Estuarine Research

ESTUARINE
RESEARCH,
MONITORING,
and RESOURCE
PROTECTION
MARINE SCI. series 61/8X91/4 7/14/03 1:31 PM Page 1
Marine Science Series

The CRC Marine Science Series is dedicated to providing state-of-the-
art coverage of important topics in marine biology, marine chemistry, marine
geology, and physical oceanography. The series includes volumes that focus
on the synthesis of recent advances in marine science.
CRC MARINE SCIENCE SERIES
SERIES EDITOR
Michael J. Kennish, Ph.D.
PUBLISHED TITLES
Artificial Reef Evaluation with Application to Natural Marine Habitats,
William Seaman, Jr.
Chemical Oceanography, Second Edition, Frank J. Millero
Coastal Ecosystem Processes, Daniel M. Alongi
Ecology of Estuaries: Anthropogenic Effects, Michael J. Kennish
Ecology of Marine Bivalves: An Ecosystem Approach, Richard F. Dame
Ecology of Marine Invertebrate Larvae, Larry McEdward
Ecology of Seashores, George A. Knox
Environmental Oceanography, Second Edition, Tom Beer
Estuary Restoration and Maintenance: The National Estuary Program,
Michael J. Kennish
Eutrophication Processes in Coastal Systems: Origin and Succession
of Plankton Blooms and Effects on Secondary Production in
Gulf Coast Estuaries, Robert J. Livingston
Handbook of Marine Mineral Deposits, David S. Cronan
Handbook for Restoring Tidal Wetlands, Joy B. Zedler
Intertidal Deposits: River Mouths, Tidal Flats, and Coastal Lagoons,
Doeke Eisma
Marine Chemical Ecology, James B. McClintock and Bill J. Baker
Morphodynamics of Inner Continental Shelves, L. Donelson Wright
Ocean Pollution: Effects on Living Resources and Humans, Carl J. Sindermann
Physical Oceanographic Processes of the Great Barrier Reef, Eric Wolanski
The Physiology of Fishes, Second Edition, David H. Evans
Pollution Impacts on Marine Biotic Communities, Michael J. Kennish
Practical Handbook of Estuarine and Marine Pollution, Michael J. Kennish
Practical Handbook of Marine Science, Third Edition, Michael J. Kennish
Seagrasses: Monitoring, Ecology, Physiology, and Management,
Stephen A. Bortone
Trophic Organization in Coastal Systems, Robert J. Livingston
ESTUARINE
RESEARCH,
MONITORING,
and RESOURCE
PROTECTION
Edited by
Michael J. Kennish
Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences
Rutgers University
New Brunswick, New Jersey
CRC PR E S S
Boca Raton London New York Washington, D.C.
The cover design was created by Scott M. Haag of the Center for Remote Sensing and Spatial Analysis
at Rutgers University. It is a Landsat image of the Jacques Cousteau National Estuarine Research Reserve
and surrounding coastal bays and watersheds of New Jersey. The original satellite image is from the U.S.
Geological Survey EROS Data Center, Sioux Falls, South Dakota (http://idcm.usgs.gov/).
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Estuarine research, monitoring, and resource protection / edited by Michael J. Kennish.

p. cm. -- (Marine science series)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-8493-1960-9
1. National Estuarine Research Reserve System. 2. Estuarine ecology--United
States--Case studies. 3. Environmental monitoring--United States--Case studies. I.
Kennish, Michael J. II. Series.
QH76.E86 2003
577.7′86′0973--dc21 2003053062
This book contains information obtained from authentic and highly regarded sources. Reprinted material
is quoted with permission, and sources are indicated. A wide variety of references are listed. Reasonable
efforts have been made to publish reliable data and information, but the author and the publisher cannot
assume responsibility for the validity of all materials or for the consequences of their use.
Neither this book nor any part may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic
or mechanical, including photocopying, microfilming, and recording, or by any information storage or
retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publisher.
The consent of CRC Press LLC does not extend to copying for general distribution, for promotion, for
creating new works, or for resale. Specific permission must be obtained in writing from CRC Press LLC
for such copying.
Direct all inquiries to CRC Press LLC, 2000 N.W. Corporate Blvd., Boca Raton, Florida 33431.
Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are
used only for identification and explanation, without intent to infringe.
Visit the CRC Press Web site at www.crcpress.com
© 2004 by CRC Press LLC
No claim to original U.S. Government works

International Standard Book Number 0-8493-1960-9
Library of Congress Card Number 2003053062
Printed in the United States of America 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0
Printed on acid-free paper
Dedication
This book is dedicated to

the National Estuarine Research Reserve System.
Preface
Estuarine Research, Monitoring, and Resource Protection is principally designed as
a reference volume for estuarine and watershed scientists, resource managers, deci-
sion makers, and other professionals who deal with coastal zone issues. Information
contained in this volume will be useful to individuals conducting either basic or
applied research on estuaries. It will also be valuable to administrators engaged in
coastal resource management programs.
This book is an outgrowth of my work as research coordinator of the Jacques
Cousteau National Estuarine Research Reserve (JCNERR) in New Jersey. I thank
my colleagues at the JCNERR who comprise a remarkably cohesive and competent
group of researchers, administrators, and support staff. They include Michael P.
DeLuca (reserve manager), Scott Haag (GIS coordinator), Josephine Kozic (volun-
teer coordinator), Janice McDonnell (assistant manager), Eric Simms (education
coordinator), and Lisa Weiss (watershed coordinator). These individuals are dedi-
cated professionals who have played major roles in the successful development and
expansion of the program site.
Estuarine Research, Monitoring, and Resource Protection provides an overview
of the National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS). I would like to thank
many members of the NERRS program who have supplied data, site profile reports,
and other information vital to the production of the volume. At the Estuarine Reserves
Division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), I thank
Laurie McGilvray (chief), Maurice Crawford (research coordinator), and Erica
Seiden (program specialist). At NERR program sites, I thank Betty Wenner (research
coordinator) and Saundra Upchurch (reserve biologist) of the Ashepoo–Com-
bahee–Edisto (ACE) Basin NERR, Lee Edmiston (research coordinator) of the
Apalachicola NERR, Julie Bortz (research coordinator) of the Chesapeake Bay
(Maryland) NERR, Willy Reay (reserve manager) and Ken Moore (research coor-
dinator) of the Chesapeake Bay (Virginia) NERR, Bob Scarborough (research coor-
dinator) of the Delaware NERR, Kerstin Wasson (research coordinator) of the Elkorn
Slough NERR, Brian Smith (research coordinator) of the Great Bay NERR, Rick
Gleeson (research coordinator) of the Guana Tolomato Matanzas (GTM) NERR,
Chuck Nieder (research coordinator) of the Hudson River NERR, Carmen Gonzalez
(reserve manager) of the Jobos Bay NERR, Carl Schoch (research coordinator) of
the Kachemak Bay NERR, Kenny Reposa (research coordinator) of the Narragansett
Bay NERR, Steve Ross (research coordinator) of the North Carolina NERR, Chris
Buzzelli (research coordinator) of the North Inlet-Winyah Bay NERR, Dave Klarer
(research coordinator) of the Old Woman Creek NERR, Doug Bulthuis (research
coordinator) of the Padilla Bay NERR, Mike Shirley (research coordinator) of the
Rookery Bay NERR, Dorset Hurley (research coordinator) of the Sapelo Island
NERR, Steve Rumrill (research coordinator) of the South Slough NERR, Jeff Crooks
(research coordinator) of the Tijuana River NERR, Chris Weidman (research coor-
dinator) of the Waquoit Bay NERR, Scott Phipps (research coordinator) of the Weeks
Bay NERR, and Michele Dionne (research coordinator) of the Wells NERR. Special
thanks to Tammy Small, Manager of the Centralized Data Management Office, for
providing water quality data on NERRS program sites. Dwight Trueblood, Co-
Director of the Cooperative Institute for Coastal and Estuarine Environmental Tech-
nology (CICEET), is likewise thanked for his involvement in the NERRS Program.
Special gratitude is extended to the Waquoit Bay NERR, Delaware NERR, ACE
Basin NERR, Weeks Bay NERR, and Tijuana River NERR, whose profile reports
constituted valuable sources of information for this publication.
I would also like to acknowledge the work of Ken Able (Rutgers University)
and his staff on the JCNERR system in New Jersey, Skip Livingston (Florida State
University) on the Apalachicola NERR in Florida, Ivan Valiela (Boston University
Marine Program) on the Waquoit Bay NERR, and Joy Zedler on the Tijuana River
NERR in Southern California. These investigators have produced extensive databases
on important estuarine systems in the NERRS program.
I am especially grateful to the editorial and production personnel of CRC Press
who are responsible for publishing this book. In particular, I express appreciation
to John B. Sulzycki, senior editor, and Christine Andreasen, production editor, of
the editorial and production departments, respectively.
This is Publication Number 2003–17 of the Institute of Marine and Coastal
Sciences, Rutgers University, and Contribution Number 100-23 of the Jacques Cous-
teau National Estuarine Research Reserve. Work on this volume was conducted
under an award from the Estuarine Reserves Division, Office of Ocean and Coastal
Resource Management, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.
Editor
Michael J. Kennish, Ph.D., is a research professor in the Institute of Marine and
Coastal Sciences at Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, and the research
coordinator of the Jacques Cousteau National Estuarine Research Reserve in Tucker-
ton, New Jersey. He holds B.A., M.S., and Ph. D. degrees in geology from Rutgers
University. Dr. Kennish’s professional affiliations include the American Fisheries Soci-
ety (Mid-Atlantic Chapter), American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Phys-
ics, Estuarine Research Federation, New Jersey Academy of Science, and Sigma Xi.
Dr. Kennish has conducted biological and geological research on coastal and
deep-sea environments for more than 25 years. While maintaining a wide range of
research interests in marine ecology and marine geology, Dr. Kennish has been most
actively involved with studies of marine pollution and other anthropogenic impacts
on estuarine and marine ecosystems as well as biological and geological investiga-
tions of deep-sea hydrothermal vents and seafloor spreading centers. He is the author
or editor of 11 books dealing with various aspects of estuarine and marine science.
In addition to these books, Dr. Kennish has published more than 130 research articles
and book chapters and presented papers at numerous conferences. His biogeograph-
ical profile appears in Who’s Who in Frontiers of Science and Technology, Who’s
Who Among Rising Young Americans, Who’s Who in Science and Engineering, and
American Men and Women of Science.
Introduction
Estuaries rank among the most productive aquatic ecosystems on earth. They also
rank among the most heavily impacted by human activities. Kennish (2002a) recently
assessed the environmental state of estuaries and predicted their condition by the
year 2025. He identified ten principal anthropogenic stressors on estuaries that, taken
together, can mediate significant changes in the structure, function, and controls of
these vital coastal ecotones (Table 1). Tier I anthropogenic stressors (i.e., habitat
loss and alteration, eutrophication, organic loading, and fisheries overexploitation)
are the most serious, having the potential to generate global-scale impacts.
Anthropogenic impacts can be differentiated into three major groups, includ-
ing those that degrade water quality (e.g., pathogens, nutrients, chemical con-
taminants, and sewage wastes), result in the loss or alteration of habitat (e.g.,
wetland reclamation, shoreline development, and dredging), and act as biotic
stressors (e.g., overfishing and introduced/invasive species). Nearly all U.S. estu-
aries are affected in some way by anthropogenic activities, and the scientific
literature is replete with reference to human-induced alteration of these coastal
systems (for a review see Kennish, 1992, 1997, 2001a). It is critically important
to understand these anthropogenic impacts in order to formulate sound manage-
ment decisions regarding the protection of coastal resources.
Estuaries are particularly susceptible to anthropogenic stressors because of rapid
population growth and development in coastal watersheds nationwide. Demographic
trends indicate that the coastal zone will continue to be the target of heavy human
settlement during the 21st century (Kennish, 2002a). Hence, human activities poten-
tially impacting estuaries will likely become more pervasive in the years ahead.
Kennish (2002a) has shown that an array of estuarine impacts will accompany
coastal watershed development during the next 25 years. Among the most severe
will be habitat loss and alteration associated with large-scale modifications of coastal
watersheds (e.g., deforestation and construction, marsh diking and ditching, and
channelization and impoundments), estuarine shorelines (e.g., bulkheads, revet-
ments, retaining walls, and lagoons), and estuarine basins (e.g., dredging and dredged
material disposal, channel and inlet stabilization, harbor and marina development,
and mariculture and commercial fishing activities). Nutrient enrichment and inputs
of oxygen-depleting substances will accelerate as impervious surfaces and hydro-
logical modifications increase in watershed areas. Eutrophication is expected to
become more widespread, with greater incidences of hypoxia and anoxia, particu-
larly in shallow coastal bays with limited circulation and flushing. Bricker et al.
(1999) recorded moderate to high eutrophic conditions in more than 80 estuaries in
conterminous U.S. waters, mostly located along the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico
coasts. They also projected that eutrophic conditions will worsen in 86 U.S. estuaries
by 2020. Nutrient overenrichment is thus a serious concern.
TABLE 1
Ranking of Future Anthropogenic Threats to Estuarine Environments Based
on Assessment of Published Literaturea
Stressor Principal Impacts
1. Habitat loss and alteration Elimination of usable habitat for estuarine biota
2. Eutrophication Exotic and toxic algal blooms; hypoxia and anoxia of estuarine
waters; increased benthic invertebrate mortality; fish kills; altered
community structure; shading; reduced seagrass biomass;
degraded water quality
3. Sewage Elevated human pathogens; organic loading; increased
eutrophication; degraded water and sediment quality;
deoxygenated estuarine waters; reduced biodiversity
4. Fisheries overexploitation Depletion or collapse of fish and shellfish stocks; altered food
webs; changes in the structure, function, and controls of estuarine
ecosystems
5. Chemical contaminants Adverse effects on estuarine organisms including tissue
Higher priority inflammation and degeneration, neoplasm formation, genetic
Synthetic organic derangement, aberrant growth and reproduction, neurological and
compounds respiratory dysfunction, digestive disorders, and behavioral
Lower priority abnormalities; reduced population abundance; sediment toxicity
Oil (PAHs)
Metals
Radionuclides
6. Freshwater diversions Altered hydrological, salinity, and temperature regimes; changes
in abundance, distribution, and species composition of estuarine
organisms
7. Introduced invasive species Changes in species composition and distribution; shifts in trophic
structure; reduced biodiversity; introduction of detrimental
pathogens
8. Sea level rise Shoreline retreat; loss of wetlands habitat; widening of estuary
mouth; altered tidal prism and salinity regime; changes in biotic
community structure
9. Subsidence Modification of shoreline habitat; degraded wetlands; accelerated
fringe erosion; expansion of open water habitat
10. Debris/litter (plastics) Habitat degradation; increased mortality of estuarine organisms
due to entanglement in debris and subsequent starvation and
suffocation
a For example, McIntyre, 1992, 1995; Windom, 1992; Yap, 1992; Jones, 1994; Kennish, 1997, 1998,
2000, 2001a, b; Goldberg, 1995, 1998.
Source: Kennish, M.J. 2002. Environmental Conservation 29: 78–107.
Other serious stressors are overfishing, which will threaten some fish and shell-
fish stocks and alter estuarine food webs (Sissenwine and Rosenberg, 1996), and
chemical contaminants (especially synthetic organic compounds), which will
continue to be most problematic in urban industrialized estuaries (Kennish, 2002b).
Altered stream hydrology coupled to freshwater diversions will also be a problem,
and these modifications could affect broad geographic regions. Introduced/invasive
species, coastal subsidence, and sediment input/turbidity will likewise impact many
estuarine systems. All of these stressors can cause shifts in the structure of estuarine
biotic communities or the degradation of valuable estuarine habitat.
Kennish (2002a, p. 102) stated, “As the coastal population increases during the
next two decades, anthropogenic impacts on estuaries will likely escalate unless
effective management strategies are formulated. Best management practices must
be initiated to protect freshwater and coastal wetlands, to minimize input of toxic
agents, nutrients, and disease vectors to receiving water bodies, to mollify physical
alterations of river–estuary systems that could lead to adverse changes involving
nutrient transfer and salinity distribution, and to maintain adequate freshwater inflow
to sustain natural productivity and the important nursery function of the systems
(Livingston, 2001). It will also be advantageous to limit shoreline development,
reduce invasive species, and prevent overfishing. These measures may entail adapting
strict management guidelines.”
More monitoring and research are needed to identify impacts in the estuarine
basins themselves and to develop remedial measures to revitalize altered habitat. In
particular, ecosystem level research is necessary to fundamentally understand the
natural and anthropogenic processes operating in these coastal environments. Assess-
ment programs must specifically delineate water quality and habitat conditions.
Improved nonpoint source pollution controls are required to ameliorate water and
sediment quality impacts. Alternative landscaping (e.g., replacing lawns with ground
covers, shrubs, trees, and other natural vegetation), modified agricultural practices
(e.g., application of new methods to reduce erosion, runoff, and sedimentation), and
structural controls (e.g., constructed wetlands, detention facilities, and filtration
basins) can significantly mitigate stormwater runoff and contaminant mobilization
in adjoining watersheds. In addition, proper restoration efforts should be instituted
to return degraded habitat to more natural conditions (NOAA/NOS, 1999). However,
these efforts are typically labor intensive, time consuming, and costly. Moreover,
they often fall short in terms of the recovery goals of the impacted habitat.
Several federal government programs are providing valuable data for assessing
environmental conditions in U.S. estuaries and coastal watersheds. These include the
National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS), National Estuary Program
(NEP), Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Program, National Status and Trends
(NS&T) Program, National Coastal Assessment Program, Environmental Monitoring
and Assessment Program, National Marine Fisheries Service National Habitat Pro-
gram, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Coastal Program, and National Wetlands Inven-
tory. Of these programs, NERRS is unique because it consists of a network of 25
protected sites that yield information on national estuarine trends of local or regional
concern vital to promoting informed resource management. This network of protected
areas represents a federal, state, and community partnership in which environmental
monitoring and research as well as a comprehensive program of education and outreach
strengthen understanding, appreciation, and stewardship of estuaries, coastal habitats,
and associated watersheds. NERRS encompasses more than a million hectares of
estuarine, wetland, and upland habitats in all biogeographical regions of the U.S.
NERRS sites are essentially coastal ecosystems used as demonstration sites for
long-term research and monitoring and resource protection, as well as education and
interpretation. The objective of this book is to examine in detail the NERRS program,
focusing on environmental research, monitoring, and restoration components. The
NERRS sites generally represent pristine and undisturbed areas that can serve as
reference locations to assess other estuarine systems impacted by anthropogenic
activities. One of the principal reasons for creating the NERRS program was to
improve the management of estuarine resources by providing an integrated mecha-
nism for the detection and measurement of local, regional, and national trends in
estuarine conditions. Increasing and competing demands for coastal resources
require a coordinated program such as NERRS to improve coastal zone management.
Research and education programs of NERRS can guide estuarine and watershed
management for sustained support of coastal resources.
This initial volume of Estuarine Research, Monitoring, and Resource Protection
describes the workings of the NERRS program — its organization, goals, and
management strategies. It does not provide a critique of the program aims and
achievements, which will be the focus of a later volume. The second volume will
assess how the NERRS program has succeeded overall in achieving technical and
management objectives.
Chapter 1 of Estuarine Research, Monitoring, and Resource Protection is a
comprehensive treatment of the principal components of the NERRS program.
Chapters 2 to 7 concentrate on the physical, chemical, and biological characterization
of selected NERRS sites, as follows:
• Chapter 2: Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve

• Chapter 3: Jacques Cousteau National Estuarine Research Reserve
• Chapter 4: Delaware National Estuarine Research Reserve
• Chapter 5: Ashepoo–Combahee–Edisto (ACE) Basin National Estuarine
Research Reserve
• Chapter 6: Weeks Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve
• Chapter 7: Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve
These case studies offer a cross section of NERRS sites on the Atlantic, Pacific,
and Gulf of Mexico coasts and therefore give broad coverage of the program.
It is important to specify that the success of the NERRS program depends on
the unselfish cooperation of government agencies, academic institutions, public
interest groups, concerned citizens, and the general public. These entities must all
work together to ensure protection of the water quality, habitat, and resources in the
system of estuarine and coastal watersheds comprising the NERRS program. The
case studies of reserve sites reported in this book demonstrate how critical it is to
maintain the ecological integrity of our coastal environments.
REFERENCES
Bricker, S.B., C.G. Clement, D.E. Pirhalla, S.P. Orlando, and D.R.G. Farrow. 1999. National
Estuarine Eutrophication Assessment: Effects of Nutrient Enrichment in the Nation’s
Estuaries. Technical Report, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
National Ocean Service, Special Projects Office and the National Centers for Coastal
Ocean Science, Silver Spring, MD.
Goldberg, E.D. 1995. Emerging problems in the coastal zone for the twenty-first century.
Marine Pollution Bulletin 31: 152–158.
Goldberg, E.D. 1998. Marine pollution — an alternative view. Marine Pollution Bulletin 36:
112–113.
Jones, G. 1994. Global warming, sea level change and the impact on estuaries. Marine
Pollution Bulletin 28: 7–14.
Kennish, M.J. 1992. Ecology of Estuaries: Anthropogenic Effects. CRC Press, Boca Raton,
FL.
Kennish, M.J. (Ed.). 1997. Practical Handbook of Estuarine and Marine Pollution. CRC
Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Kennish, M.J. 1998. Pollution Impacts on Marine Biotic Communities. CRC Press, Boca
Raton, FL.
Kennish, M.J. (Ed.). 2000. Estuary Restoration and Maintenance: The National Estuary
Program. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Kennish, M.J. (Ed.). 2001a. Practical Handbook of Marine Science, 3rd ed. CRC Press, Boca
Raton, FL.
Kennish, M.J. 2001b. Coastal salt marsh systems: a review of anthropogenic impacts. Journal
of Coastal Research 17: 731–748.
Kennish, M.J. 2002a. Environmental threats and environmental future of estuaries. Environ-
mental Conservation 29: 78–107.
Kennish, M.J. 2002b. Sediment contaminant concentrations in estuarine and coastal marine
environments: potential for remobilization by boats and personal watercraft. Journal
of Coastal Research Special Issue 37, pp. 151–178.
Livingston, R.J. 2001. Eutrophication Processes in Coastal Systems. CRC Press, Boca Raton,
FL.
Livingston, R.J. 2003. Trophic Organization in Coastal Systems. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
McIntyre, A.D. 1992. The current state of the oceans. Marine Pollution Bulletin 25: 1–4.
McIntyre, A.D. 1995. Human impact on the oceans: the 1990s and beyond. Marine Pollution
Bulletin 31: 147–151.
NOAA/NOS. 1999. National Ocean Service Strategic Plan, 1999–2004. Technical Report,
NOAA/National Ocean Service, Silver Spring, MD.
Sissenwine, M.P. and A.A. Rosenberg. 1996. Marine fisheries at a critical juncture. In: Pirie,
R.G. (Ed.). Oceanography: Contemporary Readings in Ocean Sciences. 3rd ed.
Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 293–302.
Windom, H.L. 1992. Contamination of the marine environment from land-based sources.
Marine Pollution Bulletin 25: 32–36.
Yap, H.T. 1992. Marine environmental problems: experiences of developing regions. Marine
Pollution Bulletin 25: 37–40.
Contents
Chapter 1 National Estuarine Research Reserve System:
Program Components...........................................................................1
Introduction ......................................................................................................1
NERRS Mission...............................................................................................6
NERRS Program Components.........................................................................9
Monitoring and Research: System-Wide Monitoring Program.............9
SWMP Development ..................................................................10
SWMP Components ...................................................................12
Special High-Priority Initiatives...........................................................23
Habitat Restoration .....................................................................23
Invasive Species ..........................................................................24
Education and Outreach .......................................................................25
Summary and Conclusions ............................................................................28
References ......................................................................................................29
Case Study 1
Chapter 2 Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve..........................35

Introduction ....................................................................................................35
Watershed .......................................................................................................36
Upland Pitch Pine/Oak Forests ............................................................36
Sandplain Grasslands............................................................................37
Vernal Pools and Coastal Plain Pond Shores ......................................38
Riparian Habitats ..................................................................................38
Freshwater Wetlands.............................................................................38
Salt Marshes .........................................................................................39
Mudflats and Sandflats .........................................................................39
Beaches and Dunes ..............................................................................41
Estuary............................................................................................................42
Tidal Creeks and Channels ..................................................................42
Waquoit Bay .........................................................................................43
Environment ................................................................................43
Organisms ...................................................................................43
Anthropogenic Impacts ..................................................................................49
Eutrophication.......................................................................................49
Summary and Conclusions ............................................................................51
References ......................................................................................................53
Case Study 2
Chapter 3 Jacques Cousteau National Estuarine Research Reserve ..................59

Introduction ....................................................................................................59
Environmental Setting....................................................................................61
Mullica River–Great Bay Estuary .................................................................62
Water Quality........................................................................................62
Watershed Biotic Communities .....................................................................65
Plant Communities ...............................................................................65
Salt Marshes................................................................................65
Brackish Tidal Marshes ..............................................................66
Freshwater Marshes ....................................................................69
Lowland Plant Communities ......................................................71
Upland Plant Communities.........................................................80
Barrier Island Plant Communities ..............................................81
Animal Communities ...........................................................................82
Amphibians and Reptiles............................................................82
Mammals.....................................................................................85
Birds ............................................................................................86
Fish..............................................................................................92
Estuarine Biotic Communities .......................................................................94
Plant Communities ...............................................................................94
Benthic Flora...............................................................................94
Phytoplankton .............................................................................96
Animal Communities ...........................................................................98
Zooplankton ................................................................................98
Benthic Fauna ...........................................................................100
Finfish........................................................................................104
Summary and Conclusions ..........................................................................110
References ....................................................................................................111
Case Study 3
Chapter 4 Delaware National Estuarine Research Reserve .............................119

Introduction ..................................................................................................119
Lower St. Jones River Reserve Site ............................................................120
Watershed............................................................................................120
Upland Vegetation.....................................................................121
Wetland Vegetation ...................................................................121
Aquatic Habitat...................................................................................125
Water Quality ............................................................................125
Anthropogenic Impacts ......................................................................128
Pollution ....................................................................................128
Habitat Alteration......................................................................132
Biotic Communities............................................................................133
Phytoplankton ...........................................................................133
Zooplankton ..............................................................................134
Benthic Fauna ...........................................................................136
Finfish........................................................................................138
Amphibians and Reptiles..........................................................140
Birds ..........................................................................................140
Mammals...................................................................................145
Upper Blackbird Creek Reserve Site...........................................................151
Watershed............................................................................................151
Upland Vegetation.....................................................................151
Wetland Vegetation ...................................................................152
Aquatic Habitat...................................................................................156
Anthropogenic Impacts ......................................................................157
Pollution and Habitat Alteration...............................................157
Phytoplankton ...........................................................................157
Zooplankton ..............................................................................157
Benthic Fauna ...........................................................................158
Finfish........................................................................................160
Birds ..........................................................................................160
Mammals...................................................................................161
Commercially and Recreationally Important Species..............162
References ....................................................................................................165
Case Study 4
Chapter 5 Ashepoo–Combahee–Edisto (ACE) Basin National Estuarine

Research Reserve .............................................................................171
Introduction ..................................................................................................171
Watershed .....................................................................................................173
Plant Communities .............................................................................173
Animal Communities .........................................................................175
Mammals...................................................................................183
Birds ..........................................................................................186
Insects........................................................................................189
Estuary..........................................................................................................190
Physical-Chemical Characteristics .....................................................190
Phytoplankton ...........................................................................192
Zooplankton ..............................................................................194
Benthic Invertebrates ................................................................195
Fish............................................................................................197
Coastal Marine Waters .................................................................................200
Fish............................................................................................200
Reptiles......................................................................................201
Mammals...................................................................................202
Birds ..........................................................................................202
Endangered and Threatened Species ...........................................................202
Anthropogenic Impacts ................................................................................203
References ....................................................................................................206
Case Study 5
Chapter 6 Weeks Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve ..........................217

Introduction ..................................................................................................217
Weeks Bay....................................................................................................217
Physical Description...........................................................................217
Watershed .....................................................................................................220
Upland Habitats ........................................................................220
Wetland Habitats.......................................................................220
Herpetofauna .............................................................................220
Mammals...................................................................................223
Birds ..........................................................................................223
Estuary..........................................................................................................223
Phytoplankton and Microphytobenthos....................................223
Zooplankton ..............................................................................225
Benthic Fauna ...........................................................................225
Fish............................................................................................226
References ....................................................................................................229
Case Study 6
Chapter 7 Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve ......................235

Introduction ..................................................................................................235
Watershed .....................................................................................................237
Habitat.................................................................................................238
Salt Marsh .................................................................................238
Salt Pannes ................................................................................240
Brackish Marsh .........................................................................240
Riparian Habitat ........................................................................241
Wetland–Upland Transition ......................................................242
Dunes and Beach Habitat .........................................................243
Intertidal Flats ...........................................................................244
Estuary..........................................................................................................244
Aquatic Habitat: Tidal Creeks and Channels.....................................244
Plants .........................................................................................245
Benthic Invertebrates ................................................................245
Fish............................................................................................248
Birds ..........................................................................................252
References ....................................................................................................259
Index......................................................................................................................261
1 National Estuarine
Research Reserve
System: Program
Components
INTRODUCTION
Estuaries are recognized worldwide as critically important coastal environments with
exceptional biotic production. They rank among the most vital ecological systems
on earth, providing valuable resources for the world economy (Alongi, 1998; Ken-
nish, 2001a). Many commercially and recreationally important finfish and shellfish
species depend on estuaries for survival. Estuarine-dependent species comprise more
than 90% of the total fisheries landings in the Gulf of Mexico alone (Kennish, 2000).
Furthermore, estuarine- and wetland-dependent species account for about 75% of
the total U.S. annual seafood harvest of more than 4 million metric tons (Weber,
1995). Estuarine and coastal marine fisheries return more than $23 billion annually
to the U.S. economy (Kennish, 2000).
Aside from their significance to world fisheries, estuaries support several other
multi-billion dollar commercial and recreational interests. Among the most notable
are tourism, shipping, marine transportation, marine biotechnology, oil and gas
recovery, mineral exploration, and electric power generation. Estuaries generate
employment opportunities directly or indirectly for millions of people in the U.S.
and abroad.
Because of their great commercial and recreational importance, estuaries are
often utilized excessively by a burgeoning coastal population. Approximately 60%
of the world population now resides near the coasts (Goldberg, 1994). In the U.S.,
nearly 140 million people (~53% of the total population) live along the coastal zone
in close proximity to estuaries (Cohen et al., 1997; NOAA, 1998). Statistical trends
indicate that the coastal population is expected to approach 6 billion people world-
wide by the year 2025 (Kennish, 2002).
Increasing coastal watershed development, urbanization, and industrialization
during the past century resulted in habitat alteration, pollution, and overuse of
many estuarine systems. Various anthropogenic stressors (e.g., species introduc-
tions, overfishing, freshwater diversions, point and nonpoint source pollution
inputs, nutrient overenrichment, waste dumping, and wetland reclamation) created
a multitude of estuarine problems (Kennish, 1992, 1997). Water quality and habitat
degradation accelerated at such an alarming rate that by the 1960s and early 1970s
1
2 Estuarine Research, Monitoring, and Resource Protection
Padilla Bay Old Hudson

Woman River
Creek
South Wells
Slough
Great Bay
Waquoit Bay
Narragansett Bay
Jacques Cousteau
Elkhorn Delaware
Slough Chesapeake Bay, MD
Chesapeake Bay, VA
North Carolina
Tijuana River North Inlet-Winyah Bay
ACE Basin
Sapelo Island
Guana Tolomato Matanzas

0 100km
Weeks Bay
Grand Bay
Apalachicola Bay
N
Kachemak Bay Rookery Bay Jobos Bay
FIGURE 1.1 Map showing the site locations of the National Estuarine Research
Reserve System. (From the National Estuarine Research Reserve Program, Silver
Spring, MD.)
widespread public outcry led to the enactment of vital state and federal legislation
to protect estuarine and marine environments. Particularly noteworthy was passage
by Congress of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972. This legis-
lation ushered in the National Estuarine Sanctuary Program. More specifically,
Section 315 of the CZMA, as amended, authorized the establishment of “estuarine
sanctuaries” or “protected research areas, which could include any or all parts of
an estuary, adjoining transitional areas and adjacent uplands, set aside to provide
scientists and students the opportunity to examine over a period of time the
ecological relationships within the area.”
An important element of the newly formed National Estuarine Sanctuary Pro-
gram was the development of a state–federal partnership to establish, manage, and
maintain representative estuarine ecosystems and to promote stewardship of coastal
resources by engaging local communities and residents, as well as regional groups.
Congress designated the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
as the federal agency administering the overall program. South Slough, Oregon,
became the first estuarine sanctuary in 1974. Congress reauthorized the CZMA in
1985, and at that time, the name of the National Estuarine Sanctuary Program was
changed to the National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS, 2002a).
NOAA has designated 25 reserve sites in 21 states and Puerto Rico since 1974
(Figure 1.1, Table 1.1), and during the past three decades, extensive monitoring and
research data have been collected at these sites (NERRS, 2002b). These 25 reserve
sites represent 15 biogeographical regions and a wide range of estuarine conditions.
They are located along the Atlantic Coast, Gulf of Mexico, Pacific Coast, Caribbean
Sea, and Great Lakes, covering nearly 500,000 ha of estuarine waters, wetlands, and
uplands. This network of protected and coordinated sites has been established for
National Estuarine Research Reserve System: Program Components 3
TABLE 1.1
National Estuarine Research Reserve Sites
ACE (Ashepoo–Combahee–Edisto) Basin NERR, South Carolina
Apalachicola NERR, Florida
Chesapeake Bay NERR, Maryland
Chesapeake Bay NERR, Virginia
Delaware NERR, Delaware
Elkhorn Slough NERR, California
Grand Bay NERR, Mississippi
Great Bay NERR, New Hampshire
GTM (Guana Tolomato Matanzas) NERR, Florida
Hudson River NERR, New York
Jacques Cousteau NERR, New Jersey
Jobos Bay NERR, Puerto Rico
Kachemak Bay NERR, Alaska
Narragansett Bay NERR, Rhode Island
North Carolina NERR, North Carolina
North Inlet-Winyah Bay NERR, South Carolina
Old Woman Creek NERR, Ohio
Padilla Bay NERR, Washington
Rookery Bay NERR, Florida
San Francisco Bay NERR, Californiaa
Sapelo Island NERR, Georgia
South Slough NERR, Oregon
St. Lawrence River NERR, New Yorka
Texas NERR, Texasa
Tijuana River NERR, California
Waquoit Bay NERR, Massachusetts
Weeks Bay NERR, Alabama
Wells NERR, Maine
a Proposed site.
research and monitoring activities, as well as to increase public awareness of the

importance of estuarine and coastal resources (NOAA, 2002a). NOAA’s Estuarine
Reserves Division (ERD) in Silver Spring, Maryland, part of the Office of Ocean
and Coastal Resource Management, serves as the management center of NERRS,
overseeing operations and budgets, as well as providing administrative support for
the reserve sites.
Each reserve, which is managed on a day-to-day basis by a state agency or a
university, consists of a discrete area containing key habitat within an estuarine
system that is protected by state law from significant ecological change (NERRS,
2002a, b). NERRS strives to improve the health of the nation’s coastal habitats by
generating information that fosters sound resource management. In so doing, it
augments the CZM program. For example, integrated programs of NERRS address
specific high-priority resource management concerns such as degraded coastal water
quality, loss and alteration of estuarine and watershed habitat, habitat restoration,
reduction of biodiversity, and problematic effects of pollution and invasive species.

The reserves are essentially demonstration sites where monitoring and research data
are used to assess coastal issues of local, regional, and national interest for the
purpose of sustaining estuarine systems (NERRS, 2002c).
Coastal states play an integral role in the designation of reserve sites and their
operation, acting jointly with NOAA to establish a site program. A partnership exists
among NOAA, the coastal state, local communities, and regional groups to address
resource management issues in the reserve (NERRS, 2002a–c). Reserve sites may
also establish partnerships with other government agencies, conservation organiza-
tions, universities, and local school systems (NERRS, 1994a). In addition to pro-
viding the base funding for operation, research, and education for the NERRS
program, NOAA also sets standards for operating the reserves, supports activities
of each reserve, sponsors a graduate research fellowship program, and facilitates
decision making at the national level. NOAA base funding may be augmented at
individual sites by local and state allocations, as well as grants.
The role of each reserve site is multifaceted. Reserve staff and other investigators
gather data through research and long-term monitoring programs at the site. The
main goal of these programs is to characterize the natural and anthropogenic pro-
cesses governing stability and change in the reserve, and in so doing, assist coastal
resource managers in making informed decisions (Greene and Trueblood, 1999). To
accomplish this goal, it is not only necessary to characterize the current physical,
chemical, and biological conditions of the reserve but also to assess changes in
conditions through time. It is critical to develop a baseline monitoring program that
enables natural resource program managers and other coastal decision makers to
detect trends in water quality and habitat loss and alteration. Data collected by the
research and monitoring programs should foster greater understanding of the rela-
tionship between disturbance and physical, chemical, and biological processes
required to sustain biotic communities in the reserve.
A System-wide Monitoring Program (SWMP) has been established by NERRS
to identify and track short-term variability and long-term changes in the integrity
and biodiversity of site estuaries and their coastal watersheds for the purpose of
contributing to effective coastal zone management (NERRS, 2002a). Important
components are water quality monitoring, biomonitoring, and the assessment of land
use/land cover characteristics within the reserve boundaries. Monitoring data help
to define baseline conditions and establish trends for the NERR system of estuaries.
Monitoring can delineate the status of resources in the reserves. Monitoring funds
from NOAA are available to each reserve as part of an operations grant. NOAA
supports basic monitoring programs in NERRS under the Code of Federal Regula-
tions (15CFR Part 921 Subpart G).
The Centralized Data Management Office (CDMO), located at the North Inlet-
Winyah Bay NERR (Belle W. Baruch Institute for Marine Biology and Coastal
Research) at the University of South Carolina in Georgetown, South Carolina, serves
as a databank and principal technical support for the NERR SWMP, archiving and
analyzing monitoring data and information products from each reserve (Wenner
et al., 2001). Its major function, therefore, is the management of the basic infrastruc-
ture and data protocol to support the assimilation and exchange of data, metadata,
and information within the framework of NERRS sites, state CZM programs, and
related state- and federally funded education, monitoring, and research initiatives
(NERRS, 2002a; Sanger et al., 2002). It also serves a critical role in quality control
of data for the NERRS program. The CDMO formats NERR SWMP data to meet
the standards of the Federal Geographical Data Committee, and the data are dis-
seminated to all users over the World Wide Web (http://cdmo.baruch.sc.edu).
Aside from monitoring and research, environmental education and stewardship
are other vital components of the NERRS program (NERRS, 1994a, b). The primary
goal of the education component is to improve public awareness of estuarine-related
issues and coastal resource problems, as well as to be responsive to concerns of the
general public. To accomplish this goal, each reserve offers workshops, field trips,
and other educational opportunities that improve understanding of estuaries, water-
sheds, and coastal resources. Such educational efforts engender public interest and
participation. NERRS also develops the reserves as resource education centers that
address coastal matters of local, state, regional, national, and global significance.
The success of the education programs is enhanced by the ability of NERRS to link
research, resource management, stewardship, and education.
One of the major goals of stewardship in the NERRS program is to improve
protection of estuarine resources for designated uses such as fishing, shellfish har-
vesting, swimming, and other recreational activities. Effective sustainable yield
management of estuarine and watershed resources is critical to the long-term viability
of estuarine and coastal systems. This can be achieved, in part, by integrating
resource management programs across local, state, and federal levels of government
through coordination and establishment of joint research, education, and steward-
ship. It would be particularly advantageous to develop a proactive management
program at a regional watershed scale that allocates resources to priority issues and
concerns, especially through partnerships and sharing of the resources. One objec-
tive, for example, would be to protect key land and water areas that are vital
ecological units of the reserve.
Reserve staff members conduct education and training programs for community
leaders, resource users, schoolchildren, and the general public on the natural and
human environment of the reserve, as well as on resource management needs.
Through this educational process, they interpret and communicate current scientific
findings to these audiences. The reserve staff interacts with various partners and
local communities to address water quality problems, habitat loss and alteration,
invasive species, and declining resources. The Coastal Training Program (CTP) and
decision maker workshops also provide technical training for local government
officials and administrators on regional coastal management problems, offering
relevant science-based educational programs on a variety of topics. CTP may target
development, land use, water supply planning, open space conservation, habitat
restoration, estuarine water quality, and other skill-based training modules. The focus
of coastal decision maker workshops is to improve decision making related to coastal
resource management. CTP, in turn, increases collaboration, facilitates information
and technology transfer, and promotes greater understanding of anthropogenic
impacts on coastal resources. The NERRS framework, therefore, effectively links
science and monitoring programs with education and resource stewardship initiatives
to disseminate scientific information for the betterment of coastal watershed and

resource management.
The NERRS Strategic Plan developed in 1994 (NERRS, 1995) and revised
in 2002 (NERRS, 2002c), together with a series of multi-year action plans
initiated in 1996, identifies the primary goals, objectives, and actions of the
program. The multi-year action plans, which are revised annually for 3-year
periods, have been formulated to assist NOAA in its environmental stewardship
mission to sustain healthy coasts. The sixth NERRS Action Plan (NERRS,
2002d), covering the fiscal years 2002, 2003, and 2004, conveys the following
long-term goals of the program:
1. Advance the state of knowledge about the requirements for sustainable

estuarine ecosystems and the interactions of humans with those ecosystems
2. Improve decisions affecting estuarine and coastal resources
3. Move the operations and the infrastructure of NERRS forward
It is necessary to update the NERRS Action Plan on a regular basis to take into
account new advances and developments in the program.
NERRS also performs a needs assessment to identify the common issues, capac-
ity needs, and data uses in the system. Results of a needs assessment initiative
undertaken by NOAA’s ERD and Coastal Services Center in the summer of 2002
reveal that upland land cover and benthic or subtidal habitats (e.g., habitat mapping)
are the two most common data needs of the reserve sites (Schuyler et al., 2002).
Other common data needs include topography and bathymetry, invasive species,
habitat change, erosion, and water quality. The need for change detection analysis
is also deemed to be important by the reserve sites. Management needs are broader
and more diverse, dealing with policy and planning and acquisition and restoration,
as well as education and research. In addition, needs assessment helps to delineate
the remote sensing technology requirements of the reserves. Remote sensing and
Geographic Information System (GIS) applications are generally recognized as hav-
ing great potential value in the data acquisition process of the reserve system, but
many of the reserve sites have limited capacity to maximize their use (Schuyler
et al., 2002).
NERRS MISSION
NERRS is a multifaceted, integrated program whose mission is “to promote stew-
ardship of the nation’s estuaries through science and education using a system of
protected areas” (NERRS, 2002c, p. 2). Table 1.2 describes the functional elements
of the program. Four major components are recognized:
1. Federal, state, and community partnership of protected areas

2. Informed management and stewardship of the nation’s estuarine and
coastal habitats
3. Scientific research and monitoring
4. Public education
TABLE 1.2
Functional Elements of the NERRS Program
Representative Protected Areas

Establish, manage, and maintain a national network of protected areas representing the diverse
biogeographic and typological estuarine ecosystems of the United States.
Partnership
Mobilize federal, state, and community resources to mutually define and achieve coastal protection
and management goals and objectives.
Informed Management and Stewardship

Operate the NERRS as a national program contributing to informed, integrated management of the
nation’s coastal ecosystem.
Scientific Understanding through Research

Design and implement a comprehensive program of scientific research to address coastal management
issues and their fundamental underlying processes.
Education
Design and implement a comprehensive program of education and interpretation based on solid
scientific principles to strengthen the understanding, appreciation, and stewardship of estuaries,
coastal habitats, and associated watersheds.
Source: National Estuarine Research Reserve System. 1994. National Estuarine Research Reserve
System Education: A Field Perspective. National Estuarine Research Reserve System, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, MD.
NERRS achieves coastal protection and management goals by mobilizing fed-

eral, state, and community resources to support work at the designated sites. The
program is strengthened by education and outreach initiatives that improve under-
standing, appreciation, and stewardship of estuaries and watersheds, thereby pro-
moting informed management of coastal resources (NERRS, 1994a).
Many of the reserve sites are generally pristine and undisturbed areas that can
serve as reference locations for comparison with systems impacted by anthropogenic
activities. NERRS strives to enhance the management of estuarine resources by acting
as a coordinated network for the detection and measurement of local, regional, and
national trends in estuarine conditions. Increasing and competing demands for coastal
resources require an integrated program such as NERRS to improve coastal zone
management efforts (NOAA, 1999). Research and education programs of NERRS can
guide estuarine and watershed management for sustained support of coastal resources.
As stated in the Code of Federal Regulations 15 CFR Section 921.1 (b), the
goals of the NERR system are to:
1. Ensure a stable environment for research through long-term protection of

the reserve sites
2. Address coastal management issues identified as significant through coor-
dinated estuarine research within the system
3. Enhance public awareness and understanding of estuarine areas and pro-

vide suitable opportunities for public education and interpretation
4. Promote federal, state, public, and private use of one or more reserves
within the system when such entities conduct estuarine research
5. Conduct and coordinate estuarine research within the system, gathering
and making available information necessary for improved understanding
and management of estuarine areas
To achieve these goals, NOAA makes available five categories of federal awards
for NERRS programs:
1. Predesignation
2. Acquisition and development
3. Operations and management
4. Research and monitoring
5. Education and interpretation
Participating states provide matching funds for the federal awards. The Code
of Federal Regulations (15 CFR Part 921, Appendix F) contains more details on
NOAA funding.
A state can nominate an estuarine system for NERR status under Section 315
of the CZMA, if the site meets the following stipulations:
1. The area is representative of its biogeographical region, is suitable for

long-term research, and contributes to the biogeographical and typological
balance of the system.
2. The laws of the coastal state provide long-term protection for the proposed
reserve’s resources to ensure a stable environment for research.
3. Designation of the site as a reserve will serve to enhance public awareness
and understanding of estuarine areas and provide suitable opportunities
for public education and interpretation.
4. The coastal state has complied with the requirements of any regulations
issued by the Secretary of Commerce.
Prior to receiving federal designation, a prospective NERR site can receive pre-
designation awards for site selection. Acquisition and development awards may be
obtained for acquiring interest in land and water areas, performing minor construction,
preparing plans and specifications, developing the final management plan, and hiring
staff for the reserve. A supplemental acquisition and development award can be
granted after a reserve receives federal designation. The reserve site can use this
award to obtain additional property, construct research and education facilities, and
conduct restoration projects approved by the program. NERRS conducted a land
acquisition inventory and strategy in 2002. To manage the reserve and operate pro-
grams, annual awards are available for operation and management, education, and
monitoring. NOAA conducts performance evaluations of a reserve at least once every
three years as required by Sections 312 and 315 of the CZMA. This evaluation is to
ensure that the operation and management of the reserve are in compliance with
NERRS regulations and consistent with the mission and goals of the national program.
Several criteria are considered when assessing prospective sites for NERRS
status. An important initial consideration is whether the site fills a void in biogeo-
graphical representation in NERRS. It is also useful to document that the prospective
site fills a void in ecosystem representation, comprises a significant part of a coastal
ecosystem, or encompasses an entire ecological unit. A review of the quality of the
estuarine environment should be conducted, examining primary ecological charac-
teristics such as the biological productivity, diversity of flora and fauna, and various
ecological values and functions. The effect of human activities on the estuary and
its adjoining transitional habitats and adjacent uplands should likewise be a point
of focus. The long-term management of coastal resources depends on understanding
the complex and profound anthropogenic influences operating in the coastal zone.
Another vital factor is determining whether the prospective site is desirable as a
research and monitoring site and valuable as a natural field laboratory. Will the site
effectively address coastal resource problems that have local, regional, or even
national significance? Equally important is whether the site will provide opportuni-
ties for educational and interpretive programs that enhance understanding of the
estuarine system and its resources. Finally, management considerations must be
pursued to ascertain whether the site constitutes a stable environment for research
and education activities that will enhance the NERRS program.
NERRS PROGRAM COMPONENTS

MONITORING AND RESEARCH: SYSTEM-WIDE MONITORING PROGRAM
According to the Regulations and Strategic Plan of NERRS, the development of
reserve site programs involves the incorporation of three major elements:
1. Environmental characterization
2. The site profile
3. A systematic long-term monitoring program
Environmental characterization is necessary to inventory conditions at the

reserve site and to formulate a comprehensive site description. The site profile is a
detailed environmental report providing a synthesis of existing data and information
on the reserve. Environmental monitoring entails the periodic collection of selected
data using many of the same parameters and, ideally, the same sampling techniques
system-wide. Monitoring consists of three phased components: water quality (abiotic
factors), habitat and species diversity, and land use and land cover analysis
(JCNERR, 1998).
In 1992, NERRS proposed the development of a coordinated, ecosystem-based
monitoring network to track the health and functionality of representative estuarine
ecosystems and coastal watersheds in the U.S. The mission of this System-wide
Monitoring Program (SWMP), as stated previously, is to develop quantitative mea-
surements of short-term variability and long-term changes in the water quality, biotic
diversity, and land use/land cover characteristics of estuarine reserves for purposes
of contributing to effective coastal zone management. In addition, SWMP serves as
an excellent platform to evaluate the response of reserve sites to episodic events
such as tropical storms and droughts (Wenner et al., 2001; Sanger et al., 2002). In
so doing, SWMP yields a long-term database of great value in establishing national
estuarine trends and measuring changes in environmental conditions and ecological
processes (NERRS, 2002a).
SWMP represents one of the most comprehensive and effective programs for
monitoring the water quality conditions of the nation’s estuaries. It is unique because
it generates standardized information on national estuarine environmental trends
while allowing the flexibility to assess coastal management issues of local or regional
concern (NOAA, 1999). The standardization of sampling protocols facilitates data
comparisons among reserve sites. As the SWMP databases increase through time,
they become more valuable for identifying changes in estuarine conditions, inter-
preting and predicting responses to change, and delineating anthropogenic stressors
that must be addressed by coastal decision makers. In addition, long-term SWMP
databases will afford greater understanding of how estuaries function and change
over time, thereby forming a foundation for devising solutions to coastal manage-
ment problems.
SWMP Development
Operation grants from NOAA serve as the main funding base for SWMP at the
reserve sites. NOAA provided the initial funding for SWMP in 1994, and at that
time NERRS proposed a phased monitoring approach targeting the following three
key components:
Abiotic factors
a. Physical–chemical parameters (water temperature, salinity, dissolved
oxygen, pH, turbidity, and depth)
b. Water quality parameters (nutrients and contaminants)
c. Atmospheric parameters (air temperature, wind speed and direction,
barometric pressure, relative humidity, precipitation, and photosynthet-
ically active radiation)
Biological monitoring (population characteristics, biodiversity, and habitat)
Watershed and land use classifications (changes in spatial coverage, GIS
applications)
Gradual changes in SWMP were implemented during each succeeding year to

address the aforementioned elements as discussed below (Edmiston et al., 2002;
NERRS, 2002a). For example, in 1995–1996, each reserve established two field
sites to monitor abiotic parameters deemed to be scientifically valid indicators of
water quality (temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen, pH, turbidity, and water
depth) using Yellow Springs Instrument Company (YSI™) 6-series data loggers to
record the data every 30 minutes (NERRS, 2002a). Turbidity probes were added to
the data loggers in 1996. The CDMO, created in 1994, began to coordinate and store
SWMP data from across the sites and facilitate data analysis and dissemination. To
achieve more uniformity on a national basis, NERRS developed system-wide pro-
tocols and quality assurance/quality control methods of data assessment in
1996–1997.
Two additional data loggers were procured by each reserve during 1996–1997.
In addition, the reserve sites began to use a Campbell Scientific Weather Station to
monitor atmospheric conditions, and a weather data management program was
developed. In 1997–1998, the emphasis shifted to data utilization, with revisions
made to quality assurance/quality control methods to ensure data accuracy. Some
reserve sites also expanded their monitoring efforts to include other components
(i.e., habitat change, nutrients, or sediment contaminants).
While monitoring efforts continued unabated in SWMP during 1998–1999,
emphasis was placed on improved data management. Analysis of data on a system-
wide basis was stressed, and an effort was made to post monitoring data on the Web
for use by the scientific and management communities. SWMP also began to utilize
the Protected Area Geographic Information System (PAGIS) to promote the genesis
of a GIS/habitat information database (NERRS, 2002a). Most reserve sites began
to set up a Geographic Information System for data processing at this time.
The South Carolina Marine Resources Research Institute conducted a compre-
hensive synthesis of NERR SWMP water quality data in 1999–2000. This project
culminated in the release of a technical report in April 2001 entitled A Synthesis of
Water Quality Data from the National Estuarine Research Reserve’s System-wide
Monitoring Program, which detailed water quality conditions in the NERR system
as a whole (Wenner et al., 2001). A second SWMP synthesis report in December
2002 entitled, A Synthesis of Water Quality Data: National Estuarine Research
Reserve System-wide Monitoring Program (1995–2000), presented additional anal-
ysis of water quality data in the reserves from a system-wide perspective (Sanger
et al., 2002). Other SWMP developments in 1999–2000 included the initiation of
pilot studies employing fluorescence probes and vented-level probes as part of the
monitoring program. To provide effective oversight of SWMP programs as well as
continuity and standard protocols, an oversight committee was formed during this
time period (Edmiston et al., 2002).
Aside from the publication of the first NERRS water quality data synthesis
report, several other SWMP projects were completed in 2000–2001. Among them
were pilot studies to assess the efficacy and utility of fluorescence probes and vented-
level probes for SWMP and the approval of a SWMP plan for program expansion.
Systematic monitoring of water quality and weather data continued, with improve-
ment observed in the databases reported by many reserve sites. An effort was made
to upgrade older data loggers in the system. In addition, the CDMO received a more
complete array of quality assurance/quality control data from the reserve sites
(NERRS, 2002a).
Revised monitoring protocols required the deployment of two additional data
loggers in 2001–2002, bringing the total number of mandatory SWMP sites to four,
one of which was designated as a long-term reference (control) site (NERRS, 2002a).
Nutrient monitoring commenced in 2002, with duplicate water samples obtained
monthly at all four mandated data logger deployment sites in each reserve. Nutrient
monitoring also included the collection of diel water samples (taken at 2- to 3-h
intervals over a 24-h, 48-min time period) at one SWMP site every month using
an ISCO auto-sampler. Among the Tier I nutrient parameters measured are nitrate,
nitrite, ammonium, orthophosphate, and chlorophyll a. A real-time data delivery
and management system was approved for implementation in NERRS during 2002
(Ross, 2002). This initiative is designed to facilitate data availability for the scien-
tific community. Finally, discussions for SWMP biomonitoring were undertaken in
March and October 2002 and in February 2003 with plans to develop sampling
protocols during 2002–2003 (Edmiston et al., 2002).
SWMP Components
Data collected by SWMP have already proven to be useful in estuarine habitat

restoration projects. They have also been of value in the investigation of the temporal
recovery of estuaries from storm impacts. In addition, SWMP measurements have
been utilized as background data for numerous independent research studies.
Phase I
Phase I of SWMP, conducted from 1995 to 2000, focused on monitoring of
estuarine water quality and coastal meteorological conditions by measuring a suite
of water quality and atmospheric parameters. Currently, the network of 25 reserves
measures six water quality parameters (water temperature, salinity, pH, dissolved
oxygen, turbidity, and depth) over a range of temporal and spatial scales using
YSI 6-series data loggers deployed year-round at four SWMP locations. The
NERRS program is in the process of upgrading data loggers from the YSI 6000
model to the YSI 6600 model. The data loggers operate unattended in the field
but must be periodically reprogrammed. Thus, the instruments must be switched
out with newly programmed data loggers at the end of each deployment period
(about every 14 days). The field data are subsequently uploaded to a personal
computer or laptop, where they can be processed and analyzed to generate statistics
and plots. Telemetry systems also enable interfacing of the data loggers with real-
time data collection platforms (NERRS, 2002a). The goal of NERRS is to apply
consistent, quality-controlled methodology across the reserve sites to generate a
long-term, coordinated monitoring database that will characterize the water quality
conditions of the NERRS sites and will help evaluate the health and functionality
of the nation’s estuaries.
The 25 reserve sites also collect the following meteorological data on a near
continuous basis as previously noted: air temperature, wind speed and direction,
barometric pressure, relative humidity, precipitation, and photosynthetically active
radiation. For most sites, these data are obtained using the Campbell Scientific
Weather Station. The meteorological data, which have been shown to strongly
influence the aforementioned physical–chemical variables in estuarine waters, are
archived at the reserve sites. The water quality and meteorological data must be
collected, documented, edited, and submitted, along with metadata, to the CDMO
on an annual schedule. A SWMP mandate requires that all reserve sites must submit
at least 85% of the data that could be collected to the CDMO. Together with the
SWMP water quality database, the meteorological database consists of some of the
most comprehensive physical–chemical measurements ever collected in estuaries.
These findings may aid investigators in predicting how estuaries respond to changes
in climate and various anthropogenic perturbations (Wenner et al., 2001). They may
also enable investigators to determine whether conditions in estuaries are improving,
worsening, or remaining unchanged.
NERR-SWMP fills an important void for an integrated national program that
evaluates the status of marine environmental resources and the trends in estuarine
water quality over protracted periods. Therefore, it differs from most existing nation-
wide monitoring programs, which concentrate on relatively short-term measurements
of environmental variables taken annually or biannually over periods of 3–4 days
(NERRS, 2002a).
The ultimate goal of environmental monitoring is the protection of living
resources, human health, and the environment (National Research Council, 1990).
Three broad categories of environmental monitoring exist:
1. Compliance monitoring
2. Trends monitoring
3. Model validation and verification
NERRS is a most effective trends-monitoring program because it has developed

the infrastructure and public support needed to successfully conduct long-term
monitoring projects over large geographic regions. NERR-SWMP, for example, is
represented in the contiguous U.S. by almost every degree of geographic latitude
between 26°N and 43°N (~1600 km north to south) (Wenner et al., 2001). As noted
by the National Research Council (1990, p. 19), “Monitoring is most beneficial when
it results in more effective management decisions — decisions that protect or reha-
bilitate the marine environment, its living resources, and uses or resources that
society considers important.” These monitoring benefits are part of the mission and
goals of the NERRS program.
Wenner et al. (2001) have completed a detailed analysis of water quality data
collected at 22 reserves (44 sampling sites) in the NERR system during the
1996–1998 time period of SWMP Phase I. After employing various statistical tests
(t-tests, Analysis of Variances [ANOVAs], Kruskal-Wallis test, Pearson’s correlation
analysis, and harmonic regression analysis) on an array of water quality parameters
(temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen, pH, turbidity, and depth), Wenner et al.
(2001) reported the following findings:
1. Depth, salinity, and dissolved oxygen (mg/l or % saturation) were gener-

ally dominated by 12.42-h cycles at sites that experienced moderate daily
tidal amplitudes (2–4 m). Twenty-four hour cycles (i.e., day-night cycle,
wind, and man-made perturbations) dominated sites where salinity was
characterized as very low (tidal freshwater environment) or very high
(marine environment) and where tidal effects were minimal.
2. Twenty-four hour cycles accounted for 30–50% of the water temperature
variance at most sites, and 12.42-h cycles accounted for <20% of the
water temperature variance at most sites. In the summer, water temperature

fluctuated by as much as 10°C over 24 h at some sites.
3. Hypoxia (dissolved oxygen [DO] < 28% saturation) was strongly influ-
enced by latitude and climate. Half of the sites where hypoxia was
observed (on average) for more than 20% of the first 48 h of data logger
post-deployment were located in the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean;
however, 92% of hypoxia events persisted less than 8 h. Hypoxia was
most frequently observed during summer.
4. The temporal and spatial distribution of supersaturation (DO > 120%
saturation) events was not as clear as the temporal and spatial distribution
of hypoxia events. Supersaturation events primarily occurred in cooler
months, particularly winter; however, supersaturation events were
observed in all seasons. Although supersaturation events sometimes co-
occurred with hypoxic events during the same day, supersaturation was
negatively correlated with hypoxia.
5. At 92% of the sampling sites evaluated, aquatic respiration exceeded
aquatic production. Water temperature was significantly correlated
with aquatic metabolic rates at most sites; however, salinity was only
significantly correlated with aquatic metabolic rates at half of the sites
evaluated. Although metabolic rates were not noticeably different
among geographic regions, they were strongly influenced by habitat
type.
6. Cluster analyses grouped the NERR sites based on geographic region
and latitude, demonstrating the significance of biogeography and climate
as principal controls of water chemistry in the NERR estuaries (Sanger
et al., 2002).
Sanger et al. (2002) analyzed water quality data collected in NERR SWMP over
the 6-year (Phase I) period from 1995 to 2000. They focused on the assessment of
seasonal and inter-annual variability of parameters (water temperature, salinity, pH,
dissolved oxygen, turbidity, and water depth). The following major findings were
presented:
1. With respect to season, the application of three-way ANOVA models

showed that the highest water temperature, salinity, and number of
hypoxia events typically occurred among reserve sites in summer or fall,
with lowest values for these parameters generally observed in the winter
or spring. Supersaturation peaked in winter. These water quality patterns,
particularly for salinity, were significantly influenced by seasonal precip-
itation and evapo-transpiration.
2. The daily solar radiation cycle greatly influenced water temperature and
dissolved oxygen. Tides also impacted dissolved oxygen levels for
reserve sites near inlets. Low tide events influenced water temperature
in shallow estuaries.
3. The tide, wind patterns, and solar radiation cycles were the principal
factors affecting water depth.
4. The passage of tropical storms was linked to changes in temperature and

salinity.
5. Multivariate analysis revealed that sites with high salinity were associated
with a lower percentage of agricultural land in the watershed and lower
turbidity, and sites with low salinity were associated with a higher per-
centage of agricultural land in the watershed and higher turbidity.
6. While maximum autotrophic conditions generally occurred in the winter
or spring, maximum heterotrophic conditions typically developed in the
summer or fall. Minimum heterotrophic conditions were noted in the
winter or spring.
High-Priority SWMP Initiatives

Several elements of the NERRS program are considered to be high-priority initiatives
(i.e., they are to be implemented as soon as funds become available). Aside from
ongoing personnel needs and the technical challenges associated with analysis of
the extensive water quality database of SWMP, other high-priority initiatives in the
program are nutrient monitoring, chlorophyll fluorescence, biomonitoring, land use
and habitat change, watershed land use mapping, and benthic habitat mapping.
Medium-priority initiatives (i.e., those that require further evaluation prior to imple-
mentation) include photopigment analysis, chemical contaminant monitoring, and
global sea level rise. Two other major projects of significance are habitat restoration
and invasive species.
Water Quality Monitoring A high-priority initiative of SWMP in recent years has
been an expansion of water quality monitoring. This has been accomplished, as
noted above, by upgrading data loggers, as well as by increasing the number of data
loggers and the number of monitoring sites in each reserve. Spatial expansion has
been pursued because the reserves initially monitored abiotic conditions at only two
sites, which could not provide adequate coverage of the diverse habitats comprising
these systems. It is advantageous to conduct water quality monitoring at multiple
sites in a reserve to more fully characterize conditions in estuarine waters and their
watersheds. Water quality data derived from multiple monitoring sites also yield
more information for coastal decision makers to address resource management
problems. In addition, these data enable investigators to examine more closely the
natural perturbations and anthropogenic disturbances in these valuable coastal eco-
systems. According to NERRS (2002a), specific problems that may be targeted by
a more extensive water quality database are:
1. Impacts of nonpoint source pollutants and nutrient loadings on water quality

2. Changes in water quality associated with altered freshwater inflow due to
human intervention
3. Comparison of water quality between a freshwater-dominated source and
a marine-dominated source
4. Comparison of water quality in a restored marsh with that in a natural marsh
5. Comparison of effects of different land uses on adjacent wetland water
quality
6. Effects of saltwater encroachment on tidal freshwater wetlands

7. Correlation of water quality over broad spatial scales with occurrence,
density, and distribution of biological resources
Estuaries are physically controlled systems subject to a high level of natural

variability at all spatial and temporal scales (e.g., storms, floods, upwelling events,
and tidal currents), as well as a wide array of anthropogenic disturbances closely
coupled to rapid population growth and uncontrolled or poorly controlled devel-
opment in coastal watersheds. Estuarine reserves are not immune to these stressors.
Potentially significant anthropogenic impacts on these systems are habitat loss and
alteration, shoreline development, nonpoint source pollution, chemical contami-
nation, eutrophication, freshwater diversions, overfishing, and nonindigenous spe-
cies invasions (Kennish, 1997, 2000). Some of these impacts are expected to
become more severe during the next 25 years as the coastal population continues
to expand (Kennish, 2002). A focus of NERR-SWMP is to improve understanding
of estuarine variability associated with both natural processes and anthropogenic
activities through measurements of short-term variability and long-term changes
in water quality, land use/land cover in watersheds, biotic community structure,
and aquatic habitat.
Nutrient Monitoring In February 2002, the NERRS program instituted nutrient
monitoring system-wide. Excessive input of nutrients and organic matter to estu-
aries from various land-based sources (e.g., land runoff, riverine inflow, and
wastewater treatment plant discharges), as well as from atmospheric deposition,
has been linked to overenrichment or eutrophication problems (Nixon, 1995;
Valiela, 1995; Valiela et al., 1997; Smith et al., 1999). Eutrophication may be the
most significant water quality problem in U.S. coastal waters today; it has caused
the impairment of water quality in estuaries nationwide, resulting in imbalances
in their trophic structure and other adverse effects such as periodic toxic or
nuisance algal blooms, shading effects, hypoxia, fish kills, and reduced biodiversity
(Livingston, 1996, 2000, 2003; Kennish, 2002). As previously noted, Bricker et al.
(1999) documented 44 highly eutrophic estuaries and another 40 moderately
eutrophic systems in the conterminous U.S., with most of these water bodies found
along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts. They also projected that eutrophic conditions
would worsen in 86 impacted estuaries by the year 2020.
SWMP nutrient monitoring targets two groups of water quality parameters: Tier
I and Tier II components. For Tier I parameters (i.e., ammonium, nitrate, nitrite,
orthophosphate, and chlorophyll a), monthly grab sampling (consisting of two rep-
licates) is required at four SWMP data logger sites, and monthly diel sampling (using
an ISCO sampler) is mandatory at one SWMP data logger site. For Tier II parameters
(i.e., silica, particulate nitrogen, particulate phosphorus, dissolved total nitrogen,
dissolved total phosphorus, particulate carbon, dissolved carbon, total suspended
solids, and phaeopigments), sampling is optional (NERRS, 2002e).
The protocol for monthly grab sampling entails the collection of water samples
on the same day at four SWMP data logger stations; samples are taken at or as near
as possible to slack low-tide conditions. Duplicate grab samples are required, with
both samples reflective of the water mass sampled by the data logger. Therefore,
eight samples are collected every month at each reserve. Depending on hydrographic
conditions at the sampling site (i.e., well mixed vs. stratified water column), a surface
grab or horizontal and vertical samplers may be used. All samples are filtered as
soon as possible after collection (NERRS, 2002e).
Diel nutrient sampling involves the deployment of ISCO auto-samplers at one of
the four principal long-term data logger stations in each reserve. Samples are collected
at 2- to 3-h intervals over a lunar day (24 h, 48 min) time period. Samples reflect the
water mass sampled by the data logger. For example, surface samples are collected
within the photic zone or at a fixed depth of 0.5 m from the surface. Bottom samples
are collected at a fixed depth from the bottom, generally 0.5 m (NERRS, 2002e).
Storm events should not influence either diel or grab sampling. A dry period
72 h prior to sampling is desirable. All parameters must be analyzed in the laboratory
using standard and approved methods.
Chlorophyll Fluorescence Experimental testing has been undertaken at a number of
NERR sites using a YSI 6025 chlorophyll probe to monitor chlorophyll levels.
Chlorophyll determinations are important because the long-term trends in phy-
toplankton biomass are an excellent indicator of eutrophication in estuaries (NERRS,
2002a). Although results of deployment of the YSI 6025 chlorophyll probe in the
NERR pilot study have been variable, the application of chlorophyll fluorescence
will continue to be examined in the future.
NERRS also proposes to conduct photopigment analysis to measure the relative
abundance of characteristic algal groups, although this is a medium-priority initia-
tive. Data derived from photopigment analysis will be useful in examining long-
term trends and interannual variability in microalgal community composition and
biomass, as well as yielding data on the relative abundance of algal groups. Phy-
toplankton community responses to nutrient availability, therefore, may be clearly
evident from photopigment analysis. For example, phytoplankton communities in
nutrient-enriched, eutrophic estuaries are typified by reduced species diversity and
accelerated productivity. NERRS will employ high-performance liquid chromatog-
raphy (HPLC) for photopigment-based characterization of phytoplankton at reserve
sites (NERRS, 2002a).
Biomonitoring NERRS is currently developing a biological monitoring program.
The major goal of this long-term monitoring program parallels that of the water
quality initiative of SWMP: to delineate the patterns of short-term variability and
long-term changes at the reserve sites. Quantitative biological measures will be used
to assess biotic community composition, species abundance, and species distribu-
tions. The data will yield baseline biotic conditions, characterize biotic diversity,
and help to detect invasive species. The data will also be useful in investigating
indicators of estuarine condition and function and enable insightful comparisons to
be made among the reserve sites. Such information will be of value to NERRS for
developing an estuarine and marine classification system. Databases generated in
the program will be not only of academic interest but also of practical utility for
coastal resource management and decision making (NERRS, 2002a). The biological
monitoring program will consist of the following focus areas:
1. Plankton (specifically larvae)

2. Nekton (fish, decapod crustaceans, and other swimming animals)
3. Benthos (benthic invertebrates and benthic algae)
4. Submerged aquatic vegetation (seagrasses) and emergent vegetation
(marsh plants)
NERRS workgroups are establishing monitoring protocols for each of the

aforementioned focus areas. Components of these protocols will consist of
(NERRS, 2002a):
1. Mandatory requirements for sampling to be carried out by all participating

reserves on specific program elements
2. A menu of additional options that can be implemented by the reserves as
circumstances and funding allow
Because this approach requires all reserve sites to follow mandatory monitoring
protocols on specific studies, statistically valid comparisons can be made of the
databases across sites, forging a regional assessment of reserves as well as a national
synthesis of trends. In addition to the mandatory requirements for sampling at all
reserve sites, a menu of optional, site-specific monitoring protocols will be formu-
lated to address local rather than national biological issues of concern. This flexible
sampling schedule will result in maximum benefits for effective resource manage-
ment and estuarine conservation at the reserve sites (NERRS, 2002a).
Watershed Land Use Mapping A major objective of future NERRS efforts is to
document land use at the reserve sites and to determine how the ecological condition
and function of valued habitats at these sites change in space and time (NERRS,
2002a). An important part of this effort is the examination of links between watershed
land use and coastal habitat quality as well as the tracking of changes in the extent
and distribution of wetland and upland habitat types (Nieder et al., 2002). Habitat
destruction and fragmentation associated with watershed development cause signif-
icant biotic impacts, including loss of feeding and reproductive grounds, elimination
of species, and reduction in species diversity. Development leads to an increase of
impervious land cover, which promotes stormwater runoff, an increase in erosion,
accelerated sediment loading to estuaries, greater frequency of flooding, and dimin-
ished infiltration and ground water recharge (Arnold and Gibbons, 1996).
Remote sensing applications are useful in discerning large-scale changes in land
cover. Of particular utility is high-resolution digital imagery, which can generate
detailed databases from multiple time periods that enable accurate analysis of land
use/land cover changes. GIS can be used to document areas where changes have
occurred due to either natural or anthropogenic factors. This is a high priority
application of the NERRS program. GIS is valuable for long-term monitoring and
conservation of resources because change detection studies can identify even subtle
shifts of resource distribution patterns over time that yield significant information
for coastal managers and other decision makers concerned with assessing the status
and trends of coastal watersheds. It is also useful for wetland and terrestrial scientists
interested in comparing biotic communities, habitats, and ecosystem processes in

developed watersheds to those at reference locations. The application of system-
wide standardized analytical procedures to document habitat change is a particularly
powerful approach for NERRS since it will enable the status and trends of habitat
change to be evaluated consistently across local, regional, and national scales. This
effort will facilitate the inventory of reserve habitats in need of restoration and create
a baseline land use/land cover dataset in the reserve system of use in identifying
those coastal land use practices most effective in ameliorating habitat degradation
(Nieder et al., 2002).
The application of remote sensing is a valuable approach for watershed land use
mapping. High-resolution airborne imaging is especially attractive to NERRS
because it offers the resolution capabilities necessary to accurately characterize the
patterns of land use change in watershed areas. For example, Digital Orthophoto
Quarter Quads (DOQQ), a U.S. Geological Survey airborne imagery program yield-
ing 1-m resolution on a 5-year cycle, enables relatively rapid comparisons to be
made of regional differences in watershed land use patterns. These data can then be
used to assess watershed habitat quality (NERRS, 2002a).
Several watershed land use classes (e.g., residential, commercial, and agricultural
lands) will be investigated as part of the watershed land use mapping effort. These
classes can be mapped and categorized based on their relative contribution to specific
altering activities of such factors as:
1. Freshwater inflow
2. Nutrients
3. Heavy metals
4. Pesticides
5. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
6. Soil erosion
Because the Coastal Change Analysis Program (C-CAP) of NOAA is develop-

ing a nationally standardized database on land cover and habitat change in U.S.
coastal regions, it behooves NERRS to collaborate with C-CAP on watershed land
use mapping. As stated by NERRS (2002a, p. 27), “By comparing regional differ-
ences in watershed land use patterns and their influence on estuarine habitat quality,
the activity patterns most detrimental or beneficial to estuarine habitat quality will
be identified. Furthermore, differences, if any, in this relationship at each reserve
will allow an examination of regional differences in the sensitivities of estuarine
habitats. These two products will provide the basis for regional recommendations
regarding coastal land use planning, including habitat restoration, to benefit estu-
arine habitat quality.”
Benthic Habitat Mapping It is necessary to characterize benthic habitats in the
NERRS program to effectively link SWMP water quality monitoring with assess-
ment of aquatic habitat change. Benthic intertidal and subtidal habitat mapping is
essential to define the type and extent of aquatic habitats in each reserve system. It
is valuable not only for delineating the reserve sites but also for ascertaining future
habitat change caused by human activities in adjoining lowland areas and adjacent
uplands as well as in the riverine and estuarine water bodies themselves. This
information enables investigators to formulate remedial strategies to mitigate anthro-
pogenic impacts.
Conventional benthic habitat mapping has typically entailed the use of grab or
coring devices. However, this method of in situ data collection is labor intensive,
often temporally and spatially limited in scope, and generally not cost effective when
investigating extensive areas. Remote sensing applications, together with ground-
truthing efforts, may be a more practical approach when examining aquatic habitat
change over broad spatial scales.
When used in conjunction with grab or core sampling, sediment profile imagery
(SPI) yields more comprehensive data on soft-bottom benthic habitats, including
determinations of sediment texture and other characteristics (Rhoads and Germano,
1986; Nieder et al., 2002). SPI consists of a camera and video array that photographs
the sediment–water interface, generating detailed images of the upper sediment
layers of the estuarine floor. A sediment-profile camera may produce up to 200
images of the estuarine bottom, covering an area of several square kilometers, in
one survey day. Photographs taken by a sediment-profile camera can be used to
determine sediment type, sediment texture, depositional and erosional regimes, bed-
forms, depth of the redox potential discontinuity, epifauna, infauna, and bottom
habitat type (e.g., bare bottom, seagrasses, and oyster bars). Successional mosaics
derived from sediment-profile imaging are useful in tracking changes in benthic
community structure. Reconnaissance maps of successional series produced by
sediment-profile imaging have great potential value for managing estuarine
resources, such as commercially and recreationally important shellfish beds. Photo-
graphic images from SPI are also useful in elucidating natural and anthropogenic
disturbance gradients along the estuarine floor (Rhoads and Germano, 1986). SPI
has been successfully applied to benthic studies in the Hudson River NERR and
Apalachicola NERR, as well as in many other estuarine systems in the U.S.
The use of autonomous and remotely operated vehicles offers several advantages
over traditional grab or coring devices in benthic habitat mapping. For example, when
fitted with acoustic imaging devices (i.e., side-scan systems) or electromagnetics,
remotely operated and autonomous vehicles can rapidly survey extensive stretches
of the estuarine floor. The resulting acoustic images produce the high resolution
necessary to effectively characterize estuarine bottom types. According to Robin Bell
(Lamont–Doherty Geological Observatory, personal communication, 2002), remotely
operated vehicles have proven to be reliable for studying areas typically inaccessible
to traditional mapping technologies, and autonomous vehicles are powerful for obtain-
ing coincident data sets. They may not only support benthic mapping requirements
for site characterization but may also track anthropogenic disturbance of the estuarine
floor associated with habitat loss and alteration (e.g., dredging, propeller scarring of
motorized boats, sediment contamination, and oil spills).
REMUS (Remote Environmental Monitoring UnitS) are relatively low cost
autonomous vehicles with considerable capability for mapping bottom habitats of
shallow water systems. These preprogrammed systems are navigated via a transpon-
der network. Equipped with lithium batteries, REMUS can cover a distance of more
than 75 km at a speed of ~5 km/h. Experimental deployment of a REMUS vehicle

in the Jacques Cousteau NERR has shown that side-scan sonar imaging of the
Mullica River–Great Bay estuary is effective at depths greater than 1 m.
The Remote Observation Vehicle Earth Resources (ROVER), a remotely operated
vehicle of the Lamont–Doherty Geological Observatory, provides low-impact access
to very shallow (0.2–10 m) water environments. When fitted with a Mala Ground
Penetrating Radar (GPR) sensor, ROVER can yield greater resolution of shallow
stratigraphy than shown by standard acoustic frequency modulated subbottom pro-
files. This is particularly true where bottom sediments have a high gas content (Robin
Bell, Lamont–Doherty Geological Observatory, personal communication, 2002).
Low-cost autonomous and remotely operated vehicles, such as REMUS and
ROVER, have great potential application for benthic mapping of NERR sites system-
wide. They represent two of the most practical means of mapping benthic habitats
across broad spatial scales. This information will guide coastal managers who must
make informed decisions regarding the long-term viability of habitats and resources
in these systems.
For benthic mapping of spatially limited areas, such as SWMP sites, NERRS
proposes the use of benthic grabs or cores as the most cost-effective method
(NERRS, 2002a). The protocol is to deploy these instruments to determine sediment
texture (composition), percent organics, benthic infauna, depth contours, and the
distribution of benthic habitat type. The determination of sediment nutrient concen-
trations is also deemed to be important.
Benthic Community Surveys In concert with benthic habitat mapping, surveys of
benthic communities are also important components of future NERR-SWMP efforts.
Water and sediment quality data collected at NERRS sites are useful in evaluating
changes in benthic species composition, abundance, and diversity. These data may
also be related to the effects of watershed development and other human activities
at the NERRS sites.
Medium-Priority SWMP Initiatives

Global Sea Level Rise Among the array of human impacts on estuaries, global sea
level rise coupled to emissions of radiatively active gases (e.g., carbon dioxide,
methane, nitrous oxides) remains a long-term concern. Rising sea level can have a
profound effect on coastal wetland habitats, which often cannot accrete rapidly
enough to maintain their position (Kennish, 2001b). Therefore, they may recede
quickly landward in response to rising sea level, with the loss of fringing wetlands
habitat as a resulting impact. The U.S. has lost more than 50% of its original salt
marsh habitat, in part because of rising sea level (Kennish, 2001b). This loss has
had dramatic impacts on wildlife and fisheries in some regions. Land subsidence
must also be considered when assessing the effect of relative sea level rise. The
long-term stability of coastal wetland systems is dependent on the relative rates of
sediment accretion and land submergence (Mitsch and Gosselink, 1993).
Aside from inland migration of wetlands, an increase in shoreline erosion and
coastal flooding together with a decrease in estuarine beach habitat are expected
with continued sea level rise. This will be most evident in estuaries located between
20°N and 20°S latitude, where a greater frequency of storms and storm surges is
anticipated. More extreme weather conditions may develop with escalating global
warming, such as severe droughts punctuated by periods of excessive precipitation
(Kennish, 2002). These radical shifts in atmospheric conditions would likely result
in marked changes in freshwater inflow to estuaries over short time intervals.
Rising sea level could threaten the infrastructure of shore communities, rendering
them more susceptible to flooding events and property damage. Greater upstream
penetration of seawater would also increase the probability of saltwater intrusion
into groundwater supplies. Current land cover and land use modifications in coastal
watersheds could contribute significantly to future infrastructure degradation by
facilitating sea level rise via the removal of natural vegetative cover, which now
serves as a buffer against flooding and other associated impacts.
Important changes in the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of
estuarine water bodies would also result from global sea level rise. Examples are
altered tidal prisms and salinities, which could greatly affect circulation and biotic
communities in these systems (Kennish, 2000). Estuarine configurations and dimen-
sions would likewise be altered.
Global mean sea surface temperature has increased 0.6 ± 0.2°C during the
past century, with much of this increase ascribed to global warming due largely
to the release of greenhouse gases by human activities (IPCC, 2001). Mean sea
level has risen 10–25 cm during this time (Kennish, 2002). For the two warmest
decades on record, the 1980s and 1990s, the rate of change of mean sea level rise
has amounted to ~1.8 ± 0.3 mm/year (IPCC, 2001; Kennish, 2002). Since global
climate records began 140 years ago, the highest annual global mean surface
temperatures reported by the World Meteorological Organization occurred in 1998
(14.58°C) and 2001 (14.42°C).
Because of the serious potential impacts of rising sea level on adjacent wetland
and upland habitats, the NERRS program is considering the implementation of a
coastal monitoring effort to assess sediment elevation change relative to sea level
rise. The strategy of this effort is to establish a sedimentation–erosion table (SET)
plot within a wetland habitat (salt marsh or mangrove) of each NERR site. Obser-
vations made at each site will enable a regional assessment of habitat change
(NERR, 2002a).
Chemical Contaminant Monitoring NERRS lists chemical contaminant monitor-
ing as a medium priority concern. Halogenated hydrocarbons, PAHs, and heavy
metals are the three major classes of chemical contaminants that pose the greatest
threat to estuarine organisms and habitats (Kennish, 1992, 1997, 2002). Because
these contaminants tend to readily sorb to sediments and other particulate matter,
they generally accumulate on the estuarine floor. Hence, NERRS proposes to
have surficial bottom sediments sampled for contaminant loadings at two to four
sites in each reserve. The sediment samples will be analyzed using appropriate
analytical methodology to obtain the precise composition and concentrations of
chemical contaminants in the samples. Sampling will be conducted once every
5 years to provide status and trends of the contaminant loadings in each reserve
(NERRS, 2002a).
SPECIAL HIGH-PRIORITY INITIATIVES

Habitat Restoration
A major initiative of the NERRS program is the restoration of habitat (NERRS,

2002f). Most of the reserve sites have either initiated small- to medium-scale
(0.2–100 ha) restoration projects or are planning such projects, focusing on the re-
establishment of salt marshes and seagrass beds where ecological functions and
natural resource values have declined. The previous decade has seen the application
of innovative restoration and enhancement technologies in these wetland habitats
(Simenstad and Thom, 1992; Thayer, 1992; Fonseca et al., 1998). However, the
complexities associated with restoring the hydrologic and biotic regimes of impacted
wetland habitats can be formidable, and thus sound scientific methods must be used.
To test the success of such habitat restoration projects, field sites must be carefully
monitored for years. To date, there has been relatively poor predictability of resto-
ration outcomes. Restoration ecology is a rather young science, and few long-term
databases have been developed on specific restoration sites (Zedler, 2001).
The proposed goal of the NERRS restoration strategy is “to provide the scientific
basis and technical expertise to restore, enhance, and maintain estuarine ecosystems
by developing and transferring effective approaches to identify, prioritize, restore,
and monitor degraded or lost coastal habitat. Success will require a partnered
approach, education and community involvement, regional coordination, and addi-
tional resources” (NERRS, 2002f, p. 9). NERRS (2002f) has proposed the following
priorities for restoration science:
1. Designing restoration projects

2. Developing effective approaches to restoration
3. Monitoring restoration response
4. Assessing restoration success
5. Serving as local reference or control sites
6. Translating/transferring restoration information
7. Supporting policy and regulatory decisions by providing scientific and
technological advice
8. Building constituency for support of restoration science
9. Coordinating regional science
Because of its unique research and monitoring capabilities, NERRS is well suited
to undertake habitat restoration initiatives. The reserve system has the site platforms,
technical proficiency, and long-term monitoring strategies needed to effectively
conduct restoration projects. NERRS is also closely affiliated with the Cooperative
Institute for Coastal and Estuarine Environmental Technology (CICEET), a NOAA-
funded center that has successfully supported innovative and cost-effective restora-
tion technologies at reserve sites. Most reserves have disturbed habitat where res-
toration activities can be targeted. To date, more than 40,000 ha of altered habitat
within reserve boundaries have been physically restored. Additional habitat restora-
tion efforts are underway or being planned.
Funding is a major limiting factor to large-scale habitat restoration. However,

with the passage of the Estuaries and Clean Waters Act of 2000, Congress authorized
release of $275 million over 5 years to restore 400,000 ha of estuarine habitat by
2010. Title I of the Act requires the preparation of a National Strategy for Coastal
Habitat Restoration.
Most habitat restoration projects in NERRS have concentrated on salt marsh,
seagrass, riparian, and native habitat restoration. In addition, hydrologic restoration
and controlled burning in fire-dependent habitats have been pursued. Among notable
projects are salt marsh restoration in the Gulf of Maine at the Wells NERR and at
the Tijuana River NERR in Southern California, eelgrass restoration at the Narragan-
sett Bay NERR, and hydrologic restoration at the South Slough NERR to re-establish
tidal circulation. In total, about 75% of the estuarine reserves have undertaken some
type of habitat restoration work (NERRS, 2002f). Restoration and mitigation projects
in NERRS are expected to increase substantially during the next decade to address
ongoing habitat loss and degradation problems in estuarine and watershed habitats.
NERRS has a well-organized and integrated research, education, and stewardship
approach that will facilitate restoration projects.
Invasive Species
Among the growing concerns of the NERRS program are the effects of nonindige-
nous species invasions on biotic communities and habitats at reserve sites. This is
so because more than 400 invasive species have been documented along U.S. coasts
(Steve Rumrill, South Slough NERR, personal communication, 2003). Introduced
exotic nuisance species can fundamentally alter the trophic organization of estuaries
by outcompeting native forms and, in severe cases, causing their local extinction.
Diseased invasives can inoculate detrimental pathogens into estuarine systems.
Heavily invaded estuarine communities may exhibit reduced species diversity and
shifts in recreational and commercial fisheries. Invasive species often lack natural
controls in their adapted estuarine habitats and thus can increase dramatically in
abundance to attain overwhelming dominance. The invasion of the common reed
(Phragmites australis) often displaces or dramatically reduces native marsh plants
(e.g., Spartina alterniflora) over extensive areas along the East Coast. The common
reed has been particularly detrimental to brackish marsh habitat (Weinstein et al.,
2000). The function of these habitats may likewise change, with some impacted sites
displaying increased runoff and erosion, modified nutrient cycles, accelerated inputs
of chemical contaminants, and altered biotic community structure.
Systems most heavily affected by invasive species are those with major shipping
ports or centers for commercial fishing and aquaculture (Cohen and Carlton, 1998).
A number of locations, such as San Francisco Bay and the Great Lakes, have been
especially hard hit by invasive species. In addition, numerous estuaries along the
Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf coasts of the U.S., including NERRS sites, now harbor
potentially threatening nonindigenous species (Wasson et al., 2002).
More than 200 nonnative species have been introduced into the San Francisco
Bay/Delta region over the years, making it one of the most heavily invaded estuaries
in the world (Cohen and Carlton, 1998; Kennish, 2000). Many of the dominant
species in the bay are introduced forms, including nearly all macroinvertebrates
along the inner shallows. Almost half of the fishes in the delta are exotic species
(Herbold and Moyle, 1989). A few invasive species have caused a significant dis-
ruption of the endemic flora and fauna. For example, the smooth cordgrass (Spartina
alterniflora) has successfully invaded salt marsh habitat in the bay area and appears
to be supplanting the native cordgrass (S. foliosa). The most conspicuous faunal
invasive in the estuary is the Asian clam (Potamocorbula amurensis), which has
reached densities as high as 30,000 individuals/m2. This species has undergone
population irruptions over broad areas, disrupting planktonic and benthic commu-
nities, as well as finfish assemblages. It is responsible for an estimated $1 billion in
costs each year, and it remains a threat to the bay’s ecological health (Orsi and
Mecum, 1986; Cohen and Carlton, 1998; Kennish, 2000).
Some invasive faunal species have been quite explosive in estuarine environ-
ments and have altered the structure of biotic communities in a number of systems.
Examples of potentially serious nuisance invasive species are the zebra mussel
(Dreissena polymorpha), Chinese mitten crab (Eriocheir sinensis), and European
green crab (Carcinus maenas). Because of the great damage that some invasives can
inflict on native estuarine populations, there is growing interest in NERRS to peri-
odically conduct surveys of the species composition, abundance, and geographical
distribution of introduced species at selected locations to delineate the spread and
impacts of nonindigenous forms.
Wasson et al. (2002) note that nonnative species invasions contribute signifi-
cantly to the global extinctions of susceptible organisms. They therefore advocate
the formation of a nationally coordinated invasive species monitoring program in
estuarine habitats and propose a framework for such a program. Because the NERRS
network of estuarine sites establishes broad spatial coverage of the Atlantic, Gulf,
and Pacific coasts, it serves as an ideal platform for detecting and tracking the range
expansions of exotic species in this country. According to Wasson et al. (2002),
NERRS has identified more than 85 problematic nonnative species at its constituent
sites. They stress that certain habitats (i.e., marshes, submerged aquatic vegetation,
and shellfish beds), as well as several taxa (i.e., macroalgae, mammals, and fish),
should be the target of invasion monitoring. The implementation of a national
invasive monitoring program is an important goal of NERRS.
EDUCATION AND OUTREACH

Environmental education and stewardship are also major elements of the NERRS
program. These two components represent a vital link between research and coastal
management. In essence, education and outreach specialists translate findings of the
scientific community into a form readily understood by resource managers, coastal
decision makers, resource users, and the general public. Interns and volunteers typically
support these education and outreach efforts. The education component of the reserve
system essentially bridges the gap between scientific research and public understand-
ing. Interpretive efforts are important when obtaining public support for the application
of research findings to practical problems in estuarine waters and nearby watersheds.
Most reserves have visitor centers and interpretive trails (NERRS, 1994a).
The NERRS Education, Outreach, and Interpretation Program is designed to

forge greater understanding of estuarine ecosystems and nearby coastal water-
sheds. It also promotes environmental awareness of the adverse effects of human
activities on these sensitive water bodies. In addition, the program encourages
individual responsibility and stewardship of estuarine habitats, fostering conser-
vation and protection of coastal resources. Through education and outreach,
environmental managers and decision makers can learn to make more informed
decisions on environmental problems and the utilization of resources along the
coast. These decisions will be grounded in sound scientific research and moni-
toring. The program cultivates appreciation for estuaries and their exceptional
biotic communities, habitats, recreational and commercial value, and aesthetics
(JCNERR, 1998).
Prior to the formulation of the NERRS Strategic Education Plan in 1994, each
reserve’s education program operated relatively independently with its own goals
and objectives. The Strategic Education Plan connected all reserve education pro-
grams through common long-range goals. It was developed at a meeting of repre-
sentatives from NERRS, staff from the National Marine Sanctuaries Program at Old
Woman Creek in Huron, Ohio, and federal representatives from NOAA (Sanctuaries
and Reserves Division) (NERRS, 1994a). A major focus of this meeting was the
formulation of a unifying strategy among reserve sites to link education, research,
and resource management. The Strategic Education Plan lists the following guiding
principles for designing and implementing an education program in the reserve
system (NERRS, 1994b):
1. Provide on-site and off-site educational experiences

2. Educate holistically about estuaries, including ecological, cultural, histor-
ical, sociological, aesthetic, and economic aspects
3. Promote a sense of stewardship and individual responsibility
4. Address coastal issues from local, state, regional, national, and global
perspectives
5. Approach estuarine education through a perspective that includes water-
sheds, bioregions, and biogeographic regions
6. Increase understanding and appreciation of the National Estuarine
Research Reserve System
Basic objectives of the NERRS Education, Outreach, and Interpretation Program

are as follows (NERRS, 1994a, b):
1. Implement an education and interpretive program that provides state-of-

the-art information for NERRS reserves
2. Impart knowledge of broader coastal issues and values of estua-
rine/marine (protected) areas to educators and students, coastal resource
decision makers, environmental professionals, resource users, and the
general public
3. Convey the local, regional, and national importance of estuaries
4. Encourage understanding of estuaries for the general public
5. Promote networking among local, state, and regional decision makers to

more effectively manage coastal resources of the reserve region
6. Provide local, state, and regional decision makers with access to infor-
mation and resources of the NERRS research and monitoring program
7. Foster strong interrelationships between research and education initiatives
in the reserve system
8. Offer educational services at the reserves for educators, students, and the
visiting public that facilitate awareness of the estuary and promote sus-
tainable use of estuarine resources
9. Cultivate mentoring and networking among educators participating in
reserve educational programs
10. Establish venues for direct field experiences, such as teacher enrichment
and internships for students and educators, where participants work along-
side scientists
11. Target educational programming to groups underrepresented in science
and technology
12. Participate in local, state, and regional programs such as National Estu-
aries Day
An array of educational and outreach programs has been implemented at NERRS

sites and targeted to students, teachers, and local officials. These consist of in-class
presentations, seminars, tours, demonstrations, interpretive displays, exhibits, printed
materials (e.g., brochures, newsletters, and special publications), videos, audio tapes,
and workshops. Student site visits are an important element of the NERRS educa-
tional program as are summer teacher training opportunities and residential teaching
institutes. Local organizations and schools (K–12) are encouraged to participate in
reserve functions. Educator enrichment programs focus on a range of topics, such
as environmental monitoring and training, remote sensing technology, and GIS
applications. Educators and their students utilize interactive learning modules, con-
duct electronic field trips, and engage in informal lectures with scientists in the field.
Video/data links between reserve sites and educational institutions connected to the
Internet facilitate this educational experience (JCNERR, 1998).
A number of creative educational programs have also been instituted in the
reserve system. For example, at the Jacques Cousteau NERR in New Jersey, work-
shops are offered each year for K–12 teachers, focusing on hands-on training in
estuarine and marine science. The teachers engage in basic skills training, problem
solving, and critical thinking about coastal environmental issues. They can then
disseminate this training and educational experience to their students. Some teachers
visiting the Jacques Cousteau NERR site participate directly in field research, work-
ing with Rutgers University scientists and reserve staff to design classroom and
field-based marine activities that incorporate their experience into Web-based inter-
active exercises. The Marine Activities, Resources, and Education (MARE) Summer
Institute for K–8 educators is a core educational program at the Jacques Cousteau
NERR site. It offers a supplementary marine science curriculum that encourages
cooperative learning and hands-on classroom activities, with educators attending a
6-day intensive summer institute designed to foster greater understanding of estuaries
and associated wetlands. Thousands of students ultimately benefit each year from
this summer teacher training.
One of the most important initiatives of NERRS is its Coastal Training Program
(CTP). The goal of CTP is “better-informed decision making to improve coastal
stewardship at local and regional levels” (NERRS, 2003, p. 1). A focus of CTP is
to enable coastal decision makers to improve their scientific understanding of
NERRS monitoring and research efforts. This includes greater resolution of NERRS
priority issues such as nutrient monitoring, biomonitoring, biodiversity, habitat map-
ping, habitat restoration, invasive species, and estuarine processes. To this end,
coastal decision makers interact with CTP representatives to access SWMP data and
other NERRS material to address resource problems. It is hoped that by becoming
more knowledgeable about the science-based programs of NERRS, coastal decision
makers will be able to deal more effectively with the myriad issues associated with
coastal resource management. CTP is also part of an effort by NERRS to develop
site-based coastal training institutes.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The NERRS program consists of 25 active reserve sites that encompass more than a
million hectares of estuarine, wetland, and upland habitats in the major biogeographical
regions of the U.S. The purpose of this program is to improve the health of the nation’s
coastal habitats by developing and providing information that promotes sound resource
management (NERRS, 1995). Established by passage of the
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 and its reauthorization in 1985, NERRS also
helps to address current and potential degradation of coastal resources resulting from
increasing and competing human demands (JCNERR, 1998; NERRS, 2002a). This
network of protected areas represents a federal, state, and community partnership in
which environmental monitoring and research, as well as a comprehensive program
of education and outreach, strengthen understanding, appreciation, and stewardship of
estuaries, coastal habitats, and associated watersheds (NERRS, 1994a, b, 1995, 2002a).
The NERRS program has two principal elements:
1. Monitoring and research

2. Education and outreach
Monitoring and research are part of a System-wide Monitoring Program

(SWMP) developed to identify and track short-term variability and long-term
changes in the integrity and biodiversity of reserve estuaries and their coastal water-
sheds. Education and outreach concentrate on improving public awareness of estu-
arine-related issues and coastal resource problems and providing interpretive infor-
mation based on sound scientific research to decision makers. SWMP is one of the
most comprehensive and effective programs for monitoring and coordinating water
quality conditions of the nation’s estuaries, and it provides the platform for making
systematic, long-term observations of vital ecosystem parameters. SWMP databases
are most useful in delineating how estuaries function and change over time (NERRS,
2002a). Aside from water quality monitoring, major SWMP initiatives include
investigating biotic communities, assessing habitat change in estuaries, and exam-

ining land use change in nearby watersheds. Other priority projects of the NERRS
program are nutrient monitoring, biomonitoring, watershed land use mapping,
benthic habitat mapping, invasive species studies, and habitat restoration. NERRS
represents a national network of sites for the integration and coordination of envi-
ronmental monitoring and research; as such, it serves a vital role in improving public
awareness and understanding of estuarine environments and yielding valuable data
for more effective management of coastal resources.
REFERENCES
Alongi, D.M. 1998. Coastal Ecosystem Processes. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Arnold, C.L. and C.J. Gibbons. 1996. Impervious surface coverage. Journal of the American
Planning Association 62: 243–258.
Bricker, S.B., C.G. Clement, D.E. Pirhalla, S.P. Orlando, and D.R.G. Farrow. 1999. National
Estuarine Eutrophication Assessment: A Summary of Conditions, Historical Trends,
and Future Outlook. Technical Report, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
tration, National Ocean Service, Special Projects Office and the National Centers for
Coastal Ocean Service, Silver Spring, MD.
Cohen, A.N. and J.T. Carlton. 1998. Accelerating invasion rate in a highly invaded estuary.
Science 279: 555–562.
Cohen, J.E., C. Small, A. Mellinger, J. Gallup, and J. Sachs. 1997. Estimates of coastal
populations. Science 278: 1211–1215.
Edmiston, L., R. Scarborough, S. Ross, and M. Crawford. 2002. Information Package for
New Research Coordinators within the National Estuarine Research Reserve. Tech-
nical Report, National Estuarine Research Reserve System, Silver Spring, MD.
Fonseca, M.S., W.J. Kenworthy, and G.W. Thayer. 1998. Guidelines for the Conservation and
Restoration of Seagrasses in the United States and Adjacent Waters. NOAA Coastal
Ocean Program — Decision Analysis Series No. 12, NOAA Coastal Ocean Program,
Silver Spring, MD.
Goldberg, E.D. 1994. Coastal Zone Space — Prelude to Conflict? UNESCO Technical Report,
UNESCO, Paris.
Greene, D. and D.D. Trueblood. 1999. NERRS System-wide Monitoring Program: Consid-
erations for Program Development and Implementation. NOAA Technical Memoran-
dum NOS/OCRM/ERD-99–01, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
Silver Spring, MD.
Herbold, B. and P.B. Moyle. 1989. The Ecology of the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta: A
Community Profile. Biological Report No. 85(7.22), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Washington, D.C.
IPCC. 2001. Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. J.J. McCarthy,
O.F. Canziani, N.A. Leary, D.J. Dokken, and K.S. White (Eds.). Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, Cambridge.
Jacques Cousteau National Estuarine Research Reserve. 1998. Jacques Cousteau National
Estuarine Research Reserve at Mullica River–Great Bay, New Jersey: Final Manage-
ment Plan. Technical Report, Jacques Cousteau National Research Reserve, Rutgers
University, New Brunswick, NJ.
FL.
Kennish, M.J. (Ed.). 2001a. Practical Handbook of Marine Science, 3rd ed. CRC Press, Boca
Raton, FL.
Kennish, M.J. 2001b. Coastal salt marsh systems in the U.S.: a review of anthropogenic
impacts. Journal of Coastal Research 17: 731–748.
Kennish, M.J. 2002. Environmental threats and environmental future of estuaries. Environ-
Livingston, R.J. 1996. Eutrophication in estuaries and coastal systems: relationships of phys-
ical alterations, salinity stratification, and hypoxia. In: Vernberg, F.J., W.B. Vernberg,
and T. Siewicke (Eds.). Sustainable Development in the Southeastern Coastal Zone.
University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, SC, pp. 285–318.
Livingston, R.J. 2000. Eutrophication Processes in Coastal Systems: Origin and Succession
of Plankton Blooms and Secondary Production in Gulf Coast Estuaries. CRC Press,
Boca Raton, FL.
Livingston, R.J. 2003. Trophic Organization in Coastal Systems. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Mitsch, W.J. and J.G. Gosselink. 1993. Wetlands, 2nd ed. Van Nostrand-Reinhold, New York.
National Estuarine Research Reserve System. 1994a. National Estuarine Research Reserve
System Education: A Field Perspective. National Estuarine Research Reserve System,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, MD.
National Estuarine Research Reserve System. 1994b. The National Estuarine Research
Reserve System Strategic Plan for Education. National Estuarine Research Reserve
System, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, MD.
National Estuarine Research Reserve System. 1995. A Strategic Plan for the National Estu-
arine Research Reserve System: A State and Federal Partnership. National Estuarine
Research Reserve System, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver
Spring, MD.
National Estuarine Research Reserve System. 2002a. The National Estuarine Research
Reserve’s System-wide Monitoring Program (SWMP): A Scientific Framework and
Plan for Detection of Short-term Variability and Long-term Change in Estuaries and
Coastal Habitats of the United States. Technical Report, National Estuarine Research
Reserve System, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring,
MD.
National Estuarine Research Reserve System. 2002b. System-wide Monitoring Program:
Deployment Plans for Phase 1 (Abiotic Factors). Technical Report, National Estuarine
Research Reserve System, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver
Spring, MD.
National Estuarine Research Reserve System. 2002c. National Estuarine Research Reserve
System Strategic Plan 2003–2008. Technical Report, National Estuarine Research
Reserve System, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring,
MD.
National Estuarine Research Reserve System. 2002d. Action Plan. Technical Report, National
Estuarine Research Reserve System, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-
tion, Silver Spring, MD.
National Estuarine Research Reserve System. 2002e. NERR SWMP Nutrient Sampling Pro-
tocol. Technical Document, National Estuarine Research Reserve System, National
National Estuarine Research Reserve System. 2002f. Restoration Science Strategy: A Frame-
work. Technical Report, National Estuarine Research Reserve System, National Oce-
anic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, MD.
National Estuarine Research Reserve System. 2003. NERRS Coastal Training Program.
Technical Document, National Estuarine Research Reserve System, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, MD.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1998. Population: Distribution, Density,
and Growth. NOAA’s State of the Coast Report, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Silver Spring, MD.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1999. National Estuarine Research
Reserve System: A National Asset for Improving Management of Estuaries. Summary
Document, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, MD.
National Research Council. 1990. Managing Troubled Waters: The Role of Marine Environ-
mental Monitoring. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
Nieder, C., D. Porter, S. Rumrill, K. Wasson, E. Wenner, B. Stevenson, and M. Treml. 2002.
Land Use and Land Cover Analysis in the National Estuarine Research Reserve
System. Technical Report, National Estuarine Reserve Program, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, MD.
Nixon, S.W. 1995. Coastal marine eutrophication: a definition, social causes, and future
concerns. Ophelia 41: 199–219.
Orsi, J.J. and W.L. Mecum. 1986. Zooplankton distribution and abundance in the Sacra-
mento–San Joaquin Delta in relation to certain environmental factors. Estuaries 9:
326–334.
Rhoads, D.C. and J.D. Germano. 1986. Interpreting long-term changes in benthic community
structure: a new protocol. Hydrobiologia 142: 291–202.
Ross, S.W. 2002. Establishing a Real-time Delivery and Management System for the NERRS
Environmental Data. Technical Report, National Estuarine Research Reserve System,
Silver Spring, MD.
Sanger, D.M., M.D. Arendt, Y. Chen, E.L. Wenner, A.F. Holland, D. Edwards, and J. Caffrey.
2002. A Synthesis of Water Quality Data: National Estuarine Research Reserve
System-wide Monitoring Program (1995–2000). National Estuarine Research
Reserve Technical Report Series 2002:3, South Carolina Department of Natural
Resources, Marine Resources Division Contribution No. 500, Charleston, SC.
Schuyler, Q., W. Stevenson, H. Recksiek, M. Crawford, and M. Treml. 2002. Addressing
Habitat Issues with Remote Sensing in the National Estuarine Research Reserve
System. NERRS Needs Assessment Report, National Estuarine Research Reserve
System, Silver Spring, MD.
Simenstad, C.A. and R.M. Thom. 1992. Restoring wetland habitats in urbanized Pacific
Northwest estuaries. In: Thayer, G. (Ed.). Restoring the Nation’s Marine Environment.
Publication UM-SG-TS-92–06, Maryland Sea Grant College, College Park, MD.
Smith, V.H., G.D. Tilman, and J.C. Nekola. 1999. Eutrophication: impacts of excess nutrient
inputs on freshwater, marine, and terrestrial ecosystems. Environmental Pollution
100: 179–187.
Thayer, G.W. (Ed.). 1992. Restoring the Nation’s Marine Environment. Publication UM-SG-
TS-92–06, Maryland Sea Grant College, College Park, MD.
Valiela, I. 1995. Marine Ecological Processes, 2nd ed. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Valiela, I., I. Kremer, K. Lajtha, M. Geist, B. Seely, J. Brawley, and C.H. Sham. 1997. Nitrogen
loading from coastal watersheds to receiving estuaries: new method and application.
Ecological Applications 7: 358–365.
Wasson, K. 2002. An Approach to Biological Monitoring in the National Estuarine Research

Reserves. Technical Document, National Estuarine Research Reserve System, Silver
Spring, MD.
Wasson, K., D. Lohrer, M. Crawford, and S. Rumrill. 2002. Non-native Species in our Nation’s
Estuaries: A Framework for an Invasion Monitoring Program. Technical Report,
National Estuarine Research Reserve System, Silver Spring, MD.
Weber, M.L. 1995. Healthy Coasts, Healthy Economy: A National Overview of America’s
Coasts. Technical Report, Coast Alliance, Washington, D.C.
Weinstein, M.P., K.R. Philipp, and P. Goodwin. 2000. Castastrophes, near-catastrophes, and
the bounds of expectation: success criteria for macroscale marsh restoration. In:
Weinstein, M.P. and D.A. Kreeger (Eds.). Concepts and Controversies in Tidal Marsh
Ecology. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 777–804.
Wenner, E.L., A.F. Holland, M.D. Arendt, D. Edwards, and J. Caffrey. 2001. A Synthesis of
Water Quality Data from the National Estuarine Research Reserve System-wide
Monitoring Program. Technical Report, Centralized Data Management Office,
National Estuarine Research Reserve System, University of South Carolina, Charles-
ton, SC.
Zedler, J. (Ed.). 2001. Handbook for Restoring Tidal Wetlands. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Case Study 1
2 Waquoit Bay National
Estuarine Research
Reserve
INTRODUCTION
Waquoit Bay is a shallow lagoon-type estuary that lies along a glacial outwash plain
on the south shore of Cape Cod (Figure 2.1). The bay covers an area of 600 ha, and
it supports rich and diverse biotic communities. Although the bay only averages
1.8 m in depth (maximum depth 3 m), the water column is typically stratified
(D’Avanzo and Kremer, 1994). Surface water and groundwater inflows from the
watershed mix with waters from Nantucket Sound and Vineyard Sound. Character-
ized as a multiple inlet estuary, Waquoit Bay is bounded along its southern perimeter
by barrier beaches that are breached at two permanent locations (Crawford, 2002).
A navigation channel trending north–south bisects the main embayment into eastern
and western sections. Proceeding upestuary, the bay is bounded by salt marshes,
and it gives way to brackish ponds, freshwater tributaries, freshwater ponds, and
upland habitat. Flat, Sage Lot, Hamblin, and Jehu Ponds are brackish ponds, and
Bog, Bourne, and Caleb Ponds are freshwater ponds.
WAQUOIT BAY
r
Hamblin Pond
ve
er
MASSACHUSETTS
Ri
Riv
is
ak
ilds
on
Ch
Mo
r
ive
nd
Jehu Pond
d
tR
on
Isla
lP
ea
urn
Gr
Ee
shb
Central N
Wa
Basin 500 m
Sage Lot Pond
Tim’s
Pond
Off Shore Vineyard Sound
FIGURE 2.1 Map of Waquoit Bay showing sub-basins of the estuary. (From Short, F.T. and
D.M. Burdick. 1996. Estuaries 19: 730–739.)
35
Waquoit Bay is the main aquatic component of the Waquoit Bay National
Estuarine Research Reserve (Waquoit Bay NERR), which is centered in the towns
of Falmouth and Mashpee. Most of the reserve area consists of channels and open
waters (~510 ha). Uplands cover ~300 ha, marshes (fresh-, brackish-, and salt-water
marshes) >120 ha, and subtidal meadows ~70 ha (Geist and Malpass, 1996).
The reserve encompasses an area of ~14.9 km2. It includes, in addition to the
site headquarters (11.3 ha), public lands within South Cape Beach State Park (175
ha) and Washburn Island (133 ha). The Waquoit Bay NERR was designated in 1988
as the 15th site of the National Estuarine Research Reserve (NERR) system (Geist
and Malpass, 1996).
WATERSHED
The Waquoit Bay watershed covers more than 5000 ha. It stretches northward for
~8 km from the head of Waquoit Bay. Cambareri et al. (1992) delineated seven
subwatersheds in the Waquoit Bay watershed:
1. Eel Pond
2. Childs River
3. Head of the Bay
4. Quashnet River
5. Hamblin Pond
6. Jehu Pond
7. Sage Lot Pond
Figure 2.2 shows the boundaries of these subwatersheds.

The Waquoit Bay watershed is comprised of a wide array of habitats, notably
upland pitch pine/oak forests, pine barrens, wetlands (fresh-, brackish-, and salt-
water marshes), riparian habitats, sandplain grasslands, vernal pools, and coastal
plain pond shores, as well as barrier beaches and sand dunes. These habitats support
numerous plant and animal populations, including some endangered, threatened, and
rare species. Concern is growing with regard to future development and associated
anthropogenic impacts in the watershed habitats.
UPLAND PITCH PINE/OAK FORESTS

The primary forest community in the Waquoit Bay watershed consists of a complex
of pitch pines (Pinus rigida) and scrub oak trees (Quercus ilicifolia). It has formed
on the acidic, well-drained sandy soils of the glacial outwash plain. A mix of sand
and gravel, together with pebbles and small boulders, is evident along the surface
in barren areas of the watershed (Malpass and Geist, 1996).
In watershed areas north of the Waquoit Bay NERR, a pine barrens commu-
nity of pitch pine (Pinus rigida)/scrub oak (Quercus ilicifolia) has become
established in response to periodic fires, which generate nutrients from ashes in
an otherwise nutrient-deficient habitat. This community, similar to that observed
in the watershed areas of the Jacques Cousteau NERR in New Jersey, consists
Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve 37
A B SUBWATERSHEDS:
1: Eel Pond
2: Childs River
3: Head of the Bay
4: Quashnet River
5: Hamblin Pond
6: Jehu Pond
7: Sage Lot Pond
A: Ashumet Pond
2 4 B: John’s Pond
C: Snake Pond
D: Flat Pond
5
3
1
6
D
7
N
FIGURE 2.2 Map showing Waquoit Bay subwatershed areas. (From Geist, M.A. 1996. In:
The Ecology of the Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, Geist, M.A. (Ed.).
Technical Report, Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, Waquoit, MA, pp. II-
1 to II-22.)
of a unique complex of pitch pines and an understory of scrub oak and huckle-
berry (Gaylussacia baccata) growing on relatively flat terrane. Among the pre-
dominant low-lying vegetation found under the larger trees are lichens (Cladonia
spp.), bearberry (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi), lowbush blueberry (Vaccinium angus-
tifolium), and sweetfern (Comptonia peregrina). Frequent fire shapes the pine
barrens vegetative complex and appears to enhance the species diversity of the
floristic assemblage, demonstrating the selective action of this natural process
(McCormick, 1998). The lack of fire favors the development of a climax forest
of pitch pine and scrub oak trees.
SANDPLAIN GRASSLANDS
Another floral community type in the uplands maintained by fire, as well as by
grazing, is the sandplain grassland complex. Consisting of treeless grasslands, this
community occupies several areas of the highly porous sandy deposits of the uplands.
However, increasing development poses a long-term threat to this habitat. Species
of plants commonly reported in the sandplain grasslands include the little blue-stem
(Schizachyrium scoparium), sandplain gerardia (Agalinis acuta), bird’s foot violet

(Viola pedata), and New England blazing star (Liatris scariosa var. novae-angliae)
(Malpass and Geist, 1996).
VERNAL POOLS AND COASTAL PLAIN POND SHORES

The Mashpee outwash plain is marked by numerous water-filled depressions
(i.e., kettles) formed during the Wisconsinan glacial epoch. Many of these
depressions are vernal ponds that fill with freshwater during the winter and
spring but often dry out in summer due to excessive heat and evaporation.
Although these ponds may be seasonally ephemeral, they provide valuable
habitat for numerous anurans and other organisms. Several amphibian species
breed here and thus depend on the habitat for successful reproduction. The
yellow-spotted salamander (Ambystoma maculatum) is one such species. Exam-
ples of other anurans that breed in vernal ponds are the American toad (Bufo
americanus), green frog (Rana clamitans melanota), and red-spotted newt
(Notophthalmus viridescens viridescens).
The shoreline and surrounding areas of the vernal ponds are also impor-
tant feeding and resting sites for many organisms. Similar habitat values
exist in the perimeter areas of coastal plain ponds, such as at Achumet Pond
and Caleb Pond. These groundwater-fed ponds are less transitory than the
vernal ponds. Rare species habitats typically surround them (Malpass and
Geist, 1996).
RIPARIAN HABITATS
Willows (Salix spp.), alder (Alnus rugosa), and other low-lying vegetation inhabit
banks and moist perimeter areas of coastal plain streams in the Waquoit Bay water-
shed. These plants grade into border forests of pitch pine (Pinus rigida) and scrub
oak (Quercus ilicifolia). Phreatophytic vegetation proliferates in the moist soils of
the riparian zone, which is characterized by thick shrub vegetation.
While the coastal plain streams support an array of algal and vascular plant
species, numerous invertebrates, various finfish populations (e.g., eastern brook trout,
Salvelinus fontinalis; white sucker, Catostomus commersoni; white perch, Morone
americana; blueback herring, Alosa aestivalis; and alewife, A. pseudoharengus),
insects (e.g., mosquitos, caddisflies, and mayflies), and other organisms, the sur-
rounding land areas serve as important habitat for anurans (frogs and toads), reptiles
(snakes and turtles), small mammals (e.g., rabbits, raccoons, squirrels, and skunks),
and birds (waterfowl, song birds, and raptors). These riparian habitats provide
protection and rich sources of food for numerous fauna. Many species also nest and
reproduce here (Malpass and Geist, 1996).
FRESHWATER WETLANDS
The common cattail (Typha latifolia) and common reed (Phragmites australis)
dominate many freshwater wetland areas in the Waquoit Bay watershed. Other
plant species frequently encountered in these habitats are the sheep laurel (Kalmia
angustifolia), sweet gale (Myrica gale), and twig rush (Cladium marascoides).
Sphagnum sp. is likewise a significant constituent. As is the case for riparian
habitats in the watershed, freshwater wetlands support a wide variety of reptilian,
mammalian, and avian species, which use these habitats for feeding, breeding,
reproduction, and loafing activities.
A number of ponds, cranberry bogs, streams, and rivers in the Waquoit Bay
NERR are bordered by luxuriant freshwater marshes. For example, freshwater
marshes harboring diverse assemblages of plant and animal species occur along the
shoreline of Johns Pond north of the bay and parts of South Cape Beach State Park.
They continue to the south on the Childs River, which originates at Johns Pond. In
addition to these areas, freshwater marshes also abut Ashumet, Bourne, Snake, and
Fresh Ponds north of the bay, as well as Grassy, Flashy, and Martha’s Ponds. Other
freshwater marsh habitat can be found along the perimeter of the Quashnet River
and Red Brook. Cranberry bogs and marginal areas of kettle hole ponds likewise
support freshwater marshes (Malpass and Geist, 1996).
SALT MARSHES
The Waquoit Bay NERR includes ~120 ha of salt marsh habitat, primarily at the
head of Eel Pond and Waquoit Bay, in shoreline areas of Washburn Island, at the
mouths of the Childs and Moonskis Rivers, and at the head of the Great River, as
well as at Jehu, Sage Lot, and Hamblin Ponds. Smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterni-
flora) dominates the low marsh intertidal zone, and salt marsh hay (S. patens)
predominates in the high marsh zone. Tidal action is a major controlling factor. Low
marsh develops in protected areas subjected to semidiurnal tidal inundation, whereas
high marsh forms at greater elevations affected only by extreme high tide (Malpass
and Geist, 1996).
Although the low marsh appears to be comprised of monotypic stands of Spartina
alterniflora, sea lavender (Limonium nashii) and glassworts (Salicornia spp.) may also
occur in this habitat. Aside from Spartina patens and Salicornia spp., the most
common species of plants observed in the high marsh include the spike grass (Dis-
tichlis spicata), black rush (Juncus gerardi), and marsh elder (Iva frutescens) (Malpass
and Geist, 1996). Howes and Teal (1990) have compiled a comprehensive list of salt
marsh species in the Waquoit Bay NERR (Table 2.1). They describe three distinct
types of salt marsh wetlands in the reserve complex. The most expansive salt marshes
occur at Hamblin Pond and Jehu Pond. At these sites, plant zonations and transition
zones are broader than at other locations in the system. Species diversity is also greater
here. Salt marsh habitat is likewise more extensive, and species diversity is greater
along rivers than in the main body of the bay. Salt marshes surrounding the bay are
spatially restricted with narrow plant zonations.
MUDFLATS AND SANDFLATS

Tidal flats are not well developed in the Waquoit Bay estuarine system, mainly
because the tidal range only averages ~0.5 m. However, tidal flats are conspicuous
in three areas (Malpass and Geist, 1996):
TABLE 2.1
Salt Marsh Plants Occurring in the Waquoit Bay
Estuarine Systema
Common Name Scientific Name
Salt marsh cordgrass Spartina alterniflora

Salt reed grass Spartina cynosuroides
Salt marsh hay Spartina patens
Spike grass Distichlis spicata
Black rush Juncus gerardi
Glasswort Salicornia europa
Glasswort Salicornia bigelovii
Woody glasswort Salicornia virginica
Sea lavender Limonium carolinianum
Chair-maker’s rush Scirpus americanus
Salt marsh bullrush Scirpus maritimus
Robust bulrush Scirpus robustus
Seaside goldenrod Solidago sempervirens
Marsh elder Iva frutescens
Halberd-leaved orach Atriplex patulah
Reed grass Phragmites communis
Dusty miller Artemisia stelleriana
Narrow leaved cattail Typha angustifolia
Salt marsh fleabane Pluchea purpurascens
Poison ivy Rhus radicans
Beach grass Ammophila breviligulata
Beach pea Lathhyrus japonicus
Salt marsh aster Aster tenufolius
Bayberry Myrica pensylvanica
Salt spray rose Rosa rugosa
a Species listed in order of emergence.
Source: Howes, B.G. and J.M. Teal. 1990. Waquoit Bay — A

Model Estuarine Ecosystem: Distribution of Fresh and Salt Water
Wetland Plant Species in the Waquoit Bay National Estuarine
Research Reserve. Final Technical Report, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Washington, D.C.
1. At the eastern shore of Washburn Island

2. At the eastern shore of the head of the bay
3. At the outlet of the Moonakis River
These protean habitats support a wide array of bivalves, gastropods, polychaetes,

crustaceans, and other invertebrates. Among the most notable species encountered in
these habitats are the gem clam (Gemma gemma), soft-shelled clam (Mya arenaria),
and hard-shelled clam (Mercenaria mercenaria). Burrowing amphipods (Corophium
sp.) build U-shaped tubes in the sediments. The horseshoe crab (Limulus polyphemus)
and blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) also frequent these environments. Polychaetes
observed burrowing in tidal flat sediments include such forms as clam worms (Nereis
virens) and capitellids (e.g., Heteromastus filiformis). Abundant infaunal species con-
stitute a rich food supply for birds and other wildlife (Whitlach, 1982).
BEACHES AND DUNES

Two barrier beaches lie at the seaward end of Waquoit Bay, one extending eastward
from the southern margin of Washburn Island and the other extending westward
from South Cape Beach. Together, they stretch for more than 40 ha, enclosing most
of Waquoit Bay and Eel Pond. Two jetties have been constructed on the east and
west sides of the main inlet to Waquoit Bay. The two barrier beaches are highly
dynamic features, which are constantly modified by the action of wind, waves, tides,
and currents. Major storms and heavy winds periodically cause the overwash of
sediment into the back beach and lower bay areas, resulting in shoaling of the lower
bay areas (Geist, 1996a).
Plants trap windblown sand and promote the development of dunes on the barrier
beaches. This process creates important habitat. Beach grass (Ammophila breviligu-
lata) is an initial colonizer and dune stabilizer. Beach heather (Hudsonia tomentosa),
beach pea (Lathyrus japonicus var. glaber), seaside goldenrod (Solidago sempervi-
rens), and dusty miller (Artemisia stelleriana) are also important primary dune
stabilizers along the barrier beaches (Cullinan and Botelho, 1990). Back dune areas
harbor beach plum (Prunus maritima), bayberry (Myrica pensylvanica), salt spray
rose (Rosa rugosa), and poison ivy (Rhus radicans).
The dunes and associated vegetation form valuable habitat for shorebirds that
forage, rest, reproduce, and nest on the barrier beaches. For example, herring gulls
(Larus argentatus), laughing gulls (L. atricilla), and roseate terns (Sterna dougallii)
forage along the beaches. Other species commonly rest here, including greater
black-backed gulls (L. marinus), ring-billed gulls (L. delawarensis), and various
species of terns (e.g., common terns, S. hirundo; least terns, S. antillarum; and
Arctic terns, S. paradisaea). Least terns also use barrier beach habitats for breeding.
Common terns and piping plovers (Charadrius melodus) utilize these habitats for
nesting. Other shorebird species frequently observed on the barrier beaches are the
semipalmated plover (C. semipalmatus), black-bellied plover (Pluvialis squa-
tarola), willet (Catotrophorus semipalmatus), dunlin (Calidris alpina), least sand-
piper (C. minutilla), semipalmated sandpiper (C. pusilla), sanderling (C. alba),
short-billed dowitcher (Limnodromus griseus), ruddy twinstone (Arenaria inter-
pres), lesser yellowlegs (Tringa flavipes), and greater yellowlegs (T. melanoleuca).
Migrating shorebirds that stop over on Waquoit Bay beach and dune habitats during
the spring and fall generally gain a significant amount of weight by foraging heavily
in nearby coastal and estuarine waters. Waterfowl (e.g., buffleheads, Bucephala
albeola; eiders, Somateris mollissima; scoters, Melanitta sp.; and mergansers, Mer-
gus serrator) often utilize the bay habitats as well, especially during the winter
months (Malpass and Geist, 1996).
The ongoing sea level rise associated with eustatic and isostatic changes and
its effect on the long-term condition of the barrier beaches, salt marshes, and back
bay waters of the system are a growing concern. The relative sea level rise in the
Waquoit Bay area amounts to ~3 mm/yr, with land subsidence responsible for
about two-thirds of this increase and eustatic sea level rise responsible for the
remaining one-third (Giese and Aubrey, 1987). The barrier beaches are responding
to the rising sea level by slowly migrating landward; the net movement of sand
is from the forebeach to the back beach zone via wave and overwash action. Salt
marshes behind the barrier beaches are also slowly migrating landward despite
accretion rates in Waquoit Bay ranging from 2.8 to 4.6 mm/yr (Orson and Howes,
1992). Another result of rising sea level, according to Orson and Howes (1992),
is the formation of freshwater swamps and bogs (e.g., at South Cape Beach).
Greater human development and attempts to stabilize coastal features, however,
act in opposition to dynamic natural forces shaping the beach and dune environ-
ment and the back-bay areas.
ESTUARY
Floral and faunal communities are rich and diverse in Waquoit Bay and contiguous
tidal creeks and channels. Salt ponds (e.g., Sage Lot, Jehu, and Hamblin Ponds) also
support numerous organisms. Benthic algae, phytoplankton, zooplankton, benthic
invertebrates, finfish, and shellfish are well represented. Several species are of con-
siderable recreational or commercial importance, such as the American eel (Anguilla
rostrata), winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus), hard clam (Mercenaria
mercenaria), soft clam (Mya arenaria), and bay scallop (Argopecten irradians)
(Crawford, 1996a).
TIDAL CREEKS AND CHANNELS

Great River and Little River are two tidal creeks in the Waquoit Bay complex. Great
Bay connects Waquoit Bay to Jehu Pond, and Little River links bay waters to
Hamblin Pond. Tidal creeks also feed Bog Pond and Caleb Pond, as well as Sage
Lot Pond.
Malpass and Geist (1996) discussed the benthic flora and fauna as well as the
fish assemblages occurring in the tidal creeks and channels. Benthic macroalgae are
observed along the bottom of the tidal creeks and channels. While some macroalgal
species drift passively over tidal creek floors (e.g., Ulva lactuca and Cladophora
vagabunda), other, attached forms (e.g., Codium fragile and Fucus spp.) are anchored
to the bottom. C. fragile often attaches via a holdfast to shell substrate and other
hard surfaces that lie on bottom sediments.
Common invertebrates in the tidal creek and channel habitats include barnacles
(Balanus spp.), sea squirts (Molgula manhattensis), blue crabs (Callinectes sapi-
dus), lady crabs (Ovalipes ocellatus), and mussels (Geukensia demissa). Other
arthropods that may be encountered in these habitats are Cymadusa compta,
Erichsoniella filiformis, Hippolyte zostericola, Microdeutopus gryllotalpa,
Neopanope texana, and Palaemonetes vulgaris. Polychaetes (e.g., Scoloplos fra-
gilis) and echinoderms (e.g., Leptosynapta sp. and Sclerodactyla briarias) may
also be found in the tidal creeks and channels.
Forage fishes (e.g., mummichogs, Fundulus heteroclitus; striped killifish, Fun-

dulus majalis; Atlantic silversides, Menidia menidia; and sheepshead minnows, Cyp-
rinodon variegatus) dominate fish assemblages in the tidal creeks and channels.
These species spend most of their lives in these habitats. Other fish species residing
in these waters are those forms utilizing the habitat as a nursery area. Examples are
the bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix), Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus), and
tautog (Tautoga onitis).
WAQUOIT BAY
Environment
As a shallow coastal system, Waquoit Bay is highly responsive to local meteorolog-

ical conditions, and it thus exhibits relatively large seasonal changes in water tem-
perature. Over an annual period, water temperature in the bay ranges from near 0°C
to >25°C. Salinity, in turn, ranges from <10‰ to ~32‰. Bottom sediments consist
of silt and clay in deeper areas of the central bay, while coarser sands and shell
predominate elsewhere in the system, particularly in nearshore habitats (Valiela et al.,
1990; Ayvazian et al., 1992; Crawford, 2002).
Organisms
Benthic Organisms
Eelgrass (Zostera marina) once covered much of the Waquoit Bay bottom, but
progressive eutrophication and disease during the past several decades have essen-
tially eliminated the beds in the bay (Crawford, 2002). In contrast, benthic macroal-
gae (e.g., Cladophora vagabunda and Gracilaria tikvahiae) have become increas-
ingly more abundant in the bay, carpeting extensive areas of the bottom (D’Avanzo
and Kremer, 1994). Valiela et al. (1992) reported that the annual mean biomass of
macroalgae in the Childs River exceeds 300 g/m2. This subestuary of the bay,
bordered by the highest housing density in the area, receives elevated nutrient loads,
which enhance algal growth. Greater inputs of nutrients also increase phytoplankton
production and epiphytic growth in the bay; this accelerated plant growth leads to
shading of the benthos, further impacting submerged aquatic vegetation.
Macroalgal mats have become the dominant bottom-dwelling plant forms in the
estuary complex. Dense mats of the filamentous green macroalga, Cladophora
vagabunda, and the filamentous red macroalga, Gracilaria tikvahiae, predominate.
Both of these algal species form thick floating mats that drift above the bay bottom
(Hersh, 1996). The extensive mats have created a relatively new habitat type in the
estuary. Other commonly occurring green algae in the system include Codium
fragile, Enteromorpha spp., and Ulva lactuca. Aside from G. tikvahiae, several
additional red macroalgal species (Agardhiella tenera, Chondras crispus, Polysipho-
nia urceolata, and Grinnellia americana) have been reported in the estuary. Brown
macroalgae of note are Petroderma maculiforme, Pseudolithoderma spp., Fucus spp.,
Laminaria agardhii, and Ralfsia spp.
Table 2.2 is a list of invertebrates identified in the Waquoit Bay complex.
Eelgrass once provided a major habitat for many of the species, but its disappear-
TABLE 2.2
Estuarine Invertebrates Identified in the Waquoit Bay Complex
Annelids Arthropods
Autolytus sp. Ampelisca vandorum

Capitella spp. Ampelisca agassizi
Cirratulus grandis Ampithoe longimana
Eteone lactea Corophium insidiosum
Hypaniola gray Cymadusa compta
Mediomastus ambiseta Gammarus mucronatus
Nereis arenaceodonta Lysianopsis alba
Nereis grayi Microdeutopus sp.
Nereis virens Microdeutopus gryllotalpa
Parahesione luteola Neopanope texana
Podarke obscura Leucon americanus
Polydora cornuta Hippolyte zostericola
Polydora ligni Palaemonetes vulgaris
Prionospio heterobranchia Crangon septemspinosa
Prionospio spp. Pagurus longicarpus
Sabella micropthalma Libinia dubia
Scolecolepides viridis Emerita talpoida
Scoloplos fragilis Callinectes sapidus
Stauronereis rudolphi Carcinus maenas
Tharyx sp. Ovalipes ocellatus
Uca pugilator
Mollusks Uca pugnax
Anachis sp. Cyathura polita
Bittium alternatum Edotea triloba
Anadara ovalis Idotea baltica
Crepidula fornicata Erichsoniella filiformis
Elysia chlorotica Balanus improvisus
Haminoea solitaria Balanus eburneus
Hydrobia tonenii Limulus polyphemus
Littorina littorea Callipallene brevirostris
Polinices duplicatus
Lunatia heros Echinoderms
Mitrella lunata Cucumaria pulcherrima
Busycon canaliculatum Leptosynapta sp.
Busycon carica Sclerodactyla briarias
Eupleura caudata Ophioderma brevispina
Urosalpinx cinerea
Nassarius obsoletus Nemerteans
Anomia simplex Lineus ruber
Argopecten irradians Zygeupolia rubens
Crassostrea virginica
Platyhelminthes
Ensis directus
Euplana polynyma
Gemma gemma
TABLE 2.2 (CONTINUED)

Estuarine Invertebrates Identified in the Waquoit Bay Complex
Mollusks Sponges
Geukensia demissa Haliclona loosanoffi
Laevicardium mortoni
Mercenaria mercenaria
Mya arenaria
Mytilus edulis
Petricola pholadiformis
Spisula polynyma
Spisula solidissima
Loligo peali
Urochordates
Molgula manhattensis
Botryllus schlosseri
Amarouciun stellatum
Lysianopsis alba
Cyclichna occulata
Source: Malpass, W. and M.A. Geist. 1996. In: The Ecology of the Waquoit Bay National
Estuarine Research Reserve, Geist, M.A. (Ed.). Technical Report, Waquoit Bay National
Estuarine Research Reserve, Waquoit, MA, pp. III-1 to III-26.
ance has had a marked impact on some of them. For example, the bay scallop
(Argopecten irradians) has declined appreciably in abundance concomitant with
the loss of eelgrass habitat. As a result, the hard clam (Mercenaria mercenaria)
and soft clam (Mya arenaria) now dominate the bay shellfisheries. These species
have exhibited improved growth in areas dominated by macroalgae (Chalfoun
et al., 1994). Other invertebrate species relying heavily on eelgrass beds for food
sources and protection from predators, however, have also been adversely affected
by the disappearance of the plants.
Benthic macroalgae serve as protective habitat for various invertebrate species.
Sogard and Able (1991), for example, demonstrated that sea lettuce (Ulva lactuca)
is an important habitat for decapod crustaceans (i.e., blue crabs, Callinectes sapi-
dus; sand shrimp, Crangon septemspinosa; and grass shrimp, Palaemonetes vul-
garis) in areas of shallow New Jersey coastal bays lacking eelgrass. They showed
that only one decapod species, Hippolyte pleuracanthus, was more abundant at
eelgrass sites than at sea lettuce sites in the coastal bays. Both eelgrass and sea
lettuce supported higher densities of decapod crustaceans than did adjacent unveg-
etated substrates.
The benthic invertebrate community of Waquoit Bay consists of a wide array of
epifaunal and infaunal populations. Bivalves, gastropods, crustaceans, polychaetes,
and echinoderms are well represented (Table 2.2). Among commonly occurring
bivalves in the bay are hard clams, soft clams, razor clams (Ensis directus), and
mussels (Geukensia demissa and Mytilus edulis). Gastropods of significance include

whelks (Busycon carica and B. canaliculatum), moon snails (Lunatia heros and
Polinices duplicatus), and slipper shells (Crepidula fornicata and C. plana). Barna-
cles (Balanus eburneus and B. improvisus), blue crabs (Callinectes sapidus), green
crabs (Carcinus maenus), mud crabs (Neopanope texana), horseshoe crabs (Limulus
polyphemus), spider crabs (Libinia dubia), sand shrimp (Crangon septemspinosa),
and grass shrimp (Palaemonetes vulgaris) are important arthropods. A number of
polychaetes attain relatively high abundance in some areas. Notable in this regard
are Capitella spp., Nereis spp., Polydora spp., Prionospio spp., and Mediomastus
ambiseta (Malpass and Geist, 1996).
Finfish
Waquoit Bay represents a transition zone for fish assemblages, harboring both warm-
temperate and cold-water fish fauna (Ayvasian, 1992). As a result, the fish assem-
blages observed in Waquoit Bay are highly diverse (Table 2.3). Aside from the
resident species that spend most of their lives in estuarine waters (e.g., Atlantic
silverside, Menidia menidia; mummichog, Fundulus heteroclitus; and sheepshead
minnow, Cyprinodon variegatus), other species found in the bay may be classified
as warm-water migrants or cool-water migrants, as well as freshwater and marine
strays. Diadromous forms (e.g., American eel, Anguilla rostrata; blueback herring,
Alosa aestivalis; and alewife, A. pseudoharengus) are common during spawning
migrations to freshwater. The most abundant species appear to be the smaller forage
fishes (Malpass and Geist, 1996).
Some of the larger predatory species are those that enter the bay in spring and
summer to feed on smaller prey. Examples are the bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix)
and striped bass (Morone saxatilis). Other marine forms use the estuarine waters as
spawning, feeding, and nursery grounds during winter, and they leave in the spring
and summer. The winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus) and scup (Steno-
tomus chrysops) provide examples. The bay serves as an important nursery for some
marine species that are present almost exclusively as juveniles. Pollack (Pollachius
virens), Atlantic tomcod (Microgadus tomcod), and white hake (Urophycis tenuis)
fall into this category (Ayvasian et al., 1992). The diversity of fish species in the
bay peaks during the warmer months of the year when many species enter the system
to feed and spawn. Because Waquoit Bay represents a transition zone where both
cold- and warm-water fishes with overlapping biogeographic ranges coexist, species
diversity is enhanced (Ayvasian et al., 1992).
Although the absolute abundance of fishes in the bay varies considerably from
year to year, the relative abundance is reasonably consistent. The most abundant
forms, as mentioned previously, are small forage species, largely resident in the
estuary, or young and juveniles of marine species that occur only seasonally but
feed and grow rapidly. While some species are more widely distributed in the bay
(e.g., bay anchovy, Anchoa mitchilli), others such as the threespine stickleback
(Gasterosteus aculeatus) and fourspine stickleback (Apeltes quadracus) appear to
be more spatially restricted and habitat specific. The result is a system heavily utilized
by a wide variety of fish species (Malpass and Geist, 1996).
TABLE 2.3
Finfish Species Found in the Waquoit Bay Estuarine Complex
Marine Species
Striped anchovy Anchoa hepsetus
Pollack Pollachius virens
Striped bass Morone saxatilis
Black sea bass Centropristis striata
Scup Stenotomus chrysops
White mullet Mugil curema
American sand lance Ammodytes americanus
Northern searobin Prionotus carolinus
Striped searobin Prionotus evolans
Longhorn sculpin Myoxocephalus octodecemspinosus
Summer flounder Paralichthys dentatus
Windowpane flounder Scophthalmus aquosus
Yellowtail flounder Limanda ferruginea
Estuarine Resident Species

Mummichog Fundulus heteroclitis
Striped killifish Fundulus majalis
Sheepshead minnow Cyprinodon variegatus
Inland silverside Menidia beryllina
Tidewater silverside Menidia peninsulae
Oyster toadfish Opsanus tau
Rainwater killifish Lucania parva
Threespine stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus
Fourspine stickleback Apeltes quadracus
Ninespine stickleback Pungitius pungitius
Blackspotted stickleback Gasterosteus wheatlandi
Northern pipefish Syngathus fuscus
Northern kingfish Menticirrhus saxatilis
Naked goby Gobiosoma bosci
Rock gunnel Pholis gunnellus
Grubby Myoxocephalus aenaeus
Hogchoker Trinectes maculatus
Northern puffer Sphoeroides maculatus
Estuarine Nursery Species

Bay anchovy Anchoa mitchilli
Atlantic silverside Menidia menidia
Atlantic menhaden Brevoortia tyrannus
Atlantic herring Clupea harengus
Atlantic tomcod Microgadus tomcod
Atlantic needlefish Strongylura marina
Bluefish Pomatomus saltatrix
(continued)

Finfish Species Found in the Waquoit Bay Estuarine Complex
Tautog Tautoga onitis

Cunner Tautogolabrus adspersus
Striped mullet Mugil cephalus
Winter flounder Pseudopleuronectes americanus
White hake Urophycis tenuis
Freshwater/Brackish Water Species

Banded killifish Fundulus diaphanus
Marsh killifish Fundulus confluentus
White perch Morone americana
Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas
Bridled shiner Notropis bifrenatus
Blacknose shiner Notropis heterolepis
White sucker Catostomus commersoni
Tesselated darter Etheostoma olmstedi
Eastern brook trout Salvelinus fontinalis
Brown trout Salmo trutta
Tiger trout Salvelinus fontinalis × Salmo trutta (hybrid)
Brown bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus
Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus
Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides
Diadromous Species
American eel Anguilla rostrata
Blueback herring Alosa aestivalis
Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus
American shad Alosa sapidissima
Rainbow trout Osmerus mordax
Adventitious Visitors
Crevalle jack Caranx hippos
Ladyfish Elops saurus
Ballyhoo Hemiramphus brasiliensis
Barrelfish Hyperoglyphe perciformis
Atlantic cod Gadus morhua
Lumpfish Cyclopterus lumpus
Source: Malpass, W. and M.A. Geist. 1996. In: The Ecology of the Waquoit Bay National
Estuarine Research Reserve, Geist, M.A. (Ed.). Technical Report, Waquoit Bay National
Estuarine Research Reserve, Waquoit, MA, pp. III-1 to III-26.
ANTHROPOGENIC IMPACTS
Increasing development and human activities in the Waquoit Bay watershed during the
past several decades have contributed significantly to the alteration of environmental
conditions in Waquoit Bay (Gault, 1996; Geist, 1996b). Most significant has been
excessive nitrogen loading via inputs from septic systems to groundwater that enters
the bay. This nitrogen loading, as well as the influx from secondary sources, has been
responsible for considerable estuarine eutrophication, manifested by the decline of
eelgrass beds, accelerated growth of macroalgae, and episodes of hypoxia and anoxia
due to high rates of benthic community respiration. Periods of dissolved oxygen deple-
tion in summer, particularly in the upper reaches of the bay, have caused large episodic
“kills” of fish and invertebrates, which are typically short-lived (1–2 days) and limited
in extent (D’Avanzo and Kremer, 1994). Short and Burdick (1996) correlated the
progressive loss and fragmentation of eelgrass beds to the degree of housing develop-
ment and associated nitrogen loading in various estuarine subwatersheds. Valiela et al.
(1990, 1992) noted that nutrient enrichment has had far-reaching effects on the Waquoit
Bay ecosystem, altering the structure and function of biotic communities via bottom-
up controls of the estuarine food web.
While eutrophication is the most serious environmental problem currently
plaguing the Waquoit Bay estuarine complex, other anthropogenic factors also
adversely affect the system. For example, the input of pathogens from malfunc-
tioning septic systems has caused water quality degradation and the closure of
shellfish beds, as demonstrated by impacted areas along the Moonakis River.
Herbicides and pesticides used for lawn maintenance and agriculture constitute a
source of organochlorine compounds that accumulate in the estuary via land runoff.
Stormwater runoff transports other chemical contaminants, such as heavy metals,
to the estuary as well (Gault, 1996). Motorboat engines are a source of aliphatic
and aromatic hydrocarbons that concentrate in bottom sediments. Since more than
1000 boats operate in the bay, their aggregate effect can be significant (Crawford,
1996b, 2002). These particle-reactive contaminants also concentrate in the surface
water microlayer, and they can result in both lethal and sublethal impacts on plants
and animals exposed to them (Albers, 2002). The action of boat engine propellers
roils bottom sediments and disturbs the surface water microlayer, facilitating the
remobilization and dispersal of the contaminants (Kennish, 2002). Propeller dredg-
ing damages submerged aquatic vegetation, excavates bottom sediments, scars the
substrate, and increases sediment resuspension and turbidity in the water column
(Crawford, 1996b, 2002; Kenworthy et al., 2002). Maintenance dredging of inlet
and channel areas likewise damages the benthic habitat, displaces benthic organ-
isms, and remobilizes chemical constituents.
EUTROPHICATION
Valiela et al. (1997) examined nitrogen inputs to the Waquoit Bay watershed
and estuary (Table 2.4). They determined that the principal sources of nitrogen
to the watershed and estuary are atmospheric deposition, fertilizer use, and
domestic wastewater. In terms of nitrogen loading to the watershed, atmospheric
TABLE 2.4
Nitrogen Loading Estimates from Atmospheric Deposition, Fertilizer, and
Wastewater to Waquoit Bay and Losses during Transport through Different
Land Covers of the Watersheda
Nitrogen
Nitrogen Input (%) Total Nitrogen
Nitrogen Load (%) to Lost within Nitrogen to Load (%) to
Nitrogen Source Input Watershed Watershed Bay Estuary
Atmospheric Deposition to:

Natural vegetation 47,036 42 91 4,447 20
Turf 9,934 9 90 957 4
Cranberry bogs 1,713 1.5 90 165 0.8
Other agricultural land 90 0.08 90 9 0.04
Roofs and driveways 625 0.5 90 60 0.3
Roads 1,685 1.5 75 429 1.9
Ponds 894 0.8 56 394 1.8
Fertilizer Use:
On lawns 7,019 6 84 1,095 5
On golf courses 5,889 5 84 918 4
On cranberry bogs 3,198 3 54 1,485 6.8
On other agricultural land 816 0.7 84 127 0.6
Wastewater 31,323 28 67 10,241 47
Ponds upgradientb 2,574 2 35 1,673 7
Grand total 112,797 100 81 22,000 99
a Values in kg/N/yr.
b Import from larger ponds and lakes deep enough to intercept the flow through the aquifer.
Source: Valiela, I., G. Collins, J. Kremer, K. Lajtha, M. Geist, B. Seely, J. Brawley, and C.H. Sham.
1997. Ecological Applications 7: 358–380
deposition accounts for the largest fraction (55%), followed by domestic waste-
water (28%) and fertilizer (15%). However, most (90%) of the nitrogen derived
from atmospheric input does not leave the watershed because only 29% of the
nitrogen load entering the bay derives from this source. Nitrogen influx from
septic systems in the watershed is quantitatively more significant, accounting
for 47% of the total nitrogen load to the estuary. About 67% of septic sys-
tem–derived nitrogen is lost in the watershed. Fertilizer-derived nitrogen com-
prises 16% of the total nitrogen load to the estuary, with 78% of the nitrogen
lost during transport in the watershed. The breakdown of nitrogen loading (by
source) to the Waquoit Bay watershed and estuary clearly indicates that much
of the nitrogen in the watershed is lost through several processes (i.e., adsorption,
uptake, volatilization, and denitrification) during travel in soils, subsoils, salt
ponds, and the downgradient aquifer (Table 2.4).
With increasing development in the Waquoit Bay watershed after 1960, the
number of septic system installations increased dramatically. The Waquoit Bay
watershed does not have any centralized sewage treatment facility. Instead, each
house constructed in the watershed has a septic system, which represents a potential
source of additional nitrogen for the watershed and estuary. Fertilizer use in the
watershed has also increased concomitantly with escalating development. The net
effect has been greater nitrogen inputs to Waquoit Bay in recent years (Gault, 1996;
Geist, 1996b).
Primary production by phytoplankton and macroalgae has increased substan-
tially with greater nitrogen loading to the estuary (Valiela et al., 1992). Larger
macroalgal biomass in the system has been detrimental to eelgrass beds, which
rapidly declined between 1987 and 1992 (Short and Burdick, 1996). Thick mats
(50–75 cm) of Cladophora vagabunda and Gracilaria tikvahiae overlie broad areas
of the estuarine floor, effectively shading the benthos. Reduction or extinction of
photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) by this process has contributed markedly
to the demise of eelgrass in Waquoit Bay. Further, hypoxic conditions often develop
along the bottom of the macroalgal mats and may threaten survival of benthic
invertebrates and finfish (D’Avanzo and Kremer, 1994). Other factors that have also
played roles are the shading effects of phytoplankton blooms, most evident in Jehu
Pond and Great River, and epiphytic growth in Eel Pond (Short et al., 1992). Motor-
boat-induced sediment resuspension must be considered as well, although this is not
likely to be a primary factor (Crawford, 2002).
The catastrophic effects of eutrophication on seagrass habitat in the Waquoit
Bay system are well documented (Costa, 1988; Valiela et al., 1992; Short et al.,
1995, 1996; Short and Burdick, 1996). Costa (1988) and Costa et al. (1992) detailed
the timeline of eelgrass changes in the bay from 1951 to 1987. While eelgrass
covered much of the Waquoit Bay bottom in 1951, it had disappeared in deeper
areas by the mid-1960s. The decrease in eelgrass distribution continued through the
late 1960s, and by the mid-1970s, most shallower areas of the bay were also devoid
of this vascular plant. Short and Burdick (1996) reported a further decline of eelgrass
in the bay through the early 1990s, as did Crawford (2002) through the mid-1990s.
According to Crawford (2002), eelgrass disappeared from the bay proper about 1995.
Today, only small patches of eelgrass remain in the estuarine system — in salt ponds
and other protected, spatially restricted sites (C. Weidman, Waquoit Bay NERR,
personal communication, 2002).
The loss of valuable eelgrass habitat has resulted in secondary biotic impacts
such as the decline of shellfisheries in the bay, most notably bay scallops (Argopecten
irradians) and blue crabs (Callinectes sapidus) (Crawford, 1996). However, other
changes in the composition and structure of benthic faunal communities are evident.
For example, Valiela et al. (1992) ascertained that, in the lower parts of Waquoit
Bay where macroalgae flourish, benthic invertebrates exhibit lower abundance and
species richness. Dense macroalgal canopies, therefore, can have profound effects
on the viability and health of major biotic components of the Waquoit Bay system.

The Waquoit Bay NERR covers an area of nearly 1000 ha on the south coast of
Cape Cod, Massachusetts, centered in the towns of Falmouth and Mashpee. The
reserve consists of an array of watershed and estuarine habitats that are biologically
productive. The Waquoit Bay watershed is characterized by a wide variety of lowland
and upland habitats, including wetlands (fresh-, brackish-, and salt-water marshes),
riparian habitats, mudflats and sandflats, barrier beaches and sand dunes, coastal
plain pond shores, vernal pools, sandplain grasslands, pine barrens, and upland pitch
pine/oak forests. The Waquoit Bay estuary is defined by tidal creeks and channels
as well as open waters of the embayment.
Waquoit Bay remains a highly productive system despite ongoing eutroph-
ication problems, which are largely responsible for the disappearance of eelgrass
beds in the bay proper as well as altered structure and function of biotic
communities. Phytoplankton and macroalgae are the dominant primary producers
in the estuary. Both plant groups have been linked to shading impacts on eelgrass
beds. Dense macroalgal mats of Cladophora vagabunda and Gracilaria tikvahiae
have also been coupled to hypoxic and anoxic events and periodic “kills” of fish
and invertebrate populations. The loss of eelgrass habitat has resulted in the
decline of fishery resources in the bay, notably the bay scallop (Argopecten
irradians).
Despite the demise of eelgrass in the Waquoit Bay estuary during the past
several decades, the benthic invertebrate community is well established, as
evidenced by the wide array of bivalves, gastropods, crustaceans, polychaetes,
echinoderms, and other taxa represented in benthic samples. Both epifauna (e.g.,
Balanus spp. and Molgula manhattensis) and infauna (e.g., Capitella spp., Pri-
onospio spp., and Mercenaria mercenaria) are relatively abundant in the system.
Many of these organisms serve as a rich food supply for finfish and shorebird
populations.
Fish assemblages in the estuary consist of resident species that spend most of
their lives there, warm- and cool-water migrants, freshwater and marine strays, and
diadromous forms. Forage species (e.g., bay anchovy, Anchoa mitchilli; mummichog,
Fundulus heteroclitus; and sheepshead minnow, Cyprinodon variegatus) support
many migratory fish (e.g., bluefish, Pomatomus saltatrix and striped bass, Morone
saxatilis) present only seasonally in the bay. The absolute abundance of fish popu-
lations in Waquoit Bay is highly variable from year to year and likely reflects the
flux of environmental conditions in the region.
Development in the Waquoit Bay watershed is largely responsible for nutrient
overenrichment in the estuary, particularly nitrogen derived from septic systems.
This nitrogen, together with nitrogen derived from lawn fertilizers and atmo-
spheric deposition, promotes eutrophic conditions in the estuary. Other anthro-
pogenic impacts on Waquoit Bay originate from stormwater runoff of chemical
contaminants, such as organochlorine compounds and heavy metals, as well as
the influx of hydrocarbons from boat engine emissions. More than 1000 boats
operate on the bay, and their collective physical and chemical impacts may be
significant. Finally, maintenance dredging modifies the benthic habitat and dis-
rupts benthic communities. These impacts may extend to the plankton and nekton
communities as well.
REFERENCES
Albers, P.H. 2002. Sources, fate, and effects of PAHs in shallow water environments: a review
with special reference to small watercraft. Journal of Coastal Research Special Issue
37, pp. 143–150.
Ayvazian, S.G., L.A. Deegan, and J.T. Finn. 1992. Comparison of habitat use by estuarine
fish assemblages in the Acadian and Virginian zoogeographic provinces. Estuaries
15: 368–383.
Cambareri, T.C., E.M. Eichner, and C.A. Griffeth. 1992. Submarine Groundwater Discharge
and Nitrate Loading to Shallow Coastal Embayments. Proceedings of Focus, Eastern
Regional Groundwater Conference, October 13–15, Newton, MA, pp. 1–23.
Chalfoun, A., J. McClelland, and I. Valiela. 1994. The effect of nutrient loading on the growth
rate of two species of bivalves, Mercenaria mercenaria and Mya arenaria, in estuaries
of Waquoit Bay, Massachusetts. Biological Bulletin 187: 281–283.
Costa, J.E. 1988. Eelgrass in Buzzards Bay: Distribution, Production, and Historical Changes
in Abundance. Technical Report No. EPA 503/4-88-002, U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Boston, MA.
Costa, J.E., B.L. Howes, A.E. Giblin, and I. Valiela. 1992. Monitoring nitrogen and indicators
of nitrogen loading to support management action in Buzzards Bay. In: McKenzie,
D.H., D.E. Hyatt, and V.J. McDonald (Eds.). Ecological Indicators. Elsevier Applied
Science, Research Triangle Park, NC, pp. 499–531.
Crawford, R.E. 1996a. Example life histories of commercially important species found in
Waquoit Bay. In: Geist, M.A. (Ed.). The Ecology of the Waquoit Bay National
Estuarine Research Reserve. Technical Report, Waquoit Bay National Estuarine
Research Reserve, Waquoit, MA, pp. IV-1 to IV-15.
Crawford, R.E. 1996b. Recreational boating impacts. In: Geist, M.A. (Ed.). The Ecology of
the Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve. Technical Report, Waquoit
Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, Waquoit, MA, pp. V-19 to V-22.
Crawford, R.E. 2002. Secondary wake turbidity from small boat operation in a shallow sandy
bay. Journal of Coastal Research Special Issue 37, pp. 50–65.
Cullinan, M. and P.J. Botelho. 1990. South Cape Beach State Park, Mashpee, Massachusetts.
Final Environmental Impact Report, Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Management, Region 1, Boston, MA.
D’Avanzo, C. and J. Kremer. 1994. Diel oxygen dynamics and anoxic events in an eutrophic
estuary of Waquoit Bay. Estuaries 18: 131–139.
Gault, C. 1996. Management issues in Waquoit Bay. In: Geist, M.A. (Ed.). The Ecology
of the Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve. Technical Report,
Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, Waquoit, MA, pp. VI-1 to
VI-20.
Geist, M.A. 1996a. The physical environment of Waquoit Bay. In: Geist, M.A. (Ed.). The
Ecology of the Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve. Technical Report,
Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, Waquoit, MA, pp. II-1 to II-22.
Geist, M.A. 1996b. Estuarine ecosystem functioning in response to urban development. In:
Geist, M.A. (Ed.). The Ecology of the Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Research
Reserve. Technical Report, Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve,
Waquoit, MA, pp. V-1 to V-21.
Geist, M.A. and W. Malpass. 1996. An introduction to the reserve. In: Geist, M.A. (Ed.). The
Ecology of the Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve. Technical Report,
Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, Waquoit, MA, pp. I-1 to I-14.
Giese, G. and D.G. Aubrey. 1987. Losing coastal upland to relative sea level rise: three
scenarios for Massachusetts. Oceanus 30: 16–22.
Hersh, D. 1996. Abundance and Distribution of Intertidal and Subtidal Macrophytes in Cape
Cod: The Role of Nutrient Supply and Other Controls. Ph.D. thesis, Boston Univer-
sity, Boston, MA.
Howes, B.G. and J.M. Teal. 1990. Waquoit Bay — A Model Estuarine Ecosystem: Distribution
of Fresh and Salt Water Wetland Plant Species in the Waquoit Bay National Estuarine
Research Reserve. Final Technical Report, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Washington, D.C.
Kennish, M.J. 2002. Sediment contaminant concentrations in estuarine and coastal marine
environments: potential for remobilization by boats and personal watercraft. Journal
Kenworthy, W.J., M.S. Fonseca, P.E. Whitfield, and K.K. Hammerstrom. 2002. Analysis of
seagrass recovery in experimental excavations and propeller-scar disturbances in the
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Journal of Coastal Research Special Issue
37, pp. 75–85.
Malpass, W. and M.A. Geist. 1996. Habitats and communities of the Waquoit Bay reserve.
In: Geist, M.A. (Ed.). The Ecology of the Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Research
Reserve. Technical Report, Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve,
Waquoit, MA, pp. III-1 to III-26.
McCormick, J. 1998. The vegetation of the New Jersey Pine Barrens. In: Forman, R.T.T.
(Ed.). Pine Barrens: Ecosystem and Landscape. Rutgers University Press, New Brun-
swick, NJ, pp. 229–243.
Orson, R.A. and B.L. Howes. 1992. Salt marsh development studies at Waquoit Bay, Mas-
sachusetts: influence of geomorphology on long-term plant community structure.
Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 35: 453–471.
Short, F.T. and D.M. Burdick. 1996. Quantifying eelgrass habitat loss in relation to housing
development and nitrogen loading in Waquoit Bay, Massachusetts. Estuaries 19:
730–739.
Short, F.T., D.M. Burdick, J. Wolf, and G.F. Jones. 1992. Declines of Eelgrass in Estuarine
Research Reserves along the East Coast, U.S.A.: Problems of Pollution and Disease
and Management of Eelgrass Meadows in East Coast Research Reserves. Technical
Report, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, MD.
Short, F.T, D.M. Burdick, and J.E. Kaldy. 1995. Mesocosm experiments quantify the effects
of eutrophication on eelgrass, Zostera marina L. Limnology and Oceanography 40:
740–749.
Short, F.T., D.M. Burdick, S. Granger, and S.W. Nixon. 1996. Long-term decline in eelgrass,
Zostera marina L., linked to housing development. In: Kuo, J., R.C. Phillips, D.I.
Walker, and H. Kirkman (Eds.). Seagrass Biology. Proceedings of an International
Workshop, Rottnest Island, Western Australia, 25–29 January 1996, Nedlands, West-
ern Australia, pp. 291–298.
Sogard, S.M. and K.W. Able. 1991. A comparison of eelgrass, sea lettuce macroalgae, and
marsh creeks as habitats for epibenthic fishes and decapods. Estuarine, Coastal and
Shelf Science 33: 501–519.
Valiela, I., J. Costa, K. Foreman, J.M. Teal, B. Howes, and D. Aubrey. 1990. Transport of
groundwater-borne nutrients from watersheds and their effects on coastal waters.
Biogeochemistry 10: 177–197.
Valiela, I., K. Foreman, M. LaMontagne, D. Hersh, J. Costa, P. Peckol, B. DeMeo-Anderson,

C. D’Avanzo, M. Babione, C.-H. Sham, J. Brawley, and K. Lajtha. 1992. Couplings
of watersheds and coastal waters: sources and consequences of nutrient enrichment
in Waquoit Bay, Massachusetts. Estuaries 15: 443–457.
Valiela, I., G. Collins, J. Kremer, K. Lajtha, M. Geist, B. Seely, J. Brawley, and C.H. Sham.
1997. Nitrogen loading from coastal watersheds to receiving waters: new method and
application. Ecological Applications 7: 358–380.
Whitlach, R.B. 1982. The Ecology of New England Tidal Flats: A Community Profile.
Technical Report No. FWS/OBS-81/01, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington,
D.C.
Case Study 2
3 Jacques Cousteau
National Estuarine
Research Reserve
INTRODUCTION
The Jacques Cousteau National Estuarine Research Reserve (JCNERR) is the 22nd
program site of the National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS). It was
officially dedicated on October 20, 1997. The reserve, which covers an area of more
than 45,000 ha, lies along the south-central New Jersey coastline about 15 km north
of Atlantic City (Figure 3.1). The terrestrial and aquatic habitats are highly diverse,
ranging from upland pine–oak forests and woodland swamps in the alluviated stream
valleys of the New Jersey Pinelands to tidal marshes and open estuarine and coastal
waters. Only 553 ha of developed landscape (>1% of the area) occur in the reserve.
Forest cover and marsh habitat account for an additional 4616 ha (~10% of the
reserve area) and 13,034 ha (>28% of the reserve area), respectively. The most
extensive habitat is open water; it spans 27,599 ha (~60% of the reserve area).
Because of sparse development in watershed areas of the reserve as well as the
bordering New Jersey Pinelands, the JCNERR exhibits exceptional environmental
quality. Nearly all of the land area surrounding open waters of the reserve is in
public ownership. It mainly consists of state wildlife management areas, state forests,
and federal reserves. The open waters of lower Barnegat Bay, Little Egg Harbor,
Great Bay, Mullica River, and the back-bays (i.e., Little Bay, Reeds Bay, and Absecon
Bay) as far south as Absecon support rich populations of finfish, shellfish, and
wildlife. Similarly, numerous organisms, including some endangered and threatened
species, inhabit tidal creeks along fringing Spartina marshes, as well as brackish
and freshwater marshes to the west. The seaward part of the reserve extends to the
barrier islands (dune and beach habitats) and open waters of the adjacent inner
continental shelf out to the Long-Term Ecosystem Observatory (LEO-15), a 2.8 km2
offshore research platform of Rutgers University located about 9 km offshore of
Little Egg Inlet, which is designed to continuously sample and sense the local marine
environment. The JCNERR is the only reserve system with such seaward boundaries
in the Atlantic Ocean (Figure 3.1).
Although biotic communities of the coastal bays in the JCNERR are replete
with numerous species of planktonic, nektonic, and benthic organisms, a limited
number of taxa often predominate in terms of total abundance. For example, cope-
pods generally dominate the zooplankton community in the Mullica River–Great
Bay Estuary, with Acartia tonsa, Eurytemora affinis, and Oithona similis the most
abundant species. Nearly 150 species of benthic fauna occur in this system. In
59
FIGURE 3.1 Map showing the location of the Jacques Cousteau National Estuarine Research
Reserve.
addition, more than 60 species of fish inhabit the estuary as well (Durand and
Nadeau, 1972; Able et al., 1996; Szedlmayer and Able, 1996; Jivoff and Able, 2001;
Kennish, 2001a–c). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1996) recorded 275 species
of macroinvertebrates, 91 species of fish, and 350 species of algae in inland habitats
of the Mullica River and its tributaries. Watershed areas of the JCNERR support
many species of shorebirds, wading birds, waterfowl, raptors, and songbirds.
Amphibians, reptiles, and land mammals also utilize wetlands, riparian buffer, and
upland habitats of the JCNERR and contiguous pinelands (Zampella et al., 2001).
Rutgers University (Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences) oversees research
and monitoring in the JCNERR. Other partners in the reserve include Richard
Stockton College of New Jersey, the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection (Division of Fish, Game, and Wildlife at Nacote Creek), the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Tuckerton Seaport, and the Pinelands Commission. These
partners are interacting to assess water quality and habitat conditions in the coastal
bays and neighboring watershed areas of the JCNERR.
Jacques Cousteau National Estuarine Research Reserve 61
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The JCNERR site lies in the gently sloping Atlantic Coastal Plain and is characterized
by low and relatively flat terrain. The Mullica River Basin, which covers an area of
1474 km2, borders most of the JCNERR coastal bays along their western perimeter,
and the barrier island complex forms the eastern boundary for these water bodies.
Several major tributaries of the Mullica River drain surrounding land areas of the
pinelands. These are the Hammonton Creek, Nescochague Creek, Sleeper Branch,
Atsion (Upper Mullica) River, Batsto River, Wading River, Oswego River, Bass
River, and Lower Mullica River. The Batsto River, Atsion (Upper Mullica) River,
Sleeper Branch, and Nescochague Creek join near the town of Batsto to form the
main stem of the Mullica River. Mean monthly streamflow of the Mullica River
ranges from ~1.7 to 4.2 × 108 l/d (Rhodehamel, 1998). Base flow accounts for most
of this flow, which discharges along the northwest side of Great Bay.
Several smaller volume streams that flow through the lower Barnegat Bay water-
shed to the north discharge into Little Egg Harbor. These include Tuckerton Creek,
Westecunk Creek, Cedar Run, and Mill Creek. Parker Run, Dinner Point Creek,
Ezras Creek, and Thompson Creek also occur in the lower Barnegat Bay watershed
and terminate near the upland–salt marsh boundary. Absecon Creek, located approx-
imately 12 km south of Great Bay, drains into the shallow waters of Absecon Bay.
The Mullica River and lower Barnegat Bay watershed areas consist largely of
sandy, siliceous, and droughty soils with low concentrations of nutrients. The porous
substrate enables rainfall to percolate rapidly down to the shallow water table,
thereby limiting surface water runoff. Along estuarine shorelines and surrounding
wetlands, however, organic-rich soils and thick layers of peat contrast markedly with
the upland soils.
Temperate climatic conditions dominate New Jersey coastal areas. At the
JCNERR, air temperatures average 0 to 2.2°C in winter and 22 to 24°C in summer.
Northwesterly winds predominate from December through March. Winds progres-
sively shift directions in the spring; from late spring through summer, southerly
winds prevail. Sea breezes usually reduce air temperatures at the JCNERR during
the summer months. Wind speeds are generally less than 15 km/h at the reserve site.
Precipitation is well distributed year-round, amounting to a total of ~100 to 125
cm/yr. Northeasters, extratropical storms, and hurricanes occasionally deliver large
amounts of precipitation (10 cm or more) in relatively short periods of time. These
storms can cause significant flooding and erosion problems (Forman, 1998).
Several distinct tidal water bodies with unique physical and hydrologic charac-
teristics occur in the JCNERR (i.e., Lower Barnegat Bay, Little Egg Harbor, Great
Bay, Little Bay, Reeds Bay, and Absecon Bay). They form a backbarrier lagoon
system separated from the Atlantic Ocean by a Holocene barrier island complex that
is breached at Little Egg Inlet, Brigantine Inlet, and Absecon Inlet. The Mullica
River–Great Bay Estuary is a drowned river valley that communicates directly with
the Atlantic Ocean through Little Egg Inlet. Lower Barnegat Bay, Little Egg Harbor,
Little Bay, Reeds Bay, and Absecon Bay are shallow coastal back-bays behind
stabilized barrier island units. Little Bay, Reeds Bay, and Absecon Bay comprise
the smallest lagoon-type estuaries in the JCNERR.
The shallow microtidal estuaries of the JCNERR are polyhaline embayments

with mean depths of less than 2 m. Because they are extremely shallow, the estuaries
are highly responsive to air temperatures. Over an annual cycle, water temperatures
in the coastal bays range from ~2 to 30°C. Salinity, in turn, ranges from ~10 to 32‰.
MULLICA RIVER–GREAT BAY ESTUARY

Tidal influence extends a considerable distance up streams and rivers in the Mullica
River watershed. For example, in Pine Barrens streams the salt water–freshwater
interface typically occurs 8 to 16 km upstream of the head of the bay. While tidal
effects are evident over the lower 40 km of the Mullica River, the upper limit of salt
water inundation is at Lower Bank located ~25 km upstream of the head of Great
Bay. Hence, Lower Bank marks the upper end of the Mullica River–Great Bay
Estuary, and a well-defined salinity gradient is observed from near 0‰ upriver of
Lower Bank to >30‰ at Little Egg Inlet. Along the Mullica River, the type of marsh
vegetation encountered reflects the gradual increase in salinity levels downestuary.
Freshwater tidal marshes along tributary streams and the headwaters of the Mullica
River give way to brackish marshes downriver and extensive (Spartina) salt marshes
near the river mouth and along the perimeter of Great Bay.
Water circulation in Great Bay follows a counterclockwise pattern. Tidal currents
(>2 m/sec) enter at Little Egg Inlet and flow along the northern part of the bay. Water
discharging from the Mullica River flows along the southern part of the bay (Durand,
1988). A counterclockwise gyre occurs in the central region. Periodic episodes of
coastal upwelling inject cold, high-density seawater into the bay from the continental
shelf. The Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences of Rutgers University recorded 12
coastal upwelling events in 2000 at the LEO-15 site in the JCNERR.
Sediments in the eastern bay, which originate mainly from marine sources, consist
of large amounts of well-sorted fine sand. Sediments transported into the bay through
Little Egg Inlet tend to accumulate in sand bars (tidal deltas) landward of the inlet. In
the western part of the bay, the amounts of silt and clay increase appreciably. These
finer sediments largely derive from discharges of the Mullica River and shoreline
marshes. Sediments entering the bay from marine and land sources also accumulate
in sandflats and mudflats, which cover more than 1300 ha in the system (U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, 1996). In addition, sediments derived from land-based sources
promote accretion of salt marsh habitat bordering the estuary.
Chant (2001) showed that coastal pumping, remotely forced by coastal sea level,
is the predominant factor controlling subtidal motion in coastal bays of the JCNERR.
For example, he attributed 70% of subtidal motion in Little Egg Harbor to this
process. Little Egg Harbor is a shallow (1 to 7 m), irregularly shaped tidal basin
with tidal currents less than 1 m/sec. Weak salinity and thermal stratification char-
acterize this system.
WATER QUALITY
The Mullica River–Great Bay Estuary has been the target of a number of water
quality studies (Durand and Nadeau, 1972; Zimmer, 1981; Durand, 1988, 1998;
Zampella, 1994; Dow and Zampella, 2000; Kennish and O’Donnell, 2002).
Zampella (1994) and Dow and Zampella (2000) correlated decreasing water quality
in the Mullica River watershed with increasing development. They reported a
gradient of increasing pH, specific conductance, and nutrients (i.e., total nitrite
and nitrate as nitrogen, total ammonia as nitrogen, and total phosphorus) along a
watershed disturbance gradient of increasing development, agricultural land-use
intensity, and wastewater flow in the Mullica River drainage basin. Areas of
degraded water quality have been shown to alter the structure and function of
affected biotic communities (Zampella and Laidig, 1997; Zampella and Bunnell,
1998). Hunchak-Kariouk et al. (2001) and Lathrop and Conway (2001) have
likewise documented degraded water quality in areas of high development in the
Barnegat Bay watershed.
Nutrient concentrations are relatively low in streams discharging to the coastal
bays of the JCNERR. Nitrate is the primary limiting nutrient to plant growth in
the coastal bays. In the Mullica River, nitrogen levels are as follows: ammonium
(0 to <10 µgat N/l), nitrate (0 to >70 µgat N/l), nitrite (0 to <2 µgat N/l), and
total organic nitrogen (0 to >60 µgat N/l). Phosphate concentrations, in turn, range
from 0 to <5 µgat P/l (Durand and Nadeau, 1972; Zimmer, 1981; Durand, 1988,
1998; Zampella, 1994).
Water quality in the estuary has been investigated most intensely since initiation
of the JCNERR System-wide Monitoring Program (SWMP) in August 1996. Rutgers
University scientists deployed Yellow Springs Instrument Company (YSI™) Model
6000 UPG data loggers at the following locations in the JCNERR during the summer
and fall of 1996:
1. Buoy 126 in Great Bay (August)

2. Buoy 139 in Great Bay (August)
3. Chestnut Neck in the Mullica River (September)
4. Lower Bank in the Mullica River (October)
They subsequently deployed three additional data loggers at Little Sheeps-

head Creek (April 1997), Nacote Creek (May 1997), and Tuckerton Creek
(November 1998). These instruments record six water quality parameters (water
temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen [mg/l and % saturation], pH, turbidity,
and depth) semicontinuously (i.e., every 30 min). While the instruments operate
unattended in the field, they must be periodically reprogrammed and calibrated.
At these times, approximately every 2 weeks, data stored in internal memory
are uploaded to a personal computer and later analyzed. Except during icing
periods in winter, the data loggers are deployed year-round at each monitoring
site.
The most continuous and complete water quality database developed from data
logger deployment exists for Buoy 126, Chestnut Neck, and Lower Bank. Buoy 139
was discontinued as a monitoring site in July 1999; however, it was reinstituted as
a monitoring site in June 2002. The Buoy 126, Chestnut Neck, and Lower Bank
SWMP monitoring sites are important because they lie along the salinity gradient
of the Mullica River–Great Bay Estuary (Figure 3.2).
FIGURE 3.2 Map showing temporary and permanent water quality monitoring sites in the
Jacques Cousteau National Estuarine Research Reserve.
Figure 3.3 through Figure 3.9 show measurements of physical–chemical

parameters by the data loggers at the three aforementioned SWMP sites during
the 1999–2000 study period. Temperatures at this time ranged from –1.7 to 27.9°C
at Buoy 126, –1.3 to 29.4°C at Chestnut Neck, and 0.7 to 31.5°C at Lower Bank.
A conspicuous seasonal temperature cycle characteristic of mid-latitude estuarine
systems is evident (Figure 3.3). Polyhaline conditions predominate at Buoy 126,
mesohaline conditions at Chestnut Neck, and oligohaline conditions at Lower Bank
(Figure 3.4). Mean salinities at Buoy 126, Chestnut Neck, and Lower Bank for
the study period amounted to 29.5‰, 15.1‰, and 2.6‰, respectively. Salinity
differences at the three sites were statistically significant (P < 0.05). Seasonal
dissolved oxygen values at the three SWMP sites generally ranged from 6 to 12
mg/l, with highest values observed in the winter and lowest values in the summer
(Figure 3.5). All three sites are well oxygenated, with mean % saturation values
of 75 to 120% (Figure 3.6). Hypoxia has never been observed in the Mullica
River–Great Bay Estuary. The pH levels progressively increase from upriver areas
to the open waters of Great Bay. For example, during the study period the pH
measurements increased from 6.2 at Lower Bank and 7.2 at Chestnut Neck to 8.0
at Buoy 126 (Figure 3.7). The low pH values at the river stations are due to the
high concentrations of tannins and humic acids originating in the Mullica River
watershed. Differences in pH levels are statistically significant (P < 0.05) at the
three monitoring sites. Mean turbidity levels ranged from ~5 to 32 Nephelometry
Turbidity Units (NTU) during 1999–2000 (Figure 3.8). Highest values occurred
in the bay at Buoy 126; values at the river sites were substantially lower. Turbidity
was generally greatest during the spring and winter seasons. Mean water depths
Lower Bank
30
Temperature (°C)
20
10
0
W 99 Sp 99 Su 99 F 99 W 00 Sp 00 Su 00 F 00
Chestnut Neck
30
Temperature (°C)
20
10
0
W 99 Sp 99 Su 99 F 99 W 00 Sp 00 Su 00 F 00
Buoy 126
30
rature (°C)
20
10
FIGURE 3.3 Mean seasonal water temperature and standard deviation values at three SWMP
sites in the Jacques Cousteau National Estuarine Research Reserve during the 1999 and 2000
sampling period. (From Kennish, M.J. and S. O’Donnell. 2002. Bulletin of the New Jersey
Academy of Science 47: 1–13.)
at Buoy 126 exceeded 2 m during both 1999 and 2000, but water depths were less
than 2 m at Chestnut Neck and Lower Bank (Figure 3.9).
The Mullica River–Great Bay Estuary has excellent water quality. This is prin-
cipally attributed to the limited development and low anthropogenic impacts in the
Mullica River watershed. As a result, the Mullica River–Great Bay Estuary serves
as an important reference location to assess more heavily impacted coastal bays in
New Jersey and elsewhere.
WATERSHED BIOTIC COMMUNITIES

PLANT COMMUNITIES
Salt Marshes
Spartina salt marshes form the dominant habitat surrounding the shorelines of the
coastal bays in the JCNERR. These marshes also extend some distance inland along
35
30
25
Salinity (ppt)
20
15
10
0
W 99 Sp 99 Su 99 F 99 W 00 Sp 00 Su 00 F 00
Season
Lower Bank Chestnut Neck Buoy 126
FIGURE 3.4 Mean seasonal salinity and standard deviation values at three SWMP sites in
the Jacques Cousteau National Estuarine Research Reserve during the 1999 and 2000 sampling
period. (From Kennish, M.J. and S. O’Donnell. 2002. Bulletin of the New Jersey Academy of
Science 47: 1–13.)
stream and river banks, where they are gradually replaced by brackish marshes in
lower salinity areas. For example, salt marshes extend ~25 km up the Mullica River
to Lower Bank. In the Mullica River–Great Bay Estuary alone, salt marsh vegetation
covers nearly 9000 ha. The most extensive salt marshes in the JCNERR system occur
in the Great Bay Boulevard Wildlife Management Area, the Brigantine portion of the
Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge, the Barnegat portion of the Forsythe National
Wildlife Refuge, and the Holgate Unit of the Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge.
Salt marsh vegetation in the JCNERR exhibits a zoned pattern with smooth
cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) forming nearly monotypic stands in low marsh
areas. Here, tall-form S. alterniflora predominates along tidal creek banks, and short-
form S. alterniflora concentrates in other low marsh areas (Smith and Able, 1994).
Three species (i.e., salt-meadow cordgrass, S. patens; spike grass, Distichlis spicata;
and black grass, Juncus gerardii) are the most abundant plants in the high marsh
areas. Several other species (i.e., marsh fleabane, Pluchea purpurascens; orach,
Atriplex patula; perennial glasswort, Salicornia virginica; saltwort grass, S. bigelovii;
and samphir, S. europea) proliferate in salt pannes. Along the marsh–upland border,
five plant species are characteristic (i.e., salt-meadow cordgrass, Spartina patens;
marsh elder, Iva frutescens; seaside goldenrod, Solidago sempervirens; salt marsh
pink, Sabatia stellaris; and common reed, Phragmites australis). The invasive com-
mon reed is a growing concern because it appears to be replacing native species in
some areas (Able and Hagen, 2000).
Brackish Tidal Marshes
Several plant species dominate the brackish tidal marshes of the JCNERR, includ-
ing the big cordgrass (Spartina cynosuroides), Olney three-square bulrush (Scirpus
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
16 Lower Bank
12
8
4
0
W 99 Sp 99 Su 99 F 99 W 00 Sp 00 Su 00 F 00
16 Chestnut Neck
12
0
W 99 Sp 99 Su 99 F 99 W 00 Sp 00 Su 00 F 00
16 Buoy 126
12
0
W 99 Sp 99 Su 99 F 99 W 00 Sp 00 Su 00 F 00
Season
FIGURE 3.5 Mean seasonal dissolved oxygen and standard deviation values at three SWMP
sites in the Jacques Cousteau National Estuarine Research Reserve during the 1999 and 2000
sampling period. (From Kennish, M.J. and S. O’Donnell. 2002. Bulletin of the New Jersey
Academy of Science 47: 1–13.)
americanus), narrow-leaved cattail (Typha angustifolia), and common reed

(Phragmites australis). Among the submerged aquatic plants encountered in these
marshes are widgeon grass (Ruppia maritima), slender pondweed (Potamogeton
pusillus), redhead grass (P. perfoliatus), horned pondweed (Zanniuchellia palus-
tris), and water celery (Vallisneria americana). A number of other species appear
as freshwater tidal reaches are approached; these are the Nuttall’s pondweed (P.
epihydrus), bulrush (Scirpus spp.), American mannagrass (Glyceria grandis), and
arrowheads (Sagittaria engelmanniana, S. latifolia, and S. spatulata). Brackish
tidal marshes are best developed along the Mullica River, Bass River, Wading
River, Landing Creek, and Nacote Creek (JCNERR, 1999).
140
120
DO% Saturation
100
80
60
W 99 Sp 99 Su 99 F 99 W 00 Sp 00 Su 00 F 00
Season
FIGURE 3.6 Mean seasonal dissolved oxygen (% saturation) levels at three SWMP sites in
the Jacques Cousteau National Estuarine Research Reserve during the 1999 and 2000 sampling
Science 47: 1–13.)
7
pH
4
W 99 Sp 99 Su 99 F 99 W 00 Sp 00 Su 00 F 00
Season
FIGURE 3.7 Mean seasonal pH and standard deviation values at three SWMP sites in the
Jacques Cousteau National Estuarine Research Reserve during the 1999 and 2000 sampling
Science 47: 1–13.)
40
Turbidity (NTU) 30
20
10
0
W 99 Sp 99 Su 99 F 99 W 00 Sp 00 Su 00 F 00
Season
FIGURE 3.8 Mean seasonal turbidity levels at three SWMP sites in the Jacques Cousteau
National Estuarine Research Reserve during the 1999 and 2000 sampling period. (From Kennish,
M.J. and S. O’Donnell. 2002. Bulletin of the New Jersey Academy of Science 47: 1–13.)
Able and Hagen (2000) recently reported on the invasion of Phragmites aus-
tralis in brackish water marsh habitat (i.e., Hog Islands) along the upper reaches
of the Mullica River. This highly invasive species has spread rapidly. Between
1971 and 1991, its vegetative coverage increased from 3.2 to 83.1% (Windom and
Lathrop, 1999). The spread of P. australis is significant because its presence
influences the composition of marsh fauna. For example, Able and Hagen (2000)
showed that the occurrence of the common reed affected fish and decapod use of
the marsh surface at Hog Islands. Although P. australis had little or no effect on
larger fish and decapods, it adversely affected larval and small fish, notably the
mummichog, Fundulus heteroclitus. Abundance of recently hatched F. heteroclitus
was significantly less in the Phragmites-dominated marsh than in the Spartina-
dominated marsh. In addition, overall use of the Phragmites-dominated marsh by
small fishes was consistently less than that of the Spartina-dominated marsh. With
regard to decapods, Rhithropanopeus harrisii was most abundant in the P. australis
marsh, whereas Callinectes sapidus and Palaemonetes spp. were most abundant
in the Spartina marsh.
Freshwater Marshes
Proceeding upriver in the Mullica River, Wading River, and other tributary systems,
an array of plant species forms luxuriant freshwater tidal marsh communities. These
species grow in three distinct zones:
1. Low-tide zone
2. Mid-tide zone
3. Upper tidal zone
Depth (m) 4 Lower Bank

3
2
1
0
W 99 Sp 99 Su 99 F 99 W 00 Sp 00 Su 00 F 00
4 Chestnut Neck
3
Depth (m)
0
W 99 Sp 99 Su 99 F 99 W 00 Sp 00 Su 00 F 00
4 Buoy 126
Depth (m)
0
W 99 Sp 99 Su 99 F 99 W 00 Sp 00 Su 00 F 00
Season
FIGURE 3.9 Mean seasonal water depth at three SWMP sites in the Jacques Cousteau National
Estuarine Research Reserve during the 1999 and 2000 sampling period. (From Kennish, M.J. and
S. O’Donnell. 2002. Bulletin of the New Jersey Academy of Science 47: 1–13.)
The low tidal marsh, which is only exposed at low tide, consists primarily of
bluntscale bulrush (Scirpus smithii var. smithii), Parker’s pipewort (Eriocaulon park-
eri), riverbank guillwort (Isoetes riparia), and arrowheads (Hudson arrowhead, Sag-
ittaria subulata; grass-leaved arrowhead, S. graminea; and stiff arrowhead, S. rigida).
Wild rice (Zinzania aquatica), water hemp (Amaranthus cannabinus), three-square
bulrush (Scirpus pungens), spatterdock (Nurphur advena), pickerel weed (Ponderia
cordata), dotted smartweed (Polygonum punctatum), and arrow arum (Peltandra
virginica) are the principal species comprising marshes in the mid-tide zone. A
diverse assemblage of marsh plants occupies the upper tidal zone, although cattails
(Typha angustifolia and T. glauca) predominate. Among the commonly observed
species in the upper tidal zone are the common reed (Phragmites australis), purple
loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), knob-styled dogwood (Cornus amomum), button
bush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), sensitive fern (Onaclea sensibilis), smooth bur-
marigold (Bidens laevis), swamp rose (Rosa palustris), swamp rose mallow (Hibis-
cus moscheutos), sweet flag (Acorus calamus), orange jewelweed (Impatiens cap-
ensis), and arrowheads (Sagittaria spp.) (JCNERR, 1999).
Lowland Plant Communities
Lowland vegetation in the pinelands region consists of six main types of plant
communities:
1. Atlantic white cedar swamp forests

2. Broadleaf swamp forests
3. Pitch pine lowland forests
4. Pine transition forests
5. Herbaceous wetland communities
6. Shrubby wetland communities
McCormick (1998) has examined these communities in detail. Atlantic white

cedar swamp forests, together with the broadleaf swamp forests, comprise the most
extensive plant communities of the lowland area. Atlantic white cedar (Chamaecy-
paris thyoides), trident red maple (Acer rubrum), black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), and
sweetbay magnolia (Magnolia virginiana) form most of the canopy in the cedar
swamp forests. Various shrubs constitute the understory, notably sweet pepperbush
(Clethra alnifolia), swamp azalea (Rhododendron viscosum), fetterbush (Leucothoe
racemosa), bayberry (Myrica pensylvanica), and dangleberry (Gaylussacia fron-
dosa). Species dominating the herbaceous ground cover in the cedar swamp forests
include the partridge berry (Mitchella repens), sundew (Drosera capillaris), pitcher
plant (Sarracenia purpurea), curly-grass fern (Schizaea pusilla), swamp pink (Helo-
nias bullata), and Sphagnum moss.
The most abundant tree in the broadleaf forest community is the trident red
maple (Acer rubrum). However, two other species, Atlantic white cedar (Chamae-
cyparis thyoides) and pitch pine (Pinus rigida), are also locally important com-
ponents of the canopy. Several other species found in this community, albeit in
lower abundances, are the sweetbay magnolia (Magnolia virginiana), gray birch
(Betula populifolia), sassafras (Sassafras albidum), and black gum (Nyssa syl-
vatica). Swamp azalea (Rhododendron viscosum), leatherleaf (Chamaedaphne
calyculata), sheep laurel (Kalmia angustifolia), fetterbush (Leucothoe racemosa),
dangleberry (Gaylussacia frondosa), and black huckleberry (G. baccata) predom-
inate in the shrub layer. Ground cover here consists mainly of mosses and lichens.
The canopy in the pitch pine lowland forests consists primarily (90%) of pitch
pine (Pinus rigida). Of secondary importance are gray birch (Betula populifolia),
trident red maple (Acer rubrum), and black gum (Nyssa sylvatica). The principal
species in the understory are sheep laurel (Kalmia angustifolia), leatherleaf
(Chamaedaphne calyculata), black huckleberry (Gaylussacia baccata), and dangle-
berry (G. frondosa). Sphagnum moss, bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum), turkey-
beard (Xerophyllum asphodeloides), and wintergreen (Gaultheria procumbens) are
the main ground cover species.
Pine transition communities occur between the Atlantic white cedar forests or
broadleaf swamp forests and the upland forests. Pitch pine (Pinus rigida) dominates
these transition communities. Secondary canopy species are the trident red maple
(Acer rubrum), gray birch (Betula populifolia), and black gum (Nyssa sylvatica).
Bayberry (Myrica pensylvanica), sheep laurel (Kalmia angustifolia), winterberry

(Ilex verticillata), dangleberry (Gaylussacia frondosa), black huckleberry (G. bac-
cata), and grouseberry (G. dumosa) are the dominant species of the shrub layer.
Ground cover is generally sparse in the pine transition forests, covering only ~2%
of the area. Principal herbs and shrubs forming the ground cover in this community
are Sphagnum moss, turkey-beard (Xerophyllum asphodeloides), bracken fern (Pte-
ridium aquilinum), cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamonea), and wintergreen (Gault-
heria procumbens).
Perimeter areas of ponds and streams in the Mullica River watershed support
rich herbaceous wetland communities. Several submerged and floating leaf plants,
such as bladderworts (Utricularia spp.), white water lilies (Nymphaea odorata), and
bullhead lilies (Nuphar variegatum), are important members of these communities.
Emergent plants (e.g., rushes, Juncus spp.; sedges, Carex spp.; chain ferns, Wood-
wardia spp.; and pipeworts, Eriocaulon spp.) concentrate along the shore.
Aside from the aforementioned communities, vernal pond (coastal plain
intermittent pond) plant communities also exist in the lowland areas. Panic and
muhly grasses (Panicum capillare, P. mattamuskeettense, P. verrucosum, and
Muhlenbergia torreyana) and sedges (Carex sp., Cladium mariscoides, Eleo-
charis microcarpa, and Scleria reticularis) dominate these communities. Other
species that may be found are rose tickseed (Coreopsis rosea), drowned beaked-
rush (Rhynchospora inundata), short-beaked bald-rush (R. nitens), Long’s bul-
rush (Scirpus longii), knotted spikerush (Eleocharis equisetoides), Wright’s
panic grass (Panicum wrightianum), awned meadow beauty (Rhexia aristosa),
floating heart (Nymphoides cordata), dwarf white bladderwort (Utricularia oli-
vacea), Boykin’s lobelia (Lobelia boykinii), and slender water-milfoil (Myrio-
phyllum tenellum).
Along the margins of some ponds, shrubby wetland communities are also
delineated. Sheep laurel (Kalmia augustifolia), leatherleaf (Chamaedaphne caly-
culata), highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum), staggerbush (Lyonia mar-
iana), and Sphagnum moss are the primary constituents of these communities.
Shrubby wetland communities have likewise been observed in the channels of
intermittent streams in the Mullica River watershed. The flood plains of some
streams in the watershed provide habitat for wet meadow communities (savannas)
dominated by sedges and grasses. Button sedge (Carex bullata), coast sedge (Carex
exilis), lowland broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus var. virginicus), golden crest
(Lophiola aurea), and Torrey’s dropseed (Muhlenbergia torreyana) typically dom-
inate these communities. Table 3.1 provides a list of plants found along streams
in the Mullica River Basin.
Cedar swamps, as well as sphagnum and cranberry bogs, support an array of
herbaceous plants and other vegetation. In these habitats, the Atlantic white cedar
is usually the dominant tree. Highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum), dangle-
berry (Gaylussacia frondosa), fetterbush (Leucothoe racemosa), and swamp azalea
(Rhododendron viscosum) are the commonly encountered herbaceous plant species.
The ground cover consists mainly of Sphagnum mosses with lesser amounts of
bladderworts (Ultricularia spp.), sundews (Drosera spp.), and pitcher plants (Sar-
racenia purpurea).
TABLE 3.1
Taxonomic List of Plants Identified along Stream Vegetation
Sites in the Mullica River Basin
Herbaceous Plants
Ticklegrass Agrostis hyemalis
Ticklegrass Agrostis hyemalis var. scabra
Upland bent grass Agrostis perennans
Upland bent grass Agrostis perennans var. elata
Small water plantain Alisma subcordatum
Garlic Allium sp.
Pursh’s millet grass Amphicarpum purshii
Bushy beard grass Andropogon virginicus var. abbreviatus
Broomsedge Andropogon virginicus var. virginicus
Groundnut Apios americana
Wild sarsaparilla Aralia nudicaulis
Arethusa Arethusa bulbosa
Swamp milkweed Asclepias incarnata
Bushy aster Aster dumosus
Bog aster Aster nemoralis
New York aster Aster novi-belgii
Heath aster Aster pilosus var. pringlei
Small white aster Aster racemosus
Twining bartonia Bartonia paniculata
Yellow bartonia Bartonia virginica
Purple-stemmed beggar ticks Bidens connata
Northern tickseed-sunflower Bidens coronata
Small beggar ticks Bidens discoidea
Beggar ticks Bidens frondosa
False nettle Boehmeria cylindrica
Blue-joint grass Calamagrostis canadensis
Nuttall’s reed grass Calamagrostis cinnoides
Larger water starwort Callitriche heterophylla
Pennsylvania bitter cress Cardamine pensylvanica
Greenish-white sedge Carex albolutescens
Atlantic sedge Carex atlantica
Howe’s sedge Carex atlantica var. capillacea
Button sedge Carex bullata
Silvery sedge Carex canescens
Collins’ sedge Carex collinsii
Fringed sedge Carex crinita
Coast sedge Carex exilis
Long sedge Carex folliculata
Bladder sedge Carex intumescens
Livid sedge Carex livida
(continued)

Long’s sedge Carex longii

Sallow sedge Carex lurida
Pennsylvania sedge Carex pensylvanica
Pointed broom sedge Carex scoparia
Awl-fruited sedge Carex stipata
Walter’s sedge Carex striata
Tussock sedge Carex stricta
Blunt broom sedge Carex tribuloides
Three-fruited sedge Carex trisperma
Dark green sedge Carex venusta
Prickly hornwort Ceratophyllum echinatum
Slender spike grass Chasmanthium laxum
Wood reed Cinna arundinacea
Twig rush Cladium mariscoides
Dodder Cuscuta sp.
Toothed cyperus Cyperus dentatus
Red-rooted cyperus Cyperus erythrorhizos
Coarse cyperus Cyperus odoratus
Pine Barrens cyperus Cyperus retrorsus
Straw-colored cyperus Cyperus strigosus
Silky wild oat grass Danthonia sericea var. epilis
Swamp loosestrife Decodon verticillatus
Common wild yam Dioscorea villosa
Thread-leaved sundew Drosera filiformis
Spatulate-leaved sundew Drosera intermedia
Round-leaved sundew Drosera rotundifolia
Spinulose wood fern Dryopsteris carthusiana
Dulichium Dulichium arundinaceum
American barnyard grass Echinochloa muricata
Needle spike rush Eleocharis acicularis
Green spike rush Eleocharis flavescens var. olivacea
Small-fruited spike rush Eleocharis microcarpa
Blunt spike rush Eleocharis ovata
Robbin’s spike rush Eleocharis robbinsii
Slender spike rush Eleocharis tenuis
Tubercled spike grass Eleocharis tuberculosa
Nuttall’s water weed Elodea nuttallii
Purple-leaved willow herb Epilobium coloratum
Pilewort Erechtites hieracifolia
Plume grass Erianthus giganteus
Seven-angled pipewort Eriocaulon aquaticum
Flattened pipewort Eriocaulon compressum

Ten-angled pipewort Eriocaulon decangulare

Tawny cotton grass Eriophorum virginicum
Eastern joe-pye weed Eupatorium dubium
Boneset Eupatorium perfoliatum
Rough boneset Eupatorium pilosum
Pine Barrens boneset Eupatorium resinosum
Late-flowering boneset Eupatorium serotinum
Ipecac spurge Euphorbia ipecacuanhae
Slender-leaved goldenrod Euthamia tenuifolia
Stiff marsh bedstraw Galium tinctorium
Gill-over-the-ground Glechoma hederacea
Rattlesnake grass Glyceria canadensis
Blunt mannagrass Glyceria obtusa
Fowl mannagrass Glyceria striata
Northern mannagrass Glyceria laxa
Green wood orchid Habenaria clavellata
Ragged fringed orchid Habenaria lacera
Swamp rose mallow Hibiscus moscheutos
Canada Saint John’s wort Hypericum canadense
Coppery Saint John’s wort Hypericum denticulatum
Dwarf Saint John’s wort Hypericum mutilum
Saint Andrew’s cross Hypericum stragulum
Spotted touch-me-not Impatiens capensis
Slender blue flag Iris prismatica
Larger blue flag Iris versicolor
Spiny-spored quillwort Isoetes echinospora
Sharp-fruited rush Juncus acuminatus
Two-flowered rush Juncus biflorus
New Jersey rush Juncus caesariensis
Canada rush Juncus canadensis
Common rush Juncus effusus
Bayonet rush Juncus militaris
Brown-fruited rush Juncus pelocarpus
Redroot Lachnanthes caroliniana
Rice cut grass Leersia oryzoides
Duckweed Lemna sp.
Turk’s-cap lily Lilium superbum
Short-stalked false pimpernel Lindernia dubia
Canby’s lobelia Lobelia canbyi
Cardinal flower Lobelia cardinalis
Nuttall’s lobelia Lobelia nuttalli
(continued)

Golden crest Lophiola aurea

Seedbox Ludwigia alternifolia
Water purslane Ludwigia palustris
Foxtail-clubmoss Lycopodium alopecuroides
Southern bog clubmoss Lycopodium appressum
Tree clubmoss Lycopodium obscurum
Northern bugleweed Lycopus uniflorus
Virginia bugleweed Lycopus virginicus
Swamp loosestrife Lysimachia terrestris
Purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria
Eulalia Microstegium vimineum
Climbing hempweed Mikania scandens
Square-stemmed monkey flower Mimulus ringens
Partridge berry Mitchella repens
Indian pipe Monotropa uniflora
Torrey’s dropseed Muhlenbergia torreyana
Late-flowering dropseed Muhlenbergia uniflora
Bullhead lily Nuphar variegata
White water lily Nymphaea odorata
Sensitive fern Onoclea sensibilis
Golden club Orontium aquaticum
Cinnamon fern Osmunda cinnamomea
Royal fern Osmunda regalis
Upright yellow wood sorrel Oxalis stricta
Cowbane Oxypolis rigidior
Deertongue grass Panicum clandestinum
Forked panic grass Panicum dichotomum
Small-leaved panic grass Panicum ensifolium
Panic grass Panicum lanuginosum
Long-leaved panic grass Panicum longifolium
Long-leaved panic grass Panicum rigidulum
Sheathed panic grass Panicum scabriusculum
Eaton’s panic grass Panicum spretum
Warty panic grass Panicum verrucosum
Switchgrass Panicum virgatum
Arrow arum Peltandra virginica
Reed canary grass Phalaris arundinacea
Reed Phragmites australis
Pokeweed Phytolacca americana
Clearweed Pilea pumila
Fowl bluegrass Poa palustris
Kentucky bluegrass Poa pratensis

Rose pogonia Pogonia ophioglossoides

Short-leaved milkwort Polygala brevifolia
Cross-leaved milkwort Polygala cruciata
Halberd-leaved tearthumb Polygonum arifolium
Cespitose knotweed Polygonum crespitosum
Mild water pepper Polygonum hydropiperoides
Dotted smartweed Polygonum punctatum
Arrow-leaved tearthumb Polygonum sagittatum
Pickerel weed Ponderia cordata
Algal-like pondweed Potamogeton confervoides
Half-like pondweed Potamogeton diversifolius
Nuttall’s pondweed Potamogeton epihydrus
Oakes’ pondweed Potamogeton oakesianus
Small pondweed Potamogeton pusillus
Cut-leaved mermaid weed Proserpinaca pectinata
Bracken Pteridium aquilinum
Maryland meadow beauty Rhexia mariana
Virginia meadow beauty Rhexia virginica
White-beaked-rush Rhynchospora alba
Small-headed beaked-rush Rhynchospora capitellata
Loose-headed beaked-rush Rhynchospora chalarocephala
Marsh yellow cress Rorippa palustris
Lance-leaved sabatia Sabatia difformis
Engelmann’s arrowhead Sagittaria engelmanniana
Pitcher plant Sarracenia purpurea
Little bluestem Schizachyrium scoparium
Curly-grass fern Schizaea pusilla
Wool-grass Scirpus cyperinus
Three-square bulrush Scirpus pungens
Water club-rush Scirpus subterminalis
Reticulated nut-rush Scleria reticularis
Sclerolepis Sclerolepis uniflora
Mad-dog skullcap Scutellaria lateriflora
Carrion flower Smilax herbacea
Halberd-leaved greenbrier Smilax pseudochina
Black nightshade Solanum nigrum
Canada goldenrod Solidago canadensis
Rough-stemmed goldenrod Solidago rugosa
Slender-bur-reed Sparganium americanum
Nodding ladies’-tresses Spiranthes cernua
Common stitchwort Stellaria graminea
(continued)

Common chickweed Stellaria media

Dandelion Taraxacum officinale
Marsh fern Thelypteris palustris
Bog fern Thelypteris simulata
Marsh Saint John’s wort Triadenum virginicum
Starflower Trientalis borealis
Broad-leaved cattail Typha latifolia
Stinging nettle Urtica dioica
Horned bladderwort Utricularia cornuta
Fibrous bladderwort Utricularia fibrosa
Hidden-fruited bladderwort Utricularia geminiscapa
Floating bladderwort Utricularia inflata
Purple bladderwort Utricularia purpurea
Zig-zag bladderwort Utricularia subulata
Greater bladderwort Utricularia vulgaris
Blue vervain Verbena hastata
New York ironweed Vernonia noveboracensis
Lance-leaved violet Viola lanceolata
Primrose-leaved violet Viola primulifolia
Woolly blue violet Viola sororia
Netted chain fern Woodwardia areolata
Virginia chain fern Woodwardia virginica
Turkey-beard Xerophyllum asphodeloides
Yellow-eyed grass Xyris difformis
Small’s yellow-eyed grass Xyris smalliana
Wild rice Zizania aquatica
Woody Plants
Trident red maple Acer rubrum
Ailanthus Ailanthus altissima
Smooth alder Alnus serrulata
Oblongleaf juneberry Amelanchier canadensis
Coastal juneberry Amelanchier obovalis
Red chokeberry Aronia arbutifolia
Japanese barberry Berberis thunbergii
Black birch Betula lenta
Gray birch Betula populifolia
Common catalpa Catalpa bignonioides
Buttonbush Cephalanthus occidentalis
Atlantic white cedar Chamaecyparis thyoides
Leatherleaf Chamaedaphne calyculata
Yam-leaved clematis Clematis terniflora
Sweet pepperbush Clethra alnifolia

Persimmon Diospyros virginiana

Fetterbush Eubotrys racemosa
Wintergreen Gaultheria procumbens
Black huckleberry Gaylussacia baccata
Dwarf huckleberry Gaylussacia dumosa
Dangleberry Gaylussacia frondosa
Golden heather Hudsonia ericoides
Bushy Saint John’s wort Hypericum densiflorum
Inkberry Ilex glabra
Smooth winterberry Ilex laevigata
American holly Ilex opaca
Winterberry Ilex verticillata
Virginia willow Itea virginica
Red cedar Juniperus virginiana
Sheep laurel Kalmia angustifolia
Mountain laurel Kalmia latifolia
Sand myrtle Leiophyllum buxifolium
Sweet gum Liquidambar styraciflua
Japanese honeysuckle Lonicera japonica
Maleberry Lyonia ligustrina
Staggerbush Lyonia mariana
Sweet bay Magnolia virginiana
Bayberry Myrica pensylvanica
Black gum Nyssa sylvatica
Virginia creeper Parthenocissus quinquefolia
Shortleaf pine Pinus echinata
Pitch pine Pinus rigida
White pine Pinus strobus
Sycamore Platanus occidentalus
Black cherry Prunus serotina
White oak Quercus alba
Scrub oak Quercus ilicifolia
Black-jack oak Quercus marilandica
Black oak Quercus velutina
Post oak Quercus stellata
Swamp azalea Rhododendron viscosum
Swamp rose Rosa palustris
Swamp dewberry Rubus hispidus
Blackberry Rubus sp.
Black willow Salix nigra
Common elder Sambuscus canadensis
(continued)

Sassafras Sassafras albidum

Glaucous greenbrier Smilax glauca
Laurel-leaved greenbrier Smilax laurifolia
Common greenbrier Smilax rotundifolia
Red-berried greenbrier Smilax walteri
Narrow-leaved meadowsweet Spiraea alba var. latifolia
Steeplebush Spiraea tomentosa
Basswood Tilia americana
Poison ivy Toxicodendron radicans
Poison sumac Toxicodendron vernix
American elm Ulmus americana
Highbush blueberry Vaccinium corymbosum
Large cranberry Vaccinum macrocarpon
Early low blueberry Vaccinum pallidum
Southern arrowwood Viburnum dentatum
Naked withe-rod Viburnum nudum var. nudum
Fox grape Vitis labrusca
Source: Zampella, R.A., J.F. Bunnell, K.J. Laidig, and C.L. Dow. 2001. The
Mullica River Basin. Technical Report, New Jersey Pinelands Commission, New
Lisbon, NJ.
Algae are well represented in streams, lakes, ponds, and bogs of the Mullica
River watershed. Green algae (Chlorophyta), yellow-green algae (Chlorophyta), and
euglenoids (Euglenophyta) are quite diverse, with 350 taxa being registered in the
Pine Barrens (Moul and Buell, 1998). Diatoms often predominate in these habitats.
Upland Plant Communities

Pine–oak forests characterize upland habitats of the Mullica River watershed (McCor-
mick, 1998; JCNERR, 1999). Pitch pine (Pinus rigida) and several species of oak (i.e.,
white oak, Quercus alba; black oak, Q. velutina; scarlet oak, Q. coccinea; and chestnut
oak, Q. prinus) form the predominant upland forest canopy. In some areas, pitch pine
is the overwhelmingly dominant species, accounting for more than 50% of the cover.
Nearly pure stands of pitch pine occur locally, as do nearly pure stands of oak trees.
The understory in these upland forests typically consists of mountain laurel (Kalmia
latifolia), sweet fern (Comptonia peregrina), inkberry (Ilex glabra), huckleberries (Gay-
lussacia spp.), blueberries (Vaccinium spp.), and scrub oak (Q. ilicifolia).
The pine–oak canopy is well developed in the Bass River State Forest, Penn
State Forest, and Wharton State Forest. Pitch pine (Pinus rigida) is most abundant,
covering ~50 to 80% of the uplands vegetation in these forests. Shortleaf pine
(P. echinata), also present in the upland forests, is of secondary importance.
Among the species of oak found in the upland communities, the southern red
oak (Quercus falcata) is the predominant form south of the Mullica River and
the black oak (Q. velutina) the predominant form to the north. Other species of
oak trees identified in these forests include the white oak (Q. alba), scarlet oak
(Q. coccinea), scrub oak (Q. ilicifolia), post oak (Q. stellata), chestnut oak (Q.
prinus), and blackjack oak (Q. marilandica).
McCormick (1998) described two types of shrub understory in the upland
forests:
1. Heath-type vegetation dominated by black huckleberry (Gaylussacia bac-

cata) and lowbush blueberry (Vaccinium vacillans)
2. Scrub-oak type vegetation
Compared to scrub-oak understory, which grows about 1 to 5 m high, heath-

type understory generally grows from 30 to 60 cm high. Among the various species
of ground cover documented in the upland forests are Sphagnum moss, bearberry
(Arctostaphylos uva-ursi), bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum), wintergreen
(Gaultheria procumbens), goatsrue (Tephrosia virginiana), and cowwheat
(Melampyrum lineare).
Dwarf pitch or pygmy pine (Pinus rigida) less than ~3 m high and low-growing
scrub oaks (Quercus marilandica and Q. ilicifolia) inhabit areas of the Pine Barrens
subject to frequent fires. Dwarf pitch pine communities in the Pine Barrens cover
nearly 5000 ha (Good et al., 1998). Species of shrubs and herbs found in these
communities include sand myrtle (Leiophyllum buxifolium), sweet fern (Comtonia
peregrina), sheep laurel (Kalmia angustifolia), and mountain laurel (K. latifolia).
Species of ground cover, in turn, consist of wintergreen (Gaultheria procumbens),
broom crowberry (Cormea conradii), trailing arbutus (Epigaea repens), and bear-
berry (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi).
Barrier Island Plant Communities
The barrier island complex of the JCNERR consists of both developed and unde-
veloped areas. Where the barrier island complex is undeveloped, such as along the
protected Holgate Unit of the Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge and the North
Brigantine State Natural Area, extensive scrub/shrub and woodland communities
occur. However, plant communities along developed portions of the barrier island
complex have been radically altered or destroyed. The decimated plant communities
in developed regions contrast markedly with the plant communities in undisturbed
habitat of the undeveloped lands.
Several distinct habitats characterize the barrier island complex; along the ocean
side, sand beaches as well as primary and secondary dune systems are characteristic,
and along the backbarrier areas, salt marshes and tidal flats predominate. American
beach grass (Ammophila breviligulata) dominates the primary dune plant community
in undisturbed habitats. Sea rocket (Cakile edentula), seaside goldenrod (Solidago
sempervirens), Japanese sedge (Carex kobomugi), and beach pea (Lathyrus mariti-
mus) may also be present here. The secondary dune plant community typically
consists of beach heather (Hudsonia tomentosa), beach plum (Prunus maritima),

pineweed (Hypericum gentianoides), salt spray rose (Rosa rugosa), and bayberry
(Myrica pensylvanica) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1996).
In the woodland community behind the secondary dune plant community, the red
cedar (Juniperus virginiana) is the dominant species. Other species comprising the
canopy, but in lower abundance, are the black cherry (Prunus serotina), sassafras (Sas-
safras albidum), willow oak (Quercus phellos), southern red oak (Q. falcata), American
holly (Ilex opaca), and serviceberry (Amelanchier canadensis). The understory consists
of hackberry (Celtis occidentalis), bayberry (Myrica pensylvanica), blueberries (Vaccin-
ium spp.), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), and sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia).
Pitch pine (Pinus rigida), Atlantic white cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides), American
holly (I. opaca), and several species of oak can also be found in some open woodlands.
The shrub layer here consists mainly of highbush blueberry (Vaccinum corymbosum)
and sheep laurel (Kalmia angustifolia) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1996).
ANIMAL COMMUNITIES
Amphibians and Reptiles
More than 50 species of herpetofauna have been recorded in the New Jersey Pine
Barrens, including 19 snakes, 14 frogs and toads, 11 salamanders, 10 turtles, and 3
lizards (Table 3.2). Thirteen anuran species inhabit the Mullica River Basin
(Table 3.3). The acid-water habitats of the New Jersey Pinelands support anuran
assemblages uniquely different from those found elsewhere in the state (Conant, 1998;
Zampella et al., 2001). Only two anuran species (Pine Barrens treefrog, Hyla ander-
sonii and carpenter frog, Rana virgatipes) are confined to the Pine Barrens. Five other
anuran species (eastern spadefoot, Scaphiopus holbrooki; Fowler’s toad, Bufo wood-
housii fowleri; northern spring peeper, Pseudacris crucifer crucifer; southern leopard
frog, R. utricularia; and green frog, R. clamitans melanota), although native to the
region, are more widely distributed. They have been reported throughout southern
New Jersey. Seven other anuran species (i.e., bullfrog, R. catesbeiana; pickerel frog,
R. palustris; wood frog, R. sylvatica; northern cricket frog, Acris crepitans crepitans;
gray treefrogs, Hyla versicolor and H. chrysoscelis; and New Jersey chorus frog,
Pseudacris triseriata kalmi) only occur in Pinelands habitat disturbed by anthropo-
genic activity (Zampella et al., 2001). These latter seven species, therefore, may be
valuable as indicators of watershed disturbance.
Several salamander species inhabit the New Jersey Pinelands, but only three of
them (four-toed salamander, Hemidactylium scutatum; northern red salamander,
Pseudotriton ruber; and red-backed salamander, Plethodon cinereus) are relatively
abundant (Conant, 1998). A fourth species (marbled salamander, Ambystoma
opacum), although not abundant, has been observed in various areas of the Pinelands.
Two other species (northern dusky salamander, Desmognathus fuscus and northern
two-lined salamander, Eurycea bislineata) are rare. The eastern tiger salamander
(Ambystoma tigrinum tigrinum) remains on the endangered species list.
Three species of lizards have been documented in the Pine Barrens: the five-
lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus), ground skink (Scincella lateralis), and northern
fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus hyacinthinus). Only the northern fence lizard is
TABLE 3.2
Occurrence and Status of Amphibians and Reptiles in the
New Jersey Pine Barrens
Species Status in Pine Barrens
Salamanders
Spotted salamander Uncertain
Marbled salamander REL, locally common
Eastern tiger salamander BOR, endangered
Red-spotted newt REL, few records
Northern dusky salamander BOR, rare
Red-backed salamander Abundant
Slimy salamander Uncertain
Four-toed salamander REL, numerous records
Eastern mud salamander Uncertain
Northern red salamander Abundant
Northern two-lined salamander BOR, rare
Toads and Frogs

Eastern spadefoot Locally common
Fowler’s toad Abundant
Northern cricket frog BOR, scattered records
Pine Barrens treefrog PBO, declining
Cope’s gray treefrog PER, not present
Northern spring peeper Abundant
Barking treefrog INT, possibly extirpated
Gray treefrog BOR, scattered records
New Jersey chorus frog BOR, numerous records
Bullfrog BOR, scattered records
Green frog Abundant
Pickerel frog BOR, few records
Wood frog BOR, few records
Southern leopard frog Abundant
Carpenter frog PBO, common
Turtles
Common snapping turtle Common
Stinkpot Abundant
Eastern mud turtle Numerous records
Spotted turtle Abundant records, but declining
Wood turtle BOR, few records, threatened
Bog turtle BOR, endangered
Eastern box turtle Numerous records, but declining
Northern diamondback terrapin PER, not present
Map turtle PER, not present
Eastern painted turtle Abundant
Red-bellied turtle Common
Eastern spiny softshell INT, at western edge only
(continued)

Occurrence and Status of Amphibians and Reptiles in the
New Jersey Pine Barrens
Species Status in Pine Barrens
Lizards
Northern fence lizard Abundant
Ground skink PBO, uncommon
Five-lined skink REL, few records
Snakes
Queen snake PER, not present
Northern water snake Abundant
Northern brown snake Scattered records
Northern red-bellied snake PBO, numerous records
Eastern ribbon snake Numerous records, but uncommon
Eastern garter snake Numerous records
Eastern earth snake Uncertain
Eastern hognose snake Locally common, but declining
Northern-southern ringneck snake Scattered
Eastern worm snake REL, common
Northern black racer Locally common, but declining
Rough green snake PBO, common
Corn snake PBO, scattered records
Black rat snake Locally common
Northern pine snake PBO, locally common
Eastern king snake PBO, locally common
Eastern milk snake–scarlet king snake Numerous records
(intergrading population)
Northern scarlet snake PBO, scattered records
Timber–canebrake rattlesnake PBO, threatened
(intergrading population)
Note: PBO, Pine Barrens only; BOR, border entrant; REL, relict in Pine Barrens;
PER, peripheral to Pine Barrens; INT, introduced.
Source: Conant, R. 1998. In: Forman, R.T.T. (Ed.). Pine Barrens: Ecosystem and
Landscape. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ, pp. 467–488.
relatively abundant. It inhabits upland pine–oak forest areas. In contrast, the five-
lined skink prefers hardwood swamps and other wet woodlands. The ground skink,
in turn, occupies open sandy wooded habitats.
A number of snakes reside in the JCNERR and upland Pine Barrens. The eastern
king snake (Lampropeltis getula getula), eastern ribbon snake (Thamnophis sauri-
tus), and northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon) are mainly found in wetland
habitats. The timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus horridus), an endangered species,
occurs in both wetland and upland habitats. More species prefer upland forest habitat;
TABLE 3.3
Taxonomic List of Anuran Species Found in the
Mullica River Basin
Northern cricket frog Acris crepitans crepitans

Pine Barrens treefrog Hyla andersonii
Cope’s gray treefrog Hyla chrysoscelis
Gray treefrog Hyla versicolor
Fowler’s toad Bufo woodhousii fowleri
Northern spring peeper Pseudacris crucifer crucifer
New Jersey chorus frog Pseudacris triseriata kalmi
Bullfrog Rana catesbeiana
Green frog Rana clamitans melanota
Pickerel frog Rana palustris
Southern leopard frog Rana utricularia
Wood frog Rana sylvatica
Carpenter frog Rana virgatipes
Source: Modified from Zampella, R.A., J.F. Bunnell, K.J. Laidig, and
C.L. Dow. 2001. The Mullica River Basin. Technical Report, New
Jersey Pinelands Commission, New Lisbon, NJ.
included here are the corn snake (Elaphe guttata guttata), northern black racer
(Coluber constrictor constrictor), eastern worm snake (Carphophis amoenus amoe-
nus), eastern hognose snake (Heterodon platyrhinos), northern pine snake (Pituophis
melanoleucus melanoleucus), northern scarlet snake (Cemophora coccinea), rough
green snake (Opheodrys aestivus), and eastern garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis)
(Conant, 1998).
Several species of turtles exist in watershed areas of the JCNERR, with most
concentrating near freshwater and brackish water habitats. Those common or abun-
dant in the Pinelands are the snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), red-bellied turtle
(Chrysemys rubriventris), eastern painted turtle (Chrysemys picta), stinkpot (Ster-
notherus odoratus), spotted turtle (Clemmys guttata), eastern box turtle (Terrapene
carolina), and eastern mud turtle (Kinosternon subrubrum subrubrum). The bog
turtle (C. muhlenbergii), an endangered species, and the wood turtle (C. insculpta),
a threatened species, also can be found in the Pinelands (Conant, 1998). The northern
diamondback terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin terrapin) is a year-round resident, nest-
ing on sandy uplands adjacent to tidal creeks and salt marshes (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 1996). Hence, it is frequently observed in Spartina marsh habitat of the
JCNERR (JCNERR, 1999).
Mammals
More than 30 land-dwelling mammals inhabit the Pine Barrens in proximity to the
JCNERR. Based on their size, these mammals have been divided into small,
intermediate, and large species groups (Wolgast, 1998). The small mammals are
defined as those with an adult body length (excluding tail) of less than 26 cm.
Twenty-two species are listed here including the meadow jumping mouse (Zapus
hudsonius), house mouse (Mus musculus), white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leuco-
pus), meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus), pine vole (M. pinetorum), red-backed
vole (Clethrionomys gapperi), Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus), rice rat (Oryzomys
palustris), southern bog lemming (Synaptomys cooperi), long-tailed weasel (Mustela
frenata), red squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinen-
sis), southern flying squirrel (Glaucomys volans), eastern chipmunk (Tamias stria-
tus), eastern pipistrelle (Pipistrellus subflavus), big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus),
little brown myotis (Myotis lucifugus), eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus), star-nosed
mole (Condylura cristata), least shrew (Cryptotis parva), short-tailed shrew (Blarina
brevicauda), and masked shrew (Sorex cinereus).
The mammals of intermediate size range from 26 to 76 cm in length (excluding
tail). Eleven species belong to this group. These are the raccoon (Procyon lotor),
mink (Mustela vison), muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), beaver (Castor canadensis),
river otter (Lutra canadensis), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), red fox (Vulpes
vulpes), woodchuck (Marmota monax), opossum (Didelphis marsupialis), eastern
cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), and striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis).
The large mammal category includes those forms with an adult body length
greater than 1 m. Only two species comprise this group: the white-tailed deer
(Odocoileus virginianus) and humans (Homo sapiens). Humans, of course, have the
greatest capacity to impact watershed environments.
Most of the aforementioned species have distinct habitat preferences. For exam-
ple, more than a dozen species prefer the upland forests, notably the eastern
chipmunk (Tamias striatus), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), red squirrel (Tami-
asciurus hudsonicus), southern flying squirrel (Glaucomys volans), pine vole
(Microtus pinetorum), white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), gray fox (Uro-
cyon cinereoargenteus), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), raccoon (Procyon lotor), long-
tailed weasel (Mustela frenata), striped skunk (Mephites mephites), opossum
(Didelphis marsupialis), and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus). Only a
few species inhabit grasslands and shrublands in the watershed, specifically the
meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius), meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvani-
cus), woodchuck (Marmota monax), and eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus).
The red-backed vole (Clethrionomys gapperi) inhabits bogs and wetland forests.
The muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus) occupies both brackish and freshwater marshes.
While the beaver (Castor canadensis) resides in freshwater tributary systems, the
river otter (Lutra canadensis) has a broader distribution; it is observed in Pine
Barren streams and tidal marshes, as well as bay islands. The mink (Mustela vison),
southern bog lemming (Synaptomys cooperi), and least shrew (Cryptotis parva)
prefer wetland habitats (Wolgast, 1998).
Birds
The JCNERR lies within the Atlantic Flyway, and consequently numerous species
of migrating birds utilize the coastal habitats there. The reserve is replete with a
wide diversity of seabirds, shorebirds, waterfowl, songbirds, and raptors. Protected

habitat of the Holgate Unit of the Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge, Brigantine
and Barnegat portions of the Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge, and the Great Bay
Boulevard Wildlife Management Area provide many hectares of unaltered habitat
for foraging, staging, and nesting birds.
During the period from July through December 1995, aerial surveys revealed
more than 900,000 seabirds migrating along the coast in Cape May County. Loons
(Gavia spp.), northern gannets (Sula bassanus), sooty shearwaters (Puffinus griseus),
cormorants (Phalacrocorax spp.), and Wilson’s storm petrels (Oceanites oceanicus)
were representative seabird populations, among others, recorded in the surveys (U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, 1996). They have also been observed migrating along the
coast in Ocean and Atlantic Counties.
Recent avifaunal surveys identified nearly 300 species of birds in the Forsythe
National Wildlife Refuge alone (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1996). Some of the
shorebird species censused in the refuge are the American oystercatcher (Haemato-
pus palliatus), semipalmated plover (Charadrius semipalmatus), lesser golden plover
(Pluvialis dominica), black-bellied plover (Pluvialis squatarola), willet (Catoptro-
phorus semipalmatus), ruddy turnstone (Arenaria interpres), Hudsonian godwit
(Lemosa haemastica), marbled godwit (Lemosa fedoa), greater yellowlegs (Tringa
melanoleuca), short-billed dowitcher (Limnodromus griseus), dunlin (Calidris
alpina), sanderling (C. alba), red knot (C. canutus), least sandpiper (C. minutilla),
western sandpiper (C. mauri), white-rumped sandpiper (C. fuscicollis), and semi-
palmated sandpiper (C. pusilla). Many of these species actively breed in the refuge.
The barrier island complex and the back-bay lagoonal system provide impor-
tant habitats for shorebirds not only during the critical spring and fall migration
periods but also during other times of the year. Many shorebirds feed along tidal
flats and roost in coastal marshes. A number of species (e.g., willet, Catoptrophorus
semipalmatus; American oystercatcher, Haematopus palliatus; black-bellied plo-
ver, Pluvialis squatarola; and piping plover, Charadrius melodus) inhabit dunes
and beaches, nesting in undisturbed areas. The Holgate Unit of the Forsythe
National Wildlife Refuge is highly favored habitat of the piping plover. While the
piping plover and black-bellied plover prefer beach and dune habitats, the willet
and American oystercatcher have broader habitat preferences and thus commonly
occur in salt marsh habitats as well. Shorebirds that nest on exposed stretches of
beaches and dunes, such as the piping plover, are especially susceptible to predators
(e.g., raccoons, Procyon lotor; foxes, Vulpes vulpes; crows, Corvus spp.; and gulls,
Larus spp.).
JCNERR habitats support an array of colonial nesting waterbirds, such as
gulls, terns, and waders. For example, the Great Bay Boulevard Wildlife Manage-
ment Area, the Holgate Unit of the Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge, and parts
of the Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge, as well as bay islands, are important
locations for nesting colonies of gulls (herring gull, Larus argentatus; laughing
gull, L. atricilla; and great black-backed gull, L. marinus) and terns (Forster’s
tern, Sterna forsteri; common tern, S. hirunda; and gull-billed tern, S. nilotica).
Two important beach nesting birds in the JCNERR are the least tern (S. antillarum)
and black skimmer (Rynchops niger). Nesting waders documented in the reserve
include egrets (great egret, Casmerodius albus; snowy egret, Egretta thula; and
cattle egret, Bubulcus ibis), herons (little blue heron, E. caerulea; tri-colored
heron, E. tricolor; yellow-crowned night heron, Nycticorax violaceus; black-
crowned night heron, N. nycticorax; and green-backed heron, Butorides striatus),
and the glossy ibis (Plegadis falcinellus). These birds commonly nest among
shrubs and trees in the lower watershed. The common tern, great egret, and
snowy egret are considered to be potentially valuable indicator species of chang-
ing habitat conditions in the region (Joanna Burger, Rutgers University, personal
communication, 2002).
In the Brigantine Bay and marsh complex, both terns (Forster’s tern, Sterna
forsteri; common tern, S. hirunda; and gull-billed tern, S. nilotica) and gulls
(herring gull, Larus argentatus; laughing gull, L. atricilla; and great black-backed
gull, L. marinus) are abundant. Long-legged waders, egrets and herons, are also
relatively abundant here. In the Barnegat Bay–Little Egg Harbor estuarine system
to the north, aerial colonial waterbird surveys in 1995 registered 435 waders in
14 heronies (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1996). Species reported in declining
order of abundance included the snowy egret (Egretta thula), great egret
(Casmerodius albus), glossy ibis (Plegadis falcinellus), black-crowned night
heron (Nycticorax nycticorax), little blue heron (E. caerulea), tri-colored heron
(E. tricolor), and yellow-crowned night heron (Nycticorax violaceus). Based on
aerial waterbird surveys, Burger et al. (2001) noted a significant increase in the
number of colonies of great egrets, black-crowned night herons, and glossy ibises
during the period from 1977 to 1995. In addition, the number of colonies of
common terns and black skimmers decreased substantially over the 1976–1999
period. Table 3.4 lists the colonial waterbirds recorded by Burger et al. (2001) in
the estuarine system.
Waterfowl in the JCNERR attain peak numbers during the winter season. In
the Mullica River–Great Bay estuarine system, mid-winter aerial waterfowl counts
have recently revealed an average of more than 12,000 birds. Species observed in
descending order of abundance in the system are the American black duck (Anas
rubripes), American brant (Branta bernicla), greater and lesser scaup (Aythra
marila and A. affinis), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), and bufflehead (Bucephala
albeola). Other species present, albeit in lesser numbers, are the canvasback (Aythra
valisneria), American wigeon (Anas americana), northern pintail (A. acuta), gad-
wall (A. strepera), green-winged teal (A. crecca), common merganser (Mergus
merganser), red-breasted merganser (M. serrator), hooded merganser (Lophodytes
cucullatus), tundra swan (Cygnus columbianus), oldsquaw (Clangula hyemalis),
common goldeneye (Bucephala clangula), and Canada goose (Branta canadensis)
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1996).
Waterfowl counts in the Brigantine and marsh complex to the south and the
Barnegat Bay system to the north are greater than those in the Mullica River–Great
Bay Estuary, far exceeding averages of more than 70,000 birds and 50,000 birds,
respectively. In the Brigantine and marsh complex, the most abundant species in
descending order are the brant, Amerian black duck, snow goose (Chen caerule-
scens), greater and lesser scaup, Canada goose, bufflehead, scoters (Melanitta spp.),
and mallard. Similarly, in the Barnegat Bay system, the most abundant waterfowl
TABLE 3.4
Colonial Waterbirds of the Barnegat Bay–Little
Egg Harbor Estuary
Gulls, Terns, Skimmers

Common tern Sterna hirundo
Least tern Sterna antillarum
Forster’s tern Sterna forsteri
Roseate tern Sterna dougallii
Caspian tern Sterna caspia
Gull-billed tern Sterna nilotica
Laughing gull Larus atricilla
Herring gull Larus argentus
Great black-backed gull Larus marinus
Black skimmer Rynchops niger
Long-Legged Wading Birds

Great egret Casmerodius albus
Snowy egret Egretta thula
Cattle egret Bubulcus ibis
Great blue heron Ardea herodias
Green-backed heron Butorides striatus
Little blue heron Egretta caerulea
Tri-colored heron Egretta tricolor
Yellow-crowned night-heron Nycticorax violaceus
Black-crowned night-heron Nycticorax nycticorax
Glossy ibis Plegadis falcinellus
Source: Burger, J., C.D. Jenkins, Jr., F. Lesser, and M. Goch-

feld. 2001. Journal of Coastal Research Special Issue 32,
pp. 197–211.
in descending order are the greater and lesser scaup, brant, American black duck,
bufflehead, canvasback, mallard, and Canada goose. According to Nichols and Cas-
telli (1997), waterfowl hunting is significant in the coastal bays.
Raptors are well represented in the JCNERR. The primary raptors in the reserve
include the osprey (Pandion haliaetus), peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), and
northern harrier (Circus cyaneus). While the osprey migrates to South America,
Central America, and the Southeast U.S., the peregrine falcon and northern harrier
nest year-round in the region. Other raptors of note inhabiting the reserve are the
sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus), broad-winged hawk (Buteo platypterus),
short-eared owl (Asio flammeus), great horned owl (Bubo virginianus), eastern
screech owl (Otus asio), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), and merlin (Falco
columbarius). The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), a state endangered
species (Table 3.5), nests along the Mullica River; it roosts and feeds along tidal
reaches of the river (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1996). The aforementioned
TABLE 3.5
Selected List of Endangered and Threatened Plant and Animal Species
of the Mullica River Watershed
Federal
Scientific Name Common Name Status State Status
Plants
Amaranthus pumilus Seabeach amaranth Threatened Endangered
Schwalbea americana Chaffseed Endangered Endangered
Rhynchospora knieskernii Knieskern’s beaked-rush Threatened Endangered
Aeschynomene virginica Sensitive joint-vetch Threatened Endangered
Helonias bullata Swamp pink Threatened Endangered
Juncus caesariensis New Jersey rush Endangered
Lobelia boykinii Boykin’s lobelia Endangered
Cyperus polystachyos Coast flat sedge Endangered
Carex cumulata Clustered sedge Endangered
Rhexia aristosa Awned meadow-beauty Endangered
Kuhnia eupatorioides False boneset Endangered
Eupatorium resinosum Pine Barren boneset Endangered
Lemna perpusilla Minute duckweed Endangered
Sagittaria teres Slender arrowhead Endangered
Sagittaria australis Southern arrowhead Endangered
Eleocharis tortilis Twisted spikerush Endangered
Cirsium virginianum Virginia thistle Endangered
Scleria verticillata Whorled nut-rush Endangered
Chenopodium rubrum Red goosefoot Endangered
Cardamine longii Long’s bittercress Endangered
Scirpus longii Long’s woolgrass Endangered
Corema conradii Broom crowberry Endangered
Tofieldia racemosa False asphodel Endangered
Aster radula Low rough aster Endangered
Glaux maritima Sea-milkwort Endangered
Linum intercursum Sandplain flax Endangered
Verbena simplex Narrow-leaf vervain Endangered
Animals
Nicrophorus americanus American burying beetle Endangered Endangered
Callophrys irus Frosted elfin Threatened
Cicindela dorsalis dorsalis Northeastern beach tiger beetle Threatened Endangered
Boloria selene myrina Silver-bordered fritillary Threatened
Atrytone arogos arogos Arogos skipper Endangered
Hyla chrysoscelis Cope’s gray treefrog Endangered
Pseudotriton montanus montanus Eastern mud salamander Threatened
Ambysoma tigrinum tigrinum Eastern tiger salamander Endangered
Clemmys muhlenbergii Bog turtle Threatened Endangered
Clemmys insculpta Wood turtle Threatened
Elaphe guttata guttata Corn snake Endangered

Selected List of Endangered and Threatened Plant and Animal Species
of the Mullica River Watershed
Federal
Scientific Name Common Name Status State Status
Pituophis melanoleucus Northern pine snake Threatened

melanoleucus
Crotalus horridus horridus Timber rattlesnake Endangered
Rynchops niger Black skimmer Endangered
Sterna antillarum Least tern Endangered
Sterna dougallii Roseate tern Endangered Endangered
Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle Threatened Endangered
Falco peregrinus Peregrine falcon Endangered
Charadrius melodus Piping plover Threatened Endangered
Bartramia longicauda Upland sandpiper Endangered
Calidris cantus Red knot Threatened
Cistothorus platensis Sedge wren Endangered
Source: The Natural Heritage Program, Trenton, NJ.
species can be seen over a range of habitats in the JCNERR from coastal dunes
and marshlands to forest bogs and ponds. Some predatory birds (e.g., broad-winged
hawk, great horned owl, and eastern screech owl) are largely confined to upland
forested habitat. The raptors aggressively hunt for fish, mammals, reptiles (lizards
and snakes), small birds, insects, and other animals. For example, the osprey preys
on fish, whereas the peregrine falcon consumes small birds. The northern harrier,
in turn, feeds on a wide range of prey such as small mammals and birds, as well
as rodents.
The Mullica River watershed supports numerous species of songbirds and rails
that feed, breed, and nest in various habitats. For example, Virginia rails (Rallus
limicola), clapper rails (Rallus longirostris), and sora (Porzana carolina) feed and
breed in freshwater and brackish marshes. They are commonly seen foraging in
marsh habitat along the Bass, Wading, and Mullica rivers.
An array of songbirds also inhabits marshlands as well as other lowland areas
along swamps, bogs, and lands surrounding lakes and streams. The marsh wren
(Cistothorus palustris), sharp-tailed sparrow (Ammospiza caudacuta), and seaside
sparrow (Ammospiza maritima) construct nests in tidal and freshwater marshes.
While the marsh wren builds nests above ground level in emergent vegetation (i.e.,
cattails, common reed, and cordgrass), the sharp-tailed sparrow and seaside sparrow
construct nests at or near ground level in cordgrass and salt meadow marshes
(Kroodsma and Verner, 1997). The marsh wren is observed rather infrequently in
freshwater marsh habitats.
Many insectivores frequent swamp, lake, and bog habitats in search of food.
Among these species are the song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), yellow warbler
(Dendroica petechia), northern parula warbler (Parula americana), white-eyed vireo

(Vireo griseus), tree swallow (Iridoprocne bicolor), purple martin (Progne subis),
eastern wood pewee (Contopus virens), redstart (Setophaga ruticilla), yellowthroat
(Geothlypis trichas), wood thrush (Hylocichla mustilina), and gray catbird (Dume-
tella carolinensis). Other insectivorous species concentrate in upland oak–pine or
pine–oak woodlands. For example, the pine warbler (Dendroica pinus) occupies
pine–oak stands, whereas the ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapillus), black-and-white war-
bler (Mniotilta varia), and red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus) prefer oak-dominated
stands. Some species (e.g., gray catbird, Dumetella carolinensis and rufous-sided
towhee, Pipilo erythrophthalmus) are particularly abundant in scrubby undergrowth
and dense thickets, which afford greater protection from predators (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 1996; Leck, 1998).
Various neotropical migrant species utilize scrub–shrub and forest habitats of
the JCNERR system. Some representative groups are the hummingbirds, swifts,
swallows, flycatchers, grosbeaks, buntings, tanagers, and nightjars (De Graaf and
Rappole, 1995). Southern bird species common in upland areas of the watershed
are the mockingbird (Mimus polyglottus), Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus),
and Carolina chickadee (Parus carolinensis).
Fish
Zampella et al. (2001) documented 22 species of fish in the streams and impound-
ments of the Mullica River Basin, consisting of both native and nonnative forms
(Table 3.6). Based on their surveys, the banded sunfish (Enneacanthus obesus),
swamp darter (Etheostoma fusiforme), chain pickerel (Esox niger), and eastern
mudminnow (Umbra pygmaea) are the most frequently encountered native species
in the Pinelands streams. Commonly occurring nonnative species include the golden
shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas), yellow perch (Perca flavescens), bluegill sunfish
(Lepomis macrochirus), pumpkinseed (L. gibbosus), tesselated darter (Etheostoma
olmetedi), brown bullhead (Ameiurus nebulosus), and largemouth bass (Micropterus
salmoides). Three native species (i.e., blackbanded sunfish, Enneacanthus chaet-
odon; bluespotted sunfish, E. gloriosus; and banded sunfish, E. obesus) dominate
the impoundment assemblages. Fish inhabiting streams in the Mullica River water-
shed are primarily acid-tolerant, sedentary forms that prefer areas with considerable
vegetation (Hastings, 1998).
The acidic waters of the Mullica River watershed create inhospitable condi-
tions for many freshwater fish. Hastings (1998) identified only 16 species of fish
indigenous to the acidic waters of the region. He also divided Pine Barrens fish
into five groups:
1. Characteristic species
2. Peripheral species
3. Introduced species
4. Anadromous species
5. Marine species
TABLE 3.6
Taxonomic List of Fish Collected in the
Mullica River Basin
Mud sunfish Acantharchus pomotis

Yellow bullhead Ameiurus natalis
Brown bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus
American eel Anguilla rostrata
Pirate perch Aphredoderus sayanus
Blackbanded sunfish Enneacanthus chaetodon
Bluespotted sunfish Enneacanthus gloriosus
Banded sunfish Enneacanthus obesus
Creek chubsucker Erimyzon oblongus
Redfin pickerel Esox americanus
Chain pickerel Esox niger
Swamp darter Etheostoma fusiforme
Tessellated darter Etheostoma olmstedi
Banded killifish Fundulus diaphanus
Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus
Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus
Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides
Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas
Tadpole madtom Noturus gyrinus
Yellow perch Perca flavescens
Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus
Eastern mudminnow Umbra pygmaea
Source: Zampella, R.A., J.F. Bunnell, K.J. Laidig, and C.L.

Dow. 2001. The Mullica River Basin. Technical Report, New
Jersey Pinelands Commission, New Lisbon, NJ.
Included among the characteristic species are the yellow bullhead (Ameiurus
natalis), pirate perch (Aphredoderus sayanus), ironcolor shiner (Notropis chaly-
baeus), swamp darter (Etheostoma fusiforme), mud sunfish (Acantharchus pomotis),
banded sunfish (Enneacanthus obesus), bluespotted sunfish (E. gloriosus), and black-
banded sunfish (E. chaetodon). Other, more widespread species comprising this
group are the brown bullhead (Ameiurus nebulosus), creek chubsucker (Erimyzon
oblongus), tadpole madtom (Noturus gyrinus), tessellated darter (Etheostoma olm-
stedi), eastern mudminnow (Umbra pygmaea), chain pickerel (Esox niger), redfin
pickerel (Esox americanus), and American eel (Anguilla rostrata). The distribution
of these characteristic forms, as well as the species constituting the other finfish
groups in the Pine Barrens, depends on their tolerance to the acidic waters, the
competition from similar or related species, and the requirement of some species
for sluggish streams or standing water with dense vegetation (Hastings, 1998).
Some species occupy nonacidic or weakly acidic waters in marginal areas of

the Pine Barrens and avoid acidic waters. Pineland species found in nonacidic waters
of the Pine Barrens are the bluntnose minnow (Pimephales notatus), silvery minnow
(Hybognathus nuchalis), creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus), fallfish (S. corpo-
ralis), margined madtom (Noturus insignis), blacknose dace (Rhinichthys atratulus),
gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum), common shiner (Notropis cornutus), comely
shiner (N. amoenus), bridled shiner (N. bifrenatus), satinfin shiner (N. analostanus),
and American brook lamprey (Lampetra lamottei). Peripheral species restricted to
the lower reaches of the Mullica River and other influent systems of the JCNERR
coastal bays include the mummichog (Fundulus heteroclitus), banded killifish (Fun-
dulus diaphanus), golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas), spotted shiner (Notro-
pis hudsonius), redbreasted sunfish (Lepomis auritus), white sucker (Catostomus
commersoni), white perch (Morone americana), and yellow perch (Perca flavescens)
(U.S. Fish and Wildife Service, 1996; Hastings, 1998).
A number of introduced species have adapted to streams in the Mullica River
watershed. Some of these species are stocked fish that now occur in peripheral areas
of the Pine Barrens. Among notable introduced forms are the brook trout (Salmo
fontinalis), rainbow trout (Salmo trutta), and brown trout (Salmo gairdneri). In
addition to these salmonids, the flathead minnow (Pimephales promelas), black
bullhead (Ictalurus melas), and channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) are introduced
forms. Carp (Cyprinus carpio), goldfish (Carassius auratus), largemouth bass
(Micropterus salmoides), black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus), and bluegill (Lep-
omis macrochirus) likewise are introduced species occupying peripheral areas of the
Pine Barrens (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1996).
Several anadromous species utilize the Mullica River and its tributaries. Species that
migrate into these influent systems, being largely confined to their tidal reaches, are the
alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus), blueback herring (A. aestivalis), hickory shad (A. medi-
ocris), American shad (A. sapidissima), and striped bass (Morone saxatilis). The con-
struction of dams in past decades has created obstructions to the upstream movement of
anadromous fish, thereby hindering spawning runs. These obstructions have restricted
anadromous fish spawning to the lower reaches of rivers and streams in the watershed.
Aside from the anadromous fish, a number of marine species also occur in rivers
and streams of the Pine Barrens. Among this group of marine species are the Atlantic
croaker (Micropogonias undulatus), Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus),
weakfish (Cynoscion regalis), kingfish (Menticirrhus saxatilis), hogchoker (Tri-
nectes maculatus), three-spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus), four-spined
stickleback (Apeltes quadracus), and bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli). They are
typically found in the lower tidal reaches of the influent systems.
ESTUARINE BIOTIC COMMUNITIES

PLANT COMMUNITIES
Benthic Flora
Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) in the estuarine waters of the JCNERR con-
sists of rooted macrophytes, both marine angiosperms (i.e., true seagrasses) and
freshwater macrophytes, that have colonized areas of the coastal bays. Eelgrass
(Zostera marina) is the dominant species, with widgeon grass (Ruppia maritima)
also found in some areas. In addition, an array of benthic macroalgae occurs in the
coastal bays either attached to substrates or as part of a drift community. Eelgrass
beds in the JCNERR are restricted to Little Egg Harbor and lower Barnegat Bay.
Benthic macroalgae, in turn, are more widely distributed; they have been observed
in lower Barnegat Bay, Little Egg Harbor, Great Bay, and the coastal bays to the
south (i.e., Little Bay, Reeds Bay, and Absecon Bay).
The most abundant benthic macroalgae in the Barnegat Bay–Little Egg Harbor
Estuary are Agardhiella subulata, Ceramium fastigiatum, Chaetomorpha spp.,
Codium fragile, Gracilaria tikvahiae, and Ulva lactuca (Loveland and Vouglitois,
1984; Kennish et al., 2001c). In the Barnegat Bay–Little Egg Harbor Estuary as well
as Great Bay, Ulva lactuca exhibits the greatest biomass. When present in high
abundances, benthic macroalgae can attenuate light and hinder the growth and
survival of seagrasses. However, benthic macroalgae can provide habitat for some
organisms, such as amphipods, crabs, and shrimp (Wilson et al., 1990; Sogard and
Able, 1991; Jivoff and Able, 2001).
The distribution of eelgrass beds appears to have decreased significantly during
the past 25 years in lower Barnegat Bay and Little Egg Harbor. For example, in
a survey of SAV beds in Little Egg Harbor from July to October 1999, Bologna
et al. (2000) found 1298.9 ha of Zostera marina and 6.8 ha of Ruppia maritima.
This compares to a total SAV coverage of 3448 ha reported in Little Egg Harbor
by Macomber and Allen (1979) in the 1970s. Bologna et al. (2000) noted, there-
fore, that SAV coverage in Little Egg Harbor declined by ~62% between the mid-
1970s and 1999 due to the loss of Zostera marina beds. A substantial loss of
eelgrass also appears to have occurred in Barnegat Bay during this interval
(Figure 3.10). Despite the obvious loss of eelgrass in much of Little Egg Harbor
since the 1970s, evidence exists of some recent recolonization of habitat in the
southern part of the estuary.
Several factors other than benthic macroalgal infestation may be contributing to
the loss of SAV in the Barnegat Bay–Little Egg Harbor Estuary. Noteworthy in this
respect is the input of excessive amounts of nutrients, particularly nitrogen, leading
to phytoplankton blooms and excessive growth of epiphytes that cause shading
impacts on SAV. In addition, wasting disease by the protist, Labyrinthula zosterae,
also decimates eelgrass beds. For example, wasting disease eliminated 400 ha of
eelgrass beds in Barnegat Bay during 1995, and it was evident in up to 50% of the
eelgrass leaves examined in 1996 (McClain and McHale, 1997).
Eelgrass has historically occurred in relatively dense concentrations along the
perimeter of the Barnegat Bay–Little Egg Harbor Estuary. It is most abundant where
sandy sediments predominate along the eastern margin of the estuary (Figure 3.10)
(Lathrop et al., 2001). Bologna et al. (2000) recorded a peak eelgrass biomass of
230 g FDW/m2 in Little Egg Harbor. Wootton and Zimmerman (2001) found above-
ground and below-ground biomass values of eelgrass beds in Barnegat Bay ranging
from 8.7 to 270.6 g/m2.
Great Bay and the back-bays to the south (i.e., Little Bay, Reeds Bay, and
Absecon Bay) are essentially devoid of Zostera marina and other seagrasses.
FIGURE 3.10 Seagrass distribution in the Barnegat Bay–Little Egg Harbor Estuary over the
1979–1998 period. (From Lathrop, R.G., J.A. Bognar, A.C. Hendrickson, and P.D. Bowers.
2001. In: Kennish, M.J. (Ed.). The Scientific Characterization of the Barnegat Bay–Little Egg
Harbor Estuary and Watershed. Technical Report, Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program,
Toms River, NJ, Appendix 3.)
Eelgrass beds once flourished in these bays but were eradicated by the wasting
disease pandemic of the 1930s, which devastated eelgrass beds along most of the
East Coast (Cottam and Munro, 1954). Benthic macroalgae (sea lettuce, Ulva
lactuca; hollow green weed, Enteromorpha spp.; and rockweed, Fucus sp.) replaced
Z. marina as the dominant benthic macroflora in these systems after the 1930s
(Sogard and Able, 1991). They remain the dominant forms today.
The contraction of eelgrass beds in the JCNERR is a growing concern because
of the multiple ecological roles of SAV in the system. Aside from its importance
in primary production, SAV provides food and habitat for a multitude of organisms.
Waterfowl (e.g., American brant, canvasbacks, and green-winged teal), turtles,
some fish (e.g., Acanthuridae and Scaridae), and sea urchins consume SAV. Sea-
grasses serve as nursery and protective habitat for fish, crabs, and many other
estuarine fauna. They also trap sediment, stabilize the substrate, and mitigate
erosion. These plants act as nutrient pumps and thus may be significant in nutrient
cycling in the estuary.
Phytoplankton
Olsen and Mahoney (2001) conducted the most extensive phytoplankton studies in
Great Bay, Little Egg Harbor, and Barnegat Bay during the past 20 years. They
surveyed phytoplankton communities in these estuaries from May through Septem-
ber during 1987, and in 1995 to 2000. These surveys were prompted by the
recurrence of intense picoplankton blooms dominated by Aureococcus anophagef-

ferens (Pelagophyceae) and Nannochloris atomus (Chlorophyceae). Intense pico-
plankton blooms have caused brownish water discoloration each summer since
1985; these blooms have been most intense and widespread in Little Egg Harbor.
Phytoplankton counts in these blooms typically exceed 106 cells/ml.
Based on the surveys of Olsen (1989) and Olsen and Mahoney (2001), as well
as previous investigations of Martin (1929) and Mountford (1965, 1967, 1969,
1971), a total of 242 phytoplankton species have been identified in Barnegat Bay,
Little Egg Harbor, and Great Bay. Olsen and Mahoney (2001) determined that
41% of the 132 phytoplankton species they identified were dinoflagellates and
31% were diatoms. Aside from Aureococcus anophagefferens and Nannochloris
atomus, other cosmopolitan species that are widely distributed both spatially and
temporally in these coastal bays include Calycomonas ovalis, Chlorella sp.,
Chroomonas vectensis, C. amphioxiea, C. minuta, Cyclotella sp., Cylindrotheca
closterium, Euglena/Eutreptia spp., Heterosigma carterae, Katodinium rotunda-
tum, Nitzschia spp., Prorocentrum minimum, Pyramimonas spp., and Skeletonema
costatum. In proximity to inlet sites (i.e., Little Egg Inlet and Barnegat Inlet),
however, neritic or coastal ocean species dominate the phytoplankton communities.
These consist mainly of centric diatoms (e.g., Cerataulina, Chaetoceros, and
Thalassiosira spp.) and thecate dinoflagellates (e.g., Ceratium, Dinophysis, Pro-
rocentrum, and Protoperidinium spp.).
Picoplankton, bacteria-sized forms 1 to 5 µm in size, are an important component
of the phytoplankton community, responsible for a significant fraction of the total
phytoplankton production. Mountford (1971) ascertained that Nannochloris atomus
dominated the phytoplankton community in surveys he conducted in Barnegat Bay
during the 1960s. Olsen and Mahoney (2001) corroborated the numerical importance
of N. atomus and also confirmed the significance of the brown-tide alga, Aureococcus
anophagefferens. The more frequent and widespread occurrence of brown-tide
blooms, particularly in Little Egg Harbor, may signal shifts in water quality of the
coastal bays favoring the bloom species and promoting more eutrophic conditions.
Such a change is problematic because the picoplankton blooms also appear to
displace the normal phytoplankton community, thereby potentially altering bottom-
up controls and upper-trophic-level organisms in the bays.
Phytoplankton productivity in the Barnegat Bay–Little Egg Harbor Estuary
averages ~480 g C /m2/yr (Moser, 1997). In this system, the total nitrogen con-
centrations range from ~20–80 µM, and phosphate levels < 1 µM (Seitzinger et al.,
2001). Durand (1984), investigating phytoplankton productivity along a salinity
gradient of the Mullica River–Great Bay Estuary, recorded the following produc-
tivity values:
1. 422–1081 mg C/m2/day at a lower Mullica River site

2. 485–985 mg C/m2/day at the head of the bay
3. 1362 mg C/m2/day at a down-bay site
Phytoplankton production in Great Bay occurs thorughout the water column,

while it is limited to a portion of the water column (the upper 1.5 m) in the Mullica
River due to higher turbidity levels. Thus, Great Bay has greater abundances of
phytoplankton than does the Mullica River.
ANIMAL COMMUNITIES
Zooplankton
Few zooplankton studies have been conducted in the back-bay waters of the
JCNERR. Durand and Nadeau (1972) examined the zooplankton community in
greatest detail, focusing on the Mullica River–Great Bay Estuary. Zooplankton in
Little Egg Harbor and the back-bays to the south (i.e., Little Bay, Reeds Bay, and
Absecon Bay), however, remain largely uncharacterized.
Along a salinity gradient of the Mullica River–Great Bay Estuary, Durand and
Nadeau (1972) collected zooplankton samples at four sites:
1. Lower Bank (freshwater–saltwater interface)

2. French Point
3. Graveling Point (head of the bay)
4. Rutgers Marine Field Station (polyhaline waters)
Maximum zooplankton abundance occurred during the March through September

period, with a mean count of 64 organisms/l being recorded at this time (Table 3.7).
Minimum zooplankton counts (10 organisms/l or less) were registered in winter
(December and January), and intermediate counts in October, November, and February.
Zooplankton abundance was higher at the bay and lower Mullica River sampling sites.
Cladocerans, rotifers, and copepods dominated the microzooplankton in the
estuary. Cladocerans and rotifers were less abundant at the Lower Bank site ~25 km
upriver. At this location, the density of cladocerans and rotifers amounted to 190
and 40 organisms/l, respectively.
Calanoid and harpacticoid copepods were both important components of the
microzooplankton. Acartia tonsa, Eurytemora affinis, and Oithona similis were the
most abundant copepod species. Eurytemora affinis dominated the microzooplankton
in the Mullica River, and A. tonsa was the dominant form in Great Bay. Oithona
similis, a coastal ocean species, predominated in polyhaline waters near Little Egg
Inlet. Other important members of the zooplankton community in Great Bay were
Centropages hamatus, C. typicus, Labidocera aestiva, Paracalanus crassirostris, P.
parva, Pseudocalanus minutus, Pseudodiaptomus coronatus, Temora longicornis,
and Tortanus discaudatus.
Sandine (1984) and Kennish (2001b), reviewing the macrozooplankton of the
Barnegat Bay–Little Egg Harbor Estuary, reported that Crangon septemspinosa,
Jassa falcata, Neomysis americana, Neopanope texana, Panopeus herbstii, Rathkea
octopunctata, Sagitta spp., and Sarsia spp. were the dominant macrozooplankton
species. As in the case of microzooplankton in the Barnegat Bay–Little Egg Harbor
Estuary and Great Bay, macrozooplankton attained peak abundance during the spring
and summer months. Arrow worms (Sagitta spp.) and ctenophores (Mnemiopsis
leidyi) are important forms that prey heavily on microzooplankton in the coastal
TABLE 3.7
Monthly Mean Abundance of Zooplankton in the Mullica River–Great
Bay Estuarya
Rutgers
Graveling Marine Field
Month Lower Bankb French Pointc Pointd Statione
October — 4.59 2.71 5.27

November — — 3.12 0.85
December 12.29 4.08 0.18 0.78
January 1.46 2.47 1.27 4.50
February 5.17 3.69 6.78 —
March 57.87 10.93 34.49 13.49
April 25.65 335.44 48.94 24.50
May 39.02 54.06 35.68 —
June 126.28 118.78 33.60 32.07
July 82.42 64.70 41.72 30.47
August 214.52 56.87 36.08 32.84
September 15.31 46.60 96.47 45.28
October 5.47 19.39 3.64 39.00
November 5.67 7.62 18.11 —
December 11.06 1.42 0.35 —
January 2.46 1.95 55.85 —
February 1.90 3.17 23.20 —
March 43.55 14.18 171.94 —
April 53.72 35.61 102.56 26.51
May 517.45 18.71 42.77 —
June 103.40 9.51 25.44 4.73
a Number/liter.
b 25 km upriver.
c Mouth of the Mullica River.
d Head of Great Bay.
e Near Little Egg Inlet.
Source: Durand, J.B. and R.J. Nadeau. 1972. Water Resources Development in the Mullica River
Basin. Part I. Biological Evaluation of the Mullica River–Great Bay Estuary. Technical Report, New
Jersey Water Resources Research Institute, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.
bays and appear to play a significant role in regulating the population sizes of these
organisms (Mountford, 1980).
Meroplankton and ichthyoplankton are also important elements of the zooplankton
communities in JCNERR estuarine waters. Pulses of barnacle, bivalve, gastropod,
polychaete, and cyphonaute larvae contribute to microzooplankton maxima in the
spring and summer. Monthly densities of each of these meroplanktonic groups may
exceed 10,000 individuals/m3 during the spring and summer seasons (Kennish, 2001b).
Among the most abundant ichthyoplankton in Great Bay and other JCNERR
estuarine waters are the bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli), Atlantic silverside (Menidia
menidia), mummichog (Fundulus heteroclitus), gobies (Gobiosoma spp.), Atlantic
menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus), American eel (Anguilla rostrata), northern pipefish
(Syngnathus fuscus), fourspine stickleback (Apeltes quadracus), sand lance
(Ammodytes sp.), winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus), cunner (Tau-
togolabrus adspersus), and hogchoker (Trinectes maculatus). Ichthyoplankton of
atherinids and blennids are also abundant. Most of the aforementioned ichthyoplank-
ton species attain peak abundance in the estuaries during the June through September
period, exceptions being the sand lance and winter flounder whose ichthyoplankton
numbers are greatest from January through April. The maximum monthly densities
of the ichthyoplankton (eggs and larvae) generally range from ~20 to 75 individu-
als/m3 (Sandine, 1984).
Benthic Fauna
No recent detailed investigations of benthic faunal communities have been conducted

in JCNERR estuaries. Durand and Nadeau (1972) used a Petersen dredge and
modified oyster dredge to collect system-wide benthic faunal samples in the Mullica
River–Great Bay Estuary. This work represents the most comprehensive investigation
to date on the benthic faunal communities of the estuary. Moser (1997) studied
benthic infauna at one site near Westecunk Creek on the western side of Little Egg
Harbor. Hales et al. (1995) and Viscido et al. (1997) examined epibenthic invertebrate
assemblages on Beach Haven Ridge at the site of the Long-term Ecosystem Obser-
vatory of Rutgers University, an area within the JCNERR on the inner continental
shelf. The following discussion provides an overview of the benthic invertebrate
communities in the estuarine and coastal marine waters of the JCNERR based on
the aforementioned studies.
More than 200 benthic invertebrate species have been identified in the Barnegat
Bay–Little Egg Harbor Estuary (Loveland and Vouglitois, 1984; Kennish, 2001c),
and nearly 150 benthic invertebrate species have been recorded in Great Bay (Durand
and Nadeau, 1972). Taxonomic studies of benthic faunal communities in the Barne-
gat Bay–Little Egg Harbor Estuary have been mainly conducted in the central zone
between Stouts Creek and Oyster Creek. However, investigations of the benthic
faunal communities in Great Bay have covered a larger part of the bay.
Annelids, mollusks, and arthropods dominate the benthic invertebrate commu-
nity of Great Bay (Table 3.8). Durand and Nadeau (1972) found that the tube-
building amphipod, Ampelisca abdita, was the most abundant species in the bay. In
some areas of the central bay, it exceeded densities of 5000 individuals/m2
(Figure 3.11). Ampelisca abdita is not only abundant but also widely distributed. In
addition to A. abdita, six other species have been identified as true estuarine forms,
occupying the lower Mullica River and Great Bay. These include Corophium cylin-
dricum, Cyathura polita, Notomastus laterus, Polydori ligni, Scoloplos robustus, and
Turbonilla sp. All are also abundant. Still other species are more spatially restricted,
being classified as river, bay, or lower bay forms (Table 3.9).
TABLE 3.8
Taxonomic List of Benthic Invertebrates Collected by Petersen Dredge
in the Mullica River–Great Bay Estuarine System
Phylum Porifera
Class Demospongiae
Cliona sp. Microciona prolifera (Ellis and Solander)
Phylum Coelenterata
Class Anthozoa
Stylactis hooperi (Sigerfoos) Sagartia modesta (Verrill)
Phylum Platyhelminthes
Class Turbellaria
Euplana gracilis (Girard)
Phylum Nemertinea
Class Anopla
Carinoma tremaphoros (Leidy) Zygeupolia rubens (Coe)
Cerebratulus lacteus (Leidy)
Phylum Annelida
Class Polychaeta
Amphitrite affinis (Malmgren) Hypaniola grayi (Pettibone)
Amphitrite cirrata (O.F. Müller) Lumbrineris tenuis (Verrill)
Amphitrite johnstoni (Malmgren) Maldinopsis elongata (Verrill)
Aricidea jeffreysii (McIntosh) Nephtys bucera (Ehlers)
Brania clavata (Claparede) Nephtys incisa (Malmgren)
Chone infundibuliformis (Kroyer) Nephtys picta (Ehlers)
Cirratulus grandis (Verrill) Nereis arenaceodonta (Moore)
Clymenella torquata (Leidy) Nereis grayi (Pettibone)
Diopatra cuprea (Bosc) Nereis succinea (Frey and Leuckart)
Dispio uncinata (Hartman) Nerinides agilis (Verrill)
Drilonereis longa (Webster) Notomastus latereus (Sara)
Drilonereis magna (Webster and Benedict) Paranaitis speciosa (Webster)
Eteone heteropoda (Hartman) Pectinaria gouldii (Verrill)
Eteone longa (Fabricius) Phyllodoce arenae (Webster)
Eumida sanguinea (Cersted) Pista palmata (Verrill)
Exogone dispar (Webster) Polycirrus eximius (Leidy)
Glycera americana (Leidy) Polydora ligni (Webster)
Glycera dibranchiata (Ehlers) Pygospio elegans (Verrill)
Glycinde solitaria (Webster) Sabella microphthalma (Verrill)
Harmothoe imbricata (L.) Scolecolepides viridis (Verrill)
Hydroides dianthus (Verrill) Scoloplos fragilis (Verrill)
Scoloplos robustus (Verrill) Streblospio benedicti (Webster)
(continued)

Sphaerosyllis hystrix (Claparède) Tharyx acutus (Webster and Benedict)
Spio filicornis (O.F. Müller)
Phylum Mollusca
Class Gastropoda
Acteocina canaliculata (Say) Eupleura caudata (Say)
Acteon punctostriatus (C.B. Adams) Littorina littorea (L.)
Anachis avara (Say) Nitrella lunata (Say)
Bittium alternatum (Say) Nassarius obsoletus (Say)
Busycon canaliculatum (L.) Nassarius vibex (Say)
Crepidula convexa (Say) Odostomia impressa (Say)
Crepidula fornicata (L.) Triphora nigrocincta (C.B. Adams)
Crepidula plana (Say) Trophon truncatus (Say)
Cylichna alba (Brown) Turbonilla sp.
Epitonium lineatum (Say) Urosalpinx cinera (Say)
Class Bivalvia
Arca pexata (Say) Mulinia lateralis (Say)
Crassostrea virginica (Gmelin) Mya arenaria (L.)
Ensis directus (Conrad) Mytilus edulis (L.)
Gemma gemma (Totten) Nucula sp.
Lyonsia hyalina (Conrad) Spisula solidissima (Dillwyn)
Macoma tenta (Say) Tagelus divisus (Spengler)
Mercenaria mercenaria (L.) Tellina agilis (Stimpson)
Phylum Arthropoda
Class Crustacea
Aeginella longicornis (Kröyer) Erichsonella attenuata (Harger)
Ampelisca abdita (Mills) Ericthonius minax (Smith)
Ampelisca verrilli (Mills) Eurypanopeus depressus (Smith)
Amphithoe longimana (Smith) Gammarus locusta (L.)
Amphithoe rubricata (Montagu) Grubia compta (Smith)
Anoplodactylus lentus (Wilson) Haustorius arenarius (Slabber)
Batea secunda (Holmes) Heteromysis formosa (S.I. Smith)
Caprella geometrica (Say) Hippolyte zostericolor (Smith)
Carinogammarus mucronatus (Say) Idotea balthica (Pallas)
Chiridotea almyra (Bowman) Labidocera aestiva (Wheeler)
Corophium cylindricum (Say) Leucon americanus (Zimmer)
Crangon septemspinosus (Say) Lysianopsis alba (Holmes)
Cyathura polita (Stimpson) Melita nitida (Smith)
Edotea triloba (Say) Microdeutopus gryllotalpa (Costa)
Elasmopus laevis (Smith) Monoculodes edwardsi (S.I. Smith)
Neomysis americana (S.I. Smith) Ptilocheirus pinquis (Stimpson)
Neopanope texana (Smith) Rithropanopeus harrisii (Gould)

Oxyurostylis smithi (Calman) Stenothoe cypris (Say)
Pagurus longicarpus (Say) Sympleustes glaber (Boeck)
Palaemonetes vulgaris (Say) Unciola irrorata (Say)
Paraphosux spinosus (Holmes)
Phylum Ecotoprocta
Class Gymnolaemata
Electra crustulenta (Pallas) Membranipora sp.
Electra hastingsae (Marcus) Schizoporella unicornis (Johnston)
Phylum Chordata
Class Ascidiacea
Molgula manhattensis (De Kay)
Source: Durand, J.B. and R.J. Nadeau. 1972. Water Resources Development in the Mullica River
Basin. Part I. Biological Evaluation of the Mullica River–Great Bay Estuary. Technical Report, New
Jersey Water Resources Research Institute, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.
The composition of bottom sediments, notably the silt–clay fraction, greatly affects
the spatial distribution of benthic invertebrates in the estuary. Some species (e.g.,
Ampelisca verrilli, Ensis directus, Haustorius arenarius, Pygospio elegans, and
Oxyurostylis smithi) occupy coarser sediments, where the percentage of silt and clay
is less than 20%. Other species (e.g., Acteocina canaliculata, Lumbrineris tenuis,
Maldinopsis elongata, Tellina agilis, Turbonilla sp., and Unciola irrorata) prefer finer
sediments, where the amount of silt and clay exceeds 38%. When proceeding seaward
along the length of the estuary, Ptilocherirus pinquis commonly occurs in Mullica
River sediments and is nearly absent in Great Bay. Nassarius obsoletus predominates
near the mouth of the Mullica River and along the western perimeter of the bay. While
Acteocina canaliculata and Glycinde solitaria are most numerous on the southwestern
side of the bay, Ampelisca abdita and Polydora ligni attain high abundances in the
center of the bay. Ampelisca verrilli and Gemma gemma, in turn, reach peak numbers
in the southern and eastern reaches (Durand and Nadeau, 1972).
Species richness is greatest along the western and southern areas of Great Bay.
More than 40 species of benthic invertebrates have been found at some sampling
sites in these areas. Mullica River exhibits lower species richness, with 10 to 20
species registered at most sampling sites (Durand and Nadeau, 1972).
Moser (1997), analyzing sediment cores collected in 1993 and 1994 on the
western side of Little Egg Harbor near Westecunk Creek (~12 km north of Little
Egg Inlet), reported high abundances of Cossura sp., amounting to more than 4000
individuals/m2 in 1993 and more than 3000 individuals/m2 in 1994. Sphaerosyllis
spp. (Sphaerosyllis sp., S. longicauda, and S. taylori) were also numerous, exceeding
4000 individuals/m2 in 1994. Other less abundant forms included Ampelisca abdita,
FIGURE 3.11 Density of benthic macroinvertebrates in the Mullica River–Great Bay Estuary.
(From Durand, J.B. and R.J. Nadeau. 1972. Water Resources Development in the Mullica River
Basin. Part 1. Biological Evaluation of the Mullica River–Great Bay Estuary. Technical Report,
New Jersey Water Resources Research Institute, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.)
Brania clavata, Eumida sanguinea, Exogone dispar, Leitoscoloplos robustus, Medi-

omastus sp., Melinna cristata, Microphthalmus sezelkowii, Nucula sp., Paraphosux
sp., and Polycirrus hematodes.
Along the Beach Haven Ridge approximately 9 km east of Little Egg Inlet
(39°28′18″N, 74°15′10″W), Hales et al. (1995) documented significant numbers of
bivalves (Spisula solidissima), gastropods (Busycon spp., Euspira heros, and Nevirita
duplicata), and polychaetes (Diopatra cuprea). Echinoderms (Asterias forbesi, Arba-
cia punctulata, and Echinarachnius parma) dominated deeper water areas in prox-
imity to the ridge. Epibenthic decapods numerically abundant on the ridge included
the Atlantic rock crab (Cancer irroratus), spider crab (Libinia emarginata), lady
crab (Ovalipes ocellatus), and sand shrimp (Crangon septemspinosa). Abundance
of these species was seasonally variable, with C. septemspinosa and L. emarginata
being most numerous in the spring and fall and Cancer irroratus and O. ocellatus
attaining peak numbers in the summer (Viscido et al., 1997).
Finfish
Little Egg Harbor, Great Bay, and the back-bays to the south (i.e., Little Bay, Reeds
Bay, and Absecon Bay) provide valuable habitat for numerous species of fish that
TABLE 3.9
Spatial Distribution of Benthic Invertebrates along a Salinity
Gradient of the Mullica River–Great Bay Estuary
River-Dominant Forms
Cerebratulus lacteus Nereis succinea
Chiridotea almyra Ptilocherirus pinquis
Gammarus locusta Sagartia modesta
Glycera dibranchiata Scolecolepides viridis
Hypaniola grayi Scoloplos fragilis
Lyonsia hyalina Streblospio benedicti
Melita nitida Sympleustes glaber
Neopanope texana
Bay-Dominant Forms
Acteocina canaliculata Leucon americanus
Ampelisca verrilli Lumbrinereis tenuis
Amphitrite cirrata Maldinopsis elongata
Arca pexata Mulinia lateralis
Brania clavata Oxyurostylis smithi
Crepidula convexa Polycirrus eximus
Elasmopus laevis Tellina agilis
Glycera americana Triphora nigrocincta
Glycinde solitaria Unciola irrorata
Lower-Bay–Dominant Forms
Caprella geometrica Idotea balthica
Cirratulus grandis Nassarius vibex
Crangon septemspinosa Nephtys picta
Cylichna alba Pagurus longicarpus
Ensis directus Pygospio elegans
Haustorius arenarius Stenothoe cypris
Estuarine Forms (Entire Range)

Ampelisca abdita Polydora ligni
Corophium cylindricum Scoloplos robustus
Cyathura polita Turbonilla sp.
Notomastus latereus
Source: Durand, J.B. and R.J. Nadeau. 1972. Water Resources Development in the
Mullica River Basin. Part I. Biological Evaluation of the Mullica River–Great Bay
Estuary. Technical Report, New Jersey Water Resources Research Institute, Rutgers
University, New Brunswick, NJ.
utilize these embayments as spawning, nursery, and feeding areas. The fish fauna
of these coastal bays has been the subject of several detailed investigations (see Able
et al., 1996; Szedlmayer and Able, 1996; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1996; Jivoff
and Able, 2001). Based on this work, more than 60 species of fish are known to
occur in the coastal bays. A taxonomic list of fish compiled for the Barnegat
Bay–Little Egg Harbor Estuary by Jivoff and Able (2001) also includes those forms
encountered in the JCNERR bays to the south (Table 3.10). The fish assemblages
observed in these estuarine waters are highly diverse, and they vary considerably in
numerical abundance. Forage species, such as the bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli)
and Atlantic silverside (Menidia menidia), are typically most abundant.
Durand and Nadeau (1972) determined that 20 fish species accounted for more
than 99% of all fish collected in surveys of Great Bay during the 1970s. The top ten
species in decreasing order of abundance were as follows: the bay anchovy (Anchoa
mitchilli), Atlantic silverside (Menidia menidia), silver perch (Bairdiella chrysoura),
alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus), striped killifish (Fundulus majalis), sea herring (Clu-
pea harengus), white perch (Morone americana), northern puffer (Sphoeroides mac-
ulatus), oyster toadfish (Opsanus tau), and striped anchovy (Anchoa hepsetus). In a
later field survey of Great Bay and Little Egg Harbor from June 1988 through October
1989, Szedlmayer and Able (1996) recorded 69 fish species; the most abundant forms
were the bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli) (50.5% of the total catch), spot (Leiostomus
xanthurus) (10%), Atlantic silverside (Menidia menidia) (9.7%), fourspine stickleback
(Apeltes quadracus) (5.9%), and northern pipefish (Syngnathus fuscus) (4.2%). At least
a dozen fish species are of recreational or commercial importance in Great Bay and
Little Egg Harbor: Anguilla rostrata, Brevoortia tyrannus, Morone americana, Cen-
tropristis striata, Pomatomus saltatrix, Leiostomus xanthurus, Menticirrhus saxatilis,
Micropogonias undulatus, Tautoga onitis, Paralichthys dentatus, Pseudopleuronectes
americanus, and Sphoeroides maculatus.
Fish populations in the JCNERR coastal bays are characterized by wide seasonal
variations in abundance; some species exhibit annual variations in abundance of 50
to 100%. This is due in large part to the seasonal occurrence of warm-water migrants,
as well as reproduction by seasonal and year-round residents during the spring and
summer. Fish abundance, therefore, peaks during the May through November period
when warm-water migrants and the young of residents coexist in the bays. As warm-
water migrants (e.g., black sea bass, Centropristis striata; northern pipefish, Syng-
nathus fuscus; striped searobin, Prionotus evolans; and summer flounder, Paralich-
thys dentatus) exit the bays during the late summer and fall, the overall species
abundance of fish declines appreciably. Relatively few species inhabit the coastal
bays in winter. The winter flounder, Pseudopleuronectes americanus, is an important
cool-water migrant.
Of 70,000 fish collected along estuarine shores in Great Bay and Little Egg
Harbor, Able et al. (1996) determined that 57% consisted of migratory species
dominated by forms that overwinter on the continental shelf. These species primarily
occur as young-of-the-year or older juveniles (38%) that utilize the estuaries as a
nursery and those that appear as seasonal residents (19%), with all life-history stages
occupying the embayments during part of the year but migrating to ocean waters
TABLE 3.10
Taxonomic List of Fishes and Selected Decapods Caught
in Little Egg Harbor
Species Common Name Gear Used
Fish
Alosa aestivalis Blueback herring S, T, W
Alosa pseudoharengus Alewife S, T, W
Alosa sapidissima American shad S, T
Aluterus scriptus Scrawled filefish T
Ammodytes americanus American sand lance S
Anchoa mitchilli Bay anchovy S, T, W, SS, TT
Anchoa hepsetus Striped anchovy S, T, W
Anguilla rostrata American eel S, T, W, SS, TT
Apeltes quadracus Four-spine stickleback S, T, SS, TT
Astroscopus guttatus Northern stargazer S
Bairdiella chrysoura Silver perch S, T
Brevoortia tyrannus Atlantic menhaden S, T, W
Caranx hippos Crevalle jack S, T, W
Centropristis striata Black sea bass T, SS, TT
Chasmodes bosquianus Striped blenny S, T
Chilomycterus schoepfi Striped burrfish S, T
Clupea harengus Atlantic herring S, T, W
Conger oceanicus Conger eel S, T
Cynoscion regalis Weakfish S, T
Cynoscion nebulosus Spotted seatrout
Cyprinodon variegatus Sheepshead minnow S, T, W, TT
Dasyatis sp. Stingray S
Dorosoma cepedianum Gizzard shad S, T
Engraulis eurystole Silver anchovy S, T
Epinephelus gorio Red grouper S
Esox niger Chain pickerel S
Etropus microstomus Smallmouth flounder S, T, SS, TT
Fundulus diaphanus Banded killifish S, T
Fundulus heteroclitus Mummichog S, T, W, SS, TT
Fundulus luciae Spotfin killifish W
Fundulus majalis Striped killifish S, T, W, SS, TT
Gasterosteus aculeatus Three-spined stickleback S, T, W
Gobiosoma bosc Naked goby S, T, W, SS, TT
Gobiosoma ginsburgi Starboard goby SS, TT
Hippocampus erectus Lined seahorse S, T, SS, TT
Hyporhamphus unifasciatus Halfbeak S
Hypsoblennius hentzi Feather blenny S, T
Ictalurus punctatus Channel catfish
Lagodon rhomboids Pinfish S
Leiostomus xanthurus Spot S, T, W, TT
(continued)

Lucania parva Rainwater killifish S, T, W, SS, TT

Lutjanus griseus Grey snapper S, SS, TT
Menidia beryllina Inland silverside S, W
Menidia menidia Atlantic silverside S, T, W, SS, TT
Menticirrhus saxatilis Northern kingfish S, T
Merluccius bilinearis Silver hake
Micropogonias undulatus Atlantic croaker T
Monacanthus hispidus Planehead filefish S
Morone americana White perch S, T
Morone saxatilis Striped bass S
Mugil cephalus Striped mullet S, T
Mugil curema White mullet S, T, W
Mustelus canis Smooth dogfish S, T, W
Myoxocephalus aenaeus Grubby S, T
Notemigonus crysoleucas Golden shiner S
Ophidion marginatum Cusk-eel T
Opsanus tau Oyster toadfish S, T, W, SS, TT
Paralichthys dentatus Summer flounder S, T, W, SS, TT
Peprilus triacanthus Butterfish S, T
Perca flavescens Yellow perch
Pogonias cromis Black drum S
Pollachius virens Pollack S, W, TT
Pomatomus saltatrix Bluefish S, T, W
Priacanthus arenatus Bigeye S
Prionotus carolinus Northern searobin S, T, TT
Prionotus evolans Striped searobin S, T
Pseudopleuonectes americanus Winter flounder S, T, W, SS, TT
Raja elanteria Skate
Rhinoptera bonansus Cownose ray
Sardinella aurita Spanish sardine S, W
Sciaenops ocellatus Red drum
Scomber scombrus Atlantic mackerel
Scophthalmus aquosus Windowpane S, T
Selene vomer Lookdown S, T
Sphoeroides maculatus Northern puffer S, T, TT
Sphyraena borealis Northern sennet S, T, W
Stenotomus chrysops Scup T
Strongylura marina Atlantic needlefish S, T, W
Syngnathus fuscus Pipefish S, T, W, SS, TT
Synodus foetens Lizardfish T
Tautoga onitis Tautog S, T, W, SS, TT
Tautogolabrus adspersus Cunner S

Trachinotus falcatus Permit S, T

Trinectes maculatus Hogchoker S, T
Urophycis chuss Red hake T
Urophycis regia Spotted hake S, T, W
Urophycis tenuis White hake S
Vomer setapinnis Atlantic moonfish S
Selected Decapods
Callinectes sapidus Blue crab W, TT
Callinectes similis Lesser blue crab TT
Cancer irroratus Rock crab TT
Libinia dubia Six-spined spider crab TT
Libinia emarginata Common spider crab TT
Limulus polyphemus Horseshoe crab
Ovalipes ocellatus Lady crab TT
Portunus gibbesii Swimming crab
Note: S = seine; T = trawl; W = weir; SS = suction sampling; TT = throw trap.
Source: Jivoff, P. and K.W. Able. 2001. Journal of Coastal Research Special Issue
32, pp. 178–196.
for the winter. Other species found in the estuaries are classified as strays (22%) or
true residents (21%).
Examples of resident species are the Atlantic silverside (Menidia menidia),
mummichog (Fundulus heteroclitus), fourspine stickleback (Apeltes quadracus), and
oyster toadfish (Opsanus tau). Marine strays include the windowpane (Scophthalmus
aquosus) and blackcheek tonguefish (Symphurus plaguisa). Some of the species that
use the bays as nursery areas are the Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus),
bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix), spot (Leiostomus xanthurus), and weakfish (Cynos-
cion regalis). Summer spawners in the bays are exemplified by the Atlantic silverside,
bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli), northern pipefish (Syngnathus fuscus), and gobies
(Gobiosoma spp.); winter spawners, by the winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes
americanus) and sand lance (Ammodytes americanus) (Tatham et al., 1984; U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, 1996).
While some species (i.e., cosmopolitan forms) have a widespread distribution
in the coastal bays and have been found in all habitats sampled (e.g., Anchoa mitchilli,
Menidia menidia, Leiostomus xanthurus, and Pseudopleurnectes americanus), other
species are habitat specific. For example, Jivoff and Able (2001) showed that the
small-mouth flounder (Etropus microstomus), windowpane (Scophthalmus aquosus),
skate (Raja eglanteria), and hakes (Urophycis spp.) prefer the deep channels of Little
Egg Harbor. The silver perch (Bairdiella chrysoura), lizardfish (Synodus foetens),
and fourspine stickleback (Apeltes quadracus) are associated with eelgrass (Zostera
marina) beds. Szedlmayer and Able (1996) linked Leiostomus xanthurus with marsh
channels. They also coupled clupeids with upper estuary subtidal creeks. Able et al.
(1996) observed many species only in subtidal habitats of Great Bay and Little Egg
Harbor (e.g., Hippocampus erectus, Opsanus tau, and Syngnathus fuscus).
In conclusion, fish assemblages in JCNERR estuaries are characterized by the
numerical dominance of a few species, most notably forage fishes and juveniles. There
is a conspicuous seasonal occurrence of warm- and cool-water migrants. In addition,
there is considerable reproduction in the estuaries by seasonal and year-round residents.
The net effect is a large flux in absolute abundance of fish populations in the system.

The JCNERR consists of more than 45,000 ha of upland, wetland, and open water
habitats. The reserve is remarkably pristine, largely because of the federally protected
New Jersey Pinelands, state and federal managed lands surrounding the coastal bays,
and only 553 ha of developed landscape (<2% of the total area). Upland vegetation
consists of pine–oak forests, which are replaced seaward by freshwater-, brackish-,
and salt (Spartina) marshes. Marsh habitat covers more than 13,000 ha (> 28%) of
the reserve. Rich and diverse plant and animal communities inhabit watershed areas
of the JCNERR. Numerous species of amphibians, reptiles, mammals, birds, fish,
and invertebrates occur in the JCNERR watershed.
The most extensive area of the JCNERR consists of open water habitat that
covers more than 27,000 ha. Included here are the open waters of the Mullica
River–Great Bay Estuary, Little Egg Harbor, lower Barnegat Bay, Little Bay, Reeds
Bay, and Absecon Bay to the south. These estuarine waters support an array of
planktonic, nektonic, and benthic organisms. A number of finfish (e.g., bluefish,
Brevoortia tyrannus; weakfish, Cynoscion regalis; summer flounder, Paralichthys
dentatus; and winter flounder, Pseudopleuronectes americanus) and shellfish (blue
crab, Callinectes sapidus; and hard clam, Mercenaria mercenaria) populations are
of recreational and commercial importance.
Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), notably eelgrass (Zostera marina) and
widgeon grass (Ruppia maritima), are critically important habitat in lower Barnegat
Bay and Little Egg Harbor. SAV not only generates a significant amount of primary
production but also provides habitat for benthic epifauna and infauna as well as
spawning, nursery, and feeding grounds for an array of finfish populations. Some
fish (e.g., Acanthuridae and Scaridae), turtles, waterfowl (e.g., American brant,
canvasbacks, and green-winged teal), and sea urchins consume SAV. In addition,
these vascular plants baffle waves and currents and mitigate substrate erosion,
thereby stabilizing bottom sediments. Eelgrass and widgeon grass are confined to
the Barnegat Bay–Little Egg Harbor Estuary. In Great Bay and coastal bays to
Absecon Bay, benthic macroalgae (e.g., Ulva lactuca and Enteromorpha spp.) pro-
liferate, but eelgrass and widgeon grass are absent.
The Barnegat Bay–Little Egg Harbor Estuary is a moderately eutrophic system.
Picoplankton blooms dominated by Nannochloris atomus and Aureococcus anophag-
efferens commonly occur in this estuary. During the bloom events, the phytoplankton
cell counts often exceed 106 cells/ml. Brown tides composed of A. anophagefferens
have been most intense and widespread in Little Egg Harbor, but they have also been
documented in Barnegat Bay and Great Bay. These phytoplankton blooms are prob-
lematic because they cause brownish water discoloration and shading effects that can
be detrimental to SAV.
Phytoplankton productivity in JCNERR coastal bays rivals or exceeds that of
many other coastal bays in the U.S. and abroad (Seitzinger et al., 2001). Phytoplank-
ton directly support zooplankton and benthic invertebrate populations in the system.
Calanoid and harpacticoid copepods are major components of the zooplankton
community in JCNERR estuaries. Meroplankton and ichthyoplankton are also
important constituents because they are critical life-history stages for the prolifera-
tion of benthic invertebrate and finfish populations.
More than 150 benthic invertebrate species have been recorded in Great Bay, and
more than 200 benthic invertebrate species have been documented in the Barnegat
Bay–Little Egg Harbor Estuary. The composition of bottom sediments, particularly
the grain size, strongly influences the distribution and abundance of the benthic organ-
isms. The amount of silt and clay appears to be a controlling factor in this regard.
Finfish in JCNERR estuaries can be divided into several major groups. These
include resident species, warm-water migrants, cool-water migrants, and stray spe-
cies. Forage species, such as the bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli) and Atlantic sil-
verside (Menidia menidia), typically dominate in numerical abundance. The occur-
rence and abundance of finfish populations in the JCNERR estuaries are highly
variable due to seasonal migrations and the reproductive flux by seasonal and year-
round residents. Annual variations in abundance of finfish populations commonly
range from 50 to 100%. Many species found in the estuaries exhibit a preference
for specific habitats (e.g., tidal creeks, eelgrass beds, and deep channels). Surveys
conducted in these systems by various investigators underscore the significance of
myriad habitats to the success of fishery resources in the JCNERR.
REFERENCES
Able, K.W. and S.M. Hagan. 2000. Effects of common reed (Phragmites australis) invasion
on marsh surface macrofauna: response of fishes and decapod crustaceans. Estuaries
23: 633–646.
Able, K.W., D.A. Witting, R.S. McBride, R.A. Rountree, and K.J. Smith. 1996. Fishes of
polyhaline estuarine shores in Great Bay–Little Egg Harbor, New Jersey: a case study
of seasonal and habitat influences. In: Nordstrom, K.F. and C.T. Roman (Eds.).
Estuarine Shores: Evolution, Environments, and Human Alterations. John Wiley &
Sons, New York, pp. 335–353.
Bologna, P.A.X., R. Lathrop, P.D. Bowers, and K.W. Able. 2000. Assessment of the health
and distribution of submerged aquatic vegetation from Little Egg Harbor, New Jersey.
Technical Report, Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences, Rutgers University, New
Brunswick, NJ.
Burger, J., C.D. Jenkins, Jr., F. Lesser, and M. Gochfeld. 2001. Status and trends of
colonially nesting birds in Barnegat Bay. Journal of Coastal Research Special Issue
32, pp. 197–211.
Chant, R.J. 2001. Tidal and subtidal motion in a shallow bar-built multiple inlet/bay system.
Journal of Coastal Research Special Issue No. 32, pp. 102–114.
Conant, R. 1998. A zoogeographical review of the amphibians and reptiles of southern
New Jersey, with emphasis on the Pine Barrens. In: Forman, R.T.T. (Ed.). Pine
Barrens: Ecosystem and Landscape. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick,
NJ, pp. 467–488.
Cottam, C. and D.A. Munro. 1954. Eelgrass status and environmental relations. Journal of
Wildlife Management 18: 449–460.
De Graaf, R.M. and J.H. Rappole. 1995. Neotropical Migrating Birds: Natural History,
Distribution, and Population Change. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.
Dow, C.L. and R.A. Zampella. 2000. Specific conductance and pH as watershed disturbance
indicators in streams of the New Jersey Pinelands, U.S.A. Environmental Management
26: 437–445.
Durand, J.B. and R.J. Nadeau. 1972. Water Resources Development in the Mullica River
Basin. Part I. Biological Evaluation of the Mullica River–Great Bay Estuary. Tech-
nical Report, New Jersey Water Resources Research Institute, Rutgers University,
New Brunswick, NJ.
Durand, J.B. 1988. Field Studies in the Mullica River–Great Bay Estuarine System, Vol. 1.
Technical Report, Center for Coastal and Estuarine Studies, Rutgers University, New
Brunswick, NJ.
Durand, J.B. 1998. Nutrient and hydrological effects of the Pine Barrens on neighboring
estuaries. In: Forman, R.T.T. (Ed.). Pine Barrens: Ecosystem and Landscape. Rutgers
University Press, New Brunswick, NJ, pp. 195–227.
Forman, R.T.T. (Ed.). 1998. Pine Barrens: Ecosystem and Landscape. Rutgers University
Press, New Brunswick, NJ.
Good, R.E., N.F. Good, and J.W. Andreasen. 1998. Pine Barrens plains. In: Forman, R.T.T.
(Ed.). Pine Barrens: Ecosystem and Landscape. Rutgers University Press, New
Brunswick, NJ, pp. 283–295.
Hales, L.S., Jr., R.S. McBride, E.A. Bender, R.L. Hoden, and K.W. Able. 1995. Character-
ization of Nontarget Invertebrates and Substrates from Trawl Collections During
1991–1992 at Beach Haven Ridge (LEO-15) and Adjacent Sites in Great Bay and
on the Inner Continental Shelf off New Jersey. Technical Report, Institute of Marine
and Coastal Sciences, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.
Hastings, R.W. 1998. Fish of the Pine Barrens. In: Forman, R.T.T. (Ed.). Pine Barrens:
Ecosystem and Landscape. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ,
pp. 489–504.
Hunchak-Kariouk, K., R.S. Nicholson, D.E. Rice, and T.I. Ivahnenko. 2001. A synthesis of
currently available information on freshwater quality conditions and nonpoint source
pollution in the Barnegat Bay watershed. In: Kennish, M.J. (Ed.). Barnegat Bay–Little
Egg Harbor Estuary and Watershed. Characterization Report, Barnegat Bay Estuary
Program, Toms River, NJ.
Jacques Cousteau National Estuarine Research Reserve. 1999. Jacques Cousteau National Estu-
arine Research Reserve at Mullica River–Great Bay, New Jersey. Final Management
Plan, Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.
Jivoff, P. and K.W. Able. 2001. Characterization of the fish and selected decapods in Little
Egg Harbor. Journal of Coastal Research Special Issue 32, pp. 178–196.
Kennish, M.J. (Ed.). 2001a. Characterization Report of the Barnegat Bay–Little Egg Harbor
Estuary and Watershed. Technical Report, Barnegat Bay Estuary Program, Toms
River, NJ.
Kennish, M.J. 2001b. Zooplankton of the Barnegat Bay–Little Egg Harbor Estuary. Journal
Kennish, M.J. 2001c. Benthic communities of the Barnegat Bay–Little Egg Harbor Estuary.
Journal of Coastal Research Special Issue 32, pp. 167–177.
Kennish, M.J. and S. O’Donnell. 2002. Water quality monitoring in the Jacques Cousteau
National Estuarine Research Reserve. Bulletin of the New Jersey Academy of Science
47: 1–13.
Kroodsma, D.E. and J. Verner. 1997. Marsh wren (Cistothorus palustris). In: Poole, A. and
F. Gill (Eds.). The Birds of North America. Publication No. 127, The Academy of
Natural Sciences, Philadelphia and the American Ornithologists Union, Washington,
D.C.
Lathrop, R.G. and T.M. Conway. 2001. A Build-out Analysis of the Barnegat Bay Watershed.
CRSSA Technical Report, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.
Lathrop R.G., J.A. Bognar, A.C. Hendrickson, and P.D. Bowers. 2001. Data synthesis report
for the Barnegat Bay Estuary Program: habitat loss and alteration. In: Kennish, M.J.
(Ed.). The Scientific Characterization of the Barnegat Bay–Little Egg Harbor Estuary
and Watershed. Technical Report, Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program, Toms
River, NJ, Appendix 3.
Leck, C.F. 1998. Birds of the Pine Barrens. In: Forman, R.T.T. (Ed.). Pine Barrens: Ecosystem
and Landscape. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ, pp. 457–466.
Loveland, R.E. and J.J. Vouglitois. 1984. Benthic fauna. In: Kennish, M.J. and R.A.
Lutz (Eds.). Ecology of Barnegat Bay, New Jersey. Springer-Verlag, New York,
pp. 135–170.
Macomber, R. and D. Allen. 1979. The New Jersey Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Distribu-
tion Atlas Final Report. Technical Report, Earth Satellite Corporation, Washington,
D.C.
Martin, G.W. 1929. Dinoflagellates from Marine and Brackish Waters in New Jersey. Uni-
versity of Iowa Studies in Natural Waters in New Jersey, XII, Ames, IA.
McCormick, J. 1998. The vegetation of the New Jersey Pine Barrens. In: Forman, R.T.T.
(Ed.). Pine Barrens: Ecosystem and Landscape. Rutgers University Press, New Brun-
swick, NJ, pp. 229–263.
McLain, P. and M. McHale. 1997. Barnegat Bay eelgrass investigation 1995–1996. In: Flimlin,
G.E. and M.J. Kennish (Eds.). Proceedings of the Barnegat Bay Ecosystem Workshop.
Rutgers Cooperative Extension of Ocean County, Toms River, NJ, pp. 165–171.
Moser, F.C. 1997. Sources and Sinks of Nitrogen and Trace Metals and Benthic Macrofauna
Assemblages in Barnegat Bay, New Jersey. Ph.D. thesis, Rutgers University, New
Brunswick, NJ.
Moul, E.T. and H.F. Buell, 1998. Algae of the Pine Barrens. In: Forman, R.T.T. (Ed.). Pine
Barrens: Ecosystem and Landscape. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ,
pp. 425–440.
Mountford, K. 1965. A late summer red tide in Barnegat Bay, New Jersey. Underwater
Naturalist 3: 32–34.
Mountford, K. 1967. The occurrence of Pyrrophyta in a brackish cove — Barnegat Bay, New
Jersey at Mantoloking, May through December, 1966. Bulletin of the New Jersey
Academy of Science 12: 9–12.
Mountford, K. 1969. A Seasonal Plankton Cycle for Barnegat Bay, New Jersey. M.S. thesis,
Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.
Mountford, K. 1971. Plankton Studies in Barnegat Bay. Ph.D. thesis, Rutgers University, New
Brunswick, NJ.
Mountford, K. 1980. Occurrence and predation by Mnemiopsis leidyi in Barnegat Bay,

NJ. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 10: 393–402.
Nichols, T.C. and P.M. Castelli. 1997. Waterfowl hunting in Barnegat Bay and Little Egg
Harbor Bay, New Jersey. In: Flimlin, G.E. and M.J. Kennish (Eds.). Proceedings of
the Barnegat Bay Estuary Program. Rutgers Cooperative Extension of Ocean County,
Toms River, NJ, pp. 309–327.
Olsen, P.S. 1989. Development and distribution of a brown-water algal bloom in Barnegat
Bay, New Jersey with perspective on resources and other red tides in the region. In:
Cosper, E.M., E.J. Carpenter, and V.M. Bricelj (Eds.). Novel Phytoplankton Blooms:
Causes and Impacts of Recurrent Brown Tides and Other Unusual Blooms. Springer-
Verlag, Berlin, pp. 189–212.
Olsen, P.S. and J.B. Mahoney. 2001. Phytoplankton in the Barnegat Bay–Little Egg Harbor
estuarine system: species composition and picoplankton bloom development. Journal
Rhodehamel, E.C. 1998. Hydrology of the New Jersey Pine Barrens. In: Forman, R.T.T. (Ed.).
Pine Barrens: Ecosystem and Landscape. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick,
NJ, pp. 147–167.
Sandine, P.H. 1984. Zooplankton. In: Kennish, M.J. and R.A. Lutz (Eds.). Ecology of Barnegat
Bay, New Jersey. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 95–134.
Seitzinger, S.P., R.M. Styles, and I.E. Pillig. 2001. Benthic microalgal and phytoplankton
production in Barnegat Bay, New Jersey (U.S.A.): microcosm experiments and data
synthesis. Journal of Coastal Research Special Issue 32, pp. 144–162.
Smith, K.J. and K.W. Able. 1994. Salt-marsh tide pools as winter refuges for the mummichog,
Fundulus heteroclitus, in New Jersey. Estuaries 17: 226–234.
Sogard, S.M. and K.W. Able. 1991. A comparison of eelgrass, sea lettuce macroalgae, and
marsh creeks as habitats for epibenthic fishes and decapods. Estuarine, Coastal and
Shelf Science 33: 501–519.
Szedlmayer, S.T. and K.W. Able. 1996. Patterns of seasonal availability and habitat use by
fishes and decapod crustaceans in a southern New Jersey estuary. Estuaries 19:
697–709.
Tatham, T.R., D.L. Thomas, and D.D. Danila. 1984. Fishes of Barnegat Bay, New Jersey. In:
Kennish, M.J. and R.A. Lutz (Eds.). Ecology of Barnegat Bay, New Jersey. Springer-
Verlag, New York, pp. 241–281.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Significant Habitats and Habitat Complexes of the New
York Bight Watershed. Technical Report, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southern
New England–New York Bight Coastal Ecosystem Program, Charlestown, RI.
Viscido, S.V., D.E. Stearns, and K.W. Able. 1997. Seasonal and spatial patterns of an
epibenthic decapod crustacean assemblage in northwest Atlantic continental shelf
waters. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 45: 377–392.
Wilson, K.A., K.W. Able, and K.L. Heck, Jr. 1990. Habitat use by juvenile blue crabs: a
comparison among habitats in southern New Jersey. Bulletin of Marine Science 46:
105–114.
Windom, L. and R. Lathrop. 1999. Effects of Phragmites australis (common reed) invasion
on above-ground biomass and soil properties in brackish tidal marsh of the Mullica
River, New Jersey. Estuaries 22: 927–935.
Wolgast, L.J. 1998. Mammals of the New Jersey Pine Barrens. In: Forman, R.T.T. (Ed.). Pine
Barrens: Ecosystem and Landscape. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ,
pp. 443–455.
Wootton, L. and R.W. Zimmerman. 2001. Water Quality and Biomass of Zostera marina
(Eelgrass) Beds in Barnegat Bay. Technical Report, Georgian Court College, Lake-
wood, NJ.
Zampella, R.A. 1994. Characterization of surface water quality along a watershed disturbance
gradient. Water Resources Bulletin 30: 605–611.
Zampella, R.A. and K.J. Laidig. 1997. Effect of watershed disturbance on Pinelands stream
vegetation. Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society 124: 52–66.
Zampella, R.A. and J.F. Bunnell. 1998. Use of reference-site fish assemblages to assess aquatic
degradation in Pinelands streams. Ecological Applications 8: 645–658.
Zampella, R.A., J.F. Bunnell, K.J. Laidig, and C.L. Dow. 2001. The Mullica River Basin.
Technical Report, New Jersey Pinelands Commission, New Lisbon, NJ.
Zimmer, B.J. 1981. Nitrogen Dynamics in the Surface Water of the New Jersey Pine Barrens.
Ph.D. thesis, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.
Case Study 3
4 Delaware National
Estuarine Research Reserve
INTRODUCTION
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) designated the
Delaware National Estuarine Research Reserve (DNERR) as a National Estuarine
Research Reserve System (NERRS) program site on July 21, 1993. The DNERR
consists of two well-defined component sites about 32 km apart (see Figure 4.1):
1. The Lower St. Jones River Reserve site located south of Dover in east-
central Kent County, Delaware
2. The Upper Blackbird Creek Reserve site located between Odessa and
Smyrna in southern New Castle County, Delaware
Both the Lower St. Jones River Reserve site and the Upper Blackbird Creek
Reserve site are subestuaries of the Delaware River estuary. Tidal marshes and tidal
streams comprise the primary habitats of both reserve sites.
The Lower St. Jones River Reserve site covers a 1518-ha area along the lower
8.8-km portion of the St. Jones River watershed. Here, agricultural land use pre-
dominates in the watershed. The St. Jones River stretches for 16.8 km across the
Delmarva Peninsula, and it discharges to the mid–Delaware Bay zone. The Trunk
Ditch, Beaver Branch, and Cypress Branch are the largest tributaries of the Lower
St. Jones River, which is characterized by mesohaline salinity conditions. The lower
boundary of the reserve site extends 3.2 km into the open waters of Delaware Bay;
it encompasses a 1036-ha area of subtidal bottom.
The Upper Blackbird Creek Reserve site, which covers an area of 477 ha, lies
~9.0 to 18.5 km upstream of the Blackbird Creek mouth. This site is characterized
by low salinity brackish or freshwater tidal creek habitat. Woodlots, croplands, and
upland fields also occur within the designated boundaries of the reserve. Forested
wetlands with coastal plain ponds blanket much of the land area upstream of the
reserve site, notably in the Blackbird State Forest. Forested and agricultural land
cover dominates much of the Blackbird Creek watershed. Extensive tidal mud flats
and Spartina marshes border Blackbird Creek bayward of the Beaver Branch trib-
utary in the upper creek segment.
This chapter provides an overview of the DNERR based in large part on pub-
lished reports of the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental
Control (1993, 1994, 1995, 1999) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(Dove and Nyman, 1995; Sutton et al., 1996). The estuarine profile of the DNERR
is a particularly important source of information on the reserve.
119
Pennsylvania Wilmington New Jersey

Newark N
10 0 10 20 Kilometers
Odessa
Upper Blackbird
Legend
Creek DNERR Major town
Major highway
Smyrna DNERR Site

DNERR watershed
Dover
Lower St. Jones

River DNERR
Delaware Bay
Maryland
Milford
Delaware
Lewes
Atlantic Ocean
Georgetown
FIGURE 4.1 Map of the Delaware National Estuarine Research Reserve showing the location
of the Upper Blackbird Creek and the Lower St. Jones River DNERR sites. (From the
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. 1999. Delaware
National Estuarine Research Reserve: Estuarine Profiles. Technical Report, Delaware Depart-
ment of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Dover, DE.)
LOWER ST. JONES RIVER RESERVE SITE

WATERSHED
More than 50,000 people reside in the 233-km2 area of the St. Jones River watershed.
Development is greatest in the middle and upper watershed, being highly concen-
trated in the urbanized area of Dover, Delaware. Considering the entire St. Jones
River watershed, approximately 48% of the land use cover is agriculture, 25%
developed, 14% wetlands, 10% forested land, and 3% open water. Impervious land
cover in the watershed amounts to nearly 25%. Within the reserve area, most of the
Delaware National Estuarine Research Reserve 121
land remains in private ownership despite the purchase of nearly 300 ha of wetland
and upland habitat by NERRS in 1991–1992.
The Lower St. Jones River Reserve site and Upper Blackbird Creek Reserve site
occur in the Atlantic Coastal Plain and are underlain by thick layers of unconsolidated
sediments and semi-consolidated sedimentary rocks. The terrane is gently sloping;
relief in the Lower St. Jones River Reserve ranges from sea level to 22 m. Soils in
the upland areas of both reserve sites consist of well-drained or moderately drained
sandy loams to poorly drained sandy–clay loams rich in organic matter. Because
tidal wetlands are extensive, tidal marsh soils predominate in large areas of the
reserve. These soils are composed of clay and sand layers mixed in many places
with mucky peat. They attain a thickness of nearly 30 m in the marsh habitat at the
mouth of the St. Jones River (DNERR, 1999).
Upland Vegetation
The Lower St. Jones River Reserve site supports two types of forest communities:
upland forest and tidal marsh forest. Principal species of the upland forest community
are the white oak (Quercus alba), southern red oak (Q. falcata), sassafras (Sassafras
albidum), black cherry (Prunus serotina), American beech (Fagus grandifolia),
American holly (Ilex opaca), black haw (Viburnum prunifolium), and tulip tree
(Liriodendron tulipifera). The tidal swamp forest community includes red cedar
(Juniperus virginiana), red maple (Acer rubrum), black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), sweet
gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), and willows
(Salix spp.). Farmland, old fields, and mixed deciduous hardwood forests comprise
most of the upland land cover.
Wetland Vegetation
Forested wetland vegetation, scrub forest, and scrub–marsh mixes define the marsh
habitat along the St. Jones River, with 66 species of plants reported (Wetlands
Research Associates and Environmental Consulting Services, 1995) (Table 4.1).
Mixed associations of emergent vegetation typify tidal wetland habitat of the Lower
St. Jones River Reserve site. Emergent vegetation of high marsh areas exhibits
greater diversity of plant assemblages than that of low marsh areas. The smooth
cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) is the dominant species of the tidal marsh, covering
62.2% of the Lower St. Jones River Reserve wetlands area (Table 4.2). Tall-form S.
alterniflora grows along tide-channel banks, and short-form S. alterniflora spreads
across broad expanses of intertidal habitat. The big cordgrass (S. cynosuroides) is
also found along channel edges. Marsh edaphic algae (diatoms) in the top few
millimeters of marsh sediments constitute a valuable food source for fish and other
fauna of the salt marsh system. Pickerel weed (Ponderia cordata), marshpepper
smartweed (Polygonum hydropiper), and swamp rose mallow (Hibiscus palustris)
are subdominants within the cordgrass communities. Above mean high water
(MHW), salt meadow cordgrass (Spartina patens) and salt grass (Distichlis spicata)
concentrate in patches, most conspicously immediately below the border areas of
the upper marsh.
TABLE 4.1
Taxonomic List of Plants Identified in St. Jones River
Marshes
Red maple Acer rubrum

Ground nut Apios americana
Orach Atriplex patula
Grounsel bush Baccharis halimifolia
Hedge bindweed Calystegia sepium
Winged sedge Carex alata
Greenish-white sedge Carex albolutescens
Lone sedge Carex lonchocarpa
Lurid sedge Carex lurida
Uptight sedge Carex stricta
Bitternut hickory Carya cordiformis
Water hemlock or spotted cowbane Cicuta maculata
Canker root Coptis trifolia
Persimmon tree Diospyros virginiana
Salt grass Distichlis spicata
Spikerush Eleocharis ambigens
American beech Fagus grandifolia
Green ash Fraxinus pennsylvanicus
Common madder Galium tinctorium
Manna grass Glyceria stricta
Swamp rose mallow Hibiscus palustris
Many-flowered pennywort Hydrocotyle umbellata
Inkberry Ilex glabra
Jewel weed Impatiens capensis
Marsh elder Iva frutescens
Black walnut Juglans nigra
Rice cutgrass Leersia oryzoides
Japanese honeysuckle Lonicera japonica
Sweet bay magnolia Magnolia virginiana
Yellow pond lily Nuphar lutea
Black gum Nyssa sylvatica
Cinnamon fern Osmunda cinnamomea
Common reed Phragmites australis
Black bindweed Polygonum convolvulus

Taxonomic List of Plants Identified in St. Jones River
Marshes

Mock bishopweed Ptilimnium capillaceum
Willow oak Quercus phellos
Swamp honeysuckle Rhododron viscosum
Multiflora rose Rosa multiflora
Swampdock Rumex verticillatus
Saltwort Salsola kali
Common elderberry Sambucus canadensis
American three-square Scirpus americanus
Saltmarsh bulrush Scirpus robustus
Giant bulrush Scirpus validus
Sawbriar Smilax glauca
Smooth cordgrass Spartina alterniflora
Big cordgrass Spartina cynosuroides
Saltmeadow cordgrass Spartina patens
Skunk cabbage Symplocarpus foetides
Tall meadow-rue Thalictrum pubescens
Narrow-leaf cattail Typha angustifolia
Broad-leaf cattail Typha latifolia
Highbush blueberry Vaccinium corumbosum
Northern arrowwood Viburnum recognitum
Black haw Viburnum prunifloloium
Source: From the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Envi-

ronmental Control. 1999. Delaware National Estuarine Research
Reserve: Estuarine Profiles. Technical Report, Delaware Department of
Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Dover, DE.
Marsh shrub communities proliferate in higher marsh areas. Two types of shrub
communities are evident:
1. Fresher, lower salinity tidal communities

2. Brackish, higher salinity tidal communities
Woody plants dominate the lower salinity tidal communities; smooth alder
(Alnus serrulata), winterberry (Ilex verticillata), buttonbush (Cephalanthus occiden-
talis), sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia), and dogwoods (Cornus spp.) are plant
species commonly observed here. In higher salinity tidal communities, the predom-
inant marsh shrubs include the marsh elder (Iva frutescens) and groundsel bush
TABLE 4.2
Vegetation Cover in Wetlands of the Delaware National Estuarine
Research Reserve
Upper Blackbird Creek Lower St. Jones River
Map Unit Percent Cover Map Unit Percent Cover
Spartina alterniflora 28.64 Spartina alterniflora 62.23

Tidal flat 26.44 Phragmites australis 13.38
Open water 14.21 Impoundment 7.54
Phragmites australis 11.05 Open water 7.03
Spartina alterniflora mix 4.74 Marsh shrub 3.63
Tidal swamp forest 4.20 Salt hay 2.37
Marsh shrub 3.64 Spartina cynosuroides 1.68
Spartina cynosuroides 2.72 Tidal swamp forest 0.92
Typha spp. 1.53 Tidal flat 0.72
Zizania aquatica 1.09 Marsh shrub 0.43
Peltandra virginica 0.96 Typha (latifolia/angustifolia) 0.04
Ponderia cordata 0.44 Scirpus americanus 0.02
Impoundment 0.30 Atriplex triangularis 0.01
Nuphar lutea 0.04 Peltandra virginica 0.01
Scirpus americanus 0.01
Source: From the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. 1999.
Delaware National Estuarine Research Reserve: Estuarine Profiles. Technical Report, Delaware
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Dover, DE.
(Baccharis halimifolia). Red cedar (Juniperus virginiana) is also evident in the

brackish tidal communities.
Deep-water emergents form a low-marsh mixed association along the edges of
creeks and ponds. Comprising this plant association are arrow arum (Peltandra
virginica), yellow pondweed (Nuphar lutea), marshpepper smartweed (Polygonum
hydropiper), and pickerel weed (Ponderia cordata). Dense monospecific stands of
yellow pondweed occur in some areas.
The common reed (Phragmites australis), an invasive species, inhabits fresh
and brackish marshes along marsh upland borders. This nuisance species has spread
most rapidly in the Upper Blackbird Creek marshes but also has been documented
in more restricted areas along the upland edge and major river banks of the Lower
St. Jones River Reserve site. Increasing distribution of the common reed in reserve
marshes is a growing concern because this species generally degrades coastal
wetland habitat values for wildlife. Efforts to control the spread of Phragmites in
the DNERR have consisted of aerial herbicide spraying followed by prescribed
burning. However, this species is resilient, and its persistent monotypic stands
remain a target for various remedial programs. Monotypic stands of Phragmites
currently cover about 10 to 15% of Delaware’s tidal wetlands (DNREC, 1993).
Three other emergent wetland plant communities exist in the DNERR: Typha
spp., Scirpus americanus, and Zizania aquatica communities. Although relatively
minor emergent wetland components, these communities provide important hab-

itat for a number of animal populations such as muskrats (Ondatra zibethicus)
and an array of bird species. Two cattail species (Typha angustifolia and T.
latifolia) have been documented in Typha communities of the reserve. The cattails
may be present as monospecific stands or a mixed community with a number of
co-dominants (i.e., smooth cordgrass, Spartina alterniflora; rice cutgrass, Leersia
oryzoides; salt marsh water hemp, Acnida cannabina; and nodding bur-marigold,
Bidens cernua). Emergent plants of the Scirpus community grow along brackish
shorelines as either monotypic stands of the American three-square (Scirpus
americanus) or a mixed community with a few other common marsh plants (i.e.,
Spartina alterniflora, S. patens, and Distichlis spicata). Extensive monospecific
stands of wild rice comprise the Zizania aquatica community, which proliferates
in fresh to slightly brackish water areas.
AQUATIC HABITAT
The lower 8.8-km section of the St. Jones River site is a medium-salinity tidal river
subjected to semidiurnal tides. The mean tidal range at the mouth of the river amounts
to about 1.5 m; at spring tide, however, the mean tidal range averages 1.7 m.
Significant tidal range attenuation occurs upriver.
The channel width of the Lower St. Jones River at the site of the reserve ranges
from ~40 to 90 m. Mid-channel depths at low tide along this stretch of the river
range from ~2.4 to 5.5 m. The highest current velocities are recorded in the lower
segment of the river. Here, maximum current velocities observed during spring
tides and neap tides are ~30 to 40 and ~20 to 30 cm/sec, respectively. The water
column is relatively well mixed, with little evidence of two-layered estuarine flow.
Hence, flow is mainly unidirectional from surface to bottom in the lower river
with slight differences (10 to 20%) in current velocity observed throughout the
water column.
Water Quality
A YSI Model 6000 data logger deployed at Scotton Landing in the middle reach
of the Lower St. Jones River during 1996 recorded physical–chemical data semi-
continuously (every 30 min) year-round. The water quality parameters monitored
were temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen, pH, turbidity, and depth (Figure 4.2
and Figure 4.3). The absolute temperature over the annual period at the Scotton
Landing site ranged from less than 0 to 30°C. The monthly mean water temper-
ature, in turn, ranged from less than 0°C in February to 25.5°C in August. The
annual salinity range in the middle reach of the river ranged from ~1‰ to more
than 20‰. Mean monthly salinity values ranged from ~3‰ in December to more
than 12‰ in September. Waters in the Lower St. Jones River are generally clas-
sified as mesohaline.
Annual dissolved oxygen values (% saturation) varied from less than 20% to
more than 120% saturation. The monthly mean dissolved oxygen, however, ranged
from more than 40% in July to more than 80% in March. Hypoxic events were also
Blackbird Landing Scotton Landing
Water Temperature Water Temperature

30 30
25
Temperature (C)
Temperature (C)
25
20
20
15
15
10
10
5
5 0
0 -5
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
pH pH
8 8
7.5 7.5
pH
pH
7 7
6.5 6.5
6 6
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Specific Conductivity Specific Conductivity
4 25
Specific Conductivity (%)
Specific Conductivity (%)
3.5
20
3
2.5 15
2
1.5 10
1 5
0.5
0 0
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Salinity Salinity
2.5 14
2 12
Salinity (ppt)
Salinity (ppt)
10
1.5 8
1 6
4
0.5
2
0 0
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
FIGURE 4.2 Comparison of monthly mean water temperature, pH, specific conductivity, and
salinity for Blackbird Landing and Scotton Landing in 1996. (From the Delaware Department
of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. 1999. Delaware National Estuarine
Research Reserve: Estuarine Profiles. Technical Report, Delaware Department of Natural
Resources and Environmental Control, Dover, DE.)
documented during the summer months. Absolute dissolved oxygen measurements

varied from 0 to 14.9 mg/l. The monthly mean absolute dissolved oxygen values
ranged from ~4 mg/l (July) to 10 mg/l (March). The mean annual dissolved oxygen
value was 6.45 mg/l.
Blackbird Landing Scotton Landing
Water Depth Water Depth

2 2
Water Depth (m)
Water Depth (m)

1.5 1.5
1 1
0.5 0.5
0 0
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Dissolved Oxygen Dissolved Oxygen
12 12
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l)
10 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) 10

8 8
6 6
4 4
2 2
0 0
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Dissolved Oxygen Dissolved Oxygen
100 100
Dissolved Oxygen (%)
Dissolved Oxygen (%)
80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
Jan. Mar. May July Sept. Nov. Jan. Mar. May July Sept. Nov.
Turbidity Turbidity
400 150
Turbidity (ntu)
350
Turbidity (ntu)
300 125
250
100
200
150 50
100
25
50
0 0
Jan. Mar. May July Sept. Nov. Jan. Mar. May July Sept. Nov.
FIGURE 4.3 Comparison of monthly mean water depth, dissolved oxygen, and turbidity for
Blackbird Landing and Scotton Landing in 1996. (From the Delaware Department of Natural
Resources and Environmental Control. 1999. Delaware National Estuarine Research Reserve:
estuarine profiles. Technical Report, Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Envi-
ronmental Control, Dover, DE.)
The pH measurements at Scotton Landing for 1996 ranged from 6.01 to 8.87.
The mean pH value for the year was 7.02. Highest pH levels were observed in
March, and lowest pH levels were noted in June and July.
Turbidity generally ranged from 50 to 125 NTU, with highest levels (mean ~125
NTU) registered in September. However, spiked events of more than 500 NTU
occasionally interrupted periods of relatively stable, low turbidity conditions. These

episodic events typically resulted from storms and elevated stormwater runoff, which
transported large concentrations of sediments and other particulate matter into the
system. The roiling of bottom sediments by high winds and other factors also
contributed to higher turbidity levels.
Water depth can influence the amount of turbidity in the water column because
bottom agitation and erosion of sediments may be substantially less in deeper
waters. At the Scotton Landing site, mean monthly water depths varied from about
1.3 to 1.7 m. The shallowest depths were reported in February and the deepest
depths in September.
An extensive water quality database on the DNERR for the period from 1996
through 2002 can be obtained over the Internet from the NERRS Centralized Data
Management Office (CDMO). The CDMO database can be accessed at the following
Internet address: http://cdmo.baruch.sc.edu.
Pollution
The Delaware River estuary and its watershed have historically experienced signif-
icant alteration due to heavy industrialization and other human activities. A wide
array of anthropogenic problems, including excessive watershed development, point
and nonpoint source runoff, habitat loss and alteration, toxic chemical contaminants,
and degraded water quality (Sutton et al., 1996), potentially threatens the environ-
mental integrity of the system. The Delaware River watershed drains an area of
~33,000 km2, and more than 6 million people live in areas surrounding the estuary.
Poor development planning in the watershed has led to considerable population
pressure on habitats and resources in the system.
Water quality has been compromised in some areas of the Delaware Estuary due
to substantial loadings of nutrients, trace metals, volatile organics, polycyclic aro-
matic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and some chlorinated hydrocarbon compounds (Ken-
nish, 2000) (Tables 4.3 to 4.5). Water quality degradation in the estuary peaked
during the period from the 1940s to the 1960s as a consequence of rapid industri-
alization of the Delaware River basin, accelerated growth of major cities, and the
expansion of urban water and sewer systems. Water quality has generally improved
in the estuary since the 1970s through the application of environmental remediation
programs, as evidenced by increased dissolved oxygen and pH levels observed over
the past three decades.
Nutrient loading in the Delaware Estuary is higher than that in many other major
U.S. estuaries, such as the Chesapeake Bay; nitrogen loading in the estuary amounts
to ~7500 mmol N/m2/yr, and phosphorus loading, ~600 mmol P/m2/yr (Kennish,
2000). The total nitrogen concentration in the estuary (1.5 to 3 mg N/l) far exceeds
the phosphate concentration (~0.02 to 0.12 mg P/l) (Sutton et al., 1996). Heavy
metal concentrations are also elevated relative to those of other major estuarine
systems. Arsenic, chromium, copper, and lead loadings in the estuary are ~1 × 105
kg/yr, while mercury loading is ~1 × 104 kg/yr (Sutton et al., 1996). The loading of
TABLE 4.3
Representative Toxic Substances of Concern in the Delaware
Estuary
Metals
Aluminum Chromiuma Nickel
Arsenica Coppera Selenium
Beryllium Leada Silvera
Cadmium Mercurya Zinca
Volatile Organics
Acrolein Chloroform Trichloroethene
Acrylonitrile 1,2-Dichloroethanea Vinyl chloride
Benzene Tetrchloroethenea
Carbon tetrachloride Toluene
Nonvolatile Organics
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)a

Acenaphthene Benzopyrenes Fluorenes
Acenaphthylene Biphenyl Indeno [1,2,3-c,d] pyrene
Anthracene Chrysene Naphthalene
Benzo [a] anthracene Dibenzo [a,h] anthracene Perylene
Benzofluoranthenes Dibenzothiophene Phenanthrene
Benzo [g,h,i] perylene Fluoranthene Pyrene
Organochlorines
Chlorinated Pesticides
Aldrin Endosulfan Pentachlorophenol
Chlordanea Heptachlor Toxaphene
DDT and its metabolitesa Hexachlorobenzene Endrin
Dieldrina Mirex
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
Others
Dinitrophenol Nitrophenol
Nitrobenzene Phenol
a These substances were named to the preliminary list of toxic pollutants of concern
by the Delaware Estuary Program’s Toxics Task Force.
Source: Sutton, C.C., J.C. O’Herron, III, and R.T. Zappalorti. 1996. The Scientific
Characterization of the Delaware Estuary. Technical Report (DRBC Project No. 321;
HA File No. 93.21), Delaware Estuary Program, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, New York.
TABLE 4.4
Loading of Toxic Substances to the Delaware Estuary
Source Percent of
Total
Contaminant PSa URa ARa ADa Loading
As 43.8/7.3 8.9/3.2 46.6/92 0.7/2.0 10.4

Cr 87.4/20.1 11.6/5.8 — 1.0/3.8 14.3
Cu 82.1/18.7 15.6/7.7 — 2.3/9.0 14.2
Pb 70.3/13.2 24.5/10.0 — 5.2/16.9 11.7
Hg 10.1/0.2 10.1/0.3 — 79.8/20.2 0.9
Ag 100.0/2.2 — — — 1.4
Zn 52.6/33.4 43.5/59.8 — 4.0/43.6 39.6
PAH — 95.1/10.6 — 4.9/4.4 3.2
Chlorinated pesticides 39.5/0.4 2.6/0.1 57.9/7.8 — 0.7
PCBs 66.7/<0.01 — — 33.3/0.1 <0.01
Volatile organics 79.0/4.5 21.0/2.6 — — 3.5
Percent of total loading by 62.3 28.8 5.2 3.6 99.9/99.9
source
Note: PS = point source; UR = urban source; AR = agricultural runoff; AD = atmospheric deposition.

a Percent loading of a substance by source/percent contribution of a substance to loading from a source.
Source: Sutton, C.C., J.C. O’Herron, III, and R.T. Zappalorti. 1996. The Scientific Characterization
of the Delaware Estuary. Technical Report (DRBC Project No. 321; HA File No. 93.21), Delaware
Estuary Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, New York.
TABLE 4.5
Dissolved Trace Metal Concentrations in the Delaware River and Other
East Coast Rivers
Trace Metal (µg/l)
River Cd Co Cu Fe Mn Ni Pb Zn
Delaware 0.17 0.42 2.36 32.9 155 3.86 0.27 12.1

Susquehanna 0.089 1.0 1.21 57.3 655 5.75 0.21 2.62
Hudson 0.25 — 3.24 31.9 10.7 2.41 — 8.83
Connecticut 0.10 — 4.17 113 45.9 — — 0.98
Potomac — — — — — — — 0.55
Southeastern 0.078 — 0.56 30.7 18 0.26 — 0.64
U.S. (Mean)
Source: Sutton, C.C., J.C. O’Herron, III, and R.T. Zappalorti. 1996. The Scientific Characterization
of the Delaware Estuary. Technical Report (DRBC Project No. 321; HA File No. 93.21), Delaware
Estuary Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, New York.
PAHs equals 3.28 × 104 kg/yr (Frithsen et al., 1995). Among organochlorine con-
taminants, PCBs and DDTs continue to be problematic. The loading of PCBs and
DDTs in the estuary is estimated to be 89 kg/yr and 7900 kg/yr, respectively (Frithsen
et al., 1995). Bottom sediments are a repository for the largest fraction of chemical
contaminants that enter the estuary. In some areas, the contaminants may pose a
significant health threat to some biota, particularly upper-trophic-level organisms
(Kennish, 2000).
Point and nonpoint source pollution contributes to the same water quality
problems in the Lower St. Jones River as observed in the Delaware River estuary,
including elevated levels of nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) and chemical
contaminants (heavy metals, hydrocarbons, and PCBs). For example, several indus-
trial facilities exist in the St. Jones River watershed where point source wastewater
discharges are regulated by the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) of Delaware’s Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Con-
trol. The central sewer system in Dover, Delaware periodically releases sewage
waste in combined sewer overflows. However, the most persistent water quality
problems in the St. Jones River are ascribable to nonpoint source pollution from
both urban and rural areas in the St. Jones River watershed. Escalating urban land
use in the Dover area has increased pollutant export to the river via accelerated
stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces or residential landscapes. Nonpoint
source pollutant loads from Dover and surrounding areas originate largely from
construction sites, high-density commercial zones, and industrial centers; they
consist of heavy metals, oil and grease, organochlorine compounds, and other
contaminants. In more rural areas, agricultural runoff mainly associated with corn
and soybean production or animal feedlots transports nutrients and sediments to
the St. Jones River. In addition to nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment inputs,
constituent loads of concern from farmlands include oxygen-demanding compounds
and pesticides. Aside from urban and agricultural runoff, the effects of silviculture,
land disposal, leaching of nutrients and coliform bacteria from septic fields, and
the atmospheric deposition of an array of contaminants augment pollutant inputs.
Nutrient loading is of particular concern because of its link to eutrophication of
estuarine waters (Kennish, 1997; Livingston, 2001, 2003).
The accumulation of PCBs in the St. Jones River watershed is a resource
management problem. A health advisory was issued on March 18, 1993 for all tidal
and several nontidal reaches of the St. Jones River watershed because of elevated
PCB levels in aquatic sediments and the food web. This advisory recommended
limited consumption (i.e., no more than two 226.8-g meals a year) of catfish (Ameiu-
rus catus, A. nebulosus, and Ictalurus punctatus), white perch (Morone americana),
carp (Cyprinus carpio), and largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) taken in the
upper portions of the St. Jones River downstream to Bowers Beach (DNERR, 1999).
The exact source of the PCBs remains undetermined.
Some biota throughout the Delaware Estuary have also accumulated high levels
of PCBs and other toxins (Sutton et al., 1996; Kennish, 2000). Owing to widespread
contamination by PCBs, DDTs, chlordane, dioxin, and mercury, consumption advi-
sories have been issued by government agencies for a number of fish species in the
estuary, notably bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix), striped bass (Morone saxatilis),
white perch (Morone americana), American eel (Anguilla rostrata), white catfish
(Ameiurus catus), channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), and chain pickerel (Esox
niger). Apart from these finfish species, other fauna exhibiting high concentrations
of certain toxins in the estuary are mussels (Mytilus edulis), oysters (Crassostrea
virginica), and osprey (Pandion haliaetus) (Kennish, 2000).
Habitat Alteration
The most profound alteration of upland habitat in the DNERR region is the conver-
sion of natural forested land cover to population centers and farmlands. These land
use conversions have contributed to various levels of habitat destruction and nonpoint
source pollution in the watershed. However, other land use conversions have also
impacted habitat and water quality in watershed areas. Included here are the devel-
opment of exurban residential subdivisions, installation of septic systems in envi-
ronmentally sensitive areas, construction of highways, operation of a major airbase,
creation of borrow pits for sand and gravel mining, and nonselective marsh ditching
for mosquito control (DNERR, 1999).
Dredging of the Delaware River main shipping channel deepens the waterway,
resulting in improved circulation of the estuary. Sharp et al. (1994) showed that, soon
after dredging, changes in salinity, dissolved oxygen, turbidity, and water quality occur
throughout the estuary. Upper estuary locations experience increased tidal amplitudes.
These changes may also influence water quality conditions in subestuaries such as the
St. Jones River. However, because the lower reserve site is a considerable distance
from the channel dredging areas, the dredging effects are likely to be small.
Shoreline erosion is an escalating problem along the Delaware River and Bay.
Rising sea level and wave erosion are threatening the wetland shoreline habitat in
the system. Principal shoreline protective measures implemented to control shoreline
erosion include the installation of permanent engineering structures such as bulk-
heads and seawalls. However, these shoreline structures alter or even destroy habitat
for turtles, horseshoe crabs, shorebirds, and various wildlife populations. In addition,
toxins (e.g., wood preservatives) that leach from the treated wooden structures can
contaminate adjacent waters and bottom sediments, thereby posing a potential danger
to organisms inhabiting these areas.
Three federal Superfund sites exist in the St. Jones watershed:
1. Dover Air Force Base

2. Wildcat Landfill
3. Dover Gas Light Company
All have serious chemical contamination problems that can cause the degradation
of water quality offsite if leachates are not effectively controlled. Dover Air Force
Base has been responsible for significant groundwater contamination due to volatile
organic compounds (solvents and gasoline) and heavy metals derived from aircraft
operations on site. Tributaries of the St. Jones River have received groundwater
contaminated with pollutants from the base. However, no serious environmental
impacts have been attributed to this water contamination.
The Wildcat Landfill was a privately owned and operated industrial and
municipal waste disposal facility located about 3.7 km upstream of the Lower
St. Jones River Reserve site. The facility, which closed in 1973 due to permit
violations associated with illegal disposal of waste materials, caused contamina-
tion of surface water and sediments along the St. Jones River as a result of inputs
of PCBs and other toxins (DNREC, 1994). Since its closing, the landfill has been
reclaimed for wildlife purposes. However, during its operation the landfill may
have been a significant source of PCBs, which are now stored in bottom sediments
of the St. Jones River.
The Dover Gas Light Company was another source of PCB contamination in
the St. Jones River watershed during the 20th century. It also caused coal tar
contamination of soils and groundwater in the watershed. This site is located in
Dover, Delaware, and its impact may have been more problematic for the Lower St.
Jones River than for the upper reaches of the system (DNERR, 1999).
BIOTIC COMMUNITIES
Phytoplankton
Phytoplankton surveys conducted at three stations in the Lower St. Jones River
during 1995 and 1996 identified 44 taxa, with most belonging to the Bacillario-
phyta (diatoms) (N = 24) and the Chlorophycota (green algae) (N = 10). The
numerically dominant taxa in decreasing order of abundance were Melosira spp.,
Guinardia spp., Ceratium spp., and Biddulphia spp. Three of these taxa (Melosira,
Guinardia, and Biddulphia) are diatoms. Volvox spp., Ankistrodesmus spp., Scene-
desmus spp., Chlamydomonas spp., Hydrodictyon spp., and Chlorella spp. were
the most abundant green algae, and Anabaena spp., Microcystis spp., and Oscil-
latoria spp. were the dominant blue-green algae. Table 4.6 provides a taxonomic
list of phytoplankton collected in both the Lower St. Jones River and Upper
Blackbird Creek (DNERR, 1999).
A distinct seasonal pattern of phytoplankton abundance and diversity occurs in
the Lower St. Jones River. Phytoplankton abundance here peaks in the summer and
drops to a minimum in the winter. Diatoms rank among the most abundant taxa
during all seasons. Maximum diversity takes place in the summer and minimum
diversity in the fall.
The phytoplankton community is much more diverse in the Delaware River
estuary, where more than 250 species and over 100 genera have been registered
(Marshall, 1992). Watling et al. (1979) documented 113 phytoplankton species
in Delaware Bay. Diatoms predominate from fall through spring, with several
species (Skeletonema costatum, Thalassiosira nordenskioldii, Asterionella gla-
cialis, Chaetoceras sp., and Rhizosolenia sp.) acting as the principal constituents
of the spring bloom (Watling et al., 1979; Marshall, 1992). Phytoplankton biomass
peaks in the lower estuary during March and in the upper estuary during July
(Pennock and Sharp, 1986). Phytoplankton diversity is highest in the summer
and fall when small flagellates are most abundant in the estuary (Marshall, 1992,
1995; Kennish, 2000).
TABLE 4.6
Taxonomic List of Phytoplankton Collected in the Blackbird Creek and St.
Jones River Areas of the Delaware National Estuarine Research Reserve
Division Cyanophycota (Blue-Green Algae) Gyrosigma spp.
Anabaena spp. Hantzschia spp.
Anacystis spp. Navicula spp.
Microcystis spp. Nitzschia spp.
Oscillatoria spp. Pinnularia spp.
Sphaerocystis spp. Surirella spp.
Unidentified Cyanophycota
Division Chlorophycota (Green Algae)
Division Bacillariophyta (Diatoms) Actinastrum spp.
Class Coscinodiscophyceae (Centric Diatoms) Ankistrodesmus spp.
Biddulphia spp. Chlamydomonas spp.
Chaetoceros spp. Chlorella spp.
Coscinodiscus spp. Hydrodictyon spp.
Cyclotella spp. Pediastrum spp.
Ditylum spp. Scenedesmus spp.
Guinardia spp. Tetraedron spp.
Leptocylindrus spp. Ulothrix spp.
Lithodesmium spp. Volvox spp.
Melosira spp. Unidentified Chlorphycota
Rhizosolenia spp.
Skeletonema spp. Division Cryptophycota
Unidentified Coscinodiscophyceae Class Cryptophyceae
Cryptomonas spp.
Class Fragilariophyceae (Araphid, Pennate Diatoms) Division Pyrrhophycota (Dinoflagellates)

Asterionella spp. Unidentified Pyrrhophycota
Fragilaria spp. Class Dinophyceae
Synedra spp. Ceratium spp.
Tabellaria spp. Gymnodinium spp.
Thalassionema spp. Noctiluca spp.
Thalassiothrix spp. Peridinium spp.
Class Bacillariophyceae (Raphid, Pennate Diatoms) Unidentified Phytoflagellates

Achnanthes spp. Unidentified Phytoplankton
Source: Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. 1999. Delaware
National Estuarine Research Reserve: Estuarine Profiles. Technical Report, Delaware Department
of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Dover, DE.
Zooplankton
Zooplankton sampling in the Lower St. Jones River during the 1995–1996 period
collected 39 microzooplankton taxa and 53 mesozooplankton taxa. Among the most
common microzooplankton (<64 µm) taxa observed in plankton collections were
copepod nauplii, rotifers (Brachionus spp., Filinia spp., Keratella spp., Notholca
spp., and unidentified forms), protozoans (Tintinnidium spp., Arcellinida, Peritrichia,
Zoomastigophora), cladocerans (Daphnia spp.), bivalve larvae, Gastropoda, and

Polychaeta. The Ascidiacea were also abundant. Copepod nauplii dominated the
microzooplankton during the spring, summer, and fall; unidentified Rotifera domi-
nated during the winter. Cladocerans and polychaete larvae were also abundant in
the Lower St. Jones River during a given season. Microzooplankton diversity was
highest in the summer and lowest in the fall (DNERR, 1999).
Of the 53 mesozooplankton (64 to 250 µm) taxa found in the Lower St. Jones
River, polychaete larvae dominated the collections and were most abundant in the
spring and summer. Nematodes predominated in the winter, and the copepod, Eury-
temora affinis, was most numerous in the fall. Several other copepod taxa were also
abundant, notably copepod nauplii, Acartia tonsa, Acartia spp., copepodites, Cal-
anoida, Leptastacus spp., Cyclopoida, Cyclops spp., Halicyclops fosteri, Pseudodi-
aptomus pelagicus, and Harpacticoida. In addition, crab larvae (Uca spp. and
Rhithropanopeus spp.), mysid shrimp (Neomysis americana), cladocerans (Bosmina
spp., Daphnia spp., and Diaphanosoma spp.), rotifers (Brachionus spp., Notholca
spp., and unidentified Rotifera), Ascidiacea, Cirripedia, Cnidaria medusa, Gas-
tropoda, and Tardigrada were numerically important mesozooplankton.
Zooplankton attained highest densities in the upper reaches of both the St. Jones
River and Blackbird Creek. While phytoplankton densities likewise peaked in the
upper reaches of the St. Jones River, they were highest in the lower reaches of
Blackbird Creek. Densities of plankton were generally greatest in the summer, an
exception being phytoplankton in the St. Jones River, which exhibited maximum
densities in the spring (Table 4.7).
TABLE 4.7
Net Plankton Density Recorded in the Blackbird Creek and St. Jones River
Phytoplankton Microzooplankton Mesozooplankton
Season (n/ml) (n/m3) (n/m3)
Blackbird Creek
Fall 1995 2,662 16,235 2,977
Winter 1995–96 1,732 5,241 788
Spring 1996 4,972 14,525 6,476
Summer 1996 7,587 27,901 11,305
Annual Mean, 1995–96 6,450 25,608 10,940
St. Jones River

Fall 1995 2,392 7,824 2,086
Winter 1995–96 1,721 8,641 1,199
Spring 1996 11,120 4,949 2,472
Summer 1996 3,978 15,223 8,235
Annual Mean, 1995–96 8,797 14,518 6,162
In the Delaware Estuary, copepods account for ~85% of the total zooplankton
biomass (Herman, 1988). Among the numerically dominant copepod species in the
estuary are Acartia hudsonica, Acartia tonsa, Eurytemora affinis, Halicyclops fosteri,
Oithona colcarva, and Pseudodiaptomus pelagicus. Of these species, A. tonsa is
most abundant, attaining peak numbers in the summer (Stearns, 1995; Kennish,
2000). Oithona colcarva and P. pelagicus are also abundant at this time, and along
with H. fosteri, persist into the fall. Abundant forms in the winter and spring include
A. hudsonica, E. affinis, O. colcarva, and P. pelagicus. Zooplankton attain peak
numbers in Delaware Bay in the summer, often exceeding 0.5 × 105 individuals/m3
(Herman et al., 1983).
Sutton et al. (1996) reported that cladocerans, cyclopoid copepods, and gam-
marid amphipods dominate the zooplankton community in the tidal waters upestuary.
Estuarine and marine species (e.g., calanoid copepods) predominate in Delaware
Bay. Salinity is a major factor influencing the spatial distribution of zooplankton
species in the system (Stearns, 1995).
Benthic Fauna
More than 30 macroinvertebrate taxa were collected in benthic surveys conducted
in the Lower St. Jones River during the 1994–1995 sampling period. These benthic
fauna belong to five phyla, notably the Annelida, Arthropoda, Mollusca, Platyhel-
minthes, and Nemertea (Table 4.8). Ten of the taxa comprised more than 90% of
all the organisms collected at eight sampling sites. These ten taxa are listed here
in order of decreasing abundance: Oligochaeta (58% of the total), Chironomidae
(9%), Corophium sp. (5%), Polychaeta (3%), Neomysis americana (3%), Edotea
triloba (3%), Streblospio benedicti (3%), Gammarus sp. (3%), Ilyanassa sp. (2%),
and turbellarians (2%). While oligochaetes were by far the most abundant benthic
macroinvertebrate taxa in the Lower St. Jones River, the opossum shrimp (Neomy-
sis americana) was the overwhelming dominant member of the parabenthic com-
munity there, constituting more than 92% of all parabenthic organisms collected
(DNERR, 1999).
The seasonal densities of the benthic macroinvertebrates ranged from 3850 to
4573 individuals/m2, with maximum numbers recorded during spring. The densities
of parabenthic organisms ranged from 578 to 21,210 individuals/m2. Peak densities
of these organisms were found in the fall.
Bivalves and polychaetes dominate the soft-bottom benthic community in Del-
aware Bay. In polyhaline waters near the mouth of the bay, surf clams (Spisula
solidissima) and sand dollars (Echinarachnius parma) predominate in sandy sedi-
ments, and polychaetes (Nucula proxima and Nephtys spp.) are most abundant in
silty sediments. Other numerically important macroinvertebrate species found in the
bay are the bivalves Crassostrea virginica and Ensis directus as well as the poly-
chaetes Glycera dibranchiata and Heteromastus filiformis. In mesohaline silts and
fine sands, the bivalves Gemma gemma, Mulinia lateralis, and Mya arenaria are
likewise abundant (Maurer et al., 1978; Steimle, 1995).
Proceeding to mesohaline salt marsh habitats adjacent to the St. Jones River,
the most common members of the macroinvertebrate community are fiddler crabs
TABLE 4.8
Mean Density of Benthic Macroinvertebrates in the Tidal
River and Channels of the St. Jones River during 1994
(Summer and Fall) and 1995 (Spring)a
Taxon Upper Lower Mean % Total
Tidal River
Oligochaeta 1302 1335 1319 34.9
Chironomidae 1765 118 942 24.9
Corophium sp. 1103 11 557 14.7
Edotea triloba 226 135 180 4.8
Neomysis americana 318 27 172 4.6
Ilyanassa sp. 0 312 156 4.1
Gammarus sp. 151 16 83 2.2
Gammaridae 145 0 73 1.9
Polychaeta 0 135 67 1.8
Bivalvia 5 102 54 1.4
Streblospio benedicti 5 91 48 1.3
Scolecolepides viridis 11 54 32 0.9
Polydora ligni 27 22 24 0.6
Cyathura polita 38 0 19 0.5
Nemertea 32 0 16 0.4
Nereis succinea 22 11 16 0.4
Eurypanopeus depressus 0 16 8 0.2
Coecidotea sp. 11 0 5 0.1
Isopoda 0 5 3 0.1
Spionidae 5 0 3 0.1
Idotea sp. 0 5 3 0.1
Xanthidae 5 0 3 0.1
Channels
Oligochaeta 5839 737 3288 74.7
Turbellaria 581 59 320 7.3
Gammarus sp. 22 237 129 2.9
Corophium sp. — 172 86 2.0
Sphaeriidae 32 — 16 0.4
Xanthidae 5 11 8 0.2
Hypaniola florida 5 5 5 0.1
Nassarius sp. 0 11 5 0.1
(continued)

River and Channels of the St. Jones River during 1994
Nemertea 11 0 5 0.1
Bivalvia 0 5 3 0.1
Hirudinea 0 5 3 0.1
Limulus polyphemus 0 5 3 0.1
Melita nitida 0 5 3 0.1
a Density = number/m2.
Source: Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental

Control. 1999. Delaware National Estuarine Research Reserve: Estuarine
Profiles. Technical Report, Delaware Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control, Dover, DE..
(Uca spp.), salt marsh snails (Melampus bidentatus), mud snails (Ilyanassa obso-
leta), grass shrimp (Palaemonetes spp.), marsh crabs (Sesarma reticulatum), blue
crabs (Callinectes sapidus), ribbed mussels (Geukensia demissa), amphipods
(Orchestia grillus and Gammarus spp.) and isopods (Edotea triloba). Quadrat
sampling revealed a mean density of marsh surface macroinvertebrates amounting
to 44 individuals/m2, with the most numerous species being the salt marsh snail
Melampus bidentatus (mean density = 37.6 individuals/m2) followed in decreasing
order of abundance by Uca minax, Orchestia grillus, U. pugnax, Geukensia
demissa, Palaemonetes pugio, and Sesarma reticulatum. Of all salt marsh areas
sampled, Spartina alterniflora habitat had the highest mean density of macroin-
vertebrates (135.4 individuals/m2) (DNERR, 1999).
Finfish
Nektonic surveys conducted in the summer and fall of 1994 and the spring of 1995
documented 25 species of fish in the Lower St. Jones River. Estuarine species
dominated the assemblage. For example, the Atlantic silverside (Menidia menidia),
mummichog (Fundulus heteroclitus), spot (Leiostomus xanthurus), sheepshead min-
now (Cyprinodon variegatus), white perch (Morone americana), and bay anchovy
(Anchoa mitchilli) — in decreasing order of abundance — were the most abundant
forms, comprising nearly 95% of the total finfish catch (Table 4.9). Finfish abundance
was significant in secondary tributaries (DNERR, 1999).
The finfish community is much more diverse in the Delaware Estuary, where
more than 200 species of fish have been recorded. O’Herron et al. (1994) identified
the following priority species in the estuary: alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus), Amer-
ican shad (A. sapidissima), blueback herring (A. aestivalis), American eel (Anguilla
rostrata), Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus), Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser
TABLE 4.9
Finfish Abundance in the Upper Blackbird Creek and Lower St. Jones
River during 1994 (Summer and Fall) and 1995 (Spring)
Blackbird St. Jones Percent of
Species Creek River Total
Leiostomus xanthurus (spot) 2319 829 32.80

Fundulus heteroclitus (mummichog) 523 1143 17.36
Brevoortia tyrannus (Atlantic menhaden) 1241 — 12.93
Menidia menidia (Atlantic silverside) 18 1198 12.67
Morone americana (white perch) 585 342 9.66
Cyprinodon variegatus (sheepshead minnow) — 634 6.60
Anchoa mitchilli (bay anchovy) 3 281 2.96
Trinectes maculatus (hogchoker) 78 65 1.49
Cynoscion regalis (weakfish) 19 51 0.73
Morone saxatilis (striped bass) 36 29 0.68
Anguilla rostrata (American eel) 20 32 0.54
Urophycis regia (spotted hake) — 31 0.32
Pogonias cromis (black drum) 5 21 0.27
Ameiurus gibbosus (brown bullhead) 16 — 0.17
Hybognathus nuchalis (silvery minnow) 15 — 0.16
Clupea harengus (Atlantic herring) — 12 0.13
Micropogonias undulatus (Atlantic croaker) — 10 0.10
Ictalurus punctatus (channel catfish) 4 4 0.08
Bairdiella chrysoura (silver perch) — 5 0.05
Fundulus majalis (striped killifish) — 4 0.04
Mugal cephalus (striped mullet) — 4 0.04
Dorosoma cepedianum (gizzard shad) 3 — 0.03
Menidia beryllina (inland silverside) 1 2 0.03
Centropristis striata (black sea bass) — 2 0.02
Pomatomus saltatrix (bluefish) — 2 0.02
Prionotus carolinus (northern searobin) — 2 0.02
Opsanus tau (oyster toadfish) — 2 0.02
Perca flavescens (yellow perch) 2 — 0.02
Fundulus diaphanus (banded killifish) — 1 0.01
Pomoxis nigromaculatus (black crappie) 1 — 0.01
Alosa aestivalis (blueback herring) 1 — 0.01
Lepomis macrochirus (bluegill) 1 — 0.01
Lepomis gibbosus (pumpkinseed) 1 — 0.01
Paralichthys dentatus (summer flounder) — — 0.01
Note: Density = number/m2.
oxyrhynchus), white perch (Morone americana), striped bass (M. saxatilis), weakfish
(Cynoscion regalis), bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix), spot (Leiostomus xanthurus),
scup (Stenotomus versicolor), Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias undulatus), black
drum (Pogonias cromis), channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), white catfish (Ameiu-
rus catus), summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus), windowpane flounder (Scoph-
thalmus aquosus), and carp (Cyprinus carpio). The bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli)
and Atlantic silverside (Menidia menidia) are important forage species in the system.
The species of commercial importance primarily include the weakfish (Cynoscion
regalis), bluefish (P. saltatrix), Atlantic menhaden (B. tyrannus), summer flounder
(P. dentatus), and spot (L. xanthurus). They have largely replaced the prominent
upriver forms (alewife, A. pseudoharengus; American shad, A. sapidissima; blueback
herring, A. aestivalis; and Atlantic sturgeon, A. oxyrhynchus) in the fishery (Price
and Beck, 1988; Kennish, 2000).
Frogs and salamanders are common in the DNERR, especially at the Upper Black-
bird Creek Reserve site. Among the most important frog species in the DNERR are
the green frog (Rana clamitans melanota), bullfrog (R. catesbeiana), wood frog (R.
sylvatica), northern spring peeper (Pseudacris crucifer crucifer), and southern leop-
ard frog (R. utricularia). Salamanders of significance include the northern two-lined
salamander (Eurycea bislineata) and red-backed salamander (Plethodon cinereus).
The greater areal coverage and diversity of wetland habitats along the Upper Black-
bird Creek provide more suitable conditions for amphibian populations than those
along the Lower St. Jones River.
Four species of turtles occupy wetland habitats of both DNERR component sites,
specifically the snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), northern diamondback terra-
pin (Malaclemys terrapin terrapin), eastern mud turtle (Kinosternon subrubrum
subrubrum), and red-bellied turtle (Chrysemys rubriventris). Marine turtles observed
in Delaware Bay include the green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas), Kemp’s Ridley turtle
(Lepidochelys kempii), and loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta).
Two species of snakes primarily inhabit the wetlands and uplands of the DNERR.
These are the black rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta) and northern water snake (Nerodia
sipedon). A few other species of snakes may range into reserve areas but are less
common than the aforementioned forms (DNERR, 1999).
Birds
The Delaware Estuary and surrounding areas are havens for rich and diverse
groups of avifauna. Waterbirds, raptors, and passerines are well represented in
the St. Jones River watershed. An extensive list of shorebirds, wading birds, and
waterfowl has been compiled for the reserve site based on surveys conducted
between May 1994 and June 1995 (Table 4.10). Among the common shorebird
species identified in the St. Jones River survey are dunlin (Calidris alpina),
sanderling (C. alba), red knot (C. canutus), semipalmated sandpiper (C. pusilla),
least sandpiper (C. minutilla), western sandpiper (C. mauri), black-bellied plover
TABLE 4.10
Bird Species Recorded in the Blackbird Creek
and St. Jones River DNERR Sites during Field
Surveys Conducted from May 1994 through
June 1995
Blackbird St. Jones
Species Creek River
American black duck X

American coot X
American crow X X
American goldfinch X X
American robin X X
Bald eagle X
Barn swallow X X
Belted kingfisher X X
Black-bellied plover X
Black skimmer X
Black vulture X X
Blue jay X
Blue-winged teal X
Boat-tailed grackle X X
Canada goose X X
Carolina chickadee X
Carolina wren X X
Cattle egret X
Chimney swift X
Clapper rail X
Common grackle X X
Common rail X X
Common merganser X
Common snipe X
Common tern X X
Common yellowthroat X X
Double-crested cormorant X X
Downy woodpecker X X
Dunlin X
Eastern bluebird X
Eastern kingbird X X
Eastern meadowlark X
Eastern wood pewee X
Fish crow X X
Forster’s tern X X
Glossy ibis X X
Great black-backed gull X
Great blue heron X X
(continued)

June 1995
Blackbird St. Jones
Species Creek River
Great crested flycatcher X X

Great egret X X
Great horned owl X
Greater yellowlegs X X
Green-backed heron X X
Green-winged teal X X
Grey catbird X X
Hairy woodpecker X
Herring gull X X
House wren X
Indigo bunting X X
Killdeer X X
Laughing gull X X
Least tern X
Mallard X X
Marsh wren X X
Mockingbird X
Mourning dove X X
Night heron X
Northern bobwhite X X
Northern cardinal X X
Northern flicker X X
Northern harrier X X
Northern pintail X
Northern shoveler X
Orchard oriole X
Peep X X
Pileated woodpecker X
Purple martin X
Red head X
Red knot X
Red-bellied woodpecker X X
Red-breasted merganser X
Red-eyed vireo X
Red-tailed hawk X X
Red-winged blackbird X X
Ring-billed gull X X
Ruby-throated hummingbird X
Ruddy duck X

June 1995
Blackbird St. Jones
Species Creek River
Ruddy turnstone X
Rufous-sided towhee X X
Sanderling X
Savannah sparrow X
Scarlet tanager X
Seaside sparrow X X
Sharp-shinned hawk X
Sharp-tailed sparrow X
Shore birds — mixed flocks X X
Short-billed downcatcher X
Snow goose X X
Snowy egret X X
Song sparrow X X
Spotted sandpiper X
Swamp sparrow X
Tree swallow X X
Tufted titmouse X
Turkey vulture X X
White-crowned sparrow X
White-eyed vireo X X
White-throated sparrow X
Willet X
Wood duck X
Wood thrush X
Yellow-billed cuckoo X X
Yellow-rumped warbler X
Yellow warbler X X
Source: Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Envi-

ronmental Control. 1999. Delaware National Estuarine Research
Reserve: Estuarine Profiles. Technical Report, Delaware Depart-
ment of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Dover,
DE.
(Pluvialis squatarola), short-billed dowitcher (Limnodromus griseus), killdeer

(Charadrius vociferus), greater yellowlegs (Tringa melanoleuca), willet (Catop-
trophorus semipalmatus), and common snipe (Gallinago gallinago). Shorebirds
are most numerous in spring and early summer, with peak abundance recorded
in May. Each spring more than a million shorebirds utilize the beach and marsh
habitats of the Delaware Estuary (Clark, 1988; Kennish, 2000). Some species
inhabit the mudflats and tidal marshes year-round (Sutton et al., 1996).
Jenkins and Gelvin-Innvaer (1995) identified 10 species of wading birds in
the Delaware Estuary. They are the glossy ibis (Plegadis falcinellus), cattle egret
(Bubulcus ibis), yellow-crowned night heron (Nycticorax violaceus), black-
crowned night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax), green-backed heron (Butorides vire-
scens), great egret (Casmerodius albus), snowy egret (Egretta thula), tricolored
heron (E. tricolor), little blue heron (E. caerulea), and great blue heron (Ardea
herodias). Five of these species were recorded in surveys of the Lower St. Jones
River, including the snowy egret, great egret, great blue heron, green-backed heron,
and glossy ibis. Of these species, the snowy egret and great blue heron were most
common at the reserve site.
Many species of waterbirds have been observed in the open waters and tidal
wetlands of the Lower St. Jones River. Colonial nesting birds, such as the black
scoter (Melanitta nigra), American black duck (Anas rubripes), and bufflehead
(Bucephala albeola), are well represented. Other waterbirds of note frequenting the
DNERR sites include the least tern (Sterna antillarum), Forster’s tern (S. fosteri),
common tern (S. hirundo), laughing gull (Larus atricilla), herring gull (L. argenta-
tus), ring-billed gull (L. delawarensis), greater black-backed gull (L. marinus), surf
scoter (Melanitta perspicillata), lesser scaup (Aythya affinis), oldsquaw (Clangula
hyemalis), common merganser (Mergus merganser), red-breasted merganser (M.
serrator), northern gannet (Morus bassanus), double-crested cormorant (Phalacro-
corax auritus), horned grebe (Podiceps auritus), and red-throated loon (Gavia stel-
lata). Rails (e.g., king rail, Rallus elegans; Virginia rail, R. limicola; and clapper
rail, R. longirostris) are also often seen in the reserve. The black rail (Laterallus
jamaicensis), yellow rail (Coturnicops noveboracensis), and sora rail (Porzana caro-
lina) have been reported in other areas of the Delaware Estuary as well (Kerlinger
and Widjeskog, 1995).
Various passerines occupy tidal wetlands habitat in the DNERR. The most
numerous species are the red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), seaside spar-
row (Ammospiza maritima), sharp-tailed sparrow (A. caudacuta), common yel-
lowthroat (Geothlypis trichas), marsh wren (Cistothorus palustris), and boat-tailed
grackle (Quiscalus major). The red-winged blackbird, present year-round, is perhaps
the most common passerine in the tidal wetlands.
Predatory birds (eagles, hawks, falcons, and owls) are widely dispersed in the
Delaware Estuary region and occur at both DNERR sites. The bald eagle (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus), osprey (Pandion haliaetus), and peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus)
nest along the shores of the Delaware. The red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis),
Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), and great horned owl (Bubo virginianus) prefer
woodlots, forest edges, and upland forests. The red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus)
and barred owl (Strix varia) nest and feed in hardwood swamps (Sutton et al., 1996;
Kennish, 2000). An estimated 80,000 raptors fly through the mouth of the estuary
each year (Niles and Sutton, 1995).
The northern harrier (Circus cyaneus) is the most frequently seen raptor in
the tidal wetlands of the DNERR. Four species of hawks (rough-legged hawk,
Buteo lagopus; sharp-shinned hawk, Accipiter striatus; red-shouldered hawk,
Buteo lineatus; and red-tailed hawk, B. jamaicensis) are also observed in DNERR
habitats. Other raptors documented in the DNERR system include the osprey
(Pandion haliaetus), short-eared owl (Asio flammeus), great horned owl (Bubo
virginianus), Eastern screech owl (Otus asio), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucoceph-
alus), and turkey vulture (Cathartes aura).
Upland avifaunal species are quite diverse in woodlands and thickets, as well
as open or semiopen habitats. Some species which may occur in woodlands and
shrubby thickets are the blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), red-bellied woodpecker
(Melanerpes carolinus), downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), Carolina chick-
adee (Parus carolinensis), rufous-sided towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus), gray cat-
bird (Dumetella carolinensis), white-eyed vireo (Vireo griseus), red-eyed vireo (V.
olivaceus), yellow-rumped warbler (Dendroica coronata), ovenbird (Seiurus auro-
capillus), wood thrush (Hylocichla mustelina), tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor), and
white-throated sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollus). In open or semiopen habitats, char-
acteristic species may include the northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus), mourn-
ing dove (Zenaida macroura), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), northern
mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), prairie warbler (Dendroica discolor), American
kestrel (Falco sparverius), brown thrasher (Toxostoma rufum), American robin (Tur-
dus migratorius), yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia), common grackle (Quiscalus
quiscula), northern oriole (Icterus galbula), northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardina-
lis), house sparrow (Passer domesticus), field sparrow (Spizella pusilla), chipping
sparrow (Spizella passerina), song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), bobolink (Dolich-
onyx oryzivorus), blue grosbeak (Guiraca caerulea), indigo bunting (Passerina cya-
nea), and American goldfinch (Carduelis tristis) (DNERR, 1999).
Table 4.11 provides a list of bird species compiled for both the Lower St. Jones
River Reserve site and the Upper Blackbird Creek Reserve site. This list includes the
bird species known to occur or possibly found in reserve areas. All major groups are
represented, notably shorebirds, wading birds, waterfowl, rails, raptors, and passerines.
Mammals
A number of harbor seals, dolphins, porpoises, and whales are reported in the lower
Delaware Estuary each year. Harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) periodically appear in
Delaware Bay; in addition, harp seals (Pagophilus groenlandicus) and gray seals
(Halichoerus grypus) occasionally occur in the system. The bottlenose porpoise
(Tursiops truncatus) is relatively common in the lower estuarine waters. The hump-
back whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) is the most frequently observed cetacean
species in Delaware Bay, but the northern right whale (Balaena glacialis) and finback
whale (Balaenoptera physalus) have also been found here (Kennish, 2000).
In fresh and brackish marshes of the DNERR, the beaver (Castor canadensis),
river otter (Lutra canadensis), and muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus) are important mam-
malian species. The muskrat, a fur-bearing animal, is most abundant and remains
commercially valuable for its pelts. In upland forested areas, an array of mammalian
species has been documented, such as the eastern cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus flori-
danus), white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), meadow jumping mouse (Zapus
hudsonius), pine vole (Microtus pinetorum), meadow vole (M. pennsylvanicus), gray
TABLE 4.11
Species of Birds Known to Occur or Likely to Occur in
the Delaware National Estuarine Research Reserve
American black duck Anas rubripes

Gadwall Anas strepera
Mallard Anas platyrhynchos
American wigeon Anas americana
Northern pintail Anas acuta
Northern shoveler Anas clypeata
Green-winged teal Anas crecca
Blue-winged teal Anas discors
Wood duck Aix sponsa
Canvasback Aythya valisineria
Redhead Aythya americana
Greater scaup Aythya marila
Lesser scaup Aythya affinis
Ring-necked duck Aythya collaris
Bufflehead Bucephala albeola
Common goldeneye Bucephala clangula
Oldsquaw Clangula hyemalis
Surf scoter Melanitta perspicillata
Black scoter Melanitta nigra
White-winged scoter Melanitta fusca
Ruddy duck Oxyura jamaicensis
Common merganser Mergus merganser
Red-breasted merganser Mergus serrator
Hooded merganser Lophodytes cucullatus
Tundra swan Cygnus columbianus
Canada goose Branta canadensis
Greater snow goose Anser caerulescens atlanticus
Common loon Gavia immer
Red-throated loon Gavia stellata
Pied-billed grebe Podilymbus podiceps
Horned grebe Podiceps auritus
Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus
Northern gannet Morus bassanus
Herring gull Larus argentatus
Ring-billed gull Larus delawarensis
Greater black-backed gull Larus marinus
Laughing gull Larus atricilla
Bonaparte’s gull Larus philadelphia
Common tern Sterna hirundo
Forster’s tern Sterna forsteri
Least tern Sterna antillarum
Gull-billed tern Sterna nilotica

Caspian tern Sterna caspia

Royal tern Sterna maxima
Black skimmer Rynchops niger
Great egret Casmerodius albus
Snowy egret Egretta thula
Cattle egret Bubulcus ibis
Great blue heron Ardea herodias
Tricolored heron Egretta tricolor
Little blue heron Egretta caerulea
Black-crowned night heron Nycticorax nycticorax
Yellow-crowned night heron Nycticorax violaceus
Green-backed heron Butorides virescens
American bittern Botaurus lentiginosus
Least bittern Ixobrychus exilis
Glossy ibis Plegadis falcinellus
Clapper rail Rallus longirostris
King rail Rallus elegans
Virginia rail Rallus limicola
Sora Porzana carolina
American coot Fulica americana
Common moorhen Gallinula chloropus
American oystercatcher Haematopus palliatus
American avocet Recurvirostra americana
Black-necked stilt Himantopus mexicanus
Black-bellied plover Pluvialis squatarola
Ruddy turnstone Arenaria interpres
Semipalmated plover Charadrius semipalmatus
Killdeer Charadrius vociferus
Semipalmated sandpiper Calidris pusilla
Least sandpiper Calidris minutilla
Western sandpiper Calidris mauri
White-rumped sandpiper Calidris fuscicollis
Sanderling Calidris alba
Red knot Calidris canutus
Dunlin Calidris alpina
Long-billed dowitcher Limnodromus scolopaceus
Short-billed dowitcher Limnodromus griseus
Greater yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca
Lesser yellowlegs Tringa flavipes
Willet Catoptrophorus semipalmatus
Solitary sandpiper Tringa solitaria
(continued)

Upland sandpiper Bartramia loingicauda

Pectoral sandpiper Calidris melanotos
Spotted sandpiper Actitis macularia
American woodcock Philohela minor
Common snipe Gallinago gallinago
Wild turkey Meleagris gallopavo
Ring-necked pheasant Phasianus colchicus
Northern bobwhite Colinus virginianus
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Osprey Pandion haliaetus
Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus
Merlin Falco columbarius
American kestrel Falco sparverius
Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis
Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus
Broad-winged hawk Buteo platypterus
Rough-legged hawk Buteo lagopus
Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus
Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii
Northern harrier Circus cyaneus
Black vulture Coragyps atratus
Turkey vulture Cathartes aura
Great horned owl Bubo virginianus
Barred owl Strix varia
Short-eared owl Asio flammeus
Common barn owl Tyto alba
Eastern screech owl Otus asio
Rock dove Columba livia
Mourning dove Zenaida macroura
Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus
Common nighthawk Chordeiles minor
Whip-poor-will Caprimulgus vociferus
Chimney swift Chaetura pelagica
Ruby hummingbird Archilochus colubris
Belted kingfisher Ceryle alcyon
Red-bellied woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus
Yellow-bellied sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius
Downy woodpecker Picoides pubescens
Hairy woodpecker Picoides villosus
Northern flicker Colaptes auratus
Eastern wood pewee Contopus virens
Acadian flycatcher Empidonax virescens

Willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii

Eastern phoebe Sayornis phoebe
Great-crested flycatcher Myiarchus crinitus
Eastern kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus
Horned lark Eremophila alpestris
Purple martin Progne subis
Tree swallow Tachycineta bicolor
Bank swallow Riparia riparia
Barn swallow Hirundo rustica
Blue jay Cyanocitta cristata
American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos
Fish crow Corvus ossifragus
Carolina chickadee Parus carolinensis
Tufted titmouse Parus bicolor
Red-breasted nuthatch Sitta canadensis
White-breasted nuthatch Sitta carolinensis
Brown creeper Certhia americana
Marsh wren Cistothorus palustris
Sedge wren Cistothorus platensis
Carolina wren Thryothorus ludovicianus
House wren Troglodytes aedon
Winter wren Troglodytes troglodytes
Golden-crowned kinglet Regulus satrapa
Ruby-crowned kinglet Regulus calendula
Blue-gray gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea
Eastern bluebird Sialia sialis
Veery Catharus fuscescens
Swainson’s thrush Catharus ustulatus
Hermit thrush Catharus guttatus
Wood thrush Hylocichla mustelina
American robin Turdus migratorius
Gray catbird Dumetella carolinensis
Northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos
Brown thrasher Toxostoma rufum
Water pipit Anthus spinoletta
Cedar waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum
Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus
White-eyed vireo Vireo griseus
Red-eyed vireo Vireo olivaceus
Common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas
Northern parula warbler Parula americana
(continued)

Prothonotary warbler Protonotaria citrea

Yellow warbler Dendroica petechia
Chestnut-sided warbler Dendroica pensylvanica
Magnolia warbler Dendroica magnolia
Black-throated blue warbler Dendroica caerulescens
Yellow-rumped warbler Dendroica coronata
Black-throated green warbler Dendroica virens
Pine warbler Dendroica pinus
Prairie warbler Dendroica discolor
Palm warbler Dendroica palmarum
Blackpoll warbler Dendroica striata
Black-and-white warbler Mniotilta varia
Kentucky warbler Oporornis formosus
Canada warbler Wilsonia canadensis
American redstart Setophaga ruticilla
Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapillus
Northern waterthrush Seiurus noveboracensis
Yellow-breasted chat Icteria viren
Red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus
Rusty blackbird Euphagus carolinus
Brown-headed cowbird Molothrus ater
Common grackle Quiscalus quiscula
Boat-tailed grackle Quiscalus major
Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus
Eastern meadowlark Sturnella magna
European starling Sturnus vulgaris
Orchard oriole Icterus spurius
Northern oriole Icterus galbula
Scarlet tanager Piranga olivacea
Summer tanager Piranga rubra
House sparrow Passer domesticus
Dark-eyed junco Junco hyemalis
Snow bunting Plectrophenax nivalis
Northern cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis
House finch Carpodacus mexicanus
Purple finch Carpodacus purpureus
American goldfinch Carduelis tristis
Pine siskin Carduelis pinus
Rose-breasted grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus
Blue grosbeak Guiraca caerulea
Indigo bunting Passerina cyanea
Rufous-sided towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus

House sparrow Passer domesticus

American tree sparrow Spizella arborea
Chipping sparrow Spizella passerina
Field sparrow Spizella pustilla
Savannah sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis
Seaside sparrow Ammospiza maritima
Sharp-tailed sparrow Ammospiza caudacuta
Swamp sparrow Melospiza georgiana
Song sparrow Melospiza melodia
Fox sparrow Passerella iliaca
White-throated sparrow Zonotrichia albicollus
White-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys
Source: Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental

Control. 1999. Delaware National Estuarine Research Reserve: Estuarine
Profiles. Technical Report, Delaware Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control, Dover, DE.
squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), red bat (Lasiurus borealis), red fox (Vulpes vulpes),
gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), long-tailed weasel
(Mustela frenata), masked shrew (Sorex cinereus), least shrew (Cryptotis parva),
short-tail shrew (Blarina brevicauda), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), and white-
tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) (DNERR, 1999).
UPPER BLACKBIRD CREEK RESERVE SITE

WATERSHED
More than 4000 people inhabit the 80-km2 area of the Blackbird Creek watershed.
Land use cover in the watershed is as follows: 39% agriculture, 22% forested land,
25% wetlands, 10% developed, and 4% open water. Although the Upper Blackbird
Creek Reserve site is less developed than the Lower St. Jones River Reserve site,
low-density residential development continues to increase.
Upland Vegetation
Plant assemblages in upland habitats of the Upper Blackbird Creek Reserve site are
very similar to those of the Lower St. Jones River Reserve site. Two types of forested
areas are recognized in the reserve: upland forest and tidal swamp forest. The
dominant trees in the upland forest of the reserve include the white oak (Quercus
alba), red oak (Q. rubra), black cherry (Prunus serotina), sassafras (Sassafras
albidum), American holly (Ilex opaca), and American beech (Fagus grandifolia).
Principal species comprising the tidal swamp forest are the red cedar (Juniperus
virginiana), black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), red
maple (Acer rubrum), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), and willows (Salix spp.)
(DNERR, 1999).
Wetland Vegetation
Coastal marsh vegetation in the Upper Blackbird Creek Reserve is very similar
to that in the St. Jones River Reserve site, characterized by scrub/marsh mixes,
scrub forest, and forested tidal wetlands. A mixed emergent marsh plant commu-
nity proliferates along creek and tributary banks and the open marsh plain. Spartina
alterniflora marsh, although a dominant habitat in the Upper Blackbird Creek
Reserve site, is much less expansive than in the Lower St. Jones River Reserve
site. It covers 28.6% of the wetlands area in the reserve site compared to 62.2%
of the habitat in the Lower St. Jones River Reserve site. In addition, tidal flats are
much more extensive in the Upper Blackbird Creek Reserve, amounting to 26.4%
of the wetlands cover compared to only 0.7% of the wetlands cover in the Lower
St. Jones River Reserve. Open water habitat is also greater in the Upper Blackbird
Creek Reserve, covering a 14.2% area compared to a 7% area in the Lower St.
Jones River Reserve.
The marsh plant communities are much more diverse in the Upper Blackbird
Creek Reserve site (113 species) than in the Lower St. Jones River Reserve site
(66 species) (Table 4.12). Salinities are lower in the Upper Blackbird Creek
Reserve; this accounts for the higher species richness. However, the common reed
(Phragmites australis) is also more densely distributed along the Lower Blackbird
Creek. Phragmites-infested marsh remains a target for remedial management
control programs of the DNERR.
The dominant species of the emergent tidal wetlands in the Upper Blackbird
Creek Reserve site parallel those in the Lower St. Jones River Reserve site. Aside
from the smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora), which predominates as tall-
form plants along tidal creek banks and as short-form plants on the marsh plain,
other abundant plants are the big cordgrass (S. cynosuroides) along channel banks,
salt grass (Distichlis spicata) and salt meadow cordgrass (S. patens) above MHW,
and a low-marsh mixed association of arrow arum (Peltandra virginica), yellow
pondweed (Nuphar lutea), marshpepper smartweed (Polygonum hydropiper), and
pickerel weed (Ponderia cordata) distributed along channel edges. Arrow arum
and yellow pondweed are especially prominent in the Upper Blackbird Creek
Reserve site. Other emergent wetland assemblages include cattails (Typha spp.),
American three-square (Scirpus americanus), and wild rice (Zizania aquatica).
They provide valuable wildlife habitat. Marsh shrub communities are also well
represented; they consist of woody plants (e.g., smooth alder, Alnus serrulata;
winterberry, Ilex verticillata; buttonbush, Cephalanthus occidentalis; sweet pep-
perbush, Clethra alnifolia; dogwoods, Cornus spp.; and red cedar, Juniperus
virginiana), as well as marsh shrubs (e.g., marsh elder, Iva frutescens; and
TABLE 4.12
Taxonomic List of Plants Identified in Upper
Blackbird Creek Marshes
Red maple Acer rubrum

Saltmarsh water hemp Acnida cannabina
Sweet flag Acorus calamus
Smooth alder Alnus serrulata
Ground nut Apios americana
Jack-in-the-pulpit Aarisaema triphyllum
Chokeberry Aronia arbutifolia
Swamp milkweed Asclepias incarnata
White aster Aster vimineus
Lady fern Athryium filix-femina
Nodding bur-marigold Bidens cernua
False nettle Boehmeria cylindrica
Bluejoint Calamagrostis canadensis
Marsh marigold Cartha palustris
Trumpet creeper Campsis radicans
Bearded carex Carex comosa
Large sedge Carex gigantia
Lurid carex Carex lurida
Straw carex Carex straminea
Uptight sedge Carex stricta
Carex sedge Carex vinata
Ironweed Carpinus caroliniana
Mockernut hickory Carya tomentosa
Water hemlock Cicuta maculata
Virgin’s bower Clematis virginiana
Silky dogwood Cornus amomum
Flowering dogwood Cornus florida
Gray dogwood Cornus racemosa
Umbrella sedge Cyperus strigosus
Water willow Decodon verticillatus
Water millet Echinochloa walteri
Spike-rush Eleocharis ambigens
Marsh spike-rush Eleocharis palustris
Virginia wild-rye Elymus virginicus
Joe-pye-weed Eupatorium fistulosum
American beech Fagus grandifolia
Wild strawberry Fragaria virginia
Green ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Common madder Galium tinctorium
(continued)

Rough avens Geum virginiana

Witch hazel Hamamelis virginiana
Swamp rose mallow Hibiscus palustris
Water penny-wort Hydrocotyl sibthorpioides
Jewelweed Impatiens capensis
Yellow flag Iris pseudacorus
Blue flag Iris versicolor
Virginia willow Itea virginica
Black walnut Juglans nigra
Seashore mallow Kosteletzya virginica
Rice cutgrass Leersia oryzoides
Canada lily Lilium canadense
Spicebush Lindera benzoin
Tulip tree Liriodendron tulipifera
Cardinal flower Lobelia cardinalis
Climbing hempweed Mikania scandens
Yellow pond lily Numphar luteum
Sensitive fern Onoclea sensibilis
Panic grass Panicum laniterinum
Virginia creeper Parthenocissus quinquefolia
Common reed Phragmites australis
Pokeweed Phytolacca americana
Mayapple Podophyllum peltatum
Halberd-leaved tearthumb Polygonum arifolium
Marshpepper smartweed Polygonum hydropiper
Arrow-leaved tearthumb Polygonum sagittatum
Pickerel weed Ponderia cordata
Mazzard Prunus cf. avium
Mock bishopweed Ptilimnium capillaceum
White oak Quercus alba
Southern red oak Quercus falcata
Red oak Quercus rubra
White water-crowfoot Ranunculus longirostris
Swamp honeysuckle Rhondodendron viscosum
Winged sumac Rhus copallina

Marsh yellow cress Rorippa palustris

Wineberry Rubus phoenicolasius
Blackberry Rubus sp.
Swamp dock Rumex verticillatus
Long-beaked arrowhead Sagittaria australis
Sassafras Sassafras albidum
Lizard’s tail Saururus cernuus
American three-square Scirpus americanus
Leafy bulrush Scirpus polyphyllus
Saltmarsh bulrush Scirpus robustus
Giant bulrush Scirpus validus
Blue-eyed grass Sisyrinchium graminoides
Water parsnip Sium suave
Sawbriar Smilax glauca
Common greenbriar Smilax rotundifolia
Saltmarsh cordgrass Spartina alterniflora
Big cordgrass Spartina cynosuroides
Saltmeadow cordgrass Spartina patens
Smooth hedge nettle Stachys hispidus
Skunk cabbage Symplocarpus foetidus
Tall meadow-rue Thalictrum pubescens
Narrow-leaf cattail Typha angustifolia
Broad-leaf cattail Typha latifolia
Slippery elm Ulmus rubra
Highbush blueberry Vaccinium corymbosum
Black haw Viburnum prunifolium
Northern arrowwood Viburnum recognitum
Rusty black haw Viburnum rufidulum
Common cocklebur Xanthium strumarium
Wild rice Zizania aquatica
Source: Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environ-

mental Control. 1999. Delaware National Estuarine Research
Reserve: Estuarine Profiles. Technical Report, Delaware Department
groundsel bush, Baccharis halimifolia). A tidal swamp forest assemblage is prom-

inent in this reserve site, dominated by black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), red maple
(Acer rubrum), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), and sweet gum (Liquidambar
styraciflua). Wetland plant species of special concern in the Upper Blackbird Creek
Reserve are the Canada lily (Lilium canadense), rough avens (Geum virginiana),
nodding bur-marigold (Bidens cernua), and marsh marigold (Cartha palustris)
(DNERR, 1999).
AQUATIC HABITAT
The oligohaline conditions of the Upper Blackbird Creek contrast markedly with
the mesohaline conditions of the Lower St. Jones River. However, semidiurnal
tides characterize both locations. The mean tidal range at the mouth of the Black-
bird Creek averages about 1.92 m, or 0.42 m greater than at the mouth of the St.
Jones River.
The channel width of the Blackbird Creek at the site of the reserve ranges from
~75 to 110 m. The mid-channel depth of the creek, in turn, ranges from 0.5 to 5.7 m.
Maximum currents observed at the mouth of the Blackbird Creek at mid-depth during
neap and spring tides are 50 to 60 and 60 to 70 cm/sec, respectively. The water
column is unstratified in the Upper Blackbird Creek, with flow essentially uni-
directional from surface to bottom.
Water quality variables (temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen, pH, turbidity,
and depth) have been monitored in the tidal portions of the Blackbird Creek at
Blackbird Landing using YSI data loggers. Figure 4.2 and Figure 4.3 show water
quality data recorded by the DNERR at the Blackbird Landing site in 1996. The
data are presented as monthly averages for the year.
The absolute temperature range at the Blackbird Landing site in 1996 was ~0
to 30°C. The monthly mean water temperature, in turn, ranged from ~2°C in February
to more than 25°C in August. Absolute salinities in the Blackbird Creek during 1996
ranged from ~0.1 to 3.5‰, with the monthly mean salinity values ranging from ~0.1
to 2‰. Lowest salinities were recorded in winter (December) and highest salinities
in summer (September).
The Blackbird Creek exhibits higher dissolved oxygen concentrations than the
St. Jones River. Dissolved oxygen percent saturation at Blackbird Landing in 1996
was much less variable than at Scotton Landing in the St. Jones River, with values
consistently exceeding 75% year-long. The annual mean percent saturation at this
site was 83%. Dissolved oxygen levels ranged from near 6 mg/l in summer to more
than 11 mg/l in winter. Despite depressed dissolved oxygen levels in summer, no
hypoxia was observed at the site.
Waters in the Blackbird Creek are slightly more acidic than those in the St.
Jones River. The pH measurements at the Blackbird Creek in 1996 ranged from
5.70 to 8.67, with lowest values in winter (December). The mean pH reading of
6.76 at Blackbird Landing was only slightly less than that at Scotton Landing
(7.02) in the St. Jones River. The highest pH levels at Blackbird Landing were
recorded in summer (September).
Monthly mean water depths at Blackbird Landing varied from a low of about
1.2 m (February) to a high of approximately 1.7 m (September). These values and
seasonal patterns are very similar to those observed at Scotton Landing in the St.
Jones River. Water depth measurements at both DNERR sites are consistent, showing
relatively low variation from month to month.
Pollution and Habitat Alteration
At the present time, pollution and other anthropogenic impacts appear to be more
serious at the Lower St. Jones River Reserve site than at the Upper Blackbird Creek
Reserve site because of a wider array of water quality problems and other environ-
mental stressors. However, the potential for habitat alteration and associated adverse
human impacts may be greater in the Upper Blackbird Creek Reserve as a result of
new highway construction (e.g., Route 13 Relief Route) and encroaching residential
development in the Blackbird Creek watershed. With greater infrastructure complex-
ity in the watershed due to more aggressive development, additional point and
nonpoint source pollution problems and issues related to habitat modification are
likely to arise (DNREC, 1995).
The Lower St. Jones River is experiencing more water quality problems than
Blackbird Creek mainly because of urbanization of its middle and upper watershed
areas. While there are a few sites in the St. Jones River watershed that require
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System discharge permits, none exists in
the Blackbird Creek watershed. Hence, point source pollution is not a problem at
the Upper Blackbird Creek Reserve site. A growing concern in the Blackbird Creek
watershed, however, is land use conversion to residential development in rural areas.
In contrast to urban land use impacts in the St. Jones River watershed, rural land
use effects are of overriding significance in the Blackbird Creek watershed.
Nonpoint source pollution in the Upper Blackbird Creek Reserve largely stems
from silviculture activities, as well as land disposal operations and agricultural runoff
(DNREC, 1995). These factors may contribute to elevated nutrient inputs, chemical
contaminant influx, and sediment loading of waterways. An adverse effect of greater
highway construction and residential development in the watershed will be the
partitioning and loss of existing wildlife habitat.
BIOTIC COMMUNITIES
Phytoplankton
Phytoplankton surveys conducted in the Blackbird Creek in 1995 and 1996 recovered
a total of 42 taxa. Diatoms dominated the community, with Skeletonema spp.,
Melosira spp., and Nitzschia spp. as the most abundant taxa. Blue-green algae (i.e.,
Anabaena spp. and Microcystis spp.) were of secondary numerical importance.
Actinastrum spp., Ankistrodesmus spp., Hydrodictyon spp., Scenedesmus spp., Tet-
raedron spp., and Volvox spp. were the predominant green algae (DNERR, 1999).
Phytoplankton abundance in the Blackbird Creek peaked in the summer, as did
phytoplankton diversity. The lowest phytoplankton abundance occurred in the winter.
Phytoplankton diversity was lowest in the fall.
Zooplankton
Copepod nauplii and rotifers (Filinia spp. and Notholca spp.) dominated the
microzooplankton assemblages in the Blackbird Creek during the 1995–1996
sampling period. Other rotifers as well as bivalve, gastropod, and polychaete larvae
were also commonly occurring microzooplankton. During the sampling period,
36 microzooplankton taxa were recorded, with the greatest diversity of taxa
observed in the summer. Microzooplankton diversity was lowest in the winter
(DNERR, 1999).
The mesozooplankton in the Blackbird Creek consisted of 44 taxa. The dominant
forms were the cladocerans Diaphanosoma spp., Copepoda nauplii, and Acartia
hudsonica. Other numerically abundant taxa included the Bivalvia, Copepoda, Gas-
tropoda, Polychaeta, Rotifera, Cladocera, Hydrozoa medusa, Cirripedia, and Uca
spp. During spring, summer, and winter, copepods predominated. Polychaete larvae
were most abundant in the fall. Among the important copepod taxa were nauplii,
copepodites, Acartia hudsonica, A. tonsa, Acartia spp., Cyclops spp., Ectinosoma
spp., Eurytemora affinis, Halicyclops fosteri, Oithona spp., and Scottolana spp.
Mesozooplankton taxa were most diverse in the summer and least diverse in the
winter (DNERR, 1999).
The density of both microzooplankton and mesozooplankton in the Blackbird
Creek is greatest in the summer months (Table 4.7). The density of phytoplankton
counts in the creek also peaks during the summer. Highest densities of microzoo-
plankton and mesozooplankton occur in the upper reaches of the creek; progressively
lower densities exist in the middle and lower reaches.
Benthic Fauna
The benthic macroinvertebrate community of the Upper Blackbird Creek is less

diverse than that of the Lower St. Jones River; it is characterized by an assemblage
of organisms that prefers lower salinity conditions. During the 1995–1996 sampling
period, 21 benthic macroinvertebrate taxa were identified. They belonged to three
phyla: (a) Annelida, (b) Arthropoda, and (c) Nemertinea (Table 4.13). Five taxa were
by far most abundant, comprising more than 92% of all individuals collected. They
were, in decreasing order of abundance, the oligochaeta, Chironomidae, amphipods
(Corophium sp. and Gammarus sp.), and the isopod, Cyathura polita. Oligochaetes
comprised 54% of all macroinvertebrates collected in the samples, and the chirono-
mids, more than 20%. Corophium sp. and Gammarus sp. accounted for 11% and
4% of the individuals, respectively.
The parabenthic macroinvertebrate community of the Upper Blackbird Creek
consisted of 11 taxa representing four phyla (i.e., Annelida, Arthropoda, Cnidaria,
and Ctenophora). Crustacean taxa far outnumbered all others, comprising nearly
95% of the parabenthos collected. These taxa included, in order of decreasing
abundance, the grass shrimp (Palaemonetes sp.), amphipod (Gammarus sp.), opos-
sum shrimp (Neomysis americana), and scud (Corophium sp.).
The seasonal densities of benthic macroinvertebrates in the Upper Blackbird
Creek ranged from 2040 to 4289 individuals/m2. Minimum density occurred in the
summer and maximum density in the spring. Oligochaetes were responsible for 41
to 62% of the density values calculated for the benthic samples, reflecting their
numerical dominance of the benthic communities in the creek (DNERR, 1999).
TABLE 4.13
River and Channels of Blackbird Creek during 1994
Tidal River
Oligochaeta 646 2599 1623 42.3
Corophium sp. 22 1254 638 16.6
Gammarus sp. 129 269 199 5.2
Cyathura polita 81 274 178 4.6
Xanthidae 22 59 40 1.1
Parapluestes aestuarius 48 0 24 0.6
Melita nitida 0 5 3 0.1
Nemertea 0 5 3 0.1
Rhithropanopeus harrisii 0 5 3 0.1
Channels
Oligochaeta 1937 1222 1580 77.1
Gammarus sp. 38 22 30 1.4
Nemertea 0 11 5 0.3
Ceratopogonidae 5 0 3 0.1
Chiridotea almyera 5 0 3 0.1
Corophium sp. 5 0 3 0.1
Diptera 5 0 3 0.1
Xanthidae 0 5 3 0.1
a Density = number/m2
Source: Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Con-

trol. 1999. Delaware National Estuarine Research Reserve: Estuarine Profiles.
Technical Report, Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environ-
mental Control, Dover, DE.
Finfish
Upper Blackbird Creek finfish surveys conducted in the summer and fall of 1994
and the spring of 1995 recorded 21 species of fish. Four of these species (spot,
Leiostomus xanthurus; Atlantic menhaden, Brevoortia tyrannus; white perch, Mor-
one americana; and mummichog, Fundulus heteroclitus) were overwhelmingly
dominant, accounting for more than 95% of all individuals collected (Table 4.9). In
decreasing order of abundance were the spot (47% of all individuals collected),
Atlantic menhaden (25%), white perch (12%), and mummichog (11%). Most of the
fish were found in secondary tributaries rather than the main channels. The spot and
Atlantic menhaden are estuarine-dependent species, and the white perch and mum-
michog, estuarine-resident forms (DNERR, 1999).

Because freshwater wetland habitats are relatively extensive along the Upper Black-
bird Creek, amphibians are more abundant here than along the Lower St. Jones
River. For example, the red-backed salamander (Plethodon cinereus), northern two-
lined salamander (Eurycea bislineata), green frog (Rana clamitans melanota), wood
frog (R. sylvatica), bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana), and southern leopard frog (Rana
utricularia) are more abundant at the Upper Blackbird Creek Reserve site than at
the Lower St. Jones River Reserve site.
Several species of snakes and turtles are also commonly observed at the Upper
Blackbird Creek Reserve site. For instance, the black rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta)
and northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon) occur in both wetland and upland
habitats of the upper reserve site. Among turtle species frequenting this location
are the eastern mud turtle (Kinosternon subrubrum subrubrum), red-bellied turtle
(Pseudemys rubriventris), and snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina). The north-
ern diamondback terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin terrapin) is also found here
(DNERR, 1999).
Birds
Most avian species observed in the Lower St. Jones River Reserve site also occur
in the Upper Blackbird Creek Reserve site (Table 4.10) (DNERR, 1999). The
scrub/shrub wetlands, wooded wetlands, and uplands provide excellent habitat for
passerines and waterbirds. The lower freshwater and brackish marshes support
numerous wading birds, waterfowl, and shorebirds. Passerine species that may
find tidal wetland habitats favorable include the song sparrow (Melospiza melodia),
seaside sparrow (Ammospiza maritima), red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoen-
iceus), common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas), prothonotary warbler (Proto-
notaria citrea), northern parula warbler (Parula americana), marsh wren (Cisto-
thorus palustris), and boat-tailed grackle (Quiscalus major). Avifauna likely to
occur in open habitat, thickets, or woodlands in upland areas are the American
robin (Turdus migratorius), northern oriole (Icterus galbula), field sparrow (Spi-
zella pusilla), song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata),
Carolina chickadee (Parus carolinensis), house wren (Troglodytes aedon), gray
catbird (Dumetella carolinensis), wood thrush (Hylocichla mustelina), yellow

warbler (Dendroica petechia), yellow-rumped warbler (D. coronata), ovenbird
(Seiurus aurocapillus), bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus), American kestrel (Falco
sparverius), white-eyed vireo (Vireo griseus), red-eyed vireo (V. olivaceus), rufous-
sided towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus), common grackle (Quiscalus quiscula),
northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), prairie warbler (Dendroica discolor),
house wren (Troglodytes aedon), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), eastern
meadowlark (Sturnella magna), tree swallow (Tachycineta bicolor), barn swallow
(Hirundo rustica), brown creeper (Certhia americana), and American goldfinch
(Carduelis tristis).
Waterbirds also commonly occupy tidal wetland habitat of the Upper Blackbird
Creek Reserve site. For example, wading birds documented at this site are the great
blue heron (Ardea herodias), green-backed heron (Butorides virescens), snowy egret
(Egretta thula), cattle egret (Bubulcus ibis), great egret (Casmerodius albus), and
glossy ibis (Plegadis falcinellus). Several species of rails are also found here, such
as the king rail (Rallus elegans), clapper rail (Rallus longirostris), and Virginia rail
(Rallus limicola). Forster’s tern (Sterna forsteri), laughing gull (Larus atricilla), and
the willet (Catoptrophorus semipalmatus) are other waterbirds frequently seen in
the Upper Blackbird Creek Reserve. Waterfowl of significance include the wood
duck (Aix sponsa), green-winged teal (Anas crecca), and mallard (A. platyrhynchos),
which overwinter in the tidal wetlands.
Shorebirds are less frequently observed in the Upper Blackbird Creek Reserve
site than in the Lower St. Jones River Reserve site. Greater yellowlegs (Tringa
melanoleuca) exhibited the greatest abundance at the northern site. Spotted sandpiper
(Actitis macularia), killdeer (Charadrius vociferus), and unidentified peeps have
also been recorded here. The Delaware Estuary in general is a major staging area
for migrating shorebirds, although few species breed here.
Several raptors utilize Upper Blackbird Creek habitats. Among these are the
northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), and sharp-
shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus). The northern harrier is the most abundant raptor.
The Upper Blackbird Creek Reserve site also supports a breeding pair of bald eagles
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus).
Mammals
Terrestrial, aquatic, and marine mammals that utilize the Upper Blackbird Creek
Reserve site are similar to those documented in the Lower St. Jones River Reserve
site (DNERR, 1999). Among the mammalian species reported in upland forests,
wooded fringes, or wetlands of the Upper Blackbird Creek Reserve site are the
white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus),
red fox (Vulpes vulpes), masked shrew (Sorex cinereus), least shrew (Cryptotis
parva), short-tailed shrew (Blarina brevicauda), eastern cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus
floridanus), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), raccoon (Procyon lotor), gray squirrel
(Sciurus carolinensis), long-tailed weasel (Mustela frenata), white-footed mouse
(Peromyscus leucopus), meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius), pine vole
(Microtus pinetorum), meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus), and red bat
(Lasiurus borealis). Common aquatic forms include the beaver (Castor canadensis),
river otter (Lutra canadensis), and muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus). The aforemen-
tioned mammals are upper-trophic-level organisms in the terrestrial and aquatic food
webs of both reserve sites and hence are important in regulating the population sizes
of prey in the system.
Commercially and Recreationally Important Species
Most commercial and recreational fishing, waterfowl hunting, and furbearer trapping
occur along Delaware Bay, but some activities also extend into the subestuaries of
the two reserve sites. The recreational fishery is of major economic importance in
the Delaware Estuary and its tidal tributaries, with an estimated annual value of
about $25 million (Sutton et al., 1996). The principal species of the recreational
fishery include the bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix), weakfish (Cynoscion regalis),
striped bass (Morone saxatilis), and summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus). In
addition, the black drum (Pogonias cromis), scup (Stenotomus versicolor), and tautog
(Tautoga onitis) are of considerable recreational importance.
Commercial landings data indicate a shift during the past century from the
predominance of upriver species to the prevalence of estuarine and marine forms
(Price and Beck, 1988; Kennish, 2000). The most valuable species landed in the
commercial fishery during the past decade are the American eel (Anguilla rostrata),
American shad (Alosa sapidissima), Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus), blue-
fish (Pomatomus saltatrix), and weakfish (Cynoscion regalis). Other species, such
as the white perch (Morone americana) and spot (Leiostomus xanthurus), are also
important in the commercial fishery. Overfishing has played a significant role in the
historical decline of certain species (e.g., American shad, A. sapidissima; and Atlan-
tic sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrhynchus).
The eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica), blue crab (Callinectes sapidus), and
horseshoe crab (Limulus polyphemus) are the most economically important shellfish
species in the Delaware Estuary. The once thriving oyster industry has been deci-
mated since the late 1950s by disease, bacterial contamination, and poor setting of
seed oysters, which threaten the viability of the fishery. Two protozoan parasites,
MSX (Haplosporidium nelsoni) and Dermo (Perkinsus marinus), have been partic-
ularly problematic, causing massive declines in oyster abundance. The oyster drill
(Urosalpinx cinerea) is a major predator of the eastern oyster and has inflicted
additional heavy losses on oyster beds in some areas.
The blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) is the most valuable shellfish species in
terms of dollar value of harvest in the recreational and commercial fisheries (Sutton
et al., 1996). It is widely distributed, utilizing the entire Delaware Estuary including
tidal tributaries. Commercial fishermen harvest blue crabs principally by baited pots
(April through October) and dredges (December through March). Recreational fish-
ermen catch blue crabs primarily by baited traps. Blue crab harvests vary consider-
ably from year to year due to the fluctuating abundance of crabs associated with the
vagaries of environmental and biotic factors.
The horseshoe crab (Limulus polyphemus) is harvested for use as bait in eel,
conch, and lobster trays. Horseshoe crab blood is also economically important in
the medical and pharmaceutical industries because it is used to detect pyrogens

(bacterial contamination) in injectable drugs and surgical implants. Horseshoe crabs
are harvested by hand along sandy beaches and by dredges in subtidal waters of the
estuary. State government agencies in Delaware and New Jersey regulate horseshoe
crab harvests because in the past, excessive harvests have dramatically reduced
population levels. Migratory shorebird species (e.g., red knot, Calidris canutus, and
semipalmated sandpiper, Calidris pusilla) depend on horseshoe crab resources for
survival; they consume large numbers of horseshoe crab eggs during their seasonal
stopovers. The eggs provide the energy required by the birds to complete their
migration to nesting grounds in far northern latitudes. The critical importance of
this food resource for the birds has prompted state agencies to regulate harvests to
protect and conserve horseshoe crabs in the estuarine system. For example, the New
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection recently imposed a ban on harvesting
of Delaware Bay horseshoe crabs from May 1 through the first week of June in 2003.
According to McConnell and Powers (1995), the muskrat (Ondatra zibenthicus)
and, to a lesser extent, the river otter (Lutra canadensis) and mink (Mustela vison)
are harvested by fur trappers in or near the two DNERR sites. Most trapping of
furbearers takes place in tidal wetlands. The trend has been for decreasing furbearer
harvest in recent years, largely because of the decreasing demand for furs.
The northern diamondback terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin terrapin) and the
snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina) are harvested along the Delaware Estuary. The
open season on the diamondback terrapin lasts less than 90 days, while that on the
snapping turtle lasts more than 300 days. Although no harvest limits exist for either
species in Delaware, government regulations in New Jersey impose more restrictive
harvesting of these species.
Waterfowl hunting is a major recreational pursuit in the wetlands habitat along
the Delaware Estuary and its tributary systems. Several species of ducks are popular
to hunt in the region. These include dabblers, most notably the black duck (Anas
rubripes), wigeon (A. americana), gadwall (A. strepera), pintail (A. acuta), blue-
winged teal (A. discors), green-winged teal (A. crecca), and wood duck (Aix sponsa),
as well as divers, such as the red-breasted merganser (Mergus serrator), bufflehead
(Bucephala albeola), canvasback (Aythya valisineria), redhead (A. americana),
lesser scaup (A. affinis), and greater scaup (A. marila). In recent years, declining
population sizes of certain species (e.g., Anas rubripes, A. acuta, and Aythya val-
isineria) have resulted in more restrictive harvests. The black duck, in particular,
has exhibited significant reductions in abundance since the mid-1960s (Sutton et al.,
1996; Kennish, 2000).

The Lower St. Jones River Reserve and the Upper Blackbird Creek Reserve are
the two component sites of the Delaware National Estuarine Research Reserve
(DNERR). The DNERR program primarily focuses on resource protection and
conservation, estuarine research and monitoring, and environmental education and
interpretation. A major goal is to better manage resources in the reserve sites and
to engender a greater sense of responsibility and stewardship among residents in
the two watersheds of the DNERR. Both reserve sites are subestuaries of the
Delaware River estuary and hence are greatly affected by biotic and abiotic
processes occurring there.
The Lower St. Jones River Reserve site encompasses an area of 1518 ha, and
the Upper Blackbird Creek Reserve an area of 477 ha. The Lower St. Jones River,
a mesohaline tidal system, flows into mid-Delaware Bay. Lower salinities
characterize the Upper Blackbird Creek, which empties into the lower Delaware
River. The St. Jones River watershed is more heavily developed (25% of the reserve
site area) than the Blackbird Creek watershed (10%), and consequently water
quality in the Lower St. Jones River is more heavily impacted than that in the
Upper Blackbird Creek.
The watershed areas of both reserve sites consist of luxuriant emergent tidal
wetlands as well as rich assemblages of upland vegetation. Smooth cordgrass (Spar-
tina alterniflora) dominates the tidal wetlands of the reserve sites. Mixed deciduous
hardwood forests, dominated by red oak (Quercus rubra), white oak (Q. alba), black
cherry (Prunus serotina), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), American holly (Ilex
opaca), sassafras (Sassafras albidum), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), and
hickories (Carya spp.), characterize the uplands. Agricultural cropland is the pre-
dominant land cover in the DNERR, comprising 48% of the St. Jones River water-
shed area and 39% of the Blackbird Creek watershed area. The principal anthropo-
genic impacts of concern are those associated with nonpoint source pollution from
an encroaching human population.
The terrestrial and aquatic habitats in the reserve sites are teeming with life,
as revealed by field surveys conducted in the system from 1993 through 1997. A
wide diversity of amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and birds typifies the DNERR
watersheds. In the aquatic habitats, more than 40 phytoplankton taxa and more
than 80 zooplankton (microzooplankton and mesozooplankton) taxa were
recorded at each reserve site during the aforementioned survey period. Fewer
benthic macroinvertebrate forms are evident, with 21 taxa registered in the Upper
Blackbird Creek and 33 taxa in the Lower St. Jones River. Finfish assemblages
are representative of estuarine taxa found in the lower Delaware Estuary; the
Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus), mummichog (Fundulus heteroclitus),
spot (Leiostomus xanthurus), and white perch (Morone americana) are most
abundant in the Upper Blackbird Creek, and the Atlantic silverside (Menidia
menidia), bay anchovy (Anchovy mitchilli), mummichog (Fundulus heteroclitus),
and sheepshead minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus) are most abundant in the Lower
St. Jones River. Aquatic mammals commonly observed in wetland habitats of the
DNERR include the beaver (Castor canadensis), muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus),
mink (Mustela vison), river otter (Lutra canadensis), and rice rat (Oryzomys
palustris). The bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncata) may also occasionally
occur in DNERR waters.
Various organisms in the DNERR and nearby Delaware River estuary are of
commercial and recreational importance. Among these organisms are various fur-
bearers (e.g., muskrat, Ondatra zibenthicus; mink, Mustela vison; and river otter,
Lutra canadensis), waterfowl (e.g., the black duck, Anas rubripes; gadwall, Anas
strepera; pintail, A. acuta; blue-winged teal, A. discors; green-winged teal, A. crecca;
wigeon, A. americana; wood duck, Aix sponsa; red-breasted merganser, Mergus

serrator; bufflehead, Bucephala albeola; canvasback, Aythya valisineria; redhead,
Aythya americana; lesser scaup, Aythya affinis; and greater scaup, Aythya marila),
terrapins (Malaclemys terrapin terrapin), and snapping turtles (Chelydra serpen-
tina). However, fisheries of the Delaware Estuary and its subestuaries are of over-
riding significance. Species of greatest importance in the recreational fishery are the
bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix), weakfish (Cynoscion regalis), striped bass (Morone
saxatilis), and summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus). The most valuable species
landed in the commercial fishery are the American eel (Anguilla rostrata), American
shad (Alosa sapidissima), Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus), bluefish
(Pomatomus saltatrix), and weakfish (Cynoscion regalis). Shellfish species of prin-
cipal economic importance in the system include the eastern oyster (Crassostrea
virginica), blue crab (Callinectes sapidus), and horseshoe crab (Limulus polyphe-
mus). Declining abundance of the eastern oyster and horseshoe crab remains a cause
of concern for recreational and commercial fishermen, government regulatory agen-
cies, and the general public.
REFERENCES
Clark, K.E. 1988. Delaware Bay Shorebird Project. Final Report, Endangered and Nongame
Species Program, Division of Fish, Game, and Wildlife, New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection, Trenton, NJ.
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. 1993. Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plan for Delaware’s Tidal Wetlands. Delaware Depart-
ment of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Dover, DE.
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. 1994. Superfund: A
Year in Review. Superfund Annual Report, Delaware Department of Natural
Resources and Environmental Control, Dover, DE.
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. 1995. Delaware
Nonpoint Source Pollution Program. Technical Report, Delaware Department of
Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Dover, DE.
Delaware National Estuarine Research Reserve. 1999. Delaware National Estuarine Research
Reserve: Estuarine Profiles. Technical Report, Delaware National Estuarine Research
Reserve, Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control,
Dover, DE.
Dove, L.E. and R.M. Nyman (Eds.). 1995. Living Resources of the Delaware Estuary. Tech-
nical Report, The Delaware Estuary Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
New York.
Frithsen, J.B., D.E. Strebel, and T. Schawitsch. 1995. Estimates of contaminant inputs to the
Delaware Estuary. Technical Report, Versar Inc., Columbia, MD.
Herman, S.S. 1988. Zooplankton. In: Bryant, T.L. and J.R. Pennock (Eds.). The Delaware
Estuary: Rediscovering a Forgotten Resource. Technical Report, University of Del-
aware Sea Grant College Program, Newark, DE, pp. 60–67.
Herman, S.S., B.R. Hargreaves, R.A. Lutz, L.W. Fritz, and C.E. Epifanio. 1983. Zooplankton
and parabenthos. In: The Delaware Estuary: Research as Background for Estuarine
Management and Development. Technical Report, Delaware River and Bay Authority,
University of Delaware Sea Grant College Program, Newark, DE.
Jenkins, D. and L.A. Gelvin-Innvaer. 1995. Colonial wading birds. In: Dove, L.E. and R.M.
Nyman (Eds.). Living Resources of the Delaware Estuary. Technical Report, The
Delaware Estuary Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, New York,
pp. 335–345.
Kerlinger, P. and L. Widjeskog. 1995. Rails. In: Dove, L.E. and R.M. Nyman (Eds.). Living
Resources of the Delaware Estuary. Technical Report, The Delaware Estuary Pro-
gram, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, New York, pp. 425–431.
Livingston, R.J. 2001. Eutrophication Processes in Coastal Systems. CRC Press, Boca Raton,
FL.
Livingston, R.J. 2003. Trophic Organizations in Coastal Systems. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Marshall, H.G. 1992. Assessment of Phytoplankton Species in the Delaware River Estuary.
Technical Report to the Delaware River Basin Commission by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Philadelphia.
Marshall, H.G. 1995. Phytoplankton. In: Dove, L.E. and R.M. Nyman (Eds.). Living Resources
of the Delaware Estuary. Technical Report, The Delaware Estuary Program, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, New York, pp. 25–29.
Maurer, D., L. Watling, P. Kinner, W. Leathem, and C. Wethe. 1978. Benthic invertebrate
assemblages of Delaware Bay. Marine Biology 45: 65–78.
McConnell, P.A. and J.L. Powers. 1995. Muskrat. In: Dove, L.E. and R.M. Nyman (Eds.).
Living Resources of the Delaware Estuary. Technical Report, The Delaware Estuary
Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, New York, pp. 507–513.
Niles, L.J. and C. Sutton. 1995. Migratory raptors. In: Dove, L.E. and R.M. Nyman (Eds.).
Living Resources of the Delaware Estuary. Technical Report, The Delaware Estuary
Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, New York, pp. 433–440.
O’Herron, J.C., III, T. Lloyd, and K. Laidig. 1994. A survey of fish in the Delaware Estuary
from the area of the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal to Trenton. Technical Report,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, New York.
Pennock, J.R. and J. Sharp. 1986. Phytoplankton production in the Delaware Estuary: temporal
and spatial variability. Marine Ecology Progress Series 34: 143–155.
Price, K.S. and R.A. Beck. 1988. Finfish. In: Bryant, T.L. and J.R. Price (Eds.). The Delaware
Estuary: Research as Background for Estuarine Management and Development.
Technical Report, University of Delaware Sea Grant College Program, Newark, DE.
Sharp, J.H., L.A. Cifuentes, R.B. Coffin, M.E. Lebo, and J.R. Pennock. 1994. Eutrophication:
Are Excessive Nutrient Inputs a Problem for the Delaware Estuary? Technical Report,
University of Delaware Sea Grant College Program, Newark, DE.
Stearns, D.E. 1995. Copepods. In: Dove, L.E. and R.M. Nyman (Eds.). Living Resources of
the Delaware Estuary. Technical Report, The Delaware Estuary Program, U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, New York, pp. 33–42.
Steimle, F. 1995. Soft (mud/sand) bottom pohyhaline communities. In: Dove, L.E. and R.M.
Nyman (Eds.). Living Resources of the Delaware Estuary. Technical Report, The
Delaware Estuary Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, New York, pp.
119–124.
Sutton, C.C., J.C. O’Herron III, and R.T. Zappolorti. 1996. The Scientific Characterization
of the Delaware Estuary. Technical Report, The Delaware Estuary Program (DRBC
Project No. 321; HA File No. 93.21), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, New
York.
Watling, L., D. Bottom, A. Pembroke, and D. Maurer. 1979. Seasonal variations in Delaware
Bay phytoplankton community structure. Marine Biology 52: 207–215.
Wetlands Research Associates, Inc. and Environmental Consulting Services, Inc. 1995.
DNERR Comprehensive Site Description. Phase II — Characterization of Finfish
and Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Communities and Waterbird Populations. Technical
Report, Delaware Natural Estuarine Research Reserve, Dover, DE.
Case Study 4
5 Ashepoo–Combahee–Edisto
(ACE) Basin National
INTRODUCTION
The Ashepoo–Combahee–Edisto (ACE) Basin of South Carolina was designated as
a National Estuarine Research Reserve (NERR) program site in 1992. The ACE
Basin NERR encompasses an area of more than 56,000 ha in the lower coastal plain
of South Carolina, located in parts of Colleton, Charleston, Beaufort, and Hampton
counties. The reserve site is bounded along the southeast margin by the Atlantic
Ocean, and it trends northwestward (inland) for ~35 km (Figure 5.1). The Ashepoo,
Combahee, and Edisto rivers are the principal river systems in the basin, although
numerous smaller streams also flow through the region. They drain into St. Helena
Sound and the Atlantic Ocean. A wide range of habitats, supporting numerous biotic
communities, exists in the ACE Basin, such as upland pine–mixed hardwoods,
maritime forests, freshwater marshes, brackish marshes, salt marshes, tidal flats,
tidal creeks and channels, open estuarine waters, and barrier islands. Salt marshes,
tidelands, and open channels/water habitat cover the greatest area (SCDNR and
NOAA, 2001).
Characteristic of coastal plain environments, the topography of the ACE Basin
NERR consists primarily of flat, low-lying terrain (Colquhoun, 1969; Soller and
Mills, 1991). Drainage is to the southeast, with stream gradients varying from ~20
to 375 cm/km (Bloxham, 1979, 1981). The Edisto River is the longest river in the
region, originating in the middle coastal plain of South Carolina by the confluence
of the North and South Fork Edisto Rivers, and diverging into the North Edisto
River and South Edisto River near the coast. In contrast, the Ashepoo and Combahee
Rivers both originate in swamps of the lower coastal plain and therefore are much
less extensive. These rivers and their tributaries transport sediments seaward from
the Piedmont, and the sediments are deposited downstream in the lower coastal plain
as well as along the coast. Marine-derived sediments accumulate along the coastal
margin of the basin in the Edisto Beach area and alongshore (Mathews et al., 1980;
McIntyre, 1991; Soller and Mills, 1991).
Surface water flow in the basin is substantial. For example, Cooney et al. (1998)
report that the mean annual streamflow of the Edisto River near Givhans is 74 m3/sec.
Much lower flow rates are observed elsewhere in the Edisto River sub-basin
(Table 5.1). In addition to surface waters, six aquifer systems exist in the ACE Basin
(Cape Fear, Middendorf, Black Creek, Tertiary Sand, Floridian Aquifer, and Shallow
Aquifer systems). Three of these systems (Tertiary Sand, Floridian Aquifer, and
171
FIGURE 5.1 Map showing the ACE Basin National Estuarine Research Reserve and sur-
rounding watershed areas. (From the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources and
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2001. Characterization of the
Ashepoo–Combahee–Edisto (ACE) Basin, South Carolina. Special Scientific Report 17, South
Carolina Marine Resources Center, Charleston, SC.)
TABLE 5.1
Streamflow Characteristics in the Edisto River Sub-Basin
Drainage Area Daily Average
Location (km2) Period Flow (m3/sec)
McTier Creek, near Monetta 39.6 1995–97 0.67

Dean Swamp Creek, near Salley 80.8 1980–Present 0.7
South Fork Edisto, near Denmark 1865 1931–Present 21.7
South Fork Edisto, near Cope 2090 1991–Present 23.4
South Fork Edisto, near Bamberg 683 1991–Present 32.3
North Fork Edisto at Orangeburg 1769 1938–Present 22.2
Cow Castle Creek, near Bowman 60.6 1971–Present 0.57
Edisto River, near Givhans 2730 1939–Present 74.0
Source: South Carolina Department of Natural Resources and National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. 2001. Characterization of the Ashepoo–Combahee–Edisto (ACE) Basin, South Caro-
lina. Special Scientific Report 17, South Carolina Marine Resources Center, Charleston, SC.
Ashepoo–Combahee–Edisto (ACE) Basin National Estuarine Research Reserve 173
Shallow Aquifer) serve as the primary sources of water for domestic, public, and
commercial uses. All are subject to local saltwater intrusion (Park, 2001).
Human activities affect watershed and estuarine environments in the ACE Basin.
Among the most significant effects are coastal development and associated construc-
tion, aquaculture, silviculture, logging operations, dredging and filling of wetlands,
and ditching activities. Point source pollution and nonpoint source pollution both
influence water quality conditions in the ACE Basin NERR. Principal point source
discharges in the reserve include the CCX Fiberglass Products Plant in Walterboro
(Ashepoo River), the wastewater treatment facility of the City of Walterboro
(Ashepoo River), the SCE&G Canadys Power Station (Edisto River), and the Yemas-
see Wastewater Treatment Facility (Combahee River). A growing concern exists with
regard to nonpoint source pollution associated with accelerated development, agri-
culture, forestry, and other anthropogenic activities (Wenner et al., 2001a).
In aquatic habitats of the ACE Basin, communities of phytoplankton, zooplank-
ton, benthic flora and fauna, and fish are well represented. From wetland to upland
habitats, numerous species of amphibians, reptiles, mammals, insects, and birds
proliferate. Several endangered and threatened species inhabit the ACE Basin area;
examples are the loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta), shortnose sturgeon (Aci-
penser brevirostrum), wood stork (Mycteria americana), and American alligator
(Alligator mississippiensis) (Riekerk et al., 2001).
A key initiative of the ACE Basin NERR is the protection of biotic and other
natural resources. Land protection remains an important component of this initiative.
In the ACE Basin, ~15% of the land area is now classified as protected, and much
of it (~40%) consists of public land. Most of the private land in the basin (~60%)
is subject to conservation easements, which protect wildlife habitat by preserving
the natural value of the land. Conservation easements play a critical role in environ-
mental protection of the ACE Basin NERR (Wenner, 2001a).
WATERSHED
PLANT COMMUNITIES
Wetland and upland communities comprise most of the area of the reserve, covering
more than 32,000 ha. Coastal marshes are quite extensive. Smooth cordgrass (Spar-
tina alterniflora) is the dominant salt marsh plant, although rushes (Juncus roeme-
rianus) and saltworts (Salicornia spp.) are also abundant at higher elevations. In
bottomland and upland–forested habitats, oaks (Quercus spp.), pines (Pinus spp.),
red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), and palmettos (e.g.,
Sabal palmetto) predominate. The bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) is also rela-
tively abundant. More than 5000 ha of wetlands and uplands constitute the core area
of the reserve, with more than 50,000 ha of land and water habitat forming a broad
buffer zone. Seven barrier islands occur in the core area; these are the Ashe, Beet,
Big, Boulder, Otter, South Williman, and Warren islands. A variety of habitats and
plant communities can be found on the barrier islands, such as dunes, salt marshes,
fresh and brackish ponds, maritime estuarine and palustrine areas, and maritime
forests (Upchurch, 2001).
Sandy Areas/Beaches 1%
Water 12%
Urban/Built-Up Land 2%
Nonforested Wetlands 17%
Forested Lands 56%
Agricultural Rangelands 12%
FIGURE 5.2 Percent land use cover in the ACE Basin. Note large percentage of forested
lands. (From the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources and National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration. 2001. Characterization of the Ashepoo–Combahee–Edisto
(ACE) Basin, South Carolina. Special Scientific Report 17, South Carolina Marine Resources
Center, Charleston, SC.)
While estuarine and maritime plant communities are well developed in the
system (TNC, 1993), freshwater wetlands are spatially restricted. Despite their
limited areal extent, freshwater marshes provide important habitat for numerous
species of birds, reptiles, mammals, and other organisms. The Snuggedy Swamp,
encompassing more than 900 ha near the South Edisto River, is a representative site
of freshwater marsh and swamp communities. It is South Carolina’s largest grass-
sedge-marsh/loblolly-bay complex (SCDNR and NOAA, 2001).
Forested habitat is substantial. In Colleton County, for example, resource surveys
reveal that forests account for 56% (more than 180,000 ha) of the land use cover
(Figure 5.2) (Conner, 1993). Among the principal components are deciduous upland
forest, mixed upland forest, evergreen upland forest, and upland pine and forested
wetlands. A significant element of the upland forested vegetation is planted pine,
which has increased pine and oak–pine stands by more than 10% (Koontz and
Sheffield, 1993). Planted pine is the product of forestry efforts to grow pine for
timber in place of low-quality hardwood stands. Timberland in Colleton County
consists of the following stands in decreasing order of areal coverage:
1. Loblolly–shortleaf pine
2. Oak–gum–cypress trees
3. Longleaf–slash pines
Loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), shortleaf pine (P. echinata), oaks (Quercus spp.),
sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), and
longleaf pine (P. palustris) are important species. The predominant hardwood species
include white oak (Q. alba), southern red oak (Q. falcata), and sweet gum. A thick
understory is observed in many areas. Bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum) blankets
some pine forest floors. Wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera) is a common constituent of
upland as well as maritime communities (Wenner and Zimmerman, 2001).
Some 30 plant communities have been identified in the ACE Basin area. Most
of these communities (N = 16) occur in palustrine wetlands. Upland habitats contain
seven plant community types, and estuarine wetlands support four plant communi-
ties. Only three plant communities are found on the barrier islands (Upchurch, 2001).
The ACE Basin watershed is divided into two sub-basins:
1. The Edisto River sub-basin

2. The Combahee–Coosawhatchie River sub-basin (Badr and Zimmerman,
2001)
The Edisto River, South Fork Edisto River, North Edisto River, and Four Hole
Swamp are the principal tributaries draining the Edisto River sub-basin. The South
Fork Edisto River and North Fork Edisto River, which flow through the upper coastal
plain, merge in the middle coastal plain to form the Edisto River as noted above.
Farther downstream in the lower coastal plain, the Edisto River diverges into the North
Edisto River and South Edisto River, two subestuaries that drain coastal marshes in
the watershed (SCWRC, 1983). River flows in this sub-basin supply freshwater for
domestic, industrial, and commercial users, as well as for agricultural irrigation.
The Combahee–Coosawhatchie River sub-basin lies to the south of the Edisto
River sub-basin. The Combahee River and its tributaries, the Salkehatchie and Little
Salkehatchie rivers, deliver freshwater to St. Helena Sound. Flow of the Salkehatchie
River is less variable than that of the Combahee River. Cooney et al. (1998) showed
that at Miley the mean annual streamflow of the Salkehatchie River amounts to 9.8
m3/sec. The Ashepoo River also discharges to St. Helena Sound. However, the
Coosawhatchie flows into Port Royal Sound. The most extensive estuarine waters
in South Carolina occur in the coastal areas of the Combahee–Coosawhatchie River
sub-basin (SCWRC, 1983).
Wetland habitats are dominant features of the ACE Basin NERR. Salt marshes
are particularly extensive, but freshwater and brackish marshes may be no less
important. Meandering tidal creeks that flow through the coastal marshes provide
habitat for many estuarine organisms.
In poorly drained wetland habitats of the ACE Basin, elliptical-shaped depres-
sions (i.e., Carolina Bays) are relatively common features (Riekerk, 2001). These
depressions are often filled with water during periods of high precipitation, but they
frequently dry out during droughts or seasons of low rainfall. Bennett and Nelson
(1991) recorded about 20 Carolina Bays larger than 0.8 ha in the coastal plain of
Colleton County. These unique habitats are typified by temporally and spatially
variable biotic communities subjected to extremes of environmental conditions.
ANIMAL COMMUNITIES
The following discussion of organisms in the ACE Basin watershed focuses on four
faunal groups:
1. Amphibians and reptiles (i.e., herpetofauna)

2. Mammals
3. Birds
4. Insects
It is largely based on observations of the South Carolina Department of Natural

Resources (SCDNR and NOAA, 2001). While the distribution of many herpetofaunal
populations depends on the occurrence of standing water (e.g., ponds and lakes),
other species are less restricted and can tolerate a broad range of environmental
conditions. They may be seen near water bodies as well as in relatively dry habitats.
The southern toad (Bufo terrestris) is an example (Riekerk and Rhodes, 2001).
Nearly 50 mammalian species inhabit the ACE Basin region. Among the com-
monly observed mammals are bats, raccoons, rabbits, deer, minks, foxes, beavers,
and opossums. Some of the most conspicuous mammals (e.g., dolphins and mana-
tees) do not reside in the watershed but occupy nearby coastal waters. Mammals
can be found in nearly all ACE Basin watershed habitats, from marshes and lowland
maritime forests to meadows and upland mixed forests (Zimmerman, 2001a).
Almost 300 species of birds have been documented in the ACE Basin. Many of
these species are migratory forms that travel great distances from northern regions
and overwinter or rest in the reserve area prior to resuming flight to the southern
latitudes. An array of avifaunal groups utilizes ACE Basin habitats (e.g., shorebirds,
waders, waterfowl, songbirds, and raptors). They include granivores, insectivores,
omnivores, and carnivores, as well as a few scavengers (Zimmerman, 2001b).
Insects are the principal herbivorous component of the watershed. They are
numerous and highly diverse. As a group, insects also play a major role as decom-
posers in the breakdown of plant matter and hence are important to the recycling of
nutrients and other chemical constituents in the ecosystem. In addition, insects
constitute a primary staple food for amphibians, reptiles, birds, fish, and other
organisms (Thompson, 1984). Although many insect species are widely distributed
across multiple habitats of the ACE Basin, others appear to be restricted to certain
habitats (e.g., swamps, marshes, and moist woods) (Scholtens, 2001).
Herpetological surveys conducted in the ACE Basin indicate that 110 species of
amphibians and reptiles either inhabit the area or are expected to occur there. They
are differentiated into the following taxonomic groups in the order of decreasing
species richness: 36 snake species, 20 frog species, 19 salamander species, 18 turtle
species, 12 lizard species, 4 toad species, and 1 alligator species (Riekerk and
Rhodes, 2001) (Table 5.2). Based on the work of Sandifer et al. (1980) and Conant
and Collins (1998), most of these species occupy lacustrine littoral habitats (37
species), upland hardwood forests (35), palustrine freshwater wetlands (34), and
maritime forests (32) (Table 5.3).
The South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR) has examined
amphibian and reptilian communities in specific habitats of the ACE Basin (Riekerk
and Rhodes, 2001), and this work is reviewed here. Upland forested areas characterized
primarily by dry conditions are inhabited by a variety of lizards and snakes that can
tolerate low moisture levels. For example, in upland pine flatwoods, the dominant
species of lizards include the eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus), slender glass
lizard (Ophisaurus attenuatus), mimic glass lizard (O. mimicus), ground skink (Scin-
cella lateralis), broadhead skink (Eumeces laticeps), and six-lined racerunner
TABLE 5.2
Reptiles and Amphibians That Occur or Potentially Occur in the ACE Basin
Snakes
Copperhead Agkistrodon contortrix
Cottonmouth Agkistrodon piscivorus
Worm snake Carphophis amoenus
Scarlet snake Cemophora coccinea
Northern black racer Coluber constrictor constrictor
Eastern diamondback rattlesnake Crotalus adamanteus
Timber rattlesnake Crotalus horridus horridus
Ringneck snake Diadophis punctatus
Corn snake Elaphe guttata guttata
Rat snake Elaphe obsoleta
Mud snake Farancia abacura
Rainbow snake Farancia erytrogramma
Eastern hognose snake Heterodon platirhinos
Southern hognose snake Heterodon simus
Mole king snake Lampropeltis calligaster
Eastern king snake Lampropeltis getula getula
Scarlet king snake Lampropeltis triangulum
Eastern coachwhip Masticophis flagellum
Eastern coral snake Micrurus fulvius
Redbelly water snake Nerodia erythrogaster
Banded water snake Nerodia fasciata
Florida green water snake Nerodia floridana
Brown water snake Nerodia taxispilota
Rough green snake Opheodrys aestivus
Northern pine snake Pituophis melanoleucus melanoleucus
Glossy crayfish snake Regina rigida
Pine woods snake Rhadinea flavilata
Black swamp snake Seminatrix pygaea
Pigmy rattlesnake Sistrurus miliarius
Brown snake Storeria dekayi
Redbelly snake Storeria occipitomaculata
Southeastern crowned snake Tantilla coronata
Eastern ribbon snake Thamnophis sauritus sauritus
Eastern garter snake Thamnophis sirtalis
Rough earth snake Virginia striatula
Smooth earth snake Virginia valeriae
Alligator
American alligator Alligator mississippiensis
(continued)

Lizards
Carolina anole Anolis carolinensis
Six-lined racerunner Cnemidophorus sexlineatus
Five-lined skink Eumeces faciatus
Southeastern five-lined skink Eumeces inexpectatus
Broadhead skink Eumeces laticeps
Slender glass lizard Ophisaurus attenuatus
Island glass lizard Ophisaurus compressus
Mimic glass lizard Ophisaurus mimicus
Eastern glass lizard Ophisaurus ventralis
Texas horned lizard Phrynosoma cornutum
Eastern fence lizard Sceloporus undulatus
Ground skink Scincella lateralis
Salamanders
Flatwoods salamander Ambystoma cingulatum
Mabee’s salamander Ambystoma mabeei
Spotted salamander Ambystoma maculatum
Marbled salamander Ambystoma opacum
Mole salamander Ambystoma talpoideum
Tiger salamander Ambystoma tigrinum tigrinum
Two-toed amphiuma Amphiuma means
Southern dusky salamander Desmognathus auriculatus
Southern two-lined salamander Eurycea cirrigera
Three-lined salamander Eurycea longicauda
Dwarf salamander Eurycea quadridigitata
Dwarf waterdog Necturus punctatus
Central newt Notophthalmus viridescens
South Carolina slimy salamander Plethodon variolatus
Dwarf siren Pseudobranchus striatus
Eastern mud salamander Pseudotriton montanus montanus
Lesser siren Siren intermedia
Greater siren Siren lacertina
Many lined salamander Stereochilus marginatus
Frogs
Southern cricket frog Acris gryllus
Green treefrog Hyla cinerea
Pinewoods treefrog Hyla femoralis
Barking treefrog Hyla gratiosa
Squirrel treefrog Hyla squirella
Northern spring peeper Pseudacris crucifer crucifer

Little grass frog Pseudacris ocularis

Brimley’s chorus frog Pseudacris brimleyi
Southern chorus frog Pseudacris nigrita
Ornate chorus frog Pseudacris ornata
Upland chorus frog Pseudacris triseriata
Gopher frog Rana capito
Bullfrog Rana catesbeiana
Bronze frog Rana clamitans clamitans
Pig frog Rana grylio
River frog Rana heckscheri
Pickerel frog Rana palustris
Southern leopard frog Rana utricularia
Carpenter frog Rana virgatipes
Toads
Oak toad Bufo quercicus
Southern toad Bufo terrestris
Eastern narrowmouth toad Gastrophryne carolinensis
Eastern spadefoot toad Scaphiopus holbrooki
Turtles
Florida softshell Apalone ferox
Spiny softshell Apalone spinifera
Loggerhead Caretta caretta
Green sea turtle Chelonia mydas
Snapping turtle Chelydra serpentina
Spotted turtle Clemmys guttata
Chicken turtle Deirochelys reticularia
Leatherback Dermochelys coriacea
Hawksbill Eretmochelys imbricata
Striped mud turtle Kinosternon baurii
Eastern mud turtle Kinosternon subrubrum subrubrum
Kemp’s Ridley sea turtle Lepidochelys kempii
Diamondback terrapin Malaclemys terrapin terrapin
River cooter Pseudemys concinna
Florida cooter Pseudemys floridana
Stinkpot Sternotherus odoratus
Eastern box turtle Terrapene carolina
Yellowbelly slider Trachemys scripta
Source: South Carolina Department of Natural Resources and National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. 2001. Characterization of the Ashepoo–Combahee–Edisto (ACE) Basin, South Caro-
lina. Special Scientific Report 17, South Carolina Marine Resources Center, Charleston, SC.
TABLE 5.3
Total Number of Amphibian and Reptilian Species by Habitat Type in the
ACE Basina
Habitat Species Water Regime Structureb Salt Exposure
Maritime — coastal 5 Open water Low High

Maritime — dune 9 Dry to irregularly Intermediate High
flooded
Maritime — forest 32 Dry to High Low
permanently
flooded
Estuarine — impoundment 1 Shallow water Intermediate Medium
Riverine — open water 13 Open water Low None
Lacustrine — limnetic 14 Open water Low None
Lacustrine — littoral 37 Shallow water Intermediate None
Palustrine — freshwater 30 Shallow water Intermediate Low
impoundment
Palustrine — tidal 34 Shallow water High None
emergent freshwater
wetland
Palustrine — tidal forested 33 Shallow water High None
freshwater wetland
Palustrine — nontidal 31 Shallow water High None
forested freshwater
wetland
Palustrine — inland 30 Intermittent High None
wetland flooding
Upland — hardwood 35 Sporadic flooding High None
forest
Upland — pine flatwoods, 31 Dry to seasonally High None
open field wet
a Diversity of amphibians and reptiles increases with increasing amounts of emergent vegetation,
trees, logs, and forest litter.
b Structure refers to the spatial complexity of the habitat.
Sources:Sandifer, P.A., J.V. Miglarese, D.R. Calder, J.J. Manzi, and L.A. Barclay. 1980. Ecological
Characteristics of the Sea Island Coastal Region of South Carolina and Georgia, Vol. 3: Biological
Features of the Characterization Area. FWS/OBS-79/42, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of
Biological Services, Washington, D.C.; South Carolina Department of Natural Resources and National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2001. Characterization of the Ashepoo–Combahee–Edisto
(ACE) Basin, South Carolina. Special Scientific Report 17, South Carolina Marine Resources Center,
Charleston, SC.
(Cnemidophorus sexlineatus). Commonly encountered species of snakes are the pine

snake (Pituophis melanoleucus melanoleucus), corn snake (Elaphe guttata guttata),
eastern garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), and eastern diamondback rattlesnake (Cro-
talus adamanteus). A conspicuous feature of the herpetofauna of this environment is
the paucity of species typically found in moist settings, particularly salamanders. An

exception is seen at isolated wetland habitats where the herpetofaunal communities
are more diverse than elsewhere in the pine flatwoods.
Upland habitats associated with sporadic flooding, and thus typified by greater
amounts of moisture than the upland pine flatwoods, harbor more species of sala-
manders. In the upland hardwood forests, for instance, the marbled salamander
(Ambystoma opacum), spotted salamander (A. maculatum), and mole salamander
(A. talpoideum) are often observed. The upland hardwood forests also support
several species of snakes not commonly observed in the upland pine flatwoods,
such as the timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus horridus), smooth earth snake
(Virginia valeriae), black racer (Coluber constrictor constrictor), cottonmouth
(Agkistrodon piscivorus), and copperhead (A. contortrix). Toads (eastern spadefoot
toad, Scaphiopus holbrooki; southern toad, Bufo terrestris; and eastern narrow-
mouth toad, Gastrophryne carolinensis) and treefrogs (squirrel treefrog, Hyla
squirella; barking treefrog, H. gratiosa; Cope’s gray treefrog, H. chrysoscelis; and
green treefrog, H. cinerea) are well represented.
Perched wetlands (e.g., Carolina Bays and pocosins) in upland forested areas
are sites of isolated still standing water where wetland-dependent species predom-
inate. Because the moist conditions associated with these wetlands often disappear
during extended dry periods, the herpetofaunal community can shift rather abruptly
to those dominant forms capable of withstanding dry conditions. Isolated wetlands
are typically ephemeral habitats, and despite the thick growth of trees, shrubs, and
other vegetation found here during wet years, environmental conditions are subject
to marked seasonal changes linked closely to the level and frequency of precipitation.
Amphibian populations can increase substantially in numbers during wet years,
while being absent during protracted dry periods; the hydroperiod is a critically
important factor in regulating the occurrence of amphibians in the ACE Basin
(Pechmann et al., 1991; Blaustein et al., 1994). Isolated intermittent ponds and pools
in upland areas, therefore, are sites of large fluxes in abundance and composition of
herpetologic fauna.
Moving away from the tidal portions of the major river systems, nontidal
forested wetlands are a commonly observed feature. Nontidal forested wetland
habitat generally exhibits drier conditions during the year than does tidal forested
habitat, and thus some herpetofaunal compositional differences are evident. For
example, species requiring permanent water sources are most conspicuous in tidal
forested wetlands, and the more semiaquatic forms usually occur in the semiper-
manently flooded habitat characteristic of the nontidal forested wetlands. Among
the more frequently occurring herpetofaunal species in the nontidal forested wet-
lands are the timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus horridus), black swamp snake
(Seminatrix pygaea), southeastern crowned snake (Tantilla coronata), eastern glass
lizard (Ophisaurus ventralis), slender glass lizard (O. attenuatus), three-lined sala-
mander (Eurycea longicauda), many-lined salamander (Stereochilus marginatus),
oak toad (Bufo quercicus), carpenter frog (Rana virgatipes), and little grass frog
(Pseudacris ocularis).
Frogs, underrepresented in the drier nontidal forested wetlands, may be the most
numerous herpetofauna in some tidal forested wetland habitats. Southern cricket
frogs (Acris gryllus), upland chorus frogs (P. triseriata), southern leopard frogs
(Rana utricularia), and river frogs (R. heckscheri) provide examples. Toads are much
less abundant in the permanently flooded habitats of the tidal forested wetlands,
since they prefer drier conditions. However, salamanders are well represented. Com-
monly observed species of salamanders include the spotted salamander (Ambystoma
maculatum), Mabee’s salamander (A. mabeei), dwarf salamander (Eurycea quadri-
digitata), South Carolina slimy salamander (Plethodon variolatus), two-toed amph-
iuma (Amphiuma means), and greater siren (Siren lacertina).
Turtles likewise frequent tidal forested wetlands. Among the species of signifi-
cance are the Florida cooter (Pseudemys floridana), Florida softshell (Apalone ferox),
eastern mud turtle (Kinosternon subrubrum subrubrum), yellowbelly slider (Trache-
mys scripta), and snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina). Basking turtles, such as
Florida scooters, are at times the most prominent members of the herpetofaunal
community, often observed perched on rocks, logs, and other objects.
Some herpetofauna occur in both tidal and nontidal forested wetlands. Alligators
(Alligator mississippiensis), for example, occupy both habitats. Several species of
snakes also live in both wetland types; common species in this regard are brown
water snakes (Nerodia taxispilota), redbelly water snakes (N. erythrogastor), banded
water snakes (N. fasciata), rough green snakes (Opheodrys aestivus), cottonmouths
(Agkistrodon piscivorus), and copperheads (A. contortrix).
The herpetofaunal community is particularly rich and diverse in freshwater tidal
emergent wetlands and impoundments. Some of the aforementioned species inhab-
iting tidal and nontidal forested wetlands also occur in these habitats. In addition,
various species that do not live in the forested habitats are found in the emergent
wetlands. Snake species that often occupy areas of emergent wetland vegetation and
impoundments include the brown water snake, banded water snake, black swamp
snake, cottonmouth, and glossy crayfish snake (Regina regida). The Florida cooter,
Florida softshell, yellowbelly slider, snapping turtle, stinkpot (Sternotherus odoratus),
and chicken turtle (Deirochelys reticularia) are commonly observed species of turtles.
Frogs are numerous, particularly ranids such as the bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana), pig
frog (R. grylio), pickerel frog (R. palustris), and southern leopard frog. Other frequent
frog inhabitants are the green treefrog, squirrel treefrog, and southern cricket frog.
Although lizards are generally less abundant than the aforementioned groups, some
salamanders (e.g., two-toed amphiuma and greater siren) attain significant numbers.
Both the two-toed amphiuma and greater siren are species characteristic of more open
water but have likewise been documented in other areas as well.
Alligators, turtles, and snakes are the most common herpetofauna of fresh-
water, shoreline, and open riverine habitats. Species of turtles observed here
include the snapping turtle, yellowbelly slider, Florida cooter, river cooter (Pseud-
emys concinna), and spiny softshell (Apalone spinifera). Many of the snakes in
creeks and mainstem rivers are also found in the previously described wetland
habitats. For example, the brown water snake, redbelly water snake, banded water
snake, and cottonmouth are reported along freshwater shoreline and open riverine
habitats as well as in many wetland areas. Most of the species recorded in the
open water of creeks and rivers also inhabit open water lacustrine habitats in the
ACE Basin.
The species composition of herpetofaunal communities on barrier islands (e.g.,

Edisto Beach, Hunting Island, Otter Island, and Pine Island) changes significantly
from the drier habitats of the coastal dunes and maritime dry grasslands to the moist
habitats of the maritime forests. For example, in the coastal dunes as well as the
maritime dry grassland and dune shrub thickets, herpetofauna capable of tolerating
drier conditions predominate. These include the southern toad, eastern spadefoot
toad, eastern diamondback rattlesnake, eastern coachwhip (Masticophis flagellum),
and several lizard species (e.g., eastern glass lizard, six-lined racerunner, and island
glass lizard, Ophisaurus compressus) (Gibbons and Harrison, 1981).
Species diversity of herpetofauna is relatively low in the aforementioned dune
and maritime shrub thicket communities because of adverse environmental con-
ditions associated with excessive heat, dessication, salt spray, and other harsh
factors. As the amount of forested vegetation increases on the barrier islands, so
does the diversity of herpetofauna. An array of frogs (southern leopard frog,
squirrel treefrog, and green treefrog), snakes (cottonmouth snake, rough green
snake, and southeastern crowned snake), lizards (ground skink, broadhead skink,
and Carolina anole, Anolis carolinensis), and turtles (yellowbelly slider and
chicken turtle) likely inhabits the barrier island maritime forests (Gibbons, 1978;
Gibbons and Coker, 1978; Sandifer et al., 1980; Gibbons and Harrison, 1981).
Although the diversity of herpetofauna is significantly higher in the maritime
forests than in other habitats on the barrier islands, it remains lower than in nearby
mainland (watershed) areas (Gibbons and Coker, 1978).
Mammals
Zimmerman (2001a) has examined in detail the mammalian communities of the

ACE Basin region. Nearly 50 species of mammals are likely to occur in the ACE
Basin (Table 5.4). Of these species, most reside in palustrine habitats (N = 46),
upland habitats (42), and maritime forested habitats (34). Far fewer species occupy
estuarine habitats (13), dune habitats (10), and coastal water habitats (2). Habitat
diversity in the watershed is a key factor influencing mammalian species diversity.
Therefore, the highest diversity of mammalian species is evident in palustrine envi-
ronments, which have the greatest habitat diversity (hardwood forests, pine forests,
mixed forests, meadows, swamps, marshes, and freshwater rivers) in the basin.
Mammalian populations are well represented in the agricultural fields and
woodland habitats that dominate the uplands of the ACE Basin. Species commonly
encountered here are the coyote (Canis latrans), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), white-
tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), opossum (Didelphis marsupialis), striped
skunk (Mephitis mephitis), raccoon (Procyon lotor), gray squirrel (Sciurus caro-
linensis), Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus), hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus),
evening bat (Nycticeius humeralis), eastern harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys
humulis), old-field mouse (Peromyscus polionotus), and eastern cottontail rabbit
(Sylvilagus floridanus) (Webster et al., 1985). While some of the mammalian
species (e.g., eastern cottontail rabbit) forage on vegetation in the open fields and
forests, the larger forms (e.g., coyote, red fox, and raccoon) prey on other mammals
in the region.
TABLE 5.4
List of Principal Mammalian Species That Occur
or Are Expected to Occur in the ACE Basin
Bats
Southeastern myotis Myotis austroriparius
Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans
Eastern pipistrelle Pipistrellus subflavus
Big brown bat Eptesicus fuscus
Red bat Lasiurus borealis
Seminole bat Lasiurus seminolus
Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus
Northern yellow bat Lasiurus intermedius
Evening bat Nycticeius humeralis
Big-eared bat Coryrochinus rafinesquii
Free-tailed bat Tadarida brasiliensis
Rabbits, Hares, Pikas

Eastern cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus
Marsh rabbit Sylvilagus palustris
Marsupials
Opossum Didelphis marsupialis
Rodents
Gray squirrel Sciurus carolinensis
Fox squirrel Sciurus niger
Southern flying squirrel Glaucomys volans
Beaver Castor canadensis
Rice rat Oryzomys palustris
Eastern harvest mouse Reithrodontomys humulis
Old-field mouse Peromyscus polionotus
Cotton mouse Peromyscus gossypinus
Golden mouse Ochrotomys nuttalli
Hispid cotton rat Sigmodon hispidus
Eastern woodrat Neotoma floridana
Meadow vole Microtus pennsylvanicus
Pine vole Microtus pinetorum
Roof rat Rattus rattus alexandrinus
Black rat Rattus rattus rattus
Norway rat Rattus norvegicus
House mouse Mus musculus
Carnivores
Coyote Canis latrans
Red fox Vulpes vulpes
Gray fox Urocyon cinereoargenteus
Black bear Ursus americanus

List of Principal Mammalian Species That Occur
or Are Expected to Occur in the ACE Basin
Raccoon Procyon lotor

Long-tailed weasel Mustela frenata olivacea
Mink Mustela vison
Striped skunk Mephitis mephitis
River otter Lutra canadensis
Bobcat Lynx rufus
Odontoceti
Bottlenose dolphin Tursiops turncatus
Sirenia
West Indian manatee Trichechus manatus
Artiodactyls
White-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus
Feral swine Sus scrofa
Sources:Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985.

Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Maryland. University
of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC; South Carolina Depart-
ment of Natural Resources and National Oceanic and Atmo-
spheric Administration. 2001. Characterization of the
Ashepoo–Combahee–Edisto (ACE) Basin, South Carolina. Spe-
cial Scientific Report 17, South Carolina Marine Resources Cen-
ter, Charleston, SC.
Some of the most suitable habitats for mammals in the ACE Basin exist in
palustrine environments. Many mammalian species have relatively broad habitat
preferences in palustrine areas. Examples are the white-tailed deer, raccoon, opos-
sum, long-tailed weasel (Mustela frenata olivacea), and golden mouse (Ochrotomys
nuttalli). Other species such as the mink (M. vison), beaver (Castor canadensis),
and gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus) have narrower habitat preferences. The
mink, for example, inhabits swamps and freshwater marshes, preying heavily on
various species of fish and other organisms (Baker and Carmichael, 1996). The
cotton mouse (Peromyscus gossypinus) and marsh rabbit (Sylvilagus palustris) also
live in swamp and freshwater marsh habitats. Similarly, beavers prefer swamps, as
well as creeks and ponds. The gray fox occupies wetland and upland forests as well
as open field habitats (Baker and Carmichael, 1996). Palustrine forests are favored
habitats of the gray squirrel, fox squirrel (Sciurus niger), eastern woodrat (Neotoma
floridana), short-tailed shrew (Blarina brevicauda), big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus),
and free-tailed bat (Tadarida brasiliensis) (Weakley, 1981; Webster et al., 1985;
Mengak et al., 1987).
The marsh rabbit is an inhabitant of brackish marshes. The river otter (Lutra
canadensis) and rice rat (Oryzomys palustris), in turn, prefer salt marsh habitats
(Andre, 1981; Baker and Carmichael, 1996). Foxes and other predators often visit
these habitats in search of prey such as the marsh rabbit. Overall, mammalian species
diversity is lower in these wetland habitats than in upland and palustrine environments.
The number of mammalian species declines in the harsher environments of the
coastal dunes, maritime dry grasslands, and maritime dune shrub thickets along the
coast. Smaller mammalian species reported in dune habitats include the rice rat,
marsh rabbit, eastern cottontail rabbit, eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus), and house
mouse (Mus musculus). Larger mammalian species observed on sand dunes are the
raccoon, opossum, and white-tailed deer. These wide-ranging species are found in
all major habitats of the ACE Basin — dunes, estuaries, maritime forests, palustrine
areas, and uplands (Sandifer et al., 1980; Zimmerman, 2001a).
Mammals are more prominent in the maritime forests. Bats (evening bat, brown
bat, and red bat), moles (star-nosed mole, Condylura cristata; and eastern mole),
and shrews (least shrew, Cryptotis parva; southeastern shrew, Sorex longirostris; and
short-tailed shrew) often predominate. These smaller mammalian species are impor-
tant insectivores, consuming large numbers of insects in the forested habitat. The
fox squirrel and gray squirrel are also important members of the maritime forest
community (Webster et al., 1985; Whitney, 1998).
Larger members of this community include more ubiquitous forms such as the
white-tailed deer, opossum, and raccoon. The carnivorous bobcat (Lynx rufus) is
also relatively abundant. It may play a significant role in population control of smaller
mammalian forms in the woodlands (Sandifer et al., 1980; Webster et al., 1985;
Whitney, 1998).
Birds
Zimmerman (2001b) has provided a comprehensive description of the avifaunal

community in the ACE Basin. The community is highly diverse, consisting of about
280 species in 17 orders (SCDNR and NOAA, 2001). While many of these species
remain as year-round residents, others are migratory and transient. As in the case
of the herpetofaunal and mammalian communities, the avifauna exhibits higher
species diversity in wetland habitats than in upland farmfields and woodlands,
reflecting differences in habitat diversity in these areas.
More than 50 species of birds inhabit the pine forests in upland areas. Insecti-
vores (e.g., pine warbler, Dendroica pinus; common yellowthroat, Geothlypis tri-
chas; red-bellied woodpecker, Melanerpes carolinus; and California wren, Thryotho-
rus ludovicianus), granivores (mourning dove, Zenaida macroura; chipping sparrow,
Spizella passerina; and brown-headed nuthatch, Sitta pusilla), and omnivores (Amer-
ican crow, Corvus brachyrhynchos; common grackle, Quiscalus quiscula; and north-
ern bobwhite, Colinus virginianus) are well represented. In addition, raptors (red-
shouldered hawk, Buteo lineatus; and red-tailed hawk, Buteo jamaicensis) also occur
in the pine forests. At least three species of owls (i.e., great horned owl, Bubo
virginianus; barn owl, Tyto alba; and eastern screech owl, Otus asio) have been
reported as well.
Mixed upland forests support more species of birds than do the pine forests,
with nearly 90 species estimated to occur here. Sandifer et al. (1980) attribute the
greater species diversity in pine–hardwood forests to the well-developed subcanopy
and understory vegetation that provides additional habitat. Insectivores are common,
comprising several species of woodpeckers (i.e., hairy woodpecker, Picoides villo-
sus; downy woodpecker, P. pubescens; pileated woodpecker, Dryocopus pileatus;
red-headed woodpecker, Melanerpes erythrocephalus; and red-bellied woodpecker),
warblers (yellow-throated warbler, Dendroica dominica; black-throated warbler, D.
caerulescens; Cape May warbler, D. tigrina; magnolia warbler, D. magnolia;
hooded warbler, Wilsonia citrina; and black-and-white warbler, Mniotilta varia),
and flycatchers (Acadian flycatcher, Empidonax virescens; and great crested fly-
catcher, Myiarchus crinitus), as well as vireos (white-eyed vireo, Vireo griseus; and
solitary vireo, V. solitarius) and Carolina wrens (Thryothorus ludovicianus). Grani-
vores of significance include sparrows (house sparrow, Passer domesticus; song
sparrow, Melospiza melodia; white-throated sparrow, Zonotrichia albicollis; fox
sparrow, Passerella iliaca; lark sparrow, Chondestes grammacus; and chipping
sparrow, Spizella passerina), northern cardinals (Cardinalis cardinalis), American
goldfinches (Carduelis tristis), and mourning doves (Zenaida macroura).
Omnivorous forms of note are American crows and fish crows (Corvus ossifr-
agus). Black vultures (Coragyps atratus) and turkey vultures (Cathartes aura) serve
as the primary scavengers. Among the top predators are eagles (golden eagle, Aquila
chrysaetos; and bald eagle, Haliaeetus leucocephalus), hawks (red-tailed hawk; red-
shouldered hawk; Cooper’s hawk, Accipiter cooperii; sharp-shinned hawk, A. stri-
atus; and broad-winged hawk, Buteo platypterus), and owls (eastern screech-owl;
great horned owl; and barred owl, Strix varia) (Potter et al., 1980; Sandifer et al.,
1980; SCDNR and NOAA, 2001).
Nearly 75 species of birds comprise the old-field avifaunal communities. The
farmlands, open fields, and grasslands form highly accessible feeding grounds for
many different types of birds. Numerous species also nest in these habitats.
Insectivores are abundant, including swallows (barn swallow, Hirundo rustica;
northern rough-winged swallow, Stelgidopteryx serripennis; and tree swallow,
Tachycineta bicolor), wrens (short-billed marsh wren, Cistothorus platensis; water
wren, Troglodytes troglodytes; and Carolina wren), warblers (prairie warbler, Den-
droica discolor; yellow-rumped warbler, Dendroica coronata; and orange-crowned
warbler, Vermivora celata), brown thrashers (Toxostoma rufum), eastern meadow-
larks (Sturnella magna), and common yellowthroats (Geothlypis trichas). Grani-
vores of importance are sparrows (field sparrow, Spizella pusilla; house sparrow,
Passer domesticus; and song sparrow), northern mockingbirds (Mimus polyglot-
tos), indigo buntings (Passerina cyanea), and northern cardinals (Cardinalis car-
dinalis). Several omnivorous species congregate here as well, notably boat-tailed
grackles (Quiscalus major), common grackles, red-winged blackbirds (Agelaius
phoeniceus), northern bobwhites, American crows, and fish crows. Representative
raptors are northern harriers (Circus cyaneus), merlin (Falco columbarius), sharp-
shinned hawks, Cooper’s hawks, and red-tailed hawks.
Wetlands of the ACE Basin support the most species of birds in the watershed.
The estimated number of bird species in forested wetlands (N = 132) far exceeds
that in nonforested wetlands (92) and estuarine-emergent vegetation (87) of the basin
(Potter et al., 1980; Sandifer et al., 1980). The insectivores found in the forested
wetlands are similar to those observed in upland areas and include mourning doves,
Carolina wrens, winter wrens (Troglodytes troglodytes), white-eyed vireos, red-eyed
vireos (Vireo olivaceus), common yellowthroats (Geothlypis trichas), yellow war-
blers (Dendroica petechia), black-and-white warblers (Mniotilta varia), woodpeck-
ers (downy woodpeckers, pileated woodpeckers, and hairy woodpeckers), and other
forms. Some of the granivores reported in the forested wetlands are sparrows (swamp
sparrow, Melospiza georgiana; white-throated sparrow; and song sparrow), painted
buntings (Passerina ciris), American goldfinches, and northern cardinals. Omnivores
of significance are the common grackles, American crows, and red-winged black-
birds. Several raptors continually search for prey in the forested wetlands, frequently
consuming small mammals, amphibians, reptiles, fish and other birds. Examples are
osprey (Pandion haliaetus), red-tailed hawks, broad-winged hawks, red-shouldered
hawks, sharp-shinned hawks, Cooper’s hawks, golden eagles, bald eagles, long-eared
owls (Asio otus), and barn owls (Tyto alba). Wading birds, such as egrets (e.g., great
egret, Casmerodius albus), herons (e.g., little blue heron, Egretta caerulea), and
ibises (e.g., white ibis, Eudocimus albus), use forested wetlands as feeding and
nesting grounds.
Although fewer species of birds inhabit nonforested wetlands and estuarine-
emergent wetlands than the forested wetlands of the ACE Basin, similar species
groups are evident (Sandifer et al., 1980). For example, swallows, sparrows, and
wrens occur in all three environments; in addition, raptors (osprey, hawks, bald
eagles, northern harriers, owls, merlin, and peregrine falcons), waders (egrets, her-
ons, and ibises), rails (Virginia rail, Rallus limicola; king rail, R. elegans; clapper
rail, R. longirostris; and sora, Porzana carolina), and waterfowl (mallard, Anas
platyrhynchos; blue-winged teal, A. discors; northern pintail, A. acuta; ruddy duck,
Oxyura jamaicensis; and red-breasted merganser, Mergus serrator) feed and nest in
many habitats in these wetland environments.
Nearly 90 species of birds inhabit salt marsh habitats, where they feed, breed,
and nest (Potter et al., 1980; Sandifer et al., 1980). The list of resident and seasonal
forms includes shorebirds (gulls, terns, plovers, and sandpipers), wading birds
(egrets, herons, and ibises), rails (clapper rails, Virginia rails, and soras), and raptors
(northern harriers, sharp-shinned hawks, peregrine falcons, and merlin). Bird pop-
ulations are abundant in these habitats because of the rich food supply and favorable
nesting sites.
Beaches, dunes, maritime dry grasslands, and maritime shrub communities are
inhabited by fewer species of birds than are observed in maritime forests. The
estimated number of bird species recorded in the beach, dune, and maritime shrub
environments amounts to 44, 34, and 26, respectively (SCDNR and NOAA, 2001).
These coastal habitats are harsh, thereby limiting the number of year-round residents.
Some of the species of birds most commonly found on beaches in the ACE Basin
include the piping plover (Charadrius melodus), Wilson’s plover (C. wilsonia),
sanderling (Calidris alba), black skimmer (Rynchops niger), least tern (Sterna anti-
llarum), American oystercatcher (Haematopus palliatus), laughing gull (Larus atri-
cilla), and herring gull (L. argentatus).
Maritime dunes are a favored habitat for various groups of shorebird species
(plovers, sandpipers, and terns) that feed, nest, rest, and breed there. Insectivorous
and granivorous birds often occur within the dune habitat. Granivorous birds
(sparrows, doves, cardinals, and blackbirds) are common inhabitants because the
supply of seeds and other grains is substantial. Among the insectivores, swallows
(tree swallow, Tachycineta bicolor; barn swallow; and northern rough-winged swal-
low) and warblers (palm warbler, Dendroica palmarum; and yellow-throated war-
bler) are particularly abundant. Omnivores are likewise common constituents of the
avifaunal community. Many birds observed in the maritime shrubs visit these habitats
in search of food; they are typically residents of nearby environments such as the
maritime forests (Zimmerman, 2001b).
Bay and inlet islands, also known as bird keys, provide valuable habitat in the
ACE Basin for colonial nesting waterbirds. Predominant species occupying bird
keys are the black skimmer (Rynchops niger), laughing gull (Larus atricilla), royal
tern (Sterna maxima), and brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) (Sandifer et al.,
1980). Colonial nesting birds on these islands are sensitive to pollution and other
anthropogenic impacts, and their numbers can vary considerably when human activ-
ities create stressful conditions.
Maritime forests contain more diverse habitats than the beach, dune, and mari-
time shrub environments and thus support more species of birds (N = 87). Passerines,
mainly comprised of insectivores and granivores, are numerous in the maritime
forests, and are represented by warblers (prairie warbler, pine warbler, yellow-
throated warbler, hooded warbler, and black-and-white warbler), sparrows (field
sparrow, song sparrow, swamp sparrow, and fox sparrow), grackles (boat-tailed
grackle and common grackle), wrens (winter wren, Carolina wren, and house wren,
Troglodytes aedon), swallows (tree swallow, barn swallow, and northern rough-
winged swallow), vireos (white-eyed vireo, red-eyed vireo, and solitary vireo),
buntings (indigo bunting and painted bunting), and other forms. Woodpeckers (red-
bellied woodpecker, red-headed woodpecker, hairy woodpecker, and downy wood-
pecker) are abundant as well. The principal raptors are red-tailed hawks and red-
shouldered hawks. Other predatory species of significance include the barred owl,
eastern screech-owl, and great horned owl (Potter et al., 1980; Sandifer et al., 1980;
SCDNR and NOAA, 2001).
Insects
Insects play a major role in energy flow of terrestrial ecosystems; they are the
principal herbivorous component, consuming as much as 80% of the total plant
matter (Price, 1997). They also constitute a main staple in the diets of many terrestrial
and aquatic organisms (Thompson, 1984). Insects represent one of the most
successful groups of organisms on Earth; more than 800,000 species have been
described (Solomon et al., 1999).
Many gaps exist in the data associated with the insects of the ACE Basin (Scholtens,
2001). More information has been collected on insects in salt marshes than in any other
habitat of the ACE Basin. Grasshoppers, aphids, thrips, moth larvae, and other insects
feed on salt marsh plants. In addition to these herbivores, various salt marsh species
are predators, detritivores, parasitoids, and parasites. Davis and Gray (1966), Vernberg
and Sansbury (1972), and Davis (1978) have compiled comprehensive lists of salt marsh
insects in the region. Davis and Gray (1966) and Davis (1978) listed more than 350
species of insects in this habitat, with most belonging to eight orders:
1. Coleoptera (beetles)
2. Diptera (true flies)
3. Hemiptera (true bugs)
4. Homoptera (hoppers)
5. Hymenoptera (ants, bees, and wasps)
6. Lepidoptera (butterflies and moths)
7. Odonata (damselflies and dragonflies)
8. Orthoptera (crickets, katydids, and grasshoppers)
The Diptera and Homoptera are most abundant (SCDNR and NOAA, 2001).
Despite the high absolute abundance of salt marsh insects, species diversity is not
great in the salt marshes.
Among the herbivorous forms, grasshoppers (Orchelimum fidicinium) and plant
hoppers (Prokelisia marginata) are significant. Orchelimum fidicinium chews on
Spartina alterniflora leaves; it consumes ~1% of the net aerial primary production
of a cordgrass marsh in the region (Smalley, 1980). Prokelisia marginata, a sap-
sucking species, obtains nutrition by extracting substances translocated through the
vascular vessels of cordgrass (Pfeiffer and Wiegert, 1981). Chaetopsis spp., which
are flies, also obtain nutrition from salt marsh plant fluids. Teal (1962) and Kraeuter
and Wolf (1974) indicate that salt marsh herbivores may consume as much as 5–10%
of the net annual Spartina primary production.
Dragonflies (Erythemis sp. and Pachydiplax sp.) are examples of predatory
insects in the ACE Basin salt marshes. Species belonging to the Braconidae and
Chalcidoidae families within the Hymenoptera are representative parasitoids. Para-
sitic insects include such major groups as the mosquitoes (Culicidae) and green-
headed flies (Tabanidae).
Some insect groups (e.g., Lepidoptera) in the ACE Basin have been studied in
detail. An estimated 125 species of butterflies and moths occur in this system (Gatrelle,
1975; Wallace, 1987; Opler and Malikul, 1998). However, much less is known about
the other insect taxa, with the possible exception of some of the Diptera, Homoptera,
and Orthoptera. Because the database on most insect groups in different ACE Basin
habitats is not extensive, it has not been possible to precisely determine the total
number of species inhabiting the region. The best estimate of insect species richness
in the ACE Basin is approximately 8,000 to 10,000 species (Scholtens, 2001).
ESTUARY
PHYSICAL-CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS
St. Helena Sound is a drowned river valley. Based on hydrologic characteristics and
stratification, it is also classified as a partially mixed estuary (Mathews et al., 1980;
TABLE 5.5
Physical and Hydrologic Features of St. Helena Sound
Estuarine drainage area (100 km2) 37.5 km2
Total drainage area (100 km2) 120.0 km2
Mean daily freshwater inflow (100 m3/sec) 1.31 m3/sec
Wetlands area 1747.2 km2
Surface area 212.5 km2
Mean depth 4.3 m
Volume (billion m3) 9.93 m3
Source: NOAA. 1990. Estuaries of the United States: Vital Statistics of

a National Resource Base. NOAA 20th Annual Report, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Ocean Resources Conservation
and Assessment, Rockville, MD.
Orlando et al., 1994). Table 5.5 provides physical and hydrological data on the sound.
Water depths are generally less than 20 m, and the bottom topography exhibits
irregular contours. Because of strong tidal currents relative to freshwater inflow, as
well as variable bottom topography, current-induced turbulent mixing creates a
moderately mixed condition. When winds are strong, however, the water column is
often well mixed (Orlando et al., 1994). Some areas of the estuary, therefore, expe-
rience complete mixing contingent on the intensity of tidal currents, rate of fresh-
water discharge, amount of turbulent eddies and vertical mixing, and wind velocity.
St. Helena Sound and contiguous waters are subject to semidiurnal tides. Tidal
amplitude at the coast is ~2 m. Oceanic tides influence a large area of the ACE
Basin, with tidal flux being observed far upstream in tributary systems. For exam-
ple, Eidson (1993) documented tidal influences more than 60 km upstream in
estuarine tributaries. Measurable salinity was recorded more than 30 km upstream
in these systems.
The most extensive water quality database on the ACE Basin NERR exists for
two System-wide Monitoring Program (SWMP) sites (one in Big Bay Creek and
the other in St. Pierre Creek). The Big Bay Creek monitoring site is located at
32°09′37″N, 80°19′26′W and the St. Pierre Creek monitoring site at 32°01′43″N,
80°2′34″W. Both Big Bay Creek and St. Pierre Creek are tributaries of the South
Edisto River, which discharges into St. Helena Sound. Six water quality parameters
are measured semicontinuously (every 30 min) year-round at these two sites using
automated data sondes (YSI 6000® or YSI 6600®) left unattended in the field. As at
SWMP sites nationwide, these parameters include temperature, salinity, dissolved
oxygen, pH, turbidity, and depth (Wenner et al., 2001b).
Wenner et al. (2001b) discussed the findings of water quality monitoring in
the ACE Basin over the 3-year period from 1996 through 1998. During this period,
the mean water temperature at the two aforementioned SWMP sites ranged from
~10 to 12°C in winter and ~27 to 29°C in summer. Salinity was higher at the Big
Bay Creek site than at the St. Pierre Creek site. For example, mean salinity at the
Big Bay Creek site during the 1996–1997 period ranged from ~25 to 27‰ in
winter/spring to ~30‰ in summer, with extreme values of 0.3‰ and 41.7‰. At

the St. Pierre Creek site, in turn, mean salinity in winter/spring ranged from ~22
to 24‰, and in summer it ranged from ~28 to 30‰, with extreme values of 0‰
and 41.7‰.
Mean dissolved oxygen levels recorded by the ACE Basin NERR at the two
SWMP sites from March 1995 through December 1997 revealed generally well-
oxygenated conditions (Wenner et al., 2001a, b). At the Big Bay Creek site, for
example, dissolved oxygen levels averaged 6.6 mg/l and 83.6% saturation com-
pared to 6.3 mg/l and 78.5% saturation at the St. Pierre site. Conditions of both
hypoxia (<4 mg/l or <28% saturation) and supersaturation (>120% saturation)
occurred at each site. Supersaturation was evident during all seasons. Hypoxic
events were most frequently observed in summer; however, they were not common
events. Dissolved oxygen levels were typically lowest in July and August and
highest during the winter months. In St. Pierre Creek, hypoxia was documented
more than 10% of the time during July and August. In Big Creek, it was registered
17% of the time during September.
The most consistent parameter at the two monitoring sites was pH. For example,
pH values at the Big Bay Creek site ranged from 5.4 to 8.3 during the period from
March 1995 through December 1997. Similarly, they ranged from 5.3 to 8.4 at the
St. Pierre site during this interval (Wenner et al., 2001a).
Turbidity levels were comparable in both Big Bay Creek and St. Pierre Creek.
Mean monthly turbidity levels (Nephelometry Turbidity Units, NTU) were gen-
erally less than 50 NTU at both monitoring sites. In sampling conducted during
1996 and 1997, highest values were found at both sites during 1997. Turbidity
was more variable in St. Pierre Creek than in Big Bay Creek. Water depth was
also similar at the two monitoring sites, ranging from less than 1 to more than 3
m (Wenner et al., 2001a).
The ACE Basin is a relatively pristine area. Nutrient levels exhibit similarities
as well as differences when compared with those of other South Carolina estuaries.
For example, nitrate concentrations in the Edisto River compare favorably with those
reported in North Inlet, but are much lower (by a factor of 10) than those documented
in Winyah Bay. However, ammonium levels in the Edisto River exceed those in the
other two systems. Mean values of nitrate–nitrite, ammonium, and orthophosphate
in the Edisto River amount to ~1.3, ~15.3, and 0.6 µmol/l, respectively (Table 5.6).
Nitrate–nitrite levels recorded in the Ashepoo and Combahee Rivers over the period
from 1986 through 1995 ranged from <0.05 to ~0.25 mg/l (SCDNR and NOAA,
2001). Extensive wetlands may serve as a source as well as a sink for nutrients in
lower riverine and open estuarine areas.
BIOTIC COMMUNITIES
Phytoplankton
Phytoplankton communities consist of free-floating, unicellular, filamentous, or

chain-forming microscopic plants that inhabit surface waters (the photic zone) of
marine, estuarine, and freshwater environments. These microscopic plants form the
TABLE 5.6
Mean Nutrient Concentrations (µ mol/l) in the Edisto River
Relative to Other South Carolina Estuarine Systems
Estuasry Nitrate–Nitrite Ammonium Orthophosphate
Edisto River 1.26 ± 1.03 15.26 ± 27.14 0.63 ± 0.47

North Inlet 0.55 ± 0.79 1.73 ± 2.0 0.03 ± 0.01
Winyah Bay 16.57 14.07 0.55 ± 0.32
Cooper River 3.65 ± 1.18 5.24 ± 0.32 0.68 ± 0.04
Source: South Carolina Department of Natural Resources and National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration. 2001. Characterization of the Ashepoo–Com-
bahee–Edisto (ACE) Basin, South Carolina. Special Scientific Report 17, South
Carolina Marine Resources Center, Charleston, SC.
base of the food chain in open water habitats of the ACE Basin, accounting for a
large fraction of the total primary production. They may be grouped on the basis of
size into four classes:
1. Picoplankton (<5 µm)

2. Nanoplankton (5–20 µm)
3. Microphytoplankton (20–100 µm)
4. Macrophytoplankton (>100 µm)
The picoplankton and nanoplankton pass through plankton nets (~30 to 64 µm

apertures), which retain the larger plant cells.
The net plankton collected in estuarine waters generally consists of large
numbers of diatoms (Bacillariophyceae) and dinoflagellates (Dinophyceae). How-
ever, several other classes of phytoplankton may be represented in these open
water habitats, namely the Chlorophyceae, Chrysophyceae, Cryptophyceae, Eugle-
nophyceae, Haptophyceae, and Raphidophyceae (Dawes, 1998). While little is
known regarding the picoplankton and nanoplankton of many estuaries, they have
been shown to be a numerically dominant component of some systems. For
example, most of the newly listed phytoplankton species of the Barnegat Bay–Lit-
tle Egg Harbor Estuary in New Jersey are phytoflagellate forms, including the
numerically dominant members of the phytoplankton community (Olsen and
Mahoney, 2001).
Few investigations have been conducted on phytoplankton in the ACE Basin
(Zimmerman, 2001c). As part of an estuarine eutrophication survey of Georgia and
South Carolina coastal waters (see Verity, 1998), NOAA (1996) examined the phy-
toplankton community of the St. Helena Sound system and the Stono/North Edisto
River system in the ACE Basin. This survey showed that diatoms dominate the
community of both systems. Chlorophyll a levels were less than 5 µg/l. Diatoms
have also been shown to be major constituents of other estuarine waters of the South
Carolina region. For example, Davis and Van Dolah (1992) reported that diatoms,
notably Skeletonema costatum, dominated the phytoplankton community of Charles-

ton Harbor, South Carolina, during the spring and fall. Flagellates, together with
cyanobacteria, predominated during the summer and winter. In North Inlet, South
Carolina, Lewitus et al. (1998) likewise revealed the numerical importance of dia-
toms in the phytoplankton community, with Cylindrotheca closterium, Nitzschia
spp., and Thalassiosira spp. the most abundant species. Phytoflagellates were numer-
ically dominant year-round in North Inlet; both picoplankton and nanoplankton
populations attained high abundances.
Zooplankton
Zooplankton comprise the principal herbivorous component of estuarine ecosys-

tems, serving as an essential link in the food web by converting plant biomass to
animal matter. Although many zooplankton species in estuaries are herbivores that
graze on phytoplankton populations, omnivorous and carnivorous species also
occur in the community. Zooplankton grazing plays a significant role in regulating
the standing crop of phytoplankton in estuarine systems (Omori and Ikeda, 1984;
Kennish, 2001).
Based on size, zooplankton are categorized as microzooplankton (<~200 µm),
mesozooplankton (~200 to 500 µm), and macrozooplankton (>~500 µm). They may
also be classified as holoplankton, meroplankton, and tychoplankton based on the
duration of planktonic life. While holoplankton live in the plankton their entire lives,
meroplankton largely consist of early life history (larval) stages of benthic inverte-
brates that inhabit the water column. Tychoplankton are demersal populations peri-
odically inoculated into the plankton from bottom habitats by various processes (e.g.,
waves, currents, and bioturbation). Among the predominant members of estuarine
zooplankton communities are copepods, cladocerans, tintinnids, rotifers, and benthic
invertebrate larvae (e.g., bivalve, gastropod, polychaete, and crustacean larvae), as
well as the larger forms — ichthyoplankton and the jellyfish group (hydromedusae,
comb jellies, and true jellyfishes) (Kennish, 2001).
Knott (1980, 2001) investigated the zooplankton community in tidal waters of
the North Edisto River at Bluff Point, conducting weekly sampling over an annual
cycle. Analysis of surface samples disclosed that the calanoid copepod, Acartia
tonsa, numerically dominated the mesozooplankton at this location, followed by the
harpacticoid copepod, Euterpina acutifrons. Sixty-three copepod species accounted
for 78% of the total mesozooplankton abundance at the river site. Secondary dom-
inant species included two calanoid copepods, Parvocalanus crassirostris and
Pseudodiaptomus coronatus. Other dominants were barnacle larvae (cirripedes),
copepod nauplii, and rotifers (Table 5.7). Meroplankton larvae comprised 3 to 21%
of the total zooplankton abundance; aside from barnacle larvae, gastropod larvae
also comprised a major fraction of the meroplankton.
Total zooplankton abundance exceeded 6000 individuals/m3 throughout the
year. Peak numbers occurred in spring. Highest densities (>23,000 individuals/m3)
were found in April, and densities exceeded 10,000 individuals/m3 from April
through June. The annual mean density of zooplankton in the North River at Bluff
Point amounted to 10,148 individuals/m3 (Knott, 1980, 2001). Both the zooplankton
TABLE 5.7
Taxonomic Composition and Relative
Abundance of Mesozooplankton at Bluff
Point in the North Edisto River over an
Annual Cycle
Abundance
Taxa (Percent of Total)
Acartia tonsa 41.6

Euterpina acutifrons 10.4
Rotifera 8.4
Parvocalanus crassirostris 7.6
Copopod nauplii 6.3
Pseudodiaptomus coronatus 6.0
Cirripede larvae 5.5
62 other taxa 14.7
Source: South Carolina Department of Natural

Resources and National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. 2001. Characterization of the
Ashepoo–Combahee–Edisto (ACE) Basin, South Caro-
lina. Special Scientific Report 17, South Carolina
Marine Resources Center, Charleston, SC.
composition and seasonal variation in abundance were similar to those observed

in other South Carolina estuarine waters (Knott, 2001).
Benthic Invertebrates
Based on mode of life, benthic fauna are broadly grouped into epifauna (those forms
living on the estuarine bottom or attached to a firm substrate) and the infauna (those
forms living in bottom sediments below the sediment–water interface). Some species,
however, are more appropriately classified as interstitial, boring, swimming, and
commensal–mutualistic forms. Benthic fauna can also be divided into five groups
based on feeding habits: suspension feeders, deposit feeders, herbivores, carnivores,
and scavengers (Levinton, 1982, 1995).
Based on size, benthic fauna are differentiated into four groups: microfauna,
meiofauna, macrofauna, and megafauna. The microfauna are organisms less than
0.1 mm in size. This group consists largely of ciliates and foraminifera. Benthic
fauna ranging from 0.1 to 0.5 mm in size constitute the meiofauna; important
representatives of the meiofauna are nematodes, ostracods, harpacticoid copepods,
rotifers, gastrotrichs, kinorhynchs, archiannelids, halacarines, tardigrades, and mys-
tacocarids. The meiofauna also include the juvenile stages of polychaetes, oligocha-
etes, turbellarians, and other organisms. The macrofauna, in turn, are those benthic
animals larger than 0.5 mm and smaller than 20 mm. Individuals exceeding 20 mm
in size comprise the megafauna.
No data have been collected on the benthic microfauna and benthic meiofauna
of the ACE Basin system (Van Dolah, 2001). However, Bell et al. (1978), Bell (1979),
Coull and Bell (1979), Coull et al. (1979), and Coull and Dudley (1985) have
investigated the meiofauna of intertidal and subtidal sediments of other South Caro-
lina estuarine systems. These studies, as well as others (see Kennish, 1986, 2001),
reveal the high abundances that these organisms attain in estuarine bottom habitats.
For example, in South Carolina intertidal mudflat environments, the density of
meiofauna can exceed 2.5 × 107 individuals/m2, and the biomass may range from 1
to 2 g/m2 (Bell, 1979). Bell (1979) found that nematodes are particularly abundant,
comprising nearly 75% of the total meiofauna in a South Carolina estuarine benthic
community. In some estuaries, annual meiofaunal production is greater than 20 g
C/m2/yr (Kennish, 1986, 2001).
Meiofauna concentrate in the uppermost portion of the sediment column. For
example, Coull and Bell (1979) found that more than 95% of the meiofauna in their
estuarine benthic samples occurred within the top 7 cm of the sediment column. In
addition, 60 to 70% of the meiofauna inhabited the upper 2 cm of the bottom
sediments. Because of high abundances near the sediment–water interface, the meio-
fauna provide a rich food source for benthic macrofauna and demersal fish (Bell
and Coull, 1978; Kennish, 1986; Coull, 1990).
Coull and Bell (1979), Coull et al. (1979), and Coull and Dudley (1985) exam-
ined long-term patterns of meiofaunal abundance, distribution, and composition at
North Inlet, South Carolina. Meiofauna in this system exhibited considerable tem-
poral variation in abundance, evident over both seasonal and annual periods. Coull
et al. (1979) observed conspicuous spatial distribution patterns of meiofaunal assem-
blages along an intertidal–subtidal gradient. Within the intertidal zone of salt marsh
flats, Nitocra lacustris and Schizopera knabeni occupied the upper flats. Other
species (i.e., Diarthrodes aegideus, Nannopuus palustris, Pseudostenhelia wellsi,
and Robertsonia propinqua) were restricted to the lower marsh flats. A number of
meiofauna populations, such as Halectinosoma winonae and Pseudobradya pulch-
ella, were limited to subtidal habitats. Several species (e.g., Enhydrosoma propinq-
uum, Halicyclops coulli, and Microarthridium littorale) ranged across the entire
intertidal–subtidal gradient.
Much more is known about the benthic macrofauna of the ACE Basin (Van Dolah,
2001). Since the mid-1970s, several studies of benthic macrofauna have been con-
ducted within or near the ACE Basin NERR, including those of Calder and Boothe
(1977a, 1977b), Calder et al. (1977), Van Dolah et al. (1979, 1984, 1991), and Hyland
et al. (1996, 1998). These investigators sampled benthic organisms at a total of 26
stations. Oyster dredges and bottom grabs were employed to sample benthic epifauna
and infauna, respectively. Results of these studies indicate that the epifauna and infauna
of the benthic macroinvertebrate community of the ACE Basin are both abundant and
diverse. Among the most commonly sampled epifaunal species were barnacles (Bal-
anus improvisus), crabs (Callinectes sapidus), shrimp (Penaeus setiferus), chordates
(Molgula manhattensis), bryozoans (Aeverrillia setigera, Amathia distans, Anguinell
palmata, Bowerbankia gracilis, and Electra monostachys), and cnidarians (Clytia
kincaidi, Ectopleura dumortieri, and Obelia bidentata). Highest epifaunal species
diversity was recorded in the North Edisto River and at Rock Creek.
Subtidal estuarine benthic samples collected at 20 of the 26 field stations recovered

more than 10 infaunal species per grab. The Shannon–Weaver (H′) diversity index of
the benthic infaunal assemblages averaged 2.8 and ranged from 0.8 to 4.4, reflecting
a generally undegraded condition. Most of the grab samples also contained more than
500 individuals/m2. The mean infaunal density amounted to 2430 individuals/m2.
Species collected at the most sampling stations were the amphipods Ampelisca
vadorum, Batea catharinensis, Melita nitida, and Paracaprella tenuis; the polychaetes
Heteromastus filiformis, Nereis succinea, Paraprionospio pinnata, Sabellaria vulgaris,
and Streblospio benedicti; and the bivalve Mulina lateralis. At nontidal, freshwater
riverine habitats, the dominant macroinvertebrate taxa observed were amphipods
(mainly Crangonyx sp., Gammarus sp., and Hyallela azteca), isopods (Asellus sp.),
oligochaetes, crayfish (Cambaridae undet.), and insects (Van Dolah, 2001).
Several species of bivalves, gastropods, and crustaceans proliferate in tidal (Spartina
alterniflora) salt marshes of the ACE Basin. The ribbed mussel (Geukensia demissa) has
a highly clustered distribution, commonly found clumped in masses on the marsh surface.
Important gastropod species include periwinkles (Littorina irrorata) and mud snails
(Ilyanassa obsoleta). Fiddler crabs (Uca spp.) are also abundant constituents of the salt
marsh benthic macroinvertebrate community of the ACE Basin (Wenner, 2001b).
The eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica), an epibenthic suspension-feeding
bivalve of considerable commercial and recreational importance, represents an
important habitat former in intertidal estuarine areas of the ACE Basin (Wenner
et al., 1996). Oyster reefs provide habitat for numerous benthic organisms (e.g.,
polychaete worms), decapod crustaceans (Eurypanopeus depressus, Panopeus herb-
stii, and Menippe mercenaria), and fish populations (e.g., bay anchovy, Anchoa
mitchilli; naked goby, Gobiosoma bosci; sheepshead, Archosargus probatoceph-
aluss; and red drum, Sciaenops ocellatus). They occur at the mouths of some tidal
creeks, reducing water flow and facilitating the deposition of suspended sediments
and particulate organic matter. Organic matter accumulating on the reef surface
serves as a food source for some of the reef inhabitants. Birds and mammals often
visit the reef habitat to forage. Oyster beds also exist in other shallow subtidal areas
of the estuary and can be seen lining banks in the system (Wenner, 2001b).
Several recreationally and commercially important shellfish species, in addition
to Crassostrea virginica, also inhabit oyster reefs in the ACE Basin. Of particular
note are blue crabs (Callinectes sapidus) and penaeid shrimp (i.e., brown shrimp,
Penaeus aztecus; pink shrimp, P. duorarum; and white shrimp, P. setiferus). These
decapod crustaceans are seasonally abundant in ACE Basin waters, often attaining
high numbers in estuarine subtidal rivers and tidal creeks (Wenner et al., 1991).
Penaeid shrimp, grass shrimp (Palaemonetes spp.), and blue crabs rank among the
most abundant decapod crustaceans in the ACE Basin (Table 5.8). They are abundant
in natural habitats as well as in impoundments (Wenner, 1986, 2001b).
Fish
Wenner (2001c) has examined the fish assemblages of the ACE Basin. Numerous
species of fish utilize waters of the basin as feeding, spawning, and nursery areas
(Wenner et al., 1991; Beasley et al., 1996). These species consist of residents, seasonal
TABLE 5.8
Abundance and Biomass of Decapod Crustaceans
Collected by Trawl Net Sampling in the ACE Basin from
August 1993 to December 1997
Scientific Name Total Number Weight (kg)
Penaeus setiferus 35,982 180.002

Penaeus aztecus 1,779 13.034
Callinectes sapidus 1,641 122.310
Palaemonetes vulgaris 1,416 0.666
Callinectes similis 920 10.304
Palaemonetes pugio 511 0.193
Trachypenaeus constrictus 336 0.386
Rhithropanopeus harrisii 289 0.107
Penaeus duorarum 99 0.315
Xiphopenaeus kroyeri 75 0.122
Pagurus longicarpus 56 0.007
Alpheus heterochaelis 48 0.122
Libinia dubia 28 0.653
Neopanope sayi 26 0.013
Panopeus herbstii 24 0.029
Clibanarius vittatus 19 0.018
Ovalipes ocellatus 18 0.165
Menippe mercenaria 12 0.216
Portunus spinicarpus 8 0.076
Portunus spinimanus 8 0.097
Libinia sp. 6 0.273
Xanthidae 5 0.004
Pagurus pollicaris 4 0.101
Cancer irroratus 4 0.064
Portunus gibbesi 2 0.003
Callinectes ornatus 1 0.005
Panopeus occidentalis 1 0.001
Portunus sp. 1 0.001
Source: South Carolina Department of Natural Resources and National Oce-

anic and Atmospheric Administration. 2001. Characterization of the
Ashepoo–Combahee–Edisto (ACE) Basin, South Carolina. Special Scientific
Report 17, South Carolina Marine Resources Center, Charleston, SC.
migrants, anadromous forms, and strays. Fish abundance and community structure vary
substantially over seasonal as well as annual periodicities due to species migrations,
differences in reproductive and juvenile recruitment success, and variable responses to
changes in environmental conditions (Wenner and Sedberry, 1989). Species assem-
blages are characterized by the numerical dominance of relatively few species.
Fish surveys have been periodically conducted in ACE Basin estuarine waters
during the past three decades; the most recent effort was a trawl survey initiated along
salinity gradients of the Ashepoo, Combahee, and Edisto rivers in 1993. Earlier trawl
sampling in the North and South Edisto Rivers during 1973–1975 revealed that sci-
aenids dominated the fish faunas; of greatest significance were the star drum (Stellifer
lanceolatus) — the most abundant species — and the Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias
undulatus), spot (Leiostomus xanthurus), and weakfish (Cynoscion regalis). Species
of secondary importance included the bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli), white catfish
(Ictalurus catus), Atlantic bumper (Chloroscombrus chrysurus), Atlantic menhaden
(Brevoortia tyrannus), hogchoker (Trinectes maculatus), and spotted hake (Urophycis
regia). These 10 species accounted for more than 70% of the total fish biomass and
more than 90% of the total fish abundance (Wenner et al., 1991; Wenner, 2001c).
Trawl sampling during the 1993–1997 period resulted in the collection of 67 species
of fish from the Edisto River. In comparison, trawl sampling during the same period in
the Ashepoo and Combahee Rivers yielded 68 and 49 species of fish, respectively.
Species richness was greatest at sampling sites in higher salinity areas near the river
mouths. In total, nearly 55,000 fish were collected during the sampling period in these
three rivers. The star drum, Atlantic croaker, and bay anchovy dominated the collections,
comprising more than 68% of the total number of individuals. While the star drum
dominated the collections in the South Edisto and Combahee Rivers, the Atlantic croaker
was numerically dominant in the Ashepoo River (Wenner, 2001c).
Trammel netting and rotenone sampling have been employed to sample fish
assemblages in tidal creeks and other shallow water habitats of the ACE Basin. Salt
marsh creeks of the basin are major finfish nursery areas heavily utilized by both
larval and juvenile fishes (Shenker and Dean, 1979; Bozeman and Dean, 1980). The
most recent shallow water sampling was conducted by the SCDNR Marine
Resources Research Institute in the Ashepoo, Combahee, and South Edisto rivers as
well as at sites in Two Sisters/Rock Creek, with trammel netting deployed monthly
from 1994 to 1997. Nearly 11,000 fish belonging to 53 species were collected during
the survey period. The most abundant species included the hardhead catfish (Arius
felis), spotted seatrout (Cynoscion nebulosus), red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus),
striped mullet (Mugil cephalus), and spot; they comprised more than 80% of all
individuals collected. The hardhead catfish was the most abundant species during
the spring and summer, whereas spot and spotted seatrout predominated during the
fall and winter. Striped mullet dominated catches at Two Sisters/Rock Creek (Wen-
ner, 2001c).
The SCDNR Marine Resources Research Institute also conducted monthly roten-
one sampling at St. Pierre Creek in the South Edisto River during 1987–1988. Nearly
47,000 fish belonging to 39 taxa were collected during the two-year survey period,
with Atlantic menhaden and spot accounting for more than 75% of all individuals.
The seasonally dominant species were as follows (Wenner, 2001c):
1. Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus) and spot (Leiostomus xanthu-

rus) in spring
2. Atlantic silverside (Menidia menidia) and mummichog (Fundulus hetero-
clitus) in summer
3. Atlantic silverside in fall
4. Spot in winter
The large number of individuals and taxa collected by the aforementioned

rotenone and trammel net sampling surveys reflects the importance of tidal creeks
and other shallow water habitats to fish communities in the ACE Basin.
It is important to note that the marsh surface also constitutes valuable fish habitat,
especially for larval and juvenile stages. Among the most important species of fish
inhabiting the marsh surface are gobies and killifishes (Weisberg et al., 1981; Kneib,
1986; Jackson, 1990). Other species encountered here include spotted seatrout, red
drum, spot, striped mullet, southern flounder, and silver perch (Bairdiella chrysoura)
(Hettler, 1989; Wenner, 2001c). Wenner et al. (1986) and McGovern and Wenner
(1990) have shown that the striped mullet, inland silverside (Menidia beryllina), and
ladyfish (Elops saurus) dominate impounded marshes in the ACE Basin.
A number of fish species found in ACE Basin waters are anadromous forms that
pass through estuarine areas to riverine habitats during spawning migrations. Included
here are the American shad (Alosa sapidissima), hickory shad (A. mediocris), blue-
back herring (A. aestivalis), Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus), shortnose
sturgeon (A. brevirostrum), and striped bass (Morone saxatilis). The blueback herring
is most numerous. While adults spawn at upriver sites, juveniles occupy estuarine
nursery grounds. Although early life history stages of these anadromous species occur
in freshwater riverine and estuarine areas of the ACE Basin, most of their lives are
spent in coastal marine waters (Rulifson et al., 1982).
Fish assemblages in blackwater areas of streams and rivers, above the influence of
tides, have been surveyed mainly via electrofishing and rotenone sampling. Electrofishing
has been conducted in streams, and rotenone sampling, in segments of major rivers. Most
of the species collected belong to the Centrarchidae (sunfishes: e.g., redbreast sunfish,
Lepomis auritus; bluegill, L. macrochirus; mud sunfish, Acantharchus pomotis; blues-
potted sunfish, Enneacanthus gloriosus; and blackbanded sunfish, E. chaetodon), Icta-
luridae (bullheads and madtoms: e.g., brown bullhead, Ameiurus nebulosus; yellow
bullhead, A. natalis; flat bullhead, A. platycephalus; tadpole madtom, Noturus gyrinus;
and margined madtom, Noturus insignis); Cyprinidae (minnows and carp: e.g., eastern
mudminnow, Umbra pygmaea; and common carp, Cyprinus carpio); and Percidae (dart-
ers: e.g., tessellated darter, Etheostoma olmstedi). In freshwater areas of the Edisto River
Basin, 87 species of fish belonging to 25 families have been collected since the mid-
1960s. Sunfishes, minnows, and carps have dominated electrofishing collections. Sun-
fishes, bullheads, and suckers (e.g., spotted sucker, Minytrema melanops), in turn, have
dominated the rotenone collections. The American eel (Anguilla rostrata), a catadromous
species, has been documented in both tidal and nontidal freshwater habitats of the ACE
Basin (Thomason et al., 1993; Marcy and O’Brien-White, 1995; Wenner, 2001c).
COASTAL MARINE WATERS

ANIMAL COMMUNITIES
Fish
Many coastal marine fish migrate into estuaries to spawn, forage, or use nursery
areas. The coastal marine fish community consists of year-round residents as well
TABLE 5.9
Species of Fish Collected in the Nearshore
Coastal Zone by the Southeast Area Monitoring
and Assessment Program
Species Total Number Weight (kg)
Leiostomus xanthurus 707,212 44,870.22

Micropogonias undulatus 579,578 34,519.59
Chloroscombrus chrysurus 159,514 3,229.46
Stenotomus sp. 154,304 7,830.07
Anchoa hepsetus 148,610 1,029.87
Lagodon rhomboides 103,047 5,869.37
Stellifer lanceolatus 82,835 1,298.21
Larimus fasciatus 78,910 4,992.59
Cynoscion nothus 8,203 3,310.77
Menticirrhus americanus 73,320 7,596.82
Source: South Carolina Department of Natural Resources and

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2001. Charac-
terization of the Ashepoo–Combahee–Edisto (ACE) Basin, South
Carolina. Special Scientific Report 17, South Carolina Marine
Resources Center, Charleston, SC.
as various migrant species. In a study of coastal trawl collections from Cape Fear,
North Carolina to St. John’s River, Florida, Wenner and Sedberry (1989) reported
that drums (sciaenids) comprised most of the total abundance (56%) and biomass
(66%) of the fish samples, reflecting migration and juvenile recruitment patterns.
The Atlantic croaker and spot dominated the collections during all seasons. In
winter and spring, the Atlantic menhaden was also numerically abundant. The
southern kingfish (Menticirrhus americanus), Atlantic croaker, and spot contrib-
uted much of the total biomass. The Southeast Area Monitoring and Assessment
Program reported that the spot and the Atlantic croaker numerically dominated
fish collections in the nearshore coastal zone during the 1990s (Table 5.9) (Beatty
and Boylan, 1997). The striped anchovy (Anchoa hepsetus), pinfish (Lagodon
rhomboides), scup (Stenotomus spp.), Atlantic bumper, and star drum were other
abundant species (Wenner, 2001c). Along sandy beach nearshore habitats, the
pompano (Trachinotus carolinus), Gulf whiting (Menticirrhus littoralis), white
mullet (Mugil curema), bay anchovy, and Atlantic silverside attained greatest
abundance (Anderson et al., 1977; Delancey, 1984).
Reptiles
Several sea turtles inhabit coastal marine waters seaward of the ACE Basin. These
include the loggerhead (Carretta caretta), leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea),
green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas), Kemp’s Ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii),
and hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata). Of these species, only the endangered
loggerhead turtle enters ACE Basin estuarine waters on a consistent basis. However,
ongoing development and other human activities pose a threat to this species by
degrading nesting habitat and increasing mortality via commercial trawling (Riekerk
and Rhodes, 2001).
Mammals
The bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops turncatus) and West Indian manatee (Trichechus
manatus) are two resident species of marine mammals found in coastal waters
offshore of the ACE Basin. There are also several species of whales (e.g., killer
whale, Orcinus orca; pygmy whale, Foresa attenuata; and sperm whale, Physeter
macrocephalus) and other dolphins (e.g., Atlantic spotted dolphin, Stenella frontalis;
and striped dolphin, S. coeruleoalba) occurring in these waters. Bottlenose dolphins
(Tursiops spp.) are carnivores preying on shellfish (crabs and shrimp), fish, and
squid. West Indian manatees, in contrast, are herbivores, feeding on Spartina alterni-
flora and other plants (Zimmerman, 2001a).
Birds
The avifauna most frequently observed in coastal marine habitats are piscivo-
rous forms that prey on fish, although other feeding types are also common
(Zimmerman, 2001b). Examples include cormorants (double-crested cormo-
rant, Phalacrocorax auritus), loons (common loon, Gavia immer; and red-
throated loon, G. stellata), gulls (herring gull, Larus argentatus; laughing gull,
L. atricella; ring-billed gull, L. delawarensis; great black-backed gull, L. mari-
nus; and Bonaparte’s gull, L. philadelphia), skimmers (black skimmer,
Rynchops niger), terns (common tern, Sterna hirundo; Forster’s tern, S. forsteri;
least tern, S. antillarum; royal tern, S. maxima; sandwich tern, S. sandvicensis;
Caspian tern, S. caspia; and black tern, Chlidonias niger), gannets (northern
gannet, Morus bassanus), and pelicans (eastern brown pelican, Pelecanus
occidentalis). Grebes (horned grebe, Podiceps auritus), petrels (Wilson’s petrel,
Oceanites oceanicus), scoters (black scoter, Melanitta nigra; and surf scoter,
M. perspicillata), and various waterfowl (ruddy duck, Oxyura jamaicensis;
canvasback, Aythyra valisineria; and lesser scaup, A. affinis) also utilize this
habitat (Potter et al., 1980; Sandifer et al., 1980).
ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES

Several plant and animal species inhabiting the ACE Basin are classified as endan-
gered or threatened (Riekerk et al., 2001). Among the federally endangered species
are Canby’s dropwort (Oxypolyis canbyi), American peregrine falcon (Falco pere-
grinus anatum), wood stork (Mycteria americana), red-cockaded woodpecker
(Picoides borealis), shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum), and West Indian
manatee (Trichechus manatus). The least tern (Sterna antillarum) is a state endan-
gered species. The federally threatened species include the American alligator
(Alligator mississippiensis), loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta), and bald eagle
(Haliaeetus leuocephalus) (Riekerk et al., 2001). Endangered and threatened species

have been defined by SCDNR and NOAA (2001) as follows:
• Endangered Species — “Any species that is in danger of extinction

through all or a significant portion of its range; a species of native fish,
wildlife, or plants threatened with extinction because its habitat is threat-
ened with destruction, drastic modification, or severe curtailment, or
because of over-exploitation, disease, predation, or other factors affecting
its survival.”
• Threatened Species — “Any species which is likely to become an endan-
gered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant
portion of its range and which has been designated in the Federal Registry
by the Secretary of Interior as a threatened species.”
It is critically important to provide protection for these species against anthro-

pogenic impacts. However, it must also be noted that threats to some of these species
derive from natural events as well. Hence, efforts are ongoing to improve environ-
mental conditions in the ACE Basin, thereby making habitats in the system more
favorable for the long-term success of these valuable species.
Most estuaries in the U.S. and many abroad are affected in some way by anthropo-
genic activities either in adjoining coastal watersheds or on the water bodies them-
selves. The impacts are numerous and varied, including point and nonpoint source
pollution, pathogen inputs, water quality degradation, habitat loss and alteration,
nutrient overenrichment, organic loading, chemical contaminant accumulation, over-
fishing, freshwater diversions, introduced species, coastal subsidence (associated
with groundwater, oil, and gas withdrawal), watercraft effects, electric generating
station effects (thermal discharges as well as entrainment and impingement of
organisms), and litter (Kennish, 1992, 1997, 2000, 2001). These impacts can alter
biotic communities by directly disrupting constituent populations or by altering
estuarine habitats that support them. Due to multiple environmental threats, the long-
term outlook for these vital coastal ecosystems is tenuous (Kennish, 2002).
The principal sources of land-based impacts on the ACE Basin system are
residential and commercial development, agriculture, and silviculture (SCDNR and
NOAA, 2001). Land cover studies indicate that 56% of the ACE Basin study area
consists of timberland (Figure 5.2) (Connor, 1993). Another 12% of the land cover
is farmland, and urban development accounts for ~2% of the area (USEPA, 1997).
According to Mathews and Sanger (2001), only 13 National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits have been issued for point source discharges
in the ACE Basin (e.g., the Yamassee wastewater treatment facility, the Walterboro
City Wastewater Treatment Facility, and the SCE&G Canadys Power Station). Of
even greater concern is nonpoint source pollution associated with agricultural pro-
duction and runoff as well as clearcutting of hardwood timber.
There are several potentially significant impacts attributable to agricultural pro-

duction in the ACE Basin. First, heavy irrigation can deplete surface water flows
leading to lower water levels in area streams, shifts in salinity levels in tidal reaches,
and the loss of habitat for aquatic organisms. The use of pesticides and other chemical
treatments to enhance agricultural production may result in unintentional impacts
on nontarget organisms in receiving water bodies (Scott et al., 1994). Other contam-
inants can also enter these waters from fertilizer applications on lawns and golf
courses, as well as runoff from impervious surfaces in developed areas. Inputs of
nutrient elements, particularly nitrogen, and animal waste from farmlands raise
eutrophication concerns.
Soil cultivation and construction often hasten erosion and sediment load in
surface waters (Wenner, 2001d). The potential also exists for accelerated erosion
and sediment loading to surface waters due to hardwood clearing and logging.
Associated impacts include habitat loss and water quality degradation. In Colleton
County, however, sustainable forestry management practices are carefully followed;
for example, the management of forest plantations involves rotation cycles that
promote long-term maintenance of the resource. The focus is on conservation of the
resource and protection of the environment using best management practices (Hunter,
1990; Meffe and Carroll, 1994; Allen et al., 1996).
Scott et al. (1998) reported on sediment chemical contamination in the ACE
Basin NERR during the 1994 to 1996 period. Sediment samples taken at eight
sites in each of the major rivers (i.e., Ashepoo, Combahee, and Edisto rivers),
three sites in St. Helena Sound, and seven sites in small tidal creeks and the
Intracoastal Waterway were analyzed for trace metals and organic contaminants
(PCBs, organochlorine pesticides, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
[PAHs]). The concentrations of both trace metals and organic contaminants were
shown to be low. Of the trace metals, only arsenic was present at levels that could
possibly cause adverse biological effects. The input of PCBs, organochlorine
pesticides, and PAHs appears to be minimal; the concentrations of all of these
contaminants are well below the thresholds where adverse biological effects
would be observed based on effects range–low and effects range–median criteria
(Long et al., 1995). However, in another study, Marcus and Mathews (1987)
determined that sediments in Campbell Creek near a chemical plant had PCB
concentrations greater than 24,000 ppb. The extremely high concentrations of
PCBs at this “hot-spot” location indicate that adverse biological effects are
probable in organisms exposed to the sediment. Despite this impacted site, the
overall results of the two studies show that the ACE Basin remains a generally
pristine system with respect to chemical contaminants, reflecting in part the
relatively limited amount of development in neighboring watershed areas
(Mathews and Sanger, 2001).
Other anthropogenic activities that have potentially significant environmental
impacts are ditching and impounding of wetlands. These land changes can cause
the loss or alteration of substantial habitat area in the system. However, impound-
ments in the ACE Basin also support rich and diverse communities of organisms
(Wenner, 2001b, c).
Introduced species have also had an impact on some organisms in the ACE
Basin (Wenner, 2001c). For example, Allen (1997) revealed that introduction of
the nonendemic flathead catfish (Ictalurus furcatus) to the Edisto River has caused
depletion of the redbreast sunfish population. Abundance of native bullhead catfish
(Ameiurus spp.) has also declined in areas where the flathead catfish population
is flourishing. Such changes in the composition of the fish community can con-
tribute to shifts in the food web structure and other alterations of biotic commu-
nities in the river, and thus must be carefully monitored.

The ACE Basin NERR consists of more than 50,000 ha of diverse coastal plain
habitats, including pine-mixed hardwoods, forested wetlands, maritime forests,
brackish marshes, salt marshes, marsh islands, tidal creeks, tidal flats, barrier
beaches and dunes, and open riverine and estuarine waters. Although residential
and urban land use in the ACE Basin area has increased in recent years, the reserve
habitats remain relatively pristine, and management programs are in place under
direction of the SCDNR to protect biotic communities and ensure sustainability
of resources. The ACE Basin NERR encompasses much of the Ashepoo, Com-
bahee, and Edisto river systems, which support a wide array of aquatic and
terrestrial organisms. An abundance of clams, oysters, shrimps, crabs, and finfishes
in estuarine waters provides bountiful catches for commercial and recreational
fishermen and shellfishermen. A number of endangered and threatened species,
such as the American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis), bald eagle (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus), loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta), and shortnose sturgeon
(Acipensier brevirostrum), occur in the basin.
Most of the land cover in the ACE Basin area consists of forested habitat (56%
of the total area), with nonforested wetlands (17%), agricultural rangelands (12%),
and open water (12%) accounting for much of the remaining land use cover (SCDNR
and NOAA, 2001). The harvesting of timber in the ACE Basin NERR is a major
industry of economic importance for South Carolina. Sustainable forest management
practices have been implemented to promote conservation of the resource.
Numerous species of amphibians, reptiles, mammals, birds, and insects
reside in watershed habitats. As many as 110 species of amphibians and reptiles,
nearly 50 species of mammals, and almost 300 species of birds are likely to
inhabit the ACE Basin region. Up to 10,000 species of insects are estimated to
occur there.
Estuarine waters harbor robust communities of phytoplankton, zooplankton,
benthic invertebrates, and fish. Tidal creeks are important nursery areas for many
species of fish. Several anadromous forms (American shad, Alosa sapidissima;
hickory shad, A. mediocris; blueback herring, A. aestivalis; shortnose sturgeon,
Acipenser brevirostrum; and striped bass, Morone saxatilis) utilize estuarine waters
as a pathway during spawning runs to freshwater sites upriver.
Human activities are a potential threat to biotic communities in watershed and
estuarine habitats. The primary anthropogenic impacts of concern are associated
with residential and commercial development, agriculture, and silviculture. Ditching
and impounding of wetlands, the introduction of nonendemic species, and the

removal of surface waters for heavy irrigation of crops can adversely affect various
components of the ACE Basin system. Chemical contaminant accumulation in the
basin is generally low, and hence much of the estuarine habitat remains relatively
pristine with respect to toxic substances.
REFERENCES
Allen, A.W., Y.K. Bernal, and R.J. Moulton. 1996. Pine plantations and wildlife in the south-
eastern United States: An Assessment of Impacts and Opportunities. Information and
Technology Report No. 3, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Biological
Service, Washington, D.C.
Allen, D.E. 1997. Flathead Catfish Investigations in the Edisto River: Fisheries Investigations
in Lakes and Streams. Project No. F-63–2–6, Freshwater Fisheries District VI, Colum-
bia, SC.
Anderson, W.D., J.K. Dias, D.M. Cupka, and N.A. Chamberlain. 1977. The Macrofauna of
the Surf Zone off Folly Beach, South Carolina. Technical Report NMFS SSRF-704,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, D.C.
Andre, J.B. 1981. Habitat use and relative abundance of the small mammals of a South
Carolina barrier island. Brimleyana 5: 129–134.
Badr, B. and L. Zimmerman. 2001. Surface water. In: South Carolina Department of Natural
Resources and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Characterization
of the Ashepoo-Combahee-Edisto (ACE) Basin, South Carolina. Special Scientific
Baker, O.E., III and D.B. Carmichael, Jr. 1996. South Carolina’s Furbearers. Technical Report,
Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries,
Charleston, SC.
Beasley, B.R., W.D. Marshall, A.H. Miglarese, J.D. Scurry, and C. Van den Houten. 1996.
Managing Resources for a Sustainable Future: The Edisto River Basin Project Report.
Report 12, South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Water Resources Divi-
sion, Charleston, SC.
Beatty, H.R. and J.M. Boylan. 1997. Results of the Southeast Area Monitoring and Assessment
Program — South Atlantic (SEAMAP-SA) Nearshore, Day/Night Trawl Sampling
in the Coastal Habitat of the South Atlantic Bight during 1987 and 1988. Special
Report 65, Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, Washington, D.C.
Bell, S.S. 1979. Short- and long-term variation in a high marsh meiofauna community.
Estuarine and Coastal Marine Science 9: 331–342.
Bell, S.S. and B.C. Coull. 1978. Field evidence that shrimp predation regulates meiofauna.
Oecologia 35: 141–148.
Bell, S.S., M.C. Watzin, and B.C. Coull. 1978. Biogenic structure and its effect on the spatial
heterogeneity of meiofauna in a salt marsh. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology
and Ecology 35: 99–107.
Bennett, S.H. and J.B. Nelson. 1991. Distribution and Status of Carolina Bays in South
Carolina. Publication No. 1, South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Depart-
ment, Columbia, SC.
Blaustein, A.R., D.B. Wake, and W.P. Sousa. 1994. Amphibian declines: judging stability,
persistence, and susceptibility of populations to local and global extinctions. Conser-
vation Biology 8: 60–71.
Bloxham, W.M. 1979. Low-flow Frequency and Flow-duration of South Carolina Streams.
Report No. 11, South Carolina Water Resources Commission, Columbia, SC.
Bloxham, W.M. 1981. Low-flow Characterization of Ungaged Streams in the Piedmont and
Lower Coastal Plain in South Carolina. Report No. 14, South Carolina Water
Resources Commission, Columbia, SC.
Bozeman, E.L., Jr. and J.M. Dean. 1980. The abundance of estuarine larval and juvenile fish
in a South Carolina intertidal creek. Estuaries 3: 89–97.
Calder, D.R. and B.B. Boothe, Jr. 1977a. Some Subtidal Epifaunal Assemblages in South
Carolina Estuaries. Data Report 4, South Carolina Marine Resources Center, South
Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department, Charleston, SC.
Calder, D.R. and B.B. Boothe, Jr. 1977b. Data from Some Subtidal Quantitative Benthic
Samples Taken in Estuaries of South Carolina. Data Report 3, South Carolina Marine
Resources Center, South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department,
Charleston, SC.
Calder, D.R., B.B. Boothe, Jr., and M.S. Maclin. 1977. A Preliminary Report on Estuarine
Macrobenthos of the Edisto and Santee River Systems, South Carolina. Technical
Report 22, South Carolina Marine Resources Center, South Carolina Wildlife and
Marine Resources Department, Charleston, SC.
Colquhoun, D.W. 1969. Geomorphology of the Lower Coastal Plain of South Carolina.
Technical Report, Division of the Geology State Development Board, Columbia, SC.
Conant, R. and J.T. Collins. 1998. A Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians of Eastern and
Central North America. 3rd ed. Houghton Mifflin, New York.
Conner, R.C. 1993. Forest Statistics for South Carolina, 1993. Resource Bulletin SE-141,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment
Station, Asheville, NC.
Cooney, T.W., K.H. Jones, P.A. Drewes, J.W. Gissendanner, and B.W. Church. 1998. Water
Resources Data, South Carolina, Water Year 1997. Technical Report, U.S. Geological
Survey, Columbia, SC.
Coull, B.C. 1990. Are members of the meiofauna food for higher trophic levels? Transactions
of the American Microscopical Society 109: 233–246.
Coull, B.C. and S.S. Bell. 1979. Perspectives of marine meiofaunal ecology. In: Livingston,
R.J. (Ed.). Ecological Processes in Coastal Marine Systems. Plenum Press, New York,
pp. 189–207.
Coull, B.C., S.S. Bell, A.M. Savory, and B.W. Dudley. 1979. Zonation of meiobenthic cope-
pods in a southeastern United States marsh. Estuarine and Coastal Marine Science
9: 181–188.
Coull, B.C. and B.W. Dudley. 1985. Dynamics of meiobenthic copepod populations: a long-
term study (1973–1983). Marine Ecology Progress Series 23: 219–229.
Davis, L.V. 1978. Class Insecta. In: Zingmark, R.G. (Ed.). An Annotated Checklist of the
Biota of the Coastal Zone of South Carolina. University of South Carolina Press,
Columbia, SC, pp. 186–220.
Davis, L.V. and I.E. Gray. 1966. Zonal and seasonal distribution of insects in North Carolina
salt marshes. Ecological Monographs 36: 275–295.
Davis, R.B. and R.F. Van Dolah (Eds.). 1992. Characterization of the Physical, Chemical,
and Biological Conditions and Trends in Three South Carolina Estuaries 1970–1985.
Volume 1: Charleston Harbor Estuary. Technical Report, South Carolina Sea Grant
Consortium, Charleston, SC.
Dawes, C.J. 1998. Marine Botany, 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Delancey, L.B. 1984. An Ecological Study of the Surf Zone at Folly Beach, South Carolina.
M.S. thesis, College of Charleston, Charleston, SC.
Eidson, J.P. 1993. Water quality. In: Assessing Change in the Edisto River Basin: An Ecolog-
ical Characterization. Report No. 177, South Carolina Water Resources Commission,
Columbia, SC.
Gatrelle, R.R. 1975. The Hesperioidea of the south coastal area of South Carolina. Journal
of the Lepidopterists’ Society 29: 56–59.
Gibbons, J.W. 1978. Reptiles. In: Zingmark, R.G. (Ed.). An Annotated Checklist of the Biota
of the Coastal Zone of South Carolina. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia,
SC, pp. 270–276.
Gibbons, J.W. and J.W. Coker. 1978. Herpetofaunal colonization patterns of Atlantic coast
barrier islands. American Midland Naturalist 99: 212–233.
Gibbons, J.W. and J.R. Harrison. 1981. Reptiles and amphibians of Kiawah and Capers
Islands, South Carolina. Brimleyana 5: 145–162.
Hettler, W.F., Jr. 1989. Nekton use of regularly flooded saltmarsh cordgrass habitat in North
Carolina, USA. Marine Ecology Progress Series 56: 111–118.
Hunter, M.L. 1990. Wildlife, Forests, and Forestry: Principles of Managing Forests for Biodi-
versity. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Hyland, J.L., T.J. Herrlinger, T.R. Snoots, A.H. Ringwood, R.F. Van Dolah, C.T. Hackney,
G.A. Nelson, J.S. Rosen, and S.A. Kokkinakis. 1996. Environmental Quality of
Estuaries of the Carolinian Province: 1994. Annual Statistical Summary for the 1994
EMAP–Estuaries Demonstration Project in the Carolinian Province. NOAA Technical
Memorandum NOS ORCA 97, NOAA/NOS, Office of Ocean Resources Conserva-
tion and Assessment, Silver Spring, MD.
Hyland, J.L., L. Balthis, C.T. Hackney, G. McRae, A.H. Ringwood, T.R. Snoots, R.F. Van
Dolah, and T.L. Wade. 1998. Environmental Quality of Estuaries of the Carolinian
Province: 1995. Annual Statistical Summary for the 1995 EMAP–Estuaries Demon-
stration Project in the Carolinian Province. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS
ORCA 123, NOAA/NOS, Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment,
Silver Spring, MD.
Jackson, C.D. 1990. Recruitment of Fish Larvae to Shallow Estuarine Habitats along a Salinity
Gradient. M.S. thesis, College of Charleston, Charleston, SC.
Kennish, M.J. 1986. Ecology of Estuaries, Vol. 2, Biological Effects. CRC Press, Boca Raton,
FL.
FL.
Kennish, M.J. (Ed.) 2001. Practical Handbook of Marine Science, 3rd ed. CRC Press, Boca
Raton, FL.
Kennish, M.J. 2002. Environmental threats and environmental future of estuaries. Environ-
Kneib, R.T. 1986. Size-specific patterns in the reproductive cycle of the killifish, Fundulus
heteroclitus, (Pisces: Fundulidae) from two South Carolina, USA salt marshes. Wet-
lands 17: 65–81.
Knott, D.M. 1980. The Zooplankton of the North Edisto River and Two Artificial Saltwater
Impoundments. M.S. thesis, College of Charleston, Charleston, SC.
Knott, D.M. 2001. Zooplankton. In: South Carolina Department of Natural Resources and
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Characterization of the
Ashepoo–Combahee–Edisto (ACE) Basin, South Carolina. Special Scientific Report
17, South Carolina Marine Resources Center, Charleston, SC.
Koontz, B.L. and R.M. Sheffield. 1993. Forest Statistics for the Southern Coastal Plain of
South Carolina, 1993. Resource Bulletin SE-140, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, Asheville, NC.
Kraeuter, J.N. and P.L. Wolf. 1974. The relationships of marine macroinvertebrates to salt
marsh plants. In: Reimhold, R.J. and W.H. Queen (Eds.). Ecology of Halophytes.
Academic Press, New York, pp. 449–462.
Levinton, J.S. 1982. Marine Ecology. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Levinton, J.S. 1995. Marine Biology: Function, Biodiversity, Ecology. Oxford University
Press, New York.
Lewitus, A.J., E.T. Koepfler, and J.T. Morris. 1998. Seasonal variation in the regulation of
phytoplankton by nitrogen and grazing in a salt marsh estuary. Limnology and Ocean-
ography 43: 636–646.
Long, E.R., D.R. MacDonald, S.L. Smith, and F.D. Calder. 1995. Incidence of adverse
biological effects within ranges of chemical concentrations in marine and estuarine
sediments. Environmental Management 19: 81–97.
Marcus, J.M. and T.D. Mathews. 1987. Polychlorinated biphenyls in blue crabs from South
Carolina. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 39: 857–862.
Marcy, B.C., Jr. and S.K. O’Brien-White (Eds.). 1995. Fishes of the Edisto River Basin, South
Carolina. Edisto River Basin Project Report 6, South Carolina Department of Natural
Resources, Water Resources Division, Columbia, SC.
Mathews, T. and D. Sanger. 2001. Hydrochemistry and pollution. In: South Carolina Depart-
ment of Natural Resources and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
Characterization of the Ashepoo–Combahee–Edisto (ACE) Basin, South Carolina.
Special Scientific Report 17, South Carolina Marine Resources Center, Charleston,
SC.
Mathews, T.D., F.W. Stapor, Jr., C.R. Richter, J.V. Miglarese, M.D. McKenzie, and L.A.
Barclay (Eds.). 1980. Ecological Characterization of the Sea Island Coastal Region
of South Carolina and Georgia, Volume 1: Physical Features of the Characterization
Area. FWS/OBS-79/40, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services,
Washington, D.C.
McGovern, J.C. and C.A. Wenner. 1990. Seasonal recruitment of larval and juvenile fishes
into impounded and non-impounded marshes. Wetlands 10: 203–221.
McIntyre, M.P., H.P. Eilers, and J.W. Mairs. 1991. Physical Geography. John Wiley & Sons,
New York.
Meffe, G.K. and C.R. Carroll. 1994. Principles of Conservation Biology. Sinauer Associates,
Sunderland, MA.
Mengak, M.T., D.C. Gwynn, Jr., J.K. Edwards, D.L. Sanders, and S.M. Miller. 1987. Abun-
dance and distribution of shrews in western South Carolina. Brimleyana 13: 63–66.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1996. Estuarine Eutrophication Survey,
Volume 1: South Atlantic Region. Technical Report, Office of Ocean Resources
Conservation Assessment, Silver Spring, MD.
Olsen, P.S. and J.B. Mahoney. 2001. Phytoplankton in the Barnegat Bay–Little Egg Harbor
estuarine system: species composition and picoplankton bloom development. Journal
Omori, M. and T. Ikeda. 1984. Methods in Marine Zooplankton Ecology. John Wiley & Sons,
New York.
Opler, P.A. and V. Malikul. 1998. A Field Guide to Eastern Butterflies. Houghton Mifflin,
Boston.
Orlando, S.P., Jr., P.H. Wendt, C.J. Klein, M.E. Pattillo, K.C. Dennis, and G.H. Ward. 1994.
Salinity Characteristics of South Atlantic Estuaries. Technical Report, Office of Ocean
Resources Conservation and Assessment, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin-
istration, Silver Spring, MD.
Park, D. 2001. Ground water. In: South Carolina Department of Natural Resources and
Pechmann, J.H.K., D.E. Scott, R.D. Semlitsch, J.P. Caldwell, L.J. Vitt, and J.W. Gibbons.
1991. Declining amphibian populations: the problem of separating human impacts
from natural fluctuations. Science 253: 892–895.
Pfeiffer, W.J. and R.G. Wiegert. 1981. Grazers on Spartina and their predators. In: Pomeroy,
L.R. and R.G. Wiegert (Eds.). The Ecology of a Salt Marsh. Springer-Verlag, New
York, pp. 87–112.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
Price, P.W. 1997. Insect Ecology, 3rd ed. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Riekerk, G. 2001. Geomorphology. In: South Carolina Department of Natural Resources and
Riekerk, G. and W. Rhodes. 2001. Herpetofauna. In: South Carolina Department of Natural
Resources and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Characterization
of the Ashepoo–Combahee–Edisto (ACE) Basin, South Carolina. Special Scientific
Riekerk, G., S. Upchurch, M. Brouwer, A. Sievert, C. Layman, and T. Marcinko. 2001.
Threatened and Endangered Species. In: South Carolina Department of Natural
Rulifson, R.G., M.T. Huish, and R.W. Thoesen. 1982. Anadromous Fish in the Southeastern
United States and Recommendations for Development of a Management Plan. Tech-
nical Report, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fishery Resources, Region 4, Atlanta,
GA.
Sandifer, P.A., J.V. Miglarese, D.R. Calder, J.J. Manzi, and L.A. Barclay. 1980. Ecological
Characteristics of the Sea Island Coastal Region of South Carolina and Georgia, Vol.
3: Biological Features of the Characterization Area. FWS/OBS-79/42, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services, Washington, D.C.
Scholtens, B. 2001. Insects. In: South Carolina Department of Natural Resources and National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Characterization of the Ashepoo—Com-
bahee—Edisto (ACE) Basin, South Carolina. Special Scientific Report 17, South
Scott, G.I., M.H. Fulton, D.W. Moore, G.T. Chandler, P.B. Key, T.W. Hampton, J.M. Marcus,
K.L. Jackson, D.S. Baughman, A.H. Trim, L. Williams, C.J. Louden, and E.R. Patter-
son. 1994. Agricultural Insecticide Runoff Effects on Estuarine Organisms: Correlat-
ing Laboratory and Field Toxicity Testing, Ecophysiology Assays, and
Ecotoxicological Biomonitoring. Report EPA/600/R-94/004; Report PB94–160678,
University of South Carolina, School of Public Health, Columbia, SC.
Scott, G.I., M.H. Fulton, D. Bearden, M. Sanders, A. Dias, L.A. Reed, S. Sivertsen, E.D.
Strozier, P.B. Jenkins, J.W. Daugomah, J. De Vane, P.B. Key, and W. Ellenberg. 1998.
Chemical Contaminant Levels in Estuarine Sediment of the Ashepoo–Com-
bahee–Edisto River (ACE) Basin National Estuarine Research Reserve and Sanctuary
Site. Technical Report, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Charles-
ton, SC.
Shenker, J.M. and J.M. Dean. 1979. The utilization of an intertidal salt marsh creek by larval
and juvenile fishes: abundance, diversity, and temporal variation. Estuaries 2:
154–163.
Smalley, A.E. 1980. Energy flow of a salt marsh grasshopper population. Ecology 41: 672–685.
Soller, D.R. and H.H. Mills. 1991. Surficial geology and geomorphology. In: Horton, J.W.
and V.A. Zullo (Eds.). The Geology of the Carolinas. The 50th Anniversary Volume,
Carolina Geological Society, University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, TN.
Solomon, E.P., L.R. Berg, and D.W. Martin. 1999. Biology, 5th ed. Saunders College Pub-
lishing, Philadelphia.
South Carolina Department of Natural Resources and National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. 2001. Characterization of the Ashepoo–Combahee–Edisto (ACE)
Basin, South Carolina. Special Scientific Report 17, South Carolina Marine Resources
Center, Charleston, SC.
South Carolina Water Resources Commission. 1983. South Carolina State Water Assessment.
Technical Report No. 140, South Carolina Water Resources Commission, Columbia,
SC.
Teal, J.M. 1962. Energy flow in the salt marsh ecosystem of Georgia. Ecology 43: 614–624.
The Nature Conservancy. 1993. ACE Basin Biological Inventory Report, 1990–1992. Tech-
nical Report, The Nature Conservancy, Charleston, SC.
Thomason, C.S., D.E. Allen, and J.S. Crane. 1993. A Fisheries Study of the Edisto River.
Wallop–Breaux Projects F-30 and F-32, South Carolina Wildlife and Marine
Resources Department, Columbia, SC.
Thompson, J.N. 1984. Insect diversity and the trophic structure of communities. In: Huffaker,
C.B. and R.L. Rabb (Eds.). Ecological Entomology. John Wiley & Sons, New York,
pp. 591–606.
Upchurch, S. 2001. Plants. In: South Carolina Department of Natural Resources and National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Characterization of the Ashepoo–Com-
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1997. National Wetlands Inventory Classification.
Technical Document, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Van Dolah, R. 2001. Benthic invertebrates. In: South Carolina Department of Natural
Van Dolah, R.F., D.R. Calder, F.W. Stapor, Jr., R.H. Dunlap, and C.R. Richter. 1979. Atlantic
Intracoastal Waterway Environmental Studies at Sewee Bay and North Edisto River.
Technical Report No. 39, South Carolina Marine Resources Center, South Carolina
Wildlife and Marine Resources Department, Charleston, SC.
Van Dolah, R.F., D.R. Calder, and D.M. Knott. 1984. Effects of dredging and open water
disposal on benthic macroinvertebrates in a South Carolina estuary. Estuaries 7:
28–37.
Van Dolah, R.F., P.H. Wendt, and M.V. Levisen. 1991. A study of the effects of shrimp trawling
on benthic communities in two South Carolina sounds. Fisheries Research 12:
139–156.
Verity, P.G. 1998. Phytoplankton of the South Atlantic Bight. Technical Report, LUCES–South
Carolina Sea Grant Consortium, Skidaway Institute of Oceanography, Skidaway, GA.
Verity, P.G. and G.A. Paffenhöfer. 1996. On assessment of prey ingestion by copepods. Journal
of Plankton Research 18: 1767–1779.
Vernberg, F.J. and C.E. Sansbury. 1972. Studies on salt marsh invertebrates of Port Royal
Sound. In: South Carolina Water Resources Commission (Ed.). Port Royal Sound
Environmental Study. South Carolina Water Resources Commission, Columbia, SC.
Wallace, F.L. 1987. A Checklist of the Richard B. Dominick Moth and Butterfly Collection.
International Center for Public Health Research, University of South Carolina,
Columbia, SC.
Weakley, A.S. 1981. Natural Features Inventory and Management Recommendations for
Mary’s Island Plantation, Colleton County, South Carolina. Ph.D. thesis, Duke Uni-
versity, Durham, NC.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia,
and Maryland. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
Weisberg, S.B., R. Whalen, and V.A. Lotrich. 1981. Tidal and diurnal influence on food
consumption of a salt marsh killifish, Fundulus heteroclitus. Marine Biology 61:
243–246.
Wenner, E.L. 1986. Decapod crustacean community. In: De Voe, M.R. and D.S. Baughman
(Eds.). South Carolina Coastal Wetland Impoundments: Ecological Characterization,
Management, Status, and Use, Volume 2: Technical Synthesis. Publication No. SL-
SG-TR-82–2, South Carolina Sea Grant Consortium, Charleston, SC.
Wenner, E.L. 2001a. Protected lands. In: South Carolina Department of Natural Resources
and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Characterization of the
Wenner, E.L. 2001b. Decapod crustaceans. In: South Carolina Department of Natural
Wenner, E.L. 2001c. Fish. In: South Carolina Department of Natural Resources and National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Characterization of the Ashepoo–Com-
Wenner, E.L. 2001d. Agriculture. In: South Carolina Department of Natural Resources and
Wenner, C.A. and G.R. Sedberry. 1989. Species Composition, Distribution, and Relative
Abundance of Fishes in the Coastal Habitat off the Southeastern United States.
Technical Report NMFS 79, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
Prepared by South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department, Marine
Resources Division, Charleston, SC.
Wenner, E.L. and L. Zimmerman. 2001. Forestry. In: South Carolina Department of Natural
Wenner, C.A., J.C. McGovern, R. Martone, H.R. Beatty, and W.A. Roumillat. 1986. Ichthy-
ofauna. In: De Voe, M.R. and D.S. Baughman (Eds.). South Carolina Coastal Wetland
Impoundments: Ecological Characterization, Management, Status, and Use, Vol. III:
Technical Synthesis. Publication No. SL-SG-TR-82–2, South Carolina Sea Grant
Consortium, Charleston, SC, pp. 415–526.
Wenner, E.L., W.P. Coon, III, P.A. Sandifer, and M.H. Shealy, Jr. 1991. A Comparison of
Species Composition and Abundance of Decapod Crustaceans and Fishes from the
North and South Edisto Rivers in South Carolina. Technical Report No. 78, South
Carolina Marine Resources Division, South Carolina Marine Resources Center,
Charleston, SC.
Wenner, E., H.R. Beatty, and L. Coen. 1996. A method for quantitatively sampling nekton
on intertidal oyster reefs. Journal of Shellfish Research 15: 769–775.
Wenner, E.L., M. Thompson, and D. Sanger. 2001a. Water quality. In: South Carolina Depart-
ment of Natural Resources and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
Characterization of the Ashepoo–Combahee–Edisto (ACE) Basin, South Carolina.
Special Scientific Report 17, South Carolina Marine Resources Center, Charleston,
SC.
Wenner, E.L., A.F. Holland, M.D. Arendt, Y. Chen, D. Edwards, C. Miller, M. Meece, and
J. Caffrey. 2001b. A Synthesis of Water Quality Data from the National Estuarine
Research Reserve’s System-wide Monitoring Program. Technical Report, National
Whitney, M. 1998. 1996 Fox Squirrel Sighting Survey Report. Technical Report, Department
of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries, Charleston, SC.
Zimmerman, L. 2001a. Mammals. In: South Carolina Department of Natural Resources and
Zimmerman, L. 2001b. Birds. In: South Carolina Department of Natural Resources and
Zimmerman, L. 2001c. Phytoplankton. In: South Carolina Department of Natural Resources
and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Characterization of the
Case Study 5
6 Weeks Bay National
INTRODUCTION
Weeks Bay was designated as a National Estuarine Research Reserve site in 1986.
Covering an area of ~2400 ha, the Weeks Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve
(Weeks Bay NERR) encompasses a variety of watershed and estuarine habitats,
including upland forests, maritime and palustrine plant communities, swamps, fresh-
water marshes, salt marshes, tidal flats, and open estuarine waters and bay bottom.
Uplands and tidelands cover nearly 80% of the reserve area.
The Weeks Bay NERR is one of three active NERR sites in the Gulf of Mexico
region; the other two are Rookery Bay NERR near Naples, Florida (designated in
1978), and Apalachicola NERR at Apalachicola, Florida (designated in 1979). It is
located in Baldwin County, Alabama, an area known during the past century for its
agriculture and silviculture industries. Timber production remains an important
industry, with several paper companies operating in the region. Forested habitat —
pine-rich woodlands — represents a major land use category in the county. Farmland
also constitutes a major land use category. Residential development accounts for a
rather small percentage (<2%) of the total land area of Baldwin County, although a
significant increase in the amount of developed land surrounding Weeks Bay is
anticipated during the next decade (Arcenaux, 1996).
Weeks Bay is a small estuary and hence may be more susceptible to anthropogenic
activities in adjoining watershed areas. However, despite considerable agriculture and
silviculture in the watershed, no evidence exists of acute pollution or extensive habitat
impacts in the bay (Lytle and Lytle, 1995; Lytle et al., 1995; Valentine and Lynn, 1996).
Nevertheless, more data must be collected on the effects of anthropogenic activities
on the biotic communities and habitats of the estuary. Currently, only a limited database
has been compiled on this subject area, and more information must be obtained before
definitive assessment of the system can be completed.
WEEKS BAY
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
Miller-Way et al. (1996) have conducted a detailed investigation of the physical–chem-
ical and biological characteristics of Weeks Bay. With a surface area of only ~7 × 106
m2 and an average depth of less than 2 m (Crance, 1971; Schroeder et al., 1992), the
bay is a tributary estuary of Mobile Bay (Schroeder, 1996). It is one of the smallest
estuaries in the NERR system, measuring less than 4 km in length and width. Located
along the eastern shore of Mobile Bay, Weeks Bay is oriented with its long axis trending
217
FIGURE 6.1 Map of Weeks Bay showing bathymetric contours. (From Schroeder, W.W., S.P.
Dinnel, and W.J. Wiseman, Jr. 1992. Salinity structure of a shallow tributary estuary. In: D.
Prandle (Ed.). Dynamics and Exchanges in Estuaries and the Coastal Zone. Vol. 40, Coastal
and Estuarine Studies, American Geophysical Union, Washington, D.C., pp. 155–171.)
north–south such that hydrologic communication with Mobile Bay occurs through a
narrow inlet at the mouth of the bay in the southern perimeter (Figure 6.1). Weeks
Bay is a microtidal estuary characterized by diurnal tides with a range of 0.4 m.
Currents at the mouth of the bay exceed 1 m/sec, but they decline appreciably within
the bay to less than half of this value (Schroeder et al., 1990).
Most freshwater enters Weeks Bay via discharges from the Fish River and
Magnolia River with a combined flow of ~9 m/sec. The Fish River, which flows
into the northern bay, delivers nearly 75% of the total freshwater input. Much of
this freshwater input flows southward along the bay’s western perimeter. Water
entering the bay at its mouth from Mobile Bay flows northward along the eastern
margin, thereby creating essentially a counterclockwise circulation pattern. Fresh-
water discharge from the Magnolia River enters about midway along the eastern
shore of Weeks Bay, and it mixes with the northward-flowing Mobile Bay water
(Schroeder et al., 1990; Schroeder, 1996).
The salinity regime is highly variable in Weeks Bay because of the salinity flux
of Mobile Bay water entering at its mouth, as well as changes in the volume of
freshwater discharges from the Fish and Magnolia Rivers. In addition, variable wind
Weeks Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve 219
and tidal conditions contribute to shifts in the temporal and spatial salinity structure
of Weeks Bay. Hence, salinities in the bay generally range from near 0 to ~20‰,
with horizontal salinity gradients varying from weak to strong depending on the
aforementioned freshwater inputs and salinity of Mobile Bay water. The vertical
salinity structure likewise is variable; both well-mixed and strongly stratified con-
ditions have been documented in the bay (Schroeder et al., 1992).
Water depths are generally deeper in the lower bay (~2–3 m) than in the upper
bay (1 m or less) as shown in Figure 6.1. The deepest areas (3–4 m) occur at the mouth
of the bay and probably reflect the effects of tidal current scour. An even deeper
bathymetric depression (~5–7 m) lies immediately upstream of the Fish River mouth
(Schroeder, 1996). Sediments are actively accumulating in Weeks Bay, particularly
along the western side (Hardin et al., 1976), and thus the long-term bathymetric
condition appears to be one of shoaling. Most of the bottom sediments in the bay
consist of a mixture of silts and clays (Figure 6.2). However, sand predominates at the
mouth of the bay and in a relatively narrow band abutting the shoreline and surrounding
much of the periphery of the bay. A tongue-like mass of sandy sediment also extends
about 1 km into the bay from the western bank of the Fish River at its mouth. Sediment
in the bay largely derives from the Fish and Magnolia Rivers. Some of the sediment
in the area of the bay mouth originates from Mobile Bay (Haywick et al., 1994).
FIGURE 6.2 Sediment distribution and composition in Weeks Bay. (From Haywick, D.W.,
W.F. Geers, and M.D. Cooper. 1994. Preliminary Report of Grain Size Distribution in Weeks
Bay, Baldwin County, Alabama. Technical Report, National Estuarine Research Reserve,
Silver Spring, MD.)
WATERSHED
PLANT COMMUNITIES
Upland Habitats
Upland pine forests provide valuable habitat for herpetofauna, mammals, birds, and
other animals in the Weeks Bay watershed. Loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), long leaf
pine (P. palustris), and slash pine (P. elliottii) occur in this coastal plain habitat.
The eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), white oak (Quercus alba), laurel oak
(Q. laurifolia), and live oak (Q. virginiana) are also found in these forests, along
with other species of hardwood trees (Miller-Way et al., 1996).
Wetland Habitats
Stout (1987) showed that palustrine forested wetlands (bottomland hardwood swamps)
are the dominant emergent habitat of the reserve, comprising nearly 90% of the mapped
area. The canopy vegetation in this habitat consists primarily of pine trees (long leaf
pine and slash pine) and various broadleaved deciduous trees (e.g., red maple, Acer
rubrum; sweetbay, Magnolia virginiana; and swamp tupelo, Nyssa sylvatica var.
biflora). The subcanopy includes robust species such as hollies (Ilex spp.) and Virginia
willow (Itea virginica). Under this shrub subcanopy is a plush herbaceous ground
cover layer consisting of poison ivy (Toxicodendrom radicans), ferns (royal fern,
Osmunda regalis; and cinnamon fern, O. cinnamomea), and sundews (Drosera spp.).
Palustrine marshes are much less extensive than palustrine forested wetlands,
covering less than 1% of the total Weeks Bay NERR habitat area. They typically
concentrate in limited patches near the mouths of small streams. Among the species
of plants growing in this habitat are the cattail (Typha angustifolia), common reed
(Phragmites australis), saw grass (Cladium jamaicense), alligator weed (Alter-
nathera philoxeroides), pickerel weed (Ponderia cordata), arrow arum (Peltandra
virginica), and arrow leaf (Sagittaria lancifolia) (Stout, 1996).
The black needlerush (Juncus roemerianus) dominates salt marsh biotopes along the
bay. Species of secondary abundance are the giant cordgrass (Spartina cynosuroides),
which inhabits brackish areas near the head of the bay, and the smooth cordgrass (S.
alterniflora), which concentrates near the mouth of the bay. Moving up the marsh, the
salt meadow cordgrass (S. patens) and salt grass (Distichlis spicata) appear and eventually
give way at higher elevations to sea myrtle (Baccharus halmifolia) and marsh elder (Iva
frutescens) in irregularly flooded habitat (Stout and Lelong, 1981; Stout, 1996).
ANIMAL COMMUNITIES
Herpetofauna
Watershed habitats in the Weeks Bay NERR support nearly 50 species of amphibians
and reptiles (Table 6.1). Marion and Dindo (1987, 1988) determined that the her-
petofaunal community inhabiting the reserve is relatively rich, especially bordering
the Fish and Magnolia Rivers. Amphibians are represented by an array of frogs,
toads, salamanders, and amphiumas. Pine snakes, mud snakes, king snakes, and
TABLE 6.1
Herpetofaunal Species That Occur or Are Likely to Occur
in the Weeks Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve
Amphibians
One-toed amphiuma Amphiuma pholeter
Two-toed amphiuma Amphiuma means
Three-toed amphiuma Amphiuma tridactylum
Bronze frog Rana clamitans clamitans
Bullfrog Rana catesbeina
Dusky gopher frog Rana aureolata sevosa
Pig frog Rana grylio
River frog Rana heckscheri
Southern leopard frog Rana pipiens sphenocephala
Southern chorus frog Pseudacris nigrita
Southern cricket frog Acris gryllus gryllus
Barking treefrog Hyla gratiosa
Green treefrog Hyla cinerea
Pine woods treefrog Hyla femoralis
Squirrel treefrog Hyla squirella
Northern spring peeper Hyla crucifer crucifer
Eastern lesser siren Siren intermedia intermedia
Greater siren Siren lacertina
Fowler’s toad Bufo woodhousii fowleri
Oak toad Bufo quercicus
Southern toad Bufo terrestris
Narrowmouth toad Gastrophryne carolinensis
Flatwoods salamander Ambystoma cingulatum
Mole salamander Ambystoma talpoideum
Dwarf salamander Manculus quadridigitatus
Gulf Coast mud salamander Pseudotriton montanus
Slimy salamander Plethodon glutinosus
Southern dusky salamander Desmognathus fuscus auriculatus
Southern red salamander Pseudotriton ruber vioscai
Two-lined salamander Eurycea bislineata
Three-lined salamander Eurycea longicauda
Red-spotted newt Notopthalmus viridescens
Reptiles
Scarlet king snake Lampropeltis triangulum
Eastern king snake Lampropeltis getula getula
Speckled king snake Lampropeltis getula holbrooki
Pine woods snake Rhadinaea flavilata
Black pine snake Pituophis melanoleucus lodingi
Florida pine snake Pituophis melanoleucus mugitus
(continued)

Herpetofaunal Species That Occur or Are Likely to Occur
in the Weeks Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve
Florida green water snake Natrix cyclopion floridana

Gulf salt marsh water snake Natrix fasciata clarki
Banded water snake Nerodia fasciata
Green water snake Nerodia cyclopion
Yellow-bellied water snake Nerodia erythrogaster flavigaster
Water moccasin Agkistrodon piscivorus
Northern black racer Coluber constrictor constrictor
Coral snake Micrurus fulvius
Corn snake Elaphe guttata guttata
Eastern diamondback Crotalus adamanteus
Eastern garter snake Thamnophis sirtalis
Eastern ribbon snake Thamnophis sauritus sauritus
Eastern indigo snake Drymarchon corais couperi
Eastern mud snake Farancia abacura
Rainbow snake Farancia erytrogramma
Gray rat snake Elaphe obsoleta spiloides
Ringneck snake Diadophis punctatus
Rough green snake Opheodrys aestivus
Eastern glass lizard Ophisaurus ventralis
Green anole Anolis carolinensis
Broadheaded skink Eumeces laticeps
Five-lined skink Eumeces fasciatus
Ground skink Scincella lateralis
Six-lined racerunner Cnemidophorus sexlineatus
Snapping turtle Chelydra serpentina
Florida softshell turtle Trionyx ferox
Gulf Coast box turtle Terrapene carolina major
Atlantic Ridley turtle Lepidochelys kempii
Loggerhead musk turtle Sternotherus minor
Stinkpot musk turtle Sternotherus odoratus
Gopher tortoise Gopherus polyphemus
Yellow-bellied pond slider Pseudemys scripta
River cooter Pseudemys concinna
Florida cooter Pseudemys floridana
Alabama red-bellied turtle Pseudemys alabamensis
Alligator snapping turtle Macroclemys temminckii
Mississippi diamondback terrapin Malaclemys terrapin pileata
American alligator Alligator mississippiensis
Source: Miller-Way, T., M. Dardeau, and G. Crozier (Eds.). 1996. Weeks Bay
National Estuarine Research Reserve: An Estuarine Profile and Bibliography.
Dauphin Island Sea Lab Technical Report 96–01, Dauphin Island, AL.
skinks are also common. While some turtles are seasonally abundant (e.g., Gulf
Coast box turtle, Terrapene carolina major), others (e.g., Mississippi diamondback
terrapin, Malaclemys terrapin pileata) rarely appear.
Mammals
The list of mammals recorded in the Weeks Bay NERR is not extensive (<40 species)
(Table 6.2). Marion and Dindo (1987, 1988) characterized the mammalian species
diversity of the reserve as somewhat limited. Dardeau (1996) reported that marsh rabbits
(Sylvilagus palustris) and raccoons (Procyon lotor) dominate the marsh and shoreline
habitats of the reserve. Other common inhabitants include bats (e.g., evening bat,
Nycticeius humeralis), squirrels (e.g., eastern gray squirrel, Sciurus carolinensis), opos-
sums (Didelphis marsupialis), and foxes (e.g., gray fox, Urocyon cinereoargenteus).
Birds
Gulls, cormorants, terns, coots, grebes, kingfishers, waders, flycatchers, warblers,
grackles, sparrows, goldfinches, wrens, doves, plovers, sandpipers, vireos, owls, and
hawks frequent Weeks Bay NERR habitats. All major feeding groups are represented
(i.e., granivores, insectivores, omnivores, herbivores, piscivores, and carnivores).
More than 300 species of birds either occur or are likely to occur in the reserve,
reflecting the importance of its location within the migratory corridor. Marion and
Dindo (1987, 1988), conducting shoreline surveys in the reserve, noted that only six
species of birds were common during all seasons of the year; these included the
laughing gull (Larus atricilla), common tern (Sterna hirundo), least tern (S. antil-
larum), royal tern (S. maxima), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), and belted king-
fisher (Ceryle alcyon). While coots, cormorants, gulls, grebes, terns, and long-legged
waders were observed in the Weeks Bay area either seasonally or year-round, other
species were rarely (if at all) seen. For example, small wading birds, marsh ducks,
and black skimmers (Rynchops niger) were not registered by these investigators.
Their absence is probably due to either the limited extent of suitable habitat or
insufficient food sources for these birds in the reserve (Dardeau, 1996).
ESTUARY
PLANT COMMUNITIES
Phytoplankton and Microphytobenthos
Schreiber (1994), Schreiber and Pennock (1995), and Pennock (1996) have investigated
the nutrient dynamics and microalgal production of Weeks Bay. They noted that Weeks
Bay is generally nutrient-rich and productive for several reasons, most importantly:
1. Nutrient inputs from the Fish and Magnolia Rivers as well as Mobile Bay
2. Nutrient enrichment from anthropogenic activities in the watershed
3. Shallow water depths enabling light transmission through the water col-
umn to the bay bottom, particularly during the productive summer months
when turbidity is generally low
TABLE 6.2
Mammalian Species That Occur or Are Likely to Occur in
the Weeks Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve
Armadillo Dasypus novemcinctus

Atlantic bottlenose dolphin Tursiops truncatus
Big brown bat Eptesicus fuscus
Bobcat Felis rufus
Cotton mouse Peromyscus gossypinus
Eastern cottontail Sylvilgus floridanus
Eastern gray squirrel Sciurus carolinensis
Eastern mole Scalopus aquaticus
Eastern pipistrelle Pipistrellus subflavus
Eastern woodrat Neotoma floridana
Evening bat Nycticeius humeralis
Florida black bear Ursus americanus floridanus
Gray fox Urocyon cinereoargenteus
Hispid cotton rat Sigmodon hispidus
House mouse Mus musculus
Marsh rabbit Sylvilagus palustris
Mink Mustela vison
Muskrat Ondatra zibethica
Norway rat Rattus norvegicus
Nutria Myocastor coypus
Opossum Didelphis marsupialis
Raccoon Procyon lotor
Red bat Lasiurus borealis
Red fox Vulpes vulpes
Rice rat Oryzomys palustris
River otter Lutra canadensis
Seminole bat Lasiurus seminolus
Southern flying squirrel Glaucomys volans
Southern short-tailed shrew Blarina carolinensis
Striped skunk Mephitis mephitis
White-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus
West Indian manatee Trichechus manatus
Source: Miller-Way, T., M. Dardeau, and G. Crozier (Eds.). 1996. Weeks Bay
National Estuarine Research Reserve: An Estuarine Profile and Bibliography.
Dauphin Island Sea Lab Technical Report 96–01, Dauphin Island, AL.
Over an annual cycle, the concentrations of ammonium, nitrate, phosphate, and

silicate in the bay typically range from 1 to 10, 0 to >85, 0 to 8, and 20 to 140 µM,
respectively (Pennock, 1996). Although nitrate is the predominate nitrogen form in
the estuary and a major factor in microalgal growth, phosphate may be the principal
limiting nutrient for phytoplankton growth because of its low concentrations in the
bay relative to those of nitrate.
Pennock (1996) reported that the mean production of phytoplankton in Weeks Bay
amounts to 348 g C/m2/yr, which is about fivefold greater than microphytobenthos
production. He also estimated that phytoplankton biomass per unit area ranges from
10 to 90 mg chl/m2 over an annual cycle compared to microphytobenthos biomass
values of 5 to 30 mg chl/m2 over a seasonal cycle. Peak phytoplankton production
occurs during the summer months, while highest phytoplankton biomass (up to 80 µg
chl/l) takes place during the winter months when algal blooms generally develop.
Most of Weeks Bay contains unvegetated soft bottom, with submerged aquatic
vegetation (SAV) contributing little, if any, production to the system (Stout, 1996).
While Stout and Lelong (1981) documented small beds of SAV (i.e., Myriophyllum
spicatum, Potamogeton pectinatus, and Vallisneria americana) near the mouth of
the bay, these beds may no longer be present there. Thus, the contribution of primary
production from the benthos is mainly attributed to the microphytobenthos.
ANIMAL COMMUNITIES
Zooplankton
Several studies have examined the zooplankton of Weeks Bay, the most detailed
being those of Bain and Robinson (1990), Stearns et al. (1990), and Dardeau (1996).
These studies indicate that rotifers and copepods are the most abundant groups, with
rotifers numerically dominant. Maximum zooplankton numbers appear during the
summer when the density of copepods (e.g., Acartia tonsa, Halicyclops fosteri, and
Oithona spp.) is greatest, and minimum zooplankton numbers are evident during
the winter. Acartia tonsa outnumbers all other species over an annual cycle; it
overwhelmingly predominates during all seasons except summer, when other cope-
pod species increase appreciably in abundance.
Stearns et al. (1990) discerned distinct spatial distribution patterns in the
zooplankton community of Weeks Bay. For example, they showed that diel vertical
migration is conspicuous among zooplankton in the water column despite the
shallow depths of the bay. Cladocerans are mostly found in limnetic and oligoha-
line waters. Some copepod species (e.g., Oithona colcarva and Saphirella sp.)
prefer mesohaline areas. Others (e.g., the calanoid copepod, Eurytemora sp.; and
the harpacticoid copepod, Leptocaris kunzi) concentrate in vegetated habitats, such
as marsh tidal creeks bordered by Spartina alterniflora and Juncus roemerianus.
However, most of the zooplankton species are widely distributed in the bay, where
they exert significant grazing pressure on phytoplankton populations in unvege-
tated open water areas.
Benthic Fauna
The benthic community of Weeks Bay has not been well characterized. Only
two studies, Bault (1970) and Bain and Robinson (1990), have focused on the
benthic fauna of the bay. Dardeau (1996) has reviewed this work. Sampling in
the mid-bay, Bault (1970) identified three species of polychaetes (Eteone sp.,
Hobsonia florida, and Laeonereis culveri) and several rhynchocoels, as well as

insect larvae. In a more comprehensive investigation, Bain and Robinson (1990)
recorded the predominance of polychaetes, which accounted for more than 80%
of the infauna collected in samples along the peripheral areas of the bay.
Amphipods, mysids, bivalves, gastropods, oligochaetes, and rhynchocoels,
which were also collected in these samples, together comprised less than the
20% of the infauna. Abundance of the benthic populations varied, in part, with
the sediment type and season of sampling.
Fish
Weeks Bay serves as an important nursery for an array of fish species such as
the striped mullet (Mugil cephalus), Gulf menhaden (Brevoortia patronus), and
Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias undulatus) (Dardeau, 1996). Postlarval forms
often numerically dominate the assemblages. They typically enter the bay in the
spring (e.g., sand seatrout, Cynoscion arenarius) and winter (e.g., spot, Leiosto-
mus xanthurus) and grow rapidly on the rich food supply in the embayment
(Shipp, 1987).
Species composition varies considerably due to migrants that enter the bay
seasonally and strays that appear sporadically and remain for different periods of
time. Largely due to seasonal migration, species richness is greater in the spring and
fall than in the summer and winter (Swingle and Bland, 1974; Dardeau, 1996).
Similarly, total fish abundance varies seasonally, with the greatest number of indi-
viduals observed in the spring and fall and the least number of individuals in the
summer and winter (Swingle, 1971; Swingle and Bland, 1974; Dardeau, 1996).
These seasonal abundance patterns are largely ascribed to the occurrence of the bay
anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli), Gulf menhaden, and striped mullet (Bain and Robinson,
1990; Dardeau, 1996).
Bain and Robinson (1990) emphasized that salinity and water clarity are also
important factors influencing the spatial distribution and community structure of fish
in the bay. They ascertained that the distribution of fish species occurs along a
nearshore to offshore depth gradient or along a riverine to estuarine salinity gradient
controlled by the amount of freshwater inflow. These environmental controls have
also been shown to influence the trophic relationships of fish in the bay. Dardeau
(1996) differentiated five feeding strategies of Weeks Bay fish:
1. Planktivores (e.g., anchovies, menhaden, and shad)

2. Detritivores (e.g., mullet)
3. Pelagic omnivores (e.g., tidewater silverside, Menidia peninsulae)
4. Benthic omnivores (e.g., Atlantic croaker, gobies, flatfish, spot, and
black drum)
5. Epibenthic carnivores (e.g., seatrout and silver perch, Bairdiella chrysoura)
Seasonal migration of fish and responses of fish to shifts in the salinity regime
of the bay greatly affect the species composition and hence the relative abundance
of the different feeding groups in the estuary. The fish community of Weeks Bay,
therefore, is one characterized by considerable variation in species composition and

abundance year-round.
Several species of fish are commercially important in Weeks Bay. One of the
most significant is the Gulf menhaden. Others include the striped mullet, sheepshead,
seatrout, and flounder (Paralichthys spp.). Aside from fish, several other nektonic
groups support commercial fisheries, notably penaeid shrimp (white shrimp, Penaeus
setiferus; brown shrimp, P. astecus; and pink shrimp, P. duorarum), the eastern oyster
(Crassostrea virginica), and the blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) (Dardeau, 1996).
Weeks Bay remains a relatively pristine estuarine system despite increasing devel-
opment in surrounding watershed areas and greater human use of the embayment
itself (Arcenaux, 1996). Habitat disturbance is linked to residential development,
agriculture, silviculture, and the removal of naval stores and dirt in the watershed
(Stout, 1996). Escalating residential and commercial development in Southern Bald-
win County has contributed to the loss of some prime watershed habitat and soil
disruption in upland buffer areas, as well as sediment and nutrient loading that has
adversely affected aquatic habitats and biotic communities in the reserve. Land
acquisition is part of a long-term management plan to minimize detrimental impacts
in the watershed, Fish River, and Magnolia River. An array of lands — marshes,
buffer habitat, and upland areas — is targeted for purchase. Another important
component of the management plan involves the application of best management
practices (BMPs) during construction and other invasive land use activities to mollify
nonpoint source pollution, which continues to be a potential threat to the estuary
(Adams et al., 1996).
Valentine and Lynn (1996) discussed water pollution in the Weeks Bay NERR.
They state that agricultural development affects more than 80% of the land within
Baldwin County, including extensive areas along the Fish and Magnolia Rivers. Aerial
application of pesticides may pose a hazard to the water quality of these rivers as well
as that of the estuary. Fertilizers and fungicides frequently used in agricultural oper-
ations also contain trace metals such as arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, and mercury,
which can be detrimental to estuarine and marine organisms (Kennish, 1992, 1997;
Weber et al., 1992). The accumulation of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and poly-
cyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in bottom sediments and biota must be more
clearly delineated. Fertilizer use (for domestic purposes), municipal wastewater dis-
charges, malfunctioning septic systems, and wildlife wastes augment these pollutant
inputs and, if uncontrolled, can create nutrient enrichment problems that promote algal
blooms. Such events may result in reduced dissolved oxygen concentrations. However,
long-term dissolved oxygen measurements in the Weeks Bay system do not indicate
anoxic or hypoxic problems (Scott Phipps, Weeks Bay NERR, personal communica-
tion, 2003).
Waters in the Weeks Bay system have been continually monitored for fecal
coliform bacteria levels. A large percentage of the residences in the Weeks Bay
watershed employ septic tanks for wastewater treatment, and faulty systems are a
potential source of fecal coliforms for riverine and estuarine waters. Although fecal
coliform concentrations have been consistently low (<50 per 100 ml) near the mouth
of the bay, higher coliform densities near the head of the bay have exceeded thresh-
olds for shellfish harvesting (Valentine and Lynn, 1996).
Ongoing housing and industrial construction and other human activities in the
watershed have accelerated soil erosion and sediment inputs to surface waters in the
Weeks Bay NERR. Estimates of annual sediment inputs to Weeks Bay approach
20,000 metric tons (Valentine and Lynn, 1996). Various shoreline modifications,
particularly along the Fish and Magnolia Rivers, likely facilitate the transport of
sediments, nutrients, and chemical contaminants to open waters of the system. It is
vital to implement BMPs in the lower watershed as well as in the uplands to mitigate
the inputs of sediments and pollutants to receiving waters of the reserve, thereby
reducing the probability of future habitat and biotic community impacts.

Weeks Bay is a shallow tributary estuary of Mobile Bay. This small microtidal
estuary is part of the Weeks Bay NERR, which encompasses upland pine forests,
palustrine forested wetlands, and fringing salt marshes in the adjoining lower water-
shed of Baldwin County. The salinity regime in Weeks Bay indicates that oligohaline
and mesohaline conditions predominate. Most freshwater enters the bay from the
Fish and Magnolia Rivers. During periods of large freshwater inflow, limnetic
conditions exist in the northern bay. Bottom sediments mainly consist of sands along
the perimeter and silts and clays in the central bay areas.
Numerous species of plants and animals inhabit the Weeks Bay watershed.
Loblolly pine, long leaf pine, and slash pine, together with red cedar and oaks,
characterize upland pine forests. Long leaf pine, slash pine, and various broadleaved
deciduous trees form a relatively thick canopy in bottomland hardwood swamps.
Palustrine marshes comprised of cattails, common reed, pickerel weed, arrow arum,
and several other plant species cover a very limited area (<1% of all habitat area).
Black needlerush and cordgrass represent the dominant salt marsh plants bordering
the bay; salt meadow cordgrass and salt grass occupy the higher marsh.
The Weeks Bay watershed is also replete with many species of amphibians,
reptiles, mammals, birds, and other faunal groups. Nearly 50 species of herpetofauna
have been recorded in the watershed. Fewer mammalian species (<40) occur there.
Birds are much more diverse, with more than 300 species chronicled.
Weeks Bay is a relatively nutrient-rich estuary, and phytoplankton production
(nearly 350 g C/m2/yr) compares favorably with that of many other U.S. estuaries.
Microphytobenthos production amounts to only ~20% of the phytoplankton produc-
tion. The benthic habitat is essentially devoid of submerged aquatic vegetation.
Zooplankton graze heavily on phytoplankton in the bay, with rotifers and copepods
dominating the zooplankton community. Maximum zooplankton abundance takes
place during the summer months.
Only limited benthic sampling has been conducted in the bay. However, poly-
chaetes dominate the benthic infauna by far, accounting for more than 80% of the
total faunal abundance. Amphipods, mysids, bivalves, gastropods, oligochaetes, and
rhynchocoels are of secondary numerical abundance.
Nearly 200 species of fish have been identified in the Weeks Bay system. The
estuary is an important nursery area for many of these species. Fish assemblages
vary in composition year-round due to seasonal migration and the occurrence of
marine and freshwater strays. Species richness and total abundance of fish are
greater in the spring and fall than in the summer and winter. Among the most
abundant fish are anchovies, silversides, gobies, menhaden, mullet, croaker, and
spot. Some species (e.g., Gulf menhaden, striped mullet, sheepshead, and flounder)
are of commercial importance.
Despite various anthropogenic impacts in the watershed and estuary, Weeks Bay
remains a relatively pristine system. The levels of coliform bacteria, dissolved
oxygen, nutrients, and chemical contaminants do not indicate that the system is
significantly threatened by human activities. In addition, the amounts of habitat loss
and alteration in the watershed and estuary do not reflect a heavily disturbed system.
Nevertheless, management plans have been implemented to ensure the long-term
viability and resource stability of this critically important estuary.
REFERENCES
Adams, L.G., T. Lynn, and R. McCormack. 1996. Management issues. In: Miller-Way, T. M.
Dardeau, and G. Crozier (Eds.). Weeks Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve:
An Estuarine Profile and Bibliography. Dauphin Island Sea Lab Technical Report
96–01, Dauphin Island, AL, pp. 75–79.
Arcenaux, C. 1996. Land use. In: Miller-Way, T., M. Dardeau, and G. Crozier (Eds.). Weeks
Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve: An Estuarine Profile and Bibliography.
Dauphin Island Sea Lab Technical Report 96–01, Dauphin Island, AL, pp. 53–61.
Bain, M.B. and C.L. Robinson. 1990. Abiotic and biotic factors influencing microhabitat use
by fish and shrimp in Weeks Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve. Technical
Report to NOAA, National Estuarine Research Reserves, Silver Spring, MD.
Bault, E.I. 1970. A Survey of the Benthic Organisms in Selected Coastal Streams and Brackish
Waters of Alabama. Technical Report to the U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of
Commercial Fisheries, Washington, D.C.
Crance, J.H. 1971. Description of Alabama estuarine areas — cooperative Gulf of Mexico
estuarine inventory. Alabama Marine Resources Bulletin 6: 1–85.
Dardeau, M.R. 1996. Estuarine consumers. In: Miller-Way, T., M. Dardeau, and G. Crozier
(Eds.). Weeks Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve: An Estuarine Profile and
Bibliography. Dauphin Island Sea Lab Technical Report 96–01, Dauphin Island, AL,
pp. 37–51.
Hardin, J.D., C.D. Sapp, J.L. Emplaincourt, and K.E. Richter. 1976. Shoreline and Bathy-
metric Changes in the Coastal Area of Alabama: A Remote Sensing Approach.
Geological Survey of Alabama, Information Series 50, Mobile, AL.
Haywick, D.W., W.G. Geers, and M.D. Cooper. 1994. Preliminary Report of Grain Size
Distribution in Weeks Bay, Baldwin County, Alabama. Technical Report to NOAA,
National Estuarine Research Reserves, Silver Spring, MD.
FL.
Lytle, J.S. and T.F. Lytle. 1995. Toxicity evaluation of sediments from a national estuary using
emergent macrophytes. Abstract, SETAC National Meeting, Vancouver, Canada.
Lytle, J.S. T.F. Lytle, and H. Cui. 1995. Pesticide residues in rooted estuarine macrophytes.
Abstract, SETAC National Meeting, Vancouver, Canada.
Marion, K.R. and J.J. Dindo. 1987. The Use of Indicator Species as a Means of Assessing
the Environmental Condition of the Weeks Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve.
Technical Report to NOAA, National Estuarine Research Reserves, Silver Spring,
MD.
Marion, K.R. and J.J. Dindo. 1988. Enhancing Public Awareness of Estuaries: A Natural
History Survey of the Weeks Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve. Technical
Report to NOAA, National Estuarine Research Reserves, Silver Spring, MD.
Miller-Way, T., M. Dardeau, and G. Corzier (Eds.). 1996. Weeks Bay National Estuarine
Research Reserve: An Estuarine Profile and Bibliography. Dauphin Island Sea Lab
Technical Report 96–01, Dauphin Island, AL.
Pennock, J.R. 1996. Nutrients and aquatic primary production. In: Miller-Way, T., M. Dardeau,
and G. Crozier (Eds.). Weeks Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve: An Estuarine
Profile and Bibliography. Dauphin Island Sea Lab Technical Report 96–01, Dauphin
Island, AL, pp. 30–36.
Schreiber, R.A. 1994. The Contribution of Benthic Microalgae to Primary Production in
Weeks Bay, Alabama. M.S. thesis, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL.
Schreiber, R.A. and J.R. Pennock. 1995. The relative contribution of benthic microalgae to
total microalgal production in a shallow subtidal estuarine environment. Ophelia 42:
335–352.
Schroeder, W.W. 1996. Environmental setting. In: Miller-Way, T., M. Dardeau, and G. Crozier
pp. 15–25.
Schroeder, W.W., W.J. Wiseman, Jr., and S.P. Dinnel. 1990. Wind and river-induced fluctua-
tions in a small, shallow tributary estuary. In: Cheng, R.T. (Ed.). Residual Currents
and Long-term Transport. Vol. 38, Coastal and Estuarine Studies, Springer-Verlag,
New York, pp. 481–493.
Schroeder, W.W., S.P. Dinnel, and W.J. Wiseman, Jr. 1992. Salinity structure of a shallow
tributary estuary. In: Pringle, D. (Ed.). Dynamics and Exchanges in Estuaries and
the Coastal Zone. Vol. 40, Coastal and Estuarine Studies, American Geophysical
Union, Washington, D.C., pp. 155–171.
Shipp, R.L. 1987. Temporal distribution of finfish eggs and larvae around Mobile Bay. In:
Lowrey, T. (Ed.). Symposium on the Natural Resources of the Mobile Bay Estuary.
Mississippi–Alabama Sea Grant 87–007, Mobile, AL.
Stearns, D.E., M.R. Dardeau, and A.J. Planchart. 1990. Zooplankton Community Composi-
tion, Species Abundance, and Grazing Impact in Weeks Bay, Alabama: Tidal,
Monthly, Seasonal, and Habitat Differences. Technical Report to NOAA, National
Estuarine Research Reserves, Silver Spring, MD.
Stout, J.P. 1987. Delineation of Emergent Habitats of the Weeks Bay NERR. Dauphin Island
Sea Lab Technical Report 870–004, Dauphin Island, AL.
Stout, J.P. 1996. Estuarine habitats. In: Miller-Way, T., M. Dardeau, and G. Crozier (Eds.).
Weeks Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve: An Estuarine Profile and Bibli-
ography. Dauphin Island Sea Lab Technical Report 96–01, Dauphin Island, AL,
pp. 27–29.
Stout, J.P. and M.J. Lelong. 1981. Wetlands Habitats of the Alabama Coastal Area. Part II.
An Inventory of Wetland Habitats South of the Battleship Parkway. Alabama Coastal
Area Board Technical Publication CAB-81–01.
Swingle, H.A. 1971. Biology of Alabama Estuarine Areas — Cooperative Gulf of Mexico
Estuarine Inventory. Alabama Marine Resources Bulletin 5: 1–123.
Swingle, H.A. and D.G. Bland. 1974. A study of fishes of the coastal watercourses of Alabama.
Alabama Marine Resources Bulletin 10: 17–102.
Valentine, J.F. and T. Lynn. 1996. Pollution. In: Miller-Way, T., M. Dardeau, and G. Crozier
pp. 62–74.
Weber, M., R.T. Townsend, and R. Bierce. 1992. Environmental Quality in the Gulf of Mexico,
2nd ed. Center for Marine Conservation, Washington, D.C.
Case Study 6
7 Tijuana River National
INTRODUCTION
Tijuana River in Southern California was designated as a National Estuarine
Research Reserve (NERR) site in 1982. The 1025-ha site, located in San Diego
County at the U.S./Mexico border, encompasses a wide array of habitats, including
uplands, coastal sage, upland–wetland transition, salt marshes, tidal creeks and
channels, and mudflats and sandflats, as well as dunes and beaches. A significant
fraction of the reserve area consists of salt marsh and riparian wetland habitats
(Table 7.1). The intertidal salt marsh habitat is particularly well developed. The
Tijuana River watershed is extensive, covering 1731 km2 and bisecting the estuary
into northern and southern regions. More than 75% of the watershed area lies within
Mexico (Figure 7.1) (Nordby and Zedler, 1991; Zedler et al., 1992; Zedler, 2001).
The Tijuana Estuary is located at 32°34′N, 117°7′W. It is a coastal plain estuary
consisting of a network of stream channels with no well-defined embayment. Hydro-
graphic conditions in this intermittent estuary are highly variable; stream flow is
greatly reduced during much of the year when drought conditions often exist, but
significant precipitation during the winter generally results in a river-dominated
system. Because of the large seasonal flux in stream flow, the estuary changes from
a river-dominated system in winter to one that is partially mixed or vertically
homogeneous during other seasons. Zedler and Beare (1986) reported a mean annual
discharge of the Tijuana River amounting to ~20,820 MLD (million liters per day),
although they noted the flow was extremely variable. For example, the coefficient
of variability reported by these investigators was 325%. Flooding commonly occurs
in years of very heavy precipitation, such as during the period from 1978 to 1980.
Tidal flushing peaks at the channel mouths and declines upstream.
The Tijuana River NERR is an urbanized system, surrounded by the cities of
San Diego, Imperial Beach, and Tijuana. The proximity of these cities to the Tijuana
Estuary results in a number of anthropogenic impacts. For example, sewage-con-
taminated inflows from the city of Tijuana in past years have created water quality
problems in the estuary (Seamans, 1988). In addition, urban runoff and irrigation
runoff from farmlands in the U.S. have increased sedimentation downestuary,
decreased salinity levels, and enabled exotic species to invade and establish viable
populations in upper salt marsh habitats. Sediment influx during catastrophic flood-
ing events has increased salt marsh elevations and reduced tidal inundation (Zedler,
2001). As a consequence, the Tijuana River NERR is challenged by several man-
agement problems, most notably wastewater inflows from Mexico, sediment influx
235
TABLE 7.1
List of Habitats and Their Areas in the Tijuana
River National Estuarine Research Reserve
Habitat Type Hectare Area Percent Area
Transition 246.9 24.1

Salt marsh/salt panne 177.7 17.3
Disturbed 148.1 14.5
Riparian 100.4 9.8
Transition/disturbed 73.2 7.2
Salt marsh 71.2 7.0
Channels and ponds 70.0 6.8
Coastal sage 61.1 6.0
Dunes and beach 50.2 4.9
Mudflats 13.4 1.3
Brackish marsh 12.1 1.2
Source: Entrix Inc., PERL, and PWA, Ltd. 1991. Tijuana Estu-
ary Tidal Restoration Program. Draft Environmental Impact
Report/Environmental Impact Statement. California Coastal
Conservancy and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, SCC, Oak-
land, CA, Volumes I–III.
FIGURE 7.1 Map of the Tijuana Estuary showing surrounding watershed areas. (From
Zedler, J.B., C.S. Nordby, and K.B. Kus. 1992. The Ecology of Tijuana Estuary, California:
A National Estuarine Research Reserve. Technical Report, NOAA Office of Coastal Resource
Management, Sanctuaries and Reserves Division, Washington, D.C.)
Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve 237
into the estuary from the watershed, and endangered species. A major goal of the
reserve is habitat conservation and restoration.
Because human activities have significantly impacted the Tijuana Estuary, res-
toration projects are underway to revitalize the system (Vivian-Smith, 2001). These
efforts have focused on salt marsh revitalization as well as sediment and flood control
of upstream areas (Restore America’s Estuaries, 2002). Most of the Tijuana River
NERR is publicly owned; it is managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.
Navy, California Department of Parks and Recreation, County of San Diego, and
City of San Diego. Public ownership of lands has significantly reduced development
in the watershed and afforded considerable protection of endangered species and
their habitat. However, sewage spills, dike construction, and gravel extraction have
degraded substantial areas of the estuary and watershed. The Tijuana Estuary is a
historically variable system characterized by large fluxes in rainfall, stream flow,
periodic flooding, sedimentation, and channel morphology.
The Tijuana River NERR has established three long-term water quality moni-
toring sites in the Tijuana estuarine system. These include:
1. The Oneonta Slough site located ~1.5 km from the river mouth at
32°34′04.8″N, 117°07′52.3″W
2. The Tidal Linkage site located ~2.7 km from the river mouth at
32°34′27.9″N, 117°07′37.8″W
3. The Model Marsh site located ~1.6 km from the river mouth at
32°32′52.5″N, 117°07′37.7″W
Physical–chemical data recorded semicontinuously at these sites using YSI 6-

Series data loggers include water temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen, pH, tur-
bidity, and water depth (NERRS, 2002).
WATERSHED
An array of habitats characterizes the Tijuana River NERR (Figure 7.2). Estuarine
channels and tidal creeks cover only 70 ha or 6.8% of the total area of the reserve
(Table 7.1). The remaining habitats comprising the adjoining Tijuana River water-
shed exhibit considerable spatial heterogeneity, and they support a high diversity of
organisms, including more than 20 rare, threatened, or endangered species, such as
the salt marsh bird’s beak (Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. maritimus), California least
tern (Sterna antillarum browni), light-footed clapper rail (Rallus longirostris levi-
pes), least Bell’s vireo (Vireo belli pusilius), California brown pelican (Pelicanus
occidentalis), and American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) (Zedler
et al., 1992). Among the most expansive habitats in the watershed, the upland–wet-
land transition zone covers the greatest area (>300 ha). Salt marshes dominate the
wetland habitats. They have been the focus of a number of comprehensive research
and restoration programs (Zedler, 1977, 2001; Zedler and Nordby, 1986; Zedler
et al., 1992; Vivian-Smith, 2001). Riparian habitat is also quite extensive, encom-
passing 100 ha. Anthropogenic disturbances have altered many hectares of watershed
habitat in the Tijuana River NERR (Zedler, 2001).
FIGURE 7.2 Map of habitat types at the Tijuana Estuary. (From Zedler, J.B., C.S. Nordby,
and K.B. Kus. 1992. The Ecology of Tijuana Estuary, California: A National Estuarine
Research Reserve. Technical Report, NOAA Office of Coastal Resource Management, Sanc-
tuaries and Reserves Division, Washington, D.C.)
HABITAT
Salt Marsh
Vegetation in the salt marsh habitat varies with elevation and thus can be differen-
tiated into three assemblages, consisting of low marsh, mid-marsh plain, and high
marsh (Desmond et al., 2001). The plant species are distributed in broadly overlap-
ping bands, with peak occurrence of individual species typically observed at different
elevation bands. Algal mats often grow as dense cover under the canopy of salt
marsh plants. Zedler (1982) reported that 100 plant species have been identified in
the edaphic algal mats of the estuary. The salt marsh habitat is a physically stressful
environment where salinity levels range from 40 to 100‰, and the plants are subject
to variable tidal flushing.
The Pacific cordgrass (Spartina foliosa) dominates the low marsh area. Zedler
(1980) measured net primary productivity values of 340 g C/m2/yr for S. foliosa and
276 g C/m2/yr for benthic algae in salt marsh habitat of the estuary. Winfield (1980),
in turn, recorded net aboveground productivity values of 224–307 g dry wt/m2/yr
for S. foliosa marsh. He also observed that cordgrass productivity accounted for less
than 50% of the total marsh productivity. This vascular plant is a largely clonal
species that provides year-round habitat for the endangered light-footed clapper rail.
Other fauna inhabiting the low marsh include the fiddler crab (Uca crenulata), yellow
shore crab (Hemigrapsus oregonensis), lined shore crab (Pachygrapsus crassipes),
and California horn snail (Cerithidea californica), as well as two dipteran insect
species (Cricotopus sp. and Incertella sp.) (Zedler et al., 1992).
The mid-marsh plain is a rather harsh environment characterized by periodic tidal
inundation. The perennial pickleweed (Salicornia virginica) frequently predominates
here and may form monotypic stands in some areas. However, this species is more
commonly associated with other succulents in a mixed assemblage. Some of the co-
inhabitants include the annual pickleweed (Salicornia bigelovii), arrow-grass (Tri-
glochin concinnum), saltwort (Batis maritima), sea blite (Suaeda esteroa), fleshy
jaumea (Jaumea carnosa), and sea lavender (Limonium californicum) (Desmond
et al., 2001). Of these plant species, the saltwort may be most widespread; together
with the annual pickleweed, it attains highest abundance along intertidal pools. Aside
from the aforementioned succulents, numerous species of green and blue-green algae
form extensive mats beneath the salt marsh canopy. These epibenthic algae contribute
significant primary production to the system (Zedler, 2001).
The mid-marsh habitat supports many different species of animals. Gastropods
are well represented; for example, the snails Assiminea californica, Cerithidea
californica, and Melampus olivaceus commonly occur in the mid-marsh zone. Inter-
tidal pools harbor substantial numbers of forage fishes such as the California killifish
(Fundulus parvipinnis). Insects (e.g., water boatmen, Trichocorixia spp.; and flies,
Ephydra sp.) are likewise abundant. The endangered Belding’s Savannah sparrow
(Ammodramus sandwichensis beldingi) inhabits areas vegetated by perennial pick-
leweed. Other species of birds frequently observed in the mid-marsh are the great
egret (Casmerodius albus), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), willet (Catoptropho-
rus semipalmatus), marbled godwit (Limosa fedoa), and long-billed curlew (Nume-
nius americanus) (Zedler et al., 1992).
Some of the most extreme environmental conditions occur in the high marsh,
where extended periods of drought are punctuated by inundation. Flora and fauna
of the high marsh must also adapt to frequent disturbance associated with burrow-
ing mammals, human activities, and other factors. The mounded topography typ-
ifying this zone creates irregular terrain and contributes to greater complexity of
biotic communities.
Predominant perennial plants that vegetate the higher marsh are the glasswort
(Salicornia subterminalis), shoregrass (Monanthocloe littoralis), alkali heath (Fran-
kenia salina), sea lavender (Limonium californicum), and Watson’s salt bush (Atri-
plex watsonii). Salt grass (Distichlis spicata) may also be observed in this area.
Annual plant assemblages likewise occupy the higher marsh habitat, often beneath
perennial canopies. In addition, the high salt marsh supports sensitive plant species
(e.g., Coulter goldfields, Lasthenia glabrata coulteri) as well as the endangered salt
marsh bird’s beak (Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. maritimus) (Desmond et al., 2001).
Both of these species are annuals present during a limited growing season.
A number of spiders, mites, and other insects commonly occur in the higher
marsh. Two prevalent species of spiders are Pardosa ramulosa and Tetragnatha
laboriosa. The carabid beetle (Tachys corax) is widespread across the marsh surface.
While insects are relatively abundant in the higher marsh, other invertebrates are
not. Only a few snakes and lizards (e.g., Phrynosoma coronatum blainvillei) inhabit
the higher marsh, but small mammals such as rabbits (Lepus californicus and
Sylvilagus audubonii sactidiegi) and ground squirrels (Spermophilus beechyii) are
quite abundant. The hummocky mound topography, which typifies the higher marsh,
is attributed to burrowing activities of ground squirrels (Cox and Zedler, 1986).
Small mammals utilizing the high marsh provide prey for several species of raptors,
notably the golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), American kestrel (Falco sparverius),
and northern harrier (Circus cyaneus). Other species of birds forage on smaller organ-
isms. Examples are the horned lark (Eremophila alpestris), loggerhead shrike (Lanius
ludovicianus), song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), white-crowned sparrow (Zonotri-
chia leucophrys), and western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta) (Zedler et al., 1992).
Salt Pannes
Among the most variable habitats in the Tijuana River watershed is the salt panne, an
open salt flat area in the upper intertidal zone that lacks vegetation. Salt pannes are
conspicuous during dry summer periods when evaporation causes soil salinities to
increase up to 200‰, resulting in the formation of a salt crust. While the excessively
high soil salinities are not favorable for plant growth, some animal populations may
be observed on the dry panne surface. For example, the California least tern (Sterna
antilarrum browni) and western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) nest
here, and the Belding’s Savannah sparrow (Ammodramus sandwichensis beldingi)
feeds on insects. Rove beetles (Bledius spp.) and tiger beetles (Cicindela spp.) are two
insect species that burrow in the dry sediments of the salt panne. Various reptilian and
mammalian species also utilize the salt panne habitat (Zedler et al., 1992).
Increased precipitation augmented by saline water inundation during the early
winter marks the onset of a wet phase when the salt pannes temporarily transform
to shallow aquatic systems. The wet conditions enable algae and widgeon grass
(Ruppia maritima) to flourish, albeit for only several months. Northern pintails (Anas
acuta) and other waterfowl also use the habitat at this time, along with small waders
(e.g., snowy plovers). Aquatic insects are relatively abundant. The winter wet season
is of shorter duration (December–February) than the summer dry season when barren
conditions predominate. Therefore, the barren habitat of the salt panne is the pre-
dominant condition (Desmond et al., 2001).
Brackish Marsh
Brackish marshes occur in the reserve in areas where salinities range from ~0.5 to
30‰. They are spatially restricted and are found in natural settings near freshwater
springs and seepages and along braided channels. Human activities also create
conditions that enable brackish marshes to proliferate. For example, impoundments

where urban and agricultural runoff accumulates, as well as areas that receive
wastewater discharges and sewage spills, are sites of brackish marsh development.
Hydrologic and topographic modifications, therefore, appear to be significant factors
in the formation of this habitat (Zedler et al., 1992). Intermittent freshwater inflows,
variable precipitation, and evaporation result in fluctuating water levels and salinities
that also influence development of this habitat. Alternating flood and drought con-
ditions control the location and longevity of many brackish marshes. Such major
shifts in environmental conditions are manifested by the ephemeral nature of brack-
ish marsh habitats in some areas of the reserve.
Many organisms found in Tijuana River NERR brackish marshes also inhabit
freshwater marsh habitat. Dominant emergent plant species include cattails (Typha
domingensis) and bulrushes (Scirpus californicus). Spring rush (Juncus acutus) is
likewise common. Widgeon grass (Ruppia maritima) is the dominant submerged
aquatic vegetation. Brackish marshes are important habitat for insects (e.g., dragon-
flies, Anax junius). Birds are frequent inhabitants. For example, the red-winged
blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus) is often observed in the emergent vegetation. Other
species wade and feed in marsh pools. Examples are the black-bellied plover (Plu-
vialis squatarola), killdeer (Charadrius vociferus), semipalmated plover (C. semi-
palmatus), least sandpiper (Calidris minutilla), black-necked stilt (Himantopus mex-
icanus), American avocet (Recurvirostra americana), willet (Catoptrophorus
semipalmatus), dowitcher (Limnodromus sp.), and snowy egret (Egretta thula).
These birds can be seen foraging on invertebrates and other organisms in the marshes
(Zedler et al., 1992).
Riparian Habitat
Although riparian vegetation comprises less than 10% of the total Tijuana River
NERR habitat area, it supports some of the most diverse avian, reptilian, mammalian,
and finfish communities. Insect populations are abundant. Some mammals (e.g.,
bobcats and long-tailed weasels) occupy riparian woodlands.
Riparian habitats occur along moist perimeter areas of freshwater streams, rivers,
and lakes. The phreatophytic vegetation of this habitat requires stream-, river-, or
lake-influenced groundwater for growth and reproduction. Riparian zones may
include wetland habitats, but they may lack hydric soil properties, thus preventing
their designation as regulated wetlands (Tiner, 1999). Moving upstream along the
Tijuana River, the riparian habitat consists of floodplain low shrub vegetation (i.e.,
mulefat scrub) such as salt bushes (Baccharis glutinosa) and sandbar willow (Salix
hindsiana). Forests comprised of cottonwoods (Populus fremontii), willows (Salix
spp.), and other species of larger plants replace the shrub vegetation, rising up to
~20 m in height (Zedler et al., 1992). As stated by Cox (1996, p. 158), “When the
boundaries of riparian areas are based on their potential function as buffers, the
distance from the stream will be highly variable depending on local soils and
hydrological, topographical, and vegetation characteristics and should be determined
for each unique stream reach.” The riparian corridor continues to be threatened by
anthropogenic activities (e.g., development, agriculture, sand and gravel mining, and
flood control operations) in the Tijuana River NERR that are altering and destroying
sensitive habitat at an alarming rate.
Wetland–Upland Transition
A transition community of wetland and upland vegetation exists in the Tijuana River
NERR at elevations between ~1.4 and 2.1 m. Much of the transition community has
been disturbed in the reserve, with only small remnants persisting, such as at the
northern end of the Tijuana Estuary. The most impacted area in the transition zone
occurs in peripheral uplands where habitat alteration has been considerable. Desmond
et al. (2001) have described the plant species in this transition community based on
observations in the Tijuana Estuary and other sites in southern California coastal
wetlands. Salt marsh species characteristic of this community are the salt grass (Dis-
tichlis spicata), perennial glasswort (Salicornia subterminalis), sea lavender (Limo-
nium californicum), alkali heath (Frankenia salina), and Watson’s salt bush (Atriplex
watsonii). Upland species characteristic of the transition zone include the box-thorn
(Lycium californicum), California salt bush (Atriplex californica), yerba reuma (Fran-
kenia palmeri), and pineapple weed (Ambylopappus pusillus). Ferren (1985) and Cox
and Zedler (1986) reported several invasive species in this habitat as well, namely the
Australian salt bush (Atriplex semibaccata) and crystal ice plant (Mesembryanthemum
crystallinum). Desmond et al. (2001) also documented several exotic annual species,
specifically the European sicklegrass (Parapholis incurva), rabbitfoot beardgrass (Poly-
pogon monspeliensis), and little ice plant (Mesembryanthemum nodilforum).
Zedler et al. (1992) provided a list of the most abundant plant species comprising
the wetland–upland transition community at the northernmost part of the Tijuana
Estuary. Among these species are Atriplex semibaccata, A. watsonii, Artemisia cali-
fornica, Cressa truxillensis, Distichlis spicata, Eriogonum fasciculatum, Frankenia
grandifolia, Haplopappas venetus, Limonium californicum, Lycium californicum,
Monanthocloe littoralis, Salicornia subterminalis, S. virginica, and Rhus laurina.
Coastal sage scrub forms the upland community here; it is comprised of various shrub
species, such as evergreens (e.g., jojoba, Simmondsia chinensis; laurel sumac, Rhus
laurina; and lemonadeberry, R. integrifolia) and drought-deciduous forms (e.g., Cal-
ifornia sagebrush, Artemisia californica; and golden bush, Haplopappus venetus).
Some exotic species (e.g., Atriplex semibaccata) have adapted to the upland zone.
Zedler et al. (1992) noted that the steep topography in the area results in a narrow
band of overlap between the upland and wetland plant assemblages. The occurrence
of the salt grass (Distichlis spicata) high on the slope marks the upper margin of the
wetland community. Other wetland plants (e.g., alkali heath, Frankenia grandifolia;
and alkali weed, Cressa truxillensis) may also appear near this upper margin. Addi-
tional information on the plants in the wetland–upland transition can be obtained
elsewhere (e.g., Zedler and Cox, 1985; James and Zedler, 2000).
An array of reptilian, mammalian, and avian species utilizes the wetland–upland
transition habitat. Reptilian species of significance include the side-blotched lizard
(Uta stansburiana), San Diego gopher snake (Pituophis melanoleucus annectens),
and California king snake (Lampropeltis getulus californiae). These herpetofauna
are relatively abundant in this habitat (Desmond et al., 2001).
Small mammals reported in the transition habitat are the brush mouse (Peromy-
scus boyli), cactus mouse (P. eremicus), deer mouse (P. maniculatus), San Diego
pocket mouse (P. fallax), western harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys megalotis), agile
kangaroo rat (Dipodomys agilis), and dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes).
Squirrels (e.g., California ground squirrel, Spermophilus beechyi), rabbits (e.g.,
desert cottontail, Sylvilagus audoboni; and California jackrabbit, Lepus californicus),
and opossum (e.g., Didelphis marsupialis) are also present. Larger carnivorous
species of note include the long-tailed weasel (Mustela frenata), striped skunk
(Mephitis mephitis), and coyote (Canis latrans) (Zedler et al., 1992; Zedler, 2001).
Birds are frequent visitors to the transition habitat. They rest and feed there.
Several species (e.g., northern harrier, Circus cyaneus; short-eared owl, Asio flam-
meus; and black-shouldered kite, Elanus caeruleus) prey on some of the aformen-
tioned small mammals (Zedler et al., 1992).
Dunes and Beach Habitat

Human activities and stochastic natural events (e.g., major storms) have altered the
structure of the dunes and beach habitat and the associated native plant and animal
communities. The dunes and beach habitat is highly dynamic and physically con-
trolled. Strong wind and wave action, as well as human disturbance due to construc-
tion and recreational pursuits, have eliminated much of the natural vegetation in
some areas. The trampling of dune vegetation and habitat by people, horses, and
vehicles has caused destabilization of the dunes. The denudation of native dune
plants has facilitated sediment erosion and enabled exotic plants to invade the habitat.
The establishment of such exotic species has adversely affected native floral and
faunal communities along the shoreline (Zedler et al., 1992).
Dune vegetation at the Tijuana Estuary consists of dune ragweed (Ambrosia
chamissonis), dune primrose (Camissonia cheiranthifolia ssp. suffruticosa), sand
verbena (Abronia umbellata), salt bush (Atriplex leucophylla), sea rocket (Cakile
maritima), and hottentot-fig (Carpobrotus edulis). The salt bush, sea rocket, and
hottentot-fig are invasive species that have adapted to the dune habitat subsequent
to anthropogenic disturbance. The exotic dune plants have outcompeted some of the
native plant species. Anthropogenic impacts appear to be responsible for the extir-
pation of the lemonadeberry (Rhus integrifolia) from the dunes (Zedler, 2001).
The native dune vegetation provides excellent habitat for various insects, par-
ticularly several species of burrowing beetles. Included here are the sand dune tiger
beetle (Coelus latesignata latesignata), the sandy beach tiger beetle (C. hirticollis
gravida), and the globose dune beetle (C. globosus). Both harvest and wood ants
are abundant in the dunes. The coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma coronatum blain-
villei) feeds on these ants. Two other species of lizards observed on the dunes are
the side-blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana) and the silvery legless lizard (Anniella
pulchra pulchra) (Entrix et al., 1991).
A number of bird species feed, nest, or rest on the dunes. For example the
Belding’s Savannah sparrow (Ammodramus sandwichensis beldingi) forages heavily
on flies and other small insects on the dunes. Western snowy plovers (Charadrius
alexandrinus nivosus) consume invertebrates along the shoreline. The California
least tern (Sterna antillarum) is a colonial nesting species that prefers to lay its eggs
in sand depressions on the dunes. It nests in areas nearly devoid of vegetation but
is vulnerable to predators in this exposed setting. In addition to the snowy plover,
several other shorebird species use the dunes and beach habitat, most conspicuously
the black-bellied plover (Pluvialis squatarola), dowitcher (Limnodromus sp.), mar-
bled godwit (Limosa fedoa), willet (Catoptrophorus semipalmatus), sanderling
(Calidris alba), least sandpiper (C. minutilla), western sandpiper (C. mauri), and
whimbrel (Numenius phaeopus) (Boland, 1981).
Intertidal Flats
Mudflats and sandflats rank among the most important habitats in the Tijuana
estuarine system, supporting the most diverse invertebrate assemblages of the coastal
wetland. Both of these habitats are often visited by shorebirds that feed on benthic
invertebrates at low tide. Bivalves, crabs, gastropods, polychaetes, and amphipods
are abundant members of the benthic communities of these habitats (Levin et al.,
1998; Desmond et al., 2001).
Several invertebrate species are particularly abundant, including the yellow shore
crab (Hemigrapsus oregonensis), lined shore crab (Pachygrapsus crassipes), fiddler
crab (Uca crenulata), and California horn snail (Cerithidea californica). The Cali-
fornia horn snail is an irruptive species, reaching peak densities greater than 1000
individuals/m2. It can outnumber all other benthic species at some locations (Zedler
et al., 1992; Zedler, 2001).
The intertidal flats of the Tijuana Estuary are favored sites for shorebirds, which
use this habitat more than any other type. Waders are well represented. Among the
small waders often observed feeding along the flats are the western snowy plover
(Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus), semipalmated plover (C. semipalmatus), western
sandpiper (Calidris mauri), least sandpiper (C. minutilla), sanderling (C. alba), red
knot (C. canutus), and light-footed clapper rail (Rallus longirostris levipes). Large
waders also commonly feed on the flats; for example, the marbled godwit (Limosa
fedoa), dowitcher (Limnodromus sp.), long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus),
whimbrel (N. phaeopus), American avocet (Recurvirostra americana), willet (Catop-
trophorus semipalmatus), and yellowlegs (Tringa spp.) frequently probe the sediment
surface in search of food (Boland, 1981).
ESTUARY
AQUATIC HABITAT: TIDAL CREEKS AND CHANNELS
The most important aquatic habitats in the Tijuana River NERR occur in a network
of small tidal creeks and larger channels that support a diversity of phytoplankton,
benthic algae, invertebrates, fish, birds, and wildlife. The tidal creeks and channels,
which encompass more than a 60-ha area of the reserve, generally average ~1.4 and
~10 m in width, respectively. The tidal creeks are typified by lower tidal flows than
the channels, which are distributed closer to marine habitats. Because the tidal creeks
usually drain completely at low tide while the channels remain inundated during all
tidal stages, the tidal creeks are only occasionally vegetated, while the channels
support submerged aquatic vegetation (Desmond et al., 2001).
Plants
The phytoplankton community consists of an array of diatoms, dinoflagellates, and

blue-green algae. Smaller forms, picoplankton (~1 to 2 µm in size) of uncertain
taxonomy, are particularly abundant in the tidal creeks and channels. Phytoplankton
blooms develop in the estuary from March to June and may be facilitated by reduced
tidal flushing (Fong, 1986). Peak cell counts and biomass occur in spring.
Benthic macroalgae are common along the creek and channel bottoms. Chloro-
phytes (e.g., Enteromorpha sp. and Ulva sp.) predominate, and they often appear drifting
along the bottom or floating to the water surface. Both macroalgae and phytoplankton
attain highest biomass in small tidal creeks with low flow velocities. Diminished tidal
flushing and reduced circulation promote the accumulation of algal biomass. A greater
standing crop of the macroalgae also correlates positively with prevailing winds that
move floating algal mats along the water surface (Rudnicki, 1986).
Benthic Invertebrates
Table 7.2 provides a species list of invertebrates, primarily benthic forms, found in
the Tijuana Estuary. The abundance and distribution of benthic fauna are greatly
affected by the sediment type and hydrologic conditions in the estuary. For example,
deposit feeders, such as Callianassa californiensis, Glycera dibranchiata, Pectinaria
californiensis, and Scoloplos armiger, inhabit areas with fine-grained sediments. In
contrast, filter feeders, such as Crassostrea sp., Cryptomya californica, Protothaca
staminea, and Tagelus californianus, prefer coarser, medium-sized sediments. Rapid
increases in stream flow during periods of heavy precipitation in winter can markedly
shift salinities as well as the sediment structure along the bottom of the tidal creeks
and channels, thereby impacting the benthic populations (Zedler et al., 1984; Nordby
and Zedler, 1991).
Since 1970, significant changes have occurred in the benthic community of the
Tijuana Estuary, as evidenced by the investigations of Ford et al. (1971), Smith
(1974), Peterson (1975), International Boundary and Water Commission (1976),
Hosmer (1977), Rehse (1981), Zedler et al. (1992), and Zedler (2001). Bivalves
dominated the benthic community between 1970 and 1977. Investigations by Peter-
son (1975) in the early 1970s, for example, revealed that the purple clam (Sanquino-
laria nuttalli) and littleneck clam (Protothaca staminea) were the most abundant
species in the sandy bottom community, attaining densities of 75 and 35 individu-
als/m2, respectively. Other bivalves that were numerically abundant included the
California jackknife clam (Tagelus californianus) and false mya (Cryptomya cali-
fornica). Gastropods, decapod crustaceans, and polychaete worms were also rela-
tively abundant. Heavy precipitation and flooding events in winter during the
1978–1980 period resulted in marked changes in the benthic community. Later
hydrologic disturbances, notably reduced salinity associated with wastewater
inflows, caused additional compositional change.
TABLE 7.2
Invertebrate Species Identified in the Tijuana Estuary
Bivalves Gastropods
Chione californiensis Acteocina inculta
Chione fluctifraga Aplysia californica
Chione undatella Assiminea californica
Cistenides brevicoma Bulla gouldiana
Cryptomya californica Cerithidea californica
Cooperella subdiaphana Crepidula fornicata
Crassostrea sp. Crepidula onyx
Diplodonta orbella Cylichnella culcitella
Donax californicus Haminoea vesicula
Leporimetis obesa Melampus olivaceus
Laevicardium substriatum Nassarius fossatus
Leptopecten latiauratus Nassarius tegula
Lucina nuttalli Navanax inermis
Macoma nasuta Olivella baetica
Macoma secta Olivella biplicata
Mactra californica Polinices lewisii
Mytilus edulis Serpulorbis squamigerus
Ostrea lurida
Protothaca laciniata Decapod Crustaceans
Protothaca staminea Callianassa californiensis
Nuttallia nuttalli Callianassa gigas
Saxidomus nuttalli Callianassa affinis
Siliqua patula Cancer antennarius
Tagelus californianus Cancer productus
Tagelus subteres Emerita analoga
Tellina carpenteri Hemigrapsus oregonensis
Tellina modesta Loxorhynchus crispatus
Tresus nuttallii Pachygrapsus crassipes
Musculista senhousia Pagurus samuelis
Spisula planulata Pinnixa franciscana
Solen rosaceus Portunus xantusii
Scleroplax granulata
Polychaete Worms Malacoplax californiensis
Armandia brevis Uca crenulata
Axiothella rubrocincta Upogebia sp.
Anaitides sp. Pagurus hirsutiusculus
Capitella capitata
Chaetopterus variopedatus Amphipod Crustaceans
Diopatra splendidissima Ampithoe plumulosa
Eunice sp. Eohaustorius washingtonianus
Euzonus mucronata Jassa falcata
Glycera dibranchiata
Glycera capitata
Goniada brunnea

Invertebrate Species Identified in the Tijuana Estuary
Haploscoloplos elongatus Cirriped Crustaceans
Hemipodus borealis Balanus amphitrite
Laonice cirrata Balanus glandula
Magelona pitelkai
Nereis brandti Isopod Crustaceans
Nephtys spp. Excirolana chiltoni
Nephtys caecoides
Nephtys californiensis Cnidaria
Nephtys punctata Renilla kollikeri
Notomastus tenuis Corymorpha palma
Ophelia limacina
Owenia fusiformis Platyhelminthes
Pectinaria californiensis Stylochus sp.
Polydora cornuta Stylochus franciscanus
Polydora nuchalis
Polydora spp. Turbellaria
Prionospio cirrifera Unidentified species
Prionospio spp.
Scoloplos armiger Hemichordata
Serpula vermicularis Saccoglossus sp.
Spio filicornis
Spiophanes missionensis Brachipoda
Streblospio benedicti Glottidia albida
Tharynx parvis
Capitellidae Phoronida
Goniadidae Phoronis architecta
Lumbrineridae
Magelonidae Nemertea
Maldanidae Carinoma mutabilis
Orbiniidae Unidentified species
Phyllodocidae
Source: Zedler, J.B., C.S. Nordby, and K.B. Kus. 1992. The Ecology of Tijuana
Estuary, California: A National Estuarine Research Reserve. Technical Report,
NOAA Office of Coastal Resource Management, Sanctuaries and Reserves Divi-
sion, Washington, D.C.
The benthic invertebrate community in 1980 differed considerably in species

composition from that in the early to mid-1970s. By 1980, for instance, the false
mya had replaced the purple clam as the dominant bivalve in the estuary. Other
species prominent in the 1970s were absent in 1980 benthic samples. These included
the burrowing shrimp (Callianassa gigas), Washington clam (Saxidomus nuttalli),
white sand clam (Macoma secta), bent-nose clam (M. nasuta), Carpenter’s tellen
(Tellina carpenteri), yellow clam (Florimentis obesa), and egg cockle (Laevicardium
substriatum) (Zedler et al., 1992).
The distribution of bivalves in the estuary is dependent on sediment type. Hosmer

(1977) correlated bivalve biomass to sediment grain size. Although the biomass of
bivalves generally increased with increasing grain size, considerable variation was
observed even among the dominant species. For example, the biomass and density
of the purple clam peaked in coarse sand. The littleneck clam attained higher biomass
and density in finer sediments but was found in a wide range of sediment types from
silt and clay to coarse sand. The California jackknife clam inhabited a narrower
range of sediment types than the littleneck clam, residing in fine to medium sand.
Both biomass and density were greater in clams collected in fine sand.
Of the aforementioned dominant bivalve species, Hosmer (1977) registered a
mean size of 71 mm for the purple clam, 27 mm for the California jackknife clam,
and 22 mm for the littleneck clam. The mean sizes of the California jackknife clam
and the littleneck clam changed significantly during later benthic sampling in the
estuary (1986–1989). For example, Nordby and Zedler (1991) found the mean size
of the littleneck clam to be about half of that reported by Hosmer (1977). The
California jackknife clam, in turn, was larger than that reported by Hosmer (1977).
In addition, no purple clams were collected in their samples. These changes reflect
more systemwide shifts in the benthic invertebrate community structure occurring
in the estuary during the 1978–1980 period, when floods caused mass mortality of
many benthic invertebrate species.
Hydrographic disturbances after 1980, such as the floods of 1986, 1987, and 1988,
which greatly reduced salinities, were also detrimental to benthic communities and
were tolerated only by the most resilient species (i.e., short-lived forms with short
generation times and protracted spawning). Nordby and Zedler (1991) demonstrated
that over their sampling period from 1986 through 1988 the overwhelming trends of
the benthic community in the estuary were toward lower species richness and abun-
dance. As in the case of the benthic assemblages chronicled after the 1980 floods,
younger and smaller animals predominated. Through periods of ongoing wastewater
inflows, Nordby and Zedler (1991) ascertained that pollution-tolerant capitellids and
spionids (mainly Polydora nuchalis and P. cornuta) were the dominant polychaetes.
Collections of bivalves were more variable. Tagelus californianus was the dominant
bivalve species in 1986, but it declined substantially in 1987, when Cryptomya cali-
fornica and Protothaca staminea became abundant (Table 7.3). While T. californicus
continued to decrease and P. staminea continued to increase in 1988, C. californica
leveled off in numbers. Over the three-year period, bivalve densities dropped substan-
tially from a high of more than 2500 individuals/m2 in September 1986 to generally
less than 1000 individuals/m2 through December 1988. Most of the bivalves collected
in the benthic samples were young individuals ranging from 0 to 1 year of age.
Fish
Table 7.4 shows the species of fish that have been identified in the Tijuana Estuary.
Three resident species dominated the fish community in the estuary prior to the
flooding events during the 1978–1980 period. These were the striped mullet (Mugil
cephalus), California killifish (Fundulus parvipinnis), and longjaw mudsucker (Gil-
lichthys mirabilis). Reduced salinity due to flooding in 1980 and hypersalinity due
TABLE 7.3
Annual Relative Abundance of the Dominant Channel
Organisms Collected at the Tijuana Estuary (% of Total)
Year
Organism 1986–1987 1987–1988 1988–1989
Fishes
Atherinops affinis 52% 14% 7%
Clevelandia ios 41% 58% 90%
Fundulus parvipinnis 4% 19% 1%
Gillichthys mirabilis 0% <1% <1%
Gambusia affinis 0% 0% 0%
Total fishes collected 20,888 4,976 54,301
Bivalves
Tagelus californianus 73% 33% 27%
Protothaca staminea 19% 34% 42%
Macoma nasuta 2% 17% 19%
Cryptomya californica 0% 6% 4%
Total bivalves collected 658 490 651
Polychaetes
Capitellidae ND 33% 50%
Spionidae
Boccardia spp. ND <1% 5%
Polydora spp. ND 18% 20%
Nephtys spp. ND 16% 1%
Pseudopolydora spp. ND 0% 0%
Spionphanes missionensis ND 0% 8%
Opheliidae
Armandia brevis ND <1% 5%
Euzonus mucronata ND 0% 0%
Unidentified taxa ND 3% 0%
Total polychaetes collected ND 276 1,422
Note: ND = no data.
Source: Nordby, C.S. and J.B. Zedler. 1991. Estuaries 14: 80–93.
to closure of the ocean inlet in 1984 caused important changes in the abundance,
distribution, and diversity of fishes in the estuary. Topsmelt (Atherinops affinis) was
the most abundant species collected during the 1980–1984 period. Striped mullet
and California killifish were also relatively abundant after the 1980 flood and 1984
inlet closure, respectively. Species diversity decreased in response to these environ-
mental changes. Thus, 29 species of fish were reported in the estuary prior to 1978
(Zedler et al., 1992), whereas only 21 species of fish were recorded during the
1986–1989 period (Nordby and Zedler, 1991).
TABLE 7.4
Species of Fish Recorded in the Tijuana Estuary
Atherinidae
Topsmelt Atherinops affinis
Batrachoididae
Specklefin midshipman Porichthys myriaster
Blennidae
Bay blenny Hypsoblennius gentilis
Bothidae
Sanddabs Citharichthys spp.
California halibut Paralichthys californicus
Clupeidae
Pacific sardine Sardinops sagax caeruleus
Cottidae
Scalyhead sculpin Artedius harringtoni
Staghorn sculpin Leptocottus armatus
Cynoglossidae
California tonguefish Symphurus atricauda
Cyprinodontidae
California killifish Fundulus parvipinnis
Dasyatididae
Round stingray Urolophus halleri
Embiotocidae
Barred surfperch Amphistichus argenteus
Shiner perch Cymatogaster aggregata
Walleys surfperch Hyperprosopon argenteum
Engraulidae
Deepbody anchovy Anchoa compressa
Slough anchovy Anchoa delicatissima
Northern anchovy Engraulis mordax
Gobiidae
Yellowfin goby Acanthogobius flavimanus
Arrow goby Clevelandia ios
Longjaw mudsucker Gillichthys mirabilis
Cheekspot goby Llypnus gilberti
Bay goby Lepidogobius lepidus
Shadow goby Quietula y-cauda
Kyphosidae
Opaleye Girella nigricans

Species of Fish Recorded in the Tijuana Estuary
Labridae
California sheepshead Semicossyphyus pulcher
Mugilidae
Striped mullet Mugil cephalus
Myliobatidae
Bat ray Myliobatus californicus
Ophidiidae
Basketweave cusk-eel Otophidium scrippsi
Pleuronectidae
Diamond turbot Hypsopsetta guttulata
C-O turbot Pleuronichthys coenosus
Spotted turbot Pleuronichthys ritteri
Hornyhead turbot Pleuronichthys verticalis
Poeciliidae
Mosquitofish Gambusia affinis
Rhinobatidae
Shovelnose guitarfish Rhinobatus productus
Sciaenidae
White croaker Genyonemus lineatus
California corbina Menticirrhus undulatus
Queenfish Seriphus politus
Scombridae
Pacific mackerel Scomber japonicus
Serranidae
Kelp bass Paralabrax clathratus
Spotted sandbass Paralabrax maculatofasciatus
Barred sandbass Paralabrax nebulifer
Sphyraenidae
California barracuda Sphyraena argentea
Syngnathidae
Bay pipefish Syngnathus leptorhynchus
Source: Zedler, J.B., C.S. Nordby, and K.B. Kus. 1992. The Ecology
of Tijuana Estuary, California: A National Estuarine Research Reserve.
Technical Report, NOAA Office of Coastal Resource Management,
Sanctuaries and Reserves Division, Washington, D.C.
River flooding and wastewater inflows during the late 1980s resulted in further
changes in the fish community. At this time, the arrow goby (Clevelandia ios) far
outnumbered the other species in absolute abundance, comprising 75% of all the
individuals collected in field samples. Nordby (1982) also asserted that goby larvae
dominated other larval forms in the estuary. Topsmelt was the second most abundant
species, accounting for 19% of all individuals. California killifish, in turn, constituted
only 3% of the fish in the collections. While the arrow goby and topsmelt were co-
dominant species in 1986, by 1989 the arrow goby had become the overwhelming
numerical dominant. Table 7.3 shows the annual relative abundance (% of total) of
the dominant fish species collected in the Tijuana Estuary during this time frame.
Over the 3-year period from 1986 to 1989, the number of fish species dropped
from 14 to 6 in the estuary, reflecting the inability of some of the resident fishes to
adapt to the acute salinity changes associated with river flooding and wastewater
inflow. Zedler et al. (1992) disclosed that by 1991 the California killifish once again
increased in abundance in the estuary to become a co-dominant form along with the
arrow goby. Although there have been significant compositional variations in the
fish community of the Tijuana Estuary, forage species have consistently dominated
in terms of numerical abundance through the 1990s (Zedler, 2001).
Arrow gobies, as well as other forage species such as killifishes and anchovies,
are important sources of food for recreational and commercial species. Some of the
most important recreational and commercial species in the estuary include the
California halibut (Paralichthys californicus), the white croaker (Genyonemus lin-
eatus), sea bass (Paralabrax spp.), flounders (Pleuronichthys spp.), and walleys
surfperch (Hyperprosopon argenteum). Resident species typically are more abundant
than these fishes (Zedler et al., 1992).
Birds
Tidal creeks and channels are important resting and feeding areas for a variety of
waterbird species that also frequent other habitats in the reserve (Table 7.5). Some
of the commonly observed waterbirds in these aquatic habitats are herons and egrets
(e.g., great egret, Casmerodius albus; great blue heron, Ardea herodias; snowy egret,
Egretta thula; and reddish egret, Egretta rufescens), gulls and terns (e.g., California
gull, Larus californicus; western gull, L. occidentalis; Forster’s tern, Sterna forsteri;
and black skimmer, Rynchops niger), waders (e.g., light-footed clapper rail, Rallus
longirostris levipes), cormorants (e.g., double-crested cormorant, Phalacrocorax
auritus), pelicans (brown pelican, Pelecanus occidentalis), and raptors (e.g., osprey,
Pandion haliaetus). Forage fishes, including the topsmelt, California killifish, arrow
goby, and northern anchovy (Engraulis mordax), are generally the preferred prey of
these birds (Zedler et al., 1992; Zedler, 2001).
In contrast to some of the more pristine estuarine reserves such as the Jacques
Cousteau NERR (see Chapter 3), the Tijuana River NERR has been affected by
anthropogenic disturbances. Among the most significant disturbances are chronic
TABLE 7.5
Waterbird Species Observed at the Tijuana Estuary between
October and April
Common Name Scientific Name Habitata
Pelicans, Grebes, and Cormorants

Pied-billed grebe Podilymbus podiceps I
Eared grebe Podiceps nigricollis I
Western grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis I
Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus I, S
Brown pelican Pelecanus occidentalis I
Herons and Egrets

Great blue heron Ardea herodias I, M
Great egret Casmerodius albus I, M, D
Little blue heron Egretta caerulea I, M, D
Reddish egret Egretta rufescens I
Snowy egret Egretta thula I, M, D
Waterfowl
Canada goose Branta canadensis I
American wigeon Anas americana I, M, D
Gadwall Anas strepera I
Green-winged teal Anas crecca I, M
Mallard Anas platyrhynchos I
Northern pintail Anas acuta acuta I, M
Blue-winged teal Anas discors I
Cinnamon teal Anas cyanoptera I
Northern shoveler Anas clypeata I
Lesser scaup Aythya affinis I
Surf scoter Melanitta perspicillata I
Common goldeneye Bucephala clangula I
Bufflehead Bucephala albeola I, M
Red-breasted merganser Mergus serrator I
Ruddy duck Oxyura jamaicensis I
American coot Fulica americana I, S
Small Waders
Spotted sandpiper Tringa macularia I, B
Black-bellied plover Pluvialis squatarola I, M, B, S, D
Killdeer Charadrius vociferus I, M, D
Semipalmated plover Charadrius semipalmatus I, B, D
Snowy plover Charadrius alexandrinus I, B, D
Ruddy turnstone Arenaria interpres I, M, S, D
Black turnstone Arenaria melanocephala I
Least sandpiper Calidris minutilla I, B, D
Red knot Calidris canutus I
(continued)

Waterbird Species Observed at the Tijuana Estuary between
October and April
Common Name Scientific Name Habitata
Western sandpiper Calidris mauri I, B, D

Dunlin Calidris alpina pacifica I, B, S, D
Sanderling Calidris alba I, B, S, D
Common snipe Gallinago gallinago M
Light-footed clapper rail Rallus longirostris levipes I, M
Large Waders
Black-necked stilt Himantopus mexicanus I, M, S
American avocet Recurvirostra americana I, D
Willet Catoptrophorus semipalmatus I, M, B, S, D
Yellowlegs Tringa spp. I, M, D
Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus I, M, B, D
Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus I, M, S, D
Marbled godwit Limosa fedoa I, M, B, S, D
Dowitcher Limnodromus sp. I, M, S, D
Gulls and Terns

Bonaparte’s gull Larus philadelphia I
Heermann’s gull Larus heermanni I, B, S
Ring-billed gull Larus delawarensis I, M, B, S, D
Mew gull Larus canus B
California gull Larus californicus I, S, D
Herring gull Larus argentatus I, S, D
Western gull Larus occidentalis I, M, B, S, D
Caspian tern Sterna caspia I, D
Royal tern Sterna maxima I, S
Elegant tern Sterna elegans I, S, D
Common tern Sterna hirundo S
Forster’s tern Sterna forsteri I, B, S, D
Black skimmer Rynchops niger I
a Habitat: I = intertidal flats; M = salt marsh; B = beach; S = sandflat; D = dune.
Source: Zedler, J.B., C.S. Nordby, and K.B. Kus. 1992. The Ecology of Tijuana
Estuary, California: A National Estuarine Research Reserve. Technical Report, NOAA
Office of Coastal Resource Management, Sanctuaries and Reserves Division, Wash-
ington, D.C.
sewage wastewater inflows to the estuary from the City of Tijuana, which have
averaged ~38 to 45 MLD. These inflows have been responsible for significant
reductions in salinity and negative impacts on channel biota. During some periods
(e.g., 1987–1988), sewage inflows amounted to ~83 MLD (Seamans, 1988). The
chronic wastewater inflows have occasionally been augmented by sewage spills from
broken pipelines. The net effect has been the periodic change of intermittent stream
flow in the Tijuana River to essentially a permanently flowing system. However, this
condition has improved in recent years (Jeffrey Crooks, Tijuana River National
Estuarine Research Reserve, personal communication, 2003).
Watershed development and associated human activities are disturbing and desta-
bilizing soils and accelerating erosion in land areas surrounding the river and estuary.
The effects of development are evident throughout the watershed, and disturbed soils
are easily mobilized by flooding events. The trampling of dune vegetation, destabi-
lization of beach and dune sands, and storm activity facilitate erosion of the system
(Zedler and Nordby, 1986). Runoff from farmlands may contribute to these problems.
Land erosion and sediment influx to tidal creeks, channels, and lagoonal habitats
raise turbidity levels and periodically bury benthic organisms in the estuary (Nordby,
1987). Sedimentation of channels is a major ecological impact in the estuary. Dams
(i.e., Rodriquez, Barrett, and Morena dams) modulate downstream flows and protect
the estuary from the influx of large volumes of sediment by regulating nearly 80%
of the watershed area.
Inlet closure and subsequent sediment buildup have required the implementation
of dredging operations to maintain navigable waterways. Some of the sediment
enters the lower estuary from dune washovers that accompany major storms, but a
larger volume of sediment derives from the surrounding watershed upriver and enters
the system in largest quantities during floods. Dredging of the main estuary enhances
tidal flushing and also increases turbidity as well as mortality of benthic organisms.
Most of the biotic impacts caused by dredging are ephemeral, although recovery of
the benthos can be protracted (Zedler et al., 1992).
The modification of stream flow is a major ecological stressor in the estuary.
Aside from wastewater discharges, several other factors alter stream flow in the
system. For example, the Barrett, Morena, and Rodriguez reservoirs trap stream flow
and thus modify the volume of downstream discharges (Zedler et al., 1992).
Dikes and levees have been constructed in various areas of the reserve. Dike
construction in lagoonal waters, for instance, has been used to create wastewater
receiving ponds. Levees have been constructed along the Tijuana River flood plain
for flood control. These structures, together with agricultural lands, have substan-
tially altered the Tijuana flood plain. Agricultural and military activities were once
concentrated throughout the southern half of the estuary. A military airport was
constructed more than 50 years ago east of the estuary (Zedler et al., 1992).
Other human activities of significance that have directly damaged habitats
include gravel extraction and the use of off-road vehicles. A primary goal of the
Tijuana River NERR has been to promote restoration efforts, with the major focus
on the restoration of tidal wetlands (see Zedler, 2001). Another concern is the
maintenance of an open tidal inlet necessary to provide the habitat necessary to
improve biodiversity in the estuary. The removal of sediment in the lower estuary
and near the inlet will increase tidal flushing and restore tidal circulation favorable
for the reestablishment of native species that have declined due to diminished tidal
influence in response to repeated sedimentation events associated with storms and
episodic flooding. Finally, restoration projects are stressing the importance of
revegetating disturbed lands along perimeter areas of the Tijuana River to upland
areas of the watershed. Resource management programs are vital to maintain the
variety of habitats needed to support healthy communities of organisms in the
system (Zedler et al., 1992).

The Tijuana Estuary represents one of the least fragmented salt marsh systems in
Southern California. It is an estuary characterized by highly variable hydrologic
conditions due to large fluxes in the volume of stream flow over an annual cycle
and periodic flooding during the winter (wet) season. Human activities exacerbate
natural perturbations in environmental conditions. For example, discharges of raw
sewage and wastewaters from Tijuana, Mexico, as well as spills of sewage down
border canyons, have delivered pathogens, nutrients, chemical contaminants, and
additional fluid flow to the estuary. While the wastewater discharges in past years
have provided for more consistent flow in the Tijuana River, reservoirs (i.e., Barrett,
Morena, and Rodriguez reservoirs) have delayed flood flows, prolonged the period
of wet-season flows, and reduced the total volume of stream flow. As a result, both
monthly and annual flows of the Tijuana River have changed markedly, with coef-
ficients of variation of 690 and 325%, respectively.
The neighboring watershed is heavily populated and characterized by consider-
able domestic and agricultural development. Construction and other disturbances
have created unstable slopes and soils that are susceptible to erosion and runoff.
Thus, large volumes of sediment are transported to tidal creeks, channels, and the
lower estuary, especially during periods of heavy precipitation and flooding. Some
areas of the estuary are clogged with sediment. Sedimentation has been catastrophic
at the coast and is exacerbated by occasional dune washovers associated with storm
surges. It has reduced tidal influence and has led to lower biodiversity. Periodic
dredging near the coast has increased the tidal prism and improved circulation in
the estuary.
Anthropogenic activities have had a significant impact on the estuarine biotic
communities. For example, wastewater inflows during the 1980s markedly reduced
salinities, causing mass mortality of benthic fauna and the alteration of fish
assemblages. Species with younger individuals, shorter generation times, and
protracted spawning seasons became the dominant taxa, replacing those with
longer generation times and shorter spawning periods. Pollution-tolerant species
(e.g., capitellids) attained peak abundance among the polychaete taxa. Bivalve
densities and fish species richness were greatest at sites farthest from the source
of the wastewaters.
Despite the array of anthropogenic impacts in the Tijuana River NERR, a
wide range of habitats and biotic communities occurs in the system. Aside from
extensive salt marshes, the Tijuana River NERR contains salt pannes, brackish
marshes, riparian habitat, wetland–upland transition zones, intertidal flats,
beaches and dunes, and tidal creeks and channels. The dominant vegetation in
the salt marsh habitat includes the Pacific cordgrass (Spartina foliosa) in the
lower marsh, perennial pickleweed (Salicornia virginica) in the mid-marsh plain,

and glasswort (S. subterminalis), shoregrass (Monanthocloe littoralis), alkali
heath (Frankenia salina), sea lavender (Limonium californicum), and Watson’s
saltbush (Atriplex watsonii) in the higher marsh. Algal mats are conspicuous
under the canopy of salt marsh plants. Invertebrates commonly found on the
marsh are the fiddler crab (Uca crenulata) and other species of crabs, as well as
snails such as Assiminea californica and Melampus olivaceus. Insects are abun-
dant and serve as food for birds. Wading birds are quite abundant near tidal
creeks. Reptiles (lizards and snakes) and mammals (rabbits and squirrels) are
frequently observed in the higher marsh. The smaller mammals are important
prey for raptors (e.g., American kestrel, Falco sparverius; northern harrier, Circus
cyaneus; and golden eagle, Aquila chrysaetos).
Salt pannes are evident in upper intertidal areas of salt marsh habitats. Much of
the year they appear as denuded areas devoid of vegetation. During wet periods, the
salt pannes often contain water derived from rainfall and tidal inundation. At this
time, widgeon grass and insects usually proliferate. Waterfowl (e.g., northern pin-
tails, Anas acuta) may be seen feeding here. At least two species of birds (California
least tern, Sterna antilarrum browni; and western snowy plover, Charadrius alex-
andrinus nivosus) are known to nest in this habitat. In summer, heat dessicates the
salt pannes, leaving a salt-crusted surface. Beetles (e.g., Bledius spp. and Cicindela
spp.) burrow into the surface sediments, and several species of reptiles and mammals
may appear along the surface of the salt pannes.
Cattails (Typha domingensis) and bulrushes (Scirpus californicus) are the pre-
dominant emergent flora in the brackish marshes. Insects are abundant. Numerous
species of birds (e.g., red-winged blackbirds, Agelaius phoeniceus; black-bellied
plover, Pluvialis squatarola; and snowy egret, Egretta thula) are also reported here.
Riparian habitats consist of low shrub vegetation in low flood plain areas (e.g.,
salt bush, Baccharis glutinosa; and sandbar willow, Salix hindsiana) and forest
vegetation (e.g., cottonwoods, Populus fremontii; and willows, Salix spp.) in higher
woodlands. These habitats support some of the most diverse communities of birds,
reptiles, and mammals in the reserve. Fish assemblages in these habitats are likewise
highly diverse.
Vegetation in the wetland–transition habitat is comprised of a variety of wetland
plants in a lowland community, coastal sage scrub in an upland community, and a
rather abrupt boundary between them. Among abundant salt marsh plants are the
salt grass (Distichlis spicata), perennial glasswort (Salicornia subterminalis), and
sea lavender (Limonium californicum). Important upland plants include California
salt bush (Atriplex californica), box-thorn (Lycium californicum), and several species
of shrubs (e.g., lemonadeberry, Rhus integrifolia; and laurel sumac, R. laurina).
Invasive species of note are the Australian salt bush (Atriplex semibaccata) and
crystal ice plant (Mesembryanthemum crystallinum).
The wetland–transition habitat supports various herpetofauna (e.g., California
king snakes, Lampropeltis getulus californiae; San Diego gopher snakes, Pituophis
melanoleucus annectens; and side-blotched lizards, Uta stansburiana). Small mam-
mals (mice, rats, squirrels, and rabbits) are relatively abundant. Larger mammalian
species (e.g., striped skunks, Mephitis mephitis; and coyote, Canis latrans) also
commonly appear in this habitat. A number of avian species (e.g., northern harrier,
Circus cyaneus; and short-eared owl, Asio flammeus) actively prey on the smaller
mammalian forms.
The dunes and beach habitat is one of the most physically stressed environ-
ments in the reserve; it is subjected to considerable wind and wave action, salt
spray, and disturbances by humans. Some plant species of significance are the
dune ragweed (Ambrosia chamissonis), sand verbena (Abronia umbellata), and
sea rocket (Cakile maritima). Animal populations are sparse. Exceptions are tiger
beetles (Coelus spp.) and ants. Lizards (e.g., silvery legless lizards, Anniella
pulchra pulchra; and side-blotched lizards, Uta stansburiana) frequent the dunes,
as do certain birds (e.g., Belding’s Savannah sparrow, Ammodramus sandwichen-
sis beldingi). Other avifauna that may be found in this habitat are the sanderling
(Calidris alba), least sandpiper (C. minutilla), western sandpiper (C. mauri),
willet (Catoptrophorus semipalmatus), whimbrel (Numenius phaeopus), marbled
godwit (Limosa fedoa), dowitcher (Limnodromus sp.), and black-bellied plover
(Pluvialis squatarola).
Mudflats and sandflats are valuable foraging habitats for crabs and numerous
species of birds. These intertidal flats support amphipods, bivalves, polychaetes,
gastropods, and other invertebrates that are important prey for wading birds that
feed on the flats. Because of the rich food supply, more shorebird species use the
intertidal flats than use any other habitat in the reserve.
Tidal creeks and channels form the principal aquatic habitats in the Tijuana
Estuary NERR. Plant and animal taxa are well represented. Diatoms and
dinoflagellates dominate the phytoplankton community, and benthic macroalgae
(e.g., Enteromorpha sp. and Ulva sp.) constitute a drifting community. The benthic
invertebrate community includes deposit-feeding and filter-feeding species whose
distribution is strongly influenced by sediment type. In addition, the benthic fauna
is highly susceptible to rapid and acute changes in salinity levels of the Tijuana
Estuary. At times, perturbations in salinity have resulted in the extirpation of
numerous benthic invertebrate species in the system. Mass mortality of benthic
organisms has occurred during periods of hydrographic disturbances (e.g., floods).
Such disturbances result in dramatic shifts in the structure of benthic communities
that may persist for years.
Fish assemblages are dominated by forage species, such as the California killifish
(Fundulus parvipinnis), arrow goby (Clevelandia ios), and topsmelt (Atherinops
affinis). Several species are of recreational and commercial importance, such as sea
bass (Paralabrax spp.), flounder (Pleuronichthys spp.), white croaker (Genyonemus
lineatus), and California halibut (Paralichthys californicus). As in the case of the
benthic invertebrate community, fish assemblages in the estuary have been impacted
by variable salinity concentrations, with the species richness declining appreciably
during periods of rapidly diminishing salinities.
Many waterbirds feed and rest along tidal creeks and channels of the estuary.
Gulls and terns, herons and egrets, and cormorants and pelicans utilize these aquatic
environments. They are often seen searching for forage fishes along the shoreline.
The Tijuana River NERR is a system heavily impacted by human activities and
disturbances that have altered extensive habitat area. Environmental management
programs are now focusing on protecting the health and viability of habitats in the
system. Restoration projects have been initiated to revitalize impacted habitats. In
addition, strategies have been devised to deal with physical and hydrologic distur-
bances in the reserve. The success of these habitat management programs depends
on effective collaboration of state and federal government agencies, academic insti-
tutions, and the general public, as well as effective education initiatives that inform
all individuals of the critical importance of this valuable system.
REFERENCES
Boland, J.M. 1981. Seasonal Abundances, Habitat Utilization, Feeding Strategies, and Inter-
specific Competition within a Wintering Shorebird Community and Their Possible
Relationships with the Latitudinal Distribution of Shorebird Species. M.S. thesis, San
Diego State University, San Diego, CA.
Cox, J.E. 1996. Management goals and functional boundaries of riparian forested wetlands.
In: Mulamoottil, G., B.G. Warner, and E.A. McBean (Eds.). Wetlands: Environmental
Gradients, Boundaries, and Buffers. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 153–161.
Cox, G.W. and J.B. Zedler. 1986. The influence of mima mounds on vegetation patterns in
the Tijuana Estuary salt marsh, San Diego County, California. Bulletin of the Southern
California Academy of Science 85: 158–172.
Desmond, J.S., G.D. Williams, and G. Vivian-Smith. 2001. The diversity of habitats in
southern California coastal wetlands. In: Zedler, J.B. (Ed.). Handbook for Restoring
Tidal Wetlands. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 67–77.
Entrix Inc., PERL, and PWA, Ltd. 1991. Tijuana Estuary Tidal Restoration Program. Draft
Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement, California Coastal
Conservancy and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, SCC, Oakland, CA, Volumes I–III.
Ferren, W.R., Jr. 1985. Carpinteria Salt Marsh: Environment, History, and Botanical Resources
of a Southern California Estuary. Publication No. 4, The Herbarium, Department of
Biological Sciences, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA.
Fong, P. 1986. Monitoring and Manipulation of Phytoplankton Dynamics in a Southern
California Estuary. M.S. thesis, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA.
Ford, R.F., G. McGowen, and M.V. Needham. 1971. Biological inventory: investigations of
fish, invertebrates, and marine grasses in the Tijuana River Estuary. In: Environmental
Impact Study for the Proposed Tijuana River Flood Control Channel. Technical
Report to Ocean Studies and Engineering, Long Beach, CA, pp. 39–64.
Hosmer, S.C. 1977. Pelecypod–Sediment Relationships at Tijuana Estuary. M.A. thesis, San
International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC). 1976. Final Environmental Impact State-
ment. Technical Report, Tijuana River Flood Control Project, San Diego County, CA.
James, M.L. and J.B. Zedler. 2000. Dynamics of wetland and upland subshrubs at the salt
marsh–coastal sage scrub ecotone. American Midland Naturalist 82: 81–99.
Levin, L., S. Talley, and J. Hewitt. 1998. Macrobenthos of Spartina foliosa (Pacific cordgrass)
salt marshes in southern California: community structure and comparison to a Pacific
mudflat and a Spartina alterniflora (Atlantic smooth cordgrass) marsh. Estuaries 21:
129–144.
NERRS. 2002. National Estuarine Research Reserve System: System-wide Monitoring Mon-
itoring Program Deployment Plans for Phase 1 (Abiotic Factors). Technical Report,
National Estuarine Research Reserve System, Silver Spring, MD.
Nordby, C.S. 1982. The Comparative Ecology of Ichthyoplankton within Tijuana Estuary and
its Adjacent Nearshore Waters. M.S. thesis, San Diego State University, San Diego,
CA.
Nordby, C.S. 1987. Response of channel organisms to estuarine closure and substrate distur-
bance. In: Wetland and Riparian Systems of the American West. Proceedings of
Society of Wetland Scientists’ Eighth Annual Meeting, Seattle, WA, pp. 318–321.
Nordby, C.S. and J.B. Zedler. 1991. Responses of fish and macrobenthic assemblages to
hydrologic disturbances in Tijuana Estuary and Los Peñasquitos Lagoon, California.
Estuaries 14: 80–93.
Peterson, C.H. 1975. Stability of species and of community for the benthos of two lagoons.
Ecology 56: 958–965.
Rehse, M.A. 1981. Faunal Recovery in Tijuana Estuary. Unpublished Technical Report, San
Restore America’s Estuaries. 2002. A National Strategy to Restore Coastal and Estuarine
Habitat. Technical Report, Restore America’s Estuaries, Arlington, VA.
Rudnicki, R. 1986. Dynamics of Macroalgae in Tijuana Estuary: Response to Simulated
Wastewater Addition. M.S. thesis, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA.
Seamans, P. 1988. Wastewater creates a border problem. Journal of the Water Pollution Control
Federation 60: 1799–1804.
Smith, S.H. 1974. The Growth and Mortality of the Littleneck Clam, Protothaca staminea,
in Tia Juana Slough, California. M.S. thesis, San Diego State University, San Diego,
CA.
Tiner, R.W. 1999. Wetland Indicators: A Guide to Wetland Identification, Delineation, Clas-
sification, and Mapping. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.
Vivian-Smith, G. 2001. Developing a framework for restoration. In: Zedler, J.B. (Ed.). Hand-
book for Restoring Tidal Wetlands. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 39–88.
Winfield, T.P. 1980. Dynamics of Carbon and Nitrogen in a Southern California Salt Marsh.
Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Riverside and San Diego State University, San
Diego, CA.
Zedler, J.B. 1977. Salt marsh community structure in the Tijuana Estuary, California. Estua-
rine and Coastal Marine Science 5: 39–53.
Zedler, J.B. 1980. Algal mat productivity: comparisons in a salt marsh. Estuaries 3: 122–131.
Zedler, J.B. 1982. Salt marsh algal mat composition: spatial and temporal comparisons.
Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of Sciences 81: 41–50.
Zedler, J.B. (Ed.). 2001. Handbook for Restoring Tidal Wetlands. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Zedler, J.B. and G.W. Cox. 1985. Characterizing wetland boundaries: a Pacific coast example.
Wetlands 4: 43–55.
Zedler, J.B. and P.A. Beare. 1986. Temporal variability of salt marsh vegetation: the role of
low salinity gaps and environmental stress. In: Wolfe, D. (Ed.). Estuarine Variability.
Academic Press, New York, pp. 295–306.
Zedler, J.B. and C.S. Nordby. 1986. The Ecology of the Tijuana Estuary: An Estuarine Profile.
Biological Report 85 (7.5), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.
Zedler, J.B., R. Koenigs, and W.P. Magdych. 1984. Review of Salinity and Predictions of
Estuarine Responses to Lowered Salinity. Technical Report, State of California Water
Resources Control Board, San Diego Association of Governments, San Diego, CA.
Zedler, J.B., C.S. Nordby, and K.B. Kus. 1992. The Ecology of Tijuana Estuary, California:
A National Estuarine Research Reserve. Technical Report, NOAA Office of Coastal
Resource Management, Sanctuaries and Reserves Division, Washington, D.C.
Index
Able, K.W., 69, 106, 109 streamflow characteristics, 171, 172
Abronia umbellata, Tijuana River NERR, 243 sub-basins, 175
Acantharchus pomotis, Jacques Cousteau NERR, tidal influences, 191
92–93 water quality characteristics, 191–192
Acartia hudsonica, Delaware NERR, 136, 158 watershed communities (animal), 175–190
Acartia spp., Delaware NERR, 158 amphibians/reptiles, 176–183
Acartia tonsa amphibians/reptiles list, 177–180
ACE Basin NERR, 194 birds, 186–189
Delaware NERR, 135, 136, 158 insects, 189–190
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 59, 98 mammals, 183–186
Weeks Bay NERR, 225 mammals list, 184–185
Accipiter cooperii, see Cooper’s hawk overview, 175–176
Accipiter striatus, see Sharp-shinned hawk watershed communities (plant), 173–175
ACE Basin NERR Acer rubrum
anthropogenic impacts Delaware NERR, 121, 152, 155
ditching/impounding, 204 Jacques Cousteau NERR, 71
overview, 173, 203–205
Acipenser brevirostrum, ACE Basin NERR, 173,
pollution, 173, 189, 203–204
200, 202
aquifer systems, 171, 173
Acipenser oxyrhynchus, see Atlantic sturgeon
barrier islands, 173, 183
Acorus calamus, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 70
barrier islands herpetofauna, 183
Acris crepitans crepitans, Jacques Cousteau
Carolina bays, 175, 181
NERR, 82
coastal marine waters
Acris gryllus, ACE Basin NERR, 181–182
birds, 202
Acteocina canaliculata, Jacques Cousteau NERR,
fish, 200–201
103
mammals, 202
Actinastrum spp., Delaware NERR, 157
reptiles, 201–202
Actitis macularia, Delaware NERR, 161
conservation easements, 173
Agalinis acuta, Waquoit Bay NERR, 38
description, 171–173
designation, 171 Agardhiella subulata, Jacques Cousteau NERR,
development, 203 95
endangered/threatened species, 202–203 Agelaius phoeniceus, see Red-winged blackbird
estuary biotic communities Agkistrodon piscivorus, ACE Basin NERR, 181,
benthic invertebrates, 195–197, 198 182
decapod crustaceans list, 198 Agriculture
fish, 197–200 impact on ACE Basin NERR, 203–204
phytoplankton, 192–194 impact on Tijuana River NERR, 255
zooplankton, 194–195 impact on Weeks Bay NERR, 227
estuary physical-chemical characteristics, need for modified practices, xiii
190–192 Aix sponsa, Delaware NERR, 161, 163
land cover, 203 Alder (Alnus rugos), Waquoit Bay NERR, 38
land protection, 173 Alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus)
land use cover, 174 Delaware NERR, 138
map, 172 Jacques Cousteau NERR, 94, 106
overview, 205 Waquoit Bay NERR, 38
pocosins, 181 Alkali heath (Frankenia salina), Tijuana River
Snuggedy Swamp, 174 NERR, 239, 242
St. Helena Sound, 190–191 Allen, D.E., 204
261
Alligator mississippiensis, ACE Basin NERR, Delaware NERR, 145, 161

173, 182, 202 American holly (Ilex opaca)
Alligator weed (Alternathera philoxeroides), Delaware NERR, 121, 152
Weeks Bay NERR, 220 Jacques Cousteau NERR, 82
Alnus rugos, Waquoit Bay NERR, 38 American kestrel (Falco sparverius)
Alnus serrulata, Delaware NERR, 123 Delaware NERR, 145, 161
Alosa aestivalis, see Blueback herring Jacques Cousteau NERR, 89
Alosa mediocris, see Hickory shad Tijuana River NERR, 240
Alosa pseudoharengus American mannagrass (Glyceria grandis),
Delaware NERR, 138 Jacques Cousteau NERR, 67
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 94, 106 American oystercatcher (Haematopus palliatus)
Waquoit Bay NERR, 38 ACE Basin NERR, 188
Alosa sapidissima, see American shad Jacques Cousteau NERR, 87
Alternathera philoxeroides, Weeks Bay NERR, American robin (Turdus migratorius), Delaware
220 NERR, 145, 160
Ambrosia chamissonis, Tijuana River NERR, 243 American shad (Alosa sapidissima)
Ambylopappus pusillus, Tijuana River NERR, 242 ACE Basin NERR, 200
Ambystoma mabeei, 182 Delaware NERR, 138, 162
Ambystoma maculatum Jacques Cousteau NERR, 94
ACE Basin NERR, 181, 182 American three-square (Scirpus americanus),
Waquoit Bay NERR, 38 Delaware NERR, 152
Ambystoma opacum, see Marbled salamander American toad (Bufo americanus), Waquoit Bay
Ambystoma talpoideum, ACE Basin NERR, 181 NERR, 38
Ambystoma tigrinum tigrinum, Jacques Cousteau American wigeon (Anas americana)
NERR, 82
Delaware NERR, 163
Ameiurus catus, Delaware NERR, 140
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 88
Ameiurus natalis, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 92
Ammodramus sandwichensis beldingi, Tijuana
Ameiurus nebulosus, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 92
River NERR, 239, 240, 243
Ameiurus spp., ACE Basin NERR, 204–205
Ammodytes sp., Jacques Cousteau NERR,
Amelanchier candensis, Jacques Cousteau NERR,
99–100, 109
82
Ammophila breviligulata
American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis),
ACE Basin NERR, 173, 182, 202
Waquoit Bay NERR, 41
American avocet (Recurvirostra americana),
Ammospiza caudacuta, see Sharp-tailed sparrow
Tijuana River NERR, 241, 244
Ammospiza maritima, see Seaside sparrow
American beach grass (Ammophila breviligulata),
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 81 Ampelisca abdita, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 100,
American beech (Fagus grandifolia), Delaware 103
NERR, 121, 152 Ampelisca vadorum, ACE Basin NERR, 197
American black duck (Anas rubripes) Ampelisca verrilli, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 103
Delaware NERR, 144, 163 Amphipods, ACE Basin NERR, 197
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 88 Amphiuma means, ACE Basin NERR, 182
American brant (Branta bernicla), Jacques Anabaena spp., Delaware NERR, 133
Cousteau NERR, 88 Anas acuta, 88
American brook lamprey (Lampetra lamottie), Tijuana River NERR, 240
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 94 Anas americana, see American wigeon
American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) Anas crecca, see Green-winged teal
ACE Basin NERR, 187 Anas discors, Delaware NERR, 163
Delaware NERR, 145 Anas platyrhynchos, see Mallard
American eel (Anguilla rostrata) Anas rubripes
Delaware NERR, 138, 162 Delaware NERR, 144, 163
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 93, 98, 106 Jacques Cousteau NERR, 88
Waquoit Bay NERR, 42 Anas strepera, see Gadwall
American goldfinches (Carduelis tristis) Anchoa hepsetus, see Striped anchovy
ACE Basin NERR, 187 Anchoa mitchilli, see Bay anchovy
Index 263
Andropogon virginicus var. virginicus, Jacques Artemisia californica, Tijuana River NERR, 242
Cousteau NERR, 72 Artemisia stelleriana, Waquoit Bay NERR, 41
Anguilla rostrata, see American eel Arthropods
Ankistrodesmus spp., Delaware NERR, 133, 157 Delaware NERR, 136, 158, 159
Annelids Waquoit Bay NERR, 42, 44, 45–46
Delaware NERR, 136, 137, 158, 159 Ashepoo-Combahee-Edisto Basin NERR, see
Waquoit Bay NERR, 44, 45 ACE Basin NERR
Anniella pulchra pulchra, Tijuana River NERR, Ashepoo River, see also ACE Basin NERR
243 description, 171
Annual pickleweed (Salicornia bigelovii), Tijuana Asian clam (Potamocorbula amurensis), as
River NERR, 239 invasive, 25
Anthropogenic impacts, see also specific impacts Asio flammeus, see Short-eared owl
ACE Basin NERR, 173, 189, 203–205 Asio otus, ACE Basin NERR, 188
categorization of, xi Assiminea californica, Tijuana River NERR, 239
Delaware NERR, 128–133, 157 Atherinops affinis, Tijuana River NERR, 248, 252
leading to protection legislation, 1–2 Atlantic bumper (Chloroscombrus chrysurus),
summary, xi–xiii ACE Basin NERR, 199, 201
summary table, xii Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias undulatus)
Tijuana River NERR, 237, 240–242, 243, 252, ACE Basin NERR, 199
254–256, 255, 257 Delaware NERR, 140
Waquoit Bay NERR, 46, 48–51 Jacques Cousteau NERR, 94, 106
Weeks Bay NERR, 227–228 Weeks Bay NERR, 226
Apalone ferox, ACE Basin NERR, 182
Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus)
Apeltes quadracus, see Fourspine stickleback
ACE Basin NERR, 199
Aphredoderus sayanus, Jacques Cousteau NERR,
Delaware NERR, 138, 140, 160, 162
92
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 94, 98, 106, 109
Aquila chrysaetos, Tijuana River NERR, 240
Atlantic rock crab (Cancer irroratus), Jacques
Arctic terns (Sterna paradisaea), Waquoit Bay
Cousteau NERR, 104
NERR, 41
Atlantic silverside (Menida menidia)
Arctostaphylos uva-ursi, see Bearberry
ACE Basin NERR, 199, 201
Ardea herodias, see Great blue heron
Delaware NERR, 138, 140
Arenaria interpres, see Ruddy turnstone
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 98, 106, 109
Argopecten irradians, Waquoit Bay NERR, 42,
45, 51 Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus)
Arius felis, ACE Basin NERR, 199 ACE Basin NERR, 200
Arrow arum (Peltandra virginica) Delaware NERR, 138, 140
Delaware NERR, 152 Atlantic tomcod (Microgadus tomcod), Waquoit
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 70 Bay NERR, 46
Weeks Bay NERR, 220 Atlantic white cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides),
Arrow goby (Clevelandia ios), Tijuana River Jacques Cousteau NERR, 71, 82
NERR, 249, 252 Atriplex leucophylla, Tijuana River NERR, 243
Arrow-grass (Triglochin concinnum), Tijuana Atriplex patula, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 66
River NERR, 239 Atriplex pusillus, Tijuana River NERR, 242
Arrowheads (Sagittaria engelmanniana), Jacques Atriplex semibaccata, Tijuana River NERR, 242
Cousteau NERR, 67 Atriplex watsonii, Tijuana River NERR, 239, 242
Arrowheads (Sagittaria latifolia), Jacques Aureococcus anophagefferens, Jacques Cousteau
Cousteau NERR, 67 NERR, 96–97
Arrowheads (Sagittaria spatulata), Jacques Australian salt bush (Atriplex semibaccata),
Cousteau NERR, 67 Tijuana River NERR, 242
Arrowheads (Sagittaria spp.), Jacques Cousteau Awned meadow beauty (Rhexia aristosa), Jacques
NERR, 70 Cousteau NERR, 72
Arrow leaf (Sagittaria lancifolia), Weeks Bay Aythra valisneria, see Canvasback
NERR, 220 Aythya affinis, see Lesser scaup
Arrow worms (Sagitta spp.), Jacques Cousteau Aythya americana, Delaware NERR, 163
NERR, 98 Aythya marila, see Greater scaup
B Beach plum (Prunus maritima)

Baccharis glutinosa, Tijuana River NERR, 241 Waquoit Bay NERR, 41
Baccharis halimifolia, Delaware NERR, 124–125 Bearberry (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi)
Baccharus halmifolia, Weeks Bay NERR, 220 Jacques Cousteau NERR, 81
Bain, M.B., 225, 226 Waquoit Bay NERR, 37
Bairdiella chrysoura, see Silver perch Beaver (Castor canadensis)
Balaena glacialis, Delaware NERR, 145 ACE Basin NERR, 185
Balaenoptera physalus, Delaware NERR, 145 Delaware NERR, 145, 162
Balanus improvisus, ACE Basin NERR, 196 Jacques Cousteau NERR, 86
Balanus spp., Waquoit Bay NERR, 42, 45 Belding’s Savannah sparrow (Ammodramus
Bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), ACE Basin sandwichensis beldingi), Tijuana
NERR, 173, 174 River NERR, 239, 240, 243
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Bell, S.S., 196
ACE Basin NERR, 202 Belted-kingfisher (Ceryle alcyon), Weeks Bay
Delaware NERR, 144, 145 NERR, 223
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 89 Benthic habitat mapping, 20–21
Banded killifish (Fundulus diaphanus), Jacques Benthic invertebrates categorization, 195
Cousteau NERR, 94 Bent-nose clam (Macoma nasuta), Tijuana River
Banded sunfish (Enneacanthus obesus), Jacques NERR, 247
Cousteau NERR, 92, 93 Best management practices (BMPs), 227, 228
Banded water snake (Nerodia fasciata), ACE Betula populifolia, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 71
Basin NERR, 182
Biddulphia spp., Delaware NERR, 133
Barnacle larvae (cirripedes), ACE Basin NERR,
Bidens cernus, Delaware NERR, 156
194
Bidens laevis, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 70
Barnacles (Balanus spp.), Waquoit Bay NERR,
Big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus)
42, 45
ACE Basin NERR, 185
Barn owls (Tyto alba), ACE Basin NERR, 188
Barn swallow (Hirundo rustica), Delaware
Big cordgrass (Spartina cynosuroides)
NERR, 161
Barred owl (Strix varia), Delaware NERR, 144 Delaware NERR, 121, 152
Barrier islands, ACE Basin NERR, 173 Jacques Cousteau NERR, 66
Batea catharinensis, ACE Basin NERR, 197 Weeks Bay NERR, 220
Batis maritima, Tijuana River NERR, 239 Biotic impacts/stressors, types, xi
Bats, Weeks Bay NERR, 223 Bird’s foot violet (Viola pedata), Waquoit Bay
Bault, E.I., 225–226 NERR, 38
Bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli) Black-and-white warbler (Mniotilta varia)
ACE Basin NERR, 199, 201 ACE Basin NERR, 188
Delaware NERR, 138, 140 Jacques Cousteau NERR, 92
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 94, 99, 106, 109 Black-backed gulls (Larus marinus), Waquoit Bay
Weeks Bay NERR, 226 NERR, 41
Bayberry (Myrica pensylvanica) Black-banded sunfish (Enneacanthus chaetodon),
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 71, 72, 82 Jacques Cousteau NERR, 93
Waquoit Bay NERR, 41 Black-bellied plover (Pluvialis squatarola)
Bay scallop (Argopecten irradians), Waquoit Bay Jacques Cousteau NERR, 87
NERR, 42, 45, 51 Tijuana River NERR, 241, 244
Beach grass (Ammophila breviligulata), Waquoit Black bullhead (Ictalurus melas), Jacques
Bay NERR, 41 Cousteau NERR, 94
Beach heather (Hudsonia tomentosa) Blackcheek tonguefish (Symphurus plaguisa),
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 82 Jacques Cousteau NERR, 109
Waquoit Bay NERR, 41 Black cherry (Prunus serotina)
Beach pea (Lathyrus japonicus var. glaber), Delaware NERR, 121, 152
Waquoit Bay NERR, 41 Jacques Cousteau NERR, 82
Beach pea (Lathyrus maritimus), Jacques Black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus), Jacques
Cousteau NERR, 81 Cousteau NERR, 94
Index 265
Black-crowned night heron (Nycticorax Bluefish (Pomatomus salatrix)

nycticorax), Jacques Cousteau Delaware NERR, 140, 162
NERR, 88 Jacques Cousteau NERR, 109
Black drum (Pogonias cromis), Delaware NERR, Waquoit Bay NERR, 46
140, 162 Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), Jacques
Black grass (Juncus gerardii), Jacques Cousteau Cousteau NERR, 92, 94
NERR, 66 Blue-green algae
Black gum (Nyssa sylvatica) Delaware NERR, 157
Delaware NERR, 121, 152, 155 Tijuana River NERR, 245
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 71 Blue grosbeak (Guiraca caerulea), Delaware
Black haw (Viburnum prunifolium), Delaware NERR, 145
NERR, 121 Blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), Delaware NERR,
Blackjack oak (Quercus marilandica), Jacques 145, 160
Cousteau NERR, 81 Bluespotted sunfish (Enneacanthus gloriosus),
Black-necked stilt (Himantopus mexicanus), Jacques Cousteau NERR, 93
Tijuana River NERR, 241 Blue-winged teal (Anas discors), Delaware
Black needle rush (Juncus roemerianus), Weeks NERR, 163
Bay NERR, 220 Bluntnose minnow (Pimephales notatus), Jacques
Blacknose dace (Rhinichthys atratulus), Jacques Cousteau NERR, 93
Cousteau NERR, 94 Bluntscale bulrush (Scirpus smithii var. smithii),
Black oak (Quercus velutina), Jacques Cousteau Jacques Cousteau NERR, 70
NERR, 80, 81 Boat-tailed grackle (Quiscalus major)
Black racer (Coluber constrictor constrictor), ACE Basin NERR, 187
ACE Basin NERR, 181 Delaware NERR, 144, 160
Black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis), Delaware Bobcat (Lynx rufus), ACE Basin NERR, 186
NERR, 144 Bobolink (Dolichonyx oxyzivorus), Delaware
Black rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta), Delaware NERR, 145, 161
NERR, 140, 160 Bog Pond, Waquoit Bay NERR, 35
Black rush (Juncus gerardi), Waquoit Bay NERR, Bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii), Jacques
39 Cousteau NERR, 85
Black scoter (Melanitta nigra), Delaware NERR, Bologna, P.A.X., 95
144 Boothe, B.B., 196
Black skimmer (Rynchops niger) Bottlenose porpoise (Tursiops truncatus)
ACE Basin NERR, 188, 189 ACE Basin NERR, 202
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 87 Delaware NERR, 145
Black swamp snake (Seminatrix pygaea), ACE Bourne Pond, Waquoit Bay NERR, 35
Basin NERR, 181 Box-thorn (Lycium californicum), Tijuana River
Black vulture (Coragyps atratus), ACE Basin NERR, 242
NERR, 187 Boyking’s lobelia (Lobelia boykinii), Jacques
Bladderworts (Utricularia spp.), Jacques Cousteau NERR, 72
Cousteau NERR, 72 Bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum)
Blarina brevicauda, see Short-tailed shrew ACE Basin NERR, 174
Bledius spp., Tijuana River NERR, 240 Jacques Cousteau NERR, 71, 72, 80
Blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis) Brania clavata, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 103
ACE Basin NERR, 200 Branta bernicla, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 88
Delaware NERR, 138 Branta canadensis, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 88
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 94 Brevoortia patronus, ACE Basin NERR, 226, 227
Waquoit Bay NERR, 38, 42 Brevoortia tyrannus, see Atlantic menhaden
Blueberry (Vaccinium spp.), Jacques Cousteau Bricker, S.B., xi, 16
NERR, 80, 82 Bridled shiner (Notropis bifrenatus), Jacques
Blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) Cousteau NERR, 94
ACE Basin NERR, 196, 197 Broadhead skink (Eumeces laticeps), ACE Basin
Waquoit Bay NERR, 41, 45, 51 Broad-winged hawk (Buteo platypterus), Jacques
Weeks Bay NERR, 227 Cousteau NERR, 89, 91
Brook trout (Salmo fontinalis), Jacques Cousteau Burrowing shrimp (Callianassa gigas), Tijuana
NERR, 94 River NERR, 247
Broom crowberry (Cormea conradii), Jacques Burying amphipods (Corophium sp.), Waquoit
Cousteau NERR, 81 Bay NERR, 40
Brown bullhead (Ameiurus nebulosus), Jacques Busycon canaliculatum, Waquoit Bay NERR, 45
Cousteau NERR, 92 Busycon carica, Waquoit Bay NERR, 45
Brown creeper (Certhia americana), Delaware Buteo jamaicensis, see Red-tailed hawk
NERR, 161 Buteo lagopus, Delaware NERR, 144–145
Brown macroalgae (Fucus spp.), Waquoit Bay Buteo lineatus, Delaware NERR, 144–145
NERR, 43 Buteo platypterus, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 89,
Brown macroalgae (Laminaria agardhii), 91
Waquoit Bay NERR, 43 Butorides virescens, Delaware NERR, 161
Brown macroalgae (Petroderma maculiforme), Button bush (Cephalanthus occidentalis)
Waquoit Bay NERR, 43 Delaware NERR, 123
Brown macroalgae (Pseudolithoderma spp.), Jacques Cousteau NERR, 70
Waquoit Bay NERR, 43 Button sedge (Carex bullata), Jacques Cousteau
Brown macroalgae (Ralfsia spp.), Waquoit Bay NERR, 72
NERR, 43
Brown macroalgae, Waquoit Bay NERR, 43
Brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis), ACE C
Basin NERR, 189
Brown thrasher (Toxostoma rufum), Delaware Cactus mouse (Peromyscus eremicus), Tijuana
NERR, 145 River NERR, 243
Brown-tide alga (Aureococcus anophagefferens), Cakile edentula, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 81
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 96–97 Cakile maritima, Tijuana River NERR, 243
Brown trout (Salmo gairdneri), Jacques Cousteau Calder, D.R., 196
NERR, 94 Caleb Pond, Waquoit Bay NERR, 35
Brown water snake (Nerodia taxispilota), ACE Calidris alba, see Sanderling
Basin NERR, 182 Calidris alpina, see Dunlin
Brush mouse (Peromyscus boyli), Tijuana River Calidris canutus, see Red knot
NERR, 243 Calidris fuscicollis, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 87
Bubo virginianus, see Great horned owl Calidris mauri, see Western sandpiper
Bucephala albeola, see Bufflehead Calidris minutilla, see Least sandpiper
Bucephala clangula, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 88 Calidris pusilla, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 87
Bufflehead (Bucephala albeola) California brown pelican (Pelecanus
Delaware NERR, 144, 163 occidentalis), Tijuana River NERR,
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 88 237
Bufo americanus, Waquoit Bay NERR, 38 California Department of Parks and Recreation,
Bufo quercicus, ACE Basin NERR, 181 237
Bufo woodhousii fowleri, Jacques Cousteau California halibut (Paralichthys californicus),
NERR, 82 Tijuana River NERR, 252
Bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) California horn snail (Cerithidea californica),
ACE Basin NERR, 182 Tijuana River NERR, 239, 244
Delaware NERR, 140, 160 California jackknife clam (Tagelus californianus),
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 82 Tijuana River NERR, 245, 248
Bullhead catfish (Ameiurus spp.), ACE Basin California killifish (Fundulus parvipinnis),
NERR, 204–205 Tijuana River NERR, 239, 248–249,
Bullhead lilies (Nuphar variegatum), Jacques 252
Cousteau NERR, 72 California king snake (Lampropeltis getulus
Bulrush (Scirpus spp.), Jacques Cousteau NERR, californiae), Tijuana River NERR,
67 242
Buntings, ACE Basin NERR, 188, 189 California least tern (Sterna antillarum browni),
Burdick, D.M., 49, 51 Tijuana River NERR, 237, 240,
Burger, J., 88 243–244
Index 267
California salt bush (Atriplex pusillus), Tijuana Castor canadensis, see Beaver
River NERR, 242 Cathartes aura, see Turkey vulture
Callianassa gigas, Tijuana River NERR, 247 Catoptrophorus semipalmatus, see Willet
Callinectes sapidus, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 69 Catostomus commersoni, see White sucker
Callinectes sapidus, see Blue crab Cattails, (Typha spp.), Delaware NERR, 124–125,
Calycomonas ovalis, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 97 152
Camissonia cheiranthifolia spp. suffruticosa, Cattails (Typha angustifolia)
Tijuana River NERR, 243 Delaware NERR, 125
Campbell Scientific Weather Station, 11, 12 Jacques Cousteau NERR, 70
Canada goose (Branta canadensis), Jacques Weeks Bay NERR, 220
Cousteau NERR, 88 Cattails (Typha glauca), Jacques Cousteau NERR,
Canada lily (Lilium canadense), Delaware NERR, 70
156 Cattails (Typha latifolia), Delaware NERR, 125
Canby’s dropwort (Oxypolyis canbyi), ACE Basin Cattle egret (Casmerodius albus), Delaware
NERR, 202 NERR, 161
Cancer irroratus, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 104 CCX Fiberglass Products Plant, 173
Canis latrans, see Coyote Celtis occidentalis, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 82
Canvasback (Aythra valisneria) Cemophora coccinea, Jacques Cousteau NERR,
Delaware NERR, 163 85
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 88 Centralized Data Management Office (CDMO)
Capitella spp., Waquoit Bay NERR, 46 function, 4–5, 11
Capitellids (Heteromastus filiformis), Waquoit location, 4
Bay NERR, 41 Centropages hamatus, Jacques Cousteau NERR,
Carabid beetle (Tachys corax), Tijuana River 98
NERR, 240 Centropages typicus, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 98
Carassius auratus, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 94 Centropristis striata, Jacques Cousteau NERR,
Carcinus maenas, as invasive, 25 106
Carcinus maenus, Waquoit Bay NERR, 46 Cephalanthus occidentalis, see Button bush
Cardinalis cardinalis, see Northern cardinal Ceramium fastigiatum, Jacques Cousteau NERR,
Carduelis tristis, see American goldfinches 95
Caretta caretta, see Loggerhead turtle Ceratium spp., Delaware NERR, 133
Carex bullata, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 72 Cerithidea californica, Tijuana River NERR, 239,
Carex exilis, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 72 244
Carex kobomugi, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 81 Certhia americana, Delaware NERR, 161
Carolina bays, 175, 181 Ceryle alcyon, Weeks Bay NERR, 223
Carolina chickadee (Parus carolinensis) Chaetomorpha spp., Jacques Cousteau NERR, 95
Delaware NERR, 145, 160 Chaetopsis spp., ACE Basin NERR, 190
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 92 Chain pickerel (Esox niger), Jacques Cousteau
Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus) NERR, 92, 93
ACE Basin NERR, 187, 188 Chamaecyparis thyoides, Jacques Cousteau
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 92 NERR, 71, 82
Carp (Cyprinus carpio) Chamaedaphne calyculata, Jacques Cousteau
Delaware NERR, 140 NERR, 71
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 94 Channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus)
Carpenter frog (Rana virgatipes) Delaware NERR, 140
ACE Basin NERR, 181 Jacques Cousteau NERR, 94
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 82 Chant, R.J., 62
Carpenter’s tellen (Tellina carpenteri), Tijuana Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus, Tijuana River
River NERR, 247 NERR, 240, 243, 244
Carphophis amoenus amoenus, Jacques Cousteau Charadrius melodus, see Piping plovers
NERR, 85 Charadrius semipalmatus, see Semipalmated
Carpobrotus edulis, Tijuana River NERR, 243 plover
Casmerodius albus, Delaware NERR, 161 Charadrius vociferus, see Killdeer
Casmerodius albus, see Great egret Charadrius wilsonia, ACE Basin NERR, 188
Castelli, P.M., 88 Chelonia mydas, see Green sea turtle
Chelydra serpentina, see Snapping turtle Cnemidophorus sexlineatus, ACE Basin NERR,
Chemical contaminants, see also specific types 176, 180
ACE Basin NERR, 203–204 Coastal Change Analysis Program (C-CAP), land
major classes, 22 cover/habitat change database, 19
monitoring, 22 Coastal Services Center, 6
overview, xi, xii–xiii Coastal Training Program (CTP), 5
Waquoit Bay NERR, 49 function, 28
Chen caerulescens, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 88 Coastal Zone Management,CZM
Chestnut oak (Quercus prinus), Jacques Cousteau Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972,
NERR, 80, 81 importance, 2
Chicken turtle (Deirochelys reticularia), ACE Coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma coronatum
Basin NERR, 182 blainvillei), Tijuana River NERR,
Chinese mitten crap (Eriocheir sinensis), as 243
invasive, 25 Coast sedge (Carex exilis), Jacques Cousteau
Chipping sparrow (Spizella passerina), Delaware NERR, 72
NERR, 145 Code of Federal Regulations 15 CFR, 4, 7–8
Chironomidae, Delaware NERR, 136 Codium fragile
Chlamydomonas spp., Delaware NERR, 133 Jacques Cousteau NERR, 95
Chlorella spp. Waquoit Bay NERR, 42, 43
Delaware NERR, 133 Coelus globosus, Tijuana River NERR, 243
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 97 Coelus hirticollis gravida, Tijuana River NERR,
Chloroscombrus chrysurus, ACE Basin NERR, 243
199, 201 Coelus latesignata latesignata, Tijuana River
Chroomonas amphioxiea, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 243
NERR, 97 Colinus virginianus, Delaware NERR, 145
Chroomonas minuta, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 97
Collins, J.T., 176
Chroomonas vectensis, Jacques Cousteau NERR,
Colonial nesting birds, Jacques Cousteau NERR,
97
87–88, 89
Chrysemys picta, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 85
Coluber constrictor constrictor
Chrysemys rubriventris, see Red-bellied turtle
ACE Basin NERR, 181
Cicindela spp., Tijuana River NERR, 240
Cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamonea), Jacques
Combahee River, see also ACE Basin NERR
Cousteau NERR, 72
description, 171
Circus cyaneus, see Northern harrier
Comely shiner (Notropis amoenus), Jacques
Cistothorus palustris, see Marsh wren
Cousteau NERR, 94
Cladium jamaicense, Weeks Bay NERR, 220
Cladium marascoides, Waquoit Bay NERR, 39 Commercially/recreationally important species
Cladocerans, Weeks Bay NERR, 225 Delaware NERR, 140, 162–163
Cladonia spp., Waquoit Bay NERR, 37 Tijuana River NERR, 252
Cladophora vagabunda, Waquoit Bay NERR, 43, Weeks Bay NERR, 227
51 Common cattail (Typha latifolia), Waquoit Bay
Clam worms (Nereis virens), Waquoit Bay NERR, NERR, 38
41 Common goldeneye (Bucephala clangula),
Clangula hyemalis, see Oldsquaw Jacques Cousteau NERR, 88
Clapper rails (Rallus longirostris), Jacques Common grackle (Quiscalus quiscula), Delaware
Cousteau NERR, 91 NERR, 145, 161
Clemmys guttata, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 85 Common merganser (Mergus merganser)
Clemmys insculpta, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 85 Delaware NERR, 144
Clemmys muhlenbergii, Jacques Cousteau NERR, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 88
85 Common reed (Phragmites australis)
Clethra alnifolia, see Sweet pepperbush Delaware NERR, 124, 152
Clethrionomys gapperi, Jacques Cousteau NERR, effects overview, 24
86 Jacques Cousteau NERR, 66, 67, 69, 70
Clevelandia ios, Tijuana River NERR, 249, 252 Waquoit Bay NERR, 38
Clupea harengus, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 106 Weeks Bay NERR, 220
Index 269
Common shiner (Notropis cornustus), Jacques Cottonwoods (Populus fremontii), Tijuana River
Cousteau NERR, 94 NERR, 241
Common tern (Sterna hirundo) Coturnicops noveboracensis, Delaware NERR,
Waquoit Bay NERR, 41 144
Weeks Bay NERR, 223 Coull, B.C., 196
Comptonia peregrina, see Sweetfern Cowwheat (Melampyrum lineare), Jacques
Conant, R., 176 Cousteau NERR, 81
Condylura cristata, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 86 Cox, G.W., 242
Conservation easements, 173 Coyote (Canis latrans)
Consumption advisories, Delaware NERR, ACE Basin NERR, 183
131–132 Tijuana River NERR, 243
Contopus virens, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 91 Cranberry bogs
Conway, T.M., 63 Jacques Cousteau NERR, 72
Cooney, T.W., 171 Waquoit Bay NERR, 39
Cooperative Institute for Coastal and Estuarine Crangon septemspinosa
Environmental Technology Jacques Cousteau NERR, 98, 104
(CICEET), 23 Waquoit Bay NERR, 46
Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii) Crassostrea virginica, Delaware NERR, 136
ACE Basin NERR, 187 Crassostrea virginica, see Eastern oyster
Delaware NERR, 144 Crawford, R.E., 51
Copepod nauplii Creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus), Jacques
ACE Basin NERR, 194, 195 Cousteau NERR, 93
Delaware NERR, 157–158 Creek chubsucker (Erimyzon oblongus), Jacques
Copepods, Weeks Bay NERR, 225 Cousteau NERR, 93
Copperhead (Agkistrodon controtrix), ACE Basin Crepidula fornicata, Waquoit Bay NERR, 45
NERR, 181, 182 Crepidula plana, Waquoit Bay NERR, 45
Coragyps atratus, ACE Basin NERR, 187 Cressa truxillensis, Tijuana River NERR, 242
Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. maritimus, Tijuana Crotalus adamanteus, ACE Basin NERR, 180
River NERR, 237, 240 Crotalus horridus horridus, see Timber
Coreopsis rosea, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 72 rattlesnake
Cormea conradii, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 81 Cryptomya californica, 245, 247, 248
Cormorants, ACE Basin NERR, 202 Cryptotis parva, see Least shrew
Cormorants (Phalacrocorax spp.), Jacques Crystal ice plant (Mesembryanthemum
Cousteau NERR, 87 crystallinum), Tijuana River NERR,
Corn snake (Elaphe guttata guttata) 242
ACE Basin NERR, 180 Cunner (Tautogolabrus adspersus), Jacques
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 85 Cousteau NERR, 100
Cornus amomum, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 70 Curly-grass fern (Schizaea pusilla), Jacques
Cornus spp., Delaware NERR, 123 Cousteau NERR, 71
Corophium cylindricum, Jacques Cousteau Cyanocitta cristata, Delaware NERR, 145, 160
NERR, 100 Cyathura polita
Corophium sp. Delaware NERR, 158
Delaware NERR, 136, 158 Jacques Cousteau NERR, 100
Waquoit Bay NERR, 40 Cyclops spp., Delaware NERR, 135, 158
Corvus brachyrhynchos Cyclotella sp., Jacques Cousteau NERR, 97
ACE Basin NERR, 187 Cygnus columbianus, Jacques Cousteau NERR,
Delaware NERR, 145 88
Corvus ossifragus, ACE Basin NERR, 187 Cylindrotheca closterium
Cossura sp., Jacques Cousteau NERR, 103 ACE Basin NERR, 194
Costa, J.E., 51 Jacques Cousteau NERR, 97
Cotton mouse (Peromyscus gossypinus), ACE Cynoscion nebulosus, ACE Basin NERR, 199
Basin NERR, 185 Cynoscion regalis, see Weakfish
Cottonmouth (Agkistrodon piscivorus), ACE Cyprinodon variegatus, Delaware NERR, 138
Basin NERR, 181, 182 Cyprinus carpio, see Carp
CZM water depth, 127, 128

as federal government assessment program, water pH, 126, 127
xiii water temperature, 126
NERRS relationship, 3–4 watershed, 120–121
wetland vegetation, 121, 123–125
wetland vegetation cover, 124
D wetland vegetation/marsh plants list, 122–123
Delaware NERR/Upper Blackbird Creek Reserve
Dangleberry (Gaylussacia frondosa), Jacques anthropogenic impact
Cousteau NERR, 71, 72
habitat alteration, 157
Dardeau, M.R., 223, 225
pollution, 157
Data loggers
aquatic habitat, 156
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 63, 64
biotic communities
SWMP, 10–11, 12
amphibians, 160
Data management
benthic fauna/density, 158–159
data needs, 6
birds, 160–161
SWMP improvements, 11
commercially/recreationally important
Davis, L.V., 190
species, 140, 162–163
Davis, R.B., 193–194
finfish, 160
Deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus), Tijuana
mammals, 161–162
River NERR, 243
phytoplankton, 157
Deirochelys reticularia, ACE Basin NERR, 182
plant list, 153–155
Delaware NERR
reptiles, 160
description, 119
designation, 119 zooplankton, 157–158
map, 120 description, 119, 121
overview, 163–165 upland vegetation, 151–152
Delaware NERR/Lower St. Jones River Reserve water quality/variables, 126–127, 156
anthropogenic impacts, 128–133 watershed, 151
habitat alteration, 132–133 wetland vegetation, 152–156
nutrient loading, 128 Delaware’s Department of Natural Resources and
pollution, 128–132 Environmental Control, 131
toxic substances list, 129 Dendroica coronata, Delaware NERR, 145, 161
aquatic habitat, 125 Dendroica discolor, Delaware NERR, 145, 161
biotic communities Dendroica petechia, see Yellow warbler
amphibians, 140 Dentroica pinus, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 92
benthic fauna, 136–138 Deposit feeders, Tijuana River NERR, 245
benthic fauna density, 136, 137–138 Dermo (Perkinsus marinus), Delaware NERR,
birds, 140–145, 146–150 162
finfish, 138–140 Dermochelys coriacea, ACE Basin NERR, 201
mammals, 145, 151 Desmognathus fuscus, Jacques Cousteau NERR,
phytoplankton, 133–134 82
plankton density, 135 Desmond, J.S., 242
reptiles, 140 Diaphanosoma spp., Delaware NERR, 158
zooplankton, 134–136 Diatoms
description, 119, 120–121 ACE Basin NERR, 193–194
development, 120, 128, 131 Delaware NERR, 133, 157
land use, 120–121, 151, 157 Jacques Cousteau NERR, 97
plant list, 122–123 Tijuana River NERR, 245
upland vegetation, 121 Didelphis marsupialis, see Opossum
water quality, 125–128 Dindo, J.J., 223
dissolved oxygen, 125–126, 127 Dinoflagellates
salinity, 125, 126 ACE Basin NERR, 193
specific conductivity, 126 Jacques Cousteau NERR, 97
turbidity, 127–128 Tijuana River NERR, 245
Index 271
Diopatra cuprea, Jacques Cousteau NERR, Eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina), Jacques
103–104 Cousteau NERR, 85
Dipodomys agilis, Tijuana River NERR, 243 Eastern brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis),
Dissolved oxygen, see also specific sites Waquoit Bay NERR, 38
summary analysis, 13 Eastern chipmunk (Tamius striatus), Jacques
Distichlis spicata, see Salt grass; Spike grass Cousteau NERR, 86
Dolichonyx oxyzivorus, Delaware NERR, 145, Eastern coachwhip (Masticophis flagellum), ACE
161 Basin NERR, 183
Dolphins, ACE Basin NERR, 202 Eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus)
Dorosoma cepedianum, Jacques Cousteau NERR, ACE Basin NERR, 183
94 Delaware NERR, 145, 161
Dotted smartweed (Polygonum punctatum), Jacques Cousteau NERR, 86
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 70 Eastern diamondback rattlesnake (Crotalus
Double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax adamanteus), ACE Basin NERR,
auritus), Delaware NERR, 144 180
Dover Air Force Base Superfund site, 132 Eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus), ACE
Basin NERR, 176
Dover Gas Light Company Superfund site, 132,
Eastern garter snake (Thanmnophis sirtalis)
133
ACE Basin NERR, 180
Dow, C.L., 63
Dowitcher (Limmodromus sp.), Tijuana River
Eastern glass lizard (Ophisaurus ventralis), ACE
NERR, 241, 244
Basin NERR, 181
Downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens),
Eastern harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys
Delaware NERR, 145
humilus), ACE Basin NERR, 183
Dragonflies, ACE Basin NERR, 190
Eastern hognose snake (Heterodon platyrhinos),
Dreissena polymorpha, as invasive, 25 Jacques Cousteau NERR, 85
Drosera capillaris, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 71, Eastern king snake (Lampropeltis getula getula),
72 Jacques Cousteau NERR, 84
Drosera spp., Weeks Bay NERR, 220 Eastern meadowlark (Sturnella magna), Delaware
Drowned beaked-rush (Rhynchospora inundata), NERR, 161
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 72 Eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus)
Dudley, B.W., 196 ACE Basin NERR, 186
Dumetella carolinensis, see Gray catbird Jacques Cousteau NERR, 86
Dune primrose (Camissonia cheiranthifolia spp. Eastern mudminnow (Umbra pygmaea), Jacques
suffruticosa), Tijuana River NERR, Cousteau NERR, 92, 93
243 Eastern mud turtle (Kinosternon subrubrum
Dune ragweed (Ambrosia chamissonis), Tijuana subrubrum)
River NERR, 243 ACE Basin NERR, 182
Dunlin (Calidris alpina) Delaware NERR, 140, 160
Waquoit Bay NERR, 41 Eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica)
Durand, J.B., 98, 100, 106 ACE Basin NERR, 197
Dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes), Delaware NERR, 162
Tijuana River NERR, 243 Weeks Bay NERR, 227
Dusty miller (Artemisia stelleriana), Waquoit Bay Eastern painted turtle (Chrysemys picta), Jacques
NERR, 41 Cousteau NERR, 85
Dwarf salamander (Eurycea quadridigitata), ACE Eastern pipistrelle (Pipistrellus subflavus),
Basin NERR, 182 Jacques Cousteau NERR, 86
Dwarf white bladderwort (Utricularia olivacea), Eastern ribbon snake (Thamnophis sauritus),
Eastern screech owl (Otus asio)
Delaware NERR, 145
E Jacques Cousteau NERR, 89, 91
Eastern spadefoot frog (Scaphiopus holbrooki),
Eagles, ACE Basin NERR, 187 Jacques Cousteau NERR, 82
Eastern tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum Strategic Education Plan, 26

tigrinum), Jacques Cousteau NERR, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
82 Program, xiii
Eastern wood peewee (Contopus virens), Jacques Epifauna, 195
Cousteau NERR, 91 Epigagea repens, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 81
Eastern woodrat (Neotoma floridana), ACE Basin Eptesicus fuscus, see Big brown bat
NERR, 185 Eremophila alpestris, Tijuana River NERR, 240
Eastern worm snake (Carphophis amoenus Eretmochelys imbricata, ACE Basin NERR, 201
amoenus), Jacques Cousteau NERR, Erimyzon oblongus, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 93
85 Eriocaulon parkeri, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 70
Echinoderms Eriocheir sinensis, as invasive, 25
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 103–104 Eriogonum fasciculatum, Tijuana River NERR,
Waquoit Bay NERR, 42, 44 242
Ectinosoma spp., Delaware NERR, 158 Erosion
Edisto River, see also ACE Basin NERR ACE Basin NERR, 204
description, 171 Tijuana River NERR, 255
Edotea triloba, Delaware NERR, 136 Weeks Bay NERR, 227
Education, Outreach, and Interpretation Program, Esox americanus, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 93
see also Environmental education Esox niger, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 92, 93
description, 26 Estuaries
objectives, 26–27 commercial interests summary, 1
Eelgrass (Zostera marina) recreational interests summary, 1
importance, 43, 45 Estuaries and Clean Waters Act (2000), 24
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 94, 95–96, 109 Estuarine-dependent species statistics, 1
Waquoit Bay NERR, 43, 45 Estuarine Reserves Division (ERD), role, 3
Egg cockle (Laevicardium substriatum), Tijuana Etheostoma fusiforme, Jacques Cousteau NERR,
River NERR, 247 92
Egrets Etheostoma olmetedi, Jacques Cousteau NERR,
ACE Basin NERR, 188 92, 93
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 87–88 Etropus microstomus, Jacques Cousteau NERR,
Egretta caerulea, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 88 109
Egretta thula, see Snowy egret Euglena/Eutrepta spp., Jacques Cousteau NERR,
Egretta tricolor, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 88 97
Eidson, J.P., 191 Euglenoids, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 72
Elaphe guttata guttata, see Corn snake Eumeces fasciatus, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 82
Elaphe obsoleta, Delaware NERR, 140, 160 Eumeces laticeps, ACE Basin NERR, 176
Eleocharis equisetoides, Jacques Cousteau Eumida sanguinea, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 103
NERR, 72 European green crab (Carcinus maenas), as
Elops saurus, ACE Basin NERR, 200 invasive, 25
Endangered/threatened species European sicklegrass (Parapholis incurva),
ACE Basin NERR, 202 Tijuana River NERR, 242
definition, 203 Eurycea bislineata, see Northern two-lined
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 90–91 salamander
Tijuana River NERR, 237, 239–240 Eurycea longicauda, ACE Basin NERR, 181
Enis directus, Delaware NERR, 136 Eurycea quadridigitata, ACE Basin NERR, 182
Enneacanthus chaetodon, Jacques Cousteau Eurytemora affinis
NERR, 93 Delaware NERR, 135, 136, 158
Enneacanthus gloriosus, Jacques Cousteau Jacques Cousteau NERR, 59, 98
NERR, 93 Euterpina acutifrons, ACE Basin NERR, 194
Enneacanthus obesus, Jacques Cousteau NERR, Eutrophication, see also Nutrient loading
92, 93 effects, 16
Ensis directus, Waquoit Bay NERR, 45 severity, 16
Enteromorpha spp., Waquoit Bay NERR, 43 Waquoit Bay NERR, 49
Environmental education Evening bat (Nycticeius humeralis), ACE Basin
NERRS, 5–6, 7, 25–28 NERR, 183
Index 273
Exogene dispar, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 103 Forster’s tern (Sterna forsteri), Delaware NERR,
Exotic species, see Invasive/exotic species 161
Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge, 66, 81
Fourspine stickleback (Apeltes quadracus)
F Jacques Cousteau NERR, 94, 99, 106, 109
Fagus grandifolia, Delaware NERR, 121, 152 Four-toed salamander (Hemidactylium scutatum),
Falco columbarius, see Merlin Jacques Cousteau NERR, 82
Falco peregrinus, see Peregrine falcon Fowler’s toad (Bufo woodhousii fowleri), Jacques
Falco sparverius, see American kestrel Cousteau NERR, 82
Fallfish (Semotilus corporalis), Jacques Cousteau Foxes, Weeks Bay NERR, 223
NERR, 93 Frankenia grandifolia, Tijuana River NERR, 242
False mya (Cryptomya californica), 245, 247, 248 Frankenia palmeri, Tijuana River NERR, 242
Federal Geographical Data Committee, 5 Frankenia salina, Tijuana River NERR, 239, 242
Ferns, Weeks Bay NERR, 220 Fraxinus pennsylvanica, Delaware NERR, 121,
Ferren, W.R., Jr., 242 152, 155
Fetterbush (Leucothoe racemosa), Jacques Free-tailed bat (Tadarida brasiliensis), ACE Basin
Cousteau NERR, 71, 72 NERR, 185
Fiddler crabs (Uca crenulata), Tijuana River Fucus spp., Waquoit Bay NERR, 43
NERR, 239, 244 Fundulus diaphanus, Jacques Cousteau NERR,
Fiddler crabs (Uca spp.) 94
ACE Basin NERR, 193 Fundulus heteroclitus, see Mummichog
Delaware NERR, 136, 138 Fundulus majalis, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 106
Field sparrow (Spizella pusilla), Delaware NERR, Fundulus parvipinnis, Tijuana River NERR, 239,
145, 160 248–249, 252
Filinia spp., Delaware NERR, 157–158
Filter feeders, Tijuana River NERR, 245
Finback whale (Balaenoptera physalus),
G
Delaware NERR, 145 Gadwall (Anas strepera)
Fish crows (Corvus ossifragus), ACE Basin Delaware NERR, 163
Fish River, Weeks Bay NERR, 218 Gammarus sp., Delaware NERR, 136, 158
Five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus), Jacques Gasterosteus aculeatus, see Three-spined
Cousteau NERR, 82 stickleback
Flagellates, ACE Basin NERR, 194 Gastropods, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 103–104
Flathead catfish (Ictalurus furcatus), ACE Basin Gaultheria procumbens, Jacques Cousteau
NERR, 204–205 NERR, 71, 72, 81
Flathead minnow (Pimephales promelas), Jacques Gavia spp., Jacques Cousteau NERR, 87
Cousteau NERR, 94 Gavia stelata, Delaware NERR, 144
Flat Pond, Waquoit Bay NERR, 35 Gaylussacia baccata
Fleshy jaumea (Jaumea carnosa), Tijuana River Jacques Cousteau NERR, 71, 72
NERR, 239 Waquoit Bay NERR, 37
Floating heart (Nymphoides cordata), Jacques Gaylussacia dumosa, Jacques Cousteau NERR,
Cousteau NERR, 72 72
Florida cooter (Pseudemys floridana), ACE Basin Gaylussacia frondosa, Jacques Cousteau NERR,
NERR, 182 71, 72
Florida softshell (Apalone ferox), ACE Basin Gaylussacia spp., Jacques Cousteau NERR, 80
NERR, 182 Geist, M.A., 42
Florimentis obesa, Tijuana River NERR, 247 Gem clam (Gemma gemma)
Flounders (Pleuronichthys spp.), Tijuana River Delaware NERR, 136
Flycatchers, ACE Basin NERR, 187 Waquoit Bay NERR, 40
Forage fishes, Waquoit Bay NERR, 43 Genyonemus lineatus, Tijuana River NERR, 252
Ford, R.F., 245 Geographic Information System, see GIS
Geothlypis trichas, see Yellowthroat Grass shrimp (Palaemonetes vulgaris), Waquoit

Geukensia demissa, Waquoit Bay NERR, 42, 45 Bay NERR, 46
Geukensia demissa, see Ribbed mussel Gray, I.E., 190
Geum virginiana, Delaware NERR, 156 Gray birch (Betula populifolia), Jacques Cousteau
Gillichthys mirabilis, Tijuana River NERR, 248 NERR, 71
GIS Gray catbird (Dumetella carolinensis)
habitat information database, 11 Delaware NERR, 145, 160–161
use, 6 Jacques Cousteau NERR, 92
watershed land use mapping, 18–19 Gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus)
Gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum), Jacques ACE Basin NERR, 185
Cousteau NERR, 94 Delaware NERR, 151, 161
Glassworts (Salicornia spp.), Waquoit Bay Jacques Cousteau NERR, 86
NERR, 39 Gray seals (Halichoerus grypus), Delaware
Glassworts (Salicornia subterminalis), Tijuana NERR, 145
River NERR, 239, 242 Gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis)
Glaucomys volans, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 86 ACE Basin NERR, 183
Global sea level rise Delaware NERR, 145, 151, 161
effects, 21–22 Gray treefrogs (Hyla chrysoscelis), Jacques
monitoring, 21–22 Cousteau NERR, 82
Waquoit Bay NERR, 41–42 Gray treefrogs (Hyla versicolor), Jacques
Global sea surface temperature, 22 Cousteau NERR, 82
Globose dune beetle (Coelus globosus), Tijuana Great Bay Boulevard Wildlife Management Area,
River NERR, 243 66
Glossy crayfish snake (Regina regida), ACE Basin Great blue heron (Ardea herodias)
NERR, 182
Delaware NERR, 161
Glossy ibis (Plegadis falcinellus)
Tijuana River NERR, 239
Delaware NERR, 161
Weeks Bay NERR, 223
Great egret (Casmerodius albus)
Glyceria dibranchiata, Delaware NERR, 136
Glyceria grandis, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 67
Glycinde solitaria, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 103
Greater scaup (Aythya marila)
Goatsrue (Tephrosia virginiana), Jacques
Delaware NERR, 163
Cousteau NERR, 81
Gobies (Gobiosoma spp.), Jacques Cousteau Jacques Cousteau NERR, 88
NERR, 98, 109 Greater siren (Siren lacertina), ACE Basin NERR,
Golden crest (Lophiola aurea), Jacques Cousteau 182
NERR, 72 Greater yellowlegs (Tringa melanoleuca)
Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), Tijuana River Delaware NERR, 161
Golden mouse (Ochrotomys nuttalli), ACE Basin Waquoit Bay NERR, 41
NERR, 185 Great horned owl (Bubo virginianus)
Golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas), Delaware NERR, 144, 145
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 92, 94 Jacques Cousteau NERR, 89, 91
Goldfish (Carassius auratus), Jacques Cousteau Grebes, ACE Basin NERR, 202
NERR, 94 Green algae, Delaware NERR, 157
Gracilaria tikvahiae, see Red macroalga Green algae (Enteromorpha spp.), Waquoit Bay
Grackles, ACE Basin NERR, 189 NERR, 43
Grammarus spp., Delaware NERR, 138 Green algae
Granivores (birds), ACE Basin NERR, 186, 187, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 72
188, 189 Waquoit Bay NERR, 43
Grasshoppers, ACE Basin NERR, 190 Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), Delaware
Grass shrimp (Palaemonetes spp.) NERR, 121, 152, 155
ACE Basin NERR, 197 Green-backed heron (Butorides virescens),
Delaware NERR, 138, 158 Delaware NERR, 161
Index 275
Green crabs (Carcinus maenus), Waquoit Bay Halectinosoma winonae, ACE Basin NERR, 196
NERR, 46 Hales, L.S., 103–104
Green frog (Rana clamatans), Waquoit Bay Haliaeetus leucocephalus, see Bald eagle
NERR, 38 Halichoerus grypus, Delaware NERR, 145
Green frog (Rana clamitans melanota) Halicyclops fosteri, Delaware NERR, 135, 136,
Delaware NERR, 140, 160 158
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 82 Hamblin Pond, Waquoit Bay NERR, 35
Green macroalga (Cladophora vagabunda), Haplopappas venetus, Tijuana River NERR, 242
Waquoit Bay NERR, 43, 51 Haplosporidium nelsoni, Delaware NERR, 162
Green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) Harbor seals (Phoca vitulina), Delaware NERR,
ACE Basin NERR, 201 145
Delaware NERR, 140 Hardhead catfish (Arius felis), ACE Basin NERR,
Green-winged teal (Anas crecca) 199
Delaware NERR, 161, 163 Hard-shelled clam (Mercenaria mercenaria),
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 88 Waquoit Bay NERR, 40, 42, 45
Groundsel bush (Baccharis halimifolia), Harp seals (Pagophilus groenlandicus), Delaware
Delaware NERR, 124–125 NERR, 145
Ground skink (Scinella lateralis) Hastings, R.W., 92
ACE Basin NERR, 176 Hawks, ACE Basin NERR, 187, 188
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 82, 84 Hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata), ACE
Grouseberry (Gaylussacia dumosa), Jacques Basin NERR, 201
Cousteau NERR, 72 Heavy metals
Guinardia spp., Delaware NERR, 133 ACE Basin NERR, 204
Guiraca caerulea, Delaware NERR, 145 Delaware NERR, 128, 129, 130
Gulf menhaden (Brevoortia patronus), ACE Basin Weeks Bay NERR, 227
NERR, 226, 227 Helonias bullata, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 71
Gulf whiting (Menticirrhus littoralis), ACE Basin Hemidactylium scutatum, Jacques Cousteau
NERR, 201 NERR, 82
Gulls Hemigrapsus oregonensis, Tijuana River NERR,
ACE Basin NERR, 202 239, 244
Delaware NERR, 144 Herons, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 88
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 87 Herring gulls (Larus argentatus)
ACE Basin NERR, 188
H Heteromastus filiformis
ACE Basin NERR, 197
Habitat alteration Delaware NERR, 136
ACE Basin NERR, 204 Waquoit Bay NERR, 41
anthropogenic impact types, xi Heterosigma carterae, Jacques Cousteau NERR,
Delaware NERR, 132–133 97
effects, 18 Hibiscus moscheutos, Jacques Cousteau NERR,
land cover/habitat change database, 19 70
Habitat restoration Hibiscus palustris, Delaware NERR, 121
example reserves, 24 Hickory shad (Alosa mediocris)
funding, 24 ACE Basin NERR, 200
monitoring, 23 Jacques Cousteau NERR, 94
restoration science, 23 Highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum),
Tijuana River NERR, 24, 237, 255 Jacques Cousteau NERR, 72, 82
Hackberry (Celtis occidentalis), Jacques High-priority SWMP initiatives
Cousteau NERR, 82 anthropogenic impacts understanding, 16
Haematopus palliatus, see American benthic community surveys, 21
oystercatcher benthic habitat mapping, 19–21
Hagen, S.M., 69 biomonitoring, 17–18
Hake (Urophycis spp.), Jacques Cousteau NERR, chlorophyll fluorescence, 17
109 description, 15
nutrient monitoring, 16–17 Hybognathus nuchalis, Jacques Cousteau NERR,

specific water quality problems, 15–16 93
water quality monitoring, 15–16 Hydrodictyon spp., Delaware NERR, 133, 157
watershed land use mapping, 18–19 Hyla andersonii, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 82
Himantopus mexicanus, Tijuana River NERR, Hyla chrysoscelis, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 82
241 Hyland, J.L., 196
Hippolyte pleuracanthus, Waquoit Bay NERR, 45 Hyla versicolor, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 82
Hirundo rustica, Delaware NERR, 161 Hylocichla mustilina, see Wood thrush
Hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus), ACE Basin Hypericum gentianoides, Jacques Cousteau
NERR, 183 NERR, 82
Hogchoker (Trinectes maculatus) Hyperprosopon argenteum, Tijuana River NERR,
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 94, 100 Hypoxia analysis of 22 sites, 14
Holoplankton, 194
Homo sapiens, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 86
Hooded merganser (Lophodytes cucullatus), I
Ichthyoplankton, Jacques Cousteau NERR,
Horned grebe (Podiceps auritus), Delaware
99–100
NERR, 144
Ictalurus catus, ACE Basin NERR, 199
Horned lark (Eremophila alpestris), Tijuana River
Ictalurus furcatus, ACE Basin NERR, 204–205
NERR, 240
Ictalurus melas, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 94
Horned pondweed (Zanniuchellia palustris),
Ictalurus punctatus, see Channel catfish
Icterus galbula, Delaware NERR, 145, 160
Horseshoe crab (Limulus polyphemus)
Ilex glabra, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 80
Delaware NERR, 162–163
Ilex opaca, see American holly
Waquoit Bay NERR, 40–41, 46 Ilex spp., Weeks Bay NERR, 220
Hosmer, S.C., 245, 248 Ilex verticillata, see Winterberry
Hottentot-fig (Carpobrotus edulis), Tijuana River Ilyanassa obsoleta
NERR, 243 ACE Basin NERR, 197
House mouse (Mus musculus) Delaware NERR, 138
ACE Basin NERR, 186 Ilyanassa sp., Delaware NERR, 136
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 86 Impatiens capensis, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 70
House sparrow (Passer domesticus), Delaware Indigo bunting (Passerina cyanea)
House wren (Troglodytes aedon), Delaware Delaware NERR, 145
NERR, 160, 161 Infauna, 195
Howes, B.G., 39 Inkberry (Ilex glabra), Jacques Cousteau NERR,
Huckleberry (Gaylussacia spp.), Jacques 80
Cousteau NERR, 80 Inland silverside (Menidia beryllina), ACE Basin
Huckleberry/black huckleberry (Gaylussacia NERR, 200
baccata) Insectivores (birds), ACE Basin NERR, 186, 187,
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 71, 72 188, 189
Waquoit Bay NERR, 37 Insects, Tijuana River NERR, 239
Hudsonian godwit (Lemosa haemastica), Jacques Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences, Rutgers
Cousteau NERR, 87 University, 62
Hudsonia tomentosa, see Beach heather International Boundary and Water Commission,
Human coastal population 245
as estuary stressor, xi, xiii Introduced species, see Invasive/exotic species
statistics, 1 Invasive/exotic species
Humans (Homo sapiens), Jacques Cousteau effects, 24, 25
NERR, 86 examples, 24, 25
Hump-back whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), statistics, 24–25
Delaware NERR, 145 Tijuana River NERR, 235, 242, 243
Hunchak-Kariouk, K., 63 Iridoprocne bicolor, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 91
Index 277
Ironcolor shiner (Notropis chalybaeus), Jacques dissolved oxygen, 64, 67, 68

Cousteau NERR, 92 seasonal pH, 64, 68
Isoetes riparia, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 70 seasonal salinity, 64, 66
Itea virginica, Weeks Bay NERR, 220 seasonal water temperature, 65
Iva frutescens, see Marsh elder turbidity levels, 64, 69
water depth, 64–65, 70
water quality monitoring sites, 64
J watershed biotic communities (animal)
amphibians/anurans list/table, 85
Jacques Cousteau NERR amphibians/reptiles, 82–85
Atlantic Flyway, 86 amphibians/reptiles list/table, 83–84
climatic conditions, 61 birds, 86–89, 91–92
description, 59–60 fish, 92–94
designation, 59 fish list/table, 93
development, 59, 81 mammals, 85–86
education, 27–28 watershed biotic communities,
eelgrass decline, 95–96 endangered/threatened species
endangered/threatened species list/table, list/table, 90–91
90–91 watershed biotic communities (plant)
environmental setting, 61–62 Atlantic white cedar swamp forests, 71
estuarine biotic communities (animal) barrier island plant communities, 81–82
benthic fauna, 100–104 brackish tidal marshes, 66–69
benthic invertebrates list/table, 101–103 broadleaf swamp forests, 71
benthic invertebrates salinity distribution, freshwater marshes, 69–70
105 herbaceous wetland communities, 71, 72
finfish, 104, 106–110 lowland plant communities, 71–80
fish/decapods list/table, 107–109 lowland plant list/table, 73–80
zooplankton, 98–100 pine transition forest, 71–72
zooplankton monthly mean abundance, 99 pitch pine lowland forests, 71
estuarine biotic communities (animal) benthic salt marshes, 65–66
macroinvertebrates density map, 104 shrubby wetland communities, 71, 72
estuarine biotic communities (plant) upland plant communities, 80–81
benthic flora, 94–96 Japanese sedge (Carex kobomugi), Jacques
phytoplankton, 96–97 Cousteau NERR, 81
grasses, 72 Jassa falcata, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 98
Holocene barrier island complex, 61 Jaumea carnosa, Tijuana River NERR, 239
macroalgae, 95–96 Jehu Pond, Waquoit Bay NERR, 35
map, 60 Jivoff, P., 106, 109
Mullica River Basin/tributaries, 61 Juncus acutus, Tijuana River NERR, 241
Mullica River-Great Bay Estuary Juncus gerardi, Waquoit Bay NERR, 39
description, 61, 62 Juncus gerardii, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 66
water quality, 62–65, 66, 67, 68–69, 70 Juncus roemerianus
overview, 110–111 ACE Basin NERR, 173
partners, 60 Weeks Bay NERR, 220
picoplankton blooms, 96–97 Juniperus virginiana, see Red cedar
Pine Barrens species, 82, 84, 85–86
SAV loss, 95–96
seagrass distribution map, 96 K
sediments, 62
species overview, 59–60 Kalmia augustifolia, see Sheep laurel
tidal water bodies, 61–62 Kalmia latifolia, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 80, 81
wasting disease (from Labyrinthula zosterae), Kangaroo rat (Dipodomys agilis), Tijuana River
95–96 NERR, 243
water circulation, 62 Katodinium rotundatum, Jacques Cousteau
water quality NERR, 97
Kemp’s Ridley turtle (Lepidochelys kempii) Delaware NERR, 161

ACE Basin NERR, 201 Weeks Bay NERR, 223
Delaware NERR, 140 Laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), Weeks Bay
Kennish, M.J., xi, xii–xiii NERR, 220
Kettle hole ponds, Waquoit Bay NERR, 39 Least Bell’s vireo (Vireo belli pusilius), Tijuana
Killdeer (Charadrius vociferus) River NERR, 237
Delaware NERR, 161 Least sandpiper (Calidris minutilla)
Tijuana River NERR, 241 Jacques Cousteau NERR, 87
Killifishes, ACE Basin NERR, 200 Tijuana River NERR, 241, 244
Kingfish (Menticirrhus saxatilis), Jacques Waquoit Bay NERR, 41
Cousteau NERR, 94, 106 Least shrew (Cryptotis parva)
Kinosternon subrubrum subrubrum, see Eastern Delaware NERR, 151, 161
mud turtle Jacques Cousteau NERR, 86
Knob-styled dogwood (Cornus amomum), Least tern (Sterna antillarum)
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 70 ACE Basin NERR, 188, 202
Knott, D.M., 194 Delaware NERR, 144
Knotted spikerush (Eleocharis equisetoides), Jacques Cousteau NERR, 87
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 72 Waquoit Bay NERR, 41
Kraeuter, J.N., 190 Leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea), ACE
Basin NERR, 201
Leatherleaf (Chamaedaphne calyculata), Jacques
L Cousteau NERR, 71
Leiophyllum buxifolium, Jacques Cousteau
Labidocera aestiva, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 98
NERR, 81
Lady crabs (Ovalipes ocellatus)
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 104 Leiostomus xanthurus, see Spot
Waquoit Bay NERR, 42 Leitoscoloplos robustus, Jacques Cousteau
Ladyfish (Elops saurus), ACE Basin NERR, 200 NERR, 103
Laevicardium substriatum, Tijuana River NERR, Lemonadeberry (Rhus integrifolia), Tijuana River
247 NERR, 243
Lagodon rhomboides, ACE Basin NERR, 201 Lemosa fedoa, see Marbled godwit
Laminaria agardhii, Waquoit Bay NERR, 43 Lemosa haemastica, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 87
Lampetra lamottie, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 94 Lepidochelys kempii, see Kemp’s Ridley turtle
Lampropeltis getula getula, Jacques Cousteau Lepomis auritus, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 94
NERR, 84 Lepomis gibbosus, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 92
Lampropeltis getulus californiae, Tijuana River Lepomis macrochirus, Jacques Cousteau NERR,
NERR, 242 92, 94
Landscaping (alternative landscaping), xiii Leptastacus spp., Delaware NERR, 135
Lanius ludovicianus, Tijuana River NERR, 240 Lepus californicus, Tijuana River NERR, 240
Largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), Lesser golden plover (Pluvialis dominica),
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 92, 94 Jacques Cousteau NERR, 87
Larus argentatus, see Herring gulls Lesser scaup (Aythya affinis)
Larus atricilla, see Laughing gull Delaware NERR, 144, 163
Larus delawarensis, Waquoit Bay NERR, 41 Jacques Cousteau NERR, 88
Larus marinus, Waquoit Bay NERR, 41 Lesser yellowlegs (Tringa flavipes), Waquoit Bay
Larus spp., Delaware NERR, 144, 161 NERR, 41
Lasiurus borealis, Delaware NERR, 151, Leucothoe racemosa, Jacques Cousteau NERR,
161–162 71, 72
Laterallus jamaicensis, Delaware NERR, 144 Lewitus, A.J., 194
Lathrop, R.G., 63 Liatris scariosa var. novae-angliae, Waquoit Bay
Lathyrus japonicus var. glaber, Waquoit Bay NERR, 38
NERR, 41 Libinia dubia, Waquoit Bay NERR, 46
Lathyrus maritimus, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 81 Libinia emarginata, Jacques Cousteau NERR,
Laughing gull (Larus atricilla) 104
ACE Basin NERR, 188, 189 Lichens (Cladonia spp.), Waquoit Bay NERR, 37
Index 279
Light-footed clapper rail (Rallus longirostris Tijuana River NERR, 243

levipes), Tijuana River NERR, 237, Long-Term Ecosystem Observatory, 59, 100
244 Loons (Gavia spp.), Jacques Cousteau NERR, 87
Lilium canadense, Delaware NERR, 156 Lophiola aurea, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 72
Limmodromus sp., Tijuana River NERR, 241, 244 Lophodytes cucullatus, Jacques Cousteau NERR,
Limnodromus griseus, see Short-billed dowitcher 88
Limonium californicum, Tijuana River NERR, Lowbush blueberry (Vaccinium angustifolium),
239, 242 Waquoit Bay NERR, 37
Limonium nashii, Waquoit Bay NERR, 39 Lowland broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus var.
Limulus polyphemus, see Horseshoe crab virginicus), Jacques Cousteau
Lined shore crab (Pachygrapsus crassipes), NERR, 72
Tijuana River NERR, 239, 244 Lunatia heros, Waquoit Bay NERR, 45
Liquidambar styraciflua, see Sweet gum Lutra canadensis, see River otter
Liriodendron tulipifera, Delaware NERR, 121 Lycium californicum, Tijuana River NERR, 242
Little blue heron (Egretta caerulea), Jacques Lynx rufus, ACE Basin NERR, 186
Cousteau NERR, 88 Lyonia mariana, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 72
Little blue-stem (Schizachyrium scoparium), Lythrum salicaria, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 70
Waquoit Bay NERR, 37–38
Little brown myotis (Myotis lucifugus), Jacques
Cousteau NERR, 86 M
Little grass frog (Pseudacris ocularis), ACE Basin
NERR, 181 Mabee’s salamander (Ambystoma mabeei), 182
Little ice plant (Mesembryanthemum nodilforum), Macoma nasuta, Tijuana River NERR, 247
Tijuana River NERR, 242 Macoma secta, Tijuana River NERR, 247
Littleneck clam (Protothaca staminea), Tijuana Macrofauna, 195
River NERR, 245, 248 Macrozooplankton, 194
Littorina irrorata, ACE Basin NERR, 197 Magnolia River, Weeks Bay NERR, 218
Live oak (Quercus virginiana), Weeks Bay Magnolia virginiana, Jacques Cousteau NERR,
NERR, 220 71
Lizardfish (Synodus foetens), Jacques Cousteau Mahoney, J.B., 96–97
NERR, 109 Malaclemys terrapin terrrapin, see Northern
Lobelia boykinii, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 72 diamondback terrapin
Loblolly pines (Pinus taeda) Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos)
ACE Basin NERR, 174 Delaware NERR, 161
Weeks Bay NERR, 220 Jacques Cousteau NERR, 88
Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), Tijuana Malpass, W., 42
River NERR, 240 Many-lined salamander (Stereochilus
Loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) marginatus), ACE Basin NERR, 181
ACE Basin NERR, 173, 201–202 Marbled godwit (Lemosa fedoa)
Long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus), Tijuana River NERR, 239, 244
Tijuana River NERR, 239, 244 Marbled salamander (Ambystoma opacum)
Long-eared owls (Asio otus), ACE Basin NERR, ACE Basin NERR, 181
Longjaw mudsucker (Gillichthys mirabilis), Marcus, J.M., 204
Tijuana River NERR, 248 Margined madtom (Noturus insignis), Jacques
Longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) Cousteau NERR, 94
ACE Basin NERR, 174 Marine Activities, Resources, and Education
Weeks Bay NERR, 220 (MARE) Summer Institute, 27–28
Long’s bulrush (Scirpus longii), Jacques Cousteau Marine Resources Research Institute, SCDNR,
NERR, 72 199
Long-tailed weasel (Mustela frenata) Marion, K.R., 223
ACE Basin NERR, 185 Marmota monax, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 86
Delaware NERR, 151, 161 Marsh crabs (Sesarma reticulatum), Delaware
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 86 NERR, 138
Marsh elder (Iva frutescens) Mergus serrator, see Red-breasted merganser

Delaware NERR, 123 Merlin (Falco columbarius)
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 66 ACE Basin NERR, 187
Weeks Bay NERR, 220 Meroplankton, 194
Marsh fleabane (Pluchea purpurascens), Jacques Mesembryanthemum crystallinum, Tijuana River
Marshpepper smartweed (Polygonum Mesembryanthemum nodilforum, Tijuana River
hydropiper), Delaware NERR, 121, NERR, 242
152 Mesozooplankton, 194
Marsh rabbit (Sylvilagus palustris) Metabolic rates, analysis of 22 sites, 14
ACE Basin NERR, 185, 186 Meteorological data, overview, 12–13
Weeks Bay NERR, 223 Microcystis spp., Delaware NERR, 133
Marsh wren (Cistothorus palustris) Microfauna, 195
Delaware NERR, 144, 160 Microgadus tomcod, Waquoit Bay NERR, 46
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 91 Microphthalmus sezelkowii, Jacques Cousteau
Masked shrew (Sorex cinereus) NERR, 103
Delaware NERR, 151, 161 Micropogonias undulatus, see Atlantic croaker
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 86 Micropterus salmoides, Jacques Cousteau NERR,
Masticophis flagellum, ACE Basin NERR, 183 92, 94
Mathews, T., 203, 204 Microtus pennsylvanicus, Jacques Cousteau
Meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius) NERR, 86
Delaware NERR, 145, 161 Microtus pinetorum, see Pine vole
Microzooplankton, 194
Meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus), Jacques
Miller-Way, T.M., 217
Cousteau NERR, 86
Mimic glass lizard (Ophisaurus mimicus), ACE
Mediomastus ambiseta, Waquoit Bay NERR, 46
Basin NERR, 176
Mediomastus sp., Jacques Cousteau NERR, 103
Mimus polyglottos
Medium-priority SWMP initiatives
ACE Basin NERR, 187
chemical contaminant monitoring, 22
description, 15
global sea level rise, 21–22
Mink (Mustela vison)
Megafauna, 195
ACE Basin NERR, 185
Megaptera novaeangliae, Delaware NERR, 145
Meiofauna, 195 Delaware NERR, 163
Melampus bidentatus, Delaware NERR, 138 Jacques Cousteau NERR, 86
Melampus olivaceus, Tijuana River NERR, 239 Mitchella repens, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 71
Melampyrum lineare, Jacques Cousteau NERR, Mnemiopsis leidyi, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 98
81 Mniotilta varia, see Black-and-white warbler
Melanerpes carolinus, Delaware NERR, 145 Mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), Jacques
Melanitta nigra, Delaware NERR, 144 Cousteau NERR, 92
Melanitta perspicillata, Delaware NERR, 144 Moles, ACE Basin NERR, 186
Melanitta spp., Jacques Cousteau NERR, 88 Mole salamander (Ambystoma talpoideum), ACE
Melinna cristata, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 103 Basin NERR, 181
Melita nitida, ACE Basin NERR, 197 Molgula manhattensis
Melosira spp., Delaware NERR, 133, 157 ACE Basin NERR, 196
Melospiza melodia, see Song sparrow Waquoit Bay NERR, 42
Menida menidia, see Atlantic silverside Mollusca, Delaware NERR, 136, 137
Menidia beryllina, ACE Basin NERR, 200 Mollusks, Waquoit Bay NERR, 44, 45
Menticirrhus saxatilis, Jacques Cousteau NERR, Monanthocloe littoralis, Tijuana River NERR,
94, 106 239, 242
Mephitis mephitis, see Striped skunk Monitoring, see also SWMP
Mercenaria mercenaria, Waquoit Bay NERR, 40, baseline monitoring program, 4
42, 45 components, 9
Mergus merganser, see Common merganser importance, xiii
Index 281
Moon snails (Lunatia heros), Waquoit Bay N

NERR, 45
Moon snails (Polinices duplicatus), Waquoit Bay Nadeau, R.J., 98, 100, 106
NERR, 45 Nannochloris atomus, Jacques Cousteau NERR,
Morone americana, see White perch 96–97
Morone saxatilis, see Striped bass Narragansett Bay NERR, restoration, 24
Narrow-leaved cattail (Typha angustifolia),
Morus bassanus, Delaware NERR, 144
Moser, F.C., 100, 103
Nassarius obsoletes, Jacques Cousteau NERR,
Mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia), Jacques 103
Cousteau NERR, 80, 81 National Coastal Assessment Program, xiii
Mountford, K., 97 National Estuaries Day, 27
Mourning dove (Zenaida macroura) National Estuarine Research Reserve System, see
ACE Basin NERR, 187, 188 NERRS
Delaware NERR, 145, 161 National Estuarine Sanctuary Program
MSX (Haplosporidium nelsoni), Delaware change to NERRS, 2
NERR, 162 establishment, 2
Mud crabs (Neopanope texana), Waquoit Bay National Estuary Program (NEP), xiii
NERR, 46 National Marine Fisheries Service National
Mud snails (Ilyanassa obsoleta), Delaware Habitat Program, xiii
NERR, 138 National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, see NOAA
Mud sunfish (Acantharchus pomotis), Jacques
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
Cousteau NERR, 92–93
(NPDES), 131, 203
Mugil cephalus, see Striped mullet
National Status and Trends (NS&T) Program, xiii
Mugil curema, ACE Basin NERR, 201 National Strategy for Coastal Habitat Restoration,
Muhlenbergia torreyana, Jacques Cousteau 24
NERR, 72 National Wetlands Inventory, xiii
Mulina lateralis, Delaware NERR, 136, 197 Nematodes, ACE Basin NERR, 196
Multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), Jacques Nemertinea
Cousteau NERR, 82 Delaware NERR, 136, 137, 158, 159
Mummichog (Fundulus heteroclitus) Waquoit Bay NERR, 44
Delaware NERR, 138, 160 Neomysis americana
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 69, 94, 98, 106 Delaware NERR, 135, 136, 158
Muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus) Jacques Cousteau NERR, 98
Neopanope texana
Delaware NERR, 145, 162, 163
Mus musculus, see House mouse Neotoma floridana, ACE Basin NERR, 185
Mustela frenata, see Long-tailed weasel Neotoma fuscipes, Tijuana River NERR, 243
Mustela vison, see Mink Neotropical migrants, Jacques Cousteau NERR,
Mya arenaria 92
Delaware NERR, 136 Nereis spp., Waquoit Bay NERR, 46
Waquoit Bay NERR, 40, 42, 43 Nereis succinea, ACE Basin NERR, 197
Mycteria americana, ACE Basin NERR, 173, 202 Nereis virens, Waquoit Bay NERR, 41
Nerodia fasciata, ACE Basin NERR, 182
Myotis lucifugus, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 86
Nerodia sipedon, see Northern water snake
Myrica cerifera, ACE Basin NERR, 173, 174
Nerodia taxispilota, ACE Basin NERR, 182
Myrica gale, Waquoit Bay NERR, 39 NERRS
Myrica pensylvanica, see Bayberry categories of federal awards, 8
Myriophyllum tenellum, Jacques Cousteau NERR, description, xiii–xiv
72 education/outreach, 25–28
Mysid shrimp (Neomysis americana), Delaware functional elements, 7
NERR, 135 functions overview, 4–5
Mytilus edulis, Waquoit Bay NERR, 45 funding, 4
linking programs, 5–6 Jacques Cousteau NERR, 85

list of major components, 6 Northern dusky salamander (Desmognathus
list of sites, 3 fuscus), Jacques Cousteau NERR, 82
management, 3, 7 Northern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus
map of site locations, 2 hyacinthinus), Jacques Cousteau
mission, 6–9 NERR, 82, 84
nominations, 8–9 Northern gannet (Morus bassanus), Delaware
overview, 28–29 NERR, 144
overview of sites, 2–3 Northern gannet (Sula bassanus), Jacques
partnerships, 4, 7 Cousteau NERR, 87
program components overview, 9–29 Northern harrier (Circus cyaneus)
habitat restoration, 23–24 ACE Basin NERR, 187
invasive/exotic species, 24–25 Delaware NERR, 144, 161
monitoring/research, 9–22 Jacques Cousteau NERR, 89
special high-priority initiatives, 23–28 Tijuana River NERR, 240
reasons for creating, xiv Northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos)
reserve description, 3 ACE Basin NERR, 187
role of reserve, 4 Delaware NERR, 145, 161
SWMP, 4 Northern oriole (Icterus galbula), Delaware
NERRS Action Plan, 6 NERR, 145, 160
NERRS Strategic Plan, 6 Northern parula warbler (Parula americana)
New England blazing star (Liatris scariosa var. Delaware NERR, 160
novae-angliae), Waquoit Bay Jacques Cousteau NERR, 91
NERR, 38 Northern pine snake (Pituophis melanoleucus
New Jersey chorus frog (Pseudacris triseriata melanoleucus), Jacques Cousteau
kalmi), Jacques Cousteau NERR, 82 NERR, 85
New Jersey Department of Environmental Northern pintail (Anas acuta), 88
Protection, 59 Tijuana River NERR, 240
Nichols, T.C., 88 Northern pipefish (Syngnathus fuscus), Jacques
Nitocra lacustrus, ACE Basin NERR, 196 Cousteau NERR, 98, 106, 109
Nitzschia spp. Northern puffer (Sphoeroides maculatus), Jacques
ACE Basin NERR, 194 Cousteau NERR, 106
Delaware NERR, 157 Northern red salamander (Pseudotriton ruber),
NOAA Northern right whale (Balaena glacialis),
Estuarine Reserves Division (ERD), 3, 6 Delaware NERR, 145
role with NERRS, 2, 3, 4 Northern scarlet snake (Cemophora coccinea),
Nodding bur-marigold (Bidens cernus), Delaware Jacques Cousteau NERR, 85
NERR, 156 Northern spring peeper (Pseudacris crucifer
Nonpoint source pollution, Delaware NERR, 131 crucifer)
Nordby, C.S., 248, 252 Delaware NERR, 140
North Brigantine State Natural Area, 81 Jacques Cousteau NERR, 82
Northern black racer (Coluber constrictor Northern two-lined salamander (Eurycea
constrictor), Jacques Cousteau bislineata)
NERR, 85 Delaware NERR, 140, 160
Northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus), Jacques Cousteau NERR, 82
Delaware NERR, 145 Northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon)
Northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis) Delaware NERR, 140, 160
Delaware NERR, 145 North Inlet/Winyah Bay NERR, CDMO, 4–5
Northern cricket frog (Acris crepitans crepitans), Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus)
Northern diamondback terrapin (Malaclemys Jacques Cousteau NERR, 86
terrapin terrapin) Notemigonus crysoleucas, Jacques Cousteau
Delaware NERR, 140, 160, 163 NERR, 92, 94
Index 283
Notholca spp., Delaware NERR, 157–158 Oldsquaw (Clangula hyemalis)

Notomastus laterus, Jacques Cousteau NERR, Delaware NERR, 144
Notophthalmus viridescens viridescens, Waquoit Oligochaeta, Delaware NERR, 136
Bay NERR, 38 Olney three-square bulrush (Scirpus americanus),
Notropis amoenus, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 94 Jacques Cousteau NERR, 66–67
Notropis analostanus, Jacques Cousteau NERR, Olsen, P.S., 96–97
94 Omnivores (birds), ACE Basin NERR, 186, 187,
Notropis bifrenatus, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 94 188, 189
Notropis chalybaeus, Jacques Cousteau NERR, Onaclea sensibilis, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 70
92 Ondatra zibethicus, see Muskrat
Notropis cornustus, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 94 Opheodrys aestivus, see Rough green snake
Notropis hudsonius, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 94 Ophisaurus attenuatus, ACE Basin NERR, 176,
Noturus gyrinus, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 93 181
Noturus insignis, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 94 Ophisaurus mimicus, ACE Basin NERR, 176
Nucula sp., Jacques Cousteau NERR, 103 Ophisaurus ventralis, ACE Basin NERR, 181
Numenius americanus, Tijuana River NERR, 239, Opossum (Didelphis marsupialis)
244 ACE Basin NERR, 183
Numenius phaeopus, Tijuana River NERR, 244 Jacques Cousteau NERR, 86
Nuphar lutea, Delaware NERR, 152 Tijuana River NERR, 243
Nuphar variegatum, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 72 Opossum shrimp (Neomysis americana),
Nurphur advena, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 70 Delaware NERR, 136, 158
Nutrient loading, see also Eutrophication Opsanus tau, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 106
Delaware NERR, 128 Orach (Atriplex patula), Jacques Cousteau NERR,
overview, xi 66
Waquoit Bay NERR, 48–49 Orange jewelweed (Impatiens capensis), Jacques
Weeks Bay NERR, 227 Cousteau NERR, 70
Nutrient monitoring, commencement, 11–12 Orchelimum fidicinium, ACE Basin NERR, 190
Nuttall’s pondweed (Potamogeton epihydrus), Orchestra grillus, Delaware NERR, 138
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 67 Oryzomys palustris , see Rice rat
Nycticeius humeralis, ACE Basin NERR, 183 Oscillatoria spp., Delaware NERR, 133
Nycticorax nycticorax, Jacques Cousteau NERR, Osmunda cinnamonea, Jacques Cousteau NERR,
88 72
Nycticorax violaceus, Jacques Cousteau NERR, Osprey (Pandion haliaetus)
Nymphaea odorata, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 72 Jacques Cousteau NERR, 89
Nymphoides cordata, Jacques Cousteau NERR, Otus asio, see Eastern screech owl
72 Ovalipes ocellatus, see Lady crabs
Nyssa sylvatica, see Black gum Ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapillus)
O Overfishing, xi, xii
Owls, ACE Basin NERR, 186, 187, 188
Oak toad (Bufo quercicus), ACE Basin NERR, Oxypolyis canbyi, ACE Basin NERR, 202
181 Oyster drill (Urosalpinx cinera), Delaware
Oceanites oceanicus, Jacques Cousteau NERR, NERR, 162
87 Oyster reefs/beds, 197
Ochrotomys nuttalli, ACE Basin NERR, 185 Oyster toadfish (Opsanus tau), Jacques Cousteau
Odocoileus virginianus, see White-tailed deer NERR, 106
O’Herron, J.C.,, III, 138, 140
Oithona colcarva, Delaware NERR, 136
Oithona similis, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 59 P
Oithona spp., Delaware NERR, 158
Old-field mouse (Peromyscus polionotus), ACE Pachygrapsus crassipes, Tijuana River NERR,
Basin NERR, 183 239, 244
Pacific cordgrass (Spartina foliosa), Tijuana River Penaeus spp.

Pagophilus groenlandicus, Delaware NERR, 145 Weeks Bay NERR, 227
PAHs Pennock, J.R., 223, 225
ACE Basin NERR, 204 Perca flavescens, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 92, 94
Delaware NERR, 129 Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus)
Weeks Bay NERR, 227 ACE Basin NERR, 202
Painted bunting (Passerina cirus), ACE Basin Delaware NERR, 144
Palaemonetes spp. Tijuana River NERR, 237
ACE Basin NERR, 197 Perennial glasswort (Salicornia subterminalis),
Delaware NERR, 138, 158 Tijuana River NERR, 242
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 69 Perennial glasswort (Salicornia virginica),
Palmettos, ACE Basin NERR, 173 Jacques Cousteau NERR, 66
Pandion haliaetus, see Osprey Perennial pickleweed (Salicornia virginica),
Panicum wrightianum, Jacques Cousteau NERR, Tijuana River NERR, 239, 242
72 Perkinsus marinus, Delaware NERR, 162
Panopeus herbstii, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 98 Peromyscus boyli, Tijuana River NERR, 243
Paracalanus crassirostris, Jacques Cousteau Peromyscus eremicus, Tijuana River NERR, 243
NERR, 98 Peromyscus fallax, Tijuana River NERR, 243
Paracalanus parva, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 98
Peromyscus gossypinus, ACE Basin NERR, 185
Paracaprella tenuis, ACE Basin NERR, 197
Peromyscus leucopus, see White-footed mouse
Paralabrax spp., Tijuana River NERR, 252
Peromyscus maniculatus, Tijuana River NERR,
Paralichthys californicus, Tijuana River NERR,
243
252
Peromyscus polionotus, ACE Basin NERR, 183
Paralichthys dentatus
Pesticides, Delaware NERR, 129, 131
Peterson, C.H., 245
Petrels, ACE Basin NERR, 202
Paralichthys spp., Weeks Bay NERR, 227
Petroderma maculiforme, Waquoit Bay NERR, 43
Parapholis incurva, Tijuana River NERR, 242
Phalacrocorax auritus, Delaware NERR, 144
Paraphosux sp., Jacques Cousteau NERR, 1034
Paraprionospio pinnata, ACE Basin NERR, 197 Phalacrocorax spp., Jacques Cousteau NERR, 87
Parasites on oysters, 162 Phoca vitulina, Delaware NERR, 145
Pardosa ramulosa, Tijuana River NERR, 240 Phragmites australis, see Common reed
Parker’s pipewort (Eriocaulon parkeri), Jacques Phrynosoma coronatum blainvillei, Tijuana River
Partridge berry (Mitchella repens), Jacques Phytoplankton, categorization, 193
Cousteau NERR, 71 Pickerel frog (Rana palustris), Jacques Cousteau
Parula americana, see Northern parula warbler NERR, 82
Parus carolinensis, see Carolina chickadee Pickerel weed (Ponderia cordata)
Parvocalanus crassirostris, ACE Basin NERR, Delaware NERR, 121, 152
Passer domesticus, Delaware NERR, 145 Weeks Bay NERR, 220
Passerina cirus, ACE Basin NERR, 188 Picoides borealis, ACE Basin NERR, 202
Passerina cyanea see Indigo bunting Picoides pubescens, Delaware NERR, 145
PCBs Pig frog (Rana grylio), ACE Basin NERR, 182
ACE Basin NERR, 204 Pimephales notatus, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 93
Delaware NERR, 129, 131 Pimephales promelas, Jacques Cousteau NERR,
Weeks Bay NERR, 227 94
Pelecanus occidentalis Pineapple weed (Ambylopappus pusillus), Tijuana
ACE Basin NERR, 189 River NERR, 242
Tijuana River NERR, 237 Pine Barrens treefrog (Hyla andersonii), Jacques
Pelicans, ACE Basin NERR, 202 Cousteau NERR, 82
Peltandra virginica, see Arrow arum Pinelands Commission, Jacques Cousteau NERR,
Penaeus setiferus, ACE Basin NERR, 196 59
Index 285
Pine snake (Pituophis melanoleucus Poison ivy (Toxicodendrom radicans), Weeks Bay
melanoleucus), ACE Basin NERR, NERR, 220
180 Polinices duplicatus, Waquoit Bay NERR, 45
Pine vole (Microtus pinetorum) Pollachius virens, Waquoit Bay NERR, 46
Delaware NERR, 145, 161 Pollack (Pollachius virens), Waquoit Bay NERR,
Pine warbler (Dentroica pinus), Jacques Cousteau Polychaetes, Delaware NERR, 136
NERR, 92 Polychaetes (Diopatra cuprea), Jacques Cousteau
Pineweed (Hypericum gentianoides), Jacques NERR, 103–104
Cousteau NERR, 82 Polychaetes, Waquoit Bay NERR, 42, 46
Pinfish (Lagodon rhomboides), ACE Basin Polycirrus hematodes, Jacques Cousteau NERR,
NERR, 201 103
Pinus echinata, see Shortleaf pine Polydora spp., Waquoit Bay NERR, 46
Pinus elliottii, Weeks Bay NERR, 220 Polydori ligni, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 100, 103
Pinus palustris Polygonum hydropiper, Delaware NERR, 121,
Weeks Bay NERR, 220 Polygonum punctatum, Jacques Cousteau NERR,
Pinus rigida, see Pitch pines 70
Pinus spp., ACE Basin NERR, 173 Polypogon monspeliensis, Tijuana River NERR,
Pinus taeda, see Loblolly pines 242
Pipilo erythrophthalmus, Delaware NERR, 145, Pomatomus salatrix, see Bluefish
161 Pomatomus saltatrix, Jacques Cousteau NERR,
Piping plovers (Charadrius melodus) 106
ACE Basin NERR, 188 Pomoxis nigromaculatus, Jacques Cousteau
Waquoit Bay NERR, 41 NERR, 94
Pipistrellus subflavus, Jacques Cousteau NERR, Pompano (Trachinotus carolinus), ACE Basin
86 NERR, 201
Pirate perch (Aphredoderus sayanus), Jacques Ponderia cordata, see Pickerel weed
Cousteau NERR, 92 Populus fremontii, Tijuana River NERR, 241
Pitcher plants (Sarracenia purpurea), Jacques Porzana carolina, see Sora
Cousteau NERR, 71, 72 Post oak (Quercus stellata), Jacques Cousteau
Pitch pines (Pinus rigida) NERR, 81
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 71, 80, 81, 82 Potamocorbula amurensis, as invasive, 25
Waquoit Bay NERR, 36–37, 38 Potamogeton epihydrus, Jacques Cousteau
Pituophis melanoleucus annectens, Tijuana River NERR, 67
NERR, 242 Potamogeton perfoliatus, Jacques Cousteau
Pituophis melanoleucus melanoleucus NERR, 67
ACE Basin NERR, 180 Potamogeton pusillus, Jacques Cousteau NERR,
Plant hoppers, ACE Basin NERR, 190 Prairie warbler (Dendroica discolor), Delaware
Platyhelminthes NERR, 145, 161
Delaware NERR, 136, 137 Prionospio spp., Waquoit Bay NERR, 46
Waquoit Bay NERR, 44 Procyon lotor, see Raccoon
Plegadis falcinellus, see Glossy ibis Progne subis, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 91
Plethodon cinereus, see Red-backed salamander Prokelisia marginata, ACE Basin NERR, 190
Pleuronichthys spp., Tijuana River NERR, 252 Prorocentrum minimum, Jacques Cousteau
Pluchea purpurascens, Jacques Cousteau NERR, NERR, 97
66 Protected Area Geographic Information System
Pluvialis dominica, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 87 (PAGIS), 11
Pluvialis squatarola, see Black-bellied plover Prothonotary warbler (Protonotaria citrea),
Pocosins, 181 Delaware NERR, 160
Podiceps auritus, Delaware NERR, 144 Protonotaria citrea, Delaware NERR, 160
Pogonias cromis, Delaware NERR, 140, 162 Protothaca staminea, Tijuana River NERR, 245,
Poison ivy (Rhus radicans), Waquoit Bay NERR, 248
41 Prunus maritima, see Beach plum
Prunus serotina, see Black cherry R

Pseudacris crucifer crucifer, see Northern spring
peeper Rabbitfoot beardgrass (Polypogon
Pseudacris ocularis, ACE Basin NERR, 181 monspeliensis), Tijuana River
Pseudacris triseriata, ACE Basin NERR, 182 NERR, 242
Pseudacris triseriata kalmi, Jacques Cousteau Rabbits, Tijuana River NERR, 243
NERR, 82 Raccoon (Procyon lotor)
Pseudemys concinna, ACE Basin NERR, 182 ACE Basin NERR, 183
Pseudemys floridana, ACE Basin NERR, 182 Delaware NERR, 151, 161
Pseudobradya pulchella, ACE Basin NERR, 196 Jacques Cousteau NERR, 86
Pseudocalanus minutus, Jacques Cousteau Weeks Bay NERR, 223
NERR, 98 Rails
Pseudodiaptomus coronatus, Jacques Cousteau ACE Basin NERR, 188
Pseudodiaptomus pelagicus, Delaware NERR, Rainbow trout (Salmo trutta), Jacques Cousteau
135, 136 NERR, 94
Pseudolithoderma spp., Waquoit Bay NERR, 43 Raja eglanteria, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 109
Ralfsia spp., Waquoit Bay NERR, 43
Pseudopleuronectes americanus, see Winter
flounder Rallus limicola, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 91
Rallus longirostris, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 91
Pseudotriton ruber, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 82
Rallus longirostris levipes, Tijuana River NERR,
Pteridium aquilinum, see Bracken fern
237, 244
Ptilocherirus pinquis, Jacques Cousteau NERR,
Rallus spp., Delaware NERR, 144, 161
103
Rana catesbeiana, see Bullfrog
Puffinus griseus, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 87
Rana clamatans, Waquoit Bay NERR, 38
Pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus), Jacques
Rana clamitans melanota
Cousteau NERR, 92
Purple clam (Sanquinolaria nuttalli), Tijuana
River NERR, 245, 247, 248
Rana grylio, ACE Basin NERR, 182
Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), Jacques Rana heckscheri, ACE Basin NERR, 182
Cousteau NERR, 70
Rana palustris, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 82
Purple martin (Progne subis), Jacques Cousteau Rana sylvatica, see Wood frog
NERR, 91 Rana utricularia, see Southern leopard frog
Pyramimonas spp., Jacques Cousteau NERR, 97 Rana virgatipes, see Carpenter frog
Raptors
ACE Basin NERR, 186, 187, 188, 189
Q Delaware NERR, 144–145, 161
Quercus alba, see White oak
Tijuana River NERR, 243, 252
Quercus coccinea, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 80,
Rathkea octopunctata, Jacques Cousteau NERR,
81
98
Quercus falcata, see Southern red oak
Rattus norvegicus, see Norway rat
Quercus ilicifolia, see Scrub oak
Razor clams (Ensis directus), Waquoit Bay
Quercus laurifolia, Weeks Bay NERR, 220 NERR, 45
Quercus marilandica, see Blackjack oak Recurvirostra americana, Tijuana River NERR,
Quercus phellos, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 82 241, 244
Quercus prinus, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 80, 81 Red-backed salamander (Plethodon cinereus)
Quercus rubra, Delaware NERR, 152 Delaware NERR, 140, 160
Quercus spp., ACE Basin NERR, 173, 174 Jacques Cousteau NERR, 82
Quercus stellata, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 81 Red-backed vole (Clethrionomys gapperi),
Quercus velutina, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 80, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 86
81 Red bat (Lasiurus borealis), Delaware NERR,
Quercus virginiana, Weeks Bay NERR, 220 151, 161–162
Quiscalus major, see Boat-tailed grackle Red-bellied turtle (Chrysemys rubriventris)
Quiscalus quiscula, Delaware NERR, 145, 161 Delaware NERR, 140, 160
Index 287
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 85 Red-throated loon (Gavia stelata), Delaware

Red-bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus), NERR, 144
Delaware NERR, 145 Red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus)
Redbelly water snake (Nerodia erythrogastor), ACE Basin NERR, 187
ACE Basin NERR, 182 Delaware NERR, 144, 160
Red-breasted merganser (Mergus serrator) Tijuana River NERR, 241
Delaware NERR, 144, 163 Regina regida, ACE Basin NERR, 182
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 88 Rehse, M.A., 245
Redbreasted sunfish (Lepomis auritus), Jacques Reithrodontomys humilus, ACE Basin NERR, 183
Cousteau NERR, 94 Reithrodontomys megalotis, Tijuana River NERR,
Red cedar (Juniperus virginiana) 243
ACE Basin NERR, 173 Remotely operated vehicles, 20–21
Delaware NERR, 121, 152 Remote sensing, 19
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 82 REMUS (Remote Environmental Monitoring
Weeks Bay NERR, 220 UnitS), 20–21
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), Research
ACE Basin NERR, 202 importance, xiii
Red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus), ACE Basin NERRS, 4–5, 7
NERR, 199 Restoration, see Habitat restoration
Red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus) Rhexia aristosa, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 72
ACE Basin NERR, 188 Rhinichthys atratulus, Jacques Cousteau NERR,
Delaware NERR, 145, 161 94
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 92 Rhododendron viscosum, Jacques Cousteau
Redfin pickerel (Esox americanus), Jacques NERR, 71, 72
Cousteau NERR, 93 Rhus integrifolia, Tijuana River NERR, 243
Red fox (Vulpes vulpes) Rhus laurina, Tijuana River NERR, 242
ACE Basin NERR, 183 Rhus radicans, Waquoit Bay NERR, 41
Delaware NERR, 151, 161 Rhynchospora inundata, Jacques Cousteau
Redhead (Aythya americana), Delaware NERR, Rhynchospora nitens, Jacques Cousteau NERR,
163 72
Redhead grass (Potamogeton perfoliatus), Ribbed mussel (Geukensia demissa)
Red knot (Calidris canutus) Delaware NERR, 138
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 87 Rice rat (Oryzomys palustris)
Tijuana River NERR, 244 ACE Basin NERR, 186
Red macroalga (Gracilaria tikvahiae) Jacques Cousteau NERR, 86
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 95 Richard Stockton College of New Jersey, Jacques
Waquoit Bay NERR, 43, 51 Cousteau NERR, 59
Red maple (Acer rubrum) Ring-billed gulls (Larus delawarensis), Waquoit
Delaware NERR, 121, 152, 155 Bay NERR, 41
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 71 Rithropanopeus harrisii, Jacques Cousteau
Red oak (Quercus rubra), Delaware NERR, 152 NERR, 69
Red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), Delaware Riverbank guillwort (Isoetes riparia), Jacques
NERR, 144–145 Cousteau NERR, 70
Red-spotted newt (Notophthalmus viridescens River cooter (Pseudemys concinna), ACE Basin
viridescens), Waquoit Bay NERR, NERR, 182
38 River frog (Rana heckscheri), ACE Basin NERR,
Red squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus), Jacques 182
Cousteau NERR, 86 River otter (Lutra canadensis)
Redstart (Setophaga ruticilla), Jacques Cousteau ACE Basin NERR, 186
NERR, 91 Delaware NERR, 145, 162, 163
Red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) Jacques Cousteau NERR, 86
ACE Basin NERR, 187 Robinson, C.L., 225, 226
Delaware NERR, 144, 145, 161 Rosa multiflora, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 82
Rosa palustris, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 70 Salicornia virginica

Rosa rugosa, see Salt spray rose Jacques Cousteau NERR, 66
Roseate terns (Sterna dougalli), Waquoit Bay Tijuana River NERR, 239, 242
NERR, 41 Salinity
Rose tickseed (Coreopsis rosea), Jacques ACE Basin NERR, 191–192
Cousteau NERR, 72 analysis of 22 sites, 13
Rotifers, ACE Basin NERR, 194, 195 Weeks Bay NERR, 218–219
Rough avens (Geum virginiana), Delaware Salix hindsiana, Tijuana River NERR, 241
NERR, 156 Salix spp.
Rough green snake (Opheodrys aestivus) Delaware NERR, 121, 152
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 85 Waquoit Bay NERR, 38
Rough-legged hawk (Buteo lagopus), Delaware Salmo fontinalis, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 94
NERR, 144–145 Salmo gairdneri, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 94
ROVER (Remote Observation Vehicle Earth Salmo trutta, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 94
Resources), benthic habitat Salt bush (Atriplex leucophylla), Tijuana River
mapping, 21 NERR, 243
Royal tern (Sterna maxima) Salt bush (Baccharis glutinosa), Tijuana River
ACE Basin NERR, 189 NERR, 241
Weeks Bay NERR, 223 Salt grass (Distichlis spicata)
Ruddy turnstone (Arenaria interpres) Delaware NERR, 121, 152
Waquoit Bay NERR, 41 Weeks Bay NERR, 220
Rufous-sided towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus), Salt marsh bird’s beak (Cordylanthus maritimus
Delaware NERR, 145, 161 ssp. maritimus), Tijuana River
Ruppia maritima, see Widgeon grass NERR, 237, 240
Rushes (Juncus roemerianus), ACE Basin NERR, Salt marsh hay (Spartina patens), Waquoit Bay
173 NERR, 39
Rutgers University, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 59, Salt marsh pink (Sabatia stellaris), Jacques
62, 63, 100 Cousteau NERR, 66
Rynchops niger, see Black skimmer Salt marsh snails (Melampus bidentatus),
Delaware NERR, 138
Salt-meadow cordgrass (Spartina patens)
S Delaware NERR, 121, 152
Sabatia stellaris, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 66 Weeks Bay NERR, 220
Sabellaria vulgaris, ACE Basin NERR, 197 Salt spray rose (Rosa rugosa)
Sage Lot Pond, Waquoit Bay NERR, 35 Jacques Cousteau NERR, 82
Sagittaria engelmanniana, Jacques Cousteau Waquoit Bay NERR, 41
NERR, 67 Saltwort (Batis maritima), Tijuana River NERR,
Sagittaria lancifolia, Weeks Bay NERR, 220 239
Sagittaria latifolia, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 67 Saltwort grass (Salicornia bigelovii), Jacques
Sagittaria spatulata, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 67 Cousteau NERR, 66
Sagittaria spp., Jacques Cousteau NERR, 70 Saltworts (Salicornia spp.), ACE Basin NERR,
Sagitta spp., Jacques Cousteau NERR, 98 173
Salicornia bigelovii Salvelinus fontinalis, Waquoit Bay NERR, 38
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 66 Samphir (Salicornia europea), Jacques Cousteau
Tijuana River NERR, 239 NERR, 66
Salicornia europea, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 66 Sandbar willow (Salix hindsiana), Tijuana River
Salicornia spp. NERR, 241
ACE Basin NERR, 173 Sand bay shrimp (Crangon septemspinosa),
Salicornia subterminalis, Tijuana River NERR, Sand dollars (Echinarachnius parma), Delaware
239, 242 NERR, 136
Index 289
Sand dune tiger beetle (Coelus latesignata Schreiber, R.A., 223

latesignata), Tijuana River NERR, Sciaenops ocellatus, ACE Basin NERR, 199
243 Scinella lateralis, see Ground skink
Sanderling (Calidris alba) Scirpus americanus
ACE Basin NERR, 188 Delaware NERR, 152
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 87 Jacques Cousteau NERR, 66–67
Tijuana River NERR, 244 Scirpus longii, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 72
Waquoit Bay NERR, 41 Scirpus pungens, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 70
San Diego, 237 Scirpus smithii var. smithii, Jacques Cousteau
San Diego gopher snake (Pituophis melanoleucus NERR, 70
annectens), Tijuana River NERR, Scirpus spp., Jacques Cousteau NERR, 67
242 Sciurus carolinensis, see Gray squirrel
San Diego pocket mouse (Peromyscus fallax), Scoloplos robustus, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 100
Tijuana River NERR, 243 Scophthalmus aquosus, see Windowpane
Sandifer, P.A., 176 Scoters, ACE Basin NERR, 202
Sand lance (Ammodytes sp.), Jacques Cousteau Scoters (Melanitta spp.), Jacques Cousteau
NERR, 99–100, 109 NERR, 88
Sand myrtle (Leiophyllum buxifolium), Jacques Scott, G.I., 204
Cousteau NERR, 81 Scottolana spp., Delaware NERR, 158
Sandplain gerardia (Agalinis acuta), Waquoit Bay Scrub oak (Quercus ilicifolia)
NERR, 38 Jacques Cousteau NERR, 80, 81
Sand shrimp (Crangon septemspinosa), Waquoit Waquoit Bay NERR, 36–37, 38
Bay NERR, 46 Scud (Corophium sp.), Delaware NERR, 158
Sand verbena (Abronia umbellata), Tijuana River Sea bass (Paralabrax spp.), Tijuana River NERR,
NERR, 243 252
Sandy beach tiger beetle (Coelus hirticollis Sea blite (Suaeda esteroa), Tijuana River NERR,
gravida), Tijuana River NERR, 243 239
Sanger, D., 14, 203 Sea herring (Clupea harengus), Jacques Cousteau
Sanquinolaria nuttalli, Tijuana River NERR, 245, NERR, 106
247, 248 Sea lavender (Limonium californica), Tijuana
Sansbury, C.E., 190 River NERR, 239, 242
Sarracenia purpurea, Jacques Cousteau NERR, Sea lavender (Limonium nashii), Waquoit Bay
71, 72 NERR, 39
Sarsia spp., 98 Sea lettuce (Ulva lactuca)
Sassafras (Sassafras albidum) Jacques Cousteau NERR, 95
Delaware NERR, 121, 152 Waquoit Bay NERR, 43, 45
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 71, 81 Sea level rise, see Global sea level rise
Satinfin shiner (Notropis analostanus), Jacques Sea myrtle (Baccharus halmifolia), Weeks Bay
Saw grass (Cladium jamaicense), Weeks Bay Sea rocket (Cakile edentula), Jacques Cousteau
NERR, 220 NERR, 81
Scalopus aquaticus, see Eastern mole Sea rocket (Cakile maritima), Tijuana River
Scaphiopus holbrooki, Jacques Cousteau NERR, NERR, 243
82 Seaside goldenrod (Solidago sempervirens)
Scarlet oak (Quercus coccinea), Jacques Cousteau Jacques Cousteau NERR, 66, 81
NERR, 80, 81 Waquoit Bay NERR, 41
SCE&G Canadys Power Station, 173 Seaside sparrow (Ammospiza maritima)
Sceloporus undulatus, ACE Basin NERR, 176 Delaware NERR, 144, 160
Sceloporus undulatus hyacinthinus, Jacques Jacques Cousteau NERR, 91
Cousteau NERR, 82, 84 Sea squirts (Molgula manhattensis), Waquoit Bay
Scenedesmus spp., 133, 157 NERR, 42
Schizachyrium scoparium, Waquoit Bay NERR, Sedberry, G.R., 201
37–38 Sedges, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 72
Schizaea pusilla, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 71 Sedimentation-erosion table (SET), assessment,
Schizopera knabeni, ACE Basin NERR, 196 22
Sediment profile imagery (SPI), benthic habitat Shrews, ACE Basin NERR, 186
mapping, 20 Shrimp
Seiurus aurocapillus, see Ovenbird ACE Basin NERR, 196, 197
Seminatrix pygaea, ACE Basin NERR, 181 Weeks Bay NERR, 227
Semipalmated plover (Charadrius semipalmatus) Side-blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana), Tijuana
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 87 River NERR, 242, 243
Tijuana River NERR, 241 Sigmodon hispidus, ACE Basin NERR, 183
Waquoit Bay NERR, 41 Silver perch (Bairdiella chrysoura)
Semipalmated sandpiper (Calidris pusilla), ACE Basin NERR, 200
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 87 Jacques Cousteau NERR, 106, 109
Semotilus atromaculatus, Jacques Cousteau Silvery legless lizard (Anniella pulchra pulchra),
NERR, 93 Tijuana River NERR, 243
Semotilus corporalis, Jacques Cousteau NERR, Silvery minnow (Hybognathus nuchalis), Jacques
93 Cousteau NERR, 93
Sensitive fern (Onaclea sensibilis), Jacques Siren lacertina, ACE Basin NERR, 182
Cousteau NERR, 70 Site profile, description, 9
Septic system problems Six-lined racerunner (Cnemidophorus
Delaware NERR, 132 sexlineatus), ACE Basin NERR, 176,
Weeks Bay NERR, 227–228 180
Serviceberry (Amelanchier candensis), Jacques Skate (Raja eglanteria), Jacques Cousteau NERR,
Sesarma reticulatum, Delaware NERR, 138 Skeletonema costatum
Setophaga ruticilla, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 91 ACE Basin NERR, 193–194
Sharp, J.H., 132 Jacques Cousteau NERR, 97
Sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus) Skeletonema spp., Delaware NERR, 157
ACE Basin NERR, 187 Skimmers, ACE Basin NERR, 202
Delaware NERR, 144–145, 161 Slash pines (Pinus elliottii), Weeks Bay NERR,
Sharp-tailed sparrow (Ammospiza caudacuta) Slender glass lizard (Ophisaurus attenuatus),
Delaware NERR, 144 ACE Basin NERR, 176, 181
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 91 Slender pondweed (Potamogeton pusillus),
Sheep laurel (Kalmia augustifolia) Jacques Cousteau NERR, 67
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 71, 72, 81, 82 Slender water-milfoil (Myriophyllum tenellum),
Waquoit Bay NERR, 38–39 Jacques Cousteau NERR, 72
Sheepshead minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus), Slipper shells (Crepidula fornicata), Waquoit Bay
Delaware NERR, 138 NERR, 45
Shoregrass (Monanthocloe littoralis), Tijuana Slipper shells (Crepidula plana), Waquoit Bay
River NERR, 239 NERR, 45
Short, F.T., 49, 51 Small-mouth flounder (Etropus microstomus),
Short-beaked bald-rush (Rhynchospora nitens), Jacques Cousteau NERR, 109
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 72 Smith, S.H., 245
Short-billed dowitcher (Limnodromus griseus) Smooth alder (Alnus serrulata), Delaware NERR,
Waquoit Bay NERR, 41 Smooth bur-marigold (Bidens laevis), Jacques
Short-eared owl (Asio flammeus) Cousteau NERR, 70
Delaware NERR, 145 Smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora)
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 89 ACE Basin NERR, 173, 202
Shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata), 80 Delaware NERR, 121, 138, 152
ACE Basin NERR, 174 invasive/exotic species effects on, 24, 25
Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum), Jacques Cousteau NERR, 66
ACE Basin NERR, 173, 200, 202 Waquoit Bay NERR, 39
Short-tailed shrew (Blarina brevicauda) Weeks Bay NERR, 220
ACE Basin NERR, 185 Smooth earth snake (Virginia valeriae), ACE
Delaware NERR, 151, 161 Basin NERR, 181
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 86 Snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina)
Index 291

Delaware NERR, 140, 160, 163 Spartina patens
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 85 Delaware NERR, 121, 152
Snow goose (Chen caerulescens), Jacques Jacques Cousteau NERR, 66
Cousteau NERR, 88 Waquoit Bay NERR, 39
Snowy egret (Egretta thula) Weeks Bay NERR, 220
Delaware NERR, 161 Spartina salt marshes, Jacques Cousteau NERR,
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 87, 88 65–66
Tijuana River NERR, 241 Spatterdock (Nurphur advena), Jacques Cousteau
Soft-shelled clam (Mya arenaria), Waquoit Bay NERR, 70
NERR, 40, 42, 43 Spermophilus beechyii, Tijuana River NERR, 240
Solidago sempervirens, see Seaside goldenrod Sphaerosyllis spp., Jacques Cousteau NERR, 103
Songbirds, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 91 Sphagnum moss, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 71,
Song sparrow (Melospiza melodia) 72, 81
Delaware NERR, 145, 160 Sphagnum sp., Waquoit Bay NERR, 39
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 89 Sphoeroides maculatus, Jacques Cousteau NERR,
Tijuana River NERR, 240 106
Sooty shearwaters (Puffinus griseus), Jacques Spider crab (Libinia dubia), Waquoit Bay NERR,
Sora (Porzana carolina) Spider crab (Libinia emarginata), Jacques
Delaware NERR, 144 Cousteau NERR, 104
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 91 Spike grass (Distichlis spicata)
Sorex cinereus, see Masked shrew Jacques Cousteau NERR, 66
South Carolina Department of Natural Resources,
176
Spionids, Tijuana River NERR, 248
South Carolina Marine Resources Research
Spisula solidissima
Institute, 11
Delaware NERR, 136
South Carolina slimy salamander (Plethodon
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 103–104
variolatus), ACE Basin NERR, 182
Spizella passerina, Delaware NERR, 145
Southeast Area Monitoring and Assessment
Program, 201 Spizella pusilla, Delaware NERR, 145, 160
Southeastern crowned snake (Tantilla coronata), Sponges, Waquoit Bay NERR, 45
ACE Basin NERR, 181 Spot (Leiostomus xanthurus)
Southern bog lemming (Synaptomys cooperi), ACE Basin NERR, 199
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 86 Delaware NERR, 138, 140, 160, 162
Southern cricket frog (Acris gryllus), ACE Basin Jacques Cousteau NERR, 106, 109
NERR, 181–182 Spotted hake (Urophycis regia), ACE Basin
Southern flying squirrel (Glaucomys volans), NERR, 199
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 86 Spotted salamander (Ambystoma maculatum),
Southern leopard frog (Rana utricularia) ACE Basin NERR, 181, 182
ACE Basin NERR, 182 Spotted sandpiper (Actitis macularia), Delaware
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 82 Spotted seatrout (Cynoscion nebulosus), ACE
Southern red oak (Quercus falcata) Basin NERR, 199
ACE Basin NERR, 174 Spotted shiner (Notropis hudsonius), Jacques
Delaware NERR, 121 Cousteau NERR, 94
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 81, 82 Spotted turtle (Clemmys guttata), Jacques
South Slough NERR Cousteau NERR, 85
as first reserve, 2 Spring rush (Juncus acutus), Tijuana River
restoration, 24 NERR, 241
Sparrows, ACE Basin NERR, 187, 188, 189 Squirrels
Spartina alterniflora, see Smooth cordgrass Tijuana River NERR, 243
Spartina cynosuroides, see Big cordgrass Weeks Bay NERR, 223
Spartina foliosa Staggerbush (Lyonia mariana), Jacques Cousteau
invasive/exotic species effects, 25 NERR, 72
Star drum (Stellifer lanceolatus), ACE Basin Summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus),
NERR, 199, 201 Delaware NERR, 140, 162
Star-nosed mole (Condylura cristata), Jacques Sundew (Drosera capillaris), Jacques Cousteau
Cousteau NERR, 86 NERR, 71, 72
Stearns, D.E., 225 Superfund sites, Delaware NERR, 132–133
Stellifer lanceolatus, ACE Basin NERR, 199, 201 Supersaturation events, summary analysis, 14
Stenotomus chrysops, Waquoit Bay NERR, 46 Surf clams (Spisula solidissima), Delaware
Stenotomus spp., ACE Basin NERR, 201 NERR, 136
Stenotomus versicolor, Delaware NERR, 140, 162 Surf scoter (Melanitta perspicillata), Delaware
Stereochilus marginatus, ACE Basin NERR, 181 NERR, 144
Sterna antillarum, see Least tern Sutton, C.C., 136
Sterna antillarum browni, Tijuana River NERR, Swallows, ACE Basin NERR, 187, 189
237, 240, 243–244 Swamp azalea (Rhododendron viscosum), Jacques
Sterna dougalli, Waquoit Bay NERR, 41 Cousteau NERR, 71, 72
Sterna forsteri, Delaware NERR, 161 Swamp darter (Etheostoma fusiforme), Jacques
Sterna hirundo, see Common tern Cousteau NERR, 92
Sterna maxima, see Royal tern Swamp pink (Helonias bullata), Jacques
Sterna paradisaea, Waquoit Bay NERR, 41 Cousteau NERR, 71
Sternotherus odoratus, see Stinkpot Swamp rose (Rosa palustris), Jacques Cousteau
Stewardship, NERRS, 5–6, 7 NERR, 70
Stinkpot (Sternotherus odoratus) Swamp rose mallow (Hibiscus moscheutos),
Swamp rose mallow (Hibiscus palustris),
Delaware NERR, 121
Strategic Education Plan, 26
Sweetbay magnolia (Magnolia virginiana),
guiding principles, 26
Streblospio benedicti
Sweetfern (Comptonia peregrina)
ACE Basin NERR, 197
Delaware NERR, 136
Stressors, see Anthropogenic impacts
Sweet flag (Acorus calamus), Jacques Cousteau
Striped anchovy (Anchoa hepsetus)
NERR, 70
ACE Basin NERR, 201
Sweet gale (Myrica gale), Waquoit Bay NERR, 39
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 106 Sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua)
Striped bass (Morone saxatilis) ACE Basin NERR, 174
ACE Basin NERR, 200 Delaware NERR, 121, 152, 155
Delaware NERR, 140, 162 Sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia)
Waquoit Bay NERR, 46 Jacques Cousteau NERR, 71, 82
Striped killifish (Fundulus majalis), Jacques SWMP
Cousteau NERR, 106 abiotic factors, 10
Striped mullet (Mugil cephalus) ACE Basin NERR, 191–192
ACE Basin NERR, 199 biological monitoring, 10
Tijuana River NERR, 248–249 components, 10, 12–15
Weeks Bay NERR, 226 data loggers, 10–11, 12
Striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis) description, 4
ACE Basin NERR, 183 development, 10–12
Delaware NERR, 151, 161 high-priority initiatives, 15–21
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 86 Jacques Cousteau NERR, 63, 64
Tijuana River NERR, 243 medium-priority initiatives, 15, 21–22
Strix varia, Delaware NERR, 144 mission, 9–10
Structural controls, xiii overview, 28–29
Sturnella magna, Delaware NERR, 161 standardization, 10, 11
Sturnella neglecta, Tijuana River NERR, 240 trends monitoring, 13–15
Suaeda esteroa, Tijuana River NERR, 239 value, 10
Sula bassanus, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 87 watershed/land use classifications, 10, 19
Index 293
Sylvilagus audubonii sactidiegi, Tijuana River Thamnophis sauritus, Jacques Cousteau NERR,
NERR, 240 84
Sylvilagus floridanus, see Eastern cottontail Thanmnophis sirtalis, see Eastern garter snake
Sylvilagus palustris, see Marsh rabbit Threatened species, see also
Symphurus plaguisa, Jacques Cousteau NERR, Endangered/threatened species
109 ACE Basin NERR, 202
Synaptomys cooperi, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 86 definition, 203
Syngnathus fuscus, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 98, Three-lined salamander (Eurycea longicauda),
106, 109 ACE Basin NERR, 181
Synodus foetens, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 109 Three-spined stickleback (Gasterosteus
Synthesis of Water Quality Data: National aculeatus)
Estuarine Research Reserve System- Jacques Cousteau NERR, 94
wide Monitoring Program, A (2002), Waquoit Bay NERR, 46
11 Three-square bulrush (Scirpus pungens), Jacques
Synthesis of Water Quality Data from the Cousteau NERR, 70
National Estuarine Research Thryothorus ludovicianus, see Carolina wren
Reserve’s System-wide Monitoring Tier II parameters, 16
Program, A (2001), 11 Tier I parameters, 16
System-wide Monitoring Program, see SWMP Tijuana River NERR
Szedlmayer, S.T., 106, 109 algal mats, 238
anthropogenic impacts
brackish marshes, 240–241
T development, 237, 255
dunes/beach habitat, 243
Tachycineta bicolor, Delaware NERR, 161 gravel extraction, 255
Tachys corax, Tijuana River NERR, 240 overview, 241–242, 252, 254–256, 257
Tadarida brasiliensis, ACE Basin NERR, 185 sedimentation, 255, 256
Tadpole madtom (Noturus gyrinus), Jacques sewage-contaminated inflows, 235, 237,
Cousteau NERR, 93 252, 254, 256
Tagelus californianus, Tijuana River NERR, 245, stream flow modification, 255
248 commercially/recreationally important
Tamiasciurus hudsonicus, Jacques Cousteau species, 252
NERR, 86 description, 235–237
Tamius striatus, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 86 designation, 235
Tantilla coronata, ACE Basin NERR, 181 endangered species/protection, 237, 239–240
Tautoga onitis estuary/aquatic habitat
Delaware NERR, 162 benthic invertebrates, 245–248
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 106 benthic invertebrates size change, 248
Tautogolabrus adspersus, Jacques Cousteau birds, 252, 253–254, 258
NERR, 100 birds/waterbirds list, 253–254
Taxodium distichum, ACE Basin NERR, 173, 174 fish, 248–252, 258
Teal, J.M., 39, 190 fish list, 250–251
Tellina carpenteri, Tijuana River NERR, 247 invertebrate list, 246–247
Temora longicornis, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 98 plants, 245
Tephrosia virginiana, Jacques Cousteau NERR, species annual relative abundance, 249
81 tidal creeks/channels, 244–252, 258
Terns flood effects, 248–249, 252
ACE Basin NERR, 202 habitat list/area, 236
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 87 invasive/exotic species, 235, 242, 243
Terrapene carolina, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 85 invertebrate list, 246–247
Tesselated darter (Etheostoma olmetedi), Jacques map, 236
Cousteau NERR, 92, 93 overview, 256–258
Tetraedron spp., Delaware NERR, 157 restoration, 24, 237, 255
Tetragnatha laboriosa, Tijuana River NERR, 240 salinity, 238
Thalassiosira spp., ACE Basin NERR, 194 water quality monitoring sites, 237
watershed habitat Turbonilla sp., Jacques Cousteau NERR, 100

brackish marsh, 240–241, 257 Turdus migratorius, Delaware NERR, 145, 160
dunes/beach, 243–244, 257–258 Turkey-beard (Xerophyllum asphodeloides),
intertidal flats, 244, 258 Jacques Cousteau NERR, 71, 72
map, 238 Turkey vulture (Cathartes aura)
overview, 237 ACE Basin NERR, 187
riparian habitat, 241–242, 257 Delaware NERR, 145, 161
salt marsh, 238–240 Tursiops truncatus, see Bottlenose porpoise
salt pannes, 240, 257 Twig rush (Cladium marascoides), Waquoit Bay
wetland-upland transition, 242–243, 257 NERR, 39
Timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus horridus) Two-toed amphiuma (Amphiuma means), ACE
ACE Basin NERR, 181 Basin NERR, 182
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 84 Tychoplankton, 194
Toads, ACE Basin NERR, 181 Typha angustifolia
Topsmelt (Atherinops affinis), Tijuana River Delaware NERR, 125
NERR, 248, 252 Jacques Cousteau NERR, 67, 70
Torrey’s droopseed (Muhlenbergia torreyana), Weeks Bay NERR, 220
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 72 Typha domingensis, Tijuana River NERR, 241
Tortanus discaudatus, Jacques Cousteau NERR, Typha glauca, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 70
98 Typha latifolia
Toxicodendrom radicans, Weeks Bay NERR, 220 Delaware NERR, 125
Toxostoma rufum, Delaware NERR, 145 Waquoit Bay NERR, 38
Trachemys scripta, ACE Basin NERR, 182 Typha spp., Delaware NERR, 124–125, 152
Trachinotus carolinus, ACE Basin NERR, 201 Tyto alba, ACE Basin NERR, 188
Trailing arbutus (Epigagea repens), Jacques
Cousteau NERR, 81
Treefrogs, ACE Basin NERR, 181 U
Tree swallow (Iridoprocne bicolor), Jacques
Cousteau NERR, 91 Uca crenulata, Tijuana River NERR, 239, 244
Tree swallow (Tachycineta bicolor), Delaware Uca minax, Delaware NERR, 138
NERR, 161 Uca pugnax, Delaware NERR, 138
Trichechus manatus, ACE Basin NERR, 202 Uca spp.
Tri-colored heron (Egretta tricolor), Jacques ACE Basin NERR, 193
Cousteau NERR, 88 Delaware NERR, 136, 138
Trident red maple (Acer rubrum), Jacques Ulva lactuca, see Sea lettuce
Cousteau NERR, 71 Umbra pygmaea, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 92, 93
Triglochin concinnum, Tijuana River NERR, 239 Upland chorus frog (Pseudacris triseriata), ACE
Trinectes maculatus, see Hogchoker Basin NERR, 182
Tringa flavipes, Waquoit Bay NERR, 41 Urochordates, Waquoit Bay NERR, 45
Tringa melanoleuca, see Greater yellowlegs Urocyon cinereoargenteus, see Gray fox
Tringa spp., Tijuana River NERR, 244 Urophycis regia, ACE Basin NERR, 199
Troglodytes aedon, Delaware NERR, 160, 161 Urophycis spp., Jacques Cousteau NERR, 109
Troglodytes troglodytes, ACE Basin NERR, 188 Urophycis tenuis, Waquoit Bay NERR, 46
Tube-building amphipod (Ampelisca abdita), Urosalpinx cinera, Delaware NERR, 162
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 100, 103 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Tuckerton Seaport, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 60 Jacques Cousteau NERR, 60
Tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor), Delaware NERR, Tijuana River NERR, 237
145 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Coastal Program,
Tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera), Delaware xiii
NERR, 121 Uta stansburiana, Tijuana River NERR, 242, 243
Tundra swan (Cygnus columbianus), Jacques Utricularia olivacea, Jacques Cousteau NERR,
Turbellarians, Delaware NERR, 136 Utricularia spp., Jacques Cousteau NERR, 72
Index 295
V nutrient loading, 43, 48–51

overview, 51–52
Vaccinium angustifolium, Waquoit Bay NERR, 37 PAR (photosynthetically active radiation), 51
Vaccinium corymbosum, Jacques Cousteau pathogens (from septic systems), 49
NERR, 72, 82 salt marsh plants list, 40
Vaccinium spp., Jacques Cousteau NERR, 80, 82 septic system problems, 49, 50
Valiela, I.K., 43, 49, 51 subwatersheds list, 36
Van Dolah, R.F., 193–194 subwatersheds map, 37
Vernberg, F.J., 190 tidal creeks and channels/species, 42–43
Viburnum prunifolium, Delaware NERR, 121 transition zone for fish assemblages, 46
Viola pedata, Waquoit Bay NERR, 38 Warblers, ACE Basin NERR, 187, 189
Vireo belli pusilius, Tijuana River NERR, 237 Washington clam (Saxidomus nuttalli), Tijuana
Vireo griseus, see White-eyed vireo River NERR, 247
Vireo olivaceus, see Red-eyed vireo Wasson, K., 25
Vireos, ACE Basin NERR, 187, 188, 189 Water celery (Vallisneria americana), Jacques
Virginia rails (Rallus limicola), Jacques Cousteau Cousteau NERR, 67
NERR, 91 Water chemistry controls, summary analysis, 14
Virginia valeriae, ACE Basin NERR, 181 Water degradation, anthropogenic impact types, xi
Virginia willow (Itea virginica), Weeks Bay Waterfowl
Viscido, S.V., 100 Jacques Cousteau NERR, 88
Volvox spp., Delaware NERR, 133, 157 Waquoit Bay NERR, 41
Vulpes vulpes, see Red fox Water hemp (Amaranthus cannabinus), Jacques
Cousteau NERR, 70
Water quality data, see also specific sites
W analysis of 22 sites, 13–14
analysis over Phase I, 14–15
Waquoit Bay NERR Watershed land use
anthropogenic impacts, 46, 48–51 classes list, 19
benthic organisms, 43–46 mapping, 19
chemical contaminants, 49 Water temperature, summary analysis, 13–14
description, 35–36 Watling, L., 133
designation, 36 Watson’s salt bush (Atriplex watsonii), Tijuana
eelgrass decline, 43, 45, 50–51 River NERR, 239, 242
environment, 43 Wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), ACE Basin NERR,
eutrophication, 48–51 173, 174
finfish, 46, 47–48 Weakfish (Cynoscion regalis)
fish nursery area, 43, 46 ACE Basin NERR, 199
habitats/species Delaware NERR, 140, 162
beaches/dunes, 41–42 Jacques Cousteau NERR, 94, 109
freshwater wetlands, 38–39 Weeks Bay NERR
mudflats/sandflats, 39–41 anthropogenic impacts, 227–228
riparian habitats, 38 best management practices (BMPs), 227, 228
saltmarshes, 39 commercially important species, 227
sandplain grasslands, 37–38 description, 217–219
upland pitch pine/oak forests, 36–37 designation, 217
vernal pools/coastal plain pond shores, 38 development, 227, 228
invertebrates list, 44–45 estuary communities (animals)
“kills,” 49 benthic fauna, 225–226
macroalgal mats, 43, 50–51 fish, 226–227
map, 35 zooplankton, 225
motorboats estuary communities (plants), 223–225
chemical contamination, 49 land protection, 227
problems from propellers, 49, 51 map, 218
nitrogen inputs, 49–50 overview, 217, 228–229
physical description, 217–219 Jacques Cousteau NERR, 80, 81

salinity, 218–219, 226 Weeks Bay NERR, 220
sediment, 219 White perch (Morone americana)
sediment distribution map, 219 Delaware NERR, 138, 140, 160, 162
water depths, 219 Jacques Cousteau NERR, 94, 106
watershed communities (animals) Waquoit Bay NERR, 38
birds, 223 White-rumped sandpiper (Calidris fuscicollis),
herpetofauna/list, 220–223 Jacques Cousteau NERR, 87
mammals/list, 223, 224 White sand clam (Macoma secta), Tijuana River
watershed communities (plants), 220 NERR, 247
Wells NERR, restoration, 24 White sucker (Catostomus commersoni)
Wenner, C.A., 201 Jacques Cousteau NERR, 94
Wenner, E.L., 13, 191, 197 Waquoit Bay NERR, 38
Western harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus)
megalotis), Tijuana River NERR, ACE Basin NERR, 183
Western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta), Tijuana Jacques Cousteau NERR, 86
River NERR, 240 White-throated sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollus),
Western sandpiper (Calidris mauri) Delaware NERR, 145
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 87 White water lilies (Nymphaea odorata), Jacques
Tijuana River NERR, 244 Cousteau NERR, 72
Western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus Widgeon grass (Ruppia maritima)
nivosus), Tijuana River NERR, 240, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 67, 94
243, 244
West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus), ACE
Wildcat Landfill Superfund site, 132, 133
Basin NERR, 202
Wild rice (Zinzania aquatica)
Whales, ACE Basin NERR, 202
Delaware NERR, 152
Whelks (Busycon canaliculatum), Waquoit Bay
NERR, 45
Willet (Catoptrophorus semipalmatus)
Whelks (Busycon carica), Waquoit Bay NERR,
Delaware NERR, 161
45
Whimbrel (Numenius phaeopus), Tijuana River
NERR, 244 Tijuana River NERR, 239, 241, 244
White catfish (Ameiurus catus), Delaware NERR, Willow oak (Quercus phellos), Jacques Cousteau
140 NERR, 82
White catfish (Ictalurus catus), ACE Basin Willows (Salix spp.)
White croaker (Genyonemus lineatus), Tijuana Tijuana River NERR, 241
River NERR, 252 Waquoit Bay NERR, 38
White-crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia Wilson’s plovers (Charadrius wilsonia), ACE
leucophrys), Tijuana River NERR, Basin NERR, 188
240 Wilson’s storm petrels (Oceanites oceanicus),
White-eyed vireo (Vireo griseus) Jacques Cousteau NERR, 87
Delaware NERR, 145, 161 Windowpane (Scophthalmus aquosus)
White-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus) Jacques Cousteau NERR, 106, 109
Delaware NERR, 145, 161 Winterberry (Ilex verticillata)
White hake (Urophycis tenuis), Waquoit Bay Jacques Cousteau NERR, 72
NERR, 46 Winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes
White mullet (Mugil curema), ACE Basin NERR, americanus)
201 Jacques Cousteau NERR, 100, 106, 109
White oak (Quercus alba) Waquoit Bay NERR, 42, 46
ACE Basin NERR, 174 Wintergreen (Gaultheria procumbens), Jacques
Delaware NERR, 121, 151–152 Cousteau NERR, 71, 72, 81
Index 297
Winter wren (Troglodytes troglodytes), ACE Yellow perch (Perca flavescens), Jacques
Basin NERR, 188 Cousteau NERR, 92, 94
Wolf, P.L., 190 Yellow pondweed (Nuphar lutea), Delaware
Woodchuck (Marmota monax), Jacques Cousteau NERR, 152
NERR, 86 Yellow rail (Coturnicops noveboracensis),
Wood duck (Aix sponsa), Delaware NERR, 161, Delaware NERR, 144
163 Yellow-rumped warbler (Dendroica coronata),
Wood frog (Rana sylvatica) Delaware NERR, 145, 161
Delaware NERR, 140, 160 Yellow shore crab (Hemigrapsus oregonensis),
Woodpeckers, ACE Basin NERR, 187, 188, 189 Yellow-spotted salamander (Ambystoma
maculatum), Waquoit Bay NERR,
Wood stork (Mycteria americana), ACE Basin
38
NERR, 173, 202
Yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas)
Wood thrush (Hylocichla mustilina)
ACE Basin NERR, 188
Jacques Cousteau NERR, 91–92
Wood turtle (Clemmys insculpta), Jacques Yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia)
Cousteau NERR, 85 ACE Basin NERR, 188
Wootton, L., 95 Delaware NERR, 145, 161
World Meteorological Organization, 22 Jacques Cousteau NERR, 91
Wrens, ACE Basin NERR, 187, 188, 189 Yemassee Wastewater Treatment Facility, 173
Wright’s panic grass (Panicum wrightianum), Yerba reuma (Frankenia palmeri), Tijuana River
X Z
Xerophyllum asphodeloides, Jacques Cousteau Zampella, R.A., 63, 92
NERR, 71, 72 Zanniuchellia palustris, Jacques Cousteau NERR,
67
Zapus hudsonius, see Meadow jumping mouse
Y Zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha), as
invasive, 25
Yellowbelly slider (Trachemys scripta), ACE Zedler, J.B., 238, 239, 242, 245, 248
Basin NERR, 182 Zenaida macroura, see Mourning dove
Yellow bullhead (Ameiurus natalis), Jacques Zimmerman, L., 183, 186
Cousteau NERR, 92 Zimmerman, R.W., 95
Yellow clam (Florimentis obesa), Tijuana River Zinzania aquatica, see Wild rice
NERR, 247 Zonotrichia albicollus, Delaware NERR, 145
Yellow-crowned night heron (Nycticorax Zonotrichia leucophrys, Tijuana River NERR,
violaceus), Jacques Cousteau 240
NERR, 88 Zooplankton, categorization, 194
Yellow-green algae, Jacques Cousteau NERR, 72 Zostera marina, see Eelgrass

Estuarine Research

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Estuarine Research

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Estuarine Research

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ESTUARINE

Marine Science Series

CRC MARINE SCIENCE SERIES

Michael J. Kennish, Ph.D.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Estuarine research, monitoring, and resource protection / edited by Michael J. Kennish.

Visit the CRC Press Web site at www.crcpress.com

© 2004 by CRC Press LLC

No claim to original U.S. Government works

This book is dedicated to

2000, 2001a, b; Goldberg, 1995, 1998.

Source: Kennish, M.J. 2002. Environmental Conservation 29: 78–107.

• Chapter 2: Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve

Chapter 2 Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve..........................35

Chapter 3 Jacques Cousteau National Estuarine Research Reserve ..................59

Chapter 4 Delaware National Estuarine Research Reserve .............................119

Chapter 5 Ashepoo–Combahee–Edisto (ACE) Basin National Estuarine

Chapter 6 Weeks Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve ..........................217

Chapter 7 Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve ......................235

Padilla Bay Old Hudson

Guana Tolomato Matanzas

Kachemak Bay Rookery Bay Jobos Bay

research and monitoring activities, as well as to increase public awareness of the

reduction of biodiversity, and problematic effects of pollution and invasive species.

to disseminate scientific information for the betterment of coastal watershed and

1. Advance the state of knowledge about the requirements for sustainable

1. Federal, state, and community partnership of protected areas

Representative Protected Areas

Informed Management and Stewardship

Scientific Understanding through Research

NERRS achieves coastal protection and management goals by mobilizing fed-

1. Ensure a stable environment for research through long-term protection of

3. Enhance public awareness and understanding of estuarine areas and pro-

1. The area is representative of its biogeographical region, is suitable for

NERRS PROGRAM COMPONENTS

Environmental characterization is necessary to inventory conditions at the

Gradual changes in SWMP were implemented during each succeeding year to

Data collected by SWMP have already proven to be useful in estuarine habitat

NERRS is a most effective trends-monitoring program because it has developed

1. Depth, salinity, and dissolved oxygen (mg/l or % saturation) were gener-

water temperature variance at most sites. In the summer, water temperature

1. With respect to season, the application of three-way ANOVA models

4. The passage of tropical storms was linked to changes in temperature and

High-Priority SWMP Initiatives

1. Impacts of nonpoint source pollutants and nutrient loadings on water quality

6. Effects of saltwater encroachment on tidal freshwater wetlands

Estuaries are physically controlled systems subject to a high level of natural

1. Plankton (specifically larvae)

NERRS workgroups are establishing monitoring protocols for each of the

1. Mandatory requirements for sampling to be carried out by all participating

interested in comparing biotic communities, habitats, and ecosystem processes in

Because the Coastal Change Analysis Program (C-CAP) of NOAA is develop-

than 75 km at a speed of ~5 km/h. Experimental deployment of a REMUS vehicle

Medium-Priority SWMP Initiatives

SPECIAL HIGH-PRIORITY INITIATIVES

A major initiative of the NERRS program is the restoration of habitat (NERRS,

1. Designing restoration projects

Funding is a major limiting factor to large-scale habitat restoration. However,

EDUCATION AND OUTREACH

The NERRS Education, Outreach, and Interpretation Program is designed to