(!ST) (feet) (CC) (c/oco) (f.eet) a 16 June 71-7 0855 2 0.0 1e.? 22.45 4.5 1.0 ]9.!

2.0 19 .3 3.0 19.3 4.0 1.9.5 5.0 19.3 6.0 1~9.3 7.0 19.3 B.0 19.3 24.87 0930 3 0.0 19.1 4.25 1.0 19.5 2.0 19.3 3.0 19.3 4.0 19.5 5.0 19.3 6.0 7.0 19.1 P.o 19 .1 1020 4 0.0 19.3 22.92 4.0 i.0 19.5 2.0 19.5 3.0 19,6 4.0 1L9.6 5.0 19.6 6.0 19.6 7.0 19.7 8.0 19.6 19.?

8.5 19.2 23.13 1065 5 0.0 22.52 4.5 19.5 1.0 19.5 2.0 19.5 3.0 19.5 4.0 19.6 5.0 19.6 6.0 19.6 7.0 19.7 8.0 19.3 22.54 1120 6 0.0 3.5 1.0 19.6 2.0 19.7 3.0 19.7 19.7 4.0 19.7 5.0 19.7

6. C0 19.7 7.0 19.7 8.0

Da te Cruise Ti me Station Depth Temperature Salinity Secchi (EST) (feet) (oc) (o/oo) (fee-)

16 June 71-7 1150 7 0.0 20.0 22.99 2.5 1.0 2u. 2 2.0 20.1 3.0 20.2 4.0 20.2 5.0 20.2 6.0 20.2 7.0 23.01 8 0.0 22.7 20.84 2.5 1220 1.0 21.2 2.0 20.2 3.0 20.1 4.0 19.4 5.0 19.5 6.0 19.4 7.0 19.3 22.79 1250 9 0.0 25.7 3.5 1.0 24.7 2.0 22.7 3.0 20.7 MO. 7 4.0 5.0 20.3 6.0 7.0 19.3 1330 10 0.0 23.9 18.19 3.0 1.0 29.1 2.0 29.6 3.0 29.7 4.0 29.9 5.0 29.9 6.0 31.1 7.0 31.1 8.0 31.1 9.0 31,1 9.5 31.1 20.05 1410 11 0.0 20.7 21.35 2.5 1.0 20.7 2.0 20.7 0.0 20.7 4.0 20.9 5.0 20.9 6.0 20.9 7.0 20.9 8.0 20.9 12.5 20.9 21.60

Dat e Cruisc T! me 3 t a.ti C.n (iST) f,')1 2 July 71-8 0605 1 23. 10 2.5 1.0

21. 0 2.0 3.0 t.6

'2 7.0 .0 7.5 2. 5 0.0 -j

2. 26.0 23.17 2.5 0720 2 1.0 26.0 26.0 3.0 4.0 25.0 5.0 26.0 25.'

7. 0 26 . 2 7.75 26.2 23.48 07 45 0.0 *25.6 23.44 2.75 3 1.0 ,-5.7 2.0 25.8 3.0 25.7 4.0 5.0 25.8 6.0 25.8 7.0 25.9 8.0 25.9 23.44 0815 4 0.0 28.7 22.81 2.5 1.0 2.0 29.7 3.0 26.8 4.0 26,. 7 5.0 26.7 6(.0 26.7 7.0 26.7 23.50 5 0.0 28.7 23.51 2.75 0835 i.0 29.2 2.0 25C. 2 3.0 C7.7 4.0 5.0 27.2 6.0 26.7 6.25 26.7 24.33 0855 0.0 cc 2.5 6

i.0 29. e.

.ý 2.0 c-, -

3.0 9.8 4.0 26.8 2,"i .

0930 0.0 29.2 7

7.5 26.6

Date Cruise Time 5 - t i ol D o : ., ' ° ( ' ' - - '

(EST) 2 July 71-8 1010 8 0. Ii .~-i

/7.. * (*.~*~

p..

3.0 12.0 5.0 2...

7.010 12.0 '-..* ',_

1100 9 0.0 22.67 1.0 2.0 * .gJ 3.0 4.0 5.0

• 2o. 7 26.1 6.0 230 6.5 26.0 23./; 6 1130 10 0.0 2.5 1.0 2.0 26.4 3.0 20'. -1 4.0 5.0 £u2 6.0 7.0 26.1 2:20.0 6.(2 1150 11. 0.0 12'0 .o 257 57 2.5 1.0 2;0 26.

5.0 r.

3. 2?. 25

). 45 23.70 1220 .12 0.0 27.2 23.93 12.0 936.

27.2?.

7..5 0635 1 0.0 23.5 25.92 3.0 15 July 71-9 1.0

• 2.0 23.9 3.0 23.2 4.0 23.9 5.0 23.9 6.0 24.1 7.0 24.1 7.5 1;.] 26.18

DaZe Cruise Ti em Stn'tion Doc *:

(EST)

S 15 July 71-9 0700 2  ?~'

• 1.0 3 . UO

,.'7 4.0 5.0 6.0 23.8S

.' .0.

Zo0 12 4*. 0 3 0.0 26. ,'13 1.0 240 2.00

?.

8.0

?.5 1*.0 5.0 24.0C 6.0 7.0 7.5 26.19 0820 4 0.0 25.9 24.92 2.5 1.0 2.3.9 2.0 P3.9

4. 0 22. 8 5.0 2"2. 8 6.0 22.8 7.0 25.0S 3.0 23.9 0850 5 24.94 24.0 0.0 24.0 1.0 23.9 5.0 23.8 25.3 2 4 .. 0 3.0 2.0 23.8 25.14 0920 6 0.0 24.92 2.75 1.0 242 2.0 24.2 4:. 0 5.0 23.8 0.0 3.03 23.8 0.0 5. 3 7 2-5.7( 4 25.10 1015 6.0

9. 5 5.0 L,.. 2.

, ..7

'7.0 26.22

Dat e C r .l se TI mo 51." i;i or" (;',:* C*, J. (c,/; ., ; (. " '

(..,T )

15 July 71-9 I013

• ).- .

1.0 4*.0

'- 3 , ** t.

25 ",,'2

• • 1130 9 5.0 2j. u0 3.5 1.0 2.0 24.9 3.0 25.0

.. 0 5.0 24.7 0.0 24.6 7.0 24.6 26.13 1230 10 0.0 30.4 24.94 2.0 1025 I 0.0 25.6 25.68 2.0 1 0.0 26.3 25.71 2.5 29 July 71-10 0855 7.0 26.2 25.53 0945 9 0.0 29.5 25.59 2.0 6.0 25.9 26. ,.6 0.0 32.6 24.49 2.0 1035 3 32.6 24.36 1400 4 0.0 28.4 25.97 2.5 15.0 28.5 25.99 1 0.0 24.0 25.86 *2.25 6 August 71-11 0726 0.5 24.4 1.0 24.3 2.0 24.4 3.0 24.5 4.0 24.6 5.0 24.6 6.0 24.6 7.0 24.6 8.0 24.8 25.99 2 0.0 24.0 26.00 2.50 0755 0.5 24.6 1.0 24.6 2.0 24.6 3.0 24.6 4.0 2,.6 5.0 .2 6.0 25.2 7.0 25.4 7.5 25.4 26.13 0819 3 0.0 24.7 - 2.25 0.5 24t.3 1.0 24.9 2.0 25.1 3.0 25.1

Date Cruise Time Station Depth Temperaturo Salinity .fe ccnt (0c.) (feet)

I EST (feet) (0/0o) 0819 4.0 25.1 5.0 25.1 6.0 25.0 7.0 24.9 8.0 24.9 0855 0.0 30.2 24.29 1.75 3.0 30.4 6.0 30.5 9.0 30.5 12.0 30.5 24.52 0920 0.0 28.0 24.98 2.50 1.0 27.8 2.0 27.6 3.0 26.7 4.0 26.1 5.0 24.5 6.0 24.3 26.08 0950 0.0 29.7 24.42 2.50 1.0 28.8 2.0 28.6 3.0 26.8 0 4.0 24.9 24.6 5.0 6.0 24.4 6.5 24.4 27.03 1012 0.0 29.6 2.25 1.0 29.6 2.0 28.4 3.0 27.9 4.0 26.6 5.0 24.9 6.0 24.5 6.5 24.4 1040 0.0 25.3 26.33 2.50 1.0 25.6 2.0 25.6 3.0 25.6 4.0 25.3 5.0 25.2 5.5 25.2 26.29 1055 0.0 25.6 26.27 2.75 1.0 25.6 2.0 25.7 3.0 25.4 4.0 25.4 5.0 25.2 6.0 25.1 7.0 25.0 7.25 25.0 26.67

Station Dopth Temperature Salinity Eecchi

ýate Cruise Time (feet) ("C.) (0/00) (feet)

EST 71-11 1130 10 0.0 25.3 2.50

)Aug 1.0 25.4 2.0 25.5 3.0 25.5 4.0 25.3 5.0 25.1 6.0 24.9 7.0 24.9 8.0 25.0 1200 11 0.0 25.7 25.43 .2.50 25.52 1 0.0 23.5 24.79 3.50 3 Aug 71-12 0730 1.0 31.0 3.0 30.9 12.0 30.9 25.23 0804 2 0.0 28.2 26.94 3.50 1.0 28.7 2.0 28.7 3.0 27.0 4.0 26.4 5.0 25.7 5.75 25.6 25.77 0821 3 0.0 29.2 25.62 3.75 1.0 29.2 2.0 28.8 3.0 27.0 4.0 25.6 5.0 25.3 6.0 25.0 7.0 25.1 25.60 0850 4 0.0 29.8 3.0 1.0 29.2 2.0 25 .'7 3.0 25.2 4.0 25.2 5.0 25.2 6.0 25.2 6.5 25.2 0955 5 0.0 25.6 25.66 3.5 1.0 25.3 2.0 25.0 3.0 24.9 4.0 24.9 5.0 24.8 6.0 24.8 7.0 24.8 25.53 1020 6 0.0 25.3 q 3.5 1.0 26.0 2.0 25.8 3.0 25.6 4.0 25.2 5.0 24.9 6.0 24.9 7.0 24.9

Date .Cruise Time Station Depth Temperature ',ain t~ Zecchi EST (feet) (ic) (feet) 18 Aug 71-12 1050 7 0.0 26.5 25.48 3.25 1.0 26.2 2.0 26.2 3.0 25.8 4.0 25.2 5.0 25.1 6.0 25.0 7.0 25.0 7.5 24.9 25.55 1115 8 0.0 26.5 26.38 3.50 1.0 26.4 2.0 26.4 3.0 26.4 4.0 26.4 5.0 25.8 6.0 25.5 7.0 25.3 7.5 25.3 26.36

.1135 9 0.0 25.7 26.38 3.25 1.0 26.7 2.0 26.7 3.0 26.7 4.0 26.7 5.0 25.9 6.0 25.7 7.0 25.5 26.51 1215 10 0.0 26.3 3.0 1.0 26.0 2.0 26.5 3.0 26.5 4.0 26.5 5.0 26.1 6.0 25.4 1230 21 0.0 26.4 25.93 2.25

10. . 26.4 25.84 0700 1 0.0 30.7 19.00 2.25 2 Sept 71-13 1.0 30.9 3.0 31.4 4.0 32.1 5.0 32.3 6.0 32.4 10.0 32.6 20.05 0720 2 0.0 27.9 22.32 2.50 1.0 28.2 2.0 28.1 3.0 26.6 4.0 24.3 5.0 24.0 6.0 23.9 "7-6 .9.10 'A AO

Date Cruise Time Station Depth Temperature ..alinity -ecchi E;6T (Feet) ('C.) (0/00) (feet) 2 Sept 71-13 0740 3 0.0 27.9 22.05 2.75 1.0 27.9 2.0 25.8 3.0 24.2 4.0 24.0 5.0 23.7 6.0 23.7 6.5 23.9 24.22 0803 4 0.0 .27.8 3.00 1.0 27.6 2.0 27.4 3.0 25.3 4.0 24.6 5.0 24.1 6.0 23.9 6.5 23.9 0835 5 0.0 21.6 20.12 2.00 1.0 21.8 2.0 21.8 3.0 21.8 4.0 22.2 5.0 22.3 6.0 22.7 7.0 23.3 23.22 0855 6 0.0 21.7 20.17 2.00 1.0 22.0 2.0 22.0 3.0 22.1 4.0 22.1 5.0 22.3 6.0 22.3 7.0 22.8 8.0 23.5 22.23 0920 7 0.0 22.0 2.00 1.0 22.2 2.0 22.2 3.0 22.2 4.0 22.1 5.0 22.3 6.0 .22.4 7.5 23.0 0945 8 0.0 22.0 22.03 1.75 1.0 22.4 2.0 22.4 3.0 22.4

.4.0 22.5 5.0 22.5 6.0 22.8 7.0 23.4 8.0 23.5 25.32

Date Cruise Time Station Depth Temperature Salinirtj Zecchi EST (feet) (c.) (0/00) (feet) 2 Sept 71-13 1017 9 0.0 22.0 22.00 2.00 1.0 22.3 2.0 22.4 3.0 22.4 4.0 23.0 5.0 23.0 6.0 23.1 7.0 23.4 7.75 23.5 24.07 10 0.0 22.4 1025 2.00 1.0 22.5 2.0 22.5 3.0 22.6 4.0 22.5 5.0 22.7 6.0 23.0 7.0 23.4 7.5 23.4 0.0 22.8 3.00 1100 20.99 1.0 22.9 2.0 23.0 3.0 23.0 4.0 23.0 5.0 23.0 10.0 23.0 21.22 0.0 21.8 19.72 22 Sept 71-14 1205 2.50 12 1.0 21.8 2.0 21.8 3.0 21.8 4.0 21.8 5.0 21.8 6.0 21.8 7.0 21.8 7.5 21.8 20.16

3. 0.0 21.7 19.45 1228 2.50 1.0 21.7 2.0 21.7 3.0 .21.7 4.0 21.7 5.0 21.7 6.0 21.8 20.16 0.0 21.7 19.34 1300 2.50 1.0 21.7 2.0 21.7 21.7 S 3.0 4.0 5.0 21.7 21.7 6.0 21.7 7.0 21.7 7.5 21.7 19.90

Date Cruis3e Time otation Dopth Tempeorature :3a1.inity Lecchi E&T (feet) ( C.) .(0/00) (feet) 71-14 1327 0.0 21.8 19.31 2.50 22 Sept 1.0 21.8 2.0 22.0 3.0 22.0 4.0 22.0 5.0 21.8 6.0 21.8 7.0 21.8 8.0 21.8 19.54 1353 0.0 20.8 19.00 2.50 1.0 20.8 2.0 20.8 3.0 20.9 4.0 21.0 5.0 21.1 6.0 21.1 7.0 21.1 7.5 21.1 19.99 1415 0.0 21.8 19.13 2.50 1.0 21.8 2.0 21.8 3.0 22.0 4.0 22.0 5.0 22.0 6.0 22 2 7.0 22.3 19.36 1447 0.0 21.7 18.64 3 1.0 21.7 5.0 21.7 10.0 21.7 12.0 21.7 19.54 1521 0.0 21.7 20.28 3 1.0 21.7 5.0 21.7 10.0 22.0 12.0 22.2 20.30 4 Oct 71-15 1045 0.0 20.1 20. 10 2.00 1.0 19.9 2.0 19.9 3.0 19.9 4.0 19.9 5.0 19.9 6.0 19.9 7.0 19.9 8.0 19.9 9.0 19.9 22.74 1100 0.0 19.9 20.43 2.50 1.0 19.9 2.0 19.9 3.0 19.9 4.0 19.9 5.0 19.9

Date Cruise Time Station Depth Temperature aSalinity ,occhi E&T (f eet) ( c..) (o/oo) (feet)

P4 Oct 71-15 1100 2 6.0 19.9 7.0 19.9 8.0 19.9 9.0 19.9 9.5 19.9 22.70 1120 3 0.0 19.9 18.30 2.00 1.0 19.9 3.0 19.9 4.0 19.9 5.0 19.9 6.0 19.9 7.0 19.9 8.0 19.9 8.5 19.9 22.34 1140 4 0.0 19.6 18.30 2.25 1.0 19.9 2.0 19.9 3.0 19.9 4.0 19.9 5.0 19.9 6.0 19.9 7.0 19.9 8.0 19.9 21.15 5 0.0 20.1 19.85 2.25 1345 1.0 20.1 2.0 20.1 3.0 20.1 4.0 20.1 5.0 20.1 6.0 20.1 7.0 20.1 8.0 20.1 22.92 1404 6 0.0 21.1 19.89 2.25 1.0 21.1 2.0 21.1 3.0 21.1 4.0 21.1 5.0 21.1 6.0 21.1 7.0 21.1 8.0 21.1 9.0 21.1 23.64 26 Oct 71-16 1020 1 0.0 17.8 19.79 3.0 7.0 17.8 19.89 1045. 2 0.0 17.8 20.05 3.0 8.0 17.8 20.10 1110 3 0.0 16.6 22.21 3.5 7.5 16.6 22.21

4 u.~r - .-. .. -

Date Cr-ise Time S3tation T'Ž:x r:fat:.re .

EL;T (f°,:, )

• I 26 Uct 71-16 1133 U.0 14.8 7 -J 7.5 14.8 1210 5 0.0 14.4 10.0 14.4 1230 6 0.0 15.2 17. 5 2.50 20,. -,

7.5 15.0 1255 7 0.0 17.7 2. 51 17.4 21.c.3 7.5 1340 0.0 15.5 17.2.6 10.0 16.0 1 .0.0 8.0 9 Dec 71-17 0915 7.0 8.35 0934 2 0.0 7.69 18.77 4.25 7.0 6.60 25.30 0.0 8.88 21.62 3.25 0955 3.

6.76 26.77 0.0 8.58 24.45 4.25 1012 4 7.42 26.70 1040 5 0.0 16.53 18.27 3.50 3

15.98 18.37 1100 6 3.00@

HYDiOUGIH*2ilIC DATA Ful 5T2U)Y IL"2A III BAILL'GAT BAY: 1972

'tation Dcpth ( "c

.) Salinity m

I Date Cruise Time (r-'T) (fcc~

Ter:i; erature (ol/co)

(ecc*i

(-oC t) 11 Apr 72-1 1000 0.0 10.25 20.35 4.0 1.0 10.50 2.0 10.54 3.0 10.54 4.0 9.70 5.0 5.80 6.0 5.00 7.0 5.80 23.72 0.0 10.00 20.72 3.75 1.0 10.10 2.0 9.65 3.0 9.65 4.0 7.25 5.0 6.0 6.20 7.0 6.50 7.5 6.50 23.47 0.0 3..25 18.94 3.5 1.0 3.24 2.0 3.14 3.0 3.14 4.0 3.14 5.0 3.14 6.0 3.22 19.14 0.0 3.23 18.85 3.75 1.0 3.23 2.0 3.23 3.0 3.oo 4.0 3.00 5.0 3.23 19.01 0.0 3.83 20.00 4.0 1.0 3.70 2.0 3.70 3.0 3.28 4.0 3.69 5.0 4.10 6.0 4.20 21.03 3.75 "

0.0 4.12 20.21 1.0 4.12 2.0 5.88 3.0 5.20 4.0 4.80 5.0 4.50 6.0 4.53 22.60 26 Apr 72-2 1010 0.0 9.60 20.94 4.5

~.0. 9.65 4.0 9.66 5.0 9.66 6.0 9.66 21.25

.... ,IC

' ).'TA 10 2TUUY AW>\ T: :-A,9W-T -AY: 1972 CruVice Tii;:: Station Dc. )I (feet)0 'h.1!ni ty (o/0O} .: -:;A (E:2¶.)

1035 2 jOt- tnct-,-.,

3 0.0 21.58 7.5 1.0 'Li 2.2 0.95 4.0 -,. 95 4.0 o * (~.2~.

5'.o (~*~ l 6.0 9.84 1130 4

1230 1255 6 15.60 19.37 3.25 0.0 i.0 2.0 13.74 5.0 1-1.20 4.0 11.13 5 .0 11.09 7

0150 a 21.29 3.75 16 mIy 7-3 C835 0.0 1.0 15.4.5 17.00 3.25

17. &7 4.LC..L'4 3:8 4.0 15.32 13.34 5.0 15.00 19.91 6.0 14.78 19.46 14.36 19.05 0502 2 1.0 15.44 17. £ 2.0 15.42 18.12 3.0 Lo. 11 4.0 15.22 19.11 5.0 Y4.02 II 1 7 14.'04 19.40 7.0 14.44 19.79 0930 0.0 15.51 19.5 3 3

15.27 1-.73 2.0 14. SO 14.70 20,.12 3.0 4.0o 14.67 20.53 5.0 14. 10 20.83

"?,) AlI 6.0 14.17 7.0 13.9) 23.30 0953 4 0.0 15.4/ 19 .2 1.0 15.4o 19.4i 3.2 e-, -0 i .0 14.92C 5.0 147 29.23 20.31

tIfDUG(;-AXd~iIC DATA FO., STUDY 1.',': ,,"..... LY .1972 1.72 Tim.eo tation T,-ý .r trc, .i!:'nity S c 6.: 14. .20; '21.72 7.0 14.01 21 S 1033 o.0 15.05 1i.0 15.54

,5. 15.55 10.'0 15.59 17.55

~4 1110 e 0.0 15.63 1.0 16.00 2.0 15.93 3.0 15.91 15 03 19. .0 5.0 15.44 15.40 7.0 15.29 -! -. 59 2o.20 0.0 15.45 19.8o 1125 7 i.0 15.96 2.0 15.44 19. 97 3.i 15.42 4.0 15.30 19.87 5.0 15.42 6.0 15.2a 19.94 7..) 15.37 19.90 1155 8 0.0 16.16 19.72 1.0 16.24 19.77 4.25 5.0 16.22 19.82 10.0 16.09 19.97 2 June 72-4 0808 1 0.0 17.42 21.00 1.0 17.42 2.0 17.42 3.0 17.30 4.0 17.30 5.0 17.30 6.0 17.30 7.0 17.52 8.0 17.52 21.37 0840 2 1.0 17.35 20. 67 2.0 17.35 3.0 17.35 4.0 17.35 5.0 17.35 6.0 17.35 7.0 17.10 9.0 17.01 17.61 21.24 0930 3 0.0 13.06 20.'30 1.0 2.0 18.06 3.0 13.06 4.0 13.06

HYDihOGRA:I-'IC DATA FOR STUDY AREA IN BAURIGLGAT DAY: 1972 Date Cruise Station Dc--th Tompcsrature Zalinity ..cchi (feet) ('cc.) (0/00) 1911 5.0 18.06 18.06 2.5 W 6.0 7.0 17.60 23.23 0952 4 0.0 18.25 20.55 2.75 1.0 18.25 2.0 18.25 3.0 13.25 4.0 18.25 5.0 18.15 6.0 17.85 21.15 1055 . 0.0 1.0 2.0 18.63 21.21 3.0 18.63 4.0 18.63 5.0 18.63 6.0 18.55 7.0 18.55 8.0 18.65 9.0 .18.65 10.0 .18.70 26 June 72-5 0830 0.0 18.38 20.19 3.75 1.0 18.38 2.0 18.38 3.0 18.38 4.0 18.38 5.0 18.38 6.0 18.18 7.0 18.18 8.0 18.13 9.0 18.18 21.40 0 C00 2 0.0 18.33 20.39 3.5 1.0 18.33 2.0 18.33 3.0 18.33 4.0 18.33 5.0 18.33 6.0 18.33 7.0 18.13 21.35 0920 3 0.0 18.26 20.36 3.75 1.0 18.26 2.0 18.26 3.0 18.26 4.0 18.26 5.0 18.26 6.0 18.26 7.0 18.26 20.95 0950 4 0.0 22.78 19.83 1.0 21.93 2.0 21.11 3.0 19.20 4.0 18.21

IfYDROGRAUMIC DATA PGA STUDY Ai*&A IN DY.2OAT VfAY: 1972 Date Craise Ti(Te S"tatic0on 2cith Cccchi a (il-oT) (f C)-

5.0 6.0 17.5 17.58 7.0 23.85 1005 5 0.0 21.43 20.70 1.0 21.43 2.0 19.85 3.0 19.38 4.0 18.80 5.0 13.23 6.0 17.74 7.0 17.50 8.0 17.50 24.25 1025 6 0.0 1.0 22.70 20.00 3.0 2.0 21.30 3.0 19.10 4.0 13.89 5.0 17.84 6.0 17.60 7.0 17.60 8.0 17.60 9.0 17.60 10.0 17.60 24.40 1105 7 1.0 20.62 21.39 2.0 20.62 3.0 20.62 4.0 20.62 5.0 19.51 6.0 19.51 7.0 19.06 8.0 17.69 9.0 17.69 10.0 17.69 23.89 1120 8 1.0 20.42 21.41 2.0 20.42 3.0 20,42 4.0 20.42 5.0 20.13 6.0 19.34 7.0 18.73 8.0 17.73 9.0 17.73 10.0 17.73 24.42 1140 9 1.0 21.06 21.37 2.0 21.06 3.0 20.90 4.0 20.90 5.0 20.55 6.0 19.98 7.0 17.84 8.0 17.79 9.0 17.63 10.0 17.60 24.17

1n'D;tOcGuLrIlIC DATA FOR STUDY ULU~ IN] BAJLNWGAT BAY: 1972 Tiz-e Station Depth Temperature Salinity 1.e cc r-Date* Cruize (feet) ( c.) (0/oo) (feet) 1 0 23.62 16.98 3.25 12 Jul 72-6 0627 1 23.70 2 23.76 3 23.73 4 23.85 5 24.22 6 24.30 7 24.30 8 24.30 19.27 0640 2 0 23.96 16.95 2.50 1 23.96 2 23.96 3 23.96 4 23.88 5 23.88 6 23.88 7 23.88 8 24.10 17.72 0723 3 0 24.03 17.17 2.50 1 24.03 2 24.03 3 23.87 4 23.87 5 24. 26 6 24.73 7 24.73 8 24.73 19.02 0820 4 0 18.24 2.75 1

2 3

4 5

6 7

8 19.00 9

10 0845 5 0 19.67 2.75 1

2 30.91

.3 29.66 4 27.09 5 26.17 6 25.43 7 25.43 8 25.43 21.71 0908 6 0 31.28 19.72 2.25 1 31.28 2 31.23 3 28.65

}iYDROGRAPRIC DATA FORi S"TUDY ARLA IN Bl I.-2ý'AT ATY: 1772 Station S Date Cruise Time (EI-)T)

Depth (foot) (C.).

Salnity (0/00) 4-cchd (feet>

12 Jul 72-6 0908 6 4 28.11 5 27.65 6 25.64 7 24.55 8 24.55 20.76 0920 7 0 30.81 19.82 3.00 1 30.44 2 30.50 3 27.42 4 26.46 5 25.23 6 24.30 7 23.97 8 23.97 22.14 0955 8 0 26.90 20.10 2.90 1 26.90 2 26.90 3 26.90 4 26.71 5 26.38 a 6 7

26.09 26.09 8 24.02 20.16 1010 9 0 27.43 20.13 2.75 1 27.43 2 27.43 3 27.43 4 27.16 5 26.94 6 26.94 7 26.24 8 25.78 20.17 1030 10 0 27.15 20.13 3.0 1 27.15 2 27.15 3 27.15 4 26.94 5 26.94 6 26.57 7 26.57 8 26.57 20.00 i110 11 0 26.97 19.47 1 26.97 2 26.97 10 26.97 19.64

x:TDi*OeA'FIC DATA FO,'0STUDY ARLA I 2AR!iEGAT DAY: 1972

- .t -_ Cruise Time Station D:rth \.)m (EEL;T) (f Ieet")

19. 2",

1 Aýuc 72-7 0700 24.07 24.07 19.20 24.42 19.47 2,% 92 21. 6 -

25.14 22.C2 24.42 27.27 24.24 27.29 24.24 27.32 24.05 0721 24.05 13.98 19.11 3.00 24..27 19.i1 25.69 21.357 24.83 25 .C3 24.56 26.85 24.48 27.38 24.48 27.20 0803 31.67 19.30 31.67 19.50 28.81 21.05 0835 3.25 28.81 29.44 29.43 21.00 21.00 21.05 0

26.22 22.19 25.23 24.13 26.18 25. 98.

26.18 25.93 28.37 21.05 3.50 0853 28.25 21.00 27.85 21.00 26.54 21.05 25.40 22.19

.24.96 .24.13 241.87 25.98 24.91 25.98 25.75 20.68 3.75 0945 25.75 20.75 25.50 20.75 25.50 .20.75 25.20 23.57 25.20 23.70 24.95 24.79 24.72 25.83 4.00 1005 25.84 20.49

25. 63 20.67 25.60 20.67 25.60 20.63 25.20 23.52 25.32 23.63 24.87 23.68 24.36 27.97

hI0WD'0RAI*IIC DATA FKi STUDY AlbiýA IN, B......U BAY: 1972 Date Cruise Time Station Depth Salinity ZSecchi (feet) C(.) (o/oo) (f-e C.t) 1 Aug 72-7 1043 8 0 25.64 19.86 1 25.61 18.82 16 Aug 72-8 0715 1 0 20.40 21.17 2.1 1 20.40 2 20.40 3 20.77 4 20.' 7 20.77 6 21.06 7 21.06 16.86 0740 1 20.50 20.98 2.25 2 20.50 3* 21.15 4 21.15 5 21.15 6 21.15 7 21.20 24.66 0823 3 1 25.53 20.98 2.25 2 25.30 10 24.90 21.42 0850 4 1 23.87 21.90 2.5 2 23.13

.3 22.25 4 21.35 5 21.20 6 21.20 7 21.76 23.23 0910 5 1 23.20 21.63 2.2 2 21.45 3 20.92 45 20.92 20.92 6 20.92 7 20.92 23.388 0935 6 1 21.20 22.87 2,5 2 21.20 3 21.20 4 21.20 5 21.15 6 20.90 7 20.77 25.40 1050 7 1 22.03 22.30 2.5 2 21.99 3 21.99 4 21.99 5 21..5 6 21.56 7 21.45 25.60 8 1 21.45 21.13 1115 10 21.68 21.18

Addendum:

Captions as they appear in the text.

p. 2. Table 1. AS IS p.. 3. Table 2. AS IS

p. 4. Figure 1. Frequency vs. frequency for two time periods, of Barnegat Bay's most frequent macroalgal species. On the X-axis we have plotted the rank of a particular species of algae during the period 1965-68 (pre-operational). Similarly, on the Y-axis we have plotted the rank of *he same species d...... the period 1970-72 (post-operational). For example, Codium fragIle ranked 10th among all species in '65-'68, but it ranked let (along with Gracilaria sp.) in frequency in !70-'72.

p. 6,7. In Figs. 2a,b, and e, we have plotted the actual values

.for computed diversity, absolute number of species, and grams (dry weight) of algae in each sample taken during the indicated time period. In Fig.2c, we have plotted only the average value of evieness for each time period. The line drawn for Figs. 2a, b, c and e connect the average values. In Fig. 2d we have plotted the diversity indices, for each station, over the three time periods: for example, at Oyster Creek (V) the first point is for June '69-Aug'70, the second point for May'71-Dec'71 and the third point is for April '72-June '72. The X in Fig. 2d is the avera;ý,e value of diversity for the period June 169-June'72. NOTE: the third point for Stouts Creek was plotted wrong, it should be closer to the 0.9 mark.

p. 8. Table 3. AS IS

p. 9. Table 4. AS IS

p. 13. Figure 3. Here we have plotted the calculated average values of-gross productivity for four years and for each station.

For sonsistency, we have only plotted data available for the period June through October for each year. Where stations have been plotted, we also give a 4-yr. average (June-Oct.) for all years, by station. On the right side of the Figure, we have given the "bay-wide" average for each ea (i.e., the average gross productivity, June-Oct., for all ay stations), and, also, the "grand mean", which is a reflection of gross production of all samples taken in the June-Oct. period for four consecutive years. In a recent re-calculation of data available from 1968, Kent Mountford (personal communication) eatimates that the yearly average (all stations) for 1968 was 505 mg. 02/ M3/ hr.

(gross productivity).

p. 14. Table 5. AS IS

p. 17. Figure 4. In bothe the top and bottom diagram, we have plotted the value of r'et productivity (rag. 02/ 113/ hr) for each station and for each of the months indicated. On the right side of each diagram, we have given the appropriate symbol for tIie stations (SC, Stouts Cr.; FR, Forked River; OC, Oyster Cr.;

WT, Waretown; IN, is the intake canal at L#*':h* #12; and OUT 's the outfall canal in the first cove of Oyster Creek). Note that the symbols are also plotted at the right side for the overall

average value of net productivity for 4 Aug.'71 through 27 July '72.

p. 18. Figure 5. Here we have plotted, in both the top and bottom diagram, the value of gross productivity (mg 02/ M3/ hr) for each station, by the date indicated. In the top diagram (Fig. 5a) we have plotted the values which Kent Mountford found in his study for each comparable time period (thies points are indicated by the symbol "K"). In the bottom diagram (Fig. 5b) we have plotted the overall bay average for the time period 4 Aug'71-27 July '72 (these points are indicatd by a lazy "B",

or

p. 21. Table 6. This, of course, is a list of new species of benthic invertebrates which we have hdded to our vouaher collection since the last progress report.

p. 22. Figure 6. Here we have plotted the number of individuals of all species of benthic invertebrates in a single sample (consisting of 7 Ponar grabs) against the volume (wet) of the sample. The upper figure (6a) is for samples only from the Stouts Creek region; while the lower figure (6b) is for Oyster Creek samples only.

p. 23. Figure 7. Here we have plotted the total number of benthic invertebrate species in a sample (consisting of 7 Ponar grabs) against the volume of the sample.

p. 25. Figure 8. In the top diagram (Fig. 8a) we have plotted the mean diversity index for all samples, collected Et a particular station, for each time period . On the right, we have indicated the appropriate symbols for each station, and have arranged the stations in their diversity rank with respect to the mean diversity over the period 27 Aug. '69 through 26 June '72. In the bottom diagram (Fig. 8b) we have plotted the average number of species for each station and during the indicated time period. The points on the right are for the average number of species at each locality during the period 27 Aug. '69 through 26 June '72.

p. 26. Table 7. AS IS

p. 28. Figure 9. Location of 9 sampling regions where wooden panels are being held under natural conditions in an effort to elucidate the boring and encrusting species of organisms in Barnegat Bay.

p, 30. Table 8. In this table we have listed the occurrence, based on the number of stations at which the species occurred relative to the number of stations sampled of various boring and encrusting species of invertebrates in the vicinity of Oyster Cr.

p. 32. Figure 10. This is a histogram showing the number of species found on or in the test boards at each station over the period October 1971 through July 1972. The slashed bars represent samples taken for a two week interval, while the open bars represent a sample which was in the water for one month.

p. 33. Figure 11. This is a plot of the temperature (CC., solid line) and the salinity (0.%, dashed line) at each station for the period November 1971 through July 1972.

p. 30. Table 9a. This table unfortunately was not labled; it appears the middle of p, 30 with a heading ")maximum probability".

The purpose of Table 9a is to list the probability levels at which differences, in the number of either species, at any statibn was due to chance. For example, the probablity- that the difference in number of barnacles between the two depths is due to chance is 1.00 (i.e., barnacles don't seem to care at which depth they settle).

p. 34. Table 9b. This table should be called 9b. It is a llhting of the number of individuals (for I Bankia and II Balanus) on each board surface for boards at the top anWdFottom at each station, for the time periods indicated. For example, the value 5760 appears in the column marked Station Number 4 - this means that at station 4, in the period 2cd half June through lst half July of 1972, there were 5760 Bankia, per square meter, on the lower surface of the bottom board.

p. 38. AS IS (Teble 10)

p. 39. Fig. 12 AS IS

p. 40. Table 11 AS IS

o. 40. Table 12 AS IS

p. 41 Table 13 AS IS

p. 42. Figure 13. In the top diagram all larval stages (i.e., 15 min old larvae, 4 ha old lIrvae, and 8 hr. old larvae) were exposed for 15 minutes at the indicated treatment temperature.

in the bottom diagram, all larval stages were exposed for 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> at the indicated temperature. On the ordinate we have plotted in all cases the number of recognizable living larvae in the sample at the end of 24-36 hours (solid circle). We have also plotted the number of straight hinge larvae for each temperature treatment (open triangle); and, also, the number of straight hinge larvae that appeared to be morphologically normal (solid square).

p. 43. Fig. 14. AS IS

p. 45. Table 15. AS IS 9

p. 46. Under 2) the number of larvae pumped should read 9x10 (i.e., nine billion)