United States Department of Commerce draft environmental impact statement proposed estuarine sanctuary grant award to the state of Maryland for a Chesapeake Bay estuarine sanctuary

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

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

CHESAPEAKE BAY

ESTUARINE SANCTUARY
Proposed Estuarine Sanctuary Grant Award for a
Chesapeake Bay Estuarine Sanctuary in the
State of Maryland

QH _ _ _ % o .
.765 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE q .OF,
U543 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration v V .
1981 Office of Coastal Zone Management *
P::-': ' STATE OF MARYLAND
Department of Natural Resourcess or

PUBLIC HEARINGS WILL BE HELD

on this Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Chesapeake

Bay Estuarine Sanctuary on:

May 26, 1981 at 7:30 p.m. - Rhode River Site, Anne Arundel County
Smithsonian Visitor's Center
Chesapeake Bay Center for Environmental Studies
Edgewater, Maryland

May 28, 1981 at 7:30 p.m. - Monie Bay Site, Somerset County
Somerset County Courthouse
Princess Anne, Maryland

Comments or presentations will be scheduled on a first-come, first-

heard basis, and may be limited to a maximum of 5 minutes. No verbatim

transcript of the hearing will be prepared, but the hearing staff will

record and summarize the comments. All comments received at the hearing,

or in writing, will be considered in the preparation of the Final

Environmental Impact Statement.

United States

Department of Commerce

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

PROPOSED

ESTUARINE SANCTUARY GRANT AWARD

TO THE STATE OF MARYLAND

FOR

A CHESAPEAKE BAY ESTUARINE SANCTUARY

Apri 1 1981

Prepared by:
U.S. Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA Administration
COAS! AL SERVICES CENTER Office of Coastal Zone Management
22,'~4 rr~Li1 ~ hO&.SON AVENUE 3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W.
ChARESTO ,U Sc AVENUE41 Washington, D. C. 20235
ChARLESTON SC 29405-2413
and

--~~~~~~~~~~~ ~State of Maryland
Coastal Resources Division
Department of Natural Resources
Tawes State Office Building
Room C-2
N- C tAnnapolis, Maryland 21401
p o

PIo
Property of CSC L:ibrary

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
v ~ ~ |National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Washington, D.C. 20230

OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR
April 24, 1981

Dear Reviewer:

In accordance with the provisions of Section 102(2)(C) of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, we are enclosing for your review and
consideration the draft environmental impact statement prepared by the
Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Department of Commerce, on the proposed Chesapeake Bay
Estuarine Sanctuary.

Any written comments or questions you may have should be submitted to
the contact person identified below by June 15, 1981. Also, one
copy of your comments should be sent to me in Room 5813, U.S. Department
of Commerce, Washington, D.C. 20230.

CONTACT PERSON

Franklin Christhilf
Estuarine Sanctuaries Project Officer
Office of Coastal Zone Management
3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20235
Telephone: 202/653-7301

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,

oyce M. T. Wood
Director
Office of Ecology and Conservation

Enclosures

DESIGNATION: Draft Environmental Impact Statement

TITLE: Proposed Estuarine Sanctuary Grant Award to the State of
Maryland for a Chesapeake Bay Estuarine Sanctuary

ABSTRACT: The State of Maryland has submitted an application for a
grant from the Office of Coastal Zone Management to establish
an estuarine sanctuary in the Chesapeake Bay, Maryland.
The proposed sanctuary, when complete, will include a
number of sites reflecting the broad diversity of salinity,
physical systems, and biota in the Bay, for system-wide
research and educational purposes. The two initial components,
representing typical mid-bay eastern and western shore
estuaries, are the Monie Bay system in Somerset County on
the eastern shore (3,316 acres) and the Rhode River in
Anne Arundel County on the western shore (2,876 acres) for
a total of 6,192 acres of land and water. The land to be
acquired within the Monie Bay site includes fee simple
acquisition of 201 acres along the western shore of Little
Creek and an easement donation of 110 acres from the Koppers
Company, Inc. along the eastern shore of Little Creek.
All other land at both sites is in public ownership.

Approval of this grant application would permit the
establishment of an estuarine sanctuary representing a
subcategory of the Virginian biogeographic region. The
proposed sanctuary would be used primarily for research
and educational purposes, especially to provide information
useful for coastal zone management decisionmaking. Multiple
use would be encouraged to the extent that it is compatible
with the proposed sanctuary's research and educational programs.

Research and monitoring in and near the proposed sanctuary
would provide baseline information against which the impacts
of human activities elsewhere in the Chesapeake Bay and the
Virginian biogeographic region could be assessed.

APPLICANT: Maryland Department of Natural Resources

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

CONTACT: Mr. Franklin D. Christhilf
Estuarine Sanctuary Project Officer
Office of Coastal Zone Management
3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20235 (202) 653-7301

Individuals receiving copies of the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement will NOT automatically receive copies of the Final Environmental
Impact Statement unless specifically requested, or unless they submit
oral or written comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

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

PART II: ALTERNATIVES (INCLUDING PROPOSED ACTION) .............. 5

A. Preferred Alternative ...... . ***.......... .. . .. ...... 5

1.Boundaries and Acquisition of
Sanctuary Lands

2. Management

a. Management Plan
b. Management Structure
c. Sanctuary Research and Education Programs
d. Access to the Sanctuary
e. Multiple Use Policies

B. Alternatives Considered ........................... 15

1. Funding
2. Site Selection
3. Boundaries

a. Water Boundaries
b. Land Boundaries

4. No Action

PART III: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .................................. 19

A. Natural Environment .... .................. .... ..... 19

1. Chesapeake Bay

2. Individual Sanctuary Sites

a. Geology
b. Hydrology and Climate
C. Biology

B. Human Environment of the Chesapeake Bay .......... 24

1. History

2. Socioeconomic Characteristics

SECTION PAGE

3. Current Uses of the Sites

a. Commercial Shipping
b. Commercial and Sport Fishing
c. Recreational Boating

4. Water Quality

5. Land Use

PART IV: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES.......I....................... 35

A. Environmental Impacts of
the Proposed Action . ... .... .... ................... 35

1. General Impacts

2. Local Impacts

3. State and Federal Impacts

B. Unavoidable Adverse Environmental
or Socioeconomic Impacts ........ ...... . ...... ...... 38

C. Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of
the Environment and the Maintenance and
Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity ............. 39

D. Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitments
of Resources. .. ... . .. . .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... 40

E. Possible Conflicts Between the Proposed Action
and the Objectives of Federal, Regional, State
and Local Land Use Plans, Policies, and Controls
for the Area Concerned. . .. ... . .. . . ... . ... . .. .. ...... 40

PART V: LIST OF PREPARERS ....................................... 43

PART VI: LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND
PERSONS RECEIVING COPIES ...... ... ..... .................. 47

SUMMARY

BACKGROUND_

Section 315 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-583),
as amended, established the National Estuarine Sanctuary Program, which
provides grants on a matching basis to States to acquire, develop, and
operate estuarine areas to be set aside as natural field laboratories.
These areas are to be used primarily for long-term scientific and educational
programs that will provide information essential to coastal management
deci si onmaki ng.

Uses of estuarine sanctuaries are intended to serve objectives such
as the following:

--To gain a more thorough understanding of ecological relation-
ships 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;

--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.

To ensure that the Estuarine Sanctuary Program includes sites that
adequately represent regional and ecological differences, the program
regulations established a biogeographical classification scheme that reflects
geographic, hydrographic, and biological characteristics. Eleven (11)
biogeographic categories are defined in the program regulations. Subcate-
gories of this basic system are developed and utilized as appropriate to
distinguish different subclasses of each category. The total number of
sanctuaries that will be needed to provide adequate representation of
the various estuarine ecosystems occurring within the United States is
currently under study. The proposed sanctuary is representative of the
Virginian biogeographic region.

i i

The Estuarine Sanctuary Program regulations, first published in
1974, and amended in 1977, authorize three kinds of 50 percent matching
grants: (1) an optional, initial planning grant for such preliminary
purposes as surveying, appraising, and assessing the lands to be acquired,
and for developing management, research, and education plans; (2) grants
for acquisition of the real property within the sanctuary boundaries and
construction of facilities; and (3) operational grants for managing the
established sanctuary research and educational programs.

The State of Maryland is committed to maintaining the productivity
of its extensive estuarine areas. This takes on national significance
when one considers that most of its major estuarine area is contained in
Chesapeake Bay, the Nation's largest estuary. Local residents of the Bay
and citizens in other East Coast States who harvest fish such as striped
bass which either spawn or grow up in Chesapeake Bay are dependent upon
a productive estuary. In order to effectively manage this large ecosystem,
a proper understanding of estuarine ecology is essential. For this
reason, establishment of an estuarine sanctuary in Maryland would provide
a valuable tool for enhancing management of Chesapeake Bay and other
estuarine areas.

Maryland's activities involving the National Estuarine Sanctuary Program
actually began in 1974. This included extensive evaluations of potential
sites through field visits and analyses of aerial photographs. (A full
description of these earlier site evaluations and selections is contained
in Appendix 3.) The primary site, selected in 1975 by a steering committee
composed of representatives from different State and Federal agencies,
research institutions, and environmental groups, was World's End Creek
located in Dorchester County. Difficulties in property acquisition were
encountered with this site, however, and sanctuary activities were then
di sconti nued.

A new effort was initiated by the Maryland Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) in 1980 with the establishment of an Estuarine Sanctuary
Steering Committee (SC) composed of representatives from State and
Federal agencies, university and other research laboratories, citizen
environmental groups, and the Coastal Resources Advisory Committee (see
Appendix 2 for membership). Criteria were developed by the SC for
selecting suitable sanctuary sites. Estuarine areas around the entire
Maryland portion of the Bay were then ranked against each other according
to those criteria.

Due to the wide range of estuarine zones in the Chesapeake Bay, the
SC determined it would be best to eventually develop a series of sanctuary
sites representative of each zone. The sanctuary, when complete, will include
an undetermined number of sites reflecting the broad diversity of salinity,
physical systems, and biota in the Bay, and will be accessible for research
and educational purposes. A subcommittee of the SC, designated as the
Maryland Estuarine Sanctuary Site Selection Committee (SSC), will work

iii

with DNR to establish procedures for designating additional Maryland
sites for the Chesapeake Bay Estuarine Sanctuary using the established
site selection criteria. DNR and the SSC also will work with the Virginia
Council on the Environment and appropriate Commonwealth agencies to
develop a bi-State coordinated Chesapeake Bay sanctuary system.

Maryland's DNR, on behalf of the State, submitted a grant application
to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOWA Office of
Coastal Zone Management (OCZM) in September 1980 to gather information
directed toward establishment of a multiple site estuarine sanctuary in
the Chesapeake Bay initially consisting of two sites--Monie Bay, Somerset
County, the Rhode River, Anne Arundel County, and their adjacent waters.

NOAA awarded a pre-acquisition grant of $17,500 to DNR, matched by an
equivalent amount from the State, on January 23, 1981. This grant enabled
DNR to proceed with development of information for a formal grant application
which, if approved, would provide 50 percent matching funds for the
acquisition of lands and for building educational facilities in the
sanctuary. Should the proposed sanctuary be established, Maryland would
also be eligible for $50,000 annual grants (also matched) for sanctuary
management and operations for a period of 5 years.

PROPOSED ACTION

The grant request to NOAA for $600,000, matched by an equivalent amount
by the State, would be used for fee simple acquisition of 201 acres of
uplands and wetlands along the western shore of Little Creek, a tributary
of Monie Bay, in Somerset County, to develop facilities to accommodate
visitors and educational activities at both sanctuary sites, and to complete
the selection of additional sites for the Chesapeake Bay Estuarine Sanctuary.
The majority of land and all of the water included in the Monie Bay
sanctuary site is in State ownership, and includes a portion of the Deal
Island Wildlife Management Area. An additional 110 acres of wetlands along
the eastern shore of Little Creek will become part of the sanctuary through
the donation of an easement by the Koppers Company, Incorporated
(see Figure 2, page 7). All of the land and water in the Rhode River
sanctuary site is in public ownership. The land belongs to the Smithsonian
Institution's Chesapeake Bay Center for Environmental Studies (see Figure 3,
page 8). No land acquisition is intended for the Rhode River site.
However, property owners are not precluded from offering donations, sale
of land, or easements to the State in either the Monie Bay or Rhode
River site.

i v

The composition of real property within the proposed sanctuary is as
follIows:

Property Size in Acres

Monie Bay 3,316

Existing State ownership (land and water) 3,005
Proposed Acquisition 201
Proposed Easement Donation 110

Rhode River 2,876

Existing Smithsonian ownership 2,635
Existing State ownership 241

Total Land and Water Within the Two Sites 6,192
Total Land to be Acquired 311

Maryland does not intend to exercise its power of eminent domain
(condemnation) to acquire any of the land, but will rely on negotiated
sales with willing sellers. The State would consider acquiring either fee
simple title, conservation easements, or life estates in privately owned
lands.

MANAGEMENT

The Maryland DNR, Tidewater Administration (TA), which is responsible
for Maryland's coastal zone management program, will manage the proposed
sanctuary. However, its management would be coordinated with the Smithsonian
Institution at the Rhode River site, and the Maryland Wildlife Administration
(MWA) at the Monie Bay site. The TA and its Administrator will have
general oversight and responsibility for the sanctuary and its programs.
To assist in this task, the TA will, at a minimum, employ a full-time Sanctuary
Manager, who will have training in estuarine ecology and natural resources
management, to administer both sites.

Management of the Deal Island Wildlife Management Area (DIWMA) on
the Monie Bay by MWA and the Chesapeake Bay Center for Environmental
Studies (CBCES) on the Rhode River by the Smithsonian Institution will
continue as is. However, the TA will form agreements with MWA and the
Smithsonian Institution to coordinate research and educational programs
and the use of facilities on those properties that are shared in common.

The TA would also be assisted in its administration of the proposed
sanctuary at both sites by one overall Estuarine Sanctuary Management
Committee (ESMC), comprised of representatives of the scientific research
community, the educational community, Maryland's Coastal Resources Advisory
Committee, NOAA, Monie Bay and Rhode River residents, principal user groups,
and conservation organizations. Federal agencies with programs that
might affect the proposed sanctuary--such as the Environmental Protection
Agency, the Navy, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Army Corps
of Engineers--may also be represented on the ESMC.

RESEARCH

Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries comprise a dynamic natural system.
The resiliency and productivity of the Bay combine to deter impacts of
environmental degradation, however increasing human influences have placed
additional stresses on this sytem. Because of the Bay's importance as
both an ecological and economic resource, conflicts between economic interests
and environmental concerns are inevitable. The way in which these conflicts
are resolved, the compromises that are reached, and the choices that are
made will determine the future of the Bay.

Both Maryland and Virginia have recognized that problems in one part
of the Bay can affect the entire Bay, that the Bay is indeed one dynamic
system. Therefore, laws and regulations affecting the Chesapeake should
work in harmony in all parts of the Bay. Accordingly, Maryland and
Virginia legislatures have established the Chesapeake Bay Commission and
Bi-State Working Committee to overcome the disparity in conservation
laws and regulations between the two States.

It was estimated in 1980, that at least 54 agencies were studying
the Bay. Existing Bay research and management activities involve a broad
spectrum of interests and jurisdictions from Federal, State, and local
government agencies, to university and other research institutions,
commercial interests, and the public. Unfortunately, this research often
consists of piecemeal, unrelated projects with either duplication of
effort or lack of shared results between agencies.

In recognition of this problem, in fiscal year 1976, Congress
directed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to conduct a five-year,
$25 million study of the environmental quality and management of Chesapeake
Bay. Through this study--known as the Chesapeake Bay Study--the EPA was
directed to coordinate research to assess the principal factors impacting
the Bay's water quality, and to determine which government agencies have
resource management responsibilities and ways to optimize coordination
among them. To further strengthen the coordination of studies of the Bay,
Congress passed the Chesapeake Bay Research Coordination Act in 1980.

The proposed Chesapeake Bay Estuarine Sanctuary would provide
excellent sites for coordinated estuarine research in the Chesapeake Bay.
Research opportunities within the proposed sanctuary would generally fall
into three categories: (1) research, analysis, and interpretation of the
upland, intertidal, and benthic components of the Chesapeake Bay;
(2) continuation of ongoing sampling and monitoring programs within the
Bay; and (3) research on the impacts of pollutants on estuarine organisms.
By establishing estuarine sanctuary sites at strategic ecological zones in
the Bay for comparative research, Maryland (and Virginia eventually) will
have an ability to contribute significantly to a holistic understanding
of the Bay as a total system.

EDUCATION

The Monie Bay site contains a variety of estuarine flora and fauna.
Educational activities will be encouraged through an extensive interpretative
program with guided and self-guided tours, printed materials and a
boardwalk across the marsh zones. A primary user of the sanctuary will
be students from the University of Maryland, Eastern Shore Campus,
located only a few miles away from the site.

The Rhode River site also contains a wide diversity of habitats and,
in contrast to Monie Bay, has considerable uplands on which an educational
facility will be built for visiting groups. Here the education program
will include lectures, seminars, and other instructional programs
coordinated with the Smithsonian Institution's Chesapeake Bay Center for
Environmental Studies.

RECREATION

The primary purpose of the National Estuarine Sanctuary Program is
to provide long-term protection for representative, undisturbed estuarine
areas, so that they may be used for scientific and educational activities.
However, multiple use of sanctuaries is encouraged to the extent that
such other uses are compatible with the primary sanctuary purpose. The
capacity of each sanctuary to accommodate multiple uses, and the permissible
kinds and levels of such uses, are determined separately for each sanctuary,
and may vary considerably according to the nature of the sanctuary and
its surroundings, the customary and historic uses of the sanctuary area,
and such new uses as may be proposed. Low-intensity recreational activities
--such as fishing, shellfishing, hunting, boating, hiking, and wildlife
photography--are generally considered compatible uses of sanctuary
lands and waters. From time to time, however, it may become necessary
to restrict one or more such uses within a sanctuary to preserve the
sanctuary's value for research or educational purposes.

DNR would monitor all activities within the proposed sanctuary. If
conflicts between different sanctuary programs, and compatible uses were
to arise, DNR would consult with ESMC to develop appropriate management
actions. DNR has both the existing authority and the field personnel to
enforce applicable regulations within the proposed sanctuary.

vii

Areas of Controversy

Acquisition of land for an estuarine sanctuary is often a controversial
issue. The local residents in the area where a sanctuary site is being
proposed need to know as early as possible what an estuarine sanctuary is
and what its boundaries will be.

On the eastern shore of the Bay in Somerset County, the State of
Maryland has acquired over 11,000 acres of land (including marsh) which
now comprise the Deal Island Wildlife Management Area (DIWMA). The area
is designated for public hunting, crabbing, fishing, birdwatching, and
photography. This acquisition has made the local government and citizens
of Somerset County very cautious regarding any intentions the State may
have to enlarge the DIWMA, thus removing more land from the tax rolls.

As soon as the Monie Bay area was selected as one of the first sites
for sanctuary consideration, the Maryland Tidewater Administration
requested a meeting with the Somerset County Commissioners. This meeting
was held on September 2, 1980. The County Commissioners affirmed the
idea of doing research in the proposed area, but insisted that the property
owners would have to approve, and the University of Maryland, Eastern Shore
Campus would need to be involved in the project at every stage. The
money lost from the tax rolls was also a matter of concern. A public
meeting was held on September 22, 1980, in Princess Anne, Maryland,
14 miles from the sanctuary site. Property owners along the Little
Monie Creek were not in favor of the State acquiring any of their property;
however, some went on record approving the idea of setting up research
and education programs in the proposed area. The Tidewater Administration
agreed to draw the boundaries at the Monie Bay site to coincide for the
most part with State-owned DIWMA property and restrict acquisition to
the Little Creek area where there were property owners willing to sell
and where the Koppers Company, Inc. had marsh land which it was willing
to donate as an easement. It was determined that the effect on tax loss
would be minimal. The Somerset County government, University of
Maryland, Eastern Shore Campus, and local citizens will be involved
in an advisory role in the operation of the estuarine sanctuary once it
is established.

On the western shore of the Bay in Anne Arundel County, the proposed
sanctuary site is within the area already owned by the Smithsonian
Institution, and operated as the Cheasapeake Bay Center for Environmental
Studies (CBCES). The Tidewater Administration was initially willing to
acquire property adjacent to CBCES for the sanctuary, but the Smithsonian
Institution, which has covenants with adjacent property owners in the area,
suggested that no acquisition would be necessary.

A public meeting was held by the TA at CBCES on February 26, 1981
to inform local residents about the selection of this site for consideration
as part of the Chesapeake Bay National Estuarine Sanctuary. The people
who attended the meeting affirmed the concept of the sanctuary, since it

viii

'blends with the current CBCES program, and one or more suggested that
the sanctuary should also include property that is in the watershed for
additional protection of the estuary. However, this is not a subject
for consideration at this time. In the future, should property owners
wish to sell or donate property or easements to the State, for inclusion
in the estuarine sanctuary, these requests will be considered on a case-
by-case basis.

PART I: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION

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

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

--developing coastal zone management programs (Sec. 305);

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

--avoiding or minimizing adverse environmental, social , and economic
impacts resulting from coastal energy activities (Sec. 308);
--coordinating, studying, planning, and implementing interstate
coastal management activities and-programs (Sec. 309);

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

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

Section 315 of the Act established the Estuarine Sanctuary Program to
provide matching grants to States to acquire, develop, and operate natural
estuarine areas as sanctuaries, so that scientists and students may be
provided the opportunity to examine the ecological relationships within
the areas over time. Section 315 provides a maximum of $3 million in
Federal funds, to be matched by an equivalent amount from the State, to
acquire and manage lands for each sanctuary. Regulations for implementation
of the Estuarine Sanctuary Program were published on June 4, 1974
[15 CFR Part 921, Federal Register 39 (108): 19922-19927], and amended
on September 9, 1977 [15 CFR Part 921, Federal Register 42 (175): 45522-45523]
(see Appendix 1). Regulations are presently being prepared for the Island
Preservation Program that is also included within Section 315 of the CZMA.

Estuarine sanctuaries have the dual purposes of (1) preserving relatively
undisturbed areas so that a representative series of natural estuarine
systems will always remain available for ecological research and education,
and (2) ensuring the availability of natural areas for use as a control against
which impacts of human activities in other areas can be assessed. These
sanctuaries are to be used primarily for long-term scientific and educational
purposes, especially to provide information useful to coastal zone management
decisionmaki ng.

Research purposes may include:

--Gaining a more complete understanding of the natural ecological
relationships within the various estuarine environments of the
United States;

--Making baseline ecological measurements;

--Serving as a natural control against which changes in other es-
tuaries can be measured, and aiding in evaluation of the impacts
of human activities on estuarine ecosystems; and

--Providing a vehicle for increasing public knowledge and awareness of
the complex nature of estuarine systems, their benefits to people
and nature, and the problems confronting these ecosystems.

While the primary purposes of estuarine sanctuaries are scientific and
educational , multiple use of estuarine sanctuaries by the general public
is encouraged to the extent that such usage is compatible with the
primary sanctuary purposes. Such uses may generally include low-intensity
recreation, such as boating, fishing, shellfishing, hunting, and wildlife
photography or observation., Commercial fishing and shellfishing may also
be compatible uses.

The estuarine sanctuary regulations envision that the Estuarine Sanctuary
Program will ultimately represent the full variety of regional and ecological
differences among the estuaries of the United States. The regulations state
that "the purpose of the estuarine sanctuary program-.shall be accomplished
by the establishment of a series of estuarine sanctuaries which will be designated
so that at least one representative of each estuarine ecosystem will endure
into the future for scientific and educational purposes" [15 CFR 921.3 (a)].
As administered by OCZM, the Estuarine Sanctuary Program defined 11 different
biogeographic regions based on geographic, hydrographic, and biological
characteristics. Subcategories of this basic system are established as
appropriate to distinguish different subclasses of each biogeographic region.
The total number of sanctuaries that will be needed to provide minimal
representation for the Nation's estuarine ecosystems is currently under
study.

Since 1974, OCZM has awarded grants to establish nine estuarine
sanctuaries. These include:

Sanctuary Biogeographic Classification

South Slough Col umbi an
Coos Bay, Oregon

Duplin River Caroli nian
Sapelo Island, Georgia

Waimanu Valley Insular
Island of Hawaii, Hawaii

Rookery Bay West Indian
Collier County, Florida

Old Woman Creek Great Lakes
Erie County, Ohio

Apal achicola River/Bay Loui siani an
Franklin County, Florida

Elkhorn Slough Cal ifornian
Monterey County, California

Padilla Bay Columbian
Skagit County, Washington

Narragansett Bay Virginian
Newport County, Rhode Island

The proposed action under consideration by OCZM is a land acquisition
grant application from the State of Maryland to establish a National
Estuarine Sanctuary in Chesapeake Bay. This sanctuary eventually will
consist of a number of individual sites, representing different zones
within the Bay, and will contain approximately 6,192 acres of land,
marshes, and waters at the two initial sites. This acquisition application
requests funds from NOAA to be matched by an equivalent amount of State
funds for the purchase of about 201 acres of land along the western shore of
Little Creek that flows into Monie Bay in Somerset County, to develop
facilities to accommodate visitors and educational activities at the
sanctuary sites at Monie Bay and Rhode River, and to complete the selection
of additional sites for the Chesapeake Bay Estuarine Sanctuary.

The Chesapeake Bay Estuarine Sanctuary, if established, would represent
a major subcategory within the southern half of the Virginian biogeographic
region. This region extends over 1,000 miles of Atlantic coastline from
Cape Cod to Cape Hatteras, featuring lowland streams, marshes, and muddy
bottoms with primarily temperate biota and some boreal representatives.

Maryland's proposal follows several years of interest in and concern
for the estuaries in the Chesapeake Bay by State and local officials,
and university and conservation groups. The two initial components to
be included in the estuarine sanctuary--Monie Bay, Somerset County, and
the Rhode River, Anne Arundel County--were selected by a Maryland Estuarine
Sanctuary Steering Committee because they are essentially undisturbed,
representative estuarine sites, and because publicly owned land and
water comprising an estuarine system was available for research, education,
and recreation purposes. On January 23, 1981 , NOAA awarded Maryland a
$17,500 pre-acquisition grant for the proposed sanctuary, which enabled
the State to initiate a real estate appraisal and environmental assessment
of the sites,, and to prepare management, research, education, and recreation
plans.

5
PART II: ALTERNATIVES (INCLUDING PROPOSED ACTION)

A. Preferred Alternative

The State of Maryland intends to submit an application for Federal
acquisition grant funding of $600,000 to be matched by an equivalent
amount of State funding to acquire lands, establish facilities necessary
for an estuarine sanctuary in Chesapeake Bay, and to complete the selection
of additional sites for the Chesapeake Bay Estuarine Sanctuary. This
sanctuary will encompass a system of different sites initially composed
of Monie Bay in Somerset County and the upper reaches of Rhode River in
Anne Arundel County (Figure 1). The proposed site at Monie Bay would
include 2,550 acres of land and 767 acres of water and would be managed
by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The site in
Rhode River has a land area of 2,685 acres and 191 acres of open water
and will be managed primarily by the Smithsonian Institution in cooperation
with DNR.

1. Boundaries and Acquisition of Sanctuary Lands

The boundaries of an estuarine sanctuary "may include any part or all
of an estuary, adjoining transitional areas, and adjacent uplands, consti-
tuting to the extent feasible a natural unit" (15 CFR 921.2). The proposed
sanctuary lies within Chesapeake Bay, the Nation's largest estuary; it has
a surface area of about 4,412 square miles and drains a watershed of
over 64,000 square miles. Because of Chesapeake Bay's enormous size, it
is necessary to select several sites comprising representative subsystems,
which will better reflect the environmental gradients and diversity within
the Bay. Both Monie Bay and Rhode River contain tributary streams,
open waters, and adjacent uplands within their proposed boundaries
(Figures 2 and 3, respectively) and therefore comprise natural units.

The majority of land and all of the water included in the Monie Bay
sanctuary site is in State ownership, and is managed by the Wildlife
Administration, DNR, as the Deal Island Wildlife Management Area. An
additional 110 acres of wetlands along the eastern shore of Little Creek
will become part of the sanctuary through the donation of an easement by
the Koppers Company, Incorporated. The proposed acquisition of private
property is on the west bank of Little Creek in the Monie Bay site. All
of the land and water in the Rhode River sanctuary site is in public
ownership. The water and most of the wetland area are State-owned and
the land above high water mark within the Sanctuary belongs to the Smith-
sonian Institution's Chesapeake Bay Center for Environmental Studies.
No land acquisition is intended for the Rhode River site. However,
property owners are not precluded from offering donations, sale of land,
or easements in either the Rhode River or Monie Bay sites to the State
of Maryland.

REGIONAL SETTING

WASHI NOTN

58~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o

C.3~~~~

Figure I

Ch~esapeake Bay

PtC

CID

Pt SAYe~
-4-'At

AP.

MONGRELNE/
Scala 1: 63,360

St~~~~~~~~~ 2
Miles.
Figure 2

MONIE BAY

Land Boundary I111To Be Acquired

[I]Water Boundary EMarshrc

2 orn ~~~~~~~~~~~~.. ~~~~Scale 1:633O
0 I 2 ~~ ~~~3 4 5 6 7

soi ~~~~~~~~~~~ .. I ~~~~~~~~~~Kilomeer

k~~~~~~~~UhAe MAil~*:eN

/~~~~~~~~~~~~~I

S/Dj +Ch * B~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ar Nre

W T AA Y~~~~

-- ceg~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~dW,~~~~~~~~4~~~~it.
Mceide

1. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~Dr Figre

RHODE RIVER

~Site Boundary "-"-Marsh

The grant request to NOAA for acquisition funding, matched by State
resources, would be used for the fee simple acquisition of 201 acres of
privately-owned wetlands and uplands at the Monie Bay site and for
developing visitor access and educational facilities at the two sites.
This will include a building for estuarine education near Fox Point at
the Rhode River site and improving existing visitor facilities belonging
to the Maryland Wildlife Administration at the Deal Island Wildlife
Management Area, which contains most of the Monie Bay site.

The composition of real property within the proposed sanctuary
is as follows:

Property Size in Acres

Monie Bay 3,316

Existing State ownership (land and water) 3,005
Proposed acquisition 201
Proposed easement donation 110

Rhode River 2,876

Existing Smithsonian ownership 2,635
Existing State ownership (water only) 241

Total Land and Water Within the Two Sites 6,192
Total Land to be Acquired 311

Land acquisition would be performed in accordance with Federal laws and
regulations for real estate acquisition, including an independent appraisal
and the offer of Fair Market Value. Maryland does not intend to exercise
its power of eminent domain (condemnation) to acquire any of the land, but
will rely on negotiated sales with willing sellers. The State would consider
acquiring either fee simple title, conservation easements, or life estates in
privately-owned lands.

2. Management

a. Management Plan

The specific management policies developed for the estuarine sanctuary
uplands and wetlands will be based on the primary objective of managing
the lands to maintain their ecosystem, in order to ensure the long-term
protection of natural processes and resources for research and education.
Fishing, hunting, non-intensive recreation, education, and research
would be allowed as prescribed under conditions established pursuant to
existing State laws, and a management concept approved by the Estuarine
Sanctuary Management Committee (ESMC--discussed later).

I10

The State and Smithsonian-owned lands were acquired for a number of
different purposes, including recreation, wildlife management, research,
conservation, and protection of environmentally unique and irreplaceable
lands. Although management of these lands differs according to the
objective of acquisition, the present management objectives are compatible
with the objectives of managing the sanctuary for its long-term use for
research and education within an estuarine system. Therefore, inclusion
of these lands within the sanctuary boundaries will not affect the present
management practices, and the existing State and Smithsonian-owned parcels
will continue to be managed according to existing management concepts
and plans. Ownership and management decision authority will be retained
by the agencies now exercising those responsibilities. Changes in management
plans and development projects on these lands will be reviewed by the
ESMC which may provide advisory comments on the plans and activities,
but will have no regulatory authority over these lands.

An Estuarine Sanctuary Management Plan (ESMP) for the Chesapeake
Bay National Estuarine Sanctuary will be formulated within one year
after the acquisition grant is awarded. This plan will provide a framework
for conducting research and educational programs and integrating sound
public uses into the broader national estuarine sanctuary purposes.

b. Management Structure

The Maryland DNR, Tidewater Administration, which is responsible for
Maryland's coastal zone management program, will manage the proposed
sanctuary in accordance with the ESMP. However, its management would be
coordinated with the Smithsonian Institution at the Rhode River site,
and the MWA at the Monie Bay site. Specifically, TA and its Administrator
will have general oversight and responsibility for the sanctuary and its
programs. To assist in this task, TA will, at a minimum, employ a full-time
Sanctuary Manager, who will have training in estuarine ecology and natural
resources management, to administer all of the sites. The duties of the
manager will include:

o Administration of the Sanctuary, including preparing required
State and Federal grant applications, proposals, budget, and reports, and
maintaining necessary records.

o Working with members of the ESMC and Site Selection Committee.

o Representing the ESMC in public meetings.

o Advising and coordinating with universities and units of govern-
ment, both within DNR and other agencies, on particular issues, questions,
and projects that impact on the sanctuary, at their request.

o Seeking and coordinating special studies and research activities
within or related to the sanctuary, and interpreting and applying research
results to produce benefits to the Maryland coastal management program.

I1I

o Developing and giving general oversight to an educational program
for the sanctuary.

o Coordinating research efforts with the University of Maryland
Sea Grant Program, Chesapeake Research Consortium, State of Virginia
government and university programs, and other Chesapeake Bay research
programs.

Other personnel may be employed and trained within the appropriate
divisions of DNR to assist in the administration of the sanctuary, includ-
ing conducting interpretive tours and other visitor activities.

TA also would be assisted in its administration of the proposed
sanctuary at both sites by one overall ESMC comprised of representatives
of the scientific research community, the educational community, Smithsonian
Institution, Maryland Wildlife Administration, NOAA, Monie Bay and Rhode River
residents, principal user groups, and conservation organizations. Federal
agencies with programs that might affect the proposed sanctuary--such as
the Environmental Protection Agency, the Navy, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, and the Army Corps of Engineers--may also be represented on the
ESMC. ESMC functions would include:

o Advising DNR and the Sanctuary Manager on sanctuary administration.
In this role, ESMC would assist DNR in developing guidelines for
sanctuary management, as well as job specifications for the
Sanctuary Manager.

o Evaluating what types of research will best address Chesapeake
Bay management issues and preparing a list of needed, complementary
studi es.

o Reviewing proposals for research and educational activities within
sanctuary lands or waters, and making appropriate recommendations
to DNR.

o Resolving conflicts between different sanctuary users.

o Reviewing and advising DNR on its proposed sanctuary management
grant budgets.

To assist DNR in expanding the sanctuary system to include additional
sites representing different ecological zones, a Site Selection Committee
(SSC) will be formed. The SSC will be comprised of members representing
the State Coastal Zone Management Program, Chesapeake Research Consortium,
Coastal Resources Advisory Committee, and other public and private
environmental and educational organizations.

DNR, working with the SSC, will establish procedures for designating
additional Maryland sites for the Chesapeake Bay Estuarine Sanctuary using
the established site selection criteria described in Maryland's Estuarine
Sancturay Site Selection Process (Appendix 3). These sites will be

1 2

distributed throughout the Maryland portion of the Chesapeake Bay and
will be selected to represent the different salinity zones and biological
distributions found there. This will allow research conducted at the
different sites to be more accurately extrapolated to the variety of
conditions found in the Bay. It is expected that a minimum of four
additional sites eventually will be selected.

DNR and the SSC will also work with the Virginia Council on the
Environment and appropriate Commonwealth agencies in their efforts to
establish a Chesapeake Bay Estuarine Sanctuary in Virginia. These efforts
would include developing a bi-state coordinated Chesapeake Bay Sanctuary
system, research information exchanges, and coordination with the Chesapeake
Bay Commission, Bi-State Working Committee, and the Federal Office of
Chesapeake Bay Research Coordination.

Maryland estuarine sanctuary pre-acquisition activities have been
guided by the Estuarine Sanctuary Steering Committee. This Committee is
composed of representatives from State and Federal agencies, university
and other research laboratories, citizen environmental groups, and the
Coastal Resources Advisory Committee (see Appendix 2 for membership).
This Committee recommended that it continue to exist as a forum to discuss
sanctuary issues after the sanctuary is established.

c. Sanctuary Research and Education Plans

Research

The two initial Chesapeake Bay Sanctuary sites offer excellent
opportunities for a variety of estuarine research. Results of studies
here can be applied to similar Bay tributary systems, increasing our
understanding of how coastal management activities can be improved. Due
to the distinct geographical differences between the Bay's eastern and
western shores, the two sites, Monie Bay on the eastern shore and Rhode
River on the western shore, will yield unique information relevant to
their adjacent areas. In general, western shore tributaries run through
more hilly terrain with narrow marsh zones. In contrast, middle and
lower eastern shore tributaries drain low flat areas and have broad
marshes. The two sites represent these general features very well.
Some of the desirable characteristics of these sites for research
include:

o High marsh and low marsh zones with a variety of plant species.

o Presence of nearly complete tributary systems, allowing studies
of processes along a salinity gradient from the estuary up to
freshwater inflows.

o Relatively undisturbed adjacent lands, allowing more natural
baseline measurements.

1 3

o Tidal creeks and rivulets are present for studies of their use
by juvenile fish as nursery areas.

o Little Creek at the Monie Bay site is bordered by marshes and
forests and can be compared with a similar tributary outside the
sanctuary bordered by agricultural land, less than a mile away.

o Both sites are close to educational and research institutions.
Monie Bay is 10 miles away from the University of Maryland - Eastern
Shore, headquarters of the University Marine and Estuarine
Environmental Studies Program. University of Maryland Horn
Point Environmental Laboratory is less than 1 1/2 hours away.
The site on Rhode River is 1 mile away from the Smithsonian
Institution Chesapeake Bay Center for Environmental Studies.
The University of Maryland's Chesapeake Biological laboratory is
less than I hour away from Rhode River and the Johns Hopkins
University Chesapeake Bay Institute is less than a half hour away.

o An endangered species, the bald eagle, utilizes habitat in both
sites.

The vast opportunities for research in the proposed sanctuary will be
considered by ESMC and DNR and priorities will be developed to determine
which studies will most benefit management efforts. Members of the
Chesapeake Bay research community will be brought together by DNR to
assist in developing a coordinated research plan. The detailed research
plan along with study priorities will be available from DNR Coastal
Resources Division.

Education

Educational opportunities for universities, schools, and other
organizations will be provided at both sites. Emphasis will be placed
upon presenting the estuary as a dynamic system through field trips,
lectures, and literature. Interpretive trails, with guided tours and a
boardwalk across marsh zones, will be developed to let visitors observe
differences in marsh vegetation and common estuarine organisms.

Although educational facilities for visitors will be developed at
both sites, the program at Rhode River will be more heavily utilized due
to its location within 35 miles of both Washington and Baltimore. For
this reason, an estuarine education building is planned for Fox Point
on Rhode River. Lectures and other instructional programs will be
conducted for visiting groups at this facility, coordinated by the
Smithsonian Institution Chesapeake Bay Center for Environmental Studies.
Final plans for educational activities would be reviewed by ESMC and will
be available from DNR Coastal Resources Division.

1 4

d. Access to the Sanctuary

Both sites are already accessible to private boats. Boat access will
be improved at Monie Bay with a planned launching ramp off Drawbridge Road
on Monie Creek. This portion of Drawbridge Road will also be upgraded and
a parking lot improved. Additional visitor access and an interpretive
boardwalk across marsh zones is planned for an area off Drawbridge Road
south of Monie Creek. Research sites in Little Creek would be reached by
boats launched at Monie Creek.

Researchers working in Rhode River will have access to the estuary
through the Smithsonian Institution entrance off Contees Wharf Road.
However, this road is not suitable for general visitor and educational
group traffic. Visitors will have access to a separate parking facility
to be developed with access off Muddy Creek Road. Travel from this
parking facility to the estuary and to the future visitor center at Fox
Point will be limited so as not to have adverse impacts on residents,
whose property adjoins the sanctuary.

e. Multiple Use Policies

Within the context of existing State statutes and regulations, the
following specific policies apply to compatible uses within the sanctuary,
all of which are subservient to the primary use, which is estuarine
research and education. In both sites, changes in management policies
and regulations that affect the sanctuary will be reviewed by the ESMC,
which will provide advisory comments on recommendations to Maryland DNR
and the Smithsonian Institution. The policies on multiple use will be
recorded in the final ESMP.

Monie Bay

Current DIWMA public activities, including recreational boating,
commercial and sport fishing, hunting, and trapping, will continue. Hunting
and trapping at the Monie Bay site will continue to be managed by MWA.
Duck hunting seasons occur October 26-27, November 9-23, and December 11.
January 12 (open dates vary). Canadian Goose hunting seasons occur
October 26.~November 23 and December 3-January 31 (open dates vary).
Educational activities during the hunting season could conflict with
hunters and trappers and extra care will have to be taken to provide for
visitor safety.

New activities that will be introduced as part of the sanctuary
program will include marsh walks, interpretive and self-guided tours, and
research projects.

1 5

Rhode River

Current CBCES public activities are confined to nature trails and
interpretive tours. Hunting and trapping are not allowed on CBCES property
by the Smithsonian Institution. This policy will continue. However,
recreational boating, and commercial and sport fishing within the State-
owned waters of the sanctuary will continue to be allowed subject to
existing State laws.

B. Alternatives Considered

1. Funding

Due to the fact that most of the property within the proposed
Chesapeake Bay Estuarine Sanctuary boundaries is already publicly owned,
only limited funds would be needed for acquisition at Monie Bay and
visitor facilities at both sides. Most of the existing State-owned
lands at this site were purchased with Federal Pittman-Robertson Funds
and Maryland Program Open Space Funds.

Estuarine Sanctuary Program funds were selected for three reasons:

-- Program Open Space Funds were very limited and committed to
other State land programs.

-- The National Estuarine Sanctuary Program includes five years of
management funds, which would be useful to the proper management of the
proposed sanctuary in the first years after its establishment.

-- The National Estuarine Sanctuary Program would attract national
attention to the area and thus enhance research, education, and ecosystem
management programs in the Bay.

2. Site Selection

Locating a National Estuarine Sanctuary in Maryland is not only of
importance because it establishes a sanctuary which is representative of
the southern portion of the Virginian biogeographic region, but more
importantly it establishes an estuarine sanctuary within Chesapeake Bay,
the nation's largest and most productive estuary.

Numerous sites were evaluated by DNR staff and the Estuarine Sanctuary
Steering Committee during the interval from 1974 to 1980. Originally
World's End Creek in Dorchester County was selected as the primary site
for sanctuary designation. However, acquisition problems forced this
site to be dropped both in 1975 and 1980.

The major options for a Chesapeake Bay Estuarine Sanctuary included
choosing one site within the Bay to represent the entire Bay, or choosing
several or more sites that would represent various aspects of the physical
systems and biota within the Bay. The Estuarine Sanctuary Steering Committee
felt that only a multiple-site sanctuary would adequately represent the
length and breadth of the Bay's physical and biological diversity.
These sites would collectively characterize Chesapeake Bay ecology and
be identified as the Chesapeake Bay Estuarine Sanctuary at a particular
location. Establishment of a multiple site sanctuary in the Bay would
allow the State of Virginia to add its own sanctuary sites to the Bay
system at a later date.

The choice of representative sites was exceedingly difficult;
providing an incalculable number of alternatives. Rather stringent
criteria for selection were developed by a steering committee representing
Federal and State agencies, Maryland research institutions, environmental
organizations, and knowledgeable citizens.

The initial two sites selected by the Steering Committee for nomination
to OCZM were Monie Bay and Rhode River. These two sites were selected
due to the distinct geographical differences between the Bay's eastern and
western shores and the fact that these sites represented larger adjacent
areas. In general, western shore tributaries run through more hilly
terrain with narrow marsh zones. In contrast, middle and lower eastern
shore tributaries drain low flat areas and have broad marshes. These two
sites are characteristic of these features and also other attributes
important to estuarine ecology (see Section 2.C., Sanctuary Research and
Education Plans, page 12). A full discussion of the site selection
process is contained in Appendix 3.

The final selection of Monie Bay in Somerset County and Rhode River
in Anne Arundel County out of a list of eight sites that met all of the
criteria was made initially on a scientific basis. However, these two
sites also have the advantage of including a large amount of publicly
owned land, thus reducing the amount of time and money required for
acquisition. Some of the other suitable sites were set aside for future
consideration under a potential Chesapeake Bay Sanctuary system. A site
selection committee will continue to examine the sites that potentially
meet all of the criteria and recommend specific areas for inclusion in
the sanctuary as one of the conditions of this grant.

The sites were evaluated by the Committee according to the criteria
listed below:

1) Presence of a complete system--estuary, wetlands, and uplands.

a) Presence of a tributary on the site. Is tributary entirely
within site boundaries?

b) Wetland area comprises a significant percentage of the site
area.

1 7

c) Presence of a salinity gradient along the estuarine portion
of the site.

2) Relative lack of disturbance on the site and/or compatible
land/water use within the watershed.

3) Suitability of the site for educational and estuarine research
activities.

4) Representative of larger portions of Maryland's Chesapeake Bay
estuarine system.

5) Presence of endangered species within site.

6) Proximity of site to other State or Federal protected natural areas.

7) Diversity of habitats within site boundaries.

8) Acquisition cost and impact on property owners.

3. Boundaries

a. Water Boundaries

The proposed sites include tributaries to Chesapeake Bay and some
open estuarine waters. Proposed acquisition at the Monie Bay site
would include 201 acres of private property bordering nearly the entire
length of the western shore of Little Creek. The open water boundary
for Monie Bay is a line running north from the mouth of Marsh Gut to the
mouth of Victor Creek. Originally the upstream boundaries of this site
were planned to include the Little Monie Creek tributary, but objections
from some of the local residents caused this area to be excluded.

Water boundaries for the Rhode River site include most of the Muddy
Creek tributary up to Muddy Creek Road. The downstream boundary for this
site lies along a line from Sheephead Cove to Big Island and from Big
Island to the shore just upriver from Murray Wharf. This open water
boundary was not extended further downriver to avoid including waters
from Sellman Creek which are more impacted by development.

b. Land Boundaries

Monie Bay

In the original plan, land boundaries for the Monie Bay site were to
include a portion of the Deal Island Wildlife Management Area, and the
borders of the Little Monie Creek and Little Creek along most of their
length, pending County and property owner approval. However, objections

I18

by local property owners along the upper portion of Little Monie Creek
caused the eastern boundary along that system to end where Little Creek
branches off from Little Monie Creek. Boundaries along Little Creek will
be controlled by the acquisition of 201 acres of property from willing
sellers, and by an easement donation of 110 acres from the Koppers Company,
Incorporated. This boundary could be expanded at a later time if other
property is made available to DNR. The southern and northern boundary
lines are the result of negotiations between the Tidewater Administration
and the Wildlife Management Administration which manages DIWMA. Theoretically
the sanctuary could encompass all of the DIWMA; however, mosquito ditching
and habitat manipulation excluded some parts of the DIWMA from the sanctuary.

Rhode River

Several alternative land boundaries for the Rhode River site were
considered. One alternative was to make the sanctuary boundary contiguous
with the entire Smithsonian Institution property boundary. This alternative
was rejected because the total sanctuary then would include parts of
watersheds draining into tributaries other than Rhode River, some of
which have more development. It was therefore decided to exclude Smithsonian
holdings south of Cumberstone Road and some of the properties north of
Contees Wharf Road. Another boundary alternative was to acquire private
property that is in the watershed, but outside the CBCES, providing there
were willing sellers. The Smithsonian Institution already has some land use
restriction agreements with adjacent land owners, and discouraged DNR
from trying to acquire any private property at this site, in order to
maintain good relations with its neighbors. The preferred alternative
was to keep the sanctuary boundaries within CBCES and within the watershed.

4. No Action

Under this alternative, lands at Monie Bay and Rhode River would
still receive protection as part of the Deal Island Wildlife Management
Area and Chesapeake Bay Center for Environmental Studies, respectively.
However, lands proposed for sanctuary acquisition along Little Creek at
Monie Bay would not be acquired. Estuarine research by the Smithsonian
Institution would still continue on Rhode River; however, public education
programs would not be developed for this site. Research and education
programs planned for Monie Bay could not be conducted. Without sanctuary
designation and funding, a valuable system for coordinating estuarine
research in Chesapeake Bay would not be implemented. Benefits derived
from increasing the public's understanding of the value of estuaries
would also be lost.

Without an estuarine sanctuary in the Chesapeake Bay, as this
proposal recommends, there would be no estuarine sanctuary to represent a
major subcategory of the Virginian biogeographic region, thus closing off
the benefits derived from research and education programs in ecological
zones representative of the Nation's largest estuary.

PART III: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

A. Natural Environment

1. Chesapeake Bay

The Chesapeake Bay is the largest estuary in the United States and
one of the largest in the world (U.S. Dept. of the Army, 1977). It is
190 miles long and drains a watershed of about 64,000 square miles through
more than 150 rivers and tributaries (EPA, 1980). The Chesapeake Bay
traverses two states with the southernmost portion (Virginia) extending
59 miles from the Atlantic Ocean upstream to the Virginia-Maryland State
line and the Maryland portion (often referred to as Upper Chesapeake Bay)
extending another 109 miles upstream to the Susquenhanna River (R. Lippson
and A. Lippson, 1979). Chesapeake Bay is a highly dendritic, coastal
plain estuary and including tributaries has over 8,000 miles of shoreline
(EPA, 1980). The Chesapeake Bay is generally considered to be a relatively
unpolluted estuary. The general consensus is that it is in good condition
compared to other east coast estuaries (such as Raritan Bay, Delaware
Bay, and the Hudson River) (Cronin, 1977). However, serious problems do
exist within many of its tributaries. There is growing concern about
changes occurring in the bay ecosystem.

Fisheries resources of Chesapeake Bay are extensive and valuable.
Oyster, Crassostrea virginica, and blue crab, Callinectes sapidus,
production rank among the highest in the United States. The soft clam,
Mya arenaria, industry, non-existent before 1951, now competes favorably
with New England's harvest since the invention of the hydraulic clam
dredge (R. Lippson and A. Lippson, 1979).

Chesapeake Bay serves as the spawning and nursery area for a large
portion of the Atlantic Coast striped bass, Morone saxatalis, stock
(Koo, 1967), as well as a nursery area for many other commercially
important marine fishes such as menhaden, Brevoortia tyrannus, bluefish,
Pomatomus saltatrix, and the drum family, Sciaenidae. It is estimated
that 90 percent of the striped bass found from North Carolina to Maine
are spawned in the Chesapeake (EPA, 1980). The Chesapeake Bay is also a
summer feeding ground for many marine fishes that may move upstream as far
as Baltimore to prey on the abundant estuarine forage species such as the
anchovy, Anchoa mitchelli, and silversides, Menidia spp. (Lippson and
Lippson, 1979).

Chesapeake Bay forms part of the Atlantic flyway and is a major
overwintering site for migratory waterfowl. The annual waterfowl census
taken jointly by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the State of
Maryland in 1977 estimated over 600,000 Canada geese and 40,000 whistling
swans in the Chesapeake Bay area. It is a nesting area for the endangered
bald eagle and the threatened osprey whose largest population in the United
States is found in the Bay region (EPA, 1980).

The affected environment for the two initial Chesapeake Bay Estuarine
Sanctuary sites, Rhode River (Anne Arundel County) and Monie Bay (Somerset
Coun ty), representing typical mid-bay western and eastern shore estuaries,
will be discussed in this section.

2. Individual Sanctuary Sites

a. Geology

Rhode River (Anne Arundel County)

Site Geology - The proposed Rhode River estuarine sanctuary site lies
in surface deposits of Pleistocene and Eocene Age (Glaser, 1976). These
are part of a sequence of interbedded sands, gravels, silts and clays of
the Atlantic Coastal Plan on the western shore of the Chesapeake Bay.

Regional Geological Setting - A recent comprehensive study of the
geology and mineral resources of southern Maryland by Glaser (1971)
described the Pleistocene deposits of the Talbot Formation as interbedded
sands, silts, and clays containing a fossil assemblage suggesting deposition
during interglacial conditions.

The Eocene deposits of the Nanjemoy Formation contain fine-to-medium
grained sand with interbedded lenses of dark gray silty clay. This
formation also contains traces of glauconite. The environment of
deposition for this formation is interpreted as relatively shallow water.

Where these formations are exposed along the shoreline of the
Chesapeake Bay in the vicinity of the proposed Rhode River estuarine
sanctuary site, they form low-lying banks with beaches composed of medium- to
fine-grained sand which steadily decreases in size to silts and clays
offshore (Zabawa, et. al., 1981).

Monie Bay (Somerset County)

Site Geology - The proposed Monie Bay estuarine sanctuary site lies
in surface deposits of Quaternary Age (Cleaves, et. al., 1968) which are
composed of grey to buff sands with interbedded clays and shell beds.
These are part of a sequence of intercalated fluvial sands and marsh beds
on the western side of the Delmarva Peninsula.

Regional Geological Setting - A recent comprehensive study of the
geology of the Delmarva Peninsula by Owens and Denny (1979) described
the western side of the Delmarva Peninsula as broad (up to 30 miles wide)
lowland in which surface altitudes are from 0 to 25 feet above sea level.
Most altitudes however are less than 10 feet. A prominent west-facing
scarp separates the coastal lowland in which Monie Bay is situated from
the higher terrain of the central Delmarva Peninsula.

This lowland is extensively dissected, and contains bay flats and
broad valley bottoms. Narrow estuaries such as Monie Bay are bordered by
tidal marshes of Holocene Age, which extend east from Chesapeake Bay and
Tangier Sound across this coastal lowland into the Central Delmarva
Peninsula (Mathews and Hall 1966). At Monie Bay, the Holocene Marsh
Deposits overlap the Lowland Quaternary Deposits described above. Many
names have been given to these lowland deposits which underlie the marsh
sediments; for example: Talbot, Pamlico, and Princess Anne Formations.
But Owens and Denny (1979) have concluded that the lowland deposits in
the area do not form wave-built marine terraces of the sort described in
these formations by many earlier workers, and they have proposed renaming
these deposits as the Kent Island Formation.

The type section of the proposed Kent Island Formation is located
along bluffs on the Chester River, nearly 40 miles to the north. This
section contains thick beds of loose, light-colored cross-stratified sand
that overlies dark-colored massive-to-thinly-laminated silt. Gravels
as much as 4 inches in diameter occur in beds or as scattered clasts in
both the sand and clay-silt.

The Kent Island Formation is variable in lithology and thickness,
and in many areas the proposed Kent Island Formation is difficult to
distinguish from underlying older Quaternary beds. In the area of Monie
Bay, the underlying beds below the Kent Island sediments are part of
the lower Chesapeake Group (Calvery and Choptank Formations) and the
Beaverdam Sand. Some of these deeper formations are important aquifers
of the Delmarva Peninsula whose characteristics have been the subject of
many earlier studies (Cushing, et al., 1973; Rasmussen and Slaughter,
1955; Mack, et al., 1971; Rasmussen and Andreasen, 1959; Boggess and
Heidel, 1968; Hansen, 1966).

b. Hydrology and Climate

Rhode River

The Rhode River is a small embayment of the northwestern shore of the
Chesapeake Bay in Anne Arundel County, Maryland. It consists of a
watershed of approximately 18 miles (46.5 km) which is drained by several
creeks. Depths vary from 13 feet (3.96 m) at the mouth of the River to
7 feet (2.13 m) at the confluence of Muddy Creek and Sellman Creek.

Salinity varies inversely with streamflow in the Rhode River. The
effects on salinity from the smaller freshwater creeks are slight. The
exchange of Chesapeake Bay water is the dominant factor controlling
salinity in the river, and average weekly salinity varies from 3.5 to
13.0 parts per thousand. Water temperatures range from .7�C to 32.6�C
with daily changes seldom exceeding 2�C.

The tides are semi-diurnal and have a mean range of 1.50 feet (.46 m).
Mean low water is 5.46 feet (1.66 m) and high water is 6.96 feet (2.12 m).
The water levels are generally lower from December through March due to
north and northwest winds that increase the rate of egress from the
Chesapeake Bay. Water levels are higher from March through November due
to southerly winds that reverse this process.

The Rhode River's climate is of continental type with well-defined
seasons. The Chesapeake Bay exerts a considerable modifying effect on
the climate of this area. The warmest part of the year is the last half of
July, when the maximum afternoon temperatures average about 890F. The
coldest period of the year is the last of January, when morning temperatures
average about 24�F.

The average annual precipitation is 40-44 inches, with the greatest
monthly precipitation occurring in August. Most precipitation in the
colder half of the year is a result of low pressure systems moving north-
eastward along the coast. In the summer, precipitation occurs in the
form of showers and thunderstorms.

Monie Bay

The Monie Bay area consists of a small embayment and tributary system
on the southeastern shore of the Maryland Chesapeake Bay area. Monie Bay is
a tributary to Tangier Sound. The Little Creek watershed which drains into
Monie Bay is about 5 square miles (12.95 sq km) in area. Monie Bay has a
surface area of about 1.2 square miles (3.0 sq km). The depth of Monie
Bay at the mouth of Little Creek is about 2 feet (0.61 m) and near Tangier
Sound is about 6 feet (1.83 m).

Salinities range from 12 parts per thousand (ppt) in the spring to about
17 ppt in the autumn, and water temperatures vary from 0.7�C to 33�C.

The tides are semi-diurnal and have a mean range of 1.0 feet (0.305 m).
The water levels are generally lower in the winter due to north and northwest
winds that increase the egress from the Chesapeake Bay, while water levels
are higher in the spring and summer due to southerly winds that reverse the
process.

The Monie Bay area's climate is humid and semicontinental with mild
winters and hot summers. Mean air temperatures range between a July high of
88�F and a February low of 28�F. In winter, the Appalachian Mountains and
the waters of the Bay have a moderating effect on the cold northwest air.

Rainfall in the area is more variable and less dependable in summer than
in the winter. The average annual total rainfall is 46.4 inches with 3.4 inches
occurring in February and 5.4 inches occurring on the average in August.
Droughts can occur in the summer, although rainfall is generally adequate.

c. Biology

Rhode River

The Rhode River site contains a wide variety of aquatic and terrestrial
habitats. The open water and tidal marsh areas are bordered by upland slopes
with an open canopy forest. Slopes of forested areas vary widely and average
between 3 and 9 percent (Correll, 1977). Forests are dominated by river
birch, red maple, American elms, and sycamores in the overstory.

Tidal marshes at this site are located along the Muddy Creek tributary.
Marsh areas form a narrow border between the upland forest and open water
along the upper reaches of Muddy Creek and then become much broader as the
creek enters Rhode River. Low marshes are dominated by cattails, Typha
angustifolia, or by big cordgrass, Spartina cynosuroides. High marshes
are more complex with patches of marsh elder, Iva frutescens, salt grass,
Distichlis spicata, and saltmeadow cordgrass, Spartina patens associations,
patches of three square grass, Scirpus olneyi, and patches of saltmeadow
cordgrass, Spartina patens. Some high marsh areas are also dominated by
rosemallow, Hibiscus salustris (Correll, undated).

Fish species occurring in Rhode River include carp, bluegill, mummichog,
yellow perch, spot, and menhaden. Common invertebrates include grass shrimp,
amphipods, and mud crabs, (Correll, undated). A more complete listing of
species occurring in the sanctuary site vicinity is contained in Appendix 4.A.

Numerous bird species occur within the Rhode River site. These include
both migratory and year-round resident species. Examples of water-fowl
species are black duck, mallard, great blue heron, whistling swan, and Canada
goose. Upland species include bald eagle, pileated woodpecker, blue bird,
and cardinal. A detailed list of bird species at the site is found in
Appendix 4.B.

Monie Bay

The Monie Bay site is comprised of tidal creeks, open estuarine waters,
marshes and pine forest areas. Most of the fast land is either high marsh
or low marsh. The general terrain is flat, only a few feet above sea level,
and has broad expansive marshes. Most of the wooded sections are dominated
by loblolly pine with some green-brier and myrtle as understory.

The saltmarsh vegetation of this site is characteristic of East Coast
mid-salinity regimes. Low marsh zones are dominated by smooth cordgrass,
Spartina alterniflora, while high marsh areas have a mixture of saltmeadow
cordgrass, Spartina patens, big cordgrass, Spartina cynosuroides, salt
grass, Distichlis spicata, needlerush, Juncus roemerianus, marsh elder,
Iva frutescens, and three square grass, Scirpus sp. Distribution of high marsh
species is interspersed, with large patches of the different species
throughout the site. Some areas of higher ground form islands of pine
trees within the marsh. Dense beds of submerged aquatic vegetation,
widgeon grass, Ruppia sp., have been reported in Little Monie Creek.

Fish species occurring in the numerous tidal creeks adjacent to the site
include mummichog, white perch, spot, bluefish, and menhaden (Lesser and
Saveikis, 1979). Common invertebrates include fiddler crabs, blue crabs,
periwinkles, and grass shrimp (Lesser and Saveikis, 1979). A detailed list
of species is found in Appendix 5.A.

This sanctuary site and the rest of the adjacent Deal Island Wildlife
Management Area support abundant resident and migratory bird populations.
Bald Eagles, osprey, and numerous hawk species are found here. One of the
largest Great Blue Heron rookeries on the Eastern Shore is also found nearby.
Waterfowl species in this area include Canada goose, snow goose, redhead,
snowy egret, whistling swan, and clapper rail. Additional bird species
are listed in Appendix 5.B.

B. Human Environment of the Chesapeake Bay

1. Hi story

Rhode River

The site of the Rhode River Estuarine Sanctuary encompasses about 5 or
6 square miles of the lower Rhode River Watershed and includes most of the
lands of the Smithsonian Institution's Chesapeake Bay Center For Environmental
Studies (CBCES). The facility is located about 7 miles south of Annapolis,
Maryland. The CBCES was established in 1965 with an initial bequeath to
the Smithsonian of a 368 acre tract known as the Java Farm.

The Rhode River, or Road River, as it is referred to in history (known
locally also as Rhodes River) is a subestuary on the western shore of the
Chesapeake Bay. Artifacts from archeological digs indicate Indian settlements
in this area dating back about 2,000 years. Shell piles and other relics
suggest the region was inhabited by small tribes, perhaps including the
Piscataway, which were forced westward to the Piedmont region by periodic
raiding from the major nations of Potomac to the south and the Susquehanna
to the north. Evidence of earlier settlement may lie in the sediments
underlying the Chesapeake, which is considered to have intruded this area
from the original river channel some 3,000 to 10,000 years ago. It is expected
that disease and wars had reduced the area's Indian population considerably
by Colonial times.

The area was settled in the early 1600's and was part of the West River
"Hundred" or district, one of the 5 original districts in the Anne Arundel
territory established by the Quakers who located in Maryland seeking a refuge
from repressive laws in the colony of Virginia. Sanctuary was granted in
Maryland by the Toleration Act which the Assembly passed in 1649. One of
the founding grants of the West River Hundred was "Sparrows Rest" home of
Thomas Sparrow on the "Road" River. Most of this early tract is today included
in the Contee and Java Farms, part of the first acreage of the CBCES. The
original settlement of Anne Arundel County centers around the migration of

ten Puritan families, who in gratitude for their relief from oppression in
Virginia, called their new settlement Providence. The West River/Rhode
River District was one of the centers of development in Providence. On
April 29, 1650, an Act by the General Assembly created "... Of Providence
into a County by the name of Ann Arundell". A town of Providence was also
founded, was renamed "Town A Proctor's," then Anne Arundel Town, and later
Annapolis, in honor of Princess Anne, later Queen.

Subsequent years of growth in Anne Arundel were principally agricultural
in nature centering on tobacco, corn, and wheat. The lands near the water
were settled first, usually in large tracts. Roads were few and most transpor-
tation was waterborne. Annapolis evolved as the principal government and
commercial center in the colony. No new towns were established until about
1730.

The present rural population near the Rhode and West Rivers and much of
Southern Anne Arundel, where agriculture continues as an important activity, is
largely descended from the original colonists. Today, many of the waterfront
lands have been withdrawn from agricultural use and developed for residential
activity.

Monie Bay

During the early history or "precontact" period of the Monie Bay area,
Indians of the Monie Tribe (possibly part of the Pocomoke Nation) occupied
this region. Artifacts dating to 13,000 years old have been identified.
Colonial settlement began circa 1665 with the movement of certain Quaker
groups from "Eastern Shore" Virginia across the State line to Maryland seeking
sanctuary from Virginia laws against Quaker activities. The boundaries of
early Somerset were subdivided by parishes, each parish by 2 districts. The
Monie "Hundred" or District was settled by both Quakers and members of the
Church of England. Agriculture was the primary activity in the vicinity of
Monie Bay, and remains so today; however, a gradual increase in the water
level in this region of very flat terrain has caused a shift away from crop-
intensive farming because of deteriorating soil drainage. Poultry production
now dominates commercial agriculture followed by pulpwood harvesting and
small grains. Seafood harvesting has also been a dominant activity over
the years as evidenced by finds of oyster "middens" or shell piles which have
been correlated with early Indian gathering activity.

The Monie District of Somerset parish, of which the Monie Bay area is a
part, is estimated to have had a population of 900 people circa 1696. The
combination of three primary factors--poorly drained soils, limited accessi-
bility, and remote location relative to the commercial/industrial centers of
the region and state--has served to limit development in this area.

2. Socioeconomic Characteristics

Rhode River

The Rhode River watershed has supported populations since colonial days.
Agricultural activity, including the cultivation of corn and tobacco since
1650, continues today. Anne Arundel County, however, also is an important
urban center. Annapolis, the County Seat, is located approximately 25 miles
south of Baltimore, 35 miles east of Washington, D. C., and 7 miles north of
the proposesd sanctuary. The county has a land area of about 416 square
miles and a 1980 estimated population of 395,350 persons, about 10 percent
of the State's. Annapolis, the only incorporated town, had a 1976 population
of 32,145. The county enjoys predominantly well drained soils and the
rural areas, particularly waterfront property, which is in relatively
close proximity to the major centers of Washington and Baltimore, is
under considerable development pressure. The extensive shoreline of the
county has led to Anne Arundel's increasing popularity for recreation,
particularly boating activity.

The 1978 average labor force was 164,684 people and unemployment
was 4.6 percent. Approximately 42,470 residents are estimated to commute
outside the county to work. Wage rates in September 1979 ranged from $2.90
to $6.50/hour. Median household income in December 1978 was $16,863 and per
capita income was $5,961. Employment is concentrated in government,
manufacturing, and trade sectors of the economy. A cross-section of industries
includes research and development, synthetic fibers, chemicals, paper,
automotive, food, structural steel, fertilizers, and electronics.

Anne Arundel Community College occupies 116 acres 10 miles north of
Annapolis, and has an enrollment of over 6,500. St. John's College and the
U.S. Naval Academy are both located in Annapolis. In the Baltimore/Washington
area, there are over 70 institutions of higher education.

Monie Bay

Agriculture and seafood harvesting are the principal commercial activities
in the area of Monie Bay and Somerset County, traditional pursuits which
have continued for over 300 years. Tradition is important among the
local population which can be characterized as an independent, self-reliant,
and hardy culture with strong family and community ties. About 19,000
people live in Somerset County, which has a land area of 332 square
miles, or a density of 57 persons per square mile.

The County has two urban centers: Princess Anne, the County seat, with
1,501 people, and Crisfield with a city population of 2,924. Princess Anne,
situated in the north central part of the County on the major north/south
arterial, U.S. Route 13, approximately 15 miles south of Salisbury, Maryland,
serves as the government and commerce center for the County's rural
hinterland. Crisfield is located in the south-westernmost corner of Somerset

County and is situated on the Chesapeake Bay. This city developed around an
active commercial seafood industry and continues today as an important seafood
and sport fishing center for the County and the State of Maryland. The
balance of the County is predominantly rural in nature with occasional small
residential clusters which often include a multipurpose general store/gas
station. There are approximately 7,800 housing units in Somerset County.

The area surrounding the proposed sanctuary is predominantly marshy
lowlands with a total estimated population of 1,300 persons. No community
clusters are included in the sanctuary boundary. With the exception of
secondary roads near the sanctuary perimeter, access is limited to pedestrian
or waterborne traffic. The Monie Bay area is adjacent to and includes part
of the State of Maryland's Deal Island Wildlife Refuge which comprises several
thousand acres. Because of the high water table (at the surface in many
places) and the remote location, development activity around Monie Bay has
been absent and the potential for future development is considered negative.
The high water table and flat terrain (max. elevation - 50 feet) has served
to limit activity throughout the County primarily to agriculture. Some
oystering and soft crab harvesting takes place in Monie Bay.

The County labor force average in 1978 was 8,874 persons. Unemployment
for the same period averaged 15.3 percent as compared to the nine County
eastern shore average of 8.4 percent for the same period. Wage rates in
September 1979 ranged from $2.90 to $5.50/hour (Federal minimum wage - $3.10
effective January 1, 1980). An estimated 1,800 residents commute outside
the County for work. A cross section of industries in Somerset County include
seafood processing, tomato canneries, chicken production, and clothing assembly.
Median household income in Somerset (December 1978) was $8,768 compared to
$17,446 for Maryland and $16,231 for the United States. Per capita income
in the County was $4,802. Somerset County is a popular recreation area for
boating, fishing, and hunting. The town of Crisfield is regionally famous
for steamed blue crabs from the Chesapeake Bay.

The University of Maryland, Eastern Shore Campus, is located in Princess
Anne. The college, which has an enrollment of about 1,000 students, offers
13 undergraduate programs leading to B.A. and B.S. degrees and is headquarters
for the University of Maryland Marine and Estuarine Environmental Studies
Program (MEES). Salisbury State College in Salisbury, about 15 miles north
of Princess Anne, offer B.S., A.B., M.A., and M. Ed. degrees.

3. Current Uses of the Sites

a. Commercial Shipping
Rhode River

There is no waterborne commerce nor any federally maintained navigation
channels within the Rhode or West Rivers (U.S. Corps of Engineers, 1978).
The designation of this site should, therefore, have no impact on waterborne
commerce. The Baltimore Channel passes the mouth of the Rhode River at a
distance of about 6 miles. No dredging of the main channel for maintenance
or deepening appears to be necessary since channel depths reach 70-170 feet
in this area (Fitzpatrick and Norman, 1980).

Monie Bay

The Wicomico River channel is a federally maintained channel which passes
in close proximity to the mouth of Monie Bay (Fitzpatrick and Norman, 1980).
This channel, which requires frequent maintenance dredging, is used largely
to transport petroleum and petroleum products to Salisbury, Maryland.
Other commodities include slag, aggregates, farm products, and fish and
shellfish products (Table 1). Dredging of the nearby Great Shoals area is
anticipated within the next year or two, and dredge material disposal sites
are currently being sought. At one time, sites within the proposed sanctuary
area had been considered for spoil placement through marsh creation (U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, 1978). However, use of these sites is not considered
feasible by the Corps of Engineers at this time (Franklin, personal communication).
The proposal to establish an estuarine sanctuary on the Monie Bay will not cause
any interference or have any effect on maintenance dredging of the Wicomico River
for navigation.

ITable 1: Waterborne Commerce on the Wicomico River, 1979.

INumber of Vessels 3500 to 4000

IDestination Salisbury, Maryland1

ICargo Review: (Short tons)

Grains 4,500I

I Animal feed 1,600I
I Slag and aggregates 75,000I

I Shell fish 1,600

Petroleum products 826,900

Total Tonnage 909,600I

I Salisbury serves as a distribution center for petroleum products I
I in the general area of the Delmarva Peninsula from Cape Charles, I
I Virginia to Seaford, Delaware. (Source: Delmarva TransportI
I Committee, Inc.)I

The traffic of petroleum past the proposed sanctuary site does present
the possibility of adverse effects from potential oil spills, particularly
if channels are not well maintained. Maintenance dredging itself should not
have an impact on the sanctuary.

b. Commercial and Sport Fishing

Within Chesapeake Bay are some of the most productive commercial and
sport fishing waters in the nation. Maryland leads the nation in oyster
production and is second only to Virginia in blue crab landings. Striped
bass, white perch, menhaden, and sea trout are important species to commercial
netters, while sportfishermen catch bluefish, spot, striped bass, white
perch, and sea trout. Maryland is also one of the leading producers of
soft-shell clams.

Rhode River

Commercial fishing activity is almost nonexistent in the proposed sanctuary
area of Muddy Creek. Some leased bottom for oyster culture is found near Big
Island and some minor netting may occur here also. However, most commercial
harvesting occurs further downstream in the lower Rhode River and West River.
Recent commercial catch statistics are shown in Table 2. Sport fishing in
this area is light and is done mostly from private boats.

Monie Bay

Commercial fishing, however, represents an important industry to Somerset
County. Seafood related occupations are a large percentage of the work
force in some communities, especially Crisfield. Commercial fishing activity
in the Monie Bay area is centered mainly around private oyster culture on
leased bottom, crabbing, and some commercial net fishing. Recent commercial
catch statistics are summarized in Table 2.

Monie Creek, within the proposed sanctuary borders, is a popular local
sport fishing area. Fishing is done both from the creek banks and private
boats. The bank area near the proposed boat launching ramp is particularly
popular with local residents. Species caught in the tidal creeks and Monie Bay
include spot, croaker, bluefish, sea trout, and white perch.

ITable 2: Commercial Fish and Shellfish Landings for Rhode I
IRiver (Includes West River) and Monie Bay Area. (Oyster
I landings for Monie Bay include oysters harvested in the
IWicomico River.)I

I Rhode River (1979) Monie Bay (1979)I

ISpecies Pounds Bushels Species Pounds Bushels

IBluefish 62 Catfish 7,771

ICarp 92 Carp 640I

ISeatrout 26 Seatrout 383

IHerring 27 Herring 560

IStriped Bass 0 Striped Bass 9,203

IWhite Perch 4,685 White Perch 9,227

IMenhaden 1,042 Blue Crabs (not available) I

IOysters (1980 data) 9,457 Oysters (1980 data) 20,395I

c. Recreational Boating

Rhode River

The Rhode River is a popular weekend rendezvous for recreational boaters.
The river is well protected and has good water depth, thus making it an ideal
anchorage. The areas to the northwest and east of Big Island and around High
Island and Flat Island are particularly popular.

According to the Anne Arundel County Boating and Marina Study conducted
in 1980 by the Anne Arundel County Office of Planning and Zoning, there are
11 boating facilities located on the eastern shore of the Rhode River.
These facilities provide a total of 400 slips and 4 launching ramps.

The western shore of the river has only one launching ramp mainly
because the majority of the land is owned by Camp Letts (a YMCA camp), and
the Smithsonian Institution.

Monie Bay

The State of Maryland, as of December 1979, had 110,000 recreational
boats registered. This is not reflective of the level of recreational boating
use in the Monie Bay area of Somerset County. There are only three boating
facilities within a 5-mile radius of the site. These facilities provide
docking for transient boaters, 2 launching ramps and 30 slips.

Monie Bay lies southeast of the mouth of the Wicomico River, with the
majority of the boats leaving and entering the river via a marked navigational
channel which borders the western edge of the Bay. Little Creek water depths
are shallow. Therefore, with the exception of flat bottom skiffs, the creek
is not used for recreational boating. Monie Bay is not used for recreational
boating, even though there are depths up to 6 feet. The low, marshy topography
surrounding the bay makes it a poor anchorage and prone to large mosquito
populations in summer and early fall.

4. Water Quality

Rhode River

Water quality parameters in the Rhode River have been sampled intensively
by the Smithsonian Institution Chesapeake Bay Center for Environmental Studies
since 1970. Much of the research conducted at the Center is designed to
measure sources and magnitudes of chemical loadings from the watershed into
the Rhode River. Earlier studies focused on inputs and effects of agricul-
tural herbicides. More recently the emphasis has been on inputs of nutrients.
Recent investigations have also examined effects associated with waterfront
devel opment.

Water quality in the Rhode River site meets the State of Maryland criteria
for Class II waters, shellfish harvesting is allowed. Measured parameters
associated with the process of eutrophication (such as nutrients and dissolved
oxygen) are not at levels of concern. Levels of toxic substances (e.g., heavy
metals, PCB's) are very low. Problems such as heavy metal loadings from
increased recreational boating, or bacterial contamination from shorefront
housing developments, have not been found. Coliform bacterial levels in
Muddy Creek have caused this area to be closed to commercial shellfishing.

Monie Bay

Water quality in Monie Bay and surrounding tidal creeks meets the State
of Maryland criteria for Class II waters, and are open to commercial shellfish
harvesting. Previously, the Monie Bay area had been closed to oyster harvesting
due to high coliform bacterial levels. However, intensive investigations of
the surrounding watershed revealed the source of these fecal coliform inputs
to be primarily from natural wildlife populations and not domestic origins.
The waters were subsequently opened to shellfishing.

5. Land Use

Rhode River

The proposed estuarine sanctuary site is located in the Rhode River
watershed which is about 7,400 acres in size. The watershed had a popula-
tion of about 3,000 in 1973 and in 1976 had a land use composition as follows:
16 percent row crops, 2 percent fresh water swamp and ponds, 2 percent tidal
wetlands, 59 percent forest and old fields, 10 percent pasture, and 11 percent
commercial, residential, and other categories. The proposed sanctuary site,
approximately 2,876 acres in area, is owned by the Chesapeake Bay Center
for Environmental Studies and devoted to long term estuarine research. A
large part of the research program at the center is concerned with man's
effect on the watershed through air pollution, land use practices, and the
changing pattern of land use brought about by a rapidly growing human population.

The goals of the watershed program include:

(1) the accurate measurement of the loading of the estuarine receiving
waters with land runoff waters and the contents of the runoff waters;

(2) the determination of the present average area yield loading rates
for each major land use category of the watershed for each
parameter; This will enable accurate prediction of the effects of
urbanization, etc., on diffuse source estuarine loading to be made
by a deterministic approach;

(3) the determination of sufficiently detailed information on watershed
characteristics, local meteorology, and runoff parameters from small
single-use watersheds, typical of each major land use category to
allow the development of mechanistic predictive models;

(4) the determination of the effects of variations in land use practices
upon runoff from each major land use category;

(5) testing the results and predictions derived from studies of the
Rhode River watershed for their validity or transferability to other
coastal plain watersheds in this region; and

(6) developing a tested methodology for application in other regions.

The land use in the watershed surrounding the proposed site is not
expected to change appreciably in the near future since it is zoned rural-
agricultural (maximum density one unit per 2 acres) and public water and
sewer services which would allow more dense development are not planned to
be provided to the area.

Monie Bay

The proposed estuarine sanctuary is largely contained within the Deal
Island State Wildlife Management Area owned and operated by the Maryland
Department of Natural Resources. A total of approximately 2,550 acres of
land would be designated for sanctuary useage. Roughly 311 acres of this
total are not presently under state ownership. No residences or other
structures are located within proposed acquisition boundaries.

The surrounding wildlife management area contains a total of 11,733 acres
and consists almost entirely of wetlands. An additional 3,467 acres is anti-
cipated to be added to the wildlife area in the coming years. Mixed softwood
tree stands are located southwest and southeast of the sanctuary. Koppers
Company Inc., a timber harvesting operation, presently owns a 395-acre parcel
contiguous to the site and may ultimately harvest the timber stands. The
Chesapeake Corporation of Virginia also engages in timber harvesting and
owns a 62-acre tract adjacent to the sanctuary to the northeast.

The Somerset County Comprehensive Plan generally classifies the area as
unsuitable for agricultural uses and has further identified these lands as
having high wetland preservation value. Further comprehensive plan maps call
for the entire sanctuary to remain as open space with portions adjacent to the
west and some of the south designated "open space, agricultural."

Present zoning classifications are also compatible with the sanctuary,
due to adjacent lands having a "'conservation'' designation and areas located
to the south and east being designated "agricultural."

Hunting and sport fishing are permitted on the site with some commercial
fishing occurring on Monie Bay. Two small unincorporated communities,
St. Stephens and Monie, provide year around housing for local watermen and
retired citizens. A total of approximately 32 dwellings are located in the
vicinity, none of which are reported as seasonal residences.

PART IV: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

A. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

1. General Impacts

Awarding of the land acquisition grant by NOAA would enable the State
of Maryland to purchase additional lands, which, combined with the other
protected lands already owned by the State, would establish a National
Estuarine Sanctuary representative of the Chesapeake Bay as a subcategory
of the Virginian biogeographic region. The proposed action would have a
variety of environmental and economic impacts.

Creation of this estuarine sanctuary would initiate a long-term learning
process for research and education regarding estuarine systems and dynamics.
It would allow coastal zone decisionmakers and members of the public to
become more cognizant of how best to utilize the Bay's natural resources or
protect their important benefits for long-termi usage. This would apply not
only for this, but for other Virginian type estuaries as well. Such use
will have little, if any, detrimental effect upon the environment, and will
be of vital importance to the development of rational coastal zone management
programs at the local, State, and regional levels. It is anticipated that
this would be a positive environmental impact.

Another positive effect of the establishment of the sanctuary would be
to assure the permanent protection and management of productive, relatively
undisturbed estuarine areas. By protecting the marshes and wetlands, the
water quality would also be maintained and development would be precluded,
thereby avoiding a potential flood hazard to people and property that would
occur if the lands were developed, as well as preventing the irreversible
damage to the environment that would be caused by the loss of wildlife,
vegetation, fish, and other marine life. Sanctuary designation does not
preclude human activities within the sanctuary boundaries, but it would
prevent those that cause significant degradation of the system, either by
outright destruction or by overuse. The scientific research conducted in
the sanctuary will assist in this control and will provide for the enhancement
of the economic and environmental resources of this and other estuaries. A
further positive benefit of the sanctuary after all the sites are established
will be its direct contribution to the management of research coordination
in various parts of the Bay.

The following is a brief synopsis of the conclusions regarding the
anticipated net impacts associated with the designation of a National Estuarine
Sanctuary in the Chesapeake Bay in the Rhode River and Monie Bay sites.

2. Local Impacts

The areas in which the proposed sanctuary will be located are currently
rural in character. The sanctuary will have the long-term non-quantitative
benefit of protecting and enhancing the local community's desired objective
of retaining its natural resource base.

In terms of renewable and non-renewable resources, the net impact of
the sanctuary is expected to be beneficial. The economic benefits associated
with the maintenance of valuable fishing and wildlife resources are expected
to far outweigh the relatively minor negative impacts associated from
preclusion of development within the sanctuary boundary.

There will be positive impacts on water quality within the two sites
due to the long-tern protection afforded by sanctuary status. Designation
of these areas as part of the Chesapeake Bay Estuarine Sanctuary can also
provide additional protection to waters draining into the sanctuary and
downstream estuarine areas. This should result mainly from increased
consideration of the importance of these areas for environmental research
and education on the part of government permitting agencies. Boat traffic
is not expected to increase to levels that would change water quality.

Land acquisition for the proposed sanctuary will have several effects,
the net impact of which is anticipated to be positive. Although there will
be a small loss in tax revenues each year in Somerset County due to removal
of approximately 200 acres of land from the tax base, this shortrun loss is
expected to be completely offset by a longrun rise in adjacent property
values and tax revenues partially attributable to the operation of the
sanctuary. In the long run, the impacts of purchasing this land are minimal,
since the lands are generally unsuitable for development and there is a low
growth potential for the area.

The sanctuary itself will provide a small, though long term stimulus
to local employment. In the long run, the existence of the sanctuary is
expected to ensure continued employment in the commercial fishing industry
in the Monie Bay area, have a positive impact on employment in the
service industry (tourism, research, and education), and the proposed
sanctuary will in turn, stimulate an increased supply of facilities and
services to meet that demand.

Activities associated with the sanctuary will have a positive impact
on the local economy. The annual operating budget will provide a small,
but long term, stimulus to the local economy. In addition, the sanctuary
is expected to stimulate additional State and Federal funding for research
activities in the area. The proposed educational facilities will provide
non-quantifiable educational benefits to the public, and its visitors will
exert a positive impact on local economic activity.

Rhode River

The proposed sanctuary will incorporate most of those areas now
controlled by the Chesapeake Bay Center for Environmental Studies including
purchased legal covenants and fee simple title. These lands will be protected
and available for long-term ecological research for the foreseeable future.
Sanctuary designation will serve to further highlight this area as a site
to be preserved and will enhance State and local efforts to maintain this
system in a natural state.

37
It is not anticipated that visitation will significantly disrupt
local residents over present existing levels of traffic. Potential adverse
impacts, such as destruction of vegetation or disruption of research projects,
will be prevented by controlling visitation through organized tours.
Large visitor groups will have to schedule visits in advance and tours
will be supervised by sanctuary staff along restricted trails.

Mvonie Bay

Fish and wildlife habitat at this site are already protected throughout
most of its extent by the Deal Island Wildlife Management Area. Sanctuary
designation will further enhance protection efforts in this area, but will
also extend additional protection into land parcels to be acquired.

Approximately 86 people reside in the unincorporated areas of Monie
and St. Stephens surrounding the proposed sanctuary. None of these residents
would be displaced as a result of the proposed action. Prior to initiating
a development program for the sanctuary, DNR Coastal Resources Division
staff held a public meeting with adjacent land owners to determine their
concerns and minimize the adverse impacts of the sanctuary upon them. As
a result, certain adjustments to the preliminary estuary site boundaries
were made which allayed fears of residents that too much additional acreage
would be acquired in light of the extensive holding of the State in the
vicinity. The projected estuarine sanctuary boundaries and planned acccess
points should also reduce concerns associated with invasion of privacy.

It is anticipated that very little spontaneous visitation by the public
will occur. Planned access points are not readily available from heavily
traveled arterials. Detailed access plans have not been formulated, however,
the following entry points are probable:

i. Entry and parking via Drawbridge road below Monie Creek onto an
easement passing through the Phillips property. (Visitor Center/
interpretative trail potentially located here.)

ii. Entry and parking via Mount Vernon Road to Drawbridge Road onto
State property north of Monie Creek. (Boat access to Monie Bay,
Little Monie Creek.)

iii. Dropoff point at the junction of Deal Island Road and the headwaters
of Little Creek (Small non-motorized boat access.)

The Department of Natural Resources owns a lodge within a 10-minute
drive of the site. The lodge serves as living quarters for the Deal Island
Wildlife Management Area conservationist and informally provides overnight
quarters for visiting research groups. The lodge can potentially provide
this function on a formal basis as well as serving other purposes relating
to research. Additional improvements would be necessary for any formal
arrangements of this nature.

Acquisition of approximately 311 acres for sanctuary use would result
in the loss of tax revenue to Somerset County which would currently amount to
$135.00 per year. This nominal economic loss would be more than offset by
expenditures for housing, equipment, food, and supplies by the sanctuary
manager and staff in the area.

3. State and Federal Impacts

Establishment of the sanctuary would preserve for Marylanders, others,
and particularly Somerset County residents, a natural area to enjoy and
use for recreational and educational purposes.

Acquisition and management of the proposed sanctuary would have relatively
minor short-term financial impacts on the Federal Government and the State of
Maryland. Long-term operations of the sanctuary could be funded by the
State. These expenditures are expected to be offset by the value of improved
scientific and technical knowledge gained from research efforts which could
be applied to estuarine management in many areas of the Chesapeake Bay. The
sanctuary would also protect wetlands and floodplains, in accordance with
Presidental Executive Orders 11990, Protection of Wetlands, and 11988,
Floodplain Management.

B. Unavoidable Adverse Environmental or Socioeconomic Impacts

Rhode River

Since this proposed sanctuary site is already being used by the
Chesapeake Bay Center for Environmental Studies, the establishment of the
estuarine sanctuary will have little impact on residents of adjacent areas.
It is expected that educational use of the area will be largely through
scheduled group visits to the area, thus limiting the potential for disturbance
to owners of adjacent property by public use of the area. If a visitor
center is to be constructed to promote the use of the area for environmental
education purposes, its location will be carefully selected to ensure
there is adequate access to it and that it is a sufficient distance away
from adjacent property and the sensitive portion of the sanctuary site to
avoid adverse impacts on property owners and sanctuary resources from its
construction and use.
Impacts on soils and vegetation due to visitor activity would be minimized
at this site by utilizing existing roads and trails for visitor access. The
upland forest areas have well drained soils and would not experience significant
compaction from trail use. Most marsh areas could be viewed from upland
areas. However, in order to allow visitors to closely examine marsh vegetation
zones, a boardwalk will be constructed to prevent disturbance of the plants.

Monie Bay

Unavoidable adverse environmental effects on the Monie Bay site
associated with this proposed action are as follows:

Adverse impacts could potentially result from increased numbers of
visitors to the sanctuary. Visitation will be controlled similarly to the
Rhode River site with limited access points and guided tours. By controlling
the points of access, impacts will be minimized due to the small area actually
traversed relative to the large total acreage of this site. However,
establishment of the proposed sanctuary could result in some minor disruptions
to the residents of Somerset County from increased traffic, litter, and noise.

To prevent disturbance of the poorly drained soils and dense marsh
vegetation within the sanctuary, visitor access will be maintained at only two
locations. At the Drawbridge Road boat ramp area in the northern part of the
sanctuary, visitor impacts will be minimal because an existing road bed and
parking area will be used. The other access point will consist of a new trail
to be cut through a pine forest and a boardwalk extending out over the marsh.
There will be some initial negative, but not significant, impacts on vegetation
at this point due to trail construction, in order to create new opportunities
for marsh educational programs at this location.

Unavoidable economic effects are limited to an annual loss of tax
revenue (estimated at $135.00) to Somerset County resulting from acquisition
of approximately 311 acres. The property involved enjoys a preferential
graduated assessment from $20/acre for marsh wetlands to $100/acre for
Class C agriculture land, assessed value (current tax rate is $2/1Q0 assessed
value).

Some revenues will accrue to local government and business from transient
lodging, food and sundry purchases generated by occasional sanctuary visitors
including research teams, educational groups, and other interested individuals.
This new income to the county is expected to exceed the losses of property
tax revenue.

NOTE: Since new construction would result at both sites, if this
acquisition grant is awarded (e.g., marsh boardwalks, boat ramp, and
visitor's center), an environmental assessment will be required as a grant
award condition before money is granted for any construction.

C. Relationship Between Local, Short-Term Uses of the Environment,
and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity

Existing short-term uses and those new short-term uses resulting from
sanctuary designation will be consistent with the maintenance and enhancement
of long-term productivity at the two sites. Presently, the Monie Bay site
is being used for wildlife management purposes, while the Rhode River site
is used for estuarine research and education. These ongoing activities

along with the establishment of an estuarine sanctuary will protect and
maintain the long-term productivity of the affected environment. As sanctuary
sites, they will be protected from development pressures. Enhancement in
the Chesapeake Bay estuary as a whole should also result from the research
conducted here and increased public awareness developed in the educational
programs.

D. Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitments of Resources

There will be no irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources
resulting from sanctuary designation. The goals of the sanctuary program are
centered around keeping this environment in a natural, unaltered state and,
therefore, preclude this. Minor alterations to the marsh at access points
could eventually be restored to their unaltered state.

E. Possible Conflicts Between the Proposed Action and the Objectives
of Federal, Regional, State, and Local Land Use Plans, Policies,
and Controls for the Area Concerned

The establishment of the proposed sanctuary would be consistent with the
objectives of Federal, Regional, State, and local land use plans.

1. Federal and Regional Plans

Federal and regional plans for the area focus upon the efforts of the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Chesapeake Bay Program, and the
Chesapeake Bay Research Coordination Act of 1980. These programs fund a
wide range of studies to achieve improved understanding of the complex and
productive Chesapeake Bay estuary as a single system. Establishment of
the sanctuary will significantly enhance these programs and the data derived
from future research efforts here and throughout the Bay may one day provide
a basis for improved management of this vital resource.

2. State Plans

Maryland State plans for the area are developed by the Department of
Natural Resources and the Department of State Planning.

Within the Department of Natural Resources, the policies and programs of
the Tidewater Administration and Wildlife Administration are consistent with
the establishment of a sanctuary. Both agencies are currently cooperating
on the implementation of the proposed project.

The State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) coordinated by
the Department of State Planning recognizes a need for the proposed
facility. Final development of the facility with an interpretative trail
component would ultimately fulfill additional recreation opportunities
identified in the SCORP within two categories--unique natural areas and
walking trails.

3. Local Plans

Rhode River

The Anne Arundel County Comprehensive Plan indicates that the area
in which the site is located is presently largely rural in nature, and is
expected to remain so. Some consideration is being given by the county to
make its rural/agricultural zoning more restrictive which will only help
to maintain the present character of the area in which the proposed site
is located. Similarly, the establishment of agricultural districts to
preserve agricultural lands, which is being promoted in the county's rural
areas, including the area around the site, will only contribute to maintenance
of the area's present character, and thus enhance the long-term visibility
of the proposed sanctuary.

Monie Bay

The Somerset County Comprehensive Plan calls for the proposed sanctuary
to remain as open space because of the high wetland preservation values
associated with the area. No current or planned zoning designations are
inconsistent with the proposed use.

PART V: LIST OF PREPARERS

Mr. Frank Christhilf -- U.S. Department of Commerce

Mr. Christhilf holds both the B.E. and M.L.A. degrees and has completed
extensive graduate work in environmental law and public policy. He is the
Estuarine Sanctuary Project Officer for the East Coast (including Virgin
Islands, Puerto Rico) and the Great Lakes. While his major background is
in the area of public administration, he also has worked as a professional
engineer, as well as a surveyor. He served for 8 years as a member of
a standing committee of the Arlington County Planning Commission, Arlington,
Virginia.

His responsibilities in the preparation of the DEIS included overall
direction, organization, and preparation of the report for publication.
Mr. Christhilf had assistance from Mr. James W. MacFarland, Estuarine
Sanctuary Program Manager, and Ms. Gloria D. Thompson, Program Support
Specialist, Estuarine Sanctuary Program Office.

Dr. John B. Williams -- Maryland Department of Natural Resources

Dr. Williams received his B.S. in Zoology and his Ph.D. in Marine Science.
He has extensive experience in estuarine research and has more recently been
involved with developing management approaches towards Maryland's coastal
resources as part of the State Coastal Zone Management.

His responsibilities in preparing this document included overall direction
of the DEIS, organizing its different sections, and writing portions of all
four sections.

Dr. Sarah J. Taylor -- Maryland Department of Natural Resources

Dr. Taylor holds a B.A. degree in Political Science, an M.P.A. in Public
Administration, and a Ph.D. in Public Administration, particularly Natural
Resources Administration. She is presently Director of the Coastal Resources
Division within Maryland's Tidewater Administration. Her background includes
working as an Administrator as well as implementor of projects with the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Delaware River Basin Commission.

Dr. Taylor wrote portions of the Purpose and Need for Action Section and
Alternatives Section.

Mr. James T. Anthony -- Maryland Department of Natural Resources

Mr. Anthony has extensive background in urban and rural planning,
economic assessment and fiscal analysis, facility and site location, and
market feasibility analysis. He has worked as a planning director and a
real estate and planning consultant, for over 8 years. Other experience
includes energy and coastal planning projects and review of Major Facility
and Transportation Environmental Impact Statements.

Mr. Anthony has a B.S. degree in Geography and Political Sciences
and post-graduate studies in city planning and urban geography leading to
a M.A. Degree.

Mr. Anthony wrote parts of the Environmental Consequences and Affected
Environment Sections.

Mr. Earl H. Bradley -- Maryland Department of Natural Resources

Mr. Bradley is presently the (Local) Technical Assistance Program Manager
for the Coastal Resources Division, Tidewater Administration. He has a
Sc.B. Degree in Engineering, a M.A. in Science, Technology & Public Policy,
and a Masters in Regional Planning. He has worked with the Maryland Department
of Natural Resources from the inception of Maryland's Coastal Zone Program
to its present implementation.

He drafted portions of the Affected Environment and Environmental
Consequences Sections with materials provided by the Chesapeake Bay Center
for Environmental Studies and the Somerset County government.

Mr. David G. Burke -- Maryland Department of Natural Resources

Mr. Burke has a M.A. Degree in Urban and Regional Planning and has a
broad background in the land use planning field. He has worked for local
governments and consulting firms in Colorado and has been project manager
for a number of airport environmental assessments, watershed studies,
solid waste plans, and other comprehensive planning projects.

Mr. Burke wrote portions of the Environmental Consequences and Affected
Environment Sections of this document.

Ms. Kathy H. Fitzpatrick -- Maryland Department of Natural Resources

Ms. Fitzpatrick holds a B.S. in Recreational Resource Management and is
a Marine Recreation Specialist for Maryland's Coastal Zone Management Program.
Ms. Fitzpatrick has experience in River Management Planning, Environmental
Analysis and Recreational Boating Safety and Management. Ms. Fitzpatrick is
also co-editor of The Guide For Cruising Maryland Waters, a marine atlas of
the Maryland portion of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries.

Ms. Fitzpatrick prepared portions of the Affected Environment Section.

Mr. ~Jeffrey H. Hutchins -- Maryland Department of Natural Resources

Mr. Hutchins holds both a B.S.C.E. and M.S.C.E. in civil engineering and
has a background that includes water resources planning, design, and
construction. For the State of Maryland, Mr. Hutchins has worked on capital
projects, dredging studies, and watershed management.

Mr. Hutchins wrote part of the Affected Environment Section.

Ms. Margaret Johnston -- Maryland Department of Natural Resources

Ms. Johnston holds a B.A. in Zoology and a M.S. in Natural Resources.
She has extensive experience in coastal zone policy formulation and inter-
governmental coordination. She has recently worked on programs for improving
Maryland-Virginia cooperative management of Chesapeake Bay.

Ms. Johnston wrote part of the Affected Environment Section.

Mr. Randall T. Kerhin -- Maryland Department of Natural Resources

Mr. Kerhin holds a M.A. Degree in Geology. He is employed by the
Maryland Geological Survey as Program Chief of Coastal and Estuarine Geology
Programs. He is the author of several articles and technical reports on
sedimentation in Chesapeake Bay and along Maryland's ocean coast.

Mr. Kerhin assisted in the preparation of part of the Affected Environment
Section.

Mr. Chris Ostrom -- Maryland Department of Natural Resources

Mr. Ostrom has a M.S. Degree in Biological Oceanography and over 6 years'
experience in coastal area management with Maryland's Coastal Zone
Management Program. He has been involved in a variety of environmental
studies in Chesapeake Bay and also OCS activities and ocean dumping.

Mr. Ostrom wrote a portion of the Affected Environment Section.

Dr. Chris Zabawa -- Maryland Department of Natural Resources

Dr. Zabawa holds a Ph.D. in Geology and is the author of several articles
on sedimentation processes in the northern Chesapeake Bay estuary. He has been
employed as a geologist in the Maryland Geological Survey, and the Coastal
Resources Division of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources.

Dr. Zabawa prepared part of the Affected Environment Section.

Mr. Scott Brumburgh -- Maryland Department of Natural Resources

Mr. Brumburgh received his B.S. in Sociology and his M.S. in Resource
Economics. His background includes directing public involvment activities in
Maryland's Coastal Zone Program and coordinating government and public groups
in developing coastal economic-environmental policies.

Mr. Brumburgh assisted in preparing the List of Agencies, Organizations,
and Persons Receiving Copies.

Mr. Elder Ghigiarelli -- Maryland Department of Natural Resources

Mr. Ghigiarelli holds a M.S. in Resource Management and over 6 years'
experience in coastal area management with Maryland's Coastal Zone Management
Program. He presently directs the Program's Project Evaluation Section.
Prior to this he coordinated the State's Sanctuary Program efforts from
1975 to 1978.

Mr. Ghigiarelli wrote the September 1975 Estuarine Sanctuary Selection
Process Report contained in Appendix 3.

47
PART VI: LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS RECEIVING COPIES

Federal Agencies

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Department of Agriculture
Department of Commerce
Department of Defense
Department of Energy
Department of Health and Human Services
Department of Housing & Urban Development
Department of the Interior
Department of Justice
Department of Labor
Department of Transportation
U.S. Coast Guard
Environmental. Protection Agency
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Naval Battalion Construction Center
Naval Underwater System Center
Naval War College
Nuclear Regulatory Commission

National Interest Groups

A.M.E.R.I.C.A.N.
AFL-CIO
American Association of Port Authorities
American Bureau of Shipping
American Farm Bureau Federation
American Fisheries Society
American Gas Association
American Industrial Devel opment Council
American Institute of Architects
American Petroleum Institute
American Shore and Beach Preservation Association
American Society of Civil Engineers
American Society of Landscape Architects, Inc.
American Society of Planning Officials
American Waterways Operators
Amoco Production Company
Atlantic Richfield Company
Atomic Industrial Forum
Boating Industry Association
Bultema Dock & Dredge Company

Center for Law and Social Policy
Center for Natural Areas
Center for Urban Affairs
Center for Urban and Regional Resources
Chamber of Commerce of the United States
Chevron U.S.A., Inc.
Cities Service Company
Coast AlIi ance
Conservation Foundation
Continental Oil Company
Council of State Planning Agencies
The Cousteau Society
CZM Newsletter
Edison Electric Institute
El Paso Natural Gas Co.
Environmental Policy Center
Environmental Defense Fund, Inc.
Environmental Law Institute
EXXON Company, U.S.A.
Friends of the Earth
Great Lakes Basin Commission
Gulf Energy and Minerals, U.S.
Gulf Oil Company
Gulf Refining Company
Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding
Workers of America
Institute for the Human Environment
Interstate Natural Gas Association of America
Lake Michigan Federation
Marathon Oil Company
Marine Technology Society
Mobil Oil Corporation
Mobil Exploration and Producing, Inc.
Murphy Oil Company
National Association of Conservation Districts
Nati onal Association of Counties
National Association of Home Builders
National Association of Realtors
National Audubon Society
National Coalition for Marine Conservation, Inc.
National Farmers Union
National Federation of Fisherman
National Fisheries Institute
National Forest Products Association
National Marine Manufacturers Association
National Ocean Industries Association
National Parks and Conservation Association
National Recreation and Park Association
National Research Council

National Society of Professional Engineers
National Waterways Conference
National Wildlife Federation
Natural Resources Defense Council
Natural Resources Law Institute
The Nature Conservancy
Norfolk Dredging Company
Outboard Marine Corporation
Resources for the Future
Rose, Schmidt & Dixon
Shell Oil Company
Sierra Club
Skelly Oil Company
Soil Conservation Society of America
Sport Fishing Institute
Standard Oil Company of Ohio
State University Law School
State University of New York
Sun Company, Inc.
Tenneco Oil Company
Texaco, Inc.
Texas A & M University
Union Oil Company of California
University of Pittsburgh
Urban Research and Development Association, Inc.
Western Oil and Gas Association
Wildlife Management Institute
The Wildlife Society
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute

Congressi onal

Honorable Roy Dyson
Honorable Marjorie S. Holt
Honorable Charles McMathias
Honorable Barbara A. Mikulski
Honorable Paul Sarbanes

State Agencies

Delmarva Advisory Council
Department of Agriculture
Department of Economic and Community Development
Department of Health and Mental Hygiene
Department of Natural Resources
Department of State Planning
Department of Transportation
Governor's Office
Maryland Boat Act Advisory Committee
Maryland Environmental Trust
Maryland General Assembly
Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission
Maryland Port Administration

Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments
Regional Planning Council
Virginia Council on the Environment
Virginia Office of the Secretary of Commerce and Resources

State and Local Special Interest Groups

Members of the Coastal Resources Advisory Committee:

Applied Physics Laboratory
Center for Environmental and Estuarine Studies
Chesapeake Bay Center for Environmental Studies
Chesapeake Bay Institute
University of Maryland Graduate School
Bethlehem Steel Corporation
Chesapeake Bay Foundation
Chesapeake Bay Yacht Club Association
Chesapeake Research Consortium
Delmarva Power and Light Company of Maryland
Home Builders Association of Maryland
Izaak Walton League
League of Women Voters of Maryland
Maryland Association of Counties
Maryland Association of Realtors
Maryland Association of Soil Conservation Districts
Maryland Bankers' Association
Maryland Chamber of Commerce
Maryland Conservation Council
Maryland Farm Bureau
Maryland Petroleum Association
Maryland Watermen's Association
Maryland Wetlands Committee
Maryland Wildlife Federation

Prince George's County Audubon Society

Anne Arundel and Somerset Counties - Local Interest Groups

Anne Arundel County Council
Chambers of Commerce
County Planning and Zoning Offices
Local Farm Organizations
Local Watermens' Associations
League of Women Voters' Chapters
Maryland State Bar Association
Soil Conservation Districts
Somerset County Board of Commissioners
Sportsmen Clubs

Individuals

Langford Anderson
Pete & Elaine Bridgman
Jim Court
Floyd R. Evans
Robert S. Fitzgerald
Dr. James W. Gallagher
Captain & Mrs. E. A. Grunwald
Homer F. King
Y. Ki rkpatrick-Howat
Koppers Co., Inc.
Clarence Laird
Robert E. Laird
Everett Lawson
Donald W. Mabe
Mr. and Mrs. Robert May
Calvin W. McDaniel
Brian A. McDonald
James W. Phillips
D. E. Wilson
Larry Zang

State Universities, Colleges, and Schools

American University - Biology Department
Maryland Sea Grant Program
Salisbury State College
The Johns Hopkins University -Chesapeake Bay Institute
University of Maryland - Eastern Shore Campus
University of Maryland at Horn Point
Virginia Institute of Marine Science
Virginia Polytechnical Institute and State University
Virginia Sea Grant Program

PART VII: APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Estuarine Sanctuary Guidelines, 1974 and 1977.

Appendix 2: Estuarine Sanctuary Steering Committee Membership List.

Appendix 3: Maryland's Estuarine Sanctuary Site Selection Process.

Appendix 4A: Listing of Rhode River Fish Species

Appendix 4B: Listing of Rhode River Bird Species

Appendix 5A: Listing of Monie Bay Fish Species

Appendix 5B: Listing of Monie Bay Bird Species

APPENDIX I

Estuarine Sanctuary-Guidelines, 1974 and 1977

45522 PROPOSED RULES

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE exceed 50 percent of the acquisition costs (2) By revising Subpart B-Applica-
involved. Any State receiving an initial tion for Grants-as follows:
National Oceanic and Atmospheric grant shall be obligated'to repay it i Subpart B-Application for Grants
Administration due to any fault of the State, the sanctu-
[ 15 CFR Part 921 ] ary is not established. � 921.10 GeneraL
ESTUARINE SANCTUARY GUIDELINES As a result of this new grant procedure, Section 315 authorizes Federal grants
much more information relating to costs, to coastal States so that the States may
Policies and Procedures for Selection values, management procedures, and re- establish sanctuaries according to regu-
Acquisition and Management search programs will be available at the lations promulgated by the Secretary.
time of the publication of a draft en- Coastal States may file applications for
AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmos- vironmental impact statement. Proposals grants with the Associate Administrator
pheric Administration, Department of made public to date in the form of an for Coastal Zone Management (OCZM),
Commerce. Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Office of Coastal Zone Management, Page
ACTION: Proposed rule. have been criticized for lack of specificity 1, 3300 Whitehaven Parkway NW, Wash-
SUMM.A1RY: This proposed rule wil in these areas. By making a small pre- ington, D.C. 20235. That agency which
allow the National Oceanic and Atmos- liminary acquisition grant to a State, has been certified to the Office of Coastal
p heric Administration to make a preo- the estuarine sanctuary proposal can be Zone Management as the entity respon-
liminary acquisition grant to a State to more fully developed and the public can sible for administration of the State
under take a fair market value appraisal, become more aware of the costs and the coastal zone management program may
and to develop a uniform relocation act exact nature of the long-term manage- either submit an application directly, or
Plan, a detailed management plan and a ment. must endorse and approve applications
research framework for a proposed estu- In response to State questions about submitted by other agencies within the
ane sanctuary, developed pursuant estuarine sanctuary research, the pro- state.
Section 315 of the Coastal Zone Manage- posed regulations rovide that such re 92111 liina f
search can be funded If it can be shown
ment Act of 1972, as amended. to be related to program administration. acquisition grants.
DATE: Comments must be received on or NOAA has reviewed these proposed (a) A grant may be awarded on a
before October 1, 1977. regulations pursuant to the National En- matching basis to cover costs necessary
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CON- vironmental Policy Act of 1969 and has to preliminary actual acquisition of land.
TACT: determined that promulgation of these As match to the Federal grant, a State
regulations will have no significant Im- may use money, the cost of necessary
Robert R. Kifer, Physical Scientist, pact on the environment. services, the value of foregone revenue,
Policy and Programs Development Of- Compliance with Executive Order and/or the value of land either already
fice, Office of Coastal Zone Manage- 11821. The economic and inflationary in its possession or acquired by the State
ment, 3300 Whitehaven Parkway, Page impact of these proposed regulations has specifically for use in the sanctuary. If
One Building, Washington, D.C. 20235 been evaluated in accordance with OMB the land to be used as match already is
(202-634-4241). Circular A-107 and it has been deter- in the State's possession and is in a pro-
SUPPLEMENTARY INFiORMATION: mined that no major inflationary im- tected status, the State may use such
On June 4, 1974, The National Oce- pact will result. land as match only to the extent of any
anic and Atmospheric Administration Dated: August 26, 1977, revenue from the land foregone by the
(NOAA) published 15 CFR Part 921 en- State in order to include it in the sanc-
titled, "Estuarine Sanctuary Guidelines" T. P. GLENTER, tuary. Application for a preliminary ac-
pursuant to then section 312 of the Assistant Administrator quisition grant shall be made on form
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, for Administration. SF 424 application for Federal assistance
as amended, for the purpose of establish- It is proposed to amend 15 CFR Part (non-construction programs).
ing policy and procedures for the selec- 921 as follows: (b) A preliminary acquisition grant
tion, acquisition, and management of (1) By revising the table of contents may be made for the defrayal of the
estuarine sanctuaries. and authority citation to read as follows: cost of:
Under new subsection 315(1) of the SubpartA-General (1) An appraisal of the land, or of the
Act, the Secretary of Commerce is au- Sec. value of any foregone use of the land,
thorized to make available to coastal 921.1 Policy and objectives. to be used In the sanctuary;
States grants of up to 50 per centum of 921.2 Defenitions.
the cost of acquisition, development, and 9213 Objectives and Implementation of (2) The development of a Uniform
operation of estuarine sanctuaries. In the program. Relocation Assistance and Real Property
general, subsection 315(1) provides that 921.4 Biogeographic classilcatiou. Acquisition Policies Act plan;
grants may be awarded to States on a 921.5 Multiple use. (3) The development of a sanctuary
a921.6 Relationship to other provisions of management plan;
matching basis to acquire, develop, and the Act and to marine sanctuarie s.
operate natural areas as estuarine sanc- (4) The development of a research and
tuaries in order that scientists and stu- Subpart B-Application for Grants educational program; and/or,
dents may be provided the opportunity 921.10 General. (5) Such other activity of a prelimi-
to examine over a period of time ecologi- 921.11 Application for preliminary acqulsi- nary nature as may be approved in writ-
cal relationships within the area. The 11 on grants. ing by OCZM Any grant made pursuant
purpose of these guidelines is to imple- grantsq to this subsection shall be refunded by
ment this program. 921.3 Application for operational grants. the State to whatever extent it has spent
As a result of two years of program 921.14 Federally-owned lands. in relation to land not acquired for the
implementation, the regulations are pro- Sprt - to ritersanctuary, and i OCZM requests such
posed to be modified to specifically au- 92120 riteria for selectione application should contain:
thorize the granting of acquisition 921.21 Pub (c) T he application should contain:
money to States in two stages: (1) Evidence that the State has con-
(i) An initial grant for such prellmi- Subpart -perafon ducted a scientific evaluation of it- estu-
nary purposes, as surveyind and asses- 921.31 Cangs n the sanctuary boundary aries and selected one of those most rep-
ing the land to be acquired, and the de- * mangement POlcF, or research resentative.
management policy, or researh resentative.
velopment of management procedures program. (2) Description of the proposed
and research programs; and 921.32 Program review. sanctuary including location, proposed
(11) A second grant for the actual ac- Aumxoa : Sec. 315(l) )Coastal one Man- boundaries, and size. A map(s) should
quisition of the land. The Federal share agement Act of 1972, as amended (90 Stat. be included, as well as an aerial photo-
of the sum of the two grants shall not 1030, (16 U.S.C. 1461) Pub. L. 94-370). graph if available.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 42, NO. 1?5--RIDAY, SEPTMBER 9, 1977

PROPOSED RULES 45523

(3) Classification of the proposed public domain; fair market value ap- conflict with the Federal use of their
sanctuary according to the biogeo- praisal and Uniform Relocation Act plan. lands, such cooperation and coordination
graphic scheme set forth in � 921.4. (3) Description of research programs, is encouraged to the maximum extent
(4) Description of the major physical, potential and committed research or- feasible.
geographic, biological characteristics and ganizations or agencies, and benefits to (c) Section 315 grants may not be
resources of the proposed sanctuary. the overall coastal zone management awarded to Federally-owned lands; how-
(5) Demonstration of the necessary program. ever, a similar status may be provided on
authority to acquire or control and man- (4) Description of proposed manage- a voluntary basis for Federally-owned
age the sanctuary. ment techniques, including the manage- lands under the provisions of the Federal
(6) Description of existing and poten- ment agency and proposed budget-in- Committee on Ecological Perserves
tial uses of, and conflicts within, the eluding both State and Federal shares. program.
area if it were not declared an estuarine (5) Description of planned or antici- 921.20 [Amended]
sanctuary; and potential use restriction pated land and water use and controls
and conflicts if the sanctuary is estab- for contiguous lands surrounding the (4) Subpart C--Selection Criteria-is
lished. proposed sanctuary (including, If appro- amended by changing the first sentence
(7) List of protected sites, either with- priate, an analysis of the desirability of in � 921.20 to read: "Applications for
in the estuarine sanctuaries program or creating a marine sanctuary in adjacent preliminary acquisition or land acquisi-
within other Federal, State, or private areas). tion grants to establish estuarine sanc-
programs, which are located in the same (6) Assessment of the environmental, tuaries will be reviewed and judged on
region or biogeographic classification. and socio-economic impacts of declaring criteria including:"
(8) The manner in which the State the area an estuarine sanctuary, includ- (5) Section 921.21 is revised as fol-
solicited the views of interested parties. ing the economic impact on the sur- lows:
(9) In addition to the standard A-95 rounding community and its tax base.
review procedures. the grant application (7) Discussion, including cost and � 921.21 Public participation.
should be sent to the State Historic Pres- feasibility of alternative methods for ac- (a) Public participation in the selec-
ervation Office for comment to insure quisition and protection of the area. tion of an estuarine sanctuary is re-
compliance with section 106 of the Na- � 921.13 Application for operation quired. In the selection process, the se-
tional Preservation Act of 1966. grants. lecting entity (see � 921.10) shall seek
(d) In order to develop a truly repre- the views of possibly affected landown-
sentative scheme of estuarine sanctu- (a) Although an acquisition grant ap- ers, local governments, and Federal
aries, the States should coordinate their plication for creation of an estuarine agencies, and shall seek the views of pos-
activities. This will help to minimize the sanctuary should include initial opera- sibly interested other parties and orga-
possibility of rimilar estuarine types be- tion costs, subsequent applications may nizations. The latter would include, but
ing proposed in the same region. The be submitted following acquisition and need not be limited to, private citizens
extent to which neighboring States were establishment of an estuarine sanctuary and business, social, and environmental
consulted should be indicated. for additional operational funds. As in- organizations in the area of the site be-
. . dicated In � 921.11. these costs may in- ing considered for selection. This solici-
� 921.12 Application for land acquisi- elude administrative costs necessary to titon of views may be accomplished by
tion grants. monitor the sanctuary and to protect the whatever means the selecting entity
(a) Acquisition grants will be made to integrity of the ecosystem. Extensive deem s appropriate, but shall include at
acquire land and facilities for estuarine management programs, capital expenses, l east one public hearing in the area.
sanctuaries that have been thoroughly or research will not normally be funded tice of such hearing shall include infor
described in a preliminary acquisition by section 315 grants. mtin s t the time, place, and subject
grant application, or where equivalent (b) After the creation of an estuarine matton and shall be place, and in the
information is available. Application for sanctuary established under this pro- principal ar ea media. The hearing shall
an acquisition grant shall be made on gram, applications (Form SF 424) for b e held no sooner than 15 days foll
SF 424 application for Federal assist- Federal assistance (non-construction be held no sooner than 15 das follow-
ance (construction program). program), for such operational grants b The Office of Coastal Zon e Man-
In general, lands acquired pursuant to should include at least the following in- agement (OCZM) shall prepare draft
this subsection are legitimate costs and formation:
their fair market value, developed ac- (1) Identification of the boundary and fina environmental impact state-
cording to Federal appraisal standards, (map). ents pertaining to the site finay se-
may be included as match. The value of (2) Specifications of the research and lected for the estuarine sanctuary fol-
lands donated to the State and cash do- management programs, including man- lowing public participation in the selec-
nations may also be used as match. If aging agency and techniques. tion of hat site, and shall distribute
the State already owns land which is to (3) Detailed budget. these as appropriate. OCZM may hold a
be used in the sanctuary, the value of (4) Discussion of recent and projected public hearing in the area of such site at
any use of the land foregone by the State use of the sanctuary. which both the draft environmental im-
in order to include such land in the (5) Perceived threats to the integrity pact statement (DEIS) and the merits
sanctuary, capitalized over the next 20 of the sanctuary. of the site selection ma be addressed b
those in attendance. OCZi shall hold
years. may be used by the State as � 921.14 Federally-owned lands. such a hearing if: (1) In its view, the
match. The value of lands purchased by
a State within the boundaries of pro- (a) Where Federally-owned lands are DEIS is controversial, or (2) if there ap-
posed sanctuaries while an application a part of or adjacent to the area proposed pears to be a need for further informing
for a preliminary acquisition grant or for designation as an estuarine sanc- the public with regard to either the DEIS
land acquisition grant is being consid- tuary, or where the control of land and or one or more aspects of the site se-
ered may also be used as match. water uses on such lands is necessary to lected, or (3) if such a hearing is re-
(b) An acquisition application should protect the natural system within the quested in writing (to either the select-
contain the following information: sanctuary, the State should contact the ing entity or (CZM) by an affected or in-
(I) Description of any changes in pro- Federal agency maintaining control of terested party, or (4) for other good
posed sanctuary from that presented in the land to request cooperation in provid- cause. If held, such hearing shall be held
the preliminary acquisition grant appl- ing coordinated management policies. no sooner than 30 days following the is-
cation. If such an application has not Such lands and State request, and the suance of the DEIS and no sooner than
been made, then, information equivalent Federal agency response, should be iden- 15 days after appropriate notice of such
to that required in such a grant applica- tifed and conveyed to the Office of hearing has been given in the area by
tion should be provided. Coastal Zone Management. OCZM with the assistance of the select-
(2) Identification of ownership pat- (b) Where such proposed use or con- ing entity.
terns, proportions of land already in the trol of Federally-owned lands would not [FR floc.W-261s lled 96-Tr;8:45 am!

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

920.61 Title 15--Commerce and foreign Trade Chapter IX--National Oceanic, Atmospheric Adm, � 921.3

necessary to the objectives of the grant (v) For each'task, Indicate the estl- Subpart A--GOeneral 921.3 Objectives and implementation of
project. As used herein the terms mated total cost. Also, Indicate the es- the program.
"cost" and "grant project" pertain to timated total months of effort, if any,
both the Federal grant and the match- allocated to the task from the app- 921.1 Policy and Obectives. (a) General. The purpose of the es-
ing share. The allowability of cost will cant's staff, The estuarine sanctuaries program tuarine sanctuaries program is to
be determined in accordance with the (2) The sum of all task costs in the will provide grants to States on a create natural field laboratories in
provisions of FMC 74-4: Cost Princi- above paragraph should equal the matching basis to acquire, develop and hh to ather data and make studies
ples applicable to Grants and Con- total estimated grant project cost. operate natural areas as estuarne occ urring within the estuaries of the
tracts with State and Local Govern- (3) Using two categories, Profession- sanctuaries in order that scientists and coastal zone. This shall be accom-
coastal zone. This shall be aecom-
ments, and with the guidance con- al and Clerical, indicate the total students may be provided the opportu- plished by the establishment of a
tained in section 920 42(b)(3). number of personnel in each category nity to examine over a period of time series of estuarine sanctuaries which
nltyto xamne ver peiodof imeseries of estuarine sanctuaries which
(f) The Form SF-424, Application on the applicant's staff that will be as- the ecological relationships within the will be designated so that at least one
for Federal Assistance (Non-Construc- signed to the grant project. Also indl- area. The purpose of these guidelines representative of each type of estuar-
tion Programs), constitutes the formal cate the number assigned full time is to establish the rules and regula- ine ecosystem will endure into the
application and must be submitted 60 and the number assigned less than full tions for implementation of the pro- future for scientific and educational
days prior to the desired grant begin- time in the two categories. Additional- gram. purposes. The primary use of estuar-
ly, indicate the number of new posl-
ning date. The application must be ac- . inc sanctuaries shall be for research
companied by evidence of compliance tions created in the two categories as a 921.2 Definitions. and educational purposes, especially to
compaied y evdenc of ompiance result of the grant project.
with A-95 requirements including the result of the grant project. (a) In addition to the definitions provide some of the information essen-
resolution of any problems raised by found in the Act and In the regula- tial to coastal zone management deci-
the proposed project. The Associate PART 921-ESTUARINE SANCTUARY tions dealing with Coastal Zone Man- sion-making. Specific examples of such
Administrator will not accept applica- GUIDELINES agement Program Development purposes and uses include but are not
tion substantially deficient In adher- Grants published November 29, 1973 limited to:
ence to A-95 requirements. fSubpalrA--G*0#VW (Part 920 of this chapter) the term (1) To gain a thorough understand-
(g) In Part IV, Program Narrative of Sec. "estuarine sanctuary" as defined in Ing of the ecological relationships
the Form SF-424, the applicant should 921.1 Policy and objectives. the Act, means a research area which within the estuarine environment.
repond to the following requirements: 921.2 Definitions. may include any part or all of an estu- (2) To make baseline ecological mea-
(1) Set forth a work program de- 921.3 Objectives and implementation of ary. adjoining transitional areas, and surements.
scribing the activities to be undertak- the program. adjacent uplands, constituting to the (3) To monitor significant or vital
921.4 B5ogeographi classficationp lent changes in the estuarine environment.
en during the grant period. This work 921.5 Bieultgple .' sifct.n extent feasible a natural unit, set aside an the es ntse omase
program shall include: 921.6 Relationship to other provisions of to provide scientists and students the (4) To ss es s the effects of man 's
(i) A precise description of each the Act and to marine sanctuaries. opportunity to examine over a period ft and mitigate possible deteriora-
major task to be undertaken to resolve of time the ecological relationships tion from human activities.
section 306 deficiencies, and a specific Subpart -Application for Grants within the area. (5) To provide a vehicle for increas-
timetable for remedylng these defl- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(5) To provide a vehicle for increas-
timetable for remedying these defi- 921.10 General. (b) For the purposes of this section, ing public knowledge and awareness of
clencies; 921.11 Application for Initial acquisition. "estuary" means that part of a river or the complex nature of estuarine sys-
(11) A precise description of imple- development and operation grants. stream or other body of water having tems, their values and benefits to man
mentation activities for approved man- 921.12 Application for subsequent develop- unimpaired connection with the open and nature, and the problems which
agement components, including a dem- ment and operation grants. sea where the seawater is measurably confront them.
onstration that these implementation 921.13 Federally owned lands. diluted with freshwater derived from (b) The emphasis within the pro-
funds will not be applied outside the 921.14 Application time schedule and pro- land drainage. The term ncludes estu- gram will be on the desgnatonas es-
cedure. land drainage. The term includes estu- gram will be on the designationas es-
approved coastal management bound- cedure. ary-type areas of the Great Lakes as tuarine sanctuaries of areas which will
a ries; Subpart C-SI.ibin Cdrtri well as lagoons in more arid coastal re- serve as natural field laboratories for
(ill) A precise description of any gions. studies and investigations over an ex-
other tasks necessary for and allow- 921.20 CriterIa for selection.g
other tasks necessary for and allow- 921.20 Criteria for selection. (c) The term "multiple use" as used tended period. The area chosen as an
able under subsection 305(d): 921.21 Public participation In this section shall mean the simulta- estuarine sanctuary shall, to the
(iv) For each task, identify any
"Oh For each ti ask, idefntifyan tSubpart D--Oporatlon neous utilization of an area or re- extent feasible. include water and land
"Other Entities,~" as defined ~I~n the source for a variety of compatible pur- masses constituting a natural ecologi-
"Manual," that will be allocated re- 921.30 General. poses or to provide more than one cal unit.
sponsibllity for carrying out all or por- 921.31 Changes in the sanctuary boundary, benefit. The term Implies the long- (c) In order that the estuarine sanc-
tions of the task, and indicate the esti- management policy or research pro- term, continued uses of such resources tuary will be available for future stud-
mated cost of the subcontract for each gram.term, continued uses of such resources tuary will be available for future stud-
mated cost of the subcontract for each grm.
allocation. Identify, if any that por- 921.32 Program review. in such a fashion that other uses will les research involving the destruction
alloc ation. Identify. il any, that por- not Interfere with, diminish or prevent of any portion of an estuarine sanctu-
tion of the task that will be carried AUTHORTY: Sec. 312. Pub. L 92-583, the primary purpose, which is the ary which would permanently alter
out under contract with consultants mne 8 tt 2 ( U IrB) h iay ups wc s e
out under contract with consultants amended 86 Stat. 1280 (16 USC 1461). long-term protection of the area for the nature of the ecosystem shall not
and indicate the estimated cost of SouncE: 39 FR 19024. June 4, 1974. unless scientific and educational use. normally be permitted. In the unusual
such contract(s); and otherwise noted. circumstances where permitted, ma-

� 921.4 Title 15--Commerce and Foreign Trade Chapter IX-National Oceanic, Atmospheric Adm. � 921.11
nipulative field research shall be care- careous sands, marls and coral reefs; coastal zone management and resource use occasion may establish marine sanctu-
fully controlled. No experiment which marshes and mangroves. tropical blots. aid may on occasion be necessary. aries to complement the designation
involves manipulative research shall 5. Louitsianian. Northern Gulf of Mexico. (b) There shall be no effort to hal- by States of estuarine sanctuaries.
be initiated until the termination date from Cedar Key to Mexico; characteristics ance or optimize uses of an estuarine where this may be mutually beneficial.
is specified and evidence given that of 3. with components of 4; strongly Influ- sanctuary on economic or other bases.
Ihs specif ied and evidence reuretl en ce d by terrigenous factors; blota primar- All additional uses of the sanctuary Subpart B-Application for Grants
the environment will be returned to its ily temperate.
condition which existed prior to the S. Californan. South Pacific coast from are clearly secondary to the primary
experiment. Mexico to Cape Mendocino; shoreland influ- purpose and uses, which are long-term � 921.10 General.
(d) It is anticipated that most of the enced by coastal mountains; rocky coasts maintenance of the ecosystem for sc- ecti on 312 authorizes Federal
areas selected as sanctuaries will be with reduced fresh-water runoff; general ab- entific and educational uses. Non-com- Section 312 authorizes Federal
relatively undisturbed by human actlv- sence of marshes and swamps; blots temper- patible uses, including those uses Stats to coastal States so that the
Itles at the time of acquisition. There- ate. which would cause significant short or crding to regulations promulgated by
fore, most of the areas selected will be 7. Columbian. North Pacific coast from long-term ecological change or would th Secretary. Coastal States may file
areas with a minimum of development. Cape Mendocino to Canada; mountainous otherwise detract from or restrict the applcations for grants with the Dlrec-
ae ind ~ or habitation. shoreland; rocky coasts; extensive algal com- use of the sanctuary as a natural f ield tor, Office of Coastal Zone DrManage-
industry or habitation, munlties; blota primarily temperate with labora tor, Office of Coastal Zone Manage-
(e) If sufficient permanence and con- some borea l. ment. National Oceanic and Atmos-
trol by the State can be assured, the 8. ftordx. South :oast Alaska and Aleu- 0921.6 Relationship toother provisionsof pheric Administration, U.S. Depart-
acquisition of a sanctuary may involve tians; precipitous mountains; deep estuaries. the act and to marine sanctuaries ment of Commerce, Rockville. Mary-
less than the acquisition of a fee some with glaciers; shoreline heavily indent- land 20852. That agency which has
simple interest. Such interest may be, ed and subject to winter icing biota boreal (a) The estuarine sanctuary program been certified to the Office of Coastal
for example, the acquisition of a con- to sub-Arctic. must interact with the overall coastal Zone Management as the entity re-
servation easement, "development 9. Subarctic. West and north coasts of zone management programn in two sponsible for administration of the
rgtorohrprilitrssui-Alaska' Ice stressed coasts; blots Arctic and ways: (1) the intended research use of State coastal zone management pro-
right", orotherpartil intrest uffi-sub.-Arctic.
cient to assure the protection of the I ar. Larger islands sometimes the sanctuary should provide relevant gram may either submit an applica-
cien to ssur theprotctio of he t0. Insular. Larger islands. sometimes
natural system. Leasing. which would with precipitous mountains; considerable data and conclusions of assistance to tion directly, or must endorse and ap-
wi~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~tio directly, or mountist eonsdrb deson rse aplcain sbit d ap-th
not assure permanent protection of wave action; frequently with endemic ape- coastal zone management decision- prove applications submitted by other
the system, would not be an accept- cies; larser island groups primarily with making, and (2) when developed, the agencies within the State.
able alternative. tropical blota. State's coastal zone management pro-
It11. Great Lakes. Great Lakes of North gram must recognize and be designed � 921.11 Application for initial acquisition,
0921.4 Biogeographic classification. America; bluff-dune or rocky. glaciated to protect the estuarine sanctuary; ap- development and operation grants.
(a) It is Intended that estuarine shoreline lmited wetlands; freshwater only; proprlate land and water use regula- (a) Grants may be awarded on a
sanctuaries s ld not behosenat bota a mixture of boreal and temperate tions and planning considerations matching basis to cover the costs of ac-
random, butaries should not be chosen at species with anadronous species and some must apply to adjacent lands. Al- quisition. development and operation
random, but should reflect regional marine invaders. though estuarine sanctuaries should of estuarlne sanctuaries. States may
differentiation and a variety of ecosys-
tems so as to cover all significant va- (b) Various sub-categories will be de- be incorporated into the State coastal use donations of land or money to sat-
ations. To ensure adequate representa- veloped and utilized as appropriate. zone management program, their des- isfy all or part of the matching cost re-
tion of all estuarine types reflecting ignation need not await the develop- quirements.
regional d ifferentiation and a variety 0921.5 Multiple use. ment and approval of the management (b) In general, lands acquired pursu-
of ecosystems, selections will be made (a) While the primary purpose of es- program where operation of the es- ant to this section. including State
by the Secretary from the following tuarine sanctuaries is to provide long- tuarine sanctuary would aid in the de- owned lands but not State owned sub-
biogeographic classifications: term protection for natural areas so velopment of a program. merged lands or bay bottoms, that
that they may be used for scientific (b) The estuarlne sanctuaries pro- occur within the proposed sanctuary
1. Arcadifan. Northeast Atlantic coast and educational purposes, multiple use gram will be conducted in close coop- boundary are legitimate costs and
south to Cape Cod. glaciated shoreline sub-
south to Cap Cod glacinated shorelone sub a of estuarine sanctuaries will be en- ,eration with the marine sanctuaries their fair market value may be includ-
Ject to winter icing; well developed algal
flora; borea l bliop ota. couraged to the extent that such use is program (Title III of the Marine Pro- ed as match. However. the value of
flora; boreal biota.etoRsac c f 92 u.L ad oatdt rb h tt o
2. Virnan. Middle Atlantic coast from compatible with this primary sanctu- tection. Research Act of 1972. Pub. L. lands donated to or by the State for
Cape Cod to Cape Hatteras; lowland ary purpose. The capacity of a given 92-532. which is also administered by inclusion in the sanctuary may only be
streams, coastal marshes and muddy hot- sanctuary to accommodate additional the Office of Coastal Zone Manage- used to match other costs of land ac-
toms; characteristics transitional between I uses, and the kinds and Intensity of ment. NOAA), which recognizes that quisition. In the event that lands al-
and 3: biota primarily temperate with some such use, will be determined on a case certain areas of the ocean waters, as ready exist In a protected status, their
boreal representatives. by case basis. While it is anticipated far seaward as the outer edge of the value cannot be used as match for
3. Carolinian. South Atlantic coast, from that compatible uses may generally in- Continental Shelf, or other coastal sanctuary development and operation
Cape Hatteras to Cape Kennedy; extensive clude activities such as low intensity waters where the tide ebbs and flows, grants, which will require their own
marshes and swamps; waters turbid and pro-
ductive. biota temperate with seasonal recreation, fishing, hunting, and wild- or of the Great Lakes and their con- matching funds.
tropical elements. life observation, It is recognized that necting waters, need to be preserved or (c) Development and operation costs
Lroplcaletements. ~~~~~~~~~~~restored for their conservation. recre- may include the administrative ex-
4. West Indian South Florida coast from the exclusive use of an area for scien- restored for their conservation recre- may include the administrative ex-
Cape Kennedy to Cedar Key; and Caribbean tific or educational purposes may pro- ational, ecologic or esthetic values. It penses necessary to minitor the sanc-
Islands; shoreland low-lying limestone; cal- vide the optimum benefit to coastal is anticipated that the Secretary on tuary, to ensure its continued viability

921.12 Title 1--Commerce and Foreign Trade Chapter IX--National Oceanic, Atmospheric Adm. � 921.14
and to protect the integrity of the eco- gram or within other Federal, State or and to protect the integrity of the eco- tions received between January 1 and
system. Research will not normally be private programs, which are located in system. Extensive management pro- June 30 of any year will be considered
funded by Section 312 grants. It is an- the same regional or biogeographic grams, capital expenses, or research together beginning July 1 of that year;
ticipated that other sources of Feder- classification. will not normally be funded by section applications received between July 1
al. State and private funds will be (i) It is essential that the opportuni- 312 grants. and December 31 will be considered to-
available for research in estuarine ty be provided for public involvement (b) After the creation of an estuar- gether beginning January 1 of the fol-
sanctuaries. and input in the development of the i e sanctuary established under this lowing year.
(d) Initial applications should con- sanctuary proposal and application. program, applications for such devel- (b) All applications received during
tain the following information: Where the application is controversial opment and operation grants should any application period will be subject
(1) Description of the proposed sanc- or where controversial issues are ad- include at least the following informa- to simultaneous review and considera-
tuary include location, boundaries, size dressed, the State should provide ade- tion tion. At the end of each application
and cost of acquisition, operation and quate means to ensure that all inter- (1) Identification of the boundary. period, a suitable number of applica-
development. A map should be includ- ested parties have the opportunity to (2) Specifications of the manage- tions, based on the level of funding
ed, as well as an aerial photograph, if present their views. This may be in ment program, including managing available, will be selected for further
available. the form of an adequately advertised agency and techniques. review and processing. Unless suffi-
(2) Classification of the proposed public hearing. (3) Detailed budget. ciently distinguished as major subcate-
sanctuary according to the blogeo- (ii) During the development of an es- (4) Discussion of recent and project- gories. no more than one application
graphic scheme set forth in � 921.4. tuarine sanctuary application, all land- ed use of the sanctuary. from each biogeographic category will
(3) Description of the major physi- owners within the proposed bound- (5) Perceived threats to the integrity be selected for final processing during
cal, geographic and biological charac- aries should be informed in writing of of the sanctuary. each review period. Normally, the ap-
teristics and resources of the proposed the proposed grant application. plications selected will be processed
sanctuary. till) The application should indicate �921.13 Federally owned lands, and the grants awarded within .
(4) Identification of ownership pat- the manner in which the State solicit- (a) Where federally owned lands are months from the end of the applica-
terns; proportion of land already in ed the views of all interested partiesa ae pr
the public domain, prior to the actual submission of the a part of or adjacent to the ar on period, that s before the next
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(5) DecrptonofInene rserc posed for designation as an estuarine review period begins. Applications
Description of Intended research application sanctuary, or where the control of which are not selected for processing
uses, potential research organizations (e) In order to develop a truly repre- land and water uses on such lands is may be resubmitted for consideration
or agencies and benefits to the overall sentative scheme of estuarlne sanctu- necessary to protect the natural during the next review period.
coastal zone management program. aries, the States should attempt to co- nesar toptct he aualdigtenxtevwpro.
coastal zone management proram. aries the States should attempt to co- system within the sanctuary, the State (c) At least ninety (90) days prior to
(6) Demonstration of necessary au- ordinate their activities. This will help should contact the Federal agency submission of an application under
thority to acquire or control and to minimize the possibility of similar maintaining control of the land to re- this section, an applicant state must
manage the sanctuary. estuarine types being proposed for quest cooperation in providing coordi- notify in writing the OCZM, appropri-
(7) Description of proposed manage- designation in the same region. The nated management policies. Such ate state and regional A-95 clearing-
ment techniques, including the man- application should indicate the extent lands and State request, and the Fed- houses, and other states within the
agement agency, principles and pro- to which neighboring States were con- eral agency response, should be identi- same biogeographic category (see
posed budget including both State and suited. fled and conveyed to the Office of Table 1) of its intention to file an ap-
Federal shares. (f) Discussion, including cost and Coastal Zone Management. plication for an estuarine sanctuary
(8) Description of existing and po- feasibility, of alternative methods for (b) Where such proposed use or con- grant. Such notification should in-
tential uses of and conflicts within the acquisition, control and protection of trol of federally owned lands would elude at least the identification of the
area if it were not declared an estuar- the area to provide similar uses. Use of not conflict with the Federal use of state agency applying for the grant;
ine sanctuary; potential use, use re- the marine sanctuary authority and their lands, such cooperation and co- the geographic location of the pro-
strictions and conflicts if the sanctu- funds from the Land and Water Con- ordination is encouraged to the maxi: posed sanctuary and its boundaries;
ary is established. servation Fund Act should be specifi- mum extent feasible. proposed objectives of the sanctuary,
(i) Assessment of the environmental cally addressed. (c) Section 312 grants may not be including intended research uses: esti-
and socio-economic impacts of declar- awarded to federal agencies for cre- mated cost of sanctuary; and estimat-
ing the area an estuarine sanctuary, � 921.12 Application for subsequent devel- ation of estuarine sanctuaries n Fed- ed date for submission of application.
including the economic: impact of such opment and operation grants.
incluing he eonomc Imact f suc opmnt ad opratin grnts.ation of estuarine sanctuaries in Fed- ed date for submission of application.
erally owned lands; however, a similar Copies of the A-95 notifications to the
a designation on the surrounding com- (a) Although the initial grant appli- status may be provided on a voluntary state and regional clearinghouse
munity and its tax base. cation for creation of an estuarine basis for Federally owned lands under would be considered sufficient and de-
(9) Description of planned or antici- sanctuary should Include initial devel- the provisions of the Federal Commit- sirable notification to OCZM and to
pated land and water use and controls opment and operation costs, subse- tee on Ecological Preserves program. the other states.
for contiguous lands surrounding the quent applications may be submitted
proposed sanctuary (including if ap- following acquisition and establish- � 921.14 Application time schedule and TABLE i-LIST OF STATES BY BIOCEOGRAPIC
propriate an analysis of the desirabil- ment of an estuarine sanctuary for ad- procedure. CLASSIICATION
ity of creating a marine sanctuary in ditional development and operation (a) Effective January 1, 1975, the 1. Acadian-Maine. New Hampshire. Mas-
adjacent areas). funds. As indicated in � 921.11, these review and selection of estuarine sanc sachusetts.
(10) List of protected sites, either costs may include administrative costs tuary applications will be conducted 2. Virinian-Mass achusetts. Rhode
within the estuarine sanctuaries pro- necessary to monitor the sanctuary on a twice y early basis. All applica- island . Connecticu New York. New Jersey.
on a twice yearly basis. All applica- Island, Connecticut. New York. New Jersey,

� 921.20 Title 15-Commerce and Foreign Trade Chapter IX-Natlonal Oceanic, Atmospheric Adm. � 921.32
Delaware, Maryland. Virginia, North Caroll- ed that in practice the average grant tuary program shall be notified of the (h) Provide adequate authority and
np. will be substantially less than this. public hearing. The public notice shall Intent to enforce management policy
3. Carolinlan-North Carolina. South (e) Enhancement of non-competitive contain the name, address and phone and use restrictions.
Carolina. Georgia, Florida, uses. number of the appropriate Federal
4. West Indlan--Florlda. Puerto Rico, {f) Proximity and access to existing and State officials to contact for addi- 921.31 Changes in the sanctuary bound-
5. Louisianlan-FloridS, Mis sissippi, Aa- research facilities. tional Information about the proposal. ary. management policy or research
bama. (g) Availability of suitable alterna- program.
6. Californian-California. tive sites already protected which Subpart D-Opmration (a) The approved sanctuary bound-
7. Columbian-Callfornia. Oregon. Wash- might be capable of providing the ariesS management policy, Including
Ington. same use or benefit. Unnecessary du- permissible and prohibited uses; and
8. Fiord--Alska. plication of existing activities under 1921.30 Ceneral.
9. Sub-Arctic-Alaska. other programs should be avoided. Management of estuarlne sanctuar- research program may only be
10. Insular-Hawaii, Guam, American Howeve r, estuarine sanctuaries might iesponsibility of the change d after public notice and the
Samoa. opportunity of public review and par-
11. Great Lae-Mlinesota. Wisconsin be established adjacent to existing applicant State or Its agent. However opportunity of public review and ar-
Michigan, Illinois. Indiana. Ohio Pennyl- preserved lands where mutual en- the research uses and management ticipation such as outlined In 1021.21
vanis, New York. hancement or benefit of each might program must be in conformance with (b) Individuals or organizations
occur. these guidelines and regulations, and are
(d) The Director of OCZM may. (h) Conflict with existing or poten- others implemented by the provisions improper use or restriction of use of

trative requir uous areas. management team and the Office of directly for review of the management
139 FR 45214. Dec. 31. 19741 If the initial review demonstrates the Coastal Zone Management meet to dis- program-
feasibility of the application. an envi- cuss management policy and stand- h921.32 Pro m review.
Subpart C-Soz dion Cliteria ronmental impact statement will be ards. It Is anticipated that the grant
prepared by the Office of Coastal provisions will vary with Individual cir- It Is anticipated that reports will be
1921.20 Criteria for election. Zone Management In accordance with cumstances and will be mutually required from the applicant State on a
Applications for grants to establish the National Environmental Policy agreed to by the applicant and the regular basis, no more frequently than
estuar9ne sanctuaries will be reviewed Act of 1969 and implementing CEQ granting agency. As a minimum, the annually, on the status of each estuar-
and judged on criteria Including: guidelines. grant document for each sanctuary Ine sanctuary. The estuarine sanctu-
(a) Benefit to the coastal zone man- shall: ary program will be regularly reviewed
agement program. Applications should 92121 Public participation. (a) Define the intended research to ensure that the objectives of the
demonstrate the benefit of the propos- Public participation will be an essen- purposes of the estuarlne sanctuary. program are being met and that the
al to the development or operations of tial factor in the selection of estuarine (b) Define permitted, compatible, re- program itself is scientifically sound.
the overall coastal zone management sanctuaries. In addition to the partici- stricted and prohibited uses of the The key to the success of the estuar-
program, including how well the pro- patlon during the application develop- sanctuary. Ine sanctuaries program is to assure
posal fits Into the national program of ment process (1921.11(e)). public par- (c) Include a provision for monitor- that the results of the studies and re-
representative estuarlne types; the na- ticipatlon will be ensured at the Feder- Ing the uses of the sanctuary, to search conducted In these sanctuaries
tlonal or regional benefits; and the al level by the NEPA process and by ensure Compliance with the intended are available In a timely fashion so
usefulness In research. public hearings where desirable subse- uses. that the States can develop and ad-
(b The ecological characteristics of quent to NEPA. Such public hearings (d) Ensure ready access to land use minister land and water use programs
the ecosystem, including its biological shall be held by the Office of Coastal f the sanctuary by scientists, su- for the coastal zone. Accordingly, all
productivity, diversity and representa- Zone Management in the area to be af- dents and the general public as desir- information and reports, including
tiveness. Extent of alteration of the fected by the proposed sanctuary no a6de and p ermissible for coo rdi nated annual repor ts, relating to estuarine
natural system Its ability to remain a sooner than 30 days after It Issues a rable and permissible for coordinated annual reports, relating to estuarhe public
viable and healthy system In view of draft environmental impact statement research and education uses, as well as sanctuaries shall be part of the publc
the present and possible development on the sanctuary proposal. It will be for other compatible purposes. record and available at all times for In-
of external stresses. the responsibility of the Office of (e) Ensure public availability and spection by the public.
(c) Size and choice of boundaries. To Coastal Zone Management, with the reasonable distribution of research re-
the extent feasible, estuarine sanctu- assistance of the applicant State, to suits for timely use in the develop- PAnRT 922-MARINE SANCTUARIES
aries should approximate a natural issue adequate public notice of its In- ment of coastal zone management pro-
ecological unit. The minimal accept- tention to hold a public hearing. Such grams. Subpart A-G mteral
able size will vary greatly and will public notice shall be distributed If) Provide a basis for annual review
depend on the nature of the ecosys- widely, especially in the area of th e of the status of the sanctuary, its sec-
tem. proposed sanctuary; affected property value to the coastal zone program 922.1 Policy and objectives.
(d) Cost. Although the Act limits the owners and those agencies, organiza- (g) Specify how the integrity of the 9222 Programmaticobjectives.
Federal share of the cost for each tions or individuals with an identified system which the sanctuary repre-
sanctuary to $2,000,000, It is anticipat- interest in the area or estuarine sanc- sents will be maintained.

APPENDIX 2

ESTUARINE SANCTUARY SELECTION COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP LIST

NAME AGENCY

Earl Bradley Coastal Resources Division/Department of
Natural Resources, Tidewater Administration

Paul Breidenbaugh Maryland Wildlife Federation

Carlo Brunori Maryland Wildlife Administration

Harold Cassell Water Resources Administration

R. R. Colwell Sea Grant

Joseph Cooney Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, University of Maryland

L. Eugene Cronin Chesapeake Research Consortium

Betty Dickenson Wye Institute

George Fenwick The Nature Conservancy

Ronald Gatton National Marine Fisheries Service/NOAA

Elder Ghigiarelli Coastal Resources Division/DNR

W. P. Jensen Tidewater Administration - Tidal Fisheries

Judy Johnson Committee to Preserve Assateague

Jim Kerwin Bureau of Land Management, Dept. of the Interior

Malcolm King Izaak Walton League

DavidMiller Maryland Environmental Trust

Suzanne Nair U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Dept. of the Interior

Jody Roesler Maryland Environmental Trust

J. Kevin Sullivan Chesapeake Bay Center for Environmental Studies
Smithsonian Institution
Dennis Taylor University of Maryland
John Williams Coastal Resources Division/DNR

APPENDIX 3

MARYLAND'S NATIONAL ESTUARINE SANCTUARY PROGRAM

SITE SELECTION PROCESS

1980

Prepared By

John B. Williams

Coastal Resources Division

Department of Natural Resources
Tawes State Office Building
Annapolis, Maryland

I. Introduction:

National Estuarine Sanctuaries Program

Estuaries can be generally described as coastal water bodies where

freshwater river flows from the land meet the pulsing tidal flows of the

saltier ocean water. These two current flows produce a body of water whic'a

is a variable saline mixture of the river and ocean water and has a richa supply

of nutrients essiential for plant growth. The low lying coastal topography and

shallow near-shore waters also support extensive marsh areas which contribute

food material to the productive food webs found in estuaries.

The high productivity of estuaries is well documented and some estimates

indicate that more than two thirds of the commercial and recreational fish landings

caught in the United States are directly dependent upon estuaries. For most

shellfish species this fraction would be higher. However1competing human uses

of estuarine waters and shorelines and their associated tributaries are having

negative impacts on these productive ecosystems. In order to properly manage

manes activities in the estuary,,a thorough understanding of the natural processes

operating there must exist. This type of information can then be used to promote

wise use of these limited natural resources. The National Estuarine Sanctuary

Program,,established through the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 197 2~,was

designed to assist states in developing this better understanding of how

estuaries function. (This program is described in Appendix I.)

This Program provides 50 percent matching grants to coastal states to

acquire, develop, or operate estuarine areas to be set aside "to serv'e 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." These sanctuary areas

will be mainly used for educational and research purposes and can serve as control

areas to determine the effects of development on other estuaries. While these

sanctuaries will be protected from adverse human impacts such as dam construction,

it is expected that other activities such as hunting and fishing could continue

Page Two

since they are a "natural" activity in most estuaries. These sanctuaries

will provide students and the general public with places where they can learn

about the estuarine environment and its ecology in a natural setting.

Importance of Estuaries to Maryland

The State of Maryland is greatly committed to maintaining the productivity

of its extensive estuarine areas. This takes on national significance when one

considers that most of this estuarine area is contained in Chesapeake Bay, the

nation's largest estuary. Watermen. and other local citizens are dependent upon

a productive estuary as well as citizens in other East Coast states who harvest

fish such as striped bass which either spawn or grow up in Chesapeake Bay. In

order to effectively manage this large ecosystem, a proper understanding

of estuarine ecology is essential. For this reason designation of an estuarine

sanctuary in Maryland would provide a valuable tool for enhancing management of

Chesapeake Bay and other estuarine areas. (Due to the wide 'range of estuarine

zones in Chesapeake Bay it would be best to eventually develop a series of

sanctuary sites representative of each zone.)

Previous Maryland Sanctuary Efforts

M~aryland's activities under the National Estuarine Sanctuaries Program

(NESP) actually began in 1974. This included extensive evaluations of potential

sites through field visits and analyses of aerial photographs. A full description

of these earlier site evaluations and selections is contained in Appendix II,

prepared by Elder Ghigiarelli of the Coastal Resources Division (CRD).

The primary site selected in 1975 by a steering committee composed of

representatives from different State and Federal agencies, research institutions

and environmental groups was World's End Creek located in Dorchester County.

Difficulties in property acquisition were encountered with this site and later

sanctuary designation activities were discontinued.

Page Three

A clarification of NOAA's policies towards sanctuary uses was

presented to Maryland Coastal Resources Division in early 1980. It was presented

that NOAA was shifting some emphasis away from tight control of activities

within a sanctuary site and becoming more positive towards the research, educational,

and other compatible uses that could be conducted within a sanctuary. This

clarification of policy caused CRD. to renew its NESP activities and reactivate

its Steering Commit tee.

1980 Estuarine Sanctuary Steering Committee

The present NESP Steering Committee (SC) consists of the former 1975 committee

(with new names where staff changes have occurred) plus new representatives from

different organizations within the State Coastal Resources Advisory Committee

(CRAC). SC membership was opened to any CRAC member who wished to participate.

(A partial list of SC members and meeting attendees is contained in Appendix III).

11. Selection Process

Evaluation Criteria and Site Selection Process

After preliminary discussions with Federal OCZM Sanctuaries Program staff,

CRD began efforts to reactivate its 1975 Steering Committee along with related

CRAC representatives and Maryland research institutions. Notification of the

first meeting on May 29, 1980 was sent out on May 14, 1980. This correspondence

along with all others transmitted to the SC are included in Appendix III.

The purpose of the May 29 meeting was to develop criteria for selecting

suitable sanctuary sites and to reconsider the list of sites developed in 1975 to

determine whether additions or deletions should be made. Criteria developed

for the earlier NESP efforts were critically discussed and revised to produce

the following eight (8) criteria:

Criteria for Site Evaluation

1) Presence of a complete system - estuary, wetlands, and uplands

a) Presence of a tributary on the site. Is tributary
entirely within site boundaries?

Page Four

b) Wetland area comprises a significant precentage of
of the site area.

2) Relative lack of disturbance on the site and/or compatible land/water use
within the watershed.

3) Suitablity of the site for educational and estuarine research activities.

4) Representative of larger portions of Maryland's Chesapeake Bay estuarine
system.

5) Presence of endangered species within site.

6) Proximity of site to other State or Federal protected natural areas.

7) Diversity of habitats within site boundaries.

8) Ease of acquisition.

Two main concerns controlling this preliminary review of sites (listed in

Appendix II, page 26) were (1) whether or not significant degradation was known

to have occurred at a site since 1975 and (2) would acquisition of land parcels

be too slow a process to meet a September 15, 1980 deadline for site selection

established by OCZM. Due to the second concern, about the deadline, some suitable

sites were set aside for future consideration under a potential Chesapeake bhy

sanctuary system.

The results of the May 29 meeting included agreement upon the eight criteria

listed previously and a reduction in the list of sites for evaluation to eight

sites.

ParlarCreek - Calvert County Nanjemoy Creek - Charles County

Horn Point - Dorchester County 'Warehouse Creek - Queen Annets County

World's End Creek - Dorchester County Rhode River - Anne AruncW County

Little Monie Creek - Somerset County

Zekiah Swamp - Charles County

Page Five

It was later requested in a June 9, 1980 letter (Appendix III) that SC

members weight the criteria on a 100 point basis and submit any information

for the eight sites to CRD by June 23, 1980.

Site evaluation information for each of the eight sites was then compiled

by CRD staff and sent out to Su members to be evaluated according to the eight

criteria for discussion at the next SC meeting on July 18, 1980. Weights

for each of the criteria were determined from the mean values of the points

awarded by SC members.

At the July 18 meeting the SC numerically compiled their individual

rankings of the sites, according to the criteria, using the work sheets in

Appendix IV. This numerical ranking was designed to only serve as a basis

for discussion in determining a final ranking of sites after reviewing practical

considerations. The numerical rankings produced the following results:

Rank Site Points

I World's End Creek 788

2 Rhode River-Smithsonian 744

3 Parker Creek 676

4 Zekiah Swamp 661

5 Little Monie Creek 656

6 Nanjemoy Creek 632

7 Warehouse Creek 578

8 Horn Point 540

Horn Point was eliminated from further consideration after Dr.

Dennis Taylor's recommendation to that effect. (A Coast Guard facility is

planned for the site). Among the remaining seven sites, the SC decided to rerank

all sites but World's End Creek and Rhode River because they felt these two sites

were appropriately ranked. (The remaining sites had smaller ranges between their

Page Six

scores). After discussion the final rankings of sites were:

Rank Site

1 World's End Creek

2 Rhode River

3 Little Monie Creek

4 Parker Creek

5 Zekiah Swamp

6 Nanjemoy Creek

Warehouse Creek was eliminated from further consideration.

It was recommended to CRD by the Steering Committee that the top four

sites be pursued simultaneously in the site acquis~ion process since one site

might not be able to be acquired and emphasis could be shifted to an alternative

site without time being lost. It was further agreed that Maryland Environmental

Trust should contact affected propert) owners to determine -their interest in the

NESP. CRD was to organize meetings with the appropriate State legislative

delegations and OCZM officials to discuss the potential effects of the NESP on

their districts. County officials were to be informed of NESP activities through

CGD's Intergovernmental Coordination Program and its county coastal planners.

Based upon the response of property owners, a final single site would

be selected by the SC at a meeting in early September 1980.

The final sites selected at the SC meeting in September 1980 for nomination

to OCZM as candidate sanctuary sites were Rhode River and Little Creek/Monie Bay.

The. name. recommended for the sanctuary will reflect the desire to develop

a system of sites in Chesapeake Bay. The preferred name was Chesapeake Bay

Estuarine Sanctuary at _, with the name of a particular site

inserted in the blank, e.g. Chesapeake Bay Estuarine Sanctuary at

Rhode River.

Appendix *3(a)

aged, or reduced in size through de- these sanctuaries is the protection
velopment and pollution. These of vital habitats for estuarine-de-
prime food sources and beautiful pendent plant and animal life, in-
natural areas are in danger. cluding endangered species. Also,
In the late- 1960's, two Federal multiple uses can take place in the
studies depicting this unfortunate sanctuaries as long as the activities
situation convinced Congress that do not detract from their research
National Estuarine something must be done for our es- and educational uses.
tuaries. The result is the National
Sanctuary Program Estuarine Sanctuary Program, estab- Estuarine Sanctuaries Grants
lished through the Coastal Zone
In sheltered areas where rivers, Management Act of 1972 (and The sanctuaries are owned and
streams, or other bodies of fresh amended in 1976). This program was managed by the individual States,
water meet the open seas, living designed to make 50 percent match- but the States are financially assisted
creatures flourish. The diluted salt ing grants to coastal States for the (through 50 percent matching funds)
water they thrive in is constantly purposes of acquiring, developing, by the Federal Government in three
stirred by the tides, causing the or operating estuarine areas to be ways: preacquisition, acquisition,
land's waterborne humus, topsoil, set aside "to serve as natural field and operations grants. The preacqui-
.and other necessities for life to mix laboratories in which to study and sition grant may be used for real es-
with the ocean's minerals and or- gather data on the natural and hui- tate appraisals, refinement of bound-
ganic products of underwater decay. man processes occurring within the aries, and for the development of
The resulting broth is perfect for estuaries of the coastal zone." The management plans or programs for
protozoa, which are eaten by plank- data gathered at these sanctuaries research and education. The acquisi-
ton, which, in turn, are eaten by very will be useful in management deci- tion grant is to cover the actual
young and/or small fish, and so on sions concerning the coasts. and related costs of land acquisition.
up the scale to shrimp, oysters, At least 20 estuaries are planned Finally, operations grants are for
flounder, lobsters, and, of course, to be preserved in perpetuity for edu- those costs necessary for monitoring
man. Ecologists have found that cation and research, and they will the sanctuary and protecting the
many of these natural areas provide be chosen in such a manner that health of its ecosystem, and for the
man with more food per acre than they represent all of the Nation's bio- establishment and maintenance of
the best Midwestern farmland (in ad- logical and geographic regions, in an educational and scientific pro-
dition to providing, at no expense to cluding the Great Lakes. (For the gram.
the taxpayer, such services as waste- purposes of the Estuarine Sanctuary
water treatment and storm protec- Program, the term estuaries is de- The Individual Sanctuaries
tion). Also, it has been estimated that fined to include "estuary-type" areas
more than two-thirds of the commer- of the Great Lakes.) In this way, the At present, there are seven sanctu-
cial and recreational fish caught and information obtained within these aries in operation and several in the
eaten by Americans today directly sanctuaries should be useful in mak- planning stages for funding in the not-
depend on these areas, which are ing decisions concerning the welfare too-distant future. Each of the sanc-
known as estuaries. not only of all the Nation's estuaries, tuaries is biologically and geographi-
but of the entire coastal zone as well. cally unique, so that the benefits of
each one will accrue both to the
Sanctuary Utilization region in which it is located and to
= ~~~~~~~~~~~~the Nation as a whole.
The estuaries will be kept as un-
disturbed as possible so that scien- SOUTH SLOUGH, OREGON
tists will be able to study the naturally
functioning system and also will be The first estuarine sanctuary
able to use the areas as controls funded under the program is South
against which to measure ecological Slough, within Coos Say, Oregon.
changes in other estuaries. In addi- Truly enabling researchers to study
tion, the sanctuaries will provide stu- both "natural and human proc-
dents and the general public with esses," this 4,200-acre sanctuary
But there is a problem with this places where they can learn about preserves freshwater and saltwater
lifegiving process: nearly all of our the ecology and the environment in a marshes, an island covered with a
estuaries are being destroyed, dam- natural setting. A further benefit of climax forest, numerous species of

-..'-"� ' .? ' ; - , ,:,-,'.- ; ~ : recently featured in America's Ma-
:- ~-g.'. -~,'. -" . '~ ,' ,w, ' 'jestic Canyons, published by the
.9 ,. b .: National Geographic Society.

4* .,1 . ' ,.1_, OLD WOMAN CREEK, OHIO
- Jba
-*w ";.-'--e~ --, ' -- go- ~' ~~,,~ .,. , :.,,:,~.,~,-~ ,~:.~,~ Old Woman Creek, Ohio, is rela-
~~:-,''-~ '. .:~" ....... " -� - tively small-only 637 acres-but
I~~ ~ ~ ~ f ,*ecologically it is extremely valuable.
The sanctuary area is one of the few
~'.J~~~~ ~ '~~ ~'~ i ~'~ comparatively natural estuaries re-
�',- ______._;__:~.]~:~.,~?;;:';~, ~'?~tl r ~~~~~7~ ~ maining on the heavily populated
shores of Lake Erie. As such, it is of
great importance as a control, or
baseline area, for measuring the
success of coastal land and water
management efforts for the Great
Lakes biogeographic region. Ohio is
currently exploring the use of Old
Woman Creek Estuarine Sanctuary
as the State's freshwater research
plants and animals, and in addition, acres of Sapelo Island, encompass- center. Since it is near urban cen-
a prehistoric Indian midden, an ing the Duplin River. But the whole ters, the educational aspects of es-
abandoned gold mine, and the sites island,. in addition to two adjacent tuaries also will be heavily empha-
of old railroad logging dumps. This islands, is preserved by various sized.
timber country sanctuary is managed State and Federal agencies. Sapelo
by the South Slough Estuarine Sanc- is the site of prehistoric Indian
tuary Management Commission, mounds, an oyster shell ring, and ROOKERY BAY, FLORIDA
which is comprised of several State numerous plantation ruins from the Covering more than 8,500 acres,
agencies, local agencies, private late 18th and early 19th century. The Florida's Rookery Say sanctuary pre-
sector representation, and a mem- only privately held property on the serves a large, mangrove filled bay
ber of the Oregon University system. island, within a community called and two creeks, along with their
Because South Slough is one of the Hog Hammock, belongs to approxi- drainage corridors, from Florida's
first large natural areas to be pre- mately 200 black people whose fam- ever expanding land development.
served in this manner, its multidisci- ilies have lived and worked on the Management of the sanctuary is by
plinary management commission island since the early eighteen hun- the Florida Department of Fish and
may become a prototype for the dreds. Game, the Collier County Conser-
planners and managers of other vancy, and the National Audubon
ecosystems to be protected in the WAIMANU, HAWAII Society. This unique management
future. structure was created when the two
Waimanu, Hawaii, a mountain-en- private organizations granted a
SAPELO ISLAND, GEORGIA closed stream valley, is so isolated dollar-per-year, 99-year lease of the
that land access is gained only by a land to the State. Federal and State
The concept of a "wetlands re- strenuous 6- to 8-hour hike. Because funds will add additional key acreage
search park" truly became a reality of this isolation, this 5,900-acre estu- to the existing core area. The divers-
in the unspoiled marshes and beach arine sanctuary is nearly pristine. ity of the area's fauna can be recog-
stretches of Sapelo Island, Georgia. Adjacent to Waimanu, however, is a nized by the porpoises that feed
Here, for more than 20 years, scien- nearly identical valley, Waipio, which there and the bald eagles and white-
tists have been pursuing a variety of has within it a few small taro (poi) tailed deer that make Rookery Bay
studies in the biological sciences on farms. Because one is inhabited and their permanent residences. Within
the island's isolated wetlands en- the other is not, these two estuaries the sanctuary is the Rookery Bay
vironment. This research has. been could, in the future, provide a "natural Marine Laboratory, which, even be-
based at the University of Georgia experiment" to examine the effects fore the sanctuary's establishment,
Marine Institute, on the island's of farming and habitation on the estu- provided data used in important
southern end, within the sanctuary. arine ecology in comparison with an coastal management decisions-a
The sanctuary itself preserves 7,400 undisturbed system. Waimanu was primary objective of Congress in

legislating the existence of the Na- portions of the slough, covers 1,510 Study here, and at the other es-
tional Estuarine Sanctuary Program. acres, but these will be contiguous tuarine sanctuaries, will help to better
with a proposed U.S. Fish and Wild- understand coastal areas, so that
life Service Refuge on the north and they may remain functioning ecosys-
west portions so that the whole tems while humans continue to enjoy
slough system will be protected. In their many benefits.
g| r 'the future, joint management prac-
tices for both areas will be pursued
by the State and the U.S. Fish and
", Wildlife Service. The small town of For more information concerning
Moss Landing, at the mouth of the the individual sanctuaries or the Na-
slough, contains within -it Moss tional Estuarine Sanctuary Program
Landing Marine Laboratory, which in general, contact the appropriate
A G mhas been and will continue doing re- State coastal zone management
search on the slough. Because, in agency or the Federal Office of
~=f?.? ~ general, the salt concentration of Coastal Zone Management, Estua-
~- ^ > * r ~r ~ Elkhorn is close to marine, one re- rine Sanctuaries Program Manager,
searcher has called it "a portion of 3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W.
APALACHICOLA BAY/RIVER, the ocean bottom conveniently Washington, D.C. 20235
FLORIDA located for study." Phone: (202) 634-4236

The largest sanctuary, at more
than 190,000 acres, Florida's Apala-
chicola Bay/River estuary has been
called one of the largest remaining
naturally functioning systems in the
Nation, and it is also the first sanc- ESTUARINE SANCTUARIES
tuary on the mouth of a major naviga-
ble river. Because of this, its estab-
lishment served to promote improved
cooperation among the States of , r.
Florida, Alabama, and Georgia over
river navigation. The major business
activity of the town of Apalachicola, Old Woman
adjacent to the sanctuary, centers rmee,
around the oyster industry, and it is Ohio
expected that the sanctuary will
benefit this and other fishing indus-
tries by protecting the environment
and by providing research informa-
tion that will help assure the con-
tinued productivity of this river/bay
ecosystem. Within the Apalachicola
Estuarine Sanctuary boundaries are
an existing U.S. Fish and Wildlife Sapelo
Refuge and a State Park, which, td- Island, Ga
gether, represent a unique coopera-
tive effort at ecosystem protection. Waimanu, Hawaii

%, / Apalachicola
ELKHORN, SLOUGH,IA Bay/River, Fla. ' Rookery
CALIFORNIA % Bay, Fla.
One of the more recent estuarine
sanctuaries to be funded is Elkhorn
Slough, California. The sanctuary
itself, which is on the south and east

Appendix 3(b)

Estuarine Sanctuary Selection Process

September, 1975

Elder Ghigiarelli

Coastal Resources Division

PREFACE

This document identifies the Estuarine SanctUary selection

process and the areas within Maryland's coastal zone to which the

proces7 was applied to select an area for proposal to the Office

of Coastal Zone Management (NOAA) as an estuarine sanctuary

defined under Section 312 of the Federal Coastal Zone Management

Act of 1972 (Pub. L. 92-583, 86 Stat. 1280) and Estuarine

Sanctuary Guidelines issued pursuant to the Coastal Zone

Management Act. Thus, it is the first of several "chapters"

of what will be the Department's application for an estuarine

sanctuary grant. Other components of the application will

include a description of the proposed sanctuary, an assessment

of the environmental and socio-economic impacts of the proposed

sanctuary, and a description of management techniques including

intended research and educational uses.

Applying the process identified herein, and with the advice

of an ad hoc site selection group, the Coastal Zone Management

staff has recommended that World's End Creek be proposed to NOAA

for an estuarine sanctuary grant.

I. BACKGROUND

The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 provides fifty percent

Federal Matching grants to acquire, develop, and operate natural

areas as estuarine sanctuaries for the purpose of creating natural

field laboratories to gather data and make studies of the natural

and human processes occurring within the estuaries of the coastal

zone. From discussions with research scientists, representatives

of citizen organizations, and other knowledgable people, it was

decided that Maryland's approach to the estuarine sanctuary program

would be to establish a string of areas throughout Maryland's

coastal zone. The rationale for this approach was that it would

be representative of the different types of estuarine systems which

occur in the State.

To differentiate various estuarine types,'combinations of

wetland type and physiographic type were used. The U.S. Wetland
1
Classification System was used as the basis for distinguishing

wetland types since this scheme was utilized in the only complete

Statewide wetlands survey. This classification system identifies

20 different wetland types on the basis of physical and chemical

parameters such as flooding and salinity regimes. Associated with

each wetland type are vegetation communities reflecting variations.

in estuarine habitats. In Maryland the major wetland types, vege-

tative community dominants, and percent of each type in the state-

wide wetlands are shown in Table I.

1
Martin, Alexander C., Neil Ilotchkiss, Francis 1. Uhler, and
Warren S. Bournri, 1953, C].ar;;i. ficLtiori of Wet a.1rid!; of thcL Uni. ted
States, U.S. Depqlrtmbent of Interior, Fis3 atnd( W.ildlieLc Service,
Special Scientific Report, Wildlife No. 20.

TABLE I

Vegetation Community Percentage of
Type Dominant(s) Total

7-Wooded Swamp Red Maple, River Birch, Sweetgum, 22.2
Pin Oak, and Cypress, Sourgum, Ash

12-Coastal Cattail, Big Cordgrass, Arrow Arum, 22.7
Shallow Fresh Pickerel Weed, Three Square, Rose
Marsh Mallow

16-Coastal Salt Saltmeadow Cordgrass, Saltgrass, 25.3
Meadow Blackrush

17-Irregularly Needlerush 21.7
Flooded Salt
Marsh

18-Regularly Saltmarsh cordgrass 4.1
Flooded Salt-
marsh

All but Type 7 are always considered as part of the estuarine

environment. Type 7 wetlands may or may not be considered as part

of an estuarine system depending on whether they are influenced

by tidal rise and fall. They are often associated with the other

wetland types, and are included as part of the estuarine system.

Two major physiographic types occur in the Maryland estuarine

system. They are represented by the low, flat topography of the

Eastern shore and the higher, sharply rolling topography of the

Western shore. Exceptions occur on limited areas of both shores.

These two types are expressions of natural factors such as surficial

geology, soil type, surface and subsurface hydrology, vegetation,

climate, and interactions between them. These factors, in combination

with land use, control the amount and quality of water that

enters the estuarine environment and the type of estuarine system

that exists.

In order to acquire a complete set of sanctuaries represent-

ing the major components of the Maryland estuarine system, it

was determined that one example of each wetland type-physiographic

type combination should be selected. This would result in a set

of eight sanctuaries scattered throughout the Chesapeake Bay

and oceanside bays area as illustrated by the matrix in Table II.

TABLE II

Wetland type Physiographic type

Eastern shore Western shore

Type 12 X X
Type 16 X X
Type 17 -X X
Type 18 X X

However, wetland types 17 and 18 are absent in significant areas

from the Western shore according to the Maryland Wetlands Survey

reducing the number of combinations to six.

In addition, it was felt that three additional types of

estuarine systems based on pnysiographic characteristics should

be included in a representative set of sanctuaries. These include

islands, tributary embayments, and marshes occurring on the shoaling

edge of meanders on the large tributaries to Chesapeake Bay.

However, discussions with NOAA representatives led to the

rejection of the multiple-area concept. NOAA favored the selection

of a single sanctuary within the State and felt that efforts

should be concentrated on the Chesapeake Bay, preferably within

the middle portion of the Bay (Bay Bridge south to the Virginia

State line).

The following pages provide a description of the selection

process which has resulted in the selection of six potential

estuarine sanctuary-sites. A description and comparative evaluation

of these sites is included.

II. ESTUARINE SANCTUARY SELECTION PROCESS

The selection process consisted of four separate phases

including criteria development, nomination of potential sites,

evaluation of sites by topographic maps and wetland aerial photographs,

and evaluation of sites by on-site inspection. Evaluation of the

suitability of the sites nominated as estuarine sanctuaries was

based on the ability of each site to meet the criteria developed

as determined by members of the Coastal Zone staff.

A. Criteria development

Site evaluation criteria were developed by numerous and

lengthy discussions with scientists and field workers familiar with

the estuarine environment, particularly the Chesapeake Bay. This

produced an initial list of criteria which workers felt ought to

be applied to any site that is selected (see Table III). The list

was reduced to seven criteria because: (1) numerical values were

not given by the researchers and field workers for the initial

criteria which could be quantified, thus, precluding determination of

TABLE III

Suggested Criteria for Site Selection

Physical Criteria

1. Horizontal and vertical salinity gradients
2. Two layered hydraulic system
3. Tidal guts with high banks and low banks
4. Varying substrates
5. Eroding and accreting shoreline
6. Sites unaffected by draw down of water table
7. Inclusion of entire watershed
8. Achievement of dynamic equilibrium between constructive and
destructive processes
9. Varied range of topographic characteristics of the upland including:
steam gradients
relative relief
degree of dissection
10. Varied range of topographic characteristics of estuarine areas including:
hydrographic and climatological orientation
shoreline differences

Biological Criteria

1. Presence of natural shellfish beds and spawning and nursery grounds
for typical Bay fish
2. Large wintering waterfowl population
3. Variety of vegetative communities
4. Large stands of Spartina alterniflora, Spartina patens, Juncus roemerianus,
Distichlis spicata
5. High plant species diversity (freshwater marsh area)
6. Presence of rare and endangered species
7. High marsh and low marsh
8. Submerged aquatic plants

Other Criteria

1. Reference set of estuarine systems representative of the entire bay
2. Lack of ongoing disturbance resulting from shipping, dredging,
commercial harvesting, intense recreation, housing, or commercial
development or development pressures
3. Ease of acquisition
4. Compatible laud/water use in adjacent areas
5. Sufficiently large area
6. Unaltered landscape and estuarine bottom
7. Presence of buffer zone
8. Proximity to educational and research facilities

representative values; (2) data And information do not exist at

a scale large enough to describe or evaluate all specific sites

in terms of all the initial criteria listed; and (3) no site would

be able to meet all the initial criteria even if the data existed

at a usable scale.

The final set of criteria was developed in consultation

with a core of scientific experts representing the University of

Maryland Center for Environmental and Estuarine Studies, Chesapeake

Research Consortium, Maryland Geological Survey, and Maryland

Department of Natural Resources. In order of importance, the final

criteria by which each site was evaluated are:

1. presence of a tributary on the site;

2. Relative lack of disturbance on the site and/or compatible

land/water use on the watershed;

3. wetland area in excess of 100 acres;

4. presence of a complete system -- estuary, wetlands, and

uplands;

5. presence of a salinity gradient in the estuary;

6. diversity of habitats; arnd

7. (optional) presence of an adjacent watershed perturbed

by human activity.

B. Specific site selection and elimination process

Specific sites chosen for evaluation as estuarine sanctuaries

were selected from the study, Natural Areas of the Chesapeake Bay

2
Region: Ecological Priorities, as well as from suggestions made

by interested citizens, field workers, and scientists familiar

with the Maryland estuarine system, and from study of county topo-

graphic maps and composite sheets of wetland aerial. photographs by

Coastal Zone staff.

Sites were then evaluated by wetland aerial photographs on

the basis of the criteria established. As far as could be determined

from the aerial photographs, sites which appeared to meet all the

criteria-were given on-site evaluations by Coastal Zone staff.

On-site inspections were made to determine present condition of

the site, type and extent of land and water uses and whether such

uses are compatible with the concept of estuarine sanctuaries,

specific vegetation type(s) occurring on the site, and other major

geographic characteristics of the proposed sanctuary.

The following steps summarize the process which led to the

selection of the six areas under consideration as estuarine sanc-

tuary sites:

1. The 232 sites identified in the 1974 Smithsonian Insti-

tution's natural areas study were analyzed by map study and/or

aerial photo evaluation. Forty sites (Appendix A) were selected

for more detailed aerial photo examination.

2. Twenty-eight additional areas (Appendix B) were selected

for detailed aerial photo examination after scanning composite

aerial photographs covering Maryland's entire tidal shoreline,

and after receiving nominations from the academic community, State

personnel, and environmental groups.

2
Center for Naturial A t:eaxr, Sfqi.thnonian i nstiLutio�t, 1974, Natural
Areas of the Chesapeake Bay }{eqioll: Ecologi cal Priori[.[es;

3. intensive aerial photo examination of these 68 areas

resulted in the selection of 19 superior areas for on-site inspec-

tion (Appendix C). In addition, five less desirable sites were

visited for comparative purposes, and also to verify that the

examination of aerial photographs was an effective method for

eliminating sites.

While on-site inspections were taking place, the concept

of a multiple site sanctuary that would represent the entire range

of variation within the Chesapeake estuarine system was adopted

by Maryland. With this concept in mind, intensive aerial photo

examination resulted in the selection of seven sites (Appendfix D).

4. NOAA representatives rejected the multiple site estuarine

sanctuary concept and indicated that they were looking for an

area with the following characteristics:

a. located adjacent to Chesapeake Bay, preferably

within the salinity regime that characterizes the middle portion

of the Bay (i.e., from Chesapeake Bay Bridge south to the Virginia

state line);

b. include the components of a "complete system" -- some

open water, wetlands, and upland;

C. contain a minimum of 800 acres;

d. be as unaffected by man-related activities (i.e.,

housing, agriculture., mosquito ditching) as possible

With these additional criteria in mind, the 19 suitable

areas chosen in step 3 were re-examined, and five areas (Appendix

Ef with the exception of Iforn Point) were selected for a process

of comparative evaluation. One additional site, Horn Point, was

also included in the comparative process since much of it is

already State-owned and an established research institution (CEES)

is located there.

III. COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF THE FINAL SIX SITES

The six sites under consideration include Parker Creek

(Calvert County), World's End Creek and Horn Point (Dorchester

County), Ellis Bay Wildlife Management Area - Stump Point Marsh

(Wicomico County), and East Creek and Little IMonie Creek (Somerset

County). A description-of the sites is given in Table IV.

The following pages provide a comparison of the outstanding

features and negative attributes followed by an evaluation of

each site with regard to its suitability for an estuarine sanctuary

site. An assumption which is made in this comparative evaluation

is that, sincde these six sites have made it this far in the selec-

tion process, each is suitable for estuarine sanctuary designation.

Although the outstanding features will play an important role in

the site selected, it is felt that the negative attributes or

disturbance factors should play a more important role in the elimi-

nation process and are thus emphasized.

A. Parker Creek

1. outstanding features

Parker Creek is a narrow, shallow estuary that flows

cast through deeply dissected Miocene deposits of fine-grained

sand and silt and fine-grained sandy clays. The site of past and

DESCRIPTICN Or PROPOSED ESTWARINE SANCIVARY AREAS

ELLIS BAY ~Za
PARKER MRLDS END STUMP PT. LITTLE MJNIE EAST CREEK HORN POTrI
CREEK CREEK MARSH CREK

Location East-Central So.Dorchester So.WiccItico Northeast Saner- So.Scmerset Northern Dorc
Calvert Co. Co. (on Honga Co. (mouth of set Co. (near Co. (empties ter Co. (soft
River) Wiccaico River) mouth of Wiccmi- into Pocaroke shore of Chop
co River) Sound) River)

Proposed
Sanctuary
Size (Acres)

Wetland 280 2,290 4,006 863 863 62

Upland 675 1,590 1,310 2,532 2,338 791

Opemnater 175 563 989 446 18

Total 955 4,055 5,879 4,384 3,647 871

Types 6, 7, 12 Types 6, 17 Types 16, 17, 18 Types 16,117 Type 17
& 16 -Shrub swamp -Coastal salt -Coastal salt -Shrub swarp -Irregular flo
-Shrub swamp -Irregular meadow meadow -Irregular salt marsh
-Wooded swamp flooded salt :-Irregular flooded -Irregular flood- flooded salt
-Shallow fresh marsh salt marsh ed salt marsh marsh Species
marsh -Regularly flooded -Spartina alte:
-Coastal salt Specie salt marsh species Species flora
meadow -Spartina alter- -Spartina alter- -Spartina alter- -Spartina atei
niflora S222ies niflora niflora Distichlis si
Wetland Species -Spartina patens -Spartina alter- --Juncus Roaroer- -Spartina patens- -J..::,cus Rcerner:
Type -W1ooded swamp -Juncus roeneri- niflora ianus Distichlis - ,hragmites
Acer anus (dominant) -Sptin~a patens- picata -Baccharis hali
Fraxnus *--eg-aina patn/ Distichlis -Juncus roGner- mifolia
Betula t s sicata ianus -Iva frutescenE
ssa -Scirpus sp. -Iva frutescens
V urnuf --Iva fiutescens -Spartina cyno- -Baccharis
-Fresh marsh suroides halihmitolia
TyPha -Jurncus roeerianus
-Coastal salt
meadow
Spartina patens
Spartina cynosuroides

ELLIS BAY UMA-
PARKER WDRLDS OND STUMP PT, IITILE .MNIE EAST CRETEK HORN POT,
CREEK CREEK MARSH CREEK

kpact on Assessment: Assessment: Assessment: Assessment: Assessment:
:ounty Tax Base -Farmland- -Farmland- -Farmland- -Farmland- -Farmland-
$300/acre $60-$150/acre $150/acre $150/acre $150/acre
-Marsh-$20/acre -Marsh-$15/acre -larsh-$30/acre -Marsh-$10-$50/ -Marsh-$10-$50/
-Forest-$50/acre -Forest-$60- -Forest-$35/acre acre acre
Tax Rate: $150/acre Tax Rate: -Forest-$35- -Forest-$35-
-County-$2.55/ Tax Rate: -County-$1.90/ $150/acre $150/acre
$100 assessed -County-$2.69/ $100 ' Tax Rate: Tax Rate:
value $100 assessed -State-$0.21/ -County-$2.00/ -County-$2.00/
-State-$0.21/ value $100 $100 $100
$100 assessed -State-$0.21/ -State-$0.21/ -State-$0.21/
value $100 assessed $100 $100
value

'resent Private Private (strong Public (QMA) Private Private; including Public (Univ.
~nership hunting club Private Public-marsh on marshland ainmed by Md.)-836 aci
interests) both sides of Maryland Ornitho- Private-36 Ec
mouth of creek logical Society) of marshland
(Deal Island
A)

.ccessibility Md. Rt. 2 (south Rt. 50 to Md. Rt. Rt. 50 to Md. Rt. Rt. 50 to Rt. 13 Rt. 50 to Rt. 13 Rt. 50 to Cant
to Md. Rt. 402 16 south and west 347 south to Nebo south to Rt. 362 south to Rt. 413 Rt. 343 west t
(east) to Gold- to Md. Rt. 335 Rd. south to Nebo west to Black Rd. south to Rt. 357 Horn Pt. Rd.
stein Rd. (south) South to Md. Rt. Rd. south to Rt. (west) south to St. Paul's
336 east 349 west to Capi- Rd. east to Rurbly Boat: CarbridS
Boat: from tola Rd. Boat: from Mt. Pt. Road
Chesapeake Bay Boat: froa Md. Vernon Wharf on Air: private
Rt. 336 (small Boat: from Mt. Wicomico River Boat: from Cris- airstrip adjac
boat only) or Vernon Wharf on field to Horn Pt. la
from Hooper Wicomico River Air: Crisfield Air: Crisfield Air-
Island Airport port
Air: Salisbury
Air: Private air- Airport
strip on Meekins
Neck (Hooper Is.)

,12

ELLIS BAY WMA
PAREIR WORLDS END STUMP PT. LITTLE MONIE EAST CRFEK HORN POIN.T
CREEK CREK MARSHI CREEr

Upland Upland deciduous Oak-pine Pine Pine Pine Oak-gum
Type forest Pine plantatic
Upland mixed
forest
Lowland deciduous
forest

Present Use Hunting Hunting (heavy) Dredged spoil Crabbing (Monie Bay) Birdwatching Research
of Proposed Trapping Trapping (heavy) disposal Hunting Hunting laboratory
Sanctuary Utility line Sportfishing Wildlife mgmt. Trapping
Area right-of-way (light) I practices Crabbing
Lumbering (past) Oystering (light) Hunting Oystering
Farming ( licht) Trapping

Surrounding Limited agricul- Wildlife mngmt. Agriculture Wildlife mgmt. Agriculture Agriculture
Land Use-- ture (Blackwater) (predacminant) Agriculture (grain and (predotminant)
Outside Pro- Woodland Tree farm Residential poultry) Woodla.d
posed Sanctuary Woodland (light) Clay excavation
Boundary Woodland Residential
(light)

Zoning Residential Agriculture Conservation Conservation
Commercial (Prince Agriculture Agriculture
Frederick area)
Agriculture
Conservation
Floodplain

Estimated Marsh-$150/acre Marsh-$150- Marsh-$150- Marsh-$150- Marsh-$50-
_ost of Forest-$1000/acre $200/acre '$200/acre $200/acre $200/acre
Xcquisition Farmland- Upland-$300- Forest-$250- Forest-$200/acre Forest-$200/acre
$800-$1000/acre $350/acre $300/acre Farmland-$500- Farnland-$500- U.A.
Farmland-$S1000- $800/acre $800/acre
$5000/acre

1. 3

on-going research activities, the creek exhibits a well-defined

salinity gradient along its longitudinal axis and laterally on

the marsh areas on both sides of the creek. An extensive zone

of hardwoods begins at the marsh border and coincides with steep

banks found at the edge of the marsh. The marsh areas are extensive

and appear undisturbed. A small strip of dune vegetation occurs

in a narrow strip parallel to the shore between the ridges of

upland forest adding to the diversity of habitats found on this

site.

The Parker Creek system provides an excellent example bf

representative estuarine lands and water ranging from fresh to

brackish water, and from wooded swamp to coastal shallow marsh

before its confluencewithChesapeake Bay. The mouth of the creek

lies along an eroding shoreline with sand beaches extending to

the north and south. Longshore Bay currents cause a shifting of

the sandy sediments at the mouth of the creek, thus presenting

opportunities for geologic research. The rate of sedimentation

and fill along the length of the estuary is another research possi-

bility for the geologist.

2. Negative attributes

The major shortcomings of the Parker Creek site include

discharge from the Prince Frederick waste water treatment plant

at the headwaters of the creek and the lack of direct road access.

In addition to the Prince Frederick sewage treatment plant, a

regional sewage treatment plant may be constructed just north of

the mouth of the creek. Although the area provides a fine examaple

of a represent'ative estuarine system, there is an absence of onp-_

water and an excessive amount of upland in comparison to marsh

area ('-'2:l1 ratio) .

Substantial change has occurred in the area as the creek

was once a navigable waterway accommodating barge traffic. it is

possible that the mouth of the creek may close off naturally in

the next 25-50 years, resulting in a transition of the existing

diversified marsh to shrub swamp.

Other drawbacks of the site include some lumbering activities

in the past and the presence of high land values.

3. Evaluation

Parker Creek provides an excellent example of a complete

estuarine system in a relatively undisturbed state'. A salinity

gradient is apparent as well as marine, tidal, and fluvial deposi-

tional processes.

Although predominantly undisturbed, the site falls short

in some of the desired natural features. These include an excess

of upland area and the absence of open wafer. The other major

drawback is the Prince Frederick sewage treatment plant. Although

this plant provides tertiary treatment, it is not operating at

full capacity and will expand in the future.

B. World's End Creek

1. Outstanding features

World's End Creek is a shallow tidal tributary flowing

south through undifferentiated Quatermay sand and gravel and

lignitic silt and clay. The shape of the estuary is characterized

by an extensive meander pattern from the creek's narrcw headwaters

until it straightens and broadens into a fan-shaped mouth, creating

an expanse of open water-near the mouth of the creek. Numerous

small tributaries with no upland runoff flow through the marsh.

At the southern extreme of the drainage basin near the mouth of

the creek a linear pattern of ridges running in a northwest/south-

east direction represent a relatively.. rarelandform found on the

Eastern Shore. An extensive marsh system is located on the site

which includes wetland types 6 (shrub swamp), 7 (wooded swamp), and

17 (irregularly flooded salt marsh). The marsh is predominantly

Type 17 and is dominated by Juncus roemerianus. Distinct narrow

bands of Spartina alterniflora, Iva frutescens, and Spartina patens -

Distichlis spicata border the creek and its tributaries in a classic

pattern of zonation.

The watershed is sparsely populated and human activity

appears to be limited chiefly to hunting, fishing, trapping and

some limited agriculture.

2. Negative attributes

The negative attributes of this site are few. The

major concerns are a small county landfill located just north of

the proposed sanctuary boundary and four artificial ditches which

are located at the head of the marsh tributaries in the upper

watershed. These ditches appear to be the only disturbance to

the marsh area. In addition, local marine police indicated that

some lumbering activity did occur in the past on the upper watershed.

3. Evaluation

World's End Creek is one of the few entire watersheds

1.5

that has not been significantly impacted- by human activity. it.

has all the desirable natural features of a representative system

including open water, extensive marsh, and sufficient upland buffer.

The creek's shallow depth and remoteness from centers of recreational

boating ensure that it will not be overrun with large numbers of

boats. The marsh area of the proposed sanctuary is usitable for

major housing or commercial development, but may be susceptible

to mosquito ditching due to the irregularity of tidal flooding and

the significant frequency of pools of water on the marsh.

The drawbacks of the site appear to be of minor significance.

The landfill is enclosed by pine-oak forest and poses no obvious

threat to the marshes of the site. It has been closely monitored

by the county and no problems have been encountered.

one of the most desirable features of this site concerns

the uses of the lands and waters within the proposed sanctuary

boundary as well as surrounding areas. The trapping, hunting,

fishing and oystering activity are all compatible with the sanctuary

concept.. A potential plus is that the southwest portion of the

proposed sanctuary is owned by hunting clubs. There is a possi-

bility of conservation easement donations from these groups.

The potential of incompatible uses in surrounding areas is slim

due to the relative remoteness of the region. There is a. potential

for lumbering activity but this is unlikely due to the difficulty

in removing the lumber from the area.

C-. Ellis Bacy WMA - Stump Point Marsh.

1. Outstanding features

This site is characterized by an extensive marsh system

surrounding Ellis Bay on the Wicomico River in southeast Wicomico

County. There are numerous waterways throughout the site, the

major ones being Broad Creek and its main tributary, Muddy Hole

Creek. Broad Creek meanders south from its headwaters for approx-

imately three miles before emptying into the north end of Ellis

Bay.

The site possess the desired features of a complete system

-- open water (Ellis Bay), extensive marshland, and upland forested

areas located predominantly in the north and the northeast portions

of the site. Marshlands on the site are diverse including Types

16, 17, and 18 (see table IV). Another desirable feature of this

site is the inclusion of Ellis WMA which is already State-owned.

2. Negative attributes

The major drawbacks of the site concern undesirable

surrounding land uses and human disturbance to the marshlands.

There is extensive agricultural activity and residential development

in the areas bordering west-northwest proposed sanctuary boundary.

Another drawback in this area is the lack of adequate upland

buffer. Disturbance to the marshlands consist of extensive mosquito

ditching on the west side of Broad Creek and several spoil disposal

areas in the south-southeast portion of the site. In addition,

Ellis Bay W.M.A. is intensively managed including the use of dynamite

to create potholes for waterfowl habitat.

3. Evaluation

Although the Ellis Bay WMA - Stump Point Marsh site pros-

sesses tile desired elements of a complete, diversified system, the

extent of disturbance to its marshlands and thc surrounding

agricultural/residential development tend to overwhelm its bene-

ficial characteristics. The severity of disturbance to the site

tends-to limit the site's natural character making it incom-

patible with the sanctuary concept.

D. East Creek

1. Outstanding features

East Creek is a small estuary which flows south and

empties into Pocomoke Sound in one of the southernmost areas of

Maryland's eastern shore. The mouth of the creek is approx-

imately one-half mile wide for a length extending about about one

and one-half miles upstream. Beyond this point the creek narrows

to a width of 40 to 50 feet for approximately three miles.

Extensive marshlands border the lower half of the creek and

make up the lower half of the watershed. There exists a patchy

open water/vegetation pattern within the wetland areas on both sides

of the creek, particularly on the southern portion of the marshes

on the watershed. No plant species can be said to dominate the

entire marsh. Rather, a patchwork of vegetation types exists,

indicating a system of pannes, potholes, and shifting drainage

pattern.s on the marsh.

Although the watershed is extremely flat, interesting topo-

graphic patterns can be identified and pose interesting geomor-

phological questions. Throughout the marshlands are areas of

slight elevation supporting stands of loblolly pine and juniper.

Over the area as a whole these patches of elevated ground suggest

the presence of an older meandering pattern.

2. Negative attributes

Although the East Creek site is one of the few areas of

Somerset County that has not been ditched for mosquito control,

channels have been dredged and spoil has been dumped on the high

marsh in the northeast section of the marshlands of the watershed.

These channels and Rumbly Point Road, which crosses the marsh

to the east of East Creek, alter the drainage regime of the marsh

to an indeterminate extent. Another threat to the integrity of

the estuary as a sanctuary comes from extensive upstream farming

activity. Several of the farms are poultry farms and represent

potential (if not already real) sources of nutrient loading to

the estuarine system. In addition, much of the agricultural land

is ditched and water is culverted directly into the creek. Other

human disturbance in the upper watershed is evidenced by several

clay borrow pits which are used for county road building operations.

One of these has a meander connecting it directly to the creek.

3. Evaluation

The outstanding features of the East Creek system are

the presence of open water and its extensive marsh area which is

diverse in vegetation. The major drawback to the area is the

high degree of human disturbance which exists in the upper watershed.

Although the marsh is still healthy, it is likely that human activity

is affecting water quality in the creek and will cause alteration

to the marsh in the future.

The areas remote location also causes a distance problem

for potential researchers.

E. Little Monie Creek

1. Outistanding features

Little Monie Creek is a small estuary which flows in a

westerly direction, emptying into Monie Bay in northwest Somerset

County. Extensive marshlands border the creek in the lower

watershed but then become narrow and border the creek in a fringe

type fashion in the upper watershed. The marshlands are Type

16 and 17 wetlands dominated by Spartina alterniflora and Juncus

roemerianus.

One of the more desirable features of the site is the

undeveloped character of the lands which surround the lower

and middle portions of the watershed. The marsh in the lower

watershed is bordered on both sides by Deal Island W.M.A. and the

middle portion of the watershed is upland forest.

2. Negative atributes

The major drawback with Little Monie Creek is the presence

of extensive agricultural activity in the upper watershed. In

this area fringe marsh borders the creek which is backed by

farmland. Although a narrow vegetative buffer surrounds the

fringe marsh, it is likely that the system is susceptable to

large amounts of agricultural runoff. Difficulties in acquisition

and subsequent control could be encountered due to the fact the

Little Monie Creek and several of its tributaries extendconsiderably intc

agricultural areas in the upper'watershed.

Other negative features of the site are the presence of some

mosquito ditching south of the creek in the lower watershed and

the relative absence of open water on the site itself.

3. Evaluation

The Little Monie Creek site is a fine example of representative

estuarine system in a relatively undisturbed state. Its only

drawback in this regard is the absence of open water which would be

a desirable feature. Although the shortcomings of the site are

few, the agricultural activity and potential acquisition and

control p-roblems tend to detract from the site's desirability for

an estuarine sanctuary.

F. Horn Point

1. Outstanding features

The Horn Point site is located in northern Dorchester

County on the southern shore of the Choptank River. Although

the site falls short of some of the initial criteria and desirable

natural characteristics, it is included in the evaluation because

the majority of it. is already state owned and is the location of

an established research institution, the University of Maryland

Center for Environmental and Estuarine Studies (CEES). THe

presently owned marshland on the site consists of a 14 - acre

marsh along a tidal creek which runs north into the Choptank River

on the east side of Horn Point. There are plans to acquire an

additional 36 acres of marshland.

2. Negative attributes

Two of the major drawbacks to the Horn Point site are that

the marshland on the site is extremely small and there is extensive

agricultural activity over the entire area making the marsh highly

susceptible to agricultural runoff. The only upland forested areas

are located in the extreme inland portion of the site.

The 14- acre marsh on the site has undergone extensive

alteration. At the mouth of the creek a two-rmeter wide spillway

with a concrete floor has been constructed. This structure

affects the tidal level of the marsh because the tide always

flows out for a longer period of time than in and creates a

"sill effect". Occasionaly, if the incoming tide is very small,

the marsh may drain for 18-24 hours before the tide becomes high

enou~gh to reenter the marsh. A small pond has also been formed

at the beginning of the spillway by dredging.3 A causeway has

also been constructed across the marsh near the mouth of the creek.

Toward the headwaters of the creek a road has been constructed

across the marsh. The only connection to the back portion of the

marsh is by a 24" culvert running under the road. This has resulted

in an abrupt alternation of the salinity gradient and has created

an "unnatural" or artificial fresh Hibiscus marsh at the headwaters

of the creek.

3. Evaluation

The major advantage of the Horn Point site is the-existing

public ownership of the property and the presence of CEES, an

institution dedicated to estuarine research. However, the facilities

of CEES and the extensive alteration of the marsh indicate thaz

the site no longer exists in its natural state. Since the major

objective of the program is to designate as natural an area as

possible for baseline research, the disturbance to the Horn Point

site make it unsuitable for an estuarine sanctuary.

3Donald R. Cahoon, Net Productivity of Eme~rgent Vegetation at
Horn Point Salt Marsh, M.S. Thesis, University of Maryland, 1975
pp. 11,13.

APPENDIX A

Sites identified in the Smithsonian Institution's report,
Natural Areas of the Chesapeake Bay Region: Ecological Priorities,
after map study of all the sites and/or preliminary aerial photo
evaluation

Cecil County St. Mary's County

*Cabin John Creek *St. Mary's River
*Pond Creek *Chaptico Run
*Principio Creek
Charles County
Kent County
*Allen's Fresh
*Tavern Creek *Nanjemoy Creek
*Church Creek *Ward's Run
*Chicamuxen Creek
Queen Anne's County
Calvert County
*Reed Creek
*Warehouse Creek *Patuxent River Marshes
*Kent Point *Fishing Creek
*Wye River (headwaters) *Parker Creek
*Wye East River (headwaters) *Jack Bay
*Flag Ponds
Talbot County *Deep Landing
.*Hall Creek
*Tuckhoe Creek
*Miles Creek Anne Arundel County
*Choptank River Marshes
*Cheston Creek
Caroline County *Muddy Creek

*Hunting Creek Baltimore County
*Choptank River Marshes
*Hart and Miller Islands
Dorchester County
Worcester County
*World's End Creek
*Nanticoke River Marshes *Pocomoke River

Wicomico Cou:.ty

*Rcwastico Creek
*Quantico Creek
*Stump Point Marsh
*Nanticoke River Marshes

Somerset CounLy
*East Creek
*South Marsh Island

APPENDIX B

Additional sites added after nominations from the academic
community, State personnel, and environmental groups, and
after scanning composite aerial photographs

Queen Anne's County

*Fairlee Neck
*Greenwood Creek
*Wye Island/Wye Narrows

Dorchester County

*Fishing Bay
*Slaughter Creek
*James Island

Wicomico County

*Ellis Bay Wildlife Management Area

Somerset County
*Little Monie Creek
*Monie Creek
*Manokin River/Deal Island WAm
*Big Annemesse): River/Fairmount WMA
*Cedar Island WMA
*Apehole Creek/ Pocomoke..Sound WA
*Gunby Creek
*Marumsco Creek
*Broad Creek

Worcester County

*Trappe Creek
*Marshy Creek
*Waterworks Creek
*Purnell Pond
*Boxiron Creek
*Scarboro Creek/E.A. Vaughn NWIA
*Pikes Creek

Calvert County

*"I1.;;n Point Creek

Anne Aruncl. County

*Hackett Point

Harf.ord County_

*Carroll Island
*Romney Creck
*Monks Isiland

APPENDIX C

Sites selected for on-site inspection

Cecil County

*Pond Creek
*Cabin John Creek

Kent County

*Church Creek
*Tavern Creek+

Dorchester County

*Slaughter Creek
*World's End Creek

Wicomico County

*Ellis Bay WMA - Stump Point Marsh
*Quantico Creek
*Rewastico Creek

Somerset County

*South Marsh Island
*East Creek
*Little Monie Creek

Worcester County

*Trappe Creek
*Scarboro Creek/E.A. Vaughn WMA

Charles County

*Nanjemoy Creek
*Ward's Run
*Burgess Creek+

Calvert County

*Deep Landing
*llall Creek
*Gott's Marsh (Patuxent Marsh)
*Parker Creek
*Plum Point Creek+
*Fishing Creek+
*Flag Ponds-+

+unsuitable sites visited for comparative purposes only

APPENDIX D

Sites selected for multiple sanctuary proposal to NOAA

Cecil County

*Pond Creek

Dorchester County

*World's End Creek

Somerset County

*South Marsh Island

Worcester County

Scarboro Creek/E.A. Vaughn WMA

Calvert County

*Gott's Marsh (Patuxent River Marsh)
*Parker Creek

Harford County

*Romney Creek

APPENDIX E

Sites selected for Comparative Evaluation

Calvert County

*Parker Creek

Dorchester County

*Hlorn Point
*World's End Creek

Wicomico County

*Ellis Bay Wildlife Management Area - Stump Point Marsh

Somerset County

*East Creek
*Little Monie Creek

Appendix 3(c)

Correspondence for Maryland

Estuarine Sanctuary Steering Committee

1980

.AMES 8. COULTER (301)269-2784
SECRETARY
STATE OF tAR'P,I. iD
TIDEWATER ADMINISTRATION
TAWES STATE OFFICE 8UILDING
ANNAPOLIS 21401
May 14, 1.980

We have talked about this many times; and finally, I am able to say that
we are beginning to move on the Estuarine Sanctuary Program.

After having testified in favor of reauthorization ou the Federal Coastal
Zone Management Act, and after reading several proposals for rewordino that
section in the Act, I find that there is a "movement afoot" to de-emphasize
the pristine characteristics of such an area and to strive for one with charac-
teristics of a more educational and research nature. Th:is was confirmed in
discussions which Dr. John Williams of my staff and I had with Federal OCZM
Sanctuaries Program Staff.

Presentl] we have been reviewing our State program to prepare for establish-
ing a Steering Committee to reevaluate potential sites, given these new Federal
guidelines. This committee will consider appropriate sanctuary locations and
make reconmendations as to which are most suitable for education/research as
well as being representative of other areas in the Bay system.

The first Steering Committee meeting will be held on Thursday, May 29, 1980,
at 9:30 a. m., in the D-4 Conference Room in the Tawes State Office Building in
Allnapolis.

We will appreciate your participation on this Steering Com.rmittee to assist
the State of Maryland in developing its Estuarine Sanctuaries Program. If you
or your representative will not be able to attend the Hay 29 meeting, please
notify us.

Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Dr. Sarah Taylor, Director
Coastal Resources Division
ST:l.r

JAMES B. COULTER LOUIS N. PHIPPS. JR.
SECRETARY DEPUTY SECRETAiY
STATE OF MARYLAND
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCE5
TIDEWATER ADMINISTRATION
TAWES STATE OFFICE BUILDII`4
ANNAPOLIS 21401
MEMORANDUM

June 9, 1980

TO: Steering Committee Members

FROM: Dr. Sa E ylor, Director - Coastal Resources Division

SUBJECT: Evaluation criteria and site descriptions for proposed estuarine
sanctuary sites.

On May 29, 1980 the Estuarine Sanctuaries Steering Committee met
to discuss renewed efforts within Coastal Resources Division to develop an
Estuarine Sanctuaries Program for the State of Maryland. The overall
objectives of OCZM's Sanctuaries Program were discussed followed by a pre-
sentation by Elder Ghigiarelli of guidelines and site evaluations previously
developed. The committee then developed a series of evaluation criteria to be
used in the present site selection process.

I have included the evaluation criteria decided upon by the committee
in this mailing along with descriptions of some of the eight sites identified
by the committee. Each committee member should review this material and
send the following information to my office by Monday June 23: (1) a weighting
of each of the evaluation criteria. (Based upon a total of 100 points, assign
to each criterion that fraction of the total points which you feel reflects
its importance. For example criterion #1 might receive 30 points, while each
of the other seven criteria only received 10 points each.); (2) any additional
information you feel would be useful for evaluating any of the eight sites.

CRD staff are still compiling information for sites which could not be in-
cluded in this mailing, but you will receive it in a few days.

Complete information for evaluating each site will then be sent to you
the first week in July. Using this information and the criteria, you will be
requested to rank each site relative to each other and discuss these rankings
to arrive at a final site selection at a July 18 Meeting.

The final eight sites selected by the committee were:

1. Parker Creek 5. Zekiah Swamp
2. Horn Point 6. Nanjemoy Creek
3. World's End Creek 7. Rhode River
4. Little Monie Creek 8. Warehouse Creek
SJT/cjg

Criteria for Site Evaluation

Primary Criteria

1) Presence of a complete system - estuary, wetlands, and uplands

a). Presense of a tributary on the site. Is tributary
entirely within site boundaries?

b) Wetland area comprises a significant percentage of
of the site area.

c) Presence of a salinity gradient along the estuarine
portion of the site.

2) Relative lack of disturbance on the site and/or compatible land/water use
within the watershed.

3) Suitability of the site for educational and estuarine research activities.

4) Representative of larger portions of Maryland's Chesapeake Bay estuarine
system.

5) Presence of endangered species within site.

6) Proximity of site to other State or Federal protected natural areas.

7) Diversity of habitats within site boundaries.

8) Ease of acquisition.

JAMES B. COULTER LOUIS N. PHIPPS. JR,
SECRETARY DEPUTY SECRETARY
STATE OF MARYLAND
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
TIDEWATER ADMINISTRATION
TAWES STATE OFFICE BUILDING
ANNAPOLIS 21401 (301) 269-2784
June 26, 1980

MEMORANDUM

TO: Estuarine Sanctua> 'sSteering Committee

FROM: Sarah J. Taylor,'iector, Coastal Resources Division

SUBJ: Next Meeting and Site Information

The next Estuarine Sanctuaries Steering Committee meeting
will be from 9:30 a. m. - 12 noon on Friday, July 18 in the
C-4 Conference Room, Tawes State Office Building, Annapolis,
Maryland. Evaluations of the different sites using the criteria
mailed previously will be discussed at this time. It is hoped
priorities for different sites can be developed and a primary
site selected at this meeting.

Enclosed in this mailing are additional site descriptions
for Rhode River, Zekiah Swamp, Nanjemoy Creek, and Warehouse
Creek.

With regard to information for Rhode River, the Inventory
Form will be most relevant.

Evaluation information for Little Monie Creek is being
developed by CRD staff and will be mailed later

Please notify us if you or your representative will be
unable to attend.

SJT:JW: lr
enc.

JAMES S. COULTER STATE OF MAR (LAND LOUIS N. PHIPPS, JR.
SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DEPUTY SECRETARY
'rTIDEWATER ADMINISTRATION
r'FES STATL CfFICE E'JILDING
ANNAPOLIS 21401

(301) 269-2784

July 10, 1980

TO: Estuarine Sanctuaries Steering Committee

FROM: Sarah J. Taylor, Director
Coastal Resources Division

SUBJ: Next Meeting and Site Information

This memo is to remind you of the Estuarine Sanctuaries Steering
Committee meeting from 9:30 a.m. to 12:00 noon on Friday, July 18 in the
C-4 Conference Room, Tawes State Office Building, Annapolis, Maryland and
to provide information on two additional sites, Little Monie Creek and Horn
Point.

Please bring all the site description information with you to the
July 18 meeting as additional copies are unavailable. This meeting is
designed to develop priorities for the different sites and to select a
primary site.

SJT/JW/dmt

&- 2-4v--~vCg~b 2- Y

n~~~~~~~v Z - .7 I

/ -*~E. <:-'-S 2Z-C- -" 7t? to

.~~~~~~~~ ? A) .Xx 5,

('�~~~i 7k v W'4. -z

Sanctuaries Steering Committee
Meeting
July 18, 1980
Attendance

Name Agency Phone

eltse� -;s
* Ir

-LIM, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I

5,(f- 3 1'/

w � � Z-4 (

S~-L~ctr~ira NK~r- UJ. FI5k- ~-~LL9Ic'UC ~e S~~r a-6�7- E;4-4~S~

coij Gciirrn SOr~t~s~vi 798-~c/z7

all" east;siG~ IC ~ lht/tMC
ciLRr Ttc, f ~~ilrJhj A I:ZeL- r
Cko,,Id D Gr� o r,~1~ -,5k?

~l~d-i~��-;,�P ~"-"ji�-r, .L4 me 6,:

MES 3. 0UL. T-I S T ' TGF ' ..-:IOUI$ N. PHlPPS, JR.
SECRETARY 3E':'-PTMENT OF ~',T!.;2 ~L I~ESOU.~CE[:.
5SC G ETAR Y E L P. T ME N T OF :.-' T P E 5 U R C FDEPUJTN SECRETARY
rID EWATER AW-.!i'Jl S'FRA NI ON
i';.yF~ ST,-' FE *PF ,",-~ :.',IC, IHI; 269-278 4
AIINA,~POLIS 5..,140

September 9, 1980

TO: Estuarine Sanctuaries Steering Committee

Dr. John B. Williams
FROM: Coastal Resources Division

SUBJECT: Next Meeting and Summary of August Activities

The next meeting for the Steering Committee will be held on Wednesday,
September 24, 1980, at 9:30 A.M. in the D-4 Conference Room, Tawes Building,
Annapolis, Maryland. This is a very important meeting since a final
sanctuary site will be selected and a Sanctuary Management Committee of
about seven members will be determined. The final site will be submitted
to OCZM for pre-acquisition funding. Please notify us if you or your
representative will be unable to attend.

As we discussed at our last meeting in July the top four sites were
pursued nearly simultaneously. Property owners were contacted by staff
from Maryland Environmental Trust, while County Commissioners and State
Delegations were contacted by State and Federal CZM staff. We held to our
basic criterion that if contacts with property owners holding tracts
essential for the sanctuary revealed a reluctance to participate, then
that site would be removed from further consideration due to the short time
frame we were operating under.

This has resulted in World's End Creek and Parker Creek being removed
from further consideration. Also, information received from the Calvert
County Board of Commissioners indicated the sewage treatment plant discharge
into Parker Creek could potentially be doubled. The two sites remaining
under consideration are Muddy Creek/Rhode River in Anne Arundel County and
Little Monie Creek in Somerset County. Public meetings are being scheduled
and information for choosing a final site is being prepared for the
September 24th Steering Committee meeting.

The Public Meeting for Little Monie Creek is scheduled for Monday,
September 22, 1980, at 7:00 P.M. in the Somerset County Courthouse in
Princess Anne, Maryland.

Sincerely,

JBW/cl John B. Williams, PhD
Coastal Reosurces Division

September 17, 1980 - Meeting with Chesapeake Bay Center for Environmental
Studies regarding Rhode River as an estuarine sanctuary.

Participants

David Correll, Associate Director for Science, CBCES 301/798-4424
John Falk, Associate Director for Education, CBCES 301/798-4424
Kevin Sullivan, Director, CBCES 301/798-4424
Donald L. Wilhelm, Administrative Officer, CBCES 301/798-4424

Ross Simons, Program Manager, Office of Asst. Secretary
for Science, Smithsonian Institute 202/357-2939
Alan D. Ullberg, Associate General Counsel, Smithsonian 202/357-2583

John B. Williams, Maryland CZM Office 301/269-2786

Frank D. Christhilf, Estuarine Sanctuary Project Officer
OCZM/NOAA 202/653-7301
Gloria Thompson, Program Support, OCZM/NOAA 202/653-7301

Appendix 3(d)

Site Selection Work Sheets

AGENDA

Estuarine Sanctuary Steering Committee
Meeting

Friday July 18,1980

0930 to 1200

930 Introduction and future activities

940 Compile rankings of sites

1030 Total site weights and rankings

1030-1230 Discuss Site Selections

ESTUARINE SANCTUARIeS STEERING COMMITTEE WEIGHTINGS
FOR
SITE EVALUATION CRITFRIA
USED AT MEETING ON FRIDAY JULY 1841920

STATISTICS FOR CRITERIA WEIGHTINGS

MEAN MINIMUM MAXIMUM
CRITERIA RESPONSES SCORE SCORE SCORE RANGE STDFRR

rnMPLFTF SYSTEM PRESENT 12 30 15 45 30 2
LACK fF DIS1URBANCE 12 15 10 30 20 2
EDUCATION / RESEARCH SUITARILITY 12 13 5 20 15 2
RFPRF'FNlATIVF OF LARGER RAY SYST 1.2 13 5 30 25 2
ENDANGERED SPECIES PRESENT 12 6 0 20 20 2
PROXIMITY TO ST/FED NATURAL AREAS 12 6 0 10 10 1
DIVERSITY OF HARITATS 12 10 5 25 20 1
FASF nF ACOIJISITiON 11 8 3 20 17 2

INDIVIDUAL SUMMARY SHEET
FOR
SANCTUARY SITE RANKINGS

Criteria Sites

Parker Horn World's Little Zekiah Nanjemoy Rhode Warehouse
Creek Point End Monie Swamp Creek River Creek

Complete system //
present

2. Lack of
disturbance

3. Education/researc' /
suitability

4. Representative of
Larger Bay areas/

5. Endangered species /
present

6. Proximity to /
St/Fed Natural
.areas

7. Diversity of /
habitats

8. Ease of
acquisition

TOTALS
Please rank the above sites for each of the eight criteria according
to the information you have reviewed during the last: month.

Assign a value of 10 to the site if it completely'meets-a criterion
and lower values &,downtto 0) if a site only partially meets a criterion.
Put your values in the upper half of each box.

WEIGHTED RANKINGS

RANKINGS
CRITERIA WEIGHT 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

1 30 300 270 240 210 180 150 120 90 60 30

2 15 150 135 120 105 90 75 60 45 30 15

3 13 130 117 104 91 78 65 52 39 26 13

4 13 130 117 104 91 78 65 52 39 26 13

5 6 60 54 48 42 36 30 24 18 12 6

6 6 60 54 48 42 36 30 24 18 12 6

7 10 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10

8 8 80 72 64 56 48 45 32 24 16 8

Place the correct weighted ranking on your individual summary
sheet in the lower half of each box.

Total these values at the bottom of column for each site.

Appendix 4A

Common Fishes of the Rhode River Estuarv

Aleltes quadracus - 4-Spined Stickleback
Anchoviella. mitchilli - Anchovy
Anguilla rostrata - Eel
Brevoortia tyrannus - Menhaden
Dorosoma cepedianum - Gizzard Shad
Cyprinodon variegatus - Sheepshead Minnow
Cyprinus. carpio - Carp
Esox niger - Chain Pickerel
Fundulus diaphanus - Freshwater Killifish
Fundulus heteroclitus - Mummichog
Fundulus majalis - Striped Killifish
Gobiosoma bosci - Naked Goby
Ictalurus catus - Gray Catfish
Ictalurus nebulosus - Brown Catfish
Leiostomus xanthrus - Spot
Lepomis gibbosus - Pumpkinseed
Lepomis macrochirus --Bluegill
Lucania parva - Rainwater Fish
Menidia sp. - Silverside
Morone americana - White Perch
Morone saxatilis - Rockfish
Note migonus crysoleucas - Shiner
Perca flavescens - Yellow Perch
Pomatomus saltatrix - Bluefish
Pomoxis annularis --Crappie
Strongylura marina -Needlefish
Syngnathus f uscus -Pipefish
Trinectes maculatus -Hog Choker

Appendix 4B

Birds of the Rhode River Estuary

Birds of the Chesapeake Bay Center

compiled by

W.J.L. Sladen, F.S.L. Williamson, and J.F. Lynch

(S = summer resident, W = winter resident, P = permanent resident, V = visitor
or migrant)

Common Loon (Gacia immer) V
Red-necked Grebe (Podiceps grisegena) V
Horned Grebe (Podiceps auritus) V
Pied-billed Grebe (Podilymbus podiceps) V
Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias) P
Green Heron (Butorides virescens) S
Little Blue Heron (Florida caerulea) V
Cattle Egret (Bubulcus ibis) V
Common Egret (Casmerodius albus) V
American Bittern (Botaurus eTentiginosus) V
Whistling Swan (Olor columbianus) W
Canada Goose (Branta canadensis) W
Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) P
Black Duck (Anas rubripes) P
Gadwall (Anas strepera) V
Pintail (Anas acuta) V
Green-winged Teal (Anas carolinensis) V
Blue-winged Teal (Anas discors) V
American Widgeon (Mareca americanus) W
Shoveler (Spatula clypeata) V
Wood Duck (Aix sponsa) S
Redhead (Aythya americana) W
Ring-necked Duck (Aythya collaris) W
Canvasback (Aythya valisneria) W
Greater Scaup (Aythya marila) W
Lesser Scaup (Aythya affinis) W
Common Goldeneye (Bucephala clangula) W
Bufflehead (Bucephala albeola) W
Oldsquaw (Clangula hyemalis) W
Ruddy Duck (Oxyura jamaicensis W
Hooded Merganser (Lophodytes cucullatus) V
Common Merganser (Mergus merganser) V
Red-breasted Merganser (Mergus serrator) W
Turkey Vulture (Cathartes aura ) P
Black Vulture (Coragyps atratus) S
Sharp-shinned Hawk (Accipiter striatus) V
Cooper's Hawk (Accipiter cooperi ) V
Red-tailed Hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) P
Red-shouldered Hawk (Buteo lineatus) P
Broad-winged Hawk (Buteo platypterus) P
Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) P

-2-

Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) S
Kestrel (Falco sparverius) p
Bobwhite (Colinus virginianus) p
Ring-necked Pheasant (Phasianus colchicus) p
American Coot (Fulica americanus) V
Kildeer (Charadrius vociferus) P
American Woodcock (Philohela minor) S
Common Snipe (Capella gallinago) V
Spotted Sandpiper (Actitis macularia) V
Solitary Sandpiper (Tringa solitaria) V
Greater Yellowlegs (Totanus melanoleucus) V
Lesser Yellowlegs (Totanus flavipes) V
Least Sandpiper (Erolia minutilla) V
Great Black-backed Gull (Larus marinus) W
Herring Gull (Larus argentatus) P
Ring-billed Gull (Larus delawarensis) P
Laughing Gull (Larus atricilla) S
Bonaparte's Gull (Larus philadelphia) V
Forster's Tern (Sterna forsteri) S
Common Tern (Sterna hirunda) S
Roseate Tern (Sterna dougalli) V
Rock Dove (Columba livia) P
Mourning Dove (Zenaidura macroura) P
Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) S
Black-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus erythropthalmus) S
Screech Owl (Otus asio) P
Great Horned Owl (Bubo virginianus) P
Barred Owl (Strix varia) P
Chuck-Will's Widow (Caprimulgus carolinensis) S
Whip-poor-will (Capri mulgus vociferus) V
Common Night Hawk (Chordeiles Minor) S
Chimney Swift (Cnaetura pelagica) S
Ruby-throated Hummingbird (Archilochus colubris) S
Belted Kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon) P
Common Flicker (Colaptes auratus) P
Pileated Woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus) P
Red-bellied Woodpecker (Centurus carolinus) P
Red-headed Woodpecker (Melanerpes erythrocephalus) V
Yellow-bellied Sapsucker (Sphyrapicus varius) V
Hairy Woodpecker (Dendrocopos villosusT P
Downy Woodpecker (Dendrocopos pubescens) P
Eastern Kingbird (Tyrannus tyrannus) S
Great-crested Flycatcher (Myiarchus crinitus) S
Eastern Phoebe (Sayornis phoebe) S
Acadian Flycatcher (Empidonax virescens) S
Traill's Flycatcher (Empidonax trailli) V
Least Flycatcher (Em idonax minimus) V
Eastern Wood Pewee (Contopus virens) S
Horned Lark (Eremophila alpestris) W
Tree Swallow (Iridoprocne bicolor) V

-3-

Bank Swallow (Riparia riparia) V
Rough-winged Swallow S
Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica) S
Cliff Swallow (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota) S
Purple Martin (Progne subis) S
Blue Jay (Cyanocitta cristata) P
Common Crow (Corvus brachyrhnchos) P
Fish Crow (Corvus ossifragus) P
Carolina Chickadee (Parus carolinensis) P
Tufted Titmouse (Parus bicolor) P
White-breasted Nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis) P
Red-breasted Nuthatch (Sitta canadensis) V
Brown Creeper (Certhia familiaris) W
House Wren (Troqlodytes aedon) S
Winter Wren (Troglodytes troglodytes) W
Carolina Wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus) P
Long-billed Marsh Wren (Telmatodytes palustris) V
Mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos) P
Catbird (Dumetella carolinensis) S
Brown Thrasher (Toxostoma rufum) S
Robin (Turdus migratorius) S
Wood Thrush (Hylocichla mustelina) S
Hermit Thrus (Hylocichla guttata) V
Swainson's Thrush (Hylocichla ustulata) V
Veery (Hylocichla fuscescscens) V
Eastern Bluebird (Sialia sialis) S
Blue-gray Gantcatcher (Polioptila caerulea) S
Colden-crowned Kinglet (Regulus satrapa) W
Ruby-crowned Kinglet (Regulus calendula) W
Water Pipit (Anthus spinoletta) V
Cedar Waxwing (Bonbycilla cedrorum) W
Starling (Sturnus vulgaris) P
White-eyed Vireo (Vireo griseus) S
Yellow-throated Vireo (Vireo flavifrons) S
Solitary Vireo (Vireo solitarius) V
Red-eyed Vireo (Vireo olivaceus) S
Black and White Warbler (Mniotilta varia) V
Prothonotary Warbler (Protonotaria citrea) V
Worm-eating Warbler (Helmintheros vermivorus) S
Golden-winged Warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera) V
Blue-winged Warbler (Vermivora pinus) V
Nashville Warbler (Vermivora ruficapilla) V
Northern Parula Warbler (Parula americana) S
Yellow Warbler (Dendroica petechia) V
Magnolia Warbler (Dendroica magnolia) V
Cape May Warbler (Dendroica tigrina) V
Black-throated Green Warbler (Dendroica virens) V
Yellow-rumped Warbler (Dendroica coronata) W
Cerulean Warbler (Dendroica cerulea) V
Blackburnian Warbler (Dendroica fusca) V

-4-

Yellow-throated Warbler (Dendroica dominica) S
Chestnut-sided Warbler (Dendroica pennsylvanica) V
Bay-breasted Warbler (Dendroica castanea) V
Blackpoll Warbler (Dendroica striata) V
Pike Warbler (Dendroica pinus) S
Prairie Warbler (Dendroica discolor) S
Palm Warbler (Dendroica palmarum) V
Canada Warbler (Wilsonia canadensis) V
Ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapillus) S
Louisiana Water Thrush (Seiurus motacilla) S
Northern Water Thrush (Seiurus novaboracensis) V
Kentucky Warbler (Oporornis formosus) S
Connecticut Warbler (Oporornis agilis) V
Yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas) S
Yellow-breasted Chat (Icteria virens) S
Hooded Warbler (Wilsonia citrina) S
Wilson's Warbler (Wilsonia pusilla) V
American Redstart (Setophaga ruticilla) V
House Sparrow (Passer domesticus) P
Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus) V
Eastern Meadowlark (Sturnella magna) P
Redwing Blackbird (Agelius phoeniceus) P
Orchard Oriole (Icterus spurius) S
Northern Oriole (Icterus galbula) V
Common Grackle (Quiscalus quisculus) P
Brown-headed Cowbird (Molothrus ater) P
Scarlet Tanager (Piranga olivacea) S
Summer Tanager (Piranga rubra) V
Cardinal (Richmondena cardinal is) P
Rose-breasted Grosbeak (Pheucticus ludovicianus) V
Blue Grosbeak (Guiraca caerulea) S
Indigo Bunting (Passerina cyanea) S
Purple Finch (Carpodacus purpureus) V
American Goldfinch (Spinus tristis) P
Rufous-sided Towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus) P
Savannah Sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis) V
Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus savannorum) S
Sharp-tailed Sparrow (Ammospiza caudacuta) V
Common Junco (Junco hyemalis) W
Tree Sparrow (Spizella arborea ) W
Chipping Sparrow (Spizella passerina) S
Field Sparrow (Spizella pusilla) P
White-throated Sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis) W
Swamp Sparrow (Melospiza georgiana) W
Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia) P

APPENDIX 5A

FISH SPECIES COLLECTED ADJACENT
TO THE PROPOSED MONIE BAY SITE

Species

Fundulus heteroclitus

Fundulus luciae

Fundulus majalis

Lucania parva

Gambusia affinis

Cyprinodon variegatus

Menidia beryllina

Anguilla rostrata

Morone americana

Leisostomus xanthurus

Pomatomus saltatrix

Gasterosteus aculeatus

Brevoortia tyrannus

Elops saurus

From Lesser, C.R. and D. Saveikis, 1979.) A Study of the
Impacts of a Mosquito Control Integrated Pest Management Program
on Selected Parameters of the Ecology of Chesapeake Bay High
Marsh Communities in Maryland. Report to Maryland Department
of Agriculture, 195 pp.

APPENDIX 5B

BIRD SPECIES IN THE VICINITY OF
THE MONIE BAY SITE

SPECIES

COMMON NAIE SCIENTIFIC NAME

AVIAN

Bobwhite quail Colinus virgininianus
Bufflehead Bucephala albeola
Canvasback Aythya valisineria
Coot, American Fulica americana
Dove, Mourning Zenaidura macroura
Duck, Black Anas rubripes
Duck, Ring-necked Aythya collaris
Duck, Ruddy Oxyura jamaicensis
Duck, Wood Aix sponsa
Gadwall Anas strepera
Gallinule, Common Gallinula chloropus
Goldeneye, Common Bucephala clangula
Goose, Canada Branta canadensis
Goose, Snow Chen hyperborea
Mallard Anas platyrhynchos
Merganser, Common Mergus merganser
Merganser, Hooded Lophodytes, cucullatus
Merganser, Red-Breasted Mergus serrator
Old Squaw Clangual hyemalis
Pintail Anas acuta
Rail, Clapper Rallus longirostria
Rail, King Rallus elegans
Rail, Sora Porzana carolina
Rail, Virginia Rallus limicola
Redhead Aythya americana
Scaup, Greater Aythya marila
Scaup, Lesser Aythya affinis
Scoter, Common (black) Oidemia nigra
Scoter, Surf Melanitta perspicillata
Scoter, White Winged Melanitta deglandi
Shoveler Spatula clypeata
Snipe, Wilson's Capella gallinago
Swan, Whistling Olor columbianus
Teal, Blue-Winged Anas discors
Teal, Green-Winged Anas carolinensis
Widgeon, American Mareca americana
Woodcock, American Philohela minor

-2-

SPECIES

COM.ION NAME SCIENTIFIC NAMIE

AVIAN

Bittern, American Botaurus lentiginosus
Bittern, Least Ixobrychus exilis
Blackbird, Red-Winged Agelaius phoeniceus
Cormorant, Double-Crested Pralacrocorax auritus
Crow, Common Corvus brachyrhynchos
Crow, Fish Corvus ossifragus
Dunlin Erolia alpina
Eagle, Bald Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Egret, Common Casmerodius albus
Egret, Snowy Leucophoyx thula
Egret, Cattle Bubulcus ibis
Grackle, Boat-Tailed Cassidix mexicanus
Grackle, Common Quiscalus quiscula
Grebe, Horned Colymbus auritus
Grebe, Pied-Billed Podilymbus podicepo
Gull, Herring Larus argentatus
Gull, Greater Black-Backed Larus marinus
Gull, Ring-Billed Larus delawarensis
Gull, Laughing Larus atrieilla.
Hawk, Marsh Circus cyaneus
Hawk, Red-Tailed Buteo jamaicensis
Hawk, Red-Shouldered Buteo lineatus
Hawk, Rough-Legged Buteo lagopus
Heron, Great Blue Ardea herodias
Heron, Louisiana Hydranassa tricolor
Heron, Little Blue Florida caerculea
Heron, Green Butorides virescens
Heron, Black-Crowned Night Nycticorax nycticorax
Ibis, Glossy Plegadis falcinellus
Kingfisher, Belter Megaceryle alcyon
Meadowlark, Eastern Sturnella magna
Osprey Pandion haliaetus
Owl, Great Horned Bubo virginianus
Sparrow, Sharp-Tailed Ammospiza cauclacuta
Sparrow, Seaside Ammospiza maritima
Sparrow, Song Melospiza melodia
Starling Sturnus vulgaris
Tern, Common Sterna hirundo
Tern, Forster's Sterna forsteri
Tern, Least Sterna albifrons
Vulture, Turkey Catharte aura
Willet Catoptrophorus semipalmatus
Wren, Long-Billed Telmatodytes palustris
Wren, Short-Billed Cistothorus platensis
Yellowlegs, Lesser Totanus flauipes
Yellowlegs, Greater Totanus melanoleucus