HomeMy WebLinkAboutPeconic Estuary Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Study
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
FINAL
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION STUDY
Prepared For:
VITO MINEI, P.E.
Program Manager, Peconic Estuary Program (PEP)
Suffolk County
Department of Health Services
Division of Environmental Quality
County Center
Riverhead, New York 11901o3397
Prepared By:
CASHIN ASSOCIATES, P.C.
Engineers and Architects
1200 Veterans Memorial Highway
Hauppauge, New York 11788
(516) 348-76OO
50 Tice Boulevard
Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey 07675
(201) 930-1600
601 Brickell Key Drive, Suite 606
Miami, Florida 33131
(305) 579-2006
January 1996
Although the information in this document has been funded wholly or in part by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency under assistance agreement number CE992002-02-0 to the Suffolk County
Department of Health Services, it may not necessarily reflect the views of the Agency and no official
endorsement should be inferred.
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION STUDY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Page #
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
1.1 Study Objectives
1.2 Geographic Description of Study Area
1.3 Project Background
1.4 Overview of Investigative Approach
1
8
8
10
13
14
2.0
REVIEW OF EXISTING DATA AND LITERATURE
2.1 Ecological Importance of SAV
2.2 Historical Patterns of SAV Abundance and Distribution
16
16
21
3.0 STUDY METHODOLOGY
3.1 Field Survey Procedures
3.2 Aerial Photography Review
3.3 Mapping
3.4 Data Analysis
3.5 Laboratory Analysis
35
35
4O
41
44
46
4.0
STUDY FINDINGS
4.1 Primary SAV Species Present
4.2 Present SAV Distribution, Abundance and Density
4.3 Historical Changes in SAV Distribution
4.4 Observations Regarding Bay Scallop Populations
4.5 Observations Regarding Environmental/Water Parameters
4.6 Results of Sediment Analyses
4.7 Dry Weight Determinations for SAV Samples
4.8 Comparison with SAV Data from South Shore Bays
48
48
67
73
77
78
80
80
81
Section
5.0 ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
5.1 Trends in SAY Distribution, Abundance and Density
5.2 Relative Ecological Importance of Primary SA¥ Species
5.3 Effectiveness of SA¥ Mapping using Aerial Photographs
Page #
82
83
6.0
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 SAV as an Indicator of Overall Estuary Health
6.2 Recommended Management Objectives for Restoring SAV
6.3 Potential Sites and Recommended Methods for Future SAV
Restoration
6.4 Recommendations Regarding Future SAV Monitoring
88
88
90
97
103
BIBLIOGRAPHY
106
LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED DURING THIS INVESTIGATION
KEY PROJECT PERSONNEL
114
116
MAPPING (All maps are located after list of persons contacted)
I Regional Context
2 Geographic Location Map
3 Station Location Map
4 Distribution of Eelgrass Beds
5 Distribution of Dominant Macroalgae Types
6 Stations with Observed Scallop Populations
TABLES
# Description
Follows Pa~e
· 1 SAV Identified During Cashin Associate's Field Sampling 48
2 Field Data Summary - All Stations 67
3 Relative Abundance of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation in the 67
Peconic Estuary
4 Spatial Distribution of Dominant SAV Types in the Peconic 67
Estuary
5 Summary of Dry Weight Biomass Values within the Peconic 72
Estuary
6 Summary of Total Biomass Values within the Peconic Estuary 73
7 Historical Patterns of SAV Abundance and Distribution in the 75
Peconic Estuary
8 Field Data Summary - Stations at which Scallops were Observed 77
9 Analysis of Environmental/Water Parameters in the Peconic 78
Estuary
10 Occurrence of Dominant SAV Types versus Sediment Type in the 80
Peconic Estuary
11 Grain Size Analysis for Peconic Estuary Sediments 80
12 Dry Weight Analysis 80
FIGURES
# Description Follows Page
I Historical Comparison of Eelgrass (Zostera marina) Beds -
Key Map
lA Southold Bay
1 B Shelter Island
1C Shelter Island
1D Shelter Island
1E Orient Harbor
1F Napeaque Harbor
1G Gardiners Island
2 Suggested Eelgrass Restoration Sites
3 Recommended Locations for Future SAV Monitoring
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
97
103
EXHIBITS
A Silhouettes of Preserved SAV Specimens
B Underwater Photography of Representative SAV Beds
C Site Data Sheets - Biological/Physical Data for Each Site
D Aerial Photographs
peconic Estuary Pro&ram Submerged Aquatic Ve&etation Study - Final Repor~
This investigation was conducted as one component of the Peconic Estuary Program,
which is part of the National Estuary Program administered by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Local coordination and oversight was provided by the Suffolk County
Department of Health Services.
This study reports on the status of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) in the Peconic
Estuary, which is situated between the two "forks" at the east end of Long Island, New
York. SAY, as defined in this study, includes rooted aquatic plants and macroalgae. The
importance of these plants to aquatic ecosystems is well-documented in the scientific
literature, and includes: a high level of primary production that forms the base of a rich
food chain; provision of nursery areas, shelter and protection for various species of
finfish and invertebrates, many of which are of recreational or commercial importance;
provision of a multi-level habitat, which increases species diversity and abundance
compared to areas that lack vegetation; cycling of nutrients (e.g., nitrogen and
phosphorus) from the surrounding environment, and re-release of those nutrients
through organic decay; stabilization of bottom sediments (for rooted SAV species, such
as eelgrass, Zostera marina), even through the enormous stresses of hurricanes and
northeast storms; and moderation of currents and waves in the near-bottom zone,
which promotes sedimentation of particles from the water column, inhibits resuspension
of previously settled particles, and moderates water column turbidity. Eelgrass beds
serve as an especially important habitat for the bay scallop ~ ~, which
historically has been an important commercial resource in the Peconic Estuary.
The primary objectives of this investJgalJon were to:
· determine the current abundance, distribution and density of SAV in the Peconic
Estuary;
· determine whether the distribution of SAY beds in the Estuary has undergone
significant historical changes in the past two to three decades;
· identify physical factors that may affect the abundance, distribution and density
of SAV in the Estuary;
January 1996 Pa&e, 1
Peconic Estumy Proem
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Study - Final Report
develop a series of management recommendations, including actions for
mitigating both natural and human-induced factors that can cause adverse
impacts to SAV;
· outline feasible programs for enhancing and restoring SAV beds; and
· develop a series of recommendations for future SAV investigations.
The main methodologies used in this investigation were:
1) review of existing scientific literature and consultaUon with knowledgeable
individuals regarding SAY, both within the Peconic Estuary and in other areas;
2)
field survey of 214 stations throughout the Peconic Estuary conducted between
September 14 and October 25, 1994, which involved the identification of SAV
spedes present, and the measurement of SAY density and various physical
parameters (e.g., water depth, sediment characteristics, water temperature,
salinity, clarity, etc.);
3) review of recent aerial photography of the Estuary to assist in delineating the
current distribution of SAV; and
4) examination of a series of historic aerial photographs to determine whether any
trends in the distribution of SAV in the Estuary could be detected.
The main findings of this ievesfigation are summarized as follows.
A. Species Composition, Distribution and Abundance
The field survey identified 2 species of seagrasses (Phylum
Spermatophyta), 22 types of red algae (Phylum Rhodophyta), 9 types of
green algae (Phylum Chlorophyta), and 10 types of brown algae (Phylum
Phaeophyta). In most cases, identification of macroalgae was down to the
species level, although some were identified to the genus level or as
miscellaneous specimens within the given phylum.
Codium fragile (green fleece) is presently the dominant SAV species in the
Peconic Estuary and has achieved this status by actively or passively
displacing native SAY (particularly Zostera marina, eelgrass) in large areas.
Janus/1996
peconic Estuaxy Program Submerged Aquatic V~on Study - Final Report
No Z. marina was found in the waters to the west of Shelter Island. The
most abundant Z. marina beds were found in Gardiners Bay and Block
Island Sound, in the outer Estuary. The deepest Z. marina beds were
found in western Block Island Sound, along the east shore of Gardiners
Island.
Ulva lactuca (sea lettuce) was clustered in the inner and north central
portions of the Estuary, and was confined to the relatively quiet waters of
smaller tidal creeks and the shallows of adjoining embayments. U. lactuca
was not observed east of Shelter Island, and was found only at very Iow
densities at a few scattered stations in the waters to the east of Uttle
Peconic Bay.
Euthora cristata (lacy redweed) and Cystoclonium ~ (brushy
redweed) were found in slightly higher abundance than the rest of the red
macroalgae.
Rockweed (Fucus spp.) was found to be the most abundant brown
seaweed in the Peconic Estuary system.
The estimated bottom area covered by SAV beds is 37 km2 for the inner
Estuary, 31 km2 for the middle Estuary, and 30 km2 for the outer Estuary.
It is estimated that Z. marina coverage was approximately 2.5 km= in the
middle Estuary and 6.0 km= in the outer Estuary.
SAV Density
· Overall, Z. marina had the highest unit dry weight biomass (DWB) of the
five dominant SAV types within the Estuary, at 370 g/mZ. The average
DWB was 435 g/m= for eelgrass areas in the outer Estuary, 315 g/m2 in
the middle Estuary, and 0 (no occurrences) in the inner Estuary. Despite
recent declines in eelgrass populations on a local and regional level, these
density values compare favorably with values given historically for other
areas.
The mixed brown algae category was second to Z. marina in overall
average DWB at 294 g/m2, but was presented at only 7 stations in the
entire Estuary.
January 1996 Pag~ 3
Peconic Estuary Program
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Study - Final Report
The remaining three dominant SAV types (i.e., ~ U. lactuca, and
mixed red algae) had average DWB values of 92 g/m~, 22 g/m2, 70 g/m2,
respectively.
The total dry weight biomass of SAV within the study area is estimated at
10,445 metric tons, of which slightly less than 50 percent is accounted for
by beds dominated by C. fragile. Z. marina-dominated areas comprise
approximately 22 percent of the total SAV DWB, while mixed brown algae-
dominated areas comprise approximately 18 percent. Areas dominated by
U. lactuca and mixed red algae, combined, contribute less than one
percent of the total SAV DWB biomass in the Estuary.
The estimated average SAV dry weight biomass increases from 38.5
MT/km2 (1433 MT total in 37.23 km2) in the inner Estuary, to 128.0
MT/km~ (4005 MT total in 31.29 km~) in the middle Estuary, and 166.0
MT/km: (5007 MT total in 30.16 km2) in the outer Estuary.
The estimated average SAV dry weight biomass in Z. marina-dominated
areas increases from 0 in the inner Estuary, to 315.1 MT/km2 (772 MT
total in 2.45 km~) in the middle Estuary, and 435.1 MT/km= (1562 MT total
in 3.59 km~) in the outer Estuary. Eelgrass-dominated areas account for
almost one-third of the total SAY dry weight biomass to the east of Shelter
Island.
C. Histori~'=l SAV Distribution
Several locations at which Z. marina was expected to be found, based
upon conversations with knowledgeable individuals and analysis of
pertinent charts and maps, were found upon field reconnaissance to be
either entirely devoid of SAV or were dominated by macroalgae, especially
C. fragile.
Overall, the historical analysis undertaken for this invesUgation could not
identify a consistent trend for the 1969 to 1980s and 1980s to 1994 time
frames examined. Any overall decline in eelgrass abundance that may
have been induced by brown tide episodes in the 1980s could not be
detected in the analysis of historical photographs at the selected study
locations (which included Southold Bay, the northeast comer of Shelter
Island, the east side of Ram Island, the southerly tip of Shelter Island, the
(
Peconic Estuary Program Submer~ed Aquatic Vegetation Study - Final Report
Long Beach Bay/Orient Harbor Area of the North Fork, Napeague Harbor,
and the southeasterly shoreline of Gardiners Island).
Review of recent aerial photography seems to bear out the anecdotal
reports of an ongoing eelgrass decline in the Peconic Estuary. In reviewing
aerial photography dated March 1994 and October 1994, the investigators
noticed a general disappearance of the SAV beds along the eastern
shoreline of the North Haven peninsula and in the Sag Harbor area during
that seven month period. Thus, the sampling performed as part of this
investigation may have recorded a distribution of eelgrass at a time when
it is experiencing a significant decline in the Peconic Estuary.
D. Correlation to Physical/~Vater Parameters
Z. marina-dominated stations were characterized by the highest salinity
and underwater visibility, and the lowest water temperature.
U. lactuca-dominated stations were characterized by the lowest salinity
and underwater visibility, and the highest water temperature.
C. fragile-dominated stations were associated with intermediate values of
salinity, water temperature, and visibility.
The main recommendations of this study are summarized below.
Although standard black and white aerial photography was found to
provide useful supplemental information for delineating SAV distribution
around and between field observation stations, this investigation revealed
that there are significant pitfalls that can be encountered if SAV mapping
were to be undertaken without adequate ground truthing. The mapping
of marine vegetation strictly through the use of standard black and white
aerial photographs is not advisable.
Further investigation should be undertaken to define more clearly the site-
specific consequences that nitrogen inputs have on SAY in the Peconic
Estuary.
Projects should be conducted under controlled conditions to establish
eelgrass meadows artificially in carefully selected areas in the Peconic
Janus/1996 Pa~e S
Peconic Es~ua~/Pro,ram
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Study - Final Report
Estuary. It is recommended that the three-tiered approach that has been
developed for Chesapeake Bay be applied for the Peconic system, with the
first priority §iven to restoring areas currently or previously inhabited by
SAV as mapped through regional aerial surveys in the last 20 to 25 years
and which meet the habitat requirements of the species with respect to
key water quality parameters (i.e., total suspended solids, chlorophyll a_,
light attenuation coefficient, dissolved inorganic nitrogen, and dissolved
inorganic phosphorus). Consideration should be given to projects in the
following four areas:
a) the southerly spit off Gardiners Island;
b) Napeague Harbor;
c) the western shoreline of Hog Neck Bay; and
d) the eastern shoreline of Robins Island.
Additional field surveys should be undertaken in the future to better define
short-term and long-term trends in the distribution, abundance, and
density of SAV in the Peconic Estuary. Besides the four areas listed above
as potential sites for artificial eelgrass restoration, eleven areas have been
identified for consideration for follow-up monitoring, as follows:
a) northem portion of Southold Bay;
b) the northerly, easterly and southerly shorelines of Shelter Island;
c) the northern and eastern portion of Orient Harbor;
d) Hallock Bay;
e) Long Beach, about midway on the south side of the spit;
t) the central, southern and eastern portions of Northwest Harbor;
the northerly shoreline of Cedar Point;
(
Janua~ 1996 Pag~ 6
Peconic Estuah, Program Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Study - Final Report
h)
the shoreline in Gardiners Bay north from the mouth of Accabonac
Harbor to Uon's Head Rock;
i) the easterly shoreline of Gardiners Island;
j) Lake Montauk; and
k)
the Sag Harbor Cove complex, West Neck Harbor, Coecles Harbor,
Three Mile Harbor, and Accabonac Harbor, which have reportedly
experienced recent eelgrass die-off.
Studies should be undertaken to determine the habitat requirements for
eelgrass in the Peconic Estuary, in terms of quantifiable water quality
parameters, similar to investigations that have been performed in the
Chesapeake Bay with respect to total suspended solids, chlorophyll a_, light
attenuation coefficient, dissolved inorganic nitrogen, and dissolved
inorganic phosphorus.
Investigations should be undertaken to determine whether the spread of
C. fragile has had or is having a significant adverse effect on the Peconic
Estuary ecosystem.
Although the causative agent (the slime-mold-like protozoan, Labyrinthula
zosterae) has been identified, investigations should be undertaken to
identify the trigger mechanism that activates this organism and initiates
relapses of eelgrass "wasting disease". In addition, although anecdotal
reports suggest that some recent eelgrass die-offs in the Peconic Estuary
have been caused by wasting disease, further scientific investigation is
needed to determine the degree to which this disease affects thelocal
population dynamics of eelgrass.
Janua~/lg96 Pa~e 7
Peconic Estua~ Pro~-am
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Study - Final Report
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIL:Iaf
SECTION 1.1 - Study Ob_iectives
Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), as applied to this study, pertains to all types of
multicellular plant species found within the Peconic Estuary. This includes not only
rooted aquatic vegetation (e.g., eelgrass and widgeon grass), but also attached and
unattached macroalgae (e.g., green fl:::e, rock weed, brushy redweed, lacy redweed,
sea lettuce, kelp, etc.). Intertidal marsh grasses (e.g., Spartina alterniflora) are not
considered to be SAV and were not surveyed in this study.
It is important to note that this investigation uses the term "SAV" differently than a
number of previous investigations. For example, in recent studies of the Chesapeake
Bay system (Orth, et.al., 1992; The Ecologically Valuable Species Workgroup, 1993), the
Pamlico/Albemarle Sound complex in North Carolina (North Carolina Department of
Natural Resources and Community Development, 1990), and Tampa Bay (King
Engineedng~ 1994) only rooted vascular plants, including freshwater species found in the
upper reaches of tributary streams, were considered to be SAY; macroalgae were not
included in those surveys. However, similar to the present study, the recent estuarine
resource inventory of the Fire Island National Seashore and vicinity (New York State Sea
Grant Program, 1993) included macroalgae in the submerged aquatic vegetation
category.
Given the wide range of plant species that fall into the category of submerged aquatic
vegetation, it is clear that SAV beds constitute one of the most important habitats in the
Peconic Estuary. More specifically, this vegetation (especially eelgrass meadows)
provides the following essential habitat functions for the Estuary~s biot~
· SAV beds are responsible for a large portion of the primary production that forms
the base of the Estua~/s food chain.
SAV provides nursery areas, and shelter and protection for various species of
finfish and invertebrates, many of which are of recreational or commercial
importance.
(
Januan/~996 Pace 8
Peconic Estuan/Program Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Study - final Report
· SAV provides surfaces for the attachment of various epiphytes and epifauna,
which increases species diversity and abundance compared to areas that lack
vegetation.
· Eelgrass (Zostera marina) is an especially important habitat for the bay scallop
(Argooecten irradians), which historically has been an important commercial
resource in the Peconic Estuary.
For the reasons enumerated above, the status of SAV beds serves as an indicator of the
overall health of the Estuary. Additionally, SAY has a strong, generally positive effect on
certain physical and chemical processes in the estuary, including the following (Phillips
and Me~ez, 1988).
All SAV is involved in nutrient cycling, since these plants absorb nutrients (e.g.,
nitrogen and phosphorus) from the surrounding environment, and re-release
those nutrients through organic decay.
· Rooted SAV stabilizes bottom sediments, even through the enormous stresses
of hurricanes and northeast storms.
SAV slows currents and waves in the near-bottom zone and, thereby, promotes
sedimentation of particles from the water column, inhibits resuspension of
previously settled particles, and moderates water column turbidity.
Prior to the initiation of new investigations under the Peconic Estuary Program (PEP), the
technical data base was deficient with respect to the abundance, distribution and
density of SAY in the Peconic Estuary. This information gap has hampered planning and
management efforts for those ecological resources that are dependent upon SAV
(particularly bay scallops, which are closely associated with eelgrass beds). The present
investigation was developed to enhance and augment the existing information base by
providing a more detailed picture of the current and historical status of SAV in the study
area, which will aid in formulating a comprehensive management plan for the PEP.
In concise terms, the objectives of the Peconic Estuary Program Submerged Aquatic
Vegetation Study are as follows:
· to conduct a technical review of historical information regarding SAV in the
Peconic Estuary, including scientific reports, maps, and aerial photography;
January 1996 Pab~ 9
Peconic Estuary Pro,ram
Submerged AquatJc Vegetation Study - Final Report
· to create a complete, new set of aerial photographs of the Estuary, developed
under conditions that are optimal for the depiction of SAY;
· to assess the usefulness of aerial photography in delineating the distribution of
SAV beds in the Estuary;
to conduct a detailed field program to determine the current abundance,
distribution and density of SAV in the Estuary, which will serve as a vital baseline
fur future investigations;
· to compile the field survey data into a set of digitized maps, in a furmat
compatible with the Suffolk County data management system;
· to determine whether the distribution of SAV beds in the Estuary has undergone
significant historical changes in the past two to three decades;
· to identify physical factors that may affect the abundance, distribution and density
of SAY in the Estuary;
to develop a series of management recommendations, including actions for
mitigating both natural and human-induced factors that can cause adverse
impacts to SAV;
· to outline feasible programs for the enhancement and restoration of SAV beds;
and
· to develop a series of recommendations for future investigations of SAV in the
Estuary.
The primary focus is placed on rooted vascular plants, particularly eelgrass (Zostera
marina) beds, which are generally regarded as more ecologically important than
macmalgae in estuarine environments.
SECTION 1.2 - GeoL~ra_ phic Descrip§on of Study_ Area
The Peconic Estuary system comprises the coastal waters between the North and South
Forks of eastern Long Island (Map 1). Although the study area for the overall Peconic
(
January 1996 pa&e .10
Peconic Estuary Pro&ram Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Study - Final Repot:
Estuary Program includes adjacent uplands within the groundwater and surface water-
contributing area, this SAV investigation is concerned only with the system's tidal waters
eastward as far as the line between Orient Point and Montauk Point. These coastal
waters are divided among Suffolk County's five eastern Towns: Riverhead and Southold
on the North Fork; Southampton and East Hampton on the South Fork; and Shelter
Island between the Forks.
The Peconic Estuary comprises a total of approximately 100,000 acres of water area (156
square miles or 404 square kilometers - SCDHS, 1992), which is naturally divided by
peninsulas (necks) and islands into a series of interconnected embayments. These
include:
1) the inner Estuary (west of Robins Island) - Flanders Bay (including Reeves Bay)
and Great Peconic Bay;
2)
the middle Estuary- Little Peconic Bay (including Cutchogue Harbor and Hog
Neck Bay), West Neck Harbor, Noyack Bay, Sag Harbor Bay, Sag Harbor Cove,
Northwest Harbor, Southold Bay, Shelter Island Sound, and Orient Harbor
(including Long Beach Bay and Hallock Bay); and
3)
the outer Estuary (east of Shelter Island) - Gardiners Bay (including Coecles Inlet
and Three Mile Harbor), Napeague Bay (including Accabonac Harbor and
Napeague Harbor), and western Block Island Sound (including Lake Montauk).
Numerous additional small bays, harbors, inlets, and creeks extend from the major
embayments listed above. These are shown on the Geographic Location Map (Map 2).
Non-point discharges from groundwater seepage and runoff constitute the greatest
source of freshwater received by the Estuary. The Peconic River is the primary point
source of fresh surface water input to the Estuary, discharging into Flanders Bay at the
western end of the system. The headwaters of the Peconic River are located in the
Town of Brookhaven, near the intersection of William Floyd Parkway (Suffolk County
Road 46) and Middle Country Road (State Route 25). The River and its tributary streams
are about 15 miles in total length.
More than 60 freshwater creeks flow into the Estuary at various points along the
shoreline of both the North and South Forks and Shelter Island (SCDHS, BTCAMP,
1992). These creeks are generally short in length, and have a discharge derived
primarily from groundwater underflow.
Januan/1996 p~ge J1
Peconic Estuan/Program
Submerged Aquatic Ve&etation Study - Final Report
The Peconic Estuary is characterized as a shallow, vertically well-mixed estuary which
has little or no seasonal stratification. Circulation is horizontal and is caused almost
entirely by tidal flow, which greatly exceeds freshwater input (SCDHS, BTCAMP, 1992).
Salinity generally increases from west to east, as one travels further from the major
freshwater input from the Peconic River and closer to the open waters of the Atlantic
Ocean off Block Island Sound.
Water depths in the Peconic Estuary vary greatly among the major embayments, as
described below (Hardy, 1976).
· Flanders Bay - the shallowest major bay, with an average depth of 1.5 meters (5
feet), and a 4.6-meter (15-foot) maximum depth
· Great Peconic Bay - average depth of 4.6 meters (15 feet); deepest point at 10.4
meters (34 feet), within the South Race off Robins Island
Uttle Peconic Bay - average depth of 6.4 meters (21 feet); deepest point at 21
meters (68 feet) in the channel between Hog Neck and Jessups Neck, and 19
meters (61 feet) just east of the southerly tip of Uttle Hog Neck
Waters around Shelter Island - average depth of 4.9 meters (16 feet); deepest
points at 29 meters (95 feet) in the channel south of Greenport, and 24 meters
(78 feet) in Shelter Island Sound, west of Great Hog Neck
Gardiners Bay and Block Island Sound - depths generally range from 8 meters (25
feet) to 12 meters (40 feet) to the east of Gardiners Island, with a maximum of
58 meters (190 feet) in Plum Gut (between Orient Point and Plum Island); depths
to the east of Gardiners Island are highly variable, ranging from shoal areas near
the shore to almost 90 meters (300 feet) in The Race (to the west of Fishers
Island)
The mean tidal range in the Peconic Estuary generally decreases slightly from west to
east, as follows: 0.82 meter (2.7 feet) in Flanders Bay, 0.76 meter (2.5 feet) in Great
Peconic Bay, 0.73 meter (2.4 feet) in Little Peconic Bay and around Shelter Island, 0.76
meter (2.5 feet) in Gardiners Bay, 0.67 meter (2.2 feet) at Uttle Gull Island (east of Plum
Island), and 0.61 meter (2.0 feet) at Montauk Point. It takes approximately three hours
for the tidal wave to travel from Orient Point to Riverhead.
{
January 1~J6 Pac. 12
Peconic Estua~' P~ogram Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Study - Final Report
.SECtqON 1.3 - Pro~_'ect Back=~ro_ und
The National Estuary Program (NEP) was established in 1987 as part of the Clean Water
Act Amendments to develop management plans to protect the ecological integrity of
nationally significant estuaries that are threatened by pollution, development, or
overuse. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency manages the overall Program, and
local agencies oversee each individual NEP project.
The original, Tier One list for the NEP consisted of six projects, including the Long Island
Sound Study. Eleven more estuaries were subsequently added to the Program during
Tiers Two and Three. The Peconic Estuary was admitted into the NEP in the Fall of
1992. The Peconic Estuary Program (PEP) is overseen by the Suffolk County Department
of Health Sendces (SCDHS).
Each estuary in the NEP is subject to a four-phase process that ultimately leads to the
development and implementation of a Comprehensive Conservation and Management
Plan (CCMP). The four phases of the NEP, as they apply to the Peconic Estuary, are
described below.
During Phase 1, a Management Conference is established to identify the particular
problems that pertain to the estuary under investigation. The Management Conference,
which is the decision-making framework that carries out the NEP process, involves all
interested parties, including citizen and user groups, scientific and technical institutions,
and relevant government agencies and resources managers at the federal, state and
local levels. The PEP Management Conference was established in April 1993, and work
plans were developed throughout 1993 by members of the management team, thereby
completing Phase 1 of the process.
Phase 2 entails characterizing the specific problems that apply to the estuary under
investigation. This phase of the NEP process relies mainly on existing scientific
information, with additional technical studies conducted to fill in the most critical
information gaps. Estuary characterization focuses on known facts about the current
status of estuary health, estuary problems and their likely causes and sources, and any
historical or spatial trends that are apparent. The initial work to be performed under
Phase 2 for the PEP was outlined in a Request for Proposals issued by the SCDHS in
December 1993. In addition to the present SAV investigation, the inventory and
technical assessment studies that were initiated for the Peconic Estuary in 1994 include:
surface water quality modeling; sediment and nutrient fluxes; estuarine use and
economic value assessment; toxic substances and sediment characterization; and
January 19~6 Pa~e.13
Peconic Estuary Program
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Study - Final Report
identification of rare, endangered, threatened, and special concern wildlife species, and
critical habitat areas.
Based on the information gathered during Phase 2, the CCMP is designed, developed,
and adopted during Phase 3. The CCMP is a "blueprint for restoring the estuary'
(USEPA, April 1992), which establishes specific goals and objectives for solving the
identified problems and restoring the estuary. To help ensure success, the CCMP
requires a detailed plan for implementation, which includes a funding pregrar~,
monitoring strategy, and ongoing public participation component.
During Phase 4, the mitigation actions prescribed in the CCMP are implemented under
the auspices of the 1987 Water Quality Act Amendments of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act and other State and local regulations.
SECTION 1.4 - Ovendew of Investigative Approach
The methodology used in this submerged aquatic vegetation investigation consisted of
four primary components, summarized as follows.
1)
A thorough review was conducted of existing scientific literature regarding SAV
in terms of its ecological significance, as well as its historic abundance and
importance to the Peconic System. This review included consultation with
informed individuals regarding their knowledge of SAV abundance, as well as their
knowledge of data and information sources concerning SAV in this region.
2)
An extensive field survey was conducted to: determine the SAV species present
in the Estuary, measure the density of SAV throughout the Estuary, map current
distribution and abundance of SAY beds, and identify physical parameters (e.g.,
sediment characteristics, water clarity, depth, salinity, temperature) that may
affect the distribution, abundance and density of SAY.
3)
New aerial photography of the Estuary was obtained to assist in delineating the
current distribution of SAV. As noted previously, the photographic flight was
conducted under conditions optimal for seagrass detection.
(
JaJluary 1996 Page .'14
Peconic Estuary Program Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Study - Final Report
4) Historic aerial photographs were examined and compared to the current aerial
photographs to determine whether any trends in the distribution of SAV in the
Estua~/could be detected.
Based on the information gathered during the tasks outlined above, a series of
management recommendations were developed for long-term SAV protection and
restoration. These recommendations include: actions for mitigating factors, both natural
and human-induced, that can cause adverse impacts to SAV; programs for the
enhancement and restoration of SAV beds; and future research and monitoring
requirements.
Janua~/1996 Pa&e,lS
Peconic Estuan/program
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Study - Final Report
SECTION 2
REViI_:~ OF EXISTING DATA AND UTERATURE
SECTION 2.1 - Ecologi_'cal Im_oodance of SAV
The ecological importance of SAV was briefly discussed in the introduction in Section
1, and is described in additional detail here.
A. Primas7 Production
Primary production refers to the process by which green plants utilize solar
energy (via photosynthesis) to convert basic compounds available in the
environment into biomass. This vegetative biomass forms the base of the food
chain that sUpports herbivores, which graze on the plants, and predators, which
feed upon the herbivores and each other. The daily primary production rates in
eelgrass meadows rank among the highest in marine plant ecosystems (Thayer,
et.al., 1984).
The direct consumption of SAV by herbivores is not the only way that the primary
production of these plants becomes available to organisms higher in the food
chain. Much of the energy produced in SAV beds is released to higher trophic
levels through the detritus generated when the plants die (where detritus is
defined as the decaying plant matter, as well as the associated microorganisms).
In fact, generally no more than 10 percent of the net production of vascular
marine plants in temperate ecosystems is consumed directly; the remaining 90
percent of net production is made available to higher tropic levels through detrital
matter. It is generally assumed that detritus is enriched through microbial
growth, and that detritivores derive their nutrition mainly from the resident
microbial meiofaunal community (Thayer, eLal., 1985). The relative importance
of detritus as a source of energy in a given community can vary greatly, however,
and depends largely upon the decay rate of the plants (which determines how
readily this material becomes available to detritus feeders), the ability of grazers
to directly utilize the SAV present in the community, and the rate at which
detritus is exported via waves and currents.
In general, few organisms graze directly on living eelgrass blades, due possibly
to the relatively high fraction of cellulose in eelgrass blades, which is not
(
J ~nu~ 1~ Pa~e,16
Peconic ~stua~y Program Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Study - Fina~ Report
digestible by most herbivores, and/or the presence of chemicals which inhibit
grazing. Additionally, eelgrass tends to decay at a faster rate than other rooted
aquatic species such as marsh grasses and, therefore, becomes more quickly
available to detrital feeders. As a result, the detritus generated from the decaying
leaves provides the nutritional foundation of the complex food web that exists in
eelgrass communities (Thayer, et.al., 1984 and 1985). One notable species that
does utilize living eelgrass plants directly as a food source is the Atlantic brant
(Branta bernicla), a small goose that winters in many Long Island bays.
The total primary production of an SAV community can be greatly augmented by
epiphytic algae that affix to the SAV surfaces. In some well-structured seagrass
communities, it is possible that the contribution of the seagrass component may
be only one-half of the overall primary productivity of the community (Phillips
and MeRez, 1988).
B. Nutrient Cy. dine
All organisms require certain nutrients, particularly nitrogen and phosphorus
compounds, to function and grow. Aquatic plants absorb nutrients directly from
the overlying water and (for rooted plants) from the interstitial waters in bottom
sediments, thereby making the essential nutrients available to herbivores, which
in turn provide these substances to predatory animals.
Elemental nitrogen (N2) is not directly usable by most green plants, including the
majority of SAV species. Instead, these plants rely on nitrate (NO~), nitrite (NO2),
and ammonia (NH3) to satisfy their nitrogen requirements. In a process called
nitrogen fixation, blue-green algae, which exist as epiphytes on certain SAV
species, convert N~ to a chemical form that is usable by the host plants. Some
studies have shown that nitrogen fixation can supply one-half or more of the
nitrogen requirements of a seagrass meadow (Phillips and Me~ez, 1988).
Therefore, the SAY species which harbor nitrogen-fixing blue-green algae serve
an important ecological function because nitrogen is generally the nutrient that
limits the overall productivity of a marine community.
Nutrient cycles in the marine environment are typically very complex. However,
it is clear that fully developed eelgrass meadows are an important sink for
nutrients. For example, a study conducted by Greene, et.al. (1977) concluded
that the quantity of nitrogen stored in the standing stock of eelgrass in eastern
Janua/y 1996 Pa~e.17
Peconic Estuan/Program
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Study - Final Report
Great South Bay in the spring and summer of 1977 was approximately five times
the total annual external input of nitrogen via streamflow, subsurface flow, and
rainfall; the quantity of phosphorus in the eelgrass was calculated to be
approximately ten times the total annual external input of that element.
A healthy eelgrass community in a given water body absorbs nutrients that may
otherwise have the potential to spur phytoplankton blooms (Elder, 1976).
Extreme phytoplankton blooms can have a negative overall effect on the estuarine
ecosystem, by increasing the turbidity of the water column and, thereby,
diminishing the degree of light penetration, which can reduce the rate of primary
production of benthic vegetation. Additional problems can occur when the
bloom organisms die, and subsequent organic decay consumes oxygen in the
water column, especially in the near-bottom layer.
Epiphytes that grow on eelgrass also contribute to the cycling of nutrients. As
noted previously, epiphytes can account for a large fraction of the plant biomass
in a seagrass community, which would absorb a proportionately large amount of
dissolved nutrients from the water column. Many herbivores that dwell in
seagrass communities feed upon epiphytes and, in turn, are fed upon by
predators, resulting in the nutrients passing to higher trophic levels. However,
nutrient enrichment can lead to excessive growth ofepiphytes which exceeds the
feeding ability of the grazers (U.S. EPA, 1992). In cases of excessive epiphyte
growth, the underlying leaves are shaded, which can cause a decline in the
eelgrass. Thus, a delicate balance exists between the nutrient requirements of
eelgrass, and the potential for blooms of both phytoPlankton and epiphytes to
adversely affect eelgrass under conditions of nutrient enrichment.
Macroalgae also play an important role in the nutrient cycle in marine
ecosystems. In fact, certain, rapidly-growing macroalgae may actually benefit
eelgrass by acting as a "nutrient sponge", thereby mitigating the adverse effects
of nutrient enrichment on Z. marina. (Harlin, 1978).
Habitat
One of the most important ecological roles played by SAV, especially eeigrass,
involves its role as the foundation of a productive marine ecosystem (similar to
coral reefs), which provides habitat to a large variety of organisms. Besides the
Janua~/1996 Page.18
Peconic Eseda~y program Submerged Aquatic Ve&etation S~udy - Final Report
food energy produced by SAV, these plants serve the following essential habitat
functions.
SAV increases the complexity of the habitat, creating more ecological
niches and, thereby, increases the diversity and abundance of both species
and individuals within the community, compared to unvegetated areas in
similar physical environments. In particular, the blades and
roots/rhizomes of an eelgrass community create additional habitat above
and below the sediment-water interface, respectively. This creates three
primary habitat layers: epiphytes, consisting mostly of diatoms and
macroalgae, and epifauna, consisting mostly of worms, snails, crustaceans,
and various larval forms; infauna, consisting mostly of worms, bivalves and
crustaceans; and demersal and water column dwellers, consisting mostly
of fish and crustaceans (Ware,-1993). Macroalgae also increase habitat
diversity, but only above the sediment-water interface, since these plants
lack roots and rhizomes.
SAV provides shelter for prey organisms seeking refuge from predators.
This habitat function is especially important to bivalve species (scallops,
oysters, and clams), as well as baitfish and juvenile finfish.
SAV provides surfaces for the attachment of a large number of epiphytes
(including macroalgae, micmalgae, fungi, and bacteria), which are
extensively grazed, thereby increasing the total biomass of herbivores and
higher trophic levels that can be supported within the community. The
epiphyte-dependent fauna (especially gastropods and amphipods) serves
as an important food for a number of fish species (Thayer, et.al., 1984).
SAV provides primary nursery areas for various life history stages of
organisms that are important both ecologically, and to commercial and
recreational fisheries. This nursery function is related mainly to three
essential criteria (i.e., the availability of plentiful food, places to hide from
predators, and substrate for attachment by sessile stages) which are
fulfilled by SAV beds.
SAV creates drag forces that retard water currents, which results in more
stable physical environmental conditions than would otherwise exist at a
given location. For example, the hydrodynamic conditions created by
eelgrass beds are known to be important for the recruitment of benthic
January 1996 Page~ 19
Peconic ~$tua~y Pro~'am
Submerged Aquatic Ve§etation Study - Final Report
organisms that have planktonic larval stages, especially the bay scallop.
The decreased water velocity caused by eelgrass blades creates a quiet
aqueous environment from which the larvae can settle. The slow currents
in an eelgrass meadow are also believed to be important to the growth
and survival of the scallops; increased currents may cause newly set
scallops to become dislodged from their byssal attachment to the
substrate (Eckman, 1987).
The decreased current energy in SAV beds also reduces the rate at which
detritus is exported from the area, maintaining a larger fraction of this
important food source within the community.
The root-rhizome system of vascular aquatic plants provides additional
cohesiveness to the substrate, thereby increasing the overall stability of
the habitat.
The decay of the roots and rhizomes of seagrasses provides a significant
direct in-situ input of detritus to the sediments, which becomes available
to benthic organisms within the seagrass community.
Despite the role of SAV in redudng currents and retaining detritus, a
significant amount of organic matter (both particulate and dissolved
fractions) generated by SAY communities is still exported by currents,
thereby augmenting the productivity of adjacent areas. The rate of export
of detritus from eelgrass beds is dependent on the physical properties of
the beds and the water movement characteristics at a given location
(Thayer, et.al., 1985).
Another way in which energy produced within an SAV community is
exported is by means of mobile organisms (particularly fish) that feed
within the SAY beds and are then themselves consumed by other
organisms at other locations. Thayer, et.al. (1984) indicate that the
amount of biomass removed from eelgrass meadows in this manner is
considerable.
One of the most important habitat associations that occurs with respect to SAV
in the Peconic system is the relationship between the bay scallop (~_o.oecten
irradians) and eel§rass (Zostera marina). Numerous studies have shown that bay
scallops depend on the grass blades for attachment of the postlarvae.
(
Janua,'y 1996 Page,20
Peconic Estuary Program Submerged Aquatic Vegetation study - Final Repo;t
Additionally, phytoplankton which may become concentrated within eelgrass
beds due to the baffling effect of the grass blades, serve as the primary food
source for these filter feeding animals. Small-particle detritus generated from the
eelgrass meadows may also be utilized as food by bay scallops (Thayer, et.al.,
1984). A well-documented crash in bay scallop populations following the near-
total demise of eastern United States eelgrass beds in the early 1930s clearly
demonstrates in qualitative terms the large degree to which this commercially
and recreationally important shellfish species relies upon eelgrass (see Section
2.2~ for further discussion). However, the value of eelgrass to the life cycle of
the bay scallop in the Peconic system has not been quantified (SCDHS, 1992).
SECTION 2.2 - Hi~;tnrical p=ttams of SAV Abundance and Distribution
Prior investigations of SAY in the Peconic Estuary have focused mostly on eelgrass
because of the previously discussed association of the commercially important shellfish
~ irradians (bay scallop) with this vegetative species. Studies that have been
conducted in adjacent water bodies, particularly Long Island's south shore estuary
complex, are briefly discussed to supplement the site-specific information that is
available for the Peconic Estuary.
I~_~onal and C. Inlal Historical Trends in Eel_erass Disl~ibution
The entire eelgrass stock suffered a catastrophic decline throughout its range in
North America and Europe during 1931 and 1932. This so-called %vasting
disease" led to the destruction of an estimated 90 percent of the eelgrass along
the Atlantic coast. However, eelgrass beds in waters with a salinity less than 12
to 15 parts per thousand apparently were immune to the effects of the wasting
disease, and provided seed stocks for the subsequent recolonization that
eventually took place in more saline areas which were decimated by the disease
(Thayer, et.al., 1984). Recovery throughout Great South Bay and other south
shore bays on Long Island was also reported to have occurred based on remnant
eelgrass populations in up-estuary, Iow-salinity areas, and full recovery apparently
required more than several decades (Burkholder and Doheny, 1968).
The eelgrass wasting disease characteristically begins as small black lesions on
the healthy growing leaves. The necrotic spots quickly spread along the leaves
Page
Janua~
Peconic Estuary Program
Submerged Aqua~ic Vegetation Study - Final Report
and coalesce, eventually turning the entire leaf black (Short, et.al., 1993). With
the photosynthetic apparatus of the leaves destroyed in this manner, the entire
plant (including roots and rhizomes) will quickly succumb.
Although the early 1930s demise of the eelgrass beds resulted in a dramatic
upsurge in ecological research in the marine environment in both North America
and Europe, the cause of the wasting disease was not pinpointed until recently.
The responsible organism is a slime-mold-like protozoan, Labyrinthula zosterae,
that is worldwide in distribution and has infected eelgrass plants where no actual
population declines have yet been observed (Short, et.al., 1991; Short, et.al.,
1993). The combined effect of environmental factors conducive to the growth
of Lab_vrinthula and which induce stress in eelgrass appears to be responsible for
episodes of the disease (Burkholder and Doheny, 1968).
The widespread loss of eelgrass beds in the early 1930s had both geomorphic
and biological consequences. The most obvious physical effects were those
associated with the interaction between hydrology and sediment characteristics.
After the eelgrass disappeared, the substrate within the former bed areas
generally became coarser, and long, permanent sand bars built up. Sandy
beaches that had once been protected by the eelgrass became rocky slopes
(Thayer, et.al., 1984).
The early 1930s wasting disease epidemic also resulted in changes to the
biological communities within and adjacent to the former eelgrass beds, although
not to the overall degree that was initially anticipated. Some studies showed that
certain species which had lived on or among the grass blades disappeared
completely and that overall species abundance decreased. However, the
populations of most major commercial and recreational species generally did not
experience large declines, at least within the detection capabilities of the harvest
statistics of that time. As a notable exception, a crash of both the bay scallop
Leu~_opecten irradians) and Atlantic brant ~Branta bemida hrota) populations was
documented immediately after the eelgrass meadows disappeared. The Canada
goose ~Branta canadensis), black duck (Anas rubri_oes), scaup ~Avth_va spp.),
redhead ~Avthva americana), and other waterfowl species suffered less dramatic
population declines (Thayer, et.al., 1984; Wilson and Brenowitz, 1966).
The North Carolina bay scallop harvest (in terms of the weight of shucked meats)
showed a dramatic decline from a high of 1.4 million pounds in 1928 to 91,000
pounds in 1932, followed by 13 more years of fairly steady decline to a Iow of
Janumy 1996 Pa~e,22
Peconic Estuary Program Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Study - Final Report
just 22,000 pounds in 1945; this scallop fishery did not return to pre-wasting
disease levels until the 1960s. The harvest from the Delmarva peninsula area of
Chesapeake Bay declined precipitously from 56,000 pounds in 1930 to 38,000
pounds in 1931, 20,000 pounds in 1932, and zero during the period between
1933 and 1981 (Thayer, et. al., 1984).
Some scientists have noted that eelgrass and other submerged vascular plant
communities at certain locations exhibited oscillations in abundance prior to the
1930s, including declines in 1854, 1894 and 1913 (Burkholder and Doheny, 1968;
Wilson and Brenowitz, 1966) and followed by periods of recovery. It is possible
that these variations were in response to environmental changes, both natural
and man-induced. The 1970s is cited as another period of general decline of
eelgrass in Chesapeake Bay, which was more severe than the episode during the
1930s and with a less successful recovery. A similar oscillation during the 1970s
was not noted for North Carolina's eelgrass beds 0rhayer, et.al., 1984); however,
a general eelgrass decline recurred along the entire east coast of the U.S. in the
1980s (Short, et.al., 1991; Short, et.al., 1993).
A study conducted by Short, eLal. (1993) showed that eelgrass distribution in
several embayments on the eastern coast of the U.S. underwent dramatic shifts
in distribution during the 1980s. For example, eel§rass meadows in the Great
Bay reserve in Massachusetts (north of Boston) are reported to have expanded
after 1981 until they covered most of the bay bottom, except deep channel areas,
in July 1984. The eelgrass coverage in the bay gradually declined due to wasting
disease during the subsequent five years, and by July 1989 only remnant beds
remained. By October 1989, eel§rass beds had dramatically expanded again,
although not nearly to the extent that was documented in 1984.
In addition to the historical role played by disease, human activities recently have
also exhibited a strong intluence on the patterns of eelgrass distribution and
abundance. Nutrient loading to surface waters derived primarily from stormwater
runoff and sewage effluent can spur phytoplankton growth. Excessive
concentrations (i.e., "blooms") of phytoplankton decrease water column
transparency, and can thereby decrease the degree of sunlight penetration to the
point that eelgrass beds no longer receive sufficient solar energy to survive.
Recent research (Burkholder, 1993; and Burkholder, et.aL, 1992) suggests that
elevated nitrate concentrations in the water column may also have a direct,
adverse affect on eelgrass physiological function - see Section 4,a~1 .a for further
discussion.
Jaml~y 1996 Page.23
Peconic Estuary Program
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation study - Final Repo~
Enhanced growth of epiphytes on eelgrass blades is another potential
consequence of elevated nutrient levels which can diminish the amount of light
absorption by the eelgrass plants. For example, sewage discharges and
agricultural drainage in a Danish estuary created a nitrate gradient that resulted
in a 100-fold increase in epiphyte growth during the summer at the most
enriched locations; this algal growth was implicated in the decline of the host
plants (Borom, 1985). Elevated nutrient levels can also accelerate the growth of
fr=c living green or red macroalgae, which absorb nutrients more rapidly than
eelgrass, and can crowd out the eelgrass beds. In quiet embayments and
sheltered lagoons having reduced tidal flushing, epiphytes and macroalgae can
respond so quickly to water column nitrate enrichment that they may seasonally
outgrow grazing pressure (Burkholder 1993).
The three scenarios of an eelgrass community's response to nutrient enrichment
(i.e., phytoplankten domination, macroalgae domination, and excessive epiphyte
growth, as described above) have all been observed in the field. All three of
these effects promote a reduction in eelgrass density that can ultimately lead to
the elimination of an eelgrass population altogether. Areas that have experienced
identifiable eelgrass declines resulting from human-induced pollution include:
Chesapeake Bay (U.S. EPA, 1992); Waquoit Bay, Massachusetts; and Indian River,
Florida (Short, et.al., 1991; Short, et.al., 1993).
Importantly, the area most affected by human influences is the upper portion of
an estuary. As previously noted, however, these lower salinity reaches of the
estuary are least susceptible to wasting disease. Thus, pollution derived from
human activities is reducing eelgrass populations in the very areas that provide
the surviving seed stocks that are essential to the recovery of portions of the
estuary that are typically decimated by episodes of wasting disease (Short, et.al.,
1991). Furthermore, reduced light penetration caused by nutrient enrichment
may increase the severity of eelgrass losses during an episode of wasting disease
(Short, et.al., 1993).
In addition to the long-term trends in abundance discussed above, eelgrass
populations are also known to undergo shorter-term variations associated with
climatic factors. Typical seasonal trends in eelgrass growth include periods of
die-back of the upper part of the leaves and the older part of the rhizomes during
the hottest part of the summer and the coldest part of the winter (Burkholder
and Doheny, 1968). Periods of prolonged high or Iow water temperatures can
cause a decline in the eelgrass beds that are not fully compensated by the
Janua~ 19~ pa&e
Peconic ~stuazy Program Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Stud~ - Final Report
growing season during the following spring or fall. For example, an observed
decrease in the abundance of the eelgrass beds in eastern Great South Bay
during 1977 was attributed to the combined impact of a record-breaking heat
wave during the summer of that year and a preceding winter that was unusually
cold; ice scouring of the beds in shallow waters during the winter of 1976-77 may
also have contributed to the reduction in eelgrass abundance (Greene, et.al.,
1977). Individual storm events can also cause a significant loss of plant material
from SAV beds, which may or may not be recovered by subsequent recruitment,
depending on whether the storm also altered other critical environmental
conditions (especially with respect to water depth, and wave and current regime).
Burial by sediments transported by storms may also cause important changes in
SAV distribution.
Besides the temperature stress-induced variations described above, eelgrass beds
also undergo growth variation in response to normal seasonal changes in water
temperature and incident solar light. This seasonal variation generally includes
growth in the spring, reproductive growth and seed production during the
summer (possibly with a marked die-back in the hottest part of the summer),
additional vegetative growth in the fall, and winter die-back (Burkholder and
Doheny, 1968). See Section 4.1 ~(1)(a) for further discussion of the life history
of eelgrass.
B. Eel_erass Investigations within the Peconic Estuary_
Eelgrass studies were conducted within the Peconic Estuary in association with
the Brown Tide Comprehensive Assessment and Management Pro~ram (SCDHS,
BTCAMP, 1992), which incorporated the findings of a report to the SCDHS by
Dennison (1990) titled "Brown Tide Algae Blooms: Possible Long-Term Impacts
on Eelgrass Distribution and Abundance". That work was also discussed in a
1989 report by Dennison, et.al.
'Brown tidem is the common name given to an extensive bloom of a single species
of the rapidly reproducing phytoplankton Aureococcus Lngi~~. Brown
tides were first identified in the Peconic Estuary in 1985, and have been observed
in the Estuary during subsequent years. Certain portions of the Peconic system,
particularly Flanders Bay and West Neck Bay, have generally experienced more
intense blooms, although in some years brown tides occurred throughout the
Estuary (SCDHS, 1992). Brown tides are unusual due to the extreme dominance
J anus/1996 Page.25
Peconic Estu~ Pro,ram
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Study - Final Report
of a single species. Typically, phytoplankton blooms are characterized by a wide
diversity of forms and species (Cosper, et.al, 1987).
The causes for the onset of a brown tide bloom are presently unknown, although
some researchers have theorized that the availability of certain micronutrients,
which enter the bays through freshwater inputs and groundwater flow, is
important. Other researchers have hypothesized that seasonal changes in the
pattern of flushing and tidal, exchange within the Peconic system may be
responsible for initiating and sustaining brown tides to some degree. Precipitation
levels may also influence the onset of brown tides. Further research is needed
in all of these areas (SCDHS, 1992). Enrichment of coastal bays with the more
traditional inorganic nutrients does not appear to be a major factor in brown tide
development. Field surveys revealed that the concentrations of nitrate, nitrite,
and phosphate were not elevated prior to and during recent brown tide episodes
in the Peconic Estuary (SCDHS, 1992).
Anecdotal reports of large-scale eelgrass wash-ups on local beaches during the
mid 1980s suggested that the on-going brown tides were having a direct, adverse
effect on eelgrass populations in the Peconic Estuary. Some scientific field
investigations supported this conclusion. For example, based on limited in-situ
observations in the Peconic Estuary and Great South Bay Cosper, et.al. (1987)
concluded that the brown tides of 1985 and 1986 caused significant de~eases
in the depth range, spatial extent, and leaf biomass of eelgrass beds in those two
water bodies.
Dennison and co-investigators (1989 and 1990) used black and white aerial
photography to define the distribution of eelgrass in the Peconic Estuary during
the brown tide period. Based on their analysis, Dennison, et.al. (1989) concluded
that in 1988 there was no eelgrass in the inner and middle Peconic Estuary, while
13.5 square kilometers in Gardiners Bay were occupied by eelgrass beds.
However, pre-brown tide aerial photographs were not analyzed as part of that
investigation.
In order to assess historic trends in eelgrass distribution that may be related to
the effects of brown tides, Dennison, et.al. (1989) conducted interviews with
marina operators and fisherman. Those verbal accounts indicated that eelgrass
was previously present in a number of areas in the outer Estuary which were
reportedly devoid of eelgrass in the 1988 survey, including: Accabonac Harbor,
Three Mile Harbor, Northwest Harbor, and the Estuary to the west of Shelter
Janualy 1996
peconic Estuary Pro,-am Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Study - Final Report
Island. It should be noted, however, that the absence of eelgrass beds in
Northwest Harbor as reported by Dennison, et.al. (1989) is disputed by some
local investigators, who found fairly thick and lush beds down to six feet during
extensive studies conducted in that water body in 1988 (Christopher Smith,
Cornell Cooperative Extension of Suffolk County, telephone communication,
September 22, 1995).
The reported decline of eelgrass beds during brown tide events in the outer
Peconic Estuary since 1985 has been tied to the shading effect of high
concentrations of Aureococcus in the water column (Dennison, et.al., 1989). As
described in Section 2.1 .B, this relationship is logical on the basis of fundamental
physical laws, since the presence of large numbers of microscopic phytoplankton
would increase the scattering of sunlight and decrease the depth of light
penetration. Cosper, et.al. (lg87) found that Secchi depths at their Peconic
Estuary study locations were less than one meter throughout the bloom periods,
in contrast to several meters during pre-bloom summer months. Plants that are
at the species' depth 'limit for clear water conditions would be expected to
decline due to the lack of sufficient light energy in turbid waters created by the
brown tide, thereby diminishing the plant's distribution in the affected water
body. In-situ manipulation experiments and transplant studies (Dennison and
Alberte, 1985 and 1986) demonstrate that light availability controls the maximum
depth penetration of eelgrass and controls eelgrass growth in deeper parts of its
distribution.
No definitive conclusion was drawn by Dennison, et.al. (1989) regarding the
underlying cause for the reported historical decline in eelgraSs beds in the middle
and inner Peconic Estuary. However, it was suggested that nutrient enrichment,
combined with a slow water turnover rate in the portion of the Estuary to the
west of Shelter Island, may have caused blooms of phytoplankton and/or
epiphytes which diminished the amount of light received by former eelgrass
stands.
Brown tides have also had a well-documented, dramatic effect on bay scallop
populations in the study area. Data provided in the BTCAMP study (SCDHS,
1992) show a decline in the Peconic Estuary scallop harvest between 1974
(683,000 pounds of shucked meats, under the pre-brown tide condition) and
lg88 (250 pounds, after several years of recurrent brown tides). It is possible
that this trend may be due in part to the reported loss of eelgrass beds caused
by the brown tides. As discussed in Section 2.1.C, eelgrass beds are an
pa&e,27
January 1996
Peconic Estunry Progr~n
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Study - Final Report
especially important habitat for juvenile bay scallops. However, the crash of the
bay scallop fishery in the Peconic Estuary was also due in large part to the direct,
physiological effect of Aureococcus on filter feeding organisms (which include
oysters and clams, as well as scallops). During a bloom, this phytoplankter is the
dominant component of suspended matter in the water column. However, it is
believed that Aureococcus has a relatively Iow nutritional value, is too small to
be efficiently retained by the filter feeding apparatus of shellfish, produces a toxin
that inhibits feeding by shellfish, and possesses structural features which impair
digestion. Due to these factors, it is hypothesized that bay scallops are unable
to take in a suffident quantity of food during brown tides to fully support their
biological activities, resulting in retarded growth and higher mortality (SCDHS,
1992).
A similar, downward trend occurred with respect to landings of the American
oyster {Crassostrea virg_inica} during brown tide years. The harvest of oysters
from the Peconic system declined from more than 1.5 million pounds in 1976 to
less than 900 pounds in 1989. Since oysters are not dependent on eelgrass beds
for habitat to the same degree as bay scallops, the direct physiological effects of
Aureococcus are probably the primary cause of the documented decline in the
Peconic Estuary oyster population. Reported decreases in the distribution of'
eelgrass in the Estuary during brown tide years were probably not a major factor
in the crash of the oyster fishery.
An investigation of the northern portion of Lake Montauk was undertaken by
Flagg and Greene (1981), primarily to assess the impacts of shoreline
development on shellfish resources; however, related parameters, such as the
abundance and distribution of eelgrass, were also examined. During their field
storey, conducted in December 1980, those investigators observed eelgrass at
varying densities throughout their study area, except for a single station in the
middle of the channel. The densest beds were generally found in sheltered areas
adjacent to the shore. Eelgrass was present in a wide range of sediment types,
from mud to gravelly sand. The observed distribution was attributed to water
depth and its affect on light attenuaUon; eelgrass was found to be most abundant
in waters less than I meter deep, moderately abundant in waters 1 to 2 meters
(3.3 to 6.6 feet) deep, and sparse or absent at depths over 2 meters. Eelgrass
was found growing to a maximum depth of 3.4 meters (11.2 feet) in areas closest
to the inlet, where water clarity was greatest. Green fleece (Codium fragile) was
found among a moderately dense bed of eelgrass, in one small area covered by
(
January 1996 Pi~e 28
Peconic Estua~/Program Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Study - Final Report
two stations. Common southern kelp (Laminaria a_eardhi) was found at the single
station at which eelgrass was absent.
Flagg and Greene (1981) observed Iow abundances of adult bay scallops
throughout their study area, a condition that was apparently caused primarily by
harvesting pressure. In contrast, juvenile scallops were observed to be fairly
abundant, with an abundance pattern that correlated strongly with the
distribution of eelgrass. Hard clams were also found throughout the study area,
but the observed pattern of abundance did not correlate with any of the
measured parameters.
In May and June of 1995, the Town of East Hampton conducted a survey of
aquatic vegetation in six harbors and embayments that are within the Peconic
Estuary System: Northwest Creek, Three Mile Harbor, Hog Creek, Accabonac
Harbor, Napeogue Harbor, and Lake Montauk (East Hampton Town Natural
Resources Department, 1995). The results of the survey are shown in a series
of tables and charts. The findings of that investigation with respect to eelgrass
are summarized as follows.
Hog Creek had the highest relative abundance of eelgrass and the highest
frequency of eelgrass occurrence (12 or the 14 of the stations surveyed)
of the six water bodies investigated by the Town. This small water body
was not surveyed as part of the present SAV study.
Lake Montauk also had a high coverage of eelgrass; 10 of 23 stations
surveyed by the Town. In comparison, the present SAY study found
eelgrass at 3 of 5 stations surveyed.
Northwest Creek and Three Mile Harbor had the sparsest coverage of
eelgrass of the six water bodies surveyed by the Town. Eelgrass was
observed in Northwest Creek at only 2 of the 23 stations with SAV (there
were 44 stations at which no SAV was observed) and in Three Mile Harbor
at only 1 of 19 stations. In the present SAY study, no widespread
coverage of eelgrass was found in either embayment.
January 1996 Pa~e .29
Peconic Estuary Program Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Stud)' - Final Report
Macr,.~laaa Investigations within the Peconic Estuary_
No previous investigations are known to have been conducted to characterize the
distribution and abundance of macroalgae throughout the Peconic Estuary. A
study performed by Fuller (1973) described the algal flora in three depth zones
at two stations in Lake Montauk inlet and at eastern Gardiners Island, which are
situated at the eastern end of the PEP study area. A total of 84 species of algae
were identified and catalogued during monthly collection surveys over the course
of ten months during 1971-72, including 45 species of red algae, 23 species of
brown algae, and 16 species of green algae. A planned biomass and community
structure analysis was precluded by a variety of logistical problems that limited
diving time.
Fuller's (1973) study recorded more species of macroalgae than were observed
during the present SAV investigation (38, including several specimens that were
identified only to genus or phylum level) mainly because of significant differences
in study objectives and methodologies. Whereas Fuller's study was directed
specifically at collecting and identifying macmalgae, the present SAV study was
focused primarily on seagrasses; macroalgae were an important, though
secondary, consideration. Furthermore, Fuller's study involved monitoring at only
two stations, which allowed a more detailed analysis of the floral communities
present. The field investigation for the SAV study included a survey at 214
stations throughout the entire Estuary, which somewhat limited the level of detail
that could be provided at any given location. Fuller returned to each of his two
monitoring locations ten times over the course of almost an entire year, which
increased the opportunity of encountering rarer species. The SAV study entailed
a single visit to each station over the course of the approximately six-week field
survey.
Because of the differences enumerated above, the comparisons that can be made
between the two studies are limited, especially with respect to species
distribution and diversity. However, it is interesting to note that the three most
prevalent species observed in the present SAV investigation (i.e., green fleece, sea
lettuce, and rockweed) were also among the most common species encountered
by Fuller.
Although eelgrass and its associated fauna (especially bay scallops) have been the
primary focus of research into the effects of the brown tide, macroalgae were
probably also affected to some degree (SCDHS, 1992). During their survey of
januan/ 1996 page.30
(
peconic Estuary Program Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Study - Final Report
eelgrass on Long Island, Dennison, et.al. (1989) observed that free floating and
loosely attached green fleece (Codium spp.) occurred in areas of eelgrass die-
back. In addition, this macroalgae species was found throughout Long Island
embayments that did not then (in 1988) harbor eelgrass populations. It was
concluded that Codium has a lower light compensation point for growth than
eelgrass and can better survive reductions in light availability. The red
macroalgae Gracilaria was also found in abundance in eelgrass die-back areas.
As discussed previously, the Town of East Hampton conducted a survey of
aquatic vegetation in six harbors and embayments that are within the Peconic
Estuary System (East Hampton Town Natural Resources Department, 1995). The
findings of that investigation with respect to macmalgae are summarized as
follows.
· Green and red algae were dominant in Accabonac Harbor, occurring
(respectively) at 18 and 14 of the 20 stations. In comparison, green and
brown algae were observed at the single station in Accabonac Harbor
surveyed under the present SAY study.
· All three types of macroalgae were represented in Hog Creek, but each
was present at fewer than 50 percent of the stations. This compares to
eelgrass, which was present at 86 percent of the stations. As noted
previously, this small water body was not surveyed under the present SAV
study.
· Lake 66ontauk had a high representation of all three types of macroalgae,
each of which was observed at 19 of the 23 stations surveyed. The green
algae Codium fragile was common, having been sighted at 15 (65 percent)
of the stations. In the present SAY study, ~ was observed at 4 of
the 5 stations in Lake Montauk.
· Napeague Harbor had a high representation of all three types of
macroalgae; of the 25 stations, green algae appeared at 14 stations, red
algae at 12, and brown algae at 10 stations. No major beds of macmalgae
were recorded in Napeague Harbor under the present SAY study.
· As noted previously, most of the stations surveyed by the Town in
Northwest Creek were devoid of SAV. Of the 23 stations with SAV, green
algae appeared at 12 stations, red algae at 13, and brown algae at 9
Pabre.31
January 1996
Peconic Estua~/Fro~'am 5ubmer&ed Aquatic Vegetation Study - Final Report
stations. In the present SAV study, the green algae Ulva lactuca was
observed at 1 of the 2 stations surveyed in Northwest Creek, and no other
substantial coverage by macroalgae was recorded.
Brown and red algae were dominant in Three Mile Harbor, occurring
(respectively) at 14 and 13 of the 19 stations, while green algae was
observed at 8 stations. In comparison, of the 4 stations in Three Mile
Harbor surveyed under the present SAY study, all 4 contained green algae,
3 contained brown algae, and 2 contained red algae.
Based on the findings summarized above, with respect to both eelgrass and
macroalgae, the authors of the Town's study concluded that Lake Montauk
appeared at the present time to be the most suitable SAV habitat of the six water
bodies investigated.
E). _Eel~rass Investi_~ations in Adiacent Areas
Shinnecock Bay is one of the few areas on the east coast of the U.S. that escaped
a major decimation of its eelgrass communities during the wasting disease in the
early 1930s. In comparison, the shallow areas in Moriches Bay and Quantuck
Bay, to the west of and interconnected with Shinnecock Bay, were entirely free
of growing grass in 1936 (Burkholder and Doheny, 1968). This trend can be tied
directly to the relatively Iow salinity of the waters in Shinnecock Bay in the time
before Shinnecock Inlet was opened during the great hurricane of 1938.
MorJches Bay and Quantuck Bay, in contrast, were more saline in the early 1930s
due to the tidal exchange with the Atlantic Ocean that was established by the
opening of Moriches Inlet in 1931.
The effect of the early 1930s wasting disease on the flats in Great South Bay was
a uniformly scattered distribution of older eelgrass plants (i.e., not newly seeded
specimens) with some small clumps. The shallow areas in the back-barrier
lagoon to the west of Fire Island Inlet to Jones Beach (i.e., western Great South
Bay, South Oyster Bay, and Hempstead Bay) appeared to be essentially devoid
of intact eelgrass. In the years through 1968, eelgrass beds became re-
established progressively further to the west along the south shore of Long
Island, even into areas in western Nassau County that had been almost
completely denuded during the 1930s. Ironically, the recovery of the eelgrass
January 19c~ Pa&e ,32 {
peconic Estuary Program Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Study - Final Report
meadows in some heavily developed areas was viewed mostly as a nuisance, due
to impacts on recreational activities including the fouling of boat propellers and
the stranding of large quantities of dead eelgrass blades on beaches (Burkholder
and Doheny, 1968).
Although the timing of the blooms varied somewhat among the different
embayments (and in comparison to the Peconic Estuary), brown tide events
occurred throughout a large portion of Long Island's South Shore Estuary during
the late 1980s and early 1990s. Based on an analysis of recent and historical
aerial photography, as supplemented by field surveys, Dennison, et.al. (1989)
reported that both the distribution and density of eelgrass in embayments on the
south shore of Long Island (i.e., Hempstead Bay, South Oyster Bay, and Great
South Bay) showed a marked decline following the years in which the blooms
occurred. However, those investigators concluded that the eelgrass decline in
Hempstead Bay occurred independent of the brown tide, since that area was
unaffected by these algae blooms. Additionally, it is important to note that both
South Oyster Bay and Great South Bay were also determined to have
experienced a significant decrease in eelgrass coverage between 1967 and 1978,
prior to the onset of the brown tide. This indicates that factors other than the
brown tide have been involved in the trend of declining eelgrass abundance in
those two bays through the 1960s and 1970s, and possibly even to some degree
during the period after 1985 when the brown tides occurred. The eastern half
of South Oyster Bay was affected by the brown tide organism, and approximately
24 percent of the total acreage of eelgrass lost in this water body between 1967
and 1988 could have been due to brown tide events (Dennison, et.aL, 1989).
Dennison, et.al. (1989) determined that eelgrass distribution and density
increased significantly in Shinnecock Bay and Moriches Bay between 1967 and
1988. Thus, for reasons that are not yet fully understood, these eelgrass
populations experienced an overall resurgence, despite the occurrence of
successive brown tide episodes. Dennison, et. al. (1989) hypothesized that this
trend may have reflected the continued recovery of the Shinnecock/Moriches
eelgrass beds following the 1930s wasting disease, with the deleterious effects
of recent brown tides ameliorated by a high degree of tidal flushing in these bays.
Janua~ 1996
Peconic Estuary Pra&~am Submerged Aquatic Vegeta~on Study - Final Report
Two additional studies performed in Great South Bay were aimed at evaluating
and documenting the distribution and abundance of seagrass beds. The findings
of a seagrass bed mapping project involving 186 stations was summarized in a
report Utled "Surficial Sediments and Seagrasses of Eastern Great South Bay, N.Y."
(Greene, et.al., 1977). Sea§rass. Seagrass beds were also mapped, along with
extensive biological and physical data, in a report titled "EstuarJne Impact
Assessment (Shellfish Resources) for the Nassau-Suffolk Streamflow
Augmentation Alternatives: Report on ExisUng Conditions~ (WAPORA, Inc., 1981).
That study involved detailed field sampling at approximately 410 stations
throughout Long Island's south shore bay system from Hempstead to Smith
Point.
Janua~ 1996 Pa~e .34 (
Peconic Estuar/Program Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Study - Final Report
SECT1ON 3
STUDY METHODOLOGY
SECTION 3.1 - field Sun~? Procedures
The station grid for this field survey was developed in the office on a 1 inch -- _+4,200
foot-scale base map (i.e., International Sailing Supply Waterproof Chart #67, Peconic and
Gardiners Bays). Initial station locations were distributed to provide representative
coverage of all areas within the Peoonic Estuary that had the highest potential for
containing SAV beds, which was generally defined as: (a) areas with a water depth of
less than ten feet; and (b) areas where either important shellfish growing areas or
eelgrass beds may have occurred in the past, based on qualitative and anecdotal
information provided by knowledgeable individuals (such as marine scientists, harbor
masters, bay constables, and other local government officials). These stations were
spaced at an average distance of about one-half mile apart.
^ slightly denser station grid was used in the larger, shallow water embayments within
the study area (e.g., North Sea Harbor and Three Mile Harbor on the South Fork, West
Neck Harbor on Shelter Island, and Long Beach Bay on the North Fork). A wider grid
was used in areas with a water depth of greater than ten feet. Waters deeper than 30
feet were not directly observed during the field reconnaissance for this investigation, due
to the Iow probability of finding significant stands of SAV at those depths. The station
locations used in this study are depicted on Map 3.
The October 1994 aerial photography was used to refine the placement of the stations
in the eastern portion of the Estuary, where apparent SAV beds were visible in the
photographs. Supplemental stations were added in the waters around Shelter Island
and to the east, to provide field verification of the information compiled through
interpretation of the aerial photographs.
The following describes the field sampling and observation program that was utilized
during this investigation.
final Station Locations
The grid positions depicted on the preliminary station map were adjusted, as
appropriate, in the field so that each sample would be representative of the SAV
Januar/199~
Peconic Estua~ Program Submer&ed Aquatic Vegetation Study - Final Report
beds in the immediate area of the given sampling location. In addition, some
minor field adjustment of station locations was necessary to ensure that the
entire Estuary was adequately sampled for SAV.
Three stations in eastern Great South Bay were surveyed on September 12, 1994
to fine-tune the field methods and to provide comparative SAV data. The field
survey of the Peconic Estuary comprised 214 stations that were sampled between
September 14 and October 25, 1994. Two supplemental stations, one each in
Shinnecock Bay and Moriches Bay, were sampled on October 12, 1994, again to
provide comparative data.
B. t~tualifK;atJons of field Sunmy Crew
The field survey work was performed by a team that COnsisted of two members,
both of whom were qualified scuba divers (per American Sodety of Underwater
Scientist guidelines) experienced in conducting underwater scientific
investigations similar to the SAV study; scuba experience was necessary to
undertake the underwater observations and sampling required for the study.
One team member was also a licenSed boat captain, familiar with navigation
procedures and the operation of the electronic equipment utilized (i.e., depth
recorder, electronic positioning equipment, etc.).
The same two-person field crew was utilized thmu§hout the entire survey, to
ensure consistency of the results. Periodic, in-field quality checks were made by
management personnel during the course of the study.
C. Equipment Used in the F'~eld
In-field positioning was accomplished, depending on the boat used on a given
day, with a Sitex or Eagle Loran, or an Apelco Loran/GPS system. All of these
systems automatically converted to latitude/longitude coordinates. The
electronic positioning equipment was calibrated at the start of each work day to
ensure proper functioning. This initial daily check involved readings taken at a
position with known coordinates (typically at the dockside location at which the
previous day's work ended). In addition, continuous checks of this equipment
were made by referring to shoreline landmarks.
Peconic Estuary ProD-am Submer§ed Aquatic Ve~tation S~udy - Final Report
Water depth was recorded at all 214 field stations using a digital fathometer
(Apelco or Eagle brand), with an accuracy of 0.1 foot. The depth sounding
instrument was calibrated at the start of each work day, using a calibrated
measuring rod or line.
SAV sample collection was accomplished by means of a 12-inch diameter
aluminum cylinder (sampling area = 113 square inches). The sampling cylinder
provided a sturdy sampling frame which facilitated insertion into the full range of
substrate types encountered.
This study utilized a set of Homs tubular scales for weighing SAV samples. Three
separate scales, with varying capacity and accuracy values as listed below, were
necessary to accommodate the full weight range of samples:
capadty = 2 Ih. (0.907 kg); accuracy = ½ oz. (14 g)
capadty = 4 lb. (1.814 kg); accuracy = I oz. (28 g)
capadty = 10 lb. (4.536 kg); accuracy = 2 oz. (57 g)
The scales were zeroed at the start of each sampling day in the field, and random
calibration checks were also performed during the day to ensure accuracy. The
same set of scales was used for all in-field wet weight measurements. Dry
weight measurements were performed in the laboratory using an Ohaus balance
(310-gram capacity and 0.1-gram accuracy), which was periodically calibrated
with an Ohaus metric weight set (model no. 241).
D. F'~ld Sampling of SAV Densities (Wet Weight)
Wet-weight biomass was measured in the field at all of the sampling stations at
which SAV was present in a sufficient quantity. To collect an SAY sample, the
sampling device was inserted to a depth of approximately six inches into the
substrate. All SAY material (including roots and rhizomes) contained within the
12-inch diameter sampling area was removed and placed in a steel mesh basket
with approximate one-quarter-inch mesh size. The sieve was agitated
underwater to remove all sediment.
After the sediment was removed, the full sieve was allowed to drain on-board the
research vessel until the dripping ceased, and was then immediately weighed.
January 1996 pa&e.37
Peconic Estuan/Program
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Study - Final Report
The tare weight of the empty sample basket was subtracted from the weight of
the full sieve to obtain the wet-weight of the sample.
To ensure statistical validity of the data, duplicate samples were collected for
wet-weight measurements at approximately 50 percent of the sampling stations.
Triplicate samples were collected at approximately 17 percent of the sampling
stations. Overall, a total of 1.35 samples were submitted to wet weight analysis
during this study.
E. SAV Species Identification
C)n the field data sheets, the field crew listed all SAV species that could be
identified with certainty. This generally pertained only to the most common
species (e.g., eelgrass, sea lettuce, green fleece, rock weed, etc.).
SAV specimens that were not conclusively identifiable by the field team were
stored in a cooler and returned to the laboratory each night for subsequent
identification by a qualified biologist. These samples were stored in a refrigerator
at the lab prior to their examination.
The identity of unknown specimens was determined in the laboratory using
standard keys contained in a variety of references (i.e., Brinkhuis, 1983; Dawson,
1956; Gosner, 1979; Hillson, 1977; Major, 1977; Schneider and Seades, 1991;
Taylor and Villalard, 1985; Taylor, 1940 and 1957). A binocular dissecting
microscope was used, as necessary, to provide the required level of detail for
classification.
Some macroalgae samples that were particularly difficult to classify were brought
to the marine laboratory at the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation in Stony Brook. Mr. Ken Koetzner provided valuable assistance in
completing the identification of these specimens.
Samples of each different SAV species were preserved and mounted. Exhibit A
contains photographic reproductions of the preserved SAV specimens collected
during this investigation.
January 1996 Pa~e.38
peconic Estuary Program Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Study - Final Report
Fo
Determination of SAV Coverage
In general, SAV in the Peconic Estuary does not comprise large, continuous beds.
Rather, the beds have a patchy distribution, with areas of relatively or fully barren
bottom interspersed with vegetated areas. Therefore, accurate biomass estimates
for the study area require quantitative information regarding the percent coverage
of SAV, in addition to the SAV density data derived from the wet weight and dry
weight measurements.
In order to account for the patchiness of SAV beds in the Peconic Estuary, it was
necessary to determine the "coverage" of SAY in the vicinity of sampling stations.
To this end, the percent of bottom area covered by SAV beds within a 100-foot
radius of each sampling station was estimated by means of visual surveys. If
water visibility permitted, these surveys were conducted from the boat. In most
cases, due to high turbidity,the surveys were conducted by underwater
reconnaissance by the diver within a 100-foot radius of the boat.
G. J~ti~e41aneous StaUon Data
The substrate material at each of the 214 survey stations was classified into the
following standard' qualitative categories, based on visual and textural
characteristics: gravelly sand, sand, muddy sand, sandy mud, and mud.
Sediment samples collected at each of the stations were returned to the lab each
night, where the qualitative classification was double checked. Representative
sediment samples collected at stations containing SAV were subsequently
submitted to quantitative laboratory analysis for grain size distribution.
A series of general physical observations was made at each field station to
characterize each site for future reference. Information recorded on the data
sheets include:
· verbal description of station location, in reference to upland features and
water sub-bodies within the Estuary;
· marine life present, with special focus on bay scallops; and
· water temperature (measured with a hand-held scientific thermometer,
and checked against a Sitex digital water temperature gauge or a Scuba-
Janua~ 1996 Pa&e~39
Peco~ic Estuary Program
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Study - Final Report
Pro DC-11 dive computer), salinity (measured with a hand-held
refractometer, with automatic temperature compensation, to an accuracy
of one part per thousand), and underwater visibility (estimated by direct
visual observation by the diver).
Exhibit B contains underwater photography of typical SAV beds found in the
Peconic Estuary.
SECTION 3.2 - Aerial Ph _oto~. h_v Review
A new set of aerial photographs was generated in October 1994 to assist in mapping the
distribution of SAV in the Estuary. The specific criteria that were applied to the aerial
photography flight are summarized as follows.
Flight lines were set to ensure that all known areas of historic SAV beds were
covered, as well as all areas which potentially may contain SAV. In essence, the
photographic survey included all waters with depth of less than 10 feet, which
is the typical limit of distribution of the most common SAY species (especially
eelgrass) in the Estuary. Additionally, 10 feet is the approximate depth range
within which aerial photography is typically useful.
· All flight lines included appropriate land features to serve as landmarks to ensure
accurate mapping.
· Aerial photography flights were undertaken only under optimal physical
conditions. Full consideration was given to factors of meteorology, solar angle,
tidal stage, water clarity, and related parameters prior to initiating a flight to
ensure optimal conditions for seagrass detection. In general, flights were
conducted only under conditions of clear and calm weather, morning or afternoon
sun, Iow tide, and non-turbid waters.
· Flight altitude was selected on the basis of the photographic scale chosen for the
mapping to ensure optimal resolution. This project utilized a 1:12000 scale,
instead of the 1:24000 scale that is typically used for this type of work, to reduce
atmospheric interferences and increase photographic resolution.
(
January 1996 Pab'e.40
Peconic Estuanf Program Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Stu~ - Final Report
Only high quality equipment and supplies were used for the aerial photography.
Flights were made by Aerographics Corporation of Bohemia, New York, using a
Cessna 310 twin engine aircraft. Photographs were shot using a state-of-the-art
Wild P,C-30 camera and Kodak double-X film.
As discussed in Section 3.3.B, historical black and white aerial photography was
acquired and reviewed to determine the prior distribution and abundance of SAV.
Historic infrared satellite photography on file at the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation office in Stony Brook was also reviewed for this
investigation. In many areas, those infrared photographs contained images of what
appeared to be dense phytoplankton growth and/or floating masses of macroalgae
which masked the underlying bottom areas. Although valuable for assessing intertidal
wetland vegetation, that particular set of photographs was not useful to this study.
SECTION 3.3 - Ma.opine
A. Current SAV Dist~bufion Maps
A series of two maps was developed to depict the distribution of SAV species
observed in the Peconic Estuary during the field reconnaissance program
conducted by Cashin Associates, P.C. (CA). For clarity, eelgrass distribution (Map
4) is shown separately from the distribution of the dominant macroalgae types
(Map S), since there is some degree of spatial overlap between the two; four
sampling stations had eelgrass as a secondary species, with green or brown algae
dominating.
Since the field investigation revealed that the distribution of eelgrass was very
patchy in the Peconic Estuary, the interpretation of recent aerial photographs
(October 1994 for most of the study area, and March 1994 for some embayments
along the Estuary's south shore) served a vital role in determining the overall
spatial extent of eelgrass beds in areas between the sampling stations. To
develop the eelgrass distribution map for this study, station locations at which
eelgrass was observed in the field were plotted onto a base map, and the
information provided by the aerial photographs was used to sketch the full extent
of these beds around the observation points.
January lg96 Pa~e ,4.1
Peconic Estuan/Program Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Study - Final Report
Macroalgae mapping for this project was based on four main categories of
dominant vegetation: Codium fra_eile. Ulva lactuca, mixed red algae, and mixed
brown algae. Unlike the eelgrass distribution map (which, as discussed above,
depicts the actual extent of the beds), the macroalgae map shows general areas
in which certain types of plants were observed to be present. The offshore
extent of these areas was delineated to a large extent on the basis of the general
depth range of the species present, correlated with bathymetric information
provided on the nautical charts. This less precise level of mapping was necessary
because macroalgae beds were generally less dense than eelgrass beds, and
therefore were not as easily distinguishable on the aerial photographs.
Additionally, macroalgae-dominated SAY beds were more common in the inner
and middle portions of the Estuary, where increased water turbidity further
diminished the extent of bottom discernable on the aerial photographs.
A third data map (Map 6) was generated for this report, to show the distribution
of stations at which bay scallops were observed during the field sampling
program. The presence or absence of eelgrass at the scallop stations is also
noted.
B. Mapping of Historical Changes in SAV Distribution (
To track historical changes in eelgrass distribution, CA compared aerial
photographs taken in 1969 and the 1980s (1980 or 1984, depending on
availability) with known occurrences identified through field reconnaissance and
1994 aerial photographs. These historic flight dates were selected because 1969
is the earliest good quality, County-wide aerial photograph coverage available,
while the early 1980s flights represent pre-brown tide conditions. In general, the
quality of pre-1960s aerial photographs is relatively poor and is not adequate for
the interpretation of SAV distribution; therefore, those older photographs were
not used in this analysis.
The following eight locations were selected for a detailed analysis of historic SAV
distribution (as depicted in Figures lA through 1G and Table 7 in Section 5.3):
1) Robins Island;
2) Hog Neck Bay;
3) Southold Bay;
JamJary 1~J6 Pa~eo42
Peconic Estuan/program Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Study - Final Report
4) three separate sites on Shelter Island, including the northeast comer, the
mouth of Coecles Harbor, and Mashomack Point at the southern tip;
5) Pipes Cove;
6) eastern Orient Harbor;
7) Napeague Harbor; and
8) Gardiners Island.
The above-listed locations were chosen for the historical analysis on the basis of
meeting one or more of the following criteria:
a) the site currently supports eelgrass beds that are clearly discernable in
1994 aerial photographs;
b) the SAY beds at the site were known from CA's field survey work to be
monocultures of eelgrass, or nearly so, as distinguished from beds
dominated by macroalgae which might lend confusion to photo-
interpretation;
c) the site is believed to have supported eelgrass beds historically; and
d) although no eelgrass beds may presently exist at the site, physical
conditions (e.g., bathymetry, coastal geography, etc.) appear favorable to
support such growth.
Contacts were made with knowledgeable individuals in all five East End Towns
to obtain information regarding the distribution of eelgrass beds. Those
individuals were provided with maps, onto which they sketched the known
location of eelgrass beds. These maps served as a helpful information source for
the historical analysis of eelgrass distribution, as well as for identifying areas that
should be included in the field sampling program.
Eelgrass currently occurs in northern Lake Montauk, and it was known to have
been present in the 1980s based on a study conducted by Flagg and Greene
(1981). However, Lake Ntontauk was not selected for the historical analysis due
to the co-occurrence at the present time of dense beds of Codium ~ (green
fleece), which would be nearly impossible to distinguish from eelgrass beds using
the medium of black and white aerial photographs.
Janua~, 1996 Pa~e.43
Pec~nic ~stuary Pro,ram
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Study - Final Report
SECTION 3.4 - Data Analysis
Most of the data analysis performed for this investigation was completed using a series
of Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheets. The Lotus "sort" function was used to arrange the data
table based on such parameters as the observed presence or absence of scallops,
dominant SAV species present, sub-area within the Estuary, sediment type, salinity,
temperature, water depth, and estimated water visibility. Sorting the database facilitated
the computation of averages and the total number of stations with each possible value
of the various parameters analyzed.
As described below, a number of different parameters were used to represent SAV
"densitlP for the purpose of the data analysis undertaken for this study.
wet wei_~ht (represented in grams) - the field-measured weight of a fresh sample.
SAV was present at 153 of the 214 field stations used for this investigation, and
wet weights were recorded at a total of 90 stations. Duplicate wet weight
measurements were recorded at 45 stations, and triplicate sampling was
performed at 15 stations. At stations where more than one sample was weighed,
the average wet weight was used for all subsequent computations.
b)
bed density (kg/m2) - average wet weight value at a sampling staUon extrapolated
to a unit square meter area. The sampling area was a 12-inch diameter circle
(i.e., 113.1 in2, or 729.7 cm2). A "bed" is considered to be a contiguous patch of
SAV.
wet weight biomass (kg/m~) - calculated unit wet weight of SAV in the vicinity
of the sampling station. This value is calculated by simply multiplying the bed
density by the estimated percent coverage within 100-feet of the sampling
station, thereby accounting for the patchy distribution of SAV in the study area
(see Section 3.1 .F for further discussion of the percent coverage factor).
d)
dry. weight (grams) - the laboratory-measured weight of a sample dried in
accordance with standard protocols (see Section 3.5~). A total of 28 samples
were submitted to dry-weight analysis. An average ratio of dry weight/wet
weight was calculated for the five dominant SAY categories (i.e., Z. marina, LJ.
la~uca, C. fragile, mixed red algae, and mixed brown algae), and these ratios
were used to convert wet weight measurements to corresponding dry weight
values.
(
January ~9o~6 Page,44
Peconic Estuary Program Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Study - ~:inal Report
e)
d wei ht biomass (g/m2) - calculated unit dry weight of SAV in the vicinity of
the sampling station. This value is computed for each SAV sampling station by
multiplying the wet weight biomass and the dry/wet conversion factor for the
respective dominant SAY category. This parameter serves as the basis of biomass
comparison within the study area, and in relation to other water bodies and other
studies.
As highlighted in Section 4.2.E, direct measurements of SAV density were recorded at
a total of 90 field stations in terms of wet weight per unit area and percent coverage,
and these data values were converted to corresponding dry weight biomass (DWB)
values (see Table 2). However, an additional 62 stations with SAV were not submitted
to wet weight analysis, because of a very Iow abundance of vegetation (typically one
percent or less) which would have made an accurate determination of density difficult.
Accounting for the unsampled SAV stations in the calculation of average biomass values
was essential to the overall accuracy of the data analysis, since excluding those mostly
sparsely vegetated locations would have skewed the results in favor of the generally
more densely vegetated stations that were sampled. In order to resolve this problem,
it was necessary to develop DWB estimates for the unsampled SAV stations. This was
accomplished by means of the following method.
1) Each dominant SAY type was addressed separately. Additionally, individual
calculations were performed for each of the three main segments of the Estuary
(inner, middle, and outer), as well as the Estuary as a whole. Thus, in theory, 20
series of calculations were necessary (i.e., 5 SAY types x 4 Estuary reaches);
although the actual level of effort was somewhat less, because certain SAY types
were absent from some of the Estuary segments.
2)
3)
4)
The average bed density was calculated for each SAY type and within .each
geographic region (this applies to stations that were actually sampled for SAV).
It is assumed that the resulting average bed density is representative of the
unsampled beds within that same Estuary reach.
For each dominant SAV type and within each Estuary reach, the average percent
coverage was calculated for those stations that were not sampled for SAV.
The average bed density from step (2) was multiplied by the average percent
coverage from step (3) to obtain an average estimated wet weight biomass for
the unsampled SAV stations. This calculation is identical to that which was
J~'lu~ry 1996
Peconic Estuary Program Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Study - Final Report
performed for the sampled SAV stations, except that the bed density was actually
measured at each sampled station, whereas an average value for this variable
(based on the data collected at the sampled stations) was used for the
unsampled stations.
5)
The average wet biomass values from step (4) were each multiplied by the
proper dry/wet conversion factor to obtain an average DWB value for the
unsampled stations.
Once the average estimated DWB values were derived for the unsampled stations, a
weighted composite average DWB was calculated for all stations (sampled and
unsampled) within each given Estuary reach and having each given dominant SAY type.
The weighting factor used in this calculation was based on the relative number of
sampled versus unsampled stations for the respective reach and SAV type.
SECTION 3.5 - Laboratory Aha ~sis
A. SAV Dry Wei_~ht Densities
At approximately 28 percent of the sampling stations, the SAV specimens were
retained for laboratory analysis of dry weight biomass, using procedures
described in "Surficial Sediment and Seagrasses of Eastern Great South Bay, New
York" (Greene, et.al., 1977, Marine Sciences Research Center, State University of
New York at Stony Brook, Special Report 12). Dry weights were measured in
order to allow the wet weight data from this investigation to be directly compared
to other SAY studies, which often report dry weight values, and to make SAY
biomass estimates.
SAV samples collected for dry weight determination were transported to the
laboratory at the completion of each day in the field. These samples were
refrigerated until the dry weight analysis commenced.
Jarma~/1996 pa&e.46 (
peconic Estuary Program Submerged Aquatic Vegetation study - Final Report
B. ~R~iment Grain Size Analysis
Sediment samples collected at 33 field survey stations were analyzed for grain
size distribution at the laboratory facilities associated with G.M. Selby &
Associates, Inc. in Miami, Florida. A wet sieve analysis was conducted to
determine the weight fraction of each sample in the following four U.S. Standard
Sieve categories: gravel, sand, silt, and clay.
Seven additional sediment samples were submitted for grain size analysis to the
laboratory facilities associated with Arthur D. little, Inc. in Cambridge,
Massachusetts, using the same four standard categories.
C. _~d_ iment O~anic Content Analysis
Sediment samples collected at 12 field survey stations were submitted to analysis
for total organic content at the laboratory facilities associated with Arthur D.
Little, Inc. in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Janua~/lgg6 Pa~e.47
Peconic Estuary Program Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Study - Final Report
SECTION 4
STUDY FINDINGS
SECTION 4.1 - Primaw SAV Species Present
Table I presents a list of the types of SAV observed during the field survey
undertaken for this investigation. These included:
2 species of seagrasses (Phylum Spermatophyta)
14 species of md algae (Phylum Rhodophyta)
5 types of red algae identified to the genus level
3 specimens of unidentified red algae
8 species of green algae (Phylum Chlorophyta)
I type of green algae identified to the genus level
7 species of brown algae (Phylum Phaeophyta)
1 type of brown algae identified to the genus level
2 specimens of unidentified brown algae
A summary description of the general biology and habitat requirements of each
SAY type is given below.
It should be noted that the SAV species distribution reported here represents a
"snapshot" of the six-week sampling period and the 214 observation stations
applying to this study. Surveys undertaken at different times of the year may
yield significantly different results. For example, information provided by Mr.
Christopher Smith of the Cornell Cooperative Extension of Suffolk County
(telephone communication, September 22, 1995) indicates that a brown algae
that is locally known by the common name "slip gut" occurs in expansive slimy
mats during the winter and spring months. This algae, which would require
laboratory identification when samples become available to determine species
level classification (Dr. Larry Uddle, telephone communication, October 3, 1995,
Long Island University, Southampton College), was not detected during the
current survey due to the seasonality of its occurrence. Slip gut is often drawn
in large quantities into scallop dredges and can cover experimental cages and
Jallua~ 1996 Pa~e .48 (
TABLE !
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
IDENTIFIED DURING CASHIN ASSOCIATE'S FIELD SAMPLING
IN THE PECONtC ESTUARY
Botanical Name I Common Name
PHYLUM SPERMATOPHYTA
(Sea Grasses)
Zostera marina Eelgrass
Ruppia maritima Widgeon Grass
PHYLUM RHODOPHYTA
(Red Algae)
Euthora cristata Lacy Redweed
Cystoclonium purpureum Brushy Redweed
Polysiphonia denudata Tubed Weeds
Polysiphonia subtilissima Tubed Weeds
Polysiphonia spp. Tubed Weeds
Ceramium diaphanum Banded Weeds
Ceramium spp. Banded Weeds
Chondrus crispus Irish moss
Lomentaria baileyana
Dasya pediceilata Chenille Seaweed
Chondria spp. Pod Weed
Agardhiella sublata
Antithamnion spp.
Grinnellia americana Grinnell's Pink Leaf
Phycodrys rubens Sea Oak
Gracilaria tikvahiae
Spermothamnion spp.
Champia parvula Barrel Weed
Ahnfeltia plicata Wire Weed
Miscellaneous (unidentified)
TABLE I (CONTINUED)
Botanical Name I Common Name
PHYLUM CHLOROPHYTA
(Green Algae)
Codium fragile Green Fleece
Ulva lactuca Sea Lettuce
Enteromorpha linza Hollow Green Weeds
Enteromorpha compressa Hollow Green Weeds
Enteromorpha clathrata Hollow Green Weeds
Enteromorpha intestinalis Hollow Green Weeds
Enteromorpha spp. Hollow Green Weeds
Chaetomorpha melagonium
Chaetomorpha linum
PHYLUM PHAEOPHYTA
(Brown Algae)
Fucus spp. Rockwc~d
Ascophyllum nodosum Knotted Wrack
Sargassum filipendula Gulfweed
Laminaria saccharina Broad-leaf Kelp
Chorda filum Smooth Cord Weed
i Stilophora rhizodes
Sphaerotrichia divaricata Slippery Tangle Weed
Acrothrix novae-angliae
Miscellaneous (unidentified)
Note 1.
Note 2.
Wherever "spp." is indicated, the plant was identified to genus level
only. The species is likely to be different than other species listed in
the same genus.
Where "Miscellaneous" is indicated, the plant could not be identified
beyond the broad classification of Phylum, using the botanical keys
available.
Peconic Estuary Program
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Study - Final Report
nets that are deployed in the winter, which may indicate a large biomass that
possibly plays an important role in the winter ecology of the Estuary.
General Biology and Habitat Requirements of the Seagrass Species Sampled in
this stu
The descriptions given here of the biology and habitat requirements of Zostera
marina and Ruppia maritima were taken primarily from the following references:
Britton and Brown. 1970. An Illustrated Flora of the Northern United
States and Canada.
Burkholder and Doheny. 1968. The Biolo_L~. of Eel_erass.
Gosner. 1979. A Field Guide to the Atlantic Seashore: Invertebrates and
Seaweeds of the Atlantic Coast from the Bay of Fundy to Cape Hatteras.
McRoy and Helfferich. 1977.
Perspective.
Seagrass Ecosystems: ,~ Scientific
Phillips and.MeRez. 1988. Seagrasses.
Thayer, et.al. 1984. Ecology of Eelgrass Meadows of the Atlantic Coast:
A Community Profile.
Other documents were used for additional specific items of information, as
referenced below.
1. Phylum Spermatophyta - Sea Grasses
a. Zostera marina - Eelgrass
Zostera marina, eelgrass, is one of about 47 species of flowering
plants known to occur in the sea. All seagrasses belong to the
Phylum Spermatophyta, Division Anthophyta, Class
Monocotyledonae, Order Helobiae. Zostera is a genus within the
Family Potamogetonaceae. Zostera marina is one of ten known
species within the genus Zostera.
January 1996 Pa~e
Peconic Estuary Program Submerged Aquatic Ve§etation Study - Final Report
Z. marina has a wide geographic distribution, occurring on the
coasts of North America, Europe, Asia Minor, and eastern Asia. The
range of eelgrass along the Atlantic coast of North America extends
from southwestern Greenland and Hudson Bay, southward to the
Carolinas. This regional distribution is controlled primarily bywater
temperature. In the northern part of the range, where water
temperature never exceeds 15 ° C, seed formation cannot occur, and
growth occurs entirely through vegetative activity. Eelgrass is
unable to survive in tropical and sub-tropical waters where the
temperature never falls below 20°C. To the south of Z. marina's
range, the ecological role of this species appears to be assumed by
other marine flowering plants (e.g., Thallasia testudinum, turtle
grass) which are adapted to warmer waters.
Eelgrass exhibits a variety of forms, especially with respect to the
width of the leaves. It is now thought that the form variants of Z.
marina may represent adaptations to environmental conditions, with
water temperature being a key factor affecting morphology.
Z. marina experiences two types of growth: vegetative growth and
reproductive growth. Vegetative growth consists of the
development of a given plant from a seed, up to and including the
production of flowering shoots with buds. An important part of
vegetative growth is the sub-bottom network of' rhizomes, which
are characteristic structures of submerged marine plants. New
shoots and roots sprout from nodes in the spreading rhizomes,
allowing the eelgrass bed to expand through asexual means. In
addition to their vegetative propagation function, the rhizomes also
serve to anchor the plants to the substrate.
Reproductive growth in Z. marina includes the maturation of pollen
grains and ovaries, the shedding of pollen into the water, and the
pollination and fertilization of the ovaries to form mature fruits with
seeds. Eelgrass pollination is very effective, as the filamentous
pollen remains in suspension for days and is carried about by
currents. Cross pollination is used exclusively in this species.
A study conducted by Phillips, et.al (1983) on the Pacific coast of
North America indicates that the relative importance of asexual
Janua~ 1996
Peconic Estua~/pro&ram Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Study - Final Report
versus sexual reproduction to the eelgrass population in a given
area can be strongly influenced by environmental conditions. For
example, eelgrass beds in the southern part of the study range
suffer 100 percent mortality due to elevated summer water
temperatures, and reproduction occurs entirely by flowering, which
ensures the plant survival from year to year. In the central part of
the range, two reproductive strategies are evident. For plants in
subtidal areas, which are physically and biologically relatively
undisturbed, population maintenance and expansion is through
asexual growth of rhizomes. Plants in intertidal areas, which
experience drastic fluctuations in physical conditions and are
exposed to grazing pressure, engage in flowering to a greater extent
than subtidal plants.
Eelgrass seeds can germinate in either light or darkness at suitable
temperatures between 9°C and 16°C. Germination is best in
seawater of salinity about 18 parts per thousand. Germination
typically occurs three to four months after seed release (Churchill,
1983). Z. marina germination on Long Island generally occurs
during the fall, beginning in November, and continues through the
early winter (Bodnar, 1985). Seeds released in nature by the end
of August probably can germinate and grow into well-rooted
seedlings before the onset of winter.
Evidence exists that a high percentage of Z. marina seeds germinate
under natural conditions (Churchill 1983). However, according to
Bodnar (1985), seedling survival is poor. Seedling loss can occur
through grazing and because of poor anchorage to the substrate.
Bodnar (1985) also found that a Iow percentage of the seeds
produced by an eelgrass meadow are found within meadow
sediments. This finding is consistent with other studies, and may
be the result of a high rate of seed exportation and/or a high rate
of seed predation within the eelgrass meadows.
Thayer, et.al. (1985) report that in quiescent embayments where
there are relatively persistent seagrass beds, which provide
abundant seed stock such that seeds are retained and buried,
seedling recruitment can make a substantial contribution to
Janua~, 1996 Pa~eo51
Peconic Estuary Program
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Study - Final Report
maintaining meadows. In contrast, in relatively high energy open-
water areas, annual recruitment by natural seeding is negligible,
because waves and currents carry seeds off-site. As a result, grass
beds in these areas generally have discontinuous distributions, with
interspersed patches of unvegetated bottom.
The activities of vegetative and reproductive growth in eelgrass
occur chiefly during the period in the spring when the water
temperature is rising from 10°C to 20°C. In the Long Island region,
vegetative growth of Z. marina occurs during March through May
(while the temperature rises to 15°C), and sexual reproduction
occurs during May through June (while the temperature rises from
15oC to 20°C). When the water temperature rises above 20°C in
the mid to late summer, heat 'rigor" typically sets in and erect
flowering segments die and float away. During this period, the
rhizomes and leaves cease to grow, and the older portions of these
structures die and decay. Vegetative growth typically resumes in
young plants during the early fall when water temperature is
decreasing from 20°C to 10°C. Below 10°C, the plants generally
become quiescent, although vegetative growth may occur slo.wly
through most of the winter. Plants may suffer ice damage in
winter, when ice sheets shifting with the changing tides can uproot
the rhizomes or tear off leaves.
Z. marina is fairly tolerant of a wide variety of substrates, ranging
from soft mud to gravel mixed with coarse sand. Overall, mixed
mud and sand is the most common substrate for eelgrass beds.
There appears to be a tendency for the beds to accumulate
sediments due to the baffling effect of the leaves, which causes the
bottom within the bed area to gradually become raised above the
surrounding bottom.
The maximum water depth to which Z. marina may grow depends
upon the water column transparency, which determines the depth
of sunlight penetration. Three meters (10 feet) is the deepest that
this species will generally grow in turbid waters. Ught requirements
also come into play with regard to the presence of epiphyte growth
on the grass leaves, which will further decrease the depth tolerance
of eelgrass.
January 1996 Pa~e ,52 (
Pecanic Estuar~ Program Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Study - Final Report
In a study that involved the manipulation of light regimes for in-situ
eelgrass beds, Dennison and Alberte (1985) found that the growth
rate of eelgrass is most strongly influenced by variations in the daily
light period, rather than the maximum light intensity transmitted.
Thus, on the basis of those findings, it was concluded that the
depth limit of eelgrass growth occurs where illumination is provided
at (or above) a critical light level for the minimum daily time period
necessary for the plant's survival.
The shoots of .Z. marina are very susceptible to drought, and are
nearly intolerant of exposure to the air. This limitation sets the
upper limit of the water depth range in which this species will
grow. Although eelgrass has been found to grow in the intertidal
zone at some locations, as occurs in the northerly portion of the
species' range along the North American Pacific coast (Phillips,
et. aL, 1983), eelgrass generally does not grow well in areas exposed
by the tide and is not a significant intertidal plant in the Peconic
Estuary system.
The root system of 7. marina is not very well developed, and it is
believed that mineral salt uptake occurs mostly by means of
absorption through the leaves. The leaves are specially designed
for this function, with adaptations including thin cellulose walls and
an extensive system of air spaces.
The general vigor of 7. marina is lessened under conditions of
reduced salinity. Salinities at the higher end of the range found in
local coastal waters do not appear to have any appreciable
deleterious effect on eelgrass.
Z. marina is highly efficient at taking up nitrate from the water
column, but lacks any apparent "shut-off' mechanism. It is
hypothesized that this physiological strategy was evolved under
conditions of nitrogen limitation. However, in the nitrate enriched
environment that often characterizes coastal waters adjacent to
human land uses, this formerly advantageous strategy of
maximizing nitrate uptake may directly result in adverse effects on
eelgrass. In fact, recent studies (Burkholder, 1993; and Burkholder,
et.al., 1992) suggest that the direct effects of excess water column
Janua.,y 1996 page .53
Peconic Estuary Program
Submerged Aqua~c Vegetation Study - Final Repo~
nitrate may be a major underlying factor in the disappearance of Z.
marina from many quiet upper embayments and poorly flushed
coastal lagoons throughout the world. This effect is in addition to
the widely documented indirect impact that nitrogen enrichment
has on eelgrass through decreased light penetration caused by algal
blooms. It is believed that excess nitrate impairs the carbohydrate
metaholism of Z. marina and, thereby, results in a decline in the
production of new shoots and weakens the plants; this may
increase susceptibility to opportunistic pathogens, such as
Labyrinthula zosterae, the protozoan that causes "wasting disease".
The occurrence of high temperatures appears magnify the adverse
effects on eelgrass caused by elevated water column nitrate levels.
This synergistic effect is most pronounced where eelgrass is already
heat-stressed, such as at the southernmost extent of the species'
range along the North Carolina coast, and in certain poorly flushed
embayments during the summer. Conversely, Iow water
temperatures appear to increase eelgrass' tolerance to elevated
nitrate concentrations. The adverse effect of elevated nitrate
enrichment may also be compounded by high turbidity levels, since
the resulting decrease in light penetration through the water
column reduces carbon production in the plants (Burkholder, 1993;
Burkholder, et.al., 1992).
b. Rup0ia maritima - ~qdgeon Grass
The leaves of widgeon grass, in contrast to the relatively broader
blades of eelgrass, are narrow and needle-like in appearance and
grow from a slender stem. Widgeon grass is not considered a true
seagrass, but rather a freshwater species with a wide range of
salinity tolerance. Widgeon grass can complete its life cycle over a
salinity range of 0 to 45 parts per thousand.
Widgeon grass occurs along the entire Atlantic and Gulf coasts to
Texas, as well as inland west of the Mississippi River in alkaline
waters. This species grows almost exclusively in brackish water
and frequently in lower salinity pools and salt marshes. In contrast,
eelgrass typically dominates the middle to high salinity ranges.
Januav/1996 Pag~ 54
Peconic Estua~/Program Submerged Aqua'dc Vegetation Sludy - Final Report
Widgeon grass and eelgrass are generally found growing in mutually
exclusive populations, although some mixed beds have been
reported in the lower Chesapeake Bay.
Similar to eelgrass, the depth distribution of widgeon grass is
reportedly controlled by available light. In an Australian estuary
study, the reduction of ambient light levels directly paralleled a
reduction in Ruooia biomass.
The flowers of widgeon grass are borne in small clusters of 4 to 6
on the end of a slender stalk. Fruiting generally occurs between the
middle and late summer.
Bo
Ge~e,-~ B-io!-_n~- and Habitat Req. uirements of the Ma~ I~ae Species Sampled
The identification, mapping and analysis of sea grass occurrences was the primary
focus of this study. The presence of macroalgae (seaweeds) were also noted, but
no attempt was made to produce an exhaustive botanical survey of the entire
Peconic Estuary system.
Over 36 different species of macroaigae were observed growing within the
Peconic Estuary System during the course of CA's field investigations conducted
in the fall of lgg4. Many of these species were collected, identified and
preserved for future reference. Silhouettes of the preserved specimens are
included in Exhibit A of this report.
The macroalgae observed during this study were generally classified down to
species level, and to genus level in some cases, utilizing both gross and
microscopic examination. As shown in Table 1, the observed macroalgae flora
consisted of 19 species or genera of red algae (Phylum Rhodophyta), 9 green
algae (Phylum chlorophyta), and 8 brown algae (Phylum Phaeophyta). Five
specimens could not be classified beyond the level of Phylum due to the
condition of the plant material and limitations imposed by the botanical keys
available for identification. These specimens consisted of three different types of
red algae and two different brown algae which, for mapping purposes, were
labeled as "miscellaneeus" within their respective phyla. Table I presents a
summary of the macroalgae identified during CA's field sampling program.
pace.55
Janu~ l~J6
Peconic Estuary Pro~r=m
Submer&ed Aquatic Vegetation Study - Final Report
Several references were widely used for identification of the macroalgae collected
during CA's field sampling, as well as for the biological and habitat synopses
which follow. These references include:
Brinkhuis. 1983. Seaweeds in New York Waters; A Primer.
Dawson. 1956. How to Know the Seaweeds.
Gosner. 1979. A Field Guide to the Atlantic Seashore: Invertebrates and
Seaweeds of the Atlantic Coast from the Ba_v of Fundy to Cape Hatteras.
Hillson. 1977. Seaweeds: A Color Coded, Illustrated Guide to Common
Marine Plants of the East Coast of the United States.
Major. 1977. The Book of Seaweed.
Schneider, et al. 1991. Seaweeds of the Southeastern United States:
Cape Hal;teras to Cape Canaveral.
Taylor, et al. 1985. Seaweeds of the Connecticut Shore - A Waders Guide.
Taylor. 1957. Marine Algae of the Northeastern Coast of North America.
Where additional references were used for specific items ef information, a citation
is included below. A complete bibliography is provided at the end of this report.
1. Phylum Chlorophyta - Green Al_eae
Green seaweeds, when considered as an overall group, generally require
ample light for growth and reproduction, and are typically associated with
higher intertidal zones or subtidal areas in shallow water.
a. Codium fragile - Green Fleece
This coarsely bushy, thick green seaweed is commonly found in
temperate waters throughout the world attached to shells, pilings,
rocks and ropes in depths up to 15 feet. The introduction of this
alien species to the northeastern United States is fairly recent. The
(
Janua~ lgg6 Fa~e.56
Peconic Estuary Pro~ram Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Study - FinaJ Report
first specimens were found in 1957 in the waters of the outer
Peconic Estuary off East Marion in the Town of Southold. It has
since extended its range from Maine to New Jersey. Although the
origin and exact method of introduction are uncertain, it is
conjectured that Codium fragile was initially introduced with oyster
transplants that came from Europe.
Green fleece grows and reproduces at a rapid rate in our local
waters, outcompeting native seaweeds. Overabundance of
~ is believed to have an adverse impact on productive
shellfish beds. From September through November, large adult
plants release asexual biflagellated zoospores or "swarmers". The
swarmers germinate after settling onto a suitable substrate and
produce a mat of prostrate filaments or ~holdfast". The holdfast
over-winters, then grows an erect thallus in the spring.
Reproductive organs are developed on fronds over 10 centimeters
in length, and spore development begins when water temperatures
reach 12° to 15° C. Larger plants can accumulate enough oxygen
interstitially to become buoyant, thereby pulling the shellfish to
which they are attached out of the bed and become adrift
(Wassman & Ramus, 1973; Churchill & Moeller, 1972).
b. Ulva lactuca - Sea Lettuce
This thin, sheet-like green seaweed is commonly found worldwide
in shallow brackish to salt water, initially attached to rocks, stones
and mudflats, but later drifting free. The holdfast is perennial, while
the blade is annual. Sea lettuce grows in a variety of environments
ranging from exposed rocks to quiet, semi-stagnant brackish pools,
where huge detached sheets carpet the muddy bottoms. Sea
lettuce is tolerant of pollutants, and may proliferate to nuisance
proportions in brackish waters that receive sewage effluent or other
nutrient-rich discharges.
~ spp. - Hollow Green Weeds
These slender green seaweeds occur in a variety of habitats. They
are commonly found attached to rocks, dead shells, mudflats or
wood in the intertidal zone, but may also be found drifting free or
Janumy 1996 pa~e. 57
Peconic Estuary Program
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Study - Final Report
growing as epiphytes on other seaweeds. Some species tolerate a
wide range of salinities and can be found growing in pools fed by
freshwater seepage or deep into estuaries. Reproduction is by
asexual zoospores or by gametes formed on similar plants.
As listed in Table 1, four species in the genus Enteromorpha were
found in the Peconic Estuary during this study. E. linza is primarily
found in late spring and summer growing on rocks and wood in the
upper intertidal zone, and often in quiet exposed situations.
E. comoressa can be found in all shore zones, growing on rocks,
stones, derelict boat hulls, piers and other wood structures. In
brackish water and pools, E. compressa can form a prolific green
carpet, and may also be found in estuary mudbanks and muddy
sandflats. E. intestinalis can be found throughout the year in
brackish to ocean waters, but it most commonly occurs in tide
pools and protected areas attached to shells, stones and woodwork.
In early stages, E. clathrata can be found attached to rocks,
woodwork, other algae and eelgrass, but by summer E. clathrata is
often found floating in masses in warm, quiet (and often brackish)
waters.
d. Chaetomorpha linum and Chaetomorpha mela_eonium
These thin filamentous green seaweeds are typically found in tide
pools or the lower intertidal zone. C. linum drifts in large entangled
masses, while C. melagonium is typically attached to rocks or
pebbles. C. linum is common along the entire eastern coast of the
United States. C. melagonium is found from New Jersey north to
the St. Lawrence River, but is fairly uncommon south of Cape Cod.
Reproduction is accomplished asexually by the production of
zoospores, and sexually by isogametes.
2. Phylum Rhodo_ohyta- Red Al_cae
Red seaweeds are highly variable in color, ranging from the typical pink or
purple to almost black or brown, and some are strongly tinged with green
or yellow. Positive identification of species within this group is often very
difficult for even the experienced phycologist. Red seaweeds are generally
Janua~ 1996 Pae~ Sa
Feconic Estuary Program Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Study - Final Report
smaller is size than the browns and vary greatly in form. In general terms,
red seaweeds need less light than other types and are commonly found
at lower intertidal levels and deeper water. Most red algae have complex
reproductive cycles, primarily sexual in nature, although asexual
reproduction does occur in some species.
a. Euthora cristata - Lacy Redweed
This fan-shaped red seaweed is commonly found north of Cape Cod
attached to rocks in tide pools and exposed intertidal areas. Further
south to New Jersey, however, it is less common and found in
deeper waters attached to submerged debris or kelp. Reproduction
in the genus Euthora is accomplished through a fairly complex
sexual cycle, typical of most red algae. E. cristata fruits in the
summer.
b. Cystoclonium purpureum - Brushy Redweed
This relatively large bushy red seaweed is commonly found from
Long Island north to Newfoundland. It typically grows attached to
shells and rocks in sandy subtidal areas, in both protected and
exposed locations. Young plants first attach by a coarse fibrous
holdfast. Plants mature eady in the summer, and the bushy upper
portions often become detached and wash ashore by fall.
Co
Polysiphonia spp. - Tubed Weeds
The genus PolysJphonia is one of the most commonly encountered
small, delicate red seaweeds, with over 150 species occurring
worldwide adapted to nearly every different type of marine habitat.
Approximately 25 species are known to occur along the Atlantic
coast. Some species are found only in deep water, others in tidal
pools or quiet shallows. Many species are epiphytic on other
seaweeds or eelgrass, and others are found attached to rocks,
shells, and wood structures.
The name Polysiphonia refers to the "many tubes" or "siphons"
which support the structure of the plant. Upon microscopic
Janua~ 1996 Pa,~e ~9
Peconic Estuary Program Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Study - Final Report
examination, the plant appears to consist of a central filament of
cells arranged butt end to end, with each central cell surrounded
by four or more lateral pericentral cells. On younger branch tips,
the plant may appear ribbed or tubular.
As listed in Table 1, two species in the genus Polysiphonia were
found in the Peconic Estuary during this study. P. denudata occurs
along the entire Atlantic coast, but is most common south of Cape
Cod. P. denudata typically grows in warm, shallow bays and inlets
attached to rocks, shells, wharfs and other submerged objects. It
is also frequently found growing as an epiphyte on eelgrass.
P. denudata fruits in late summer.
P. subtilissima can be found in salt marshes and mosquito ditches,
and muddy coastal shoreline areas often extending up large tidal
rivers into the fresh portion of the estuary.
d. Ceramium spp. - Banded Weeds
Similar to the genus Polysiphonia, the genus Ceramium (which
includes approximately 14 species) consists of relatively small, red
seaweeds that are commonly encountered along the Atlantic coast.
The younger branches appear segmented due to the presence of
cortical bands (hence the name "banded weed") and the branch tips
characteristically cur~e inward giving them a pincher-like
appearance.
C. diaphanum commonly occurs in shallow (less than 10 foot
depth) quiet bays of southern New England. This seaweed typically
attaches to stones, shells, other seaweeds and eelgrass.
C. diaphanum can be found from spring through fall, and fruits in
late summer.
e. Chondrus crispus - Irish Moss
This fan-shaped red seaweed is commonly found growing in the
lower intertidal zone, often in exposed locations, attached to rocks,
shells or woodwork. The range for C. crispus extends from New
Janua~ 1~6 Pa&e.60
Peconic Estuary Program Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Study - Final Report
Jersey north to Newfoundland. Irish moss is a perennial seaweed,
and fruits from summer through fall.
C. cris0us is a commercially important seaweed. The literature
indicates that Irish moss has been collected for nearly 150 years as
a source of carrageenin, which has wide application as a gel in
industry and pharmacy, and used nutritionally as a thickener and
stabilizing agent. Carrageenin is an important ingredient in such
products as chocolate milk, salad dressings, toothpaste, lotions,
syrups, etc.
f. Lomentaria baileyana
This relatively small, densely branched red seaweed can be found
in sheltered shallow waters (to depths of approximately 25 feet)
attached to stones and shells. L. baileyana fruits in the summer
and is probably an annual plant, according to the literature. This
would account for the retrieval of only the upper branching portions
of the plant during the fall sampling program for this investigation.
g. ~ pedicellata - Chenille Seaweed
This distinctive, slender, feathery-appearing red seaweed can be
found growing on shells and stones in protected shallow waters
(from 3 to 12 feet in depth) which are subject to free tidal
exchange. On occasion, D. pedicellata may be found growing
attached to other coarse seaweeds or eelgrass, or fragments may
be found adrift in bays and inlets. Chenille seaweed ranges from
the tropical Caribbean waters northward to New Hampshire.
Fruiting occurs briefly sometime between mid-summer to late fall.
h. Chondria spp.- Pod Weed
These bushy, relatively small red seaweeds are often found
associated with banded weeds (Ceramium spp.) and tubed weeds
CPolvsiphonia spp.) in the lower intertidal to subtidal zones. Pod
weeds are typically attached to rocks, wood, and shells, with some
species epiphytic on eelgrass and coarse seaweeds. Chondria
January 1996 pab, e.61
Peconic Estuary Program
Submerged Aqua~c Vegetation Study - Final Repor~
occurs from Nova Scotia south to the tropics. All four species in
this genus occurring on the Atlantic coast fruit in the summer.
i. Agardhiella s..ubulata
A. subulata is one of the most common species of warm bays and
sounds found south of Cape Cod to the tropics, where it grows
attached to shells and small stones. This coarsely bushy red
seaweed typically grows in shallow protected estuarine waters, from
just below the Iow tide line to a depth of about 12 feet. A. subulata
is a perennial seaweed in local waters, where it develops in spring,
fruits in the summer and fades in late fall.
j. Antithamnion spp.
These filamentous, branched or tufted small red seaweeds are
common along the entire Atlantic coast. Antithamnion is typically
found growing on rocks or epiphytic on other seaweeds in shallow
water or intertidal pools.
k. Grinellia americana - Grinnell's Pink Leaf
This distinctive, delicate, leafy red seaweed is an attractive but
short-lived species common to the northeastern and middle Atlantic
coast. Within the course of about one month, it suddenly appears,
grows rapidly, fruits in early to mid-summer and quickly fades.
Grinnell's pink leaf is typically found attached to wharves, stones,
or shells in warm quiet waters to depths of about three feet below
Iow tide. Sometimes masses of this seaweed can be found adrift in
late summer.
I. Phycodrys rubens - Sea Oak
This distinctive, leafy, veined, red seaweed bears a strong
resemblance to upland oak leaves. Sea oak is a deep-water algae
which typically grows attached to stones and shells, occurring from
Now Jersey north through Newfoundland. Sea oak also commonly
grows as an epiphyte on other coarse seaweeds such as kelp. Sea
Janua~ 19g~ pa~e .62
Peconic Estuary Program Submerged Aquatic Vegelation Sbzdy - Final Report
oak is considered a biennial or perennial, and may produce fruits
throughout the year, but particularly in the fall to winter.
m. Gracilaria tikvahiae
Oo
This coarsely bushy medium red seaweed is commonly found in
very shallow water of bays and sounds south of Cape Cod to the
tropics. G. tikvahiae grows attached to rocks, small stones, pilings,
ropes, shells, and firm bottom substrates. Local abundance of this
seaweed may be Iow due to a lack of rocky or stable substrates.
G. tikvahiae may reproduce asexually through fragmentation,
although it primarily follows a complex sexual cycle. Plants grow
rapidly during the summer months when water temperatures
exceed 15°C, and mature from late summer to fall.
Gracilaria is a commercially important seaweed. Many species are
harvested worldwide for the extraction of agar compounds which
are used in biological culture media and for gelling and stabilizing
agents in foods.
Spermothamnion spp.
These filamentous branched and tufted small red seaweeds are
fairly common along the Atlantic coast south of Cape Cod.
S. turneri is a common species found locally which grows as an
epiphyte on Irish moss (Chondrus crisous) and leaf weeds
~Phyllophora spp.) in shallow subtidal waters.
Champia parvula - Barrel Weed
This coarsely segmented, bushy red seaweed can be found in
protected coves and bays along the Atlantic coast from Cape Cod
south to the tropics. C. parvula grows in quiet subtidal waters,
often as an epiphyte on other seaweeds. C. parvula fruits primarily
in the summer.
Janua~ 1996 pa~e.63
Peconic Estuary Program S~Jbmer§ed Aquatic Vegetation S~dy - Final Report
p. Ahnfeltia plicata - Wire Weed
As the name "wire weed" implies, this red seaweed resembles
coarse steel wool, growing in stiff bushy tufts attached to stones
and mdc crevices in the lower intertidal and subtidal zones. It is
also often found washed ashore in tangles. Wire weed is a
perennial seaweed which occurs from New Jersey northward to the
Arctic. A. plicata fruits Jn the winter.
3. Phylum Phaeophyta - Brown Algae
Brown seaweeds va~/in color from yellow and golden-brown through dark
brown and black. Brown seaweeds are classically associated with rocky
intertidal shorelines, but the larger forms also occupy deeper subtidal
zones. Although there are a few species of small, filamentous or crustose
forms, when considered as a group, the browns consist of some of the
largest seaweeds.
a. Fucus spp.- Rockweeds
These conspicuous, coarse brown seaweeds are commonly found
attached to rocks, pilings, and shells in the lower intertidal zone,
often in highly exposed locations. Rockweeds also grow around the
bases of salt marsh vegetation and float free in ditches and pools.
Rockweeds which are exposed during Iow tide provide protective
cover from sun, heat and desiccation for the various faunal and
floral species which grow on or beneath them in the intertidal zone.
Of the seven species which occupy the northeastern coast, only
one species (Fucus vesiculosus) has distinctive air bladders along
the blade, while all of the species develop swollen receptacles at
the ends of mature branches.
Reproduction is accomplished strictly by sexual means, through the
production of eggs and sperm cells from different receptacles often
on the same plant. Fruiting may occur year-round, but is least
likely to occur during the winter months. There are some
references in the literature which suggest that exposure to sun, and
changes in hydrostatic pressure due to daily tidal cycles on plants
January 1996 pase'64 (
Peconic Estuan/Program Submerged Aquatic Ve§etation Study - Final Report
in the intertidal zone promotes release of gametes, while light
intensity may control reproduction in subtidal plants.
~ nodosum - Knotted Wrack
This narrow brown seaweed bears distinctive single air bladders and
short branchlets. The ends of mature branches develop swollen
receptacles, which are similar in appearance and function to those
of Fucus spp. A. nodosum is one of the most common brown
seaweeds occurring from Long Island north to the Arctic. Knotted
wrack typically grows attached to rocks in the lower intertidal zone
and often forms a distinct band just below rockweeds (Fucus spp.).
A. nodosum is a perennial seaweed, which fruits in the winter and
sheds the reproductive receptacles by late spring. Knotted wrack
is often collected in the northeast and used as packing material for
bait worms and lobsters.
c. ~ ~ - Gulfweed
This slender "leafy" brown seaweed bears numerous berry-like air
bladders along the main axis and branches. ~ is the
only northeast species which grows attached within the genus
~ (which is generally associated with pelagic frcc floating
forms). ~ is commonly found growing on shells or
stones in relatively quiet waters at depths ranging from just below
the lowest tide to 90 feet or more. The range of ~
extends from Florida to southern Massachusetts, with findings in
Long Island Sound reported to be rare within this century (Gosner,
1979).
Fruiting occurs in late summer and fall from receptacles that are
clustered at the terminal ends of the plant. ~ is
believed to be a perennial seaweed.
Laminaria saccharina - Broad-Leaf Kelp
This large, simple bladed brown seaweed is typically found attached
to rocks, pilings, wharves, ropes and shells in the sublittoral zone,
often in areas of strong surf. L. saccharina is among the largest of
pa&e.65
J anua~y 1996
Peconic Estuary Program Submer&ed Aquatic Vegeta~on Study - Final Report
the local seaweeds, and may grow up to 15 feet or more in length.
L. saccharina is more commonly associated with deep coastal
waters north of Cape Cod, and may be considered unusual locally.
Reproduction in kelps is accomplished through a two-phased sexual
process; the first phase entails production of zoospores which
germinate into microscopic gametophytes - which only become
fertile under exposure to white or blue light; the second phase
entails the producUon and fusion of gametes which eventually
develop and germinate into the adult plant. Most of the
L. saccharina plants found in local waters are annuals. The adult
plant dies back after release of the zoospores in summer.
e. Chorda ilium - Smooth Cord Weed
This slender, whip-like brown seaweed is commonly found growing
in clumps attached to stones and shells in the lower intertidal and
subUdal zones in sheltered waters. The range for C. ilium extends
from New Jersey northward to the Arctic. Smooth Cord weed is an
annual seaweed that fruits from late summer through fall.
f. Stilophora rhizodes - Rough Tangle Weed
This sUff, brittle, bushy brown seaweed is typically found in warm
protected bays and shallow waters, loosely attached to the bases
of eelgrass plants or other objects, and epiphytic on seaweeds or
drifting free. S. rhizodes ranges from North Carolina northwards to
Prince Edward Island. VesetaUve growth and fruiting occur
primarily in late summer.
g. Sphaerotrichia divaricata - Slippery Tangle Weed
This slender, bushy brown seaweed closely resembles SUIophera
rhizodes. It can be found growing as an epiphyte on other coarse
seaweeds in protected coves, and tolerates somewhat polluted
waters. S. divaricata ranges from New Jersey north to Labrador.
h. Acrothrix novae-an_eliae
Janua~ 1996 Page.66 (
Peconic Estuary Program Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Study - Final Report
This loosely tufted brown seaweed is typically found growing as an
epiphyte on knotted wrack ~c(~___Cqp_~llum spp.) and eelgrass
(Zostera marina) or growing on stones in relatively protected
subtidal areas. This species ranges from Long Island to Cope Cod.
Fruiting occurs in spring and early summer.
SECTION 4.2 - P ~r~-~n. t SAV Distr~b,~dion, Abundance and Density
As discussed in Section 3.4, the data collected during this investigation were compiled
into a Lotus 1-2-3 data base to facilitate analysis. Table 2 displays all station summary
data, arranged by station number. The field data sheets which provided the information
that is summarized in Table 2 are included in Exhibit C.
Table 3 lists all of the species of submerged aquatic vegetation observed during CA's
field sampling program, and the number of stations at which each species was
encountered. This provides an overall picture of the relative abundance of each species
found.
Table 4 presents a quantitative summary of the spatial distribution of the five dominant
SAY types (i.e., Zostera marina, Codium fra_eile, Ulva lactuca, mixed red algae, and
mixed brown algae) within the 13 sub-areas in the Peconic Estuary, and thereby shows
the overall pattern of the vegetative communities within the study area. Maps 4 and
5, respectively, show the distribution of eelgrass and dominant macroalgae. These data
are examined further below under the discussion of each respective dominant SAV type.
The maps presented in this report depict the instantaneous, system-wide distribution
of SAY in the Estuary at the time of the survey. The information in these maps was
derived from 214 observation stations throughout the entire Peconic Estuary, as
supplemented by the interpretation of black and white aerial photographs. Due to the
broad scale of the survey and limitations imposed by the resolution of the aerial
photography, detailed mapping of SAV on a local scale was not possible, nor was such
an undertaking feasible within the time and budgetary constraints of this project.
Therefore, it is possible that small scattered patches of SAV that locally are known to
exist may not be represented on the maps, especially in embayments and tributaries off
the main body of the Estuary. Based on these considerations, readers are cautioned
that Maps 4 and 5 should not be used in site-specific, regulatory decision-making. The
evaluation of proposed development projects requires a much more detailed mapping
January 1996 page .67
Peconic Estuan/Program Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Study - Final Report
scale, which necessitates the completion of field studies as part of the site-spedfic
environmental review process.
As part of this study, anecdotal information regarding eelgrass distribution was collected
from agency and government officials and other knowledgeable individuals. This
information was used in designing the field surveillance program, with stations located
to provide direct observations of all reported eelgrass beds as well as other areas of
suspected SAV. However, in some areas where eelgrass was reported to be present
(e.g., Coecles Harbor and West Neck Harbor on Shelter Island, and the Sag Harbor Cove
Complex), no eelgrass was found during CA's field sampling program, perhaps due to
recent rapid die-offs in those areas. Because of such discrepancies, the actual mapping
of eelgrass beds for this study relied strictly on CA's field observations of SAY
distributions, as supplemented by the review of the aerial photographs. Anecdotal
information that could not be independently verified by CA was not incorporated into
the distribution maps.
Sea Grass Distribution and Abundance
As discussed in Section 4.1 .A, only two seagrasses were found growing within the
Peconic Estuary system, namely eelgrass (Z0stera marina) and widgeon grass
~Ruopia maritima). 7. marina was by far the most abundant of the two seagrass
species, occurring at a total of 34 of the 214 stations (or 22 percent of the 152
stations at which SAY was observed to be present), and achieving dominance at
30 of those stations. In contrast, IL maritima was observed at only two stations,
and was a secondary component of the vegetative community at both locations.
Map 4 and Table 4 indicate the current extent of eelgrass beds as identified
through CA's field sampling and aerial photograph interpretation. No eelgrass
was found in the waters to the west of Shelter Island. The farthest west that
eelgrass was recorded was an isolated patch situated approximately 50 yards off
the shoreline just south and east of Mill Creek (at the north end of Southold Bay)
in Southold Town. CA observed that this bed appears to have been damaged by
scallop harvesting operations which had removed all plant parts except the roots
and rhizomes in some areas.
Dense, healthy beds of eelgrass were present on the southeastern side of Shelter
Island, and extended eastward through Northwest Harbor and just past Cedar
Point in East Hampton Town. Moderately dense beds of eelgrass mixed with
January 1996
# # (fi) I 2 3 Avg. (kg/sqm) C~ge ryp~ Type I (ppt) (F) (It) ;(Iq~fsqm) (g/sqm)
48 03 2.0 312 312 427 5 sm UI Ut 22~ I 68 2 0.21 9
B2 09 7,5 NS NS NS NS 2 s C~ I C~ C~ 30 66 5I NS NS
84 09 2.9 652 794 723 991 10 gs C~ C~ Fa 30 66 6I 0.99 56
SAVEXELXLS 1119/96
# # (fi) 1 I 2 3 Avg (kg/sqm) Cvrge Type Type (p~ot) (R (fi) (kgfs~m) (gJsqm)
# # (fi) I 2 $ Avg. Ik~=~m) Cvl~e T~/pe Present
TABLE 3
RELATIVE ABUNDANCE OF
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
IDENTIFIED DURING CASHIN ASSOCIATES' FIELD SAMPLING
IN THE PECONIC ESTUARY
No. of Botanical Name Common Name Code
Stations
Encountered
PHYLUM SPERMATOPHYTA (Sea Grasses)
34 Zostera marina Eel§rass Zm
2 Ruppia maritima Widgeon Grass Rm
PHYLUM RHODOPHYTA (Red Algae)
16 £uthora cristata Lacy Redweed Ec
12 Cystoclonium purpureum Brushy Redweed Cp
3 Polysiphonia denudata Tubed Weeds Pp
I Polysiphonia subtilissima Tubed Weeds Ps
4 Polysiphonia sl~p. Tubed Weeds Po
1 Ceramium diaphanum Banded Weeds Cd
6 Ceramium spp. Banded Weeds ~ Ce
4 i Chondrus crispus Irish moss Cc
3 Lomentaria baileyana Lb
3 Dasya pedicellata Chenille Seaweed Dp
2 Chondria spp. Pod Weed Co
2 ,~gardhiella sublata As
2 Antithamnion spp. An
1 Grinnellia americana Grinnell's Pink Leaf Ga
I Phycodrys rubens Sea Oak Pr
1 Gracilaria tikvahiae Gt
I Spermothamnion spp. Sp
I Champia parvula Barrel Weed Ch
I Ahnfeltia plicata Wire Weed Ah
3 Miscellaneous (unidentified) Mr
TABLE 3 (CONTINUED)
Stations
Encountered
PHYLUM CHLOROPHYTA (Green Algae)
88 Codium fragile Green Fleece Cf
37 Ulva lactuca Sea Lettuce UI
3 Enteromorpha linza Hollow Green Weeds El
2 Enteromorpha compressa Hollow Green Weeds Em
I Hollow Green Weeds Et
1
Enteromorpha clathrata
Enteromorpha intestinalis
Hollow Green Weeds
Ei
1 Enteromorpha spp. Hollow Green Weeds En
2 Chaetomorpha melagonium Cm
I Chaetomorpha linum CI
PHYLUM PHAEOPHYTA (Brown Algae)
27 Fucus spp. Rockweed Fu
9 Ascophyllum nodosum Knotted Wrack Ap
4 Sargassum filipendula Sf
2
2
2
Note 1.
Laminaria saccharina
Gulfweed
Broad-leaf Kelp
Smooth Cord Weed
Chorda ilium
Miscellaneous (unidentified)
Note 2.
Es
Ca
Stilophora rhizodes Sr
I Sphaerotrichia divaricata Slippery Tangle Weed Sd
1 Acrothrix novae-angliae Ac
2
Mp
Wherever "spp." is indicated, the plant was identified to genus
level only. The species is likely to be different than other species
listed in the same genus.
Where "Miscellaneous" is indicated, the plant could not be
identified beyond the broad classification of Phylum, using the
botanical keys available.
TABLE 4
SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF DOMINANT
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION TYPES
IN THE PECONIC ESTUARY
NUMBER OF STATIONS WITH EACH DOMINANT SAV TYPE
SUB- Zm Cf UI MR MB NONE ALL SAV ^LL
STATIONS STATIONS
AREA
I 0 6 10 6 0 4 22 26
2 0 17 5 6 0 8 28 36
3 0 11 9 2 I 11 23 34
4 0 6 0 0 1 8 7 15
5 2 6 I I 0 5 10 15
6 7 2 0 0 0 2 9 11
7 8 3 1 2 0 7 14 21
8 6 4 0 1 2 7 13 20
9 0 4 0 0 0 0 4 4
10 I 3 0 1 I 5 6 11
11 2 I 0 5 2 2 10 12
11A I .0 0 0 0 3 1 4
11B 3 2 0 0 0 0 5 5
INNER 0(0) 23(35) 15(58) 12(50) 0(0) 12(19) 50(33) 62(29)
ESTUARY
MIDDLE 17(57) 28(43) 11(42) 5(21) 2(29) 33(53) 63(41) 96(45)
ESTUARY
OUTER 13(43) 14(22) 0(0) 7(29) 5(71) 17(28) 39(26) 56(26)
ESTUARY
TOTAL 30 165 126 124 I 7 162 152 214
Notes
Dominant SAV types: Zm-- Zostera marina; Cf= Codium fragile; UI= UIva lactuca:
MR = mixed red algae; MB-- mixed brown algae
Inner Estuary = Sub-areas 1 and 2; Middle Estuary = Sub-areas 3,4,5,6 and 7; Outer
Estuary = sub-areas 8, 9, 10, 1 lA, and 11 B.
(#) = percent of total for each dominant SAV type.
peconic Estuan/Program Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Study - Final Report
green fleece (Codium fra_eile) were found bordering the southeastern shoreline
of Shelter Island near Mashomack Point. Rockweed (Fucus spp.) replaced green
fleece in mixed stands further north off Ram Island. Dense solid stands of
eelgrass were again found at the extreme northern end of Shelter Island between
Hay Beach Point and Cornelius Point, throughout Orient Harbor and the mouth
of Hallock Bay in 5outhold Town. At the northern extreme of Orient Harbor and
the inner reach of Hallock Bay green fleece became more dominant.
Further east, eelgrass appeared in spot locations, just northeast of Accabonac
Harbor in Gardiners Bay, and along the southeastern shoreline of Gardiners
Island. Eastward of those locations on the South Fork, eelgrass appeared only
inside protected harbors such as Napeague Harbor and Lake k4ontauk. Within
Lake Montauk, eelgrass was represented in beds mixed with green fleece on the
northern end, in a monoculture towards the middle, and was replaced by solid
beds of green fleece towards the southern end. This represents a shift in the
SAV species present in Lake Montauk since the survey conducted by Flagg and
Greene in 1980 (see Section 2.2.B for further discussion).
Ruooia maritima (widgeon grass) was found at only two isolated sampling stations
wi{l~in the Peconic Estuary. These occurred at a three foot depth in Goose Creek
off Flanders Bay (Town of Southampton) and at a depth of slightly more than one
foot in Broadwater Cove off Cutchogue Harbor Crown of Southold). At both
locations, widgeon grass was represented as a secondary species in a mixed bed
with sea lettuce (Ulva lactuca) and various red and brown seaweeds. The bed
of widgeon grass was moderately dense in Goose Creek and relatively sparse in
Broadwater Cove.
B. Green Algae Distribution and Abundance
The distribution of dominant macroalgae types within the Peconic Estuary system
is presented graphically in Map 5. As discussed in Section 3.3~, this map
represents a compilation of actual field observations, aerial photograph
interpretation and map interpolation based on the habitat requirements of each
macroalgae species identified. Refer also to Table 4 for a quantitative summary
of the distribution of the dominant macroalgae throughout the Estuary.
Two species of green seaweeds, namely green fleece (Codium fragile) and sea
lettuce (Ulva lactuca), were each found at more sampling stations than other
January 1996 Page.69
Peconic Estuary Program
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Study - Final Report
individual algae species. In fact, the 125 occurrences of these two species were
just slightly less than the 129 total occurrences of all other macroalgae types
combined (see Table 3).
As shown in Table 3, green fleece was found at 88 field stations (which is 58
percent of the 152 stations at which SAV was present). As shown in Table 4,
green fleece was the dominant SAV type at 65 stations.
Green flccce was found to be well distributed throughout the entire Peconic
Estuary system, occupying the transition zones between the shallows and deeper
waters, with two notable exceptions: green fleece was not found within the
quieter waters of smaller tidal creeks, and appeared to avoid more fully exposed
locations, such as the open waters of Gardiners Bay and western Block Island
Sound. However, green fleece did appear on the extreme eastern end of the
South Fork, on the lee side of Goff Point and Hicks Island at the mouth of
NapeagUe Harbor, and inside the protected waters of Lake Aaontauk.
Compared to green fleece, sea lettuce was found to be far less abundant in the
Peconic Estuary overall. Sea lettuce was present at 37 stations (which is 24
percent of the 152 stations at which SAV was present), and was the dominant
SAV type at 26 stations.
Sea lettuce was also found to be far less ubiquitous in distribution compared to
green fleece. Sea lettuce was clustered in the inner and north central portions
of the Estuary, and was confined to the relatively quiet waters of smaller tidal
creeks and the shallows of adjoining embayments. Sea lettuce was not observed
in the outer portion of the Estuary (i.e., east of Shelter Island), and was found
only at very Iow densities at a few scattered stations in the waters to the east of
Little Peconic Bay. This is similar to the distribution of LJ. lactuca noted by Harlin
and Rines (1993) in Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island, where this species was also
fou nd concentrated near the major sou rces of freshwater and nutrients, especially
in sheltered areas.
C. Red Algae Distribution and Abundance
Of the red seaweeds identified, two species were found in slightly higher
abundance than the rest of the reds. Lacy redweed ~ ~ was found
at 16 stations (representing about 11 percent of the 152 stations at which SAY
Janua~ 1996 Pa~e .70
Peconic Estuary Program Submerged Aquatic Ve~e~ation Study - Final Report
was present), and brushy redweed (CystoclonJum ~ was found at 12
stations (representing about 8 percent of the SAY stations). Occurrences of these
two species appeared to be clustered in the inner and middle portions of the
Peconic Estuary, with lacy redweed appearing more westerly and brushy redweed
appearing more easterly within that area. These two species were often
represented in mixed stands along with green fleece, possibly occupying slightly
deeper positions near the same sampling location.
Towards the eastern end of the Peconic Estuary, the species composition of red
macroalgae shifted to mixed beds containing Irish moss (Chondrus crispus) in
rocky exposed locations, and scattered occurrences of Chenille seaweed (Dasya
pedicellata) and various other larger red seaweeds. Since the red seaweeds were
represented throughout the Peconic Estuary system, and no one spedes attained
a level of dominance comparable to the two most prevalent green algae, red
algae are classified as a single composite group on the distribution map (Map 5)
and the accompanying data table (Table 4). Areas mapped as dominated by red.
seaweeds had a variety of vegetative community compositions, such as: a single
red algae present with no other species represented; or several red algae spedes
occurring alone; or several red seaweeds in a mixed bed with one or two spedes
of less abundant green or brown algae.
D. Brown Algae Distribution and Abundance
Rockweed (Fucus spp.) was found to be the most abundant brown seaweed in
the Peconic Estuary system, occurring at 27 stations (representing 18 percent of
the stations at which SAV was present). Rockweed was found throughout the
Peconic Estuary system occupying suitable habitats ranging from protected tidal
creeks, along the shorelines of the larger embayments, to the rocky exposed
interfaces off Gardiners Island. This widespread distribution may not be
immediately apparent when referring to Map 5 and Table 4, because at several
locations in the inner portion of the Estuary other macroalgae types (particularly
sea lettuce) were dominant in mixed stands, thereby masking the occurrence of
rockweed.
Similar to the treatment for red seaweeds, brown seaweeds were mapped as a
single composite category in Ntap 5. This is due to the fact that although
rockweed was well represented throughout the Estuary, other less abundant
species of brown algae occurred as co-dominants at some sampling stations in
Jant~ 1996 Pa~e ,71
Peconic Estuary Program Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Study - Find Report
close association with rockweed, while in other cases, similar to the situation that
applied to rockweed, certain other species of brown algae present in the inner
portion of the estuary were masked by more dominant beds of sea lettuce. Most
notably: knotted wrack (Ascophyllum nodosum) occurred within protected coves
and embayments often associated with green fleece or sea lettuce; gulfweed
¢Sarg_assum fllipendula) was observed east of North Haven Peninsula
(Southampton Town) and east of Cedar Point (East Hampton Town); and broad-
leaf kelp (Laminaria saccharina) was collected from the extreme eastern end of
the Estuary near Gardiners Point and offCulloden Point near Montauk Lake where
rockier substrates prevailed.
E. SAV Density Observations
SAV density measurements were made at a total of 90 field stations. Following
procedures detailed in Section 3.4, these data were used to derive dry weight
biomass estimates for each of the five dominant SAV types, and within each of
the three reaches of the Estuary and the entire study area. The average dry
weight biomass (DWB) results are summarized in Table 5 and are discussed
below.
Overall, Z__ostera marina had the highest unit DWB within the Estuary, at 370
g/m2. The average DWB was 435 g/m2 for eelgrass areas in the outer Estuary,
and 315 g/m2 in the middle Estuary; eelgrass was absent from the inner Estuary.
The maximum DWB for a single sampling location was 1146 g/m= at a station off
the southern tip of Shelter Island (Mashomack Point). Eelgrass DWB was 988
g/m= at a station at the north end of Napeegue Harbor and 895 g/m= at a station
in southern Gardiners Bay just north of Accabonac Harbor. In general, the
remaining Z. marina stations had DWB values ranging from 200 to 500 g/m2, with
a Iow of 2b-~nd ~'~ ~/m2 at a pair of stations in Orient Harbor and 84 g/m~ in the
adjacent waters of Long Beach Bay.
The mixed brown algae (MB) category was second to eelgrass in overall average
DWB at 294 g/m2, but was only represented by 7 stations in the entire Estuary.
The maximum recorded brown algae DWB was 1174 g/m2 at a station on the
west side of the North Haven peninsula; Fucus was the dominant form present.
Due to the Iow number of MB stations in the Estuary, this single high value had
a great effect on the overall average DWB; the other two stations at which data
were recorded had DWB values of 80 and 84 g/m2.
Janualy 1996 Pa~le ,7'2 (
TABLE 5
SUMMARY OF UNIT DRY WEIGHT BIOMASS VALUES
WITHIN THE PECONIC ESTUARY
AVERAGE DRY WEIGHT BIOMASS (g/m2) FOR EACH
DOMINANT SAV TYPE
Zm Cf UI MR MB
INNER N/A 43 21 35 N/A
ESTUARY
MIDDLE 315 111 24 4 588
ESTUARY
OUTER 435 135 N/A 174 102
ESTUARY
ENTIRE 370 92 22 70 294
STUDY AREA
Notes
Dominant SAV types: Zm: Zostera marina: Cf: Codium fragile: UI= Ulva~
lactuca:
MR ~ mixed red algae; MB~ mixed brown algae
Inner Estuary: Sub-areas I and 2; Middle Estuary -- Sub-areas 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7;
Outer Estuary: Sub-areas 8, 9, 10, 11A, and 11B.
N/A - not applicable (dominant SAV type not present)
The dry weight biomass values here are based on simple numeric averages,
where each station is given equal weighting.
Peconic Estua~f Pro,ram Submerged Aquatic Vegetation study. Final Report
The remaining three dominant SAV types (i.e., Codium ~ Ulva I_actuca, .an=d
mixed red algae) had average DWB values of 92 g/m~, 22 g/m~, 70 g/m ,
respectively. These Iow biomass values were the result of a number of factors,
including generally Iow values for percent coverage (typically less than 10
percent) and Iow dry/wet weight ratios (especially for C. fra_eile and U. lactuca.
at 0.057 and 0.044, respectively - see Section 4.7).
Total dry weight biomaSs within the three reaches of the Estuary was calculated
by multiplying the unit DWB by the area covered by each dominant SAY type.
Those values, which are summarized in Table 6, are discussed below.
The total dry weight biomass of submerged aquatic vegetation within the study
area during the September-October 1994 survey period is estimated at 10,445
metric tons (haT), of which slightly less than 50 percent was accounted for by
beds dominated by Codium fragile. Eelgrass-dominated areas comprised
approximately 22 percent of the total SAV dry weight biomass, while mixed
brown algae-dominated areas comprised approximately 18 percent. Areas
dominated by Ulva lactuca and mixed red algae, combined, contributed less than
one percent of the total SAV dry weight biomass in the Estuary.
Table 6 also indicates a clear trend of increasing SAV biomass in a west-to-east
direction. Whereas the estimated bottom area cov.ered by SAY beds is fairly
consistent within the three study area segments (,.e., 37 km2 for the inner
Estuary, 31 km2 for the middle Estuary, and 30 km= for the outer Estuary), the
total SAV dry weight biomass increased from 1433 hat in the inner Estuary, to
4005 MT in the middle Estuary, and 5007 MT in the outer Estuary. The SAV dry
weight biomass in eelgrass-dominated areas mirrored this trend, increasing from
0 in the inner Estuary, to 772 MT in the middle Estuary, and 1562 haT in the
outer Estuary. Eelgrass-dominated areas accounted for almost one-third of the
total SAY dry weight biomass to the east of Shelter Island.
SECTION 4.3 - Historical C'han_~es in SAV Distribution
The analysis of historical changes in SAV distribution was performed using two primary
methodologies, as described in Section 3.3.B. Information regarding the location of
eelgrass beds on sketch maps provided by knowledgeable individuals in the East End
Towns was used as a baseline for comparison to the actual distribution observed during
January 1996 Page ,73
Peconic Estuary Program Submerged Aquatic Vegetation study - Final Report
the field survey. Where the sketch maps indicated the existence of significant eelgrass
meadows that were not observed by CA's field survey team, it was concluded that a real
change in distribution was evidenced. The second method entailed a direct comparison
of SAY beds depicted on historical aerial photographs with recent aerial photographs.
Several locations at which CA expected to find eelgrass, as based upon conversations
with knowledgeable individuals and analysis of pertinent charts and maps, were revealed
upon field reconnaissance to be either entirely devoid of SAY or were dominated by
macroalgae, especially green fleece (C0dium fra_~ile). The findings at these locations are
summarized as follows.
· west side of Jessups Neck (Southampton Town)- no eelgrass present; SAV
comprised of macroalgae (primarily green fleece)
· Fort Pond Bay (East Hampton Town) - no SAV present
northeast corner and eastern shoreline of Robins Island (Southold Town) - no
eelgrass present; SAV comprised of various macroalgae (primarily green flccce
and mixed red algae) found along almost the entire shoreline
· Hog Neck Bay (Southold Town) - no eelgrass present; SAV comprised of thin beds
of various macroalgae
· Southold Bay - despite expectations of extensive eelgrass beds, only narrow,
sparsely vegetated eelgrass beds were present
Pipes Cove (Southold Town) - no SAV present; a thick growth of bryozoans were
found during the field survey, which was very similar in appearance to eelgrass
beds on the aerial photographs
Coecles Harbor and West Neck Harbor (Shelter Island) - information provided by
the Town indicated that eelgrass beds were present in these areas; SAV beds
observed during CA's field survey consisted entirely of macroalgee, with green
fleece and mixed red algae dominating
Sag Harbor Cove complex- no eelgrass was found in these waters, despite
historical accounts of eelgrass beds here; CA's field survey indicates that mixed
red algae were the dominant SAY type in the fall of 1994
January 1996 Page .74 (
TABLE 6
SUMMARY OF TOTAL BIOMASS
WITHIN THE PECONIC ESTUARY
TOTAL DRY WEIGHT BIOMASS (METRIC) FOR EACH
DOMINANT SAV TYPE
Zm Cf UI MR MB TOTAL
INNER ESTUARY 0 1106 114 213 0 1433
(25.71) (5.43) (6.09) (37.23)
MIDDLE 772 2112 86 18 1017 4005
ESTUARY (2.45) (19.03) (3.58) (4.50) (1.73) (31.29)
OUTER ESTUARY 1562 1974 0 609 862 5007
(3.59) (14.62) (3.50) (8.45) (30.16)
ENTIRE STU DY 2334 5192 200 840 1879 10,445
AREA (6.04) (59.36) (9.01) (14.09) (10.18) (98.68)
Notes
Dominant SAV types: Zm= Zostera ~ Cf: Codium fragile: UI= Ulva
lactuca: MR ~ mixed red algae; MB. mixed brown algae
Inner Estuary = Sub-areas I and 2; Middle Estuary = Sub-areas 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7;
Outer Estuary = Sub-areas 8, 9, 10, 11A, and 11 B.
(#) ~ area, in km2, occupied by each dominanat SAV type.
Peconic Estuary Program Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Stud~ - Final Report
Based upon a review of historic aerial photography, coupled with field reconnaissance
for this study, it does not appear that there has been any single factor affecting the
observed trends in the historical distribution of eelgrass within the Peconic Estuary
system during the period between 1965 and the present. Rather, it is probably a
multitude of factors working in concert on a more localized level which determine the
spatial extent of a specific eelgrass bed at any given time, its expansion, recession,
density and species composition.
As discussed in Section 4.2, field sampling and 1994 aerial photograph interpretation
revealed no evidence of living eelgrass beds to the west of Shelter Island. As a follow-
up, CA took a closer look at three locations (Robins Island, Hog Neck Bay, and Pipes
Cove, all in the Town of Southold) that were determined to be devoid of eelgrass in
1994, but which are believed to have supported eelgrass in the past. No eelgrass beds
were discernable in the 1969 or 1980s aerial photographs for any of these locations.
However, it is possible that eelgrass beds may have occupied these locations prior to
1969.
Anecdotal information indicates that extensive eelgrass meadows once occupied
Southold Bay. However, this is not supported by CA's 1994 field reconnais_sance and
review of current and historic aerial photographs (at least as far back as 1969).
Although Southold Bay contained the westernmost eelgrass beds identified during the
field survey, CA's divers observed that these beds appeared to have been damaged by
scallop harvesting operations. As presented in Table 7 and depicted in Figure lA, there
have not been drastic changes in these eelgrass beds over the past 25 years. The
central and easternmost beds were wider in 1980 as compared with 1969, but slightly
less extensive in 1994. The overall coverage of the beds (with respect to the infilling
of barren patches) appears to have increased slightly over the past 25 years.
The historical variations in the distribution and coverage of eelgrass beds bordering the
eastern shoreline of Shelter Island show a much greater contrast than could be
discerned in Southold Bay. Referring to Figures lB through 1D, eelgrass beds on the
northernmost and southernmost tip of Shelter Island were much more extensive in 1969
than the other years examined. There appeared to be a drastic recession between 1969
and 1984, and then a more gradual decline over the subsequent decade. However, the
percent coverage within the remaining eelgrass meadows appears to be greater in 1994
than the other years examined.
Eelgrass beds within Orient Harbor (Figure 1 E) did not appear to change significantly
over the 25 year period studied. However, the extent of the beds located south of Long
January lg96 Page.75
Peco~ic Estuary Pro&ram Submerged Aquatic Vegetation S~udy - Final Report
Beach (in Gardiners Bay) appears to have increased dramatically since 1969. It is
interesting to note that this general increase in the extent of beds bordering Long Beach
occurred concurrently with a general decline in the extent of beds located directly
south, off the northeastern tip of Shelter Island. Perhaps this change was due to shifts
in the pattern of tidal exchange, depositional areas or other factors. Whatever the
causal agents, these two areas were affected oppositely.
Referring to Figure 1 F, eelgrass beds at the mouth of Napeague Harbor appeared to shift
over time in response to changes in the geomorphology of Goff Point and Hicks Island.
It is also conceivable that maintenance dredging may have affected the location of
eelgrass beds near the mouth of the harbor. Eelgrass beds located along the eastern
shoreline of Napeague Harbor do not appear to have changed significantly over the 25-
year period studied. It was surprising to find a relative lack of SAV throughout the
harbor, especially on the southern end throughout the same 25-year period.
In contrast to all other locations studied, the extent of the eelgrass beds along the
southeastern shore of Gardiners Island appears to have been greatest in 1980, as
compared with 1964 and 1994. This change (which can be seen in Figure 1G) is not
likely due to brown tide because these waters are relatively well circulated and were
less affected by brown tide events. However, the eastern side of Gardiners Island is
highly exposed to rougher seas, especially during northeast and east winds. Storm or
ice damase is a possible factor in the regression of beds from 1980 to 1994, particularly
considering the intense northeast storms that struck the area in those years.
Overall, the historical analysis described above could not identify a consistent trend for
the 1969 to 1980s and 1980s to 1994 time frames examined. Any overall decline in
eelgrass abundance that may have been induced by brown tide episodes in the 1980s
could not be detected in the analysis of historical photographs at the selected study
locations.
Information obtained through personal communications with a number of informed
sources, including Mr. Jon Semlear of the Town of Southampton Board of Trustees and
Mr. Chris Pickerell of the Suffolk County Cornell Cooperative Extension, indicate that a
substantial die-off of eelgrass may be ongoing in the middle and outer Estuary at the
present time. Water bodies that have reportedly been affected by this eelgrass decline
include: Sag Harbor Cove (in Southampton Town); West Neck Harbor and Coecles
Harbor (on Shelter Island); and Three Mile Harbor and possibly Accabonac Harbor (in
East Hampton Town). Descriptions of the die-backs are consistent: the affected areas
formerly supported thick, healthy (natural or transplanted) beds of eelgrass through the
January 1996 pa&e.76
TABLE 7
HISTORICAL PATTERNS OF LAV ABUNDANCE AND DISTRIBUTION
IN THE PECONIC ESTUARY
LOCATION 1969 1980's 1994
Robins Island No eelgrass beds. No eelsrass bedi. Rockweed and Codium on west side.
Macroalgae on norlh and east sides. Macroalgae on norlh and easl sides; only Codium on eastern si~oreline.
Isolaled patches on west side.
No eelgtass.
Pholo Nos. 23-42, 24-17 Photo Nos. 70-377,70-378, 70-379
(Flight Dale: 4-1-69) (Flight Date: 4-12-84) Photo Nos. 3-43, 3-44
Hog Neck Bay I No SAV evidenl from tltlle C~eek to Cedar No SAV evident from Little Creek ID Cedar Nd) eelgrass beds - only macroalgae east o1
Beach Point. Beach Point. Corey Creek.
Photo Nos. 26-1~1, 27-7, 27-8, 27-9, 27-11 Photo Nos. 70-0548, 71-0589, 72-0603, 73- Photo Nos. 7-1 I1, 7-112, 2-19, 2-18, 2-17
(Flighl Date: 4-t-69) 0641 (Flight Dales: 9-15-94 & 9-28-94)
(Flight Date: 3-24-80)
Southold Bay EelLrass beds bordering channel at Mill Creek Eelgrass beds bordering channel at Mill Creek Abundanl eelgrass bordering Mill Creek
very patchy. - beds more exlensive Ihan 1994, but similar channel.
coverage.
Abundant eelgrass ol1 Beixedon. Abundanl eelgrass oil Beixedon.
Abundant eelgrass off Beixedon.
Patchiest eelgrass beds, al compared wllb
1980 and 1994. Eelgrass beds also extending east of
Hashamomuck Pond, not visible in 1969 or
1994.
Photo Nos. 28-8, 29-6, 29-7,, Photo Nos. 72-0601, 72-0599,
29-8 I73-0646 Photo Nos. 7-115, 7-116, 7-117
~FIIl~ht Date: 4-1-69}I (Flil~ht Date: 3-24-80) (Flip, bt Date: 9-2B-g4~
LOCATION 1969 19B0's 1994
5belier Island Exlenslve eel8ras$ beds ea$1 of Hay Beach EelBras$ beds east of Hay Beach Poiul extend Felgrass beds east of Hay Beach Point less
Point and south beyond Cornelius Poinl, bul south 1o Cornelius Point. Patchiness patchy than 1969 & 19B4, and not as
beds are patchy. More e~lensive than 1984 intermediale belween 1969 and 1994. exlensive as eilher year.
or 1994.
Difficult Io discern beds east of Ram Island Extensive eelgrass beds east nI Ram Island
Extensive eel8rass beds easl ot Ram Island and from available aerial pholoBraphs, and SunBic Point, L~asl palchy as compared
SunBic Point, palchier than in 1994. wilh 1984 and 1969.
Difficult lo ~iscern limils o[ beds east ot
Exlensive eelBrass beds east of Mashomack Mashomack Poinl from available aerial EelBrass beds east and soullt ot Mashnmack
Polnl, palchler than in 1994. photographs. Poinl, k~s palchy lban 1969, and slightly less
extensive.
(Hi,hi Dale: 4- I ?-84)
Pipes Cove Mollling in nearshore area jusl south of 8roln /Vlottling in nearshore area jusl south of 8~oin No SAV observed.
field of! Shore Drive indicales polefttial field oil Shore D~,ive iudicales potential
hryozoans and rocks as identified by sampling hryozoans and r~cks as idenllfled by sampling
(Flight Date: 9-28-94)
(Fliuht Date: 4-7-69} (F#~ht Date: 4-1 ?-g4} (Flight Date: 9-28-94)
Source: 1969 Aerial Photography from Michael Baker, Ir., Inc., Beaver, PA
1980, 1984 and 1994 Aerial Photography Irom Aerosraphics Corp., Bohemia, NY
SUBI~W. RGED AQUATIC VEGETATION STUDY - PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
Figure 1
KEY MAP TO HISTORICAL
COMPARISON OF EELGRASS BEDS
Be.ixedo. n..'
NOT TO SCALE
Southold
1994 ~ ~
1980 ~
1969 -------'--'--"-----
BOUNDARY LINES ARE APPROXIMATE,
BASED ON PHOTO IN II-RPRETATION,
NOT EXACT BOUNDS FOR GIS.
HISTORICAL
COMPARISON OF EELGRASS BEDS
(ZOSTERA MARINA l.)
Conkling
Point
Cashln Assoclltes, P.C.
Figure lA
SOUTHOLD BAY
Dering Harbor
Shelter Island
Cornelius
Poin~
NOT TO SCALE
1994
1984
1969
BOUNDARY UNES ARE APPROXIMATE,
BASED ON PHOTO INTERPRETATION,
NOT EXACT BOUNDS FOR GIS.
HISTORICAL COMPARISON OF EELGRASS BEDS
(ZOSTERA MARINA L.)
Cishln &ssoclitis, P.e.
Figure lB
SHELTER ISLAND
NOT TO SCALE
Shelter Island '..:--'-
OUTER UMIT OF
1984 BEDS NOT
DISCERNABLE
FROM AVAILABLE
PHOTOGRAPHY,
1994
1984
1969
BOUNDARY LINES ARE APPROXIMATE,
BASED ON PHOTO INTERPRETATION,
NOT EXACT BO~JNDS FO~ Gl~ ~*~
i Sun i<;-
""~'-"~ii''?'" Shelter Island ::.~"}"'"
HISTORICAL
Cashln
COMPARISON OF EELGRASS BEDS
(ZOSTERA MARINA L.)
Figure lC
Associates, P.e. SHELTER ISLAND
SCARF
Shelter
Island
· .-. Mashomac -':
· ; -' '-'~Point-~ - ', -
OUTER UMIT OF
1984 BEDS NOT
DISCERNABLE
FROM AVAILABLE
PHOTOGRAPHY.
1994
1984
1969
BOUNDARY LINES ARE APPROXIMATE,
BASED ON PHOTO INTERPRETAllON,
NOT EXACT BOUNDS FOR GIS.
HISTORICAL COMPARISON OF EELGRASS BEDS
(ZOSTERA MARINA L.)
Cashln Associates. P.e.
Figure 1D
SHELTER ISLAND
/
NOT TO SCALE
LIMITS OF EELGRASS
BEDS IN t984 NOT
CLEARLY DISCERNABLE
FROM AVAILABLE
PHOTOGRAPHY.
1994 ----'--- ~
1984 ~ ~
1969 ~ ~
BOUNDARY LINES ARE APPROXIMATE,
BASED ON PHOTO INTERPRETA~ON,
NOT EXACT BOUNDS FOR GIS.
Orient
HISTORICAL COMPARISON OF EELGRASS BEDS
(ZOSTERA MARINA L.)
Clshln Associates. P.C.
Figure 1E
ORIENT HARBOR
/'
· Po.i.n. t
NOT TO SCALE
1994 .-'----- '- ~
1984 ~- ~
1969 ~ ~
1969 SHOREUNE LOCA~ON --'-'----- ~ -
BOUNDARY LINES ARE APPROXIMATE,
BASED ON PHOTO INTERPRETA~ON,
NOT EXACT BOUNDS FOR ~S.
HISTORICAL COMPARISON OF EELGRASS BEDS
(ZOSTERA MARINA L.)
Csshln Associates, P.C.
Figure IF
NAPEAGUE HARBOR
NOT TO SCALE
Tobacco Lot -'
Bay Point . ::L.
Gardiners :' '"
Island - ~
'~ :. 1994 ~ -- --
::~'" 1980 ~ ~
": 1969 ~ ' --
BOUNDARY UNES ARE APPROXIMATE,
BASED ON PHOTO INTERPRETATION,
NOT EXACT BOUNDS FOR GIS.
HISTORICAL COMPARISON OF EELGRASS BEDS
(ZOSTERA MARINA L.)
Cashln Associates. P.C.
Figure 1G
GARDINERS ISLAND
130 si 06 50 85 14 50 068 80 ms Zm Zm 31 62 3 0.54 66
137 si 06 50 78 78 1.07 75 s Zm Zm 31.5 58 4 080 ~8
TABLE 9
ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL/¥VATER PARAMETERS
IN THE PECONIC ESTUARY
PARAMETER DOMINANT SAV TYPE
ALL SAV ' ALL
Zm Cf UI MR MB NONE STATIONS STATIONS
SALINITY (ppt) 31.77 (079) 30.11 (1.41) 27.56 (2.10) 29.52 (2.49) 31.64 (1.57) 30.81 (1.52) 29.98 (2.15) 30.22 (2.02)
TEMPERATURE (°F) 60.47 (1.59) 64.08 (4.37) 67.69 (4.53) 64.46 (5.18), 60.71 (3.10) 62.35 (4.37) 63.89 (4.71) 63.44 (4.66)
VISIBILITY (fi) 8.54 (4.74) 5.04 (2.41) 2.96 (1.52) 4.21 (2.01) 9.29 (2.55) 5.47 (3.08) 5.45 (3.50) 5.45 (3.38)
WATER DEPTH (ft) 5.66 (2.12) 6.16 (2.62) 3.40 (2.00) 5.71 (1.78) 5.24 (1.78) 9.58 (5.23) 5.48 (2.61) 6.67 (4.03)
NOTES:
Dominant SAV types: Zm ~ Zl~stera marina; Cf: (:odium fraeile: U! ~ Ulva lactuca:
MR ~ mixed red algae; MB ~ mixed brown algae
Inner Esluary -- Sub-areas 1 and 2; Middle Estuary ~ Sub-areas 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7; Outer
Estuary -~ Sub-areas 8, 9, 10, 11A, and 11B.
# (#) I average value (standard deviation)
TABLE 10
OCCURRENCE OF DOMINANT SAV TYPES
VERSUS SEDIMENT TYPE IN PECONIC ESTUARY
SEDIMENT DOMINANT SAV TYPE
TYPE
ALL SAV ALL
Zm Cf UI MR MB NONE STATIONS STATIONS
(COARSE)
GS 9 10 3 3 4 4 29 33
(30) (15) (12) (13) (57) (7) (18) (15)
S 12 44 10 14 3 40 83 123
(40) (68) (39) (58) (43) (73) (52) (58)
MS 7 5 4 3 6 19 25
(23) (8) (15) (13) (0) (11) (12) (12)
SM 6 4 2 5 12 17
(0) (9) (15) I' (8) (0) (9) (8) (8)
M 2 5 2 16 16
(7) (0) (19) (8) (0) (0) (10) (7)
(FINE)
TOTAL 30 65 26 24 7 55 159 214
(100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100)
NOTES:
Dominant SAV types: Zm: Zostera marina: Cf: Codium fragilg; UI = Ulva lactuca:
MR - mixed red algae; MB -- mixed brown algae
Inner Estuary = Sub-areas I and 2; Middle Estuary = Sub-areas 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7; Outer
Estuary = Sub-areas 8, 9, 10, 11A, and 11B.
# = # stations in given sediment type
(#) = (% stations of dominant SAV type in given sediment type)
Sediment Types: GS = gravelly sand; S = sand; MS = muddy sand; SM -- sandy mud; M = mud
TABLE 1 1
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS FOR
PECONIC ESTUARY SEDIMENTS
STATION
NUMBER % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT % CLAY
11 0.26 1.78 60.51 37.45
17 20.25 76.28 2.91 0.55
48 0.11 90.76 5.92 3.20
85 0.47 98.37 1.16 0.00
86 2.55 87.15 4.62 5.69
87 0.80 88.71 4.79 5.70
88 1.18 93.33 3.59 1.90
91 0.36 97.36 2.27 0.00
92 5.59 88.50 4.80 1.10
93 0.00 98.81 1.19 0.00
94 0.26 93.65 1.90 4.18
96 6.64 77.29 9.27 6.80
99 26.08 72.42 1.51 0.00
102 0.30 96.88 2.82 0.00
103 0.17 97.22 2.61 0.00
106 13.47 85.84 0.69 0.00
107 52.14 46.99 0.87 0.00
111 5.13 88.63 4.74 1.50
112 51.61 46.64 1.74 0.00
113 62.64 36.65 0.71 0.00
126 85.41 13.17 1.42 0.00
127 1.23 96.02 1.75 1.00
129 15.79 77.59 5.22 1.40
130 3.45 84.33 6.12 6.10
TABLE 11 (Cont.)
STATION
NUMBER % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT % CLAY
132 1.80 96.35 1.85 0.00
134 39.89 58.21 1.91 0.00
137 3.02 93.58 2.20 1.20
162 11.30 81.49 4.63 2.58
174 3.44 95.51 1.05 0.00
178 7.00 79.27 6.93 6.80
179 25.29 73.66 1.05 0.00
181 6.54 91.04 2.41 0.00
182 0.26 9.38 67.76 22.60
185 0.33 13.07 41.40 45.20
186 40.03 58.26 1.45 0.26
187 0.38 97.34 2.03 0.24
188 16.18 81.67 2.15 0.00
198 7.29 91.69 1.02 0.00
201 10.30 80.47 4.64 4.60
207 0.40 89.07 4.24 6.30
Table 12
Pecomc Estuary Submerge(3 Aouat]c Vegetation Study
Field Data Summary
D~ Wei.~ht Analysis
WETW~IGHT READINGS (g) DRYWE[GHT READINGS i
I
Sta Sarape NumBer Samble I Weight SAV soecies OrwYVet
# I 1 I 2 ! 3 t Avo. # useclt lot I Present Ratio
86 I 142 113 t 128 1 12.2 ~ 7m 0.086
~3 i 283 255 { 269 I 31 Zm 0.109
100 i 142 198 i 170 1 20 Zrn 0.141
107 369 142 i 255 2 15 Zm 0.106
114 482 454 I 468 1 42.8 ! Zm 0.089
t27 113 I 113 I t2 I Zm 0.106
135 ~ 269 22.7 ! 241 246 2 25.2I~ Zm 0.111
~175 I 99 269 I 936 435 2 33 I Zm 0.123
179 I 269 248 i 680 399 2 35I 7m 0141
182 567 454 I 312 444 2 83 Zm 0.183
186 213 227I 220 1 24 Zm 0.113
189 I 269 t84 t 241 232 1 39 Zrn 0.145
208 I 610 624I 617 1 89 Zm 0146
1 I 227 I ~Z7 1 12 Ul 0.053
32 I 105 113 I 109 t 2.8 I UI 0027
4~ i 567 i 567 1 16.5 [ UI 0.029
48 ~ 312 ! 312 1 21I UI 0.087
113 113 1 8.1 i mx 0.071
22 ! 113 198i~.7 180 I 3.5,i ma 0031
167 255 i 255 , 21.4 I ma 0.084
188 283I 283 1 46 j ma 0.162
191 184 I 184 I 24I ma 0.130
212 269 269 1 43.9 ma 0.163
192 425 425 1 53.6 Ls 0.126
78 142 142 I 24 Fu 0.169
66 425 879 652 I 22.4 Cf 0.053
84 652 794 t 7'23 2 48 Cf 0.060
117 227~ 227 1 13 Cf 0.057
NOTES
SAV use¢l for clry wt.
Zm -- Zostera leelgrassl Fu = Fucus (rock(wee~i)
UI = Ulva (sea le~{uce) Ls = Laminana (DroadAeaf kelp)
Cf = Codium igraen fleece) mx = mixture {widgeon grass and
ma = m~(ed macroalgae sea le~tucel
Zm data summary Mean 0.123
for Dry/Wet Std 0.026
# samples 13
UI data summary Mean 0.044
for Dry/Wet Std 0.017
# samples 4
rna data summary Mean 0.114
for Dry/Wet Std 0.051
# samples 5
C[' data summary Mean 0.057
for DryNVet Std 0.003
# samples 3
TOTAL # SAMPLES 28
PECONICX.WK1 ?./?./95
Peconic Estua~ Pro.am Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Study - Final Report
mid-summer of 1994; but by late August or early September, the majority of the
eelgrass blades had disappeared, with only brittle blackened rhizomes and occasional
remnant rooted plants remaining.
Review of recent aerial photography seems to bear out the anecdotal reports of an
ongoing eelgrass decline in the Peconic Estuary. In reviewing aerial photography dated
March 1994 and October 1994, CA noticed a general disappearance of the SAV beds
along the eastern shoreline of the North Haven peninsula and in the Sag Harbor area
during that seven month period. Thus, the sampling performed as part of this
investigation may have recorded a distribution of eelgrass at a time when it is
experiencing a significant decline in the Peconic Estuary.
The apparent local eelgrass die-off described above may parallel the regional decline that
was recently reported along the northeastern Atlantic coast by Short, et.al. (1993), as
discussed further in Section 2.2~ The observed symptoms may be indicative of
another wasting disease epidemic; however, this has not be substantiated. This die-
back does not appear to be attributable to normal seasonal variation because of its
apparent severity.
SECTION 4.4 - o~h_~ervations R~ardin_e Bay Scallop Populations
Particularly close attention was paid during the field survey to determine the presence
of bay scallops CAr_eopecten irradians) at the observation stations (i.e., within a 100-foot
radius of the sampling locations). Although a qualitative assessment was made of
scallop abundance, this study did not attempt to estimate the scallop densities.
Scallops were observed at 51 (24 percent) of the 214 survey stations throughout the
entire Estuary (see Map 6 and Table B). However, almost all of the scallops were
present in the waters to the east of Jessups Neck. Only a single station in Flanders Bay
and a single station in Little Peconic Bay contained scallops. No scallops were observed
in Great Peconic Bay. The isolated occurrence in Flanders Bay was likely to due to an
ongoing scallop transplant program undertaken by the Cornell Cooperative Extension.
Scallops were observed at 49 of the 11B stations (42 percent) east of Uttle Peconic Bay.
The most frequent occurrences were in Orient Harbor, Long Beach Bay, West Neck
Harbor, Coecles Inlet, Lake Montauk, and the Sag Harbor/Northwest Harbor area. No
-scallops were observed at the stations in Three Mile Harbor or Napeague Bay, and
Janua~ 1996 pa&e.77
Pecanic ~ Pro~m
Submerged Aquatic Ve§et~tion S~dy - Final Report
scallops were observed at only 6 of the 37 stations in Gardiners Bay and western Block
Island Sound.
Eelgrass was the predominant vegetation at 22 of the 51 stations (43 percent) at which
scallops were observed. Green fleece was the predominant vegetation at 14 (27
percent) of those 51 stations, while SAV was absent at 11 stations (22 percent). Of the
remaining four stations, three stations were predominated by brushy redweed and one
station by sea lettuce.
SECT1ON 4.5 - Observations Pa~_arding Envimnmental/~Vater Parameters
Table 9 summarizes data collected during the field reconnaissance program with respect
to certain environmental and water parameters (i.e.,' salinity, temperature, estimated
underwater visibility, and water depth). The average value and standard deviation for
each parameter was computed with respect to each of the dominant SAY types present,
and within each of the three Estuary reaches and for the Estuary as a whole.
Caution is necessary in attempting to interpret the data trends displayed in Table 9. It
is particularly important to recognize that there is a strong correlation among the various
parameters; compared to the inner Estuary, the outer Estuary is generally characterized
by lower temperatures, higher salinities, and increased underwater vislbility. Therefore,
the existence of a discernable trend between a given parameter and the SAY type
present does not necessarily indicate a direct cause and effect relationship. For
example, an SAV species that grows best in clearer waters would typically occur in
highest concentrations in the outer portion of the Estuary, where average water
temperature is lower and average salinity is higher. In this case it might appear that the
SAV distribution is influenced by temperature and salinity when, in fact, this trend is
only a secondary consequence of the geographic distribution pattern for which water
transparency is the driving factor. It is also important to note that the water
temperature measurement was subject to variation because the field work took place
over a six-week period, when the waters were undergoing a seasonal cooling.
It is difficult to determine conclusively which of the environmental and water parameters
may be influencing the SAY distribution in the Peconic Estuary, and which parameters
may vary as a result of secondary effects. Certainly, water transparency is an important
overall factor controlling the distribution of marine plants. However, the distribution of
certain SAV species is also strongly influenced by other variables; for example, spedes
Jarm~ry 1996 pa~e.78
Peconic Estua~/Pro&ram Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Study. Final Report
of rooted aquatic vegetation in Chesapeake Bay have separate habitat requirements
based on salinity regime (U.S. EPA, 1992). Additionally, under certain circumstances,
a given SAV species may be driven into higher turbidity areas. For example, as
discussed in Section 2.2~,, the wasting disease caused a general retreat of eelgrass
meadows into the lower salinity regions of estuaries (where turbidity is generally
higher), whereas prior to the epidemic eelgrass thrived mostly in the high salinity, Iow
turbidity areas in the outer estuaries.
The trends that are noted in Table 9 are consistent with the observed geographic
distribution of the various SAY species. The stations at which Zostera marina and mixed
brown algae dominated were characterized by the highest salinity and underwater
visibility, and the lowest water temperature; these SAV types were found exclusively in
the middle and outer portions of the Estuary, and were absent from the inner Estuary.
The stations at which Ulva lactuca dominated were characterized by the lowest salinity
and underwater visibility, and the highest water temperature; this species was found
exclusively in the inner and middle portions of the Estuary and was absent from the
outer Estuary. Codium fragile and mixed red algae, which were distributed throughout
all three reaches of the Estuary, were associated with intermediate values of salinity,
water temperature, and visibility.
The overall finding of this investigation that eelgrass tended to be more abundant the
portion of the Estuary characterized by waters of higher salinity, higher transparenCY`
and a higher degree of circulation nearer to the open ocean is consistent with the
findings of other studies. For example, in a study of Long island's south shore bays, the
thickest and most extensive beds of eelgrass were found in areas relatively close to
inlets (WAPORA, Inc., 1981). It was hypothesized that the eelgrass thrived in waters
near the inlets because the plant benefits from greater water transparenCY, as well as
the moderation in water temperatures brought about by greater mixing with ocean
waters. In particular, poorly mixed waters typically experience a higher summer water
temperature extreme, which is detrimental to eelgrass growth, while the increased tidal
flushing in areas adjacent to inlets buffers this effect.
CA noted that salinities recorded by the refractometer in certain areas of the inner
Estuary seemed higher than expected. The accuracy of the refractometer was tested
using standardized solutions during the course of the study, and follow-up testing with
solutions of 0 parts per thousand (ppt), 15 ppt and 30 ppt was performed after
completion of the study to confirm that the instrument was reading accurately. All
standard testing indicated that the refractometer was functioning properly.
Ja~ma~ *]996 Page .79
peconic Estuary program
Submef§ed Aquatic Vegeta~on Study - Final Report
CA has no explanation of why some of the salinity measurements appeared to be higher
than expected. However, it was noted that the salinity measurements in question were
all recorded in the inner Estuary, which coincidentally was also the area that was
generally characterized by the highest level of water column turbidity. The presence
of large amounts of impurities (e.g., suspended sediment and phytoplankton) in the
water samples collected in the inner Estuary could have blurred the reading on the
refractometer, which can make the instrument more difficult to read.
SECTION 4.6 - Results of Sediment Analyses
Sediment characteristics within the study area were defined on the basis of two sets of
observations. The sediment at each of the 214 field stations was characterized
according to a qualitative classification based on five categories; the results of that
analysis are presented in Table 10. A quantitative analysis of grain size distribution was
also performed for the sediment collected at 40 field stations; those results are
presented in Table 11.
The data in Table 10 indicate that Zostera marina prefers coarser substrates in the
Peconic Estuary (i.e., gravelly sand, sand, and muddy sand), although some eelgrass
beds were also found in muddy sediments. Ulva lactuca, in contrast, was found
relatively evenly distributed in ail sediment types, although sand was the most common
substrate for this species. The seven mixed brown algae stations were found exclusively
in gravels and sands, which is consistent with their preference for high energy
environments and their requirement for a hard substrate for attachment. Codium ~
was found throughout the range of sediment types, except for mud, indicating the
adaptiveness of this species to various environmental conditions. ~4ixed red algae were
also found to be scattered throughout the full range of substrate types, including mud,
which is indicative of the high degree of variability of the dominant species in this group.
SECTION 4.7 - Dry_ Weight Determina§ons for SAV Samples
Laboratory analysis of dry weight was performed on 28 of the samples that had
undergone wet weight analysis in the field (see Table 12). These data show that the
ratio of dry weight/wet weight (D/W) varied, depending on the SAV species involved.
Eelgrass samples had the highest D/W ratio, averaging 0.123 for the 13 samples
January lg96 Page
Peconic Estuary Pro&ram Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Study - Final Report
analyzed (with a standard deviation of 0.026). The four sea lettuce samples had a D/W
ratio of 0.044 (with a standard deviation of 0.017) which, as expected, was relatively Iow
due to the high proportion of water weight in this species. Three samples of green
fl:::e had an average D/W ratio of 0.057 (with a standard deviation of 0.003), which
also indicates a much higher water weight content than eelgrass. The five samples of
mixed algae, which in total had eleven species among all three phyla, had a D/W ratio
of 0.114 (with a standard deviation of 0.051).
SECTION 4.8 - Comparison with SAV Data fTom South Shorn Bays
As stated in Section 3.1, eelgrass beds in three other local bays were sampled during
this investigation to provide comparative data on eelgrass density. Thick beds of
eelgrass were sampled at single stations in Shinnecock Bay and Moriches Bay. Three
stations were sampled in Great South Bay, at locations in proximity to sites sampled by
previous investigators (Greene, et.al., 1978). Overall, the dry weight densities recorded
for samples collected in the other bays were similar to the data collected in the Peconic
Estuary.
The Moriches and Shinnecock Bay stations had dry weight biomass values of 593 g/m2
and 771 g/m2, respectively. These biomass measurements are less than the values
recorded in the Peconic Estuary (i.e., 1146, 988, and 895 g/mz for the three stations
with the highest readings), but greater than the 370 g/m~ average for the entire Peconic
Estuary and the 435 g/m2 average for the outer Peconic Estuary alone. The Shinnecock
Bay bed had a lush, healthy appearance, and contained an abundant population of adult
bay scallops.
The two eelgrass beds sampled in Great South Bay during this study were located in
areas that contained some of the thickest beds observed by Greene, et.al, in 1978. The
recorded dry weight densities were 295 g/m2 and 749 g/m~, with an average for the
two stations of 522 g/mz. These beds did not appear to be healthy and appeared to
contain large amounts of dead and dying grass blades. The widgeon grass bed sampled
in Great South Bay, which had a dry weight density of 538 g/mz, was very lush and
healthy in appearance.
1996 Pab'e.81
Peco~c Estuary Program
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation study - Final Repcxt
SECTION 5
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
_gFITT1ON 5.1 - Trends in SAV Distribution. Abundance and Density_
This study shows that green fic=:e '(Codium fra_~iie) is presently the dominant SAV
species in the Peconic Estuary by far, both in terms of total area covered and total dry
weight biomass. This species was first recorded locally in 1957, and has rapidly
proliferated in the subsequent four decades, becoming ubiquitous throughout the
Estuary by outcompeting the slower-growing native seaweeds.
Green fl:=:e has also invaded areas which were previously known to have contained
eelgrass (Zostera marina) meadows. Although it appears likely that this displacement
is the result of passive mechanisms, with the green fleece moving into areas that have
been vacated by eelgrass rather than through direct competition between the two
species, the establishment of green fleece beds at a given location may hinder the
future resurgence of eelgrass.
Eelgrass meadows, which often contain intermixed .macr.~.lgae, is. s.econ_d, to gr.een.
fleece-dominated SAV beds ~n terms of overall dry weight b~omass ,n the ~s~uary, ouz
is the least widely distributed of the five dominant SAV types with respect to the total
area covered. Anecdotal information acquired during this investigation suggests that
eelgrass beds have historically undergone dramatic changes in distribution and
abundance, and may be in the process of a significant local decline at the present time.
The contributing causes of the fluctuations in the Peconic Estuary eelgrass populations
are not fully understood, but several factors are known or suspected to have played a
role at one time or another. These include: disease (i.e., the wasting disease); nutrient
enrichment of estuarine waters derived from human activities on-shore; other, in-water
human activities, such as boating and shellfish harvesting; and brown tide events, which
are initiated by causes that are as yet not fully defined.
Despite the adverse impacts that have recently befallen eelgrass populations on a local
and regional level, the present density of eelgrass beds in the Peconic Estuary-
averaging 370 g/m2 dry weight for the entire study area and 435 g/m2 for the outer
Estuary, with a maximum at a siegie station of 1174 g/m2 - compares favorably with
-values given historically for other areas. For example, Green, et.al. (1977) reported that
the thickest beds they surveyed in Great South Bay had a dry weight density of 500
Janua~ 1996 pa~e,~2
Peco~ic £stua~y program Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Study - Final Report
g/m2, and that typical values for thick eelgrass beds on the east and west coasts of the
United States and in Europe range from 500 g/m2 to 1000 g/ms.
The occurrence of sea lettuce (Ulva lactuca) as the dominant component of the
vesetative community is an indication of nutrient enrichment and generally stressed
environmental conditions. Harlin (1995) recounted a case study in Connecticut, in
which U. lactuca had become a virtual monoculture as a result of effluent from a city
water treatment facility being discharged to the shallow estuarine waters of Mumford
Cove. In response to citizen concerns, the effluent was diverted to the Thames River,
and within one year the spatial coverage of LJ. lactuca in Mumford Cove dropped
precipitously from 74 percent to 9 percent. Stations near the original outfall retained
high concentrations of U. lactuca for a longer time than down gradient stations, perhaps
due to residual nutrients stored in the sediments. However, by the following year U.
lactuca biomass levels dropped to values consistent with healthy estuaries of the same
size.
SAV beds dominated by U. lactuca in the present study were concentrated in the inner
portions of the Peconic Estuary, and were confined to the relatively quiet waters of
smaller tidal creeks and the shallows of adjoining embayments. These areas experience
relatively poor tidal circulation and, therefore, are prone to accumulate contaminants
such as nutrients. In addition, these areas are in closest proximity .to the primary
sources of nutrient loadings, including the Peconic River and the larger tributary streams
that discharge into the inner Estuary, as well as the most densely populated portion of
the Estuary's watershed and the outfall of the Riverhead Sewage Treatment Plant.
SECTION 5.2 - RelaUve E~l_n~__'cal Importance of Primary SAV Species
The existing scientific literature reviewed for this study is unequivocal in stating that
eelgrass meadows represent an important component of estuarine ecosystems. The
ecological benefits provided by healthy eelgrass beds are manifold, ranging from
providing a large portion of the primary production that forms the base of the estuarine
food chain, to fulfilling various habitat requirements for numerous species of finfish and
invertebrates, many of which are of recreational or commercial importance. Eelgrass is
especially important for the bay scallop (Argopecten irradians), which historically has
been an important commercial resource in the Peconic Estuary.
Janua~ 1996 Pa~e.83
PeconJc Esluan/Program Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Study - Final Report
The distribution of eelgrass in the Peconic Estuary has reportedly been subject to
significant historical fluctuations, and appears to be in the middle of a period of decline
at the present time. However, the remaining beds (at least as of September through
October 1994, when the field surveY for this study was conducted) still comprise a
substantial portion of the total SAV dry weight biomass in the Estuary, especially in the
waters to the east of Shelter Island. Thus, eelgrass beds have persisted and continue
to provide a vital foundation for the Peconic Estuary ecosystem, despite recent reports
that brown tide events (among other environmental impacts) have decimated the
populations.
As noted previously, green fleece (Codium fra_eilel is presently the dominant SAV species
in the Peconic Estuary and has achieved this status, following its first appearance
approximately 40 years ago, by actively or passively displacing native SAY in large areas
of the Estuary. The literature review conducted for this study did not reveal that any
scientific investigations have been completed to assess the ecological impact of this
species shift. However, it is virtually certain that eelgrass possesses a significantly
higher overall habitat value. Therefore, it can be concluded that areas presently
dominated by green fleece but that previously supported eelgrass, which appear to be
widespread throughout the middle and outer Peconic Estuary, have experienced an
overall negative ecological impact as a result.
It is more difficult to assess the ecological effect that has resulted from the displacement
of other seaweeds by green fleece. However, it is often true that an introduced 'weed"
species like green fleece has an overall lower habitat value than the native species that
are displaced. The invasion of the common reed (Phra_emites australis) in tidal wetlands
and purple Ioosestrife (Lyphrum ~ in freshwater wetlands are examples of
introduced species that have resulted in negative ecological impacts in transitional
aquatic/terrestrial ecosystems. Further research would be needed to determine if a
similar negative impact has been associated with the spread of green fleece into areas
that had previously been vegetated with other macroalgae species.
SECT1ON 5.3 - Effec~ven~ of SAV ~gL~,n.niqg Using_ Aerial Phot _o~-ap. hs
An intensive field sampling program, consisting of 214 observation stations, was the
primary method of identifying vegetative species composition and determining the
extent of SAV beds within the Peconic Estuary system during this investigation. Recent
aerial photographs (dated March 1994 and October 1994) were used to augment the
Jam~a~ 19g~ Pa~e~4
Peconic Estuary Program Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Study - Final Report
information gathered in the field. For that purpose, as a resource of secondary
importance relative to the field survey, aerial photography was found to be a useful tool
for SAV mapping. However, based on the findings of this investigation, the mapping of
marine vegetation strictly through the use of standard black and white aerial
photography is not advisable. Some of the pitfalls that can be encountered in an SAV
mapping program that lacks adequate ground truthing, as revealed through observations
made during this investigation, are described below.
As discussed in Section 3.2, the October 1994 aerial photographs that were generated
for this study were created under conditions optimal for detecting marine vegetation.
However, aerial photography work is typically undertaken to depict terrestrial features
and, consequently, any given set of commercially available photographs may not provide
adequate resolution of underwater features. Low cloud cover and surface waves, for
example, can create shading patterns on the aerial photographs that are difficult to
distinguish from actual SAY beds.
Even when the photography flight is conducted under optimal conditions for the
resolution of underwater features, certain unavoidable environmental factors can limit
the usefulness of the photographs for SAV mapping. Turbid water conditions (as was
generally encountered during this study throughout the inner Peconic Estuary, for
example) diminish light penetration and reduce the depth to which bottom features are
discemable. Abrupt bathymetric changes or even undulations in a barren sandy
substrate can also cast underwater shadows which can be mistakenly interpreted as the
edges of SAY beds (for example, see the Napeague Harbor aerial photograph in Exhibit
D).
In general, it was found during this investigation that eelgrass beds are virtually
indistinguishable from beds of certain macroalgae on the basis of black and white aerial
photography interpretation alone. In Lake Montauk, for example, a detailed field survey
(which consisted of five observation stations) was essential to delineating the boundary
between SAY beds dominated by eelgrass and adjacent areas where green fleece was
the dominant SAV. On the basis of aerial photographs alone, the Lake Montauk SAV
community could not have been accurately mapped into different categories. A similar
situation applied to the shallow waters to the east of Cedar Point (just north of
Northeast Harbor), which contained mixed beds of eelgrass and green fleece - see
Exhibit D.
· Beds of rockweed and green fleece along the shoreline of Robins Island could also easily
have been mistaken for eelgrass meadows without the proper field observations.
Janua~ 1~J6 Pa~e. B5
Peconic Estuary Program Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Study - Final Report
Certain rocky areas supporting healthy macroalgae growth (as was seen along the shore
in the vicinity of the entrance to Lake Montauk) or even areas of bottom that are
dominated by bryozoans (as was observed in the northern portion of Pipes Cove) could
also be misinterpreted as eelgrass beds if aerial photographs were used as the sole
source of information. Other areas where the aerial photographs suggested the
presence of significant SAY beds, but which were shown by field reconnaissance to be
occupied by vegetation other than pure stands of eelgrass, are described as follows.
East of Cedar Point (in southwestern Gardiners Bay) - aerial photos show a
significant SAY bed; field survey indicates dominant species to be green fleece
and rockweed; eelgrass was present in the sandy areas; bottom was dominated
by various sizes of rocks and boulders
West shore of Hog Neck Bay - aerial photos show a dense band of SAV fringing
the shoreline; field survey indicated this band was dominated by green fleece,
with no eelgrass present
Entrance to Napeague Harbor - while eelgrass was present in two thick beds just
inside the harbor, the area outside the entrance was dominated by green fleece,
rockweed, and other miscellaneous macroalgae; no eelgrass was observed
outside the harbor
· Northwest of entrance to Ceecles Harbor - the field survey showed the SAV bed
depicted on the aerial photo to be a rockweed/eelgrass mix
Inside Coecles Harbor - the aerial' photo suggests eelgrass beds were present at
Station #96; the field survey showed the SAY to be mostly green fleece, with no
eelgrass observed
· North end of Ram island peninsula (Shelter Island), on Gardiners Bay - at Station
#105, eelgrass was mixed with rockweed and sargassum
Based on the situations described above, the use of ground truth data is considered to
be essential to the accuracy of SAV maps created through aerial photograph
interpretation. Only through proper field reconnaissance can the species composition
and true extent of suspected SAY beds be ascertained; this conclusion is consistent with
the findings of other investigators (e.g., Short, et.aL, 1993; Orth, et.al., 1992). Because
of the limitations outlined above, suspected eelgrass beds that were evident on the
aerial photographs but which were not in close proximity to sampling stations (including
January 1996 page,86
Peconic Estualy Pro&ram Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Study - Final Report
certain smaller embayments, tidal creeks, and water bodies that were not accessible by
small boat) were, for the most part, not included in the eelgrass distribution depicted
in Map 4.
Another important factor to bear in mind when using aerial photography to map marine
vegetation is that SAV distribution and abundance can vary greatly at a given location
over a relatively short period of time. As discussed in Section 4.1, the SAV species that
are found in the Peconic Estuary generally exhibit seasonal patterns of growth that are
tied to reproductive cycles and/or environmental forcings. Photography shot during the
seasonal lull in growth could result in an underestimate of the average annual condition.
Further, the period of the most abundant SAV growth often occurs near the time when
brown tides typically appear. Since aerial photographs shot during a brown tide event
are generally not useful for the delineation of estuarine bottom features due to high
turbidity, photographs depicting conditions of maximal SAV growth can be difficult to
obtain.
As discussed in Section 4.3, it is possible that a significant decline of eelgrass
populations may be ongoing in certain portions of the Peconic Estuary. The timing of
such localized die-offs is critical to the use of aerial photographs for assessing the
distribution and abundance, overall health and biomass of the eelgrass standing crop.
January 1996 Pa&~o87
Pecoeic Estuary Program
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Study - Final Report
SECTION 6
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
SECTION 6.1 - SAV as an Indicator of Overall Estuary Health
The overall findings of this investigation concerning the status of the Peconic Estuary's
standing crop of eelgrass (as discussed in Section 5.1) is somewhat encouraging, since
it appears that a significant inventory of eelgrass remains despite the occurrence of
successive brown tide events starting in the mid-1980s, historic (and possible on-going)
losses due to wasting disease, possible shading effects resulting from phytoplankton
blooms and enhanced epiphyte growth due to nutrient enrichment, and other adverse
impacts. However, this should not be taken as an indication that management efforts
are not needed. On the contrary, certain trends that were noted in the distribution and
abundance of eelgrass and other SAV suggest that additional measures are needed to
preserve and restore this important ecological resource.
Numerous studies have shown that rooted aquatic plants generally are highly sensitive
to conditions of water clarity and associated nutrient and suspended particulate levels
in the water column. Therefore, these species are particularly crucial as indicators of
environmental conditions in an estuary. In fact, recent studies in Chesapeake Bay
(Dennison, eLai., 1993; U.S. EPA, 1992) have attempted to define the quantitative
habitat requirements for rooted aquatic plants. The premise of these studies is that it
should be possible to predict patterns of SAY growth and survival from the known levels
of certain key water quality parameters (including: total suspended solids; chlorophyll
a; dissolved inorganic nitrogen, such as nitrate, nitrite, and ammonia; and dissolved
inorganic phosphorus, such as phosphate) which affect the transmittance of light
through the water column. Conversely, long-term water quality levels should be
predictable on the basis of SAY distribution, if the variables that affect SAY are known.
Although a detailed quantitative analysis of SAV distribution versus water quality
parameters is beyond the scope of this study, some general conclusions can be drawn
from the findings of the field survey.
The total absence of eelgrass from the inner estuary and the relative abundance of sea
lettuce (LJIva lactuca) are causes for concern, because this pattern of SAV distribution
indicates an elevated level of environmental stress, with nutrient enrichment derived
from human activities (as exacerbated by limited tidal flushing) probably being a primary
causative factor. A number of investigators have found that elevated nutrient levels
favor U. lactuca over submerged angiosperms (Harlin, 1995; Harlin and Rines, 1993).
Peconic Estuary Program Submer&ed Aquatic Vegetation Study - Final Report
Z. marina, and its associated biota, are particularly sensitive to environmental
perturbation that result in shading and habitat alteration which accompanies the
development of bays and harbors (Ware, 1993). The evidence gathered during this
investigation demonstrates that the inner Peconic Estuary is suffering from a diminished
level of overall "health", and that there is an urgent need to institute a program to
determine the magnitude and causes of this condition and to institute an appropriate
mitigation program to reduce human impacts in that area.
The middle Estuary has some areas of sea lettuce-dominated SAV beds. This portion
of the estuary is also characterized by a density and abundance of eelgrass meadows
that are somewhat lower than the composite average for the entire study area. On the
basis of these criteria, the middle Estuary is apparently suffering from somewhat
diminished overall "health", although to a lesser degree than the inner Estuary.
The outer Estuary, which is devoid of sea lettuce and contains the densest and most
widespread eelgrass beds in the study area, appears to be in relatively good overall
"health". However, even these waters exhibit conditions that indicate SAV impacts. In
particular, green fleece is prevalent in this area, although to a slightly lesser degree than
in the middle Estuary. As discussed in Section 5.2, this species of green algae has
actively or passively displaced native vegetation, including ecologically rich eelgrass
beds, thereby resulting in a general decrease in the habitat Value of the Estuary's SAV
populations. In this sense, therefore, the expansion of green fleece populations over the
past four decades has diminished the ecological vitality of the Estuary's ecosystem.
Research is needed to determine whether it would be beneficial and practical to control
the spread of green fleece so that native flora, especially eelgrass beds, can become re-
established.
On the basis of qualitative and anecdotal information acquired during this investigation,
the eelgrass beds throughout the Estuary appear to be undergoing a general decline at
the present time. Although the cause of this die-back has not been ascertained, brown
tide episodes are not responsible, since no significant brown tides occurred during the
five-year period immediately prior to CA's field survey. The descriptions given of the
affected eelgrass areas indicate that incidences of wasting disease may be recurring.
Although the responsible disease organism has been identified, the trigger mechanism
for outbreaks remains unknown.
Jan~ 1996 page,,89
Peconic Estuary Program Submerged Aquatic Vegeta~on Study - Final Repo~
SECTION 6.2 - !~nmmended Management Objectives for Restorin_e SAV
The primary recommended management objectives for restoring SAV in the Peconic
Estuary are listed as follows.
1)
In general, the discharge of nutrients (especially inorganic nitrogen compounds,
and nitrate in particular) into coastal waters has been implicated in a variety of
adverse impacts to SAY, including the following:
a) phytoplankton blooms, which diminish the transparency of the water
column, reduce the light level experienced at any given depth, and
decrease the depth at which a given SAV species can survive;
b) displacement of eelgrass by macroalgae (eelgrass has a generally higher
habitat value compared to macroalgae);
c) excessive growth of epiphytes on the surface of SAY under highly enriched
nitrogen conditions, which can retard the growth or even kill the
underlying SAY species due to shading; and
d) possible direct physiological effects on eelgrass, which may result in
diminished growth rates and increased susceptibility to disease.
The Present study, which has included an extensive review of the existing
scientific literature and a one-time sun~ey of SAY throughout the Peconic Estuary,
does not provide conclusive evidence directly linking the loss of SAY beds in the
Estuary to any of the specific conditions listed above. However, the widespread
occurrence of these conditions in similar environmental settings indicates that the
study area also has likely experienced some or all of these adverse effects of
nitrogen enrichment. Such impacts would be in addition to those that have been
identified with respect to brown tide incidents, which do not appear to be
triggered by loadings of inorganic nitrogen or phosphorus compounds.
As a first step to addressing this issue, further investigation is needed to more
clearly define the site-specific consequences that nitrogen inputs have on SAV in
the Peconic Estuary. Some of the necessary research is being undertaken in
other current studies under the Peconic Estuary Program. Additional studies will
be needed to determine whether the nutrient levels that exist in the Estuary can
be correlated to the distribution of SAV, using the "habitat requirements"
approach developed for the Chesapeake Bay Program (U.S. EPA, 1992). This is
further discussed under recommendation #4 below.
January ~96 Page. ge (
Peconic Estuary Program Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Study - Final Report
Projects should be conducted under controlled conditions to establish eelgrass
meadows artificially in carefully selected areas in the Peconic Estuary. The
benefits to be derived from eelgrass restoration projects are the same as are
discussed in Section 2.1 with respect to eelgrass meadows in general.
Transplanting of mature, vegetative shoots of eelgrass is considered to be a more
viable technique for revegetating barren bottom areas than expecting the plants
to establish populations by natural recruitment (Fonseca, et.al., 1985); There is
evidence that natural, return of eelgrass to areas where it has been lost can be
a slow process, as evidenced by the slow return of eelgrass after the 1930s
wasting disease (Burkholder and Doheny, 1968). As noted previously, annual
recruitment by natural seeding is negligible in relatively high energy open-water
areas. As a result, the contribution of transplants in maintaining or expanding
eelgrass beds in this type of environment can be substantial (Thayer, et.al. 1985),
although enclosure structures may be needed to protect transplants.
The selection of locations for the restoration projects is critical, and should be
based on an examination of historical information and physical environmental
conditions to ensure the best chances of success. In general, areas that had
previously harbored eelgrass meadows should be considered a top priority for
replanting. However, Burkholder (1993) cautions that efforts to maintain or re-
establish eelgrass in warm, poorly-flushed eutrophic embayments and coastal
lagoons with seasonal anthropogenic loadings of nitrate will have 'a Iow
probability for success, even at locations that historically have been vegetate~l
with eelgrass. Similarly, Fonseca, et.al. (1990) report that where seagrass beds
are lost to short-lived disturbances (e.g., direct losses due to storms, dredging,
ice gouging, etc.), restoration may be contemplated. However, losses due to
chronic disturbances (such as high background turbidity) cannot be rectified by
transplanting unless the causative factors are addressed. Likewise, Ware (1993)
has concluded that non-point pollution problems in Upper Newport Bay,
California, may prevent the successful re-introduction of eelgrass in those waters
unless significant actions are taken to reduce sediment loads and turbidity.
Dennison, et. al. (1993) and the U.S. EPA (1992) have developed quantitative
water quality criteria for assessing the potential for successful transplants in
Chesapeake Bay, as is discussed further under recommendation #4 below.
A preliminary listing of potential sites for artificial eelgrass plantings, and
recommended methods for implementing such projects, are presented in Section
6.3. It should be noted, however, that attempts to establish eelgrass beds with
Janua~ 1~J6 Page, g1
Peconic Estua~ Program Submer&ed Aquatic VegeTation study - Final Report
3)
artificial plantings have had mixed success, but the methods for this are still
evolving.
Additional field surveys should be undertaken in the future to better define short-
term and long-term trends in the distribution, abundance, and density of SAY in
the Peconic Estuary. The present study has provided a substantial amount of
information that can be used to develop initial programs to manage the SAV
resource (especially eelgrass beds) within the Peconic Estuary. However, further
in-field investigation would be needed to resolve a number of important issues,
including the following.
a) Are reports and limited evidence regarding an on-going decline ofeelgrass
beds accurate and, if so, does this trend represent a significant alteration
of the Estuary's eelgrass resource? Knowledge of the typical year-to-year
variation in eelgrass populations within the Estuary is essential to
determining whether any given trend in distribution and abundance
represents a longer-term variation; this type of information is necessary to
establish an effective management program for the eelgrass resource
(Short, et.aL, lg93).
b)
c)
d)
e)
Is the historic spread of green fleece continuing and, if so, at what rate?
Is the distribution of sea lettuce (which is an indicator species of nutrient
enrichment) expanding and, if so, at what rate?
Do brown tide events have a significant impact on the distribution and
abundance of eeigrass in the Estuary? To date, the conclusion that brown
tides have caused substantial decreases in eelgrass distribution and
abundance in the Peconic Estuary has not been substantiated by scientific
field surveys. Consequently, the presumed cause and effect relationship
has not been adequately demonstrated. CA's review of historical aerial
photographs did not indicate a consistent trend in the status of the
Estua~s eelgrass beds over the past 25 years, at least in the areas that
were subject to analysis. Therefore, further field reconnaissance,
particularly in the years leading up to and following a significant brown tide
event, would be needed to resolve this issue.
To what extent has boating activity affected the Estuary's eelgrass beds?
Cumulative damage by propeller scarring and boat wake energy has
Peco~ic Estu~/Program ' Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Study - Final Report
h)
recently been demonstrated as having significant impacts to seagrass
habitats, in general, sometimes eclipsing the better-documented impacts
of dredging (Fonseca, et.al., 1992).
To what extent have navigational dredging activities affected the
distribution of eelgrass in the Peconic Estuary? In the bays of the
Southern California coast, maintenance dredging projects have been
identified as an important factor in the loss of shallow water areas that are
often vegetated with eelgrass. Dredging has also artificially restricted the
upper and lower range limits of eelgrass in these areas (Ware, 1993). The
dredging of navigational channels can also change hydrodynamic patterns,
which can have a secondary effect on eelgrass distribution and abundance
as a result of altered water quality characteristics.
Can field investigations of seeds and pollen in bottom sediments enhance
the meager scientific information presently available regarding to the
historic distribution of eelgrass in the Peconic Estuary? That type of study
was successfully used to document the fact that SAV in the Chesapeake
Bay was once significantly more abundant than it is today (U.S. EPA, 1992).
To what extent does scallop harvesting impact the Estuary's eelgrass beds?
This issue is complex and is not resolvable from the conflicting information
at hand. For example, the field survey conducted for this study revealed
evidence that the eelgrass beds in Southold Bay had sustained some
damage due to scallop harvesting operations. In addition, field
investigations performed by Fonseca, et.al. (1984) in the waters off North
Carolina indicate that scallop dredging can have potentially negative,
immediate and long-term impacts on eelgrass meadows. However, that
study involved tests with harvesting equipment that were not conducted
during actual scallop harvesting operations. Personal observations made
by Mr. Christopher Smith of the Suffolk County Cornell Cooperative
Extension (telephone communication, September 22, 1995), who has
worked extensively with commercial scallop harvesters over many years,
indicate that most dredges operate successfully by lightly skimming the
bottom. Unquestionably, some fronds are removed during the passage of
the scallop dredge over the eelgrass bed; however, it is likely that a large
proportion of these blades would slough off naturally anyway in response
to the approach of winter. Mr. Smith also believes, based on his personal
observations in the field, that it would be almost impossible to successfully
Janua~ 1996
Peconic Estuary Pro,Tam Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Study - Final Report
4)
harvest scallops in a manner that consistently removes rhizomes, since the
dredge would be very difficult to pull through the substrate and would fill
up rapidly with plant material.
Some specific recommendations for future SAV monitoring are presented in
Section 6.4.
Much investigative work has been performed recently in an effort to define the
environmental conditions under which eelgrass transplants would have th.e
highest potential for long-term-success. As noted previously, studies performed
as part of the Chesapeake Bay Program (Dennison, et.al., 1993; U.S. EPA, 1992)
have attempted to define the quantitative habitat requirements for submerged
vascular plants in that estuary, which would in turn define the minimal
requirements for the survival and growth of SAV transplants. Those studies
indicate that the occurrence of SAV in Chesapeake Bay is correlated with five
interdependent water quality parameters: total suspended solids, chlorophyll a_,
light attenuation coefficient, dissolved inorganic nitrogen, and dissolved inorganic
phosphorus. The light attenuation coefficient is a direct measure of water
column transparency, which is the primary habitat requirement for SAV. Ught
attenuation is affected mainly by the presence of suspended particulates and
phytoplankton (the latter of which is reflected in water column chlorophyll a
levels), but does not account for shading due to epiphyte growth. Dissolved
inorganic nutrient concentrations indicate the potential for increased light
attenuation caused by excessive growth of epiphytes, as well as phytoplankton
blooms.
Through investigations of the natural range of SAV in Chesapeake Bay, coupled
with a series of small-scale SAV transplant experiments, Dennison, et.al. (1993)
and the U.S. EPA (1992) have concluded that SAV in the saline portion of that
estuary (i.e., greater than 5 ppt) has the following habitat requirements for
growth down to a water depth of one meter:.
total suspended solids < 15 mg/I
chlorophylla < 15 ~mg.?
light attenuation coefficient < 1.5 '
dissolved inorganic nitrogen < 0.15 mg/I
dissolved inorganic phosphorus < 0.02 mg/I
January 1996 pa~.. 94
Peco~ic Estuary Program Submer§ed Aquatic Vegetation Study - Final Report
In the above referenced studies, SAV growth occurred at 80 percent of the
observations stations in Chesapeake Bay that met all five criteda and 55 percent
of the staUons that met four of the five criteria. Conversely, SAV growth occurred
at only 3 percent of the staUons that met zero, one or two of the five criteria.
Furthermore, at a study sub-area within the saline portion of the bay, attempted
transplants were always successful at locations that already had persistent SAV
growth and generally conformed with the habitat criteria, while there were no
successful long-term transplants at locations characterized by fluctuating or
absent SAY growth and which generally did not conform with the habitat criteria.
On this basis, it was concluded that rc establishment of plant communities via
transplant efforts are futile if habitat requirements are not met. More specifically,
Dennison, et.al. (1993) stated that exceeding any of the five water quality criteria
would seriously compromise the chances of SAV survival, both in natural
communities and in transplants. For locations where the criteria are not met,
mitigative action would be needed to decrease the levels of the non-compliant
variables (primarily through a reduction of nutrients and/or suspended sediment
loads) before SAV survival would be probable.
At the study area in the lower portion of the Chesapeake Bay, which is most
similar to the Peconic Estuary with respect to salinity regime, the transition zone
between successful Z. marina growth and unsuccessful growth is very narrow.
This suggests that a very small degree of in water quality deterioration can
potentially harm the vegetation and, conversely, that small improvements in
water quality may likely result in significant increases in eelgrass populations (U.S.
EPA, 1992).
Although the findings summarized above indicate that quantitative habitat criteria
may be applied to SAY species Chesapeake Bay, further investigation would be
needed to determine if those same criteria have general applicability in other
geographic regions. Therefore, it is recommended that studies be undertaken in
the Peconic Estuary, similar to the Chesapeake Bay investigations, to quantify the
habitat requirements for eelgrass in the Peconic Estuary.
5)
Although Codium fragile is believed to play an important role in the current
ecosystem of the Peconic Estuary, it is an introduced species that has actively or
passively displaced native vegetation, including some species (especially Z0stera
marina) that have a higher habitat value. Therefore, consideration should be
given to undertaking investigations to determine whether the spread of C. fragile
has had or is having a significant adverse effect on the Estuary's ecosystem. If
January 1996 Page ..95
Peconic Estuary Program Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Study - Final Report
6)
such an effect is demonstrated, any measures that halt or reverse the spread of
this species and which allow native species to become re-established will
increase the habitat value of the SAY and will provide an overall benefit to the
Estuary. However, basic information is needed with respect to the environmental
requirements and factors that affect the spread of ~ before it can be
determined whether a practical program can be implemented to reclaim SAV
areas that have become dominated by this species.
Investigations should be undertaken to identify the trigger mechanism that
initiates relapses of eelgrass wasting disease. The occurrence of this epidemic
can have (and historically has had) devastating impacts on local eelgrass standing
crop. Although the responsible organism has been identified, research does not
appear to have progressed significantly beyond that stage. The logical first
investigative step would be to determine the conditions that cause latent forms
of the apparently ubiquitous slime-mold-like protozoan, ~ zosterae, to
initiate a wasting disease epidemic. Similar efforts have been undertaken recently
to identify the causes of brown tide events.
The effects of wasting disease on SAV in the Peconic Estuary should not be
considered secondary in importance relative to the effects of brown tide and
nutrient enrichment. Some recent die-offs in the study area, as described
through anecdotal reports, are strongly suspected of having been caused by
wasting disease, due to the presence of characteristic black lesions. However,
further scientific investigation would be needed to better define the degree to
which this disease affects the local population dynamics of eelgrass. As noted
previously, the impacts of wasting disease on eelgrass are typically most severe
in the higher salinity (outer) regions of an estuary which, coincidentally, are
generally less affected by brown tide and nutrient enrichment. Thus, the various
avenues of research discussed here should be viewed as complementary
elements of a complete program of scientific investigation needed to develop a
comprehensive management strategy for the Estuary's SAV resource.
Jarmary 1996 Page. g6
Peconic Estuary Program Submerged Aquatic Vegetation study - Final Report
SECTION 6.3 - Potential Sites and Recommended Methods for Future SAV Restoration
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA, 1992) has established a thrcc tier
program for the restoration of SAY (i.e., rooted aquatic vegetation only) in Chesapeake
Bay. The initial, Tier I target is to restore SAY to areas currently or previously inhabited
by SAY as mapped through regional aerial surveys between 1971 and 1990; these areas
have the best potential for the successful re-establishment of SAY. Tier II of the
program would extend the restoration out to a depth of one meter in all existing or
potential SAV habitat, excluding areas identified as unlikely to support SAY based on
historical observations, recent surveys, and environmental conditions. Tier III is based
on the same criteria as Tier II, but would extend restoration out to a depth of two
meters. Areas in which the establishment of SAV is not considered to be feasible due
to physical factors (e.g., in the case of high wave and current energy) would be
excluded from the targeted restoration area.
According to the "habitat requirements" approach for assessing SAV distribution in
Chesapeake Bay (U.S. EPA, 1992), the absence of rooted aquatic plants in a certain area
(where physical factors such as dredging and storm damage can be discounted) can
most likely be attributed to water quality conditions that do not meet specific
quantitative criteria related to the depth of light penetration through the water column.
Consequently, the successful large-scale extension of the depth range of SAV in the
manner envisioned under that program would entail the implementation of measures
to enhance water clarity by mitigating the non-compliant water quality conditions. This
action would not only increase the spatial coverage of SAY, but would also result in
more continuous SAY beds with higher biomass and density than existing beds, since
the improvement of environmental conditions in the shallower waters would increase
light transmittance in areas that already have SAY coverage.
Four locations within the Peconic Estuary, as listed below and shown in Figure 2, are
suggested for consideration in establishing future eelgrass beds, consistent with the
Tier I criteria applied by the U.S. EPA in Chesapeake Bay.
a) the southerly spit off Gardiners island;
b) Napeague Harbor;
c) the western shoreline of Hog Neck Bay; and
January 1996 Pa~., 97
Peconic £stua~y Program Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Study - Final Report
d) the eastern shoreline of Robins Island.
These areas were chosen as potentially suitable sites because the environmental
conditions generally match those found at existing beds which have produced lush,
vigorous stands of eelRrass. These sites offer similar sediment types, salinity levels,
bottom configuration, water depths, and desree of protection from severn weather
conditions. In addition, these four locations have reportedly supported historic eelgrass
beds. The first two sites (at Gardiners Island and Napeague Harbor) are situated in the
outer Estuary, in the vicinity of existing eelgrass beds and, therefore, represent prime
candidates for restoration efforts. The latter two sites (in Hog Neck Bay and at Robins
Island) are situated in a portion of the middle Estuary that presently is devoid of eelgrass
and, therefore, should be considered as being more "experimental" and as having a
generally lower potential for success.
Routine monitoring is necessary prior to planting to ensure that proper conditions exist
at the selected project location. It is recommended that the water quality criteria
established by the U.S. EPA (1992) for Chesapeake Bay be used as a guideline for
transplant site selection in the Peconic Estuary until local criteria are established through
future studies. Continued monitoring should occur after planting has been completed
to assess the effectiveness of the operation and to determine factors that may influence
plant survival. Fonseca (1990) recommends that follow-up monitoring should occur
quarterly during the first year after planflng~ and biannually for two additional years.' If
financial and personnel resources allow, monitoring surveys earlier in the post-planUng
period (e.g., after one month) would also be useful, particularly in the event that the
plants suffer a premature, catastrophic demise.
The monitoring program for transplant investigations should include the measurement
of the following variables.
a) light levels - It is necessary for light measurements (preferably at both the surface
and bottom) to commence prior to planting, so that it can be confirmed that
adequate illumination is available before resources are committed to a given
project location. Light measurements should continue at regular intervals after
the plants are in-place, to provide baseline physical data that can be compared
to growth.
pa&e,98
SUBMERGED AQUATIC
VEGETATION STUDY - PECONIC ESTUARY
PROGRAM /
[] Suggested eelgross
restoration sites
(Letters refer to listing
in section 6,3)
NOTE: The four sites shown represent general
areas suggested for restoration. The
selection of specific restoration locations
would require detailed field investigations
as described In section 6.3.
Figure 2
SUGGESTED EELGRASS
RESTORATION SITES
Peconic Estuary Program Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Study - Final Report
b)
d)
pertinent environmental parameters- It is necessary for physical data to be
collected before planting, since certain environmental conditions are most suited
to eelgrass growth. Measurements should include salinity, temperature, and
water column turbidity. As noted previously, studies of SAV habitat requirements
in Chesapeake Bay suggest that total suspended solids and chlorophyll _a. levels
would also provide useful information for identifying potential transplant sites.
Observations should also be made of the actual or potential presence of
conditions that could create significant physical disturbances (e.g., storm waves,
vessel propeller wash, and ice shearing), which can uproot newly established
plantings. Substrate conditions should be examined with particular care, since
bottom sediments in areas that were previously occupied by eelgrass can change
significantly after the eelgrass disappears; this is one reason why restoration
projects sometimes fail in areas that historically have supported eel§rass.
Information on the tidal range at the project site should also be obtained,
especially with respect to potential exposure to air during Iow tide (including
spring Iow tide), which can result in heat stress and predation by waterfowl.
plant growth- Various methods exist for assessing plant growth. Biomass
measurements (as used in this study) entail the collection of vegetative matter
and, therefore, should be avoided in newly established beds. The measurement
of leaf elongation was used by Short, et.al. (1993), and represents an effective,
non-destructive means of obtaining the necessary information. Non-destructive
plant and shOOt counts have also been used (Fonseca, 1990; Ware, 1993).
Churchill, et.al. (1978) used a combination of measures, including percent
survival, shoot counts, average shoot length, and rhizome length. Average shoot
length was found not to be a good indication of plant growth, since healthy
plants with a large number of new shoots typically would exhibit Iow values for
this variable, while older specimens not undergoing active growth may display
a higher value for this variable. Rhizome length, in contrast, increased steadily
during their four-month study, and was found to be a good measure of plant
growth; however, this measurement suffered from the drawback that it required
harvesting of the plants.
nutrient levels- The aforementioned studies of SAV habitat requirements in
Chesapeake Bay suggest that measurement of dissolved inorganic nitrogen and
dissolved inorganic phosphorus would provide useful information for identifying
potential transplant sites.
January 1996 Page. 9g
Peconic Estuaey program Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Sludy - Final Report
Some studies (Burkholder, 1993; Burkholder, et.al, 1992) indicate that high levels
of water column nitrate adversely affect eelgrass growth and survival, and
conclude that efforts to maintain or re-establish eelgrass in warm, poorly-flushed
eutrophic embayments and coastal lagoons with seasonal anthropogenic loadings
of nitrate will have a Iow probability for success. Thus, ambient water columns
levels of nitrate at potential transplant locations should be taken into
consideration before the final project sites are actually selected. The
investigations performed by Burkholder (1993) indicate that the threshold
concentration of nitrate that permits eelgrass survival under pulsed loading
conditions should be viewed as a range that lies between 3/~M to 10/~M (which
is equivalent to approximately 0.04 mg/I to 0.14 mg/I). However, caution should
be exercised in applying a 3 aM (or any other single value) as a regulatory
threshold since, as noted previously, the effects of nitrate on eelgrass is highly
dependent on other parameters, especially temperature. More work is needed
to better define the synergistic relationship between water column nitrate
enrichment and increasing temperature and other factors.
The actual transplanting operation can utilize plants harvested from nearby, well-
established eelgrass beds or commercially available plant materials. In general, the
former source is preferred because the specimens would be fully adapted to the
environmental conditions that exist in the vicinity of the project site. However,
regulatory approval would be needed to harvest plants from existing beds, and close
scrutiny must be given to the ability of the source area to sustain such disturbance.
With respect to the methods to be used for harvesting and transplanting eelgrass plugs,
numerous variations have been tried regarding to plug size and spacing, plug handling
and storage, plug transport, planting techniques, transplant site preparation, etc. Some
of the more specific guidelines developed for such projects are presented by Fonseca,
et.al. (1985 and 1982), Fonseca (1990), Ware (1993), and Churchill, et. al. (1978). These
reference resources should be consulted in the earliest phases of the formulation of a
work plan to restore eelgrass in the Peconic Estuary. Some basic rules are generally
applicable to these projects, as summarized below.
Plantings have the greatest chances for success if undertaken in the early spring
(April and May) or earlier. This allows the plants more time to become
established before the stresses of late summer occur (i.e., decreased growth,
increased predation and other disturbances).
Pecenic Estua~' program Submerged Aquatic Veget~on Study - Final Report
The transplanting of flowering shoots should be avoided to the maximum degree
possible, since such shoots senesce after seeds are released and provide no
additional vegetative growth.
Plants should be harvested as near as possible to the transplant location. This
will minimize time expended in transport, both with respect to project costs and
stress on the plant materials, and will also render a plant material that is more
likely to be adapted to conditions at the transplant site.
Plant materials should be washed free of sediment at the harvest site. This has
generally been found to be a more e~cient and less costly method than the use
of sediment-bound plugs (Ware, 1993; Churchill, et.al., 1978). The latter
investigators reported that although sediment-bound plugs may have a somewhat
higher survival rate, sediment-free "mini-plugs" are much easier to handle; in their
study, the retention of sediment increased the weight of the plant materials by
a factor of 350.
The integrity of the root-rhizome complex must be maintained for successful
transplantation. Plants must be kept moist during storage and transport. The
time lag between harvest and transplant should be minimized; the greatest
success is generally achieved if the two operations occur on the same day.
Optimally, eelgrass should be planted in salinities above 20 ppt.
Transplants should not be placed in areas that are subject to exposure to the air
during Iow tide.
Plant materials should be inserted into the substrate to the same or slightly
greater depth compared to their natural growth.
Small-scale pilot plantings can be used to test the viability of a given site for
eelgrass transplants without committing a large amount of resources. Several
months of monitoring are needed to determine whether a pilot bed has become
adequately established. Consequently, if the pilot bed is successful, the next
earliest planting time for the remaining plugs would be the following spring.
Fertilization of the substrate may be required to sustain the plants in transplant
areas. At present, fertilization is considered to be acceptable in sediments with
a less than two percent organic content (Fonseca, et.al., 1987).
January 1996 Pa~e 101
Peconic Esluary Program
Submerged Aquatic Ve§e~ation Study - Final Report
As a general rule, high energy environments should be avoided as transplant
sites. For example, Churchill, et.al. (1978) reported a 100 percent loss of
transplants in areas of high currents and shifting sands in their study conducted
in Great South Bay, New York. Offshore berms or sandbars have been
successfully used to provide protection from waves in some cases, but these
must be constructed so as not to impound water and raise in-meadow
temperatures.
As discussed above, some studies (Burkholder, 1993; Burkholder, et. al., 1992)
strongly suggest that nitrate-enriched water bodies are poor candidates for
eelgrass transplants. Although generally considered to be of lower habitat value
than Z. marina. IL maritima still provides important habitat and food for
commercially important fish, shellfish and waterfowl. Therefore, Ru_up_DLa maritima
may be considered as an alternative to eelgrass for re-establishing vegetated
coastal habitat under nitratc~cnriched conditions. IL maritima is strongly
stimulated under moderate nitrate enrichment and, unlike Z. marina (which lacks
a nitrate "shut-off' mechanism), IL maritima has developed an advantageous
physiological mechanism for controlling the uptake and assimilation of nitrate.
IL maritima has been found to become naturally recruited into areas in
Chesapeake Bay where environmental conditions have caused a decline in the
eelgrass population. In fact, IL maritima may presently occupy more bottom area
and is believed to have the greatest potential distribution of all SAV species in
Chesapeake Bay (U.S.EPA, 1992).
Some investigations (Ware, 1993) have used anchoring devices, such as
'popsicle" sticks tied to the sediment-free rhizome bundle, with good success.
Other studies (Churchill, et.al., 1978) have concluded that although using
anchors may improve plant survival, this occurs at the expense of additional time
and labor.
Some studies have shown that artificial seeding can be a feasible method for
eXPanding eelgrass populations under certain conditions. For example, Dennison
(1988) reported germination success rates as high as 2 to 8 percent at three of
six study locations, based on field observations made six months after planting.
However, germination did not occur at the other three study locations. Site
selection appeared to be a critical factor in planting success, with protection from
wave scour having an overriding effect. The labor effort involved in the collection
and preparation of seeds should be taken into consideration when assessing the
feasibility of seeding in comparison to transplanting. Seed collection in New York
Jarma~ 1996 Pa~e
Peconic Estuary Program' Submer&ed Aquatic Vegetation study - Final Report
waters should be concentrated between the end of June and the beginning of
July. The use of a "seed tape" can minimize seed loss (Churchill, et.al., 1978).
Communication with agencies that have been involved in eelgrass restoration projects
should also serve as a important source of vital information. The Suffolk County Cornell
Cooperative Extension (39 Sound Avenue, Riverhead, New York) has engaged in such
projects within the Peconic system. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Coastal
Engineering Research Center, Fort Belvoir, Virginia) and the National Marine Fisheries
Service (Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Environmental Processes Division, James
J. Howard Laboratory, Highlands, New Jersey) have also sponsored eelgrass transplant
studies along the United States Atlantic coast and could provide useful supplemental
information.
SECTION 6.4 - Ren~mmendaUons Re~_ardin_e Future SAV Monitorine
Besides the four areas listed in Section 6.3 as potential sites for artificial eelgrass
restoration, eleven locations within the Peconic Estuary system have been identified
which warrant future SAV monitoring, outside of the scope of the monitoring efforts
described in Section 6.3 for eelgrass transplant locations. These monitoring sites have
been selected based upon the preceding analyses, with mOst of the areas currently
supporting dense healthy eelgrass beds or mixed SAV populations with eeigrass
significantly represented. The locations recommended for future monitoring include the
following (see Figure 3):
a) northern portion of Southold Bay - as discussed earlier, this area was recently
dredged for scallops and appears to have sustained some damage;
b) the northerly, easterly and southerly shorelines of Shelter Island;
c) the northern and eastern portion of Orient Harbor;
d) Hailock Bay - several small, sparsely populated eelgrass beds, and one small,
moderately dense bed;
e) Long Beach - several moderately dense eelgrass beds about midway, on the
south side of the spit;
Janua~ 1996 Page 103
peconic Estuary program Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Study - Final Report
f) the central, southern and eastern portions of Northwest Harbor;
g)
the northerly shoreline of Cedar Point - while the area was dominated by green
fleece with eelgrass as a secondary species, all SAV growth including eelgrass
was extensive and lush;
h) the shoreline in Gardiners Bay north from the mouth of Accabonac Harbor to
Lion's Head Rock;
i) the easterly shoreline of Gardiners Island;
j)
Lake Montauk - historic information is available to track the spread of green fleece
beds and monitor the health and extent of the eelgrass beds; and
the Sag Harbor Cove complex, West Neck Harbor, Coecles Harbor, Three Mile
Harbor, and Accabonac Harbor - as discussed in Section 5.3, these areas have
reportedly experienced recent eelgrass die-off, which warrants further study.
Future monitoring efforts should include field inspections to determine seasonal and
annual variations in the size and health of the SAY beds. Also, inspections should be
made after major storm events and shellfish harvesting seasons to assess any damages
caused by such events. Field reconnaissance could include: in-field wet weight
measurements, SAV collections for laboratory measurement of dry weight, water quality
measurements (including salinity, temperature, secchi disc depth readings, water
depth), percent coverage estimates, measurements of the area covered by the SAV
beds, species composition, and a qualitative assessment of the relative health of the
beds. Since the whole Estuary would not be studied during follow-up surveys, more
intensive sampling and observations could be performed at the chosen observation sites.
Harlin and Rines (1993) describe a field survey program that was conducted in June
1990 to define the "broadscale" SAV distribution and abundance in Narragansett Bay,
Rhode Island, which at 328 square kilometers is about the same size as the Peconic
Estuary. Sampling was performed at 64 stations, compared to the 214 stations surveyed
in the present study (153 of which contained SAY coverage). Harlin and Rines surveyed
only eight SAV species that were known from their personal observations to be common
and conspicuous in the bay during the early summer, including the four species that
were most common in the Pecenic Estuary during this study: Ulva lactuca, ~
fragile. Fucus vesiculosus, and Zostera marina. Other SAV species surveyed by Harlin
and Rines included Chondrus crispus, Laminaria saccharina, Ascephyllum nodos_q_~q~_~um and
Jamm7 1996 Pa~e 1.04
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION STUDY - PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
,/
[] Recommended location for
future SAV monitoring
(Letters refer to Ii@ting
in section 6,4)
Cmshln _~/~clate-, P.C,
EN,INEERS . ARCHI?L,~,~,eI~,~IRONMeN?AL PLANNER!
Figure 3
RECOMMENDED LOCATIONS FOR
FUTURE SAV MONITORING
Peconic Estua~/Program 5abmerged Aquatic Vegetation Study - Final Report
the salt marsh grass Spartina alterniflora. The authors indicated that restricting the
investigation to common and easily identifiable taxa enabled them to sample a large
number of stations in a short period of time, and will facilitate reproducibilib/for future
surveys. These are important considerations for future studies in the Peconic Estuary.
The identification of macroalgae specimens returned to the laboratory during the present
investigation consumed a large amount of time and effort, perhaps disproportional to the
value of the information that was derived. Therefore, further SAV surveys in the Peconic
Estuary should consider the efficacy of focusing on the most common species, which
based on the findings of this investigation would be UIva, Codium, and Zostera, and
perhaps Fucus.
January 1996 Page
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Peconic Estua~, Program Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Study - Final Report
BIBUOGRAPHY
Blankenship, K. January-February 1994. "Bay Bounces Back From Record-setting Spring
'Freshet'", pp.1 and 7; and "Bay Trends Show Phophorus Drop; Nitrogen Holds Steady",
pp. 8. Bay Iournal. Vol. 3, No. 10. Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay, Baltimore, MD.
Blankenship, K. November 1994. "Chesapeake Waterfowl Status and Trends". Bay
Iournal. Vol. 4, No. 8. Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay, Baltimore, MD. pp. 14-15.
Bodnar, P.J., Jr. 1985. A Field Study on Seed Production and Sediment Reserves in a
Long Island Population of Zostera marina L. Master's Thesis. Adelphi University, Garden
City, NY. 25 pp.
Borom, J. 1985. Development of Epiphytic Communities on Eelgrass (Zostera marina)
along a Nutrient Gradient in a Danish Estuary. ~ Vol. 8. pp. 211-218.
Brigs, P.T. and J.S. O'Connor. January 1971. Comparison of Shore-Zone Fishes Over
Naturally Vegetated and Sand-Filled Bottoms in Great South Bay. Now York Fish and
Game Iournal. Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 15-41.
Brinkhuis, B.H. 1983. Seaweeds in Now York Waters: A Primer. Now York Sea Grant
Institute/NOAA/US Department of Commerce/Gas Research Institute. Marine Sciences
Research Center, Contribution #360. 21 pp.
Burkholder, J.M. August 1993. Comparative Effects of Water-Column Nitrate
Enrichment on Eelgrass, Shoal Grass and Widgeon Grass. Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine
Study Report 93-09. 52 pp.
Burkholder, J.M. 1992. Water-Column Nitrate Enrichment Promotes Decline of Eelgrass
Zostera marina: Evidence from Seasonal Mesocosm Experiments. Marine Ecology
Progress Series, Vol. 81, pp. 162-178.
Burkholder, P.R~, and T.D. Doheny. July 12, 1968. The Biology of Eelgrass: with Special
Reference to Hempstead and South Oyster Bays, Nassau County, Long Island, New York.
Joint Contribution: No. 3 from the Department of Conservation and Waterways, Town
of Hempstead, Long Island, New York; and No. 1227 from the Lamont Geological
Observatory, Palisades, New York. 120 pp.
Janua~f 1996 Pa&e 1.06
Peconic Estuazy program Submerged ^qua~ic Vegeta~on Study - Final Repor~
Churchill, A.C. 1983. Field Studies on Seed Germination and Seedling Development
in Zostera marina L. Aquatic Botany. Vol. 16, pp. 21-29.
Churchill, A.C., A.E. Cok and M.I. Riner. 1978. Stabilization of Subtidal Sediments by
the Transpplantation of the Seagrass Zostera marina L. New York Sea Grant Report
Series. NYSGP-RS-78-15. 48 pp.
Churchill, A.C., and H.W. Moeller. 1972. Seasonal Patterns of Reproduction In New
York, Populations of Codium Fragile (SUR.) Harlot Subsp. Tomentosoides (Van Goor)
Silva. o mai of Ph colo Vol. 8, pp. 147-152.
Cosper, E.M., and W.C. Dennison, E.J. Carpenter, V.M. Bricelj, J.G. Mitchell, S.H.
Kuenstner, and D. Colefish. December 1987. Recurrent and Persistent Brown Tide
Blooms Perturb Marine Coastal System. Estuaries. Vol. 10, No. 4, pp.284-290.
Dawson, E.Y., Ph.D. 1956. How to Know the Seaweeds. Wm. C. Brown Co.,
Dubuque, Iowa. 197 pp.
Dennison, W.C., ILJ. Orth, K~. Moore, J.K. Stevenson, V. Carter, S Kollar, P.W.
Bergstrom, and R~ Batiuk. February 1993. Assessing Water Quality with Submersed
Aquatic Vesetafion: Habitat Requirements as Barometers of Chesapeake Bay Health.
BioScience. Vol. 43, No. 2, pp. 86-94.
Dennison, W.C. October 1990. Brown Tide Algae Blooms: Possible Long Term impact
on Eel'grass Distribution and Abundance. Final Report to the Suffolk County Department
of Health Services.
Dennison, W.C., GJ. Marshall, and C. Wigand. 1989. Effect of Brown Tide Shading on
Eeelgrass (Zostera marina L.) Distributions. UMCEES Contribution No. 2035. Horn Point
Environmental Laboratories, Center for Environmental and Estuarine Studies, University
of Maryland, Cambridge, M.D. pp. 675 -692. In Cosper, E.M., V.M. Bricelj, and E.J.
Carpenter. Novel Phytoplankton Blooms: Causes and Impacts of Recurrent Brown Tides
and Other Unusual Blooms. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany.
Dennison, W.C. 1988. Eelgrass Seedling Study. Unpublished report to the Suffolk
County Department of Health Services. 6 pp.
Jammy lgg6 pa&e
Peconic Estua~/Program Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Study - Final Report
Dennison, W.C. and R.S. Alberte. 1986. Photoadaptation and Growth of Zostera marina
L (Eelgrass) Transplants Along a Depth Gradient. Iournal of Experimental Marine Biology
and Ecology.. Vol. 98, pp. 283-292.
Dennison, W.C. and R.S. Alberte. 1985. Role of Daily Light Period in the Depth
Distribution of Zostera marina (eelgrass). Marine Ecology Progress Series, Vol. 25, pp.
51-61.
East Hampton Town Natural Resources Department. June 1995. Survey of Subaquatic
Vegetation in Six East Hampton Town Harbors and Embayments, May and June, 1995.
Unpublished report.
Eckman, James E. 1987. The Role of Hydrodynamics in Recruitment, Growth, and
Survival of A~o_oecten irradians (L.) and Anomia simplex (D'Orbigny) Within Eelgrass
Meadows. Iournal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecolo_ey. Vol. 106, pp. 165 -191.
Eisel, M.T. May 1977. Shoreline Survey: Great Peconic, Little Peconic, Gardiners, and
Napeague Bays. Marine Sciences Research Center, Special Report 5, Reference 77-1.
SUNY Stony Brook, N.Y. 38 pp.
Elder, Jack. May 1976. Eeelgrass Production in Long Island Waters. Tetra Tech,lnc.,
Lafayette, California. 23 pp.
Flagg, P.J. and G.T. Greene. January 1981. Impacts of Shoreline Development on
Shellfish Resources in Lake Montauk, Montauk, New York. Study Submitted to G. Miller,
East Hampton Town Planning Board, East Hampton, New York.
Fonseca, Mark S. 1990. Regional Analysis of the Creation and Restoration of Seagrass
Systems, pp. 171 -189. In J~. Kusler and M.E. Kentula, Wetland Creation and
Restoration, the Status of the Science. Island Press.
Fonseca, M.S., W.J. Kenworty, K~- RJttmaster, and G.W. Thayer. 1987. The Use of
Fertilizer to Enhance Transplants of the Seagrasses Zostera marina and Halodule wrightii.
Technical Report EL-87-12. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Fonseca, M.S. and J.S. Fisher. 1986. A Comparison of Canopy Friction and Sediment
Movement Between Four Species of Seagrass with Reference to Their Ecology and
Restoration. Marine Ecology Progress Series, Vol. 29, pp. 15-22.
Janualy1996 Pa&e%08
Peconic Estuary Program Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Study - Final Report
=onseca, M.S., W.J. Kenworthy, G.W. Thayer, D.Y. Heller, and K.M. Cheap. 1985.
=ransplanting of the Seagrasses Zostera marina and Halodule wrightii for Sediment
'~tabilization and Habitat Development on the East Coast of the United States. Tecnical
~eport EL-85-9. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
~4ississippi.
Fonseca, M.S., G.W. Thayer, A.J. Chester, and C. Foltz. 1984. Impact of Scallop
Harvesting on Eelgrass [Zostera marina) Meadows: Implications for Management. North
American Iournal of Fisheries Management. Vol. 4, pp. 286-293.
Fonseca, M.S., W.J. Kenworthy, and G.W. Thayer. 1982. A Low Cost Planting Technique
for Eelgrass (Zostera marina L). Coastal Engineering Technical Aid No. 82-6. U.S. Army
Engineer Coastal Engineering Research Center, Ft. Belvoir, Virginia.
Fuller, S.W. April 1973. Macroscopic Marine Algae of Lake Montauk Harbor and
~ardiners island: Reproductivity, Seasonal Occurrence, and Spatial Distribution. New
York Ocean Science Laboratory Technical Report No. 0022. New York Ocean Science
~boratory, Montauk, N.Y.
'~osner, K.L. 1979. A Field Guide to the Atlantic Seashore: Invertebrates and Seaweeds
~f the Atlantic Coast from the Bay of Fundy to Cape Hatteras. Houghton Mifflin Co.,
3oston, MA. 329 pp.
Greene, G.T. May 1978. Population Characteristics of Hard Clams in Great South Bay.
Master's Thesis. Marine Sciences Research Center, Stony Brook, New York.
Greene, G.T., A.C.F. Mirchel, W.J. Behrens, and D.S. Becker. January 15, 1978. Surficial
Sediment and Seagrasses of Eastern Great South Bay, N.Y. Marine Sciences Research
Center, Special Report 12, Reference 77-9. SUNY Stony Brook, N.Y. 30 pp.
~lardy, C.D. March 1976. A Preliminary Description of the Peconic Bay Estuary. Marine
Sciences Research Center, Special Report 3, Reference 76-4. SUNY Stony Brook, N.Y.
~5 pp.
-ladin, M,M. 1995. Changes in Major Plant Groups Following Nutrient Enrichment. In
~utrephic Shallow Estuaries and La_eoons. A.J. McComb, Eidtor. CRC Press, London. pp.
73-187.
Peconic Estuan/Program Submer&ed Aquatic Vegetation Study - Final Report
· Harlin, M.M. 1993. Spatial Cover of Eight Common Macrophytes and Three Associated
Invertebrates in Narragansett Bay and Contiguous Waters, Rhode Island, U.S.A. Botanica
Marina, Vol. 36, PP. 35-45.
Harlin, M.M. 1978. Nitrate uptake by Enteromorpha spp. (Chlorophyceae): Applications
to Aquaculture Systems. Aquaculture, Vol. 15, pp. 373-376.
Hillson, C.J. 1977. Seaweeds: A Color Coded, Illustrated Guide to Common Marine
Plants of the East Coast of the United States. Pennsylvania State University Press,
University Park, P~4. 194 pp.
Homziak, J., M.S. Fonseca and W.J. Kenworthy. 1982. Macrobenthic Community
Structure in a Transplanted Eelgrass (Zostera marina) Meadow. Marine Ecology Pro_cress
Series, Vol. 9, pp. 211-221.
Jones, C.R., and J.IL Schubel. July 1978. Distribution of Surficial Sediments and Eel§rass
in New York's South Shore Bays: An Assessment from the Literature. Marine Sciences
Research Center, Special Report 13, Reference 78-1. SUNY Stony Brook, N.Y. 80 pp.
Katuna, Michael P. March 1974. The Sedimento!ogy of Great Peconic Bay and Flanders
Bay, L.I., N.Y. Master's Thesis. City University of New York at Queens College, N.Y. 97
PP.
King Engineering Associates, Inc. March 1994. Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
Distribution in Tributaries of Tampa Bay. Draft Final Report. Technical Publication
#06-93 of the Tampa Bay Natinal Estuary Program.
Major, Alan. 1977. The Book of Seaweed. Gordon & Cremonesi Publishers, London,
England.
McRoy, C.P. and C. Helfferich. 1977. Seagrass Ecosystems: A Scientific Perspective.
Marine Science Volume 4. Marcel Dekkert Inc., New York, N.Y. 314 pp.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. April 1, 1979 through
March 31, 1980. Peconic Bay Data. Annual Report, Segment No. 1. Project No. 3-3091L
Janua~ 1996 pa~e !,10
Peconic Estuan/Program
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Study - Final Repot
Now York State Department of Environmental Conservation. April 1, 1980 through
March 31, 1981. Peconic Bay Data. Annual Report, Segment No. 2. Project No. 3-309P.
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development. April
1990. A Survey of Submersed Aquatic Vegetation of the Currituck Sound and the
Western Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine System. Project No. 89-10.
Orth, R.J., J.F. Nowak, G.F. Anderson, K.P. Kiley, J.P. Whiting. December 1992.
Distribution of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation in the Chesapeake Bay and Tributaries
and Chincoteague Bay -1991. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay
Program C)tfice, Annapolis, M.D. 268 pp.
Phillips, R.C., W.S. Grant, and C.P. McRoy. 1983. Reproductive Strategies of Eelgrass
(Zostera marina L.). Aquatic Botany, Vol. 16, pp. 1-20.
Phillips, R.C. and C.P. McRoy. 1980. Handbook of Sea_erass Biolo_ey: An Ecosystem
Perspective. Garland STPM Press, Now York, N.Y. 353 pp.
Phillips, P.C. and E.G. Menez. 1988. Seagrasses. Smithsonian Institution Press.
Washington, D.C. 104 pp.
Pohle, D.G., V.M. Bricejl and Z. Garcia-Esquivel. 1991. The Eelgrass Canopy: An Above-
Bottom Refuge From Benthic Predators for Juvenile Bay Scallops Arg_o_oecten irradians.
Marine Ecolo_~. Pro~_ress Series. Vol. 74, pp. 47 -59.
Reid, ILN. C.L MacKenzie, Jr. and JJ. Vitaliano. December 1993. A Failed Attempt to
Re-Establish Eelgrass in Reritan Bay (New York/New Jersey). NOAA/NMFS/NEFSC:
Woods Hole, MA NEFSC [Northeast Fisheries Science Center] Reference Document 93-
27.
Reshetiloff, K. May 1994. "Submerged Aquatic Vegetation - Barometer for the Bay~.
Bay Journal, Vol. 4, No. 3. Allience for the Chesapeake Bay, Inc., Baltimore, MD. pp.
10 and 16.
Schneider, C.W., and R.B. Searles. 1991. Seaweeds of the Southeastern United States:
Cape Hatteras to Cape Canaveral. Duke University Press.
Short, F.T., D.M. Burdick, J.S. Wolf, and G.E. Jones. January 1993. Eeelgrass in Estuarine
Reserves Along the East Coast, U.S~a~., Part h Declines from Pollution and Disease and
Jarmafy 1996 Pa&~e 1,11
Peconic Estua~/Program Submerged Aquatic Vegetation study - Final Report
Part Ih Management of Eelgrass Meadows. NOAA-Coastal Ocean Program Publication.
107 pp.
Short, F.T., G.E. Jones, and D.M. Burdick. July 1991. Coastal Wetlands. Coastal Zone
'91 Conference - ASCE, Long Beach, C.A. pp. 439-453.
Siddall, S.E., M.E. Viera, E. Gomez-Reyes, and D.W. Pritchard. Draft Copy. Numerical
Model of Larval Dispersion: Phase I of the East End Algal Bloom Program. Marine
Sciences Research Center, Special Report 71, Reference 86-8. SUNY Stony Brook, N.Y.
3O pp.
Strieb, Max D. May 1992. The Effects of Prey Size, Prey Density and Eelgrass Habitat
Characteristics on Predation of Post-Settlement Bay Scallops. Master's Thesis. Marine
Sciences Research Center. SUNY Stony Brook, N.Y. 122 pp.
Suffolk County Department of Health Services. November 1992. Brown Tide
Comprehensive Assessment and Management Program. Volumes I, II, and III. Suffolk
County Department of Health Services, Riverhead, New York.
Taylor, S.L. and M. Villalard. September 1985. Seaweeds of the Connecticut Shore: A
Wader's Guide. Bulletin No. 18. The Connecticut Arboretum, New London, C.T. 36
PP.
Taylor, W.R. November -December 1940. Marine Algae from Long Island. Torreya, Vol.
40, No. 6, pp. 185-195.
Taylor, W.R. 1957. Marine Algae of the Northeastern Coast of North America.
University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI. 509 pp.
Thayer, G.W., M.S. Fonseca, and W.J. Kenworthy. 1985. Restoration of Seagrass
Meadows for Enhancement of Nearshore Productivity. Proceedings of the International
Symposium on Utilization of Coastal Ecosystems: Planning, Pollution and Productivity,
21-27 November 1982, Rio Grande, Brazil. Volume 1, pp. 259-278.
Thayer, G.W., W.J. Kenworthy, and M.S. Fonseca. 1984. The Ecology of Eelgrass
Meadows of the Atlantic Coast: A Community Profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
FWS/OBS-84/02. 147pp.
January 1996 Pa~e [12
Peconic Estumy Program
Sobmerged Aquatic Vegetation Stu~ - Final Report
The Ecologically Valuable Species Workgroup of the Living Resources Subcommittee.
September 1993. Chesapeake Bay Strategy for the Restoration and Protection of
Ecologically Valuable Species. CPB/TRS 113/94. Maryland Department of Natural
Resources, Chesapeake Bay Program. 88 pp.
Town of Oyster Bay. May 1966. Engineering Report for the Control of Eelgrass and
Dredging of Shoaled Canal Entrances, Great South Bay, Town of Oyster Bay. Book No.
Nine. 40 pp.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. December 1992. Chesapeake Bay
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Habitat Requirements and Restoration Targets: A
Technical Synthesis. Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, Maryland. 186 pp. +
appendices.
WAPORA, Inc. October 23, 1981. Estuarine Impact Assessment (Shellfish Resources)
for the Nassau-Suffolk Streamflow Augmentation Alternatives: Draft Report on Existing
Conditions. New York, N.Y. 115 pp.
Ware, IL 1993. Eelgrass [Zostera marina) in Southern California BaYs and Wetlands
with Emphasis on Orange County, California. Shore and 8each, Vol. 61, No. 3, pp. 20-
30.
Wassman, IL, and J. Ramus. 1973. Seaweed Invasion. Natural Histo~, Vol. 82, No. 10,
pp. 25-36.
Wilson, ILS. and A.H. Bmnowitz. July 1966. A Report on the Ecology of Great South Bay
and Adjacent Waters. Adelphi University, Oakdale, New York.
January 1996 Pa~e %13
LIST OF PERSONS
CONTACTED DURING
THIS INVESTIGATION
Peconic Estualy Program Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Study - Final Report
UST OF PERSONS CONTACTED DURING THIS INVESTIGATION
John Aldred
Town of East Hampton
East Hampton, NY
(516) 668-4601
Dr. A. Coolidge Churchill
Adelphi University,
Garden City, NY
(516) 877-4210
Tom Doheny
Town of Hempstead,
Department of Conservation And Waterways,
Point Lookout, NY
(516) 897-4133
Dr. Valrie Gerard
State University of New York at Stony Brook,
Marine Sciences Research Center
(516) 632-8675
Richard Hanley
Town of Riverhead Planning Department
Riverhead, NY
(516) 727-3200
Dr. Paul Hargraves
University of Rhode Island,
Department of Marine Biology
(401) 792-6241
John Holzaphel
Town of $outhold Trustee
Southold, NY
(516) 765-1045
January 1996 page .114
Peconic Estuary Program Submer§ed Aquatic Vegetation Study - Final Report
LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED DURING THIS INVESTIGATION (continued)
Ken
Oea
Dr. ·
Chr
Cor~
ion
Dr.
Sc.L:
etzner and Dave Fallon
~ew York State Department of Environmental Conservation,
Stony Brook, NY
(516) 444-0477
awless
Chairperson
Shelter Island Conservation Advisory Council
Shelter Island Heights, NY
(516) 749-0017
~rry Liddle
Southampton College
(516) 287-8399
Pickerell and Chris Smith
Suffolk County Cornell Cooperative Extension
Riverhead, NY
~516) 852-8660
ia Schlenk
~ssistant Director,
tew York State Sea Grant Institute
Stony Brook, NY
<516} 632-6905
~lear
Town of Southampton Trustee
Southampton, NY
~516) 287-5717
~derick T. Short
Jniversity of New Hampshire,
Jackson Estuarine Laboratory
(603) 862-2175
q. Strough
~resident
Town of Southampton Board of Trustees
Southampton, NY
(516) 287-5717
January 1996 P~e 1.1S
Peconic Estuary Program Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Study - Final Report
KEY PROJECT PERSONNEL
Program Manager, Peconic Estuary Program
Suffolk County Department of Health Services, Office of Ecology -
Vito Minei, P.E.
Deputy Program Manager, Peconic Estuary Program
Suffolk County Department of Health Services, Office of Ecology -
Walter Dawydiak
Project Coordinators
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Rick Balla
N.Y.S Department of Environmental Conservation - Cynthia Decker
Technical Advisory Committee
Lisa Liquori (Town of East Hampton), Chairperson
Principal In-Charge:
Cashin Associates, P.C. - Gregory T. Greene
Project Manager:
Cashin Associates, P.C. - John M. Ellsworth
In addition to those listed above, useful technical comments on the draft
report were provided by Christopher Smith of the Cornell Cooperative
Extension
J~nuaty 1996 page !16
Peconic Estuary Program
Submer&ed Aquatic Vegetation Study - Final Report
KEY PROJECT PERSONNEL (continued)
TASK RESPONSIBILITIES
Review of Historic Aerial Photographs
Cashin Associates, P.C. - Laura Schwanof, RLA
New Aerial Photography Survey
Aerographics Corp. - Thomas J. Rohan, Jr.
Sketch Maps of SAV Locations
Cashin Associates, P.C. - Laura Schwanof, RLA
Field Reconnaissance
Cashin Associates, P.C. -Neal Stark, licensed boat captain and certified
diver
Sediment Analysis Sub-task
G.M. Selby & Associates, Inc. - Evan Skornick
Arthur D. Little, Inc. - Edith Hutchinson
Final Maps of SAV Distribution and Abundance
Cashin Associates, P.C. - Lynn Southard, CADD Technician
GIS Mapping Sub-task
Greenman Pederson, Inc. - Raymond D. Thierrin, P.E.
Januan/1996 page 1.17
MAPS
Map 1
Map 2
Map 3
Map 4
Map 5
Map 6
Regional Context
Geographic Location Map
Station Location Map
Distribution of Eelgrass Beds
Distribution of Dominant
Macroalgae Types
Stations with Observed Scallop
Populations
5 0 5 10 15 20
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN UlLES
SHELTER
~ HUNTINGTON
OYSTER
NORTH BAY
~ HEMPSTEAD
}NASSAU
I ~ BABYLON
k\Q U E E N S f- C 0 U N Y
1~ / HEMPSTEAD \
tROOKLYN
BROOKHAVEN
RIVERHEAD
SOUTHAMPTON
-- PECONIC
ISLIP
ESTUARY
LOCATION
2
ENGINEERS h i n ~cci a t · s, P.C.
Ca S. ARCHITE~E~I RONMENTAL P~.ANNERS
Map
REGIONAL
!
CONTEXT
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION STUDY - PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
Point Plum
/
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION MAP
SUBMERGED____AQUATIC VEGETATION STUDY - PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
· 191
Cashln ~cclatEs, P.C.
,NGiN~:fRS- A,CHIT~IRONIENT&L PI.ANNeRS
Map 3
STATION LOCATION MAP
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Cashln ~cclat,s, P.C.
STUDY
PECONIC
ESTUARY PROGRAM
,174
LEGEND
Eelgrass Bed Locations
Map 4
DISTRIBUTION OF
EELGRASS BEDS
SUBMERGED _AOUATIC
VEGETATION STUDY - PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
°37
Cashln ~/~clates, P.C.
ENGINEERS · .4,RCHIT~/~._~I~IRONiMNTAL PLANN,RS
.174
· 198
DOMINANT MACROALGAE SAMPLED
Sea Lettuce
Green Fleece
Red Macroalgae
Brown Macroalgae
Eelgrass beds are mapped separat, ely on
"DISTRIBUTION OF EELGRASS BEDS" map.
Map 5
DISTRIBUTION OF
DOMINANT MACROALGAE
TYPES
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION STUDY - PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
,:NG,NEeR:hln ~cclatfs, P.e.
C a · &RCHITEC~EI~VIRONIMNTAL PLANNERS
/
LEGEND
Stations at which scallops
were present
[] Stations at which eelgrass
and scallops were present
Stations at which scallops
were not present
_A
Map 6
STATIONS WITH OBSERVED
SCALLOP POPULATIONS
EXHIBIT A
Silhouettes of
Preserved SAV Specimens
STATION 1
A. Ulva lactuca. Sea Lettuce
A
B
B
STATION 2
A. Enteromorpha Iinza, Hollow Green Weed
B. Ente~omo~pha compre~sa. Hollow Green Weed
C. ~omentaria bailevana
STATION 11
A. ~nteromorpha cla~hrata, Hollow Green Weed
B. Enteromorpha compress~, Hollow Green Weed
C. Agardhlella s~bulat~
D. Ceramium diaphanum. Banded Weeds
STATION 11
D. Cerami~m diaphan~m. Banded Weeds
STATION 13
A. Stilophora rhizodes
STATION 13
B. L~menta~ia baileyana
STATION 14
A. Lomentaria baileyana
STATION 14
Widgeon Grass
STATION 23
A. Miscellaneous Red Alga - same as S~ca~cion 42, Alga "B"
B. Agardhietla subula~ca
C, Ceramium spp. epiphytic on Miscellaneous Red Alga
STATION 31
A. (~h~e'r. omorpha mela~onlum
'\ A A
STATION 32
A. Pol¥~iphonia spp., Tubed Weeds
B. En~eromorpha intestinali~, Hollow G~een Weeds
STATION 42
A. PolYsiphonia spp., Tubed Weeds
B, Miscellaneous Red Alga - same as
Station 23, Alga "A"
STATION 50
A. ~, Widgeon Grass
STATION 50
B. poly~iptlonia ~btilissima. T~bed Weeds
STATION 59
A. Grinnellla americana~ Grinnell's Pink Leaf
STATION 63
A. Cerami~m spp., epiphytic Banded W~ed
B. Pot~iphonla den~data, Tubed Weed
STATION 88
A. Sarga~m filipend~la. G~lfweed
B. Anti~hamnion spp.
STATION 89
A. Ceramium spp., epiphy'cic on Miscellaneous Brown Alga
B. Dasya pedicella'ca, Chenille Seaweed
C. Champia parvula. Barrel Weed, epiphytic on Eelgrass
STATION 92
A. Sargassum filipend~la. Gulfweed
STATION 107
A. Ascoph_vllum nosodum. Knot, ted wrack
B. Ceramium spp., epiphyl;ic Banded Weed
STATION 113
A. Chorda filum, Smooth Cord Weed
B. Polysiphonia spp,, epiphy~ic Tubed Weed
STATION 113
C. S~rgas~um filipendula~ Gulfweed
D. Chondrla spp., Pod Weed
II
STATION 132
A, ~lcllephor~ rhizodes
STATION ~88
A. Ahnfelt, ia plicata, with epiphytic Spermo'chamnion app.
B. Chrondrus cri~pu~. Irish Mo~s
C. Chaet, omorpha linum
STATION 191
A. Ac~e~chrix novae~angliae
B. ~eramium app., Banded Weed
STATION 191
C. Da~¥a pedicella~ca, Chenille S~aweed
D. E~teromorpha Iinza, Hollow Green Weed
STATION 192
A. Chondn~ cris?s. Irish Moss
STATION ~92
B. Lamina~ia saccharina~ Broad-leaf Kelp
EXHIBIT B
Underwater Photographs
SAV Beds in
Peconic Estuary
MIXED EELGRASS ! BROWN SEAWEED BED, STATION 179, THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SHELTER ISLAND
EELGRASS (ZOSTERA MARINA) MEADOW AT STATION 179, OFF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SHELTER ISLAND
GREEN FLEECE (CODIUM FRAGILE) BED AT STATION 179, OFF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SHELTER ISLAND
Site Data Sheets
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# I
STATION DATA
Date 9/14/94 Time 9:15 A.M.
Latitude 40' 54.93' Longitude 72' 38.07'
Station Description FLANDERS BAY 100' EAST OF BRIDGE, SOUTH BANK
Salinity 25 ppt
Water Temp. 6._~8
Visibility 2_ feet
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 5_ feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) 227g (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE MUD
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION ~ 5 %
General description of SAV beds at station
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: ~
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS SNAILS. MUSSELS. RIBBED MUSSEL (MODIOLUS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 2
STATION DATA
Date 9/14/94 Time 10:25
Latitude 40' 55.18' Longitude 72' 37.25'
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 2.0 feet
Station Description FLANDERS BAY NEAR MOUTH OF SAWMILL CREEK
Salinity 28 ppt
Water Temp. 70
Visibility 2_ feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) 6248 (2)-8 (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION = 10 %
General description of SAV beds at station
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES:
MACROALGAE:
N/A
ULVA LACTUCA & CODIUA, I FRAGILE. HOLLOW GREEN WEEDS:
ENTEROA, IORPHA LINZA. AND ENTEROMORPHA COMPRESSA:
LOMENTARIA BAILEYANA
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS SMALL HORSESHOE CRABS. SNAILS. SOFT-SHE! ! Fn
CLAM CMYA ARENARIA)
OTHER OBSERVATIONS SHALLOW. 100' FROM SHORE < 5'
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEC;ETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 3_
STATION DATA
Date 9/14/94 Time 10~$5A.M.
Latitude 40' 55.68~ Longitude 72' 36.80~
Station Description SOUTHWEST POINT OF TERRY'S CREEK
Salinity 30 ppt
Water Temp. 70
Visibility 2 feet
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 3.0 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) 1i3g (2) 170g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE
~ND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100oFOOT RADIUS OF STATION = 5 %
General description of SAV beds at station
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: ~
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 4
STATION DATA
Field Personnel RP & NS
Date 9/14/94 Time 11:00A:M.
Water Depth 6.0 feet
Latitude 40' 55.78' Longitude 72' 37.12'
Station Description WHERE TWO CHANNELS MEET AT MOUTH OF MEETING
HOUSE CREEK
Salinity 30 ppt
Water Temp. 70
Visibility 2_ feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1)-g (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE GRAVELLY SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION = 0 %
General description of SAV beds at station
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: N/A
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS NO LIFE OBSERVED
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 5
STATION DATA
Field Personnel RP & NS
Date 9/14/94 Time 11;35A.M.
Water Depth 2.0 feet
Latitude 40' 55.83' Longitude 72' 37.20'
Station Description POINT INSIDE MEETING HOUSE CREEK WHERE TWO CREEKS
MEET
Salinity 29 ppt
Water Temp. 70
Visibility 2_ feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WETWEIGHT: (1) 113g (2) 170g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION ~ 1.__~0 %
General description of SAV beds at station
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/~4
MACROALGAE: ~
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS SNAILS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 6
STATION DATA
Date 9/14/94 Time 11:45A.M.
Latitude 40' 55,82' Longitude 72' 37.00'
Station Description INSIDE TERRY CREEK WEST OF MEETING HOUSE CREEK
Salinity 30 ppt
Water Temp. 70
Visibility 2_ feet
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 1.5 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) 113 g (2) 454 g (3) - g
SEDIMENT TYPE MUDDY SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION -- 5 %
General description of SAV beds at station
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES:
MACROALGAE: ULVA LACTUCA
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS MUD CRAB
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# Z
STATION DATA
Field Personnel RP & NS
Date 9/14/94 Time 12:17 P.M.
Water Depth 4.0 feet
Latitude 40' 56.03' Longitude 72' 37.00'
Station Description INSIDE MEETINGHOUSE CREEK BY MEETINGHOUSE CREEK
RESTAURANT
Salinity 25 ppt
Water Temp. 7_.~0
Visibility 2 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) 510g (2) 5~7g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION = 25 %
General description of SAV beds at station
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES:
MACROALGAE:
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS MUSSEL SHELLS. MUD CRABS. SNAILS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# ~
STATION DATA
Date 9/14/94 Time
Latitude 40' 55.09' Longitude 72' 36.53'
Station Description 100' NORTH OF REEVES BAY SPIT
Salinity 31 ppt
Water Temp. 70
Visibility 2_ feet
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 4.0 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1)-g (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE SANDY MUD
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION = 5 %
General description of SAV beds at station SPARCELY POPULATED FROM SHORELINF
TO 150 - 200' OFFSHORF
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: C(~D~[L:~ FRAG/ E
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS N/A
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 9_
STATION DATA
Date 9/14/94 Time 1:05 P.M.
Latitude 40' 54.97' Longitude 72' 36.55'
Station Description SOUTH SIDE OF REEVES BAY POINT SPIT
Salinity 31 ppt
Water Temp. 72
Visibility 2 feet
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 3.0 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) 567g (2) 170g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE SANDY MUD
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION = 55 %
General description of SAV beds at station MIXED BEDS FROM SHORE TO 200
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: I~I~VA LACTUCA & CODIUA4 FRAGILE
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS N/A
OTHER OBSERVATIONS BIG BED OF CODIUM 10 YARDS WIDE TO 1' BELOW
SURFACE EXTENDS DUE EAST OF SPIT
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 10
STATION DATA
Date 9/15/94 Time 10:00A.M.
Latitude 40' 54.81' Longitude 72' 36.81'
Station Description WEST BANK OF REEVES BAY
Salinity 26 ppt
Water Temp. 69
Visibility 2 feet
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 8.2 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1)-g (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE MUD
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION -- 0 %
General description of SAV beds at station
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: N/A
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS NO OBSERVABLE LIFF
OTHER OBSERVATIONS OFFSHORE WATER DEPTH DROPS OFF.
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 1._~1
STATION DATA
Date 9/15/94 Time 11:00A.M.
Latitude 40' 54.53' Longitude 72' 36.77'
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 3.0 feet
Station Description EAST BANK OF REEVES BAY SHALLOW EMBAYMENT
Salinity 26 ppt
Water Temp. 7~2
Visibility 2 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) 284g (2) 9~4g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION -- 10 %
General description of SAV beds at station
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES:
MACROALGAE:
ULVA LACTUCA. HOLLOW GREEN WEEDS: ENTEROMORPHA
CLATHRATA AND ENTEROA4ORPHA COA4PRESSA:
AGARDHIELLA SUBULATA AND BANDED WEED (CERAMIUA4
DIAPHANUA4)
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS SNAILS. BAITFISH ABUNDANT. IUNGLE SHELL
(ANOMIA SIMPEEX): RIBBED MUSSEL (MODIOLUS DEMISSUS)
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 1~2
STATION DATA
Date 9/15/94 Time 11:25A.M.
Latitude 40' 54.34' Longitude 72_~_36.82'
Station Description SOUTHERN MOST COVE IN REEVES BAY
Salinity 24 ppt
Water Temp. 72
Visibility 2 feet
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 2.5 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) 227 g (2) 227 g (3) 312 g
SEDIMENT TYPE MUD
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION -- 1.__Q0 %
General description of SAV beds at station
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: ULVA LACTUCA & FUCU$ SPP.
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 13
STATION DATA
Date 9/15/94 Time 11:45A.M.
Latitude 40' 54.35' Longitude 72' 37.13'
Station Description MIDDLE OF SOUTHERN REEVES BAY
Salinity 27 ppt
Water Temp. 72
Visibility 2 feet
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 7.1 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1)227g (2) 1134§ (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE MUD
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION ~ 10 %
General description of SAV beds at station
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: STILOPHORA RHIZODES & LOMENTARIA BAILEYAHA
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS NONE
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 14
STATION DATA
Date 9/15/94 Time 12:55 P.M.
Latitude 40' 54.71~ Longitude 72' 35.69'
Station Description INSIDE GOOSE CREEK CENTRAL AREA
Salinity 24 ppt
Water Temp. 7_.~4
Visibility 2 feet
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 3.0 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) 227 g (2) 170 g (3) 198 g
SEDIMENT TYPE SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION = 50 %
General description of SAV beds at station
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: RUPIA MARITIMA
MACROALGAE: ULVA LACTUCA & LOMENTARIA BAILEyANA
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS BAITFISH. IUVENILE BLUEFISH. MUD CRABS, MI,ID
DOG WHELK
OTHER OBSERVATIONS SAV COVERAGE PRIMARILY ON EASTERN BANIC
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 1._~5
STATION DATA
Date 9/15/94 Time 1:29P.M.
Latitude 40' 55.27~ Longitude 72' 35.90~
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 7.3 feet
Station Description +/- 1/2 MILE NORTH OF MOUTH OF GOOSE CREEK
Salinity 27 ppt
Water Temp. 7__Q0
Visibility 2 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) 1i91 g (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION = 10 %
General description of SAV beds at station
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: CODIUM FRAGILE & EUTHORA CRISTATA
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS NONE ON SURFACE. CRABS IN SAMPLES. BUSHY
BUGULA (BUGULA TURRITAI: BLACK-FINGERED MUD CRAB (NEOPANOPEUS SAYI)
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
· PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 1~6
STATION DATA
Date 9/15/94 Time 2:15 P.M.
Latitude 40' 55.72' Longitude 72' 35.84'
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 7.2 feet
Station Description 1/2 MILE OFF BEACH NORTHWEST OF SIMMONS POINT
Salinity 28 ppt
Water Temp. 7.__QO
Visibility 2_ feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) :~40 g (2) 369 g (3) 284 g
SEDIMENT TYPE MUDDY SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION ~ 2_ %
General description of SAV beds at station PATCHY. DENSE SEA-LETTUCE BEDS WITH
CODIUM MIXED IN
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES:
MACROALGAE:
N/A
ULVA LACTUCAo CODIUA4 FRAGILE & CYSTOCLONIUA4
PURPUREUA4
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS CRABS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 1_~7
STATION DATA
Date 9/15/94 Time 2:52 P.M.
Latitude 40' 55.32' Longitude 72' 35.02'
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 8.5 feet
Station Description 100 YARDS NORTHWEST OF MARKER BUOY AT SIMMONS
POINT
Salinity 28 ppt
Water Temp. 70
Visibility _2 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1)-g (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION ~ 0_ %
General description of SAV beds at station
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: N/A
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS S ME_~__~__~_C~_~
OTHER OBSERVATIONS NO SAV SPECIES PRESENT 100' RADIUS AROUND
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 1__~8
STATION DATA
Field Personnel RP & NS
Date 9/15/94 Time 3:20 P.M. Water Depth 13.5 feet
Latitude 40' 55.14' Longitude 72' 34.71'
Station Description 1/2 WAY BETWEEN SIMMONS POINT AND RED CEDAR POINT -
BUT WEST OF RED CEDAR
Salinity 30 ppt
Water Temp. 70
Visibility 2 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1)-g (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE SANDY MUD
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION ~ 0 %
General description of SAV beds at station
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: N/A
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS CRABS. SPONGE
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 1__~9
STATION DATA
Date 9/15/94 Time 4:00 P.M.
Latitude 40' 54.53' Longitude 72' 34.89'
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 2.4 feet
Station Description OFF SALT MARSH WEST OF RED CEDAR POINT. NORTH OF
MILL CREEK
Salinity 25 ppt
Water Temp. 7._~4
Visibility 2 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) 113 § (2) 85 g (3) 8._.~5 g
SEDIMENT TYPE
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS O1: STATION -- 1_ %
General description of SAV beds at station LIGHT PATCHES AND SINGLES OBSERVED
FROM 100 YARDS OFF SHORE TO SHORELINE
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES:
MACROALGAE:
N/A
CODIUM FRAGILE & EUTHORA CRISTATA. C~
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS HORSESHOE & MUD CRABS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 2O
..STATION DATA
Date 9/16/94 Time 9:45A.M.
Latitude ~ Longitude 72' 35.48'
Station Description CENTER OF BIRCH CREEK
Salinity 26 ppt
Water Temp. 68
Visibility 2 feet
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 7.5 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1)-g (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE MUD
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION -- 10 %
General description of SAV beds at station
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: CODIUA,I FRAGILE. ULVA LACTUCA & EUTHORA CRISTAT.4
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS MUD CRABS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 2_~1
STATION DATA
Date 9/16/94 Time 10:45A.M.
Latitude 40' 54.37' Longitude 72' 34.83'
Station Description MILL CREEK NORTHEAST BANK
Salinity 27 ppt
Water Temp. 6.__~8
Visibility :Z feet
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 4.2 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1)-g (2)-§ (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE ~
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION = 2_ %
General description of SAV beds at station
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: CODIUA4 FRAGILE & EUTHORA CRISTATA
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS 10 FOOT WIDE BAND OF MOSTLY LACY REDWEED
STARTING 10' FROM SHORE OTHERWISE DEVOID OF LIFE
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 22
STATION DATA
Date 9/16/94 Time 11:00A.M.
Latitude 40' 54.47' Longitude 72' 35.05'
Station Description NORTHWEST BANK MILL CREEK
Salinity 26 ppt
Water Temp. 68
Visibility 2 feet
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 2.5 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) 113 g (2) 198 g (3) 227 g
SEDIMENT TYPE SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION -- 1._Q0 %
General description of SAV beds at station
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: ANTITHAMNION SPP.
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS N/A
OTHER OBSERVATIONS PATCHES OF SAV ON FRINGES ONLY MIDDLE DEAD
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 2~3
STATION DATA
Date 9/16/94 Time 11:40A.M.
Latitude 40' 54.05' Longitude 72' 33.95'
Station Description MIDDLE HUBBARD CREEK
Salinity 26 ppt
Water Temp. 68
Visibility 2 feet
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 3.6 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) 156 g (2) ~26 g (3) 269 g
SEDIMENT TYPE ~AND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION ~ 50 %
General description of SAV beds at station
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES:
MACROALGAE:
N/A
ULVA LACTUCA & CYSTOCLONIUM PURPUREUM: A)
UNIDENTIFIED RED SEAWEED - SAME AS SAMPLE 40 B
(MISCELLANEOUS RHODOPHYCEAE), B) AGARDHIELLA
SUBULATA, C) BANDED WEED (CERAMIUM SPP.)
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS SPIDER CRABS. SNAILS. BLUE CLAW CRABS. IINGLE
SHELL. SOFT-SHELLED CLAM. MUD DOG WHELK. COMMON SLIPPER SHELL
OTHER OBSERVATIONS pATCHY DENSE BEDS
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 2._~4
STATION DATA
Date 9/16/94
Latitude 40' 54.52'
Time 12:15 P.M.
Longitude 72' 34.27'
Field Personnel ~
Water Depth 7.5 feet
Station Description 100 YARDS NORTH OF MOUTH OF HUBBARD CREEK
Salinity 27 ppt
Water Temp. 68
Visibility _2 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1)-g (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION = 2 %
General description of SAV beds at station
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES:
MACROALGAE:
CODIUM FRAGILE. SMALL PIECES OF GREEN FLEECE SCATTERED
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS STARFISH. SCALLOPS. CRABS. BAIT FISH
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 79
STATION DATA
Date 9/29/94 Time 10:30AM
Latitude 40' 56.18' Longitude 72' 24.43'
Station Description
Salinity 28 ppt
Water Temp. 68
Visibility 6 feet
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 2.5 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) 113g (2) 11:~g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100oFOOT RADIUS OF STATION -- 1%
General description of SAV beds at station NO VEGETATION PAST 5 FT. FROM REED
LINE. KNOTTED WRACK DOMINANT AT REED LINE. PAST REED LINE, SEA
LI~ITUCE DOMINANT.
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: ULVA LACTUCA, ASCOPHYLLUA4 NODOSUA'I
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS BAITFISH. SNAPPERS, WHITE IELLYFISH WITH
TENTACLES. MUSSELS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 80
STATION DATA
Date 9/29/94 Time 11:15AM
Latitude 40' 59.26' Longitude 72' 25.81'
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 3.6 feet
Station Description NORTHEAST OF NASSAU POINT. 100 FT. FROM SHORE
Salinity 30 ppt
Water Temp. 6.__~8
Visibility 5 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) 1049 g (2) 1077 g (3) 822 g
SEDIMENT TYPE SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION = 15 %
General description of SAV beds at station PATCHY COVERAGE LIMITED TO ROCKS
WITH SEVERAL CODIUM PATCHES MEASURING 2 FT. ACROSS. NO OTHER SAV
PRESENT.
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: CODIUA4 FRAGILE
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS HORSESHOE CRABS. BAITFISH. WHELK
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 81
STATION DATA
Date 9/29/94
Latitude 40' 59.77'
Time 11:45AM
Longitude 72' 25.99'
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 3.4 feet
Station Description MIDDLE OF EAST SIDE OF LITTLE HOG NECK
Salinity 30 ppt
Water Temp. 68
Visibility 5 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1)-g (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION ~ 0 %
General description of SAV beds at station N/A
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: N/A
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS NONE
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 82
STATION DATA
Date 10/3/94 Time 10:45 AM
Latitude 41' 01.24' Longitude 72' 10.89'
Field Personnel Rp & NS
Water Depth 7.5 feet
Station Description NORTHERLY AREA OF 3-MILE HARBOR 1/2 MILE SOUTH OF
SAND SPIT ON UNDERWATER LEDGE
Salinity 30 ppt
Water Temp. 66
Visibility 5_ feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1)-g (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION ~ 2 %
General description of SAV beds at station WIDELY SCATTERED SPECIMENS OF
CODIUM AND REDWEED. NOT ENOUGH TO SAMPI-E. DI~AD STRANDS OF
EELGRASS OBSERVED. NONE ROOTED.
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: DEAD STRANDS OF EELGRASS PRESENT
MACROALGAE: CODIUA, f FRAGILE. CYSTOCI~ONIUM PURPUREUM
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS SPONGES. HORSESHOE CRABS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS EELGRASS WASHED UP ON BEACH
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 8.._~3
STATION DATA
Date 10/3/94
Latitude 41' 01.67'
Time 11:16 AM
Longitude 72' 11.91'
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 3.0 feet
Station Description 100' OFF SHORELINE. NORTHWEST COVE OF 3-MILE HARBOR
Salinity 30 ppt
Water Temp. 66
Visibility 5 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1)-g (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION = ~ %
General description of SAV beds at station WIDELY SCATTERED SPECIMENS. NOT
ENOUGH TO SAMPLE. KNOTTED WRACK BECOMES DOMINANT NEAR
SHORELINE: AGAIN. NOT ENOUGH TO SAMPLE
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES:
MACROALGAE:
N/A
CODIUM FRAGILE. EUTHORA CRISTATA. ASCOPHYLLUA'I
NODOSUM
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS CRABS AND SPONGES. OCCASIONAL BAITFISH
OTHER OBSERVATIONS BOTTOM TURNS TO GRAVEL ALONG SHORELINE
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 84
STATION DATA
Date 10/3/94 Time 11:45 AM
Latitude 41' 00.79' Longitude 72' 11.40'
Station Description WESTERLY SIDE OF 3-MILE HARBOR.
SHORE
Salinity 30 ppt
Water Temp. 66
Visibility 6 feet
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 2.9 feet
ON POINT. 100' OFF
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) 652g (2) 794g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE GRAVELLY SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION -- 10 %
General description of SAV beds at station I~AND OF CODIUM. 50 YDS. OFF
SHORELINE ABOUT 10-15' WIDE. 100' LONG, ROCKWEED WIDELY SCATTERED
ALONG SHORELINE. OVERALL. 10% COVERAGE AT STATION.
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: CODIUM FRAGILE. FUCUS SPp,
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS CRABS. BAITFISH, SHELLS ON BOTFOM CONSISTED
OF OYSTERS. RAZORS. SCALLOPS - ALL EMPTY
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 8._~5
STATION DATA
Date 10/3/94 Time 12:35 PM
Latitude 41' 00.43' Longitude 72' 11.2~3'
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 2.2 feet
Station Description 100' NORTH OF SHORELINE IN SOUTHERLY AREA OF 3-MILE
HARBOR NEAR ENTRANCE TO INSIDE BAY.
Salinity 29 ppt
Water Temp. 67
Visibility 5_ feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1)-g (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE GRAVELLY SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION = 1%
General description of SAV beds at station SPECIMENS OF CODIUM AND
ROCI~WEED WIDELY SCATTERED
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/,~
MACROALGAE: CODIUA4 FRAGILE, FUCUS SPP.
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS SOME llAITFISH
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 86
STATION DATA
Date 10/4/94 Time 10:30 AM
Latitude 41' 02.32' Longitude 72' 16.39'
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 6.3 feet
Station Description SOUTHEAST SHELTER ISLAND. EAST SIDE OF MAIOR'S HARBOR
Salinity 31 ppt
Water Temp. 62
Visibility 15 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) 142g (2) 113g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION ~ 60 %
General description of SAV beds at station 1/2 COVERAGE OF TOTAL WAS EELGRASS.
BANDS AVERAGE 5-10 FT. WIDTH. 30 TO 70 FT. IN LENGTH. MEDIUM DENSITY
BED OF EELGRASS
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: ZOSTERA MARINA
MACROALGAE: CODIUA4 FRAGILE. FUCUS SPP.
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS BAITFISH. CONCH. SPIDER CRABS. SMALL
FLOUNDER. HERMIT CRABS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS BREEZY. TEMP. UPPER 50'S AIR. SLIGHT CHOP ON WATER
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 8__~7
STATION DATA
Date 10/4/94
Latitude 41' 01.44~
Time 11:30 AM
Longitude 72' 16.14'
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 6.:~ feet
Station Description 100 FT. SOUTH OF MASHOMACK POINT. SHELTER ISLAND
Salinity 31 ppt
Water Temp. 62
Visibility 10 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (t) 680 g
(2) - g
(3) - g
SEDIMENT TYPE
MUDDY SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION = 100 %
General description of SAV beds at station 50/50 SPLIT CODIUM AND EELGRASSo NO
SAV IN WATER SHALLOWER THAN 3 FT.
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: ZOSTERA
MACROALGAE:
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS SCALLOPS~ CLAMS. CRABS, ]~AITFISH. IUVENILE SEA
ROBIN
OTHER OBSERVATIONS CALM. PROTECTED WATER
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 8._.~8
STATION DATA
Field Personnel RP & NS
Date 10/4/94 Time 12:00 NOON
Water Depth 8-9 feet
Latitude 41' 02.30' Longitude 72' 16.80'
Station Description INSIDE MAIOR'S HARBOR. SHELTER ISLAND. 100 FT. FROM
SHORE
Salinity 31 ppt
Water Temp. 62
Visibility 6 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) 624g (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE SANDY MUD
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION s 60 %
General description of SAV beds at station DEAD EELGRASS AND CODIUM COVERED
WITH SILT. UNHEALTHY LOOKING. EELGRASS DID NOT APPEAR TO BE ROOTED.
ANTITHAMNION SPP. WAS FIXED TO ROCKS AND SHELLS
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: ~
MACROALGAE: CODIUA4 FRAGILE. SARGASSUA4 HLIPENOULAo
ANTITHAMNION SPP.
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS SCALLOPS. HERMIT & SPIDER CRABS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS CALM. PROTECTED HARBOR
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 89
STATION DATA
Date 10/4/94 Time 12:30 PM
Latitude 41' 0:~,37' Longitude 72' 17.19'
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 5.8 feet
Station Description WEST SIDE OF SOUTHERN SHELTER ISLAND. NORTH OF
MAIOR'S POINT. 50 FT. FROM BEACH
Salinity 31 ppt
Water Temp. 6:2
Visibility 7 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) 369g (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE
MUDDY SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION ~ 50 %
General description of SAV beds at station 3/4 OF COVER ~ EELGRASS. 1/4 --
CODIUM AND OTHER MACROALGAE
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES:
MACROALGAE:
ZOSTERA A'IARINA
CODIUA4 FRAGILE. CERAA, flUM SPP EPIPHYTIC ON
UNIDENTIFIED BROWI~ ,~LGAE. DASYA PEDICELLATA.
CHAMPIA PARVI~.A
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS SCALLOPS. CRABS. BLUE CLAW. BAITFISH
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 9O
STATION DATA
Date 10/4/94
Latitude 41 ° 03.00'
Time 1:20 PM
Longitude 72' 18.68'
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 6.7 feet
Station Description NORTHWEST BANK OF SMITH COVE. 50 FT. FROM SHORE
Salinity 30 ppt
Water Temp. 62
Visibility 6 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1)-g (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE SANDY MUD
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAC~E WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION = 0 %
General description of SAV beds at station N/A
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: I~t/A
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS SPIDER CRABS. HORSESHOE CRAB
OTHER OBSERVATIONS FAIRLY WELL DEVELOPED SHORELINE NEAR COVE
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 91
STATION DATA
Date 10/4/94 Time 2:20 PM
Latitude 41' 01.73' Longitude 72' 17.97'
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 8.0 feet
Station Description EAST SIDE OF NORTH HAVEN PENINSULA. MIDWAY ALONG
COAST. 100 YDS. ~)FF SHORE
Salinity 32 ppt
Water Temp. 62
Visibility ~;,5 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1)-g (2)-g
(3) - g
SEDIMENT TYPE SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100oFOOT RADIUS OF STATION -- 0 %
General description of SAV beds at station NO SAV OBSERVED. SOME DEAD
UNROOTED STRANDS OF EELGRASS
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: N/A
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS SCALLOPS. SNAILS. WHELK EGG CASINGS
(ABUNDANT). RAZOR CLAM. SPIDER CRABS. IUVENILE TOADFISH
OTHER OBSERVATIONS DEVELOPED BEACH FRONT
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 92
STATION DATA
Field Personnel RP & NS
Date 10/4/94 Time 2:55 PM
Water Depth 6.5 feet
Latitude 41' 00.98' Longitude 72' 17.52'
Station Description EAST SIDE OF NORTH HAVEN PENINSULA - SOUTHERN AREA
IN SIGHT OF SAG BREAKWATERS. 50 YDS. OFF SHORELINE ON
SMALL UNDERWATER LEDGE
Salinity 32 ppt
Water Temp. 6:2
Visibility 8 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) 1758 g
SEDIMENT TYPE SAND
(2)-g (3)-§
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION = 65 %
General description of SAV beds at station (~LOSER TOWARDS SHORE YIELDED
THICK CODIUM BEDS. ROOTED SARGASSUM INTERMIXED FURTHER OFFSHORE
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: ~
MACROALGAE: CODIUA4 FRAGILE. SARGASSUA4 FILIPENDULA
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS SPIDER AND HERMIT CRABS. SCALLOPS. WHELK
EGG CASINGS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS HIGH BLUFF WITH DEVELOPMENT NEAR SHORELINE
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 93
STATION DATA
Date 10/11/94
Latitude 41 ° 00.82'
Time 3:35 PM
longitude 72' 16.62'
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 3.0 feet
Station Description SAND SPIT MARKED BY PERMANENT STRUCTURE HAI~FWAY
BETWEEN SAG BREAKWATERS AND MASHOMACK POINT
Salinity 32 ppt
Water Temp. 64
Visibility 6 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) 284g (2) 255§ (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE
SANDY MUD
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION: 95 %
General description of SAV beds at station COVERAGE WITH THICK SEAGRASS BEDS.
COVERAGE DROPS OFF 10' FROM AREA EXPOSED DURING LOW TIDF
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: ZOSTERA MARINA
MACROALGAE: CYSTOCLONIUA, I PURPUREUA,I
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS CLAMS. SCALLOPS. I SPIDER CRAB
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 94
STATION DATA
Date 10/4/94 Time 4:00 PM
Latitude 41' 00.60' Longitude 72' 16.02'
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 1.5 feet
Station Description 50 YDS. OFF SHORELINE. WEST SIDE OF BARCELONA NECK
Salinity 31 ppt
Water Temp. 64
Visibility 6 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) 397g (2) 340g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION -- 5__~5 %
General description of SAV beds at station PATCHES OF EELGRASS BEDS SCATTERED
THROUGH SHALLOW SANDY AREA
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: ~INA
MACROALGAE: N/A
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS SNAILS. HERMIT CRABS. SCALLOPS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS LOW LANDS ON SHORELINE. UNDEVELOPED BEACH
WETLANDS INLAND FROM SHORELINE
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 9_~5
STATION DATA
Date 10/4/94
Latitude 41' 00.12'
Time 4:15 PM
Longitude 72' 16.87'
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 5.6 feet
Station Description 200 YDS. OFF BEACH WHERE SAG BREAKWATERS MEET
SHORELINE. 200 YDS. FROM BREAKWATER
Salinity 32 ppt
Water Temp. 64
Visibility 5.5 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) 255 g
(2) 227g (3),g
SEDIMENT TYPE MUDDY SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION = 90 %
General description of SAV beds at station LOW DENSITY OF EELGRAS$ I~EDS
WITHIN STUDY AREA.
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: ~
MACROALGAE: N/A
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS SPIDER CRABS. CLAMS. SCALLOPS. BAITFISH
OTHER OBSERVATIONS SPARSELY DEVELOPED SHOREFRONT
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 96
STATION DATA
Field Personnel RP & NS
Date 10/5/94 Time 10:30 AM
Water Depth 5.5 feet
Latitude 41' 04.75' Longitude 72' 17.89'
Station Description INSIDE OF COECLES HARBOR - NORTH SIDE. WEST END OF
RAM ISLAND.
Salinity 31 ppt
Water Temp. 60
Visibility 6.5 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1)-g (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION ~ 1%
General description of SAV beds at station WIDELY SCATTERED SAV. REDWEED IS
DOMINANT. SARGASSUM. NOT ENOUGH TO SAMPLE
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: CYSTOCLONIUM PURPUREUM
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS FLOUNDER. CLAMS. MANY SPIDER CRABS. OYSTERS.
OTHER OBSERVATIONS DEVELOPED BEACHFRONT: TEMP. 55+ BREEZY. SLIGHT
CHOP. PARTLY CLOUDY
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 97
STATION DATA
Date 10/5/94
Latitude 41 ° 05.02'
Time 11:30 AM
Longitude 72' 18.75'
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 5.5 feet
Station Description NORTHWESTERLY END OF COECLES HARBOR. WEST OF LITTLE
RAM ISLAND. 150 YDS. OFFSHORE
Salinity 3_~1 ppt
Water Temp. 60
Visibility 6_ feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1)-g (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION ~ 1%
General description of SAV beds at station WIDI~LY S(~ATTERED SPECIMENS COVERED
IN SILT. OBSERVED SPECIMENS VERY SMALL
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: C~LL~L~
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS SPIDER & HERMIT CRABS. SCALLOPS. SMALL
BAITFISH
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 98
STATION DATA
Field Personnel RP & NS
Date 10/5/94 Time 12:10 PM
Water Depth 6.7 feet
Latitude 41' 04.22' Longitude 72' 18.42'
Station Description WESTERLY SIDE OF COECLES HARBOR. OPPOSITE LITTLE RAM
ISLAND. NORTHWEST SIDE OF ENTRANCE TO CREEK. 75 YDS.
Salinity 31 ppt
Water Temp. 60
Visibility 6 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1)-g (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE ~$.~.~[LY.__~_U_~
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION: 1%
General description of SAV beds at station WIDELY SCATTERED SMALL SPECIMEN OF
CODIUM. SILTY COVERING.
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAG RASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: CODIUA,! FRAGILE
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS WHELK EGG CASINGS. SCALLOPS. SPIDER AND
MUD CRABS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS DEVELOPED SHORELINE
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 99
STATION DATA
Date 10/5/94 Time 12:40 PM
Latitude 41 ° 03.95' Longitude 72' 17.44'
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 11.5 feet
Station Description MIDDLE OF EMBAYMENT EASTERLY END OF COECLES HARBOR,
Salinity 32 ppt
Water Temp. 60
Visibility 6.5 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1)-g (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE MUD
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION -- 0 %
General description of SAV beds at station NO FIXED OR ROOTED LIVING SAV
PRESENT. DEAD OR FLOATING CODIUM AND EELGRASS OBSERVED.
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: NIA
MACROALGAE: N/A
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS FEW SPIDER AND HERMIT CRABS. IUVENILE
TOADFISH
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 100
STATION DATA
Date 10/5/94 Time 1:15 PM
Latitude 41' 03.48' Longitude 72' 16.31'
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 6.8 feet
Station Description HALFWAY BETWEEN SUNGIC POINT AND NICOLL POINT,
EASTERLY SIDE OF SHELTER ISLAND, 75 YDS. OFFSHORE
Salinity 34 ppt
Water Temp. 60
Visibility 20 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) 142g (2) 198g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION = 85 %
General description of SAV beds at station COVERAGE WITH MODERATE DENSITY
EELGRASS BEDS. WIDELY SPACED SMALL SPECIMENS OF CODIUM MIXED IN.
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: ,~
MACROALGAE: N/A
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS SNAILS. NO OTHER MARINE LIFE OBSERVED.
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 101
STATION DATA
Date 10/5/94 Time 2:45 P.M.
Latitude 41' 00.53' Longitude 72' 15.15'
Station Description NORTH MIDDLE NORTHWEST CREEK
Salinity 31 ppt
Water Temp. 60
Visibility 3 feet
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 4.1 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1)-g (2)-g
(3) - g
SEDIMENT TYPE MUD
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION -- 0 %
General description of SAV beds at station N/A
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: N/A
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS SCALLOPS. BLUE CLAW CRAB. I FOOT LONG
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 102
STATION DATA
Date 10/5/94
Latitude 41' 00.25'
Time 3:00 P.M.
Longitude 72' 15.22'
Station Description SOUTH AND MIDDLE NORTHWEST CREEK
Salinity 26 ppt
Water Temp, 60
Visibility 5 feet
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 3.9 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1)-g (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE MUD
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION = _3_ %
General description of SAV beds at station ONE PIECE OF SEA LETTUCE
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: N/A
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 103
STATION DATA
Date 10/5/94 Time 3:30 P.M.
Latitude 41' 00.97' Longitude 72' 14.78'
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 3.2 feet
Station Description SOUTHEAST CORNER OF NORTHWEST HARBOR
Salinity 32 ppt
Water Temp. 60
Visibility 5 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) 85g (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION = 75 %
General description of SAV beds at station BEDS HAVE BEEN ANID ARE BEING RAKED
FOR SCALLOPS. OBVIOUS DAMAGE. STRANDS CUT TO UNIFORM LENGTH. DEAD
GRASS
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: ZOSTERA MARINA
MACROALGAE: N/A
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS BAITFISH. SMALL CRABS. SNAILS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey o Data Sheet
STA# 104
STATION DATA
Date 10/5/94 Time 4:00 P.M.
Latitude 41' 01.73' Longitude 72' 14.63'
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 5.4 feet
Station Description EAST SIDE OF NORTHWEST HARBOR 1/2 WAY BETWEEN
NORTH AND SOUTH LIMITS
Salinity 31 ppt
Water Temp. 60
Visibility 5_ feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) 284g (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION ~ 80 %
General description of SAV beds at station DENSE EELGRASS BEDS
SAY SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: Z~Ta~I~,~
MACROALGAE: N/A
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS SCALLOPS. CHOWDER CLAMS. SPIDER CRABS.
BAITFISH
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 105
STATION DATA
Date 10/6/94 Time 10:15 A.M.
Latitude 41' 05.69' Longitude 72' 18.95'
Station Description SOUTH OF CORNELIUS POINT SHELTER ISLAND 50 YARDS
FROM SHORE
Salinity 30 ppt
Water Temp. 59
Visibility 11 feet
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 8.7 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) - g (2)
- g
SEDIMENT TYPE
~AND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION = 0 %
General description of SAV beds at station N/A
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: N/A
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS SNAILS. SPIDER CRABS. WHELK. LARGE CLAMS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS STRONG CURRENT
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 106
STATION DATA
Date 10/6/94 Time 11:00A.M.
Latitude 41' 05.28' Longitude 72' 18.78'
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 5.3 feet
Station Description NORTH OF LITTLE RAM ISLAND SHELTER ISLAND
Salinity 31 ppt
Water Temp. 59
Visibility 1.__~0 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) - g (2) - g (3) - g
SEDIMENT TYPE SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION = I__Q0 %
General description of SAV beds at station S(~ATI'ERED PATCHES NEAR SHORE. NONE
DEEPER THAN 6'
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: ~
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS VARIOUS SMALL CRABS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 107
STATION DATA
Date 10/6/94 Time 11:15AJM/
Latitude 41' 05.08' Longitude 72' 18.05'
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 5.9 feet
Station Description NORTH AND EAST OF LI~TLIE RAM ISLAND SHELTER ISLAND 20'
FROM SHORE
Salinity 31 ppt
Water Temp. 59
Visibility 13 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) 369g (2) 142g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE GRAVELLY SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION ~ 20 %
General description of SAV beds at station ALL ROCKS COVERED WITH ROCKWEED.
SOME 2' LONG. 2 PATCHES OF EELGRASS MODERATELY DENSE
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: ~RINA
MACROALGAE: FUCUS SPP.. ASCOPHYLLUM NODOSUM & CERAiVllUI~I SPP.
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS CRABS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 108
STATION DATA
Date 10/6/94 Time 11~45 A.M.
Latitude 41' 04.80' Longitude 72' 16.60'
Station Description NORTHWEST OF RAM ISLAND
Salinity 32 ppt
Water Temp. 60
Visibility 1.__~6 feet
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 9.7 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) 113g (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE GRAVELLY__SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION = 50 %
General description of SAV beds at station MEDIUM DENSITY EELGRASS BEDS.
ROCKWEED DISPERSED THROUGHOUT. SOME 18 - 20 INCHES LONG
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: ZOSTERA MARINA
MACROALGAE: FUCUS SPP.
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS SPIDER AND HERMIT CRABS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 109
STATION DATA
Date 10/6/94 Time 12:20P.M.
Latitude 41' 04.18' Longitude 72' 15.77'
Station Description SOUTHEAST OF RAM HEAD SHELTER ISLAND
Salinity 32 ppt
Water Temp. 61
Visibility 6 feet
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 11.7 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1)-g (2)-g (3)-§
SEDIMENT TYPE
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION -- 1%
General description of SAV beds at station WIDELY SCATTERED. SMALL STANDS OF
CODIUM
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAG RASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: ~
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS BIG SPIDER. HERMIT AND OTHER SMALL CRABS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 110
STATION DATA
Date 10/6/94
Latitude 41' 02.30'
Time 1:30 P.M.
Longitude 72' 14.76'
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 8.7 feet
Station Description 100 YARDS SOUTH OF SHORELINE, NORTHEAST CORNER OF
NORTHWEST HARBOR. EAST OF CEDAR POINT
Salinity 32 ppt
Water Temp.
Visibility 8 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1)-g (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION ~ 1%
General description of SAV beds at station LOOSE WIDELY SCATTERED STRANDS OF
(:ODIUM & REDWEED. NO OTHER SAV. DEAD LOOSE STRANDS OF EELGRASS
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: CODIUM FRAGILE & CYSTOCLONIUA4 PURPUREUA4
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS SPIDER AND OTHER SMALL CRABS. I SMALL
SCALLOP
OTHER OBSERVATIONS STRONG CURRENT
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 111
STATION DATA
Date 10/6/94 Time 2:00 P.M.
Latitude 41' 02.07' Longitude 72' 14.78'
Station Description ON SHOAL NORTHERLY AREA OF NORTHWEST HARBOR 1
MILE SOUTH OF CEDAR POINT
Salinity 32 ppt
Water Temp. 60
Visibility 3.5 feet
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 12.6 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1)-g (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE ~
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION ~ 0 %
General description of SAV beds at station DEAD EELGRASS. CODIUM & REDWEED
FLOATING
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: NIA
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS I SCALLOP. HERMIT AND SPIDER CRABS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 112
STATION DATA
Field Personnel RP & NS
Date 10/6/94 Time 2:30 P.M.
Water Depth 10.8 feet
Latitude 41' 01.61' Longitude 72' 15.22'
Station Description EDGE OF CHANNEL DROP-OFF WESTERLY SIDE OF
NORTHWEST HARBOR
Salinity 32 ppt
Water Temp. 61
Visibility 6 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1)-g (2)-g (3)-§
SEDIMENT TYPE MUDDY SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION ~ 0 %
General description of SAV beds at station NO LIVE SAV OBSERVED. DEAD
UNROOTED EELGRASS & ROCKWEED FLOATING BY
SAY SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: N/A
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS SPIDER AND OTHER VARIOUS SMALL CRABS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS S RON RRENT
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 113
STATION DATA
Field Personnel RP & NS
Date 10/6/94 Time 3:00 P.M.
Water Depth 5.1) feet
Latitude 41' 02.64' Longitude 72' 13.57'
Station Description 75 YARDS OFF SHORELINE AT POINT BETWEEN CEDAR POINT
MI HAR
Salinity 33 ppt
Water Temp. 6.__Q0
Visibility 17 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) 255g (2) 709g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION ~ 75 %
General description of SAV beds at station ROCKWEEID & EELGRASS CODOMINAT
WITH FEW INDIVIDUAL SPECIMENS OF CODIUM
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES:
MACROALGAE:
ZOSTERA A4ARINA
CODIUM FRAGILE. FUCUS SPP.. CHORDA FILUA4.
POL YSIPHONIA SPP.. SARGASSUM FILIPENDULA & CHONDRIA
SPP.
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS SNAILS. COMMON SLIPPER SHELL
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 114
STATION DATA
Field Personnel
Water Depth
Date 10/6/94 Time 3:30 P.M.
Latitude 41' 02.55' Longitude 72' 14.68'
Station Description 150 YARDS OFFSHORELINE I MILE EAST OF CEDAR POINT
Salinity 32 ppt
Water Temp. 60
Visibility 17 feet
RP & NS
2.8 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) 482g (2) 454g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION -- 55 %
General description of SAV beds at station 80%EELGRASS & 20% CODIUM: FEW
SPECIMENS OF ROCKWEED MIXED WITH CODIUM. NO OTHER SAV MIXED WITH
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES:
MACROALGAE:
(:ODIUM FRAGILE. FUCUS SPP. o CHORDA HLUM.
POLYSIPHONIA SPP.. SARASSUA4 HLIPENDULA & CHONRIA
SPP.
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS (:LAMS. SMALL SCALLOPS. BAITFISH
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 115
STATION DATA
Date 10/7/94 Time 10:00A.M.
Latitude 41' 00.91' Longitude 72' 22.19'
Station Description NORTHEAST SIDE OF IESSUP NECK
Salinity 31 ppt
Water Temp. 6_1-
Visibility 6 feet
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 6.2 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1)-g (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION = 1_ %
General description of SAV beds at station WIDELY SCATI'ERED STRANDS OF
CODIUM. NOT ENOUGH TO SAMPLE
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: CODIUA4 FRAGILE
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS
EGG CASINGS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
SPIDER AND HERMIT CRABS. WHELK AND WHELK
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 116
STATION DATA
Date 10/7/94 Time 10:45 A.M.
Latitude 41' 00.89' Longitude 72' 21.40'
Station Description WEST OF MIDDLE OF NOYACK BAY
Salinity 31 ppt
Water Temp. 61
Visibility 4_ feet
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 25.3 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1)-g (2) og (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE MUD
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION = 0_ %
General description of SAV beds at station N/A
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: N/A
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS ILE A
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 117
STATION DATA
Date 10/7/94 Time 11:10 A.M.
Latitude 40' 59.98' Longitude 72' 21.71'
Station Description SOUTHWEST CORNER OF NOYACK I~AY
Salinity 31 ppt
Water Temp. 61
Visibility 6_ feet
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 7.8 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) 227g (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION: 5 %
General description of SAV beds at station WIDELY SCATTERED
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAF: ~
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS MUD CRABS. CLAMS. SCALLOP
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 118
STATION DATA
Date 10/7/94 Time 11:35 A.M.
Latitude 40' 59.78' Longitude 72' 20.94'
Station Description WEST OF NOYACK BAY & MILL CREEK
Salinity 30 ppt
Water Temp. 6_.[
Visibility 6 feet
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 4.0 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) 369g (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION = 75 %
General description of SAV beds at station SMALL SPECIMENS OF CODIUM AND
REDWEED: PAST 100 YARDS CODIUM ONLY <10% COVERAGE
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: CODIUM FRAGILE & CYSTOCLONIUM PURPUREUM
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS SPIDER AND HERMIT CRABS. BAITFISH
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 119
STATION DATA
Date 10/7/94 Time 12:00P.M.
Latitude 40' 59.75' Longitude 72' 19.23'
Field Personnel
Water Depth
Station Description WEST END OF LONG BEACH. 50 YARDS FROM SHORE
Salinity 30 ppt
Water Temp. 61
Visibility 8 feet
RP & NS
8.4 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1)-g (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION · 10 %
General description of SAV beds at station 10% COVER FROM SHORE TO 150' OFF.
AFTER 150' COVER DROPS OFF TO <1%
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: ~
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS SPIDER CRABS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 120
STATION DATA
Field Personnel RP & NS
Date 10/7/94 Time 12:15 P.M.
Water Depth 6.4 feet
Latitude 41' 00.11' Longitude 72' 18.89'
Station Description SOUTHEAST CORNER OF NOYACK BAY 50 YARDS FROM
SHORE
Salinity 31 ppt
Water Temp. 61
Visibility I__Q0 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1)-g (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION -- 0 %
General description of SAV beds at station NO LIVING SAV PRESENT
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: N/A
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS WHELK. BAITFISH. HERMIT CRABS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 121
STATION DATA
Field Personnel RP & NS
Date 10/7/94 Time 12:45 P.M.
Water Depth 4.9 feet
Latitude 41'01,03' Longitude 72' 19.42'
Station Description MIDDLE OF WEST SIDE OF NORTH HAVEN PENINSULA,
NOYACK BAY
Salinity 31 ppt
Water Temp. 61
Visibility 6 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) 1503g (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION ~ 50 %
General description of SAV beds at station FROM 3' DEPTH TO 9'. 80% COVER:
ROCKWEED & CODIUM PAST THIS RANGE <10% COVER
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: CODIUA4 FRAGILE & FUCUS SPP.
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS BAITFISH. HERMIT CRABS. SNAILS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 122
STATION DATA
Date 10/7/94
Latitude 41' 02.12'
Time 2:00 P.M.
Longitude 72' 19.73'
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 6.3 feet
Station Description 50 YARDS OFF SHORELINE 25 YARDS EAST OF GLEASON POINT
Salinity 30 ppt
Water Temp. 62
Visibility 8 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1)-g (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION = 2 %
General description of SAV beds at station SMALL CODIUM SPECIMENS SCATTERED
ABOUT. NOT ENOUGH TO SAMPLE. PERCENTAGE COVERAGE <1% 20' FROM
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N//~
MACROALGAE: ~
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS LARGE CLAMS. HERMIT AND MUD CRABS. WHELK
WITH EGG CASINGS. IUVENILE TOADFISH
OTHER OBSERVATIONS UNDEVELOPED SHORELINE
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 123
STATION DATA
Date 10/7/94 Time 3:45 P.M.
Latitude 40' 59.65' Longitude 72' 18.94'
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 3.4 feet
Station Description OUTLET OF PAYNES CREEK DEEP INSIDE SAG HARBOR COVF
Salinity 30 ppt
Water Temp. 61
Visibility 4 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) - § (2) - g (3) - g
SEDIMENT TYPE SANDY MUD
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION = 1%
General description of SAV beds at station SAV'S LIMITED TO 10' FROM SHORELINE
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES:
MACROALGAE: CYSTOCLONIUA4 PURPUREUM
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS SCALLOPS. SNAILS. HERMIT AND SPIDER CRABS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS DEVELOPED SHORELINE. BEDS CLOSED TO SHELLFISH
HARVESTING
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 124
STATION DATA
Field Personnel RP & NS
Date 10/7/94 Time 4:10 P.M.
Water Depth 5.0 feet
Latitude 41' 00.09' Longitude 72' 18.35'
Station Description ,50 YARDS OFF SHORELINE NORTHWESTERLY AREA OF SAG
HARBOR COVE. MOORING AREA
Salinity 30 ppt
Water Temp. 61
Visibility 4.5 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1)-g (2)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE MUD
(3) - §
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION = 0 %
General description of SAV beds at station NO LIVING SAV OBSERVED. DEAD
EELGRASS
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: DEAD AND SCATTERED EELGRASS PRESENT
MACROALGAE: N/A
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS SPIDER CRABS. SCALLOPS (CLOSED BEDS)
OTHER OBSERVATIONS HIGHLY DEVELOPED SHORELINE. BEDS CLOSED TO
SHELLFISH HARVESTING
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 125
STATION DATA
Date 10/7/94 Time 4:25 p.M.
Latitude 41' 00.33' Longitude 72' 18.22'
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 3.0 feet
Station Description 50 - 100' OFF SHORELINE NORTHERLY SIDE OF BRUSH NECK -
SOUTHEASTERLY AREA OF SAG HARBOR COVE
Salinity 30 ppt
Water Temp. 6~1
Visibility 4_ feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) - g (2) - g (3) - g
SEDIMENT TYPE SANDY MUD
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION = 1%
General description of SAV beds at station NO LIVING SAV OBSERVED EXCEPT
SMALL & WIDELY SCATTERED PATCHES OF BRUSHY REDWEED MOSTLY ON
SCALLOPS & SMALL PEBBLES - VERY SMALL SPECIMENS
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: CYSTOCLONIUA,I PURPUREUA4
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS SPIDER CRABS. SCALLOPS (CLOSED BEDS). SNAILS
BY SHORELINE
OTHER OBSERVATIONS HIGHLY DEVELOPED SHORELINE (CONDOS) OUTSIDE OF
ENTRANCE TO MARINA (500 YARDS TO SOUTHEAST). BEID~ CLOSED TO SHELLFISH
HARVESTING
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 126
STATION DATA
Field Personnel RP & NS
Date 10/7/94 Time 4:40 P.M.
Water Depth 3.2 feet
Latitude 41' 00.17' Longitude 72' 17.80'
Station Description $0 YARDS OFF SHORLINE NORTHERLY AREA OF SAG HARBOR
Salinity 30 ppt
Water Temp. 61
Visibility 4 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1)-g (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION
General description of SAV beds at station ~
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: N/A
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS VARIOUS SMALL CRABS. SCALLOPS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS ROADWAY ALONG SHORELINE 200' WIDE BARRIER OF
TREES. SHRUBS & WETLANDS (50' DEPTH1. GENERAL DEBRIS IN WATER ALONG
SHORI~LINE. BEDS CLOSED TO SHELLFISH HARVESTING
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 127
STATION DATA
Date 10/10/94
Latitude 41' 07.92~
Time 11:35 A.M.
Longitude 72' 19.53~
Field Personnel GG. RP & NS
Water Depth 6.0 feet
Station Description NORTHWEST AREA OF ORIENT HARBOR 150' OFF ROCK IETTY
SUPPORTING ROADWAY
Salinity 32 ppt
Water Temp. 60
Visibility 8 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WETWEIGHT: (1) 113g (2)-§ (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE GRAVELLY SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION = 10 %
General description of SAV beds at station EELGRASS ABUNDANT CLOSER TO SHORE
MAKING UP 20% COVERAGE. COVERAGE DROPS TO 5%. ALL CODIUM. 100'
OFFSHORE: EELGRASS BEDS LIGHT DENSITY
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: ZOSTERA MARINA
MACROALGAE: CODIUM FRAGILE. CYSTOCLONIUM PURPUREUM
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS KNOBBED WHELK. SPIDER CRABS. SCALLOPS.
IUVENILE TOADFISH. ROCK CRAB. OYSTER ¢SCA~I'ERED)
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 128
STATION DATA
Date 10/10/94 Time 12:30 P.M.
Latitude 41' 08.40' Longitude 72' 18.77'
Field Personnel ~
Water Depth 8.0 feet
Station Description 100' OFF BEACH-WEST OF LARGE PIER IN ORIENT HARBOR
Salinity 31 ppt
Water Temp. 60
Visibility _8 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) 215 g (2) - g (3) - g
SEDIMENT TYPE SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION ~ 85 %
General description of SAV beds at station EELGRASS DOMINATES STATION
COMPROMISING UP TO 90% OF SPECIMENS. SAV'S DROP OFF AT A DEPTH OF
9'. CODIUM AND SEA OAK ALSO OBSERVED. EELGRASS BEDS MODERATE. DROPS
TO SCATTERED BEDS AT 9'
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: ~
MACROALGAE: CODIUA4 FRAGILE. PHYCODRYS RUBENS
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS HERMIT CRABS. SCALLOPS. FLOUNDER. BAITFISH
OTHER OBSERVATIONS THICK CLUMPS OF EELGRASS WASHED UP ON SHORE
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 129
STATION DATA
Field Personnel GGo RP & NS
Date 10/10/94 Time 1:10P. M.
Water Depth 10.0 feet
Latitude 41' 07.41' Longitude 72' 19.23'
Station Description OPEN WATER MIDDLE AREA OF ORIENT HARBOR ON SHOAL
AREA
Salinity 32 ppt
Water Temp. 62
Visibility _6 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1)-g (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE MUDDY SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION -- 0 %
General description of SAV beds at station NO LIVING SAV OBSERVED
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: N/A
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS SPIDER AND HERMIT CRABS. WHELK WITH EGG
CASINGS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS DEAD SAV ON BOTTOM
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 130
STATION DATA
Field Personnel
Date 10/10/94 Time 2:02 P.M.
Water Depth 5.0 feet
Latitude 41' 07.34' Longitude 72' 18.34'
Station Description 300' WEST OF SHORE NEAR MOUTH OF HALLOCK BAY. IN
ORIENT HARBOR fEAST SIDE)
Salinity 31 ppt
Water Temp. 62
Visibility 3 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) 85g (2) 14g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION = 80 %
General description of SAV beds at station MODERATE THICKNESS OF EELGRASS,
COMPLETE COVERAGE THROUGHOUT AREA. FEW OPEN SAND PATCHES
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: Z TERA MAR1
· MACROALGAE: N/A
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS SCALLOPS. BAITFISH. SMALL FLOUNDERS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 131
STATION DATA
Date 10/10/94 Time 2:50 P.M.
Latitude 41' 08.03' Longitude 72' 16,78'
Station Description HALLOCK BAY, NORTH SIDE. 500' FROM SHORF
Salinity 31 ppt
Water Temp. 6._~3
Visibility 5 feet
Field Personnel GG. RP & NS
Water Depth 5.5 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) 295g (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION = 7 %
General description of SAV beds at station PATCHES OF EELGRASS AND CODIUM.
MOSTLY CODIUM. SCATTERED PATCHES OF LIGHT EELGRASS
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: ~
MACROALGAE: C~
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS BRI1TLE STAR. FLOUNDERS. LOTS OF LARGE
SCALLOPS. SPIDER CRAB~
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 132
STATION DATA
Field Personnel
Date 10/10/94 Time 3:15 P.M.
Water Depth 6.5 feet
Latitude 41' 8.25' Longitude
Station Description HALLOCK BAY. SOUTH SIDE. NEAR MOUTH OF LITTLE BAY.
Salinity 31 ppt
Water Temp. 61
Visibility 4 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) 133g (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION ~ 10 %
General description of SAV beds at station NO EELGRASS. ONLY CODIUM. SMALL
AMOUNT OF BROWN ALGAE
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES:
MACROALGAE: CODIU64 FRAGILE. STIIOPHORA RHIZODES
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS SEA HORSE. OYSTER. SCALLOPS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 133
STATION DATA
Date 10/10/94 Time 3:50 P.M.
Latitude 41' 07.77' Longitude 72' 16.27'
Field Personnel GG. RP & NS
Water Depth 5.0 feet
Station Description HALLOCKS BAY. WEST SIDE. 500' FROM SOUTH SHORE OF BAY
Salinity 31 ppt
Water Temp. 61
Visibility 4 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) 99g (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION ~ 50 %
General description of SAV beds at station LOW DENSITY EELGRASS
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: ZOSTERA A4,4RINA
MACROALGAE: N/A
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS SPIDER CRAB. HARD SHELL CLAMS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 134
STATION DATA
Date 10/12/94 Time 8:56 A.M.
Latitude 41' 07.63' Longitude 72' 16.12'
Field Personnel GG. RP & NS
Water Depth 11.0 feet
Station Description BENS POINT- ORIENT. 150' FROM SHORE OFF ORIENT BEACH
Salinity 31 ppt
Water Temp. 57
Visibility 10 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1)-g (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION: 0 %
General description of SAV beds at station NONE PRESENT ROCKY BOTTOM ALONG
SHORE. SANDY 20' OFF
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: N/A
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS SPIDER AND HERMIT CRABS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 135
STATION DATA
Field Personnel GG. RP & NS
Date 10/12/94 Time 9:25 A.M, Water Depth 7.0 feet
Latitude 41' 06.92' Longitude 72' 17.11'
Station Description ORIENT SPIT - WEST END. 300' OFF OUTSIDE BEACH IBRICK
RUINS ON SHORE)
Salinity 31 ppt
Water Temp. 58
Visibility 12 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) 1~4 g (2) 227 g (3) 241 g
SEDIMENT TYPE GRAVELLY SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION = 60 %
General description of SAV beds at station 2' TO 7' DEPTH BEDS OF EELGRASS.
MODERATE DENSITY HEALTHY GREEN PATCHES EXTENDING APPROXIMATELY 500'
FROM OLD FOUNDATION WEST
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: ZOSTERA MARINA
MACROALGAE: N/A
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS YOUNG SCALLOPS, HERMIT AND SPIDER CRABS.
SNAILS. LOBSTER
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 136
STATION DATA
Date 10/12/94 Time 10:00A.M.
Latitude 41' 06.80' Longitude 72' 17.58'
Field Personnel ~
Water Depth 8.0 feet
Station Description NORTH SIDE OF ORIENT SPIT - WEST END. 100' FROM SHORE
Salinity 31 ppt
Water Temp. 58
Visibility 6 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1)-g (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE GRAVELLY_.SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION = 0 %
General description of SAV beds at station NO SAV PRESENT
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: N/A
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 137
STATION DATA
Date 10//12/94
Latitude 41' 07.09'
Time 10:30 A.M.
Longitude 72' 19.80'
Field Personnel GG. RP & NS
Water Depth 5.0 feet
Station Description 300' OFF SHORE. WEST PART OF ORIENT HARBOR
Salinity 31.5 ppt
Water Temp. 58
Visibility 4 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) 7~ g (2) - g
SEDIMENT TYPE SAND
(3) - g
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION = 75 %
General description of SAV beds at station MODERATE THICKNESS/PATCHES OF
EELGRASS
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: ZOSTERA MARINA
MACROALGAE: N/A
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS SCALLO~
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 138
STATION DATA
Date 10/12/94 Time t0:50A.M,
Latitude 41' 06.40' Longitude 72' 20.61'
Field Personnel GG. RP & NS
Water Depth 5.0 feet
Station Description EAST OF GREENPORT ROCK IETTY - 1000'. 500' OFF SHORE
Salinity 31.5 ppt
Water Temp. 58
Visibility 4.5 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) 213g (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION -- 75 %
General description of SAV beds at station BI~DS OF EELGRASS EXTENDING TO
SHORELINE. SHOWS UP WELL ON AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: ZOSTERA MARINA
MACROALGAE: N/A
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS SCALLOP. MUD CRAB
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 139
STATION DATA
Date 10/12/94
Latitude 41' 05.12'
Time 11:35 A.M.
Longitude 72' 20.62'
Field Personnel GG. RP & NS
Water Depth 3.0 feet
Station Description DERING HARBOR - INSIDE AT MOUTH OF GARDINERS CREEK
Salinity 30 ppt
Water Temp. 59
Visibility 5_ feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1)-g (2)-g
(3) - g
SEDIMENT TYPE SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION = 1.__Q0 %
General description of SAV beds at station CODIUM BEDS SCATTERED ALONG
SHALLOWS. FEW ROCKWEED SPECIMENS
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: CODIUM FRAGILE. FUCUS SPP. & MISCELLANEOUS BROWN
ALGAE (PHAEOPHYCEAE)
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 140
STATION DATA
Date 10/12/94 Time 12:25 P.M.
Latitude 41' 05.56' Longitude 72' 21.50'
Field Personnel GG. RP & NS
Water Depth 3.0 feet
Station Description 150' OFF SHORELINE EAST OF FANNING POINT
Salinity 31 ppt
Water Temp. 59
Visibility 8 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1)-g (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION -- 1%
General description of SAV beds at station SCATTERED BROWN ALGAE CLUMPS.
NOT ENOUGH TO SAMPLE
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: N/A
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS HERMIT. SPIDER & MUD CRABS. WHELK
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 141
STATION DATA
Date 10/12/94 Time 12:40P.M.
Latitude 41' 05.26~ Longitude 72' 22.48'
Field Personnel GG. RP & NS
Water Depth 4.0 feet
Station Description 100 YARDS OFF SHORELINE. NORTH END OF PIPES COVE
Salinity 31 ppt
Water Temp. 5__~9
Visibility 3 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1)-g (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION = 0 %
General description of SAV beds at station DEAD EELGRASS
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: N/A
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS 20' WIDE BAND OF BRYOZOANS ALONG SHORE.
WHELK. HARD SHELL CLAMS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 142
STATION DATA
Date 10/12/94 Time 1:00P.M.
Latitude 41' 04.68' Longitude 72' 22.21'
Station Description 50 YARDS OFF SHORELINE EAST SIDE OF CONKUN POINT
Salinity 31 ppt
Water Temp. 59
Visibility 6 feet
Field Personnel GGo RP & NS
Water Depth 5.0 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1)-g (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION = 1%
General description of SAV beds at station SPARSE PATCHES OF RED ALGAE WITH
BRYOZOANS
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: GRACILARIA TIKVAHIAE
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
BRYOZOANS. WHELKS. SPIDER CRABS. NO
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 143
STATION DATA
Field Personnel RP & NS
Date 10/13/94 Time 9:05 A.M. Water Depth 6.7 feet
Latitude 40' 57.47' Longitude 72' 23.63'
Station Description 1/2 WAY BETWEEN WOOLEY POND & ROSE GROVE. 1000' OFF
SHORELINE
Salinity 30 ppt
Water Temp. 513
Visibility 6 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1)-g (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION: O %
General description of SAV beds at station N B VE
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: N/A
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS SHRIMP (SMALL). HERMIT CRABS. TUBE WORMS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS DEVELOPED BEACH FRONT
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 144
STATION DATA
Date 10/13/94
Latitude 40' 57.97'
Time 9:55
Longitude 72' 23.78'
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 5.7. feet
Station Description EAST SIDE OFF ROSE GROVE. 1000' OF SHORELINE
Salinity 30 ppt
Water Temp. 59
Visibility 6.$ feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1)-g (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION = 1%
General description of SAV beds at station ONE SMALL SPECIMEN OF CODIUM
OBSERVED. NOT ENOUGH TO SAMPLE. CLOSER TO SHORELINE (5' - 25' OFF
SHORELINE) CODIUM INCREASES TO 5 - 10% COVERAGE
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: ~
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS WHELK. HERMIT AND MUD CRABS. TUBE WORMS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS DEVELOPED SHORELINE
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 14~
STATION DATA
Field Personnel RP & NS
Date 10/13/94 Time 10:15 A.M.
Water Depth 6,5 feet
Latitude 40' 59.73' Longitude 72' 22.30'
Station Description 100' OFF SHORELINE OPPOSITE BLUFFS. S/E CORNER OFF.
LITTLE PECONIC BAY. SOUTH OF IESSUP NECK
Salinity 30 ppt
Water Temp. 59
Visibility 8 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) 1729 g (2) 1379 g (3) 1786 g
SEDIMENT TYPE SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION = 10 %
General description of SAV beds at station COVERAGE DROPS TO 0% 500' OFF
SHORELINE. STEADY DECREASE FROM 50' - 500' OFFSHORE. 10% COVERAGE OF
CODIUM IS LIMITED TO 5' - 50' OFFSHORE
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: CODIUM FRAGILE & FUCUS SPP. ~1% OF SPECIMENS)
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS LOTS OF VARIOUS SMALL & HERMIT CRABS.
BAITFISH iON SURFACE). WHELK & EGG CASINGS. MUD CRABS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS BLUFF OVER BEACH
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 146
STATION DATA
Date 10/13/94 Time 10:40 A.M.
Latitude 41" 00.13' Longitude 72' 22.28'
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 6,3 feet
Station Description 10{)' OFF BEACH WEST SIDE OF IESSUP NECK OFF LOW AREA
Salinity 31 ppt
Water Temp. 59
Visibility 6 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1)og (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION ~ 0 %
General description of SAV beds at station N/A
SAY SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: N/A
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS VARIOUS SMALL CRABS INCLUDING HERMITS.
SCATTERED BRYOZOANS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS LOWLAND AREA NEAR IESSUP POINT
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 147
STATION DATA
Date 10/13/94 Time 10:55 A.M.
Latitude 41' 00.82' Longitude 72' 22.26'
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 5.2 feet
Station Description 100' OFF BEACH WEST SIDE OF IESSUP NECK lUST SOUTH OF
TIP
Salinity 31 ppt
Water Temp. 59
Visibility 5.5 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) 1928 g (2) 1786 g (3) 2070 g
SEDIMENT TYPE SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION -- 50 %
General description of SAV beds at station CODIUM & FUCUS CODOMINANT.
SEVERAL DENSE PATCHES MIXED WITH BARE AREAS VERY HEALTHY LOOKING
BEDS.
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/~
MACROALGAE: CODIUM FRAGILE & FUCUS SPP.
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS BRYOZOANS ON ROCKS ALONG SHORELINE.
BAITFISH
OTHER OBSERVATIONS UNDEVELOPED SHORELINE. 2 FISH TRAPS WITHIN 1000'
OF STATION
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 148
STATION DATA
Field Personnel RP & NS
Date 10/13/94 Time 1:00 P.M. Water Depth 12.0 feet
Latitude 41' 04.27' Longitude 72' 22.43'
Station Description NORTH SIDE SHELTER ISLAND OPPOSITE CONKLIN POINT. 50!
Salinity 31 ppt
Water Temp. 60
Visibility 7_ feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1)-g (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION ~ 0 %
General description of SAV beds at station NONE
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: N/~
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS HERMIT CRABS, WHELK EGG CASINGS, HORSESHOE
CRABS. BRYOZOANS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 149
STATION DATA
Field Personnel RP & NS
Date 10/13/94 Time 1:45P. M.
Water Depth 7.4 feet
Latitude 41' 03.90' Longitude 72' 22.82'
Station Description SHELTER ISLAND WEST SHORE. WEST OF WINDMILL, 500'
FROM SHORE
Salinity 31 ppt
Water Temp. 60
Visibility 7 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1)-g (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION - 1%
General description of SAV beds at station ONE SPECIMEN OF CODIUM OTHERWI~;E
NO SAV
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: ~
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS LOTS OF WHELK EGG CASINGS. HERMIT CRABS. 1
FLOUNDER
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 150
STATION DATA
Field Personne~ RP & NS
Date 10/13/94 Time 2;05 P.M.
Water Depth 6.1 feet
Latitude 41' 02.51' Longitude 72' 21.44'
Station Description SHELTER ISLAND SOUTHWEST SHORE. EAST OF BLACK DOG
ROCK. 1000' FROM SHORE
Salinity 31 ppt
Water Temp. 60
Visibility 6 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1)-g (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION -- 0 %
General description of SAV beds at station 20' FROM SHORE APPROXIMATELY 5%
COVER CODIUM. PAST 4' DEPTH NO SAV
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: N/A
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS SPIDER AND HERMIT CRABS. WHELK EGG CASINGS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 151
STATION DATA
Date t0/13/94 Time 2:35 P.M.
Latitude 41' 02.28~ Longitude 72' 22.95~
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 8.4 feet
Station Description GREAT HOG NECK° EAST SHORE BETWEEN CEDAR BEACH PT.
AND PARADISE PT.
Salinity 31 ppt
Water Temp. 60
Visibility 6 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1)-g (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION ~ 0 %
General description of SAV beds at station NONE
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE:
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS WHELK. WHELK EGG CASINGS. HERMIT CRABS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 152
STATION DATA
Date 10/13/94 Time 3:00 P.M.
Latitude 41' 02.80' Longitude 72' 23.19'
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 4.5 feet
Station Description SOUTHWEST SOUTHOLD BAY WEST OF PARADISE PT.
Salinity 31 ppt
Water Temp. 61
Visibility 6 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) 213§ (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION = 5 %
General description of SAV beds at station CODIUM DROPS TO 0% AT 10' DEPTH.
SEVERAL SPECIMENS LARGE. SAMPLE TAKEN WAS TYPICAL OF OVERALL
COVERAGE
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: ~
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS SPIDER AND HERMIT CRABS. WHELK. SMALL
SHRIMP
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 153
STATION DATA
Date 10/14/94
Latitude 41' 00.81'
Time 11:00 P.M.
Longitude 72' 26.45'
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth ~.1 feet
Station Description LITTLE HOG NECK EAST SIDE OPPOSITE BROADWATER COVE
Salinity 30.5 ppt
Water Temp. 59
Visibility _3 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) og (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION = 1%
General description of SAV beds at station 1% COVER CODIUM UP TO 20 FT OFF
SHORE DROPPING TO 0% DEEPER THAN 4'
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: CODIUA4 FRAGILE
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS HERMIT AND OTHER SMALL CRABS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 154
STATION DATA
Field Personnel RP & NS
Date 10/14/94 Time 11:15 A.M.
Water Depth 6.1 feet
Latitude 41' 01.52' Longitude 72' 26.07'
Station Description HOG NECK BAY NORTH WEST CORNER SOUTH OF INDIAN
NECK
Salinity 31 ppt
Water Temp. 59
Visibility 4 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1)-g (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION ~ 0 %
General description of SAV beds at station NONE. BEACH FRONT HAS APPROX. 1%
COVER OF CODIUM. DROPS OFF AT 5' ~
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE:
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 155
STATION DATA
Date 10/14/94 Time 11:30 A.M.
Latitude 41' 01.83' Longitude 72' 26.09'
Station Description INSIDE RICHMOND CREEK
Salinity 25 ppt
Water Temp. 58
Visibility 4 feet
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 2.2 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) 284 g (2) - g (3) - g
SEDIMENT TYPE MUD
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100oFOOT RADIUS OF STATION = 35 %
General description of SAV beds at station SEA LEITUCE DOMINANT: KNOTTI~D
WRACK FRINGING EDGE OF REED LINE
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: ULVA LACTUCA. ASCOPHYLLUM NODOSUA4
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS MUSSELS. SNAILS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 156
STATION DATA
Date 10/14/94 Time 11;45A.M.
Latitude 41' 01.90' Longitude
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 5.9 feet
Station Description DROP OFF OUTSIDE RICHMOND CREEK. 30' FROM SHORE AT
INDIAN NECK
Salinity 30.5 ppt
Water Temp. 59
Visibility 4 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) 879g (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE MUDDY SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION = 10 %
General description of SAV beds at station COVER ON SLOPES OF DROP OFF ONLY
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: CODIUM FRAGILE
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS HERMIT CRABS. SNAILS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS LOTS OF HUMAN DEBRIS IN DROPOFF
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 157
STATION DATA
Date 10/14/94
Latitude 41' 01.96'
Time 12:15 P.M.
Longitude 72' 24~99'
Field Personnel Rp & NS
Water Depth 3.9 feet
Station Description INSIDE EAST CORNER OF COREY CREEK, GREAT HOG NECK
Salinity 31 ppt
Water Temp. 60
Visibility 2_ feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1)-g (2)-§ (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION -- 0 %
General description of SAV beds at station NONE
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: N/A
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS SNAILS. HERMIT AND OTHER SMALL CRABS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 158
STATION DATA
Field Personnel RP & NS
Date 10/14/94 Time 4:10 P.M.
Water Depth 2.8 feet
Latitude 41' 02.99' Longitude 72' 23.92'
Station Description 50 YDS OFFSHORE SOUTHWESTERLY AREA OF SOUTHOLD
BAY. SOUTH OF ENTRANCE TO GOOSE CREEK
Salinity 31 ppt
Water Temp. 6~1
Visibility 5 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) 411 g (2) 496§ (3)-§
SEDIMENT TYPE SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION = 5 %
General description of SAV beds at station WIDELY SCATTERED PATCHES OF
CODIUM COVERAGE DROPS TO 0% AT 4' DEPTH
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: C~
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS BRYOZOANS. SNAILS. HERMIT AND OTHER SMALL
CRABS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS DEVELOPED BEACH FRONT
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 159
STATION DATA
Date 10/14/94 Time 4:30 P.M.
Latitude 41' 03.442 Longitude 72' 24.80~
Station Description 100'' OFF SHORELINE AT HARPERS PT. INSIDE TOWN CREEK
Salinity 30 ppt
Water Temp. 62
Visibility 3 feet
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 2.0 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) 177 §
SEDIMENT TYPE SAND
(2)-g (3)-g
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION -- 2 %
General description of SAV beds at station WIDELY SCATTERED CODIUM WITH FEW
CLUMPS OF SEA LETTUCE OBSERVED. COVERAGE DROPS TO 0% INSIDE MOUTH
OF CREEK
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: ULVA LACTUCA. CODIUA4 FRAGILE. EUTHORA CRISTATA
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS SNAILS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS DEVELOPED SHORELINE
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 160
STATION DATA
Date 10/14/94 Time 4:45 P.M.
Latitude 41' 03.45' Longitude 72' 24.31'
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 10.5 feet
Station Description 200 YDS. OFF SHORE lUST EAST OF MOUTH OF TOWN CREEK
Salinity 31 ppt
Water Temp. 60
Visibility 6,5 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1)-g (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE SANDY MUD
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION = 1%
General description of SAV beds at station VERY WIDELY SCATTERED CODIUM AND
LETTUCE~ VERY SMALL SPECIMENS. NO ROOTED SAV
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: ULVA LACTUCA. COD/UA4 FRAGILE
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS TOADFISH. SNAILS. SPIDER. HERMIT AND OTHER
SMALL CRABS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS DEVELOPED SHORELINE
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 161
STATION DATA
Date 10/14/94 Time 5:10 p.M.
Latitude 41' 04.12' Longitude 72' 23.70'
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 7.3 feet
Station Description 1/4 MILE OFF SHORELINE SOUTH OF BEIXIDON ESTATES
salinity 31 ppt
Water Temp. 60
Visibility 7.5 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1)-g (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION - 0 %
General description of SAV beds at station NO SAV OBSERVED
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: N/A
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS SCALLOPS. SPIDER. HERMIT. HORSESHOE AND
OTHER SMALL CRABS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS STRONG CURRENT. DEVELOPED SHORELINE
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 162
STATION DATA
Date 10/14/94
Latitude 41 ° 04.48'
Time 5:30 P.M.
Longitude 72' 23.22'
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 12.7 feet
Station Description 75 YDS. OFF SHORELINE WEST OF CONKLIN PT. WEST OF FISH
TRAP
Salinity 31 ppt
Water Temp. 60
Visibility 7.5 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) - g (2) - g (3) - g
SEDIMENT TYPE SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION ~ 0 %
General description of SAV beds at station NO SAV
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: N/A
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS SPIDER AND HERMIT CRABS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS DEVELOPED SHORELINE WITH HIGH SEAWALL
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 163
STATION DATA
Date 10/14/94 Time 5:50 P~M.
Latitude 41' 04.38' Longitude 72' 23.54'
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 3.6 feet
Station Description 50 YDS. OFF SHORELINE SOUTH OF STACK MARKED ON
CHARTS EAST OF MILL CREEK
Salinity 31 ppt
Water Temp. 60
Visibility 5 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) 291 g (2) 340§ (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION ~ 60 %
General description of SAV beds at station MIX BEDS OF (75%) EELGRASS. (25%)
CODIUM WITH EELGRASS DOMINANT. COVERAGE DROPS TO 0% AT 6 TO 7'
DEPTH NEAR DROPOFF. SAV BEDS DAMAGED BY SCALLOP RAKES. PERCENTAGE
OF CODIUM INCREASES CLOSER TO SHORELINE. OVERALL BED DENSITIES ARE
LIGHT.
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: ~E~G~ASS
MACROALGAE: CODIUA4 FRAGILE
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS SCALLOPS. BRITTLE STARS, SPIDER AND HERMIT
CRABS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS ENTRANCE TO MARINA MOIDERATELY DEVELOPED
SHORELINE
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 164
STATION DATA
Field Personnel
Water Depth
Date 10/17/94 Time 9:35A.M.
Latitude 41' 01.68' Longitude 72' 24.70'
RP & NS
9.0 feet
Station Description 500' OFF SHORELINE NORTHEASTERLY SIDE OF HOG NECK
BAY, WESTERLY OFF CEDAR BEACH FT.
Salinity 31 ppt
Water Temp. 57
Visibility 4.5 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1)-g (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION = _1. %
General description of SAV beds at station 2 VERY SMALL PIECES OF SEA LETTUCE
OBSERVED. OTHERWISE NO SAV
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N//~
MACROALGAE: ~
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS SPIDER. HERMIT AND OTHER SMALL CRABS. SHELLS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS DEVELOPED BEACH FRONT
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 165
STATION DATA
Field Personnel RP & NS
Date 10/17/94 Time 10:30 A.M.
Water Depth 9.9 feet
Latitude 41' 00.85' Longitude 72' 23,89'
Station Description OPEN WATER BETWEEN NASSAU PT AND CEDAR PT. lUST
INSIDE HOG NECK BAY
Salinity 3__~1 ppt
Water Temp. 5._~7
Visibility 6,5 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1)-g (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION ~ 1%
General description of SAV beds at station WIDELY SCATTERED SMALL SPECIMENS
OF LACY REDWEED. NO OTHER SAV PRESENT
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: EUTHORA CRISTATA
MARINE LIFE OBSERYATIONS HERMIT CRABS. WHELKS. BRYOZOANS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 166
STATION DATA
Field Personnel RP & NS
Date 10/17/94 Time 11:10 A.M. Water Depth 7.0 feet
Latitude 41' 01.36' Longitude 72' 23.54'
Station Description 3/4 MILE OFF SHORELINE SOUTHWEST OF CEDAR BEACH PT.
ON SHOAL
Salinity 31 ppt
Water Temp. 58
Visibility 6.5 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1)-g (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION -- 1_ %
General description of SAV beds at station WIDELY SCATTERED SMALL SPECIMENS
OF CODIUM AND LACY REDWEED. NOT ENOUGH TO SAMPLE
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: C. ODIUM FRAGILE. EUTHORA CRISTATA
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS HI~RMIT AND OTHER SMALL CRABS. WHELK
OTHER OBSERVATIONS DI~VELOPED SHORELINE: UNDULATING BOTTOM WITH
2' HIGH SAND RIDGES
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 167
STATION DATA
Date 10/17/94
Latitude 41 ° 01.61~
Time 11:33 A.M.
Longitude 72' 23.50~
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 6.1 feet
Station Description 100~ OFF BEACH ON NORTHEASTERLY SIDE OF HOG NECK BAY
SOUTHWESTERLY SIDE OF CEDAR BEACH PT.
Salinity 31 ppt
Water Temp. 58
Visibility 6.5 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) 773 g
(2) 652g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE GRAVELLY SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION -- 20 %
General description of SAV beds at station CODIUM COVERAGE CONTINUES FROM
7' DEPTH TO SHORELINE. WEIGHED SPECIMEN IS TYPICAL OF STATION. WIDELY
SCATTERED SPECIMENS OF SEA LETTUCE OBSERVED.
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: CODIUA4 FRAGILE. ULVA LACTUCA
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS WHELK AND EGG CASINGS, HERMIT AND OTHER
OTHER OBSERVATIONS DEVELOPED SHORELINE
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 168
STATION DATA
Date 10/17/94 Time 11:50A.M.
Latitude 41' 01.95' Longitude 72' 22.87'
Station Description INSIDE CEDAR BEACH PT. SALT MARSH
Salinity 31.5 ppt
Water Temp. 58
Visibility 6.5 feet
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 2.7 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) 99g (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE MUD
ESTIMATED SAY COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION = 1%
General description of SAV beds at station KNOTTED WRACK AND SEA LETTUCE
FRINGE THE REED LINE. FRINGING LINE IS WIDELY SCATTERED AND RANGES
FROM 3' WIDE TO 10' WIDE.
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: ULVA LACTUCA. ASCOPHYLLUA, f NODOSUA4
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS SNAILS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS NORTHERLY SHORELINE IS DEVELOPED
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 169
STATION DATA
Date 10/17/94 Time 3:30 P.M.
Latitude 41 ° 03.65' Longitude 72' 21.48'
Station Description MIDDLE OF WEST NECK BAY SHELTER ISLAND
Salinity 30 ppt
Water Temp. 58
Visibility 2 feet
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 12.4 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1)-g (2)-§ (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE MUD
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION -- 0 %
General description of SAV beds at station NONE-FRINGING REEDLINE CONTAINED
TYPICAL SAMPLES OF KNOTTED WRACK SIMILAR TO OTHER EMBAYMENTS
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: N/A
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS SPIDER AND HERMIT CRABS. WHELK. IUVENILE
TOADFISH
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 170
STATION DATA
Date 10/17/94 Time 2:15 P.M.
Latitude 41' 03.20' Longitude 72' 21.10'
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 2.7 feet
Station Description HALF WAY BETWEEN WEST NECK BAY AND WEST NECK
HARBOR. SHELTER ISLAND
Salinity 31 ppt
Water Temp. 58
Visibility 3_ feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1)-g (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE N D_~_~D_~___~LU_~
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION -- 0 %
General description of SAV beds at station bLO39~b~
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: N/A
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS IUVENILE TOADFISH. SCALLOPS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 171
STATION DATA
Date 10/17/94 Time 2:45 P.M.
Latitude 41' 02.38' Longitude 72' 20.44'
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 7.5 feet
Station Description SOUTH END OF WEST NECK HARBOR SHELTER ISLAND NORTH
SIDE OF SHELL BEACH
Salinity 31.5 ppt
Water Temp. 58
Visibility 5 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1)-g (2)-§ (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION = 0 %
General description of SAV beds at station NONE OBSERVI~I~
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: N/A
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS SPIDER AND HERMIT CRABS. WHELK. SMALL
SCALLOPS. UNIDENTIFIED INVERTEBRATES
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 172
STATION DATA
Field Personnel RP & NS
Date 10/17/94 Time 3:10 P.M.
Water Depth 5.3 feet
Latitude 41' 02.82' Longitude 72' 20.21'
Station Description MIDDLE OF ENTRANCE TO WEST NECK HARBOR EAST OF #4
BOUY. SHELTER ISLAND
Salinity 31.5 ppt
Water Temp. 58
Visibility 4 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) 255g (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION ~ 1%
General description of SAV beds at station WIDELY SCATTERED CODIUM
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: C~
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS SPIDER AND HERMIT CRABS. SCALLOPS. CLAMS.
pIPE FISH. FLOUNDER. SHRIMP. MUD CRABS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 17~
STATION DATA
Date 10/17/94 Time 3:30 P.M.
Latitude 41 ° 03.31' Longitude 72' 20.25'
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 2.~ feet
Station Description MIDDLE OF MENANTIC CREEKm SHELTER ISLAND
Salinity 32 ppt
Water Temp. 58
Visibility 4 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1)-g (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION -- O %
General description of SAV beds at station NONE. KNOTTED WRACK ON FRINGES
OF REEDS ONLY
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: N/A
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS SNAILS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 174
STATION DATA
Date 10/20/94 Time 9:30 A.M.
Latitude 41' 08.30' Longitude 72' 14.72'
Field Personnel Rp & NS
Water Depth 13.2 feet
Station Description NORTHERN GARDINERS BAY. EAST OF ORIENT BEACH 1/4 MILE
FROM SHORE
Salinity 32 ppt
Water Temp. 59
Visibility 15 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1)-g (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION -- 0 %
General description of SAV beds at station ~L~LL(~C~
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: N/A
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS BI(~ HERMIT AND SPIDER CRABS. SMALL SCALLOPS.
BAITFISH
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 175
STATION DATA
Date 10/20/94 Time 10:00A,M.
Latitude 41' 08.35' Longitude 72' 14.82'
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 5.7 feet
Station Description NORTHERN GARDINERS BAY. EAST OF ORIENT BEACH 50'
FROM SHORE
Salinity 32 ppt
Water Temp. 60
Visibility 10 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) 99g (2) 269g (3) 936g
SEDIMENT TYPE SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION: 30 %
General description of SAV beds at station 2 PATCHES EXCLUSIVELY EELGRASS 100
SO. FT. TOTAL. FROM 7' DEPTH TO BEACH ROCKWEED DOMINANT MACROALGAE
IN SEPARATE BEDS
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: EELGRASS
MACROALGAE: FUCUS SPP.
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS SPIDER. MUD. HERMIT AND OTHER SMALL CRABS.
BAITFISH
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 176
STATION DATA
Field Personnel RP & NS
Date 10/20/94 Time 11:00A.M.
Water Depth 19.3 feet
Latitude 41' 06.15' Longitude 72' 15.41'
Station Description NORTH AND EAST OF RED AND WHITE "N" BOUY IN WESTERN
GARDINERS BAY
Salinity 32 ppt
Water Temp. 59
Visibility 5_ feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1)-g (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION
General description of SAV beds at station NLO~tLO~L~2
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: N/A
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS SPIDE~R, HERMIT. AND OTHER SMALL CRABS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 177
STATION DATA
Date 10/20/94 Time 11:30 A.M.
Latitude 41' 05.11~ Longitude 72' 16.69~
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 14.3 feet
Station Description WESTERN GARDINERS BAY NORTH OF RAM ISLAND 1.5 MILES
FROM SHORE
Salinity 32 ppt
Water Temp. 59
Visibility _7 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1)-g (2) og (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION -- 0 %
General description of SAV bedS at station NONE OBSERVED
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE:
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS SPIDER AND HERMIT CRABS. SKATE
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 178
STATION DATA
Field Personnel
Water Depth
Date 10/20/94 Time
Latitude 41' 05.68' Longitude 72' 18.07'
RP & NS
1~.5 feet
Station Description WESTERN GARDINERS BAY SOUTHEAST OF CORNELIUS PT..
SHELTER ISLAND 2 MILE FROM SHORE
Salinity 32 ppt
Water Temp. 59
Visibility 6 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1)-g (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION ~ 0 %
General description of SAV beds at station DEAD LOOSE EELGRASS
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: N/A
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS BIG CLAMS. DEAD SPIDER CRABS. A FEW HERMIT
CRABS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 179
STATION DATA
Date 10/20/94 Time 1:25 p.M.
Latitude 41' 06.08' Longitude 72' 19.23'
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 5.0 feet
Station Description SHALLOW WATER BETWEEN CORNELIUS PT AND HAY 8EACH
PT. SHELTER ISLAND
Salinity 31 ppt
Water Temp. 60
Visibility 11 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) 269 g (2) :~48 g (3) 680 g
SEDIMENT TYPE MUDDY SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100oFOOT RADIUS OF STATION ~ 90 %
General description of SAV beds at station BEDS EXTEND FROM BEACH TO 8' DEPTH
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: EELGRASS
MACROALGAE: CODIUA4 FRAGILE. FUCU$ Spp,
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS SCALLOPS. LOBSTERS. BAITFISH. HERMIT. SPIDER.
MUD AND OTHER SMALL CRABS. WHELK
OTHER OBSERVATIONS DEVELOPED SHORELINE
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 180
STATION DATA
Date 10/20/94 Time 1:55 P.M.
Latitude 41' 06.19' Longitude 72' 18.91'
Station Description 1 M|LE OFF BEACH FROM STATION
Salinity 31 ppt
Water Temp. 60
Visibility 11 feet
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 8.4 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1)-g (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION ~ 90 %
General description of SAV beds at station EXCLUSIVELY EELGRASS. BEDS EXTEND
FROM BEACH TO 8' DEPTH
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: EELGRASS
MACROALGAE:
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS SCA[LOPS. LOBSTERS. BAITFISH. HERMIT. SPIDER.
MUD AND OTHER SMALL CRABS. WHELK
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 181
STATION DATA
Date 10/20/94
Latitude 41 ° 02.65'
Time 3:00 P.M.
Longitude 72' 25.22'
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 3.0 feet
Station Description INSIDE GOOSE CREEK WESTERLY SIDE OF SOUTHOLD BAY
Salinity 30 ppt
Water Temp. 62
Visibility 4,5 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1)-g (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION = 2 %
General description of SAV beds at station WIDELY SCATTERED SAV ALONG
REEDLINE
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: ULVA LACTUCA. ASCOPHYLLUM NODOSUM
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS SNAIL. MUD CRABS. BRYOZOANS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS DEVELOPED SHORELINE THROUGHOUT CREEK
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 182
STATION DATA
Date 10/21/94 Time 11:05 A.M.
Latitude 41' 04.12' Longitude 71' 55.17'
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 4.2 feet
Station Description 100' OFF SHORELINE NORTHERLY AREA OF LAKE MONTAUK
Salinity 32 ppt
Water Temp. 60
Visibility 3.5 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) 567 g (2) 454 g (3) 312 g
SEDIMENT TYPE
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION: 90 %
General description of SAV beds at station EELGRASS BED MIXED WITH 5%
COI~IUM. SAV INTO 8' DEPTH
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: EELGRASS
MACROALGAE: ~
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS SNAIL. BLUE CLAW CRABS. CLAMS. BAITFISH: MUD.
HERMIT AND SPIDER CRABS. IUVENILE FLOUNDER AND SEA ROBINS. WHELK.
SMALL SCALLOPS. SHRIMP
OTHER OBSERVATIONS EELGRASS ON BEACH. DEVELOPED SHORELINE
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 183
STATION DATA
Date 10/21/94
Latitude 41 ° 03.67~
Time 12:00 P.M.
Longitude 71' 55.10~
Station Description MIDDLE OF LAKE MONTAUK
Salinity 32 ppt
Water Temp. 60
Visibility 3.5 feet
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 9.6 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) 340g (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE MUD
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION ~ 80 %
General description of SAV beds at station
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: EELGRASS
MACROALGAE: N/A
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS SNAIL. BLUE CLAW CRABS. CLAMS. BAITFISH. MUD.
HERMIT AND SPIDER CRABS. IUVENILE FLOUNDER AND SEA ROBINS. WHELK.
SMALL SCALLOPS. SHRIMP
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 184
STATION DATA
Date 10/21/94 Time 12:20PM.
Latitude 41' 03.60' Longitude 71' 54.53'
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 7.8 feet
Station Description 100' OFF SHORELINE. EASTERLY AREA OF LAKE MONTAUK
Salinity 31 ppt
Water Temp. 60
Visibility 5.5 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) 695g (2)-§ (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION ~ 55 %
General description of SAV beds at station SAV BED EXCLUSIVELY CODIUM.
EXTENDS FROM SHORELINE TO 9' DEPTH
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: C~.~a~
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS BLUE CLAWS. SCALLOPS. SHRIMP. HERMIT CRABS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS DEVELOPED SHORELINE WITH REEDS ALONG MOST
PROPERTY LINES. EELGRASS ON BEACH
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 1 ~5
STATION DATA
Date 10/21/94 Time 12:46 P.M.
Latitude 41' 02.93' Longitude 71 ° 54.87'
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 7.0 feet
Station Description 100' OFF SHORELINE SOUTHWESTERLY AREA OF LAKE
MONTAUK
Salinity 32 ppt
Water Temp. 60
Visibility 7 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) 1148§ (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE MUDDY SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION = 60 %
General description of SAV beds at station SAV BEDS EXTEND FROM SHORELINE TO
7' DEPTH
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: CODIUA4 FRAGILE
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS SHRIMP. SCALLOPS. OYSTERS. CLAMS. SNAILS.
BAITFISH. BLUE CLAWS. BRYOZOANS. SPIDER AND OTHER SMALL CRABS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS DEVELOPED SHORELINE. SCATTERED ROCKS ON BOTTOM
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 186
STATION DATA
Field Personnel RP & NS
Date 10/21/94 Time 1:15 P.M.
Water Depth 6.7 feet
Latitude 41' 03.67' Longitude 71' 55.66'
Station Description :~O0' OFF SHORELINE NORTHWESTERLY AREA OF LAKE
MONTAUK
Salinity 32 ppt
Water Temp. 61
Visibility 3.5 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) 213 g (2) 227 g (3) g
SEDIMENT TYPE MUD
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION ~ 90 %
General description of SAV beds at station MIXED BED. PRIMARILY EELGRASS WITH
5% (:ODIUM TO 8' DEPTH. CODIUM DOMINATES DEEPER WATER. NO EELGRASS
BELOW 9'
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: EELGR~S
MACROALGAE: ~
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS
BAITFISH
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
SCALLOP SEEDS. MUD CRABS. CLAMS. BLUE CLAWS.
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 187
STATION DATA
Date 10/21/94 Time 2:45 P.M.
Latitude 41 ° 04.97' Longitude 71' 54.72'
Field Personnel Rp & NS
Water Depth 5.9 feet
Station Description EAST OF MONTAUK BREAKWATER. WEST OF SHAGWONG PT.
5(1' FROM SHORE
Salinity 33 ppt
Water Temp. 58
Visibility 6 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) 255§ (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE GRAVELLY SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION ~ 50 %
General description of SAV beds at station RED ALGAE ATTACHED TO ROCKS.
GREEN ALGAE ATTACHED TO SAND
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAG RASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: DASYA
PEDICELLATA. ENTEROMORPHA LINZA
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS BAITFISH0 SPIDER CRABS. ROCK CRAB. KRILL
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 188
STATION DATA
Date 10/21/94 Time 3:30 P.M.
Latitude 41' 04.50' Longitude 71' 57.60'
Station Description EAST OF CULLODEN PT. 75' FROM SHORE
Salinity 33 ppt
Water Temp~ 59
Visibility 5 feet
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 4.9 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) 284g (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION: 60 %
General description of SAV beds at station MIXED SAV BEDS
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES:
MACROALGAE:
N/A
AHNFELTIA PLICATA WITH EPIPHYTIC SPERA4OTHAMNION
SPP.. CHAETOA'IORPHA LINUM. LAA41NARIA SACCHARINA
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS SMALL LOBSTERS. SPIDER. ROCK. HERMIT AND
MUD CRABS. BAITFISH. LITTLE EELS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 189
STATION DATA
Date 10/24/94 Time 10:00 A.M.
Latitude 41' 05.46' Longitude 72' 04.50'
Station Description GARDINERS ISLAND NORTHEAST SIDE SOUTH OF EASTERN
PLAIN PT.. 50' FROM SHORE. TOBACCO LOT BAY
Salinity 32 ppt
Water Temp. 58
Visibility Z feet
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 3.6 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) 269 g (2) 184 g (3) 241 g
SEDIMENT TYPE
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION -- 85 %
General description of SAV beds at station EELGRASS DOMINANT. ROCKWEED ON
ROCKS
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: EELGRASS
MACROALGAE: FUCUS SPP.
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS LOBSTERS. SPIDER AND HERMIT CRABS. BABY
ALL P B ITFISH
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 190
STATION DATA
Date 10/24/94 Time 11:00 A.M.
Latitude 41' 06.15' Longitude 72' 05.29'
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 4.4 feet
Station Description NORTHEAST GARDINERS ISLAND NORTH AND WEST OF
EASTERN PLAINS PT.
Salinity 32.5 ppt
Water Temp. 58
Visibility 4 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1)-g (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION = 15 %
General description of SAV beds at station SAV ON ROCKS ONLY OTHERWISE BARE
SANDY BOTTOM
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: CHONDRUS CRISPUS
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS SPIDER AND HERMIT CRABS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 191
STATION DATA
Date 10/24/94 Time 11:15A.M.
Latitude 41' 06.58' Longitude 72' 06.72'
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 3.0 feet
Station Description NORTHEAST GARDINERS ISLAND SOUTH OF BOSTWICK PT.
Salinity 32.5 ppt
Water Temp. 59
Visibility 4 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) 184g (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN tOO-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION = 50 %
General description of SAV beds at station REID SEAWEEDS FIXED ONLY TO ROCKS.
SAV COVERAGE DROPS TO 0% AFTER 5' DEEP
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: ACROTHRIX NOVAE-ANGLIAE: CERAMIUM SPP.: DASYA
PEDICELLATA: ENTEROMORPHA LINZA
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS HERMIT AND SPIDER CRABS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 192
STATION DATA
Date 10/24/94 Time 11;45A.M.
Latitude 41' 08.49' Longitude 72' 08.48'
Station Description EAST OF GARDINERS PT.. THE RUINS
Salinity 32.5 ppt
Water Temp. 58
Visibility 8 feet
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 10.2 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) 4~5g (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE ~AND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION = 80 %
General description of SAV beds at station SAV ALL FIXED TO ROCKS
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: NIA
MACROALGAE: CHONDRUS CRISPUS. LAMINARIA SACCHARINA
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS SMALL FISH. HERMIT AND SPIDER AND OTHER
SMALL CRABS. CLAM WORM (NEREIS SPP.)
OTHER OBSERVATIONS NtA
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 193
STATION DATA
Date 10/24/94 Time 12:15 P.M.
Latitude 41' 05.46' Longitude 72' 08.14'
Station Description SOUTH OF CHERRY HILL PT.. GARDINERS ISLAND
Salinity 32.5 ppt
Water Temp. 58
Visibility 11 feet
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 7.._.~6 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1)-g (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE GRAVELLY SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION ~ O %
General description of SAV beds at station NO SAV OBSERVED AT STATION.
UNIDENTIFIED RED SEAWEED FIXED TO ROCKS ELSEWHERE PLUS I SPECIMEN
CODIUM
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: N/A
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS SPIDER AND HERMIT CRABS. SMALL FISH
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 194
STATION DATA
Date 10/24/94 Time 12:40 P.M.
Latitude 41' 04.60' Longitude 72' 09.53'
Station Description CROW SHOAL. GARDINERS BAY
Salinity 32 ppt
Water Temp. 58
Visibility 6 feet
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 13.:~ feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) og (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION
General description of SAV beds at station ~LO39~b~J~L~
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: N/A
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS BIG SPIDER CRABS. WHELK. BABY SCALLOPS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 195
STATION DATA
Date 10/24/94 Time 1:00 P.M.
Latitude 41' 01.98' Longitude 72' 12.15'
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 4.~4 feet
Station Description NORTH OF SAMMY'S BEACH WEST OF 3 MILE HARBOR
Salinity 31.5 ppt
Water Temp. 58
Visibility 1.__Q0 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) 454g (2)-§ (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE GRAVELLY SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION ~ 50 %
General description of SAV beds at station SAV ON FRINGES ONLY. AFTER 3' DEPTH
0% COVER
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: C~[~L~,~L~J~[
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS NONE
OTHER OBSERVATIONS DEVELOPED SHORELINE
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey o Data Sheet
STA# 196
STATION DATA
Field Personnel RP & NS
Date 10/24/94 Time 1:45P.M.
Water Depth 3.7 feet
Latitude 41' 02.58' Longitude 72' 10.17'
Station Description 100' OFF SHORELINE EAST OF 3 MILE HARBOR AT START OF
BLUFFS
Salinity 32 ppt
Water Temp. 58
Visibility I_.Q feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1)-g (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE ~AND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION = 25 %
General description of SAV beds at station FRINGING BAND STARTS 10' FROM
SHORELINE AND AVERAGES 20' WIDE. SAV FIXED TO ROCKS. NONE ROOTED.
CODIUM ON LARGE ROCK 100' OFF SHORE.
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES:
MACROALGAE:
N/A
CODIUA4 FRAGILE. FUCUS SPP.o MISCELLANEOUS
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS BRYOZOANS. HERMIT AND OTHER SMALL CRABS.
IUVENILE FLOUNDER. BAITFISH
OTHER OBSERVATIONS DEVELOPED SHORELINE
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 197
STATION DATA
Date 10/24/94 Time 2:05 P.M.
Latitude 41' 03.15' Longitude 72' 09.95'
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth ~).2 feet
Station Description 75 YDS. OFF SHORELINE WEST OF LIONHEAD ROCK. 75 YDS.
EAST OF ENTRANCE TO HIGH CREEK
Salinity 32 ppt
Water Temp. 59
Visibility 15 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) 1177 § (2) - g (3) - g
SEDIMENT TYPE
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION: 60 %
General description of SAV beds at station CODIUM DOMINATES MIXED BED.
RQCKWEED AND CODIUM THROUGHOUT EXTENDS UP TO 1000' OFF SHORELINE
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/~
MACROALGAE: CODIUA4 FRAGILE. FUCUS SPP.
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS BAITFISH. PIPEFISH. IUVENILE SCALLOPS. HERMIT.
SPIDER AND OTHER SMALL CRABS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS DEVELOPED SHORELINE
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 198
STATION DATA
Date 10/24/94 Time 2:43 P.M.
Latitude 41' 03.29' Longitude 72' 07.91'
Field Personnel Rp & NS
Water Depth 19,7 feet
Station Description OPEN WATER SHOAL SOUTH OF CHERRY HILL PT.. EAST OF
UONHEAD ROCK
Salinity 33 ppt
Water Temp. 59
Visibility 11 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) - g (2) - g (3) - g
SEDIMENT TYPE SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION -- _0 %
General description of SAV beds at station UNKNOWN SAV COVERED WITH SILT
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: N/A
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
SPIDER AND HERMIT CRABS. SPONGES. SMALL
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 199
STATION DATA
Field Personnel RP & NS
Date 1(~/24/94 Time 3:10 P.M.
Water Depth 5.9 feet
Latitude 41' 02.37' Longitude 72' 07.97'
Station Description 150' OFF BEACH. SOUTH OF LIONHEAD. NORTH OF
ENTRANCE TO ACABONAC HARBOR
Salinity 33 ppt
Water Temp. 60
Visibility 15 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) 269g (2) 1503g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE GRAVELLY SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION = 60 %
General description of SAV beds at station EXCLUSIVE BED OF EELGRASS 6' DEPTH
TO SHORELINE. AT 6-7' CHANGES TO MIXED BED OF 50% CODIUM AND 50%
ROCKWEED. COVERAGE DROPS TO 0% AT 10' OF DEPTH.
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: EELGRASS
MACROALGAE: CODIUM FRAGILE. FUCUS SPP.
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS WHELK. SMALL SCALLOPS. BAITFISH. HERMIT. ROCK
AND OTHER SMALL CRABS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS DEVELOPED SHORELINE WITH SEAWALLS
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 200
STATION DATA
Date 10/24/94 Time 3:45 P.M.
Latitude 41' 01.72' Longitude 72' 05.76'
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 6.1 feet
Station Description 100' OFF SHORELINE WEST SIDE OF SPIT LEADING SOUTH
FROM GARDINERS ISLAND
Salinity 33 ppt
Water Temp. 60
Visibility 10 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1)-g (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION = 10 %
General description of SAV beds at station (:ODIUM & ROCKWEED FROM
SHORELINE TO 4' DEPTH. BRYOZOANS COVER ROCKS IN DEEPER WATER
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: CODIUM FRAGILE. FUCUS SPP.
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS SPIDER. HERMIT AND OTHER SMALL CRABS.
BAITFISH
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 201
STATION DATA
Date 10/24/94 Time 4:00 P.M.
Latitude 41' 01.90' Longitude 72' 05.02'
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 10.7 feet
Station Description 1 1/~ - 2 MILES EAST OF SAND SPIT OFF SOUTHERLY END OF
GARDINERS ISLAND
Salinity 33 ppt
Water Temp. 6_~_0
Visibility 8 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1)-g (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION = 0 %
General description of SAV beds at station NO ROOTED OR FIXED SAV ALL
FLOATING IN CURRENT
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: N/A
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS HERMIT AND SPIDER CRABS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 202
STATION DATA
Date 10/24/94 Time 4:25 p.M.
Latitude 41' 03.94' Longitude 72' 04.63'
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 11-0 feet
Station Description 200 YARDS OFF SHORE lUST SOUTH OF POINT
Salinity 33 ppt
Water Temp. 60
Visibility 8 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) 7g (2) 241g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE MUDDY SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION -- 75 %
General description of SAV beds at station TALL EELGRASS BED COVERAGE GOES TO
SHORELINE. UNABLE TO LOCATE OPEN WATER LIMIT
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: ZOSTERA MARINA
MACROALGAE: N/A
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS LOBSTERS. HERMIT AND SPIDER CRABS. BAITFISH
OTHER OBSERVATIONS H~GH BLUFF ALONG SHORELINE. NUMEROUS LOBSTER
POTS FURTHER OFFSHORE
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 203
STATION DATA
Date 10/25/94 Time 10:25 A.M.
Latitude 41' 01.63'. Longitude 72' 08.73'
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 2.0 feet
Station Description MIDDLE OF ACCABONAC HARBOR ALONG WESTERLY REED
LINE
Salinity 32 ppt
Water Temp. 60
Visibility 4.5 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1)-g (2)-§ (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE SANDY MUD
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION = 1%
General description of SAV beds at station WIDELY SCATTERED SMALL SPECIMENS
OF CODIUM. KNOTTED WRACK IS ALONG REED LINE
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: (~ODIUA, I FRAGILE & ASCOPHYLLUA4 NODOSUA4
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS IUVENILE TOADFISH. WHELK. BAITFISH
OTHER OBSERVATIONS SHORELINE OF HARBOR IS DEVELOPED. REEDS ARE
LOCATED IN MIDDLE AREAS
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 204
STATION DATA
Date 10/25/94 Time 10:55 A.M.
Latitude 41' 00.10' Longitude 72' 06.66'
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 11.9 feet
Station Description 75 YARDS OFF SHORELINE SOUTH OF ACCABONAC HARBOR
Salinity 33 ppt
Water Temp. 60
Visibility 11 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1)-g (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION: O %
General description of SAV beds at station NO SAV OBSERVED FROM SHORELINE TO
STATION
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: N/A
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS SKATE. HORSESHOE. HERMIT. SPIDER AND OTHER
SMALL CRABS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS DEVELOPED SHORELINE
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 205
STATION DATA
Field Personnel RP & NS
Date 10/25/94 Time 11:15A.M.
Water Depth 11.2 feet
Latitude 41' 00.12' Longitude 72' 05.66'
Station Description OPEN WATER 1 MILE SOUTHEASTERLY OF BUOY #6 ON
UNDERWATER SHOAL
Salinity 33 ppt
Water Temp. 60
Visibility 1__~1 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (t)-g (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION = 0 %
General description of SAV beds at station N/A
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: N/A
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS HERMIT & SPIDER CRABS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS STRONG CURRENT
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 206
STATION DATA
Date ~ Time 11:35 A.M.
Latitude 40" 59.57' Longitude 72' 06.28'
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 10.5 feet
Station Description 75 YARDS OFF SHORE OUTSIDE YACHT CLUB.
SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF NAPEAGUE BAY
Salinity 33 ppt
Water Temp. 60
Visibility 9_ feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1)-g (2)-g (3)-§
SEDIMENT TYPE SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION = _.!. %
General description of SAV beds at station NO SAV BETWEEN STATION &
SHORELINE SOME WIDELY SCATTERED REDWEED OBSERVED ON THE WIDELY
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N//~
MACROALGAE: CYSTOCLONIUA4 PURPUREUM
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS SHRIMP. SPIDER. HERMITS AND OTHER SMALL
OTHER OBSERVATIONS DEVELOPED SHORELINE
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 207
STATION DATA
Date 10/25/94 Time 12:05 P.M.
Latitude 41' 01.03' Longitude 72' 03.72'
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 5.0 feet
Station Description 75' OFF SHORELINE BETWEEN THE TWO ENTRANCES TO
NAPEAGUE HARBOR
Salinity 33 ppt
Water Temp. 60
Visibility 7 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) 610g (2)-g (3) og
SEDIMENT TYPE GRAVELLY SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION = 30 %
General description of SAV beds at station MIXED BED OF 50% CODIUM/50%
ROCKWEED FRINGING SHORELINE TO DEPTH OF 4 - 5' (75' OFF SHORE). ROCKY
BOTTOM AT SHORELINE. SANDY BOTTOM FURTHER OUT
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: CO~IUM FRAGILE & FUCUS SPP.
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS ROCK CRAB
OTHER OBSERVATIONS BIRD NESTING AREA ALONG SHORELINE
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 208
STATION DATA
Field Personnel RP & NS
Date 10/25/94 Time
Water Depth 3.6 feet
Latitude 41' 00.97' Longitude 72' 03.23'
Station Description NORTHERLY AREA OF NAPEAGUE HARBOR CLOSER TO
EASTERN MOST ENTRANCE BUT BETWEEN THE TWO
Salinity 33 ppt
Water Temp. 60
Visibility 7 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) 610g (2) 624§ (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE DM.U_.~__~_~
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN IO0-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION ~ 95 %
General description of SAV beds at station THICK BED AS SHOWN ON AERIAL
ALONG SOUTHERLY SIDE OF SHOAL. SAV SEEM TO STOP IN 5 - 6' OF WATER
BUT THAT DOES NOT APPLY TO NORTHERLY MOST CORNER.
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: ~
MACROALGAE: N/A
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS EELS. BAITFISH. SCALLOPS. CRABS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 209
STATION DATA
Date 10/25/94 Time 1:30P.M.
Latitude 41' 00.62' Longitude 72' 03.35'
Station Description NAPEAGUE HARBOR. SOUTH OF LAZY POINT
Salinity 33 ppt
Water Temp. 6__Q0
Visibility 5_ feet
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 4.1 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1)-g (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION -- 0 %
General description of SAV beds at station NONE OBSERVED
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: N/A
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS NONE OBSERVED
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 210
STATION DATA
Date ~ Time 1:45 P.M.
Latitude 40' 59.95' Longitude 72' 03.35'
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 2.7 feet
Station Description SOUTHWEST CORNER NAPEAGUE HARBOR. 100' FROM SHORE
Salinity 33 ppt
Water Temp. 60
Visibility 8 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1)-g (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE MUDDY SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION -- 0 %
General description of SAV beds at station N/A
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: N/A
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 211
STATION DATA
Date 10/25/94 Time 2:00 P.M.
Latitude 41" 00.03' Longitude 72' 02.85'
Station Description SOUTHEAST SIDE OF NAPEAGUE HARBOR
Salinity 33 ppt
Water Temp. 60
Visibility 5 feet
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 5.6 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1)-g (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION -- 0 %
General description of SAV beds at station N/A
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: N/A
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS HERMIT. HORSESHOE AND OTHER SMALL CRABS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 212
STATION DATA
Date 10/25/94 Time 2:30 P.M.
Latitude 41' 00.37' Longitude 72' 02.42'
Station Description GOFF POINT OUTSIDE NAPEAGUE HARBOR
Salinity. 33.5 ppt
Water Temp. 60
Visibility 8 feet
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 6,6 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) 269g (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION ~ 20 %
General description of SAV beds at station ONLY SAV OBSERVED - VEGETATION ON
BIGGER ROCKS: SAV COVERAGE DROPS TO 0% AT 8' DEPTH.
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: NIA
MACROALGAE: FUCUS SPP. & CHONDRUS CRISPUS
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS NONE OBSERVED
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 213
STATION DATA
Date 10/25/94 Time 2:45 P.M.
Latitude 41 ° 02.08' Longitude 72' 00.45'
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 8.1 feet
Station Description EAST SIDE OF NAPEAGUE BAY SOUTH OF ROCKY POINT
Salinity 34 ppt
Water Temp. 60
Visibility 12 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1)-g (2)-g (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION -- 50 %
General description of SAV beds at station ROCKWEED AND UNIDENTIFIED GREEN
ALGAE ON ROCKS ONLY
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: FUCU5 SPP.
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS
CRABS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
LOBSTERS. SPIDER. HERMIT AND OTHER SMALL
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 214
STATION DATA
Date 10/25/94 Time 3:~10 P.M.
Latitude 41' 02.63' Longitude 71' ~7.72'
Station Description SOUTHWEST CORNER OF FORT POND BAY
Salinity 34 ppt
Water Temp. 60
Visibility 12 feet
Field Personnel RP & NS
Water Depth 11,3 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1)-g (2) og (3)-g
SEDIMENT TYPE SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION = 0 %
General description of SAV beds at station N/A
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: N/A
MACROALGAE: N/A
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS SKATE. SPIDER AND OTHER SMALL CRABS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# M1
STATION DATA
Field Personnel
Date 10/12/94 Time 5:00 P.M.
Water Depth 4,0 feet
Latitude 40' 45.96' Longitude 72' 46.66'
Station Description I MILE OFF SHORELINE NEAR GREAT GUN BEACH IN
Salinity 32 ppt
Water Temp. 59
Visibility 4.~5 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) 312 g (2) 340 § (3) 404 g
SEDIMENT TYPE MUDDY SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION = l(J0 %
General description of SAV beds at station HEALTHY DENSE BEDS. BLADES REACH
TO WATE~
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: ~
MACROALGAE: N/A
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS N/A
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# 5._[1
STATION DATA
Date 10/12/94 Time 3:20 P.M.
Latitude 40' 52.15' Longitude 72' 29.12'
Field Personnel GG. RP & NS
Water Depth 5.0 feet
Station Description WEST SIDE OF CORMORANT POINT IN SHINNECOCK BAY
Salinity 31 ppt
Water Temp. 58
Visibility 3 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) 510 g (2) 660 g
(3) 660 g
SEDIMENT TYPE SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100oFOOT RADIUS OF STATION - 75 %
General description of SAV beds at station THICK BED OF EELGRASS (ZOSTERA
MARINA) WITH THICK ROOT SYSTEM.
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: ZOSTERA MARINA
MACROALGAE: N/A
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS LOTS OF ADULT SCALLOPS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# G1
STATION DATA
Date 9/12/94 Time 2:16P.M.
Latitude 40' 43.08' Longitude 72' 57.19'
Station Description NW OF BELLPORT BEACH
Salinity ppt
Water Temp.
Visibility feet
Field Personnel ~
Water Depth 3.8 feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) 454 g (2) 482 § (3) 397 g
SEDIMENT TYPE
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION
General description of SAV beds at station
100%
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: ~
MACROALGAE: N/A
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# G2
STATION DATA
Date 9/12/94
Latitude 40' '
Time
Longitude 72' '
Field Personnel GG. RP & NS
Water Depth 1.5 feet
Station Description 50' OFF NORTHERN SHORELINE OF FIRE I~iLAND
Salinity ppt
Water Temp.
Visibility feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) 510 g (2) 340 g (3) g
SEDIMENT TYPE SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION = 75%
General description of SAV beds at station
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES:
MACROALGAE:
OTHERS:
RUPPIA MARITIA4A
N/A
CIADAPHORA. MINOR AMOUNTS OF FLOATING GREEN ALGAF
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS PERIWINKLES. YELLOW SPONGE. BLOOD WORM
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
PECONIC ESTUARY PROGRAM
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
Field Survey - Data Sheet
STA# G3
STATION DATA
Date 9/12/94 Time 4:11 P.M.
Latitude 40' 40.30' Longitude 72' 02.52'
Field Personnel GG. RP & NS
Water Depth 3.7 feet
Station Description OFF TALISMAN BEACH. NEAR FIRE ISLAND
Salinity ppt
Water Temp.
Visibility feet
SAV WEIGHT MEASUREMENTS
WET WEIGHT: (1) 369 g (2) 198 g (3) 482 g
SEDIMENT TYPE SAND
ESTIMATED SAV COVERAGE WITHIN 100-FOOT RADIUS OF STATION = 50%
General description of SAV beds at station
SAV SPECIES PRESENT
SEAGRASSES: ST RA MARINA
MACROALGAE: N/A
MARINE LIFE OBSERVATIONS RED BEARD SPONGE. TUBE WORMS
OTHER OBSERVATIONS N/A
Aerial Photographs of
Peconic Estuary taken in
October 1994
--Northwest Harbor
--Coecles Harbor
--Napeague Harbor