One of the major topics of focus of the Barnegat Bay Estuary Program is the impact of habitat loss and alteration on this rich and diverse ecological system. To assist in developing the Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP), a variety of satellite imagery, aerial photography, digital land use/land cover data and historical maps has been analyzed to document existing conditions, as well as to assess long-term trends of habitat loss and alteration in Barnegat Bay and its watershed. As with many coastal ecosystems, the Barnegat Bay region contains a wide diversity of natural vegetation communities and habitats, vastly complicating the mapping, monitoring, and communication process. One objective is to simplify the analysis of status and trends in habitat loss and alteration by focusing on a few key components of the bay's watershed that are critical to the larger functioning of the bay ecosystem. A set of landscape level environmental indicators are developed to provide quantitative estimates of the watershed-estuarine resource condition (Table 1). This paper describes the results of this habitat mapping and monitoring effort and summarizes the observed trends in loss and alteration of several key landscape indicators. For more information on the methods used in this analysis, consult Lathrop et al. (1999). The relative impact of existing land-use planning jurisdictions on the spatial distribution of habitat loss and alteration is also evaluated.

While development of the barrier islands and the nearshore mainland areas has had the most direct impact on Barnegat Bay proper, land-use change and development in the upland watershed also has had an important role. Development in the Barnegat Bay watershed during the 19th Century centered on a few established villages on the mainland. This pattern followed through the first half of the 20th Century with most of the development focused on the northern part of the watershed around the established towns of Toms River, Lakewood, and Bay Head. In the 1960's and 1970's, large-scale suburban-style residential and retirement communities began to spring up in the upland Pine Barrens of the Toms River watershed (e.g., Manchester Township). The threat of massive development in the Pine Barrens helped to spur the establishment of the Pinelands National Reserve and the New Jersey Pinelands Commission which instituted regional land-use planning and rigorous control of future development (Collins and Russell, 1988). The Pineland Land Management Area (PLMA) includes much of the upland portions of the Barnegat Bay watershed (Figure 1). Continued development in the upland-coastal fringe during the 1970's led to the establishment of the Coastal Area Facilities Review Act (CAFRA) of 1973 with the intent of regulating large-scale (25 unit +) residential and industrial/commercial development. The CAFRA jurisdictional area ranges in width from 5 to 25 km inland from the bay shoreline (Figure 1). Approximately 66,250 ha (46%) of the bay watershed (including barrier islands) lies within CAFRA, and 54,970 ha (38%) lies within the PLMA. The remaining 23,630 ha (16%) falls within neither.

Analysis of the land-use/land-cover change detection data set provides some insight into land-use/land-cover changes over the past 25 years, both before and after the implementation of the aforementioned policies. Between 1972 and 1984, there was approximately 4,800 ha of new development (i.e., residential/commercial/industrial development, not including sand/gravel mining) in the upland portions of the bay watershed, which represents a 19% increase (Table 1). The change between 1984 and 1995 was nearly twice as great with approximately 9,550 ha of new development (an approximate 31 % increase). Overall, there has been a gradual increase (18% to 21% to 28%) in the area of the bay watershed (excluding the bay proper) that is developed (1972, 1984, and 1995 respectively) (Figure 2). Because there is comparatively little agricultural land in the Barnegat Bay watershed due to its sandy, nutrient poor soils, most of the new development has taken place on forested land. While there was a net loss of 13,731 ha or 20% of upland forest between 1972 and 1995, the comparative loss of freshwater wetlands was much less during this period, amounting to 1875 ha or approximately 6%.

Spatial analysis of the 1972-1984 changes shows the new development was split between the coastal areas (1630 ha or 34% was located in the CAFRA zone) and the northern section the watershed (2403 ha or 50% was located in the non-CAFRA/non-PLMA zone) with the remainder in the Pinelands (764 ha or 16%). As the 1972-1984 analysis includes both pre- and post-Pinelands legislation time periods, it does not provide a good test of the efficacy of these pieces of legislation in affecting development. The 1984-1995 analysis includes only those changes occurring in the post-Pinelands legislation time periods. Analysis of the 1984-1995 changes shows a concentration of development in the CAFRA area with 5560 ha or 58% of the new development. New development in the northern watershed area that is neither under Pinelands or CAFRA control remained steady at 2460 ha (but represented a smaller percentage of overall development at 26% of the new development). Development in the Pinelands Reserve portions of the upper bay watershed increased to 1524 ha (but represented the same percentage of overall development at 16% of the new development). Approximately 61% of the new development in the PLMA is in the designated growth management areas (including Rural Development, Regional Growth, Pinelands town and Pinelands Village Land Management Capability Areas), which represents only 28% of the PLMA area within the Bay watershed.

Development trends were evaluated for the major subwatersheds of the Barnegat Bay basin, to further elucidate spatial patterns of development. Thirteen subwatersheds were evaluated for the 1972-1984-1995 time periods (Table 2). The north-south development gradient of higher development intensity in the northern portion of the Barnegat Bay watershed is clearly evident. Development has intensified in the northern watersheds with the consequent loss of open space and wildlife habitat. Cedar Creek remains the least heavily developed of the Barnegat Bay subwatersheds. The headwater regions of Union Branch, Forked River, Oyster Creek, Westecunk and Tuckerton Creek are still largely undeveloped and contain extensive areas of typical Pinelands upland and wetland forest habitat. These headwater areas are within the Pinelands Reserve Forest or Preservation land management areas and thus receive some measure of protection.

Based on the land-use/land-cover change detection and interpretation of earlier USGS mapping efforts, it appears that development in the bay watershed grew rapidly in the 1950's-early 1960's, slowed somewhat in the 1970's, but continued at a steadily increasing rate through 1980's into the mid-1990's. The bulk of new development should be located in the CAFRA zone, closer to the amenities of Barnegat Bay, if existing trends continue. By 1995, the barrier islands fronting Barnegat Bay were almost completely developed. As the northern CAFRA zone (e.g., north of Toms River) appears to be reaching buildout, the southern CAFRA zone along the Route 9 corridor would appear to be a logical target for new development. This southern CAFRA zone has a comparatively low percentage of wetlands (at least west of Route 9) with a significant acreage of developable upland forest land. Thus, the remaining areas of open space/wildlife habitat in this southern CAFRA zone are especially vulnerable. If existing trends continue, steady growth in the PLMA managed growth areas and slow growth in Pinelands Preservation and Forest areas are expected. Trends in future development of the upper Metedeconk and Toms River subwatersheds (i.e., non-CAFRA/non-PLMA) are more uncertain. While showing steady growth in the 1972-1995 time period, this area is in a position for expanded development spurred by the completion of Interstate 195.

It is unclear what effect CAFRA has had on development within the Barnegat Bay watershed. While the percentage of the watershed in the CAFRA zone that is developed has substantially increased (30% to 33% to 41% for the years 1972, 1984 and 1995 respectively), it can be argued that the rate of development could have been potentially much higher without CAFRA. Clearly, development in coastal wetland areas has been largely curtailed through the Coastal Wetlands Law. The Pinelands Land Management Act appears to have been successful in limiting development in the Preservation and Forest zones and shunting the development to the regulated growth areas. The initiation of new "mega" developments that were converting large chunks of upland forest prior to the enactment of Pinelands Reserve Act and CAFRA has been largely curtailed.

In the Pinelands, there is close coupling between the shallow groundwater aquifers and the region's surface water supplies. Due to the high porosity of the Pineland's soils, most of the precipitation quickly infiltrates into the soil, enters the shallow groundwater system, and then discharges directly into adjacent streams and wetlands (Ballard , 1979; Rhodehamel, 1979). This tight linkage between the region's groundwater aquifers and stream systems, makes it highly likely that contaminated groundwater is a major source of surface water contamination (Vowinkel and Siwiec, 1991). Morgan and Good (1988) and Zampella (1994) have shown that watershed disturbance through either agricultural or residential and urban development have substantial effects on Pinelands stream water quality. Watershed disturbance due to human development also has been shown to affect the species composition of Pinelands aquatic and wetland communities (Hastings, 1984; Morgan and Philipp, 1986; Ehrenfeld and Schneider 1991, 1993; Zampella and Laidig, 1997).

The many streams and rivers that drain the Barnegat Bay watershed serve as vital habitat for a freshwater-dependent flora and fauna that are unique to the Pinelands ecosystem. The low nutrient, high acid waters of undisturbed Pinelands stream systems support a distinctive fish fauna characterized by 13 native species and the absence of non-native species (Hastings 1984, Zampella and Bunnell, 1998). Sections of the Metedeconk and Toms Rivers, while not considered strictly Outer Coastal Plain-Pinelands streams, are classified as trout streams with a put-and-take trout fishery stocked by the New Jersey of Department of Fish, Game and Wildlife. This freshwater stream-and-river network also links human activities in upland areas and Barnegat Bay proper. The use of protected buffer strips where human development is excluded or minimized is one "best management practice" (BMP) that is often advocated as a means of reducing the impact of human development on adjacent riparian zones (NJDEPE, 1993; Zampella et al., 1994). In addition to reducing nonpoint source pollution, protected riparian buffers serve as vital habitat for both upland and wetland-dependent species. These riparian zones serve as important corridors for wildlife movement and dispersal, linking the coastal bay and interior Pinelands habitats.

Data on freshwater streams and rivers were derived from the NJDEP 1:24000 scale digital GIS data set for the Barnegat Bay watershed. A 90-m buffer out from both sides of all mapped stream/rivers was delineated to create a 180-m wide riparian corridor zone. When evaluated on a watershed-wide basis, approximately 20% of the riparian zone (as of 1995) is in altered land uses (i.e., developed, cultivated/grassland, or barren), 50% is in wetlands, and the remaining 30% in upland forest (Figure 3). To more clearly examine spatial patterns in riparian zone alteration, the percentage of altered riparian zone was calculated for each of Barnegat Bay's 13 subwatersheds (see Table 3). In addition, the percentage of Barnegat Bay's total inventory of altered riparian zone represented by each subwatershed was also calculated. As expected, the more highly developed northern watersheds exhibit the highest percentage of altered riparian zone. The Metedeconk River subwatershed stands out as having the largest riparian zone. Because a large percentage is altered, the Metedeconk River subwatershed represents a significant portion (> one-third) of the Barnegat Bay watershed's total inventory of altered riparian zone. Due to the intensity of development in the relatively small subwatersheds of Kettle Creek, Silver Bay and Stouts Creek, the riparian zone habitat in these subwatersheds are significantly degraded. The potential for non-point source pollution runoff problems and associated degradation of Barnegat Bay water quality would appear to be high for these subwatersheds due to their close proximity to the bay. In contrast, more than 90% of the riparian zones of the Cedar Creek, and to a lesser extent, the Union Branch, Forked River, and Westecunk Creek subwatersheds, is unaltered. The exceptionally high water quality in Cedar Creek is largely due to the low percentage of development in nearby watershed areas. Hence, the Cedar Creek subwatershed should serve as a reference for comparison of other subwatersheds (Zampella, 1994). Cedar Creek should be further targeted for conservation to protect the integrity of its water quality and riparian habitat and to maintain its value as a "pristine" Pinelands-Barnegat Bay tributary.

The conservation of large tracts of contiguous Pinelands habitat and the minimization of fragmentation are issues of concern to the Barnegat Bay Estuary Program (Forman, 1979; Good, 1982). Human development has the direct impact of removing existing natural habitat as well as fragmenting the habitat that remains into smaller pieces. Paved roads, as well as residential and industrial/commercial development often serve as barriers or hazards to wildlife movement and native plant dispersal. It also alters "natural" disturbance regimes. Within the Pinelands, there is some thought that fragmentation has decreased the frequency, intensity, and spatial pattern of the wildfire regime (Forman and Boerner, 1981). It has been suggested that changes in fire regime related to more effective fire control may result in changes in landscape patterns, including a gradual transition from pine to oak-dominated forests (Little, 1979; Forman and Boerner, 1981). Human development also causes "indirect" effects by creating a number of different types of intrusions with varying depth of impact into adjacent natural habitat. Examples of these intrusions are increased air, water, and noise pollution; changes in microclimatic conditions due to higher sunlight and wind levels; increased populations of invasive "weed" species; and increased frequency of disturbance due to direct contact with humans, human pets, and associated "rural/suburban pest" species. The border area affected by these disturbances is labelled edge, as compared to the undisturbed interior habitat (Zipperer, 1993).

A number of passerine songbirds such as warblers and vireos, that breed and forage in forested uplands and wetlands are strongly associated with forest interior as compared to edge habitat. A recent decline in the breeding populations of these migratory songbirds has been linked to the effects of forest fragmentation (Bohning-gaese et al., 1993; Robinson et al., 1995). Fragmentation has resulted in isolation of interior forest habitat (Whitcomb, 1977; Butcher et al., 1981; Blake and Karr, 1984), increased pressure by nest predators (Wilcove, 1985), and brood parasitism by cowbirds which shows higher frequency closer to the forest edges (Brittingham and Temple, 1983). In addition to forest interior nesting songbirds, there are a number of other so-called area-sensitive species that depend on large tracts of undisturbed interior habitat to maintain viable populations. Large raptors, such as red-shouldered hawks and barred owls, are area-sensitive species that require large blocks of mature forested wetlands and adjacent upland forest.

Many characteristic amphibian and reptilian species in the Pine Barrens are sensitive to habitat fragmentation and human disturbance through a variety of mechanisms. Certain characteristic Pine Barrens frogs (e.g., Pine Barrens tree frogs) have higher abundance in watersheds with low levels of human development; conversely, as human disturbance activity increases, there is an increase in the abundance of non-Pine Barrens frog species (Bunnel and Zampella 1999). Slow moving amphibians and reptiles are especially susceptible to road-kill and are therefore impacted by an increasing density of roads and traffic volumes (Zappalorti and Sykes, 1998).

A species of particular concern in the Pine Barrens, the timber rattlesnake, is considered a restricted range species because it relies on winter denning sites in Atlantic white cedar swamps. During the periods immediately before and after hibernation, the snakes congregate around these sites. This makes the snakes particularly susceptible to human disturbance.

GIS analysis was used to examine the present status and recent trends of forest interior in the Barnegat Bay watershed because it is a key habitat type. All forest habitat types, including both wetland and upland forest, were aggregated into a simple forest-nonforest binary map for both the 1984 and 1995 time periods. The 1992 time period was not investigated due to the great difference in spatial resolution of the 1972 data. Paved roads and existing developments were used as a boundary to fragment or demarc the individual patches of contiguous forest habitat. A GIS spatial analysis procedure called "clump analysis" was used to determine spatially contiguous tracts of forest habitat. Tracts smaller than 40 ha (~100 acres) were deemed to be too small to contain significant interior habitat. Hence, they were excluded from the analysis. Using a GIS spatial analysis procedure called "buffering," a 90-m buffer was delineated inside the boundary of every area of forest habitat patch to exclude the edge zone and leave only interior forest habitat. In 1984, there were approximately 87,750 ha of forest. Of this total, 55,050 ha or 63% were classified as interior forest habitat. As of 1995, there were approximately 81,630 ha of upland and wetland forest, with 52,800 ha (~65%) consisting of interior forest habitat. While there has been a 7% overall decline of forest habitat, the loss of interior forest habitat has been slightly less at 4% over the 10-year period. It appears that most of the forest loss and fragmentation has occurred in the northeastern quadrant of the watershed where the forest cover has been greatly fragmented.

Contiguous forest areas (i.e., not subdivided by roads) were delineated to further examine the issue of forest fragmentation. This analysis involved assessment of two components: 1) forest fragments as defined by all types of roads, including non-paved sand roads (Figure 4a); and 2) forest fragments as defined only by major roads, such as interstates, as well as state and county level roads (Figure 4b). The analysis was conducted for both the all roads and major roads only scenarios, because it was thought that the all roads scenario, with its inclusion of even relatively insignificant sand roads, may underestimate the size of Afunctional@ forest patches. The forests of the eastern half of the Barnegat Bay watershed are severely fragmented, contrasting very strongly with the largely unfragmented forests of the upper watershed regions. The Barnegat Bay watershed contains several individual forest tracts of large size (> 1000 ha) that are of statewide significance (Table 4). Some of these forest tracts rival in size those found in Wharton State Forest (the core of the Pinelands Preservation Area) as well as those in the New Jersey Highlands region (Lathrop, 1996). Some of the more notable interior tracts include the Forked River Mountains, the Berkeley Triangle, Greenwood Forest Wildlife Management Area/Double Trouble State Park, the Heritage Minerals tract, Bass River State Forest/Stafford Wildlife Management Area, and Maple Root Branch/Long Brook tract in Jackson Township. Though not quite as large in size, there are several large tracts of mixed wetland forest east of Route 9 that directly border Barnegat Bay (e.g., Manahawkin-Gunning River and Mill/Westecunk Creek areas) and serve as significant wildlife habitat for resident and migratory wildlife (e.g., nesting and migrating neotropical songbirds). These larger tracts, especially when found as contiguous clusters, serve to protect the integrity of Pinelands natural communities by reducing human-induced edge effects and protecting area-sensitive native fauna (e.g., timber rattlesnakes). The protection of large contiguous tracts of unfragmented forest habitat will help to minimize conflicts between forest land management practices, including enhancing the potential for the restoration of more natural fire disturbance regimes, and adjacent human development. Smaller fragmented forest patches may still have significant conservation value, especially in urban/suburban areas where they may serve as the only available wildlife habitat over large areas.

Large portions of the Barnegat Bay shoreline and adjacent shallow water habitats have been altered by bulkheading and nearshore development. The impact of bulkheading on estuarine ecological communities has not been thoroughly investigated; however, there are some obvious effects. Bulkheading deepens water depths, thereby reducing the areal extent of shallow water near-shore habitats such as intertidal flats and associated submerged aquatic vegetation beds, which are important habitats for a variety of fishes and estuarine invertebrates (Able et al., 1996). Bulkheading eliminates shoreline beach habitat important for shorebirds and terrapin turtles. In addition, the wooden timbers used in bulkheading are generally treated with toxic materials that may have negative impacts on the estuarine biota (Weis and Weis, 1996). Bulkheading is usually associated with marsh infilling/lagoonal development and other types of nearshore development. Bulkheading of the shoreline stabilizes the fill and provides mooring facilities for watercraft. Nearshore development (with or without bulkheading) directly impacts habitat value of the bay/upland by displacing native plant vegetation communities that may serve as feeding, nesting, and migrating habitat. It also indirectly impacts the habitat value of adjacent shallow water, shore, or salt marsh communities by increasing human/pet-wildlife encounters leading to a chronic disruption of feeding, resting, or nesting activity. In addition, human development and its associated impervious surfaces and horticultural practices directly upland of the bay tend to exacerbate runoff, sedimentation, and nonpoint source pollution. Thus, there is great value in protecting bay shorelines and adjacent uplands as a buffer zone.

Approximately 36% of the bay's shoreline (including fringing salt marsh, tidal creeks and bay islands) is bulkheaded (Figure 5a). When mapped tidal creeks are excluded, the length of manmade shoreline increases to 45%. To examine the composition of the upland shoreline zone more closely, the spatial analytical capabilities of the GIS were used to evaluate the composition of a 150-m-wide buffer of lands directly adjacent to Barnegat Bay and its fringing salt marshes (Figure 5b). The land cover within this upland buffer zone was classified as either natural vegetation (e.g., upland forest, wetland forest, beach, or freshwater emergent wetland) or developed/altered (e.g., developed, cultivated, or bare). Bulkheading, as derived from digital USGS topographic maps, was included in the altered land category. The results of the shoreline buffer analysis show that 71% (4,224 ha or 10,729 acres) of the shoreline buffer zone is presently developed/altered, leaving only 29% (1734 ha or 4,406 acres) in natural land covers. The bay can be divided into three general zones: (1) the northern section (north of the Toms River outlet) where both the barrier island and bayshores are largely developed with accompanying bulkheading; (2) the central section (south to Barnegat Inlet) which has extensive lagoonal development/bulkheading on the bayshore, while the barrier island shore is completely undeveloped (due to Island Beach State Park); and (3) the southern section (south to Little Egg Harbor Inlet) which has extensive development/bulkheading on the barrier island shore, while the bayshore is largely undeveloped.

Barnegat Bay is a shallow back-bay, lagoon-type estuary that was once nearly completely fringed by tidal salt marshes. Salt marshes and shallow water estuarine habitats provide food and refuge for many fishes and crustaceans of recreational and commercial value (Boesch and Turner, 1984; Able et al., 1996). They also serve as important habitat for birds, mammals, and other organisms (Daiber, 1974; Burger et al., 1982). About 14,850 ha of the watershed were mapped as tidal salt marsh in 1888. The present extent of tidal salt marsh is estimated to be 9,940 ha (Lathrop et al., 1999), which equates to a decrease of approximately 4,910 ha (33%) of tidal salt marsh area over the last century. Differences in estimates of salt marsh area during the past century may reflect: (1) real loss of wetland; or (2) differences due to classification/mapping accuracy (e.g., mapping of tidal creeks/ponds as separate from the marsh proper varies across the different maps). The positional accuracy of the 1888 maps, while surprisingly good, is still suspect in some places. These maps were produced entirely by plane table without the aid of aerial photographs or modern surveying equipment.

Closer examination of the data shows that probably only 3100-3200 ha of salt marshes have been directly lost due to development (dredging and infilling). When the 1888 maps are cross-tabulated against the 1995 land-use/land-cover maps, it is evident that approximately 3250 ha originally mapped as salt marsh in 1888 are now mapped as developed (including associated lagoons, as derived from the USGS digital hydrography data). Similar results are obtained when comparing the land-use/land-cover maps with maps generated by the Ocean County Soil Survey. Approximately 4,220 ha were mapped in the Ocean County Soil Survey (Soil Conservation Service, 1980) as fill material over tidal salt marsh (PO-Psamments, sulfidic substratum, as extracted from the NJDEP ITU data) (Figure 6a), which represents a 28.4% loss of original salt marsh area. When the maps are overlaid, approximately 3,460 ha mapped as salt marsh in 1888 are now mapped as fill (including associated lagoons, as derived from the USGS hydrography data). When the 1995 land cover and soil survey maps are combined, the composite loss estimate is 4190 ha. The original estimated loss of 4,910 ha of coastal wetlands area would therefore appear to be an overestimate. A more conservative estimate of the areal loss of coastal wetlands to the direct impacts of human development is 4190 ha, or approximately 28.2% of the original 1888 wetlands estimate. This leaves approximately 1160 ha (4910 - 4190 = 720 ha) that was mapped as salt marsh (in 1888) but is now mapped as some other category (other than salt marsh or development, e.g., water or mudflat). It is difficult to judge whether this additional 720 ha represents a real loss of wetlands, presumably due to natural or possibly indirect human disturbance processes, or is simply due to differences in classification or mapping accuracy. Although Barnegat Bay as a whole has lost slightly more than 25% of its salt marshes during the past century, some areas (most notably in the vicinity of the Barnegat Inlet) have actually experienced an increase in salt marsh area, presumably due to the stabilization of the inlet earlier earlier in the 20th century. Since the major modification of Barnegat Inlet in 1991, the salt marsh near Barnegat Inlet has undergone further change, including the loss of existing marsh area at some locations.

Early mosquito control in Ocean County began with source reduction. No chemical methods were used in the earliest years. From the very beginning the State Entomologist, Dr. J. B. Smith, recommended a unique method of eliminating mosquito breeding in salt marsh and dune areas of Barnegat Bay. The same Dr. J. B. Smith who would be instrumental in solving the mosquito problems during the building of the Panama Canal, had mosquito workers hand-dig permanent sink holes 8' X 8' and connect them with ditch systems that would intersect breeding areas on the marsh (Smith, 1907; Cranmer, 1919). These early Apond and radial@ systems supported tremendous populations of fish which would devour the mosquito larvae. This technique, first attempted at Beach Haven in 1907, would eventually become a major component of Open Marsh Water Management (OMWM), today's "state of the art" source reduction system (Daiber, 1986).

The 1930's brought the depression and then the "New Deal" which radically changed the face of mosquito control in the area. From 1933 to 1938, Ocean County utilized the services of various relief labor, such as the WPA and the CCC. By 1936, the work of this relict labor force created and maintained most of the more than 2,500 km (1,600) miles of drainage ditching in the area. Unfortunately, almost all of this work resulted in straight-line "grid" ditches whose purpose was to drain the marsh. While some mosquito control may have been accomplished at first, the ditches sealed off over time, and the marsh surface and potholes once again began to hold water (even as close as a few meters from a grid ditch), leading to renewed breeding of mosquito populations. Almost all of the grid ditches seen today were originally installed during those federal work project days. Very little "new work" on mosquito control was conducted between 1940 amd 1965. During this period, water management consisted only of maintaining and dredging the grid ditches to try and keep the systems functional.

There are approximately 950 km of parallel grid mosquito control ditches in Barnegat Bay salt marshes (Figure 6b). Using a 90-m buffer as the approximate zone of influence around a mosquito ditch, the amount of ditched marsh in the system is estimated to be 5,890 ha, which amounts to about 66% or two-thirds of the existing tidal salt marsh. The only extensive areas of unditched marsh are the Tuckerton Peninsula, the Gunning River area, and the Sedge Islands of Little Egg Harbor and Barnegat Inlets. However, the first two of the above sites have recently been altered by OMWM activities and are not considered in the above analysis.

In the 1960's and early 1970's, the OMWM system of source reduction was developed by Coastal County Mosquito Commissions, the New Jersey Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife, and Rutgers University (Ferrigno and Jobbins, 1968). This system was implemented and refined during the 1970's. In 1980, a set of "standards" was published (Bruder, 1980) These standards were developed to meet the three major objectives of OMWM: (1) to control mosquitoes; (2) to eliminate the use of insecticides; and (3) to enhance the tidal food web (Ferrigno et al., 1975). There are two basic habitat alterations used in OMWM: (1) tidal ditches; and (2) ponds and pond radials. Unlike the "grid" ditch systems of the 1930's era, drainage is no longer the objective of these systems. One of the major objectives is to increase the amount of surface water so that native fishes will increase in abundance and devour the mosquito larvae. Ponds serve as reservoirs for native killifish during times of low water, and the radial ditches provide access for the fish to areas that breed mosquitoes. No habitat alteration is made except directly where mosquito breeding occurs, thus limiting the actual amount of disturbance on the marsh. This method has also been shown to benefit certain aspects of the salt marsh habitat. Because this technique has been so effective in meeting all mosquito control objectives while having little detrimental effects on the tidal marsh, it has been adopted by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service as the technique of choice for mosquito source reduction on their wildlife refuges (Taylor, 1998).

The "Standards for Open Marsh Water Management" have been adopted by both state and federal regulatory agencies for use when evaluating applications for water management projects on salt marshes. This is the technique utilized by the Ocean County Mosquito Commission since 1970 for it's source reduction program in the Barnegat Bay region.

In the early days of mosquito control, water management was the mainstay of control efforts. No specific insecticide treatments were used until after World War II. Some applications of oil were made before then to control mosquito larvae and pupae; however, these were limited and made by hand. In July 1945, the military made the first applications of the insecticide DDT as an adulticide on Island Beach State Park (Candeletti et al., 1977). The Ocean County Mosquito Commission believed that more studies should be conducted on both the use of this insecticide and the use of adulticides in general. After a period of time, however, the commission started to use DDT. Use of the insecticide was slow at first, with Ocean County making limited application, and various municipal governments developing their own ground-fogging programs.

In 1959, New Jersey experienced an eastern equine encephalitis epidemic (Kandle, 1960) In Ocean County, there were 18 cases which resulted in 10 deaths. This precipitated a coordinated mosquito larvicide and adulticide effort in the Barnegat Bay region, including state, county, and municipal government initiatives (Potter et al., 1960). Ten years later and three years before DDT was banned by state and federal governments, the Ocean County Mosquito Commission discontinued all use of DDT for mosquito control in the Barnegat Bay-Little Egg Harbor estuary. Subsequently, all insecticide applications consisted of low persistence, short-lived, highly specific products. The larviciding agents used today are not typical chemical insecticides. They are third generation products such as biologicals and insect growth regulators. These are highly specific for mosquito larvae and have been extensively tested against non-targets with little or no effect.

The primary focus of mosquito control in the Barnegat Bay region over the last thirty years has been to moderate adult mosquito populations to tolerable levels and keep the threat of disease to a minimum by utilizing an integrated program of the latest techniques. Today, mosquito control in the Barnegat Bay-Little Egg Harbor estuary utilizes an "Integrated Management" program based on the Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program adopted by the New Jersey Mosquito Control Association (Bruder 1998). A comprehensive surveillance system monitors adult mosquito populations and vector potential. This guides a coordinated chemical control, biological control, and source reduction system. The primary method of chemical control at the Ocean County level is larviciding. Two Bell Jetranger 206B helicopters are utilized to cover the 11,340 ha of salt marsh. Several truck mounted hydraulic sprayers are used to reach areas inaccessible to helicopters. They also handle upland mosquito larviciding. The helicopters inspect the salt marsh areas at least twice a week during the mosquito breeding season and treat any larvae found. The trucks make a continuous circuit through all parts of Ocean County starting early in the spring and continuing into October. The control agents used are the latest highly specific, non-persistent, and most environmentally sound available. State-of-the-art insect growth regulators and biological agents are presently used. Larviciding is the method of choice because very small amounts of these very low toxicity insecticides can be used at limited breeding sites to keep the adult mosquitoes from emerging and spreading over a large area. If the adult mosquito populations attain an extraordinary high abundance level or there is disease potential, then a request is made of the State Mosquito Control Commission to perform an aerial adulticide. Once again, the safest and most effective materials available are used.

Since the inception of Open Marsh Water Management in Barnegat Bay in 1970, several thousand hectares of salt marsh have been treated and no longer require any more larviciding. This is the direction that the Ocean County Mosquito Commission is progressing. Water management is a slow process, accomplishing approximately 203 ha annually. However, the commission has made a commitment to gradually replace continued temporary larvicide treatments with the more permanent and habitat friendly system of Open Marsh Water Management. Until such time that a given section of mosquito breeding salt marsh is subjected to this system, the Commission is committed to using larvicides that are recommended by the Agricultural Experiment Station at Rutgers University and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection for use in the salt marsh. The commission has initially targeted some of the most prolific mosquito breeding areas for Open Marsh Water Management, so that the greatest reduction in larvicide concentrations is achieved. Projects in Lacey Township, Barnegat Township, and Little Egg Harbor Township are now being conducted. Near future work is anticipated in Berkeley, Stafford, and Eagleswood Townships. The majority of this work will be accomplished on the Edwin B. Forsythe Refuge.

Submerged aquatic vascular plants occur along the shallow margins of the estuary, generally in waters less than 1 m in depth. Eelgrass (Zostera marina) is the dominant seagrass species in Barnegat Bay, forming dense beds particularly on sandflats along the backside of the barrier island system (Macomber and Allen , 1979). Widgeon grass (Ruppia maritima) is of secondary importance, also attaining highest concentrations on the eastern sand flats. Locally dense beds of sago pondweed (Potamogeton pectinatus) appear north of Toms River, with lesser quantities of horned pondweed (Zannichellia palustris), widgeon grass, and eelgrass. Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) has several functional roles in the Barnegat Bay-Little Egg Harbor estuarine system. It serves as critically important habitat for benthic epifauna and infauna (Good et al., 1978). Some organisms graze on SAV (e.g., gastropods, fish, ducks, muskrats). Some benthic macrovegetation (e.g., Zostera marina) also represents valuable spawning, nursery, and feeding grounds for finfish populations in the estuary. They likewise stabilize the benthic habitat by baffling waves and currents and mitigating substrate erosion.

Mapped information on the spatial distribution of SAV beds for Barnegat Bay was derived from several sources. The first mapped survey was undertaken in 1968 (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1976). The methods for this study were not detailed, but is presumed to have been a boat-based survey. The Earth Satellite Corporation produced a 1:24,000 scale map series for the entire bay based on the interpretation of black and white aerial photography and low altitude sea plane reconnaissance during the summer of 1979 (photos were taken in June and August, and field checked July through September) (Macomber and Allen, 1979).The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) incorporated the Earth Satellite Corporation maps into the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) for the State of New Jersey. The Bureau of Shellfisheries of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy collected information on eelgrass distribution, water depth, and bottom sediments in conjunction with an estuarine shellfish inventory of the Barnegat Bay-Little Egg Harbor estuarine system conducted between 1985 and 1987 (Joseph et al., 1992). Paul "Pete" McLain conducted a field survey of SAV during the summers of 1996, 1997, and 1998 (McLain and McHale, 1997). The various maps were digitized, superimposed, and analyzed to examine the consistency in mapping interpretation as well as possible changes in the spatial distribution of the SAV between the 1960's, 1970's, 1980's, and 1990's.

The 1968 survey (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1976), which included the area of Barnegat Bay north of the Route 72 bridge, mapped 6,823 ha (16,847 ac) of SAV dominated by either Zostera marina or Ruppia maritima (Figure 7a). The 1979 SAV survey (Macomber and Allen,1979) mapped 10,783 ha (26,647 ac) of SAV of varying density (Figure 7b). Excluding areas mapped as general undifferentiated or low density SAV, 8,512 ha (21,033 ac) were mapped as dominated (> 80%) by either Zostera marina or Ruppia maritima. The 1980's survey (Joseph et al., 1992) mapped approximately 8,800 ha (21,745 ac) as eelgrass-dominated SAV beds (Figure 7c). The later 1990's survey of McLain mapped only 5,677 ha (14,029 ac) of eelgrass or widgeon grass-dominated SAV beds (Figure 7d). A GIS spatial comparison of the changes observed between the 1960's, 1970's and 1980's surveys reveals minor shifts in the spatial distribution that might be due to real changes in SAV distribution or purely artifacts of differences in the survey and mapping methodologies. Comparison of these earlier maps with the 1990's survey shows an overall decrease of eelgrass beds amounting to approximately 3,000 ha (7,400 ac) (Table 1).

The SAV beds in the far northern portion of Barnegat Bay and in the Metedeconk River have shown the greatest change over time. The 1968 survey revealed that the Metedeconk River portion of the bay was dominated by extensive beds of sea lettuce (Ulva lactuca), whereas the 1979 survey showed that the area was dominated by Zostera though with significant component of Ulva. Results of the 1990's surveys suggest that there has been a loss of SAV in the deeper waters of the bay, resulting in the contraction of the beds to the shallower subtidal flats (< 2 m depth) since the 1960's. From the Metedeconk River south to Toms River, this contraction appears to have been especially severe with the outright loss of beds by the time of the 1990's survey. There is also some indication of the loss of beds in southern Little Egg Harbor. SAV beds mapped in the 1970's were absent in surveys conducted in the 1980's and 1990's. However, examination of the survey conducted by Good et al. (1978) for this same study area did not map extensive beds in the southern Little Egg Harbor region. In addition, there are questions regarding labelling in the 1970's surveys, leading to uncertainty as to whether these beds were Zostera-dominated or general SAV. Due to the great difference in mapping methods, we must be cautious in directly attributing the decrease in eelgrass acreage to a large-scale dieback of eelgrass. The 1970's survey (Macomber and Allen,1979) relied on aerial photography complemented by float plane-assisted field checking. The 1980's survey (Joseph et al., 1992) relied on a boat-based systematic grid sampling (one-quarter mile interval), whereas the 1990's survey (McLain and McHale, 1997) was a more informal boat-based survey. The 1970's and 1980's surveys might be expected to provide a more complete coverage of the bay, especially along the western bayshore which was not exhaustively inventoried during the 1990's survey.

While it is difficult to conclusively establish that there has been a major dieback and loss of eelgrass acreage, there is reason for concern over the status of eelgrass beds in Barnegat Bay. SAV beds are an important component of the bay ecosystem and can serve as as sensitive indicator of the bay's overall health. The status of Barnegat Bay's SAV beds takes on larger regional significance, when one considers that Barnegat Bay-Little Egg Harbor contains over 75% of New Jersey's SAV habitat. The temporal and spatial shifts of SAVs in the Barnegat Bay ecosystem likely result from naturally-occurring cycles (Loveland et al., 1984), although anthropogenic activities such as dredging and nutrient loading may be detrimental. Disease is responsible for significant declines of SAV during certain years. For example, McClain and McHale (1997) showed that wasting disease, presumably caused by the protist Labyrinthula zosterae, destroyed about 400 ha of eelgrass beds in Barnegat Bay in 1995. Less disease and SAV destruction occurred in 1996, although as much as 50% of eelgrass leaves exhibited wasting disease at this time. To further elucidate spatial and temporal patterns of SAV decline and regrowth, as well as potential causal factors such as disease or infestations of epiphytic algae, a SAV monitoring program based on aerial photography and field sampling using consistent methodology should be initiated and continued on a regular basis (i.e., 5-10 year intervals).

By digitally overlaying (on a GIS) the maps showing the spatial location of salt marsh, undeveloped shoreline buffer, and interior forest with maps of public conservation ownership (Figure 8), Lathrop et al. (1999) conducted a "gap" analysis to determine gaps in the conservation protection of these high value habitat areas. Table 5 shows the amount and percentage of each Barnegat Bay subwatershed that is presently in some form of public ownership, primarily as conservation/open space (though, these figures do include military reservations).

Gap analysis of salt marsh habitats reveals that approximately 90% (8894 ha) of Barnegat Bay's salt marshes are presently protected in some form of public conservation ownership (e.g., national wildlife refuge, state game management area, state/local park, private conservation land trust) (Figure 8). The salt marsh habitat GIS model was constructed to rank areas as to their importance as feeding habitat for selected fish-eating bird species, namely black skimmers (Rynchops niger), Forster's terns (Sterna forsteri) and assorted herons and egrets based on the work of Burger et al. (1982) and Burger (1997). Salt marsh areas that have undergone extensive modification by parallel ditching were ranked as having lower habitat value. Parallel ditching drains the surface water (mosquito breeding habitat), and it is generally accepted that parallel ditching has a variety of negative impacts on marsh ecological community structure (Whigham et al., 1982). Salt marsh with a high proportion of open water (i.e., fish habitat) due to ponds, small embayments or tidal creek were ranked as having higher habitat value. Salt marshes with neither ponds/creeks/embayments nor parallel mosquito ditching were ranked as having medium habitat value. Over 99% of the highest value unditched marsh is presently in public ownership (Figure 9). Recently, the Trust for Public Land has purchased several of the larger tracts of remaining undeveloped wetland areas along the western shore of central and northern Barnegat Bay as part of their Century Plan effort (Blanchard, 1995, 1997).

With over 70% of Barnegat Bay shoreline already developed, the remaining undeveloped shoreline areas are especially valuable as open space. These undeveloped shorelines serve to buffer the bay from upland development, and they provide valuable wildlife habitat. Approximately 70% of the remaining undeveloped shoreline is in some form of public conservation ownership. These shoreline buffer areas with their expansive waterfront or marsh views represent some of the more valuable real estate in the Barnegat Bay region and are therefore under heavy development pressure. Unlike other estuaries, such as the Chesapeake Bay, where there are strict buffer or setback requirements, the Barnegat Bay shoreline is not specifically protected under present state land use regulations. The largest stretch of unprotected shoreline buffer area is along the western shore of Little Egg Harbor in the Mill Creek/Westecunk Creek and Tuckerton Creek subwatersheds. The salt marsh land in this area has been largely preserved as part of Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge. These areas should receive priority in future U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service acquisition efforts. Without an aggressive program to specifically protect these critical buffer lands through conservation easements or fee simple purchase, it is likely that there will be continued conversion and habitat loss.

A number of Barnegat Bay islands serve as nesting places for a variety of shorebirds and colonial nesting birds. Colonial nesting birds such as common terns (Sterna hirundo), black skimmers (Rhynchops niger) and Forster's terns (Sterna forsteri) normally build their nest on the ground. These colonial nesting birds nest almost exclusively on salt marsh or dredge spoil islands to minimize disturbance by mammalian predators (Burger, 1997). Sixty-one Barnegat Bay islands were ranked as to their importance as nesting habitat for common terns (Sterna hirundo), black skimmers (Rhynchops niger) and Forster's terns (Sterna forsteri) based on more than a 20-year record (from the mid-1970's to the present) of personal observations (Joanna Burger, Rutgers University, personal communication, 1999). The following ranking system was devised:

1) islands with no recorded nesting activity;

2) islands with low nesting activity (< 1/4 yrs of record);

3) islands with medium nesting activity (< 1/2 yrs but

> 1/4 yrs of record or currently active 2 out last 3 yrs);

4) islands with high nesting activity (> 1/2 yrs of record); and

5) islands with high nesting activity of 2 or more species.

In Addition, a subset of Barnegat Bay islands used as nesting sites for wading birds (herons, egrets, and ibises) and listed by Burger (1997) was included. Table 6 lists the 61 islands/island groups evaluated and their ranking, as well as their protection status. Lathrop (see Blanchard 1997) conducted a gap analysis of Barnegat Bay islands in conjunction with the Trust for Public Land to prioritize acquisition efforts as part of the Century Plan (Blanchard, 1995). The results of this Barnegat Bay island gap analysis is displayed in Figure 10.

Approximately 44% of the crucial interior forest (both upland and wetland) areas in the Barnegat Bay watershed are presently protected by some form of public conservation ownership (Figure 11). A significant portion of the three largest tracts (> 1000 ha) of contiguous, un-roaded forest are protected. There are still extensive areas of contiguous forest land within the watershed that are presently unprotected. Some of the more notable, largely unprotected tracts include the Forked River Mountains, the Berkeley Triangle, the Heritage Minerals tract and Maple Root Branch/Long Brook tract, in Jackson Township. The fact that most of the larger tracts are within the Pinelands Reserve and thus receive some form of protection is encouraging. However, Pinelands jurisdiction does not preclude future low-density development, which would still have a fragmenting impact on these forests. The best long-term solution to maintaining large tracts of contiguous Pinelands forest in the Barnegat Bay watershed is through some form of public ownership or conservation easement. These areas are included in the Trust for Public Land's (TPL's) Century Plan (Blanchard, 1995), and should receive priority in future public open space acquisition efforts.

Other critical wildlife habitat areas that should receive special consideration are coastal dune scrub/shrub and large areas of cultivation/grassland. A gap analysis was not specifically conducted for these habitats. While extensive remnants exist at Island Beach State Park and at the Holgate section of Forsythe National Wildlife refuge (and to a lesser extent at Barnegat Light State Park), the dune scrub/shrub and woodland communities of the barrier islands fronting Barnegat Bay have largely been destroyed or substantially altered. The natural dune system has been obliterated along great stretches of New Jersey's Atlantic shoreline. Dune grass and shrub vegetation serves a useful role in stabilizing dunes and protecting beaches against wind and wave erosion. Where feasible, dunes are being reconstructed and re-vegetated to help impede beach erosion. However, more could be accomplished by encouraging homeowners in the lower density residential areas of the barrier islands to preserve the natural dune grass and scrub vegetation. These maritime shrublands and woodlands provide important stop-over habitat for numerous species of songbirds and raptors migrating along the Atlantic Coastal Flyway. Large contiguous areas of active or abandoned farmland and grassland habitat are not common in the Barnegat Bay region. Several threatened birds, such as grasshopper sparrows (Ammodramus savannarum), can be found on the few remaining areas of pasture/hay fields or unmanaged grasslands which are used as nesting habitat. This type of habitat is largely restricted to the upper reaches of the Metedeconk and Toms River subwatersheds where some of these open habitat areas have been conserved through farmland preservation programs (e.g., Plumsted Township). Other important grassland habitats are associated with the region=s airports (e.g., Lakehurst Naval Air Station) and abandoned gravel pits (e.g., Heritage Minerals tract). Where feasible, these tracts should continue to be managed with the objective of maintaining grassland-dependent nesting birds.

The Barnegat Bay-Little Egg Harbor estuary and its upland watershed represent a rich diversity of coastal and Pinelands habitats. While significantly altered by human land-use activities, many of these habitats are still largely intact functioning natural communities. Through government legislation and regulation, some of the most destructive past practices, such as dredging and filling of coastal salt and freshwater marshes, have been largely eliminated. However, development and the consequent loss of upland forests proceed apace. While large expanses of upland and wetland habitats are presently protected as public open space, additional open space acquisition is justified on the following grounds: 1) for watershed protection to insure high quality inflow to Barnegat Bay; 2) for protection of habitat for commercially, recreationally and ecological important flora and fauna; and 3) for protection of open space for human recreation and aesthetic enjoyment. While this project has been successful in mapping and quantifying the present status and trends of many important Barnegat Bay habitats, there are still many unanswered questions. The apparent decline in submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) beds, a critical benthic habitat, is a cause for concern and deserves further investigation. The critical thresholds which, when exceeded, cause habitat loss and fragmentation and the decline of species are not well understood. Similarly, while there is a clear indication that human development leads to declining freshwater tributary water quality due to non-point source pollution, quantifying this impact and developing direct causal relationships between upland development and consequent degradation of water quality and aquatic habitats in the estuary is more difficult. Much more research also must be conducted on the relationship between loss and alteration in the estuary watershed and impacts and impacts on nesting birds in the system.

Able, K. W., D. A. Witting, R. S. McBride, R. A. Rountree, and K. J. Smith. 1996. Fishes of polyhaline estuarine shores in Great Bay-Little Egg Harbor, New Jersey: a case study of seasonal and habitat influences. Pp. 335-353 in Nordstrom, K. F. and C. T. Roman (eds.), Estuarine Shores: Evolution, Environments ans Human Alterations. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Ballard, J. T. 1979. Fluxes of water and energy through the Pine Barrens Ecosystems. Pp. 133-146 in Forman, R. T. T. (ed.), Pine Barrens: ecosystem and landscape. Academic Press, New York.

Blake, J. G. and J. R. Karr. 1984. Species composition or bird

communities and the conservation benefit of large versus small forests. Biol. Conserv., 30:173-187.

Blanchard, P. P. 1995. The Century Plan. Tech. Rept., Trust for Public Land. Morristown, New Jersey.

Blanchard, P. P. 1997. Beyond the Century Plan. Tech. Rept., Trust for Public Land. Morristown, New Jersey.

Boesch, D. F. and R. E. Turner. 1984. Dependence of fishery species on salt marshes: the role of food and refuge. Estuaries, 7:460-468.

Bohning-gaese, K., M. L. Taper, and J. H. Brown. 1993. Are declines in North American insectivorous songbirds due to causes on the breeding range. Conserv. Biol., 7:76-86.

Bontempo, K. W. 1980. The economic importance of encephalitis in New Jersey. Proc. N. J. Mosq. Exterm. Assoc., 47:155-158.

Bourne, W. S. and C. Cottam. 1950. Some biological effects of ditching tidewater marshes. Res. Rept. 19, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

Brittingham, M. C. and S. A. Temple. 1983. Have cowbirds caused forest songbirds to decline? Bioscience, 33:31-35.

Bruder, K. W. 1980. THe establishment of Unified Open Marsh Water Management Standards in New Jersey. Proc. N. J. Mosq. Cont. Assoc., 85 (in press).

Bruder, K. W. 1998. The Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program. Proc. N. J. Mosq. Cont. Assoc., 85 (in press).

Burger, J., J. Shisler, and F. H. Lesser. 1982. Avian utilization on six salt marshes in New Jersey. Biol. Conserv., 23:187-212.

Burger, J. 1997a. An evaluation of nearshore and island sites for the Trust for Public Land. Final Report of the Habitat Research Component of the Barnegat Bay Initiative, Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey.

Burger, J. 1997b. Identification of habitat use and prey selection dynamics as indicators of high quality habitat in estuarine systems. Final Report of the Habitat Research Component of the Barnegat Bay Initiative. Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey.

Butcher, G. S., W. A. Niering, W. J. Barry, and R. H. Goodwin. 1981. Equilibrium biogeography and the size of nature preserves: an avian case study. Oecologia, 49:29-37.

Bunnel, J. F. and R. A. Zampella. 1999. Acid water anuran communities along a regional forest to agro-urban ecotone. Copeia, 1999:614-627.

Candeletti, R., Candeletti, T., and Kent, R. 1988. The Amphibious Rotary Excavator: new equipment for salt marsh management in New Jersey. Proc. N. J. Mosq. Cont. Assoc., 75:102-108.

Candeletti, T. and H. Lesser. 1977. Mosquito control techniques on Island Beach State Park. Proc. N. J. Mosq. Cont. Assoc., 64:39-42.

Collins, B. R. and E. B. Russell (Eds.). 1988. Protecting the New Jersey Pinelands: A New Direction in Land-use Management. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, New Jersey.

Cranmer, C. H. 1919. Ocean County report. Proc. N. J. Mosq. Exterm. Assoc., 6:47-50.

Daiber, F. C. 1974. Salt marsh plants and future coastal salt marshes in relation to animals. Pp. 475-508 in Reimold, R. J. and W. H. Queen (eds.), Ecology of Halophytes. Academic Press, New York.

Daiber, F. C. 1986. Conservation of Tidal Marshes. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.

Dobson, J. E., E. A., Bright, R. L. Ferguson, D. W. Field, L. L. Wood, K. D. Haddad, H. Iredale, J. R. Jensen, V. V. Klemas, R. J. Orth, and J. P. Thomas. 1994. NOAA Coastal Change Analysis Program (C-CAP): guidance for regional implementation. NOAA Technical Report NMFS 123, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Seattle, Washington.

Ehrenfeld, J. G. and J. P. Schneider. 1991. Chameacyparis thyoides wetlands and suburbanization: effects on hydrology, water quality, and plant community composition. J. Appl. Ecol., 28:467-490.

Ehrenfeld, J. G. and J. P. Schneider. 1993. Responses of forested wetland vegetation to perturbations of water chemistry and hydrology. Wetlands, 13:122-129.

Ferrigno, F. and D. M. Jobbins. 1968. Open Marsh Water Management. Proc. N. J. Mosq. Exterm. Assoc., 55:104-115.

Ferrigno, F., L. Widjeskog, and S. Toth. 1973. Marsh destruction. P. R. Project W-533-R-1, Job I-G.

Ferrigno, F., P. Slavin, and D. M. Jobbins. 1975. Salt marsh water management for mosquito control. Proc. N. J. Mosq. Cont. Exterm. Assoc., 62:30-38.

Forman, R. T. T. 1979. The Pine Barrens of New Jersey: an ecological mosaic. Pp. 569-585 in Forman, R. T. T., (ed.), Pine Barrens: Ecosystem and Landscape. Academic Press, New York.

Forman, R. T. T. and R. E. Boerner. 1981. Fire frequency and the Pine Barrens of New Jersey. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club, 108: 34-50.

Garcia, A. A. and W. J. Crans. 1989. A geographic distribution of eastern equine encephalitis epidemic and epizootics in New Jersey from 1975 to 1988. Proc. N. J. Mosq. Cont. Assoc., 76:100-105.

Good, R. E., J. Limb, E. Lyszczek, M. Miernik, C. Ogrosky, N. Psuty, J. Ryan, and F. Sickels. 1978. Analysis and delineation of submerged vegetation of coastal new Jersey: a case study of Little Egg Harbor. Tech. Rept., Center for Coastal and Environmental Studies, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey.

Good, R. E. (Ed.). 1982. Ecological solutions to environmental management concerns in the Pinelands National Reserve. Tech. Rept., Center for Coastal and Environmental Studies, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey.

Hastings, R. W. 1984. The fishes of the Mullica River, a naturally acid water system of the New Jersey Pine Barrens. Bull. N. J. Acad. Sci., 29:9-23.

Headlee, T. J. 1945. The Mosquitos of New Jersey and Their Control. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, New Jersey.

Joseph, J., K. Purdy, and B. Figley. 1992. The influence of water depth and bottom sediment on the occurrence of eelgrass in Barnegat, Manahawkin, and Little Egg Harbor Bays. Tech. Rept., Marine Fisheries Administration, Division Fish, Game and Wildlife, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy, Nacote Creek, New Jersey.

Kandle, R. P. 1960. Eastern encephalitis in New Jersey, 1959. Proc. N. J. Mosq. Exterm. Assoc., 47:11-15.

Lathrop, R. G., J. A. Bognar and A. C. Hendrickson. 1999. Data synthesis effort for the Barnegat bay Estuary Program: habitat loss and alteration in the Barnegat Bay region. Tech. Rept., Barnegat Bay Estuary Program, Toms River, New Jersey.

Lathrop, R. G., Jr. 1996. Assessing the status of fragmentation in the New York-New Jersey Highlands. Pp. 316-324 in Proceedings of Eco-Informa '96, Lake Buena Vista, Florida.

Little, S. 1979. Fire and plant succession in the New Jersey Pine Barrens. Pp. 297-314 in Forman, R. T. T. (ed.), Pine Barrens: Ecosystem and Landscape. Academic Press, New York.

Loveland, R. E. and J. J. Vouglitois. 1984. Benthic fauna. Pp. 135-170 in Kennish, M. J. and R. A. Lutz (eds.), Ecology of Barnegat Bay, New Jersey. Springer-Verlag, New York.

McClain, P. and M. McHale. 1997. Barnegat Bay eelgrass investigation 1995-96. Pp. 165-171 in Flimlin, G. E. and M. J. Kennish, (eds.), Proceedings of the Barnegat Bay Workshop. Cooperative Extension of Ocean County, Toms River, New Jersey.

Macomber, R. T., and D. Allen. 1979. The New Jersey submerged aquatic vegetation distribution atlas final report. Tech. Rept., Earth Satellite Corporation, Washington, D. C.

Meredith, W. H., D. E. Saveikis, and C. J. Stachecki. 1985. Guidelines for "Open Marsh Water Management" in Delaware's salt marshes - objectives, system designs, and installation procedures. Wetlands, 5:119-133.

Morgan, M. D. and K. R. Philipp. 1986. The effect of agricultural and residential development on aquatic macrophytes in the New Jersey Pine Barrens. Biol. Conserv., 25:143-158.

Morgan, M. D. and R. E. Good. 1988. Stream chemistry in the New Jersey Pinelands: the influence of precipitation and watershed disturbance. Water Resourc. Res., 24:1091-1100.

NJDEPE. 1993. A watershed management plan for Barnegat Bay. Tech. Rept., New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy, Trenton, New Jersey.

NJDEP. 1996. New Jersey Geographic Information System CD-ROM Series 1, Vol. 4, October 8, 1996, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Trenton, New Jersey.

Potter, D., W. D. Henderson, F. A. Reiley, B. M. Lafferty, and A. Levich. 1960. Summary of Ocean, Burlington, Atlantic, Cape May, and Cumberland County Mosquito Commission Control operations during the 1959 eastern viral encephalitis outbreak. Proc. N. J. Mosq. Exterm. Assoc., 47:76-80.

Rhodehamel, E. C. 1979. Hydrology of the New Jersey Pine Barrens. Pp. 39-60 in Forman, R. T. T. (ed.), Pine Barrens: Ecosystem and Landscape. Academic Press, New York.

Robbins, C. S., D. K. Dawson, and B. A. Dowell. 1989. Habitat area requirements of breeding forest birds of the Middle Atlantic states. Wildlife Monogr., 103:1-34.

Robinson, S. K., F. R. Thompson, T. M. Donovan, D. R. Whitehead, and J. Faaborg. 1995. Regional forest fragmentation and the nesting success of migratory birds. Science, 267:1987-1990.

Soil Conservation Service. 1980. Soil Survey of Ocean County. Tech. Rept., U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, New Brunswick, New Jersey.

Smith, K. J. and K. W. Able. 1994. Salt-marsh tide pools as winter refuges for the mummichog, Fundulus heteroclitus, in New Jersey. Estuaries, 17:226-234.

Schulze, T. L. 1992. Malaria in New Jersey-1991. Proc. N. J. Mosq. Cont. Assoc., 79:123-129.

Smith, J. B. 1907. Pp. 524-531 in Report of the Department of Entomology. Tech. Rept., New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey.

Taylor J. 1998. Guidance for meeting U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service resource needs when conducting coastal marsh management for mosquito control on Region 5 national wildlife refuges. U. S. Fish and Wildife Service, Region 5, Boston, Massachusetts.

Tiner, R. W. 1985. Wetlands of New Jersey. Tech. Rept., U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory, Newton Corner, Massachusetts.

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1976. Aquatic Plant Control Project for the State of New Jersey: Design Memorandum No. 1. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Significant habitats and habitat complexes of the New York Bight watershed. Tech. Rept., U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Coastal Ecosystems Program, Charlestown, Rhode Island.

Vowinkel, E. F. and S. F. Siwiec. 1991. Plan to evaluate the effects of hydrogeologic conditions and human activities on water quality in the coastal plain of New York and New Jersey. Water Resources Investigations Report 91-4091, U. S. Geological Survey, West Trenton, New Jersey.

Weis, J. S. and P. Weis. 1996. The effects of using wood treated with chromated copper arsenate in shallow-water environments: a review. Estuaries, 19:306-310.

Whigham, D. F., J. O'Neill, and M. McWethy. 1982. Ecological implications of manipulating coastal wetlands for purposes of mosquito control. Pp. 459-476 in Wetlands: Ecology and Management. Proceedings of the First International Wetlands Conference, New Delhi, India, September, 1980.

Whitcomb, R. F. 1977. Island biogeography and "habitat islands" of the eastern forest. I. Introduction. Am. Birds, 31:3-5.

Wilcove, D. S. 1985. Nest predation in forest tracts and the decline of migratory songbirds. Ecology, 66:1211-1214.

Zampella, R. A. 1994. Characterization of surface water quality along a watershed disturbance gradient. Water Resourc. Bull., 30:605-611.

Zampella, R. A., R. G. Lathrop, J. A. Bognar, L. J. Craig, and K. J. Laidig. 1994. A watershed based wetland assessment method for the New Jersey Pinelands. Tech. Rept., New Jersey Pinelands Commission, New Lisbon, New Jersey.

Zampella, R. A. and K. J. Laidig. 1997. Effect of watershed disturbance on Pinelands stream vegetation. J. Torry Bot. Soc., 124:52-66.

Zampella, R. A. and J. F. Bunnell. 1998. Use of reference-site fish assemblages to assess aquatic degradation in Pinelands streams. Ecol. Appl., 8:645-658.

Zappalorti, R. T. and S. A. Sykes. 1998. Amphibians and reptiles of the Barnegat Bay drainage basin with life history notes of selected species. Unpublished Report to the Center for Remote Sensing and Spatial Analysis, Rutgers University, New Brunswick.

Zipperer, W. C. 1993. Deforestation patterns and their effects on forest patches. Landscape Ecol., 8:177-184.

Tables

Table 1. Area Estimates For Level I 1972, 1984 and 1995 land Use/Land Cover Maps

Table 1a. 1972 Level I Land Use/Land Cover

Table 2. Development trends for the 1972-1984-1995 time periods by Barnegat Bay sub-watershed, expressed in area (ha) and as % of sub-watershed (excluding Barnegat Bay proper).

Table 3. Riparian buffer zone analysis including % of individual sub-watershed freshwater riparian zones that are in human altered land covers and the % of Barnegat Bay=s total inventory of altered riparian zone represented by each sub-watershed. The riparian zone represents a

90 m buffer (total 180 m width zone) around all freshwater streams/rivers.

Table 4. Size Distribution of Forest Fragments.

Table 4a. With All roads as boundaries.

Table 4b. With only Major Roads as boundaries.

Table 5. Publicly-owned land within the Barnegat Bay region, by sub-watershed.

Table 6. Barnegat Bay island gap analysis with bird nesting habitat ranking and protection status.

Figure 1. Barnegat Bay study area (include Little Egg Harbor) with adjoining upland watershed and administrative zones.

 

Figure 2. Land cover in the Barnegat Bay watershed for the years 1972, 1984 and 1995.

Figure 3. Riparian corridor buffer zones in the Barnegat Bay watershed.

Figure 4. Contiguous forest patches in the Barnegat Bay watershed.

Figure 5. Shoreline development in the Barnegat Bay watershed including bulkheaded and developed shoreline buffer.

Figure 6. Salt marsh loss and alteration including areas of filled marsh and areas of mosquito ditching.

Figure 7. Distribution of Seagrasses in Barnegat Bay over the past four decades.

Figure 8. Distribution of publicly owned land in the Barnegat Bay watershed.

Figure 9. Salt Marsh Gap analysis for Barnegat Bay Watershed

Figure 10. Island Gap analysis for Barnegat Bay Watershed

Figure 11. Interior Forest Gap analysis for Barnegat Bay Watershed