[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
COASTAL WETLANDS BUFFER DELINEATION October 30, 1987 Joseph K. Shisler Robert A. Jordan Robert N. Wargo r Property of (cC. Library Mosquito Research and Control New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station and Rutgers University New Brunswick, New Jersey 08903 L. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA V) c~a COASTAL SERVICES CENTER ',> ,~ 2234 SOUTH HOtBSON AVENUE a- GnCHARLESTON, SC 29405-2413 6o QH ay Agricultural Experiment Station 8on Number P-40503-01-87 87.3 .S55 1987 COASTAL WETLAND BUFFER DELINEATION This report was prepared under contract with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Coastal Resources, and the the financial assistance of the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, under the provisions of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act, P.L. 92-583, as amended. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors wish to express their appreciation to the staff at Cook Coll-ege and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Coastal Resources, for their assistance in the completion of this project. Ms. Kathy Cann, Mr. Steven Epstein, Mr. John Higgins, Mr. Richard Kantor, Mr. John Sparmo and and their respective staffs all helped enormously in the seemingly un-ending search for study sites. Mr. Robert Tudor and Mr. David Charette reviewed the manuscript and supplied helpful criticism of the project design. Special thanks to Mr. Robert Piel for his guidance throughout the course of this project. Special thanks, too, is expressed to the field technicians for their work on behalf of this research. Ms. Jamie Witsen, Ms. Terri Albanese, and especially Mr. George Durner and Ms. Sandra Ellenbacher for efforts above and beyond the call. Disclaimer: This paper reports the results of our research. Mention of a commercial product or consulting firm does not constitute an endorsement of the product or firm by us, the New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station, or the Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Coastal Resources. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................................iii LIST OF TABLES ................................................vi LIST OF FIGURES ............................. ....... ... EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .... ...... .......g.............. .. 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................... 1.1 Intent of Study ...................................1 1.2 Background ........................................1 1.3 Objectives ........................................2 1.4 Literature Review ................................. 3 2.0 METHODS. ........ .............................13 2.1 Study Site Selection ..... ................. .......13 2.2 Wetland Delineation ..............................20 2.3 Measurement of Human Disturbance .................20 2.4 Calculation of Disturbance Index (DHD) ...........21 2.5 Vegetation Sampling ......................... 22 2.6 Vegetation Analysis ..............................23 2.7 Statistical Analysis .............................25 2.7.1 Disturbance ..............................25 2.7.2 Vegetation ......... ......... .....25 3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............ **v *.*o.**...... ....26 3.1 Analysis of Variance ..........................26 3.2 Buffer Variable Relationships ..... ...............30 3.2.1 Salt Marshes ........... ... ....... ..30 3.2.2 Tidal Freshwater Marshes ..........g......36 3.2.3 Hardwood Swamps .......................... 39 3.3 Minimum Buffer Width Determination ...............42 3.3.1 Salt Marshes .............................43 3.3.2 Tidal Freshwater Marshes .................43 3.3.3 Hardwood Swamps ...........................44 3.4 Vegetation Analysis ......................... .46 3.4.1 Salt Marshes....... ...... ..........46 3.4.2 Tidal Freshwater Marshes .................57 3.4.3 Hardwood Swamps. .......................67 iv 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND GUIDELINES .................... ..*...73 4.1 Conclusions ......................................73 4.2 Buffer Zone Rationale ............................ .77 4.3 Buffer Zone Definition .......................... .78 4.4 Recommended Guidelines ...................... .......79 5.0 RESEARCH NEEDS ................... REFERENCES ....................................2 APPENDICES Table 39 .............................................J103 Study Site Locations ................................. 112 v LIST OF TABLES Table age. 1 State wetland policies regulating development in 12 coastal wetlands. 2 Salt marsh wetland/buffer study sites sampled by 15 NJAES personnel from 30 May to 16 October 1986. 3 Freshwater tidal marsh wetland/buffer study sites 17 sampled by NJAES personnel from 30 May to 16 October 1986. 4 Hardwood swamp wetland/buffer study sites sampled 18 by NJAES personnel from 30 May to 16 October 1986. 5 Disturbance indicies calculated from upland 27 originated disturbance variables measured at salt marsh wetland/buffer study sites. 6 Disturbance indicies calculated from upland 28 originated disturbance variables measured at freshwater tidal marsh wetland/buffer study sites. 7 Disturbance indicies calculated from upland 29 originated disturbance variables measured at hardwood swamp wetland/buffer study sites. 8 Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of measured levels 30 of disturbance (DHD): three wetland types and four levels of land use intensity and their interaction terms. 9 Mean disturbance levels measured at 100 study 31 sites in 3 wetland types and at 4 land use categories. 10 Correlation matrix of buffer variables and the 32 index of direct human disturbance recorded in the wetland at salt marsh wetland/buffer study sites. 11 Results of simple linear regression on the level 33 of disturbance (DHD) measured at three different wetland types. vi 12 Correlation matrix of buffer variables and the 36 index of direct human disturbance recorded in the wetland at tidal freshwater marsh wetland/ buffer study sites. 13 Correlation matrix of buffer variables and the 40 index of direct human disturbance recorded in the wetland at hardwood swamp wetland/buffer study sites. 14 Results of the Kruskal-Wallis test of the levels 42 of disturbance (mean DHD) measured at three wetland types in four buffer width categories. 15 Pairwise Wilcoxon's rank sum tests between mean 44 disturbance levels measured at tidal freshwater marsh sites with different buffer widths. 16 Pairwise Wilcoxon's rank sum tests between mean 45 disturbance levels measured at hardwood swamp sites within different buffer width categories. 17 Community indicies calculated from relative cover 47 values for herbaceous species recorded in the wetland at salt marsh study sites. 18 Community indices calculated from relative cover 49 values for herbaceous species recorded in the wetland at freshwater marsh study sites. 19 Community indices calculated from relative cover 50 values for herbaceous species recorded in the wetland at hardwood swamp study sites. 20 Correlation matrix relating wetland zone 52 herbaceous layer community indices, human disturbance, buffer width and buffer shrub density measured at salt marsh study sites. 21 Average relative cover values of major plant 52 species (and mean disturbance, DHD) calculated for subsets of salt marsh study sites suggested by cluster analysis. 22 Species composition (expressed as average 53 relative cover of the wetland herbaceous community at undisturbed (DHD=0) and disturbed salt marshes in the first cluster group). vii 23 Pair-wise Wilcoxon's rank sum tests comparing 54 the mean relative cover values (MEAN) of dominant herbaceous species recorded in wetlands at disturbed CD) and undisturbed (U) salt marshes in the first cluster group. 24 Matrix of average relative cover values measured 55 for-minor species in the herbaceous communities of disturbed salt marshes in the first cluster group. 25 Species composition (expressed as average 56 relative cover) of the wetland herbaceous communities at disturbes salt marshes in the second cluster group with community composition of site 99 presented for comparison. 26 Correlation matrix relating wetland zone 58 herbaceous layer community indices, human disturbance, buffer width and buffer shrub density at freshwater tidal marsh study sites. 27 Average relative cover values of 13 major plant 58 species (and mean disturbance, DHD) calculated for subsets of freshwater marsh study sites suggested by cluster analysis. 28 Species composition (expressed as average 60 relative cover) of the wetland herbaceous communities at undisturbed (DHD=0) and disturbed tidal freshwater marshes in the first cluster group. 29 Pair-wise Wilcoxon's rank sum tests comparing the 61 mean relative cover values (MEAN) of dominant .herbaceous species recorded in the wetlands at disturbed (D) and undisturbed (U) tidal fresh- water marshes in the first cluster group. 30 Matrix of average relative cover values measured 63 for minor (average cover <1.0) species recorded in the herbaceous communities of tidal freshwater marshes in the first cluster group and Spearmain's rank correlation coefficient from the comparison of relative cover and the level of disturbance. 31 Species composition (expressed as average 64 relative cover of the wetland herbaceous communities at undisturbed (DHD=0) and disturbed tidal freshwater marshes in the second cluster group. viii 32 Pair-wise Wilcoxon's rank sum tests comparing the 65 mean relative cover values (MEAN) of dominant herbaceous species recorded in the wetlands at disturbed (D) and undisturbed (U) tidal fresh- water marshes in the second cluster group. 33 Matrix of average relative cover values measured 66 minor species in the herbaceous communities of disturbed tidal freshwater marshes in the second cluster group. 34 Correlation matrix relating wetland zone 67 herbaceous layer community indicies, human disturbance, buffer width and buffer shrub density at hardwood swamp study sites. 35 Species composition (expressed as average 69 relative cover) of the wetland herbaceous communities at undisturbed (DHD=0), disturbed and highly disturbed (DHD > 25.06) hardwood swamp study sites. 36 Pair-wise Wilcoxon's rank sum tests comparing the 70 mean relative cover values (MEAN) of dominant herbaceous species recorded in the wetlands at disturbed (D) and undisturbed (U) hardwood swamp study sites. 37 Average realtive cover (x), standard error of the 71 mean (SE), and coefficient of variation (CV) for minor herbaceous species recorded at 24 disturbed hardwood swamp study sites. 38 Recommended buffer widths (ft) for use in the 79 management of three wetland types at different land use intensities in the New Jersey coastal zone. 39 Species number, scientific name and common name 103 of plant species encountered during sampling of wetland/buffer study sites. ix LIST OF FIGURES 1 Location of wetland/buffer study sites within 14 the New Jersey coastal zone. 2 Example of line-intercept method demonstrating 22 how to measure width (W) and length (L) of intercept. 3 Scatter plot of disturbance vs. buffer width at 34 salt marsh sites. 4 Scatter plot of disturbance vs. buffer width at 37 fresh marsh sites. 5 Scatter plot of disturbance vs. buffer width at 41 hardwood swamp sites. 6 Dendrogram representing average linkage cluster 51 analysis of the herbaceous communities at salt marsh study sites. 7 Dendrogram representing average linkage cluster 59 anlysis of the herbaceous communities at fresh- water marsh study sites. 8 Dendrogram representing average linkage cluster 68 analysis of the herbaceous communities at hard- wood swamp study sites. x EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The New Jersey Coastal Management Program requires that development in the coastal zone incorporate a buffer to protect environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands. Development adjacent to-~wetlands can negatively affect these systems through increased runoff, sedimentation and the introduction of a variety of pollutants. Administration of this policy has not been uniform because no guidelines have been written for the definition of adequate buffers in varying development situations. The objectives of the present investigation were a) to measure the levels of direct human disturbance occurring in a variety of wetland/development systems in order to assess the effectiveness of existing buffers in limiting the level of wetland disturbance, b) to describe changes in wetland plant communities attributable to physical disturbance, and c) to develop management guidelines for the implementation of buffers in the protection of coastal wetlands in developing areas. Over 250 wetlands occurring adjacent to developed areas and separated from the development by some form of vegetated buffer (as well as developed areas with no buffer and wetlands in undeveloped areas) were evaluated for study. In all, 100 study sites were selected in three wetland types (salt marsh, tidal freshwater marsh, and hardwood swamp) in four development situations of increasing land use intensity: agricultural/recreational, single family/low density residential, high density residential, and commercial/industrial. Buffer width, slope and plant species composition were measured at each site. An index of direct human disturbance (DHD) was developed from measurements of physical wetland disturbance which allowed comparison of relative numeric representations of wetland degradation in a variety of different situations. An array of observable human impacts, ranging from eroded areas, filling, and oil spills to dumping of debris and the destruction of vegetation were recorded and used to calculate the index. The wetland plant communities were sampled in detail at each site using line transect methods. From measurements of the relative cover of over 200 plant species several indices of community diversity, richness and evenness were calculated. Levels of disturbance were compared between similar wetlands protected by buffers of different widths in different-land use situations, while community indices were compared between disturbed and undisturbed wetlands of similar type. The data were analyzed using an array of correlations? regressions, analyses of variance and cluster analysis. in all cases, disturbance levels in wetlands adjacent to high density residential and commercial/industrial land uses tended to be higher than in lower intensity land use situations. The composition and width of the buffer had varying influence on xi the reduction of the level of disturbance. In many cases the primary causes of disturbance in wetlands were the original development activities which took place next to the wetland and were unrelated to current human use of the upland. Disturbance in salt marshes took the form of filling and excavation as well as the dumping of refuse including construction materials, solvent containers, and treated wood products. In general, the primary disturbance in sampled salt marshes had taken place during the original development activities. Existing buffers, which tended to be narrow bands of successional vegetation, had grown up after the primary disturbances had taken place, or had been been breached during development, so that they had little impact on mitigating the degredation of the salt marsh. Physical disturbance of the wetland by current residents of the adjacent development was minimal. While statistical analysis showed little relationship between disturbance levels and measured buffer parameters, salt marshes appeared to benefit from the presence of some form of buffer. Highest levels of wetland disturbance were measured in tidal freshwater marshes. Located almost exclusively in areas of high human population density, these wetlands also showed the greatest evidence of disturbance by current residents of the adjacent development. Disturbance took the form of filling, the destruction of vegetation along the marsh border and the dumping of refuse in the marsh. Because these wetlands occurred in stream channels and were bordered by steep wooded slopes, effective buffers tended to be in place during the initial development. However, narrow buffers at high intensity land use sites have allowed the filling of tidal freshwater marsh area and the destruction of much of the plant community at the marsh edge. Strongest relationships between buffer width and DHD were found at hardwood swamp sites. Hardwood swamps tended to show evidence of disturbance attributable to the original construction activity: felled and uprooted trees, slash piles mixed with discarded construction materials and abandoned containers of solvents, cleaners and wood treatments. No particular current land use type was associated with higher levels of disturbance in adjacent hardwood swamp wetlands, indicating that high disturbance levels may be due to previous land uses. Many of the studied swamps were associated with stream corridors which were a source of attraction for current residents, with the result that paths and trails to the water had often been cut through the wetland. Direct human disturbance may cause changes in the species composition of impacted wetland plant communities. Upland and .cosmopolitan species invaded spoil piles left in salt marshes after the original construction in the adjacent upland. Disturbed riverine tidal freshwater marshes tended to be more mixed and undisturbed xii marshes tended to be monotypic stands of perennials. Trampling in hardwood swamps seems to select against certain sensitive plant species. However, due to high between-site variability in all wetland types, such changes must be assessed on a site-by- site basis -considering the natural variability inherent in wetland systems. Certain minimum buffer widths were found to be effective in limiting the level of direct human disturbance in wetlands of different types under different land use regimes. Such buffers, effective against abuse of the wetlands by current residents of the adjacent developments, can have no impact on the disturbances that are due to original construction activities. Buffers, in order to be effective at minimizing human disturbance in wetland systems to the greatest extent possible, must be defined in place and enforced prior to and during development of adjacent areas. Wetlands contiguous with certain special lands (eg. endangered species habitat) require particular consideration. A rationale for the use of buffers in wetland protection, a specific definition of a wetlands buffer? and a series of guidelines for the implementation of such buffers in the management of wetland systems in New Jersey's coastal zone are presented as part of this report for the consideration of the Division of Coastal Resources. 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 INTENT OF STUDY The New Jersey Coastal Management Program is reviewed every two years to identify areas of the program in need of significant improvement. It was noted in the evaluation conducted in 1984 that the New Jersey Coastal Management Program incorporates a special areas policy on buffers which states that adjacent developments must allow a buffer to protect sensitive areas such as wetlands. However, administration of this policy, according to the Environmental Advisory Committee, had not been uniform because no guidelines have been established to define a proper buffer for varying adjacent developments. As a result of this evaluation the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration indicated it would support a request by the Division of Coastal Resources to fund an appropriate research study to more adequate- ly define its buffer policy. To this end the Division has funded the following study to produce a method or model for determining suitable wetland buffer distances to various types of development in the defined Coastal Zone. 1.2 BACKGROUND Many wetlands managers believe that the most effective means of mitigating the loss of coastal wetlands is minimization of any adverse impacts of development from the outset. Development adjacent to wetlands can negatively affect wetland systems through increased runoff (Harris and Marshall 1963, Conner, et al. 1981), sedimentation (Darnell 1976) and the introduction of chemical and thermal pollutants (Ehrenfeld 1983, Scott et al. R95 ecently, controversy has arisen over the need for buffer zones between wetlands and developed upland areas. Criteria are needed for the establishment of buffer zones for the protection of specific wetland functions. A buffer acts as a barrier which lessens the impacts of adjacent areas upon one another. Specifically, buffer zones have been considered to be strips of vegetation located between developed upland and low-lying wetlands used to protect environmentally sensitive areas (Clark et al. 1980). In New Jersey, all land within 300 ft of Division of Coastal Resources (NJDEP) defined wetlands "and within the drainage area of those wetlands comprises an area within which the need for a wetlands buffer shall be determined" (NJDEP 1986). This 300 ft buffer can be reduced only if the proposed development can be shown to cause minimum adverse impacts to adjacent wetlands (NJDEP 1986). Ten of the 15 east coast states require the implementation of some kind of buffer under different circumstances. Yet, there has been only one set of detailed guidelines proposed for the actual definition and setting of buffer zones: a model proposed by Roman and Good (1983) which suggests a-methodology for the determination of buffer widths in the New Jersey Pinelands. 1.3 OBJECTIVES We propose several hypotheses that may be'used in assessing the effectiveness of an upland buffer, operationally defined as all vegetation which existed at the time of investigation between the delineated wetland boundary and the farthest extent of adjacent development, in protecting wetlands from the adverse impacts of development: 1. Ineffective buffers allow increased direct human disturbance within the wetland. 2. Increased human disturbance in turn causes changes in the species composition of wetland plant communities. 3. For any given wetland/development situation there exists a minimum buffer width such that buffers narrower than that minimum are ineffective in protecting the wetland. The main objectives of this investigation were: 1. To measure the levels of disturbance occurring in a variety of wetland/development systems in order to assess the effectiveness of existing buffers; 2. To describe changes in wetland plant community composition attributable to disturbance generated by adjacent land use practices; and, 3. To develop management guidelines for the establishment of buffer zones adequate to minimize the impacts of human disturbance on coastal wetlands in certain development situations. 2 1.4 LITERATURE REVIEW Buffers ij T Harvestina Research into timber harvesting methods along forest streams has shown that the loss of vegetation adjacent to these waterways can have serious deleterious effects on the aquatic biota at the point of disturbance as well as downstream through sedimentation and thermal pollution (Lantz 1971, Broderson 1973, Moring 1975, Newbold 1977). Clearcut logging has been shown to increase stream temperatures from 6 F to 28 F, reducing concentrations of available dissolved oxygen and resulting in direct fish mortality, reduced growth rates and long-term changes in the species composition of impacted streams (Brazier and Brown 1973). Uncut zones flanking streams create shade, block the flow of debris and stabilize the stream bank (Brazier and Brown 1973, Froehlich 1973). Vegetation increases hydraulic resistance to surface flow, lowering flow velocity and promoting infiltration (O'Meara, et al. 1976). Root systems maintain soil structure, preventing sediment loading and resultant reduction in dissolved oxygen (Broderson 1973; Steinblums, et al. 1981). Several authors have modelled the stream protection abilities of undisturbed vegetation (Lantz 1971; Steinblums, et al. 1981). Brazier and Brown (1973) identified several factors which determined the effectiveness of buffer strips, including: their ability to intercept solar radiation, canopy height, stream discharge and stream width. The authors reported that, for the "small" streams they examined (stream widths were not reported), maximum shading ability of stream-side buffers was achieved within 80 ft (24.4 m). Ninety percent of the maximum was reached within 55 ft (16.8 m). They concluded that specifying 100 to 200 ft buffer strips arbitrarily without site-specific examination was needlessly costly in the amount of merchantable timber left on the stump, but assessed buffer effectiveness only in terms of maintaining stream temperatures. While recommending no specific buffer widths, Moring (1975) stated that the most significant feature of buffers was their function as "policemen" against logging near stream banks; suggesting that, in the abscence of buffers, damage to forest streams was more likely to occur. Newbold (1977) reported that 30 m (98.4 ft) buffer strips were required to protect benthic fauna from the effects of logging near northern California streams. Reductions in the species diversity of the macroinvertebrate communities of streams with buffers less than 30 m were not significantly different from unprotected streams. Effective buffer width needs to be assessed on a site-specific basis and is a function of the stream values being protected (Lantz 1971). 3 Acricultural Buffers. In agriculture, buffer effectiveness varies with slope, local climate, soil and water table characteristics, as well as the nature of the farm operation (eg. time of harvest, total acreage under cultivation, type of crop, tillage practice and types and amounts of biocides and fertilizers applied) (Clark et al. 1980). Nutrient loading from managed watersheds can contribute large amounts of nutrients to the receiving waters of estuaries and adjacent wetlands. Cook and Campbell (1939) showed that differing types of vegetation provided varying levels of erosion protection and resistance to overland flow. Recent work has shown that riparian forests act as nutrient sinks and are able to remove and assimilate excess nutrients in farmland runoff (Yates and Sheridan 1983; Lowrance, et al. 1984). Wooded riparian areas on the coastal plain of Maryland were capable of removing excess nutrient loads in agricultural runoff--as much as 80% of excess phosphorous and 89% of excess nitrogen (Hall, et al. 1986). Most of the total changes in nutrient concentrations occurred within the first 19 m (62.3 ft) of riparian forest and particulates leaving the riparian buffer zone were more organic in nature and had a greater exchange capacity than particulates leaving cropland (Peterjohn and Correll 1984). Similar results have been reported in North Carolina where researchers reported 80% reductions in nitrogen concentrations in agricultural runoff passing through a forested buffer (Hall, et al. 1986). in Georgia, reductions in observed nitrate, nitrite, and orthophosphate phosphorous, levels in runoff between upland cropped areas and watershed outlets exceeded reductions attributable solely to dilution; with some 97% of the nitrogen and approximately 37% of excess phosphorous being retained by woody alluvial vegetation (Yates and Sheridan 1983). 4 Function-s Aad Values of Wtgd Wetland functions and values are often stated in terms of broad generalities, though data to support these conclusions may be more difficult to obtain than expected. Generalities often accepted about wetlands include: 1. Wetlands provide a natural area for the control of storm water or flood tides. 2. Stormwater flow through wetlands slows runoff thereby increasing filtration and maintaining downstream water quality. 3. Wetlands are highly productive systems which support terrestrial, estuarine and oceanic food webs. 4. Wetlands have some direct human value, often may difficult to quantify, that is educational, recreational or aesthetic. Wetlands function in the control of storm water. Riparian forests and estuarine wetlands by their magnitude may provide a temporary storage area for stormwater and potentially alleviate downstream damage. Neiring (1973) calculated that a 6 inch rise in water over a ten acre wetland will place more than 1,500,000 gallons of water in storage. Bertulli (1981) concluded that the presence of adjacent swamp forest lowered stream storm flow from a 100 year storm event from 155 cubic meters/sec to 83 cubic meters/sec. In a computer model of three watersheds Ogawa and Male (1983) simulated the effect on peak river flow of various amounts of encroachment into riverine wetlands. A 25% encroachment produced increases in peak flow in 28% of their simulations, 50% encroachment increased peak flow in >60% of their simulations. A 75% encroachment produced peak flow increases in 90% of the simulations. Finally, 100% encroachment into riverine wetlands produced peak flow increases in all simulations and and as great as 200% increases in 38% of their simulations. The presence of forest or wetland adjacent to rivers ensures that water flows into areas where plants are well adapted to periodic flooding (Harms et al. 1980). Mitsch et al. (1977) states that flooding of the Cache River in Illinois imports high levels of nutrients into an adjacent riparian forest. Water flow through a wetland slows the water thereby increasing filtration and maintaining downstream water quality. Murdoch and Capobiancho (1979) found the upstream portion of the Cootes Paradise marsh effectively filtered water from an upstream wastewater treatment plant. Approximately 80% of the total phosphate was removed from the water passing through this area before entering the main portion of the marsh. The major emergent plant in this area, G Brands was shown to have the highest tissue concentrations (among the three areas sampled) of nitrogen and phosphorus. Glyc grandsa also contained 4.95 5 ppm lead, 15.5 ppm zinc and 2.67 ppm chromium (Pooled mean from 3 sample sites, collected in April and July). DeLaune and Patrick (1979) found that Georgia Gulf coast marshes along the Mississippi river accumulated 1.35 cm/yr of sediment. They concluded that those marshes were a sink for nitrogen. When streamside and inland samples were compared accumulations of 210 kg/ha/yr v. 134 kg/ha/yr nitrogen, 16.5 kg/ha/yr v. 7.5 kg/ha/yr phosphorus and 3930 kg/ha/yr v. 2370 kg/ha/yr carbon were recorded. Van Raalte et al. (1974) found the addition of nitrogen in the form of sewage sludge to a salt marsh altered the nitrogen cycle. The study suggests that blue-green algae which fix atmospheric nitrogen shifted to the more readily availably nitrogen in the sludge. Valiela et al. (1973, 1975) and Sullivan and Diaber (1974) both report increases in productivity of Spartina alterniflora with the addition of nitrogen from sludge and fertilizer, respectively. DeLaune et al. (1981) studied heavy metal uptake in Louisiana salt marsh plants and concluded that these plants accumulated heavy metals from natural sources in a relatively pristine area. Gallagher and Kibby (1980) found Carex yngbyei, Salicornia yI rjtgnc, baltu a and Potentilia Pa accumulated chromium, copper, iron, manganese, strontium, lead and zinc from contaminated soil. Concentrations of heavy metals were higher in dead plants than in live plants. Coastal wetlands are highly productive ecological systems which are physically linked to adjacent wetlands, estuaries and the nearshore ocean through the tidal exchange of materials and biologically linked by the migration of organisms (Thayer, et al. 1978). Hopkinson and Hoffman (1984) state that of the five systems they studied (marsh, estuarine water, nearshore zone, estuarine plume and midshelf) only the marsh was autotrophic, fixing 2.6 times more carbon than was consumed in respiration and sedimentation. Teal (1962) reports that 45% of salt marsh primary production is exported to the estuary. De la Cruz (1978) summarizes imports and exports of several salt marshes. The dependence of food chains on wetlands is well documented. Walker in Wharton et al. (1982) reported >25 species of fish use flooded riparian forests to forage for terrestrial insects. Dickson and Noble (1978) studied the vertical distribution of birds in a hardwood swamp. A total of 26 species were found distributed throughout the canopy. Best et al. (1978) found a total of 21 species of birds in a floodplain forest in Iowa. Northern waterthrushes, Seiurus novaboracensis, commonly forage on exposed mudflats adjacent to riparian forests and defend territories which extend into the forest during their spring and fall migrations. Wood ducks (Aix& sJ2_nsa) showed marked preference for buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis) swamps on the edges of open water in southern Illinois--the swamps providing important brood-rearing habitat and flooded woodlands providing important sources of mast (Parr, et al. 1979). The diversity and abundance of aquatic invertebrates in the wetland community, as well as their availability, is a primary consideration in area management for wood ducks (Drobney and Frederickson 1979). 6 Research on organisms dependent on the productivity of salt marshes often focuses on those species of commercial importance such as fish, shellfish, waterfowl and furbearers. Commercially important shellfish include clams Mercenaria mercenaria and MyA arenaria, mussels Mytilus edulis, oysters Crassostrea irg.a and crabs Callinectes sapidus. Several species of fish spawn or spend some part of their life cycle in the salt marsh and in adjacent tidal creeks (Weinstien 1979 Shenker and Dean 1979). Checklists of indigenous have been compiled by several authors for estuaries along the Atlantic coast. Shenker and Dean (1979) found a total of 22 species of larval and juvenile fish in salt marsh creeks in South Carolina, Bozeman and Dean (1980) found 16 species in this same area. In Delaware, Derickson and Price (1973) found 46 species. Chenowith (1973) identified larvae of 17 species in estuaries near Boothbay, Maine. Oviatt and Nixon (1973) found 99 species in Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island. Merriner et al. (1976) and Castagna and Richards (1970) found 41 species in the Piankatank River and 70 species on the Eastern Shore of Virginia, respectively. In many of these samples include commercially valuable species including herring, alewife and shad (Alosa sp. and C1uea sp.), anchovies (Anchoa sp.), American eel (Anguilla rostrata), striped bass (Morone saxatilis), bluefish (mntl saltatrix), weakfish (Cynoscioa regals) and winter flounder (Pseudotleuronectes americanus). These areas also provide food in the form of small fish and invertebrates. Dickerson and Price (1973) state 89% of their catch was comprised of 5 species important as food for commercial species. Markle and Grant (1976) report that 44% of the gut contents of juvenile M. axatili was small fish including gobies (Go iosom ii) and silversides (Menidia sp.). In addition these and other species (FundulusA sp. and Gambusia affinis) feed also on salt marsh detritus (Kneib 1978) or on detritivores such as mosquito larvae and polychaets (Talbot et al. 1978). The salt marsh is also an important feeding and nesting ground for waterfowl, wading birds and raptors. Sartina sp. marshes along the St. Lawrence River, Quebec maintain a large population of breeding black ducks, Anas rubripes during spring and summer. Four other species of waterfowl, eight species of waterbirds, six passerines and two raptors feed on the marsh. Migrating birds which also frequent the marsh include four other species of waterfowl and 20 species of shorebirds. Custer and Osborn (1978) discussed factors important to the feeding behavior of snowy egrets (Egretta thula), great egrets (Casmerodius albus) and Louisiana herons (Hvdranassa tricolor) in salt marshes near Beaufort, North Carolina. Willard (1977) notes that 11 species of herons are supported by coastal marshes from Long Island, south. Spinner in Custer and Osborn (1969) correlates the number of wading birds per state with the total acreage within that state. Reed and Moisan (1971) Note that marsh hawks (Cirus cvyaneus) and merlin (Falco1 columbarius) hunt on Spartina sp. marsh. Ospreys (Pandion haliaetus) often nest in or near marshes and have been observed foraging on the marsh when inclement weather prohibits fishing (Wiley and Lohrer 1973). 7 Ecotonal areas adjacent to wetlands are important as nesting habitat for some marsh birds (Hawkins and Leck 1977) and nesting success for those birds may be greater within the ecotone than in the marsh (Meanley and Webb 1963). Black ducks nest under low bushes in the ecotone (Tiner 1985) and very often within upland areas, sometimes hundreds of yards from the wetland (Stotts and Davis 1960). Wetlands are also important to several species of mammals. Meadow voles (Microtus ennsylvanicus) forage on the salt marsh grasses Satina atens and Distichlis spicata (Howell 1984). Meadow voles and rice rats (Qrvzomys alustris) sometimes build their nests in or near muskrat (Ondatra zib.etheca) huts (Harris 1953). Rodents trapped on the Barnegat National Wildlife Refuge, New Jersey include meadow voles, muskrats, and meadow jumping voles (Zaeaa hudsonius) (Bosenberg 1977). Shure (1970) found meadow voles, house mice and masked shrews (Sorx cineres) in the salt marsh along Island Beach State Park, New Jersey. New Jerseys Coastal Wetlands The most easily recognized of the three major wetland types in New Jersey's coastal zone are the vast expanses of salt marsh which border back bays and coves, spreading from the bay side of barrier islands inland (Carlson and Fowler 1980). Dissected by meandering creeks, channels and guts, the salt marsh extends up tidal rivers until the prevailing salinity regime begins to favor freshwater species. A distinct zonation of the marsh vegetation develops in response to the period and duration of tidal flooding. The low marsh, subject to at least daily inundation, is dominated by generally monotypic stands of Sartina alterniflora (salt marsh cord grass). As more sediment builds up, raising the level of the marsh above mean high tide, the vegetation is flooded less often and may be exposed for much longer periods. In these high marsh situations, Spartina patens (salt hay) tends to be the dominant species. However, the high marsh is typically divided into subzones, due to differences in depth and period of flooding, which may form a mosaic of vegetation types (Good 1965). Species diversity increases as several species become abundant, including Distichlis spiata (spike grass), Ju ncu gerardii (black grass), Iva frutescens (marsh-elder) and the glassworts (Salicornia spp.). Sartina Rpen and Distichlis sicta often form nearly monotypic stands, with Distichlis spicata prevalent in the less well-drained areas. Spartina alternifLora and _va frutescens border tidal creeks and man-made ditches in the high marsh. The upland edge of the salt marsh is often bordered by Phraamites aiurali (common reed), Panicum virgatum (switch grass) and Jra frutescens, as well as Bachgrris halimifolia (groundsel-tree), JuniieSru virainiana (red cedar), Myrica Densvlvanica (northern bayberry), Toxicodendron adicgns (poison ivy), Solidao semvervirens (seaside goldenrod) and a host of grasses and rushes (Tiner 1985). 8 Tidal freshwater marshes are the scarcest wetland type in New Jersey's coastal zone. The majority of the state's riverine tidal marshes occur in the Delaware River and its tributaries. Exhibiting a vegetational zonation due to elevation and the frequency of flooding much like the salt marsh, the low marsh is dominated by non-persistent emergents, including Znzania auata (wild rice), iar advena (spatterdock), PQly~gonm pnctam. (water smartweed), Saaittaria latifolia (broadleaf arrowhead), and Bidens laevis (bur marigold). Spatterdock, wild rice and Pel_ adraL ' r'n (arrow-arum) often form extensive pure and mixed stands. In association with species such as Imp atins apensis (jewelweed), PQlygonum arifolim (halberd-leaved tearthumb), Amaranthus cannabinus (water hemp), and Pontederia cordata (pickerelweed), these dominant plants form as many as 18 major tidal freshwater wetland communities in the Hamilton Marshes near Trenton (Whigham and Simpson 1975). High marsh communities form behind natural levees which separate the higher elevations from the river channel. In general, the high marsh is colonized by persistent emergents and plant diversity is greater than in the adjacent riverine community. The plant associations are more mixed and include Typha latifolia (narrow-leaved cattail), bur marigold, water smartweed, halberd-leaved tearthumb, wild rice (sometimes in pure stands), broadleaf arrowhead, water hemp, and Smaraanium americanum (burreed) (McCormick and Ashbaugh 1972, Ferren 1975). Palustrine forested wetland, "hardwood swamps", are the most abundant and widespread wetland type in New Jersey, but because they lack the dramatic expanse of the salt marsh or the distinctive vegetation of the freshwater marsh, they are the most easily overlooked. They are mainly found in the floodplains of rivers and perennial streams, although they may form in upland depressions and along the borders of coastal marshes. Wetland communities are very complex and extremely diverse, varying widely in response to local conditions (Tiner 1985). Acer rubrum (red maple) is the dominant species in the majority of wetland types in southern New Jersey, with svlvatica (black gum) and Liauidambar stvraciflua (sweet gum) co-dominant or locally dominant. The shrub layer is generally a dense association of such species as Clethra alnifolia (sweet pepperbush), Vaccinium corvmbosum (common highbush blueberry), Rhododendron 'ioi (swamp azalea), Iughe racemosa (swamp sweetbells), and Vibur dentatum (southern arrowwood). In wetter areas, where the understory is more open, species including Svmrlocarvus foetidjs (common skunk cabbage), Osmunda cinnamomea (cinnamon fern), Osmuna realis (royal fern), Polygonum saaittatum (arrow- leaved tearthumb) and Carex strica (tussock sedge) may become established. Diversity in the species composition of hardwood swamps is the rule. 9 Disturbance 2& W elad Sytm Human activity affects practically every class of habitat, every species, and every type of natural process in the Nation's wetlands (Darnell 1978). Urbanization in a watershed has the effect of producing flood hydrographs of much shorter duration and with higher peaks. For example, a population density increase from 100 to 13,000 persons per square mile creates a 10 fold increase in the peak rate of surface runoff, while related time parameters decrease to approximately one-tenth of values for rural areas (Brater and Sherrill 1975). The impacts of human activity are often unforeseen. Pulses of thermal effluents from an upstream nuclear reactor caused progressive deterioration of the canopy of a cypress-tupelo wetland (due to direct bole mortality and premature leaf senescence) in Georgia (Scott et al. 1985). Working in the New Jersey Pine Barrens, Ehrenfeld (1983) showed that wooded wetlands adjacent to developed areas tended to lose herbaceous species characteristic of the pinelands and "suffered' a decline in the frequency of characteristic shrubs. Apparently, the addition of nutrients to the traditionally nutrient-poor ground and surface water originating from developed areas favored the establishment of a group of cosmopolitan and exotic herbaceous species from surrounding areas at the expense of native flora. . Draining has dramatic and possibly irreversible detrimental impacts on wetland vegetation, but even short-term alteration in the flooding cycle caused by development should be expected to impact wetland plant associations (McLeese and Whiteside 1977, Thibodeau and Nickerson 1985). Changes in flooding frequency of riparian bottomland forest resulted in changes in arthropod communities and seasonal abundances with implications for wildlife species dependent on these food sources (Uetz, et al. 1979). Changes in vegetation composition and structure directly affects the density and diversity of aquatic invertebrates (Voigts 1976), and can be expected to directly affect wetland use by insect-feeding birds (Orians 1966, Voigts 1973). The degree of water quality degradation through nutrient loading was found to be directly correlated with the level of agricultural development in a Florida watershed (Terry and Tanner 1984): Vegetation in wetlands adjacent to these developed areas tended to accumulate elevated concentrations of various nutrients. Agricultural land uses in an Ontario watershed resulted in disturbed stream flow patterns, heavier sediment and nutrient loads and higher stream temperatures, reduced species diversity and altered composition of stream insect communities (Dance and Hynes 1980). The primary effects of clearing and paving of upland areas are the disturbances in the quality, volume and rate of flow of freshwater discharges into estuarine systems--including coastal wetlands (Clark 1977). The total volume of stormwater developed areas deliver to adjacent wetlands may be increased because of reduced evapotranspiration and percolation. Alterations in flood patterns can adversely affect duck nesting or prevent nesting in 10 disturbed wetland areas (Miller and Collins 1954). Vegetated areas in the watershed also regularize storm flow and dampen violent surges. Wetland plants are very sensitive to changes in water level (Bourn and Cottam 1950, Harris and Marshall 1963) and aquatic animals are adapted to particular ranges of stream flow velocity (Fraser 1972). Paving-of areas adjacent to wetlands alters runoff patterns and the resultant surge flows carry higher concentrations of contaminated sediments and other pollutants (Clark 1977) including salts and hydrocarbons from roadways (Darnell, et al. 1976). Suspended solids increase water temperatures, reduce available oxygen in aquatic systems and can clog filtration structures of benthic animals, over-taxing metabolism and reducing productivity (Loosanoff and Tommers 1948; Darnell, et al. 1976). Wetlands Lecislation Federal protection of coastal wetlands has been a result of the sweeping environmental legislation of the 1970's and the growing recognition of the important functions and values of wetlands systems. In 1972 Congress passed the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) prohibiting the discharge of pollutants into navigable waters. Section 404 of the act requires that a permit be acquired from the Corps of Engineers for any discharge of dredged or fill material into the waters of the United States. The tendency has been towards a broad definition of the requirements of the act to include lakes, rivers and wetlands (Richardson 1981). Recognizing the need for more specific protection of the nation's coastal areas, in 1972 Congress ratified the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) which required the states to promulgate their own coastal zone management strategies and regulations. With the passage of this federal legislation, the stage was set for the assumption of responsibility for the protection of the coastal zone, including coastal wetlands, by the states. As a result, almost all 30 coastal states (including the Great Lakes states) have established programs that directly or indirectly regulate the use of their coastal wetlands. Often, permit regulations require that development be set back a certain minimum distance from the wetland border through the establishment of a buffer zone (Table 1). In 1970, New Jersey enacted the Wetlands Act (N.J.S.A. 13:9A-1 et. seq.) "to provide for an orderly development consistent with the ecology of wetlands," (Carlson and Fowler 1980). In response to CZMA mandates, New Jersey passed the Coastal-Area Facility Review Act (CAFRA) in 1973 which requires an inventory of all environmental resources and current land uses in the coastal zone. Together, these statutes require that builders of certain facilities constructed in the coastal zone of New Jersey apply for and receive a permit issued by the commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. 11 Table 1. State wetland policies regulating development in coastal wetlands. Location Wetland Policy Reference 5=."S SDIt ReauvlrzS A RgfIII aqb5DglC Delaware - Permit required for development within delineated DNREC regulations (1984) wetlands. Florida Permit required for development within delineated Wetlands Protection Act of 1984 wetlands. Georgia Permit required for development within delineated Coastal Marshlands Protection wetlands; best management practices required. Act (1970) Louisiana Permit required for development in coastal areas Coastal Resources Management below 5 ft above mean high water. Act (1978) Maine Permit required to alter or develop coastal Maine DEP (1983) Site Location wetlands; buffer required for extractive of Development (MRSA Title 38) activities. Virginia Permit required for development within delineated Va. Marine Resources Commission wetlands provided that there will be no adverse 1982 impacts from development. State& Bswixins v lffs; Seubia California 100 ft minimum buffer required between development Ca. Coastal Commission (1981) and the landward edge of wetland/riparian vegetation. Connecticut Development within coastal zone (defined as 100 yr CT Coastal Management Act flood tide mark or a 1000 ft linear setback from CT Inland Wetlands and Water- inland boundary of tidal wetland--whichever is courses Act (1972) farther inland) by permit; Setback of 50-200 ft for septic systems. Maryland 1000 ft critical area defined around Chesapeake MD General Assembly (1984) Bay within which local governments are responsible for enforcement of best management practices. Massachusetts 100 ft zone adjacent to wetland in which develop- Wetlands Protection Act ment activity is subject to permit. (M.G.L. c. 131, s. 40) New Hampshire 75 ft buffer required adjacent to coastal wetlands NH Code of Administrative Rules New Jersey 300 ft buffer within which development must have NJDEP 1986 no adverse impacts on wetland or wetland ecotone New York Development within 100 ft of a freshwater wetland Freshwater Wetlands Act by permit only. (1980) N. Carolina 75 ft buffer required landward of mean high water NC Administrative Codes along estuarine shorelines; visible siltation (1985) confined to upper 25 % of the buffer. Rhode Island Development within 200 ft inland from the border Olsen and Seavey (1983), of coastal wetlands by permit only; 50 ft setback Klein (1980) required adjacent to freshwater wetlands. 12 2.0 METHODS 2.1 STUDY SITE SELECTION Wetland/buffer study sites were located throughout the New Jersey Coastal Zone. Possible study sites were identified by personnel of the Division of Coastal Resources (NJDEP), Bureaus of Planning and Project Review and Coastal Enforcement and Field Services. Additional sites were located by New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station (NJAES) personnel by examining U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory maps and Soil Conservation Service county soil survey maps. Some 250 possible sites were cataloged. Three wetland types were selected for study, on the basis of their prevalence in the coastal zone: salt marsh (E2EM), tidal freshwater marsh (primarily limited to riverine emergent tidal marsh--RlEM), and palustrine hardwood swamps (PFO1) (designations follow Cowardin, et al. 1979). Four land use categories were established to assess the relative levels of human impact on wetland systems from varying degrees of development: 1. Agricultural and recreational land uses (designated AG/REC); 2. Low-density residential land uses (representing single- family housing where < 30% of the developed area is in paving and structures) designated RES-L; 3. High-density residential land uses (multi-unit structures, condominiums and apartment complexes, as well as residential areas where there is > 30% impervious cover) designated RES-H; and, 4. Industrial and commercial land uses (designated IND/COMM). Each of the possible study sites was assessed in the field by NJAES personnel using these criteria. In all, 100 study sites were found to be suitable for use. Forty-two salt marsh sites (Table 1), 25 tidal freshwater marsh sites (Table 2), and 32 hardwood swamp sites (Table 3) were sampled in 10 New Jersey Counties <-Figure 1). 13 am W '4 t4t LEGEND | U' g *- Salt Marsh J *- Tidal Freshwater Marsh - Hardwood Swamp Figure 1. Location of wetland/buffer study sites within the New Jersey coastal zone. 14 Table 2. Salt marsh wetland/buffer study sites sampled by NJAES personnel from 30 May to 16 October 1986. Land Buffer Wetland Buffer Site Use Width Size Slope Number Location (ft) (acres) (deg) 058 Shelter Cove Condominium, 6 th St. and RES-H 0 4 0 Delaware Ave., Beach Haven, Ocean Co. 068 Glimmer Glass Island, Brielle Rd., RES-L 50 2 <5 Manasquan, Monmouth Co. 077 Dock Rd., Cheesequake State Park, REC 300 44 15 Middlesex Co. 079 Sand Pit Point, Cheesequake State Park, REC 300 47 25 Middlesex Co. 080 Hooks Lake, Cheesequake State Park, REC 50 61 0 Middlesex Co. 081 Farry Point, Cheesequake State Park, REC 70 101 0 Middlesex Co. 082 Arrowsmith Point, Cheesequake State Park, REC 150 101 15 Middlesex Co. 092 Mushquash Cove, Nathan PI., Neptune, REC 50 5 5 Monmouth Co. 096 Hillside Rd., Neptune, Monmouth Co. RES-L 40 9 5 097 Marconi Rd., Neptune, Monmouth Co. RES-L 60 2 10 098 Manasquan Golf Course, Brielle, RES-L 40 1 10 Monmouth Co. 108 Tranquility Park, Between Rt. 109 and RES-L 120 17 <5 Cape May Canal, Lower Twp., Cape May Co. 110 End of Somers Town Lane, Galloway Twp., RES-L 0 101 <5 Atlantic Co. 121 Dock Rd./Brook St., Parkertown, Ocean Co. REC 0 11 <5 125 Radio Rd.,/Holden St., Mystic Island, RES-L 110 101 <5 Ocean Co. 131 Adams Ave., New Gretna, Burlington Co. RES-L 5 26 <5 134 Amasa Rd., New Gretna, Burlington Co. REC-L 20 15 <5 139 Ocean Gate Yacht Basin, Bayview Ave., COMM 15 101 5 Ocean Gate, Ocean Co. ------------------------------------------------ Table 2. Continued 142 Bayview Ave., Ocean Gate, Ocean Co. REC 25 71 <5 143 Butler Ave., Holly Park, Ocean Co. RES-H 0 1 <5 146 Rocknacks Yacht Basin, Bay Way, Lanoka REC 15 10 5 Harbor, Ocean Co. 167 Rt. 30 east, behind Old Gas Station, near COMM 150 40 <5 Atlantic City, Atlantic Co. 238 Sea Pirate Light, Rt. 9, West Creek, REC 300 101 <5 Ocean Co. 239 Szathmary Supply, Bay Ave., Manahawkin, IND 50 6 5 Ocean Co. 240 Gale Rd., Brick Twp., Ocean Co. RES-L 40 94 <5 242 Neptune Ave., Neptune, Monmouth Co. RES-L 300 14 5 243 Seaview Condos, Sea Spray Ct., Shark RES-H 10 32 25 River Island, Monmouth Co. 245 Mandalay Rd., Mantoloking Pt., Ocean Co. RES-L 300 66 <5 247 Victoria Point, Bar Harbor, Ocean Co. RES-L 0 30 <5 248 The Meadows, Lafayette St., Cape May Co. RES-H 100 101 5 249 Pelican Bay, North Station Ave., Wildwood RES-H 0 10 0 Crest, Cape May Co. 250 Capeshore Lab, King Crab Landing, Cape REC 130 27 <5 May Co. 251 Capeshore Lab II, King Crab Landing, REC 20 27 <5 Cape May Co. 252 Toledo Ave., Wildwood Crest, Cape May Co. RES-H 40 101 0 253 Tennesee Ave., Ocean City, Cape May Co. RES-H 0 28 0 255 No. 53, Sea Meadow Dr., Parkertown, RES-L 100 101 <5 Ocean Co. 256 Bay Harbor Blvd., Brick Twp., Ocean Co. RES-L 70 59 <5 257 Rocknacks II, Bay Way, Lanoka Harbor, REC 20 10 <5 Ocean Co. 259 Pirate Cove Motel, South Side of Longport RES-H 30 9 <5 Blvd., Egg Harbor Twp., Atlantic Co. 262 Alabama/Ocean Blvd., Mystic Island, RES-L 150 2 <5 Ocean Co. 292 Cook Ave, NY & Longbranch RR, Laurence RES-H 250 101 15 Harbor, Middlesex Co. 299 Holly Lake Park, Tuckerton, Ocean Co. RES-H 180 3 5 Table 3. Fresh water tidal marsh wetland/buffer study sites sampled by NJAES personnel from 30 May to 16 October 1986. Buffer Wetland Buffer Site Land Width Size Slope Number Location Use (ft) (acres) (deg) 224 Henry St., Riverside, Burlington Co. RES-H 30 101 10 226 Burlington Park, Rt. 660, Burlington Twp. REC 100 28 24 Burlington Co. 227 Burlington Park II, Rt. 660, Burlington REC 75 28 20 Twp., Burlington Co. 258 Curtin Marina, end of Rt. 566, Burlington IND 15 2 25 Twp., Burlington Co. 260 Pureland Industrial Complex, End of Heron IND 225 39 <5 Drive., Gloucester Co. 265 Soden Dr., Yardville, Mercer Co. RES-L 42 23 21 266 Highland Ave., Yardville, Mercer Co. RES-L 258 16 20 267 Soden Dr. II, Yardville, Mercer Co. RES-L 55 16 18 268 Grover Ave., Bordentown, Burlington Co. RES-L 196 33 16 269 40 Edgewood Rd. West, Bordentown, RES-L 163 18 30 Burlington Co. 270 Bradlees, Rt. 206 South, Bordentown, COMM 207 18 32 Burlington Co. 271 Ridge/Station Ave, Glendora, Camden Co. RES-H 70 62 31 272 Hillcrest Apartments, On Hilltop Dr., RES-H 200 96 31 Bordentown, Burlington Co. 273 400 Front St., Runnemede, Camden Co. RES-H 75 62 <5 274 Hilltop Dr., Bordentown, Burlington Co. AGRIC 301 101 23 275 Creek Rd., Behind Timber Cove Apartments, RES-H 85 25 <5 Bellmawr, Camden Co. Table 3. Continued 276 Reliance Co/Municipal Garage at Karr Dr. IND 50 25 <5 Bellmawr, Camden Co. 281 544 Oakside PI., Woodbury, Gloucester Co. RES-H 150 18 <5 282 Briar Hill Lane, Woodbury, Gloucester Co. RES-L 150 13 <5 284 Polk St., Riverside, Burlington Co. RES-L 41 22 <5 285 Harris/Washington St., Riverside, RES-H 100 64 <5 Burlington Co. 286 Rockland Dr., Willingboro, Burlington Co. RES-H 300 38 9 287 Larchmont/2nd St., Beverly, Burlington Co. RES-H 300 81 <5 289 Hecker/Harris St., Riverside, RES-H 40 64 <5 Burlington Co. 290 Pulaski/River Dr., Riverside, RES-H 30 71 17 Burlington Co. 291 628 River Dr., Riverside, Burlington Co. RES-H 21 71 11 AGRIC=agricultural, COMM=commercial, IND=industrial, REC=recreational, RES-H=high density residential, RES-L=low density residential. Table 4. Hardwood swamp wetland/buffer study sites sampled by NJAES personnel from 30 May to 16 October 1986. Buffer Wetland Buffer Site Land Width Size Slope Number Location Use (ft) (acres) (deg) 054 Ricci Bros., Dragston/Rt. 553, Downe Twp., AGRIC 95 63 0 Cumberland Co. 063 Smithvlle Phase 1A, Rt. 9, near Moss Mill RES-L 45 7 <5 Rd., Galloway Twp., Atlantic Co. 111 Club at Galloway, West side of Wrangleboro RES-H 200 39 <5 Rd., Galloway Twp., Atlantic Co. 112 Pinnacle, East side of Wrangleboro Rd., RES-H 301 38 <5 Galloway Twp., Atlantic Co. 113 Toms River Intermediate School, Hooper Ave., REC 70 32 <5 Toms River, Ocean Co. 190 Convalesent Center, Magnolia Dr., Middle RES-H 0 11 0 Twp., Cape May Courthouse, Cape May Co. 207 Kettle Creek, Rt. 70, North Lakewood, IND 150 5 <5 Ocean Co. 220 224 Timberlake Dr., Stafford Twp., RES-L 0 101 0 Ocean Co. 222 Caldors, Rt. 549, Brick Twp., Ocean Co. GOMM 30 9 20 231 Torrey Pine, Holiday City I, Ocean Co. RES-H 100 42 10 232 Torrey Pine, Holiday City II, Ocean Co. RES-H 230 42 10 233 Troumaka St., Holiday City III, Ocean Co. RES-H 0 42 10 234 Lagos Ct., Holiday City IV, Ocean Co. RES-H 200 77 10 235 Lagos Ct., Holiday City V, Ocean Co. RES-H 175 77 10 244 Brook St./Rt. 9, Parkertown, Ocean Co. RES-L 95 5 <5 246 Lakeside Dr. S., near Deer Head Lake, RES-L 90 52 <5 Forked River, Ocean Co. 254 Smith Dr., Brick Twp., Ocean Co. R.ES-L 70 22 0 261 The Club at Mattix Forge, Great Creek Rd., RES-H 250 34 <5 Galloway Twp., Atlantic Co. 263 Crossroads/Four Seasons, Ridgeway St., RES-H 0 11 0 Barnegat, Ocean Co. 264 Barnegat Swamp, Cedar St., Barnegat, RES-H 301 11 <5 Ocean Co. _____-______________________________________________________________________________________ Table 4. Continued 277 Mulford St., Millville, Cumberland Co. RES-H 45 13 18 278 Warren Ave., Port Norris, Cumberland Co. RES-L 300 22 0 279 Maurice River Twp. School, Port Norris- REC 301 34 <5 Mauricetown Rd. (Rt. 548), Cumberland Co. 280 Delsea Fire House, Rt. 47, Maurice R. Twp., REC 0 4 0 Cumberland Co. 283 Pine Dr., Wayside, Monmouth Co. RES-H 100 101 5 288 Branch Rd., Oakhurst, Monmouth Co. RES-H 0 30 0 293 Cottonwood Dr., Old Mill, Monmouth Co. RES-H 40 21 16 294 Allenwood/Woodfield, Wall Twp., RES-L 75 15 <5 Monmouth Co. 295 Butternut Rd., (St. Catherine's), Old Mill, RES-H 0 23 0 Monmouth Co. 296 Water/Birdsall St., Barnegat, Ocean Co. RES-L 0 6 0 297 Baseball Field, Water St., Barnegat, REC 0 14 0 Ocean Co. 298 Spruce Dr., Old Mill, Monmouth Co. RES-H 60 21 14 AGRIC=agricultural, COMM=commercial, IND=industrial, REC=recreational, RES-H=high density residential, RES-L=low density residential. 2.2 WETLAND DELINEATION Wetland boundaries were delineated in the field using the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers multi-parameter approach (Environmental Lab 1987). Ecotonal plant associations were first identified using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regional plant list to classify species as wetland (USFWS designations FACW or OBL) or upland species (FACU or UPL) (Reed 1986). Soil cores were then taken to determine at what point the seasonal high water table occurred 12 in below the ground surface (Environmental Lab 1987). Buffer zones were defined operationally in the field as all existing vegetation which occurred between the delineated wetland boundary and the farthest limit of adjacent development. The limit of development was generally defined as the beginning of paved surfaces, maintained lawns, or fencing. In some cases, the corridor of vegetation (often late old-field or early successional forest situations) between developed area and wetland had become established after construction and there was, in effect, no buffer present during construction. 2.3 MEASUREMENT OF HUMAN DISTURBANCE Direct human disturbance of the vegetation in the study sites was measured in several ways. Disturbance and vegetation variables were sampled using line transect methods (Cox 1972, Roman, et al. 1985). One transect of 30 m was placed in the wetland parallel to the direction of the ecotone and divided into a series of contiguous intervals. Three 50 m transects (where width of the buffer permited) were run perpendicular from the first transect into the ecotone and upland. Where 50 m was inadequate to obtain a representative sample of the vegetation in all three zones (i.e. wetland, ecotone and upland), perpendicular transects were extended to as much as 100 m from the parallel. The number and widths of all paths, trails and other areas of degraded vegetation (eg. bare ground areas, eroded areas) which were crossed by the vegetation transects were recorded. Also recorded were such things as slash piles, discarded construction materials (eg. broken concrete, open and discarded containers of paint, solvents and roofing substances), felled trees and cut stumps, discarded appliances and automobile or machine parts. All forms of refuse or disturbance intercepted by the transect lines (as well as the length of the transect intercepted and the width, on either side of the transect line, of the area disturbed) was described and recorded. Only debris and disturbance which could be identified as having an upland origin (as opposed to disturbance due to tidal action, eg. flotsam washed onto a marsh) was considered in the analysis. Human degradation of study sites was also measured by counting individual pieces of debris not intercepted by sampling transects. All debris seen within 1.0 m on either side of the transects was counted and described. In addition, two 30 m transects parallel to the wetland/upland ecotone, one in the 20 ecotone itself and the other placed in the adjacent upland, were walked to count debris as previously described. Such things as tires, grass clippings, empty cleaning agent containers, as well as discarded bottles, plastic and cans seen from these transects were recorded. The slope and aspect of vegetation transects were recorded. Notes of the approximate age of the development, the presence of exotic species, current land use and the estimated size of the wetland were- recorded in the field. Size estimates were later compared to U.S. Geological Survey topographic maps and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory maps for verification. 2.4 CALCULATION OF DISTURBANCE INDEX (DHD) The index of direct human disturbance (DHD) was calculated using a modified formula from the ecological literature for the calculation of vegetation importance values (see Cox 1972). The number of pieces of debris recorded in the wetland portion of the sampling transects was summed to obtain a total count (N) and divided by the total area searched (A) to obtain an estimate of litter density (litter/square meter): Equation 1. L=N/A Where transect intercepts were recorded (eg. an area of disturbed soil, siltation, etc. intercepted by the transect line), they were summed and a disturbance dominance index (D) (after Cox 1972) was calculated: Equation 2. D=>I/1 where D=disturbance dominance I=intercept length occupied by disturbance l=total transect length sampled Finally, a frequency of occurrence was calculated for disturbance intercepts: Equation 3. F=>f/1 where F=disturbance frequency f=number of disturbance intercepts l=total transect length 21 The final disturbance index is a simple sum of the individual indices multiplied by 100 for clarity: Equation 4. DHD=(L+D+F)xlOO DHD was made an additive index to reflect the increasing degree of degradation a wetland suffers as several types of direct human disturbance (litter, trampling, siltation, etc.) are compounded. Intuitively, a wetland with high debris density and many instances of trampling (high disturbance dominance) would be more degraded than would a similar site with high debris density but no other human disturbance. 2.5 VEGETATION SAMPLING At alternate meter intervals along each transect, percent cover of all herbaceous species within a square meter quadrat was estimated (Braun-Blanquet 1932, Daubenmire 1959). All non- herbaceous plants intercepted by the transect (either physically touching the transect or by underlying or overlying the transect line) were recorded to species. For each intercepted woody species, an intercept length was recorded as that portion of the transect line (a 30 m or 50 m nylon tape) intercepted by the plant or by a perpendicular projection of the plant's foliage to the transect line (Figure 2). The width, representing the maximum width of the plant (or clump of plants where individual canopies were indistinguishable) perpendicular to the transect line was also recorded. Canopy species were recorded as percent cover over the transect line. Canopy coverage was measured as a vertical projection of the overhead canopy to the transect line. The height of all shrubs intersected was estimated to the nearest 0.5 meters. 22 2.6 VEGETATION ANALYSIS From measurements made of vegetation in the field, a series of descriptive statistics were calculated for each species in each canopy (i.e. overstory, shrub layer and herbaceous layer) and in each community type (i.e. upland, ecotone and wetland) (Brower and-Zar 1984). Relative frequency of a woody species was expressed as a proportion of the total number of individuals of that species encountered to the total number of individuals of all species encountered. The relative frequency of herbaceous species was expressed as the number of sampling plots in which the species occurred over the total number of sampling plots. Relative dominance for woody species was expressed as the sum of the intercept lengths for a given species divided by the total transect length sampled. Relative density for shrub species was calculated as the total area occupied by the species (the sum of all length x width measurements recorded for the species) divided by the total area sampled (taken to be the transect length multiplied by 2 m, which was the area searched for herbaceous species). For herbaceous species, relative cover was calculated as the total area covered by the species divided by the total area occupied by all species. The final importance value was a simple additive function of all descriptive statistics: Equation 5. IMPORTANCE= RFRE + RDOM + RDEN for woody species, or Equation 6. IMPORTANCE= RFRE + RCOV for herbaceous species. Where RFRE = relative frequency RDOM = relative dominance RDEN = relative density RCOV = relative cover The assumption being made in the course of the vegetation analysis was that direct human disturbance has adverse impacts on the species composition of the affected wetlands, either by favoring the establishment of disturbance resistant invading species or by altering the habitat of more sensitive wetland species causing their disappearance or reduction in importance) (Shisler 1973, Ehrenfeld 1983, Thibodeau and Nickerson 1985). In all, 103 tidal freshwater marsh, 121 hardwood swamp, and 82 salt marsh herbaceous species were recorded. In an effort to reduce the number of variables (i.e. the number of species) to manageable levels, we calculated several community indices expressive of community relationships within the herbaceous layer. In all cases we assumed that the herbaceous community 23 would be the first in which changes in community structure would appear. Diversity in the herbaceous layer of sampled wetlands was measured using the index developed by Shannon and Weaver (1949): Equation 7.- H = -[(n/N) ln (n/N) where H = community diversity n = total sample plots in which species occured N = total plots sampled Because community diversity is a function of both species richness and species evenness (i.e. the relative distribution of species in the community), these effects were separated using a simple sum of the number of different species present (richness) and the index of evenness developed by Shannon and Weaver (1949): Equation 8. e = H/lnS where e = community evenness H = community diversity S = total number of species present Richness is an expression of the number of species present, while evenness is a measure of how the individual plants are distributed among the different species. Relatively low values of evenness, therefore, suggest that the majority of individual plants in a stand belong to one or only a few species. Thus, a monotypic stand would have an evenness value of 0. 24 2.7 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS 2.7.1 DISTURBANCE Disturbance indices were calculated for all sites and compared with the physical variables (eg. buffer width, slope, etc.) recorded for each site. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was run to explore the interactions between physical variables (eg. buffer width, slope, etc.) recorded at each site and levels of disturbance. Subsequently, relationships between DHD and individual variables were examined using Spearmans rank correlation coefficient (range from 1.0 to -1.0) (Hollander and Wolf 1973) and multiple regression (Zar 1974). Significance was assessed at the p<0.05 level. Finally, a minimum effective buffer width was determined using multiple comparisons between established buffer width categories through the Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon rank sum procedures (Hollander and Wolfe 1973). Kruskal-Wallis can be roughly equated to a non-parametric analysis of variance, which seemed desirable because various aspects of the data set, notably the very small sample sizes, seemed to fail the assumptions of normality required of traditional statistical procedures. All analyses were conducted using the Statistical Analysis System (SAS 1985) on the IBM AS9000. 2.7.2 VEGETATION Indices of direct human disturbance were calculated from disturbance variables for each study site in each of three zones: wetland, ecotone and upland (ecotone and upland together comprising the buffer zone). Herbaceous vegetation community indices were calculated for the wetland zone at each study site. To detect relationships between human disturbance and community composition, correlation analyses were done between indices of human disturbance, buffer width and composition (expressed as shrub density in the buffer) and the herbaceous community descriptive indices. Where correlation analysis suggested relationships between disturbance and community composition, cluster analysis on a matrix formed from the relative cover values for all herbaceous species recorded at each study site was run using an average linkage algorithm (Pielou 1984). Study site clusters formed in the anlysis were then examined for changes in herbaceous community structure due to direct human disturbance. The analysis should produce clusters of sites having similar species composition. If, as hypothesized, disturbance of the types measured here (eg. debris, trampling) does alter species composition, highly disturbed sites should cluster together apart from pristine or relatively undisturbed sites. 25 3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 3.1 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE Levels of direct human disturbance (DHD) were calculated for the wetlands sampled at all study sites (Tables 5, 6, and 7). Results of-the ANOVA are presented in Table 8. The analysis suggested a significant model effect (R-square=0.514). The main model factors (land use and wetland type) produced significant differences, while principal interaction terms were not significant. Duncans multiple range test was used to separate out components of the significant model terms (Table 8). Commercial and industrial land uses produced the highest levels of disturbance in adjacent wetlands (average DHD=59.16) and agricultural/recreational uses the lowest (average DHD=13.64). The highest levels of disturbance were recorded in tidal freshwater marshes (average DHD=54.05). Disturbance at these sites was significantly higher than that recorded at either salt marsh or hardwood swamp study sites (average DHD of 28.34 and 25.07, respectively) (Table 9). Apparently, land use type accounted for much of the variance in the model suggesting that the type of development adjacent to wetlands has a significant effect on the level of direct human disturbance recorded in nearby wetland areas. industrial/commercial land uses and agricultural/recreational land use types form the two extremes of land use intensity and human activity. Higher levels of human impact would be expected in areas of high human density, and this seems to be reflected in the results of the multiple comparisons test (Table 8). Residential land use impacts were not significantly different between high density and low density development. We suggest that residential impacts are, for the most part, similar in form at different resident densities (given common demographic factors such as average age of residents, etc.) and that only the level of that disturbance tends to change with human density. The lack of a signficant differences between the measured levels of DHD at the two residential land use types was probably due to a high variance in the recorded amounts of disturbance. That is, some higher density developments (for example, the Holiday City sites in Tables 4 and 7) had very low levels of disturbance recorded in adjacent wetlands. We feel this to be a reflection of differences in the demographics of the residents: Holiday City, for example, is a primarily retirement community and residents are less likely to trespass on wetlands than are young children, the primary sources of disturbance at most of the tidal freshwater marsh study sites (Table 6). 26 Table 5. Disturbance indices calculated from upland originated disturbance measured in the wetland at salt marsh wetland/buffer study sites. DISTURBANCE DISTURBANCE LITTER 11 EREQLUENQX DQMINCE DEINSiY DD 58 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 68 0.06 0.88 0.00 93.75 77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 79 0.02 0.07 0.00 9.15 80 0.01 0.02 0.07 10.57 81 0.01 0.06 0.11 17.71 82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 92 0.05 0.14 0.12 31.37 96 0.00 0.00 0.18 18.29 97 0.00 0.00 0.01 1.16 99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 108 0.02 0.02 0.00 4.22 110 0.10 0.10 0.10 30.00 121 0.00 0.00 0.04 4.17 125 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 131 0.02 0.02 0.02 5.26 134 0.02 0.01 0.85 88.33 139 0.22 0.63 0.09 94.20 142 0.05 0.03 0.04 12.00 143 0.17 0.14 1.02 133.48 146 0.00 0.00 0.01 1.39 167 0.05 1.14 0.00 119.30 238 0.00 0.00 0.41 40.67 239 0.00 0.00 0.05 4.92 240 0.00 0.00 0.03 3.33 242 0.00 0.00 0.12 11.54 243 0.01 0.07 0.04 11.84 245 0.01 0.02 0.90 92.78 247 0.06 0.12 0.09 26.60 248 0.05 0.03 0.04 12.28 249 0.02 0.07 0.06 14.39 250 0.03 0.02 0.04 7.85 251 0.02 0.19 0.01 22.27 252 0.10 0.46 0.35 91.25 253 0.16 0.24 0.44 84.44 255 0.01 0.00 0.01 2.12 256 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.88 257 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 259 0.05 0.50 0.10 65.25 262 0.00 0.00 0.11 11.11 292 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 299 0.00 0.00 0.13 12.50 27 Table 6. Disturbance indices calculated from upland originated disturbance measured in the wetland at tidal freshwater marsh wetland/buffer study sites. DISTURBANCE DISTURBANCE LITTER SITE FEEQUENCY I)MANANCE DENSITY DIM 224 0.00 0.00 0.17 17.05 226 0.00 0.00 0.02 1.79 227 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.78 258 0.06 0.28 0.06 39.43 260 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 265 0.05 0.15 0.20 40.35 266 0.01 0.23 0.01 25.66 267 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 268 0.00 0.00 0.04 3.51 269 0.02 0.07 0.07 16.22 270 0.00 0.00 0.10 10.00 271 0.04 0.45 0.11 60.21 272 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.81 273 0.12 1.33 0.41 185.76 274 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.96 275 0.03 0.05 1.27 134.50 276 0.07 0.23 1.59 189.10 281 0.00 0.00 0.10 10.00 282 0.00 0.00 0.17 17.11 284 0.05 0.45 0.27 76.72 285 0.06 0.55 0.67 127.41 286 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 287 0.04 0.40 0.90 134.13 289 0.02 0.02 2.78 281.36 290 0.05 0.05 0.22 32.44 291 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 28 Table 7. Disturbance indices calculated from upland originated disturbance measured in the wetland at hardwood swamp wetland/ buffer study-sites. DISTURBANCE DISTURBANCE LITTER ES2.E ERQUEEECY W~DQMMNCE DELqj.Y DID 54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 111 0.07 0.22 0.03 31.23 112 0.02 0.01 0.00 3.04 113 0.00 0.00 0.09 8.70 190 0.01 0.04 0.02 6.67 207 0.00 0.00 0.07 6.80 220 0.06 0.06 0.08 20.31 222 0.13 0.12 0.43 68.67 231 0.00 0.00 0.11 11.11 232 0.00 0.00 0.04 4.35 233 0.02 0.02 0.05 8.36 234 0.00 0.00 0.04 4.35 235' 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 244 0.02 0.07 0.03 11.96 246 0.00 0.00 0.11 10.53 254 0.02 0.02 0.27 31.37 261 0.00 0.00 0.02 2.31 263 0.04 0.06 0.69 78.60 264 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 277 0.02 0.00 0.76 78.22 278 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 279 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 280 0.05 0.12 0.19 35.63 283 0.00 0.00 0.04 3.57 288 0.09 0.20 0.02 30.25 293 0.13 0.57 0.62 131.58 294 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 295 0.10 0.31 0.35 75.24 296 0.02 0.02 0.14 19.05 297 0.11 0.39 0.32 81.39 298 0.03 0.05 0.31 38.82 29 Table 8. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of measured levels of disturbance (DHD): three wetland types and four levels of land use intensity and their interaction terms (** indicates signifianct F value). Results of Duncan's multiple range test (DMRT) on the wetland type and land use means follow (means in the same column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (N=100, df=degrees of freedom, alpha level=0.05). Source AtF PR>F Use 1 4.30 <0.01 ** Type 2 2.45 0.09 Type X Use 6 0.96 0.46 Width(Type) 14 1.40 0.18 Use X Width(Type) 19 0.79 0.71 Source eans (DMRT). Land Us Wetland IND/COMM 59.16 a Tidal Fresh Marsh 54.05 a RES-H 49.15 a b Salt Marsh 28.34 b RES-L 21.36 c b Hardwood Swamp 25.07 b AG/REC 13.64 c 3.2 BUFFER VARIABLE RELATIONSHIPS After the ANOVA suggested a model effect, correlation and regression analyses were conducted on individual wetland types to explore relationships between the recorded levels of disturbance and physical variables used in the model. 3.2.1 SALT MARSHES A correlation matrix for the buffer physical variables and the disturbance indices calculated at each study site were computed for each wetland type (Table 10). The correlation analysis on salt marsh wetland/buffer study sites produced no significant relationships between the level of disturbance in the wetland and any of the variables of interest. However, a scatter plot of DHD against buffer width (Figure 3) suggests a steeply declining relationship. Subsequent simple linear regression indicates that there is a significant inverse linear relationship between buffer width and the level of direct human disturbance 30 Table 9. Mean disturbance levels measured at 100 study sites in 3 wetland types and at 4 land use categories. (Number in parentheses represents observations in the wetland/land use category). Wttlaand Type Tidal Lanm Vat Sall WA-rsh Freft h ash fHgarjdwsd .5Weamf T!tal REC/AG 12.09 (13) 1.17 (3) 25.14 (5) 13.64 (21) RES-L 24.34 (16) 25.65 (7) 11.65 (8) 21.36 (31) RES-H 42.54 (10) 81.97 (12) 29.87 (17) 49.15 (39) IND/COMM 72.81 (3) 59.63 (4) 37.73 (2) 59.16 (9) TOTAL 28.34 (42) 54.05 (26) 25.07 (32) 33.98 (100) REC/AG -Recreational or agricultural RES-L - Low density residential RES-H - High density residential IND/OOMM - Indusrial or Commercial (i.e. as buffer width declines, the level of disturbance increases) (Table 11). These results should be interpreted with caution and with an eye toward the nature of buffers sampled adjacent to salt marshes. Buffer zones were defined operationally in the field as all existing vegetation which occurred between the delineated wetland boundary and the farthest limit of adjacent development. The limit of development was generally defined as the beginning of paved surfaces, maintained lawns or fencing. In some cases the corridor of existing vegetation (often late oldfield or early successional forest in the case of salt marsh sites) between developed areas and the wetland had become established after construction activities had ceased (often because those activities had destroyed any buffering vegetation) so that there was, in effect, no buffer in place during construction. These types of situations were most prevalent in salt marsh study sites. Table 10. Correlation matrix of buffer variables and the index of direct human disturbance (DHD) recorded in the wetland at salt marsh wetland/buffer study sites. Matrix includes Spearman's rank correlation coefficients and the probability of significance (N=42, alpha level = 0.05). ~Width 9s l ope SEE e yDHD Width 1.0000 0.000 Use -0.1727 1.0000 0.274 0.000 Slope 0.3357 0.3357 1.0000 0.029 0.029 0.000 DHD 0.0626 0.2944 0.0271 -0.1206 1.0000 0.697 0.062 0.867 0.447 0.000 The primary source of disturbance recorded in salt marsh study sites were remnants of the original construction activity which occurred in the adjacent upland. In general, disturbance attributable to current residents is negligible: At site 259 (Pirate Cove Motel, Egg Harbor Township) a high density residential land use occurs adjacent to a rtina a1_ternIL dominated low marsh. The buffer is actually a 30 ft strip of dead or dying Junierus virainiana, Rosa multiflora, Phytolacca ameriaA and Phraamites Australi which has grown up on the disturbed soil that resulted from construction. The 32 Table 11. Results of simple linear regressions on the level of disturbance (DHD) measured at three different wetland types. DHD was the dependent variable, while land use, buffer width and buffer slope were independent variables. ( N = the number of observations, RSQ = coefficient of determination, F = the F value of the model). ILtland TyES Bali Ma�sh Tidal E�r~h Marsh lagdWQQd &WUama yazriabi L R. EL RBQ F BQ E USE 39 0.15 6.76 24 0.09 2.49 32 0.02 0.72 WIDTH 39 0.09 3.97** 25 0.16 4.45** 32 0.25 9.96** SLOPE 39 0.06 2.44 25 0.23 6.75** 32 0.08 2.65 ** p < 0.05 Figure 3. Scatter plot of disturbance vs. buffer width at salt marsh study sites. ~~~150~~~~~~~~ 2 R = 0.097 13s p = 0.05 N =39 120-- 105-- ; 90-- Q) 4k c 75-- Aq -4-" 45-- 3046 * DM 5-- A + 33.704 O'- ': : A: : ': : : : : : 20 60 100 140 180 220 260 300 Buffer Width wetland/upland ecotone has formed on fill (broken cinder blocks, conduit and other construction materials mixed with sand) which had been bulldozed into the marsh and which extends in a band out into the marsh a distance of approximately 45 ft. Iva fLutiens_, acchar almifolia and Phragmites aurli have become established on the raised surface of the marsh. At Ocean Gate Yacht Basin (site 139) a 15 ft buffer of Prunus serotina, Myrii pensvlvanica and Rosa multiflora has grown up adjacent to the boatyard abutting the S-artina paens/Distichlis s'icata marsh. However, Phraamites australis, IYA frutescens and Rosa multiflora have become established in the marsh on a band of fill material (primarily discarded construction materials) which extends out into the marsh some 30 ft. Large numbers of discarded creosote soaked pilings have been stacked in the marsh with the result that vegetation under and around them has been killed. A Sartina alterniflora low marsh adjacent to high density residential development at Wildwood Crest (site 252) is strewn with discarded insulation, fence posts and footings, clapboards, paint and solvent containers. The ecotonal buffer between the development and the marsh is an artificial association of Rbu! g_ alin, Iva frutescens and Phraamites austrAli which has developed on fill placed into the marsh. Maintained lawns adjacent to the marsh were also established on fill. Development at high density sites (i.e. land uses 3 and 4) has occurred at the expense of the wetland/upland ecotone. Upland buffers at these sites have been destroyed during construction and disturbance of the types measured here has taken place in the marsh during this initial development activity. Piles of abandoned construction materials overgrown with weeds and vines were a common sight, as were fingers of fill material creeping beyond the wetland border. In most cases, currently existing buffers have grown up after development and therefore after the primary disturbance to the wetland has taken place. These buffers, as illustrated in the above examples, would have no influence on levels of DHD in the wetland. While correlation analysis produced no significant positive relationship between land use intensity and the level of direct human disturbance, our field observations suggest that such a relationship does exist and would be signficant given a larger sample size. Calculated levels of disturbance at salt marsh sites shows a steadily increasing rate as the level of development in the adjacent upland increases (Table 9). Low density sites (land use types 1 and 2) tended to have higher levels of direct human disturbance directly attributable to current land use. At low density sites that exhibited high levels of DHD (eg. Amasa Landing in New Gretna, site 134, and Farry Point in Cheesequake State Park, site 81), disturbance primarily took the form of human paths, trails (with associated litter) and cut down or trampled vegetation. Uncontrolled access to the marsh resulted in the destruction of vegetation. 35 3.2.2 TIDAL FRESHWATER MARSHES The correlation analysis of the freshwater marsh study sites indicated significant negative correlations with buffer slope and buffer shrub density suggesting that wetlands bordered by buffers that are steeply sloped and have dense shrub layers were subject to lower levels of direct human disturbance attributable to the adjacent land use (Table 12). Correlation suggested that there was a similar inverse relationship between buffer width and DHD. Subsequent regression analysis of buffer width on DHD (Table 11) produced a significant inverse linear relationship, demonstrated by a scatter plot of DHD against buffer width (Figure 4). Table 12. Correlation matrix of buffer variables and the index of direct human disturbance (DHD) recorded in the wetland at tidal freshwater marsh wetland/buffer study sites. Matrix includes Spearman's rank correlation coefficients and probability of significance (N=26, alpha level=0.05). Width sl op eD~ s_/ity DHD Width 1.0000 0.000 Use -0.1612 1.0000 0.432 0.000 Slope 0.0676 -0.2088 1.0000 0.743 0.306 0.000 DHD -0.3278 0.2926 -0.4587 -0.3304 1.0000 0.102 0.147 0.018 0.099 0.000 36 Figure 4. Scatter plot of disturbance vs. buffer width at freshwater marsh study sites. 300-- 2 R = 0.162 p < 0.05 N = 25 250- :3 0 0 Cl - A 100- - 50--- Buffer Width B~ufffer WM/idtlh Tidal freshwater marshes were generally the most disturbed of the three wetland types studied (average DHD=54.05). These wetlands were found almost exclusively in densely populated areas, particularly in the Delaware River and its tributaries, and were found by Simpson, et al. (1983) to be more vulnerable to adverse human impacts, including nutrient enrichment from sewage treatment facilities and non-point-source runoff from parking lots, as a result of this proximity. Dredge spoil deposition, highway construction and other human activity have seriously impacted the vegetation of tidal freshwater marshes along the Delaware River (Ferren and Schuyler 1980). The highest levels of direct human disturbance calculated at tidal freshwater marsh study sites occurred adjacent to high density residential land uses (Table 9). Disturbance took the form of trash thrown into the marsh or destruction of vegetation. For example, at Hecker Street, Riverside (site 289) a very high - level of disturbance (DHD=281.36) was due to residents piling a large variety of debris into the marsh. Tires, broken cinder blocks and other construction materials, open and discarded containers of cleaning solvents and litter formed the majority of the disturbance recorded in a olygonum arifolum/Peltandr a y-Sjini_ marsh on the Rancocas River. In addition, marsh vegetation had been cut down along the marsh edge and wide areas had been excavated. This stretch of marsh, effectively screened from the street by a steep slope overgrown with dense Polygonim cuspidatum (Japanese Knotweed), was apparently a tacitly recognized community dump of long standing. At Front Street, Runnemede (site 273), a Zinzaig, aquatica/Peltandra virini marsh growing along the north branch of Otter Brook had been considerably disturbed (DHD=185.76). A wide area of fill extended into the marsh made up of discarded plastic sheeting, building materials (notably asphalt and tar) and concrete slabs. A rip-rap berm had been erected on the fill below the resident's property. The currently existing buffer was a 70 ft band of Phvtolacca at9 and __gg mulJfJo. Similarly, the _inA aguati ca marsh adjacent to an apartment complex on Station Avenue, Glendora (site 271) was being used as a dump for discarded construction material. The existing buffer, a narrow fring of Acer rubrum/Liauidambar styracifl forest, had been breeched at several points and broken cinder block, brick and gravel was dumped down slope into the marsh. Large areas of the marsh were devoid of vegetation, with the exception of QSolidaqo spp. growing among the debris. Tires had been scattered throughout the marsh, resulting in the destruction of considerable amounts of vegetation. The Saaittaria tiJf ia/Ep_.JA ena marsh along Big Timber Creek adjacent to site 276 (Reliance Co., Bellmawr) was also used as a convenient place to dump debris. A chain link fence, built partly on fill, separated the marsh from a storage yard. The slash removed from clearing the area around the fence was tossed into the marsh. Phramits australis and Tyh latifJlia. have become established on the elevated marsh adjacent to the fence. Machine parts, solvent containers and spilled lubricants were recorded in the marsh. 38 In general, the majority of observed direct human disturbance at tidal freshwater marsh sites was due to current residents dumping refuse into the marsh and children tearing up vegetation on the marsh border. Filling was common. Many residents apparently believed that the water front was theirs for whatever purpose. Along the Rancocas River in Riverside the naturally forested buffer had been replaced by a row of planted Acer sacch-ar-inum and maintained grass. One resident admitted to cutting down the tall marsh vegetation which grew along the banks of the river to get a better view of water skiers using the water. Destruction of marsh vegetation was restricted to the upper edge of the marsh, probably due to the impassability of the marsh soils. Because these wetlands occurred in stream channels with steep adjacent slopes, development directly along the wetland border was not practical. Consequently, many buffering zones of natural vegetation remained intact along the wetland borders, in contrast to the salt marsh sites. 3.2.3 HARDWOOD SWAMPS The correlation analyses of hardwood swamp sites showed no significant relationships between disturbance and land use inten- sity, but did show a significant (p<0.01) inverse relationship with buffer width, suggesting that disturbance in hardwood swamps decreased with increasing buffer width (Table 13). Subsequent regression analysis (Table 11) demonstrated a significant inverse linear relationship between buffer width and the level of distur- bance, as expressed in the scatter plot of width against DHD (Figure 5). Levels of direct human disturbance at hardwood swamp study sites were relatively low (average DHD=25.07). in contrast with salt marsh and tidal freshwater marsh sites, no one land use type demonstrated a higher average level of disturbance (Table 9). The primary disturbance observed in hardwood swamps was the result of current residents pushing their property lines beyond what was their legal boundary. The gradual slopes and transi- tions between upland and wetland at these sites facilitated boundary transgression. Major disturbances seldom occurred far beyond the wetland ecotone, but where they did they were remnants of the original construction and included slash piles and felled trees. Disturbance by present residents included paths cut through the swamp (many swamps were associated with streams and paths generally provided access to them) and grass clippings, cut tree limbs, etc. deposited beyond backyard boundaries. ~39 Table 13. Correlation matrix of buffer variables and the index of direct human disturbance (DHD) recorded in the wetland at hardwood swamp wetland/buffer study sites. Matrix includes Spearman's rank correlation coefficients and probability of significance (N=32, alpha-level=0.05). Width D a ZIQM Density DHD Width 1.0000 0.000 Use 0.1037 1.0000 0.572 0.000 Slope 0.3199 0.5043 1.0000 0.074 0.003 0.000 DHD -0.5739 -0.1221 -0.1108 -0.2797 1.0000 0.002 0.553 0.589 0.121 0.000 At the Caldors Shopping Center in Brick Township (site 222), a Acer rubrum floodplain forest associated with Cedar Bridge Branch was located adjacent to the mall parking lot. The steep slope leading from the lot to the creek was densely littered with trash, packaging materials, broken asphalt, and discarded industrial cleaning agents. Shopping carts were found in the creek and thrown into the forest. Areas of burned and trampled vegetation were found throughout the site and there were several well-trampled paths leading to the creek. Similarly, steep slopes behind Millford Street, Millville (site 277) were covered with several years of refuse. Open paint cans and containers of solvents and pesticides had been tossed into the wetland at the base of the slope. Grass clippings and discarded tree branches, trash, appliances and tires littered the slope and cut stumps, broken branches and uprooted seedlings were found along vegetation transects. The area adjacent to the baseball field on Water Street, Barnegat (site 297) was cleared by bulldozing the area and pushing the waste material into the nearby swamp. Sur- viving trees in the swamp had been uprooted, broken or cut down, apparently by adolescents using the field. Broken concrete 40 Figure 5. Scatter plot of disturbance vs. buffer width at hardwood swamp study sites. '1o-- 2 R = 0.249 p < 0.01 N =32 120-- 105 -- 9o-- Buf 75Width o U2 60-- Buffer W/idth and slash were piled in the wetland. The swamp along Hannabrand Brook in Old Mill (site 293) had been the dumping area for used automotive oil filters, discarded oil, tires, building sand and appliances. Gullies have been eroded into the slopes above the swamp and up to 18 inches (in some places) of silt covered the soil surface within the wetland. 3.3 MINIMUM BUFFER WIDTH DETERMINATION In order to determine minimum effective buffer widths, we compared the level of disturbance recorded in wetlands bordered by existing buffers of varying widths. To facilitate multiple comparisons, study sites were assigned to one of four buffer width categories: 1. WIDTH < 50 ft. 2. 50 ft > WIDTH < 100 ft 3. 100 ft > WIDTH < 150 ft 4. WIDTH > 150 ft. Mean disturbance calculated at each width category for each wetland type was statistically compared using the Kruskal-Wallis procedure (Table 14). Table 14. Results of the Kruskal-Wallis test of the levels of disturbance (mean DHD) measured at three wetland types in four buffer width categories (H = the chi-square approximation test statistic, N = number of observations comprising the mean, ** = significance at alphal level=0.05). Wetland Type Salt Marsh F eh MarPh Hardwood Swamp Buffer Width gCateqoryE DHD I DHD N DHD 1 18 38.05 8 84.55 13 48.77 2 9 19.48 7 72.92 7 14.48 3 8 20.44 3 7.16 4 7 23.81 11 19.85 9 5.03 H 4.64 4.22 12.44** 42 3.3.1 SALT MARSHES The Kruskal-Wallis multiple comparisons detected no significant differences in mean disturbance levels calculated for the four buffer width categories at salt marsh study sites. However, mean disturbance at sites with existing buffers greater than 50 ft was only half of mean DHD recorded at sites with narrower buffers. A larger sample size may prove this difference significant. A regression model of buffer width on the level of human disturbance suggested a significant relationship (Figuie 3). These results appear to be a function of the fact that existing buffers, upon which multiple comparisons were made, have no direct impact on the levels of disturbance as measured in salt marsh study sites. This is because the buffer has become established only after the major disturbances to the marsh have already been registered, or because the buffer was breached during original development activity which impacted the marsh. 3.3.2 TIDAL FRESHWATER MARSHES While the multiple comparisons did not detect a significant difference in mean disturbance levels between buffer width categories, the large disparity between mean DHD values suggested that a difference was being obscured by small sample sizes used in the comparisons. Therefore, pair-wise comparisons between categories were computed using Wilcoxon's rank sum test, which detected a significant difference in mean DHD between sites with buffers less than 50 ft and sites with buffers greater than 150 ft (Table 15). The hypothesis that wider buffers reduced the level of disturbance in the adjacent wetland was also supported by the fact that mean DHD increased more than 3 fold between categories 2 (50 to 100 ft) and 4 (greater than 150 ft). 43 Table 15. Pairwise Wilcoxon's rank sum tests between mean disturbance levels measured at tidal freshwater marsh sites with different buffer widths (N = number of sites, SE = standard error; CV = coefficient of variation; P > Z = the probability that the calculated test statistic is greater than the expected value at alpha level=0.05, ** = significant difference). Buffer Width Categg-v y X .6 C p > 1 8 84.55 34.88 116.68 0.80 2 7 72.92 28.96 105.10 1 8 84.55 34.88 116.68 0.05** 4 11 19.85 11.71 195.61 2 7 72.92 28.96 105.10 0.13 4 11 19.85 11.71 195.61 3.3.3 HARDWOOD SWAMPS The Kruskal-Wallis test detected a significant difference between mean disturbance recorded in wetlands protected by buf- fers of varying widths. Subsequent pair-wise comparisons between buffer width categories showed a significantly lower level of disturbance recorded at sites with buffer widths greater than 150 ft than at sites with buffer widths less than 50 ft (Table 16). There was a large, though not significant, drop in mean DHD between 50 and 100 ft (mean DHD more than tripled between the second and first buffer width categories). There was also no significant difference in the level of DHD between category 2 and 3, although DHD was halved between these two categories. 44 Table 16. Pairwise Wilcoxon's rank sum tests between mean disturbance levels measured at hardwood swamp sites within different buffer width categories. (N = number of sites; SE =-standard error; CV = coefficient of variation; P > z = the probability that the calculated test statistic is greater than the expected value at alpha level=0.05, ** = significant result). Buffer Width CategQorx"E SE R !2 1 13 48.76 10.97 81.09 0.01** 2 7 14.48 5.67 103.68 1 13 48.76 10.97 81.09 <0.01** 3 3 7.16 2.18 52.85 1 13 48.76 10.97 81.09 <0.01** 4 9 5.03 3.33 198.78 2 7 14.48 5.67 103.68 0.44 3 3 7.16 2.18 52.85 2 7 14.48 5.67 103.68 0.15 4 9 5.03 3.33 198.78 3 3 7.16 2.18 52.85 0.73 4 9 5.03 3.33 198.78 45 3.4 VEGETATION ANALYSIS Descriptive indices were calculated for wetland herbaceous community at each study site (Tables 17, 18, and 19). Indices were then compared to calculated levels of direct human disturbance and several buffer parameters measured at each site. 3.4.1 SALT MARSHES There were no signficant (p<0.05) relationships between any of the wetland herbaceous community indices and the level of disturbance recorded at salt marsh study sites (Table 20). However, because the correlation analysis did suggest some relationship between DHD and species evenness (p<0.10) (i.e. a trend toward a more even distribution of individuals among species at disturbed sites), a cluster analysis was performed on a matrix of relative cover values recorded for all species identified in the herbaceous wetland communities at salt marsh study sites. The result of the analysis, presented as a dendrogram (Figure 6), indicated that 2 relatively distinct subsets of study sites existed. These clusters were best described by inspection of the species composition of the marshes within each subset (Table 21). The first cluster consisted of study sites at which 5.pxIk pe was the dominant species in the marsh. unc _Lx/1d' and Distichl_ s c a were co-dominant in the herbaceous community at these sites, which tended to be high marsh situations. The second cluster is composed of sites at which Spartina alterniflora dominated the marsh, with only sparse cover of Juncs _Lg and Distichiis sp. These were generally low marsh situations subject to considerable flooding. Levels of human disturbance in the wetland were not significantly different between these 2 groups of marshes (Wilcoxon's rank sum test) and is is unlikely that these clusters are related to disturbance of the kinds recorded here, but merely reflect differences in species composition in response to varying environmental conditions. 46 Table 17. Community indices calculated from relative cover values for herbaceous species recorded in the wetland at salt marsh study sites (see text for index calculation). Community Indices Site Number and Location Diversity Richness Evenness 58 Shelter Cove, Beach Haven 0.00 1 0.00 68 Glimmer Glass Island 0.43 2 0.11 77 Dock Rd., Cheesequake 1.27 10 0.23 79 Sand Pit Pt., Cheesequake 0.51 11 0.12 80 Hooks Lake, Cheesequake 1.62 9 0.30 81 Farry Point, Cheesequake 1.70 16 0.31 82 Arrowsmith Pt., Cheesequake 1.48 10 0.30 92 Mushquash Cove, Neptune 2.20 22 0.39 96 Hillside Rd., Neptune 0.58 11 0.14 97 Marconi Rd., Neptune 1.24 11 0.28 99 Manasquan Golf Course 0.58 10 0.15 108 Tranquility Park 0.99 7 0.23 110 Reeds Bay Village 1.40 11 0.28 121 Dock Rd., Parkertown 0.79 7 0.15 125 Holden St., Mystic Island 1.25 12 0.24 131 Adams Ave., New Gretna 1.68 20 0.31 134 Amasa Rd., New Gretna 1.70 10 0.32 139 Ocean Gate Yacht Basin 2.11 14 0.38 142 Bayview Ave., Ocean Gate 1.59 11 0.31 143 Butler Ave., Holly Park 0.13 4 0.40 146 Rocknacks Yacht Basin 1.52 10 0.32 167 Rt. 30E, Atlantic City 0.33 7 0.70 238 Sea Pirate Light 1.67 16 0.28 239 Szathmary Co., Manahawkin 1.44 10 0.27 240 Gale Rd., Brick Twsp. 1.63 16 0.30 242 Neptune Ave., Neptune 1.75 20 0.33 243 Seaview Condos, Neptune 1.90 9 0.22 245 Mandalay Rd., Mantoloking 1.50 13 0.29 247 Victoria Point, Bar Harbor 1.43 12 0.27 47 Table 17. Continued 248 The Meadows, Cape May City 0.30 7 0.70 249 Pelican-Bay, Wildwood Crest 1.89 18 0.34 250 Capeshore, King Crab Landing 1.53 11 0.29 251 Capeshore Lab II 0.96 6 0.22 252 T6ledo Ave., Wildwood Crest 1.46 15 0.29 253 Tennessee Ave., Ocean City 0.54 6 0.12 255 Sea Meadow Dr., Parkertown 2.90 21 0.36 256 Bay Harbor Blvd., Brick Twsp. 0.92 12 0.20 257 Rocknacks II, Lanoka Harbor 1.36 15 0.26 259 Pirate Cove Motel 0.59 7 0.12 262 Ocean Blvd., Mystic Island 0.96 10 0.21 292 Cook Ave., Laurence Harbor 1.18 10 0.22 299 Holly Lake Park, Tuckerton 1.17 14 0.24 48 Table 18. Community indices calculated from relative cover values for herbaceous species recorded in the wetland at freshwater marsh study sites (see text for index calculation). Community Indices Site Number and Location Diversity Richness Evenness 224 Henry St., Riverside 1.24 15 0.2 226 Burlington Park 2.00 20 0.35 258 Curtin Marina, Burlington 1.40 14 0.28 260 Pureland Industrial 1.30 12 0.19 265 Soden Dr., Yardville 1.96 25 0.36 266 Highland Ave., Yardville 2.23 28 0.39 267 Soden Dr. II, Yardville 1.93 17 0.33 268 Grover Ave., Bordentown 1.87 14 0.33 269 Edgewood Rd., Bordentown 2.15 28 0.35 270 Bradlees, Bordentown 2.35 25 0.42 271 Noname Apts., Glendora 2.27 20 0.50 272 Hillcrest Apts., Bordentown 2.58 36 0.43 273 400 Front St., Runnemede 1.97 17 0.42 274 Hilltop Dr., Bordentown 1.92 20 0.35 275 Timber Cove Apts., Bellmawr 2.16 21 0.42 276 Reliance Co., Bellmawr 2.19 26 0.40 281 544 Oakside P1., Woodbury 1.78 23 0.34 282 Briar Hill Lane, Woodbury 1.29 24 0.27 284 Polk St., Wayside 2.35 23 0.40 285 Washington St., Riverside 2.23 21 0.39 286 Rockland Dr., Willingboro 2.27 22 0.40 287 Larchmont/2nd St., Beverly 2.52 34 0.42 289 Hecker/Harris St., Riverside 2.21 22 0.39 290 Pulaski/River Dr., Riverside 1.67 17 0.34 291 628 River Dr., Riverside 1.36 14 0.28 49 Table 19. Community indices calculated from relative cover values for herbaceous species recorded in the wetland at hardwood swamp study sites (see text for index calculation). Community Indices Site Number and Location Diversity Richness Evenness 54 Ricci Bros., Downe Twsp. 1.20 10 0.30 63 Smithville, Galloway Twsp. 1.49 24 0.31 111 Club at Galloway 1.56 10 0.32 112 Pinnacle, Galloway Twsp. 1.22 9 0.29 113 Toms R. Intermediate School 1.84 22 0.40 190 CapeMay Convalescent Center 2.16 22 0.37 207 Kettle Creek, N. Lakewood 2.72 37 0.48 220 Colony Village 0.65 3 0.16 222 Caldors, Brick Twsp. 2.60 18 0.47 231 Holiday City I 1.39 12 0.31 232 Holiday City II 1.33 9 0.36 233 Holiday City III 0.49 8 0.11 234 Holiday City IV 1.49 12 0.32 235 Holiday City V 1.13 8 0.30 244 Brook St., Parkertown 0.26 8 0.60 246 Pheasant Run, Forked R. 1.90 10 0.26 254 Smith Dr., Brick Twsp. 1.41 7 0.50 261 The Club at Mattix Forge 1.53 9 0.35 263 Crossroads, Barnegat 0.63 3 0.14 264 Barnegat Swamp, Barnegat 1.15 8 0.26 277 Mulford St., Millville 2.29 21 0.48 278 Warren Ave., Port Norris 0.35 5 0.90 279 Maurice R. Twsp. School 2.90 16 0.5 280 Delsea Fire House 1.64 12 0.42 283 Pine Dr., Wayside 0.88 9 0.26 288 Branch Rd., Oakhurst 0.95 6 0.24 293 Cottonwood Dr., Old Mill 0.69 3 0.24 294 Allenwood, Wall Twsp. 1.49 20 0.33 295 Butternut Rd., Old Mill 0.80 3 0.20 296 Birdsall St., Barnegat 1.49 6 0.34 297 Water St., Barnegat 1.34 18 0.26 298 Spruce Dr., Old Mill 1.13 8 0.30 50 GROUP 2 Ie to_ GROUP 1 I 40 toM C-) 0 CC t~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~t.. ~ to"M Figure 6. Dendrogram representing average linkage cluster analysis of the herbaceous communities at salt marsh study sites. 51 Table 20. Correlation matrix relating wetland zone herbaceous layer community indices, human disturbance, buffer width and buffer shrub density measured at salt marsh study sites. Matrix includes Spearman's rank correlation coefficients and the probability of significance (N=42, alpha level=0.05). Diversity Richness Evenness H N E Total Disturbance 0.0227 -0.0497 0.2648 0.8867 0.7547 0.0901 Buffer Width -0.0890 0.2095 0.0698 0.9552 0.1830 0.6606 Buffer Shrub Density -0.0876 -0.0652 -0.0142 0.5812 0.6812 0.9291 Table 21. Average relative cover values of major plant species (and mean disturbance, DHD) calculated for subsets of salt marsh study sites suggested by cluster analysis (Figure 6). Species Group 1 Group 2 Distichlis sicata 25.87 3.02 Juncus qerardii 9.03 , 1.34 Spartig alterniflora 11.91 72.11 Siarting patens 23.26 8.28 DHD 19.44 30.73 52 To examine the effects of direct human disturbance on the 2 subsets of salt marsh study sites separated by cluster analysis, species composition at disturbed Sparin vatens-dominated marshes (Group 1 in Table 21) was compared to the composition of similar, undisturbed (i.e. DHD=0) marshes (Table 22). Wilcoxon's rank sum test was used to compare community indices and relative cover values of individual species calculated for disturbed and undisturbed-sites (Table 23). Table 22. Species composition, expressed as average relative cover, of the wetland herbaceous communities at undisturbed (DHD=0) and disturbed salt marshes in the first cluster group (only species with an average relative cover >1.0 are reported; N=number of study sites; community indices are average values). Undisturbed Disturbed Species (N=4) IN=16-) Spartina pen 47.49 30.34 PLtag~mi~a i 1trlis 18.05 10.30 Sartina alterniflora 14.81 8.19 Distichlis spica 13.85 23.86 SaLicornia spp. 1.37 0.09 Ailep Ril 0.64 0.15 Panicmn spp. 0.11 1.87 1Solidao sempervirens 3.59 LTiioni.itm nahii. 0.19 Species Richness 10.00 12.44 Species Evenness 0.25 0.28 Species Diversity 1.29 1.47 DHD 0.00 25.52 The community indices (diversity, species richness, and species evenness) were not significantly different between disturbed and undisturbed study sites. The relative cover values of dominant plant species (here broadly defined as a species whose average relative cover value exceeded 1.0) did not differ between disturbed and undisturbed marshes. Disturbed marshes, however, tended to have a large number of minor (relative cover <1.0) species present (Table 23). Consequently, a matrix of cover values of all minor species recorded in the wetland communities of disturbed high marsh study sites was created and correlated with the level of disturbance (DHD) (Table 24). No species displayed a significant relationship with the disturbance index. 53 Table 23. Pair-wise Wilcoxon's rank sum tests comparing the mean relative cover values (MEAN) of dominant herbaceous species recorded in the wetlands at disturbed (D) and undisturbed (U) salt marshes in the first cluster group (N=number of sites; SE=standard error; CV=coefficient of variation; P>Z=probability that the calculated test statistic is greater than the expected value at alpha=0.05) (see Table 39 for species names). 521cials Iype L Mauhn Si CYv >Z 20 U 4 0.65 0.52 183.93 0.41 D 16 0.15 0.07 209.64 57 U 4 13.85 4.49 89.79 0.32 D 16 23.86 4.68 78.52 98 U 4 0.27 0.26 213.49 0.16 D 16 8.95 2.91 129.92 131 U 4 0.11 0.10 199.69 0.19 D 16 1.63 1.12 275.56 133 U 4 18.04 8.56 116.92 0.22 D 16 10.30 2.31 89.54 159 U 4 1.37 0.57 105.84 <0.01 D 16 0.09 0.05 203.66 189 U 4 14.81 5.25 67.48 0.25 D 16 8.19 2.49 121.42 191 U 4 47.51 7.14 64.67 0.15 D 16 30.34 5.34 70.37 54 Table 24. Matrix of average relative cover values measured for minor (X<1.0) species recorded in the herbaceous communities of disturbed salt marshes in the first cluster group and Spearman's rank correlation coefficient from the comparison of relative cover and the level of disturbance (notes correlations were calculated based on relative cover values at 42 study sites) (alpha level=0.05) (see Table 39 for species names). S'TE EIgZB Slgie 2i56 1i 2 240 121 2i 250 ii 110 2 249 2 51 92 134 245 1 9 3 1.56 6.89 -0.0119 7 3.96 -0.0854 20 0.19 0.61 1.11 0.29 0.09 0.1472 44 0.21 0.04 -0.1463 45 1.73 1.41 7.81 1.76 -0.1191 63 0.93 -0.1145 64 0.74 0.2746 89 0.51 -0.1046 Ln 94 0.22 0.73 0.04 4.47 0.42 0.0025 95 0.23 0.0126 100 2.25 0.2501 106 1.29 1.52 0.29 0.2273 114 0.20 -0.1134 126 0.68 -0.1390 127 0.45 0.29 -0.1317 130 3.45 -0.0690 146 0.09 -0.0869 152 3.46 0.05 0.18 -0.1165 166 10.85 0.05 1.68 -0.0791 167 0.07 0.47 0.3037'' 169 7.73 0.73 0.02 0.10 0.08 6.34 0.07 3.83 -0.1176 183 2.18 0.03 1.77 0.26 -0.0700 193 0.06 0.0126 195 0.15 -0.1093 199 0.02 0.14 0.1216 205 0.49 -0.1399 DHD 0.88 1.39 2.12 3.33 4.17 4.92 7.85 10.57 12.00 14.39 22.27 31.37 88.33 92.78 94.20 Table 25. Species composition, expressed as average relative cover, of the wetland herbaceous communities at disturbed salt marshes in the second cluster group with community compostion of site 99 presented for comparison (only species with an average relative cover >1.0 are reported; N=number of sites; community indices are averages). Disturbed Spartina alterniflora 88.25 67.59 Phraamites australis 3.22 10.30 Spartina- patens 3.17 8.41 Distichlis sicata 0.29 3.08 Salicornia spp. 2.98 J~uncus j eradii 1.62 SoQidaaoq semDervirens 2.09 Atrip lex vatul 0.93 Species richness 10.00 10.10 Species evenness 0.15 0.20 Species diversity 0.58 0.96 DHD 0.00 32.54 56 Similar analyses were attempted on the second subset of salt marsh study sites, primarily Sptn alterniflora-dominated low marshes, provided by the cluster analysis (Table 25). However, paucity of undisturbed low marsh study sites made statistical comparison with disturbed sites impossible. Site 99, the one undisturbed ~apaJn klterniflora marsh in our sample, was presented for qualitative comparisons. There does not appear to be any difference in the herbaceous community as a result of disturbance, although disturbed marsh communities tended to have a larger number of minor constituent species. In general, the disturbed salt marsh herbaceous communities (in both low and high marsh situations) tended to contain a wide range of species not found in the undisturbed sites. Many of these species (eg. SQidagQ sempervirens, Lim~nim carolinianum) are commonly found in New Jersey's salt marshes, but were shown to occur prevalently on spoil piles resulting from mosquito ditching (Shisler 1973). The majority of these minor species, however, were typically upland or cosmopolitan plants (eg. Pei~ip 4aLuinum, eQoldgQ graminif9li, arP_ spp.) that have invaded the upper part of the marsh from the bordering upland. Spoil piles of discarded construction material, siltation, and filling which remain after the original development activities adjacent to these wetlands provided the habitats, removed from the tidal action and salinity regimes which determine the species composition of undisturbed salt marshes, that allowed the establishment of these opportunistic plants. 3.4.2 TIDAL FRESHWATER MARSHES Community evenness at tidal freshwater marsh sites was significantly correlated with total disturbance, indicating that the distribution of individual plants was skewed toward a more even distribution of species in the community (Table 26). Species richness correlated significantly with buffer width. No other relationships were significant. Correlation analysis did suggest that the herbaceous communities at disturbed sites demonstrated a change in the distribution of individuals among constituent species. A cluster analysis was then performed on a matrix of relative cover values recorded for all herbaceous species identified in the wetland at tidal freshwater marsh study sites. The results of the analysis, expressed as a dendrogram (Figure 7), suggested two fairly distinct subsets of study sites. Examination of the species composition of these marshes provided an explanation (Table 27). 57 Table 26. Correlation matrix relating wetland zone herbaceous layer community indices, human disturbance, buffer width and buffer shrub density at tidal freshwater marsh study sites. Matrix includes Spearman's rank correlation coefficients and the probability of significance (N=26, alpha level=0.05). Diversity Richness Evenness H N E Total Disturbance 0.25159 0.30316 0.43010 0.2150 0.1322 0.0283 Buffer Width 0.34018 0.39516 0.23633 0.0891 0.0457 0.2451 Buffer Shrub Density -0.01113 0.12530 -0.06091 0.9570 0.5419 0.7676 Table 27. Average relative cover values of 13 major plant species (and mean disturbance, DHD) calculated for subsets of freshwater marsh study sites suggested by cluster analysis (Figure 7). Group 1 Group 2 Species (N=6) (N=17) Amaranthms nDinus 0.26 1.13 Ambros/i .rifda 1.15 3.74 Bidensr esisi 0.95 8.11 Bidens spp. 0.01 2.44 Cuscuta roii 0.18 0.76 Imptisani capensis 4.99 17.50 Mikania candens 1.32 0.56 Nkphar spp. 0.0 5.45 eljanIdra qirainica 10.31 8.89 ijlea Puimila 2.28 2.06 Polyqonum ~rifulim 3.49 13.84 _iagittarjA latifolia 2.35 6.65 Zinzania aquatica 45.39 8.25 DHD 45.51 61.37 58 _~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0 L 4 ' GROUP I 040 GROUP 2 t 04 i~~~~~~~~~~~~ C- Figure 7. Dendrogram representing average linkage cluster analysis of the herbaceous communities at freshwater marsh study sites. 59 The first group of sites were located in Camden and Gloucester counties. ijna. aquastics dominates the marsh com- munity in this area (Good and Good 1974) and wild rice was the most widespread species in this group of study sites. The second group consists of study sites in Mercer and northern Burlington counties where wild rice communities are far less numerous (Whigham and Simpson 1975). This is reflected in the average cover value calculated for wild rice at the second group of sites. Levels of direct human disturbance were not significantly different between the 2 subsets of study sites (Wilcoxon's rank sum test) and these clusters were probably not a reflection of relative levels of disturbance in the two subsets of sites. Table 28. Species composition, expressed as average relative cover, of the wetland herbaceous communities at undisturbed (DHD=0) and disturbed tidal freshwater marshes in the first cluster group (only species with an average relative cover >1.0 are reported; N=number of sites; community indices are averages). Undisturbed Disturbed EeDies j-(N=2) (N=4) Sinani auajsa D 33.34 40.67 NpharL Spp. 30.80 Peltandra yqinica 12.65 6.68 Pontederia cordata 8.06 Saittar~i latiflia, 3.15 2.18 Amaranthus cannabinus 3.01 0.19 'idens laevis 2.96 0.97 PolygoUnm Punctatum 2.03 1.59 gI~matien. cPen" 1.55 5.47 Pilea vp_ ila 0.78 2.61 Polygonunm ariftlium 0.29 4.22 Phraamites WsaXi. 8.96 Ssaraanium spp. 1.89 MiSkania scanden 1.65 Ambrosia trifida 1.44 Lynthru salicatia 1.11 Species richness 13.0 21.0 Species evenness 0.24 0.38 Species diversity 1.33 1.83 DHD 0.00 68.27 60 Table 29. Pair-wise Wilcoxon's rank sum tests comparing the mean relative cover values (MEAN) of dominant herbaceous species recorded in the wetlands at disturbed (D) and undisturbed (U) tidal freshwater marshes in the first cluster group (N=number of sites; SE=standard error; CV=coefficient of variation; P>Z= probability that the calculated test statistic is greater than the expected value at alpha=0.05) (see Table 39 for species names). speie -ypelaMean CV X 4 U 2 1.01 0.36 51.36 0.85 D 15 1.36 0.66 186.99 26 U 2 13.22 1.29 13.86 0.41 D 15 7.60 2.36 120.36 92 U 2 21.89 9.31 60.15 0.56 D 15 18.38 1.89 39.86 122 U 2 5.66 8.00 141.42 0.88 D 15 4.86 7.04 144.79 132 U 2 2.39 1.95 115.38 0.39 D 15 8.96 2.63 113.76 143 U 2 0.28 0.24 121.22 0.38 D 15 3.41 1.23 139.72 157 U 2 4.21 2.31 77.59 0.63 D 15 6.91 1.96 109.76 214 U 2 6.51 2.11 45.84 0.95 D 15 6.91 2.29 128.09 To examine the effects of disturbance on the two different types of marshes defined by the cluster analysis, species compo- sition at disturbed sites was compared to the composition of similar undisturbed (i.e. DHD=0) marshes (Table 28). Wilcoxon's rank sum test was used to compare relative cover values for each species, as well as the community indices, between disturbed and undisturbed study sites within each marsh type (Table 29). 61 Analysis of the first subset of sites, .Zjinznjp aguatipa- dominated marshes in southwestern New Jersey, produced no significant differences between disturbed and undisturbed sites as described by the relative cover values of individual species or by the indices of community composition. Disturbed sites tended to display higher species richness: 23 plant species were-present in disturbed marshes with relative cover values greater than 1.0, as compared to only 13 species at the undisturbed sites. However, the majority of these species were plants typical of riverine marshes in the state (Good and Good 1975, Ferren 1976, Leck and Graveline 1979, Simpson, et al. 1983), and their appearance at the disturbed sites may be a function of the small sample sizes used here to describe a highly variable system. The 3 dominant species not typical of tidal freshwater marshes (Ly_ 'ai c a , Mikani_ , and Phracmites aug _i), as well as all other herbaceous species recorded during sampling in the wetlands of these study sites, were combined into a matrix of relative cover values and correlated with DHD in an effort to detect species indicative of disturbance among the minor community members (Table 30). Correlation produced signficant relationships only with typical marsh species (Api_ americanus, 'icD_ M, and Polygonum Analysis of the second subset of sites produced similar results (Tables 31 and 32). Differences in species composition between disturbed and undisturbed sites were not significant and suggested only the natural variability inherent in New Jersey's tidal freshwater marshes. The matrix of minor species (Table 33) indicated significant relationships between the level of disturbance in the wetland and the relative cover of 2 species not typically associated with freshwater marshes (Eorium ruos.QDUm and 21gjo o. 1deracea). However, these species were recorded at only a few study sites (2 and 1, respectively) and occurred a very low densities (relative cover < 1.0). While their correlation with DHD suggests a relationship with disturbance, small sample size makes definite conclusions about their indicator status difficult. Because of the wide variability in species composition of the marshes surveyed, the presence of any species at only highly disturbed sites must be taken as only reflecting this variability and not as evidence of indicator status (for example, Mikani'. d in Table 28). Apparently disturbance of the kinds recorded have little short- term impacts on the herbaceous community. This may probably due to the great resiliency of marsh vegetation which is naturally adapted to wide fluctuations in habitat conditions and a diverse array of environmental stresses (Odum, et al. 1984). 62 Table 30. Matrix of average relative cover values measured for minor (average cover <1.0) species recorded in the herbaceous communities of tidal freshwater marshes in the first cluster group and Spearman's rank correlation coefficient from the comparison of relative cover and the level of disturbance (note: correlations calculated based on relative cover at 26 study sites) (alpha level=0.05). SECEU 281 0.282 27 1 .327 4 0.52 0.25 0.3255 8 1.97 0.4384** 28 -0.0755 29 0.45 0.1301 40 0.36 1.23 0.4846** 41 0.22 0.17 1.35 -0.0617 46 0.02 0.06 0.62 0.0173 69 0.36 -0.1526 103 0.62 0.3574* 112 0.17 0.94 -0.0285 125 0.44 -0.1827 144 0.24 0.56 0.4869** 168 0.33 -0.2785 179 1.38 -0.0614 DHD 10.00 17.11 60.21 185.76 Table 31. Species composition (expressed as average relative cover of the-wetland herbaceous communities at undisturbed (DHD=0) and disturbed tidal freshwater marshes in the second cluster group (only species with an average relative cover >1.0 are reported; N=number of study sites; community indices are average values). Undisturbed Disturbed zpaacil . M=21 K=1 EUqjg~nmuw arif.21iIm 25.22 13.68 Jm~n~jja�n. tenjil 21.89 18.38 Bidgns 111yis 13.22 7.60 Aw~zoaia lzilida 6.68 2.55 Zinani& &Qj aliga 6.51 6.92 Liqnhg 222. 5.66 4.86 5jiiltariAa 1Pantilg 4.21 6.91 SZaizu2. izobp-�t 2.87 1.56 Zaha w lalifalia 2.76 1.79 Egltandta Mirginita 2.39 8.96 Eilea 2u211j& 2.02 2.09 cu�.Cut gr.01Ijii 1.63 AMAanahuib -jan111inu 1*00 1*36 Bidjni gpD. 1*95 ajej&,uthjrrj ZnjIjniox- 1.37 LWbri~m salicazia 1.06 I~baL~miL nje~cQfLmjfljn 1.54 oj,,gon1MW cuajdta.UM 1.35 Ul".gQnm 2unclatui 0.28 3.42 p.argnligm Spp. 2.83 ZYxha. anngulilslia 1.95 Species Richness 19.50 24.10 Species Evenness 0.37 0.38 Species Diversity 2.10 2.20 DHD 0.00 69.55 64 Table 32. Pair-wise Wilcoxon's rank sum tests comparing the mean relative cover values (MEAN) of dominant herbaceous species recorded in the wetlands at disturbed (D) and undisturbed (U) tidal freshwater marshes in the second cluster group (N=number of sites; SE=standard error; CV=coefficient of variation; P>Z=prob- ability that the calculated test statistic is greater than the expected value at alpha=0.05) (see Table 39 for species names). Si2egins ZZ21 N Nan SE CY E>2 6 U 2 0.83 0.83 141.42 0.79 D 4 1.44 1.41 195.39 26 U 2 2.96 2.07 98.89 0.25 D 4 0.97 0.51 105.18 92 U 2 1.55 1.51 137.77 0.29 D 4 5.47 2.09 76.52 132 U 2 12.65 12.19 136.28 0.58 D 4 6.68 4.38 131.38 139 U 2 0.28 0.28 141.42 0.21 D 4 4.22 1.75 82.99 157 U 2 3.14 0.11 4.72 0.62 D 4 2.18 1.19 109.07 214 U 2 33.34 31.78 134.80 0.77 D 4 40.47 8.21 40.60 65 Table 33. Matrix of average relative cover values measured for minor (X<1.0) species recorded in the herbaceous communities for disturbed tidal freshwater marshes in the second cluster group and Spearman's rank correlation coefficient (values from -1.0 to 1.0) from the comparison of relative cover and the level of disturbance (note: correlations calculated based on relative cover values at 26 study sites) (alpha level=0.05) (see Table 39 for species names). Site Numbei Species 22 2 22 2 2 270 2 2 2 8 0.55 0.20 0.25 1.58 0.67 0.4380* 14 0.32 1.64 0.16 0.73 2.28 0.49 1.39 0.07 -0.184 16 0.28 -0.141 25 0.93 0.03 0.04 -0.026 29 0.40 1.04 0.44 0.60 0.41 0.79 0.130 39 0.12 1.66 0.18 0.153 40 0.85 0.35 0.86 0.36 1.13 0.438** 41 2.22 0.96 0.26 0.16 0.14 0.43 -0.184 46 0.94 0.36 0.69 0.16 0.21 0.56 1.45 0.33 0.51 0.64 0.37 0.58 0.12 0.75 -0.144 76 0.55 0.59 0.590** CA 86 1.69 0.617'* 89 1.66 3.51 0.395** 120 0.78 0.04 0.33 0.16 1.19 1.39 0.05 2.76 1.26 0.164 125 1.13 0.20 2.72 1.68 0.21 0.05 -0.183 126 1.55 0.07 -0.080 144 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.18 0.34 0.75 0.487** 146 1.32 0.29 -0.188 158 2.56 0.217 169 0.44 11.05 0.73 0.073 174 0.89 0.12 0.67 0.05 0.82 -0.241 182 1.66 -0.037 194 3.14 0.52 0.31 -0.182 196 0.29 0.33 0.21 0.199 198 1.04 -0.141 DHD 0.79 0.81 0.96 1.78 3.51 10.00 16.22 25.66 40.35 76.72 127.41 134.13 134.50 189.10 281.36 3.4.3 HARDWOOD SWAMPS Significant relationships were suggested by the correlation analysis between buffer width and species evenness in the wetland herbaceous community and between species richness and the level of disturbance (Table 34). This apparent decline in species richness with increasing level of disturbance prompted subsequent cluster analysis on a matrix of relative cover values for 121 herbaceous species recorded in the wetlands at hardwood swamp study sites. The results, presented as a dendrogram (Figure 8), offers no clear ordination of sites. This appears to be a reflection of the fact that the natural species composition of these sites were inherently dissimilar as a result of sampling in different physiographic subprovinces of the New Jersey coastal plain. We feel that attempting to ordinate forests of different species character confounded any clustering based on the effects of disturbance. Inadequate sample size prevented any meaningful ordination within physiographic type. Table 34. Correlation matrix relating wetland zone herbaceous layer communtiy indices, human disturbance, buffer width and buffer shrub density at hardwood swamp study sites. Matrix includes Spearman's rank correlation coefficients and probability of significance (N=32, alpha level=0.05). Diversity Richness Evenness H N E Total Disturbance -0.06594 -0.23963 -0.19186 0.7199 0.1865 0.2928 Buffer Width 0.12589 0.02115 0.34682 0.4924 0.9085 0.0518 Buffer Shrub Density 0.27315 0.25574 0.20127 0.1304 0.1577 0.2693 67 Figure 8. Dendrogram representing average linkage cluster analysis of the herbaceous communities at hardwood swamp study sites. 68 Table 35. Species composition, expressed as average relative cover, of the wetland herbaceous communities at undisturbed (DHD=0O), disturbed and highly disturbed (DHD > 25.06) hardwood swamp study sites (only species with average relative cover >1.0 are reported here, N = number of study sites). Highly Undisturbed Disturbed Disturbed ~sp~ecies (N=7) -(N=24-)3 (N=10) Woodwardia areolata 28.28 13.38 8.52 Osmunda cinnamomea 9.62 28.51 23.52 Impatients c 8.71 11.42 26.97 Caex _pp 8.40 2.33 0.04 Thelvpteris palustris 6.25 0.78 1.85 Woodwardia virginica 6.13 1.41 2.69 Onocea. sensibilis 5.92 0.22 0.52 Lvcopodium obscurum 4.83 0.23 0.55 Boebmeria cvlindrica 3.66 1.24 Osmuda r/d 3.39 5.75 Svmilocarpus fotidus 2.86 2.55 Pteridium aguilinum 2.75 2.55 Carex venusta 1.55 Species Richness 13.00 11.90 9.90 Species Evenness 0.41 0.34 0.33 Species Diversity 1.39 1.43 1.35 DHD 0 33.42 64.98 69 Table 36. Pair-wise Wilcoxon's rank sum tests comparing the mean relative cover values (MEAN) of dominant herbaceous species recorded in the wetlands at disturbed (D) and undisturbed (U) hardwood swamp study sites (N=number of sites; SE=standard error; CV=coefficient of variation; P>Z=probability that the calculated test statistic is greater than the expected value at alpha=0.05) (see Table 39 for species names). Sgeries laL N Man BE CY 22X 35 U 7 8.40 6.02 189.72 0.21 D 10 0.04 0.04 316.23 92 U 7 8.71 8.38 254.64 0.24 D 10 26.97 11.06 129.65 110 U 7 4.83 4.83 264.58 0.41 D 10 0.55 0.54 316.23 125 U 7 5.92 4.38 196.11 0.26 D 10 0.52 0.45 273.04 126 U 7 9.62 6.15 169.11 0.22 D 10 23.52 8.09 108.79 199 U 7 6.25 4.74 196.11 0.40 D 10 1.85 1.43 244.95 210 U 7 28.28 13.55 126.77 0.20 D 10 8.52 4.14 153.67 211 U 7 6.13 3.55 153.24 0.43 D 10 2.69 2.26 265.41 70 Table 37. Average relative cover (X), standard error of the mean (SE), and coefficient of variation (CV) for minor herbaceous species recorded at 24 disturbed hardwood swamp study sites. The -last column, r, represents Spearman's rank correlation coefficient from the comparison of average cover with the level of disturbance (alpha level = 0.05). Lmlrsia azilmiliI.Qii 0.06 0.06 489.90 -0.1012 .6aPQnlyum ARU. 0.06 0.06 489.90 0.2416 Aziz.akwaB 122 0.54 0.54 489.90 -0.1129 Alglaviaz 2p,. 0.02 0.02 489.90 -0.1012 .6 �jZZ.Ii 0.31 0.31 489.90 -0.1012 '621~ar- als 0.19 0.12 311.11 -0.0585 Bidani �.p- 0.09 0.07 389.47 0.2320 cazax Ignast. 0.65 0.65 489.90 0.2416 0.28 0.28 489.90 0.2946 CQQnWejinja jnii2 nij 0.14 0.14 489.90 0.0387 DjtQr �i&JQLjf~Lri 0.22 0.16 351.27 -0.1312 Jr.Qera jntarwedia 0.04 0.03 419.20 -0.1053 aon �aI1ezaif 0.25 0.21 413.17 -0.1177 E.Upat.Fiim diiubdm 0.15 0.14 478.87 0.2524 BUDfl& iJ3u Pi.2z.UM 0.26 0.18 349.06 -0.1358 F~ul.ati~um Djaz~m~uM 0.18 0.12 340.01 0.2392 Ui.ErDia uwm vizginirumm 0.18 0.15 417.57 -0.1167 Lr&.Qiju a~.Qdija 0.19 0.14 357.57 -0.1285 LYaQnQdim�LLUD n b�.u.j 0.22 0.22 489.90 -0.1284 Lyat.ciui viuinicuz 0.29 0.20 340.89 0.2059 QnRQglea zenaibjia 0.22 0.19 427.36 -0.1378 Fanax Q.nUiUfQ liuz 0.31 0.31 489.90 -0.1019 Ba~nicum IPP-L0.37 0.20 263.63 0.1268 2etandra visrgjnica 0.44 0.36 406.95 0.2636 E0.4g.num 2unctatum 0.12 0.12 489.90 -0.1191 22lyglur m zpp.3 0.14 0.14 489.90 -0.1201 SSnjj.Ux harbgeeg 0.11 0.08 341.42 0.0986 71 While inadequate sample sizes prohibited an analysis based on forest type, an attempt was made to assess the impacts of direct human disturbance on the herbaceous communities at hardwood swamp study sites. We compared the species composition at undisturbed sites (DHD=0) with that at disturbed sites and at "highly disturbed' sites, defined at those sites at which the value of DHD calculated for the wetland herbaceous community exceeded the mean level (DHD=25.06) for all swamp sites (Table 35). There were no significant differences in species richness, species evenness, or species diversity between disturbed and undisturbed communities. Certain species (eg. Woodwardia areolata and Onoclea sensibilis) demonstrated lower mean relative cover values at the disturbed sites, while others (eg. smunda 5innfao, and impatiens caensis) appeared to increase at disturbed sites. Pairwise comparisons using Wilcoxon's rank sum test detected no significant differences in the relative cover of individual species between disturbed and undisturbed sites (Table 36). Several species (eg. Boebmeria cvlindrica and Pterium aquilinum) occurred only at disturbed sites. A matrix of cover values of all minor (relative cover < 1.0) species recorded in the wetland communities of disturbed hardwood swamps was created and correlated with the level of disturbance (Table 37). No significant relationships were found between disturbance and any of the minor species recorded. Hardwood swamps are very diverse and variable systems. Tiner (1985) recognizes at least 8 major types of palustrine forested wetland in northern New Jersey and as many at 8 different types in the southern part of the state. Agc" rosrum (Red Maple) dominates the majority of hardwood swamp forests, but may be associated in the canopy with a wide range of species, including Liuidamx. tvraciflua (Sweet Gum), yssa sylvatica (Black Gum), Q uercus (Pin Oak), and Pinus rigida (Pitch Pine). Even more diverse are the herbaceous communities which develop below. Trampling is an important form of degredation in the disturbed swamps we examined, and species such as Woodwardia arelDa (Netted Chain Fern) and Thelvyteris palustris (Marsh Fern) which are sensitive to trampling tend to drop out of disturbed communities. However, the high between-site variability in the composition of the herbaceous communities at hardwood swamp study sites makes generalization difficult. Little is known about the resistance of individual species to the forms of direct disturbance measured here. At the same time, the importance of different species to the structure and functioning of the herbaceous community in hardwood swamp forests has only been guessed at. Until these relationships are better understood, the search for species indicative of disturbance will probably remain a difficult one. 72 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND GUIDELINES 4.1 CONCLUSIONS The following section is organized in two parts. The first is a summary of the major results of the disturbance analysis considered for individual wetland types. The second is a summary of -general conclusions drawn from the vegetation analysis on all three wetlands of interest. A general discussion of the results follows. I. Disturbance a) Elucidation of relationships between the level of direct human disturbance (DHD) measured in the wetland and the physical characteristics of the adjacent buffer were partly confounded by the fact that, in many cases, existing buffers have become established after initial construction/development activity had taken place or that the buffer had been breached during development. b) Current resident impacts, of the types measured here, appear to be minimal. The major forms of disturbance to the marsh were attributable to the initial construction. c) Significant inverse linear relationships between buffer width and the level of DHD in the wetland suggest that disturbance in the wetland was re- duced by removing development from the wetland border. d) DHD measured in salt marshes adjacent to high intensity development, particularly industrial/commercial land uses, tended to be higher than at lower intensity sites. e) Because most of the disturbance measured at salt marsh study sites pre-dated the establishment of many existing buffers, no particular buffer width afforded a significantly higher degree of protection to the marsh than any other. a) Tidal freshwater marshes tended to have significantly higher levels of DHD in the wetland than any other wetland type. 73 b) Correlation analysis detected signficant relation- ships between the level of wetland disturbance and the composition of adjacent buffers. Steeply sloping buffers with dense shrub understories provided the greatest protection (lowest recorded DHD). c) The major forms of disturbance recorded in tidal freshwater marshes were attributable to current residents of the adjacent development. d) The width of the existing buffer was significantly related to the level of wetland disturbance: As buffer width increased, wetland disturbance decreased. e) DHD recorded in wetlands adjacent to high density residential land uses was higher than at lower intensity development sites. f) Wetland disturbance measured in marshes with existing buffers less than 50 ft. wide was signi- ficantly higher than disturbance levels in marshes where the buffer was between 50 and 100 ft. No significant reduction in disturbance occurred after 100 ft. 3 .Hardod DOgDW a) Correlation and regression analyses demonstrated a significant inverse relationship between wetland disturbance and buffer width. b) The most prevalent forms of disturbance recorded in the wetland were the destruction of vegetation attributable to initial development activity and refuse dumping by current residents. c) No particular level of land use or form of development resulted in a significantly higher level of disturbance in adjacent wetlands. d) Wetland disturbance measured in hardwood swamps with existing buffers less than 50 ft wide was significantly higher than in swamps with buffers of 100 ft. No further signficant reduction in the level of wetland disturbance occurred after 100 ft. 74 1. Increasing levels of direct human disturbance were signficantly correlated with changes in the species composition (as expressed by community indices) in. three wetland types of interest. a) increased species evenness at disturbed salt marsh sites was attributable to the colonization of spoil piles and filled areas in the upper marsh by plant species from the adjacent upland. These disturbed areas, remnants of the initial develop- ment activities, provided habitats divorced from the tidal regimes of the marsh. b) Greater species evenness at tidal freshwater marsh sites reflected an increasing number of different species at disturbed sites as compared to mono- typic stands of vegetation which were more preva- lent at undisturbed sites. c) Declining species richness at disturbed hardwood swamp sites was due to an increase in minor species at these sites and the loss of certain species which were sensitive to the particular forms of disturbance (notably trampling) recorded here. 2. The very high between-site variability in the species composition of the herbaceous communities in all three wetland types obscured the results of comparisons between disturbed and undisturbed sites relative to the presence or absence of species. 3. No significant relationship was found between the presence/absence or relative abundance of any herbaceous species and the level of direct human disturbance. In general, the composition of existing buffers (i.e. shrub density in the buffer, buffer slope, etc.) had varying effects on the levels of direct human disturbance recorded in adjacent wetlands. In particular, buffers at salt marsh study sites appeared to have very little impact on many of the forms of disturbance measured in the wetland community. Many of these buffers became established only after the development activities in the contiguous upland had been completed. Orr if the buffer was in place during construction, it had been breached or destroyed during development. Consequently, the filling, dumping and excavation, which have had the greatest adverse impacts on disturbed salt marshes, took place without the constraints of an effective buffer zone. 75 Significant inverse relationships between buffer width and disturbance in salt marshes appears to reflect a reduction in impacts by current residents near the wetland. Current resident impacts tended to be minimal and were discouraged to a great extent by vegetated buffers. Disturbance due to current residents tended to be higher at industrial and commercial land use sites, probably because a greater number of people using the area around the marsh increased the chance of impact, and because industrial activity produces more human refuse (eg. discarded construction materials, tires, machine parts) than was produced at residential sites. While comparisons between different buffer widths showed no particular buffer width to be signficantly better than another at protecting the marsh, disturbance at sites with narrow buffers (less than 50 ft) was double the level at marshes with wider buffers. Tidal freshwater marshes tended to have the highest levels of recorded wetland disturbance. The majority of these study sites were located in areas of high human population density (particularly the Delaware River area) and were therefore more likely to suffer the impacts of human disturbance. Unlike the other wetland types, these were generally riverine systems and, as such, were narrowly defined. Development occurred on all sides of the wetland not along one border. Major forms of disturbance tended to be due to the current residents near the marsh, primarily because well-developed buffers were in place during construction. The level of wetland disturbance increased with the level of development and was significantly related to buffer width. Unlike residents near salt marshes, people living along the rivers which supported freshwater tidal marshes tended to consider the riverfront and the marsh as part of their property. Dumping of trash into the river channel, thus removing it from view, and the destruction of 'offensive" vegetation was prevalent. Disturbance was greater at industrial/commercial land use sites. Dumping of particular concern for the health of the riverine wetland system included discarded lubricant, solvent and pesticide containers, in addition to machine parts and construc- tion materials. Where well-developed buffers shielded the marsh from adjacent development, human disturbance rarely penetrated into the wetland. Buffers of 100 ft and greater provided signi- ficantly more protection, reflected in lower disturbance, to the adjacent wetlands than did buffers less than 50 ft. we feel that the comparatively high levels of disturbance recorded at tidal freshwater marsh study sites and their relative scarcity in the state argues for correspondingly greater protection for these wetland types. Strongest relationships between DHD and buffer width were found in the analysis of hardwood swamp sites. Initial development impacts, in the form of trampled and cut vegetation, were prevalent in disturbed swamps, but current resident impacts 76 (primarily discarding refuse, cutting unwanted vegetation) were most common. Because the majority of adverse impacts recorded in hardwood swamps were limited to the area immediately adjacent to current property boundaries, the level of disturbance at sites with buffers less than 50 ft was significantly greater than at sites with buffers of 100 ft or more. Direct human disturbance may cause changes in the species composition of impacted wetlands. Upland and cosmopolitan plant species colonized spoil piles and filled areas in salt marshes which had been disturbed during initial development. Disturbed riverine tidal freshwater marshes tended to be more mixed and undisturbed marshes were more likely to be monotypes of perennial species. Trampling in hardwood swamps seems to select against certain sensitive plant species. However, due to high between- site variability in all wetland types, such changes must be assessed on a site-by-site basis considering the natural variation inherent in wetland systems. Our sampling was designed to detect overt changes in vegetation composition and took place on only one day. Further refinement in the description of wetland herbaceous communities which acknowledges the natural changes in that composition over the seasons is needed to detect the more subtle changes in wetland vegetation that may be caused by human disturbance. 4.2 BUFFER ZONE RATIONALE The three chief types of construction-related human intrusions into wetland systems identified in the literature were: 1. The outright destruction of wetland habitats, 2. The sometimes enormous increase in the load of suspended solids carried in overland runoff, and 3. The alteration of these surface water levels, as well as stream flow patterns, resulting in flood hydrographs of shorter duration and higher intensity. Buffer zones of intact, natural vegetation, maintained between development activities and adjacent wetlands can effectively control the severity of soil erosion and remove a variety of pollutants from stormwater runoff. Buffers preserve esthetic qualities by both screening buildings from natural areas and enhancing the appearance of developed areas. Buffer zones act as a two-way filter in that they lessen both human impacts on wetlands (e.g., filtering runoff and reducing pollutant and nutrient loads, reducing sedimentation, influiencing biochemical degredation, and mediating thermal pollution) and wetland impacts on development by reducing flood damage and restricting the movement of biting flies which breed in wetlands (Shulze, et al. 1975). 77 4.3 BUFFER ZONE DEFINITION New Jersey regulations define a buffer to be a transitional area of native vegetation that mitigates adverse impacts of development on adjacent wetlands (NJDEP 1986). By definition, then, buffer zones are generally ecotonal areas between upland and wetland. An ecotone is a transitional area between two or more different ecological communities (Odum 1971). The ecotonal community itself commonly contains many of the plants and animals found in the overlapping communities in addition to organisms characteristic of and sometimes restricted to the ecotone (Odum 1971). Known as the 'edge effect', the number of species is often greater in the ecotone than-in adjacent communities (Odum 1971, Clark 1974). Ecotonal situations are valuable habitat for a variety of wildlife, providing food, cover, resting and nesting sites and migration corridors, facilitating local dispersal as well as regional movements (Smith 1980). A buffer zone is an area contiguous to coastal wetlands that is retained in a natural and undisturbed condition. Because ecotones are valuable wildlife habitat and because the structural diversity and distribution of edge habitats can have critical impacts on wildlife use of these habitats, buffer zones include, but are not limited to, the wetland/upland ecotonal community. The ecotone may be roughly defined as the uppermost limit of native plant species designated as FACW or FACW- by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wetlands plant inventory for New Jersey (Reed 1986). In view of their protective function in regard to adjacent wetlands, certain activities should be precluded in maintained buffers: 1) no fertilizer application except where necessary to establish vegetation in eroding areas or in order to restore native vegetation. 2) no pesticide application 3) no felling or other cutting of trees 4) no filling or excavation 5) no construction of permanent buildings or culverts. However, in keeping with the Department of Environmental Protection's policy of encouraging public use of wetlands, activities which may be allowed include the cutting and maintenance (without the use of herbicides) of foot paths and rights of way using best management practices to control soil erosion, and the erection of boardwalks. 78 4.4 RECOMMENDED GUIDELINES The following is a series of recommended policies for the implementation of buffer zones in the management of coastal wetlands. "Buffer zone" and "buffer" refer to the definition of buffer zones- as stated in Section 4.3 above, except where otherwise specified. 1. Buffer zone widths should be set on a case-by-case basis considering different wetland types and land use intensities. 2. Buffers should be established in advance of development and enforced prior to and during development activities in order to: a) minimize adverse impacts of construction activities on the wetland, and b) preserve, in its natural condition critical, ecotonal habitat for wildlife. 3. Certain minimum buffer widths (Table 38) are effective in minimizing the levels of direct human disturbance to wet- lands in specific situations: Table 38. Recommended buffer widths (ft) for use in the management of three wetland types at different land use intensities in the New Jersey coastal zone. Tidal Salt Freshwater Hardwood Marsh Marsh Swamp a Low Intensity (<30% impervious cover) 50 100 50 High Intensity (>30% impervious cover) 100 150 100 a Low Intensity - low density or single family housing, recreational and agricultural land uses High Intensity - industrial/commercial or high density residential land use 79 4. Where development is proposed in or adjacent to any of the following land use designations, High Intensity buffer Widths (Table 38) are recommended in all cases: a) areas within a Division of Coastal Resources defined Limited Growth Region (NJAC 7:7E-5.3); b) areas of high environmental sensitivity (NJAC 7:7E- 5.4); c) areas designated as Critical Wildlife Habitat (NJAC 7:7-3.37); and, d) areas adjacent to state wildlife management areas, federal wildlife refuges, and private sanctuaries. 5. Where development is proposed within that area of the New Jersey coastal zone under the jurisdiction of the New Jersey Pinelands Commission (NJAC 7:7-3.42) and: a) within the Pinelands Protection Area use buffer zones as recommended in Table 38; or if b) within the New Jersey Pinelands Preservation area, use High Intensity buffer widths in all cases, as consistent with the intent, policies and objectives of the Pinelands Commission. 80 5.0 RESEARCH NEEDS The assessment of environmental impacts is difficult due to the long time period over which environmental changes occur. The limited scope imposed on this study by time constraints allowed for the examination of only a small subset of the array of possible human impacts on wetland systems and their mitigation using buffer zones. To more fully understand the role of buffers in the protection of coastal wetlands, further research is required in several areas: 1. The impacts of human disturbance on the species composition of wetlands over time and the implications of these changes on the functioning of wetland systems. 2. The effects of sedimentation on wetland communities and the implications of soil type and structure on the effective- ness of buffers. 3. The movement of pollutants (point and non-point sources) across buffer zones and the uptake of pollutants by vegeta- tion in the buffer and the wetland, as well as the altera- tion of pollutant discharges by the buffer vegetation prior to its passage into the adjacent wetland. 4. The impacts of urban run-off and stormwater outfalls on the functioning of wetland systems. 5. The use made of the wetland/upland ecotone by wetland dependent wildlife and the minimum buffer widths required to maintain wildlife use of wetlands in the presence of human disturbance. 81 REFERENCES Adams, L.W., D.L. Leedy, and T.M. Franklin. 1982. Wildlife enhancement in urban stormwater control. In: Proc. Stormwater Detention Facilities (W. DeGroot, ed.), p. 385. Amer. Soc. Civil Eng. Adamus, P.R. 1983. A Method for Wetland Functional Assessment: Vol. II. FHWA assessment method. U.S. Dept. Trans., Federal Highway Admin. Report No. FHWA-IP-82-24. Office of Research, Devel. and Tech. Washington, D.C. Adamus, P.R. and L.T. Stockwell. 1983. A Method for Wetland Functional Assessment: Vol. I. Critical review and evaluation concepts. U.S. Dept. Trans., Federal Highway Admin. Report No. FHWA-IP-82-23. Office of Research, Devel. and Tech. Washington, D.C. Allen, H.H. 1978. Role of wetland plants in erosion control of riparian shorelines. In: Wetland Functions and Values: The State of Our Understanding (P.E. Greeson, J.R. Clark, and J.E. Clark, eds.), pp. 403-414. Amer. Water Resources Assoc., Tech. Publ. Series No. TPS79-2. Minneapolis, MN. 674 pp. Anderson, P.H., M.W. Lefor, and W.C. Kennard. 1978. Transition zones of forested inland wetlands in northeastern Connecticut. Report No. 29, Univ. Conn. Inst. Water Research. 92 pp. Anderson, P.H., M.W. Lefor, and W.C. Kennard. 1980. Forested wetlands in eastern Connecticut: Their transition zones and delineation. Water Res. Dji1 16(2):248-255. Barber, R.T., W.W. Kirby-Smith, and P.E. Parsley. 1978. Wetland alterations for agriculture. In: Wetland Functions and Values: The State of Our Understanding (P.E. Greeson, J.R. Clark, and J.E. Clark, eds.), pp. 642-651. Amer. Water Re- sources Assoc., Tech. Publ. Series No. TPS79-2. Minneapolis, MN. 674 pp. Bardecki, M.J., ed. 1981. Proceedings of a Pre-Conference Session of the Ontario Wetlands Conference. Federation of Ontario Naturalists and the Dept. of Applied Geography, Ryerson Polytechnical Inst. Toronto, Ontario. 191 pp. Barfield, B.J., D.T.Y. Kao, and E.W. Tollner. 1975. Analysis of the sediment filtering action of grassed media. Res. Report No. 90, Univ. Kentucky, Water Resource Research Inst. Lexington, KY. 50 pp. Barnard, W.D., C.K. Ansell, J. Harn, and D. Kevin. No date. The Use and Regulation of Wetlands in the United States. Off. of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress. Washington, DC. 10 pp. 82 Barton, D.R., W.D. Taylor, and R.M. Biette. 1985. Dimensions of riparian buffer strips required to maintain trout habitat in southern Ontario streams. N. Ametr E. fJ. h Mgmt-s. 5:364-378. Bates, G.H. 1935. The vegetation of footpaths, sidewalks, cart- tracks and gateways. J Ecol. 23:470-487. Bell, K.L. and L.C. Bliss. 1985. Alpine disturbance studies: Olympic National Park, USA. BiQo l. 5(1):2J-32. Bertulli, J.A. 1981. Influence of a forested wetland on a southern Ontario watershed. In: Proceedings of the Ontario Wetlands Conference (A. Champagne, ed.), pp. 33-47. Federa- tion of Ontario Naturalists and Dept. of Applied Geography, Ryerson Polytechnical Inst. Toronto, Ontario. 193 pp. Best, L.B., D.F. Stauffer and A.R. Geier. 1978. Evaluating the Effects of Habitat Alteration on Birds and Small Mammals Occupying Riparian Communties. In: Strategies for Protection and Management of Floodplain Wetlands and Other Riparian Ecosystems. U.S. Department of Agriculture. General Technical Report WO-12. Bogardus, R., J. Schmid, and J. Andrea. 1979. The Estuarine Study. WAPORA, Inc., Washington, D.C. Prepared for N.J. Dept. Environmental Protection, Div. Coastal Resources. Bourn, W.S. and C. Cotton. 1950. Some Biological Effects of Ditching Tidewater Marshes. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Resource Report 19. 30 pp. Bozeman, E.L. and J.M. Dean. 1980. The Abundance of Esturine Larval and Juvenile Fish in a South Carolina Intertidal Creek. Estuaries 2(3):89-97. Bosenberg, R. 1977. Wetlands Ecology: I-multi-marsh investiga- tions. Project #W-53-R-5. Job # and title: I-H Rodent Populations. N.J. Department of Environmental Protection. Brater, E.F. and J.D. Sherrill. 1975. Rainfall-runoff relations on Urban and Rural Areas. EPA-670/2-75-046. U.S. Environ. Protection Agency, National Environmental Resource Center, Cincinnati, OH. 97 pp. Braun-Blanquet, J. 1932. Plant sociology. English translation. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. 438 pp. Brazier, J.R. and G.W. Brown. 1973. Buffer strips for stream temperature control. Res. Paper No. 15, Forest Research Lab. Oregon State Univ. 9 pp. Broderson, J.M. 1973. Sizing buffer strips to maintain water quality. M.S. Thesis, Univ. of Washington. 84 pp. 83 Brower, J.E. and J.H. Zar. 1984. Field and Laboratory Methods for General Ecology, 2nd ed. Wm. C. Brown Co. Publishers, Iowa. 226 pp. Brown, G.W. and J.T. Krygier. 1970. Effects of clear-cutting on stream temperature. Wate Resourc Research 6(4):1133-1139. Bryan, T.A. 1981. The Rhode Island Fresh Water Wetlands Program. In: Selected Proc. of the Midwest Conference on Wetland Values and Management (B. Richardson, ed.), pp. 603- 611. Freshwater Society, MN. 660 pp. Burden, R.F. and P.F. Randerson. 1972. Quantitative studies of the effects of human trampling on vegetation as an aid to the management of semi-natural areas. J_. Api. E 9:439-457. Burton, T.M. 1981. The effects of riverine marshes on water quality. In: Selected Proc. of the Midwest Conference on Wetland Values and Management (B. Richardson, ed.), pp. 139- 151. Freshwater Society, MN. 660 pp. Burton, T.M., R.R. Turner, and R.C. Harriss. 1977. Suspended and dissolved solids exports from three north Florida water- sheds in contrasting land use. In: Watershed Research in Eastern North America (D.L. Correll, ed.), pp. 471-485. WTatershed Research Workshop, Chesapeake Bay Center for Envl. Studies, Smithsonian Institute. Edgewater, MD. 924 pp. Carlson, C. and J. Fowler. 1980. The Salt Marsh of Southern New Jersey. Center for Environ. Research, Stockton State College. Pomona, NJ. 50 pp. Carter, V., M.S. Bedinger, R.P. Novitzki, and W.O. Wilen. 1978. Water resources and wetlands. In: Wetland Functions and Values: The State of Our Understanding (P.E. Greeson, J.R. Clark, and J.E. Clark, eds.), pp. 344-376. Amer. Water Resources Assoc., Tech. Publ. Series No. TPS79-2. Minneapolis, MN. 674 pp. Champagne, A., ed. 1981. Proceedings of the Ontario Wetlands Conference. Federation of Ontario Naturalists and Dept. of Applied Geography, Ryerson Polytechnical Inst. Toronto, Ontario. 193 pp. Chance, C.J. 1978. Multipurpose development programs in ripar- ian ecosystems: The Tennesee Valley Authority Experience. In: Strategies for Protection and Management of Floodplain Wetlands and Other Riparian Ecosystems (R.R. Johnson, and J.F. McCormick, eds.), pp. 299-303. General Tech. Report WO-12, Forest Service, USDA. Washington, D.C. 410 pp. Chenoweth, S.B. 1973 Fish Larvae of the Estuaries and Coast of Central Maine. Fishery Bll 71(1):105-113. 84 Clark, J. 1974. Coastal Ecosystems: Ecological Considerations for Management of the Coastal Zone. The Conservation Foundation. Washington, D.C. 178 pp. Clark, J., J.S. Banta, and J.A. Zinn. 1980. Coastal Environ- mental Management: Guidelines for Conservation of Resources and Protection Against Storms. The Conservation Foundation. Washington, D.C. 161 pp. Clark, J.R. 1977. Coastal Ecosystem Management: A Technical Manual for the Conservation of Coastal Zone Resources. The Conservation Foundation, John Wiley & Sons. NYC, New York. 928 pp. Clark, J.R., ed. 1985. Coastal Resources Management: Develop- ment Case Studies. Coastal Management Publ. No. 3. Research Planning Inst., Inc. Columbia, SC. Clark, J.S. and W.A. Patterson, III. 1985. The development of a tidal marsh: Upland and oceanic influences. Ecsl. Mnoq. 55(2):189-217. Cole, D.N. 1978. Estimating the susceptibility of wildland vegetation to trailside alteration. JL ApjEL Ecol. 15:281- 286. Conant, F., P. Rogers, M. Baumgardner, C. McKell, R. Dasmann, and P. Reining. 1983. Resource inventory and baseline study methods for developing countries. Publ. No. 83-3. Amer. Assoc. for the Advancement of Science. Washington, D.C. 539 PP- Cook, H.L. and F.B. Campbell. 1939. Characteristics of some meadow strip vegetations. Ag__i.j Eng. 20:345-348. Correll, D.L., ed. 1977. Watershed Research in Eastern North America. Vols. I and II. Watershed Research Workshop, Chesapeake Bay Center for Environ. Studies, Smithsonian Insti- tute. Edgewater, MD. 924 pp. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Fish & Wildlife Service Publ. No. FWS/OBS- 79/31, U.S. Dept. of Interior. Washington, D.C. 103 pp. Cox, G.W. 1972. Laboratory Manual of General Ecology, 2nd ed. Wm. C. Brown Co. Publs., Iowa. 195 pp. Custer, T.W. and R.G. osborn. 1978. Feeding-site Description of Three Heron Species Near Beaufort, North Carolina. Wading Birds Research Report #7, National Audubon Society. 85 Custer, T.W. and R.G. Osborn. 1978. Feeding Habitat Use by Colonially-breeding Herons, Egrets, and Ibises in North Carolina. The Auk 95:733-743. Dale, D. and T. Weaver. 1974. Trampling effects on vegetation of the trail corridors of north Rocky Mountain forests. J. AP-l. Ecol. 11:767-772. Dance, K.W. and H.B.N. Hymes. 1980. Some Effects of Agri- cultural Land Use on Stream Insect Communities. En Poll, Ser. A. 22:19-28. Darnell, R.M. 1978. Impact of human modification on the dyna- mics of wetland systems. In: Wetland Functions and Values: The State of Our Understanding (P.E. Greeson, J.R. Clark, and J.E. Clark, eds.), pp. 200-209. Amer. Water Resources Assoc., Tech. Publ. Series No. TPS79-2. Minneapolis, MN. 674 pp. Darnell, R.M., W.E. Pequegnat, B.M. Jones, F.J. Benson, and R.E. Debenbaugh. 1976. Impacts of construction activities in wetlands of the United States. EPA Publ. No. 600/3-76-045. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, OR. 392 pp. Daubenmire, R. 1959. A canopy coverage method of vegetation analysis. /Northw Si. 33:43-64. de la Cruz, A. A. 1978. Production and Transport of Detritus in Wetlands. Wetland Functions and Values: The State of Our Understanding, 162-174. Proceedings of the National Symposium on Wetlands. American Water Resources Association, Minneapolis Minnesota. DeLaune, R.D. and W.H. Patrick, Jr. 1979. Rate of Sedimentation and its Role in Nutrient Cycling in a Louisiana Salt Marsh. Estuary and Wetland Proceedings:401-412. DeLaune, R.D., C.N. Reddy and W.H. Patrick, Jr. 1981. Accumulation of Plant Nutrients and Heavey Metals Through Sedimentation Processes and Accretion in a Louisiana Salt Marsh. Estuaries 4(4):328-334. Dept. of Environ. Quality Engineering (DEQE). No date. A Guide to the Coastal Wetlands Regulations of the Massachusetts Wet- lands Protection Act (G.L. 131, s.40). Division of Wetlands, DEQE. Boston, MA. 158 pp. Dept. of Water Resources and Env. Engineering. 1982. Vermont Streambank Conservation Manual. Agency of Environmental Conservation, Montpelier, VT. 60 pp. Derickson, W.K. and K.S. Price. 1973. The Fishes of the Shore Zone Rehoboth and Indian River Bays, Delaware. Transactions f the American Fisheries Society 102(3):552-562. 86 Dickson, J.G. and R.E. Noble. 1978. Verticle Distribution of Birds in a Louisiana Bottomland Hardwood Forest. The Wi'lson Bulletin 90(1):19-30. Dorney, R.S. 1954. Ecology of marsh raccoons. J. _ill MangiLe 18(2):217-225. Drobney, R.D. and L.H. Frederickson. 1979. Food Selection by Woodducks in Relation to Breeding Status. JuL 9f. Wildife Manaaement 43:109-120. Duebbert, H.F. and H.A. Kantrud. 1974. Upland duck nesting related to land use and predator reduction. JL 'ildi- Manage., 38(2):257-265. Duebbert, H.F. and J.T. Lokemoen. 1980. High duck nesting success in a predator-reduced environment. J .L Li'dLt Manaae. 44(2):428-437. Dunne, T. and L.B. Leopold. 1978. Water in Environmental Plan- ning. W.H. Freeman and Co. San Francisco, CA. Ehrenfeld, J.G. 1983. The effects of changes in land-use swamps of the New Jersey Pine Barrens. Biol. Cons. 25:353-375. Ehrenfeld, J.G. and J.P. Schneider. 1983. The sensitivity of cedar swamps to the effects of non-point source pollution associated with suburbanization in the New Jersey Pine Bar- rens. Center for Coast. & Envl. Studies, Div. Water Resour- ces. Prepared for U.S. Dept. of Interior, Office of Water Policy. 42 pp. Eilers, H.P., A. Taylor, and W. Sanville. 1983. Vegetative delineation of coastal salt marsh boundaries. Environ. _Mgt. 7(5):443-452. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Tech. Rept. Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Exp. Sta., Vicksburg, MS. Erman, D.C., J.D. Newbold, and K.B. Roby. 1977. Evaluation of streamside bufferstrips for protecting aquatic organisms. Contribution No. 165, Calif. Water Resources Center, Univ. California. Davis, CA. 48 pp. Fenzl, R.N. and J.R. Davis. 1964. Hydraulic resistance relationships for subsurface flows in vegetated channels. Trans. AmeAr Soc, AgricE _Ent 1964:46-51, 55. Ferren, W.R., Jr. and A.E. Schuyler. 1980. Intertidal vascular plants of river systems near Philadelphia. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. of Phila. 132:86-120. 87 Ferren, W.R., Jr., R.E. Good, R. Walker and J. Arsenault. 1981. Vegetation and flora of Hog Island, a brackish wetland in the Mullica River, New Jersey. Bartonia. 48: 1-10. Fisler, G.F. 1961. Behavior of salt-marsh Mirtus during winter high tides. J. Mamml, 42(1):37-43. Fraser, J.C. 1972. Regulated Discharge and the Stream Environment. pp. 263-285. In: R.T Oglesby, C.A. Carlson and J.A. McCann (eds.), River Ecology and Man. Academic Press, N.Y. Freda, J. and P.J. Morin. 1985. Adult home range of the Pine Barrens tree frog (jyj- andersoni) and the physical, chemical, and ecological characteristics of its preferred breeding ponds. Center for Coastal and Environ. Studies, Div. Pine- lands Research. 42 pp. Fried, E. 1981. Wetlands protection laws. In: Selected Proc. of the Midwest Conference on Wetland Values and Management (B. Richardson, ed.), pp. 595-602. Freshwater Society, MN. 660 pp. Friedman, R.M. and C.B. DeWitt. 1978. Wetlands as carbon and nutrient reservoirs: A spatial, historical and societal per- spective. In: Wetland Functions and Values: The State of Our Understanding (P.E. Greeson, J.R. Clark, and J.E. Clark, eds.), pp. 175-185. Amer. Water Resources Assoc., Tech. Publ. Series No. TPS79-2. Minneapolis, MN. 674 pp. Gallagher, J.L and H.V. Kibby. 1980. Marsh Plants as Vectors in Trace Metal Transport in Oregon Tidal Marshes. American Journal BoftD agny 67(7):1069-1074-. Garbisch, E.W., Jr. 1977. Marsh development for shore erosion control. Proc. of the Workshop on the Role of Vegetation in Stabilization of the Great Lakes Shoreline. Comm. Coastal Zone Mgmt., Great Lakes Basin Comm. Goldshore, L.P. 1979. The N.J. Riparian Rights Handbook. State NJ, County and Municipal Government Study Commission., NJ-DEP. 152 pp. Golet, F.C. 1973. Classification and evaluation of freshwater wetlands as wildlife habitat in the glaciated Northeast. Trans Northea_ Fish and Widlife Ct 30:257-279. Golet, F.C. 1976. Freshwater wetlands as wildlife habitats. In: Proc.: Third Wetlands Conference, pp. 84-103. Report No. 26, Univ. Conn. Inst. Water Research. 88 Golet, F.C. 1981. Wetlands and wildlife. In: A Guide to Important Characteristics and Values of Freshwater Wetlands in the Northeast (J.S. Larson, ed.), pp. 12-14. Water Resources Research Center, Publ. No. 31. Univ. of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA. 91 pp. Good, R.E. -1965. Salt marsh vegetation of Cape May, New Jersey. Bull. N.J. Acad. Sci. 10:1-11. Good, R.E., J.G. Ehrenfeld, and C.T. Roman. 1985. Evaluation of the variable buffer distance in protecting Pinelands wetlands and water quality from development impacts. A proposal submitted to The Jessie Smith Noyes Foundation by CCES, Rut- gers Univ., New Brunswick, NJ. 20 pp. Good, R.E. and N.F. Good. 1975. Vegetation and production of the Woodbury Creek-Hessian Run freshwater tidal marshes. Bartonia. 43: 38-45. Good, R.E., D.F. Whigham, and R.L. Simpson, eds. 1978. Fresh- water Wetlands: Ecological Processes and Management Poten- tial. Academic Press, Inc. NYC, NY. 378 pp. Goodwin, R.H. and W.A. Niering. 1975. Inland Wetlands of the .United States. Library of Congress, U.S.A. 550 pp. Greene, G.E. 1950. Land use and trout streams. iL SQi1 tate. Cons. 5:125-126. Greeson, P.E., J.R. Clark, and J.E. Clark, eds. 1979. Wetland Fuctions and Values: The State of Our Understanding. Amer. Water Resources Assoc., Tech. Publ. Series No. TPS79-2. Minneapolis, MN. 674 pp. Gucinski, H. 1978. A note on the relation of size to ecological value of some wetlands. Estuaries 1(3):151-156. Gupta, T.R. and J.H. Foster. 1981. Economics of preserving inland wetlands for water supply. In: A Guide to Important Characteristics and Values of Freshwater Wetlands in the Northeast (J.S. Larson, ed.), pp. 17-20. Water Resources Research Center, Publ. No. 31. Univ. of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA. Haan, C.T. and R.W. DeVore, eds. 1975. National Symposium on Urban Hydrology and Sediment Control. Office of Research and Engineering Services, Publ. No. UKY-BU109. Univ. Kentucky. Lexington, KY. 314 pp. Hall, T.N., C. Jones, P. Meckley, and L. Wrabel. 1986. A proposal to adopt forest buffers as an agricultural best management practice. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv., Annapolis, MD. 14 pp. (mimeo). 89 Hamilton, S.F. and J.E. Erickson. 1984. Estuarine Mitigation: The Oregon Process. State of Oregon, Div. of State Lands. 62 PP. Hamilton, S.F. and M.E. Harbert. 1973. Oregon Estuaries. State of Oregon, Div. of State Lands. Harms, W.R. et al. 1980. The Effects of Flooding on the Swamp Forest in Lake Ocklawaha, Florida. Ecjogy 61:1412-1421. Harris, V.T. 1953. Ecological Relationships of Meadow Voles and Rice Rats in Tidal Marshes. J ourn2al of amkgY 34(4): 479-487. Harris, S.W. and W.H. Marshall. 1963. Ecology of Water Level Manipulations on a Northern Marsh. Ecology 44:331-343. Haussman, R.F. and E.W. Pruett. 1978. Permanent logging roads for better woodlot management. U.S. Dept. of Agric., Forest Serv., Northeast Area. Broomall, PA. Hawkins, P. and C.F. Leck. 1977. Breeding bird communities in a tidal freshwater marsh. Bull. N.J. Acad. Sci. 22: 12-17. Heit, W.S. 1944. Food habits of red foxes of the Maryland marshes. JE Bmal 25:55-58. Hewlett, J.D. and J.C. Fortson. 1982. Stream temperature under an inadequate buffer strip in the southeast Piedmont. Water Resources ]ul 18(6):983-988. Hoffman, E.J., G.L. Mills, J.S. Latimer, and J.G. Quill. 1984. Urban runoff as a source of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons to coastal waters. Environs gji Th 18:580-587. Hollander, M. and D.A. Wolfe. 1973. Nonparametric statistical methods. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, NY. 503 pp. Horwitz, E.L. 1978. Our Nation's Wetlands. An interagency task force report coordinated by the Council on Environ. Qual. Washington, DC. 70 pp. Howell, P.T. 1984. Use of salt marshes by meadow voles. EJJarig 7(2):165-170. Hummel, M. 1981. Wetland wildlife values. In: Proceedings of the Ontario Wetlands Conference (A. Champagne, ed.), pp. 27- 32. Federation of Ontario Naturalists and Dept. of Applied Geography, Ryerson Polytechnical Inst. Toronto, Ontario. 193 pp. 90 Ivanovici, A.M., ed. 1984. Inventory of Declared Marine and Estuarine Protected Areas in Australian Waters. Vol. 1. Australian National Parks & Wildlife Service, Publ. No. 12. Jaworski, E. 1981. The economics of wetland protection. In: Proceedings of the Ontario Wetlands Conference (A. Champagne, ed.), pp. 58-62. Federation of Ontario Naturalists and Dept. of Applied Geography, Ryerson Polytechnical Inst. Toronto, Ontario. 193 pp. Johnson, R.R. and J.F. McCormick. 1978. Strategies for Protec- tion and Management of Floodplain Wetlands and Other Riparian Ecosystems. General Tech. Report WO-12, Forest Service, USDA. Washington, D.C. 410 pp. Jones, J.C. and M.P. Lynch. 1978. Local and environmental management--can it work? A case study of the Virginia Wet- lands Act. qCoastal ZPne Mgmt.. J L 4:127-150. Kadlec, R.H. and J.A. Kadlec. 1978. Wetlands and water quality. Ia: Wetland Functions and Values: The State of Our Under- standing (P.E. Greeson, J.R. Clark, and J.E. Clark, eds.), pp. 436-456. Amer. Water Resources Assoc., Tech. Publ. Series No. TPS79-2. Minneapolis, MN. 674 pp. Karr, J.R. and I.J. Schlosser. 1977. Impact of nearstream vegetation and stream morphology on water quality and stream biota. National Tech. Info. Service Publ. No. PB-272 652. Prepared for U.S. Envl. Protection Agency, Envl. Research Lab. Athens, GA. 90 pp. Karr, J.R. and I.J. Schlosser. 1978. Water resources and the land-water interface. Science 201:229-234. Kao, D.T.Y., B.J. Barfield, and A.E. Lyons, Jr. 1975. On-site sediment filtration using grass strips. In: National Symposium on Urban Hydrology and Sediment Control (C.T. Haan and R.W. DeVore, eds.), pp. 73-82. Office of Research and Engineering Services, Publ. No. UKY BU109. Univ. Kentucky. Lexington, KY. 314 pp. Kibby, H.V. 1978. Effects of wetlands on water quality. In: Strategies for Protection and Management of Floodplain Wet- lands and Other Riparian Ecosystems (R.R. Johnson, and J.F. McCormick, eds.), pp. 289-298. General Tech. Report WO-12, Forest Service, USDA. Washington, D.C. 410 pp. Klein, S.B. 1980. Select state inland wetland protection laws: A review of state laws and their natural resource data re- quirements. Natural Resource Info. Systems Project, National Conference of State Legis. Denver, CO. 108 pp. 91 Kneib, R.T. 1978. Habitat, Diet, Reproduction and Growth of the Spotfin Killifish, luncua digi from a North Carolina Salt Marsh. pia 1:164-168. Kreutzwiser, R. 1981. Recreational values of lakeshore marshes. la: Proceedings of the Ontario Wetlands Conference (A. Champagne, ed.), pp. 48-57. Federation of Ontario Naturalists and Dept. of Applied Geography, Ryerson Polytechnical Inst. Toronto, Ontario. 193 pp. Kropp, R.H. 1982. Comprehensive stormwater management in New Jersey. Mo- Co ntrol Assoc. 69:42-48. Lake, J. and J. Morrison. 1977. Environmental impact of land use on water quality. EPA-905/9-77-007-B. Prepared for U.S. EPA Great Lakes National Program Office. Chicago, IL. Lantz, R.L. 1971. Guidelines for stream protection in logging operations. A report of the research division, Oregon State Game Commission. Portland, OR. 29 pp. La Prade, D. Nov. 27, 1985. New Setbacks Opposed. Outer D _Cu_~rge 6(34):1,2. Larson, J.S., ed. 1973. A guide to important characteristics and values of freshwater wetlands in the northeast. Water Resources Research Center, Publ. No. 31. Univ. of Massachu- setts, Amherst, MA. 91 pp. Larson, J.S. 1975. Evaluation models for public management of freshwater wetlands. Trans E. Amer iiL. Nat-. Rgsource Conf. 40:220-228. Larson, J.S., ed. 1976. Models for evaluation of freshwater wetlands. Water Resources Research Center, Publ. No. 32. Univ. of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA. Larson, J.S. 1981. Wetlands and floods. In: A Guide to Im- portant Characteristics and Values of Freshwater Wetlands in the Northeast (J.S. Larson, ed.), pp. 15-16. Water Resources Research Center, Publ. No. 31. Univ. of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA. 91 pp. Lee, R. and D.E. Samuel. 1976. Some thermal and biological effects of forest cutting in West Virginia. L. Eynjn Qual. 5(4):362-366. Lewis, J.C. and E.W. Bunce, eds. 1980. Rehabilitation and creation of selected coastal habitats: Proceedings of a workshop. FWS/OBS-80/27. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Biological Services Program. Washington, D.C. 162 pp. 92 Liddle, M.J. 1975. A selective review of the ecological effects of human trampling on natural ecosystems. Biol D. Cs 7:17-36. Linde, 1969. Techniques for Wetland Management. Research Rep. No. 45, Dept. of Natural Resources. Madison, WI. Lonard, R.I., E.J. Clairain, R.T. Huffman, J.W. Hardy, L.D. Brown, P.E. Ballard, and J.W. Watts. 1981. Analysis of methodologies used for the assessment of wetlands values. Envl. Lab., U.S. Army Eng. Waterways Exp. Sta., Vicksburg, MS. Prepared for U.S. Water Resources Council. Washington, D.C. 79 pp. Loosanoff, V.L. and F.D. Tommers. 1948. Effects of Suspended Slit and other Substances on Rate of Feeding of Oysters. Science. 107:69-70. Lugo, A.E. and M.M. Brinson. 1978. Calculations of the value of saltwater wetlands. In: Wetland Functions and Values: The State of Our Understanding (P.E. Greeson, J.R. Clark, and J.E. Clark, eds.), pp. 120-130. Amer. Water Resources Assoc., Tech. Publ. Series No. TPS79-2. Minneapolis, MN. 674 pp. McCormick, J. and T. Ashbaugh. 1972. Vegetation of a section of Oldmans Creek tidal marsh and related areas in Salem and Gloucester Counties, New Jersey. Bu1ll N.L. Acad Sci. 17: 31-37. McLeese, R.L. and E.P. Whiteside. 1977. Ecological Effects of Highway Construction Upon Michigan Woodlots and Wetlands: Soil Relationships. Jurna f Ej y nD Quality 6:467-471. Magoon, O.T., H. Converse, D. Miner, D. Clark, and L.T. Tobin, eds. 1985. Coastal Zone '85, Volumes 1 & 2. Amer. Soc. Civil Engineers. NYC, NY. 2672 pp. Markley, M.L. 1979. Soil series of the Pine Barrens. In: Pine Barrens: Ecosystem and Landscape (R.T.T. Forman, ed.), pp. 81-93. Academic Press, NY. 601 pp. Meanley, B. and J.S. Webb. 1963. Nesting ecology and reproductive rate of the red-winged blackbird in tidal marshes in the upper Chesapeake Bay region. Chesapeake Science. 4: 90-100. Meeks, R.L. 1969. The Effect of Drawdown Date on Wetland Plant Succession. Journal of Wildlife Manaaement 33:817-821. Merriner, J.V., W.H. Kriete and G.C. Grant. 1976. Seasonality, Abundance and Diversity of Fishes in the Piankatank River, Virginia (1970-1971). Chesapke &cjeA 17(4):238-245. 93 Miller, A.W. and B.D. Collins. 1954. A Nesting Study of Ducks and Coots on Tule Lake and Lower Kalmath National Wildlife Refuges. isCalifo ,ind l D Game 40:17-37. Mitsch, W.J., C.L. Dodge and J.R. Weimhoff. 1977. Forested Wetlands for Water Resource Management in Southern Illinois. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Water Resource Center, Research Report No. 132, NTIS No. PS 276 659. Moring, J.R. 1975. The Alsea watershed study: Effects of logging on the aquatic resources of three headwater streams of the Alsea River, Oregon. Part III - Discussion and Recommen- dations. Fishery Res. Rep. No. 9, Oregon Dept. Fish & Wild- life. Corvallis, OR. 23 pp. Motts, W.S. and R.W. Heeley. 1981. Wetlands and ground water. In: A Guide to Important Characteristics and Values of Fresh- water Wetlands in the Northeast (J.S. Larson, ed.), pp. 5-8. Water Resources Research Center, Publ. No. 31. Univ. of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA. 91 pp. Mudroch, A. and J.A. Capobianco. 1979. Effects of Treated Effluent on a Natural Marsh. Jurnal Water PltiQr Contr2 FdediQa 51(9):2243-2256. N.J. Dept. of Environ. Protection. 1982. Coastal Resource and Development Policies. N.J. DEP, Div. Coastal Resources, Bureau of Coastal Planning and Devel. Trenton, NJ. 196 pp. N.J. Dept. of Environ. Protection, Off. of Environ. Analysis. 1979. Tidelands Index: Lands Subject to Investigation for Areas Now or Formerly Below Mean High Water. Natural Resource Council. N.J. Dept. of Environ. Protection and U.S. Dept. of Commerce. 1978. New Jersey Coastal Management Program--Bay and Ocean Shore Segment. N.J. DEP, Div. Marine Services, Office of Coastal Zone Mgmt. (OCZM), Trenton, NJ and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin. (NOAA), OCZM, Washington, D.C. 466 pp. Newbold, J.D. 1977. The use of benthic macroinvertebrates as indicators of logging impact on streams with an evaluation of buffer strip effectiveness. PhD dissertation, Univ. Califor- nia, Berkeley. Berkeley, CA. 103 pp. Newbold, J.D., D.C. Erman, and K.B. Roby. 1980. Effects of logging on macroinvertebrates in streams with and without buffer strips. Can, J_ Fis. Agujtig ci-L 37:1076-1085. Newling, C.J. and H.K. Smith. 1982. The Corps of Engineers Wetland Research Program. tJand 2:280-285. 94 Niering, W.A. 1973. The ecological role of inland wetlands. Ina: Proc.: Wetlands Conference, pp. 100-109. Report No. 21, Univ. Conn. Inst. Water Research. Obertsp G.L. 1981. Impact of wetlands on watershed water quali- ty. In: Selected Proceedings of the Midwest Conference on Wetland Values and Management (B. Richardson, ed.), pp. 213- 226. Freshwater Society, MN. 660 pp. Odum, E.P. 1971. Fundamentals of ecology. W.B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia, PA. 574 pp. Odum, H.T. 1978. Principles for interfacing wetlands with de- velopment. In: Environmental Quality Through Wetlands Utili- zation (M.A. Drew, ed.), pp. 29-56. Coord. Council on the Kissimmee River Valley and Taylor Creek-Nubbin Slough Basin. Tallahassee, FL. Odum, W.E., M.L. Dunn, and T.J. Smith III. 1978. Habitat value of tidal fresh water wetlands. In: Wetland Functions and Values: The State of Our Understanding (P.E. Greeson, J.R. Clark, and J.E. Clark, eds.), pp. 248-255. Amer. Water Resources Assoc., Tech. Publ. Series No. TPS79-2. Minneapolis, MN. 674 pp. Odum, W.E., T.J. Smith III, J.K. Hoover, and C.C. McIvor. 1984. The ecology of tidal freshwater marshes of the United States east coast: a community profile. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv. FWS/OBS-83/17. 177 pp. Ogawa, H. and J.W. Male. 1983. The Flood Mitigation Potential of Inland Wetlands. Water Resources Research Center. Publication No. 13. University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Olsen, S. and G.L. Seavey. 1983. The State of Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Program. Coastal Resources Management Council, Providence, RI. 127 pp. O'Meara, T., T. Chaney, and W. Klockner. 1976. Maryland Uplands Natural Areas Study, Field Notebook, Western Shore. Coastal Zone Management Program, Maryland Dept. Natural Resources. Annapolis, MD. 195 pp. Oregon State Soil and Water Conservation Commission. 1978. Stream Corrider Management. A Report for the Dept. of Environmental Quality. Enterprise, OR. 59 pp. Oviatt, C.A. and S.W. Nixon. 1973. The Demersal Fish of Narragansett Bay: An Analysis of Community Structure, Distri- bution and Abundance. _Estuarine gD M_ i_ i.Dgn 1:361-378. 95 Palfrey, R. and E. Bradley. No date. Natural Buffer Areas Study. Tidewater Administration, Maryland Dept. Natural Resources. 31 pp. Parr, D.E., M.D. Scott and D.D. Kennedy. 1979. Autumn Movements and Habitat Use by Woodducks in Southern Illinois. JULal of Wildlife Man.gemse 43:102-108. Phillips, J.D. 1984. Transgression and vegetation change, Delaware Bay, New Jersey. Proc. Coastal Society Porter, B.W. 1981. The wetland edge as a communtiy and its value to wildlife. In: Selected Proceedings of the Midwest Conference on Wetland Values and Management (B. Richardson, ed.), pp. 15-25. Freshwater Society, MN. 660 pp. Reed, A. and G. Moisan. 1971. The Spartina Tidal Marshes of the St. Lawrence Estuary and Their Importance to Aquatic Birds. Le _ Natqlijjs_ & dji 98:905-922. Reed, D.M. 1981. Areawide wetland protection and management efforts in southeastern Wisconsin. In: Selected Proceedings of the Midwest Conference on Wetland Values and Management (B. Richardson, ed.), pp. 519-528. Freshwater Society, MN. 660 PP. Reed, P.B., Jr. 1986. Wetland plants of the state of New Jersey 1986. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv. WELUT-86/W12.30. Reimold, R.J. and W.H. Queen, eds. 1974. Ecology of Halophytes. Academic Press, Inc. NYC, NY. 605 pp. Reppert, R.T. 1981. Wetland values, concepts and methods for wetlands evaluation. In: Selected Proceedings of the Midwest Conference on Wetland Values and Management (B. Richardson, ed.), pp. 385-393. Freshwater Society, MN. 660 pp. Richards, C.E. and M. Castagna. 1970. Marine Fishes of Virginia's Eastern Shore (Inlet and Marsh, Seaside Waters). Chesapeake Scince 11(4):235-248. Richardson, B. 1981. Selected Proceedings of the Midwest Conference on Wetland Values and Management. Freshwater Society, MN. 660 pp. Roman, C.T. and R.E. Good. 1983. Wetlands of the New Jersey Pinelands: Values, functions, impacts and a proposed buffer delineation model. N.J. Pinelands Comm. Publ. No. 82-4074. Div. of Pinelands Research, Center for Coastal & Environ. Studies. 96 Roman, C.T. and R.E. Good. 1985. Delineating wetland buffer protection areas: The New Jersey Pinelands model. Proc. Natinal WKelndsd Asse-ssment oY.Elgi-m. 22 pp. Roman, C.T., R.A. Zampella, and A.Z. Jaworski. 1983. Vegetation, soils and water table relationships in wetland to upland transition zones of the New Jersey Pine Barrens. Bull. EQgLS E~Ss Am er, 64:172-173. Roman, C.T., R.A. Zampella, and A.Z. Jaworski. 1985. Wetland boundaries in the New Jersey Pinelands: Ecological relation- ships and delineation. Water Resources Bul. 21(6):1005- 1012. Sadler, R.R. 1970. Buffer strips: A possible application of decision theory. BLM Tech. Note, Filing Code 5000-6512. U.S. Dept. Interior. Portland, OR. Salm, R.V. and J.R. Clark. 1984. Marine and Coastal Protected Areas: A Guide for Planners and Managers. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Swit- zerland. ISBN 2-88032-805-5. Sather, J.H. and R.D. Smith. 1984. An overview of major wetland functions. Publ. No. FWS/OBS-84/18, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Biological Services Program. 68 pp. Schitoskey, F.,Jr. and R.L. Linder. 1978. In: Wetland Functions and Values: The State of Our Understanding (P.E. Greeson, J.R. Clark, and J.E. Clark, eds.), pp. 307-311. Amer. Water Resources Assoc., Tech. Publ. Series No. TPS79-2. Minneapolis, MN. 674 pp. Schultz, C.J. 1981. Regulating shoreland-wetlands in Wisconsin. In: Selected Proceedings of the Midwest Conference on Wetland Values and Management (B. Richardson, ed.), pp. 587-593. Freshwater Society, MN. 660 pp. Scott, M.L., R.R. Sharitz and L.C. Lee. 1985. Disturbance in a Cypress-tupelo Wetland: an Interaction Between Thermal Loading and Hydrology. Wetlands 5:53-68. Shabman, L.A. and S.S. Batie. 1981. Basic economic concepts important for wetlands valuation. In: Selected Proceedings of the Midwest Conference on Wetland Values and Management (B. Richardson, ed.), pp. 431-443. Freshwater Society, MN. 660 PP. Shannon, C.E. and W. Weaver. 1949. The mathematical theory of communication. The University of Illinois Press, Urbana. 97 Shay, J. 1981. Wetland protection in the 80's. In: Proceed- ings of the Ontario Wetlands Conference (A. Champagne, ed.), pp. 19-25. Federation of Ontario Naturalists and Dept. of Applied Geography, Ryerson Polytechnical Inst. Toronto, Ontario. 193 pp. Shenker, J.M. and J.M. Dean. 1979. The Utilization of an Intertidal Salt Marsh Creek by Larval and Juvenile Fishes: Abundance, Diversity and Temporal Variation. Estaries 2(3): 154-163. Shisler, J.K. 1973. Pioneer plants on spoil piles associated with mosquito ditching. Pro-. 60Qth Annl. Mtg. E Jersey Mosq. Ex term Assoc. 135-141. Shisler, J.K. and D.C. Charette. 1984. Evaluation of artificial salt marshes in New Jersey. Publ. No. P-40502-01-84, New Jersey Agricultural Exp. Sta. New Brunswick, NJ. 160 pp. Shulze, T.L., E.J. Hansens and J.R Trout. 1975. Some Environ- mental Factors Affecting the Daily and Seasonal Movements of the Salt Marsh Greenhead, Tabanus niqrYittatus. Envijrn- mrentl Entomoloav 4:965-971. Shure, D.J. 1970. Ecological relationships of small mammals in a New Jersey barrier beach habitat. J. Mammal. 51(2):267-278. Simpson, R.L., R.E. Good, M.A. Leck and D.F. Whigham. 1983. The ecology of freshwater tidal wetlands. Bioscience. 33:255-259. Smardon, R.C. 1981. Visual-cultural values of wetlands. In: A Guide to Important Characteristics and Values of Freshwater Wetlands in the Northeast (J.S. Larson, ed.), pp. 9-11. Water Resources Research Center, Publ. No. 31. Univ. of Massachu- setts, Amherst, MA. 91 pp. Smith, R.L. 1980. Ecology and Field Biology. Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc., New York, N.Y. 835 pp. Snedaker, S.C. and C.D. Getter. 1985. Coastal Resources Manage- ment Guidelines. Coastal Management Publ. No. 2. Research Planning Inst., Inc. Columbia, SC. Solomon, R.C., B.K. Colbert, W.J. Hansen, S.E. Richardson, L.W. Canter, and E.C. Vlachos. 1977. Water resources assessment methodology (WRAM)-- impact assessment and alternative evalua- tion. Tech. Report Y-77-1, Envl. Effects Lab., U.S. Army Eng. Waterways Exp. Sta. Vicksburg, MS. 150 pp. Sorensen, J.C., S.T. McCreary, and M.J. Hershman. 1984. Insti- tutional Arrangements for Management of Coastal Resources. Coastal Management Publ. No. 1. Research Planning Inst., Inc. Columbia, SC. 165 pp. 98 SAS Institute Inc. 1985. SAS user's guide: Statistics, Version 5 Edition. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC. 956 pp. Stotts, V.D. and D.E. Davis. 1960. The black duck in the Chesapeake Bay of Maryland: breeding behavior and biology. Chesapeake Science. 1: 127-154. Sullivan, M.J. and F.C. Daiber. 1974. Responce in Production of Cordgrass, pasin alterenifolia, to Inorganic Nitrogen and Phosphorus Fertilizer. Chesapeake Sinc 15:121-123. Swift, L.W. and S.E. Baker. 1973. Lower water temperatures within a streamside buffer strip. U.S. Dept. of Agric., Forest Serv. Res. Note SE-193. Southeast. For. Exp. Sta., Asheville, NC. 7 pp. Swift, L.W., Jr. and J.B. Messer. 1971. Forest cuttings raise temperatures of small streams in the southern Appalachians. J. EQi_ kjg CQnz, 26:111-116. Talbot, C.W., K.W. Able and J.K. Shisler. 1979. Salt Marsh Fishes of New Jersey. A Preliminary Survey. tjI~Dn L ke g.J. AoAfdy cQ l 24:99. Teal, J.M. 1962. Energy Flow in the Salt Marsh Ecosystem of Georgia. Ecology 43(4):614-624. Tedrow, J.C.F. 1979. Development of Pine Barrens Soils. In: Pine Barrens: Ecosystem and Landscape (R.T.T. Forman, ed.), pp. 61-79. Academic Press, NY. 601 pp. Thayer, G.W., et al. 1978. Habitat Values of Salt Marshes, Mangroves and Seagrasses for Aquatic Organisms. pp. 235-247, in: Greeson, P.E., J.R Clark and J.E Clark. Wetland Functions and Values: the State of Our Understanding. American Water Resource Association, Technical Publication Series No. TPS79-2 Minneapolis, Minnesota. 674 pp. Thibodeau, F.R. and N.H. Nickerson. 1985. Changes in a wetland plant association induced by impoundment and draining. 1iol- Cons. 33: 269-279. Thurow, C., W. Toner, and D. Erley. 1975. Performance controls for sensitive lands: A practical guide for local administra- tors. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Tech. Info. Service Publ. No. PB-245 177. Prepared for, Wash. Environ. Research Center, Office of Research and Development. U.S. Environ. Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. 523 pp. Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of New Jersey. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory. Newton Corner, MA. 117 pp. 99 Tollner, E.W., B.J. Barfield, and C.T. Haan. 1975. Vegetation as a sediment filter. In: National Symposium on Urban Hy- drology and Sediment Control (C.T. Haan and R.W. DeVore, eds.), pp. 61-64. Office of Research and Engineering Ser- vices, Publ. No. UKY BU109. Univ. Kentucky, Lexington, KY. 314 pp. Tollner, E.W., B.J. Barfield, C.T. Haan, and T.Y. Kao. 1976. Suspended sediment filtration capacity of simulated vegeta- tion. Trans Amer, Sc Agj_/ ng_ 19:678-682. Trimble, G.R., Jr. and R.S. Sartz. 1957. How far from a stream should a logging road be located? J, FDgj 55:339-341. Valiela, I., J.M. Teal amd W. Sass. 1973. Nutrient Retention in Salt Marsh Plots Experimentally Fertilized with Sewage Sludge. stu nd nd pot ji S~cic_ 1:261-269. Valiela, I., J.M. Teal and W. Sass. 1975. Production and Dynamics of Salt Marsh Vegetation and the Effects of Experi- mental Treatment with Sewage Sludge: Biomass, Production and Species Composition. journal f_ Ap.liE_ Ecogy 12:973-982. Van Roatle, C.D., I. Valiela, E.J. Carpenter and J.M. Teal. 1974. Inhibition og Nitrogen in Salt Marshes Measure and By Acetylene Reduction. Estuary gQ Marine S cien 2:301-305. Voigts, D.K. 1976. Aquatic Invertibrate Abundance in Relation to Changing Marsh Vegetation. Amerin Mdi' _d ~ADraist 95:313-322. Uetz, G.W., K.L. Van Derlaan, G.F. Summers, P.A.K. Gibson and L.L. Getz. 1979. The Effects of Flooding on Floodplain Arthropod Distribution, Abundance and Community Structure. American Miand list 101: 286-299. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1980. A habitat evaluation system (HES) for water resources planning. Lower Miss. Valley Div. Vicksburg, MS. 89 pp. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1981. New England Wetlands: Plant Identification and Protective Laws. U.S. EPA, Region 1. JFK Federal Bldg. Boston, MA. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1984. Technical Report: Literature Review of Wetland Evaluation Methodologies. U.S. EPA, Region 5. Chicago, IL. 120 pp. Walker, M. 1980. Utilization by Fishes of a Blackwater Creek Floodplain in North Carolina. M.S. Thesis. E. Carolina University. 100 Walker, R.A. 1973. Wetlands preservation and management on Chesapeake Bay: The role of science in natural resource policy. CoaZsD_ Mgm_. Ja 1(1):75-101. Weinstein, M.P. 1979. Shallow Marsh Habitats as Primary Nurseries fot Fishes and Shellfish, Cape Fear River, North Carolina. Fishery Bpl] 77(2):339-357. Weller, M.W. 1978. Wetland habitats. In: Wetland Functions and Values: The State of Our Understanding (P.E. Greeson, J.R. Clark, and J.E. Clark, eds.), pp. 210-234. Amer. Water Resources Assoc., Tech. Publ. Series No. TPS79-2. Minneapolis, MN. 674 pp. Wiley, J.W. and F.E. Lohrer. 1973. Additional Records of Non- fish Prey Taken by Osprey. Th ilson Blletin 85(4):468-470. Willard, D.E. 1977. The Feeding Ecology and Behavior of Five Species of Herons in Southeastern New Jersey. Te Condor 79:462-470. Williams, J.D. and C.K. Dodd, Jr. 1978. Importance of wetlands to endangered and threatened species. In: Wetland Functions and Values: The State of Our Understanding (P.E. Greeson, J.R. Clark, and J.E. Clark, eds.), pp. 565-575. Amer. Water Resources Assoc., Tech. Publ. Series No. TPS79-2. Minneapolis, MN. 674 pp. Wilson, L.G. 1967. Sediment removal from flood water by grass filtration. Trng Amer, ZDc_ 6_icj E no. 10:35-37. Wolverton, C.L. 1981. Michigan's state-level wetland protection program. In: Selected Proceedings of the Midwest Conference on Wetland Values and Management (B. Richardson, ed.), pp. 565-572. Freshwater Society, MN. 660 pp. Wycoff, R.L. and R.D.G. Pyne. 1975. Urban water management and coastal wetland protection in Collier County, Florida. WOrL Reources ullp 11(3):455-468. Young, R.A. and C.K. Mutchler. 1969. Effect of slope shape on erosion and runoff. n Aric. EnG. 12:231-239. Zampella, R.A. and C.T. Roman. 1983. Wetlands protection in the New Jersey Pine Barrens. Wetlands 3:124-133. Zar, J.H. 1974. Biostatistical analysis. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 620 pp. 101 Zedler, J.B. 1982. The ecology of southern California coastal salt marshes: A community profile. FWS/OBS-81/54. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Biological Services Program. Washington, D.C. 110 pp. Zedler, J.B. 1984. Salt Marsh Restoration: A Guidebook for Southern California. California Sea Grant Report No. T-CSGCP- 009. San Diego State Univ., San Diego, CA. 102 4 APPENDICES Table 39. Species number, scientific name and common name of plant species encountered during sampling of wetland/buffer study sites. 1 AghlIu1 niijigQ1jajrn Yarrow 2 -Alima liiyiala Water Plaintain 3 611b11&e Q11jjcinaii Marsh Mallow 4 anzafhfih 2AUnRihnu Water Hemp 5 &tzalia zrIImi-iiIQaii Common Ragweed 6 Lmtrlia lzilida Great Ragweed 7 &MQ~hila U iziieigIAI2 American Beach Grass 8 Apinl Awaziagna Ground Nut 9 AaQQgIzzuU zP2- Dogbane 10 Alilamna 22R. Jack-in-the-pulpit 11 ABjjrnjjtjA mulgazi Mugwort 12 AatllPia l an Milkweed 13 Aaiaz alallial Willow Aster 14 Allazr 2Uninii Purple-stemmed Aster 15 Allar adula Rough-leaved Aster 16 Alia z RR Aster 17 AIIIZ luhulalul Annual Salt Marsh Aster 18 AzIlz lanufijliga Perrenial Salt Marsh Aster 19- AlbyjrUin fi~ixzzlmina Lady Fern 20 AtjjizPjx Pglul Orache 21 EUp&jjiia lialazi Wild Indigo 22 &ZjhaziA yulgazil Wintercress 23 UX12aig wizzinigA Bartonia 24 Didgnj azillQia Tick Sunflower 25 jadjal jZQnd2�_ Beggar-tick 26 Didgal 12MYij Bur-marigold 27 dk jj na, Beggar-tick 28 Didgal jg2. Beggar-tick 29 jnqjh~kjj jjyindligg False Nettle 30 B11a hiLuim djiaketgm Cut-leaved Grape Fern 31 C~kile jdn~ujau Sea Rocket 32 calha 2alualzil Marsh Marigold 33 Cax-e iniumeani Sedge 34 Q iix ILjdi, Sedge 35 QRX-g-A 222 Sedge 36 Ogrgx menuall Sedge 37 clnaiai&B ajp. Knapweed 38 QhgjaQjnig aljum Lamb's-quarters 39 chaone gelazrA Turtlehead 40 Cjauj& Lngeulia Water Hemlock 41 Cinna algndiaggal Cinna 42 Ojzgium uygala Canada Thistle 43 02MMs inal 20miiinil Asiatic Day Flower 103 Table 39. Continued. 44 Convolvulus arvensis Field Bindweed 45 CUY21~1MIM lliiim Hedge Bindweed 46 Qucl gz~aaylj Dodder 47 Q=Zmg- gzih12zhiizQ1 Cyperus 48 Qyazl lalaau Cyperus 49 Q-ulu a2 Cyperus 50 C y ia .~i Pink Lady's Slipper 51 Daluz nllmniun Jimsonweed 52 auu a11 Wild Carrot 53 D&=.9QU iaiiigillal Swamp Loosest r ife 54 Danallaidia V.Ungl1ilQk1&1 Hay-scented Fern 55 Dalmoium �_P2n Tick-trefoil 56 Liiglax.iaAIZ2Q1ifla Crabgrass 57 Viziigiaii. aaal Spike grass 58 DZ1~ JjjjjiLQrnij Thread-leaved Sundew 59 VDlgira ialamgi a Spatulate-leaved Sundew 60 Dr21~ Z~jundjjojjg, Round-leaved Sundew 61 DZ221z 12. Sundew 62 EghiajQchola~ ezusgalli Barnyard Grass 63 Ej~hli ~jajvja Eleocharis 64 Q1=112zia z~lllt Eleocharis 65 ElgQQQa.Lil. 12 Eleocharis 66 zpdi~jium _Q012zat Purpleleaved Willow Herb 67 Ellajile Jhjiugi~li F i rewe ed 68 ajio~um, vi njc~ Cottongrass 69 BU2jt~iU1 gutjjum Joe-pye-weed 70 Eup&t.loilmf b-11122ilQlium Hyssop-leaved Thorwort 71 Bu~aj~zjmw Lnejjiatgja Spotted Joe-pye-weed 72 F..jj2Aj.ZjW pg.LQoia Ln Boneset 73 EMQ4ioiumJ~Ui l1Quai Hairy Tboroughwort 74 Fuiajoijj~j 2. .pLUM Sweet Joe-pye-weed 75 E~11ajfljuW Loljjlad3Jolu Round-leaved Thorwort 76 EU-At 1-fLU ZUgQ.0�P_ White Snakeroot 77 E.Uatozium si-ex-Oiimm Late Flowering Thorwort 78 Lugjjjjr t zuma Thoroughwort 79 ftgai g-2 Strawberry 80 Ingai ydr-ailjimla Common Strawberry 81 aljjinm ap. Bedstraw 82 Gulium 1jlziQllovu Fragrant Bedstraw 83 Qguw caldnaWhite Avens 84 aj ng.V2 Aven s 85 Qjurn virginianum~ Rough Avens 86 Qjc.~g eeLc&Ground Ivy 87 UEL.L1allt hua APp Sunflower 88 Hqt1zan11akr_ r~jniIrmia Mud Plaintain 104 Table 39. Continued. 89 Uihiagu p21lljLil Swamp Rose Mallow 90 j njjjuW Dwarf St. Johnswort 91 Il.jcjUn yftguw Marsh St. Johnswort 92 J�najejg ga2Aajja Jewelweed 93 J2QU3Qg UAnd~jgj& Wild Potato Vine 94 122IwQmQ 222. Morning Glory 95 Irij rideagig ~ Blue Flag 96 Ignaul dighalmul Juncus 97 aagnc fllluzu Soft Rush 98 slu1Ag ul ZRZ Black Grass 99 Imnagu Z22maianga Juneus 100 Iuntul 22U Juncus 101 EQai111zhyA Ujtgjnja Seashore Mallow 102 Lagluga icaagggjji Wild Lettuce 103 Lgazlia Izazjdgla Rice Cutgrass 104 LaPj1jinm m.gjiniajm Poor Man's Pepper 105 Lilijm iurn rnj Turk's Cap Lily 106 Lijnium nU11hii Sea Lavender 107 Linalia mulgazjl Butter-and-eggs 108 LaaQ2diumn a1QC111QLd~ Foxtail Clubmoss 109 LaQ~p.2diim a21nflangjua Running Pine 110 Lag22Qdiua ) 2D_=zgm Tree Clubmoss 111 LlQQ21g a rmniQanul Horehound 112 L4LQQuI1m. m niaul Bugleweed 113 Lasiwnaghia nfligj & Fringed Loosestrife 114 Lyljjnihig gUadjjjejj& Whorled Loosestrife 115 4thzi.Um .1ine ue Narrowleaved Loosestrife 116 Lythr-jum �aLjcjk Purple Loosestrife 117 UgjianjbthLnuW ade s Canada May Flower 118 LWQd.Q virgin�ial, Indian Cucumber Root 119 mentha PUPxitrj Peppermint 120 Mikanja �_ndenja Climbing Hempweed 121 mlQP.o . Uifl.lQ- Indian-pipe 122 1n hau sP. Spatterdock 123 Qenlther zi nniea Evening Primrose 124 Qenothcx jp2. Primrose 125 QjnjPca jejjijjj�. Sensitive Fern 126 Qjif nd&jfLfnalwflQea Cinnamon Fern 127 Qifnfl a rtgagij Royal Fern 128 Qxaliz. ap- Wood Sorrel 129 Pang~ auinjaQufio.L Wild Ginsing 130 Fanicua) 2ojanjbea Panic Grass 131 P-anicum s22 Panic Grass 132 Pejtapdrj virjinigg Arrow Arum 133 Ehiagm.grs gonLnjLuni Phragmites 105 Table 39. Continued. 1 34 awat'ajaAL Pokeweed 135 2 1.~1141M Mayap pl1e 136 F-1ni jjla Yellow Milkwort 137 R21QUAIUM~j bii~litm Solomon's-seal 138 R21,wg~nl.jja gzl~jiaulga Jointweed 139 221YZgUUW az~lgjium Halberd-leaved Tearthumb 1 40 RQJlua]Aum =�jji tQau Long Bristled Smartweed 141 EQ2Q1ZZQUU jUIjidalu Japanese Knotweed 142 uQ~~naulm P&RAY11Manigum Pennsylvania Smartweed 143 pQb.QfUangtatILM Water Smartweed 144 1~nA&Fittal~.um Arrow-leaved Tearthumb 145 P-1ygu agndu Climbing False Buckwheat 146 E221g=ajw aj2 Smartweed 147 RQjd~&atagPickerelweed 148 Zo~jilijg Q~jU~jU�a Dwarf Cinquefoil 149 Rolaniii1 ap-.- Cinquefoil 150 Pznlta altial.jma Tall White Lettuce 151 kzeujatjjIa. JzLQj.jojja Gall-of-the-earth 152 Eti-idiurn &Quit mm Bracken Fern 153 lf~.I ililoiia, Horned Rush 154 Ami cgall Sheep Sorrel 1 55 Riumax c 22U Curly Dock 156 aazitjri ZZ-twnjj-S Grass-leaved Arrowhead 157 5AjttAj.& latiQjji Broad-leaved Arrowhead 158 Laitaxja, zigjda Sessile-fruit Arrowhead 159 hialQQcflni a~i Glasswort 160 agnicujl, W.~jnj. Black Snakeroot 161 2aniaLIaQ s~u Snakeroot 162 aamlai 2..2.I Pitcher-plant 163 fiuuu eEusLizard's Tail 164 5-ip-g amic Scirpus/Three-square 165 In r - Wool Grass 166 Sgrpu Qdng.yii Scirpus/Three-square 167 a~.j~. 2gjud.ju Scirpus/Three-square 168 aiplzjul Scirpus/Three-square 169 5eijrfliU apP Scirpus/Three-square 170 5alliazhia liaz.ilQloz Mad Dog Skullcap 171 h9ulallaija aja Skullcap 172 eno ueaGolden Ragwort 173 5jZa ajpUgpg Bur-cucumber 174 siumn �.UAV Water Parsnip 175 arnijagjn,a zjen9s False Solomon's-seal 176 arnilas hpbg Carrion Flower 177 aoaU u1aaaPurple Nightshade/Bsweet 178 Q1alnngrj Common Nightshade 106 Table 39. Continued. 179 SIaniieu apj. Nightshade 180 SaQijagQ a1lii.aD1m Tall Goldenrod 181 5.iQjldagQ tja n A IICanada Goldenrod 182 52jidag2 gjganlga Late Goldenrod 183 ajj~dagQ Z jaminifaija Lanced-leaved Goldenrod 184 5_QjjdgZQ atmajijs Gray Goldenrod 185 52jjdgQ Qdora Sweet Goldenrod 186 521idgQ g&Mpjrjirgnj Seaside Goldenrod 187 5.QjjdgZQ 12p Goldenrod 188 arzganiuj s Bur-reed 189 5P.fjjna allainiI21 Spartina 190 SzPazina cyagauQizi. Spartina 191 zjaAzina 2211na Spartina 192 alagkyl lenulalia Smooth Hedge-nettle 193 tjjjajzia 10.jdia Common Chickweed 194 wJoe tjjdua Skunk Cabbage 195 IJaIiielm diqitum Early Meadow-rue 196 _Thnl1j~u~m Po~."ggmA Tall Meadow-rue 197 Thalitin I U2. Meadow-rue 198 Tb1hypeI~zs n2 New York Fern 199 UII~ZDII~iI t Zia Marsh Fern 200 xhhpai~fIeiz liffluiat Massachusetts Fern 201 Ih141i azv~nsa Field Pennycress 202 IQlaza jlgjiniana Virginia Knotweed 203 -iCn~alia. bmzanl Starflower 204 Tjlolilm ap-2. Clover 205 LMIA Ang1aliioia Narrow-leaved Cattail 206 -Tyha jjfajjlia Broad-leaved Cattail 207 urziaa di-Qjc Stinging Nettle 208 Yjijaa IQX.Oia Wooly Blue Violet 209 yjiJa I" - Violet 210 L~gojdEyg~da a jeolata Netted Chain Fern 211 Woldgjgzdj.2 virgijlic Virginia Chain Fern 212 &n~BiLMn abinenal Beach Clot Bur 213 Zyzriz I" Yellow-eyed Grass 214 ZinzlniZ a &.Q.aU Wild Rice 215 Wild Yam Root 219 fjjla Pu~nil Clearweed 221 Grasses 222 Tazazaaum apk. Dandelion 223 P-laniagQ ianclolat English Plantain 224 Fesque Grass 225 Aamona QuiLa.QeLqLIia Wood Anemone 360 huhizaahyri u na p-i. Little Blue Stem Grass 364 Old Field 107 Table 39. Continued. 365 Polcocnu n ci negnj Swamp Smartweed 366 EPjigZjU U Mild Water-pepper 370 aizgjQUn 2.aaadluli Horseweed 371 E1a2UIgA LnA42 Common Plantain 375 &lg Urnjallat Pipsissewa 376 Elughaa 2UZ"Z&2gQU1 Salt-marsh Fleabane 394 BXijlazihiumfl lpa. Blue-eyed Grass 226 Aggz nalgwdQ Box Elder 227 &1Z zubzum Red Maple 228 Aamz alhazinuum Silver Maple 229 &~.Qr lanahalu Sugar Maple 230 silaalnhl &Ilaslima Tree-of-heaven 231 Alkizzia iulibmillin Silk Tree 232 Ajlnau Z~gel Speckled Alder 233 &ftla jghiaj iunleziwi Shadbush 234 Lmllanghilz 122. Shadbush 235 U12=gsa hll aiisj i Bearberry 236 Baalhazia halimiLQ1Li Groundsel Bush 237 aella nizjga River Birch 238 galjla jjjpjjilia Grey Birch 239 CQiZ~i uulQifiifl4. Ironwood 240, ca saia.Lmj Butternut Hickory 241 QAra gdgtza Pignut Hickory 242 Qazya 21alA Shagbark Hickory 243 cazaa laineutal Mockernut Hickory 244 caslluga deulall American Chestnut 245 Qlaaphaiaulhua Q2cijdnejajl Buttonbush 246 chamanaPazil 1JnQjide Atlantic White Cedar 247 Chamajdg2baj Illy~aUJ&I Leatherleaf 248 Chjwahjjja mgaulata Spotted Wintergreen 249 cighha llilil~li Pepperbush 250 Q2ZUU i Awemo Silky Dogwood 251 cQrzflua 11.iQrj Flowering Dogwood 252 Diglsaxm_ lizzinigna Per s immon 253 LUrn.W.U. a jaziajalm American Strawberry Bush 254 EaZU1 ZznIJ.1i.Lg American Beech 255 jza jinu_ 2ea y.yanija Green Ash 256 Ezaxialm &22. Ash 257 G7 Cajille 2rQg.Lnja.& Teaberry/Wintergreen 2583 aagalA Black Huckleberry 259 DZalukagaia -dumg-a Dwarf Huckleberry 260 Qjy..jjLa�.AajA j z.Q Dangleberry 261 &Lnj.melii .gjn z iaan Witch Hazel 262 JjjdaZ hjjij English Ivy 108 Table 39. Continued. .263 112A P.j~tz Inkberry 264 Ijix 2Paga American Holly 265 ULaxr yesticiilat-ft Winterberry 266 Ila lulgagena Marsh Elder 267 lugiana nizgz Black Walnut 268 lgniuijrja. zLgjniana Eastern Red Cedar 269 slSmia aapmall-Q.jIia Sheep Laurel 270 iK.1wmia ialalia Mountain Laurel 271 Laugglhaa zagaw~aa Swamp Sweetbells 272 Li daimbanmrz ilyzagiJ Sweetgum 273 Ligmalzuw mulgaza Common Privet 274 Lindaza blnazin Spicebush 275 Lizanad n ligiaizz Yellow Poplar 276 Lanigaza 1aUiga Japanese Honeysuckle 277 LQnigeza xyligiiuw European Honeysuckle 278 LWania jjgizjlzi Maleberry 279 Lyania maziana Staggerbush 280 MWAZlUia lzrginiang Sweetbay Magnolia 281 mitghllia =Paal Partridge Berry 282 U.QXU ajba White Mulberry 283 NQZlU� LUJrz Red Mulberry 284 NQIU� . 22 Mulberry 285 myzica 2enia alnvU Bayberry 286 Nalza 2rzlvalig Black Gum 287 Eall-the is�U.j giijaqgjj-Q Virginia Creeper 288 Ein~g Ljgjd& Pitch Pine 289 EIanlanua Qicgdanalia Sycamore 290 PojIlJaja djQjto.Qk Cottonwood 291 Uunul avium Sweet Cherry 292 Fmunua alzQ til Black Cherry 293 E=.Us adantlo~ia Red Chokeberry 294 Paziu Iau Chokeberry 295 Quezema alla White Oak 296 QUI.L c kjaig~2 Swamp White Oak 297 Qmez.Qa g.Qcilla Scarlet Oak 298 Quez=& lalcalft Southern Red Oak 299 Quex-clu- ikligioLhi Scrub Oak 300 wazgau. mazilandinA Black Jack Oak 301 Quulux MU11111lragjii Chinquapin Oak 302 (Oscr~c �. .2latm Pin Oak 303 Qap.X c ILQIQh Willow Oak 304 !Que.cjj p..LRije� Dwarf Chestnut Oak 305 Queums P.illua Chestnut Oak 306 Quir-ep-a ZU12ZA Red Oak 307 QuezeuS alellata Post Oak 109 Table 39. Continued. 308 Quglgul Malgling Black Oak 309 RQdQdj1U.LQg YjilgUs m Swamp Azalea 310 RhMA =p2jjjina Winged Sumac 311 Rjrnj gziat Smooth Sumac 312 flhs Zgdjaga Poison Ivy 313 glaaa fihing Staghorn Sumac 314 ahma Y.agjx Poison Sumac 315 BUQiniaQ2a11ud Lgati Black Locust 316 B21A Mllilljza Multiflora Rose 317 ag l Pa Rose 318 Rub g ijl gani.js. Blackberry 319 RBatu. Liagallajil Prickly Dewberry 320 Rutul hJj�jjua Bristly Dewberry 321 autul ideaul Red Raspberry 322 P&Utlj Qggidanjaia. Black Raspberry 323 BUD-U 22P. Raspberry/Dewberry/etc. 324 aaijx Itafjaili Crack Willow 325 Salix Rizzi Black Willow 326 aaliz agzigga Silky Willow 327 saliz 222. Willow 328 aawbiaml ganada 11' Common Elderberry 329 aawtuag�- 222. Elderberry 330 aallalza� altigum Sassafras 331 Smi1.A 4 "Au Glaucous Greenbriar 332 aaijij jjZ n.ZiLQ~ij , Common Greenbriar 333 Iiiia amazilana Basswood 334 UMwuM AMImiana American Elm 335 Yaaainiuf gua ~ iQillm Late Lowbush Blueberry 336 YagLiniual alzQaagaum Black Highbush Blueberry 337 Yaa.Qiaiua lY 2azyalu C. Highbush Blueberry 338 Y2n2inium.aflQf Large Leaf Blueberry 339 Yaccduiua l jjjllau Early Lowbush Blueberry 340 yihgzanm ailinnil N Northern Wild Raisin 341 YjtujflUM deal Southern Arrowwood 342 Vibt.Unm UM Uj~j.QfjjUM Smooth Blackhaw 343 YiD.Unlm UM ZaZiail Northern Arrowwood 344 vilul latz~aga Fox Grape 345 Yjilu 222. Grape 346 Willazia 112zibunda Japanese Wisteria 34 7 Vialia lzulll~aen American Wisteria 352 Ilia Iia 122, Wisteria 353 9hul 122., Sumac 354 Rou zuz= 355 camPij Zadijan�- Trumpet Creeper 356 aliias s Greenbriar 110 Table 39. Continued 357 F21s.yhia sign Forsythia 358 Lanigra spas Honeysuckle 361 e._r Zlajinaigj Norway Maple 363 EPUlQnia t2QmnQ Princess Tree 369 Alnus sarruata Smooth Alder 372 Q1gius 2agidgaali. Hackberry 374 Qaylussagia ae2 Huckleberry 377 fguaRia iamnaa False Heather 111 APPENDIX II Location of Wetland/Buffer Study Sites (Refer to Tables 2, 3, and 4) 112 SITE 54 Ricci Bros., Downe Twp., Cumberland County. MAP A: Sheets # 36&37, Cumberland county soil survey (Scale 1:20,000) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Dividing Creek, N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Dividing Creek, N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A :t t I I a nFd Ms. P"" \'� \ \ /CI\ ~t~:~,nit, -~~~~~ * I ~ ~ ~ ev N -. ~~~6 ~~* ROAD *L..... ~~~~~ 1/a. -. AGSTO __p fc ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Lnlso MAP~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ B ~~~~~~~~~~MAPBC MPC ~~~~~2EM~~~~~~~~1 SITE 58 - Shelter Covet Beach Haven, Ocean County. MAP A: Sheet * 60, Ocean County Soil Survey (Scale 1:20,000) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Beach Haven, N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Beach Haven, N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A Little Island0 ~~~ ~~Island PO Marsfielder Islands /. f'LjghP , IA4 ~ c Boach IHavet :* ~. ~Gardeas -<~4; . >-i-t A." pray Beach Parker. Island ~ ot Beach Haven Light'. 4~~~~~~~~ < 4.. MAP B MAPOC ~. ~' ** ~ ac aven Terrace Islands * . *t ..c . . . each t NW 0% So I a Beach Haven iA *j C, er ac SITE 63 Smithville Phase IA, Galloway Twp., Atlantic County. MAP A: Sheet * 27, Atlantic County Soil Survey (Scale 1:20,000) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Oceanville, N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Oceanville, N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A C.. La~~~~ 3.~.-\ . X :'. ... 1 1'~~~~ ,, -4. ~~~~~~AC.. DO ~ ~ ~ ~ OA. A ..~~~, ~Km )~~~~~~~~~~~ ', 20~~x p Em . 4 PPV C)~ ~ ~ =;~==' 0. 5-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'4/ MAPB~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4 I tA -~~~~AP SITE 68 Glimmer Glass Island, Manasquan, Monmouth County. MAP A: Sheet # 58, Monmouth County Soil Survey (Scale 1:15,840) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Point Pleasant, N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Point Pleasant, N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A L.B (10~~~~~~~~~~~~ Z~~YI~r~U MAP B MAPOC SITE 77 Dock Rd., Cheesequake State Park, Middlesex County. MAP A: Sheet # 15, Middlesex County Soil Survey (Scale 1:20,000) MAP B: U.S.G.S. South Amboy, N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, South Amboy, N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A I'' "~,' I. I Be 131 54 jp\*l~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i~4 (q ~ ~ ~ ~ sa �:~�i ~~*~K?-P~ N/'~)N q ~ /r e'~~~~J7\ A\\. K~~c j (Ct> L*BDUL, MAP~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - ~~~~~~~~~~MAPB SITE 79- Sand Pit Point, Cheesequake State Park, Middlesex County. MAP A: Sheet # 15, Middlesex County Soil Survey (Scale 1:20,000) MAP B: U.S.G.S. South Amboy, N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, South Amboy, N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A cFS ~ lit CF UL . .* * ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . '1 *, qj ~ ~ V A - Z5~ la� A ~ ~ ~ . ~~~~~~~~~~MAPBC MAPOk SITE 80 Hooks Lake, Cheesequake State Park, Middlesex County. MAP A: Sheet # 16, Middlesex County Soil Survey (Scale 1:20,000) MAP B: U.S.G.S. South Amboy, N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, South Amboy, N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A ~ I~~t41~C�sz3V~~c;:~i-~~~Y'~~g/�/ -C�;I~~CPA ~p A(6 \ ~~~~~~MAP 10- SITE 81 Farry Point, Cheesequake State County.4 MAP A: Sheet # 16, Middlesex County Soil (Scale 1:20,000) MAP B: U.S.G.S. South Amboy, N.J. Topograpi (Scale 1:24,000) MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventor~ Amboy, N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24 MAP A 42~~~~~~~~~~fabt * I, i -j - *1~w El~~~' SITE 82 Arrowsmith Point, Cheesequake State Park, Middlesex County. MAP A: Sheet # 16, Middlesex County Soil Survey (Scale 1:20,000) MAP B: U.S.G.S. South Amnboy, N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) FLAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, South Amboy, N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A Cs~~ ~ ~~~~ if . 1, M~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~AP ~~~~~~~~~~MAPBC 2MAP -VI SITE 92 Mushquash Cove, Neptune, Monmouth County. MAP A: Sheet # 45, Monmouth County Soil Survey (Scale 1:15,840) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Asbury Park, N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Asbury Park, N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A Dm MAPB ~~~~~~'I l~p~~Sr~;c~n~~ J ' il�.� �.�,MAPC I * -.~~~~� -. lb k~ *.* ~ -U.. iH- a~ *AM ,, :1~~~~~~~~~~- LI' *1-* 9, - - ~~~Z-cl ~ ~ /P0 (O~~~~~~ .~ ~I~/ ~t~L .. O~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - j~Zj~ tI ,osv P - 'Jr~~~~~~i~~ / j//~~~~~-ZiJ~~~~d ~~~~~~~~~ (i - *2I d ( I = I- MAP~~~~~~~~~~/ ... L Mud ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ 0 SITE 96 Hillside Rd., Neptune, Monmouth County. MAP A: Sheet # 45, Monmouth County Soil Survey (Scale 1:15,840) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Asbury Park, N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Asbury Park, N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A ski SA UA~ I �rL ss tit~~i ~~~~~~AA ~~~~~~~~MAPOB 1* ***~--'~*~ S .. M A P - * RM ber~~~~~~~~~~~~Pt *~~~~~11 ~ ~ ~ p - --/ EEF HaW~~~~IIIA~ ".7 / -Q~ Il~gi9 S SITE 97- Marconi Rd., Neptune, Monmouth County. MAP A: Sheet # 45, Monmouth County Soil Survey (Scale 1:15,840) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Asbury Park, N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Asbury Park, N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A u soar e d us -~% a~ i3 1 A f~Z ~~~~~~~~~~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C Soy'a~~~~~ 7 *MD. /* EZ1 I 4~f-~(L It .:~~~~ ~~< __I' AZT,,~~~~~~~ Mu Rie- ew IN~~~~~ s MAPB~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~mg Ea~~~~eE SITE 99- Manasquan Golf Course, Brielle, Monmouth County. MAP A: Sheet # 61, Monmouth County Soil Survey (Scale 1:15,840) PAP B: U.S.G.S. Point Pleasant, N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Point Pleasant, N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A Due 01 ;) Sa~~~~~~~~~tN'<~~~d ss Pt - Tan~(C) ~ Ickub -(, LUghte .'N 3 1010-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~3 ~~~~~~~~MAPC8 SITE 108 Tranquility Park, Lower Twp., Cape May County. MAP A: Sheet # 29, Cape May Codnty Soil Survey (Scale 1:20,000) 5MAP B: U.S.G.S. Cape May, N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Cape May, Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A SmA,�/ 'r. � FM kCold pring 7. ~~~~~/O /~~~~~~~~aa East E nd ~~~~~~~~~~~i Entran ce -~ INRACSTj S..~~~~~~~~~~~ie ' * :~~~~~~~~, / - -~~~~~~~~CT 'V~~~~~~~~~~lne C MAP..I --B -. ~ ~ Dock N~as~n Entrance El~~~~~f * 'S*. ~ ~ SITE 110 Reeds Bay Villager Galloway Twp., Atlantic County. MAP A: Sheet # 34, Atlantic County Soil Survey (Scale 1:20,000) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Oceanville, N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Oceanville, N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A jy~~~~ Bar~~~~~~~~*~ ~~~ ~Cove TW T .ran ,~ ' 1~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~ f~~~~~~~~~~~~t- iT. Nf~.". Lily, Lake -f>~~ 7- ' .t.. MAP~~~~~~~~-.-- -' / r~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I, * /U *1BO ~~~~~_-L f~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -.. E'' o~ *'~~ : omrsT SITE III Club at Galloway, Galloway Twp., Atlantic County. MAP A: Sheet # 26, Atlantic County Soil Survey (Scale 1:20,000) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Pleasantville, N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Pleasantville, N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A KiA 9~1 KT~~~ODA ODA 0*! :.~~~~~~~~~~ ~ t/ \a~ 4. WCA 4:~~~~~~~~~~~~p MAP B~~~~~~~~~~~~~'~~, * ~~~St~~~eAPl~ i C 'I ~~o,, //~~~~~~ I I ~~F0/ SITE 112 Pinnacle, Galloway Twp., Atlantic County. MAP A: Sheet # 26, Atlantic County Soil Survey (Scale 1:20,000) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Pleasantville, N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Pleasantville, N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A A" ." /'KmA ".,,._ WCA SaA p0 SaA, ..' KmA Ac/ � :;~, ,.-..~ KmA .', KJ '" ' :* ....?.: ~ '~:1 X42 Srice Are I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ C56 ~~~~~~~~~~MAPBC ~~~MPC w~~~~~~P0/ o~~~~~~~~~F 11Ol4 41 i, 4 SePvi p Are SITE 113 Toms River Intermediate School, Toms River, Ocean County. MAP A: Sheet # 26, Ocean County Soil Survey (Scale 1:20,000) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Toms River, N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Toms River, N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A -I/~.2 . ' ' pmAV9 ul..�'. �:, ~r; Ij~ ShA i; ~~~~J~~ ~~) ; X~~~~L pal~~~~~~~~~~~~C ~~ / ~~~.rapberryl ~~I I -~~~~~~~~~~t I /,f' .,Pry~ H WU'.PO PO~0 )Crkjberr~ SITE 121- Dock Rd.,/Brook St., Parkertown, Ocean County. MAP A: Sheet # 56, Ocean County Soil Survey (Scale 1:20,000) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Tuckerton, N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Tuckerton, N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A ; *; : ' SS : lidN -46A Ss~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~z -dt~~ ~~~~C�~~~~~~~~~~,~~~~~~S / ,~~~~~~~~IN MAP., B -~~ .A � 2~~~~~~~~~EO zo -V~~~~~~~E.: / N~~~~~~~~~~te 4 kC>VV~~~~-. ppo -*-~~~~~~~~ 2-F \ 0~~~~~~~~~ SITE 125 Radio Rd.,/Holden St., Mystic Island, Ocean County. MAP A: Sheets # 61 & 62, Ocean County Soil Survey (Scale 1:20,000) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Tuckerton & New Gretna, N.J. Topographic Quadrangles (Scale 1:24,000) MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Tuckerton & New Gretna, N.J. Quadrangles (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A PO -N V I~~i~Fq PO ss Wei~~~~~~ d1p ~ sb rn% /** ~~~~~~. if'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1 Bagaus~~~~~~oganj~ ~ j ~~~~~~~~?~~~~v Cove MAP~~~~~~~, ~~ psborne~~t~I~MA C/ i low~~~~~\ .C A. *'1 \~~~~~~>'\ N ~ ~ ~ f( 4 '~~~~~~~~~~~ '~~~~E 'In Lih0 ~~~'y ~ 'CoYve Ce N~~~~~~~~~~~ ol~ C-. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ MP ElIOW SITE 131 Adams Ave., New Gretna, Burlington County. MAP A: Sheet # 100, Burlington County Soil Survey (Scale 1:15,840) MAP B: U.S.G.S. New Gretna, N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP C: U.S.F.W.S National Wetlands Inventory, New Gretna, N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~Mr * � ., ~, i '.- i;' Dd'."� ' ....:~. :...:f;!' -..=~.j I ' e ' ~~ - .. ~~~~FORE s4 .S)~~~~~ ---~~~~~N: Pow C 4~~4 ST *~~~ ~~~ . r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~im SITE 134 Arnasa Rd., New Gretna? Burlington County. MAP A: Sheet # 100, Burlington County Soil Survey (Scale 1:15,840) MAP B: U.S.G.S. New Gretnar N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, New Gretnar N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A "894.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4 41 Mt~~~~. /1//I 3~~~~~~~~M 10~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1C well,~~~~~~~~~ (Crtn ,, -\A-s C ~i ;etn ~~S) EM-~~~~~~~~~~~~~- *~~~~~~~~~~~.e Isla SITE 139 Ocean Gate Yacht Basin, Ocean Gate, Ocean County. MAP A: Sheets # 31 & 32, Ocean County Soil Survey (Scale 1:20,000) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Toms River, N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Toms River, N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A PcS6hyi~a~o:,.~~l. ~ _�: L:;( L5-.~ ~Jl hA- .,- sORQ~~~~~~~~C~~~JO PN~'V FI Goodluck Point L i h n f~~~~~~Z~~~~~~DI~~~Q Ligh o~~~~~~~CLight jGate Mast - - . S ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Seaside P Yacht C ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Pile- 4~~~~~~~~~~~~~2 FL. fill~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ wbtu~(. Pier EAN prolanga~... . OIL MAPB ~ ~~~EM SITE 142 Bayview Ave., Ocean Gate, Ocean County. MAP A: Sheets # 31 & 32, Ocean County Soil Survey (Scale 1:20,000) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Toms River, N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Toms River, N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A PN LhA IY)EIY~~~~~~ � :l, S eaS.~GiEte. ,. . .-'... V- )�~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ . ~ PN .... . At h As C~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~' '�S 4'~~~~~~~~~~ ~_-'. ~::,~ :.'C ' .( .* � - . : .' :_..~~~r~~ *�d�� ~~~~,. ~~~~~~~~~f~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~hA -i:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,-. L:~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~ .e : C -- '' C i~~~~~A A'-- G .~~p� ',~ ..~.~ :�... � ,X.?'i � . ..., . ,,�. "7F' '' "~' . . .. . i~ Goodluck Point L i ght ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/ IT o Lght .t. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o~ght ~ce~an Gate- - )~Masts - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~SeasideP ___ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Yacht Ci PennC, 0 -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~A L ghto MAPSB MAPOC EZ FL SITE 143 Butler Ave., Holly Park, Ocean County. MAP A: Sheet # 36, Ocean County Soil Survey (Scale 1:20,000) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Toms River, N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Toms River, N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A '� - /~..?~ .~,~.r. _ ..' Z~' ,..S:,'4:.S"~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~]o.., :P01~~4~ eLYD Isand - ~ ~ ~~~ ~~~~~~I yarkB 1 . d , , ,- -~lfL '~t: ~ � PL i' .e ;r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~Ihh~ :�;*: - -. . -. *.>~~~~~~~~~~~~_~~~-~~' ~Pottery -4C all~~~~~~~' 4. . 4- 4 ~~~~~~~~~~MAPBC .Fj/MAP - . ~ c 2EJ E2A~-L SITE 146 Rocknacks Yacht Basin, Lanoka Harbor, Ocean County. MAP A: Sheets # 36 & 40, Ocean County Soil Survey (Scale 1:20,000) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Forked River, N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Forked River, N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A oC FL;-12~~~~~~~~~~~0 :i~T�� �~ ~1 PN ..Cedoi Behich~i~ yr~L~t~~I ~~~~~J;�1�~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ kz' ~~~i~~~ -��~~~S ?2J ~~~~~~ * ~~~~~ - ~~~ Lana , S * ~ FDAI-. ~~~~~~~ & 1O(S~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~L g ih t Ca7i~ r L~~~j~~hh .' *r B .,* FO- - * -~ pU Lao &Hlo -~~~~~~~~~o 7/ / L~~~~~~tPo4(i ow~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C MAPB~~e SITE 167 Old Gas Station, Rt. 30 east, near Atlantic City, Atlantic County. MAP A: Sheets t 40 & 41, Atlantic County Soil Survey (Scale 1:20,000) M4AP B: U.S.G.S. Oceanviller N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Oceanville, N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A ~~~ A~~~.TLANTIC CI1TY - " VT ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " * '. 4Sf~~ 0 ~\T DNxj 4-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~VI I'22 4~~~~~)A Iv-2F E2E f I '~HE I \ ~~E& SITE 190 Convalesent Center, Cape May Courthouse, Cape May County. MAP A: Sheet # 21, Cape May Soil Survey (Scale 1:20,000) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Stone Harbor, N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Stone Harbor, N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A 1 --' �F .... r, '-:�* ...' 4 RTO- U `Y �:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I �� ~ ...., .%mA ;23 raile ond~~~~ ~~~~~C 1585 A~~~~~~~ I Cae May NG 10r ~~ Court House ~ -.4-~~.*:~~.M~ PFOI~~~~~~~~~ MemorlM~ .-- 'I-*~~~~l- - ~~FieldS SITE 207 Kettle Creek, Rt. 70, North Lakewood, Ocean County. MAP A: Sheet # 14, Ocean County Soil Survey (Scale 1:20,000) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Lakewood, N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Lakewood, N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP a ~~~~~DN' '"' i '~~~ sU�.~~,~ ~-- D"Yo/A,'-�~'~ ,� 'c-~i R-, ! 1" '1"'. _.: :.3 ~~~~~~-~~~.s:: i~.. ~.. .. .~:': MAPEB MAP C ii 4 --.f 4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~j ftA ' - ft I, / $5-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Cr * 4 ft ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ *.A * 4 ft'0 SITE 220 Colony Village, Stafford Twp., Ocean County. MAP A: Sheet # 54, Ocean County Soil Survey (Scale 1:20,000) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Ship Bottom & West Creek, N.J. Topographic Quadrangles (Scale 1:24,000) MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Ship Bottom & West Creek, N.J. Quadrangles (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A ~~ ~~ ~~~< ~~ (ced~~~ar k * ~~ N Cern *lra~~er * *~~'. ** P M~~~~~~~~~~~AP ~~~~~~~~MAPOB (. ~~~~~~~edar ..- * L~~~~er f railer *~ ( SITE 222 Caldors, Rt. 549, Brick Twp., Ocean County. MAP A: Sheet # 14, Ocean County Soil Survey (Scale 1:20,000) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Lakewood, N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Lakewood, N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A A-- _~<,C ~ -V . ... LhA A PP M~~~AP B~j -,, ~ .rv I~~~~~~~~~~~ It NG SITE 224 Henry St., Riverside, Burlington County. MAP A: Sheets * 13 & 25, Burlington County Soil Survey (Scale 1:15,840) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Beverly, N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Beverly, N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A Mt GaP~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.~~a .,.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .,.. ~~~~~~~~~~~.i ~~~~~r' ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ * ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 W~~~~~~44. 1Y~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ PI~ ' . Mt~~~~~~~ An~~~~~~~~, ' 7 br'~~~~g M~~rnorpf ... ~~~~~) \\1 Cheater Ive nmon~( %~~~~~~~~~~~~' Sch~~~~~~~ MAP B ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' <~~MA Ciha it-It~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I MAPB~~~~~~~~~pza MPC SITE 226 Burlington Park, Rt. 660, Burlington Twp., Burlington County. MAP A: Sheets # 7 & 14, Burlington County Soil Survey (Scale 1:15,840) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Bristol, N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Bristol, N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A W it, r_ _: -' ,.. :i :3)~~~~~~~~V~n .E~~*~, .;H 4 Ii ~~~ -~~~~~Vo Memorial MAP B MAPOC ~~~~ v ~~~~~~~~~~~~.......... A'i.~~ SITE 227 Burlington Park, Rt. 660, Burlington Twp., Burlington County. MAP A: Sheets # 7 & 14, Burlington County Soil Survey (Scale 1:15,840) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Bristol, N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Bristol, N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A h'S. "4w ' .- �r r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~u ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ 0 y~~~ast I * i~~~~~~~~ ..\*2 avel avel~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ae ~~~~~~~~~~MAPBC :~~~~ ~ ~~~.. .* ..... .. . ....... ~~~~~~~~~~ MR vi~ ~~~~~~~~~~~P~ qu ton Memorial . >F . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~h~~~ a rms[ SITE 23-1 Torrey Pine, Holiday City I, Ocean County. MAP A: Sheet # 25, Ocean County Soil Survey (Scale 1:20,000) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Keswick Grove, N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Keswick Grove, N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A t | ; . . .r~~ : : , . ,} . LwB IEvil iC idk nt�.f'~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~BCL At~;� ~ Ir Lre' - �'\ � ~~~~ LY~w k~~ ~~nn. : ELw p- F 04~~~.-~.--z. SITE 232 Torrey Pine, Holiday City II, Ocean County. MAP A: Sheet # 25, Ocean County Soil Survey (Scale 1:20,000) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Keswick Grove, N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,,000) MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Keswick Grove, N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A (4~~\2~j\ LwS Lw&,~~~~~~~~~~~~~C N) ~~~~~~~rJ M~~AP MAP C~ A ~~~- - ------ - N6 -N 4,- A- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 SITE 233 Troumaka St., Holiday City III, Ocean County. MAP A: Sheet # 25, Ocean County Soil Survey (Scale 1:20,000) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Keswick Grove, N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Keswick Grove, N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A � '--~,- I,:-'"'-'~'"- I - ~ / .-'' . :..C ,,:J,',~:.. _,,7,~'.~ Lr,' ~'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C U?:. ~,~ � . ~: . ' / . ~r..- .. ,,�. .':� WC. /- -V:/.U~/(.,:'C �i "'''_ ; ,.'we:: ' ~ :~i! .'" ~ ' �' ~"?:: "~' ' , ''/ ""~~ --'- ,x,: LL '"~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~.~~ ...�,. .I � ,i~~~~~~~~~~~~~- '~;'. �.'- � L~, '~ .- ...'LwgI WB. ~, . ' ' ~ .... ~ t MAP B MAP C SITE 234 Lagos Ct., Holiday City Iv, Ocean County. MAP A: Sheet * 25, Ocean County Soil Survey (Scale 1:20,000) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Keswick Grove, N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Keswick Grover N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A ,LwB~~~~~~~~~W ~~~~ ~~~~~ LwB~~~~~~~fd V.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1A -, Cr~~anbcryo'eh . iL MAP B MAP C E~~~~~~~~~ - - G~~~~~PEM FO~~~~~~~~~~ SITE 235 Lagos Ct., Holiday City V, Ocean County. MAP A: Sheet # 25, Ocean County Soil Survey (Scale 1:20,000) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Keswick Grove, N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,080) MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Keswick Grove, N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A :~.'~ ~.~';' Lw~~' .:~~LwI ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:'�.~,'~:� .. .. ';~ :. wo8 LhA~~~~~Lh ~ LwS:.'~�~. � �3 ?f� .id . :" .�?..��;� :r~~~~~~~~~.Lhq~ .~ - .- , ;;,.' , � .. :�`~~~~~~~t-) ~~~, ~..�,~ ' ', ': - oioIBi �~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:-� r'i �\~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.�:.;%� ....~~2'~'~ - .. LhA uloB LhA~~~~~~~~~Lh ~~~~~~,~~./:f; :~.m,. i:' ~~~~~� r~~~~~~~~~ i��.~~~~9~~2~,~~ �" ):s, Y:: LhALh --,' .-jC~ - ~--,.--~~~~~~ LW ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~I 1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~�-~~~~~~~~~~~U .li~~~~~~ " **.'' �,~~~~~~ I, - .1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0. MPB SITE 238 Sea Pirate Light, Rt. .9, West Creek, Ocean County. MAP A: Sheet # 56, Ocean County Soil Survey (Scale 1:20,000) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Tuckerton & West Creek, N.J. Topographic Quadrangles (Scale 1:24,000) MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Tuckerton & West Creek, N.J. Quadrangles (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A LDoA 5r. f'':"' Q SS~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ aA.. ' lT'~. !A ~~~HhA~ ~~~d ..*', , J� .,.: ,..-." ! S P . ? , k. ,,, ./ ''Dd. ; ~ ~~1~~L.� ~ ~ � ':F~ 53X~~~.:. ;;~~r i/N '. . ..... :~.,.>/.. ..~,~ ,,x~~ ;FC ~~~~~,, . . . <I~~~~~~~~~~ G MAP~~. B ~ ~~**~~~~*MA -C 4 0 V i ---0-/ *6 \-~--~- ( <~ - O .*., - 2~~~e I~~~~~~~ Gw SITE 239 Szathmary Supply, Manahawkin, Ocean County. MAP A: Sheet # 54, Ocean County Soil Survey (Scale 1:20,000) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Ship Bottom, N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Ship Bottom, N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A .~ o~ . ~aa\~ahin-3~ C-T~ .--..~.., ~ !' .~�r s~ ~. -,~. ~.., ~, ~- ~~~. ' .~ ; ~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~~~~~S~~~~~~ ,~i .. ,.< , ..~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~A D. FIIIN",, WD ~~~~~~*.* . ... . .... O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,N FIS1N-VROND 4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~d MAP~~~~~ 'B x~~~~A C- I101 ssl SITE 240 Gale Rd., Brick Twp., Ocean County. MAP A: Sheets # 15 & 21, Ocean County Soil Survey (Scale 1:20,000) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Point Pleasant, N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Point Pleasant, N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A !~.~- ~ '' '[ ,-, "-/~ /.L~.",~' '.~:."'/ 'WsLinjoloking, :".-,t--.s� ~r.~'?;m'. x \~.~-,:.'.~.- ,. -~E~ ),,--. ,t,~i~'~,Z'~,E~ f �� ' �a~~~l, ' :_ ~'' ' "'~"~ � , .,, ..~ ............ .PN dl~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~E.,..~' ;: ~ .- .Z ~'~ .-, ,,. .. ~,~. �-..~ !..,:.~. ~:-.:':: . ,. . ... ,,-~ . . _ ~ . SSM ,.:�=; � \ P' /' ._.. ss Sandy Pt poie ton .L .Ien oe ~~~~I USA erl ~~~~~~0'~~~~~~~~~ 5'w I t Mantol~ ~ ~ ~~~anokoinu ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Pile Swan Pt MN~~~ /,, MI7 f 51) ~~~~~~~~~~~MAPB MA SITE 242 Neptune Ave., Neptune, Monmouth County. MAP A: Sheets # 38 & 45, Monmouth County Soil Survey (Scale 1:15,840) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Asbury Park, N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Asbury Park, N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A �II im KiA E"n // ~~~~~~,\ ~~~~~~( �W ~~~ ~ W 'I l~~~~~~~~~~~~~ation ma on- - ~~~~~~ ~ark MAP B MAP C / ~~4ii7~~ F-7Bevj. SITE 243 Seaview Condominiums, Neptune, Monmouth County. MAP A: Sheet # 38, Monmouth County Soil Survey (Scale 1:15,840) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Asbury Park, N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory# Asbury Park, N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) - ---- -----�-� MAP A Knwe RIVER~~R due~~~~~~~~~~~~~u AYVER.~~~~EW /.1 - AIK~~~~~~r71F~~~~407~~~.~~ SCoas a? i- I /~~~~~ 1 ~~~~~~~~LMA R SITE 244 Brook St./Rt. 9, Parkertown, Ocean County. MAP A: Sheet $ 56, Ocean County Soil Survey (Scale 1:20,000) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Tuckerton & West Creek N.J. Topographic Quadrangles (Scale 1:24,000) MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Tuckerton & West Creek, N.J. Quadrangles (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A ___ -4 .-,-., -- <'.. N v - L4 - - ---� - - -' **4 * "'I :../ s- - * \ N \.* 2 -' a 4' j j 1 - - - - 4 - N / *. \*.** ,,4 "I -c..%.*:-* rierujWT1 0 * * \ ', -'- .. If / \ I,' 0 'I 1 MAPB MAPC '- -- -riti4''< - (---4- if 6' .,0 ill SITE 245 Mandalay Rd./Pinecrest Dr., Mantoloking Pt., ocean County. MAP A: sheet 1 21, Ocean County Soil Survey (Scale 1:20,000) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Point Pleasant N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) 14AP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Point Pleasant, N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A Ss ~~~~~~~ShoeArs P0 *'j~~<~j,~ ~ ,. ~i~j-~ A~qPO I'I./ ~ r- ji~ \ )" ~IIN "-I �% i , I ~~~ rmP 0� ,, ,, S - d ..~~~~~~~~~~~~eae 'II `//Z (J, -X Haen Plaes �-~~~~~~2E 'Den nil"' ~~"/ s IS~en P C1 Drum Pt( 1_ M-r� 8~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ N >', P~sa.w Seaweed b .,EPFLight MAP B MAPC~ / ';1 IO SITE 246 Pheasent Run, Forked River, Ocean County. MAP A: Sheet $ 39, Ocean County Soil Survey (Scale 1:20,000) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Forked River N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Forked River, N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A LwB v , Zw EwB 50 -~~~~~~~~~~~- Pa~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 4; I? ,,..~ \~A A Qr'~~~ *'Ct .~''*I N~ ~ LJ * iA**.\\~.,~r-/ - 2- A I' . i~3regat ic * *\ I- x3 * MAPSB MAPC0 1' Q~15 P PFOI . SITE 247 Victoria Point, Bar Harbor, Ocean County. MAP A: Sheet# 48, Ocean County Soil Survey (Scale 1:20,000) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Barnegat Light N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP C.- U.S.FIIW.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Barnegat Light, N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A , , ~~~~~~~. _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :U~~PO Bcarneg Light '~~~~~~ 7' I Ho~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~lly Shoal ~~~~.. ~ ~ a i /Light~u~ IM Pi~~~~~Waer* Ligh IWt N LONG~~Bai' 11 EAC MAP~~~~~ B .~ e ~~~eg~~AP LihGih MN '~ V. Watcr. q~/ * ~~'*i\ ~ Lig9 LONG HFAGR~~A:E K I- .. ..~~~~~~f L~~~~~~~htJ4>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ht24 MAPB~~~~~~~~~~~~~~3 SITE 248 The Meadows, Cape May City, Cape May County. MAP A: Sheet # 29, Cape May County Soil Survey (Scale 1:20,000) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Cape May N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Cape May N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A FM _ FL ~t.. . . . I'~"- TS :` "."'~~~' Canal A" Fnd Ouh asin Entrarwe L 'its 4j ~~~~~~~INTR1~ACOASTAL I **.:%4�~~~~~Z~\~~ ~'0P~ies ( Aj r / Sc//a u~lleger Cr ( / ~~:. /e MAP B K /~~~~~A I.. I- ,?i 'N p 'm El ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~snJ 1 E INTRAL~~~~~~~~~ MAPB ~~~~2E .7~~~~~~~r ~~~~~~~~~~~~IT~lo SITE 249 Pelican Bay, Wildwood Crest, Cape May County. MAP A: Sheets * 26 & 29, Cape May County Soil Survey (Scale 1:2?0,000) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Wildwood, N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,,000)' -- MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Wildwood, N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A TO 0 N D /F ~~~T[D>~ ~~~T L'ihits J o C 'ipestX~,1w ;./. / '. 11~ *woi II ~t lo Id ~~~~~~Il Lkori Do e,< ~~ ~~~~~~~~AP E~~~~~~~ MAPB~~~~~~~~~~~~0 MAPCe ~ 2SB. /~ ~ 2EI~ ~ A ~j~ \* , SITE 250 Capeshore Lab, King Crab Landing, Cape May County. MAP A: Sheet # 20, Cape May County Soil Survey (Scale 1:20,000) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Rio Grande, N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Rio Grande, N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A Pierces P-l ~~~~ ' ~TA O DOA~~~~irc, Beach,':. N King Crab .NR Landt~ig~ ~~~NO /.~~~~~~~~A C ~~~~~~~~~~~~~*anuti n */ m~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~' 7> 1V[ I ,D D TraIar is *~P Pierces ~ ~ ~ ~ /o /'. SITE 251 Capeshore Lab II, King Crab Landing, Cape May County. MAP A: Sheet # 20, Cape May County Soil Survey (Scale 1:20,000) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Rio Grande, N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Rio Grande, N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A Pierces Po Highs 5*ac wa rnA - k / A -; KA e)\ /in ~~~~'B ~~~~~I /'I ids . PH"' U3 ~~~~~~III f i, f'IC'e' Pit ~~~~~~~~~~~~MAPBC P.MAP EM~~~~~ire : K. P1 PF&POW ss~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~IN E.Mp0ol y-*~~~~P C)\~ A SITE 252 Toledo Ave., Wildwood Crest, Cape May County. MAP A: Sheet # 26, Cape May County Soil Survey (Scale 1:20,000) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Wildwood, N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale .1:24,000) MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Wildwood, N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A T D~~~~~~~T / ~ ~~~~ / TD ~~~~~ Ij Lake, pi /l MAP~~~~~ \ B ' W~[dood b ~~~~AU SITE 253 Tennesee Ave., Ocean City, Cape May County. MAP A: Sheet # 9, Cape May County Soil Survey (Scale 1:20,000) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Ocean City, N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) - MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Ocean City, N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A �TD~~ '�~~ ,:��~ ~ .. CUi FM Ii:~~~~ ) A >~~,/ ' , ',4: : OCEAN~~~~~~~~~~~~~� r". .,.. ---N-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~�, ..,, - FM *~~X.. *~~~~~~~~~~ ,),~ , 9~~~~~~~~~~~..:T Peck /Bay NICIPAL ~ ~ ~ AI' / cci.~~~~~'SacC - \ ~~Hil MA/ ~~~~~~~~~~MAP ~~~~~~~~MPOW E2FL E1OV - ~: Bay~~~~~~~~ E~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ,Gt, ,E2Et4 -- SITE 254 Smith Dr., Brick Twp.r Ocean County. MAP A: Sheets # 9 & 15, Ocean County Soil Survey (Scale 1:20,000) M4AP B: U.S.G.S. Point Pleasant, N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Point Pleasant, N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A ~~ (,'~~dfrSc4 v ?'~A V-. l ae, I, 0 "r LhA~~~~~~~~ Fo's~~~~~~T PON . ES EyC Ev~~~~~- 9PO . fir~~~~~~~~~~i -4 rest z Osbot tgt MAP B~~~~~~~~~ _____ LJ ~JJJjg;jN) / '- ) ~~~~~~~~~~~~MAP MAC ;i- ~~~~~~~~~~~i~~~~~le SITE 255 No. 53, Sea Meadow Dr., Parkertownr Ocean County. MAP A: Sheet * 56, Ocean County Soil Survey (Scale 1:20,000) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Tuckerton, N.J. Topogr ap-hic CGuadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Tuckerton, N.J. Quadrangle (Scale .1:24,,000) MAP A ~~ / ~~. Parkerfowwi ~ . Ri.~~~~~~~ 0 DOA~~~~~~ Ss X~~/ Ss~~~~C 14,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I ~~r~P ~( <~~/ -~MAP/ I- K *:~~~' .s<5>�\E -, Ilk �~ W~~~~~~~~E 'CV' F-~~~~~~~~g -0 Tv~~ers 72 .~~ 4 ~ . - lowA M~~~~V1~AllB SITE 256- Bay Harbor Blvd., Brick Twp., Ocean County. MAP A: Sheet # 20, Ocean County Soil Survey (Scale 1:20,000) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Lakewood, N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) - MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Lakewood, N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A horry QUuay * ~~~~~Po sa t UZ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ �7 7~~~~~~ dran erly ~ ~ ~ ' - -- ,--A-, " "( -.~~~~-.,.. ~~~HARBOR E MAP B MAP C POW~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~41 PC)~ -4~ PDW~~~~~~~ 'A~' ~~ P\0411I P~ dll ?oI . RU-1cl ~ ~~~~~~ fi ~ SITE 257 Rocknacks II, Lanoka Harbor, Ocean County. MAP A: Sheets # 36 & 40, Ocean County Soil Survey (Scale 1:20,000) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Forked River, N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Forked River, N.J. (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A * *.* ~~~Cedar B3ea-h" -, 'I... / '.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ L~ght - -~~~~~~~~~~~~~ * ~~~~~~~~Cedar CreeP. MA~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~P B PF04 r E ka C A ~ ~ ~ ~~~- b.:C -.PFi01iL f1.jL L Jrr P~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~oi ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~tut Elo~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C M~~~~ O14P-1AVPB SITE 258 Curtin Marina, end of Rt. 566, Burlington Twp., Burlington County. MAP A: Sheet # 7, Burlington County Soil Survey (Scale 1:15,840) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Bristol, N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. Narional Wetlands Inventory, Bristol, N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A ;/ k � 14 t * I.rt' ..�- Uij/1 4~ ~~ r;� aj~~~~~~~~~~~~~... Beacli-- *asB~ri -- - r *~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0 7 ~ -- - - - - - \ \ \,* *,l.6:1 77~~~~~* 7. -xnc:~' ~ 'r~ High- MAP B MAP C SITE 259 Pirate Cove Motel, Rt. 152, Egg Harbor Twp., Atlantic County. 14AP A: Sheet it 50, Atlantic County Soil Survey (Scale 1:20,000) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Ocean City, N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) M4AP C: U.S.F.WIPS. National Wetlands Inventory, Ocean City, N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A Wr TO~~~~~~~~~~~~ p.? TOM .f..,.. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A 7~~h4~~anJa . -~~~~~~~~~T~~~ M ' ~ arbor FM ge.~~~~~ .~~~~ TO ~~~~~~ FM.t~~~ T~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o r *~~~~~ ~~~4~~~4 .T~ /. N~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1 j~~~~ ~ ~ 7, ~~~~~~~~~~~~~iaa L P P -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 7 '- . .7 7C.N.~~~~~~ - 2 ) ~~~~ // ~E ki ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "\ . ~ 4 - I V~~~~~E2A SITE 260 Pureland Industrial Complex, Gloucester County. MAP A: Sheet # 12, Gloucester County Soil Survey (Scale 1:15,840) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Bridgeport, N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Bridgeport, N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A Fd . . ,.: ~~- fnoB t V~~ s Z S t e ~~~~� ~~~~~~~t ~~ _..X . - ~_. .~, :. ~ i~~~~~' "~c 'i'~ ~:� t~:.f- i:: ,'".,' T-n ~ T {~ ' " ? ~% ..'.' ~~~~~~~~~~~~' "' '.* E::: DOB DOB , .. . . f,~ :p v.'~ ... ~s~~,..r1 f~ :I: .. `:? -t: rr.l~ v..", ~~ ~ ' '; s~) ~ ::� -:.'~, ooa "~~~~~i~~~~~i ~ ~ ~ ~ ; ..~ :~, ~ ' q- ~ ~ j - - !"~~~~IO I I l in I Whf :e l' 13 N ~25 MAP B MAP C PFO RO1PFOI U. P EMR pv PCW~~~~~ ~~~~ RI PFOI ~~~POW~ FO~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~I p.5kg' 1p55j0411ga ~PEM~5 ss --PF SITE 261 The Club at Mattix Forge, Galloway Twp., Atlantic County. MAP A: Sheet # 26, Atlantic County Soil Survey (Scale 1:20,000) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Pleasantville, N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Pleasantville, N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A SaA MtA itA 19-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~N- Srice Are - t(u 'is (~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~s I N,~~~~ I' -Z. ~~Th>- -5 MAP B MAP 0 04/1- ~~ Jj I . P04- '{> ~~ Service Area\~ k PF011./ SITE 262 Alabama/Ocean Blvd., Mystic Island, Ocean County. MAP A: Sheet t 62, Ocean County Soil Survey (Scale 1:20,000) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Tuckerton & New Gretna,. ..N.J. Topographic Quadrangles (Scale 1:24,000) MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Tuckerton & New Gretna, N.J. Quadrangles (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A s s ~ ss S~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ss Ss s S ~~~~~ Ss*~ i> / c' RoaSs o' Well~~~~~~~~~~ IIi',sa LAA CI o ~~~~ '* ~~ZE EIOVV~~~~~~~~~llE tr ~~~~~~~NA SITE 263 Crossroads/Four Seasons, Barnegat, Ocean County. MAP A: Sheets # 47 & 48, Ocean County Soil Survey (Scale 1:20,000) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Forked River, N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000)' M4AP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Forked River, N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A 'ft~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~S 6A / .'~~~~~~~'~~'" ~~Ss (~~~~~~~~o~~At ~~~sA~~ss ____te , i~~~~~~~~~I Xb, -SLukea,-2 * ((7 // ( ~27 - "FM as11r igh Selln( 66 MAP B MAPC PFOI 1 F( * /~~~~ (ii~~~F0/ (�5 ~ ~ ~ F0 (~~~~~E SITE 264 Barnegat Swamp, Barnegat, Ocean County. MAP A: Sheets # 47 & 48, Ocean County Soil survey (Scale 1:20,000) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Forked River, N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Forked River, N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A rvc *'~~~~'1 Va -. / ~ ~ ....* -~h JjL P0~~~S I ( 'J~~~~~~~~~S DP8 S \71J ~~- IhA LAs .1~~~~~~~'tS III St~~ Luke6' al~~~~~~, l I ig S-II 9~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ FU I I -,~~~ PF~'~:<iifv1 (N %4J~tR o 4 ( '. F04/1 011 I I.y * i~~i I)0 PF. SITE 265 Soden Dr., Yardville, Mercer County. MAP A: Sheets # 27 & 30, Mercer County Soil Survey (Scale 1:15,840) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Trenton East, N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Trenton East, N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A ;I * * Mn U c ,v~ .~� .- ,, . :i'9~9?r ; =. '~,~~'.'d.'.~ C~~~~~I~~~~~bI~~~~~~~ * rf.7~~~~~~~~~~~~ltes mctq Bell ,~~~~~~~~~~~)e (9~ ~ '~ ~I~b5\ ~70 MAP~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. * MAP 9h, NI~~~~~~~ MAPS~~~~~~~ -PE~~~MAP SITE 266 Highland Ave., Yardville, Mercer County. MAP A: Sheets * 27 & 30, Mercer County Soil Survey (Scale 1:15,840) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Trenton East, N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000). MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Trenton East, N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A MEMO~~~~~~~~iA~~ 1;*.q 9' COL/3%IAL ~~~~ ~?OWHITE ORSE~~~ UtaV i~e'Heigh PA~ *,is~r~ -.c~ \~OR sii - '2~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~rt ,* ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ A. Pu~~~~~~~~a C-5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ CY-/. m ~ .K - -, S~~~~~~'et 4P'~A ~r' ' r~~k~~b~j.. \~~rs(Will IT. MAP B .cMAP C ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ SITE 267 Soden Dr. II, Yardville, Mercer County. MAP A: Sheets # 27 & 30, Mercer County Soil Survey (Scale 1:15,840) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Trenton East,, N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000)- MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventoryr Trenton East, N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A A*VA4OPIA L - - 'WHITE 1ORSE, rvt eg T~~~~~~f% - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 9 fr~'- H IIL'01 J' -F 45 S~~k ~~:~~::~~K~1 CIy -IdI f.. 1. -..d1.. - .;15*. '11 - I ~. 4 hi, ~rseo'v C~~~~~A U,~~~~~I Nv~. MAPB~~~~~~~E PFOI E IvnGo y~~~TE SITE 268 Grover Ave., Bordentown, Burlington County. MAP A: Sheet # 1, Burlington County Soil Survey (Scale 1:15,840) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Trenton East, N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000)- MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Trenton East, N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A Al t' S '. -., ". �1 . ., .,:' �, . : , - . ! :. ~ .~:,,,F ' .~-. ~~~~~~~~ ,1 IQ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ lit 'IR,' P55 P1701~PW SITE 269 40 Edgewood Rd. West, Bordentown, Burlington County. MAP A: Sheet # 1, Burlington County Soil Survey (Scale 1:15,840) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Trenton East, N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP C: U.S.F.W.S.National Wetlands inventory, Trenton Easto N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A -- * ~ ~~~ PA-soVINj 47 ~ ~ ~ AnA-- faitH A "X~ ~ fan . Call MAP~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-L B MP *~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r )>-'t RIL Em~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:: SITE 270 Bradlees, Rt. 206 South, Bordentown, Burlington County. MAP A: Sheet # 1, Burlington County Soil Survey (Scale 1:15,840) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Trenton East, N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Trenton East, N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A i~1. ,, �'T - _.!. T s ~~~ A.~d~v i -r�~~~~~7 ll~ M~~~~~ R,' P5- 51 PFOI PEMRa. PF~~~~~~([4 f .. 0-~~R k\~\~ ~ : N~4 ii'aLiI PEM~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0 I b 7 (4 ~~ c7) SITE 271 Ridge/Station Ave., Glendora, Camden County. MAP A: Sheet * 11, Camden County Soil Survey (Scale 1:15,840) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Runnemede, N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000)-- MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Runnemrede, N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A *~~~~~~~~~~V Baltmor N.~~~~~..v -.vr--*~~~~~~~~~~~~~77 -!-' �.1S 00 ~ ~ ~ g ~"v. ~ 2:u 'tin~ L. ~ *~ T~l~ - T!~~~~~~~~~~~~~' Pitsi/ MAP B MAP Pe 1 S.mu", P r * BM3~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~' 13~~~~ Ib' SITE 272 Hillcrest Apartments, Bordentown, Burlington County. MAP A: Sheet # 1, Burlington County Soil Survey (Scale 1:15,840) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Trenton East, N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Trenton East, N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A -~~~~ )~!3 MAP B MAPC0 SITE 273 400 Front St., Runnemede, Camden County. MAP A: Sheet # 11p Camden County Soil Survey (Scale 1:15,840) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Runnemede,, N.J. Topogr~aphic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Runnemede, N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A : ~~~~ N~4 F' - -'F *~ I.. dem'entBdg~' D64**- ~V / ~~~~~~~ 0 C~~~~~~~ 8~~M Tm' :!~24 ' Sowar~~~ ( ,, pPO~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~O SITE 274 Hilltop Dr., Pordentown, Burlington County. MAP A: Sheet # 1, Burlington County Soil Survey (Scale 1:15,840) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Trenton East, N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Trenton East, N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A 'i V W ' _ I p~~~~~~o'~~~~p SITE 275 Timber Cove Apartments, Bellmawr, Camden County. M4AP A: Sheet # 8, Camden County Soil Survey (Scale 1:15,840) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Runneinede, N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) M4AP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Runnemede, N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A FA~~~~~~~~~ , 41" ~~~~~~. ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 4w -~~~~~. Ay.~ V! - ew 'rmrY ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I Ale . / Sewage V D sposal~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ (W~~~~~~~~I.'\ I\\ :Ih' L qOAD~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~nie 3 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ __~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1 t,,~~)f'2lI~w -< ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 'U? -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ MAP BMAC PF~ AP ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ PFl Q~~~~N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~p7l Vill ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e~My Gr~~~~~~~"V ~rt '* Ir~~~ 6J SITE 276 Reliance Co., Bellmnawrt Camden County. MAP A: Sheet * 8, Camden County Soil Survey (Scale 1:15,840) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Runnemedej, N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) . MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Runnemede, N.J. Quadrangle (Sclae 1:24,000) MAP A ~~, ~ ~ ~ l A*~ ~~~~j i'~~ A 4-~~~~- to i& ~ ~~~~~~~~~% ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z X.. /~N'ew 9.'Mars" Sp N r ~ Radio 70wels COE A'~ ~ ~~~7 MAP C 4't~~ St, arys tn' -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- 7 All P0 CA~~- ~~R J O -~~~~~~~ ~F 0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~P ikCr R;~ Vill~~~~~~~~~~~~e ~ t /' Oro F:oL1 3 SITE 277 Mulford St., Millville, Cumberland County. MAP A: Sheet 1 19, Cumnberland County Soil Survey (Scale 1:20,000) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Millville, N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000)-- MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Millville, N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24.000) MAP A Eva, Eva~~~~~~~~~~~~. Le~~~~' v no~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.s, M~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~AP MAPB ~~~~~~~~~MAPC0 SITE 278 Warren Ave., Port Norris, Cumberland County. MAP A: Sheet # 40, Cumberland County Soil Survey (Scale 1:20,000) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Port Norris, N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000). MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Port Norris, N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A F---S Anthn : Port Noi~js: S * ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. ~~~~~~Shell I \ ~Pile - /~~~~ I A ~~~~~Bival e,:/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~MAPBC EM ~ ~~~~MP SITE 279 Maurice River Twp. School, Maurice River Twp., Cumberland County. MAP A: Sheet # 37, Cumberland County Soil Survey (Scale 1:20,000) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Dividing Creek, N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory. Dividing Creek, N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A ZF4 KkOA M It C, RO~~~~~~~~~r)~~~A I~~~~~~~-; I - p WI' PI~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1- p~~~~~~pT~~~~~ - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Ial ~~~~~PF~~~~P0/ LI PFO /4 SITE 280 Delsea Fire House, Rt. 47, Maurice River Twp.,, Cumnberland County. MAP A: Sheet 1 38, Cumberland County Soil Survey (Scale 1:20,000) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Port Elizabeth, N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Port Elizabeth, N.J. Quadrangle. (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A -~~~ '. � *,~~~~~AmB / ~~~~~Doichesfir..- a 4 TM~~~~~~~~~~~~~~m Fr~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~HA * Said arid GlaveI -~~~~~ / ~~~~'e', Pits - U rehe tpr ~~~~~~S.IN ~~r~~j ( *8mrSad'and Grve-L - - ~~~~~~28' .'0ib I 4, ~~~xle lii ~ ~ I' ,i .1. G a1 '5~~~~2 Lesesbui~~~~- ' . a~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1 SITE 28-1 544 Oakside Pi., Woodbury, Gloucester County. MAP A: Sheet $ 4, Glocester County Soil Survey (Scale 1:15,840) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Woodbury, N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Woodbury, N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A _8 t rk~~~tl_ ::c~~~~~T ...r. Ix;~~~~M~ - Dirl,. ;: I u ac~~~~~~~~~~ W. ~ C;i AI"Ei': ; �,.~~~~~~~~~P * 'Y%4'. * i~~~e" E~~~~~J~j - ~~~ C, f/I, 4.~~~~ci OS . *.~ ~ * III .*~~~~~~~~~~~I MAP~~~I 1 KMP, 7er~~~ O "d k Sw~ % o rl~~~~~~~~~~~ D;ppasa PEMR ' M~~~d * '~~~~~~'~~~ ~ ~~ /A A - i c..~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-,t Cors ;I bl r ib oo SITE 282 Briar Hill Lane, Woodbury, Gloucester County. MAP A: Sheet # 4, Gloucester County Soil Survey (Scale 1:15,840) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Woodbury, N.J.-Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Woodburyo N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A ~~~ W1 *~~~~~~~~A Jr,-,~-~ 'a ~7 .I. z *. * ~~~~~Red Bridge / 01~~~~~~~~~ ..'A Mud~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Swg Ay~~~~~~ 'l~-JJ1I/~h. & - *ett ;;6 I x or~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~t MAP B MAP C SITE 283 Pine Dr., Wayside, Monmouth County. MAP A: Sheet # 29, Monmouth County Soil Survey (Scale 1:15,840) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Long Branch, N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000)- MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Long Branch, N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A PK one Eva us act /" E�~ / I Evc IN~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ PFO/ ov~~/j. ~ P ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Fr A~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~l SITE 284 Polk St., Riverside, Burlington County. MAP A: Sheet # 12, Burlington County Soil Survey (Scale 1:15,840) . MAP B: U.S.G.S. Beverly, N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Beverly, N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A 1 :A /�":" ".i. " : rd:5 .. , ~-~.,, � ~� . , .,� '": ca~�;~piMa ' . ~,~ , � E)~~~~~~~. � .~,.=~ . .... 6, ,4 * its'�� c~ Oa~~~~~~~: eight, ,NE TE sal - bring lvema�r1 MAPBS MAP C SITE 285 Harris/Washington St., Riverside, Burlington County. MAP A: Sheets # 12 & 13, Burlington County Soil Survey (Scale 1:15,840) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Beverly, N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Beverly, N.J. Quadrangle (Scale .1:24,000) MAP A .. - -D :] :r~:. --"-~ .~*-;'::'~ ~.' - ~~~Diehi Pt / A ~ :*'( -20 4// ~~~~~~~Pa S~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SITE 286 Rockland Dr., Willingboro, Burlington County. MAP A: Sheet * 21, Burlington County Soil Survey (Scale 1:15,840) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Beverly, N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000)-. 14AP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Beverly, N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A 91A~~~~~~~ 4,* * Qa~~~~~~~~l.~~p- ~ ILiNB~R~V1 V~~~~~~ '4*7). 'A~ rd~ scaler~~I~I ifri.4t the Kiiig.\ (if~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Fj la k e .. -1 . Shar~~~~~~~~ 1414. 1~~ ~~~I L MAP B MAP C *S~~~ X~~~t efic f~~~~~~~~ SITE 287 Larchmont/2nd St., Beverly, Burlington County. MAP A: Sheet # 13, Burlington County Soil Survey (Scale 1:15,840) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Beverly, N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000)" MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Beverly N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A Ao Ma,( - *1' * j~~~~~~~m ~~ *'*v ~** k ~~~~Mg Cj- txn~~~~~~~o Beach2 - \~~~ ~~%: ~~~ Lt I'e; Uri * �~~~ v~~N Jll, -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1 m r~I~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1 \\ )\2~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0\K ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~IL N MAP B MA P --~~~~~~~~~~~~~~e Ry n / 22 ,N/ e Delanco -1- L~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I ''N MAPB MAPC~~~~~~~ SITE 288 Branch Rd., Oakhurst, Monmouth County. MAP A: Sheets * 29 & 30, Monmouth County Soil Survey (Scale 1:15,840) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Long Branch, N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Long Branch, N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A E---E [4 ClC __ aL~~~~~~~~I,~ -Ie~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ * . . dI~ ~ ~ ~ C ~ j 016~~~~~~~ ~ tuw * -" ) _~~~~~~1 J U I J U L' ~ al 0.* ~~~~~~~~~~- *~~~S ;. ~ 6 .1 * *~ .~. a ---*r n or 555 rpf SITE 289 Recker/Harris St., Riverside, Burlington County. MAP A: Sheets # 12 & 13, Burlington County Soil Survey (Scale 1:15,840) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Beverly, N.J. TopograPhic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Beverly, N.J. Quadrangle (Scale. 1:24,000) MAP A 14~~~~~~~~~~Ii E L . A#. Ca ~vElandt V ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ______________ 14- < - ~~~~~~~~~DieI Lt e~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ r IbO- NN - ~ B~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~MAPB MAP SITE 290 Pulaski/River Dr., Riverside, Burlington County. MAP A: Sheet # 12, Burlington County Soil Survey (Scale 1:15,840) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Beverly, N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Beverly, N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A -"'-- ;.aw Is4land Dredge~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~..:� AP Diehl Pt,~ LI os~~~~s a Zbitg?4mi~ \~'~ ~~< taj~~O?2,-~~ K~~1. rs e ~~~ ~ ~ N NJr MAP B MAPOC SITE 291 628 River Dr., Riverside, Burlington County. MAP A: Sheet # 12, Burlington County Soil Survey (Scale 1:15,840) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Beverly, N.J. Topographic Quarangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Beverly, N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A 14'4 Dmq ~~~Alt ~ brA -M 77Jj9-20 ~ A I3 auto$~--~--- _ f- ~L rs~~~/ -~~~~~ a~~~ge M\ 1I-" rgemorial ..~ ~ w~e rg $ -n -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1 ~~~~~~~~sy~~~~~~~~~~~JLo2- . - -A SITE 292 Cook Ave, NY & Longbranch RR, Laurence Harbor, Middlesex County. MAP A: Sheet # 16, Middlesex County Soil Survey (Scale 1:20,000) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Keyport & South Amboy, N.J. Topographic Quadrangles (Scale 1:24,000) MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Keyport & South Amboy, N.J. Quadrangles (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A �-B-~~~~ zv~ ~ ~~~~~~/ Seidler Beach \ .~~~~~~~~~~~~S ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.A MAP B MAPOC aurence E~~.EM ~~' '. " l~at-bor ~~~~I- SITE 293 Cottonwood Dr., Old Mill, Monmouth County. MAP A: Sheets # 53 & 58, Monmouth County Soil Survey (Scale 1:15,840) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Asbuty Park, N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Asbury Park, N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A lu ep m . S . Srr a our~~~~~~Du _ ~~~~~~~J. ~ ~ J 1~~~~~~~~~~~3 '-s.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1 Z~ LNAT~__ -~~~~~~~~~ -~~~~~~~~. CA MAP~~~~~~~. * L f a h nn .,~~~~~~A C PS~~~~~-..~~m PFOI ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ L - * ~~~~~~~~~*;~~~~~~*~~~~ hQie "N ~~~~~~~~~ig 2~~~~~~~~~~~ln -u MAPB ~~~~o MAPC SITE 294 Allenwood/Woodfield, Wall.Twp., Monmnoutb County. MAP A: Sheet * 45, Monnmoutb County Soil Survey (Scale 1:15,840) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Asbury Park, N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) 14AP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Asbury Park, N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A Ki ~~~~~~~~~~~~~FbEv LAA~~~~~~~~~~~~~0 SIAS ~~~soe -~ Cern -. '0~k2em 2-i3~~UNkY F *~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1 li1 abae , Q~~~~~~~ig~~~~~~~~~ K '~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ CrT UCFIA~~~~~~~~~~lG ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -II~ ~ ~ ~I 6SS A m~~~TR ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~il2E.1 .,l..* ~~to MAPB~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-f '00MAP SITE 295 Butternut Rd., (St. Catherine's), Old Mill, Monmouth County. MAP A: Sheets # 53 & 58, Monmouth County Soil Survey (Scale 1:15,840) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Asbury Park, N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Asbury Park, N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A �1s~O Otis~~~~~~~~~~~u r~~~~~Oi 69A/ ~~:s) ~~) ,) \~~~ZsD'i ~~~~j -reck Pond 57 % ' z'r - 'Blf arnes ,ngb- Iowa~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I ~~~ / '~~~~~~~~~~ ~par ~~~~~~~~~~~MAPBC ~~~~~~~MPC aar nes *Blansingbug~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I *'Ai 1 I " / SITE 296 Water/Birdsall St., Barnegat, Ocean County. MAP A: Sheet # 47, Ocean County Soil Survey (Scale 1:20,000) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Forked River, N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale l:24,00O)-- MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory. Forked River, N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A N'~ ~ - ~~~'-"-~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 ., 44 ~~~~~~~~~ p.- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~S ~~1* *~~~~~~** -,~~ ~~~~aA:~ T\A\\o~~~ 70!a ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-a n or' 4p * Mason~ .Tnl(Im7N -. ~ri Cer~i -~ .~-, 1c1 e ~ ~ ''Barneg~atrnega ...i /~~~~I -.- ***.0 -Cm 78 ..'J ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- Z 40 ~ ~ F0 Nla *d-*I sv' -.Brea N ~ ~ ~ ~ C7 SITE 297 Baseball Field, Water St., Barnegat, Ocean County. MAP A: Sheet # 47, Ocean County Soil Survey (Scale 1:20,000) M4AP B: U.S.G.S. Forked River, N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Forked River, N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A I /A "mu x'-. ~~~~~~~~ -.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~9 \ N (~~~~4- ~~s(T~~~~~ ~~~. ~~~~ ~~~ Dpf~~~~~~ ~LhA\S Pit 4~ 2 ., /j~ MA~~~~~~~~~~~~or4*3'P B M~~ or~~c Tank[AP u 0 N _.e 7~~~~~~~~~~~~~0.1 *~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 2 * SITE 298 Spruce Dr., Old Mill, Monmouth County. MAP A: Sheets # 53 & 58, Monmouth County Soil Survey (Scale 1:15,840) MAP B: U.S.G.S. Asbury Park, N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Asbury Park, N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A 008 t w o ~~F�i I* ~~L- tJSa Ort WDo OU J~~~ 1 . N -~~~~~~. J~4LL 11U 2 ~..Pond V * Cem inMAP4 t~~. . *. *.~P.1 ~ *62~ ~* * ~�ans~g-~ Trai r * m ~ ..~PFOj 7~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ *4L 162. ~~~~~ Blansi "gbur'pr' 93 ~~~~~~.... . - ** ~~~~~~~BM44( J 1 j / SITE 299 Holly Lake Park, Tuckerton, Ocean County. MAP A: Sheet * 59, Ocean County Soil Survey (Scale 1:20,000) M4AP B: U.S.G.S. Tuckerton, N.J. Topographic Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP C: U.S.F.W.S. National Wetlands Inventory, Tockerton, N.J. Quadrangle (Scale 1:24,000) MAP A 4] aA HaA / WoB D~~~~~~~~~~~~~Aa West Tuckertan D '� '1 ~ Ha I \4u DOA~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ *~~~ L ~~~~ T T 7~~Ha Ss ic 5"I'll, Ss~~~~~~~~~ aA~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ DaA Ss~~~~~~~~~I P J '- TWeko n ~ ~ adIng.4/~j\ -~ ~~ " Landing~ I I~~~~~~~~lo L RDrkNo. 30 41 F-m~~~.1 --~~~~~ DATE 141 0 0541____