Final environmental impact statement and management plan for the proposed Weeks Bay National Estuarine Sanctuary

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

Final Environmental
Impact Statement and
Management Plan
For the Proposed
Weeks Bay National
Estuarine Sanctuary

MOM &W

Mob" 8"

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Nadonal Oceanic and Atmospheft Administ-aan
Swe of Alabama
QH541.5
E8 Department of Economic and Community Affairs and
@434 Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
1985

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE

PROPOSED WEEKS BAY NATIONAL ESTUARINE SANCTUARY

NOVEMBER 1985

Prepared by:

Sanctuary Programs Division
Office of Ocean and Coastal
Resource Management
National Ocean Service
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20235

and

Alabama Department of Economic
and Community Affairs
Montgomery, Alabama 36105

and

Alabama Department of Conservation
and Natural Resources
Marine Resources Division
Gulf Shores, Alabama 36542
Property of CSC Library

US Department of Commerce
NOAA Coastal Services Center Library
2234 South Hobson Avenue
Charleston, SC 29405-2413

Designation: Final Environmental 'Impact Statement
Titile: Final Environmental Impact Statement and Management Plan for
the Proposed Weeks Bay National Estuarine Sanctuary
.Abstra4t: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and
the State of Alabama propose to designate approximately 9bU
acres of land and 1,718 acres (2.68 sq. mi.) of water in Weeks
Bay, Alabama as a National Estuarine Sanctuary. Following its
designation, and pending the availability of funding, it is
also proposed that an additional 300 acres of land be added
to the Sanctuary during the second year of operation. The
designation will result in the implementation of a plan which
will establish a comprehensive management framework for carry-
ing out surveillance and enforcement, resource studies, and
interpretive programs.

No new regulations have been proposed pursuant to this action;
however, this does not preclude the State or Federal @overn-
ment, in the future, from promulgating regulations where deemed
necessary to ensure the protection of the resources of the
Weeks Bay ecosystem and the maintenance of the values the
designation is intended to serve. The Interpretive Program
provides a broad-based public education agenda that includes
on-site and off-site activities geared to all visitors and
users of the Sanctuary's resources. The Resource Studies Plan
proposes to gather baseline data, morLitor and assess water
quality, and conduct comparative estuarine studies and wildlife
research projects. Data from these studies will be used as the
basis for improving coastal resource mana@ement decisions by
the State and providing for the long-term protection of the
Weeks Say ecosystem. Alternatives to the Preferred Alternative
have also been presented and include a discussion of the cunse-
quences of maintaining the status quo or pursuin,.j other
State and Federal options.

The responsible Federal official for this project is Paul M.
Wolff, Assistant Administrator for Ocean Services and Coast-a-]
Zone Management, National Ocean Service, NUAA. Any written
comments should be submitted to the contact identified below.

Lead Agency: U.S. Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Ocean Service
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management

Contact: Dr. Nancy Foster
Chief, Sanctuary Programs Division
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Manayement
National Ocean Service
3300 Whitehaven Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20235
202/634-4236

Final Environmental Impact Statement and Management Plan
for the Proposed Weeks-Bay National Estuarine Sanctuary

Table of Contents

f2ge

Executive Summary ....................................... 1

1. Introduction 3

A. Purpose and Need for Action ................ o ........ 5
B. The Plan for Managing the Sanctuary .......... o ...... 7

II. Context for Planning and Management ............ 9

A. Regional Perspective .......o....................... 9
B. Description of the Resources .... oo ............... o.. 11
C. Uses ...... o......... o .........o ..................... 23
D. Overall Management Issues
1. Goals and Objectives ..... o........ o ............ o 23
2. Management Issues ..o ............................ 25
3. Management Strategies ... ........................ 25
4. Administrative Structure .......... o .... o.. 26
E. Resourci Protection
1. Existing State Authorities ....................... 28
2. Existing State Laws .... 29
3. Federal Authorities ....................... o... o... 31

III. Management Programs ...................................... 34

A. Resource Studies Plan
1. History of Research Activities ..... o ............ 34
2. Sanctuary Monitoring Program .................... 35
3. Facilities and Equipment ...... o...oo ......... 36
4. Information Management ....... 36
5. Research Prospects 36

B. Interpretive Plan
1. Facilities, Management and Personnel ..... o ... o.. 38
2. On-Site Interpretive Activities ................. 39
3. Off-Site Interpretive Activities ........ o ....... 41

C. Public Access Plan ...................................... 41
D. Construction Plan ....................................... 42
E. Land Acquisition Plan .................................. 43

IV. Alternatives Including the Preferred Alternative .......... 47

A. Status Quo ........................................... 47
B. Preferred Alternative .................................. 48
C. Alternative Bounda 000 ...... 48
D. Alternative Management Concepts .... 5u

V. Invironmental Consequences 51

A. Preferred Alternative .................................. 51
B. Status Quo .............................................. b2
C. Boundary Alternatives .................................. b2
Di Socio-Economic Impacts ......... 53
E. Unavoidable Adverse Envirorinental or
Socio-Economic Effects . ... oo.o .... o ... o ........ o.... 56
F. Relationship Between the Short-term Uses of the
Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement
of Long-term Product i vi ty ... - ........... -oo .... 5b
G. Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment
of Resources ....... o................. o ...... oo.oo bb

VIo List Of Preparers .... o.... oo ... oo ........ o..o ...... 0.... 57

VIIo List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons
Receiving Copies .... o..oo ...... o........... o... o. 6U

VIII. Bi bl i ography ...... oo ... oo ... 0 ... 63

IX. Appendices .4 .... 0.. 65

X. Comments and Responses to the DEIS .....................

LIST OF FIGURES

1 Location of WeeKS Bay, Alabama .................... Z
2 Interstate Access to Weeks Say, Alabama ............ 4
3 The Mobile Say System .................. **.*0044000 iu

4 Physiographic Subdivisions of Coastal Alabama 12

5 Soil Associations ................................. 17

6 Flood Prone Areas in Mobile and Baldwin Counties

7 Ecological Habitats in the Weeks Bay Area ......... 2U

8 Generalized Map of Threatened Species
Having Limited Range ............................ 22

9 Management Scheme for the Weeks
Bay National Estuarine Sanctuary ................ 27

10 Construction Plan for the Estuarine Sanctuary
Science Center, Weeks Bay, Alabama .............. 44

11 Land Acquisition Plan for the Proposed Weeks 8ay
National Estuarine Sanctuary .................... 45

LIST OF TABLES

lable P a y- -e

1 Stratigraphic Column of Coastal Alabama ........... 14

Note to Readers:

This document serves as both a management plan and a final environmen-
tal impact statement for the proposed Weeks day National Estuarine Sanctuary;
consequently, some of the section headings and the order of their arranvement
may be different than that found in other environmental impact statements.
To assist NEPA reviewers, the following table has been developed which icen-*
tifies where the elements required for NEPA compliance can be found.

NEPA REQUIREMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN PAGE

Purpose and Need for Action ..... Part I, Introduction, Section A 5

Al ternati ves:

Preferred Alternative ......... Part IV, Alternatives .......... 48
Boundary Alternative .......... Part IV, Alternatives ......... 48
Other Alternatives ............ Part IV, Alternatives .......... 50

Affected Environment ............ Part II, Description of Resources,
& Section B .................. 11
Environmental Conse4uences:

General and Specific Impacts .. Part V, Environmental Consequences..

Unavoidable Adverse ........... Part V, Environmental Consequences,
Environmental Consequences, Section D .................. 55
or Socioeconomic Effects

Relationship between Short-.... Part V, Environmental Consequences,
term Uses of the Environment Section F , ................. 51
and the Maintenance and Enhancement
of Long-term Productivity
Possible Conflicts between .... Part II,, Management Kssues, 25
the Proposed Action and the Section 0 ...................
Objectives of Federal, State,
Regional and Local Land Use Plans,
Policies and Contacts for the
Area Concerned

List of Preparers ................ Part VI ................................ 57

List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons
Receiving Copies of the DEIS ... Part VI ................ 0......... 60

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Proposed for designation as a national estuarine sanctuary, Weeks
Bay is an embayinent indenting the eastern shoreline of Mobile Bay midway
between the major metropolitan areas of Mobile, Alabama and Pensacola
Florida (Figure 1). If designated, Weeks Bay will serve to protect an'
embayed estuarine ecosystem characteristic of the central Uulf Coast.
Specifically, Jt will provide protection from the increasing pressures
brought about by economic growth in coastal Alabama and the resultant
movement of the population southward along the eastern shore of Mobile day.
In response to possible threats to the relatively pristine ecosystem, the
Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs, Office of State
Planning and Federal Programs applied to the Office of Ocean and Coastal
Resource Management (OCRM), NOAA, U.S..Department of Commerce in early 1983
for a financial assistance award to initiate the process for sanctuary
designation.

As specified in Section 315 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972
(P.L. 92-583), as amended, the purpose of the National Estuarine Sanctuary
Program is for "...acquiring, developing, or operating estuarine sanctuaries
to serve as natural field laboratories in which to study and gather data on
the natural and human processes occurring within the estuaries of the
coastal zone...". NOAA provides financial assistance to states on a fifty
percent matching basis for land acquisition and development uf reSedrch,
education, and resource protection programs for the estuarine sanctuary.

Consistent with the intent of Section 315 of the Coastal Zone Mana.Je-
ment Act and sanctuary program regulations at 15 CFR Part 921, a Uraft
Environmental Impact Statement/ Management Plan (DEIS/MP) was prepared and
distributed to ensure the broadest possible review of the plan proposed to
ensure the long-term protection and management of Weeks Bay. The UEIS/MP
was distributed to. Federal and State agencies and the general public for
review in September 1984. During the comment period, a public hearing was
held in Fairhope, Alabama, to receive input on the proposed designation by
NOAA and/or the plan proposed by the State to manage the site. Based on the
written comments received and testimony presented during the public hearing,
NOAA has prepared this Final Environmental Impact Statement/Mand@ement Plan.

The proposed management plan, which will rely on the coordination of
existing Federal and State authori-ties as a means for regulating activities
within and affecting the resources of the Sanctuary, will be applied to all
of the waters constituting Weeks Bay up to mean high water (mhw), including
the tidal reaches of the rivers and tributaries which drain into the emoay-
ment. The boundaries of the proposed estuarine sanctuary also include 33b
acres of fastland (property above mhw) within an "ecological core" between
the mouths of the Fish and Magnolia rivers and a 615-acre parcel possessing
nearly 3 miles of shoreline frontage lying immediately south of Weeks day.
The boundary represents NOAA's Preferred Alternative; a result of recommenc-
ations received,from the State or Alabama based uFo-n its findings that the
site best represented the estuarine environment characteristic of'tne jredter
Mobile Bay system and was deserving, given its relatively pristine quality,
the recognition and protection that would be accorded as a result of its
designation as a National Estuarine Sanctuary.
0,

-dud Chu P&MM 21
41 J4 31 OnnrtL.,.
216
43
am 4 1w

12 Ift caw

SOW" 59
a L D
12
MOO
83 An 4 ,
27

4Mr 90R
WeekS 29
AMV Ob" 29
19 S02

Figure 1. Location of Weeks Say, Alabama

1. INTRODUCTION

In establishing the National Estuarine Sanctuary Pro4ram as a part of
the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Congress realized that certain
areas, because of their vulnerability to expanding economic development and
population pressures, should be set aside for the purpose of creating natur-
al field laboratories in which to study estuarine processes--Weeks Bay re-
presents just such an area. Representing a microcosm of the Mobile bay
system, which is under increasing stress from development pressures, Weeks
Bay too may suffer from permanent changes if steps are not taken now to
protect it.

Weeks Bay, a small estuarine embayment comprised of open, shallow waters
and vegetated wetlands is geographically located approximately midway oetween
the two major metropolitan areas of Mobile, Alabama and Pensacola, Florida,
and is easily accessible to these areas by U.S. Highway V6 (Figure 2). It
is representative of the Mississippi Delta subcatetjory of the Louisianian
biogeographic region and receives waters from the Fish and Magnolia Rivers.
The waters of the Bay connect with Mobile Bay through a narrow openintJ and
cover approximately 1,718 acres averaging approximately 4.8 feet in depth.
Given its natural value as a,habitat for a diversity of commercially and
recreationally important species of fism and crustaceans as well as its
attractiveness and vulnerability to both development and water-dependent
activities, the State has sought to have Weeks Bay designated as a National
Estuarine Sanctuary by the Federal government and, subsequently, prqposes
to manage it in accordance with the Sanctuary Management Plan approved for
the site.

The primary purpose of the plan proposed for managing the proposed estua-
rine sanctuary in Weeks Bay Is to provide a framework for the comprenensive
management of the living and non-living resources of the site. Through its
establishment as a National Estuarine Sanctuary, the management of tne Weeks
Bay is intended to serve the following objectives:

To gain a more thorough understanding of ecological relationships
within the estuarine environment;

To make baseline ecological measurements;

To serve as a natural 'control in order to monitor changes and
assess the impacts of human stresses on the ecosystem;

0
To provide a vehicle for increasing public knowledge and awareness
of the complex nature of estuarine ecosystems, their values and
benefits to man and nature, and the problems confronting them; and

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.

Vol ARAIAMA
-------------------------------
f10110A

M01111

Flo

F1 WEEKS SAY
Ismumme vicruAny

f MIR [A

Figure 2. Interstate Access to proposed Weeks Bay National Estuarine Sancl
7

The action currently under consideration by UCRM is the proposed esta-
blishment and designation by NOAA of an estuarine sanctuary consisting of
approximately 2,668 acres of lands and waters in and around Weeks Bay. The
State of Alabama has submitted an application to NOAA seeking $5UU,UUU, a
@um to be matched by the value of land donated to the State for the Sanctuary,
in order to purchase two tracts of land totalling 335 acres. The proposed
Sanctuary will be representative of the Mississippi Delta subcategory within
the Louisianian biogeographic region.

The proposed Sanctuary is the result of the wide support received from
many different organizations and the joint efforts of Federal, State, and
local officials over several years. In 1981, the Alabama Coastal Area
Board initiated an evaluation process to select a candidate for possible
designation as an estuarine sanctuary; Weeks Bay was chosen in Spring 1982 as
their nominee. In June 1982, the State of Alabama was awarded a $25,000
pre-acquisition award to develop a Draft Sanctuary Management Plan and an
Environmental Assessment analyzing and describing the site.

A. Purpose and Need for Action

In response to the Intense pressures upon the important coastal zone
of the United States, Congress passed the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)
of 1972, as amended (CZMA), 16 U.S.C. 1451 et ista. 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 tne
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM) of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric-Addlinistration (NOAA).

The CZMA affirms a national interest in the effective protection and
development of the Nation's coastal zone, and provides assistance and en-
couragement to coastal states (including those bordering the Atlantic and
Pacific Oceans, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Great Lakes)-ana U.S. territo-
ries to develop and implement State programs for managing their coastal
zone. The Act established a variety of grant-in-aid programs to such states
for the purposes of:

0 Developing coastal zone management programs (Sec. 30);

0 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);

0 Coordinating, studying, planning, and training programs to support
both scientifically and technically the state coastal management
programs (Sec. 310); and

0 Acquiring estuarine sanctuaries, and land to provide for shore-
front access and island preservation (Sec. 315).

The. National Estuarine Sanctuary Program authorized by Section 315 of
the CZMA establishes a program to provide matching grants to states to
acquire, develop, and operate natural estuarine areas as sanctuaries so
that scientists and students,may be provt!ded the opportUnity to examine the
ecological relationships within these areas over a pericid of time. Section
315 provides a maximum of $3,,UO0,0QO in Federal funds, to be matched by an
equivalent amount from the state, for each sanctuary. Guidelines for
implementing the estuarine sanctuary program were orignally published on
June 4, 1974 (15 CFR Part 921, 39 FR 19922) and amended on September 9,
1977 (15 CFR Part 921, 42 FR 4552217. P@oposed regulations revising NOAA's
procedures for selecting i-nd designating national-estuarine sanctuaries
were published on August 3. 1983 (48 FR 35069). Final Estuarine Sanctuary
Program Regulations were published Ju-ne 27,1984 (49 FR 26502, to be codified
at 15 CFR Part_921) and became effective on October T,_ 1,984 (Appendix,A).

Sanctuaries established under this program have the dual purpose of:
(1) providing relatively undisturbed areas so that a representative series
of natural coastal ecological systems will always remain available for
ecological research and education; and (2) ensuring the availability of
natural areas as controls against which impacts of man's activities in other
areas can be assessed. These sanctuaries are to be used primariiy for long
term scientific and educational purposes, especially to provide information
essential to coastal zone management decision making. These purposes may
include:

0 Gaining a thorough understanding of the natural ecological rela-
tibnships.within the variety of estuarine environments of
the United States;

0 Making baseline ecological measurements;

o Se@ving as a natural control against which changes in other estua-
ries can be measured, and facilitating evaluation of the impacts
of human activities on estuarine ecosystems; and

0 Providing a vehicle for increasing public knowledge and awareness
of the complex nature of estuarine systems, their values and
benefits to man and nature, and problems they encounter.

While the primary purpose of estuarine sanctuaries is scientific and
educational, multiple use of estuarine sanctuaries will be encour;yed to
the extent that such usage is compatible with the primary purpose served by
their designation. Such uses may generally include activities such as low
intensity recreation, fishing, hunting, and wildlife observation.

The CZMA and the regulations governing the administration of the National
Estuarine Sanctuary Program envision that, if fully implemented, it will repre-
sent the variety of regional'and ecological differences among the Nation's
estuaries. The regulations indicate that "the purpose of the estuarine
sanctuary program ... shall be accomplished by the establishment of a series
of estuarine sanctuaries which will be des4,gnated 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)). Appendix I to the.
regulations at 15 CFR Part 921, describe eleven (11) distinct biogeographic
provinces or classifications based on geographic, hydrographic, and bioio.:Iic
characteristics. Subcategories of this basic system will be utilized as
appropriate to distinguish major regions or subclasses of each province.

In north central Gulf of Mexico, very few estuarine systems exist out-
side of Louisiana. Weeks Bay, an estuarine system with an abundance of fish
and wildlife, is one of the few estuaries in the south that remains relative-
ly free from development. Activities such as fishing, boatiny, crabbin'j,
hunting, and wildlife photography/observation take place in the Bay; however,
the environmental effects of these are minimal. This situation may soon be
changed, however, due to the increasing demand for waterfront footage @Jenera-
ted by residential and recreational development. Continued reliance upon
existing institutional arrangements may be inadequate to effectively monitor
activities and prevent ecological ham to this unique estuarine ecosystem.

Preservation of Weeks Bay, a microcosm of the greater Mobile Bay system,
will provide a system in which the effects of various land use pressures as
well as natural and man-induced perturbations may be studied. Results of the
studies could be applied to Mobile Bay and other areas to prevent further
degradation of their ecosystem. Designating Weeks Bay as a national estuarine
sanctuary will establish a mechanism for assessing the overall impact of
activities in the area. Formal acknowledgement of the special @esource
values of the area will ensure that it is given special protection and will
encou-rage particularly careful review of any proposals for future siting of.
potentially harmful activities. Finally, monitoring of the Sanctuary will
provide the basis for a greater understanding of the area's neea ana ecoialic-
al balance, and will provide the fouhdation for better management.

B. The Plan for Mana2ing the Sanctuary

In order to ensure that the objectives of the CZMA regarding Weeks day
are realized, this document presents the management scheme proposed for the
site and an assessment evaluating the environmental impacts of the designa-
tion action. The management plan is oriented towards expanding research
and educational opportunities in Weeks Bay. Land acquisitions of the
11core Is area of the estuarine complex will protect this valuable natural
laboratory from the onward push of development along the eastern shore of
Mobile Bay. No new laws or restrictions are being proposed as a result of
this designation on the use of Weeks Bay; however, this is not to suggest
that the State would not consider proposing such in the future if necessary.

Weeks Bay well represents that pristine microcosm of Mobile Say
4Ch
to wh. we have referred. As such, it can be used in research on @ne
effects of human and natural impacts on an estuarine system. It -i an
excellent site for such activities as it is close to both Mobile, Alabama
and Pensacola, Florida and in near proximity to a satellite campus of Faulkner
State Junior College, the students and faculty of which have been .@iven
prominent roles in the proposed research agenda.

. . I
On-site management of the Sanctuary will be provided Dy the Alabama
Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (ADCNR) which, in consulta-
tion with the Alabama Department of Economic and Community Development (ADECA),
will be responsible for the day-to-day operations of the! site. ADECA will
be the principal agency responsible for ensuring the satisfactory implementa-
tion of the Sanctuary's Federally-approved management plan. ADECA will also
serve as the State's fiscal representative and principal contact in all discus-
sions with NOAA regarding the Weeks Bay National Estuarine Sanctuary. The
proposed management plan also calls for the establishment of a Sanctuary
Advisory Committee (SAC) which will provide guidance to the ADECA/ADCNR in
carrying out its provisions.

11. CONTEXT FOR PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT

A. Regional Perspective

Weeks Bay is located along the eastern shore of Mobile Bay in Baldwin
County, Alabama, 30 miles southeast of Mobile (Figure 3). The Bon Secour
National Wildlife Refuge, the best remaining undisturbed Gulf Coast Beach
ecosystem between Pensacola, Florida and New Orleans, Louisiana lies to the
south. The refuge includes Perdue and Little Point Clear, south of Weeks
Bay; Little Dauphin Island, a barrier island-at the mouth of Mobile day;
and Skunk Bayou, which surrounds the property lying south of Weeks Bay and
referred to in this document as the Swift tract. The habitat represented
by the refuge is characteristic of barrier island ecosystems ana boasts an
extensive migratory bird population.

The Alabama coastal area has some 4UU,OOU acres of bay ana estuarine
waters, 121,000 acres of vegetated wetlands, 130 identified species of
birds, a commercial fishing catch with a final value estimated at $148
million, and a registration of over 23,300 recreational boats. It also has
major industrial and municipal sources discharging 17U million gallons of
various waste products each day i.nto coastal waters; a booming second home
construction business throughout the area's waterfront; a maintenance
dredging requirement producing 7 million cubic yards of spoil mater4als
annually; the prospect of increased energy-@elated development; and the
possibility of additional growth related to the Tennessee-Tombi,gbee Water-
way. Weeks Bay, is accessible via U.S. Highway 98 from Mobile, Alabama ana
Pensacbla, Florida, as well as via Baldwin-County Highway 1, which skirts
the shoreline of Mobile Bay south to the mouth of the site.

Studies indicate that about 293 fish species live in Alabama's
coastal waters. Most species are dependent upon coastal marshes, submerged
grassbeds and estuarine waters for nursery areas before moving into deeper
water at maturity. Une hundred and thirty-two avian species are founa
associated wit@ Alabama's saline and brackish are;s. Turtles, snakes and
alligators are the predominant reptiles and' the coastal area includes a
number of small mammals as well as whales and dolphins. The most common
4nvertebrates are the commercially valuable shrimp, oyster and blue crabs..

The limited extent and uniqueness of the area's habitats, coupled
with construction activities, has resulted in a significant reduction in
the number of species of plants and animals once found in abundance.
According to the Steering Committee on Endangered and Threatened Species in
Alabama, the approximate number of species listed by the State as endanyer-
ed, or threatened, or as species of special concern include: 30 species of
plants; 9 fish species; 21 species of reptiles and amphibians; 22 specles
of birds; and 9 species of mammals.

The Port of Mobile plays a vital role in the health of the regional
4m
economy. In addition to providing approx, ately SOU jobs and an annual
payroll exceeding S11 million, its facilities offer an additional impetus
to industrial development by increasing access to national and international
markets. 'JIn order to function properly, the part must maintain surTdCe

L E
A 0 W I N
Shia

RA Y

Womb
Intraca"tal waftf-av
to Wf 4
if
Oystawr W-
MISIM -r-TIN SQ.*.%*D WCDCfjt

lacrdida I its
0 Lude LaCUOR
MOO" ;Goal

to 0

0 10 K.iain. *f-%

Figure 3. The Mobile Bay System

water transportation arteries in prime condition. Existing maintenance
dredging operations in the Bay carried out by the Corps of Engineers produce
an annual average of 7 million cubic yards of dredge spoil material.
Several events are anticipated or have occurred which could provide for
increased economic growth within the Mobile Bay area: (1) expanding chemical
industrial base; (2) increased production of oil and natural gas; and
(3) the completion of the TennesseeTombigbee Waterway. Studies prepared by
the South Alabama Regional Planning Commission in 1975 indicate that approxi-
mately 4000 additional acres of industrial land will be required to satisfy
the anticipated industrial requirements for the year 2000.

Mobile and Baldwin Counties are both experiencing rapid population in-
creases as well as urban growth. Balwin County's overall popuiat.ion increased
17 percent during the period 1970-1976; Mobile County's growth was 9.9 per-
cent. A significant portion of this growth occurred within the coastal area.
v
The fishing industry is the major economic factor in several Mobile and
Baldwin County communities. From 1950 to 1977, the dollar amount of Alabama's
commercial marine fishery increased from $12.1 million to $37 million at
the dock. Shrimping is by far the major commercial fishery, accountiny for
almost 91 percent of the retail value of all commercial fishing in the
State. The abundance of shrimp is dependent on many factors, the most
significant of which is the presence of extensive wetland areas for nursery
grounds and food. It is estimated that 95 percent of all commercial species
of shrimp found in the Gulf of Mexico spend at least a portion of their
life cycle in estuaries such as Weeks Bay.

The coastal area of Alabama also offers a wide variety of recreational
opportunities toresidents and tourists. Most recreational activities are
centered around the area's water resources. A total of 10,963 acres of
publicly-owned or maintained shorefront and recreation areas are available in
the two counties. Public access in Baldwin County is provided by 9248
acres of State, County and municipal parks, boat ramps and other properties.
Access to coastal recreational opportunities is further provided by nume@ous
privately owned and operated fish camps, boat ramps, and marinas.

B. Description of the Resources

The Weeks Bay area can be characterized as being representative of the
greater Mobile Bay system. An estuarine environment of great importance to
the eastern Mobile Bay-8on Secour Bay system, it possesses numerous species
of plants and animals, including many threatened and endangered species.
It is a hiyhly-productive area that serves as a nursery for commerciaily
important shellfish and finfish and, moreover, exhibits a diverse array of
other flora and fauna.

1. General Physiograehy

Coastal Alabama lies within two major physiograpnical provinces:
the East Gulf Coastal Plain section of the Coastal Plain province and the
Mississlippi-Alabama shelf section of the Continental Shelf province. Lana
areas in coastal Alabama are within the Southern Pine Hills and the Coastal
Lowlands subdivisions of the East Gulf Coastal Plain section (Figure 4).

-A"wWw Plow

I*N

PMA MM plaw

$90"MM plas Mius

Figure 4. PhysiographiC Subdivisions of Coastal Alabama
(O'Neil and Mettee, 1982)

Alabama's Coastal Lowlands are essentially flat to gently undulatintj
plains extending along the coast adjacent to the Mississippi Sound and the
margins of Mobile, Bon Secour, and Perido Bays (CooKe 1939). The lowlands
are indented by many tidal creeks, rivers, and estuarines and are fringed
by tidal marshes, all of which are subject to inundation at high tide.

2. Stratigraphy and Soils

a. Subsurface Strati2raphy: Coastal and offshore regions of
Alabama are underlain by sediments that range from pre-Jurassic to Holocene
In age and may reach 25,000 feet in thickness at the coast (Table 1). This
thick section of sedimentary rocks lies unconformably upon metamorphic and
igneous rocks of unknown age.

1) Pre-Coastal Plain Basement Complex

The lithologic character and relative age of rocks comprising the
igneous and metamorphic basement complex are indefinite. The complex has
been penetrated to 18,850 feet.

2) Jurassic System

Rocks of Jurassic age in coastal Alabama are.about 5,OUU feet thick.
Lower Jurassic rocks are mainly salt, sandstone, dolomite, limestone, and
interbedded evaporite deposits of salt and anhydrite. The upper part of the
Jurassic consists primarily of terrigenous clastic deposits of shale and
sandstone.

3) Cretaceous System-Lower Cretaceous Series

Lower Cretaceous sediments in coastal Alabama are mainly terriyen-
ous clastics and consist mostly of interbedded sandstone and shale with
some anhydite, limestone, and shales. These sediments are about 4,U0U-b,0UU
feet thick.

Cretaceous_System - Upper Cretaceous Series
Upper Cretaceous formations include beds of chalk, clay, sand,-
gravel, and mixtures of these. The st@ata are 3,OUU feet thick.

5) Tertiary System

Tertiary formations consist predominantly of marine, estuarine,
and-'fluvial terrigenous clastic rocks and interbedded marine carbonates.
The section is about 5,000 fee,?,. thick and is composed of @he Paleocene
Series, Oligocene Series, Mio_--ane Series, and the Pliocene-Pleistocene
Series, including the Citrone'ile Formation.

5) Tertiary System - Pliocene and Pleistocene Series

The Citronelle Formation crops out in the central and southern
parts of the coastal area. In the northern part of Mobile and Baldwin
Counties it caps hills and ridges. The formation ranges in thickness frcrn

Table 1. Stratigraphic Column of Coastal Alabama
(Alabama Coastal Area Board, 1978)

ERATHEM SYSTEM SERIES ROCK UNITS

HOLOCENE UNDIFFERENTIATED ALLUVIAL
QUATERNARY r)ELTAIC, ESTUARINE AND
PLEI COASTAL SEDIMENTS
ALLUVIAL TERRACE DEPOSITS

PLIOCENE CITRONELLE FORMATION
CENOZOIC
MIOCENE MIOCENE UNDIFFERENTIATED

OLIGOCENE CHICKASAWHAY LIMESTONE
TERTIARY
VICKSBURG GROUP

JACKSON GROUP

EOCENE CLARIBORNE GROUP

WILCOX GROUP

PALEOCENE MIDWAY GROUP

SELMA GROUP
UPPER
CRETACEOUS ETJTAW FORMATION

71JSCALOOSA GROUP

LOWER LOWER CRETACEEOUS
MESOZOIC UNDIFFERENTIATED
C07TON VALLEY GROUP

UPPER HAYNESVILLE FORMATION

SMACKOVER FORMATION
JURASSIC
NORPHLET TORMATION
MIDDLE
LOUANN SALT
@F

TRIASSIC UNDI'FERENTIATED SEDIMENTS

PRE-MESOZOIC BASEMENT CO x
STOCENE

@
E

L
U

C07

HAYN

SMA

NOR

.I.
@TRII @UN

about 100-200 feet and consists chiefly of gravelly sand, sand with clay-
balls and partings, sandy clay, and gravel.

b. Surface-Stratigraphy: Surface geologic units of the coastal
and offshore areas consist of unconsolidated sand, gravel, salt, and clay
of Miocene through Holocene age. The Miocene Series and Citronelle Forma-
tion crop out in bands that strike northwest and dip southwest. Terrace
deposits generally parallel the Mobile River system and Mobile Bay and
slope gently toward the Gulf of Mexico.

1) Tertiary-System - Miocene Undifferentiated

The Miocene Series overlies the Oligocene Series in the subsurface
and crops out in the central and northern parts of Mobile and Baldwin Counties,
ranging in thickness from 400 feet in the northern part of the counties to
nout 3,000 feet at the coast. In the outcrop, the Miocene Series, unaiffer-
entiated, consists of laminated to massive, marine and estuarine, fine and
coarse clastic deposits. These deposits include very fine to coarse grained
sands, sandstones, and sandy, silty clay. Locally, the sand contains very
fine to medium quartz pebble gravels and silicified and carbonized plant
material. Carbonized leaf remains occur in the clay beds.

2) Quaternary System - Pleistocene Series

Terrace deposits in this series are generally 2U to 30 feet thick,
but locally reach a thickness of 50 feet. Deposits consist of fine to coarse
grained, gravelly sand, and sandy clay. Location and elevation of these
deposits Is related to beds of ancestral rivers in the Mobile River system.

3) Quaternary System - Pleistocene and Holocene Series

Low terrace and alluvial deposits occur as a belt from 7 to 1U
miles wide in the delta complex at the head of Mobile Bay and extend north-
ward beyond the confluence of the Tombigbee and Alabama Rivers. Sediments
in the Mobile River basin are of fluvial, estuarine, and marine origin and
are as much as 150 feet thick. Sediments deposited in upper Mobile Bay are
of fluvial origin and include delta-front and pro-delta sand, silt, and --
clay; interstratified fine-grained sand and silt; and interstratified silt
and clay. Other flood plain deposits occur in the smaller tributary and
river systems that drain into the coastal area and contain @ravelly sand,
silt, and clay derived from the weathering of older interior deposits.

The Coastal Lowlands, at altitudes ranging from sea level to 30
feet, are underlain by low terrace and alluvial deposits. These deposits
bordering lower and central portions of Mobile Bay and southern Mobile and
Baldwin Counties include sediments of marine origin with shells, she]]
debris, and layers of peat formed in pre-existing swamps and marshes.

4) Quaternary System - Inshore and Nearshore Sediments

Sediment types in Alabama's 394,OOU acres of inshore water bottoms
are comprised of (1) aelta-front and prodelta deposits, (2) estuarione fine-
4
gra.ned deposits, and (3) bay margin quartzose sand, snell, ana heavy materials.

Delta-form and prodelta deposits are found at the heads of
Alabama's coastal bays, near the active sediment source. These deposits
are comprised of sand, silty sand, silt, and clay-like silt. Estuarine fine-
grained deposits are found over most of the inner bay and estuarine bottoms.
Estuarine deposits are comprised of silty clay and clay. Bay margin deposits
are comprised of fine to medium grained quartzose sands with local concentra-
tions of shell material, clay casts or heavy minerals. Oyster shell is a
feature of the inshore water bottoms of Mobile Bay.

Nearshore deposits off the Alabama coast include a conspicuous
tidal delta extending seaward from the mouth of Mobile Bay and comprised of
well-sorted quartzose sand similar to those occurring locally in the beach
and dune deposits. Related to this tidal delta is a line further seaward
comprised of estuarine fine-@-grained deposits that have settled to the
bottom'after passing through the mouth of Mobile Bay (Allabama Coastal Area
Board, 1978).

c. Soils: According to the Alabama Coastal Area Board (1978) tne
proposed Weeks -Bay Estuarine Sanctuary site is characterized by two types
of surface soils: Malbis-Orangeburg-Pansey Association and Dorovan-Plummer-
Tidal March Association. These have the following properties and their
boundaries are given in Figure 5.
1) Malbis-Orangeburg-Pansel Association

Deep, moderate to well-draingd, level to gently sloping,
sandy clay loams; normally good for agriculture, especially where drainage
is poor; building limitations are normally severe and are only sometimes
slight to moderate.

2) Oorovan-Plummer-Tidal Marsh Association

Variable depending on location, normally level, poorly drained,
organic soils with severe limitations for construction; in Mobile Deita,
only capable of limited hardwood production; tidal marshes unsuitable for
agriculture.

3. Orainage

The proposed Sanctuary receives runoff from the Fish and Magnolia Rivers
and is considered to be in a flood-prone area. Base elevations of the
100-year event (the common name for a flood which has a 1% chance of occur-
ring annually) are shown in Figure 6.

4. Biological Characteristics

a. Forested Wetlands and"Swamp'Habitats: Much of the land around
Weeks Bay is forested wetlands and swamps. Much of the Foley and Oqburn
Tracts and.part of the Swift Tract are comprised of a forested wetland type
known as moist pine forest. The moist pine line is prevalent in areas of
low relief and poor drainage between streams. It forms a more or less
extensive strip between flood plain swamps and upland pine-oak forest *-
Oespite its apparent monotony, the vegetation of moist pinelands is d4verse
and rich in species. The most common tree is the slash pine (Pinus .0_14,otti),

49
AS
M 42

39 52
34
49
35 49

54
49

49
35 so -8 IfII
34 34

53 S4 34 38

S3 48
0 38

I542-C.0

Figure 5. Soil Associations
(Modified from Soil Conservation Service, 1974)

'11-9100-04ON19 AAGA a

Figure 6. Flood Prone Areas in Mobile and Baldwin Counties
(Riccio, et,al., 1973)

although longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) can also grow there. The under-
story may be very dense and consists 1argely of gallberry (Ilex glabra), wax
myrtle (Myrica cerifera), saw palmetto (Serenoa repens),St Jonn's worts
(Hypericum fasciculatum), and occasional sweet bau (Magnolia virginiana),
swamp bay (Persea palsutris) and swamp tupelo (Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora).
The moist forests are designated by the Roman numeral IV in Figure 7.

Fish River, Magnolia River, and several small tidal streams in the
Weeks Bay area are bordered by a forested wetland type known as bay, tupelo,
cypress swamp. The vegetation of these swamps varies depending partly on
the amount and duration of flooding. If flooding is extensive, pond cypress
(Taxodium distichum var. nutans) and swamp tupelo may dominate the canopy.
Usually under moderate flooding the dominant trees are sweet bay. Red maple
(Acer rubrum), swamp tupelo, swamp bay and tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera)
may also occur there. White cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides) becomes increas-
ingly more common in-swamps along upper reaches of streams, especially along
the Fish and Magnolia Rivers.

Few plants grow under the dense shade of these trees; among these
are such shrubs as Virginia willow (Itea virginica), star anis (Illicium
floridanum), and fetterbush (Leucothoe axillaris). Netted chain fern
(Woodwardia areolata) and cinnamon fern (Osmuda cinnamomea) are among the
few tolerant herbs growing there.

The more open borders of these swampy woods may be covered by
dense thickets of swamp cyrilla (Cyrilla racemifora), black titi (Cliftonia
monophylla), and large gallberry (Ilex coriacea). Wax myrtle (Myrica
cerifera) and yaupon (Ilex vomitoria) also grow in this habitat and are
especially common along the brackish waters of Weeks Bay and on the Swift
tract.

The transition zone between these forested wetlands and upland pine-
oak forests supports plants adapted to somewhat better drainage conditions
such as water oak (Quercus nigra), laurel oak (Q. laurifolia), sweet gum
(Liquidambar styracifua), southern magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora), and
devilwood (Osmanthus americana). The bay, tupelo, cypress swamp is designated
by the Roman numeral VI in Figure 7.

b. Marshes: The shoreline of Weeks Baysupports marshes dominated
by salt-tolerant herbs and grass-like plants. These marshes occur as narrow
shoreline fringes and extend up the tidal mouths of the Fish and Magnolia Rivers.
The black needlerush (Juncus roemerianus) is an abundant species and dominates
portions of marsh in the area.

Two species of cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora and S. cynosuroides)
are locally abundant in the intertidal zone. Other frequent species are salt
grass (Distichlis spicata), saltmeadow cordgrass (Spartina patens), salt marsh
aster (Aster tenuiflolius), marsh gerardia (Agalinas maritima) and sea lavender
(Limonium nashii) .

Within the less saline, brackish marshes, a greater diversity of
species occurs. Of the saline marsh species only needlerush and saltmeadow
cordgrass are found frequently in the brackish environment. Common brackish

Baru."-:

37
719
.501

so
1z .4e
25

JSF
'il ;,?. - -M
W ix
39,

Tes

30
32

4b
Type I NN@
Saline and Brackish"
v
Marsh &

Tyve III= Freshwater Marsh

Type IV Moist Pine Forest
7:
wimp (Bay, Tupelo, Cypress).*:',*..
Type VI S

Fig ure 7. Eco logical Ha bita ts in the We eksBay Area
(Stout and Lelong, 1981)

species include cattails Qpha M2.), spike rush (Eleocharis M.), reed
@Phra!Lmites.australis), bull rushes (Scirpus spp.), and sawgrass k0adlum
Jamalcense). The marshes are designated by Roman numera I in Fig-ur-e-77.

c. Submerged Grassbeds: Four species of plants dominate the
submerged grassbeds in Weeks Bay. The most abundant species is wid@eon
grass (Ruppia maritima). The other species are Eurasian watermilfoil
(Myriophylium- spicatum), tapegrass (Vallisneria americana), and slender
pondweed (Potamogeton pusillus). The occurrence of these grassbeds is re-
stricted to relatively quiet waters along shorelines. Due to high turbidity
conditions and subsequent reduction of available light, beds occur only in
-shallow waters less than two meters deep, primarily in 5U cm or less. A
species list of major plants in the vicinity of the proposed Weeks 8ay
Estuarine Sanctuary is given in Appendix C.

d. Animal Populations: Because of the diversity of habitats
found in the Weeks Bay system, a wide variety of animal species is present
in the area. Many of these animals have special status because of threats
to their habitat (Appendix D). According to the South Alabama Regional
Planning commissi -Weeks Bay is part of an area that provides
habitat for as many as 19 threatened species (Figure 8).

The fish populations in this area include freshwater species
in the Fish and Magnolia Rivers and marine species in the lower portion@ of tne
rivers and bays. This area also serves as nursery grounds for numerous
marine species. Many of the marine species such as spotted sea trout? red
drum, croaker,.flounder, mullet, and menhaden are important commercial
species. The fistv populations of this area also support a popular sport
fishery.

The Weeks Bay-Bon Secour Bay'area is abundant with Oird life
having approximately 95 residents, plus 37 nesting, 125 wintering, and @2
additional spring and fall migrants. A number of accidental or occasional
species have also been observed in the area (John Borom, et a].). At least
339 species of birds occur in this area at some time duri7y 17ne year. This
area is of special importance to the large number of trans-Gulf migrants as
a resting and feeding area. The dominant migrants are from the Mississippi
flyway, a generous number from the Atlantic flyway, and some from the
west (Appendix E)

Holliman (1979) reported that there are 54 forms of mammal-s that
live within the 10-foot contour in the coastal zone of Alabama, with most
of these found in the Weeks Bay area.

The freshwater and brackish swamp and marsh areas of Weeks Bay pro-
vide habitat for mary species of amphibians and reptiles. The most prominent
of these,is the Amer-%,can alligator which is commonly reported in this area.
Mount (1975) reported that there are 115 species of herpetofaunal forms in
the Lower Coastal Plain of Alabama. In addition, endan,@ered, rare, and
vertebrate species (the status of which is undetermined) that are most likely
to appear in the vicinity are given in Appendix F.

MED Um

LOW
LOW

"w"

MED, IUM MEDUM

MCERATE 7

.0m

Ira

HICII 13 - 19 SPEMS MIUM 5 - a SPEC:=
WIDMATE 9 - IZ sne:Es LOW I - 4 SPECZZS

Figure 8. Generalized Map of Threatened Species Having
Limited Range
(South Alabama Regional Planning Commission, 1979)

C. Uses

Weeks Bay has been closed to shrimping for several years, as it is an
important nursing and staging area for shrimp, and is extremely imyortant
to the viability of the shrimp fishery in Bon Secour and Mobile Says. many
of the other marine species which nurse in the estuary, includin-J the spot-
ted sea trout, red drum, croaker, flounder and mullet, are also important
commercial and sport species. Weeks Bay contains large stands of proauctive
habitats that are critical to the life cycles of numerous aquatic and terres-
trial animal species, emphasizing the importance of preserving this important
ecosystem.

The industrialization and rising population of Mobile Bay threaten
the vitality of the estuaries on Mobile Bay. Weeks Bay represents a nursery
and staging area for Mobile Say and the Gulf of Mexico, ana very likely re-
presents a microcosm of the entire Mobile Bay system in a more pristine
state. However, as the demand for available waterfront property continues
to rise with the ever-increasing migration of people to eastern Mobile Bay,
more pressure will be brought to bear upon the limited 4uantity of land in
desireable areas such as Weeks Bay. As such its value as a teaching and
research tool will be immeasureable.

The Weeks Bay area also provides recreational opportunities for
numerous Alabama residents; e.g., boating, waterskiing, fishing, and photo-
graphy are among the most popular activities. Access for tne recredtionisc
is provided by a state-owned boat ramp locatedon the west side of the mouth
of the bay. This not only provides access to Weeks day, but also to other
areas along the eastern shore of Mobile Bay includin@ Bon S@cour bay and the
Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge that adjoins the 61!) acre Swift tract.

The majority of land use in this area is laryely undevelopea with
some agricultural usage and small pockets of residential usage alons Fish
River, Magnolia River and Weeks Bay. There does not appear to be any
pattern to the development of the area as large, attractive, expensive
dwellings can be found located next to smaller modest cotta@es. There are
a number of substandard "camp" type structures along the Bay and on tne
west bank of the Fish River. 'Developed areas include the Magnolia Sprin,@s
community situated on the north side of the Magnolia River approximately a
mile and a half from the Bay, the River Bluff subdivision, and the community
of Marlow on Fish River just north of the Bay. Along Weeks-Bay itself,
there has been community development in the southeast ana southwest areas
and limited buildup of single family residential housing in these areas in
close proximity to U.S. Highway 98 and Baldwin County Road No. 12.

D. Overall Management Issues

1. Goals and Objectives

The proposed Weeks Bay National Estuarine Sanctuary will oe estaolishea
primarily for research and educational purposes. To the extent consistent
with these principles, the Sanctuary will also provide for lon(j-term resource
protection and recreational activities.

Research: The principal research objectives of the plan proposed
for managing the Weeks Bay National Estuarine Sanctuary include:

To gain a more thorough understanding of ecologtcal relationships
within the estuarine environment;

To make baseline ecological measurements; and

0 To serve as a natural control in order to monitor changes and assess
the impacts of human stresses on the ecosystem.

Since the Weeks Bay area represents a microcosm of the entire Mobile
Say system, establishment of the area as an estuarine sanctuary may provide
research opportunities for the Marine Environmental Sciences Consortium,
State of Alabama, local governments, and other entities., These institution's
will be afforded expanded research opportunities to: (1) monitor and-
survey programs; (2) research and analyze the impacts of various pollutants
on development of estuarine life; and (3) develop programs that fill
information gaps in the knowledge of the Mobile Bay system.

The addition of the Swift tract to the Sanctuary (and its location
relative to both Weeks Bay and the Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge)
will open up the possibility for combined State and Federal research pro-
jects. The tract, which fronts Bon Secour Bay, may be used in comparative
4
st.ud.es of greater Mobile Say and the Weeks Bay estuarine system.
Education: The Weeks Bay managemAnt plan al*io provides as 6ne of its
objectives:

A means for increasing public knowledge and awareness of the complex
nature of estuarine ecosystems, their values and, benefits to man and
nature, and the problems confronting them.

The proposed Sanctuary area is well-suited for educational programs be-
cause the area contains a variety of fauna, flora and estuarine habitat
representative of the Mobile Bay system. It is convenient to Faulkner
State Junior College, the only institution of higher learninj in 8aldwin_
County, as well as to the County's primary and secondary schools. Specific
educational programs may include: (1) instruction in estuarine natural
history; (2) interpretative nature trails; (3) guided field trips for
secondary school students; and (4) extension programs that reach out to
adults and other students in the region. It is anticipated that facilities
necessary to support these educational and research activities will be
constructed in the Sanctuary.

t4
Recrea on: Another -objective envisaged as a result of the designation
of the estuarine sanctuary in Weeks Bay is:

The multiple use of the estuarine sanctuary to the extent that such
use is compatible with the primary sanctuary purposes of research
and education.

While a major objective of the proposed Weeks Bay National Estuarine
Sanctuary is to provide long-term resource protection so that selected sites
may be used for scientific and educational purposes, other existing water and
related land use activi.ties, such as fishing, hunting, boating, and wildlife
observation will be allowed to continue, subject to current State and Federal
laws and regulations.
2. Management Conclerns
Support for an esiuarine sanctu'ary in the Weeks Say area has come from
a broad group of State, Federal and local governmental entities; primary,
secondary, and higher institutions of learning; special interest groups;
and numerous individuals in the area. During conversations with adjacent
landowners and at the public meeting held at WeeKs Bay to discuss tne
estuarine sanctuary concept, the major concern centered around the issue of
additional restrictions.

While favoring the Idea of protecting the area in the long-tern from
development disturbances or pressures, citizens and residents were concern-
ed that restrictions in the Sanctuary would be so prohil@itive as to preempt
those activities, such as hunting, fishing, wildlife observing, that have been
engaged in for generations.

Establishment of the estuarine sanctuary does not involve creatin',J any
new'Federal or State laws or regulations for the area. Rather, Federal,
State, and local regul@ations, laws, and policies that re@ulate fishing,
shell fishing, huntIng, boating, and water quality manayement in the area
will continue to be employed. As in the past, such rules and regulations will
continue to be promulgated and enforced by State and local authorities.

3. Management Strategies

Actions necessary to accomplish the purposes set forth by the designa-
tion of the site as a National Estuarine Sanctuary will involve the imple-
mentation of the following:

Continued enforcement of existing State and Federal laws and regula-
tions by State and Federal law enforcement personnel;

A research strategy involving monitor and inventory surveillance
programs, educational research programs, ecological relationship
studies, baseline geological measurement studies, and other projects
described in Section III(A) of this plan;

An Interpretive educational and recreational program described in
Seciion III(S);

A plan for public access described under Section III(C) including
nature trails, boat ramps;

A facilities construction program described in Section 111(0)
-;ncluding, but not necessarily limited to, a v4sitor and educat*!or,@@
'research center;

A land acquisition plan for ecologically key land and water areas
described in Section III (E) of this plan; and

a A Memorandum of Understanding between 'the State of Alabama and NUAA
concerning Federal-State coordination in the Icing-term operation
and management of the proposed Weeks Bay National Estuarine Sanctu-
ary (Appendix B).

4. Administrative Structure

Four key elements in the sanctuary management structure will be:
(1) the Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs (ADECA) in
charge of overall Sanctuary management; (2) the Alabama Department of
Conservation and Natural Resources (ADCNR) responsible for on-site
administration; (3) a Weeks Bay Estuarine Sanctuary Advisory Committee: and
(4) the role that Faulkner State Junior College will play in the imple-
mentation of the research agenda (Figure 9).

Although ADECA has been given principal oversight authority for ensurin-J
the effective implementation of the plan for managing the site, ADCNk has
been assigned the primary responsibility for the on-site. administration of
the Weeks Say National Estuarine Sanctuary. This arrangement was made in
response to a range of needs requiring Federal coordination on the one hand
and the effective on-the-ground implementation of the goals and objectives
of the Sanctuary on th7e other. ADECA will serve as the State's 14,aison
W4th the Federal g6vernment; ADCNR, with its proven expertise in natural
resource management and regulatory enforcement responsibilities., will
manage the site.

The proposed Sanctuary Advisory Committee (SAC) will serve in an aavisory
.capacity in the implementation of the management plan. The committee is
expected to include, but not be limited to: (1) a representative from the
Marine Resources Division of ADCNR; (2) a representative from the Game and
Fish Division of ADCNR; (3) a representative from FSJC; (4) a designee from
the Baldwin County Commission; (5) a designee from the Baldwin County
School Board; (6) a designee from the Department of Environmental Management,
(7) a designee from The Nature Conservancy; (8) a designee from Sea Grant;
(9) a designee from the University of South Alabama College of Arts and -_
Sciences; (10) a designee from the Marine Environmental Sciences Consortium;
and (11) a designee from ADECA's State Planning Division. The Committee
will be chaired by the Sanctuary Manager. Members will serve for one-year
appointments, with no limit on reappointment. At its discretion, the AOCNR
may establish subcommittees or ad hoc committees to address specific questions
related to the Sanctuary. The 7odm-ittee will meet on a regular schedule to,
be determined by ADCNR. Some of the SAC's activities might include the
following:

Ad V4Se
4 the ADCNR on matters relating to planning for operation of the
Sanctuary;

Assist in seeking support for the research and educational programs
and other financial matters;

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM)
Sanctuary Programs Division (SPO)

Performance
Consultation Evaluation

project Alabama Department of Economic Coordination State Management/Regulatory
administration and Community Affairs (ADECA) Authorities

Coastal Management
Oversight Performance Water Quality
Monitoring Agriculture/Forestry
0 Ports/transportation

Sanctuary
Advisory Committee (SAG)

Alabama Department of Conservation Implementation Sanctuary
and Natural Resources (ADCNR) Management
Plan

-Science Education Interpretive
Director Element

onsite -Departmental Enforcement Resource
management Personnel Protection

L-Sanctuary Research --a- itesearch
Coordinator Agenda

Figure 9. Proposed Management Scheine fpr the Weeks Bay National Estuarine Sanctuary

Assist in the preparation of any periodic summary or annual reports
on the operations of the Sanctuary; and

0 Represent the interests of the users of the Sanctuary and the
information and educational materials generated by the Sanctuary.

E. Resource Protection

The State of Alabama proposes to use its existing legal authorities and
regulatory enforcement programs to provide for the protection of the Sanctu-
aryls resources. Where necessary, agencies will enter into formal agreements
specifying how their respective roles and responsibilities will oe coordinated.

1. Existing State Authorities

a. Alabama Department of Environmental Manage ent (ADEM): Alabama
Law (Action No. 82-612) established the ADEM to provide for a comprehensive
and coordinated program of environmental management. The ADEM is a group
of State agencies whose primary responsibility is to administer environmental
legislation into one department. It reviews permitting activities in coastal
areas to ensure consistency with the Alabama Coastal Area Management Program.

Acting through the Environmental Management Commission, the ADEM adopts
and promulgates rules, regulations and standards for the Department, and
develops environmental policy for the State. It also serves as the State's
clearinghouse for environmental data and as the State agency responsible
-for administering Federally-designated envirwmental projects.

The Department, the Attorney General, a district attorney or an assist-
ant district attorney having jurisdiction, may initiate an action against
any entity if in the judgement of the Office of State Planning and Federal
Programs such party is determined to be in violation of the management
program of the Commission.
b. Coastal Resources Advisou Committee (CRAC) The CRAC was
created to advise the ADEM and the Office of State Planning and Federal
Programs on all matters concerning the coastal area. Members of this
board are primarily from Mobile and Baldwin Counties.

c. The Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
(ADCNR): The -ADUR has direct control over natural resources, parKS and
h7storical sites of the State as well as all State lands other than those
specifically committed to the use or control of some other department. The
Department, which is composed of the Game and Fisn Division, State Lan s
Division, State Parks Division and Marine Police and Marine Resources Division
is charged with: (a) administering all laws pertaining to wildlife protect-
ion and*conservat4on including game and fish laws, boat registr
& ation, and
the management and protection of marine resources; (b) carrying out coopera-
tive research and educational programs with Federal agencies; (c) acquiring
land by donation, purchase, condemnation or lease with regards to State
parks and parkways, and supplying the appropriate administration.

The Department exercises complete authority over all seafoods harvested
in Alabama waters including all public and natural oyster reefs and oyster
bottoms. Its rules and regulations prescribe the time and manner by which
all classes of seafoods may be taken. Through the State Lands Division, it
also manages and controls submarginal lands and river and bay bottoms.

The ADCNR has the power to levy fines for violations of its regulations.
The game and fish wardens of the Division of Game and Fish are empowered to
serve subpoenas, carry firearms and to confiscate all game, birds, animals
or fish that have been caught, taken or killed in violation of ADCNR requla--@
tions. Enployees of the Division of Marine Resources (Marine Police) are
empowered to carry firearms, with the power to arrest, with or without
warrant, any person who violates any of the laws of the State of Alabama
or any rule or regulation of the ADCNR.

2. Existing St ate Laws

a. Water Quality Control: The Code of Alabama 1975, Sections
22-21-1 through 22-22-14, as amended, describe the ADEM as the State Water
Quality Control Authority. The ADEM is charged with responsibility for
conservation of ground and surface waters within the coastal area,
propagation of wildlife, fish and aquatic life, and for water supplies.
Specifically, ADEM has the authority to provide for the prevention, abatement
and control of new or existing water pollution. It supervises the lznforce-'
ment of all laws relating to water pollution in the state and establishes
criteria for acceptable limits of pollution.

The agency issues permits for the discharge of sewage, industrial waste
entering directly or through municipal or private treatment facilities,
and other waste into the waters of the State. The ADEM is given wide latitude
through its rulemaking authority which is reflected by the fact that each
permit stipulates the conditions under which waste discharge may be perinitted.
A permit must first be obtained from the ADEM before construction of any water
works or water system supplying water for domestic purposes to the public.

In addition to the ADEM, the State Oil and Gas Board, by provision of the
Code of Alabama 1975, Sections 9-17-1 through 9-17-32, is charged with the
prevention of the pollution of fresh water supplies by oil, gas or saltwater
and to prevent wells from being drilled, operated or produced in a manner
which would cause injury to neighboring property-.

b. Fish, Game 'and Wildlife: The AOCNR is empowered in �9-2-7 of the
Code of A] a, 1975, with fo ting a'state wildlife policy, fixinj
open season during which game animals and birds may be taken, fixiny daily
and seasonal bag limiis on game birds and animals and setting daily cre@l
limits on game fish. The ADCNR also has the authority to regulate the
catching and taking of game birds, animals and fish ana to close the season
of any species in any county or area when, upon a survey by the department,
it is found necessary for the conservation ana perpetuation of such species.
It may also designate by name what animals shall be classed as game or
fur-bearing animals, and what species of fish shall be Vame fish.

c. Marine Resources: The ADCNR assumes responsibility for regula-
ting the cultivation and removal of oysters and the taking, processing and
distribution of turtles, shrimp, crabs. and other marine resources. it also
assumes responsibility for the establishment of reefs in offshore waters.

d. Registration and Operation of Vessels: The provisions of the
Code of Alabama, 1975, 3wctions 35-5-1 through W-75-36, require the registra-
tion of all vessels in Alabama. The ADCNR, through its 0ivision of Marine
Police, promulgates and enforces water safety regulations.

e. State Docks: The Alabama State Docks Department supervises,
promotes, controls, mYn-ages and directs the State docks associated with
State lands. The Department requires construction permits for structures
In water on navigable streams. Such structures include piers, boat basins,
overhead power lines and underwater pipelines.

f. Obstructions to Navigations: Sections 33-T-1 through 33-7-b3,
of the Code of Alabama, 1975, consist of several diverse provisions aimed
at maintaining the navigability of waters in the State. Fines are imposed.
for any intentional or willful obstruction of a navigable water course by
any means including floating timber to market. Other provisions of the act
specify the conditions upon which one may gain an easement and the right to
construct dams across navigable rivers..

I
An additional important provision codified at Section 33-7-b3 relates
to acquisition of tidelands by riparian owners. This section specifically
states that "the owner orf any lands in the State of Alabama abuttin%J an
tidelands (controlled or owned by the State), which shall not have been
approved by or under valid public authority and shall not be otherwise devot-
ed to public use, shall be authorized to acquire such tidelands and to
fill, reclaim or otherwise improve same and to fill in, reclaim or otherwise
improve the abutting submerged land and to own, use, mortgage and convey
the lands so reclaimed, filled, or improved, any improvements thereon"
subject to the following conditions and approval: (1) conformance to any
stipulated or established harbor line, (2) if the land is to be used for a
bridge, road or causeway over navigable waters; for a bridgehead 0r approach;
or for terminal facilities abutting on the bridge, road or causeway plans
for the bridge, road or causeway must be approved by appropriate Federal
authorities, the Director of the State Docks Department, and the Governor.
When appropriate approvals are obtained and construction of the improvement
pursuant to the plans is completed, title to the subject lands and the
entire Improvement thereon vests in the riparian owner, (3) if the proposed
or constructed improvement on the land 4s different from-those enumerated
above, the riparian owner may gain title to the land only by obtaining
county commissicn approval of the county in which the land is situated, and
approval of bot", the Director of the State Docks Department and the Governor,
provided that notice of application for the required approvals is given by
publication in the county newspaper at least 10 days before the request.
Following the required approvals, title passes to the riparian owner upon
filing, for record, a certificate of the appropriate approvals.

9. Discharge of Litter and Sewage from Watercraft: Alabama law
Code of Alabama, 1975, Sections 33-6-1 through 33-6-12) strictly prohibits
the discharge of litter, sewage, and other materials from watercraft. Under
its provisions, the DEM is authorized to adopt regulations or promulgate
orders designed to control the discharge of waste from watercraft into State
waters. Authority is given to impose marine toilet specifications upon
vessel manufacturers and makes it unlawful for any manufacturer to deliver
a marine toilet or other sewage disposal device within the state without
having received certification a nd approval by the ADEM.

h. Wild Sea Oats Act - Baldwin County
The provisions of the Wild Sea Oats Act', Acts of Alabama, 1973, Act No.
971, make it a misdemeanor to pick wild sea oats on the beaches of Baldwin
County. The DCNR is made responsible for posting signs to that effect near
the beaches.

3. Federal Authorities

Like state authorities, Federal programs vary greatly in approach and
scope, ranging from broad-based legislation providing for resource manage-
ment such as the Coastal Zone Management Act to controls that address
specific threats and the needs of a particular resource. The following
Federal laws and regulations are known to be enforceable in the coastal
area of Alabama:

a. Coastal Zone Management Act of W2:, In 1972, Con-tpress passed
the Coastal Z-on-F-Mnagement Act (CIM), 16 U.S.C. 14bl et seq., in response
to public con-cern about balancing needs for preservation and development in
coastal areas. The Act authorized a Federal grant-in-aid program administer-
ed by the Secretary of Commerce, who in turn delegated this responsibility
to NOAA's Assistant Administrator for Ocean Services and Coastal Zone Manage-
ment. Amended on July 16, 1976 (P.L. 94-370) and on October 1, 198U (P.L.
96-464), the Act affirms a national interest in the effective protection
and careful development of the coastal zone by providing assistance and
encouragement to coastal states and territories for developing and 41mplement-
ing programs for achieving these objectives.

Broad guidelines and the basic requirements of the CZMA provide the
necessary direction to states for developing their coastal management pro-
d 4
grams. Program development and approval regulations are containe in 15
C.FR Part 923, revised and published March 28, 1979, in the Federal Register.

The Alabama Coastal Management Program (ASCMP) was approved September 25,
1979 and announced in the Federal Reqister on October 12, 1979 (FR 58938).
The ASCMP provides a compr@@ehensive minage nt program for coastal-lands and
waters as well as uses of these areas.

b. Clean Water Act (CWA): The Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C.
1251 et seq., establishes the basic scheme for restoring and maintaining
the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters.
It. contains two basic mechanisms for preventing water pollution: (1) the
regulat"lon of disharges from known sources; and (2) the regulation of oil
and `iazardous substances discharges. Its major provisions are:

(1) Discharges
ol
The.CWA's chief mechanism for preventing and reducing water pollution
is the-National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPOES), administered
by EPA. Under the NPOES program, a permit is required for the discharge of
any poll6tant from a point-source into navigable waters (which include
.U
State waters, the contiguous zone, and the ocean). EPA can delegate NPOES
permitt,ing to the State for State waters.

(2) Oil Pollution

Discharges of oil and hazardous substances in harmful quantities are
prohibited by the CWA. When such discharges do occur, the National Contin-
gency Plan (NCP) for the removal of oil and hazardous Substance discharges,
will take effect. The Coast Guard, in cooperation with EPA, administers
the Plan, which applies to all discharges of oil in the contiguous zone and
to activities under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. The NCP establish-
es the organizational framework whereby oil spills are to be cleaned up.

(3) Recreational Vessels

The CWA (33 U.S.C. �1322) requires recreational vessels with toilet
facilities to contain operable marine 'sanitation devices. The regulations
state that boats, 65 feet in length and under, may use either Type I , II,
or III MSO's which must be certified by the Coast Guard. Types I and II
are chemical treatment devices an@ Type III-is a holding tank. The CWA
requires.noncommercial crafts to comply with marine sanitation device
regulations issued by EPA and enforced by the U.S. Coast Guard.
(4) Dredging and Discharging Dredged Materials
Section 404 permits, from the Army Corps of Engineers (based on EPA
developed guidelines), are required prior to filling andi/or d4schary4
6 MY
dredged materials within three miles of shore (including wetloads), or the
transportation of dredged material for the purpose of dumping-it into ocean
waters.

C. Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA) The MMPA, 16 U.S.C.
1361 et seq., applies to U.S. citizens and foreign nationals subject to
U.S. jurisdiction and is designed to protect all species of marine mammals.
The MMPA is jointly implemented by the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMIFS), which is responsible for whales, porpoises, and pinnipeds other
than the walrus, and the Department of the Interior's Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS), which is responsible for all other marine mammals. The
Marine Mammal Commission advises these -;-aplement4ang agencies and sponsors
relevant scientific research. The prim:.,-ry management features of the Act
include: (1) a moratorium on the "tak-;ng" of marine mammals; (2) the
s ;
development of a management approach d@ yned to achieve! an "optimum sustain-
t4
able popula &on' for all species of populatlion stocks of' marine mammals;
and (3) protection of populations determined to be "depleted."

U
d The Rivers and Harbors Act: Section 10 of the Act, 33 U.S.G.
403 prohibits the unauthorized obstruct on of navigable waters of the United
States. The construction of any structure in the territorial sea or on tne
outer continental shelf is prohibited without a permit from the U.S. Amy
Corps of Engineers (COE). The COE will not issue a Section 10 permit unless
construction or obstruction has been found to be consistent- with the Alabama
Coastal Zone Management Program.

Section 13 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. 407 (referred to as the Refuse Act),
prohibits the discharge of refuse and other substances into navigable waters,
but has been largely superceded by the CWA. In effect, such dischar@es are
regulated under this section only insofar as they affect navigation or
anchoring.

e. Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA): The Endangerea Species Act
of 1973 (ESAT-, 16 U.S.C. 1531-lb4l et seq., provides protection for listed
species of marine mammals, birds, fish, invertebrates, and plants. The USFwS
and NMFS determine which species need protection and maintain a list of
endangered and threatened species. The most significant protection provided
by the ESA is the. prohibition on taking of listed species. The term "take"
is defined broadly to mean "harass, harm, pursue, hunt, snoot, wound, kill,
trap, capture, or collect or to attempt to engage such conduct" Llb U.S.L.
1532 (14)]. The FWS regulations interpret the term "harm" to include
significant environmental modification or degrauation and acts which annoy
listed species to such an extent as to significantly disrupt essential
behavior patterns (5U CFR 17.3).

The ESA also protects endangered species and their habsitats. This is
accomplished through a consultation process designed to insure that projects
authorized, funded, or carried out by the Federal agencies do not jeopardize
the continued existence of endangered or threatened species or "result in
the destruction or modification of habitat of such species which are deter-
mined by the secretary (of the Interior or Commerce) to be critical" (lb
U.S.C. 1536). Critical habitat for endangered species is aes%natea oy the
FWS or NMFS depending on the species.

f. Migratory Bird Treaty Act: The essential provision of the Act,
16 U.S.C. 1536, which implements conventions with Great Britain and Japan,
makes it unlawful, except as permitted by regulations "to hunt, take,
capture ... any migratory bird, any part, nest or egg" of any protected
bird (.16 U.S.C 703). The Secretary of the Interior is charged with determin-
ing when, to what extent, if at all, and by what means to permit these
activities. Each convention established a "closed season" during which no
hunting is permitted. Of the birds found in the study area, only certain
species of ducks, geese, gallinules, and doves are considered game birds
under the MBTA.

III. management Programs

A. Resource Studies Plan

The establishment of the proposed Weeks Bay National Estuarine
Sanctuary presents an opportunity to develop a comprehensive body of know-
ledge regarding the physical and biological characteristics and interrela-
tionships of a relatively pristine tidal estuary and its adjacent uplands,
tributaries and waters. Research on estuaries has demonstrated the import-
ance of undeveloped wetlands in providing detrital-based nutrients, water
purification, wildlife habitat and cultural benefits for commercial and
sport fisheries interests.
The research program for this Sanctuary has 'not been designed to
accomplish specific projects on an established schedule. It does not specify
individual project design because flexibility in project design is critical
and must ultimately be based on limiting factors such as funding, manpower
and equipment. These factors are not known at this time. Therefore, this
plan provides opportunity and direction within a framework of flexibility,
and provides a basis for indepth research into a wide range of specific base-
line surveys of flora, fauna and various physical and chemical parameters.
Additionally, an ongoing monitoring prograin providing trends in water quality,
biological parameters and in faunal changes is essential to the well-being
of this Sanctuary. The basic purpose of research in the Sanctuary will be
to provide fundamental data, opportunity, and direction to the scientific
community, thereby permitting the cumulative results of various projects to
form a bbdy of Information necessary for increased understanding of the -Weeks
Bay estuarine system. The security from encroaching development coupled
with the availability of a data base will provide a too] for the testing of
various ecological theories and will be some of the most important scientific
work that will emerge from this program. The main objective of research
conducted under the sanctuary framework will be to produce information use-
ful in coastal management.

History of_Research Activities

Scientific research in the Weeks Bay estuary, although limited, has_
been included in research projects covering larger geographic areas.
The Alabama Marine Resources Division (AMRD) of the Alabama Department of
Conservation and Natural Resources (ADCNR)' in 1977 began a monitoring proyram
S4
of the Weeks Say area. The program initia'lly con 4sted of monthly samplinj
at three 16-foot otter trawl stations and two beam plankton trawl (3PL)
4
stations. Later during that year, otter trawl samples were reduceQ to two
locations; in 1980, otter trawl and BPL samples we're reduced to o:ie locat4on
each in Weeks Bay. Hydrographic-data including dissolved oxyge-, salinity
and temperature measurements have been taken at each station s-:-Ice 1977.
Data collected in the monitoring program provided sufficient unt-lerstanding
of shrimp population dynamics to warrant the permanent closing of Aeeks Bay
to all shrimping.

The AMRO stocked striped bass (Morone saxatflis) in the tributaries of
Weeks Bay in 1974 and at the head of Weeks Bay-776-nce 1975. Generally, a
portion of the stocked fish are tagged and movement of triese fisn in'tne

'1 4

estuarine system is monitored as part of a research project funded by the
National Marine Fisheries Service, the AMRD, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. The AMRD is conducting intensive research on the life history and
stock assessment of the spotted trout (Cynoscion nebulosus). Tayyed spotted
sea trout fingerlings reared by the AMRD were stocked in Weeks Bay in the
winter of 1984. The AMRD plans to continue the monitoring effort and fish
stocking program in the future provided funding is available.

A study of birds and mammals in coastal Alabama for the Alabama Coastal
Area Board Oesulted in the publication 'Present Levels of Birds and Mammals
in the Coastal Zone". which included the proposed Sanctuary area. In another
study of coastal wetlands vegetation, Judy Stout of the Marine Environmental
Sciences Consortium prepared an atlas of coastal Alabama which included the
wetlands vegetation in the Weeks Bay estuary. The atlas entitled, "Wetland
Habitats of the Alabama Coastal Zone", was prepared for the Alabama Coastal
4
Board in 1981 and represents the best inventory of aquatic plants ava.lable
for the proposed Sanctuary. A complete inventory of the estuarine flora
and fauna in Weeks Bay has not been attempted. Hugh Swingle included a
seine station near the mouth of the bay in his study, "Biology of Alabama
Estuarine Areas-Cooperative Gulf of Mexico Estuarine Inventory", conducted
in 1968 and 1969.

Sanctuary Monitoring Program
A Tonitoring program should ul-timately document trends-in bialo-jical,
physical,, and chemical parameters and provide data for needed future.research.
Currently, monitoring of the Weeks Bay area is bein4 conducted monthly by the
AMRD for shrimp and finfish at two stations. Water samples are analyzed for
dissolved oxygen, salinity and temperature at each station. This monitorin..,
program may be expanded if the sanctuary managers decide that an expanded
program is needed to stay abreast of changes in the Weeks Bay estuary. A
minimal baseline monitoring program will be part of an on-going research
effort in the estuary. Other areas to be monitored may include, but not
necessarily be limited to:

0 Changes in habitat and community structure;
0 Detailed water chemistry analysis;
Water currents and circulation patterns;
Meterological and climatic parameters
Historical land use/archaeological studies;
Phytoplankton and zooplankton populations;
Benthic macroinvertebrate communities; and
Expanded fish and crustacean population monitoring.

As the research program expands, the monitoring program may address
ecological and physiological parameters not currently under invest%ation.
The continuous collection of data will result in an expanded data base
which will be useful in identifying changes in the environmental quality of
the estuary. It will be important to coordinate all research in the Sanctu-
ary and to collect information with standardized methods so that meaninyful
comparisons can be made between different data sets. As the data base
expands organized systems of data storage and retrIeval may be necessary.

Facilities and Equiement

The proposed estuarine science center will serve as an on-site research
facility in the Sanctuary. The facility will include two laboratories, a
small reference library and a small auditorium for presentations. Uperatin-J
the facility will require a part-time science education director (Faulkner
State Junior College faculty) as well as other staff described in Section
III(B). Students wishing to receive college credit will make use of the
association of the Sanctuary with Faulkner State Junior College.

Important to the dissemination of research information are publications
that will be jointly developed by the Alabama Oepartmenit of Conservation and
Natural Resources and Faulkner State Junior College.

Information Management

Although information concerning estuarine systems along the northern
Gulf of Mexico is numerous and varied, it has not been readily available or
systematically archived, making literature searches a time-consumin'J task.
One of the goals of sanctuary management will be to compile and continuously
update this information 4nto a central repository where it will be available
to potential users. The repository will confirm information on scientific
research projects, public information materials, voucher specimens, reprints
from scientific and popular journals as well as unpublished reports, and
more. Also included will be pertinent management and scientific information
from other estuarine areas, general information about the National Estuarine
Sanctuary Program, and tnformation regirding other resource managemene
programs.

Available information on Weeks Bay and other estuaries will be analyzed
to determine the types and amount of data that is pertinent to the area.
This information will be compiled, synthesized, annotated, and updated as
part of an historical bibliography of published and unpublished information
on Weeks Bay and other similar systems.

A comprehensive summary document on the research history and opportunities
in estuarine research applicable to Weeks Bay will be developed to create'a
central data bank of various topics associated with estuarine resource fnanayement.

Research Prospects

The diversity of land, water, and biotic resources of the proposed
Sanctuary will offer the opportunity to conduct a variety of research projects
limited only by funding and the imagination of the research community. The
sanctuary research program will seek the participation of students, interested
individuals and organizations whose research contributions will expand the
@ody of knowledge relative to the understanding of the'functions, values and
ecological relationships of the Weeks Bay estuary.

Several research opportunities have been identified, and are presented
in the following not as a comprehensive list but as an initial framework for
future research:

Baseline data gathering and interpretation - Virtually all aspects
of biological composition of-Eh-esanctuary need further documenta-
tion. Archaeological, climatological, geological, hydrological and
cultural resources of the Sanctuary need documentation. The coilec-
tion and synthesis of these data can provide critical information
for specific studies;

Ecological studies - The.possibilities for ecological research cover
a wide range of subjects from studies of individual species' relation-
ships with their environment to studies of various biological
communities and their relationships to each other and their environ-
ment;

Comparative studies - Comparative studies incorporating other coast-
al estuaries al'ong the Alabama coastline can be undertaken after
sufficient data have been compiled on the proposed Sanctuary.
These studies may concern general interest questions or theories
but more frequently will address specific questions. With the
inclusion of the Swift tract, the Sanctuary will have a continuous
border with the Son Secour National Wildlife Refuge, thereby facili-
tating comparative studies on Mobile Say that can be undertaken
jointly by State and Federal agencies;

Estuary model stud - The Marine Environmental Sciences Consortium
'Fa-sspent much orlulthe last five years working on methods to quanta-
tively evaluate the natural resources and environmental c9aracter-
istics of Mobile Bay and adjacent waters. The physical size of the
project constitutes a major obstacle as does the lack of adequate
experimental controls. It appears quite likely that Weeks Bay
could constitute an acceptably similar and yet more logistically
manageable study area. It is relatively pristine and the arvument
can be made that it has many of the characteristics once found in
Mobile Bay. The Marine Environmental Sciences Consortium proposes
to initiate a series of hydrographic and biological studies in
Weeks Bay with the initial objective of comparing the existinj data
base for Mobile Bay with Weeks Bay in an effort to identify similari-
ties and differences; and

Wildlife research_projects suggested include:

Determination of the use of the coastal woodlands by Wood allCkS;
Evaluation of the present day use of colonial bird nesting sites;
- Determination of fur-bearer abundance, species and trapping
opportunities;
- Determination of the suitability of areas for marsh, swamp
and cottontail rabbits;
- Determine the use of created tree cavities in living trees for
various species that require nest cavities;
- Test use of Zsting platforms for youny'bald eagles;
- Test habitat manipulation for selected cover to encourage use by
special desired wildlife species; ana
- Evaluate effects of human activity on area wildlife.

B. Interpretive Plan

Alabama possesses a special resourc e in its W)bile Bay estuarine
system of which Weeks Bay is an important part. With its conflicting uses
of industry, real estate development, recreation, and conimercidl fishing,
the estuarine system offers a fascinating study area in riot only the biological
sense but also in the construction of a solid ecological balance among these
uses. Although most people want to cooperate in maintaining this beautiful
setting, few understand man's role or the complexities of" this environment.
The objective of the interpretive element is to increase the understanding
of the ecological importance of these biologically productive areas among
Alabama residents.

Facilities, Management and Personnel

Other states have proven that one method proven effective in informinil
the public of environmental systems is a science education center where
visitors can see, touch, sell, hear, and taste various-aspects of the
outdoors and thus, come away with a new awareness and appreciation of the
area. A major purpose of an estuarine sanctuary is to provide a vehicle
for increasing public knowledge and awareness of the complex nature of
estuarine systems, their values and benefits to man and nature, ana the
problems which confront them. An estuarine science center is planned at
Weeks Bay for this purpose.

It is anticipated that the completed estuarine science center will
contain approximately 5,000 square feet. Facility size and construction
schedule is dependent upon availability of funds'. It will serve as an
example to developers of the design and construction practices that create
minimal adverse environmental impacts. The facility will include a small
auditorium for presentations, a museum, two laboratories, a small reference
library, offices, and restrooms. A small pier with docking facilities will
also be constructed should funding become available. As currently-envisaged
by the State of Alabama, the facility will be tied to the following operation-
al concepts:

0 Operations philosophy: The establishment of the center will ensure
ready access to the proposed eks Bay Estuarine Sanctuary by scientists,--
students, and the general public and would facilitate coordination between
research and education. In addition, the center will ensure public availabi-
lity and reasonable distribution of research results for timely use in coastal
management decisionmaking;

0 Admission: All on-site interpretive activities will be free and
open to the'@_enerol public. Students interested in college credit would
register through Faulkner State Junior College. Fees covering costs for
materials, etc., may be charged for organized instructional activities;

0 Season: The estuarine science center will be open year-round with
hours to be determined by its operators;

Operations: All operational procedures will be aeterminea by the
ADCNR witfi tHe adv-1ce of the Weeks Bay Sanctuary Advisory Committee;
a Management: /Management procedures and manpower will be supplied by
the-ADCUR, Faulk State Junior College, and other cooperating agencies
and institutions. It is anticipated that several groups will utilize the
science center on a,Iregular basis. Coordination of center activities will
be handled by ADCNR. Maintenance and utilities will be shared on a pro
rata basis among users of the facility; and

Personnel:
@1) One estuarine sanctuary manager (ADCNR);
2) One part-time secretary (ADCNR);
@3@ One part-time custodian (ADCNR);
4 One part-time science education director (FSJC); and
(5) One part-time secretary (FSJC).

Other part-time workers will be supplied on agreement by the ADCNR and
Faulkner State Junior College.

On-site Interpretive Activities:

In addition to the preceding,'the proposed Sanctuary will provide
opportunities for the following:

Publications - The ADCNR and Faulkner State.Junior College may
3ointly d lop publications as necessar@ to promote the goals
and objectives of the Sanctuary.- An estuary brochure is essential
to the publi.c education program and will be developed as soon as
possible. Other publications pertaininj to various aspects of
the Sanctuary will also be developed. All publications will be
carefully screened to assure that they serve the stated objectives
of the National Estuarine Sanctuary program.

Organized Activities - Programs should stimulate public educational
involvement in the o jectives of the Sanctuary. The Sanctuary
manager and the science education director will jointly coordinate
all such programs to assure that &y serve the objectives of the
Sanctuary such as:

- Statewide events - The ADCNR and Faulkner State Junior College
will jointly sponsor specific meetings, tours, workshops-, etc.,
on topics relating to the estuarine sanctuary. These events
will be publicized statewide and will be directed to the interest-
ed general public. These events will use the expertise of
Sanctuary staff as well as volunteer experts;

- Specialized group workshops - The Sanctuary staff will provide
workshops and other organized educational activities for specializ-
ed groups and organizations such as science teachers ana colle@qe
classes. These activities will concentrate on topics directly
related to the Sanctuary and its management;

- Seminars - The Sanctuary staff will operate a lecture series at
the proposed estuarine science center. Guest speakers and Sanctu-
ary staff will present evening or weekend programs. These presenta-
tions will be on an irregular schedule with programs held both
indoors and outdoors as conditions and subject matter warrant.
The seminars should promote public education and yet entertain
and stimulate interest in people with only casual concern about
the estuary;
- Interpretive erograms - The science education director will coorai-
nate and provide a variety of interpretive programs for the public
and special groups. A "nature walk" along well] marked nature
trails is an effective means of stimulating two-way communication
with an audience while providing close contact: with the physical
setting of the Sanctuary. The proposed Sanctuary provides a
variety of habitats which can be used for interpretive programs..
Interpretive tours may be led by Sanctuary staff or by skilled
volunteers with prior approval from the science education director;

- Research facility tours - Tours of the research facilities at the
proposed Sanctuary should be made available to interested groups
such as college classes and the public at regular intervals. Lare
will be taken to avoid upsetting the schedules of staff and quest
researchers. A uhands on" learning experience will be provided
wherever possible;

- Auditorium - The auditorium will be used for Sanctuary-sponsored
and appr d functions. Use of this room as a public meeting
facility for the local community will be evalUated and a policy
will be established prior to its availability;

- Teaching laboratory - The teaching laboratory will be used for
.Sanctuary-sponsored functions such as classroom activities. The
facility will primarily be used by Faulkner State Junior College
and other cooperating agencies, such as the Sea Grant Advisory
Service, in cooperation with the Baldwin County Board of Education.
All freshman and sophomore college level credit courses will be
regulated by Faulkner State Junior College. Related activities
will be non-credit for the general public. The science education
director will coordinate all educational activities;

- Area tours - Special "good neighbor" tours of the Sanctuary will
be offered to the adjacent landowners and local community. Sanctu-
ary staff will encourage a full understanding of the estuary and
Sanctuary objectives within the local community; and

Visitor orientation - Many, if not most, of the public visiting the
Sanctuary will be Fasual visitors with little or no knowledge of the
purpose of the sanctuary. Since it is not feasible for Sanctuary
staff to greet each visitor and explain the history, purpose, and
activities of the Sanctuary, a visitor orientation system is essential
to the operation of the Sanctuary. This system will include the
following:

Trails - A nature trail system will be developed to provide a
@_ariety of experi ences for both the casual and serious visitor;

Museum - The museum will serve many of the needs of the various
3a-nctuary visitors as time and resources permit. Passive displays,
designed to explain the sanctuary to the casual visitor, will be
incorporated into a secure facility. Displays, aquaria, and
other Interpretive aids will be designed by professionals to
fulfill the objectives of this aspect of the education program;
Active displays will be developed for classes interested in more
detailed education. Microscopes, water chemistry equipment, and
similar devices will be used to provide greater opportunities to
special groups and individuals; and

Trail-side devices - Various devices, including signs, bulletin
boards,, observation platforms, benches, maps, brochures, etc.,
will be used to convey Information to the public. A self-guided
tour of that portion of the sanctuary which is open to the
public will provide an enjoyable and educational experience
through the use of trail-side devices.

Off-site Interpretive Activities:

In addition to the activities that would be conducted on-site at Weeks
Bay, the following are proposed as part of an ongoing outreach program:

0 Mobile displays - Faulkner State Junior College will acquire or
construct mobile displays for use throughout the state at conferences,
workshops, and s&o1s;.

0 Lectures - The Sanctuary manager and the science education director
will be available for speaking engagements to such groups as service
organizations, youth groups, school groups, conservation clubs, and
radio and television programs; and

News media - The Sanctuary staff will actively promote media
coverage of the site. Such coverage will include special newspaper
articles and editor4 als, magazine articles, and electronic media*
coverage.

C. Public Access Plan

Public access to the proposed Weeks day National Estuarine Sa nctu-
ary is one of the more desirable features for nomination of this site. weeks
Bay is geographically located approximately midway between the two major
metr@po 14 tan ar;as of Mobile, Alabama and Pensacola, Florida and is easily
accessible to these areas by U.S. Highway 98. Interstate 10 traverses
Baldwin County approximately IS miles north of 'Weeks Bay and three major
interchanges provide easy access via State of Alabama Highway 59, Baldwin
6ounty H4ghway 27,'.and U.S. Highway 98.

The major tributary rivers to Weeks Bay,*the Fish ana.*the Magnolia,
provide easy water access to the proposed National'Estuarine Sanctuary from
the north and east, and the contiguous waters of Mobile Bay facilitate
water access from the Mobile metropolitan ai,;ea to the northwest, the rapidly
growing Eastern Shore of Baldwin county (Point Clear, Fairhope,/Montrose,
Daphne, and Spanish Fort) to the north, Bayou La Batre and Codeni to the
west, and Dauphin Island -and Fort Morgan from the south'. Water access is
further facilitated by an existing state-owned boat launching.,ramp and
paved parking area at the mouth of Weeks Bay (Viewpoint), a county PUDliC*
boat launch, parking, and picnicking area at Mullet Point (Mobile Bay),-
N
ublic launching facilities at two locations along the MDbile Bay Causeway
.S. Highway 90), two public boat launching and parking areas alon@ the
Fort Morgan Peninsula, one commercially operated Doat launching facility on
Weeks Bay, and approximatel.y--19 commercially operated boat launching facili-
ties, liveries or marli-nas, which are located within a 45-minute boat ride
of Weeks Bay.

Some nature trails will be constructed in the Sanctuary to accommo-
date access by handicapped children and adults. All trails will be constructed
and maintained with appropriate safety features that will minimize risks to
patrons and maximize enjoyment. Access to the proposed Weeks Bay National
Estuarine Sanctuary by organized groups will be encouraged by the inclusion
of lecturer/guide services through the facilities.

Access to the proposed Sanctuary for hunting and fishing will vary
only nominally from traditional access in the former and none at all in the
latter. Some consideration will be required for hunting prohibition within
a safety zone around nature trails and organized day-use access, but other
areas within the Sanctuary can be open to hunting in compliance with State
and Federal law. Traditional fishing, both commercial and recreational,
will be permitted in the Sanctpary providing fishermen are in compliance
with State and Federal laws and regulations. -

Permission for overnight camping will be considered by the Sanctuary
manager on the basis of the following: (a) Camping will be allowed only if
part of an organized estuarine education or research project or in support of
an activity such as clearing nature trails; and (b) Camping will.-be, allowed
only in areas designated by the Sanctuary rqanager. It is not intended-that
the Sanctuary become a public camping area.

D. Construction Plan

Requisite to the construction of the proposed estuarine science
center will be the State's submittal, and NOAA's approval, of a detailed plan
laying out the proposed cost and construction schedule, architectural draw-
ings, and a preliminary engineering report for the proposed site. The follow-
ing briefly describes the major components of the construction package to oe
submitted by the State as a precondition for acquiring Federal financial
assistance in the construction of the facility in Weeks Bay:

M@Lical Design: The following items should be incorporated somewhere
into the center complex (Figure 10).

- Entrance signs
- Parking lot with lighting
- Water and sewer connections
- Electrical and telephone connections
- Reception area
- Restrooms
ft Reference library
- Office facilities
- Small auditorium
- Museum
- Workroom (for preparation of exhibits)
- Storage for maintenance supplies
- Teaching laboratory
- Research laboratory
- Nature trails
- Pier with docking facilities

0 Site: North of the Fish River Bridge on the east side of Fish River.

a Proposed Construction Schedule: The facility may be constructea in
two or more phases. Wo-wever, an exact construction schedule has not Deen
determined. All plans and schedules are contingent upon funding. It is
expected that the first phase will be constructed duriny-the first five (5)
years and the remaining construction will be completed during the next ten
(10) years.

E. Land Acquisition Plan

Priorities for land acquisition are based on physical and oio-
logical factors, making the Sanctuary a manageable unit displaying the
diversity of habitats characteristic of the area. In order to establisn
the Sanctuary as a ecological unit and to provide for a site upon which "a
base support activities, several areas were targeted for acquisition. These
included: (1) land adjacent to major areas of marsh; (2) land near the --
mouths of the rivers; and (3) land on Son Secour'Bay or Mobile 8ay near the
mouth of Weeks Say.

Since Alabama claims title to all tidal land up to the mean high tide
line, all of the Say's subaqueous bottoms and intertidal fringe is already
under State jurisdiction and; consequently, has been included within Sanctuary
boundaries. Also included within the Sanctuary will be the public boat ramp
located on the north end of the Bay which is maintained by the Alaoama
Department of Conservation and Natural Resources.

The proposed management plan's land acquisition element will involve two
phases (Figure 11), the first of which concentrates an acquiring the land alon'.)
the east side of Weeks Bay, near the mouths of the Fish and Magnolia Rivers,
and northeast Bon Secour Say, just south of Weeks Bay. These 950 acres, invol-
ving three (3) separate land tract's currently owned by The Nature Conservancy
(TNC), represent a large portion ot- the proposed Sanctuary's "core" area.

Visual an
ad

dhoap

dock

-tobbi

Ressavochiflormn, Lob
Of lischK aecelsllwl@
Image

rely
--7 -.- TUIrs

m
Durk

Figure 10. Construct,ion Plan for the Sanctuary Science Center

As part of its proposed second-phase Acquisition plans, the State will
focus on land along the western portion of Weeks Bay. The plan presently
calls for Phase II acquisitions to begin during the first year of Sanctuary
operations, pending availability of funds. The following traces the planned
trajectory for State land acquisition activities:

Phase I: The first priority for land acquisition is to protect a
signifi6-antportion of the ecological "core" of the Weeks Bay estuarine
system; i.e., the discrete area representative of resources typical to the
site and biogeographic regime including those areas which serve as transition-
al boundaries between geopolitical and distinct ecological units. Consequent-
ly, the proposed plan calls for the acquisition of 335 acres of freshwater
marsh and moist pine habitats which are contiguous to the waters of the Bay,
in near proximity to the mouths of the Fish and Ma@jnolia Rivers. The plan
also seeks to acquire another 615 acres fronting Bon Secour Bay, southeast
of the mouth of Weeks Say, which is contiguous to the Bon Secour Wildlife
Refuge administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. These three (3)
parcels; referred to in this document as the Foley, 090urn, and Swift
tracts, are currently owned by The Nature Conservancy (TNC). It is proposed
that TNC donate the 615-acre Swift tract to the State, the appraised value
of which then would be used to acquire the necessary Federal funding for
acquiring the Ogburn and Foley tracts.

Site Description: The Foley tract, approximately 178 acres, is located
on the north ast side of Weeks Bay on the eastern shore of the Fish River.
The tract has approximately 3,000 feet of frontage on the extreme southern
portion of the Fish River where it empties into Weeks Bay. Contiguous to
and lying directly south of the Foley parcel along Weeks Bay, the lb7-acre
Ogburn tract extends TNC's ownership of the proposed Sanctuary's shoreline
almost to the mouth of the Magnolia River. The Swift tract lies approximately
1 and 1/2 miles south of where Weeks Bay empties into greater Mobile Bay.
It consists of approximately 615 acres along the shore of Bon Secour Bay
with nearly three miles of frontage.

In consideration of the preceding and of the appraisals Submitted by
the State on the three tracts, NOAA has tentatively approved the foilowing
land valuations: Swift,.$500,000; Foley, $275,188; and Uyourn, $214,3ut-;
Phase II: Following initial acquisition, and afterthe Sanctuary
has been desTgn-ated (i.e.,, NOAA's approval of the mana7ge-ment'oTan), the
State will be eligible to receive supplemental Federal financial assistance
for construction and acquisition of land along the west siae of Weeks Say.
The proposed acquisition of the approximately 3OU-acre site woula contribute
to the research value of the Sanctuary and provide still further proteciion
of its waters. Again, as in Phase 1, the State will be negotiatin,4 the
planned purchase with The Nature Conservancy. Currently, no value has been
established for the property; however, it is expected that the State will
be able to negotiate, when additional Federal funds become available, a
favorable purchase agreement with TNC, a willing seller. The State has
proposed to pursue this acquisition auring the first year of Sanctuary
operations; however, such activity will be contingent upon its receiving
additional Federal financial assistance.

West Foley
Phase 2 Weeks
-[,Say Phase I
eeks Ogburn
Bay

Stan

Ownershlo aw

Line

Swift Phase 1

Son
Secour
Bay

Finure 11. Land Acquisition Plan for the Proposed
Veeks Bay National Estuarine Sanctuary
naso 1

IV. ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

The evaluation of the estuarine sanctuary proposal in Alabama has
involved principally an examination of a range of alternatives within three
(3) major categories: (a) the need or desirability of using the provisions
of Section 315 of the Coastal Zone Management Act as a means to protect the
Weeks Bays estuarine system; (b) the boundaries of the area necessary to
define and protect the "core" of the ecosystem; and (c) the most appropriate
management arrangement for meeting the intended purposes of the proposed
designation and carrying-out the goals and objectives of the plan for
managing the Sanctuary. In addition to these key elements, the following
were also evaluated: (a) the ecological, recreational, research, and eauca-
tional significance of the resources of the proposed area; (b) existing and
potential threats to these resources; (c) protection afforded by existin-d
State and Federal regulatory mechanisms; (d) the aesthetic quality of the
areaIs resources; and (e) the economic value of natural resources and human
uses in the area which may be foregone as a result of sanctuary designation.

After completing the site selection process, the Alabama Coastal Area
Board nominated Weeks Bay for possible estuarine sanctuary designation. In
evaluating the recommendation, NUAA examined two primary alternatives before
deciding to proceed with the project: (a) to forgo sanctuary designation in
favor of the status quo; and (2) to proceed with the estuarine sanctuary
designation @-Focess. A thorough examination of the information, the findinJs
of which are discussed in the following, resulted in NUAA's decision to pro-
ceed with the nomination.

A. Status Quo

If no estuarine sanctuary were designated, the protection of Weeks Bay's
diverse habitats and resources would continue to rely solely upon existing
programs. Maintenance of the status quo simply means that existin@ State
and Federal regulatory and nonregulatory programs and the levels of effort
related to protection of Weeks Bay would remain unchanged. Considering the
rapid increase in, and high demand for, condominium development in coastal
Baldwin County since Hurricane Frederic (1979), without the moderating
influence of a systematic plan to protect the integrity of the estuarine
ecosystem, the Weeks Bay area most likely would be subjected to intense
development pressures in the future.

The role of public education in wildlife and habitat protection is
very important as it provides users and the general public -oith the back-
ground needed to formulate sound conservation values. However, though the
expertise may be present, the support necessary to produce a coordinated
interpretive effort in this area has yet to be provided. Uf equal importance
to education is the research agenda, which provides the 'alata necessary to
form a sound interpretive program. Maintenance of the status quo will not
provide the coordination necessary to establish qualit@-researcn and inter-
pretive programs in this area.

The proposed Sanctuary Management Plan recognizes -the need for the
State of Alabama's active involvement in the administraition and protection
of the Weeks Bay estuarine system. In order for this to occur, the roles
of the various agencies involved must be coordinated to provide for the
most efficient management system possible; however, the status quo does
not provide the level of coordination needed to formulate resp6 le
management policies for this area.

B. Preferred Alternative

The idea of designating Weeks Bay as a National Estuarine Sanctuary
was conceived by the Coastal Area Advisory Committee established by the
Coastal Area Board (now part of Department of Environmental Management).
The Committee was composed of fourteen members, seven each appointed by
Baldwin and Mobile Counties, who represented a broad range of coastal
interests. After a careful analysis of ecological and economic realities
of Alabama's very limited coastal area, they agreed that the Weeks Bay
area was an excellent site for an estuarine sanctuary, if approved by the
local landowners and citizenry. This area was considered to be the
best possible site because of the suitability for estuarine research and
education, the availability of lands owned by willing sellers, and the fact
that this area is representative of the coastal geographical region. Other
key factors considered in the site selection process included the relative
lack of disturbance, the compatibility of sanctuary designation with aciacent
area land uses, the diversity of the habitat, and the impacts that would result
if the sanctuary was not established.

In establishing the estuarine sanctuary, the State of Alabama will
rely mainly on sales from willing sellers and'donations of fees or other
4
property interests. Use-of conservation easements and less-than-fee acqui-
sition will be considered where feasible.

NOAA's Preferred Alternative, calls upon the provisions of Section 315
of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended (P.L. 92-583) to desig-
nate Weeks Say as a National Estuarine Sanctuary. Part I of this document
describes in greater detail the national program's authorizing statute, the
purposes and current status of the National Estuarine Sanctuary Program,--tne
goals and objectives of the plan for managing the Sanctuary, and the terms
proposed in its designation. This alternative will provide a means for
addressing all of the deficiencies described for the status quo option and
relies on the effective coordination and participati6-not Federal, State,
and local agencies and their respective authorities.

C. Alternative Boundaries

Alternative boundaries exam4ned by the Coastal Area Board, Alabama Office
of State Planning and Federal Programs, and Baldwin County included:

� A line following and conforming with the 10--foot contour (aoove
mean sea level) around Weeks Say;

� The State ownership line up to the mean high tide line around
Weeks Bay;

0 The State ownership line up to the mean high tide line around
Weeks Bay, the Swift tract, and the land in between the Swift
tract and the mouth of Weeks Say; and

The State ownership line plus the Foley, Ogburn, and Swift
tracts (Preferred Alternative).

The first alternative would present administrative problems extremely
difficult to deal with and very time consuming. It would involve lengthy
negotiations with private land owners whose acreage is currently used as
farmland and private residences. It would also involve excess lands out-
side the "core' area, presenting sanctuary management with the problem of
managing areas that are of marginal importance in maintaining the integrity
and quality of Weeks Bay. The additional lands and costs for negotiation
and possible litigation by current land owners make this option impractical.

Alternative 2 provides the simplest administrative approach in that very
little land negotiation is needed; the State's ownership line correspondin4
with the mean high tide line. However, this option does not provide a
complete representation of the Weeks Say estuarine complex, as there would
be minimal representation of the freshwater marsh or moist pine habitats
which constitute a large portion of the core area of the proposed Sanctuary.
Although simple in approach, it would not contribute to the overall protec-
tion of the proposed Sanctuary. -

The third alternative would involve additional costs encumbered by
negotiations with the-private land owners of the area between the northern
boundary of the Swift tract and the mouth of Weeks Bay. The additional time
required for negotiations and the added costs of purchase as well as possi-
ble relocation of displaced residents make this option prohibitive. Although
similar in topography and elevation to the Swift tract, this area does not
possess the same natural resources; i.e., its timber, marshes, and numerous
habitats for various species of birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and
plants.

Alternative 4, NOAA's Preferred Alternative, is proposed as a mechanism
to ensure adequate protecti f the Say's resources yet maintain traditional
uses of the area. This alternative represents an area that includes all---the
land and water areas necessary to sustain a viable estuary and offers mana@ement
opportunities for scientific and educational use as well as public education.
Selection of this alternative satisfied a number of needs. First, it recog-
nized the uniqueness and value of the bay's natural resource-s.779cond, it
will help maintain the ecological integrity of this productive estuary.
Third, it will provide discrete areas where managers and researchers may
conauct activities that will aid in providing long-term management for this
@nd other similar areas. Fourth, It will provide opportunities for conduct-
ing education programs in natural areas that provide first-hand information
and "hands-on" training to its students.

0. Alternative Management Conc

,d by NOAA and the
A number of strategies were discussed and considere
State during the evaluation of the site as a potential estuarine sanctuary
and in the development of the plan for its management. Of these the follow-
ing received the most attention:

Management by a Federal agency using Federal employees;

Management by Baldwin County using County employees, subject
to State agency and Advisory Committee supervision; and

Management and operation by a State agency using State employees.

Alternative I was rejected because the only Federal agency considerea
capable of providing management for the proposed Sanctuary, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, lacked the legal authority to assume the role of
manager for a National Estuarine Sanctuary. This limitation also would have
been applicable to other Federal agencies as well; i.e., program regulations
at 15 CFR Part 921 specifically provide for state involvement (with the
assistance of NOAA) in the selection and, subsequent, management of a site
as a National Estuarine Sanctuary.

Management by Baldwin County (Alternative 2), under, State supervision,
was rejected because the County lacks the professional expertise and personnel
to provide for full-time management of the area.

A ernative, was chosen because of the
Alternative 3, NOAA's Preferred Alt
existing expertise and management capabilities of the State. The Alaoama
Department of Economic and Community Affairs currently plays a significant
role in the implementation of the State's coastal management program, pro-
viding a convenient opportunity for coordinating programs authorized under
Sections 306 and 315 of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972,
as amended. The Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, addition-
ally, has the staff capability as well as the necessary enforcement and
regulatory authority to deal with the management of coastal resources, thus,
making them the agency most capable of handling the on-site management
responsibilities for the proposed Sanctuary.

V Environmental Conseguences

The overall environmental effects of the proposed Weeks Bay National
Estuarine Sanctuary will be beneficial. The purpose of this action is to
designate this area as an outdoor laboratory which will be used primarily
for the purposes of research and education. By preventing environmentally
harmful development activities on property acquired for the Sanctuary, the
ecological integrity of many acres of sensitive terrestrial and aquatic
habitat will be sustained. Sanctuary status will also ensure the long-term
natural productivity and continued biological integrity of the Weeks Bay
system through the comprehensive management of its resources and values.

Sanctuary designation will not change existing activities or uses in
Weeks Bay or on property adjoining the proposed Sanctuary. Existing laws
and regulations will protect the environmental quality of the estuarine
sanctuary from degradation due to activities on private property in adjacent
or surrounding areas. Since the current property owners are willing sellers,
there will be no relocation impacts associated with purchase of the land.
Establishing sanctuary status will help ensure long-term protection to
State and Federally-listed endangered, threatened, or special concern
species.

A. Preferred Alternative

Although no new laws and regulations will be promulgated as the.
result of designation.of Weeks Bay as a National Estuarine Sanctuary,
designation will enhance resource protection. The'esta@lishment of a
sanctuary will help maintain the environmental integrity of the eastern
share of Mobile Say by focusing the public's attention on the system's
natural values and vulnerabilities to human activities. The interpretive
program will increase public awareness of the inteq@al part estuaries
play in the economic and ecological viability of the'Gulf of Mexico. The
sanctuary will also enhance resource protection through development of a
data/information base from which sound management decisions can be made.

The interpretive program will provide a variety of experiences
through an enriched appreciation and awareness of the fragility and impor-
tance of the natural environment. The off-site activities'will promZ a--
greater understanding of the importance of estuarine areas throughout the
State. On-site activities such as museums, trails, and interpretive dis-
plays will provide the opportunity for vital "hands-on" learning experiences.

The resource studies program will provide a central repository of
the numerous and varied literature of estuarine systems along the northern
Gulf of Mexico. This information will then be available to potential users
to help not only In protecting the resources at Weeks Bay, but also in
managing other estuarine systems along the northern Gulf Coast. Publications
developed by the ADCNR or Faulkner State Junior College will help disseminate
this information.

The Preferred Alternative will provide a coordinated and compre-
hensive mana4-ement scheme that will result in the most effective means of
maintaining the Weeks Bay estuary for research and education activities and
for future generatlons.

The preferred boundary alternative will provide the protection
necessary to preserve the health of the 14corell area of tile Weeks Bay
estuary. It will offer discrete areas conducive to educational and scien-
.tific activities as well as optimal management and enforcement efforts.

B. Status Quo

Under the status quo, Weeks Bay will not be provided the degree
of management or pr@otecti6n warranted by the significance of its resources.
Population pressures to develop more tracts along eastern Mobile Bay may
lead to the degradation of areas vital to the health of Weeks bay and its
surrounding areas. Acquisition of ucore" land will help maintain the bio-
logical integrity of the Weeks Bay area.

No coordinated interpretative pr@pgram is offered by this alterna-
tive. Public awareness of the importance of estuaries in the ecological
and economic life of Mobile Bay and the Gulf of Mexico will continue to be
neglected, thus negating an important aspect in overall resource management.

Resource studies will be funded at a low level by this alternative.
Collection of data needed to fill the gaps in the information available for
management of the Mobile Bay system will continue to exist, necessitating
management decisions based on inadequate data. With no monitoring or assess-
ment program, adverse impacts due to natural or man-induced perturbations
may occur before the problem can be addressed.

C.0 Boundary Alternatives

All of the alternatives considered would afford Weeks Bay certdin
levels of protection. Additionally, most of them would, through the coordi-
nated activities of the State, also conserve some of the bay's key resources.
Thus, the evaluation of the boundary alternatives needed to respond to the
questions of size (how large or small should it be to protect the area?)
and ease of management (which would allow for the best possible management
of the area given a certain set of constraints?).

Criteria reflecting the desired operational attributes of the
alternatives was considered with an additional set of factors which exami.hea
the significance of certain areas in terms of operational-efficiency, ease
of physical discrimination, and biological significance. The following
discusses these with reference to the boundary alternatives:

a The operational efficiency of a sanctuary is a measure made in terms
of matching the needs prescribed by the size of the area subject to manage-
ment with the availability of resources to carry-out the plan. in these
terms, both Alternative 2 and the Preferred Alternative meet this description.
Given the current level of funding the other two are too large.

The ease in physical discrimination is a condition which describes
the relative ease or difficulty in delineating, on the ozisis of .ground features
and benchmarks identified on maps, the boundary of the area subject to tne
provisions of the Sanctuary Management Plan, and its consistency with existing
State and Federal programs. Again, the Preferrec Alternative meets these

requirements better than the other options. Although all options indy be
identified on topographic maps, the physical presence of easily identified
roads, paths, benchmarks, residences, and farmlands surroundintj the tnree
properties involved make them more easily delineated without the aid of a
map than do the other alternatives.

a The biological significance of an area refers to its value in
terms of its contribution to the overall maintenance and integrity of a
larger system. Although all of the alternatives presented contribute to a
certain extent, Alternative 3 and the Preferred.Alternative provide this
attribute to a greater extent than the other two. The areas encumbered by
both Alternatives 3 and 4 possess a diversity of important ecological
habitats and resources that contribute to the high productivity and eculo-ji-
cal importance of the Weeks Bay area.

This evaluation represents a qualitative estimate of how and to what ex-
tent each boundary alternative meets the need for balancing resource manage-
ment needs with the realities imposed by management constraints. For instance,
a broad boundary would provide the geographic coverage necessary in managing
the area. However, it would also sacrifice the ability to concentrate its
available resources on discrete management issues within specific areas of
unique biological significance. Thus, the Preferred Alternative represents
the best compromise between the alternatives presenE76a and is only one
that satisfies all the criteria presented in the evaluation.

D. Socio-Economic Impacts

A number of socioeconomic benefits will result from the establish-
ment of the proposed estuarine sanctuary. The proposed sanctuary is located
approximately halfway between the towns of Fairhope and Foley. Tnese
communities are important art and cultural centers. The relatively unspoiled
nature of the eastern shore of Mobile bay attracts many people to the area
to live. Sanctuary status will enhance this aspect of the eastern snore of
Mobile Bay and will provide a buffer zone in an area of growing population.
Additionally, the portion of the proposed estuarine sanctuary located on
Bon Secour Bay will provide almost a direct and continuous link with the
recently established Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge.

The effectiveness of science education centers in illustrating and
communicating ecological systems and environmental problems has been demon-
strated in other areas. Such a facility is planned for the Weeks bay area.
Faulkner State Junior College, the only institute of higher learning in
Baldwin County, will provide a science education director who will direct
an educational program, for students and the public. The educational program
will include publications, displays, demonstrations, workshops, field trips,
seminars, etc. The purpose of this facility and its programs will be to
provide a vehicle for increasing public knowledge and awareness of the
complex nature of estuarine systems, their values and benefits to man and
nature, and the problems which confront then.

There is a great deal of interest among 8aldwin County residents
concerning environmental issues, especially those involving MoDile tsay.
Designation of Weeks Bay as a National Estuarine Sanctuary will help focus

the surrounding community's attention on the value of research and education
in estuarine management. Scientific findings and the experience of educators
using the proposed Sanctuary will aid in the development of sound coastal
management policy and practice. Improved management cap-abilities for the
surrounding estuarine areas resulting from research within the proposed
Sanctuary will help ensure that the aesthetic and highly productive values
of these systems, which underpin the area's tourist and -seafood industry,
continue to exist.

In addition to the benefits that might be derived from the proposed
action, its attendant plan for land acquisition may engender socioeconomic
costs such as those discussed In the following:
* Loss of private-sector development opportunities. The lands which
have be argeted for acquisition in Phases I and Il of the Sanctuary's
proposed management plan will be dedicated exclusively tio accommodating
those uses set forth in its provisions and which are consistent with the
purposes for which the designation was made (see Section I, "Purpose and
Need for Action"). It is not currently envisaged that the real property
acquired using Section 315 funds or dedicated by the State for Sanctuary
purposes will be made available to private-sector development. Neither is
it intended by this designation that these lands or real property be ]eased
or rented by the State for commercial purposes.

Some loss in revenue to Baldwin County may be experienced as a result
of the removal of the acquired lands from the active tax roles and the
foreclosure of future development opportunitie!t (i.e., revenue loss from
residential and commercial construction, including permit fees, and personal
income and property taxes); however, several factors ameliorate these costs.
First, of the lands proposed for acquisition, only a small percentage can be
considered developable; the remaining requires prohibitive capital invest-
ment Simply to provide access or meet minimum construction standards and
local building codes. Second, the Sanctuary will serve to attract visitors
and researchers to the area resulting in increased visitor spending for
food, transportation, lodging, and recreational activities.
Tighter enforcement of existin@ restrictions imposed on land
development. Although no new restrictions have been proposed, the desig-
nation of the Sanctuary will place increased emphasis on the State's enforce-
ment of existing regulations and oversight responsibility for ensuring the
protection of the Bay's waters from non-point sources of pollution. Such
sources-, which result principally from land disturbing activities associated
with construction practices, and from residential and coamercial waste discharges,
are for the most part subject to local control, requirin14 that the State
exercise its broad powers to ensure local compliance with State and Federal
water quality standards.

In view of the reduced development potential represented by the proposed
acquisition, and the enhanced levels of enforcement brought on by the aesig-
nation, the following may result:

(a) A rise in the cost of new development, and appreciation in the
values of existing development and/or remaining developable lands;

(b) A depression in the values of vacant lands rendered "undevelopable"
as a result of increased enforcement activities; and

(c) Displacement effects which implicitly promote development activities
in locations less subject to use constraints (i.e., economic costs
and regulatory restrictions).

The downstream effects associated with the management plan's land acqui-
sition element may be positive or negative, depending on one's perspective;
however, all environmental and socioeconomic factors considered, the proposed
action ought to have a net positive impact on the Bay and the surrounding
community.

E. Unavoidable Adverse Environmental or Socioeconomic Effects

Implementation of the Sanctuary Management Plan may result in minor
disturbances to the environment through construction or improvement of a
visitor center, boat ramp, parking lot or trails. Except for minor site
disturbances, there are no significant adverse environmental effects. Ad-
verse socioeconomic effects will' be limited to the foregQne develdpment
opportunities of the lands acquired for Sanctuary purposes. This is neces-
sary in order to maintain the integrity of the Weeks Bay estuarine complex.

F. Relationshig between Short-term Uses of the Environment and the
'Ra'intenance and Enhancement of Long-term Pro

Sanctuary designation will provide long-term assurance that the natural
resources and resulting benefits of the area are available for future use
and enjoyment. Without sanctuary designation, intensive uses, such as
residential development,, would most likely occur within some parts of the-
proposed Sanctuary. This would result in a loss of ecological and economic
benefits due to disruption and degradation of natural'resources.

Research information collected from the proposed Sanctuary over the
long-term will assist 4deral, State, and local governments in making better
coastal management decisions. Better management will, in turn, help resolve
use conflicts and mitigate adverse impacts of human activities in the coast-
al zone, thus saving both money and resources. Research in the proposed Sanctuary
might well allow more efficient and safer use of resources in the coastal
zone, which may also result in the discovery of previously unknown resources
(medical, nutritional, esthetic, recreational) for human use. A public
education program will provide a grassroots foundation for wise public use
of estuarine resources.

G. Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of Resources

Within the proposed Sanctuary, there are no resources that will be
irreversibly committed or irretrievably lost as a result of the designation
of the Sanctuary. The intent of the proposed action is to protect, enhance,
and manage the natural resources for research, education, and recreation. If
these resources are protected and managed, the option to which is consumption
and alteration, they will be available for future use. It is also believed
that, through the plan developed for its management, establishment of the
proposed Sanctuary will ensure the future vitality of living resources and
their continued availability to commercial and sport fishermen as well as
provide expanded opportunities for non-consumptive recreational endeavors.

VI. LIST OF PREPARERS

Dr. Nancy Foster - U.S. Department of Commerce/NOAA

Dr. Foster is the Chief of the Sanctuary Programs Division, Uffice of
Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Ocean Service. Her responsi-
bilities included the overall direction for the development of this project.
Dr. Foster is a graduate of Texas Christian University (M.A. in Marine Biology)
and George Washington University (PhD in Marine Biology).

Kelvin Char - U.S. Department of Commerce/NUAA

Mr. Char is a Sanctuary Projects Manager with the Sanctuary Programs
Division. His responsibilities in the preparation of this document included
providing guidance to assigned staff in the project's development and organiza-
tion. He attended the Universities of Illinois and Hawaii, graduating from
the latter with a Bachelor of Arts degree in zoology. He also holds a masters
degree in Urban-Regional Planning (MURP) from the University of Hawaii ana
has broad experience in the professional planniny/enyineerinti field.

William J. Thomas - U.S. Department of Commerce/NOAA

Mr. Thomas is an Assistant Sanctuary Projects Manager with the Sanctuary
Programs Division. Assigned'the primary responsibility for this project,
his roles included coordinating the gathering of information, synthesis of
informition, writing, editing, graphics, and overailpreparation of tne
DEIS/MP document. He possesses both undergraduate and graduate degrees in
zoology (B.A. and M.S.) from the University of Hawai'i and formerly served
as a marine advisory agent with the institution's Sea Grant Proyrdin.

Thomas Gindling Jr. - U.S. Department of Commerce/NOAA

Mr. Gindling was a program assistant serving on an internship with the
Sanctuary Programs Division. His responsibilities included intonnation
gathering and synthesis, writing, editing and preparing.tnis document for
publication. He received his Bachelor of Arts degree in Latin Americdn
Studies from Denison University and is currently a doctoral candidate in
Economics at Cornell University.

Colleen M. guinn - U.S. Department of Commerce/NOAA

Ms. Quinn was a program assistant serving as an intern With the
Sanctuary Programs Division. Her responsibilities included final proofin,-,
and editing of this document for formal publication. She received her
Bachelor of Arts degree in English and Philosophy from tne Lolleye of
William and Mary and is currently attending law school at the University of
Viryinia.

5 7

Others whose valuable contribution made this document possible:

Ms. Lois Mills - Clerk/typist, Sanctuary Programs Division, UCRM

Dr. John Borom - Biologist and Director of the Fairhope Center, Faulkner
State Junior College; FairhopeV, Alabama.
Mr. Walter Tatum Chief Marine Biologist'with the Marine Resources Division
of the Alabama Department of/Conservation and Natural
Resourdes.

Mr. William Tucker District Fisheries Supervisor with the Game and Fish
Division of the Alabama Department of Conservation
and Natural Resources.

Mr. C. Will-ii-m Wade Biologist III for the Mobile County District, Alabama
Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (Retired
from DCNR in August 1983).

The following individuals provided input on behalf of the State of Alabama
during the planning process for the proposed Weeks Say National Estuarine
Sanctuary:

Mr. David Barley
Dr. Gary Branch
Mr. Brad Gane
Mr. John W. Hodnitt
Dr. Bill Hosking
Or. James Jones
Mr. Charles D. Kelley
Mr. Neil Lauder
Rep. Steve McMillan
Mr. George Merlini
Dr. Philip Norris
Hon. Tom Norton
Ms .Marie Patrick
Mr. Bill Rushton
Dr. William Schroeder
Mr. Sherman Shores
Dr. Judy Stout
Mr. Hugh Swingle
Mr. Arthur Tonsmeire
Mr. Bill Wallace
Dr. Rick Wallace

VII. LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS RECEIVING COPIES

Congressional-Representatives

Senator Howell Thomas Heflin
Senator Jeremiah A. Denton
Representative Sonny Callahan
Representative William Louis Dickenson
Representative William Nichols
Representative Tom Bevi I I
Representative Ronnie G. Flippo
Representative Ben Erdreich
Representative Richard B. Shelby

State Government

Water Improvement Commission
State 011 and Gas Board
Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
State Forestry Commission
State Highway Department
Public Service Commission
State Docks Commission
Historic CGmmission
Liquefied Petroleum Gas Board
Water Well Standards Board
State Board of Health
Department of Agriculture and Industries
Water Conservation and Irrigation Agency
Department of Economic and Community Affairs
Office of the Attorney General
Water Improvement Commission

Local Groups

Magnolia Land Company
Foreman and Weller, Inc.
Baldwin County Wildlife Federation
Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County
South Baldwin Chamber of Commerce
Bon Secour Fisheries, Inc.
M
4
ob.le Bay Audubon Society

Individuals

David Sall
Clarence Bishop
Barry Booth
Ben Borom
John Borom
Rod Brettel

Individuals (continued)

William Bridger
Jerry Boyi ngton
mrs. E.C. Brueggeman
Charles Burnett
Randy Butler
M. M. Chavis
Deni se Cl anton
Ernest Clark
Sam Damson
Linda Ennis
Mike Ford
Jack Friend
John R. Greggs
Sam Hardman
Elizabeth Havard
Thomas Horne
Dan Hughes
Myrt Jones
Oswalt Lipscomb
Sheldon Lipscomb
Tom Lott
Steve Masters
Alton McClantoc
Larry McDuff
Steve McMillan
Lynn Meador
David Nelsod
Albert Nonkes
Edward Parker
John Parker
Mark Paul
Walter Penry
Ken Regan
Robert Renz
Brent Richerson
Art Rigas
R. B. Ryder
David L. Scott
Maud Skeba
Hattie L. Smith
Edward Steele
Arthur Tonsmeire
Ellen Weller
A. W. Williams

VIII. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alabama Coastal Area Board Management Program. 1978. Worksnop Uraft.
Alabama Coastal Area Board, Daphne, Alabama. 284 pp.

Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. 1975. Fishes,
Birds and Mammals at the Coastal Area of Alabama. Montgomery, Alabama.

Bland, P.G. and W.M. Tatum. 1976 Survey of the 16-foot trawl fishery of
Alabama. Alabama Mar. Resour. Bull. 11:51-57.

Boschung, H.T., ed. 1976. Endangered and threatened plants and animals of
A] abama. Bul I . Al abama Mus. Natu. Hi st. No. 2. Vie pp.

Chermock, R.K. 1974. The environment of offshore and estuarine Alabama.
Alabama Geol. Survey Inf. Ser. 51. 135 pp.

Cooke, C.W. 1939. Scenery of Florida. Florida Uept. of Conservation Geoi.
Bull. 17. 118 pp.

Crance, J.J. 1971. Description of Alabama estuarine areas - cooperative (iulf
of Mexico estuarine inventory. Alabama Mar. Resour. dull. U: 8b pp.

Heath, S.R. 1979 - Shrimp assessment and management in the Mobile estuary:
pages 201-207 in H.A. Loyacano and J.P. Smith, eds. 5ymposium on the
Natural Resources of the Mobile-Estuary, Alabama, U.5. Army Corps of
Engineers, MobilFM`tricT.

Holliman, Dan C. 1979. The status of mammals in the Alabama coastal zone
and a proposed resource plan for their management. Pages 263-276 in
H.A. Loyacano and J.P. Smith, eds. Symposium on the Natural Resources
@-o-F-En'neers, Mobile
of the Mobile Estuary, Alabama. U.S. Amy Corp 91
ri s-EF7 et .

1981 & 1982. Present levels of birds and mammals in the coastal zone.
Alabama Coastal Area Board Technical Reports CAB 81-84 and CAB 62-U6

Gulf Universities Research Consortium. 1979. Final Report on the Alabama
coastal zone ecology and water quality data information source, existing
benthic data evaluation. Marine Sciences Consortium. Uauphin Island, AL.

Mount, R.H. 1975. The reptiles and amphibians of Alabama. Auburn A4ric. Exp.
Station. Auburn, Alabama. 347 pp.

Office of Coastal Zone Management. 1974. Alabama Coastal Area management
Plan and Final Environmental Impact S ent. U.S. Department of
CommercF.-Natinal UceanE@-rapTi-cand Atmospheric Admn. UCZM. WaShin.:Iton,
D.C. 411 pp.

O'Neal, P.E. and M.F. Mettee. 1982. Alabama c.,3astal region ecoloj ical
characterization. Volume 2. A synthesis of environmental cata. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of diolojical Services, wasn-inyton, j.C.
FWS/OBS-82/42 346 pp.

Riccio, J.F., J.D. Hardin, and G.M. Lamb. 1973. Development of a hydro-
logic concept for the greater Mobile metropolitan-urban environment.
Alabama Geol. Survey Open-file Rep. 226 pp.

Soil Conservation Service. 1974. General soil map State of Alabama.
Auburn, Alabama.

South Alabama Regional Planning Commission. 1979. Water quality management
plant, Mobile and Baldwin couunties, Alabama. South Alabama Regional
Planning Comm., Mobile, Alabama. 669 pp.

Stout, J.P. and M.G. Lelong. 1981. Wetland habitats of the Alabama coastal
area. Alabama Coastal Area Board Tech. Publ. CAB-61-01. 27 pp.

Swigle, H.A. 1971. Biology of Alabama estuarine areas - cooperative Gulf of
Mexico estuarine inventory. Alabama Mar. Resour. Bull. 5:1123

Tucker,, W.H. 1979. Freshwater fish and fisheries resources of the Mobile
Delta. Pages 157-166 in H.A. Loyacano and J.P. Smith, eds SYM20sium on
the National Resources of the Mobile Estuarine, Llabama. Army Lorps
of Engineers, Mobil'e District.

Wade, C.W. 1977. Survey of the Alabama Marine recreational fishery. Alaoama
Mar. Resour. Bull. 22 pp.

IX. APPENDICES

A. Program Regulations Highlighting Biogeographic Classificacions

B. Memorandum of Understanding between the State of Alabama and tne
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

C. Checklist of the Dominant -Plants of the Weeks Bay Estuarine Sanctuary
Project

0. Checklist of Animals in the Vicinity of the Weeks Bay Estuarine
Sanctuary Project

E. List of Birds Which Possibly Occur in the WeeKs Bay Area

F. Animals With Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern Status with
Collection Records or Likely to Occur in the Weeks day, Alaoarna Area

APPENDIX A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE STATE OF ALABAMA
AND THE'NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

A-1

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN
THE STATE UF A"BAMA
AND
THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC AUMINISTkATIUN
CONCERNING THE
ESTABLISHMENT AND ADMINISTRATIUM UF
THE WEEKS BAY NATIONAL ESTUARINE SANCTUARY

WHEREAS, the State of Alabama has determined that the waters and
related coastal habitats of Weeks Bay provide unique opportunities to study
natural and human processes occurring within an embayed estuarine ecosystem
of Mobile Bay; and

WHEREAS, it is the finding of the State of Alabama that the resources
of Weeks Say and the values they represent to the citizens of Alabama and the
United States are susceptible to degradation through man's activities and
natural phenomena, and would benefit from the management of Weeks Bay as a
National Estuarine Sanctuary; and

WHEREAS, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NUAA),
U.S. Department of Commerce has concurred with that finding and pursuant to
its authority under Section 315 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972,
as amended (CZMA), P.L. 92-583, 16 U.S.C. 1461, and in accordance with imple-
menting regulations at 15 CFR 921.30, may designate WeeKS day as a National
Estuarine Sanctuary; and

WHEREAS, the Governor, State of Alabama, has designated the Alabama
Department of Economic and Community Affairs (ADECA) to act on behaif of the
State in matters concerning the Weeks Say National Estuarine Sanctuary (WdNES),
the boundaries of which are delineated in the proposed Sanctuary Mana-dement
PI an (PI an) ; and
WHEREAS, ADECA, as the agency designated in the Plan and Dy the @tate
of Alabama responsible for managing the W8NES, acknowledges the need and -
requirement for continuing State-Federal cooperation in the' long-term manaLje-
ment of the site in a manner consistent with the purposes sou@jht throubh its
designation.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the inutual covenants contained herein
it is agreed by and between the AUECA and NOAA, effective on the date of
the designation of the Weeks Say National Estuarine Sanctuary, as follows:

ARTICLE 1: State-Federal Roles in Sanctuar _Manayement

A. ADECA, as the principal contact for the State of Alaoama in all
matters concerning the WBNES, will serve to ensure that the Sanctuary is
managed in a manner consistent with the goals of the National Estuarine
Sanctuary Program and the management oojectiveS of the Plan. lts
responsibilities for Plan implementation will include the following:

A- 2

(1) Effect and maintain a process for coordinatin-j the roles and
responsibilities of all State agencies involved in the management of the
Sanctuary, including but not limited to:

(a) Enforcement programs regulating water quality, fish
and wildlife habitat protection, sport and commercial
fisheries, and non-consumptive recreational activites;

.(b) The on-site administration of facilities, programs, and.
tasks related to Sanctuary management;

(c) Activities and programs conducted pursuant to the
State's Federally-approved coastal management program
authorized under Section 306 of the CZMA; and

(d) Research agenda developed and implemented in accordance
with corresponding elements of the proposed Plan;

(2) As the Governor's designee under 15 CFR 921.50 and recipient
State entity in matters concerning all financial assistance awards authorized
under Section 315 of the CZMA, apply for, budget, and allocate such funds
received for supplemental acquisition and development, operation and manage-
ment, and research;

(3) Prepare and submit to NOAA for its approval an operationdl
strategy which in coordination with the Plan describes how the State of
-Alabama intends to meet its long-term commitment to the management of the
Sanctuary. The strategy, at a minimum, will describe the following:

(a) Specific mediation procedures and resolution mechanisms,
developed jointly with the SPU, for reaching mutually
Acceptable solutions for correcting or avoiding conflicts
requiring action under 15 CFR 921.,35;_

(b) The procedures developed in accordance with SPO guide-
lines and proposed by the State as a means for prescrib-
ing contingency responses to emergency conditions tnat--
exceed routine Plan implementation; and

(c) The Plan's continuing function, after Federal financial
assistance for operations and management ends, as a
vehicle for carrying out the mission of the national
program; i.e., (i) how the State intends to coorainate
Sanctuary management with its coastal resource management
decisionmaking process; (ii) the anticipated worK program,
priorities, and sources of funding far ensuring the
continued maintenance of the Sanctuary; and, (iii) the
means relied upon by the State to assure NUAA that real
property acquired with Federal funds for tne purposes
of the Sanctuary will continue to be used in a manner
consistent with 15 CFR 921.21(e);

A-3

(4) Serve as principal negotiator on issues ihvolvin9j,"proposea
boundary changes and/or amendments to the Plan;
(5) Submit annual reports to NOAA on the Sanctuary de@cribin-@,
in accordance with 15 CFR 921.34, program performance in Olan implementation
and a detailed work program for the following year of Sanctuary.,joperations,
including budget projections and research efforts;

(6) Respond to NOAA's requests for information and to evaluation
findings made pursuant to Section 312 of the CZMA; and

(7) In the event that it should become necessary, based on find-
ings of deficiency, serve as the point-of-contact for the State of Alabama
in actions involving the possible withdrawal of sanctuary designation, as
provided at 15 CFR 921.35.

B. Within NUAA, the Sanctuary Programs Division (SPU), Office of
Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM), will serve to administer the
provisions of Section 315 of the CZMA to ensure that the WBNES is manayed
.n accordance with the goals of the National Estuarine Sanctuary Program
and the Plan. In carrying out its responsibilities, the SPU will:

(1) Subject to appropriation, provide financial assistance to the
State, consistent with 15 CFR 921 Subparts 0, E, ana F, for manaving and
operating the Sanctuary;
(2) Sirve as the point-'of-contact for NUAA in discussions regara-
ing applications for and any financial assistance received by the State
under Section 315 of the CZMA, including any and all performance standaras,
compliance schedules, or Special Award Conditions deemed appropriate by NUAA
to ensure the timely and proper execution of the proposed work provram;

(3) Participate in periodic evaluations scheduled by OCRM in
@ccordance with Section 312 of the CZMA to measure the State's performance
in Plan implementation and its compliance with the terms and conditions
prescribed in financial assistance awards granted by NUAA for the purposes
of the Sanctuary and advise appropriate OCRM staff of existing or emerging
issues which might affect the State's coastal management program; ana

(4) Establish an information transfer/exchange network cataloging
all available research data and educational material developed on each site
included within the national system of estuarine sanctuaries.

ARTICLE II: Real Property Acquired for the_Purposes of the Sanctuary

A. The ADECA agrees to the conditions set forth at 1b CFK 921.21(e)
which specify the legal documentation requirements concerning the use and
disposition of real property acquired for Sanctuary purposes with Federal
funds under Section 315 of the CZMA.

A- 4

ARTICLE III: Program Evaluation

A. During the period that Federal financial assistance is available
for Sanctuary operations and management, OCRM will schedule, pursuant to
15 CFR 921.34, periodic evaluations of the State's performance in ineetinj the
conditions of such awards and progress in implementing the Plan and the pro-
visions of this MOU. Where findings of deficiency occur, NOAA may initiate
action in accordance with the procedures established at 15 CFk 921.35.

B. After Federal financial assistance under Section 315 of the CZMA
is no longer available for the operation and management of the Sanctuary,
OCRM will continue to evaluate, pursuant to Section 312 of tne CZMA and the
corresponding provisions of 15 CFR 921, ADECA's performance in implementing
the Plan and strategy committing the State to the long-term management of
the WBNES. Where findings of deficiency occur, NOAA may initiate action
in accordance with the procedures established at 1b CFR 921.35.

IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Memorandum to
be executed.

Peter L. Tweeat William M.-Rushton
Director Director
Office of Ocean and Coastal 'Mabama Uepartment@of Economic
Resource Management and Community Affairs
National Oceanic and Atmospheric State of Alabiung
Administration
U.S. Department of Commerce
6M

Date Date'

Dr. NanV Foster Witness
Chle
San ry Programs Division
Off e of Ocean and Coastal Resource '7
Management ucite
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
U.S. Department of Commerc-a
& V/
'Date/

APPENDIX 8 NATIONAL ESTUARINE SANCTUARY PROGRAM REGULATIONS

B-1
26510 Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 125/Wednesday, June 27, 1984/ Rules and Regulations

required for this notice of final Subpart D --- Sanctuary Designation and ideas from one sanctuary are made
rulemaking. The regulations set forth Subsequent Operation available to others in the system. The
procedures for identifying and Sec. network that will be established will
designating national estuarine 921.30 Designation of National Estuarine enable sanctuaries to exchange
sanctuaries, and managing sites once Sanctuaries. information and research data with each
designated. 921.31 Supplemental acquisition and other, with universities engaged in
These rules do not directly affect development awards. estuarine research, and with Federal
"small government jurisidictions" as 921.32 Operation and management: and state agencies. NOAA's objective is
defined by Pub. L 96-354, the Implementation of the Management Plan. a system-wide program of research and
921.33 Boundary changes. Amendments to
Regulatory Flexibility Act, and the rules the Management Plan, and addition of monitoring capable of addressing the
will have no effect on small businesses. multiple-site components. management issues that affect long-term
921.34 Program evaluation. productivity of our Nation's estuaries.
(C)Paper Work Reduction Act of 1980 921.35 Withdrawal of designation. (d) Multiple uses are encouraged to
(Pub. L 96-511) Subpart E-Research Funds the degree compatible with the
These regulations do not impose any 921.40 General. sanctuary's overall purpose as provided
information requirements of the type 921.41 Categories of potential research in the management plan and consistent
covered by Pub. L 96-511 other than projects: evaluation criteria. With Subsections (a) and (b), above. Use
those already approved by the Office of levels are set by the individual state and
Management and Budget (approval Subpart F- - General Financial Assistance analyzed in the management plan. The
number 0648-0121) for use through Provisions sanctuary management plan (see
September 30, 1966. 921.50 Application information. 921.12) will describe the Uses and
921.51 Allowable costs.
(D) National Environmental Policy Act 921.52 Amendments to financial assistance establishes priorities among these uses.
awards. The plan shall identify uses requiring a
NOAA has concluded that publication state permit, as well as areas where
of these rules does not constitute a Appendix 1-Biogeographic Classification uses are encouraged or prohibited. In
Scheme
major Federal action significantly Appendix 2 -Typology of National Estuarine general, sanctuaries are intended to be
affecting the quality of the human Areas open to the public: low-intensity
environment. Therefore, an Authority: Sec 315(1). Pub. L 92-583. as recreational and interpretive activities
environmental impact statement is not amended: 36 Stat. 1280 (16 U.S.C. 1481(1)). are generally encouraged.
required. (e) Certain manipulative research
List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 921 Subpart A-General activities may be allowed on a limited
� 921.1 Mission and goals. basis, but only if specified in the
Administrative practice and (a) The mission of the National management plan and only if the
procedure. Coastal zone. Environmental Estuarine Sanctuary Program is the activity is consistent with overall
protection. Natural resources. Wetlands. establishment and management, through sanctuary purposes and the sanctuary
(Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog Federal-state cooperation, of a national resources are protected. Manipulative
Number 11.420 Estuarine Sanctuary Program) system of estuarine sanctuaries research activities require the prior
Dated: February 29, 1964. representative of the various regions approval of the state and NOAA.
Paul M. Wolff. and estuarine types in the United States. Habitat manipulation for resource
Assistant Administrator for Ocean Services Estuarine sanctuaries will be management purposes is not permitted
and Coastal Zone Management. established to provide opportunities for within national estuarine sanctuaries.
Accordingly, 15 CFR Part 921 is long-term research, education, and (f) While the Program is aimed at
revised as follows: interpretation. protecting natural, pristine sites, NOAA
(b) The goals of the Program for recognizes that many estuarine areas
PART 921- NATIONAL ESTUARINE carrying out this mission are: have undergone ecological change as a
SANCTUARY PROGRAM (1) Enhance resource protection by result of human activities. Although
REGULATIONS implementing a long-term management restoration of degraded areas is not a
Subpart A--General plan tailored to the site's specific primary purpose of the Program, some
resources; restorative activities may be permitted
Sec. (2) Provide opportunities for long-term in an estuarine sanctuary as specified in
921.1 Mission and goals. scientific and educational programs in the management plan.
921.2 Definitions. estuarine areas to develop information (g) NOAA may provide financial
921.3 National Estuarine Sanctuary for improved coastal decisionmaking; assistance to coastal states, not to
Biogeographic Classification Scheme and (3) Enhance public awareness and exceed 50 percent of all actual costs, to
Estuarine Typologies. understanding of the estuarine assist in the designation and operation
921.4 Relationship to other provisions of the environment through resource of national estuarine sanctuaries (see
Coastal Zone Management Act and to
the National Marine Sanctuary Program. interpretive programs; and section 921.51(e)). Three types of awards
(4) Promote Federal-state cooperative are available under the National
Subpart B --- Preacquisition: Site Selection efforts in managing estuarine areas. Estuarine Sanctuary Program. The
and Management Plan Development (c) To assist the states in carrying out preacquisition award is for site
921.10 General. the Program's goals in an effective selection and draft management plan
921.11 Site selection. manner, the National Oceanic and preparation. The acquisition and
921.12 Management Plan development. Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) development award is intended
Subpart C-- Acquisition, Development, and will coordinate a research and primarily for land acquisition and
Preparation of the Final Management Plan education information exchange construction purposes. The operation
921.20 General. throughout the national estuarine and management award provides funds
921.21 Initial acquisition and development sanctuary system. As part of this role, to assist In implementing the research,
awards. NOAA will ensure that information and educational, and administrative

B-2
Federal Register / Vol. 49 No. 125 / Wednesday, June 27, 1984 / Rules and Regulations 26511

programs detailed in the sanctuary and to include a variety of ecosystem Financial assistance application
management plan. Under the Act, the types. A biogeographic classification procedures are specified in Subpart F.
Federal share of funding for a national scheme based on regional variations in (b) In selecting a site, a state may
estuarine sanctuary shall not exceed the nation's coastal zone has been choose to develop a multiple-site
$3,000,000. At the conclusion of Federal developed. The biogeographic sanctuary reflecting a diversity of
financial assistance, funding for the classification scheme is used to ensure habitats in a single biogeographic
long-term operation of the sanctuary that the National Estuarine Sanctuary region. A multiple-site sanctuary also
becomes the responsibility of the state. System includes at least one site from allows the state to develop
(h) Lands already in protected status each region. The estuarine typology complementary research and
by another Federal, state, local system is utilized to ensure that sites in educational programs within the
government or private organization can the Program reflect the wide range of multiple components of its sanctuary.
be included within national estuarine estuarine types within the United States. Multiple-site sanctuaries are treated as
sanctuaries only if the managing entity (b) The biogeographic classification one sanctuary in terms of financial
commits to long-term non-manipulative scheme, presented in Appendix 1, assistance and development of an
management. Federal lands already in contains 27 regions. Figure 2 graphically overall management framework and
protected status cannot comprise the depicts the biogeographic regions of the plan. Each individual component of a
key land and water areas of a sanctuary United States. proposed multiple-site sanctuary shall
(see 921.11(c)(3)). (c) The typology system in presented be evaluated separately under
921.2 Definitions. in Appendix 2. 921.11(c) as part of the site selection
process. A state may propose to
(a) "Act" means the Coastal Zone 921.4 Relationship to other provisions of establish a multipile-site sanctuary at the
Management Act, as amended, is U.S.C. the Coastal Zone Management Act and to time of the initial site selection, or at
1451 et seq. Section 315(l) of the Act. 16 the National Marine Sanctuary Program any point in the development or
U.S.C. 1461(1). establishes the National (a) The National Estuarine Sanctuary operation of the estuarine sanctuary,
Estuarine Sanctuary Program. Program is intended to provide even after Federal funding for the single
(b) "Assistant Administrator" (AA) information to state agencies and other component sanctuary has expired. If the
means the Assistant Administrator for entities involved in coastal zone, state decides to develop a multiple-site
Ocean Services and Coastal Zone management decision making pursuant national estuarine sanctuary after the
Management, National Ocean Service, to the Coastal Zone Management Act, 16 initial acquisition and development
National Oceanic and Atmospheric U.S.C. 1451 et seg. Any coastal state, award is made on a single site, the
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce. or his/her successor or including those that do not have proposal is subject to the requirements,
designee. approved coastal zone management set forth in 921.33. It should be noted,
(c) "Coastal state" means a state of programs under section 306 of the Act, is however, that the total funding for a
the United States in, or bordering on, the eligible for an award under the National multiple-site sanctuary remains at the
Atlantic, Pacific, or Arctic Ocean, the Estuarine Sanctuary Program (see S3.000.000 limit: the funding for
Gulf of Mexico, Long Island Sound, or 921.2(e)). operation of a multiple-site sanctuary is
one or more of the Great Lakes. For the (b) Where feasible, the National also limited to the $250,000 standard
purposes of this title, the term also Estuarine Sanctuary Program will be (see 921.1132(b)).
includes Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, conducted in close coordination with the 921.11 Site selection.
Guam, the Commonwealth of the National Marine Sanctuary Program (a) A state may use up to $10,000 in
Northern Marianas, and the Trust (Title III of the Marine Protection, Federal preacquisition funds to establish
Territories of the Pacific Islands, and Research and Sanctuaries Act, as and implement a site selection process
American Samoa (see 14 U.S.C. 1454(4)). amended. 16 U.S.C. 1431-1434), also which is approved by NOAA.
(d) "Estuary" means that part of a administered by NOAA. Title III
river or stream or body of water having authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to (b) In Addition to the requirements set
unimpaired connection with the open designate ocean waters as marine forth in Subpart F, a request for Federal
sea, where the sea water is measurably sanctuaries to protect or restore such funds for site selection must contain the
diluted with fresh water derived from areas for their conservation, following programmatic information:
land drainage. The term also includes recreational, ecological, or esthetic (1) A description of the proposed site
estuary-type areas of the Great Lakes. values. National marine and estuarine selection process and how it will be
see 16 U.S.C. 1454(7). sanctuaries will not overlap, though they implemented in conformance with the
(e) "National Estuarine Sanctuary" may be adjacent. biogeographic classification scheme and
means and area, which may include all typology (921.3);
or the key land and water portion of an Subpart B--Preacquisition: Site (2.) An identification of the site
estuary, and adjacent transitional areas Selection and Management Plan selection agency and the potential
and uplands constituting to the extent Development management agency; and
(3) A description of how public
feasible a natural unit set asides as a 921.10 General participation be incorporated into
natural field laboratory to provide long- (a) A state may apply for a the process (see 921.11(d)). I
term opportunities for research, preacquisition award for the purpose of (c) As part of the site selection
educational, and interpretation on the site selection and preparation of process the state and NOAA shall
ecological relationships within the area documents specified in 921.12 (draft evaluate and select the final site(s).
(see 16 U.S.C. 1454(8)). management plan and environmental NOAA has final authority in approving
927.3 National Estuarine Sanctuary impact statement (EIS)). The total such sites. Site selection shall be guided
Biogeographic Classification Scheme and Federal shave of the preacquisition by the following principles:
Estuarine Typologies. award may not exceed $50,000, of which (1) The site's benefit to the National
(a I National estuarine sanctuaries are up to $10,000 may be used for site Estuarine Sanctuary Program relative to
chosen to reflect regional differnces selection as described in 921.11. the biogeographic classification scheme

26512' Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. IZ5 / Wednesday. June 27, 1984 / Rules and Regulations

and typology set forth in 1922.3 and 1921.12 ManagemeW Plon dette"uneft Nots,4niormstion an preparing a
Appendices I and 2. (a) After the selected-site- in approved ' preliminary engineering report (PER) is
(2) Ile site*s ecological by NOAA and the state. the- state may provided in -Engineering and Construction
Guidelines for Coastal Energy Impact
characteristicL including its biological request the remainder of the Program Applicants" (42 FR 648W (197711.
productivity. diversity of flora and preocquisition funds to develop the draft which is supplied to award recipients:
fauna. and capacity to attract a broad management plan and environmental
range of research and educatioffM impact statement. The request must be (7) An acquisition plan identifying the
interests. The proposed site should. to accompanied by the information ecologically key land and water areas of
the maximum extent possible. be a specified in Subpart F and the following the sanctuary, priority acquisitions. and
strategies for acquiring these areas. This
natural systemr programmatic information:
(3) Assurance that the site's (1) An analysis of the site based on plan should identify ownership patterns
boundaries encompass an adequate the biogeographic 3chemeltypology within the proposed sanctuary
discussed in I 9ZI.3 and set forth in boundaries: land already in the public
portion of the key land and water areas Appendices I and 2. domain: an estimate of the fair market
ol the natural system to approximate an (Z) A description of the site and its value of land to be acquired: the method
ecological unit and to ensure effective major resources. including location. of acquisition. or the feasible
conservation. Boundary size will vary proposed boundaries. and adjacent land alternatives (including less-than-fee
greatly depending on the nature of the uses. Maps. including aerial techniques) for the protection of the
ecosystem. National estuarine photographs. are required. estuarine area; a schedule for
sanctuaries may include existing acquisition with an estimate of the time ;Z
(3) A description of the public
Federal or state lands already in a participation process used by the state required to complete the proposed
protected status where mutual benefit to soficit the views of interested parties. sanctuary: and a discussion of any
can be enhanced. see J 921.31(e)(2). a summary of comments. and. if anticipated problems:
Importantly. however. NOAA will not interstate issues are involved, Note.-As discussed in J 921.1i1c)(3). if
approve a site for potential sanctuary documentation that the Governor(s) of protectod lands are to be included within the
status that is dependent upon the the other affected state(3) has been proposed sanctuary the state must
inclusion of currently protected Federal contacted; demonstrate to NdAA tni t he site meet& the
lands in order to meet the requirements (4) A list of all sites considered and a criteria for national estuarine sancl;azlrv
for sanctuary status (such as key land brief statement of the basis for not status independent of the inclusion of sucti
and water areas). Such lands may only selecting the non-preferred sites: and protected lands.
be included within a sanctuary to serve (5) A draft management plan outline (8) A resource protection plan
as a buffer or for other ancillary (see subsection (b) below) and an detailing applicable authorities.
purposes: outline of a draft memorandum of including allowable uses. Uses requiring
(4) The site's importance for research. understanding (MOU) between the state a permit and permit requirements. any
including proxinvity to existing research and NOAA detailing the Federal-state restrictions on use of the sanctuary. and
facilities and educational institutions: roles in sanctuary management during a strategy for sarictuary surveillance
(Comment. NOAA is developing more the period of federal funding and and enforcement of such use
detailed criteria for selecting potential expressing the state's long-term restrictions. including appropriate
national estuarine sanctuaries based commitment to operate and manage the government enfomement agencies:
upon research characteristics. Once sancturay. (9) If applicable. a restoration plan
these criteria are developed. a notice of (b) After NOAA approves the state's describing those portions of the'lite-that
their availability will be published in the request to use the remaining may require habitat modification to
Federal Register). preacquisition funds. thestate shall restore natural conditions: and
(5) The site's compatibility with begin developing a draft management (10) A proposed memorandum of
existing and potential land and water plan. The plan will set out in detail: understanding (MOU) between the state
uses in contiguous areas; and (1) Sanctuary goals and objectives. and NOAA regarding the Federal-state
management issues. and strategies or relationship during the establishment
(6) The site's importance to education
and interpretive efforts. consistent with actions for meeting the goals and and development of the national
the need for continued protection of the objectives. estuarine sanctuary. and expressing the
natural system. (2) An administrative section long-term commitment by the state to
including staff roles in administration. maintain effectively the sanctuary after
(d) Early in the site selection procam
research. education/interpretation. and Federal financial assistance ends. In
the state must seek the views of affected surveillance and enforcement. conjunction-with the MOU and where
landowners. local governments. other (3) A research plan. including a possible under state law. the state Will
state and Federal agencies. and other monitoring design; consider taking appropriate
parties who are interested in the ares(3) (4) An interpretive plan (including administrative or legislative action to
being considered for selection as a interpretive. educational and ensure the long-term protection of the
potential national estuarine sanctuary. recreational activities): sanctuary. Ile MOU shall be signed
After the local government and affected (5) A plan for public access to the prior to sanctuary designation. If other
landowners have been contacted. at sanctuary. MOUs are necessary (such as with a
least one public meeting shall be held in (6) A construction plan. including a federal agency or another state agencyi.
the area of the proposed site. Notice of proposed construction schedule. and drafts of such MOUs also must be
such a meeting. including the time. drawings of proposed developments. If a included in the plan.
place. and relevant subject matter. shaU visitor center. research center or any (c) Regarding the preparation of an 4
be announced by the state through the other facilities are proposed for environmental impact statement (ES)
area's principal news media at least 15 construction 4r renovation at the site. a under the National Environmental Polic
days prior to the date of the meeting and preliminary engineering report must be Act on a national estuarine sanctuary
by NOAA in the F*derall Reigister. prepared. pi a sal. the state shall provide all

8-4 1
Federal Register / Val. 49. No. i2s / Wednesday, June 27. 1984 1 Rules and Regulations 26513

necessary information to NOAA 1921.21 h*W ac*"Uon and 11de to the property conveyed by this deed
concerning the socioeconomic and devoiopment awards. shall vest in the (recipient of the CZMA
environmental impacts associated with (a) Assistance is provided to aid the Eiection 315 award or other Federally.
approved entityl subject to the condition that
implementing the draft management recipient in: (1) Acquiring land and the property shall remain part of the
plan and feasible alternatives to the water areas to be included in the Federally-designated (name of National
plan. Based on this information. NOAA sanctuary boundaries: (2) minor Estuarine Sanctuary]. in the event that the
will prepare the draft EIS. construction. as provided in paragraphs property is no longer included as part of the
(d) Early in the development of the (b) and (c) of this section: (3) preparing sanctuary. or if the sanctuary designation of
draft management plan and the draft the final management plan: and (4) up to which it is part is withdrawn. then the
EIS. the state shall hold a meeting in the the point of sanctuary designation. for National Oceanic and Atmospheric
rea or areas most affected to solicit initial management costs. e.g.. Administration or its successor agency. in
:ublic and government comments on the implementing the NOAA approved draft conjunction with the State. may exercise any
significant issues related to the management plan. preparing the final of the following rights regarding the
disposition of the property-
proposed action.-NOAA will publish a management plan, hiring a sanctuary (i) The recipient may be required to
notice of the mi6eting in the Federal manager and other staff as necessary. transfer title to the Federal Covernment. In
Register and in local media. and for other management-related such cases. the. recipient shall be entitled to
(e) NOAA will publish a Federal activities. Application procedures are compensation computed by applying the
specified in Subpart F. recipient's percentage of participation in the
Register notice of intent to prepare a I I
DEIS. After the draft EIS is prepared (b) The expenditure of Federal and cost of the program or project to the curren
state funds on major construction fair market value of the property. or
and riled with the Environmental 0i) At the discretion of the Federal
Protection Agency (EPA). a Notice of activities is not allowed during the Government. (a) the recipient may either be
..vailability of the DEIS will appear in initial acquisition and development directed to sell the property and pay the
the Federal Register. Not less than 30 phase. The preparation of architectural Federal Covernment an amount computed by
days after publication of the notice. and engineering plans. including applying the Federal percentage of
NOAA will hold at leact one public specifications. for any proposed participation in the cost of the original project
construction is permitted. In addition. to the proceeds from the sale (minus actual
hearing in the area or areas most minor construction activities. consistent and reasonable selling and fix-up expenses. if
affected by the proposed sanctuary. The with paragraph (c) of this section also any. from the sale proceeds); or (b) the
hearing will be held no sooner than 15 are allowed. The NOAA-approved draft "ec'Pient may be permitted to retain title after
days after appropriate notice by NCAA paying the Federal Coverriment an amount
management plan must. however. computed by applying the Federal percentage
of the meeting has been given in the include a construction plan and a public of participation in the cost of the anginal
principal news media and in the Federal access plan before any award funds can project to the current fair market value of the
Register. After a 45-day comment be spent on construction activities. property.
period. a final EIS is prepared by (c) Only minor construction activities Note.-Fair market value of the property
NOAA. that aid in implementing portions of the must be determined by an independent
management plan (such as boat ramps appraiser and certified by a responsible
Subpart C-AcquisitIM Development. and nature trails) are permitted under official of the state. as provided by OMB
and Preparation of the Final the initial acquisition and development Circular A-102 Revised. Attachment F.
Management Plan award. No more than five (5) percent of (f) Prior to submitting the finpi
f 921-20 Goneraii. the initial acquisition and development management plan to NOA,* for feview
After NOAA approval of the site. the award may be expended on such and approval. the state should hold a
draft management plan and the draft facilities. NOAA must make a specific public meeting in the area affected by
MOU, and completion of the final EIS, a determination. based on the final EIS. die estuarine sanctuary. NOAA will
state is ellgi@le for an acquisition and that the construction activity will not be publish a notice of the meeting in the
development award to acquire land and detrimental to the environment. Federal Register and in the local media.
water areas for inclusion in the (d) Except as specifically provided in Subpart D-Sanctuary Designation and
sanctuary and to construct research and Paragraphs (aHc) of this section. Subsequent Operation
educational facilities in accordance with construction projects. to be funded in
the draft management plan. The whole cn in part under the acquisition 1921.30 Doisignation of Nationai Estuarine
acquisition and development award has and development award. may not be Sanctuaries.
two phases. In the initial pham state initiated until the sanctuary receives (a) The AA shall designate an area as
performance should work to meet the formal designation. see I 9ZI.30. * a national estuarine sanctuary pursuant
criteria required for formal sanctuary Note.-The intent of these requirements to Section 315 of the Act. based upon
designation. i.e. acquiring the key land and the phasing of the acquisition and urritten findings that the state has met
development award is to ensure that the following conditions:
and water areas as specified in the draft substantial progress in acquidng the key land
management plan and preparing the and waters areas has been made and that a (1) A final management plan has been
final plan. These requirements are final management plan in completed before approved by NOAA,
specified in i 921_1A The initial major sums an spent an construction. Once (2) Sanctuary construction and access
acquisition and development phase is substantial progress in acquisition has been Policies. I 921.n(bHdl. have been
expected to last no longer than two made. as defined by the state in the followed:-
years after the start of the award. If management plan. other activities guided by (3) Key land and water areas of the
necessary, a longer time period may be the final management plan may begin with proposed sanctuary, as identified in the
negotiated between " state and NOAX& approval. zianagement plan. are under state
NOAA. After the sanctuary is (e) Deeds for real prop" acquired contmk and.-
designated. funds may be used to for. the sancftmuty under acquisition. (4) An MOU between the state and.
acquire any reamuning land -and for funding shall contain substantially the NOAA ensuring a long-term
construction purposes. following provision: commiftnent.by the state to the

B-5
26514 Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 125 / Wednesday, June 27, 1984 / Rules and Regulations

sanctuary's affective operation and not listed in the management plan or will trigger a full-scale management
implementation has been signed. final EIS require public notice and the audit with a site-visit. On a periodic
(b) A notice of designation of a opportunity for comment in certain basis, NOAA will also conduct a full-
national estuarine sancturay will be cases, an enviromental assessment scale Section 312 evaluation with a site
placed in the Federal Register and in the may be required. Where public notice is visit and public meeting.
local media. required, NOAA will place a notice in 921.35 Withdrawal of designation.
(c) The term "state control" in the Federal Register of any proposed (a) Upon a finding by the Program
921.30(a)(3) does not necessarily changes in sanctuary boundaries or Office through its programmatic
require that the land be owned by the proposed major changes to the final evaluation (921.34) that a national
state in fee simple. Less-than-fee management plan and ensure that a estuarine sanctuary is not meeting the
interests and regulatory measures may notice is published in the local media. mandate of Section 315 of the Act, the
suffice where the stae makes a showing (b) As discussed in 921.10(b), a state national Program goals or the policies
that the lands are adequately controlled may choose to develop a multiple-site established in the manaement plan,
consistent with the purposes of the national estuarine sancturay after the NOAA will provide the state with a
sanctuary. initial acquisition and development written notice of the deficiency. Such a
award for a single site has been made. notice will explain the deficiencies in
921.31 Supplemental acquisition and Public notice of the proposed addition in the state's approach, propose a solution
development awards. the Federal Register and local media, or solutions to the deficiency and
and the opportunity for comment, in provide a schedule by which the state
After sanctuary designation, and as addition to the preparation of either an should remedy the deficiency. The state
specified in the approved management environmental assessment or shall also be advised in writing that it
plan, the state may request a environment impact statement on the may comment on the Program Office's
supplemental award for construction and proposal will be required. An finding of a deficiency and meet with
acquiring any remaining land. environmental impact statement, if Program officials to discuss the finding
Application procedures are specified in required will be prepared in accordance and seek to remedy the deficiency.
Subpart F. Land acquisition must follow with section 921.12 and will also include (b) If the issues cannot be resolved
the procedures specified in 321.21(e). an administrative framework for the within a reasonable time, the Program
multiple-site sanctuary that describes Office will make recommendation
921.32 Operations and management; the complementary research and regarding withdrawal of designation to
implementations of the Management plan. educational programs within the the AA. A notice of intent to withdraw
sanctuary. If NOAA determines, based designation, with an opportunity for
(a) After the sanctuary is formally on the scope of the project and the comment, will be placed in the Federal
designated, the state may apply for issues associated with the additional Register.
assistance to provide for operation and site, that an enviromental assessment (c) The state shall be provided the
management. The purpose of this phase is sufficient to establish a multiple-site opportunity for an informal hearing
in the national estuarine sanctuary sanctuary, then the state shall develop a before the AA to consider the Program
process is to implement plan and to take the revised management plan as described Office's recommendation and finding of
necessary steps to ensure the continued in 921.12(b). The revised management deficiency, as well as the state's
affective operation of the sanctuary plan will address the sanctuary-wide comments on and response to the
after direct Federal support is goals and objectives and the additional recommendation and finding.
concluded. component's relatinship to the original (d) Within 30 day after the informal
(b) Federal funds of up to $250,000, to site. hearing, the AA shall issue a written
be matched by the state, are available 921.34 Program evaluation. decision regarding the sanctuary. If a
for the operation and management of the (a) Performance during the term of the decision is made to withdraw sanctuary
national estuarine sanctuary. Operation operation and management award (or designation; the procedures specified
and management awards are subject to under the initial acquisition and in 921.21(e) regarding the disposition of
the following limitations: development award, if the sanctuary is real property acquired with federal
(1) No more than $50,000 in Federal not designated within two years) will be funds shall be followed.
funds per annual award; and evaluated annually by the Program
(2) No more than ten percent of the Office and periodically in accordance Subpart E--Research Funds
total amount (state and Federal shares) with the provisions of Section 312 of the
of each operation and management Act to determine compliance with the 921.40 General.
award may be used for construction- conditions of the award and overall (a) To stimulate high quality research
type activities (i.e. $10,000 maximum progress im implementing the within designated national estuarine
per year). management plan. sanctuaries. NOAA may find research
(b) To ensure effective sanctuary on a competitive basis to sanctuaries
921.33 Boundary changes, amendments oversight after the major federal funding having an approval final management
to the Management Plan, and addition of expires, the state is required to submit plan. Research funds are intended to
multiple-site components. an annual report on the sanctuary. The support significant research projects
(a) Changes in sanctuary boundaries report should detail program successes that will lead to enhanced scientific
and major changes to the final and accomplishments in meeting the understanding of the sanctuary
management plan, including state laws policies and activities described in the environment, improved coastal
or regulatins promulgated specifically sanctuary management plan. A work decisionmaking, or enhanced public
for the sanctuary, may be made only plan, detailing the projects to be appreciation and understanding of the
after written approval by NOAA. If undertaken the next year to meet the sanctuary ecosystem. Research
determined to be necessary, NOAA may Program goals and the state's role in opportunities will be identified in final
require public notice including notice in ongoing sanctuary programs should also
the Federal Register and an opportunity be included. Inadequate annual reports
for comment. Changes in the boundary
involving the acquisition of properties

B-6
Federal Register / Vol. 49.- No. 125 Wednestlay, June 27, 1984 / Rules and Regulations 26SIS

management plans for national (3) Research quality (i.e.. soundness of applications must containiback up data
estuarine sanctuaries. Research funds approach. environmental consequences. for budget estimates (Federal and non-
will be used to fill obvious voids in experience related to methodologies): Federal shares). and evidence that the
available data. as well as to support (4) Importance to the National application complies with the Executive
creative or innovative projects. Estuarine Sanctuary Program; Order 1237Z "Intergovernmental RevOw
(b) Research funds are provided in (5) Budget and Institutional of Federal Programs." In addition.
:ddition to any funds available to the Capabilities (i.e. reasonableness of applications for acquisiti6n and
late under the operation and budget. sufficiency of logistical support); development, awards must contain:
management or acquisition and and (1) State Historic Preservation Office
development awards. Research funds (6) In addition. in the case of long- comments:
must be matched by the state. consistent term monitoring projects. the ability of (2) Appraisals and tide information:
with � 921.51(e)(Iii) (-allowable costs"). the state or the research grant recipient (3) Governor's lettei approving the
Individual states may apply for funding to support the grant beyond this initial sanctuary proposaL and
for more than one research project per funding. (4) Written approval from NOAA of
sanctuary. Subpart F-General Financial the draft or final management plan.
1921.41 Categorles of potential research Assistance Provisions The Standard Form 424 has been
prolect: evalustlan Criteria. approved by the Office of Management
(a) While research funds may be Used 1921.50 ApplicatAn infomadom and Budget (Approval number 0648-
(a) 'Me maximum total Federal 0121) for use through September 30.
to start-up long-term projects. they are fl!ndiniper sanctuary is $3.000.000 for '198&
not intended as a source of continuing the preacquisition. acquisition and
funding for a particular project over development. and operation and 11221.51 Allowable costs.
time. Emphasis will be placed on management awards. The research (a) Allowable costs will be
projects that are also of benefit to other funding under 1921.40 is excluded from determined in accordance with O&M-
sanctuaries in the systevi. Proposals for this total. Circulars A-10Z "Uniform
research under the following categories (b) Only a state Governor, or his/her Administrative Requirements for
will be considered: designated state agency. may apply for Grants-in-Aid to State and Local
(1) Establishing a Data Base and national estuarine sanctuary financial Governinents". and A-87. "Principles for
,Monitoring Program (e.g- studies related assistance awards. If a state is Determining Costs Applicable to Grants
to gathering and interpreting baseline
information on the estuary. Funds are participating in the national Coastal and Contracts with State. Local. and
available to establish a data base and Zone Management Progam. the recipient Federally Recognized Indian Tribal
monitoring system however. the long- of an award under Section 315 of the Governments"; the financial assistance
Act shall consult with the state coastal agreement these regulations; and other
term support for such a system must be iiianagement agency regarding the Department of Commerce and NOAA
carried out as part of overall sanctuary application. directives. The term "costs" applies to
implementation): (c) No acquisition and development both the Federal and non-Federal
(2) Estuarine Ecology (e.g. studies of award may be made by NOAA without shares.
tne relationships between estuarine 4he approval of the Governor of the (b) Costs claimed as charges to the
species and their environment. studies state. or his/her designated agency. in award must be reasonable. beneficial
of biological populations community which the land to be acquired is located. and necessary for the propar and
relationships. studies on factors and (d) Ali applicakons am to be efficient administration of the financial
processes that govern the biological submitted to: Management and Budget assistance award and must be incurred
productivity of the estuary); Group. Office of Ocean and Coastal during the awards period. except as
(3) Estuarine Processes (e.g. studies. Resource Management. National Ocean provided under preagreement costs.
on dynamic physical processes that Service. National Oceanic and subsection (d).
influence and give the estuary its Atmospheric Administration. 3300 (C) Costs must not be allocable to or
particular physical characteristics. Whitehaven St- NW. Washington. D.C. included as a cost of any other
including studies related to climate. 20235. Federally-financed program in either the
patterns of watershed drainage and (a) An original and two copies of the current or a prior award perf6d.
freshwater inflow. patterns of water complete application must be submitted (d) Costs incurred prior to the
circulation within the estuary. and at least 120 working days prior to the effective date of the award
studies on oceanic or terrestrial factors proposed beginning of the project. The (preagreement costs) are allowable only
that influence the condition of e3tuarins Application for Federal Assistance when specifically approved in the
waters and bottoms): Standard Form 424 (Non-construction financial assistance agreement. For nor,-
(4) Applied Research (e.g. studies Program) constitutes the formal ccristruction awards. costs incurred
designed to answer specific application for preacquisition. operation more than three months before the
management questions); and and management. and research awards. award beginning date will not be
(3) Socioeconomic Research (e.g- The Application for Federal Assistance approved. For construction and land
studies on patterns of land use. Standard Form 424 (Construction acquisition awards. NOAA wrill evaluate
sanctuary visitation. archaeological Program) constitutes the formal preagreement costs on a case-by-case
research). application. for land acquisition and basis.
(b) Proposals for research in national development awards. The application (e) General guidelines for the non-
estuarine sanctuaries will be evaluated must be accompanied by the Federal share am contained in OMB
in accordance with criteria listed below: information required in Subpart B Circular A-10Z Attachment F. The
[1) Scientific merits; (preacquisition). Subpart C and Section following may be used by the state in
(2) Relevance or importance to 92L32 (acquisition and development). salisfying the matching requirement:
sanctuary management or coastal and J 922-U (operation and (1) Preacquisidon Awards. Cash and
decisionmakinsc management). as applicable. All in-kind contributions (value of goods

B-7

26516 Federal Register / Vol. 49 No. 125 / Wednesday, June 27, 1984 / Rules and Regulations

and services directly benefiting and development award. The value in excess 8. East Florida (St. John's River to Cape
specifically identifiable to this part of of the amount required as match for the Canaveral).
the project) are allowable. Land may not initial award may be used to match West Indian
be used as match. subsequent supplemental acquisition 9. Caribbean (Cape Canaveral to Ft.
(2) Acquisition and Development and development awards for the Jefferson and south).
Awards. Cash and in-kind contributions estuarine sanctuary. 10. West Florida (Ft. Jefferson to Cedar
are allowable. In general, the fair market (3) Operations and Management Key).
value of lands to be included within the Awards; Research Funds. Cash and in- Louisianian
sanctuary boundaries and acquired kind contributions (directly benefiting 11. Panhandle Coast (Cedar Key to Mobile
pursuant to the Act, with other than and specifically identifiable to this Bay).
Federal funds, may be used as match. phase of the project), except land, are 12. Mississippi Delta (Mobile Bay to
The fair market value of privately allowable. Galveston).
donated land, at the time of donation, as 13. Western Gult (Galveston to Mexican
establishment by an independent 921.52 Amendments to financial border).
appraiser and certified by a responsible assistance swards. Californian
official of the State (pursuant to OMB Actions requiring an amendment to 14. Southern California (Mexican border to
Circular A-102 Revised, Attachment F) the financial assistance award, such as Point Concepcion).
may also be used as match. Appraisals a request for additional federal funds, 15. Central California (Point Concepcion to
must be performed according to Federal revisions of the approved project Cape Mendocino).
appraisal standards as detailed in budget or extension of the performance 16. San Francisco Bay.
NOAA regulations and the "Uniform period must be submitted to NOAA on Columbian
Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Standard Form 424 (OMB approved
Acquisitions." Costs related to land number 0748-0121 for use through 17. Middle Pacific (Cape Mendocino to the
acquisition, such as appraisals, legal September 30,1986) and approved in Columbia River).
18. Washington Coast (Columbia River to
fees and surveys, may also be used as writing. Vancouver Island).
match. Land, including submerged lands Appendix 1--Biographic Classification 19. Puget Sound.
already in the state's possession in a scheme Great Lakes
fully-protected status consistent with
the purposes of the National Estuarine Acadian 20. Western Lakes (Superior, Michigan,
Sanctuary Program, may be used as 1. Northern Cult of Maine (Eastport to the Huron).
match only if it was acquired within a Sheepscot River). 21. Eastern Lakes (Ontario, Erie).
one-year period prior to the award of 2. Southern Gulf of Maine, (Sheepscot River Fjord
preacquisition or acquisition funds and to Cape Cod). 22. Southern Alaska (Prince of Wales
with the intent to establish a national Virginian Island to Cook Inlet).
estuarine sanctuary. For state lands not 23. Aleutian Islands (Cook Inlet to Bristol
in a fully-protected status (e.g. a state 3. Southern New England (Cape Cod to Bay).
park containing an easement for Sandy Hook). Sub-Arctic
subsurface mineral rights), the value of 4. Middle Atlantic (Sandy Hook to Cape
the development right or foregone value Hatteras). 24. Northern Alaska (Bristol Bay to
may be used as match if acquired by or 5. Chesapeake Ray. Demarcation Point).
donated to the state for inclusion within Carolinian Insular
the sanctuary. 6. Northern Carolinas (Cape Hatteres to 25. Hawaiian Islands.
A state may initially use as match Santee River). 26. Western Pacific Island.
land valued at greater than the Federal 7. South Atlantic (Santee River to St. John's 27. Eastern Pacific Island.
share of the acquisition and River). BILLING CODE 3610-06-02

...............
2;
SUB-Aff!P
F ORD

31
19

20
COLUMBIA GREAT LAKES
111 21
17

16 5

CALIFORNIAN
I..-4

2
011f, 10
26
@5 L 0 IY1'S4A-N I A N

INSULAR

Figure, 1. Biogeographic Regions of the United States.

B-9

26513 Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 125 / Wednesday June 27, 1984 / Rules and Regulations

Appendix 2-Typology of National 2. Southeast Areas: Floral dominants B. Coastal Swamps: These are wet lowland
Estuarine Areas include Myrica. Baccharia and flex. areas that support masses and shrubs
3. Western Area: Adenastama together with large trees such as cypress or
This typology system reflects significant Anwtyphyloa. and Eucalyptits are the SUM
differences in estuarine characteristics that dominant floral species. C. Coastal Mangroves. This ecosystem
are not necessarily related to regional C. Coastal Grasslamk- This aces. which experiences regular flooding on eithe a daily.
location. The purpose of this type of povaeoses "ad dunes and coastal flats. Me monthly. or seasonal basis. has low wave
classification is to maximize ecosystem low rainfall (10 to 30 inches per year) and action. and is dominated by variety of salt-
variety in the selection of national estuarine large amounts of humas in the sail. Ecological tolerant trees. such so the red mangrove
sancuaries. Priority will be given to succession is slow. resulting In the presence (Rhirophora mangle). black mangrove
important ecosystem type as yet of a number of seral stagas of community (Avicennia nitida) and the white mangrove
unrepresented in the sanctuary system development. Dominant vegetation includes (Lagunculdfia racemosa). It is also an
should be noted that any one site may mid-grose (2 to 4 fast tall). such as important habitat for large populations of
represent several ecosystem types or Ammophila, Agropyram and Calamovilfa. fall fish. invertebrates. and birds. This type of
physical characteristics. grasses (5 to a feet tell). such as Spardna and ecosystem can be found from central Florida
Class 1--Ecosystem Types ties such as the willow (Salix sp.). cherry to extreme south Texas to the islands of the
(Punus op.). and cottonwood (Populus Western Pacific.
Group 1--Shorelands delfaides). This area is divided into four D. Intertidal Beaches. This ecosystem has
A. Maritime Forest-Woodland: This type of Pagiona with the following typirA strand a distinct biots of microscopic animals,
ecosystem consists of single-stemmed species vegetatiom bacteria. and unicalluar algae along with
that have developed under the influence of 1. Arcdc/Soreal: Elymus: macroscopic crustaceans. mollusks. and
salt spray. It can be found on coastal uplands 2. Northeast/West Ammophila; worms with a detritum-based nutrient cycle.
or recent features, such as barrier islands and 3. Southesst/Gulf- Unichu and This area also includes the driftline
beaches, and may be divided into the 4. Mil-Adentic/Gulf- Spartina patens. ties found at high tide levels on the
followng biomes: D. Coastal Tundra: This ecosystem. which communi
1. Northern Coniferous Forest Biome: This is found along the Arctic and Boreal coasts of beach. The dominant organisms in this
Is an area of predominantly evergreens such North Americs. is characterized by low ecosystem include crustaceans such as the
as the sitka spruce (Picea), Stand fir (Abies) tearperstures. wshort growing season. end Mcle crab (Emetita). amphipods
and white cedar (Thuja), with poor some permafrost. producing a low. treeless (Cammeridae). ghost crabs (0cpode). and
development of the shrub and herb layers mat community made up of mosses. lichens. bivalve moilusta such as the coquiria (Donox)
but NO annual productivity and pronounced heath. shrubs. mass*. sedges. rushes. and and surf clams and Mactra).
seasonal periodicity. herbaceous and dwarf woody plants. E. Intertidel Mud and SanaF These
2. Moist Temperate (Mesothermal) Common species include arctielpine plants areas are composed of unconsolidated. n
Coniferous Forest Manic Found along the such as Ampetrum nigrum and Befulonana organic content sediments that function as a
west coast of North America from California the lichens Cetraricr and Cladonia. and short-term storage area for nutrients and
to Alaska. this area is dominated by conifers. herbaceous plants such as Potentilla organic carbons. Macrophytes are nearly
has a relatively small seasonal rang& high tridentato and Aubus chamasmarux absent in this ecosystem. although it may be
humidity with rainfall ranging from 30 to 150 Conuma species on. the coastal beach ridges heavily colonized by benthic diatoms. dino.
inches. and a well-developed understory of of the higb arctic desert include Dryas flagellates. filamentous blue-green and green
vegetation with an abundance of mosses and Inteivrifolia and S-Afroge Opparitifol algae, and chaemosynthelic purple sulfur
other moisture-tolerant plants. This am can be diWded into two main bacteria. This system may support a
3. Temperate Deciduous Forest Siam& Thin subdivisions: considerable population of gastropods.
blame is characterized by abundant. evenly 1. Low Tundrar. characterized by a thick. bivalves. and polychaetes. and may serve as
distributed rainfall. moderate temperatures spongy mat of living and uadecayed a feeding area for a variety of fish and
which exhibit a distinct seasonal pattern. vegetation. often with water and dotted with wading birds. In send. the dominant faup
well-developed soil biota and herb and shrub ponds when not frozen: and include the wedge shell Donox. thf scallop
layers and numerous plants which produce 2. High Tundto: a bore area except for a Pecten. tellin shells Tellina. the heart urchin
pulpy fruits and nuts. A distant subdivision of scanty growth of lichens and grassao. with Echinocardium. the lug worm Arepicold.
this biome is the pine edaphic forest of the underlying ice wedges forming raised send dollar Dendmster. and the see pansy
southeastern coastal plain. ia which only a polygonal area Rwilla in mud. faunal dominants adapted to
small portion of the area is occupied by E. Coastal Cliffs. This ecosystem is on low oxygen levels include the terebellid
climax vegetation. although it has large areas Important nesting site for many sea and $bore Amphitrite. the baring clam Playdon. the
covered by edaphic climax pines. birds. It consists of communities of deep sea scallop Placopecten. the quahog
4. Broad-leaved Evergreen Subtropical herbacesous. graminoid. or low woody plants Mercenaria. the echiurid worm Urechis. the
Forest Biomes? The main characteristic of this (shrubs. hedL etc.) an the top or along rocky mud nail VassarjuA and the sea cucumber
biome is high moisture with less pronounced faces exposed to salt spray. Them is a
differences between winter and summer. diversity of plant species including mosses. Thyone.
Examples are the hammocks of Florida and lichens. liverworts. and "hisher" plant F. Intertidal AlSol Seds: These are hard
the Bye oak forests of the Gulf and South Mrseentatives. substrates along the marine edge that are
Atlantic coasts. Floral dommants include dominated by macroscopic algae, usually
pines. magnolias. bays. hollies. wild Group II-Transidan Arms thallaid. but also ftlamentous or unwelfular in
tamarind. strangler fig. gumbo limbo. and A. Coastal Marshes These are wedland growth form. This also includes the rocky
Palms are" dominated br grasses (PoacesL sedges coast ddepoole that fail within the intertidal
B. Coast Shrublands: This is a transitional (Cyperace"). rushes (juncocase). cattails zone. Dominant fauna of these areas are
area between the Coastal graSsland and (Typhaceaj. and other greaunoid species barnacles. mussels. periwinkles. anemones.
woodlands and is characterized by woody and is subtect to periodic flooding by either and chitons. Three regions are apparent-
species with multiple stems a few centimeters salt or freshwater. This ecosystem may be 1. Arortbem Latitude Rocky Shores. It is in
to several meters above the ground subdivided into: (a) tidaL which is this I a that the community sumcmre is
developing under the influence of salt spray periodically flooded by either salt or brackish best developed. The dominant algal species
and occasional sand burial. This includes water (b) non-tidal (freshwater) or (c) tidal Include Chandms at the low tide level, Fucus
thickets, scrub. scrub savanna. heathlands. freshwater. These are essential habitats for and Ascaphyffian at the mid-tidai level. and
and coastal chaparral. There is a great many important estuarine species of fish and Uavraria and other keip-like algae fust
variety of shrubland vegetation exhibiting invertebrates as well an shorebirds and beyond the interfidal. althougli they cam be
regional specificity. waterfowl and serves important roles in exposed at-extromely low tide& at fimod' in
1. Northern Areas: Charactarized by share stabilization. flood control. water very deep tidepeols.
Hudsonia. various erineceous species, and purification. and nutrient vansport and 2. Southern latitudes: The communities in
thickets of Myrica Prunus. and Rosa storage. this region are reduced in comparison to

B10
Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 125 / Wednesday, June 27, 1984 / Rules and Regulations 28519

those of the northern latitudes and possesses confined water-abundant marine grosses. 1. Coastal plains estuary: Where a
algae consisting mostly of single-coiled or shellfish. and juvenile fish. Water movement drowned valley consists mainly of a single
filamentous green. blue-green. and red algae, Is reduce& with the consequent effects of channel. the form of the basin is fairly
and small thalloid brown algae. . pollution being more severe in this area than regular. forming a simple coastal plains
Tropical and Subtropical Latitudes: The in exposed coastal areas. estuary. When a channel is flooded with
intertidal in this region to very reduced and I Bar. Bays am larger confined bodies of numerous tributaries. an irregular estuary
contains numerous calcareous algae such water that are open to the sea and receive result& Many estuaries of the eastern United
Porolithon and Lithothamnion. as well as strong tidal flow. When stratification is States are of this type.
green algae with calcareous particles such as pronounced, the flushing action Is. augmented 2. Fjord- Estuaries that form in elongated.
Halimeda. and numerous other green red. by river discharge. Bays vary in size and In steep headlands that alternate with deep U-
and brown algae. type of shorefront. shaped valleys resulting from glacial scouring
Croup III-Sued Bottoms 4. Emboyment: A confined coastal water am- called fjords. They generally possess
body with narrow. restricted inlets and with rocky floors or very thin veneers of sediment.
A. Subtidal Hardbottoms: This system in a significant freshwater inflow can be with deposition generally being restricted to
characterized by a consolidated layer of solid classified as an embayment. These areas the head where the main river enters.
rock or large pieces of rock (neither of biotic have more restricted inlets than bays. are Compared to total fjord volume. river
origin) and is found in association with usually smaller and shallower. have low tidal discharge is small. But many fjords have
geomorphological features such as submarine action. and are subject to sedimentation. restricted tidal ranges at their mouthL due to
canyons and fjords and is usually covered 5. Tidal River The lower reach of a coastal sills. or upreaching sections of the bottom
with assemblages of sponges. sea fans. river is referred to so a tidal river. The which limit free movement of water. often
bivalves. hard comis. tunicates. and other coastal water segment extends from the sea making river flow large with respect to the
attached Organism A significant feature of or estuary into which the river discharges- to
estuaries in many parts of the world is the a point as far upstream so there is significant tidal prism. Ile deepest portions are in the
oyster reef. a type of subtidal hardbottom. salt content in the water. forming a salt front. upstream reaches. where maximum depths
Composed of assemblages of organisms can range from 800m to 1200 m. while sill
A combination of tidal action and freshwater depths usually range from 40 m to 150 m.
(usually bivalves). it is usually round near an outflow makes tidal rivers well-flushed.The
estuary's mouth in a zone of moderate wave tidal river basin may be a simple channel or a 3. Bar-bounded Estuary. These result from
action. "it content. and turbidity. If light! complex of tributaries. small associated the development of an offshore barrier. such
levels are sufficient. a covering of emboyments. marshfronts. tidal flats. and a as a beach strand. a line of barrier island&
microscopic and attached macroscopic algae. variety of others. reef formations. a line of moraine debris. or
such as kelp. may also be found. 6. Lagoon: Lagoons are confined coastal the subsiding remnants of a deltaic lobe. The
B. Subtidal Softbottoms: Major bodies of water with restricted inlets to the basin is often partially exposed at low tide
characteristics of this ecosystem are an sea and without significant freshwater and is enclosed by a chain of offshore bars or
unconsolidated layer of fine particles of silt. inflow. Water circulation is limited. resulting barrier islands. broken at intervals by inlets.
sand. clay. and gravel. high hydrogen sulfide in a poorly flushed. relatively stagnant body These bars may be either deposited offshore
levels. and anaerobic conditions often of water. Sedimentation is rapid with a great or may be coastal dunes that have become
existing below the surface. Macrophytes are potential for basin shoaling. Shores are often isolated by recent sea level rises.
either sparse or absent. although a layer of gently sloping and marshy. 4. Tectonic Estuary- These are coastal
benthic micrcalgae may be present if light 7. Perched Coastal Wetlands. Unique to indentures that have formed through tectonic
levels are sufficient. The faunal community is processes such as slippage along a fault line
dominated by a diverse population. of deposit Pacific islands. this wetland type. found (San Francisco Bay). folding. or movement of
above sea level in volcanic crater remnants.
feeders including polychastes. bivalves, and forms as a result of poor drainage the earth's bedrock. often with a large inflow
burrowing crusta arts. characteristics of the crater rather than from of freshwater.
C. Subtidal Plants :This system is found in sedimentation. Floral assemblages exhibit 5. Volcanic Estuary: These coastal bodies
relatively shallow water (less than 8 to io distinct zonation while the faunal of open water. a result of volcanic processes.
meters) below mean low tide. It is an area of constituents may include freshwater. am depressions or craters that hAve direct
extremely high primary production that brackish. and/or marine species. Example: and/or subsurface connections with the
provides food and refuge for a diversity of Aunu'u Island. American Samoa. ocean and may or may not have surface
faunal groups. especially juvenile and adult 8. Anchialine Systems: These small coastal continuity with streams. These formations
fish. and in some regions. manatees and sea. exposures of brackish water form in Lave are unique to island areas of volcanic origin.
turtles. Along the North Atlantic and Pacific depressions or elevated fossil reefs. have C. Inlet Type. Inlets in various forms are an
coasts, the seagrass Zostera marina only a subsurface connection to the ocean. integral part of the estuarine environment. as
predominates. In the South Atlantic and Gulf but show tidal fluctuation Differing from they regulate, to a certain extent. the velocity
coast areas. Thalassid and Dialanthera true estuaries in having no surface continuity and, magnitude of tidal exchange. the degree
predominate. The grosses in both areas with streams or ocean. this system is of mixing, and volume of discharge.to the sea.
support a number of epiphytic organisms. characterized by a distinct biotic community There are four major types of inlets:
Class II-Physical Characteristics dominated by benthic algae such as 1. Unrestricted: An estuary with a wide.
Rhizoclonium. the mineral encrusting unrestricted Inlet typically has slow currents.
Croup 1-Geologic Schizothrix, and the vascular plant Ruppia no significant turbulence. and receive the full
A. Basin Type: Coastal water basins occur maritima. Characteristic fauna. which exhibit effect of ocean waves and local disturbances
in a variety of shapes. sizes. depths, and a high degree of endemicity. include the which serve to modify the shoreline. These
appearances. The eight basic types discussed mollusks Theodoxus neglectus and T. estuaries are partially mixed. as the open
below will cover most of the cases: cariosus. the small red shrimp Metabetaeus mouth permits the incursion of marine waters
1. Exposed Coast: Solid rock formations or lohena and Halocaridina rubra and the fish to considerable distances upstream.
heavy sand deposits characterize exposed Eleotris sandwicensis and Kuhlia depending an the tidal amplitude and stream
ocean shore fronts. which are subject to the sandvicensus. Although found throughout the gradient. - Restrictions of estuaries can
full force of ocean storms. The send beaches world. this high Islands or the Pacific are the 2.Restricted
are very resilient. although the dunes lying only areas within the U.S. where this system exist in many forms: bam barrier islands.
just behind the beaches am fragile and easily can be found. spits. sills. and mom Restricted inlets result
damaged. The dunes serve as a sand storage B. Basin Structure: Estuary basins may in decreased circulation. mom pronounced
area. making them chief stabilizers of the result from the drowning of a river valley longitudinal and vertical salinity gradients
ocean shorefront. (coastal plains estuary), the drowning of a and mom rapid sedimentation. However. if
2. Sheltered Coast Sand or coral barriers. glacial valley (flord), the occurrence of an the estuary mouth to restricted by
built up by natural forces. provide sheltered offshore barrier (bar-bounded estuary), some depositionaL features or land closures. the
areas inside a bar or reef where the tectonic process (tectonic estuary), or incoming tide may be hold back until it
ecosystem takes an may characteristics of volcanic activity (volcanic estuary). suddenly breaks forth into the basin as a

B-11
26520 Federal Register / VOL 49. NO. 125 / Wednesday, June 27, 1984 / Rules and Regulations

tidal wave. or bore. Such currents exert 1.Stratified: This is typical of estuarine 2. Subsurface water This refers to the
profound effects an the nature of the with a strong freshwater influx and is precipitation, that has been absorbed by the
substrate. turbidity. and bioa of the estuary. commonly found In bays formed from soil and stored below the surface. The
3. Permanent: Permanent Inlets aft usually "drowned" river valleys. fjords. and other distribution of subsurface water depends on
opposite the months of major.rivers and deep basins. Them Is a net movement of local climate. topography. and the porosity
permit river water to flaw Into the sea. freshwater outward at the top layer and and parmeability of the underlying soils and
Sedimentation and deposition are minimal. saltwater at the bottom layer. resulting In a rocks. Them an two seem subtypes of
4. Temporary (Intermittent): Temporary not outward transport of surface organisms surface water.
inlets are formed by storms and frequently and net inward transport of bottom a. Vadose water Thin to water in the sad
shut position. depending an tidal flow, the organisms. above the water table. Its volume with
depth of the see and sound waters. the 2. Non-stratified- Estuaries of this type am respect to the sail. in subject to Considerable
frequency of storms, and the amount of found whom water movement is sluggish and
littoral transport. flushing rate is low. although them may be fluctuation.
D. Bottom Composition: The bottom sufficient circulation to provide the basis for b. Groundwater This is water contained in
composition of estuaries attests to the a high caning capacity. This is common to the rocks below the water table. Is usually of
vigorous. rapid. and complex sedimentation shallow embamants and bays lacking a more uniform volume than vadose water. and
processes characteristic of mod coastal good supply of freshwater from land generally follows the topographic relief of the
regions with low relief. Sediments am drainage. land, being high below hills and sloping Into
derived through the hydrolic processes of 3. Lagoonal: An estuary of this type is valleys.
erosion. transport. and deposition carried on characterized by low rates of water Group III-Chemical
by the sea and the stream. movement resulting from a lack of significant
1. Sand: Near estuary mouths. where the freshwater influx and a lack of strong tidal A. Salinity. This reflects a complex mixture
predominating form of the am build spits at exchange because of the typically narrow of "Its. the most abundant being sodium
other depositional features. the shores and inlet connecting the lagoon to the sea.- chloride. and is a very critical factor in the
substrates of the *gusty are sandy. The Circulation, whose major driving force is distribution and maintenance of many
bottom sediments in this area are usually wind. Is the major limiting factor in biological estuarine organisms. Based on salinity. there
coarse. with a graduation toward finer productivity within lagoons. are two basic estuarians, types and eight
particles in the hand of the estuary. In the B.Tides: This Is the most important different salinity zones (expressed in parts
heed region and other zones of reduced flow. ecological factor in an estuary. as it affects per thousand-ppt).
flute silty sands are deposited. Sand water exchange and its vertical range 1. Positive estuary. This is an estuary in
deposition occurs only in wider or deeper determines the extent of tidal flats which which the freshwater influx is sufficient to
regions where velocity is reduced. may be exposed and submerged with each maintain mixing. resulting in a pattern. of
2.Mud: At the base level of a stream near tidal cycle. Tidal action against the volume of increasing salinit toward the estuary mouth.
its mouth. the bottom is typically composed river water discharged Into an estuary results It is characterized by law oxygen
of loose muds. silt and organic detritus as a in a complex system whose properties vary concentrations in the deeper waters and
result of erosion and transport from the upper according to estuary structure to well as the considerable organic content in bottom
stream reaches and organic decomposition. magnitude of river How and tidal range. Tides sediments.
just inside the estuary entrance the bottom as usually described in terms of their cycle
contains considerable quantities of send and and their relative heights. In the United 2.Negative estuary: This is found In
mud. winch support a rich fauns. mad flats. of particularly arid regions. who a estuary
commonly built up In estuarine basins, are States. tide height is reckoned an the basis evaporation may exceed fresh water inflow.
composed of loose,coarse and fine mad and average low tide. which is referred to as resulting in increased salinity to the upper
send. often dividing the original channel. datum. The tides. although complex. falls into part of the basin. especially if the estuary
three main Categories:
3. Rock- Rocks usually occur us areas 1. Diurnal: This refers to a daily change in mouth is restricted so that tidal flow Is
where the stream raw rapidly over a steep water level that con be observed along the inhibited. These are typically very salty
gradient with its coarse materials being oxygenated at
derived, from the higher elevations where the shoreline. Them in one high tide and one low (hyperhaline), moderately
stream slope is greater. The larger fragments, tide per day. depth. and possess bottom sediments that am
an usually found In shallow areas near the 2. Semidiarnal: this refers to a twice daily, Poor in organic content.
rise and fail to water that can be oboe 3. Salinity Zones (expressed in ppt):
4. Oyster shell: Throughout a major portion along the shoreline. a. Hyperhaline -greatar than, 40 ppt.
I the world. the oyster red is one of the 3. Wind/Storm Tides: This refers to b. Euhaline-40 ppt to 20 ppt.
most significant features of estuaries, usually fluctuations In water elevation to wind and c. Mixohaline: 30 ppt to 20 ppt.
being found now the mouth of the estuary in storm events, where influence of lunar tides (2) Mixosuhaline-greater than 30 ppt but
a zone of moderate wave action. salt content, is less. less than the adjacent subaline me.
and turbidity. It is often a major factor in C. Freshwater.- According to nearly oil the (2) Polyhaline-30 ppt to 18 ppt.
modifying estuarine curent system and definitions advanced. it Is inherent that all (3) Mesohaline-18 ppt to 5 ppt.
sedimentation. and may occur as an estuaries need freshwater. which is drained (4) Oligohaline-5 ppt to 0.5 ppt.
elongated Wand or peninsula oriented across from the tend and measurably dilutes d. Limnetic: Less than 0.5 ppt.
the main current. or may develop parallel to seawater to create a brackish condition B. pH Regime: This in indicative of the
the direction of the current. Freshwater enters an estuary as runoff ham mineral richness at estuarine waters and fail
the land either from a surface and/or
Group II-Hydrographic into three main categories:
subsurface source. 1. Acid: Waters with a pH of less then 5.5,
A. Circulation:Circulation patterns are the 1. Surface water: is water flowing over 2. Circumneitral: A condition where the
result of the combined influences of the ground In the form Of streams. Local pH ranges from, 5.5 to 7.4.
freshwater flow. tidal action wind and variation In runoff is dependent upon the
3. Alkaline: Waters with a pH greater than
oceanic forces. and serve many functions: nature of the soil (porosity and solubility),
7.4.
nutrient transport,plankton dispesal, degree of surface slope. vegetational type and
ecosystem flashing,salinity control, water development. local climatic conditions. and
mixing and more. volume and intensity of precipitation.

I' -. .
I
I
I
APPENDIX C - CHECKLIST OF THE DOMINANT PLANTS OF THE WEEKS BAY
I ESTUARINE SANCTUARY PROJECT
I o
I
I
1.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

C-1

Checklist of the Dominant Plants in the Vicinity of the Weeks Bay Estuarine

Sanctuary Project (from Stout and Lelong 1981 and unpublished sources).

Submerged Plants

Myriophyllum spicatum (Eurasian Watermilfoil)
Potamogeton pusillus (Slender Pondweed)
Ruppia maritima (Widgeongrass)
Vallisneria americana (Tapegrass)

Type IV Pine Savannah (Pocosin, Low Pineland, Bog)

Woody Plants (Trees, Shrubs and Vines)

Aronia arbutifolia (Red Chokeberry)
Arundinaria gigantea (Cane)
Clethra alnifolia (Pepperbush)
Cliftonia monophylla (Black Titi)
Cyrilla racemiflora (Swamp Cyrilla)
Hyperieum cistifolium; H. brathyllum (St. John's.Wort)
H. fasciculatum; H.myrtifolia
Ilex coriacea (Large Gallberry)
Ilex glabra (Gallberry)
Ilex cassine (Dahoon)
Lyonia lucida (Fetterbush)
Magnolia virginiana (Sweey Bay)
Myrica cerifera (Wax Myrtle)
Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora (Swamp Tupelo)
Persea palustris(Swamp Bay)
Pinus elliottii (Slash Pine)
Pinus palustris (Longleaf Pine)
Rhododendron viscosum var. serrulatum (Swamp Azalea)
Rhus vernix (Poison Sumac)
Smilax laurifolia (Green Briar)
Serenoa repens (Saw Palmetto)
Taxodium distchum var. nutan (Pond Cypress)
Vaccinium elliottii; V. fuscatum (Blueberry)

Herbaceous Plants (Except Grasses and Grass-Like Plants)

Aletris aurea; A. farinosa (Colic Root)
Asclepias lanceolata; A. longifolia (Milkweed)
Balduina uniflora
Calopogon pulchellus (Grass Pink Orchid)

C-2

Chondroohora nudata (Rayless Goldenrod)
Cleistes divaricata (Rosebud Orchid)
Drosera brevifolia; D. filiformis (Sundew)
Eriocaulon decangulare (Pipewort)
Habenaria blephariglottis (White Fringe Orchid)
Lachnanthes carolinian- (Red-Root)
Lobelia glandulosa; L. puberula (Lobelia)
Lophiola americana (Golden Crest)
Lycopodium alopecuroides; L. carolinianum (Clubmoss)
Pinguicula lutea: P. planifolia (Butterwort)
Pogonia ophioglossoides (Rose-Crested Orchid)
Polygala brevifolia; P. cruciata (Milkwort)
Polygala cvmosa; P. ramosa (Yellow Milkwort)
Rhexia alifanus; a. lutea(Meadow Beauty)
Sabatia brevifolia: S. macrophylla (Rose Gentian)
Sarracenia alata: S. flava (Yellow Pitcher Plant)
S. leucophy lla (Purple Pitcher Plant)
S. psittacina (Parrot Pitcher Plant)
S. purpurea; S. rubra (Red Pitcher Plant)
Scutellaria integrifolia (Rough Skullcap)
Spiranthes praecox; S. vernalis (Ladies Tresses Orchid)
Tofieldia racemosa (False Asphodel)
Utricularia.cornuta; IL. juncea (Bladderwort)
Xyris caroliniana; X. difformis (Yellow Eyed Grass)

Grasses and Grass-Like Plants

Andropogon virginicus (Broom Sedge)
Anthaenant rufa
Aristida affinis; A. virgata (Three-Awn Grass)
Ctenium aromaticum (Toothache Grass)
Dichromena latifolia (White-Top Sedge)
Eleocharis microcar Da; E. tuberculosa (Spike Rush)
Erianthus giganteus (Plume Grass)
Fuirena suarrosa; F. scirpoidea (Umbrella Grass)
Muhlenbergia expansa (Muhly Grass)
Panicum consanguineum; ?. ensifolium (Panic Grass)
P.spretum; P. scabriusculm.
Rhynchospora chapmanii; R. ciliaris (Beak Rush)
R. glomerata; R. plumosa; R. pusilla
Scleria ciliata; S. reticularis (Nut Rush)

Type VI. Bay Forest and Adjacent Mesic Wood

Trees

Acer rubrum (Red Maple)
Ch,amaecyparis thyoides (White Cedar)
Gordania lasianthus (Loblolly Bay)
Liriodendron.tulipifera (Tulip Tree)

c-3

Magnolia grandiflora (Southern Magnolia)
Nyssa sylvatica vat. biflora (Swamp Tupelo)
Osmanthus americana (Devilwood)
Persea Palustris (Swamp Bay)
Pinus elliottii (Slash Pine)
Quercus hemisphaerica (Laurel Oak)
Q. nigra (Water Oak)
Salix nigra (Black Willow)
Tax0dium distichum var nutans (Pond Cypress)

Shrubs and Vines

Al-nus serrulata (Hazel Alder)
Arundinaria gigantea, (Cane)
Clethra alnifolia (Pepper Bush)
Cliftonia monophylla (Black Titi)
Dec ria barbara (Climbing Hydrangea)
Ilex coriacea (Large Gallberry)
Ilex vomito_ia (Yaupon)
Tllicium floridanum (Star Anise)
Itea virginica (Virginia Willow)
Leucothoe axiliaris (Fetterbush)
Lvonia lucida (Petterbush)
Myrica cerifera (Wax Myrtle)
Smilax glauca (Green Briar)
S. laurifolia (Green Briar)
Viburnum nudum (Possum-Raw Viburnum)
Vitis rotundifolia (Muscadine)

Herbaceous Plants

Carex glaucescens (Sedge)
Elecc aria flavescens (Spike Rush)
Gratiola virginiana (Hedge Hyssop)
Hypericum mucilum (St. John's Wort)
H. virginicum
Juncus debilis; J. diffusissimus (Rush)
Leersia virinica Rice Cutgrass)
Lindernia Kbia (False Pimpernel)
Lycopus rubellus (Water Horehound)
Oroutium aquaticum (Golden Club)
Osmunda cinnamomea (Cinnamon Fern)
0. regalis.(Royal Fern)
Pelitandra virginica (Arrow-Arum)
Polygonum punctatum (Smartweed)
Rhyuchospora miliacea (Beak Rush)
Thel
mteris normalis (Widespread Maiden Fern)
Woodwardia areolata (Netvein Chain Fern)
Xvris iridifolia(Yellow-Eyed Grass)

c-4

Type 1. Saline and Brackish Marsh

Herbaceous Plants (Except Grasses & Grass-Like Plants)

Acnida cuspidata (Water Hemp)
Agalinis maritima (Marsh Gerardia)
Alternanthera philoxeroides (Alligator Weed)
Aster tenuifolius (Salt Marsh Aster)
Bacopa monnieri (Coastal Water-Hyssop)
Boltonia asteroides
Cynanchum palustre
Hibiscus moscheutos (Marsh Mallow)
Ipomoea sagittata (Marsh Morning Glory)
Kosteletzkya virginica (Salt Marsh Mallow)
Lilaeopsis chinensis
Limonium nashii (Sea Lavender)
Lvthrum. lineare (Salt Marsh Loosetrife)
Pluchea camp horata, P. purpurascens (Marsh Fleabane)
Sabatia stellaris (Rose-Gentian)
Sagittaria falcata
Salicarnia bigelovii; S. virginia (Glasswort)
Sesuvium maritimum (Marsh Purslane)
Solidago sempervirens (Seaside Goldenrod)
Suaeda linearis (Sea-Bite)
Typha'domingensis; T. latifolia (Cattail)
Vigna luteola (Cow pea)

Grasses, Sedges and Rushes

Cladiua jamaicense (Saw Grass)
Cyperus odoratus; C. virens (Umbrella Sedge)
Distichlis spicata (Salt Grass)
Echinochloa walteri
Eleocharis cellulosa; E. parvula (Spike Rush)
Fibristlis castanea (Saltmarsh Fimbristylis)
Fuirena scirpoidea
Juncus roemerianus (Needle Rush)
Panicum repens (Torpedo Grass)
P. virgatum (Switch Grass)
Paspalum distichum
Phragmites australls (Reed)
Scirpus americanus(American Bulrush)
S. californicus (Giant Bulrush)
S. olneyi (Olney Bulrush)
S. robustus (Saltmarsh Bulrush)
S. validus (Soft Stem Bulrush)
Setaria geniculata (Foxtail Grass)
Spartina alterniflora (Smooth Cordgrass)
S. cynasuroides (Big Cordgrass)
S. patens (Marsh-Hay Cordgrass)
S. spartinae (Gulf Cordgrass)

APPENDIX D CHECKLIST OF ANIMALS IN THE VICINITY OF THE WEEKS BAY
ESTUARINE SANCTUARY PROJECT

Checklist of Animals in the Vicinity of the Weeks Bay Estuarine Sanctuary Project

(from Cher mock, 1974 and unpublished sources).

Marine Invertebrate Animals

Acetes americanus (Sergistid Shrimp)
Amphicteis gunne ri (Polychaeta)
Callinectes saidus (Blue Crab)
Clibanarius vittatus (Striped Hermit Crab)
Cyathura ploita (Isopoda)
Crassostrea virginic (Oyster)
Gammarid amphipods
Laeonereis culveri (Polychaeta)
Libinia emarginata (Spider Crab)
Lolliguncula brevis (Squid)
Menippe mercenaria (Stone Crab)
Neanthes succinea (Polychaeta)
Neritina reclivata (Green Nerite, Gastropod)
Ovalipes guadalupensis (Portunid Crab)
Palaemonetes pugio (Grass Shrimp)
Palaemonetes vulgaris (Grass Shrimp)
Penaeus aztecus (Brown Shrimp)
Penaeus setiferous (White Shrimp)
Portunus; gibbesii ( Portunid Crab)
Rangia cuneata (Marsh clam)
Sesarma cinereum (Square-Backed Fiddler Crab)
Squilla empusa (Mantis Shrimp)
Trachypenaeous sp. (Hardback Shrimp)
Uca pugilator (Fiddler Crab)
Uca pugnax (Fiddler Crab)

Marine Vertebrate Animals

Anchoa mitchilli (Bay Anchovy)
Arius felis (Sea Catfish)
Achirus lineatus (Lined Sole)
Archosargusprobatocephalus (Sheepshead)
Anguilla rostrata (American Eel)
Bagre marinus (Gafftopsail, Catfish)
Brevoortia paironus (Gulf Menhaden)
Bairdella chrysura (Silver Perch)
Cynoscion arenarius (Sand Seatrout)
Cynoscion nebulasus (Spatted Seatrout)
Caranx hippos (Crevalle Jack)
Citharichthys spiloloterus (Bay Whiff)
Dorasoma petenense (Threadfin shad)

D-2

Eutropus crossotus (Fringed Flounder)
Esox americanus (Redfin Pickerel)
Esox niger (Chain Pickerel)
Fundulus grandis (Gulf Killifish)
Fundulus jenkensi (Saltmarsh Topminnow)
Gambusia affinis (Mosquitofish)
Gobionellus boleosoma (Darter Goby)
Gobiosoma bosci (Naked Goby)
Lagodon rhomboides (Pinfish)
Leiostomus xanthurus (Spot)
LeDisosteus spatula (Alligator Gar)
Lepomis macrochirus (Bluegill)
Lepomis punctatus (Spotted Sunfish)
Micropogon undulatus (Atlantic Croaker)
Micropterus salmoides (Largemouth Bass)
Mugil cephalus (Striped Mullet)
Notropis petersani (Coastal Shiner)
Notropis shumardi (Silverband Shiner)
Oligoplites saurus (Leatherjacket)
Paralichthys lethostigma (Southern Flounder)
Pogonias cromis (Black Drum)
Sciaenops ocellata (Red Drum)
Symphurus plagiusa (Blackcheek Tonguefish)
Trinectes maculatus (Hog choker)
Tursiops truncatus (Bottlenose Dolphin)

Terrestrial Vertebrate Animals

Acris gryllus gryllus (Southern Cricket Frog)
Agkistrodon piscivorus (Cottonmouth)
Anolis carolinensis (Green Anole)
Ardea herodias (Great Blue Heron)
Bufo terrestris (Southern Toad)
Casmerodius-albus (American Egret)
Didelphis marsupialus (Opossum)
Dasypus novemcintus (Nine-Banded Armadillo)
Fulica americana (Coat)
Hyla femoralis (Pinewoods Treefrog)
Meaceryle alcyon (Belted Kingfisher)
Lutra canadensis (River Otter)
Lynx rufus (Bobcat)
Myocastor coy
,pus (Nutria)
Mephitis mephitis (Striped Skunk)
Natrix sipedon fasciata (Banded Water Snake)
Neotoma floridana (Eastern Woodrat)
Ondatra zibethica (Muskrat)
Orzomys palustris (Marsh Rice Rat)
Procyon lator (Raccoon)
Peromyscus gossypinus (Cotton Mouse)
Rynchops nigra (Black Skimmer)
Sciurus carolinensis (Eastern Grey Squirrel)
Sigmodon hisoidus (Hispid Cotton 'Rat)
Sylvilagus palustris (Marsh Rabbit)

D-3

Sylvilagus floridanus (Eastern Cottontail)
Terrapene carolina (Box Turtle)
Urocyon cinereoargenteus (Gray Fox)
Vulpes fulva (Red Fox)

APPENDIX E LIST OF BIRDS WHICH OCCUR OR POSSIBLY OCCUR
IN THE WEEKS BAY AREA

E-1

List of Birds Which Occur or-- Possibly Occur in the Weeks Bay Area

(from unpublished sources).

Common loan European widgeon
Red-throated loon American widgeon
Pied-billed grebe Northern shoveler
Horned grebe Wood duck
Eared grebe Redhead
Red-necked grebe Ring-necked duck
Greater shearwater Canvasback
Sooty sheazvater Greater scaup
Wilson's petrel Lesser scaup
White-tailed tropicbird Common goldeneye
White pelican Bufflehead
Brown pelican Oldsquaw
Gannet White-winged scoter
Booby Surf scater
Double-crested cormorant Common scoter
Anhinga Ruddy duck
Frigate-bird Hooded meraanser
Great Blue heron Common merganser
Green heron Red-breasted merganser
Little blue heron Turkey vulture
Cattle egret Black vulture
Reddish egret Swallow-tailed kite
Great egret Mississippi kite
Snowy egret White-tailed kite
Louisiana heron Sharp-shinned hawk
Black-crowned night heron Cooper's hawk
Yellow-crowned might heron Red-tailed hawk
Least bittern Red-shouldered hawk
American bittern Broad-winged hawk
Stork ibis Rough-legged hawk
Wood ibis Bald eagle
White ibis Golden eagle
White faced ibis Marsh hawk
Glossy ibix Osprey
Whistling swan Peregrine falcon
Canada goose Pigeon hawk
White-fronted goose Sparrow hawk
Snow goose Bobwhite
Blue goose Turkey
Fulvous Tree duck Sandhill, cran.--
Mallard duck King rail
Black duck Clapper rail
Mottled duck Virginia rail
Gadwall duck Sora rail
Pintail duck Yellow rail
Green-winged teal Black rail
Blue-winged teal Purple gall-inule

E-2

Common gallinule Comnontern
American coot Roseate tern-
American oystercatcher Sooty tern
Semipalmated plover Bridled tern
Piping plover Least tern
Snowy plover Royal tern
Wilson's plover Sandwich tern
Killdeer plover Caspian tern
American Golden plover Black tern
Black-bellied plover Black skimmer
Surf-bird Rock dove
Ruddy turnstone White-winged dove
American woodcock Mourning dove
Common snipe Ground dove
Long-billed curlew Yellow-billed cuckoo
Whimbrel Black-billed cuckoo
Upland plover Barn owl
Spotted sandpiper Screech owl
Solitary sandpiper Great horned owl
Willet Burrowing owl
Greater yellowlegs Bar-red owl .
Lesser yellowlegs Long-eared owl
Red knot Short-eared owl
Pectoral sandpiper Chick-Wills-Widow
White-rumped sandpiper Whip-poor-will
BairVs s ' dpipe.r Coumon nighthawk
Least sandpiper Chimney swift
Dualin sandpiper Ruby-throated hummingbird
Short-billed dowitcher Rufous hummingbird
Long-billed dowitcher Belted kingfisher
Stilt sandpiper Yellow-shafted flicker
Semipal-ated sandpiper Pileated woodpecker
Western sandpiper Red-bellied woodpecker
Buff-breasted sandpiper Red-headed woodpecker
Marbled -odwit Yellow-bellied sapsuckar
a
Sanderling Hd.ry woodpecker
American avocet Downy woodpecker
Black-aecked stilt Red-cockaded woodDecker
Red phalarope Eastern kingbird
Wilson's phalarope Gray kingbird
Northern phalarope Western kingbird
?omarine jaeger Scissor-tailed flycatcher
Parasitic jaeger Great crested flycatcher
Great black-backed gull Ash-throated flycatcher
Herring gull Eastern phoebe
Ring-billed gull Say's Phoebe
Laughing gull Yellow-bellied flycatcher
Bonaparte's gull Acadian flycatcher
Sabine gull Traill's flvcatcher
Gull-billed tern Least flycaticher
Forster's tern Ea!;te---.i wood oewee

Olive-sided flycatcher Warbling vireo
Vermillion flycatcher Black-and-white warbler
Horned lark Prothonotary warbler
Tree swallow Swainson's warbler
Bank swallow Worm-eating warbler
Rough-winged swallow Golden-winged warbler
Barn swallow Blue-winged warbler
Cliff swallow Lawrence's warbler
Purple martin Brewster's warbler
Blue Jay Backman's warbler
Common crow Tennessee warbler
Fish crow Orange-crowned warbler
Carolina chickadee Nashville warbler .
Tufted titmouse Northern parula warbler
White-breasted nuthatch Yellow warbler
Red-breasted nuthatch Magnolia warbler
Brown-headed nuthatch Cape May warbler
Brown creeper Black-throated blue warbler
House wren Yellow-rumped warbler
Winter wren Audubon's warbler
Bewick's wren Black-throated green warbler
Carolina wren Black-throated gray warbler
Long-billed marsh wren Cerulean warbler
Short-biled marsh wren Blackburnian warbler
Rock wren Yellow-throated warbler
Mockingbird Chestnut-sided warbler
catbird Bay-breasted warbler
Brown thrasher Black-poll warbler
Sage thrasher Pine warbler
Robin Prairie warbler
Wood thrush Palm warbler
Hermit thrush Ovenbird -
Swainson's thrush Northern water thrush
Gray-cheeked thrush Louisiana water thrush
Veery thrush Kentucky warbler
Eastern bluebird Connecticut warbler
Blue-gray Snatcatcher Mourning warbler
Golden-crowned kinglet Common yellow throat
Ruby-crowned kinglet Yellow-breasted chat
Water pipit Hooded warbler
Sprague's pipit Wilsons warbler
Cedar waxwing Canada warbler
Loggerhead shrike American redstart
Starling House sparrow
White-eyed vireo Bobolink
Bell's vireo Meadowlark
Yellow-throated vireo Western Meadowlark
Solitary vireo Red-winged blackbird
Black-whiskered vireo Orchard oriole
Red-eyed vireo Northern or-;ole
Philadelphia vireo Bullock's oriole

E-4

Rusty blackbird
Braver's blackbird
Yellow-headed blackbird
Boat-tailed grackle
Common grackle
Browa-headed cowbird
Western tanager
Summer tanager
Scarlet tanager
Cardinal
Rose-breasted grosbeak
Black-headed grosbeak
Blue grosbeak
Indigo bunting
Painted bunting
Lark bunting
Dickcissel.
Evening grosbeak
Purple fincl@
Common redpoll
Pine siskin
American goldfinch
Red crossbill,
Rufus-sided towhee
Green-tai.led towhee
Savannah sparrow
Grasshopper sparrow
LAConte's sparrow
Henslow's sparrow
Sharp-talled sparrow
Seaside sparrow
Vesper sparrow
Lark sparrow
Bachman's sparrow
Dark-eyed junco
Chipping sparrow
Clay-colored sparrow
Field sparrow
Harris' sparrow
White-crowned sparrow
Whita-throated sparrow
Fox sparrow
Lincoln's sparrow
Swamp sparrow
Song sparrow
Lapland longspur

APPENDIX F ANIMALS WITH ENDANGERED, THREATENED, OR SPECIAL CONCERN
STATUS WITH COLLECTION RECORDS OR LIKELY TO OCCUR IN
THE WEEKS SAY, ALABAMA AREA

F-1

Animals with Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern status with collection
records or likely to occur in the Weeks Bay, Alabama area (E Endangered,
T Threatened, S, - Special Concern).*

FISHES E T S

Alabama shovelnose sturgeon X
Schaphirphynchus sp.

Atlantic sturgeon x
Acipenser oxyrhynchus

Pygmy killifish x
Leptolucania ommata

AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES

Eastern indigo snake x
Drymarchon corais coup eri

Black pine snake x
Pituophis melanoleucus lodingi

Florida pine snake x
Pituophis melanoleucus mugitus

Dusky gopher frog x
Rana areolata sevosa

American alligator x
Alligator mississippiensis

Alabama red bellied turtle x
Pseudemys alabamensis

Gopher tortoise x
Copherus polyphemus

River frog x
Rana heckscheri,

Greater siren x
Siren lacertina

Pine woods snake x
Rhadinaea flavilata

Florida green water snake x
Natrix cyclopion floridana

F-2

BIRDS (cont.) I.- T S

Merlin
Falco columbarius x

Sandbill crane
Grus canadensis x

Black rail x
Laterallus jamaicensis

American oystercatcher x
Haematopus palliatus

Swainson's warbler x
Limnothlypis swainsonii

Bachman's sparrow x
Aimophila aestivalis

MAMMALS

Florida black bear x
Ursus americanus floridanus

Marsh rabbit x
�Zlvilagus palustris palustr@s

Bayou gray squirrel X
Sciurus carolinensis fuliginosus

*Boschung, H. B. 1976. Editor. Endangered and threatened plants
and animals of Alabama. Alabama Museum of Natural Historv.
Bulletin 2. Tuscaloosa, Alabama.

F- 3

AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES (Cont.) E T S

Eastern diamondback rattlesnake x
Crotalus adamanteus

Florida softshell turtle X
Trionyx ferox

BIRDS

Brown pelican x
Pelecanus occidentalis

Bald eagle x
Haliaeetus leucocephalus

Osprey x
Pandion haliaetus

Peregrine falcon x
Falco peregrinus

Snowy plover x
Charadrius alexandrinus

Red-cocaded woodpecker x
Dendrocopus borealis

Reddish egret x
Dichromanassa rufescens

Mottled duck
Anas fulvigula

Little blue heron
Florida caerulea

Black-crowned night heron x
Nycticorax nycticorax

Wood stork x
Mycteria americana

Swallow-tailed kite x
Elanoides forficatus

Sharp-shinned hawk x
Accioiter striatus

Cooper's hawk x
Accipiter cooperii

Red-shouldered hawk x
Buteo lineatus

X. Responses to Comments Received on the Proposed
Weeks Bay National Estuarine Sanctuary
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
and Sanctuary Management Plan

This section summarizes the written and verhal comments recpiv;@d by
NOAA from all sources on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and
Sanctuary Management Plan (DEIS/MP) during the document's review pk3riod
which closed on November 19, 1984. In compliance with NEPA regulations,
NOAA has responded to each commpnt through either:

The revision of the EIS/MP, where necessary to expand, clarify,
and/or correct content;

Responses to specific comments made by individual reviewers;
and/or,

Generic responses, in instances where similar concerns were
expressed by a number of independent reviewers.

The following summarizes the most common issues and concerns raised by
reviewers of the DEI-S/MP and NOAA's corresponding response:

Generic Comment A

Designation of a national estuarine sanctuary may interfere with the
traditional hunting and fishing activities of South Alabama residents.
NOAA should consider the lifestyle of the local population when evalu-
ating the proposed Sanctuary.

Generic Response A

NOAA recognizes that since the National Estuarine Sanctuary Program is an
instrument established by Federal statute and administered in accordance
with Federal regulations, there miqht be some concern raised regarding the
possibility of future Federal actions and/or expanded regulatory controls-'
restricting or prohibiting traditional uses of the proposed Sanctuary's
resources. With respect to future Federal involvement, neither enabling
legislation (Section 315 of the Coastal Zone Management Act, 16 U.S.C.
1461) nor program regulations at 15 CFR Part 921 [FR 49(125): 26510-25520,
June 27, 19841 provide explicit site-specific ruleFaking authority to NOAA.
On the other hand, the regulations at 15 CFR �921.1(d), concerning uses of
a sanctuary's resources, provide the State with the authority to establism
preferential use levels" in its plan for managing the Sanctuary, ident"I.;
uses requiring a state permit, and determine where certain uses will be
encouraged or prohibited.

No additional regulations are being proposed by the State of Alabama Plirsuant
to this designation; however, the State is authorized to act and indeed will
be responsible for acting should conditions in the Sanctuary warrant addition-
al controls. Even provided this authority, the State must act in compliance

with the regulations at 15 CFR�921.33 requiring that any change, to either
the Sanctuary's boundaries and/or management plan, including amendments to
the regulatory framework relied upon for plan implementation or the promul-
gation of new rules affecting resource use, be permitted only after oppor-
tunities for public review and comment. These provisions to safeguard the
public's continuing involvement in the decisionmaking process, plus the
establishment of a Sanctuary Advisory Committee, whose membership will
include local citizens and interest groups, will ensure that future manage-
ment decisions will consider the-lifestyle of the local population.

In any event, what the State does or does not do in the future with respect
to exercising its regulatory authority in Weeks Bay will not preclude any
action proposed by other Federal agencies, acting tinder their respective
authorities. This includes NOAA's exercise of its regulatory authority
to withdraw sanctuary designation in accordance with 15 CFR 6921.35. In
the future, if NOAA finds that the Weeks Say site is no longer being managed
for the purposes originally intended in its designation as a National
Estuarine Sanctuary, then such sanctuary designation may be withdrawn.

Generic Comment 8

Designation of an estuarine sanctuary will mean increased access, thereby
leading to degradation of the Bay's pristine ecosystem.,

Generic ResRonse 8

Although Fedecal designation of the site as a National Estuarine Sanctuary
might lead to increased1nterest in, and consequently, access to, the area,
the plan for managing Weeks Bay is intended to provide the necessary controls
for protecting the natural values of the site. Public access, for example,
will be provided only in accordance with the management plan, and then care-
fully monitored to ensure that such provisions do not adversely impact the
qualities which make the Weeks Bay ecosystem unique.

Interpretive programs also will be instituted to provide information to both
local residents and visitors regarding the values of estuarine systems
to coastal habitats and their vulnerability to both natural and man-induced
perturbations. In this way, the implementation of the management plan seeks
to combine the State's regulatory activitips with a comprehensive education-
public awareness program; the ultimate result of this will ensure the long-
term protection of Weeks Bay as a National Estuarine Sanctuary.

Generic Comment C

There does not appear to be any provision that would allow the State to take
action in the event that the waters of the proposed Sanctuary were degraded
or threatened by the effects engendered by non-point sources of pollution
occurring upstream from the site or by land runoff from lands contiguous to
the Bay.

PART X

Responses to Comments on the Oraft Environmental Impact

Statement and Management Plan for the Proposed Weeks Bay

National Estuarine Sanctuary

Generic Rtsponse C

The National Estuarine Sanctuary Program was never intended to duplicate
the purposes served through the implementation of coastal programs
authorized urfder Section 306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as
amended, which provide for the wise use and protection of the nation's
coastal resources. The sanctuary program, rather, was established specifi-
cally to create a national system of estuarine sanctuaries and was intended
more to complement the efforts of state coastal programs by emphasizing the
protection of special areas whose lands and waters constitute a natural
ecological unit, such as those found in National Parks and Wildlife Refuges.
Accordingly, the program concentrates its resources on the management of
the lands and waters found within the boundaries of a sanctuary; however,
to the extent provided by other state and/or Federal authorities and relied
upon states in the management of a site, plans for managing a sanctuary may
also include within their "regulatory" purview the control of certain
activities occurring outside of the sanctuary.

The State of Alabama has proposed to protect the Weeks Bay ecosystem from
impacts resulting from the uses of lands and waters lying outside of the
proposed Sanctuary's boundaries through the exercise of its existing authori-
ties. To ensure that the integration of these authorities will result in
the effective control of off-site activities vis-a-vis any situation that
might impact the Sanctuary's resource values, the State also proposes to
execute Memorandas of Agreement among and between its agencies responsible
for the management of the National Estuarine Sanctuary in Weeks Bay.

Generic Comment D

The property lying south of the proposed estuarine sanctuary known as the
Swift tract is not contiguous to the waters or lands within the Bay and,
more logically, should be included as part of the Bon Secour @.Iational
Wildlife Refuge.

Generic Response 0

Program regulations require that an estuarine sanctuary, to the best extent
possible, represent a natural ecological unit; one in which all of the
biotic and abiotic components which interact to form a distinct ecosystem
or habitat can be found. This requirement, and not simply its physical
location with respect to a proposed sanctuary's ecological core, is the
principal test used in determining the appropriateness of incorporating
areas within the boundaries of an area subject to designation.

In its past consideration of other sanctuaries, NOAA has not allowed states
to include as part of their proposals, lands which did not constitute an
integral part of a proposed site; consequently, the value that such may
have represented to the state as match for acquiring Federal funds for
acquisition. In this instance, however, NOAA has found thar the resource
represented by the Swift tract is not only integral to the values of the
Weeks Bay estuarine system but also provides a direct and continuous link
between the proposed Sanctuary and the Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge.

For example, the area within Weeks Say as well as the Swift tract is con-
sidered vitally important to the shrimping indiistry; a major contributor to
the economy of Baldwin Cotinty. The waters in and around the Bay, in close
association with the unspoiled wetlands which extend we'll beyond its open4ng
to Mobile Bay, serve as an important habitat in the life-cycle of this
commercially valuable resource. Additionally, the Swift tract, the manage-
ment of which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service feels would be better
served through sanctuary designation, will provide opportunities for:
(a) examining the differences and similarities between "open-water"
and enclosed estuarine systems represented by the Swift tract and Weeks
Bay, respectively; and (b) esta6li shi ng a management contil nuum that wi 11
extend State and Federal protection southeast along the shoreline of Pon
Secoijr Ray from Weeks Ray to the southern extent of the National Wildlife.
Refuge.

Individual Written Comments

Charting and Geodetic Services (John D. Bossler): The subject statement
has been reviewed within the areas of Charting and Geodetic S.-rvicps'
(C&GS) responsibility and expertise, and in terms of the impact of the
proposed action on C&GS activities and projects.

Geodetic control survey monuments may be located in the proposed project
area. If there is any planned activity which will disturb or destroy these
monuments,*CAGS requires not less than a 90 day notification in advance of
such activity in ordpr to plan for their relocation. C&GS recommends that
fundi.ng far this project include any cost of relocation required for C&GS
monuments. For further information about these monuments, please contact
Mr. John Spencer, Chief, National Geodetic Information Branch (!N/CG17), or
Mr. Charles Novak, Chief, Network ?IaintF?nancp Section (N/CG162), at 6001
Executive Boulevard, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

Response: Comment accepted. Recent surveys conducted for The Mature
Conservancy on the property to be included in the Sanctuary have not
indicated the presence of any C&GS monuments. However, should any
be found in the areas of planned activities, the proper contacts will be
made in accordance with the above.

United States Coast Guard (Lt. T.A. Tansey, Environmental Manager): Thank.
you for the opportunity to review the draft EIS on the Weeks Bay nat4onal
estuarine sanctuary. The Eigth Coast Guard District highly supports your
proposed action to preserve this important wildlife area.

Response: Comment accepted.

Department of the Air Force (Thomas 0. Sims, Chief, Environmental Planning
Division): As the designated Air Force single point of contact in the
eastern region, we have been asked by Headquarters Air Force to respond to
your agency's request for comment on the subject DEIS. Development of the
proposed sanctuary will not adversely affect current Air Force operations

in Alabama, Florida and Mississippi. Thank you for the opportunity to
review this DEIS. Our point of contact is Mr. Winfred G. Dodson, FTS number
242-6821/677 6.

Response: Comment accepted.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (Ernest V. Todd, State Conservationist):

Comment: While certain concerns regarding the maintenance and protection of
Weeks Bay are addressed the very important impact of sediment from the water-
sheds of Fish River and Magnolia River has not been considered. This subject
should be addressed in the management plan. The problems associated with
soil erosion are of national concern. All of the projections and plans for
Weeks Bay are fine within themselves but if the base resource is..destroyed
the rest becomes academic.

Response: NOAA agrees that sediment entering the Fish and Magnolia Rivers,
and ultimately transported to Weeks Bay, represents a serious potential
threat to the resource values and continued maintenance of the proposed
estuarine sanctuary. NOAA also recognizes, and the State has agreed, that
sanctuary designation carries with it certain shared responsibilities for
ensuring that the water quality and resources of the Say will be effectively
managed, including exercising whatever means available for controlling point
and non-point sources of pollution; e.g., urban-industrial wastes and sedi-
ment resulting from land-use practices. Consequently, the plan proposed
for managing the Sanctuary relies heavily on the State's ability to manage
land-usps in the Fish and M%gnolia River basins. If, @hrough this approach,
the State is unable to protect the resources of the Sanctuary, additional
regulatory authority might be sought and/or Federal action initiated,
including the possible withdrawal of the designation. See Part II.E. of
the EIS for a description of State agencies and authorities. See also
generic responses A and C. M

Comment: The use of "Type V, etc. to denote ecological habitats in Figure
7, page 20, and in the body of the DEIS could be confused with wetland
types listed in Circular 39, Wetlands of the United States published by the
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, in 1971. Such
confusion would result in error since the types listed in the nETS do not--
meet the descriptions in Circular 39. We suggest that you consider using
the descriptions found in Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats
of the United States by L.M. Cowardian, Virgin arter, Francis C. G57et,
and Edward T. LaRoe. This is also a publication by the U.S. Oepartmemt of
the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service issued in 1979. We believe that
you will find thp descriptions of habitats in this issue to be more accurate.

Response: Circular 39, as reported by Lynn A. Greenwalt, in Cowardianj et
al. (19 9) is no longer officially used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife -
3-ervice, rendering moot the possible confusion between it and the classifica-
tion system used in this EIS to describp wetland types in Weeks Bay. The
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's 1979 version (Cowardian, et al.) was also
considered: however, a classification scheme developed by 7he-A I a bama
Marine Environmental Sciences Consortium, following an extensive survey of
the Weeks Pay area, was thought to provide greater detail and site-specificity.

Department of the Army (Lawrence R. Green, Chief Planning Division, Mobile
District, Corps of Engineers):

Comment: The overall organization of the DEIS and managerient plan should
t7e -improved upon in order that a better flow of subject matter may be achipv-
ed. Through this reorganization effort, the reader will have a @ettpr under-
standing of the scope of the proposed action.

Response: Comment accepted. Since the close of the conimpnt period, NOAA
has worked with the State of Alabama to improve the content and organization
of the document. Modifications have been made where necessary to clarify
the intent and scope of the proposed action.

Comment: The document presents no data which substantiates the claim that
Weeks Bay represents a "microcosm" of Mobile Bay in a more pristine state.

Response: The term microcosm is used often to describe a system, the quality
of which is similar to a larger unit but on a smaller scale. Used in this
context to describe the Weeks Ray estuary, it is not intended to argue that
the proposed Sanctuary is identical, ecologically, to the greater Mobile Bay
system; but, more as a true, albeit smaller and less disturbed, representative
of the -biogeographic region and ecosystem type represented 'in the Mobile Ba 'v
limacropnvironment." Appendix 1 and 2 of the National Estuarine Sanctuary
Program Regulations (15 CFR Part 921), included as Appendix - of this FEIS,
describe the schema used by NOAA to classify estuarine systems by biogpograph-
ic regions and typological parameters such as: temperatUre'regime; hasin depth
and configuration; surface hydrology and circulation, includin-g vertical. and
horizontal mixing; and dominant ecological communities.
U.S. Environmental Protection A@ency (Sheppard N. Moore, Chief, NEPA Review,
rnvironmental Assessment Branch):

Comment: Since isolated areas of undisturbed pristine habitat of this type
are needed for researchand education, designating the area a National
Estuarine Sanctuary would be the best method of preserving it.

Response: Comment accepted.

Comment: We believe the overall impact will be beneficial to the environ-
ment. However,the environmental evaluation is too brief and could be
improved by including a more detailed discussion of the effects of the
various phases on the environment.

Response: Comment accepted. Although the overall impact of the contemplated
action on the natural environment will be positive, the proposed land acqui-
sition plan may involve: (a) the loss of private sector development opportu-
nities and tax revenue on lands acquired by the State for Sanctuary purposes;
(b)'tighter enforcement of existing restrictions controlling the use of
private lands included within the Sanctuary boundary; and (c) other possible
economic dislocations such as windfalls accruing to owners of remaining
developable lands in areas contiguous to or in near-proximity to the Say.
These factors have been discussed further in Section IV, "Environmental
Consequences."

U.S. Department of the Interior (Pir. Bruce Blanchard, Director, Environmen-
tal Pro3ect Review)-

Comment: We are pleased with the proposal to establish a National Estitarine
Sanctuary in Weeks Bay. Conservation of the area is particularly important
because of its proximity to the Fish and Wildlife @ervicp's Bon Secour
National Wildlife Refuge.

Response: Comment accepted. MOAA and the State of Alabama agree that the
Troposed Sanctuary will provide opportunities currently not available for
coordinating State and Federal activittes aimed at protecting an extensive
reach of coastal habitat representative of southeast Mobile Bay.

Commpnt: While the DEIS recogntzes that Federal permits may be required for
certain actions relating to the Sanctuary, it doesn't evaluate the specific
actions that may require permits (e.g., docking facilities) or their impacts
to fish and wildlife resources.

Response: The discussion in the management plan describing support activil-
Cles and plant facilities simply establishes, at this point, an intent by
the State to pursue certain objectives in support of Sanctuary operations.
It should not be viewed as an architectural/engineering report or detailed
const ructi on plan, the preparation of whi ch wi 11 be requi red by NOAA as a
condition for its approval (see Section V, "Construction Plan"). NOAA's
action would not relieve the State of its responsibility for acquiring the
necessary permits from appropriate Federal authorities, thereby ensuring
that any action proposed within the Sanctuary would be given the necessary
project review, including an evaluation of impacts to fish-and wildlifp
resources.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (Dr. Stephen Margolis, Ph.O.,
Center for Environmental Health, Atlanta, G-A-): Sanctuary designation should
provide long-term assurance that the natural resources and resulting benefits
of the area are available for future use and enjoyment. Except for minor
site disturbances associated with construction of a visitor center, boat
ramp, parking lot, and trails, we foresee no significant adverse effects
resulting from the proposed plan.

Response: Comment accepted.

The Weller Co. Inc. (Mr. navid B. Ball): I heartily recommend and approve
the proposed aAction.

Response: Comment accepted.

The Mobile Say Audubon Society (Mrs. Myrt Jones, President): The Mobile
Bay Audubon Society continues support for the designation and acquisition
of lands within the Weeks Bay area for the proposed Weeks 8ay National
Estuarine Sanctuary. Please continue to forward documents pertinent towards
this goal. Thank you.

Response: Comment accepted.

'A- 7

Responses to Comments Received at the Public Hearing

A Public Hearing was held on November 8, 1984 at the Fairhope Municipal
Complex in Fairhope, Alabama. Printed below is the testimony received and
NOAA's response.

First National Bank and Mobile County Wildlife and Conservation Association
(Mr. Arthur Dyas): I don't know about testimony, but I would just like to
make a statement if that is what this is sijpposed to he all about. My name
is Art Dyas. I'm actually here wearing three hats tonight: one hat in the
form of First National Bank as trustee for the Robert S. Bacon Trust. And
I will speak briefly for that one and just say that First National Bank as
trustee for the Robert S. Bacon Trust is very much in favor of the proposal .
We support it and we hope you will carry forth with it. The other two hats
that I'm wearing are for the Mobile County Wildlife and Conservation Associa-
tion. We have an organization over in Mobile County that represents about
seven hundred people, primarily businessmen and sportsmen throughout the
county. The third hat is myself as a Baldwin County resident. So the
last two hats sort of go hand in hand together. And I would like to say
that on behalf of the Mobile County Wildlife Association and for myself
that we are very much in favor of your proposal. We feel likp. this is a
very necessary first step for the conservation of resources that we have
available to us. Lie feel that it is very important to the quality of life
that we have come to experience and to expect from the Mobile-Baldwin County
area. And we hoop that it will continue that way. And thank you very much
for your effort. That is it.

Response: Comment accepted.

Montrose, Baldwin County Resident (Mr. Jack Friend): -My name is Jack Friend.
T-71-vein Montrose here in Baldwin County and I would like to testify in
support of the sanctuary. In recent years every time I think of Mobile
Bay, I think of Chesapeake Bay. I don't know whether you all are familiar
with what is happening up there or not, but Chesapeake Bay is just about
ruined. It is polluted. It's fishery stocks are being depleted. It's
recreational facilities are diminishing. And it has just about reached a
point where it is doubtful that it can ever be retrieved. People, however,
in that area have realized what is happening. And they handed together rrow
and they are going to launch a massive effort to try and revitalize the
Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. I have just come from that part of the
country and I read in one of the newspapers where the Secretary of the
Interior had made a speech to some citizens in the Virginia portion of the
Chesapeake area. And he said that they were going to try to do everything
*ble to restore the bay, but he was very doubtful that it could be done
possi
over a short period of time, and it would take years and years. And that
is probably true. In the mpantime, a couple of generations of kids may not
be able to experience what their parents and grandparents have experienced
up there. I support this sanctuary idea because I think it is a means
whereby we can prevent the same kind of thing from happening to Mobile Bay
that happened to the Chesapeake Bay. I'm a firm believer in growth and
development, but I think that growth and development and environmental
quality are really two sides of the same coin. Roth equal what I call the

prosperity :@quation. If you have only got growth and development but no
quality of life, no environmental quality, you don't have a very good life.
If you just have the quality of life but no growth and development, then
you are also lacking. This kind of project represents one of those kinds
that I think will preserve the quality of life, yet at the same time will
not infringe upon growth and development. And overall, I think that our
commijnity and our area will be much better off because of it, so I personally
would like to support it. And I hope you will proceed with it and I think
it is a wonderful thing. I congratulate The Nature Conservancy, the State
and Federal government and everyone involved that is in the process of
making this come true. Thank you.

Response: Comment accepted.

-I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

ik@
I
I
I
:I
I
:- i
i 3 6668 00004 9546 1