It is apparent that March-April is an important time period, since 

 all Site 1 cumulative panels were introduced in April-May too late for 

 the peak set. Figure 33 shows a cumulative panel trend for Site 2 very- 

 similar to previously discussed foulers up to the 9-month June-March 

 panels, with a maximum of 38 per square foot, then in the 10-month 

 June-April panel the mussel population exploded to 1,860 per square 

 foot with most of the organisms in size class 0-2 mm. The 11-month 

 June-May panels show a continuation of the population explosion 

 relatively undimished, with most organisms in the size range 2-5 mm; 

 in the 12-month June- June panels the population was at the 760-per- 

 square-foot level, with most organisms in the size range 5-10 mm. The 

 initial explosion agreed with that of Site 1 with March-April as the 

 critical month. The decrease in the 12-monthSite 2 panels substantiates 

 the possibility of seasonal foraging activity. Mussels occurred only 

 on the 2-month May- July Site 4 panel (Fig 17) and were not present 

 on the bottom test cylinders for either Site 3 or 4. 



Oysters occurred on Site 1 monthly panels in the August-September 

 and the September-October month periods but did not appear at all 

 in Site 2 monthly panels (Figs 32 and 33). Site 1 cumulative panels show 

 peak oyster occurrence in the 5-month April-September period after 

 an initial occurrence in the 4-month April-August period. After the 

 peak, oysters appear on all panels through the 12-month April-April 

 period with 1 to 5 per square foot for each panel. Site 2 cumulative 

 panels were fouled by oysters first in the 3-month June-September 

 period, which then increased to a maximum of 2 organisms per square 

 foot in the 4-month June-October period and then declined to none in 

 the 5-month panel and finally one per square foot in the 6-month 

 period June-December (Fig 33). Oysters were not found on the Site 3 

 bottom test cylinders or on the Site 4 panels (Fig 17). 



F. Tunicates 



Tunicate fouling was relatively sparse except for the Site 1 

 cumulative panels (Fig 34). The fact that panels were analyzed in 

 the dry state undoubtedly did much to hinder recognition. 



The only occurrence of recognizable tunicates on one month panels 

 was on the Site 2, September-October panels, which were approximately 

 2 percent covered. The coverage increased on 2-month panels and 

 continued to increase as time intervals increased; for example, the 

 9-month and 12-month panels for Site 1 were almost completely 

 covered. There is some evidence to support the idea that time in 

 water was required to prepare a suitable surface for tunicate set. 

 Figure 34 indicates that set first occurs in the summer; however, 

 Figure 17 shows that winter set occurs in some of the short period 

 panels. It is evident Site 2 tunicate fouling does not attain the same 

 magnitude as that of Site 1 . 



36 



