Analysis and delineation of submerged vegetation of coastal New Jersey a case study of Little Egg Harbor

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

ANALYSIS AND DELINEATION
OF THE
SUBMERGED VEGETATION
4 OF COASTAL NEW JERSEY:
A Case Study of
Little Egg Harbor

By
Ralph E. Good *1
04
Janice Limb
Edward Lyszczek
Michael Miernik
Charles Ogrosky
Norbert Psuty
Janice Ryan
Frederick Sickels
i A

QK
175
A5 ITGERS
1978 rATE UNIVERSITY
W JERSEY
Center for Coastal and Environmental Studies

property of CSC Libr"T

ANALYSIS AND DELINEATION OF
SUBMERGED VEGETATION OF COASTAL
NEW JERSEY:

A Case Study of Little Egg Harbor

U DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
COASTAL SERVICEI'@ CENTER
2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
CHARLESTON , SC 29405-2413

This report was prepared by the Center for Coastal
and Environmental Studies at Rutgers - The State University
of New Jersey for the Office of Coastal Zone Management,
Division of Marine Services, New Jersey Department of En-
vironmental Protection.,with financial assistance from the
Office of Coastal Zone Management, National oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce,
t--7_ under the provisions of Section 305 of the Federal Coastal
Zone Management Act, P.L. 92-583.

Cz@

ANALYSIS AND DELINEATION OF
SUBMERGED VEGETATION OF COASTAL
NEW JERSEY:

A Case Study of Little Egg Harbor

by
Ralph E. Good
Edward Lyszczek
Michael Miernik
Charles Ogrosky
Norbert P. Psuty
Janice Ryan
Frederick Sickels

Cartography
Janice Limb

with
Richard Kantor
Office of Coastal
Zone Management
New Jersey Department
of Environmental
Protection

January 1978

Dr. Norbert P. Psuty, Director
Center for Coastal and Environmental Studies
Rutgers - The State University of New Jersey
Doolittle Hall - Busch Campus
New Brunswick, New Jersey 08903

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
List of Figures and Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi

1.0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.3 Submerged Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3.1 Eelgrass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3.2 Widgeon Grass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.3.3 Sea Lettuce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.3.4 Spaghetti Grass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.3.5 Gracilaria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

2.0 Methods . . * * * ' * ' ' * * * * '' * * ' * * * * ' ' 13
2.1 Field Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.2 Aerial Photography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

3.0 Results and Discussion . : * * I ** * * * * * * * * 1 23
3.1 Vegetation Field Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.1.1 Ham Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.1.2 Marshelder Islands . ... . . . . . . . . . 25
3.1.3 Shelter Island - Little Island . . . . . . 25
3.1.4 Lakes Bay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.2 Aerial Photography . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . 26
3.2.1 Aerial Flights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.2.2 Film/Filter Combinations . . . . . . . . . 29
3.2.3 Distribution of Submerged Vegetation . . . 31
3.3 Photographic and Environmental Guidelines . - - - 31
3.4 Statewide Estuarine Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

4.0 Functions of Submerged Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . 37

5.0 Present and Potential Impacts on Submerged
Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Literature Cited . . . . . * i ' * ' * . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Appendix I Field Data, Little Egg Harbor . . . . . . . . . 49
Appendix II Field Data, Lakes Bay . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Endpiece: Submerged Vegetation of Little Eqg Harbor

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1. Coastal New Jersey: Little Egg Harbor
and Lakes Bay Areas . . . . . . . . . . 3
Figure 2. Representative Seagrasses . . . . . . . . 5
Figure 3. Field Sampling Sites:
Little Egg Harbor . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Figure 4. Field Sampling Sites:
Ham Island - Long Beach Island . . . . 15
Figure 5. Field Sampling Sites:
Marsheider Islands . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Figure 6. Field Sampling Sites:
Shelter Island - Little Island . . . . . 17
Figure 7. Film Sensitivity Curves . . . . . . . . . . 20
Figure 8. Filter Absorption Curves . . . . . . . . . 21
Figure 9. Film/Filter Combinations . . . . . . . . . 28
Figure 10. Aerial Photographs - Ektachrome 200/
No. 8 Filter . . . . . ... . . . . . . 30
Figure 11. Submerged Vegetation of Little Egg
Harbor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . endpiece

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Waterfowl Known to Feed on
Aquatic Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Table 2. Guidelines for Photographic Specifica-
tions and Environmental Constraints 33

vii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors wish to express their
thanks to the numerous persons in the
University and state and local governments
who contributed information for the
preparation of this report..To Dr. David N.
Kinsey, Chief, Office of Coastal Zone
Management, N.J. Department of Environmental
Protection, for his encouragement during the
duration of the project. Mr. David Leu,
Office of Environmental Analysis, N.J.
Department of Environmental Protection,
offered advice on the film/filter procedures
and reviewed the draft manuscript. Fred Lesser,
Director, Ocean County Mosquito Commission
and his staff contributed to the early stages
of this investigation. David Vaughan, Roger
Hoden, Raymond Walker, and Wayne Ferren
assisted with field and library data collec-
tion. Gail Kucma and Mary Chaniewycz provided
assistance in the preparation of maps and
figures. Dr. Norma Good served as an
editorial consultant and integrated various
sections of this report. We are also grateful
for the assistance received from staff members
of NJDEP, the Division of Fish, Game, and
Shellfisheries' Nacote Research Station, and
the U.S. Coast Guard, Atlantic City, N.J. The
following staff persons are warmly thanked for
their cooperation in producing the manuscript:
Ms. Barbara L. Jackson, Ms. Melinda C. Bellafronte,
and Ms. Joan C. Mackey. Ms. Joanna Bednar and
Ms. Jane Welty provided friendly assistance
throughout the duration of the study.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The submerged vegetation of a portion of New Jersey's coastal
waters was investigated by personnel from the Center for Coastal and
Environmental Studies at Rutgers - The State University of New Jersey
during the period Spetember 1977 - January 1978. The project, de-
signed in cooperation with the New Jersey Office of Coastal Zone Man-
agement, N.J. Department of Environmental Protection, had as its goals
the identification and delineation of submerged vegetation in the
Little Egg Harbor estuary of New Jersey. Remote sensing was to be
utilized in attempting to delimit the important submerged macrophytes.
In addition, the functions these species play in the estuarine ecosys-
tem were to be described.

Field sampling revealed that the study area had extensive beds
of eelgrass (Zostera marina) and lesser amounts of widgeon grass
(Auppia maritima). Sig-nificant amounts of algal species important in
other New Jersey coastal bays (sea lettuce, Ulva lactuca; spaghetti
grass, Codium fragile; and a red alga, Gracil-a-HaT -were absent from
Little Egg Harbor.

This study demonstrated that the distribution of submerged vege-
tation in Little Egg Harbor could be determined through remote sens-
ing. After some experimentation, the film/filter combination of Ko-
dak Ektachrome with a Wratten No. 4 or No. 8 filter is recommended
along with certain environmental constraints. Results of the de-
lineation from the aerial photographs are shown on Figure 11.

A survey of the literature revealed that major functions of eel-
grass beds include: their role in grazing and detrital food chains;
creation of habitat for epiphytes, epifauna, finfish and shellfish;
participation in nutrient cycles;and stabilization of sediments. Al-
though eelgrass beds are viewed as an important contributor to the
normal functioning and health of estuarine ecosystems, such beds have
not been stable in the past due todisease episodes and environmental
factors.

It is anticipated that a variety of human activities associated
with coastal development are potentially harmful to submerged vege-
tation. These include thermal discharge, sewage pollution, and
dredging. Suitable habitat for the dominant vegetation, eelgrass,
is largely confined to shallow waters which might be especially vul-
nerable to human influence. The interaction of all these factors
should be carefully considered in dealing with this valuable coastal
resource.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose

The estuarine waters of New Jersey, together with their as-
sociated salt marshes, constitute a highly productive ecosystem
of considerable importance to coastal fisheries, wildlife, shore
protection and recreation. The relationships between the estu-
arine waters and the adjacent terrestrial systems with which
they may exchange materials are only understood in gross terms.
Considerable effort has already been expended in determining
the role of portions of the salt marshes along the New Jersey
coast. Aspects studied have included mapping major community
types, determination of aboveground and belowground production,
determination of caloric content and chemical composition and
some studies on decomposition. Complementary studies on the
beds of submerged vegetation of the adjacent shallow coastal
waters are lacking although these beds have been cited as func-
tioning as sediment traps, as absorbing wave energy, supplying
forage for waterfowl and shelter for fishes and crustaceans,
and as contributing to fishery resources primarily via detrital
food webs. It is the purpose of this project to initiate a
study of the submerged vegetation to begin to fill a serious
gap in knowledge of the estuarine system so that the function-
ing of the system can be better understood and managed.

The major objectives of this project are:

1. to develop methods for an accurate and efficient aerial
survey of submerged vegetation;

2. to provide a 1:24000 scale map depicting areas of sub-
merged vegetation equal to or greater than 2 hectares
in a pilot study area;

3. to discuss the ecological and economic values of the
submerged vegetation of coastal New Jersey.

Development of an aerial survey method was particularly
desirable since the high turbidity of New Jersey coastal waters
makes visual location of much of the submerged vegetation from
direct surface observation very time consuming and therefore
costly. The feasibility of delimiting submerged vegetation
through the application of remote sensing methods, as verified
with ground truth information, has been well documented (Orth
and Gordon, 1975; Seher and Tueller, 1973). For purposes of
this study, experimentation was conducted with aerial photo-
graphic techniques. The procedure consisted of conducting tests
on film/filter combinations and on different exposure levels so
as to enhance the resultant photographic images. Aerial photo-
graphy has several distinct advantages that are applicable to
this mapping problem.

1. Film/filter combinations can reduce the photographic
recording of scatter in the short wavelength region of
the visible spectrum and thus enhance image definition.

2. Information is gathered on an areal data base and is
in a mapping mode; point data from field measurements
can be extended through the areal matrix. .

3. Aerial observation provides increased water penetra-
tion and improved resolution of submerged vegetation
details as compared to that which is possible from the
water surface.

4. The photographic image is a permanent record of the
areal distribution of surface phenomena.

5. The film/filter appraoch is also favored because of
economic considerations*and the limited study period.

The aerial photography will yield data on submerged vege-
tation which will be useful to a number of offices within NJDEP
including the Division of Marine Services, the Division of Fish,
Game and Shellfisheries, Office of Coastal Zone Management,
office of Wetlands Management and office of Riparian Lands Man-
agement, as well as county and federal agencies.

The data from the photograph will be mapped at a scale of
1:24000 so as to be compatible with U.S. Geological Survey
(U.S.G.S.) 712- minute topographic quadranqles and other map re-
sources which are available to the regulatory agencies.

1.2 Study Area

Little Egg Harbor (Fig. 1) was chosen as a study site for
submerged vegetation because of its proximity to the inten-
sively studied Manahawkin salt marsh ecosystem and the existence
of some data on the distribution of submerged vegetation from
previous studies of NJDEP (W. Shoemaker, personal communication).
A second study area (Fig. 1), Lakes Bay, was chosen to include
more species in the pilot study because submerged vegetation
at Little Egg Harbor is dominated by Zostera marina. Lakes
Bay was reported to support considerable quantities of Ulva
lactuca (sea lettuce), common at other locations along the New
Jersey coast, but virtually absent in Little Egg Harbor.
Little Egg Harbor, located at 39 0 15' north latitude, is
midway between Sandy Hook to the north and Cape May Point to
the south. It is part of the extensive bay ecosystem along this
part of the New Jersey coast. These coastal bays are similar
in that they lie just east of the mainland with its fringe of
swamp forest grading into brackish and saltwater marshes and
are border@a on the east by barrier islands. Little Egg Harbor
encompasses an area of =-75 kM2 of water surface.

The harbor supports important sport fishing and clamming
industries. Pleasure boating, swimming, water skiing, and
hunting occur in the area.

Little Egg Harbor is bordered by Spartina alterniflora
dominated marshes to the west and by the residentially de-
veloped Long Beach Island to the east. Several freshwater

f\
BARNEGAT
INLET

72
SARNE
NATfO
WILDL
39 RE fu

-'n

t
1>\

Q
0

TUCKERTO
Op

1b.

.0
GREAT
WLR
BAY
LITTLE EGG
INLET

Urban Areas

CT
LAKES MY
BAY
ATLANTIC CITY
PA. N.J.

wtm

Phdad.fphi.

9 DEL.
Kilometers

Fig. 1, Coastal New Jersey: Little Egg Harbor and Lakes Bay Areas.

creeks including Westecunk and Tuckerton Creeks drain into this
bay along the western shore. Access to the ocean is provided
through Barnegat Inlet to the north and Little Egg Inlet to the
south. Tidal currents run in a north-south direction with tidal
amplitudes ranging from 0.66 to 0.81 m (Thomas, et al., 1972).
The mean depth of non-channel areas is 0.7 m (Nordstrom, et al.,
1974). Depths are the greatest in the southwestern portion of
the harbor and decrease northward. A dredged channel, the
Intracoastal Waterway, traverses the eastern side of Little
Egg Harbor.

1.3 Submerged vegetation

Shallow marine waters throughout much of the world sup-
port beds of submerged vegetation often dominated by seagrasses
which include about 50 species of monocots in two families,
the Hydrocharitaceae and Potamogetonaceae. None of the sea-
grasses are true grasses. Most of the seagrasses are tropical,
including all of the Hydrocharitaceae (Dawson, 1966). The most
widely distributed seagrass in America, and the one of prime
importance in New Jersey, is eelgrass, Zostera marina. Other
species of submerged vegetation of importance in New Jersey
waters include Ruppia maritima (widgeon grass) and macroscopic
algae such as Ulva lactuca, Codium fragile, and Gracil*aria sp.

1.3.1 Zostera marina (Fig. 2) eelgrass, occurs on the Pa-
cific coast from Alaska to Mexico and on the Atlantic coast
from Greenland to North Carolina. Zostera marina also oc-
curs along the coasts of Europe, A@@iaMinor, and eastern
Asia. Other Zostera species are found in South Africa,
Australia, Tasmania, New Zealand, Japan, and Korea (Burk-
holder and Doheny, 1968). Although eelgrass survives 0a
fairly wide range of water temperatures, a range of 5 -
270 C would include most of the areas where the plant is
established and the optimum temperature range for growth is
between 100 - 200C, (Phillips, 1974). Growth may be limit-
ed by heat rigor in summer and cold rigor in winter. Eel-
grass in considered euryhaline and has been grown in the
laboratory for considerable periods without obvious harm at
salinity ranges of 10-40 o/oo (Tutin, 1938). Its natural
depth of occurrence is associated with turbidity and the
resultant effect on light penetration. For example, Osten-
feld (1908) found the maximum depth of eelgrass in Denmark
to be 11 m in clear water and 5.4 m in turbid water whereas
Cottam and Munro (1954) found dense eelgrass in 12-15 m in
La Jolla Bay, California and patches to at least 30 m on
the slopes of the La Jolla submarine canyon. In the turbid
waters of South Oyster Bay, Long Island, eelgrass is not
found below a depth of 1.8 to 2.4 m (Burkholder and Doheny,
1968). Upper limits on growth are determined by tidal ex-
posure and desiccation (Tutin, 1942). The mean lower low
water level is a typical upper limit in Puget Sound (Phil-
lips, 1974).
Eelgrass has been reported from a wide variety of sub-
strates from soft mud to gravel and coarse sand mixtures in

Ruppia maritima

Zostera marina

Fig. 2 Representative seagrasses
re-produced by permission of the Cooperative
Exuension Service, Cook College, Rutgers-
The State University of New Jersey.

England (Tutin, 1938) and to sandy clay in the Black Sea
(Caspers, 1957). Moderate currents appear to enhance eel-
grass growth but the plants can not persist where wave
shock is regular (Phillips, 1974).

Eelgrass extends its cover principally by vegetative
rhizome growth rather than by seedlings (McRoy, 1968).
In a denundation experiment in Puget Sound, Phillips (1974)
found a littoral 1 square meter plot to contain 50 plants
from rhizome growth and 5 seedlings while an identical sub-
littoral plot contained 5 plants from rhizome growth and no
seedlings after 7 months of observation. Zostera meadows
are perennial although the individual leaf y shoot or turion
is reported to be biennial (Setchell, 1929), breaking off
after flowering the second year. In Puget Sound minimum
biomass occurs in January and February with maximum biomass
developing in June through September (Phillips, 1974).
In Massachusetts, Conover (1958) reported the peak standing
crop to occur in July with minimum in January and February.

Eelgrass beds have been cited as being of considerable
significance to fish (Peterson, 1891) and other organisms.
The beds may be important in at least several ways; as a
direct food source via the grazing chain, indirectly as
food via the detritus chain, as a substrate for epiphytes,
and as providing cover and a protected habitat. Zostera
is not utilized in fresh form by many organisms although
some waterfowl are known to feed on it (Table 1). The
detritus food chain is not well known and more difficult to
assess. Zobell and Feltham. (1942) stressed the importance
of mud bacteria associated with eelgrass beds as the food
source for marine invertebrates. The plant surface is
also a substrate for bacteria, anemones, bryozoa, hydroids,
isopods, protozoa, and small crabs. The larval stage of the
bay scallop Pecten irradians attaches to the leaves for
about a month (Davenport, 1903). Large numbers of fish are
also typically associated with eelgrass beds although most
do not feed directly on the plants.

Economic uses of eelgrass date back to early times
(Burkholder and Doheny, 1968). Ancient village sites in
Denmark give evidence of the burning of eelgrass in the pro-
duction of salt and soda. Eelgrass has been used as a fil-
ling for mattresses and as a bedding for domestic animals.
The plant also has been used as a packing and upholstering
material and as a soil additive and mulch for gardens. Per-
haps the most common use for eelgrass in modern times has
been as an insulating material.

Much interest in eelgrass beds has been associated with
the wasting disease which caused a very severe decline in
Zostera vegetation along the North Atlantic coasts of the
U-nited States and Europe. A very sharp decline observed
in the 1930's is the best documented but other declines in
the North Atlantic were noted ln 1854, 1889, 1894, 1913,
1914, 1917, and 1920-1922 (Rasmussen, 1977). Diseased

Table 1. Waterfowl Known To Feed On Aquatic Plants
(Bellrose, 1976)

Eel- Widgeon Sea
grass Grass Lettuce

Whistling swan +
(Cygnus columbianus)
Atlantic brant x x x
(Branta bernicla hrota)
TE + +
American widgeon
(Anas americana)
Gadwall + +
(Anas strepera)
American green-winged teal +
(Anas crecca carolinensis)
Mallard + +
(Anas platyrhynchos platyrhynchos)
Black d uck X
(Anas rubripes)
Pintail +
(Anas acuta acuta)
Blue-wi'n;j_edteal +
(Anas discors)
Canvasback + +
(Aythya valisineria)
Redhead +
(Aythya americana)
Greater scaup + +
(Aythya marila mariloides)
Lesser scaup + +
(Aythya affinis)
Black scoter + +
(Melanitta nigra americana)
Surf scoter + +
(Melanitta perspicillata)
Bufflehead +
(Bucephala albeola)
Ruddy duck +
(Oxyura jamaicensis rubida)

Does not utilize
+ Does utilize
x Utilizes extensively

plants yielded Tnycelia of Ophiobolus halimus and also con-
tained a slime mold, Lab rinthula macrocystis. The role
of these organisms in the disease and the possible contri-
bution of other factors, especially unusually warm winter
and summer temperatures, is discussed by Rasmussen (1977).
observed ecological consequences of this natural catastro-
phe serve to illustrate the significance of eelgrass beds.
Following the wasting disease dramatic declines of water-
fowl species directly dependent on eelgrass as a food
source occurred in Europe (Bruijns and Tanis, 1955; Ranwell
and Downing, 1959) and the United States (Moffitt and Cot-
tam, 1941). Brant counts at a location along the New Jer-
sey coast dropped from about 29,000 in the winter of 1927-
28 to about 2300 in the winter of 1932-33 (Stone, 1937).
Dexter (1944) reported declines in soft-shelled and razor
clams, lobsters, and mud crabs whereas Milne and Milne
(1951) reported reductions in cod, flounder, shellfish,
scallops, and crabs. Stauffer (1937) reported a loss of
one-third of the species characteristic of the eelgrass
system in the Wood Hole, Massachusetts area. Interest
in ecological consequences of Zostera decline in Scanda-
navia was lost when predicted catastrophic effects on
coastal fisheries did not occur (Rasmussen, 1977). Com-
parisons of Danish invertebrates in eelgrass areas before
and after the wasting disease show the disappearance of a
number of species and the present day dominance by species
not listed earlier (Rasmussen, 1977). Mechanical effects
of eelgrass removal may also be very important. Eelgrass
effectively stabilizes the bottom and reduces turbidity by
reducing currents. Erosion may increase with eelgrass de-
cline but effects are not always immediate because the
dead rhizomes bind the sediments for a time (Rasmussen,
1977). Clearly,any assessment of the effects of eelgrass
removal should include mechanical as well as biological ef-
fects. By 1944, widespread recovery of eelgrass popu-
lations had occurred in the United States (Cottam, 1945)
and by 1968 populations were of sufficient density to be
considered a nuisance (Burkholder and Doheny, 1968). In
contrast the Danish eelgrass populations described by Ras-
mussen (1977) have not recovered to any great extent.

1. 3. 2 Ruppia maritima- (Pig. 2) , widgeon grass, is an essen-
tially cosmopolitan species occurring in marine, brackish,
or inland alkaline waters (Dawson, 1966), and is the only
other seagrass in the study area. Ruppia is sometimes not
included with the seagrasses because of its frequent oc-
currence in brackish water (den Hartog, 1970), R. mari-
tima is usually found in very shallow areas of reduced
salinity along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts (Phillips,
1974) and occurs from Newfoundland to Florida along the
eastern coast of North America as well as in the West
Indies and along the Mexican coast (Moul, 1973). Ruppia
is the only Texas seagrass tolerating nonsaline conditions
(McRoy and McMillan, 1977). Phillips (1960) showed that

R. maritima is very sensitive to increases in turbidity
Eut no information is available on its light requirements.
Sensitivity to high temperatures is indicated by lethal
effects noted in the Maryland estuary when Ruppia beds
were exposed to elevated temperatures resulEingfrom the
operation of an electrical generating station (Anderson
1969). Setchell (1924) noted cessation of pollen pro-
duction at temperatures over 25 0C. Germination and seed-
ling development occurred in the range 15 0 - 200C whereas
vegetative growth and reproduction occurred in the range
20 - 25 0C. Ruppia is considered to be one of the most
valuable of the submerged aquatics, providing excellent
food and cover for fish. Waterfowl eat all parts of the
plant (see Table 1) whereas marshbirds and shorebirds eat
only its fruit and foliage (Correll and Correll, 1972).

The non-vascular submerged vegetation of New Jersey
estuarine waters includes approximately 147 species and
varieties of macroscopic algae (Taylor, 1970). Benthic
algae were estimated to contribute 33% of the July standing
crop at nearby Barnegat Bay with Zostera contributing the
remaining 67% (Moeller, 1964). Four nonvascular submerged
species occur in New Jersey coastal waters in sufficient
quantities to be potentially important. They are Ulva
lactuca (sea lettuce, Codium fragile (spaghetti gr@i_ss),
Gracilaria verrucosa, and G. folifera.

1.3.3 Ulva lactuca, sea lettuce,accounts for 10% of the
standing crop of submerged aquatic vegetation in Barnegat
Bay (Moeller, 1964) where it occurs over 12 of the 47 square
miles of bay. This species forms large bright green
sheets of irregular outline and is common in quiet waters
and salt marsh pools. It grows attached to a solid sub-
strate by means of a holdfast or as drifting sheets which
can attain a size of 1-3 m in length, being nearly as
broad (Taylor, 1937). In Great Bay, it is common from
June to January and extensive beds were observed at Barne-
gat Beach bordering Barnegat Bay (Moeller, 1964). Sea
lettuce proliferates under eutrophic conditions and can
form thick deposits on shallow areas, suffocating under-
lying stands of eelgrass (den Hartog and Polderman, 1975).
The species has no present economic value although it is
sometimes usedas food in Asian countries. However, Penkala
(1975) found that sea lettuce was the most important food
of Atlantic brant sampled in New Jersey during 1972-1974.
Sea lettuce frequently occurs as pure stands of consider-
able size and has a characteristic green appearance. This
species should be readily identifiable on aerial photo-
graphs.

1.3.4 Codium fragile ssp. tomentosoides, spaghetti grass,
is a green algae composed of numerous intertwined coeno-
cytic filaments compacted to form a macroscopic spongy
plant body, resembling bunches of thick green spaghetti.
It is typically found attached to a solid substrate by

means of a holdfast, although it can grow as unattached
fragments within a Zostera bed. Fragments can produce a
holdfast and become attached (Taylor, 1967).

Codium is found in every latitude from the equator to
the coldest parts of the temperate zone, reaching nearly to
the Polar Basin (Bouck and Morgan, 1957). It is not native
to the northeastern North American coast. Its appearance
and spread along this coast can be traced in the literature
from its appearance at Long Island, New York (Bouck and
Morgan, 1957) to Cape Cod, Massachusetts (Wood, 1962),
Maine (Coffin and Stickney, 1966), New Jersey (Taylor,
1967), Connecticut (Malinowski and Ramus, 1973), and to
Virginia (Hillson, 1976). Silva (1955) gives a brief chro-
nology of its spread through Europe beginning in about 1900.

Codium is highly competitive and is able to withstand
cold northern winters. It also initiates new growth early
in the spring before other algae begin to develop. Moeller
(1969) reports a maximum lifespan of 30 months, but the
longevity of the algae varies with location and environ-
mental conditions. It grows within salinity ranges of
17.5 to 40 o/oo and temperatures of -2.0 0 to 34.OOC. Peri-
ods of active growth in Long Island extend from April to
late October, correspondinq to a period when water tempera-
tures remain about 100 - 130C. Taylor (1970) suggests that
elevated temperatures, especially during the colder months,
may favor the proliferation of Codium. to the detriment of
other algae. In Long Island waters, the plant grows from
extreme low water spring tide level to a depth of 10 m.

Spaghetti grass provides a substrate forig species
of algae and numerous invertebrates (Moeller, 1969). Due
to its great competitive abilities it crowds out other
algae and can cause damage to oyster and scallop fisheries.
For example, it has caused considerable damage to the Long
Island Sound shellfish industry by blanketing shellfish
beds with a heavy growth (Wood, 1962; Malinowski and Ramus,
1973).

Areas of Codium infestation can be expected to be
identifiable as vegetated areas in aerial photographs.
However, when occurrence coincides with Zostera it is un-
likely that the presence of Codium. will be discernable.
Pure stands of this species have not been reported for
Barnegat Bay, Little Egg Harbor, or Great Bay.

1.3.5 Gracilaria, a red alga, accounts for 11% of the
standing crop and occurs over 17 of the 47 square miles
of Barnegat Bay (Moeller, 1964). Gracilaria verrucosa
and G. folifera both grow unattached among Zostera beds.
In Great Bay, Gracilaria is found from June to January,
being rare or absent in the spring (Moeller, 1964).
Gracilaria is used as a source of agar although the eco-
nomics of its harvest from New Jersey waters is doubtful.

The ability to identify Gracilaria in aerial photo-
graphs is questionable. Its association with eelgrass
in Barnegat Bay would be expected to mask its presence in
aerial photographs. In Lakes Bay, where eelgrass is much
less plentiful, identification may be possible.

2.0 METHODS

2.1 Field Sampling

The field sampling program was conducted to provide
interpretive "ground truth" data for the analysis of the
aerial photographs and to identify and delimit species dis-
tributions, abundances, and environmental parameters within
portions of the study areas.

Sites for field sampling (Figs. 3-6) were chosen from
visual observations made during the aerial flights and from
the photographic images obtained from the flights. Areas of
distinctive coloration and patterning were selected for the
initial field sampling. Later sites were chosen to encompass
a variety of water depths and habitat types. Particular
emphasis during the later sampling period was directed toward
areas yielding difficult to interpret photographic images or
containing unusual or distinctive features. A total of 166
stations were sampled.

Access to sampling locations was provided by a shallow
draft Boston Whaler powered by a 40 h.p. outboard motor. Data
sheets included location, date, time, water depth, secchi
readings, wind speed, sediment character, vegetation type,
percent bottom cover, and comments. Observations of the bottom
were made by a person standing in the water and viewing the
bottom through a partially submerged styrofoam box with a
glass bottom (Aquascope). Observations in water deeper than
the 0.75 m length of the Aquascope were based on samples
obtained with a scissors-type clam rake with 3 m handles.
When used with care on a soft bottom, a virtually undisturbed
0.015 M3 sample was obtained. Multiple samples were taken at
most sites where this method was employed. Several direct
visual observations were made in deep water with the aid of a
mask and snorkle to check for the accuracy of the clam rake
sampling procedure. Attempts were made to sample the para-
meters which are listed below at least once during a collec-
tion trip, but not all parameters were sampled at each site.

Depth - Water depth was measured at the time of sampling and
was not corrected for tidal effects. Depths were obtained
with a weighted rope marked in decimeters or by a scale painted
on the clam rake handle marked at quarter meter intervals.

Secchi depth - Turbidity measurements were performed with a
plexiglass secchi disk, 25 cm in diameter, painted with alter-
nating black and white quadrants. The depth at which the
black and white pattern could no longer be distinguished was
recorded as the secchi depth. This depth corresponds to
light levels which are 18% to 24% of the surface value.
(Holmes, 1970; Idso and Gilbert, 1974).

Wind - Wind velocity measurements were made with a hand held
anemometer or with a pith ball type wind gauge. Measurements
were taken from the boat at the sampling locations or at the

230
V. o232
234 j2J3
qQI

236
23 @44237
125
12A(I 126 238 -4 C
123 See Fig 4
1 - 267 tz
M266 S
129 &AI 3 See Fig. 5 270
@ / '@ID:3 A
121; 263 12 /V D
30 26 11111@ 218
265e 211 21 20221
216 19 222
223
(:ba2l 0 215
21A
7. 4 09
0? 225
0208 See Fig. 6 256 2A5
Q 44 0
0207 43
5
206 242 (*5
0 41
2AO

103dp

L E GE N Q w
_7

Sampling Site
Percent Zostera
Percent Ruppia

SPECIES PRESENT IN
UNDETERMINED AMOUNT:
Zostera
4-
Codium L.-
7

ooo Sample Site umber _4 2000
N 0 1 @00
METERS

Fig.3. Field Sampling Sites: Little Egg Harbor.

0 262

229

248

228
2279 0 249

A
226

250 254
.7-

253
-v\
251

148
252
zt

0
247 G 149

Sampling Site

Percent Zostera

Percent Ruppia
J( 246

Codium Present
ooo Sample Site Number Igo 200 - - - - - - - - - - -
METERS

Fig. 4. Field Sampling Sites: Ham Island -Long Beach.

85
186
187
188
189
190
16A
165 191
192
166
193
167
194
168
195
169
170 0113 196
171 197
172 198
173 199
174
200
175
201
176
177 202 112
0107 178 203
179 204
1
0 205
8
181
182
:71
183
7- 41

-0

4@ ;z7 109

See Enlargement 108
Above

0 Sampling Site
Percent Zostera
I(Percent Ruppia
ow Sample Site Number 290 4 0
METERS

Fig.5. Field Sampling Sites: Marshelder Islands.

101

102
76.

I A 3 -1 A7

259

0 258

260

261

0 Sampling Site
Percent Zostera

Percent Ruppia
ooo Sample Site Number

0 100 200
METERS

Fig.6. Field Sampling Sites: Shelter Island-Little Island.

Little Egg Inlet Marine Field Station away from buildings and
other obstructions.

Vegetation type - Plants viewed through the Aquascope or
brought aboard the boat with the clam rake were identified to
species. Plant specimens were collected in several locations
and examined and preserved for later, more detailed examina-
tion.

Percent bottom cover - The percentage of bottom area covered
by vegetation was estimated visually through the use of the
Aquascope or by snorkling in several of the deeper sites.
When using the clam rake in deep water, undisturbed samples
were used to estimate the percent bottom cover. In areas
yielding poor samples, no estimates were attempted.

Sediments - Sediments were categorized by the color exhibited
at the water-sediment interface and by the type of materials
present; both visual and tactile observations were made. The
presence of debris or detritus on the sediment surface was
noted. General observations at sampling sites were noted in
many cases.

Locations of the field sampling sites were plotted at
the time of sampling on plastic coated maps drawn from aerial
photographs or traced from U.S.G.S. topographic maps. Sites
in close proximity to islands or to the shoreline presented
no problems for position plotting. However, open water sites
were positioned on transects directed toward fixed landmarks.
Occasionally, sampling sites were distinguishable during aerial
surveys as lightly colored paths created by the Passage of the
propeller on the sediment interface.

2.2 Aerial Photography

A number of factors had to be calculated to permit the
photographic recording of the submerged vegetation of Little
Egg Harbor. These factors included the film/filter combina-
tion, exposure, sun angle, camera, tide level, coordination
with the ground truth team, and other photographic procedures.
Selection of a film/filter combination was complicated by the
unavailability of the experimental Kodak water penetration
film (SO-224) utilized in the study of submerged vegetation
.of Chesapeake Bay (Orth and Gordon, 1975). Therefore, it was
necessary to experiment to identify that film/filter combina-
tion which provided the best contrast between the submerged
vegetation and the surrounding submerged area (especially on
sand and mud bottoms).

Because the maximum light transmittance in turbid coastal
waters is estimated to occur at a wavelength of about 550 nm
(green portion of the electromagnetic spectrum), the spectral
sensitivity of the film to the green portion of the spectrum
is significant in determining contrast (Specht, et al., 1973).
The contrast attained also is dependent on the spectral reflec-

tance signatures of the targets in the scene and on the
spectral distribution of the energy reaching the targets.
For marine waters, the transmission peaks in the blue-green
spectral region at approximately 450 nm to 580 nm (Specht,
et al., 1973). It is impossible to alter the reflectance
properties of the targets being photographed, but it is
possible to control the relative amount of blue and green
light recorded through the use of yellow filters. Yellow
filters absorb light in the short wave-length end of the
visible portion of the spectrum (blue light). The darker the
yellow filter, the greater the amount of short wavelength
energy that is absorbed. Because the film is sensitive to
the blue band (Fig. 7), altering the amount of blue light
reaching the film affects the contrast of the elements in a
scene. The filters which were selected cut off short wave-
length radiation as demonstrated in Fig. 8.

A Kodak representative (personal communication) indicated
that results comparable to that achieved with the experimental
water penetration film could be obtained with Kodak Ektachrome
200 color reversal film and proper filtration. A Wratten
No. 4 (light yellow) filter was used in our tests based on a
recommendation by the Kodak representative. A Wratten No. 12
(deep yellow) filter also was used based on previous scientific
investigations (Orth and Gordon, 1975). In order to make the
tests more complete, a Wratten No. 8 (medium yellow) filter
also was utilized. This filter absorbs an intermediate amount
of short wavelength light (blue) compared with the Wratten
Nos. 4 and 12 filters. Additionally, Kodak Ektachrome Infra-
red film with a Wratten No. 12 filter was used. The other
test film/filter combination was Kodak Plus-X black and white
panchromatic film with a Wratten No. 25 (red) filter.

Photographs were taken using hand-held 35 mm Pentax
Spotmatics with 55 mm Super-Takumar lenses, or an Olympus OM-1
with a 50 mm Zuiko lens. Supplementary photos were taken with
a Hasselblad 500 C. A Gossen Super Pilot exposure meter was
used in exposure calculations. Both a helicopter and a
Cessna 172 were used in conducting the flights.

Four photographic missions were conducted over the study
area: 15 September, 7 and 21 October, and 17 December, 1977.
Following an initial aerial reconnaissance a number of test
sites were selected. These included Marshelder Islands,
Shelter Island, Ham Island, the eastern portion of Long Beach
Island, and a transect from Long Point on the west to Ham
Island on the east. The last site had the greatest variation
in water depth and was selected for this reason.

Exposure readings for all flights except the first were
taken with the hand-held meter. A ground reading of a mixed
sky/landscape scene and an aerial reading of the bay were
taken. The appropriate filter was placed in front of the
meter for both readings. An average of both readings provided
the base exposure upon which over and underexposure were cal-
culated. A shutter speed of 1/500 of a second was used for

KODAK EKTACHROME 200 Professional Film (Daylight)

1@0 -

Yellow- Magenta-
Forming Cyan-
Forming Layer Forming
>_ 0.0- Layer Layer
t

U)
z
W

1.0-
0
_3

10 -

300 AOO 500 600 700
WAVELENGTH (nanometers)

KODAK EKTACHROME Infrared Film
2.0

1.0 Yellow-Forming
Layer Magenta-
> Forming
@7 Layer
U)
z
W 0.0-
U) Cyan-Fo ming
0 Layer
0
_3

1.0-

TO
350 400 500 600 700 800 900 950
WAVELENGTH (nm)
r

Fig.7 Film Sensitivity Curves.

WRATTEN No.4 (light yellow)
.1% 3

z z
1% 02
LU
fn
D
z LL
< LL
a: 10% -1

100% 0 ............
200 300 AOO 500 600 700 800 900
WAVELENGTH (nanometers)

WRATTEN No.8 (medium yellow)
.1% 3

LU
0 U)
z z
1% Lu 2 moll
z D
< LL
cr LL WEB
10% Ei I

100% 0
200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

WAVELENGTH (nm)

WRATTEN No.12 (dark yellow)
.1% 3

z cl)
< z
1% LU
2

z D
U-
Z",
a: 10%
01

100% 0
200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
WAVELENGTH (nm)

Fig-8. Filter Absorption Curves.

most exposures.

Flights usually were confined to days with little or no
surface wind in order to minimize water surface glitter and
to avoid excessively turbid waters. When possible, the day
following prolonged precipitation (with resulting turbidity)
also was avoided. Photographs were taken with the sun at
the photographer's back and during a period with solar eleva-
tion of between 200 and 360 from the horizontal. Vertical
or nearly vertical shots under these conditions minimized
reflections and surface glitter. The flights were scheduled
to begin approximately one-half hour before low tide so as to
reduce the column of water above the submerged vegetation.

3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1 Vegetation Field Studies

Submerged vegetation in the Little Egg Harbor area is
strongly dominated by eelgrass. Almost half the field
stations supported Zostera while Ruppia dominance accounted
for 11% of the stations and mixed Ruppia-Zostera occurred
at 7% of the stations. Approximately 30% of the stations did
not support submerged vegetation. Since the stations were not
located at random, these percentages can not be considered
as necessarily representative of Little Egg Harbor as a whole.

Although only limited environmental data were taken (Ap-
pendix 1), some trends are apparent. Water depth appears to
be a prime factor in determining areas suitable for submerged
vegetation in the Little Egg Harbor area. Additionally,
turbidity decreases the depth to which light penetration
is adequate to support growth. Widgeon grass characteristi-
cally inhabits sheltered, shallow locations which restricts
it to island perimeters and coves as on Long Beach Island.
Depths of Ruppia-dominated stations are the smallest, averaging
4.1 dm. Eelgrass commonly occurs in dense beds in somewhat
deeper water (average 9.3 dm) away from emergent features but
may also be found near shore. Mixed Zostera-Ruppia vegetation
does occur but is not very extensive. These 9-t-ations were
largely of intermediate depths averaging 5.6 dm. At depths
greater than 1.5 m submerged vegetation was rarely found. Only
a few secchi disc readings exceeded 1 m and submerged vegeta-
tion in the area may be limited by the high turbidity generally
present. The lack of submerged vegetation on the western side
of Little Egg Harbor is probably due to greater water depths
coupled with increased turbidity (Makai, 1974; J.B. Durand,
personal communication).

Substrate type probably also plays a role in determining
vegetation type. Ruppia seems to occur largely on sand whereas
Zostera was found on a variety of muds and sands.

Dredged areas may be unsuitable for recolonization if the
bottom is below the light compensation depth or because of
siltation. Several areas of Little Egg Harbor have been cited
by Murawski (1969) as being practically anoxic and almost
totally devoid of living organisms due to previous dredging.
The largest of these areas is 14 hectares with 4 other sites
totalling an additional 13.1 hectares. Many of these areas
are near shore where submerged vegetation may have been
abundant.

At the southern end of Little Egg Harbor tidal currents
and sand deposition may be important factors excluding sub-
merged vegetation. Island configurations and U.S.G.S. topo-
graphic maps indicate large areas of recent sand deposition,
especially at the southern end of Long Beach Island. Sheltered
sites in coves and islands support patchy vegetation.

None of the algae included in the study were abundant at
many stations. Gracilaria was found at 7 stations, all in Lakes
Bay, whereas Codium occurred at 9 stations, usually as a minor
component (in terms of cover) of Zostera beds. Ulva occurred
as an associate of Gracilaria at 4 stations in Lakes Day but was
not seen in Little Egg Harbor.

The distribution and abundance of Zostera, Ruppia,and the
algal species are shown for Ham Island, Marshelder Islands,
Shelter Island-Little Island,and the remainder of Little Egg
Harbor (Figs. 3-6). These test site maps are based solely
on the field data with no input from aerial photography. The
following discussions of these areas illustrate some of the
typical patterns of submerged vegetation in the area.

3.1.1 Ham Island

The distribution of vegetation in the vicinity of Ham
Island (Fig. 4) gives evidence of a large die-back of
eelgrass within the previous year. Sampling around the
perimeter of the island yielded a dense, continuous bed of
eelgrass rhizomes. These samples were not assigned site
numbers in the data log (Appendix 1) since they represent
a continuous series of observations rather than being
discrete data points. However, samples from the northwest
corner of the island produced rhizomes in obvious stages
of decay with only a scattering of specimens with green
leaves attached. This area of recent die-back extended
over an area roughly the same size as Ham Island. An
aerial inspection of the area revealed a noticeable line
separating the surrounding deeper water areas of healthy
eelgrass beds from this depauperate area. This line may
represent the extent to which freezing or ice scouring
occurred during the severe winter of 1976-77. The
scattered live eelgrass specimens in this area may serve
as sources for vegetative recolonization.

A large mass of decaying eelgrass and Codium fragments
was encountered in the cove on the northern end of Ham
Island. This mass was first observed as a dark crescent
in the aerial photographs of 7 October and was still a
prominent feature during the flight of 17 December. Masses
of this type are common in sheltered areas of Little Egg
Harbor. In addition, a blanket of decaying macrophytes
often was encountered over widespread areas of the harbor.
The deeper northern end of the cove on Long Beach Island
east of Ham Island contains an abundance of eelgrass and
several large attached plants of Codium. The sediments
in this portion of the cove are primarily soft muds.
Widgeon grass begins to occur near the midpoint of the
cove and forms a pure stand on the shallow southern end
of the cove. Sediments in this area tend to be firmer and
composed primarily of sand. As in other portions of the
harbor, the area of mixed cover of widgeon grass and
eelgrass is not extensive.

3.1.2 Marshelder Islands

The channel between the two Marshelder Islands con-
tains a complex series of intermixed eelgrass and widgeon
grass beds (Fig. 5). Data in this area were collected
along two transects dividing the channel roughly in thirds.
Sampling sites along the transects were separated by
approximately 10 m intervals. Other sampling sites were
located along the perimeter of the islands. Currents
passing through the channel may be partially responsible
for the patterns observed. Noticeable features of this
area include a central, non-vegetated channel approximately
1 m deep at low tide and a tendency toward soft, muddy
sediments in the middle of the channel with the sides
tending to be composed of firmer silts and sands. Eel-
grass tends to grow in the muddy areas. This may be a
reflection of the.increased deposition of fine sediments
over eelgrass beds due to current reductions than to a
preference of eelgrass for muddy bottoms. Widgeon grass
tends to be found in the shallower areas of firm sediment
-composition. Unlike Ham Island, no evidence of a die-back
of eelgrass was noted in this area.

3.1.3 Shelter Island - Little Island

The Shelter Island - Little Island area (Fig. 6) is
the southern boundary of a large eelgrass bed occurring
in the northern portion of Little Egg Harbor. Southwest
of this area,depths increase,and bottom sediments are
characterized by well-worked sands.. Sediments to the
northeast are finer grained and are muddy in places.

The southwestern portion of the area between Shelter
and Little Islands presently is being covered by a layer
of clean sand. A bed of widgeon grass at this site ex-
hibits elongate growth, perhaps as compensation for burial
by the sand. Thus, the widgeon grass may stabilize the
newly transported sands,and the bottom may become elevated
in this area. The invading sand blanket is being deposited
over a dark, silty-mud bottom inhabited by a dense eel-
grass bed off the northern shore of Little Island. Con-
tinued monitoring of this interface between the vegetated
and non-vegetated portions of Little Egg Harbor may pro-
vide valuable insight into the depositional and erosional
forces active in the area.

3.1.4 Lakes Bay

Lakes Bay is very different from Little Egg Harbor.
The entire bay is characterized by a soft, muddy bottom
which was devoid of any significant amounts of attached
vegetation when sampled in December. One large area of
unattached Gracilaria was sampled at the northern end of
the bay, but all specimens appeared to be resting on the
bottom without permanent attachment. Only isolated
specimens of sea lettuce (Ulva lactuca) were obtained.

However, December is not a likely period to obtain an ac-
curate distribution of Ulva.

Lakes Bay is characterized by a restricted connection
to the sea and a higher degree of eutrophication. Although
clams are abundant, clamming in the area is prohibited
for health reasons.

3.2 Aerial Photography

3.2.1 Aerial Flights

The flight on 15 September was largely observational
with the remaining flights photographic. The 15 September,
1977 flight utilized a helicopter and recorded with un-
filtered Ektachrome and filtered (No. 25) black and white
panchromatic film at altitudes of 150 m and 300 m. Much
of the flight time was spent locating potential vegetated
sites for ground truth acquisition. Several sites pre-
viously located by boat were seen easily from the air,
suggesting that aerial direction could aid the ground-
based team in locating patches of submerged vegetation.

The flight of 7 October was made with a Cessena 172,
as were the subsequent flights. The main objective of this
flight was the selection of the proper exposure level for
optimal water penetration. Photographs from the flight
were taken with Ektachrome 200 film with a No. 8 filter
at altitudes of 300 m, 750 m, and 1500 m. The weather was
clear and haze-free with winds of 10-11 kmph. Most of the
images were exposed at I f-stop under the calculated
exposure, with some overexposures for comparative purposes.
Results clearly indicated that underexposure produced
photographs which were too dark for interpretation. An
overexposure of 1 f-stop, on the other hand, provided
sufficient contrast for the location of submerged vegetation.
Delineation was possible at all flight altitudes, but
species identification and/or differentiation proved to
be impractical.

The flight of 21 October utilized the information on
exposure determined during the previous flight to allow
testing of the following film/filter combinations at the
calculated (averaged) exposure as well as at 1 and 2 f-
stops overexposed:

Kodak Ektachrome 200/Wratten No. 4 filter

Kodak Ektachrome 200/Wratten No. 8 filter

Kodak Ektachrome 200/Wratten No. 12 filter

Kodak Ektachrome Infrared/Wratten No. 12 filter

Additionally, the color infrared film was exposed at
1 f-stop below the calculated exposure. Photographs
were taken at altitudes of 750 m, 1500 m, and 2300 m
on a clear, slightly hazy day with a moderate wind
speed of 16 kmph. Due to the time needed to expose the
array of film/filter/exposure combinations at the three
altitudes, only the Marshelder Islands and Long Point
to Ham Island transect sites could be photographed.
Whereas vegetation could be delineated at all flight
altitudes, it was easier to distinguish percent bottom
cover variations within the submerged vegetation on
the larger scale images which were taken at the lower
elevations.

The aerial photography proved to offer a measure of
detail that was considerably greater than that which could
be observed by the field team in the boat. Whereas secchi
disc depth measurements were on the order of 1 m, the
water penetration observed on the photo images was up to
3 m. Thus, the areal data were enhanced considerably
through aerial photography.

All of the film/filter combinations produced useable
results of an overexposure,of 1 f-stop, including the
infrared film as shown in Figure 9. However, differentia-
tion of vegetation of the Ektachrome Infrared film seemed
not to be as distinct as on the Ektachrome 200 film
although the blue color of the water appeared more
"natural". The Ektachrome 200/No. 12 filter combination
provided good differentiation, but the more extreme
color shift made long-term interpretation fatiguing and
potentially more error-prone. Both the No. 4 and No. 8
filters provided images in which the vegetation could
be discerned readily. It was decided that any additional
photography of the harbor should utilize the Ektachrome
200 film/No. 8 filter combination because the No. 8
filter is more widely available and yields acceptable
results. Infrared film was not used because of the
greater difficulty in calculating exposures. A paper
print enlargement was made of one of the Ektachrome 200
slides to see if interpretation was enhanced. However,
there was no apparent advantage of this procedure over
projecting the slides for visual analysis.

The flight of 17 December was conducted to obtain
photo imagery of the portions of Little Egg Harbor which
had not been covered during the earlier flights. The
flight was made utilizing a preliminary flight plan for
an area extending north from Marshelder Channel to the
northern end of Egg Island. Eighteen north-south flight
lines would be needed to cover Little Egg Harbor at an
altitude of 1,500 meters using a 35 mm camera with a
55 mm lens. The four most easterly flight lines were
found to cover the vegetation which was apparent from
the air except for a small amount of vegetation that
exists along the western margin of Little Egg Harbor.

Ektachrome Infrared/No.12 Filter Ektachrome 200/No.A Filter

Ektachrome 200/No.8 Filter Ektachrome 200/No.12 Filte

Fig.9. Film/Filter Combinations.

The latter vegetation was recorded on one additional
flight line. The water penetration on the photos was
inferior to that which had been obtained during the
October flights because of low solar elevation and cloud
cover. However, the quality was sufficient to interpret
the submerged vegetation.

3.2.2 Comparison and Analysis of Film-Filter
Combinations

The relative differences in contrast among the
various scene elements, as described under the 21
October flight description, are shown in Figure 9. These
aerial views of the Marshelder Islands, taken at an
altitude of 1,500 m, demonstrate the results obtained
with each of the film/filter combinations. The photo-
graphs suggest that the more extreme color shift which
results from the Ektachrome 200/No. 12 filter combination
might fatigue the interpreter during prolonged viewing.
The greater density range on the Ektachrome 200/No. 4 and
No. 8 combinations, as opposed to the Ektachrome Infrared/
No. 12 combination, facilitates the differentiation of
vegetated from non-vegetated areas.

Fig. 9 also illustrates the increased water pene-
tration possible from the air as opposed to surface-
based observations. In the four views of the Marshelder
Islands, the white object in the channel between the
islands is the 6 m Boston Whaler anchored in water 1 m
deep. Although good detail is provided of this area in
the photographs, secchi depth readings taken at this
location were only 6 dm.

The light, crescent shaped linear feature at the
lower left of the photograph was created by the destruc-
tion of vegetation by the passage of a boat propeller.
The dark circular object at the lower right of the photo-
graph is a portion of the aircraft's landing gear.

Figure 10 further documents the usefulness of the
Ektachrome 200/No. 8 filter combination at 4 locations
in Little Egg Harbor. The photograph of Egg Island was
taken on December 17, the remaining 3 photos being
taken on October 21.

Ham Island - The photograph of Ham Island illustrates
the dark green mottling which characterizes vegetated
areas. The light green areas between the two islands
and at the top center of the photograph represent shal
low sandy areas with sparse or non-existant vegetation.
The dark, linear features at the island's perimeter are
masses of detrital materials deposited in locations
where strong currents are absent. This photograph
clearly demonstrates the ability to delineate submerged
vegetation using aerial photography.

Daniel Island Shelter Island - Little Island

Egg Island Ham Island

Fig. 10. Aerial Photographs - Ektachrorne 200/No.8 Filter.

Egg Island - This island is surrounded by shallow,
sandy areas which appear light green in the photograph.
The dark areas in the coves and along the shore are a
combination of dense eelgrass beds and detrital deposits.
The white areas at the water's edge are breaking waves
and foam accumulations.

Shelter Island - Little Island - This photograph clearly
demonstrates the dark green Eo-ttling characteristic
of the vegetated areas. Mottling is evident at the
right center of the photograph and extends horizontally
as a broken undulating band across the lower third of
the scene. Additionally, a dark green triangular patch
of vegetation can be seen to extend from Shelter Island
at the right side of the photograph. Field sampling has
shown that this feature is a dense eelgrass bed. The
light green area next to the aircraft's wheel is a deep
(8 m) non-vegetated channel, the edge'of which is defined
by a thin, dark green horizontal line.

Daniel Island - A portion of the intracoastal waterway can
be seen in the photograph of Daniel Island. It appears
as a light 0.5 cm wide band along the shore of Long Beach
Island and passes below Daniel Island. Depths in the
channel are approximately 2.5 m while the adjoining areas
are 0.3 to 0.7 m in depth. The light green feature of
irregular outline immediately to the left of Daniel Island
is believed to be a dredged area with connections to the
intracoastal waterway. Field observations would be neces-
sary to positively identify this feature.

The dark coloration of this print makes the delinea-
tion of vegetation difficult although careful examination
reveals varying concentrations of vegetation throughout
the image, especially above the intracoastal waterway
on the left side of the photograph and around Daniel
Island.

3.2.3 Distribution of Submerged Vegetation of Little
Egg Harbor

The results of the aerial surveys of the entire study
area are shown in Fig. 11. The vegetation distribution
is based on interpretation of the aerial photographs and
visual corroboration from the aircraft. The major concen-
tration of vegetation appears in the shallow northeastern
portion of the harbor near Ham Island. Other patches are
found scattered throughout the harbor, especially in
shallow, sheltered locations.

3.3 Photographic and Environmental Guidelines

A major objective of this study was to determine if the
use of a relatively inexpensive mode of remote sensing, aerial
photography with a single film/filter combination, could be used
to delineate submerged vegetation. Based on this pilot study,

it is felt that such an approach can be used to reduce signifi-
cantly the costs of inventorying submerged vegetation along the
New Jersey coast. An additional advantage is the historical
record this method provides. This information should prove
valuable in recording the encroachment upon the vegetation
from both onshore and offshore development.

The conditions necessary to produce optimal results, with
Ektachrome 200 film and a 35 mm camera are shown in Table 2.
Interpretation of the images was complicated by a color varia-
tion in the vegetation from a light to a dark green. The vari-
ation could be a function of several factors; water depth,
site bottom characteristics, species, density, and conditions
of the vegetation. Mottled areas showing a mixture of dark
and light green shades proved to be the clue to interpretation.
Field checking revealed that this mottling indicated sparse
vegetation coverage, often near the margins of a large sub-
merged vegetation bed. Other mottled-areas merely indicated
limited expanses of sparse vegetational coverage. There were
some instances in which it was difficult to positively identi-
fy a mottled area (from the image) as a separate patch or as
the-thinning edge of a large patch. Most problem areas could
be positively identified in a visual aerial survey. Finally,
it should be stressed that there is difficulty in relating
vegetation boundaries in open water to mappable reference
points with 35 mm photography. This will be far less of a
problem with commercially flown 9 x 9 inch photography at a
scale of 1:24000 made under controlled flight conditions
because some land usually will appear in the image.

3.4 Statewide Estuarine Survey

The success of the present study strongly recommends the
initiation of a comprehensive statewide estuarine survey of
submerged vegetation. This study should include three distinct
phases; 1) obtainment of aerial images; 2) obtainment of ground
truth information, and 3) interpretation and presentation of
results. The study, conducted using commercial Photographic
techniques, will provide a working framework for coastal
planning and management by identifying areas of high ecological
value. By pinpointing these sensitive areas, non-compatible
uses may be relocated to less sensitive areas or rescheduled
for winter months when the submerged vegetation and associated
organisms may be less susceptible to damage. Efficient and
effective coastal planning demands a comprehensive data base
upon which decisions can be made. The proposed statewide
inventory of submerged vegetation will provide this needed
information.

The photographic and environmental guidelines listed in
Table 2 should be used to plan the overflight. The desirability
of conducting the photography at low tide may necessitate the
use of several flights over a period of a few days. A logical
approach would seem to be to divide the state into 3 or more
latitudinal bands. The requisite number of north-south flight
lines could then be flown for a given latitudinal band during
one photographic mission.

Table 2. Guidelines for Photographic Specifications and
Environmental Constraints (35 mm camera format)
Photographic Guidelines

Film Ektachrome 200. Sensitivity curve shown in
Figure 7.

Filter Wratten No. 4 or No. 8. Transmission curves
shown in Figure 8.

Exposure Average of a ground and aerial reading taken
with a hand-held meter; overexposure by
1 f-stop from this calculated exposure.

Shutter speed Speeds of 1/250 to 1/1000 sec. are sufficient
to eliminate motion encountered from the airplane.

Altitude An altitude of 1500 m was selected for the
camera-lens format which was used because it
offers the best compromise between detail and
the amount of flight time utilized. The
representative fraction of the imagery which
was taken at 1500 m was about 1:27,000.

Image overlap A forward overlap of 50% and a lateral overlap
of 25% are desirable.

Environmental Guidelines

Lighting A solar altitude of 500 maximum to avoid glare,
300 minimum to provide sufficient lighting
(Smith, 1968: Reeves, 1975). A cloud-free
sky for easiest interpretation of the images
is desirable.

Wind Wind speeds under 16 kmph are necessary to prevent
excessive surface glitter and minimize water
turbidity.

Tide Flights should be planned to minimize the.depth
of water which must be penetrated to view sub-
merged vegetation. Lag times between inlet
and bay tidal cycles complicate this when
extensive areas are to be surveyed.

Visibility As haze-free and clear as possible

Precipitation No photographs were taken the day of or the day
after any measureable precipitation due to the
increased water turbidity encountered at these
times.

Since the vegetative growth in the cooler northern bays
lags several weeks behind that of the warmer southern bays
(R. Good, personal observ!FLtion), a survey of vegetation
in comparable stages of growth could be accomplished by
photographing the northern portions of the state a few
weeks after the southern section has been photographed.

The recommended periods for the overflights are
April-May,when vigorous growth of the submerged vegetation
commences, June to early July, when standing crop is high
and the plants are in prime condition, and in September when
the amount of vegetation available to resident and migratory
waterfowl populations can be assessed. The period from
December through March is not recommended for photography due
to the removal of submerged vegetation by feeding waterfowl
(Table 1) and the poor weather conditions encountered at
this time.

The second phase of this study, the obtainment of ground
truth information, is vital for the interpretation of the
aerial photographs. Information is especially desirable for
areas containing plant species such as sea lettuce which
have not been sampled in Little Egg Harbor. It may be
possible, with adequate ground truth information, to differen-
tiate species composition in some areas from the aerial
images. Additionally, ground truth information will provide
a much more detailed description of the environmental factors
operating at given locations. Ground truth data should be
collected on a monthly or a seasonal basis.

Results of a statewide survey should be presented in a
form similar to Fig. 11. At this scale, the data portrayed
are compatible with a number of information sources readily
available to municipal, county, state, and federal agencies
and is appropriate for decision-making purposes.

Estimated costs (1978 dollars) for a statewide estuarine
survey are listed below:

-Direct Costs
hotography of entire N.J. coastal zone $13,000
personnel $15,000
cartography $ 4,000
preparation of final report $ 1,500
travel, field work $ 2,500
field supplies $ 1,000
office support, secretary, $ 3,000
telephone, supplies TOTAL $40,000

It should be emphasized that this statewide survey is
limited to the identification and delineation of areas of
submerged vegetation along the New Jersey coast. Additional
research concerning the life history, ecology, and function of
the species involved is highly desirable for proper manage-
ment of the coastal zone and its resources.

4,0 FUNCTIONS OF SUBMERGED VEGETATION

Most of the functions which can be attributed to the submerged
vegetation in Little Egg Harbor can be directly related to the
dominant form, Zostera marina. For convenience, major functions
can be discussed under several headings although perfect separation
of these functions may not exist in nature. The role of submerged
vegetation may be: as a contributor to the food chains of the eco-
system including the grazing and detrital food chains; as a compo-
nent in the nutrient dynamics of the estuarine system; in the
creation of habitat for juvenile fish and invertebrates (nursery
and shelter); as a substrate for epiphytic algae and associated
fauna; and as a sediment stabilizer and contributor to coastal
stability.

Seagrass beds are very productive systems, typically producing
between 500 and 1000 gC/m2/yr. (Fenchel, 1977). They are often the
dominant bottom community and hence important contributors to
primary production (Burkholder and Doheny, 1968; Mann, 1972; McRoy,
1970). Most work in marine system food chains has centered on the
role of phytoplankton with the contribution of macrophytes being
less well known. The importance to several species of local water-
fowl is well known and has already been mentioned. The grazing
food chain accounts for the consumption of only a minor fraction
of the total productivity of eelgrass.

Any menaingful assessment of the total contribution of eel-
grass must consider the decomposition process and the utilization
of detritus. This topic is summarized by Fenchel (1977). Soluble
constituents in senescent and dead plant material are usually
leached out in a short time, entering the pool of dissolved organ-
ics of the system. Some of this is adsorbed to particles and is
probably utilized by sediment bacteria. Zostera is reported to
contain about 20% water soluble organics in fresh leaves and 12%
in senescent leaves (Mann, 1972). Particle size of the detritus is
continually reduced by organisms and also mechanically by wave and
surf action. Detailed studies indicate that detritus, as such, is
not a good nutrituve source but that the associated microflora is.
Fenchel (1970, 1972) studied the gastropod Hydrobia ventrosa, the
bivalve Macoma balthica, and the amphipods Parhyallella whelpleyi
and Corophium. volutator, all of which ingest quantities of seagrass
detritus. Assimilation efficiency for the bacterial and protozoan
component was over 90%, for the microalgae 50-80%, and negligible
for the detritus proper. Kristensen (1972) studied the enzyme
systems of 22 shallow water, mostly detrital feeding invertebrates
and found they did not have enzyme systems capable of utilizing
the structural carbohydrates found in detritus. The bulk of the
plant material must pass through the bacterial or fungal portions
of the food chain before becoming useable to animals. Bacterial
counts on detrital particles of Zostera Thalassia, and other
vascular plants are in the range 109-1010 bacteria- per gram dry
weight of detritus. Approximately 2-10% of the detrital surface
is covered by bacteria. Total bacterial counts and oxygen uptake
from Thalassia-derived detritus were nearly inversely proportional
to particle size (Fenchel, 1970), indicating the importance of size
and the related surface-volume ratio. Zooflagellates and ciliates

are important consumers of detritus bacteria. Other invertebrates
near the base of the food chain include rotifers, turbellarians,
nematodes, and small crustaceans. The biomass of the microfauna
associated with detritus is of approximately the same magnitude as
the bacteria so they also form an important part of the food for
detrital feeders. Animal activity on detritus results in a posi-
tive feedback on bacterial activity by reducing particle size,
increasing oxygen availability, and regenerating mineral nutrients
(Fenchel, 1977).

The dynamics of the detritus food chain is closely related to
the role of submerged vegetation in mineral cycling. Decomposer
bacteria enrich nutrient-poor detritus particles by assimilating
.inorganics, especially nitrogen and phosphorus, from the water
(Fenchel, 1977). Availability of these nutrients may limit decom-
position rates and utilization of detritus by higher trophic levels.
Mineral nutrients may cycle largely between bacteria and animals in
detritus systems. Protein content in Zostera detritus increases
with time in much the same way as obseT-vedin salt marsh Spartina
detritus by Odum and de la Cruz (1967) and Squiers and Good (1974).

Anaerobic decomposition is probably quantitatively more impor-
tant than aerobic decomposition because anaerobic conditions are
promoted by burial of organic material by sediments and the high
oxygen demand of associated bacteria. Murawski (1969) has cited
anaerobic conditions in New Jersey dredge holes which act as traps
for organic debris and limit mixing of water. Ruppia maritima was
identified as an important contributor of detrital material. The
sulfur cycle is important and quantitatively dominant under such
conditions. Hydrogen sulfide provides a sink for heavy metals,
especially iron which precipitates as ferrous sulfide. Burrell and
Schubel (1977) have suggested that seagrass beds may also act to
remobilize and transport heavy metal pollutants. Phosphates are
liberated from iron in the presence of sulfides and this mechanism
May. be of some significance in maintaining phosphate availability
in eelgrass beds (Wood, 1965). Fenchel (1969) has described the
matter and energy dynamics of Danish shallow water areas inside
Zostera beds dominated by the sulfur cycle.

In addition to the complex trophic and nutrient relationships
briefly outlined above, seagrass beds form an important habitat
based on their physical structure. Kikuchi and Peres (.1977) have
characterized animal communities from a variety of Zostera and other
types of seagrass beds from around the world. Seagrasses are a
suitable substrate for small algae which form the base of a grazing
food chain structurally dependent on the presence of seagrass but
trophically distinct. Many invertebrates including small gastro-
pods,,amphipods, and isopods feed on the epiphytic algae (Kikuchi
1977). Algae, mostly epiphytes, had a grea
and Peres, ter biomass
than eelgrass leaves in two beds off Rhode Island studied by Nixon
and Oviatt (1972). Hard clams (Mercenaria mercenaria) and mud
snails (Nassa obsoleta) were domli-n-a-n-F-in-terms of b ass whereas
the Atlantic silverside (Menidia menidia) was the most common fish
present. The results of Th-ayer et al. (1975) in North Carolina
indicate that the fauna inside and outside of areas of eelgrass
beds are taxonomically similar but a greater number of individuals

of a somewhat smaller size occur within the eelgrass beds. The
epifauna of the beds is distinct and. not found outside the beds.
Fish biomass also is typically much larger inside the beds and
composed of a greater proportion of juveniles.

Seagrass systems perform another, perhaps less appreciated
function, sediment binding and stabilization. Underground portions
are most important in binding the sediments whereas aboveground
portions are important in slowing water movement, thus promoting
settling of suspended particles. The observation that eelgrass is
often associated with more or less muddy sediments may be more
related to sedimentation than to habitat preference. Sediment
trapping and stabilization usually results in some substrate
buildup compared to non-vegetated areas (Burrell and Schubel, 1977).
Because most of the information on the magnitude of sediment build"
up is from the tropics and subtropics where other seagrass species
occur, this function for local Zostera beds is speculative.
Changes in sediment morphology and composition have been noted
after elimination of Zostera by Cottam and Munro (1954). They
found that denudation was followed by replacement of well-anchored,
organic rich sediments by shifting sand. Wilson (1949) observed
a 2 foot reduction in sand banks in Salcombe Harbor (Great Britain)
following the disappearance of eelgrass.

Not all of the functions performed by submerged vegetation are
viewed as being beneficial. Eelgrass is sometimes viewed as an
undesirable weed, accumulating in large windrows on beaches after
storms and fouling boat propellers in the water (Burkholder and
Doheny, 1968). Dense decaying masses of vegetation may smother
benthic organisms and produce foul odors as a result of anaerobic
fermentation. Insects, such as deerflies and stableflies are
reported to breed in decaying eelgrass deposits (E.G. Rockel,
personal communication). Interfer6nce with waterskiing, bathing,
and fishing by hook and line are other activities which may be
adversely affected by dense beds of submerged vegetation (Burkholder
and Doheny, 1968). The harvest of shellfish also may be hampered
by the presence of eelgrass (T. McLoy and W. Figley, personal com-
munication).

In summary, the eelgrass system performs a variety of biologi-
cal and physical functions, many of which are interrelated. Trans-
port to other systems such as beaches and deeper offhsore waters
also may be of some importance but is little understood at present.
Viewed in terms of Odum's (1969) strategy of ecosystem development,
seagrass ecosystems are mature in a number of respects such as
complexity of food interrelationships, feedback mechanisms
between bacteria and their grazers, high diversity and structural
complexity (especially of microbes), and relatively closed mineral
cycles. Efforts to more fully evaluate these systems must await
whole system examination of their structure and function. Burrell
and Scubel (1977) state, "no multi-disciplinary coordinated efforts
to understand a seagrass ecosystem have been attempted to date and
this is a serious omission."

5.0 PRESENT AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON SUBMERGED VEGETATION

Maintenance of healthy beds of submerged vegetation is an
integral part of preserving the health of the estuarine environment.
Many of the functions of the seagrass beds are similar to those of
the salt marshes which have been recognized to be of sufficient
value to prompt legislation aimed at halting their destruction.
Similar to marshes, seagrass beds are areas of high productivity
which implies their potential importance in food chains although
few data are available on the primarily detritus-based pathways.
Seagrasses also form important habitats for many animals, not all
of which may be directly related to the beds by food relationships.
Effects on sedimentation and mineral cycling are also of significance
although largely unknown in detail. Seagrass beds here, as
elsewhere, may be expected to decline as a result of human activity.

It is extremely difficult to compare the extent of eelgrass
beds in any area of the North Atlantic because of lack of informa-
tion and natural fluctuations, such as those resulting from the
wasting disease and other natural factors. Orth.(1976) has docu-
mented the destruction of Zostera by the feeding activities of
cownose rays and possible adverse effects of high summer temperatures
which have resulted in marked fluctuations of eelgrass in Chesapeake
Bay. den Hartog and Polderman (1975) discuss a variety of possible
causes for Zostera decline in Holland including wasting disease,
cold temperature, and pollution. It is interesting to speculate
if human induced stresses such as thermal or other forms of pollu-
tion would affect the vitality or distribution of eelgrass. If
above average water temperature is an important factor in the wasting
disease, as suggested by Rasmussen (1977), thermal pollution might be
especially detrimental to Zostera, particularly in years of above
average temperatures. Other forms of human disturbance are also
likely to be detrimental to Zostera as documented by Kikuchi and
Pere'-s (1977) in the Seto Inland Sea of Japan where decreasing
catches of shrimp, crab, squid,, and some reef fishes have accom-
panied seagrass reduction. Sewage effluents would be expected to
have a detrimental effect on Zostera by promoting growth of sewage-
tolerant Ulva lactuca which forms blooms near outfalls (Guist and
Humm, 197 dther activities such as dredging for channel
maintenance or for constructing marina facilities will serve to
eliminate potential habitat for submerged vegetation. Although
not as obvious visually, boat channels and maintained waterways
remove habitat in much the same way that building a road across a
salt marsh does. Extensive boating in shallow areas of submerged
vegetation uproots and cuts plants as evident from repeated photog-
raphy in this study. Small damaged areas can be repaired by
vegetative propagation but repeated or larger disturbance can
exceed this capacity. Attempts to reestablish or initiate new
seagrass beds by transplantation have yielded poor results in
most cases (Phillips, 1974).

The construction of bulkheads and navigation channels associ-
ated with residential development adjacent to the wetlands may
produce negative impacts on the submerged vegetation system. The
depths of water off the bulkheads and in the channels may be too
great for the necessary light levels to support vegetation growth.
Further, many structures or construction which alter currents

will also influence submerged vegetation. Currents in the vicinity
of 3.5 knots are considered the upper limit for successful Zostera
growth (Phillips, 1969). Presumablyany human activities reducing
currents might create new favorable habitats wherever water and
substrate conditions are otherwise suitable.

Although still in early stages of development for the Middle
Atlantic coast, exploration for oil and gas could have major
impacts on submerged vegetation through oil spills, dreding for
pipeline corridors, and onshore support bases and associated
activities. Proper safety measures coupled with lack of major ac-
cidents may allow for this additional activity without serious
impact.

Although present data are relatively incomplete, it is clear
that seagrass beds in New Jersey, as elsewhere, are an important
part of the estuarine ecosystem. Their significance extends far
beyond the variety of waterfowl which use them as a major food
source and even beyond the many organisms which use them via the
detritus food chains. Basic knowledge of the total role of sub-
merged vegetation is very incomplete but available evidence indicates
it may be of considerable significance in the functioning of the
estuary.

LITERATURE CITED

Anderson, R.R. 1969.
Temperature and rooted aquatic plants. Ches. Sci. 10:157-
164.

Bellrose, F.C.
Ducks, Geese, and Swans of North America. Stackpole Books,
Harrisbu:,-g, PA. 543 p.

Bouck, G.B. and E. Morgan. 1957.
The occurrence of Codium in Long Island waters. Bull.
Torr. Bot. Club 84:384-387.

Bruijns, M.F.M. and J. Tanis. 1955.
De Rotganzen, Branta bernicuZa L., op Tershelling. Ardea
43:261--271.

Burkholder, P.R. and T.E. Doheny. 1968.
The biology of eelgrass. Dept. of Conservation and Waterways,
Town of Hempstead, Pt. Lookout, New York Contrib. no. 3.
120 p.

Burrell, D.C. and J.R. Schubel. 1977.
Seagrass ecosystem oceanography, p. 195-232. In C.P. McRoy
and C. Helf-Forich (ed.) Seagrass ecosystems, a scientific
perspective. Marcel Dekker, New York.

Caspers, H. 1957.
Black Sea and Sea of Azov. In J.W. Hedgepeth (ed.) Treatise
on marine ecology and paleoecology. Geol. Soc. Amer. Memoir
67:801-889.

Coffin, G.W. and A.P. Stickney. 1966.
Codium enters Maine waters. Fish. Bull. 66:159-161.

Conover, J.T. 1958.
Seasonal growth of benthic marine plants as related to
environmental factors in an estuary. Pub. Inst. Mar. Sci.
5:97-147.

Correll, D.S. and H.B. Correll. 1972.
Aquatic and wetland plants of southwestern United States.
Stanford Univ. Press, Stanford, California. 1777 p.

Cottam, C. 1945.
Eelgrass conditions along the Atlantic seaboard of North
America. Plant Dis. Rept. 29:302-310.

Cottam, C. and D.A. Munro. 1954.
Eelgrass status and environmental relations. J. Wildl. Manag.
18:449-460.

Davenport, C.B. 1903.
Animal ecology of the Cold Spring Harbor sand spit. Decennial
Publ. Univ. of Chicago 10:157-176.

Dawson, E.Y. 1966.
Marine botany, an introduction. Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
New York. 371 p.

den Hartog, C. 1970.
The seagrasses of the world. North-Holland, Amsterdam. 275 p.

den Hartog, C. and P.J.G. Polderman. 1975.
Changes in the seagrass population of the Dutch Waddenzee.
Aquat. Bot. 1:141-147.

Dexter, R.W. 1944.
Ecological significance of the disappearance of eelgrass at
Cape Ann, Massachusetts. J. Wildl. Manag. 3:173-176.

Fenchel, T. 1969.
The ecology of marine microbenthos. IV. Structure and function
of the benthic ecosystem, its chemical and physical structure,
and the microfauna community with special reference to the
ciliated protozoa. Ophelia. 6:1-182.

Fenchel, T. 1970.
Studies on the decomposition of organic detritus derived from
the turtle grass ThaZassia testudinum. Limnol. Oceanogr.
15:14-20.

Fenchel, T. 1972.
Aspects of decomposer food chains in marine benthos. Verh.
Deutch. Zool. Gesell. 65. Jahresversamml. 14:14-22.

Fenchel, T. 1977.
Aspects of the decomposition of seagrass, p. 123-145. In
C.P. McRoy and C. Helfferich (ed.) Seagrass ecosystems, a
scientific perspective. Marcel Dekker, New York.

Guist, G.G. and H.J. Humm. 1976.
Effects of sewage effluent on growth of UZva Zactuca. Florida
Scientist 39:267-271.

Hillson, C.J. 1976.
Codium invades Virginia waters. Bull. Torr. Bot. Club 103:266-
267.

Holmes, R.W. 1970.
The secchi disk in turbid coastal waters. Limnol. Oceanogr.
15:688-694.

Idso, S.B. and R.G. Gilbert. 1974.
On the universality of the Poole and Atkins secchi disk-
light extinction equation. J. Appl. Ecol. 11:399-401.

Kikuchi, T. and J.M. P"ere@s. 1977.
Consumer ecology of seagrass beds, p. 147-193. In C.P. McRoy
and C.-Helfferich (ed.) Seagrass ecosystems, a scientific
perspective. Marcel Dekker, New York.

Kristensen, J.H. 1972.
Carbohydrases of some marine invertebrates with notes on their
food and on the natural occurrence of the carbohydrates studied.
Mar. Biol. 14:130-142.

McRoy, C.P. 1968.
The distribution and biogeography of Zostera marina (eelgrass)
in Alaska. Pac. Sci. 22:504-513.

McRoy, C.P. 1970.
Standing stocks and other features of eelgrass (Zostera marina)
populations on the coast of Alaska. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada
27:1811-1821.

McRoy, C.P. and C. McMillan. 1977.
Production ecology and physiology of seagrasses, p. 53-87.
In C.P. McRoy and C. Helfferich (ed.) Seagrass ecosystems,
a scientific perspective. Marcel Dekker, New York.

Makai, J.F. 1974.
Phase II - physical-chemical studies, 11-1-19. In Eight
month study of the Little Egg Harbor - Manahawkin Bay system.
NJDEP Misc. Rept. 14m

Malinowski, K.C. and J. Ramus. 1973.
Growth of the green algae Codium fragile in a Connecticut
estuary. J. Phycol. 9:102-110.

Mann, K.H. 1972.
Macrophyte production and detritus food chains in coastal waters.
Mem. Ist. Ital. Idrobiol. 29 Suppl.: 353-383.

Milne, L.J. and M.J. Milne. 1951.
The eelgrass catastrophe. Sci. Am. 184:52-55.

Moeller, H.W. 1964.
A standing crop estimate of some marine plants in Barnegat
Bay. The Bulletin, N.J. Academy of Science 9:27-30.

Moeller, H.W. 1969.
Ecology and life history of Codium fragile ssp. tomentosoides.
Ph.D. Thesis, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey.
129 p.

Moffitt, J. and C. Cottam. 1941.
Eelgrass depletion on the Pacific coast and its effect upon
black brant. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv. Wildlife Leaflet
204, p. 26.

Moul, E.T. 1973.
Marine flora and fauna of the Northeastern U.S.; Higher plants
of the marine fringe. NOAA Tech. Rept. NMFS CIRC-384,
Dept. of Commerce. 60 D.

Murawski, W.S.; 1969.
A study of submerged dredge holes in N.J. estuaries with respect
to their fitness as finfish hdbitat. N.J. Dept. of Conservation
and Economic Development, Div. of Fish and Game Misc. Report
2m.

Nixon, S.W. and C.A. Oviatt. 1972.
Preliminary measurements of midsummer metabolism in beds of
eelgrass, Zostera marina. Ecology 53: 150-153.

Nordstrom, K.F., R.W. Hastings, and S. Bonsall. 1974.
An environmental impact assessment of maintenance dredging of
N.J. intracoastal waterway. Center for Coastal and-Environ-
mental Studies, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, N.J., 122 p.

Odum, E.P. 1969.
The strategy of ecosystem development. Science: 262-270.

Odum, E.P. and A.A. de la Cruz. 1967.
Particulate organic detritus in a Georgia salt marsh estuarine
ecosystem, p. 383-388. In G.H. Lauft (ed.) Estuaries. Amer.
Assoc. Adv. Sci. Publ. 83, Washington, D.C.

Orth, R.J. 1976.
The demise and recovery of eelgrass, Zostera marina, in the
Chesapeake Bay, Virginia. Aquat. Bot. 2:141-159.

Orth, R.J. and H. Gordon. 1975.
Remote sensing of submerged aquatic vegetation in the lower
Chesapeake Bay. Final Report to National Aeronautical and
Space Administration, Langley Research Center. 26 p.

Ostenfield, C.H. 1908.
On the ecology and distribution of the grass wrack (Zostera
marina) in Danish waters. Rept. Dan. Biol. Sta. 16:39-62.

Penkala, J.M. 1975.
Winter food habits and body weight of Atlantic brant. Proc.
Annu. Conf. Northeastern Sect. Wildl. Soc.

Peterson, C.J.G. 1891.
Fiskenes biologiske Forhold i Holbaek Fjord. Rep. Danish
Biol. Sta. 1:1-63.

Phillips, R.C. 1960.
Observations on the ecology and distribution of the Florida
seagrasses. Prof. Pap. Ser.; Florida Bd. Conserv. 2:1-72.

Phillips, R.C. 1969.
Temperate grass flats. In H.T. Odum, B.J. Copeland, E.A.
McMahan, Coastal Ecological Systems of the United States.
Vol. 2, The Conservation Foundation, Washington, D.C.

Phillips, R.C. 1974.
Transplantation of seagrasses, with special emphasis on
eelgrass (Zostera marina L.). Aquaculture, 4:161-176.

Ranwell, D.S. and B.M. Downing. 1959.
Brant goose winter feeding pattern and Zostera resources at
Scott Head Island, Norfolk. Anim. Behav. 7:42-56.

Rasmussen, E. 1977.
The wasting disease of eelgrass (Zostera marina) and its
effects on environmental factors and fauna, p. 1-51. In C.P.
McRoy and C. Helfferich (ed.) Seagrass ecosystems, a scientif-
ic perspective. Marcel Dekker, New York.

Reeves, R.G. (ed.) 1975.
Manual of remote sensing. American Society of Photogrammetry,
Falls Church, Va. 2144 p.

Seher, J.S. and P.T. Tueller. 1973.
Color aerial photos for marshland. Photogrammetric Engineering
39:489-499.

Setchell, W.A. 1924.
Ruppia and its environmental factors. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci.
10:286-288.

Setchell, W.A. 1929.
Morphological and phenological notes on Zostera marina L.
Univ. Calif. Publ. Botany 14:389-452.

Silva, P.C. 1955.
The dichotomous species of Codium in Britain. Jour. Mar. Biol.
Assoc. U.K. 34:565-577.

Smith, J.T. (ed.) 1968.
Manual of color aerial photography. American Society of
Photogrammetry. 550 p.

Specht, M.R., D. Needler, and N.L. Fritz. 1973.
New color film for water-photography penetration. Photogrammetric
Engineering 39:359-369.

Squiers, E.R. and R.E. Good. 1974.
Seasonal changes in the productivity, caloric content, and
chemical composition of a population of salt marsh cord grass
(Spartina aZternifZora). Ches. Sci. 15:63-71.

Stauffer, R.C. 1937.
Changes in the invertebrate community of a lagoon after disap-
pearance of the eelgrass. Ecology 18:427-431.

Stone' W. 1937.
Bird studies at old Cape May, an ornithology of coastal New
Jersey. Vol. 1. (1965 republication) Dover Publications, New
York. 484 p.

Taylor, J.E. 1967.
Codium reported from a N.J. estuary. Bull. Torr. Bot. Club
94:57-59.

Taylor, J.E. 1970
The ecology and seasonal periodicity of benthic marine algae
from Barnegat Bay, New Jersey. Ph.D. Thesis, Rutgers Univ.,
New Brunswick, New Jersey. 194 p.

Taylor, William R. 1937.
Marine algae of the northeastern coast of North America.
University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Mich. 427 p.

Thayer, G.W., S.M. Adams, and W.W. La Croix. 1975.
Structural and functional aspects of a recently established
Zostera marina community, p. 15-18. In L.E. Cronin (ed.)
Second International Estuarine Research Conference,
Myrtle Beach, S.C., October, 1973.

Thomas, D.L., C.B. Milstein, T.R. Tatham, E.V. Eps, D.K. Stauble,
and H.K. Hoff. 1972.
Part I. Ecological studies in the vicinity of ocean sites 7
and 8, p. 1-117. In Ecological considerations for ocean sites
off New Jersey for proposed nuclear generating stations.
Ichthyological Associates, Edward E. Raney, Director, Ithaca,
New York. 139 p.

Tutin, T.G. 1938.
The autecology of Zostera marina in relation to its wasting
disease. New Phytol. 37:50-71.

Tutin, T.G. 1942.
Zostera L. J. Ecol. 30:217-226.

Wilson, D.P. 1949.
The decline of Zostera marina L. at Salcombe and its effects
on the shore. Jour. Mar. Biol. Assoc. U.K. 28:395-412.

Wood, E.J.G. 1965.
Marine microbial ecology. Chapman and Hall Ltd. 243 p.

Wood, R.D. 1962.
Codium is carried to Cape Cod. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club
89:178-180.

Zobell, C.E. and C.B. Feltham. 1942.
The bacterial flora of a marine mud flat as an ecological factor.
Ecology 23:69-78.

Appendix I Field Data At Sampling Sites In Little Egg Harbor

rz 0
P4 rq rz
4JW 0 @4
Ca 9@. 41w
4J >, 4-1>
4j U wP 0 0
Cko
Location Sediment > Comments

101 Shelter Is. 9-15 1455 14 4 8-12 Sandy, detritus z 100 Large bed of Z
102 Shelter Is. 9-15 1505 4 3 Soft sand U I
R 50 No Z
103 Sedge Is. 9-15 1525 7 3 Sand, detritus z 50 Patchy
104 Goosebar Sedge 9-27 1130 10 9 Mod. Sand N 0 Z debris, some C, U debris
105 Goosebar Sedge 9-27 - 7 - - Sand N 0 Sparse floating Z, U
106 Goosebar Sedge 9-27 - 6 - - Sand N 0 Sparse floating Z, U
Soft sediments near plants.
107 Marshelder Is. 9-27 1350 10 10 High Silty-clay, muck z 100 Firm sand in bare spots.
108 Marshelder Is. 9-27 - 9 6 High Silty muck z 100 Long leaves
109 Marshelder Is. 9-27 - 7 6 R 90
z 10
110 Marshelder Is. 9-27 - 9 - - Sand z 50 No R
111 Marshelder Is. 10- 7 0910 4 >4 14 Sand R 50 Z detritus
112 Marshelder Is. 10- 7 0930 5 >5 10 Sand R 25 Mixed vegetation, Patchy
z 25
113 Marshelder Is. 10- 7 0945 6 >6 14 Mud z 100
114 Marshelder Is. 10- 7 1005 5.5 >5.5 11 Mud z 100
123 Egg Is. 10- 4 - - 10 - - z 100 Long leaves
124 Egg Is. 10- 4 - - - - - z 50
125 Egg Is. 10- 4 - - - - z 100 Long leaves
126 Egg Is. 10- 4 - - - - - z 25 Some mixed vegetation, Patchy
R 25
127 Egg Is. 10- 4 - - - - - z 50
128 Egg Is. 10- 4 - - - - - z 25 Z detritus
129 Egg Is. 10- 4 - - - - - z 75
130 Egg Is. 10- 4 - - - - - z 100 Long leaves

Z = Zostera C = Codium N = None
R = Kuppia U = Ulva G = Gracilaria

Appendix I Continued

Un
C)

0
H
in, a) 0 @4

4-j>
a) 4J U 10 a)P 0 0
rz U r to PQU
Q) 0) Q)
U) Location Sediment > Comments
131 Egg Is. 10- 4 - z 50
132 Egg Is. 10- 4 - R 50 Dense Z detritus
133 Egg Is. 10- 4 - z 50
143 Shelter Is. 10-11 10 9 Calm - z 100 Some dark epiphytes
144 Shelter Is. 10-11 - 7 7 Sand z <25 Z small leaves
R 25
145 Shelter Is. 10-11 - 10 - - - z 100 Long leaves, epiphytes
146 Shelter Is. 10-11 - 10 - - - z 100 Long leaves, epiphytes
147 Shelter Is. 10-11 - - - - - z 100 Long leaves
148 Cove Long 10-11 - 4 - - - R 25 R detritus
Beach Is. z 25
149 Cove Long 10-11 - 4 - - - R 50 Short R 7-10 cm
Beach Is.
150 Cove Long 10-11 - 9 - - - C <25
Reach Is. z 50
164 Marshelder Is. 10-21 1020 - - - - z 50 Z detritus
165 Marshelder Is. 10-21 - 3 - - Med-brown silt z 50
166 Marshelder Is. 10-21 - - - Med-brown silt N 0 Z detritus
167 Marshelder Is. 10-21 - - - - Med@brown silt z 25
168 Marshelder Is. 10-21 - - - - Med-brown silt z 100 Z detritus
169 Marshelder Is. 10-21 - - - - Soft brown mud z 100 Long leaves
170 Marshelder Is. 10-21 - 10 6 - Soft brown mud z 100 Mid-point of transect
Long leaves
171 Marshelder Is. 10-21 - 10 - - Soft brown mud N 0
172 Marshelder Is. 10-21 - - - Soft brown mud N 0
173 Marshelder Is. 10-21 - - - - Med-brown mud z 100 Long leaves
174 Marshelder Is. 10-21 - - - - Med-brown mud z 75 Z detritus
175 Marshelder Is. 10-21 - - - - Soft brown mud z 100 Z detritus
176 Marshelder Is. 10-21 - - - - Soft brown mud z 100 No detritus
177 Marshelder Is. 10-21 - - - - Soft brown mud z 100 No detritus
178 Marshelder Is. 10-21 - 4 - Soft brown mud z 100 No detritus
179 Marshelder Is. 10-21 - - - Soft brown mud z 90 No detritus

Appendix I Continued

H rz 0

4JW 0 P
41 a)
4J 4J>
(U U 10 W H 0 0
4-) 04
0 (U
Location Q P :3: Sediment > Comments

180 Marshelder Is. 10-21 - Soft brown mud z 75
181 Marshelder Is. 10-21 - Soft-brown mud z 50
182 Marshelder Is. 10-21 - - - Med-brown sand z 50 Patchy vegetation
183 Marshelder Is. 10-21 - - - Med-brown sand z 25 End transect
Patchy vegetation
184 Marshelder Is. 10-21 - - R <25 Begin transect
z <25 Abundant Z detritus
185 Marshelder Is. 10-21 - - N 0 Abundant Z detritus
186 Marshelder Is. 10-21 - - R 50 Z detritus
z 25
187 Marshelder Is. 10-21 - - - Med-brown silt R 50
z 50
188 Marshelder Is. 10-21 - - - Med-brown silt R 50
z 50
189 Marshelder Is. 10-21 - 2 - Med@brown silt R 50
z 50
190 Marshelder Is. 10-21 - 2 - R 95
z 5
191 Marshelder Is. 10-21 - 2 - - - R 99
z 01
192 Marshelder Is. 10-21 - 2 - - - R 99
z 01
193 Marshelder Is. 10-21 - - - - - R 90
194 Marshelder Is. 10-21 - - - - - Z_ 60
195 Marshelder Is. 10-21 - - - - - z <25 Mid-point of transect
196 Marshelder Is. 10-21 - 5 - - - z 80 Z detritus
197 Marshelder Is. 10-21 - 6 - - - z 90
198 Marshelder Is. 10-21 - 6 - - - z 90 Ln
199 Marshelder Is. 10-21 - 6 - - - z 90
200 Marshelder Is. 10-21 - 4 - - Light brown mud z 100 Long leaves, epiphytes

Appendix I Continued

H 0
04 H
0 4-3 a)0 @.4
CO P, 4J 4W
-W >-, 4J>
a) 4-) U 10 P 0 0
4J r:i 0@ U 0 M U
.H Ca H W W rj
En Location P C:1 En @i: Sediment Comments
201 Marshelder Is. 10-21 4 - - Light brown mud z 100 Long leaves, epiphytes
202 Marshelder Is. 10-21 4 - - Light brown mud z 100 Long leaves, epiphytes
203 Marshelder Is. 10-21 4 - - Light brown mud z 100 Long leaves, epiphytes
204 Marshelder Is. 10-21 4 - - Light brown mud z 100 Long leaves, epiphytes
205 Marshelder Is. 10-21 1150 2 - - Med- brown sand z 50
206 Long Point 10-21 1220 30 3 - Dark mud N 0 Near buoy #2
Transect
207 Long Point 10-21 1228 >40 - - - Could not reach bottom
Transect
208 Long Point 10-21 1230 20 4 - Med@ brown mud N 0 Z detritus
Transect
209 Long Point 10-21 1235 20 5 - Med- brown mud N 0 Z detritus
Transect
210 Long Point 10-21 1240 15 4 - Med-brown sand C - C unattached, Z patchy
Transect z
211 Long Point 10-21 - 5 4 - Med-brown sand z 100 Z detritus
Transect C
212 Long Point 10-21 - 7 5 - Med-brown silt z 100 Some filamentous brown algae
Transect
213 Long Point 10-21 - 6 6 - Soft-brown-sandy C -
Transect z -
214 Mordecai Is. 10-25 0950 17 9 0 Dark sand, mud N 0 Numerous clams
215 Mordecai Is. 10-25 1005 9 9 - Med-dark sand z 05 No detritus,
216 Mordecai Is. 10-25 1015 6 6 - Med-dark sand R 75 Plants along shore only
217 Mordecai Is. 10-25 1025 10 10 - Med-brown sand R 05 Slight Z detritus
218 Mordecai Is. 10-25 1031 10 10 - Med-brown sand R 40
219 Mordecai Is. 10-25 1045 4 4 - Med-brown sand N 0,
220 Mordecai Is. 10-25 1050 10 8 - Soft mud R 60 Large patch of vegetation
z 40
221 Mordecai Is. 10-25 1100 5 5 Med-brown silt N 0

Appendix I Continued

41 ai0 @-4
.H 1@4 CO P4 4JW
4 W 4J>
a) Q) U 10 wE-4 0 0
4-J P. U w U
.H M H a) Q) (U
V) Location r., F4 P tn Sediment 8M Comments

222 Mordecai Is. 10-25 - 7 7 Med-brown sand N 0
223 Mordecai Is. 10-25 1110 6 6 Med-brown sand R < 9-5 Sparse patches R
224 Mordecai Is. 10-25 1112 8 8 - Med-,brown sand N 0
225 Mordecai Is. 10-25 - - - Med-brown sand N 0
226 Ham Is. 10-25 1230 5 5 - z 99
C 1
227 Ham Is. 10-25 - 4 4 - Med-brown sand R 100 Z detritus
228 Ham Is. 10-25 1235 3 3 - Light sand R 20 Z and R detritus
229 Ham Is. 10-25 1250 7 7 - z 100 -
230 High Is. Area 10-25 1305 9 9 - Med-brown sand z 100 -
232 High Is. Area 10-25 1320 >40 14 - z 100 -
233 High Is. Area 10-25 1330 9 9 - z 100 -
234 High Is. Area 10-25 - 12 12 - z 100 -
235 High Is. Area 10-25 - 8 8 - Med-brown sand z 100 -
236 High Is. 10-25 - 4 4 - Med-brown sand R 70 Z detritus
237 High Is. 10-25 1340 7 7 - Light sand R <25
z 75
238 High Is. 10-25 - 3 3 - Med-brown sand R 50 Z and C detritus
239 High Is. 10-25 1400 4 4 - Light sand R 25
z 25
240 Long Point 10-25 1430 30 8 - Med-brown sand N 0
Transect
241 Long Point 10-25 - 30 8 - Med-brown silt N 0
Transect
242 Long Point 10-25 - 30 - - Dark mud N 0 Z detritus
Transect
243 Long Point 10-25 - 10 - - Med-brown sand N 0
Transact U1
244 Long Point 10-25 - 7 - - Light sand N 0 Ripple marks on sand
Transect

Appendix I Continued

0
nZI 04 H r.
4-1w 0 P

w Q) -W U ra WE-4 0 0
.H j_j 04 U to ppU
Ca w Q) a)
Location 1=1 P- w Sediment > b@@O Comments
245 Long Point 10-25 20 - Med-brown sand N 0 Z and C detritus
Transect
246 Ham Island 11- 9 1330 10 >10 0 Firm sand and silt Z 100 C on clam shell
C
247 Ham Is. 11- 9 - 10 >10 Sand Z 50 Patchy, C fragments
C
248 Ham Is. 11- 9 - 10 - - Sand Z 100 -
249 Ham Is. 11- 9 - 10 - - Sand Z 100 -
250 Ham Is. 11- 9 10 Sand Z 100 -
251 Ham Is. 11- 9 - 10 Sand Z 100 -
252 Ham Is. 11- 9 - 10 - Sand Z 100 -
253 Ham Is. 11- 9 - 10 - Sand Z 100 -
254 Ham Is. 11- 9 1545 10 - Sand Z 100 -
256 Shelter Is. 11-16 0930 10 6 Sand Z 90 Short Z
Area (south) C -
257 Shelter Is. 11-16 - 15 - Sand Z 50 Area of sand deposition
Area
258 Shelter Is. 11-16 - 10 - Mud N 0
Area
259 Shelter Is. 11-16 - 5 - Sand (rippled) R 10 Area of sand deposition
Area -
260 Shelter Is. 11-16 - 10 - Sand R 10 Area of sand deposition
Area
261 Little Is. area 11-16 - 12 - Mud Z 100 No sand
262 Ham Is. 11-16 - 17 - Med-dark sand N 0 Numerous dead rhizomes
263 Ham Is. area 11-16 - 14 - Med-dark sand Z 100
264 Ham Is. area 11-16 - 14 - Med-dark sand Z 100
265 Ham Is. area 11-16 - 14 - Med-dark sand Z 100
266 Ham Is. area 11-16 16 - - Med-dark sand Z - Many dead rhizomes
267 Ham Is. area 11-16 16 - - Med-dark sand Z - Many dead rhizomes

Appendix I Continued

0
H F@ @4
4-1 0) 0 0)
ca C:L@ 4j >
>1 41 0
a) r@ (U 4-J Q)P 0 U
41 4-j f@ C14 to Pq
.H CO H Q) Qj H a)
M T,ocation a@ E--1 4:) @3: Sediment > b'@' CnmmPntq
268 Cove, Long 12-2 1200 15 - light sand N 0 1 fragment U
Beach Is.
269 Cove near 12-2 1215 10 sand & cobbles z <25
Mordeccai Is.
270 Cove Long 12-2 1240 23 13 mud z <25
Beach Is.

Ln
Ln

Appendix II Field Data At Sampling Sites In Lakes Bay

a) 0P
Cz 4J Q)
4j 4-1>
w a) WE-4 00
-W r=: 04 U U
.H CO H w w
rn Location 1=@ F-4 C:@ M @3: Sediment > Comments

271 Lakes Bay 12-16 1020 18 12 0-9 soft mud U - -
G 100
272 Lakes Bay 12-16 - 18 - - soft mud G 100 -
273 Lakes Bay 12-16 - 20 - - soft mud G 100 -
274 Lakes Bay 12-16 - 20 - - soft mud U <25 -
G <25
275 Lakes Bay 12-16 - 20 - - mud N 0 -
276 Lakes Bay 12-16 - 15 - - mud N 0
277 Lakes Bay 12-16 - 13 - - mud N 0
278 Lakes Bay 12-16 - 8 - - pebbles, black- N 0 no algae on pebbles
top debris
279 Lakes Bay 12-16 - 20 - - mud N 0
280 Lakes Bay 12-16 - 20 10 - mud N 0 numerous clams
281 Lakes Bay 12-16 - 20 - - mud N 0 numerous clams
282 Lakes Bay 12-16 - 20 - - mud N 0 numerous clams
283 Lakes Bay 12-16 - 20 - - mud N 0 numerous clams
284 Lakes Bay 12-16 - 20 - - mud N 0 -
285 Lakes Bay 12-16 - 13 - - mud N 0 -
286 Lakes Bay 12-16 1155 13 - - mud N 0 -
287 Lakes Bay 12-16 1200 13 - - mud U <25 -
G <25
288 Lakes Bay 12-16 15 - - mud N 0 -
289 Lakes Bay 12-16 - 15 - - mud N 0 -
290 Lakes Bay 12-16 - 13 - - mud N 0 -
291 Lakes Bay 12-16 - 18 - - mud N 0 -
292 Lakes Bay 12-16 - 18 - - firm mud G 20
293 Lakes Bay 12-16 - 25 - - soft mud U <25 -
G 50

Z = Zostera C = Codium N = None
R = Ruppia U = Ulva G = Gracilaria

Appendix II Continued

Ln
CO
0
H
-Ww 0 w
Ca C@W 4J>
" @>' -W0
U ro a)H 0 U
4J 4j U
Location E-4 1:@ Sediment > b@@O Comments

294 Lakes Bay 12-16 - 18 mud N 0
295 Lakes Bay 12-16 - 18 mud N 0
296 Lakes Bay 12-16 - 20 mud, peat N 0 peat on bottom
297 Lakes Bay 12-16 - 15 sandy mud N 0 numerous clams
298 Lakes Bay 12-16 - 23 sandy mud N 0 numerous clams

3 6668 00001 1546

Front Cover: Greatly enlarged portion of a 35 mm color slide of the
Marshelder Islands, Little Egg-Harbor, New Jersey. The dark areas in
the waters around the islands are areas of submerged vegetation.
See Figure 9 for more detailed images.