Stream ecology of an urbanizing watershed in the New Jersey Pine Barrens W.J. Cromartie*, J. Akers, D. Cummings, J. Cook, J. Leckenbush and G. Millar.

Stream ecology of an urbanizing watershed in the

New Jersey Pine Barrens

W.J. Cromartie*, J. Akers, D. Cummings, J. Cook, J. Leckenbush and G. Millar.

Environmental Studies Program, Richard Stockton College, Pomona, NJ, USA

ABSTRACTIn the NJ Pine Barrens, landuse, water chemistry and aquatic biota are changing as urban

development encroaches. The watershed of Babcock Creek, in Atlantic County, presents an opportunity to study four tributaries, each of which has been affected in different ways by changing landuse. Viewed counter-clockwise, from south to north: Adams Branch is highly urbanized, with elevated pH, and the ditched streambed carries a heavy load of sand. Jack Pudding Branch has the most agricultural land and high pH. Its upper section is impounded and ditched as well. Babcock Creek, the central stem, is least disturbed. Much of its watershed is hardwood swamp or Atlantic white cedar forest. Mankiller Branch shows chemical alteration, possibly from highway runoff.

There is a good correlation between pH and percent development within 1000 feet of the stream. The macroinvertebrate fauna of woody debris (submerged sticks 3-35 mm in diameter) provides a

readily sampled assemblage for biological monitoring in low-gradient, blackwater streams. We collected replicated stick samples at eight sites, both upstream, near disturbed areas, and

downstream at confluences, to test whether disturbance effects persisted. We sampled during three seasons over three years, including water chemistry data. We analyzed results using multivariate statistics and GIS. Adams branch is generally the most impoverished; flash flooding and shifting sediments may be responsible. Mankiller Branch had generally low invertebrate numbers. Jack Pudding Branch had low numbers, especially at the upstream site. Our results indicate that the macro-invertebrate assemblage on woody debris responds differently to each of the suspected

impacts. These differences were seen both at upstream sites and near the confluences, although the land surrounding the confluences was relatively undisturbed. We therefore suspect that chemical

changes, as well as increased sediment and physical alteration are responsible. key words: blackwater, macroinvertebrate, disturbance, biomonitoring

The Great Egg Harbor River Watershed is designated Watershed Management Area #15 by the NJ Department of Environmental Protection. Points shown are AMNET biomonitoring network sampling sites.

NEW JERSEY

Babcock Creek watershed

Sample points 2003-05

Study Areas

Babcock Creek above Spruce Street – Reference Site

This branch shows the richest fauna of the four tributaries to Babcock Creek. The pH and SC are close to typical Pinelands levels or only slightly elevated (Zampella et al.

2001, 2003).

Adams Branch – Ditched and unstable

Adams Branch receives runoff from a regional shopping mall, the Atlantic City Racecourse, and two condominium developments. The stream is ditched almost its entire length and carries a heavy load of sand and urban trash. Trees along the channel are collapsing into the stream. Base flow is extremely low.

Adams Branch

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

22.50 22.75 23.00 23.25 23.50 23.75 24.00 24.25 24.50 24.75 25.00 25.25 25.50 25.75

Days

Sta

ge

(dim

ensi

on

less

)

Duration of Storm

Morses Mills Stream at Port Republic

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

22.50 22.75 23.00 23.25 23.50 23.75 24.00 24.25 24.50 24.75 25.00 25.25 25.50 25.75

Days

Sta

ge

(dim

ensi

on

less

)

Duration of Storm

Adams Branch

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

22.50 22.75 23.00 23.25 23.50 23.75 24.00 24.25 24.50 24.75 25.00 25.25 25.50 25.75

Days

Sta

ge

(dim

ensi

on

less

)

Duration of Storm

Morses Mills Stream at Port Republic

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

22.50 22.75 23.00 23.25 23.50 23.75 24.00 24.25 24.50 24.75 25.00 25.25 25.50 25.75

Days

Sta

ge

(dim

ensi

on

less

)

Duration of Storm

Figure 1. Hydrograph of Adams Branch, above, showing the flash flooding of this highly urbanized stream, contrasting with a more typical Pine Barrens stream, right, dominated by groundwater flow (Courtesy Dr. Claude M. Epstein).

Table 1. Selected landuse characteristics for the Babcock Creek watershed. Derived from NJ Department of Environmental Protection data. Analyzed with Arc GIS8 (ESRI Software)

Site Number Stream %Dev

%Dev (300ft)

%Dev (1000ft)

%Agri culture

% Barren

% Forest

% Urban

% Wet lands

RSC020 Adams Branch 71 23 42 0.0 4.1 41.3 38.4 15.5

RSC028 Babcock Ck. at Spruce St. 27 9 21 15.9 0.1 22.1 5.1 56.7

RSC021 Babcock Ck. at Pine St. 23 9 17 10.4 0.2 35.9 6.5 46.6

RSC023 Babcock above confl. Jack P 23 9 17 9.6 0.3 34.9 6.9 47.9

ANO640A Babcock Ck. at Holly St. 27 10 20 14.3 0.1 25.2 5.8 54.4

RSC026 Mankiller at Holly St. 23 15 20 0.0 0.0 46.0 20.1 32.6

RSC027 Jack Pudding Br. at Liepzig 25 56 56 51.3 0.0 31.1 4.9 9.9

RSC022 Jack Pudding confl. Babcock 24 11 19 13.2 0.0 36.0 6.0 44.2

% Land Use (1000ft)

FIELD RESEARCH METHODS

Two samples of approximately 1-2 meters total length of woody debris, 5-35 mm diameter (total surface area 0.02-0.15 m2), were collected at each site, washed with a soft scrub brush over an 0.5 mm sieve and examined under a stereo microscope for any remaining invertebrates. Analysis showed that excluding the “handpicked” invertebrates did not materially affect the results.

All invertebrates were preserved in 70% ethanol with 5% glycerin. Samples were sorted and invertebrates were identified to order, except Chironomidae, Simulidae and non-insects.

Data were analyzed with the program PC-ORD (version 4 for Windows, MjM Software Design). Counts were converted to number per M2 of stick surface and log transformed. Simulids, which occurred in nearly all sites, were excluded from the analysis because their strong seasonality distorted the ordination results. Other infrequent groups were also omitted.

Specific conductance (SC, values in microsiemens (S)) and pH were measured in the field using Thermo-Orion electronic meters .

Sample Site pH SC%

devel.

Sim

ulida

Chironom

Coleopte

Trichopt

Plecopte

Ephem

ero

Megalopt

Odonata

Crustace

Gastropo

Worm

s

Diptera

BABS4A RSC028 4.2 65 27 87 5623 66 4930 107 43 91 101 0 0 50 246BABP4A RSC021 5.1 56 23 24 7849 239 4582 88 75 72 8 0 0 46 44BABH4A AN0640A 4.4 78 26 0 6899 1128 3410 53 26 23 49 0 0 21 6BABCOF AN0640A 4.1 71 26 0 2233 406 3140 5 48 0 0 0 0 25 0BABP4N RSC021 4.1 90 23 118 3517 45 2085 197 32 35 0 0 0 0 138BABJP4 RSC023 4.2 82 23 379 4241 32 1326 721 54 11 15 0 0 568 0BABHL4 AN0640A 4.1 78 26 178 4129 255 1282 1022 0 0 0 8 0 95 0BABCOS AN0640A 4.0 81 26 139 2322 810 764 43 0 0 0 25 0 54 0BABH5S AN0640A 6.1 118 26 26 1098 0 493 9 0 18 0 0 0 34 7ADAMSF RSC020 6.4 65 71 0 324 0 178 0 0 0 0 0 6 29 0ADAM4A RSC020 6.6 56 71 0 1479 0 171 0 28 0 0 0 33 527 44JPBAB4 RSC022 5.7 62 24 0 2313 283 99 65 8 18 0 8 0 501 14ADAM4N RSC020 6.2 76 71 0 56 0 28 0 14 0 0 0 0 110 0JPLP4 RSC027 5.7 78 25 0 400 19 12 0 0 11 0 0 7 254 0MNKH5S RSC026 6.1 606 23 51 406 0 10 20 0 0 0 0 0 71 0ADAM4 RSC020 6.1 76 71 3 295 16 3 0 3 3 0 0 64 627 13MANKH4 RSC026 5.1 217 23 35 1727 9 0 0 0 152 9 44 0 858 0JPLP5S RSC027 7.3 103 25 126 113 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0ADAMSS RSC020 6.3 71 71 19 537 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 850 0ADAM5S RSC020 7.1 900 71 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 86 0

Average number per meter square of stick surface

Table 2. Chemical characteristics, % development (in entire watershed) and major invertebrate taxa for sample sites in the Babcock Creek watershed 2003-2005. Samples are listed by total number of Trichoptera, from greatest to least

Trichoptera on woody debris: left, Hydropsyche and Chimarra, right, probably Brachycentrus or Micrasema

ADAM4

ADAM4A

ADAM4N

ADAM5S

ADAMSF

ADAMSS

BABCOF

BABCOS

BABH4A

BABH5S

BABHL4

BABJ P4

BABP4A

BABP4N

BABS4A

J PBAB4

J PLP4

J PLP5S

MANKH4

MNKH5S

pH

SC

%Dev1000

DCA BAB avg no hand log no simul

Axis 1

Axi

s 2

Figure 2. Detrended Correspondence Analysis: biplot of averaged macroinvertebrate data vs. environmental variables (pH, % development in 1000’ buffer and specific conductance). Axis 1 correlates to pH and % development; axis 2 correlates (weakly) to SC. Note that Babcock Creek and Adams Branch form distinct clusters in the DCA ordination space.

ADAM4

ADAM4A

ADAM4N

ADAM5S

ADAMSF

ADAMSS

BABCOF

BABCOS

BABH4ABABH5S

BABHL4

BABJ P4

BABP4A

BABP4N

BABS4A

J PBAB4

J PLP4

J PLP5S

MANKH4

MNKH5S

DCA BAB avg no hand log no simul

Axis 1

Axi

s 2

15

25

35

45

55%Dev1000

Axis 1r = .826 tau = .592

Axis 2r = .208 tau = .178

15 25 35 45 55

ADAM4

ADAM4A

ADAM4N

ADAM5S

ADAMSF

ADAMSS

BABCOF

BABCOS

BABH4ABABH5S

BABHL4

BABJ P4

BABP4A

BABP4N

BABS4A

J PBAB4

J PLP4

J PLP5S

MANKH4

MNKH5S

DCA BAB avg no hand log no simul

Axis 1

Axi

s 2

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0pH

Axis 1r = .849 tau = .596

Axis 2r = .216 tau = .069

4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0

ADAM4

ADAM4A

ADAM4N

ADAM5S

ADAMSF

ADAMSS

BABCOF

BABCOS

BABH4ABABH5S

BABHL4

BABJ P4

BABP4A

BABP4N

BABS4A

J PBAB4

J PLP4

J PLP5S

MANKH4

MNKH5S

DCA BAB avg no hand log no simul

Axis 1

Axi

s 2

56

900SC

Axis 1r = .370 tau = .042

Axis 2r = .486 tau = .339

56 900

Figure 3. DCA scores for averaged data vs. PH, % developed within 1000’ and specific conductance (SC). The size of each triangle is proportional to the value for the variable being plotted.

Figure 4. DCA for a larger set of unaveraged samples in the entire GEHR watershed, showing the same variables plotted against the first two axes. The pattern seen in the Babcock watershed is evident here, although weaker

FOURS1

FOURS2FOURS3

HOSPLS1

HOSPLS2

HOSPLS3HOSPUS1HOSPUS2

HOSPUS3

PENNYS1

PENNYS2

PENNYS3

SQUANKS1

SQUANKS2

SQUANKS3

SQUANKS4

WHITES1WHITES2WHITES3

ADAMSS1

ADAMSS2

ADAMSS3

BABCOS1BABCOS2BABCOS3BABCOS4

DEEPLS1

DEEPLS2DEEPLS3

DEEPUS1

DEEPUS2DEEPUS3

GREATES1

GREATES2GREATES3

MARES1

MARES2

MARES3

DEEPLF1DEEPLF2

DEEPUF1

DEEPUF2

MAREF1MAREF2 ADAMSF1

ADAMSF2

BABCOF1

BABCOF2

WHITEF1

WHITEF2

ADAM41

ADAM42

BABHL41BABHL42BABJ P41BABJ P42

J PBAB41

J PBAB42

J PLP41

J PLP42

MANKH41

MANKH42

WHITE41

WHITE42

ADAM4A1

ADAM4A2BABH4A1

BABH4A2

BABP4A1

BABP4A2

BABS4A1

BABS4A2 WHIT4A1

WHIT4A2

ADAM4N1

ADAM4N2

BABP4N1

BABP4N2

ADAM5S1ADAM5S2

BABH5S1BABH5S2

J PLP5S2

MNKH5S1

MNKH5S2

DCA no handpick log no simul

Axis 1

Axi

s 2

0

20

40

60

80develop

Axis 1r = .599 tau = .323

Axis 2r = -.023 tau = -.073

0 20 40 60 80

FOURS1

FOURS2FOURS3

HOSPLS1

HOSPLS2

HOSPLS3HOSPUS1HOSPUS2

HOSPUS3

PENNYS1

PENNYS2

PENNYS3

SQUANKS1

SQUANKS2

SQUANKS3

SQUANKS4

WHITES1WHITES2WHITES3

ADAMSS1

ADAMSS2

ADAMSS3

BABCOS1BABCOS2BABCOS3BABCOS4

DEEPLS1

DEEPLS2DEEPLS3

DEEPUS1

DEEPUS2DEEPUS3

GREATES1

GREATES2GREATES3

MARES1

MARES2

MARES3

DEEPLF1DEEPLF2DEEPUF1

DEEPUF2

MAREF1MAREF2 ADAMSF1

ADAMSF2

BABCOF1

BABCOF2

WHITEF1

WHITEF2

ADAM41

ADAM42

BABHL41BABHL42BABJ P41BABJ P42

J PBAB41

J PBAB42

J PLP41

J PLP42

MANKH41

MANKH42

WHITE41

WHITE42

ADAM4A1

ADAM4A2BABH4A1

BABH4A2BABP4A1

BABP4A2

BABS4A1

BABS4A2 WHIT4A1

WHIT4A2

ADAM4N1

ADAM4N2

BABP4N1

BABP4N2

ADAM5S1ADAM5S2

BABH5S1BABH5S2

J PLP5S2

MNKH5S1

MNKH5S2

DCA no handpick log no simul

Axis 1A

xis

2

3.5

4.5

5.5

6.5

7.5pH

Axis 1r = .535 tau = .318

Axis 2r = .101 tau = -.005

3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5

FOURS1

FOURS2FOURS3

HOSPLS1

HOSPLS2

HOSPLS3HOSPUS1HOSPUS2

HOSPUS3

PENNYS1

PENNYS2

PENNYS3

SQUANKS1

SQUANKS2

SQUANKS3

SQUANKS4

WHITES1WHITES2WHITES3

ADAMSS1

ADAMSS2

ADAMSS3

BABCOS1BABCOS2BABCOS3BABCOS4

DEEPLS1

DEEPLS2DEEPLS3

DEEPUS1

DEEPUS2DEEPUS3

GREATES1

GREATES2GREATES3

MARES1

MARES2

MARES3

DEEPLF1DEEPLF2

DEEPUF1

DEEPUF2

MAREF1MAREF2

ADAMSF1

ADAMSF2

BABCOF1

BABCOF2

WHITEF1

WHITEF2

ADAM41

ADAM42BABHL41BABHL42BABJ P41BABJ P42

J PBAB41

J PBAB42

J PLP41

J PLP42

MANKH41

MANKH42

WHITE41

WHITE42

ADAM4A1

ADAM4A2BABH4A1

BABH4A2

BABP4A1

BABP4A2

BABS4A1

BABS4A2 WHIT4A1

WHIT4A2

ADAM4N1

ADAM4N2

BABP4N1

BABP4N2

ADAM5S1ADAM5S2

BABH5S1BABH5S2

J PLP5S2

MNKH5S1

MNKH5S2

DCA no handpick log no simul

Axis 1

Axi

s 2

25

900SC

Axis 1r = .474 tau = .288

Axis 2r = .334 tau = .207

25 900

FOURS1

FOURS2FOURS3

HOSPLS1

HOSPLS2

HOSPLS3 HOSPUS1HOSPUS2

HOSPUS3

PENNYS1

PENNYS2

PENNYS3

SQUANKS1

SQUANKS2

SQUANKS3

SQUANKS4

WHITES1WHITES2WHITES3

ADAMSS1

ADAMSS2

ADAMSS3

BABCOS1BABCOS2BABCOS3

BABCOS4

DEEPLS1

DEEPLS2

DEEPLS3

DEEPUS1

DEEPUS2DEEPUS3

GREATES1

GREATES2GREATES3

MARES1

MARES2

MARES3

DEEPLF1DEEPLF2

DEEPUF1

DEEPUF2

MAREF1

MAREF2ADAMSF1

ADAMSF2

BABCOF1

BABCOF2

WHITEF1

WHITEF2

ADAM41

ADAM42

BABHL41BABHL42BABJ P41BABJ P42

J PBAB41

J PBAB42

J PLP41

J PLP42

MANKH41

MANKH42

WHITE41

WHITE42

ADAM4A1

ADAM4A2BABH4A1

BABH4A2

BABP4A1

BABP4A2

BABS4A1

BABS4A2 WHIT4A1

WHIT4A2

ADAM4N1

ADAM4N2

BABP4N1

BABP4N2

ADAM5S1ADAM5S2

BABH5S1

BABH5S2

J PLP5S2

MNKH5S1

MNKH5S2

pH

SC

develop

DCA no handpick log no simul

Axis 1

Axis

2

Figure 5. Biplot of DCA ordination vs. pH, % development in entire watershed and SC of the full dataset of 85 samples from the GEHR watershed. The pattern seen in the averaged results from the Babcock watershed alone is also apparent here. Compare figure 2.

ADAMSS1

ADAMSS2

ADAMSS3

BABCOS1

BABCOS2

BABCOS3

BABCOS4

ADAMSF1

ADAMSF2

BABCOF1BABCOF2

ADAM41

ADAM42

BABHL41

BABHL42

BABJ P41

BABJ P42

J PBAB41

J PBAB42

J PLP41

J PLP42

MANKH41

MANKH42

ADAM4A1ADAM4A2

BABH4A1

BABH4A2

BABP4A1BABP4A2

BABS4A1

BABS4A2

ADAM4N1

ADAM4N2BABP4N1

BABP4N2

ADAM5S1ADAM5S2

BABH5S1

BABH5S2

J PLP5S2

MNKH5S1

MNKH5S2

NMS BAB no handpick log no simul

Axis 1A

xis

2

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0pH

Axis 1r = -.834 tau = -.557

Axis 2r = .129 tau = .039

4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0

Figure 6. Nonmetric Multidimensional Scaling (NMS) ordination of unaveraged Babcock watershed samples, plotted vs. pH to show that similar results are also obtained with this technique.

ADAM4

ADAM4A

ADAM4N

ADAM5S

ADAMSF

ADAMSS

BABCOF

BABCOS

BABH4A

BABH5S

BABHL4

BABJ P4

BABP4A

BABP4N

BABS4A

J PBAB4

J PLP4

J PLP5S

MANKH4

MNKH5S

DCA no handpick log no simul

Axis 1

Axi

s 2

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0Trichopt

Axis 1r = -.796 tau = -.663

Axis 2r = -.628 tau = -.492

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

ADAM4

ADAM4A

ADAM4N

ADAM5S

ADAMSF

ADAMSS

BABCOF

BABCOS

BABH4A

BABH5S

BABHL4

BABJ P4

BABP4A

BABP4N

BABS4A

J PBAB4

J PLP4

J PLP5S

MANKH4

MNKH5S

DCA no handpick log no simul

Axis 1

Axi

s 2

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0Ephemero

Axis 1r = -.515 tau = -.416

Axis 2r = -.774 tau = -.560

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

ADAM4

ADAM4A

ADAM4N

ADAM5S

ADAMSF

ADAMSS

BABCOF

BABCOS

BABH4A

BABH5S

BABHL4

BABJ P4

BABP4A

BABP4N

BABS4A

J PBAB4

J PLP4

J PLP5S

MANKH4

MNKH5S

DCA no handpick log no simul

Axis 1

Axi

s 2

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0Chironom

Axis 1r = -.787 tau = -.758

Axis 2r = -.452 tau = -.221

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

ADAM4

ADAM4A

ADAM4N

ADAM5S

ADAMSF

ADAMSS

BABCOF

BABCOS

BABH4ABABH5S

BABHL4

BABJ P4

BABP4A

BABP4N

BABS4A

J PBAB4

J PLP4

J PLP5S

MANKH4

MNKH5S

DCA no handpick log no simul

Axis 1

Axi

s 2

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0Gastropo

Axis 1r = .614 tau = .496

Axis 2r = -.139 tau = -.055

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

ADAM4

ADAM4A

ADAM4N

ADAM5S

ADAMSF

ADAMSS

BABCOF

BABCOS

BABH4ABABH5S

BABHL4

BABJ P4

BABP4A

BABP4N

BABS4A

J PBAB4

J PLP4

J PLP5S

MANKH4

MNKH5S

DCA no handpick log no simul

Axis 1

Axi

s 2

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0Plecopte

Axis 1r = -.819 tau = -.666

Axis 2r = -.252 tau = -.234

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0

Figure 7. DCA ordination of averaged Babcock watershed samples, plotted vs. abundance of selected macroinvertebrate taxa. Note the similar pattern for Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera (EPT). Chironomidae are abundant in nearly all samples, including the least disturbed sites, while snails are found only in the most altered streams.

DiscussionThis study reinforces our view that the fauna of woody debris is a good indicator of habitat conditions in low-gradient, blackwater streams in the New Jersey Pine Barrens. Snags and sticks are key habitats and contribute significantly to diversity and productivity in Coastal Plain rivers and streams (Benke et al. 1984, Benke and Jacobi. 1994, Smock et al. 1985, Smock and Roeding 1986). The multivariate community analysis clearly separates the least disturbed sites from those that have been impacted by development. This is an improvement over the 1999-2000 NJDEP AMNET biomonitoring scores (NJDEP 2003), which rated the two sites sampled in the Babcock Creek watershed as moderately impaired, with Babcock Creek rated below Jack Pudding Branch. This seems to have resulted from using a composite scoring system that does not take into account the trophic peculiarities of low-gradient streams, especially the great role played by filter-feeders (see Smock and Roeding 1986, Meyer 1990) . The NJ DEP is currently revising its AMNET assessment protocols for Coastal Plain streams.Almost all Babcock Creek sites are richer in Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera than the more developed and chemically altered tributaries (Table 2). In general, DCA and NMS axis one corresponds to the pH differences among sites with more or less disturbed land in the watershed. Frequent flash flooding, which washes out much woody debris and scours the rest with sand, as well as chemical alteration, causes the extreme impoverishment of Adams Branch. Mankiller Branch is apparently affected by high specific conductance, possibly from road salt. More samples are needed to confirm this. More sampling is also needed at the confluences of the tributaries with the main stem to understand the recovery of the fauna (for example, at the downstream end of Jack Pudding Branch, Table 2).Although separation of samples into orders and families gives results consistent with observed alterations of the chemistry and hydrology, we still need to determine why the fauna responds to chemical changes as it does. Analyzing which genera are affected may clarify the reasons for the different responses of the macroinvertebrates in each tributary. We plan to collect more samples at all eight sites in late summer or fall 2005, and then to focus on one site per tributary for future monitoring. Babcock Creek at Spruce Street or Holly Street may be the best reference site.

Literature Cited

Benke, A., Van Arsdall, T., Gillespie, D. and F. Parrish. 1984. Invertebrate productivity in a subtropical blackwater river: the importance of habitat and life history. Ecological Monographs 54: 25-63.

Benke, A. and D. Jacobi. 1994. Production dynamics and resource utilization of snag-dwelling mayflies in a blackwater river. Ecology 75: 1219-1232.

McCune, B. and M. Mefford. 1999. PC-ORD. Mulitvariate Analysis of Ecological Data, Version 4. MjM Software Design, Glenden Beach OR. 237 pp Meyer, J. 1990. A blackwater perspective on riverine ecosystems. Bioscience 40: 641-651.

Meyer, J. 1990. A blackwater perspective on riverine ecosystems. Bioscience 40: 641-651.

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Water Monitoring and Standards Water Assessment Team. 2003. Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Methods Document. Draft. NJDEP. http://www.state.nj.us/dep/wmm/sgwqt/wat/integratedlist/integratedlist2004.pdf

Smock, L. and C. Roeding. 1986. The trophic basis of production...of a southeastern U.S.A. blackwater stream. Holarctic Ecology 9: 165-174.

Smock, L. A., E. Gilinsky, and D. L. Stoneburner. 1985. Macroinvertebrate production in a Southeastern United States blackwater stream. Ecology 66:1491–1503.

Zampella, Robert A., John F. Bunnell, Kim J. Laidig, and Charles L. Dow. 2001. The Mullica River Basin: A Report To The Pinelands Commission On The Status Of The Landscape And Selected Aquatic And Wetland Resources. NJ Pinelands Commission. New Lisbon NJ. 371 pp.

Zampella, Robert A., John F. Bunnell, Kim J. Laidig, and Nicholas Procopio. 2003. The Rancocas Creek Basin: A Report To The Pinelands Commission On The Status Of Selected Aquatic And Wetland Resources. NJ Pinelands Commission. New Lisbon NJ. 130 pp.

Acknowledgements

It is a pleasure to acknowledge the assistance of many individuals, including Fred Akers, Administrator, Great Egg Harbor Watershed Association; Robert Zampella, John Bunnell, Kim Laidig and Nick Procopio of the NJ Pinelands Commission; Tait Chirenje, Rudi Arndt, Lynn Maun, Tamica Johnson, Bob Fromtling, Jason Gliddon, James Grimes and David Monzo, Division of Natural Sciences and Mathematics The Richard Stockton College of New Jersey.

This project received financial support from the NJ Water Resources Research Institute, The Atlantic County Office of Regional Planning and Economic Development, the NJ Department of Environmental Protection Division of Watershed Management and the Richard Stockton College of NJ Research and Professional Development Fund.

Further information on the web at: http://www.stockton.edu/~cromartw/GEHR/GEHRhomepage.htmContact: Jamie CromartieNAMS, Richard Stockton College, PO Box 195Pomona NJ 08240 USA<[email protected]>