:United States Department of Commerce draft environmental impact statement/prepared by U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Coastal Zone Management, and State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Coastal Resources. National Ocean Survey.Office of Coastal Zone Management. New Jersey.Division of Coastal Resources. Washington, D.C.:The Office;Trenton, N.J.:The Division,[1981] Estuarine ecology New Jersey Mullica River. Wildlife refuges New Jersey Mullica River. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 1.1 d,, Mullica River Estuarine Sanctuary 'tEs Ot V Proposed Estuarine Sanctuary Grant Award for Mullica River, Atlantic, Burlington, and Ocean Counties, New Jersey U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE QH National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 541.5 Office of Coastal Zone Management .E8 and P76 1981 State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Division of Coastal Resources 3T i !1?";4 8 "MEOW, I 711110110 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT P ROPO SED GRANT AWARD TO THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY FOR THE MULL ICA RIVER ESTUARINE SANCTUARY MAY 1981 Prepared by: U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admi ni strat ion Office of Coastal Zone Management 3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20235 and State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Division of Coastal Resources CN 401 Trenton, New Jersey 08625 DESIGNATION: Draft Environmental Impact Statement TITLE: Proposed Estuarine Sanctuary Grant Award to the State of New Jersey for a Mullica River Estuarine Sanctuary ABSTRACT: The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection has applied for a grant from the Office of Coastal Zone Management to establish an estuarine sanctuary in the Mullica River system in Atlantic, Burlington, and Ocean Counties. The proposed sanctuary, which will be established through a two-phase land acquisition program, will preserve, protect and place under State management approximately 17,748 acres of the Mullica River drainage basin including saline freshwater and brackish wetlands, and forested uplands, all of which are currently privately owned. These areas, which include a broad diversity of salinity and physical systems, will be used for research, education and recreation purposes. Approval of the grant application will permit the establish- ment of an estuarine sanctuary representing the Virginian biogeographic region. The proposed sanctuary will be used primarily for research and educational purposes, especially to provide information useful for coastal zone management decisionmaking. Multiple use of the sanctuary will be encouraged to the extent that the uses are compatible with the primary sanctuary purpose of long-term protection of the area for scientific research and educational use. Research within the proposed sanctuary will provide baseline data useful for assessing the impacts of human activities within the Mullica River area and the Virginian biogeographic region. APPLICANT: New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection LEAD AGENCY: U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office of Coastal Zone Management CONTACT: Mr. Milton Martin Estuarine Sanctuary Project Officer Office of Coastal Zone Management 3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20235 (202) 653-7301 Individuals receiving copies of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) will NOT automatically receive copies of the Final Environmental Impact Statement unless specifically requested, or unless they submit oral or written comments on the DEIS. TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE SUMMARY i PART I: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION 1 PART II: ALTERNATIVES 5 A. Preferred Alternative 5 1. Site Boundaries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. Proposed Management of Estuarine Sanctuary. . . . 8 a. General Management Principles. . . . . . . . 11 b. Research and Education Program. . . . . . . .14 B. Alternatives Considered 16 1. Site Selection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 2. Boundaries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 3. Acquisition and Funding. . . . . . . . . . . . 28 4. Alternative Management Plans ..........35 5. No Action Alternative. . . . . . . . . . . . . .35 PART III: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 37 A. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action 37 1. Local Impacts on Burlington, Ocean and Atlantic Counties. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..37 2. Regional Impacts on the Mullica River Drainage Basin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 3. State and Federal Impacts. . . . . . . . . ...39 4. Natural Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . ..39 a. Fish, Wildlife, and Vegetative Habitat. . 39 b. Air Quality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..39 c. Water Quality ...............39 d. Mineral Reserves and Archaeological Sites. . .40 e. Agricultural Lands ............40 5. Human Environment... . . . . .........40 a. Residential/Industrial/Commercial. . . ..40 b. Public Use ................40 c. Scientific and Educational Use/Economic Factors . . . . ...... .... .. 41 d. Municipal Property Tax Loss .......41 e. Mitigation of Municipal Property Tax Losses... . . . . . . . . . . . ....43 SECTION PAGE B. Unavoidable Adverse Environmental or Socio- 43 economic Effects C. Relationship Between Local Short Term Uses of the 43 Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long Term Productivity D. Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitments of 45 Resources E. Possible Conflicts Between the Proposed Action 45 and the Objectives of Federal Regulations, State, and Local Land Use Plans, Policies, and Control for the Area Concerned 1. State Programs and Enabling Legislation. ......46 a. New Jersey Wetlands Act of 1970. ........46 b. Coastal Area Facility Review Act 1973 . . . . . . .46 C. Waterfront Development Law .. .......... 46 d. Tidelands Management. .... . . . . . .....46 e. New Jersey Pinelands Protection Act of 1979 . . . .47 f. DEP Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife. .. ...49 g. DEP Division of Parks and Forestry .. . . . . . . 49 h. Green Acres and Recreation Program .. . . . . . . 50 i. DEP Division of Water Resources .. . . ......50 j. Department of Community Affairs . . . . . . . . . 51 PART IV: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 53 A. General Physiography. .................53 B. Geology . . ........... . . . . . . . . . . . 53 C. Hydrology . . ............... . . . . . . 56 D. Biological Resources ..... . . . .... . . . . . . 58 1. Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 3. Endangered Species. ........... . . . . . 61 E. Human Activities. ............. . . . . . 65 PART V: LIST OF PREPARERS 67 PART VI: LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS RECEIVING 71 COPIES 77 PART VII: APPENDICES SUMMARY BACKGROUND In response to the intense pressures upon and conflicts within the coastal zone of the United States, Congress enacted the Coastal Zone 10 Management Act (CZMA) of 1972 (PL 92-583), with amendments enacted by the U.S. Congress in 1976 and 1980. The Act authorized a new Federal program--administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) within the Department of Commerce--to assist and encourage States to develop and implement comprehensive management programs for the resources of the coastal zone. The CZMA affirms a national interest in the coastal zone's effective management, beneficial use, and development, and it permits the awarding of grants for the purpose of meeting these ends. Section 315 of the CZMA established the Estuarine Sanctuary Program, which, on a matching basis, provides grants to States to acquire, develop, and operate estuarine areas to be set aside as natural field laboratories. These areas will be used primarily for long term scientific and educational purposes, which, in addition to other multiple-use benefits, will provide information essential to coastal management decisionmaking. Examples of estuarine sanctuary purposes are: o To gain a thorough understanding of ecological relationships within the estuarine environment; o To make baseline ecological measurements; o To serve as a natural control in order to monitor changes and assess the impacts of human stresses on the ecosystem; o To provide a vehicle for increasing public knowledge and awareness of the complex nature of estuarine systems, their values and benefits to humans and nature, and the problems that confront them; and o To encourage multiple use of the estuarine sanctuaries to the extent that such usage is compatible with the primary sanctuary purposes of research and education. In order to ensure that the sanctuary program adequately represents regional and ecological differences, the programmatic guidelines establish a biogeographical classification scheme that reflects geographic, hydrographic, and biological characteristics. The estuarine sanctuary guidelines, which were published in 1974, were amended in 1977 to specifically authorize the granting of 50 percent matching grants in three stages: (1) an initial planning grant for such preliminary purposes as surveying and assessing the lands to be acquired, and for developing management procedures and research programs; (2) a second grant for the actual acquisition of the land,; and (3) subsequent grants for administration and operation of the established sanctuary. i i In January 1981, the State of New Jersey, through the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), submitted to the Office of Coastal Zone Management (OCZM) a preliminary acquisition grant application for funding assistance to establish an estuarine sanctuary in the Mullica River area of Burlington, Atlantic, and Ocean Counties. Subsequently, NOAA awarded a preliminary acquisition grant for $50,000 (matched by the State), which is being used for preliminary boundary determnination, estimation of real estate costs and municipal property tax loss impact, development of a management plan, and research and education programs. PROPOSED ACTION The State of New Jersey proposes to request a $1,149,440 grant from OCZM to be matched by $1,149,440 in State funds, for State acquisition (OCZM has no acquisition or condemnation authority) of approximately 6,884 acres of wetlands and uplands along the Mullica and Wading Rivers, New Jersey. This request represents the first phase of a two-phase program of land acquisition for which the State will request funding assistance from NOAA/OCZM. Phasing of the project will require that the State comply with established NOAA/OCZM regulations for submission of grant applications and National Environmental Policy Act requirements for environmental impact statements for each phase of the estuarine sanctuary project. The land will be acquired and managed by the New Jersey DEP with assistance from its Divisions of Fish, Game and Wildlife; and Parks, Forestry, and Green Acres, and a Sanctuary Advisory Committee. A background study, Estuarine Sanctuaries for New Jersey's Coastal Zone: A Report and Preliminary Recommendations* (May 1980), of the proposed sanctuary area has been prepared by DEP's Division of Coastal Resources is available from the Coastal Information Center, CN 401, Trenton, N.J., 08625. Multiple use of the sanctuary is encouraged as long as it is compatible with National Estuarine Sanctuary Program objectives. Multiple sanctuary uses mean the simultaneous utilization of an area or resource for a variety of compatible purposes or to provide-more than one benefit. Sanctuary uses may include low-intensity recreation, hunting, fishing, and wildlife observation. Examples of non-compatible uses of the sanctuary include, but are not limited to: diking, dredging or manipulative research with long-term negative impacts. Uses that will be allowed, but monitored for potential impact are consumptive uses of the environment, such as the collection of flora and fauna for public use and benefit. Adjacent land and water usage will have impacts upon the proposed sanctuary. However, these activities are currently monitored by existing Federal, State, and local authorities, which will continue to do so. The estuarine sanctuary will not affect land or water use planning within Burlington, Atlantic or Ocean Counties outside the boundaries of the proposed sanctuary. In addition, there will be no 'Resource Protection Zone (RPZ) established around the proposed estuarine sanctuary sneach proposed acquisition area is fringed by forested uplands which serve as buffers. *by Richard A. Kantor New Jersey DEP ii i Since existing State statutes and regulations appear fully adequate to address any potential problems resulting from uses within the sanctuary and in adjacent waters and lands, designation of the sanctuary will not result in the need for new or additional environmental regulations or creation of a new State agency, or a new division within existing agencies. The sanctuary is to be used for research and education, which implies a multidisciplinary approach to management. It will be managed by DEP with the advice of an Estuarine Sanctuary Advisory Committee and Research and Education Subcommittees. The Advisory Committee membership, which will be appointed by the Commissioner of the New Jersey DEP, will include, but not be limited to, the following: representatives of the State of New Jersey, colleges and universities, government agencies with responsibilities in or near the Sanctuary area, and environmental or civic groups or individuals with relevant expertise. NOAA/OCZM will participate actively with DEP and the Advisory Committee, in its role as an ex officio member of the Committee. The Assistant Commis- sioner for Natural Resources of DEP, or a representative of the Assistant Commissioner, will be Chairman of the Advisory Committee. ALTERNATIVES Alternative management structures were considered. Management by a single State agency would make administration less complex and would be appropriate for the diverse types of wetlands and forested lands to be administered. Complex management committee schemes or the creation of new agencies were rejected in favor of management by DEP, which includes two Divisions with long histories of experience in management of public wetlands and forested lands, and a Sanctuary Advisory Committee. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES The most direct environmental consequence of the proposed action will be the long term preservation of the area and its resources in their natural state for scientific and educational uses. The sanctuary will enable increased research and education to take place which will enhance the knowledge and understanding of estuarine systems in New Jersey and, therefore, will provide information for improved coastal zone resource decisionmaking. Positive environmental impacts will include: o preservation of essential wetland habitats that have national significance and are in limited supply; o fish and wildlife habitat preservation, including the maintenance and enhancement of fish breeding species that are important economically to commercial fishing; o improved air quality from the limiting of urbanization within the sanctuary boundaries; iv o water quality improvement from the limiting of urbanization; oincreased public usage through the conversion of private land increased but controlled access; and, Oadditional scientific, research, and educational opportunities for students, educators, and scientists, which will also bring economic benefits to the region. In the first phase of this proposal , negative impacts would include removal of approximately $1,959,500 from the local tax bases and an annual loss of approximately $61,656 in municipal property taxes. In total, approximately $5,097,000 could be removed from the municipal tax bases and approximately $163,000 could be lost from municipal property taxes when the second phase of this proposal is completed. This will be mitigated by compensatory payments by the State, gradually decreasing over a thirteen year period, as mandated by the New Jersey Green Acres and Recreation Opportunities Bond Act of 1974 (N.J.S.A. 13:8A-1 et seq.). PART I: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION In response to the intense pressures to preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, to restore or enhance coastal resources in the vitally important coastal zone of the United States, Congress passed the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), which was signed into law on October 27, 1972 (P.L. 92-583), 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 delegated this responsibility to the Office of Coastal Zone Management (OCZM) of 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 assistance and encouragement to coastal States (including those bordering the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, the Gulf of Mexico, the Great Lakes, and U.S. territories) to develop and implement State programs for managing their coastal zones. The Act established a variety of grant-in-aid programs to such States and Territories for the purposes of: o developing coastal zone management programs (Sec. 305); o implementing and administering management programs that receive Federal approval (Sec. 306); o avoiding or minimizing adverse environmental, social, and economic impacts resulting from coastal energy activities (Sec. 308); o coordinating, studying, planning, and implementing interstate coastal management activities and programs (Sec. 309); o conducting research, study, and training programs to scientifically and technically support State coastal manage- ment programs (Sec. 310); and, o acquiring estuarine sanctuaries and island preservation (Sec.315). The estuarine sanctuary program authorized by Section 315 of the CZMA establishes a program to provide grants to States, on a matching basis, for the acquisition, development, and operation/management of natural estuarine areas as sanctuaries so that scientists and students may be provided the opportunity to examine, over a period of time, the ecological relationships within the area. Section 315 provides a maximum of $3,000,000 in Federal funds, to be matched by an equivalent amount by the State, to acquire and manage lands for each sanctuary. Guidelines for implementation of the estuarine sanctuary program were published in final form on June 4, 1974, (15 CFR Part 921, Federal Register 39 [105]: 19922-19927) and amended on September 9, 1977 (15 CFR Part 921, Federal Register 42 [175]: 45522-45523). 2 Sanctuaries established under this program have the dual purpose of (1) preserving relatively undisturbed areas so that a representative series of natural coastal estuarine systems will always remain available for ecological research and education, and (2) ensuring the availability of natural areas for use as a control against which impacts of human activities in other areas can be assessed. These sanctuaries are to be used primarily for long term scientific and educational purposes, especially to provide information essential to coastal zone management decisionmaking. Such purposes may include: o gaining a thorough understanding of the natural ecological relationships within the variety of estuarine environments of the United States; o making baseline ecological measurements; o serving as a natural control against which changes in other similar estuaries can be measured, and facilitating evalua- tion of the impacts of human activities on estuarine ecosystems; O providing a vehicle for increasing public knowledge and awareness of the complex nature of estuarine systems, and their values and benefits to man and nature; and, o encouraging multiple use of the estuarine sanctuaries to the extent that such usage is compatible with the primary sanctuary purposes of research and education. While the primary purpose of estuarine sanctuaries is scientific and educational, multiple use of estuarine sanctuaries will be encouraged to the extent it is compatible with the primary sanctuary purpose. These uses may generally include such activities as low intensity recreation, fishing, hunting, and wildlife observation. The CZMA and the sanctuary guidelines express the intent that ulti- mately the estuarine sanctuary program will fully represent the variety of regional and ecological differences among estuaries. The regulations indicate that "the purpose of the estuarine program... shall be accomplished by establishing a series of estuarine sanctuaries nationwide which will be designated so that at least one representative of each estuarine ecosystem will endure into the future for scientific and educational purposes" (15 CFR 921.3[a]). As administered by OCZM, the estuarine sanctuary program defines 11 different biogeographic provinces or classi- fications, based on geographic, hydrographic, and biologic characteristics. Subcategories of this basic system will be used as appropriate to distinguish major subclasses of each biogeographic province. The total number of sanctuaries that will be needed to provide minimal representation for the nation's estuarine ecosystems is currently under study. 3 Between 1974 and the present, OCZM has awarded grants to establish nine estuarine sanctuaries. These are: Sanctuary Biogeographic Classification South Slough Coos Bay, Oregon Columbian Duplin River Sapelo Island, Georgia Carol inian Waimanu Valley Island of Hawaii, Hawaii Insular Rookery Bay Collier Co., Florida West Indian Old Woman Creek Erie Co., Ohio Great Lakes Apalachicola River and Bay Franklin Co., Florida Louisianian Elkhorn Slough Monterey County, California Californian Padilla Bay Skagit Co., Washington Col umbi an Narragansett Bay Newport Co., Rhode Island Virginian Mullica River has long been a focal point of research and educa- tional interests and in recent years its future has been the object of considerable research attention. Responding to these interests, the New Jersey DEP nominated Mullica River as an estuarine sanctuary site and applied to OCZM for pre- acquisition funding, which was granted in March 1981. The proposed Mullica River Sanctuary will be representative of a major estuarine sanctuary within the Virginian Biogeographic Classification, subcategory and the second estuarine sanctuary within this region. This addition further completing the National Estuarine Sanctuary System as provided for in Section 315 of the CZMA. PART II: ALTERNATIVES A. Preferred Alternative OCZM has implemented a process whereby a land acquisition grant can be made in two steps. The first is a preliminary acquisition grant for such purposes as real estate appraisals, the development of management procedures, and research/educational programs. OCZM awarded such a grant for Mullica River in March 1981. The second step is the grant request for Federal funding for the actual acquisition of land, the proposed action for which this DEIS is prepared. The State of New Jersey is proposing to submit a land acquisition grant application for $2,298,800, $1,149,400 from OCZM, to be matched by $1,149,400 in State funds and/or resources, to establish an estuarine sanctuary on the Mullica River Basin in Burlington, Atlantic and Ocean Counties. The grant will enable New Jersey to acquire approximately 6,88-4 acres, all of which is now privately owned, as a first phase of a two phase land acquisition program to establish the proposed estuarine sanctuary. The second phase of the acquisition of 10,864 acres in Atlantic and Burlington Counties, will be proposed in the following Federal fiscal year, FY 1982. The land will be acquired and managed by DEP. The approval of future funding requests is conditioned upon the successful completion of the Estuarine Sanctuary Procedural Guideline requirements by the State, the National Environmental Policy Act requirements, and the availability of NOAA/OCZM funds. Upon award of the acquisition grant, the State has the option of applying for matching operational funds ($50,000 per year for up to five years). 1. Site Boundaries Figure I indicates the general location of the proposed project and Figure 2 delineates the proposed sanctuary boundaries. The sites included in the proposal are described below. a. Swan Bay The Swan Bay area is the State's top priority acquisition site, and is estimated to cost $500,000. This 2,065 acre area is being purchased by the State, with funds provided by the U.S. Department of-the Interior through Land and Water Conservation Funds (LWCF) and by DEP's Division of Parks, Forestry, and Green Acres through State Green Acre Funds. This action will add to the existing 1,078 acres of the Swan Bay State Fish and Wildlife Management Area which is presently administered by the DEP's Division of Fish, Game, and Wildlife, forming a contiguous area of 3,143 acres. In the unlikely event that Federal LWCF funds are not available, OCZM funds will-be requested to implement the proposed purchase (see Figure 5). - 1 ND&MIs -24HarisSI ) r Speedwe, wttn Ni,,;> rve 4,, P4ce I Iw Stafodj L drR Peliinr Acqisiio GalloceantyGatSuyAe F. stelivill 4. Norh 7"I, SWAN S A ARE U WD N RIE AREA- MULC IE ARA-- BASS RIVER AREA *1 _Isert) / iue 8 The authority to administer State Fish and Wildlife Management Areas is found in N.J.S.A. 23:1-1 et seq.; implementing regulations are found in N.J.A.C. 7:25-2.1 et seq. Appendix 3 is a copy of the adopted Rules and Regulations of general uses of State Fish and Wildlife Management areas under N.J.A.C. 7:25- 2.1 et seq. b. Wading River The proposed land acquisition through the National Estuarine Sanctuary Program *of the east side of the Wading River in Bass River Township is proposed for administration by DEP through the Sanctuary Advisory Committee and the Divisions of Parks, Forestry and Green Acres, State Park Service. Figure 2 identifies the Wading River site location and its physical relationship to Swan Bay, the other Phase I acquisition area to be acquired. Figure 6 identifies the Wading River area proposed boundaries. c. The Mullica River Area This proposed land acquisition through the National Estuarine Sanctuary Program, on the south side of the Mullica River in Galloway and Mullica Township and Port Republic and Egg Harbor City, is proposed for administra- tion by DEP through the Sanctuary Advisory Committee and the Divisions of Fish, Game and Wildlife, and Parks Forestry and Green Acres. See Figure 2 for the location of the Mullica River area and Figure 7 for the specific boundary of this Phase 11 acquisition area. d. Bass River Area This proposed land acquisition through the National Estuarine Sanctuary Program is for lands adjacent to the Bass River in Bass River Township and Little Egg Township in Ocean County. This site's location within the proposed sanctuary area is given in Figure 2. The specific Bass River Area boundary is given in Figure 8. This is a phase II area acqui sit ion. 2. Proposed Management of the Estuarine Sanctuary A study regarding the proposed estuarine sanctuary: Estuarine Sanctuaries For New Jersey's Coastal Zone: A Report and Preliminary Recommendation, May 1980, was prepared by the State of New Jersey during the first and second year of State implementation of their coastal zone management program. Information from this document has been incorporated extensively into the DEIS and within this document shall be referred to as "Kantor (1980)." Multiple use of an estuarine sanctuary may be permitted as long as it does not interfere with the primary purposes of providing long term protection for natural areas so they may be used for scientific and educational purposes. While it is anticipated that compatible uses may generally include activities such as low intensity recreation, fishing, hunting etc., it is recognized that the exclusive use of an area for scientific or educational purposes may provide the optimum benefit to coastal zone management and resource use and on occasion be necessary. 9 Some of the popular recreational activities in the river include, but are not limited to: shellfishing, hunting, trapping, boating, birdwatching, photography, etc. At the present time, these activities are limited because of poor and unreliable access, most of which is through private lands. These uses would be encouraged by increasing the number of access areas available to the general public. The advantages and disadvantages associated with the provision of public access will be considered, particularly the potential impacts upon the fish, vegetative and wildlife resources and private property owners. Legal constraints will need to be explored, and associated problems such as vehicle parking, access control methods and enforcement, and other administrative factors will be evaluated. The provision of access shall not interfere with adjacent property owners' rights, or affect usage of their property. I10 FIGURE 3 OBJECTIVES OF THE MULLICA RIVER ESTUARINE SANCTUARY PROGRAM Goal: To Provide A Natural Laboratory For The Study Of Estuarine Ecological Relationships A Protect, Maintain, Enhance And Restore The Overall Quality Of The Estuarine Ecosystem In Perpetuity B C Preserve And Maintain Sanctuary Preserve The Integrity Of The For Ecological And Cultural/ Existing Estuarine Habitat Historical Research That Will Through Enhancement and Provide Educational Knowledge Restoration, Maintain Optimum To The General Public, And Populations of Migratory Birds Assist Local Decision Makers And Indigenous Flora And Fauna, In Dealing With Coastal With Special Protection Provided Devel opment. For Rare And Endangered Plant And Animal Species. I1I Examples of incompatible uses in the estuarine sanctuary are residential or commercial development; mineral extraction; timber harvesting; off-road vehicle use; diking, dredging, drainage, or otherwise altering the natural system, or causing disturbances within it (e.g. loud noise or littering). Manipulative research involving the long term degradation or alteration of the natural resource will also be prohibited. Short term manipulative research consistent with the research/education intent of the sanctuary may be allowed, but only under strict controls and with written approval of the Sanctuary Advisory Committee and DEP. Examples of activities that will be monitored and controlled include, but are not limited to, consumptive uses of the environment, such as the collection of flora and fauna, and access as described above. The potential exists through the goals of research and education in the Estuarine Sanctuary Guidelines for restoring natural ecosystem functions to certain parts of the sanctuary that may have been altered by past activities. Restoration may require positive actions in some cases; in other situations, removal of existing threats or conflicts may accomplish the same end. Any change in the existing system, including areas previously modified, will only be done after scientific evaluation of the consequences to the system over the long term. a) General Management Principles The Estuarine Sanctuary Program is not a new State or Federal regula- tory program. The principal objective will be to protect and utilize the proposed estuarine sanctuary as a natural field laboratory for long term scientific and educational purposes, which, in addition to other multiple use benefits, will provide information and data essential to coastal management decision-making. The proposed management system for the estuarine sanctuary will be administrated by the New Jersey DEP consistent with existing Federal and State statutes and Estuarine Sanctuary Program purposes. The management responsibility, which is vested in DEP for the proposed sanctuary, similar to all other public lands managed by DEP, will be assigned to the NJDEP Assistant Commissioner for Natural Resources, who will consider management recommendations by the Estuarine Sanctuary Advisory Committee. Members will be appointed by the Commissioner of DEP. The committee will meet on a quarterly basis or as determined by the committee staff. The role of the Advisory Committee will be to: 1. Review and act upon recommendations made by the Research and Education Subcommittee in the development, and implementation of a sanctuary management plan and the research and education programs. 2. Assist and work with the DEP and the on-site sanctuary manager in the day-to-day management of the sanctuary. 3. Develop and implement a program of sanctuary public relations with the general public. 1 2 4. Review and advise the Assistant Commissioner of DEP on proposed future revisions of the management plan and research and education programs. 5. Foster scientific research and education programs within the sanctuary. 6. Foster ecological understanding and appreciation of the Mullica River Drainage Basin resources and their proper management. Sanctuary management objectives will be: o To gain a thorough understanding of ecological relationships within the estuarine environment; o To make baseline ecological measurements; o To serve as a natural control area in order to monitor changes and assess the impacts of human stresses on the ecosystem; o To provide a vehicle for increasing public knowledge and awareness of the complex nature of estuarine systems and of their values and benefits to humans and nature, and the problems that confront them; and o To encourage multiple use of the estuarine sanctuaries to the extent that such usage is compatible with the primary sanctuary purposes of research and education. A full-time on-site manager will be employed by, and responsible to DEP, and will be housed in the appropriate existing DEP field office adjacent to the acquisition area, or in a new on-site facility. The duties of the Sanctuary Manager who will have the qualifications of a resource manager will include, but not be limited to: o Serving as staff to the Sanctuary Advisory Committee; * Administering the sanctuary, assisting in the preparation required to develop State and Federal grant applications, proposals, budgets, and reports and maintaining necessary records; o Representing the Sanctuary Advisory Committee in public meetings; o Upon request, advising and coordinating units of government on particular issues, questions, or projects, and their impacts on or relationship to the sanctuary; O Coordinating all special studies and research activities within or related to the sanctuary, and interpreting and applying research results to produce benefits of a general nature; 1 3 o Implementing the research and educational programs for the sanctuary; o Reviewing all proposed activities within the sanctuary for consistency with the management objectives; and, oCoordinating all projects and taking appropriate action on activities that might affect the sanctuary. Uses that are compatible with the intent of establishing the estuarine sanctuary will be allowed and regulated under existing local, State and Federal statutes. Uses that would alter or destroy the value of the ecosystem will not be allowed within the sanctuary. Acceptable and Prohibited Uses Within The Sanctuary: Acceptable Uses: o Sport and commercial fin fish and shellfish harvesting o Hunting and trapping o Boating and navigation (motor, sail or hand powered) o Swimming and skin diving oNature study, wildlife observation and photography oMaintenance dredging in existing navigation channels Prohibited Uses: O Wetlands filling to create uplands o Wetlands or uplands dredging to create new navigation channels o Dumping or disposal of dredging spoils O Alteration of water circulation patterns o Any activity that could lead to significant degradation of water quality or biological productivity o Solid, liquid, or hazardous substance waste disposal of any type o Upland, wetland, or subaqueous sand or gravel extraction o Surface water outfalls or intakes *Timber harvesting and vegetation clearing 14 b) Research and Education Program The principal objective of the research program for the Estuarine Sanctuary will be to provide scientific information to State and Federal decisionmakers on estuarine ecology and physical environment necessary for the proper management of coastal marine and estuarine resources. The second objective will be to direct research toward the estuary as an ecological whole. Coordination of research projects is most desirable and is proposed to be implemented by DEP with the assistance of a Research sub-committee and the Sanctuary Advisory Committee. Procedures for conducting research within the proposed sanctuary will be based upon a modification of the procedural policies adopted under the Natural Areas System Act (N.J.S.A. 13:1B-15.1) as N.J.A.C. 7:2-11.6. These adopted procedures, revised to be appropriate for the estuarine sanctuary, follow: Sanctuary Management Procedures for Conducting Research (A) Persons permitted to enter into or upon [a natural area] the Mullica River Estuarine Sanctuary* for the purpose of conducting research shall be limited to individuals who in the opinion of the Department of Environmental Protection, and the Estuarine Sanctuary Advisory Committee, are qualified to carry through such scientific purposes and/or whose research will not cause detrimental effects to the biotic types found in the area. (B) A written proposal for research within the estuarine sanctuary (a natural area) shall be submitted to the Department for approval. The proposal shall contain the following: 1. topic of project and species concerned, 2. methods and procedures for carrying out the project, 3. location of research site(s), 4. duration of project, 5. frequency of visitation, and 6. number of persons involved. (C) The permittee shall coordinate his/her project with the Sanctuary Advisory Committee and Manager, and no less than once a year shall report in writing on the status of the research to the Department. 4 (D) Upon completion of a project a copy of the research results shall be submitted to the Advisory Committee and Department and made available to the general public. * Brackets note deletions from and underlines note additions to the rules adopted for Natural Areas at N.J.A.C. 7:2-11.6 1 5 Coordinated and Projected Topics of Research In order to promote coordination of scientific research within the proposed sanctuary and to foster better communication and coordination of estuarine research in other sites within the State, and in other coastal States, an Estuarine Sanctuary Research Subcommittee is proposed. The role of the Research Subcommittee will be to advise the Sanctuary Advisory Committee and DEP as to the desirability and potential environmental effects of proposed research projects. The Subcommittee is expected to meet at least quarterly each year, to review current projects, proposed research projects, and discuss environmental management informational needs. The Estuarine Sanctuary Research Subcommittee will assist the Advisory Committee and DEP to insure that the sanctuary is not only protected through it's acquisition program and policies, but that it also creates a natural field laboratory which will be used to gather data and make studies of the natural and human processes occurring within estuaries of the coastal zone. The subcommittee will be an advocate for research in the sanctuary. In addition, since the Estuarine Sanctuary Program does not provide direct funding for specific research projects, it is anticipated that support by the Research Subcommittee and Sanctuary Advisory Committee will lead to support from the public and the-private sectors. Creating an understanding of the coastal estuarine system of the Mullica River as an intergrated whole will be the prime objective of the proposed research program. Of particular significance to research within the proposed sanctuary are the following topics: a) oyster seed bed ecology, production and conservation b) migratory waterfowl ecology c) water quality - maintenance of high quality Pine Barrens Cedar upland surface water - groundwater/surface water quality and quantity and its effects on the salinity regime of the estuary - maintenance of hard clam transplant (relay) planting areas d) fin and shellfish nursery habitat with particular emphasis on white perch and blue claw crab 1 6 e) vegetative productivity - estuari-ne/coastal marine detrital based food chains - comparative ecology of saline, brackish and freshwater tidal coastal wetlands communities f) Estuarine nutrient cycling in low (pristine) nutrient system - Natural estuarine planktonic cycles in an unpolluted system The principal objective of the education program will be to offer environmental learning experience to students and instructors at grammar, secondary, undergraduate and graduate levels in a public area having resources that will be protected for this specific use. To ass ist the development of a sanctuary education program, an Education Subcommittee will be established. The Subcommittee will assist the development of an education program and implementation through coordination with the Sanctuary Advisory Committee and DEP. A low keyed approach with limited activities-is proposed and appropriate within the sensitive vegetative resources of the wetlands. It is proposed that priority use of the sanctuary by educators, and student groups be reserved for those interested in resources found in lower salinity estuarine communities. More specifically, educational use should be partic- ularly concentrated in brackish wetlands communities, tidal freshwater wetlands communities, nontidal freshwater bog and forested wetlands communities, and the wetlands/lowland forest fringe ecotones. The rationale for limiting uses to these specific habitat rests on the trampling effects quickly apparent on marsh surfaces where pedestrian traffic occurs. Foot paths compact underlying unconsolidated soils, frequently forming standing water depressions while killing standing stems. However, this does not preclude the development of environmental learning, "hands on" etc. educational programs which will involve the natural resources of the sanctuary. Development of lower estuarine ecology education programs which could include the development of raised wooden walkways over the marsh surface, guided tours etc. are possible schemes to also enhance the sanctuary"s educa- tional opportunities. B. Alternatives Considered 1. Site Selection New Jersey has approximately 260,000 acres of tidal marshes, including coastal saline, brackish, and freshwater tidal marshes, and in addition, 395,000 acres of estuarine waters within the State. This is a total of 655,000 acres of estuarine habitat throughout the State. 1 7 Unfortunately, many estuaries and their watersheds (drainage basins) have been adversely affected by human activities such as: wetlands filling and dredging for international maritime ports, waterfront housing, and marinas; bottom sediments contaminated from heavy metals and pesticides; deforestation of watersheds for urban, suburban, and agricultural land uses. The Federal Estuarine Sanctuary Guidelines (1974) states, "...areas selected as sanctuaries will be relatively undisturbed by human activities at the time of acquisition. Therefore, most of the areas selected will be areas with a minimum of development, industry, or habitation." (Section 921.3(5)(d)) Figures 3 and 4 depict distribution of developed lands and municipal population densities in New Jersey. There are a number of alternative estuarine areas in New Jersey which meet this criterion. NOAA/OCZM and DEP have concluded that the Mullica River estuary is the most desirable choice for National Estuarine Sanctuary designation, because it has the following characteristics: 1. Extensive upland watershed protection in the form of public open space land holdings in three state forests (Wharton, Bass River, Green Banks) and multi-layered state regulatory programs in private lands. 2. Watershed constitutes the heart of the New Jersey Pinelands, an ecosystem recognized by the State and Federal governments as an environmental treasure. 3. Comparatively pristine nature of upland watershed. 4. Comparatively pristine nature of wetlands, with the singular exception of one very large but concentrated lagoon residential devel opment. 5. Occurrence of nationally or state listed endangered wildlife species and plants proposed for official listings. 6. High productivity of the system supporting a rich diversity and high population of fish, shellfish, and wildlife. 7. Extensive adjacent wetlands protection in the form of national wildlife refuge (Brigantine) and three state fish and wildlife management areas (Great Bay, Swan Bay, Port Republic). Futhermore, the Federal Guidelines also states, "The area chosen as an estuarine sanctuary shall to the extent possible, include water and land masses constituting a natural ecological unit." The Mullica River drainage basin (569 square miles) is entirely within one state and is of moderate size and clearly represents the heart of the New Jersey Pinelands ecosystem (ecological unit). 18 DEVELOPED z-... N LANDS 1972 / .%I ¾ *23 r r. - .., 5 - a4 I- 7' * .* n.- - - a - .prSV 'asK ''¼, £ - '-I I - - 4.-. #5. 4 1 ' " ;'' V. *r.. - rr -c * - 44 '' - '.$ .- S * St ph 'd' / k I \ w Figure 3 [I K/- STATE OF NEW JERSEY AS ,4( \eYC% 'S 1 9 N.'J. MUNICIPAL POPULATON DENSITIES 1976 .. .S. 0 TO 50.. 50 TO 20 20 0 TO0500 1,000 TO 5,000 5,OOO AND OVER Calculations Made From 1976 Provisional POPUlation Estimates New Jersey Dept. of Labor and Industry, bffice of Demography and Economic Analysis. 20 In 1978 Governor Brendan Byrne of New Jersey declared the New Jersey Pinelands an irreplaceable environmental resource and by Executive Order 71 implemented a building moratorium. This was followed by enactment of the New Jersey Pinelands Protection Law (NJSA 13.28A-1 et seq. as amended). The adopted New Jersey Pinelands Comprehensive MatrPlan, November 1980, speaks repeatedly of the many biological, ecological, and physical environmental treasures of the New Jersey ecosystem, with the Mullica River its very heart. The 1978 Rutgers University study A Plan for a Pinelands National Preserve states, "the Pinelands of New Jersey represents a truly unique and relatively undeveloped land resource within the most populous section of the U.S." The authors also note that the low degree of development con- tributes to the high water quality. The study identified the following Habitat Specific and Ecologically Critical Areas in the proposed sanctuary site: o Wading River, upstream to the vicinity of Chips Folly campground, which contains the only tidal population of southern wild rice in New Jersey (perhaps in all of northeastern North America). O The west bank of the Mullica River in and around Weekstown, which supports an excellent swamp forest vegetation. o Hog Island in the upper Mullica River, which represents a unique transitional zone between salt water and freshwater tidal marsh vegetation. A 1976 independent study by a Rutgers University student* used the 11 Federal criteria for estuarine sanctuaries to rank 12 distinct New Jersey estuarine systems meeting the broad "relatively undisturbed" criterion. The study concluded that the Mullica River estuary is the most suitable area in the state for national estuarine sanctuary designation. The finding was based upon comparative rankings of each potential site. Name and location of all estuarine areas analyzed: Estuarine Areas Location Mullica River/Great Bay - Burlington, Atlantic and Ocean Counties Backs/Cedar Creeks - Cumberland County Nantuxent Creek - Cumberland County Hope Creek - Salem County Mad Horse/Stowe Creeks - Salem and Cumberland Counties Dennis/West Creeks - Cape May and Cumberland Counties Maurice River - Cumberland County Diving Creek - Cumberland County Orandaken/Fishing Creeks - Cumberland County Cohansey River and Cove - Cumberland County Great Egg Harbor/Tuckahoe River - Cape May and Atlantic Counties *Thomas P. Smith, Ph.D., Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey 21 Smith lists the following advantages of the Mullica River system: I a. comparatively little alteration b. upland watershed protected and wetlands protection in substantial public open space lands 2 a. excellent water quality b. suitable for potential estuarine sanctuary designation 3 a. highest vegetative diversity of all areas studied b. transitional habitats present 4 a. greatest migratory waterfowl populations in the state b. occurrence of endangered species c. numerous colonial nesting waterbirds 5. abundant fin and shellfish resources 6. adjacent to existing research laboratories 7. previously researched 8. previous public investments in lands 9. due to little development, designation would not conflict with (low) existing uses 10. little socioeconomic impact predicted State and National programs which have previously identified all or portions of this drainage basin as environmentally or ecologically valuable include the following: 1. The New Jersey Coastal Management Program has designated the portion of the watershed as a Limited Growth Area. 2. National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 identified the New Jersey Pine Barrens as being environmentally and ecologically of national significance and authorized federal funding of master planning for New Jersey Pinelands Conservation and public acquisition of additional l and s. 22 3. The Smithsonian Institute of Washington, D.C. Center for Natural Areas, Survey of Natural Areas of the Atlantic Coastal Plain (1974) (prepared for the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service) listed 11 specific sites and areas within the Mullica River drainage basin as potential national "Natural Landmarks." They are: Area/Site/Name Priority Rating (I highest, 4 =lowest) Great Bay 2 North Brigantine Island 3 The Pine Barrens I Atlantic Goose Pond Bogs I Batsto Natural Area and Forge Pond 4 Hampton Furnace -4 Martha Furnace 2 Quaker Bridge 2 Pine Plains (Dwarf or Pigmy Forests) I Wading River I Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge 1 4. New Jersey Green Acres and Recreation Program has (a) designated four areas as Natural Areas under the State National Areas System Act of 1976, and (b) proposed for designation the Lower Atsion branch of the Mullica River as a Wild and Scenic River under the State statute. 5. The New Jersey Realty Improvement Sewerage and Facilities Act of 1978 designated the entire Mullica watershed as a Critical Area, due to the vast pure groundwater resources within the Cohansey Aquifer. 2. Boundaries Boundaries and Proposed Acquisition Areas, as defined by the Estuarine Sanctuary Guidelines, "may include any part or all of an estuary, adjoining transitional areas, and adjacent upland, constituting to the extent feasible a natural unit." Two areas, Swan Bay and the Wading River, are proposed for acquisition in Phase I and the remaining two areas, Mullica River and Bass River, in Phase II of the acquisition process. These are listed in order of priority bel ow. Under optimum conditions, the entire Mullica River drainage basin (watershed) would be acquired as the natural unit under the National Estuarine Sanctuary Program. (Due to the cost of acquisition this approach is not feasible). The Mullica River drainage basin, though, can be managed as a natural unit, and it is ecologically representative of the 23 unique New Jersey Pinelands. It can also realistically be purchased and maintained using available Federal and State matching funds. Of the three major intrastate river systems with over 500 square miles of drainage basin, the Mullica has the most (120,000 acres, or 33 percent of the total land area) land already protected within public ownership. This provides significant upstream protection from potentially damaging future land developments, and therefore identifies it as a desirable area for a National Estuarine Sanctuary. The following criteria were used in the selection of sanctuary boundaries for the Mullica River system: 1) Research area should include as much diversity as possible in habitat type (flora and fauna communities) which interact with the estuarine zone. The inclusion of many habitat types allows for research and education activities totally within the sanctuary without the necessity to travel elsewhere, or obtain permission of landowners to conduct research and educational activities on their land. Also, diversity provides for contact with all representative trophic levels within the integrated estuarine ecosystem. 2) Research area should be a contiguous area of virtually undisturbed lands and waters, and boundaries should be contiguous to existing State forests and fish and wildlife management areas where possible for administrative (cooperative management) and enforcement purposes. 3) Research area should include an upland forested buffer adjacent to wetlands. Edge habitat, or "ecotone", frequently has greater species diversity and use by wildlife. There is also an important protective function realized by including a forested buffer adjacent to sensitive wetlands. Forested buffers widths from wetlands should be at least 500 feet. 4) Research area should include as much surface and groundwater drainage sources, and/or source type areas as economically feasible. These type areas include non-estuarine types such as freshwater marshes, bogs, and swamp type forest, e.g., Atlantic white-cedar, pitch pine lowlands, and mixed hardwoods. Water sources of the * estuarine zone should be represented in order to afford protection of a representatively complete natural aquatic ecosystem. 5) Area should be accessible by land and water. 6) Home sites, farmlands (cranberry production bogs), and other developed (improved) lands should be excluded from acquisition area. 24 z Figure 5 Phase I Acquisition Swan Bay Area Mapped ediedd y published by the Gelog.cal Suey Revised cooper..on with New York Depatment of Transportaton * 4' ROAD CLOSSFICATrON 0omtroI AT USGS USOAGS. 0U .SE-Ne'000,oo.TeodecSurv "A h. Io54 Lg dEE e5 *ad Ce ' Sew Topk cooarolE, e a' AT I acAppoAAAtI m, S ,O. Char2 1 51S 1S 27 . T 5]2 OS, O5. T 545A.AA CONT OOAR INTARVAL IA FEETIcesaeAw 3tSRot <>StApT -p.-i Tooa oTooorOy poStaoraetrI,c.ehsfomo.IoaAIoTT ¢ETTCLEoA,^.OuASOU.,S ,N ££T -O^ToAAAAAA OooW^A S.,e .yUow a T aphaeA AaUa ToA pA.PATroA USO&GS C arw 28 e1 54AT 0S ,*,. TRI*O ,T *. ^ AO OnCPT poectAT SAT7 orTh AT'POpAnpo laCOu oo A0 do bawed AT P eOLDAC AASGPIAING TAOOGRPHI AFA N 8L I VAoL OT REETA ]1 .1e Unv.1 a T-ases .erca1 o "Idbkzn 1 hw nbu ES ica -AVe =T-O ea Bay EAsT-riAe Sanctuary PrPop.sa COASTAL ZONE BOONDARY PINELANDS PRESERVATION AA - - - PROPOSED ACQUISITION AREAS UNDER ESTUARINE SANCTUARC PROGRAM SWAN BAY - HOG ISLAND ACQUISTESON 25 Figure6 Phase I Acquisition f/%I Wading River Area Ooooooooolodoodpooloood N. ho C S00 O Oo oo o 00 o 4 oo COSA Z O N EBOUDAR SWAR MY - HO ILNDACUSTO 00000 00 000 i it o -v 000 0,,202550 00 0000 0 40 00 oooooooo000-oogoo0000 0000 000000000 0000000000000000000 000,0 0000 eitd n ooooo U rooeo O00.oo Oo'oOO Go ooeooo 00000 Rerlled n ioaoeratlon nlh Ner Ynrl Dc rtOcoolOfooOO00or-Oo-ooo Byooaioo Sa1oooo·opo COATA lOS BOUNDARY rnd '·llal lirx ro i B..rd a' I(P NILONIS OISUOTATOSO ART Ch ·lr -51 - URSOST ACQISIIO ANO 00000 00000 SANCUAR 200100 S *rl*J - SOAR8' n BAT· 00m 000 ISLAN ACCGSIISTIOS0iBIi 26 r ." p -- 3 Figure 7 Phase II Acquisition Mullica River Area Mapped. edded CAblefled by flle Oeolo Ca, Su-ey EFEC,sed Cn ACACper oln cl Ne o CCrk Debartment of TSCCCCfatCCCC'L O WSA TO CCOC CC. USGS USCbCSCSCe. ACCE OCCCD C.dt SCCCCr. "; C'RAT LEC ' " -C " l 11 'Ll, 14 11 s a I 114 11, I ".. I I',' Il rt .. C E T _EC CC...... CECCCSCC CSC CS1r1)7111 4SC C 5A5 I54 CCC CC CONCOUC INCECCD, CC FEET ta Ru - oe a. yl Ilno o ia nl Illen 1954 ·nn IlIli.. Bi- - GI- By E--I.. 8-- y F-Po ...rInu.l I i. COASTAL ZONE BOUNDARYmla om ll Irom VSCIGS Cmrtl CCCECC C[E CEC eCCCCC.CC aC aCCCCCECCCCCCIIUO CE.CCCCCC.CCCUC C*iNLPriu rr IINDP1 S.,CCCCCCCC aCCCCCC aCCCCCDOICCCJSCDOSFO CCICC CCS CC SA -ELCII CCYIWSUNIND 0 CCCinr 1 Arrlo CUED, CCCIACCC, CCCr ,CCCn e CC,l CaC aalCC CCCCEC 'CCd CECCEC CCC. CeCnr 0CC.u snapl rs orunr trnrlrn FECCiOea Diver -DreaD Day ECEDACiDD SaDDOUary FrepesaD - COADYRIC APSE BOUNDARY PINLEAIND PRESERDVAYON AREA - - - PROPDSED ACQUISITIOR AREAS UNDER ESTUARINE SANCRTARY PROGRAM sum SWAN BAY - BOO ISLAND ACQUISITON 27 Figure Z11 Phase II Acquisitio Bas River ?e CO nS B OCAST ZONE0 SCB 0,5 0dB O U N i yDol .ARY R SAN BAY OG In nnnlhSLIB SAND S ACUSISO E, nEACSICIOOEOOIUCBSBFCO28 2) o BASn A O I d S C AFnS 40, I.O0-IAIWO 605 A OsoE ica E er-Eret Ray ESo arino aRBBAAAA Proposa rOY; t Phs RORNY O ILN A CQEEsitEON 28 3. Acquisition and Funding a. Acquisition An alternative to the fee simple purchase of lands for the sanctuary is purchase in less than fee simple. Estuarine Sanctuary Program objectives may be achieved by obtaining "conservation," "restriction," or "development rights" easements, including provisions for research access, educational access, and public recreational access. The New Jersey Conservation Restric- tion and Historic Preservation Restriction Act of 1980 empowers the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection to purchase an interest in lands less than fee simple absolute, in order to retain "land or water areas predominantly in their natural, scenic, or open wooded condition, or for conservation of soil or wildlife, or for outdoor recreation or park use, or as a suitable habitat for fish or wildlife... ". Less than fee simple acquisition, such as easements, are preferred if they are cost effective and provide appropriate protection of the resource. Easements are a one-time purchase; with no subsequent annual payments. If the property were sold, the easement would encumber the land, unless the grantee (purchaser of the easement) unilaterally chose to sell the easement back to the property owner. Purchase of conservation easements would relieve the State of 100 percent of the municipal tax burden, but the State will still be required to pay taxes, on the 13 year declining scale required for those rights purchased. A property appraisal , title search, and property survey would be necessary for either an easement or fee simple purchase prior to closing. A sample easement document appears in Appendix 6. Preferred Acquisition Areas - In Priority Order: 1) Swan Bay and Hog Island - Shown in Figure 5 is the proposed boundary of the Swan Bay and Hog Island Phase I Acquisition Area. The acquisition of 2,065 acres is intended to join the existing 1,078 acres of Swan Bay State Fish and Wildlife Management Area into one contiguous land holding. The acquisition procedure requires using U.S. Department of Interior, Land and Water Conservation Funding in support of New Jersey Pinelands Acquisition and has federal Grant approval (34-00329). A full list of forest and wetlands communities are listed in Table 1. Municipality Number of Lots Ownership of Record Sporting Individuals Corporate Municipal Clubs Washington Township 51 33*-- *Multiple-.lot ownership 29 2) Wading River Area - Shown in Figure 6 is the proposed boundary .of the Phase I Acquisition Area. The proposed area is 4,819 acres, including 367 acres called Merrygold Estates; 3,705 acres are forested lands and 1,114 acres are coastal wetlands. These totals exclude the two active, farmed cranberry bogs of 88 acres, and other outlined private dwellings in holdings. Within this site fifteen wetlands communities and five pine barrens type forests are represented. The full list of forest and wetlands communities are listed in Table 1. The municipal tax maps and ownership records of Bass River Township were reviewed in order to obtain the approximate number of lots and individual , corporate, municipal , or sporting club owners of record within the proposed acquisition boundary (see below). The entire proposed acquisition area is within Bass River Township. Municipality Number of lots Ownership of Record Individuals Corporate Municipal Sporting Clubs Bass River Twp. 214 167 33 10 4 3) Mullica River Area - Figure 7 shows the proposed boundary of the Mullica River Phase II Acquisition Area. The proposed area is 5,392 acres in total. Of this approximately 3,821 acres are forested and 1,571 acres are coastal wetlands. Within this site eighteen coastal wetlands species communities, with many mixed species stands, are found, and the five characteristic Pinelands forest types are also represented. The full list of forest and wetlands species for the site are listed in Table 1. The municipal tax maps and ownership records of Galloway and Mullica Townships and the Cities of Egg Harbor and Port Republic were reviewed in order to obtain the approximate number of lots in individual, corporate, municipal, or sporting club ownership of record within the proposed acquisition boundary: Vegetative Diversity of Estuarine Sanctuary Acquisition Areas East Side West Side So. Shoreline East Side Wading River (Swan Bay) Mullica River Bass River Forest types Pine/Oak M VS M Oak/Pine VS S VS Hardwood L -L M White Cedar S -L VS Pitch Pine lowlands L L M Wetlands Communities A - Spartina alternifora (high vigor) (Salt marsh cord grass) X S VS L B - Spartina alterniflora (low vigor) (Salt marsh cord grass) S S VS X C - Spartina patens (Salt meadow grass) L X M X D - Distichlis spicata (Spike grass) S L S X E - Iva frutescens (Hightide bush) VS M F - Juncus gerardi (Black grass) VS VS Fresh/Brackish Wetlands Typha angustifolia (Cattail) S X X VS TABLE 1 2 Zizania aquatica (Wild rice) VS VS VS 3 Nuphar advena (Yellow water lily) 4 Peltandra virginica (Arrow arum) S S M 5 Phragmites communis (Common reed) S L M VS 6 Leersia oryzoides (Cut grass) 7 Pontedaria cordata (Pickerel weed) VS VS VS 8 Polygonum punctatum (Water smartweed) S 9 Hibiscus palustris (Marsh mallow) VS VS VS 10 Bare ground - - - 11 Echinochloa walteri (Water miller) 12 Spartina cynosuroides (Salt reed grass) M X X S 13 Scirpus americanus (American three square) S VS VS 14 Panicum virgatum (Switch grass) VS S 15 Scirpus olneyi (Olney's bulrush) L X X L 16 Bidens laevis (Bur marigold) 17 Carex spp. (S-edge) F S VS 18 Acorus dalamus (Sweetflag) VS VS VS 19 Impatiens biflora (Jewelweed, Touch-me-not) - 20 Polygonum arifolium (Tearthumb) - 21 Eleocharis spp (Spike-rush) - VS 22 Juncus spp. (Rush) S 23 Rosa spp. (Rose) VS VS = Very small vs = Very small The listing of species and wetland types comes from N.J. S = SmallDepartment of Environmental Protection Wetlands Maps (1971). S = Small Wetlands species occurrence were estimated from totals derived L = Large by counting the number of times each specie appeared listed within the alternative acquisition sites. From these totals a scale (based on area size comparisions visually estimated) was X = Extensive devised in order to rank the vegetative diversity within, and in relation to, each of the acquisition areas. M = Moderate Forest type occurrences were estimated in a similar manner with the size classification being a comparison of forest sizes, between each proposed acquisition area, in relation to each of the other acquisition areas. The information on forest types is based on McCormick and Jones (1973). The Pine Barrens Vegetation Geography and New Jersey Pinelands Commission Vegetation Maps (1980). 33 Sporting Muni ci pal ity No. of lots Individuals Corporate Municipal Clubs City of Port 21 17 4 -- Galloway Twp. 207 148 33 26- City of Egg 1700**** Harbor Mullica Twp. 28 27 1 -- * There are 1,700 separate tax items (lots) listed for lands of City of Egg Harbor within the proposed Acquisition Area. Due to the large number these were not categorized by ownership. Also, the City of Egg Harbor has assigned tax sale certificates for many properties within the municipality to the State of New Jersey, at no cost, due to nonpayment of property taxes by owners. This was done on a large scale, and covers virtually all properties within the proposed acquisition area. The State of New Jersey presently has a partial interest in those properti es. 4) Bass River Area - Shown in Figure 8 is the proposed boundary of the 5,472 acre Phase II Acquisition Area. Approximately 1,782 acres are forested uplands and 3,690 acres are coastal wetlands. Within this area are found ten coastal wetlands species communities, with many mixed-species associations, and four forest types characteristic of New Jersey Pinelands. The full list of forest and wetlands species for the area is in Table 1. The municipal tax maps and ownership records of Bass River and Little Egg Harbor Townships were reviewed in order to obtain the approximate number of lots in individual, corporate, municipal, or sporting club ownership of record within the proposed acquisition boundary: Municipality No. of lots Individual_ Corporate Municipal Sporting Clubs Bass River Twp. 194 161 27 6 Little Egg Harbor Twp. 11 2 8 1 34 Estimated costs for fee simple acquisition of the four areas proposed: Estimated Area Size/Acres Cost Acquisition Swan Bay 2,065 $ 490,000 Phase I Wading River 4,819 1,808,879 Phase I Mullica River 5,392 2,327,020 Phase II Bass River 5,472 1,082,948 Phase II Totals 17,748 $5,708,847 b. Funding Resources The following alternative acquisition funding sources have been considered. At the present time, none of these sources could provide the necessary funding for acquisition of the proposed sanctuary areas except in the Swan Bay area as noted below. - The National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 authorized $23 million for acquisition of critical lands within the New Jersey Pinelands National Ecological Reserve. Of that total, $11.2 million has been appropriated and $8.9 allocated by the U.S. Department of the Interior for acquisitions. $8.9 million has been obligated to other acquisition projects. This funding program is on a 75 percent Federal and 25 percent State matching basis and is not limited to estuarine lands. - The National Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578) is currently being utilized in the purchase of the Swan Bay Area. The 50 percent Federal matching funds have been authorized, but not yet awarded; however, no other funds are scheduled in the near term as an alternate acquisition funding source for the proposed estuarine sanctuary. - The Pittman-Robertson Act (P.L. 75-415) provides dedicated Federal funds derived through excise tax on hunting equipment sales and based on the number of hunting licenses purchased in each state. This 50 percent Federal wildlife lands acquisition program has been used in the purchase of the State Great Bay Fish and Wildlife Management Area. The present New Jersey allocation is obligated and is not of sufficient magnitude to implement the proposed estuarine sanctuary program. - The Dingell-Johnson Act (P.L. 81-681) provides dedicated Federal funding derived from excise tax on fishing tackle and is based on the sale of fishing licenses. This funding program is used for the acquisition of habitats important to fishery resources, and has been used in the purchase of the Great Bay Fish and Wildlife Management Area. This is an ongoing program which could be used to assist in the purchase of estuarine lands, but the present limited New Jersey allocation is obligated to fishery management programs. 35 - The National Endangered Species Act (P.L. 93-205) has been used in New Jersey for the purchase of the Highbee Beach-Pond Creek area in Cape May County. At present, no Federal funding is scheduled for areas within the proposed sanctuary boundaries. - A non-public agency alternative acquisition funding source would be the direct purchasing of lands followed by donation, by environmental organizations, charitable organizations, or the property owners. If these lands were donated to the State, they could serve as part of the necessary 50 percent State matching share. Although interest has been expressed by some environmental conservation organizations, no purchase actions to date have solidified. 4. Alternative Management Plans A management alternative considered, but rejected, was for the State to acquire the proposed estuarine sanctuary area through National Estuarine Sanctuary Program funding and then separate out forested areas and wetlands for administration under existing State programs without the appointment of a Sanctuary Advisory Committee or Sanctuary manager. Forest lands would be added to existing State forests managed by DEP's Division of Parks, Forestry and Green Acres under the provisions of N.J.S.A 13:8-20 et seq., acquisition of forested areas. Wetlands would be managed as a State-Ti--F-and Wildlife Management Area by DEP's Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife under authority of N.J.S.A. 23:1-1 et seq., which identifies administration of State Fish and Wildlife Management Tr-6as. This proposed management structure would offer protection to the affected areas similar to that intended by the National Estuarine Sanctuary Program; however, the Congressional intent for research and education in estuarine sanctuaries would not be explicit. Baseline measurement of the estuarine ecology by scientists and students over a period of time is not a specific goal of this management option. In addition, this option does not provide for a Sanctuary Advisory Committee and the resulting public involvement, would not include provisions for a Sanctuary Manager, and in general does not recognize the estuarine sanctuary as an estuarine system to be used for research and education purposes--a requirement of the National Estuarine Sanctuaries Program regulations. 5. No Action Alternative Under this alternative, lands adjacent to the Mullica River would not be acquired as an estuarine sanctaury. This alternative would leave the future of the Mullica River Area to be determined by private land owners, municipal planning programs and zoning ordinances,. DEP and the New Jersey Pinelands Commission acting within existing legislation. DEP administers the following laws which will directly affect land use in the proposed sanctuary area: 36 The Wetlands Act of 1970 (N.J.S.A. 13:9A et seq.) Coastal Area Facility Review Act (CAFRA) of 1973 (N.J.S.A. 13:19-1 et seq.) Waterfront Development Law of 1914 (N.J.S.A. 12:5-3) The substantive guidelines for the above laws are articulated in the Coastal Resource and Development Policies (N.J.A.C. 7:7E as amended). Under the laws and the Coastal Policies for these laws, DEP will allow virtually no development in delineated wetlands, and no major development elsewhere in the sanctuary area. Housing developments of 2 units or less, and County Mosquito Commission activities,are not regulated under CAFRA, and timber harvesting and wetland agriculture are not regulated under The Wetlands Act, however, and therefore are not regulated by DEP. The New Jersey Pinelands Protection Act of 1979 (N.J.S.A. 13:18A-1 et seq.) delineates a Pinelands Protection Area in which the Wading River, Swan Bay and Mullica River lie. The adopted Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan would generally prohibit development within 300 feet of coastal and freshwater wetlands. The Bass River area is not covered by this act. While Mosquito Commission activities are regulated under this law, timber harvesting is not. Although, the present State and Federal regulatory structure on wetlands is quite comprehensive and oriented toward ecological conservation. The State regulatory laws could change. Even if the enabling Coastal and Pinelands legislation were never repealed or amended, development upland of the wetlands not regulated by the State could adversely impact the sanctuary area. Also, State regulatory programs cannot mandate public access to the area for educational, research, and/or recreational purposes since the lands are privately owned. While researchers have noted very good cooperation with current landowners for research uses, certain owners have quite explicitly been opposed to public recreational uses on their properties. Long-term research projects could be stopped by a change in property ownership or attitude of the same owner. The only fail-safe mechanism to assure the permanent protection of this area, and its use for public research and education program is through direct public ownership and management. 37 PART III: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION Approval of this proposal by NOAA/OCZM would enable the State of New Jersey to purchase estuarine lands and wetlands and a sufficient upland buffer area in perpetuity to establish a National Estuarine Sanctuary representative of the Virginian Biogeographic Region. Combined with the other protected lands owned by the State, this proposed designation would have a variety of environmental and economic impacts. Creation of the estuarine sanctuary will support a long-term learning process for research and education regarding estuarine systems and dynamics, which could he applied to other Virginian type estuaries as well. The sanctuary would permanently protect natural resources and assure public access for long-term public usage. This will be a positive environmental impact. Such use will have little, if any, detrimental effects upon the environment, and will be of vital importance to the progressive development and implementation of rational coastal zone management to the local, regional and State levels. Establishment of the sanctuary will also help to assure permanent protection and public access to a very productive, relatively undisturbed estuarine area. Land acquisition will enhance preservation of water quality as well as marshes, wetlands, and a portion of the adjacent upl ands. The proposed sanctuary will permanently prevent irreversible damage to the environment that could cause the loss of wildlife, vegetation, fish, and other marine life. Sanctuary designation does not preclude all human activities within the sanctuary boundaries, but it would prevent those uses that cause significant degradation of the system, either through incremental or large scale destruction. The scientific research and educational benefits realized through use of the sanctuary will assist in this control and will provide for the enhancement of the economic and environ- mental resources of this and other State estuaries. 1. Local Impacts on Atlantic, Burlington, and Ocean Counties The proposed sanctuary will be located in a sparsely developed area. The sanctuary will realize the long term non-quantitative benefit by protecting and enhancing a desired objective; retention of the natural environment. Land acquisition for the proposed sanctuary will have several identifiable long-range effects, the net public impact which is assumed to be positive. 38 There will, however, be a loss of property tax revenues each year due to removal of taxable land from the municipalities' tax rolls. This loss is estimated to be low because of the high percentage of undeveloped lands, and the loss will be partially compensated by revenues which may be attributable partially to the operation of the sanctuary. In addition, new money will be injected into each county's economy as a result of land purchases from present owners residing in the county where purchases are made. No permanent residents will be displaced by the purchase of sanctuary land. In the long run the overall negative impact of purchasing sanctuary land will be minimal, since a majority of the lands are generally unsuitable for residential development or commercial use. Municipal Property Tax Loss (Part III A.2.d.) estimates the impact of the proposed action on each municipality. The net impact of the proposed sanctuary on renewable and non-renewable resources, is expected to be positive and beneficial to county residents and the general public. The economic benefits associated with the enhancement and maintenance of valuable fish, shellfish and wildlife resources are expected to far outweigh the negative impacts resulting from the loss of diversion of water rights, and prohibition on future timber harvesting and sand and gravel extraction within the sanctuary boundary. The sanctuary will provide a very small, though long term, stimulus to local employment. The existence of the sanctuary is expected to provide continued employment through its management and maintenance personnel requirements. In addition, the local service industry is projected to increase slightly once the sanctuary is established, operating, and publicized locally, regionally, and Statewide. Activities associated with the sanctuary will have a positive impact on the local economy. The research and education facilities already within the region include DEP's Nacote Creek Research Station, Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge, Rutgers University Marine Field Station, Little Egg Harbor, Stockton State College, and numerous public primary and secondary schools. These will continue to provide educational opportunities and benefits to professionals, students, the interested public, and future generations. Research and educational projects will provide a small but long term stimulus to the local economy. Additional State, Federal, and private sector funding for research activities could be available'once this area is permanently set aside for its stated purposes. 2. Regional Impacts on the Mullica River Drainage Basin The proposed sanctuary will place additional estuarine lands within the public domain, thus protecting downstream coastal marine resources which require these types of lands and waters as critical breeding, nursery feeding, and wintering areas. Protection of primary vegetative productivity areas which are the basis of estuarine and marine food chains will preserve the natural resource base of fin and shell fisheries. 39 3. State and Federal Impacts Acquisition and management of the sanctuary will have a relatively minor short-term impact on the Federal government. The State of Mew Jersey., however, will need to allocate Green Acres funds, which are authorized and available for acquisition of real property for public use purposes. In addition, the State will be responsible for funding the long-term operation of the sanctuary alone when 50 percent Federal operation/management grants expire after the first 5 years. These expenditures are expected to be offset by two nonquantifiable benefits: (1) improved scientific and technical knowledge to be applied toward producing workable management practices concerning the protection and utilization of estuarine resources here and in other estuarine and coastal zone areas throughout the State; and (2) coordination with the Pinelands National Reserve, under Federal Legislation, and New Jersey Pinelands Area, under State legislation, to establish a unique estuarine sanctuary. 4. Natural Environment a. Fish, Wildlife, and Vegetative Habitat Fin fish, shellfish, wildlife, and vegetation depend upon a biological system that provides feeding, nesting, and nursery areas for many species, both migratory and resident. The sanctuary will have a positive impact by preserving the highest quality ecosystems remaining in the New Jersey coastal zone. Potential and negative impacts on the sanctuary natural resources, caused by increased visitor use, will be controlled by careful management. b. Air Quality The proposed sanctuary area currently has relatively good air quality. The establishment of an estuarine sanctuary will have a positive impact by excluding development in the proposed sanctuary, although the area proposed for the sanctuary contains little land that could be developed, even under present regulations. There would not be a negative impact from the proposed sanctuary upon air quality standards outside the proposed boundaries. c. Water Quality The estuarine sanctuary will have a positive impact upon water quality since pollution will not occur on lands acquired for the proposed sanctuary. The sanctuary will also assist local and State agencies with developing water quality data collecting programs needed for effective deci sionmaki ng. 40 d. Mineral Reserves/Archaeological Sites Protection of the area will mean that mineral reserves in the area will not be fully utilized. Currently, however, the known resources of commercial quantity sand and gravel within the proposed sanctuary are not actively mined. Historic Indian "middens" and other historical sites will not be subject to development pressures and will be protected for future study. e. Agricultural Lands Establishment of an estuarine sanctuary will not result in the loss of any agricultural lands. Small agricultural lands adjacent to the sanctuary will provide a functional buffer from human activities and disturbances. However, the proposed sanctuary will not impose any land use or water quality requirements upon agricultural uses outside the proposed sanctuary boundaries. 5. Human Environment a. Residential/Industrial /Commercial The owners of land within the proposed boundaries will be affected by the acquisition of their property. All acquisition will be performed in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-646), which guarantees fair negotiations with property owners, including compensation for relocation expenses if residences or businesses are acquired. NOAA and the State are cognizant of the fact that certain property owners may have "roots" and be in accord with the environment of their land. All reasonable attempts will be made by the State to ensure that acquisition is as nondisruptive as possible to the property owner. Wherever possible, easement purchase, lease back program, life estate, etc. will be used to control sanctuary land and water areas for sanctuary purposes. b. Public Use Currently, public use of the system consists of fin and shellfishing, photography, boating, biological studies, nature study/birdwatching, clamming, and waterfowl hunting. These uses are compatible with the estuarine sanctuary and, with the exception of hunting, can be expected to increase in the future, thus providing positive public benefits. Hunting is not precluded by estuarine sanctuary designation, though it could be controlled in certain areas, such as those that contain nesting or loafing areas for rare or endangered species, or in ongoing research sites. The sanctuary would also have a positive impact upon public use activities by providing needed public lands and managed access sites for usage, thereby reducing trespassing on private property. 41 c. Scientific and Educational Use/Economic Factors The additional access sites and public lands will also have positive impacts upon the educational and scientific uses of the area. At the present time, the State University and one State marine laboratory use the area for educational and research work. Usage will modestly increase as a result of the publicly owned and managed estuarine sanctuary. An unquantified economic factor attributable to the area is the value of research and education to the local economy. For example, the additional students who would attend the colleges and universities, should an estuarine sanctuary be designated, will require lodging and general support facilities from regional merchants. If a multiplier effect of 3.0 is estimated (O'Connor and Sharna, 1976) for the value of educational services, the impact is substantial. For example, if 20 additional students attend Rutgers Marine Field Station and spend $5,000/year each, this would mean an additional $300,000 spent within the regional economy. The same type of analysis would also apply to the operation and management of the estuarine sanctuary. The State has the option of applying for $50,000 per year for a five-year period from OCZM/NOAA, matched by $50,000 each year from the State, to be used for operation and management of the estuarine sanctuary. This yearly management budget of $100,000, through the multiplier effect, can be estimated to provide up to $300,000 in additional income into the local economy. d. Municipal Property Tax Loss Establishment of the sanctuary will create a negative impact on municipal property tax base because of State acquisition of lands. An estimated or actual municipal tax impact appears, as noted, for each municipality in this section (See Table 2). The boundaries of the proposed acquisition areas boundaries appearing in Figures 5, 6, 7, and 8 were planimetered on USGS 7.5' Topographic Quandrangle Sheets, at a scale of 1:24,000, twice, and the average was taken. These means were multiplied by the standard conversion factor of 91.83 to yield acreage. Each municipality land area was divided into wetlands and forested land following USGS colored boundaries. Indentations of tidal creeks, intramarsh "potholes," mosquito ditches, and other intramarsh surface water features were not planimetered. It has been the experience of DEP that the saline coastal wetlands contain approximately 20 percent salt marsh cordgrass Spartina alterniflora (Type A) tall form (or high vigor) which is generally a characteristic indication of twice daily tidal flooding. Lands now or formerly flowed by the mean high tide are tidelands (riparian) and are owned by the State of New Jersey and held in the public trust. Therefore, all planimeter acreages of all wetlands types were multiplied by a factor of .20 and that fraction subtracted from the total planimetered wetlands acreage measurement. This was done to provide a reasonable estimate of privately owned wetlands in the absence of adopted claims maps delineating the extent of State-owned tidelands. NJ DEP is in the process of delineating the State-owned riparian lands. 42 TABLE 2 MUNICIPAL TAX LOSS Wading Swan Bay River Mullica River Bass River City of Washington Bass River Port Galloway City of Muilica Bass River Little Egg Township Township Republic Township Egg Harbor Township Township Harbor Twp. Acres of Proposed 2,065 4,819 3,821 Total 5,472 Total Acquisition Area Total Municipal 68,480 50,560 5,210 59,072 7,168 34,560 50,560 31,065 Land Area in Acres Acres of Proposed 2,065 4,819 389 2,266 1,924 813 3,671 1,801 Acquisition Area Within Municipality %-age of Proposed 3.2% 9.5% 7.5% 3.8% 26.8% 2.4% 7.3% 5.8% Acquisition Area to Total Municipal Area Area Includes: Wetlands (AC) 1,900 1,114 185 841 545 -- 2,095 1,595 Assessed Value * $55,655 * $90,920 $270,363 $104,622 $55,391 Forested Lands (AC) 165 3,705 204 1,425 1,379 813 1,576 206 Assessed Value * $1,651,022 * $868,053 $840,031 * $702,297 $110,232 Total Assessed Value $252,807 $1,706,677 $59,600 $958,973 $1,110,395 $92,600 $806,963 $165,624 of Lands in Proposed Acquisition Areas 1980 Municipal Tax $35.90 $32.00 $43.30 $31.70 $29.30 $37.70 $32.00 $41.00 Rate per $1,000 Assessed Value Potential Property Tax $7,042 $54,612 $2,555 $30,399 $32,534 $3,491 $25,822 $6,790 Loss to Municipality * Due to limited number of lots within the proposed boundaries, Total Assessed Value of lands within the proposed acquisition area in the municipality was not calculated. Rather, listed assessed values appearing in the Real Estate Atlas of Atlantic County, Thirteenth Edition (1980) by Real Estate Data, Inc. were totaled directly. Since improved lands are located outside the proposed sanctuary boundaries, all improved lands listed were omitted from this total. 43 e. Mitigation of Municipal Property Tax Losses The New Jersey Green Acres and Recreation Opportunities Bond Act of 1974 (N.J.S.A. 13:8A-1 et seq.) provides the State of New Jersey shall pay annually to each municipality property taxes for a period of 13 years following such acquisition on a declining scale as listed below: Percentage of Taxes Year Paid By State 100 2 92 3 84 4 76 5 68 6 60 7 52 8 44 9 36 10 28 11 20 12 12 13 4 14 0 In conclusion, the proposed action will result in the loss of local property tax income to the affected municipality(ies), however, this effect will not be immediate, due to the above referenced act which will provide a thirteen-year period for adjustment to this loss of revenues. B. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTALOR SOCIOECONOMIC EFFECTS There are no unavoidable adverse environmental effects from the proposed sanctuary designation. Unavoidable socioeconomic effects would include the potential loss to municipalities of tax revenues (up to $61,656 under Phase I and an additional maximum loss of $101,346 under Phase II) through public acquisition and lost opportunities for agricultural, residential, or commercial development. C. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENAI¢E AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG TERM-PODUCTITTY While designation of the proposed estuarine sanctuary will restrict local short term uses of the environment, it will also provide long term assurance that natural resources and benefits of the area will be avail- able for future use and enjoyment. Without this additional control, the conflicts between estuarine users could be expected to increase in intensity if implementation or enforcement of current State Coastal Management and Pineland Management laws, programs, and policies are inadequately funded or monitored to accomplish proper environmental conservation. 44 Establishment of this proposed sanctuary would also preserve habitat for those species officially classified by the Department of the Interior and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration as endangered, i.e., Bald Eagle (Halia Betus Leucocephalus), Peregrine Falcon (Falco Peregrinus). For complete lists of State- designated endangered species, refer to Appendix 4. Establishment of an estuarine sanctuary at this location will provide additional protection and coordination with adjacent wildlife refuges, State forests, municipal protected lands, and the public open space of Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge, Penn State Forest, Wharton State Forest, Bass River State Forest, and Absecon, Great Bay, Port Republic, and Swan Bay Fish and Wildlife Management Areas. The proposed estuarine sanctuary and the other public lands would be an assurance of permanent conservation and preservation of the estuary and could enhance values and benefits associated with the open space. Research information derived from the estuarine sanctuary over the long term will provide a basis for public education and use of estuarine resources; knowledge which can be applied to establishing and managing sanctuary areas other than the Mullica River estuary. A positive economic impact of sanctuary designation is the potential for coordinated long-tern systematic research activities. Potentially beneficial or desirable economic impacts include the long term economic impact of preserving aesthetic and scientific values of the Mul lica River drainage basin and Federal matching funds for management of the estuarine sanctuary. In addition, the local research and education facilities including DEP's Nacote Creek Research Station, Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge, Rutgers University Marine Field Station, Stockton State College, Center for Environmental Studies and Atlantic County College would be encouraged to apply for various field research grants or public education grants, which could increase research and educational use of the area. The proposed sanctuary will increase the public control of this natural estuarine system, thus directly contributing to the long term maintenance of this environment and its economic benefits. In addition, the estuary will serve as a refuge for part of the living resources of the Virginia n province requiring this type of habitat for survival. (See Part IV, Affected Environment.) Furthermore, since a significant portion of economic activities in these counties is a direct product of the estuarine environment (e.g., fishing and shellfishing, recreational and commercial, boating, sailing, marinas and boat sales and services, and waterfront housing services) the sanctuary will help ensure the maintenance and enhancement of long term economic benefits, as well as ecological productivity. 45 It is important to point out that some of the potentially negative impacts are mutually exclusive. For example, mineral extraction and commercial clamming could not occur at the same time, for one use would preclude the other as effectively as sanctuary designation would. For this reason, the negative impacts are not additive. In contrast, the positive impacts are compatible and not mutually exclusive, and would all accrue if the sanctuary were designated. D. IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES Sanctuary designation is intended to irreversibly commit estuarine resources in the sanctuary to the purposes of preservation and scientific study. The biological resources would be available for alternative use by such activities as commercial fishing, shellfishing, or silvaculture if these do not interfere with sanctuary goals. Similarly, development of other non-biological resources which would interfere with sanctuary goals, such as the mining of mineral deposits, would be prohibited and any such resources can be considered irreversibly committed. E. POSSIBLE CONFLICTS BETWEEN THE PROPOSED ACTION AND THE OBJECTIVES OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS, STATE AND LOCAL LAND USE PLANS, POLICIES, AND CONTROL FOR THE AREA CONCERNED. There are a number of State and Federal Environmental management programs which incorporate a portion of the Mullica River drainage basin's privately owned lands. All of the regulations and/or policies identified herein are consistent with the proposed establishment and committed use of the Mullica River Sanctuary. The Coastal Area Facility Review Act (CAFRA), the Wetlands Act and the Waterfront Development Permit Law are the main regulatory tools for implemen- tation of the now Federally-approved New Jersey Coastal Management Program (NJCMP, August 1980) which fully articulates State policies for coastal permit decisions. The NJCMP has established a series of Rules on Coastal Resource and Development Policies (N.J.A.C. 7:7E-1.1) which describe performance standards to which proposed developments must comply. Location Use and Resource Policies have been adopted and are used within the coastal permit decisionmaking process. The NJCMP, DEP has designated the northwestern portion of the coastal area within Bass River Township (Mullica River's northern shoreline) as a Limited Growth Area where "...the concern is conservation of the natural environment. The spread of development must, therefore, he highly restricted." In addition, crude oil pipelines are prohibited within the central Pine Barrens region defined as a "critical area" for sewerage purposes under N.J.A.C. 7:9-10.1(b). Natural gas pipelines are also discouraged in the area. 46 1. State Programs and Enabling Legislation a. New Jersey Wetlands Act of 1970 (N.J.S.A. 13:9A-1 and N.J.A.C. 7:7A-1.1 et seq.) This law established a regulatory program for uses of coastal wetlands, defined as "low land subject to tidal action. . . upon which may grow or is capable of growing some" of the 19 named salt, brackish and freshwater wetlands plant species. The law is administered by DEP's Division of Coastal Resources. . This law resulted in a drastic reduction in the previous rate of wetlands destruction. Production of 914 wetlands maps delineating State regulated wetlands and regulated uses include: draining; dredging; excavation of soil, mud, sand and gravel; dumping; erection of structures; and similar activities. Activities not covered include commercial production of salt hay or other agricultural crops, and activities conducted by the counties' Mosquito Control Commissions and the Tidelands Resource Council (a State decision-making body for riparian grants, leases and licenses). Tidal wetlands were formerly being destroyed at an average rate of 1,500 acres per year. Since implementation of this law, an average of only 55 acres have been lost each year, and only for clearly water-dependent uses. In 1979 and 1980 development was permitted on less than one acre of regulated wetl ands. b. Coastal Area Facility Review Act of 1973 (CAFRA) (N.J.S.A. 13:19-1, N.J.A.C. 7:7D-2.0 and 2.6(a)(4)) This law established a State planning and regulatory program for major facilities within a specifically defined coastal area. Facilities are defined as housing developments of 25 units or greater, most industrial operations, utilities, public infrastructure, etc. No regulated facility can be constructed in the coastal area prior to receipt of a CAFRA permit, with mandatory EIS submission, DEP review, and public hearing. c. Waterfront Development Law_(_N.J.S.A. 12:5-3, NJAC 7:7.2.1 et seq.) The Waterfront Development Law authorizes DEP to regulate the construction or alteration of docks, wharves, piers, bulkheads, bridges, pipelines, cables or other "similar or dissimilar development" on or adjacent to navigable waterways and streams throughout the State. In the coastal area defined by CAFRA which includes the area in and near the proposed sanctuary, the law applies to development proposed only in water areas. d. Tidelands Management In New Jersey, "tide-flowed" or riparian lands are owned by the State of New Jersey, except where already conveyed. These are lands now or formerly flowed by the mean high tide, including filled lands. The State owns the 47 lands as trustee for the public, and must administer their use in the public interest. The State exercises control over the tidelands in two ways; through its proprietary role as owner, a-nd through its regulatory role under the Waterfront Development Law. The State's ownership interest extends to the mean high water mark, which is determined on the basis of a theoretical 18.6 year tide. The State's ownership role is exercised through the Tidelands Resource Council, which may grant, lease, or license the use of State-owned tidelands provided such action is in the public interest. Persons seeking to purchase, lease or otherwise use these lands must first obtain the Council's approval. A great deal of the State's tidelands were sold (granted) in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, but it is the present practice of the Council to only issue licenses for use of the land, and not to convey them outright. The Council, which is composed of twelve citizens appointed by the Governor with the advice and consent of the New Jersey State Senate, has broad discretion concerning applications for tidelands conveyances. The Council may make any decision it believes to be in the public interest. In keeping with traditional riparian law, the owners of land immediately upland have the first right to purchase or use tidelands. But before any person may make use of tidelands, the Council requires that they obtain a Waterfront Development Permit. Since the permit may only be granted if the activity is consistent with the Coastal Resource and Development Policies this requirement ensures that the use of tidelands will conform with those pol ici es. e. New Jersey Pinelands Protection Act of 1979 (NJPPA)(P.L. 1979, CH. III; N.J.S.A. 13:8A-1 et seq.) The Pinelands Protection Act established a framework for the comprehensive planning and regulation of development in the approximately 1,000,000 acres of fragile, highly valued pinelands that reach across central and southern New Jersey. The proposed estuarine sanctuary is located within this area. The Act is intended to accomplish the purposes of the National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-625), which authorized Federal support for Pinelands protection through planning and land acquisition. The Federal Act directs the Department of the Interior to provide up to $3 million in planning assistance if requested by the Governor, and up to $26 million in implementation funds following submission of an acceptable master plan. This plan was approved by the U.S. Secretary of Interior in January 1981. Both the planning process and a moratorium on State permit approvals and financial assistance were initiated by a Governor's Executive Order (No. 71) in March, 1979. The Pinelands Protection Act was subsequently passed and signed into law on June 28, 1979. 48 The Act establishes the following policy goals for the Pinelands: 1. For the entire pinelands area, to protect, preserve and enhance the significant values of the resources thereof in a manner which is consistent with the purposes and provisions of this act and the Federal Act. 2. For the protection area: (a) Preserve and maintain the essential character of the existing pinelands environment, including the plant and animal species indigenous thereto and the habitat therefore; (b) Protect and maintain the quality of surface and ground waters; (c) Promote the continuation and expansion of agricultural and horticul tural uses; (d) Discourage piecemeal and scattered development; and (e) Encourage appropriate patterns of compatible residential, commercial and industrial development, in or adjacent to areas already utilized for such purposes, in order to accommodate regional growth influences in an orderly way while protecting the pinelands environment from the individual and cumulative adverse impacts thereof. 3. For the preservation area to: (a) Preserve an extensive and contiguous area of land in its natural state, thereby insuring the continuation of a pinelands environment which contains the unique and significant ecological and other resources representative of the pinelands area; (b) Promote compatible agricultural, horticultural and recreation uses, including hunting, fishing and trapping, within the framework of maintaining a pinelands environment; (c) Prohibit any construction or development which is incompatible with the preservation of this unique area; (d) Provide a sufficient amount of undeveloped land to accommodate specific wilderness management practices, such as selective buring, which are necessary to maintain the special ecology of the preservation area; and (e) Protect and preserve the quantity and quality of existing surface and ground waters. The Act created a 15-member Pinelands Commission in, but independent of, DEP. 49 Within one year of the plan's adoption, every county and municipality located in whole or in part in the Protection Area must submit to the Commission a master plan and/or zoning ordinance which complies with the adopted policies. Also following adoption, state regulatory and capital spending decisions in the area must comply with the policies (established). The Pinelands National Reserve overlaps with the coastal zone in portions of Ocean, Burlington, & Atlantic Counties, and in the Mullica River watershed there is also overlap between the coastal zone and the Pinelands Area under the jurisdiction of the State Pinelands Act. In this latter area, coastal permits and approval from the Pinelands Commission are both required for new development. This area is designated a part of the Preservation Area by the Pinelands Protection Act and a Limited Growth Region by the Coastal Resource and Development Policies, indicating a consistency of the policies. In the area of overlap between the coastal zone and the National Reserve which is not under the jurisdiction of the Pinelands Protection Act, the Coastal Management Program is the principal means of implementing the Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan. f. DEP Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife This Division has previously acquired four Fish and Wildlife Management Areas within the basin's salt marshes, tidal wetlands, and uplands. They are: Great Bay (3,789 acres)I Swan Bay (1,078 acres)*I Port Republic ( 755 acres)I Absecon Wetlands (1,313 acres) I*Additional lands in the process of being acquiredI Iby DEP as part of the Pinelands Commission's CMP.I The location of these areas and other public lands is depicted in Figure 1. g. DEP Division of Parks and Forestry This Division manages the most extensive public lands holdings within the Mullica River drainage basin. These include: IWharton State Forest (99,671.8 acres) I IPenn State Forest ( 3,266.0 acres) I IBass River State Forest ( 9,100.1 acres) I 50 h. Green Acres and Recreation Program (N.J.S.A. 13:lB-15.12(a) et seq.) Natural areas designated under the Natural Areas Systems Act of 1976 are State lands defined as "an area of land or water which has retained its natural character, although not necessarily completely undisturbed or having rare or vanishing species of plant and animal life or similar features of interest which are worthy of preservation for the use of present and future residents of the State." Areas designated to date within the Mullica River drainage basin include: Batsto (350 acres)* Oswego River (Martha's Bog) (200 acres)* Absegami Trail (100 acres)* North Brigantine Island Natural Area (678 acres)t *Portions of existing State Forests tSeparate State lands acquisition. The Green Acres program determines where and how State funds should be spent for open space acquisition, development, and maintenance. DEP's Office of Pinelands Acquisition, coordinates all acquisition under the Pinelands protection programs. Green Acres also administers the Wild and Scenic Rivers System under the New Jersey Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1977 (N.J.S.A. 13:8-45 et seq.). The Lower Atison Branch of the Mullica River has been proposed for inclusion in this system. The State Heritage Program, administered by Green Acres, has selected the Mullica River drainage basin to conduct a review of cultural resources. i. DEP Division of Water Resources This Division has authority for planning and regulating water supplies,, quality and treatment, and floodplain use, throughout the State. The Division administers the New Jersey Realty Improvement Sewerage and Facilities Act (N.J.S.A. 58:11-44 et seq.). The law requires that no building permits be issued within the Mullica River drainage basin, along with other additional Pinelands watersheds, as shown in Figure 6, which have been designated as Critical Areas defined in N.J.A.C. 7:9-10.1(b). 51 j., Department of Community Affairs The State Development Guide Plan (Revised Draft of February 1980) has proposed that limited lands outside the New Jersey Pinelands Protection or Preservation Area (classified Conservation Areas) within the Mullica River watershed be "Limited Growth Areas." For these lands, "...it is neither desirable nor feasible to prohibit development... New growth ... would require major public investments in services and facilities ... Accordingly, Limited Growth Areas should be left to grow at their own moderate pace... areas which do not now appear to be necessary to accommodate projected popula- tion increases may become critically important resources for the New Jerseyans of the 21st Century." Conservation areas are "areas of State- wide significance. They are too large or too expensive to be acquired and managed by local or county governments, yet they contain resources and recreational opportunities which should be enjoyed by present and future generations." 53 PART IV: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The New Jersey Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan (New Jersey Pinelands Commission, November 1980) was extensively used in writing the following section, and much of the text is adapted from that source and Kantor 1980. A. General Physiography The proposed sanctuary site is located in the Mullica River estuary, New Jersey's largest and least developed coastal estuarine system. The site includes parts of Atlantic, Burlington and Ocean Counties and is within the Mullica River Drainage Basin, which forms the heart of the million-acre New Jersey Pinelands, the Nation's first National Reserve. The proposed sanctuary site includes nearly pristine tidal marshes and forested uplands. The area supports diverse marine, estuarine, and terrestrial biological communities, including endangered species. Three factors contribute to the essential character of the Mullica River. First, there are the physical features of the landscape, including relief, soils, and hydrology. Second, there are living organisms, the plants and animals the Mullica area supports. And third, there are ecosystem processes, the dynamic interrelationships among and between the living organisms and their particular habitat elements which have evolved over thousands of years. Outside influences, both natural and human-caused, may alter these factors. In this section of the EIS, the significant natural and man-' made influences that determine the nature of the Mullica River area are identified. B. Geology The processes of deposition, sea level change, erosion and land uplift in the past have had a significant influence on today's Mullica River landscape and ecosystem. The Mullica River is located in the Atlantic Coastal Plain geologic formation, created over the last 170-200 million years by depositional and erosional processes. The Atlantic Coastal Plain is characterized by gently rolling terrain, with sandy, droughty soils and no rock outcrops, steep slopes, or mountain peaks. In general, it is comprised of a wedge-'shaped series of unconsolidated layers of sands, clays and marls on a gently southeastward dipping bedrock (80 to 100 feet per mile) which is 1,300 to 6,000 feet below the surface. These layers extend seaward into the submerged Continental Shelf. 54 The lowest geological beds originate from continental deposits (Lower Cretaceous Age). These are overlain by deposits of both continental and marine origin (Upper Cretaceous Age) dating from 65-136 million years before present (MYBP). Specific formations within this group are, oldest to youngest, the Hornerstown Sand, Vincentown and Manasquan Formations, Kirkwood Formation, Cohansey Sand, and Beacon Hill Gravel. Overlying the Tertiary deposits are those which were laid down during the Pleistocene (Wisconsin) glaciation (1.8 MYBP) and the Holocene period (0.01 MYBP). The Cape May Formation deposited during this time extends from sea level to 30 to 50 feet above sea level and is considered to be of marine origin. The Holocene, alluvial and eolian in origin, appear to be a redeposition of the older deposits. The Kirkwood Formation, the Cohansey Sand and the Quaternary Deposits are the most important geologic formations of the Mullica River drainage basin, and are described below. Kirkwood Formation The Kirkwood Formation is overlain by the Cohansey Sand. The irregular surface of the Kirkwood ranges from over 100 feet above sea level in its outcrop area to over 300 feet below sea level along the eastern edge of the Cape May Peninsula. The formation is between 50 and 100 feet thick in its outcrop and thickens to over 800 feet in the Atlantic City area. The Kirkwood has variable lithology both along its outcrop and downdip. The outcrop consists of a lower component that is a very fine, dark, micaceous sand with a pebbly glauconitic basal layer two to four feet thick, and an upper component of silt and clay. Under the coast in Cape May County, five distinct members have been recognized in the Kirkwood. These are, oldest to youngest: a tough, brown basal clay; the lower aquifer, a grey, medium-to-coarse sand (Atlantic City 800-foot sand); a blue, silty diatomaceous clay; the upper aquifer, a medium-to-coarse sand (Rio Grande Zone); and a blue diatomaceous clay. The lithology of the formation along the downdip appears to remain fairly consistent, with the sand component generally varying between 50 and 100 feet. Cohansey Sand The 2,350 square mile Cohansey overlies the Kirkwood Formation, southeast of the Kirkwood outcrop. The occurrence of outliers within the Kirkwood outcrop indicates that the Cohansey was more extensive at one time. It either outcrops at the surface or is overlain by a veneer of Pleistocene deposits, thin except in Cape May County and along the eastern coast, where these deposits may have a thickness of 200 feet. The combined thickness of the Cohansey and overlying Pleistocene deposits ranges from less than 20 feet to more than 200 feet. 55 The 'Cohansey Sand typically consists of fine to coarse grained quartzose sand with lenses of gravel that are usually one foot thick or less. In most areas, overall clay content is less than 20 percent. Lenses of white, yellow, red and light grey clay occur generally in the upper part of the formation and may be as much as 25 feet thick. The sand is predominantly yellow (limonite staining), but shades of white, red, brown, and grey also occur. Parallel bedding and cross- stratification are present in the sand. Quaternary Deposits These deposits form a discontinuous veneer lying above the Cohansey throughout much of the Pinelands. They are, from oldest to youngest, the Bridgeton, Pennsauken and Cape May Formations. The Bridgeton and Pennsauken deposits are generally derived from erosion and redisposition of the Cohansey Sand and Beacon Hill Gravel. They cap the tops and mantle the upper slopes of most of the pronounced hillIs and narrow ridges, and can be as much as 20 feet thick. The Cape May Formation in Cape May County contains four lithologic components deposited in three environments - estuarine, marine and deltaic. Elsewhere, the thickness of this formation is 85 feet near Batsto, 112 feet at Sweetwater, and 229 feet at Atlantic City. The most important hydrologic function of the Cape May deposits is their ability to absorb precipitation and transmit water to underlying aquifers. Because hydraulic continuity with the underlying Cohansey is excellent, they can be considered a part of the Cohansey Sand -Upper Kirkwood aquifer system, although this has been debated. The particular characteristics of the Pinelands geology -low relief with sandy, droughty soil, underlain with a number of water-bearing sand layers alternating with confining clay layers - give rise to a unique and fragile surface and groundwater system. In essence, precipitation is rapidly absorbed by the droughty sand, percolates through the soil to the relatively shallow water table, and in turn supports the region's stream flow as groundwater seepage. The following section discusses the hydrogeologic characteristics of the strata underlying the Pinelands, the existing groundwater quality, and sources of degradation. 56 C. Hydrology The most important abiotic element of the Pinelands ecosystem is water. Water is stored in the extensive sand aquifers below the surface. This ground water supports 89 percent of the flow in the Pinelands. streams, discharging primarily through the swamps and marshes. It is replenished solely by precipitation, 44 percent of which percolates through the sandy soil surface. Although highly permeable, the uppermost soil tends to be chemically inert with a low adsorbtive capacity. It is therefore incapable of filtering out wastes. In addition, the waters are susceptible to various forms of pollution because they are weakly buffered against chemical change. Groundwater contamination in the Pinelands is a significant threat. The proposed sanctuary site is within the Mullica River Drainage Basin, which includes seven sub-basins. Streams in the proposed sanctuary area have a characteristic and typical composition which is as important to the maintenance of the ecosystem as are the water flows and the groundwater levels. The typical, high-quality Pinelands stream is slow-moving, brown but clear, has a sandy substrate, and is overhung by dense vegetation. The water is soft and the pH is low. It generally has a high level of dissolved humic matter, especially in the summer months, and may have fluctuating oxygen levels due to bog and swamp drainage and organic demands. There are low levels of nutrients and suspended and dissolved solids, and such streams can be classified as dystrophic. Mullica River Drai nagje-Basi-n The Bass River sub- basin is relatively undeveloped and contains large State land holdings. The water quality index value of slightly disturbed at the East Branch station is probably conservative. The suspended solids 90th-percentile concentration was only 0.5 mg/l higher than the 12.5 mg/l cutoff point. The slightly elevated solids load could be attributable to activities at the State recreation area immediately upstream from the samplin7 station. The headwaters of the East Branch, West Branch, and Barlett s Branch of Bass River are not within current public land holdings. The Wading River sub-basin has minimal developed land. However, it is used extensively for cranberry and blueberry production. Water quality levels on the West Branch of the Wading River and the East Branch (Oswego River) are slightly disturbed. The elevated suspended solids and fecal coliform levels are probably due to localized problems. It is most important that the water quality of the Wading River and its tributaries be maintained as high as possible. Tributaries in the upper watershed which lie outside of State-owned lands are most critical. These headwater streams include Yellow Dam Branch, Plains Branch, Beaver Branch, Ives Branch, Pole Branch, Probst Branch, Goose Pond, and sections of the West Branch around Chatsworth. 57 Water quality within the Batsto River sub-basin is good to slightly disturbed. An analysis of the fecal coliform/fecal streptococcus level shows that the bacterial contamination could be caused by human waste and/or livestock and poultry waste. The latter category includes wild game. High total dissolved solids levels in Springers Brook could be due to the surrounding agricultural practices. High pH and alkalinity concentrations indicate the use of lime or septic systems contamination. The Batsto River increases in quality downstream. Good quality is found at the station at Batsto due to cleansing action as the river passes through bogs and swamps. The headwaters areas of Springers Brook, Indian Mills Brook, and the Batsto River are not currently protected. These areas are particularly vulnerable to development pressure from the Medford Lakes region. The Batsto River is a major tributary of the Mullica River. Water quality in the Atsion-Mechesactauxin sub-basin is quite variable. The most disturbed water quality on the Wildcat Branch is probably due to the industrial point source, urban development, and surrounding agricul- tural land. This station provides a good illustration of the fragile character of headwater areas. The normal low flows of the small streams are not adequate to assimilate the waste. Water quality at all other stations is rated either good or slightly disturbed due to elevated suspended solids loads. These loads could be due to natural conditions. This sub-basin probably has the greatest potential within the Mullica River system for being impacted by development. The small, upper streams which are not within the Wharton tract are very close to the developing centers of Berlin and Atco. Because there is only one water quality station at the base of the Nescochague Creek sub-basin, it is impossible to evaluate any upstream water quality impact. Water quality at that station in Pleasant Mills is slightly disturbed due to suspended solids concentrations; probably caused by natural conditions. The Nescochague sub-basin is divided by Route 30 running from Philadelphia through Hammonton. Development pressure is high. Management of the headwater areas is critical to water quality in the Mullica River. The Hammonton Creek sub-basin has poor to very poor water quality because of point sources, urban runoff, and agricultural practices. Based on the water quality index and pH values, Hammonton Creek has the worst water quality in the whole Pinelands area. The high nutrient loads can adversely impact Nescochague Lake, the Mullica River, and finally Great Bay. The high pH values will alter the acid water-dependent Pinelands aquatic communities. Improvements of water quality would require controls on all sources of contamination. The Mullica River drains a significant portion of the Pinelands National Reserve. The sub-basin encompassing its lower main stem is affected by drainage from the upper tributaries and by the tidal influence of Great Bay. Due to lack of data, the impact of direct drainage to this section of the Mullica could not be determined. 58 The Atlantic County portion of the sub- basin is more threatened than the Burlington County portion because it has more land area, more develop- ment and more agricultural land. Within the total Mullica River Basin, the Lower Mullica is not as vulnerable as the upper watersheds because its capacity to assimilate pollutants is greater. If the upper reaches are altered by development and agricultural practices, the entire river and estuarine system will feel the impacts. D. Biological Resources 1. Vegetation Differences in groundwater levels result in two distinct floristic complexes, the uplands and the lowlands (McCormick, 1979; Robichaud and Buell, 1973). Lowlands are found on sites where water is near or above the surface during some part of the year. The upland complex occurs in the remaining area. The water level of sites occupied by this complex is seldom nearer to the surface than 2 to 3 feet and may be as deep as 60 to 70 feet (McCormick, 1979). This contrast in moisture conditions between the upland and lowland sites is probably intensified by the highly permeable, sandy soils. In the subdued topography of the Atlantic Coastal Plain, however, the boundaries between these complexes are often not sharply defined. Subtle differences in topography result in a rich mosaic of different vegetative types. Upland Complex Vegetation The uplands support two major vegetation types or associations, pine-soak forests and oak-pine forests. Fire plays an important role in determining the composition of these upland forests. Differences in resistance to fire damage, shade tolerance, and reproductive strategies are responsible for the selective action of fire on the different plant species. Following a fire, oaks and pines have the ability to resprout from dormant buds which lie protected beneath the soil surface and from along their trunks. This ability varies among the oaks and pines. Oaks are less resistant to both wounding and killing by fire than pitch or shortleaf pine (Pinus rigida; P. echinata) (Little, 1946; Little and Moore, 1945). Shrub oaks, blackjack and bear oak (Quercus marilandica, Q. ilicifolia), are more fire adapted than the tree oaks such as white and black oak (Q. alba., Q. velutina). They exhibit a greater capacity to sprout and produce acorns on much younger sprouts following a fire. Pitch pine is more resistant to fire damage and retains its basal sprouting over a long period of time than shortleaf pine. Fire also results in the removal of the thick mat of litter covering the forest floor. This provides a more suitable seedbed for pines which, unlike oaks, require mineral soil or a thin layer of litter and minimal shading for the establishment of seedlings. The overall effect of fire favors pine over oak. In the absence of fire or other severe disturbances such as land clearing, pitch pine and shortleaf pine would be replaced by oaks and other hardwoods. If this occurred, the character and composition of the forest would be substantially modified. 59 Pitch pine is the dominant tree of the upland pine-oak forest of the Pinelands. This species is commonly associated with blackjack oak, black oak, chestnut oak (Quercus prinus), white oak scarlet oak (Q. coccinea), and post oak (Q. stellata), as well as southern red oak (Q. falcata) in the southern portion of the Pinelands. A large part of the regionis covered with pine-blackjack oak, a vegetation type which characterizes the selective action of frequent, severe fire (McCormick, 1979). Pine- post oak and pine-black oak associations also occur in the region but are scattered and may be limited in size. Common understory include the shrub-form scrub oak, lowbush blueberry (Vaccinium vacillam) and black huckleberry (Gaylussacia bacata). Lowland Complex Vegetation Lowland forests include: Atlantic white cedar swamps, pitch pine lowlands, bogs, and inland and coastal marshes. The lowland forests in the region are composed manly of Atlantic white cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides), trident red maple (Acer rubrum), black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), and pitch pine, Gray birch (Betula populifolia), sassafras (Sassafras albidum), and sweetbay magnolia (Magnolia virginland) are often present. Other lowland associations, primarily in the regions periphery, may contain sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), pin oak (Quercus palustris), willow oak (Q. phellos), basket oak (Q. michauxii), and water oak (Q. nigra). Both natural and manmade bogs are found throughout the region. Many abandoned bogs have been colonized by grasses (Gramineae) and sedges (Carex spp.) forming inland marshes. Similar freshwater marshes are also found along Pinelands streams. Extensive tidal marshes are found along the coastal Pinelands borders. The cedar swamps are characterized by dense, even-aged stands of narrow-crowned Atlantic white cedar. While cedar predominates in the canopy, pitch pine is often present as well. Trident red maple, blackgum, and sweetbay are also common in the understory. Dangleberry (Gaylussacia frandosa), highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum), swamp azalea (Rhododendron viscosum), fetterbush (Leucothoe racemosa), sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia), and bayberry (Myrica pennsylvania) are likely to occur in the shrub layer. Hardwoods and shrubs are far more numerous and can form a dense layer at the edges of stands or under stands that have been partially cut or are declining. While herbaceous growth is rarely very dense, there is a wide variety of species present in areas where there are conopy openings. These commonly include pitcher plant (Sarracenia purpurea), sundew (Drosera spp.), and chain fern (Woodwardia virginica). A rich carpet of mosses (Sphagnum spp). covers the ground. Ceder swamps are found in narrow bands running along many of the smaller stream courses and in larger configurations in the broader valleys. Fires rarely begin or spread in the wet and poorly drained cedar swamps. Unless a fire is driven by a strong wind, or drought conditions exist, these lowlands usually act as fire breaks. Atlantic white cedars are extremely susceptible to fire injury because of their thin bark and flammable foliage, and they do not sprout after stems are killed by fire. Subsequent reproduction depends on the depth to which the organic soil has been burned, the nature of the previous stand, and the extent of browsing by deer. While the combined effect of fire and cutting has 60 frequently reduced the area in white cedar and favored hardwoods, proper use of both favors cedar (Little, 1950). The canopy of hardwood swamps is predominantly trident red maple, commonly associated with blackgum and sweetbay. Sassafras and grey birch also-occur frequently. The pitch pine lowland forest is characterized by a dense canopy composed of pitch pine. The understory is often dense, supporting maple and blackgum as well as a variety of lowland shrubs. Three types of bogs are found in the area; active cranberry bogs, open bogs, and shrub thickets. Coastal marshes, dominated by salt marsh cordgrass and salt hay, are often adjacent to to bands of hardwood swamp. Rushes, spike grass, and glassworts are often associated with the dominant spartinas. 2. Wildlife The high productivity of this region extends beyond the terrestrial boundaries to the estuarine and marsh environments. The organic nutrients produced within the tidal freshwater and salt marshes and carried by tidal flushing of the estuaries are essential to the coastal marine food chain. The trophic levels of estuarine productivity are illustrated by the variety of estuarine and marine fishes, shellfish and other wildlife which thrive there. High species diversity usually reflects environmental health. Sixty one different species of fin fishes have been recorded in the estuary. Major anadromous fish include striped bass, alewife, and blue-a back herring which spawn in the basin's tributaries. Eleven spawning runs have been confirmed. Shellfish resources are extensive, and support a small commercial oyster fishery as well as recreational and commercial clammi ng. The Great Bay region is a major migratory stop and wintering area for many migratory waterfowl and shorebirds as well as a major raptor (owls, hawks and falcons) wintering area. During the winter season, the area's waterfowl population is over 70,000 individuals. The diversity of vegeta- tive growth permits a wide spectrum of bird species; Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge recorded 251 species of birds in 1971. Exemplary nesting species include the State-designated endangered species of osprey, least' tern, and black skimmer. There are at least 44 distinct water bird nesting colonies (rookeries) for 15 different species. These include egrets, ibis, gulls, terns, and skimmers. The Mullica River estuarine community supports a diverse population of organisms, ranging from algae through invertebrates to fish and mammals, and their respective predators. Species lists are available in the Appendi ces. 61 3. Endangered Species PIlants Numerous plant species in the Mullica River area area listed as threatened or endangered by the U.S. Department of the Interior. Eight Pinelands plant species are currently being evaluated for such listing. Also, a study completed for the New Jersey Pinelands Commission inventoried 71 rare plant species, including ferns, grasses, sedges, and broad-leaved plants, and assigned each a status of endangered, threatened, or undetermined. Table 3 gives the status of rare Pinelands plants. Mammals No mammal species found in the Mullica River area are currently listed as endangered or threatened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Two species formerly found in the area, the black bear and the bobcat, have been extirpated. The beaver was eliminated through unregulated trapping but has been reintroduced and is now common in the area. Birds Two bird species found in the Mullica River area, the bald eagle and the peregrine falcon, are Federally listed endangered species. In addition, a number of bird species are listed on the New Jersey official list of endangered and threatened species. Table 4 gives the status of rare bird species in the area. Coastal marshes in the area serve as sites for ongoing attempts to reintroduce the peregrine falcon into the New Jersey ecology. Reptiles and Amphibians While there are no reptiles or amphibians in the Mullica River area which are Federally listed as endangered or threatened, nine herptile species are so listed by New Jersey. Endangered species are the Pine Barrens treefrog, the timber rattlesnake, the bog turtle, the southern gray treefrog, and the tiger salamander. Threatened species include the northern pine snake, the corn snake, the wood turtle, and the mud sal amander. The Mullica River watershed is a major stronghold for the timber rattlesnake. The population of this species in the area has been sharply reduced by human actions, including collecting, killing, and reduction of habitat by residential development. 62 TABLE 3 Threatened and Endangered Plant Speoles of the New Jersey Plne anda I L Habitat dograchift Pitch Pine Cadar Imardwaoo Water bog, N on- Soecten tats tAftinity Pine-Oakloakc-Oine lowland iwarnol swirno or marsh forested Aessahynomene virqinics Red'mftkweed TS Asciepisa rublea Silvery aster T Aster concolor Pickering's morning glary T S Mooe aarres reedgrasa F Sarrsttr sed ge T came b"anattli S Sickle-leaved golden aster IT -NI ChryeOpsis 4uct Screading pogonia SSI j Srom Crowborry j N COrMM COnredif 1osecolored tick sed T11 NI II IfI Coreop8ie roaea x Rustifoil i E NIS0 C rorafoosis elati cs- i Stitffticktrefoil T * I Qeewodflumy? ou Kntespike rush N I NS Eleachaids equisetol Reulnous boneet r I00 emantariun rosilys PIne Batrars gentian S Gentions autumnalls I * yellow-frnged orchid E NIS S Hb"reintegra Now Jersey rushF Juncus caesanensis I Uly.4eaved twaybiade E N/s Upodrs Illul0lli Loesul's twayblae F. Southern twayblade T Nis Boykin's laoelia s LabobeiiaoykindiI Cantly's ldbelia T S j * Laobesi candyi Hair/ ludwigia T Ludwigia hirrefIa Unear-leaved ludwigia IS a L udwigla fineeris I * Climbing fern E N/S j Lyqodium Ocilmatum I I II Co mm aaan 5 ult. Status - -,-agraome affinuty S.ra"l -.acar anda Mudrwooa 3-W&MOS. 6 3 TABLE 3 Threatened and Fadengered Plant Species of thre Now Jermny Flnelands, Continued N -abitat Geagraphicall Pitch¶ Pine Cadar lNarawcad Water, bag, Non- Species Statu tAlffinty !PIne-oak Oak-pinlel lowland jawarnol swamp or marsh fcrested Torwsmuiy F S I 9 Yellow asphodei r NAfrrhejum aeneRoAnuml Mleating meadt j Nis Nymphfoides =o ta I I Narrow panic gras T S 40 PmnICUM hemfitafmon Hirat'5 anic grass jPS American, mistietoe T PftosdendM17 1`avOicens! 'Mmaryrd miikwcrt S polygals mariana Slender rattlesnake fact I a Prnenathes autumnalei i I Awned meadow beauty SI0 Rhexia atistosa e Capitale beakiush S Rhtynchospo a inUndatE Kateskern's beaked rush FS_ Rhynaftsvers knieskernh T1I Curly grass fer ) I Sahlzaeeaoustila Chuifteed IE S II Schwa/han americana s Wng'3 bulrush I N Swiede mfinor I Reticulated± nut rush T N/S Sc/ere fretluladrs sclerolepis T NIS0 Wand-like golden rod S S Se/ida go strirea Uttley ladies tresses T NI Spiranrhets tuildrosa NS False aspflcdeiS SI llatiedia aecoimosa Hmped biaddetwort T N IS S Utrlcuieila gtbh" IWhtwltefowered biadcerwort S (itriculane OUivaa. UtrCuI12na resupfflats yeflew-eyed gruss S Xyms flexuose Status codes T -Threatened (Caia=a and sirgrotwters. I1960) 9 a Currently being evaluated for'ne ;sgrat flaxioflal IiSE 5 Frndazlqerea. IC.aam and Psrcrotflers. ,980) of threaterid and endangered aocacis y tme Oecarnment -at tN Nortnern S a Southern Mfe interior. 2.39 6 4 TABLE 4 -Threatenned and Endangered Bird Species of the Pinelanda and Their Habitats SPECIES ea 02 C C - X 0- I L 0 0 a K0 ENDANGEREO: Bald eagle' Hellaeetus Ieucocephalus Peregrine falcon'I * Faico peregrinhis Osprey 1 ..' Pandion haliaetus IIIIIiI ACcipier' hawkii1 * Accpiers hoawk III Least tern Stomna albiftons Black skimmer Rhynchops niger I THR EATENED: Pled-billed grebe* *** PoWllymus podloeps Red-shouldered hawk <. I* WtOO linelusI . Great blue heronI .II Arriee herodlas I MarlinI Falco calumbarius I Upartrmi sandpiperaI Upandmi sandpcaper Roseate tern II II 1 Steoma douqalllII Barred owl I I Strix varia Short-eared owl .** ** Asia Ilatmmeus Red-headed woodpecker ** * I Melanerpes erythr'eaphalusI Cliff swallow. . * Petrocheildonjoy:.'honots Short-billed marsh wren 1I Bobolink Savannah sparrow II* K Pessercuiua -.*"'eiheneis II Ipsw rculu sparr heo w rrce Ipawichul sana lcessrrowcI Grasshopper sparrow II *I Ammod'ramus savannarum II I Henalow's sparrowI *1 * Ammpodrarnus hensalowifdIi I Vesper scarrowI * I Poocetus gramrnanus I Northern manirmot e CIrcUS cyanreusI 'Lsted as endangered tby U.S. Department of the Intenor. All others listed as endangered or threatened by Now .Jersey. 65 E. Human Activities The waters and wetlands of the Mullica. River area are presently utilized mainly for recreational purposes. Local residential and tourists' expenditures support many seasonal businesses. Recreation activities include boating, fishing, crabbing, waterfowl hunting, sailing, birdwatching, and beach combing. Commercial crabbing, clamming, oystering, fur trapping, marinas, and boat services are also within this area. Notably absent are maritime commerce, petrochemical, and electric generating facilities. The area has potential for energy related development as a result of the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management Outer Continental Shelf Lease Sales. One hundred and ninety-two leases have been sold at a total cost of $1.88 billion. The leasing area ranges from 56 to 100 nautical miles directly east and southeast of the Mullica River. To date, three small natural gas and one small crude oil discoveries have been made. If commercial reserves are located, pipelines will be proposed to bring the resources to shore, with a potential landing somewhere along the New Jersey coast. In addition, an offshore floating nuclear generating plant site at the mouth of Great Bay (Little Egg Inlet) was proposed and later abandoned. An OCS service base at Rum Point, Absecon Inlet was proposed in 1977, discouraged by DEP and not pursued further by the would-be developer. The Rutgers University Marine Field Station, boardwalks, year-around and summer housing, amusement parks and hotel-casinos are additional examples of the diversity of uses in the surrounding region. Resort-related retail businesses along the coast cater to the tourists' desires while some uses exploit the very resources which draw the visitors and summer residents. Growth of human population often leads to increased public pressure for habitat alterations. Most salt marshes adjoining Great Bay, for example, have so far been spared from destructive lagoon housing and dredge and fill operations so common to the northern estuaries of New Jersey. However, one large lagoon housing development (Mystic Island) is found on the northern shore wetlands. In addition, one small lagoon development exists near Green Bank. Insecticide spraying throughout the State is now regulated by DEP. The drainage ditches constructed during the Great Depression however remain in certain wetlands areas. Mosquito control measures, including ditching, drainage, and pesticide spraying on wetlands, can alter and harm the environment. The success of the Atlantic City casinos has increased substantially the interest and pressure for residential housing, commercial and retail services, and transportation facilities in Atlantic City and the adjoining mainland municipalities of Atlantic County. Between the passage of the New Jersey Casino Referendum in November 1977 and April 1981, 52,199 units of residential housing, condominiums, hotels, motels, and camping sites have been proposed for siting in Atlantic County. 66 Towne of Smithville In.January 1981, DEP issued a CAFRA permit for the first units of the Towne of Smithville in Galloway township, which, as proposed and conceptually approved by DEP in September 1980, will ultimately include 6,850 residential units as part of a planned residential development. These DEP decisions have been appealed by several environmental groups and are now under review. Public concern has also been expressed about the Smithville project in terms of its impact upon the proposed Sanctuary. NOAA/OCZM and New Jersey DEP have determined, however, that since the Smithville project would be built entirely downstream of the proposed sanctuary site, direct impacts will not materialize. In addition, while the Towne of Smithville will substantially increase the population in the area surrounding the Sanctuary, NOAA/OCZM and New Jersey DEP believe that since the sanctuary location is well removed from main roads, it will not suffer detrimental primary or secondary impacts. The land use plan incorporates 6,850 residential units on 1,124 acres. Planned commercial land uses include the Towne Center and neighborhood residential and commercial uses totaling about 129 acres. In addition, another 90 acres near the Garden State Parkway are planned for office/business uses which could comprise research centers, corporate or regional headquarters, general office and light manufacturing uses. The Open Space plan sets aside about 955 acres for low intensity uses. These include a site for a school, a 200 acre golf course, an equestrian center, buffers and conservation areas, trails and bike paths, and recreation and sports uses such as playing fields. The sites designated for open space encompass areas determined by the consultants to be environ- mentally sensitive or, because of their location in relation to other types of land uses, were chosen for recreational sites. Since the Smithville area is relatively underdeveloped within its regional context, a proposal of this magnitude involves the need to supply either major new or expanded utility infrastructure. The applicant has stated that sewerage from the entire site will be pumped through five local pump stations to the existing main Smithville pump station, and then treated at the Atlantic County Sewerage Authority's City Island Treatment Plant. Potable water will be drawn from five production wells near the center of the site, treated, and stored in two tanks. The wells would tap the Cohansey formation. There is the potential for a significant increase in runoff resulting from development of this site. The applicant has stated that its main objective is to develop the site with a zero increase in runoff after development. A series of swales and retention and detention basins will collect runoff for percolation to the groundwater and slow dispersal to the stream system. 67 PART V: LIST OF PREPARERS Mr. Richard A. Kantor - New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Mr. Kantor is an Environmental Scientist II for the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Coastal Resources, Bureau of Coastal Planning and Development. He assembled the data incorporated into the Mullica River Estuarine Sanctuary DEIS and is the principal State author of the document. Mr. Kantor's education includes a B.S. degree in Biology (1969) from Monmoth College in West Long Branch, New Jersey, and a M.S. degree in Marine Biology (1972) from Long Island University in Greenvale, New Yo rk. He has a wide variety of experience in biological research, planning, contract management and teaching. In addition, Mr. Kantor lectures, and through analysis, writing and supervision provides resource expertise for developing state coastal regulatory programs. He is the New Jersey DEP liaison to the U.S. Department of the Interior marine program and the New Jersey Marine Sciences Consortium in Sandy Hook, New Jersey. Mr. Lawrence M. Bonino - New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Mr. Bonino is an intern with the Bureau of Coastal Planning and Development within the New Jersey DEP, Division of Coastal Resources. His responsibilities in the preparation of the DEIS included research and collation of project data and production of graphics for the document. Mr. Bonino is currently a student at Cook College, Rutgers University. His internship with the New Jersey DEP includes direct involvement in the planning, organization and completion of the Mullica River Estuarine Sanctuary project. Mr. Milton H. Martin - Office of Costal Zone Management Mr. Martin is an environmental planner for the Washington State Department of Ecology, currently on a 1-year leave from the State to work with the NOAA/OCZM Estuarine Sanctuary Program Office. He is Project Manager for the Mullica River Estuarine Sanctuary proposal. Mr. Martin is the principal OCZM author of the DEIS, and was responsible for overall direction, organization, and preparation of the DEIS for publ icati on. 68 Mr. Martin's background is in the field of Administration and Management in public recreation and parks, where he has held the following positions since 1959: Director, Parks and Recreation Department, Vancouver, Washington; Superintendent, Parks and Recreation Department, B enton County, Washington; Assistant Director, Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission; and Assistant Administrator, Washington State Outdoor Recreation Agency. He is a lecturer on public parks and recreation administration and has prepared and conducted workshops, conferences, and various public programs relating to recreation financing, programs, management techniques, recreation legislation, etc. Mr. Martin is the 1980 recipient of the Washington State Environmentalist of the Year Award for Washington State appointed officials. Ms. Gloria Thompson - Office of Coastal Zone Management Ms. Thompson is Program Support Specialist for the Estuarine Sanctuary Program Office. Her major responsibilities in the preparation of this DEIS were editing, incorporation of revisions, and final preparation of the document for publication. Mr. Richard Kelly - Office of Coastal Zone Management The Estuarine Sanctuary Program Office wishes to acknowledge the contribution of Mr. Kelly, from the OCZM/NEPA Office, in the preparation of this document. Acknowl edgements The New Jersey DEP preparers of this document wish to acknowledge the assistance provided by DEP's Divisions of Fish, Game and Wildlife, and Parks, Forestry and Green Acres, the New Jersey Pinelands Commission, and other public and private agencies and individuals noted below. David N. Kinsey, Director of DEP's Division of Coastal Resources and John R. Weingart, Chief of that Division's Bureau of Coastal Planning and Development supervised the State's involvement in the Estuarine Sanctuary Program. Clerical support from Ms. Carol Claudili and Ms. Celestine Allen is greatly appreciated. Additional help was provided by Thomas P. Smith, Ph.D. student at Rutgers University in 1975, Elizabeth Riley and Grace Syseskey, student interns from Rutgers University in 1978 and 1979, Cynthia Lotys, a student intern from Hamilton High School in 1979, and Hardy Pearce, a mid-career fellow, from Princeton University in 1980. 69 Russell A. Cookingham and Pete McLain, Director and Deputy Director, respectively, of DEP's Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife, and Douglas W. Bridges, Director of DEP's Division of Parks, Forestry and Green Acres, each helped develop this proposal through discussions and reviews of draft material. John Stokes and Robert A Zampella of the New Jersey Pinelands Commission were also of great assistance. Special note is made of the invaluable contribution provided by Howard Wolf, Robert Marshall, and Larry Feigenbaum of DEP's Pinelands Acquisition Office. 71 PART VI: LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS RECEIVING COPIES Federal Agencies Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Department of Agriculture Department of Commerce Department of Defense - Department of Energy Department of Health, Education & Welfare Department of Housing & Urban Development Department of the Interior Department of Justice Department of Labor Department of Transportation U.S. Coast Guard Environmental Protection Agency Federal Energy Regulatory Commission General Services Administration Marine Mammal Commission Nuclear Regulatory Commission National Interest Groups American Association of Port Authorities American Bar Association American Bureau of Shipping American Fisheries Society American Gas Association American Hotel and Motel Association American Industrial Development Council American Institute of Architects American Institute of Merchant Shipping American Institute of Planners American Littoral Society American Mining Congress American Oceanic Organization American Petroleum Institute American Shore and Beach Preservation Association American Society of Civil Engineers American Society of Landscape Architects, Inc. American Society of Planning Officials American Water Resources Association American Waterways Operators Amoco Production Company Ashland Oil, Inc. Association of Oil Pipe Lines Atlantic Coast Shellfish Council Atlantic Richfield Company Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Barrier Islands Coalition Boating Industry Association 72 Center for Law and Social Policy Center for Natural Areas 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 City Service Oil Company Coastal States Organization Conservation Foundation Continental Oil Company Council of State Governments Council of State Planning Agencies The Cousteau Society Environmental Policy Center Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. Environmental Law Institute EXXON Company, U.S.A. Friends of the Earth Getty Oil Company Gulf Energy and Minerals, U.S. Gulf Oil Company Gulf Refining Company Gulf South Atlantic Fisheries Development Foundati on Independent Petroleum Association of America Industrial Union of Marine & Shipbuilding Workers of America Institute for the Human Environment Institute for Marine Studies Interstate Natural Gas Association of America Izaak Walton League League of Conservation Voters League of Women Voters Education Fund Marathon Oil Company Marine Technology Society Mobil Oil Corporation Mobil Exploration & Producing, Inc. Murphy Oil. Company National Association of Conservation Districts National Association of Counties National Association of Engine & Boat Manufacturers National Associaton of Realtors National Association of State Boating Law Administrators National Association of State Park Directors National Audubon Society National Boating Federation National Coalition for Marine Conservation, Inc. National Commission on Marine Policy National Conference of State Legislatures National Environmental Development Association 73 Rice University Center for Community Design and Development Shell Oil Company Shellfish Institute of North America Shipbuilders Council of America Sierra Club Skelly Oil Company Southern California Gas Company Sport Fishing Institute Standard Oil Company of Ohio Sun Company, Inc. Tenneco Oil Company Texaco, Inc. Union Oil Company of California U.S. Conference of Mayors Water Pollution Control Federation Water Transport Association Western Oil and Gas Association Wildlife Management Institute The Wildlife Society World Dredging Association Congressi onal Honorable William W. Bradley Honorable James J. Florio Honorable Edwin B. Forsythe Honorable William J. Hughes Honorable Harrison A. Williams, Jr. State Officials and Agencies Governor Brendan Byrne Honorable Daniel J. Dalton Honorable John Paul Doyle Honorable Hazel S. Gluck Honorable William L. Gromley Honorable Lee B. Laskin * Honorable Joseph A. Maressa Honorable Michael J. Matthews Honorable Steven P. Perskie Honorable Dennis L. Riley Honorable John R. Rocco Honorable John F. Russo Honorable Thomas J. Shusted Delaware & Raritan Canal Commission Delaware River Port Authority Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission Department of Agriculture Department of Community Affairs Department of Energy 74 Department of Health Department of Labor and Industry Department of the Public Advocate Department of State Department of Treasury Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission Mid-Atlantic Regional Fishery Management Council New Jersey Marine Fisheries Council Pinelands Commission Regional Planning Association South Jersey Resource Conservation and Development Council Local and Regional Government Affected Municipalities (Mayors, Planning Boards, and Environmental Commissions) in Atlantic, Burlington, Camden, and Ocean Counties within the Mullica River Drainage Basin. Atlantic County: Egg Harbor City, Galloway, Hammenten, Mullica, and Port Republic Burlington County: Bass River, Sharnong, Tabernacle, Washington, and Woodl and Camden County: Berlin, Chesilhurst, Waterford, and Winslow Ocean County: Lacey, Little Egg Harbor, Stafford, and Union Affected Counties (Executives, Freeholder Directors, Planning and Environmental Agencies). Atlantic County Burlington County Camden County Ocean County State and Local Interest Groups Environmental Groups American Littoral Society Association of New Jersey Environmental Commissions Atlantic Audubon Society Atlantic County Citizens Council on Environment Citizens Association to Protect the Environment Coalition of Bergen and Hudson Concerned Citizens for Clean Water Conservation Society of Long Beach Island Cumberland Conservation League League for Conservation Legislation Millstone Watershed Association New Jersey Audubon Society 76 Individuals Carol Barrett Stan Cramer Karen Doherty Oliver Edstrom Larry Ermillio Wayne Farren Joe Forsyth Warren E. Fox Bob Jones Tom Lloyd Associates Peter Plage Irvin Reigner Albert Ricciardi Ron Rulou Jeff Shear Tom Smith Horace Somes, Sr. 77 PART VII: APPENDICES 1. Estuarine Sanctuary Guidelines 2. Title 7 - Department of Environmental Protection Subtitle B. Division of Parks and Forestry 3. Title 7 - Department of Environmental Protection Subtitle E. Division of Fish, Game and Shelifisheries 4. Endangered, Threatened, Peripheral, Declining, Undetermined, and Extirpated Wildlife Species in New Jersey - Official List S. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants - Native to the United States 6. Sample Land Acquisition Easement Agreement APPENDIX I Estuarine Sanctuary-Guidelines, 1974 and 1977 0 45522 PROPOSED RULES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE exceed 50 percent of the acquisition costs (2) By revising Subpart B-Applica- involved. Any State receiving an Initial tion for Grants-as follows: Administration gant shall be obligtedto repay t i Subpart B-Application for Grants due to any fault of the State, the sanctu- [ 15 CFR Part'921 ] ary is not established. § 921.10 General. ESTUARINE SANCTUARY GUIDELINES As a result of this new greant procedure. Section 315 authorizes Federal grants much more information relating to costs, to coastal States so that the States may Policies and Procedures for Selection values, management procedures, and re- establish sanctuaries according to regu- Acquisition and Management search programs will be available at the lations promulgated by the Secretary. AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmos- time of the publication of a draft en- Coastal States may file applications for AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atment of vironmental impact statement. Proposals grants with the Associate Administrator pherc Administration, Department of made public to date in the form of an for Coastal Zone Management (OCZM), Commerce. Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Office of Coastal Zone Management, Page ACTION: Proposed rule. have been criticized for lack of specificity 1, 3300 Whitehaven Parkway, NW, Wash- SUMMARY: This proposed rule will in these areas. By making a small pre- ington, D.C. 20235. That agency which allow the National Oceanic and Atmos- liminary acquisition grant to a State, has been certified to the Office of Coastal pheric Administration to make a pre- the estuarine sanctuary proposal can be Zone Management as the entity respon- liminary acquisition grant to a State to more fully developed and the public can sible for administration of the State undertake a fair market value appraisal, become more aware of the costs and the coastal zone management program may and to develop a uniform relocation act exact nature of the long-term manage- either submit an application directly, or plan, a detailed management plan and a ment. must endorse and approve applications research framework for a proposed estu- In response to State questions about submitted by other agencies within the arine sanctuary, developed pursuant to estuarine sanctuary research, the pro- State. Section 315 of the Coastal Zone Manage- posed regulations provide that such re- ment Act of 1972, as amended. search can be funded if It can be shown 921.11 Application for primina ment Act of 1972, as amended. to be related to program administration. acquisition grants. DATE: Comments must be received on or NOAA has reviewed these proposed (a) A grant may be awarded on a before October 1, 1977. regulations pursuant to the National En- matching basis to cover costs necessary FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CON- vironmental Policy Act of 1969 and has to preliminary actual acquisition of land. TACT: determined that promulgation of these As match to the Federal grant, a State regulations will have no significant im- may use money, the cost of necessary Robert R. Kffer, Physical Scientist, pact on the environment. services, the value of foregone revenue, Policy and Programs Development Of- Compliance with Executive Order and/or the value of land either already fice, Office of Coastal Zone Manage- 11821. The economic and inflationary in its possession or acquired by the State ment, 3300 Whitehaven Parkway, Page impact of these proposed regulations has specifically for use in the sanctuary. If One Building. Washington, D.C. 20235 been evaluated in accordance with OMB the land to be used as match already is (202-634-4241). Circular A-107 and it has been deter- in the State's possession and is in a pro- SIPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: mined that no major inflationary im- tected status, the State may use such On June 4, 1974, The National Oce- pact will result. land as match only to the extent of any anic and Atmospheric Administration Dated: August 26, 1977. revenue from the land foregone by the (NOAA) published 15 CFa Part 921 en- State in order to include it in the sanc- ttled, "Estuarine Sanctuary Guidelines" T. P. GLErITE, tuary. Application for a preliminary ac- pursuant to then section 312 of the Assistant Administrator quisition grant shall be made on form Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, for Administration. SF 424 application for Federal assistance as amended, for the purpose of establish- It is proposed to amend 15 CPR Part (non-construction programs). ing policy and procedures for the selec- 921 as follows: (b) A preliminary acquisition grant tion, acquisition, and management of (1) By revising the table of contents may be made for the defrayal of the estuarine sanctuaries. and authority citation to read as follows: cost of: Under new subsection 315(1) of the Subpart A--General (1) An appraisal of the land, or of the Act, the Secretary of Commerce is au- Sec. value of any foregone use of the land, thorized to make available to coastal 921.1 Policy and objectives. to be used in the sanctuary; States grants of up to 50 per centum of 9212 Definitions. the cost of acquisition, development, and 921.3 Objectives and I(plementation of (2) The development of a Uniform operation of estuarine sanctuaries. In the program. Relocation Assistance and Real Property general, subsection 315(1) provides that 921.4 Biogeographic classificaton. Acquisition Policies Act plan; grants may be awarded to States on a 921.5 Multiple use. (3) The development of a sanctuary basis to acquire, develop, and 921.6 Relationship to other provisions of management plan; operate natural areas as estuarine sanc-tuaries (4) The development of a research and tuaries in order that scientists and stu- subpart --Applcatlon or Grants educational program; and/or, dents may be provided the opportunity 921.10 General. (5) Such other activity of a prelimi- to examine over a period of time ecologi- 921.11 Application for preliminary acquist- nary nature as may be approved in writ- cal relationships within the area. The tiOn grants. ing by OCZM. Any grant made Pursuant purpose of these guidelines is to imple- Application for and acquisition to this subsection shall be refunded by grants. ment this program. 921.13 Application for operational grants. the State to whatever extent it has spent As a result of two years of program 921.14 Federally-owned lands. in relation to land not acquired for the implementation, the regulations are pro- Subpart C-Selection Criteria sanctuary, and if OCZM requests such posed to be modified to specifically au- 921.20 Criteria for selectf r e und. thorize the granting of acquisition 921.21 Publc particiapation should contain: money to States in two stages: (1) Evidence that the State has con- (1) An initial grant for such prelimi- Subpart G-Operation ducted a scientific evaluation of its estu- nary purposes, as surveying and assess- 921.30 General. ng the land to bes, acquiredying and assthe dess- 921.31 Changes in the sanctuary boundary aries and selected one of those most rep- lng the land to be acquired, and the de- management policy, or research resentative. velopment of management procedures program. (2) Description of the proposed and research programs: and 921.32 Program review. sanctuary including location, proposed (1i) A second grant for the actual ac- AOuEoarrr: Sec. 315(1), Coastal Zone Man- boundaries, and size. A map(s) should quisition of the land. The Federal share agement Act of 1972, as amended (90 stat. be included, as well as an aerial photo- of the sum of the two grants shall not 1030, (16 UsE.C. 141) Pub. L. 94-370). graph if available. FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 42, NO, I175-FRIDAY, SEPTMBER 9, 1977 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 graphic scheme set forth in § 921.4. (3) Description of research programs, is encouraged to the maximum extent (4) Description of the major physical, potential and committed research or- feasible. geographic, biological characteristics and ganizations or agencies, and benefits to (c) Section 315 grants may not be resources of the proposed sanctuary. the overall coastal zone management 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 man- (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 eluding 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 or land acquisi- within other Federal, State, or private areas). tion grants to establish estuarine sanc- programs, which are 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: (9) In addition to the standard A-95 rounding community and its tax base. review procedures. the grant application (7) Discussion, including cost and § 921.21 Public participation. should be sent to the State Historic Pres- feasibility of alternative methods for ac- (a) Public participation in the selec- ervation Office for comment to insure quisition and protection of the area. tion of an estuarine sanctuary is re- compliance with section 106 of the Na- § 921.13 Application for operation quired. In the selection process, the se- tional Preservation Act of 1966. grants lecting entity (see § 921.10) shall seek (d) In order to develop a truly repre- the views of possibly affected landown- sentative scheme of estuarine sanctu- (a) Although an acquisition grant ap- ers, local governments, and Federal aries, the States should coordinate their plication for creation of an estuarine agencies, and shall seek the views of pos- activities. This will help to minimize the sanctuary should include initial opera- sibly interested other parties and orga- possibility of rimilar estuarine types be- tion costs, subsequent applications may nizations. The latter would include, but ing proposed in the same region. The be submitted following acquisition and need not be limited to, private citizens 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 in the area of the site be- 921§12Apnfor lan d dicated In § 921.11. these costs may In- ing considered for selection. This solici- §921.12 Application for land acqusal. clude administrative costs necessary to tation of views may be accomplished by tion grants. monitor the sanctuary and to protect the whatever means the selecting entity (a) Acquisition grants will be made to integrity of the ecosystem. Extensive deems appropriate, but shall include at acquire land and facilities for estuarine management programs, capital expenses, least one public hearing in the area. No- sanctuaries that have been thoroughly or research will not normally be funded tice of such hearing shall nclude ior- described in a preliminary acquisition by section 315 grants. grant application, or where equivalent (b) After the creation of an estuarine maton as to the time, place, and sun ect information is available. Application for sanctuary established under this pro- an acquisition grant shall be made on gram, applications (Form SF 424) for principdal area media. The hearing shall SP 424 application for Federal assist- Federal assistance (non-construction b e he no sooner than 15 days follow- ance (construction program). program), for such operational grants g publication of notice. In. general, lands acquired pursuant to should include at least the following in- (b) The Office of Coastal Zone Man- this subsection are legitimate costs and formation: agement (OCZM) shall prepare draft their fair market value, developed ac- (1) Identification of the boundary and final environmental impact state- cording to Federal appraisal standards, (map). ments pertaining to the site finally se- may be included as match. The value of (2) Specifications of the research and lected for the estuarine sanctuary fol- lands donated to the State and cash do- management programs, including man- lowing public participation in the selec- nations may also be used as match. If aging agency and techniques. ton of that site, and shal distribute the State already owns land which is to (3) Detailed budget. these as appropriate. OCZM may hod a be used in the sanctuary, the value of (4) Discussion of recent and projected public hearing in the area of such site at any use of the land foregone by the State use of the sanctuary. w both the draft environmental im- in order to include such land in the (5) Perceived threats to the integrity pact statement (DEIS) and the merits those in attendance. OCZM shall hold sanctuary, capitalized over the next 20 of tsanctuary. thoe in a y be sallresdb years, may be used by the State as § 921.14 Federally-owned lands. such a hearing if: (1) In its view, the match. The value of lands purchased by a State within the boundaries of pro- (a) Where Federally-owned lands are DEIS is controversial, or (2) if there ap- posed sanctuaries while an application a part of or adjacent to the area proposed pears to be a need for further informing for a preliminary acquisition grant or for designation as an estuarine sanc- the public with regard to either the DEIS land acquisition grant is being consid- tuary, or where the control of land and or one or more aspects of the site se- ered may also be used as match. water uses on such lands is necessary to lected, or (3) if such a hearing is re- (b) An acquisition application should protect the natural system within the quested in writing (to either the select- contain the following information: sanctuary, the State should contact the ing entity or (CZM) by an affected or in- (I) Description of any changes in pro- Federal agency maintaining control of terested party, or (4) for other good posed sanctuary from that presented in the land to request cooperation in provid- cause. If held, such hearing shall be held the preliminary acquisition grant appli- ing coordinated management policies. no sooner than S0 days following the is- cation. If such an application has not Such lands and State request, and the suance of the DEIS and no sooner than been made, then, information equivalent Federal agency response, should be iden- 15 days after appropriate notice of such to that required in such a grant applica- tified and conveyed to the Office of hearing has been given in the area by tion should be provided. Coastal Zone Management. OOZ .with the assistance of the select- (2) Identification of ownership pat- (b) Where such proposed use or con- ing entity. terns, proportions of land already in the trol of Federally-owned lands would not [(RF ocs.Jw-4mS nud" 08-77;8:45 aml FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 42, NO. 175-FRIDAY, SEPTEMUBE 9, 1977 g 9z0.61 Title 15-Commerce and Foreign Trade Chapter IX-National Oceanic, Atmospheric Adm. § 921.3 necessary to the objectives of the grant (v) For each task, indicate the estl- Subpart A--Gonoral 9213 Objectives and Implementation of project. As used herein the terms mated total coat. Also, Indicate the es- the program. "cost" and "grant project" pertain to timnated total months of effort, if any. §9291.1 Policy and Objectives. (a) Oeneral. The puros of the es- both the Federal grant and the match- allocated to the task from the appll-ol ing share. The allowability of cost will cant's staff. The estuarine sanctuaries program tuarine sanctuaries program Is to be determined in accordance with the (2) The sum of all task costs in the will provide grants to States on a create natural field laboratories In provisions of FMC 74-4: Cost Princl- above paragraph should equal the matching basis to acquire, develop and which to gather data and make studies pies applicable to Grants and Con- total estimated grant project cost, operate natural areas as estuarine of the natural and human processes tracts with State and Local Govern- (3) Using two categories, Profession- sanctuaries In order that scientists and ccurri ng within the estuaries of the coastal zone. This shal be accom- ments, and with the guidance con- al and Clerical, indicate the total students may be provided the opportu- pcshed by the establishment of a p!!shed by the establishment of a tained in section 920 42(b)(3). number of personnel in each category nity to examine over a period of time series of estuarine sanctuaries which (M) The Form SF-424, Application on the applicant's staff that will be as- the ecological relationships within the will be designated so that at least one for Federal Assistance (Non-Construc- signed to the grant project. Also indl- area. The purpose of these guidelines representative of each type of estuar- tion Programs), constitutes the formal cate the number assigned full time is to establish the rules and regula- ine ecosystem will endure into the application and must be submitted 60 and the number assigned less than full tions for implementation of the pro- future for scientific and educational days prior to the desired grant begin- time in the two categories. Additional- gram. purposes. The primary use of estuar- The application must be a- ly, indicate the number of new posi- Ine sanctuaries shall be for research oning date. T poiao ms tions created In the two categories as a 921.2 Definitions. and educational purposes, especially to companied by evidence of compliance result of the grant project. with A-95 requirements including the (a) In addition to the definitions provide some of the Information essen- resolution of any problems raised by found in the Act and In the regula- tial to coastal zone management decl- the proposed project. The Associate tions dealing with Coastal Zone Man- sion-making. Specific examples of such Administrator will not accept applica- GUIDELINES agement Program Development purposes and uses include but are not tion substantially deficient In adher- Grants published November 29, 1973 limited to: ence to A-95 requirements. Subpart A--O4n*rw (Part 920 of this chapter) the term (1) To gain a thorough understand- (g) In Part IV. Program Narrative of Sec. "estuarine sanctuary" as defined n Ing of the ecological relationships the Form SF-424. the applicant should 921.1 Policy and objectives. the Act, means a research area which within the estuarine environment. repond to the following requirements: 921.2 DefInitions. may Include any part or all of an estu- (2) To make baseline ecological mea- (1) Set forth a work program de- 921.3 Objectives and Implementatlon of ary. adjoining transitional areas, and surements. sc ryajibing theactiitionlaeas tb undea- scribing the activities to be undertak- the program. adjacent uplands, constituting to the (3) To monitor significant or vital en during the grant period. This work 921.4 Biogeographic classification. changes in the estuarine environment. 921.6 Multiple use. extent feasible a natural unit, set asidese haultlpleuse. (4) To assess the effects of man's program shall Include: 921.6 Relatlonship to other provisions of to provide scientists and students the str esses on the ecosyste m and to fore- (1) A precise description of each the Act and to marine sanctuaries, opportunity to examine over a period tan ote osse dtfore- cast and mitigate possible deteriora- major task to be undertaken to resolve of time the ecological relationships lion from human activities. section 306 deficiencies, and a specific Sbpaot -Appica-u for m Gronts within the area. o ro viies (5) To provide a vehicle for increas- timetable for remedying these deft- 921.10 General. (b) For the purposes of this section. ig public knowledge and awareness of 921.10 General. ing public knowledge and awareness of clencles; 921.11 Application for initial acquisition. "estuary" means that part of a river or the complex nature of estuarine sys- (11) A precise description of irple- development and operation grants. stream or other body of water having tems. their values and benefits to man mentatlon activities for approved man- 921.12 Application for subsequent develop- unimpaired connection with the open and nature, and the problems which agement components, including a dem- ment and operation grants. sea where the seawater is measurably confront them. onstration that these Implementation 921.13 Federally owned lands. -diluted with freshwater derived from (b) The emphasis within the pro- funds will not be applied outside the 921.14 Application time schedule and pro- land drainage. The term includes estu- gram will be on the designation as es- approved coastal management bound- cedure. ary-type areas of the Great Lakes as tuarine sanctuaries of areas which will aries; Subpart C--S5llan Cdteida well as lagoons in more arid coastal re- serve as natural field laboratories for (iii) A precise description of any gions. studies and investigations over an ex- other tasks necessary for and allow- 921.20 Criteria for selection. (c) The term "multiple use" as used tended period. The area chosen as an able under subsection 305(d); 921.21 Public participation. in this section shall mean the simulta- estuarine sanctuary shall, to the (iv) For each task, identify any "Other eachnties"ask dent id a nyh Subpart D-Operatlln neous utilization of an area or re- extent feasible. include water and land "Other Entities.' as defined in the Obcr -p·ltosource for a variety of compatible pur- masses constituting a natural ecologi- "Manual," that will be allocated re- 921.30 General. poses or to provide more than one cal unit. sponsibility for carrying out all or por- 921.31 Changes in the sanctuary boundary, benefit. The term Implies the long- (c) In order that the estuarine sanc- tions of the task, and indicate the esti- mngmn oiyo eerhpo tons of the task, and indicate the est- management policy or research pro- term, continued uses of such resources tuary will be available for future stud- mated cost of the subcontract for each grm 921.32 Program review. in such a fashion that other uses will matedlocation.deify the sonytract for- 921e32 Prograchreview. In such a fashion that other uses will ies. research involving the destruction allocation. Identify. if any. that por- 913Prgareiwnot interfere with, diminish or prevent of any portion of an estuarine sanctu- tion of the task that will be carried AuaTroTrv: Sec. 312. Pub. L 92-583. as the primary purpose, which is the ary which would permanently alter out under contract with consultants mne 8 tt 2 ( U 18, h ray ups wi s e out under contract with consultants amended 86 Stat. 1280 (16 SC 1461). long-term protection of the area for the nature of the ecosystem shall not and indicate the estimated cost of Souacr: 39 FR 19924. June 4. 1974, unless scientific and educational use, normally be permitted. In the unusual such contract(s): and otherwise noted. circumstances where permitted, ma- 911.4 3Title -15-Commerce and Foreign Trade Chapter IX-Notlonal Oceanic, Atmospheric Adm. § 921.11 nlpulative field research shall be care- careous smds, marls and coral reefs; coastal zone management and resource use occasion may establish marine sanctu- fully controlled. No experiment which marshes and mangroves; tropical blota. anid may on occasion be necessary. aries to complement the designation involves manipulative research shall 5. LouLtsntanL Northern Gulf of Mexico. (b) There shall be no effort to bal- by States of estuarine sanctuaries, be initiated until the termination date from Cedar Key to Mexico; characteristics ance or optimize uses of an estuarine where this may be mutually beneficial. Is specified and evidence given that of 3. with components of 4; strongly influ- sanctuary on economic or other bases. is spcifid an evidnce iventhatenced by terrigenous factors'. blots primar- the enviro nment w i be returned to enced by terrenous actors bota prmar- All additional uses of the sanctuary Subpart B-Application for Grants Ily temperate. condition which existed prior to the 6. Californian. South Pacific coast from are clearly secondary to the primary experiment. Mexico to Cape Mendocino; shoreland influ- purpose and uses, which are long-term § 921.10 General. (d} It is anticipated that most of the enced by coastal mountains; rocky coasts maintenance of the ecosystem for scl- Section 312 authorizes Federal areas selected as sanctuaries will be with reduced fresh-water runoff; general ab- entific and educational uses. Non-com- Section 312 authorizes Federal relatively undisturbed by human actlv- sence of marshes and swamps; blota temper- patible uses, Including those uses grants to coastal States so that the ities at the time of acquisition. There- ate. which would cause significant short or States may establish sanctuaries a- cording to regulations promulgated by fore, most of the areas selected will be 7 Columbia. North Pacific coast from long-term ecological change or would t crding to regulations promulgated by areas with a minimum of development. Cape Mendocino to Canada; mountainous otherwise detract from or restrict the the Secretary. Coastal States may file Inutyo aitation. wnof eshoreland; rocky coasts; extensive algal com- use of the sanctuary as a natural field applications for grants with the Direc- Industry or habitation. munitles; biota primarily temperate with laboratory. will be prohibited. tor. ffieof Coastal Zone Manage- tor. Office of Coastal Zone Manage- Indutry r haitaton. unites; lotsprimrilytemprateWith laboator, wilbbeprohbite. metilNtionl Ocanicandtteo. (e) If sufficient permanence and con- some boreal.tmos- trol by the State can be assured, the 8. Fiords. South woast Alaska and Aleu- 921.6 Relationship to other provisions of pheric Administration, U.S. Depart- acquisition of a sanctuary may involve tians; precipitous mountains; deep estuaries, merit of Commerce, Rockville, Mary- less than the acquisition of a f e e the act and to marine sanctuaries. less than the acquisition of a fee some with glaciers; shoreline heavily Indent- theand 20852. That agency which hasM simple interest. Such interest may be, ed and subject to winter icing; blota boreal (a) The estuarine sanctuary program been certified to the Office of Coastal for example, the acquisition of a con- to sub-Arctic., must interact with the overall coastal Zone Management as the entity re- servation easement, "development 9. Subarctic. West and north coasts of zone management program in two sponsible for administration of the rgtorohrprilitrssuf-Alaska; Ice stressed coasts; blots Arctic and ways: (1) the intended research use of State coastal zone management pro- rights", or other partial interest suffi- sub-Arctic. dent to assure the protection of the 10. landar. Lauer islands. sometimes the sanctuary should provide relevant gram may either submit an applilca- natural system. Leasing, which would with precipitous mountains; considerable data and conclusions of assistance to tion directly, or must endorse and ap- artth lo directly, or muutist eonsdorsbeadu- not assure permanent protection of wave action; frequently with endemic spe- coastal zone management decision- prove applications submitted by other the system, would not be an accept- cles; larger Island groups primarily with making, and (2) when developed, the agencies within the State. able alternative. tropical biots. State's coastal zone management pro- It. Great Laoes. Great Lakes of North gramin must recognize and be designed § 921.11 Application for initial acquisition. § 921.4 Biogeographic classification. America; bluff-dune or rocky, glaciated to protect the estuarine sanctuary; ap- development and operation pants (a) it is Intended that estuarine shoreline; limited wetlands; freshwater only; propriate land and water use regula- (a) Grants may be awarded on a sanctuaries s ld not behen at blots a mixture of boreal and temperate tions and planning considerations matching basis to cover the costs of ac- sanctuaries should not be chosen at species with anadromous species and some must apply to adacent lands. Al- quson development and operation random, but should reflect regional must apply to adjacent lands. Al- quisition, development and operation differentiation and a variety of ecosys- though estuarine sanctuaries should of estuarine sanctuaries. States may diferenstsoaton ande alsinfct variet feoy- tems so as to cover all significant vari- (b) Various sub-categories will be de- be Incorporated into the State coastal use donations of land or money to sat- atlons. To ensure adequate representa- veloped and utilized as appropriate. zone management program, their des- isfy all or part of the matching cost re- tion of all estuarine types reflecting Ignation need not await the develop- quirements. regional differentiation and a variety § 921.5 Multiple use. ment and approval of the management (b) In general, lands acquired pursu- of ecosystems, selections will be made (a) While the primary purpose of es- program where operation of the es- ant to this section, Including State by the Secretary from the following tuarine sanctuaries is to provide long- tuarine sanctuary would aid in the de- owned lands but not State owned sub. blogeographic classifications: term protection for natural areas so velopment of a program, merged lands or bay bottoms, that that they may be used for scientific (b) The estuarine sanctuaries pro- occur within the proposed sanctuary 1. Arcadoian. Northeast Atlantic coast and educational purposes, multiple use gram will be conducted In close coop- boundary are legitimate costs and south to Cape Cod, glaciated shoreline sub- south to nCape Cod. acted shoreloine sub- of estuarine sanctuaries will be en- ,eration with the marine sanctuaries their fair market value may be includ- iect to winter icing' well developed sialga flora, boreal blota. couraged to the extent that such use is program (Title III of the Marine Pro- ed as match. However, the value of nora; boreal biota.cuae oteetetta uhueL 2. Virginan. Middle Atlantic coast from compatible with this primary sanctu- tection, Research Act of 1972. Pub. L. lands donated to or by the State for Cape Cod to Cape Hatteras; lowland ary purpose. The capacity of a given 92-532, which is also administered by inclusion in the sanctuary may only be streams, coastal marshes and muddy bot- sanctuary to accommodate additional the Office of Coastal Zone Manage- used to match other costs of land ac- toms; characteristics transitional between 1 uses, and the kinds and intensity of ment, NOAA), which recognizes that quisitlon. In the event that lands al- and 3; blots primarily temperate with some such use, will be determined on a case certain areas of the ocean waters, as ready exist In a protected status, their boreal representatives. by case basis. While it is anticipated far seaward as the outer edge of the value cannot be used as match for 3. Carolinian. South Atlantic coast. from that compatible uses may generally in- Continental Shelf, or other coastal sanctuary development and operation Cape Hatteras to Cape Kennedy; extensive lude activities such as low intensity waters where the tide ebbs and flows, grants, which will require their own marshes and swamps; waters turbid and pro- ductive; blota temperate with seasonal recreation fishing hunting and wild- or of the Great akes and their con- matching funds. tropical elements, life observation, it is recognized that necting waters, need to be preserved or (lc) Development and operation costs 4. West Indian. South Forlds coast from thb exclusive use of an area for scien- restored for their conservation, recre- may include the administrative ex- Cape Kennedy to Cedar Key; and Caribbean tific or educational purposes may pro- ational, ecologic or esthetic values. It penses necessary to minitor the sanc- Islands; shoreland low-lying limestone; cal- vide the optimum benefit to coastal Is anticipated that the Secretary on tuary, to ensure its continued viability 921.12 Title 15--Commerce and Foreign Trade Chapter IX-National Oceanic, Atmospheric Adm. § 921.14 and to protect the integrity of the eco- gram or within other Federal, State or and to protect the integrity of the eco- tions received between January 1 and system. Research will not normally be private programs, which are located in system. Extensive management pro- June 30 of any year will be considered funded by Section 312 grants. It is an- the same regional or biogeographic grams, capital expenses, or research together beginning July 1 of that year: ticipated that other sources of Feder- classification, will not normally be funded by section applications received between July 1 al. State and private funds will be (1) It is essential that the opportuni- 312 grants. and December 31 will be considered to- available for research in estuarine ty be provided for public involvement ¢b) After the creation of an estuar- gether beginning January 1 of the fol- sanctuaries. and input in the development of the ne sanctuary established under this lowing year. (d) Initial applications should con- sanctuary proposal and application. program, applications for such devel- (b) Al applications received during tain the following information: Where the application is controversial opment and operation grants should any application period will be subject (1) Description of the proposed sanc- or where controversial issues are ad- include at least the following informa- to simultaneous review and considera- tuary include location, boundaries. size dressed, the State should provide ade- tion: tion. At the end of each application and cost of acquisition, operation and quate means to ensure that all inter- (1) Identification of the boundary. period, a suitable number of applica- development. A map should be includ- ested parties have the opportunity to (2) Specifications of the manage- tions, based on the level of funding ed, as well as an aerial photograph, if present their views. This may be in ment program, including managing available, will be selected for further available. the form of an adequately advertised agency and techniques. review and processing. Unless suffi- (2) Classification of the proposed public hearing. (3) Detailed budget. ciently distinguished as major subcate- sanctuary according to the biogeo- 1ii) During the development of an es- (4) Discussion of recent and project- gories, no more than one application graphic scheme set forth In § 921.4. tuarlne sanctuary application, all land- ed use of the sanctuary. from each biogeographic category will C3) Description of the major physi- owners within the proposed bound- (5) Perceived threats to the integrity be selected for final processing during cal, geographic and biological charac- aries should be Informed in writing of of the sanctuary. each review period. Normally, the ap- teristics and resources of the proposed the proposed grant application. plications selected will be processed sanctuary. (iii) The application should indicate §921.13 Federally owned lands. and the grants awarded within 6 (4) Identification of ownership pat- the manner in which the State solicit- terns: proportion of land already in ed the views of all interested parties a) Where federally owned lands are onths from th e end of the applica- the public domain prior to the actual submission of the a part of or adjacent to the area pro- tion period, that is before the next (5) Description of intended research application. posed for designation as an estuarine review period begins. Applications usespotentia research organizations Ce)In ordersanctuary, or where the control of which are not selected for processing uses, potential research organizations (el In order to develop a truly repre- land and water uses on such lands is may be resubmitted for consideration or agencies and benefits to the overall sentative scheme of estuarlne sanctu- n e cessary to protect the natural during the next review period. coastal zone management program. aries, the States should attempt to co- system within the s anc tuary, the State A t eninety (0) days prio r to C6) emontraion f ncessry u- odinte teiractiitis, Tis ill elp system within the sanctuary, the State Cc) At least ninety (90) days prior to (6l Demonstration of necessary au- ordinate their activities. This will help should contact the Federal agency submission of an application under thority to acquire or control and to minimize the possibility of similar m aintaining control of the land to re- this section an applicant state must maintaining control of the land to re- this section, an applicant state must manage the sanctuary. estuarine types being proposed for quest cooperation In providing coordi- notify in writing the OCZM, appropri- (7) Description of proposed manage- designation In the same region. The nated management policies. Such ate state and regional A-95 clearing- ment techniques, including the man- application should indicate the extent lands and State request, and the Fed- houses, and other states within the agement agency, principles and pro- to which neighboring States were con- eral agency response, should be identi- same biogeographic category (see posed budget including both State and suited. fled and conveyed to the Office of Table 1) of its intention to file an ap- Federal shares. Cf) Discussion, including cost and Coastal Zone Management. plication for an estuarlne sanctuary (8) Description of existing and po- feasibility, of alternative methods for (b) Where such proposed use or con- grant. Such notification should in- tential uses of and conflicts within the acquisition, control and protection of trol of federally owned lands would elude at least the identification of the area if it were not declared an estuar- the area to provide similar uses. Use of not conflict with the Federal use of state agency applying for the grant; ince sanctuary; potential use, use re- the marine sanctuary authority and their lands, such cooperation and co- the geographic location of the pro- strictions and conflicts if the sanctu- funds from the Land and Water Con- ordination is encouraged to the maxi: posed sanctuary and its boundaries: ary is established. servation Fund Act should be specifi- mum extent feasible. proposed objectives of the sanctuary, (1) Assessment of the environmental cally addressed. (c) Section 312 grants may not be including intended research uses: esti- and socio-economic impacts of declar- awarded to federal agencies for cre- mated cost of sanctuary; and estmat- ing the area an estuarine sanctuary, §921.12 Application for subsequent devel- aw o ea ancies ce- ate os of an iat- including the economic impact of such opment and operation grants. Incudigtectand operation grants. ation of estuarine sanctuaries in Fed- ed date for submission of application. e orally owned lands; however, a similar Copies of the A-95 notifications to the a designation on the surrounding com- (a) Although the initial grant appli- status may be provided on a voluntary state and regional clearinghouse munity and its tax base. cation for creation of an estuarine basis for Federally owned lands under would be considered sufficient and de- (9) Description of planned or antici- sanctuary should Include initial devel- the provisions of the Federal Commit- sirable notification to OCZM and to pated land and water use and controls opment and operation costs. subse- tee on Ecological Preserves program. the other states. for contiguous lands surrounding the quent applications may be submitted proposed sanctuary (including if ap- following acquisition and establish- §921.14 Application time schedule and TABLE 1-LIST OF STATES BY BIOCEOGRAPHIC propriate an analysis of the desirabil- ment of an estuarine sanctuary for ad- procedure. CLASsIIcATION ity of creating a marine sanctuary in ditional development and operation (a) Effective January 1, 1975, the 1 Acadian-Maine. New Hampshire, Mas- adjacent areas). funds. As indicated in § 921.11. these review and selection of estuarine sanc- sachusetts. (10) List of protected sites, either costs may include administrative costs tuary applications will be conducted 2. Vrinian-Mas sachusetts Rhode wti h rto monitor the sanctuary tuar y applications will be conducted 2. Virginian-Massachusetts. Rhode within the estuarine sanctuaries pro- necessary to monitor the sanctuary on a twice yearly basis. All applica- Island. Connecticut. New York. New Jersey. f b t § 921.20 Title 15-Commerce and Foreign Trade Chapter IX-National Oceanic, Atmospheric Adm. § 921.32 Delaware. Maryland. Virginia, North Carolil- ed that In practice the average grant tuary program shall be notified of the (h) Provide adequate authority and np. will be substantially less than this. public hearing. The public notice shall intent to enforce management policy 3. Carolinian-North Carolina. South (e) Enhancement of non-competitive contain the name, address and phone and use restrictions. CamlIna. Georgia, Plorida, Caa. Wet dianFlorida, ut uses. number of the appropriate Federal 4. West Indlan--Florlda. Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands. (f) Proximity and access to existing and State officials to contact for addi- 921.31 Changes in the sanctuary bound- 5. Louislanlan--Florida, Mississippi. Ala- research facilities. tional information about the proposal. ary, management policy or research bama. (g) Availability of suitable alterna- program. 6. Callfornlan-Calfornls. tive sites already protected which 1. Columbian-California. Oregon. Wash- might be capable of providing the Subpart 0-Operation (a) The approved sanctuary bound- Inston. aries; management policy, Including I ng ton. same use or benefit. Unnecessary du- aries; management policy, including 8. Fiord-Alaska. plication of existing activities under §921.30 General. permissible and prohibited uses; and 9. Sub-Arctic-Alaska. other programs should be avoided. Management of estuarine sanctuar- research program may only be to. Insular-Hawaii. Guam, American However, estuarine sanctuaries might ies shall be the responsibility of the changed after public notice and the Samoa. samog. opportunity of public review and par- 11. Great Lakea--Minnesota. Wisconsin, be established adjacent to existing applicant State or its agent However, Michigan. Illinois, Indiana. Ohio, Pennayl. preserved lands where mutual en- the research uses and management ticipation such as outlined in 92121. vanla. New York. hancement or benefit of each might program must be in conformance with (b) Individuals or organizations occur, these guidelines and regulations, and which are concerned about possible (d) The Director of OCZM may, (h) Conflict with existing or poten- others implemented by the provisions impr oper use or restriction of use of upon the finding of extenuating r- competing userants. It is suggested estuarine sanctuaries may petition the cumrstances relating to applications for tis mpge tged assistance, waive appropriate aminis (i) Compatibility with existing or that prior to the grant award. repre- State management agency and the assistance, waive appropriate admlnls- Office of CSt a te mane agmntagemncyad te traive requirements contained hereIn. proposed land and water use in contig- sentatives of the proposed sanctuary Office of Coastal Zone Management uous areas. management team and the Office of directly for review of the management [39 PR 45214. Dec. 31, 19741 If the initial review demonstrates the Coastal Zone Management meet to dis- program. Cata Zone Mantag emient dmeetatods- proram feasibility of the application, an envil- cuss management policy and stand- Subpart C--Selction Criteria ronmental impact statement will be ards. It is anticipated that the grant 91.32 Promr . prepared by the Office of Coastal provisions will vary with individual clr- It is anticipated that reports will be 921.20 Criteria for selection. Zone Management In accordance with cumstances and will be mutually required from the applicant State on a Applications for grants to establish the National Environmental Policy agreed to by the applicant and the regular basis, no more frequently than estuarlne sanctuaries will be reviewed Act of 1969 and implementing CEQ granting agency. As a minimum, the annually, on the status of each estuar- and Judged on criteria including: guidelines. grant document for each sanctuary Ine sanctuary. The estuarine sanctu- (a) Benefit tothe coastal zone man- shall: ary program will be regularly reviewed agement r program. Apliaioshuld be2.2 reublartly reviewedall agement program. Applications should §921.21 Public participation. (a) Define the intended research to ensure that the objectives of the demonstrate the benefit of the propos- Public participation will be an essen- purposes of the estuarine sanctuary. program are being met and that the al to the development or operations of tial factor in the selection of estuarine (b) Define permitted, compatible. re- program itself is scientifically sound. the overall coastal zone management sanctuaries. In addition to the partici- strlcted and prohibited uses of the The key to the success of the estuar- program, including how well the pro- pation during the application develop- sanctuary. ine sanctuaries program is to assure posal fits into the national program of ment process ( 921.11(e)), public par- (c) Include a provision for monitor- that the results of the studies and re- representative estuarine types; the na- ticlpation will be ensured at the Feder- Ing the uses of the sanctuary, to search conducted In these sanctuaries tional or regional benefits; and the al level by the NEPA process and by ensure compliance with the intended are available in a timely fashion so usefulness in research. public hearings where desirable subse- uses. that the States can develop and ad- (bl The ecological characteristics of quent to NEPA. Such public hearings (d) Ensure ready access to land use minister land and water use programs the ecosystem, Including its biological shall be held by the Office of Coastal for the coastal zone. Accordingly, all productivity, diversity and represents- Zone Management in the area to be af f the sanctuary by scientists, stu- tiveness. Extent of alteration of the fected by the proposed sanctuary no dents and the general public as desir- information and reports, including natural system, Its ability to remain a sooner than 30 days after It issues a able and permissible for coordinated annual reports, relating to estuarine viable and healthy system in view of draft environmental impact statement research and education uses, as well as sanctuaries shall be part of the public the present and possible development on the sanctuary proposal. It will be for other compatible purposes. record and available at all times for In- of external stresses. the responsibility of the Office of (el Ensure public availability and spection by the public. lc) Size and choice of boundaries. To Coastal Zone Management, with the reasonable distribution of research re- the extent feasible, estuarine sanctu- assistance of the applicant State, to suits for timely use in the develop- PART 922-MARINE SANCTUARIES aries should approximate a natural issue adequate public notice of its in- ment of coastal zone management pro- ecological unit. The minimal accept- tention to hold a public hearing. Such grams. Subpart A-G-enmral able size will vary greatly and will public notice shall be distributed (fI Provide a basis for annual review depend on the nature of the ecosys- widely, especially in the area of the of the status of the sanctuary. its Sec. tem. proposed sanctuary; affected property value to the coastal zone program. 922.1 Policy and objectives. (d) Cost. Although the Act limits the owners and those agencies. organiza- (g) Specify how the integrity of the 922.2 Programmatic objectives. Federal share of the cost for each tions or individuals with an Identified system which the sanctuary repre- sanctuary to $2,000,000, it is anticipat- interest in the area or estuarine sane- sents will be maintained. APPENDIX 2 TITLE 7 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION SUBTITLE B. DIVISION OF PARKS AND FORESTRY NOTE: The complete content of this text was too voluminous to include in the DEIS. Readers that require specific sections of this authority are requested to contact: Mr. Richard Kantor, NJ DEP, Division of Coastal Resources CN 401, Trenton, New Jersey 08625. (8878) CIIAPTER 2 STATE PARK SERVICE Authority Unless otherwise expressly noted, all provisions of this chapter were adopted by the Department of Environmental Protection pursuant to authority delegated at N.J.S.A. 13:8-20 et seq. and were filed and became effective prior to September 30, 1969. Executive Order 66(1978) Expiration Date Thllis chapter shall expire on July 13, 1983. CHAPTER TABLE OF CONTENTS SUBCHAPTER 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS 7:2-1.1 Short title 7:2-1.2 Scope 7:2-1.3 Construction 7:2-1.4 Practice where rules do not govern 7:2-1.5 (Reserved) SUBCHAPTER 2. GENERAL USE 7:2-2.1 Purpose 7:2-2.2 Designation of land use 7:2-2.3 Limitation of park use 7:2-2.4 Posting 7:2-2.5 Commercial use 7:2-2.6 Alcoholic beverages 7:2-2.7 Dumping/littering 7:2-2.8 Furred animals and pets 7:2-2.9 Exemption of seeing eye and hunting dogs 7:2-2.10 Damage to public property 7:2-2.11 Conduct 7:2-2.12 Fires 7: 2-2.13 Charges 7:2-2.14 Speed limits 7:2-2.15 Parking 7:2-2.16 Military use 7:2-2.17 Metal detectors 7:2-2.18 Target practice SUBCHAPTER 3. MOTORIZED VEHICLES 7:2-3.1 Identification and license 7:2-3.2 Unauthorized motorized vehicles 7:2-3.3 Conformance to State laws 7:2-3.4 Restrictions 7:2-3.5 Snowmobiles 7:2-3.6 (Reserved) 2-1 (45359) Supp. 1-18-79 SUBCI I.XPI't R 4. 1ILUJNTIN(G, IISIIING AND TRAPPING 7:-24.1 Restrictions SUBCHAPTER 5. OCEAN PARKS 7:2-5.1 Trespassing 7:2-5.2 Entry by boat 7:2-5.3 Fires 7:2-5.4 Camping 7:2-5.5 Surf boarding SUBCHAPTER 6. SCUBA AND SKIN DIVING 7:2-6.1 Restrictions SUBCHAPTER 7. OVERNIGHT FACILITIES 7:2-7.1 Definition 7:2-7.2 (Reserved) 7:2-7.3 (Reserved) 7:2-7.4 Maxinmlum occupancy 7:2-7.5 Group camping 7:2-7.6 Vehicle limit 7:2-7.7 Visitors 7:2-7.8 Wilderness campsites 7:2-7.9 Assignment 7:2-7.10 Occupation of site 7:2-7.11 Re-registration 7:2-7.12 Additional stay 7:2-7.13 Reservations 7:2-7.14 Cancellations and refunds SUBCHAPTER 8. BOATING 7:2-8.1 Launching 7:2-8.2 Motorboats prohibitions 7:2-8.3 Motorboats permitted 7:2-8.4 Sailboats 7:2-8.5 Use of ramps 7:2-8.6 Bathing areas 7:2-8.7 Swimming from boats 7:2-8.8 Round Valley and Spruce Run boating restrictions 7:2-8.9 Boat storage 7:2-8.10 Ice boating 7:2-8.11 Towing behind boats SUBCHAPTER 9. GROUP USE 7:2-9.1 Reservation requirements 7:2-9.2 Failure to make reservation 7:2-9.3 Adult supervision 7:2-9.4 Responsible person 7:2-9.5 Roster 7:2-9.6 Buses 2-2 (45360) Supp. 1-18-79 SU CI11APTER 10. BATIHING 7:2-10.1 Supervised bathing 7:2-10.2 Camper beaches SUBCHAPTER 11. NATURAL AREAS AND TIE NATURAL AREAS SYSTEM 7:2-11.1 Scope 7:2-11.2 Definitions 7:2-11.3 Standards for evaluating lands and waters for inclusion into the System 7:2-11.4 Land classification of natural areas 7:2-11.5 Management of natural areas 7:2-11.6 Procedures for application and conducting research 7:2-11.7 Limitation of natural area use 7:2-11.8 Designation of natural areas land use 7:2-11.9 Hunting and fishing 7:2-11.10 Overnight facilities 7:2-11.11 Hiking 7:2-11.12 Furred animals and pets 7:2-11.13 Swimming 7:2-11.14 Rowboating and canoeing 7:2-11.15 Posting 7:2-11.16 Easement and other nonconforming uses 7:2-11.17 Damage to public property 7:2-11.18 Dumping 7:2-11.19 Construction 7:2-11.20 Enforcement of rules and regulations 7:2-11.21 Registry of Natural Areas 7:2-11.22 Designated natural areas SUBCHAPTER 12. EQUESTRIAN USE 7:2-12.1 Designated areas SUBCHAPTER 13. STATE MARINAS 7:2-13.1 Scope 7:2-13.2 Berthing 7:2-13.3 Marina regulations SUBCHAPTER 14. (RESERVED) SUBCHAPTER 15. (RESERVED) SUBCHAPTER 16. ISLAND BEACH STATE PARK 7:2-16.1 Scope 7:2-16.2 Beach buggy permits 7:2-16.3 Permit to fish 7:2-16.4 Speed limit 7:2-16.5 Park hours 7:2-16.6 Permit revocation 2-3 (45361) Supp. 1-18-79 APPENDIX 3 TITLE 7 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION SUBTITLE E. DIVISION OF FISH, GAME AND SI IELLFISH ERIES NOTE: The complete content of this text was too voluminous to include in the DEIS. Readers that require specific sections of this authority are requested to contact: Mr. Richard Kantor, NJ DEP, Division of Coastal Resources, CN 401, Trenton, New Jersey 08625. (9235) C1tAPTFR 25 DIVISION OF FISIH, GAME AND SIIELLFISIFRIES Authority Unless otherwise expressly noted, all provisions of this chapter were adopted by the Department of Elviro:miental Protection pursuant to authority delceated at N.J.S.A. 13: 1B-30 et seq., N.J.S.A. 23:1-1 et seq., and N.J.S.A. 23:4-28, and were filed and became effective before September 1, 1969. CHAPTER TABLE OF CONTENTS SUBCHAPTER 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS 7:25-1.1 Scope 7:25-1.2 Construction 7:25-1.3 Practice where rules do not govern 7:25-1.4 Definitions 7:25-1.5 Fee schedule 7:25-1.6 Shellfish license revocation schedule SUBCHAPTER 2. USE OF ALL LAND AND WATER AREAS UNDER THE CONTROL OF TIIE DIVISION OF FISH, GAME AND SIIELLFISHERIES 7:25-2.1 Cutting or damaging vegetation 7:25-2.2 All motor vehicles 7:25-2.3 Drug and marijuana 7:25-2.4 Alcoholic beverages 7:25-2.5 Restricted areas and hours 7:25-2.6 Division fish hatcheries 7:25-2.7 Outboard motors 7:25-2.8 Horseback riding 7:25-2.9 Swimming 7:25-2.10 Camping 7:25-2.11 Picnicking 7:25-2.12 Target practice 7:25-2.13 Daily use permit 7:25-2.14 Field trial activities 7:25-2.15 Rental of clubhouses 7:25-2.16 Revocation 7:25-2.17 Securing permits 7:25-2.18 (Reserved) 7:25-2.19 Restricted access to Lake Musconetcong SUBCHAPTER 3. USE OF MECHANICAL NOISEMAKING DEVICES 7:25-3.1 Procedure for securing permit 7:25-3.2 Devices 7:25-3.3 Standards on distance 7:25-3.4 Hours of operation 7:25-3.5 Revocation 25-1 (52585) Supp. 1-17-80 SUBCHAPTER 4. NONGAME AND EXOTIC WILDLIFE 7:25-4.1 Definitions 7:25-4.2 Permit required 7:25-4.3 Exotic species and nongame species 7:25-4.4 Exempted species 7:25-4.5 Additional species 7:25-4.6 Categories of permits, expiration, fees, sales receipts required, records and reports required 7:25-4.7 General possession criteria 7:25-4.8 Potentially dangerous species 7:254.9 Criteria for possession of potentially dangerous species 7:25-4.10 Endangered species prohibited 7:25-4.11 Miscellaneous provisions 7:25-4.12 Notice of denial of permit, procedure, review, time limitation, hearing SUBCHAPTER 5. GAME CODE SUBCHAPTER 6. FISH CODE SUBCHAPTER 7. CONDEMNATION OF CERTAIN SHELLFISH BEDS 7:25-7.1 (Reserved) 7:25-7.2 Oyster seed beds 7:25-7.3 Conservation order; effective March 28, 1973 7:25-7.4 (Reserved) 7:25-7.5 (Reserved) 7:25-7.6 (Reserved) 7:25-7.7 (Reserved) 7:25-7.8 (Reserved) 7:25-7.9 (Reserved) 7:25-7.10 (Reserved) 7:25-7.11 Mussels 7:25-7.12 (Reserved) 7:25-7.13 Crab dredging SUBCHAPTER 8. CLAM DREDGING 7:25-8.1 Clam dredging SUBCHAPTER 9. RESOLUTIONS OF COUNCIL 7:25-9.1 Taking of hard clams 7:25-9.2 (Reserved) 7:25-9.3 (Reserved) 7:25-9.4 Designation of scallop season 7:25-9.5 (Reserved) 7:25-9.6 (Reserved) SUBCHAPTER 10. RESOLUTIONS OF THE MAURICE RIVER COVE SHELLFISHERIES COUNCIL 7:25-10.1 Resolutions dated September 19, 1973; deck screens and sieves 25-2 (52586) Supp. 1-17-80 7:25-1.2 SUBCHAPTER 11. ENDANGERED SPECIES 7:25-11.1 List of endangered species 7:25-11.2 Requirements for possession of wildlife species 7:25-11.3 Protection of animal and welfare of public 7:25-11.4 Violations SUBCHAPTER 12 SEA CLAMS 7:25-12.1 Preservation of sea clams resource in New Jersey 7:25-12.2 Temporary sea clam opening: Ocean County 7:25-12.3 Sea clam area closing 7:25-12.4 (Reserved) 7:25-12.5 (Reserved) SUBCHAPTER 13. LEASED TIDAL GROUNDS 7:25-13.1 Marking of leased tidal grounds; Delaware River and Bay SUBCHAPTER 14. CRAB POTS; DELAWARE BAY 7:25-14.1 Scope 7:25-14.2 Crab pots defined 7:25-14.3 Use of crab pots 7:25-14.4 Hours for fishing 7:25-14.5 Commercial licenses; effective January 1, 1978 7:25-14.6 Noncommercial licenses; effective January 1, 1978 7:25-14.7 Placement and marking of pots 7:25-14.8 Filing of reports 7:25-14.9 Penalties SUBCHAPTER 15. CLAM RELAY PROGRAM 7:25-15.1 Relay of hard clams SUBCHAPTER 16. DEFINING FISHING LINES 7:25-16.1 Defining lines upstream of which license is required to fish with handline, rod and line or long bow and arrow SUBCHAPTER 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS 7:25-1.1 Scope Unless otherwise provided, the following shall constitute supplements to the statutes governing fish and game laws. 7:25-1.2 Construction These rules shall be liberally construed to permit the department, the Division of Fish, Game and Shellfisheries and its various agencies to discharge its statutory functions. 25-3 (52587) Supp. 1-17-80 APPENDIX 4 ENDANGERED, THREATENED, PERIPHERAL, DECLINING, UNDETERMINED AND EXTIRPATED WILDLIFE SPECIES IN NEW JERSEY - Official List - STATE OF NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION OF FISH, GAME AND SHELLFISHERIES Prepared by: Endangered and Nongame Species Project ussell A. Cookingham Director March 29, 1979 Nomenclature References FISH American Fisheries Society 1960. "A List of Common and Scientific Names of Fishes from the United States and Canada." 2nd Edition Baltimore. Waverly Press, Inc. REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS Conant, Roger 1975. "A Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians of Eastern and Central North America." 2nd Edition Boston: Houghton Miflin Company BI RDS American Ornithologists' Union 1957. Checklist of North American Birds. 5th Edition Baltimore: American Ornithologists' Union MAMMALS Hall, E. Raymond, and Keith R. Kelson 1959. "The Mammals of North America." 2 Volumes. New York: Ronald Press ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Appreciation is hereby expressed to the following for their freely offered expert advice and suggestions: FISH Kenneth Able - Associate Professor of Biology, Rutgers University, New Brunswick Paul E. Hamer - Principal Biologist, Bureau of Fisheries Management, Division of Fish, Game and Shellfisheries Robert Hastings - Associate Professor of Biology, Rutgers University, Camden John F. McClain - Assistant Biologist, Bureau of Fisheries Management, Division of Fish, Game and Shellfisheries Walter S. Murawski - Principle Fisheries Biologist, Bureau of Fisheries Management Division of Fish, Game and Shellfisheries John B. Pearce - Chief, Division of Environmental Assessment, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Center, Sandy Hook Laboratory A. Bruce Pyle - Chief, Bureau of Fisheries Management, Division of Fish, Game and Shellfisheries AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES Irving H. Black - Superintendent of Science Department, Newark Museum Roger Conant - Adjunct Professor of Biology, University of New Mexico Kenneth Gosner - Curator of Zoology, Newark Museum Joseph M. Pylka - Auditory Research Lab, Princeton University Richard Ryan - Director, Turtle Back Zoo, West Orange, New Jersey Raymond J. Stein - Curator of Science, New Jersey State Museum Robert T. Zappalorti - Executive Director, Herpetological Associates, Staten Island, New York J. Kevin Bowler - Curator of Reptiles, Philadelphia Zoological Gardens -2- BIRDS Irving H. Black - Newark Museum Ernest A. Choate - Ornithologist, Cape May A. Morton Cooper - Dover Township Environmental Commission Frank B. Gill - Director of Systematics and Evolutionary Biology Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences Richard Kane - Director, Scherman Sanctuary, New Jersey Audubon Society Charles F. Leck - Assistant Professor, Department of Zoology, Rutgers University Richard Ryan - Director, Turtle Back Zoo, West Orange, New Jersey MAMMALS Julia Chase - Professor of Biology, Barnard College John J. McManus - Assistant Professor of Biology, Fairleigh Dickenson University Robert Schoelkopf - Director, Marine Mammal Stranding Center, Atlantic City Raymond J. Stein - Curator of Science, New Jersey State Museum Frederick A. Ulmer, Jr. - (Retired) Curator of Mammals, Philadelphia Zoological Gardens Steven Viola - Assistant Curator of Mammals, Philadelphia Zoological Gardens GENERAL James E. Applegate - Assistant Professor of Wildlife Biology, Rutgers University Robert E. Eriksen - Assistant Wildlife Biologist, Bureau of Wildlife Management, Division of Fish, Game and Shellfisheries George P. Howard - Chief, Bureau of Wildlife Management, Division of Fish, Game and Shellfisheries Ichthyological Associates - Marine ecological studies Robert C. Lund - Principal Biologist, Research Supervisor, Bureau of Wildife Management, Division of Fish, Game and Shellfisheries Jack McCormick and Associates, Inc. - Ecological Conservation Association Joseph Penkala - Assistant Wildlife Biologist, Project Leader, Upland Game, Bureau of Wildlife Management, Division of Fish, Game and Shellfisheries -3- DEFINITIONS ENDANGERED - An endangered species is one whose prospects for survival within the state are in immediate danger due to one or many factors - a loss of or change in habitat, over exploitation, predation, competi- tion, disease. An endangered species requires immediate assistance or extinction will probably follow. THREATENED - May become endangered if conditions surrounding the species begin to or continue to deteriorate. PERIPHERAL - A species whose occurence in New Jersey is at the extreme edge of its present natural range. UNDETERMINED - A species about which there is not enough informa- tion available to determine the status. DECLINING - A species which has exhibited a continued decline in population numbers over the years. EXTIRPATED - A species that formerly occurred in New Jersey, but is not now known to exist within the state. SPECIAL CASE - Species not known to nest regularly in New Jersey (marine reptiles) but that do occur off our shores - some occurring with regularity close to our shores-or in our bays (marine reptiles and mammals). -4- ENDANGERED SPECIES IN NEW JERSEY FISH Shortnose Sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum AMPHIBIANS Tremblay's Salamander Ambystoma tremblayi Blue-spotted Salamander Ambystoma laterale Eastern Tiger Salamander Ambystoma tigrinum Pine Barrens Treefrog Hyla andersoni Southern Gray Treefrog Hyla chrysoscelis REPTILES Bog Turtle Clemmys muhlenbergi Timber Rattlesnake Crotalus horridus horridus BIRDS b Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus b Osprey Pandion haliaetus b Cooper's Hawk Accipter cooperii b Least Tern Sterna albifrons b Black Skimmer Rynchops niger MAMMALS Indiana Bat Myotis sodalis SPECIAL CASE MARINE REPTILES Atlantic Hawksbill Eretmochelys imbricata Atlantic Loggerhead Caretta caretta Atlantic Ridley Lepidochelys kempi Atlantic Leatherback Dermochelys coriacea MARINE MAMMALS Sperm Whale Physeter macrocephalus Blue Whale Balaenoptera musculus Fin Whale Balaenoptera physalus Sei Whale Balaenoptera borealis Humpback Whale Megaptera novaeanqliae Atlantic Right Whale Eubalaena glacialis b = breeds in New Jersey -5- THREATENED SPECIES IN NEW JERSEY FISH Atlantic Sturgeon Acipenser oxyrhynchus American Shad Alosa sapidissima Brook Trout (native) Salvelinus fontinalis Atlantic Tomcod Microqadus tomcod AMPHIBIANS Long-tailed Salamander Eurycea longicauda Eastern Mud Salamander Pseudotriton montanus REPTILES Wood Turtle Clemmys insculpta Corn Snake Elaphe guttata Northern Pine Snake Pituophis melanoleucus melanoleucus BIRDS b Pied-billed Grebe Podilymbus podiceps b Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias b Red-shouldered Hawk Buteo lineatus b Marsh Hawk Circus cyaneusl Merlin Falco columbarius b Upland Sandpiper (Plover) Bartramia lonqicauda b Roseate Tern Sterna douqallii b Barred Owl Strix varia b Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus1 b Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus b Cliff Swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota' Short-billed Marsh Wren Cistothorus platensis b Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus1 b Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis1 b Ipswich Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis princeps b Grasshopper Sparrow Ammodramus savannaruml b Vesper Sparrow Pooecetes gramineusl SPECIAL CASE MARINE REPTILES Atlantic Green Turtle Chelonia mydas b = breeds in New Jersey 1 $tatus desitnation appgicable to breeoing popula ion onty -6- PERIPHERAL SPECIES IN NEW JERSEY FISH White Shark Carcharodon carcharias Smooth Hammerhead Sphyrna zygaena Thorny Skate Raja radiata Spotted Eagle Ray Aetobatus narinara Ladyfish Elops saurus Tarpon Megalops atlantica Snakefish Trachinocephalus myops Haddock Melanogrammus aeglefinus White Hake Urophycis tenuis Halfbeak Hyporhamphus unifasciatus Houndfish Tylosurus crocodilus Bluespotted Cornetfish Fistularia tabacaria Longspine Snipefish Macrorhamphosus scolopax Gag Mycteroperca microlepis Snowy Grouper Epinephelus niveatus Warsaw Grouper Epinephelus nigritus Glasseye Snapper Priacanthus cruentatus Bigeye Priacanthus arenatus Short Bigeye Pristigenys alta Cobia Rachycentron canadum Bluerunner Caranx crysos Crevalle Jack Caranx hippos Horse-eye Jack Caranx latus Round Scad Decapterus punctatus Leatherjacket Oligoplites saurus Bigeye Scad Selar crumenophthalmus Lookdown Selene vomer Greater Amberjack Seriola dumerili Banded Rudderfish Seriola zonata Florida Pompano Trachinotus carolinus Permit Trachinotus falcatus Palometa Trachinotus glaucus Rough Scad Trachurus lathami Atlantic Moonfish Vomer setapinnis Dolphin Coryphaena hippurus Spotfin Mojarra Eucinostomus argenteus Gray Snapper Lutjanus griseus Spottail Pinfish Diplodus holbrooki Pinfish Lagodon rhomboides Spotted Seatrout Cynoscion nebulosus Banded Drum Larimus fasciatus Atlantic Croaker Micropogon undulatus Red Drum Sciaenops ocellata Red Goatfish Mullus auratus -7- PERIPHERAL SPECIES IN NEW JERSEY FISH Spotted Goatfish Psuedupeneus maculatus Atlantic Spadefish Chaetodipterus faber Foureye Butterflyfish Chaetodon capistratus Spotfin Butterflyfish Chaetodon ocellatus Banded Butterflyfish Chaetodon striatus Sergeant Major Abudefduf saxatilus Atlantic Threadfin Polydactylus octonemus Rock Gunnel Pholis qunnellus Snake Blenny Lumpenus lumpretaeformis Fat Sleeper Dormitator maculatus Atlantic Cutlassfish Trichiurus lepturus Frigate Mackerel Auxis thazard King Mackeral Scomberomorus cavalla Spanish Mackerel Scomberomorus maculatus Barbfish Scorpaena brasiliensis Spotted Scorpionfish Scorpaena plumieri Scorpionfish Scorpaena isthmensis Flounder Bothus robinsi Flying Gurnard Dactylopterus volitans Orange Filefish Aluterus schoepfi Gray Triggerfish Balistes capriscus Planehead Filefish Monacanthus hispidus Trunkfish Lactophrys triqonus Smooth Trunkfish Lactophrys triqueter Scrawled Cowfish Lactophrys quadricornis Smooth Puffer Lagocephalus laeviqatus Web Burrfish Chilomycterus antillarum Striped Burrfish Chilomycterus schoepfi BIRDS Migratory birds are not listed, as many appear both spring and fall in New Jersey. MAMMALS Porcupine Erethizon dorsatum SPECIAL CASE MARINE MAMMALS Harp Seal Pagophilus groenlandicus Hooded Seal Cystophora cristata Gray Seal Halichoerus grypus Beluga Whale Delphinapterus leucas -8- DECLINING SPECIES IN NEW JERSEY FISH Northern Kingfish Menticirrhus saxatilis Northern Puffer Sphaeroides maculatus AMPHIBIANS Marbled Salamander Ambystoma opacum Spotted Salamander Ambystoma maculatum Four-toed Salamander Hemidactylium scutatum Northern Spring Salamander Gyrinophilus porphyriticus porphyriticu! Northern Red Salamander Pseudotriton ruber ruber Eastern Spadefoot Toad Scaphiopus holbrooki holbrocki REPTILES Eastern Hognose Snake Heterodon platyrhinos BIRDS Red-necked Grebe Podiceps grisegena b Yellow-crowned Night Heron Nyctanassa violacea b American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus b Least Bittern Ixobrychus exilis Baird's Sandpiper Calidris bairdii Marbled Godwit Limosa fedoa Hudsonian Godwit Limosa haemastica b Common Tern Sterna hirundo Razorbill Alca torda Dovekie Alle alle b Whip-poor-will Caprimulgus vociferous b Least Flycatcher Empidonax minimusl b Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris1 b Purple Martin Progne subis b White-eyed Vireo Vireo griseus b Warbling Vireo Vireo gilvus b Yellow-breasted Chat Icteria virens b Hooded Warbler Wilsonia citrina b Eastern Meadowlark Sturnella magnai b = Breeds in New Jersey 1 Status designation applicable to breeding population only. -9- UNDETERMINED SPECIES IN NEW JERSEY FISH Shortfin Mako Isurus oxyrinchus Bull Shark Carcharhinus leucas Tiger Shark Galeocerdo cuvieri Clearnose Skate Raja eglanteria Roughtail Stingray Dasyatis centroura Atlantic Stingray Dasyatis sabina Bluntnose Stingray Dasyatis sayi Spiny Butterfly Ray Gymnura altavela Smooth Butterfly Ray Gymnura micrura Bullnose Ray Myliobatis freminvillei Round Herring Etrumeus teres Atlantic Thread Herring Opisthonema oglinum Silver Anchovy Anchoviella eurystole Rainbow Smelt Osmerus mordax Bridle Shiner Notropis bifrenatus Ironcolor Shiner Notropis chalybaeus Bluntnose Minnow Pimephales notatus Fourbeard Rockling Enchelyopus cimbrius Atlantic Cod Gadus morhua Ocean Pout Macrozoarces americanus Spotfin Killifish Fundulus luciae Rough Silverside Membras martinica Threespine Stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus Ninespine Stickleback Pungitius punqitius Shield Darter Percina peltata Atlantic Pomfret Brama brama Striped Blenny Chasmodes bosquianus Crested Blenny Hypleurochilus geminatus Feather Blenny Hypsoblennius hentzi Darter Goby Gobionellus boleosoma Highfin Goby Gobionellus oceanicus Seaboard Goby Gobiosoma qinsburgi Sharksucker Echeneis naucrates Whitefin Sharksucker Echeneis nuecratoides Little Tuna Euthynnus alletteratus Chub Mackeral Scomber colias Harvestfish Peprilus alepidotus Sea Raven Hemitripterus americanus Grubby Myoxocephalus aeneus Bay Whiff Citharichthys spilopterus Fourspot Flounder Paralichthys oblongus Yellowtail Flounder Limanda ferruginea AMPHIBIANS Jefferson Salamander Ambystoma jeffersonianum Silvery Salamander Ambystoma platineum Mountain Dusky Salamander Desmognathus ochrophaeus Upland Chorus Frog Psuedacris triseriata feriarum Carpenter Frog Rana virgatipes Northern Cricket Frog Acris crepitans crepitans -10- REPTILES Spotted Turtle Clemmys guttata Map Turtle Graptemys geographica Red-bellied Turtle Chrysemys rubriventris Midland Painted Turtle Chrysemys picta marginata Five-lined Skink Eumeces fasciatus Ground Skink Leiolopisma laterale Queen Snake Natrix septemvittata Eastern Smooth Earth Snake Virqinia valeriae Northern Black Racer Coluber constrictor constrictor Eastern Smooth Green Snake Opheodrys vernalis vernalis Black Rat Snake Elaphe obsoleta obsoleta Eastern King Snake Lampropeltis getulus getulus Northern Scarlet Snake Cemophora coccinea copei Northern Copperhead Agkistrodon contortrix mokasen Eastern Worm Snake Carphophis amoenus amoenus BIRDS b Black Duck Anas rubripes b Ruddy Duck Oxyura jamaicensis b Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipter gentilis' b King Rail Rallus elegans Yellow Rail Coturnicops noveboracensis b Black Rail Laterallus jamaicensis b American Coot Fulica americanaI b Piping Plover Charadrius melodus b Common Snipe Capella qallinagol b Long-eared Owl Asio otus b Eastern Bluebird Sialia sialis Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus MAMMALS Water Shrew Sorex palustris Smokey Shrew Sorex fumeus Long-tailed Shrew Sorex dispar Least Shrew Cryptotis parva Hairy-tailed Mole Parascalops breweri Star-nosed Mole Condylura cristata Keen i,!ntis Myotis keenii Small-footed Myotis Myotis sublatus Silver-haired Bat Lasionycteris noctivaqans Eastern Pipistrel Pipistrellus subflavus Hoary Bat Lasiurus cinereus b = Breeds in New Jersey 1 Status designation applicable to breeding population only -11- MAMMALS (continued) UNDETERMINED SPECIES IN NEW JERSEY Southern Flying Squirrel Glaucomys volans Marsh Rice Rat Oryzomys palustris Deer Mouse Peromyscus manidulatus Eastern Wood Rat Neotoma floridana Southern Bog Lemming Synaptomys cooperi Meadow Jumping Mouse Zapus hudsonius Woodland Jumping Mouse Napaeozapus insiqnis Bobcat Lynx rufus MARINE MAMMALS Dense Beaked Whale. Mesoplodon densirostris Gulfstream Beaked Whale Mesoplodon gervaisi Antillean Beaked Whale Mesoplodon europaeus True's Beaked Whale Mesoplodon mirus Cuvier's Beaked Whale Ziphius cavirostris Pygmy Sperm Whale Kogia breviceps Dwarf Sperm Whale Kogia simus Cuvier Dolphin Stenella frontalis Spotted Dolphin Stenella plagiodon Striped Dolphin Stenella coeruleoalba Common Dolphin Delphinus delphis Atlantic White-side Dolphin Lagenorhynchus acutus Atlantic Killer Whale Orcinus orca Risso's Dolphin Grampus griseus Long-finned Pilot Whale (Blackfish) Globicephala melaena Short-finned Pilot Whale Globicephala macrorhyncus Atlantic Harbor Porpoise Phocoena phocoena Minke Whale Balaenoptera acutorostrata -12- EXTIRPATED SPECIES IN NEW JERSEY FISH Longnose Gar Lepisosteus osseus BIRDS b Wilson's Plover Charadrius wilsonia1 Eskimo Curlew Numenius borealis b Northern Parula Parula americanaI MARINE MAMMALS Gray Whale Eschrichtius robustus MAMMALS Gray Wolf Canis lupus Mountain Lion Felis concolor Snowshoe Hare Lepus americanus b = Breeds in New Jersey Status designation applicable to breeding population only 5/2/79 hb -13- Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants Native to the United States ·t A - COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATE* STATUS** GROUP Coqui, golden Eleutherodactylus jasperi Puerto Rico T Amphibian Salamander, desert slender Batrachoseps aridus CA E Amphibian Salamander, Red Hills Phaeognathus hubrichti AL T Amphibian Salamander, San Marcos Eurycea nana TX T Amphibian Salamander, Santa Ctuz long-toed Ambystoma macrodactylum croceum CA E Amphibian Salamander, Texas blind Typhlomolge rathbuni TX E Amphibian Toad, Houston Bufo houstonensis TX E Amphibian Treefrog, pine barrens Hyla andersonii FL E Amphibian Akepa, Hawaii (honeycreeper) Loxops coccinea coccinea HI E Bird Akepa, Maui (honeycreeper) Loxops coccinea ochracea HI E Bird Akialoa, Kuai (honeycreeper) Hemignathus procerus HI E Bird Akipolaau (honeycreeper) Hemignathus wilsoni HI E Bird Blackbird, yellow-shouldered Agelaius xanthomus Puerto Rico E Bird Bobwhite, masked (quail) Colinus virginianus ridgwayi' AZ E Bird Condor, California Gymnogyps californianus CA,OR E Bird Coot, Hawaiian Fulica americana alai HI E Bird Crane, Mississippi sandhill Grus canadensis pulla MS E Bird Crane, whooping Grus americana Great Plains and Rocky Mt. E gtates E Bird Creeper, Hawaiian Loxops maculata mana HI E Bird Creeper, Molokai (=Kakawahie) Loxops maculata flammea HI E Bird Creeper, Oahu (=alauwahio) Loxops maculata maculata HI E Bird Crow, Hawaiian (=alala) Corvus tropicus HI E Bird Curlew, Eskimo Numenius borealis AKtand snnor t E Bird Dove, Palau ground Gallicolumba canifrons Palau Is. E Bird Duck, Hawaiian (=koloa) Anas wyvilliana HI E Bird Duck, Laysan Anas laysanensis HI E Bird Eagle. bald Haliaeetus leucocephalus 48 contermn8 s. R4tted except wa , ,m wr ,H R Eagle, bald Haliaeetus leucocephalus WA,OR,Mh,WI,MI T Bird Falcon. American peregrine Falco peregrinus anatum All States E Bird Falcon, Arctic peregrine Falco peregrinus tundrius All States except HI E Bird Finch, Laysan (honeycreeper) Telespyza (=Psittirostra) cantans HI E Bird Finch, Nihoa (honeycreeper) Telespyza (=Psittirostra) ultima HI E Bird Flycatcher, Palau fantail Rhipidura lepida Palau Is. E Bird Flycatcher, Tinian monarch Monarcha takatsukasae Marianas Is. E Bird Gallinule, Hawaiian Gallinula chloropus sandvicensis HI E Bird Goose, Aleutian Cananda Branta canadensis leucopareia AK,CA,OR,WA E Bird Goose, Hawaiian (=Nene) Branta sandvicensis HI E Bird Hawk, Hawaiian (=io) Buteo solitarius HI E Bird Honeycreeper, crested (=akohekohe) Palmeria dolei HI E Bird Kite, Everglade (snail kite) Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus FL E Bird COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATE* STATUS** GROUP Mallard, Marianas Anas oustaleti Guam, Marianas Is. E Bird Megapode, La Perouse's Megapodius laperouse Palau Is., Marianas Is. E Bird Millerbird, Nihoa (willow warbler) Acrocephalus familiaris kingi HI E Bird Nukupuu (honeycreeper) Hemignathus lucidus HI E Bird Oo, Kauai (=Oo Aa) (honeyeater) Moho braccatus HI E Bird Ou, (honeycreeper) Psittirostra psittacea HI E Bird Owl, Palau Otus podargina Palau Is. E Bird Palila (honeycreeper) Psittirostra bailleui HI E Bird Parrot, Puerto Rican Amazona vittata Puerto Rico E Bird Parrotbill, Maui (honeycreeper) Pseudonestor xanthophrys HI E Bird Pelican, brown Pelecanus occidentalis Carolinas to TX, CA E Bird Petrel, Hawaiian dark-rumped Pterodroma phaeopygia sandwichensis HI E Bird Pigeon, Puerto Rican plain Columba inornata wetmorei Puerto Rico E Bird Poo-uli Melamprosops phaeosoma HI E Bird Prairie chicken, Attwater's greater Tympanuchus cupido attwateri TX E Bird Rail, California clapper Rallus longirostris obsoletus CA E Bird Rail, light-footed clapper Rallus longirostris levipes CA E Bird Rail, Yuma clapper Rallus longirostris yumanensis AZ,CA E Bird Shearwater, Newell's Manx Puffinus puffinus newelli HI T Bird Shrike, San Clemente loggerhead Lanius ludovicianus mearnsi CA E Bird Sparrow, Cape Sable seaside Ammospiza maritima mirabilis FL E Bird Sparrow, dusky seaside Ammospiza maritima nigrescens FL E Bird Sparrow, San Clemente sage Amphispiza belli clementeae CA T Bird Sparrow, Santa Barbara song Melospiza melodia graminea CA E Bird Starling, Ponape mountain Aplonis pelzelni Caroline Is. E Bird Stilt, Hawaiian Himantopus himantopus knudseni HI E Bird Tern, California least Sterna albifrons browni CA E Bird Thrush, large Kauai Phaeornis obscurus myadestina HI E Bird Thrush, Molokai (=olomau) Phaeornis obscurus rutha HI E Bird Thrush, small Kauai (=puaiohi) Phaeornis palmeri HI E Bird Warbler (wood), Bachman's Vermivora bachmanii Southeastern U.S. E Bird Warbler (wood), Kirtland's Dendrocia kirtlandii MI E Bird Warbler, (willow), reed Acrocephalus luscinia Marianas Is. E Bird Whip-poor-will, Puerto Rican Caprimulgus noctitherus Puerto Rico E Bird White-eye, Ponape great Rukia longirostra (=sanfordi) Caroline Is. E Bird Woodpecker, ivory-billed Campephilus principalis Soithcentral and South- dastern U.S E Bird Woodpecker, red-cockaded Picoides (=Dendrocopos) borealis Southcentral and South- eastern .S. E Bird Pearly mussel, Alabama lamp Lampsilis virescens AL,TN E Clam Pearly mussel, Appalachian monKeyrace Quadrula sparsa TN,VA E Clam Pearly mussel, birdwing Conradilla caelata TN,VA E Clam 4 4 4 ft COMMON NiAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATE* STATUS** GROUP Pearly mussel, Cumberland bean Villosa (=Micromya) trabalis KY E Clam Pe hyaclmselCmeln Quadrula intermedia AL,TN,VA E Clam Pearly mussel, Curtis' F I=Dvsomia) florentina M Ca Pearly mussel, dromedary Dromus dromas TN,VA E Clam Pearly mussel, green-blossom R.iblSS - an amial torulosa TAECa Pearly mussel, Higgin's eye Lampsilis higginsi IL,IA,MN,MO,NE,WI E Clam Pearly mussel, orange-footed Plethobasis cooperianus AL,IN,IA,KY,OH,PA,TN E Clam Pearly mussel, pale lilliput Toxolasma (-Carunculina) cylindrella AL,M0,TN,WV E Clam Pearly mussel, pink mucket Lampsilis orbiculata AL,IL,IN,KY,MO,OH,PA,TN,WV E Clam Pearly mussel, Sampson's Epioblasma (-Dysnomia) sampsoni IL,IN E Clam Pearly mussel, tubercled-blossom Ri ff (-Dysnomia) torulosa . IL,KY,TN,WV E Clam Pearly mussel, turgid-blossom Epioblasma (-Dysnomia) turgidula AL,AR,M0,TN E Clam Pearly mussel, white cat's eye EA am(-Dysnomia) sulcata IN,MI,OH E Clam Pearly mussel, white wartyback Plethobasis circatricosus AL,TN E Clam Pearly mussel, yellow-blossom 11jjyjgff4 j=ysnomia). florentina. ANECa Pigtoe, fine-rayed Fusconaia cuneolus AL,TN,VA E Clam Pigtoe, rough Pleurobema plenum KYTN,VA E Clam Pigtoe, shiny Fusconaia edgariana AL,TN,VA E Clam Pocketbook, fat Potam .lus (=Proptera) capax AR,IN,MO,OH E Clam Riffle shell, tan Epiob asma walkeri KY,TN,VA E Clam Isopod, Socorro Thermosphaeroma thermophilus. NM E Crustacean Bonytail, Pahrantagat Gila robusta Jordani NV E Fish Cavefish, Alabama Speoplatyrhinus poulsoni AL T Fish Chub, bonytail Gila elegans AZ,CA,C0,NV,UT,WY E Fish Chub, Borax Lake Gila boraxobius OR E Fish Chub, humpback Gila cypha AZ,C0,UT,WY E Fish Chub, Mohave Gila mohavensis CA E Fish Chub, slender Hybopsis cahni TN,VA T Fish Chub, spotf in Hybopsis monacha AL,GA,NC,TN,VA T Fish Cisco, longjaw, Coregonus alpenae Lakes Michigan,Huron,Erie E Fish Cui-ui Chasmistes culus NV E Fish Dace, Kendall Warm Springs Rhncty osculus thermalis WY E Fish Dace, Moapa Moapa coriacea NV E Fish Darter, bayou Etheostoma rubrum Hs T Fish Darter, fountain Etheostoma fonticola TX E Fish Darter, leopard Percina, Pantherina. AR,OK T Fish Darter, Maryland Etheostoma sellare MD E Fish Darter, Okaloosa Etheostoma okalposae FL E Fish Darter, slackwater Etheostoma boschungi AL,TN T Fish Darter, snail Percina tanasi TN E Fish COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATE* STATUJS** GROUP Darter, watercress Etheostoma nuchale AL E Fish Gainbusia, Big Bend Gainbusia gaigei TX E Fish Gambusia, Clear Creek Gambusia. heterochir TX E Fish Gambusia, Goodenough Gambusia. amistadensis TX E Fish Gambusia, Pecos Gambusia nobilis NM,TX E Fish Gambusia, San Marcos Gambusia. georgei TX E Fish Killifish, Pahrump Empetrichthys latos NV E Fish Madtom, Scioto Noturus trautmani OR E Fish Madtom, yellowf in Noturus flavipinnis GA, TN, VA T Fish Pike, blue Stizostedion vitreum glaucum Lakes Erie, Ontario E Fish Pupfish, Comanche Springs Cyprinodon elegans TX E Fish Pupfish, Devil's Role Cyprinodon diabolis NV E Fish Pupfish, Leon Springs Cyprinodon bovinus TX E Fish Pupfish, Owens River Cyprinodon radiosus CA E Fish Pupfish, Tecopa Cyprinodon nevadensis calidae CA E Fish Pupf jab, Warm Springs Cyprinodon nevadensis pectoralis NV E Fish Squawfish, Colorado River Ptychocheilus lucius AZ,CA,COINM,NV,UT,WY E Fish Stickleback, unarmored threespine Gasterosteus aculeatus williamsoni CA E Fish Sturgeon, shortnose Acipenser brevirostrum Atlantic coast of U.S E Fish Topminnow, Gila Poeciliopsis occidentalis AZ,NH E Fish Trout, Arizona Salmo apache AZ T Fish Trout, Gila Sa-lmo gilae NM E Fish Trout, greenback cutthroat S-almo clarki stomias co T Fish Trout, Lahontan cutthroat Salmo clarki henshawi CA,NV T Fish Trout, Little Kern golden Salmo aguabonita whitei CA T Fish Trout, Paiute cutthroat S-almo clarki seleniris CA T Fish Woundf in Plagopterus argentissimus AZ,NV,UT E Fish Beetle, Delta green ground Elaphrus viridis CA T Insect Beetle, valley elderberry longhorn Desmocerus californicus dimorphus CA T Insect Butterfly, Bahama swallowtail Papilio andraemon bonhotei FL T Insect Butterfly, El Segundo blue Ele f i1mand)CAEIsc Butterfly, Lange's metalmark Apodemia. mormo langei. CA E Insect Butterfly, Lotis blue Lycaeides argyrognomon lotis CA E Insect Butterfly, mission blue Icaricia icarioides missionensis CA E Insect Butterfly, Oregon silverspot Speyeria zerene hippolyta OR,WA T Insect Butterfly, Palos Verdes blue GlomeA Eh Insectu Butterfly, San Bruno elfin Callophrys mogsii bayensis CA E Insect Butterfly, Schaus swallowtail Papilio ariatodemus ponceanus FL T Insect Butterfly, Smith's blue F.12hikt gs (-Shtil mi aeolden) enp____ ______ CA B Insect Moth, Kern primrose sphinx Euproserpinus euterpe CA T Insect V COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATE* STATUS** GROUP Bat, gray Myotis grisescens Ceetral and Southeastern E Mammal Bat, Hawaiian hoary Lasiurus cinereus semotus HI E Mammal Bat, Indiana Myotis sodalis East and Midwestern U.S. E Mammal Bat, Ozark big-eared Flecotus townsendii ingens MO,OK,AR E Mammal Bat, Virginia big-eared Plecotus townsendii virginianus KY,WV,VA,IN,IL,OH E Mammal Bear, brown or Rrizzly Ursus arctos horribilis 48 conterminous States T Mammal Cougar, eastern Felis concolor cougar Eastern U.S. E Mammal Deer, Columbian white-tailed Odocoileus virginianus leucurus OR,WA E Mammal Deer, key Odocoileus virginianus clavium FL E Mammal Dugong Dugong dugon U.S. Trust Territories E Mammal Ferret, black-footed Mustela nigripes Western U.S. E Mammal Fox, San Joaquin kit Vulpes macrotis mutica CA E Mammal Jaguarundi Felis yagouaroundi cacomitli TX E Mammal Jaguarundi Fellis yagouaroundi tolteca AZ E Mammal Manatee, West Indian (Florida) Trichechus manatus Southeastern U.S. E Mammal Mouse, salt marsh harvest Reithrodontomys raviventris CA E Mammal Otter, southern sea Enhydra lutris nereis WA south to Mexico T Mammal Panther, Florida Felis concolor coryi LA aad FR east to SC - F-an E Mammal Prairie Dog, Utah Cynomys parvidens UT E Mammal Pronghorn, Sonoran Antilocapra americana sonoriensis AZ E Mammal Rat, Morro Bay kangaroo Dipodomys heermanni morroensis CA E Mammal Seal, Carribbean monk Monachus tropicalis Gulf of Mexico E Mammal Seal, Hawaiian monk Monachus schauinslandi HI E Mammal Squirrel, Delmarva Peninsula fox Sciurus niger cinereus MD,VA,DE E Mammal Whale, blue Balaenoptera musculus Oceanic E Mammal Whale, bowhead Balaena mysticetus Oceanic E Mammal Whale, finback Balaenoptera physalus Oceanic E Mammal Whale, gray Eschrichtius gibbosus Oceanic E Mammal Whale, humpback Megaptera novaeangliae Oceanic E Mammal Whale, right Eubalaena spp. Oceanic E Mammal Whale, Sei Balaenoptera borealis Oceanic E Mammal Whale, sperm Physeter catodon Oceanic E Mammal Wolf, gray Canis lupus 480colntereAnoua States, E Wolf, gray Canis lupus MN T Mammal Wolf, red Canis rufus Southeast U.S. west to TX E Mammal Alligator, American Alligator mississippiensis Soy hsrqCIU J. exceptile Alligator, American Alligator mississippiensis FL,GA,LA,SC,TX T Reptile Alligator, American Alligator mississippiensis 12 parishes in LA T(s/a) Reptile Anoleg Culebra giant Anolis roosevelti Puerto Rico: Culebra Is. E Reptile Boa, Mona Epicrates monensis monensis Puerto Rico T Reptile COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATE* STATUS"* GROUP Boa, Puerto Rican Epcae inornatus Puerto Rico E Reptile Boa, Virgin Islands tree Epicrates monensis granti U.S. Virgin Is. E Reptile Crocodile, American Crocodylus acutus FL E Reptile Iguana, Mona ground Cyclura steinegeri Puerto Rico: Mona Is. T Reptile Lizard, blunt-nosed leopard Crotaphytus silus CA E Reptile toacelaVlefrne Uma inornata CA T Reptile Lizard, island night Klauberina riversiana CA T Reptile Lizard, St. Croix ground Ameiva polps U.S. Virgin Is. E Reptile Rattlesnake, New Mexican ridgenosed Crotalus willardi obscurus NH T Reptile Snake, Atlantic salt marsh Nerodia faaciata taeniata FL T Reptile Snake, eastern indigo Drymarchon corals couperi AL,FL,GA,MS,SC T Reptile Snake, San Francisco garter Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenla. CA E Reptile Tortoise, Desert (Beaver Dam Slope) Gopherus agassizii UT T Reptile Turtle, green sea Chelonia pydja a rV elrt seasTRetl Turtle, green sea Chelonia mydas FL E Reptile Turtle, hawksbill sea (-carey) Eretmochelys imbricata Tropic seas E Reptile Turtle, Kemp's Ridley sea Lepidochelys kempii Tropic and temperate seas E Reptile Turtle, leatherback sea Dermochelys coriacea Tro aemseiate. and ERetl Turtle, loggerhead sea Caretta caretta Tropic and temperate seas T Reptile Turtle, Olive (Pacific) Ridley sea Lepidochelys olivacea Tropic and temperate seas T Reptile Turtle, Plymouth red-bellied Chr-maemy-s (-Pseudemys) rubriventris MA E Reptile Snail, Chittenango ovate amber Succinea chittenangoensis NY T Snail Snail, flat-spired three-toothed Triodopais platysavoides WV T Snail Snail, Iowa Pleistocene Discus macclintocki IA E Snail Snail, noonday Hesodon clarki nantahala NC T Snail Snail, painted snake coiled forest Anguispira picta TN T Snail Snail, Stock Island Orthalicus reses FL T Snail Snail, Virginia fringed mountain Polygyriscus virginianus VA E Snail COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME FAMILY NAME STATE* STATUS** GROUP Bunched arrowhead Fagittaia fasciculata Alismataceae NC,SC E Plant Tennessee purple conef lower Echinacea tennesseensis Asteraceae TN E Plant --- Lipochaeta-venosa Asteraceae Hi E Plant Truckee barberry Berberis so'nnei Berberidaceae CA E Plant Virginia round-leaf-birch Betula uber Betulaceae VA E Plant McDonald's rock-cress Arabis mcdonaldiana Brassicaceae CA,OR E Plant Contra Costa wallflower Erysimumi capitatum var. angustatum Brassicaceae CA E Plant Tobusch fishhook cactus Ancistrocactus tobuschii Cactaceae TX E Plant Nellie cory cactus Coryphantha minima Cactaceae TX E Plant Bunched cory cactus Coryphantha ramillosa Cactaceae TX T Plant Lee pincushion cactus Coryphantha sneedli var. leel Cactaceae NM T Plant Sneed pincushion cactus Coryphantha sneedii var. sneedii Cactaceae TX,NM E Plant Nichol's Turk's head cactus Echinocactus horizonthalonius var. nicholii Cactaceae AZ E Plant Pu c uspndhdeo Echinocereus engelmannif var. purpureus; Cactaceae U IT E Plant Kuenzler hedgehog cactus Echinocereus kuenzleri Cactaceae NM E Plant Lloyd's hedgehog cactus Echinocereus lloydii Cactaceae TX E Plant Black lace cactus Echinocereus reichenbachii var. albertii Cactaceae TX E Plant Spineless hedgehog cactus Echinocereus triglochidiatus var. inermis Cactaceae CO,UT E Plant Arizona hedgehog cactus Echinocereus triglochidiatus var. arizonicus Cactaceae AZ E Plant Davis' green pitaya Echinocereus viridifldrus var. davisli Cactaceae TX E Plant Lloyd's Mariposa cactus Neolloydia mariposensis Cactaceae TX T Plant Brady pincushion cactus Pediocactus bradyi Cactaceae AZ E Plant Knowlton cactus Pediocactus knowltonii Cactaceae NM E Plant Peebles Navajo cactus Pediocactus peeblesianus var. peeblesianus Cactaceae AZ E Plant Silver pincushion cactus Pediocactus sileri Cactaceae AZ,UT E Plant Uintg Basin hookless sirccu luu cacaus ____________ _______ Cactaceae CO,UT T Plant Mesa Verde cactus Sclerocactus mesae-verdae Cactaceae CO,NM T Plant Wright fishhook cactus Sclerocactus wrightfae Cactaceae UT E Plant Rven'srever IsadDudleva traskiae Crassulaceae CA E Plant Rvnsmanzanita Arctostaphylos hookeri ssp. ravenii Ericaceae CA E Plant Chapman rhododendron Rhod..dendron chapmanti Ericacer,- FL E Plant Rydberg milk-vetch Astragalus perianus Fabaces- UT T Plant Osgood Mountains milk-vetch Astragalus, yoder-williamsii Fabaceae ID,NV E Plant Hairy rattleweed Baptisia arachnifera Fabaceae GA E Plant San Clemente broom Lotus scoparius ssp.'traskiae Fabaceae CA E Plant Hawaiian wild broad-bean Vicia menziesii Fabaceae Hi E Plant clay phacelia Phacelia argillacea Hydrophyllaceae UT E Plant --- Haplostachys haplostachya var. angustifolia Lamiaceae Hi E Plant San Diego mesa mint Pogogyne abramsii .Lamiaceae CA E Plant --- Stenogyne angu stifolia var. angustifolia Lamiaceae Hi E Plant COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME FAMILY NAME STATE* STATUS** GROUP Harper's beauty ilarperocallis f lava Liliaceae FL E Plant Persistent trillium Trillium persistens Liliaceae GA,SC E Plant Cooke's kokia Kokia cookei Malvaceae Hi E Plant sa ma Isan Malacothamnus clementinus Malvaceae CA E Plant MacFarlane's four-o'clock Mirabilis macfarlanei Nyctaginaceae ID,OR E Plant Eureka evening-primrose Oenothera avita ssp. eurekensis Onagraceae CA E Plant primroDunseveig Oenothera deltoides ssp. howellii Onagraceae CA E Plant Dwarf bear-poppy Arctomecon humilis Papaveraceae UT E Plant Solano (--Crampton's Orcutt) mcoaaPaeeC ln grass Orcuttla muc__ taP___eA__Pan Eureka Dune grass Swallenia alexandrae Poaceae CA E Plant Texas wild-rice Zizania texana Poaceae TX E Plant Northern wild monkshood Aconitum, noveboracense Ranunculaceae IA,4Y,On, T Plant San Clemente Is. larkspur Delphinium kinkiense Ranunculaceae CA E Plant Robbins' cinquef oil Potentilla robbinsiana Rosaceae NUl E Plant Green pitcher plant Sarracenia oreophila Sarraceniaceae AL,GA E Plant San C rugnt s.Ida Castilleja grisea Scrophulariaceae CA E Plant Salt marsh bird's beak Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. mnaritimus Scrophulariaceae CA E Plant Furbish lousewort Ped icularis furbishiae Scrophulariaceae ME E Plant *Some of the species are found in other countries; this list includies only species native to the united States and its territories. *E E Endangered; T = Threatened; T (s/a) = Threatened by similarity of appearance. This is current as of October 1, 1980. For information on additions to this list contact:. Office of Endangered Species, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Department of the interior, Washington, D.C. 20240 (703/235-1975). COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATE* STATUS** GROUP Mallard, Marianas Anas oustaleti Ga, Mari-nas Is. E Bird Megapode, La Perouse's Megapodius laperouse Palau Is. Marianas Is. E Bird Millerbird, Nihoa (willow warbler) Acrocephalus familiaris kingi Hi E Bird Nukupuu (honeycreeper) Hemignathus lucidus Hi E Bird Oo, Kauai (=Oo Aa) (honeyeater) Moho braccatuB Hi E Bird Ou, (honeyereeper) Psittirostra psittacea Hi E Bird Owl, Palau Otus podargina Palau Is. E Bird Palila (honeycreeper) Psittirostra bailleui Hi E Bird Parrot, Puerto Rican Ainazona vittata Puerto Rico E Bird Parrotbill, Maui (honeycreeper) Paeudonestor xanthophrys Hi E Bird Pelican, brown Pelecanus occidentalis Carolinas to TX, CA E Bird Petrel, Hawaiian dark-rumped Pterodroma phaeopygia sandwichensis Hi E Bird Pigeon, Puerto Rican plain Columba inornata wetmorei Puerto Rico E Bird Poo-u Ii Melamprosops phaeosoma Hi E Bird Prairie chicken, Attwater' s greater Tympanuchus cupido attwateri TX E Bird Rail, California clapper Rallus longirostris obsoletus CA E Bird Rail, light-footed clapper Rallus longirostris levipes CA E Bird Rail, Yuma clapper Rallus longirostris yumanensis AZ,CA E Bird Shearwater, Newell's Manx Puff inus puffinus newelli HI T Bird Shrike, San Clemente loggerhead Lanius-ludovicianus mearnsi CA E Bird Sparrow, Cape Sable seaside Ammspza maritima mdrabilis FL E Bird Sparrow, dusky seaside Ammospiza maritima nigrescens FL E Bird Sparrow, San Clemente sage Ainphispiza belli clementeae CA T Bird Sparrow, Santa Barbara song Melospiza melodia graminea CA E Bird Starling, Ponape mountain Aplonis pelzelni Caroline Is. E Bird Stilt, Hawaiian Himantop'us himantopus knudseni Hi E Bird Tern, California least Sterna albifrons browni CA E Bird Thrush, large Kauai Phaeornis obecurus myadestina Hi E Bird Thrush, Molokai (=olomau) Phaeornis obscurus rutha Hi E Bird Thrush, small Kauai (=puaiohi-) Phaeornis palmeri Hi E Bird Warbler (wood), Bachman's Vermivo ra bachmanii Southeastern U.S. E Bird Warbler (wood), Kirtland's Dendrocia kirtlandii Ml E Bird Warbler, (willow), reed Acrocephalus luscinia Marianas Is. E Bird Whip-poor-will, Puerto Rican Caprimulgus noctitherus Puerto Rico E Bird White-eye, Ponape great Rukia logrsr (=sanfordi) Caroline Is. E Bird Woodpecker, ivory-billed Campephilus principalis Southc entroll and South- E Br eas tern ..Br Woodpecker, red-cockaded Picoides (=Dendrocopos) borealis South enrejand South- EBr Pearly mussel, Alabama lamp Lampsilis virescens AL,TN E Clam PermonKeyvace AplcinQuadrula spraTN,VA E Clam Pearly mussel, birdwing Conradilia caelata TNVA E Clam DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE As the Nation's principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for most of our nationally .' A" ' . owned public lands and natural resources. . This includes fostering the wisest use of 'A-; our land and water resources, protecting **i our fish and wildlife, preserving the envi- ; : i ,.: ronmental and cultural values of our na- ".: tional parks and historical places, and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The Department as- a,:' .. em sesses our energy and mineral resources - , a wur and works to assure that their develop- ment is in the/best interests of all our - i people. The Department also has a major responsibility for American Indian reserva- tion communitiesrand for people who live in island territories under U.S. administra- tion. * APPENDIX 6 THIS AGREEMENT, made the day of 1977 BETWEEN hereinafter referred to as GRANTORS, AND THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, with its principal office in the Labor and Industry Building, Trenton, New Jersey hereinafter referred to as GRANTEE, WHEREAS, GRANTORS are the owners of certain lands here- inafter described located in the Township of County of Somerset, State of New Jersey, and which lands are lo- cated within a project known as the Millstone River Project, No. 23, which project is being undertaken by the GRANTEE. WHEREAS, GRANTEE desires to acquire a recreational ease- ment in, over and through lands owned by GRANTORS for the purpose and to the extent hereinafter more particularly described; NOW THIEREFORE, in consideration of the sum of the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, GRANTORS, for them- selves, their heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, do hereby grant, bargain, sell, transfer and convey, to GRANTEE, its successors and assigns, a perpetual casement, in, over and through the lands hereinafter described for the following uses anld I) urpl)oses: a. R(;ANTIIi is g rani ted vellicl C accss over tile within described lands for the purposes of operating and maintaining the lands of the Delaware and Raritan Canal, lands within the Mill- stone Rliver Project area and the lands involved in this easement. b. GRANTEE is granted the right to construct recrea- tional trails over the lands herein described for hiking, eques- trian use, bicycling or nature studies and to clear trees and stabilize surfaces for use by the public for recreational purposes. GRANTEE is further granted the right to install trail markers or other appropriate signs as deemed necessary by GRANTEE to inform or direct the public in the use of the lands involved in this easement or other recreational State lands in the area. c. GRANTEE is granted the right to construct bridges, catwalks or other structures to provide continuous trails across wet or swampy areas of the lands involved in this easement. d. GRANTIEI covenants and agrees not to construct build- ings or other major structures on the lands involved in this ease- ment without the express approval, in writing, by the GRANTORS. The lands and premises comprising this Easement are more particularly described as follows: All that certain tract of land, situate, lying and being in the Township of , County of Somerset, and State of New Jersey, more particularly bounded and described as follows: The 'R;IAN'I'I! aglees tlhat tlci'e slall be Ino li abilit)y U)pon the GRIANTOR arising out ol the use o.1 the within land and prcemiscs by the (;iRANTEE', its employces, agents, licensees, coi,- tractors., or invitecs, and the GRANTEEI', agrees to indemnify and save harmlcss the GRANTOR from any liability and from all costs and expense of every kind to which the GRANTOR may be put by reason of any injury or claim of injury to persons or property resulting or arising from the use by the GRANTEE, its employees, agents, licensees, contractors or invitees of the land and premises herein described. This easement and all of the terms, covenants, provi- sions and conditions contained herein shall run with the land and shall be binding on the GRANTORS, their heirs, executors, admin- istrators, successors and assigns. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and seals the date and year first above written. (L.S.) WITNESS: 4 Approved as to form: William F. Ilyland s Attorney General By: Deputy Attorney General STAT1i 01 O Nl l .NiJ1ERSE'Y SS: COUNTY 01 ) BE IT IllEMEMBERED, that on this day of in the year of' Our lord One Thousand Nine H1undred and Seventy- seven, before me, the dubscriber, personally appeared who, I am satisfied, the mentioned in the within Instrument, and thereupon acknowledged that signed, sealed and delivered the same as act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein expressed, and that the full and actual consideration paid or to be paid for the transfer of title to realty evidenced by the within deed, as such considecration is defined in Chapter 49, Laws of 1968, Sec. 1 (c) is $ Do 1Not Scan RenreD-Insert Do Not Scan Document Here Document ID: -,/X ?, ma) Page #: ,