[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
12938 Coastal Zone Information Edward T. LaRoe Center COASTAL ZONE INFORMATION CENTER UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Property of CSC Library FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ESTUARINE SANCTUARY GRANT AWARD FOR SOUTH SLOUGH, COOS BAY, OREGON U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CENTER 2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE CHARLESTON, SC 29405-2413 PREPARED BY Office of Coastal Zone Management National Oceanic and National Oceanic and HC -Atmospheric Administration 108 U.S. Department of Commerce .C6 Rockville, Maryland 80852 N38 1974 Summary (-) Draft (X) Final Environmental Impact Statement Department of Commerce, Natinal Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Coastal Environment For additoan information about this propsed action or this statement, please contact: Edward T LaRoe Office of Coastal Environment National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Rockville, Maryland 20852 Phone (301)496-8526 1. Proposed Estuarine Sancturary grant award, South Slough, Coos Bay, Oregon (X) Administrative (') Legislative 2. It is propsed that a grant be awarded to the State of Oregon to acquire, develop, and operate an estuarine sanctuary in Coos County, Oregon pursuant to,P.L. 92-583. About 4,200 acres of land and water in the southern half of South Slough would be acquired and protected. If implemented, this proposed grant would be awarded in June, 1974. 3. The acquisition and operation of the estuarine sancturary may restrict land and water use, and prohibit exploitation within the sanctuary boundaries. Timber harvest within the proposed sanctuary would be prohibited. Access by motorized watercraft may be restricted in parts of the sancturary. Removal of the property from private ownership may reduce the tax-generated revenues by about 0.1%. 4. Alternatives considered: A. Alternative estuarine sites within the Columbian region as potential candidates. B. Alternative boundaries for the South Slough proposal. C. Alternative management policies for the proposed sanctuary. D. Alternative methods of protection fro the proposed sanctuary. E. Alternative courses of action for the Office of Coastal Environment F. 1) award grant in modified form 2) delay awarding the grant 3) no action 5. List of all Federal, State, and local agencies and other parties from which comments were requested; responses were received from those marked with an asterisk (*). Federal Agencies Department of agriculture Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service Forest Service *Soil Conservation Service Department of Defense Army Corps of Engineers Department of theInterior Bureau of Land Management Bureau of Outdoor Recreation Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Geological Survey National Park Service Office of Land Use and Water Planning Department of Transportation Coast Guard Environmental Protection Agency Regional Administrator, Region X U. S. Water Resources Council Department of Health, Education and Welfare Public Health Service Department of Housing and Urban Development Federal State Pacific Northwest River Basin Commission State Oregon State, Clearinghouse Office of the Governor Treasurer Secretary of State Water Resources Board Marine Board Fish Commission Game Commission Natural Areas Commission * Department of Environmental Quality Department of Commerce and Economic Development * State Highway Division Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Department of Forestry Division of State Lands * Soil and Water Conservation Commission Parks and Recreation Department Land Conservation and Development Commission Coastal Conservation and Development Commission University of Oregon Institute of Marine Biology Oregon State UNiversity Sea Grant Office California State Clearinghouse Washington State Clearinghouse Local Coos County Board of Commissioners Coos County Port Authority Coos-Country Planning Commission * Coos-Curry Council of Government Coos County Library Other Parties Coos Bay World The Nature Conservancy * National Audubon Society * National Wildlife Federation Sierra Club National Resources Defense Council, Inc. * Environmental Defense Fund Izaak Walton League of America Conservation Foundation Oregon Association of Soil and Water Conservation Diatricts * Oregon Environmental Council Oregon Student Public Interest Research Group Oregon Chapter, Sierra Club Oregon Chapter, The Nature Conservancy Oregon Division, Izaak Walton League Additional written comments were received from City of Coos Bay America Association of University Women Scott Paper Company George G. and Marian Tracy, Charleston, Oregon Vence Lawry, Charleston. Oregon 6. Draft statement transmitted to the Council on Environmental Quality on April 26, 1974 and made available to the public on May 3, 1974. Final environmental impact statement transmitted to the Council on Environmental Quality and to the Public on June 21, 1974. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 III. DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT AFFECTED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 IV. RELATIONSHIP OF THE PROPOSED ACTION TO LAND USE PLANS, POLICIES AND CONTROLS FOR THE AREA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 V. PROBABLE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 VI. ALTERNATIVES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 A. Alternatives to the site selected. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 B. Alternative boundaries for this sanctuary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 C. Alternative management programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 E. Alternatie courses of action for the Office of Coastal Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 VII. PROBABLE ADVERSE ENVIORNMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNONT BE AVOIDED. . . . . . . . . . . . 27 VIII. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIORNMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG TERM PRODUCTIVITY. . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 IX. IRREVOCABLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES THAT WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION SHOULD IT BE IMPLENMENTED. . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 X. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION WITH OTHERS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 REFERENCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 APPENDIX. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 1. Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-583) 2. Final. Rules for Estuarine Sanctuary Grants (15 CRF 921, published June 4, 1974, Federal Register 39 (108): 19922-19927) 3. Fauna and Flora of the South Slough, Coos Bay, Oregon 4. Assessment of the Economic Impact of te Designation of South Slough as an Estuarine Sanctuary 5. Written Comments Received by the Offcie of Coastal Zone Mangaement I. INTRODUCTION In response to the intense pressures upon and conficts within the coastal zone of the United States, the Congress in 1972 passed the Coastal Zone Management Act (PL 92-583) (Appendix I). This Act authorized a new Federal program to be administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospherica Administration (NOAA), in the Department of Commerce, to assist and encourage states to develop and implement rational programs for managing their coastal resources. The Act affirms a national interest in the effective management, beneficial use, pro tection and development of the coastal zone and provides three grant programs to the coastl states and territories toward that end. Two of these grant provisions are concerned with assistance to the states to develop land and water use management programs (Section 305) and to implement and administer those programs after review and approval by the Secretary of Commerce (Section 306). The first program develop- ment grants were awarded in March, 1974, and it is anticipated that program implementation applications will be received from several states during FY 1975. The third part of the Coastal Zone Management Act establishes an estuarine sanctuary program (Section 312) which will provide grants to states on a matching basis to acquire, develop and operate estuarine areas to be set aside as natuarl field laboratories. These estuarine sanctuarties will be used primarily for long-term scientific and edu- cational purposes, especially to provide some of the information essential to coastal zone management decision making. Examples of such objectives might include: - To gain a throrough understanding of the ecological relationships within the estuarine environment. - To make baseline ecological measurements. - To serve as a natural control's order to monitor changes and assess the impacts of man's stresses on the ecosystem. - To provide a vehicle for increasing public knowlegdge and awareness of the complex nature of estuarine systems, their value and benefits to man and nature, and the problems which confront them. This will be accomplished by the establishment of a series of estuarine sanctuaries which will be carefully selected to represen the major ecological types and regional variations found along our coasts. Proposed rules for the implementation of the estuarine sanctuary program were published on March 7, 1974 (Federal Register 39(46):8924-8927). After public review and comment, the rules were revised and published in final form on June 4, 1974 (15 CFR Part 921, Federal Register 39(108):19922-19927) (Appendix II). 2 Using the proposed estuarine sanctuary guidlines,in April, 1974, the State of oregon submitted to the Of f ice of Coas tal Zone Management,NOAA Department of Commerce,an application an estuarine sanctuary to be located in part of South Slough, Coos Bay, Oregon. While recognizing that changes In the final guidelines might necessitate amending-the application, the Off ice of Coastal Environment, now the Office of Coastal Zone Management (DCZM), prepared a draft Environmental Impact Statement for review am comment by all interested public, private, local, State and Federal individuals and agencies. This determination was made in keeping with the spirit of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the guidelines promulgated by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 CFR Chapter V. Part 1500), which requires that Federal agencies assess In detail the potential environmental impact of their actions beginning at the earliest possible point and in all cases prior to agency decision. Although the final guidelines differ in some respects from the proposed guidelines, these differencs did not require changes in the application or its impact. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION The Oregon application requests a grant in the amount of $823,965 from OCZM, to be matched by an equivalent amount from the State of Oregon for acquisition and establishment of an estuarine sanctuary in, the southern half of South Slough, Coos Bay, Oregon- (see maps, figures I and 2). The proposed sanctuary would Include about 4,200 acres, of which about 700 acres are state-owned submerged lands or tidelands and the remainder are privately owned uplands and tidelands. The applicant provides that these lands may be acquired in fee simple, or a partial interest, such as development rights or a conservation easement, may be acquired. Acquisition will be through negotiation with with individual landowners; condemnation will not be used. The purpose of the Oregon estuarine sanctuary is to ensure the permanent protection of a representative undisturbed estuarine area for use as a natural field laboratory for the long-term study of natural and human processes in estuarine ecosystems. The main uses would be for direct ecological investigations and to serve as a long term control for the assessment of man-introduced stresses in other, similar, estuarine areas. Application of this information to coastal zone managment decision-making would be a primary objective. The application proposes a management program for the sanctuarty which is designed to maintain the area in its present or natural state and to protect the natural functions and values of South Slough. The management policies will protect the sanctuary from both internal and external sources of stress which may alter or affect the nature of the ecosystems, and will Mimi I.M, -M fit [oil It al n 0. -w-7- I oil. p *1 rn IN- St -T I ab tw- M. Z9 I 3WM' fmint-S) urlair) LM 0--Icq P!J*l ;c-:;*Cz-j*ot Luft I L -V 44.)M 1 )-"A awe - ld ral . -WO 06-1 3 6 @l t--- FA r Jrl CC 3 -4%vo.*r - 4b '41W %7- rk .0' r rr%, dt, sr Ar -n i glu JAC '-V@ .. - .w . 41 1-4 %N. r W NNI 'S@ nd t ML lowl%@ Z. aq; xwnj s3 .- Ibr ib .4 jr we 17) la WFASS cs S."'71.N." . . . . . . . -v' 774*@ low A - A 17 V, AS -V preserve the area for long-term scientific and educational use. Ownership of the santuary will be vested in the Oregon State Land Board, which has the necessary constitutional and statutory authorities to hold and manage the sanctuary for these purposes. The State Land Board will be guided by a Technical Managment Task Force, considering of repre- sentatives from the Oregon Fish Commission, Wildlife Commission, Natural Areas Committee, Department of Environmental Quality, Division of State Lands and Department of Forestry, University of Oregon Institute of Marine Biology and the Coos County Commission. A representative from NOAA's Office of Coastal Zone Management will serve as a non-voting member of the Technical Management Task Force. The Director of the Division of State Lands will handle administratve services for the santuary staff and provide management direction as defined by the Task Force and Land Board. A full-time Santuary Program Manager will be hired to oversee the operation and coordination of all activities in the santuary. The Manager will be responsible to the Technical Management Task Force and ultimately the State Land Board, but administrative will be on the staff of the Division of State Lands. It will be his duty to: 1)routinely monitor environmental parameters in the santuary area; 2)coordinate all special studies research activities within or related to the santuary area; 3)investigate alleged violations and report to the Task Force and Divisions of State Lands; 4)write required state and Federal reports, including the annual report to be submitted to OCZM; 5)represent the Task Force in public meetings, etc; and 6)carry out other directions from the Task Force and Land Board; Acquisition and designation of the area as an estuarine sanctuary would result in restrictions being placed on the use and future development of the area. As a general guideline, uses which would alter the natural environment would be prohibited. While not intended as a recreation area, the santuary will be available for use by the general public so long as the level and kind of use does not detract from or otherwise alter the natural environment or the research use of the santuary. Current levels of recreational fiching, shell- fish harvest and hunting, which are now quite low, would be permitted; increased levels would be viewed as appropriate so long as they did not alter the ecosystems. Camping would not be prohibited, but no special facilities. 6 such as roads or campsites would be constructed or provided. Oyster culture as now practiced will be permitted. The total area leased for oyster culture may be enlarged to about twice its present size, but the culture technique would be limited to stake or bottom culture and raft or float culture would be prohibited. All such uses my be restricted, or prohibited if overuse or misuse threatens the viability of the sanctuary. If residents now living within the sanctuary so choose, they may retain a partial interest in their property. This partial interest would permit presently existing low intensity residential and farming uses to continue; however, the expansion of these activities, in either area or intensity, or the introduction of new commercial activities, would not be permitted. Except as necessary to maintain the health of the ecosystems, timber harvest would be prohibited within the sanctuary. Such harvest would permit the prophylactic removal of dead or diseased trees and thinning of reforested areas according to good forestry practices; this level of harvest would not, however, be commercially productive. Notarized vessels will be prohibited in the sanctuary waters; exception way be provided by special permit granted by the Management Task Force, but it is anticipated that such permits will be restricted to vessels used for research or for the commercial harvest of oysters. Limited restrictions may also be placed on the use of motorized vehicles in the upland portion of the sanctuary. The use or discharge of pollutants, including pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers, within the sanctuary would be prohibited. All uses of the sanctuary will be closely monitored by the research efforts coordinated by the Santuary Manager. Based on this monitoring and the results of any other research ar i information, the potential or actual impact on and compatibility of each use with the sanctuary will continually be reassessed, and the management program altered as necessary to maintain the long-term health of the estuarine ecosystem. The use of those Lands outside of the proposed sanctuary boundaries but within the 26 square mile watershed which contributes to the santuary may also be controlled if necessary by the application of zoning ordinances under state and local authority. Specific threats may come from logging within the watershed, and from water pollution caused by commercial or industrial development along the waterfront in the lower portion of South Slough. The effects of logging will be controlled by vigorous monitoring and enforcement of the State Forest Practices Act of 1971. Potential water pollution or harmful discharges will be subject to the state water non-degradation clause enforced by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. All. research within the estuarine sanctuary will be approved and coordinated by the Program Manager and the Technical Management Task Force. The University of Oregon Institute of Marine Biology is located at Charleston, Oregon, on South Slough north of the proposed sanctuary; it would probably be a major research user of the sanctuary. Other agencies or groups expected to utilize the area for research are Southwestern Oregon Community College, Terramar (a private field science facility), Oregon Fish Commission, Oregon Wildlife Commission, and Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. The state has Identified as general areas of research appropriate in the sanctuary the following: 1) General Understanding of Estuarine Ecosystems. Studies would include productivity measurement, distribution and life history studies of estuarine organisms, energy flow dynamics, etc,as well as physical, chemical and hydrographic studies. (2) Use as Basellne. To establish natural conditions in an undisturbed sanctuary-, and. subsequently monitor the sanctuary to detect later changes. 3) Policy Development and Managment Criteria. Use Of South Slough as a control against which changes in other areas, either in lower South Slough or in other estuaries, can be compared as they are developed and coastal zone management programs are implmented. Through contact conditions in the grant award, the OCZM retain ultimate responibility for assuring the cont�nued maintenance of the area consonant: with the conditions of an estuarine sanctuary. Individuals or argani zations which are concerned about possible improper, use or restrictions of use of estuarine sanctuaries may petition the State Land Board and the Office of Costal Zone Management directly for review of the management program. III. DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT AFFECTED* The proposed sanctuary includes the upper (southern) half of South' Slough and the adjacent lands which contribute to it, constituting the main features of a natural unit. South Slough itself is an isolated arm of Coos Bay, which is the second largest estuary in Oregon, and is a representative of the Columbian class of estuaries as defined in the Estuarine Sanctuary Guidelines. *Description primarily from information supplied with application. Coos Bay is a major industrial and commercial port. The patterns of population growth; residental, agricultural and industrial develop- ment; tourism; and waste disposal in the area have adversely affected the Bay water quality and the estuarine ecosystem. Because of the scarce upland development in the South Slough watershed, and because of the proximity of the mouth of South Slough to the ocean, which allows it to remain unaffected by Coos Bay water, the South Slough area in contrast remains in a clean, productive and relatively unaltered condition. This condition has not resulted from careful management, however, but rather from the protective insularity afforded by natural inaccessibility. While representing only about 16% of the total of Coos Bay estuary, South Slough is of major significance to the health and productivity of the estuarine system. Its large areas of undisturbed tideflats and extensive fringe marshes represent the only major wetland areas in the Coos Bay estuary which have not been significantly modified by man's activities (Akins, 1973). The geological history of the region is complex. a rapid regional uplift, which continues to the present day, coupled with fluctuations in sea-level during glacial periods, has resulted in rapid errosion, severley dissected hills and thick deposits of sediments. It is these sediments which form the basis for the marshes and tidelands. The proposed sanctuary includes two prominent geographic features: Valino Island, a 23 acre forest and brush covered island with steep sandstone bluffs at the sides, guards the mouth of the proposed santuary; and Long Island Point, a narrow forested finger of land stretching northward and dividing the slough into two arms- the Sengstacken arm on the east and the Winchester arm on the west. Three major creeks feed freshwater to the Sengstacken arm while Winchester Creek is the major source of fresh- water inflow to the Winchester arm. Several small creeks were diked at one time to prevent tidal flooding and create farm lands. However, these dikes are now in disrepair and tidal action has been returned, resulting in the natural restoration of the marsh areas. The South Slough watershed receives heavy rainfall and moderating winds from the Pacific Ocean all year around. As a result it is densely covered with a coastal rainforest containing a variety of upland plants. Sitka Spruce, Western Hemlock, Port Orford Cedar, and Douglas Fir dominate mature forest areas. There is little mature forest in the proposed santuary area, however. The shallow slopes on the east side of the Sengtacken arm are covered by young, third growth timber and brush; and the western side of the more steeply sloped Winchester arm has a forest cover varying from maturing second growth to young reforestation. In such areas Beach Pine, Red Alder, Vine Maple, and Coastal Willow may occur with the younger conifers. A variety of shrubs and bushes crown the perimeter of the Slough itself. Well developed fringe marshes mark the interface between tidal and upland areas, and the submerged estuary bottom supports extensive, lush eelgrass beds. The upland and marsh environments support a wide variety of animals and birds . (see Appendix III). South Slough is an important area for migrating waterfowl, and its Class AA waters are an o,[prtamt spawning, nursery and feeding ground for fish and shellfish. Under the health regulation governing the harvest of of oysters, South Slough is the only area In the Coos Bay system where edible oysters may be collected. (Akins, 1973: Gaumer at al, 1973, and USDI, 1971.) Largely as a result of their inaccessibility, the lands and waters within the boundaries of the proposed sancturary are only lightly used by man. The primary use has been timber harvest, and much of the forested lands have been cut and harvested twice. A few residences occur along Seven Devils Road, which marks the western boundary of the sancturay, and the bottomlands of Winchester Creek currently serve as grazing lands for small, low intensity farms. The primary use of the area is for water oriented recreation such as duck hunting, fishing, clam digging and general pleasure boating. However, even this use has been at very low intensity. For example, the 1971 Coos Bay Resource Use Study (Gaumer et al, 1973) reported that only 1,547 (2.3) of the 67,900 resource user trips (boat, shore and tideflat users) measured for the Coos Bay study area between March and October, 1971, occurred in South Slough. Slightly over 79 acres of submerged lands in South Slough are leased for commercial oyster production; only 46 of these are in the proposed sancturay area. The annual commercial yield from these leases in South Slough varies greatly. The following table summarizes the catch for all of South Slough, including those areas outside of the proposed sanctuary: YEAR LANDINGS gallons of oyster meat (1 gal. - about 8 lbs.) 1969 939 1970 1,969 1971 26 1972 866 1973 1,513 The value of this fishery has also varied over a large range: the 1971 landings were valued at $169; based on present values (1974) in Seattle, the 1973 landings, were worth about $16,450. (Source: Oregon Fish Commission) Reflecting its long history of human habitation, a number of historic or cultural features occur within the proposed sanctuary, including pioneer gravesites, an abandoned gold mine, and an old school house. A pre- historic India midden has been uncovered in South Slough, and other Indian sites and trails occur. Approximately nine residences are now maintained within the sanctuary boundaries, mostly along the western boundary; this represents a gradual decline from the peak residential use about half a century ago. Parts of the proposed sanctuary site, however, have recently been threatened by plans for dense subdivision development, and by plans for Intense recreational use.In the last year, two specific sites,totalling 577 acres, have been proposed for residential subdivisions. These proposals have led to strong local Interest in preserving the existing amenitie within South Slough. IV. RELATIONSHip OF THE ROPOSED ACTION TO LAND USE PLAN, POLICES AND CONTROLS FOR THE AREA The estuarine sanctuary proposal reflects the thoughtful input of a variety of local citizens and governmental bodies as well as state resource and planning agencies.As such, it is not only compatible with, but is an integral part of, the plans and guideline which they have developed. A number of gneralized guide lines have beam initiated by the State of Oregon. The Oregon State University Sea Grant Extension Marine Advisory Progam publshed Crisis in Oregon Estuaies in 1969.This summarized the environmental factors and resouse conflicts in Oregon's estuaries, and recommended that an integrated land and water use plan was for Coos Bay. By Executive Order (#01-07-07,March 3,1970), Governor McCall took action to protect Oregon's coast by halting any state activies that would modify the natural enviroment Including its estuaries.The Oregon Coastal Conservation and Development Commissioned (OCCDC) recommended guidelines which would protect all saltmarsh areas from irreversible acts until thorough plans and standards are adopted. Although no final land use plan now exists for South Slough or Coos County, a number of County level agencies and groups have taken specific action recognizing the importance of the upper South Slough area and recommended its protection. In the summer of 1971 a citizen committee was formed to develop a land use plan for the Charleston-Barview area (two small communties which straddle the mouth of South Slough).This group developed a plan for protecting the south Half of South Slough, above Valino Island, and a one-fourth mile wide buffer strip around the water and tidelands. After approval at a public meeting in December, 1971, the plan was presented to and adopted by the Coos Comnty Planning Commission and ultimately the Coos County Board of Commissioners and incorporated into the 1990 Temporary Land Use Map. In April, 1972, the County Board of Commissioners appointed the Coos Bay Estuary Committee to study land and water use in the Coos Bay estuary. This Commitee's report, in January, 1973, also recommended similar protection for the south half of South Slough; it also urged that a method of compensation to the owners of property within the protected area be developed. The District #5 Citizen Advisory Committee, appointed to develop zoning for the area, recommended that the one-fourth mile buffer strip be designated Interim Natural Resource and that the remainder of privately owed land in the watershed be zoned Interim Forest and Grazing-40 (one residence permitted per 40 acres). These classifications were designed to protect the nautral conditions in the upper end of South Slough. In addition upon the recommendation of its own Estuarine Sanctuary Research Committee in June, 1973, the Port of Coos Bay voted to support the Planning Commission sanctuary proposal and urged that a nondevelopment zone be establshed for the same area. Because of the concern for compensating owners of property within the proposed protected area, the local citizens began an investigation into means for securing funding to acquire the lands. Both private and governmental sources were considered.By late 1972 the local government had contacted state agencies and The Nature Conservancy concerning possible assistance in protecting and acquiring a portion of South Slough, an official contact was first made with OCZM in Spring, 1973. The proposal for an estuarine sanctuary is consistent with the concern demonstrated by these citizens and govermental groups. Not only would it offer the protection they seek for the upper of half of South Slough, but it would provide a vehicle for acquiring the adjacent lands and thus compensating the land ownes whose use of the land would be restricted. V. PROBABLE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ON THE ENVIRONMENT if awarded, a grant from OCZM would enable the State of Oregon to acquire and protect a portion of South Slough for use as an estuarine sanctuary. The creation of this sanctuary would have a number of both beneficial and adverse impacts. The most direct environmental impact to be derived from this action would be the long-term benefits associated with the assured use of the area for scientific, educational and other consistent purposes. By providing a base for education and research, the sanctuary will enrich our understanding of estuarine ecosystem and resources, which is of essential but incalculable importance to the development of a rational coastal zone management program at the local, state and regional levels. Without a sound scientific basis, and without a provision enabling controlled long-term monitoring, such magement programs could not adequately cope with the issues and conflicts which occur in the nation's coastal zone. The proposed sanctuary, which has been carefully chosen as a typical or representative estuary for the Columbian region, would Provide a control area to use as a basis for measuring the success of coastal land and water management efforts not only in Coos Bay but for other Columbian estuaries as well. In addition to the scientific benefits the sanctuary would provide a vehicle for increasing public knowledge and awareness of the complex future of estuarine systems and the problems which confront them.The intrest, concern and cooperation of an aroused public citizenry will be necessary for enviromentally sound planning and programs to succeed. Another beneficial environmental impact would be associated with the positive action taken to preserve this undistidurbed and ecologically important area.Designation of the sanctuary would prevent damage to the natural environment and provide a refuge for stocks of fish, shellfish, birds wildlife which are stressed by loss of habitat, loss of water quality and overexploration. Such natural resources assume increased importance when their role in maintaining prouductivity in the stressed Coos Bay system is considered.Protection of the marshes and wetlands will also serve to protect and maintain water quality Establishment of the sanctuary would also permit the long-term maintenance of the recreational uses and the aethetic charm which the area now provides, and which would be destroyed by the entense develoment of the area, as has been proposed. Such amenities are necsssary ingegredients in maintaining the quality of life which we know today.While preserving the existing resources ,human uses and benifits of the socio-econominc impact the sanctuary boundary, there may be some adverse socio-econominc impact on the local community. initialy three impacts of possible significance were identified and discussed; these were loss of tax revenues; loss of revenues from timber harvest;and impacts commercial fishing, especially oyster culture.This initial analysis indicated that losses from the first two caused by creation of a estuarine sancuary would be significantly small, and that there would be no loss,but actual benefit , to the oyster culture operations. In response to concern expressed most clearly by the Coos-Curry Council of Governments, as well as others, about the possible inadaquacy of the econotic data in the draft environmental impact statement, the office of Coastal Zone management contracted for a special, addition staudy on the ewconomic impact of creating the proposed estuarine sanctuary.The report of this study, which was written by Dr. Julia Friedman, Resource Economist , University if Oregon,Eugene ,Oregon, is included in toto as Appendix 4. Using an input-output model, and discounting future values to derive compareable values at the present time, the study identified and examined the following possible detrimental or adverse economic impacts on the community which might be caused by designation of South Slough as an estuarine sanctuary:Loss of single housing construction,Loss of commercial and sport fish culture,Loss of timber harvest, Loss of high density residential/recreational potential,Loss of mineral extraction potential,loss of tax base. In addition, some areas of possible beneficial or desirable economic impact were also identified and assessed: Increase in field research grants, Funding for management of the estuarine sanctuary, Increase in educational use of the area, Payment of adjusment taxes from state on land held under Reforestation Order, Economic estimate of the aesthetic/scientific value of preservation of the South Slough. Table I summarizes the findings of the study. TABLE I Total Estimated Impact Caused by Designation of Part of South Slough as an Estuarine Sanctuary (-indicates potential benefit which may be sacrificed if the sanctuary is established;. +indicates potential benefit which may result only if the sanctuary Is established.) Present Value of Total Economic Impact Single unit housing develop- ment (1/5 years) - $176,500 Timber harvest on Reforestation Order lands -1,002,000 Harvest of all timber (12" DBH or greater) -1,312,000 Maximum sustained yield of timber beginning 2025 - 710,000 (maximum loss; could be as small as zero) Minerals (may be a negative value in future years) High density development 000 (not possible under proposed zoning) Oyster culture/recreational fishing 000 (may be a positive value in future years) Economic stimulus from tax adjustment + 49,000 Management expenditures for estuarine sanctuary + 2,327,850 Research grants + 1,344,000 Educational use of sanctuary + 395,000 Scientific/aesthetic/recreational value + 800,000 MINIMUM (may be a large positive value in future years) Stimulus from sanctuary acquisition value + 1,100,000* *-The report indicates two figures for the economic stimulus on Coos County from sanctuary acquisition: $550,000 and 1,100,000. The former represents the value if 1/2 of the lands were acquired; the latter if all lands, or a substantial interest therein, were acquired. Since other impacts were determined based on acquisition of the entire sanctuary, for comparative purposes, the latter figure was used. It is Important to recognize that the values In Table I are meant as guide to the general magnitude of possible economic impacts resulting from the proposed action. Each number represents the current value of a different time stream of economic events and employment activities, and the numbers, therefore, are not directly comparable. Moreover, it is important to note that many of the negative Impacts are mutually exclusive. Dense residential development and timber harvest could not occur at the same, time, for example, for one use would preclude the other just as effectively as sanctuary designation would. For this reason, the negative impacts are not additive. in contrast, the positive benefits are compatible and not mutually exclusive, and would all accrue If the sanctuary were designated. A few other potential impacts were not addressed in the study. The most significant of these are the beneficial values of marshlands and wetlands In providing and maintaining water quality, the possible impact of sanctuary designation on the value of adjacent properties, and the effect of diversification on the local economy. Odum (1973) has calculated that the value of coastal marshes and wetlands in maintaining water quality is worth $80,000/year/acre. This figure was derived from data on marshes in Georgia and may not be strictly transferable. Whatever value they produce is already provided, and creation of an estuarine sanctuary would not increase this benefit; it will, however, guarantee the long-term benefit from this source, which would be lost If the area were developed. Experience with similar proposals in other area has shown that desig- nation of a sanctuary frequently results in raising the market value, and thus the tax revenues, an adjacent properties. Once long-term protection Is assured for the aethetic and resource amenities within the sanctuary, adjacent properties may become more desirable for residential and recrea- tional uses. Their higher value results in a positive effect on the tax base, which may fully compensate for anticipated tax loss. This effect will be tempered by the proposed zoning ordinances, which would limit the surrounding lands to forestry and agricultural uses. Finally, the introduction of a new research and educational facility would result in diversifying the economy, which is now strongly dependent upon the timber industry and would be beneficial to the overall stabilization of the local economic well-being. Indeed, the Coos-Curry-Dougqlas Economic Development Association has decided that diversification of the local economy should be its number 2 priority goal (CCD Economic Improvement Asso- ciation, 197Z). In addition to these impacts, acquisition by the state will remove these private lands from the tax rolls. Lands within the proposed sanctuary boundaries contribute to six different tax districts. In addition to the annual ad valorem tax revenues of $13,488.37, the report calculates that the expected adjustment tax on Reforestation Order lands within the oposed sanctuary boundaries, due to taxes deferred until timber harvest, would be $3550 for 1975. Thus a total tax lass of about $17,000 could be expected. This. ranges from about 0.12 to 0.27 of the revenues collected by each individual agency, or 0.18 of the tax generated revenues collected by all agencies In the district (Table II), and is so small as to be insignificant in comparison to the total tax structure. It might also be pointed out that even these small sums are gross tax revenues; that the county-provides some services In the area; and that as the state acquires the land, these services will no longer be provided by the county. The major adverse economic impact would therefore be the loss of timber harvest. In terms of timber production from other areas in, Coos County, this is not felt to be a significant loss. The total tax loss is an insignificant fraction of the six taxing authorities. In addition, a number of positive or desirable economic gains will accrue as a result of designating the area an estuarine sanctuary, and these would more than offset the adverse economic impacts. Restrictions will also be applied to the kinds and intensity of recreational and commercial fishing activities within the sanctuary. The primary impact would derive from the suggested management policy which would prohibit the use of motorized craft in at least part (the eastern arm) of the sanctuary. As Indicated above, there is only very limited use of the sanctuary area at present. There are virtually no commercial fishing operations within the sanctuary, and as Indicated earlier, recreational use represents a very small proportion. (less than 3%) of the total for Coos Bay. Furthermore, most of the recreational fishing and activity vithin South,Slough occurs near the mouth of the slough, between Charleston and ValIno island, rather than within the proposed sanctuary boundaries. Restrictions on total use would not affect present or foreseeable levels of use, but could reduce a theoretical potential use. The prohibition on motorized vessels was suggested by the local citizens, and has received their strong support. The prohibition may serve as an Inconvenience to some users, primarily duck hunters, but since the area will still be accessible by canoe or rowboat, It will be little more than that, and will enhance the enjoyment of the area by others. Although a lease for oyster farming on 46 acres of submerged lands within the proposed sanctuary has already been granted, there is as yet only very limited production and harvest. Special significance has been attached to the potential for expansion of this activity in South Slough, however, because of the very limited areas where oyster harvest can occur in Oregon. The combination of hydrographic features peculiar to the Oregon coast and degradation of water quality from industrial, commercial and residential activities narrowly delimits those areas suitable for oyster harvest. The sanctuary would permit low-level but long-term oyster production and stake farming in identified areas and under con-. trolled conditions. Because of factors such as salinity, depth, and tidal range, only a small area (about 70 to 100 acres) of the proposed sanctuary waters would be suitable for oyster culture, and none of the potential oyster area in the sanctuary would be amendable to raft culture. RM Wm TAX LOSS (A) (C) (D) GOVERNMENT TOTAL REVENUES AD VALOREM TAX ADJUSTMENT TAX TOTAL TAX REVENUES 2 OF TOTAL AGENCY FOR AGENCY* REVENUES GENERATED FOR R.0, YIELD** GENERATED BY DISTRIOT REVEMM BY SANCTUARY LANDS WITHIN SANCTU- SANCTUARY LANDS FROM SANCTUARY (INCLUDING MINAR4 ARY.BOUNDARY (B+Q WDS ***(D/A) RIGHTS) Coos Bay $ 820g298. 754.41 -M-70 946.11 0012 School District #9 396839358. 7v901.76 2;.019.95 9t921.71 0,27 Intermediate Education District 3o560s671. 39274,70 837.80 4j112.50 0,12. Southwestern Oregon Community college 838o5210. 77143 198.80 969.93 0.12 Port-of Coos Bay 129pi3O. 133.053 49.70 183.23 Bay Area Hospital 701.983. 652L84 252.05 904-89 0 TOTAL 9o734v061. $13t488.37 $39550.00 4179038.37 0.182 *Omits adjustment tax for Reforestation Order lands# except that calculated fot those lands witbin the sanctuary boundaries; it is therefore smaller than actual figure If adjustment tax for all Reforestation Order lands were included. . % . **Based on 1975 calculated adjustment tax'Joes of $3,550. ***Column E represents that proportion of the ad valorem tax revenOes. lackIng R.O. adjustment tax except for that from sanctuary,.which the total revenues from the sanctuary Jandal Including K.09 adjustmen@ taxi represents. If revenues from R.O. adjustment tax In the remainder of the district were Included# the ratio woul4.be still omalle On the other hand, if the sanctuary were not created and South Slough were developed as has been the remainder of Coos Bay, the potential. for oyster farming would be short-lived, for degradation of water quality would likely result in closed harvest here as elsewhere. Arrangements may also be made for the continued occupancy of existing residential structures within the sanctuary borders. In a less direct sense, one significant long-term impact may be the redirection In population growth and distribution which would be created by the establishment of the sanctuary. Acquisition for an estuarine sanctuary of the lands surrounding the upper half of South Slough would remove the increasing pressure for large-scale residential development and prevent the total destruction of the Coos Bay estuary. by permitting a small share to remain in its natural state. The growth Induced impacts, which would accompany any large-scale development in this area, and their concomitant demands on public services and natural resources, would be avoided. The proposed action may well dampen the pressures for urban sprawl generating from the communities located around the Coos Bay and provide the focus for a more thoughtful and consciously directed growth. In summary, the net environmental Impact of an estuarine sanctuary in South Slough will be to encourage a productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment, to protect an estuary for long-term educational and scientific uses, and to stimulate his long-term health and welfare. VI. ALTERNATIVES At all stages in the development of this estuarine sanctuary proposal- Including at the local citizen, county government, state resource and planning and Federal review stages - a rigorous examination has been made of -alternatives to the proposed action. These have included, at one or more times, consideration of: A. Alternatives to the site selected. B. Alternative boundaries for this sanctuary. C. Alternative management programs. D. Alternative methods for protection. E. Alternative courses of action for OCZM, including the "no action" option. k. Alternatives to the site selected During the development of this. proposal, fr= its original 'concept at the local level to a formal estuarine sanctuary application by the OCCDC, a number of sites were examined by the state as potential candidates under this program. Early in its deliberations the OCCDC formed an Estuarine.- Sanctuary Committee to review the Federal estuarine sanctuary program, deter'- -vilne whether any of Oregon's estuaries were 'Suitable, and recommend appro- priate action based an its findings., ..'Th4 Committee contained a variety of expertise and its me ers represented the interests of coastal cities, counties,, part authorities, state land and resource agencies and the state universities. After public meetings, and with the absistance of- concerned citizens, the Committee identified nine candidate areas (Swash Lake of the Columbia; Netarts Bay; Sand Lake Salmon River; Milport Slough; Siletz Bay; McCaffery Slough,, Yaquina Bay; North- Channel, Alsea Bay; South Slough, Siuslaw Bay;- South Slough, Coos Bay). After further discussion at subsequent meetings these were narrowed to five candidates. The Committee then constructed a matrix contain-Ing the essential criteria of the estuarine sanctuary guidelines. . Specific items of equal value considered in -the matrix were: research potential; natural productivity; perceived threats; cost; availability; conflict with existing land use and ownership patterns; whether the area represented a natural unit; and the impact of selection on the local area.. After lengthy public discussion the Committee reached a consensus rating of the five remaining candidates. As reflected in the totals from the matrix, two - McCaffery Slough in Yaquina Bay and South Slough in Coos Bay - were far mor qualified -than - the others A -detailed investigation was made::Lnto -the appropriateness- of these t= areas as sanctuary sites,, and af ter'further. meetings it waci decided, .1argely an th -e basi:s- of feasibility and public. support, to proceed with South Slough. The selection -'process, therefore, .;as the result of a wide variety of input and careful consideration of many different factors. 7he intense local. concern and support for- the- South Slough candidate was- a major factor in its final seler-tiorL -Between 1971 and the present time a number of private citizens, citizen advisory committees, and the County Planning Commission, Board of Commi sioners, and Port Authority repeatedly voiced their support for protection and preserving the south half of South Slough and a one-fourth mile wide strip of adjacent -lands. -Another important factor was the low intensity land and water use within the sanctuary proposal in South Slough and accordingly the low potential 'for conflict which would result if the area were made a sanctuary. Compatibility with existing or projected land use plans was another significant consideration. Another benefit to be derived from the South Slough location was the proximity of the University of Oregon Institute of Marine Biology, located in Charleston, which was desirable from the view of research uses. No other candidate for consideration had such a blend of favorable features. The OCCDC also. -considered the possibility of a Columbian. class sanctuary In estuaries in either Washington or Northern California. - Both states were coatacted concern4n the-status of their efforts. Neither state has made application for a sanctuary at this date. Although both states contain suitable'sanctuary,r-cmdidates, itwo'uld appear as if neither has an area. si-i 1 ar in nature- to the South Slough type of estuary. which -is equally as suitable for sanctuary designation. B. Alternative boundaries for this sanctuary. The-dtizen -effort criiinatl@ag in'the' -sdmme of 1971 was.des;igaed to protect the South Slough estuary itself. The initial concerns were thus directed at unintainin water quality. By the time of "the pub;1c hearing in December 1971, which finalized the report to the- Cops County.- Planning Commission, it was realized that in, order.to adequately protect., the estuary a strip of land surrounding -the Slough would be necessary as a buffer. At the December hearing, . the public approved a plan for protecting a one-fourth mile wide strip of land around South'Slough in additioiL to the waters of the Slough itself. This proposal, which was made prior to the passage of the Coastal Zone Management Act and before there was serious hope. for Accui4ition. of the land, was based on three major objectives: 1. Afford protection to water quality and wildlife values of the Slough itself; 2. Present adnima3 "taking" of private properties - whether by zoning controls or by compensation to reluctant sellers; and 3. Adequately preserve the visual wilde'ruess characteristics of the-area. During the mee 'tings and hea@rtngs which'followed, based primarily on the idea of controlling the Land through. zoning- authority. this spacific:-_- proposal received widespread support. the. state began to develop the appUr-ation to OCZH to designate and acquire South Slough as an estuarine sanctuary, it reasse 'ssed this choice of boundaries. Its considerations ranged from protection of the estuary bui no acquisition of land (protection largely through zoning) to acquisition of the entire 26 square mile watershed which empties Into South Slough. Specific criteria which the state considered included the degree to which the area approximated a natural ecological unit; existing conflicting uses; the degree to which the sanctuary would be affected by stresses from outside its boundaries; cost; and feasibility. It was obvious, for example, that it was both unfeasible from a cost basis and undesirable in terms of existing uses to acquire the entire watershed. At the other extreme the no acquisition choice was not felt to afford sufficient protection. J .20 Because of the strong local support, special considdration was given to the choice of acquiring the one-fourth.'mile wide buffer-strip. With t@ however, it became apparent that this alternative was unsuitable for two reasonsz First, it was not a feasible boundary in a. legal. or geographic sense. Short of an accurate survey to- determine the exact location of mean high tide (the edge of state owned lands) and another complete survey to measure in one-fourth mile- f ra this line, this -line could not be located. The costs of. the surveyed, line, necessary -for 'land acquisitimp-woula have equalled a-- major share of the acquisition cost itself, and the determination. of the I Ine would have beezL very time consuming. Second, it was decided that a more appropriate boundary should better reflect natural features. An arbitrary determination would not reflect the natural processes or relationships which were. essential for main tenance of a healthy system. An appropriate boundary could both provide ..an adequate buffer and, by creating a barrier to external stresses, protect the ecosystem from degrading influences -originating outside of the sanctuary itself While considering the choice of the boundary itself, concern arose'- *bout control of. the lands and waters- outside - of the sanctuary. Although' proper selection of -the boundary would reduce the impact of external land and.water uses and stresses originating outside of the sanctuary. on the sanctuary itself, there would- always be a boundary permitting some degree of interaction. The potential threats and availability of q- issary controls would therefore affect the choice of boundaries.. The primary potential- threats to. - the sanctuary.which are perceived are impacts from timber harvest and from residential d.evelopment on adjacent lands and upstream in the watershed, and from water pollution occurring along lower Soiith @lough and being introduced by'tidal ge. These problems were discussed with appropriate state agencies, and it was concluded that existing controls or authority Including locAl zcning (the proposed -zoning ordinances would prcclude Intense development around the sanctuary), strict enforcement and monitoring of the State Forest Practices Act of 1971 (which would control the adverse impaits of logging), and the state water non- degradation clause (to be monitored and enforced by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality) - would provide adequate control to protect the sanctuary if the boundaries themselves were wisely chosen and reflected the natural system. Using the above criteria -and a series of specially prepared maps and overlays, which represented both natural (e.g. slope, erosion potential, timber type, soil capabilities) and cultural (e.g. ownership patterns, tax value, visual impact) features, thi boundaries of this proposal were developed. The original one-fourth mile buffer concept was relocated westward to the crest of a slight ridge, marked by Seven Devils Road. -This ridge will provide protection from water related stresses originating b ond the boundary, and acquisition to the road will remove the pressures 7,3ciated with potential development. The southern and eastern boundaries wtre enlarged slightly in order to provide desired protection to. streanbeds, wetlands, and other physiographic features. These new boundaries include about twice as such uplands, at twice the estimated cost, of the original on6-fourth the wide buffer strip proposal. Although this may present new problems, especial2y in funding and possibly in conflicts -with present Lmd th4a boundary seems to offer a -solution'which optimizes the factors of costg ecosystem considerations, sanctuary viability, avoidanch of conflietv and feasibility. C. Alternative effe" tprogr; PIN Th@ determination of the management policy, 'especially the selection of .compatible uses, the types of research, the prohibition of conflicting uses, and the choice of management agency is another issue.involving many alternatives. 7he original objective which rallied local support was the maintenance of water quality in and the productivity and wilderness characteristics of the South Slough estuary. As the application for consideration as was developed, this a candidate in the estuarine sanctuary progra objective was - expanded to ensure the permanent protection of the - area 'for use as a natural field laboratory for scientists and students to provide information relevant to coastal zone management decision-making. Other uses, which would not alter the nature of the ecosystem and which were cor-patible with this primary objective. would be permitted. Sam consideration was given to prohibiting all except scientific and ducational uses of the area and resources within the sanctuary.- Rowever, both the State of Oregon and the OCZM have a. sincere desire for multi- purpose use of the sanctuary area' consistent with the primary objectives. .-Such restriction of low level recreational -use wouldlappear both. - unaddessary and contrary to the guidelines for the Estuarine Sanctuary Program. The minagement program will always remain somewhat open. The Ampact of different uses will be continually assessed, and controlled, regulated or pr%,.hibited as necessary. It is anticipated that low intensity recreational uses such as boating, fishing, hunting and hiking will be permitted, but that in general the expansion of commercial enterprises will not. Detailed consideration was given to the problems associated with two -commercial uses: timber harvest and oyster farming. Because of the great importance of the timber industry in- the local economy, the question was raised whether, if carefully regulated, the harvesting of timber might be permitted within the sanctuary boundaries. Suggested regulations included the requirement for a buffer betiieen the harvest operation and the estuary, prohibition of clearcut techniques, additional requirements for prompt reforestation, and restrictions on the use of pesticides and fertilizers. Only after careful consideration of *the terrain, slope, erosion potential and aesthetic impact, was it determined that timber harvest would be incompatible with the sanctuary objective. Because of comments received as a result of the draft Environmental Impact- Statement, the State of Oregon and the OCZK carefully reassessed the boundary and the timber harvest prohibition. , A "two-tiered" management schem, in which timber harvest would be prohibited within an inner buffer area, but controlled harvest would be permitted in the outer periphery of the sanctuary, was specifically considered. Such harvest would be subject to strict regulations designed to controL impact on the estuarine ecosystem; e les of possible controls included restrictions such as: 9)' Selective cutting only; no clearc:utting b) No use of pesticides, herbicides, or fertilizers c) No construction of roads or skid trails; removal of timber by balloon or helicopter; or, alternatively, no use of mechanized equipment d) Harvest only during specified periods to avoid inter- ference with critical stages of wildlife Life-cycles e) Immediate reforestation and soil stabilization. f) Prohibition an logging.on steep slopes, or in wetlands, or In. the - 100-year f loodplain g) Extensive baseline studies; monitorin and follow-up studies would be required for each activity, and would be f@nded by the harvesting agency The continuation of timber harvest within at least part of the sanctuary _:-boundaries votC.I'enable some tax return to be provided to Coos- County, and inight permit a trade of privately owned lands 'held by.timber interests within the sanctuary for state owned forest lands in other parts of Coos Coumty. (The state agencies involved w-V not permit such a trade AL", unless timber harvest would be permitted within the sanctuary.) After thoughtful. consideration, the "two-tiered" management alternative Was rejected and the prohibition on timber harvest was retained. The decision was based on the following,consideratious: a) If a sanctuary is created, the usie as a control will be a primary objective. Such use demands that the sanctuary remain its natural as feasible. In order to test for the effects of logging or other activities, one area must be provided where such activities do not occur. The proposed sanctuary, then, would serve as a control or base against which the Impacts of logging in other areas might be determined. Only through such comparative studies can an actual assessment be made. While it is true that South Slough has remained a fairly productive unit, this does not mean logging has had no Impact; there is no way of telling what ifs condition or productivity =ight be today because there has been no scientific control. bi The necessary manageyont. res tric tions- -were so severe that, AU rea I Ity, harvest would be economically infeasible; the harvest potential would be illusory... c) The prohibition of timber harvest would be a cleaner management policy, @asier to administer and less open to nisintexpretation in the future. d) There was overwhelming public and competent scientific support for the enlarged boundaries and proposed management policies, lqcluding the prohibition an timber harvest@ at the public hearing on June 3, 1974. Timber harvest irr the remainder of the watershed would continue. Such harvest would be under the regulation of the Oregon Forest Practices Act of 1971. Vigorous monitoring and enforcement of this Act should provide necessary protection from logging practices outside of the -sanctuary. Additional controls might be'0implemented by the state or local government if necessary to maintain water quality in South Slough. As indicated earlie r (page 8) the problems associated with' oyster farming also required special attention. In contrast to timber harvesting, oyster production in Oregon is very restricted, and South Slough is - one of the few areas with a high potential fo'r growing, O'yste,rs. Because of salinity levels, only a s=ill portion of 'the proposed sanctuary is suitable for oyster production. Consideration was given to permitting oyster culture without special restrictiow; permitting such culture but with special restrictions; and prohibiting oyster culture altogether. Because of-the very restric teA oyster culture potential in Oregon, involved state resource agencies argued strongly that such activity should be -Rermitted to continue subject to controls necissary to protect the sanctuary. After careful considerar4on of the potential impact of oyster farming on the sanctuary (especially the impact cf eelgrass beds, the ...aesthetic impact, and the possible spatial ..competition with other use--s) It was decided that low iniensity oyster farming, restricted to stake culture in limited and defined areas, would be permitted so long as future research crid not reveal any significant adverse impact on the estuary. In considering the types of research appropriate within the sanctuary, tbe state has again referred to the objective of ensuring the long- term protection and use of the South Slough estuary as a natural field laboratory. Although a valid need exists for manipulative research wherein the impact of alterations and pertubatiens on estuarine systems are assessed, the' state feels such research is not compatible with the long-term objectives of the sanctuary program. Further, insofar as ample opportunities exist to study disturbed estuarine ecosystems in other areas, a sanctuary is not recessary for this purpose. Consequently, manipulative or destructive research will not be permitted within the sanctuary. Its major research benefits-will derive from long-term studies of ecological relaticnships within an undisturbed area- and from its use as a natural control agaiast which the impacts of ;;n-induced stresses on other systems can be compared. The eboice of a management prbgram also involved mmy options. A variety of agencies, including the Oregon Fish Commission, State Le6d Board, and university system, were considered. It was decided. however, that no single agency had the required array of expertise and authority to" assure proper management capability. It was also desired that the management agency contain an-assurance of stability and continuity, and freedom from political.. overtones. 91th the_gqpperation of am"T agencies, the'st9te ultimately chose a management team to direct and admini ter the program at the state level. The tPA- would consist of a representative from the Oregon Fish Commission, Wildlife Com-1 sion, Department of Environmental Quality, Division of State Lands, Department of Forestry, Natural Areas Committee, the University of Qregon Institute of- Marine Biology And Coos County, with a representative 'from NOAA's Office of Coastal Zone Management sitting as a non-voting member. These representatives would be carefully chosen for their technical abilities. The variety of persons involved would ensure a wide range of resource and research expertise and would provide a long-term perspective and. continuity to the program. D Alternative methods for protection Two alternatives were. Xonsidered to protect the South Slough estuary: zoning and acquisition. Zoning controls were first recommended by ..the Citizens Advisory Committee in consultation with the Coos County Planning Commission, and specific zoning classifications designed to protect the slough were developed and recommended, at least an an interim basis. - However, it b-ecAme apparent that zoning controls sufficient to protect the- estuary were so stringent that the "taking issue arose: could landowners.be denied virtually all use of their Iai@d'without compensation? SuSsequently the county agencies, while supporting the sanctuary proposal, urged that remedies be sought to provide cor.3ensation to owners of property within the protected or preserved areas. Some concern was also raised whether zoning would provide the necessary long-term assurance of protection that was desired. Although a recent Oregon Supreme Court decision (Fasano v. Washington County) places an increased burden upon the petitioner to demonstrate the significant public benefits of proposed zoning changes, it was determined that a more equitable solution to the landowner, and a more permanent assurance of protection, could -be provided through acquisition of at least those lands of critical importance in the protection of Sputh Slough. How- ever, to reduce the overall costs of the program, acquisition will be restricted to just the essential linds, and adjoining lands beyond 'them would be regulated by less restrictive zoning and other land use controls. After the derision was made to acquire ithose lands necessary to protect the estuary, a variety of possible sources of funding were examined. In August, 1972, the Coos County Planning and Programming Department Jmitlated contact ,a with the Oregon Coastal Conservation and Development immission. requesting assistance in preserving and protecting South 'Slough; a sittilar request for assistance was transmitted to T@e Nature Conservancy in November. .1972. -In the same month the Planning and Programming Department contacted Congressman John Dellenback.. requesting information, concerning the then-,uewly enacte@ Coastal Zone Management Act. As the proposal continued to -progress, from local cItizen_,--1F,c6unty agencies, to the state, potential sources of funding were continuously investigated. At one or more times these sources included: a) Local acquisition b) State acquisition c) Federal actuisition I) Pitt-An-Roberts Fund 1i) Dingell-Johnson Art III) Migratory Bird Conservation Act Iv) Endangered Species Act v) Land and Water Conservation Fund vi) Estuarine Sanctuary Progz. d) Private Funds Although the County endorsed the concept 'of acquis'ition of lands to be control-led around the estuary and at one tin- offered to trade 80 acres of lands, or the proceeds fro their sale (estimated value $80,000 to 120,000) or privately held lands within the protected zone, it determined that it --was not capable of providing the f'"ancial'resource-S required to acquire the land. The primary authority for state action to preserve the sanctuary for the purposes desired would be the Oregon Nattiral Area Preserves Act of 1973. This Act, however, requires that such natural areas already be in state ownership, or be acquired without the expenditure of state funds. Other state land acquisition prograin were not entirely compatible with the purposes intended' for the area. as most heavily emphasized recrea- tional use. In addition, a number of state parks already exist in the Immediate area. I . . The Oregon Wildlife Commission received almost $2,500,00 0 this year from Pittman-Roberts and Dingell-Johnson Funds, and has largely utilized the funds for vital fish and wildli 'fe habitat enhancement and research pro- grams. For the biennium ending July 1, 1975, only $150,000 of the Dingell-Johnson funds and none of the Pittman-Roberts funds were budgeted for land acquisition. The objectives of the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, which is apportioned nationally for the purchase of Federal Migratory bird sanctuaries, differ significantly from the intended purpose of the South Slough area. The Endangered Species Act also differs in purposep and funding for the Act has not to date been released. Land and Water Conservation Act funds for the state have been ireatly reducedi and are almost totally committed to ongoing major acquisition programs such as the Willamette Valley Greenway project. Again, the 26 conflict between the emphasis within the Land and Water Conservation Act upon lands for recreational uses and the Intended purposes of this sanctuary,and the existing abundance of state and Federal recreational areas in the vicinity of Coos Bay,, raises questions concerning its appro- priatene s here. In contrast, consideration of the funding status and the objectives -of the Estuarine Sanctuary Program of the Coastal Zone Management Act Indicated it would be a highly appropriate source for this proposal. The Nature Conservancy has also expressed an interest in and willingness to help protect and preserve the South Slough '' and has apparently made a commitment to assist the state raise its share of the watching funds. It, too, however, was unable to acquire the entire parcel by itself. - Consideration was also given to designating South Slough a marine sanctuary under Federal authority pursuant to Title III of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (PL 92-532), rather than an estuarine sanctuary as proposed. A marine sanctuary could -provide the same or broader objectives, and purposes for the area and its uses, and could be-effected by Federa 1 proclamation, with the concurrence of the Governor; basically it would be a Federal action, under the Department of Commerce, rather than'& state action. However, the marine sanctuary authority is limited to tidal waters, and does not extend landward to include adjacent uplands; nor does it Include any provision -for'funds for acquisiti6n'of land. Therefore, although offering nominal protection to the estuarine water body, ft would not prjv:Lde the control of land uses necessary to prevent adverse impact on the estuarine ecosystem. Because no acquisition of uplands would be involved, and controlwould still be dependent upon zoning, there would also be no relf ef for the concern over the "taking" issue. E. 'Alternative courses of action for the Office of Coastal Zone Management Because the estuarine sanctuary program is basically one of Federal response to state initiatives, the alternatives for Federal action are Limited. The Office of Coastal Zone Management can accept the appJ4 cation as presented or after modification, awarding a grant in eith;r case; or refuse to. accept the application and decline the grant. OCZM -has worked closely with the State of Oregon since it first indicated interest. in the estuarine sanctuary program, and that Office's input has caused some modification of the proposal. The option. remains, however,' whether to award, delay or refuse the grant. Delay of the grant would permit other states within the Columbian classification (Washington and northern Californie) to develop estuarine sanctuary proposals for submission t o NOAA. However, the states are not in 'direct competition for designation of a singlc sanctuary and- the award of a grant does not preclude other grants in the same region. Delay of the grant would also permit the potential ,i..Or further destruction of the estuarine area, the development of Incompatible uses and conflicts where nosignificant ones now exist, and the inflation of land values. Unless the application lacked merit, the outright refusal to award a grant would serve no purpose. Indeed, in view of the' widely acknowledged need for such a program (see, for exa le, the Natianal'Estuary Study, 1970, and Ketchum, L972), such action would be contrary to the public Interest. After careful consideration, OCZM determined that the proposed sanctuary is an appro represeintative, of the priate natural u:nit Columbian class of estuaries, and that the management and research policies reflect the intention of the estuarine sanctuary program. The State of Oregon was one of the first three states to receive a program development grant (Section 305) and is now moving swiftly to develop its management program. The state is expecting to begin Implementation of its management program within 12 to 18 months. Because of this, Oregon is in a position to fully utilize an estuarine sanctuary; the research results it may produce would contribute greatly to the timely completion of the state task. VII. PROMBL@ADVERSE ENVIROHMMEMAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED r There are three potential adver se environmental impacts which may not be avoidable. These are the. loss of resource use, restrictions on land and water use, and 'loss 'of -tax revenues.' As -indicated earlier, the prohibition on timber harvest within the sanctuary boundaries will reduce the yield of that resource within Coos County. About two-thirds of the land within the proposed sanctuary boundaries might be classified as timber producing lands, although not all are suitable for harvest. Most of the timber has already been logged on one or mdre occasions, and much of it is 1-anture reforestation. Timber harvesting occurs only sporadically within the proposed sanctuary boundaries, and is not a continued or large-scale operation. Through the acquisition of their lands, landowners would be compensated for the property loss. Some restrictions will also be Placed on land and water use within the sanctuary. Because of the very scarce use which the area now receives, this is expected to be a minimal impact; however, the potential for intense use of the sanctuary lands and waters will be reduced. Low intensity recreational uses such as now occur would be permitted to continue, but intensified use, such as might occur with a commercial camping ground or park, would be restricted. The use of motorized vessels in the sanctuary would be prohibited. To lessen the adverse impact of use restrictions, special effort has been given to accommodate those uses which now occur and which would be compatible or would not affect the intended objectives of the sanctuary. Thus the existing grazing farms at the south end of the Slough, and the residential uses along the western boundary wo'uld be permitted to continue at existing levels. Oyster farming may also continue under 'controlled conditions. As discussed earlier, the public acquisition of the proposed sanctuary lands will remove about 3,500 acres of land from the County tax'rolls. This land, which has an assessed evaluation of approximately $560,000, contributes about 0.21 of the tax-generated revenues' of six PAXIng districts. .111. RELATIONSHIP BL-114= LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMZNT THE MAINTENANCE ADM ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIV=Y While designation of the proposed estuarine sanctuary would restrict local, short-term uses of the environment, it wi.11 also provide long- term assurance that the natural resources and benefits of the area will be available for future use and enjoyment. Without sanctuary designation, Intense short-term uses and gain, such as provided by inten e aqua- culture or residential development,, might be realized. However, such uses would most likely result in long-term restrictions on use and benefit because' of degradition@ of environmental factors. Without some additional control, the traditional conflicts bet%ween estuarine users residential, co-m-rcial, industrial and wildlife - could be expected to occur. Over the long-term, the research derived from the estuarine sanctuary will assist in the coastal zone management decision-making process, and will provide a basis for the wise use of the estuarine resources. These results, which will apply to areas beyond the scope of South Slough, will help avoid conflicts and mitigate adverse impacts caused by use of the coastal zone. By protecting the natural system, the proposed sanctuary would directly contribute to the long-term maintenance of the environment. By serving as a refuge and stock for living resources, the sanctuary would provide a direct enhancement of productivity. Long-term but low level use could be made of the resource. DtREVOCABLE OR IRREMEVABLE COMMrrMENTS OF RESOURCES THAT WOULD BE nwoLvED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION SHOULD.TT ZE IMPLEMENTED 1wofar ai'the resources within the proposed sanctuary will be protected and preserved, rather than destroyed or removed, there will be no actual irrecoverable or irretrievable loss or commitment of resources involved in this'proposed action. However, as the intention' of this action is to provide the per-anent protection of the estuary and -adjacent ractice a limited amount lAinds, ii-p of timber resources will be iemoved from direct commercial exploitation. X. CO NSULTATION ALM COORDINATION WITH OTHERS A. Preparation of the Draf t Environmental Impact Statement During preparation of the draft environmental impact statement, information and comments an particular issues were requested fro state.-and local persons and agencies familiar with the proposal, including individuals from the' Office of the Governor, Oregon Division of State Lands, Oregon Coastal Conservation and Development Commission, the Oregon Fish Commission, the University of Oregon Institute of Marine Biology, the Coos Bay Port Authority Estuarine Sanctuary Committee and The Nature Conservancy. The draft document was also -reviewed internally by the Department of Commerce prio'r to release. -Pursuant to an agreement between the Fish and Wildlife service, Bureau of -Spor@ Fisheries and Wildlife, Department of'the Interior, and the Office of Coastal Zone Management, NOAA, Department of Commerce, notice of the proposed action was transmitted to the Fish and Wildlife Service prior to development and. release of the Draft Enviroamenta". Impact Statement. Favorable comments on the proposal were received from that agency. B. 6ordination a@d Review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Preparation of the Final Impact Statement After the draft statement was prepared, copies were distributed to interested Federal, state and local governmental agencies and to the public. Infor- mation,' comments and views on the draft statement as wel-1 as the proposed action were solicited from all parties. In addition, the Oregon Coastal Conservation and Development Commission reproduced extra copies of the draft statement, and circulated i't to interested parties, including property owners within the proposed sanctuary. A distribution list for the draft statement as distributed by' the OCZH is provided in the summary; responses were received from those marked with an asterisk. Other persons or agencies submitting written comments are also listed in the st-ary. A total of 23 letters of comments were received by June 20, 1974. Copies of all written comments, and Where appropriate, their disposition or response, are included as Appendix 5 of this final statement. The originals of this correspondence are on file at the Office of Ccastal Zone Management. :C,:In addition, comments and advice on the proposed action and the adequacy. of the draft statement were solicited from the public and any intere-sted -parties at a Public Hearing held on June 3, 1974, at the Coos Bay Library, -Coos Bay, Oregon. Notice of the public hearing was provided in the draft statement, and was further announced through both formal and informal means. About 190 to 200 persons attended the meeting, and 44 persorii presented statements for the record. Recordings of the hearing are on file in the Office of Coastal Zone Management. While in Oregon for the Public Hearing, representatives of the Office of Coastal Zone Management met with the Coos Bay County Commissioners to discuss their interest in and concern about the proposed action. Ait effort was made by both the State.of Oregon representatives and OCZM to address these concerns in the final, statement. The Oregon Coastal Conservation and Development Commission submitted the application and the draft Environmental Impact Statement to the Oregon State Clearinghouse and to the Coos-Curry Council of Governments for review and comments. The responses of these two agencies are included In Appendix 5. Primarily at the request of the Coos-Curry Council of Governments, which -indicated concern about the economic impact data in the draft statement, a special contract was awarded to 'provide a further assessment of the possible economic impact of the proposed sanctuary. The report of this study is presented in Appendix 4. In addition, the Office of Coast'al Zo ne Management soLicited comments and information f ram a variety of state agencies while revising the draft statement. On most, but not all, occasions OCZ]K utilized the Oregon Coastal Conservation and Development Commission as the contact for coordinating such comments and informetion. Agencles contacted included the Office of the Governor, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Oregon Fish Commission, Department of Forestry, Oregon State University, University of Oregon Institute of Marine B:Lology and various private citizens. All of the comments received by the Office of Coastal Zone Management including those submitted at the Public Hearing have been considered in the preparation of this Final Environmental Impact Statement. The draft statement has been revised and much new additional information has been included. The Office of Coastal Zone-Management vishes to express its sincere appreciation for the many concerned individual and agencies who contributed comments and information. 7 The majority of -the comments received were strongly in favor of the proposed action. Major concerns submitted by more than two individuals included (a) a desire for a more detailed statement of the management policies and techniques'; (b) the prohibition of timber harvest within the sanctuary boundaries; (c) the selection of the boundaries and desire- to reduce the sanctuary to the minimum possible size; and (d) the potential dconomic impact. Each of - -these sections have been sub- stantially enlarged and treated in greater detail. In addition, a COPY of - the,_ draf t --special award conditions f or the proposed sanctuary have been included (see the response to the National Audubon Society. Appendix 5). This draf t defines the objectives and management policy for the sanctuary. A few individuals apparently misunderstood the purpode of the land acquisition and the nature 'of the use of the proposed sanctuary. The Estuarine Sanctuary Program is intended to assure the long-term protection of selected, representative estuarine ecosystems. The Intention of the program is not merely to preserve estuarine water areas, but to protect the ecosystem for scientific and educational uses. To attempt to preserve the water without the adjacent uplands, which are an integral part of the estuarine system, would be meaningless. Because the two parts - land and water - are portions of the same system,. one cannot be studied, or protected, without the other. In addition, the use of-the sanctuary as a control is dependent upon It remaining in its present or natural state. This is perhaps the greatest benefit from, and reason to acquire, such areas. This use is largely independent of past activities, but it is greatly dependent upon maintenance of the natural system and freedom from present or future man-induced impacts. Copies of this final statement have 'been furnished to those individuals and agencies who responded to the draft statement with written co=ents, -or who have requested the final statement. A notice of availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement has been made in the Federal Register. APPENDIX 1. COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1972 (P.L.92-583) Public Law 92_583 92nd Congress, S. 3507 October 27,1972 An Art 86 STAT, 1280 To establish a national pulley and develop a national program for the management beneficial use, protection and development of the land and water of the Nation's costal zones, and for other purposes. Be it enucated by the Senate and House of Representatires of the United States of American in Congress assembled. That the Act entitled Marine Re- "An Act to provide for a comprehesirve, long-range, and coordinated aduroes and national program in marine science, to establish a National Council on Engineering Marine Resources and Engineering Development, and a Commission Development on Marine Science. Engineering and Resources, and for other pur- Act of 1956, poses", approved June 17,1966 (80 Stat. 203), as amended (33 U.S.C. amendment. 1101-1124), is futher amended by adding at the end therof the fol- 80 Stat. 998, lowing new title: 84 Stat. 855. TITLE 111-MANAGEMENT OF THE COASTAL ZONE short title Sec.301. This title may be cited as the "Coastal Zone Management Act of 10727". CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS Sec.302. The Cogress finds that- (a)There is a national interest in the effective management, bene- ficial use, protection, and development of the coastal zone; (b) The coastal zone is rich in a variety of natural. commercial. rec- reational. industrial,and esthetic resoures of immediate and potential value to the present and future well-being of the Nation; (c)the increasing and competing, demands upon the finds and waters of our coastal zone occasioned by population growth and eco- nomic development, including requirements for industry, commerce. residential development, recreation. extraction of mineral resources and fossil fuels, transportation and navigation, waste disposal, and har- -vesting of fish. shellfish, and other livinq marine resources. have resulted in the loss of living marine resources, wildlife, nutrient-rich areas, perminent and adverse changes to ecological systems, decreasing open space for public use, and shoreline erosion; (d) The coastal zone, and the fish, shell fish, other living marine resources, and wildlife therein, are ecologically fragile conse- quently extremely vulnerable to destruction by man's alterations; (e) Important ecological, cultural, historic, and esthetic values in the costal zone which are essential to the well-being of all citizens are being irretrievably damaged or lost; (f)Special natural and seenic characteristics are being damaged by ill-planned development that threatens these values; (g)In light of completing demands and the urgent need to protect and to give high priority to natural systems in the coastal zone, pres- ent state and local institutional arrangements for planning and regu- lating land and water uses in such areas are inadequate; and (h) The key to more effective protection and use of the land and water resources of the coastal zone is to encourage the states to exercise their full authority over the lands and waters in the coastal zone by assisting the states: in cooperation with Federal and local governments and other vitally affected interests, in developing land and water use programs for the costal zone, includig unified policies, criteria, standards, methods, and processes for dealing with land and water use decisions of more than local significance. 83-081 0 pub. Law 92-583 -2- October 27, 1972 DECLARATION OF POLICY Sec. 303. The Congress finds and declares that it is the national policy (a) to preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, to restore or enhance, the resources of the Nation's coastal zone for this and succeeding, generations, (b) to encourage assist the states to exercise effectively their responsibilities in the coastal zone through the devel- opment and implementation of management programs to achieve wise use of the land and water resources of the coastal zone giving full consideration to ecological, cultural, historic, and esthetic values as well as to needs for economic development, (c) for all Federal agencies engaged in programs affecting the coastal zone to cooperate and par- ticipate with state and local governments and regional agencies in effectunting the purposes of this-title, and (d) to encourage the par- ticipation of the public. of Federal. state, and local governments and of regional agencies in the development of coastal zone management programs. With respect to implementation of such managament pro- grams, it is the national policy to encourage cooperation among the various state and regional agencies including establishment of inter- state and regional agreements, coperative procedures, and joint action particularly regarding environmental problems. DEFINITIONS Sec 304. For the purposes of this title- (a) "Coastal zone" means the coastal waters (including the lands therein and thereunder) and the adjacent shorelands (including the waters therein and thereunder). strongly influenced by each other and in proximity to the shorelines of the several coastal states, and includes transitional and intertidal areas, salt marshes. wetlands, and beaches The zone extends, in Great Lakes waters, to the international bound- ary between the United States and Canada and, in other areas, seaward to the outer limit of the United States territorial sea. The zone extends inland from the shorelines only to the extent necessary to control shorelands, the users of which have a direct and significant impact on the coastal waters. Excluded from the coastal zone are lands the use of which is by law subject solely to the discretion of or which is held in trust by the Federal Government. its officers or agents. (b) "Coastal waters" means (1) in the Great Lakes area, the waters within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States consisting of the Great Lakes, their connecting waters, harbors, roadsteads, and estuary-type areas such as bays, shallows, and marshes and (2) in other areas, those waters, adjacent to the shorelines, which contain a measurable quantity or percentage of sea water, including, but not limited to, sounds, bays, lagoons. bayous, ponds, and estuaries. (c) "Coastal state" means a state of the United States in, or bor- dering on, the Atlantic, Pacific, or Arctic Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico, Long Island Sound. or one or more of the Great Lakes. For the pur- poses of this title, the term also includes Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa. (d) "Estuary" means that part of a river or stream or other body of water having unimpaired connection with the open sea, where the sea water is measurably diluted with fresh water derived from land drainage. The term includes estuary-type areas of the Great Lakes. (e) "Estuarine sanctuary" means a research area which may include any part or all of an estuary, adjoining transitional areas, and adja- cent uplands, constituting to the extent feasible a natural unit. set October 27, 1972 3 Pub. Law 92-583 88 STAT, 12e2 aside to provide scientists and students the opportunity to examine ever a penod of time the ecological relationships within the area. (f) "Secretary" means the Secretary of Commerce. (g) "Management program" includes, but is not limited to, a com- prensive statement in words, maps, illustrations, or other media of communication, prepared and adopted by the state in accordance with the provisions of this title, setting forth objectives, policies, and stand- ards to guide public and private uses of lands and waters in the coastal zone. (h) "Water use" means activities which are conducted in or on the water; but does not mean or include the establishment of any water quality standard or criteria or the regulation of the discharge or runoff of water pollutants except the standards, criteria, or regulations which are incorporated in any program as required by the provisions of section 307 (f). (i) "Land use" means activities which are conducted in or on the shorelands within the coastal zone, subject to the requirements out- lined in section 3O7(g). MANAGEMENT PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT GRANTS Sec. 305. (a) The Secretary is authorized to make an annual grants to any coastal state for the purpose of assisting in the development of a management program for the land and water resources of its coastal zone. (b) Such management program shall include: (1) an identification of the boundaries of the coastal zone sub- ject to the management program; (2) a definition of what shall constitute permissible land and water uses within the coastal zone which have a direct and signifi- cant impact on the coastal waters; (3) an inventory and designation of areas of particular con- cern within the coastal zone; (4) an identification of the means by which the state proposes to exert control over the land and water uses referred to in para- graph (2) of this subsection, including a listing of relevant con- stitutional provisions, legislative enactments, regulations, and judicial decisions; (5) broad guidelines on priority of uses in particular areas. including specifically those uses of lowest priority; (6) a description of the organizational structure proposed to implement the management program, including the responsibili- ties and interrelationships of local, areawide, state, regional, and interstate agencies in the management process. (c) The grants shall not exceed 66 2/3 per centum of the costs of the Limitation* program in any one Year and no state shall be eligible to receive more than three annual grants pursuant to this section. Federal funds received from other sources shall not be used to match such grants. In order to qualify for grants under this section, the state must reasonably demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Secretary that such grants will be used to develop a management program consistent with the require- ments set forth in section 306 of this title. After making the initial grant to a coastal state, no subsequent grant shall be made under this section unless the Secretary finds that the state is satisfactorily devel- oping such management program. (d) Upon completion of the development of the state's management program, the state shall submit such program to the Secretary for 86 STAT, 1283 Pub. Law 92-583 -4- October 27, 197Z review and approval pursuant to the provisions of section 306 of this title, or such other action as he deems necessary. On final approval of such program by the Secretary, the state's eligibility for further grants under this section shall terminate, and the state shall be eligible for grants under section 306 of this title. Grant* (e) Grants under this section shall be allocated to the states based allocation* on rules and regulations promulguted by the Secretary: Provided, however, That no management program development grant under this section shall be made in excess of 10 per centum nor less than 1 per centum of the total amount appropriated to carry out the purposes of this section. (f) Grants or portions thereof not obligated by a state during the fiscal year for which they were first authorized to be obligated by the state,or during the fiscal Year immediately following, shall revert to the Secretary. and shall be added by him to the funds available for grants under this section. (g) With the approval of the Secretary, the state may allocate to a local government, to an areawide agency designated under section 204 of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 80 Stat. 1262: 1966, to a regional agency, or to an interstate agency, a portion of the 82 Stat. 208. grant under this section, for the purpose of carrying out the provi- 42 USC 3334. sions of this section. Expiration (h) The authority to make grants under this section shall expire on dates. June 30, 1977. ADMINISTRATIVE GRANTS Limitation. Sec. 306. (a) The Secretary is authorized to make annual grants to any coastal state for not more than 66 2/3 per centum of the costs of administering the state's management program, if he approves such program in accordance with subsection (c) hereof. Federal funds received from other sources shall not be used to pay the state's share of costs. Allocation. (b) Such grants shall be allocated to the states with approved pro- grams based on rules and regulations promulgated by the Secretary which shall take into account the extent and nature of the shoreline and area covered by the plan, population of the area, and other rele- vant factors: Provided. however, That no annual administrative grant under this section shall be in excess of 10 per centum nor less than 1 per centum of the total ammount appropriated to carry out the pur- poses of this section. Program (c) Prior to granting approval of a management program submitted requirements. by a coastal state, the Secretary shall find that: (1) The state has developed and adopted a management program for its coastal zone in accordance with rules and regulations promulgated by the Secretary, after notice, and with the opportunity of full partici- pation, by relevant Federal agencies, state agencies, local governments, regional organizations. port authorities, and other interested parties, public and private, which is adequate to carry out the purposes of this title and is consistent with the policy declared in section 303 of this title. (2) The state has: (A). coordinated its program with local, areawide, and inter- state plans applicable to areas within the coastal zone existing on January 1 of the year in which the state's management program is submitted to the Secretary, which plans have been developed by a local government, an areawide agency designated pursuant to regulations established under section 204 of the Demonstration October 27, 1972 - 5 - Pub. Law 92-583 86 STAT. 1284 Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966, a regional 80 Stat. 1262; agency, or an interstate agency; and 82 Stat. 208. (B) established an effective mechanism for continuing con 42 USC 3334 sultation and coordination between the management agency desig- nated pursuant to paragraph (5) of this subsection and with local governments, interstate agencies, regional agencies, and areawide agencies within the coastal zone to assure the full participation of such local governments and agencies in carrying out the pur- poses of this title. (3) The state has held public hearings in the development of the management program. (4) The management program and any changes thereto have been viewed and approved by the Governor. (5) The Governor of the state has designated a shingle agency to recieved and administer the grants for implementing the management program required under paragraph (1) of this subsection. (6) The state is organized to impement rhe management program required under paragraph (1) of this subsection. (7) The state has the authorities necessary to implement the pro- gram, including the authority required under subsection (d) of this section. (8) The management program provides for adequate consideration of the national interest involved in the siting of facilities necessary. to meet requirements which are other than local in nature. (9) The management program Makes provision for procedures whereby specific areas may be designated for the purpose of preserv- ing or restoring them for their conservation, recreational, ecological, or esthetic values. (d)Prior to granting approval of ilke management program, the Secratary shall find that the state, acting through its chosen agency or agencies, including local governments, areawide agencies designated under section 204 of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966, regional agencies, or interstate agencies, has authority for the management of the coastal zone in accordance with the management program. Such athority shall include power- (1) to administer land and water use regulations, control devel- opment in order to ensure compliance with the management pro- qram, and to resolve conflicts among competing uses: and (2) to acquire fee simple and less than fee simple interests in lands, waters, and other property through condemnation or other means when necessary to achieve conformance with the manage- ment program. (e) Prior to granting approval, the Secretary shall also find that the program provides: (1) for any one or a combination of the following general tech- niques for control of land and water uses within the coastal zone; (A) State establishment of criteria and standards for local implementation. subject to administrative review and enforce- ment of compliance; (B) Direct state land and water use planning and regulation tion: or (C) State adininistrative review for consistency with the management program of all development plans, projects, or land and water use regulations, including exceptions and variances thereto, proposed by any state or local authority or private developer, with power to approve or disapprove after public notice and an opportunity for hearings. 86 STAT, 1285 Pub. Law 92-583 - 6 - October 27, 1972 (2) for a method of assuring that local land and water use regulations within the coastal zone do not un reasonably restrict or exclude land and water uses of regional benefit. (f) With the approval of the Secretary, a state may allocate to a local government, an areawide agency designated under section 204 of the Demonstration Cities Metropolitan Development Act of 80 Stat. 1262; 1966, a regional agency, or an interstate agency, a portion of the grant 82 Stat. 209. under this section for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this 42 USC 3334, section: Procided. That such allocation shall not relieve the state of the responsibility for ensuring that any funds so allocated are applied in furtherance of such states approved management program. Program (g) The state shall be authorized to amend the management pro- Modification. gram. The modification shall be in accordance with the procedures required under subsection (c) of this section. Any amendment or modification of the program must be approved by the Secratary before additional administrative grants are made to the state under the pro- gram as amended. Segmental (h) At the discretion of the state and with the approval of the development Secratary, a management program may be developed and adopted in segments so that immediate attention may be devoted to those areas within the coastal zone which most urgently need management pro- grams: Procided. That the state adequately provides for the ultimate coordination of the various segments of the management program into a single united program and that the united program will be com- pleted as soon as is reasonably practicable. INTERAGENCY COORDINATION AND COOPERATION Sec. 307. (a) In carrying out his functions and responsibilities under this title, the Secratary shall consult with, cooperate with and, to the maximum extent practicable, coordinate his activities with other interested Federal agencies. (b)The Secretary shall not approve the management program sub- mitted by a state puruant to section 306 unless the views of Federal agencies principally affected by such program have been adequately considered. In case of serious disagreement between any Federal agency and the state in the decelopment of the program the Secre- tary, in cooperation with the Executive Office of the President, shall seek to mediate the differences. (c)(1) Each Federal agency conducting or supporting activies directly affecting the coastal zone shall conduct or support those activities in a manner which is, to the maximum extent practicable, consistant with approved state management programs. (2) Any Federal agency which shall undertake any development project in the coastal zone of a state shall insure that the project is, to the maximum extent practicable, consistent with approved state management programs. Certification. (3) After final approval by the Sectetary of a state's management program, any applicant for a required Federal license or permit to conduct an activity affecting land or water uses in the coastal zone of that state shall provide in the application to the licensing or permit- ting agency a certification that the proposed activity complies with the state's approved program and that such activity will be conducted in a manner consistent with the program. At the same time, the appli- cant shall furnish to the state or its designated agency a copy of the certification, with all necessary information and data. Each coastal state shall establish procedures for public notice in the case of all such October 27, 1972 - 7 - Pub. Law 92-583 86 STAT, 1286 certifications and, to the extent it deems appropriate, procedures for public hearings in connection therewith. At the earliest practicable Notification, time, the State or its designated agency shall all notify the Federal agency concerned that the state concurs with or objects to the applicant's certification. If the state or its designated agency fails to furnish the required notification within six months after receipt of its copy of the applicant's certification, the state's concurrence with the certification shall be conclusicely presumed. No license or permit shall be granted by the Federal agency until, the state or its designated agency has con- crred with the applicant's certification or until, by the slate's failure to act, the concurrence is conclusively presumed. unless the Secretary, on his own initiative or upon appeal by the applicant, finds, after pro- viding a reasonable opportunity for detailed comments from the Fed- eral agency involved and from the state, that the activity is consistent with the objectives of this title or is otherwise necessary in the interest of national security. (d) State and local governments submitting applications for Fed- eral assistance under other Federal programs affecting the coastal zone shall indicate the views of the appropriate state or local agency as to the relationship of such activities to the approved management pro- gram for the coastal zone. Such applications shall be submitted and coordinated in accordance with the provisions of title IV of the Inter- governmental Coordination Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 1098). Federal agen- 42 USC 4231. cies shall not approve proposed projects that are inconsistant with a coastal state's management program, except upon a finding by the Secretary that such project is consistent with the purpose of this title or necessary in the interest of national security. (e) Nothing in this title shall be construed (1) to diminish either Federal or state jurisdiction. responsi bility, or rights in the field of planning, development, or control of water resources, submerged lands, or navigable waters; nor to displace, supersede, limit, or modify any interstate compact or the jurisdiction or responsibility of any legally established joint or common agency of two or more states or of two or more states and the Federal Government; norto limit the authority of Congress to authorize and fund projects; (2) as superseding, modifying, or repealing existing laws appli- cable to the various Federal agenciesc; nor to affect the jurisdiction, powers, or prerogatives of the International Joint Commission, United States and Canada. The Permanent Engineering Board, and the United States operating entity or entities established pur- suant to the Columbia Liver Basin Treaty. signed at Washington, January 17, 1961, or the International Boundary and Water Com- mission, United States and Mexico. (f) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, nothing in this title shall in any way affect any requirement (1) establisled by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, or the Clean Air Ante, p.816. Act, as amended, or (2) established by the Federal Government or by 81 Stat, 485; any state or local government pursuant to such Acts. Such require- 84 Stat, 1676. ments shall be incorporated in any program developed pursuant to 42 Stat, 1857 this title and shall be the water pollution control and air pollution -control requirements applicable to such program. (g) When any state's coastal zone management program, submitted for approval or proposed for modification pursuant to section 306 of this title, includes requirements as to shorelands which also would be subject to any Federally supported national land use program which may be hereafter enacted, the Secratary, prior to approving such pro- Pub. Law 92-583 - 8 - October 27, 1972 86 STAT. 1287 gram, shall obtain the concurrence of the Secretary of the Interior, or such other Federal official as may be designated to administer the national land use program, with respect to that portion of the coastal zone management program affecting such inland areas. PUBLIC HEARINGS Sec. 308. All public hearings required under this title must be announced at least thirty days prior to the hearing date. At the time of the announcement, all agency materials pertinent to the hearings, including documents, studies, and other data, must be made available to the public for reciew and study. As similar materials are subse- quently deceloped, they shall be made acailable to the public as they become acailable to the agency. REVIEW OF PERFORMANCE Sec. 309. (a) The Secretary shall conduct a continuing review of the management programs of the coastal states and of the performance of each state. Financial assistance, temination. (b) The Secretary shall hace the authority to terminate any financial assistance extended under section 306 and to withdraw any unexpended portion of such assistance if (1) he determines that the state is failing to adhere to and is not justified in deciating from the program approved by the Secretary: and (2)the state has been given an opporltunity to present ecidence of adherence or justification for altering its program. RECORDS Sec. 310. (a) Each recipient of a grant under this title shall keep such records as the Secretary shall prescribe, including records which fully disclose the amount and disposition of the funds received under the grant, the total cost of the project or undertaking supplied by other sources, and such other records as will facilitate an effective audit. Audit. (b) The Secretary and the Comptroller General of the United States or any of their duly authorized representatives, shall have access for the purpose of audit and examination to any books, docu- ments, papers, and records of the recipient of the grant that are perti- nent to the determination that funds granted are used in accourdance with this title. ADVISORY COMMITTEE Coastal Zone Management Advisory Committee, establishment; membership. Sec. 311. (a) The Secretary is authorized and directed to establish a Coastal Zone Management Adcisory Committee to advise, consult with, and make recommendations to the Secretary on matters of policy concerning the coastal zone. Such committee shall be composed of not more than fifteen persons designated by the Secretary and shall per- form such functions and operate in such a manner as the Secretary may direct. The Secretary shall insure that the committee member- ship as a group possesses a broad range of experience and knowledge relating to problems incolcing management, use, conservation, pro- tection, and decelopment of coastal zone resources. Compensation, travel expenses. (b) Members of the committee who are not regular full-time employees of the United States, while sercing on the business of the committee, including traceltime, may receive compensation at rates not exceeding $100 per diem; and while so serving away from their October 27, 1972 -9- Pub. Law 92-583 86 STAT, 1288 homes or regular places of business may be allows travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by sectin 5703 of title 3, United States Code, for individuals in the Govern- 80 Stat, 499; ment service employed intermittently. 83 Stat, 190. Estuatine Sanctuaries Sec 312, The Secrestary, in accordance with rules and regulations Grants, promulgated by him, is authorized to make available to coastal state grants of up to 50 per centum of the costs of acquisition, development, and operation of estunrine sanctuaries for the purpose of creating natural field laboratories to gather data and make studies of the natural and human processes accurring within the estuaries of the coastal zone. The Federal share of the cost for each such sanctuary Federal share, shall not exceed $2,000,000. No Federal funds recieved pursuant to section 305 or section 306 shall be used for the purpose of this section. Annual Report Sec 313. (a) The Secretary shall prepare and submit to the Presi- dent for transmittal to the Congress not later than November 1 of each year a report on the administration of this title for the preceding fiscal year. The report shall include but not be restricted to (1) an identifi- cation of the state programs approved pursuant to this title during the preceding Federal fiscal year and a description of those porgrams; (2) a listing of the states participation in the provisions of this title and a description of the status of each state;s programs and its accom- plishments during the preceding Federal fiscal year; (3) an itemiza- tion of the allocation of funds to the various coastal states and a breakdown of the major projects and areas on which these funds were expended; (4) an identification of any state programs which have been terminated under this title, and a statement of the reason for such action; (5) a listing of all activities and projects which, pursuant to the provisions of subsection (c) or subsection (d) of section 307, are not consistent with an applicable approved state management pro- gram: (6) a summary of the regulations issued by the Secretary or in effect during the preceding Federal fiscal yar; (7) a summary of a coordinated national strategy and program for the Nation's coastal zone including identification and discussion of Federal, regional, state, and local responsibilities and functions therein; (8) a summary of outstanding problems arising in the administration of this title in order of priority; and (9) such other information as may be appro- priate. (b) The report required by subsection (a) shall contain such recom- mendations for additional legislation as the Secretary deems necessary to achieve the objectives of this title and enhance its effective operations. RULES AND REGULATIONS Sec 314. The Secretary shall develop and promulgate, pursuant to the section 553 of title 5, United States Code, after notice and oppor- 80 Stat, 383. tunity for full partivipation by relevant Federal agencies, state agencies, local governments, regional organizations, port authorities, and other interested parties, both public and private, such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this title. Pub, Law 92-583 -10- October 27, 1972 86 STAT, 1289 Authorization Of Appropriations Sec 315. (a) There are autorized to be appropriated (1) the sum of $9,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973, and for each of the fiscal years 1974 through 1977 for grants under section 305, to remain available untile expended; (2) such sums, not to exceed $30,000,000, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974, and for each of the fiscal years 1975 through 1977, as may be necessary, for grants under section 306 to remain available until expended; and (3) such sums, not to exceed $6,000,000 for the fiscal year end- ing June 30, 1974, as may be necessary, for grants under section 312, to remain available until expended. (b) There are also authorized to be appropriated such sums, not to exceed $3,000,000, for fiscal year 1973 and for each of the four succeed- ing fiscal years, as may be necessary for administrative expenses incident to the administration of this title. Approved October 27, 1972. Legislative History: House Reports: No. 92-1049 accompanying H.R 14146 (Comm. on Merchant Marine and Fisherier) and No. 92-1544 (Comm. of Conference). Senate Report No. 92-783 (Comm. on Commerce). Congressional Record, Vol. 118 (1972): Apr. 25, considered and passed Senate. Aug. 2, considered and passed House, amended, in lieu of H.R. 14146. Oct. 12, House and Senate agreed to conference report. Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, Vol. 8, No. 44: Oct. 28, Presidential statement. Appendix 2. Final Rules For Estuatine Sanctuary Grants (15 CFR 921, published June 4, 1974, Federal REgister 39(108): 19922-19927) TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 1974 WASHINGTON, D.C. Volume 39 Number 108 PART IV DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Estuarine Sanctuary Guidelines 19922 Rules And Regulations Title 15 - Commerce and Foreign Trade Chapter IX - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce Part 921 - Esturaine Sanctuary Guidelines The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) on March 7, 1974, proposed guidelines (15 CFR Part 921) pursuant to section 312 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (Pub L 92-583, 86 Stat. 1280), hereinafter referred to as the "Act," for the purpose of establishing the policy and procedures for the nomination, selection and management of estuarien sanctuaries. Written comments were to be submitted to the Office of Coastal Environment (now the Office of Coastal Zone Management), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration before April 8, 1974, and consideration has been given those comments. The Act recognizes that the coastal zone is rich in a variety of natural, commerical, recreational, industrial and esthetic resources of immediate and potential value to the present and future well-being of the nation. States are encouranged to develop and implement management programs to achieve wise use of the resources of the coastal zone, and the Act authoritizes Federal grants to the States for these purposes (sections 305 and 306). In addition under section 312 of the Act, the Secretary of Commerce is authorized to make availiable to a coastal State grants of up to 50 per centum of the cost of acquisition, development and operation fo estuarine sanctuaries. The guideline contained in this part are for grants under section 312. In general, section 312 provides that grants may be awarded to States on a matching basis to acquire, develop, and operate natural areas as estuarine sanctuaries in order that scientists and students may be provided the opportunity to examine over a period of time ecological relationships within the area. The purpose of these guideline is to establish the rules and regulations for implementation fo this program. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is publishing herewith the final regulations describing the procedures for applications to recieve grants for estuarine sanctuaries under section 312 of the Act. The final regulations and criteria were revised from the proposed guidelines based on the comments recieved. A total of fifty (50) States agenicies, organizations and individuals submitted responses to the proposed section 312 guidelines publisged in the Federal Register on March 7, 1974. Of those responses recieved, eight (8) offered no comment or were wholly favorable as to the nature and content of the guidelines as originally proposed. Forty-two (42) commentators submitted suggestions concerning the proposed section 3212 guidelines. The following summary analysis key comments received on various sections of the proposed regulations and presents the rationale for the responses made. Sections 921.2 Definitions. Three comments requested that the term is defined in the Act and also in the regulations dealing with Coastal Zone Management Program Development Grants (Part 920 of this chapter) published November 29, 1973, it has been added to these regulations and broadened slightly to include marine lagoons with restricted freshwater input such as might occur along the south Texas coast. Two other comments requested that the "primary purpose" referred to in 921.2(b) be clearly defined. Although elaborated upon in 921.3(a), for the purpose of clarity this change has been made. Section 921.3 Objectives and Implementation. Several comments suggested that the estuatine sanctuary program objectives were too narrowly defined and specifically that the should be broadened to include the acquisition and preservation of unique or endangered estuaries for wildlife or ecological reasons. Although the Act (section 302) declares it the nation's policy to preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, to restore or enhance coastal resources, this is perceived to be achievable through State actions pursuant to sections 305 and 306. White it is recognized that the creation of an estuarine sanctuary may in fact serve to preserve or protect an area or biological community, the legislative history of section 312 clearly indicates the estuarine sanctuary program was not intended to duplicate existing broad purpose Federal preservation programs, such as might be accommodated by use of the Land and WAter Conservation Fund Act. Instead, both in the Act as well as its legislative history, the objective estuarine areas for long-term research and educational uses. Three other comments suggested the objectives of the program should be enlarged to include the restoration of environmentally degraded areas. This, too, is perceived to be a State requirement separate from section 312. In addition, adequate authority for restoring degraded water areas now exists (for example, Pub L 92-500 in addition to sections 302, 305 and 306 of the Act). No significant additional benefit would appear to result from declaring an area an estuarine sanctuary for the purposes of restoration. A few comments indicated that the examples of sanctuary use were too heavily weighted toward scientific uses to the exclusion of educational uses. Public education concerning the value and benefits of, and the nature of conflict within the coastal zone, will be essential to the success of a coastal zone management program. The section has been changed to reflect an appropriate concern for educational use. Some commentators suggested changes in or additions to the specific examples of sanctuary uses and purposes. These examples were taken from the Senate and House Committee Reports and are considered sufficient to refliect the kidns of uses included within as estuarine sanctuary. Several comments were received pertaining to 921.3(c) involving the restrictions against overemphasis of destructive or manipulative research. Ten comments indicated that the section was too weak and would not providee sufficient long-tern protection for the sanctuary ecosystem. Several commentators specifically recommended deleting the words "would not normally be permitted" and inserting in there place "will not be permitted." In contrast, three respondents indicated that the potential use of estuarine sanctuaries for manipulative or destructive research was too restricted and that these uses should be generally permitted if not encouranged. The legislative history of section 312 clearly indicated that the intent of the estuarine sanctuary program should be to preservce representative estuarine areas so that they may provide long-term (virtually permanent_ scientific and educational use. The uses perceived are compatible with what has been defined as "research natural areas." In an ara of rapidly degrading estuarine environments, the estuarine sanctuary program will ensure that a representative series of natural areas will be available for scientific or educational uses dependent on that natural character, for example, for baseline studies, for use in understanding the functioning of natural acological systems, for controls against which the impacts of development in the other areas might be compared, and as interpretive centers for educational purposes. Any use, research or otherwise, which would destroy or detract from the natural system, would be inappropriate under this program. In general, the necessity of or benefit from permitting manupulative or destructive research within an estuarine sanctuary is unclear. While there is a legitimate need for such kinds of research, ample opportunity for manupulative or destructive research to assess directly man's impact of stresses on the estuarine environment exists now with but the need for creations or use of an estuarine sanctuary for this purpose. In contrast, a clear need to exists for natural areas to serve as controls for manupulative research or research on altered systems. The section on manipulative research has been changed to reflect the concern for continued maintenance of the are as a natural systems. However, the modifier "normally" has been retained because, within these limits, it is not felt necessary to preclude all such uses; the occasion may rarely arise when because of a thoroughlt demonstrated direct benefit, such as research may be permitted. Several comments suggested that the program should include degraded estuarine systems, rather that be limited to areas which are "relatively undisturbed by human activities." Such areas would permit research efforts designed to restore an estuarine area. AS indicated Federal REgister, Vol. 39, NO. 103 - Tuesday, June 3, 1978 RULES AND REGULATIONS above. an ample legislative mandate to that the primary purpose of the sanc- Grants. Two comments requested that restore environmentally degraded areas tuary would he more clearly protected. the source and nature of acceptable already exists: the benefits to be derived In contrast,two commentators felt that matching funds should be explicitly from declarinz such areas estuarine the definition might prove too restrictive identified. sanctuaries would be marginal. Indeed, and should be broadened. Several com- OMB Circular A-102 generally defines it would appear that if restoration ef- Mentators suggested that examples of and Identifies legitimate "Match" for forts cannot occur without estuarine anticipated multiple use might be Federal grant projects. In general, refer- sanctuary designation,then, given the appropriate. ence should be made to that document. limited resources of this program, such While recognizing that it is not always However, the section has been expanded efforts would not be feasible. Possible to accommodate more than a In response to some specific and frequent A few commentators suggested that single use In an environmentally sensi- questions. the phrase (921.3 (e) ) "if sufficient per- tive area, it is not the intention to un- Two comments stressed the need for manence and control by the State can necessarily preclude the uses of sanc- increased availability of research funds be assured, the acquisition of a sanctuary tuary areas where they are clearly,com- to adequately utilize the potential of es- may Involve less than the acquisition patible with and do not detract from the tuarine sanctuaries. While not an ap- of a fee simple Interest" be more clearly long-term protection of the ecosystem propriate function of the estuarine sanc- defined. Explanatory language has been for scientific and educational purposes. tuary Program. the Office of Coastal Zone added to that selection. The language of 921.5 has been changed Management Is discussing the necessity Section 921.4 Zoogeographqic,Classifica-_ accordingly. of adequate funding with appropriate tion. Because the classification scheme Section 921.6 Relationship to Other agencies utilized plants as well as animals, two Provisions of the Act and to Marine One comment suggested that the term commentators suggested that zoogeo- Sanctuaries. Several comments were re- "legal description" of the sanctuary graphic be changed to biogeographic. ceived which commended and stressed (921.11 (a)) Is not appropriate for all This change is reflected in the final the need for close coordination between categories of information requested. The regulations. the development of State coastal zone word "legal" has been omitted. One comment suggested that selection management Programs, especially and Three reviewers indicated that the Act of sanctuaries should depend on the pres- land and water use controls. and the provides no basis for consideration of sures and threats being brought to bear estuarine sanctuary program. socio-economic -impacts (921.11(1) upon the natural areas Involved even if The relationship between the two pro- and that this criterion seemed inappro- this meant selecting several sanctuaries grams Is emphasized: estuarine sanctu- priate to selecting estuarine sanctuaries. from one classification and none from aries should Provide benefit-both short- Apparently these reviewers misunder- another. term and long-term-to coastal zone stood the intention of this requirement. The legislative history of section 312 management decision-makers: and State The information in this section is neces- clearly shows the intent to select estu- coastal zone management programs must sary for preparation of an environmental arine sanctuaries on a rational basis Provide necessary Protection for estu- Impact statement which will be prepared arine sanctuaries. This necessary coordi- pursuant to NEPA. Although required in which would reflect regional differentia- tion and a variety of ecosystems. The bio- nation Is discussed not only in the estu- the application, such information Is not geographic classification system. which arine sanctuaries. This necessary coordi- but will also a part of the selection criteria, which are reflects geographic, hydrographic. and is discussed not only in the estu- addressed In Subpart C. 921.20. biologic differences, fulfills that inten- arine sanctuary regualtions, but will also and rules for Coastal zone One similar comment was received tion. A scheme which would abandon be addressed in an appropriate fashion with regard to consideration of existing that system, or another similar one. and in guidelines and rules for Coastal Zone and potential uses and conflicts ( 921.- Would not fulfill the requirements of pro- Management Program Approval Criteria 11(h)). This Item is also discussed under viding regional differentiation and a and Administrative Grants. selection criteria ( 921.20(h)). It is in- variety of ecosystems. would not be con- Three commentators discussed the tended that this criterion will only be sistent with the Intended purpose of the need for swift action by both State and considered when choosing between two Act. Federal governments to establish and or more sanctuary applications within A few comments received suggested acquire estuarine sanctuaries. The Office the same biogeographic category which that the biogeographic classification of Coastal Zone Management intends to are of otherwise equal merit. scheme be enlarged by the addition of a pursue the program as swiftly as avail- One comment drew attention to an new class reflecting an area or State of able manpower restraints will permit. apparent typographic error in 921.11 special concern or Interest to the re- A few comments sought reassurance (m) where the term" marine estuaries" spondent. (No two commentators sug- that the estuarine sanctuaries program seems out of context. This has been car- gested the same area.) It Is felt that will in fact be coordinated with the rected. adequate national representation is pro- Marine Sanctuaries Program (Title III, Two commentators suggested that vided by the biogeographic scheme pro- Pub. L. 92-532). The guidelines have public hearings should be required in the posed, and that the changes offered were been changed to reflect that both pro- development of an estuarine sanctuary In most cases examples of sub-categories grams will be administered by the same application. Although such a hearing is that might be utilized. office. deemed desirable by the Office of Coastal One comment suggested a specific SUBPART B-APPLICATION FOR GRANTS Zone Management, It would not always change in the definition of the "Great Section 921.10 General One reviewer seem to be necessary. The language in Lakes" category. Portions of that sug- indicated uncertainty about which State 920.11(1) has been changed to reflect gestion have been incorporated into the agency may submit applications for the sincere concern for the adequate in- final rules. grants under section 312. Although indi- volvemen of the public. which is also Two commentators requested nassur- vidual States may vary in the choice of addressed under a new � 920 21. ance that sub-categories of the blogeo- individual agencies to apply for an es- One respondent suggested that a new graphic scheme will in fact be utilized. tuarine sanctuary, because of the neces- section be added requiring the appli- The final language substitutes "will be sity for coordination with the State cant to discuss alternative methods of developed and utilized" for "may be de- coastal zone management program the acquisition or control of the area, includ- veloped and utilized." entity within the State which is the cer- Ing the designation of a marine sanctu- section 921.5 Multiple Use. Several tified contact with the Office of Coastal ary, In place of establishing an estuarine comments were received pertaining to Zone Management,NOAA, responsible sanctuary. A new section (� 920.11 (n)) the multiple use concept, Three com- for the administration of the coastal has been added for this purpose. mentators suggested that the multiple zone management program must en- Section 921.12 Subsequent Application for Development and Operation Grants. dorse or approve and estuarine sanctuary application. for Developinent and use directive was contrary to or absent. Appropriate language has been In- Three commentators expressed concern from the Act and should be omitted. Ten cluded to ensure this coordination. that the Intent of 921.12 be more clearly respondents felt the concept should be Section 921.11 Initial Application for expressed. Appropriate changes have more explicitly defined and restricted so Acquisition. Development and Operation been made. FEDERAL REGISTER. VOL 39. NO. 108-TUESDAY. JUNE 4. 1974 19924 RULES AND REGULATIONS One Comment was made that a pro- Two Commentators expressed concern to the extent feasible a natural unit, set vision should be Included to use existing for enforcement capabilities and activi- aside to provide scientists and students Federally owned land for the purpose of ties to ensure protection of the estuarine the opportunity to examine over a period the estuarine sanctuary program. A sec- sanctuaries. A new section has been of time the ecological relationships with- added which addresses this Issue. in the area. ond has been added for that purpose. (b) For the purposes of this section. Section 921.20 Criteria for Selection. Finally, one suggestion was received One comment suggested that the con- that a vehicle for change in the manage- "estuary" means that part of a river or sideration of conflict with existing or po- ment policy or research programs should stream or other body of water having un- tential competing uses should not be in- be provided. A new section has been impared connection with the open sea cluded as a selection criterion. As dis- added for that purpose. where the seawater is measurably diluted cussed above, this criterion is considered Accordingly. having considered the with freshwater derived from land drain- appropriate. age. The term Includes estuary-type comments received and other relevant Another reviewer suggested the addi- information. the Secretary concludes by areas of the Great Lakes as well as la- goons In more arid coastal regions. tion of a new criterion, consideration of adopting the final regulations describing (c) The term "multiple use" as used "the need to protect a particular estuary the procedure for applications to receive in this section shall mean the simulta- from harmful development." As dis- estuarine sanctuary grants under section neous utilization of an area or resource Cussed earlier. this criterion is not con- 312 of the Act, as modified and set forth for a variety of compatible purposes or sidered appropriate. Such a basis for below. to provide more than one benefit. The determining selection. would lead to a estuarine Effective date: June 3,1974. term Implies the long-term, continued reactionary, random series of uses of such resources in such a fashion sanctuaries. rather than the rationally Dated: May 31,1974. that other uses will not interfere with, chosen representative series mandated ROBERT M.WHITE. diminish or prevent the primary purpose, in the legislative history. Administrator. which Is the long-term protection of the Two reviewers commented that the area for scientific and educational use. limitation on the Federal share ($2,000,- Sec. Subpart A-General 921.3 Objectives and Implementation 000 for each sanctuary) was too low and 921.1 Policy and objectives. of the program. would severely restrict the usefulness of 921.2 Definitions. the program. However, this limitation 921.3 Objectives and implementation of (a) General. The purpose of the es- In provided by the Act. the program. tuarine sanctuaries program Is to create Another commentator suggested that 921.4 Biogeographic classification. natural field laboratories in which to 921.20(g) was unnecessarily restrictive 921.5 Multiple use. gather data and make studies of the In that it might prevent selecting an 921.6 Relationship to other provisions of natural and human processes occurring the Act and to marine sanctuaries. Within the estuaries of the Coastal Zone. estuarine sanctuary In an area adjacent Subpart B-Application for Grants This shall be accomplished by the estab- to existing preserved lands where the conjunction might be mutually benefi- 921.10 General. lishment of a series of estuarine sanc- cial. The language of 921.20(g) does 921.11 Application for Initial acquisition, tuaries which will be designated so that development and operation grants. at least one representative of each type not preclude such action, but has been 921.12 Application for subsequent develop- of estuarine ecosystem will endure into banged to specifically permit this pos- ment and operation grants. the future for scientific and educational sability. 921.13 Federally owned lauds. purposes. The primary use of estuarine Two commentators inquired whether Subpart C-Selection Criteria sanctuaries shall be for research and the reference to a "draft" environmental educational purposes, especially to pro- impact statement ( 921.20, last para- 921.20 Criteria for selection. vide some of the information essential to graph) Indicated an intention to avoid 921.21 Public participation. coastal zone management decision-mak- further compliance with NEPA. It Is the Subpart D-Operation ing. Specific examples of such purposes firm Intention of the Office of Coastal 921.30 General. and uses Include but are not limited to: Zone Management to fully comply In all 921.31 changes in the sanctuary boundary, (1) To gain a thorough understanding respects with NEPA. The word "draft" management Policy. Or research of the ecological relationships within the has been struck. program. estuarine environment. Three reviewers addressed the prob_ 921.32 Program review. (2) To make baseline ecological meas- lems of providing adequate public par- AUTHORITY: Sec. 312 of the Coastal Zone urements. ticipation In the review and selection Management Act of 1972 (Pub. L.92-583, 86 (3) To monitor significant or vital process. In addition to the change in Stat.1280). changes in the estuarine environment. 920.11 (1). a new section has been added Subpart A--General (4) To assess the effects of man's to address this Issue. � 921.1 Policy and Objectives. stresses on the ecosystem and to forecast SUBPART will and mitigate possible deterioration from D-OPERATION The estuarine sanctuaries program human activities. Section 921.30 General. One commen- provide grants to States on a matching (5) To provide a vehicle for increasing tator suggested that during contract basis to acquire. develop and operate public knowledge and awareness of the negotiations. there should be a meeting natural areas as estuarine sanctuaries in complex nature of estuarine systems, between the applicant agency and pro- order that scientists and students may be posed sanctuary management team, and provided the opportunity to examine over their values and benefits to man and na- representatives of the Office of Coastal a period of time the ecological relation- ture, and the problems which confront them. Zone Management. The general pro- ships within the area. The purpose of (b) The emphasis within the program visions have been broadened to provide these guidelines is to establish the rules for this suggestion. and regulations for Implementation of will be on the designation as estuarine sanctuaries of areas which will serve as Two comments were submitted which the Program. natural field laboratories for studies and urged that some discretion be exercised � 921.2 Definitions. Investigations over an extended period. In the use and access to the sanctuary (a) In addition to the definitions The area chosen as an estuarine sanc- by scientists and students. Two other found In the Act and In the regulations tuary shall, to the extent feasible, in- comments were received which requested dealing with Coastal Zone Management clude water and land masses constituting specific protection for use by the general Program Development Grants published a natural ecological unit. November 29, 1973 (Part 920 of this (c) In order that the estuarine sanc- public.The guidelines have been changed chapter) the term "estuarine sanctuary" tuary will be available for future studies. to include these suggestions. as defined In the Act, means a research research Involving the destruction of any One comment was received suggesting area which may include any part or all portion of an estuarine sanctuary which language to clarify 921.30 (g). This was of an estuary, adjoining transitional would permanently alter the nature of Incorporated into the guidelines. areas. and adjacent uplands constituting the ecosystem shall not normally be FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 39. NO. 108-TUESDAY. JUNE 4, 1974 permitted. In the unusual circumstances dented and subject to winter icing blots (b) The estuarine sanctuaries program where permitted, manipulative field re- boreal to sub-Arctic. will be conducted in close cooperation search shall be carefully controlled. No 9. Subarctic. West and north coasts of with the marine sanctuaries program Alaska: ice stressed coasts; biota Arctic and experiment which involves manipulative sub-Arctic. (Title III of the Marine Protection. Re- research shall be initiated until the ter- 10. Insular. Larger islands. sometimes with search Act of 1972. Pub. L. 92-532. which mination date is specified and evidence precipitous mountains; considerable wave Is also administered by the Office of given that the environment will be re- action: frequently with endemic species; Coastal Zone Management. NOAA). turned to its condition which existed larger island groups primarily with tropical which recognizes that certain areas of blots. prior to the experiment. the ocean waters, as far seaward as the (d) It is anticipated that most of the 11. Great Lakes. Great Lakes of North outer edge of the Continental Shelf, or areas selected as sanctuaries will be rel- America: bluff-dune or rocky. glaciated other coastal waters where the tide ebbs atively undisturbed by human activities shoreline; limited wetlands; freshwater only: and flows, or of the Great Lakes and biota p. mixture of boreal and temperate their connecting waters, need to be pre- at the time of acquisition. Therefore, species with anadremous species and some most of the areas selected will be areas marine invaders. served or restored for their conservation, with a minimum of development, Indus- recreational, ecologic or esthetic values. try or habitation. (b) Various sub-categories will be de- It is anticipated that the Secretary on (e) If sufficient permanence and con- veloped and utilized as appropriate. occasion may establish marine sanctu- trol by the State can be assured, the � 921.S Multiple use. aries to complement the designation by acquisition of a sanctuary may involve States of estuarine sanctuaries, where less than the acquisition of a fee simple (a) While the primary purpose of es- this may be mutually beneficial. tuarine sanctuaries is to provide long- interest. Such interest may be, for ex- term protection for natural areas so that Subpart B-Application for Grants ample, the acquisition of a conserva- tion easement, "development rights", or they may be used for scientific and edu- 921.10 General. cational purposes, multiple use of estu- other partial interest sufficient to assure arine sanctuaries will be encouraged to Section 312 authorizes Federal grants the protection of the natural system. to coastal States so that the States may the extent that such use Is compatible establish sanctuaries according to regu- Leasing, which would not assure perma- with this primary sanctuary purpose. nent protection of the system, would not The capacity of a given sanctuary to ac- lations promulgated by the Secretary. be an acceptable alternative. commodate additional use, and the Coastal States may file applications for grants with the Director, Office of Coastal 921.4 Biogeographic classification. kinds and intensity of such use, will be Zone Management, National Oceanic and (a) It is intended that estuarine sanc- determined on a case by case basis. While Atmospheric Administration. U.S. De- tuaries should not be chosen at random. it Is anticipated that compatible uses partment of Commerce. Rockville. Mary- but should reflect regional differentia- May generally include activities such as land 20852. That agecny which has been tion and a variety of ecosystems so as low intensity recreation, fishing,hunt- certified to the Office of Coastal Zone ing, and wildlife observation, it is rec- to cover all significant variations. To ognized that the exclusive use of an area Management as the entity responsible ensure adequate representation of all es- for administration of the State costal tuarine types reflecting regional differ- for scientific or educational purposes entiation and a variety of ecosystems; may provide the optimum benefit to zone management program may either coastal zone management and resource submit an application directly. or must selections will be made by the Secretary use and may on occasion be necessary. endorse and approve applications sub- from the following biogeographic class- mitted by other agencies within the ifications: (b) There shall be no effort to balance State. 1. Arcadian. Northeast Atlantic coast or optimize uses of an estuarine sanctu- south to Cape Cod. glaciated shoreline sub- ary on economic or other bases. All addi- S 921.11 Application for initial acqioso- ject to winter icing; well developed algal tional uses of the sanctuary are clearly tion, development and operation flors; boreal blota. secondary to the primary purpose and grants. 2. Virginian. Middle Atlantic coast from uses, which are long-term maintenance (a) Grants may be awarded on a Cape Cod to Cape Hatteras: lowland streams, of the ecosystem for scientific and educa- matching basis to cover the costs of coastal marshes and muddy bottoms; char - tional uses Non-compatible uses, includ- acquisition, development and operaton acteristics transitional between 1 and 3; ing those uses which would cause sig- of estuarine sanctuaries. States may use blots primarily temperate with some boreal nificant short or long-term ecological donations of land or money, to satisfy all representatives. 3. Carolinian. South Atlantic coast. from change or would otherwise detract from or part of the matching cost require- Cape Hatteras to Cape Kennedy; extensive or restrict the use of the sanctuary as ments. Marshes and swamps; waters turbid and a natural field laboratory, will be pro- (b) In general, lands acquired pur- productive: biots temperate with seasonal hibited. suant to this section, including State tropical elements. 921.6 Relationship to other provisions owned lands but not State owned sub- 4. West Indian. South Florida coast from Cape Kennedy to Cedar Key; and Caribbean of the act and to marine sanctuaries. merged lands or bay bottoms, that occur Islands; shoreland low-lying limestone: (a) The estuarine sanctuary program within the proposed sanctiary boundary calcareous sands maris and coral reefs: must interact with the overall coastal are legitimate costs and their fair market coastal Marshes and mangroves; tropical zone management program in two ways: value may be included as match. How- biots. (1) the intended research use of the ever. the value of lands donated to or by 5. Louisianian. Northern Gulf of Mexico, sanctuary should provide relevant data the State for Inclusion in the sanctuary from Cedar Key to Mexico: characteristics may only be used to match other costs of 3, with components of 4; strongly influ- and conclusions of assistance to coastal of land acquisition. In the event that enced by terrigenous factors; biota primarily zone management decision-making. and temperate. (2) when developed, the State's coastal lands already exist in a protected staius, 6. Californian. South Pacific coast from zone management program must recog- their value cannot be used as match for Mexico to Cape Mendocino: shoreland influ- nize and be designed to protect the estu- sanctuary development and operation enced by coastal mountains: rocky coasts arine sanctuary: appropriate land and grants, which will require their own with reduced fresh-water runoff; general water use regulations and planning con- matching funds. absence of Marshes- and swamps; biota siderations must apply to adjacent lands. (c) q04qDevelo 7. Columbian. North Pacific coast from Although estuarine sanctuaries should may include the administrative expenses be incorporated into the State coastal necessary to monitor the sanctuary, to Cape Mendocino to Canada; mountaineous shoreland: rocky coasts; extensive algal com- zone management program, their desig- ensure its continued viability, and to pro- munities; biota primarily temperate with nation need not await the development tect the integrity of the ecosystem. Re- some boreal. and approval of the management pro- 8. Fiords. South coast Alaska and Aleu- gram where operation of the estuarine search will not normally be funded by tians: precipitous mountains: deep estuaries. sanctuary would aid in the development Section 312 grants. It is anticipated that some with glaciers; shoreline heavily in- of a program. other sources of Federal, State and FEDERAL REGISTER VOL. 39, NO. 108-TUESDAY, JUNE 4. 1974 16 19926 RULES AND REGULATIONS private funds will be available for rt- artes. the States should attempt -to coor- _'-Subpart C-Selectian Criteria search in estuarine sanctuaries. d1nate their activities. This will help to 1921.20 Criteris for selenion. (d) InItW applications should contain minimizo the possibility of similar estu- the following information: art" types being proposed for designa- Applica;tlons for grants to establish r it) Description of the proposed sane- 'tion in the same region. The application estuarine sanctuaries will be reviewed a7 include location, boundaries, size should Indicate the extent to whicA and judged on criteria Including: And cost of acquisition, operation and de- neighboring States were consulted. (a) kenent to the coastal zone man- velopment. A map should be included. as (f) Discussion. Including cost and agement program Applications should well as an aerial photograph. if available. feasibility. of alternative methods for demonstrate the benefit of the pro0osal (2) Classification of the proposed acquisition, control and protection of the to the development or operations of the sanctuary according to the biogeographic area to provide similar uses. Use of the overall coastal zone management' pro- scheme set forth In � 921.4. Marine Sanctuary authority and funds gram, including how well the proposal (3) Description of the major physical, from the lAnd and Water Conservation fits into the national program of repre- geographic and biological characteristics F'und Act should be specifically ad- sentative-lestuarine types; the national and resources of the proposed sanctuary. dressed. or regional benefits;- and the usefulness t- In research. (4) Identification of ownership pa �921.12 Application for subsequent de- (b) The ecological characteristics of terns; proportion of land alread3t IR the welovatent and operation grants. public domain. the ecosystem. Including its biological (5) Description of intended research (a) Although the Initial grant appli- productivity. diversity and representa- uses. potential research organizations or cation for creation of an estuarine sanc- tiveness. 'Extent of alteration of the agencies and benefits to the -overall tuary should include initial development natural -system, its ability to remain a coastal zone management program. and operation costs, subsequent appli- viable and healthy system in view of the (6) Demonstration of necessary Su- cations may be submitted following ac- present and possible development of ex- thority to acquire or control and manage quisition and establishment of an estua- ternal stresses. rine sanctuary for additional develop- (c) Size and choice of boundaries. To the sanctuary. (7) Description of proposed manage- ment and operation funds. As indicated the extent feasible, estuarine sanctuaries in 9 921.11. these costs may Include ad- should approximate a natural ecological ment techniques. including the manage- ment agency, principles and proposed -in' t ive costs necessary to monitor unit. The rainimal acceptable,size will budget Including both State and Federal the sanctuary and to protect the integ- vary greatly and will depend on the na- share . rity of the ecosys' tem. Extensive manage- ture of the ecosystem. (8) Description of existing and poten- ment programs@ capital expenses, or re (d) Cost. Although the Act limits the ftl uses of and conflicts within search will not normally be funded by the area Federal share of the cost for each sanc- tion 312 grants., tuary to $2,000,000. it Is anticipated that If it were not declared an estuarine sanc- see tuary. potertial use, use restrictions and (b) After thecreation of an estuarine In practice the average grant will be sub- conflicts if the sanctuary is established. sanctuary established under this pro- stantialli les's than this. (I) Assessment of the environmental gram, applications for such development (e) Enhancement of non-competitive and socto-economic impacts of declaring and operation grants should Include at uses. .7the area an estuarine sanctuary, includ- least the following information: (f) Proximity and access to existing ng the economic Impact of such a desig- (1) Identification of the boundary. research facilities. tion on the surrounding community (2) Specifications of the management (g) Availability of suitable alternative (::@Ld Its tax base. sites aJready protected which might be program, including managing.agency and (9) Description of planned or antici- techniques- capable of providing the same use or (3) Detailed budget. benefit, Unnecessary duplication of ex- pated land and water use and controls. for contiguous lands surroundJng the - (4) Discussion of recent and projected Isting activities under other programs proposed sanctuary (including if appro- use of the sanctuary. should be avoided. However, estuarine priate an analysis of the desirability of (5) Perceived threats to Ithe !ntegrity sanctuaries might be established adja- creating a marine sanctuary in adjacent Of thes@amtuar-v. ' cent to existing preserved lands where areas). � 921.13 Yedirally owned lands. mutual enhancement or benefit of each (10) List of protected sites, either (a) Where Federally owned lands are raight occur. (h) Conflict with exist'ng or potential Within the estuarine sanctuaries program a part of or adjacent to the area pro- competing uses. or within other Federal. State or private posed for designation as an estuarine (I) Compatibility with existing or pro- programs. which are located in the same sanctuary, or where the control of land regional or biogeographic classification. an posed land and water use In contiguous d water uses on such lands is neces- ereas. (1) It is essential that the opportunity sary to protect the natural system within be provided for public involvement and the sanctuary, the State should contact If the initial review demonstrates the input in the development of the sanctu- the Federal agency maintaining control fqasibflity of the application, an environ- ary proposal and application. Where the of the land to request cooperation in pro- mental Impact statement will be pre- application is controversial or where viding coordinated management policies. pared by, the Office of Coastal Zone Min- controversial issues are addressed, the Such lands and State request. and the agement in accordance with the National State should provide adequate means to Federal agency response, should be iden- Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and ensure that all interested pat@ies have tified and conveyed to the Office of Implementing CEQ guidelines. the opportunity. to present their views* Coastal Zone Management. � 921.21 Public participation. This may be in the form of an adequately (b) Where such proposed use or con- advertised public hearing trol of Federally owned lands would not Public participation will be an cssen- 01) During the development of an conflict with the Federal use of their tial factor In the selection of estuarine estuarine smictuarr application. a U land- Lands, such cooperation and coordinatioll sanctuaries. In addition to the pirticipa- owners within the proposed boundaries Is encouraged to the maximum extent tion during the application development be informed in writing of the pro- feasible. process (� 921.11(e)), public participa- posed grant application. (c) Section 312 grants may not be tion will be ensured at the Federal level Oft) The application should indicate awarded to Federal agencies for creation by the NEPA process and by public hear- the manner In which the State solicited of estuarine sanctuaries in Federally ings where desirable subsequent to NEPA. ste, A: however. a similar statis Such public hearings shall be held by the the vieui of all intere. d parties prior owned land: -w the actual submission of the appit- may be provided on a voluntary bw%is for Office of Coastal Zone Maiingenlent in A C Alton. Federally owned lands under the provi- the area to be aff--cted by the prol)osed (e) In order to develop a truly repre- sions of the Federal Committee on Eco- sanctuary no sooner than 30 days a f ter It seutativo scheme of estuarine sanctu- logical Preserves program. Le-mics, a draft environmental Inivact KDERAL REGISTER. VOL. 39. NO. 108-TUESDAY. JUN* 4, 1974 0 RULES AND REGULATIONS 19927 statement on the sanctuary proposal. It the granting agency. As a minimum, the search program may only be changed after public notice and the opportunity will be the responsibility of the Office of grant document for each sanctuary shall: of public review and participation such Coastal Zone Management, with the as- sistance of the applicant State, to Issue (a) Define the intended research pur- as outlined in 921.21. adequate public notice of its intention poses of the estuarine sanctuary. (b) Individuals or organizations which to hold a public hearing. Such public no- (b) Define permitted, compatible, re- we concerned about possible improper tice shall be distributed widely, espe- stricted and prohibited uses of the sanc- use or restriction of use of estuarine cially in the area of the proposed sanc- uary. sanctuaries may petition the State man- tuary; affected property owners and (c) Include a provision for monitoring agement agency and the Office of Coastal those agencies, organizations or individ the uses of the sanctuary, to ensure com- Zone Management directly for review of usals with an identified interest in the pliance with the intended uses. the management program. area or estuarine sanctuary program (d) Ensure ready access to land use 921.32. Program review. shall be notified of the public hearing. of the sanctuary by scientists, students The public notice shall contain the and the general public as desirable and It is anticipated that reports will be name, address and phone number of the permissible for coordinated research and required from the applicant State an a appropriate Federal and State officials to education uses, as well as for other cam- regular basis, no more frequently than contact for additional information about patible purposes. annually, an the status of each estuarine the proposal. (e) Ensure public availability and rea- sanctuary. The estuarine sanctuary Subpart D-Operation sonable distribution of research results program will be regularly reviewed to 921.30 General. for timely use in the development of ensure that the objectives of the program coastal zone management programs. are being met and that the program it- self Is scientifically sound. The key to Management of estuarine sanctuaries- (f) Provide a basis for annual review shall be the responsibility of the appli- of the status of the sanctuary, its value the success of the estuarine sanctuaries cant State or its agent. However, the to the coastal zone program. program is to assure that the results of research uses and management program (g) Specify how the integrity of the the studies and research conducted in must be in conformance with these system which the sanctuary represents these sanctuaries are available in a guidelines and regulations, and others will be maintained. timely fashion so that the States can implemented by the provisions of indi- (h) Provide adequate authority and develop and administer land and water vidual grants. It is suggested that prior intent to enforce management policy and to the grant award, representatives of use restrictions. use programs for the coastal zone, Ac- the proposed sanctuary management cordingly, all information and reports, team and the Office of Coastal Zone Man- 921.31, Changes in the sancuary including annual reports, relating to agement meet to discuss management boundary, management policy or estuarine sanctuaries shall be part of policy and standards. It is anticipated research program. that the grant Provisions will vary with (a) The approved sanctuary boundar- the public record and available at all individual circumstances and will be ies, management policy, including per- times for inspection by the public. mutually agreed to by the applicant and missible and prohibited uses; and re- [FR Doc.74-12773 Piled 5-31-74;9:57 am ] FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 108--TUESADY, JUNE 4, 1974 APPENDIX 3 FAUNA AND FLORA OF SOUTH SLOUGH, COOS BAY, OREGON A Partial List of Mammals for South Slough Scientific Same Common Name Procyon lotor Raccoon Ursus americanus Black bear Eutamias spp. Chipmunk Tamiasciurus hudsonicus Squirrel Lynx rufus Bobcat Glaucomys spp. Flying squirrel Phoca vitulina Harbor seal Lutra. canadensis Otter Ondatra zibethicus Muskrat Castor canadensis Beaver Canis latrans Coyote Urocyon cinereoargenteus FOX Odocoileus columbianus Blacktail deer Aplodontia rufa Mountain beaver Sylvilagus bachmani Brush rabbit A Partial List of Upland Plants in South Slough Ferns & Horsetails: Polypodium Scouleri Polypody Pteridium aquilinum Bracken Equisetum spp. Horsetail Blechnum spp. Deer-Fern Higher Plants: Lysichitum americanum Yellow Skunk Cabbage Lilium columbianum Tiger Lily Abronia latifolia Sand-Verbena Fragaria chiloensis Beach Strawberry Rubus parviflorus Thimbleberry Rubis spectabilis Salmonberry Gaultheria shallon Salal Rododendron macrophyllm Rhododendron Vaccinium ovatum Huckleberry Sambucus callicarpa Elderberry Lonicera involucrata Twinnberry Trees: Pinus contorta Beach Pine Picea sitchensis Sitka Spruce Pseudotsuga Menziesii Douglas Fir Tsuga heterophylla Hemlock Chamaecynaris Lawsoniana Port Orford Cedar Scientific Name Common Name Alnus oregona Red Alder Quercus Garryana Oregon Oak Lithocar@us densiflora Tan Oak Myrica californica Wax Myrtle Acer macrophyllum Big Leaf Maple Acer circinatum Vine Maple Salix Hooleriana Coast Willow Salix Scouleriana Scouler's Willow A Partial List*of Wetlard Plants of South Slough Honocots Fimlly Ruppiaceae Ruppia maritima Ditchgrass Family zosteraceae-I Zostera marina Eel grass Fainj I yJuncaginaceae Triglochin maritima Seaside Arrowgrass Family Gramineae ftrostis alba. Bent grass Distichlis spicata Salt grass Family Cyperaceae, Carex sp. Sedge Eleocharis sp. Spike rush Scirpus acutus Eard-stem bulrush S. robustus Salt marsh bulrush S. americanus Common three square bulrush Family Juncaceae Baltic rush Juncus balticus Dicots Family Polygonaceae Rumex Dock Sp- 'Family Chenopodiaceae Atriplex sp. Salt bush Family Caryophyllaceae Salicornia pacifica Pickleweed Spergularia marina Salt marsh sand sponge Family Rosaceae Potentilla sp. Cinquefoil Scientific Name Common Name Family Umbelliferae Lilaeopsis occidentalis Western lilacopsis Family Primulaceae Glaux maritima Milkwort Family Convolvulaceae Cuscuta salina Slat marsh deddei Family scrophulariaceae Orthocarpus castillejoides Paint brush Family Plantaginaceae Plantago Juncoides(Peck) Plantin Family Compositae Cotula cornopifolia Brass buttons Grindelia sp. Gumplant Jaumea carnosa Fleshy jaumea A Check List of Fishes that Commonly Utilize South Slough Sturgeons Acipense medirostris Green Acipenser transmontanus White Herrings Clupea harengus pallasi Pacific Herring Anchovies Engraulis mordax Northern Anchovy Trouts, Salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch - Coho Salmon Oncorhynchu tshawytscha - Chinook Salmea Salmo clarki - Cutthroat Trout Smelts Spirinchus thaleichthys - Longfin Silversides Atherinop s affinis Topsmelt Sticklebacks Gasterosteus aculeatus Threespine Pipefish Bay Pipefish Sygnathus griseolineatus Sea Bass Morone saxatillis Striped Bass Surfperch amphistichus rhodoterus - Redtail Cymatogaster aggregata Shiner Embiotoca lateralis - Striped Rhacochilus vacca - Pile Gobies Clevlandia los Arrow goby Rockfish Sebastes melonos Black rockfish Greenlings Hexagrammos lagocehalus- Rock Hexagrammos decagrammus Kelp Scupins Cottus asper - Prickly Enophrys bison - Buffalo Leptocottus - Pacific Staghorn Lefteye Flounders Citharichthys stigmaeus- Speckled Sanddab Righteye Flounders parophrys vetulus - English Sole Platichthys stellatus - Starry Flounder Psettichthys melanostictus- Sand Sole A Partial List of Algae Found in South Slough Cyanophyta, Blue-green algae Chlorophyta Green algae Enteromorpha clathrata Ulva.fenestrata (Scagel) Rhizoclonium riparium Chrysophyta Yellow-green and golden-brown algae and diatoms Melospira sp. Navicula sp. Rhizosolenia sp. Phaeophyta Brown Algae Nerocystis luetkeana Fucus edentatus (Scagel) A Partial List of Marine Invertebrates of South Slough Sponges Boring Sponge Cliona sp. Violet Encrusting Sponge Haliclona,permollis Hydroids Campanularia sp. Garveia annulata Syncoryne eximia Tubularia marina Jellyfish Polyorchis Pacifica p. penicillatus Aeguorea sp. Sea Anemones Green Anemone Haliplanella leucolena Metridium sp. Nematostella sp. Comb Jellies Sea Walnut Pleurograchia bachei Endoproct Barentsia gracilis Bryozoans Moss Animals Bowerbankia gracilis Encrusting Bryozoan. Membranipora tuberculata Polychaetes Abarenicola pacifica Anobothrus gracilis Capitella capitata C. ovincola Heteromastus filiformis H filobranchus Cirratulus cirratus Eunice sp. Eudistylia vancouveri Serpula vermicularis Fista pacifica Glycera americana Glycinde armigera Nephtys caecoides Nereis brandti (Neanthes brandti) N. limnicola (Neanthes diversicola) N. vexillosa Echinoderms - Starfish Pisaster brevispinus Shortspined Pisaster Ochre Starfish P. ochraceous Molluses Button Tellen Tellina buttoni European Sbipworm Teredo navalis Caper Clam Tresus nuttallii Nudibranch Acanthodoris columbina Aeolidia papillosa Sea Lemon Nudibranch Anisodoris nobilis Archidoris montereyensis Hermissenda crassicornis Opalescent Moon Snail Polinices draconis Purple Olive Snail Olivella biplicata Pea Pod Borer Botula californiensis Bay Mussel Mytilus edulis Basket Cockle Cardium nuttallii False Mya Cryptomya californica Baltic Macoma Macoma balthica Bent-nose Clam M. nasuta Soft-shell Clam Mya arenaria Comon Littleneck Protothaca staminea Arthropods Isopods Pill bugs/rock lice Gmorimosphaeroma oregonensis Idothea aculeata Ligia pallasii Porcellio scaber scaber Amphipods Beach flea Corophium acherusicum Sand flea Orchestoidea californiana Crabs and Shrimp Black tailed shrimp Crago nigricauda Broken back shrimp Spirontocaris paludicola Rock Crab Cancer antennarius Red cancer Crab C. productus Hairy Shore Crab Hemigrapsus oregonensis Purple (Beach) Shore Crab H. nudus Pea erab' Scleroplax granulata Ghost Shrimp Callianassa californiensis Blue Mud Shrimp Upogebia pugettensis Dungeness crab Cancer magister I Barnacles Horse Barnacle Balanus cariosus Acorn Barnacle B. glandula M'- Nis M.M M M M M M M Partial Checklist of the Birds. of the'Soutfi'-�-Io'ugh ABUNDANCE STATUS VC very common; 50 or more birds per day/observer/area C common 10-49 birds per daylobserver/area U uncommon; 0-9 birds per day/observer/area R rare; 5 or less birds per year/observer/area VR very-rare; 5 or less birds per year/oboarver/area SEASONAL STATUS, R - resident; found all year 14V - winter visitor SV - summer visitor SR - summer resident M - migrant; seen only in transit Nime Scient-ific Name Seasonal Status Preft!rrdd Habitat Abundance Order Gaviiformies Family Faviidae Common Loon Gavia immer R Ocean. estuary. lakes C Arctic Loon Cavia arctica M Estuaryo ocean U Order Podicipediformes Family Podicipedidae Horned Grebe Podiceps autitus WV Lakes, rivers,estuary C Western Grebe Aechmo horus occidentalis WV Lakes, estuary. C ked4illed Grebe Podilymbus 2odiceps R Rivers, marshes,estuary U Seasonal Name Scientific N" Status -Preferred Habitat Abundance,., Oraer Pelecaniformes. Family Phalcrocoric'idae Ocean, offsho@e rocks VC Brandt's Cormorant Phalacrocorax penicillatus R estuary Pelagic Cormorant Phalacrocorax pelagicus R Ocean, offshore rocket VC estuary Order Ciconifdrmes Family Ardeidae Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias R Estuary, lakes, streams C marshes Green Heron Butorides .virescens iR Marshes, lakes, rivers U Common Egret us albus R Marshes, lakes R Order Anseriformes Family Anatidae Black irant Branta nigricans WV Estuary, open ocean VC Mallard Tnas latyrhynchos_ RI Lakeit riverss estuary VC Pintail Anas acuta R Lakes, ponds VC C Green-winged Teal. Anas carolinensis R Marshes, estuary American Widgeon Mareca americana WV Marshes, lakes. fields VC Wood Duck Aix �Vons R Lakes, streams C Canvasback Axthya vall.1nerIn WV Marshes,estuary, lakes VC Greater Scaup Aythya marila WV Lakes, estuary C Common Golaeneye Bucephala clangula WV Lakes, ponds, rivers C Harlequin Duck Histrionicus histrinnifolin WV Ocean, estuary U White-winged Scoter Melanitta deglandi R Ocean, lakes, estuary VC Surf Scoter Melanitta perspicillata R Ocean, lakes, estuaty VC Common Scoter Oidemia n!jra R Ocean, lakes, estuary U Rudy Duck Oxyura Jamaicensis R Lakes, marshes, estuary C Hooded Merganser Lophodyte cucullatus R Lakes, streams Common Merganser Mergus merganser R Streams, lakes, estuary U Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator WV Rivers, estuary U Order Falconiformes Family Cathartidae Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura SR Woodlands U ---------- Ak joli Seasonal /-Abundance Name Scientific *Nay( Status Preferred Habitat Family Acc6pitrldae Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter stristus R Forests, woodlands U Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperii R Woodlands U Red-tafted Ha%@k Buteo jamal-censis R. Woodlands, farm lands Rough-legged Hawk Buteo lagopus WV Marshes U Family Pandionidae Osprey Pandion hallatus SR Lakes, rivers U Order Galliformes Family Tetraonidae Blue Grouse DendragaRuo_obagurus R Forest C Family Phasianidae Mountain Quail Oreorty3 pictua R W.oodlots, forests U Family Rallidae American Coot Fulica aiericana R Lakes, estuary, marshes, VC fields* Order Charadriiformes Family Charadriidae' Semipalmated Plover Charadrius semipalmatus M Shores, tideflats U Killdeer Charadrius vociferus R Field, tideflats C Black-bellied Plover Squatarola squatarola M Mudflats, open mar 'shes C Surfbird Aphriza virgata M Rocky coasts, jetties C Family Scolopacidae Whimbrdl Numenius phaeopus tf Mudflats, open marshes U Spotted Sandpiper- Actitis macularia R Streams, marshels U Solitary Sandpiper Tringa solitaria H Streams, marshes R Willet. Catoptrophorus semipalmatus M Marshes, beaches U Dunlin Erolia alRina WV Beaches, tidal flats VC Short-billed Dowitcher Limnodromup griseus M Mudflats C Long-billed Dowitcher jjmno@@oTqs scolopaceus M Mudflnts VC Sensipalmated Sandpiper EreuneLes p9sillus M Beaches, mudflats R Western Sandpiper Ereunctes inauri M Mudflats, beaches VC, Sanderling Crocethia alba M Sandy beaches C Seasonal Name Scientific Name -Status Preferred Habitat Abundance Family Phalarop6didae Red Phalarope Phalaropus fulicar*ius M Ocean C Northern Phalarope Lobipes lobatus M Ocean'. VC Family Stercorariidae Parasitic Jaeger Stercorarius parasiticus- M Ocean U Family Laridae Glaucous Gull Larus hyperboreus WV Estuary, garbage,dumps R Glaucous-winged Gull Earus Rlaucescens - R Estuary, garbage dumps, C Western Gull 'fields Larus occidentalis R Estuary, ocean, lakes, c islands California Gull Larus californicus R Estuary, lakes, rivers C Bonapartela'Gull Lar@s philadelphia M Ocean, estuary,, lakes' U Caspian Tern Hydroprogne caspia M Lakes, estuary, ocean U Family Alcidae Common Muure Uria. aAlge R Ocean, estuary. offshore VC rocks Pigeon Guillemot Cepphus columba R Ocean, estuary, offshore C rocks Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus.marmoratum R Ocean, estuary U Order Columb iformes Family Columbidae Band-tailed Pigeon Columba fasciata R Conifers, mixed woods C, Order Strigiformes Family Strigidae Screech Owl u's,asio R Grassland, open woodlands ot Great Horned Owl Bubo virginianus R Fields, grassland, Saw-whet Owl Ae woddlands golius acadicus R Mixed woods Seasonal Status Preferred Habitat Abundance Name Scientific Name, order captimulgiformes Yamily Captimulgidae Chordeiles minor SR' All open lands 1 C Common Nighthawk. Order Apodiformes Family Trochilidae Selasphorus rufus SR Mixed woods# urbatt areas C Rufous Hummingbird order Coraciiformeb Family Alcedinidae eryle alcyon R Streamsq eStUary, C Belted Kingfisher Mega order Piciformes Family Picidae ColUtes-cafer R Mixed,woods Red-shafted Flicker U Dryocopus-Fi-leatus R Conifers Pileated Woodpecker Sph rapicus varius R Mixed woods yenow-bellied Sapsucker R M U Hairy Woodpecker ndrocopos Tillosus ixed woods oods U. Dendracopos_P bescens R Deciduous w Downy Woodpecker brder Passeriformes Family Tyrannidae dulus SR Woodlands C Western Wood Pewee Contopus sordi C olive-sided Flycatcher Nutt@allornis orealis SR open woods Family Hirundinidae n!@cineta thalassina SR. Open woodlands$ adj*acent VC. Violet-green Swallow to waters urban areas VC Tree Swallow Iridoprocne bicolor SR Rivers, marshes R Bank Swallow R-i-paria rEp-a-rra- SR Around water R Rough-winged Swallow Stelgidopteryx ruficollis SR Around water VC Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica SR Around water Corvidae C'. Family Conifers Steller's Jay Cyanocitto stelleri R U Aphelocoma coerulescens R Brush, urban C R Open woods, Scrub JaY Corvus brachy @hync'Fo_q_ farms, Common Crow 7 7" Name - Scientif ic Name Seasonal Status Preferred Vabitat Abundance Family Paridae Black-capped Chickadee Parus atricapillus R Deciduous woods C Chestnut-backed Chickadee 7-arus rufescens R Conifers vc Common Bushtit Psaltriparus minimus R Deciduous woods vc Family Sittidae White-breasted Nuthatch Sitta carolinensis R Deciduous, mixed woods C Red-breasted Nuthatch -9-Itta Z-anadensis R Conifers, mixed woods C Family Chamaeidae Wrentit Chamaea fasciata R Mixed woods, brush C Family Vireonidae Warbling Vireo Vireo gilvus SR Deciduous woods C Family Parulidai Audubon's Warbler Dendroica auduboni R Mixed woods. conifers C Yellowthroat . GeGihlypis trichas SR Fresh-water marshes C Wilson's Warbler Wilsonia pusilla__ SR Deciduous and mixed.woods C Family Icteridae- Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus R Marshes, fields VC oBreweris Blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalue R Fields, farms VC Family Troglodytidae Winter Wren Troglodytes troglodytes R Dense conifers, woods C Long-billed Marsh Wren Te-N-atodytes palustris R1 Fresh-water marshes U Family Turdidae Turdus migratorius R Fields, residential vc Robin Varied Thrush Ixoreus naevius R Conifers, mixed woods C Hermit Thrush Hylocichla guttata R Deciduous woods, conifers C Swainson's Thrush Hylocichla ustulata AR Conifers, mixed-woods C, Jon j". Seasonal Abundance Scientific Name Status Preferred Rabi.tat Name C Family sylviidae Conifers Regulus satrapa R Golden-crowned Kinglet Family Motacillidae Anthus spinoletta M Fields,.mudflats' C Water Pipit Family Dombycillidae C R Open woodsq urban Bombycilla cedrorum Cedar Waxving Family Sturnidae Sturnus vulgaris R Open fields, farms VC Starling Family Thraupidae SR Conifersq mixed woods. C Piranga ludoviciana Western Tanager Family Fringillidae Carpodacus mexicanua R Residentialq farms C House Finch R Cpnifors, mixed woods C Pine Siskin -spinus pinus R Fields, farms C American Goldfinch Spinus trist3.8 R Brush VC Rufous-si&-d Towhee Pipilo erytFr-ophthalmus R Conifers, deciduous VC Oregon Junco Junco oreganus en brush VC White-crowned Sparrow 1`3_v@o-t rTc-Tj-j-a--re-ucophrysR Willows, op VC - _F - r 7-on_otrfc fa WE Tcap=ia WV Weed patches, brush C Golden-crowned Sparrow T@tsserelli_flfa_ca R Brush Fox Sparrow E-eTo-s_p_Tz__am-eI_oUI_a R Brush VC Song Sparrow APPENDIX 4. ASSESSMENT-OF THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE DESIGNATION OF SOUT SLOUGH AS AN ESTUARnM SANCTUARY APPENDIX 5. WRITTEN COMMENTS RECEIVED BY THE OFFICE OF COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT APPENDIX 5. WRITTEN COMM:ENTS RECEIVED BY THE OFFICE OF COASTAL ZONE KkNAGEMENT RESULTING FROM THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT, AND AGENCY DISPOSITION OR COMMENT, WHERE APPROPRIATE 1. Federal Agencies The following Federal agencies submitted conments:- Environmental Protection Agency, Region X 'De0artment of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service Department of Housing and Urban Development, Region X Department of the Army,, Corps of Engineers, Portland District 2. State Agencies The following state agencies submitted comments: Oregon Soil and Water Conservation Co=ission Oregon Deparrment of Environmental Quality Office of the Director Administrator, Program Development Division Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Oregon State Highway Division Oregon State University, Sea Grant Administration 3. Other governmental agencies Comments were received from the following other governmental agencies: City of Coos Bay Pacific Northwest River Basins Con-i sion Coos-Curry Council of Governments Oregon State Clearinghouse 4.' Other organizations and citizens Comments were received from the following individuals and organizations: National Audubon Society National Wildlife Federation American Association of University Women, Coos Bay Chapter Oregon Environmental Council Sdott Paper Company, Northwest Operations C7eorge C. and Marian Tracy, Charleston, Oregon Environmental Defense Fund Vancy Lawry, Charleston, Oregon 5. List of individuals appearing at the Public Hearing, June 3, 1974. The following persons presented comments at the Public Hearing at the Coos Bay Library. A complete recording of these comments is on file at OCZM. The general nature of their comments is also indicated. Vic Adams, North Bend, Oregon, Coos Head Timber Company -gendrally opposed Alice Layport, Coos Bay, Oregon, American Association of University Women generally favorable Ken Margolis, Portland, Oregon, Nature Conservancy -generally favorable H. L. Dixon, Coos Bay, Oregon, Northwest Steelheaders -generally favorable Roy Johnson, Coos Bay, Oregon, District 5 Citizens Advisory Committee generally favorable Judy Dixon, Coos Bay, Oregon -generally favorable Larry Qualman, Coos Bay, Oregon -generally opposed Mitzie Loftus, 'Coos Bay, Oregon--- generally favorable Lilah Chambers, Coos Bay,, Oregon -generally favorable -generally favorable Mr. Mosher, Coos Bay, Oregon Mrs. Mosher, Coos Bay, Oregon -generally favorable Wiley Smith-generally opposed Nora Terwilliger -Charleston, Oregon, generally favorable Robert Terwilliger -Charleston, Oregon, generally favorable Howard Hall, Coos Bay, Oregon -generally favorable Richard Chamberi, Coos Bay, Oregon -generally favorable Paul Rudy, Charleston, Oregon -generally favorable LaVerne Crabtree, League of Women Voters -generally favorable Terry Kay -generally favorable Nathan Douthit, Portland, Oregon, Oregon Environmental Council -generally favorable Valerie Taylorb North Bend, Oregon -generally favoiable Theodore Ellingson, North Bend, Oregon -neutral with recommendations Pat Dugan, Coos-Curry Council of Governments qualified approval Marguerite Watkins, Coos Bay, Oregon, League of Women Voters -generally favorable Wallace Baldinger, Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition -generally favorat)le David Zupan, North Bend, Oregon -generally favorable Ben Faulkner, Coos Bay, Oregon,-generally favorable Pete Wilson, Portland, Oregon -generally favorable Mr. and Mrs. Everett Oxford, Coos Bay, Oregon -generally favorable Mary Leitshuh, Charleston, Oregon -generally favorable Ellen McMahon, Charleston, Oregon -generally favorable Anne Montgomery, Coos Bay, Oregon -generally favorable Dick Mitchener, Eugene, Oregon -generally favorable Brent Hicks, Charleston, Oregon -generally favorable Peter S. Stenhouse, Coos Bay, Oregon -generally favoiable Ed Stevenson, Coquille, Oregon -generally favorable Ianto Evans, Ruthin, Wales -generally favorable Susan Anderson -generally favorable Bob Bailey -generally favorable Forest Bale, Coquille, Oregon generally opposed Jim Hanna,' Bandon, Oregon generally favorable Peter Toll, Bandon, Oregon generally favorable Ken Lewis, Coos Bay, Oregon generally opposed V 0 S%P" REGION X t 47@@ iv E N U E 1200 SIXTH Sc SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 REPLY To ATTH OF. IOEI M/S 325 June 5, 1974 ;Nov Mr. Edward T. LaRoe Office of Coastal Environment Nationdl Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Rockville, Maryland 20852 Dear Mr. LaRoe: We have completed review of your draft environmental impact Statement, "E@tuarine Sanctuary Grant Award for South Sl6ugh, Coss Bay, Oregon." We foresee no adverse environmental impacts in our juris- dictional areas. Our co=iants on this draft statement have been classified LO-1, LO (Lack of Objections) I (Adequate Information). The classification and.the date of EPA's comments will be published in the Federal Register in accordance with our responsibility to info e public of ou view on proposed Federal actions under Section 309 of the Clean Air Ac@.. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this draft environmental impact statement. Sincerely, Hurlon.C. Ray Assistant Regional Administrator for Management DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ARCADE PLAZA BUILDING. 1321 SECOND AVENUE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 May 30, 1974 REGION X Of f ice of Community Planning andManagement IN REPLY REFER TO: MS 3 07 MS 307 Mr. Sidney R. Galler Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Affairs U.S. Department of Commerce Washington D.C. 20230 Dear Mr. Galler: Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Proposed Sanctuary Grant Award for South Slough, Coos Bay, Oregon We have reviewed the draft submitted with your May 3, 1974 letter to. Mr. Richard II. Broun. The proposed action is a grant award to the State of Oregon to acquire, develop, and operate an estuarine sanctuary in Coos County, Oregon pursuant to Public Law 92-533. We note that the Coos-Curry Council of Covernments as well as the State clearinghouse and other state agencies are being ginen the opportunity to comment. Our concern would be that this action is consistent with the comprehensive plans being prepared by local planning agencies such as Coos-Curry Council of Governments and the State planning agencies. Thus, if the grant proposal is acceptable to them, we find no objection to your proposed action. Thanks for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, John R. Merrill Assistant Regional Administrator for Community Planning and Management cc: CEQ (5) Dawson Miller Safranski Disposition of Comments from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Region X The responses of the State Clearinghouse and the Coos-Curry Council of Governments are includcd. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 1234 S.W. MORRISON STREET PORTLAND, ORE. 97205 Telephone (503) 229-5301 CALL May 7, 1974 CANNON Robert Knecht, Director Office of Coastal Environment NOAA Rockville, Maryland 20852 Dear Bob:. I want you to know of the strong support which this Department gives to aproposal before your office for designation and acquisition of an estuarine sanctuarv for a portion of South Slough, Coos County, Oregon. I've had the opportunity to follow this potential designation for a period to time, to hear a detailed presentation by the OCCDC, and following a discussion period, to lend our endorsement. Best wishes. Cordially, KESSLER R. CANNON Director KRC:cm SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION COMMISSION 217 AGRICULTURE BUILDING SALEM, OREGON 97310 Phone 378-3810 McCALL May.16, 1974 EMBERS By GOVERNOR Mr. Robert Kenecht, Director SON Vice Chairman Office of Coastal Environment Dear Mr.Kenecht: SORY MEMBERS Oregon State 'Soil and Water Conservation Commission endorses the application of the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development for an estuarine sanctuary acqui- sition grant for a portion of South Slough, Coos County, Oregon, The Coos Soil and Water Conservation District has BERG been quite concerned about the threat of development of this unique area. Coos County has endeavored to prevent develop- inent. by zoning regulations, but this is always. subject to changing political pressures. A more permanent means of preserving one of the least disturbed estuarine areas in Oregon would be highly desirable. Sincerely, A Bud F. A. Svalberg Director BFAS: rj DEPARTMENT OF ENVIR0NMENTAL QUALITY 1234 S.W. MORRISON STREET*PORTLAND, ORE. 97205*Telephone (503) 229-5687 WA McCALL May 10, 1979 GOVERNOR SS CANNON Director OREGON STATE JUN 13 1974 HIGHWAY DIVISION HIGHWAY BUILDING SALEM, OREGON 97310 June 5, 1974 A McCALL OVERNOR KLABOE ator of Highways Mr. Sidney R. Galler Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Affairs U. S. Department of Commerce Washington, DC 20230 Dear Sir: We have reviewed the draft EIS for the proposed Estuarine Sanctuary to be located at South Slough, Coos Bay, Orego n. This project will have no adverse effects on the State Highway Division or its operations. Very truly yours, George N. Hopkins Program Development Engineer A DIVISION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGY AND MINERAL INDUSTRIES ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE 1069 STATE OFFICE BLDG. PORTLAND, OREGON 97201 Ph. (503) 229-5580 M McCALL May 17,1974 GOVERNOR Mr. Sidney R. Galler Deputy Assistant Director for Environmental Affairs Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology U. S. Department of Commerce Washington, D. C. 20230 Dear Mr. Galler: We have reviewed the draft environmental impact statement entitled "Proposed Estuarine Sanctuary Grant Award for South Slough, Coos Bay, Oregon" prepared by the Office of Coastal Environment of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Conformity of the sactuary boundaries or related land-use boundaries with the natural boundaries is absolutely essential. We are pleased that this concept was integrated into the proposal. Sedi- mentation and pollution arising from possible future Modifications of the slopes overlookinG the estuary could easily destroy many of the natural systems operating in the estuary. Possibly appropriate land-use controls on the surrounding slopes would be sufficient to protect the estuary from degradation. It is doubtful, however, that any action other than inclusion of the entire area into the sanctuary would be sufficient to protect and maintain the various wildlife systems. Weconclud, therefore, that the boundary lines of the proposed sanctuary are realistic and recommend that they be accepted. Sincerely, John D. Beaulieu Environmental Geologist JDB:bj Oregon Sea Grant State Administration University Corvallis, Oregon 97331 (303) 754-2714 JUN 6 1974 May 29, 1974 Sidney R. Galler Deputy Assistant Secretary Environmental Affairs. U.S. Dept. of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 Dear Mr. Galler: This letter responds to yours of May 3rd requesting comments on the environmental impact statement for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's proposed Estuarine Sanctuary Grant Award for South Slough, Coos Bay, Oregon. We very much support the proposed designation and urge that plans proceed for acquiring South Slough as a sanctuary. We believe that time is of the essence. I have worked with the Oregon Conservation and Development ommission as a designated member oil the estuarine sanctuary committee for the last several months. I believe that our committee, in which I represented the Sea Grant College of Oregon State University, carefully evaluated all potential sites. South Slough is Oregon's prime candidate. I was pleased to see that oyster farming, as practiced in South Slough, will be permitted to continue since this is compatible use of natural resources and will provide opportunities for research. Although I agree on a ban of power boats and motorized vehicles, it should be recognized that oyster farming may require some use of power boats. I support the concept that fishing and hunting should be permitted, including clam digging. The Oregon State Sea Grant College Program will be pleased to partici- pate in any appropriate way in furthering the management program development for the South Slough Sanctuary. Very trul yours, William Q. Wick, Director Sea Grant College Program mac Dr. E.T. Laroe Donna Hepp PACIFIC NORTHWEST RIVER BASINS COMMISSION I Columbia River P. 0. on we Vancouver. Washington 98660 OFFICE OF THE CHAIRNMAN May 15, 1974 7 Mr.-Sidnev R. Galler Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Affairs United States DeDartnent of Commerce The Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology Washington, D. C. 20230 Dear Mr. Galler: This is in resDonse to your letter of May 3, 1974, to Mr. Ray E. Holmes. Mr. Holmes has reftied and Mr. E. J. Gullidge now is Planning Director for the Commission. 4- We have revieued the draft of environmental ir-nact statement relating to the proposed Estuarine Sanctuary Grant Award for South Slough, Coos Bay, Oregon. Detailed comments are marked on the attached copy of the draft statement. General comments are as follows: 1. The Columbia-North Pacific (C-NP) framework plan, adopted by the Commission and approved by the Water Resources Council, identified Oregon estuaries as areas requiring additional early study. Such study was recommended, to cover itemb such as water quality para- meterr;; hydrologic-hydraulic data; the needs of fish wildlife, recreation, and other uses; and unique scenic and esthetic values. It also was pointed out that there is a need for plans to.insure that estuarine resources "continue to perform their natural func- tions in maintaining ecological balance and yet provide esthetic, recreational, and economic benefits." The existence of an estuarine sanctuary, as proposed, would facilitate both the needed initial studies and the long-term monitoring and comparison of conditions in the sanctuary with those in estuaries without such protection. 2. Sanctuary limits, as shown on Figures 1 and .2, would be consiacrably less than the 26-square-mile watershed tributary to the sanctuary, and even smaller by comparison with the area tributary to all of South Slouvh. Those tributary areas are the key to the quality of fresh water entering South Slough. Further, the tidal interchanize may well be such that- any change in water quality down-slouch f ro-m (north of) the Sanctuary could affect water quality in the Sanctuary. Thus, the omission of mention of any controls on -land use in tile South Slough watershed down-slottc?h from the Sanctuary way be An al lo, at Indication of n potenti. i,-, terr-x Similnrly, but r ch more spocifically, the statement, on page 2 and clsoulicro, that Mr. Sidney R. Caller 15, 1974 Page Two land use outside the sanctuary may (emphasis supplied) be controllqd appears to pose a lon--tcrim and potentially severe problem; the answer to that problem might take the form of immediate restrictive zoning and/or some type of binding commitment that such zoning would be Instituted when needed and continued as long as t4e Sanctuary exists. 3. The su=nary at top of page 9 might*well be expanded to reflect the 0 probable favorable environmental impact of preserving an area for educational, research, and monitoring purposes* Overall, I believe the statement is adequate and informative. Con- sistent with the Cormission's position, as established in the C YP plan already discussed, I hope the grant can be made and the sanctuary plan implenented, with special consideration to water quality aspects as mentioned herein. Sincerely, Don 1 J. ane Chairman -,'DJL:nr Enclosure: (Marked-up copy through page 16) Disposition of Co=ents@ from the Pacific Northwest River Basins Covmission 1. Tl@e discussion of'"controls on.land use and potential water degradation outside of the sanctuary boundaries has been expanded 6 and .2.0). 2. The su=ary, now on page 17, has been appropriately modified. Executive Department Local Government Relations Divisons 240 Cottage Street S.E. Salem,Oregon 97310 may 17, 1974 Mr. Arnold Cogan, Director Land Conservation and Development Commision Boise Cascade Building 1600 S.W. Fourth, Suite 660 Portland, Oregon 97201 Dear Arnold: Subject: L.C.D.C. Estuarine Sanctuary Proposal PNRS #7404 2 680 This is to notify you that the State Clearing-house has completed the review of your proposal. No significant conflicts with the plane, polocies or programs of state government have been identified, and your proposal is endorsed as presented.A copy of this letter should accompany your application to the Federal agency per Executive Order 02-270-20. Comments of the appropiate local Clearinghpouse must also be included and addressed. Sincerly, Robert K. Logan Administrator RKL:Rt OREGON COASTAL CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISION JR TERNYIK, CHAIRMAN BRENNAM, VICE CHAIRMAN ART YOUNGER, SECRETARY-TREASURER IS F. ROSS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR P.O. BOX N Florence, Oregon 97439 June 12,1974 Robert Knecht JUN 18 1974 Office of Coastal Zone Management National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Rockville, Maryland 20852 Dear Bob: In accordance with state of Oregon Executive Order 02-270-20 which states that all requests for federal monies be submitted for State Review, we have submitted the Estuarine Sanctuary Proposal to the State Clearinghouse for review processing. A copy of the state's signoff, as completed by the State Clearinghouse, is enclosed for your information. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Sincerely, James F. Ross Executive Director JFR:WKY:wy Enclosure National Wildlife Federation 16TH ST., N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C 20036 Phone: 202-483-1530 June 6, 1974 Mr. Edward T. LaRoe Office of Coastal Environment National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration U.S. Departnent of Commerce 11400 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852 Dear Mr. LaRoe: We have received and reviewed the draft environmental impact statement concerning NOAA's proposed Estuarine sanctuary Grant Award for South Slough, Coos Bay, Oregon. The National Wildlife Federation supports the efforts of both federal and state governments to protect valuable estuarine areas for research and conservation purposes.In the interest of full NEPA compliance and in order to promote maximum sanctuary protection, however, we urge NOAA to consider the following: 1. There should be a detailed discussion in the EIS of, (a) the nature and intensity of existing recreational and other uses or the proposed sanctuary area; (b) the nature and intensity of recreational and other uses proposed to be allowed within the contemplated sanctuary; (c) the likely environmental impact of this level of use; and (d) the nature of the controls and mitigation steps that will be instituted to minimize this impact. We regard an analysis of these factors to be especially necessary in view of the directive of � 921.5 of NOAA's Estuarine Sanctuary Guidelines (39 Fed. Reg. 19921, 19925, June 4, 1974) that "[t]he capacity of a given sanctuary to accommodate additional uses, and the kinds and intensity of such use, will be determined on a case by case basis." 2. The EIS should discuss in detail the environment impact of the development activities expected to be stimulated by the proposed sanctuary in the areas surrounding it. Possible means of minimizing anticipated adverse environmental impacts should also be discussed and considered. Mr. Edward T. LaRoe June 6, 1974 Page Two The EIS"should discuss the alternatives of limiting sanctuary use to research purposes only or.to research and oytter harvesting only. We hope you will give serious consideration tothese 'recommendations, Very truly yours, Kenneth S. Kamlet Counsel KSK/b Disposition of comments from the National Wildlife Federation 1. To the extent that they can be quantified, existing recreational and other uses are addressed (pp. 7-10). The discussion of manage- ment policies and their impacts has been expanded (pp. 2-7 and 21-24). 2. No development activities are anticipated. Insofar as the proposed action would cause no construction, clearing or destruction of resources, and primrily designed to provide the long-term protection of an environmental unit, no adverse impacts associated with such activities is forseen. 3. The discussion of alternative management policies has been expanded (pp. 21-24). Office of Coastal Environment national Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Rockville, Maryland 20852 In line with AAOW's policy of supporting measures that provide control of environmental pollution, conservation and wise utilization of our reasources as well as comprehensive and accordinated planning for the orderly development of the total envirnment, the thirty member board representing one hundred members voted unonimously to support "A Proposal for an Estuarine Sanctuary grant" for the South Slough of Coos Bay, Oregon. Our reasons for supporting this proposal are based on the following facts,South Slough is a last frontier, At present the water quality is high because, thouch near the ocean , the main current flowing to the ocean bypasses this area, and South Slough possesses a seperate watershed creating inaccessability and pure water. It is one of the few areas with little upland development and still in large ownership tracts, thus easy to accuire. If this area is allowed further division and commercial exploration the cost of salvation would prohibtive.Now is the time to act on this proposal. The creation of sanctuary would protect the timber more than development would.If the area were sub-divided, timber loss would occur to a greater extent, as well as the slough filling with soil washed from the hillsides. At present the proposed area is on the tax rolls as one-tenth of one per cent of county taxes.Some will be removed from the rolls, but if the area is not preserved as a sanctuary, the cost of public in providing sewers,water,services sauch as postal, fire and police protection as well as schools will be far more than the tax loss.At present these services are eight to ten miles away, and a great deal of tax money will have, to be spent to develop the area. More then half of the taxes on this area on to District 9, and development in this area would add a new school,more buses, teachers and upkeep as the closest elemientary school is five miles from the area is already filled to capacity. The upper grades are even further (20 miles) and would require even more extensive transportation. These necessary outlays would more than offset the loss of school taxes now. We agree with the goals of a management team for continuity, stability and freedom from political overtones. the management team succeded in the study connisting of a representative from the Orgeon Fish Commission, Wildlife Commision,DEC division of state lands,Department of Forestry,Natural Areas Commities U of G institue of Marine Biology, Coos County forester,NOAA Office of Coastal Environment would be in line with our thinking. However we would suggest that members be subjcect to approval by N0AA as they are putting up half of the money. We also feel that. the Coos County representative should be the County Forester or a similarily qulaified and non-political person. We agree that the revised boundaries would be less expensive to legally define and would better protect the area. Since county zoninq has not been enacted, there are no safequards available to South Slough, and we feel this proposal is the only assured method of protection for this unique area. Coos Bay Chapter of the American Association of University Women A.F.T.E.R.,Tigard Mr.Sidney U. Galler ericape ASSOCIATION OF Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Affairs American Insititue of Architects United States Department of Commerce The Portland Chapter Washington, D.C. 20230 Southern Oregon Chapter American Institute of Angleas Club of Portland Ibon Society, Portland Central Oregon Y AREA ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE Dear Mr. Galller Coos Bay, Oregon OHEMEJETANS,Salem,Oregon We are very pleased with the Draft Environmental CITIZENS FOR A CLEAN ENVIRONMENT Impact statent prepared for the proposed Carolina, California Sanctuary Grant Award for South Slough,Coos Bay, CLATSOP ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL Oregon. We found three particulary commendable ECO-ALLIANCE, sections. EUGENE FUTURE POWER COMMITTEE EUGENE NATURAL HISTORY SOCIETY First, the importance of a permanently preserved ULTY WIVEs OF CENTRAL COMMUNITY natural area as a control site for estuariane research COLLEGE, Sand cannot be overemphasized. It would gibe researchers FRIENDS OF THE EARTH the opportunity to study the effects of "man-intro- S OF SPRINGSROCK PARK, Lake Osaega duced stresses on a natural system, in both the GARDEN CLUES of Cedar Mill, immediate are and other similar ecosystems. cKenzie River, Second, the long-term benefits of such a natural study area offset any tax losses, particlary in Illinois Vallley this case, where the tax contribution of the land F CLUB OF FIRST UNITARIAN CHURCH involved is .1% of the county revenue base. Portland NIOR LEAGUE, Eugene, Portland Third, we support the recommendations timber FLYFISHERS, Eugene,Portland management in the proposed estuarine sanctuary, which Guardians limits timber harvests to the removal of dead or diseased trees. MT.HOOD COMMUNITY COLLEGE In closing, we would like to commend Mr.LaRoe for OUTDOOR CLUB preparing a clear, readable and concise Draft En- NEWPORT FRIENDS OF THE EARTH vironmental Impact Statement. NORTHWEST ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE CENTER ST SLEEHEADERS COUNCIL FO TROUT Sincerely yours, OBSIDIANS INC. Eugene,Oregon OREGON CITIZENS FOR CLEAN AIR UNCLE OF ROCK ASD MINERAL CLUBS ON GUIDES AND PACKERS V DO OREGON Carvallis Oregon OREGON ROADSIDE COUNCIL IN SHORES CONSERVATION COALITION O.S.P.I.R.G. O.S.U. Furs and Antler Club Cavallis Oregon ED PARENTHOOD ASSOCIATION,INC. Portland PORTLAND RECYCLING TEAM,INC P.U.R.E. Bend,Oregon EED COLLEGE OUTING CLUB Portland, Oregon ROUGE ECOLOGY COUNCIL Ashland,Oregon SANTIAM ALPINE CLUB Salem,Oregon SELLWOOD MORELAND IMPROVEMENT LEAGUE,Portland SIERRA CLUB Pacific Northwest Chapter Mary's Rogor Valley, Ashland Columbia Group,Portland Mt. Jefferson, Salem CIETY FOR OREGON AVIAN RESEARCH ERBUTTE OMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION Eugene,Oregon Civil Center of TRAILS CLUB OF OREGON ERN RIVER GUIDES ASSOCIATION WILLAMWTTE ASSOCIATION ETTE RIVER ASSOCIATION OMENS INT PEACE AND FREEDOM, Portland OMEN LAW June 3, 1974 Mr. James F. Ross, Executive Director Oregon Conservation and Development Commision P.O. Box N Florence, OR 97439 Dear Mr. Ross: This letter is being provided in response to your letter of May 20,1974 and the enclosed draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) entitled "Proposed Estuarine Sanctuary Grant Award for South Slough, Coos Bay, Oregon." we request that this letter be included in the record fo the hearing on this proposel. From your letter, we understand that the hearing is scheduled for 3 in the Coss Bay Library Auditorium and conducted by the Federal Office of Coastal Zone Improvement. From Mr. Fred Hodge's hay 30 telephone discussion with you, we understand that the hearing record is open until June 17, 1974. Scott Paper Company, as owners of mineral rights in and adjacent to the proposed sanctuary, has taken special not of the following papagraph from Page 2 of the EIS: "Acquisiton and designation of the area as an estuarine sanctuary would result in restrictions being place on the use and future development of the area. Large-scale or significant alteration of the natual environmenta would be prohibited. Compatible levels of public recreation, fishing, hunting, and llimited oyster farming would be permitted, as may some existing low intensity farming and rsidential uses. However, expansion of these activites, in either ara or intensety, or the introduction fo new commercial activities, would not be permitted. The use of those lands outside of the proposed sanctuary boundaries but within the 25 square mile which contributes to the sanctuary may also be controlled by the application of zoning ordinances." Further, we have made special note of the following paragraph form your letter: "To reinforce what was stated earlier, South Slough is a vital recreational, educational, and research resource to the Coos Bay ares, the entire coast, and the State of Oregon. As a landowner within the proposed sanctuary area, you can Mr. James F. Ross -2- June 3, 1974 have an important role in the future protection of South Slough "The use of those lands outside of the proposed sanctuary boundaries but within the 20 square mile intershed which contributes to the sanctuary may also be controlled by the application of zoning ordinces." We wish to thank you for advising us of this proposal. Sincerely, Robert I Thiens Vice President and General Manager RIT/he cc: Mr. Edward T. LeRoe Office of Coastal Environment National Oceanic /Administration Rockville, Maryland 20852 Disposition of Co@nents from Scott Paper Company As the proposal and the environrental it-pact statements indic@te, lands within the sanctuary or a sufficient Interest in--them to provide long-term protection to the natural system, will be acquired at fair market value. Lands outside of the sanctuary but within the watershed way be zoned according to standard local or state zoning practices, and would not involve monetary payrents. 4 Box 5619 Charleston, Oregon June 4,1974 Office of Costal Zone Management National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adm. U. S. Dept. of Commerce Rockville, Maryland 20352 Subject: Fishery AS. South Slouth Sancutary COCS County, Oregon We are in the process of establishing a self-sustaining beef ranch on the 190 acres we own at the head of South Slough. This land was recommendeda s exlusive agriculture (Interia Agriculture-20) by the District 5 Steering Comittee and was not included in the original Interia natural resource buffer strip around South Slough. However, we not only do not object to being included within the proposed sanctuary out we actually favor inclusion, at least in principle, because the aims of the proposal appear to be in harmony with our own goals which are to conserve as many as possible of the esthetic qualities of the land while bringing the land into a productive viable unit. The only potential personal conflict which we can see at this time may arise when we will be required to dike, at some time in the future, around some pasture now subject to seasonal salt water incursion in order to bring the forage production capacity up to a normal 1 animal unit per acre from the precent 1 A.U. per 3 1/2 acres. However, the protective value of such a dike, in regard to maintaining water quality, as well as the economic and health values will more than balance any damage which could be anticipated and we believe ther should be no real conflict. A potentail public conflict may arise with the formulation of the management regualtions for the sanctuary. I am aware, from bitter personal experience, that theoretically desirable programs can be distorted beyond recognition and can become very undesirable when the actual regulations are imposed. An arbitrary coercive force excercised in the name of science or conservation will be perceived on the receiving end as very little different from such a force exercised in the of military necessity or political expedicncy. Thus, the acceptance of the sanctuary by the people of the area, in general, will be more influenced by the acutal regualtions then by the theoretical concept. And, as noted in the draft statement, "The interest, concern, and cooper- ation of an aroused public citizenry will be necessary for environ mentally sound planning and management programs to succedd. "Some attention appears to have been given to this area. The composition of the nine-member "technical management team" appears to be appropraite as does an "open management policy" and continual assessment of uses." However, decisions base on supposed scientific expert conclusions can be arbitrary as any "closed" policy of regualtion. Since the authority of any scientist exists only to the extent that his data and conclusions can be independently verified by others and since data are subject to different interpretations at times, we recommend that all data pertaining to any proposed regulation or problem be made public before the decision is made and in sufficient time for individula verification or refutatuion. The Oregon Laws pertaining to open meetings may cover part of our recommendation but we evision more of the demonstation of the scientific method in action. We might add that before we had to leave the hearing last night, we approved of the attempt to resolve, immediately, the conflicts of data presented in testimony. That process is part of the scientific method. We believe that the extended boundry fo the sanctuary is logical although a high percentage of the protection required could be obtained wish smaller limits. The acquisiton of property seems to be desirable and the method of acquisition appears to be the most equitable. Our contact with the representatives of Nature Conservancy has been agreeable. We have some question about the need for a full-time manager for an area that has survived this long with no manager and suggest that methods of obtaining part-time management be explored. Respectfully submitted, George Tracy Marian Tracy CC. to James F. Ross, Dirctor Oregon Coastal Conservstion and Development Commission Disposition of C;=cnts by Ceor ge C. and Marian Tracy 1. As Indic'ated in the application and environmental impact staiteirents, If the landowner so chooses, existing levels of agriculture and grazing way continue. The construction of dikes to enclose wetland areas would not be compatible with protection of the sanctuary ecosystem and would not be permitted. However, under existing state' po'licy, the construction of new dikes would probably not be permitted anyway. 2. All records and reports pertaining to the proposed sanctuary would be a matter of public record. A provision for citizen initiated review of the managezent policies is provided (p. 7). 3. The duties of the Program Manager are outlined on p. 5, and would appear to require a full-time appointment. ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND 1525 18th STREET, NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036/202 833-1435 June 14, 1974 Mr. Sidney R. Galler Office of Environmental Affairs U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanographic & Atmospheric Administration 11400 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852 Re: Draft Impact Statement--Proposed Estu- arine Sanctuarv Grant Award for South Slough, Coos Bay, Oregon Dear Mr. Galler: The Environmental Defense Fund appreciates the opportunity to participate in the planning and decision-making processes of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administartion. Our comments on the above-titled draft EIS follow. In general, the draft impact statement prepared for Coos we feel, is evidence of careful environmental planning which NEPA intended should occur within administrative agencies. Par- ticularlv notable is the section on alternatives, an often ne- glected segment of agency impact statements. The manner in which proposed boundaries for the estuarine santuary were chosen, taking into consideraticn environmental, social, and economic factors, is also commendable. In a more substantive vein, we feel that the prohibition manipulative research and timber harvesting in the sanctuary is both jusifiable and essential to the continued "sanctity" or the area. However, we question whether the use of motorboats should be permitted to continue, except for the purposes of management, limited research, and regulated oyster harvesting. Our major concern is for the adequate protection of the environmental integrity of the sanctuary. The Coos Bay. EIS, is the initial effort of NOAA in preparing statements for estu- ine sanctuary grants, should contain more specific information with respect to the manner in which local zoning and the acqui- tion of various property interests will operate to protect the sanctuary and the areas contiguous to it. Is there any plan which sctauket, NY (MAIN OFFICE): NEW YORK CITY (PROGRAM SUPPORT OFFICE) WASHINGTON,DC; BERKELEY CALIF will be followed in an attempt to ensure that the interest ac- quired (e.g., development rights, easements, timber rights, re- mainders, leases, fee interests, etc.) will accord with the degree of protection needed for that particular parcel as its use may. affect the integrity of the sanctuary? One final item. The impact statment could discuss in more detail the relationship of tidal hydraulics to the water quality in the sanctuary. What measures will be taken to ensure that pollutants which may occur "downstream" will not be carried into the sanctuary by the flow of the tide? How flow likely is it that pollutants will be discharged into the slough outside the sanctuary? Respectfully, Edward P. Thompson, Jr. cc: Dr. Edward T. LaRoe, Office of Coastal Environment, NOAA 'Asposition of Cormcnts from'the Environmental Defense Fund 1. The role of zoning and other existing regulatory authorities is zore clearly addressed (pp. 6 and 20). '2. As a condition of the, grant award, where the title obtained is less than fee, the Office of Coastal Zone Manager-ent, NOAA, will review the title to ensure that the interest acquifed will priivide the desired degree of protection. 3. Because of the. Oregon water non-degradation clause and the existing high level of water quality, it is highly improbable that pollutants will be discharged into the slough outside -of the sanctuary. 3 Y 7 JUN 19 1974 0, 4L L9 le IL looe 77 C'@ -500e,, Y AA: oll, OY ...74 C- A eol @C,811PIIIISTICII ZON161, @-ERM,714@ 3 6668 00001 0605