Waquoit bay national estuarine sanctuary draft environmental impact statement and draft management plan

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

Draft Environmental Impact Statement
&
Draft Management Plan

WAQUOIT BAY
NATIONAL ESTUARINE
SANCTUARY

COASTAL ZON.E
INFOR
MATION CENTER

t Lr- m,PARTMENT OF COMMERCE.
QE IAL OCEANIC & ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
124 Ocean Service
F35 Ltk't Or C-0
Programs Division
1984
Y
NWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Executive Off ice of Environmental Affairs
:?Arr Of

UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

AND

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN

WAQUOIT BAY NATIONAL ESTUARINE SANCTUARY

JULY 1984

Cf.

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

Prepared by:

U.S. Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
National Ocean Service
Sanctuary Programs Division
3300 Whitehaven St., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20235

and

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Executive Office of Environmental
co Affairs
100 Cambridge Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02202

U0
LU -j-
(:@6 r-6

DESIGNATION: Draft Environmental Impact Statement

TITLE: Proposed acquisition and development of a Waquoit Bay National
Estuarine Sanctuary and preparation of a Draft Sanctuary
Management Plan

ABSTRACT: The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has submitted an application
for Federal financial assistance to establish a national
estuarine sanctuary in the area around Waquoit Bay in the Towns
of Mashpee and Falmouth, Massachusetts. The Waquoit Bay National
Estuarine Sanctuary, located adjacent to Nantucket Sound, is
proposed to include approximately 2,232 acres of land and water
(1,297 acres of open water, 316 acres of marsh, and 619
acres of adjacent uplands). The acquisition and development
Federal financial assistance request to the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration for $1,800,000, matched by the
Commonwealth, would be used for fee simple acquisition of certain
land and wetland areas of the Swift estate, and the salt marsh
areas around Waquoit Bay, Hamblin and Jehu Ponds (approximately
193 acres), to develop and renovate research and interpretive
facilities within the proposed Sanctuary, and to prepare a
final management plan for the Sanctuary. All other land within
the proposed Sanctuary is in public ownership.

Approval of this financial assistance application would permit
the establishment of a national estuarine sanctuary representing
a subcategory of the Virginian biogeographic region. The proposed
sanctuary would be used primarily for research and education
purposes, especially to provide information useful for coastal
zone management decisionmaking. Multiple uses (e.g., traditional
activities) would be allowed to the extent that they are compat-
ible with the proposed Sanctuary's research and educational
programs and the protection of Sanctuary resources consistent
with the Sanctuary's character as a natural field laboratory.

Research and monitoring in and near the proposed Sanctuary would
provide baseline information against which the impacts of human
activities in similar coastal areas elsewhere in the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts and the Virginian biogeographic region could be
assessed.

APPLICANT: Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs

LEAD AGENCY: U.S. Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management

CONTACT: Dr. Nancy Foster
Chief, Sanctuary Programs Division
National Ocean Service,
National Oceanic And Atmospheric Administration
3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20235 (202) 634-4236

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

SUMMARY ............................. #....................... # ............. i

PART I. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION ................................... 3

A. National Estuarine Sanctuary Program ............................. 3

1. Federal Legislation/Authority ................................ 3
2. National Estuarine Sanctuary Program ........................ 3
3. Concept of Biogeographic Zones ............................... 4
4. Existing National Estuarine Sanctuaries ...................... 4
5. Funding Types and Limits ..................................... 5
a. Preacquisition
b. Acquisition and Development
c. Operation and Management
do Research
6. Federal role in the Sanctuary after designation .............. 6

B. The Proposed Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Sanctuary ............ 6

1. Background Massachusett's Site Selection Process and "Pre"-

Acquisition ........... 00 ............................... 6

PART 11. ALTERNATIVES (INCLUUINU THE PRUPOSED ACTION) .................. o. 10

A. Preferred Alternative...... ..... o..o.o.oo .... o.o ........ o..oo .... 10

1. Boundaries and Acquisition Plan............ ...... o....o..oo.. 10
a. Biogeographic classification of the proposed
Sanctuary..... ........... o.ooo .... o..oo ..... o.... o.o .... o10
b. General.description of the proposed Sanctuary ....... ooo.o 10
c. Land under waterbodies: Waquoit Bay; Hamblin, Jehu,
Sage Lot, and Caleb Ponds; Lower Quashnet River .......... 11
do South Cape Beach.......... ............ o... 12
e. Washburn Island... ...... o..o..o ..... oo .......... o..oo..oo 13
f. Swift Estate ... ...................... 14
go Marshes around Hamblin and Jehu Ponds..... ......... oo .... 15

2. Administration, or Management Structure ... o ............. o.... 25
a. Sanctuary Management Goals .... o.oo..oo..# ..... o..o .... o.. 25
b. Relationship with existing administrative programs
in Waquoit Bay and Statewide.................... ... o.oo.. 25
c. Proposed Sa nctuary Staff ........ oooo.o..o...o ..... o.... oo 26
do Advisory Committee....... ...o ........ o ... o ... o ..........o27
e. Existing State Land-use Regulatory Programs affecting
Waquoit Bay ........ oo..o .... o..o ......o.......... oo.o ... o 28
i. Wetlands Protection Act... .... o.o..oo ...... oo..o..o 28
iio Wetlands Restriction Act,.,o .... o .... o...... o.o ...o29
iii. Chapter 91 Waterways Licenses and Permits... ... o ... 30

Section Pa ge
iv. Area of Critical Environmental Concern ............. =0
V. Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act ............. 31

f. Existing Management Program at South Cape Beach .......... 31
g. Existing Management Program at Washburn Island ........... 32
h. Local Land-use Regulations ............................... 32
i. Shellfishing and fishing ............................ 32
ii. Harbormasters ...................................... 33
iii. Falmouth Area of Critical Environmental Concern
Bylaws ............................................. 33
iv. Local Wetland Bylaws in Falmouth and Mashpee ....... 33

3. The "Physical Plant"; Buildings and other facilities ......... 33
a. Swift Estate ............................................. 33
b. South Cape Beach ......................................... 34
c. Washburn Island .......................................... 34

4. Research Program ..... ... 0 .... 34
a. Goals., ...... o....4000.000 .... 0... 34
b. Research Program Framework ......... o.................. 35
co Research Policies. .......... ooo ..... -o-o ....... oo .... 35
d. Research Advisory Committee ....... o...... oo ......... 39
e. ...... 40

5. Education Programs and Policies., ... ........ 40
a. Goals.......... ... o.oo ...o ........ ........ 40
b. Education Program Framework..... ..... o.......... ..... 40
c. Education Policies ............ o................ o_ ..... 41
d. Education Advisory Committee. ....... ooo ... ooooo .... _oo. 42
e. Funding.. ..... oo_ ... ___ ....... o........ oo-oo.--o 42

6. Objectives and Policies for Other Activities .... 43
a. Hunting, Fishing and Shellfishing ........................ 43
b. Off-Road/Over-Sand Vehicles, ... .... __.o 43
c. Boating., ............. oo.o.o .....o ... o.o ...... oo.o..o.o.. 43
d. Public Access................. ...... _oo ... o........ 43

Bo Other Alternatives Considered.. ... ........ 44

1. No Action/Status Quo....o.o...ooo .......o... 44
2. Alternative Sites ............. o ........ o.... 44
3. Alternative Boundaries........... .... oo ....o ... o... 45
4. Alternative Management Plan Options ..... o.... o...... o........ 48

PART III. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT.. ...... - ...... oo.o .......o 53

A. Natural Environment, ............................................. 53
1., Geology-Soils ... o .... o ............ o................ o......... 53
2. Hydrology .... o..o ......o ........... o......................... 55
3. Climate ................ o ................. o-o ............ o.o.. 55

Section Page

4. Biology ...................................................... 56
a. Plants ................................................... 56
b. Shellfish ................................................ 60
c. Fish ..................................................... 61
d. Birds .................................................... 65
e. Mammals .................................................. 66
f. Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species ........... 0 ...... 67

5. Ecosystem .................................................... 68

B. Current Use of Site ............................................... 70

1. Hunting ...................................................... 70
2. Fishing ...................................................... 70
3. Shellfishing ................................................. 70
4. Boating ...................................................... 71
5. Aesthetics ................................................... 71
6. Housing ...................................................... 71
7. Archaeologic and Historic Interests .......................... 72

V. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ........................................... 73

A. General Impacts .................................................. 73

B. Specific Impacts ................................................. 73

1. Natural Environment .......................................... 73

2. Human Environment ............................................ 73
a. Scientific and Educational ............................... 73
b. Public Access ............................................ 73
c. State and Federal ........................................ 74

C. Unavoidable Adverse Environmental or Socio-Economic Impacts ...... 74

1. Tax Revenue Loss ............................................. 74
2. Pedestrian and Traffic Impacts ............................... 74

D. Relationship between the Proposed Action on the Environment
and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity .... 74

E. Inrreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ........... 75

F. Possible Conflicts between the Proposed Action and the
Objectives of Fede-ral, State, Regional, and Local Land-use
Plans, Policies and Controls for the Area concerned .............. 75

Section Page

Part V. LIST OF PREPARERS ............................. * ................ 76

Part VI. LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS RECEIVING COPIES
OF THE DEIS/DMP ................................................ 77

Part VII. APPENDICES .............. 06.0-6.0 ............ ....... 0.. 84

Appendix 1: National Estuarine Sanctuary Program Regulations
1974, 1977 and 1984 ............................... 85

Appendix 2: Massachusetts/Town of Mashpee - South Cape Beach
Agreement ......................................... 115

Appendix 3: Waquoit Bay Area of Critical Environmental
Concern Designation Document ...................... 121

Appendix 4: Massachusetts Notice of Intent to Prepare DEIS
and UMP, Published in State Environmental
Monitor on May 8, 1984, and Notice of
?-F-e--T-c-quisition Planning Activities, Published
in State Environmental Monitor on November 23,
1981 ....... -0..* ......0....... 128

Appenaix 5: Excerpts from the Washburn Island Preliminary
Management Plan of April 1983 - "Conservation
and Recreational Uses .............................. 132

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1: Location Map - New England ......................... 1

Figure 2: Location Map - Eastern Massachusetts ............... 2

Figure 3: Proposed Boundary for the Waquoit Bay National
Estuarine Sanctuary (Preferred Alternative) ...... 16

Figure 4: South Cape Beach (Master Plan - Mass-achusetts
Department of Environmental Management) .......... 17

Figure 5: Washburn Island (Preliminary Master Plan -
Massach'usetts Department of Environmental
management) ...................................... 18

Figure 6: Swift Estate (Uetail) .......................... i .... 19

Figure 7: Waquoit Bay Area of Critical Environmental
Concern .......................................... 20

Figure 8: Barrier Beaches within the Proposed Sanctuary
Boundary ........................... ** .... *..*..... 21

Figure 9: Upland and Marsh Area within the Proposed
Sanctuary Boundary ............................... 22

Figure 10: Salt Marshes Over One-Half Acre within the
Waquoit bay Area ................................... 23

Figure 11: Salt Marshes around Hamblin and Jehu Ponds ......... 24

Figure 12: Alternative Sanctuary Boundary Excluding the
Swift Estate ..................................... 50

Figure 13: Alternative Sanctuary Boundary Excluding the
Great and Little Rivers .......................... 51

Figure 14: Alternative Sanctuary Boundary Excluding the
Saltmarshes around Hamblin and Jehu Ponds ........ 52

LIST OF ACRONYMS

ACEC Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
COE Corps of Engineers
CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act
DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement
DEM Department of Environmental Management
OMP Draft Managment Plan
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
EOEA Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
MP Management Plan
NESP National Estuarine Sanctury Program
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
OCZM Office of Coastal Zone Management
OCRM Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (NOAA)
REICEP Research and Education Information Coordination and Exchange Program
WBNES Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Sanctuary

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1. Morphometric Oata on Waquoit Bay and Connecting
Waterbodies ........................................ 11

Table 2. Preliminary Vegetative Species List-Marsh and
Upland Areas ....................................... 57

SUMMARY

The National Estuarine Sanctuary Program (NESP) was established under
the authority of Section 315 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972,
as amended (16 U.S.C. 1461). The NESP provides for a Federal-State partnership
to establish representative estuarine areas as national estuarine sanctuaries.
Such areas are established to: (1) provide opportunities for long-term
estuarine research, education and interpretation; (2) provide a more informed
basis for making coastal management decisions; and (3) enhance public awareness
and understanding of the estuarine environment. Federal funding, along with
matching funds provided by the State, are used to acquire, develop, and
operate estuarine areas that are incorporated with the National Estuarine
Sanctuary System.

To ensure that the National Estuarine Sanctuary System includes sites that
adequately represent regional and ecological differences, the National Estuarine
Sanctuary Program regulations establish a biogeographical classification scheme
that reflects regional differences in biogeography and an estuarine typology
system to ensure the inclusion of a variety of ecosystem types. The biogeogra-
phical classification scheme and estuarine typology system are presented in
Appendix 2. Eleven biogeographic regions and twenty-seven (27) biogeographic
sub-regions are identified in the National Estuarine Sanctuary Program regu-
lations.

Based on tne results of an Estuarine Research Program and meetings held
concerning the National Estuarine Sanctuary Program, and after a thorough re-
view of alternative sites within the coastal area of the Commonwealth,
Massachusetts recommended Waquoit Bay for designation as a national estuarine
sanctuary in July 1981. In September 1981 NOAA awarded, and the State matched,
a "pre-acquisition" Federal financial assistance award for further evaluation
of the site, the collection of information necessary for management plan and
draft environmental impact statement preparation, and preliminary acquisition.
activities. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has now submitted an application
to NOAA to acquire and develop a national estuarine sanctuary in an area con-
sistent with its 1981 pre-acquisition proposal .

The proposed Waquoit Bay Nationa-I Estuarine Sanctuary is representative of
the Southern New England (Cape Cod to Sandy Hook) portion of the Virginia bio-
geographic region. In addition, the Sanctuary would be located wi-thin the
transitional border between the Virginian and Acadian biogeographic regions.
Specifically, Waquoit Bay is located adjacent to Nantucket Sound on the south
side of Cape Cod in the towns of Falmouth and Mashpee in Barnstable County.
The boundary proposed for the Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Sanctuary includes
all of Waquoit Bay; Jehu, Hamblin, Caleb, Sage Lot and Flat Ponds; the Little
and Great Rivers; and portions of the Quashnet River. Also included in the
boundary for the proposed sanctuary are the adjacent uplands on Washburn Island,
and portions of the South Cape Beach State Park and portions of the Swift Estate
at the northern end of the Bay. The boundary of the proposed Waquoit Bay
National Estuarine Sanctuary largely reflects the boundary developed for the
State-designated Waquoit Bay Area of Critical Environmental Concern.

Although much of the upland and marsh areas of the proposed sanct uary are
now under State control as a result of the Commonwealth's recent acquisition of
major parcels within the proposed Sanctuary, South Cape Beach and Washburn
Island, the Commonwealth is requesting Federal funds for the purpose of:
(1) acquiring in fee simple or by easement the wetlands, waters, and uplands of
the Swift estate at the head of Waquoit Bay and developing a sanctuary visitors
center with support facilities for sanctuary research and education programs;
(2) acquiring a fee simple, or less than fee simple (e.g., conservation easement,
access rights for research and education purposes, etc.), property interest in
the marsh areas adjacent to Hamblin and Jehu Ponds; and (3) the construction of
necessary support facilities and equipment for sanctuary research and education
(e.g., docks, boardwalks, interpretive exhibits, shelters, etc.). The current
owner of the Swift Estate has indicated willingness to part with parcels
comprising approximately 16 acres. The Commonwealth has initiated an appraisal
of the property and negotiations with the owners. The marshes around Hamblim
and Jehu Ponds are presently protected from development by the Wetlands
Protection Act and, for the marshes located in the Town of Falmouth, the
Wetlands Restriction Act. Because the Commonwealth has, or soon will have,
adequate authority to ensure major activities may not be undertaken in any of
the salt marsh areas that would have an adverse impact on the estuarine re-
sources of the sanctuary, it is not anticipated that the Commonwealth would
consider exercising its power of eminent domain in these marsh areas. Other
than the Swift Estate and the marsh areas surrounding Hamblin and Jehu Ponds,
all other land and water areas within the proposed boundaries of the Sanctuary
are in public ownership.

In addition to their protection, guaranteed access to the Hamblin and Jehu
Pond marshes for research or educational purposes is important to Sanctuary
operation. The fragile nature of the marshes precludes wide public access, but
assured limited access is important for both research and interpretive activi-
ties. As a result, following Federal approval of the Federal financial assis-
tance award for acquisition and development, it is the intention of the
Commonwealth to approach owners to ascertain their interest in donation, sale,
or voluntary restriction of or easements over these parcels. Avenues of tax
abatement or exemption will be investigated to make such actions as attractive
as possible. Every effort will be make to pursue these actions only with
willing participants.

Under the preferred alternative, administration of the Waquoit Bay National
Estuarine Sanctury will be under the direction of the Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Management (DEM). As the Commonwealth's principal holder of land
for environmental and conservation purposes, DEM is the best-equipped State
agency to manage any new properties acquired as part of the sanctuary desig-
nation. In addition, OEM's existing interpretive program will provide the
foundation for the planned educational activities sponsored by the Sanctuary.
A Sanctuary Manager will be the principal administrator of the Sanctuary and
will be responsible for ensuring that the policies contained in the Sanctuary
Management Plan are followed. This individual will be employed and supervised
by the Department of Environmental Management. A portion of the Swift Estate
will be acquired by the Commonwealth and developed as a headquarters for Sanc-
tuary operations and for Sanctuary research and education activities. Major
Sanctuary management goals are: to establish and manage the area within the

boundaries of the Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Sanctuary as a natural field
laboratory; to protect the natural resources of the wetlands, transitional
areas,'and adjacent uplands; to conduct and facilitate both short and long-
term estuarine research, education, and interpretation; to gather and distri-
bute information on estuarine ecosystems that is essential to sound decisions
regarding the management of coastal resources; and to provide for controlled
multiple use of the Sanctuary to allow for the continuation of existing low
intensity recreational uses that are presently permitted, including fish and
wildlife recreation (e.g. hunting, fishing, wildlife observation) and boating,
which are compatible with the sanctuary's character as a natural field labora-
tory. Research and education programs will be developed for the sanctuary. The
basic elements of these programs, and policies for their implementation, are
presented in this draft EIS.

Alternatives to the proposed action include: no action; alternative sites;
alternative boundaries for the Waquoit Bay site; and alternative management
plan options. The no action alternative would preserve the status quo; no
designation of a national estuarine sanctuary would be made; a natural field
laboratory would not be established; and both short and long-term estuarine
research, education and interpretation would not be conducted or facilitated.
Several alternative sites in the coastal area of Massachusetts were examined
and rejected. Waquoit Bay was selected as the optimum site as a candidate for
national estuarine sanctuary designation. Several areas in and around Waquoit
Bay were considered for inclusion within the boundaries of the sanctuary.
Various alternative boundaries were examined that included or excluded the
following areas: the Town of Mashpee in-holdings at South Cape Beach State
Park, the Little and Great Rivers, the saltmarsh areas around Hamblin and Jehu
Ponds, ACEC areas beyond the immediate Waquoit Say area, and the Eel Pond and
Childs/Seapit Rivers area. Of these areas only the Little and Great Rivers and
the marshes around Hamblin and Jehu Ponds were identified as key land and water
areas the protection of which is necessary for sanctuary designation. As a
result, these areas are included in the preferred boundary alternative for the
Sanctuary. Management alternatives examined and rejected included: greater
restriction on public access to South Cape Beach and Washburn Island, location
of the Sanctuary headquarters somewhere other than the Swift Estate; and
administration of the Sanctuary by State agency other than the Department of
Environmental Management.

The principal resources affected by the proposed action include, in
general, approximately 2,232 acres of marsh, open water, and uplands. The
sanctuary site is an estuarine embayment, which connects a series of tidal
ponds, and represents the last remaining large unaltered estuary on the south
shore of Cape Cod. Waquoit Bay is separated from Nantucket Sound by two barrier
beaches. This area supports a wide variety of terrestrial and estuarine
biota that is primarily temperate with some boreal representatives. The area
is characterized by a high species diversity due to the intermingling of cold
water species from the Gu lf of Maine and warm water species from the mid-
Atlantic. Plant and animal species of special interest occur in the area,
including sand plain gerardia, bushy rockrose, butterfly weed, little ladies
tresses, shortnose sturgeon, least tern, and the northern diamondback terrapin.
Waquoit Bay and its adjoining waters support an active local fishery, serve as

iii

a primary nursery area, and, as a direct result of their high aesthetic value
are popular recreational boating areas. The upland areas of South Cape Beac4
and Washburn Island also support a number of traditional hunting activities.
Species generally hunted in these areas include pheasants, rabbits, squirrels,
quail, and migratory waterfowl.

The environmental effects of the proposed action would be beneficial in
terms of research, education, traditional uses, and natural resource protection
benefits. There would be no adverse impacts to residents because the areas
proposed to be included in the Sanctuary are not inhabited.

The adverse impacts of the proposed action would be loss of tax revenues
and, in the case of the Swift Estate, loss of potentially developable property
However, the approximately $2,500-4,000 paid in local taxes each year would b;
offset by additional income from local services to researchers, educational
groups, etc., attracted to the site.

No irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources would occur with
the preferred alternative other than those resources committed to facilities
construction (e.g., Swift Estate renovations, simple boat dock, interpretive
trail with boardwalk, etc.) in support of the management plan goals, objectives,
and policies.

The overall and major impacts of designation of the proposed Waquoit Bay
National Estuarine Sanctuary are expected to be positive through better scien-
tific and public understanding of the estuary and its resources. The proposed
national estuarine sanctuary does not conflict with exi.sting commercial or
recreational uses of Waquoit Bay. Without national estuarine sanctuary
designation, Waquoit Bay would not be an area dedicated specifically and
permanently for research and education. However, with sanctuary designation,
present uses of the site, including hunting and other recreational uses where
currently allowed, would continue. Furthermore, designation of the Sanctuary,
acquisition of the Swift Estate and development of a Sanctuary headquarters from
which both research and education -programs can be administered, would provide
improved public access to the Bay for recreation and enjoyment.

Figure 1
Location Map New England

Vermont Maine

New
Hampshire

Mc3scchus ts Boston

C necticut RA
W Hil
47
Av

.......... . . . ..
Waquoit Bay

L.Ong Island

Regional Location MOP

L22re 2
Location Map Eastern Massachusetts

MASSACmuserrs

P A r

Pj 40 ..

-4

r I

V27
W
A.-

CAPE wo Ur t

WAQUOIT BAY

NANnvwer MIU-U

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAi
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

PART 1: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION

A. National Estuarine Sanctuary Program

1. Federal Legislation/Authority

In response to intense pressures on the coastal resources of the United
States, Congress enacted the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), which was
signed into law on October 27, 1972, and amended in 1976 and 1980. The CZMA
authorized a Federal grant-in-aid and assistance program to be administered
by the Secretary of Commerce, who in turn has delegated this responsibility
to the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Ocean Service,
in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

The CZMA affirms a national interest in the effective protection and
development of the Nation's coastal zone, and provides financial and technical
assistance to coastal States (including those bordering on the Atlantic and
Pacific Oceans, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Great Lakes) and U.S. territories
to develop and implement State coastal zone management programs. The Act
established a variety of grant-in-aid programs to such States for purposes of:

developing coastal zone management programs (Sec. 305);

implementing and administering coastal management programs that
receive Federal approval (Sec. 306);

avoiding or minimizing adverse environmental, social, and economic
impacts resulting'from coastal energy activities (Sec. 309);

coordinating, studying, planning, and implementing interstate
coastal management activities and programs (Sec. 309);

conducting research, study, and training programs to provide
scientific and technical support to State coastal zone management
programs (Sec. 310); and

acquiring land for estuarine sanctuaries and island preservation
(Sec. 315).

2. National Estuarine Sanctuary Program

Section 315 of the CZMA established the National Estuarine Sanctuary
Program to provide matching Federal financial assistance to States to acquire,
develop, and operate estuarine areas as natural field laboratories, so that
researchers and students may be provided the opportunity to examine the
ecological relationships within the areas over time. This information will
then be used to develop a basis for improved decision-making and resource
management strategies. Section 315 provides a maximum of $3 million in Federal
funds, to be matched by an equivalent amount from the State, to acquire and
manage lands for each sanctuary. The regulations for implementation of the
Estuarine Sanctuary Program are found at 15 CFR Part 921 (Appendix 1).

The mission of the National Estuarine Sanctuary Program is the establish-
ment and management, through Federal-state cooperation of a national system of
estuarine sanctuaries representative of the various regions and estuarine
types in the United States to provide opportunities for long-term research,
education, and interpretation. The goals of the Program for carrying out this
mission are:

(1) Enhance resource protection by implementing a long-term
management plan tailored to the site's specific resources;

(2) Provide opportunities for long-term research and educational
programs in estuarine areas to develop information for improved
coastal decisionmaking;

(3) Enhance public awareness and Understanding of the estuarine
environment through resource interpretive programs; and

(4) Promote Federal-state cooperative efforts in managing
estuarine areas.

While the primary purposes of national estuarine sanctuaries are research
and educational, multiple use of estuarine sanctuaries by the general public
is encouraged to the extent that such usage is compatible with the sanctuary's
character as a natural field laboratory. Such uses generally include low-
intensity recreation, such as boating, fishing, shellfishing, hunting, and
wildlife photography or observation. Traditional-activities such as commercial
fishing and shellfi.shing may also be compatible uses.

3. Concept of Biogeographic Zones

To ensure that the National Estuarine Sanctuary System includes sites
that adequately represent regional and ecological differences, the National
Estuarine Sanctuary Program regulations establish a biogeographical classi-
fication scheme that reflects regional differences in biogeography and an
estuarine typology system to ensure the inclusion of a variety of ecosystem
types. The biogeographical classification scheme and estuarine typology
system are presented in'Appendix 1. Eleven biogeographic-regions and
twenty-seven (27) biogeographic sub-regions are identifed in the National
Estuarine Sanctuary Program regulations. The proposed Waquoit Bay National
Estuarine Sanctuary is representative of the Southern New England (Cape Cod
to Sandy Hook) portion of the Virginia biogeographic region.

4. Existing National Estuarine Sanctuaries

Since 1974, the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management has
awarded grants to establish fifteen national estuarine sanctuaries. These
include:

Sanctuary Biogeographic Classification

South Slough Columbian
Coos Bay, Oregon

Sapelo Island Col umbi an
McI.ntosh County, C*orgia

Sanctuary Biogeographic Classification

Waimanu Valley Insular
Island of Hawaii, Hawaii

Rookery Bay @est Indian
Collier County, Florida

Old Woman Creek Great Lakes
Erie County, Ohio

Apalachicola River/Bay Louisianian
Franklin County, Florida

Elkhorn Slough Californian
Monterey County, California

Padilla Bay Columbian
Skagit County, Washington

Narragansett Bay Virginian
Newport County, Rhode Island

Chesapeake Bay (2 components) Virginian
Anne Arundel and Somerset
Counties, Maryland

Jobos Bay West Indian
Puerto Rico

Tijuana River Californian
San Diego County, California

Hudson River (4 components) Virginian
Hudson River, New York

Wells Acadian
Wells, Maine

North Carolina (4 components) Vi rgi nian/Caro linian

5. Funding Types and Limits

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) may provide
financial assistance, not to exceed 50 percent of all actual costs to coastal
states, to assist in the designation and operation of national estuarine
sanctuaries, Three types of awards are available under the National Estuarine
Sanctuary Program. The preacquisition award is for site selection and draft

management plan preparation. The total Federal share of the preacquisition
award may not exceed $50,000, of which up to $10,000 may be used for site
selection. The acquisition and development award is intended primarily for
land acquisition and construction purposes. The operation and management award
provides funds to assist in implementing the research, educational, and admini-
strative programs detailed in the sanctuary management plan. Federal funds of
up to $250,000, to be matched by the state, are available for the operation and
management of the. national estuarine sanctuary; with no more than $50,000 in
Federal funds per annual award. At the conclusion of Federal financial assis-
tance for operation and management, funding for the long-term operation of the
sanctuary becomes the responsibility of the state. To stimulate high quality
research within designated national estuarine sanctuaries, NOAA may also provide
funds for research on a competitive basis to sanctuaries having an approved final
management plan. The maximum total Federal funding per sanctuary is $3,000,000
for the preacquisition, acquisition and development, and operation and manage-
ment awards. Federal funding provided by NOAA on a competitive basis for
research in national estuarine sanctuaries is excluded from this total.

6. Federal Role in the Sanctuary After Designation

State performance during the term of the operation and management award will
be evaluated annually by NOAA; and periodically in accordance with the provisions
of Section 312 of the CZMA. Such an evaluation will be conducted to determine
the state's compliance with the conditions of the award and overall progress in
implementing the management plan. After Federal, funding available to a state
for sanctuary purposes has been exhausted, NOAA will begin a biennial review of
the state's performance in managing the national estuarine sanctuary to ensure
that the purposes for. which the sanctuary was designated are still being main-.
tained. Through such programmatic evaluations NOAA determines whether such a
national estuarine sanctuary is meeting the mandate of section 315 of the Act,
the national program goals and the policies established in the management plan.

B. Proposed Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Sanctuary
1. Back@round - Massachusetts' Site Selection Process and
"-Acquisition

Massachusetts first established a program to study systematically its
estuaries in 1963. This research effort was initiated as a result of a report
of the Marine Fisheries Advisory Commission to the Governor of the Commonwealth
in December 1960. The Commission stated:

"The Commonwealth has only limited knowledge as to the physical conditions
and productivity of its many harbors, bays, river mouths and other estu-
aries. As these serve as key areas of productivity for many species of
marine organisms important to the commercial and recreation (sport fishing)
industries, it would appear of paramount importance to initiate this basic
survey as rapidly as possible.

An additional factor lending further emphasis to the need for detailed
studies is the rapid rate of change evident along much of the Massachusetts
coastline involving the dredging of channels, construction of hurricane
protection barriers, and filling of tidal marshland for commercial purposes.
The Commission recognizes the urgent necessity of prompt investigation
before such changes become irrevocable."
G I

Since 1963, 17 major coastal bays and estuaries have been studied. These
areas are representative of the entire Massachusetts coast both with respect to
the physical and biological environment and to the extent of environmental
impacts and alterations. A full explanation and discussion of this program is
presented in the 1970 Transactions of the Thirty-Fifth North American Wildlife
and Natural Resources Conference.

A scientific analysis of the results of the Massachusetts Estuarine
Research Program was published in 1975. Using data from the Research Program,
this study calculated certain indices to compare species abundance and diver-
sity with environmental quality of a specific estuary.

Massachusetts has long had an interest in the National Estuarine Sanctuary
Program. In 1974, the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Task Force met to discuss the
possibility of applying for funds to establish a national estuarine sanctuary
in the Commonwealth. By early 1975, a preliminary application for the North-
South River estuary had been completed. However, this application was not sub-
mitted for consideration. A meeting was held on August 15, 1978 with officials
of the then Federal Office of Coastal Zone Management (currently the Office of
Ocean and Coastal Resource Management) and several members of the Massachusetts
Coastal Zone Management Office staff. At this meeting the status of the
National Estuarine Sanctuary Program and its potential application in
Massachusetts were discussed. Officials at this meeting also considered
possible candidates for sanctuary status as well as certain management issues
such as use restrictions and research needs. After the meeting, a series of
informal discussions and telephone conversations were conducted by Massachusetts
CZM staff with other State officials, particularly within the Department of
Environmental Management. The major estuarine areas considered by the
Commonwealth as candidates for national estuarine sanctuary status included:
Parker River/Essex Bay, North/South River, Weymouth Back River, Ellisville
Harbor, Sandy Neck, and Waquoit Bay. The North/South River and Waquoit Bay
were selected from among this group as the sites most likely to meet the
requirements.of the Federal National Estuarine Sanctuary Program and benefit
from the research and education programs and the additional protection that
national estuarine sanctuary designation would provide.

In 1979 the Commonwealth of Massachusetts designated Waquoit Bay as an
Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) in accordancewith Massachusetts
General Laws Chapter 21(A) Section (2)(7). This ACEC designation followed
an extensive public participation process during which major management issues
for the area were addressed; during which and interest in national estuarine
sanctuary status was expressed. The North/South River site, after additional
evaluation and discussions with Federal officials, was determined to be not
as compatible with the National Estuarine Sanctuary Program as the Waquoit
Bay area.

Based on the results.of the Estuarine Research program and the meetings
held concerning the National Estuarine Sanctuary Program I and after a thorough
review of alternative sites within the coastal area of the Commonwealth,
Massachusetts recommended Waquoit Bay for designation as a national estuarine
sanctuary in July 1981. At this same time the Secretary of the Massachusetts
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs applied for "preacquisition" Federal

financial assistance. The area proposed in July 1981 by the Commonwealth
included the land and water areas commonly known as Waquoit Bay, Washburn
Island, South Cape Beach, Sage Lot Pond, Flat Pond, Hamblin Pond, Jehu Pond,
and the major marshes immediately adjacent to these areas. In September 1981
NOAA awarded, and the State matched, a "pre-acquisition" Federal financial
assistance award for furthe*r evaluation of the site, the collection of infor-
mation necessary for management plan and draft environmental impact statement
preparation, and preliminary acquisition activities. During the period of
this preacquisition phase, a more detailed series of discussions were con-
ducted among MCZM staff, DEM planners and the DEM Commissioner. These discus-
sions, and the subsequent acquisitions discussed below, led the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts to apply for Federal funds for acquisition and development
of Waquoit Say as a national estuarine sanctuary-.

In December 1982, South Cape Beach was acquired by the Commonwealth.
South Cape Beach is a barrier beach/salt pond/marsh/upland complex located
immediately to the east of the inlet to Waquoit Bay from Nantucket Sound.
South Cape Beach, located- entirely within the Town of Mashpee, was acquired
with the Town of Mashpee's cooperation and is now being operated as a state
park for low-intensity recreation.

In June 1983, the Commonwealth acquired an additional part*of the proposed
Sanctuary, Washburn Island. Washburn Island, located in the Town of Falmouth
West of the inlet to Waquoit Bay, essentially forms the western border of
Waquoit Bay. It is a barrier island composed of upland, marsh, a small salt
pond, and a dune/beach system at the southern end bordering on Nantucket Sound.
Upon acquisition by the Commonwealth, Washburn Island was made part of the
South Cape Beach State Park and will be managed for limited use low-intensity
recreation.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has now submitted an application to
NOAA to acquire and develop a national estuarine sanctuary in an area consist-
ent with its 1981 pre-acquisition proposal. Although much of the upland and
marsh areas of the proposed Sanctuary are now under State control as a result
of the Commonwealth's acquisition of South Cape Beach and Washburn Island,
the Commonwealth is requesting Federal funds for the purpose of: (1) acquiring
the wetlands, waters, and uplands of the Swift estate at the head of Waquoit
Bay and developing a sanctuary visitors' center with support facilities for
the sanctuary research and education programs; (2) acquiring a fee simple, or
less than fee simple (e.g., conservation easement, access rights for research
and education purposes, etc.), property interest in the marsh areas adjacent
to Hamblin and Jehu Ponds; and (3) the construction of necessary support
facilities and equipment for sanctuary research and education (e.g., docks,
boardwalks, interpretive exhibits, shelters, etc.). Other than the Swift
estate and the marsh areas surrounding Hamblin and Jehu Ponds, all other land
and water areas within the proposed boundaries of the Sanctuary are in public
ownership.

The Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Sanctuary, 'if established, would
represent a major subcategory within the northern one-third of the Virginian
biogeographic region. In addition, the Sanctuary would be located within the
transitional border between the Virginian and Acadian biogeographic regions.

This proposed Sanctuary would contain approximately 2,232 acres of marsh,
open water, and uplands. The sanctuary site is an estuarine embayment, which
connects a series of tidal ponds, and represents the last remaining large
unaltered estuary on the south shore of Cape Cod. The biota is primarily
temperate with some boreal representatives. The area is characterized by a
high species diversity due to the intermingling of cold water species from
the Gulf of Maine and warm water species from the mid-Atlantic. The proposed
Sanctury would be used primarily for research and education purposes, especially
to provide information useful for coastal zone management decisionmaking.
Multiple and traditional uses would be allowed to the extent that they are
compatible with the proposed sanctuary's research and educational programs.

NOAA and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts are in the process of developing
a memorandum of understanding (MOU), which emphasizes the significance of
establishing a National Estuarine Sanctuary, and recognizes the long-term commit-
ment of the Commonwealth and Federal governments to management of the Waquoit
Bay proposal area in accordance with agreed upon program goals.

.PART II. ALTERNATIVES (INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION)

The action under consideration by NOAA is a proposal from the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts to establish a Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Sanctuary
consisting of the land and water areas encompassed by the Waquoit Bay estuarine
system in Barnstable.County (Cape Cod), Massachusetts.

Although this project is called the Waquoit Bay National Estuarine
"Sanctuary", it will be managed and operated under a policy of multiple use,
particularly with respect to the traditional uses of the areas. The primary
objective of the proposed Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Sanctuary is to pro-
vide protection from developmental disturbances so the area may be used for
long-term research and educational purposes. Although primary emphasis will be
on the use of the Sanctuary for estuarine studies, other traditional water use
activities may be compatible with the Sanctuary's character as a natural field
laboratory. Such compatible uses are reasonable levels of hunting, fishing,
trapping, boating and wildlife observation. These uses will continue subject
to existing State laws.

A. Preferred Alternative

1. Boundaries and Acquisition Plan

a. Biographic Classification of the Proposed Sanctuary

Waquoit Bay is within the Virginian province of the National Estuarine
Sanctuary biogeographic classification scheme set forth in the National
Estuarine Sanctuary Program Regulations; 15 CFR Part 921, (Appendix 1).
However, because Cape Cod is the dividing line between the Viryinian and Acadian
biographic regions, Waquoit Bay represents an area of biogeographical transi-
tion. High species diversity characterizes the area due to the intermingling
of cold water species from the Gulf of Maine and warm water species from the
mid-Atlantic. The Virginian classification includes estuaries found along the
Middle Atlantic coast from Cape Cod to Cape Hatteras. These estuaries are
characterized by lowland streams, coastal marshes and muddy or sandy bottoms.
The biota is predominantly temperate, but there are regular boreal represent-
atives.

b. General Description of Proposed Sanctuart

Waquoit Bay is located in the towns of Falmouth and Mashpee in Barnstable
County (Cape Cod), Massachusetts. The Bay is adjacent to Nantucket Sound on
the south side of Cape Cod.

The boundary proposed for the Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Sanctuary
includes all of Waquoit Bay; Jehu, Hamblin, Caleb, Sage Lot and Flat Ponds;
the Great and Little Rivers; and portions of Quashnet River. Also included
in the boundary for the proposed Sanctuary are the adjacent uplands on Washburn
Island, South Cape Beach State Park (excluding approximately 30 acres of Town of
Mashpee inholdings), and portions of the Swift Estate at the northern end of
the Bay. Figure 3 shows the proposed boundary. This boundary includes the key
land and water areas of the Waquoit Bay estuary.

The boundary of the proposed Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Sanctuary
largely reflects the boundary developed for the State designated Waquoit Bay
Area of Critical Environmental Concern (see Figure 3 and Figure 7). This
latter designation followed an extensive public participation process during
which major management issues (e.g., shellfishing, recreational boating, and
commercial interests) were addressed.

There are several large segments of publicly owned land within the
proposed Sanctuary. These include all of Washburn Island and the holdings of
the Massachuetts Department of Environmental Management on South Cape Beach.
Further, all subtidal lands are public in Massachusetts and belong to the
Commonwealth. All of the land below the mean low tide line within the proposed
boundaries would be included within the Sanctuary.

c. Land under Waterbodies:_ Waguoit Bay; Hamblin, Jehu, Sage
Lot, and Caleb Ponds; Great, Little and Lower Quashnet Rivers

Subtidal lands proposed for inclusion in the Sanctuary are those under
Waquoit Bay itself; Hamblin, Jehu, Sage Lot, and Caleb Ponds; the Great and
Little Rivers; and a portion of the lower Quashnet River. The table below
provides morphometric data on these waterbodies. As the table indicates, there
are extensive salt marsh areas around Hamblin and Jehu Ponds. These are dis-
cussed in further detail below. Current management and regulation of subtidal
areas is principally under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act and Chapter
91, the Waterways Licensing Process. (See pages 28-30).

Table 1 MORPHOMETRIC UATA ON WAQUOIT BAY AND CONNECTING WATERBODIES

Max Max Max Mean Water Marsh Upland Shoreline
Sub-System Length Width Depth Depth Area Area Area Length
(mi.) (mi.) (ft.) (ft.) (acres) (acres) @acres) (mi.)

Waquoit Bay 2.6 1.1 9.0 2.7 942 6 7.5

Quashnet River 1.1 U.1 7.6 Unk 42 6 2.8

Hamblin Pond/ 1.7 0.4 5.0 2.0 141 217 5.3
Little River

Jehu Pond/ 2.3 0.3 7.6 Unk 172 95 7.6
Great River

Washburn 32.5 297.5 5.9
Island

South Cape 88.5 311.5 2.5
Beach

Swift Estate (proposed 2 10 .2
for acquisition)

Hamblin/Jehu 193
Pond Marshes

(Modified from Curley, et. al., 1971)

d. South Cape Beach

South Cape Beach, 432 acres of barrier beach, salt ponds, salt marsh and
upldnds, was acquired by the Commonwealth in December of 1982. The property,
located entirely in Mashpee, is being operated as a State park by the Department
of Environmental Management's Forest and Parks Division. A managment plan is
being developed based on an agreement between the Commonwealth and the Town
of Mashpee which authorized taking of the land by eminent domain. That agree-
ment of June 29, 1981 (see Appendix 2) stipulates that the development and
use of the park shall be limited to "bathing, sunning, hiking, fishing, nature
interpretation, non-motorized biking, and associated passive enjoyment through
recreational use consistent with the fragile ecology of the site...". Overnight
camping is expressly forbidden. Off-road vehicles may be used only by the
elderly or disabled and are limited in number and routes. Permits may be
issued for a maximum of six such vehicles during any period and are intended
only to provide access for fishing. Public parking is limited to a total of
400 vehicles in "several landscaped sites".

It is further required that "all park facilities will be designed, sited
and maintained so that they do not harm the natural and scenic qualities of
the area..." and that the Commonwealth "will manage the fragile wetland, dune
and upland areas of the site to prevent erosion and to preserve critical
habitat and the area's natural scenic qualities.". Clearly the agreement
intends a limit to the recreational usage of South Cape Beach, and requires
that usage to be of a passive nature.

The agreement establishes a South Cape Beach State Park Advisory Committee
comprised of the following:

Voting Members:

8 representatives appointed by the Mashpee Board of Selectmen
1 representative each to be appointed by the Selectmen of Falmouth,
Barnstable, and Sandwich

Ex-officio Members

I representative of the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Office
1 representative of the Massachusetts Department of Fisheries, Wildlife
and Recreational Vehicles

The State Representative of the Third Barnstable Representative District
The State Senator from 'the Cape and Islands Senatorial District

The Committee meets monthly to review and advise on matters of park management
and operations, rules and regulations, and design and plan review. A Park
Superi ntendent and staf f have. been appoi nted f or South Cape Beach and they
work closely with the South Cape Beach State Park Advisory Committee. The
proposal for incorporation of South Cape Beach State Park into a national
estuarine sanctuary makes no suggestion of change in this existing structure
It is intended that the Sanctuary Manager would consult with both the Park
Superintendent and the Advisory Committee on any contemplated actions at South
Cape Beach.

Included within the present bounds of South Cape Beach State Park is an
area that eventually will be deeded to the Town of Mashpee for use as a town
recreational beach. This parcel is approximately 30 acres in size and has
roughly 1700 feet of frontage on Nantucket Sound. There is also a 10 acre
parcel bordering on Waquoit Bay and the Great River that will be deeded to-
Mashpee for the possible siting of a municipal boat launching facility. It is
proposed that these areas not be included in the Sanctuary initially. At some
point subsequent to design7t-l'on, the Sanctuary Manager will consult with the
Board of Selectmen of the Town of Mashpee, or their Town Meeting, to ascertain
whether or not it is appropriate to have these parcels incorporated into the
Sanctuary.

Within the 400+ acres of South Cape Beach State Park are two salt ponds
(Sage Lot and Flat Ponds), 88.5 acres of salt marsh and 104 acres of barrier
beach. The ba,rrier beach has been so designated by the Massachusetts Office of
Coastal Zone Management for regulation under the Wetlands Protection Act and
under a Massachusetts Executive Order (#181), which prohibits use of State
funds for growth and development of such barriers. The barrier has also been
designated under regulations of the Federal Coastal Barrier Resources Act which
limit Federal expenditures encouraging growth on undeveloped barriers.

e. Washburn Island

Washburn Island, located in the Town of Falmouth, makes up the western
border of Waquoit Bay. Comprised of some 330 acres, this barrier island
includes a sandy barrier beach and dune system at the southern end bordering
on Nantucket Sound. This barrier is a western extension of that on South
Cape Beach. North from the barrier extend acres of oak and pine forests
salt marshes and salt ponds. This parcel was acquired by the Commonwealih in
June 1983 and has become part of the State's forest and park system. It is
presently managed in conjunction with South Cape Beach State Park by the
Department of Environmental Management through the Forests and Parks Division.
A Preliminary Management Plan has been developed by the Department of Environ-
mental Management which recommends that the island be managed for limited use,
?rimarily passive recreation-such as hiking, nature study, etc. Access to the
island is by boat only, and there is no intention of constructing any sort
of vehicle connector. Wooden docks are proposed to accommodate visitors and
staff. Trails and interpretive displays are being planned and developed.

Consideration is being given to tent camping on the eastern side of the island.
In the past, despite being private property, there has been a tradition of
camperi on the island. This uncontrolled activity has led to some defiling of
parts of the site. There has also been a serious concern for fire. It is
felt that, under strict control and in specifically delineated areas, limited
camping could exist without these problems in the future; however, this will
require review and currently should be considered an unresolved issue.

Comfort stations are proposed as are strategically located boardwalks
and scenic overlooks. Unsupervised swimming would be allowed on the southern
beach facing Nantucket Sound, and fishing can take place at the mouth of the
Bay and at the western end of the barrier at the mouth of Eel River.

Least terns have been observed nesting on the barrier beach on Washburn
Island. To protect this significant resource, portions of the beach may be
closed during portions of the mid-summer nesting season. Boardwalk design
and location will facilitate this protective management activity.

The barrier beach at the southern end of Washburn Island has been
identified by the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Inventory for regu-
lation under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act and Massachusetts
Executive Order - limiting State support for growth and development on such
resource areas. The entire island has been designated as an undeveloped
barrier island under the regulations of the Federal Coastal Barrier Resources
Act.

f. The Swift Estate

Located in Falmouth on a bluff thirty feet above the water at the northern
end of Waquoit Bay is the so-called Swift Estate (Figure 6). The total property
consists of some 23 acres; the current owner has indicated willingness to part
with parcels comprising approximately 16 acres. These parcels include a 100-
year old, three story, 16-room Victorian mansion and a large carriage house.
The buildings have not been occupied for many years and have been visited by
vandals and small animals. They appear structually sound, however, and, with
considerable renovation, are proposed as the central facility for the Waquoit
Bay National Estuarine Sanctuary. The parcel which includes the buildings is
comprised of approximately seven acres. The second parcel lies near sea level
and includes a small barrier beach fronting a one-acre salt pond and just over
two acres of salt marsh. A small amount of uplands forms the border for this
area. Access to the Swift property is from Route 28 to the north and the
waters of Waquoit Bay to the south.

The initial applicatio n for funding will be to acquire this property and
to renovate the structures. An investigation will be made into naming the site
to the List of Historic Buildings and applying for supplemental funding for
historic preservation. The intent will be to restore the exterior to its
former splendor as a Victorian mansion while turning the interior into a
multiple use facility including a Sanctuary office, library, meeting rooms,
quarters for the Sanctuary Manager, dormitories for researchers, etc. The
carriage house would be used for equipment storage, workshops and, as funds
permit, basic wet and dry laboratory facilities. The Commonwealth has
initiated an appraisal of the property and negotiations with the owner.

g. Marshes around Hamblin and Jehu Ponds

Surrounding these two ponds in both Falmouth and Mashpee are sizeable salt
marsh areas (see Figure 11 for marsh location and sizes). Virtually all of
these marshes are in private ownership. However, the Commonwealth has adequate
authority to ensure major activities may not be undertaken in any of the salt
marsh areas that would have a significant adverse impact on the estuarine
resources of the Sanctuary. As a result, it is not anticipated that the
Commonwealth would consider exercising its power of eminant domain in these
areas.

The marshes presently are protected from development by the Wetlands
Protection Act as described on pages 28-29. The regulations to this Act are
administered locally by Conservation Commissions and prohibit activities
that will destroy the marsh or impair its productivity. The Wetlands
Restriction Act has been implemented to protect the marshes in the Town of
Falmouth only. The Act establishes a list of activities that which may or may
not be allowed in the marsh, much in the nature of a zoning overlay. This
program has not yet been applied to the marshes in the Town of Mashpee but
the area is a priority for wetland restriction in the near future.

In addition to their protection, guaranteed access to these marshes for
research or educational purposes is considered important to Sanctuary operation.
The fragile nature of the marshes precludes wide public access, but assured
limited access is important for both research and interpretative activities.
As a result, following Federal approval of the proposed Federal financial
assistance award for acquisition and development, it is the intention of the
Commonwealth to approach owners to ascertain their interests in donation, sale,
or voluntary restriction of or easements over these parcels. Avenues of tax
abatement or exemption will be investigated to make such attions as attractive
as possible. Every effort will be made to pursue these actions only with
willing participants.

Figure 3 .I
Proposed Boundary for the Waquoit Bay
National Estuarine Sanctuary (Preferred Alternative

@,A lp x
0 0
C
Oz 0

@DL@ J@

47.

. ...... ... . . . ..... .
T

bo- k!
cm

....... . . .
........... . . '0
-- ---------
..... .. ... M@
%:

..........
..... *.- 27, .. ...........
....... . . . .
-..........
K. .........
NO
........... .......
KU'N.",

........ .*�

!L
.... .. . .. ...-

QPN -i .1a
IV
z14

A
J
JLG

Figure 4
South Cape 6each
(Master Plan -
Massachusetts Oepartment
of Environmental Management)
14

LU
c

: E;
17

Fi gure 5

Washburn Island
(Preliminary Master Plan
Massachusetts Department
of Environmental Management)

Oka

0OCk

Saw

Comfort It"M

WOW Tad Srowee

Psuaft PrIwAvve C4w*"
-----------

Wcquol? Bqy

J; Pic Am*

Eel Pond 3 Seft Pend VW" PW%m
fp Beer"wh

Tom Apse
Cfts"

D AW*
Preliminar Master Plan
"' .*
WASHBU@Nr ISLAND
FALMCUTH, MASWHUSET75

MASSACH-SEM URYaWiEW at ENVFCKV&4M MANACZN*Nr
PrePamd by the CXtxe of FLvmuV
Awgua 1960
0 w
pleftm -

Figure 6

Swift Estate (Detail)

0 100 200 300
SWIFT ESTATE

Route
28

Seapit
R

lie

WAQUOIT BAY

Figure 7

Waquoit Bay Area of Critical Environmental Concern

. ........
;. .. ................
..........
% .. .......
..... . . .... . ..
. .. . . .......... .
........... .. ...
..........i
�R.
........... .
@ @Ic

-gx

2 75

- ------------

z
V., .......... ...... ;.

Figure 8
Barrier Beaches within the Proposed Sanctuary Boundary

x
�r,
OK
Ip
CS--

D
'IV
d,

t4'.
4ir

'In
Ar.

4f
to,f
S41 o.

.77

01
Law
Se 0,

NI
-1/0

(of
`10

g
ZZZ31 0,

Z'd
-ISO Olt
Ni(;@
3. @@- I

. Figure 9
Upland and Marsh Area within the Proposed Sanctuary Bounda

4
1A
L

zo
C3
@XN5-@

-7 @J)

f@j

11 1-1

$0fle

It,

I's
qr

04-

0 2

5-_ 6: AC
'A$0-

Pao

tau.,

pip
0'
res

A
C,
40

O"Oft Vida
00

A, mouth
30,
J. c
7a

Pon

-.te

Out %

M37

ubl.c 4
ind.n
41

3 NIP.,

Jehu

741consett
11 and

114.
to
rk,
'Y-'s H EW E
au
5
Eel Pond- ...
e, :r
OKI
k
rond t:

Fla! 3
G__ 'o out
E@y A R D
so

U De

igh 9
C)

Figur 11

Salt Marshes around Hamblin and Jehu Ponds

4
41.
0

W
itI

40
fz
OIL ViMage''

3
0

ou
b r 0 Cranber
Rd

-"I ql
A 'Pon'
7:

6nd
0
if 0-"
4,0
-Z

VIP-

c
Z*, ramberry

INC

.5, 0.
.-W

3
W.

21;
n@ @r-:-

Jehu
7
7 Po?td
A

econsett
island

2. Admin stration, or Management Structure

a. Sanctuary Management Goals

The primay goals for establishing the Waquoit Bay National Estuarine
Sanctua-ry are:

0 To establish and manage the area within the boundaries of the
Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Sanctuary as a natural field
laboratory. To protect the natural resources of the wetlands,
transitional areas, and adjacent uplands. To conduct and facilitate
both short- and long-term estuarine research, education, and
interpretation.

To protect research sites and make them available for continuous
future study of the natural processes and ecological relationships
shaping and sustaining the estuarine system.

� To gather and distribute information on estuarine ecosystems that
is essential to sound decision.s regarding the management of coastal
resources.

� To provide a focal point for educational activities that increase
the public's awareness and understanding of estuarine ecosystems,
man's effects on them, and their importance to the state and the
nation.

0 To promote cooperative management among Federal, State and municipal
agencies to ensure that the short- and long-term uses of the Sanctuary
contribute to carrying out Sanctuary goals, policies and management
objectives as articulated in this Sanctuary Management Plan.

� To provide for controlled multiple use of the Sanctuary to allow
for the continuation of existing low intensity recreational uses
that are presently permitted, including fish and wildlife recreation
(e.g. hunting, fishing, wildlife observation) and boating, which
are compatible with Sanctuary's character as a natural field
laboratory.
b. Relationship with existing administrative proqra@s in Waquoit
Bay and S atewide

Administration of the Waquoit Say National Estuarine Sanctuary will be
under the direction of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management
(OEM). DEM presently manages almost 250,000 acres statewide as one of the
largest and most successful park systems in the country. As the Commonwealth's
principal holder of land for environmental and conservation purposes, OEM is
the bestequipped State agency to manage any new properties acquired as part of
the Sanctuary designation. In addition, OEM's existing interpretive program
will provide the foundation for the planned educational activities sponsored by
the Sanctuary. The Park Supervisor and staff will continue supervisory and
enforcement roles within South Cape Beach State Park and on Washburn Island.

Close coordination between the Park Supervisor and the Sanctu ary Manager is
planned in order to avoid conflicts or duplication of effort.

A careful review of existing local, State, and Federal laws and regulations
pertaining to resource management and land use which apply to the area proposed
for inclusion within the boundaries of the Waquoit Bay National Estuarine
Sanctuary indicate that they provide a high degree of protection. Therefore,
other than on any new properties acquired as a part of the designation of the
Sanctuary, the Commonwealth anticipates that no new regulations will be neces-
sary. Management of the Bay and other water bodies, South Cape Beach State
Park and Washburn Island will continue under the programs currently in place.
If any new properties are acquired to become part of the Sanctuary, management
plans will be developed to cover those parcels with the advice and assistance
of the Sanctuary Advisory Committee discussed below.

Initial operation and management funding will be provided by the Federal
National Estuarine Sanctuary Program, and will be matched by the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts. Over a period of years, the funding burden will shift to the
Commonwealth. There will be an attempt to make the Sanctuary's administration,
research program and education program as self-sufficient as possible through
the development of endowment funds for research and education; grants for
specific activities or for general operational and administrative activities;
and donations and gifts for restricted or unrestricted purposes.

c. Proposed Sanctuary Staff

The Sanctuary Manager will be the principal administrator of the Sanctuary
and will be responsible for ensuring that the policies contained in the Sanctuary
Management plan are followed. This individual will be employed and supervised
by the Department of Environmental Management and will be responsible for the
following activities:

i. General administration of the Sanctuary including the
preparation of required State, Federal, and other grant
applications, budgets, reports, and management of any
necessary records. -
ii. Representation of the Sanctuary program and policies in
public hearings and meetings where appropriate.

iii. Implementation of the Sanctuary research program, with
the advice and assistance of the Research Advisory
Committee. This will include coordination of all re-
search activities proposed for and conducted within the
Sanctuary boundaries.
iv. Implementation of the Sanctuary education program, with
the.advice and assistance of the Educational Advisory
Committee. This will include coordination of on-site
and off-site interpretive activities, preparation,
publication and distribution of brochures, reports,
newsletters, slide shows and other forms of eduational
material.

V. Responsibility for upkeep of the building and grounds
at the Sanctuary headquarters.

vi. Supervision of Sanctuary staff and volunteer workers
involved in activities of the Sanctuary.

vii. Coordination with the Federal National Estuarine
Sanctuary Program.

The Sanctuary Manager position will require a background. in administration
of similar or related programs. In addition, experience in conducting estuarine
research or in the administration of research programs will be necessary. A
background in environmental education or in the administration of such programs
would also be useful.

It is expected that a clerical assistant to the Manager will be needed.
This individual will perform routine secretarial , clerical and office management
functions.

As activities and programs develop at the Waquoit Bay National Estuarine
Sanctuary, it may be necessary to consider employing a Research Director and/or
an Education Director.

It is intended that supervisory, enforcement and interpretive responsi-
bilities at South Cape Beach State Park and on 'Washburn Island will remain as
they are presently structured. The Park Supervisor will continue to assume
these responsibilities on park land; only at the Sanctuary headquarters will
the Sanctuary Manager have responsibility for building and grounds supervision.
As is discussed in the section on Education Program and Policies below, it is
intended that the educational programs at the Sanctuary headquarters and off-
site will be coordinated with the interpretive programs at South Cape Beach State
Park and Washburn Island.

d. Advisory Committee

In order to provide for effective coordination and cooperation among all
interests involved with Sanctuary programs, a Sanctuary Advisory Committee
will be established. A group of . el even members wi 11 be appoi nted to thi s
Committee by the Secretary of Environmental Affairs. Representatives of the
following interest groups shall be incluMed in the membership:

i. The Board of Selectmen of the Town of Falmouth

ii. The Board of Selectmen of the Town of Mashpee

iii. The Cape Cod Planning and Economic Development Commission

iv. The South Cape Beach State Park Advisory Committee

ve The Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of
Fisheries, Wildlife and Recreational Vehicles

vi. The Director of the Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone
Management

vii. The scientific community

viii. The 'education community

ix. Environmental interest groups

xe Hunting, fishing, shellfishing interest groups
xi. Boating, waterways, marina interest groups

Representatives will be nominated to the Secretary of Environmental Affairs
for one year appointments with no limit on the number of reappointments. A
representative of NOAA will be included as an ex-officio, non-voting, member.
The activities of the Sanctuary Advisory Committee will include the
following:

i. Advise the Department of Environmental Management
and the Sanctuary Management on matters of policy
relating to planning for and operation of the
Sanctuary

ii. Appoint the members of the Research and Educational
.Advisory Committees

iii. Assist in seeking support for the Research and
Educational Programs and other financial matters

iv. Assist in the preparation of any periodic summary or
annual reports on the operations of the Sanctuary

V* Represent the interests of the users of the Sanctuary,
its neighbors, and the users of information and
educational materials generated by the Sanctuary

The Committee shall conduct regular meetings, open to the public. The
Sanctuary Manager or staff shall act as staff to the Committee.

e. Existing State Land-use Regulatory Programs affecting Waguoit
Bay

i. Wetlands Protection Act

The Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (MGL C.131 s. 40) and the
regulations that have been developed thereto require that no one shall remove,
fill, dredge, or alter any coastal or freshwater wetland without a review by
the local Conservation Commission to protect specific public interests stated
i n the Act. The definition of wetlands provided by the Act includes such
resource areas as coastal banks, dunes, beaches, saltmarshes, land under
water bodies and land subject to flooding. The Conservation Commission must
hold an open hearing to determine whether the area of the impacts of the project

- 28

are significant to seven public interests, including:

public or private water supply

ground water supply

flood control

storm damage prevention

prevention of pollution

land containing shellfish

fisheries

The Conservation Commission will then produce an Order of Conditions regulating
the project so as to protect these interests.

Under the regulations governing activities in coastal sites, performance
standards are set for projects proposed for various resource areas. For most
work in a coastal bank; coastal beach; coastal dune; land under a salt pond;
land containing shellfish; and banks of, or land under, the ocean, rivers,
streams, ponds, or lakes that are part of an anadromous fish run, the standard
is that a project shall have "no adverse effect" on the seven interests listed
above. For saltmarshes, the standard is even more stringent, stating that a
project "shall not destroy any portion of the salt marsh and shall not have an
adverse affect on the productivity of the salt marsh".

Within an area that has been designated as an Area of Critical Environmental
Concern (ACEC), such as Waquoit Bay, the performance standard for projects on
land under the ocean and tidal flats is also established as "no adverse effect".

An exception to this is maintenance dredging of land under the ocean for naviga-
tion improvement. Such dredging must "minimize adverse effects using best
available measures as defined by regulation" and may not expand on existing
channels. Exemptions from the Act and its procedures are provided for work on
land already in agricultural use and for approved mosquito control projects. A
variance procedure does exist; however, it will be used only in rare and unusual
cases to provide for instances of overwhelming public need.

ii. Wetlands Restriction Acts

There are two statutes under Massachusetts law which set restrictions on
activities within wetlands; the Coastal Wetlands Restriction Act (MGL C.130
s.105) and the Inland Wetlands Restriction Act (MGL C.131 s.40A). Although
these serve to protect different types of wetlands, generally they have the
same format and procedures.

The statutes authorize the Commissioner of the Department of Environmental
Management, following a public hearing and with the approval of the Board of
Environmental Management, to restrict or prohibit major alterations of signifi-
cant wetlands. The tool used is an "Order of Restriction", fashioned to affect

land use to promote public health, safety and welfare and to protect public and
private property, wildlife and marine fisheries (the Inland Wetlands Restriction
Act also provides protection to fisheries, water resources, flood plain areas,
and agriculture). Ownership rights however, are not affected. The Order
generally prohibits large scale alterations of wetlands such as filling, dredg-
ing and discharge of pollutants. Permitted activities include agriculture and
aquaculture; building and maintenance of docks and piers; upkeep of existing
roads, marine channels and structures; and construction and maintenance of
temporary structures on pilings.

The Order of Restriction is recorded in the local Registry of Deeds, and a
marginal notation is made either on the deed of a recorded parcel or the Land
Court Certificate of a registered parcel. The effect of the restriction is
much like a zoning overlay in that landowners are advised in advance of both
allowed and prohibited activities. Lands subject to the Wetlands Restriction
Acts are still subject to the provisions of the Wetlands Protection Act and
other applicable laws and regulations.

Coastal beaches, coastal dunes, tide flats, and saltmarshes have been
restricted under the Coastal Wetlands Restriction Act in the Town of Falmouth.
The Inland Wetlands Restriction Act has not been implemented in either * Falmouth
or Mashpee. At this point the Coastal Wetlands Restriction Act has not been
implemented in Mashpee, the only town in Barnstable County where this has not
been done. The coastal sections of Mashpee remain a high priority for restric-
tion when staff and funding levels allow. It is the intent of the Commonwealth
to complete these restrictions within the next two years.

iii. Chapter 91 Waterways Licensing Program
Administered by the. Wetlands and Waterways Regulatory Division of the
State's Department of Environmental Quality Engineering, this program establishes
uniform procedures for review and licensing of activities in the waterways and
on the subtidal lands of the Commonwealth. It provides for an evaluation of
specified environmental interests and for the protection of public interests in
inter- and sub-tidal lands. The performance standards for waterways projects
are to "minimize" adverse effects to the environment. As a matter of policy, the
Division defers issuing a license until a permit under the Wetlands Protection
Act has been written for the project. The conditions under the Wetlands
Order are generally included in the Waterways permit to provide environmental
protection standards.

iv. Area of Critical Environmental Concern

In November of 1979 the Secretary of Environmental Affairs designated
Waquoit Bay, Washburn Island, South Cape Beach, Hamblin and Jehu Ponds, some
connecting waterways and adjacent uplands to the 11-foot contour (the level of
the so-called 100-year storm) as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern
(ACEC). Figure 7 indicates the designated boundaries. Designation followed
an extensive environmental review, an extended public comment period, and two
public hearings. (See Appendix 3 for a copy of the designation document.)

The effect of designation is to raise certain environmental performance
standards under the Wetlands Protection Act from "minimum" adverse impacts on
certain public interests protected by that Act to "no" adverse allowable impacts.
Under Chapter 91 all new improvement dredging within the ACEC is prohibited
unless the purpose is to enhance biological productivity. Likewise, disposal of
dredge spoils is prohibited within an ACEC unless for beach nourishment or
marsh creation. Special review standards are established for the siting of any
energy facility within an ACEC and the regulations of the Division of Water
Pollution Control require the elimination of discharges of hazardous substances,
and prohibit new industrial discharges and direct discharges from new sewage
treatment facilities. Under the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA)
it is noted that every project, of whatever magnitude, requiring any state
permit, approval or other authorization, or involving state funding at any
level must initiate a public review. This review may lead to the requirement
of an Environmental Impact Report. (See below for further discussion of the
MEPA process.) Finally, all agencies under the Secretary of Environmental
Affairs.are required to write or revise regulations, administer programs and
issue permits s,o as to conform with Policy 2 of the Massachusetts Coastal Zone
Management Program: "ensuring that activities in or impacting on such complexes
are designed and carried out to minimize adverse effects on marine productivity,
habitat values, water quality and storm buffering values of the'entire complex."

The boundaries of the designated Waquoit Bay Area of Critical Environmental
Concern and the proposed Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Sanctuary are generally
similar, but do not coincide exactly. A comparision of the Figures 3 (proposed
Sanctuary boundaries) and 7 (ACEC boundaries) delineates the difference. The
Great and Little River area navigation corridors within the Bay are not included
within the State designated ACEC. Within these areas, improvement dredging is
allowed under existing State requirements.

V. Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act

The Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) serves to establish a
uniform method of information collection for use in the environmental evaluation
of the impacts of a proposed activity. A process is established for public
notification of proposed projects via the Environmental Monitor published every
three weeks through the Massachusetts Executive OffiFe -of Environmental Affairs.
Projects exceeding specified thresholds require the completion of an Environ-
mental Impact Report detailing effects of the work planned. All activities
conducted, licensed, regulated or funded by any agency of the Commonwealth
which will take place within or affect an Area of Critical Environmental Concern
require public notification and at least a preliminary review by the MEPA
office. Even activities such as preliminary planning for the Waquoit Bay
National Estuarine Sanctuary proposal required MEPA review. (See Appendix 4
for notification of EOEA # 4256 and public notice dated May 8, 1984.)

f. Existing Management Program at South Cape Beach

The Massachuse tts Department of Environmental Management is presently
developing a management plan for South Cape Beach State Park under the terms of
an agreement between the Town of Mashpee and the Commonwealth. This agreement,

discussed on page 12 (copy in Appendix 2) sets the general natu re of activities
to be allowed at the Park and establishes a South Cape Beach State Park Advisory
Committee for review and advice on specific management issues. The general
tenor of the agreement is that the Park is established for passive recreation,
limited in participants, that is consistent with the "fragile ecology of the
site". Facilities are to be designed and maintained so that they do not harm
the natural and scenic qualities of the area.

An interpretive program is being developed at the Park that will complement
and become a part of the educational program of the proposed Sanctuary. Exhibits
may be established and initial visitor contacts made that can refer interested
parties to the Sanctuary office for more detailed information. The presence of
Park staff will provide enforcement of Park and Sanctuary regulations and
policies and can serve to monitor and protect research activities.

There will be close contact between the Sanctuary Manager, the Park
Supervisor and the South Cape Beach state Park Advisory Committee as the details
of the management plans for both the Sanctuary and the State Park are completed
to ensure that they are parallel and complementary. All Sanctuary activities
which take place within Park boundaries will be compatible with the agreement
of June 29, 1981, discussed above.

g. Existing Management Program at Washburn Island

The Management Plan for Washburn Island is still in a very preliminary
stage. As a result, its development provides an opportunity for the Park
Supervisor, Department of Environmental Management Planners, and the Sanctuary
Manager to work closely in order to develop complementary policies, procedures
and regulations. The concepts of the Washburn Island Preliminary Management
Plan of April 1983 (see Appendix 5) are hereby incorporated into the Draft
Sanctuary Management Plan and the policies and philosophies of the Draft
Sanctuary Management Plan will be worked into the Final Management Plan for the
Island portion of the State Park.

h. Local land-use Regulations

i. Shellfishing and fishing

Shellfishing and most forms of salt-water fishing are under the general
control of the State Division of Marine Fisheries. In the case of Falmouth and
Mashpee, the Division has granted management of resources in local waters to
the respective towns following the preparation and acceptance of a suitable
management plan. The regulation of these resources is under the direct super-
vision of the local Shellfish, or Natural Resource, officers, appointed by the
Boards of Selectmen. The Sanctuary designation will not change the existing
arrangements regarding the towns' relationship with the Division of Marine
Fisheries, the local management plans for fish and shellfish, or local enforce-
ment of these regulations. It is hoped that the Sanctuary Research Program
will be able to provide accurate and useful information on fish and shellfish
stocks, habitat or sustainable yield for the local shellfish programs. There
is no intent to interfere with the present system of fish and shellfish
regulation.

ii. Harbormasters

Under Massachusetts law and reguations, control over most boating activ-
ities within Waquoit Bay and its connecting water bodies is vested in the local
Harbormasters, and their assistants, appointed by the respective Boards of
Selectmen. Harbormasters have the authority to establish mooring and anchorage
locations, develop masterplans for harbor use (often with the assistance of
Waterways Committees), and to enforce any local by-laws pertaining to boating.
The Sanctuary designation will not change the existing arrangements regarding
these local plans, authorities, or enforcement; no existing programs will be
changed as a result of the establishment of a Sanctary. As above, it is hoped
that the Sanctuary research and education programs will be able to assist local
programs.

iii. Falmouth Area of Critical Environmental Concern By-Law

At its Town Meeting in the Spring of 1983, the Town of Falmouth adopted
a by-law to incorporate the state-designated Area of Critical Environmental
Concern (ACEC) boundary into their zoning structure. Within the ACEC boundaries
and a 25-foot buffer zone around those boundaries, regulations are adopted to
limit construction and alteration of vegetation. No similar by-law has been
developed in the Town of Mashpee.

The designation of a Sanctuary will have no effect on this local
by-law; it will continue to be administered and enforced officials of the Town
of Falmouth. iv. Local wetlands by-laws in Falmouth and_Mashpee

Both the Towns of Falmouth and Mashpee have adopted local by-laws for the
protection of wetlands resources and values. Both of these are patterned after
the State Wetlands Protection Act described above. The local by-laws, however,
establish an appeal procedure through the courts system rather than through the
Department of Environmental Quality Engineering. Each ' of the by-laws also
includes interests additional to the seven specified in the state law, including
such things as wildlife, aesthetics and recreation. These by-laws are adminis-
tered locally by the Conservation Commissions.

The designation of a Sanctuary will have no effect on these local by-laws
or their implementation. They will continue to be administered and enforced by
local officials within the Towns of Falmouth and Mashpee.

3. The "Physical Plant", Buildings and other facilities

a. Swi ft Estate

It is intended to acquire and develop a portion of the Swift Estate as
headquarters for Sanctuary operations. The existing large Victorian house will
be developed as a public area including meeting rooms, lecture hall and display
area. Research components located in the headquarters will include office
space, library and research file areas, and, where possible, small scale labora-
tory space and dormitory space for researchers. The carriage house will be
used for rough laboratory areas, workshops, and equipment storage. Most of the
Sanctuary administration activities will be centralized at this site.

Both of the existing buildings will need considerable renovation to meet
expecied needs and existing building and safety codes. Funding for much of this
activity will be provided through the initial Federal acquisition and develop-
ment award, although, additional funding sources will be investigated. The
exterior of the buidings will be restored as faithfully as possible to their
original Victorian splendor. The landscaped grounds will be restored to their
former status following a complete inventory of species present.

b. South Cape Beach

Management plans for South Cape Beach call for a visitor center that will
have space allocated for displays of the resources found in and environmental
processes acting on 'Waquoit Bay, South Cape Beach and Washburn Island. This
fits well into the Sanctuary plan and can serve to introduce visitors, in an
informal way, to the values and interrelationships of the Sanctuary. Visitors
with a further interest can then be directed to the Sanctuary Headquarters or
to one of the educational activities sponsored by the Sanctuary. Preliminary
plans also include a small amphitheater near the visitor center that can be
used as an outdoor, or natural, classroom for interpretive or other educational
activities.

Self-guided trails and boardwalks are also part of the management plan for
South Cape Beach State Park. These too, will add to the educational experience
of the Sanctuary.

C. Washburn Island

The preliminary master plan for Washburn Island provides for no buildings
other than comfort stations. Boardwalks and scenic overlooks are being proposed
to provide exposure to scenic but sensitive areas. These structures support
the Sanctuary policies and, as part of the Washburn Island Master Plan, are
incorporated into plans for the Sanctuary.

4. -Research Program and Policies

a. Goals

The primary research goals for the proposed Waquoit Bay National Estuarine
Sanctuary are three-fold:

i. To establish adequate baseline data on the nature and
functioning of a "protected" estuary, so that knowledge
may be used as a control against which to judge acti-
vities in other similar areas.

This will require a thorough inventory of resources and conditions present
in the Sanctuary and in those adjcent areas that affect it, as well as an
understanding of the interrelationships among these resources and natural
environmental forces. Collection and review of existing baseline data will be
a necessary first step and will set the direction for subsequent research.

ii. To develop an understanding of the impacts of human
activities, both obvious and subtle, on the resources
of the Sanctuary.

iii. To make information developed from the above research
available and useful to those responsible for resource
management and land-use planning at individual, local,
State and Federal levels.

b. Research Program Framework

To meet these goals, a research program will be developed for the Sanctuary
that will encourage and support scientific investigations within the boundaries
of the Sanctuary, and in nearby areas of a similar nature. To provide direction,
the Sanctuary Research Program will establish the following:

i. Policies to establish priorities and procedures for the
types of research to take place under the auspices of
the Sanctuary;

ii. Procedures for evaluating, permitting and monitoring
research activities; and

iii. Procedures for the dissemination of research results.

c. Research Policies

Policy 1 Re search that pertains directly to the management of the
resources of the Sanctuary will be actively encouraged and
will receive highest priority of any research conducted by
Sanctuary staff or supported by Sanctuary funding.

As stated above, the principal goal for research within the Sanctuary is
the development of appropriate management techniques for coastal resources.
To meet this objective, initial priorities will be given to assessing and
monitoring the existing resources of the Sanctuary. These objectives will
necessitate activities such as:

0 Baseline measurements of the biological, chemical. and physical
characteristics of the Sanctuary and areas which affect it.

- Characterize, and to the extent practicable, document
the location, extent and composition of the biological
resources of the Sanctuary;

- Identify the hydrologic and geomorphologic processes
such as water currents, sediment characteristics and
movement, etc., that shape the Sanctuary;

- Determine water quality in various areas of the Sanctuary
and identify factors which might cause alteration.

Periodic monitoring of changes in the biological, chemical,
and physical conditions of the Sanctuary.

Track changes over time in the location, extent, and
composition of the biological resources of the Sanctuary
and identify the causes of these changes;
- Track changes over time in water circulation patterns
and landforms and identify the causes of these changes;
- Track changes over time in the location, extent, and
composition of the biological resources of the Sanctuary
and identify the causes of these changes;
- Track changes in water quality over time to determine
seasonality, storm effects, etc., and identify the
casues for such changes.

Studies of the effects of commercial and recreational
shellfishing on the resources and habitats of the Sanctuary.

- Determine the level of shellfish resources and the
appropriate level of harvesting to reach a maximum
sustainable yield;

- Evaluate the effects of various means of shellfish
harvesting on the habitat and populations of various
species.

0 Studies of the effects of other human activities on the flora,
fauna, physical processes, and ecological composition of the
Sanctuary.

- Review the effects of recreational boating on the resources
of the Sanctuary in order to help communities devise
practical and resource-related harbor use and mooring
plans;

- Monitor the effects of development in the uplands around
the Bay and connecting ponds on water quality, sedimentation,
salt marshes and other resources;

- Determine the effects from recreational activities along the
beach and attempt to define a "carrying capacity" in order
to maximize human use and minimize adverse impacts on the
resources.

Policy 2 Research will be actively encouraged that will provide
information on estuarine ecosystems which will improve coastal
resource management decisionmaking at the sanctuary site, on
Cape Cod and the Islands, in Massachusetts and other states
in the Virginian biogeographic region, and in the Nation.

When designated, Waquoit Bay and its surrounding areas would be set aside
to provide valuable information which can be used to manage more responsibly
resources in similar estuarine systems. As there is increased pressure for

development in such areas, th ere is a greater need for scientifically-based
information that will make possible sensible, sensitive, land-use decisions
both on Cape Cod and in other coastal areas.

Policy 3 Research which bears less of a direct application to the manage-
ment of coastal resources will be permitted and encouraged as
long as it does not conflict with research related to resource
management.

All types of research will be encouraged in the Waquoit Bay National
Estuarine Sanctuary; one of the principal reasons for the designation is to
foster scientific research. However, in situations where research proposals
may be in conflict with study sites or funding, that proposal which has the
greater resource management potential will be given priority.

Policy 4 Research involving manipulation of the Sanctuary environment
will only be permitted on a very limited basis, and will be
reviewed strictly. If allowed, such projects will be for
specified time frames only. Researchers must, upon completion,
restore the project site to its original condition.

Manipulative studies, those which cause physical, biological, and/or
chemical changes to the environment, are often useful in establishing cause-and-
effect relationships. However, such studies are generally incompatible with
the goals of the Sanctuary. Alteration of natural processes could defeat the
purpose of maintaining the Sanctuary as a control for comparative studies or of
supporting existing flora or fauna. Although not encouraged, limited manipula-
tive research would be allowed onli if there are demonstrable benefits to the
Sanctuary and its programs; if We effects are of short duration and can be
reversed at the end of the experiment; and if they are carefully monitored for
unexpected and undesired side effects.

Policy 5 Before commencing work, researchers must have all appropriate
collecting or handling permits from applicable State or Federal
agencies.

Collection and/or handling of many species of wildlife require special
permits from State or Federal agenci 'es. Anyone wishing to perform this sort of
research within the boundaries of the Sanctuary must have the appropriate
permits from such agencies as the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries,
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, etc.

Policy 6 Proposals for major research within the boundaries of the
Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Sanctuary must be submitted in
writing to the Sanctuary Manager and receive a favorable review
from the Research Advisory Committee prior to commencement.

A written proposal must be approved in order for major research work to be
done in the Sanctuary. The proposal must include the following information:

- name, address, telephone number and professional or agency
affiliation of the principal investigator;

- names of persons to be involved in field work;

- objectives of the proposed study and their relationship to
the goals and policies of the Sanctuary and to the management
of coastal resources;

- accurate location(s) of proposed work site(s) within the Sanctuary;
- explanation of methods, materials and equipment to be used;
and

- duration of the study, starting and expected completion dates.

Availability of this information will allow a prior review of the proposal
will allow for coordination of research activities and will allow monitoring:
and protection, of research sites and equipment.

Routine activities such as water quality sampling, shellfish or finfish
sampling, bird banding, or other non-manipulation research conducted by State
or Federal agencies will not require a proposal. However, the agency involved
should notify the Sanctuary Manager either by telephone or in writing prior to
commencement in order to avoid conflicts in research activities.

The Sanctuary Manager, with the advice of the Research Advisory Committee,
will evaluate the feasibility of proposed projects based on their scientific
and technical merit and their relationship to the goals and research policies
of the Sanctuary. Field work may not begin in the Sanctuary until the principal
investigator receives written notification of approval from the Sanctuary
Manager. All attempts will be made to make the review process as efficient as
possible while maintaining standards for the protection of the Sanctuary.
Policy-7 Research that does not comply with the goals and policies
of the Sanctuary Research Program will not be approved.
Research that does not comply with the original proposal
submitted will be terminated.

Policy 8 Researchers are responsible for maintaining all equipment in
a safe condition during the experiment period and for removing
it upon completion of the research. Any disturbance to the
site must be restored to its original condition.

Maintenance of field equipment by researchers in a safe. condition will
protect them as well as the puhlic. It is expected that all equipment and
refuse will be removed from the site as soon as possible. This serves to keep
the Sanctuary in a pristine condition for the use and enjoyment of others.
Policy 9 The Sanctuary Manager or staff will periodically monitor the
progress of research taking place in the Sanctuary. Researchers
will be required to present a final progress report no later
than 90 days after completion of field work. For projects that
extend longer than a year, annual progress reports should be
made to the Sanctuary Manager. Copies of progress reports made
to funding agencies are acceptable.

313

The Sanctuary Manager and staff are responsible for maintaining contact with
researchers and being aware of the status of the work. Progress reports provide
a valuable record of types, locations and volume of work done in the Sanctuary.

Policy 10 After completion of the research project, researchers should
submit to the Research Advisory Committee an abstract summarizing
the project and its results and at least one copy of any report,
publication, dissertation, or thesis resulting from work in
the Sanctuary. If research is funded through the Sanctuary,
researchers will be expected to present a short paper,
suitable for a newsletter format, explaining the research,
its results, and implications for management of coastal
resources.

Copies of abstracts and other publications will be filed in the Sanctuary
Office along with the research proposal and progress reports. Availability of
research results and information taken from the abstract will be disseminatend
to local, State and Federal agencies, environmental groups and other interested
parties. A centralized repository for all research products from the Sanctuary
will facilitate review and dissemination of information. The Sanctuary Manager
and staff will be responsible for directing such products to the agencies,
groups, or individuals where they will be useful. A format for abstracts will
be developed to facilitate understanding, dissemination, organization, and
retrieval of information.

Policy 11 The Sanctuary Manager, staff and Research Committee will
disseminate information on work that has. taken place in the
Sanctuary and recruit other researchers to use the Sanctuary.

As a base of research builds on the Sanctuary's resources and conditions,
other researchers should be attracted. It will be the function of the Sanctuary
Manager, staff and the Research Committee to make known previous work, facilities
available, access to, and research possibilities of the Sanctuary. This may be
done through a newsletter with wide distribution, scientific publications,
brochures, etc. Research summaries will be provided to the news media and
newsletters of various scientific and regulatory agencies.

d. Research Advisory Committee

The Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Sanctuary Advisory Committee will be
responsible for recruiting a Research Advisory Committee. Membership should
include persons with a scientific research background, persons with a resource
management background, and persons involved in land-use decision-making. It
will be the function of this Committee to work with the Sanctuary Manager to:

i. further develop and refine the Sanctuary Research
Program;

ii. review research proposals and results of work
within the Sanctuary for suitability and conformance
with the established goals of the Research Program,

I I I .publicize Sanctuary facilities and recruit researchers
to work in the Sanctuary, and

Jv. with the Sanctuary Manager, develop sources of funding
and distribute such funding for research within the
Sanctuary.

The Committee members will serve one-year terms with no limit on reappointments.
Their work will be critical in assuring that research done in the Sanctuary
meets the goals and policies of the Research Program. In so doing they will
assure the continuation and direction of the Research Program and help protect
the resources of the Sanctuary.

e. Funding

It is hoped that the Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Sanctuary will be able
to provide limited funds for research. Initially these may be provided, on a
competitive basis, under the National Estuarine Sanctuary Program administered
by the Federal Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management. Further sources
of funding, from foundations, funding agencies, or private individuals and
organizations will be sought. Such funds will be used to directly support
researchers or to acquire necessary equipment for studies within the Sanctuary.

5. Education Pro gram and Policies

a. Goals

The principal educational goal of the Waquoit Bay National Estuarine
Sanctuary will be to provide a program of educational opportunities and
activities that will foster a public awareness and understanding of estuarine
ecosystems, man's effects on them and the importance of these systems to the
community, region, State, and Nation.

b. Educational Program Framework

To meet this goal the Educational Program will:

I. establish procedures to develop and support varying
types of educational activities to be carried out
both at the Sanctuary headquarters and at @arious
visitor centers on South Cape BeaGh and Washburn
Island;

ii. establish procedures for coordinating educational
activities among these areas;
III. establish procedures for transferring scientific infor-
mation generated through the Sanctuary Research Program
into lay terms and making It available to coastal manage-
ment decision-makers.

The Sanctuary Research Program will generate information about Waquoit Bay
and its environs, and it will be the task of the Education Program to disseminate
this information to the public. Recipients may range from decision-makers on
Planning Boards, Boards of Health or Conservation Commissions, to State or
Federal regulatory agencies, to decision-makers of tomorrow - our children.
Learning more about the estuary and its functioning, and about how research is
conducted and information is gathered is a valuable experience for all.

Personal contacts will continue with individuals and groups that have been
established by the Interpretive Program of the Department of Environmental
Management at South Cape Beach and Washburn Island. This method of instruction
provides a valuable field experience for participants. The availability of a
Sanctuary Headquarters will also make possible "classroom" situations for
groups activities: lectures, slide shows, classes, etc., as well as facilities
for individual literature searches and specimen study.

Publications of various sorts: brochures, newsletters, etc., will reach
a broader public and will be actively pursued. These may draw on and be coordi-
nated with local schools, colleges, museums and other organizations. Visitor
orientation packets or trail guides will be developed to allow individuals to
explore and learn at their own pace.

On-site educational programs will be coordinated by the Sanctuary Manager
and staff to avoid conflict with research activities being conducted within the
Sanctuary. It will also be the function of the,Sanctuary Manager and staff to
coordinate the various educational activities held in the Sanctuary, to recruit
outside speakers or programs, and to provide adequate facilities for such
programs.

c. Education Policies

Pol i cy_ _1 On-site programs will be provided in conjunction with existing
activities.

PolicyJ Off-site educational programs will be provided in conjunction
with school systems, civic. and environmental organizations,
colleges and other educational institutions to make the public
aware of the Sanctuary, its facilities and its role at the
local, regional, state and national levels.

"Nature walks" and the Interpretive Programs will be available. Tours may
be offered to publc groups upon request. Research site tours may be arranged
with the cooperation of the researchers to provide an insight into methods and
types of data gathering and interpretation. It is hoped that the Sanctuary can
become a "living classroom" for its visitors.

Policy 3 On-site activities will be coordinated so that they do not
interfere with established research projects.

The Sanctuary Manager and staff will ensure that all scheduled educational
activities are located away from research sites, unless coordinated with
researchers.

Policy 4 Literature, visual aids, and other related materials will be
developed, distributed and routinely updated in order to
convey to the general public, management agencies and to the
scientific community the goals, programs and accomplishments
of the Sanctuary.

Policy 5 The Sanctuary Manager and staff will actively encourage the
dissemination of scientific information developed through the
Research Program.

As mentioned above, a high priority of the Sanctuary will be to get
accurate, useable resource management -oriented information to the decision-
makers in coastal management planning. The Education Program will work to
provide this material in written,visual, or spoken form. Researchers will be
encouraged to make public presentations of their work and research results will
be distributed in abstract form either directly or through a periodic newsletter.

Policy 6 The Sanctuary Manager will coordinate the activities of the
Educational Program to provide the broadest exposure and
di ssemi nation.

d. Education Advisory Committee

The Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Sanctuary Advisory Committee will be
responsible for recruiting and appointing an Education Advisory Committee.
Membership should include persons with a background in education at various
levels from primary education through college, persons with a media background,
and local decision-makers. It will be the role of this Committee to work with
the Sanctuary Manager to:

i. further develop and refine the Sanctuary Education
Program,

ii. develop and define educational activities, with
various formats for presentation to varying audiences,

iii. publicize Sanctuary educational activities and recruit
individuals 4nd groups to use the facilities of the
Sanctuary, and

iv. develop sources of funding to sponsor educational
activities, publications, media presentations, etc.

The Committee members will serve one-year terms with no limit on
reappointments. Their work will be critical in assuring that information about
the Sanctuary and coastal and estuarine resources in general is disseminated to
the public.

e. Funding
It is intended that, to the maximum extent possible, the education program
of the Sanctuary will be financially self-sufficient. Tuition for classes, or
donations for lectures and slide-shows, sale of publications, memberships in a

Sanctuary support group, grants from funding agencies, etc., can all help to
defray the costs of education. It is not intended that each educational program
be self-supporting, but that the program as a whole cover its costs.

6. Objectives and Policies for Other Activities

a. Hunting,_Fishing and Shellfishing

Hunting, fishing and shellfishing are traditional uses of the Waquoit Bay,
South Cape Beach and the Washburn Island area. Presently each of these activi-
ties is subject to local and State jurisdiction. The Sanctuary designation
will not change the existing arrangements concerning these activities in the
Bay, or at South Cape Beach and Washburn Island. -

Hunting on Washburn Island and on South Cape Beach has been the subject of
discussion in the past. Any final decision on allowing this practice will be
made by the Department of Environmental Management as administrators of the
parks at these sites based on public use, safety and welfare. The South Cape
Beach State Park Advisory Committee reviews the issue of hunting and makes its
recommendations yearly depending on use patterns.

Due to the limited size of the property and the prospects of a sizable
public presence, hunting will not be allowed on the Swift Estate property once
it becomes part of the Sanctuary.

b. Off-Road/Over-Sand vehicles
This issue is on*ly a valid concern at South Cape Beach State Park.
According to the agreement between the Commonwealth and the Town of Mashpee,
use of these vehicles will be severely limited. Use by the elderly and handi-
capped is provided in order to allow access to fishing spots. They may be used
by permit only and are restricted to designated roadways. See Appendix 2 for a
copy of the Mashpee/Commonwealth agreement.

c. Boating

As discussed above, control of boating activities is the province of the
local Harbormasters or the U.S. Coast Guard. The policy of the Sanctuary
Program will be to accept the local plan and enforcement and the authority of
the Coast Guard.

d. Public Access

Public access to the resources of the Sanctuary is a prime objective of
the Sanctury Program. It will be encouraged to the extent that the resources
will bear. There may be periods where access will be limited due to stress on
some sensitive environmental resource (e.g., tern nesting areas during the
breeding season, erosion on a coastal bank, etc.) or to protect the location,
equipment or resources forming a part of research activities. These "closures"
will be coordinated between the Sanctuary Manager and the Park Supervisor and
will be posted. The Park Supervisor will be responsible for enforcement of any
Uclosures" at South Cape Beach Park and on Washburn Island; the Sanctuary
Manager for the Swift Estate.

Be Other Alternatives Considered

fn developing the Preferred Alternative for the Waquoit Bay National
Estuarine Sanctuary described above several options were carefully reviewed.
These will be described below along with the reasons for their rejection.

1. No Action/Status Quo

Under this option no designation of a national estuarine sanctuary would
be made in Waquoit Bay or anywhere else in Massachusetts.

One of the considerations of the Commonwealth in the acquisition of South
Cape Beach State Park and Washburn Island was the protection of the relatively
pristine nature of Waquoit Bay and its preservation for future generations.
This was the last relatively undeveloped warm water beach available on Cape Cod
and was highly desirable property. Both parcels were threatened with develop-
ment in one form or another and would have limited or prohibited public usage.
The possibility of establishing this area as a national estuarine sanctuary was
a prime consideration of the Commonwealth of Massachussetts in the decision-
making process leading to these acquisitions. The natural and recreational
resources of Waquoit Bay were widely recognized and there were concerns that
existing regulatory programs might not have the authority or coordination to
provide adequate protection. Acquisition seemed to be the best option for
preservation.

The continuing development pressures experienced on Cape Cod, the Islands,
southeast Masachusetts and the rest of the coastline of the Commonwealth require
an understanding of the resources of this coastal area, the interrelationships
within coastal ecosystems, and their ability to withstand human pressures.
The research and education facilities associated with a national estuarine
sanctuary can make a significant contribution to the understanding and protec-
tion of sensitive coastal resources and can also improve coastal management
decisionmaking. Therefore, designation of a National Estuarine Sanctuary in
Massachusetts, particularly in Waquoit Bay, will facilitate an improved under-
standing of coastal resources. "No action" would run counter to State and
Federal goals of protection, study, and appropriate management of sensitive
coastal resources; particularly estuarine ecosystems.

2. Alternative Sites

The process used by the Commonwealth in selecting Waquoit Bay for a proposed
national estuarine sanctuary is described on pages 6-8. Several other sites
were reviewed in detail and ultimately rejected prior to the choice of Waquoit
Say. Those sites receiving particularly careful review include the North/South
Rivers system in the Marshf iel d/ Scituate area and Ellisville Harbor in Plymouth.

The North/South River.complex was very carefully considered for additional
protection and preservation. The rivers begin in fresh water ponds and wetlands
and flow for miles through marshes of increasing salinity until reaching their
common mouth at New Inlet and emptying into Massachusetts Bay. Over 2000 acres
of saltmarsh flank the rivers. Hummarock Beach, a sizable barrier beach fronts
the South River, protecting it from the effects of storms. There has been con-
siderable development along Hummarock, particularly in summer and, increasingly,
in year-round housing, and along the lower portions of the rivers.

The system is extended linearly; salinity levels are measurable 13 miles
upriver in the North River and 11 miles in the South.

Ultimately it was these two latter points, the amount of development at
the mouth and the extended length, that made this site less attractive than
Waquoit Bay for National Estuarine Sanctuary designation. Acquisition of such
extended areas, and of developed areas, would have been difficult and extremely
expensive. In Waquoit Bay, by acquiring two major parcels, it was possible to
provide a considerable amount of preservation to a significant area. This
situation was not feasible in the North/South River system. It was agreed
that a better means of protection for this area would be a State Scenic Rivers
designation. A greenway corridor has been established to afford a buffer to
this waterway. In addition the marshes in the complex were restricted under the
Coastal Wetland Restriction Act.

Ellisville Harbor is a small inlet in the town of Plymouth. A break in a
barrier beach opens, into a shallow harbor and saltmarsh complex. Adjacent to
the marshes are a series of freshwater wetlands that have been utilized for
growing cranberries. The harbor has historically been used for shipping cord-
wood and fish. Broad-beamed, flat-bottomed boats sailed onto the beach and
flats within the harbor at high tide. When the tide ebbed cargo was hurried
across the exposed flats to the now grounded ships by wagons. At the next high
tide the vessels would refloat and carry their cargo to port, usually Boston.
The harbor is still used by a small fleet of fishing boats and for recreational
shellfishing and the beaches are used for swimming.

This site was ultimately rejected for consideration as a National Estuarine
Sanctuary because of its small size, limited freshwater input, and periodic
inaccessibility to sufficient water for navigation. It has, however, been
designated by the Commonwealth as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern and
carries the added protection of that program.

3. Alternative Boundaries

The boundaries for the preferred alternative include: South Cape Beach;
Washburn Island; the Swift Estate; and Waquoit Bay, Hamblin, Jehu and Caleb
ponds and the lower Quashnet River (Figure 3). Additional boundary alternatives
are discussed below.

a. Boundary Alternative 1: Inclusion of Town of Mashpee Inholdings
at South Cape Beach State -Park.

In considering Sanctuary boundaries, it was decided to exclude approximately
30 acres within the borders of South Cape Beach State Park, where the Town of
Mashpee wil I own and operate a Town Beach and parking area. In addition, 10
acres bordering on the Great River and Waquoit Bay to which the Town also will
gain ownership rights, have been excluded from proposed Sanctuary boundaries as
well. These parcels will be transferred to the Town of Mashpee as the development
of the Park progresses; they are currently included in the State's holdings.

Exclusion of these properties from the proposed Sanctuary boudaries was
decided upon in order to avoid any possible difficulties with the transfer of
land between the Town and State. At some future date, the Town of Mashpee
will be approached through either the Board of Selectmen or the Town Meeting,

whichever is appropriate, to ascertain whether there is interest in these areas
becoming part of the Sanctuary. These parcels could remain under the ownership
and management of Mashpee if that management was compatible with the Sanctuary
Program. These areas would be eligible for inclusion in the Sanctuary with
appropriate binding agreements regarding their use.

b. Boundary Alternative 2: Exclusion of Little River and Great River

Consideration was given to the exclusion of Great and Little Rivers from
the Sanctuary boundaries because of possible dredge activities and the substan-
tial development along their banks, particularly on Seconsett and Monomoscoy
Island. The proposal to include these areas within the Sanctuary boundary
recognizes that there may be future dredging in these areas. However, it is
felt that there is significant protection of the resources through the existin g
regulatory structure of the state Wetland Protection Act and Waterways Licensing
process. The National Estuarine Sanctuary Program is designed to allow multiple
use of sanctuaries, when compatible with the protection of sanctuary resources.
It was felt that these sanctuary resources would be adequately protected through
existing State regulatory controls. Therefore, because of their character as
significant connecting waters within the Waquoit Bay esturine system, the Great
and Little Rivers are proposed for inclusion within the Sanctuary.

These areas are not included within the Waquoit Bay Area of Critical
Environmental Concern (ACEC). Therefore, these areas are eligible for new,
improvement dredging. There is, in fact, an imminent dredging project at the
mouth of the Great River. Improvement dredging is prohibited within the ACEC
including Waquoit Bay outside the central navigation corridor, the Quashnet
River and Hamblin and Jehu Ponds.

c. Boundary Alternative 3: Exclusion of Saltmarsh Areas around
Fa-mblin and Jehu Ponds.

At the head of Great River and along the shores of Hamblin and Jehu Ponds
are 193 acres of saltmarshes (see Figure 11).. These are all in private owner-
ship. The Town of Mashpee, however, holds a conservation easement granted
by the New Seabury Corporation for a border around the southern and western
section of Jehu Pond. All of the marshes are protected to the "shall not Act.
The 42 acres of marsh in Falmouth are also protected under the State
Coastal Wetland Restriction Act. The 151 acres located in Mashpee have not
been restricted to this point in time, however as the only town on the Cape
that is still unrestricted under the Coastal Wetlands Restriction Act, the
town is at the top of the priority list for the time when funding and staff
levels permit action. Such action is planned within the next two years. The
marshes in both towns are further protected under local wetlands by-laws and
these in Falmouth under the.ir ACEC by-laws.

Under these existing programs these areas are, or soon will be, sufficiently
protected to meet the adequate State control standard of the National Estuarine
Sanctuary Program. Therefore, it was proposed to include them within the
Sanctuary boundaries. Inclusion within the Sanctuary does not bring additional
restrictions to this property.

Because these areas are private property, the Sanctuary program would not
be able to provide public access. Following NOAA approval of the proposed
Federal financial assistance award for acquisition and development, however,
owners of this land will be approached in an attempt to acquire ownership or
access rights for scientific or education purposes. Every effort will be made
to conduct these discussions on a willing seller basis. This will be attempted
either through fee-simple acquisition, purchase, or conservation or other
easement rights, or donation of property rights or easements.

Inclusion of these areas would therefore enable the State, using funds
provided under the National Estuarine Sanctuary Program, to work with willing
landowners to acquire access rights, easements, or fee-simple interests in
important marsh areas of the Sanctuary.

d. Boundarx Alternative 4: Inclusion of Other Parts of the Area of
71"tical Environmental Concer_n__T_AC_E'CT,

Boundaries of the portions of the Waquoit Bay ACEC lying along the Childs
(Falmouth) and Quashnet (Falmouth/Mashpee) Rivers, Red Brook (Falmouth/Mashpee),
Bourne and Bog Ponds (Falmouth), and Witch and Jim Pond (Mashpee) were defined
by the levels of the 100-year flood plain. This is coincidental with the 11-
foot elevation above mean sea level. Generally they provide a buffer from
resources found within the bay, rivers, ponds and marshes.

These areas are protected under the State and town Wetland Protection
Acts, although the protection standards for these "areas subject to flooding"
are somewhat weaker than for other resource areas under the Act. None of these
sites have been restricted under the Wetlands Restriction Act. Virtually all
of this area is in private ownership and a portion is being used as a functioning
cranberry bog.

For the following reasons these areas, while part of the ACEC were not
included in the proposed Sanctuary boundaries:

i. areas are principally buffers for "downstream" resource

ii. protection under existing programs is somewhat less stringent
than tne resource-related areas in the Bay, river and ponds.

iii. areas are generally under private ownership with low potential,
due to funding prior,ities, for acquisition.

e. Boundary Alternative 5: Inclusion of Eel Pond and the Childs
and Seapit Rivers.

These areas lie to the west of Washburn Island and connect to Waquoit Bay
at the northern end of the Seapit River. Prior to the 1938 hurricane Waquoit
Bay and Eel Pond were more closely allied. At that time a barrier beach extended
from Washburn Island westward to the mainland. This situation meant that Eel
Pond flushed through Waquoit Bay on its way to Nantucket Sound. This barrier
was breached in 1938, destroying a road and several houses. It apparently was
repaired but was breached again in 1944. Since that time this area has remained
open to the sea, lessening its relation with Waquoit Bay. Because of its
separate identity, the potential need for dredging, and the substantial level

of development along the western shoreline of the Seapit and Childs River, this
system of waterways was not included in the Waquoit Bay Area of Critical Environ-
mental Concern. For the same reasons it is not proposed for inclusion within
the Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Sanctuary.

4. Alternative Management Plan Options

Various alternative management plan options were reviewed and rejected
prior to proposing the preferred alternative. Those options are listed and
reviewed below.

a. Greater restriction on public access to South Cape Beach and
Washburn Island

Restricting access to these two parcels would serve to further protect the
resources of a proposed Sanctuary.

A substantial part of the reason for acquisition of these areas was to
increase public access. Although any public (or private) use would have some
effect on the site's resources it was felt that workable management plans
could be developed that would increase access and provide protection of the
environment to a level that is compatible with the goals of the Sanctuary.
'ape
These management plans take into account the limitations on parking at South 1,
Beach State Park and the lack of land access to Washburn Island; both features
keep visitor numbers to a manageable level. Further, it is noted that the
Sanctuary Program encourages multiple, compatible use of the Sanctuary.
For these reasons this option was rejected.

b. Locate the Sanctuary Headquarters somewhere other than the Swift
Estate: (do not attempt to acquire the Swift Estate)

It was strongly felt that the Sanctuary Headquarters should be in the
Sanctuary and have water access to Waquoit-Bay. This would be beneficial to
the Sanctuary's research and education programs and to enforcement/surveillance.
A review of South Cape Beach and Washburn Island suggest that neither would be
suitable for a Headquarters. Washburn Island, with no land connection, offers
significant problems for access and necessary utilities. Parking and activities
of South Cape Beach are limited by agreement between the Commonwealth and the
Town of Mashpee. It is ecpected that during peak periods in summer months the
parking lots will be filled by people wishing to use the beach. -This situation
could present conflicts with Sanctuary activites.

No other parcels have been located with comparable resources to the Swift
Estate for access to roads, access to water and setting in relationship to the
Sanctuary.
c. Establishin@ administration of the Sanctuary within another
governmental B_oTy than the Uepartment of Envir5nmental Management.
Early consideration was given to establishing administration of the Sanc-
tuary within various agencies including the Executive Office of Environmental
Affairs, Division of Marine Fisheries (within the Department of Fisheries,
Wildlife and Recreational Vehicles), or the Coastal Zone Management Office.

Locating the Sanctuary administration within the Executive Office of
Enviro.nmental Affairs would give the Sanctuary Manager direct accessibility to
the office of the Secretary of Environmental Affairs. It was decided that this
would not be a critical need and that better coordination could take place if
the program were incorporated into a line agency.

The Division of Marine Fisheries presently maintains research, survey and
inventory programs and capabilities for finfish, shellfish and factors in their
growth and development. Consideration was given to drawing on this experience
in research and developing the Sanctuary administration through this Divsion.
It was decided that the administration and education were also substantial
components of the Sanctuary program and that the Sanctuary goals would be wider
than fisheries interests.

The Coastal Zone Management Office has been the lead agency in developing
the proposal for a National Estuarine Sanctuary in Waquoit 'Bay. Generally this
is because of their role in developing sound management policies for coastal
resources and their pre-existing relationship with the Federal Office of Ocean
and Coastal Resource Management. The State Coastal Zone Management Office
however, is not designed as a facilities or land management unit.

The Department of Environmental Management became the clear choice to
manage the Sanctuary and administer its programs based on its experience in
land and facility management, interpretive and educational programs, planning
role, and current operation and management of South Cape Beach State Park and
Washburn Island.

Figure 12 a
Alternative Sanctuary Boundary Excluding tme Swift Estate

Vir

..... .... .
I iT, 0 J.@ X@
7

IRK,.

'ZZAI
4
4,

15 q.

It 4

.............. r4K
'NO 9 A 4

All-
;7

_jL,

LLure 13
Alternative Sanctuary Boundary Excluding the Great and Little River@

IJ
X

If
0
0

f
.\fk.@k
Ilk

0
OR
k.1

M . ......

f, ..............

.01
R,

....... NV.
@* @M.
!.-R; gkiv.0%.
lm@@ , 0

... ..... . . ..
.K

. .... ..... ...s

Gar

-A.
14
cc
q,

Figure 14
Alternative Sanctuary Boundary Excluding the Salt Marshes arou
Hamblin and Jehu Ponds

.4 j,j
A
e 0 O(CI
Of
0
S

zs b
)Q
'N
FOI-

W."A

?
I(ol

-LaLaL

...............
Q

ISW Q A V.
OK

00o %

PIC
IMI

oar

III. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

A. Natural Environment

1. Geology/Soils

Cape Cod is almost enti rely composed of unconsolidated sand, gravel and
boulders deposited by glacial ice during the last four major glaciations.
Occasional clay and silt layers and masses occur within and beneath the
coarser materials. The deposits, resting on very old bedrock, are generally
300 to 500 feet thick, but range from around 150 to nearly 1000 feet in
thickness. As the last glacier retreated from the Cape 12,000 years ago,
sand and gravel was spread smoothly in front of the, ice as stream-bed deposits.
The entire Waquoit Bay area lies within one such area known as the Mashpee
Outwash Plain.

As the glacier retreated, sea levels rose quickly, and had nearly reached
present levels by 3500 years ago. The action of waves and currents shaped the
coastline by filling some sheltered bays and tidal channels with fine sediment
and organic matter producing tidal mud flats and salt marshes. This was
likely the case with Flat, Sage Lot, Hamblin, and Jehu Ponds, probably
low areas left as kettle holes after the formation of the outwash plain. The
rise in sea level left them separated from the sea by only a narrow sandy
spit which has been punctured periodically with inlets. All four ponds are
salty, though the marsh to the north of Flat Pond is fresh. Waves also have
shaped the sand spits and barrier beaches, with 'some contribution from wind
action. The shore line is continually shifting.

There are several types of glacial deposits on South Cape Beach and
Washburn Island. The majority of the site was formed by Mashpee pitted plain
deposits, which are gravelly sand with some pebble to small boulder gravel.
A smaller area bordering the northern edge of Flat Pond is composed of kame
deposits, which differ from the Mashpee pitted plain deposits in having
somewhat coarser sands and larger boulders.

Dune deposits along the beach are relatively young due to continual
shifting of sands by wind action. They are generally less than twenty feet
thick and between ten to several hundreds of years old. Most are still
active. Sandy beach deposits with some minor cobbles and pebbles occur as
spits. They are composed of wave-eroded glacial sediments, and tend to be
overlain by dune deposits. The marsh and swamp deposits mentioned above
consist mainly of decaying estuarine marsh plants along with sand and clay,
topped by live marsh plants.

The soils on South Cape Beach and Washburn Island correspond to the
geology, with some variations and additional categories. In the upland areas
are several types of loamy course sand within the Mashpee pitted plain and
kame deposit areas. The marsh and swamp deposits contain both muck and tidal
marsh. The soil categories described below are from reports by the U.S.D.A.
Soil Conservation Service.

Muck - These are very poorly drained bog soils formed in accumulations of
organic deposits that are underlain by mineral soil materials. The upper

portion of tne organic material is generally black and has decomposed to such
a degree that plant remains cannot be identified by the unaided eye.
Decomposition of the materials in the lower portion of the deep Muck soils
varies from this condition to one of practically no decomposition, in which
plant remains are readily identifiable. Muck soils occur in depressions and
potholes. The water table in these soils is at or near the surface most of
the year. Some Muck soils have only one to two-and-one-half feet of organic
deposits over mineral so-il materials, while in others the organic deposits
are many feet thick.

Tidal Marsh - This land type consists of areas subject to regular tidal
flooding.-The areas commonly support salt-tolerant vegetation, such as
grasses and sedges. The soil material ranges from soft, plastic silts and
clays to matted, fibrous organic deposits.

Dune Sand - This land type consists of highly quartzose sands along the ocean
shore. Individual sand particles have been rounded by the combined action of
wind and waves. This land type is continually changing in shape and size.
Dunes are formed by beach sand which is swept up by wind and deposited on the
leeward side of the beach. Some are partially stabilized by beach grass and
hardy shrubs such as beach plum and bayberry; others are devoid of vegatation
and are actively shifting.

Coastal Beach - This land type consists of sandy, gravelly, or cobbly shores
that are washed and rewashed by waves along the coast. Some areas are subject
to periodic flooding by tides. Areas above tide level are subject to shifting
by wind action.

Carver loamy sand, 0-3% slopes - These are excessively drained soils formed
in thick sand deposits. Carver soils have a loamy coarse sand or coarse sand
surface soil and subsoil . The subsoil is underlain by coarse sands. They
contain little or no gravel. The soils are loose and have rapid permeability.
In places, Carver soils are underlain at a depth of 5 feet or more by a firm
slowly permeable substratum of compact glacial till, silt or clay. These
areas are mapped as a firm substratum phase of the Carver soils. Carver
soils occupy nearly level* to very steep slopes.

Deerfield loamy course sand, 0-3% slopes - These are moderately wel 1 drained
soils that have formed in thick deposits of sand. They have a loamy sand
surface soil and subsoil that are usually free of gravel and cobbles to a
depth of 3 feet or more. These soils have a seasonal high water table within
1-112 to 2 feet of the surface that keeps them saturated with water in the
winter, early spring, and during prolonged periods of rainfall. They do not
have stones and boulders on the surface or within the soil. They occur on
level to gentle slopes.
Au Gres loamy course sand, 0-3% slopes - These are poorly drained soils
d-eveloped in thick deposits of sand or sands and gravel. The water t.able is
at or near the surface of these soils for about 7 to 9 months each year.
They do not contain stones or boulders but may contain gravel and cobbles
below the surface in some places. They have rapid permeability. Because

they are saturated most of the time, they can absorb little additional water.
The Au Gres soils occuur on level to gentle slopes.

The Barrier Beach and Dune System

Almost the entire stretch of dunes (which extend the whole length of South
Cape Beach) and the southern protion of the Washburn Island is also a barrier
beach. The approximately 100 feet of beach running in front of the proposed
new town parking lot is not part of te barrier system, as there is no marsh
of water body between it and the mainland; rather its landward side is
immediately adjacent to an upland area. Most of the Cape Cod shoreliine is
continually being eroded by long-shore currents. Wher current directions
diverge (nodal points), such as along the Outer Cape's eastern shore, erosion
is accelerated. Where currents converge, accretion occurs. This latter
occurrence takes place along the eastern half of Washburn Island and the
western half of South Cape Beach, at the Waquoit Bay inlet. This rest of
South Cape Beach is eroding at a moderate rate*

2. Hydrology

The loose, sandy soils of the Waquoit Bay area permit rapid percolation
of precipitation. In unaltered areas there is virtually no run-off. Of the
average annual precipitation of 42-44 inches, 17-18 inches seep into the
soil to recharge ground-water aquifiers (the other 25 inches are lost to the
atmosphere through evaportation and water loss by plants).

In coastal areas like Waquoit Bay, ground water is near the surface at
approximately sea level. Low areas are often dischange poiints such as swamp,
fresh water marshes or kettle hole ponds. The adjacent bodies of salt water
have a major effect on ground water quality. Because fresh water is lighter
than salt, fresh ground water at Washburn Island or South Cape beach tends
to "float" above the saline in a relatively shallow lens. Along the edges and
at the boundary there is some mixing to form brackish zones. The nature, and
to some extent the level, of the ground water can change with tidal oscilla-
tion, amounts of fresh water percolation, and volume of fresh water withdrawal
for human use. Excessive withdrawal can, and does lead to salt intrusion
into individual or adjacent wells.

Analyses of ground water in the Waquoit Bay area char acterize it-as
slightly acidic (ph 6.5-7.0), very soft and generally low in dissolved solids.
Both sodium and chlorine levels can be high at individual sites due to salt
water intrusion, and elevated iron and manganese levels are occasionally
note.

3. Climate

The Falmouth-Mashpee area, like most of Cape Cod, has the humid continen-
tal climate of the northeastern United States. The surrounding waters
moderate temperature extrems producing milder winters and cooler summers.
Humidity is often high in summer, with fog common in the spring and summer.

*From Cape Cod Environmental Atlas, by Arthur H. Brownlow, Editor (Boston:
Boston University, 1979), pp. 53-5.

Winds are generally from the west with orientation depending on the
season; between October and April from the northwest, and between May and
September from the southwest. Major storms can come in any season with
hurricanes most common in late summer and early fall, "northeasters," in
winter and early spring and local thunderstorms or squalls, in the summer.
Hurricanes affecting the area occurred in September of 1938 and 1944, August
of 1954 and 1955, and September of 1960.

January and February on the coldest months on Cape Cod and July and August
are the warmest. The annual growing season (consecutive frost-free days)
averages between 180-200 days.

Average annual precipation is between 42-44 inches fairly evenly distri-
buted throughout the year at 3-4 inches per month. June and July are somewhat
drier, averaging 2.9 and 2.7 inches respectively. Snowfall is highly variable
from one year to the next but averages below 30" per year. Generally snow
does not remain on the ground for extended periods of time.

4. Biology

a. Plants

Preliminary vegetative species list for acquatic areas proposed for
inclusion in the Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Sanctuary:

Algae Green algae
Cladaphora sp.
Codium frag7ie
rn-termo-plia @intestinalis
anteromorp a pl-umosa
Ulva lactuca

Brown algae

Ascophylum nodosum
Tu-cus spi-raTi-s-
Fucus resiculosus
Sargarssum filipendula
Laminaria agardhii

Red algae
Agardhiella tenera
Chondrus crispus
r-
-Polysiphonia urceolata

Vascular Plants

Zostera marina

Table 2: Preliminary Vegetative Species List Marsh and Upland Areas

I
Fresh- Salt- Beach/ Mixed Mixed
Water Water Barrier Hard- Oak/ Pine Pine Open Dense
Common Name Scientific Name Marsh Marsh Beach woods Aspen Scrub Grass Pine

Marsh Elder Iva frutescens x x
Willow Salix sp. X
Saltmarsh Cord Grass Spartina alterniflora x
Saltmarsh Hay Spartina patens X
Freshwater Cordgrass Spartina pectinata X
Broom-Beardgrass Andropogon scoparius x X
Beardgrass Andropogon sp. x x
Hairgrass Deschampsia flexuosa X X x
Spikegrass Distichlis spicata x
Dune Grass Ammophila breviligulata x X X
Sedges Carex sp. x
Rushes Juncus sp. X
Cattail Typha angustifolia,letifolia X
Virginia Creeper Parthenocissus quinquefolia X X X. X
Common Greenbrier Smilax rotundifolia x x x
Glaucous Greenbrier Smilax glauca x X X
Grape Vitis sp. X
Bearberry Arctostaphylos uva-ursi X x X x
Sphagnum Moss Sphagnum sp. x
Cranberry Vaccinium macrocarpon X
Sundew Drosera rotundifolia x
Thread-leaved sundew Drosera filiformis X
Three square sedge Scirpus americanus X
Marsh fern Dryopteris thelypteris x
Yarrow Achillea millefolium x x
Daisy Chrysanthemum leucanthemum X
Wild Carrot Daucus carota x x
Ragweed Ambrosia artemisifolia x x
Mullien Verbascum thapsus X x
Salt Marsh Aster Aster enuifolius X X
Late Purple Aster Aster patens X x
Blazing Star Liatris sp. x X
Chicory Cichorium intybus X x

Table 2 continued

Fresh- Salt- Beach/ Mixed
Water Water Barrier Hard- Oak/ Pine Pine Open Pine
Common Name Scientific Name Marsh Marsh Beach woods Aspen Scrub Grass

Pitch Pine Pinus rigida x x x x x x x
Black Oak Quercus-velutina x x x x x
Scarlet Oak Quercus cocinea x x x x
White Oak Quercus alba x x x
Scrub Oak Quercus ilicifolia x x x x x x x
Post Oak Quercus stellata x x
Red Oak Quercus rubra x x
Red Maple Acer rubrum x
Black Locust Robinia pseudo-acacia x
Black Gum Nyssa sylvatica x
Quacking Aspen Populus tremuloides x x
Red Cedar Juniperus virginia x x x x
Sassafras Sassafras albidum x
Grey Birch Betula populifolia. x
Black Cherry Prunus serotina x x
Chokecherry Prunus virginiana x x
Beach Plum Prunus maritima x x
Rose Rosa rugosa x
Bayberry Myrica pensylvanica x x x x
Lowbush Blueberry Vaccinium vacillans x x x
Highbush Blueberry Vacccinium corymbosum x x x x
Black Huckleberry Gaylussacia baccata x
Swamp Azalea Rododendron viscosum X
Pink Azalea Rhodoendron nudiflorum x
Coast Pepperbush Clethra alnifolia x x x
Winged Sumac Rhus copallina X X
Staghorn Sumac Rhus typhina x x
Poison Ivy Rhus radicans x x x x x x x
Wiinterberry Ilex verticillata X
Inkberry Ilex glabra x
Buckthorn Rhamnus frangula x
Groundsel -tree Baccharis halimiifolia x X
Northern Wild Raisin Viburnum cassinoides x

Table 2 continued

Fresh- Salt- Beach/ Mixed
Common Name Water Water Barrier Hard- Oak/ Pine Pine Open Pine
Scientific Name Marsh Marsh Beach woods Aspen Scrub Grass
or
swamp

Starflower Trientalis borealis X.
Blue Flag Iris Iris versicolor x
Pink Ladyslipper Cypripedium accule x
St. Johnswort Hypercum perforatum x
Wild Sarsaparilla Aralia nudicaulis x
Canada Mayflower Maianthemum canadense x
Wintergreeni Gaultheria procumbens x x x
Spotted Wintergreen Chimaphila maculata x x x
Trailing Arbutus Epigaea repens x
Solomon's Seal Polygonatum pubescens
Indian Pipe Monotropa, uniflora x x x
Sweetfern Comptonia perearina x x x
Seaside Goldenrod Solidago sempervirens x x x x
Goldenrods Solidago sp. x x x x
Beach Peal Lathyrus japonicus x
Sea Rocket Cakile edentula x
Common Saltwort Salsola Kali x
Seaheach Sandwort Arenaria peploides x
Seaside Spurge Euphorbia polygonifolia x
Dusty Miller Artemesia stellariana x
Tall Wormwood Artemesia caudata x
Glassworts Salicornia europaea,
bigelovii, virginica x x
Sea Lavender Limonium nashii x
Marsh Rosemary Limonium Carolinianum x
Phrasmiter Phragmites communis x
Rose Shadbush Amelanchir canadensis x
Red Chokeberry Pyrus arbitifolia x
Fragrant waterlily Nymphaea odorata x

b. Shel If ish
Mari'ne invertebrates living in the proposed Waquoit Bay National Estuarine
Sanctuary:

Common Name Scientific Name

Molluscs

Slipper Shell Crepidula fornicata
Slipper Limpet Crepidi -pT-ana
Common Periwinkle Littorina -ri-ttorea
Moon Snail Lunatia heros
Soft Shelled Clam Mya arenaria
Quahog We-rcenaria mercenaria
Ribbed Mussel Modiolu- missus
Jingle Shell Anomia si-mp-re-x
Blood Ark 71Fndara osa]iT-
Common Mussel Mytilu 'edulis
Bay Scallop AequipeH@enirradians
Razor Clam Ensis directus
Moon Snails Polin Zes duplicatus
Knobbled Whelk Busycon carica
Channeled Whelk Busycon canaTTalatum
Sea Clam Mactra solidissima
American oyster Tr-assostrea virginica
Lunar dove-shell Mitrella lunata
Thick-lipped drill Eup eura candata
Oyster drill Urosalpinx cinerea
Eastern Mud Snail liq ohsoletus
Stimpson's surf clam p1su a polynyma
Atlantic surf clam Spisula so7iffi`ssima
Morton's egg cockle lapitirardium morton!
False angel wing Petrico7a -phoT-ad-ifo-rmis
Gem clam gemma giRna

Arthropods

Barnacle Balanus sp.
Blue crab Callinectes sapidus
Mole crab Emerita ta7po-i@_a
' -_ yp-R-emus
Horseshoe crab Limulus DpoT_YD
Spider crab Limulus polyphemus
Green crab Carcinus maenas
Hermit crab Pagurus-lFngicarpus

Decapods

Squid Loligo paelci

c . Fi sh

Preliminary list of fish species taken from Waquoit Bay and its
connecting waters proposed for inclusion within the Waquoit Bay National
Estuarine Sanctuary:

Family Clupeidae

Alosa aestivalis (Mitchill) - blueback herring
9-osa pseudoharengus (Wilson) - alewife
Fr-evoortia tyran (Latrobe) - Atlantic menhaden

Family Salmonidae

Salvelinus fontinalis (Mitchill) - brook trout

Family: Osmeridae

Osmerus mordax (Mitchill) - rainbow smelt

Family: Cyprinidae

Notemigonus crysoleucas (Mitchill) - golden shiner

Family: Catostomidae

Catostomus commersoni (Lacepede) - white sucker

Family: Anguillidae

Anguilla rostrata (LeSueur) American eel

Family: Belonidae

Strongylura marina (Walbaum) Atlantic needlefish

Family: Cyprinodontidae

Cyprinodon variegatus (Lacepede - sheepshead minnow
Fundulu aphan6s (LeSueur) - banded killifish
FunduM'heterocli us (Linnaeus) - mummichog
Fundlus majalis (WaIETaum) - striped killifish
E-acania @parva Baird) - rainwater killifish

Family: Atherinidae

Menidia beryllina (Cope) - tidewater silverside
R-en-iv-d@ia mendidia (Linnaeus) - Atlantic silverside

GJL

.Family: Gadidae

Gadul morhua (Linnaeus) - Atlantic cad
@ro adus tomcod (Walbaum) - Atlantic tomcod
Pollachius.virens (Linnaeus) - pollock
Urophycis tYn-u-T-s(Mitchill) - white hake

Family: Gasterosteidae

Apeltes quadracus (Mitchill) - fourspine stickleback
Gastero teus acul atus (Linnaeus) threespine stickleback
Gasterost We-a--M-Ri (Putnam) blackspotted stickleback
Pungitius punjiLius (Linnaeus) .- ninespine stickleback
Family: Syngnathidae

Syngnathus fuscus (Storer) northern pipefish

Family: Serranidae

Centropristis striata (Linnaeus) - black seabass

Family: Percichthyidae

Morone americana (Gmelin) white perch
Moroni7i-ax-a-tiff'is (Walbaum) striped bass

Family: Percidae

Etheostoma nigrum (Rafinesque) - Johnny darter

Family: Pomatomidae

Pomatomus saltatrix (Linnaeus) - bluefish

Family: Sciaenidae

Menticirrhus saxitilis (Block and Schneider) - northern kingfish

Family: Sparidae

Stenotomus chrysops (Linnaeus) - scup

Family: Labridae

Tautoga on tus (Linnaeus) tautog
Tautogol'a5-rus adspersus (Walbaum) - cunner

Family: Triglidae

Prionotus carolinus (Linnaeus) - northern searobin
PrionFt-us -ev-o-l-an-s7Linnaeus) - striped searobin

Family: Cottidae

Myoxodephalus aenaeus (Mitchill) - grubby
Myoxocephalus octoge-cemspinosus (Mitchill) - longhorn sculpin

Family: Cycolpeteridae

Cycolperus lumpus (Linnaeus) - lumpfish

Family: Ammodytidae

Ammodytes americanus (Dekay) - American sand lance

Family: Pholidae

Pholis gunnellus (Linnaeus) - rock gunnel

Family: Mugillidae

Mugil cephalus (Linnaeus) stripped mullet

Family: Bothidae

Paralichthys dentatus (Linnaeus) - summer flounder

Family: Pleuronectidae

Pseudopleuronectes americanus (Walbaum) - winter flounder

Order: Tetraodontiformes

Family: Tetraodontidae

Sphaeroides maculatus (Bloch Schneider) - northern puffer

Order: Batrachoidiformes

Family: Batrachoididae

Opsanus tau (Linnaeus) - oyster toadfish

Categories of fish noted in the proposed Waquoit Bay National Estuarine
Sanctuary:

1. Fresh water fishes that occasionally enter brackish waters:

banded killifish golden shiner
brook trout johnny darter
white sucker

2. Truly estuarine species which spend their entire lives in the estuary-

Atlantic silverside ninespine stickleback
fourspine stickleback northern pipefish
mummichog oyster toadfish
rainwater killifish sheepshead minnow
threespine stickleback tidewater silverside
blackspotted stickleback

3. Anadromous and catadromous fish species:

alewife striped bass
American eel white perch
rainbow smelt blueback herring

4. Marine species which pay regular seasonal visits to the estuary usually
as adults:

American sand lance northern kingfish
Atlantic needlefish northern puffer
striped mullet northern searobin
grubby striped searobin
longhorn sculpin summer flounder
scup
5. Marine species which use the estuary primarily as a nursery ground
usually spawning and spending much of their adult life at sea, but often
returning seasonally to the estuary:

Atlantic menhaden tautog
Atlantic tomcod white hake
cunner winter flounder

6. Adventitious visitors, which appear irregularly and have no apparent
estuarine requirements:

Atlantic cod lumpfish
black seabass pollock
bluefish rock gunnel

d. Birds

A preliminary listing of bird species found at the proposed Waquoit
Bay National Estuarine Sanctuary:

Common Loon Merganser species
Red throated Loon Hawks
Various varieties of Grebes Bob-White Quail
Sheerwater Species Pheasant
American Egret Rail species
Snowy Egret Plover species
Green Heron Ruddy Turnstone

Black Crowned Night Heron Sandpiper species
American Bittern Yellow legs
Mute Swirn Owls, various species
Common Canada Goose Flickers
American Brant Gulls, various species
Mallard and Black Ducks Song birds
Baldpate Duck Whip-Poor-will
Green and Blue-Winged Teal Catbird
Greater and Lesser Scaup Blackbird
Golden Eye Duck Yellow Warbler
Buffle-head Duck Common Yellow throat
Scoter species Eider

A checklist of Massachusetts breeding birds in the Waquoit Bay
vicinity:*

Species Code Species Code

Green Heron PRobable Eastern Kingbird PO
Snowy Egret Mnfirmed Horned Lark Co
Mute Swan ?Ussible Tree Swallow PR
Canada Goose _CU Barn Swallow PR
Mallard Co Blue Jay Co
Black Duck Co Common Crow Co
Osprey PR Black-capped Chickadee Co
Ruffed Grouse PO White-breasted Nathatch PO
Bobwhite Co Brown Creeper PO
Ring-neck Pheasant PR Grey Catbird CO
Piping Plover CO Brown Thrasher P0
Killdeer PO American Robin Co
Spotted Sandpiper CO Eastern Bluebird PO
Great Black-backed Gull PO Starling Co
Herring Gull PO Common Yellowthroat PR
Laughing Gull PO House Sparrow Co
Common Tern Co Red-winged Blackbird CO
Least Tern CO Northern Oriole CU
Rock Dove Co Common Grackle PR
Mourning Dove Co Brown-headed Cowbird PR
Whip-poor-will PO Cardinal PO
Belted Kingfisher PR Purple Finch PO
Common Flicker Co House Finch Co
Downy Woodpecker PO American Goldfinch PR
Savannah Sparrow CO Rufous-sided Towhee Co

"Massachusetts Breeding Bird Atlas Project", Massachusetts Audubon Society,
(unpublished).

e. Mammals

A preliminary listing of mammal species found at the proposed Waquoit
Bay National Estuarine Sanctuary:

Vario*us Species of Moles
Shrews
Bats
Skunk
Red Fox
Red and Gray Squirrels
Chipmunk
Muskrat
Cotton tail rabbit
Deer
Racoon
Woodchuck

f. Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species

Rare, endangered, or threatened species noted in the proposed Waquoit Bay
National Estuarine Sanctuary:

RARE PLANT SPECIES

Name Common Name Mass. status Federal status

Agalinis acuta Sandplain gerardia Critically Considered for
endangered listing as
throughout Threatened under
range ESA, (Category 1).

Heliathemum dumosum Bushy Rockrose Threatened Considered for
throughout listing as
range Threatened under
ESA, (Category 2).

Asclepias tuberosa Butterfly Weed Apparently
secure in
state ind
range.

Spiranthes tuberosa Little Ladies' Apparently
Tresses secure in state
throug@out
range.

1. Recently removed from Division of Fisheries & Wildlife Rare Plant List.

RARE ANIMAL SPECIES
Acipenser brevirostrum2 Shortnose Sturgeon Proposed for Listed as Endangered
listing as 3 under ESA.
Endangered.

Sterna antillarum Least Tern Proposed for
listing as 3
Threatened.

Malaclemys terrapin Northern Diamond- Proposed for
back terrapin listing as a
Species of 3
Speci al Concern

2. Historical occurrence (last verified before 1978).
3. Division of Fisheries Wildlife Rare Animal List currently under
revision.

5. Ecosystem

The following is a brief description of the various resource areas
found within the proposed Sanctuary boundaries. Collectively they make up
the Bay's ecosystem.

Barrier Beach System: The low-lying beach forming South Cape Beach,
Dead Neck and fhe southern segment of Washburn Island protects the estuarine
resources within the Waquoit Bay system. Salt water access into the estuary
is restricted to the tidal flow through the narrow cut between the east end
of Washburn Island and Dead Neck. The barrier beach is undeveloped. Part
of South Cape Beach is a recreational beach.

Salt Marsh: There are approximately 316 acres of salt marsh in the
Waqu Bay system. The Mashpee portion of the system has 240 of these
acres, most of which surround Hamblin Pond, Jehu Pond, Sage Lot Pond and the
head of Great River. Salt marsh acreage on the Falmouth side occurs in
small parcels scattered mostly about Washburn Island and the head of Waquoit
Bay. Throughout the system these marshes are almost exclusively privately-
owned, although the Commonwealth's acquisition of the South Cape Beach and
Washburn Island includes the Sage Lot Pond marsh and others, totaling 121
acres. The high productivity of the salt marshes contributes to the food
chain of the near shore environment.

Shellfish Beds: The combination of warm -shallow water and a sand mud
sediment provideT-11deal conditions for an abundance of shellfish in the
estuary. In order of economic importance, quahogs, bay scallops and soft
shelled clams are harvested recreationally and commercially. Shellfishing
provides the primary source of income to those who use the estuary for
economic purposes. Both Falmouth and Mashpee recognize the need to protect
and maintain this valuable resource. Long-standing programs of propagation
and predator control are ongoing.

Anadromous and Catadromous Fish Run: The Ouashnet River, stretching
to Johns Pond in Mashpee, is an important alewife run. American eel, rainbow
smelt, blueback herring, stripped bass and white perch are also found within
the system.

Erosion and Accretion Areas: Moderate erosion occurs alon-g the length
of South Cape Beach and the Western half of Washburn Island. Stone groins
were constructed on the tidal flat at the western end of Washbqrn in the
1930's by the Division of Waterways to trap easterly-moving sand. These
groins have now decayed to the point where they are no longer effective9
and the beach continues to retreat. The eastern portion of Washburn fronting
the Sound experiences accretion, but this buildup of sand does not seem to
have seriously affected the entrance channel to Waquoit Bay.

Dunes: Sand dunes a re found on both Dead Neck and the eastern end of
Washburn Island. The Dead Neck dunes are more extensive and are currently
under the-management of the South Cape Beach State Park.

Beach: South Cape Beach has long been recognized as one of Cape Cod's
finest sandy beaches by both summer visitors and permanent residents. It
is also a prime surfcasting area for fishermen when bluefish are running.
Motor vehicle access is presently limited to an ungraded extension of Great
Oak Road in Mashpee.

Estuary: The Waquoit Bay estuarine system is composed of interconnected
water bodies, including Waquoit Bay, Hamblin Pond, Jehu Pond and Sage Lot Pond.
Fresh water enters the system through the Ouashnet River, which originate at
Johns pond and through Red Brook; Little River, which flows from Hamblin Pond
and through Red Brook; and Great River, from Jehu Pond. The waters are classi-
fied SA (suitable for propagation of aquatic life, primary and secondary contact
recreation, and shellfish harvesting without depuration) by the Division of
Water Pollution Control. Under the antidegradation provisions of the Water
Quality Standards, the waters are futhur classified as 4.2, Protection of High
Quality Waters.

Significant Scenic Site: The striking scenic quality of the Waquoit
Bay area is due to the remaining open land which surrounds much of the Bay.
The entire western and southern shores of Waquoit Bay are composed of the
undeveloped stretches of Washburn Island and Dead Neck. In addition, there
is. a magnificent view of the headlands of Martha's Vineyard, five miles
distant across Vineyard Sound.

Fish Spawning and Nursery Area: Many species of finfish utilize the
warm water and nutrient-ri h conditions of this estuary as a spawning and
nursery ground. In addition to the anadromous and catadromous species already
mentioned, there are also exclusively marine species that use the estuary,
including Atlantic menhaden, Atlantic tomcod, cunner, tautog, white hake and
winter flounder. A Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries investigating
team found that the Waquoit Say system exhibited the greatest diversity of
estuarine finfish species among the nine areas studied in the Commonwealth.
The team attributed this abundance to Waquoit's location south of Cape Cod
where cold water species from the Gulf of Maine and warm water species from the
Mid-Atlantic intermingle.

Wildlife Habitat: An adequate supply of food, water and cover in the
Bay area provides an important breeding ground for many species of both
land and sea birds.

B. Current Use of Site

1. Hunting

Hunting has traditionally occurred on Washburn Island and South Cape Beach.
No hunting occurs at the Swift site because of its small size and developed
nature.

Species generally hunted in the Waquoit Bay area include pheasants, rabbits,
squirrels, quail, and migratory waterfowl. Seasons and other regulations are
set by the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife. For all the above
species, seasons occur between October and February. No hunting is allowed
on Sundays.

Pheasants have been stocked on South Cape Beach since 1975-76 by the
Division of Fish and Wildlife at a level of approximately 120 birds a year
The 1983 season ran from October 20 to November 26. Between October 19 an@
November 24, 1983, 104 birds were released. An additional 12 birds were released
at the close of the season in an effort to re-establish a native population.
Hunting activity was heaviest at the beginning of the season with a turnout of
12 to 20 hunters per day on weekdays and approximately 40 hunters the first
Saturday. For the rest of the season levels were at 0 to In per weekday and 25
to 30 on Saturdays. Most hunting occurred during morning hours with the average
hunter stay of approximately 3 hours.

Waterfowl hunting levels in 1983 were low with most activity occurring
before 8:00 a.m.

2. Fishing

Considerable recreational (rod and reel) fishing occurs in the lower
(southern) end of Waquoit Bay for such species as winter flounder, striped
bass, bluefish, tautog, white perch, sea-run brook trout and tomcod. Most
of this is done from boats or at the mouth of the Bay on Washburn Island or
South Cape Beach.
There is some commercial fishing for eels in the upper parts of the estuary.
Fishing is done wih eel pots in warm months and with spears in colder periods.
A springtime run of alewives and blueback herring enters the Bay and goes
up the Quashnet River to spawn. Young of the year move down river into the Bay
during the summer months.
Local sportfishing groups, in cooperation with the State Division of
Fisheries and Wildlife have re-established a population of sea-run brook
trout in the Quashnet river. These fish periodically are found in Waquoit Bay.

3. Shellfishing
Shellfishing is done both recreationally and commercially in Waquoit Bay.
It is directly managed by the two communities involved under plans approved by
the State Division of Marine Fisheries. Species harvested include quahogs, bay
scallops, and some soft-shell clams.

The 1983 Town Report for Falmouth lists the following take from that town's
portion of the Bay: 410 bushels of soft-shell clams, 2,900 bushels of quahogs,
and 250 bushels of bay scallops. Figures for the Mashpee section are not
presently available.

4. Boating

Recreational boating is very popular in and around Waquoit Bay and its
connecting waterways. There are presently no marinas or heavily-used mooring
areas within the proposed Sanctuary. Along the shores of the Metoxit area of
Falmouth and the Seconsett and Monomoscoy Islands there are many docks and
moorings for small boats. There is a public landing and marina on the Childs
River and another public landing on the Seapit River; both of these are outside
the proposed boundaries of the Sanctuary. A Town of Mashpee landing is located
on the Great River and the South Cape Beach agreement provides for space on the
Great River for a Town of Mashpee boat launching facility.

Some of the boating on Waquoit Bay is for commercial shellfishing purposes.

There have been concerns raised in both Falmouth and Mashpee about present
and future management of boating. Falmouth is developing a management plan for
boating and such related activities as waterskiing. Mashpee is involved in
ongoing planning for future needs for mooring areas and accessible waterways.

The shallow nature of the Bay, the size of the mouth and of the connecting
waterways and the prohibition against dredging within the boundaries of the Area
of Critical Environmental Concern al.1 serve as limiting features on the size
and type of boating. It is expected that boating in the Bay will remain
principally recreational in nature, with some commercial shellfishermen, and
small (below 30-35 feet) in size of craft.

5. Aesthetics

The undeveloped, "pristine" nature of the Bay, Washburn Island and South
Cape Beach is enjoyed by many of the visitors to the area as well as nearby
residents and townspeople of Falmouth and Mashpee. This appreciation was
manifested in both local and statewide support for acquisition of the parcels
now included in the State park. People use the area for swimming in the high
quality waters, walking the clean beaches, harvesting the uncontaminated
shellfish, and viewing the plants and animals of the area in a *peaceful and
unhurried atmosphere.

6. Housing-

There is no housing on Washburn Island and only one summer residence on
South Cape Beach. As one of the terms of acquisition for the State park, a
continuing tenancy, or life-estate, has been negotiated. At some point in the
future, the Commonwealth will acquire complete control of this structure.

Presently no one is inhabiting the Swift Estate that is proposed for
acquisition as part of the Sanctuary. Therefore, no residents will be displaced
as a result of Sanctuary designation.

7. Archaeological and Historic In terests
'fhe building and grounds 'of the portion of the Swift Estate proposed for
inclusion in the Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Sanctuary are classic examples
of rural, coastal Victorian architecture and landscaping. This style evolved
at the end of th 1800's around the recreation and tourism influences of wealthy
individuals leaving the cities and summering along the coast. Subsequent to
designation, it is proposed to explore the potential for nomination of this
site to the National Register of Historic Places. In Massachusetts this program
is administered for the National Park Service by the State Historical Preser-
vation Office under the auspices of the Massachusetts Historical Commission (a
sub-division of the office of the Massachusetts Secretary of State.) Such a
listing would make it eligible for potential funding for preservation of National
Register properties.

A preliminary historic and archaeologic survey on South Cape Beach identi-
fied no areas of special interest. A more intense survey is being developed as
part of an upcoming State Environmental Impact Report. Historic reports
indicate that the site was used as a summer fishing and hunting encampment for
Native American tribes.

A walkover survey of Washburn Island found two areas with historic artifacts
along the eastern shore. Further investigation would be required to relate
these stone flakes to activities by Native Americans. They could indicate an
encampment area or merely a temporary worksite. ,

Historic maps of Washburn Island show five structures between 1853 and
1910. Evidence of two additional structures was found during a recent (1982)
survey.

Evidence of some of these structures can no longer be found hecause of
U.S. Army construction between 1942 and 1945. At that time, military barracks,
mess halls, garages and related structures were built as part of the defense
effort of World War II.

IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

A. General Impacts

The overall impact of establishing the proposed Waquoit Bay National
Estuarine Sanctuary would be environmentally beneficial. Social and economic
impacts would be both beneficial and adverse to some degree.

Designation of the Sanctuary would entail minimal development or physical
alteration of present environmental conditions beyond what is already proposed
as part of South Cape Beach State Park and on Washburn Island. The combination
of present Federal, State, and local land-use and regulatory programs and the
management plans for the State properties serves to ensure a minimum of environ-
mental disturbance will occur in this area.

Access for traditional uses of the proposed Sanctuary would not be changed.
Fishing and shellfishing will continue to be administered by the same authorities
and hunting will be under the management of the Department of Environmental
Management (DEM). On South Cape Beach, advice and review will be offered by
the South Cape Beach State Park Advisory Committee.

A detailed management plan for the Sanctuary will be developed incorpora-
ting criteria 'for the Swift estate and the management plan prepared by DEM for
park lands. Adjacent landowners would be unaffected.

B. Specific Impacts

1. Natural Environment

Physical impacts on the natural environment though designation of a
National Estuarine Sanctuary in Waquoit Bay would be negligible. Effects of
the Education and Research Programs would be beneficial in the long run through
a better understanding of the estuary and mangement of its resources.

2. Human Environment

a. Scientific and Educational

It is the goal of the Scientific and Educational Programs to provide the
public a better understanding of the resources and interworkings of the estuary.
This should benefit the resources of the estuary and help satisfy those curious
about the world about them.

b. Public Access

Acquisition of South Cape Beach and Washburn Island has made these once-
private lands accessible to the public. The further acquisition of the Swift
estate proposed by Sanctuary designation will open another avenue of access to
the public. Here the public will not only experience the environment, but will
more fully become a part of it, through a better understanding of its workings.
For researchers, a guaranteed access will be available along with the support
facilities of the Sanctuary Research Program.

c. State and Federal Impacts

Acquisition and management of the Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Sanctuary
will have a short-term fiscal impact on the Federal government and the Common-
wealth of Massachusetts. Long-term operation of the Sanctuary will be the
responsibility of the Commonwealth; however, as discussed above, attempts
will he made to investigate alternate funding sources for long-term operations.
Any expenditures are expected to be offset by two non-quanti f i able bene-
fits: (1) improved scientific and technical knowledge to be applied toward
management practices concerning estuarine resources here and in other areas,
and (2) improved intergovernmental coordination in the Bay system as a whole.

C. Unavoidable Adverse Environmental or Socio-Economic Impacts

1. Tax Revenue Loss

Acquisition of the Swift property will result in a limited loss of revenue
to the Town of Falmouth. After a proposed sub-division of the Swift property,
State acquisition would result in a net loss of approximately $2,50043,000
per year in tax income based on 1984 figures. Any future acquisition of marsh
areas in Falmouth or Mashpee could result in slight additional tax revenue
loss.

2. Pedestrian and Traffic Impacts

Designation is expected to introduce additional people into the Sanctuary
and the included park areas under the Research and Educational Programs. It is
expected that, with appropriate management plans and implementation, there
should be an insignificant effect.

Establishment of a Sanctuary Headquarters at the Swift Estate would
increase traffic impacts along Route 28. Initially this would entail only
Sanctuary staff and researchers, an expected average of 20 vehicle trips per
day. As the educational program develops and displays and information are
available for the public, this figure could increase. Evening activities or
meetings could produce "pulses" of traffic entering or exiting the facility.

D. Relationship between the Proposed Action on the Environment and the
Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity

The expressed purpose of the proposed action is to protect the Waquoit
Bay ecosystem in perpetuity and to guarantee long-term stability to the benefit
of a large and diverse assemblage of wildlife and fish species. Regulated
harvesting of natural resources would continue, but there would be no short-
term or exploitative uses at the expense of long-time productivity or continued
public utilization. By implication, all short-term uses that would reduce or
eliminate long-term productivity would be prevented with the proposed action
and intended management.
The proposed action of habitat preservation and resource conservation is
conducive to maintaining natural productivity and ecosystem processes with

little or no work or subsidy by man. The natural productive efficiency of
estuaries is among the highest of all known natural or artificial systems and
is virtlually irreplacable.

The protection and management of the area as a natural field laboratory
will serve to maintain, and possibly enhance, the ecosystem's productivity in
the long term.

E. Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitments of Resources

No irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources have been
identified in the assessment or are expected to result from the proposed action.
No reduction in income to the county would result from loss of agricultural
production. No other adverse, unavoidable environmental impacts are known. No
significant construction is anticipated, except for possible education facili-
ties such as an interpretative center, trails, signs, and small upland parking
areas at controlled access points. Other than sport and commercial fish,
shellfish, and wildlife harvesting, no extraction of renewable or nonrenewable
resources would occur. Endangered, threatened, and sensitive species and their
vital habitats would be protected, as would any known or discovered archeologi-
cal or historical sites.

Minor maintenance and energy expenditures would be incurred, as would the
expenditure of public funds. These may be regarded as a commitment of economic
resources and also as an investment in recreation, amenities for the welfare of
present and future generations.
F. Possible Conflicts Between the Proeosed Action and the Objectives of
Federal, State, Regional, and Local Land-use Plans, Policies and
TRTRM-Tor the Area concerned

No conflicts have been noted in the assessment used to develop the proposed
Sanctuary designation. By incorporating existing local, State, and Federal
regulatory, land-use, and resource management programs, it is intended that the
Sanctuary operation will carefully fit into its natural and legal environment.

PART V: LIST OF PREPARERS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Mr. Arthur E. Jeffers, Project Manager
Sanctuary Programs Division
National Ocean Service
National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration
Washington, D.C.

Ms. Sherrard C. Foster, Assistant Project Manager
Sanctuary Programs Division

MASSACHUSETTS

Mr. Stephen Bliven, Coastal Biologist and Planner
Coastal Zone Management Office
Massachusetts Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs
Boston, Massachusetts

Mr. Gary Clayton, Deputy Director
Coastal Zone Management Office

Mr. Harry Dodson, Planner
Department of Environmental
Management

Ms. Ruth Helfeld, Planner
Department of Environmental
Management

Mr. Jack Clarke, Cape Cod Planning and Economic
Development Commission

PART VI: LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS RECEIVING COPIES

Federal Agencies

Advisory Council of Historic Preservation
Department of Agriculture
Department of Commerce
Department of Defense
Department of Energy
Department of Health and Human Services
Department of the Interior
Department of Justice
Department of Labor
Department of Transportation - U.S. Coast Guard
Environmental Protection Agency
Permits Branch, Region 1, Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
General Services Administration
Nuclear Regulatory Commission

National Interest Groups

AFL-CIO
American Association of Port Authorities
American Bureau of Shipping
American Fisheries Society
American Gas Association
American Shore and Beach Preservation Association
American Society of Planning Officials
American Waterways Operations
Amoco Production Company
Atlantic Richfield Company
Boating Industry Association
Center for Environmental Education
Center for Law and Social Policy
Center for Urban Affairs
Center for Urban and Regional Resources
Chamber of Commerce of the United States
Chevron U.S.A., Inc.
Cities Service Company
Congressional Research Service
Conservation Foundation
Continental Oil Company
Council of State Planning Agencies
CZM Newsletter
Defenders of Wildlife
Environmental Policy Center
Environmental Defense Fund, Inc.
Environmental Law Institute
Exxon Company, U.S.A.
Friends of the Earth

Gulf Oil Company
Gulf Refining Company
Institute for the Human Environment
Interstate Natural Gas Association of America

National Interest Groups (cont.)

Marathon Oil Company
Marine Mammal Commission
Marine Technology Society
Mobil Oil Corporation
National Association of Conservation Districts
National Association of Home Builders
National Audubon Society
National Fisheries Institute
National Forest Products Association
National Marine Manufacturers Association
National Ocean Industries Association
National Research Council
National Society of Professional Engineers
National Waterways Conference
National Wildlife Federation
National Wildlife Federation Wetlands Center
Natural Resources Defense Council
Natural Resources Law Institute
Norfolk Dredging Company
Outboard Marine Corporation
Sierra Club
Soil Conservation Society of America
Standard Oil Company of Ohio
State University Law School of New York
State University of New York-
Sun Company, Inc.
Tenneco Oil Company
Texaco, Inc.
Texas A & M University
Transcentury Corporation
Union Oil Company of California
United Mobile Sport Fisherman
University of Pittsburgh
University of Washington, Institute for Marine Studies
Urban Research and Development Association, Inc.
Western Oil and Gas Association
Wildlife Management Institute
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute

United States Senators

The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy
The Honorable Paul E. Tsongas

United States Representatives

The Honorable Gerry E. Studds

Massachusetts State Government

The Honorable Michael S. Dukakis, Governor

Executive Office of Environmental Affairs

Environmental Impact Review (MEPA)

Commissioner
Department of Environmental Management

Office of Planning
Department of Environmental Management

Bureau of Recreation
Department of Environmental Planning

Forests and Parks Division
Department of Environmental Management

Acquisition Division
Department of Environmental Management

Engineering Division
Department of Environmental Management

Planning Division
Department of Environmental Management

Region I
Department of Environmental Management

South Cape Beach State Park
Department of Environmental Management

Commi ssi one r
Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Recreational Vehicles

Fisheries and Wildlife Division
Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Recreational Vehicles

Non-Game Endangered Species
Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Recreational Vehicles

Natural Heritage Program
Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Recreational Vehicles

Division of Marine Fisheries
Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Recreational Vehicles

Research and Management
Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Recreational Vehicles

Commi ssi oner
Department of Environmental Ouality Engineering

Division of Wetlands and Waterways Regulation
Department of Environmental Quality Engineering

Southeast Region
Department of Environmental Quality Engineering

Director
Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Office

Cape and Islands Senatorial District
Massachusetts Historical Commission

Coastal Resources Advisory Board
Cape Cod Citizens Advisory Committee

Cape Cod Planning and Economic De velopment Commission

South Cape Beach State Park Advisory Committee

State Senator

Paul V. Doane, Cape Cod and Islands Senatorial District

Local Officials

Town of Falmouth

Board of Selectmen

Planning Board

Conservation Commission

Board of Health

Harbormaster

Shellfish Warden

Waterways Committee

Department of Public Works

Conservation Department

Town of Mashpee

Board of Selectmen

Planning Board

Conservation Commission

Board of Health

Harbormaster

Recreation Director

Shellfish Officer

Waterways Advisory Committee

State, Regional and Local Environmental Organizations

Massachusetts Association of Conservation Commissions

Massachusetts Audubon Society

Association for the Preservation of Cape Cod

Citizens for the Protection of Waquoit Bay

Wellfleet Audubon Sanctuary

New Alchemy Institute

Environmental Lobby of Massachusetts

Nature Conservancy

Conservation Law Foundation of New England

Trustees of Reservations

Sierra Club

Scientific and Educational Organizations

Provincetown Center for Coastal Studies

Cape Cod Museum of Natural History

Sea Grant Office - Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Coastal Research Center - Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Cape Cod Community College

Lloyd Center for Environmental Studies, So. Dartmouth, MA

NEED Collaborative (Falmouth, Dennis, Yarmouth, Harwich School Systems)

Other Regional or Local Groups

The New Seabury Corporation

Edwards Boatyard Inc.

The Waquoit Association

Precinct 7 (Falmouth) Organization

Waquoit Shellfish Corporation

Waquoit Bay Yacht Club

Menauhant Yacht Club

Individual Landowners

Nancy S. Pfeiffer

Harris Douglas Moore

Francis Southwick

Kathryn V. Wood

Guiseppe Durso

Henry Spohr

Ruth E. Witkus

Robert DeVoe

Edward S. Anderson

Albert V. Lawton

Joseph J. McGrath

Ronald Bourque

Francis B. Ellis

John L. Venckus

New Seabury Corporation

John J. Moore

Richard E. Ball

John W. Atkinson

Donald Koslow

Joseph Biknaitis

Albert W. Whitmore

Ste4en R. Ball

Arthur F. Koch

Red Brook Corporation

Jennie E. James

Earl H. Hutt

Louis M. McMenany

Mary B. Bingham

John F. Stanton

Richard J. Breivogel

Joseph R. Uzmann

Pauline A. Gregory

Edgar A. Leaf

Richard D. Otis

Edward F. Quirk

Concerned Individuals

Cathy Abbott

T.W.O. Abbott

Robert B. Clemence

Dean Gordarier

Olin Kelly

John Porteus

Mark Robinson

Leonard Rose

Charles Swain

Oliver Swain

Bruce Tripp

Deobrah Williams

Winnifred Woods

Gilbert P. Wright

W. Stephen Collings

Arlene Wilson

K. M. Good

John G. Howard

Richard C. Hiscock

George Hampson

Edward Rudd

Richard H. Loring

Carleton P. Jones

Mark S. Galkowski

Mark Forest

Richard Conner

Burke Limeburner

Dean Cycon

Thomas Leach

James Hain

I
I
Barbara Fegan
I Robert Prescott, Jr.
I John Portnoy
Brenda Boleyn
I Edward H. Jason
Judith Barnet
I Ann Platt
I Howard Quinn
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I f
1 85

I
I
I. APPENDIX I I
National Estuarine Program Regulations - 1974, 1977 and 1984
I
I
- I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.. BG I

TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 1974

WASHINGTON. D.C.

WES Op
Volume 39 M Number 108

PART IV
RPM

DEPARTMENT OF
y1l,
COMMERCE

-y
National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration

Estuarine Sanctuary GuiJclines

199~q22~1 RULES AND REGULATIONS

Title I ~q5~-~-C~ornm~*rc~e and Foreign Trade the proposed regulations and presents and House Committee Reports and are
CHAPTER IX~q-~NATIO~qNAL OCEANIC AND t~qhe ~qm~t~lO~u~sle for the responses made. ~c~o~n~s~qW~ered suf~l~icient to reflect the kinds
ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, ~qDE. ~qS~@~c~qU~q= ~9~21~.2 Deftn~i~t~ion~z. ~qM~i~ree com- of uses Intended within an estuarine
PARTM ENT OF COMMERCE ments requested that the term "~estu~a~r~l" sa~u~c~qmar~y~.
PART 921~q-E~qSTURAINE SANCTUARY be de~qdned. Although the term is defined ~Sever~&~L comments were received per-
in t~qh~e Act and also in the regulations t~a~l~z~r~i~qm~g -to ~q1921.3(c) involving ~the re-
QUIDEUNES dealing with Coastal Zone Management s~tr~ict~ions against overemphasis of de-
T~he National Oceanic and At~qm~0~6~- Program Development ~qG~r~q=t~s (Part 920 s~u~-~t~ictive or manipulative research. Ten
ph~eric: Administration (NOAA) an of this chapter) published November 29, comments indicated that the section was
March 7~. 1974, proposed guidelines (15 1~q97~3. It ba~s been added to these regu~qla- t~oo weak and would not provide su~qMcient
C~F~qR Pan 921) pursuant to section 312 Of t~qio~ns and broadened slightly to include ~i~o~n~g-terr~a protection for the sanctuary
the Coastal Zone Management Act of ~t~a~g~r~i~qm lagoons with restrIc~ted fresh- e~c~o~g~y~ster~L Several commentators spe-
1972 (Pub. ~0qL 92~-583. ~q9~q6 ~qS~qt~a~qt~. 1280). ~gm~ter input such as might occur along ~qm~qf~qtca~ql~ql~y recommended deleting the words
hereinafter referred to as the -Act." for the south Texas coast. -would not normally be permitted" and
the purpose of establishing the Policy Two other comments requested that inserting in their place "will not be per-
and procedures for the no-'nation. se. the ~-~-p~r~i~q=~qW~qT purpose' ~' referred to in ~qm~i~tted." In contrast. three respondents
lection and management of e~stu~Lr~qIne I 921.2~(b~) be clearly de~qf~qtned. Although Indicated that the potential use of est~u~-
sanctuaries. elaborated upon In I 921~.3(a)~, for tile a~n~n~e sanctuaries for manipulative or
Written comments were to be sub- purpose of clarity this chance has been destructive research was too restricted.
mitted to the ~O~qMce of Coastal Environ- made. and that these uses should be generally
ment (now the Office of Coastal Zone Section 921.3 Ob~qfect~iv~es and Im~ple- pe~r~q=~i~t~ted If' not encouraged.
Management), National Oceanic and ~inentat~ion. Several comments suggested The ~!e~g~islative history of section 312
Atmospheric Ad~n~0qW~Li~s~tr~a~t~ql~a~n. before t~qh~q" t~qhe e~s~t~u~qm~qU~qw ~a~anctu~ar~7 program clearly Indicates that the intent of the
April 8. 1~974, and co~n~s~i~qde~qm~qd~a~n ban been objectives were too narrowly d~ef~t~ned and estuarine s~a~nct~i~l~a~x~y program should be
given those comments. s~Pe~c~qi~ql~c~all~:~7 ~t~qh~q" they should be broad- to preserve representative estuarine
The Act recognizes that the coastal ened to include the acquisition and ~pr~es- ~Lre~as so that they may provide long-
zone Is rich in a variety of ~n~a~l~qw~a~ql~.~, com- e~r~v~a~t~i~o~n of unique or endangered e~A~qW- term (virtually permanent) scientific
mercial, recreational. ~Indu~q"~qd~a~ql and ~qm~i~s~e for wildlife or ecological reason& and educational use. The uses perceived
esthetic resources of Immediate and po- Although the Act (section 302) declares are compatible with What h~a~s been de~.
tential value to the present and future It the nation's policy to preserve, protect, fined as "research natural areas." In
well-being of the nation. States are en- develop, a~nd where possible, to restore or in era of rapidly degrading estuarine
cour~a~ge~qd to develop ~q=d Implement enhance coastal resources, this Is per- environments, the estuarine sanctuary
management programs to achieve wise ceived to be achievable through State program will ensure that a representa-
use of the resources of the ~co~s~i~s~t~i~al ~x~o~ne. actions ~p~qu~qmua~n~t to sections 305 and 305. Live series of natural areas sill be avail-
and the Act ~autho~qh~qm Federal grants to While it is recognized that the creation able for ac~ientl~qdc or educational uses
the States f~or these purposes (sections of an estuarine sanctuary may in fact dependent on that natural character. for
305 and 30~q6). serve to preserve or protect an area or example. for baseline studies. for u~se In
In addition. under section 312 of the biological community. the legislative h~is- understanding the functioning of natural
Act. t~he Secretary of Commerce is t~O~r~7 Of section 312 clearly Indicates the ecological systems. for controls against
authorized to make available to a coastal estuarine sanctuary program was not In- which the impacts of development in
State grants of up to ~q50 per centum, of tended to duplicate existing broad ~pur- Other areas might be co~qm~p~axed. and as
the cost of acquisition. development and pose Federal preservation programs, such interpretive centers for educational pur-
operation of estuarine ~s~an~c~tu~z~z~les. The as might be accommodated by u~se of the poses. Any use. research or otherwise.
guidelines contained In this ~p~w~rt are for Land and Water Conservation Fund Act. which would dest~qi~c~y or detract from the
grants under section 312. ~ql~qbste~a~qd. both In the Act as wall as its natural System, would be inappropriate
In general. section 312 provides that legislative history. t~b~A objective Is de- under this program.
grants may be awarded to ~0qMte~s on a ~B~r~ie~qd a~a~ preserving representative estu- In general, the necessity of or benefit
matching basis to acquire. develop ~a~nd ~ar~i~n~e ~qw~ea~i~s for long-term research ~a~nd from permitting ~q=~&~n~ipulat~ive or de-
operate natural areas as estuarine ~s~a~n~c- educational uses. ~st~qmctive research within ~an estuarine
tu~a~x~les in order that scientists and s~tu~- Mires other comments suggested the s~qw~ctu~q=~qT ~i~s unclear. While there is a
dents may be provided the opportunity objectives of the program should be en- ~qle~g~it~i~n~i~a~te need for such kinds of re-
to examine over a period of time e~co~ql~o~2qg- larged to Include the restoration of e~n- search. ample opportunity for ~qwa~n~ipu-
c~al relationships within t~qh~e ~ar~e~s. T~qh~e ~qf~qt~r~o~n~qmen~ta~l~ql~y degraded areas. This. too, ~q!~a~t~ive or destructive research to assess
purpose of these guidelines is to - Is perceived to be a State requirement directly -ans impact or stresses on the
the rules and regulations for Imp ~s~e~p~a~qm from section 312. In addition. estuarine environment exists now with-
t~at~ion of ~U~qW progra~in~. adequate authority for restoring de- but the need for creation or u~se of ~an
graded water areas now exists (for ex- e~f~f~Ul~a~r~i~n~G sanctuary for this purpose. in
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric ample. Pub. ~qL 92-500 In addition to contrast. a ~c~le~dr need exists for natural
Administration Is pub~l~i~sh~i~n herewith sections 302. ~q305 and 30~6 of the Act). ~&re~as to serve as controls for man~ipula~-
the ~qf~In~a~l regulations describing the ~p~r~o~- No ~sig~u~4qM~c~a~nt additional be~ne~qf~qtt would t~qf~qt research or research on altered
cedure~3 for ~a~p~pll~c~at~ql~o~ns to receive ~s~q=t~s appear to result from declaring an ~ire~s Systems~-
for estuarine sanctuaries under section an estuarine ~s~anctu~qw~qT for the purposes The section on manipulative research
3~22 of the Act. The ~qf~qt~i~al ~r~egul~i~st~l~on~s and ha~s been changed to re~f~iect the concern
criteria were ~qmv~ised from the ~1~: ~P ~9 ~0 ~1 ~ I ~. Of ~r~e~s~to~qm~t~q1~a~n.
guidelines based an the comments re- A few comments Indicated that the for continued --~i~n~v~o~l~sr~ice of the are&
ceived. A total of ~q11ft~qy (50) States~q. examples of sanctuary use were too he~av- as a natural "stem However. the modi-
agen- fly weighted toward ~qsc~qi~qe~qn~qt~qi~qf~qt~qe =~q.-3 to ~0qI~0ql~0qu ~q-normally" ~0qhas been retained be-
cies, or~qg~qan~qi~0qnt~qi~qo~qn~qs and t~qn~00qdv~qi~qd~qu~00qWs ~qv~qib~q. cause. within these limits, it is not felt
mi~qtted responses to the proposed sec- the exclusion of educational uses. Public
tion 312 guidelines published In the education concerning the value and ben- necessary to preclude ~qa~ql~ql such uses, the
~qr~0qw~qrR~qAL ~6qR~qx~qa~qzsTz~qi~qt on March 7, 1~0q97~0q4. Of eats of. and the nature of co~qn~00qM~qe~qt within occasion may rarely &rise when because
those responses received. eight (~0q8) of- the coastal zone, will be esse~qnt~6qW to the of a thoroughly demonstrated direct ben-
fered no comment or were ~8qwh~qo~0qi~8qly favor- success of a coast~qai zone management e~0qf~0qt~qs. such research may be permitted.
able as to the nature and content of the Program. The section has been changed Several ~qc~qom~6qment~qS suggested that the
guidelines as originally proposed~q. P~qor~qty- to reflect an appropriate concern for ~qprogr~6q= should Include degraded estua-
two ~q(42) commentators submitted su~qs- ed~qu~qc~qi~qLti~qOnal use- rine systems, rather than be limited to
gest~qion~qs concerning the proposed section Some ~qc~qo~0qmme~qn~qta~qto~0qm suggested changes areas which are "relatively undisturbed
312 ~qgui~qt~0qt~qe~ql~ql~q" . in or additions to the specific examples by ~qh~qi~qrma~qn activities." Such areas would
The following ~qs~qu~8qm~4qm~0qW~q7 ~qa~qn~qg~8ql~0qy~8q= ~4qk~qe~qy of son tu~0q=~8qT uses and purposes. These permit research efforts designed to re-
co~qu~qlm~qe~qnt~qs received o~qn various sections of examples were taken from the Senate store ~qa~qn estuarine ~qLreg~qL As indicated

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. ~qJ~qO$-~q_~qT~qU~qESDAY, JUNE 4~q. 1974

above an ample legislative mandate to RULES AND REGULATMNS 19923
restore environmentally degraded areas that the primary purpose of the sanc- Grants. Two comments requested that
already exists: the benefits to be derived tuw7 would be mom clearly protected. the sourn and nature Of ble
from declaring such areas estuarine In contrast, two commentators felt that matchl:M funds should be exPlIcIUY
sanctuaries would be marginal. Indeed, the definition might prove too restrictive identified.
it would appear that if restoration ef- and should be broadened. Several coln- OUB Circular ArIO2 generally defines
forts cannot occur without estuarine mentators suggested that examples of and Identifies legitimate "match" for
sanctuary designation then given the anticipated multiple use might be Federal grwU ProJectL in general. refer-
limited resources of this program, such appropriate. ence should be made to that document.
efforts would not be feasible. While recognizing that It Is not alwan Hlowever. the section has been expeauled
A few commentators suggested that PoWals to accommodate more than a In response to som* specific and frequent
the phrase (921.3(e)) "if sufficient per- slawle use In an environmentally sensi- questIona,
manence and control by the State can Uve arm it is not the intention to un- Two COMMtnt$ stressed the need for
be assured, the acquisition of a sanctu- necessarily preclude the uses of omc- increased availability ot research funds
ary may involve less than the acquisition tUarY areas where Uw am clearly com- to adequately ut"' the potential of es-
of a fee simple interest" be more clearly PatIble wUh and do not detract from the tuarins sanctu&rie& While not an ap-
defined. Explanatory language has been long-term protection of the ecosystem propriate fu=Uon of the estuarine saac-
added to that section. for scientific and educational purposes. tuwT progra= the Office of Coastal Zone
Section 921.4 Zoogeographic Classifica- The language of 19' .11.5 has been changed Mamwement Is discu"Inff the necessity
tion. Because the classification scheme accordingly. of adequate funding with appropriate
utilized plants as well as animals, two Section 921.6 RelationsUp to Other age=les.
commentators suggested that zoogeo- Provisions of the Act and to Marine One comment suggested that the term
graphic be changed to biogeographic. Sanctuaries. Several Comments C:e re- "legal description" of the sanctuary
This change is reflected in the final ceived which commended and stressed (I 021.11(a)) Is not appropriate for all
regulations. the need for close coordination between categories of information requested. The
One comment suggested that selection the development of State coastal zons word "legal" has been omitted.
of sanctuaries should depend on the pres- manAgerrent ProgranL% especially and Three reviewers indleated that the Act
sures and threats being brought to bear land and water use controls. and the provides no basis for consideration of
upon the natural areas involved even if estuarine Sanctuary program soclo-economic Ampacts (1921.11(1))
this meant selecting several sanctuaries The relationship between the two pro- and that this criterion seemed inappro-
from one classification and none from grams is emphasized: estuarine sanctu- priate to selecting estuarine sanctuaries.
another. sees should Provide benent--both short, Apparently these reviewers tnLumder.
The legislative history of section 312 term and long-term-to coastal zone stood the intention of this requiremenL
clearly shows the intent to select estu- management decision-makers. and State The information in this section is neces-
arine sanctuaries on a rational basis coastal zone management programs must awl for preparation of an environmental
which would reflect regional differentia- Provide necessary protection for estu- impact statement which will be prepared
tion and a variety of ecosystems. The bio- arlne sanctuaries. This necessary coordl- pursuant to mr7A. Although required in
geographic classification system which nation Is discumed not only in the estu- the application. such Information to not
reflects geographic, hydrographic, and Wine sanctuary regulatlons,but will also a pan of the selection criteria. which we
biologic differences fulfills that inten- be addressed in an appropriate fashion addressed In Subpwt C, 1921.20.
tion. A scheme which would abandon -In guidelines and rules for Coastal Zone One similar comment was received
that system or another similar one, and Management Program Approval Criteria with regard to consideration of existing
would not fulfill the requirements of pro- and Administrative Grants. and Potential uses and conAlcts (1921.-
viding regional differentiation and a Three commentators discussed the 11 (h) ). This item is also discussed unA
variety of ecosystems, would not be con- need for swift action by both State and selection criteria (I 921.20(h)). it is in-
sistent with the intended purpose of the Federal governments to establish and tended that this eriterion will only be
Act. acquire estuarine sanctuaries. The OMca considered when cboosing between two
A few comments received suggested of Coastal Zone Management intends to or =or* sanctuary applications within
that the biogeographic classification Pursue the Program an swiftly as avail- the same biogeographic. category which
scheme be enlarged by the addition of a able manpower restraints will permit. am of otherwise equal merit.
new class reflecting an area or State of A few comments sought reassurance One comment drew attention to an
special concern or interest to the re- that the estuarine sanctuaries program apparent typographic error in j 922.11
spondent. (No two commentators sug- will in fact be coordinated with the (m) where the term ,marine estuaries-
gested the same area.) It is felt that Marine Sanctuaries Program (TItle =. seems out of context. Tb1s has been cor-
adequate national representation is pro- Pub. T_ 92-532). The guidelines have rected.
vided by the biogeographic scheme pro- been changed to reflect that both pro- Two commentators suggested that
posed, and that the changes offered were grams will be administered by the same public'bearings should be required In the
in most cases examples of sub-categories offim developmeA of an estuarine sanctuary
that might be utilized. SuspAj? B@._AppLjcATTow yos GRAN= BOPIleation. Although such a hearing Is
One comment suggested a specific deemed desirable by the OMce of Coastal
change in the definition of the "Great Section 921.10 General. one reviewer Zone Management. It would not always
Lakes" category. Portions of that sug- Indliated uncertainty about which State seem to be necessary. The language in
gestion have been incorporated into the
final rules. agency may submit &PPIlcatlons for 1920-11 (1) has been changed to refiect
Two commentators requested assur- grants under section 312. Although Indi- the sincere concern for the adequate in-
ance that sub-categories of the biogeo-
graphic scheme will in fact be utilized. v1dual States may vary In the choice of volvement of the public, which is also
The final language substitutes "will be individual agencies to apply for an as- addressed under a new 1920.21.
developed and utilized" for "may be de- tUArlne sanctuary. because of the neces. One respondent suggested that a new
veloped and utilized." sity for coordination with the state section be added requiring the appU-
Section 921.5 Multiple Use. Several coastal zone management program the cant to discuss alternative methods of
comments were received pertaining to entity within the State which is the cer- acquisition or control of the are%. Includ-
the multiple use concept. Three com- tided conta4t with the OMce of Coastal Ing the desigmation of s marine Sanctu.
mentators suggested that the multiple Zone Management. NOAA. responsible ary. in place of establishing an estuarine
use directive was contrary to or absent for the admin1stratiou Of the coastal sanctuary. A new section (I 920.11(n))
from the Act and should be omitted. Ten zone management program must en- has been added for this purpose.
respondents felt the concept should be dorse or approve an estuarine -qstn tusry Section 921.12 Subsequent Application
more explicitly defined and restricted so applicatiom for Development and Operation Grants.
Appropriate language has been In- Three commentators expressed concern
cluded to ensure this coordination. that the Intent of 1921.12 be more clearly
Section 921.11 Initial Application for expressed. Appropriate changes have
Acquisition, Development and Operation made

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-
tion has been added for that Purpose. added which addresses this issue. in the area.
Section 921.20 Criteria for Selection. Finally, one suggestion was received b) For the purposes of this section.
one comment suggested that the con- that a vehicle for change in the manage- "estuary" means that part of a river or
stream. or other body of water having un-
sideration of conflict with existing or po- ment policy or research Program
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. comments received and other relevant age. The term includes estuary-type
Another reviewer suggested the addi- information, the Secretary concludes by areas of the Great Lakes as well as Ia-
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 simula- cussed earlier, this criterion is not con- 312 of the Act. as modified and set forth neous utilization of an area or resource
sidered appropriate. Such a basis for below. for a variety of compatible purposes or
determining selection would lead to a to provide more than one benefit. The
reactionary, random series of estuarine Effective date: June 3, 1974. term implies the long-term. continued
sanctuaries, rather than the rationally Dated: May 31,1974. uses of such resources in such a fashion
chosen representative series mandated that other uses will not interfere with.
in the legislative history. ROBERT M. WHITE. diminish or prevent the primary purpose,
Two reviewers commented that the Administrator which is the long-term protection of the
limitation on the Federal share ($2,000, Sec. subpart A-General area for scientific and educational use.
000 for each sanctuary) was too low and
-921.1 Policy and objectives. 921.3 Objectives and Implementation
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-
Is 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
I 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 after provisions of natural and human processes occurring
estuarine sanctuary in an area adjacent the Act and to marine sanctuaries. within the estuaries of the coastal Zone
to existing preserved lands where the Subpart B-Application for Grants This shall be accomplished by the estab-
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
not preclude such action, but has been development and operation grants. at least one representative of each type
-921.12 Application for subsequent develop- of estuarine ecosystem will endure into
changed to specifically permit this Pos- ment and operation grants. the future for scientific and educational
sibility. -921.13 Federally owned lands. purposes. The primary use of estuarine
Two commentators Inquired whether
the reference to a "draft" environmental Subpart C- Selection Criteria sanctuaries shall be for research and
-921.20 Criteria for selection. educational purposes. especially to pro-
impact statement (921-20. last para- -921.21 Public participation. vide some of the Information essential to
graph) indicated an Intention to avoid 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 am 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.
ticipitation 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.
1920.11 (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
The estuarine sanctuaries program will and mitigate possible deterioration from
Subpart D-Operation provide grants to States on a matching human activities.
Section 921.30 General. One commen- basis to acquire, develop and operate
tator suggested that during contract natural areas as estuarine sanctuaries in (5) To provide a vehicle for increasing
negotiations, there should be a meeting order that scientists and students may be public knowledge and awareness of the
between the applicant agency and pro- provided the opportunity to examine over complex nature of estuarine systems,
posed sanctuary management team. and a period of time the ecological relation- their values and benefits to man and na-
representatives of the Office of Coastal ship within the area. The purpose of ture. and the problems which confront
Zone Management . The general Pro- these guidelines is to establish the rules them.
visions have been broadened to provide and regulations for implementation of (b) The emphasis within the Program
for this suggestion. the program. will be on the designation as estuarine
sanctuaries of areas which will serve as
Two comments wore submitted which natural Acid 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.
public. The guidelines have been changed November 29,1973 (part 920 of this (c) In order that the estuarine sanc-
to include these suggestions. chapter) the term "estuarine sanctuary" tuary will be available for future studies,
One comment was received suggesting as defined in the Act. means a research research involving the destruction of any
incorporated Into the guidelines. of an estuary, adjoining transitional portion of an estuarine sanctuary which

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 106-TUESDAY, JUNE 4,1974

RULES AND ~RE~qC~~L~q"~qM~qM ~1~q"~25

Permitted~. in ~qt~qh~e ~un~usu~8qa ~8qd~qm~u~qm~s~qt~a~n~q@ denied ~L~ad subject to winter ~I~G~I~qW~. blot& (b) The estuarine 3~qw~qwtu~s~x~t~c~s Program
where permitted. manipulative am ~r~o~. barest to ~su~b-Ar~t~it~i~c. will be ~o~a~ndu~c~t~ed in close ~c~o~o~P~er~a~t~i~qm
L Su~b~ara~t~t~e. West and north ~ao~s~a~t~s Of with the ~qm~a~z~qi~n~e sanctuaries program
search s~qt~u~i~qn be carefully controlled~. No Alaska ~t~o~o stressed ~c~o~m~a~r blot& Arctic and ~(~q7~q1t~qle ~4q= of the Marine Pro~qte~ct~IO~X~6 Re-
experiment which Involves ~r~n~q-~1~p~u~ql~at~qi~v~e ~s~u~b~@Ar~c~t~r~_ ~am~h Act of 1~q91~q3~. Pub. ~8qL 92~-~q632. W~q1~1~q1C11
research shall be ~qIn~qI~0qf~0qt~a~2qW until the t~ar- 10. ~I~n~a~w~4~er. ~E~&~r~j~o~r ~l~d~an~d~& sometimes with ~s~e
mina~t~qion date In ~g~qp~ec~qi~qf~qt~ed ~a~nd ~ev~i~qd~e~u~qm precipitous Moun~t-~1-~s-, considerable wave Is also administered b~y the ~0qO~qf~qi~ql~c~a of
given that the environment will be re- action; frequently ~v~i~qf~qt ~a~n~g~o~i~n~1~g ~s~p~a~c~u~n~.
coastal Zone ~X~f~-~n ~e~qme~n~t~. NO~qA~4qA)~.
turned to Its condition which ~e~ci~s~t~a~t~qt Lower ~i~s~t~a~n~d group* primarily with tropical which recognizes that certain areas of
prior to the experiment. ~b~l~o~u~L 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 ~r~e~qi~. ~A~qM~@~r~l~C~a~; b~lU~f~f~-du~n~o or rocky. ~S~h~a~c~l~at~od other coastal waters where the tide ebbs
~v~t ~r~a~i~L ~q&~qi~t ~4 an
a~t~ivel~y undisturbed by human ~a~ct~l ~qu~s~@ ~s~h~o~qmil~n~o~. limited ~w~atl~and~s~. freshwater only~; and flows, or of the ~4q0 ~t ~qL e d
b~l~ot~S ~& Mixture of b~a~r~e~a~l and temperate t~qh~e~ir connecting waters, need to be pre-
at the time of acquisition~. T~qh~qm~e~qfore. spades with ~a~n~&~d~r~om~ou~s species and some
most of the are" selected will be areas Marino Invaders~. served or restored for their conservation,
with a m~i~n~i-~i~lm of development, Indus- recreational. ecologic or esthetic values.
~t~r~y or habitation~. (b) Various sub-~c~a~te~gorles will be de- It is anticipated that the Secretary oi~l
(~e) If ~ru~qd~qi~cient permanence and con- ~ve~ql~oPed and utilized as appropriate. occasion may establish marine s~a~nctu~-
trol by the State can be assured. the 19~q21.~q5 Multiple use. &ties to complement the designation by
acquisition of a sanctuary may involve States of estuarine sanctuaries, where
less than t~qhe acquisition of a fee simple (a) While the primary purpose of e~s- this may be mutually ~qb~e~n~e~4qf~4qt~l~&~qL
interest. Such interest may be. for ~ez- tu~ar~in~e sanctuaries In to provide long- Subpart ~q3~-~--App~l~ic~at~i~on for Grants
ample- th~e acquisition of a ~eon~s~erv~a- term Protection for natural are" so that
~qUon easement. "development ~r~qi~g~qht~s~O~. or they ~D~qW be used for scientific and ~ed~U- ~q� 921.10 C~en~cra~ql.
other partial interest sufficient to &&sure c~at~i~o~n~a~ql ~purpo~s~e~a, ~qmu~qlU~p~l~a ~u~s~e of estu- Section 313 authorizes Federal grants
the protection of the natural system. arine sanctuaries will be encouraged to to coastal States so that the States may
~qL~ie~s~s~in~g~. which would not ~s~a~sure ~p~qf~qf~qm~a~- ~t~he extent t~qh~at such use to compatible establish sanctuaries according to re~gu-
n~ent Protection of the system. would not with this Primary sanctuary ~P~q=~o~e~e~- l~,t~lo~qw promulgated by the Secretary.
be an acceptable alternative. The capacity of a given sanctuary to ac- Coastal States may file applications for
commodate additional u~s~e~& and the ~ee sat&
1921.4 Biogeographic cl~a~s~el~qf~qi~c~a~tio~n. ~'~c~l~a~r~i~s and intensity of such use. will be ~g~r~a~n~t~e with the Director. O~qM Of C~O I
determined on a case by case basis. While Zone Management. National Oceanic and
(a) It Is Intended that estuarine ~s~a~n~c~- Atmospheric Administration. U.S. Do-
tu~e~z~qi~es should not be chosen at random. lt is anticipated t~qhat compatible uses
but sho~i~jad r~e~qf~qi~ect regional differentia- 'may generally include activities such as ~partment of Commerce, Rockville. Mary-
~qU~o~n and a ~v~a~0qAe~ty of ecosystems so as low intensity recreation. fishing. h~q=t- land 2~0852. That agency which h~eA been
to cover all significant v~q&~-~la~t~i~on~s. To Ing. and wildlife observation~, It in r~e~c- certified to- the Office of Coastal Zone.
ensure adequate representation of ~a~ql~ql e~s- ~o~qg~n~ized that the exclusive use of in area Management as the entity responsible
tu~a~r~l~ne types reflecting regional differ- ~qIor scientific or educational purposes for administration of the State coastal
e~ntl~at~qio~n and a variety of ecosystem ~. may provide the ~Q~pt~qi~qmum 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 ~ador~s~e Lad approve applications sub-
from the following biogeographic class- use and may on occasion be necessary. ~6q:~tt~ed by other agencies within t~qh~e
~qI~qf~qi~c~a~qt~ql~o~n~s~: (b) T~qb~qe~t~e shall be no effort to balance State.
1. A~ro~s~i~t~i~o~n~. ~N~o~r~t3~qwa~st, At~i~ant~i~o coon or o~otimiz~e uses of an estuarine ~s~a~nctu~. � 921.11 Application for initial a~q"~qM~i~si~.
south to Cape Cod. glaciated ~a~b~o~r~a~l~ln~e sub- ~ar~y on economic or other b~a~sea. ~4qA~ql~qi ~addl~-
j~e~ct to winter ~i~qd~i~qw. wall developed algal tlot~i~al Uses of the - tu~ar~y an clearly don, development and operation
dam; boreal b~lo~o~t~. secondary to the primary purpose and or ~ts.
2. Virginian~. Middle Atlantic coast front Uses. which an long-term --~i~nt~er~i~a~n~c~e (a) Grants may be awarded on a
CAP* Cod to Cape Hatteras; l~ow~l~s~q" streams. of the ecosystem for sc~i~enti~4qf~4qt and e~du~c~&~- matching basis to cover the costs of
coastal --r~ab~a~s and Muddy b~o~t~tom~a~. char- t~i~o~n~S~I uses. ~qNo~n-com~p~at~Ib~l~e uses. Includ. acquisition~. development and operation
~a~ct~e~r~ixtI~c~s t~r~a~n~s~t~d~o~n~A~l ~b~w~t~w~qf~qt~n I end 3: ing those uses which would cause s~i~g~. of estuarine sanctuaries. States m~ay use
b~lo~t~a pr~i~qM~S~A~I~l~y t~@~qM~p~qW~Zt~e With ~qW~qM~* barest
representatives~. ~n~i~qA~c~a~nt short ~o~r lone-term ecological donations of land or money to satisfy ~a~ql~ql
~3. ~4~74~1~`0~1~in~l~a~s. South Atlantic COWL from change or would otherwise detract from or pan of the matching cost require-
Cape Hatteras to Cape Kennedy. extensive or restrict the use of the sanctuary as ~qme~n~t~L
r~a~b~a~s and ~s~w~a~n~ip~s~; waters turbid a" a natural field laboratory. will be pro- (b) In general. lands acquired pur-
productive; blot& temperate with ""anal bib~ited.
tropical ~e~l~su~i~ent~4~L ~a~qf~qt~nt to this section. including State
~4~. West ~1~1~1~d~i~qm~i. Bantu ~r~i~a~r~l~q" ~0~0~q"~t ~f~2 921.6 Relationship to other provisions owned lands but ~n~o~t State owned sub-
Cape Kennedy to C~odar ~K~o~qr~. and Caribbean of the act and to marine sanctuaries~.~. merged lands or bay bottoms, that occur
Islands; ~s~h~or~e~l~a~n~d low-lying Limestone~: within the proposed sanctuary boundary
(a) The estuarine sanctuary program an le their fair market
~c~a~t~o~ar~s~o~u~s ~61~1~,~1~4~1 ~qM~A~Z~I~S and ~C~o~r~a~L ~qm~*~f~t: most ~l~at~e~r~q"~t With the overall Coastal ~g~lUm~ate costa and
~i~a~l ~q"~q' and ~q"~"g~r~a~q"~M ~4~qW~'~q"~' value ~qm~a~6qil~ie Included as m~a~t~c~h~L How-
blot&. was management program in two ways:
~3. ~L~o~u~i~s~t~a~n~t~a~n. Northern ~C~h~q" of ~qm~a~qz~o~o~. (~q1) the Intended research use of the ever. the value of lands donated to or by
from Ceder ~K~ey to ~qM~oz~i~co; characteristics sanctuary should provide relevant data the State for inclusion In the sanctuary
Of 3. With ~0~0~qMp~o~n~i~qmt~s Of ~4; strongly ~i~n~eu~. ~a~n~qd conclusions Of a~s~s~i~st~a~n to coastal m~a~y only be used to match other costa
~o~n~o~od by t~er~r~I~g~a~n~w~is factors. blot& ~p~r~im~ar~gy sone m~a~n~a~ge~n~te~nt d~e~c~i~s~io~n~-ma~iri~ng, and of land ~acqu~qi~0q9t~io~n. In the event that
temperate~. (2) when developed. the State's coastal lands already exist in a protected status,
L ~C~a~l~i~qf~o~r~m~t~qo~k South Pacific ~c~o~s~qa ~h~4~q= S~tme management program must rec~o~g~- their value cannot be used as match for
M~es~t~qm t~o ~C~a~p~* M~m~m~i~l~oc~i~n~o~q. ~a~b~o~r~el~a~n~d India~- n~qiz~e and be designed to protect the ~es~t~u~q- ~s~a~n~c~U~ta~r~Y development and operation
~qo~qnc~qed by Coastal Mou~qnt~qa~ql~qu~qf~qf: ~qr~qo~qe~qx~qy ~qo~qc~qa~qs~qt~qo ~qar~qin~qe sanctuary: appropriate land and grants. which will require their own
with reduced ~qh~2qml~qi~q-~qw~qa~qt~qer r~qu~qnat~qr; general water use regulations ~qa~qnd planning o~qon~q- matching ~0qf~qu~qndfiL
absence of t~qo~6q-~qs~qh~qe~qs ~qa~qn~qd swamps; bl~qat~qs ~qs~0qi~4qde~qr~qst~0qi~qo~qn~qs must apply to ~qad~4ql~qacent lands. ~q(~qc~q) Development and operation costs
~q7. Columbia~q%~q. ~qI~qf~qo~qrt~qh ~qP~qo~qc~qi~8qf~8qt event from Although estuarine sanctuaries should may Include the administrative expenses
Cape Mendocino to C~qan~qs~qd~qa, Ma~qu~qn~qt~qs~qt~qn~qe~qo~qu~qs be Incorporated Into the State coastal necessary to monitor the sanctuary, to
~qst~qi~qor~qe~ql~qa~qn~qd~q, Oak, ~qo~q0~qa~qst~qs~q, extensive a" am- ~qz~q4o~qne management program~q, their dealt- ensure Its continued viability and to pro-
~2qMu~qn~qit~qt~qe~qs. blot& Primarily t~qomp~qer~qat~qo with nation need not &wait the development
some barest~q. and approval of the management pro- t~qe~qct the Integrity of the ec~qos~qyst~qe~qj~6q= Re-
a. ~qp~qt~qor~qi~qt~qs. south an" ~qA~qL~q&~4q&~q& and A~qt~qeu. gram where operation of the estuarine search will not normally be funded by
tl~qa~6qw~q. ~qp~qr~qo~qo~qlp~qito~qa~qs m~qoun~qt~qa~qLz~qu~qt~q. deep estuaries, sanctuary would aid in the development Section 312 ~qg~qr-t~qL It In anticipated that
same ~qw~qlt~qJ~q1 Vectors~q; shoreline heavily ~qu~qt- of a program. other sources of Federal~q. State Lad

FEDERAL MISTER, VOL 39, NO. 10~q8--~qTU~qE~qS~qDA~qY, JUNE 4, 1~q9~q74

RUM AND REGULATIONS
Private funds will be available for re- aria, the States should atte mpt to coor- Subpart C-Selection Criteria
search in estuarine sanctuaries. dInate their activities. This will help to
(d) Initial applications should contain minimize the possibility of similar estu- 192140 Criteria for sdection.
the following Information: Srim types being Proposed for designs- Applications for grants to establish
(1) Description of the proposed sanc- tion in the same region. The application estuarine sanctuaries will be reviewed
Wary Include location., boundaries. sim should indicate the extent to which and Judged an Criteria including:
and cost of acquisition. operation and de- neighboring gtatse were ConsultecL (a) Benefit to the co"tal 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 benedt of the proposal
(2) Classification of the proposed acquisition. control and protection of the to the development or operations of the
sanctuary according to the biogeographic am to provide almna us". Use of the overall cotal zone management pro.
scheme set forth In 1921.4. Marine Sanctuary authority and funds gram. Including how well the proposal
(3) Description of the major physical. from the OLLnd and Water Conservation fit Into the national program of repre-
geographic and biological characteristics Fund Act should be specifically ad- sentative estuaxine types; the national
and resources of the proposed sanctuary. dressed. or regional benents: and the usefulness
(4) Identification of ownership Pat- In research.
J 921.12 Application for subsequent de. (b) The ecological characteristics of
terns: proportion of land already IR the eloptnisnt and operation pant& the ecosystem. including its biological
Public domain
(5) Description of Intended research (90 Although the Initial grant appil- productivity, diversity and representa.
uses, Potentla research organizations or cation for creation of an estuarine seze- tivenes. Extent of alteration of the
agencies and berients to the overall Wary should Include initial development natural system, Its ability to remain a
coastal zone management program. and 0PertI0n Costs. subsequent PPviable and healthy system In view of the
(6) Demonstration of necessary au- cations may be submitted following Lc- present and possible development of ex-
thority to acquire or control and manage quilition and establishment of an estua- tern stressm.
the sanctuary. rine sanctuary for additional develop- (c) Size and choice of boundaries. To
(7) Description of proposed man e- ment And Operation funds. As indicated the extent feasible, estuarine sanctuaries
men techniques, Including the manage- in 1921-11. these costs may include ad- should approximate a natural ecological
agency, principles and proposed nXiMLStrStIve costs necessary to monitor- unit. The rninimal acceptable size will
budget including both State and Federal the sanctuary and to protect the integ- vary greatly and Will depend on the na-
sham. rItY of the ecosystem. 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
tial uses of and Conflicts within the ares, March will lot normally be funded by Federal sham of the coat for each sane-
if it wen not declared an estuarine sanc- section 312 grants. tuary to $2,000,000, it is anticipated that
tuary; potential use. use restrictions and (b) After the Creation of an estuarine In practice the average grant will be ub-
conflicts it the sanctuary Is established. sanctuary established under thIs pro- stantiaLly less than this.
(1) Assessment of the enviro 'gram. applications for such development (e) Enhan ement of non-competitive
and socio-economle impacts of declaring and operation grants should include at uses.
the area an estuarine sanctuary, luclud- least the following Information: (f) Proximity and access to existing
ing the economic impact of such a desig- (1) Identification of the boundary. research facilities.
nation on the surrounding community (2) Specifications of the management (g) Availability of suitable alternative
and Its tax base. program, Including managing agency and sites already protected which might be
(9) Description of planned or antici- techniques. capable of providing the same use or
pated land and water use and controls (3) Detailed budget.. benefit. Unnecessary duplication of ex-
for contiguous lands surrounding the (4) Discussion of recent and projected isting activities under ather programs
proposed sanctuary (including if use of the sanctuary. should be avoided. However, estuarine
avvro- (5) Perceived threats to the integrity
Priate an analysis of the desirability of sanctuaries might be established adja-
creating a marine sanctuary in adjacent of the sanctuary. cent to existing preserved lands where
areas). 1921.13 Fedirally owned lands. mutual enhancement or benefit of each
(10) List of protected tes, either might occur.
within the estuarine sanctuaries program (a) Where Fderally owned lands are (h) Conflict with existing or potential
or within other Federal. State or private a part of or adjacent to the area Pro- competing uses.
Posed for designation as an estuarine (1) Compatibility with existing or pro-
programs, which are located In the same sanctuary. or where the control.of land
regional or biogeographic classification. and water uses on such lands is neces- Posed land and water use In contiguous
(1), It 13 essential that the opportunity sary to protect the natural system within areas.
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 feazibility of the application, an environ-
ary proposal and application. Whom the of the land to request cooperation in pro- mental Impact statement will be pre-
application is controver or where ruling coordinated management policies. pared by the Office of Coastal Zone Man-
controversial issues an 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 Interested,partles have tifled and conveyed to the Office of Implementing CEQ guidelines.
the opportunity to present their views. Coastal Zone Management. J 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 esaen-
(it) During the development of an c0m t with the Federal use of their tial factor In the selection of estuarine
estuarine sanctuary application, au AWI- lands, such cooperation and CoordingtIon sanctuaries. In, addition to the participa-
owners within the Proposed boundaries Is encouraged to the maximum extent tion during the application development
should be Informed In writing of the pro- feasible. process public particips-
posed grant applicson. . (e) Section 312 grants may not be, tion will be ensured at the Federal level
(111) The application should Indicate awarded to Federal agencies for creation by the NEPA process and by public hear-
the imer In which the State solicited of estuarine sanctuaries In Federally ings when desirable subsequent to N00E0PA.
the views of all Interested parties prior owned 'and ; however, anfla status Such public hearings 0404Q be hold by the
to the actual submission of the appll- my be Provided on a voluntary basis for Office of Coastal Zone Management In
asuou ftderally owned lands under the provi- the area to be affected by the proposed
(a) rh order to develop a truly repre- sions of the Federal Committee on Eco- sanctuary no sooner than 20 days after it
sentative scheme of asUuulne sanctu- logical Preserves program. Issues a draft environmental Impact

IMMAL GISM, VOL 39, NO. 106-TUESDAY, 4, 1984

RULES AND REGULATIONS 19927

statement on the sanctuary proposal. It the granting agency. As a minimum. the search program may only be changed
will be the responsibility of the Office of grant document for each sanctuary after public notice and the opportunity
Coastal Zone Managemeut. with the as- shall: of public review and participation such
sistance -of the applicant State. to Issue (a) Define the Intended research Pur- as outlined in 1921.21.
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- are 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- tuary. sanctuaries may petition the State man-
tuary*. sdected 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
uals 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 on a
appropriate Federal and State officials to education Uses, as well 9A for other Com- regular basis, no more frequently than
contact for additional information about patible purposes. annually, on the status of each estuarine
the Proposal. (e) Ensure Public availability and rea- sanctuary. The estuarine sanctuary
Subpeft D-Opersdon sonable distribution of research results program will be regularly reviewed to
for timely use In the development of ensure that the objectives of the program
921.30 GeneraL coastalzon management programs. are being met and that the program it-
Management of estuarine sanctuaries, (f) Provide a basis for annual review self Is scientifically sound. The key to
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 agmt. However, the to the coastal zone program. program is to -Assure that the results of
research uses and management program (c) 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 kull- (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 xan tuary management cordingly. all information and reports.
team and the OMce of Coastal Zone Man- 921.31 Changes in the sanetuary Including annual reports, relating to
agement meet to discuss management boundary, management policy or
policy and standards. It is anticipated research program. estuarine sanctuaries shall be part of
that the grant provisions will vary with (a) The approved sanctuary boundax- the Public record and available at all
individual circumstances and will be lea; management policy, including per- times for inspection by the public.
mutually agreed to by the applicant and missible and prohibited uses; and re- IFS Doc.74_12"B Pffed 5-31-74:9:57 unj

=&RAL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 109-TUESDAY, JUNE 4, IW4

RIDAY, SEPTEMBER 97 1977
PART IV

Zs op

Lit%

DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE

Nationcl Ocecnic cnJ
Atmosp6eric AJministrction

-- _--_w I7@

EMARINE SANCTUARY

AM%
m

4~5~q= PROPOSED RULES
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE ~q50 ~p~qa ~a~q@ of the acquisition costs (2) By r~e~v~qi~qi~qi~n~s Subpart ~4qB~q-A~p~pl~qi~c~s~-
National Oceanic and At~rn~osp~qh~qw~8qk ~qb~qm~8q&ed. A~n~y State receiving an ~4~-~It~qIal t~qi~o~n -for or~a~n~t~s-~4~w follows:
Adm~qinis~0qf~0qt~i~ql~o~n grant ~c~h-~1~1 b~e obligated to repay It If. ~qS~i~2qf~2qt~qo~qt ~q8-~8q4~9~q1~q1c~ad~o~n for Grants
due to a~n~qy fault of the St~at~p- the ~s~a~nc~t~u-
~q1~q5 C~qFR Part ~q9~2q= a~r~7 is ~n~ot established. I 9~q2~8qL~qI~qO General~.
~mU~qI~qD~8qE~qU~qME~qS As a result of this new grant procedure. Section ~q315 authorizes Federal
ESTUARINE SANCTUARY Q grants,
much more ~qi~nf~or-~a~t~i~o~n relating to costs. to ~c~a~4~quta~qL States so that the States ~qma~y
~qF~8qW~c~q!~q" and Procedures for ~qS~a~qi~e~ct~qi~tm ~V~a~qLU~C~q& management Procedure$. and re- ~ast~ab~qL~qL.
~i~qh ~S~L~U~C~O~I~&~r~qi~e~s according to ~re~%~qU~-
A~cqu~qis~0qMa~n and Management search Programs will be available ~0q" the ~i~a~r~i~n~n~-~a ~p~r~o~qm~u~ql~g~a~t~e~qd by the Secretary.
~qA~2qG~8qM~4qC~4qT: ~4qNa~r~i~o-~1 C~i~ce~s~qn~qic and ~qA~ql=~o~s~- time of the Publication of a draft ~e~n- Coastal ~qSt~a~qt~e~s ~qm~a~y ~qlle applications for
~ph~er~qi~c A~qd~q=n~qi~3~t~r~a~qd~0qM Department ~o~qi ~V~qf~qt~'~o~n=~4~qnt~&~qL impact statement. Proposals grants with ~t~qh~e Associate Administrator
mad~o public to date In the form of ~a~n for Coastal Zone ~%~c~a~n ~e~qm~e~nt ~(~4qO~4qC~qZ~0qX~q)~.
Commerce~. Environmental Impact Statement (E~qI~qS) ~0qO~qg~4qke of C~o~qutal Zone~, ~qM~q-~a~ce:m~e~qnt. page
~A~6q=~8qO~8qN~: ~qp~1r~a~p~o~s~e~qd rule. have be= criticized for lack Of specificity 1. 3~q300 ~0qW~4qWte~qh~s~v~v~qn ~qp~1~r~qk~qw~qW~.~'~f~0qW
email Pre~- , Wash~-
~qi~qn these ~a~re~w~L By ~r~n~a~q"~r~, a 1-~ct~o~n D.C. 202~q2~q5. T~qb~qAt agency which
~~qU~8qN~4qWA~4qR~2qT~: This proposed rule will ~s~qi~qt~ql~q= grant to a ~qSt~a~qt~p~- ~2qh~as been c~er~t~8qMed to t~qh~e ~4qO~i~qT~qi~c~e of Coastal
allow the ~4qN~-t~i-~I ~4qO~c~e~sm~qic ~a~nd At~qm~o~s~- ~q11=~q1~q=~q7 acqu~qL
~p~h~qn~qi~c Administration to make a ~q;~r~s~- the estuarine ~sa~n~atu~s~6~ry proposal ~c~a~n be Zone ~4qM~a~n~s~a~v~e~-~e~nt ~a~s the entity r~e~s~o~o~n-
~l~t~=~qJ~ng~q= acquisition grant to a State to ~qm~qW~8 fully ~qd~s~v~e~ql~0qW~e~qd ~a~nd the Public cam ~s1~4qh~qi~e for ~admi~n~t~s~tra~4qd~q= of the State
undertake a fair market value ~a~p~qPr~ais~&~qL become more aware at the costs and the coastal =no management program mar
and to develop a ~q=~qi~qf~o~r~q= ~2qM~ocat~qi~on act ~cc~a~ct mature ~of t~qh~e ~ql~o~n~g~-t~e~x~q= ~q=~A~nag~L~- e~f~t~h~e ~q=b~,~,~4 an application directly. or
Plan~. a detailed management plan and a ~n~i~en~t. must endorse and approve applications
research framework for a proposed ~e~st~m~- In response to State qu~e~S~t~qL~qd~C3 about 3~"~b~r~a~it~qt~ed by other ~a~c~e~n ~qi~e~s within t~qh~e
~q"~19~0 sanctuary. developed pursuant to estuarine sanctuary research. the pro- St~at~,~.
Posed regulations provide that such re-
Section ~q315 of the Coastal Z~o~n Manage~- s~e~gr~c~t~, ~c~a~n be funded if it ~c~a~n be shown ~q9 921~-~q11 Application for p~r~el~qind~uar~7
I"-# Act of 19~72, as amended~. to be related to Program administration~. ~A~C~qq~Ui~Si~qd~0~f~t ~M~qM~U~U6
DATE: Comments must be received on or ~8qNOA~0qA has reviewed them proposed (a) a grant may be awarded on a
before C~ct~ob~er 1. 1~q9~q7~q7~. regulations Pursuant t~o t~qh~e ~4qH~z~4qd~O~m~a~ql E~n~- matching basis to cover costs ~=
~qPO~8qR ~qP~q%~qr~4qz~8qr~8qBZR ~4qn~r~8qP~2qo~8qa~4qmAT~qio~qr~q; co~qi~qq~_ V~U~qV~q=~I~ntal P~O~qL~qI~C7 A~ct of 19~q6~q9 and ~qh~a~s to preliminary actual acquisition of land.
TACT: ~qd~e~qt~a~q=~ql~ned that Promulgation of t~h As ~qm~a~t-~h to the ~qF~lederal grant. a State
re~g~qa~qt~a~qtl~a~z~z~o will have no s~qi~z~z~i~qt~ql~qi~c~a~nt ft- may u~s~e money, the cost of necessary
Robert R. ~2q=er. Physical ...... ~_~_ pact = the ~q=~V~qd~v~n~q=~e~n~L services~. the value of foregone revenue.
~g~r
Policy ~a~nd Pro ~a=~3 ~q3~8q0~e~ql~t~0q=~e~n~qt Of- C~qm~n~qv~qH~qw~q= w~0qf~0qt~qh ~qZ~z~ec~u~4qf~4qt~e Order and~q/or t~8qh~e value of Land either already
~qI~qm ~4q0~q9~q1ce Of Coastal ~7~q=~0 Manage~- ~q1~q1~q32~-~q1~. T~q1~2~8 economic ~a~n~qd ~0qM~8qf~8qt~4q=~n~q=~qT In ~qit~s Possession or acquired by the State
t. 3300 W~qhit~e~4qha~v~e~n Parkway, Page Impact of these proposed regulations ~qh~a~s specifically for use ~qI~n t~qh~e 3anc~t~uar~7. 1~q1
One Budding. Washington. ~q1~q1C. ~4qM~4q= b~e~e~s~t evaluated in ~a~qc~c~ord~qi~n~qc~e with ~4qO~0qU~4qB the land to be used a~a match already is
~t=~-~q434~-4241). Circular A~-10~q7 and It has ban deter- ~qi~n me ~qat~&t~e~,3 possession and is in ~& pro-
~S~2qU~8qF~qP~8qL~qZ~q3~4qE~8q=~4qA~4qR~8qT ~8qn~f~8qM~4qR~4qWA~2q=O~8qN~: mined that no ~=~6qW~or Inflationary ~qim~- tected 3t~&~V~ZL t~8qh~e S~0qW~qA may Use such
on ~qAm~e 4. ~q1~q9~q74. T~qi~x~e National ~8qo~c~L~q- Pact w~2qM res~u~ql~8qL land as match only to the ~e~s~t~e~n~t of ~a~ny
an~qi~c and Atmospheric A~A~q-~i~r~l~i~str~a~tl~a~z~i ~8qMt~ed: August 2~q6,19~q7~q7. revenue from t~qh~e land foregone b~y the
(~qN~4qOAA~) published 15 C~0qr~4qE Part 921 on- State in order t~o ~qt~u~c~qiud~e it in t~qh~e 3a~n~c-
titled. ~"~qE~Stuar~qi~n~O ~qS~&~r~qXt~u~S~r~q7 Guidelines~" ~2qT~. ~qP. ~4qG~L~z~r~r~qm t~u~ar~qy~. Application for a preliminary ~a~c-
Pursuant~ to then section ~q312 of t~qh~e A~a~s~qi~st~a~nt A~qd~m~qun~i~s~tr~m~t~or qu~isi~tlan grant ~s~h~an be made on, for=
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1~q9~0qM f~or ~Ad~m~t~qb~'~4q@~q@ ~qS~4qP 424 application for Federal assistance
as amended. for the ~p~r~u~r~p~o~se of ~- ~4 bl~i~s~l~i- It ~13 ~P~q=~P~C~G~Q~qd t~o ~a~q-A 1~3 C~qV~qR part ~(~n~on~-~c~o~nst~r~uc~t~io~n Programs~). ~- I
~n~g Policy and ~pr~o~ced~t~q=e~s for the ~se~ql~qf~qt- 921 an follows: (~qb) ~qL Preliminary acquisition~ grant
~q=~1~3~. acquisition~. ~a~n~qd --~g~a~zn~e~n~t of (1~q) By revising the table of contents ~q=~q7 be made for the defrayal Of ~t~0qh~e
~~s~t~u~a~r~q=e sanctuaries. and authority ~c~qt~t~a~qt~qi~o~z~z to read as follows: cost of*
Under new subsection 31~q5~(l~q) of the ~3~f~t~b~V~sr~t~A-~-~a~w~f~t~r~a~i (1) An a~v~qor~a~qLs~a~ql of the land. or of t~qhe
Act. the Secretary of Commerce is a~u~- _~*4~w value of any foregone u~s~e of t~qhe ~ql~a~z~id.
t~qh~o~r~Ized to make available to coastal ~9=~.~1 p~ou~c~T ~L~ud objectives. to be ~u~a~e~qd ~I~n the sanctuary,
States grants of up t~4 ~q30 per cant= ~o~qf ~9~q=~-~2 ~n~e~d~q=~u~Q~u~a.
the cost ~o~qf acquisition~. development. and ~221.~3 Objectives ~qm~d ~1=P~'~4~=u~qm~t~&~a~q= of (2) The development of a ~4qU~qn~4qd~q=~q=
Operation Of estuarine ~s~a~nc~t~u~a~r~qi~qm the pr~o~gra~n~L. Relocation Assistance ~a~nd Real Property
In Acquisition ~qP~a~"c~' Act plan.
general subsection 315~qa) provides that ~92~2.~4 ~3~1~0~9~T~0~9~h~4~9~L~IC ~CL~A~qU~L~d~c~a~t~I~O~U~.~' ~2q1
~921.~5 ~qM~aM~pL~e use. (3) The d~ev~el~o~pm~a~qnt of a sanctuary
grants ~q=~&~7 be awarded to States = a ~921.~4 ~P~&~S~qW~U~qM~1~1~2~1~9 t~o ~C~t~t~*~r ~Pr~O~TtSI~O~U~S of management Plan:
matching basis to acquire. develop, ~a~nd t~b~A Act ~a~n~4 to ~q=~a~r~t~z~* ~s~a~a~c~t~i~a~r~l~e~s~.
operate natural ~a~qm as estuarine ~sanc~. (~q4) The development of a r~e~s~e~sr~c~qh and
t~u~ar~qi~e~s In order that scientists and =_ ~L~-~A~p~p~a~q"~d~e~f~t ~f~t~w Grants e~q4~t~i~ca~t~i~o~n~a~l program: and/or.
dents may be provided the Opportunity m~ao ~a~sn~a~qm~t. (~q3) Such other activity of a ~pre~qll~q=~qi~-
to examine over a ~qP~e~a~r~l~o~qd of ~4qMn~e ecologi- 9~2~1.11 A~pp~il~l~m~"~qm for ~;~r~e~L~t~z~m~qM~a~r~y ~m~c~q~u~i~s~t~- ~m~ar~y nature ~a~s ~qma~y be approved in writ-
cal relationships within, ~t~qh~e ~qw~e~a. ~4qT~qh~A ~'~"~q_ ~c~q=~t~s. Inc by ~4qO~4qc~4q= Any grant made pursuant
Purpose~ of these guidelines is to ~I~qm~qp~ql~e~- ~02~1-~12 A~p~p~L~Ic~a~t~2~o~n for ~lA~nd acquisition to this subsection shall be refunded ~qb~y
~q=~qC~qf~qtt this ~qp~0qm~qg~qr~qx~qf~q"~- ~qP~S~A~U~L the state to whatever extent It has spent
~q9~q2~6q= A~qp~qp~ql~qi~qc~qa~qt~ql~2q= -Or ~q*p~2qW~q&~q=~qo~qa~qs~qL ~qv~qv~qn~qta. in relation to land ~qn~qo~qt acquired for the
As a result of t~qz~0qm ~qy of program ~q9~q2~q1~q.~q1~q6 ~qr~qe~qd~qd~qr~qaL~ql~qy~q-~qo~4qw~qa~qi~qn~qd ~q1~qA~qU~qC~qL~qI~qL I Mary~q, ~qa~qnd If ~04qOC~08q= requests such
implementation~q. the regulations an ~0q;~qr~qo~q- ~qs~qu~qb~qp~qe~8q" ~qC~6q-~q4~q0~qmc~qn~qa~qn ~qe~qnt~qer~qi~qa
posed to ~0qbe modified to s~0qp~qe~qc~4qi~8qd~qca~8qa~q7 a~qn~q. refund~q.
~q9~q2~q1~q.~2q= ~qC~qr~qit~qar~ql~qs for (~qc~0q) T~4qb~qe application should contain:
t~04qh~qo~qr~0qi~q2~qo t~4qh~qe ~q1rant~qj~qA~qX O~4qf ~qa~4q*~0qZ~4q=~qd~0qt~8qi~q*~qn ~q9~q21~q.~2qU ~qP~qM~qb~8q= ~6qW~4q=~qp~q&~qU~qQ~qM~qL
money to States ~04qM two stages: ~q$~q0~q6~qp~qar~qt ~q0~6q-~q4~qp~qe~qr~qa~qd~qe~qn (~4q1) ~6qX~04qV~4qi~4qde~qnc~qe that the State has con-
(~0q1) An ~q"~qn~q't~4qi~qa~4ql ~00qV~4q=~4qt for such ~0qpr~qe~8ql~4ql~0qm~2qi- d~qu~qc~qt~qe~4qd a sc~ql~qa~qn~qt~0ql~qA~qc evaluation of it-. ~qe~qs~qtu-
~.~=~0q=~6qT Purposes. as survey= a~qn~4qd ~q&~qas~qe~qs~qs~q- 92~8q=~q0 ~qG~qa~qm~qer~qa~qL. ~0ql~qe~qs and so' t~qed ~qo~qn~qe of those most rep-
Ing the land to be acquired. ~qa~qnd the do- ~q921.~q31 C~qa~qs~qu~qg~qm~qs ~4qm ~qt~qa~qs ~2qa~qn~qc~qtu~qar~qT ~qba~qn~qud~qar~qy~q. ~qr~qe~qs~qe~qELt~qa~qt~0qt~8qm
z~qo~qn~qa~qg~qo~qn~qa~2q= ~qp~qo~qUc~qr~q. or r~qs~qe~qe~qar~qc~qA
~v~qe~4ql~qo~qp~qu~qz~qe~qnt of management procedures ~6q7~q0~q9~qr~qam. ~q. ~@ ~q(~4q2~4q) Description of the Proposed
and research Programs: and ~qr~qj~q2~2q= ~qF~qr~qo~2qva~qu~qx r~qe~0q"~qe~8qw~q. sa~0q=~qV~qQ~8qw~q7 ~0qInciudlz~qic location~q. proposed
~8qQ~8qi) A- second ~00qv~qar~qi~4qt for the actual ~qa~qc~q. ~qA~0q=~0qw~6qm~0q=: ~q-~qO~qL 3~00qn~8q(~q1~0q)~q. ~qC~qo~qa~0qm ~q- ~qZ~qo~qn~qo ~2qM~qa~qn- ~4qb~qo~qu~qnd~qar~0ql~qe~qs. and s~qi~4qm A ~0q=~q0~q(3) should
qu~0qL~4qut~0qi~4qm at ~qth~qe ~q1~6q"~qf~qj ~04qM~q%~qe ~4qp~qe~0qd~qe~qr~qaL ~qo~0qm~qp~qe ~q&~qq~qs~8q=~q*~qd~qz Act at Is= as ~q&~8q=~qn~qd~qe~qd (go ~q3t~6qm be ~0qt~0q=~8qh:~0qd~qe~qc~4qL an Weil as an serial ph~qo~qzo-
of ~qt~0qh~qs s~6qm- ~qo~4qf the ~qt~0qw~qo ~qg~4q=~qt~qs ~qs~4qk~0qma ~qn~qo~qt ~qt~qo~qso. (is ~2qr~q-~qs~qc~q- i~qt~8qc~4q) ~q?tLL ~qT~q_ "-am graph If a~qv~qa~0qi~2qL~qa~4qb~8ql~qa~q.

~q-~q-~8qM~qI~qC
~qF~8qW~8qM~8q" ~qJ~2qW~2qW~6qM VOL 42~q. ~q?~q*~qL 17~qS 95 A~qY~q. ~qS~8qN~q"~4qM~2qM IV. 1~8qW~q?

PROPOSED RULES 45523

(3) Classification of the proposed public domain: fair market value ap- conflict with the Federal use of their
sanctuary according to the biogeo- praisal and Uniform Relocation Act plan. lands, such cooperation and coordination
(4) Description of the major physical (3)Description of research programs. is encouraged to the maximum extent feasible.
geographic, biological characteristics and potential and committed research or- (C) Section 315 grants may not be
resources of the proposed sanctuary. ganizations or agencies,and benefits to awarded to federally-owned lands: how-
(5) Demonstration of the necessary program. ever, a similar status may be provided on
authority to acquire or control and (4) Description of proposed manage- a voluntary basis for Federally-owned
age the sanctuary. ment techniques, including the manage- lands under the provisions of the Federal
(6) Description of existing and poten- ment agency and proposed budget-in- Committee on Ecological Perserves
tial uses of, and conflicts within, the cluding both State and Federal shares program.
area if it were not declared an estuarine (5) Description of planned or antici- 921-20 (Amended]
sanctuary; and potential use restriction pated land and water use and controls
and conflicts if the sanctuary is estab- for contiguous lands surrounding the (4) Subpart C-Selection Criteria-is
lished. proposed sanctuary (Including, if appro- amended by changing the first sentence
(7) List of protected sites. either with- priate, an analysis of the desirability of in 921.20 to read; "Applications for
in the estuarine sanctuaries program or creating a marine sanctuary in adjacent preliminary acquisition of or land acuisi-
within other Federal, State, or private areas). tion grants to establish estuarine sanc-
programs, which am located in the same (6) Assessment of the environmental, tuaries will be reviewed and judged on
region or biogeographic classification. and socio-economic impacts of declaring criteria including:"
(8) The manner in which the State the area an estuarine sanctuary, includ- (5) Section 921.21 Is revised. as fol-
solicited the views of Interested parties. ing the economic impact on the sur- lows.
review procedures, the grant application rounding community and its tax base.
should be sent to the State Historic Pres- (7) Discussion, including cost and 921.21 Public participation.
compliancd with section 106 Of the Na- feasibility of alternative methods for ac- (a) Public participation in the selec-
tional Preservation Act of 1966. quisition and protection of the area. tion of an estuarine sanctuary is re-
(d) In order to develop a truly repre- 921.13 Application for operation grants quired. In the selection process, the se-
sentative scheme of estuarine sanctu- (a) Althoush an acquisition grant ap- lecting entity (see 921.10) shall seek
activities. This will help to minimize the sanctuary should include Initial Opera- ers. local governemtns and Federal
possibility of similar estuarine types be- tion costs, subsequent applications may agencies, and shall seek the views of pos-
ing proposed in the same region. The be submitted following acquisition and sibly interested other parties and orga-
extent to which neighboring States were establishment of an estuarine sanctuary and business, social, and environmental
consulted should be Indicated. for additional operational funds. As in- organizations. The latter would incclude,but
dicated in 921.11. these costs In- need not be limited to, private citizens
921.12 Applicadon for land sequisi- clude administrative costs necessary to and business, social, and environmental
integrity of the ecosystem. Extensive organizations in the area of the site be-
(a) Acquisition grants will be made to management programs, capital expenses, ing considered for selction. This solici-
acquire land and facilities for estuarine or research will not normally be funded tation of views may be accomplished by
sanctuaries that have been thoroughly by section 315 grants. whatever means the selecting entity
described In A preminary acquisition (b) After the creation of an estuarien deems appropriate, but shall include at
grant application,or where equivalent sanctuary established under this pro- least one public hearing in the area. No-
information is available. Application for gram, applications (Form SF 424) for tice of such hearing shall include infor-
an acquisition grant shall be made on Federal assistance (non-construction mation as to the time,place,and subject
SP 424 application for Federal assist- program), for such operational grants matter, and shall be published in the
ance (construction program). should include at least the following in- principal area media. The hearing shall
formation: be held no sooner than 15 days follow-
Ta generaL lands acquired pursuant to (1) Identification of the boundary ing the publication of notice.
this subsection are legitimate costs and (map). (b) The Office Of Coastal Zone Man-
their fair market value. developed ac- (2) Specifications of the research and agement (OCZM) shall prepare draft
cording to Federal appraisal standards. managemant programs,including man- and final environmental impact state-
may be included as match. The value of aging agency and techniques. ments pertaining to the site finally se-
lands donated to the State and cash do- (3) Detailed budget. lected for the estuarine sanctuary fol-
nations may also be used as match. If (4) Discussion of recent and projected, lowing public participation in the selec-
the State already owns land which is to use of the sanctuary. tion of that site, and shall distribute
be used in the sanctuary, the value of (5) Perceived threats to the integrity these as appropriate. OCZM may hold a
any use of the land foregone by the State of the sanctuary. public hearing in the area of such site at
in order to include such land in the 921.14 Federally-owned lands. which both the draft environmental im-
years,may be used by the state as a part of or adjacent to the area proposed pact statement (DEIS) and the merits
match. The value of lands purchase by for designation as an estuarine sanc- of the site selection may be addressed by
for a preliminary acquistion grant or protect the natural system within the DEIS is controversial, or (2) if there ap-
land acquisition grant is being consid- sanctuary, the State should contact the pears to be a need for further informing
ered may also be used as match Federal agency maintaining control of the public with regard to either the DEIS
the land to request cooperation in provid- or one or more aspects of the site se-
(b) An acquisition application should ing coordinated management policies. lected, or (3) if such a hearing is re-
contain the following information: Such lands and State request, and the quested in writing (to either the select-
(1) Description of any changes in pro- federal agency response should be iden- ing entity or (CZM) by an affected or in-
tified and conveyed to the Office of terested party, or (4) for other good
posed sanctuary from that presented in Coastal Zone Management. cause. If held, such hearing shall be held
the preliminary acquistion grant appli- (b) Where such proposed use or con- no sooner than 60-days following the is-
cation. If such an application has not trol of Federally-owned lands xxxxxx suance of the DEIS and no sooner that 15
been made, then, information equivalent days after appropriate notice of such
to that required in such a grant applica- hearing has been given in the area by
tion should be provided. CZM with the assistance of the select-
terns, proportions of land already in the ing entity.

FEDERAL REGISTER VOL. 42, NO. 175 --FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1977

Wednesday
June 27, 1984

Aft

M A

Pall IV

Department of
Commerce

National Oceanic and' Atmospheric
M Administration

IS CFR Part 921
National Estuarine Sanctuary Program
Regulations; Final Rule -

26502 Federal Register Vol. 49. No. 125 Wednesday, June 27, 1984 Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 315(1) of the Coastal Zone Management would be chosen. Section 921.4(b) of the
Act. 18 U.S.C. 1461(l). The National 1974 guidelines provided that "various
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Estuarine Sanctuary Program has been sub-categories will be developed and
Administratlon operating under guidelines published utilized as appropriate."
June 4, 1974 (39 FR 19922) and proposed In 1981, a study was undertaken to
15 CFR Part 921 regulations published September 9. .1977 assess the original biogeographic
[docket No. 40316-301 (42 FR 45522). classification scheme and make
H. General Background recommendations. as necessary. A
Nationat Estuarine Sanctuary Program system with 27 subcategories was'
Regulations On August 3.1983 (48 FR 35120). proposed. The subcategories fit within
NOAA published proposed regulations the original scheme and further define
AGENCY- Office of Ocean and Coastal for continued inplementation of the the coastal areas to assure adequate
Resource Management (OCRM), - National Esturine Sanctuary Program sanctuary representation (Clark.
National Ocean Service (NOS), National pursuant to Section 315 of the Coastal Assessing the National Estuarine
Oceanic and Atmospheric Zone Management Act 16 U.S.C. 1461.. Sanctuary Program. Action Summary
Administration (NOAA), Commerce. (the Act).' Written comnients on the March 198Z citedas The Clark Report).
AcTiove Final rule. proposed regulations were accepted The Clark Report also recommends
SUMMARr. These final regulations revise until October 3. 19M. These comments consideration of an estuarine typology
existing procedures for selecting and have been considered in preparing these in evaluating and selecting sites. The
designating national estuarine fi.nal regulations, A summary of typology system recognizes that there
sanctuaries and provide guidance fdr significant comments on the proposed are significant differences in estuary
their long-term management. Site regulations and NOAA's responses are characteristics not related to regional
identification and selection is to be presented below. location. Such factors include water
based on a revised biogeographic The final regulations establish the source. water depth, type of circulation.
classification scheme and typology of Program's Mission and Goals and revise inlet dynamics, basin configuration.
estuarine areas. The regulations place a the procedures for selecting, designating. watershed type. and dominant
greater emphasis on management -and operating national estuarine ecological community. - - I
planning by individual states early in sanctuaries. The- final regulations adopt the
the process of evaluating a potential. Ill. Refinements to the Regulations for revised biogeographic clissification
site. The regulations reflect a the National Estuarine Sanctuary scheme and the recommendation to
progression from the initial Program - I consider typology in site selection (see
identification of a site,.through the Based on experience in operating the J. 921.3).
designation process, and continued Program and comments on the proposed (2) Site Designation
management of the sanctuary @y the regulations, a number of refinements !a* Eligible states may apply for
state after Federal financial assistance operational procedure and policy have preacquisition awards to aid in selecting
has ended. The regulations provide for been designe& The final regulations an estuarine site in conformity with the.
regular programinatic evaluations of implement these refinements. which classification scheme and typology
sanctuary performance@ Clarifications in include:' system.. A description of the site
the financial assistance application and A- Defining the Mission and Coals of selection process to be carried out by
award process have also been.made. 'the Program the state, including a provision for
EFFECTIVE DATE: These regulations are public participation in the process. must
effective Friday, October S. 19M*. This The Mission Statement and Goals for be submitted for NOAA's approval. This
delayed effective date will allow - the continued implementationof the ensures that the procedures for the site
sufficient time for the Congress to enact National Estuarine Sanctuary Program selection process are planned prior to
legislation pertaining to the conduct of stress the importance of designating implementing the selection process and
the National Estuarine Sanctuary estuarine area. through Federal-state approval of the preacquisition award.
Program if it chooses to do so. If cooperative efforts. for long-term Figural depicts the entire designation
necessary, the effective date of these- research and educational benefits. process.
regulations will be postponed. and a Though broad in scope. they establish a After selection of a site. a draft
notice thereof published in the Federal framework within which specific- management plan is prepared. Requiring
Register. in compliance with the notice Program activities are conducted. The the development of a comprehensive
provisions contained in section 1z of the Mission Statement and Goals are draft management plan in the
Coastal Zone Management Act. 15. adopted by the final regulations preacquisition'phase is designed to
U.S.C 1463a. 9Z2.1). -
. I guarantee that early in the estubrine
FOR FURTMER INFORMATION CONTACr. B. Revision of the Procedures for sanctuary designation process the state
Dr. Nancy Foster. Chief. Sanctuary Selectin& Designating and Operating considers management policies. an
Programs Division. Office of Ocean and - E tuarlhe SanctuaHes acquisition and construction plan
Coastal Resource Management NOAA/ (including schedules and priorities),
NOS, 3300 Whitehaven St.. NW., (1) Revision of the Biogeographic. staffing requirements. a research
Washington. D.C. 20235, (202) 834-4236. Classification Scheme and Proposed component. interpretive and education
SUPftEMENTARY INFORMATION: Estuarine Typologies. plans, future funding and other resource
1. Authority The 1974 guidelines identified 11 requirements. and alternatives. Draft
biogeographic regions from which and final environmental impact
This notice of final rulemaking isr representative sites throughout the statements (EIS) are prepared analyzing
issued under the authority of Section coastal waters of the United States the environmental and socioeconomic

Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 12S / Wednesday, @une 27.'1964- / Rufes: and kegiulaiidns 26503

impacts of establishing a sanctuary and- draft management plan and the final - .(s'ubject to pre-designation construction
implementing the draft management EIS, the site enters -an initial acquisition policies. see � 921.211, prepare the final
plan. The EIS is prepared in accordance and development phase. The state is management plan, and initiate onsite
with National Environmental Policy Act then eligible for an initial acquisition research and education programs. Alf of
(NEPA) procedures, including provisions and development award. During this these tasks are to be carried out in
for public comment and hearihgs. phase, award funds may be used to conformance with the NOAA-approved
Following NOAA approval of the purchase land. construct ininor facilities draft management plan.
coca 351

26504 Federal'Re&ter / Vol. 49, No. 125 / Wednesday, June 27, 1984 / Rules and RegWittions

Figure 1. National Estuarine Sanctuary Program U4signation Process

AWARD STAGE PUBLIC INPUT

Preacquisition site-Selection Public Meeting
Award (� 921.11) on Site(s)

Approval of'Site
by NOAA
(� 921.11)

Development of Public Meeting;
Draft Manayement Plan and Public Hearing on
Draft. EIS the Draft EIS
(� 921.12)

V
NUAA Approval of
-..Uraft Management Plan
.921.12)

Uevelopment of- Final: EIS
Final EIS
(�.921.12)

Initial' Acquisition Prepara -tion of Public Meeting
and Development Final Management.Plan; on Final Plan
,Awards Acqui s i tjort of Key Land and
Water Areas; Minor Construction
(� 9Zl.21)_

Final Management-Plan
Approved- by NOAA;
Other Findings
921.30)

Sanctuary Designation
(� 921.30)

V
Operation and, Implementation of
Management Award; Final.Management Plan;
Subsequent Acquisition Acquisition of Remaining Land;
and Development Award.; Construct ion
Potential Researchr 921.32).
Awards- I -
V
Programmatic Evaluation Public Meeting(s)
(� 921.34) on Evaluati on

MUNG coaE 3510-0"

100

FedeM Register / VoL 49, No. 125 / Wednesday@ fune 27, 1984 '/ Rules and-Regulations 26505

The task under the intial acquisition regulations ensure that a state will have by the states. in conjunction with
and development phase should be adequate flexibility in long-term NOAA. are mandated by these
completed within two years. At this operation of an estuarine sanctuary to regulations as an integral part of site
point. NOAA must make formal deal with changing circumstances. The selection. designation. and management.
findings, as specified � 921.30, that the regulations require more information The Program's purpose is to establish
final management plan has been about the sanctuary, particularly selected estuarine areas as sanctuaries
completed and is approved. that the key through the development of a site- to serve as natural field laboratories and
land and water areas as specified in the specific management plan. prior to each provide opportunities for long-term
management plan are under state step in the funding process. In this research. education. and interpretation.
control. and that a memorand ' of manner. it is expected that decisions Because of this, the present and future
stum
understanding between the ate and affecting the sanctuary and management uses of such an area are certainly an
NOAA concerning the state's long-term priorities will be planned for in advance, important factor. in considering whether
commitment to the sanctuary has been rather than in an ad hoc fashion. it should be a national estuarine
signed. After NOAA makes these IV. Summary of Significant Comments sanctuary. -
findings, the sanctuary is considered
"designated". The state than begins on the Proposed Regulations a .nd It is also important to emphasize that
implementation of the final management NOAA's Responses - the Program does not involve broad
plan, including the construction of Comments were received from 17 scale regulation on land uses apart from
necessary facilities and additional land sources. Cbmmenter-s included Federal that already undertaken by the state or
acquisition. The state is also eligible for and state agencies, representatives of Proposed by the state under its own
operation and management awards to the oil and gas industry; representatives applicable authorities. Multiple use of
provide assistance in implementing the of the electric utility industry, and national estuarine sanctuaries is
final management plan. environmental and public interest encouraged (see � 921.1(d)). Resource
The regulations also provide groups. All comments received are on protection isi however, the highest
procedures for the programmatic file at the Sanctuary Programs Division, priority goal of the National Estuarine
evaluation of a sanctuary during_the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource- Sanctuary Program and-uses must be
period4of the operation and management Management, 20(n Wisconsin Avenue, compatible with long-term resource
awards (or under the initial acquisition NW., Room 334 Washington. D.C. 20235. protection. Within national estuarine
and development award if the sanctuary The comments are available for review sanctuaries, states may impose certain
is not designated within two years), and at that offic& Each of the major issues regulatory controls to ensure the
for a continuing, biennial review of an raised by the commenters has been continued protection of sanctuary
estuarine sanctuary after Federal summarized and NOAA'3 response resources. Areas proposed for
funding has expired. Procedures for provided under the relevant subheading designation are evaluated through the
withdrawing designation. if a sanctuary in this section.' EIS process with opportunities. for public
fails to meet established standards, comment.
have been added (� 921.35). General Section-by-Section Analysis
To foster scientific studies within Impact on Existing Sanctuaries
national estuarine sanctuaries, NOAA is
setting aside funds for research within One commenter suggested that the Subpart A-@-General
sites with approved final management final regulations indicate the impact of Section 921.1-Mission and Goali.
plans. This is a separate category of the changes. on existing sanctuaries. (1) Several commentersr-supported the
financial assistance from the operation Response. The changes in procedure Program Mission and Goals and found
and management or acquisition and reflected ia these regulations will them to be a substantial improvement
development support. The research improve the Program's operation and the over the 1974 guidelines and 1977
funding is described in Subpart E. effective. implementation of national proposed regulations.
Financial assistance requirements -and estuarine sanctuaries over time. They Response. The Mission and Goals
procedures have been revised. The will therefore be applied to existing were established to guide continued
programmatic information required for sanctuaries to the degree practicable.
each type of award is specified in the Public Participation effective implementation of the National
appropriate sections--in preacquisition Estuarine Sanctuary Program. Program
(Subpart B); acquisition and- Because of the potential impacts experience over the past several years
development (Subpart C); and operation resulting from an area being designated led to the development of refinements.
and management (J 922.32). General as a national estuarine sanctuary. one designed to improve the original
financial assistance information is commenter noted that the aximurn guidelines.
provided in Subpart F. opportunity for the participation of The concept of a national estuarine
In summary, the regulations include interested-persons should be provided. sanctuary does not easily merge with
more standards and guidelines for states The commenter encouraged NOAA to that of existing natural resource.
to follow-in developing and operating a ensure that states comply with the protection programs, such as wildlife
nationalestuarine saanctuary; as well conditions of J� 921.11(d) and 921.12(d). refuges or parks. National estuarine
as additional guidelines for NOAA in The corrintenter recommended that a sanctuaries are designed to ensure
overseeing the Program. Based on careful review of all established and protection of a natural habitat unit in
experience and from discussions with potential industrial activities be which long-term research and
several states with estuarine undertaken to ensure a well-balanced educational projects can be focused. A
sanctuaries, NOAA has found that he decision on the site's suitability for primary aim of-these research and
previous lack of guidance raised many designation as a national estuarine education projects is to provide
concerns about what an estuarine sanctuary. information to states that is useful for
sanctuary should be, the state's role in Response: NOAA agrees with the decisionmaking concerning the .
developing and operating a sanctuary, comment on the importance of public development or protection of its coast
and how decisions should be made. The participation. Public participation efforts and associated resources.

W506 Federal Register Vol. 49., No. 125 J Wednesday, June Z7, 1984 Rules and Reju.1ahons
National estuarine sanctuaries are not NOAA disagrees with the commen'ter on owned by a state or conservation group.
established primarily for recreational Goal 4. The purpose of the goal is to In this way actual ownership would not
pursuits, although compatible uses are ensure the protection of selected be as important as the site's value to the
encouraged. Sanctuaries are also not estuarine areas. Federal/state Program.
intended solely to enhance habitat for a . cooperative efforts to ensure such Response. NOAA believes that the
single species by modification of the protection are emphasized. the Federal inclusion of representatives of all
natural character of the estuarine- role encompasses more then grants-in- national estuarine variations would be
system. aid. but includes continuing evaluation impracticable from a management
The final regulations, including the and coordination of research and perspective. It should be noted that
Mission and Goals, are designed to education to ensure that the sites remain control of estuarine land and water
clarify the definition and function of a as natural field laboratories consistent areas is only one facet in sanctuary
national estuarine sanctuary. with the legislative intent. designation. Properties already owned
(;I Another commenter. however. NOAA has based these revised by the state or a conservation group
suggested that the section on Mission regulations on the Act and its legislative may not comprise a natural unit or have
and Goals. which replaced the-Volicy history. Through experience with the the research and educational foundation
and ObjectiveC section of the 1974 Program. NOAA has made certain required by the Program. Such areas are
guidelines. expands the scope of the refinements to the process: In fact. by already in a protected Status and are
Program in ways not originally intended. explicitly providing for Section 312 available for research and educational
The commenter suggested that Goal 2 evaluations (as required by the Coastal purposes, along with those regional
(concerning research) was adequate. Zone Management Act) as seeking to representatives comprising the National
and that the other three should be coordinate research and education from Estuarine Sanctuary system. Adding '
deleted. The commenter suggested that the national level. the Program has made these sites to the Program may not serve
the first goal. concerning long-term gnificant strides to ftiLfill the beneficial purposes. Thus. while the
S'
management plannirg should be left to Congressional intent (see IS 922.1(c) biogeographic classification scheme sets
the National Marine Sanctuary Program and 921.34), the initial parameters within which
or slate coastal zoneprograms. The _. (3) One reviewer felt that the idea of detailed site seleciart and. analysis is
commenter further suggested that the coordinating research and education focused. it should riot be considered
third goal, involving enhancement of information expressed in I 921.1(c) was alone. Many other factors must be
public awareness through.interpretation, a ljoad idea, but should be carefully considered.
should also be dropped even though it thought out and developed in Within regions without an estuarine
was recognized that such interpreave coordination with indLviduaL states. sanctuary, however.. the non-acquisition
efforts often stem from scientific Rmpovsa:.NOAA is now in the alternatives suggested by the
research. Finally. the commenter process of developing a detailed plan, for commenter will be utilized to the
suggested that the fourth goal. involving coordinating research and education- greatest degree. possible.
stimulating Federal-state cooperation to, Comments from states and other (3) Another commenter was
promote the management of estuarine interested groups are being actively concerned that implementation of the
areas, should be dropped since it solicited in preparing this plan. biogeographic classification scheme an
allegedly provides the Federal (4) Several commenters strongly the basis of one site per region would
government with more authority thark supported the concept im I 922.1(d) of
lead to too many estuarine sanctuaries.
needecL The cornmenter supports thi* encouragnig multiple use of estuarine Response: As detailed in ne Clark
view by citing legislative history ta- - sanctuaries. One of the same Report the classifica. tion, scheme and
assert that the Act "authorizes Federal commenters also supported the estuarine typology are designed to
grants-in-aid. but makes no, attempt to statement in Section 9M.11(c)(5) that the provide the Program with an array of
diminish State authority through Federal -site selection process consider "the sanctuaries broadly reflective of our
preemption." site's compatibility with ex:isting and -Nation's estuarine zones. Only with this .
The same commenter generally potential land and water use-in diversity of sites can the Program
questions the need for the National contiguous areas." -
Estuarine Sanctuary Program and need RespanserNOAA isatrongly produce beneficial research and
fbr revisions to the existing program. committed to the concept of multiple use, educational projects useful in coastal
The commenter encouraged NOAA to in estuarinesanctuaries as long as the decisioninaking. There am presently 14 -
examine the legal and sderittfic bases purposes for which the sanctuary is- biogeographic regions represented in the
for. the estuarine sanctuary program and established are maintained. Therefore it system. . I
to ensure that the regulations conform to is important that site selection efforts (4) Another commenter stated that by
the mitended goals of the Coastat Zone closely analyze existing and potential including 27 regions, and providing for
Management Act uses of the area and adjacent area& one site per region. NOAA has extened
Response: The Mission and Goals Secd= ZMJ--BJopeqgzvpAir_ the-Program in an unwarranted -nner.
described in Section 92L1 are in no way Classificaden Schew& (1) One state The commenter recommended instead
an expansiow of the Program. Rather requested that the goal of one site per that NOAA use the classification
they reflect the legislative history and a region berevised to allow for more sites scheme in the Program Development
synthesis of the Program's past per region based an the estuarine Plan for the National Marine Sanctuary
experience and need for basic policy typology system. The commenter noted Program which relied on eight regions.
guidance. Goals 2 and:3 are both valid, that only by including several sites per -Response: Estuarine sanctuaries. in
since both education and interpretive region could all significant national order to be beneficial for long-term
efforts"are natural outgrowths of variation be included. The commenter research and educational purposes.
science. The first goal. involving - suggested that outright acquisition was- should reflect. the Nation's coastal areas.
management plannin& represents a not always necessary. The alternative The biogeographic classification scheme
logical mechanism for achieving suggested was to incorporate into the and estuarine typologies were
Prograni'purposes with maximum udlity National Estuarine Sanctuary Program,- developed from this premise as
and a minimum amount of waste. those sites. as appropriate. that are demonstrated in ne Clark ReporL In

Federal Register / VoL 49, No. 125 Wednesday, June 27, 1984 Rules and Regulations 2650'

identifying sites for potential marine appropriately occur during the EIS a significant Federal action for the
sanctuary status. eight regions were process. but the commenter suggested purposes of the NEPA EIS requirement.
used, but for administrative purposes that states may wish to involve Federal One commenter noted that since
rather than representativeness. On top agencies with special expertise earlier resource protection is a primary
of this, scheme. a detailed marine during the site selection process. program goal. the regulations should
classification scheme. developed solely Response. The regulations require that specify that the plan detail
for marine areas and illustrative of the states seek the views of Federal responsibilities for surveillance and
Nation's oceans, was applied. As a agencies as well as other parties early in enforcement of human activities.
result of this process, twenty-nine sites the site selection process (see Response. NOAA agrees and the
were selected by NOAA for placement � I 921.11(d) and 921.12(a)(3)). Federal regulations (at J 921.12(b)(8)) have been
on the Site Evaluation List (see 48 FR- agencies will also be actively involved revised to require that responsibilities
35588 (1983)). in the management planning process for surveillance and enforcement be
Section 9214(b)-Coordination With and EIS development (see 1921.12 (d) detailed in the management plan.
the National Marine Sanctuary and (e)). (4) One commenter questioned the
Program. One commenter was Section 921.2r--Site Selection. (1) usefulness of the NOAA-state
concerned about the possible Several states suggested that the memorandum of understanding (MOU),
duplication of time and effort if an area regulations address multiple-site which is required as part of the
is established as an estuarine sanctuary national estiiarine sanctuaries. management plan (see 1921.12 (a)(5)
and a marine sanctuary. The commenter Response.- Section 921.10(b) has been and (b)(101). The commenter suggested
requested that NOAA address the revised to specifically reference that the MOU could not be considered
possibility of a dual designation and multiple-site systems within the legally binding on future legislatures.
means by which both programs could National Estuarine Sanctuary Program. Response: The MOU emphasizes the
coexist without generating serious (2) One commenter urged early and significance of establishing an estuarine
problems. frequent public involvement in the sanctuary and recognition by the state
Response. Section 921.4(b) is intended designation and management of national and Federal government of the long-term
only to ensure that the National estuarine sanctuaries. It was suggested commitment to management of the area
Estuarine Sanctuary Program and that where the proposed regulations in accordance with the agreed-upon
National Marine Sanctuary Program limit notice to the local media (for goals and objectives. The MOU spells
work closely together. this is example in I 921.11(d) concerning out, at the beginning of the process. the
particularly true in terms of preliminary site selection), notice should roles of the Federal and state
management planning. research also be made in the Federal Register governments. and what is expected of
projects, and education /interpretive since not all parties interested in the each party. It will clearly indicate that
activities. It is also important to note proposed designation live in the each party is aware of its commitment
that the Programs are not duplicative adjacent area and the .Program has a and responsibilities at the beginning of
and could serve complementary broad national interest. the process. The MOU emphasizes that
purposes. The regulations have been Response. This change has been. made lands acquired under the National
clarified to provide that the boundaries (see I 921.12(d)). Estuarine Sanctuary Program must
of the national marine and estuarine
sanctuaries would not overlap, even Section 921.12-Manogement Plan continue to be used in a manner
though they may be adjacent (similarta Development (1) One state noted that consistent with sanctuary purposes.
the case where a National Wildlife � 921.12(b), concerning management (5) Several states approved requiring
Refuge abuts a National Park). plan development, should include a the management plan early in the
Subpart B--Preacquiiition: Silo description of the sanctuary process as a guide to future decisions
admini trative structure as a required before the expenditure of substantial
Selection and Management Plan plan component. It was suggested that funds. Other commenters. however.
Development the plan should at least outline the expressed concern that requiring the
Section 921. la-Zeneral (1), One state 'staff's roles for research. education/ preparation of a draft management.plan
suggested that the $50.000 Federal share interpretation. and enforcement. prior to any commitment to the site. from
was not enough to accomplish the goals Response. NOAA agrees and NOAA could lead to the waste of
of the-preacquisition award (e.g.; site language to this effect has been added extensive staff time, public '
selection and draft managment plan at � 921.12(b)(2). participation, and resources.
development) and recommended that a (2) One state suggested that an Response: These regulations are
small sum be set aside for site selection. environmental impact statement not be predicated upon ten years of experience
and that other funds to prepare the draft' required-in all cases. Rather. in less in administering the National Estuarine
plan be negotiated between the state complex situations. the flexibility to Sanctuary Program. The regulations are
and the Federal government based on prepare an environmental assessment intended to rectify many of the problems
the proposed sanctuary's complexity.. should be left open. that have occurred in specific
Response. Based on past experience, Response: NOAA disagrees. Based on sanctuaries in the past. Many of these
the $50,000 Federal funding level. experience with the prograni. an problems could have. been foreseen and
supplemented by state match. is environmental assessment is not an overcome by thoughtful. pre-sanctuary
adequate for site selection and draft adequate mechanism to fully consider planning. Thus, NOAA is strongly
plan development. Additional funds to the environmental and socioeconomic supportive of developing a management
complete the final plan are available impacts of a proposed national estuarine plan early in the decision process. The
under the acquisition and development sanctuary, particularly where a concern that NOAA is not committed to
award (see 1921.21). management program is being proposed. the state during the draft management
(2) One commenter suggested that Further. it does not provide for the plan process is unwarranted given the
specific reference to the need for extensive public review required procedures specified in the regulations.
Federal agency coordination be included through the NEPA proces& We believe NOAA's financial commitment begins
in Subpart B. Such coordination could that designation of any site qualifies as with the preacquisition award for site

2SM8 * Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. U5 / Wednesday, June 27, ISM / Rules and Re'g'ulitions

selection and continues through all the large capital expenditures until a final gauge the effectiveness'of the
developmental stages. NOAA may plan is prepared and substantial sanctuarys program.
support up to one-half of the total costs progress in land acquisition has been (2) The same commenter as in (1) also
of establishing a particular sanctuary. made. questioned the value of a program
NOAKs programmatic commitment to a Section 921.32-0peration and evaluation after Federal funding expires.
proposed sanctuary begins with Management. Lrnplementation of the Response: The required evaluations
approval of a site and continues through Management Plan. (1) One state will ensure that sanctuary objectives, as
the management plan review and suggested the $250,0W cap on federal specified in the management plan. are
preparation of the MS. If the sanctuary funding for operation and management still being attained and that proposed
proposal is approved, and if the in Section 921.32(b) should be modified boundary changes and amendments to
requirements of the preacquisition phase to provide for additional funds based on the management plan can be reviewed.
are met. NOAA will proceed with need. The evaluations will ensure that the
establishing the site as a national Respons& The Program is designed to purposes for which the sanctuary was
estuarine sanctuary. assist states in establishing estuarine established- continue to be met and that
Detision points early in the process sanctuaries. Funds are provided for-an & site meets the criteria of the national
provide opportuaities for either party to initial period of implemenatation; system.
withdraw before too much time and thereafter the states must assume - After Federal funding expires. the
effort have been committed. responsibility for continued operation. state is required to submit an annual
. (6) In terms of I 921.12MM one Section 922.33-Boundai7 Changes report on the sanctuary. The report will
commenter suggested that the schedule andAmenaments to the Management detail program successes and
for acquisition. required as part of the Plan. (1) Several states requested that accomplishments in implementing the
management plan, was useful as a. this section be modified to apply only to policies and activities described in the
guide. but not as a rigid planning laws specifically applicable to the sanctuary management plan. The report
document. sanctuary, and not general also should propose a work plan for the
Response. NOAA views the- environmental quality laws such as for next year of sanctuary operations and
acquisition strategy as a flexible air and water. * describe the state'srole in ongoing
planning tooL It does. however. identify Response. Section 922.33 has'been sanctuary programs. Inadequate annual
key areas where acquisition should be clarified to reflect this point. reports will trigger a full-scale
focused and acquisition priorities (2) One commenter recommended that evaluation with a site-visit. In addition.
developed. The strategy will. also public notice and opportunity to on a periodic basis. NOAA will also
contain alternatives (including boundary comment be provided in all cases where conduct a full-scale Section 312
changes) if selected priority areas boundaries are changed or management
eventually cannot be acquired. plans are amended under 192:1.33. evaluation with a site visit.
(7) One commenter suggested that the Response: The proposed regulations Section 921.35- Withdrawal of
requirements for the draft management provide that if NOAA determines it is Designation. (1) Several reviewers
suggested that the section on the
thdrawal of designation be modified
plan should reference three additional necessary, public notice and an
elements, all of which were included in opport ty for comment on boundary wl
the 1974 guidelines': (1) Definitions of changes and changes to the final to allow the applicable state to
permitted. compa!tible. restricted and management plan will be provided. participate in decisions regarding the
prohibited uses; (2) a rnanitorfng plan to Major-changes do require public notice disposition of property.
Response. The state will of course be
ensure that the integrity'of the sanctuary and opportunity forcomment and. in
and (3) a description of certain cases. preparation of an consulted by NOAA in any decision
is maintained.
the authorities which will be put in environmental assessment Thusi the regarding property disposition. which
place to manage the Sanctuary and clear intent of these regulations is to will be carried out according to
enforce the policy and use restrictions. provide for public-natice where Attachment N of OM Circular A-10Z
Response.- A resource protection plan applicable. There may. however. be Revised. and these regulations.
requirement has been added (see times where changes to the management (2) Several reviewers questioned. in
9=12(b)(81) which encompasses plan are minor and will not require su&., the event of withdrawal of sanctuary
elements (11 and (31. A monitoring plan notice. designation. the method of disposal for
should be included as part of the Section,92.T..14--prograli? Evaluation. property held in less-than-fee simple or
research plan (see I 921.12(b)(3)). (1) One commenter specifically controlled by a lease.
questioned the value of Section 312-type Response: Section 921.21(e) [which
Subpart C-Development and evaluations of sanctuary performance; was I 921.35(e) in the proposed
Preparation of the Final NUnagement the commenter stated that performance regulations) viould be followed to the
Plan reports, which an required as a extent it applies. Leasehold and other
Section 921.22--Zaidal Acqzdsiden condition of the financial award. am real property interests purchased in
and Development Awards. (1) One state. adequate for NOAA'a purposes. - whole or in part.with Federal funds are
noted that the limit of 3 percent of the Respvnsw Performance reports are of subject to the provisions of Attachment
initial acquisition and development course helpful. But such reports do not N. OMB Circular A-102, Revised.
awards which may be expended on address the specific range and depth of (3) Another state requested that the
minor construction activities which aid issues needed to assess.the deed language be rewritten so that a
in implementing portions of the effectiveness of sanctuary operation and state would be "entitled to retain title to
management plan may not be adequate opportunities for improvement. In property which the state determines is
for multiple-site systems. addition during an evaluation. no longer needed for grant purposes. so
Response.- After careful consideration. individuals argroups that are, or should long as the property is used for other
NOAA has determined that necessary be, involved in sanctuary management purposes approved by NOAA as being
construction can be planned for and or are affected by the sanctuary are consistent with the sanctuary program."
included as part of the initial award. contacted. This provides NOAA with Response: When property purchased
The intent of this restriction is to limit valuable feedback that is necessary to in fee simple or less-than-fee simple is

104

Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 125 / Wednesday. June 27, 1984 / Rules and Regulations 26509

no longer used for the purposes of the Subpart F~q-~0qGeneral Financial is somewhatac~qid~. It was sug~qi~qd~qited that
National Estuarine Sanctuary Program. Assistance Provisions. the ~c~qir~cumneu~qtra~ql range should be ~q6~.~q5
NOAA is required to dispose of the (1) One state criticized the exclusion. rather than 5.5~.
property according to the-provisions of of land as state match for the operation Response. For the reasons indicated in
Attachment N~. ~4qOMB Circular A-~q1~q0~6qZ and management awards. The state the above response, we decided to
Revised. These provisions are found such an exclusion to be an undue continue with the proposed system.
essentially the same as stated in -constraint upon management and (3) Another reviewer stated that in
~qJ 921.~2q= ~q(~a) of the final regulations. operation alternatives available to Group ~qI~qI-Transit~qion Areas, the
~q(4) One commenter suggested that states. description. of coastal marshes and
specific criteria and an appeals ~, Response~: In order-to maximize the coastal mangroves as the only coastal
procedure (including public notice of the support provided to a sanctuary during w~atland transition areas is too narrow.
proposed withdrawal of designation) be it~s early years, NOAA has precluded Other we~qdand areas (marshes, swamps,
added to the regulations. land as match for the operation and bogs) should be included.
Response. As specified in ~q�~q� 921.34 management award. To a reasonable Response. A new subtitle "Coastal
and 92~q1.3~q5. NOAA~'s continuing degree, state match should relate to the Marshes and Swamps" has been added.
evalu~atio~i~n of sanctuary per~qf~qb~rma~nce purpose of the particular award. Since (4) A~nother~'~commenter stated that the
will examine the state's performance in the purpose of the operation and typology did not appear to contain
upholding the ma~q@da~qte of Section 315 of management award is to provide for the criteria which adequately describe a
the Act, the national Program goals. and sanctuary's operation and Great- Lakes-type site.
the policies established in the
implementation of the management Response: Great Lakes areas can fail
management Plan. Specific criteria to- plan. the use of land as match is under Class ~qH. Group ~qLB (Basin
-judge these factors cannot be inappropriate, particularly since land Structure); LC (Wet Type), I.~0qD~. (Bottom
enumerated, but-w~qill, be examined o~n a acquisition should be well underway Composition); Group ~qE~qLA (C~qirculation~q@~.
case-b~2qy-~ca~s~e basis. ~qtect~qi~on 921.3~q5 spells prior to the state's receiving an ~qILC (Freshwater); and Group M-
out T procedure for withdrawal of operation and management award- The Chemica~qL
designation. including an appeal to the allowable categories of match (see
Assistant Administrator for Ocean ~qJ~-~q92~q2.~q51(e)~q) provide the state with V. Other Actions Associated With the..
Services and Coastal. Zone sufficient flexibility. Proposed Ru~qle~qmakin~qg
Management. Appendix 2~q-~qEs~qtuarin~e T olo~qgy (A)- Classification Under Executive
(~q5) One state questioned who would ~qy~qp
decide the "current fair market value" of (1) One reviewer stated that in Group Order 12~q291
lands slated for withdrawal of., ~qIII-~0qMe~rn~qi~qcal. the proposed salinity ~NOAA ha~s concluded that these
designation in I ~q9~q21.35~q(e)(i~q] [now limits were particularly confusing. The regulations are not major because they
~qJ ~q9~8q=~q2~q1~q(e)(~qi~q)~q]. It was recommended that reviewer noted that ~E~F sali~n~qit~qy~qtone ~o~qf 10 Will not result in:
an arbitration system of three ppt t~c~r ~q20 ppt it very important because ~q(~q1) An annual effect on the economy
independent appraisers or comparable, numerous estuaries-possess waters in- of ~q$20~q0 million or more.
system be established. this salinity range- but the proposed (2) A major increase in costs or prices-
Response: Fair market value would be' p~o~qlyhalin~e z~o~n ~e~ql~s to* broad to describe for consumers, individual industries.
determined by an independent appraiser this. The reviewer included the Federal. state ~or local government
(e.g., certified real proper~ty~ap~qp~ca~qi~ser or ~qfo~ql~ql~owi~n~qg-t~ab~qle of salinity ranges from agencies, or geographic regions,- or
GSA representatives). andcer~qfified by-~a In ~t~roduc~qti~qm~qi~qt~a Marine~, Biology by ~q(3) Significant adverse effects on.
responsible official of the state. as
provided by Attachment F of ~4qOM~6qR~'- Mosby. competit~qio~i~L employment. investment,
Circular ~2qA~-~q1~qD~6q4 Revised~.~!~, $I** ~6qw~o~m Two of ~qM~qW productivity; innovation or an the ability
Subpart ~6qE-R~esearch Funds of United States-based enterprises to I
~. ~0~1~0~a~s ~R~e~qW compete-with foreign-based enterprises
(~q1) Several reviewers suggested that 0~-~5~0~10~1~q- ~Q~qwt~a~*~w ~w~q-~id~s~h wa~qw in domestic or export markets.
~3.0 ~" ~1~0 ~h~i~a~s~c~r~a~w~w ~i ~w~a~qw~.
research funds b~qe offered on a 1~q0~q0 Wet ~1~1~1~0~q@ I These final rules amend existing
percent Federal basi~s~i i.~e~- without a ~17~10 procedures for selecting and processing
~3~0~1~0
state match requi~r~emen~qL ~qU to ~3~8 potential national estuarine sanctuaries
~0qRe~sp~,~q6~qnse~.~- Section 315 of the Coastal ~a~W~A~L in accordance with a revised
Zone Management Act requires that all biogeographic classification scheme and
~F~m~m ~V~q"~k~w~q~q" L IOU U~b~w ~qf~qt ~Sk~qk~q" d~w Oat"* ~W~S
funds to coastal states for national &I ~w~qww~. ~L~q-~w~L estuarine typ~ologie~s. These rules
~&t~qfk~*~as~s~w~V~9~q&~L V~e~qf~qt ~0~9~.~@~Vww~L Mew.
estuarine sanctuary purposes be establish a revised process for
provided on a fifty-fifty matching basis. Response: Polyhal~qlne should be 30 ppt identifying, designating and man ~i g
(2) Other comm~qint~ers suggested that to ~qZ~q8 ppt: the- "~qS~" was a typographical national estuarine sanctuaries. They will
funding limits and the. total research error. NOAA considered t~qh~qe information not result in any direct economic or
budget be discussed in the regulations. provided. but has decided to continue to environmental effect nor will they lead
Response: Funding limits and the total use the proposed salinity ranges which, to any major indirect economic or
Federal funds for research in national are &am Ecology of Inland Waters and environmental impacts.
estuarine sanctuaries will vary from Estuaries (Reid- and Wood, 197~4q6). This is (B~2q) Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis ~q-
year-to-year, thus. these-figures are not the standard l~8qimnolo~2qgy test used in
included in the final regulations. NOAA college. The table used as an example is The General Counsel of the
will, however. distribute information from a 1933 paper the salinity table Department of Commerce certified to
about the relative funding limits and used in the typology is the widely the Small Business Administration that
funding totals. Such information will be accepted "Venice System:* adopted in this rule will not have a significant
sent to states with national estuarine ~0q1~4q9~0q5~00q& economic impact on a substantial
sanctuaries and to other interested (2) The same reviewer also questioned number of small entities. Thus.
parties. the pH values suggesting that a pH of ~4q5~q.~4q5 regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not

16910 Federal Register Vol. 49, No. 125'1 Wednesday. June 27,-1984 Rules and Regulations
required for this notice of final Subpart D,-Sancturay Designation and ideas from one sanctuary are made
rulemaking. The regulations set forth Subsequent operation available to others in the system. The
procedures for identifying and sec. network that will be established will
designating national estuarine 921-30 Designation of National Estuarine enable sanctuaries to exchange
sanctuaries, and managing sites.once Sanctuaries. information and research data with each
designated. 921M Supplemental acquisition and other. with universities engaged. in
These rules do not directly affect development awards. estuarine research. and with Federal
..small government jurisidictions" as 921-32 Operation and management: and state agencies. NOAA's objective is
defined by Pub. L 96-354, the Implementation of the Management Plan. a system-wide program of researd
921.33 Boundary changes. Amendments to
Regulatory Flexibility Act. and the rules the Management Plan. and addition of monitoring capable of addressing the
will have no effect on small businesses. multiple-site components. management issues that affect long-term
- 921-34 Program evaluation. productivity of our Nation's estuaries.
(C) Paper Wark Reduction Act of 1980 921.33. Withdrawal-of designation. - (d) Multiple -uses are encouraged to
(Pub. L 96-511) Subpart E-Research Funds the degree compatible with the
These, regulations do not impose any 921,40 General. sanctuary's overall purpose as provided
information requirements of the type 99-1.41 Categories of potential research in the management plan and consistent
covered by Pub. L 96-311 other than projects; evaluation criteria. with subsections (a) and (b). above. Use
those already approved by the Office ot levels are set by the individual state and
Subpart F-General Financial Assistance
Management and Budget (approval Provisions- analyzed in the management plan. The,
-number 0648-01211 for use through sanctuary management plan (see
September 30; 198& .9ZIM Application information_ 1921.12) will describe the uses and
- 921.51. Allowable costs. establishes priorities among these u
(D] National Environmental Policy AGt 92iZ2 Amendments to financial assistance ses.
awards. The plan shall identify uses requiring a
NOAA has concluded that publication state permit. as well as areas where
of these rules does not constitute a Appendix 1-_Biogeogr@phic Cla. 33ification uses ,are enco .uraged or prohibited. In
major Federal. action significantly Scheme general, sanctuaries are intended to be
Appendix Z-Typology of National Estuarine.
affecting the quality of the human Areas open to the public; low-intensity .
environment. Therefore. an Authoritr. Sec. 315(IL Pub. L 92-583. as recreational and interpretive- activities
environmental impact statement is not amendeck $a Stat. 1280 (16 U.S.C. 1461(l)). are generally encouraged. -
required. (e) Certain manipulative research
List of Subjects in 1S CFR Part 921 Subpart A--General. activities may be allowed on a limited
1921.1 Mission and goals. basis. but only if specified in the
Administrative practice and (a), The mission of the National management plan and only if the
procedure, Coastal zone. Environmental Estuarine Sanctuary Program is the activity is consistent with overall
protection. Natural resources, Wetlands.. est a*blishment and management. through sanctuary purposes and the sanctuary.
(Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog Federal-state cooperation. of a national resources are protected. Manipulative.
Number 11.420 Estuarine Sanctuary Program) system of estuarine sanctuaries research activities@ require the prior
Dated: Februar ,y Z9,1984. representative of the various regioni approval of the state and NOAA.
Paul Nt. Nvoiff, ancLestuarine types in the United States. Habitat manipulation for resource
Estuarine sanctuaries will be management purposes is not permitted.
Assistant Administratorfor Ocean Services within national estuarine sanctuaries..
and Caosial Zone Management . .. established to provide opportunities for
Accordingly, 15'CFR Part 921 is long-orm research, education. and (Q While the Program Lis aimed-at
revised as-Collows: interpretation. protecting natutal. pristine sites, NOAA
(b) The goals of-the Program for recognizes that many estuarine areas
PART-921-NATIONAL ESTUARINE carrying outthis mission arL- - - have undergone ecological change as a
SANCTUARY PROGRAM (1) Enhance resource protection by -result of human activities. Although
restoration of degraded areas is not a
REGULATIONS.. Unprementing a long-term management-*
Subpart A-General plan tailored to the site's specific- phinary purpose of the Program. some
resources- restorative activities may be permitted
Sec. (2) Provide opportunities for long-term In an estuarine sanctuary as specified in
921.1 Mission and goals. scientific and educational programs in the management plan.
921.2 Definitions. estuarine areas to develop information- (g) NOAA may provide financial
921.3. National Estuarine Sanctuary for improved coastal decisionmaking: assistance to coastal states. not to
Biogeographic Classification Scheme and (3) Enhance public awareness and exceed 50 percent of all actual cosis. to
Estuarine Typologies. understanding of the estuarine assist in the designation and operation
921.4 Relationship to other provisions-of the environment through resource of national estuarine sanctuaries (see
- Coastal Zone Management Act and.to-
the NationiL, interpretive programs: and section 921-51(e)). Three types ofawards
Marine Sanctuary. Program.
-. (4) Promote Federal-state cooperative are available under the National
Subpart 8-Preacquisition: Ske Selection efforts. iir managing estuarine areas. Estuarine Sanctuary Program. The
and Management Plan Development (c) To assist the states in carrying cut preacquisition award is for site
921Ao General. the Program's goals in an effective selection and draft management plan
.921.11 Site selection..- manner, the National Oceanic and preparation. The acquisition and
921.12 Management Plan development. Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) development award is intended
Subpart C-Acquisition, Development, and will coordinate a research and primarily for land acquisition and
Preparation of the Final Management Plan education information exchange construction purposes. The operation
921M General. throughout the national estuarine and management award provides funds
9ZI22 Initial acquisition and development sanctuary system. As part of this role. to assist in implementing the research,
awards. NOAA will ensure that information and educational. and administrative

106

Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 125 / Wednesday, June. 27,1984 / Rules and Re-@Wations 26511

programs detailed in the sanctuary and, to include a variety of ecosystem Financial assistance. application
management plan. Under the Act. the types. A biogeographic classification procedures are specified in Subpart F.
Federal share of funding for a national scheme based on regional variations in. (b) In selecting a site, a state may
estuarine sanctuary shall not exceed the nation's coastal zone has been choose to develop a multiple-site
$3.000,000,At the conclusion of Federal developed. The biogeographic sanctuary reflecting a diversity of
financial assistance. funding for the classification scheme is used to ensure habitats in a single biogeographic
long-term operation of the sanctuary that the National Estuarine Sanctuary region.. A multiple-site sanctuary also
becomes the responsibility of the state. System inrJudes at least one site from allows the state to develop
(h) Lands already in protected status each region. The estuarine typology complementary research and
by another Federal. state. local system is utilized to ensure that sites in educational programs within the
government or private organization can the Program reflect the wide range of multiple components of its sanctuary.
be included within national estuarine estuarine types within the United States. Multiple-site sanctuaries are treated as
sanctuaries only if the managing entity (b): The biogeographic classification one sanctuary in terms of financial
commits to long-term non-manipidativ& scheme, presented in Appendix 1. assistance and development of an
management Federal lands already in., contains 27 regions. Figure Z graphically overall management framework and
protected status cannot comprise the depicts the biogeographic regions of the plan. Each individual component of a
key land and water areas of 4 sanctuary United States. proposed multiple-site sanctuary shall
(see- 1. 921.11(c)(3)). (c) The typology system is presented be evaluated separately under
921.2 Definitions. in Appendix I J 921.11(c) as part of the site selection
process; A state may propose to
(k) "Acf' means the Coastal Zone-- 924.4 Relationship to other provislons of establish a multiple-sfte sanctuary at the
Management Act. as am nded. 16 U.S.C. the Coastal Zone Management Act and to time of the initial site selection. or at
1451 etseq. Section 315(l) of the Act. 16 the National Marine Sanctuary Program. any point in the development or
U.S.C. i4a(i).. eitablishes the National (a) The National Estuarine: Sanctuary . operation of the estuarine sanctuary,
Estuarine Sanctuary Program.' Program is intended to, provi& even after Federal funding for the single
(b) "Assistant Administrator CAA) information to state agencies and other component sanctuary has expired. If the
means the Assistant Administrator for- entities involved in coastal zone state decides to develop a multiple-site-
Ocean Services and Coastal ZoneF management decisionmaking pursuant national estuarine sanctuary after the
Management National Ocean Service. to the Coastal Zone Kanagement Act. 16 initial acquisition and development
National Oceanic and Atmospheric U.S.C. 1451: ef seq. Any coastal state. award is made an a single site. the
Administration. U.S. Department of including those that do act have proposal is subject to the requirements
Commerce, or his/bar successor or
approved- coastal zone management set forth in J 921.33. it should be noted.
designee. programs under section 306 of the Act. is however. that the total funding for a
(c): "Coastal state'-meana a state of eligible for an award under the National multiple-site sanctuary remains at the
the United States in. or bordering on. the Estuarinet Sanctuary Program (see $3,00M000 limit: the funding for
Atlantic. Pacific. or Arctic Ocean. the
G
OfM * I 9=.Z(e)):. . . operation of a multiple-site sanctuary is
ulf exico. Long Island Sound, or
one or more of the Great Lakes. For the (b) Where feasibli!. the National also limited to the $250.000 standard
purposes of this title. tha term also Estuarine Sanctuary Program will be (see I 921.32(b)]..
includes Puerto Rico. the Virgin Islands. conducted in close coordination with the i p2,t.11 Site solectlom
National Marine Sanctuary Program
Guam. th'e Commonwealth of the (Title ill of the Marine Protectiom (a) A state may use up. to $10,000 in
Northern Marianas, and the Trust Federal preacquisition funds to establish
Territories of the Pacific Islands. and Research and Sanctuaries Act a& and implement a site selection process
American Samoa (see 16 U.S-C 1454(4)). am6nded. I&U.S.C. 1431-1434) also which is approved by NOAA
(d)@'Estuary" means that-part of a. administered- by NOAA. Title ifi % (b) In Addition to the requirements set
stream or body of water having authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to,
river or forth in Subpart F. a request for Federal
unimpaired connection with the open designate ocean waters as marine funds for site selection must contain the
sea, where the sea water is measurably sa=tuaries tcr protect or restore such following programmatic information:
diluted with fresh water derived from- areas for their conservation. (1) A description of the proposed site
land drainage. The term also includes recreational. ecological. or esthetid selection process and how it will be
estuary-type areas of the. Gceat Lakm values. National marine and estuarine
see 16U.S.C 1454(7). sanctuaries will not oveflap, tho,igh they implemented in conformance with the
(ey "National Estuarine Sanctuary'. may be- adjacent. biogeographic classification 3cheme and
means and area. which may include all . typology, (1921-31:
or the kerland and water portion of an Subpart 13-Preacclulaftlarc Site- (2) An identification of the site
Sellection and Management Plan selection agency and the potential
estuary. and' adjacent transitional areas Development management agenc3r, and
and'uplands. constituting to the extent (3) A description of how public
feasible a natural unit set asides as a 1921.10 General. participation will be incorporated into
natural field laboratory to provide long7 (a) A state may apply fora. the process (see I 921.11(d)).
term opportunities for research, - preacquisition award for the purpose of (c) As part of the site selection
educational. and interpretation on the site selection and preparation of process. the state and NOAA shall
ecological relationships within the area documents specified in � 921.12 (draft evaluate and select. the final site(s).
(see 16 U.S.C. 1454(8)). management plan and environmental NOAA has final authority in approving
921.3- National Estuarine Sanctuary impact statement (EIS)). The total such sites. Site selection shall be guided
�31090"raiphic Cla"fication Schem and Federal share of the preacquisition by the. following. principles:-
Est rfn* Typologim award may not exceed =000, of which (T) The site's benefit to the National
(a) National estuarine sanctuaries-are up to Sro.000. may be used for site -Estuarine Sanctuary Program relative to
chosen to reflect regional differences selection as described in � 921.11. the biogeographic classification scheme

265= Federal Register / WL 49, Nd.-125 / Wedneidiy, furie 27,*1984 f Rules and R-egulaii0fis
and typology set forth in 1921.3 and 921.12 Management Plan development Not ie.-Information on preparing a
Appendices I and 1. (a) After the selected site is approved preliminary engineering report (PER) is
(2) The site's ecological by NOAA and the state. the state may provided in "Engineering and Construction
characteristics, including its biological request the remainder of the Guidelines for Coastal Energy Impact )b
Program Applicants" (4Z FR 64830 (1977
productivity, diversity of flora and, preacquisition funds to develop the draft which is supplied to award recipients:
fauna. and@ capacity to attract a broad management plan and environmental
.range of research and educational impact statement.-The request must be (7) An acquisition plan identifying the
interests. The proposed site should. to . -accompanied by the information ecologically key land and water areas of
the maximum extent possible, be a specified in Subpart F and the following the sanctuary, priority acquisitions. and
natural system; programmatic information: strategies for acquiring these areas. This.
(3) Assurance that the site's . (1) An analysis of the site based on plan should identify ownership patterns
boundaries encompass an adequate the biogeographic scheme/typology within the proposed sanctuary
portion of the key land and water areas discussed in 1921.3 and set forthin boundaries; land already in the -public
of the natural.systern to approximate an Appendices I and 2; domaim an estimate of the fair market
ecological unit and to ensure effective (2) A description of the site and its value of land to be acquired: the method
major resources. including location, of-acquisition. or the feasible
conservation. Boundary size will vary proposed boundaries, and adjacent land alternatives (including less-than-fee
greatly depending on the nature of the uses. Maps. including aerial techniques) for the protection of the
ecosystem. National estuarine photographs, are required: estuarine area: a schedule for
sanctuaries may-include existing. (3) A description of the public acquisition with an estimate of the time
Federal or state lands already in a. participation process used by the statd required to complete the proposed
protected iitatus where mutual benefit to solicit the views of interested parties. sanctuary-, and a discussion of any
can be enhanced, see � 921.51(e)(2). a summary of comments. and. if anticipated problems;
Importantly. however, NOAA will not interstate issues are involved, Note.-A3 discussed in J 921.11(c)(3). if
approve a-site for potential sanctuary documentation that the Govemor(s) of protected lands are to be included within the
status that is dependent upon the - the other affected state(s) has been proposed sanctuary@ the state must.
inclusion of currently protected Federal. contacted: demonstrate to NOAA that the site meets the
lands in order to meet the requirements (4) A listsof all sites@ considered and a criteria for national estuarine sanctuary
for sanctuary status (such as key land brief sfatement of the basis for not status independent of the inclusion.of such
and water areas). Such.lands may only' selecting the non-preferred sites; and protected lands.
be included within. a sanctuary to serve (5) A draft management plan outline (8) Aresource protection plan
as a. buffer or for other ancillary (see subsection (b) below) and an detailing applicable authorities.
purposes: tUne of a draft memorandum of cluding allowable uses, uses requiring
.ou in
(41 The site's importance for research. understanding (MOU) between the state, a permit and permit requirements. any
in@luding proximity to existing research and NOAA detailing the Federal-state - restrictions on use of the sanctuary, and
facilities and educational institutions: roles in sanctuary management during a strategy for sanctuary surveillance
(Comment. NOAA is developing more the period of federal funding, and and enforcement of -such use
detailed criteria for selecting p otential :- expressing the state's long-term restrictions. including appropriate
national estuarin7e sanctuaries based commitment to operate and manage the goveff=ent enforcement agencies;
-upon research characteristics. Once- sancturay. (9) If applicable, a restoration plan
these criteria are developed. a notice of (b) After NOAA.approves tire state's describing those portions-of the site that
their availability will be published in the request to use the remaining . may require habitat modification to
Federal Register). preacquisWon funds, the state shall restore natural conditions: and
(5) The site's compatibility with begin developing a draft management (101 A proposed memorandum of
existing and potential land and water plan. The plan will set out in detail:. understanding (MOU) between the state
uses in cont.iguous areas; and (1) Sanctuary goals and objectives.' and NOAA regarding the Federal-state
(6) Thi site's importance to education management issues, and strategies-or relationship during the establishment
and interpretive. efforts, consistent With actions for meeting the goals and and development of the national
the need for continued protection of the objectives; - estuarine sanctuary. and expressing the
natural system. (2) An administrative section. long-term commitment by the state to
(d) Early in the site selection including staff roles in administration. maintain effectively the sanctuary after
process. research. education/ interpretation; and Federal financial assistance ends. In
the state must seek the views of affected surveillance and enforcement. conjunction with the MOU and where
landowners. local governments, other (3) A research plan. including a possible under state law- the state will
state and Federal agencies.- and other monitoring design: IN, consider taking appropriate
parties who are interested in the area(s) (4) An interpretive plan (including administrative or legislative iiction to
being considered for selection as a interpretive. educational and ensure the long-term protection of the
potential national estuarine sanctuary. recreational activities); sanctuary. The MOU shall be signed
After the lo@al government and affected 151 A plan for public access to the prior to sanctuary designation. If other
landowners have been contacted. at- * sanctuary; MOUs are necessary (such as with a
least one public meeting shall. be held in (6) A construction. plan. including a federal agency or another state agency),
the area of the proposed site. Notice of. proposed construction schedule, and drafts of such MOUs also must be
such a meeting. including the time. drawings of proposed developments. If a included in the plan. -
place. and relevant subject matter. shall visitor center, research center or any (c) Regarding the preparation of an
be announced by the state through the other facilities are proposed for environmental impact statement (EIS)
area's principal news media at least 15 construction or renovation at the site. a under the National Environmental Policy
days prior to the date of the meeting and preliminary engineering report must be Act on a national estuarine sanctuary
by NOAA in the Federal Register. prepared. proposali the state shall provide all

:108

Federal Register I Vol. 49, No. 1,2.5 t Wednes@day@ June-27,'1984 / Rur6s and Regulatiohs 26-513

necessary information to NOAA 921.21 Initial acquisition and Title to the property conveyed by this deed
concerning the socioeconomic and devellopment awards. shall vest in the [recipient of the CZMA
Section 315 award or other Federallv-
environmental impacts associated with (a) Assistance is provided to aid the approved entity] subject to the condition that
implementing the draft management recipient in: (1) Acquiring land and the property shall remain part of the
plan and feasible alternatives to the water areas to be included in the Federally-designated [name of National
plan. Based on this information. NOAA sanctuary boundaries. (2) minor Estuarine Sanctuaryl. In the event that the
will prepare the draft FlS. construction. as provided in paragraphs property is no longer included as part of the
(d) Early in the development of the (b) and (c) of this section; (3) preparing sanctuary, or if the sanctuary designation of
draft management plan and the draft the final management plan: and (4) up to which it is part is withdrawn. then the
EIS, the state shall hold a meeting in the the point of sanctuary designation. for National Oceanic and Atmospheric
area or areas most affected to solicit initial management costs, .e.g.. Administration or its successor agency. in
public and government comments on the implementing the NOAA approved draft conjunction with the State. may exercise any
significant issues related to the management plan. preparing the final -of the following rights regarding the
disposition of the property:
proposed action. NOAA will publish a management plan, hiring a sanctuary (i) The recipient may be required to
notice of the meeting in the Federal manager and other staff as necessary, transfer title to the Federal Government. In
Register and in local media. and for other management-related such cases. the recipient shall be entitled to
(e) NOAA will publish a Federal' activities. Application procedures are compensation computed by applying the
Register notice of intent to prepare a specified in Subpart F. recipient's percentage of participation in the-
(b) The expenditure of Federal and cost of the program or project to the current
DEIS. After the draft EIS is prepared' fair market value of the property; or
and filed with the Environmental state funds on major construction
a (ii) At the discretion of the Federal
Protection Agency (EPA). a Notice of . ctivities is not allowed during the Government (a) the recipient may either be
Availability of the DEIS will appear in initial acquisition and development directed to sell the property and pay The
the Federal Register. Not less than 30 phase. The preparation of architectural Federal Government an amount computed by
days after publication of the notice, and engineering plans, including applying the Federal percentage of
NOAA, will hold at least one public - specification& for any proposed participation in the cost of the original project
construction-is permitted. In addition. to the proceeds from the sale (minus actual
hearing in the aiea or areas most minor construction activities, consistent and reasonable selling and fix-up expenses, if
affected by the proposed sanctuary. The with paragraph (c) of this section also any. from the sale proceeds); or b) the
hearing will be held no sooner than 15 are allowed. The NOAA-approveddraft recipient may be permitted to retain title after
days after appropriate notice by NOAA paying the Federal Government an amount,
of the meeting has been given in the management plan must, however,- computed by applying the Federal percentage
include a construction plan and a public of participation in the cost of the original
principal news media and in the Federal access plan before any award funds can project to the current fair market value of the
Register. After a 45-day comment be spent on construction activities. property.
period. a final EIS is prepared by (c) Only minor construction activities Note."Fair market value of the property
NOAA. that aid in implementing portions of the must be determined by an independent
management plan (such as boat ramps, appraiser and certified by a responsible
Subpart C-Acquisition, Development, and nature trails) are permitted under official of the state. as provided by ONM
and Preparation of the Final the initi@l acquisition and development Circular A-102 Revised. Attachment F.
Management Plan award. No more than five (5) percent of (f) Prior to submitting the final
J 921.20 General. the initial acquisition and development management plan to NOAA for review
After NOAA approval of the site. the award may be expended on such and approval, the state should holda
draft management plan and the draft facilities. NOAA must make a specific public meeting in the area affected by
MOU, and completion of the final EIS. a determination. based on the final EIS, the estuarine sanctuary. NOAA will
state is eligible for an acquisition and - that the construction activity will no. t be publish a notice of the meeting in the
.development award to acquire land and detrimental to the environment Federal Register and in the local media..
water- areas for inclusion in the . (d) Except as specifically- provided in Subpart D-Sanctuary Designation and
sanctuary and ta construct research and paragraphs (a)-(c) of this section.
educational facilities in accordance with construction projects, to be funded in Subsequent Operation
the draft management- plan. The whole or in part under the acquisition � 921.30 Desiination of National Estuarine
and development award. may not be Sanctuaries.
acquisition and development award has 'initiated until the sanctuary receives
two phases. In the initial phase. state formal designation. see � 921.30. (a) The AA shall designate an area as
performance shouldwork to meet the - a national estuarine- sanctuary pursuant
criteria required for formal. sanctuary Note.-The intent of these requirenfents to Section 315 of the Act based upon
designation. i.e.. acquiring the key land and the phasing of the acquisition and written findings that the state has met
and water areas as specified in the draft development award is to ensure that the following conditions:
management plan and preparing t4e substantial progress in acquiring the key land (1) A final management plan has been
final plan. These requirements are and waters areas has been made and that a approved by NOAA.
final management plan is completed before
specified in J 921.30. The initial major sums are spent on construction. Once (2) Sanctuary construction and access
acquisition and development phase. is substantial progress in acquisition has been policies. � 921.21(b)-(d), have been
expected to last no longer than two made. as defined by the state in the followed:
years after the start of the award. If management plan. other activities guided by (3) Key land and water areas of the
necessary, a longer time period may be the final management plan may begin with proposed sanctuary, as identified in the
negotiated between the state and NOAA's approval. management plan. are under state
NOAA_ After the sanctuary is (e) Deeds for real property acquired control: and
designated. funds may be used to for the sanctuary under acquisition (4) An MOU between the stateand
acquire any remaining1and and for funding shall- contain substantially the NOAA ensuring a long-term
construction purposes. fallowing provision: commitment by the state to the

26514 Federal Register Vol. 49." No. 125 / Wednesday, June 27, 1984 / Rules and Regulations

sanctuary's effective operation and not listed in the management plan or will trigger a full-scale management
implementation has been signed. final EIS require public notice and the audit with a site-visit. On a periodic
@ (b) A notice of designation of a opportunity for comment; in certain. basis. NOAA will also conduct a full-
national estuaTine sanctuary will be cases. an environmental assessment scale Section 312 evaluation with a site
placed in the Federal Register and in the may be required. Where public notice is visit and public meeting.
local media. required. NOAA will place a notice in
(c) The term "state control" in the Federal Register of any proposed J 921.35 Withdrawal ot designatiom
I 921.30(a)(3) does not necessarily changes in sanctuary boundaries or, (a) Upon a finding by the Program
require that the land be owned by the proposed major changes to the final Office through its programmatic
state in fee simple. Less-than-fee .- management plan and ensure that a evaluation (1921.34) that a national
interests and regulatory measures may notice is published in the local medi&. estuarine sanctuary is not meeting the
suffice where the state makes a showing (b)@ As discussed in I 921.10(b), a state- mandate of Section 315 of the Act the
that the lands are.adequately controlled may choose to develop a multiple-site- national Program goals or the policies
consistent with the purposes of the national estuarine sanctuary after the established in the management plan.
sanctuary. initial acquisition and development NOAA will provide the state with a
1921.3,L Supplementat-acquisition and award for a single site has been made. written notice of the deficiency. Such a
de"opnwntawardm Public- notice of tha proposed addition in -notice will explain the deficienciessin ,
the Federal Register and local media. the state's approach. propose a solution
After sanctuary designation. and as and the opportunity for; comment. in or solutions to the deficiency and
specified in the approved management addition to the preparation of either an provide a schedule by which the state
plan, the state may request a environmental assessment or should remedy the deficiency. The state
supplemental acquisition and
development award for -construction and environment impact statement on the shall also be advised in writing that it
proposal will be. requirecL.An may comment on the Program Office*s
acquiring any remaining land. ecified in environmental impact statement. if finding of a deficiency and meet with
Application procedures: are sp required. willbe prepared in accordance. Program officials to, discuss the finding
Subpart F. Land acquisition must follow with section 921.1Z and will also include and seek to remedy the deficiency.
the procedures specified in I 921.21(el. an atimEn strative framework for the
ih@ If the issues canxiot be resolved
� 921.32 Operation and management: multipfe-site sanctuary that describes within a reasonable time, the Program
Implernentatlon of the Management piam the complementary ;esearch and Office will make recommendation
(a) After the sanctuary is formally educational programs within the regarding withdrawal of-designation to
designatecL the state may apply for sanctuary. If NOAA determines. based the AA. A notice of Intent to withdraw
assistance to provide for operation and on the scope of the project and the. designation. with an opportunity for
management. The- purpose of this phase Issues associated with the additional comment will be placed in the Fedemf
in the national estuarine sanctuary site. that an environmental assessment Register.
process is to implement the approved Is sufficient to establish a mulitple-site, Cc) The state shall be provided the
final management plan and to.take the sanctuary, then the state shall develop a
necessary steps to ensure the continued revised management plan as described opportunity for an informal hearing
effective operation of the sanctuary in f 921-12(bl. The revised management before the AA to consider the Program
after direct Federal support is plan will-addiresi the sanctuary-wide Office's recommendation and finding of
concluded. goals and objectives and the additional deficiency, as well as the state's
(b) Federal fonds of up to S250.0m. to comoonent's relationship, to the original comments on and response to the
be matched by the state. am available site. r. ecommendation andfinding,
for the operation and management of thL- (dJ Within 30 day after the informal
national estuarine sanctuary. Opera tiorr � 921.34 proirant evaluatiom hearing, the AA shall issue a written
and management award .i are sab*t to (a) Performance during the term of the decision regarding the sanctuary. It a
the following limitations: operation. and management award (or decision is made, to withdraw sanctuary
(1) No more than. $MOOO in Federal under the initial acquisition and designation, the procedures specified
funds per annual award. and, development award, if the sanctuary is inj 9==(e@ regarding the disposition of
(2) No more than terr percent of the not designated within tw* yearsl will be' real property acquired with federal
total amount (state and Federal shares) evaluated annually by the Program funds shall be followed.
of each operation and management Office and periodically in accordance
award may be used for construction- with tfie provisions of Section 312 of the Subpart E-Re-search Funds
type activities (Le- S10.000 maximum. Act to determine compliance with the 1921.40 Generat.
per year). conditions of the award and overall
progress in implementing the (a) To stimulate high quality research
,I 92t.33 Boundary smendmwft management plan. within designated national estuarine
to trw Management Phin, aid addition of (b) To ensure effective sanctuary sanctuaries. NOAA may find research
nuiltiple-efte component& oversight after the major federal. funding, on a cu'moetittve basis to sanctuaries
(a) Changes in sanctuary boundaries expires. the state is required to submit having an approval final management
and major changes to the final - -- - an annual report an the sanctuary. The plan. Research funds are intended to
management plan. including state laws report should detail program successes support'significant research projects
or regulations promulgated specifically and accomplishments in meeting the that will lead ta enhanced scientific
for the sanctuary. may be made only policies and activities described in the understanding of the sanctuary
after written approval by NOAA. If sanctuary management plan. A work environment. improved coastal
determined to be necessary, NOAA may plan. detailing the projects to be decisionmaking, improved sinctuary.
require public notice including notice in undertaken the next year to meet the management. or enhanced public
the Federal Register and an opportunity Program goals and the state's role in appreciation and understanding of the
for comment. Changes in the boundary ongoing sanctuary programs. should also sanctuary ecosystem. Research
involving the acquisition of properties, be included. Inadequate annual reports opportunities will be identified in final

110

Federal Register / Vol, 49, No. 125 / Wednesday, June 27, 1984 / Rules and Regulabdris 26515

management plans for national (3) Research qttality (i.e., soundness of applications must contain back up data
estuarine sanctuaries. Research funds approach. environmental consequences, for budget estimates (Federal and non-
will be used to fill obvious voids in experience related to methodologies); Federal shares), and evidence that the
available dala. as well as to support (4) Importance to the National application complies with the Executive
creative or innovative projects. Estuarine Sanctuary Program: Order 1237Z "Intergovernmental Review
(b) Research funds are provided in (5) Budget and Institutional of Federal Programs." In addition,
addition to any funds available to the Capabilities (i.e.. reasonableness of applications for acquisition and
state under the operation and budget. sufficiency of logistical Support): development awards must contain:
management or acquisition and and (1) State Historic Preservation Office
development awards. Research funds (6) In addition. in the case of long- comments,
must be matched by the state. consistent term monitoring projects. the ability of (2) Appraisals and title information:
with I 921.51(e)(iii) ("allowable costs"). the state or the research grant recipient (3) Govemoes letter approving the
Individual states may apply for funding to support the grant beyond this initial sanctuary proposal, and
for more than one research project per funding. (4) Written approval from NOAA of
sanctuary. Subpart F-General Financial the draft or final management plan.
� 921.41 Categories of potential research Assistance Provisions The Standard Form 424 has been
project; evaluation criteria. approved by the Office of Management
(a) While research funds may be used f 92110 Application Information. and Budget (Approval number 0648-.
to start-up long-term projects. they are (a) The maximum total Federal 0121) for use through September 30,
not intended as a source of continuing funding per sanctuary is $3.000,000 for 1986.
funding for a particular project over the preacquisition, acquisition and 1921.51 Allowablecosts.
time. Emphasis will be placed on ' development. ancl operation and
projects that are also of benefit to other management awards. The research (a) Allowable costs will be
sanctuaries in the system. Proposals for funding under J 921.40 is excluded from determined in accordance with ONO
research under the followi4 categories this total. Circulars A-10Z "Uniform
will be considered: (b) Only a state Governor. or his/her Administrative Requirements for
(1) Establishing a Data Base and designated state agency, may apply for Grants-in-Aid to State and Local
Monitoring Program (e.g., studies related national estuarine sanctuary @nancial Governments", and A-87, "Principles for
to gathering and interpreting baseline assistance awards. If a state is Determining Costs Applicable to Grants
information on the estuary. Funds are participating in the national Coastal and Contracts with State, Local. and
available to establish a data base and Zone Management Progam. the recipient Federally Recognized Indian Tribal
monitoring system; however. the long- of an award under Section 315 of the Governments"; the financial assistance
term support for such a system must be Act shall consult with the state coastal agreement: these regulations; and other
carried out as part of overall sanctuary management agency regarding the Department of Commerce and NOAA
implementation); application. .- directives. The ter7n "costs" applies to
(c) No acquisition and development both the Federal and non-Federal
(2) Estuarine Ecology (e.g., -studies of award may be made by NOAA without shares.
the relationships between estuarine the approval of the Governor of the (b) Costs claimed as charges to the
species and their environment. studies state. or his/her designated agency, in award must be reasonable, beneficial
of biological populations community which the land to be acquired is located. and necessary for the proper and
relationships. studies on factors and (d) Ali applications are to be efficient administration of the financial
processes that govern the biological submitted to: Management and Budget - assistance award and must be incurred
productivity of the estuary]; Group, Office of Ocean and Coastal during the awards period. except as
(3) Estuarine Processes (e.g. studies Resource Management. National Ocean provided under preagreement costs.
on dynamic physical processes that Service, National Oceanic and subsection (d).
influence and give the estuary its Atmospheric Administration. 3300 (c) Costs must not be allocable to or
particular physical characteristics, Whitehaven St- NW., Washington, D.C. included as a cost of any other
including studies related to climate, .20235. Federally-financed program in either the
patterns of watershed drainage and (a) An original and two copies of the current or a prior award period.
freshwater inflow, patterns of water complete application must be submitted (d) Costs incurred prior to the
circulation within the estuary, and at least 120 working days prior to the effective date of the award
studies on oceanic or terrestrial factors proposed beginning of the project. The (preagreement costs) are allowable only
that influence the condition of estuarine Application for Federal Assistance when specifically approved in the
waters and bottoms). Standard Form 424 (Non-construction financial assistance agreement. For non-
(4) Applied Research (e.g.. studies Program) constitutes the formal construction- awards. costs incurred
designed to answer specific application for preacquisition. operation more than three months before the
management questions); and and management. and research awards. award beginning date will not be
(5) Socioeconomic Research (e.g., The Application for Federal Assistance approved. For construction and land
studies on patterridof land use, - Standard Form 424 (Construction acquisition awards. NCAA will evaluate
sanctuary visitation. archaeological Program) constitutes the formal preagreement costs on a case-by-case
research). application for land acquisition and basis.
(b) Proposals for research in national development awards. The application (e) General guidelines for the non-
estuarine sanctuaries will be evaluated must be accompanied by the Federal share are contained in ONS
in accordance with criteria listed below: information required in Subpart B Circular A-10Z Attachment F. The
(1) Scientific merits; (preacquisition), Subpart C and Section following may-be used by the state in
(2) Relevance or importance to 921.31 (acquisition and development), satisfying the matching requirement:
sanctuary. management or coastal and � 921.32 (operation and (1) Rreacquisition Awards. Cash and
decisionmaking; management), as applicable. All in-kind contributions (value of goods

2651a Federal Register Vol. 49, No. .125 / Wednesday, June 27, 1984 / Rules and Regulations

and services directly benefiting and development award. The value in excess & E831 Florida (St. John's Riverto Cape
specifically identifiable to this part of of the amount required as match for the Canaveral).
the project) are allowable. Land may not initial award may be used to match West Indian-
be used as match. subsequent supplemental acquisition - 9. Caribbean (Cape Canaveral to Ft.
(2) Acquisition and Development and development awards for the Jefferson and south).
Awards. Cash and in-kind contributions estuarine sanctuary. 10. West Florida (Ft. Jefferson to Cedar
are allowable. In general. the fair market (3) Opextions and Management Key@
value of lands to be. included within the Award= Reseamh Funds. Cash and in- Louisianian
sanctLiary boundaries and acquired kind contributions (directly benefiting 11. Panhandle Coast (Cedar Key to Mobile
pursuant to the Act. with other than and speciffeally identifiable to this Bay).
Federal funds. may be used as match. phase of the project), except land. are 1Z Mississippi Delta (Mobile Bay to
The fair market value of privately allowable. Galveston).
donated land; at the time of donation. as 13. Western Gulf (Galveston to Mexican
establishment by an independent 921.52 Amendments to financial border).
appraiser and certified by a responsible assistance swards. Californian
official of the State (pursuant to ONS Actions requiring an amendment to' T4. Southern California (Mexican border to
Circular A-102 Revised. Attachment F) the financial assistance award. such as Point Concepcion)- ,
may also be used as match. Appraisals a request for additional Federal.funds, 15. Central California (Point Concepcion, to
must be performed accord ing to Federal revisions of the approved project Cape Mendocino).
appraisal standards as detailed in budget. or extension of thk performance 16. San Francisco Bay.
NOAA regulations and the "Uniform period must be submitted to NOAA on Columbian
Appraisal- Standards for Federal Land Standard Form 424 (OMB approved
Acquisitions." Costs related to land number 0748--0121 for use through 17. Middle Pacific (Cape Mendocino to the
acquisitiorL such as appraisals. legil September 30, IM) and approved in, Columbia River).
fees and surveys. may also be used as writin 18. Washington Coast (Columbia River to
9. Vancouver Island).
match. Land. including submerged lands. Appendix I-Biographic CLumiffcation ig. Puget Sound.
already in the state's possession. in a scheme Great Lakes
fully-protected status consistent with
the purposes of the National Estuarine . Accearr 20L Western Lakes (Superior. Michigam
Sanctuary Program. may be used as 1. Northern Gulf of Maine (Eastport to the Huron).
match only if it was acquired within a. Sheepscot River). 22-Eastem Lakes (Ontario. Erie).
one-year period prior to the award of 2: Southern Gulf ofMaine -(Sheepscat River Ford
preacquisition or acquisition funds and to Cape Codl. 2Z Southern Alaska (Prince of Wales
with.the intent to establish a national Island to Cook Wet).
estuarine sanctuary. For state lands not' Virp'nian =Aleutian Islands (Cook Infet ta Bristol
in a My-protected status (e.g., a state. 3. Southern New England (Cape .Cad to Bay).
park containing an easement for Sandy Hook). Sub-Amec
Lhflddle Atlantic (Sandy Hook to Cape
subsurface mineral rights),. the value of' Hatteras). Z4. Northern Alaskii (Bristol Bay to
the development right or foregone value Chesapeake Bar. Demarcation Point).
may be used a's match if acquired by or r
donated to the state for inclusion within Cb@@Y@tibn insular
the sanctuary. & Northern Carolinas. (Cape Hatteras to 25. Hawaiian Islands.
A state may initially use as match Santee River), z& Western Pacific Island.
land valued-at greater than the Federal' 7. Soudx Atlantic (Saiiiee River to-SL JoWs 27. Eastern Pacific Island.
share of the acquisition and Itivery. BNJJM COOS 300-0040

112

. . . . .. . . . . .

ARTli@ 22

+-IORD

20
COLUMBIAN
GREAT LAKES
17 21

16
5
cj 16.

CALIFORNIAN

A
101:-:
26
2 6
LOUISIANIAN
T.i,
i WE
INSULAR
P1
27

FIgUF* 1. Biogeographic Regions of the United States,

26518 Federal Register / Vol.49 No. 125 / Wednesday, June 27. 1984 / Rules and Regulations
Appendix 2 -Typology of National 2. Southeast Areas: Floral dominants B. Coastal Swamps: These are wet lowland
Estuarine Areas include Myrica. Baccharis. and Ilex. areas that support mosses and shrubs
3. Western Areas: Adenostoma, together with large trees such as cypress or
This typology system reflects significant Arcotyphlos, and Eucalyptus are the gum-
differences in estuarine characteristics that dominant floral species. C. Coastal Mangroves: This ecosystem
are not necessarily related to regional C. Coastal Grasslands: This area which experiences regular flooding on either a daily.
location. The purpose of this type of possesses sand dunes and coastal flats has monthly. or seasonal basis. has low wave
classification is to maximize ecosystem low rainfall (10 to 30 inches per year) and action. and is dominated by variety of salt-
variety in the selection of national estuarine large amounts of humus in the soil. Ecological tolerant trees. such as the red mangrove
sanctuaries. Priority will be given to succession is slow, resulting in the presence (Rhizophora mangle), black mangrove
important ecosystem type as yet of a number of seral stages of community (Avicennia nitida), and the white mangrove
unrepresented in the sanctuary system. It development Dominant vegetation includes (Laguncularia racemosa). It is also an
should be noted that any one site may mid-grasses (2 to 4 feet tail). such as important habitat for large populations of
represent several ecosystem types or Ammophila. Agropyron, and Calamovilfa, tall fish, invertebrates, and birds. This type of
physical characteristics. greases (5 to 8 feet tail), such as Apartina, and ecosystem can be found from central Florida
trees such as the willow (Salix sp. ) cherry ecosystem can be found from central Florida
Class 1--Ecosystem Types (Prunus sp.) and cottonwood (Populus to extreme south Texas to the islands of the
deltoides). This area is divided into four Western Pacific.
Group 1-- Shorelands regions with the following typical strand
A. Marintime Forest Woodland vegetation: D. Intertidal Beaches: This ecosystem has
ecosystem consists of single-stemmed species 1. Artic/Boreal: Elymus: a distinct biota of microscopic animals.
that have developed under the influence of 2. Northeast/West: Ammophila: bacteria. and unicelluar algae along with
salt spray. It can be found on coastal uplands 3. Southeast/Gulf: Uniola: and macroscopic crustaceans. mollusks. and
or recent features, such as barrier islands and 4. Mid-Atlantic/Gulf: Spartina patens. worms with a detritusba nutrient cycle.
beaches. and may be divided into the D. Coastal Tundra: This ecosystem, which This area also includes the driftline
following biomes: is found along the Artic and Boreal coasts of communities found at high tide levels on the
1. Northern Coniferous Forest Biome. This North America. is characterized by low beach. The dominant organisms in this
is an area of predominantly evergreens such temperatures a short growing season, and ecosystem include crustaceans such as the
as the sitka spruce (Picea), grand fir (Abies), some permafrost, producing a low, treeless mole crab (Emerita). amphipods
and white cedar (Thuqja), with poor mat community made up of mosses, lichens (Gammaridae), ghost crabs (0cypode), and
development of the shrub and herb layers. heath, shrubs, grasses,, sedges, rushes, and bivalve molluscs such as the coquina (Donax)
but high annual productivity and pronounced herbaceous and dwarf woody plants. and surf clams (Spisula and Mactra).
seasonal periodicity. herbaceous- and dwarf woody plants. E. Intertidal Mud and Sand Flats: These
2. Moist Temperate (Mesothermal) Common species include arctic/alpqine plants areas are composed of unconsolidated. high
Coniferous Forest Biome: Found along the such as Empetrum nigrum and Betula nana. organic content sediments that function as a
west coast of North America from California the lichens Cetraria and Cladonia. and short-term storage area for nutrients and
to Alaska. this area is dominated by conifers. herbaceous plants such as Potentilla organic carbons. Macrophytes are nearly
has a relatively small seasonal range. high tridentata and Rubus chamaemorus. absent in this ecosystem. although it may be
humidity with rainfall ranging from 30 to 150 Common species on the coastal beach ridges heavily colonized by benthic diatoms. dino-
inches, and a well-developed understory of of the high arctic desert include Dryas flagellates. filamenitous blue-green and green
vegetation with an abundance of mosses and intergrifolia and Saxifrage oppositifolia algae. and chaemosynthetic purple sulfur
other moisture-tolerant plants. This area can be divided into two main bacteria. This system may support a
3. Temperate Deciduous Forest Biome. This subdivisions: considerable population of gastropods,
biome is characterized by abundant, evenly 1. Low Tuadra. characterized by a thick. bivalves, and polychaetes. and may serve as
distributed rainfall, moderate temperatures spongy mat of living and undecayed a feeding area for a variety Of fish and
which exhibit a distinct seasonal pattern, vegetation. often with water and dotted with wading bird& In sand. the dominant fauna
well-developed soil biota and herb and shrub ponds when not frozen: and include the wedge shell Donax the scallop
layers, and numerous plants which produce 2. High Tundra: a bare area except for a Pecten. tellin shells Tellina. the heart urchin
pulpy fruits and nuts. A distant subdivision of scanty growth of lichens and grasses. with Echinocardium, the lug worm Arenqicola.
this biome is the pine edaphic forest of the underlying ice wedges forming raised sand dollar Dendraster. and the-sea pansy
southeastern coastal plain. in which only a polygonal areas. Renilla. In mud, faunal dominants adapted to
small portion of the area is occupied by E. Coastal Cliffs. This ecosystem is an low oxygen levels include the terebellid
climax vegetation. although it has large areas important nesting site for many sea and shore Amphitrite, the boring clam Playdon. the
covered by edaphic climax pines. birds. It consists of communities of deep sea scallop Placopecten, the quahog
4. Broad-leaved Evergreen Subtropical herbacious. graminoid. or low woody plants Mercenaria. the echiurid worm Urechis. the
Forest Biomes. The maim characteristic of this (shrubs. heath. etc.) on the top or along rocky mud snail Nassarius. and the sea cucumber
biome is high moisture with less pronounced faces exposed to salt spray. There is a Thyone.
differences between winter and summer. diversity of plant species including mosses, F. Intertidal Algal Beds: These are hard
Examples are the hammocks of Florida and linchens liverworts. and "higher" plant substrates along the marine edge that are
the live oak forests of the Gulf and South representatives. dominated by macroscopic algae. usually
Atlantic coasts. Floral dominants include
pines, magnolias, bays, hollies, wild Group II Transition Areas thalloid. but also filamentous or unicellular in
tamarind, strangler fig. gumbo limbo, and A. Coastal Marshes:These are wetland. growth form. This also includes the rocky
palms. areas dominated by grasses (Poaces), sedges coast tidepools that fall within the intertidal
B. Coast Shrublands This is a transitional (Cyperaceae). rushes (Juncaceae). cattails zone. Dominant fauna of these areas are
area between the coastaL grasslands and (Typhaceae), and other graminoid species barnacles. mussels, periwinkles, anemones.
woodlands and is characterized by woody and is subject to periodic flooding by either and chitons. Three regions are apparent:
species with multiple stems a few centimeters salt or freshwater. This ecosystem may be 1. Northern Latitude Rocky Shores: It is in
to several meters above the ground subdivided into: (a) tidal. which is this region that the community structure is
developing under the influence of salt spray periodically Hooded by either salt or brackish best developed. The dominant algal species
and occasional sand burial. This includes water (b) non-tidal (freshwater): or (c) tidal include Chondrus at the low tide level. Fucus
thickets, scrub, scrub savanna, heathlands, freshwater. These are essential habitats for and Ascophyllum at the mid-tidal level. and
and coastal chaparral. There is a great many important estuarine species of fish and Laminaria and other kelp-like algae just
variety of shrubland vegetation exhibiting invertebrates as well as shorebirds and beyond the intertidal. although they can be
regional specificity. waterfowl and serves important roles in exposed at extremely low tides or found in
1. Northern Areas: Characterized by shore stabilization. flood control.. water very deep tidepools.
Hudsonia various erinaceous species and purification. and nutrient transport and 2. Southern Latitudes: The communities in
thickets of Myricqa. Prunus. and Rosa. Storage. this region are reduced in comparison to

114

Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 125 / Wednesday, June 27, 1984 / Rules and Regulations 26519

those of the northern latitudes and possesses algae consisting mostly of single- celled or filamentous green, blue-green. and red
algae. and small thalloid brown algae.

3. Tropical and Subtropical Latitudes: The intertidal in this region is very reduced and contains numerous calcareous paricles such as
Halimeda, and numerous other green, red, and brown algae.

Group III. - Submerged Bottoms

A. Subtital Hardbottoms: This system is characterized by a consolidated layer of solid rock or large pieces of Rock (neither
biotic origin) and found in association with geomorphoiogical features such as submarine canyons and fjords and is usually covered
with assmeblages of sponges, sea fans, bivalves, hard corals, tunicates, and other attached organisms. A significant feature of
estuaries in many parts of the world is the oyster reef, a type of subtidal hardbottom. Composed of assemblages of organisms
(usually bivalves) it is usually found near an estuary's mouth in a zone of moderate wave action, salt contect, and turbitiy. If
light levels are sufficient a covering of microscopic and attached macroscopic algae, such as kelp. may also be found.

B. Subtital Softbottoms: Major characteristics of this ecosystem are an unconsolidated layer of fine particles of silt, sand
clay and gravel, high hydrogen sulfide levels, and anaerobic condidtions often existing below the surface, Macrophytes are either
sparse or absent, although a layer of benthis microalgae may be present if light levels are sufficiant. The faunal community is
dominated by diverse population of deposit feeders including polychaetes, bivalves, and burrowing crustaceans.

C. Subtidal Plants: This system is found in relatively shallow water ( less than 8 to 10 meters) below means low tide. It is an
area of extremely high primary production that provides food and refuge for a diversity of faunal groups, espcecially juvenile
and adult fish, and in some regions, manatees and sea turtles. Along the North Atlantic and Pacific coasts the seagrass Zostera
marina predominates. In the South Atlantic and Gulf coast areas, the seagrass Thalassia and Diplanthera predominate, The grasses in both
areas support a number of epiphytic organisms.

Class II. -- Physical Characteristics

Group I. Geologic

A. Basin Type: Coastal water basins occur in a variety of shapes, sizes, depths, and appearances. The eight basic types discussed
below will cover most of the cases:

1. Exposed Coast: Solid rock formations or heavy sand deposits characterize exposed ocean shore fronts, which are subject to the full
force of ocean storms. The sand beaches are very resilient, although the dunes lying just behing the beaches are fragile and easily
damaged. The dunes serve as a sand storage area, making them chief stabilizers of the ocean shorefront.

2. Sheltered Coast: Sand or coral barriers, built up by natural forces, provide sheltered areas inside a bar or reef where the
ecosystem takes on many characteristics of confined waters- abundant marine grasses, shelfish, and juvenile fish. Water movement
is reduced, with the consequent effects of pollution being more severe in this area than in exposed coastal areas.

3. Bay: Bays are larger confinded bodies of water that are open to the sea and receive strong tidal flow. When stratification is
pronounced, the flushing action is augmented by river discharge. Bays vary in size and in type of shorefront.

4. Embayment: A confined coastal water body is narrow, restricted inlets and with a significant freshwater inflow an be classified
as an embayment. These areas have more restricted inlets than bays, are usually smaller and shallower, have low tidal action
and are subject to sedimentation.

5. Tidal River: The lower reach of a coastal river is referred to as a tidal river. The coastal water segment extends from the sea
or estuary into which the river discharges to a point as far upstream as there is significant salt content in the water, forming
a salt front. A combination of tidal action and freshwater outflow makes tidal rivers well-flushed. The tidal river basin may be
a simple channel or a complex of tributaries, small associated embayments, marshfronts, tidal flats, and a variety of others.

6. Lagoons: Lagoons are confined coastal bodies of water with restricted inlets to the sea and without significant freshwater
inflow. Water circulation is limited, resulting in a poorly flushed, relatively stagnant body of water. Sediment is rapid with a
great potential for basin shaoling. Shores are often gently sloping and marshy.

7.Perched Coastal Wetlands: Unique to Pacific islands, this wetland type. Found above sea level in volcanic crater remnants,
forms as a result of poor drainage characteristics of the crater rather that from sedimentation. Floral assemblages exhibit
distinct zonation while the faunal constitents may include freshwater, brachish, and/or marine species. Example: Aurnu's Island
, American Samoa.

8. Anchialine Systems: These small coastal exposures of brackish water form in lava depressions or elevated fossil reefs, have
only a subsurface connection to the ocean, but show tidal fluctuations. Differing from true estuaries in having no surface continuity
with streams or oceans, this system is characterized by a distinct biotic community dominated by benthis algae such as
Rhizoclanium, the mineral encrusting Schizothix, and the vascular plant Ruppia moritima. Characteristics fauna, which exhibit
a high degree of endimicity, include the mollusks Theodoxus neglectus and T. cariousus. The small shrimp Metabetaeus lohena
and Halocaridina rubra, and the fish eleotria sancwicensis and Kuhlia sandvicensus. Although found throughout the world
the high islands of the Pacific are the only areas within the U.S. where this system can be found.

9. Basin Structures: Estuary basins may result from the drowning of a river valley (coastal plains estuary), the drowning of a
glacial valley (fjord), the occurence of art offshore barrier (bar-bounced estuary), some tectonic process (tectonic estuary). or
volcanic activity (volcanic estuary).

1. Coastal plains estuary: Where a drowned valley consists mainly of a single channel, form of the basin is fairly regular,
forming a simple coastal plains estuary. When a channel is flooded with numerous tributaries, an irregular estuary results. Many
estuaries of the eastern United States are of this type.

2. Fjord: Estuaries that form in elongated steep headlands that alternate with deep U- shaped valleys resulting from glacial scouring
are called fjords. They generally possess rocky floors or very thin veneers of sediment, with deposition generally being restricted
to the head where the main river enters. Compared to total fjord volume, river discharge is small. But many fjords have restricted
tidal ranges at their moughts, due to sills, or upreaching sections of the bottom which limit free movement of water, often
making river flow large with respect to the tidal prism. The deepest portions are in the upstream reaches, where maximum depths
can range from 800m to 1200m. while sill depths usually range from 40m to 150m.

3. Bar-bounced Esturary: These result from the developement of an offshore barrier, such as a beach strand, a line of barrier islands
reef formation, a line of moraine debris, or the subsiding remnants of a deitaic lobe. The basin is often partially exposed at low
tide and is enclosed by a chain of offshore bars or barrier islands, broken at intervals by inlets. These bars may be either deposited offshore
or may be coastal dunes that have become isolated by recent sea level rises.

4. Tectonic estuary: These are coastal indentures that have forme through tectonic processes such as slippage along a fault line
(San Francisco Bay), folding, or movement of the earth's bedrock, often with a large inflow of freshwater.

5. Volcanic Estuary: These coastal bodies of open water, result of volcanic processes, are depressions or craters that have
direct and/or subsurface connections with the ocean and may or may not have surface continuity with streams. These formations
are unique to island areas of volcanic origin.

C. Inlet type: Inlets in various forms are an integral part of the estuarine environment, as they regulate to a certain extent
the velocity and magnitude of tidal exchange, the degree of mixing, and volume of discharge to the sea. There are four
major types of inlets:

1. Unrestricted: An estuary with a wide unrestricted inlet typically has slow currents,no signifigant turbulence, and receives
the full effect of ocean waves and local disturbances which are partially mixed, as the open mouth permits the incursion of marine
waters to considerable distances upstream, depending on the tidal amplitude and stream gradient.

2. restricted: restrictions of estuaries can exist in many forms: bars, barrier islands, spits, sills, and more. restricted inlets
result in decreased circulation, more pronounced longitudial and vertical salinity gradients, and more rapid sedimentation.
However, if the estuary mouth is restricted by depostional features or land closures, the incoming tide may be held back until
it suddenly breaks forth into the basin as a

26520 Federal Register Vol. 49, No. 125 Wednesday, June 27, 1984 Rules and Regulations

tidal wave. or bore. Such currents exert 1.Stratified: This is typical of estuaries 2. Subsurface water This refers to the
profound effects an the nature of the with a strong freshwater influx and is precipitation that has been absorbed by the
substrate. turbidity; and biota of the estuary. commonly found in bays famed from soil and stored below the surface. The
3 Permanent: Permanent inlets are usually "drowned- river valleys. fjords. and other distribution of subsurface water depends on
opposite the mouths of major rivers and deep basins. There is a net movement of local climate, topography, and the porosity
permit river water to flow into the sea. freshwater outward at the top layer and and permeability of the underlying soils and
Sedimentation and deposition are minimal saltwater at the bottom layer, resulting in a rocks. There are two main subtypes of
4. Temporary (intermittent):Temporary net outward transport of surface organisms surface water.
shift position. depending an tidal flow, the- organisms. a. Vadose water: This is water in the soil
depth of the sea and sound wates the. 2.Non-stratified: Estuaries of this type are above the water table. Its volume with
frequency of storms, and the amount of found where water movement is sluggish and respect to the soil. Is subject to considerable
littoral transport. flushing rate is low, although there may be fluctuation.
D. Bottom Composition: The bottom sufficient circulation to provide the basis for b. Groundwater: This is water contained in
composition of estuaries attests to the a high carrying capacity. This is common to rocks below the water table. is usually of
vigorous. rapid. and complex sedimentation shallow embayments and bays lacking a more uniform volume than vadose water, and
processes characteristic of most coastal good supply of freshwater from land generally follows the topographic relief of the
regions with low relief. Sediments are drainage. land, being high below hills and sloping into
derived through the hydrologic processes of 3. Lagoonal: An estuary of this. type is valleys.
erosion. transport. and deposition carried on characterized by low rates of water
by the sea and the stream. movement resulting from a lack Of significant Group III --Chemical
1. Sand: Near estuary mouths, where the. freshwater influx and a lack of strong tidal- A. Salinity: This reflects a complex mixture
predominating forces of the sea build spits or exchange because of the typically narrow of salts, the most abundant being sodium
other depositional features the shores and inlet connecting the lagoon to the see. chloride, and is a very critical factor in the
substrates of the estuary are sandy. The Circulation. whose major driving force is distribution and maintenance of many
bottom sediments in this area are usually wind. is the major limiting factor in biological- estuarine organisms. Based on salinity, there
coarse. with a graduation toward finer productivity within lagoons. are two basic estuarine types and eight
particles in the head of estuary. In the B. Tides: This is the most important different salinity zones (expressed in parts
head region and other zones of reduced How. ecological factor in an estuary. as it affects per-thousand-ppt)
fine silty sands am deposited. Sand water exchange and its vertical range 1. Positive estuary: This is an estuary in
deposition occurs drily in wider or deeper determines the extent of tidal flats which which the freshwater influx is sufficient to
regions where velocity is reduced. may be exposed and submerged with each maintain mixing- resulting in a pattern of
2. Mud: At the base level of a stream near tidal cycle. Tidal action against the volume of increasing salinity toward the estuary mouth.
its mouth. the bottom is typically composed river water discharged into an estuary results It is characterized by low oxygen.
of loose muds. silt. and organic detritus as a in a complex system whose properties vary concentration in the deeper waters and
result of erosion and transport from the upper according to estuary structure as well as the considerable organic content in bottom
stream reaches and organic decomposition. magnitude of river flow and tidal range. Tides sediments.
just inside the estuary entrance. the bottom are usually described in terms of their cycle
contains considerable quantities of sand and. and their relative heights. In the United 2. Negative estuary: This is found in
mud. which support a rich fauna. Mud flats, States, tide height is reckoned on the basis of particularly and regions. where estuary
commonly built up in estuarine basins. are average low tide, which is referred to as evaporation may exceed freshwater inflow,
composed of loose. coarse. and fine mud and datum. The tides, although complex, falls into resulting in increased salinity in the upper
sand. often dividing the original channel. three main categories: part of the basin, especially if the estuary
3. Rock: Rocks usually occur in areas 1. Diurnal: This refers to a daily change in mouth is restricted so that tidal flow is
where the stream runs rapidly over a steep water level that can be observed along the inhibited. These are typically very salty
gradient with its coarse materials being shoreline. There is one high tide and one low (hyperhaline), moderately oxygenated at
derived from the higher elevations where the tide pe day. depth, and possess bottom sediments that are
are usually found in shallow areas near the 2. Semidiurnal: This refers to a twice daily poor in organic content.
stream mouth. rise and fall in water that can be observed 3. Salinity zones(expressed in ppt):
4. Oyster shell: Throughout a major portion along the shoreline. a.Hyperhaline - greater than 40 ppt.
of the world, the oyster reef is one of the 3. Wind/storm Tides: This refers to b.Euhaline - 40 ppt to 30 ppt.
most significant features of estuaries. usually fluctuations in water elevation to wind and c.Mixohaline: 30 ppt to 0.5 ppt.
being found near the mouth of the estuary-in storm events, where influence of lunar tides (1) Mixoeuhaline-greater than 30 ppt. but
a zone of moderate wave action. salt content, is less. less than the adjacent euhaline sea.
and turbidity. It is often a major factor in C. Freshwater: According to nearly all the (2) polyhaline - 30 ppt to 18 ppt
modifying estuarine current systems and definitions advanced, it is inherent that all (3) Mesohaline- 18 ppt to 5 ppt
sedimentation. and may occur as an estuaries need freshwater. which is drained (4) Oligohaline - 5 ppt to 0.5 ppt.
elongated island or peninsula oriented across from the land and measurably dilutes d. Limnetic: Less than 0.5 ppt.
the main current or may develop parallel to - seawater to create a brackish condition. B. pH Regime: This is indicative of the
the direction of the current. Freshwater enters an estuary as runoff from mineral richness of estuarine waters and fall
the land either from a surface and/or into three main categories:
Group II - Hydrographic subsurface source. 1. Acid: Waters with a pH of less than 5.5
A. Circulation: Circulation patterns are the 1. Surface water: This is water flowing over 2. Circumneutral: A condition where the
result of the combined influences of the ground in the form of streams. Local pH ranges from 5.5 to 7.4.
freshwater flow, tidal action. wind and variation in runoff is dependent upon the 3. Alkaline: Waters with a pH greater than
oceanic forces and serve many functions: nature of the soil (porosity and solubility) 7.4.
nutrient transport, plankton dispersal, degree of surface slope, vegetational type, and (FR Doc. 84-1681 Filed 6-25-84:8:45am)
ecosystem flushing, salinity control, water development local climatic conditions and
mixing, and more. volume and intensity of precipitation. BILLING CODE 3510-08-M

116

I
I APPENDIX 2
I Massachusetts/Town of Mashpee - South Cape Beach Agreement
I
I
I -
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1 117

AMENDED AGREEMENT

Agreement entered into this 29 day of June in the year 1981, by and between
the Town of Mashpee and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts acting through the
Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Management (DEM) pursuant to
Chapter 1058 of the Acts of 1971, as amended whereby DEM is authorized to acquire
by gift, purchase or eminent domain South Cape Beach in the Town of Mashpee.

WHEREAS, the aforementioned parties entered into an agreement dated
September 22, 1980 by substituting in its entirety therefor this Amended Agreement
and all the provisions, covenants, and condition wherein contained.

IN CONSIDERATION OF the mutual covenants herein contained and expressed and
for other good and valuable consideration the parties mutually covenant and agree
as follows:

(1) That devalopment and use of the park shall be limited to bathing,
sunning, hiking, fishing, nature interpretation, non-motorized
biking, and associated passive enjoyment through recreational use
consistent with the fragile ecology of the site, which shall
expressly exclude overnight camping, and private vehicles, except
only as provided for in paragraph (4) below. Any proposed
recreational use not specified in this paragraph shall first be
submitted to South Cape Beach Advisory Committee for it review
and recommendation.

(2) That all park facilities will be designed, sited and maintained so
tha t they do not harm the natural and scenic qualities of the area.
The Executive Order for Barrier Beaches of Governor Edward J. King
signed August 8, 1980, (attached as "Exhibit A") shall be incorpor-
ated by reference into this Agreement and the Department will -
undertake to enforce all its provisions throughout the area desig-
nated as South Cape Beach State Park

(3) That the Department will manage the fragile wetland, dune and
upland areas of the site to prevent erosion and to preserve
critical habitat and the area's natural scenic qualities. Local
ordinance and bylaws now effective will be incorporated into and
made part of the park's rules and regulations and shall govern and
control, provided no legal conflict exists. No park rule or
regulation will permit an activity or use otherwise prohibited by
the rul7es, regulations and bylaws of the Town of Mashpee in
existence as of the date of executiion of this Agreement.

(4) That the Department may allow vehicle access to designated service
roads for the sole pupose of access to fishing areas to persons
over sixty years of age, those suffering from ambulatory disabilities,
or holding disabled.veteran status. Said access shall be by permit
only, restricted to a maximum of six vehicles at any one time, and
such travel shall be allowed only between the hours of sunset and
sunrise. Such vehicles shall be limited to designated ways and shall
in no circumstances be driven off the designated route onto sand or
other unimproved terrain or used for overnight stays. Any violations
of the permit provisions shall, upon finding of violation by the
South Cape Advisory Committee, cause the revocation of said permits.

In the event the above provisions are deemed discriminatory under the
law, such use of vehicles shall be prohibited altogether. In no
event, and under no circumstance shall there ever be an increase
in said vehicle use above the 6 maximum herein provided for.

(5) That parking shall be limited to several landscaped sites, with a
total maximum capacity of no more than 400 vehicles. Buses will be
allowed by permit only. Such parking areas shall be finished with
a permeable or semi-permeable material acceptable to the South
Cape Beach Advisory Committee. The parking area shall be, if at
all feasible, on land purchased in fee by the Department. Failing
the reaching of agreement for such negotiated purchase, the
Department will exercise rights available for taking by eminent
domain. In any event and however acquired the Department will
promptly initiate and expeditiously support legislation which will
authorize the Department to deed, subject to conservation and other
restrictions contained herein, said land to the Town of Mashpee for
a nominal consideration of one dollar; and the Town,ccyvenants, in
turn, that it shall promptly execute a renewable lease to the
Department for a period of 99 years for a nominal consideration of
one dollar, said land, which lease shall contain a right to re-
entry for breach of any one of the covenants and conditions con-
tained herein. It is expressly covenanted and agreed that no other
land within the park other than that specifically designated and
identified in accordance with these provisions will be used as a
parking area or for purposes of public parking.

(6) All Town owned land acquired by the Department will be acquired by
Deed of the Town conveying the subject land in fee simple.

(7) Any land in private ownership purchased by the Department for
parking purposes shall be subject to a restriction limiting use to
the Department to 400 cars; and all the other condition contained
in this Agreement.

(8) The Department shall be responsible for a management system for
traffic control on Great Oak Road and its point of intersection
with other roads leading into the Park, to insure orderly traffic.

(9) The acquistion by the Commonwealth of 4312 acres, more or less, is
an express condition precedent to the legal existence of thIs
Agreement. In the event that the acquistion by the state is less
than 432 acres, this Agreement may, at the excldsive option of the
Town of Mashpee, be terminated and declared void. The parcel of
land to be acquired is the Southerly portion of the the Town of
Mashpee, bounded on the West by WAquoit Bay, on the South by
Nantucket Sound, and on the East by Great Flat Pond.

(10) That primary effort shall be made by the Department to negotiate
purchase of the aforementioned privately owned lands.

(11) That recognizing the possibility that all slich privately owned
lands within the propOEed boundaries of the Park may not be able
to be acquired through negotiated purchase, the Department will
consider the exercise of its power of eminent domain.

119

(12) That any specific taking by eminent domain would be considered only
when efforts for a negotiated purchase have failed despite due
diligence by the Department to reach a settlement; or when title to
the land in question is of such unmarketability that remedial title
action would be impractical.

(13) That the Mashpee Board of Selectmen will grant the Department
eminent domain authority by appropriate vote for the purpose of
acquisition of the proposed South Cape Beach State Park.

(14) That as a result of the proposed development of the Park, it may be
necessary for the Department to acquire all municipally owned lands
within the proposed boundaries of the Park. These lands include the
existing town beach, a portion of Great Oak Road and other isolated
parcels standing in the name of the Town of Mashpee.

(15) That such acquisition of town owned lands would be in the form of
land exchange in which the Town would received from the Commonwealth
land of equal value adjacent to the existing town beach. In con-
junction with any exchange, the Department will make improvements to
Great Oak Road, from its intersection with Red Brook Road all the
way to the Beach. In addition, the Department will assume costs
associated with the relocation of the town beach, including the cost
of a new access road, parking areas and necessary fencing and other
essential improvements. Said town beach will be to the east of the
state beach in the area of Great Flat Pond and shall consist of
approximately 30 acres and shall have an-ocean frontage of approxi-
mately 1700 linear feet. (Map attached and incorporated by reference
"Exhibit B").

(16) That the town regards as recreation/conservation lands, all
properties which may be transferred to the Department in any land
exchange in conjunction with the establishment of the Park.

(17) That the Department will reserve a suitable site on Great River,
Waquoit Bay for future use and development by the Town of Mashpee
for.construction for a boat launch/pier facility, the metes and
bounds to be mutually agreed upon by the Town of.Mashpee and the
Department. The area, or site, is to be no less than 10 acres
with access to and from Wills Work Road. The Department will
construct an improved access road to said facility and will seek
on behalf of the Town of Mashpee such state funds that are
available for municipal boat launching facilities. In furtherance
of the above, the Department will initiate and support legislation
transferring title of said site to the Town of Mashpee. In the
event such legislation fails of passage, the Department will lease
such land to the Town of Mashpee for a period of ninety-nine years
for nominal consideration of one dollar.

(18) That the Department shall at all times continue to recognize a
South Cape Beach State Park Advisory Committee comprised of
eleven (11) voting members and four (4) ex-officio, non-voting
members. The voting membership of the Committee shall consist
of the following eight (8) residents of or representatives for the
Town to be appointed by the Board of Selectmen of the Town, and
one (1) resident of or representative for the Town of Sandwich,

120

Falmouth, and Barnstable to be appointed by those respective Boards
of Selectmen. The non-voting membership of the Committee shall
consist of one (1) representative each from the Office of Coastal
.Zone Management and the Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and
Recreational Vehicles to be appointed by their respective agency
heads, together with the sitting State Representative of the Third
Barnstable Representative District and the State Senator from the
Cape and Islands Senatorial District. All succeeding members shall
be appointed in the same manner as stated above. The terms of all
voting members shall be (3) years.

(19) That the Committee shall continue to be responsible for making
recommendations to the Department on such matters to include, but
not be limited to, park management and operations, rules and
regulations, design and plan review. The Department, when possible,
shall submit to the Committee for review all architectural and
design plans and construction plans for facilities including
structures roadways, and parking areas in an effort to accomplish
the project. The Department will include a clause in the project's
design contracts providing for periodic review by the Committee
during the duration of the contract. The provisions of this agree-
ment shall not be amended or changed without the express consent in
writing of all parties thereto, except as otherwise provided for in
paragraph 20 below. Except as provided for in such amendments this
agreement shall be for a term of ninety nine (99) years. The
parties agree to renew those provisions contained herein which
otherwise expire by operation of law.

(20) The passage of legislation, by the General Court of the Commonwealth,
incorporating and adopting all the terms, provisions, conditions and
restrictions contained in this Agreement shall be an express
condition precedent to the legal existence and enforceability of
this Agreement, to the contemplated transfer of Town owned land to
the Department and to the Authority for Acquisition of land to be
granted by the Board of Selectmen of the Town of Mashpee. In the
event that all the terms, provisions, conditions and restrictions
are not incorporated and adopted into legislation, the Town, at its
sole option, may elect to terminate this Agreement, or in the
alternative amend this Agreement to conform to the legislation as
enacted, in which event the Agreement, as amended, shall be binding
upon all the parties thereto.

(21) The acceptance of Deeds by the Department to Town owned lands shall
not be deemed, and in fact shall not be legally construed to be a
full performance and discharge of the terms, conditions, provisions
and restrictions of this Agreement; rather, it is expressly agreed
and understood that this Agreement and all its terms, conditions,
provisions and restrictions shall survive the delivery of Deeds,
and shall thereafter be fully enforceable in all aspects thereof.

(22 It is expressly agreed that the terms, conditions, provision and
restrictions herein contained shall be specifically enforceable,
in law or equity, by a Court of competent jurisdiction, and that
standing in any action shall be given to the Town of Mashpee or to
any ten (10) citizens domiciled in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

:121

CERTIFICATE OF VOTE

At a meeting of the Board of Selectmen of the Town of Mashpee,

Barnstable County, in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, said

meeting being held on July 15, 1981, having been duly called and a

quorom being present and voting, upon motion duly made and seconded,

it was,

VOTED: That the Commissioner of Environmental Management be,
and is hereby authorized, pursuant to the provisions
of Chapter 132A, Sections 3 and 3A of the General
Laws, and Chapter 1058 of the Acts of 1971 as amended
to acquire by eminent domain all that land as shown
on a two sheet plan entitled, "Plan of Land-South
Cape Beach - Mashpee, Mass. - prepared for Dept.
of Environmental Management - Scale I" = 200' Feb.
16, 1976 - Briggs Engineering & Testing Co.", on
file with said Department, provided however, that
no land owned by the Town of Mashpee shall be taken.
The approval and vote hereunder is expressly subject
to and conditional upon the full performance and com-
pliance by both the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and
the Department of Environmental Management of the
terms, promises, covenants and conditions all of
which are included and incorporated into a written
agreement entitle "Amended Agreement" dated June
29, 1981 between the Town of Mashpee and the Common-
wealth of Massachusetts acting through the Commissioner
of the Department of Environmental Management, a copy
of which agreement is attached hereto, incorporated
and made part of the Certificate of Vote; the approval
and vote hereunder is also expressly conditional upon
the passage of Legislation by the General Court of the
Commonwealth incorporating and adopting all 'the terms,
provisions, conditions and restrictions contained in
the agreement*dated June 29, 1981. The Board of
Selectmen reserve to itself the unconditional right
to rescind and cancel the within vote for breach of
any of the conditions above stated.

(Signed by Mashpee Board of Selectmen)

I
I APPENDIX 3
I Waquoit Bay Area of Critical Environmental Concern Designation Oocument
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
1 =03

EDWARD J. KING
GOVERNOR

JOHN A. BEWICK
SECRETARY Designation of Waguoit Bay as an
Area of Critical Environmental Concern
,and Su2porting Findings

Following an extensive process, including nomination, research, informal
meetings with local groups, public informational meetings, public hearings,
on-site visits, and a formal evaluation of all assembled data, I, the
Secretary of Environmental Affairs, hereby designate Waquoit Bay an Area of
Critical Environmental Concern pursuant to the authority granted to me by
G.L. c. 21A, s. 2(7).

I also hereby, find that the Waquoit Bay ACEC is significant to flood
control, the prevention of storm damage, the protection of land containing
shellfish and fisheries; public interests protected by the Wetlands Protection
Act, G.L. c. 131, �40.

1. Boundary of the Waguoit Bay ACEC

The Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) extends from the
extreme southwestern end of Dead Neck barrier beach (mean low water, MLW) and
extends straight across the entrance channel to Waquoit Bay by the shortest
distance to the mean low water line of the western side of the entrance
channel. The ACEC boundary then follows the MLW line in a westerly direction
(excluding the western jetty of the Waquoit Bay entrance channel) to a point
approximately 1370 feet (straight line measure) from the westernmost tip
of Washburn Island. This point falls on a line perpendicular to the MLW
line of Vineyard Sound and tangent to a segment of shoreline which is both
the southeast MLW shoreline of Eel Pond and a western edge of Washburn Island.

The ACEC botmdary then follows that perpendicular line to the intersection
with the western MLW shore of Washburn Island. The boundary follows the MLW
line along the Washburn Island to its extreme northeastern point. The
boundary then extends from this point north into Waquoit Bay by the shortest
distance to the 6 foot depth curve (datum: MLW). The boundary follows the
6 foot depth curve in a northerly direction to the point of intersection with
a true azimuth bearing line of 1500, drawn from the southwestern most point
of shoreline of the un-named pond east of Seapit Road. From this point of
intersection the ACEC boundary then follows this above-mentioned bearing
line in a northwesterly direction to the southwestern most point of shoreline
of the un-named pond east of Seapit Road and continues along an extension of
this straight line to the intersection with the 100 year flood boundary still
east of Seapit Road.

JL24

The ACEC boundary then follows the 100 year flood boundary in a generally
easterly direction including all%of Bourne Pond, Bog Pond, Caleb Pond, parts
of the Quashnet River and Red Brook and all of Witch Pond, Fells Pond, and
Jehu Pond. At the point of the fifth-intersection of the 100 year flood
boundary with Great Oak Road, the ACAC boundary extends west on the northern
side line of Great Oak Road across the 10 foot contour line (datum: mean
sea level) to the second intersection with the 10 foot contour line (MSL).
The ACEC boundary extends from this point in a northwesterly direction along the
10 foot contour line (MSL) to the point closest to the eastern shore (MLW)
of the Great River. From this point the line extends by the shortest distance
to the eastern shore (MLW) of the Great River. The boundary then extends in
a northerly direction along the eastern shore (MLW) of the Great River to
the western most point of the entrance channel to Jehu Pond. The boundary
then extends due west to the 14LW line on the west side of Great River and
following the MLW line northward to the boundary between Monomoscoy Island
and the adjacent northerly salt marsh. The boundary follows a northwesterly
trend along the southern edge of this salt marsh, crosses Monomoscoy Road,
and continues along the southern edge of this salt marsh to the intersection
with the MLW line on the eastern side of Hamblin Pond. The boundary continues
in a southerly direction along the MLW line on the east side of Hamblin Pond,
across the northern channel entrance of the Little River and continues along
the MLW line on the northern edge of Seconsett Island to the intersection of
the !1LW line and the town boundary between Falmouth and Mashpee. The ACEC
boundary follows the town boundary to the intersection with the MLW line on
the eastern shore of Waquoit Bay. The ACEC boundary extends from this point
ina southerly direction along the MLW line, around Seconsett Island and then
in a northerly direction to the point of intersection (Point A) with a true
azimuth bearing line of 2900, drawn from the point (Point B) along the MLW
line on the eastern shore of the Great River which is also the northernmost
point (Point B) of property along the MLW line on the eastern shore of the
Great River as described in the Plan of Land, South Cape Beach, Mashpee,
Mass., prepared for the Department of Environmental Management, Scale 1"=200',
February 16, 1976, Briggs Engineering and Testing Co., Inc., Norwell, Mass.,
as revised March 31, 1976. The ACEC boundary then proceeds southeasterly from
Point A along the previously described true azimuth bearing line of 2900 to
oint B and continues in an easterly direction along the northern boundary line
of said Plan of Land for South Cape Beach to the intersection with the southern
P

side line of Wills Work Road. The ACEC boundary follows the southerly side
line of said Road to the intersection with Great Oak Road and then follows the
southerly side line of Great Oak Road to the intersection with 100 year flood
boundary. The ACEC boundary follows the 100 year flood boundary in a north-
easterly direction to the intersection of the southerly side line of Great Oak
Roa@. The ACEC boundary then follows the southerly side line of said Road to
the next intersection with the 100 year flood boundary. From this point, the
ACEC boundary follows the 100 year flood boundary in a southerly direction to
the southernmost extent of the 100 year flood boundary in Mashpee. The
boundary then extends due south in a straight line to the MLW line of Vineyard
Sount and thence in a westerly direction along the MLW line along South Cape
Beach to the point of origin.

125

Also included within the ACEC boundary is the land along the upper reaches
of the Child's River. The ACEC boundary begins at the intersection of the
northerly side line of Rt. 28 and the 100 year flood boundary on the eastern
side of the Childs River. The ACEC'boundary proceeds northerly along the 100
year flood boundary on the eastern Ade of the Childs River to the point where
the 100 year flood boundary crosses in a westerly direction the Childs River.
The ACEC boundary then follows the 100 year flood boundary on the western side
of the Childs River in a southerly direction to the point of intersection with
the northern side line of Rt. 28. The ACEC boundary then proceeds from this
point in an easterly direction across the Childs River to the point of origin.

Within the boundary the following exclusions exist:

1) The existing Waquoit Bay navigational channel (6 foot depth, Mean
Low Water) extending in a northerly direction from the entrance
jetties of Waquoit Bay to the head of Waquoit Bay. Specifically,
this measn the channel delineated by existing U.S. Coast Guard buoys
(See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, nautical chart
#13229, 15th Ad., February 3, 1979, page C, Waquoit Bay and U.S.
Coast Guard navigational buoys). Where the channel is unmarked
by buoys, the west channel boundary will be delineated by a straight
line drawn from buoy C-7 northerly to the western edge of Bourne.
Pond. This channel would extend no further than 100 feet to the
east of the west channel boundary and not exceed a dredged depth
of 6 feet below mean low water. This channel will extend no further
north than the present Falmouth town landing (near Seapit Road).

2) The existing Seconsett navigational channel extending from U.S.
Coast Guard buoy N-6 (see NOAA nautical chart #13229, 15th Ad.,
February 3, 1979, page C, Waquoit Bay and U.S. Coast Coast navigational
buoys) to the entrance of the Great and Little Rivers, Mashpee.
The southern boundary of the Seconsett channel extends from buoy N-6,
southeasterly in a direct line not to extend beyond Seconsett point.
The width of the Seconsett channel will not exceed 100 feet from
the southern boundary line, The Seconsett channel will not exceed
a dredged depth of 6 feet below MLW.

3) The existing small culvert beneath Monomoscoy Road, Mashpee-

126

II. DesIgnatlon of the Resources of Waguoit Bay

Waquoit Bay area is an extensive and largely unaltered resource system.
Among the natural components.of the' Vstem are many specified as Significant
Resource Areas (SRA's) in the Massachusetts CZM Proaram. These include a long
barrier beach system, dunes and sandy beaches, many acres of salt marsh, pro-
ductive shellfish beds, a large estuary, anadromous fish runs and floodplain,
erosion and accretion areas. The area is a spawning and nursery ground for many
marine species, as well as an important habitat for upland species and waterfowl.
The beaches, dunes, and salt marshes provide protection against storms for low-
lying inland areas. The region clearly meets the.regulatory criterion of the
ACEC Program, that a region proposed for designation must contain at least five
of the specified Significant Resource Areas.

7.11* Procedures Leading to ACEC Designation

The Waquoit Bay Area was first proposed for ACEC consideration by local
citizens at a CZM planning meeting over two years ago. Active planning commenced
in March 1979. Meetings on May 3, May 24, and August 2 were held in Falmouth
and Mashpee and attended by local officials and local planning boards, committee
members, owners of the area's three marinas and some property owners.

On August 2 a proposed boundary was unanimously endorsed by the six officia ls
and marina owners present at this meeting. On 'July 9, 1979, a letter nominat-
ing the Waquoit Bay Estuarine System as an Area of Critical Enviornmental Concern
was submitted by the Selectmen, Conservation Commission and Waterways Committee/
Harbormaster of the Towns of Falmouth and Mashpee. After reviewing this nomina-
tion, the Secretary of Environmental Affairs decided, on August 21, 1979
to proceed with a full review of the proposed area.

Notice of the receipt of the nomination request and a public hearing notice
were published in the Environmental Monitor on August 12, 1979. The public
hearing notice also appeared in two local newspapers: The Cape Cod Times and
The Falmouth Enterprise. Additional information on the region was collected
by the Coastal Zone Management office staff in consultation with local officials,
town boards and natural resource officers. The results of this research were
forwarded for comment and review to the Selectmen, Conservation Commissions,
Planning Boards, Waterways Committee, and Natural Resource Officers and members
of the CZM Citizen Advisory Council for Cape Cod. Copies also went to interested
individuals and were available to the general public upon request. Informational
articles about the proposed nomination appeared in the local newspaper. A
final informational meeting was held at Mashpee Town Hall on August 30, 1979.

A public hearing was conducted on September 27, 1979 in the Falmouth Town
Hall. The recorded testimony was largely favorable and an informal vote was
50-3 in favor of the designation. As the result of a number of concerns raised
at this meeting, on-site visits were also arranged. On October 19, eighteen
citizens and officials toured Waquoit Bay by boat following existing main navi-
gational channels. In addition, CZM staff conducted site visits with individual
landowners who had concerns.

127

A second public hearing was*scheduled for October 25, 1979. A public
hearing notice was published in the Environmental Monitor on October 22, 1979.
The public hearing notice also appei-red in the.Cape Cod Times and The Falmouth
Enterprise.

The hearing record remained open until November 7, 1979 for those persons
who wished to submit written comments. After careful consideration of all
public comments, final boundary modifications were defined.

IV. Discussion of Factors Specified in Section 6.48 of the CZM Program Regulations

Prior to designation of a region as an Area of Critical Environmental
Concern, the Secretary must consider the factors specified in Section 6.48
of the CZM Program regulations. Based on research and information from local
residents, I find that the following factors are applicable to the Waquoit Bay
Barrier Beach System.

Quality of Natural Characteristics: This estuarine system is a relatively
large unaltered physical and biological resource. Its unpolluted water attracts
a wide range of finfish species and nurtures large numbers of shellfish. The
undeveloped stretches of Washburn Island and Dead Neck accommodate contiguous
environments of beach, dune, marsh, and low wooded hills. Minimum alteration
of the natural features of this area will allow them to-function at their maxi-
mum capacity. These undeveloped expanses also contribute significantly to
the scenic beauty enjoyed by users of the area.

Public Health: The high water quality currently existing supports many
important activities, incl uding swimming, boating, fishing and shellfishing.
Clean water must be maintained to ensure the safety of the recreational users
of the area. Activities that would degrade water quality would have both envir-
onmental and economic consequences. The barrier beach formed by Washburn Island
and Dead Neck acts as a natural storm buffer to protect the property of shore
dwellers within the system. Development of this barrier would impair its natural
form and protective function.

Uniqueness: An estuary, where fresh water inflow meets and mixes with
salt water, is the most significant of all coastal features in the amount and
variety of biological production. The largely unaltered Waquoit.Bay estuarine
system makes this area both a highly significant and uncommon feature of the
Massachusetts coast. The availability of nutrients supports a great number
and variety of species. These conditions provide excellent opportunities for
scientific research. In a study conducted in the late 1960's, the Massachusetts
Division of Marine Fisheries determined that of nine sample estuaries in.the
state, Waquoit Bay supported the greatest diversity of estuarine-associated
fin-fish. Currently, a biologist from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
is studying the genetics and distribution of quahogs in the estuary.

Productivity: The region contains diverse and viable populations of fish,
shellfish and waterfowl. The biological productivity of this area is sustained
by its ponds and salt marshes which contribute large quantities of nutrients to
the coastal food chain.

Imminence of Threat to the Resource: Alterations which could severely
impact the natural functions or teduce productivity of the components of the
Waquoit Bay system have been considered for the area. The ACEC designation
would focus attention on the area's'significant environmental and
economic resources, and would serve is a guide regardin- future activity
in the area.

Irreversibility of Impact: Because the estuary has only limited access
to the open Sound through the narrow cuts at the east end of Washburn Island,
the entire basin is susceptible to inadequate flushing. The discharge of
pollutants into this system would tend to remain concentrated rather than
to disperse. As a result, impacts on shellfish and finfish could be severe,
thereby damaging an important economic resource of the Vaquoit basin. Other
habitat alterations such as filling or removal could also severely affect
sensitive spawning or nursery areas, thereby decreasing the abundance of
valuable commercial, recreational, and aesthetic resources.

Economic Benefits: This ACEC brings significant income to Falmouth and
Mashpee through tourists and area residents who purchase shellfish permits,
the use of area services such as boatyards, and the wholesale trade in shell-
fish. Any alteration in the area that threatens to disrupt its utilization
and/or attractiveness carries a potentially detrimental economic impact.
Damage to the groundwater is also an important consideration because the shore-
dwellers depend on private groundwells for their fresh water supply.

Supporting Factors: Residents, business persons and other users of the
ACEC agree that the area carries environmental importance, economic utility
and aesthetic qualities. Groups at many levels, including local residents,
town-authorities and state administrative agencies, have voiced their concern
about the need to preserve the undeveloped portions, particularly Washburn
Island and South Cape Beach.

-7
/Z -7
John A. Bewick Date
Secretary of Environmental Affairs

JL29

APPENUIX 4

Massachusetts Notice of Intent to Prepare DEIS and OMP; Published in State
Environmental Monitor on May 8, 1984, and Notice of Pre-Acquisition Planning
Activities Published in State Environmental Monitor on November 23, 1981

JL30

Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Office

The Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Office (MCZM) will be working with
the Sanctuaries Office of the U.S. Office of Ocean and Coastal Resources Man-
agement to develop a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the pos-
sible designation of Waquoit Say and some adjacent uplands in Falmouth and
Mashpee as a federal Estuarine Sanctuary. Preacquisition Planning and Fea---
ability Study activities were reviewed under EOEA #4256, noticed in the Monitor
of 23 November 1981. On 23 December 1981, the Secretary of Environmental
Affairs found that these planning activities did not require an Environmental
Impact Report under MEPA.

Notice of. the availability of the DEIS for review, when completed, will be
published in the Monitor.

At this point MCZM is soliciting public comments for the scope of activities
and impacts to be covered in the DEIS. Written comments should be forwarded
to the MCZM Office, attention Steve Bliven,* within 21 d'ays of this notice.
Additional informati'on on the project may be obtained.from Mr. Bliven at
727-9530.

100 Cambridge Street, Boston, MA 02202 (617) 727-95@O
131

P. I

APPENDIX A
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS

ENVIRONMENTAL NOTIFICAnON FORM

1. SUMMARY

.A. Project Identification
1. ProjectName Waquoit Bay Estuarine Sanctuary Preacquisitiox
Planning and Feasibility Study
2. Project Proponent Ma s s - coastal Zone Management office
Address.Wn rgmhridg,- strt-tat_ Boston, MA 02202

B. Project Description: (City/Town(s) T?alynnurh. Mashppp
1. Location within city/town or street address winquait, Ray vianity (for further site details
sAP below and Attached maR)
2. Est. Commencement Date: I Janim y 1982 -Est. Completion Date: 30 October 1982
Approx. Cost S 56. 78n Current Status of Project Design:0 % Complete

C. Narrative Summary of Project
Describe project and give a description of the general project boundaries and the present use of the project
area. (If necessary, use back of this page to complete summary).
The proposed project involves a planning and feasibility study for the designation
of a National Estuarine Sanctuary within the Waquoit Bay areas of Falmouth and
Mashpee. Work will include planning only; a MEPA filing is required because the
site is included in the designated Waquoit Bay Area of Critical Environmental
Concern (ACEC). An additional MEPA filing will be required prior to any implemen-
tation of any Sanctuary plans.

The National Estuarine Sanctuary program allow s states to acquire, develop or
operate estuaries to be set aside "to serve as natural field laboratories in which
to study and gather data on the natural and human processes occurring within the
estuaries of the coastal zone". Such data will be used in making management decisions
in coastal areas. Multiple uses can take place in the sanctuary as long as the
activities do not detract from research and educational uses.

The planning activities will assess feasibility and major issues and concerns in
such a designation; refine boundary proposals; develop management plans and/or
programs for research and education; investigate acquisition techniques (either
in fee or through restrictions); and do real estate appraisals. This information
will be used for future public consideration of a potential sanctuary designation

The area to be initially reviewed generall'y.corresponds to the Waquoit Bay ACEC
and includes Waquoit Bay, South Cape Beach, Washburn Island and the marshlands
around Hamlin, Jehu, Flat and Sage Lot Ponds. A map is included with this filing
Copies of this may be obtained from:
Name: Steve Rliven Mass. Coastal Zone Management
Firm/Agency.
Address:. 100 ramhricigL- Srr L-pt- Boston. MA 02202 Phone No. (617)-727-9530

79 THIS IS AN IMPORTANT NOTICE. COMMENT PERIOD IS LIMITED.
132

LEGAL NOTICE

NOTICE OF UMM M SUBMIT ENVIRONMENTAL NOTIFICATION FORM
The Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management (CZM) office hereby gives notice
that on 13 November 1981 an Environmental Notification Form (ENF) was submitted
to the Secretary of Environmental Affairs under the provisions of MEPA, MGL.
Ch. 30 ss. 62-62H inclusive, for a feasibility study and the preacquisition
planning period of a possible National Estuarine Sanctuary designation for the
Waquoit Bay vicinity in Falmouth and Mashpee. Copies of this ENF will be
available from Steve Bliven, CZM, 100 Cambridge Street, Boston, MA 02202. This
ENF will be available for public inspection during business hours at the MA
Unit, Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, 100 Cambridge Street, Boston,
MA, 02202 and also at the office of the Falmouth Town Clerk, Town Building,
rear of 173 Main Street in Falmouth and at the office of the Mashpee Town Clerk,
Great Neck Road in Mashpee.
Public notice of the filing of this ENF will be published by the Secretary
of Environmental Affairs in the Environmental Monitor. A twenty day period for
submission of public comments will follaw the FuMication of notice in the
kionitor. Please write or call the MEPA Unit at 727-5830 for information an
publ'L-CCGMEnt periods and how to subscribe to the Monitor.

Steve Bliven
Mass. Coastal Zone Management

133

APPENDIX 5

Excerpt from the Washburn Island Preliminary Management Plan
of April 1983 - "Conservation and Recreational Uses"
(Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management)

V34

Conservation & Recreational Uses

CARRYING CAPACITY

The Relative Carrying Capacity Map measures the ability
of the island's natural environment to absorb future
recreational use without being damaged. Some areas
on Washburn Island have a high capacity to absorb future
recreational activity while others would be severely
impacted by only a slight incre ase in use. A sound
master plan for the island's future should be based
on a good understanding of the site's carrying capacity
in order to assign future activities'to the most ap-
propriate locations.

Certain portions of the dense pitch pine forests in
the island's interior appear to be most tolerant and
amenable to recreational use. These areas have been
given a "high" carrying capacity rating on the map.
Though fire danger is a problem in these areas, the
@pitch pine forests with hardy grass and shrub under-
story could support carefully planned P assive recreation
without significantly losing their 1present quality.
Some possible future improvements include a comfort
station, dispersed camping areas and pedestrian trails.
These uses would be screened by the dense, absorptive
pine forest, which is more resistant to erosion and vis-
ual degradation than the more.open areas on the island.
The high carrying capacity areat within the pine forests
are also well above dangerous flood and velocity zones,
and are locat.ed away from the important visual and envi-
JL35 39.

ronmental zones located earlier in this report. This
zone of high carrying capacity would logically be the
center of future development use of the island. Areas
of "moderately high" carrying capacity generally occur
in the pitch pine forests as well, though these zones
contain a more fragile and scenic herb understory. Past
fires have often occurred in this portion of the forest,
so particular care should be taken here to avoid fire
hazards. The moderately high carrying capacity zone
could support hiking, nature study, some carefully
controlled camping, and perhaps a few well-sited struc-
tures. Future users of the island could be encouraged
to travel from their arrival in the hiqh carryina
capacity zone through this moderately high carrying
capacity zone on their way to the more fragile areas
of Washburn Island. In this manner, intensity of
use would be gradually dispersed from the durable
central upland portions of the,island to the sensitive
barrier beaches and marshes to the south. This would.re-

sult in only limited, dispersed use of fragile outlying
zones such as the dunes and salt marshes, while high ca-
pacity areas would become the focus of major trails and
activities.

The "moderate" carrying capacity zone, generally cover-
ing the northern and central shores of the island, could
support carefully controlled seasonal uses such as bath-
ing, hiking trails and nature study areas. More inten-
sive development would be prohibited here, tfiough the
arrival dock would of necessity be located at some point
along the shore. The weakest link in the ability of
this zone to absorb future uses consists of the highly
erodable coastal banks and fringing ailt marshes. Ped-
estrian traffic in these areas will have to be confined
to established trails and, where necessary, to construc-
ted stairs and boardwalks.

40. 13G

The "low-moderate" carrying capacity zone, located pri-
marily in the southern portion of the island, consists
of fragile dune and salt marsh vegetation presently pre-
served in wild, untouched expanses of seashore. Excess-
ive use of this zone, possible with even a few as three
hundred visitors a day, could drastically alter the pri-
mitive and untrammelled quality of this area. Access
to this area by large groups of people should therefore
not be actively encouraged. Major access points to the
island should be located well away from this zone, and
pedestrian paths 'leading to it should be carefully de-
signed to keep visitors away from the most critically
sensitive areas. Strict and enforcable criteria for
future use should be prepared in order to allow for
its future enjoyment by as many people as it will rea-
sonably support. This open, treeless area is especial-
ly vulnerable to visual intrusions.

Finally, areas of "low" carrying capacity - primarily
the salt marshes - should be restricted from most future
uses. These areas can support only occasional pedestrian
access. Sustained traffic in the marshes would quickly
result in the death of salt marsh grasses and the rapid
erosion of the soft, peaty soils. The flat, open salt
marshes are the most visuall!@ sensitive zones on the
island.

THE MASTER PLAN

The Preliminary Master Plan for Washburn Island directly
responds to the implications in the Regional Context and
Site Analysis portions of this report. The Waquoit Bay
area is becoming increasingly developed, especially the
land directly on the coast, :: . Reserving Washburn Island
for recreation and conservation is fundamental in help-
ing to preserve the region's environmental vitality and
marine resource values.

137 41.

This report recommends that Washburn Island be allowed
to remain largely in its present state. Minor improve-
ments will allow the island to absorb limited recreation-
al use by local residents and a limited number of visi-
tors. Proposed uses have been carefully planned to re-
spect the island's natural resources and physical carry-
ing capacity. Priority has been placed on maintaining
the current environmental and visual quality, rather than
accomodating large numbers of visitors.

The property should be managed in conjunction with South
Cape Beach across the Bay. South Cape Beach provides a
beach front park with easy access by car, and will be de-
signed to accomodate parking for up to 400 vehicles.
Washburn Island, on the other hand, will be managed for
more limited use, primarily passive recreation such as
hiking, nature study, etc. Access to the island will
be by private boat from So. Cape-Beach. Wooden docks on
the east and west side of the island would be built
to accommodate boat traffic to the site. Here, a small
interpretive display of maps and information will greet
the visitor, and from here trails lead out to the north
and south portions of the island. A few private boats
could also be allowed to dock. From the beach, access
up the side of the island would be through an area
previously graded by the military.

Possible tent camping is located in the plan on the is-
land's eastern side. This location I's accessible to the
landing point while being isolated from the development
to the west, and is on a more durable portion of the
land. The main comfort station is located between the
camping area and the main ac�Less point. The desireability of
allowing limited camping on the site will have to be looked
into carefullv before makliria
a final decls4u@-.

:138 43.

The proposed trail system utilizes the old main road as
the western north-south trail. Cross trails are provi-
ded to a similar trail along the east side of the island
through the upland forests. The system is layed out to
minimize impact and yet bring visitors into contact with
a variety of landscapes. People will be directed by the
trails to cross the zones of low carrying capacity
around the main salt marsh to the south by using either
the western old-road route, or hard sand and a raised
boardwalk on the eastern side of the marsh.

A few overlook structures are carefully located to take
advantage of good views and interpretive features.
Unsupervised swimming will be allowed on the major south-
facing,beach, and fishing can take place at the mouth
of Eel Pond and Waquoit Bay. A carry on/carry off
trash policy would be in effect.

Least Terns have been observed nesting on the barrier
beach in the southern portion of Washburn Island. In-
order to protect this significant island resiaent, por-
tions of the beach should be closed during the mid-
summer nesting season. Boardwalk design and location
should facilitate this protective management activity.

PARK MANAGEMENT

If Washburn Island is acquired by OEM in the near
future, the Department proposes to staff the island
with volunteer "island managers" during the summer
season of 1983. The island manager Mystem, used
successfully for several years in the*Boston Harbor
Islands, allows environmental interns td staff an

44. 139

island 24 hours a day, providing guidance, maintenance
and site supervision around the clock. The island
managers, usually college students majoring in
environmental or recreation fields, would be supervised
by full-time DEM staff based at South Cape Beach State
Park.

Permanent staffing of Washburn Island would begin in
the summer of 1984. Estimated permanent staff would
include one seasonal park supervisor, two seasonal
interpreters and two seasonal skilled conservation
helpers. These positions would be filled during the
peak season (May through September) with wintertime
supervision provided by full-time staff based at South
Cape Beach.

SUMMARY

Washburn Island is a property of unique environmental,
scenic and recreational value. Its protection from
rapidly increasing development pressures is of major
concern to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

This report has described Washburn Island's resources
in detail, and has proposed preliminary plans for the
preservation of the island. Because environmental
protection is the primary concern, control of visitor
access to, anduse of., the.island.,is.-of key importance..
The Washburn Island master plan has accommodated this
need to maintain remoteness and to minimize disturbance
of the site while providing for a certain amount of
controlled public access. Visitor numbers on the
island will be regulated by-the low volume of boat
traffic reaching the site from the mainland. Access
to the island will be encouraged at the designated
landings in the central portion of the site, so the
more fragile southern portions will receive proportion--

:140 5.

ately fewer users. Structures and associated develop-
ment will be limited and inconspicuously sited. An
emphasis will be placed instead on the interpretation
and enjoyment of a natural, remote and undisturbed
environment, cluttered with as few buildings as possible.

Since Washburn Island's abandonment by the military at
the end of World War 11, natural-processes have been
working to reclaim the landscape. This -report pro-
poses a master plan and management policy for the site
that will encourage this process of natural reclamation
to continue. The island, now an invaluable assett,
will continue to appreciate in scenic, environmental
and recreational value in future years if given the
opportunity.

46.
JL41

DATE DUE

GAYLORD No 2333 S A

3 6668 14108 0897