Socio-economic and environmental inventory of the North Atlantic Region including the Outer Continental Shelf and adjacent waters from Sandy Hook, New Jersey, to Bay of Fundy

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

n0G
c' 0
Z Nq

",'me DIL6 L
L Vd'
L L s
aNlvw --@O AIM
HM:0vssMy 3H.L

F, A@5 Oco WWI
0@19000
Q, 0
00 0 D@
0@2 @ , @ " '
O'o' D go
":5 QOq
"d 0 T o'@ 'Doo

OD
"@z
00 Pat
C, no, "P@)O "Pa, 8"d
Oc
Do
"ooo-O 0 0
Coll' 10
o !;, 0
@-W' @@ c> Q Do o q
'vo'.
CA
6 o
c0 D
o Z
@-o
o a o

"o"
rw
Q
o Do o@6'66M "Q, '0 a goo,
0 11 O@ , 'd'. ;'Qoo!@O@-oa ,
oo o lo4o, OD , @ 'b@ a
Z'
116oco@' V @ 0 --\, -@V
PO ""'Oo
o 0, 'oD -'@ONclo H,
Y, 9@ - @' @ 'oo 6@@
, " l;"" - " @ @ '@') To 8 6Q OD
0 '0 -ooV@ a ocoo-
'3. 0 0, Otq
'0 OnT
n'@@-zpoo(o' "o @

o ".0 Oo
040 .24 o' o o
- p oo o @ , o 0 O@ - I @ @;. "'ol
o@'@ co 3o Q" o, -D') cj 0,
D
'M b @C, o
A ?Oob
Q, la@<w 'o 6-"-A'@'

co "'3 "@qQc't ob'
o Q
goo
co e
c'
'oo

'oo

08
i)o Pat
ON

o,7 v C,
vn

6 Y@l b o' 0@0.
o o.

00
Pat

@@V? fX
o8o

@22;7

om
Jajuao
-6-ollewi0jul
quoz lelseoo

TRI GOM

The Research Institute of the Gulf of Maine (TRIGOM) is a consortium
of academic institutions and research agencies dedicated to the ad-
vancement of marine science and oceanography through cooperative efforts.

TRIGOM provides a variety of services to the marine science community
through publications, meetings, and seminars on subjects of common
interest. In addition, the Institute seeks to undertake its own
projects which will help the state and region better plan for multiple
uses of the coast and to manage its natural resources.

ACADEMIC MEMBERSHIP

Bates College

Bowdoin College

Colby College

Cornell. University

Maine Maritime Academy

Nasson College

Saint Francis College

Southern Maine Vocational Technical Institute

University of Maine at Farmington

University of Maine at Orono

University of Maine at Portland-Gorham

PARC

The Public Affairs Research Center was established at Bowdoin College
in 1966 to act as focal point for conducting studies of economic
conditions, community government, regional development, and public
administration. These activities are financed through research
contracts with government and business organizations, as well as
through the assistance of foundation grants and contributions from
@business firms and individuals.

04081

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
CHARLESTON, SC 29405-2413

A Socio-Economic and Environmental

Inventory

of the

North Atlantic Region

including the Outer Continental Shelf and adjacent

waters from Sandy Hook, New Jersey, to Bay of Fundy

VOLUME III

Property of CSC Library

Book 2

Submitted to Bureau of Land Management, Marine Minerals Division

as partial fulfillment of Contract 08550-CT3-8

November 1974

COASTAL ZONE INFORMATION CENTER

The Research Institute of the Gulf of Maine
Box 2320
South Portland, Maine

Information in this document is unrestricted

in use and may be copied in part or total,
provided reference is made to TRIGOM-PARC as

authors and BLM as the supporting agency.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Volume Three: Appendices

Book Two: Appendices E and F
Page
Appendix E Areal Extent of Marine Habitats
E.1 Introduction E-2
E.1.1 Objective E-2
E.1.2 Approach E-2
E-2 Discussion of Marine Habitat
Measurements E-3
E.2.1 Shoreline Length E-3
Total Shoreline - North Atlantic Region E.;-3
E.2.2 Rocky Shores E-5
E.2.3 Beaches E-6
Beach SurvUs - Total North Atlantic E-6
E.2.4 Saltmarshes E-7
E.2.5 Worm-Clam Flats E-12
Surveys by State E-13
E.2.6 Shellfish Beds E-15
E.2.7 Mussel-Oyst6r Reefs E-16
E.2.8 Salt Ponds E-17
E.2.9 Pelagic E-18
Tables E-19
Figures E-63
E.3 References E-71

Appendix F Contract,Work Statement
F.1 Bureau of Land Managaw,@@nt Contract
08550-073-8 and Report Specifications F-2

Appendix
D Bibliography
At the time of submission of this report Appendix D, the bibliography,
is still in preparation and will be included early in 1975 in a
separate Book as the last part of Volume Three. This part will also
include a detailed index to all chapters.

APPENDIX D BIBLIOGRAPHY

At the time of submission of this report Appendix D, the bibliography,
is still in preparation [email protected] early in 1975-i.n a ,
separate Book as the last part of Volume Three. This part will also
include a detailed index to all chapters.

Appendix

Areal Extent Of Marine
Habitats Page

E 1 Introduction E-2

E.1.1 Objective E-2

E.1.2 Approach E-2

E.2 Discussion of Marine Habitat Measurements E-3

E.2.1 Shoreline Length E-3

Total Shoreline North Atlantic Region E-3

E.2.2, Rocky Shores E-5

E.2.3 Beaches E-6

Beach Surveys Total North Atlantic E-6

E.2.4 Saltmarshes E-7

E.2.5 Worm-Clam Flats E-12

@Surveys by State E-13

E.2.6 Shellfish Beds E-15

E.2.7 Mussel-Oyster Reefs E-16

E.2.8 Salt Ponds E-17

E.2.9 Pelagic E-18

Tables E-19

Figures E-63

E.3 References E-71

E-1

APPENDIX E AREAL EXTENT.OF MARINE HABITATS

E.1. INTRODUCTION

E.1.1 OBJECTIVE

This section is a compilation of existing statistical-and mapped
data which pertain to the location and size of coastal habitats
(rocky and sancLy shores, saltmarsh, worm-clam flats, oyster-mussel
reefs, subtidal shellfish beds, and saltponds). In keeping with the
systems ecology approach used in this report, the stati 'stical infor-
mation has been' organized into tables by habitat and'then by state,
and when, possible, broken down by county and town. (See Summary of
Marine Habitat Measurements, Tables E-1 through E-31). Mapped data
from numerous sources has been standardized onto American Geographi-
cal Society base maps, scale 1:250,000. (See Figures E-1a,b, E-2a,
b, E-3a,b, E-4a,b). A discussion has been i,ncl.uded in the following
pages (section E-2) to clarify the methods and definitions used by
the various data sources. At the end of the appendix.is a list of
references used.

E.-1.2 APPROACH

Information for maps and measurements of habitats was gathered from
federal, regional, state, and local agencies in. 'the form of published
and unpublished reports and maps, and notes taken during phone con-
,versations and personal visits. As data were compiled, it became
evident that there are gaps and inconsistencies within and between the
states, partially accounted for by differences in funding available
for environmental surveys, the definitions And methods used by various
researchers (see following section E.2), and the emphas,is placed on
certain habitats by economic, recreational, or legal pressure. Some
measurements differed by as much as a factor of ten. All statistical
da ta regardless of how discrepant, has been included in the tables
in order to give an idea of the range of measuremen 'ts possible. The
assumptions, definitions and methods that account for the discrepancies
are explained in the corresponding section of the discussion.
On the map when data conflicted, the source judged to be most
recent, detailed, and in accord with the habitat definitions used by
this report was chosen. There are sections of the coast for which no
data could be found in spite of extensive searching. On the map these
blank spots are indistinguishable from those reaches which truly do
not have any of the habitat in question. An example is Massachusetts'
saltmarshes, for which mapped data were available only for eleven
selected estuaries. (Mass. Dept. of Natural Resources, monograph series
1966-1973). However, there are saltmarshes in the omitted stretches of
coast, as can be seen by referring to Table E-11. Because the tables
and maps are complementary, they should be used in conjunction with

E-2

one another in order to gain a more accurate idea of the extent and lo-
cation of the various habitats,.

E.2. DISCUSSION OF MARINE HABITAT MEASUREMENTS

E.2.1 SHORELINE LENGTH

Before discussing the various studies on shoreline measurement, it should
be noted that there can be no one accurate measure of shoreline length,
because the results depend on the scale of map used (shoreline length
increasing with increased detail of the map) and the degree of inclusion
of estuarine and riverbank mileage. When rivers and estuaries are in-
cluded, cut-off points must be decided, and this can be on the basis
of salinity, tidal effect, the location of a bridge or other land-
mark, or where, on a map, the river oatli-ne becomes a single, rather
than double li.ne. Hence,- a wide variety of measurements for the same
coastal reach may result.

The following discussion describes the surveys summarized in Tables
E-1 through E-8.

TOTAL SHORELINE -. NORTH ATLANTIC REGION

Two national surveys of coastline length supply consistent, if dis-
crepant, data throughout the study region. The National Shoreline
.Survey (NSS) (U.S. Amy Engineer Div., 1971) presents a rough total
mileage figure based on a compilation of existing measurements from
agencies, authorities,, and conservation groups. The estimate is gen-
eral and does not take into account many coastal irregulari ties. The
second survey, by National Ocean Survey (NOS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, has defined "tidal shoreline" to include
11outer coast, island, sounds, bays, and rivers and creeks to the head
of tidewater or to a point where tidal waters narrow to a width of
100 feet. " Measurements were made in 1939-40 on the largest scale
charts then available. These estimates are believed to be more indi.ca-
tive of the amount of shore open to the oceah's impact.

Total Shoreline by State

Mdine: (See Table E-2). The only complete coastal survey done in
the State of Maine, in addition to previously mentioned national surveys,
was by Reed and D'Andrea (1973, draft report). The definition of coast
is similar to that of the National Ocean Survey except with respect to
river's. River mileage was included to the point on the rmp where the
river outline became a single line. The Kennebec River estuary was
included up to' the northern end of Merrymeeting Bay, and the Penobscot
up to Bucksport. Measurements,were taken on 7.5' U.S. Coast.Guard
Survey Charts (scale 1:40,000). The total mileage was found to be
4,099.@

E-3

The figure of 2,500 miles quoted by Maine Wetlands Inventory (Maine
Department of Inland Fisheries and Game, 1972) is probably attributable
to the National Shoreline Study.

The Maine Coastal Planning figures (Maine Office of State Planning,
1974) unfortunately are not complete, since the survey is presently
being conducted, and therefore, cannot be fairly compared to Reed and
D'Andrea's data which is also tabulated by county. The Coastal Planning
figures run lower - it is unknown whether this is due to.their metho-
dology or the incompleteness of the project.

Islands account for much of Maine's shoreline measurement. Accor-
ding to the Maine Coastal Island Registry, (Caldwell , 1974), created by
the State Legislature in 1973 to inventory the islands and establish
ownership, there are 3,344 islands and exposed ledges. By county, there
are 736 islands-in Washington, 664 in Hancock, 30 in Waldo, 718 in Knox,
341 in Lincoln, 245 in Sagadahoc, 496 in Cumberland, and 114 in York.

New Hampshire: (See Table E-3). No survey by the state is known by
either the New Hampshire Department of Resources and Economic Develop-
ment, the New Hampshire Port Authority or the Department of Fish and'
Game; therefore, the only estimates are from the two national studies,
National Shoreline Study (U.S. Amy Engineer Division, 1971) and
National Ocean Survey (1971).

Mass achusetts: (See Table E-4). Two studies other than NSS (U.S. AMY
Engineer Division, 1971) and NOS (1971) list mileage for the Massachu-
setts coast. The Economic Impact of Marine-Oriented Activities (Rorholm,
Lampe, Marshall, and Farrell, 1967) pertains only to the southern coastal
counties. Measurements were taken from Coast and Geodetic Survey Charts,
and Geological Survey Charts, the scale of which was not given. Ocean,
bay, harbor, and tidal rivers were followed; but "detailed shoreline of
coastal ponds and marshy areas (were) not." The Statewide Comprehen-
sive Outdoor Recreational Plan (SCORP) (Department of Natural Resources,
Division of Conservation Service, 1973), provides a total coastline .
mileage figure larger than any of the other estimates. The source of
SCORP's estimate is not explained in its text.

Rhode Island: (See Table E-5). Rhode Island's coastline, deeply in-
dented to form Narragansett Bay, posed a measurement problem, judging
by the range of estimates found - from 340 to 2,793 miles. The lowest
.estimate, by NSS (U.S. Army Engineer Division, 1971) includes the
outer extremities of Narragansett Bay and Block Island in addition to
the ocean-fronting shoreline. Of the 340 miles, 150 are in the bay,
174 are along the southern shore from the western passage of Narragan-
sett Bay to Connecticut, and 16 are on Block Island. The methodology
of NOS (1971) is more inclusive, as described in the Shoreline intro-
.duction, (see Section E.2-1), and presents a greater total than does
NSS. The Report of Governors' Committee on the Coastal Zone (Techni-
Za-1 Committee, 1970) measured "total saltwater shoreline;" but does

E-4-

not further define its salinity limit in the report. The most de-
tailea measurement is provided by the Economic Impact of Marine-
Oriented Activities (Rorholm, et al, 1967) by its breakdown into frontage
on ocean, sound, harbor, bay, and tidal rivers. The ten-fold dif-
ference between this study's results and these of NOS is surprising,
since both were done on the smallest scale U.S. Coast and Geodetic
Survey Charts available, and the definition of what to include seem
@similar. Perhaps the charts available to NOS in 1949 were not of such
a small scale as now available; or perhaps the "tidal river" included
by the Economic Impact Study, extends farther than the NOS cut-off of
"head of tidewater" or "point where tidal waters narrow to a width of
10O.feet".

Connecticut: (See Table E-6). Three sources estimated Connecticut's,
shoreline as about 250 miles. The NSS (U.S. Army Engineer Division,
1971) includes bays, other tidal es-fu-aries, and 20 miles of Fishers
Island, New York. Murphy (personal communication), Connecticut,De-
partment of Environmental Protection, interprets this to mean, "re-
flect(ing) coastline frontage directly on the Sound," and derives this
info mation from the NSS figure. Approximately the same figure was
quoted by Mr. Bates, Department of Environmental Protection, Parks
and Recreation. This estimate of 250 miles seems to be accepted by
state officials. The NOS, a more detailed survey, presents a much
larger figure. Tri-State Regional Planning Commission of New York
(1973) measured almost straight across the coastline to arrive at the
minimum figure of,150 miles.
New York: (See Table E-7). For New York, the NOS (1971) mileage
6-stimate is most likely the most accurate. The NSS (U.S. Amy Engineer
Division, 1971) figure does not account for the northern half of Staten
Island, and for part of East River and upper New York Bay - from Throgs
Neck at the western end of Land Island Sound, along the East River,
past Manhattan, to the narrows between Staten Island and Brooklyn.
These omissions account for the smaller estimate. As for the Tri -
State study, this group's method seems to be to measure the gross out-
line of the land, rather than the detail of indentation and promon-
tories - and thus, their figure, as it was for Connecticut, is low.

New Jersey: (See Table E-8). No discussion is relevant for this
short segment.

E.2.2 ROCKY SHORES

This habitat has been surveyed and mapped by the National Ocean Survey,
formerly Coast and Geodetic Survey, (Coast and Geodetic Survey charts
200,300, and 1,200 series; and Small Craft Nautical Char ,ts), but no
tabular data indicating linear extent have been compiled. The Nation-
al Shoreline Study (NSS) (U.S. Army Engineer Division, 1971) made gross
estimates ofthe percent of the coastline which is rocky north of Cape

E-5

A*nn, Massachusetts. These figures have been questioned, especially
in Maine where according t6.the study, only 50 percent of the shore-
line north of Portland is rocky. Some feel the figure should be
greater than 90,percent. It has been assumed that the National Ocean
Survey definition of rocky approximates that of this report (consoli-
dated rock only). Figures E-1b, E-2b 3' E-3b, and E-4b, depict the.
extent of rocky shores in the study region.

E.2.3 BEACHES

The effort to tabulate mileage for sandy shores was only partially
successful due to the fact that existing shoreline surveys, in gener-
al, have not distinguished between rocky and sandy shores. Measurements
are available, however, for "beach", and although this figure repre-
sents only a small part of the total sandy shore, it has been included
for lack of better data. The definition of "beach" varies from source
to source, from public recreational bathing beach to the more inclusive
erodible shoreline. Therefore, the table for beach mileage can be
used only as a general indication of the amount of sandy shore.

BEACH SURVEYS TOTAL NORTH ATLANTIC

Two federal studies provided beach information for all the states -
The National Shoreline Study (NSS), by the Amy Engineer Division,
(1971), the National Beach Inventory (NBI) (Brown, Moser, and Shenton,
1972), sponsored by the EPA. In NSS, beach refers to erodible coast-
line, in line with the Corps concern with erosion control. In effect,
this definition nearly matches the one used in this report. The
NSS maps reaches of erodible coastline and rocky shores, but due to
-f-he omission of shoreline detail, the map and the tabulated data are,
for our purposes, an underestimate of both total and sandy shorelines.

The National Beach Inventory, in the form of an unpublished compu-
ter printout, is an 'incomplete survey of recreational bathing beaches
which has, nevertheless, been included to indicate general locations
of sandy habitats. The inventory was devised to record pollution con-
ditions of recreational beaches during 1971. Questionnaires were mailed
to state agencies, and in some cases followed up by phone calls and
personal visits. Not all beaches were inventoried, and the printout
sections for New Hampshire, New York, and New Jersey were unavailable.

Beach Surveys By-State

No studies were found aside from the national studies previously dis-
cussed inany of the states in the study region with the exception of
Massachusetts which follows.

Massachusetts: (See Table E-4). As part of the southeastern New
England STu-dy being conducted by- the New England River Ba*sins Commis-
sion, Professor William MacConnell, of the Department of Forestry and

E-6

and Wildlife Management at the University of Massachusetts, con-
ducted a land use inventory, including beaches. MacConnell's beach
acreage includes all the recreational area at a particular location
parking lots, bath houses, facilities, as well as the beach itself.
Unfortunately, this definition. differs too much for this information to
be useful as a sandy shore habitat measurement, in spite of its being
the most exacting study found. Also, the SCORP data collected by
the Department of Natural Resources identified some 287 beaches. These
data are not published but are on file at DNR.

E.2.4 SALTMARSHES

Saltmarsh inventories have been or are being done in each state of
the study region as a result of wetlands protection act. The orienta-
tions, definitions and methods, which differ in each inventory are
explained below.

Maine: (See Table E-9). Three studies have been reviewed which survey
saltmarshes in Maine. First, the Maine Department of Inland Fish and
Game has conducted a wetland inventory utilizing the wetlands classi-
fication system defined by Martin, Hotchkiss, Uhler, and Bourn (1953).
Their wetlands types 16 and 18, defined below, approximate the salt-
marsh habitat defined in this study:

Type 16 Coastal Salt Meadow. Salt meadows border the landward
side of salt marshes, or open water. The soil is always
saturated during the growing season'but is rarely inundated
by tidal water. Indigenous plant species are salt meadow
cordgrass (Spartina patens) and black rush: common three-
square occurs in freiher areas. Salt meadows are of great
importance to resident and wintering waterfowl, particularly
when well interspersed with potholes and ditches. Such
areas support large populations of amphipods, clams, and
snails, and afford wildfowl an ample source of food.

Type 18 Regularly Flooded Salt Marshes. Salt marshes occur most often
along coastal bays. At average high tide during the growing
season, the soil is covered with six inches or more of water.
The predominant plant species is saltmarsh cordgrass (Spartina
alterniflora). Open water areas often support wideon grass,
eelgrass, and Sago pondweed. Feeding wildfowl use these
wetlands heavily, as do herons, rails, other shore birds,
fish, and shellfish.

It should be emphasized that each of these wetland types
is generally found in conjunction with one or more of the
other types. When classifying a wetland, the type which most
closely identifies the greater portion (50 to 75 percent) of
the area as it is delineated on the map has been selected.

E-7

The Proce -dure for locating and_mapping the wetlands is described in
the Manual for Maine Wetlands Inventory (1972)

Stereoscopic inspection of aerial photographs and 15-minute
topographic maps will continue to be the principcal means of de-
tecting wetlands. This inspection, however, can be complemented
by a check of 7-Irminute quadrangle maps (if available) and U.S.
Coast Guard and Geodetic Survey Marine Charts. The marine charts
are excellent sources of data for the true salt marshes and tidal
flats. Both of these aids require enlarged acetate acreage scales;
the marine charts should be supplemented by USCGS Chart 1, Nauti-
cal Symbols and Abbreviations ... The configuration of the wetland
on the photo may differ from that on the map; however, the photo-
graphs are generally. more recent and provide a more accurate de-
lineation of the actual wetland. Therefore, outline the area
on the map as it appears on the photo.

Only areas larger than ten acres were included. Plani meter measurerr..ents
we re made on the photographs when available, and on USGS quadrangles
when not.

A second study, conducted by the fi m of Reed and D'Andrea (unpublished
draft, 1973).included onlythose marshes larger than ten acres. Sources
for this.plan are 1972 unpublished maps by the U.S. Bureau of Sport
Fisheries and Wildlife, and an unpublished paper to the Maine Audubon
Society, 1972, by Sarah Redfield (A Working Paper; Maine Saltmarsh).

Finally, the wetlands.and wildlife areas inventory by George C.
Spinner (1969) uses the same wetlands classification system
as the Maine Wetlands Inventory described above, but includes Type 15,
characterized by salt grass (Distichlis. spicata) with Type 16.

Data from these inventories are nearly in agreement with differences
attributable to the described differences in classification schemes
or methods.

New Hampshire: Tabular data has not been compiled by the New Hampshire
State government as far as could be determined.
Massachusetts: (See Table E-11). The land use inventory by Professor
William MacConnell, described previously, (See Section E-2.3 - Massachu-
setts), distinguishes, three types of saltmarsh which have been combined
in this :report:

1. Tidal saltmarsh which is flood twice daily. Vegetation is
primarily saltmarsh cordgrass.

2. Irregularly flooded saltmarsh, flooded at monthly high tides and
during severe storms. Vegetation is primarily saltmarsh, cord-
grass, saltgrass, and black rush.

E-8

3. irregularly flooded salt meadow which has been ditched for mos-
quito control or for agricultural purposes.

In Ma cConnell's unpublished draft of April 1973, he states that wet-
lands wi,ll be delineated on 1:24,000 (1"_2,000')'scale maps, and later
transferred to SENE base maps 1:,63,000 (V=1 mile).
The Massachusetts Department of Natural Resources (Chesmore et al, 1971,
1972, 1973; Curley et al, 1972; Fiske et al, 1967, 1968; Jerome et al,
19659 1968, 1969) conducted a shellfish survey in 11 selected estu-
arine areas, during which saltmarshes in the areas were measured. U.S.
Coastal Charts (1:20,000 scale) and a dot grid overlay were used to
compile acreages. There is no statement whether the marshes were de-
lineated by new field work or by accepting the Chart's boundaries.

The wetlands classification used by Spinner,(1969), has already
been described in a previous section (see E.2.4-Maine). For Mass-
achusetts, the source was "1954 wetland surveys published by the U.S.
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife". Such data, 20 years old,
probably include acreage since lost by dredging or filling.
Rhode Island: (See Table E-12). The Salt Water Marsh Inventory (1965),,
by the Rhode Island Department of Agriculture and Conservation was
compiled in 1965 from aerial photographs supplemented by field research.
According to John Cronin, Rhode Island Department of Natural 'Resources,
the extent of marshes has not altered appreciably since the inventory.

The acreage estimated by Spinner, (1969) Was computed from the
1954 U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife wetland surveys.

A project of measuring the state's saltmarshes is currently under-
way by the University of Rhode Island, Department of Oceanography,
Coastal Resources Management Group. The survey is scheduled for com-.
pletion by summer of 1974.

Areas mapped on Figure E-3a are the result of three sources: (1) efforts
of Richard Sisson and Howard Russell, Jr., of the Connecticut Marine
Fisheries Base in Wickford, Rhode Island; (2) a map from Hill and
Shearin's Tidal Marshes of Connecticut and Rhode Island; and ,3) the
Salt Water Marsh Inventory by Rhode Island Department of Agriculture
and Conservation.

Sisson and Russell, personally well acquainted with saltmarshes
throughout the state as a result of shellfish management work, collaborated
to indicate marshes on a base map of 1:250,000 sca1e. The:outlines
thus sketched in were not exact.

In Hill and Shearin's report ('1970) marshes larger than 15 acreswere
sampled by borings to determine characteristics of thickness of peat,
texture of underlying mineral layer, and salinity; and were then subse-

quently divided into deep, shallow, or very shallow coastal salt marsh,
or brackish estuarine marsh. Classification was therefore based pri-
marily on soil survey and salinity rather than vegetation, though indi-
cator plants proved a useful tool for on-site identification. The marshes
were mapped onto USGS 1:125,000 maps, and their boundaries estimated
from 1965 aerial photographs supplemented by field reconnaissance in
1968 and 1969. Several fresh-water marshes influenced by coastal tides,
along the Connecticut.River between Haddam Neck and Hartford were
omitted.

The Salt Water Marsh Inventory, described above as a statistical source,
included a set of thirteen maps with marshes hatched in. The areas
were slightly less inclusive than those from Hill et al (1970), perhaps
a matter of difference of definition. When conflicting, data was
chosen from Hill et al (1970), ,

Connecticut: (See Table E-13). All the estimates of Connecticut
saltmarsh acreage are old, and none offer a breakdown by county, town,
or marsh. Spinner compiled "saltmarshes" and "saltmeadows" (see E.2.4-
Maine) from 1954 BSFW data, corrected by the Department of Inland Fish
and Game. Tri-State Regional Planning Commission got their figure
from a 1959 survey of "saline acres" - possibly from Spinner, judging
by the closeness of the numbers. Odum's 1969 estimate was arrived at
by applying a 55 percent intact/45 percent destroyed adjustment to a
1914 measurement of 23,360 acres of saltmarsh. The most recent,
although only an estimate, was provided by Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection. According to James Murphy (perso*nal communi-
cation, 1974), Connecticut has thoroughly described the nature of its
saltmarshes, but because there has not been a need, no maps nor measure-
ments have been made. Connecticut defines, by Public Act 132, a salt-
marsh as follows:

"...tidal wetland means those areas which border on or lie beneath
tidal waters, such as, but not limited to, banks, bogs, saltmarsh,
swamps, meadows, flats, or other low lands subject tO tidal action, in-
cluding those areas now or formerly connected to tidal waters, and
whose surface is at or below an elevation of one foot above local ex-
treme high water, and upon which may grow or be capable of growing some,
but not necessarily all, of the following: ... Sparti na patens. .. (and
other species)."

The map illustrated on Figure E-31 was taken from Tidal Marshes of
Connecticut and Rhode Island (Hill et al, 1970) as' mentioned above under
Rhode Island.

New York: (See Table E-14). Six sources provided New York wetland
data. Two of these inventoried Nassau and Suffolk Counties on Long
Island, in detail-, by town.- Three other sources included more of New
York but in less detail; one concentrated on Great South Bay, Long

E-10

Is land.

O'Connor and Terry (1972) used the following method in their inven-
tory of marine wetlands of Nassau and Suffolk Counties;

"Aerial.photographs of Suffolk and Nassau Counties made in 1970 were
used to lorate wetlands and to estimate their areas. All aerial photos
were at a scale of one inch to 400 feet (1:4,800). Generally, the
area of each marsh was outlined on an aerial photograph while in the
field. The boundaries of marshes were defined by the usually marked
transistion from tidal marsh vegetation to that of uplands or sandy
beaches. Tidal creeks less than 50 feet (15m) wide were also included.
Intertidal mudflats were not included as marsh area, making our marshland
definition identical, insofar as can be determined, with the. periodic
Federal Government inventories of Long Island wetlands (U.S. Department
-of the Interior, 1965). The area of each marsh was measured by super-
imposing a grid of one-acre squares upon the marsh outlined on the aerial
photograph. The precision of these measurements is probably within
5 percent of the true area, given consistently accurate scales in the
aerial photographs.

"Essentially all Nassau and Suffolk County marine wetlands were ob-
served by one or both of the authors during the summer and fall of
1971. Depending upon the size and accessibility of the wetland, from
15 minutes to two hours were spent in recording observations at each
I o ca ti on.,

The Long Island Marine Wetlands - Status, Value, and Preservation Po-
tenttals by the State Office of Planning Services, (1972) also measured
just Nassau and Suffolk counties. This report includes salt and brackish
wetlands of two types: (1) "the intertidal zone, the area covered
at normal high tide by exposed at low tide, characterized by tidal flats
and cordgrass marshes (Spartina alterniflora)"; and (2) "the zone
of salt meadow, the area between normal high tide and peak lunar tides,
characterized by meadows of salt hay (S artina 2atens) and associated
plants such as alkali grass (Distichlis_ spicata)" * Acreage data was
supplied by the State Department of Environmental Conservation. The
numbers in the text do not agree completely with those in the table,
although they are close. The text figures were occasionally preceded
by the word "approximately", which could account for some rounding off;
and, the table was headed Selected Marine Areas, implying that some
marshes were left out. As can be seen, the acreage figures from the
text section are-generally larger.

,Another study contracted by the Nassau Suffolk Regional Planning Board,
Wetlands on Long Island, (Green, 1972). used figures from surveys conducted
by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in cooperation with the New York
State Conservation Department from 1953 to 1964, to detemine the extent
of wetland destruction (Green, 1972). The survey, covering all of
Long Island, though sketchily, included "fresh and saline coastal marsh-

E-11

lands of 40 acres or larger", valued from negligible to high as water-
fowl habitat. Its range of study is thus somewhat different than that of
our report.

The Tri-State Regional Planning Commission (New York, New Jersey,
Connecticut) s.urveyed wetlands in its recent report,.An Interim Management
Guide for the Tri-State Coastal Zone (1973). It does not define
wetland precisely; sources for the data table are "secondary data, from
the latest available reports and briefings." Hence, its figures can
be used only as rough approximations.

The National Estuary Stu!4y (U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and
Wildlife Service, 1970) simply cites one figure for total acreage of
Great South Bay on Long Island, which approximates data from two Nassau
Suffolk Regional Planning reports.
Spinner (1969) contains,estimates for New York which exceed those
of other studies, possibly because some of the areas have been.lost by
dredge and fill since 1954, when data used in Spinner's work were
collected.

Wetlands were mapped on Long Island (see Figure E-3a) from The Marine
Wetlands of Nassau and Suffolk Counties (O'Connor et al, 1972). Data
could not be found for the other counties.

New Jersey: (See Table E-15). As part of the effort to halt wetland
destruction, New Jersey passed the Wetlands Act in 1970, appropriating
funds for an extensive effort to map the salt marshes, using aerial
infra-red photography to detect saltmarsh areas. Maps on a scale of
1 inch for 200 feet have been made but are too detailed a scale to
be included in this report. Statistical data have also been compiled,
and are available, along with the maps, from the Department of Environ-
mental Protection.

E.2.5 WORM - CLAM FLATS

The extensive worm and clam flats due to large tidal range in the north
diminish as one moves south with small tides. South of Cape Cod, the
s.hellfish habitats that are found exposed at low tide to the north are
found here subti.dally. For this reason, the category of "worm-clam
flats", though appropriate for Maine, is inaccurate for the southern
states and has been changed to "shellfish beds". On the map, the line
of demarcation between exposed flats and submerged beds has been made'
at Provincetown on Cape Cod. Although somewhat arbitrary, as the transi-
tion is gradual in reality, this is where the tidal range becomes small
enough to leave shellfish areas submerged rather than exposed at low
tide.

The distinction between. "worm-clam flats" and "oyster-mussel reefs"

E-12

becomes arbitrary in southern regions for much the same reason. Along
Maine's coast, the clams and woms inhabit expanses of intertidal mud-
flats, whereas the oysters and mussels grow on subtidal reefs farther
offshore. In the Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New York area, how-
ever, all shellfish grow on the ocean floor, and are never exposed by
tidal excursion.

As one moves from north to south, the frequency of some shellfish spe-
cies decrease while others increase, due primarily to the temperature
change. Soft-shell clams abound in Maine, New Hampshire, and Massachu-
setts, but dwindle further south. Inversely, oyster populations do not
become important until Rhode Island and south. Quahaugs, bay scallops,
and conchs also grow in warmer areas.

Generally, infomation on the mud flat habitat comes from shellfish
surveys, and for a few areas, from waterfowl studies. For some states,
mud flats are well delineated and tabulated; for others, only sketchy
maps lacking acreage estimates are available.

SURVEYS BY STATE

Maine: (See Table E-16). Reed and DAndrea (draft report, 1973) have
listed mollusc areas by town for Maine, using unpublished maps revised
in 1969, and a computer printout of acreages, both prepared by Maine
Department of Marine Resources.

The Maine Wetlands Inventory by the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries
and Game, (1972), follows the wetlands classification system,of Martin,
Hotchkiss, Uhler, and Bourn (1954), defining mud flats as follows:

Type 19 Sounds and B@ys. This typeconsists primarily of mud flats
laid bare at low tide and occuring along salt-water rivers,
sounds, and bays. Vegetation, if present, may consist of
eelgrass, widgeon grass, Sago pondweed, and muskgrasses.
These tidal flats support large shellfish populations and
are extremely important to wintering waterfowl populations.

The,methodology used in this inventory is described previously from
the Manual for Maine Wetlands Inventory (1972).

The data are qualified for the user by the Manual:
"(Because) tidal areas are subject to greater alterations than most
'wetlands ... absolute accuracy in size and shape determinations are
not always possible. Such determinations are affected by several
factors: the data of photography, the phase of the tide, the quality
and scale of photography, and the precision of the geodetic survey.
It is important to know that a wetland exists and where; knowledge
of the area's precise acreage is of secondary importance."

E-13

Mapped information (see Figure E-1a, E-2-a) was obtained from the Maine
Shellfish Resource Atlas at the Maine Department of Marine Resources.
The Atlas, composed in 1966, is periodically revised to update the data.
Soft-shelled clams are best documented, being the most abundant and
economically valuable shellfish. Mussels receive little attention.
The Atlas states:

"The scarcity of shellfish population records and the resulting
methods used in collecting information for this atlas place obvious
limitations on the data. However, this documentation of shellfish
resources is a compilation of a vast amount of information which, like
the resource, is dynamic and maybe subject to constant change.

"The most accurate source of shellfish data compiled in this atlas
was gathered from records of actual surveys conducted by Maine
Sea and Shore Fisheries personnel (now the Department. of Marine
Resources). Some of these data reflect recent shellfish conditi.ons
on the shores whereas some may be considered historical.

"The amount of data available from actual surveys is quite meager, and
to obtain the relatively large amount remaining it was necessary to
interview biologists and coastal wardens. The information this gathered
may be quite limited in accuracy because of the variabli%lity in esti-
mating the resources by different observors."
New Hampshire: (See Table E-17). Shellfish data for New Hampshire are
scanty. The only source is personal communication from Dr. Barrett of
New Hampshire Fish and Game Department. No mapped data could be found
at the state goVernment level, and statistical data are rough estimates
from a variety of sources.

Massachusetts: (Clam Surveys) (See Table E-18). Massachusetts Depart-
ment of Natural Resources conducted a shellfish survey of selected
estuarine areas in the state, from 1964 through 1969, publishing the
results in a series of monographs. Limited by time, the surveys were
not extensive, but "adequate to provide reasonable estimates of the-
existing shellfish populations."

Areas were first grossly surveyed by biologists to determine relative
productivity, indicated by the numbers of siphon holes on the flats, a
and then subdivided into flats accordingly. Cubic foot samples were
then collected randomly over productive and non-productive flats, and
screened to obtain a count of the shellfish. From Wellfleet Harbor
on Cape Cod, north of the New Hampshire border, subtidal areas were
sampled by scuba divers using a cubic foot steel frame, and, in the
deepest areas using.a bay scallop dredge.

Acreage figures for the she llfish areas were calculated by using a
dot grid overlay on either Coastal Geodetic Survey Charts, scale
1:24,000 or 1:25,000, or USDA aerial photographs taken in 1952.

E-14

These data for Massachusetts must be regarded as both partial and
app roxi ma te. Not all coastal areas were surveyed. The random sampling
method has been challenged by Edward Wong, Natural Resource Officer,
Environmental Protection Agnecy, Region I, Boston office, as producing
misleading results. He proposed biased sampling, following the water
currents and other physiolographic indicators to outline areas of most
probable productivity, and then sampling. This method perhaps does
provide a better population estimate, however, for purposes of general
habitat location, random sampling may provide as good results. No
other source of shellfish flat data were found for Massachusetts, so
comparisons cannot be mdae with the DNR's figures. Mapping was done
on 1952 aerial photographs or 1:25,000 maps, by Massachusetts DNR,but
because only selected estuaries were surveyed, the map is incomplete
(See Figure E-2a).

E.2.6 SHELLFISH BEDS

Rhode Island: (See Table E-19). Information for this report wa's
gathered during a visit to Richard Sisson and Howard Russell, Jr.
at the Rhode Island Marine Fisheries Base in Wickford, Rhode Island,
where unpublished data are on file. Both men are well acquainted
with the shellfish areas in the state through their own experience
regulating and extensively sampling shellfish areas, and through
acquaintance with local fishermen. They indicated on a working map
of 1:250,000 scale each shellfish area, then measured by planimeter
on 1:40,000 quadrangles the acreage of each area. Due to the large
scale of the maps, much detail could not be included.

A map of this information (Figure E-3a) used the following group-
ings: soft-shelled clams, quahaugs, conchs, and scallops were
grouped together; oysters and mussels were grouped separately, in
keeping with the distinction made under the Systems Ecology section
of this report.

Connecticut: (See Table E-20). Tabular data available for Connecticut's
shellfish habitats are not differentiated by species; therefore,
oyters and mussels are grouped with clams, quahogs, and scallops in
this section. In spite of the general tem "shellfish", however, the
predominant species is oysters, either natural or cultured. The
state's index to leased and franchised shellfish grounds (Depart-
ment of Agriculture, 1973-74) provides approximate acreages for the
beds;.these leased grounds are not necessarily congruent with truly
productive beds. The leased grounds are potential culture sites and
some are actively famed while others are not always in use. In general
then, the acres cited in the tabular data exceed those shown on the
map.

The source for mapped shellfish areas is the Connecticut Shellfish
Atlas, prepared by U.S. Department of Interior, Federal Water Pollu-.
tion Control Administration (197U). For the Atlas, active productive

E-15

beds were separated from a general list of leased beds, by means of
reviewing annually renewed licences, on the assumption that licences
would be bought only if the leased area was being famed. Shellfish
dealers helped indicate where transplanted oysters were located,
necessary because in the course of culturing oysters, they may be
moved as many as two times to areas more suitable for growth or
purification. No sampling research was conducted for the Atlas, so
the validity of the information rests on the accuracy of the match
between licensed areas and truly productive areas, and on the accuracy
and honesty of dealers and fishermen.

New York:_ .(See Table E-21). No statistical data could be located at
the New York Department of Environmental Conservation. The maps from
that same office are very rough, but all that was obtainable.

New Jersey: (See Table E-22). William Eisele of the New Jersey S ta te
Health Department,. provided maps of shellfish area closures due to
contamination, and an all-inclusive acreage estimate for the Raritan,
Low, and Sandy Hook Bay complex. The maps do not indicate specific
shellfish areas, only that the entire region is closed due to pollu-
tion.

E.2.7 MUSSEL - OYSTER REEFS

Maine: (See Table E-23). Maine's coastal waters are too cold to
support many oysters, but there are mussel reefs, mostly in the two
southern counties. These were located by the Maine Shellfish Resource
Atlas (Campbell, 1966). com lemented by a few listings from Reed anT
FAndrea (draft report, 1973@. Because mussels are of low commercial
value, complete and extensive surveys have not been done.

New Hampshire: (See Table E-24). No information in statistical form
or maps was found during inquiries to the New Hampshire Department of
Fish and Game, with the exception of mention that oysters live through-
out Great Bay, (Barrett, 1974, personal communication).

Massachusetts: (See Table E-25). Oyster bed data were extracted from
the Department of Natural Resources, Division of Marine Fisheries,
Monograph Series, (1965-73) which covers only selected estuarine sites.
For this reason, and because areal measurements have not been taken
on those beds that have been designated, the map and tables are in-
complete. With the exception of a few areas - Wellfleet Harbor and
Westport River - oysters are not indigenous to the Massachusetts
Coast, the water temperature being too low. The viability of planted
populations is uncertain, so those beds indicated in the tables and
on the map may no longer exist.

Rhode Island: (See.Table E-26). The locations of oyster and mussel
beds were provided by Richard Sisson and Howard Russell,, Jr. of the
Rhode Island Marine Fisheries Base at Wickford (personal communica-

E-16

tion, 1974). No published report was known which listed oyster beds
or their measurements, but since the state is small enough to permit
familiarity with its entire coastline, Sisson and Russell could 'indicate
each oyster population, map its.approximate size, and indicate whether
it was.natural or transplanted from another area. Mapped information
is now available at the Wi.ckford base, in unpublished files.

Only four acreage measurements were available. Longmeadows was measured
by planimeter on a, 1:40,000 CS chart by, Russell ; the three. ponds were
listed in Wright, Cheadle, and Palmatier's A Survey of Rhode Island's
Salt and Brackish Water Ponds and Marshes (1-94-97.

E.2.8 SALT PONDS

The salt pond habitat rarely occurs north of Cape Cod because the tidal
range is too great to permit their development. (See Section 4.6.3).
Only a few informational sources were found, and only for Massachusetts,-
Rhode Island, and Long Island, New York. More data may be available,
but were not found.

Massachusetts: (See'Table E-28). Saltponds have been given scant
attention, and no studies were found on salt ponds exclusively. Since
information came by way of chance references, the listing in Table
E-27 is far from complete.

Rhode Island. (See Table E-28). Rhode Island's southern shore is
scallopeiF -by numerous salt ponds, most of them fronted by barrier
beaches. Their saline nature, assumed from their appearance oil the
map, was verified by Sisson and Russell at Wic@ford, Rhode Island
Marine Fisheries Base, (personal communication, 1970), and further
corroboration and acreage measurements were supplied by Wright et al
(1949). The one point of disaqreement was on the nature of Trustom
Pond. Sisson and Russell consider this to be a fresh-pond, but Wriqht
considers it a salt pond. This could be a dispute of definition, o r
it could be because of changes in the pond since Wright's 1949 survey
due to changes in the barrier beach and breachway which separate the
pond from the ocean.

Conne cticut: (See Table E-29). No surveys were known to have been
conducted by the Department of Environmental Protection.
New York: (See Table E-30). Great South Bay, considered a huge
salt pond, is the only New York pond for which measurements were
found. There are more ponds along Long Island's shore as can be
seen on Figure 3a.
New Jersg: (See Table E-31). No information was gathered on New
Jersey salt ponds.

E-17

E.2.9 PELAGIC

The pelagic habi.tat as defined by this report encompasses the es-
tuarine, coastal, and Gulf water columns. No attempt has been made
to measure the estuarine'portion. Th2 Gulf and coastal regions to
gether occupy approximately 64,790 km (see Phytoplankton, Chapter 8-1),
of which 40 percent is t@e shallower and more producPve areas of
Georges Bank (25, 920 km') and Browns Bank (1,295 km

E-18

Table E-1

SUMMARY OF MARINE HABITAT MEASUREMENTS
SHORELINE
REGIONAL SUMMARY

Total Shoreline Beach Rocky
State Miles Miles Miles

Maine 2500 - 4099 21
New Hampshire 40- 131 17 - 25 10
Massachusetts 1200- 2000 167 - 940
Rhode Island 280- 419 185
Connecticut 150- 618 87 - 145 51
New York 638 -'1850 331
New Jersey 20 19

Range includes all estimates available from various sources.

E-19

OZ-3

C-

cn En
cn w @v r- @ 0 n "0 W C@ tn tz r- ul
w 0 m r? " w a, OD I la M I m - M Pi (D a-
rl .1 0- m 0 0 F, m p 0 m 0 la, 0 r, =r
0 " " ri 0 M M 0 r? 0 C? 0 0 m 0 0 0
rv :f Ou 0 K' 10 0' . r?0 :3 1.- cr W,
Im 10 w "0 " m 0 0 5 0.0 w --i m
0 0 0 0 " M n w 00 0 0
m 0 0 " " X, N I.-
m 0

F& m
00 (D CD
W (D
m
m
00

4- Ln (A
LA 1 1
Z 0
V- 0:) %D Uj C) bo %o %c

00 "1

z r,

CL m
>

z
0

z (n th
m 0

m
00 M: (D @-i
"0 0
m 0
a' P't
cr 0
0

rl)
to
M

0%
Go

X
O.A.z

Table E-2 SUMMARY OF MARINE HABITAT MEASUREMENTS
SHORELINE.
MAINE

Total Shoreline (miles) Beaches (miles)
Me. Coastal Maine NBIf NSS d
-County Town Planninxa Reedb Wetlandsc NSSd NOSE Town Miles Miles
Knox Crichaven 4.1
Isle au Haut 14.9
Matineus Pt. 6.4
North Haven 31.1
Vinalhaven 53.5
Camden 6.4
Rockport .10.5
Rockland 4.7
Owls Head 15.3
So. Thomaston 7.5
St. George 25.5
Thomaston .6
Cushing 15.6
Friendship 21.3
Subtotal 218 315.0, 3 .09

Lincoln Waldoboro 7.8 Damariscotta 1 .04
Bremen 14.4
Bristol 22.0
So. Bristol 24.5
Damariscotta 3.3
Newcastle 2.1
Alna .5
Southport 16.0
Boothbay Harbor 13.8
Boothbay 18.81
Edgecomb 11.2
Westport 32.7
Wiscasset 7.8
Subtotal 185 501.0 -1 b4

C) V)
0 C I I Ow
19 000
cr cv,
m CL C:

rt
rt 0 L4
m n H
0
8
Ln En r?
1r. r_
m cr cr a w
CT 0
0 :4 @-4 0 0
rt C? ca, to ::r .0 " X,
Jw 0 $0 OQ 0
r-t m :j
r) " m -3 m
::;,0 1.-
OMQ
ni

NO
co Lo

Lj C=
CD

lb W

0 0
%D rl Ln
I'D X-

z r*
C

r.0

t..n
0
0
CL cn
C--
z
0
co En
in
w cn Itl to
0 00 M M 0 " " 0
C: :3 0 H 0. rj " IV 10 m C: 0 "a
0 :3 (n (A CL 0 ol m m 0 " :r
m m 0 m 0 cr 0 M w 00 ODH
m --40 M C 0 m m E;0
0 0 Pi " " " " to m
:3 0 ::r 0 0 0 ID
r) to r-L 0) r- N ;IV m
X@ m pi 00 0) lb 5 A)
co cr 0 m
0 m
r?

+ + + + +
r,j

-l" W C) 0 L,) t-n C:) C% N) 00 -4
P,j o w c) 4- Lj -,j @o $-- C7% @j (.p C@ "D @j 00 P% 0)

m
W rL

Table E-2 SUMMARY OF MARINE HABITAT MEASUREMENTS
SHORELINE
MAINE

a Maine Coastal Planning Unit, Maine Office of State Planning, 1974.
b Reed & D'Andrea, 1973.
c Maine Department of Inland Fisheries & Game, Manual for Maine Wetlands Inventory, 1972.
d U.S. Army Engineer Division, National Shoreline Study (NSS), 1971.
e National Ocean Survey (NOS), National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, 1971.
f Plessey Environmental Systems, National Beach Invento (NBI), 1972.

Table E-28
SUMMARY OF MARINE HABITAT MEASUREMENTS
SHORELINE
NEW HAMPSHIRE

TOTAL SHORELINE BEACHES ROCKY
NOSa NSSb NSSb NBIc 'Tuckerd Tuckerd
County Miles Miles Miles Miles % Coast Miles

Rockingham 131 40 25 28 17.0 9 80-90% 10

a National Ocean Survey, National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, 1971.
b U.S. Army Engineer Division, 1971, National Shoreline Study (NSS).
c Plessey, 1972 , National Beach Inventory (NBI) .
.d Tucker, personal communications, 1974.

E-24

Table E-4
.SUMMARY OF MARINE HABITAT MEASUREMENTS
SHORELINE
MASSACHUSETTS

TOTAL SHORELINE (Xiles) BEACHES

Eco.
NSS a Ipo.b NOAAc SCORpd NBIe NSSa MacConnell
County Town Miles Miles Acres

Essex Salisbury 2 7.0 353
Newburyport - --- 56
Newbury 1 7.0 164
Rowley - --- 40
Essex 1 1.8 ---
Ipswich 1 3.7 464
Rockport 1 0.5 57
Gloucester 3 1.8 144
Manchester 3 1.3 18
Beverly - --- 46
Subtotal, NSS #30 75
Salem 1 0.5 4
Marblehead - --- 49
Swampscott 2 1.6 45
Nahant - --- 91
Lynn 3 1.9 ---
Subtotal, County 18 27.1 1531

Suffolk Revere 2 2.4 79
Winthrop 1 1.0 25
Boston 8 2.9 95
Subtotal, County 11 6.3 199

Norfolk Quincy 2 2.3 ---
Weymouth - --- 7
Subtotal, NSS #29 100
Cohasset 2 .0.6 7
Subtotal, County 4 2.0 14

E-25

Table E-4

SUMMARY OF MARINE HABITAT-MEASUREMENTS
SHORELINE
MASSACHUSETTS

TOTAL SHORELINE (Miles) BEACHES

Eco.
NSSa Imp.b NOAAc SCORpd NBIe NSSa MacConnell
County Town Miles Miles Acres

Plymouth Hingham 3 3.8 ---
Hull - --- 118
Scituate 5 1.2 198
Marshfield 3 1.8 98
Duxbury - --- 159
Plymouth 2 1.3 563
Kingston 1 NA
Wareham - --- 152
Marion - --- 93
Mattapoisett - --- 40
Subtotal, NSS #28 165
Subtotal, County 85.5 14 8.1 1421

Barnstable Sandwich 1 1.1 255
Barnstable 1 5.0 418
Brewster 6 2.2 99
Orleans 4 0.7 125
Wellfleet 6 35.5 167
Truro 1 0.5 339
Provincetown. 2 NA 27.1
Chatham 3 24.0 492
Hyannis 2 1.0 ---
Harwich 1 0.9 114
Dennis 2 1.5 160
Eastham 9 4.2 ---
Yarmouth 3 2.8 117
Mashpee .1 1.5 98
Falmouth 8 10.0 234
Bourne 1 0.5 86
Subtotal, County 240.3 51 91.4 2975

Bristol Taunton 1 NA ---
Fairhaven 1 0.2 95
New Bedford - --- 18
Dartmouth 2 5.8 165
Westport 1 5.01 223
Subtotal, NSS #27 370
Subtotal, County 55.8 .5 11.0 501

E-26

Table E-4
SUMMARY OF MARINE HABITAT MEASUREMENTS
SHORELINE
MASSACHUSETTS

TOTAL SHORELINE (Miles) BEACHES

Eco.
NSSa Imp.b NOAAc SCORpd NBIe NSSa MacConnellf
County Town miles Miles Acres

Dukes Oak Bluffs 1 1.5 38
Edgartown 5 11.4 419
Tisbury - --- 49
W. Tisbury --- 173
Chilmark --- 79
Gayhead 1 1.5 70
Gosnold - --- 40
99.8 7 14.4 868

Nantucket Nantucket 1 6.0 1141
Subtotal, NSS #26 230
Subtotal, County 72.9 1 6.0 1141

Total, State 1200 554.3* 1519 2000 111 167.2 940 8650

*Partial total, not all counties included.

a U.S. Army Corps Division, 1971, National Shoreline Study (NSS).
b Rorholm et al., 1967. Economic Impact of Maine-Oriented Activities (Eco. Imp.).
c National Ocean Survey, National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, 1971.
d Mass. Office of Environmental Affairs, 1973.
e Plessey, 1972, National Beach Inventory (NBI).
f MacConnell, unpublished, 1972.

E-27

8Z-3

9. m M m
w t3 0 c 0
w 0 P. 0 tj
0m 0 :3 m
OQ m
0
H 0 n
to
@qm 0'A
n0
m0
CL -4m 0:j M
p 0. r)
:j -0
I M 0
0
lb
.
Ir n
4
FJ I- > n
m0
13
13
-20
0t,0

0 n
> M
0 a,
PC0 :3 'on :4 MI-
M, I" 11 LA
o0
Z, P3
0 w
cr
0 0
I
I'n fa

m 0 0

H m

CL rn
rJ3 mm
t-I0
0 :4 64
in
10 m in

rt ;e U, V t. H
o a

CD IL m
I'- QI 0 m 2'. 0
1, 4 P0 0 G
0 j 11
1. o

tn
Lr
93

on Ui
C, ww N Ol W 41

tA 4- 4L'
a, @ @ R! @; @; "
ob t, 0C, t. w w to

ol L, M
VI

z
t. En
fo m
co W

Table E-6
SUMMARY OF MARINE HABITAT MEASUREMENTS
SHORELINE
CONNECTICUT

TOTAL SHORELINE (Miles) BEACHES (Miles) ROCKY (Miles)

NSSa DEpb Murphyc Tri-Stated NOSe NSSa DEpb Murphyc DEpb

270 258 250 150 618 145 87 142 "Beach" 51
55 "Potential
Beach"

NOTE: Figures above apply to total Connecticut shoreline.

a U.S. Army Corps Division, 1971, National Shoreline Study (NSS)..
b Dept. of Environmental Protection, Parks & Recreation, Mr. Bates, personal
communications, 1974.
c James Murphy, personal communications, 1974.
d Tri-State Regional Planning Commission, 1973.
e National Ocean Survey, National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, 1971.

E-29

TABLE E-7

SUMMARY OF MARINE HABITAT MEASUREMENTS
SHORELINE
NEW YORK

TOTAL SHORELINE BEACH

NOSa Tri-Stateb NSSc NSSc
Region Miles Miles Miles Miles

The Harbor 256
Sandy Hook - Raritan Bay 20
Southern Staten Island 13
Coney Island 5
Rockaways 10
Bronx, on L.I. Sound 18
Subtotal, Region 66

Atlantic North 300
Southern Long Island 108
Barrier Beaches, South L.I. 172
Eastern Forks 168
Subtotal, Region 448

Long Island Sound 125
Northern L.I., Suffolk Co. 87
Northern L.I., Nassau Co. 16
Westchester Co. 41
Subtotal, Region 144

Regional Totals 681 638
State Totals 1850 331

NOTE: These 3 regions of the Tri-State study approximate, but do not
necessarily equal, the sum of the NSS sub-regions listed below
them.

a National Ocean Survey, National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administra-
tion, 1971.
b Tri-State Regional Planning Commission, 1973
c Army Corps of Engineers, 1971.

Table E-8
SUMMARY OF MARINE HABITAT MEASUREMENTS
-SHORELINE
NEW JERSEY

Total Shoreline (Miles) Beach (Miles)
County Town NSSa NSSa

Monmouth Sandy Hook to 20 19
.and Raritan River
Middlesex

E-31

Table E-9

SUMMARY OF MARINE HABITAT MEASUREMENTS
SALT MARSHES
MAINE

a T- c
Reed Maine Wetlands Spinner
County Town Acres Acres Acres

Washington Perry 35
Dennysville 3 60
Lubec 6 133
Trescott 2 32
Cutler 2 54
Machiasport 2 43
Rogue Bluffs 1 153
Jonesport 2 49
Addison 4 589
Harrington 4 384
Millbridge 3 427
Steuben 4 126
Subtotal, County 34 2104 46 3424

Hancock Gouldsboro 2 157
Tremont 1 20
Cranberry Isles 1 33
Southwest Harbor 1 175
Mt. Desert 3 34
Bar Harbor 1 30
Franklin 4 112
Hancock 1 45
Lamoine 2 56
Stonington 2 26
Sedgewick 1 19
Brooksville 2 41
Penobscot 1 13
Subtotal, County 22 761 21 751

Waldo No Data
Subtotal, County 2 435

Knox Thomaston 1 273 1 273
Subtotal, County 1 273 1 273

Lincoln Newcastle 3 816
Edgecomb 1 24
Westport 1 81
Subtotal, County 5 931 5 931

E-32

Table E-9
SUMMARY OF MARINE HABITAT MEASUREMENTS
SALT MARSHES
MAINE

Reeda Maine.Wetlandsb Spinnerc
County Town Acres Acres Acres

Sagadahoc Woolwich 2 95
Georgetown 6 1372
Arrowsic 3 207
Phipps 8 903
Subtotal, County 19 2577 16 2474

Cumberland Harpswell 1 50
Brunswick 8 317
Freeport 4 285
Yarmouth 1 21
Portland 2 123
Scarborough 2 3481
Subtotal, County 18 4277 21 4821

York Saco 4 304
Kennebunkport 5 800
Cape Porpoise 2 72
Kennebunk 1 207
Wells 2 1380
Ogunquit 1 345
York 3 470
Kittery 2 324
Subtotal, County 20 3902 28 4254
Total, State 119 14824 140 17363 17633

a Reed & @'Andrea, 1973.
b Maine Department of Inland Fisheries & Game, 1972,.Manual for Maine
Wetlands Inventory.
c Spinner et al., 1969.

E*- 3 3

Table E-10
SUMMARY OF MARINE HABITAT MEASUREMENTS
SALT MARSHES
NEW HAMPSHIRE

County Town Acres

E-34

Table E-11
SUMMARY OF MARINE HABITAT MEASUREMENTS
SALT MARSHES
MASSACHUSETTS

MacConnell Mass. DNR Spinner
County Town Acres a Acres b Acres c

Essex Salisbury 2527 4208
Newburypot 267
Newbury 4592 3267
Rowley 1981 1833
Ipswich 4007 4537
Essex 2376 2321
Rockport 49
Gloucester 878 847
Manchester 46
Beverly 42
Danvers 57
Salem 40
Marblehead 11
Peabody 7
Lynn 34 1269
Saugus 685
Subtotal, County 17599

Middlesex Everett 15
Subtotal, County 15

Suffolk Revere 506
Winthrop 35
Boston 343
Dorchester 363
Subtotal, County 884

Norfolk Milton 165
Quincy' 481 209
Braintree 15
Weymouth 167
Cohasset 109
Subtotal, County 937

E-35

Table E-11
SUMMARY OF MARINE HABITAT MEASUREMENTS
...,SALT MARSHES
MASSACHUSETTS

:MacConnell Mass. DNR Spinner
County- i6wn Acre'sa Acresb Acresc

Plymouth Hull. 14
Hingham 156
Sc&tuate 1225
Norwell 140
Marshfield 1977
Duxbury 986
Kingston 140
Plymouth 238
Wareham 883
Marion 445
Mattapoisett .498
Subtotal, County 6762

Barnstable Sandwich 1002
Barnstable 4023
Brews-ter 364
Orleans .614
Eastham 1278
Wellfleet 845 1117
Truro 169
Provincetown 473
Chatham 964 1203
Harwich .366
Dennis 925
Yarmouth 1212
Mashpee 258
Falmouth 512
Waquoit 6
Bourne 311
Subtotal, County 13316

Dukes Oak Bluffs 94
Edgartown 512
Tisbury 11
Chilmark 109
Gayhead 0@'
Gosnold 29
Subtotal, County 755

Nantucket Nantucket 708
Subtotal, County 708

EL 36

Table E-11
SUMMARY OF MARINE HABITAT MEASUREMENTS
SALT MARSHES
MASSACHUSETTS

MacConnell Mass. DNR Spinner
-County Town Acresa Acresb Acresc

Bristol Freetown 4
Acushnet 40
Fairhaven 675
Dartmouth 1149
Westport 940 775
Swansea 4
Somerset 29
Subtotal 2839
Total, State 43815 42460

a MacConnell, 1972
b Massachusetts Department of Natural Resources, 1965-1973
Spinner et al., 1969.

E-37

C) Table E-14
SUMMARY OF MARINE HABITAT MEASUREMENTS
SALT MARSHES
NEW YORK

Marine L. I. Marine Reg. Marine
Wetlandsa Wetlandsb Res. Councilc Tri-Stated NESe Spinnerf
Tables Text Fresh & Saline
County Town Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres

Nassau N. Hempstead 4 131 5 110 110
Hempstead 5 7992 5 7992 7992
Oyster Bay 11 1401 10 1125 1125
Subtotal, County 20 9524 20 9227 9227 9495 NA 9.495

Suffolk Huntington 17 577 15 599 620
Smithtown 3 675 3 521 520
Brookhaven 21+ 2860 20 2223+ 2750
Riverhead 7 284 2 253 253
Southold 27 1091 18 904 950+
(Fishers Island) (7) (62)
Shelter Island 8 279 5 148 150
Easthampton 11 1224 8 704 800
Southampton 23 1999 17 1542 1650
Islip 9 1414 12 1318 1300
Babylon 8+ 2322 7 2525 2765
Subtotal, County 134 12725 112 10737 11758

Nassau 6000
& Suffolk Great South Bay*A"

Bay encompasses Southampton, Islip, and Babylon.

Table E-14
SUMMARY OF MARINE HABITAT MEASUREMENTS
SALT MARSHES.
NEW YORK

Marine L. I. Marine Reg. Marine
Wetlandsa Wetlandsb Res. Councilc Tri-Stated NESe Spinnerf
Tables Text Fresh & Saline
County Town Acres Acres Acres -Acres Acres Acres Acres

Hudson River 7 1050+
Staten Island
West Side NA NA

Bronx, Kings,
Queens 4005

Total 154 22249 132 19964 20988 30508 51 21195 36,385
(Nassau & (Nassau and (All'L.I.) (All New (All New
@;"f f 019@ Suffolk York state) York state)
0011 4 counties)

a U'Connor et al., 1972.
b Office of Planning Services,and Department of Environmental Conservation, 1972.
c Smith et al., 1970.
d Tri-State Regional Planning Comission, 1973.
e U.S. Department of Interior, .. National Estuary Study, (NES).
f' Spinner, et al., 19,69.

Table E-15
SUMMARY OF MARINE HABITAT MEASUREMENTS
SALT MARSHES
NEW JERSEY

County Town DEpa
Acres

Bergen NA
Passaic NA
Hudson NA
Essex NA
Union NA
Middlesex 4980
Monmouth 1716

a New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, 1974,
personal communication.

NA Data not compiled by Department of Environmental Protection..

E-42.

Table E-16
SUMMARY OF MARINE HABITAT MEASUREMENTS
WORM-CLAM FLATS
MAINE

Reeda Maine Wetlandsb
County Town Acres Acres

Washington Robbinston 3 162.6
Perry 8 645.6
Eastport 4 322.4
Pembroke 7 651.1
Dennysville 1 20.4
Edmunds 4 464.8
Trescott 9 656.1
Lubec 14 2494.9
Cutler 3 1750.1
Machiasport 15 1317.9
E. Machias 2 111.9
Rogue Bluffs 6 606.9
Jonesboro 3 229.8
Jonesport 10 947.9
Addison 8 1289.6
Beals 2 22.7
Harrington 11 1785.9
Milbridge 12 931.6
Steuben 18 851.7
Subtotal, County 140 15154. 193 21707

Hancock Gouldsboro 11 1184.0
Winter Harbor 1 73.7
Sorrento 3 63.6
Sullivan 3 132.3
Hancock 4 694.4
Lamoine 5 1401.0
Trenton 2 648.0
Bar Harbor 2 541.3
Brooklin 3 43.3+
Swans Island 3 167.8
Deer Isle 7 912.5
Stonington 4 180.3
Brooksville 10 603.9
Castine 4 363.7
Subtotal, County 129 8941 160 11082

E-43

Table E-16
Waldo Stockton Spring 4 352.8
Searsport 6 419.7
Belfast 3 206.2
Northport 3 66.1
Lincolnville 1 50.8
Isleboro 7 468.2
Subtotal, County 24 1563 55 2308

Knox North Haven 2 71.3
Vinalhaven 3 34.1
Camden 2 40.6
Rockport 1 22.9
Rockland 3 206.0
Owls Head 2 89.0
S. Thomaston 5 423.7
St. George 15 789.6
Cushing 7 709.9
Friendship 3 279.3
Subtotal, County 43 2666. 98 5177

Lincoln Waldoboro 6 857.3
Bremen 4 109.4
Bristol 7 223.6
S. Bristol 14 354.2
Boothbay 9 229.1
Boothbay Harbor 8 58.4
Newcastle 2 63.5
Edgecomb 2 71.2
Southport 10 70.9
Westport 2 88.9
.Subtotal, County 61 2176 78 4790

Segadahoc Woolwich 2 483.3
Georgetown 7 656.2
Arrowsic 2 170.4
Phippsburg 20 646.5
W. Bath 5 161.3
Subtotal, County 36 2117 28 4025

Cumberland Harpswell 63 232b.Z+
Brunswick 8 1839.6
Freeport 12 1418.6+
Yarmouth .11 477.2+
Cumberland 5 465.7
Falmouth 3 730.0
Portland 1 66.1
Cape Elizabeth 3 52.7
Scarborough 8 238.7
Subtotal, County 114 72724 56 8496

E-44

Table E-16

York Biddeford 5 116.9
Kennebunkport 8 660.8
Kennebunk 1 10.0
Ogunquit 1 40.4
Wells 1 53.0
York 4 26.5
Kittery 5 89.6
Eliot 6 171.5
Subtotal, County 32 1233 15 1875

a Reed & D'Andrea, 1973.
b Maine Department of Inland Fisheries & Game, 1972, Manual for Marine
Wetlands Inventory.

E-45

Table E-17

SUMMARY OF MARINE HABITAT MEASUREMENTS
WORM-CLAM FLATS
NEW HAMPSHIRE

County Town Area Acres

Rockingham Hampton
and
Seabrook Hampton-8eabrook 3000-4000a
Rye Rye Harbor 1000b
Marsh

Newmarket
and
Greenland area Great Bay. 7860c

a. Barrett, late 1960's.
b Barrett, 1974, pereonal communication.
c New Hampshire State Planning Development Commission, 1945.

'E-46

Table E-18

SUMMARY OF MARINE HABITAT MEASUREMENTS
WORM-CLAM FLATS
MASSACHUSETTS

DNRa DNRa
-County Town Flats Acres Watershed Flats Acres

Essex Salisbury 2 217.8 Merrimack River estuary
Newburyport 11 530.1
Newbury 2-+C 114.7
(North of Plum 15 862.6
Island Turnpike)

Ipswich 574.3 Parker River-
Rowley 9 47.7 Plum Island
Newbury 8 139.1 42 761.1

Ipswich 4 59.6 Essex Bay
Essex 15 340.7
Gloucester 4 100.1
23 500.4
Gloucester 21 508.1 Gloucester-
Annisquam River 21 508.1
Nahant 1 42.5 Lynn-Saugus Harbor
Lynn 5 98.3
Saugus 8 123.1
Subtotal, Countv 118 2896.1

Suffolk Revere 8 176.0
22 439.9
Boston 10 625.1 Dorchester Bay

Norfolk Quincy 3 290.2
Milton 2 59.3
15 974.6
Quincy 9 613.4 Quincy Bay
Hull 2 54.0
Subtotal, County 16 1016.9

Suffolk Boston 2 56.8
Subtotal, Countv 20 857.9
.13 724.2

E-47

Table E-18
SUMMARY OF MARINE HABITAT MEASUREMENTS
WORM-CLAM FLATS
MASSACHUSETTS

DNRa DNRa
County Town Flats Acres Watershed Flats Acres

Plymouth Hingham 1 NA d Plymouth Bay
Hull 1
Scituate 4
Marshfield 5
Duxbury 4
Kingston 1
Plymouth 1
Wareham 6
Marion 4
Mattapoisett I
Subtot al, CountV 24+ 5668+ 24+ 5668+

Barnstable Wellfleet 8 3000 Wellfleet Harbor
8 3000
Waquoit 22 550 Waquoit Bay-
Eel Pond Estuary 22 550
Chatham 2+ 640 Pleasant Bay
Harwich 2+ 640+
Orleans
Subtotal, CountV 32+ 4190+

Bristol Westport 19+ 589+ Westport River 19+ 589+
Subtotal, County 19+ 589+ 19+ 589+

Total, State 261+ 5668+ 261+ 5668+
(Partial total - only those areas
inventoried by Dept. of Natural
Resources have available data)

Total, State 28000
by Spinnerb

a Massachusetts Department of Natural Resources, 1965-1973
b Spinner, et al., 1969.
c + - Partial Total
d NA Not Available

E-48

Table E-19

SUMMARY OF MARINE HABITAT MEASUREMENTS
SHELLFISH
(SOFT-SHELLED CLAMS, QUAHAUGS, SCALLOPS, CONCHS)
RHODE ISLAND

Approximatea.
County Areaa Acres

Newport Quicksand Pond 376b
Tunipus Pond 49b
Briggs Marsh 260b
Sahonnet River 3700
Spectacle Cove
Potter Cove 102
Prudence Island, East side 597
Prudence Island, West side (Pine Hill) 128
Subtotal, County (Partial) 5429

Newport and Mount Hope Bay 8571
Bristol

Bristo'l Kickamuit River 441
Bristol Harbor 1000
Barrington Beach 204
Subtotal, County (Partial) 1645

Bristol and Pawtuxet, above Longmeadows 5618
Kent East of Warwick 9451

Kent Longmeadows 339
Greenwich Bay .5723
Greenwich Bay, North Shore 528
Mountain View 3330
Subtotal, County (Partial) 9920,

E-49

Table E-19
SUMMARY OF MARINE HABITAT MEASUREMENTS
SHELLFISH,
(SOFT-SHELLED CLAMS, QUAHAUGS, SCALLOPS, CONCHS)
RHODE ISLAND

Approximatea
County Areaa Acres

Washington and Lower West Passage, 3444
Newport Narragansett Bay
(Wickfor Harbor &
Dutch Island Harbor)
Washington Narrows River 308b
Pettaquamscuft River 236b
Pt. Judith Pond 2663b
fotters Pond 300
Cards Ponds 43b
Green Hill Pond 436b
Ninigret Pond (Charlestown Pd.) 1550b
Ouonochontaug Pond 750b
Winnapaug Pond 537b
Maschaug Pond 40b
Subtotal, County (Partial) 6857
Total, State 50933

A Sisson & Russell, 1974.
b Wright et al., 1949.

E-50

Table E-20

SUMMARY OF MARINE HABITAT MEASUREMENTS
SHELLFISH
CONNECTICUT

Conn. Dept. Ag.a Tri-Stateb Matthiessonc
County Town Acres Acres Acres

New London Groton 76.0
New London 16.0
Niantic 10.0
Subtotal, County 102.0

New Haven Madison-Guilford. 50.0
Branford 145.0
Easr Haven 475.2
New Haven 2875.4
Quinnipiac River
East side 44.7
West side 34.6
Mill River 5.6
West River 3.0
West Haven 4867.5
Milford 4793.2
Subtotal, County 13294.2

Fairfield Stratford 2425.0
Bridgeport 2576.4
Fairfield 35.3
Westport 4927.9
Norwolk 1232.8
Darien 368.2
Stamford 246.8
Greenwich 1439.2
Subtotal, County 13251.6
Total, State 71414 64000 60000

a Connecticut Dept. of Agriculture, Aquaculture Division, 1973.
b Tri-State Regional Planning Commission, 1973.
c Matthiesson, 1970(?).

E-51

Table E-21
SUMMARY OF MARINE HABITAT MEASUREMENTS
SHELLFISH
NEW YORK

CountV Town

Statistical data not compiled by Department of Environmental
Conservation.

Table E-22
SUMMARY OF MARINE HABITAT MEASUREMENTS
SHELLFISH
NEWIJERSEY

DEpa
County Town Area Acres

Monmouth & Raritan, Low, 33000
Middles ex and Sandy Hook
Bay complex

a New@Jersey Dept. of Environmental Protection, Water Resources
William Eisele, Personal Communication, 1974.

E-53

Table E-23
SUMMARY OF MARINE HABITAT MEASUREMENTS
OYSTER-MUSSEL.REEFS
MAINE

Reeda Maine Resourcesb
County Town Acres Species Species

Washington Steuben 1 1.7 Mussel

Lincoln Southport 1 10.1 Mussel 2 Oyster, Mussel
Boothbay Harbor I Oyster
-Newcastle 3 Oyster
(1954 Survey)
Sagadahoc Phippsburg, 2 NCc Nussel I Mussel

.Cumberland Island I Mussel
Bailey Island I Mussel
S. Harpswell 2 Mussel
Freeport Mussel
Yarmouth I Mussel
Chebeague Island .4 Mussel
Scarborough :1, Mussel

York Biddeford 3 Mussel
Ogunquit 2- Mussel
Cape Neddick 2 Mussel
York 2 Mussel
Kittery Mussel

a Reed & D'Andrea, diAft report, 1971.
b Maine Department of Marine Resourcep@,
c NC Not Computed,.

E.754

Table E-24
SUMMARY OF MARINE HABITAT MEASUREMENTS
OYSTER-MUSSEL REEFS
NEW HAMPSHIRE

County Town Area Acres

Rockingham Newmarket
and
Greenland area. Great Bay NA
Oysters distributed throughout bay.
Extensive oyster sport fishery exists.

E-55

Table E-25
SUMMARY OF MARINE WITAT MEASUREMENTS
OYSTER BEDS
MASSACHUSETTS

Mass. DNRa.
County Town Acres

Essex Newburyport NA NA Attempted plantings in Parker River;
Success doubtful
Subtotal, Countj NA NA1.

Plymouth Wareham 6 NA
Marion 2 NA
Mattapaisett I NA
Subtotal, County 9 NA

Barnstable Wellfleet 9 102 Natural population
Waquoit NA 'Seapit River planting
partly successful
Chatham 4 NA Pleasant Bay planting
partly successful
Subtotal, County 14 1292+

Bristol Westport 4, NA Natural population, 2-4 miles
Above qpu@h of Westport River
Subtotal, County 1 NA
.Total, State '48+ 129Z+

Z-de@sachu ts Dep4rtmelvt

E - 5.6

Table E-26

-SUMMARY OF MARINE HABITAT MEASUREMENTS
OYSTER & MUSSEL BEDS
RHODE ISLAND

County Town Area Acres Species
Newport Little Compton Quicksand Pond 376b Oysters
b
Briggs Marsh 260 Oysters
Sakonnet Point NA Mussels
Middletown Newport Harbor (Closed) NA
Jamestown Jamestown Island, NA Mussels
Southern end 4 small areas
Jamestown Harbor NA

'Kent Warwick Longmeadows 339a Mussels
Greenwich Hunt River NA Oyster,
I t Transplanted
Va6hington, N. Kingstown Wickford Harbor NA Oysters
Wickford, Southern coast NA
Hamilton NA Oysters
Mussels
Narragansett Bonnet Point NA
Narrows River NA Mussels
Pt. Judith Pond,
Northern end NA Oysters
S. Kingstown Potters Pond, NA Oysters
Northern end
Trustom Pond NA Oysters
Green Hill Pond 430b
Charlestown Charlestown Pond, NA Oysters
Northern finger
Ninigret Pond NA Oysters
Westerly Winnapaug Pond,
Western end NA Oysters
Transplanted
from Pawcatuck River
Maschaug Ponds NA Oysters
Little Narragansett Bay, NA Oysters
Pawcatuck River, NA Oysters
Lower end to dam

a Sisson & Russell, 1974, personal communication.
b Wright et al., 1974.

E-57

Table E-27
SUMMARY OF MARINE HABITAT MEASUREMENTS
SALT PONDS
MASSACHUSETTS

-Smaydaa Metcalfb NSSc
County Town Pond Acres Pond @Acres Pond Acres

Barnstable Falmouth Great Pond 320
N A Oyster Pond 62

Dukes Martha's Vineyatd, 4 Large

Nantucket Nantuckqt N A N A
Southern Shore
scalloped by ponds

a Smaydi, 1973.
b Metcalf & Eddy, 1971.
c U.$ Arm -1 -Nation-. Shot 11-ne Stuftr (RSS).-
yEn al e

Table E-28

SUMMARY OF MARINE HABITAT MEAUSREMENTS
SALT PONDS
RHODE ISLAND

Water Resourcesa Wrightu
Coun@y Town Pond Acres Acres

Newport Little Compton Quicksand 318 376
Tunipus 51 49
Briggs Marsh 213 260
Long Pond 40
Round Pond 34
Tiverton Nannaquaket 205
Middletown Easton 132
Gardiner 90
Newport Green End 125
Nelson 29
Jamestown Fox Hill 31
subtotal, county 11 1268

Washington Narragansett Point Judith 1064 2663
Wesguage 54
South Kingston Potter 391 300
Cards. 38 43
Truston 157
Green Hill 429 430
Charlestown Ninigret 1455; 1550
Foster Cove 59
Quonochontaug 763 750
Westerly Winnapaug 489 537
(Brightmans)
Maschaug 37 40
'Little Maschaug 13
Fort Neck 85
New Shorham Great Salt Pond 535
(Block Island) Trims.Salt Pond 8
subtotal, county 15 5577

total, state 26 6845

aRhode Island Water Resources Board, 1974
bWright et al., 1949

E-59

Table E-29
SUMMARY OF MARINE HABITAT MEASUREMENTS
SALT PONDS
CONNECTICUT

County Town

E-60

Table E-30

SUMMARY OF MARINE HABITAT MEASUREMENTS
SALT PONDS
NEW YORK

County Town NESa

Nassau and Suffolk 6000 acres
Great South Bay

a U. S. Department of Interior, National Estuary Study (NES) 1(,,72

E-61

Table E-31

SUMMARY OF MARINE HABITAT MEASUREMENTS
SALT PONDS
NEW JERSEY

County Town

E-62

BROQKLYN@'

sland

Staten z

Island

...............
...........

Sandv H

...................
Bay
Raritan

Bay

..................
Shellfish Area
ImShellfish Area/Oyster Reef ............
..........
.............

State boundary
Long
11ranch

5 10
mi:es

Asbury Park

it.

Point Pleasant

AVIV

121,

1.-0
Torns River

Marine Habitats

sum

Staten z

Island
409
00

Bay
Raritan

Sandy Beach
Major Wildlife Areas
-0 Major Bird Breeding Areas

0 5 10

Miles

Asbury Pftt

ptopiaml pl-mm"I

16-

Tormns River

Too$
Marine Habitats

E.3. REFERENCES

Barrett, Burdett. (personal communication, 1974) New Hampshire Depart-
ment of Fish and Game.

Bateo, Stanley J. (personal communication, 1974) Connecticut Depart-
of Environmental Protection, Parks and Recreation.

Brown, Robert P., William H. Moser, Edward H. Shenton. 1972. National
Beach Inventory, Technical Report. Vol. II. Plessey Environmental
Systems report.prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Water Programs.

Brown, Robert P., William H. Moser, Edward H. Shenton. 1972. National
Beach Inventory, Computer print-out. Plessey Environmental Systems
report to U.S.. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water
Programs.

Caldwell, Bill. Maine's 3,344 islands ... who owns them legally? Portland,
Maine: Maine Sunday Telegram, March 31, 1974.

Campbell, Robert. 1966. State of Maine Shellfish Resource Atlas. U.S.
Dept. of Health, Education & Welfare, Public Health Service,
Shellfish Sanitation Branch, Northeast Resource Center, Narragan-
sett, R. I. continually updated by Maine Dept. of Marine Resources,
Augusta, Maine.

Chesmore, Arthur P., David Brown, and Robert Anderson. 1972. A study
of the marine resources of Lynn-Saugus Harbor. Mass. Dept..of Nat-
ural Resources, Division of Marine Fisheries, Monograph Series, #11.

Chesmore, Arthur P.,, David Brown, and Robert Anderson. 1973. A study
ofthe marine resources of Essex Bay. Mass. Dept. of Natural,Resour-
.ces, Division of Marine Fisheries, Monograph Series, #13.

Chesmore, Arthur P., Salvatore A. Lestaverde, and F. Paul Richards.
1971. A study of the marine resources of Dorchester Bay. Mass. Dept.
of Natural Resources, Division of Marine Fisheries, Monograph
Series, #10.

Connecticut Dept. of Agriculture, Aquaculture Division. 1973. Shellfish
Laws, Index to Oyster Grounds. General Information.

Connecticut Dept. of Agri:culture, Aquaculture Division. 1974. Maps of
leased and franchised shellfish beds.

Curley, John R., Robert Lawton, J. Hickey and John Fiske. 1968. A
study of the marine resources of the Waquoit Bay - Eel Pond estu-
ary. Mass. Dept. of Natural Resources, Division of Marine Fisher-
ies, Monograph Series, #9.

E-71

Curley, John R., Robert P. Lawton, David K. Whittaker and John M.
Hickey. 1972. A study of the marine resources of Wellfleet Harbor.
Mass. Dept. of Natural Resources, Division of Marine Fisheries,
Monograph Series, #12.

Eisele, William (personal communication, 1974) New Jersey Dept. of
Environmental Protection, Division of Water Resources.
Fiske, John D., John R. Curley and Robert Lawton. 1968. A study of
the marine resources of the Westport River. Massachusetts Dept. of
Natural Resources, Division of Marine Fisheries, Monograph Series, #7.

Fiske, John D., Clinton E. Watson and Philip G. Coates. 1967. A Study
of the Marine Resources of Pleasant Bay. Massachusetts Dept. of
Natural Resources, Division of Marine Fisheries, Monograph Series, #5.

Green, Ralph. 1972. Wetlands on Long Island. Hauppauge, N. Y., Regional
Marine Resources Council, Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board,
33P & app.

Hill, David and A.E. Shearin. 1970. Tidal Marshes of Connecticut and
Rhode Island, Bulletin 709. New Haven, Connecticut Agricultural
Experiment Station, 34p.

Jerome, William C., Jr., Arthur P. Chesmore, and Charles O.'Anderson.
1966. A study of the marine resources of Quincy Bay. Massachusetts
Dept. of Natural Resources, Division of Marine Fisheries, Monograph
Series, #2.

Jerome,.William C., Jr., Arthur P. Chesmore and Charles 0. Anderson, Jr.
1968. A study of the marine resources of the Parker River - Plum
Island sound estuary. Massachusetts Dept. of Natural Resources,
Division of Marine Fisheries, Monograph Series, #6.

Jerome, William C., Jr., Arthur P. Chesmore and Charles 0. Anderson, Jr.
1969. A study of the marine resources of the Annisquam River -
Gloucester Harbor coastal system. Mass. Dept. of Natural Resources,
Division of Marine Resources, Monograph Series, #8.

Jerome, William C., Jr., Arthur P. Chesmore, Charles 0. Anderson and
Frank Grice. 1965. A study of the marine resources of the Merrimack.
River estuary.-Massachusetts Dept. of Natural Resources, Division of
Marine Fisheries, Monograph Series, #1.

MacConnell, William P. 1972. Unpublished land use inventory, obtained
through New England River Basins Commission, Boston.

Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Game. 1972. Manual for Maine
Wetlands Inventory, revised by Cheryl A. McCall. Augusta,'Maine,
Dept. of Inland Fisheries and Game, 37p.

F-79

Maine State Planning, Office, Coastal Planning Unit. 1974. Unpublished.
tables, ongoing project. Augusta, Maine.
Maine State Planning Office, Coastal Planning Unit. 1972. the Penobscot
Bay Resource Plan. Augusta, Maine, State Planning Office, 38p.

Mass. Dept. of Natural Resources, Division of Conservation Services,
Bureau of Planning. 1.973. Massachusetts Outdoor Recreation Plan.
Boston.

Matthiesson, George C. A Review of Oyster Culture and the Oyster Indus-
try in North America. Woods Hole, Mass., Woods Hole Oceanographic
'Institution, 52p.

Martin, Hotchkiss, Uhler, Brown. 1953. Classification of wetlands of
the United States. U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service Special Science
Report. Wildlife, 20, 14p.

Me tcalf and Eddy. 1972. Summary of the Comprehensive Plan for Dukes
County, Massachusetts. Oak Bluffs, Mass., Dukes County Planning
.and Econimi ,c Development Commission.

Murphy, James (personal communication, 1974) Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection.

National Ocean Survey, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
U. S. Dept. of Commerce. 1971. The coastline of the United States.
Washington, D. C., U. S. Government & Printing Office.

New Jersey Dept. of Environmental Protection, Division of Water Re-
sources, Bureau of Water Pollution Control, Shellfish Control Sec-
tion. 1974. maps of condemned shellfish areas.

New Yor k State Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Shellfisheries
Management Unit. 1974. Maps of shellfish areas and areas certified
for shellfishing. Stony Brook, State University of New York.

New York State Planning Office of Planning Services. 1972. Long Island
Marine Wetlands. N.Y., Office of Planning Services, 60p.

O'Connor, Joel S. and Orville W. Terry. 1972. The Marine Wetlands of,
Nassau - Suffolk Counties. Stony Brook, N.Y., State University of
New York, Nassau - Suffolk Regional Planning Board and Marine Science
Research Center, 99p.

Odum, H.T., B.J. Copeland, Elizabeth A. McMahan, ed. 1969. Coastal
Ecological Systems of the United States, Volume 1, a report to Fed-
eral Water Pollution Control Administration, contract RFP 68-128.
Moorehead City, University of North Carolina, Institute of Marine
Science.

E-73

Redfield, Sarah. 1972. A Working Paper, Maine Saltmarsh. unpublished
paper to the Maine Audibon Society.

Reed and D'Andrea * 1973. Unpublished draft, Conservation Priorities
Plan, Coastal Overview. South Gardiner, Maine, Reed and D'Andrea.

Rhode Island Dept. of Agriculture and Conservation, Division of Fish
& Game. 1965. Rhode Island Salt Water Marsh Inventory. available
from R. I. Dept. of Natural Resources, Fish & Wildlife Division.

Rodiek, Jon. 1973. A Natural Resources Inventory Atlas for Plymouth
County. Amherst, Mass., University of Massachusetts, Cooperative
Extension Service, 133p.

Rorholm, Niels, H.C. Lampe, Nelson Marshall, J.F. Far -rell. 1967.
Economic Impact of Marine-Oriented Activities - A Study of the
Southern New England Marine Region, Bulletin 396. Kingston, R.I.,
University of R.I., Dept. of Food and Resource Economics, Agricul-
tural Experiment Station.
Sisson, Richard and Howard Russell, Jr. (personal communication, 1974)
Rhode Island Marine Fisheries Base, Wickford, Rhode Island.

Smayda, T.J. 1973. Phytoplankton. In Coastal and Offshore Environmental
Inventory, Cape Hatteras to Nantucket Shoals, Chapter 3. Kingston,
R.I. University of Rhode Island.

Smith, R.A., L. Ortolano, R.M. Davis, R.O. Brush, of The Travelers Re-
search Corporation, Hartford, Connecticut. 1970. Fourteen Selected
Marine Resource Problems of Long Island, N.Y. - Descriptive Evalua-
.tions. Hauppauge, N.Y., Regional Marine Resources Council, Nassau-
Suffolk Regional Planning Board, 127p.

Spinner, George F. 1969. Serial Atlas of the Marine Environment, Folio
18, The Wildlife Wetlands and Shellfish Areas of the Atlantic Coastal
Zone. N.Y., American Geographical Society.

'Spinner, George F. 1969. A Plan for the Marine Resources of the Atlantic
Coastal Zone. N.Y., American Geographical Society.

Technical Committee, State of Rhode Island. 1970. State of Rhode Island
Report of the Governor's Committee on the Coastal Zone. Providence,
R.I., Statewide Planning Program, 119p. and app.

Tri-State Regional Planning Commission. 1973. An Interior Management
Guide for 'the Tri-S,tate Coastal Zone, unpublished internal report.
@N.Y. Tri-State Regional Planning Commission, 82p.

Tucker, Charles (personal communication, 1974) Southeastern New Hampshire
.Planning Agency.

E-74

U.S. Amy Engineer Division, North Atlantic Corps of Engineers. 1971.
National Shoreline Study, Regional Inventory Report, North Atlantic
Region, Vol I & II.

U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation
with N.H. Agricultural Experiment Station. 1959. Soil Survey of
Rockingham County, New Hampshire, Series 1954, #5. Washington D.C.,
U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration,
National Ocean Survey. Coastal & Geodetic Survey Charts, series 1200,
300, 200. Small Craft Nautical Charts.

U.S. Dept. of Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration,
New Engl.and Basins Office. 1970. State of Connecticut Shellfish Atlas.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish & Wildlife Service. 1970. National
Estuary Study, App. B, Management Studies.

Wright, T.J., V.I. Cheadle, E.A. Palmatier. 1949. A survey of Rhode
Island's salt and brackish water ponds and marshes, Pittman Robertson
Pamphlet #2. R. I. Dept. Agrtculture and Conservation, Division of
Fish and Game.

E-75

Appendix

Report Specifications
Page

Appendix F Contract Work Statement
.F.1 Bureau of Land 'Management Contract F-2
08550-073-8 and Report Specifications

F-I

APPENDIX F BUREAU OF, LA ND MANAGEMENT CONTRACT,08550-073-8 AND
REPORf@5PECI'FICAT 1. IONS.

Article I. Scope of Work.

Sec. 1.1 Objectives. This socio-economic and environmental
inventory of the Outer Continental Shelf and adjacent waters of the
North Atlantic (Sandy Hook, New Jersey, to the Bay of Fundy) is con-
ducted with the following objectives:

A. To develop a comprehensive inventory of marine environ-
mental data for the coastal zone and adjacent waters of the outer
continental shelf.

B. To conduct a study of the socio-economic factors
operating in the region.

C. To combine these previous steps into a comprehensive
compilation for use in preparing impact assessments of the developments
of offshore energy resources.

D. To define the gaps and deficiencies that exist in the
present information baseline as preliminary to conducting new research
and field surveys.

Sec. 1.2 Procedures. The study will consist of a detailed
summary of all currently available information. Graphics (maps, tables,
graphs, photos, etc.) will be used extensively to summarize data and
supplement the written text., The data will be presented in such a
manner that it may be used (1) as the basis for assessing potential
environmental impacts that might result from OCS leasing activities,
(2) for planning the development of OCS energy resources, and (3) plan-
ning feasibility of coastal facilities development. In summary, the
report will include:

A. A description of the existing physical, bioligical and
socio-economic characteristics and resources of the study area,

B. A description of the economic utilization of the area's
resources and industrial activity effecting the study area,

C. A discussion of present and potential conflicts and
interactions between environmental considerations and resources uses,

D. A discussion of environmental informatton still needed
to fully assess the impact of leasing activities and development of
energy and other resources in the study area, and

E. A comprehensive bibliography,

F-2

F. A study of available socio-economic data presented on
the enclosed outline.

A detailed outline of the proposed report is presented in Article II
below.

Article II. Proposed Outline.

Sec. 2.1 Coastal Zone Environmental Topics to be Inventoried.

Physical Environment

A. Estuaries

1. Location, area, geographical complexity.
2. Fresh water input
3. Salinity and temperature profiles
(a) vertical
(b) along estuary axis
4. Characterization of circulation (i.e., Pritchard
classifications) Types A, B, C, D

B. Tides

1. Heights (diurnal/semidiurnal character)
2. Current patterns (longshore currents) and velocities

C. Major Embayments (for example, L. I. Sound, Casco Bay,, etc.)

1. Location, area
2. Characterization of currents

D. Wave Regime

1. Wave statistics (period, height, yearly histograms)
2. Possible effects of wave transport

E. Shelf Water Hydrography

1. Temperature, salinity, sigma-t
2. Currents

F. Currents Along Slope (Density Currents, etc.)

Chemical Oceanography

A. Physical Parameters Interface

1. Temperature

F-3

2. Salinity
3. Density

B. Biologically Active Natural Components

1. Oxygen
2. Phosphate
3. Nitrate-Ni.trite-Ammonia
4. Silicate.
5. Dissolved Organic Carbon

C. Suspended Inorganic Particulate Matter

D. Heavy Metals (e.g. Fe, Cu, Zn, Cd, Hg, Pb, etc.)

E. Organic Pollutants (e.g. hydrocarbons, DOT, PCB, etc.)

Material above presented for open Continental Shelf waters,
major sounds and embayments.

System Ecology (Terrestial and Marine)

General.Description

Phytoplankton

A. Regional Variations

1. Coastal lagoons, salt ponds
2. Bays
3. Sounds
4. Continental Shelf

The following specific regions will be included: Casco Bay,
Buzzards Bay, Penobscot Bay., Passamaquoddy Bay, Bay of Fundy, Massa-
chusetts Bay, Narragansett Bay, Sandy Hook, Block Island Sound, Long
Island Sound.

B. Seasonal variation in phytoplankton abundance and species
composition

C. The seasonal and regional variations in:

1. Annual cycles
2. Phytoplankton productivity
3. Influence of pollutants
4. Environmental background for cycles
5. Red tides

F-4

D. Phytoplankton models where available

E. Perspectives and future problem areas both regional and
for phytoplankton dynamics

Zooplankton

Literature review and perspectives on the following:

A. Distribution

1. Ranges of the major holoplankton species
2. Origin and dispersal of seasonal populations
3. Dominance orders of the major copepod species

B. Abundance

1. Standing crop estimates of the total zooplankton
2. Regional variability, species diversity and stability
of the standing crop (insofar as these calculations
can be made.and compared with the data that are
available)

C. Relati-onships

1 Temperature
2. Salinity
3. Depth
4. Food

The major method of synthesizing the voluminous baseline in-
formation that is available will be in the form of easy-to-use compar-
ative tables. Textual descriptions will be adequate so that in the
event of a suspected environmental abnormality in the future, the
document will quickly direct the reader'@ attention to the pertinent
quantitative information.

Benthos

A. Autecology (Physiological Ecology and Behavior)

1. Benthic invertebrate response to:

a. temperature
b. salinity
c. light
d. turbidity
e. dissolved oxygen
f. toxic substances

F-5

Treated by taxonomic group with emphasis on commercial spe-
cies and indicator organisms. Response includes growth rate, mor-
tality, disease resistance and substrate choice.
B. Synecology (Population and Community Ecology)

1. Major communities

a. intertidal
b. subtidal
c. macro-benthos
d. meio-benthos
e. micro-benthos

Zoogeography, standing crop, productivity, trophic webs and
diversity will be discussed.

Fisheries Resources

A. Major Invertebrate and Vertebrate Recreational Resources

1. Distribution and depths
2. Breeding biology and life history
3. Utilization of estuarine and coastal areas
4. Migrations
5. Population abundance and ranges
6. Major fishing areas
7. Catch statistics and value

B. Major Invertebrate and Vertebrate Commercial Resources

1 through 7 as above

C. The following species will be included as a minimum:

bait worms alewife & blueback herring blue marlin
northern lobster American shad swordfish
northern shrimp Atlantic menhaden butterfish
red crab Atlantic herring summer flounder
blue crab American eel yellowtail
surf clam various bait fishes flounder
soft clam pollack winter flounder
eastern oyster silver hake industrial
hard clam white perch fishes
striped bass scup
blue fish cod
spiny dogfish Atlantic mackeral
Atlantic salmon white marlin

F-6

Graphs or charts of geographical distribution,@of important
species will be included.

Marine Mammals

A. Pinniped species

1. Current status of species
2. Trends in population size. with time
.3. Distribution
4. Movement
5. Food habits.
6. Economic or aesthetic values

B. Cetacean species

1 through 6 as.above

Birds

..A. Distribution
B. Population Densities
C. Breeding Success
D.. Long-Term Cycles
E. Habitat Preferences
F. Occasional Occurence
G. Migration' Routes
H. Peculiarity of Local;Incidence

Major Invertebrate and Vertebrate Animals

A list of threatened and endangered species within the coastal
zone.

Geology (Terrestial and Marine)

A. Introduction

1. Regional geology
2. Rivers and other sources of sediment
3. General oceanography
4. Previous workers

B. Bathymetry and Morphology

1. General bathymetry (shelf and slope)
2. Morphologic features on shelf

a. channels and canyons

F-7

b. ridges - origin and age
c. terraces - age

3. Morphologic features on slope

a. declivity and variations in it
b. canyons
c . slumps

C. Structure (including seismic profiles, magnetics, gravity, etc.)

1. Shallow structure - Quaternary
2. Deeper structure

D. Sediments in coastal zone and shelf

1. Distribution of sediment samples
2. Sedimentological parameters (including texture, heavy
minerals, engineering parameters, related to human use)
3. Source, origin and age of sediments

E. Economic Potential

1. Sand, gravel and mud
2. Heavy minerals
3. Hydrocarbons
4. Locations for installations and deep ports
5. Waste disposal.and dumping

F. Recapitulation and Future Studies

1. Modern sedimentary processes

a. Deposition versus non-deposition

(1) sources of modern sediments
(2) role of currents, internal waves, storms, etc.
(3) role of canyons in offshore transport

b. Man's influence

2. Quaternary stratigraphy

a. Need for quaternary stratigraphic section
b. Methods of obtaining it

3. Deeper structure

a . Need
b. Profiling and Drilling

F-8

G. Bibliography

Coastal Vegetation

A. As part of the introduction to this study of Coastal
Vegetation the following points will be discussed as they
pertain to vegetation patterns.

1. General configuration of the coast; bays, estuaries,
harbors, etc.
2. Nature of the shoreline and adjacent inland areas
3. River valleys and other natural,routes to the interior
4. Division of the study area into geographic sub-regions

B. It is the aim of this proposal to report the extent of
information available on coastal vegetation from Sandy
Hook to the Bay of Fundy and to supplement that available
information with on-site studies. Coastal habitats,
including tidal marshes, algal zones, eel-grass beds, fore
dunes of sandy beaches, rocky shorelines, and shores of
lagoons, bays and estuaries will be covered. The report
will determine the following:

1. The extent and location of sandy beaches having fore
dunes
2. The extent and location of rocky shores (with algal
zones)
3. The acreage and location of tidal marshes, all of
which are subject to normal tidal influence
4. The present extent of residential and recreational
real estate development that impinges on the coastal
zone that is directly influenced by tidal waters
The present extent and location of industrial de
velopment that impinges on the coastal zone that is
directly influenced by tidal waters

C. It is expected that this study will involve the visitation
of preselected sites and evaluate the adequacy and relevance
of published accounts to the current scene and to plug gaps
where they exist.

D. The information gained in this study should support a
vegetation description that would specify those plants
that are useful indicators of the range of tidal influence
on the shore zone (i.e., those portions regularly flooded
by tides, and those portions less frequently flooded by
extreme tides).

F-9

1. Macro algae
2. Low tidal marsh
3. High-tidal marsh
4. Supratidal areas, e.g., beach grass (northward) and
sea oats (southward)
5. Evidence of tidal flow over fore dunes during storm
surges, particularly during the usual severe winter
storms

Unique and Endangered Environments

Areas particularly sensitive to man's activities. Although
most coastal and marine environments are, to some extent, endangered
by pollution, dredging, construction, etc., some are especially
important. Peculiar conditions of currents, topography, temperature,
biological activity,.etc., can get together to form unique environments
such as biologically productive zones of upwelling, bird rookeries and
others. Detailed descriptions of these locations will be given
Including:

-a-. Name and location
b. Topography - Bathymetry
c. Geology
d. Ecology and biology
e.' Value to man/ecosystem
f. Nature of vulnerability

Meteorology and Cl-imatology

Spatial and temporal characteristics of the following,.including
,long-term averages, frequencies, and extreme values, to be presented
in tabular, graphic, and mapped format where appropriate.

A. The General Atmospheric Circulation

1. Surface patterns
2. Upper air patterns

B. The Secondary Circulation

1. Cyclone frequencies and tracks

a. Frequency of cyclogenesis

2. Anticyclone frequencies and tracks

a'".- Frequencylof anticyclogenesis

3. Air"mass, clfa-ractciristics
4. Tropical dis'turbances and hurric anes.

F-10

C. The Tertiary Circulation (along coast)

1. Land/sea breeze circulation

D. Selected Simple Climatic Elements and Phenomena

1 . Wind direction
2. Wind speed
3. Air temperature
4. Relative humidity, dew po.int temperature, and air
moisture content
5. Precipitation: type, amount
6. Thunderstorms and electrical activity
7. Waterspouts
8. Cloudiness: sky cover, cloud height (ceiling)
.9. Visibility and fog
10. Looming, mirages
11. Solar radiation
12. Air pollution: sources, dispersion, concentration, etc.

E.. Selected Compound Climatic Elements

1. Wind chill values
2. Icing conditions

F. Ocean-Atmosphere Interactions

1. Energy transformation over the water (heat sources and
sinks)

a. Net radiation
b. Evaporation
c. Sea surface temperatures

2. Wave height, period and direction

a. Storm surges

3. Sea ice and iceberg drift

G. Special Problems

1. Identification of singularities in climatic series
2. Climatic fluctuations and variations
3. Climatic regionalization of the area bounded by
Cape Hatteras-, Cape Cod, the Atlantic Coast, and the
edge of the.continental@shelf.

F-11

Article II. Proposed Outline.

Sec.2.1 Coastal Zone Environmental Topics to be Inventoried

I. The Environment

A. Regional Overview
1. Geology of North Atlantic Region both terrestrial
and marine
2. Meteorology and Climatology.
a. Generalized pictures of major land/water air
circulation pattern
b. Identification of airsheds subject to inversion
conditions
c. Identification of airsheds overstressed by air
pollution according to federal air pollution
standards
d. Precipitation and storm records of major ports
3. Hydrology
a. Identification of major surface water systems and
drainage patterns.
b. Identification of.major ground water aquifers and
regional flow systems.
c. Definition of problem areas
(1) Demands exceed local water supply
(2) Pollution
4. Biology
a. Introduction: Discussion of habitat approach,
strengths and limitations. Some treatment of lim-
its of study area and how derived. Need for some
topical analysis of man induced features which -
define habitat approach - recreational and commer-
cial marine resources; unique and endangered envi-
ronments; threatened and endangered species; other.,
... discussed in succeeding sections.

II. Regional Environmental Systems

A. Marine Environments

Offshore
1. Geology
a. Banks
(1) Structure (fault, fold, erosional, depositional)
(2) Sediments (mud, sand, gravel, shel-1, rock; en-
gineering properties)
i. Role of canyons in deposition-erosion
process
ii. Sources

F-12

iii. Contamination (heavy metals, oil, etc.)
b. Shelf (same as for Banks, except (2)i)
c. Basins (same as for Shelf)
2. Physical Oceanography
a. Wave Regime
(1) Wave statistics (period, height, yearly
histograms)
(2) Possible effects of wave transport
b. Shelf Water Hydrography
(1) Temperature, salinity, sigma-t
(2) Currents
c. Currents Along Slope (Density currents, etc.)
3. Chemical Oceanography
a. Biologically active natural components
(1) Oxygen
(2) Phosphate
(3) Nitrate-Nitrite-Ammonia
(4) Silicate
(5) Dissolved Organic Carbon
b. Suspended inorganic particulate matter
c. Heavy metals (e.g., Fe. Cu, Zn, Cd, Hg, Pb, etc.)
d. Organic pollutants (e.g., hydrocarbons, DDT,
PCB, etc.)
.e. Comparison of ambient levels with water quality
standards-identification of stressed areas
4. Meteorology and Climatology
Spatial and temporal characteristics of the following,
including long-term averages, frequencies; and extreme
values, to be presented in tabular, graphic, and mapped
format where appropriate
a. General atmospheric circulation
(1) Surface patterns
b. Secondary circulation
(1) Cyclone frequencies and tracks
i. Frequency of cyclogenesis
(2) Anticyclone frequencies and tracks
i. Frequency of anticyclogenesis
(3) Air mass characteristics
(4) Tropical disturbances and hurricanes
c. Tertiary Circulation (along coast)
(1) Land/sea breeze-circulation
d. Selected simple climatic elements and phenomena
(1) Wind direction
.(2) Wind speed
(3) Air temperature
(4) Relative humidity, dew point temperature, and
air moisture content
(5) Precipitation: type, amount
(6) Thunderstorms and electrical-activity

F-13

(7) Waterspouts-
(8) Cloudiness: sky cover, cloud height (ceiling)
(9) Visibility and fog
e. Selected compound climatic elements
(1) Wind chill values
(2) Icing conditions
f. Ocean-atmospheric interactions
(1) Energy transformation over the water (heat
cources.and sinks)
i. Evaporation
ii. Sea surface temperatures
(2) Wave height, period and direction
i.@ Storm surges
(3) Sea ice and iceburg drift
g. Air pollution: dispersion, concentration factors
5. Biological habitats/ecology
a. Plankton-based pelagic
(1) Habitat definition
(2) Habitat dynamics
Environmental characteristics
Microenvironments
Nutrient cycles
Seasonal cycles
Food webs
Relative productivity
Natural stress
(3) Effect of man-induced stress
(4) Biological components
Zonation (distribution)
Annotated checklist of species common to the
habitat
(5)@ Habitat distribution
(6) Bibliography
b. Offshore bottom
(1) through (6) as above

Major Sounds and Embayments
1. Location and Area
a. Sub-basins
b. Estuaries
2. Geology
a. Structure (fault, fold, erosional, depositional,
etc.)
b. Sediments
(1) Type (mud, sand, gravel, shell, rock)
(2) Depth and distribution
(3) Contamination (oil, sewage, heavy metals,
toxic substances)
(4) Sources and transport processes

F-14

3. Physical Oceanography
a. Characteristics of currents (pattern"s and vel-
ocities).
b. Tides
(1) Heights (diurnal/semi-diurnal)
c. Fresh water input
d. Salinity and temperature profiles (vertical and
along estuary axis to limits of salt water in-
trusion: 5 parts per thousand)
e. Characterizaton of circulation (i.e., Pritchard
classifications). Types A, B, C, D
4. Chemical Oceanography
a. Through e. as for open continental shelf, #3
Pollution sources
(1) Locations
(2) Quantity and type of pollutant discharged
5. Meteorology/climatology - see discussion under Open,
Continental Shelf and Regional Overview.
6. Biologic habitats/ecology
a. Mussel - Oyster reefs
(1) Habitat definition
(2) Habitat dynamics
Environmental characteristics
Microenvironments
Nutrient cycles
Seasonal cycles
Food webs
Relative productivity
Natural stress
(3) Effect of man-induced stress
(4) Biological components
Zonation (distribution)
Annotated checklist of species common to the
habitat
(5) Habitat distribution
(6) Bibliography
b. Worm - clam flats
(1) Through (6) as above
c. Shallow salt pond
(1) Through, (6) as above
d. Salt marshes
(1) Through (6) as above

Exposed Shorelines
a. Unconsolidated shores
(1) Geology
i. Description of morphology and location
ii. Grain size characteristics and variations
iii. Source of supply of beach materials
(drift transport rate and direction)

F-15

iv. Erosion state
v. Classification of beaches with respect to
erosion/deposition and grain size.
(2) Hydrology
(3) Meteorology - see Regional Overview
(4) Biologic Habitats/Ecology
i. Sandy beaches
(1) through (6) as for mussel-oyster
reef
ii. Mussel reefs
(1) through (6) as above
b. Consolidated rocky shores
(1) Geology
i. Description of morphology and location
ii. Structure (shallow-quarternary and deeper
structure)
iii. Methods of obtaining strategraphic pro-
files
(2) Hydrology
(3) Meteorology - see Regional Overview
(4) Biologic habitats/ecology
i. Rocky shores
(1) through (6) as for mussel-oyster
reef

B. Transitional and Terrestrial Environments
Shoreland Strand (areas between marine and terrestrial
habitats)
1. Meteorology
2. Geology (bedrock, surficial) - see Regional Overview
3. Soil profile, slopes
4. Hydrology
5. Biologic habitats/ecology
a. Definition
b. Environmental factors
(1) Natural stresses
(2) Microenvironments
(3) Productivity
(4) Vulnerability to man-induced stresses
c. Distribution of habitat within coastal watershed
area
d. General description of major plant-animal asso-
ciations
Upland Environments (in Coastal Drainage System, including
forest associations, freshwater wetlands, lakes and ponds,
etc.)
1. Meteorology - see Regional Overview
2. Geology - surficial and bedrock

F-16

3. Soil profile and topography
4. Hydrology
a. Delination ofdrai-nage systems
b. Definition of aquifers and regional flow patterns
c. Depth to water tab].e, upland aquifer outcrops
d. Delination.of (.100 year) flood zone
5. Biologic habitatstecology
a. through d. as for Shorel.and Strand

III. Plant and Animal Profile.s.- Life Histories

A. Phytoplankton
B. Zooplankton
C. Macrophyte.s
D. Benthic Invertebrates
E. Fishes
F. Birds
G. Mammals

IV. Unique and Endangered Environments

Areas particularly sen.sitive to man'sractivities. Although
most coastal and marine env-ironments are, to some extent, endangered
by pollution, dredging, construction, etc., some are expecially imp-
prtant. Peculiar conditions of currents, topography, temperature,
biological activity, etc., can get together to form unique environ.-
ments such as biologically productive zones for upwelling., b-ird
rookeries and others. Detail,ed,descri:pti-on.s of these -locations will
be given including:

1. Name and Tocation
2. Topography - bathymetry
3. Geology
4. Ecology and biology
5. Value to man/ecosystem
6. Nature of vulnerability

V. Threatened and Endangered Species

Introduction- explanation of following categories:
threatened, endangered
A. Threatened Species
1. Marine
a. Name
b. Habitat, microenvironment

F-17

c. Population
d. Nature of threat or vulnerability
2. Terrestrial
A. through d. as above

B. Endangered Species
same as for Threatened.

VI. Environmental Quality

A. Water Quality
B. Air Quality
C. Solid Waste Disposal
D. Ocean Dumping

F-18

Sec. 2.2 Socio-Economic Topics to be Inventoried

Industrial and Commercial Activity

Data on past and present employment, payrolls, salesi, and other
relevant measures (and projections of these measures where available)
will be tabulated and analyzed for the following industries:

A. Resource Industries

1. Agriculture
2. Forestry
3. Fisheries - finfish and shellfish

B. Manufacturing

1. Shipbuilding and boatbuilding and repair
2. Pulp and paper
3. Cement
4. Chemicals
5. Other industries

C. Service Industries

1., Contract construction
2. Retail trade - restaurants, service stations, stores
3. Wholesale trade
4. Hotels and motels
5. Recreation and amusements
6. Business and financial services
7. Personal and professional services
8. Utilities and transportation
9. Government - federal, state, and local

Petroleum Industry

The refining and consumption of petroleum would be analyzed in
regard to present and potential facilities and the amounts of petroleum
produced, transported, and used by class of consumer:

A. Production of petroleum products

1. Areas of potential exploration for petroleum or
natural gas
2. Capacity and production of existing refineries
3. Proposed refineries capacities, evaluation of sites

B. Consumption of petroleum products

F-19

1. Use of petroleum fuels by residential, commercial,
industrial, transportation, and miscellaneous
consumers
2. Use of petroleum feed stocks by petrochemical plants

Demngraphy

Trends and projections of total population would be analyzed,
as would census data and other figures on various population character-
istics:

A. Population

1. Total population - trends and projections
2. Labor force status of population
3. Age and sex of labor force
4. Occupation of employed workers
5. Last occupation of experienced unemployed workers
6. Industry of employed workers

B. Income and Employment

1. Sources of personal income by industry
2. Employment and earnings by industry
3. Median earnings of persons in selected occupations
4. Income distribution of families
5. Type of income of families
6. Income of persons below poverty level

C. Education and Job Skills

1. Education attainment of labor force
2. Graduates of vocational schools and institutes

Land and Water Use

The amounts of land and facilities employed for the following
activities would be tabulated and evaluated, maps would be obtained
where available, and land use controls would be analyzed:

A. Commercial and Industrial Uses

1. Business concentrations
2. Manufacturing
3. Quarries and mines

B. Utility Uses

1. Electric power plants

F-20

2. Gas systems
8. Water systems
4; Sewer systems

C. Agriculture and Conservation Uses

1. Farms, orchards, and nurseries
2. Pasture and undeveloped areas
3. Forest and wooded areas
4. Wetlands and filled areas

D. Recreation Uses

1. Parks - beaches, picnic areas
2. Boating facilities
3. Resorts
4. Campgrounds
5. Wildlife reserves
6. Scenic areas
7. Archeological sites
8. Historical buildings and sites

E. Residential and Institutional Uses

1. Housing - urban, suburban, scattered rural
2. Schools, other educational, and research facilities
3. Health and correctional institutions
4. Federal facilities - military, Indian, park and other

F. Land Use Controls

1. Federal - Coastal Land Management Act
2. State - planning, zoning ' site selection, oil conveyance,
wetlands
3. Regional - planning,.water, and sewer operation
4. Local - planning, zoning, subdivision, conservation

Pollution Sources

The quantities of air and water pullutants, where measured, would
be tabulated from public and private sources and analyzed for each
area:

A. Industrial

1. Chemical wastes
2. Animal product wastes

B. Urban

F-21

1. Treated domestic sewage
2. Untreated domestic sewage

C. Other sources

1. Waste disposal sites

Transportation Systems

Facilities and usage of the various transportation modes along
the coastline would be tabulated, mapped, and analyzed.

A. Petroleum Transportation

1. Piers, anchorages, and storage tanks
2. Inland pipelines
3. Rail and truck facilities

B. Dry Cargo Transportation

1. Harbor facilities - piers, storage, ferries
2. Highways truck carriers and terminals
3. Railroads terminals and other facilities
4. Airports

C. Passenger Transportation

1. Highways - automobiles and buses
2. Airlines
3. Railroads
4. Passenger ships and ferries

Sec. 2.3 CEQ Requirements. The Contractor will be required to
furnish the following data for the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ) within the time specified:

A. By August 15: General habitat descriptions for two
biogeographic regions. Each biogeographic region (The first is defined
from the Bay of Fundy to Cape Cod and the second from Cape Cod to the
Southern Boundary of the Contract Area.) can be considered to be an
assemblage of various habitats: salt marsh, rocky intertidal, sandy
beach, mud flats, estuarine, etc. Within each region, a particular
type of habitat can be assumed to be homogeneous. If not homogeneous,
the Contractor shall provide supporting data to challenge this assump-
tion, i.e., if species in the Southern part of the region are signifi-
cantly different than in the Northern part of the same region. These
descriptions should be based on key species most likely to be present.
Key species are defined as the 5 - 20 species, not necessarily com-
mercial, which makes up 50 - 60% of the total community. Any species

F-22

so insignificant as to have little ecological effect on the community
as a whole may be excluded, except if a rare and endangered species,
commercially important, or having a characteristic of particular
importance to the study area. The Contractor is to provide a list of
the key species in each habitat. Interrelationships among species and
environment should be described. Subtidal benthic habitats should
be characterized according to sediment type: rocky, sandy, or muddy.
Geographical descriptions should be quantified for either lineal mileage
or areal measures and expressed as a persentage of the total region.
The source material for these descriptions would be the hydrography as
presented in USGS n,autical charts. Unique features of a region should
be furnished. The map shall be on a scale of 1/250,000, and any
habitat of less than one mile along the coastline may be excluded,
unless the particular habitat has unique characteristics. These
unique characteristics may be defined as bei,ng a commercially important
oyster bed, a sandy beach involving over $100,000 in tourist trade, a
habitat of a rare and endangered species, or other similar character-
istics that would make a habitat of less than one mile long the coast-
line of particular importance.

B. By October 1: Initial biological description of impact
zones, is one in which re is a high likelihood of oil spills. It is
expected that the exact zones will be provided to the Contractor before
July 15, 1973. It may be assumed that the zones will be along the
shorelines with attention paid to possible terminal sites, and within
a probable oil spil@ distance from the drilling sites defined by the
points (1) 400N, 69 20'W, (2) 400 30'N,1680 30'W, and (3) 410N, 670 40'W.
For each impact zone, a geographical description of the habitats and
an identification of unique features within the zone are required.
This requires no additional information than the description of the
zones, small refinements made by reviewing the Contractor's available
data may be required, particularly from the consideration of offshore
oil production. Biological information should include fecundity,
spawning characteristics, histories data should be provided at this
date.

C. By December 1: Complete refinement of data base and pro-
vide additional information on life histories of key species. No
actual report is required, but working papers only. Communication and
cooperation between the BLM Contractor and the CEQ Contracto.r is ex-
pected from award of contract up to the delivery of the working papers
on December 1.

F-23

9OR

'6o4o
%

0 a10" -
4@,RIZ
00
gp
@00

0
c
3ol
c
So On

00
0 6
%"M
c 0 0,@ 0
O.-@, N"

1c,o
'? 0 Q'I DAM DUE
al'@ gg@
Cc@ 0 0

p4
IIC6@ 0@ N
Cc) D o
Q
NW
W,c

jo
.81W i
, 19

Pp 0-0,
-@w
@VP
-,00000c,
OC 0,
@W @81 21
200", Ig.
@,006' Q*
coo
0 GAYLORDINO. 2333 PRINTEDINU.S.A.
, ",ZIZR@
CO A
&V
0
0
S)
?.Cq , -, - V@ h @i 4, @Ul
C>

o
0
-p, 130, gA
-k
0
A c@
4 3A

0 C,

:"o
@o cz@ @g- C',
o
,A Ik. 0 100N00,

0
@@o@ o
A

-Go-
0 o 0 0 a
'o 'o

0.%o @C,'Q 8
%

0-
AIOV-@",-,W lizo c
o
QB"" @z C,
3 6668 14106 4115
C",o
o C"Q