Final environmental impact statement and draft management plan for the proposed Masonboro Island component of the North Carolina National Estuarine Sanctuary

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

Final Environmental Impact Statement
and Draft Management Plan
for the proposed
MASONBORO ISLAND COMPONENT
of the

NORTH CAROLINA
NATIONAL ESTUARINE SANCTUARY

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE
SANCTUARY PROGRAMS DIVISION

North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
Office of Coastal Management

'0*0-f or
A
4el

"471tS Of

United States

Department of Commerce

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

and

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN

for the proposed

MASONBORO ISLAND COMPONENT

of the

THE NORTH CAROLINA NATIONAL ESTUARINE SANCTUARY

- September 1984

Prepared by:

U.S. Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
ftoperty of CSC Libraxy Administration
National Ocean Service
Sanctuary Programs Division
3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W.
U S - DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA Washington, D.C. 20235
COASTAL SERViCES CENTER
2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE and
CHARLESTON SC 29405-24 13 State of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources
and Community Development
Office of Coastal Management
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, N.C. 27611

Lr-

4um

(25 e=

DESIGNATION: Final Environmental Impact Statement and Draft
Management Plan for the proposed addition of
Masonboro Island as the Fourth Component of the
North Carolina National Estuarine Sanctuary.

ABSTRACT: The State of North Carolina has proposed designation
of Masonboro Island as the fourth component of the
North Carolina National Estuarine Sanctuary.

The North Carolina National Estuarine Sanctuary
presently consists of three components: 1.) Zeke's
Island, New Hanover County (466 hectares/1,165
acres), 2.) Rachel Carson, Carteret County (810
hectares/2,025 acres), and 3.) Currituck Banks,
Currituck County (1,122.8 hectares/2,807 acres).
Fee simple acquisition is complete for Zeke's Island
and Currituck Banks, while the final tract at Rachel
Carson is presently being negotiated. These three
components were established by a total $1,767,100
grant award from the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). This award has
been matched by an equivalent amount of state funds
from land donations and bargain sales and services.

Proposed facilities at the components primarily
consist of boardwalks and interpretive trail devel-
opments, and a small public beach recreation area
(parking lot and restrooms) planned for Currituck
Banks. Memoranda of understanding would be
developed between the North Carolina office of
Coastal Management and applicable research/
educational institutions and governmental agencies.

The Masonboro Island marsh/estuarine area encompass-
es approximately 87% of the island's 2,018 hectares
(5,046 acres). This undisturbed natural area
already serves as a locally prominent natural labo-
ratory for research and educational purposes.
Masonboro Island has an embayment basin type with
bar-bound structure, an estuarine type not presently
represented in the Carolinian biogeographic region
of the National Estuarine Sanctuary Program.

Masonboro Island would be acquired with federal
financial assistance that the State has requested
from NOAA. If approved, the supplemental
acquisition award would be matched by an equivalent
amount of state funds, already available from
previous land donations and bargain sales received
in the acquisitions of the first three components',
and services for acquisition of privately-owned

uplands. Proposed facilities would primarily
consist of a boat dock, boardwalk, and interpretive
trail construction. Research facilities and
accommodations are situated at nearby Carolina Beach
State Park, the Marine Resources Center at Fort
Fisher, and the University of -North Carolina at
Wilmington. Proposed memoranda of understanding
between these institutions and the sanctuary program
would detail uses and responsibilities.

The proposed component would be primarily used for
research and educational purposes, especially to
provide information for use in coastal zone
management decisionmaking. Multiple use would be
encouraged to the extent that it is compatible with
the proposed component's research and educational
programs. Research and monitoring in and near the
proposed component would provide baseline
information against which the impacts of human
activities elsewhere in the North Carolina estuarine
environment and the Carolinian biogeographic region
could be assessed. These activities will also
provide the data base upon which to develop
strategies for protecting or rehabilitating similar
estuarine ecosystems.

APPLICANT: North Carolina Department of
Natural Resources and Community
Development
Office of Coastal Management

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

CONTACT: Dr. Nancy Foster
Chief, Sanctuary Programs Division
NOS/NOAA
3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20235
(202) 634-4236

LIST OF ACRONYMS

AEC Areas of Environmental Concern
AIWW Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway
CAMA Coastal Area Management Act
COE Corps of Engineers
CP&L Carolina Power and Light Company - Brunswick Biological
Laboratory
CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act
DMF Division of Marine Fisheries (North Carolina)
D14P Draft Management Plan
DNRCD Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
DOC Department of Commerce
DPR Division of Parks and Recreation (North Carolina)
ECU East Carolina University
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
HIS Final Environmental Impact Statement
LRIS Land Resources Information Service
MP Management Plan
MRC Marine Resources Center
NCNES North Carolina National Estuarine Sanctuary
.4 C: 31 Jlhpi-tL (azolina State University
NESP National Estuarine Sancturay Program
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
0CM Office of Coastal Management (North Carolina)
OCZM Office of Co6fitaj. Zone liaiagement (NOAA)
OCRM Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (NOAQ
REICEP Research and Education Information Coordination and Exchange
Program
UNC University of North Carolina
UNC-W University of North Carolina-Wilmington

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * . . . . . . . . .

PART 1: INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A. The National Estuarine Sanctuary Program . . . . . . .
1. Legislation/Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2. Objectives and Purposes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Existing National Estuarine Sanctuaries . . . . . 3

B. The North Carolina National Estuarine Sanctuary

1. Background ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
a. Goals and Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
b. Site Selection Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2. Management Plan . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3. The Components of the North Carolina
National Estuarine Sanctuary . . . . . . . . . . 11
a. Zeke's Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
b. Rachel Carson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
c. Currituck Banks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

C. The Proposed Masonboro,Island Addition . . . . . . . . 16
1. Purpose of the Addition . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2. Need for Action . . . . ... . . . . . 0 . . . . . 17
3. Benefits of Inclusion in the North Carolina
National Estuarine Sanctuary System . . . . . . . 18

PART II: ALTERNATIVES (Including Proposed Action) . . . . . . . . . 21

A. Preferred Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

1. Boundaries and Acquisition of Sanctuary
Component Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2. Public and Private Access . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3. Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
a. Management Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
b. Management Structure . . . . . . . . . . . 26
C. Sanctuary Staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
d. Research Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
e. Educational Policies . . . . . . . . . . . 34
f. Policies for Traditional
Uses and Other Activities . . . . . . 38
g. Policies for Surveillance,
Enforcement, and Maintenance . . . . . 43

B. Other Alternatives Considered . . . . . . . . . . . 44

1. No Action 44
2. Alternative Si@e; ;n@ ;h; s*i;e'S;I;c;i;n*
Process for North Carolina . . . . . . .
3. Alternative Boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . 45
a. Inclusion of Primary Resources . . . . . . 45
b. Adequate Protection and Manageability. . . 48
c% Terrestrial Buffer Zones and Access . . . . 48
d. Present Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
4. Alternative Management Scheme . . . . . . . . . 49
5. Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

PART III. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

A. Masonboro Island - General Description . . . . . . . 51

1. Natural Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
a. Geology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
b. Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
C. Hydrology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
d. Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
e. Biology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
f. Estuarine Ecosystem . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
2. Current Uses of the Site . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
a. Commercial and Recreational Fishing . . . . 65
b. Hunting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
C. Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
d. Spoil Disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
e. Archaeological Resources . . . . . . . . . 69
f. Research and Education . . . . . . . . . . 69

PART IV: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

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

B. Specific Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

1. Natural Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
a. Fish and Wildlife Habitat . . . . . . . . . 74
b. Soils and Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . 74
C. Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
2. Human Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
a. Residents of the Towns and Counties . . . . 75
b. Scientific and Educational . . . . . ... . 75
C. State and Federal . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

C. Unavoidable Adverse Environmental or
Socioeconomic Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

D. Relationship Between the Proposed Action on the
Environment and the Maintenance and
Enhancement of Long-term Productivity . . . . . 77

E. Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of
Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

F. Possible Conflicts Between the Proposed Action and
the Objectives of Federal, State, Regional,
and Local Land Use Plans, Policies, and
Controls for the Areas Concerned . . . . . . . . 78

PART V: LIST OF PREPARERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

PART VI: LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS
RECEIVING COPIES OF THE DEIS . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

PART VII: WRITTEN AND VERBAL COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DEIS/DMP
AND NOAA RESPONSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

A. Responses to Comments by Speakers at the Public Hearing
and List of Speakers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

B. Written Comments and NOAA's Responses . . . . . . . . 95

C. Written Comments: No Response Necessary . . . . . . 155

PART VIII: APPENDICES . . . . . . . . o o . . . . . . o .245

Appendix 1: Bibliography and Literature Cited . . . o o 247

Appendix 2: National Estuarine Sanctuary Program
Regulations; Final Rule
(June 27, 1984) . . . o . o o . 251

Appendix 3: Research and Educational Forms for the
Proposed Component . . . o o . o . 273

Appendix 4: Site Selection Process . . . . o o . . 283

Appendix 5: Salinity and Flow Patterns in the
Masonboro Island Area . o . . o . . o 293

Appendix 6: Vascular Plant Species of Masonboro
Island . . . . o . . 0 0 00 0 . . 0 301

Appendix 7: Vertebrate Fauna of Masonboro Island . . . 309

Appendix 8: Macroinvertebrates of the Masonboro
Island Area . . . . . . . . o . . . . 323

LIST OF FIGURES

PAGE

Figure 1. Components of the North.Carolina National Estuarine
Sanctuary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Figure 2. Physiographic Features of the Zeke's Island Site . . . 12

Figure 3. Physiographic Features of the Rachel Carson Site . . . 14

Figure 4. Physiographic Features of the Currituck Banks Site 15

Figure 5. Physiographic Features of the Masonboro Island Site 23

Figure 6. Management Structure: North Carolina National
Estuarine Sanctuary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Figure 7. Alternative Boundary I (North/South) . . . . 46

Figure 8. Alternative Boundary II (Excluding Oceanfront) . . . . 47

Figure 9. Regional Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Figure 10. Vicinity Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Figure 11. Generalized Energy Flow of Terrestrial and
Estuarine Ecosystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

LIST OF TABLES

PAGE

Table 1. Biogeographic Classification and Typology for
Proposed and Acquired North Carolina.
National Estuarine Sanctuary Components . . . . . . 5

Table 2. Ownership of Upland Parcels on Masonboro Island
and Total Island Area by General Habitat
Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Table 3. Masonboro Island Local Advisory Committee
(Tentative Composition) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Table 4. Plants Recorded at the Proposed Masonboro Island
Component Having State Status . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Table 5. Animals Recorded at the Proposed Masonboro Island
Component Having Federal or State Status . . . . . 61

Table 6. Some Institutions and Agencies that are Potential
Research and Educational Users of the Proposed
Masonboro Island Component . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

SUMMARY

Section 315 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 as amended,
16 USC 1451, provides states with 50 percent matching grants for
acquiring, developing, or operating areas that provide students,
scientists, and the general public with places to learn about natural
and human processes within the estuarine environment. In 1983, the
Department of Commerce (DOC) awarded North Carolina $454,100 to begin
the establishment of a multiple-site Sanctuary. The establishment of
the first two component s--Zeke's Island and Rachel Carson--began with
this initial grant. By the close of FY 1983, North Carolina received
supplemental grants of $61,263 and $1,251,737 to continue administration
of these sites and to acquire the third component located on Currituck
Banks. These sites include approximately 2,400 hectares (6,000 acres)
of terrestrial and estuarine habitats.

Lead management responsibility for the North Carolina National
Estuarine Sanctuary (NCNES), including the development of the present
management plan, liaison with affected state agencies, grant
administration and coordination of acquisiton, has been assigned to the
Office of Coastal Management (OCM) within the Department of Natural
Resources and Community Development (DNRCD). The sites will be managed
as a system, though each component has its own character and its own
needs. This requires an individual approach for managing each site to
protect its valuable and unique resources for future generations.

The proposed action, the designation of Masonboro Island as the
fourth component of the NCNES, involves the application by the State of
North Carolina for a supplemental grant award to the Office of Ocean
and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM). This site was selected for this
proposal by a nomination process completed during 1980 when the OCM
concluded that a multiple site system was needed and that the f our
previously mentioned components be given initial priority.

Masonboro Island is located in New Hanover County, North Carolina
and consists of approximately 2,018 hectares (5,046 acres): 87% is
marsh/estuary and 13% is uplands. The site is an outstanding example of
a pristine non-drowned river mouth estuary associated with an entire,
undisturbed barrier island. It represents an estuarine type not
presently included in the Carolinian biogeographic region of the
National Estuarine Sanctuary Program (NESP). Similar barrier islands
along the southeastern coast of North Carolina are under intense
development pressures and Masonboro Island may suffer a similar fate in
the near future if it is not preserved.

Considerable public support exists for preservation of the island,
but funding to purchase all of the privately owned tracts (approximately
eighty-one) has not been available. A number of newspaper articles have
appeared in the Wilmington Morning Star in support of saving Masonboro
Island. A public interest group, the Society for Masonboro Island, held
a public meeting in Wilmington on October 26, 1983, that was widely
publicized in the local news media. The OCM staff was invited to that

meeting to explain the NCNES program and the state's intentions relative
to acquisition and protection of the area.

This final EIS presents four alternatives for the proposed action.
The preferred alternative is the acquisition of the entire Masonboro
Island complex. The no action alternative would involve no acquisition
by the State and therefore no control over the potential development of
the island. Two other alternatives describe estuarine sanctuary
boundaries which encompass different portions of the island complex.

Because the majority of the site consists of intertidal and
subtidal lands held in trust by the state, acquisition efforts for the
preferred alternativ@ will concentrate on the natural uplands of the
sandy barrier. Acquisition of sound-side spoil areas will be a second
priority.

Management of the site will be according to the goals and
objectives of the approved management plan for the NCNES. Specific
policies for Masonboro Island are presented in this final EIS and draft.
management plan.

Principal resources affected by the proposal include, in general,
the barrier beach ecosystem and the associated embayment estuarine type.
The island area supports a wide array of terrestrial and estuarine
biota. Endangered species including the brown pelican, peregrine
falcon, and the threatened loggerhead sea turtle use the area for
feeding or nesting activities. Plant and animal species of special
interest occur in the area, including tough bumelia, osprey, ipswich
sparrow, colonial nesting waterbird colonies, and a number of polychaete
and tunicate species. The natural features include a microtidal
transgressive barrier island with a low profile which is frequently
overwashed by storm tides. Habitats present include maritime forest,
shrub thicket, high and low salt marsh, grassy flats, dunes, and ocean
beach. Masonboro Sound supports an active local fishery and serves as a
primary nursery area for marine and estuarine fish and shellfish
species.

The environmental effects of the proposed action would be
beneficial in terms of research, education, traditional uses, and
natural resource protection benefits. There would be no adverse impacts
to residents because the island is uninhabited.

The adverse impacts of the proposed action would be loss of tax
revenues and loss of potentially developable property. However, the
approximately $1,625 paid in county taxes each year would be offset by
additional income from local services required by researchers,
educational groups, etc. attracted to the site. Much of the island is
presently undevelopable because of county and state setbacks and other
regulations. In addition, Masouboro Island is within the Undeveloped
Barrier Island System under the Federal Coastal Barrier Resources Act of
1982 (16 USC 3501). Federal financial assistance for public
improvements for development in this area will not be available. The
act also provides that federal flood insurance will not be available in
the area for structures built after October 1, 1983.

The no action and boundary modification alternatives will have an
adverse effect on the biological resources of Masonboro Island. Owners
of the island developments would benefit in the short-term, but
deterioration of water quality and associated fishery resources along
with destruction of upland habitats will negatively impact terrestrial
and estuarine biota in the long-term.

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

PART I: INTRODUCTION

A. The National Estuarine Sanctuary Program

. 1. Legislation/Authority

In response to intense pressures on the coastal resources of the
United States, Congress enacted the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA),
which was signed into law on October 27, 1972, and amended in 1976 and
1980. The CZMA authorized a Federal grant-in-aid and assistance program
to be administered by the Secretary of Commerce.

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 manage-
ment programs. The act establishes 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
scientific and technical support to state coastal zone manage-
ment programs (Sec 310); and

acquiring land for estuarine, sanctuaries and island preserva-
tion (Sec. 315).

Section 315 of the act establishes the National Estuarine Sanctuary
Program (NESP) to provide matching grants to states to acquire, develop,
and operate natural estuarine areas as sanctuaries, so that scientists,
students, and the general public 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. The regulations for implementation of the
NESP are found.at 15 CFR Part 921. Final regulations revising the NESP
Regulations (see Appendix 2) were published on June 27, 1984, in 49
Federal Register 26502 (to be codified at 15 CFR Part 921).

Under Section 315 of the CAMA, the Assistant Administrator for
Ocean Services and Coastal Zone Management, on behalf of the Secretary
of Commerce, designates estuarine sanctuaries. This Environmental

Impact Statement and Management Plan is prepared in accordance with the
provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of'1969, as amended,
42 USC 4321 et seq. , to analyze the environmental and socioeconomic
impacts of es-tablishing the proposed Masonboro Island Component of the
North Carolina National Estuarine Sanctuary (NCNES) and implementing the
management plan for the site.

2. Objectives and Purposes

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

to enhance resource protection by implementing a long-term
management plan tailored to the site's specificresources;

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

to make baseline ecological measurements and serve as a natural
control in order to monitor changes and assess the impacts of human
stresses on similar ecosystems;

to provide, through resource interpretive programs, 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;

to promote federal-state cooperative efforts in managing estuarine
areas; and

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

To ensure that the NESP includes sites that adequately represent
regional and ecological differences, the program regulations establish a
biogeographical classification scheme that reflects geographic,
hydrographic, and biological characteristics. Eleven (11) bi iogeographic
categories are def ined in the program regulations. Sub-categories of
this basic system are developed and utilized as appropriate to
distinguish different subclasses of,each category.

In addition, the NESP Final Regulations (Appendix 2) details
typological categories including sub-categories of estuarine biology,
geology, hydrography, and chemistry.

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 decislonmaking.

Research'purposes may include:

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

Acquiring baseline ecological measurements;

Serving as a natural control against which changes in other
estuaries 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 recreational boating, fishing, shellfishing, hunting, and
wildlife photography or observation. Commercial fishing and
shellfishing may also be compatible uses.

The Federal regulations envision that the NESP 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 National 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
NESP defined 11 different biogeographic regions based on geographic,
hydrographic, and biological characteristics. Sub-categories of this
basic system are established as appropriate to distinguish different
subclasses of each biogeographic region.

3. Existing Estuarine Sanctuaries

Since 1974, the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management or
OCRM (formerly the Office of Coastal Zone Management) has awarded grants
to establish fifteen National Estuarine Sanctuaries. These include (in
order of acceptance by NOAA):

Sanctuary Biogeographic Classification

South Slough Columbian/Middle Pacific
Coos Bay, Oregon

Sapelo Island Carolinian/South Atlantic
McIntosh County, Georgia
Waimau Valley Insular/Hawsiian Islands
Island of Hawaii, Hawaii

Rookery Bay West Indian/West Florida
Collier County, Florida

Old Woman Creek Great Lakes/Eastern Lakes
Erie County, Ohio

Apalachicola River/Bay Louisianian/Panhandle Coast
Franklin County, Florida

Elkhorn Slough Californian/Central California
@Monterey County, California

Padilla Bay Columbian/Washington Coast
Skagit County, Washington

Narragansett Bay Virginian/Southern New England
Newport County, Rhode Island

Chesapeake Bay (2 components) Virginian/Chesapeake Bay
Maryland

Jobos Bay West Indian/Carribean
Puerto Rico

Tijuana River Californian/Southern California
San Diego County, California

North Carolina National Estuarine Virginian/Middle Atlantic
Sanctuary (3 components) Carolinian/North Carolinas
North Carolina (see Table 1)

Wells Sanctuary Acadian/Southern Gulf at Maine
York County, Maine

Hudson River (4 components) Virginian/S6uthern New England
New York

The Masonboro Island Component, if established, would represent a
different typology (see Table 1) within the Carol inian/North Carolina's
biogeographic region. This biogeographic region includes over 300 miles
of Atlantic coastline extending from Cape Hatteras, North Carolina to
the Santee River in South Carolina.
B. The North Carolina National Estuarine Sanctuary

1. Background

The State of North Carolina is committed to maintaining the re-
source productivity of its coastal zone. The Coastal Area Management
Act (CAMA) (GS 113A-100 et seq.) was passed by the state legislature in
1974. This act provides for regulation of development in fragile
coastal habitats known as Areas of Environmental Concern (AEC), of these
intertidal marshes and estuaries are given high priority. The estuaries
of North Carolina support a valuable fishery resource and Are -a
biological and aesthetic treasure used and enjoyed by millions of

Table 1. Biogeographic Classification and Typology for
Proposed (1),and Acquired (2) North Carolina
National Estuarine Sanctuary Components;
Unique Features of Masonboro Island
Masonboro Zeke's Rachel Carson Currituck
Island (1) island (2) (2) Banks (2)

BIOGEOGRAPHY
Region/Subregion Carolinian Carolinian Carolinian Virginian
N. Carolinas N. Carolinas N. Carolinas Middle Atlantic

TYPOLOGY

Ecosystem Types

Maritime Forest + +

Coastal Shrublands + + + +

Coastal Grasslands + + + +

Coastal Marshes + + + +

Intertidal Beaches + + + +

Incertidal Mud + + + +
and Sand Flats

Subtidal Softbottoms + + + +

Subtidal Grassbeds + + +

Physical Characteristics

Basin Type exposed coast exposed coast shelt. coast exposed coast
shelt. coast shelt. coast tidal river shelt. coast
embayment lagoon/t. rv. embayment

Basin Structure bar-bound bar-bound coastal plain bar-bound
c. p. estuary estuary

Inlet Type permanent temporary permanent cemporary

Bottom Type sand sand sand sand

Circulation non-stratified non-stratified non-stratifie( non-stracified

Tides semi-diurnal 3emi-diurnal semi-diurnal wind-influenced

Freshwater surface/grd. surface/grd. surface/grd. surface/grd.
water water water water

Chemistry
Salinity Poo. estuary pos. estuary pos. estuary pos. estuary

Salinity Zone euhaline to euhaline euhaline mixohaline/
polyhaline oligohaline

pH regime circumneutral circ-neutral circ-eutral alkaline

present according to the revised regulations for the National Estuarine
absent Sanctuary Program -August, 1983 (see Appendix 2)

Unique Features of Masonboro Island in Comparison to the Other Components:

1. Masonboro Island encompasses an entire, undisturbed barrier island/estuarine
complex-microtidal transgressive barrier island with a non-drowned river
mouth (embayment) estuary.
2. Masouboro Island has a higher salinity regime and different biota in contrast
to the embaymenc associated with Currituck Banks.
3. Masonboro Sound contains a very diverse polychaete fauna and range extensions
of several tunicate species (see invertebrate discussion under Natural
Environment/Biology and Appendix 8).

people. In order to protect and manage effectively the diversity of
North Carolina's estuaries, an understanding of the estuarine ecology of
representative sites is essential. For this reason, establishment of an
estuarine sanctuary system in North Carolina provides a valuable tool
for enhancing the management of the state's estuaries.

a. Goals and Objectives

The North Carolina National Estuarine Sanctuary (NCNES) creates a
set of natural field laboratories in which to study the natural and
human processes' occurring within estuarine ecosystems. The NCNES will
be managed to meet the following goals:

1. To preserve estuarine ecosystems representative of the
biogeographic regions and typologies in North Carolina and to
make them available for continuous future study of processes,
functions, and influences which shape and sustain the
estuarine ecosystems;

2. To provide new information on estuarine ecosystem processes to
decisionmakers as A basis for the promotion of sound
management of coastal resources;

3. To provide a focal point for educational activities that
increase the public awareness and understanding of estuarine
ecosystems, effects of man on them, and the importance of the
estuarine system to the state and the nations; and

4. To accommodate traditional recreational activities, commercial
fishing, and other uses of the sanctuary system as long as
they do not disturb the sanctuary environment and are
compatible with the research and educational activities taking
place there.

The NOES has the following objectives to meet the research goals
(1 and 2) listed above:

establish priorities and operational procedures for the different
types of research to be carried out in the sanctuary system;

establish procedures for permitting and monitoring research
activities; and
establish procedures for disseminating research results.

The educational goal (3) has the following objectives:

establish procedures for developing and supporting educational
programs at each site;

establish procedures for coordinating educational activities; and

establish procedures for transferring scientific information
generated from the sanctuary research program into non-technical
terms.

The traditional uses and special concerns goal (4) are addressed by
these objectives:

define standards for recreational activities on the lands and
waters of the sanctuary system;

define standards for the use of off-road vehicles within the
sanctuary system;

establish guidelines for commercial fishing operations within the
sanctuary system;

'define guidelines for the disposal of dredge spoil within the
sanctuary system; and

develop criteria for managing the Rachel Carson site's feral horse
population.

b. Site Selection Criteria

Congress established the NESP in response to disturbing trends
appearing in coastal areas throughout the country -- namely, the
pollution of coastal waters, the closing of shellfish beds, the draining
of marshes, and other man-induced damages to valuable and productive
estuarine ecosystems. Fewer and fewer undisturbed or unpolluted
estuarine areas remain for scientific study and public education. At
the same time, the need is growing for more and more information about
the functions and processes of estuarine ecosystems, and man's effect on
them, to improve the management of development in the nation's coastal
areas.

In response to the same trends and concerns, the State of North
Carolina has for several years been actively considering the
establishment of estuarine sanctuaries in general and the preservation
of specific sites as unique natural areas. The NESP helped bring the
state's sanctuary plans to fruition.

The State of North Carolina's involvement In the NESP has spanned
approximately four years. Because of the diversity of North Carolina's
estuarine biogeography and typology, a multiple site system was
essential for adequate representation.
A site selection process was initiated by North Carolina's
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development (DNRCD) in
early 1980 to determine the most representative areas in the state
appropriate for inclusion in the sanctuary system (see Appendix 4).
Detailed inventories of over 112 important natural areas were reviewed
and a solicitation of nominations for potential sites was sent to over
fifty (50) key parties (state and federal agencies, researchers,
interest groups, and interested citizens) in June 1980. Personnel from
the OCZM (now OCRM) and DNRCD visited and evaluated potential sites
along the coast in mid-1980.

Because most of the twenty-eight sites nominated are viable
candidates for sanctuary status from a physical /biological standpoint,

the Office of Coastal Management (OCM) sought to incorporate various
practical considerations into the selection process. Such additional
site selection criteria include: 1.) development pressure, 2.)
estuarine research/educational interest, 3.) availability of lands that
would constitute a natural, yet manageable estuarine unit, 4.) local
interest in estuarine preservation, 5.) accessibility, 6.) lack of
on-site disturbance, and 7.) compatibility of adjacent land uses.

After careful analysis OCM staff determined that the estuaries
associated with the state's barrier islands deserved initial priority
consideration because of the greater development pressure on the islands
than on the mainland. Several such estuarine areas that were available
for acquisition were also known to be highly desirable sites for
research by local universities or colleges. Similarly, public sentiment
favored preservation of these sites for education and traditional
hunting and fishing. By combining all of these factors with the
physical/biological variations of the state's estuaries, the OCM
selected four sites--Zeke's Island, Carrot Island-Bird Shoal (now called
Rachel Carson), Currituck Banks, and Masonboro Island (see Figure 1).
Each of these selections represents a distinctly different estuarine
typology or biogeographic region (see Table 1) according to the revised
regulations.

The first three sites recommended by the OCM have been accepted by
the OCRM as components of the NCNES. Masonboro Island would complete
barrier island estuary representation in the NCNES because. the island
encompasses an excellent example of a polybaline to eubaline, embayment
basin type with bar-bound structure in the Carolinian Region.

Masonboro Island represents a pristine, non-drowned river mouth
estuary associated with an entire, undisturbed barrier island. None of
the sites presently within the NCNES nor the other sites nominated
encompass such a large, entire, and undisturbed barrier island estuary.
This site received priority consideration because of the extensive
barrier island development occurring elsewhere along the*'North Carolina
coast and within the Carolinian biogeographic region. Masonboro Island
serves as an important "control" estuary which can be compared to
inhabited barrier islands relative to the environmental impacts of
development. Such intensive development is not presently occurring
along the mainland estuaries. In addition, the Masonboro Island area
contains a number of distinctive natural features: an extremely diverse
polychaete fauna, nesting loggerhead sea turtles, colonial nesting
waterbirds, distinctive tunicate species, eel grass beds at the
southern-most location in the state, and the plant and animal
communities and physical features associated with an entire,
undisturbed, microtidal, transgressive barrier island.

Masonboro Island is used in various programs which conform to the
goals and objectives previously stated for the national and state
sanctuary programs. The University of North Carolina at Wilmington
UNC-W), a school with a strong marine science faculty, utilizes the site
for research and education. The Marine Resources Center (MRC) at Fort
Fisher, the New Hanover County Public School System, and several private
groups use the island for educational activities. In addition, support

Gates k
CU RR ITU CK BAN KS S IT E
I Hertfor@ lqc--l
o

Bertie 0 Kitty Hawk

Manteo
1.)'7@ash ington') Tyrrell Dare

L
Beaufort f
Hyde

CS
7
Craven Cape Hatteras

@P
Pamlico

.'e(et
Onslow
RACHEL CARSON SITE (CARROT ISLAND)

Pender Cape Lookout

Wilmington..,
`0-
AX
Wrightsville Beach
MASONBORO ISLAND SITE (PROPOSED)
Brunswick Carolina Beach
Southport
ZEKE'S ISLAND SITE
Cape Fear

SCALE: 1" 19 miles (approx.)

FIGURE 1: COMPONENTS OF THE NORTH CAROLINA
NATIONAL ESTUARINE SANCTUARY

for preservation of the island has also been expressed by landowners,
the New Hanover County Commissioners, the town councils of adjacent
Wrightsville Beach and Carolina Beach, and numerous private citizens.
For these reasons, the OCM proposes that Masonboro Island be the next
component included in the NCNES.

2. Management Plan

In June 1982, after several years of state and local efforts to
establish estuarine sanctuaries along the coast, the NCNES became a
reality. The approved final draft management plan describes the three
sites within the system and how they are to be used and maintained.

The Office of Coastal Management (OCM) within the DNRCD has lead
management responsibility for the NCNES, including the development of
the approved management plan, liaison with affected state agencies, and
grant administration and coordination of acquisition. The sites are
managed as a whole, though each component has its own character and its
own needs. This requires an individual approach for managing each site
to protect its valuable and unique resources for future generations.

The management plan defines how the goals previously listed in Part
I, Section B-1-a will be met. Developing a plan such as this is a means
by which objectives and policies are formulated and an optimum 11imagerl
of the sanctuary is portrayed. In this manner, the research and
educational programs are properly directed, achievements can be
measured, and the protection of the system's resources is assured. The
plan also provides guidance for the day-to-day operation of the
sanctuary.
The policies for the protection and use of the NCNES resources are
summarized as follows:

Research Activities. The management plan establishes procedures by
which research will be permitted in the sanctuary. Though a very wide
range of research can take place, priorities are given for projects
depending upon the amount and type of previous work done within a given
component. Priority research topics include:

(1) Baseline measurements of chemical, physical, biological, and
ecological characteristics;

(2) Monitoring changes in these characteristics over various time
frames; and

(3) Research to help improve coastal decisionmaking.

This sequence of research priorities is in the best interest of the
Sanctuary--protecting it from adverse impacts and guaranteeing its
long-term value and suitability for research, education, and other
compatible human activities. The ultimate goal of the research program
is the third priority--to provide information to improve coastal
decisionmaking.

The management plan also provides procedures for permitting and
monitoring research activities and procedures for disseminating research
results to educate scientists, coastal resource managers, and the
general public. Research in the Sanctuary will enhance their awareness
and understanding of natural processes in the coastal region and human
effects on the estuarine ecosystem.

Educational Activities. Publications, lectures, slide shows, field
trips, and other related programs will actively draw on and be
coordinated with the activities of the public schools, the MRC's,
colleges and universities, museums, and other educational organizations.
Policies related to on-site interpretive programs for students and other
groups have been developed. A visitor orientation packet will also be
developed to provide individuals that enter one of the sanctuary
components with a self-guided tour. The on-site educational programs
will not disturb research activities. Off-site educational programs
will be coordinated with various marine science programs such as the
University of North Carolina Sea Grant College Program.

Other Uses. Policies addressing traditional uses of the components have
been presented to maintain a harmonious balance between them and
research and educational activities. Standards for recreational
activities and the use of off-road vehicles have been defined.
Guidelines for commercial fishing operations, traditional hunting and
fishing, the disposal of dredge spoil, and vehicular access have been
developed. Criteria for managing feral horses and developing a small
day-use recreation area are presented. The policies are designed to
ensure minimal disruption to research projects and to the sanctuary's
plants, animals, and habitats.

The Final Draft Management Plan for the NCNES is available to the
public through the OCM.
3. The Component Elements of the NCNES

On behalf of the State of North Carolina, DNRCD/OCM submitted a
$454,100 grant application to the NOAA/OCRM in June, 1982 for
establishment of the NCNES. This initial amount was approved for land
acquisition of Zeke's Island and Rachel Carson, and was matched by land
donations and bargain sales of these sites to the state. Subsequent
award amendments ($61,263 - June 1983; $1,251,737 - July 1983) for
operating expenses (eg., establishment of Estuarine Sanctuary
Coordinator and Sanctuary Analyst positions) and acquisition of
Currituck Banks have been matched by previous land donations and bargain
sales to the state. Since the initial award, Zeke's Island and
Currituck Banks have been acquired, Rachel Carson acquisition is lacking
only one small tract currently under negotiation. Draft and final draft
management plans for the three components have been completed.

a. Zeke's Island

The Zeke's Island component (see Figure 2) consists of approximate-
ly 466 hectares (1,650 acres) of islands, marsh, tidal flats, New Inlet,
and shallow estuarine waters located about six miles north of Cape Fear

N.C. DOT Fer
ry
Wildlife ResourcesCornmission arine Resources
Boat Ramp
Center
........ ------

. . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .

. ........
A

The@ Basin

,ZEKE'S

4@
Vo

NO NAM

01, ............

wllm

. .. ... . .

'NO Rf HW-'.. .

SANCTUARY BOUNDARY

SCALE: 1" 2400-
"IN R
NN, . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NEWINLET

FIGURE 2: PHYSIOGRAPHIC FEATURES OF THE ZEKE'S ISLAND SITE

at the southern end of Federal Point. "The Rocks", a jetty built by the
Corps of Engineers in the late 1800s, forms the site's western boundary
and has virtually eliminated the Cape Fear River's influence over the
site's characteristics. The site's physical processes are dominated by
New Inlet which allows the mixing of ocean tides with sound waters
behind a barrier spit that has been migrating south over the past 50
years. This creates an excellent opportunity for studying the effects
of inlet dynamics on estuarine systems. At the same time, the marshes
and flats of the site are rich and expansive. Because "The Rocks" keep
the Cape Fear River from flushing through New Inlet, the Zeke's Island
site provides a laboratory for observing the slow sedimentation of an
estuarine basin and the ecological succession of flats, marshes, and
uplands. The site also contains a number of shipwrecks from the Civil
War era. Immediately north of the site is Federal Point, which is
occupied by a number of state-operated educational and research
institutions that will facilitate public education on this site: the
MRC/Fort Fisher, Fort Fisher State Historic Site, the Department of
Cultural Resources' Underwater Archaeology Laboratory, and - Carolina
Beach State Park. Other nearby institutions include the University of
North Carolina at Wilmington (UNC-W) and the Carolina Power and Light
Company's Brunswick Biological Laboratory-(CP&L) (in Southport).

b. Rachel Carson

The Rachel Carson (Carrot Island) component (see Figure 3) lies
inside Beaufort Inlet and Shackleford Banks, across Taylor's Creek from
the historic town of Beaufort. The site- occupies about 810 hectares
(2,025 acres) of islands, marshes, vast intertidal flats, tidal creeks,
and shallow estuarine waters. The site supports a locally high
concentration of flora and. fauna, including a population of feral
horses. One hundred sixty-one species of birds and 47 species of
invertebrates have been observed at the,site. The diversity of its bird
and plant populations caused The Nature Conservancy to purchase part of
the site (Carrot island) in the late 1970s. One cause of,this diversity
has been the periodic deposition of dredge spoil from n6rby navigation
channels on certain upland areas of Carrot Island and Town Marsh. The
Rachel Carson site provides an excellent laboratory for the study of
habitat succession, bird and invertebrate populations, feral horses, and
other aspects of the estuarine system. The site has long been used for
estuarine research due to its proximity, to the Duke University Marine
Lab and the National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS) - Beaufort Lab
(both on Piver's Island, immediately across a narrow channel from the
site) as well as the University of North Carolina Institute of Marine
Sciences and the N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries Lab (both in Morehead
City). Other nearby research and educational institutions include the
Hampton Mariner's Museum (in Beaufort), Carteret Technical Institute (in
Morehead City), and the N.C. Marine Resources Center/Bogue Banks (in
Pine Knoll Shores).

c. Currituck Banks

The Currituck Banks (see Figure 4) component covers approximately
1,122.8 hectares (2,807 acres) of beach, dunes, maritime forest,
marshes, islands, and a portion of Currituck Sound. It lies in the

0
C4rreol Landing Sit, to*
IL

SAM
64.

.000

0--W

Inlet

FIGURE 3: SHACKLEFORD BANKS
LCurrent Landing Sit,

PUYS'OGRAPHIC FEATURES OF THE RACHEL CARSON SITE

CURRITUCK SOUND

'z
MONKEY ISLAND4:0

MARY ISLAND

RACCOONISLAND
i'M

N
SCAFFOLD POINT
ET

N
RACCOO
BAY sil/
..........
JUDY-S COVE

...........
..................

VILLAGE OF OCEAN HILL MONKEY ISLAND
COROLLA SUBDIVISION JOINT VENTURE THE NAJURL CONSERVANCY

PROPOSED SANCTUARY BOUNDARY
SCALE: I" - I Soo,

FIGURE 4: PHYSICAL RESOURCES, CURRITUCK BANKS COMPONENT
N.C. NATIONAL ESTUARINE SANTUARY

northeastern corner of the state and is the only site in the North
Carolina system that falls into the Virginian biogeographic
classification, Middle Atlantic subregion. It exhibits a marked
diversity of plant and animal life. Northern and southern estuarine
species are found side-by-side and in abundance. Since Currituck Sound
is about 30 miles from the nearest ocean inlet, it has a lower salinity
than the other sites and thus a different vegetative regime supporting
grasses and shrubs found in both estuarine and palustrine wetlands.
This variety and richness of vegetation make Currituck Sound and the
wetlands surrounding it one of the best feeding grounds in the Atlantic
Flyway for migratory waterfowl. Despite its current low salinity,
Currituck Sound periodically receives doses of ocean salts by storm
waters washing over the banks. Currituck Sound was directly connected
to the ocean by an inlet until the early 1800s; this inlet could reopen
naturally in the future. Nearby research and educational institutions
that will be recruited to use the site include the N.C. Marine Resources
Center/Roanoke Island, East Carolina University's Institute for Coastal
and Marine Resources (in Greenville), College of the Albemarle and
Elizabeth City State University (both in Elizabeth City), Old Dominion
University (in Norfolk, Virginia), and the Virginia Institute of Marine
Sciences (in Gloucester Point, Virginia).

C. The Proposed Masonboro Island Addition

The State of North Carolina has requested a land acquisition grant
from NOAA for the establishment of Masonboro Island as the fourth
component of the NCNES. This figure represents the remaining amount
available to the State of North Carolina from the $3,000,000 maximum per
sanctuary for acquisiton. This amount would be matched by an equivalent
amount of state funds, available from previous land donations and
bargain ' sales, and services used for the establishment of a
2,000-hectare (5,000-acre) component of the NCNES.
Of the Masonboro Island acreage, 181 hectares (452 acres) are
natural uplands (dunes, maritime forest, and shrub thicket), 66 hectares
(166 acres) are derived uplands consisting of spoil sites, while the
remaining 1,771 hectares (4,428 acres) are intertidal marsh/subtidal
estuary held in trust by the State of North Carolina. Acquisition will
therefore focus on the 247 hectares (618 acres) above mean high tide.
Of this upland acreage, approximately 35.6 hectares (89 acres) are owned
by the State of North Carolina and administered by DNRCD/Division of
Parks and Recreation as a natural area. Approximately 6 hectares (15
acres) is owned by New Hanover County. It has been resolved by the
county commissioners that this acreage will be donated to the state
should Masonboro Island be accepted as the fourth component of the
NCNES. The United States Government (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(COE)) owns the northernmost 4.9 hectares (12.2 acres) of uplands for
the maintenance of a rock jetty constructed in 1977-80 along the south
side of Masonboro Inlet. The COE also has an easement over the spoil
areas along the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW). The remaining
natural upland area (134.7 ha./337 ac.) is divided among 81 privately
owned tracts.

Anticipated development for estuarine sanctuary component purposes
will consist of a boat dock, boardwalk, and interpretive trail. Primary

emphasis will be placed upon the development of a coordinated program of
research and education that would not be realized otherwise.

1. Purpose of the Addition

The NESP has recognized the dynamic and fragile character of
estuaries and has endeavored to protect sites representative of the
various biogeographic regions and typologies found throughout the
nation. Presently, fifteen sanctuaries, three containing more than one
component, are in the Program. Among these sanctuaries is the
three-component NCNES.

Within the DNRCD, the OCM has been designated as the lead agency
for the NCNES Sanctuary Program. The State of North Carolina has
acquired title to sites within the sanctuary primarily for research,
education, and traditional uses. The sanctuary program thus protects
estuarine and associated upland habitats and biota from the impacts of
potential development. However, Masonboro Island represents an
estuarine type not presently represented within the sanctuaries in the
Carolinian biogeographic region.

Masonboro Island is an excellent example of a non-drowned river
mouth estuary associated with an undisturbed barrier island. The
estuaries associated with barrier islands are among the most productive
ecosystems known to man. They provide nesting and feeding grounds for
numerous bird and animal species in addition to being important nursery
and spawning areas for finfish and shellfish.

This Final Environmental impact Statement and Draft Management Plan
(FEIS/DMP) presents the alternative actions which could be taken to
preserve Masonboro Island as a component of the NCNES. This
embayment/bar-bound estuary serves as an unspoiled example of an
estuarine type which is under intense direct or indirect development
pressure elsewhere within the Carolinian biogeographic region. The
island provides habitats for endangered species such as the brown
pelican and peregrine falcon and threatened species such as the
loggerhead sea turtle. The area is also located along the Atlantic
Flyway. Other species of special, interest, including terrestrial
mammals, colonial nesting waterbirds, ipswich sparrow, osprey, numerous
polychaetes, tunicates, mollusks, and other invertebrates, add to the
genetic diversity of the site. Loss of Masonboro Island to private
development would not only be -detrimental to the above species, but
would negatively impact a pristine barrier island/estuarine complex that
could serve as a natural laboratory and important "control" for
comparison to similar but developed estuarine areas.

2. Need for Action

The barrier islands and associated estuaries. of southeastern North
Carolina have been under development pressure for decades, with a rapid
acceleration in oceanfront construction following the last major
hurricanes of the 1950's. Even on the very few undeveloped islands, of
which Masonboro is the best example in this area, there has been a

117

speculative wave of purchasing relatively inexpensive oceanfront lots by
private individuals.

Now that development is nearly continuous on the barrier islands
having the best topographies for permanent structures, developers are
looking toward the remaining low-lying islands for second home or
private beach club use. Masonboro Island is currently zoned R-20,
low-density residential, which could allow for some development-
-particularly on the north end of the island. However, the entire
island is within the Undeveloped Barrier Island System under the.Federal
Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982 (16 USC 3501). Federal financial
assistance for public improvements for development (roads, sewers, water
facilities, etc.) in this area will therefore not be available. The act
also provides that federal flood insurance will not be available in the
area for structures built after October 1, 1983. Nevertheless, one
local developer has recently voiced plans of constructing a private club
house on a portion of the north end of the site.

Over the years, there has been considerable state and local support
to preserve Masonboro Island. However, lack of funds has been the
primary reason why the island has not been acquired as a natural area.

The need to initiate protective action for the Masonboro Island
complex while the site still retains its undisturbed character has been
considered in the priorities for the development of the NCNES. This
FEIS/DMP presents the Preferred Alternative as the solution to this
preservation need.

3. Benefits of Inclusion in the North Carolina National
Estuarine Sanctuary

North Carolina's proposed addition follows many years of interest
in and desire to preserve Masonboro Island by state and local officials,
and university and conservation groups. A local group, the Society for
Masonboro Island, has been organized as a local effort to preserve the
island. A number of articles have appeared in the Wilmington Morning
Star concerning the need to save Masonboro Island from development. A
public interest group, the Society for Masonboro Island, held a public
meeting in Wilmington on October 26, 1983, that was widely publicized in
the local news media. The OCM staff was invited to that meeting to
explain the NCNES program and the state's intentions relative to
acquisition and protection of the area.

Approval of this grant application would permit the establishment
of an estuarine sanctuary component representing an embayment/bar-bound
estuary within the Carolinian/North Carolinas biogeographic region. The
proposed sanctuary component would be used primarily for research and
educational purposes, especially to provide information useful for
coastal zone management decision-making. Multiple use would be
encouraged to the extent that it is compatible with the proposed
component's research and educational programs.

JLF_

The overall and major benefits of designation of the proposed
Masonboro Island Component will be development of a better scientific
and public understanding of the estuary and its resources. The proposed
sanctuary component does not conflict with existing commercial or
recreational uses of the Masonboro Island vicinity and any conflicts
that arise in the future can be reduced through negotiation. Without
this sanctuary component, Masonboro Island would not be dedicated
specifically and permanently for research and education. However, with
a sanctuary component, present uses of the site, including surf fishing,
hunting, and other recreational uses where currently allowed, would
continue where compatible with research and educational programs.

COORDINATED MANAGEMENT

The DNRCD/OCM will administer the proposed component and will be
directly responsible for the content and structure of the site manage-
ment plan, the expenditure of program funds, and the formulation and
implementation of general program elements (such as research and educa-
tional programs). A Masonboio Island Local Advisory Committee will be
formed and comprised of local, state, county, and private individuals
representative of the various administrative, research, educational, and
traditional use interests associated with Masonboro Island. The
committee will include representatives with the following affiliations:
UNC-W, MRC-Fort Fisher, Carolina Beach State Park, COE - Wilmington
District, New Hanover County Commissioners, New Hanover County Public
Schools, N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries, N.C. Division of Archives
and History/Underwater Archaeology Branch, Fort Fisher Management Board,
Sierra Club, The Society for Masonboro Island, Lower Cape Fear Bird
Club, traditional user(s), and landowner(s). The Estuarine Sanctuary
Coordinator will chair this local advisory committee. The committee is
advisory to DMRCD/OCM on issues related to the formulation and
implementation of the component's management plan, the expenditure of
program funds, and formulation and implementation of general program
elements.

A memorandum of understanding, to be signed by the appropriate
agencies--N.C. Division of Parks and Recreation, MRC-Fort Fisher, N.C.
Division of Marine Fisheries, COE - Wilmington District, and UNC-W would
be developed to outline interagency agreements for the administration
and management of the component, and would express the agencies'
agreement to carry out the management plan.

RESEARCH

Estuarine component research problems would initially emphasize
baseline measurements of the site's chemical, physical, biological, and
ecological characteristics. Subsequent studies would monitor changes in
the above processes and focus on impacts of human activities. The
ultimate goal is to have ongoing research that provides, information on
estuarine ecosystems that will improve coastal resource management
decisionmaking in North Carolina and the nation. Little is known of the
estuaries associated with the southeastern North Carolina barrier
islands. However, many significant coastal management issues need to be
addressed because of increasing developmental pressures in this area.

The establishment of the Masonboro Island Component would help to
coordinate and to unify state estuarine research-among the four
components as well as other state sites--and to provide information to
coastal managers of all levels of government and the private sector with
the goal of wise resource management.

EDUCATION

The proposed estuarine sanctuary component contains a variety of
fauna and flora in a non-drowned river mouth estuarine habitat rep-
resentative of the southeastern North Carolina barrier islands. The
proposed component would provide an opportunity for many to learn more
of the estuary's geology, ecology, and resources. Estuarine sanctuary
funds would be used to develop exhibit space at the MRC-Fort Fisher; the
facility is visited by over 200,000 people per year. The MRC would also
be the lead agency, by memorandum of understanding with the OCM, for
guided field trips. Sanctuary funds would be used to develop a boat
dock, boardwalk, and interpretive trail on Masonboro Island. Off-site
educational programs concerning the site will be developed and presented
by the Estuarine Sanctuary Coordinator and the Educational Specialist
for the University of North Carolina Sea Grant College Program--by
memorandum of understanding. Additionally, self-guided trail brochures
and educational media available on loan to public groups and schools
could be developed.

RECREATION

The primary objective of the proposed Masonboro Island Component is
to provide long-term protection from developmental disturbances so that
the site may be used for scientific and educational purposes. Primary
emphasis at the site will be on its use for estuarine studies; however,
other existing activities such as hunting, fishing, boating, and
wildlife observation will continue, subject to existing state laws.

PART Ii: ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED FOR THE
THE ESTUARINE SANCTUARY COMPONENT
(INCLUDING PROPOSED ACTION)

The action under consideration by the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is a proposal from the State of North
Carolina to establish the Masonboro Island Component of the North
Carolina National Estuarine Sanctuary (NCNES).
This part considers five alternatives. The first alternative is
the preferred alternative and encompasses the entire island area. The
No Action alternative proposes that the island not be acquired as an
estuarine sanctuary site. Two alternative boundaries are also
considered: I.) inclusion of only the north or south half of the island
complex, and II.) the island area west of a line drawn down the
north-south axis, thus, excluding the oceanfront from the sanctuary
component. An alternative management scheme is also discussed.

The State of North Carolina has applied to NOAA for an acquisition
and development grant to be matched by an equivalent amount of previous
land donations and bargain sales to the state and in-kind services (eg.,
,surveys, and appraisals) to establish the Masonboro Island Component of
the NCNES. This component is composed of approximately 2,000 hectares
(5,000 acres) of water, marshes, and uplands in New Hanover County.
Acquisition funds will be spent to acquire property through easements or
purchase, as well as for developing limited facilities for research and
educational programs at the component.

A. Preferred Alternative for the Masonboro Island Component

The acquisition and development award would be used for acquisition
of nearly the entire island complex for the establishment of the
Masonboro Island Component. Most of the lands included within the
proposed component boundary are intertidal or subtidal and held in trust
by the State of North Carolina.

The Masonboro Island estuary on the outer coast of southeastern
North Carolina is a long and narrow embayment containing pristine, high
quality natural areas and nationally significant biological features.
The area includes loggerhead sea turtle nesting areas, brown pelican and
osprey feeding areas, eel grass beds at the southern limit of
distribution in the state, several tunicate populations which represent
significant range extensions from farther south, polychaete species
given "special concern" status by state biologists, active waterbird
nesting colonies, an undisturbed area along the Atlantic Flyway, and
pristine subtidal softbottoms, salt marsh, shrub thicket, maritime
forest, grassy flats, dunes, and ocean beach. The proposed site is the
largest undeveloped barrier island in southeastern North Carolina and is
characterized by unpolluted water and air, moderate to low tidal ranges,
large tidal wetlands, a continuous line of dunes, ocean beach, great
diversity of fish, wildlife, plants, and no human residents.

The purpose of establishing this proposed sanctuary component is to
manage and to maintain Masonboro Island as it is now--a healthy,

21L

productive, unspoiled estuarine and upland natural system. The
component will also be managed to encourage research and public
education on these waters, wetlands, and associated environments; and to
continue traditional uses of the site (including hunting and fishing)
when these uses are consistant with the character of the sanctuary as a
natural field laboratory.

1. Boundary and Acquisition of Sanctuary Component Lands

The proposed boundary would include approximately 2,000 hectares
(5,000 acres) of water, wetlands, and uplands. The boundary of the
proposed component is shown in Figure 5. It will be noted that the
dredge spoil sites along the AIWW have been included within the
sanctuary boundary. This is based upon the anticipated development of a
management agreement with the COE with respect to these sites. The
state-owned areas on the island are listed in Table 2.

Both the DPR and the COE have stated in writing that the
establishment of the proposed component would be compatibl 'e with their
present land uses. New Hanover County has offered to donate their land
to the state should the proposed award be approved.

The financial assistance request to NOAA will be matched by the
State of North Carolina, using previous land donations from other
components in the NCNES and land donations and bargain sales within the
proposed component.

Each site in the NCNES contains estuarine waters, submerged lands,
marshes, and uplands. Each site is (or was) a combination of
privately-owned lands and lands and waters held in the public trust by
the State of North Carolina. Under North Carolina common law, the state
holds claim to subtidal and intertidal lands in the coastal region, as
well as all navigable waters. Acquisition of these lands and waters is
not necessary for their inclusion in the NCNES. Lands above the mean
high water line are vested in private lands unless they"have been duly
acquired by a federal, state, or local government agency. These uplands
are important components of the estuarine ecosystem; they provide
habitat and supply nutrients, sediments, and freshwater flows that
contribute to the unique physical processes and biological productivity
of the estuary. It is therefore necessary for the State of North
Carolina to acquire interests in land above mean high water in order to
adequately protect estuarine environment in each sanctuary site.

Acquisitions of private land by the State of North Carolina is
intended to be fee simple acquisition and/or, where it is feasible and
consistent with sanctuary objectives, acquisition of conservation and
use easements. Leases and management agreements may also be considered
to ensure the proper management and protection of those areas not
immediately acquired. The State will make every effort to acquire the
privately owned parcels on a willing seller basis and fair market value
will be offered for all land purchases. Land acquisitions will be
undertaken as expeditiously as possible. Prior to acquisition, an
independent appraisal must be performed in accordance with federal and
state -appraisal standards and must be approved by NOAA/Office of Ocean

Figure 5. Physiographic Features of the Masonboro Island Site

", @Wk

I'M
En Upland

Marsh

Spoil
N Proposed
0.95mi.1
48 M
Boundary

and Coastal. Resource Management (OCRM). The State of North Carolina
will actively pursue either full or partial donations' of the appraised
value of lands at each site; the value of donations will be applied to
the state matching share of the total cost of land acquisition for the
NCNES.

On Masonboro Island approximately eighty-one parcels of private
natural uplands proposed for acquisition are to be acquired as funds
permit. Each parcel begins at the mean high tide level on the ocean
beach and encompasses a portion of the upland island area. Acquisition
of any privately-owned spoil sites is a second priority. Furthermore,
cooperative management agreements may be sought with landowners :across
the inlets and Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW) from the island to
further protect the proposed component.

The State of North Carolina will make every,effort to keep the land
owners of Masonboro Island fully informed on the status of the
acquisition process.

Table 2. Ownership of Upland Parcels on Masonboro Island
and Total Island Area by General Habitat Types

I. Ownership
Hectares Acres

United States of America 4.90 12.25
(U.S. Army Corps of Engineers)

New Hanover County 6.08 15.20

State of North Carolina 35.68 89.20
(Division of Parks and Recreation)

81 privately owned tracts 134.67 336.68
(includes upland areas)

Total 181.33 453.33

II. Island Area

Beach Upland Spoil Marsh/Estuary Total

181 ha. 66 ha. 1771 ha. 2018 ha.
453 ac. 166 ac. 4427 ac. 5046 ac.

2. Public and Private Access

Present access to Masonboro Island is by private boat, generally on
the sound side of the island adjacent to the most extensive upland area.
Land access on the island is totally undeveloped; most visitors normally
walk the intertidal sands of the ocean beach.

The only improvements in access the state would make are: (1) a
boat dock, (2) a boardwalk over the portion of the intertidal marsh as
part of a self-guided interpretive trail, and (3) boat transportation by
boat, as part of the educational program of the local Marine Resources
Center, to the island.

3. Management of the Proposed Component

The National Estuarine Sanctuary Program (NESP) is not a new State
or Federal regulatory program. The proposed sanctuary would be managed
using existing state laws and programs. The NESP is a Federal program
that provides financial assistance for state acquisition, development,
and operational management of national estuarine sanctuaries. The
principle goals and objectives of the proposed Masonboro Island
Component of the NCNES are the same as those presented in Part 1,
Section B-1-a of this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and
Draft Management Plan (DHP).

The Masonboro Island Local Advisory Committee will have repre-
sentatives of local government, user groups, conservation organizations,
researchers, educators, and landowners (see Table 3). The purpose of
this Committee is to achieve coordination among the public and private
groups participating in the management and use of the Masonboro Island
Component. The Committee will help in reviewing the proposed component
management plan and any changes in the plan, soliciting and channeling
public input to the sanctuary planning process, reviewing proposals for
use of the sanctuary for educational and research use and other
activities within the proposed component, enhancing communication and
cooperation among all interests involved in the proposed component, and
organizing volunteer efforts in educational and management work. The
final composition of the Committee will be 'selected by the Secretary of
DNRCD.

Table 3. Masonboro Island Local Advisory Committee
(Tentative Composition)

University of North Carolina at Wilmington
Marine Resources Center at Fort Fisher
Carolina Beach State Park
COE - Wilmington District
New Hanover County Commissioners
New Hanover County Public Schools
Fort Fisher Management Board
N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
N.C. Division of Archives and History/Underwater
Archaeology Branch
The Society for Masonboro Island
Cape Fear Chapter of the Sierra Club
Lower Cape Fear Bird Club
Landowner(s)
Traditional User(s)

a. Management Plan

A DMP for the proposed Masonboro Island Component has been drafted
in concert with the FEIS. This plan will be reviewed by and revised
according to the comments and suggestions of Masonboro Island
land-owning agencies and individuals, the Local Advisory Committee, and
the public. The plan will be based upon the goals and objectives of the
approved management plan covering the existing components. Specific
policies will be developed to address the management needs of Masonboro
Island,. including the incorporation of management prerogatives of the
various agencies having management responsibility or legal jurisdiction
within the proposed site, while remaining consistent with the goals of
the approved plan.

The management plan for the NCNES will be reviewed and updated
annually by the OCM staff in consultation with the State Advisory
Committee and the Local Advisory Committees. This review w1ll include
an on-site inspection of the proposed component, an assessment of
research and educational programs, and an assessment of the
compatibility (other uses) of the component with the goals of the
sanctuary.

The Sanctuary Coordinator will then prepare an annual report that
includes a review of management tasks achieved, problems encountered,
recommendations, amendments to * the management plan (which require
NOAA/OCRM approval), scheduled management objectives and tasks for the
coming year, a summary of ongoing research and educational activities,
and a list of sanctuary-related publications. Other activities
occurring within the component will also be summarized; in particular,
spoil deposition by the COE on sound-site areas and on the intertidal
beach. By February I of each year, the annual report will be submitted
to the Secretary of Natural Resources and Community Development. Upon
acceptance by the Secretary, the Sanctuary Coordinator will forward
three copies to NOAA/OCRM and will provide copies to interested parties
upon request. Copies will also be sent to the N.C. Marine Resources
Centers (MRCs), the Hampton Mariners Museum, the libraries at Duke
Marine Lab and the University of North Carolina at Wilvdington (UNC-W),
and local public libraries near each sanctuary site.

b. Management Structure

The OCM will administer the proposed component and will be directly
responsible for the content and structure of the component's management
plan, the expenditure of program funds, and the formulation and imple-
mentation of general program elements such as research programs and
educational programs (see Figure 6).

Advisory committees have been created at both the state and local
levels to assist the OCM in preparing and implementing the NCNES
Management Plan. The Local Advisory Committees provide a unique
familiarity with the Sanctuary's individual sites--the resources present
there, their problems, and ways of managing them to meet the Program's
goals. The State Advisory Committee provides more of an overview
perspective regarding the broader directions of the program, the
opportunities it presents for research and education, and ways of
managing and protecting the Sanctuary's resources.

Figure 6 MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE NORTH CAROLINA NATIONAL ESTUARINE SANCTUARY

sT"ArE OF NORTH CAROLINA UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
Department at Natural Assrourm 0 apartment of Commerce
and Community Development

onal Oce
Director Administration
F" Administrator
Office of Coaft Manaigiament anic and Atmospheric

Public I nformation Section National Ocean Service
Chief Aisistan, Administrator

Office of Ocean and Coastal
Resourcesmaneglemisin If

Office of Coastal Mansigermint Office of Coastal Mamegisms"t Sanctuary Programs Division Sanctuary Programs Division
Assistant 0 ifictw - Field Assistault Oiraidar. Raleigh Sanctuary Prai" Manager Chief

Carardinstion Section Sanctuary Programs Division
Chief t Sanctuary Coordinator
Enforcement Section I
Chief Planning and Technical Services Sedan Sanctuary Analyst
Chief
Major Permits Section
Chief

!14 PICO -Parks& Rec
Chief
Field Consultant Sedan reation
State Advisory Comminee 'I 14AC0 @Wld-,f, Cm`m,-..n

Zeke's Island
Local Advisory Cismimittee NFICO -Marine Fisneries

Rachel Carson
Local A dyisory Committee Attorney General's Office

Curritucki" L.
Local Advisory Committee State Property Office

h Review Pane
R assert

L. UINC Sea Grant College

Consistent with the management of the other three (3) components of
the NCNES, a committee will be established by the North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development (DNRCD) to
fully represent all interests in the Masonboro Island area. Individuals
representing state and local government, education, research, commercial
fishing, wildlife resources, residents, landowners and environmental
groups, and other interests will be asked to participate by letter of
invitation. The final composition of the committee will be determined
by the positive responses received. In the case of interest groups, the
invitation will be sent to the executive director so that a
representative could be selected.

Once the management plan has-been developed and is approved by the
NOAA/OCRM, the local committees will meet a least twice a year and the
state committee will meet at least annually. The sanctuary staff will
maintain continuous and frequent contact with committee members and will
make available to them appropriate reports and data pertaining to
research programs, educational programs, and the management of sanctuary
resources. Meetings of a committee may be called when the coordinator
or committee members feel that a management problem has 'arisen that
calls for discussion and action.

C. Sanctuary Staff

The Secretary of the DNRCD has assigned lead management
responsibility to the OCM for the NCNES Program financial assistnace
awards received from the OCRM. The OCM will coordinate land acquisition
with the State Property Office and the State Attorney General's Office.
Because the management and use of the component will likely involve
other state divisions, the OCM will carefully and cooperatively work
with all affected agencies. The OCM staff serves as the liaison between
federal, state and local agencies and assists all participants in the
program to carry out their responsibilities (see Figure 6). The program
will be coordinated and administered by a Sanctuary Coordinator in
Raleigh whose responsibilities include:

- Act as liaison among participating agencies and all levels of
government to initiate cooperation and communication and to
ensure a consistent interpretation of sanctuary goals and
objectives;

- Carry out duties related to the administration of the
sanctuary system, including preparation of required state and
Federal grant applications, proposals, budgets, reports,
environmental assessmenta,..and maintain records;

- Ensure implementation 61.all policies -set forth in the
management plan;

- Coordinate educational and research programs for the sanctuary
with participating institutions;

- Hire and train staff to carry out specific duties which may be
necessary;

Oversee the direction of the Local and State Advisory
Committees and the Research Review Panel as described below;

Work with the OCM staff (public information officer and
graphic artist) and education coordinators from the Marine
Resources Centers to develop literature, displays; and

Advise and coordinate with universities, 'units of government.,
and non-gover= 'ental organizations on issues, policies, and
projects that affect the sanctuary components.

A Sanctuary Analyst has been hired for the following duties:

Compile and assemble pertinent technical and educational
information concerning all components;

Assist in preparation of environmental assessments and other
documents, and assist in review of research proposals;

Conduct site visits;

Assist in the -coordination of State and Local Advisory
Committee meetings;

Represent the sanctuary program at public meetings; and

Interpret and disseminate research results.

Future staffing needs have not yet been identified because of the
cooperative nature of the program. At the present time, the Coordinator
and Sanctuary Analyst will work with the Technical Services Branch and
Public Information Section within the OCM. Educational programs have
already been established by University of North Carolina (URC) Sea
Grant, the MRC19, and public schools, and therefore the sanctuary staff
will be working within this existing framework.

d. Research Policies

To better manage estuarine resources, a better understanding of the
complex interrelationships and functions of estuarine ecosystems is
necessary. To achieve this better understanding, more research on the
natural functions and influences, and effects of human use and abuse, on
the system is required. A thorough understanding of the coastal
ecosystem will allow more ecological ly-sound management decisions to be
made, assuring the long-term availability of the sanctuary system for
future research, education and enjoyment, and the future productivity of
the estuaries of North Carolina and the nation.

The management plan establishes guidelines under which research
will be permitted in the component. Nearly all types of research may be
conducted, but some will have higher priority for funding or be more
actively encouraged than others. This selectivity is for the protection
of the long-term usefulness of the component as an undisturbed estuarine
research site.

The plan also establishes procedures by which results of research
studies will be assembled and disseminated to educate scientists,
coastal resource managers, and the public about estuarine ecosystems.

1. Research Priorities

Policy: Maintain the long-term integrity of the Masonboro
Component as an undisturbed research site. This
requirement is of primary importance and will be the
basis of all decisionmaking establishing the use of the
sanctuary sites.

The goal to protect the sanctuary sites in their present undis-
'turbed states is extremely important. To perpetually support research
they must retain their integrity as valid representatives of natural
North Carolina estuarine ecosystems.

Policy: Research will be encouraged and funded particularly when
it addresses a needed research priority. The order of
general research priorities are as follows:

(1) Baseline measurements of chemical, physical, biolog-
ical, and ecological characteristics;

(2) Monitoring changes in these characteristics over
various time frames; and

(3)@ Research to help improve coastal decisionmaking.

Recently, estuarine scientists have recognized a real need for
basic research, the collection of baseline data on the normal state and
functions of estuaries. The long-term nature of baseline research, and
the use of baseline data as *a base for subsequent research on impacts
and changes, make an estuarine sanctuary the perfect subject. The sites
are undisturbed, represent estuaries of various biogeographic regions
and typologies, and will be maintained in a natural state for research
use into the future. A sanctuary site could serve as a control for
comparison with other estuarine ecosystems, as a model for estuarine
processes found in other areas, and as a comparison to itself at a later
time or under different conditions. Studying the component's ecological
structure and functions can promote sound management decisionmaking for
the sanctuary sites themselves as well as other estuarine ecosystems
throughout North Carolina and the nation.

The OCM is currently developing base maps with the Land Resources
Information Service (LRIS), a computer mapping service. Baseline data
will be added to the map data base for such purposes as overlaying
different parameter information.

The following, in order of priority, are the types of research
which have been established for the NCNES:

1. Baseline measurements of chemical and physical
characteristics:

water chemistry (e.g., salinity, dissolved oxygen,
turbidity, nutrients)

hydrological (e.g.,, patterns, velocities and quantities
of water flow)

sediment characteristics (e.g., grain size, permeability,
organic matter content)

2. Baseline measurements of biological/ecological
characteristics:

- physiological ecology (e.g., feeding, oxygen consumption,
condition indices)

- population ecology (e.g., population size, density of
individuals, age structure)

- community ecology (e.g., equilibrium species, qualita-
tive /quantitative structure, trophic structure, larval
recruitment, community metabolism)

- ecosystem ecology (e.g., habitat characteri'zation,
different ecosystem/habitat structure and function)

3. Monitoring changes in the above processes and functions over
time (e.g., different seasons, before/after storm events, over
a period of years)

4. Studies of impacts of human activities, including commercial
fishing, on component flora, fauna and ecological processes:

- determination of carrying capacities for various
activities within,the component

5. Research that provides the technical basis for improved
coastal resource management decisionmaking in North Carolina
and the nation

- impact studies using the component as a control

- studies to answer specific management problems (e.g.,
Rachel Carson dredge soil disposal)

6. Other estuarine research will be funded if it does not
conflict with priority research.
All types of research are encouraged within the NCNES; it has been
preserved to foster., scientific research. However, for the long-term
good of the sanctuary system and coastal resource management in general,
research applicable to resource management will be favored over other
research if conflicts arise in the allocation of study sites.

Policy: Research involving, manipulation of the component
environment will be permitted on a limited basis for

finite periods, provided that upon completion of research
tasks, ehe study site be restored to its original
condition.

Manipulative studies are defined as activities that involve
creating physical, biological, geological, or chemical changes in the
environment and observing their effects. Such studies have the capacity
to alter natural processes and undermine the ability of the proposed
Masonboro Island Component to serve as a subject for baseline studies or
as a control for comparative studies. Manipulative research will be
allowed if it benefits the management of the component and coastal
resources. Proposals for manipulative research will be strictly
evaluated on a case-by-case basis as to the type, extent, and
reversibility of environmental changes, the duration of the project, its
impact on the long-term stability of the component environment, and its
potential for improving coastal resource management strategies.

Policy: Research involving collection of out-of-season or studies
of p
,rotected species will be approved contingent upon
acquisition of all necessary research permits.

North Carolina's coastal fisheries regulations require a scientific
collecting permit from the Director of the DMF for anyone wishing to
take any marine or estuarine species which is out of season or otherwise
protected. For other wildlife and inland fish species, including
endangered or threatened species, a researcher must obtain a scientific
collecting permit from the Director of the Wildlife Resources
Commission. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) requires a
scientific collecting permit for taking, transporting, or possessing
migratory birds or any endangered or threatened species, their parts,
nests, or eggs for scientific research or educational purposes (50 CFR
21.23). The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) requires permits
for studies related to endangered or threatened marine fishes, sea
turtles, and all marine mammals.

II. Research Coordination

Policy: Proposals for research must be submitted in writing to
the Sanctuary Coordinator for approval before initiation
of proposed research.

A written technical proposal (see Appendix 3) must be submitted to
and approved by the Sanctuary Coordinator in consultation with research
review panel. Proposals received by the Sanctuary Coordinator will be
screened by the sanctuary staff and peer-reviewed by members of a review
panel comprised of technical experts and selected individuals with the
appropriate expertise necessary to evaluate the specific proposals.
Proposals will be evaluated on the basis of feasibility, scientific and
technical merit, and whether or not they meet component objectives,
policies as defined in the management plan, and annual research
priorities as established by the Estuarine Sanctuary Program. Only
research that complies with the management plan and the established
research priorities will be permitted. Proposed research will be

reviewed with an eye toward its effects 'on other ongoing or proposed
research projects being conducted with the sanctuary.

Research in the sanctuary can be supported by funds provided by
both the State and the Federal Governments. If the research proposals
are submitted for Federal-State matching fund support, the proposals,
following the review and evaluation by the Sanctuary Coordinator and the
peer-reviewers, will be forwarded to the NOAA Sanctuary Programs
Division for final review and approval.

Field work may not begin in the component until the principal
investigator receives written notification of approval from the Sanctu-
ary Coordinator. Major changes in the original research objectives,
materials, or methods must be submitted in writing to the Sanctuary
Coordinator who may consult the Research Review Panel. Variations from
the original research prospectus will only be allowed following written
notification from the coordinator.

Routine wildlife management activities, such as bird banding, fish
sampling, and water quality sampling conducted by state or Federal
agencies will be coordinated through the Sanctuary Coordinator, but will
not require a proposal. The agency must notify the Sanctuary
Coordinator either by telephone or in writing and will submit an annual
summary of the activity and the results of the studies to the Sanctuary
Coordinator for inclusion in the annual report and for review by the
State and Local Advisory Committees.

Policy: Research activities must comply with the sanctuary
component objectives and policies and with the approved
research prospectus unless the research activities meet a
special need of the NCNES or NESP.

Research that deviates from the objectives and. policies of the
management plan will not be allowed to continue. Field work which
varies significantly from the approved research prospectus (or approved
amendments) may be terminated immediately by the Sanctuary Coordinator.

Policy: The principal investigator for each research. project is
responsible for maintaining and removing any human-made
objects (field equipment, trash, etc.) that they bring
into the sanctuary component.

Just as researchers bear sole responsibility for maintaining their
field equipment, they also bear sole responsibility for removing it when
ending the project.

Policy: The principal investigator for each research project is
responsible for the timely submission of technical
project reports, project progress reports, and related
abstracts to the Sanctuary Coordinator for the program
files.

The abstract and copy of the project report or other publication
shall be kept with the sanctuary program files along with the research

prospectus and progress report(s). The OCM also plans to develop a
computerized bibliography of research conducted at N.C. estuarine
sanctuary sites, retrievable by common locations or subjects. The OGM
shall place copies of the abstract, prospectus, and project report in
the NCNES Depositories at the MRC@-Fort Fisher, UNC-W, the Hampton
Mariners Museum, the Duke University Lab, College of the Albemarle, and
MRC-Roanoke Island.

Policy: Results of all research projects will be included in
established estuarine information and exchange program
files.

The information generated from research projects is equally impor-
tant to the NESP. The recent establishment of the Research and
Education Information Coordination and Exchange Program (REICEP) by
NOAA/OCRM will provide a repository for sanctuary research results. The
establishment of the NCNES focuses special attention on the need for
long-term protection, wise use and proper management of estuarine areas.
Through effective interpretive programs, the sanctuary site environment
is made more meaningful. Learning more about estuaries from sanctuary
research will improve public understanding of how the system functions
and will expand the resource base from which to develop. interpretive
programs.

e. Educational Policies

The establishment of the NCNES focuses special attention on the
need for long-term protection, wise use, and proper management of
estuarine areas. Through effective interpretive programs, the estuarine
environment is made more meaningful. Learning more about estuaries from
sanctuary component research will improve public understanding of how
the system functions and will expand the resource base from which to
develop interpretive programs.

Publications, lectures, slide shows, organized activities and other
educational programs will actively draw on and be coordinated with the
activities of the public schools, the MRC's, the Sea Grant Program,
colleges and universities, museums, and other educational organizations.
Policies related to off-site and on-site interpretive programs for
students and other groups have been developed. Visitor orientation
packets will be developed to provide a self"guided tour for individuals
that enter one of the sanctuary sites on their own accord. The on-site
educational programs will not disturb research activities conducted
throughout the component.

I. Educational Programs

Policy: Off-site educational programs will be provided in con-
junction with the MRC's, the Sea Grant Program, the
public schools, community colleges, and other educational
institutions in order to make the public aware of the
component and its importance at state and national
levels.

The Sanctuary Coordinator will coordinate activities with existing
off-site programs of the MRC's, Community College, UNC Sea Crant, and
other institutions and will help develop instructional materials, slide
shows, and permanent displays. Cooperative educational programs will be
developed to incorporate the information generated by sanctuary research
into existing school programs. Specialized workshops will be provided
for people such as youth group leaders and science teachers to relay
this information and other topics related to the sanctuary's resources.

The OCM may sponsor specific meetings and workshops that are
announced statewide. The events will be directed at the interested
public and will utilize staff, scientists, and volunteer experts. The
OCM will also respond to, and encourage, speaking engagements by its
sanctuary staff. Audiences may include service organizations, youth
groups, schools, conservation clubs, etc. The staff will also
participate in activities such as serving on various boards, advisory
groups, and public programs.

Policy: On-site programs will be provided in conjunction with
existing activities.

"Nature walks" will provide close contact with the physical setting
of the component. Tours will be offered to public groups, school
groups, and special groups upon request. The MRC already handles a
limited number of groups. The Sanctuary Coordinator, working with
NRCD's Office of Legal Affairs, shall determine the extent of liability
associated with on-site activities.

Research site tours for college students and other groups are
encouraged. It would be appropriate to have one or more of the re-
searchers present during the tour in order to provide the participants
with an explanation of equipment design, protocol, and raw data. The
Sanctuary Coordinator will coordinate such activities with participating
research institutions.

Policy: On-site activities shall stay within the areas of the
site designated for public access, and shall not in any
way interfere with research projects.

A location map, developed by the sanctuary staff and based upon
habitat inventories and aerial surveys, will highlight the public access
areas and will indicate research projects within this area, if any
exist. The map will be distributed to participating institutions and
will be updated according to the research proposals approved by the
Sanctuary Coordinator in consultation with the research review panel adn
NOAA/OCRM. Baseline studies and aerial surveys will be needed to
determine the areas best suited for public access. The Education
Coordinator associated with the MRC shall also be consulted. Until the
map is developed, the Sanctuary Coordinator will work closely with
educators to ensure protection of habitat.

Policy: Literature, visual aids, and related materials will be
developed, distributed, and routinely updated in order to

convey to the general public and specialized groups the
goals, objectives, and accomplishments' of the NCNES.

Pamphlets to educate the public about each component could include
the following:

- North Carolina National Estuarine Sanctuary Reasons for
Designation. Some of the questions addressed might include:
What is an estuarine sanctuary? What is its purpose? Why is
each site special? What activities take place in a sanctuary?
Are there special rules of conduct? Are there other estuarine
sanctuaries in the U.S.?

- Research Program at the NOES. Information would include the
type of research being conducted, what the studies will
indicate, and the values and vulnerabilities of research.

- Geology and Coastal Processes at Masonboro Island. Questions
addressed could include: What materials make up the complex?
How was it created and when? Were any people around at that
time? What types of plants and animals live there? Is the
geology static, or are current events changing its appearance?
What factors contribute to this change?

- Other Special Topics--such as inlet dynamics, habitats, salt
marsh ecology, barrier islands.

The Sanctuary Coordinator and stAff will work with science teachers
from the public schools and the Education Coordinator from the MRC to
develop or update materials for the science curriculum. An educator's
packet will be prepared that includes scientific information, rules and
regulations, and other pertinent information in order to prepare
instructors for interpretive on-site programs. Training activities for
educators who are to use the site will be provided and will include
on-site workshops as well as off-site presentations. The Education
Coordinator will make maximum use of instructional materials already
being used. A workbook for use at the middle and secondary levels may
be developed to assist children in examining the characteristics of the
estuary and to learn something of the importance of estuaries.

Visitor orientation for on-site tours can be accomplished in a
number of ways. An orientation packet will be compiled for self-guided
tours. Maps, brochures, and related information will be included that
will guide the individual through the sanctuary component. A checklist
of plant and animal species will be developed on the basis of current
research and amateur observations. Rules and regulations will be
clearly outlined so that visitors will be familiar with the component's
management policies. Signs indicating that the area is a state-owned
National Estuarine Sanctuary Component will be placed at popular access
points.

A display will be placed at the MRC to indicate the location, size,
and habitats of the site. Mobile displays and slide shows will be used
throughout the state at conferences, workshops and meetings.

Policy: The OCM will actively encourage the dissemination of
scientific information from the sanctuary site to the
public. I

In addition to the avenues available to the scientific community
for presenting new information and data, media coverage, special newspa-
per articles, and editorials will be used by the staff to disseminate
information on the component's research accomplishments and educational
programs. An executive summary of the management plan, updated annual-
ly, will also be available.

II. Administration

Policy: The Sanctuary Coordinator will oversee the educational
program and will- coordinate activities between the
participating institutions.

The Sanctuary Coordinator will address the special needs of the
program on a case-by-case basis. These needs may include: securing
media coverage, acquiring or obtaining equipment, providing staff
support and funding, and scheduling events and meetings. Lines of
communication will be established through informal conversations, annual
meetings, quarterly newsletters, etc. A log book will be developed to
document the use of the component.

Policy: A NCNES log book for each site will document educational
use. An entry will be made in the Log Book f or each
educational activity.

Log sheets will be distributed to the participating institutions
for use after each site visit and after each off-site program. The
sheets will be filed quarterly with the coordinator, who will then enter
them into the log book. Each log sheet will include the following
information (see Appendix 3):

- name, address, telephone number, and institution of the
instruction or tour guide;

- number and age range of participants;

- method of access (private boat, concession, etc.)

- time of arrival and departure;

- curriculum; and

- comments and suggestions.

It would be beneficial to the NCNES Program if participating
institutions would provide the Sanctuary Coordinator with approximate
levels of public use. This information will be used by the sanctuary
staff to report to NOAA on an annual basis the extent of educational
programs.

III. Priorities

The development of off-site educational programs and materials will
be the highest priority until interpretive access areas are def ined
through aerial surveys and habitat mapping. By September 1984, the
pamphlet North Carolina National Estuarine Sanctuary -- Reasons for
Designation will be developed, along with a general slide show depicting
habitats and estuarine resources at each site.

The Sanctuary Coordinator and staff will contact the MRC, public
schools, UNC Sea Grant, and other interested educational institutions to
begin integrating NESP information into existing curricula. An
Educational Program Task Force with representation from all components
may be assembled to develop new curricula and to begin utilizing the new
information generated from on-site research efforts.

The location map, depicting access-zones and research areas, and a
visitor orientation packet will be developed following the completion of
aerial surveys and habitat mapping.

f. Policies for Traditional
Uses and Other Activities

Research and educational programs at the NCNES take place within
the context of a number of traditional uses of the different sites. The
management plan will recognize the value of these uses and will strive
to maintain a harmonious balance between them and research and
educational activities.

The lands and waters of Masonboro Island have long been used by
area residents and visitors for recreation and for commercial fishing.
The sole means of access to the site is by private boat. A number of
public and private boat ramps in Carolina Beach and Wrightsville Beach
are regularly used for trips to the island. The majority of visitors to
Masonboro Island land their crafts on the sandy beaches on the sound
sides of the inlets, while commercial and sport fishermen typically
enter the extensive shallow sounds. The beach area is fairly popular
for many forms of beach recreation, such as surf fishing, shell collect-
ing, sunbathing, and swimming. The site's marshes and tidal flats are
visited by bird watchers, clam diggers, and hunters. Off-road vehicles,
motorcycles or three-wheel vehicles, rarely use the island because they
must be carried from the mainland by boat. The COE reserves the right
to dispose of dredge spoil at specific sites in the island complex.

The proposed Masonboro Island component can accommodate all of the
concerns described above--recreation, commercial fishing, and spoil
disposal. In order for them to take place in harmony with the research
and educational uses of the site, however, a series of clear objectives
and policies tailored to the component are needed to manage it. Through
proper management, these traditional activities can continue within the
component and can contribute to its value as a place for learning and
enjoyment.

I. Recreation

Policy: Traditional recreational uses of each sanctuary site
shall be allowed to continue as long as they do not
disrupt the natural integrity of the component or any
research and education projects.

The Masonboro Island site has long been used by area residents and
visitors for swimming, fishing, hunting, bird watching, and shell
collecting. This tradition of use has created a strong local pride in
and attachment to the natural and aesthetic values of the area.
Recreation, research, and education are all compatible uses if they are
properly managed. Allowing recreation to continue promotes full use of
the component's resources, but research and education programs still
take top priority and will be protected from any undue disturbances.

Policy: No user shall disturb research projects or research
equipment in place at the component.

Research is the highest-priority use of the sanctuary and must
receive absolute protection. Disrupting this research would disrupt the
effective long-term management of the sanctuary system and other coastal
resources.

Policy: Users of the component shall not disturb or remove any
live animals (except for fish, shellfish, game animals,
furbearers and waterfowl; see fishing and hunting pol-
icies for these) or vegetation at the site unless it is
part of an approved research or educational project. All
users must pack out their own trash. All pets must be
under control at all times.

Removing and destroying vegetation can lead to serious long-term
damage to the habitats found in the component by promoting erosion and
sedimentation. Disturbing nesting birds and other animals can interfere
with their natural habits, possibly cause them to leave the site, and
thus diminish the component's' diversity of species. @'Signs will be
posted at the site stating these rules. Any interpretive trail
eventually established within the component will be compatible with this
policy of respecting the integrity of the site.

Policy: Camping and fires in the component must be approved and a
permit issued by -the Sanctuary Coordinator. Camping and
fires will be allowed in designated areas only.

Restricting camping fires protects the component's delicate habi-
tats from disturbance and destruction. Restricting camping and fires to
beach areas (where they primarily occur anyway) protects the site's more
delicate habitats.

Policyt Hunting may occur in the component in accordance with
current local, state, and federal wildlife regulations.
More stringent regulations will be pursued if hunting
conflicts with research and educational uses or threatens
the component's wildlife populations.

Existing N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission and FWS regulations set
seasons, bag limits, and restrictions on methods of taking for popular
game species found at the sanctuary sites (migratory waterfowl, deer,
rabbits, opossums, and other small game). These regulations, properly
enforced, are adequate to maintain healthy wildlife populations in the
component. If the Sanctuary Coordinator and Local and State Advisory
Committees deem more stringent regulations to be necessary, the OCM will
petition the Wildlife Resources Commission and the Secretary of Natural
Resources and Community Development to proceed with the adoption of more
appropriate restrictions.

II. Off-road Vehicles

Policy: No power-driven vehicles (other than boats and emergency
vehicles) shall be used on the Masonboro: Island site,
unless allowed by permit for limited research use.

Because of the pristine 'and restricted character of the Masonboro
Island uplands, this area is extremely susceptible to vegetational loss
and subsequent erosion from vehicular traffic. The documented use of
island uplands for nesting by the threatened loggerhead sea turtles and
colonial waterbirds also warrants the prohibition of off-road vehicles
during the spring, summer, and fall months. Occasionally, certain
research activities may require the use of a vehicle. In such
situations a special permit will be issued, specifying the type of
vehicle and the areas in which it may be used.

III. Fishing and Hunting

Policy: Fishing, shellfishing, and hunting will be allowed to
continue in the traditional manner, but will be regulated
by State and local laws and by special regulations.
Hydraulic dredging or "clam kicking" is not allowed
within the component.

Sport and commercial fishing and hunting will generally be allowed
to continue within the component, subject to existing regulations on bag
limits, seasons, and gear limitations. Collection of all migratory
birds requires a FWS permit and a N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
license. Since the Masonboro Island estuary is a primary nursery area
for fish and shellfish species, only hand gear may be used for sport or
commercial fishing.

Policy: Certain limited areas of the component may be closed to
commercial and recreational fishing and shellfishing to
provide undisturbed sites for research and fisheries
reproduction.

Once research better documents the component's submerged habitats
and the species they support, certain areas may be closed to shell-
fishing and fishing. Such closings.might benefit commercial fisheries
by providing excellent nursery areas and spawning areas. Similarly, a
researcher might propose a project that called for an undisturbed,
submerged habitat to study fish, shellfish, plants, and other ecological

relationships. Authority to close certain areas of the component rests
in the DMFj with the Wildlife Resources Commission 'having regulatory
authority for inland waters. When the Sanctuary Coordinator and the
Local and State Advisory Committees find such a closing to be warranted,
the OCM will petition the appropriate agencies to put such a closing
into. effect in accordance with existing regulations (for example, N.C.
Administrative code, Title 15, Subchapter 3B, Section .0111 -- "Research
Sanctuaries").

IV. Disposal of Dredge Spoil

Policy: Dredge spoil disposal shall be allowed to continue at the
Masonboro Island site, but only on existing disposal
areas: 1) on the beach approximately 2,295 m. (3,000
ft.) south of the jetty, 2) on certain spoil areas along
the west edge of the island, within the COE AIWW easement
and 3) in the surf zone on the south end of the island.
All spoil operations must comply with North Carolina's
Coastal Area Management Act (G.S. 113A-100) and Dredge
and Fill Act (G.S. 113-229) as well as Section 404 of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 USC 1251. et
seq.). All dredge spoil disposal will be placed in a
manner consistent with the beat technology available for
the prevention of mosquito and other disease vector
breeding.

The COE retains a perpetual easement along the western edge of the
island complex for AIWW maintenance dredging spoil deposition. The
resultant spoil sites are an inherent element of the Masonboro Island
ecosystem.

The periodic deposition of dredge spoil has created uplands on'the
western edge of the island complex that provide a valuable nesting
habitat for many species of birds.. This nesting habitat complements
adjacent spawning areas (in the marshes) and feeding areas (on the
intertidal flats). Periodic spoil deposition keeps vegetation limited
to grasses and sparse forbs, which is an ideal nesting habitat for a
variety of colonial and solitary birds. Allowing periodic spoiling to
continue will maintain this habitat and the diversity and productivity
of the Masonboro Island site. Spoil disposal on the north beach and at
the south end of the island will not affect the estuary and this spoil
will be washed back into the longshore transport system.

However, In order to minimize disruption of the existing ecosystem
and protect other habitats in the site, the COE will work with the OCM
and NESP to develop a spoil disposal management plan to coordinate the
timing and location of spoiling activities. The goal for implementation
of this plan is mid-1985. If an agreement is not achieved by mid-1985,
the NOAA, COE, and the State will review the appropriateness of the
sanctuary boundary as presented in this EIS.

Policy: Spoil disposal sites must be locatedl, designed, and
managed to prevent sedimentation of marshes, intertidal
flats, and submerged lands.

The spoil disposal easement held by the COE for the AIWW and north
end of the island expressly forbids covering any wetland vegetation (as
defined by the Coastal Area Management Act). Just as the direct
deposition of spoil is allowed only on existing spoil dunes and the
intertidal beach to protect other habitats in the Masonboro Island site,
the dredge spoil area must be properly designed to prevent the
encroachment of sediment into other habitats.

The most threatened habitats are the wetlands, intertidal flats,
and submerged bottoms. While a certain degree of natural sedimentation
and habitat transition can be expected to occur in the estuarine
environment, care must be taken to keep dredge spoil disposal from
accelerating these processes.

Policy: The impacts of spoil disposal on the various habitats of
@the Masonboro Island site will be the subject of periodic
monitoring and research to identify any needs for
changing spoil management practices.

The periodic deposition of dredge spoil on portions of the
Masonboro Island complex has fostered a delicate balance of natural and
human processes that supports a rich diversity of habitats, flora, and
fauna. Improper management of dredge spoils can easily disrupt this
balance and diminish the component's value for research, education, and
recreation.

There is a benefit to both the COE, OCM, and NESP from the
cooperative study of the effects of spoil deposition in the Masonboro
Island Component. Research studies, aerial surveillance, and other
periodic observations will provide valuable information on how spoil
disposal can be managed best to protect the values of the component.
Much- of the knowledge gained here may prove applicable to dredge
spoiling activities in other areas.

As part of the spoil disposal management plan, the OCM, NESP, and
the COE will work together to develop a cooperative spoil research plan.
Cooperation will be sought in the timing and placement of spoil,
activities of research personnel, and funding. The research plan will
establish selected areas within the COE easement for control sites. The
COE will provide the OCM and NESP with an annual summary of spoiling
activities., future scheduling, and the results of any research and
monitoring done.

Policy: Spoil operations that might occur during the critical
nesting times (April 15 to November 30) of shorebirds and
loggerhead sea turtles shall be restricted. If spoiling
is necessary, it shall be contingent upon prior and
concurrent monitoring for nesting activity.

The courting and nesting season of shorebirds in the Masonboro
Island site extends from the end of April through September. This
roughly coincides with the loggerhead sea turtle's nesting season, which
extends from mid-April through November. Depositing dredge spoil during
these seasons can seriously alter the area's' biological diversity by

disrupting nesting patterns. Annual monitoring of shorebird and sea
turtle nesting activity shall be a priority research activity (see
II-d-2).

g. Policies for Surveillance,
Enforcement, and Maintenance

Maintenance and protection of the resources of the NCNES are
essential to its long-term survival and its value for education and
scientific research. Policies stated in previous sections of the
management plan control manipulation of habitats by researchers and
control other disruptions (habitat disturbance, littering, species
removal, etc.) by all users of the component. This section of the plan
presents policies for the overall maintenance of the component, for
reporting violations of the management plan's policies, and for the
enforcement of these policies.

I. Surveillance and Enforcement

Policy: The sanctuary staff and enforcement personnel from other
state and local agencies shall periodically visit each
sanctuary site to identify and investigate possible
violations of sanctuary system policies. The Masonboro
Island Component will rely heavily, but not solely, on
researchers, educators, and other users of the component
to report any violations and to cooperate in any
,investigations.

Time and budget limitations keep the OCM and state and local
enforcement agencies from maintaining a continuous presence at each site
in the NCNES. Therefore, all users of the component must exercise
responsibility for obeying the management policies stated in this plan,
for reporting any violations of the management policies, and for coop-
erating with the sanctuary staff and state and local enforcement person-
nel.

Policy: The OCM, local law enforcement agencies, the DMF, the
Wildlife Resources Commission, and the DPR shall
cooperate in enforcing sanctuary system policies as well
as all state and local laws applying to each sanctuary
site.

Each site in the NCNES falls into a number of different, and
sometimes overlapping, jurisdictions of local and state agencies. Such
overlap demands strong lines of communication and a strong sense of
cooperation on the part of the eni*orcement agencies.

At Masonboro Island the DPR (Carolina Beach State Park) has
responsibility for enforcement of State Park regulations on their 36
hectares (89 acres) of uplands and associated marsh/estuary. The island
falls under the law enforcement jurisdiction of the New Hanover County
Sheriff's Department in Wilmington. N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
enforcement officers have authority to patrol the lands and waters of
the site to enforce wildlife regulations. The DMF staff has authority

to patrol the waters of each Bite to enforce marine fisheries
regulations.

Policy: The OCM shall enter into cooperative agreements with each
law enforcement agency to clarify enforcement
jurisdictions and responsibilities.

Each sanctuary site has had some difficulty with response to law
e'nforcement calls due to a lack of clear understanding on the part of
law enforcement authorities regarding which agency should respond to
what type of call. By clarifying the role of each enforcement agency
within each component, cooperative agreements will ensure the
coordinated and expedited enforcement of sanctuary policies and state
and local laws.

Authority to protect and manage the natural resources of North
Carolina are vested in the State by North Carolina General Statutes:

Chapter 113: Conservation and Development
Dredge and Fill G.S. 113-229
Wetlands Protection Act G.S. 113-230

Chapter 113A: Pollution Control and Environment
Environmental Policy Act G.S. 113A-1
Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973
G.S. 113A-50
Coastal Area Management Act of 1974
G.S. 113A-100

The North Carolina Administrative Code provides regulations under Title
15 for Coastal Management, Marine Fisheries, Parks and Recreation, the
Wildlife Resources Commission and other agencies involved in the manage-
ment and protection of the state's natural resources.

II. Maintenance

Policy: At the present time, the NCNES shall rely on volunteer
efforts to maintain the quality of the sanctuary sites.
The sanctuary staff will coordinate periodic litter
collections using local volunteers. All users of the
sanctuary must respect the litter control and habitat
protection policies. Cooperative agreements with en-
forcement officials- will ensure the protection of the
sites from serious degradation and littering.

Because the proposed component has traditionally been treated with
respect by users and has not been subject to unduly high levels of use,
maintenance of Masonboro Island does not present a difficult task.
Should the volunteer efforts prove inadequate, other means will be
pursued.

B. Other Alternatives Considered

1. No Action

Masonboro Island is the best example for its typology in the state
of North Carolina. Without the establishment of a - Masonboro Island
Component, the largest and highest quality undisturbed embayment/bar-
bound estuary in southeastern North Carolina would be unprotected from
development so prevalent on adjacent barrier islands. Although the
marshes and subtidal areas of the site are held in trust by the state,
the potential development of contiguous uplands could be directly or
indirectly deletious to the estuarine biota, water quality, and physical
processes. The omission of the site from the sanctuary would result in
a loss of an opportunity to acquire a knowledge and understanding of
this type of barrier island estuary.

Local sentiment to preserve the island has always been strong and
is fortified by ongoing research and'educational use of the site by such
agencies as UNC-W, the 14RC at Fort Fisher, and the New Hanover County
Public School System. Traditional use of the site for fishing,
shellfishing, hunting, and passive recreation (swimming, sunbathing,
shell collecting, hiking) is also high. All of these present uses of
the island could be adversely affected by development if no action were
taken. An article appearing in the Wilmington Morning Star (May 17,
1984) states that a local developer is considering construction of a
clubhouse on the north end of the island.

Masonboro Island is being considered for development. Should a "No
Action" decision be made, island development can be anticipated which
may result in an effect upon the integrity and pristine nature of the
estuary. The NCNES encompasses prime examples of the diverse estuarine
habitats in the state and thus can provide a framework for needed
research into a myriad of estuarine ecology topics and coastal
management issues. Such information can further be integrated into the
research results from other sites in the NESP to benefit all estuarine
areas in the country.

2. Alternative Boundaries

The boundary for the proposed component (see Figure 5) encompasses
virtually the entire island complex and , hence, the included estuary.
The only portion omitted is the jetty area. This boundary has been
determined by the following considerations: inclusion of primary
resources for research and education, adequate protection and
manageability, sufficient terrestrial buffer zones, sanctuary access,
and present ownership.

Two alternative boundaries have been considered in defining the
boundary for the Masonboro Island component: I.) inclusion of only the
north or south half of the island complex, and II.) the island area west
of a line drawn down the north-south high ground axis, thus excluding
the oceanfront from the sanctuary component (see Figures 7 and 8).

a. Inclusion of Primary Resources. The proposed boundary includes
the vast majority of the estuarine and upland habitats of the island
complex. Only the jetty area is omitted.

.01

rip-

Northern
"Half
Alternative

Aft

-1K

Southern

Alternative

C14

Cn Upland

04, Marsh

spoil
Proposed
. . . . . . 1" 0 95mi
Boundary
Alternative
ioundary

Figure 7: Alternative Boundary I (North or South Sections of Island
as the Masonboro Island Component)

'W .417

A
Alternative
Boundary Excluding
A4,
Narrow Oceanfront
Beaches

rn Upland

Marsh

Spoil
Proposed
0.95mi
Boundary
Alternative
Boundary

Figure 8: Alternative Boundary II (Excluding Oceanfront from
the Proposed Masonboro island Component)
TZ'

Alternative I, either the north or south half of the island, does
not include the entire estuary and, thus, will allow potential
development--most likely on the ends of the island--to affect the site.
Under this alternative the estuarine system will not serve as a valid
control for comparison to other developed barrier island estuaries.

Alternative II, the island and estuarine area west of a line drawn
down the north-south high ground axis, will protect the estuary, but
does not ensure the protection of the contiguous upland habitats which
are home to numerous animal species which are part of the salt marsh
f ood web. In addition, nesting conditions for loggerhead sea turtles
and colonial nesting water birds will be adversely impacted by
oceanfront development in nesting areas.

b. Adequate Protection and Manageability. Because the proposed
boundary will place most of the island in public ownership, protection
and manageability of the island as an entire, undisturbed unit will be
facilitated. Cooperative agreements with previously mentioned
regulatory agencies will ensure surveillance and enforcement for the
entire island area.

Alternative I will not encompass the entire estuary, leaving it
vulnerable to the impacts of contiguous upland development and, in
particular, deterioration of estuarine water quality from septic field
drainage into the sound area. There will also be increased problems
with enforcement, protection of fragile habitats (e.g., trampling of
salt marsh areas), and other conflicts with the sanctuary system goals
and objectives. Because a portion of the estuary will be in private
ownership, boat use and access can be expected to increase with
concomitant impacts on water quality and estuarine biota.

Similar adverse impacts on the estuary will result with Alternative
11. Because the sandy barrier is rather narrow, any development will
probably take place on the ends of the island. Even though the
soundside area will be protected, adjacent construction and human
habitation will result in such adverse impacts as reduced estuarine
water quality (through ground water transport of septic field effluent
etc.), increased foot and vehicular traffic throughout the island,
windblown transport of litter, soil compaction, etc.

C. Terrestrial Buffer Zones and Access. Within the proposed
boundary, the natural uplands and spoil areas delimit and buffer the
entire estuary. Access will be primarily by private boat with
occasional state boat transportation for the public in conjunction with
MRC educational programs.

The two alternatives will not provide adequate buffer for the
estuarine area. Alternative I only includes half of the estuarine area
within the sanctuary component. Alternative II does not include upland
buffer necessary to protect the estuary from contiguous private
development. Access to the island will be increased with private
development that will result in adverse impacts on plant and animal
communities from off-the-road vehicle and foot traffic on the island.

d. Present Ownership. The ownership of the island uplands is
divided among many owners and the uplands are currently zoned R-20 (low
density residential).

3. Alternative Management Scheme

The proposed management plan is preferred because it places
ownership under the state and administrative responsibility with one
agency (OCK) that will manage the research and educational programs.
The existing jurisdictions of other agencies relative to recreation and
other traditional uses would be respected by the OCM to the extent that
these traditional uses do not conflict with the purposes for
establishing the Masonboro Island component. Consideration was given to
alternative schemes; for example, creation of a state natural area on
Masonboro Island. However, state funds are not available for complete
acquisition of the island. Other mechanisms were rejected either due to
a lack of funding or a lack of mechanisms to retain traditional uses
plus development of research and educational programs.

4. Funding.

Three general means have been used in the past for acquisition of
coastal natural areas in North Carolina. These include: (1) acquisi-
tion by the state either by purchase (e.g., Jockey's Ridge State Park,
Dare County) or by land donation (e.g., Roosevelt Natural Area, Carteret
County); (2) acquisition by private conservation groups, such as The
Nature Conservancy, either by purchase (e.g., Nags Head Woods, Dare
County) or by land donation (e.g., The Green Swamp, Brunswick County);
(3) acquisition by federal/state funds through the NESP either by
purchase (e.g., Rachel Carson Component) or by land donation (e.g.,
Zeke's Island Component). At the present time, no adequate source of
funds is available for an estuarine sanctuary project (acquisition and
operation) other than the NOAA/NESP funds here considered.

Special advantages of NOAA/NESP funding include:

(1) The emphasis on research and education programs while retain-
ing other compatible traditional uses of the site;

(2) The present NCNES is already recognized locally and
nationally. This recognition would increase the chances of receiving
substantial research grants from other public and private sources,
improve research and education opportunities at the site, and strengthen
public support for continued pollution abatement and public enjoyment of
the resource; and

(3) The NESP provides five years of matching operations funds
which are needed to establish the proper management of the proposed
component during its first years after establishment.

Federal estuarine sanctuary financial assistance is not available
for other purposes. During the first years of operation, plans would be
made for funding of the proposed component after federal funding ex-
pires. Sources of post-federal funding may include one or more of the

following: state agency funis; private donations or grants for
operations; interest from an endowment raised by a not-for-profit
corporation; a possible state legislative appropriation; equipment,
services, and time donated to the proposed component by the private
sector; and voluntary donations by users of the proposed component.
Because the state of North Carolina is committed to the NCNES after
federal funding is phased out, any or all of the preceding sources will
be used to fund long-term administrative, operations and management, and
research and educational needs.

PART III: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

A. Masonboro Island - General Description

Masonboro Island is located in the Barrier Island Region of the
Cape Fear Section of the North Carolina Coastal Plain (Harrington,
1980). The region is characterized by narrow fringing islands that
parallel the mainland, but are separated from it by narrow sounds or
estuaries (see Figures 7 & 8). The island is centered on coordinates
34* 11' N. and 77* 491 W.

Masonboro Island is approximately 13.3 km. (7.9 mi.) in length and
varies from about 60 m. (200 ft.) to nearly- 1.6 km. (1 mi.) in width,
including the marsh-estuary complex. The island complex encompasses
approximately 2,018 ha. (5,046 ac.), 87% (1,771 ha./4,428 ac.) of which
is marsh-estuary area. The remaining acreage is comprised of 182 ha.
(453 ac.) of natural barrier island uplands (beach, dunes, shrub
thicket, maritime forest) and 66 ha. (165 ac.) of spoil islands on the
sound side of the island (see Figure 5).

Masonboro Island is bounded by the Atlantic Ocean to the east, the
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW) to the west, Masonboro Inlet to
the north, and Carolina Beach Inlet to the south. The U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (COE) -Wilmington District maintains the two inlets and the
AIWW by periodic dredging. The COE has also constructed a rock jetty at
the north end of the island in an effort to stabilize Masonboro Inlet.
Carolina Beach Inlet was artificially created in 1952 when
local residents cut through the narrow barrier just north of the Town of
Carolina Beach.

The topography of Masonboro Island is gently sloping to nearly flat
except for a few isolated dunes 6 m. (20 ft.) or more above mean sea
level. Most of the island's dunes are 5.2 m. (16.5 ft.) or less above
mean sea level and occur as weakly developed foredunes. The prevailing
low relief, narrow upland width, and lack of stable dunes are primarily
the result of frequent overwash (Hosier and Cleary, 1977).

Masonboro Island is Holocene in origin, mainly composed of sands
deposited by eolian or marine processes. Varying amounts of recent
organic matter are incorporated into the upper horizons of the marsh
soils.

Ecologically, the Masonboro Island estuary contains many ecosystems
in common with other East Coast estuaries in the North Carolinas (Cape
Hatteras to Santee River) and South Atlantic (Santee River to St. John's
River) subdivisions of the Carolinian biogeographic region. For exam-
ple, wetlands and shallows vegetation, and communities of fish and
wildlife generally resemble those found associated with barrier islands
in the southern half of North Carolina (see Table 1 for Zeke's Island
and Rachel Carson components) and Georgia (e.g., Sapelo Island National
Estuarine Sanctuary).

Figure 9. Regional Map

(VIRGINIA)

(NORTH CAROLINA)

-ASffrMU Rm-mm

*0"mmw

(SOUTH CAROLINA) MORE
C, W
TV"D

LMINGTON
'COLUMBIA

SEE
VIC11frry
ARAP

CkARLESTO

Figure 10.

V I C I N I T Y 434 20

MAP

41 1 2 3

NAuTICAL MILES

WILMINCTON

WRIGHTSVILLE
Y
.......................................
BEACH

34 10

IN sommona
ISLAND

CAROLINA.

BEACH

77 so@ 17*40*

The island complex contains all of the typical barrier island
habitats. Estuarine habitat types present in the Masonboro
Island complex include intertidal mud and sand flats, subtidal
softbottoms, and subtidal vascular plant beds. Extensive transitional
areas of low (intertidal) and high (supratidal) salt marsh fringe
the estuary. Upland portions of the island are characterized by an
ocean to marsh sequence of communities that include beach, dunes, shrub
thicket or maritime forest, and shrub thicket-marsh transition.

The Masonboro Island estuary is a shallow, unstratified embayment
dissected by extensive salt marshes. Salinities range from sea water
concentrations (35 ppt) to less than 15 ppt, depending upon location in
the estuary and the time of year. Local tides are semi-diurnal and
microtidal.

1. Natural Environment

a. Geology and Island Dynamics

Masonboro Island is the present-day counterpart of a barrier island
formed some distance offshore, the time and depth being rather specula-
tive. However, genesis of the original island is thought to have
occurred by mainland beach detachment (Hosier and Cleary, 1977).
According to Hoyt (1967) this took place during the last 5,000 years
when the Holocene sea rise slowed -down. Dune ridges formed along a
seashore that was some distance seaward of the present coast. The
rising sea then isolated the dune ridges from the mainland forming
barrier islands separated from the mainland by sounds. The original
barrier islands were then translated landward under the influence of the
rising sea level. This island "migration" is still occurring as evi-
denced by old sound-side peat or shell deposits being exposed on the
beaches of many present day barrier islands (Godfrey and Godfrey, 1976).

The inlets separating the island from adjacent barriers play a
prominent role in island dynamics, and serve as examples of both natural
and man-induced impacts. -Masonboro Inlet, located on the north end of
the island, has been stabilized by jetty construction on either side of
the inlet channel. Carolina Beach Inlet was artificially cut in 1952
through a segment of the sandy barrier north of Carolina Beach. Local
sentiment for the artificial inlet construction centered around the
desire for shorter access to the ocean from waters behind Carolina Beach
and Masonboro Island. However, since the inlet was cut, sand has
accumulated on the sound end of the island and in the inlet (making
navigation difficult), while the northern extension of Carolina Beach
has experienced severe erosion necessitating a costly dredging - beach
nourishment program.

The present day island primarily consists of unsorted Holocene
sands; the coarsest textures are found in the upper beach and dune areas
where former overwash fans consist of a mixture of sand and shell hash.
The recent organics and finer textured sediments are mainly found in the
marsh-estuary portion of the island where the calmer waters allow for
the "settling out" of these smaller particles.

b. Soils

Soils of the island are classified in the entisol order--soils of
such recent origin that horizon development is minimal or non-existent
(Buol et al. , 1980). Within the entisol order three series have been
recognized on Masonboro Island, namely, the Carteret, __Duckston, and
Newhan series (SCS, 1977).

The Carteret series (Typic Psammaquent subgroup) underlies the
tidal marshes of the island and consists of two subdivisions: (1)
Carteret low associated with the regularly f looded or intertidal marsh,
and (2) Carteret high occupying areas containing supratidal or brackish
marsh species. These soils are composed of poorly to somewhat poorly
drained sands mixed with various amounts of muck and shell hash.

The poorly drained sands of the Duckston series (Typic Psammaquent
subgroup) are found within the shrub thicket and maritime forest commu-
nities on the island. In some areas local surface accumulations of
organic matter have leached into the upper horizons causing incipient
development of a spodic horizon (Hosier and Cleary, 1977).

Dune and grassland areas along the ocean side of the island are
underlain by excessively to somewhat excessively well-drained sands of
the Newhan series (Typic Udipsamment subgroup). These soils contain
variable amounts of calcareous shell material and exhibit low fertility
and water holding capacity.

C. Hydrology

The waters associated with Masonboro Island can be divided into
outer open coast and inner back bay. The outer coast region is a normal
marine environment, and the back bay or sound fits all of the criteria
of an estuarine embayment according to the regulations for the National
Estuarine Sanctuary Program (NESP) (see Appendix 2). The sound waters
have restricted access to the sea via the tidal inlets at either end of
the island, and these waters are significantly diluted by freshwater
mainland streams, surface runoff, and ground water seepage both from the
island and the mainland coast. The waters of the Cape Fear River (via
Snow's Cut) do not in any way significantly influence the Masonboro
Island estuary (U.S. Amy Corps of Engineers, 1980). The extensive
tidal flats and marshes backing Masonboro Island receive a considerable
amount of freshwater influx, not only from runoff and groundwater, but
also from direct precipitation, 10-12.5 cm. (4-5 in.) per month. Tidal
flushing is not complete, so that the influence of brackish water is
continuous, especially at the midpoint region between inlets (Zullo,
1984). 1

Classification of Masonboro Island as an embayment is justified by
salinity data (see Appendix 5) which documents a significant freshwater
input within the island's sound-side waters. Freshwater emanating from
mainland creeks, runoff, and ground water flows in a northeasterly
direction toward Masonboro Inlet located at the north end of the island.

This freshwater input and flow discharge pattern affect a wide range of
salinity readings throughout this unstratified basin.

Tides in the Masonboro Island area are semi-diurnal and classified
as microtidal by Leatherman (1982). The mean tidal range in the vicini-
ty of Masonboro Island is 1.15 m. (3.8 ft.) with spring tides averaging
1.37 m. (4.5 ft.).

Water quality within the Masonboro Island estuary is generally very
good to excellent, although mainland creeks contribute low to moderate
levels of bacteria to the adjacent AIWW during ebb tides. Primary
sources of pollution are septic tank effluents and surface runoff from
that portion of New Hanover County draining into the sounds. However,
this pollution is counteracted by the tidal influences of flushing by
the Atlantic Ocean via Masonboro and Carolina Beach Inlets (Corps of
Engineers, 1980). The estuary's waters are of sufficiently high quality
to be designated a primary nursery area by the N.C. Division of Marine
Fisheries (DMF) (Carpenter, 1984).

d. Climate

Although there are no weather stations in the immediate vicinity of
the isla 'nd, information concerning climatic conditions may be inferred
from data collected at Wilmington, 11.2 km. (7 mi.) to the west, and
Southport, 32 km. (20 mi.) to the southwest (National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration 1950-1981). Climatic information for nearby
Baldhead island (Army Corps of Engineers, 1977), is also applicable to
Masonboro Island. In general, the climate may be described as warm
temperate mesothermal with summer temperatures averaging in the high
20soC (80soF) (90*F days are rare on the barrier islands), while winter
temperatures below -4*C (25*F) are quite rare. The yearly freeze-free
period averages over 240 days per year.

Precipitation in the area is almost all in the form of rain with
only occasional snow in about half the years, and measurable amounts in
one out of f ive. Rainfall averages 1,171 om. (50.85 in.) annually,
well distributed throughout the year. Prevailing winds in the Masonboro
area are from the southwest throughout the spring and summer seasons.
In the fall winds change to northeasterly, while winter winds are mainly
from the north. Tropical storms moving along the eastern seaboard
occasionally pass within a few miles of the island. Although a major
hurricane has not hit the North Carolina coast in over two decades, past
storms (122 between 1700 and 1964) have produced heavy rains, high
winds, and abnormally high tides resulting in significant alteration of
many barrier island topographies. (Moorefield, 1978).

Many of the overwash fans visible on the island are the result of
high seas generated by extratropical storms, better known as "north-
easters". These storms generally occur from October to May and are
characterized by strong northeast winds which may blow continuously for
3 or more days. (Moorefield, 1978).

e. Biology

Vegetation. A list of vascular plant species found in the proposed
component is in Appendix 6.

The following discussion of the vegetation of the proposed
Masonboro Island site follows the categories set forth in the
proposed regulations for the NESP (see Appendix 2). The majority of
this information comes from the North Carolina Office of Coastal
Management (OCM) staff's familiarity with the island's flora and
from Hosier and Cleary (1977). Plant communities to be described
include maritime forest-woodland, coastal shrublands, coastal
grasslands, coastal marshes, intertidal mud and sand flats, subtidal
softbottoms, and subtidal grassbeds.

The extent of maritime forest-woodland is restricted to two areas
totaling approximately 4 ha. (10 ac.) near the middle of the island.
The forest is an example of the broad-leaved evergreen subtropical
forest biome with canopy dominants (3-8.1 m./10-26.5 ft. in
height) including live oak (Quercus virginiana), red cedar (Juniperus
virginiana), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), and Herculesy club
(Zanthox@lum clava-herculis). Subcanopy trees and shrubs are
represented by transgressives of the above species plus hackberry
(Celtis laevigata), Carolina laurel cherry (Prunus caroliniana), and
tough bumelia (Bumelia tenax)--a species given "significantly rare
status" by Sutter et al. (1983) (see Table 5). Wax myrtle (Myrica
cerifera), yaupon (Ilex vomitoria), and cat-briers (Smilax spp.) are
typical shrubs and vines present in the community. Where light levels
in the understory permit herb growth, there are scattered colonies of
iresine (Iresine rhizomatosa), bedstraw (Galium tinctorium), and lippia
(Lippia nodiflora).

The coastal shrublands or shrub thicket ecosystem on Masonboro
Island is typical of the biome type found in the Southeast. This
vegetation type runs in a narrow, discontinuous strip witlin the central
portion of the island's upland length. Overstory vegetation (1.5-4
m./5-14 ft. in height) is dominated by salt-pruned wax myrtle, yaupont
red cedar, live oak, and silverling (Baccharis halimifolia). Shrubland
vegetation intermixes with adjacent sound side coastal marsh communities
within a zone of scattered silverling, wax myrtle, false willow (Baccha-
ris angustifolia), and marsh elder (Iva frutescens). On the grassland
side of the shrubland ecosyste:m, sp@_rse, dwarf shrubs and stunted trees
include live oak, yaupon, and Hercules' club.

A third ecosystem type found on Masonboro Island is coastal grass-
land characteristic of the Southeast/Gulf Region. Sea oats '(Uniola
paniculata) dunes are a prominent topographic feature on the island and
form a nearly continuous line among the ocean side. Because of the high
frequency of overwash, these dunes are short-lived features and are
generally smaller and less well-developed than dunes on nearby barrier
islands (e.g., Smith Island/Brunswick County, Bogue Banks/Carteret
County). Floral richness on the dunes is generally rather low with
primary species consisting of sea oats, seaside goldenrod - (Solidago
sempervirens), sea rocket (Cakilt harperi , dune spurge (Euphorbia

Table 4. Plants Recorded at the Proposed
Masonboro Island Component Having
State Status.

Species N.C. Statusl

Tough Bumelia Significantly Rare
(Bumelia tenax)

Sutter, R., L. Mansberg, and J'. H. Moore. (1983). Endangered,
Threatened, and Rare Plant Species in North Carolina: A Revised List.
ASB Bulletin. Vol. 30, No. 4.

ammanioides, E., polygonifolia), camphorweed (Heterotheca subaxillaris),
and sea elder (Iva imbricata).

The other subunit of the coastal grassland on the island is the
flat to gently sloping areas immediately behind the dune line. These
grassy flats exhibit relatively higher species diversity and are dom-
inated by salt meadow cordgrass (Spartina patens) with lesser amounts of
seaside goldenrod, sand primrose (Oenothera humifusa), horseweed (Eri&-
eron.canadensis), day flower (Commelina erecta), Drummond's prickly pear
(2puntia drummonii), thistle (Carduus spinossisimus), and yucca (Yucca
filamentosa).

Tidal marshes are the exclusive type of coastal marsh found on
Masonboro Island. The vast majority of the intertidal Area is dominated
by smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) which forms extensive
rhizomatous colonies in the poorly drained, mucky sands. At the upper
limit of the intertidal zone, dominance by various combinations of salt
grass (Distichlis spicata glasswort (Salicornia virginica sea
lavender (Limonium carolinianum), and smooth cordgrass form a matrix of
communities primarily determined by variations in microrelief and
salinity.

Portions of the marsh above the daily high tide limits intermit-
tently receive haline to brackish water inputs as a result of storm and
spring tides. Community dominance is often quite complex with a *number
of herbs occurring in patches as sole dominants or as components of
mixed cover types. Typical species include salt meadow cordgrass, sea
ox-eye (Borrichia frutescens), marsh aster (Aster tenuifolius), salt
grass " sea lavender, glasswort, lin-d black needlerush
(Juncus roemerianus).

Localized algal colonies also occur on the intertidal flats and
subtidal softbottoms of the island's estuary. Typical species include
sea lettuce (Ulva rigida), green fleece (Codium isthocladum), false
agardhiella (diacilaria verrucosa , and dictyota (Dictyota dichotoma).

Subtidal beds of eel grass (Zostera marina) occur within the
estuary. This site represents the southernmost known occurrence of the
species in the state--this location is not mentioned in Radiord et al.
(1968).

Fish and Wildlife. The marine, shallow sound, tidal marsh, and upland
habitats associated with Masonboro Island are populated by numerous fish
and wildlife species which inhabit the site year-round or on a seasonal
basis. The site is also located within the Atlantic Flyway.

Of Masonboro Island animals, many do not remain in a single type of
habitat, but move back and forth between two or more habitat types in
tidal, daily, or seasonal cycles. These species require combinations of
habitat types to fulfill their life requirements; for example, the
raccoon (Procyon lotor) lives in the maritime forest or shrub thicket
and often feeds in the marshes during low tides, and most of the
commercial and sport fishes caught in the ocean spend some portion of

their life cycles in estuaries such as the one within the proposed
Masonboro Island Component.

Some of the Masonboro Island habitats support locally significant
animal species not recognized as rare on state or federal lists; for
example, a large population of heart urchins (Moira sp.) in a portion of
the sound, subtidal populations of tunicates whose normal range is
considerably south of the site, spoil area nesting sites for local
colonial waterbirds (Parnell and Soots, 1979), and a diverse polychaete
fauna giving in the subtidal sediments.

Endangered, Threatened, and Special Concern Animals.

Animal species currently on the Federal Endangered and Threatened
Species List and those considered endangered, threatened, or of special
concern by North Carolina biologists (Cooper et al., 1977), and which
occur at the proposed sanctuary component, are shown in Table 6. The
state list has four categories (in decreasing order of endangerment):
endangered, threatened, special coqcern, and undetermined.

The COE (1977) lists twelve Federally designated endangered or
threatened species which potentially occur in the Masonboro Island
vicinity as a result of their geographic ranges:

American alligator
Green sea turtle
Hawksbill sea turtle
Kempla ridley sea turtle
Leatherback sea turtle
Loggerhead sea turtle
Shortnose sturgeon
Peregrine falcon
Brown pelican
Red-cockaded woodpecker
Southern bald eagle
Florida manatee

Telephone communication was made with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) (April 20, 1984) and National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) (April 24, 1984). It was agreed by both agencies that no
federally listed endangered nor threatened species, under their
jurisdiction, apart from occasional transients (brown pelican and
loggerhead sea turtle, etc.). are known to exist in the Masonboro
Island area (see Table 6).

Information concerning Masonboro Island animals having state status
was obtained (April 18, 1984) from the files of North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program and by personal communication with faculty at UNC-W
(January and February, 1984).

Endangered. The brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) is commonly
seen flying or feeding along the ocean beach of Masonboro Island during
the summer months. However, there are no records of pelican nesting in
the island area. This species is also listed as endangered by North
Carolina biologists.

Table 5. Animals Recorded at the Proposed
Masonboro Island Component Having
Federal or State Status (additional
species recorded near the site are
discussed in the text)
Species Federal Status I N.C. Status 2

Brown Pelican* Endangered Endangered
(Pelecanus occidentalis)

Loggerhead Sea Turtle** Threatened Endangered
(Caretta caretta)

Osprey* Special
(Pandion halietus) Concern

Wilson's plover** Special
(Charadrias wilsonia) Concern

Least Tern** - Special
(Sterna a'lbifrons) Concern

Common Tern** - Special
(Sterna hirundo) Concern

Black Skimmer** - Special
(Rhycops niger Concern

Ipswich Sparrow* - Special
(Passerculus sandwichensis princeps Concern

Parchment Tube Worm - Special
(Chaetopterus variopedatus) Concern

Hartman's Echiurid Worm - Special
(Thalassema hartmani) Concern

Polychaete Worm - Special
(Notomasus lobatus) Concern'

Federal Register of Endangered and Threatened Species.
2Cooper, J.E. et al. (eds.). 1977. Endangered and Threatened Plants
and Animals of North Carolina. N.C. Museum of Natural History.
Raleigh, N.C.

denotes seasonal transient species.
denotes seasonal nesting species.

61L

Peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus) have not recently been
reported from Masonboro Island, but have been sighted as rare seasonal
transients at nearby Baldhead Island (Brunswick County).

Threatened. In 1980 and 1981, a statewide aerial survey for
loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) nesting activity counted a total
of 35 and 46 crawls (or approximately 2.5 crawls /kilometer during the
summer nesting seasons (Crouse, 1984). This activity was considerably
higher than seen on the neighboring islands of Wrightsville Beach and
Carolina Beach, suggesting that this island may provide useful,
undisturbed nesting habitat for this species. An active nest site was
reported by UNC-W biologists in 1983. More nests have been reported in
June, 1984 (see Appendix 7). This species is listed as endangered by
North Carolina biologists.

Special Concern. Three marine worms found in the Masonboro Island
estuary have special concern status according to state biologists:
parchment tube worm (Chaetopterus variopedatus), Hartman's Echiurid worm
(Thalassema hartmani), and the polychaeze worm (Notomasus lobatus).

Least terns (Sterna albifrons), common terns (Sterna
hirundo), Wilson's plovers (Choradrius wilsonia), and black
skimmers (Rhycops niger) nest on island (see Appendix 7).

The American osprey (Pandion haliaetus) has been observed feeding
in the Masonboro Island estuary. No local nesting birds have been
recorded, however.

The Ipswich sparrow (Passereulus princeps sandwichensis) is a
winter resident in the dune areas of Masonboro Island.

Marine Mammals. No marine mammals have been reported from the
Masonboro Island estuary. Sightings of the Atlantic bottlenose dolphin
(Tursiops truncatus) are common along the ocean side of the island. The
carcass of a Gulfstream beaked whale '(Mesoploden europaeus) was
discovered floating in Snow's Cut in 1978.

Wetland and Terrestrial Mammals. The mammals known from the island
are primarily found in the maritime forest-woodland, coastal shrubland,
and grassland habitats. Prevalent species are marsh rabbit (Sylvilagus
palustris), cotton rat (Sidmodom. hispidus), and raccoon (Procyon lotor).
Raccoons commonly forage in the salt marshes during nocturnal low tides.
The only mammal regularly seen in the dune areas is the house mouse (Mus
musculus). River otter (Lutra canadensis) and mink (Mustela vison) are
found in the marsh areas.

Birds. Many species of land, wetland, and water birds are found in
the Masonboro Island area. A list of birds known from the site and
those species known to occur in similar habitats in the vicinity is in
Appendix 7.

A typical array of barrier island bird species are found throughout
Masonboro Island's habitats. Ndarshore ocean waters are frequented by
brown pelicans (Pelecanus occidentalis), shearwaters (Puffinus spp.),
royal terns (Sterna maxima), herring gulls (Larus argentatus),

9%011@
V300

and laughing gulls (Larus, articilla). The intertidal beach zone serves
as a resting and feeding area for such species as sandpipers (Calidris
spp.). Mourning doves (Zeneida macroura), ground doves (Columbia
passerina), and common night hawks (Chordeiles minor) nest and feed
within the dune areas, while boat-tailed grackles (Quiscalus , M@1.@or)
and red-winged blackbirds (Agelaius phoeniceus) feed upon sea oat saeds
in the fall. In the grasslands, black skimmers (Rhynchops,niger), night
hawks, and american oystercatchers (Haematopus palliatus are
seasonal nesters where vegetation is sparse, in contrast to the
willets' (Cataptrophorus semipalmatus preference for dense grass cover.
The shrub thicket and forest areas are important resting sites for a
variety of small birds, particularly warblers and sparrows, during fall
migrations. The marshes and associated tidal flats and creeks are
foraged during low tides by numerous species including great blue herons
(Ardea herodias), little blue herons (Florida caerulea), Louisiana
herons (Hydranassa tricolor), snowy egrets (Egretta thula), great
egrets (Casmeroidus albus), willets, american oystercatchers, black
skimmers, and clapper rails .(Rallus longirostris).

An area on the north end of the island is maintained in an open,
unvegetated state by overwash and wind-blown sand migration and accumu-
lation. Ground nesting birds which utilize this site include black
skimmers , Wilson's plovers, common terns, and least terns. Parnell and
Soots (1978) consider this area to be a significant nesting site for
local colonial waterbirds (see Appendix 7).

Reptiles and Amphibians. Masonboro Island has a low number of
reptiles and amphibians compared to nearby barrier islands (Engel's,
1942 and 1952; Fussell, 1978). The majority of the island's
observed reptiles occur in the upland habitats: eastern glass lizard
(Ophisaurus ventralis), six-lined racerunner (Cnemidophorus
sexlineatus), and eastern coachwhip (Masticophis flagellum) on
the dunes; corn snake (Elaphe guttata , glass lizard, racerunner.4
and coachwhip in t grasslands; rough green snake (Opheodrys
aestiuus) associated within the shrub thicket. The diamond-back
terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin) is found in the salt marshes.

Seasonally wet depressions associated with the shrub thicket and
maritime forest communities contain frog and toad populations.
Amphibians present in these habitats include southern toad (Bufo
terrestris), green treefrog (Hyla cinerea), and squirrel treefrog (Hyla
squirella).

Fishes. Forty-four species of fishes have been collected from the
Masonboro Island estuary by the N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF).
The detritus-rich waters of the estuary serve as an important nursery
area for commercial and sport marine species including spot
(Leiostomus xanthurus), mullet -(Mugil cephalus), summer flounder
(Paralichthys dentatus), pompano (Trachinotus falcatus),
menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus , and bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix).
Some of the other fish species present include striped killifish
(Fundulus majalus , mummichog (Fundulus heteroclitus), pinfish
(Lagodon rhomboides), silversides (Menidia menidia), and sheepshead
minnow (CyprinodoR variegatus). Fish migration and nursery ground

productivity are controlled by seasonal environmental factors such as
salinity, temperature, water flow, food availability, food type and
bottom sediments.

Aside from census work done by the DMF (see Appendix 7), only two
studies on the fishes of Masonboro Island estuary have been completed:
Needham (1980) and Stanley (1982). This pristine estuarine area would
be an ideal site for many detailed icthyological studies.

Invertebrates. Numerous invertebrate species populate the various
natural habitats of Masonboro Island. These organisms often constitute
important food sources (e.g., zooplankton in the sound waters)
for organisms of higher trophic levels. A list of macro invert ebrat e s
found in the Masonboro Island area is in Appendix 8.

The intertidal beach ecosystem of Masonboro Island is characterized
by relatively short, steep beaches compared to neighboring Wrightsville
and Carolina Beaches. However, certain stretches of the
Masonboro Island beach are wide enough to support local populations of
ghost crabs -(Ocypode quadrata which burrow just above the mean high
tide limit. Exemplary of the intertidal zone animals are mole
crabs (Emerita talpoida , while coquina clams (Donax spp.) are less
common.

The upland areas of the island are home to many insects. Deer
flies (Chrysops sp.) may bite visitors to the shrub thicket or maritime
forest during early summer, while mosquitos (Aedes sp.) can be a problem
in-these areas as well as the marshes during the late summer. Various
bees--including honeybees (Apia melliferaa)--are attracted to blossoms
of dune forbs, as are various butterflies and moths. Each
fall, Masonboro Island is visited by groups of migrating monarch
butterflies (Danaus plexippus).

The dense stands of smooth cordgrass salt marsh are home to a fauna
highly adapted to the semi-diurnal tides. Marsh periwinkle (Littorina
irrorata), ribbed mussel (Geukensia demissius), and fiddler crabs (Uca
spp.) are representative species.

Invertebrate residents of the intertidal mud and sand flats include
various mollusks: quahog clam (Mercenaria mercenaria), stout tagelus
(Tagelus plebeius), oyster (Crassostrea virginica), and mud snail
(Nassarius obsoletus). A substanial fauna of marine worms such as
parchment worm (Chaetopterus sp.), plumed worm '(Diopatra coprea , blood
worm (Glyeria sp.), scale worm (Ledpidasthenia varia), Hartman's
echiurid (Thalassema hartmani), and notomastus (Notomastus lobatus) is
also present.

Clumps of oyster shells in the estuarine waters serve as suitable
substrates for the attachment of a number of sessile organisms: sponges
(Microciona prolifera, Hymeniacidon sp.), sea whip (Leptogorgia
virgulata , oysters, and tunicates (Symplegma * sp., Ecteiniascidia
turbinata, Diplosoma floridana). Each of these tunicates represents a
range extension or disjunction from more southern populations (Dr. Anne
McCrary, personal communication of January 18, 1984, UNC-W). Other
organisms frequently burrowing or living on the subtidal bottom sedi-
ments include the spider crab (Libinia sp.), heart urchin (Moira sp.),
64

brachiopod (Glottidia sp.) , and important commercial species such as
blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) and shrimps (Penaeus spp.).

f. Estuarine Ecosystem

Generalized patterns of energy flow (production and feeding) for
the proposed Masonboro Component are shown in Figure 9. These diagrams
represent many interwoven food chains (e.g., vascular plants to detritus
to crustaceans to small fish to flounder, or dune forb to leaf beetle to
songbird to bird of prey), and there are many species that feed on more
than one type of food. In general, green plants use energy from the sun
to produce biomass which is consumed while alive by grazing animals
(herbivores) or after death by detritus-feeding animals (detritivores).
These primary consumers in turn are eaten by larger and larger animals,
culminating in the highest-level consumers such as summer flounder,
marsh terrapin, herons, osprey, river otter, and man. The great
abundance of marsh plants, small invertebrates, and small fish in the
Masonboro Island estuary provides a rich food base for the development
of economically important larger animals such as sport and commercial
fishes, waterfowl, and blue crab.

The major producers on the Masonboro Island estuary are
phytoplankton and large algae in the waters, and vascular plants in the
intertidal areas. Zooplankton and benthic invertebrates feed on
phytoplankton and on detritus from the plants of the marshes and shallow
sounds as well as from terrestrial sources. The zooplankton and benthic
invertebrates are food for larger invertebrates and small fish, which in
turn are eaten by larger fish, birds, and other animals. Estimates of
the relative importance of terrestrial and estuarine energy
(food) sources vary.

Research from other estuaries suggests that Masonboro Island
marshes may absorb nutrients from mainland runoff, but it is not clear
to what extent these nutrients may be returned to the sound with the
decomposition of dead plants. The vegetation of the wetlands
and shallows is a nutrient-recycling system that channels nutrients
into food webs that yield resources for society in the form of
finfishes, shellfishes, and crustaceans.

2. Current Uses of the Site

a. Commercial and Recreational Fishing

Fishing has been a traditional activity at Masonboro Island both in
the estuarine area and along the ocean beach. The ocean side of the
site is used for both sport fishing, primarily surf fishing, and limited
shore-based commercial fishing mostly with gill nets. Sound side
fishing is restricted to hand gear (gill nets, crab pots, clam rakes,
etc.) because the entire estuary is designated as a primary nursery area
by the DMF.

The DMF has kept commercial catch records on Masonboro Sound since
1970. From 1970 to 1979, an average of 54,600 lbs. of seafood (finfish
and shellfish) were landed per year with an average value of $54,500.
The average for 1980-83 is considerably higher at 291,212 lbs. with an
average value of $386,147. Approximtely 64% of this seafood weight and
65

Figure 11.

Energy A. Generalized energy pathways
Source

live
Primary Secondary Tertiary
Producers (plants) Consumers ---bm Consumers Consum-
(grazers) (small ers
predators

Detritu Consumer-
C omp lex (detrit-
ivores)

Sun, Wind, B. Masonboro Island pathways
Rain
1. Upland pathways

Rodents, - Insects, aptors,
Plants insects . ---w Reptiles, Carni-
Birds Birds vores

etritu Inverte-
Export to estuary Complex brates

Sun, Rain
Tides, 2. Estuarine pathways
Waves

ish, Fish, Fis
Vascular Plants, Zooplankton,
Algae Terrapin, Birds, Raptors,
Waterfowl, Mamma Is , Carni-
Insects Insects

Detritus
Terrestrial Detritus omplex Insects,
Mollusks,
etc
h
@Rodents,
Ins ect ts,
""'I e @s,
Inse c _(a
p
rRe pto S.
ti arn
vo@
Bi rds res
@Inve e-
rt
@@stua:r@y b ate

F sh,
r
;rPlants@, ankton
is "B i r diss
ct
Zoop
e apin a
s
T rrrfow @In ei
Wate
In sects

ns
ritus;
Mol

89% of the value are shellf ish--crab, shrimps, clams, oysters--with
clams and shrimps having the highest average value. The remaining 26%
of the average weight and 11% of the value are finfish, including
bluefish, croaker, flounder, mullet, sea trout, and spot.

Because the above figures do not include yields from sport and
ocean commercial fishing, actual annual seafood weights and values for
the island are presumably higher. Surf fishermen typically land
flounder, bluefish, puppy drum, sea trout, spot, and whiting. Ocean
commercial catches are primarily by gill nets which catch spot, whiting,
mullet, and sea trout.

This valuable fishery resource and nursery area would be maintained
and would benefit from estuarine research if the proposed component were
established.

b. HuntinR

Hunting activity on Masonboro Island is relatively light compared
to nearby undeveloped coastal areas in New Hanover County. Seasonal
marsh hen and dove hunting is moderate, while duck hunting pressure is
low for scaup and other species visiting the estuary during the fall and
winter season. All of the hunting is either done while walking through
the marshes or dunes or by waiting f or birds to visit open areas
adjacent to wooded uplands. Pre-sent hunting activity on the island
would continue under the management plan for the proposed Masonboro
Island Component. State hunting regulations would be enforced by the
local Wildlife Resources Commission officer.

C. Recreation

Beach use, hiking, bird watching, and camping are the remaining
major recreational uses of Masonboro Island. These uses are described
below; fishing and hunting were discussed in Section 2a-b.

Beach Use. One of the most popular uses of Masonboro Island is
sunbathing, picnicking, and swimming: on warm days from spring through
fall. Local residents and tourists usually land private bo 'ats on the
small, sound-side sandy beach at the north end of the island and walk to
the ocean beach, or land their boats directly on the ocean beach. A
smaller number of beach users are found on the same days at the Carolina
Beach Inlet end of the island.

The number of people using the island on a given day is mainly
limited by the number of boats able to land on the restricted sound-side
beaches. Area residents estimate that as many as 40-50 people are on
the north end of Masonboro Island on a warm, sunny day in mid-summer.
Allowing for a low number of beach users along the remainder of the
island and somewhat more toward the south end, the maximal beach use of
the island might be 80-100 persons per day.

Beach use has little impact on the island's uplands since most
people follow established trails through the dunes. This reduces the
impacts on dune grasses which are easily trampled. Littering does not

appear to be a major problem and could be dealt with by periodic
volunteer "pick-up" efforts.

Hiking. Although there are no designated trails on this
undisturbed barrier island, individuals or groups can hike for miles
along the ocean beach, occasionally crossing over into less easily
traversed habitats (e.g., shrub thicket and marsh). The Cape
Fear Chapter of the Sierra Club has several outings per year on the
island which include day hikes. Because the majority of hiking is done
on the beaches, no significant impact on fragile island habitats
has been observed.

Bird watching. The Lower Cape Fear Bird Club, the Sierra Club, and
classes from UNC-W are the major users of the island for occasional
bird watching trips, particularly during spring and fall bird migra-
tions. Because these groups are very familiar with the island's
undisturbed natural integrity, very little to no impacts are created
even when the groups enter the marsh areas to observe waterbirds.

Camping. Camping is a popular activity on portions of Masonboro
Island's upland areas during the summertime and on warm weekends
throughout the year. This has resulted in littering, camp fires, and
localized impacts on plant communities (e.g., trampling of dune grasses
and chopping down of shrubs and trees for firewood). If Masonboro
Island were designated as a sanctuary component, primitive camping would
be on a permit basis only (gee Part II-A-f).

d. Spoil Disposal

The COE - Wilmington District maintains a 304.8 m. (1,000 ft.)-wide
easement along the AIWW which includes most of the spoil islands on the
west edge of Masonboro Island. These diked spoil areas were created by
deposition of dredged material on former salt marsh sites decades ago.
The AIWW channel is maintained at a 3.7 m (12 ft.) depth with yearly
checks to verify if any maintenance dredging is necessary--no set
dredging schedule exists along this portion of the AIWW. The proposed
boundary (see Figure 5) includes the spoil islands within the COE
easement on the west edge of the Masonboro Island complex. The proposed
spoil disposal management plan (discussed in Part II. A.M.IV) to be
developed between the COE, OCM, and NESP will insure that adverse
impacts upon -the sanctuary component will be minimized while AIWW
maintenance dredging activities may continue as necessary.

According to COE staff the most active areas of shoaling or channel
filling occur in and behind the inlets which therefore require more
frequent dredging. Spoil from inlet dredging has recently been used to
nourish eroding beaches at Wrightsville Beach and Carolina Beach.

The jetty situated on the north end of Masonboro Island
was constructed in the late 1970's and completed in 1980. Because the
jetty effectively stops the natural north to south longshore transport
of sand, severe erosion of the north end of the island would eventually
result if considerable volumes of sand were not replaced. The COE has
developed a plan whereby every 3 years sand will be dredged from

Masonboro Inlet and placed on the beach approximately 2,295 m. (3,000
ft.) south of the Masonboro Island jetty. This will replenish sand to
the north end of the island and this sand will also move south in the
longshore current.

e. Archaeological Resources

The North Carolina Division of Archives and History has determined
that no significant archaeological sites are present on Masonboro Island
(Oliver, 1984). However, several shipwrecks of Civil War age and more
recent are located just offshore--outside the proposed sanctuary
boundary (Mr. Richard Lawrence, personal communication of May 10, 1984,
N.C. Dept. of Cultural Resources).

f. Research and Education

Research. Present research interest in Masonboro Island primarily
centers around the faculty and students of UNC-W, located approximately
8 km. (5 mi.) northwest of the island. Appendix 9 documents the current
interest in research among UNC-W staff and a local landscaper, plus
excerpts of past publications pertaining to the island.

The Wilmington field office of the DMF, located 1.6 km. (1 mi.)
from the north end of the island, has an existing census program of
finfish and crustacean populations associated with the Masonboro
Island estuary. This agency has designated all of the estuarine
waters of Masonboro Island as a primary nursery area--where postlarval
to very early juvenile. development occurs. In addition, the
division has several shellfish management areas in the estuary where
very young oysters (oyster cultch to catch spat) or slow growing seed
oysters are planted for public harvest. There are plans to maintain the
existing management area and establish new ones (Carpenter, 1984).

A list of other marine science research institutions which may be
potential users of Masonboro Island is found in Table 7-@. The MRC-Fort
Fisher, located approximately 4.8 km. (3 miles) from Carolina Beach
Inlet, has research space available for approved projects.

A program of future research priorities and policies in the
proposed component is outlined in the Alternatives section of this Final
Environmental Impact Statement And Draft Management Plan (FEIS/DMP). The
program would emphasize baseline data accumulatibn, long-term
environmental monitoring, ecosystem-level studies, and applied problems
of coastal resource management.

The NESP would enhance coordination and communication in
Masonboro Island research. A program setting priorities for
certain types of estuarine research would encourage fuller and
more efficient use of existing facilities, equipment and collections.
Availability of existing data and its effective use would be enhanced
and integrated into the Research and Education Information Coordination
and Exchange Program (REICEP) presently being developed by the NESP.
Aside from the research institutions mentioned above, there would
be opportunities for involvement in certain types of research,
such as observations on estuarine animals and plants, by sportsmen
and naturalists.

Education. Four local educational programs regularly use Masonboro
Island in their marine science -curricula. Various biology classes at
UNC-W utilize the site for field trips and projects. The Marine Science
Program and Ocean Science Institute within New Hanover High School,
located approximately 9.6 km4 (6 mi.) northwest of the site, and Laney
High School, situated 10.4 km. (6.5 mi.) northwest of the island, have
various programs involving field trips to Masonboro Island.

Less frequent use of Masonboro Island for interpretive programs is
made by local groups such as the Lower Cape Fear Bird Club, The Sierra
Club, and UNC-W Biology Club. The educational program at the MRC-Fort
Fisher also has occasional trips to the island for school groups and the
public. See Table 7 for a list of potential users of the proposed
component for education.

The proposed educational program is discussed in the Alternatives
section of this FEIS/DMP. This program would be coordinated by a future
memorandum of understanding with the MRC-Fort Fisher which has ideal
facilities for off-site and on-site programs. The MRC has classroom
space, aquariums, audio-visual aids, and exhibits pertinent to the
contiguous coastal environments. An exhibit concerning the proposed
Masonboro Island Component would be developed and maintained at the
center. The activities and content of Masonboro Island field trips and
programs would be developed jointly by the center's Educational
Coordinator and the Estuarine Sanctuary Coordinator. The MRC also
has boats for access to Masonboro Island.

Additional off-site activitiep would consist of slide programs
given by the Sanctuary Coordinator and Sanctuary Analyst, and
development of exhibits and brochures for school groups and the general
public. The Educational Specialist of the University of North Carolina
Sea Grant Program could also disseminate information concerning
Masonboro Island.

Table 6. Some Institutions and Agencies that are
Potential Research and Educational*Users
of the Proposed Masonboro Island Component.

Institution or Agency Type of Use

Cape Fear Chapter of the Sierra Club Education
Wilmington, NC

Cape Fear Technical Institute Education
Wilmington, NC

Duke University Marine Laboratory Research and Education
Beaufort, NC

East Carolina University Research and Education
Greenville, NC

Hampton Mariners Museum Education
Beaufort, NC

Lower Cape Fear Bird Club Education
Wilmington, NC

National Marine Fisheries Laboratory Research
Beaufort, NC

New Hanover County Public Schools Education
Wilmington, NC

North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries Research
Wrightsville Beach, NC

North Carolina Marine Resource Center at Education, Research
Fort Fisher facilities available
Fort Fisher, NC

University of North Carolina Institute Research
of Marine Sciences
Morehead City, NC

University of North Carolina at Wilmington Research and Education
Wilmington, NC

PART IV: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

A. General Impacts

An acquisition and development award from the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) will enable the State of North
Carolina to acquire privately-owned uplands and develop limited facil-
ities (e.g., boat dock, boardwalk, trails). These land and facilities,
combined with other lands already owned by the state, constitute a
National Estuarine Sanctuary Component representative of an embayment
estuarine type in the North Carolinas subdivision of the Carolinian
biogeographic region. The sanctuary component designation will result
in minimal impacts on existing uses or activities at the proposed site,
and will provide greater protection of the associated sounds and salt
marshes, and will improve the opportunities for coordinated research and
education.

The most important overall effect will be better protection of
areas included within the component from developmental pressures and
improved access to wetlands and estuarine natural areas for research and
educational purposes. The proposed addition to the North Carolina
National Estuarine Sanctuary (NCNES) will require very little
development; minimal change will occur to the existing natural
environment. Sanctuary component status will not significantly affect
current uses or activities in or near the Masonboro Island area.

The greatest environmental benefit of this component will be the
long-term protection of the natural resources of the tidal wetlands,
shallows, and uplands of Masonboro Island. The component will serve as
an area for people to use for aesthetic and recreational enjoyment and
for scientific and educational purposes. Information collected in the
component will increase knowledge of East Coast estuarine ecosystems and
provide an important link with existing National Estuarine Sanctuaries
and other coastal research and educational reserves. The estuarine
sanctuary component designation will complement and enhance existing
research, educational, and ecological management programs. Including a
representative of this type of estuary within the Carolinian
biogeographic region would also improve understanding of estuarine
species and processes peculiar to embayments with bar-bound structure
along the Atlantic Coast.

The proposed addition of the Masonboro Component will have minimai
adverse effects on the natural environment. An increased number of
visitors to the site is anticipated. The sanctuary component management
plan describes research and educational uses, traditional activities,
and surveillance and enforcement. Research and educational uses will
not damage the environment nor interfere with other uses of the
sanctuary component. Traditional activities-fishing, hunting, beach
use, hiking, and bird watching--will be maintained. Camping will be on
a permit basis for special groups.

B. Specific Impacts

1. Natural Environment

a. Fish and Wildlife Habitat

Many species of fish and wildlife, both resident,and migratory, use
the proposed sanctuary component site for feeding, reproduction, and
other purposes. Establishment of this proposed component will ensure
long-term protection of important fish and wildlife habitats including
tidal wetlands, shallows, shorelines, and uplands. This protection of
habitats will benefit endangered and threatened species including the
brown pelican and loggerhead sea turtle as well as the other endangered,,
threatened, and special concern species discussed in the
Affected Environment (Part III) section of this FEIS/DMP. Additional
information on endangered, threatened, and special concern species is
being collected to assist in developing a more detailed management plan
for the Masonboro Island Component.

The Masonboro Component will have a positive impact by protecting
high quality ecosystems in the Masonboro Island estuary. Increased
visitor 'use of the component's sites for educational, recreational, and
research purposes will have a minimal adverse effect on the value of the
area as a fish and wildlife habitat. Beach use, hiking, and
bird watching are not expected to increase greatly over levels
anticipated without the designation of the proposed component, and
fishing and hunting are expected to remain at present levels in areas
where these activities are currently allowed. Existing state
regulations protect fish and wildlife in those areas. The management
plan for the Masonboro Component takes into account the protection of
fish and wildlife habitats provided by cooperating state agencies
responsible for regulating hunting and fishing.

b. Soils and Vegetation

Adverse impact on soils within the proposed component will be
minimized by taking appropriate precautions. Trail construction will be
largely confined to locations of former or existing trails, and poorly
drained soils will be avoided. A simple boat dock and boardwalk over a
small portion of the marsh and sound will be constructed after studies
are made to determine the appropriate design and location to avoid
degradation of soils, vegetation, or fish and wildlife habitats. A dock
will facilitate access to the site and a boardwalk will allow visitors
and researchers to experience wetland habitats with
minimal environmental effects. The impacts of any construction
activities will be assessed and appropriate permits obtained.

Vegetation will not be significantly altered by establishing the
proposed component. Visitors generally walk along the beach and cause
no impacts on local flora. Sanctuary component programs, such as
research and education, will provide increased opportunities to monitor
those human activities that damage the environment; for example,
trampling of dune and marsh grasses.

C. Water Quality

Establishing the Masonboro Island Component will prevent potential
from water pollution that might otherwise occur due to
residential development within the proposed component. Vigilance
associated with research and educational activities will speed detection
and clean-up of any pollution incidents that might occur.

2. Human Environment

a. Residents of the Towns and County

There are no residences on Masonboro Island and thus no displace-
ment of inhabitants will result. The public has access to the island by
private boat, and the establishment of the proposed component
will benefit people by prot 'ecting existing access. Assessments of
properties across the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW) and inlets
from Hasonboro Island will not change as a result of component
establishment.

The proposed component will help preserve Masonboro Island's
undisturbed scenic beauty that attracts numerous local residents and
tourists for recreational purposes. Research and educational activities
associated with an estuarine sanctuary component will contribute to
local economics: users of the sanctuary will require transportation,
housing, food, and supplies from area, merchants. I

Establishment of a Masonboro Island Component will encourage a more
thorough examination and understanding of the relationships between
human activities and the environment. There will be increased public
knowledge and awareness of natural resources, ecosystems, sensitivities,
and conservation needs. The proposed sanctuary component will increase
the support for and public understanding of coastal management programs
and activities.

Residents will benefit from long-term protection of sport and
commercial fishing and hunting by protection of the estuary. The
impacts of these activities will remain unchanged. The integrity of
fish and wildlife habitats and populations will be protected by pre-
serving the natural areas of the proposed sanctuary component from
adverse development. Protection of water and habitat quality and
improvements in the quality of V hing and hunting will go hand-in-hand.
Furthermore, increased research resulting from component establishment
will very probably result in better management of fish and wildlife
populations and their habitats within the entire Masonboro
Island estuary.

b. Scientific and-Educational

Existing research and educ@a@tional programs will be enhanced by
establishment of the Masonboro Component, and additional research and
educational activities will be developed by involvement of

other institutions and agencies in the state. There will be increased
coordination and improved effectiveness of the present-programs concern-
ing the estuary, especially research on the wetlands and shallows. Pro-
tection of high-quality natural ecosystems and coordinated management
will allow school groups and the general public of all ages use of the
site for educational and scientific resources. The designation will be
a definite advantage to scientists and students of science as a site for
long-term environmental monitoring, ecological research, and work on
coastal resource management problems.

C. State and Federal

Establishment of the Masonboro Island component will protect a
natural area for enjoyment, use for research, education, and other
traditional recreational activities. The sanctuary component
designation will benefit people from the coastal towns who have
difficulty finding undisturbed barrier island areas for these activities.

Establishment and management of the proposed component will have a
relatively slight and short-term financial impact on the Federal govern-
ment. Because long-term operation of the proposed component will be
based on retention of its natural features, expenditures will be
minimal. All facilities will be designed for minimal maintenance.
Volunteer efforts will be solicited to assist in the upkeep and manage-
ment of the interpretive trail and other features of the component.
,Sanctuary component programs will be closely coordinated with other
governmental programs and private programs of research, education, and
conservation.

Sanctuary component goals will be compatible with the protection of
wetlands, shorelines, and other estuarine environments in accordance with
Executive Orders 11988 and 11990, the Coastal Area Management Act of
1974, and other applicable Federal and State laws.

The United States Department of Defense and the U.S. Coast Guard
will not be prohibited from conducting any activity that is essential
for national defense or because of emergency. This includes military
flights above or in the vicinity of the proposed sanctuary component
site. Such activities shall be conducted in a manner consistent with
sanctuary regulations, to the maximum extent practicable.

C. Unavoidable Adverse Environmental or Socioeconomic Effects

There are no adverse environmental effects associated with this
proposed action. Of the alternatives already identified, only the
Preferred Alternative will create an estuarine sanctuary component for
research and education that includes all the key land and water
components of a nat 'ural estuarine unit. Both boundary alternatives will
result in some loss of sanctuary component integrity. In regard to
Alternative I -- inclusion of the north or south half of the island- the
potential development that will occur on either end of the island will
result in the loss of upland habitats (e.g., dunes, shrub thicket) and

deterioration of estuarine water quality by the introduction of leachate
from septic fields. Similar but more extensive impacts with occur if
the component consisted of just the island area west of a north-South
axis running through the points of greatest elevation on the barrier
(Alternative II). In this case, the potential for development will
exist along the entire island frontage, but will most likely occur at
the north and south ends where the sandy barrier is widest. If the
No Action Alternative is chosen, the net benefits presented in the
proposal will be eliminated and private residential development will
occur.

Unavoidable adverse economic effects will include the loss of tax
revenue to New Hanover County if the proposed land acquisition takes
place. According to the Office of Tax Administration for New Hanover
County, the total potential loss of property tax revenues is estimated at
$1,624.88 per year. Some or all of this lost tax revenue will be offset
by increased spending by visitors, scientists, and educators. Some of
this tax loss may also be reduced by using less than fee-simple acquisi-
tion of property rights such as purchase of development rights, conserva-
tion easements, or reserved life estates.

Establishment of the Masonboro Component may result in minor
disturbances to the environment through the construction of a boat dock,
boardwalk, and interpretive trails. Any proposed construction in wetland
areas will be accomplished with minimum unacceptable environmental/
ecological impacts.

D. Relationship between Short-term Uses of the Environment and
the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-term Productivity

Sanctuary component designation will provide long-term assurance
that the natural resources and resulting benefits of the area are avail-
able for future use and enjoyment. Without sanctuary component designa-
tion, intensive use such as residential development are expected in some
parts of the proposed component resulting in a loss of ecological
benefits due to disruption and degradation of natural resources.

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

E. Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of Resources

Within the proposed component, there are no resources that will be
irreversibly or irretrievably lost. The intent of the proposed action
is to protect, enhance, and manage the natural resources for research,
education, and recreation. If these resources are protected and managed
instead of altered, they will be available for future use. It is also
believed that establishment of the proposed component will insure the
future harvest by commercial and sport fishermen and also
hunters through scientific research and proper management of resources,
without resulting in loss of other potential benefits such as
nonconsumptive enjoyment of the resource.

F. Possible Conflicts between the Proposed Action and the
Objectives of Federal, State, Regional and Local Land
Use Plans, Policies and Controls for the Areas Concerned

No conflicts are anticipated between this proposed action and the
objectives of federal, state, regional or local land use plans, pol-
icies, and controls for the area concerned.

1. Federal and Regional Plans

The establishment of the proposed Masonboro Island Component in and
of itself will not interfere with the U.S. Coast Guard activities and
enforcement of the U.S. Coast Guard rules and regulations. The proposed
sanctuary will not interfere with AIWW use nor U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) maintenance of the AIWW and Masonboro Inlet jetty. The
proposed sanctuary site is adjacent to one area where the COE will
periodically dispose of spoil: beach disposal on the COE property at
the northern end of the island as a result of dredging Masonboro Inlet.

Two areas receiving dredge spoil will be included within the
Masonboro Island Component's boundary: 1) the existing diked sites
within the COE's AIWW easement receiving sound-side spoil disposal as a
result of routine maintenance dredging, and 2) the south end of the
island, which receives periodic surf-zone deposition from the
maintenance dredging of the Carolina Beach Inlet. The cooperative
management plan to be developed between the COE, OCM, and NESP will
minimize conflicts in these areas.

Sanctuary component management policies will not interf ere with
existing regulations of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National
Marine Fisheries Service, or any other federal regulatory agency.

2. State Plans

The purposes and objectives of the proposed estuarine sanctuary
component are consistent with the programs of the Division of Parks and
Recreation, Office of Marine Affairs, Office of Coastal Management,
Division of Marine Fisheries, Wildlife Resources Commission, and Divi-
sion of Archives and History. Representatives of these agencies will be
asked to serve on the local advisory committee for the proposed compo-
nent.

The proposed action is consistent with the Coastal Area Management
Act of 1974 in that an Area of Environmental Concern, namely, the
marsh-estuary area, will be protected within the Masonboro
Island complex.

Proposed and potential estuarine sanctuary component research and
education programs are complementary to, and will not interfere with,
any research or education programs conducted by state agencies, or by
private groups or schools. Indeed, sanctuary component programs and
other research and education programs are mutually enhancing.

3. Local Plans

The proposed Masonboro Island Component will not interfere with any
known county or town plans, policies, or regulations. The proposed
component management plan will take into account all county and town
laws and regulations governing portions of the proposed sanctuary
component that lie within these political divisions. Protection of
scenic, recreational, historic, and archaeological resources within the
proposed component is consistent with local plans and policies as well
as state policies. Existing uses of the proposed component will
continue, including hunting, fishing, beach use, hiking, bird watching,
and spoil deposition.

It is anticipated that the establishment of the proposed component
will not interfere with existing or potential land or water uses across
the waters of the two inlets or the AIWW. The majority of such land use
is residential, single or multiple dwellings, or small-scale commercial
enterprises such as stores or marinas. If problems arise, negotiated
agreements will be sought.

PART V: LIST OF PREPARERS

Mr. John B. Taggart North Carolina Department of Natural Resources
and Community Development

Mr. Taggart holds a B.S. degree in biology, a M.S. degree in
botany, and is a Ph.D. candidate in botany. He is the coordinator of
the North Carolina National Estuarine Sanctuary. His background
includes serving as Environmental Research Specialist with the North
Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation, Educational Assistant with
the North Carolina Marine Resources Center at Fort Fisher, and Assistant
Director of the Illinois Chapter of the Nature Conservancy.

His responsibilities in the preparation of the DEIS/DMP and
FEIS/DHP included overall compilation of information, writing, and
organization of the original document. Mr. Taggart had assistance from
Ms. Deborah Crouse, who edited the manuscript, Ms. Jill Miller, Art and
Illustration/OCM, who drew the figures, and Ms. Alma Pate, Clerk/Typist
Word Processing Center/DNRCD, who typed the manuscript.

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

Mr. Jeffers has B.S. degrees in Natural Resource Management and in
Secondary Education/Science and Environmental Studies. As the Sanctuary
Project Manager he is responsible for providing overview and guidance in
the designation, operation and management, and research activities
associated with the National Estuarine Sanctuary Program. His
background includes two (2) years experience in establishing and
managing national marine and estuarine sanctuaries, three (3) years
experience in working with coastal states in development and
implementation of their coastal zone management programs and one (1)
year in the conduct of management analyses for the Department of
Defense.

Mr. Jeffers responsibilities in the preparation of the DEIS/DHP
included overall direction, organization, and final reviev. He had
assistance from Dr. Frank Hebard, Sanctuary Projects Manager, who worked
directly with Mr. Taggart in editing the document and subsequent
preparation of the DEIS/DIMP and FEIS/DMP for publication. Dr. Hebard
was assisted by Mo. Gloria Thompson, Program Specialist; Ms. Sherrard
Coleman-Foster, Program Specialist; and Ms. Glenda McKiver,
Clerk-Typist.

Comments were received from the following North Carolina Office of
Coastal Management staff members:

Steve Benton
Melissa McCullough
David Owens
Daniel Small
Geoffrey Willett

In addition, the following individuals provided valuable information or
assistance:

William Adams (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers)
Richard Carpenter (N.C..Division of Marine Fisheries)
Edith Friedberg (Society for Masonboro Island)
Karen Gottovi (New Hanover County Commissioners)
Courtney Hackney (UNC-W)
Berry Holliday (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers)
Donald Kapraun (UNC-W)
James Lanier (Marine Resources Center at Fort Fisher)
Anne McCrary (UNC-W)
James Parnell (UNC-W)
William Raney (Society for Masonboro Island)
James Stevens (N.C. Division of Parks and Recreation)
James Wells (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers)
Katy West (N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries)
Sally Zimmerman (Marine Resources Center at Fort Fisher)

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

Federal Agencie

Advisory Council of Historic Preservation
Department of Agriculture
Department of Commerce
Department of Defense
Department of Energy
Department of Health and Human Services
Department of the Interior
Department of Justice
Department of Labor
Department Pf Transportation - U.S. Coast Guard
Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
General Services Administration
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Wilmington District

National Interest Groups (these groups commented on the DEIS/DMP)

National Audubon Society
Sierra Club

North Carolina Agencies and Organizations

N.C. Department of Administration
N.C. Department of Agriculture
N.C. Department of Commerce
N.C. Dep'artment of Crime Control and Public Safety
R.C. Department of Cultural Resources
N.C. Department of Education
N.C. Department of Human Resources
N.C. Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
N.C. Department of Transportation
North Carolina Nature Conservancy
North Carolina Chapter of the Sierra Club
Conservation Conucil of North Carolina
North Carolina Wildlife Federation
The Caostal Federation
The Raleigh Salt Water Fishing Club
Friends Of State Parks
The University of North Carolina Sea Grant College Program
North Carolina Audubon Council

Congressional Seantors

The Honorable Jesse Helms
The Honorable John P. East

Representatives

The Honorable Walter B. Jones
The Honorable I.T. (Tim) Valentine, Jr.
The Honorable Charles 0. Whitley
The Honorable Ike F. Andrews
The Honorable Stephen L. Neal
The Honorable Robin Britt
The Honorable Charlie Rose
The Honorable W. G. (Bill) Hefner
The Honorable James G. Martin
The Honorable James T. Broyhill
The Honorable James McClure Clarke

North Carolina Legislators

The Honorable James Hunt, Governor
The Honorable Gerald L. Anderson
The Honorable Chris S. Barker
The Honorable Howard B. Chapin
The Honorable Melvin R. Daniels
The Honorable Charles D. Evans
The Honorable Bruce W. Ethridge
The Honorable Malcolm G. Fulcher
The Honorable John B. Gillam III
The Honorable A. D. Guy
The Honorable Vernon G. James
The Honorable Harry E. Payne
The Honorable David E. Redwine
The Honorable Thomas E. Rhodes
The Honorable R. C. Soles, Jr.
The Honorable Joseph Thomas
The Honorable Paul J. Tyndall
The Honorable J.A. Wright
The Honorable Richard Wright

Local Agencies and Organizations

Cape Fear Council of Governments
New Hanover County Commissioners
New Hanover County Planning Department
City of Wilmington
Town of Carolina Beach
Town of Kure Beach
Town of Wrightsville Beach
Carolina Beach State Park
N.C. Marine Resources Center at Fort Fisher
Cape Fear Chapter of the Sierra Club
Lower Cape Fear Bird Club
University of North Carolina at Wilmington
Local Chapter of the N.C. Wildlife Federation
Society for Masonboro Island
New Hanover County Crossroads
Advisory Services
Raleigh Saltwater Sportfishing Club
Wilmington - New Hanover Port, Water , & Beach Commission
84

Indivi'duals and Landowners Coggin, Amy
Coggin, James D.
Amos, Elizabeth Cotton, Mrs. Horace
Annand, Barbara & Michael Crossley, John F.
Ansell, Ray H.
Armstrong, Debbie Davis, Bennie F.
Davis, James H.
Baggett, Evelyn McCall Dermid, Jack
Bair, George E. Diefenback, Leroy
Baltzergar, Kathryn L. Dreyfors, John M.
Bates, John Dunn, Larry
Bates, Vivian K. Durrance, Julia Vickers
Bayzle, Phyllis K.
Beard, Cathy Ensign, Janet & John
Bedfears, Christy Evans, Alice Howell
Beegle, L.W. & Cynthia L.
Beele, Charles & Rebecca Fales, A. F.; Heirs
Begor, Virginia H. Fales, Carl L., Jr.
Bellamy, E. H. Fales, Clara H.
Bender, Brooker T. Fales, Maggie H.
Benton, David, Mr. & Mrs. Fales, R. M.
Blackledge, J. H.; Heirs Federal Point Property
Bland, Terry Ferger, James & Dora
Block, Peggy Finch, Robert A.
Boinear, Coleman Flake, Alma H.
Brouse, Vera P. Flanagan, Troy & Elizabeth
Broussard, Vincent R. Freeman, R. B.; Heirs
Brupe, Steven Friedberg, Edith
Bryan, Katherine H.; et al. Funderburg, Claire
Buchanan, Lynda Futch, James; Heirs
Burnett, Hannie I.
Burnett, Richard, Jr,;.Etux Gaines, Simons; et al.
Byrd, Alan Gennmen Family
Getz, Donald, Judith & Family
Cage, Mary Cox Gottovi, Karen
Cameron, Lottie F. Goldsboro Eye Clinic
Capra, Jr., Frank Granger, John A. V.
Cappo, Betty, Mrs. Gwathney, Jr., Ric-hard B.
Carr, James D.; Etux, Et al.
Carter, Beth Hackney, Courtney
Cheatham, Charles Hall, Alex M.
Chester, Karen Hall, Eunice B.
Christensen, Mrs. John P. Hammond, S*Vq,, Mrs.
Clough, Alberta S. Harriss, Jr., Meares
Clybern, Lee Hart, Jack F.
Connett, Virginia V. Hauck, Dorothy Fales
Cook, Delores & Woody Hervy, David Mrs.
Cooper, Jim Herz, Ralph; Jr.
Corcoran, Linda M. Hewlett, Addison; Sr; Heirs
Cottle, Jr., Loronzo B. Hewlett, Elijah 0.; Heirs; et al.
Craddock, Gail Hewlett, Irvin
Craig, Nora C. Hewlett, Leslie P.; Etux; et al.

Hicks, Charles M. Newton, Thomas W.; Heirs
Hicks, Mr. & Mrs. E. C., Jr.
Hicks, John R. 09burg, Finger
Hill, Ruth Foell Old, Mrs. Kenneth
Hines, Ira A., Etux Oliver, David
Hines, Katie B. O'Neal, Nolan
Hoffman, Bill
,Hollis, Annie 0.; Heirs Parmele, Inc.; T. H. Wright, et al.
Hollis, Elijah W.; Etux Parnell.' James F.
Hollis, J. R.; etux
Hollis, J. W. Parr, Pamela Payton
Holloway, David S. Parr, Robert A.
Holton, Delaney H.; Heirs Parsons, Lee
Hunst, Adriene Paul, Charles
Hurst, Adrian D. Peppard, Ben
Peschau, Henry B.; Jr.
Irvine, John M. Pfeffer, Dr. Suzanne
Pfeffer, Daniel L.
Jamieson, Bob Pole, Mrs. D,T.
Jerome, Katerine B. Porter, L. W.
Jones, Myra M. Powell, Phyllis S.
Price, James A., Jr.
Kay, Sue Pridemare, Joyce
Kesk, Ketty Pridgen, Marty
Kilpatrick, David J.; Heirs, et al.
Randt, Jon & Scott
Levans, Ann Ravelle, Gillie S.
Lewis, Brian J. Raney, Jr., Bill
Lewis, Trandy E. Reddick, Sue
Liggett, Gary L. Reid, James S.
Lilley, Dixie Richardson, S.W.
Long, Mr. & Mrs. William Robinson Louise Howell
Long, Vicky Coggin Rogers, Dudley; Sr.
Rogers, Roger Lee
MacIntosh, Martha Rupert, Marily & Fred
Marrett, Linda D.
Mason, David P. Saffo, Cathrine G.
Mason, Phyllis F. Sanford, L.T., Jr.
Mayes, Carol Satterfield,, Callie
McCrary, Anne B. Saunders, Harriet L.
McEachern, A. A.; et al. Sause, George L.
McLean, Rick Schaffer, Todd M.
McMillan, Florence J. Schott, Lola
McPhail, Florence J. Scott, Andy & Nancy
McQuillan, Ivan Sharp, Mr. & Mrs. Rex E.
Metts, John Van B. Shuford, Scott
Mims, Mrs. Nelleen C. Simmons, Gaines
Mincey, R. Michael Simmons, Holland C.
Montyomery, Josie Smallman, Georgia
Murray, Florence Smith, Beth W.
Musser, Ben F. Snyder, Frank B.
Souse, Karen
Southerland, Sammuel, Jr.; Etux.
Spalt, Allen
Spalt, Danny

Spalt, Ellen F.
Spalt, Elizabeth
Stehman, Charles
Sternberger, Frederick B.
Strickland, Mrs. H.S.
Sturgis, Kim
Swan, Edward
Swindell, Lottie C.
Sumenal, James

Thompson, Jackie & Bob
Tilley, Charles
Tompkins, Uavid
Trainum, C.D.
Trotman, William Holt

Umstead, Loui se

Wachovia Bank & Trust Co.
Wade, Allene S.
Wagner, William F.
Wagoner, William H.
Walton, Herman, et al.
Watts, Evan
Wentz, Peter W.
Wessell, J.C., Jr.
Whittier, Mrs. G.
Whitlock, Mrs. U.0.
Whittled, Joseph W.
Widenhouse, Gary E.
Willard, Elizabeth
Willard, Mr. & Mrs. Emarson
Willard, Mr. & Mrs. Martin
Willey, Alice C.
Willey, Guy F.
Willey, Joan D.
Winborne, Mrs. Mary R.
Woody, Grace D.
Worth, Ruth
Wright, I.C.

Yonstead, Eugene
Younghans, John M.

PART VII: WRITTEN AND VERBAL COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE MASONBORO ISLAND
COMPONENT OF THE NORTH CAROLINA NATIONAL ESTUARINE SANCTUARY
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN*
AND NOAA RESPONSES

This section presents the written and verbal comments received on the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Management Plan (DEIS/DMP)
and when necessary provides NOAA responses to questions or concerns raised
by these comments. Generally, responses are made in one or more of the
fol I owing ways:

1. Expansion, clarification, or revision of the DEIS/DMP,

2. Specific responses to the individual comments made by each
reviewer,

The comments received and responses, when appropriate, are arranged in
the following order:

Section A: Responses to Comments by Speakers at Public Hearing
and List of Speakers

Section B: Written Comments and NOAA's Responses

1. Federal Agencies
2. State and Local Governments
3. Environmental Organizations
4. Research Organizations
5. Local Business
6. Property Owners
7. Sportfishing Groups

Section C: Written Comments; No Response Necessary

Comments submitted by private individuals
in support of the designation of Masonboro
Island as a component of the North Carolina
National Estuarine Sanctuary and requiring
no response are presented in this Section.

The Public Hearing on the DEIS/DMP was held on August 22, 1984 in
Wilmington, North Carolina at the Kenan Auditorium, University of North
Carolina-Wilmington. The meeting was attended by approximately 350 individuals
with 30 making verbal comments. A transcript of the statements by the speakers
at the Public Hearing has been made and is on file with NOAA/SPD. This
record is available for examination at:

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

For the convenience of the reader, all comments appear on the left side
of the page and corresponding responses appear on the right side of the page.

A transcript of the statements by the speakers at the Public Hearing
has been made and is on file with NOAA/SPD. This record is available for
examination at:

Office of Ocean and Coastal Reserach Management
Sanctuary Programs Division
3300 Whitehaven Street, NW
Washington, D.C

For the convenience of the reader, all comments appear on the left side
of the page and corresponding responses appear on the right side of the page.

PART VII

Section A

CUMMENTS AND RESPUNSES

PUBLIC HEARING

LOCATION: Kenan Auditorium
University of North Carolina-Wilmington
Wilmington, North Carolina

DATE: August 22, 1984
7:UO p.m.

ATTENDANCE: Approximately 350; 30 speakers

SPEAKERS WITH COMMENTS REQUIRING RESPONSE

1. Mr. Bill Raney; Society for Masonboro Island

Comments Response

a. Highest priority should be the Comments on acquisition
acquisition of adequate land priorities noted and accepted
for designation of the sanctuary

b. Construct proposed facilities Comments on construction
after"land acquisition has been schedule versus acquisition
completed and sanctuary is in noted and accepted
operation

c. Traditional hunting and fishing Comments noted and accepted
used should continue as regu-
lated as stated in the DEIS/DMP

d. Uff-road vehicles, including Uff-road vehicles will be banned
three-wheelers, should be except under conditions as
banned presented in the FEIS/DMP
Part II. A.3.f

2. Mr. S. W. Richardson; Land Owner

a. Because research takes pre- Management policies allow for
cedence in the purposes of the low-intensity recreational uses
sanctaury, the island may and for traditional hunting and
become off-limits to the fishing (Please see Part II, A.3.)
public for recrational use

b. I do not trust committees, The function and membership of
must less committees made up the Local Advisory Committee
of committees are described in Part II. A.3.b.

The Committee will include
representives of the land
owners and other users, and
will advise the NCNES Manager
on matters involving conflicts
between user groups

3. Charles Paul; Commercial Realty Co./Society for Mansonboro Island

a. Interested in seeing that the Part II, A.1. of the FEIS
land owners are properly describes the procedures for
compensated acquisition. These procedures
include a requirement for an
independent appraisal to determine
the fair market value of the
property concerned. An independent
appraisal must be obtained when
land is to be acquired under any
arrangement, including donation,
conservation easement, or other
less-than-fee-simple techniques.

SPEAKERS SUPPORTING THE PROPOSED ACTION - NO RESPONSE NECESSARY

Cathrine Saffo Karen Gottovi
Phyllis Bayzle Nolan O'Neal
Edith Friedberg Larry Dunnn
Claire Fonderburg Ginger Ogburn
John Bates Bob Jamison
Carol Mayes Lee Parsons
John Dreyfors Lorenzo Cottle, Jr.
Jack Hart Gene Floyd
Frederick Sternburger Meares Harriss, Jr.
Rick McLean Alex Hall
Georgia Smallman Kitty Kosh
Jan Sumerel Jack Uermid
Ben Peppard Leroy Diefenback
Adrian Hurst

PART VII

Section B

Comments and Responses
1. Federal Agencies
2. State and'Local Governments
3. Environmental Organizations
4. Research Organizations
S. Local Business
6. Property Owners
7. Sportfishing Groups

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

1. FEDERAL AGENCIES

's"s

United States Department Of
Fish And Wildlife Service
Endangered Species Field Station
100 otis Stree, Room 224
Ashville, North Carolina 28801
July 9, 1984

Mr. John Taggart
Estuarine Sanctuary Coordinator
North Carolina Department Of Natural
Resources and Community Development
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687

Re: 4-2-84-469

Dear John:

We have reviewed the proposed acquisition of an estuarine sanctuary at
Masonboro Island in the New Hanover County, North Caroline, submitted June 13,
1984, for the potential effects on endangered and threatened species.

Based upon information provided in your letter and your telephone
conversation with Nora Murdock of my staff, we concur with the conclusion of
no effect. In view of this, we believe that the requirements of Section 7 of
the Endangered Species Act have been satisfied. However, obligations under
1.1.1. Section 7 of the Act must be reconsidered if (1) new information reveals
impacts of this identified action that may affest listed species or critical
habitat in a manner not previously considered, (2) this action is
subsequently modified in a manner which is not considered in this biological
assessment, or (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat determined
that may be affected by the identified action.

Your interest and initiative in enhancing endangered and threatened species
is appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

Warren T. Parker
Field Supervisor

CC:
Mr. Stuart Critcher, North Carolina Resources Commission,
Raleigh, NC
Director, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, NC
Field Supervisor, ES, FWS, Raleigh, NC
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
Rockville, MD 20852

UNITED STATES E'NVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION IV

345 COURTLAND STREET
ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30365

AUG 23- 1984
4PM-EA/CJD

Dr. Nancy Foster, Chief
Sanctuary'Programs Division
National Ocean Service@NOAA
3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20235

Dear Dr. Foster:

We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and
Draft Management Plan on the North Carolina National Estuarine
Sanctuary, Masonboro Island Component. 1.2.1 Only preliminary discussions have been
conducted with these groups. Detailed
Based upon. our review, we support the proposal to include memoranda of understanding will be developed
Aasonboro island as part of the North Carolina National Estuarine and included in the final management plan
Sanctuary S@stem.' Managing the alrea as' part of the System will for the Masonboro Island component of
protect it from development and will help to preserve the the North Carolina National Estuarine
natural environmental features of the Island. Therefore, we Sanctuary. A copy of the final management
assign a rating of LO-2, i.e., we have no objections to the plan will be forwarded to the U.S.
1.2.1 proposal as presented, however, we request that a copy of the Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV.
proposed Memorandum of Understanding between Carolina Beach
State Park, the Marine Resources Center at Fort Fisher, and the
University of North Carolina at Wilmington and the North Carolina
Office of Coastal Management be included in the Final EIS.

If you wish additional discussion on this subject, Ms. Clara J.
DeLay, FTS 257-7901,.of my staff, is the point of contact.

sincerely yours,

V\
Sheppatd N. Moore, Chief
Environmental Review Section
Environmental Assessment Branch

cc: Joyce M.T. Wood, Chief
Ecology & Conservation Division
U.S. Department of Commerce

DEPART161ENT OF IJEALTH & IiUMAN SERVICES Public Health Service

Centers for Disease Control
Atlanta GA 30333
August 28, 1984

1.3.1 We have checked with the North Carolina
Department of Human Resources (telephone,
Aug. 10, 1984). They are unaware of
Dr. Nancy Foster any problems with mosquito or other
Chief, Sanctuary Programs Division vector breeding in the Masonboro area.
National Ocean Service/NOAA Should this become a problem, UCM will
3300 Whitehaven Street, N.V. consult with NCDHR concerning control
Washington, D.C. 20235 measures.
Dear Dr. Fostpr: 1.3.2 Should a decision be made to establish
We have,reviewed the Draft Enviromental Impact Statement (EIS) for masonboro Masonboro Island as a national estuarine
island Component, North Carolina Rational Estuarine Sanctuary, We are respond- sanctuary, NOAA/SPO, the State of North
ing on behalf of the U.S. Public Health Service. Carolina and the CUE have agreed to
develop a Memorandum of Understanding
No mention was made of any environmental impact of this project on mosquito or that will include an agreement that the
COE will work with NUAA/SPU and the
1.3.1. other vector breeding. Of particular interest would be the placement of spoil State in ensuring that the disposal of
material by the Army Corps of Engineers. Experience has shown that mosquito dredged materials will be conducted in
babitate are often created wben dredged spoil material is improperly graded a manner that will minimize any potential
1.3.2. and drained. Mitigation of mosquito production needs to be addressed, including adverse changes in the estuarine sanctuary.
current and potential mosquito vector problems and anticipated control measures. This will include use of disposal
techniques that prevent mosquito and
Since one of the planned uses for this area in beach use, the Final EIS should vector breeding potential. See Part
indicate the number and type of sanitation facilities that will be provided.
1.3.3. Who will be responsible for the maintenance of these facilities? What provisions
will be made for potable water? What will be the source for this water, what 1.3.3 Traditional low-intensity recreation and
type of treatment will it receive, and what type of disinfection will be pro- interpretive activies are generally
vided? In the event that camping is permitted, will this water supply and the encouraged in national estuarine sanctuaries
1.3.4. sanitation facilities be shared with beach users? If not, please also provide to the extent compatible with the
this information for the camping areas. sanctuary's character as a natural
field laboratory. At present, water
Thank you for the opportunity to review this Draft EIS. Please send us a copy supplies and sanitation facilities,
of the Final EIS when it becomes available. Should you have any questions about however, are not considered appropriate
these comments, please contact Mr. Lee Tate at FTS 236-4161. or necessary for the low-intensity
short-term recreational and interpretive
SincerW yours, activies planned for Masonboro Island
as a part of the NCNES.

1.3.4 If established as a national estuarine
Ph.D. sanctuary, camping on Masonboro Island
Chief, Environmental Affairs Group will be by permit only. The sanitation
Environmental Health Services Division and water situation will remain as it
Center for Environmental Health is and has been traditionally (see
response 1.3.3 above).

U.S. Department Commandant Washington, DC
Of Transportation United Slates Coast Guard Staff Symbol: G-WP-3
United States Phone: (202) 426-2262
Coast Gaurd

16477
4 SEP 1984

Dr. Nancy Foster
Chief, Sanctuary Programs Division
National Ocean Service/NOAA
3300 Whitehaven Street, NW
Washington, D. C. 20235

Dear Dr. Foster:

After reviewing the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
for Masonboro Island, North Carolina Estuarine Sanctuary, we
offer the following comments:

Page 76, "State and Federal", paragraph 4 should read: "The
1.4.1 United States Department of Defense and the United States Coast 1.4.1 Comment accept; DEIS text modified
Guard will not be prohibited...".

Page 78, 1. Federal and-Regional Plans, paragraph I should
read: "The establishment of the proposed Masonboro Island
1.4.2 component in and of itself will not interfere with U. S. Coast 1.4.2 Comment accept; DEIS text modified
Guard activities and enforcement of U. S. Coast Guard rules and
requlations."

We appreciate the opportunity to review this Draft Environmental
Impact Statement.

Sincerely,

J. G. SCHMIDTKAN
Captain. U.S. Coast Guard
Chief, Planning and Evaluation Staff
By direction of the Commandant

Copy: Ms. Joyce M. T. Wood
Chief, Ecology and Conservation Division
Room 6111, U. S. Department of Commerce
Washington, D. C. 20230

United States Department of the Interior

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20240
SEp j984

ER 84/940

Dr. Nancy Foster
Chief, Sanctuary Programs Division
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20235

Dear Dr. Foster:

This letter responds to your request for the Department of the Interior to
review the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) for the proposed
addition of Masonboro Island, New Hanover County, North Carolina, as the
fourth component of the North Carolina Estuarine Sanctuary.

General Comments

Based upon our review, we believe that the DEIS adequately describes the
potential impacts of the various alternatives, including the proposed action.
We concur with the determination that, -without the proposed action, Masonboro
1.5.1 Island may become fully developed as a residential community. Any such
development would, in our opinion, result in a significant adverse environ-
mental impact and would eliminate the Island's relatively pristine nature 1.5.1 Comment noted; no response necessary
and associated value as an undeveloped coastal barrier island.

Coastal Barrier Resources Act Comments

Masonboro Island is within the Coastal Barrier Resources System as defined by
the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CORA). As such, any expenditure of Federal
funds for any purpose on the island is prohibited except as permitted in accor-
dance with Section 6 of CBRA. We understand that it has been tentatively
determined that the proposed action may be in accordance with Section 6 of CBRA 1.5.2 At tthe time this document went to
1.5.2 and that formal consultation in this regard has bAn initiated with the Fish print, we had not yet received a formal
and Wildlife Service. Assuming that the consultation process required by CBRA response to ourcorrespondence submitted
will be completed prior to release of the final environmental impact statement. in accordance with the formal consultation
inclusion of a compliance statement and pertinent correspondence should be requirements of thb Coastal Barrier
provided in that document. Resources Act.

Dr. Nancy Foster 2

Summary Comments
We commend your agency and the North Carolina Department of Natural Resources
and Community Development, Office of Coastal Management for these efforts to
preserve and protect the natural resources of Masonboro Island. Thank you for
the opportunity to comment on this DEIS.

Sincerely,

Bruce Blanchard, Director
Environmental Project Review

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
REGIONAL CIVIL ENGINEER, EASTERN REGION (NO AFESC)
524 TITLA SUILDS MO. 30 FRVOR STNSKT. S.W.
ATLANTA. GKORGIA 30383

ROV2 4 September 1984

Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Masonboro island component,
North Carolina National Estuarine Sanctuary

United States Department of Commerce
National oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Attn: Dr. Nancy Poster
chief, Sanctuary Programs Division
National ocean Service/MOAA
3300 Whitehaven Street, M.W.
Washington, DC 20235

1. As the Air Porce central point of contact for environmental planning in
the eastern United States, we have been tasked by Headquarters Air Force to
review and comment on the subject DEIS. Development of Masonboro island as 1.6.1 Comments noted; no response necessary.
a component of the North Carolina National Estuarine Sanctuary system will
not adversely impact Air Force operations in the project area. However, Air
Force training operations in the area may result in a noise impact on the
island. The Air Force currently operates a low-level flight training route
VR-1074 in the vicinity of Masonboro Island. The route originates at
Seymour Johnson APB, K and operates on a continuous basis. Altitudes
involved range from less than 500 to 1500 feet above ground level. This is
an established training route and within the scope of Department of Defense
activities covered in paragraph 4v section c, page 76 of the DEIS.

2. Thank you for the opportunity to review the DEIS. Please contact
Mr. Winfred G. Dodson, PTS telephone 242-6821/6776, if you have any
questions concerning our comments.

HOMAS D. SINS cc: HQ USAF/LEEV
hief U.S. Dept of Commerce/
vironmental Planning Division Ms. Wood
HQ TAC/DEEV
4 CSG/DEEV
SI
H S
@h i @e
f
vi r,..nta

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

2. STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

:107

........ ........
FOY,
New Banner TatuitU

Nourb of Commissioners
ORVA

WHEREAS the boundaries of Masonboro Island encompass sufficient
land and water areas to approximate an ecological unit, and to ensure
conservation; and
WHEREAS Masonboro island represents a pristine, non-drowned river
mouth estuary associated with an entire undisturbed barrier island and would
be a unique component in the North Carolina National Estuarine Sanctuary
Program; and

WHEREAS Masonboro island has significant value as a scientific and
educational laboratory for the University of North Carolina at Wilmington, the
North Carolina Marine Resource center and other educational institutions; and

WHEREAS Masonboro Island is dynamically unstable due to inlet
migration and long-term erosion, which would endanger the establishment of
:1 permanent communities; and
WHEREAS Masonboro island is unique on the North Carolina coast as a
virtually untouched barrier island located within a major urban area; and

WHEREAS Masonboro Island includes economically and scientifically
valuable primary shellfish and finfish nursery grounds, and

WHEREAS Masonboro Island is classified "Conservation" in the County
Land Use Plan because of its environmental, scientific and recreational
values; and
WHEREAS the provision of public services on undeveloped barrier
islands would conflict with the County's Policies for Growth and Development#
and would be prohibitively expensive when compared with service costs in other
areas of the County; and
WHEREAS the preservation of Masonboro Island would be in harmony
with the principles of the National Estuarine Sanctuary Program; and
WHEREAS the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the National
Estuarine Sanctuary Program has been found to be essentially complete,
comprehensive, accurate, and objective;

NDW, THMEFORE, BE. IT RESDUVED that the New Hanover County Board of
ODmmissioners unanimously endorses the preferred alternative of adding all of 2.1.1 Comment noted; no response necessary
Masonboro Island to the North Carolina National Estuarine Sanctuary Program,
as analyzed in the Draft Environmental impact Statement-Masonboro Island
Component, and that the office of Coastal zone management in the National
Ooeanic and Atmospheric Administration and the State of North Carolina are
respectfully requested to continue in the process to designate and acquire
Masonboro Island as an estuarine sanctuary.

Signed this 20th day of August, 1984.
&La' f,
Karen E. Gottavi
Chairman

liucie F. SMithr Clerk

WILMINGTON - NEW HANOVER
PORT. WATERWAY ANO BEACH COMMISSION

P. 0. Om 330
inLmuGTo". UMInt CAROUNA 21401
(91" 762-2611

August 22, 1984

Mr. Dave Ovens, Assistant Director
N. C. Office of Coastal Management
P. 0. Box 27687
Raleigh, N. C. 27611

Dear Hr. Ovens:

The Wilmington-New Hanover Port, Waterway and Beach
Commission in a regular meeting held at 4:00 P.M. 2.2.1 Conmnt noted; no response necessary
2.2.1 yesterday afternoon in the offices of the Greater
Wilmington Chamber of Commerce. unanimously endorsed the
addition of Hasonboro Island as the fourth component of the
North Carolina National Estuarine Sanctuary.

The Commission, applauds the efforts of the office of
Coastal Management to preserve this valuable barrier
island in its natural state. Considerable marine related
research Is currently being condijcted on the Island. The
concept of The Marine Research-and Developme-nt Crescent will
be greatly enhanced by the possibility of xxsing the island
for research purposes.

Masonboro Island is a valuable asset that truly belongs to
everyone. It should not fall prey to commercial development.

In the strongest way possible. we urge you to preserve
Masonboro Island.

Thank youl

Sincerely,
P
n B. H
hn V- e
Jr..
ha n

JVBMJr:vw

cc: Dr. Nancy Foster, Chief, Sanctuary Programs Division.
National Ocean Service/NQAA, 3300 Whitebaven Street, NW,
Washington, DC 20235
Joyce M. T. Wood, Chief, Ecology and Conservation Division.
Room 6111, U. S. Dept. of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230
John Taggart, Director, N. C. National Estuarine Sanctuary,
N. C. Office of Coastal Management, P. 0. Box 27687, Raleigh,
N. C. 27611

PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DEXTER L. HAYES NEW HANOVER COUNTY
PLANNING DIRECTOR
320 CHFSTNLrr STREET
WILMINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA 28401 VoR
August 23 1984

Dr. Nancy Foster
Chief, Sanctuary Programs Division
Natural Ocean ServIce/NOA
3300 Whitehaven St., NW
Washington, DC 20235

RE: Comments on the DEIS for the proposed addition of the Masonboro
Island Component to the North Carolina National Esfurine Sanctuary

Dear Dr. Foster:

The above referenced.DEIS Is accurate, comprehensive, and well done. We
feel, however, that the description of support by the New Hanover County Board of
CQmmissloners for the inclusion of Masonboro Island In the Sanctuary Program
should be expanded with regard to the County's growth policies and land use
regulations.

On August 1, 1983, the Commissioners declared a 90 day moratorium on
building on undeveloped barrier Islands In response to proposed development on
Masonboro Island, and concurrently directed the Planning Department to prepare a
Hurricane Protection Study. This study resulted In an amendment to the County
Land Use Plan's Policies for Growth and Development that esentially prohibits
permanent
2.3.1 residential development on undeveloped barrier Islands that do not have 2.3.1 Comments noted; no response necessary
access (Attachment 1). The Island as already classified Conse!%,etion In the
County's Land Use Plan In recognl+;on,at least partially, of Its value in the,
estuarine system.

Furthermore, the County presently Is preparing a Conservation Overlay
District (COD) for the County Zoning Ordinance. This Overlay District, which
will almost assuredly Include Masonboro Island, will place restrictions on
im pervious surface areas, drainage, and require the preservation of certain
2.3.2'sensitive environmental areas, such as primary nursery areas, The County also 2.3.2 Comments noted; no response necessary
has passed subdivision regulations requiring hurricane evacuation planning,
adequate boat facilities, and waterfront access on barrier Islands (Attachment
2).

These land use policies and regulations are In addition to the County's
offer to donate Its 15.2 acres of land on Masonboro Island as a partial match for
2.3.3obtaining Federal acquisition funds. The Board of Commissioners has also 2.3.3 Comments noted; no response necessary
strongly supported the State In Its eforts to secure funds for acquisition of the
Island.

Dr. Nancy Foster August 23, 1964

The County wholeheartedly endorses the present efforts to include Masonboro
Island in the Estuarine Sanctuary program. We wl I I be glad to provide further 2.3.4 Comments noted; no response necessary
2-3.4 comments as required.

Sincerely,
A-

Dexter Hayes
Planning Director

Enclosures

DH/gIt

Town of Carolina Beach

Drawer V
Carolina Beach, N.C. 28428
Telephone: (919) 468-8291
August 31, 1984

Chief of the Sanctuary Programs
Division
Office of ocean & Coastal Resource
Management
NOS/NOAA .
33 Whitehaven St reet, N.W.
Washington, DC 20235

Dear Sir or Madam:

Maionboro Island, an undeveloped coastal barrier island located
between Carolina and Wrightsville Beaches (North Carolina), is
under consideration by your office for grant funding to allow
it to be purchased and designated as an estaurine sanctuary.
asonboro island currently serves as a valuable wildlife habitant 2.4.1 Comments noted; no response necessary
2.4.1 Mand fishery in an area of North Carolina that is experiencing
considerable development. Allowing Masonboro Island to remain
in its natural state would preserve an important aesthetic, economic,
and educational resource for the future enjoyment of the citizens
of North Carolina and the United States.

I urge you to act promptly and decisively on any grant application
that would accomplish this goal. Thank you for any assistance you
can provide in this matter.

Sincerely
S @C4 f ioAdl
Ott hu
Town Planner

SS/In

ag,

We strongly support the establishment of this and other protected 2.5.1 Comments noted; text modified.
2.5.1 estuarine sanctuaries. We could possibly use such areas for basic. non-
intrusive mosquito research.

Although we do not know the pxecise potential of this area as a
mosquito breeding site, its proximity to heavily populated resorts could
lead to demands for mosquito control on the site. Techniques are available
2.5.2 to control mosquitoes with no environmental problems. However. the question 2.5.2 Comments noted; text modified.
of "who pays" for the control may arise. If the state assumes management
responsibility for the area, will it also assume responsibility for mosquito
control?

The forthcoming EIS should address this problem.

NOTE: Comments provided by North Carolina Denartment of
Human Resources

JUL 2 1984

Wildlife Jul 25 1984

Resources Commission ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT SECTION
ASSESSMENT SECTION
Archdale Building, 512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611. 919-733-3391

July 24, 1984

MEMORANDUM

TO: Melba McGee

SUBJECT: 85-0043-DEIS Estuarine Sancturay Program,
Masonboro Island, New Hanover County, N. C.

Revise DEIS to read as follows: 2.6.1 Comment noted
Page 43, 111 Fishing and Hunting modified to r

Policy: Fishing, shellfishing, and hunting will
be allowed to continue in the traditional manner, but
2.6.1 will be regulated by state and local laws and by
special regulations.---

T. Stuart Critcher, Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Section

TSC/lp

J. Robert Gordon. Laurinburg W. Vernon Bevill, Raleigh M. Wooodrow Price. Gloucester
Chairman Executive Director Vice Chairman

Richard W. Adams, M.D. Statesville Dan Robinson. Cullowhee
David L. Allsbrook. Scotland Neck Donald J. Allen Thompson. Mount Gilead
CVW Brame G. North wilkesboro Jerry W Wright, Jarvisburg

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

3. ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS

119

National Audubon Society
SOUTHEAST REGIONAL OFFICE
POST OFFICE BOX 1268 CHARLESTON. S.C. 29402 (803) 723-0171

August 14, 1984

Dr. Nancy Foster, Chief
Sanctuary Programs Division
Natioanl Ocean Service/NOAA
3300 Whitehaven Street NW
Washington, D.C. 20235

Dear Dr. Foster:

Thank you for providing us this opportunity to comment on
the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and Draft
Management Plan covering the Masonborough Island components in-
clusion into the North Carolina National Estuarine Sanctuary
System.

The National Audubon Society supports the report's preferred
alternative which proposes to acquire the entire Masonborough 3.1.1 Comment noted; no response necessary
3.1.1 Island complex. As noted in the DEIS selection of this alternative
will result in multiple benefits covering research, education,
traditional uses and natural resource protection.

Selection of any alternative offered could result in the
rapid degradation of both the Island and surrounding waters by
3.1.2 development. The inappropriateness of this site for development 3.1.2 Comment noted; no response necessary
is clear. For good reasons, county, state and federal regulations
designed to prevent unwise, high risk development currently affect
much of the Island.

Clearly then when benefits are weighed against risks the in-
3.1.3 clusion of the entire Masonborough Island complex into the North 3.1.3 Comment noted; no response necessary
Carolina National Estuarine Sanctuary System is the best alternative.

Sincerely,

Terrence C. Larimer
Regional Reperesentative

TCL:ph

cc: Joyce M. T. Wood, Chief, Ecology & Conservation Division

AMERICANS COMMITED TO CONSERVATION

Alabama Florida Georgia Mississippi North Carolina South Carolina

DEDICATED TO Grandfather Mountain Chapter RUTH A. HAYNES
President
CONSERVATION NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY ROUTE 4. BOX 479
LINVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28844 BOONE, N.C. 28607

August 19,1984

Dr. Nancy Poster, Chief
Sanctuary Programs Division
National ocean Service/NOAA
3300 Whitehaven Street NW
Washington, D.C. 20235

Dear Dr. Poster:

The one hundred and ninty-one members of Grandfather

Mountain Audubon Society strongly urge that Masonborough

Island complex be included in the North Carolina National

Estuarine Sanctuary System. Such an area is needed for future

generations to enjoy as a remnant of the former chain of
(3.2.1 barrier islands as well as a unique research opportunity 3.2.1 Comments noted: no response necessary
for the study of native flora and fauna. There are too many

Islands in the Carolinas that have allowed construction and

destruction where one bad storm will cause such havoc that

the costs to the state will make us wonder if the taxes col-

lected are enough to make it financially feasible. We cannot

afford to continue to cater to the greed of a few developers

who are chasing the "fast buck".

We will be very interested to learn the result of your

study and decision. Please inform us promptly.

Sincerely,

Ruth A. Haynes

cc: State of North Carolina- D N R
Joyce M. T. Wood, Chief, Ecology & Conservation Division
Terrence C. Larimer, National Audubon Society. Charleston,S.C.

SIERRA CLUB 0 CAnFwGmup
To extiore, e"joy and trejerve the noa6n's foretti, watent, aWe --d uiUerne,, - - -

1VO-YIN0,44
3306 Vl@@ Aed@ N. W.
p. C,.

'Zih '/At
CAIUAnd --AnOWW'-'
14& 'AaVe' cettalktw /te@@ Y/te- 'Oevosed
hoat dhck A,,aO,%,OA

IaA ,4,;t vAc aAz" 3.3.1 Areas designated for on-site activities
bac,X
/ht u4ta,,@C IOAA" will be chosen, and facilities constructed
3 in areas best suited for public access
WO@4c A14-t MX_ e_ /W. .4@ in order to minimize disturbance of
habitat, wildlife or research sites.
WkAl, WWO- I@AC4h hZd 6W Selection will be based on habitat
ad LW aA-E- surveys and the advice of experts.
&'W Ato- a4 ;kt (See Part H, A.3.e.I.)
WtAt Y&C 141e_& aw7KC wx 'Ap@
AO Ac IM"t
'IAZ@ alLtO_
an 'kAC1XA4t_

and harmful to these birds that are currently listed
as "Special Concern" in North Carolina.

3.2.2 We would like to be a part of the planning 3.2.2 The planning for the placement and design
process of these projects, and we would also like of facilities with the sanctuary will be
a copy of the proposed construction of these facilities conducted in cooperation with the LOcal
if one has been drafted Sanctuary Advisory Committee. If you
are interested in participating with
the Local Sanctuary Advisory Committee,
you should indicate your interest to:
Director, North Carolina Depatment of
Natural Resources and Community Develop-
ment; Raleigh, N.C.
Thank you for your interest in our concerns
and comments.

Sincerely,

Ginger Osburn
Conservation Chair
Cape Fear Chapter-Sierra Club
2237 Apt P. Wrightsville Ave.
Wilmington, N.C.
28403

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

4. RESEARCH ORGANIZATIONS

V&5

University of North Carolina
at Wilmington
Department of Chemical and Physical Science
601 South College Road
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403-3297
August 30, 1984

Chief of the Sanctuary Programs Division
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
NOS/NOAA
3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20235

Dear Sir:

I am a faculty member in the Chemistry Division of the University of North
Carolina at Wilmington and my specialty is chemical oceanography. I am very
interested in the preservation of Masonboro Island, primarily because I appreciate
the scientific value of this undeveloped island as a natural laboratory.
Masonboro Island is a completely undeveloped barrier island, one of very few
such islands remaining in this state. As such, it is a unique and valuable resource.
The New Hanover County location of Masonboro Island places it near the city of
Wilmington and the UNC-W campus, in a region undergoing rapid urbanization.
Masonboro Island is easily accessible by small boat, and has traditionally been used
by UNC-W faculty and students as a natural laboratory for both teaching and
research.

The diversity of habitats, the richness of the flora and fauna, and the
proximity of this unspoiled natural system to the University of North Carolina at
Wilmington provides this state with a most significant resource. With Masonboro
Island in its present pristine state, investigators at the University of North Carolina
at Wilmington and at other - campuses and other universities are assured the
existence and availability of a natural laboratory for research and teaching. It is 4.1.1 Comment no
essential that this island be preserved in its entirety to retain this value as a
natural laboratory. Maintained in its natural state, this island would be of enormous
value in the future; it would then be perhaps the only undeveloped barrier island
remaining in this geographical area, and the sole laboratory for addressing scientific
questions not yet formulated.

Sincerely,

Joan D. Willey
Associate Professor

Dr. Nancy Foster
Chief, Sanctuary Programs Division
National Ocean Service/ ROAA
3300 Whitehaven St. NW
Washington, D.C. 20235

Dear Dr. Poster;
I have reviewed the draftenvironmental impact statement/ 4.2.1 Comment noted; no response necessary
draft management plan for the Masonboro Island Component to the
N.C. National Estuarine Sanctuary, and would strongly recommend 4.2.2 The highest priority for the use of
adoption of the preferred alternative i.e. acquisition of the en- available funds during the acquisition
4.20 tire system. As a unit, it -will provide a readily accessible, phase and development is in acquiring
undisturbed natural laboratory, which is necessary for long-term the key land and water areas of the
studies of coastal processes and wise management of coastal re- sanctuary. The construction of a boat
sources. The proximity of this system to UNC-W makes it uniquely dock, boardwalk, and the establishment
valuable to the marine science program at the university in ierms of boat transport facilities, are of
of education as well as research. secondary importance to acquisition of
Although the facilities suggested in the manage-nenV plan are key land and water areas sufficient to
4.2.2 minimal, even those are not essential and it would be "preferable designate the Masonboro Island as a
to Dut all of the available money into acquisition, if necessary. component of this North Carolina National
The Dolicies which have been proposed with recard to research Estuarine Sanctuary
4.2.3 projects and to traditional uses are reasonable and will protect
the resource values of the sanctuary. 4.2.3 Comnent noted; no response necessary
Sincerely,

Af
Mic@@r. ary
Assoc. Prof. Bi 1.
U!.X-Wilmington
4
-ary

III Wiltnington

29403-3297

27 August 1984

DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES 601 SOUTH COLLEGE ROAD

Dr. Nancy Foster
Chief, Sanctuary Programs Division
National Oceao. Service/NOAA
3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20235

Dear Sirs:.

I would like to express my support for the inclusion of Masonboro
Island in the National Estuarine Sanctuary System. I support the pre-
ferred alternative as outlined in the draft Environmental Impact State-
ment issued in July 1984. This alternative clearly provides the great-
est protection to the island, and is the only alternative that assures
the con'tinued integrity of the island system.

Hy students and I have conducted research on the vertebrate animals
on Hasonboro at various times over the past several years, and, in@@my
4.3.1 opinion, the island is a very important natural site. Several species
of terns nest on the Island each year, and shore birds make heavy use of
the beaches and marshes during migrations. Wading birds are abundant in
the marshes in summer, and waterfowl are present in winter. Clapper
Rails are abundant all year.

Masonboro Island will be an excellent addition to the sanctuary 4.3.1 Comment noted; no response necessary
system, and an important asset to the University of North Carolina at
Wilmington and to the State of North Carolina as an excellent place to
learn more about coastal ecosystems.

Sincerely,
@J rSF. PFARNELL, Ph.D.
JFP:rep

The University of North Carolina a( Wilmington is!2 constituent inifilution
of T14E UNIVERSITY OF NORT14 CAROLINA - William c. Friday. Pvnident

THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA
AT WILMINGTON
601 SOUTH COLLEGE ROAD
WILMINGTON, N.C. 2MJ-3297

WILLIAM H. WAGONER TELEPHONE: (91" 791-4330
ch-"ft
August 29, 1984

Dr. Nancy Foster
Chief, Sanctuary Programs Mission
NOS/NOAA
3300 Whithaven, N.W.
Washington. D. C. 20235

Dear Doctor Foster:

I endorse wholeheartedly the efforts now being made in Wilmington
and elsewhere to preserve Masonboro Island in its present un-
developed state.
Masonboro' Island serves'.The University of North Carolina at
Wilmington in a unique way. Since it is so close to the campus,
our natural science students have relatively quick and easy access
4.4.1 for field trips involving zoological and botanical studies and
research. The natural science faculties here at the University
would be severely handicapped in their ongoing flora. fauna and
ecology studies of estuaries, salt marshes and wetlands, if the
island's ecological systems were traumatized.
Any help which you and your associates may give us in this community 4.4.1 Comment noted; no response necessary
endeavor would be greatly appreciated.
-7 W
Wil, r

WHW/cb

The University of North Carolina at Wilmington is a constituent institution
of THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA - William C. Friday, President

University of North Carolina
at Wilmington

August 29, 1984

Dr. Nancy Foster
Chief, Sanctuary Program Mission
NOS/NOAA
3300 Whitehaven, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20235

Dear Dr. Foster:

Both as an educator and as a private citizen
4.5.1 I want to be among those urging that everything possible
be done to preserve Masonboro Island for public purposes.
It is a fragile precious jewel which, properly protected,
will be enjoyed by countless people through the years as
a place where both body and spirit can be renewed.
Sincerely, 4.5.1 Comment noted; no
George E Bair

GEB:The

The University of North Carolina at Wilmington is a constituent institution
of THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA - William C. Friday, President

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

5. LOCAL BUSINESS

133

TODD M. SCHAFFER
Plaza East CWK* Sukes
IM Eastwood Road
MminVon, Nonh Carolina 284V--
919 2564887 Res.: 919 3924W46

S/ 37 ?Af

LN
7'ZI r e se v C/ e-
4149 s-e v va- 3
'M tL S 0 r v It'd h P,
,/ JA 4-4#04',-@ 9
ro /a- V ic J,@, 5.1.1 Comments noted; no response necessary.
ja 4,t k
J) Z v 410 -, tie 7- ') 4 wo At
'J.3 @- ".4 , '1-1@ ,@ 1,,k
r,@ e
A

eeo
Div
V

Ve-
A4 1,(,%q"L ov
5 e
;4fp,4.1,k VIC-
IAip-
01a

'W-Dunlea Realty
Pod Office Box 4748 / Wilmington; North Carolina 28406
919/392-3063

505 1 NewCentre Dr.. Suite I ISE
Rkhwd A. Dunks, Jr.. Realtor 0q, -? g I jqqq
Nor 5ir,5)
T om w(Ji, 61tlj@ It-P, @,C- otb@u,
lqq@ DbD
(40ACA MUN 5. reqvx.4 Dr I CA
@rav,,3 V, M @,, " 05 CPV-16 0 f 0 0 CLAA-A, cr 5 Q
0
n C-, 's CA VI-6 U 0jv
A.A it.
iku.4- 0 nz) qrju.,-, 0063 paqrarru , e-roi,rck/w@j
Vo@(OjYrL@ D r QA:@, fclk C, Pr 0 q(tswrt- 15 Mot e- I fv lAtkrj
vll%@ PV EAZWQ@ I Z) vi E>L)(' Uj aftj,5 5.2.1 Comments accepted; No response necessary.
11A 0") muju H Ul- 61 M0 Ui I 1@ i t C,05+
W 9- CJ1 0@0 4VR_ eA) JaPwA/rA L) Y%
I Y1 (I- Gk,0 W 0-5
-40y- @,J-w "),IQ, I
,@-,OOVAf I -V qNk- -1 @UA ocec)(\-
CkA - nD QU ",U, 0 9 U &V, kA- C W w-,C)
T -6ue@ IJOIA ACA moij e ople, 0/hA 0 WIQ@501ADY-L)
-T@J CA

0.
oil) mi
TO

Real Estate Sales. Appraisals & Properly Management * Member Wilmington Board of Realtors
03 Multiple Lisling Service w North Carolina Association of ReAton
REALTOR*

745 Masonboro Sound Road
Grown Point Marine XXXXXXXXX Wilmington, N.C. 28403 Telephone (919) 791-4056

August 28, 1984

Chief of the Sanctuary Programs Division
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
NOS/NOAA
3300 Whitehaven St. N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20235

Gentlepersons:

As owners of property on which we live just west of Masonboro Island
on the Intracoastal Waterway we are very interested in saving the Island
area from any development and for an estuarine sanctuary.

However,this is not the only reason for our interest:
It is a wonderful nursery area for fish and shellfish. We have ob-
served the disappearance of many of our nursery areas over the last 5.3.1 comments noted; no response necessary.
5.3.1 60 years and would hate to see any more lost to development.,
The area furnishes a natural laboratory and a living classroom for
for the faculty and students of the University of North Carolina at
Wilmington and is used constantly by then.

There are many more reasons I could mention and I feel sure you have
heard them a1l.

Please consider your decision very carefully. Once developed there is no
going back.

Sincerely,

(Mr. and Mrs. Emerson Willard)

GLASGO. MPANY DVPend5?fije Insurance

August 30, 1984

Chief of the Sanctuary Programs Division
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
NOS/NOAA
3300 Whitehaven St., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 2023S

Re: Masonboro Island
New Hanover County, N.C.
Dear Sir: 5.4.1 Coinments noted; no response necessary.

Please add my name to the list of people who would like to
have Masonboro Island remain at it's present state and in that
connection I would support the application of the North Carolina
Office of Coastal Management for the federal grant to enable them
to purchase portions of the island to insure that it does remain
as it is.

I am quite sure that you are aware of all of the enviromental
concerns in connection with this island and all of the studies that
have been conducted can obviously providemuch better reasons for
it remaining as it is than I could. However, as a life long resident
of this area, I do want to emphasize that I believe that the enviro-
mental concerns far outweigh the economic ones involved with development
of the property and that the public trust can best be served by
preserving this area of undeveloped seashore.

Sincere y yours
5.4.1

John R. Hicks

JRH/mmp
@John

WILLIAM H WEINEL. JR.. M.D.,F.A.C.O.G. GLEN MEADE OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY. P.A.
JOHN W. ORMAND. JR.. M.D.. F.A.C.O.G.
ANDREW A. CRACKER. M.D.. F.A.C.O.G. 1809 GLEN MEADE ROAD
DAVID P. MASON. M.D.. F.A.C.O.G. WILMINGTON. N.C 28403
CLARENCE L. WILSON. #. M.D.. F.A.C.O.G. PHONE 763-9833

August 30, 1984

Chief of the Sanctuary Programs Division
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
NOS/NOAA
3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20235

Dear Sirs:

I am writing in strong support for the maintenance of Masnboro Island off
the coast of Wilmington, North Carolina as an estuarian sanctuary. Masonboro Island,
one of a few remaining unspoiled beach and marshland islands, is in my opinion
invaluable to our coastal environment and to the education of our children. This area
which is easily accessible to local citizens and tourists contains countless species
of fish, crustaceans, and shellfish in addition to being an important nesting site
for multiple species of birds. Visits to Masonboro Island have been invaluable to
my children leading to a growing appreciation of the multiple aspects of our environment.

I again urge you to strongly consider the North Carolina Office of Coastal
Management's application for federal grant to establish this island as an estuarian
sanctuary.

5.5.1 5.5.1 Comments noted; no response necessary

Sincerely yours,

David Y. Mason, M.D.

DPM/ldm

August 28, 1984

Chief of the Sanctuary Programs Division
Office of Ocean & Coastal Resourse Management
NOS/NOAA
3300 Whitehaven St., NW
Washington, DE 20235

Dear Chicf:

In an effort to lend a hand in helping to preserve the natural beauty
and peace of Hasonboro Island, in Wilmington, North Carolina, I am writing
to you. I am asking as, not only a citizen of New Hanover Couty, but
as a person who frequently takes advantage of the beauty and peace of
@Iasonboro Island. Should this island be sold and developed commercially,
we, in New Hanover County would lose much more than we stand to gain.
Our area is experiencing a boom in resort-condominium developemnt. However,
if we allow the beauty and peacefulness of our coast to be ruined by the
persistence of man and the ever-mighty dollar - we all lose, for we will
look like and have all the problems ofother over-developed resort areas. 5.6.1 Comment noted; no response necessary.
This sort of future for our beautiful coastline is not the kind I would
like to look forward to.

Please take all necessary precautions and steps, NOT to let the coast of
North Carolina look like a condominium factory, with no resemblance to
the natural beauty which brings visitors here from all over the country.

Yours truly,

HAROLD P, KER REALTY/'

Karen Chester

KC,fn

5.6.1

NORTH CAROLINA FILINI UO".

1223 North 23rd Street
Wiliningion. North Carolina 2R405
(919) 343-35(XI

August 29, 1984

Chief of Sanctuary Programs Division
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Mgnt.
3300 Whitehaven Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20235

Dear Sir,

I strongly urge you to approve the North Carolina Office of
Coastal Management application for Masonboro Island, near Wilming-
ton, North Carolina, to become an estuarine sanctuary. It is a
valued and important privilege to be able'to experience such an
unspoiled seashore natural island so close to "civilization" and
to be able to pass this privilege on to our children and their
children.

Having enjoyed the beauty and quiet of Masonboro's dunes and 5.7.1 Comment noted; no response necessary.
beaches myself several times in the past weeks, I can personally
attest to its marvelous qualities that would be totaiy changed and
destroyed by any type of construction or development. In my
opinion, and from what I can see, that of many others also, this
federal grant would be extremely well spent and provide wonderful
long term benefits to the people not only of this area, but also to
the many tourists and visitors who come here.

Thank you foryour kind attention.

Sincerely,
Irank Capra J.r.

FCJ/jg

Edabddwd INT
Me"imn N*W V4Clfk Mock ExclWIM
Fir5l Unjoe Seek Building - 919-763-1693
Pad Office Box 360
EVAN D. WAM JR. "w& CArubm 2MI

barb

5.8.1 Comment noted; no response necessary.

L&- &J
k.A J
/%OIL Ar
Ij

we
C. C C.-C (I

5.8.1

COMMENT AND RESPONSES

6. PROPERTY OWNERS

:143

Chief. Sanctuary Programs Division August 14, 1984
National Ocean Service/ NOAA
3300 Whitehaven St, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20235

From: James D. Coggin (heir Carl L. Fales, Sr.)
2095 Mayflower Drivf@
Woodbridge, Virginia 22192

RE: DEIS Masonboro Island Component: N.C. Estuarine Sanctuary

6.1.1 The purpose of the Draft and Final
Your DEIS is not complete in that it does not show in its entirety the meets Environmental Impact Statments (EIS) is
to provide environmental information to
6.1.1 and bounds of ownership as granted and willed to tne heirs and assigns as public officials and citizens before a
proposed action is taken which may have
listed. an affect on the quality of the human
environment. An EIS is a detailed written
report describing the proposed action,
the need for the action the affected
As an owner of a portion of the described property I wish and will that it re- environment, alternatives considered,
the environmental consequences of the
proposed action and any other reasonable
main as It is with the present owners. alternatives to the proposed action(s).
6.1.2 We, the Coggin heirs, do not WAkto sell, give, bequeath, grapt or otherwise dis- An EIS will not normally detail the metes
and bounds of ownership. An EIS is a
document developed to assist in the
pose of the property in our ownership as an heir of Carl L. Fales, Sr. it was decision wether to proceed or not pro-
ceed with the proposed action. However,
willed to us to have and to hold and this we claim. prior to the State of North Carolina's
acquisition of a property interest with
Because your study is Incomplete in that it does not set forth all Of the property the assistance of Federal funding, if
such real property is land, a description
involved, we therefore request that you not pursue further your attempts to ac- of the metes and bounds of ownershi
6.1.3 p
will be necessary for each individual
quire any portion of the mentioned property. area.
Further, your BEIS indicates that your sot&es have used the propertied for 6.1.2 Comment noted.
6.1.4 their purposes for this long without need for acquisition, I cannot under- 6.1.3 Part III of the EIS describes the
affected environment. The proposed
stand why you feel the need to acquire this property for your stated reasons. sanctuary boundary is described both
graphically and in the text. See
additional discussion in the 11.1
above.
_@@erely yours
6.1.4 The purpose and need for the proposed
action are discussed at some length in
mes D. Coggin Part I of this document; particulary
e@@a a D - g
li@
Heir - C&rj1g1L. Fales, Sr. section C. "The Proposed Masonboro
Addition."

Copy sent to:
Dr. Foster
Romm 311
US Department'-of Commerce
Washington, D.C. 20230

J. W. HOLLIS
PO Box 904
LAURINBURG, NC 28352

August 6, 1984

Dr. Nancy Foster
Chief, Sanctuary Programs Division
National Ocean Service/NOAA
3300 Whitehaven Street, MW
Washington, D. C. 20235

Dear Dr. Foster:

I am in favor of adding the Masonboro Island Component to
the North Carolina National Estuarine Sanctuary. 6.2.1 Comment note; no response necessary

Sincerely,

J. W. Hollis

CC: Joyce M. T. Wood
Chief, Ecology and Conservation Division
Room 6111, U. S. Department of Commerce,
Washington, D. C. 20230

6.2.1

August 31, 1984
8413 Rainbow Road 6.3.1 Comments noted; no response necessary.
Vienna. VA 22180 6.3.2 Comment noted; no response necessary.
Dr. Nancy Foster 6.3.3 The public meeting referred to was held
Chief, Sanctuary Programs Division by a local public interest group. This
National Ocean Service/NO&A group invited the staff of the State of
3300 Whitehaven Street, NW North Carolina's Office of Coastal
Washington, DC 20235 Management to discuss the North Carolina
Dear Dr. Foster: National Estuarine Sanctuary and the
State's interest in Masonboro Island.
As heir of Carl L. Fales and legatee of property located on Masonboro This meeting was publicized extensively
Island, I wish to register my strong objection to the primary proposal in the Wilmington news media. The
described in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and Draft reference to this meeting in the Summary
6.3.1 Management Plan as prepared by the U.S. Department of Commerce/NOAA and the and in Part I.C.3. has been clarified.
State of Worth Carolina concerning the inclusion of Masonboro Island in the Because this meeting was not held by
the State of North Carolina, the State
North Carolina Estuarine Sanctuary. did not notify landowners of record of
such an unofficial meeting (see response
Specifically, I do not wish to sell or otherwise divest myself of the to Comment 6.3.11).
property bequeathed to me by my mother, Margaret Fales Coggin, daughter of
Carl L. Fales. Thus, I advocate the '...no action alternative. ..that would 6.3.4 The purpose of the site selection
6.3.2 allow conditions to continue as they are today.' I fail to understand how process was to evaluate which natural
this alternative would "...have an adverse effect on the biological resources areas in North Carolina's extensive
of Masonboro Island.' Preservation of the island in its present state is most estuarine system would best fulfill the
desirable to me. purposes of the National Estuarine
Sanctuary Program -- unimpacted with
I am extremely dissatisfied with the manner in which this action has been extensive marshes, tidal flats and
approached in that I have never been informed of public meetings, etc., as shallows; convenient to research and
described in the DEIS. Specifically, a meeting was held in Wilmington on education centers; etc. For this
6.3.3 October 26, 1983 "where the OCR staff explained the sanctuary program and its preliminary scoping process, experts on
itent to acquire the island.0 ! ask that an explanation be given as to why I estuarine systems and the North Carolina
was never informed of this meeting, and how that circumstance may be avoided coast were consulted. Because of the
in the future. very preliminary nature of the activity,
and that no actions took place at any one
Furthermore, in June of 1980 "Detailed inventories of over 112 important site, no property owners were contacted
natural areas were reviewed and a solicitation of nominations for potential at this time.
6.3.4 sites was sent to over 50 keT parties..." Is not a landowner a key party?
The answer would seem to be yes'; however, at no time was I informed of these 6.3.5 National Estuarine Sanctuary Program
proceedings. regulations (Appendix 1) encourage
continued traditional low-intensity
As you must know, the heirs of Carl L. Fales have never. registered the recreational and interpretive uses
slightest intention of developing this property, nor do I have any -intention of the Sanctuary land and water areas
6.3.5 of doing so in my lifetime. I would very much like to see the island remain if these activities are conducted in a
as it is -- undeveloped and unencumbpred by people. Yet the DEIS states, on manner consistent with the overall
page 3. that "Commercial fishing and shellfishing may also be compatible purpose of the Sanctuary (please see
uses.0 This statement seems to contrast sharply with the purported intent of �921.1 of Appendix 1) . Commercial
the Draft Management Plan. Even more paradoxical is the statement that use of fishing, shellfishing, and hunting are
the island for hunting is "...compatible with the primary sanctuary all traditional uses and, as presently
purposes." Now can the State of North Carolina allow hunting on property conducted and regulated by the the
inhabited by several endangered species? State, have not caused a significant
adverse impact on the Masonboro Island
environment or on the several endangered
species occuring on Masonboro Island.

Dr. Nancy Foster
Page 2

In the preface and again on page 10 of the DEIS, reference is made to the
existing utilization of the site for research and education. To my knowledge,
6.3.6 neither I nor any of the heirs of Carl L. Fales has ever been asked, nor has 6.3.6 Please refer to letters from individuals
there ever been granted, permission to use the site by any other party. I representing academic institutions
would like an explanation of these activities and where they occur to in Appendix 9 of the DEIS -- Research
determine if my property has been used without my permission. Interest in Masonboro Island. The
majority of the research done at
Additionally, I respectfully request answers to the following questions: Masonboro Island has taken place in
the salt marshes and shallow estuarine
What is the name and location of the developer who has "recently waters; both Public Trust areas and
6.3.7 voiced plans of constructing a private club house on the north end of property of the State of North Carolina.
the island"? (page 18) .
6.3.7 Please refer to an article in the
What plans do the State and the oil companies (listed under the Wilmington Morning_Star (May 17, 1984)
heading National Interest Groues on pages 83 and 84) have in regard (see Part II.B.1. page4S).
to acquisition and use of the island? I request information
6.3.8 .regarding specific and detailed plans, as they exist. If there are 6.3.8 The list to which you refer in this
no specific plans, what general interest do these companies have? I comment is of agencies, organizations
find the inclusion of the oil companies in the list of interest and persons receiving copies of the
groups most disturbing -- the profit motive seems obvious. I am also env'lronmental impact statement. The
most eager to learn why the AFL-CIO is interested in the acquistion preparers of this document are not
of the island by the State of North Carolina. aware of any expressions of interest
in this project by either "oil companies"
Now do I become a member of the Masonboro Island Local Advisory or the AFL-CIO.
6.3.9 Committee?
6.3.9 The Masonboro Island Local Advisory
Why did I not automatically receive a copy of the DEIS as soon as it Committee will be established if the
was made available? decision is to establish Masonboro
6.3.10 Island as a national estuarine
Although numerous statements appear throughout the DEIS expressing a sanctuary. If you are interested in
desire for cooperation, I find that in reality the State of North Carolina has participating on the Masonboro Island
not acted in good faith. I have never been informed, as an interested party, Local Advisory Committee, you should
of any meetings or other public discussions concerning Masonboro Island. In indicate your interest to the Director,
fact, it was only through the efforts of another of the heirs of Carl L. North Carolina Department of Natural
Fales, Mrs. Dorothy Houck, that I was even informed of the existence of the Resources and Community Development;
DEIS. Raliegh, North Carolina.
6.3.11
I received a copy of the DEIS less than 30 days before the public hearing, 6.3.10 You were not listed as a property
hardly enough time to fully consider the implications of the plan. I owner on the New Hanover County Tax
therefore feel that the State of North Carolina, in conjunction. with the Rolls from which we acquired our
Department of Commerce, has done its best to obscure its intentions as regards mailing list. For those property
Masonboro Island and has most definitely not made " ... every effort to keep the owners not listed, the availability
land owners of Masonboro Island fully info-rTned on the status of the acqusition of the DEIS was published in the
process.* Federal Register and in the local
Wilmington newspaper. Please also
I am a native of North Carolina, as were both my natural parents, their see response 6.3.11 below.
parents, their parents' parents, etc. I am very proud of my heritage,
6.3.12 particularly that of my ancestors who settled in and around the
Wilmington/Masonboro Sound area several centuries ago. I am loath to see a
family legacy unfairly usurped by the government for purposes which seem to be
admirable, but which are most obviously tainted by profit-induced motives. I
am more than willing to discuss viable alternatives, but must insist upon
retaining full ownership of the property that is legally and rightfully mine.

Dr. Nancy Foster
Page 3

Conservation efforts are laudable. However, the plan described in the 6.3.11 The DEIS was mailed to all landowners
DEIS is not in the best interests of conservation, but is rather a potentially of record. Amy A. Coggin is not listed
6.3.13 profit-making venture for the State of North Carolina. Furthermore, the as a landowner by the New Hanover County
Tax Office. The DEIS and a notice
island has not been accurately represented in the DEIS. of the public hearing were mailed to
I am most heartily in favor of the conservation of Masonboro Island. But. the Carl L. Fales Heirs, at 401 E.
unless and until the questions I have raised are answered to my satisfaction Columbia Street, Falls Church, VA 22046.
6.3.14 and a more realistic assessment of the island's make-up is presented, I will Furthermore, the State Office of Coastal
continue to adamantly oppose its acquistion by the State of North Carolina. Management tried to telephone all
property owners from July 30 to August 2.
1984, to remind them of the public hearing.
Those who could not be reached by phone,
Si erel or for which a phone number was not available,
were sent a letter reminding them of the
public hearing. Now that we know you
are a property owner, your name has
Coggin been added to our mailing list.

6.3.12 Comment noted; no response necessary.
cc: Joyce M. T. Wood 6.3.13 We disagree. The primary goal of
Chief, Ecology and Conservation Division establishing Masonboro Island as the
U.S. Department of Commerce/NGM fourth component of the North Carolina
National Estuarine Sanctuary is the
conservation of Masonboro Island. The
State of North Carolina will not enjoy
any profit from this project, but, as
a result of the State's commitment to
the project, considerable State resources
(funds and manpower) will be devoted to
Sanctuary acquisition, development, and
operation.

6.3.14 Comments noted; no response necessary.
_@Co qi @n@

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

7. Sportfishing Groups

151

August 30, 1994
NOS Maplefleld Dr
Plaltigh, N.C. 27612

Dr. Nancy Foster, Chief
Sanctuary Program Division
National Ocean Service /NOAA
33DO Whitehaven Street, NW
-Washift6tip- D.C-20235-

Dear Dr. Fostert

On behalf of the Raleigh (NC) Saltwater Sportfishing
club, I have been asked to provide comments to your office
concerning the Inclusion of the Masonboro Island Component
In the Worth Carolina National Estuarine Sanctuary. The
Raleigh Club is concerned with programs that serve to main-
tain and improve stocks of all marine species and programs
that protect marine habitat.

We urge the approval of the request of the State of
North Carolina for financial assistance from the Office of
Ocean and Coastal Resource Management in the amount of
$982,900 for the acquisition of the Masonboro Island
Component. The study and preservation of these lands and
waters will serve to increase the understanding of our
estuarine systems and how they impact on marine populations.

One point of concern that is not clearly identifiable
in the draft Envioronmental Impact Statement involves com-
mercial fishing activities. The Raleigh Saltwater Sport-
fishing Club agrees with the policy that allow traditional
commercial activities within the esturine component; however, 7.1.1 We have checked with the North Carolina
We do not feel that areas should be reserved for such activ- Division of Marine Fisheries and there
ities through commercial leases. This point does not appear are no current shellfishing leases
to be specifically addressed in the study, and if allowed within the boundaries of the proposed
would be a point of objection by the organization. Sanctuary. In addition, there is now a
New Hanover County regulatin prohibiting
We commend the State of North Carolina and the National the letting of any new shellfishing
Ocean Service on their efforts to conserve and protect our leases in the county.
marine resources.
Si &ce ely,
1Z J
David L. Tompkins, Jr.
Raleigh Saltwater Sportfishing Club

PART VII

Section C

Comments from private individuals supporting the addition of Masonboro Island
as the fourth component of the North Carolina National Estuarine Sanctuary

.1540

1`4
J

4F,

4t:

.1 cc "tt@At P. Z@l 7-@e@ 'o@_ ?t' -_6-@ A@
I
@%V' jr@ 1. A
%J
ahw@A

@j
v 7&y ----- - ---
LU

UA,
IY C.
4, .0 Me
&PU-4,4rf
.14

e t@ e_,Z -Q@ i t. OLA-t .4

A-S,;-p jCd V.I. 1@ 'ZLA7 'Alt
D',
Ili- 0.@
MA

,A4
j '.4
-u7 -0-10"" Z@mkn
9c'-19 @A/ wd,
T r
`Oft.N." IAI@d Vx 1 701

7ji

U""te

@TA V
-F--J!gA
nm 41,tF no Fts"- r-61-
-AN
li@;. ett4AAt,
vt _q
XA - @7

A&
LIL
-r-A r--- 11-tv

U-A A- Mba@
'g.)

Al a

d.1.11 A19
Ay
a-
CAAD czj@,

76, ILI. Ce-

4 at/

JL
(,Ltd./
,,AY -te'r'. -P 4L
Iri,JAl
1.ZA

erAe-N VeAto

AAAA-

Ar-
IA,4-e,

AIP dAftL

%t J- A@@eA A.Ae IL..:_ g._4. to-to

-ett

.4,'Z.O
;@kttca Lei. ette", @.,4 _PS7-.U.- AA-1
444 tLLV -U-.@d-JA-AJ
AA"7t4 d-&. md;t, .4.
d kp A 90,@,Yo
CA/ e44 to@e,t a
_@ )L-.,
7

1004 S-7
I

(ALI e,,.'
LAIZ 4'3-Z NCO -1,10
74ct@ om rAe AvePAr-E,,a-m 4

for Lt. Gover-nor
P. 0. Box 1984. Mt. Gilead. NC 27306 919/439w6666
`1033 Wade Ave.. Suite `1`16. Poleigh, NC 27605 9191821-0356 SAINT JAMES CHURC
A
WItMINGTON NORTH CA
STATEMENT BY SENATOR BOB JORDAN W,6 I.RIt
Wednesday, August 22, 7PM C- H*- -d 0."-. - ------------
4T it"IV!,
The State of North Carolina has proposed to acquire t POST CA@R
Masonboro island to preserve this important estuarine complex k rs +U Lt'
for research and education. 5 Q 0 -VV 1`1 )Af@ 0', f; 4?. @t,
'TI
\\kVS,40i I
addit The 5,000 acre Masonboro Island will be an important 0ard V@ P0 4tyll I
'un to North Carolina's estuarine sanctuary system. This t . tl
..di.10
ed area will be ideal for future research, education,
ST V C - ry
and pub mud flats, 0 5//N6 A A
lic enjoyment. its extensive salt marshes,
it t "
Is VLAT 75-300 \;J1
shallow creeks, and low dunes present a unique opportunity to \040 ch
better understand how undisturbed coastal systems function.
This improved understanding is critical to our ability to
ly outo-4V411 @
proper manage development in other areas in the state so as
to protect coastal water quality, fisheries, recreation, and Al
important natural resources.

The State. of North Carolina is committed to this program
To date, nearly $2.4 million worth of land for our sanctuary
system has been secured through donations. This is a gignificant
accomplishment. During the 1984 General Assembly session,
through my sponsorship and with the support of many others,
$100,000 was appropriated to be used towards acquisition of
IIA Masonboro island.
The estuarine sanctuary program is a partnership
and serves important natural interests. The federal participation
which has made this program possible should continue with
Masonboro Island. The knowledge we gain here will be nationally
significant and will be of great assistance to federal agencies
and other states.
Ftesearchers at UNC-Wilmington are ready to make immediate use
of this area for research. The public schools, our marine resources
centers, and others are ready to use this area for educational
programs. There are too few undisturbed areas of this quality
left in North Carolina, and we must take immediate action to save
this very important resource.

Therefore, I strongly urge the U.S. Department of Commerce
to expeditiously issue a final impact statement on this proposal
and to give approval quickly tc@this grant request.

Thank you.
0

mrr, John p
M"@
Nor4h 28405
2700-7,
Ch Lrl 0 t t
15,
_@ancturry i;rolram@F Division
'--ca@n
tr- --even -tr- t,
-.C.' @0_-e
235 XLt" J'@J.
at 0-:' z v, "ser-r E@n
th - -10-01'.Ien' th- Tront D@g, _tO,Y 0
Z;Dutll of' "i [email protected],r-1cr
"IC Go ie 04iqZ14
-to Z -,ell an --oriboro
br
'f EC:jac'nt to
lit-, - " j" f A@' T aa - a
0 havE a' ""' thC Public 11.
vo ari,, on Aug "n-,-to I.
Seri Ice in the - 1
'2 - lously the a 'IeFi-ion but
or a felzeral .2p PrOccss by a,]-
orant !!cation tht',,,,,t, Ca
h roji"
Of @398' ?00 for the
-ould ins ' -' -urc;l-e
'Ur cncro@c)
If the e
0.
fo' COEU'1Ercj,1 Lmcnt fo@ @j of
11- -arth nc-,- aware Of rcaso;)S.
t;
Cn 1C G
prescr-.,rz!
',[email protected] to riCtine
Q2_
C i on
'i 01
the Ly@ it

et v-
IL 't

tL_'@ -,,qe. iliaf e4

etV-A

William Holt Trotman

P.O. Box 352
Wrightsville Beach. N.C. 28408
@,z / A'eo A - e,, , e--
August 27, 1984 A'(7 _7sy@3
Atlqils@ :27,
Chief of Sanctuary Programs @/tl
Office of Coastal Management
6C&,,
NOS/NOAR
33,t
3300 Whitehaven St.. N.W.
Washington D.C. eAi5X1JLf@"V' D_.C. _70 23

Dear Sirs: pi
I have been a resident of Wrightsville Beach, N.C. for the 15 jP
past four years. 1. like thousands of others, frequently visit
Masonboro Island and enjoy the unequaled beauty of its natural 5
state. It would indeed be a share to miss a chance to preserve such
a valuable and fast-disappearing resource as our-barrier islands.
The benefits of such preservation far outweigh any financial gains
to be derrived from private development. For the sake of this
and future generations I urge you to provide the funds necessary
ell) to establish flasonboro Island as an estuarine sanctuary.

Sincerely,

William Holt Trotman

2-74 3

PON
rLAMIA'FMM
'CUIANTMILms"Grom. PL cs
*tr Ift Irn. h
Wit., In

AA
6'r
ad-

Arl
bo

Ilk.

V4-
L W. BEEGLE
205 QUAIL RIDGE RD.
Al 0 S /PV0 4.f WILMINGTON, N. t 28403
3 <700 I ap
,@U,z4k@

c
A-6
tJ -,YLI
cL4&

Au"

4013
A.@14 &@Ii. 29403

1710 Fordham Road
Wilmington, NC 28403 aA.-
August 28, 1984

Irk-
Chief, Sanctuary Programs Division
office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
NOS/NQAA
3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20235

Dear Madam or Sir:
1 am writing concerning the move to declare Masonboro Island, off the coa st
of North Carolina, an estuarine sanctuary.
I have lived in Wilmington, NC for 12 years, and have received much enjoyment 7
from the area beaches. We are fortunate in having the opportunity at this
point, of preserving one of our last barrier islands as a natural sanctuary.
North Carolina's barrier islands are almost if not all developed, some of them
privately, thereby not allowing public access. I believe the public must
be assured of access to beaches and natural, undeveloped open spaces on the
beaches must The preserved for this reason. The fact that barriOr islands and
Masonboro Island in particular, are sanctuaries for wildlife and plantlife
should go without saying. The unique ecology of these islands must be
preserved for the people of North Carolina and the United States to enjoy.
I encourage you to approve the grant application for establishing Masonboro
Island as an estuarine sanctuary.

Thank you for your attention to these comments.

Sincerely yours,

Marty Pridgen

/mlp

905 BiUmark Drive
Wilmington, NC 28403
August 28,1984

Chief of the Sanctuary Programs Division
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resources Management
NOSINOAA
3300 Whitehaven Street, NW 609 Hasonboro Sound Road
Washington, DC 20235 Wilmington, North Ca"lina
Dear Sirs: August 279 1994

1 am writing as a concerned citizen with regard to your
department's decision on the fate of Masonboro Island, New Hanover 7he Chief, Sanctuaries Programs Division
County, Wilmington, N.C. Much discussion In the media and on Office of Ocean and Coastal Resources Mgmt.
� personal level Is taking place with regard to the possible loss of 3300 White Raven Street, N W
� very beautiful and ecologically important area of barrier island Washington, D. C. 20235
in North Carolina.
Masonboro Island provides one of the few remaining areas in Re: Kasonboro Island, North Carolina
our county where one can enjoy the unspoiled beauty of nature. It Dear Sirt
is also an important nursery area for fish and shell fish as well as
a home for countless varieties of waterfowl. The inhabitable area Just to Ilya in the area where we can sight the naturalp
cannot be very large and would present certain contamination of
area marsh. undefiled beauty of Kasonboro Island across the intra-
Please give strong consideration to protecting this area as an coastal waterway is to be aware of *an indangered species".
estuarine sanctuary and not allow the island to be spoiled by
development. We strongly approve (with our donations and our tax
Sincerely, dollars) the preservation of this iek1nd as an estuarine

sanctuary and as open land for the continued enjoyment of
R. Michael Mincey a caring public.

Sincerelyp

Jsmes Forger,
Landscape Archit-ect

Dora B. Forger
Romemaker

B. P. m .. er
P..t Offi. B. 722
S.rf City, N.4 C.li.. 28445

Az
Ive
JtL. Ar-
4.Z

'v- -

LIN Oux@(-

(L4A-'

ILI

/ 4-

I'LL, Aw-d 0
dAA
A,

vv4(44

/V 4A.4,4,,@a
<@Z
el /e47 TW-"

Mf
1@4-16
Olt./

Z_X-

ry
10@
g@4

z-z
tetlev Lve. 4'V
4k

e9102--

Alr -b

vt t A

We
-t@ 9ri - -5W
CA3
Wtvt r

-' -Wc
Y

oc-
-61-7 gg.
Ck A, CLI'l I ,

A:a,

D dQ-,E!
C.d.
1,2 likk B.'d
ary KmA Read
Woodmim. Nc 28M

0--L@ D-ae

'k-0 A 9 n /Yl

cd, P -@4,A u

Chief of Sanctuary Programs August 28, 1984
Office of Ocean and Coastal Manageme
NOS/NOAA
August 29, 1984 3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20235

To whom It may concern:
Dr. Nancy Foster. Chief Let's preserve Masonboro Island. 0ne October my husband and I
Sanctuary Programs Division motored over in our little flat botton boat to discover a
National Ocean Service/NOAA flourishment of golden rod in full bloom being visited by thousands
Washington, D. C. 20235 of monareh butterflies literally having a field day - it was a

Dear Dr. Foster: precious and magical sight.
The time is NOW for Masonboro Island to be left alone. Another developed As a resident (taxpayer) of Wilmington, N.C. I have watched the
Island is just another development. But there to only one Hasonboro Is- natural course of shifting sands and ever changing coast, the
land! Island "moves" particularly during winter storms. The part of the
island closest to me as the crow flies is very thin and fragile,
I recently read the following statement by the vice president In charge I have seen the ocean wash into the sound and indeed in will again.
of environmental aspects before Kiawah Island was developed: "Generally Should mankind be allowed to inhabit and "develop" Masonboro Island
the impact on Kiawah's wildlife can be intelligently managed so the in- there will be jetties, bridges, deep water docks and other things
pacts are acceptable and. In many Instances. positive," (Does "positive" to try to protect the houses man builds, thereby destroying natural
possibly mean that the wildlife would actually be better off?) resources and the very opportunity for nature to preserve itself
to naturally recycle Itself. Then when a severe storm comes along
Kiawah was home to the loggerhead turtle. Now, the preservation of Ma- man will holler "disaster" and want relief to rebuild when in
sonboro island Is Its only real chance for survival. fact the real disaster will have to allow man to destroy that
I wholly support the conservation of Masonboro Island for biological which is natural and precious in the first place
research and study and for limited recreation. To quote Jonathan Schell, Now is the time to establish our barrier island as an estuarine
"Every person Is the right person to act and every moment Is the right sanctuary. I beg and implore you to carefully consider agreeing
moment to begin." to a federal grant to allow the N. C. office of Coastal Management
Yours very truly. to preserve the island to buy up the island and keep it as is.

Thank you very much, respectfully submitted,

Julia Vickers Durrance
(Mrs. Alfred Lee Durrance)
226 Hickory Knoll Drive
Wilmington, N.C. 28403
Phone: 919-395-5958
enclosing snapshots taken on Masonboro Island. you may keep them.
description of photos on back of each one.

(Mrs) Vivian K. Bates

507 North Channel Drive
Wriehtsville Beach
North Carolina 28480

Ale,

I't a.-p-

-ve

sr.

Mrs. Stanley WinbornE, Jr.
415 Bradley Creek Point
/,0 Wilmington. North Carolina 2840-3

,t,- c,4 40--

4w
,7S1gff;,t*Z, F"Aft
e get, /otlere.

Old

OL*"7

NEI

e-xJ

/Azax/ /ex@

au@

Ij
(Z4

t@YW UOU AA WUALh m JA jama -
how,
4d"d j,4 Otw V-d"4 Wt. qp k
AtdA@ ok OdA) 1,Lx@ tilt
4oaWon biL A4&na -
krd AM,& Rd.A&t IWAJ a 6L So & /b, oA. o
OT, -fuw@ Jdat-A
im &OL 6 M"t

10 jAe,
&h), upk jb
^MAU onL.
. . %. v
Aix&

%N@ Ot

"Ati" 1A, U .5aAtYUOA
(kL 10 MrJ4l
0-& 'A, LU& U-inck -katlt, O-PO'0613&

6y lal
atil

4uqusl 2s"1919"l, Mr. D.Ij Oki
er
2so B...h R.J N@ith
Wilm;ngton, North .6abli.a t284O5
@1-%A&%CML Wa@ P-atf,%% D1,0S40-1)
C-A\ v 0 1
@O-Sw PT-SblkPLCf- (losiq r PXjtj -T)Psh)@4er,
3 -3 00 n StaT6
1@)s
4 @A b 0 a 3.3
C,7-3-

b,t cl
n rr% Otino. cwl s.11 t@ 46
'L'a@aq%@ *15 h6r SCLIM@ O-S CJ-Vk r-S k(k FL in 43L MITIL CL
SD bkLtL Cc%'cs&-t &%LF-CL
J
IRr-4tt-4r. ho ttMlvp-@ L, rns
e,' C14160MIll 1-1Q14- @i
@Al
Ler-maikLI -c-mm LAV1xv- 4biz.
CL

@1114
0 Ail z-
VI
CL
5

tk
Xv-."A W4 p 4 rl r*k
(VILL s. EL ALF

Z_
Dr- f)
_; , . .-
ti twa -@ Zj

Q lz a U-S r-
CL M@

o74 -?X

/7Z

et lz

e-4

DAM S. HOLLOWAY
Rt. 3 Box 334 AA
Wilmington, NC 28403

August 25, 1984

Chief,Sanctuary Programs Division
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Mgt.
3300 Whitehaven St. NK
Washington, DC 20235
Dear Sir:
I attended the public hearing an Aug. 22 concerning Masonboro Island.
The following comments are submitted in support of making the entire island
and marshes a national estuarine sanctuary.
I grew up in Wilmington and spent many summers sailing and exploring
around the island. I majored in Biology in college. Recently I returned to
Wilmington after 4 years in the Navy. The most prominent change I noticed
was the rapid increase in development, especially on the beaches. This area
is experiencing a development boom. The completion of the I-40 extension to
Wilmington will encourage more people to move here. in the early 1970's
there was an effort to save Bald Head Island (Smith's island)
from development. It is now privately owned. The beaches are a major summer
attraction for residents and tourists. UNC Wilmington and Cape Fear Technical
Institute have strong marine science programs. Therefore I strongly urge
that Masonboro Island be left in its natural state for recreation and
scientific use.
Please forward a copy of the environmental impact statement when they
are available. Thank You.

Sincerely,

David S. Holloway

04S7 c ez-

weak

oav c

all"

h7t. A
SPA
TAcv-,e-lt ST
C4@rv \,3ftro
@LNdb%q

06&..@ um, IIA A,-. AlO&A&AW VdAAA. AdJa @L

V-@4 1

A I

'S-Sckn %A:NNt.)
lac -rpkvv%ts
cy., C(104 c o

C-

A\)j

c @\Al c
" C GJLL- c @Aa

4L
@'j ko 4L e- c

p C,.,e \c s s
pv@ Pry., C.) S
I C OOLSA-. (A Av4e_
4\cJi,tl)
0- r OL (M'3 V) '-p- YN%Qct &-A r\ SALA.
W\V%L pe CNCA'i f C-d" 5-% 6
&-to lry\ 4.Z C 0 Cjv-,j,4ft%x S(e%@
cs sm Am S@ opu A I i -q- \ %,.Cc
se v (e e c -s
V3 c-\s o
-1%,JL C.."i c-t,,,v
S, e

reek iAjj@
@r, 10 J@\V\ ()
jL e-
UJJU4 r WALT 15
US nUATFORD Mm At, wrl
CRAM MUL 14c
21516 1%0 vevi
I support the preservatten of Hasonboro Island Cr\
and urge that it be declared a North Carolina D'\O\c 'jc)
Nature Santuary. 5\r\e-Vq \)e-f )0&-CO,@A5 e-
t
e-f ?eo@\e- w@@\ (@ei
f& k ,I v,10'r-A @@, -),@O
Y\O t \0 e@ atA y ckn@ rAc) ce,
YO\A -e, ct \j e \ @ A@\ e- @N
\/\)O\-,\-\ \,De ck\o\p- -*
@@N e- c@ 0 OLAt *@QJ
@A P1 c"

@5\0

HEMY K HAMSM
1202 ESSEX DIPMJW--- --
WRMNCTON. N. C@ 20404

Mo r*A aro
ccq
Lore WIUC,66 &a@@ C-4c@
a,_ CeS.CAa-f,&, 7 1
co -f ct v@ev
OL G.
If Arc,"
cf

-,eo

CJ 7 0-Ij
ul -VAC9;1@ @
Q +Ice
0-11A

. . . ....... IL M."@

47
\Z57
A,., Jj.@ 08

Al@ -3--L, 113-A

Y
coal-
A.1 33.o o 41
Ada /.4

A"W

Lfi
T zz- -N agi

A,..p oz /,,:
a4l.
XdZ,
IW4&
4i4-

745 @ Afa6m" Jound .0?6d
'rW&.I,i., dVd &w&m 29403 lz-
36f

'33oo

't. 3E@

C-- Mz-

E.C. HICKS, JR.
2404 Confederate Drive
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403

August 31, 1984

Chief of Sanctuary Programs Division
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resources Management
NOS/NOAA
3300 Whitehaven Street, NW
Washington, D. C. 20235

Dear Sir:

We understand a decision will soon be reached as to whether Masonboro Island,
an extremely valuable barrier Island just off the coast of New Hanover County, N. C.,
III be sold to developers or be given a federal grant of $982,000 and perpetually
preserved as an estuarine sanctuary.
When I was younger there were any number of places on adjacent Wrightsville
Beach, Shell Island and other areas up an down the coast where I could take my fam-
ily for a day's fishing, picnicing, shell hunting and general enjoyment of sand, sea
and sun. But with the recent proliferation of motels, condominiums, etc., they are
becoming few and far between. Certainly, none remains that anywhere nearly equals
Hasonboro Island, and even those are fast disappearing. I shrudder to think that my
children, their children and their grandchildren may be totally deprived of this
privilege.

The cost of preserving this valuable asset is peanuts when compared with the
18 billion dollars which, under H.R. 3678, the House of Representatives has just
voted for water development and recreation in practically every, if not in every,
State in the Union, many of them merely pork barrell boondoggles. It is peanuts beside the hundreds of millions which North Florida congressman would have the gov-
ernment spend to build and maintain Lake Oklawaha and accompanying recreation facili-
ties, very near which there Is already a plethera of equally good, or better, fish-
ing spots. And there would be absolutely no cost of maintenance of Masonboro Island.

Mrs. Hicks and I urgently implore you to exert your every effort to preserve
this area as an estuarine sanctuary. With many thanks
Sincerely,

A4W41- A,.t

@, Z-e
we
.od4c.- OL
ay,e@ow

x6 2,j a-
AAf4@ ,4eeo,.,g ax, _,3e@o'

Idea
'A -1 "' ,
dzsite " e,- liofe@
0(&L

Auz--@@ A-le-
7,66
,lAe

ilk

A 025 1-,A@

Zko
A44

IG- vle-

-,tv 4vc4u,

JAMES A. PRICE
1723 AZALEA DRIVE
WILAIIKGTON. N.c
28401
N

14 A
iWal
)V6S
3
6
30 4 ir 4w,
04440
Ac-40
;t3

"a ;tw Ali&

ZA -tlk@ U4
Y4hzfv gii a 2ftY
Al"
too, Z"y

S/Awroo 14100A D

S A IC At 4'V X: 9 rAV 9 iAl
s,#,v 7"o #s y os /;4,.t 5 ust c You leVA 1.1/,
7W; S 9 0 A.-,C 0

9 OVAf VJ 7=Vdt IdIA -5 I-h'C
r*v.C7W*-C7WIC PVXj1C- A.-rVj*.S

C a U 0 Y
A. c. -opt r*4
A *Cr Af JZWI'f
S *fAn:btt Odit.
.Af hi&*,# S#Wr-o f
r ZA y
x rry /..c 194 y
,Fdrgwl<4rg4y
"s /- r z4r .
ro-0tv faI4414"i
0

6255 Me HA N.
F. 11
Wih.i.gt., N..A Ch. 28403 ..". 11, Drive
VII.I.OtmNINt MM

sq-c,@

/Vc.
C7@ -

_ZF

Dka@-f--j IL Al.W.

art)

Ia. -144e7- 1710-@
mu,

P st u
7)-A o

-ao

AA ePjlAd- A, I-

-10

/f Y

021 M^soNSORo SOUND ROAD Ul-
WILMINGTON
NORTH CAROLINA 28403
/04-
;:r
ef P,7-,a ov^ of

eA- 1cm
11011

yy-lc-yn
A
IL-2v

NG4@

@j C-

Oce,," @Cwlle'l
JOAA
3300 AJtJ
wa'@L" bc

cff mp,-,.A 'Ir
4011.t IRI 6
'S t&@- ='or- AJ C-

5;4.
we- 0-'It'- cft,.-t @vu A-@- 's Ne,-ts

-g' "out-i" -j: d;"@

7L-

ZI-I ""7 le
tG7 +c' F`

300

C-.
c /V, 744
(0) 1) 9 6 > - 10,
3 1, flgq -V4

Li's D- 0 X-S 5

P/f es.4

7 .4

A41t

r4 4 11"
F'/ ir&d MIL "i--@
c., j, L/.,,,
itt,lipfhe-@P -

7 Iyd$

!4-f

CL- @3 LI V Lf

0 mtro-t
ioi J"
Willi.. W. 3701
W,ight.Al. B...h, N" G...Ii.. 28480
'D C. ABM":

Dbl a, a-
(q WLC-
IA4
/X-O
Y-\ a;tz--,x o-X 41-
4-AJ CL@

IV'LA^

Memo

a CA,W Vic TkLAf.40:j bt,
AA Q-uj

Der,- X,@:

VtA
J@o' 06- 4ost- o,,O AIA@ 4#,-I'A" I

AIW 0- [email protected] *@F" I.-. -cs- IOWA 1

.RAF3fX&lAF

klW.Zr- @- KdA4W-.
A -@Il

Po q"-LC4
tL, Ok W@,4

sle,

JOSEPH W. WHITTED
741 nASONBORO SOUND ROAD
WILMINGTON, NC 28403

August 30.-1984 306 Lawrence Apts.
Princeton, NJ 08540
August 30, 1984
Office of ocean and Coastal Resource Management Chief of the Sanctuary Programs Division
3300 Whitelmven .1treet, NW Office of ocean and Coastal Resource Management
Washington. DC 2,)235 NOS/NOAA -
3300 Whitehaven Street N.W.
Dear Sir- Washington, D.C. 20235
.,It to my understanding that Masonboro Island Is being con- RE: MASONBORO ISLANDt NORTH CAROLINA
sidered as an addition to the North Carolina National: Estuarine
Sanctuary probram. Dear Sir:
From time to time for the past sixty years I have had As a native of New Hanover County, North Carolina, who,
the pleasure of visiting this delightful Island and enjoying although not currently a resident, visits there regularly, I am
Its beauty and solitude and serenity. Without going Into Its writing to urge you to establish Masonboro Island as an estuarine
ecological value, which you can determine much better than I. sanctuary.
I would like to speak on behalf of the future generations
whose Idea of a beach, unless definite measures are taken. I see this as a perfect opp;ortunity to preserve a little bit
probably will be a place of wall-to-wall condominimums of nature in the face of helter-skelter development. As you
and beer joint-lined boardwalks smell Ing of hotdogs and doubtless know, the island (along with the marshes behind it) is
sun-tan lotion. a wildlife wonderland - a haven for shore birds of all descrip-
tions, shellfish of all descriptions (unlike the marshes behind
I sincerely request that you preserve this natural In- nearby Wrightsville Beach), and other fish and sea creatures. It
heritance so that our descendents, both yours and mine. can is relatively unspoiled, even though it is easily accessible by
enjoy It In perpetuity and know what our coast was like when small boats and larger ones. As such, it is a perfect candidate
the earliest explorers and settlers first arrived. for preservation for use by all the people, instead of the wealthy
few, with minimum impact on UFe wildlife and unspoiled quality.
Eincerely. Furthermore, the waterways all around the island, and the two
inlets on either end of it, are already so crowded during the sum-
mer that it is hard to imagine them with the significant increase
in sheer number of boats which can be anticipated if major develop-
ment should occur on the island. There is plenty of waterfront
property - oceanfront and otherwise - under development within
a few miles of Masonboro Island. Must we develop every inch of
our seaboard for t@p benefit of the wealthy at the expense of the
less fortunate and"hature itself?
I urge you to approve the establishment of Masonboro island
as an estuarine sanctuary - for the benefit and preservation of
the creatures which live there and for the enjoyment of all who
love and appreciate them and their unspoiled habitat.

Thank you for your attention.

Cordiallyt

Richard B. Gwathmey,
W
5. GwTatey,

8/27/84
P.O. BOX 964
Carolina Beach, N.C.
28428

Chief of the Sanctuary Programs Division
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
NOS/NOAA
3300 Whitehaven St. N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20235

Dear Chief of Sanctuaries:

We, the following residents of New Hanover County, N.C., strongly urge that you
establish Masonboro Island as a protected sanctuary. We urge you to protect the
whole island; we feel this is pareferable to protecting only parts. We feel that
"development" of the island would not only be unsafe, but it would limit use of the
island to a very few people. If the island is established as an estuarine sanctuary
it could continie to be used by the public for purposes such as fishing, hiking
beachcombing, birdwatching, nature field trips, clamming, crabbing, etc. It will
also continue to serve as a hatchery for our valuable fisheries on the East coast.
UNC-W proffessors and students cancontinue to use it for marine research, as well.
PLEASE help us to protect Masonboro Island!

Peter K. Meyer - Carolina Beach, NC
Catherine E Meyer - " " "
Hilda J Aldridge - New Hanover County
Donald B Aldridge - " " "
202
Robert R. Arualley Masonboro Social Rd. New Hanover Co.
Mary Lambert City of Wilmington
Linda Hiller Weightsville Beach
James R. Dineen, MD New Hanover County
Flora B. Bass, New Hanover Co.
Debra H. Pearce New Hanover County
Thomas L Pearce New Hanover County
Dianne Chestnut " " "
Do Hei Lee - Wilmington, N.C.
Diane Lee " "
-1-

8/27/84
P.O. BOX 964
Carolina Beach, N.C.
28428

Chief of the Sanctuary Programs Division
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
NOS/NOAA
3300 Whitehaven St. N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20235

Dear Chief of Sanctuaries:

Sharla J. Fenchel - New Hanover County
Ellen P. Mullinif " " "
Virginia Kendall " " "
May Ellen Lewis " " "
Ann S. Manning " " "
Marie Stephens
Brenda Lanier " " "
Faye Mulliten " " "
Jerrie Long " " "
Bernodette Edison
Roberta Thompson " " "
Sandra Brown " " "
Pat Howard " " "
Jane White " " "
Mary Ellen Pyland " " "
Debbie Ann Saw " " "
-2- (OVER)

8/27/84
P.O. BOX 964
Carolina Beach, N.C.
28428
16

Chief of the Sanctuary Programs Division
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
NOS/NOAA
3300 Whitehaven St. N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20235

Dear Chief of Sanctuaries:

203

8/27/84
P.O. BOX 964
Carolina Beach, N.C.
28428

Chief of the Sanctuary Programs Division
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
NOS/NOAA
3300 Whitehaven St. N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20235

Dear Chief of Sanctuaries:

8/27/84
P.O. BOX 964
Carolina Beach, N.C.
28428

Chief of the Sanctuary Programs Division Chief of the Sanctuary Programs Division
Office of ocean and Coastal Resource Management Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
NOS/NOAA NOS/NOA
3300 Whitehaven St. N.W. 3300 Whitehaven St. N.W.
Washington, D.C. Washington. D.C.
20235 20235

Dear Chief of Sanctuaries: Dear Chief of Sanctuaries:

We, the following residents of New Hanover County, N.C., strongly urge that you We, the following residents of New Hanover County, N.C., strongly urge that you
establish Masonboro Island as a protected sanctuary. We urge you to protect the establish Masonboro Island as a protected sanctuary. We urge you to protect the
whole island; we feel this is preferable to protecting only parts. We feel that whole island; we feel this is preferable to protecting only parts. We feel that
"development" of the Island would not only be unsafe, but it would limit use of the "development" of the Island would not only be unsafe, but it would limit use of the
Island to a very few people. If the Island is established as an estuarine sanctuary Island to a very few people. If the Island is established as an estuarine sanctuary
it could continue to be used by the public for. purposes such as fishing, hiking, it could continue to be used by the public for. purposes such as fishing, hiking,
beachcombing, birdwatching, nature field trips, clamming, crabbing. etc. It will beachcombing, birdwatching, nature field trips, clamming, crabbing. etc. It will
also continue to serve as a hatchery for our valuable fisheries on the East coast. also continue to serve as a hatchery for our valuable fisheries on the East coast.
UNC-W professors and students can continue to use it for marine research, as well. UNC-W professors and students can continue to use it for marine research, as well.
PLEASE help us to protect Masonboro Island! PLEASE help us to protect Masonboro Island!

8/27/84 8/27/84
P.O. BOX 964 P.O. Box 964
Carolina Beach, N.C. Carolina Beach, N.C.
28428 26428

Chief of the Secretary Programs Division Chief of the Sanctuary Programs Division
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resources Management Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
NOS/NOAA NOS/NOAA
3300 Whitehaven St. N.W. 3300 Whitehaven St. N.W.
Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C.
20235 20235

Dear Chief of Sanctuaries: Dear Chief of Sanctuaries:

We, the following residents of New Hanover County, N.C., strongly urge that you We, the following residents of New Hanover County, N.C., strongly urge that you
establish Masonboro Island as a potected sanctuary. We urge you to protect the establish Mansonboro Island as a protected sanctuary. We urge you to protect the
whole island; we feel this is preferable to protecting only parts. We feel that whole island; we feel this is preferable to protecting only parts. We feel that
"development" of the island would not only be unsafe, but it would limit use of the "development" of the island would not only be unsafe, but it would limit use of the
island to a very few people. If the island is established as an estuarine sanctuary, island to very few people. If the island is established as an estuarine sanctuary,
it could continue to be used by the public for purposes such as fishing, hiking, it could continue to be used by the public for purposes such as fishing, hiking,
beachcombin, birdwatching, nature field trips, clamming, crabbing, etc. It will beachcombing, birdwatching, nature field trips, clamming, crabbing, etc. It will
also continue to serve as a hatchery for our valuable fisheries on the East coast. also continue to serve as a hatchery for our valuable fisheries on the East coast.
UNC-W professors and students can continue to use it for marine research, as well. UNC-W professors and students can continue to use it for marine research, as well.
PLEASE help us to protect Masonboro Island! PLEASE help us to protect Masonboro Island!

8/27/84
P.O. BOX 964
Carolina Beach, N.C.
28428

Chief of the Sanctuary Programs Division Chief of the Sanctuary Programs Division
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
NOS/NOAA NOS/NOAA
3300 Whitehaven St. N.W. 3300 Whitehaven St. N.W.
Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C.
20235 20235

Dear Chief of Sanctuaries: Dear Chief of Sanctuaries:

We, the following residents of New Hanover County, N.C., strongly urge that you We, the following residents of New Hanover County, N.C., strongly urge that you
establish Masonboro Island as a protected sanctuary. We urge you to protect the establish Masonboro Island as a protected sanctuary. We urge you to protect the
whole Island; we feel this Is preferable to protecting only parts. We feel that whole Island; we feel this Is preferable to protecting only parts. We feel that
"development" of the Island would not only be unsafe, but It would limit use of the "development" of the island would not only be unsafe, but it would limit use of the
island to a very few people. If the Island Is established an an estuarine sanctuary, Island to a very few people. If the island is established as an estuarine sanctuary
it could continue to be used by the public for purposes such as fishing, hiking, It could continue to be used by the public for purposes such as fishing, hiking
beachcombing, birdwatching, nature field trips, clamming, crabbing, etc. It will beachcombing, birdwatching, nature field trips, clamming, crabbing, etc. It will
also continue to serve as a hatchery for our valuable fisheries on the East coast. also continue to serve as a hatchery for our valuable fisheries on the East coast.
UNC-W professors and students can continue to use It for marine research, as well. UNC-W professors and students can continue to use it for marine research, as well.
PLEASE help us to protect Mansonboro Island! PLEASE help us to protect Masonboro Island!

Signed:

626 Pine Valley Dr. 919-791-4877 141 Trails End Rd
Wilmington, N.C. 28403 Wilm, N.C. 28403

P.O. Box 921 919-791-1893 P.O. 1164
Wrightsville Beach, N.C. 28480 St. Dines, N.C.

609 Trails End Rd. 609 Trails End
Wilm, N.C. 28403 Wilm, N.C.

609 Trails End Rd.
Wilm, N.C. 28403

f5w I I (. I -A@ c ---
@vj-- e,,,@ @

lvosliv@w-4
.3300 .06t,4@ IV
2oz.W

;6C

;e, "ell
llu@ -@% @- f
@4
A;p @, a7l,;,. Vow,
Lj- I/,--,

otiz A-@&
U/vc - Ace,@

August 28, 1984
8/29/84
Chief of Sanctuary Programs Division Dear Sir#
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management Sm opposed to any development of Masonboro
Washington, D.C. 20235 Island and Urge you to prevent that happening.
Dear Sir: Very truly yoWs,
I would like to take this opportunity to tell you the pleasure my family ?N - @6@- 11@11@z
experiences when we are able to go to Masonboro Island in Wilmington, N.C. Mrs. . Josie M
We have a boat and go over there every weekend to fish and swim and walk ontg
y

over the dunes and look for shells. We love to see the sea gulls that
live there and have had many a fun-filled weekend there.

Wrightsville Beach is so developed that local people cannot get on the
beach except for a few "public access" walkways and we cannot find parking
places any where near these areas.

My son is in a Boy Scout troop that has a Father-Son campout twice yearly
on Masonboro Island and this affords the fathers time away from the other
world %eitb their sons for fellowship, fun and fishing and cooking, etc.

Please take into consideration these facts as you make your decision as
to the future of Hasonboro Island. This Is a beautiful Island and should
be preserved for the future residents of Worth Carolina as there are so
few places left that don't have Condos on them.

Sincerely,
Q

Phyllis S. Powell
109 Seminole Trail
Wilmington, N.C. 28403

August 30, 1984
Wilmington, N. C.
August 30, 1984 Dear Sirs,
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Managnment I am writing in favor of the
NOS/NOAA federal grant to establish Masonboro
3300 Whitehaven St. N.W. Island as an estuarine sanctuary. My
Washington, D.C. 20235 family and I spend many wonderful
weekends there and enjoy the unspoiled
Sirs: beauty of nature at its best. We hope
that we can keep that island as is for
My husband and I would like to be counted amoung those for the generations to come.
preservation of Masonboro Island. Sincerely,

As residents of the Masonboro Bound area and members of the
"Quality of Life Alliance", we worked with that organization 2302 Knightsbridge Rd.
to change soning laws, and limit growth in the fragile sound areas. Wilmington, N.C. 28403
We voted for the bond Issue to finance the laying of sewer lines
throughout the county. We live across the street from "Whiskey Creek"
and are very much aware of the problem of pollution from septic run off in
the creeks and stream that empty Into the sound.

The preservation of some of these small islands is the only
way we are going to save mush of the marine life that is to
this area.

Please consider seriously the preservation of this island.

Yours Truly.

225 Sierra Drive
Harbour Villa
Wilmington, N.C. 28403

James A. Ferger
Ferger Landscape Co.
4521 Middlesex Rd. August 31,1984 August 31, 1984

Chief, Sanctuary Programs Division Chief of the Sanctuary Programs Division
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Man Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management RE: MASONBORO ISLAND, N CAROLINA
NOS/NOAA, 3300 Whitehaven St., NW NOS/NOAA, 3300 Whitehaven St, N.W.
Washington, DC 20235 Washington, D. C. 20235

RE: MASONBORO ISLAND Sirs:

Dear Chief; I am writing in opposition to the proposal that Masonboro Island
be considered for private development.
Resource management agencies in all departments, I would assume,. are following administrative policies of
in the Cape Fear region will benefit enormously from the establish- Like millions of other Americans. I be
ment of Masonboro as an island sanctuary.It is in the category of in the past decade about the need for qc
a long-term economic resource with immediate impact! resources, and my appreciation for qaqnvi
Please let me know by phone immediately if sanctuary status siderably deepened and broadened. That
becomes unlikely. In addition, if time permit please reply'-by mail been sufficient to change my mind about writing you, but I must
concerning criteria and information affecting your decision. confess that MASONBORO ISLAND is enough in itself to keep as it is.
Special interests pose a real threat without your help!
Sincerely,

We have a very small day sailor which
waterway on Masonboro Sound. our destination on each sail is
James A. Ferger MASONBORO ISLAND or Masonboro Reach, as we call it. I have
0q7ver been there without feeling that the
natural resource ---- which our country can not afford to loose.
Between two over developed islands, Wrightsville and Carolina Beaches,
we need to preserve one of the few uninhabited barrier isalnds for
future generations to enjoy in its pristine beauty.

Last summer I delighted in seeing several Seaturtle tracks leading
up to the high ground on Masonboro for egg depositing, I remember
my father telling me as a child that he too boat to Masonboro
at night and actually see the turtles emerge from the sea, I would
hope my children and grandchildren will also have this experience of
a lifetime ..... only if MASONBORO ISLAND is enough in itself to keep as it.
STATE.

Please help North Carolina preserve this treasure through the federal
grant to establish the island as an estuarine sanctuary. The committment
of the N. C. General Assembly with $100,ooo demonstrates that the people
of North Carolina feel that it is of upmost importance.

Your truly,

Gillie S Revelle (Mrs. Riddick Revelle)
2858 Skye Drive, Fayetteville, N.C> 28303

BRIAN J. LEWIS, P.E.
336 West Renovah Circle
Wilmington, N.C. 28403

(919) S43-6812

Aug. 30 1964

x:t@

Dear Sirs,
I went to urge you to grant North Carolisia the money necessary
to establish Masonboro Island a an estuarine sanctuary. It is so
important to keep these dlicat: seashore wilderness areas from the
hands of developers. Please help us save Masonboro Island.

Sincerely#
Brian Jflewis

w/// A' eAftxtL4@@
AAck AIC,

"0.11

7t@ ILL kol@@ W/6u
"W20

Maw
0
'414boy
A,,,,@dj VIP-
"Ya @,
i@@ @A
- It

IILIL@ (JIjI- 41L@U)

VORQMIA P. CGHWTT qw mad)
P6 OL -fth@ been
V a0f
VAaJ vd:h
Vn ofnd o'
Lw d 6
101.
b4 Mi dddAm arO
&'Vir hopw 411to
0,0 cWd 0 a
bik ba@ J:
"d
kach iovwa * Jai qLA,
NO -,,AabiM; A6 MOO
d +w
lid
I

e-
9M
om lov C&
MCA
t.@ orn Onyh

.UQA ao
4-
yjftd
hw WICL e-oclat
PI'M
i6 blq. m4
Ahw Mij qhcj
4Wq
dia@w

Aug. 30, 1984
Chief of the Sanctuary Programs Division
Office of Ocean & Coastal Resource Management
NOS/NOAA
3300 Whitehaven St. N.W.
Washington, D.C. 26235

Dear Sir:

Allow me to join the chorus of voices asking that Masonboro Islands
off the North Carolina coast near Wilmington, be declared an estuarine
sanctuary.
With so much development - truly overdevelopment - going on; it is a
fantasy to see a real ocean beach. More-and-more, the prime natural
and ocean settings are available to those with money, The average
citizen sees himself "walled-out" from the ocean by row upon row of
condominium or related construction. Many, many times areas that have
been open to public access are no longer such.

It is the last real natural beach left in this region of any size and
yet is available for visits by many people as this is a density of
Population here.
As with all beautiful spots, there is pressure for development (and
profits). However, the tangle of ownership (including county, state

and federal) and narrow and limited building space is even more
evidence this beautiful spot should be left so -- for future generations,
If Masonboro Island is not preserved it will never be able to be
duplicated.
Have you ever visited ??? I have for years -- would be glad to
host you around there some time.
Thanks for listening.

John Randt
33 Pelican Point Rd.
Wilmington, N.C. 28403
919 763-0979

Scott Randt, Age 12.

DAVID BINNEY PUTNAM JR.
W ItAONOUA DRria WUNINGTON. N. C- ma %LLf
HIMRIC iALD HEAD WLAND UGHIH
north Comm"
M-bvt-ch-
rwv.,4
OVIr
lbad to

m p
er@
OW aAhi.
POST CARD
t"Ww I. a
diel 04 Dart 'ka
46 ft-
0u,07 ae&d 0-
40
JJ
Ali Lj)
11-VI

Sao
'Ion
Je
ismt.V LIM LA 6-. MA
L 02MAW

Lcu-- +@10(ge-lzs
26)( It a

/GVC
A
COUAYt7A&S__.@ 4-h pffil-l-a 4i_;9e PLJ__V_L@:77.

,R/ 6F-
7VzroP_.4S 727_@s----

LAS_ Opro

O@F_ 7Z)
10
ZS77-10- 67-@
Pv@

%+4ek)

2(2@ WCF-&&-WRZ@67@rO (_toQ19_;Lk__, 'Zl:s, -rlttA.6,H- TAOS
FOR- Al

.EO@79@. -702

YGPP-,S
-MG- (5k-79-T CRIET-- /A) WA-<,4;Ar-y7V-A) @),i
WOR LO . . . . . . . . . .
BU Y ou k 44A).1b, -7;qC- 6ACF?9-rOA@F-P
:fsc-v2:)s as uzpbs OF Tp, D-
igiv Z> 6onb w) LL, -rm@ 014 lb
O-T- kll@wl S/XtE- oc- eAj-lw
,@-i7-rl-Lc AtFC-?@) 6T OUko
j@t-@RM. RU7- UC-- U)I'LL Cdk)S/'bG-P YWR
OT::P&p -:Fo-k Loc- k-kl-,W ;:F-7 U,@F- z)o

1. 7-b
M, C'4.-,V CNVA)T AS
05E>Gab '9@-
C@UR Lkwl@ @- @3&wnkE C19AJ da-ilo -/Oij
/@s 7:@qll7IC4-@!S
)7) L) atebs
'b onll@JD 1,91ULD
C",
@Vo

7-1
-70
0 -7A @@-Pp L)Es IQA)
lvcvi- @11A t---c5
7
S q Ok 2, 0 7 = 7; 3/,@ f- WA? C- 70,' #77 1-9kL7.
WLL Z)f--XU1Z' -7-/AS
Ilao CAI) 7/-RW 0@-.
C
AJ el-@e-rH om-b

I -rj ro4los
2u T- PE P, 14"L9 f-@s -T- --s

,SC
7@7-

MON
AE7A 0

cwc
I-B s - F- Tf;)C-n -F.
UAJI@
-P
C.LA C)IQZ-Y SE C-O^\S TO
-00n -T-
L X- Z@o Poo -INZ)C-P- 19A)
r 9? es.
7 /C
MY 07 -

.:@VY077

i 14ROK)
-4G @Sfr,&LLL
boy! t+ F LA)C-- I< i LL- (:DP,@LY 7 STOY
W140T- @,S Ml-V13 W\-rH0-(-F
-TH C- /91R. J,5 I CkA -To
, . 1@ @ P =--F- P

7/ <@F
@--)-F- -:FCR

107 �R

@@I)Ay @6'1@scoue@ OUR! G501)
&C -ST 44:@So@@- -)Y
YO-A M
1
-r VO-A OC,()A,) 141'YV@
4,4
Rs y
S
U,)I-,4 -TO aL)Q CXA---@ LANIL%
CA cbu CA "(\@o (f
(S;O:D (@@F MA@A) n141 S C@cm-
kp@
\
pr@j @)f\jt)
WAR lop
-T@4EV
Pr,
E7S ON ITS1,7
TO ife4p--
---A Ya wp'-TE- -Tl@tz
-Ft4 z:-SWEE -00 TT4c--
-To.
-uJVAE--@@E LOC-
IOCT-
UR 1@f)") - T- *AT-AYcN,47-E- YCIAR 31C-b')
N 1-@- ON)C-- 0T- :S CA
YOCI( Lk,
MPOY G T-L-W )T\ORE 77--(-kJ - I-M
/!@o 'i / 0 q(-l k I;-" (Dr-OtJ @GYIVSTC-@' WOE
BcATFPLO P4Z-
C@ 3 - - ' t
A 14 @ -1 C- - UJ
-7;?-//-) 7- OA)CC-- z'@@ CAJ 77,@L, 19Z-1- 7WMEb)
12 -As
71&7@91,ly
rf\fA L LP-iP)QDS
k
_67
w7-R@FU L 1qs
-7
\gt . 1, 7t--:) !-@W C
p k@@w I
c)ME FP1 - -- -) --
-(0/ 1", 7
d.(A 7-T-0I

w1fic14

V.6

Y@v
T4
LA)C-- 1,-N( LOM4T /7 WAS 7,1-@7
AIL.
W1
/q@S
Z)Oa--_7lJ O@J LOA)& '4
@G-1-4 7--S
-7

@77-1,@IIC-@ tV -wi, /@@7'Av w
2 ve, @@4
S't'.
0 G_ .4 An
Wj _,--RUAA_ (A&
-T-1-k-- Y APE /74/@@_@
WE W i LL- 6@-_) CU R-' CWA3 @LAY- 7.
_)G_ PC-;-PC C- tk) &C- 7D
IG C__4 (A
VC-_ PRVIAJ@,@,E@ @l _17-1(_--7,?G_

C)OY-S OS
_@//_?_S 7- A@@,S t)1qU;-S1VC-Z@)

4917-D Pepys Lane
Wilmington, NC 28403
August 31, 1984

Chief of the Sanctuary Programs Division
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
NOS7NOAA
2V Z-7 3300 Whitehaven St., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 202
7Z
_77_
Ul--17 35
Dear Sir:

AS a long time resident of the coast of North Carolina, a) II have to
(A UJ PNA i 5, 4 4R,-'t say about the proposed development of Masonboro island, is PLEASE, PLEASE,
PLEASE, do not let anyone do it. This beautiful island is an essential
refuge for-many forms of coastal wildlife. With developers taking more and
,S-70-7-Z-@- O-F W Va"s 1-HIt's 6-70@\3 more coastal land every day, it is imperative that some exercise positive
jz@@ ka @A'o po'@C- forethought and keep as much land as possible far animal refuge.
The Island also affords a magnificent place for people to relax and
DL 4N Ll@ enjoy the pursuits that0nly an unspoiled island can offer. To allow
development on Masonboro Island would be a terrible mistake. Some jewels
most always remian untarnished for the future. Our children would never
forgive us if we ruined this truly great island.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Ann Levans

JOHN M. IRVINE
"TRANOUILITY" Aug.28, 1984
521 MASONBORO SOUND ROAD
WILMINGTON. N. C. 28403

Chief of the Sanctuary Programs Div.
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
NOS/NOAA
3300 Whitehaven St.
Washington, D.C. 20235
Subject; Masonboro Island,between Wrightsville Beach
and Carolina Reach, as an undeveloped wild life sanctuary.
Chief of the Sanctuary Programs Division
You are well aware of the needs of wild life for this living Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Man
rock, so we will not discuss this. NOS/NOAA
Our local public is just about fenced out of places to see 3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20235
the ocean and beaches. Parents need such a place to take their
children and adults benefit from exploration along along the
beaches of Masonboro Island. There are thoudands of residents
of New Hanover County who need access to such a sanctuary. Masonboro
Many tourists have never had the experience of seeing the ocean Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina
and beach. Properly publicised the proposed sanctuary could be
a drawing card for tourists.
Whereever one is from, a few hours on the be beach of Masonboro This is to express my support for the North Carolina Office of Coastal
Island is like a mini vacation, the ocean, surf, extensive beach, Management's application to establish Masonboro Island as an estuarine
cries of sea birds puts things back in true proportions. I covet
this for our public. sanctuary.
The alternative to a sanctuary on Masonboro Island is going to The ever-seaward march of development in this area seems intent on
become very costly. During hurricanes a large part of this island
is under water - perhaps 80%. occupying all fragile and unstable barrier islands with squadrons of vacation
If the public id allowed to build on it they will have to face homes. Unrestrained development will overwhelm the natural attractions and
unnecessary and, perhaps large individual losses.
Costs to the islands residents will include high insurance costs, pleasures which the area has to offer. Here is a chance to preserve natural
if available all, and if not, heavy monetary losses during beauty and Its attendant marine life.

Costs to New Hanover County taxpayers would eventually include A colloquialism keeps running through my mind: "If it ain't broke, don't
water, sewer, police, evacuation costs caused by hurricanes.
fix it." I hope the Island will not be disturbed
Costs to the state of N.C. would be the demand for roads and
eventuallly an extremely expensive bridge to the mainland.

If the proposed sanctuary is not aquired soon it will cost Sincerely,
more for the land or become unavailable. Lets act on this now
for the benefit of the present and future generations.

Elizabeth J. Amos
Sincerely,

August 30, 1984

August 30, 1984
Chief of the Sanctuary Programs Division
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Mgt. Mrs. Linda D. Marett
NOS/NOAA 802 Pine Forest.Road
3300 Whitehaven St., NW Wilmington, N.C. 28403
Washington, DC

Subject: Masonboro Island, NC--
Establishing an estuarine sanctuary
Chie f of the Sanctuary Proftams Division
We believe that Masonboro Island, NC should be established Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
as an estuarine sanctuary and prese 'rved In Its present NOS/NOAA
natural state for future generations. 3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W.
Masonboro is the last of the Islands In this area that Washington, D.C. 20235
remains unspoiled and undeveloped. We strongly feel
it should be kept that way. This island has served
for decades as a quiet retreat for fishing and relaxing.
It also serves as a nesting and feeding ground for Dear Sirs:
numerous species of waterfowl that have few refuges left.
I am writing in strong support for the maintenance of Masonbero Island off
Development is incompatible with these noted uses the coast 0f Wilmington, North Carolina as an estuarian sanctuary. Masouboro island,
Development will destroy Masonboro's natural habiiat ont r
I a few remaining unspoiled beach and marshland islands, is in my opinion a
and beauty. We believe these should be preserved for valuable asset to our coastal environment and to the education of our children. This
everyone to enjoy now and in the future. And certainly areas which is easily accessible to local citizens and tourists contains coun le s
the Island's value as a wildlife refuge can not be t S
species of fish, crustaceans, and wildlife. it' is an important nesting site for
questioned. multiple species of birds and Loggerhead turtles. Visits to Masonboro island are
With these concepts in mind, we hope the federal grant invaluable because of the educational experience and aesthetic beauty.
applied for will be allotted to the NC Office of Coastal I urge you to strongly consider the North Carolina Office of Coastal
Management so that Masonboro island will be preserved. Management's application for federal grant to establish this island as an estnariin
17 ,7 sanctuary.
4
Dr. SWI-e PfLrrer- 4nd If
Daniel L. Pferrer
327 Olde Point Rd.
Hampstead, NC 28443 Sincerely,
(Zi

Mrs. Linda D. Marett

oft

c.1
IKII-
-1A am- @6 -d@@

a-lwl

U(,/U C
MY

"51
(,J X

tt-M-kk
0-1
0-4

P?V!
fg&-el-

7c,

0 Lx-qv -4,,4 C,

44 --UM@dOOf

-f 44-1@ 4@ 0-74o, -s
6e, rraws,-44 -roo- 7% v-
Alp 6,0 f4yo, @ , At 6 4L uk
'ej dz v app

)OL>v4 Vev

tit"

att
V6
W-,,-

OL oq6om bAtt OMI04
AV& 4votleu &IzAd
AAw
duo 1w 0" dudoQ c a 741.5c

tk malt M4 vf,&fd 4A . ct A? OW Ati, jA a
luve 14A iD
's ci

14V" @AfaAl ?CdVd lMa*4,VftiAJ
+VUIY,)
'k vk &V p4 J@@
AN #Act it fisk-
'do

A0.1 -P ".FJ)
C" too& a
h %f& CA@@
AV"',ff pukut-e aq Aa.,hlk

AW; 4J.
07 '33,06

414

AM OA&RAW Ive

too/

ov.
it dc VA4-'C@ ;2
64,

NSli"'.
@ ej@

AAC
&4kl Alla'k

'4w RW
&f oevt IMAI&I- Ag'

A@) 1".
110m

-X TL B QA
t --ij

--Q C. :2 6

"'t an

74
,e &.,f
-z6-
AS! 4v

V07L

CrZ4,(

WiJeA/)-VO(4Sp1

r6o
LD M-ld Fd

29403

A-0 VIAIV,4,4! .

AJ W

--CIA
,3,4 ve si74/,S oco /S A
4-e@-

'7e 'a'
dL 'x' IA-
-,(-

ax 4.

6aZ-.Al-

CHARM M. HWJ, M.D. PETER 0. ZACK, M.D. VALMA P. MATTHEWS, PAD.
THE PEDIATRIC CENTER
TELEPHONE fM9) 762-2851 - 1914 GLEN MEADE ROAD
WLMI NGTON. NORTH CAFKXJ NA 28403

,7 /t/o Ale /V,#

oce" o"d Cod--W

/Yo

Aldl5e- o a' 17a.*-7Ye17' 6--VSk 15 o"6,4,d,1-0
/114 )
c2(
0/
A4-41--o

,4,
77' F
c@

%mrIt vv@ IP Aft sr

CLO% KCL AA4
%fitiver to OL &.J

ms@ I 6L

Is teLt.111 W1 tL vac

(W-1 '6C f%tmte reortf IdA A.-i
tL- h CL Z>@e6%0,fs

Dr. Nancy Foster
September 3, 1984
Page 2

The opportunity to acquire and preserve Masonboro Island
as a estuarine sanctuary may soon end. A Wrightsville Beach
developer has proposed an open-air pavilion on the north end
of Masonboro Island. Speculators have purchased several tracts
THE CONSERVATION COUNCIL OF NORTH CAROLINA of land. As Carolina Beach and Wrightsville Beach are developed
307 Granville Read, Chapel Hill, N.C. 27514 from sound to sea, developers are studying other properties for
second homes. Masonboro Island is the last major ocean front
(919) 942-7935 or 942-1080 (24 hours) real estate that is still up for grabs in Southeastern North
Carolina.
September 3, 1984 Acquisition and preservation of Masonboro Island enjoys
broad-based popular support in New Hanover County and in North
Carolina. The State of North Carolina has already acquired
Dr. Nancy Foster, Chief 89.20 acres and New Hanover County, 15.20 acres. The State and
county have managed their lands for conservation purposes.
Sanctuary Programs Division The Conservation Council of N. C. joins the Society for Mason-
National Ocean Service/NOAA boro Island and many other conservation and civic organizations
3300 Whitehaven Street, Northwest in supporting acquisition and preservation of Masonboro island.
Washington, D. C. 20235
The Conservation Council has reviewed and approves the
Dear Dr. Foster, proposed management plan and local advisory group for Masonboro
The Conservation Council of North Carolina has long sup- Island.
ported acquisition and preservation of Masonboro Island in New In summary the Conservation Council of N. C. supports and
Hanover County for research, education, recreation, water quality urges favorable consideration of the State of North Carolina's
and habitat. After reviewing the Draft Environmental Impact . application to include Masonboro Island as the fourth component
Statement and Draft Management Plan of July, 1984, 1 am writing of the North Carolina National Estuarine Sanctuary.
on behalf of the Conservation Council of N. C. to support the
State of North Carolina's application for financial assistance Thank you for your consideration.
to acquire privately owned tracts of Masonboro Island and to
include Masonboro Island as the fourth component of the North
Carolina National Estuarine Sanctuary.

Masonboro island is a long, narrow embayment. No other
estuarine areas of this type are currently protected by the __"ncere @y
National Estuarine Sanctuary program in the Carolinian biogeo-
graphic region. Sea turtles nest, brown pelicans and ospreys
feed on Masonboro island. 0'a
Bill Ho man, Member of the Board
Students and professors from nearby University of North Conservation Council of N. C.
Carolina at Wilmington, other colleges and high schools already
make extensive use of Masonboro Island for research and education.
The island's unspoiled state and convenient location makes it
an excellent natural laboratory. By protecting Masonboro Island CC: Ms. Joyce Wood, U. S. Dept. of Commerce
as a National Estuarine Sanctuary the effects of coastal processes
and development on the developed islands of Wrightsville Beach, The Honorable John East
north of Masonboro Inlet and Carolina Beach, south of Snow's Cut The Honorable Jesse Helms
The Honorable Charlie Rose
can be compared with Masonboro Island. Acquisition and inclusion The Honorable Karen Gottovi
of the island in the National Estuarine Sanctuary system would
allow research and education to continue. Mr. Dave Owens, N. C. Office of Coastal Management

AUG 28 1184
TO. Tif I't IESOURCES

la+td. SwA, -Untnicitd
island an bcrtr@mlq 44- -kv fcui,
T

LQ_ ol
@tw

4,0

'@we

674

A dc@Lc _J91-altIL
1/40
fo a
L6
017401-
Alt rAtLO-4-. =1
Ck m 0@&

VOL
J

vi
_CL OL -Vl-

VV -e-z
Society For Masonboro Island h1c.
x

C,,e

lat-.e @z
" <-f4
C,
LA

-21

ire
Lee,

P-0- BOX "S We4O%Wv& Bwk N.C. 20M

0@/ tze@-

..eliel
rX

Ile
6@6
e 1--eec e cK
eel

:le"

fill
-A.- be -1 /L
Ilk

eek
L/L, l/z
eee,
AC, 4e li-A e e
Q lL C,

4 _P;l 7e4e

te
Ac -

ce
4e
e le

e"r -A-

Chief of Sanctuary programs Division
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
NOB/NOAA
3300 Whitehaven St.,N.W,
Washington, D.C. 20235

Dear Sir

I am writing to you in reference to the federal grant
applied for by the N.C. Office of Coastal Management in
order to establish Mosonboro Island as a satuaring
sanctuary. I feel that I speak not only for myself, but my
friends as well when I say that Masonboro Island should be
left unchanged from itt's present state. I do not say that
as a matter of only personal opinion because I feel there
are many reasons for preserving Masonboro Island.
Masonboro Island serves as a now a nesting ground to many
shore birds during the mating season. This I feel is one
good reason to leave the Island unchanged. Also, the
artificial jette on the island supports a large population
pock and blue crabs. The shallow on the island
side of the jette are popular territory to schools of
Menhaden, Bluefish, and Spanish Makeral. This makes the
waters off Masonboro prime fishing spots and places for
catching crabs.
As far as recreation goes, Masonboro is the perfect
place for all types of things. The whole family can go to
the island and all have something different to do. Dad can
drift for flounder in the inlet while Mom scours the sand in
search of sea-shells. Meanwhile the the younger children can
swim an the sound side in the coves along the island and the
older children (like my friends and I) can take to the waves
at any time of the day with our surfboards and inflatable
rafts (something we have to wait until 4 p.m. to do on
Wrightsville Beach).
If Masonboro Island was to be developed, I feel that
many of it's beautiful qualities would be ruined. I like
the peacefull seashore wilderness and hope that the federal
government will realize how perfect Masonboro Island is
right now and want to help those who love it for what it is
keep it that way.

Sincerely yours,

John M Younghans

PART VIII: APPENDICES

Page

Appendix 1: Bibliography and Literature Cited . . . . . . . . 247

Appendix 2: National Estuarine Sanctuary Regulatios; Final
Rule (June 27, 1984) . . . . . . . . . . . . 251

Appendix 3: Research and Educational Forms for the
Proposed Component . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273

Appendix 4: Site Selection Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283

Appendix 5: Salinity and Flow Patterns in the Masonboro
Island Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293

Appendix 6: Vascular Plant Species of Masonboro, Island . . . .

Appendix 7: Vertebrate Fauna of Masonboro Island . . . . . . . 309

Appendix 8: Macroinvertebrates of the Masonboro Island Area 323

245

APPENDIX I

Bibliography and Literature Cited

247

Appendix 1. Bibliography and literature cited.

Buol, S.W., F.D. Hole, and R.J. McCracken. 1980. Soil Genesis and
Classification (second edition). The Iowa State University Press.
Ames, Iowa.

Carpenter, R. 1984. Written communication of January 13, 1984, sent to OCM
concerning fishery resources in Masonboro Sound. N.C. Division of
Marine Fisheries. Wrightsville Beach, N.C.

Cooper, J.E., S.C. Robinson, and J.B. Funderberg (eds.). 1977. Endangered
and Threatened Plants and Animals of North Carolina. N.C. State Museum
of Natural History. Raleigh, N.C.

Crouse, D.T. 1984. Loggerhead Sea Turtle Nesting in North Carolina:
Applications of an Aerial Survey. Biological Conservation 29
(1984):143-155.

Engels, W.L. 1942. Vertebrate fauna of North Carolina coastal islands.
I. Shackleford Banks. Amer. Midl. Nat. 28: 273-304.

1952. Vertebrate fauna of North Carolina coastal
islands. II. Shackleford Banks. Amer. Midl. Nat. 77: 702-741.

Fussell. J.0. 111, 1978. Bogue Banks Study. Report prepared for the
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Pine Knoll Shores, N.C.

Godfrey, P.J. and M.M. Godfrey. 1976. Barrier Island Ecology of Cape
Lookout National Seashore and Vicinity, North Carolina. National Park
Service Monograph Series, No. 9. Washington, D.C.

Harrington, C. 1980. Geomorphic Classification System for the State of
North Carolina. Dept. of Marine, E.arth, and Ceosciences. N.C. State
University. Raleigh, N.C.

Hoiser, P.E. and W.J. Cleary. 1977. A Resource Inventory of Masonboro
Island, North Carolina. Unpublished report. University of North
Carolina at Wilmington. Wilmington, N.C.

Hoyt, J.H. 1967. Barrier Island Formation. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 78:
1125-1135.

Leatherman, S.P. 1982. Barrier Island Handbook. University of Maryland.
College Park, Md.

Moorefield, T.P. 1978. Geologic Processes and History of the Fort Fisher
Coastal Area, North Carolina. Unpublished M.S. Thesis. East
Carolina University. Greenville, N.C.

National Oceanic and Atmosphe ric Administration. 1950-1981. Annual
summaries for weather stations in N.C. U.S. Dept. of Commerce.
Asheville, N.C.

Oliver, W. 1984. Written communication of January 4, 1984, sent to OCM
concerning the archaeological significance of Masonboro Island.
N.C. Dept. of Cultural Resources. Raleigh, N.C.
249

Parnell, J.R. and R.F. Soots,. 1979. Atlas of Colonial Waterbirds of N.C.
Estuaries. UNC Sea Grant Publ. No. UNC-SG-78-10. University of North
Carolina at Wilmington. Wilmington, N.C.

Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular
Flora of the Carolinas. University of North Carolina Press.
Chapel Hill, N.C.

Soil Conservation Service. 1977. Soil Survey of the Outer Banks, North
Carolina. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1977. Final Impact: Statement, Baldhead
Island, North Carolina. Wilmington District. Wilmington, N.C.

1980. Carolina Beach Inlet, North Carolina: Detailed
Project Report on Improvement of Navigation. Wilmington District.
Wilmington, N.C.

Zullo, V.A. 1984. Written communication of January 12, 1984, sent to OCM
concerning the Masonboro Island estuary. Dept. of Earth
Sciences. University of North Carolina at Wilmington. Wilmington,
N.C.

250

APPENDIX 2

National Estuarine Sanctuary Program Regulations
1974, 1977, 1983, and 1984

25JL

Wednesday
June 27, 1984

Part IV

Department of
Commerce

National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration

15 CFR Part 921
National Estuarine Sanctuary Program
Regulations; Final Rule

253

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 315(1) of the Coastal Zone Management would be chosen. Section 921.4(b) of the
Act, 16 U.S.C. 1461(1). The National 1974 guidelines provided that "various
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Estuarine Sanctuary Program has been sub-categories will be developed and
Administration operating under guidelines published utilized as appropriate."
15 CFR Part 921 June 4, 1974 (39 FR 19922) and proposed In 1981, a study was undertaken to
regulations published September 9, 1977 assess the original biogeographic
[Docket No. 40315-301 (42 FR 45522). classification scheme and make
recommendations, as necessary. A
National Estuarine Sanctuary Program 11. General Background system with 27 subcategories was
Regulations On August 3,1983 (48 FR 35120), proposed. The subcategories fit within
NOAA published proposed regulations the original scheme and further define
AGENCY: Office of Ocean and Coastal for continued inplementation of the the coastal areas to assure adequate
Resource Management (OCRM), National Esturine Sanctuary Program sanctuary representation (Clark.
National Ocean Service (NOS), National pursuant to Section 315 of the Coastal Assessing the National Estuarine
Oceanic and Atmospheric Zone Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1461, Sanctuary Program: Action Summary,
Administration (NOAA), Commerce. (the Act). Written comments on the March.1982, cited as The ClankReport).
ACTION: Final rule. proposed regulations were accepted The Clark Report also recommends
SUMMARY: These final regulations revise until October 3, 1983. These comments consideration of an estuarine typology
existing procedures for selecting and have been considered in preparing tbise in evaluating and selecting sites. The
designating national estuarine fi.nal regulations. A summary of typology system recognizes that there
sanctuaries and provide guidance for significant comments on the proposed are significant differences in estuary
their long-term management. Site regulations and NOAA's responses are characteristics not related to regional
identification and selection is to be presented below. location. Such factors include water
based on a revised biogeographic The final regulations establish the source, water depth, type of circulation,
classification scheme and typology of Program's Mission and Goals and revise inlet dynamics, basin configuration,
estuarine areas. The regulations place a the procedures for selecting, designating. watershed type, and dominant
greater emphasis on management and operating national estuarine ecological community.
planning by individual states early in sanctuaries. The final regulations adopt the
the process of evaluating a potential III. Refinements to the Regulations for revised biogeographic classification
site. The regulations reflect a the National Estuarine Sanctuary scheme and the recornmendation to
@rogression from the initial Program consider typology in site selection (see
identification of a site, through the Based on experience in operating the 1921.3).
designation process. and continued Program and comments on the proposed (2) Site Designation
management of the sanctuary by the regulations, a number of refinements in Eligible states may apply for
state after Federal financial assistance operational procedure and policy have preacquisition awards to aid in selecting
has ended. The regulations provide for been'designed. The final regulations an estuarine sit-6-in conformity with the
regular programmatic evaluations of implement these refinements, which classification scheme and typology
sanctuary performance. Clarifications in include: system. A description of the site
the financial assistance application and selection process to be carried out by
award process have also been made. A. Defining the Mission and Goals of
the Program the state, including a provision for
EFFECTIVE DATE: These regulations are public participation in the process, must
effective Friday, October 5, 1984. This The Mission Statement and Goals for be submitted for NOAA's approval. This
delayed effective date will allow the continued implementation of the ensures that the procedures for the site
sufficient time for the Congress to enact National Estuarine Sanctuary Program selection process are planned prior to
legislation pertaining to the conduct of stress the importance of designating implementing the selection process and
the National Estuarine Sanctuary estuarine area,'through Federal-state approval of the preacquisition award.
Program if it chlooses to do so. If cooperative efforts, for long-term Figure 1 depicts the entire designation
necessary, the effective date of these research and educational benefits. process.
regulations will be postponed. and a Though broad in scope, they establish a After selection of a site, a draft
notice thereof published in the Federal framework within which specific management plan is prepared. Requiring
Register, in compliance with the notice Program activities are conducted, The the development of a comprehensive
provisions contained in section 12 of the Mission Statement and Goals are draft management plan in the
Coastal Zone Management Act, 16 adopted by the final regulations preacquisition phase is designed to
U.S.C. 1463a. (� 921.1). guarantee that early in the estuarine
FOR FURTHER-INFORMATION CONTACT. B. Revision of the Procedures for sanctuary designation process the state
Dr. Nancy Foster, Chief, Sanctuary Selecting, Designating and Operating considers management policies, an
Programs Division, Office of Ocean and Estuarine Sanctuaries acquisition and construction plan
Coastal Resource Management, NOAA/ (including schedules and priorities),
NOS, 3300 Whitehaven St., NW., (1) Revision of the Biogeographic staffing requirements, a research .
Washington. D.C. 20235, (202)1634-4236. Classification Scheme and Proposed component, interpretive and education
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Estuarine Typologies plans, future funding and other resource
1. Authority The 1974 guidelines identified 11 requirements, and alternatives. Draft
biogeographic regions from which and final environmental impact
This notice of final rulemaking is representative sites throughout the statements (EIS) are prepared analyzing
issued under the authority of Section coastal waters of the United States the environmental and socioeconomic

254

Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 125 / Wednesday, June 27, 1984, / Rules and Regulations 26503

impacts of establishing a sanctuary and draft management plan and the final (subject to pre-designation construction
implementing the draft management FIS, the site enters an initial acquisition policies, see � 921.21). prepare the final
plan. The EIS is prepared in accordance and development phase. The state is management plan, and initiate onsite
with National Environmental Policy Act then eligible for an initial acquisition research and education programs. All of
(NEPA) procedures, including provisions and development award. During this these lasks are to be carried out in
for public comment and hearings. phase, award funds may be used to conformance with the NOAA-approved
Following NOAA approval of the purchase land, construct minor facilities draft management plan.
SILUNG CODE 3610-06-M

26504 Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 125 / Wednesday, June 27, 1984 Rules and Regul ations

Figure 1. National Estuarine Sanctuary Program Uesignation Process

AWARD STAGE PdBLIC INPUT

Preacquisition Site Selection Public Meeting,
Award 921.11) on Site(s)

v
Approval of Sitp.
by NOAA
(� 921.11)

v
Development of Public Meeting;
Draft Management Plan and Public Hearing on
Draft EIS the Draft EIS
(� 921.12)
1
v
NUAA Approval of
Uraft Management Plan
921.12)

v
Development of Final EIS
Final EIS
921.12)
I
v
Initial Acquisition Preparation of Public Meeting
and Development Final Management Plan; on Final Plan
Awards Acquisition of Key Landand
Water Areas; Minor Construction
(� 921.21)

v
Final Management Plan
Approved by N(AA;
Uther Findings
921.30)

v
Sanctuary Designation
921.3U)
I
v
Uperation and Implementation of
Management Award; Final management Plan;
Subsequent Acquisition Acqui'sition of Remaining Land;
and Development Award; Construction
Potential:Research (� 921.32)
Awards I
v
Programmatic Evaluation Public Meeting(s)
(� 921.34) on Evaluation

MUM CODE 2510-ID"

25G

reuerai xegister / Vol. 49, No. 125 / Wednesday, June 27, 1984 / Rules and Regulations 26505

The task under the intia]l acquisition regulations ensure that a state wifl have by the states. in conjunction with
and development phase should be adequate flexibility in long-term NOAA. are mandated by these
completed within two years. At this operation of an estuarine sanctuary to regulations as an integral part of'site
point, NOAA must make formal deal with changing circumstances. The selection', designation. and management.
findings. as specified 1921-30, that the regulations require more information The Program's purpose is to establish
final management plan has been about the sanctuary, particularly selected estuarine areas as sanctuaries
completed and is approved. that the key through the development of a site- to serve as natural field laboratories and
land and water areas as specified in the specific management plan, prior to each provide opportunities for long-term
management plan are under state step in the funding process. In this research, education, and interpretation.
control. and that a memorandum of manner, it is expected that decisions Because of this. the present and future
understanding between the state and affecting the sanctuary and management uses-of such an area are certainly an
NOAA concerning the state's long-term priorities will be planned for in advance, important factor in considering whether
commitment to the sanctuary has been rather than in an ad hoc fashion. it should be a national estuarine
signed.. After NOAA makesthese IV. Summary of Significant Comments sanctuary.
findings, the sanctuary is considered
"designated". The state than b "egins on the Proposed Regulations and ft is also important to emphasize that
implementation of the final management NOAA!s Respo the Program does not invblve broad
plan, including the construction of Comments were received from 17 scale regulation on land uses apart from
necessary facilities and additional land sources. Comnienters included Federal that already undertaken by the state or
acquisition.. The state is also eligible for and state agencies, representatives of proposed by the state under its own
operation and management awards to the oil and gas industry, representatives applicable authorities. Multiple use of
provide assistance in implementing the of the electric utility industry, and national estuarine sanctuaries is
final management plan. environmental and public interest encouraged (see � 9211(d)). Resource
The regulations also provide groups. All comments received are on protection is,, however. the highest
procedures for the programmatic file at the Sanctuary Programs Division priority goal of the National Estuarine
evaluation of a sanctuary during the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Sanctuary Program and uses must be
period of the operation and management Management, 2M Wisconsin Avenue, compatible with long-term resource
awards (or under the initial acquisition NW., Room 334 Washington, D.C. 20235. protection. Within national estuarine
and development award if the sanctuary The comments are available for review sanctuaries. states may impose certain
is not designated within two years) and at that office. Each of the major issues regulatory controls to ensure the
for a continuing, biennial review of an raised by the commenters has been continued protection of sanctuary
estuarine sanctuary after Federal summarized and NOAA's response resources. Areas proposbd for
funding has expired. Procedures for provided under the rele@ant subheading designation are evaluated through the
withdrawing designation, if a sanctuary in this section. EIS process with opportunities for public
fails to meet established standards, coniment.
have been added (f 921.35). Geneml
To foster screntific studies within, I pact on Existing Sanctuaries Section-by-Section Analysis
national estuarine sanctuarim NOAA is Im -
setting aside funds for research within One commenter suggested that the Subpart A-General
sites with approved final management final regulations indicate the impact of SecLion 921.1-Mission and Goals.
plans. This is a separate category of the changes on existing sanctuaries. (1) Several commenters supported the
financial assistance from the operation Response- The changea in procedure Program Mission and Goals and foond
and management or acquisition and reflected in these regulations will, them to be a substantial improvement
development support. The research improve the Progxam@s operation and the over the 1974 guidelines and 1977
funding is described in Subpart F. effective implementation of national proposed regulations.
Financial assistance requirements and estuarine sanctuaries over time. They
procedures have been revised. The will therefore be applied to existing Response: The Mission and Goals
programmatic information required for sanctuaries, to the degree practicable. were established to guide continued
each type of award is specified in the effective implementation of the National
appropriate sections--min preacquisition Public Participation Estuarine Sanctuary Program. Program
(Subpart B@ acquisition and Because of the potential. impacts experience over the past several years
development (Subpart C); and operation reslulting from an axe, being design, ted led to the development of refinements
and management (� 921.32). General as a nationai estuarine sanctuary, one designed to improve the original
financial assistance information is cornrnenter noted that the maximum guidelines.
provided in Subpart F. opportunity fox the participation of The concept of a national estuarine
In summary, the regulations include interested persons should be provided. sanctuary does not easily merge with
more standards and guidelines for states The commenter encouraged NOAA to that of existing natural resource
to follow in developing and operating a ensure that states comply with the protection programs, such as wildlife
national estuarine saanctuary. as well conditiow of It M.11(d) and 921.12(d). refuges or parks. National estuarine
as additional guidelines for NOAA in The commenter recommended that a sanctuaries are designed to ensure
overseeing the Program. Based on careful review of aH established and Protection of a natural habitat unit in
experience and from discussions with potential industrial activities be which long-term researcli and
several states with estuarine undertaken to ensure a well-balanced educational projects can be focused. A
sanctuaries, NOAA has fourid that the decision on the site`& suitability for primary aim of these research and
previous lack of guidance raised many designation as a national estuarine education projects is to provide
concerns about what an estuarine sanctuary. information to states that is useful for
sanctuary should be, the staWs role in Response: NOAA agrees with the decisionmaking concerning the
developing and operating a sanctua-ry. comment on the importance of public development or protection of its coast
and how decisions should be made@ The participation. Public participation efforts and associated resources.

257

"6506 Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 125 / Wednesday. June 27, 19a4 I Rules and Regulations

National estuarine sanctuaries are not NOAA disagrees with the commenter on owned by a state or conservation group.
established primarily for recreational Goal 4. The purpose of the goal is to In this way actual ownership would not
pursuits, although compatible uses are ensure the protection of selected be as important as the site*s value to the
encouraged. Sanctuaries are also not estuarine areas. Federal/state Program.
intended solely to enhance habitat for a cooperative efforts to ensure such Response.- NOAA believes that the
single species by modification of the protection are emphasized: the Federal inclusion of representatives of all
natural character of the estuarine role encompasses more then grants-in- national estuarine variations would be
system. aid, but includes continuing evaluation impracticable from a management
The final regulations, including the and coordination of research and perspective. It should be noted that
Mission and Goals, are designed to education to ensure that the sites remain control of estuarine land and water
clarify the definition and function of a as natural field laboratories consistent areas is only one facet in sanctuary
national estuarine sanctuary. with the legislative intent. designation. Properties already owned
(2) Another commenter. however, NOAA has based these revised by the state or a conservation group
suggested that the section on Mission regulations an the Act and its legislative may not comprise a natural unit or have
and Goals, which replaced the "Policy history. Through experience with the the-research and educational foundation
and Objectives" section of the 1974 Program. NOAA has made certain required by the Program. Such'areas are
guidelines, expands the scope of the refinements to the process. In fact. by already in a protected status and are
Program in ways not originally intended. explicitly providing for Section 312 available for research and educational
The commenter suggested that Goal 2 evaluations (as required by the Coastal purposes, along with those regional
(concerning research) was adequate. Zone Management Act) as seeking to representatives comprising the National
and that the other three should be coordinate research and education from Estuarine Sanctuary system. Adding
deleted. The commenter suggested that the national level. the Program has made these sites to the Program may not serve
the first goal. concerning long-term significant strides to fulfill the beneficial purposes. Thus. while the
management planning, should be left to Congressional intent (see � � 921.1 (c) biogeographic classification scheme sets
the National Marine Sanctuary Program and 9ZI.34). the initial parameters within which
or state coastal zone programs. The (3) One reviewer felt that the idea of detailed site selecion and analysis is
commenter further suggested that the coordinating research and education focused. it should not be considered
third goal. involving enhancement of information expressed in � 921.1(c) was alone. Many other factors must be
public awareness through interpretation. a good idea. but should be carefully considered.
should also be dropped even though it thought out and developed in Within regions without an estuarine
was recognized that such interpretive coordination with individual states. sanctuary, however. the non-acquisition
efforts often stern from scientific Response.- NOAA is now in the alternatives suggested by the
research. Finally, the commenter process of developing a detailed plan for conimenter will be utilized to the
suggested that the fourth goal. involving coordinating research and education. greatest degree possible.
stimulating Federal-state cooperation to Comments from states and other (3) Another commenter was
promote the management of estuarine interested groups are being actively concerned that implementation of the
areas, should be dropped oince it solicited in preparing this plan.
allegedly -provides the Federal (4) Several commenters strongly biogeographic classification scheme on
government with more authority than supported the concept in J 921.1(d) of the basis of one site per region would
needed. T"ne commenter supports this encouraging multiple use of estuarine lead to too many estuarine sanctuaries.
view by citing legislative history to sanctuaries. One of the same Response.- As detailed in The Clark
assert that the Act "authorizes Federal commenters also supported the Repor4 the classification scheme and
grants-in-aid, but makes no attempt to statement in Section 921.11(c)(5) that the estuarine typology are designed to
diminish State authority through Federal site selection process consider "the provide the Program with an array of
preemption." site's compatibility with existing and sanctuaries broadly reflective of our
The same commenter generally potential land and water use in Nation's estuarine zones. Only with this
questions the need for the National contiguous areas." diversity of sites can the Program
Estuarine Sanctuary Program and need Response.- NOAA is strongly produce beneficial research and
for revisions to the existing program. committed to the concept of multiple use educational projects useful in coastal
The commenter encouraged NOAA to in estuarine sanctuaries as long as the decisionmaking. There are presently 14
examine the legal and scientific bases purposes for which the sanctuary is biogeographic regions represented in the
for the estuarine sanctuary program and established are maintained. Therefore it system.
to ensure that the regulations conforin to is important that site selection efforts (4) Another commenter stated that by
the intended goals of the Coastal Zone closely analyze existing and potential including 27 regions. and providing for
Management Act. uses of the area and adjacent areas. one site per region, NOAA has extened
Response.- The Mission and Goals Section 921.3-Biogeogrophic the Program in an unwarranted manner.
described in Section 921A are in no way Classification Scheme. (1) One state The commenter recommended instead
an expansion of the Program. Rather requested that the goal of one site per that NOAA use the classification
they reflect the legislative history and a region be revised to allow for more sites scheme in the Program Development
synthesis of the Program's past per region based on the estuarine Plan for the National Marine Sanctuary
experience and need for basic policy typology system. The commenter noted Program which relied on eight regions.
guidance. Goals 2 and 3 am both valid. that only by including severalsites per Response.- Estuarine sanctuaries. in
since both education and Interpretive region could all significant national order to be beneficial for long-term
afforts are natural outgrowths of variation be included. The commenter research and educational purposes,
science. The first goal, Involving suggested that outright acquisition was should reflect the Nation's coastal areas.
management planning. represents a not always necessary. The alternative The biogeographic classification scheme
logical mechanism for achieving suggested was to incorporate into the and estuarine typologies were
Program purposes.with maximum utility National Estuarine Sanctuary Program developed from this premise as
and a -in' um amount of waste. thm sites, as appropriate, that are demonstrated in The Clark Report. In

Federal Register / Vol. 49, No@ 125 / Wednesday, June 27, 1984 / Rules and Regulations 26507

identifying sites for potential marine appropriately occur during the EIS a significant Federal action for the
sanctuary status. eight regions were process, but the commenter suggested purposes of the NEPA EIS requirement.
used. but for administrative purposes that states may wish to involve Federal (3) One commenter noted that since
rather than representativeness. On top agencies with special expertise earlier resource protection is a primary
of this scheme, a detailed marine during the site selection process. program goaL the regulations should
classification scheme. developed solely Response.- The regulations require that specify that the plan detail
for marine areas and illustrative of the states seek the views of Federal responsibilities for surveillance and
Nation's oceans, was applied. As a agencies as well as other parties early in enforcement of human activities.
result of this process. twenty-nine sites the site selection process (see Response. NOAA agrees and the
were selected by NOAA for placement J I 921.11(d) and 921.12(a)(3)). Federal regulations (at � M.12(b)(8)) have been
on the Site Evaluation Ust (see 48 FR agencies will also be actively involved revised to require that responsibilities
355e8 (1983)). in the management planning process for surveillance and enforcement be
Section 921-4(b)--Coord1hation with aiLd EIS development (see 1 9=12 (d) detailed in the management plan.
the National Marine Sanctuary and (e)). (4) One commenter questioned the
P@pgrorn. One commenter was Section 921.11-4ite Selectiam (1) usefulness of the NOAA-state
concerned about the possible Several states suggested that the memorandum of under@tanding (MOM
duplication of time and effort if an area regulations address multiple-site which is required as part of the
is established as an estuarine sanctuary national estuarine sanctuaries. management plan (see J 921.12 (a)(51
and a marine sanctuary. The commenter Response. Section 921.10(b) has been and (b)(10)). The commenter suggested
requested that NOAA address the revised to specifically reference that the MOU could not be considered
possibility of a dual designation and - multiple-site systems within the legally binding on future legislatures.
means by which both programs could National Estuarine Sanctuary Program. Response- The MOU emphasizes the
coexist without generating serious (2) One commenter urged early and significance of establishing an estuarine
problems. frequent public Involvement in the sanctuary and recognition by the state
Response: Section 9=4(b) Is intended designation and management of national and Federal government of the long-term
only to ensure that the National estuarine sanctuaries. It was suggested commitment to management of the area
Estuarine Sanctuary Program and that where the proposed regulations in accordance with the agreed-upon
National Marine Sanctuary Program limit notice to the local media (for goals and objectives. The MOT1 spells
work closely together this is example in � 921.11(d) concerning out. at the beginning of the process. the
particularly true in terms of preliminary site selection). notice should roles of the Federal and state
management planning, research also be made in the Federal Register governments. and what is expected of
projects, and education/interpretive since not all parties interested in the each party. It will clearly indicate that
activities. It is also important to note proposed designation live in the each party is aware of its commitment
that the Programs are not duplicative adjacent area and the Program has a and responsibilities at the beginning of
and could serve complementary broad national interest the process. The MOU emphasizes that
purpose& The regulations have been Response. This change has been made lands acquired under the National
clarified to provide that the boundaries (we 11 921.11(d)1- Estuarine Sanctuary Program must
of the national marine and estuarine Section 921.12-Monagement Plan continue to be used in a manner
sanctuaries would not overlap, even DLevelopment, (1) One state noted that consistent with sanctuary purposes.
though they may be adjacent (similar to 2(b
the case where a National Wildlife 1921.1 . ), concerning management (51 Several states approved requiring
Refuge abuts a National Park@ plan development. should include a the management plan early in the
description of the sanctuary proceiss as a guide to future decisions
Subpart B-Preacquisition: Site arlmird trative structure as a required before the expenditure of substantial
Selection and Management Plan plan component. It was suggested that funds. Other commenters, however.
Development the plan should at least outline the expressed convern that requiring the
Section 921.10-General. (1) One state staff's roles for research. education/ preparation of a draft management plan
suggested that the $50,000 Federal share interpretation. and enforcement. prior to any commitment to the site from
was not enough to accomplish the goals Response: NOAA agrees and NOAA could lead to the waste of
of the preacquisition award (e.4, site language to this effect has been added extensive staff time, public
selection and draft managment plan at I 921.12(b)(2). participation, and resources.
development) and recommended that a (Z) One state suggested that an Response: These regulations are
small sum be set aside for site selection, environmental impact statement not be predicated upon ten years of experience
and that other funds to prepare the draft required in all cams. Rather, in less in administering the Rational Estuarine
plan be negotiated between the state complex situations. the flexibility to Sanctuary Program. The regulations are
and the Federal government based on prepare an environmental assessment intended to rectify many of the problems
the proposed sanctuary's complexity- should be left open. that have occurred in specific
Response. Based on past experience. Response: NOAA disagrees. Based on sanctuaries in the past Many of these
the $5UM Federal funding leveL experience with the program, an problems could have been foreseen and
supplemented by state match is environmental assessment is not an overcome by thoughtful. pre-senchazry
adequate for site selection and draft adequate mechAnim to fully consider plAnning Thus. NOAA is strongly
plan development. Additional funds to the environ-e-tal and socioeconomic supportive of developing a management
complete the final plan am available impacts of a proposed nations estuarine plan early in the decision irr Tbe
under the acquisition and develoomarit sanctuary, particularly where a concern that NGAA is not committed to
award (see I =121@ management program is being proposed. the state during the draft managemoUt
(2) One commenter suggested that Further, it does not provide for the Plan a is turwarranted given the
specific reference to the need for extensive public review required procedures specified in the reguistlimm
Federal agency coordination be included through the NEPA proces& We believo NOAXs financial commitment bevolm
in Subpart B. Suck coordination could that designation of any site qmshfies as with the prwmquisition award for sift

259

26508 Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 125 / Wednesday, June 27, 1984 1 Rules and Regulations
0

selection and continues through all the large capital expenditures until a final gauge the effectiveness of the
developmental stages. NOAA may plan is prepared and substantial sanctuary*s program.
support up to one-half of the total costs progress in land acquisition has been (2) The same commenter as in (1) also
of establishing a particular sanctuary. made. questioned the value of a program
NOAA's programmatic commitment to a Section 921.32-Operation qnd evaluation after Federal funding expires.
proposed sanctuary begins with Management. Implementation of the Response. The required evaluations
approval of a site and continues through Management Plan. (1) One state will ensure that sanctuary objectives. as
the management plan review and suggested the $250,000 cap on federal specified in the management plan. are
preparation of the MS. If the sanctuary funding for operation and management still being attained and that proposed
proposal is approved, and if the in Section 921.32(b) should be modified boundary changes and amendments to
requirements of the preacquisition phase to provide for additional funds based on the management plan can be reviewed.
are met. NOAA will proceed with need.' The evaluations will ensure that the
establishing the site as a national Response: The Program is designed to purposes for which the sanctuary was
estuarine sanctuary. assist states in establishing estuarine established continue to be met and that
Decision points early in the process sanctuaries. Funds are provided for an the site meets the criteria of the national
provide opportunities for either party to initial period of implemenatatio& system.
withdraw before too much time and thereafter the states must assume After Federal funding expires. the
effort have been committed. responsibility for continued operation. state is required to submit an annual
(6) In terms of I 921.12(b)(7). one Section 921.33-Boundary Changes report on the sanctuary. The report will
commenter suggested that the schedule and Amendments to the Management detail program successes and
for acquisition, required as part of the , Plan. (1) Several states requested that accomplishments in implementing the
management plan. was useful as a this section be modified to apply only to policies and activities described in the
guide, but not as a rigid pl laws specifically applicable to the sanctuary management plan. The report
document. sanctuary, and not general also should propose a work plan for the
Response. NOAA views the environmental quality laws such as for next year of sanctuary operations and
acquisition strategy as a flexible air and water. describe the state's role in ongoing
planning tool. It does. however. identify Ri@spanse. Section 921.33 has been sanctuary programs. Inadequate annual
key areas where acquisition should be clarified to reflect this point. reports will trigger a full-scale
focused and acquisition priorities (2) One commenter recommended that evaluation with a site-visit. In addition.
developed. The strategy will also public notice and opportunity to on a periodic basis, NOAA will also
contain alternatives (including boundary comment be provided in an cases where conduct a full-scaleSection 312
changes) if selected priority areas boundaries are changed or management evaluation with a site visit.
eventually cannot be acquired. plans are amended under 1921.33.
(7) One commenter suggested that the Response: The proposed regulations Section 921.3S-Withdrowal of
requirements for the draft management provide that ff NOAA determines it is Designation. (1) Several reviewers
plan should referenci three additional necessary, public notice and an suggested that the section on the
elements. all of which were included in opportunity for comment on boundary withdrawal of designation be modified.
the 1974 guidelines: (1) Definitions of . changes and changes to the final to allow the applicable state to
permitted. compatible. restricted and management plan will be provided. participate in decisions regarding the
prohibited user. (2) a monitoring plan to Major changes do require public notice disposition of property.
ensure that the integrity of the sanctuary and opportunity for comment and. in Response., The state will of course be
is maintained. and (3) a description of certain cases. preparation of an consulted by NOAA in any decision
the authorities which will be put in environmental assessment Thus. the regarding property disposition. which
place to manage the Sanctuary and clear intent of these regulations is to will be carried out according to
enforce the policy and use restrictions. provide for public notice where Attachment N of OMB Circular A-102.
Response. A resource protection plan applicable. There may, however, be Revised. and these regulations.
requirement has been added (see times where changes to the management (2) Several reviewers questioned. in
I M.12(b)(8)) which encompasses plan are minor and will not require such the event of withdrawal of sanctuary
elements (1) and (3). A monitoring plan notice. designation. ihe method of disposal for
should be included as part of the Section 921.34-Pmgwm Evaluation. property held in less-than-fee simple or
research plan (see I QZ2.22(b)(3)). (1) One commenter specifically controlled by a lease.
Subpart C-Development and questioned the value of Section 312-type Response. Section 9ZI.21(e) [which
Preparation of the Final Management evaluations of sanctuary performance: was � 921.35(e) in the proposed
Plan the commenter stated that performance regulations) ivould be followed to the
reports, whicli are required as a extent it applies. Leasehold and other
Section 921.21-1hitial Acquisition condition of the financial award. are real property interests purchased in
and Development Awards. (1) One state adequate for NOAA's purposes. whole or in part with Federal funds are
noted that the limit of 5 percent of the Aesponse: Perforinlanc reports are of subject to the provisions of Attachment
a "
Initial acquisition and development course helpful. But such reports do not N. OMB Circular A-10Z Revised.
awards which may be expanded on address the specific range and depth of (3) Another state requested that the
minor construction activities which aid Issues needed to iisome the deed language be rewritten so that a
in implementing portions, of the effectiveness of sanctuary operation and state would be "endded to retain title to
management plan may not be adequate opportunities for improvement In property which the state determines is
for multiple-site systems. addition during an evaluation. no longer needed for grant purposes, so
Response. After careful consideration. individuals or groups that are. or should long as the property is used for other
NOAA has determined that necessary be. involved in sanctuary management purposes a roved by NOAA as beft
construction can be planned for and or are affected by the sanctuary are consistent Zth the sancNM popum.!'
included an pad of the aWtial award. contacted. This provides NOAA with Response: Y#hm popm ty porchaiied
The intent of this restriction is to limit valuable feedback that is necessary to in few simple or lenkhan-Ise WoWle in

260

Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 125 / Wednesday, June 27, 1984 / Rules and Regulations 26509
no longer used for the purposes of the Subpart F--General Financial is somewhat acid. It was suggested that
National Estuarine Sanctuary Program. Assistance Provisions the circumneutral range should be 6.5
NOAA is required to dispose of the (1) One state criticized the exclusion rather than 5.5.
property according to the provisions of of land as state match for the operation Response: For the reasons indicated in
Attachment N. OMB Circular A-102, and management awards. The state the above response, we decided to
Revised. These provisions are found such an exclusion to be an undue continue with the proposed system.
essentially the same as stated in constraint upon management and (3) Another reviewer stated that in
� 921.21 (e) of the final regulations. operation alternatives available to Group II Transition Areas. the
(4) One commenter suggested that states. description of coastal marshes and
specific criteria and an appeals Respone: In order to maximize the coastal mangroves as the only coastal
procedure (including public notice of the support provided to a sanctuary during wetland transition areas is too narrow.
proposed withdrawal of designation) be its early years, NOAA has precluded Other wetland areas (marshes, swamps,
added to the regulations. land as match for the operation and bogs) should be included.
Response: As specified in 921.34 management award. To a reasonable Response. A new subtitle "Coastal
and 921.35, NOAA's continuing degree, state match should relate to the Marshes and Swamps", has been added.
evaluation of sanctuary performance purpose of the particular award. Since (4) Another commenter stated that the
will examine the state's performance in the purpose of the operation and typology did not appear to contain
upholding the mandate of Section 315 of management award is to provide for the criteria which adequately describe a
the Act, the national Program goals, and sanctuary's operation and Great Lakes-type site.
the policies established in the . implementation of the management Response: Great Lakes areas can fall
management plan. Specific criteria to plan, the use of land as match is under Class II, Group I.B (Basin
judge these factors cannot be inappropriate, particularly since land Structure); I-C (Inlet Type: L.D. (Bottom
enumerated, but will be examined on a acquisition should be well underway Composition); Group IIA (Circulation);
case-by-case basis. Section 921.35 spells prior to the state's receiving an II.C (Freshwater); and Group III-
out a procedure for withdrawal of operation and management award. The Chemical.
designation. including an appeal to the allowable categories of match (see
Assistant Administrator for Ocean J 921.51(e)] provide the state with V. Other Actions Associated With the
Services and Coastal Zone sufficient flexibility. Proposed Rulemaking
Management. I (A) Classification Under Executive
(5) One state questioned who would Appendix 2-Estuarine Typology Order 12291
decide the "current fair market value" of (1) One reviewer stated that in Group
lands slated for withdrawal of III-Chemical, the proposed salinity NOAA has concluded that these
designation in 921.35(e)(i) [now limits were particularly confusing. The regulations are not major because they
921.21(e)(i)]. It was recommended that reviewer noted that a salinity zone of 10 will not result in:
an arbitration system of three ppt to 20 ppt is very important because (1) An annual effect on the economy
independent appraisers or comparable numerous estuaries possess waters in of $100 million or more:
system be established. this salinity range, but the proposed (2) A major increase in costs or prices
Response: Fair market value would be polyhaline zone is too broad to describe for consumers. individual industries.
determined by an independent appraiser this. The reviewer included the Federal. state or local government
(e.g., certified real property appraiser following table of salinity ranges from agencies. or geographic regions; or
GSA representatives) and certified by a Introduction to Marine Biology by (3) Significant adverse effects on
responsible official of the state, as Mosby: competition, employment investment.
provided by Attachment F of OMB productivity, innovation or on the ability
circular A-102, Revised. salinity (0/100) Types of water of United States-based enterprises to
Subpart E-Research Funds compets with foreign-based enterprises
(1) Several reviewers sugested that 0 to 0.5 Fresh water. in domestic export markets.
research funds be offered on a 100 0.5 to 3.0 Oligohaline brackish water.
3.0 to 10 Mesohaline brackish water. these final rules amend existing
percent Federal basis, i.e. without a 10.0 to 17 Ployhaline brackish water.
state match requirement. 17 to 30 Oligohaline seawater. procedures for selecting and processing
30 to 34 Mesohaline seawater. potential national estuarine sanctuaries
Response: Section 315 of the Coastal 34 to 38 Polyhaline seawater. in accordance with a revised
Zone Management Act requires that all > 38 Brina. biogeographic classification scheme and
funds to coastal states for national > 38 estuarine typologies. These rules
estuarine sanctuary purposes be establish a revised process for
provided on a fifty-fifty matching basis From Vuilleangas,I. 1993 Uber die Biologie identifying. designating and managing
(2) Other commenters suggested that national estuarine sanctuaries. They will
funding limits and the total research error. NOAA considered the information not result in any direct economic or
budget be discussed in the regulations. provided. but has decided to continue to environmental effect nor will they lead
Response: Funding limits and the total use the proposed salinity ranges which to any major indirect economic or
Federal funds for research in national are from Ecology of Inland Waters and environmental impacts.
estuarine sanctuaries will vary from Estuaries(Reid and Wood 1978). This is (B) Regulatory Flexability Act Analysis
year-to-year; thus, these figures are no the standard limnology test used in
included in the final regulations. NOAA college. The table used as an example is The General Counsel of the
will, however, distribute information from a 1933 paper, the salinity table Department of Commerce certified to
about the relative funding limits and used in the typology is the widely the Small Business Administration that
funding totals. Such information will be accepted "Venice System' adopted in this rule will not have a significant
sent to states with national estuarine 1958. economic impact on a substantial
sanctuaries and to other interested (2)The same reviewer also questioned number of small entities. Thus,
parties. the pH values suggesting that a pH of5.5 regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not

261

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

required for this notice of final Subpart D-Sancturay Designation and ideas from one sanctuary are made
rulemaking. The regulations set forth Subsequent Operation available to others in the svstem. The
procedures for identifying and Sec. network that will be estabfished will
designating national estuarine 921.30 Designation of National Estuarine enable sanctuaries to exchange
sanctuaries, and managing sites once Sanctuaries. information and research data with each
designated. 921.31 Supplemental acquisition and other. with universities engaged in
These rules do not directly affect developmenr awards. estuarine research, and with Federal
..small government jurisidictions" as 921.32 Operation and management: and state agencies. NOAA's objective is
defined by Pub. L 96-354. the Implementation of the Management Plan. a system-wide programof research and
921.33 Boundary changes. Amendments to
Regulatory Flexibility Act and the rules the Management Plan. and addition of monitoping capable of addressing the
will have no effect on small businesses. multiple-site components. management issues that affect long-terfn
921.34 Program evaluation. productivity of our Nation's estuaries.
(C) Paper Work Reduction Act of 1980 921.35 Withdrawal of designation. (d) Multiple uses are encouraged to
(Pub. L. 96-511) Subpart E-Research Funds the degree compatible with the
These regulations do not impose any 921.40 General. sanctuary's overall purpose as provided
information requirements of the type 9ZI.41 Categories of potential research in the management plan and consistent
covered by Pub. L 96-511 other than projects; evaluation criteria. with subsections (a) and (b), above. Use
those already approved by the Office of levels are set by the individual state and
Management and Budget (approval Subpart F-Gerwrall Financial Assistance analyzed in the management plan. The
number 064"12,1) for use through Provisions sanctuary management plan (see
September 30,1986. 921.50 Application information. � 921-12) will describe the uses and
921.51 Allowable costs.
(DI National Environmental Policy Act 921.52 Amendments to financial assistance establishes priorities among these uses.
awards. The plan shall identify uses requiring a
NOAA has concluded that publication Appendix 1-Biogeographic Classification state permit, as well as areas where
of these rules does not constitute a Eicheme uses are encouraged or prohibited. In
major Federal action significantly Appendix 2-Typology of National Estuarine general, sanctuaries are intended to be
affecting the quality of the human Areas open to the public. low-intensity
environment. Therefore, an Authority. Sec. 315(l), Pub. L 92-583, as recreational and interpretive activities
environmental impact statement is not amended. 86 Star. 1280 (16 U.S.C. 1461(l)). are generally encouraged.
required. (e) Certain manipulative research
list of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 921 Subpart A-General activities may be allowed on a limited
� 921.1 Mission and goals. basis. but only if specified in the
Administrative practice and (a) The mission of the National management plan and only if e
procedure. Coastal zoni. Environmental Estuarine Sanctuary Program is the activity is consistent with overall
protection. Natural resources, Wetlands. establishment and'management. through sanctuary purposes and the sanctuary
(Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog Federal-slate cooperation. of a national resources are protected. Manipulative
Number 11.420 Estuarine Sanctuary Program) system of estuarine sanctuarie 's research activities require the prior
Dated: February 29,1984. representative of the various regions approval of the state and NOAA.
Paw M. Wolm and estuarine types in the United States. Habitat manipulation for resource
AssistantAdministratorfor Ocean Services Estuarine sanctuaries will be management purposes is not permitted
and Coastal Zone Management. established to provide opportunities for within national estuarine sanctuaries.
long-term research, education. and (f) While the Program is aimed at
Accordingly, 15 CFR Part 921 is protecting natural, pristine sites, NOAA
revised as follows: interpretation.
(b) The goals of the Program for recognizes that many estuarine areas
PART 921-HATIONAL ESTUARINE carrying out this mission are: have undergone ecological change as a
SANCTUARY PROGRAM (1) Enhance resource protection by result of human activities. Although
REGULATIONS implementing a long-term management restoration of degraded areas is not a
plan tailored to the site's specific primary purpose of the Program. some
Subpart A-General resources: restorative activities may be permitted
Sec. (2) Provide opportunities for long-term in an estuarine sanctuary as specified in
9n.1 Mission and goals. scientific and educational programs in the management plan.
921.2 Definitions. estuarine areas to develop information (g) NOAt% may provide financial
921.3 National Estuarine Sanctuary for improved coastal decisionmaking: assistance to coastal states, not to
Biogeographic Classification Scheme and (3) Enhance public awareness and exceed 50 percent of all actual costs, to
Estuarine Typologies. understanding of the estuarine assist in the designation and operation
9=41 Relationship to other provisions of the environment through resource of national estuarine sanctuaries (see
Coastal Zone Management Act and to
the National Marine Sanctuary Program. interpretive programs: and section 921.51(e)). Three types of awards
(4) Promote Federal-state cooperative are available under the National
Subpart 111-Preacquisitlom Ske Selection efforts in managing estuarine areas. Estuarine Sanctuary Program. The
mul Menagernent Plan D*vM*mwd (c) To assist the states in carrying out preacquisition award is for site
mmo Generall. the Program's goals in an effective selection and draft management plan
M.11 site selection. manner, the National Oceanic and preparation. The acquisition and
92LU Management Plan development. Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) development awar d is intended
&d4ortc-Acqumum Devaknmmit, and will coordinate a research and primarily for land acquisition and
P "natloin of the Final Menagunent Plan education information exchange construction purposes. The operation
92L20 General. throughout the national estuarine- and management award provides funds
OnM Initial'acquisition and development sanctuary system. As part of this role, to assist in iroplementingthe research.
awwd& NOAA will ensure the4 information and educationaL and administrative

262

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

programs detailed in the sanctuary and to include a variety of ecosystem Financial assistance application
management plari. Under the Act, the types. A biogeographic classification procedures are specified in Subpart F.
Federal share of funding for a national scheme based on regional variations in (b) In selecting a site, a state may
estuarine sanctuary shall not exceed the nation's coastal zone has been choose to develop a multiple-site
$3.000,000. At the conclusion of Federal developed. The biogeographic sanctuary reflecting a diversity of
financial assistance, funding for the classification scheme Is used to ensure habitats in a single biogeographic
long-term operation of the sanctuary that the National Estuarine Sanctuary region. A multipl 'e-site sanctuary also
becomes the responsibility of the state. System includes at least one site from allows the state to develop
(h) Lands already in protected status each region. The estuarine typology complementary research and
by another Federal, state, local system is utilized to ensure that sites 'in educational programs within the
government or private organization can the Program reflect the wide range of multiple components of its sanctuary.
be included within national estuarine estuarine types within the United States. Multiple-site sanctuaries are treated as
sanctuaries only if the managing entity (b) The biogeographic classification one sanctuary in terms of financial
commits to long-term non-manipulative scheme, presented in Appendix 1, assistance and development of an
management. Federal lands already in contains 27 regwris. Figure 2 graphically overall management framewGrk and
protected status cannot comprise the depicts the biogeographic regions of the plan. Each individual component of a
key land and water areas of a sanctuary United States. proposed multiple-site sanctuary shall
(see J 921.11(c)(3)). (c) The typology system is presented be evaluated separately under
J 921.2 Definitions. in Appendix 2. � 921.11(c) as part of the site selection
process. A state may propose to
(a) "Act" means the Coastal Zone � 921.4 Relitionship to other provisions of establish a multiple-site sanctuary at the
Management Act as amended, 16 O.S.C. the Coastal Zone Management Act and to time of the initial site selection. or at
1451 et seq. Section 315(l) of the AcL 16 the National Marine Sanctuary Program. any point in the development or
U.S.C. 1461(1), establishes the National (a) The National Estuarine Sanctuary operation of the, estuarine sanctuary,
Estuarine Sanctuary Program. Program is intended to provide even after Federal funding for the single
(b) "Assistant Administrator" (AA) information to state agencies and other component sanctuary has expired. If the
means the Assistant Administrator for entities involved in coastal zone state decides to develop a multiple-site
Ocean Services and Coastal Zone management decisionmaking pursuant national estuarine sanctuary after the
Management, National Ocean Service. to the Coastal Zone Management Act, 16 initial acquisition and development
National Oceanic and Atmospheric U.S.C. 1451 et seq. Any coastal state. award is made on a single site. die
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, or his/her successor or including those-that do not have proposal is subject to the requirements
designee. approved coastal zone management set forth in � 921.33. It should be noted,
(c) -Coastal state" means a state of programs under section 306 of the Act, is however, that the total funding for a
the United States in. or bordering on, the eligible for an award under the National multiple-site sanctuary remains at the
Atlantic, Pacific, or Arctic Ocean, the Estuarine Sanctuary Program (see S3,000,0GO limit. the funding for
Gulf of Mexico, Long Island Sound. or 921.2(e)). operation of a multiple-site sanctuary is
one or more of the Great Lakes. For the (b) Where feasible, the National also limited to the $250,000 standard
purposes of this title, the term also Estuarine Sanctuary Program will be (see I qZ1.32(b)1.
includes Puerto Rico, the Virgin Island& conducted' in close coordination with the � 921.11 Sit* selection.
Guam the Commonwealth of the National Marine Sanctuary Program (a) A state may use up to S10,000 in
Northern Marianas, and the Trust (Title III of the Marine Protection, Federa) preacquisition funds to establish
Territories of the Pacific Islands, and Research and Sanctuaries Act, as and implement a site selection process
American Samoa (see 16 U,S.C. 1454(4)). amended, 16 U.S.C. 1431-14341, also
(d) "Estuary" means that part of a administered by NOAA. Title III which is approved by NOAA.
river or stream or body of water having authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to (b) In Addition to the requirements set
unimpaired connection with the open designate ocean waters as marine forth in Subpart F, a request for Federal
sea, where the sea water is measurably sanctuaries to protect or restore such funds for site selection must contain the
diluted with fresh water derived from areas for their conservation. following programmatic information:
land drainage. The term also includes recreational, ecological, or esthetic. (1) A description of the proposed site
estuary-type areas of the Great Lakes, values. National marine and estuarine selection process and how it will be
see 16 U.S.C. 1454(7). sanctuaries will not overlap, though they implemented in conformance with the
(e) "National Estuarine Sanctuary" may be adjacenL biogeographic classification scheme and
means and area, which may include all typology (� 921.3);
or the key land and water portion of an Subpart B-Preacquisition: Site (2) An identification of the site
estuary, and adjacent transitional area Selection and Managernant Plan selection agency and the potential
and uplands, constituting to the extent Development management agency; and
feasible a natural unit. set asides as a (3) A description of how public
natural field laboratory to provide long- 921.10 General. participation. will be incorporated into
term opportunities for research. pr (a) A state may apply for a the process (see � 921.11(d)).
educational, and interpretation on the eacquisition award for the purpose of (c) As part of the site selerAion
n the area Re selection and preparation of process,
ecological relationships withi. 81 the state and NOAA shall
(see 18 U.S.C. 1454(8)). documents specified in J 921.12 (draft evaluate and select the final site(s@
management plan and environmental NOAA has final authority in approving
1921.3 National Estuarine Sanctuary impact statement [EIS)). The total such sites. Site selection shall be guided
Biogeographic Classification Schme and Federal share of the prear-quisition by the following principles:
Estuarine Typologles. award may not exceed $50,000. of which (1) The site's benefit to the National.
(a) National estuarine sanctuaries are up to $10,000 may be used for site Estuarine Sanctuary Program relative to
chosen to reflect regional differences selection as described in J 921.11. the biogeographic classification scheme

263

26512 Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 125 / Wednesday, June 27, 1984 / Rules and Regulations

and typology set forth in � 921.3 and 921.12 Management Plan development Note.-In forma ti on on preparing a
Appendices I and 2; (a) After the selected site is approved preliminary engineering report (PER) is
[2) The site's ecological by NOAA and the state, the.state may provided in "Engineering and Construction
Guidelines for Coastal Energy Impact
characteristics, including its biological request the remainder of the Program Applicants" (42 FR 64830 (1977)),
productivity, diversity of flora and preacquisition funds to develop the draft which is supplied to award recipients:
fauna, and capacity to attract a broad management plan and environmental
range of research and educational impact statement. The request must be (7) An acquisition plan identifying the
interests. The proposed site should, to accompanied by the information ecologically key land and water areas of
the maximum extent possible, be a specified in Subpart F and the following the sanctuary. priority acquisitions, and
natural system; programmatic information: strategies for acquiring these areas. This
(3) Assurance that the site's (1) An analysis of the site based on plan should identify ownership patterns
boundaries encompass an adequate the biogeographic scheme/typology within the proposed sanctuary
portion of the key land and water areas discussed in � 921.3 and set forth in boundaries: land already in the public
of the natural system to approximate an Appendices I and 2: domain; an estimate of the fair market
(2) A description of the site and its value of land to be acquired; the method
ecological unit and to ensure effective major resources, including location of acquisition, or the feasible '
conservation. Boundary size will vary proposed boundaries, and adjaceW land alternatives (including less-than-fee
greatly depending on the nature of the uses. Maps. including aerial techniques) for the protection of the
ecosystem. National estuarine photographs, are required; estuarine area: a schedule for
sanctuaries may include existing (3) A description of the public acquisition with an estimate of the time
Federal or state lands already in a participation process used by the state required to complete the proposed
protected status.where mutual benefit to solicit the views of interested parties, sanctuary; and a discussion of any
can be enhanced, see � 921.51(e)(2). a summary of comments, and, if anticipated problems:
Importantly. however, NOAA will not interstate issues are involved, Note.-As discussed in � 921.11(c)(3), if
approve a site for potential sanctuary documentation that the Governor(s) of protected lands are to be included within the
status that is dependent upon the the other affected state(s) has been proposed sanctuary, the state must
inclusion of currently protected Federal contacted: demonstrate to NOAA that the site meets the
lands in order to meet the requirements (4) A list of'all sites considered and a criteria for national estuarine sanctuary
for sanctuary status (such as key land brief statement of the basis for not status independent of the inclusion of such
and water areas). Such lands may only selecting the non-preferred sites; and protected lands.
be included within a sanctuary to serve (5) A draft management plan outline (8) A resource protection plan
as a buffer or for other ancillary (see subsection (b) below) and an detailing applicable authorities.
purposes: outline of a draft memorandum of including allowable uses, uses requiring
(4) The site's importance for research, understanding (MOU) between the state a permit and permit requirements. any
including proximity to existing research and NOAA detailing the Federal-state restrictions on use of the sanctuary. and
facilities and educational institutions; roles in sanctuary management during a strategy for sanctuary surveillance
(Comment: NOAA is developing more the period of federal funding -and and enforcement of such use
detailed criteria for selecting potential expressing the state's long-term restrictions, including appropriate
national estuarine sanctuaries based commitment to operate and manage the government enforcement agencies:
upon research characteristics, Once sancturay. (9) If applicabld, a restoration plan
these criteria are developed, a notice of (b) After NOAA approves the state's describing those portions of the site that
their availability will be published in the request to use the remaining may require habitat modification to
Federal Register). preacquisition funds, the state shall restore natural conditions; and
(5) The site's compatibility with begin developing a draft management (10) A proposed memorandum of
existing and potential land and water plan. The plan will set out in detail: understanding (MOU) between the state
uses in contiguous areas; and (1) Sanctuary goals and objectives, and NOAA regarding the Federal-state
(6) The site's importance to education management issues, and strategies or relationship during the establishment
and interpretive efforts, consistent with actions for meeting the goals and and development of the national
the need for continued protection of the objectives; estuarine sanctuary. and expressing the
natural system. (2) An administrative section long-term commitment by the state to
(d) Early in the site selection process, including staff roles in administration, maintain effectively the sanctuary after
research. educa Vi on /interpretation, and Federal financial assistance ends. In
the state must seek, the views of affected surveillance and enforcement. conjunction with the MOU and where
landowners, local governments, other (3) A research plan, including a possible under state law, the state will
state and Federal agencies, and other monitoring design; consider taking appropriate
parties who are interested in the area(s) (4) An interpretive plan (including administrative or legislative action to
being considered for selection as a interpretive, educational and ensure the long-term protection of the
potential national estuarine sanctuary. recreational activities); sanctuary. The MOU shall be signed
After the local government and affected (5) A plan for public access to the prior to sanctuary designation. If other
landowners have been contacted. at sanctuary: MOUs are necessary (such asmith a
.least one public meeting shall be held in (6) A construction plan, including a federal agency or another state agencyJ,
the area of the proposed site. Notice of proposed construction schedule, and drafts of such MOUs also must be
such a'meeting, including the time, drawings of proposed developments. If a included in the plan.
place, and relevant subject matter, shall visitor center, research center or any (c) Regarding the preparation of an
be announced by the state through the other facilities are proposed for environmental impact statement PS)
area's principal news media at least 15 construction or renovation at the site, a under the National Environmental Polic
-days prior to the date of the meeting and preliminary engineering report must be Act on a national estuanine sanctuary
by NOAA in the Federal Register. prepared; proposal, the state shall provide all

264

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

necessary information to NOAA 921.21 Initial acquisition and Title to the property conveyed by this deed
concerning the socioeconomic and development awards. shall vest in the Irecipient of the CZMA
environmental impacts associated with (a) Assistance is provided to aid the Section 315 award or other Federally-
approved entity) subject to the condition that
implementing the draft management recipient in: (1) Acquiring land and the property shall remain part of the
plan and feasible alternatives to the water areas to be included in the Federally -designated [name of National
plan. Based on this information, NOAA sanctuary boundaries; (2) minor Estuarine Sanctuary]. In the event that the
will prepare thedraft EIS, construction, as provided in paragraphs property is no longer-included as part of the
(d) Early in the development of the (b) and (c) of this section; (3) preparing sanctuary, or if the sanctuary designation of
draft management plan and the draft the final management plan; and (4) up to which it is part is withdrawn, then the
EIS, the state shall hold a meeting in the the point of sanctuary designation, for National Oceanic and Atmospheric
area or areas most affected to solicit initial management costs, e.g., Administration or its successor agency, in
public and government comments on the implementing the NOAA approved draft conjunction with the State, may exercise any
significant issues related to the management plan, preparing the final of the following rights regarding the
disposition of the property;
proposed action. NOAA will publish a management plan, hiring a sanctuary (i) The recipient may be required to
notice of the meeting in the Federal manager and other staff as necessary, transfer title to the Federal Government. In
Register and in local media. and for other management-related such cases, the recipient shall be entitled to
(e) NOAA will publish a Federal activities. Application procedures are compensation compute'd'by applying the
Register notice of intent to prepare a specified in Subpart F. recipient's percentage of participation in the
DEIS. After the draft EIS is prepared (b) The expenditure of Federal and cost of the program or project to the current
and filed with the Environmental state funds on major construction fair market value of the property; or
r activities is not allowed during the 00 At the discretion of the Federal
Protection Agency (EPA), a Notice of Government, (a) the recipient may either be
initial acquisition and development directed to sell the property and pay the
t.vailability of the DEIS will appear in
the Federal Register. Not less than 30 phase. The preparation of architectural Federal Government an amount computed by
days after publication of the notice, and engineering plans, including applying the Federal percentage of
NOAA will hold at least one public specifications, for any proposed participation in the cost of the original project
hearing in the area or areas most construction is permitted. In addition, to the proceeds from the sale (minus actual
minor construction activities, consistent and reasonable selling and fix-up expenses. if
affected by the proposed sanctuary. The with paragraph (c) of this section also any, from the sale proceeds); or (b) the
hearing will be held no sooner than 15 are allowed. The NOAA-approved draft recipient may be permitted to retain title after
days after appropriate notice by NOAA managtynent plan must, however, paying the Federal Government an amount
of the meeting has been given in the computed by applying 4he Federal percentage
include a construction plan and a public of participation in the cost of the original
principal news media and in the Federal access plan before any award funds can project to the current fair market value of the
Register. After a 45-day comment be spent on construction activities. property.
-period, a final EIS is prepared by (c) Only minor construction activities Note-Fair market value of the property
NOAA. that aid in implementing portions of the must be determined by an independent
Subpart C-Acquisition, Development, management plan (such as boat ramps appraiser and certified by a responsible
and nature trails) are permitted under official of the state, as provided by OMB
and Preparation of the Final the initial acquisition and development Circular A-162 Revised, Attachment F.
Management Plan
award. No more than five (5) percent of (f) Prior to submitting the finel
� 921.20 General. the initial acquisition and development management plan to NOAA for review
After NOAA approval of the site, the award may be expended on such and approval, the state should hold a
draft management plan and the draft facilities. NOAA must make a specific public meeting in the area affected by
MOU, and completion of the final EIS, a determination' based on the final EIS, the estuarine sanctuary. NOAA will
that the consi;Zion activity will not be publish a no.tice of the meeting in the
state is eligible for an acquisition and detrimental to the environment. Federal Re ster and in the local media.
development award to acquire land and (d) Except as specifically provided in . 91
water areas for inclusion in the paragraphs (a)-(c) of this section, Subpart D-Sanctuary Designation and
sanctuary and to construct research and construction projects, to be funded in Subsequent Operation
educational facilities in accordance with whole ot in part under the acquisition � 921.30 Designation of National Estuarine
the draft management plan. The and development award, may not be Sanctuaries.
acquisition and development award has initiated until the sanctuary receives
two phases. In the initial phase. state formal designation, see � 921.30. (a) The AA shall designate an area as
performance should work to meet the a national estuarine sanctuary pursuant
criteria required for formal sanctuary Note.-The intent of these requirements to Section 315 of the Act, based upon
designation., i.e., acquiring the key lamd and the phasing of the acquisition and written findings that the state has met
and water areas as specified in the draft development award is to ensure that the following conditions:
substantial progress in acquiring the key land
management plan and preparing the and waters areas hai been made and that a (1) A final management plan has been
final plan. These requirements are final management plan is completed before approved by NOAA;
specified in 1921.30. The-initial major sums are spent on construction. Once (2) Sanctuary construction and access
:
cquisition and development phase is substantial pr6gress in acquisition has been policies, � 921.21(b)-(d), have been
xpected to last no longer than two made, as defined by the state in the followed; '
years after the start of the award. If management plan, 6ther activities guided by (3) Key land and water areas of the
necessary, a longer time period may be the final management plan may begin with proposed sanctuary, as identified in the
negotiated between the state and NOAA's approval. managernentplan, are under state
NOAA. After the sanctuary is , (e) Deeds for real property acquired control; and -
designated, funds may be used to.. for the sanctuary under acquisition . (4) An MOU between the state and
acquire any remaining land and for funding. shalt contain substantially the NOAA ensuring.a long-term
construction purposes. following -provision: commitment by, the state to the

265

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

sanctuary's effective operation and not listed in the management plan or will trigger a full-scale management
implementation has been signed. final EIS require public notice and the audit with a site-visit. On a periodic
(b) A notice of designation of a opportunity for comment; in certain basis, NOAA will also conduct a full-
national estuarine sanctuary will be cases, an environmental assessment scale Section 312 evaluation with a site
placed in the Federal Register and in the may be required. Where public notice is visit and public meeting.
local media. required, NOAA will place a notice in
(cl The term "state contror' in the federal Register of any proposed � 921.35 Withdrawal of designation.
921-30(a)(3) does not necessarily changes in sanctuary boundaries or (a) Upon a finding by the Program
require that the land be owned by the proposed major changes to the final Office through its progranimatic
state in fee simple. Less-than-fee management plan and ensure that a evaluation (1921.34) that a national
interests and regulatory measures may notice is published in the local media. estuarine sanctuary is not meeting the
suffice where the state makes a showing (b) As discussed in � 921.10(b), a state mandate of Section 315 of the Act, the
that the lands are adequately controlled may choose to develop a multiple-site national Program goals or the policies
consistent with the purposes of the national estuarine sanctuary after the established in the management plan.
sanctuary. initial acquisition and development NOAA will provide the state with a
award for a "Ie site has been made. written notice of the deficienci Such a
921.31 Supplernental acquisition and
development awards. Public notice of the proposed addition in notice will explain the deficiencies in
the Federal Register and local media, the' state's approach, propose a solution
After sanctuary designation, and as and the opportunity for comment, in or solutions to the deficiency and
specified in the approved management addition to the preparation of either an provide a schedule by which the state
plan, the state may request a
environmental assessment or should remedy the deficiency. The state
supplemental acquisition and environment impact stafement on the shall also be advised in writing that it
development award for construction and proposal will be required. An may comment on the Program Office's
acquiring any remaining land. environmental impact statement. if finding of a deficiency and meet with
Application procedures are specified. in required. will be prepared in accordance Program officials to discuss the finding
Subpart F. Land acquisition must follow with section 921.12 and will also include and seek to remedy the deficiency.
the procedures specified in J 921.21(e). an administrative framework for the (b) If the issues cannot be resolved
921.32 Operation and managetnent: multiple-site sanctuary that describes within a reasonable time, the Program
knpleatentation of the N[anagement plan. the complementary research and Office will make recommendation
(a) After the sanctuary is formally educational programs within the regarding withdrawal of designation to
designated, the state may apply for sanctuary. If NOAA determines, based the AA. A notice of intent to withdraw
assistance to provide for operation and on the scope of the project and the
issues associated with the additional designation, with an opportunity for
management. The purpose of this phase comment, will be placed in the Federal
in the national estuarine sanctuary !ite, that an environmental assessment Register.
process is to implement the approved is sufficient to establish a muhtple-site
final management plan and to take the sanctuary, then the state shalLdevelop a (c) The state shall be provided the
necessary steps to ensure the conti@,,ed revise& management plan as described opportunity for an informal hearin&
effective operation of the sanchary in � 9M.12(b). The revised mahagement before the AA to consider the Program
after direct Federal support is plan will address the sanctuary@wide Office's recommendation and finding of
concluded. goals and objectives and the additional deficiency, as well as the state's
(b) Federal funds of up to $Z50,OW, to component's relationship to the original comments on and response to the
be matched bry the state, are available site. recommendation and finding.
(d) Within 30 day after the informal
for the operation and management of the � 921.34 Program, evakwmon. hearing, the AA shall issue a written
national estuarine sanctuary. Operation (a) Performance during the term of the decision regarding the sanctuary. If a
and management awards are subject to operation and management award (or decision is made to withdraw sanctuary
the following limitations: under the initial acquisition and designation, the procedures specified
[1) No more than $5(LOOO in Federal development award, if the sanctuary is inj 921.21(e) regarding the disposition of
funds per armual award. and not designated within two years) will be real property acquired with federal
(2) No more than ten percent of the
total amount (state and Federal shares) evaluated annually by the Program funds shall be followedL
of each operation and management office and periodically in accordance
award may be used for construction- with the provisions of Section 312 of the Subpart E-Research Funds
type activities (Le, $10AW maximum Act to determine compliance with the � 921.40 GeneraL
per year). conditions of the award and overall
progress in implementing the (a) To stimulate high quality research
921.33 Boundary changes, americh. management plan. within designated national estuarine
to the Management Plan, and addition of (b) To ensure effective sanctuary sanctuaries, NOAA may find research
rwAWle-alts components. oversight after the major federal funding on a competitive basis to sanctuaries
(a) Changes in sanctuary boundaries expires, the state is required to submit having an approval final management
and major changes to the final an annual report on the sanctuary. The plan. Research funds are intended to
management plan, including state laws report should detail program successes support significant research p 'r6jects
or regulations promulgated specifically and accomplishments in meeting the that will lead to enhanced scientific
for the sanctuary, may be made only policies and activities described in the understanding of the sanctuary
after written approval by NOAA. If sanctuary management plan. A work environment, improved coastal
determined to be necessary, NOAA may plan, detailing the projects to be decisionmaking, improved sanctuary
require public notice including notice in undertaken the next.year to meet the management, or enhanced public
the Federal Register. and an opportunity Program goals and the state's role in appreciation and understanding of the
for comment. Changes in the boundary ongoing sanctuary programs, should also sanctuary ecosystem. Research .
involving the acquisition of properties be included. Inadequate annual reports opportunities will be identified in final

266

Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 125 / Wednesaav. June 27, !984 1; Rules and Regulations 26515

management plans for national (3) Research quality (i.e.. soundness of oipphcations must contain back up data
estuarine sanctuaries. Research funds approach, environmental consequences, or hudget estimates (Federal.and non-
will be used to rill obvious voids in experience related to methodologies): Federal shares), and evidence !hat the
available data, as well as to support (4) Importance to the National application complies with the Executive
creative or innovative projects. Estuarine Sanctuary Program: Order IZ37Z, "Intergovernmental Revi.,w
(b) Research funds are provided in (5) Budget and Institutional of Federal Programs." In addition.
addition to any funds available to the Capabilities (i.e., reasonableness of applications for acquisition and
state under the operation and budget. sufficiency of logistical support); development awards must contain:
management or acquisition and and (1) State Historic Preservation Office
development awards. Research funds (6) In addition. in the case of long- qo@@ents;
must be matched by the state. consistent term monitoring projects, the ability of (2) Appraisals and title information;
with I 921.51(e)(iii) ("allowable costs"). the state or the research grant recipient (3) Governor's letter approving the
Individual states may apply for funding to support the grant beyond this initial sanctuary proposal; and
for more than one research project per funding. f4) Written approval from.NOAA of
sanctuary. Subpart F-General Financial the draft or final management plan.
� 921.41 Categories of potential research Assistance Provisions The Standard Form 424 has been
project; evaluation criteria. approved by the Office of Management
(a) While research funds may be used � 921.50 Application Information. and Biidget (Appro@ral number 0648-
to start-up long-term projects, they are (a) The maximum total Federal 0121) for use through September 30,
not intended as a source of contintifing funding per sanctuary is S3.000,000 for 1986.
funding for a particular project over the preacquisition, acquisition and 921.51 Allowable costs.
time. Emphasis will be placed an development, and operation and
management awards. The research (a) Allowable costs will be
projects that are also of benefit to other funding under � 921.40 is excluded from determined in accordance with OMB
sanctuaries in the system. Proposals for this total. Circulars A-10Z. "Uniform
research under the following categories (b) Only a state Governor, or his/her Administrative Requirements for
will be considered: designated state agency, may apply for Grants-in-Aid to State and Local
(1) Establishing a Data Base and national estuarine sanctuary financial Governments", and A-87, "Principles for
Monitoring Program (e.g.. studies related assistance awards. If a state is Determining Costs Applicable to Grants
to gathering and interpreting baseline participating in the national Coastal and Contracts with State. Local. and
information on the estuary. Funds are Zone Management Progam. the recipient Federally Recognized Indian Tribal
available to establish a data base and
monitoring system; however, the long- of an award under Section 315 of the Governments"; the financial assistance
term support for such a system must be Act shall consult with the state coastal agreement; these regulations; and other
carried out as part of overall sanctuary management agency regarding the Department of Commerce and NOAA
implementation); application. directives. The term "costs" applies to
(c) No acquisition and development both the Federal and non-Federal
(2) Estuarine Ecology (e.g., studies of shares.
ine relationships between estuarine award may be made by NOAA without
pecies and their environment. studies the approval of the Governor of the (b) Costs claimed as charges to the
a state. or his/her designated agency, in award must be reasonable, beneficial
of biological populations community which the land to be acquired is located. and necessary for the proper and
relationships, studies an factors and (d) All applications are to be efficient administration of the tmancial
processes that govern the biological submitted to: Management and Budget assistance award and must be incurred
productivity of the estuary); Group, Office of Ocean and Coastal during the awards period. except as
(3) Estuarine Processes (e.g.. studies Resource Management. National Ocean provided under preagreement costs.
on dynamic physical processes that Service, National Oceanic and subsection (d).
influence and give the estuary its Atmospheric Administration, 3300 (c) Costs must not be allocable to or
particular physical characteristics. Whitehaven St., NW., Washington. D.C. included as a cost of any other
including studies related to climate, 20235. Federally-financed program in either the
patterns of watershed drainage and (e) An original and two copies of the current or a prior award period.
freshwater inflow. patterns of water complete application must be submitted (d) Costs incurred prior to the
circulation within the estuary. and at least 120 working days prior to the effective date of the award
studies on oceanic'or terrestrial factors proposed beginning of I]ie project. The (preagreement costs) are allowable only
that influence the condition of estuarine Application for Federal Assistance when specifically approved in the
waters and bottoms); Standard Form 424 (Non-construction financial assistance agreement. For nor,-
(4) Applied Research (e.g., studies Program) constitutes. the formal construction awards, costs incurred
designed to answer specific application for preacquisitiom operation more than three months before the
management questionsy and and management. and research awards. award beginning date "I not be
(5) Socioeconomic Research (e.g.. The Application for Federal Assistance approved. For construction and.land
studies on patterns of land use, . Standard Form 424 (Construction acquisition awards. NOAA will evaluate
sanctuary visitation. archaeological Program) constitutes the formal preagreement costs on a case-by-case
research)- application for land acquisition and basis.
(b) Proposals for research in national development awards. The ap3rication (a) General guidelines for the non-
estuarine sanctuaries will be evaluated must be accompanied by the Federal share am contained in OUB
in accordance with criteria listed below- informatiod required in Subpart B Circular A-= Attachment F. The
(1) Scientific merits: (preacquisition). Subpart C and Section following may be used by the state in
(2) Relevance or importance to 921.31 (acquisition and development). satisfying the matching requirement:
sanctuary management or coastal and 1921.32 (operation and (1) P@,eacquisiddn Awards. Cash and
decisionmakinX management), as applicable. All in-kind contributions (value of goods

267

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

and services direc tly benefiting and development award. The value in excess a. East Flonda fSt. John's Mver to Cape
specifically identifiable to this part of of the amount required as match for the Canaveral.).
the project) are allowable. Land may not initial award may be used to match Wes: Indion
be used as match. subsequent supplemental acquisition 9. Caribbean f Cape Canaveral to Ft.
(2) Acquisition and Development and development awards for the Jefferson and south).
Awards. Cash and in-kind contributions estuarine sanctuary. 10. West Florida (Ft. Jefferson to Cedar
are allowable In general. the fair market (3) Operations and Management Key).
value of lands to be included within the Awards, Research Funds. Cash and in- Louisianian
sanctuary boundaries and acquired kind contributions (directly benefiting
pursuant to the Act, with other than 11. Panhandle Coast (Cedar Key to Mobile
and specifically identifiable to this Bay).
Federal funds, may be used as match. phase of the projectL except land, are 11 Mississippi Delta (Mobile Bay to
The fair market value of privatel@ allowable. Galveston).
donated land. at the time of donation, as 13. Western Culf (Calveston to Mexican
establishment by an independent � 921.52 Amendments to financial border).
appraiser and certified by a responsible assistance awards. Californian
official of the State (pursuant to ONIB Actions requiring an amendment to
Circular A-!02 Revised. Attachment F) the financial assistance award, such as 14. Southern California (Mexican border to
Point Concepcion).
may also be used as match. Appraisals a request for additional Federal funds, 15. Central California (Point Concepcion to
must be performed according to Federal revisions of the approved project Cape Mendocino).
appraisal standards as detailed in budget or extension of the performance ie. San FranciscoPay.
NOAA regulations and the "Uniform pe*niod must be submitted to NOAA on Columbian
Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Standard Form 424 (OMB approved
Acquisitions." Costs related to land number 074&0= for use through 17. Middle Pacific (Cape Mendocino to the
acquisition. such as appraisals, legal September 30.1986) and approved in Columbia River).
I& Washington Coast (Columbia River to
fees and surveys, may also be used as wTiting. Vancouver Island).
match. Land. including submerged lands. Appendrk I-Biographic Classification 19. Puget Sound.
already in the state's possession. in a Scheme Great Lakes
fully-protected status consistent with
the purposes of the National Estuarine Acadian 20. Western Lakes (Superior, Michigan.
Huron).
Sanctuary Program. may be used as 1. Northern Gulf of Maine (Eastport to the 21. Eastern Lakes (Ontario, Erie).
match only if it was acquired within a Sheepscot River).
one-year period prior to the award of 2. Southern Gultof Maine (Sheepscot River Fjord
preacquisition or acquisition funds and to Cape Cod). 22. Southern Alaska (Prince of Wales
with the intent to establish a national Virginian Island to Cook Wet).
estuarine sanctuary. For state lands not 23. Aleutian Islands (Cook Wet to Bristol
in a fully-protected status (eg, a state 3. Southern New England (Cape Cod to Bay).
park containing an easement for Sandy Hook).
subsurface mineral rights), the value of 4. Nfiddle Atlantic (Sandy Hook to Cape Sub-Arctic
the.development right or foregone value Hatteras). 24. Northern Alaska (Bristol Bay to
may be used as match if acquired by or 5. Chesapeake Bay. Demarcation Point).
donated to the state for inclusion within Carolinian Insular
the sanctuary. S. Northern Carolinas (Cape Hatteras to 25. Hawaiian Islands.
A state may initially use as match Santee River). 28. Western Pacific Island.
.land valued at greater than the Federal 7. South Atlantic (Santee River to St. Jahn's 27. Eastern Pacific Island.
share of the acquisition and River). BILLM CODE 1510-06-M

268

SUB:XRT'i. 2

FJORD

20
COLUMBIAN GREAT LAKES

16 5

CALIFORNIAN,

2.,
tj
26
25 LOUISIANIAN
INSULAR -v*"-"1

Figure 1. Biogeographic Regions of the United States.

26518 Federal Register I Vol. 49, No. 125 / Wednesday, June 27, 1984 1 Rules and Regulations

Appendix 2-Typology of National 2. Southeast Areas: Floral dominants B. Coastal Swamps: These are wet lowland
Estuarine Areas include Myrica, Baccharis. and flex. areas that support mosses and shrubs
3. Western Areas: Adenostorna, together with large trees such, as cypress or
This typology system reflects significant Arcotyphyqlos, and Eucalyptus are the gum.
differences in estuarine characteristics that dominant floral species. C. Coastal Mangroves: This ecosvstem
are not necessarily related to regional C. Coastal Grasslands. This area. which experiences regular flooding on either a daily,
location. The purpose of this type of possesses sand. dunes and coastal flats. has monthly, or seasonal basis, has low wave
classification is to maximize ecosystem low rainfall (10 to 30 inches per year) and action. and is dominated by variety of salt-
variety in the selection of national estuarine large amounts of humus in the soil. Ecological tolerant trees, such as the red mangrove
sanctuaries. Priority will be given to succession, is slow. resulting in the presence (Rhizophora mangle), black mangrove
important ecosystem type as yet of a number of seral stages of community (Avicenniia nitida), and the white mangrove
unrepresented in the sanctuary system. It development. Dominant vegetation includes (Laguncularia racemosa). It is also an
should be noted that any one site may mid-grasses (Z to 4 feet tall), such as important habitat for large populations of
represent several ecosystem types or Ammophila, Agropyron. and Caqlamovifa, tall fish, invertebrates, and birds. This type of
physical characteristics. grasses (5 to 8 feet tall),.such as Spartina, and ecosystem can be found from central Florida
Class 1-Ecosystem Types trees such as the willow (Saqlix sp.). cherry to extreme south Texas to the islands of the
(Prumus sp.). and cottonwood (Populus Western Pacific.
Group I-Shorelands deltoides). This area is divided into four
A. Maritime Forest-Woodland- This regions with the following typical strand D. Intertidal Beaches. This ecosystem has
type of vegetation: a distinct biota of microscopic animals,
ecosystem consists of single-stemmed species I bacteria, and unicellular algae along with
that have developed under the influence of 1. Amttc/Boreal: Elymus.
sail spray. It can be found on coastal uplands 2. Northeast/West: Aqmmophiqla, macroscopic crustaceans, mollusks. and
or recent features. such as barrier islands and 3. Southeast/Gulf- Uniola; and worms with a detritus-based nutrient cycle.
beaches. and may be divided into the 4. Mid-Altantic/Gulf- Spartina patens. This area also includes the driftline
following biomes: D. Coastal Tundra. This ecosystem. which communities found at high tide levels on the
1. Northem Coniferous Forest Biame: This is found along the Arctic and Boreal coasts of beach. The dominant organisms in this
is an area of predominantly evergreens such North America. is characterized by low ecosystem include crustaceans such as the
as the sitka spruce (Piceea), grand fir (Abies temperatures, a short growing season, and mole crab (Emerita), amphipods
and white cedar (Thuja, with poor some permafrost. producing a low. treeless (Gammaridae), ghost crabs (Oypode), and
development of the shrub and herb layers. mat community made up of mosses. lichens, bivalve molluscs such as the coquina (Donax)
but high annual productivity and pronounced heath. shrubs, grasses, sedges. rushes. and and surf clams (Spisula and Mactra).
seasonal periodicity. herbaceous and dwarf woody plants. E. Intertidal Mud and Sand Flats. These
2. Moist Temperate (Mesothermal) Common species include arctic/alpine plants areas are composed of unconsolidated. high
Coniferous Forest Biome: Found along the such as Empetrum niqgruin and Betuqla narra, organic content sediments that function as a
west coast of North America from California the lichens Cetraria and Cladoniqa, and short-term storage area for nutrients and
to Alaska, this area is dominated by conifers, herbaceous plants such as Potentilla organic carbons. Macrophytes are nearly
has a relatively small seasonal range. high tridentata and Rubus chamaemorus. absent in this ecosystem. although it may be
humidity with rainfall ranging from 30 to 150 Common species on the coastal beach ridges heavily colonized by benthic diatoms. dino-
inches. and a well-developed understory of of the high arctic desert include Dryas flagellates. filamentous blue-green and green
vegetation with an abundance of mosses and intergrifola and Saxifrage oppositifolia. algae, and chaemosynthetic purple sulfur
other moisture-tolerant plants. This area can be divided into two main bacteria. This system may support a
3. Temperate Deciduous Forest Blame. This subdivisions: considerable population of gastropod&
biome, in characterized by abundant. evenly i. Low tundra: characterized by a thick. bivalves. and polychaetes, and may serve as
distributed rainfall. moderate temperatures spongy mat of living-and undecayed a feeding area fora variety of fish and
which exhibt a distinct seasonal pattern, vegetation. often with water and dotted with wading birds. In sand. the dominant fauna
well-developed soil biota and herb and shrub ponds when not frozen: and include the wedge shed Donax, the scallop
layers. and numerous plants which produce 2. High tund a bare area except for a Pecten, tellin shells Tellina. the heart urchin
pulpy fruits and nuts. A distant subdivision of scanty growth of lichens and grasses, with Echinocardium, the lug worm Arenicoqla.
this blame is the pine edaphic forest of the underlying ice wedges forming raised sand dollar Dendraster, and the sea pansy
southeastern coastal plain in which only a polygonal areas. Reniqlla. In mud, faunal dominants adapted to
small portion of the area is occupied by E. Coastal Cliffs. This ecosystem is an low oxygen levels include the terebellid
climax vegetation. although it has large areas important nesting site for many sea and shore Amphitrite. the boring clam Playdon, the
covered by edaphic climax pines. birds. It consists of communities of deep sea scallop Placopecten, the quahog
4. Broad-leaved Evergreen Subtropical herbacesous, graminoid, or low woody plants Mercenaria, the echiurid worm Urechis, the
Forest Biomes: The main characteristic of this (shrubs. heath. etc.) on the top or along rocky mud snail Nassarius, and the sea cucumber
biome, is high moisture with less pronounced faces exposed to salt spray. There is a Thyone.
differences between winter and summer. diversity of plant species including mosses. F. Intertidal Algal Beds. These are hard
Examples are the hammocks of Florida and lichens. liverworts. and "higher" plant
the live oak forests of the Gulf and South representatives. substrates along the marine edge that are
Atlantic coasts. Floral dominants include dominated by macroscopic algae. usually
pines, magnolias, bays, hollies. wild Group 11 Transition Areas thalloid, but also filamentous or unicellular in
tamarind. strangler fig. gumbo limbo, and A. Coastal Marshes: These are wetland growth form. This also includes the rocky
Palms. areas dominated by grasses (Poacea). sedges coast tidepool that fail within the intertidal
B. Coast Shrublands: This is a transitional (Cyperaceae). rushes (Juncaceas). cattails zone. Dominant fauna of these areas are
area between the coastal grasslands and (Typhaccae). and other graminoid species barnacles. mussels. periwinkles, anemones.
woodlands and is characterized by woody and is subject to periodic flooding by either and chitons. Three regions are apparent-
species with multiple stems, a few centimeters salt or freshwater. This ecosystem may be 1. Northern Latitude Rocky Shores. It is in
to several maters above the pound subdivided into: (a) tidal. which is this region that the community structure is
developing under the influence of salt spray periodically Hooded by either salt or brackish but developed. The dominant algal species
and occasional sand burial. This includes water (b) non-tidal (freshwater); or (c) tidal include Chondrus at the law tide level. Fucus
thicket& scrub, scrub savanna. heathlands. freshwater. These are essential habitats for and socophyllum at the mid-tidal level. and
and coastal chaparraL There is a great many important estuarine species of fish and Laminaria and other kelp-like algae just
variety of shrubland vegetation exhibiting invertebrates as well as shorebirds and beyond the intertidal. although they can be
regional specificity- waterfowl and serves important roles in exposed at extremely low tide* or found in
1. Northers Areas: Characterized by shore stabilizatiom flood control. water very deep tidepools.
Fludsonia, various erinaceous species. and purification. and nutrient transport and 2. Southern Latitudes. The communities in
thickets of Myrica, Prunus, and Rosa storages this region are reduced in comparison to

270

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

those of the northern latitudes and possesses confined waters-abundant marine grasses, 1.Coastal plains estuary:Where a
algae consisting mostly of single-celled or shellfish. and juvenile fish. Water movement drowned valley consists mainly of a single
filamentous green. blue-green. and red algae. is reduced. with the consequent effects of channel, the form of the basin is fairly
and small thalloid brown algae. pollution being more severe in this area than regular, forming a simple coastal plains
3. Tropical and subtropical Latitudes: The in exposed coastal areas. estuary. When a channel is flooded with
intertidal in this region is very reduced and 3. Bay:Bays are larger confined bodies of numerous tributaries, an irregular estuary
contain numerous calcareous algae such as water that are open to the sea and receive results. Many estuaries of the eastern United
Porolithon and Lithothamnion as well as strong tidal flow. When stratification is States are of this type.
green algae with calcareous particles such as pronounced, the flushing action is augmented 2.Fjord: Estuaries that form an elongated,
Halimeda, and numerous other green, red by river discharge. Bays very in size and in steep headlands that alternate with deep U-
and brown algae. type of shorefront. shaped valleys resulting from glacial scouring
4.Embayment: A confined coastal water are called fjords. They generally possess
Group III--Submerged Bottoms body with narrow, restricted inlets and with rocky floors or very thin veneers of sediment,
A. Subtidal Hardbottoms: This system is a significant freshwater inflow can be with deposition generally being restricted to
characterized by consolidated layer of solid classified an embayment. These areas the head where the main river enters.
rock or large pieces of rock (neither of biotic have more restricted inlets than bays, are Compared to total fjord volume, river
geomorphological features such as submarine action, and are subject to sedimentation. restricted tidal ranges at their mouths, due to
canyons and fjords and is usually covered 5. Tidal River: The lower reach of a coastal sills, or upreaching sections of the bottom
with assemblages of sponges, sea fans, river is referred to as a tidal river. The which limit free movement of water, often
bivalves, hard corals, tunicates, and other coastal water segment extends from the sea making river flow large with respect to the
attached organisms. A significant feature of or estuary into which the river discharges to tidal prism. The deepest portions are in the
estuaries in many parts of the world is the a point as far upstream as there is significant upstream reaches, where maximum depths
oyster reef, a type of subtidal hardbottom. salt content in the water, forming a salt front. can range from 800 m to 1200 m, while sill
Composed of assemblages of organisms A combination of tidal action and freshwater depths usually range from 40 m to 150 m.
(usually bivalves). It is usually found near an outflow makes tidal rivers well-flushed. The 3. Bar-bounded Estuary: These result from
estuary's mouth in a zone of moderate wave tidal river basin may be a simple channel or a the develpment of an offshore barrier, such
action, salt content, and turbidity. If light complex of tributaries, small associated as a beach strand, a line of barrier islands.
levels are sufficient, a covering of embayments, marshfronts, tidal flats, and a reef formations, a line of moraine debris, or
microscopic and attached macroscopic algae, variety of others. the subsiding remnants of a deltaic lobe. The
such as kelp, may also be found. 6. Lagoon: Lagoons are confined coastal basin is often partially exposed at low tide
B. Subtidal Softbottoms: Major bodies of water with restricted inlets to the and is enclosed by a chain of offshore bars or
characteristics of this ecosystem are an sea and without significant freshwater barriers islands, broken at intervals by inlets.
unconsolidated layer of ine particles of silt. inflow. Water circulations is limited, resulting These bars may be either deposited offshore
sand, clay, and gravel, high hydrogen sulfide in a poorly flushed, relatively stagnant body or may be coastal dunes that have become
levels, and anserobic conditions often of water, Sedimentation is rapid with great isolated by recent sea level rises.
existing below the surface, Macrophytes are potential for basin shoaling. Shores are often 4.Tectonic Estuary: These are coastal
either sparse or absent, although a layer of gently sloping and marshy. indentures that have formed through tectonic
benthic microalgae may be present if light 7. Perched Coastal Wetlands: Unique to processes such as slippage along a fault line
levels are sufficient. The faunal community id Pacific islands, this wetland type, found (San Francisco Bay), folding, or movement of
dominated by a diverse populations of deposit above sea level in volcanic crater remnants, the earth's bedrock, often with a large inflow
feeders including polychaetes, bivalves, and forms as a result of poor drainage of freshwater.
burrowing crustaceans. characteristics of the creater rather than, from 5. Volcanic Estuary: These coastal bodies
C. Subtidal Plants: This system is found in sedimentation. Floral assemblages exhibit of open water, a result of volcanic processes,
relatively shallow water (less than 8 to 10 distinct zonation while the faunal are depressions or craters that have direct
meters) below mean low tide. It is an area of constituents may include freshwater, and/or subsurfaces connections with the
extremely high primary production that brackish, and/or marine species. Example: ocean and may or may not have surface
provides food and refuge for a diversity of Aunu'u Island. American Samoa. continuity with streams. This formations
faunal groups, especially juvenile and adult 8. Anchialine Systems: These small coastal are unique to island areas of volcanic origin.
fish, and in some regions, manatees and sea exposures of brackish water form in lava C. Inlet Type: Inlets in various forms are an
turtles. Along the North Atlantic and Pacific depressions or elevated fossil reefs, have integral part of the estuarine environment, as
coasts, the seagrass Zostera marina only a subsurface connection to the ocean, they regulate, to a certain extent, the velocity
predominates. In the South Atlantic and Gulf but show tidal fluctuations. Differing from and magnitude of tidal exchange, the degree
support a number of epiphytic organisims. true estuaries in having no surface continuity
with streams or ocean, this system is of mixing, and volume of discharge to the sea.
characterized by a distinct biotic community There are four major types of inlets:
Class II--Physical Characteristics dominated by benthic algae such as 1. Unrestricted: An estuary with a wide,
Rhizoclonium, the mineral encrusting unrestricted inlet typically has slow currents,
Group I-Geologic Schizothrix, and the vascular plant Ruppia no significant turbulence, and receive the full
A. Basin Type: Coastal water basins occur maritima. Characteristic fauna, which exhibit effect of ocean waves and local disturbances
in a variety of shapes, sizes, depths, and a high degree of endemicity, include the which serve to modify the shoreline. These
appearances. The eight basic types discussed mollusks Theodoxus neglectus and T. estuaries are partially mixed, as the open
below will cover most of the cases: corrasus. the small red shrimp Metabetaeus, mouth permits the incursion of marine waters
1. Exposed Coast: Solid rock formations or iohena and halocaridina rubra, and the fish to considerable distances upstream,
heavy sand deposits characterize exposed Eqleotris sandwicensis and Kuhlia depending on the tidal amplitude and stream
ocean shore fronts, which are subject to the sandvicensus. Although found throughout the gradient.
full form of ocean storms. The sand beaches world, the high islands of the Pacific are the 2.Restricted: Restrictions of estuares can
an very resilient, although the dunes lying only areas within the U.S. where this system exist in many forms: bars, barrier islands,
just behind the beaches are fragile and easily can be found. spits, sills, and more. Restricted inlets result
damaged. The dunes serve as a sand storage B. Basin Structure: Estuary basins may in decreased circulation, more pronounced
area making them chief stabilizers of the result from the drowning of a river valley longitudinal and vertical salinity gradients,
ocean shorefront. (coastal plains estuary), the drowning of a and more rapid redimentation. However, if
2. Sheltered Coast:Sand or coral barriers glacial valley ((fjord), the occurrence of an the estuary mouth is restricted by
built up by natural forms, provide sheltered offshore barrier (bar-bounded estuary), some depositional features or land closures, the
areas inside a bar or reef where the tectonic process (tectonic estuary), or incoming tide may be held back until it
ecosystem takes on many characteristics of volcanic activity (volcanic estuary). suddenly breaks forth into the basin as a

271

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

tidal wave, or bare. Such currents exert 1. Stratified: This is typical of estuaries Subsurface water: This refers to the
profound effects on the nature of the with a strong freshwater influx and is precipitation that has been absorbed by the
substrate, turbidity, and biota of the estuary. commonly found in bays formed from soil and stored below the surface. The
3. Permanent: Permanent inlets are usually "drowned" river valleys, fjords, and other distribution of subsurface water depends on
oposite the mouths of major rivers and deep basins. There is a net movement of local climate, topography, and the porosity
permit river water to flow into the sea. freshwater outward at the top layer and and permeability of the underlying soils and
Sedimentation and deposition are minimal. saltwater at the bottom layer, resulting in a rocks. There are two main subtypes of
4. Temporory(intermittent):Temporary net outward transport of surface organisms surface water.
inlets are formed by storms and frequently and net inward transport of bottom a. Vodose water: This is water in the soil
shift position, depending on tidal flow, the organisms. above the water table. Its volume with
depth of the sea and sound waters, the respect to the soil, is subject to considerable
frequency of storms, and the amount of 2.Non-stratisfied: Estuaries of this type are fluctuation.
littoral transport. found where water movement is sluggish and b.Groundwater: This is water contained in
D.Bottom Composition:The bottom sufficient circulation to provide the basis for the rocks below the water table, is usually of
composition of estuaries attests to the a high carrying capacity. This is common to
vigorous, rapid, and complex sedimentation shallow embayments and bays lacking a more uniform volume than vadose water, and
processes characteristic of mast coastal good supply of freshwater from land generally follows the topographic relief of the
regions, with low relief. Sediments are drainage. land, being high below hills and sloping into
derived through the hydrologic processes of 3. Lagoonal: An estuary of this type is valleys.
erosion, transport, and deposition carried on characterized by low rates of water Group III-Chemical
by the sea and the stream. movement resulting from a lack of significant
I. Sand: Near estuary mouths, where the freshwater influx and a lack of strong tidal A. Salinity: This reflects a complex mixture
predominating forces of the sea build spits or exchange because of the typically narrow of salts, the most abundant being sodium
other depositional features, the shoresand inlet connecting the lagoon to the sea. chloride, and is a very critical factor in the
substrates of the estuary are sandy. The Circulation, whose major driving force is distribution and maintenance of many
bottom sediments in this area are usually wind, is the major limiting factor in biological estuarine organism. Based an salinity, there
coarse, with a graduation toward finer productivity within lagoons. are two basic estuarine types and eight
particles in the head of the estuary. In the B.Tides: This is the most important different salinity zones (expressed in parts
head region and other zones of reduced flow, ecological factor in an estuary, as it affects per thousand--ppi).
fine silty sands are deposited. Sand water exchange and its vertical range 1. Positive estuary: This is an estuary in
deposition occurs only in wider or deeper determines the extent of tidal flats which which the freshwater influx is sufficient to
regions where velocity is reduced. may be exposed and submerged with each maintain mixing, resulting in a pattern of
2. Mud: At the base level of a stream near tidal cycle. Tidal action against the volume of increasing salinity toward estuary mouth.
its mouth. the bottom is typically composed riverwater discharged into an estuary results It is charactarized by low oxygen
of loose muds, silt, and organic detritus as a in a complex system whose properties vary concentration in the deeper waters and
result of erosion and transport from the upper according to estuary structure aa well as the considerable organic content in bottom
stream reaches and organic decomposition, magnitude of river flow and tidal range. Tides sediments.
just inside the estuary entrance, the bottom are usually described in terms of their cycle 2. Negative estuary: This is found in
contains considerable quantities of sand and and their relative heights. In the United particularly arid regions, where estuary
mud, which support a rich fauna. Mud flats, States, tide height is reckoned on the basis of evaporaton may exceed freshwater inflow,
commonly built up in estuarine basins, are average low tide, which is referred to as resulting in increased salinity in the upper
composed of loose, coarse, and fine mud and dotum. The tides, although complex, falls into part of the basin, especially if the estuary
sand, often dividing the original channel. three main categories: mouth is restricted so that tidal flow is
3.Rock: Rocks usually occur in areas 1.Diurnal: This refers to a daily change in inhibited. These are typically very salty
where the stream runs rapidly over a steep water level that can be observed along the (hyperhaline), moderately oxygenated at
gradient with its coarse materials being shoreline. There is one high tide and one low depth, and possess bottom sediments that are
derived from the higher elevations where the tide per day. poor in organic content.
stream slope is greater. The larger fragments 2.Semidiurnal: This refers to a twice daily 3.Salinity iones (expressed in ppt):
are usually found in shallow areas near the rise and fall in water that can be observed a.Hyperhaline-greater than 40ppt.
stream mouth. along the shoreline. b.Euhalina-40 ppt to 30 ppt
4. Oyster shell: Throughout a major portion 3.Wind/Storm Tides: This refers to c.Mixohaline: 30 ppt to 0.5 ppt
of the world, the oyster reaf is one of the fluctuations in water elevation to wind and 1.Mixoeuhaline-greater than 30 ppt but
most significant features of estuareies, usually storm events, where influence of lunar tides less than the adjacent euhaline sea.
2.Polyhaline-30 ppt to 18 ppt.
being found near the mouth of the estuary in is less. 3.Mesohaline-18 ppt to 5 ppt.
a zone of moderate wave action, salt content, C.Freshwater: According to nearly all the 4.Oligohaline-5 ppt to 0.5 ppt.
and turbidity. It is often a major factor in definitions advanced, it is inherent that all d.Limnetic: Less than 0.5 ppt.
modifying estuarine current systems and estuaries need freshwater, which is drained B.pH Regime: This is indicative of the
sedimentation, and may occur as an from the land and measurable dilutes mineral richness of estuarine waters and fall
elongated island or peninsula oriented across seawater to create a brackish condition. into three main categories:
the main current, or may develop parallel to Freshwater enters an estuary as runoff from 1.Acid: Waters with a pH of less than 5.5
the direction of the current. the land either from a surface and/or 2.Circumneutral: A condition where the pH
subsurface source. ranges from 5.5 20 7.4.
Group II-Hydrographic 1.Surface water: This is water flowing over 3.Alkaline: Waters with a pH greater than
A. Circulation: Circulation patterns are the the ground in the form of streams. Local 7.4
result of the combined influences of variation in runoff is dependent upon the
freshwater flow, tidal actions, wind and nature of the soil (peroxity and solubility),
oceanic forces, and serve many functions: degree of surface slope, vegetational type and
nutrient transport, plankton dispersal, development, local climatic conditions, and
ecsoystem flushing, salinity control, water volume and intensity of precipitation.
mixing and more.

272

APPENDIX 3

Research and Educational Forms
for the Proposed Component

273

ca Department OFFICE OF
North Carolin 1 of Natural COASTAL MANAGEMENT
David W. Owens
Resources 0'(Community Development Director
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor James A. Summers, Secretary Telephone 919 733-2293

North Carolina National Estuarine Sanctuary Program

Research Proposal

Date

Name of Principal Investigator

Agency Affiliation

Telephone No.

.Address

Are you requesting consideration for Federal funding?
Yes No

If yes, see Application Considerations, pg. 5 of this form.

Will any equipment be left on site for the duration of the investigation?
Yes No Please explain:

Has An on-site visit been conducted? Yes No

Will the investigation require the removal of plants or animals?
Yes No

Have all the necessary collection permits been obtained?
C ) Yes ( ) No (See notice below)

DURATION OF THE STUDY:

Starting Date

Completion Date

275

P 0. Box 27687 R. N. C. 27611-7687
An Equal Opportunity Afflirmative Action Employer

Using the attached map, please indicate W. the areas within the sanctuary
to be used for the investigation. Give dimensions of study plot in a
sketch if necessary.

NOTICE: COLLECTION PERMITS ARE REQUIRED

Waterfowl U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
919/755-4786 (Raleigh)

Fish and Shellfish N. C. Division of Marine Fisheries
919/726-7021 (Morehead City)

Terrestrial Animals N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
919/733-7896 (Raleigh)

Plants N* C. Office of Coastal Management
working with the N. C. Natural Heritage
Program 919/733-2293 (Raleigh)

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR DATE

SANCTUARY COORDINATOR DATE

APPROVED DENIED

APPROVED WITH SPECIAL CONDITIONS (Attached)

Proposal should be written according to the following Guidelines and
attached to this form. Proposals.should be submitted in 5 duplicate
copies to:

John Taggart, Sanctuary C 'oordinator
North Carolina National Estuarine Sanctuarv Svstem
DNRCD - Coastal Management
P. 0. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611

276

GUIDELINES FOR PREPARING RESEARCH PROPOSALS

Executive Summary

Attach on separate sheet.

Project Description

The main body of the proposal should be concise, but detailed. It
should include:

1. DescriDtion of Current State of Knowledge. Discuss the
problem in light of significant previous work in the area.

2. Project Objectives. State the objectives of the study.

3. Project SignificanSe. Discuss how the proposed effort will
enhance or contribute to improving the state of knowledge. Discuss any
relevant management issues and how the proposed effort will contribute to
sanctuary management decision-making, future sanctuary research, and/or
other works in progress.

4. Methods. Describe the tasks required to accomplish the
project's objectives. Provide adequate description of field and
laboratory methods and procedures. Provide a map to study location(s).
Indicate habitat areas of particular concern. Indicate where laboratory
analyses will be conducted, if applicable. Describe the rationale for
selecting the proposed methods and study locations over any alternatives.
Identify any environmental consequences of proposed approach. List and
describe facilities and equipment to be used. Document collaborative
arrangements and cost-sharing.

5. Analysis of Results. Discuss how the results will be analyzed.
Reference'relevant statistical analyses.

6. Deliverables. Discuss anticipated final products. Indicate
how results will be treated -- published in reference Journal, published
in the public press, incorporated into academic curriculum, submitted for
publication in SPD's Technical Report Series, etc. (Note: the SPD prints
and publishes a limited number of outstanding reports in NOAA's Technical
Report Series.)

Personnel

Describe the research team and the specific task assignments of team
members. Indicate the percentage of time, based on the offeror's regular
work week, that personnel are expected to devote to the proposed work.
Provide resumes listing qualifications and details relating to
professional and technical personnel. In an appendix, list each
investigator's publications during the past 5 years. Describe and explain
any portion of work expected to be subcontracted and identify probable
sources.

277

Submit evidence of ability to perform. Such evidence shall be in
reference to similar efforts performed.

References

Cite only those used in the text of the proposal.

Budget

The applicant may request funds under any of the categories listed
below as long as the item is considered necessary to perform the research.
The applicant should provide justification of major items requested.

1. Salaries and Wages. Salaries and wages of the principal
investigator and other members of the project team constitute direct costs
in proportion to the effort devoted to the project. The number of full-
time person months or days and the rate of pay (hourly, monthly or annual)
should be indicated. Salaries requested must be consistent with the
institution's regular practices. The submitted organization may request
that salary data remain proprietary information.

2. Fringe Benefits. Fringe benefits (i.e. social security,
insurance, retirement) may be treated as direct costs so long as this is
consistent with the institution's regular practices.

3. Equipment. Itemize equipment to be purchased, leased or rented
by model number and manufactuere, where known. Describe purpose of use.
SPD defines equipment as an item of property that has an acquisition cost
of $300 or more and an expected service life of 2 years or more. Equipment
becomes the property of SPD at the termination of the contract. Where
possible and economically advantageous, equipment should be rented or
leased for the duration of the project.

4. Travel. Describe the type and extent of travel and relation to
the proposed research. Travel expense should not exceed 40 percent of
total dir*ect costs. Funds may be requested for field work and subsistence
and for consultant's travel.

5. Other Direct Costs. The budget should itemize other
anticipated costs under the following categories:

a. Materials and Supplies. The budget should indicate in
general terms the types of expendable materials and
supplies required with their estimated costs.

b. Research Vessel or'Aircraft Rental. Include unit cost and
duration of use.

C. Laboratory Space Rental. Funds may be requested for use
of laboratory space at research establishments away from
the grantee institution while conducting studies
specifically related to. the proposed effort.

278

d Reference Books and Periodicals. Funds may be requested
for reference books and pericdicals only if they are
specifically required for the research project.

e. Publication and ReDroduction Cos"s. This includes costs
of preparing wiitten text and illustrations and publishing
results.

f. Consultant Services. Consultant services should be
justified and information furnished on consultant's
expertise, primary organizational affiliation, daily
compensation rate and number of days of expected service.
(Travel should be listed under travel in the budget).

g. Computer Services. The cost of computer services,
including data analyses and storage, word processing for
report preparation and computer-based retrieval of
scientific and technical information, may be requested and
must be justified.

h. Subcontracts. Subcontracts must be disclosed in the
proposal for approval by SPD.

6. Indirect Costs. Appropriate or established indirect cost rate;
e.g., fees.

Other Sources of Financial Support

List all current or pending research to whicil the principal
investigator or other key personnel have committed their time during the
period of the proposed work. regardless of the source of support.
Indicate the level of effort or percentage of time devoted to these
projects.

If the proposal submitted to SPD is being submitted to other possible
sponsors*, list them and describe the extent of support sought, Disclosure
of this information will not jeopardize chances for SPD funding.

APPLICATION CONSIDERATIONS FOR FEDERAL FUNDING

To stimulate high quality research within designated national
estuarine sanctuaries, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
(OCRM), Sanctuary Programs Divisioa (SPD), provide limited financial
support, on a --competitive basis, for research in sanctuaries having an
approved final management plan. Research funds are intended to support
significant research projects that will lead to enhanced scientific
understanding of the sanctuary environment, improved coastal decision-
making, improved sanctuary management, or enhanced public appreciation
and understanding of the sanctuary ecosystem. Fmphasis will be placed on
projects that are also of benefit to other sanctuaries in the system.
Research needs are outlined in sanctuary management plans.

Proposals for research under the following categories will be
considered:

1. Baseline Data and Establishment of a Monitoring Program (e.g.,
.studies related to gathering and interpreting baseline information on the
estuary; funds are available to establish a monitoring system '' The long-
term support for a monitoring system must be carried out as part of
overall sanctuary implementation);

2. Estuarine Ecology (e.g., studies of individual species'
relationships with their estuarine environment, studies of biological
community relationships, studies on factors and processes that govern the
biological productivity of the estuary.) ;

3. Estuarine Processes (e.g., studies on dynamic physical
processes that influence and give the estuary its particular physical
characteristics, including studies related to climate, patterns of
watershed drainage and freshwater drainage and freshwater inflow patterns
of water circulation within the estuary, and studies on oceanic or
terristrial factors that influence the condition of estuarine waters and
bottoms);

4. Applied Research (e.g., studies designed to answer specific
management questions); and

5. Socioeconomic Research (e.g., studies on patterns of land use,
sanctuary visitation, archaeological research).

Research opportunities are identified in final management plans for
national estuarine sanctuaries. Research funds will be used to fill
obvious voids in available data, as well as to support creative or
innovative projects.

Proposals for research in national estuarine sanctuaries will be
screened *for completeness and evaluated in accordance with criteria
listed below:

� Scientific merits;

� Relevance or importance to sanctuary management or coastal
decision-making;

� Research quality (i.e. , soundness of approach, environmental
consequences; experience related to methodologies) ; and

� Importance to the National Estuarine Sanctuary Program.

LOG Sl=

.Plea caeplete this fom after us3ng one of the ocnpcrjents - listed bel(:)w for
educational or interpretive program. File the carpleted Originals with the
Sa ttlAry. manager, office of Coastal management, NRm, P. 0. BCx 27687,
Raleigh, NC 27611 on a seascnal basis. Keep a photo ccpy for your files.

=TICNS: Call the Sanctuary Manager, 919/733-2293

Check Cne: RACHEL CARSON SITE ZEKEIS ISLAND SIIE

NAME OF PROGRAM:

]MMIKIR NUMBER OF PAMCIPANTS:

KZ LEVEL OF PARTICIPAWS:

DATE OR PROGRAM:

TIME. OF PFCGRAM:

YOUR NAME, TI=:

AFFILIATION:

AM1MSS:

PHONE NO.:

ACCESS M SITE ACHIEVW BY:

PLEASE GIVE BRIM EXPLANATION OF PROGRAM:

APPENDIX 4

Site Selection Process

283

Appendix 4: Selection of Masonboro Island as a proposed
component to the North Carolina National
Estuarine Sanctuary Svstem

The results of the 1980 estuarine sanctuary nomination process are
summarized below and the numbered sites are indicated on the attached map. All
of the letters from respondents to the nomination form (Attachment D) are
included; some of the nominations (e.g. by OCM staff) were made by personnel communication.

The twenty-eight sites nominated as potential estuarine sanctuaries in
North Carolina encompass the best examples of the state's unusually diverse
estuarine habitats. The estuaries delineated by the approximately 4,000 miles
of North Carolina estuarine shoreline (Dr. B.J. Copeland. personal
communication of 21 February 1984. UNC Sea Grant) are naturally subdivided by:
Dortions of two major biogeographic regions--Virginian. and Carolinian,
salinities ranging from oligoholine to euhaline, various estuarine basin types
and structures associated with both barrier island and mainland areas, and water
level fluctuations determined by either semi-diurnal lunar tides or irregular
wind-influenced tides. For these reasons it was essential that a multiple site
system be developed to adequately represent the state's estuarine complexity.

Because most of the sites nominated are viable candidates for sanctuary
status from a physical/biological standpoint, OMC sought to incorporate various
practical considerations in the selection process. Such additional site
selection criteria include: 1.) development pressure, 2.) estuarine
research/educational interest, 3.) availabilitv of lands that would constitute
a natural, yet manageable estuarine unit, 4.) local interest in estuarine
preservation, 5.) accessibility, 6.) lack of on-site disturbance, and
7.) compatibilitv of adjacent land uses.

After careful analysis OCM staff determined that the estuaries associated
with the state's barrier islands deserved initial priority consideration
because of the greater development pressure on the islands than the mainland.
Several such estuarine areas that were available for acquisition were also known
to be highly desirable sites for research by local universities or colleges.
Similarly, public sentiment favored preservation of these sites for education
and traditional hunting and fishing. By combining all of these factors with the
physical/biological variations of the state's estuaries, 0MC selected four
sites--Zeke's island, Carrot island-Bird Shoal (now called Rachel Carson),
Currituck Banks, and Masonboro island. Each of these selections represents a
distinctly different estuarine typology or biogeographic region (see Table I) according to the revised regulations.

The first three sites recommended by OCM have been accepted by OCRM as
components of the North Carolina National Estuarine Sancutary System. Masonboro
Island would complete barrier island estuary representation in the North
Carolina system because the island encompasses an excellent example of a
polvhaline to euhaline, embayment basin type with bar-bound structure in the
Carolinian Region. The Masonboro Island/estuary comples is undisturbed, used
for research and education by local institutions , and has a high degree of local
support for preservation.

Mansonboro Island is definitely the best choice relative to similar
estuarine sites that were nominated (see attached site evaluations of numbers
21, 22, 23, 24, 27 and 28.) The pristine and extensive non-drowned river mouth
estuary associated with Masonboro Island is only five miles from the University
of North Carolina at Wilmington, a school with a strong marine science faculty
that already utilizes the site for research and education. Support f or
preservation of the island has also been expressed by landowners, the New
Hanover County Commissioners, the town councils of adjacent Wrightsville Beach
and Carolina Beach, and numerous private citizens. For these reasons, OCM
proposes that Masonboro Island be the next component included in the North
Carolina National Estuarine Sanctuary System.

The multiple site perspective of the system also needs representation by
outstanding examples of estuaries associated with the mainland. As stated
above, OCM gave selective priority to estuaries within barrier island areas;
however, we look forward to solicting and assessing another round of
nominations to cover estuaries along the mainland after the establishment of
Masonboro Island as a component. Many prime examples of such estuaries (e.g.
Alligator River, Cedar Island, Northwest River, Goose Creek, Mouth of the
Roanoke River, etc.) are described in the attached site evaluations.

Nomination Summary

Site Nominator(s)

(1) Bennetts Creek - Chowan River A. B. Coleman
(Gates Co.)

(2) Areneuse Creek - Pasquotank River A. B. Coleman
(Pasquotank Co.)

(3) Bluff Point Vincent Bellis
(Chowan Co.)

(4) Sandy Point Vincent Bellis
(Chowan Co.)

(5) Black Walnut Creek Vincent Bellis
(Chowan Co.)

(6) Northwest River A. B. Coleman
(Currituck Co.)

(7) Currituck Sound Charles Roe. Steve
(Currituck Co.) Benton (OCM)

(8) Mouth of the Roanoke River Vincent Bellis
(Bertie Co.)

(9) Durant's island Charles Roe. Vincent
(Dare Co.) Bellis, Steve Benton (OCM)

(10) Alligator River Tom Hatley, Preston
(Dare-Tyrrell Cos.) Pate (OCM.)

(11) Dare-Hyde Marshes Charles Roe
(Dare-Hyde Cos.)

(12) Otis Spit/Otis Bay Vincent Bellis
(Dare Co.)

(13) Broad Creek Viacent Bellis, Steve
(Dare Co.) Benton (0CM)

(114) Causeway Marshes Vincent Bellis
(Dare Co.)

(15) Marshes of Naas Head Woods Vincent Bellis
(Dare Co.)

(16) Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge Steve Frick, Steve
(Hyde Co.) Benton' (QCY..)

(17) Goose Creek State Park/Ragged Point Vincent Bellis
(Beaufort Co.)

(18) Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge Steve Frick,
(Carteret Co.) Vincent Bellis

(19) Newport River Tom Hatley,
(Carteret Co.)- E. T. lieinen

(20) Carrot Islaad-Bird Shoal Charles Roe, Preston
(Carteret Co.) Pate (0CM)

(21) Bogue S ound E. T. Heinen
(Carteret Co.)

(22) Brown's Island Joanne Powell
(Onslow Co.)

(23) Sanddollar Island Charles Hollis
(Pender Co."

(24) Banks Channel- "nae
(New Hanover Co.)

(25 Masonboro Island C h a s H cll i z;
(New Hanover Co.) Ean,.@

(26) Smith Island Cowlex Robert 11oul- k"OC'!
(New Hanover-Brunswick Cos.) Roberz Stroud (0C%_!)

287

(27) Oak Island Marshes Robert Moul (OCM),

(Brunswick Co.) Preston Pate (0cm)

(28) Bird Island, Mad Inlet Robert Moul (OCM)
(Brunswick Co.)

Site Evaluations

Site Discussioa

1. Beanetts Creek
(E-CPE/Vir)1 This site primarily consists of a blackwater
stream lined with swamp forest. Freshwater
marsh communities are present where the
stream empties into the Chowan River.

2. Areneuse Creek
(E-CPE/Vir) Areneuse Creek exhibits natural features
very similar to those of Bennetts Creek
except that this stream flows into the
Pasquotank River.
3. Bluff Point
(E-CPE/Vir) This site consists of a swamp forest
associated with Albemarle Sound.
4. Sandy Point
(E-CPE/Vir) similar to 3

5. Black Walnut Point
(E-CPE/Vir) similar to 3
6. Northwest River
(E-CPE/Vir)2 A freshwater to oligohaline river that flows
into Currituck Sound.

7. Currituck Sound
(E-CPE/Vir) The Currituck Banks component is a portion
of this area.

8. Mouth of the Roanoke River
(E-CPE/Vir)2 This estuary is characterized by silt-laden
piedmont brownwaters mixed with organical
ly-stained blackwaters drained from coastal
lowlands.

1 typologic/Biogeographic Classification:
E = Embayment -CPE = Coastal Plains Estuary
TR = Tidal River -BBE = Bar Bound Estuary
L = Lagoon /Vir = Virginian Region
/Car = Carolinian Region

2 Although this is a river system, lunar tidal influence is almost non-existent
in sound waters north and west of Manteo. WAter level fluctuations in these
estuaries are primarily determined by prevailing winds. For this reason, the
ambayment category is used instead of tidal river.

288

9. Durant's Island
(E-CPE-Vir) A large island covered with swamp
forest and brackish marsh, Durant's
Island is situated where the Alligator
River flows into Albemarle Sound.

10. Alligator River
(E-CPE/Vir)2 A verv large oligohaliae river system
primarily draining surrounding
pocosin, swamp forest, and marsh areas
with limited input from the Pungo River
via the AIWW.

11. Dare-Hyde Marshes
(E-CPE/Vir) These brackish marshes (black
needlerush and giant cordgrass) border
Pamlico Sound alongthe southeastern
shore of Dare County and northeastern
shore of Hyde County.

12. Otis Spit/Otis Bay
(E-BBE/Vir) All of these sites represent portions of low
13. Broad Creek salinity embayments with bar-bound estuarine
(E-BBE/Vir) structure like Currituck Banks. Most of the
14. Causeway Marshes areas are covered by black needlerush marshes
(E-BBE/Vir) while associated submerged communities
15. Marshes of Naas Head Woods are quite similar to those found at the
(E-BBE/Vir) Currituck Banks component.

16. Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge
(E-CPE/Vir)
A large brackish marsh-low salinity
estuarine system owned and managed by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

17. Goose Creek State Park/Ragged Point
(E-CPE/Vir) A diverse brackish marsh system located
along the northern shoreline of the
Pamlico River.
18. Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge
(E-CPE/Car) Extensive brackish (blach needlerush)
marsh-dominated wildlife refuge along
Core and Pamlico Sounds.

19. Newport River
(TR-CPE/Car) A tidal river estuary terminating in
the morhead City-beaurors area. The
Rachel Carson component encompasses a
portion of this estuary.

20. Carrot Island-Bird Shoal
(TR-CPE/Car) These islands are included in the
Rachel Carson component.

21. Bogue Sound
(E-BBE/Car) This large sound. area is bounded by
Bogue Banks, a developed barrier
island. Masonboro Island is an
undeveloped barrier island with an
embayment basin type that covers a
higher proportion of estuary to land
than found on Bogue Banks

22. Brown's Island
(E-BBE/Car) This undeveloped barrier island is used
as a bombing range by the U.S. Marine
Corps, Camp LeJeune. The site has less
estuarine area than Masonboro Island.

23. Sanddollar Island
(E-BBE/Car) Sanddollar Island is an undeveloped
barrier island with far less estuarine
area than Masonboro island. The site
has no eel grass beds as those. found in
the Masonboro estuary

24. Banks Channel
(E-BBE/Car) This site is very similar to Masonboro
estuary in terms of chemical, physical,
and biologic attributes. However,
there is extensive development (Town of
Wrightsville Beach) on the barrier
island associated with Banks Channel.

25. Masonboro Island
(E-BBE/Car) proposed component

26. Smith Island Complex
(L & TR-BBE&CPE/Car) The Zeke's island component represents
the northern portion of this extensive
barrier islad-tidal river estuarine
complex.

27. Oak island Marshes
(E-BBE/Car)
Oak Island includes a salt marsh
complex on the sound side of a barrier
island characterized by intensive
localized development. The marshes amd
estuary of Masonboro Island are more
extensive and have better water
quality.

28. Bird Island/Mad Inlet
(E-BBE/Car) A small undeveloped barrier island with
less estuarine area and lower habitat
diversity (e.g. no eel grass beds than
Masonboro Island.

MAP OF SITES NOMINATED AS ESTUARINE SANCTUARIES IN NORTH CAROLINA

1. Bennetts Creek 7
2. Areneuse Creek
3. Bluff Point
4. Sandy Point
5. Black Walnut Creek
6. Northwest River 3 a UN
7. Currituck Sound 8 5 gV AS 1' 14
8. Mouth of the Roanoke River A
9. Durant's Island
10. Alligator River 13
11. Dare-Hyde Marshes
12. Otis Spit/Otis Bay
13. Broad Creek
14. Causeway Marshes
)5. Marshes of Nags Head Woods 0
16. Swanquater National Wildlife Refuge 4
17. Goose Creek State Park
18. Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge
19. Newport River -Bird Shoal
20. Carrot Island
21. Bogue Sound
22. Brown's Island
23. Sanddollar Island
24. Bank's Channel
25. Masonbor-o Island
26. Smith Island Complex
27. Qak Island Marshes
28. Bird Island-Mad Inlet 19

LKO
0-fto. K23
Z4 0

25
100
22 4LO 6 LO -
28 17 26 SCALE I N MILES =71

APPENDIX 5

Salinity and Flow Patterns in the
Masonboro Island Area

04>973

ALLAS OF NORTH CAROLINA

ESTUARINE AND SOUND WATERS, 191-2

Frank J. Schwartz and A. F. Chestnut
Institute of Marine Sciences
University of North Carolina

This work was partially sponsored by Office of Sea Grant,
NOAA, U.S.'Dept. of Commerce, under Grant No. 04-3-158-40,
and the State of North Carolina, Department of Administration.
The U.S. Government is authorized to produce and distribute
reprints for governmental purposes notwithstanding any
copyright that may appear hereon.

SEA GRANT PUBLICATION UNC-SG-73-12 JUNE 19 7 3

Sea Grant Program, School of Public Health, Universitl of North Carolina
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514

Station Latitude Longitude

48. Barden Inlet 340 37' N 760 33' W

49. Beaufort Inlet 340 40' N 760 401 W

50-61. Newport River 12 stations 340 451 N 760 421 w

62. Newport River Staricli 15 340 45' N 760 461 w

63. Bogue Inlet-Emerald Isle Bridge 340 41' N 770 03' W

64. White Oak River East 340 40' N 770 05' W

65. White Oak River Bridge 340 41' N 770 07' W

65a. White Oak River 340 43' N 770 07' W
66. Queens Creek 340 40' N 77 009, W

67. Saunders Creek #55 340 38' N 770 11' W

68. New River Inlet #74 340 33' N 770 22' W

68a. New River Inlet Dredge Station 340 301 N 770 25' W

69. Old Topsail Sound #86 340 20' N 770 41' W

69a. Old Topsail Sound Dredge Station 340 21' N 770 39' W

601b. Old Topsail Sound Dredge Station 340 22' N 770 37' W

70. Howard Channel-New Topsail Inlet 340 18' N 770 44' W

70a. Howard Channel-New Topsail Inlet Dredge Station 340 19' N 770 44' W

71. Green Channel 340 16' N 770 44' W

72. Pages Creek 340 19' N 770 43' W

73. Mason Inlet-Howe Point 340 15' N 770 45' W

74. Masonboro Inlet 340 11' N 770 .419'W

75. Carolina Beach 340 05' N 770 53' W

76. Cape Fear #174 340 01' N. 770 57' W

77. Cape Fear #18 330 56' N 770 59' W

78. Elizabeth River #11 330 55' N 780 05' W

79. Lockwoods Folly 330 55' N 780 15' W

79a. Lockwoods Folly East Dredge Station 330 55' N 780 131 W

296

Table 74. Masonboro Inlet.

(Temperatures are OC and salinicies are p.p.t.)

Temperature Salinity

No. I-lax. Min. No. Hax. Min. No.

Surface

ND ND ND ND

F 1 9.0 1 33.0

14 1 14.0 1 36.0

A 1 18.0 1 35.0

1 21.0 1 35.2

1 24.3 1 33.4

1 25.0 1 35.0

A 1 29.5 1 36.2

S 1 25.5 1 36.7

0 1 20.5 1 35.1

N 1 18.6
35.0

D 1 14.5 21.9

Bottom

ND ND ND ND

F 1 9.0 1 33.0

M 1 14.0 1 35.0

A 1 17.5

11 1 20.5 34.7

1 24.0
32.8

1 25.0 35.0

A 1 28.0 1 36.7

S ND ND N D N D

0 1 20. 0 1 34.5

N 1 19.0 1 35.0

0 ND N. T) ND ND

Table 75. Carolina Beach.

(Temperatures are OC and salinities are p.p.t.)
Temperature Salinity

IAC. I-lax. I-lin. No. I-Lax. Min. No.

Surface

ND ND ND ND

F 1 9.0 1 31.9

M 1 15.5 1 26.0

1 17.6 1 30.0

1 20.5 1 15.4

1 24.6 1 19.0

1 25.0 19.2

A 1 29.5 1 36.2

S i 25.0 1 25.8

0 1 20.5 1 33.9

N 1 18.2 1 23.0

D 1 12.0 1 4.4

Bottom

ND ND ND ND

F 1 9.0 1 33.0

1.1 1 15.0 1 30.0

A 1 17.0 i 31.5

1 20.0 1 17.6

1 26.5 1 20.8

1 25.0 22.0

A 1 28.0 1 36.2

S ND ND ND ND

0 1 20.5 1 j3.9

N 1 18.5 1 25.0

D ND ND ND ND

78
298

CAROLINA BEACH INLET PROJECT
TOTAL DISCHARGE IN PROJECT AREA IN ACRE FEET
)3 NOV. 1974

k A

170 467 744
3678+5454 3926+4091 244+-711
- 4421+SI65
4 5
6
MYRirff GfO VE SOUND MASONBORO sOUA(,0
CAROLINA BEACH MASONBORO BEACH

ArLANTIC OCEAN

LEGEND
-JL
7
,44

711 INDICATES DIRECTION OF DISCHARGE (AC. FT)

467 INDICATES NET DISCHARGE QUANTITY (AC. FT SoUrce: U.S. Army C,
244 -4 INDICATES DIRECTION OF DISCHARGE (AC. FT.) carolina Beach In
on improved Navig
5 RANGE NUMBER Wilmingtoni N.C.

APPENDIX 6

Vascular Plant Species of Masonboro Island

1301

Appendix 6: Vascular Plant SDecies of Masonboro Island

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME

PTERIDACEAE

Pteridium aquil (L.) Kuhn Bracken fern

ASPLENIACEAE

Aspleniu platvneuron (L.) Oakes Ebony spleenwort

PINACEAE

Pinus taeda L. Loblolly pine

CUPRESSACEAE .

Juniperus virginian L. Red cedar

TYPHACEAE

T7ph latifolia L. Common cattail
Typha domingensis Persoon Cattail

ZOSTERAGEAE

Zostera ma ina L. Eel grass

JUNCAGINACEAE

Triglochin striata R. & P. Arrow grass

POACEAE

Ammophil breviligulata Fernald American beachgrass
Andropogon scovarius Michau Little bluestem,
Andropogon virginicus L. Broom sedge
Cenchrus tribuloides L. Sandspur
Chloris petraea Swartz Finger grass
Distichlis spicat (L.) Greene Salt grass
Elymus virginicu. L. Wild rye grass
Eragrostis ellottii Watson Love grass
Festuca bctoflora Walter Fescue
Welica mutica Walter Melic grass
Muhlenbergia cap-illaris (Lam.) Trinius Purple muhly
Panicum. amarum Ell. Panic grass
Fa-nicum virgatum L. Panic.grass
Panic spp. Panic grass
Phragmites communis Trinius Reed
Setaria geniculat (Lam.) Beauvois Foxtail grass
Spartin alterniflora Loisel smooth cordgrass
Spartin patin (Aiton) Muhl Saltmeadow cordgrass
Triplasi purpurea (Walter) Chapman Sand grass
Uuiol Paniculat L. Sea oats

303

CYPERACEAE

Cladium lamaicense Crantz Saw grass
CyReru,� Polystachvos var. texensis (Torrey)
Fernald Sedge
Cyperus retrorsus Chapman Sedge
Cyperup strijqosu@ L. Sedge
Dichromena, colorata (L.) Hit Whitetop sedge
Eleocharis flacescens (Poiret) Urban Spikerush
Eleocharis parvula (R. & S.) Link Spikerush
Fimbristyli spadice (L.) Vahl Fimbristylis
Scirpus americanus Persoon Bulrush
Scirpu; robustus Pursh Bulrush

COMMELINACEAE

Commelina diffusa Burman Dayflower
Commelina erecta L. Dayflower

JUNCACRAE

Juncus meRacephalus M.A. Curtis Rush
Juncus roemerianus Scheele Black needlerush
Imr.u-S sp. Rush

LILLIACEAE

Smilax auriculata Walter Catbrier
Smilax bona-noT-L. Catbrier
Yucca filamentosa L. Beargrass
Yucca 9-1oriosa L. Spanish bayonet

BROMELIAECEAE

Tillandsia usneoides L. Spanish moss

ORCHIDACEAE

Spiranthes sp. Ladies' tresses

MYRICACFAE

Myrica cerifera L. Wax myrtle

ULMACEAE

Celtis laevigat Willd. Hackberry

FAGAGEAE

Quercus Virginiana Miller Live oak

POLYGONACF-Ar

PolZitonum glac Nuttall Knotweed
Rumex hasta.tulu Baldwin ex Ell. Dock

304

CHENOPODIACEAE

Atriplex arenaria Nuttall Seabeach orach
Chenopodium ambrosioides L. Mexican tea
Salicoring bigelovi Torrey Glasswort
Salicorina virginic L. Glasswort
Suaed linear-i (Ell.) Moq. Suaeda

AMARANTHACKAE

Amaranthus pumilus Raf. Amaranth
Iresine rhizomatosa Standley Iresine

PHYTOLACCACEAE

Phytola:cca americana L. Pokeweed

AIZOACEAE

Mollugo verticillata L. Carpetweed
Sesuvi!T portulacastrum L. Sea purslane

PORTULACACEAE

Portulaca pilosa L. Portulaca

CARYOPHYLLACEAE

Arenaria serpyllifolia L. Sandwart
Paronychia ripari Chapman Paronychia
Silene antirrhina L. Sleepy catchfly
Silene virginic L. Fire pink
Stipulicida setacea Michaux Stipulcida

LAURACEAE

Persea borbonia (L.) Sprengel Red bay

BRASSICACEAE

Cakile harperi Small Sea rocket
Descurainia pinnata (Walter) Britton Tansy mustard
Lepidium virginic7m L. Peppergrass

ROSACEAE

Rubus hispidu L Dewberry
Prunus caroliniana Aiton Carolina laurel cherry
Prunus serotia Ehrhart Black cherry

FABACEAE

Galactia macreei M. A. Curtis Galactia
Strophostyle helvola (L.) Ell Beachpea

305

RUTACEAE

Zanthoxylu clava-herculis L. Hercules' club

EUPHORBIACEAE

Acalypha sp. Three seeded mercury
Croton punctatus Jacquin Silver leaf croton
Euphorbi polygonifolia L. Dune spurge
Euphorbi ammannio-ides HBK Dune spurge

ANACARDIACEAE

Rhus copallina L. Winged sumac
Rhus radicans L. Poison ivy

AQUIFOLIACEAE .

Ilex vomitoria Aiton Yaupon

VITACEAE

Ampelopsi arborea (L.) Koehne Peppervine
Parthenocissus qu .nquefolia (L.) Planchon Virginia creeper

MALVACEAE

Kosteletskya virginica (L) Presl Marsh mallow

HYPERICACEAE

Hyperic gentianoides (L.) BSP Pineweed

TAMARICACEAE,

Tamarix gallica L. Tamarisk

PASSIFLORACEAE

Passiflora lutea L. Passion flower

CACTACEAE

Opunti drummondii Graham Cactus
Opunti compressa (Salisbury) Macbride Cactus

'LYTHRACEAE

ILyth lineare L. Loosestrife

ONAGRACEAE

Gaur anizustifolia Michaux Gaura
Oenothera humifusa Nuttall. Evening primrose

APIACEAE

Hydrocotvle bonariensis Lam. Pennywort
Pt'limnium capillaceum (Michaux) Raf Ptilmnium
L-L

PLUMBAGINACEAE

Lim6nium nasb4--4 Small Sea lavender
SAPOTACEAE

Bumelia lycioide (L.) Persoon Buckthorn
Bumelia tenax (L.) Willd. Bumelia

PRIMULACLAE

Samolu parviflorus Raf. Water pimpernel

OLEACEAE

Osmanthus americana (L.) Gray Wild olive

GENTIANACEAE

Sabatia stellaris Pursh. Sabatia

ASCLEPIADACEAE

Cynanchum palustr (Pursh) Heller Cynanchum.

CONVOLVULACEAE

Calystegia sepiu (L.) R. Brown Hedge bindweed
Ipomae sagittat Cav. Morning glory
Cuscuta sp. Dodder

VERBENACEAE

CallicarP4 americana L. French mulberry
Lippi nodiflora (L.) Michaux
Verbena scabra Verbena

LAMICEAE

Monard punctat L. Monarda
Teucrium canadense L. Teucrium
Trichostema dichotomum L. Blue curls

SCHROPHULARIACEAE

Axalinis maritima (Raf.) Raf Gerardia

SOLANACE&E

Physali viscosa ssp. maritima Ground cherry
(M. A. Curtis) Waterfall
Solanum Aracil. Link Nightshade

307

RUBIACEAE

Diodia teres Walter Diodia
Galium hispidul Michaux Bedstraw
Galium tinctorium. L. Bedstraw

CAPRIFOLIACEAE

Lonicera sempervirens L. %,oral honeysuckle

CURCURBITACEAE

Melothria Rendul L. Creeping cucumber

CAMPANULACEAE

Specularia perfoliat (L.) A. DC Venus' looking glass

ASTERACEAE

Aster pilosus Willd. Frost aster
Aster tenuifolius L. Marsh aster
Baccharis angustifolia Michaux False willow
Baccharis halimifolia L. Silverling
Bidens sp. L. Beggars ticks
Borrichia frutescens (L.) DC Sea ox-eye
Carduus spinosissimus Walter Yellow thistle
Eupatorium capillifolium (Lam.) Small Dog fennel
Gaillardia Pulchella Foug. Gaillardia
Heterotheca subaxTi-laris (Lam.)
Britton & Rusby Camphorweed
Iva frutescens L. Marsh elder
Iva imbricata Walter Sea elder
Okania scandens (L.) Willd. Climbing hempweed
,Sonchus aspe (L.) Hill Spiny-leaved sow
thistle
Solidago sempervirens L. Seaside goldenrod

Source: Hoiser, P.E. and W.J. Cleary, 1977.

MOPS

APPENDIX 7

Vertebrate Fauna of Masonboro Island

309

Appendix 7. Vertebrate Fauna of the Masonboro Island Area

BIRDS

Common Scientific Status Primary
Name Name Habitat

Common Loon (Gavia immer) WR
Red-throated Loon (Gavia. stellata) WR
Horned Grebe (Colymbus auritus) WR 4
Eared Grebe (Colymbus nigricollis
californicus) T 4
Pied-billed Grebe (Podilymbus podiceps) TATR 4

Brown Pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) PR
Northern Gannet (Morus bassanus) UT,
Double-cr. Cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus) WR 4
American Bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus) WR 3
Least Bittern (Ixobrychus exilis) SR. 3

Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodlas) WR. 3
Green-backed Heron (Butarides virescens) SR 3
Little Blue Heron (Florida caerulea) SR 3
Great Egret (Casmerodius albus egretta) SR 3
Snowy Egret (LeucoRhoyx thula) SR. 3

Tricolored Heron (Hydranassa tricolor
ruficallis) PR 3
Black-cr. Night Heron (Nlcticorax nycticorax
hoactli) SR. 3
Yellow-cr. Night Heron (Nyctanassa violacea) SR. 3
Glossy This (Plegadis falcinellus) SR 3
White This (Gaura alba) PR 3

Mallard (Anas platXrhynchos) WR 4
Black Duck (Anas rubripes WR 4
Gadvall (Anas strepera) WR 4
Northern Pintail (Anas acuta tzitzihoa) WR 4
Green-winged Teal (Anas carolinensis) WR 4

Blue-winged Teal (Anas discors) T 4
American Wigeon (Mareca. americana) WR 4
Wood Duck (Aix sponsa) PR 4
Northern Shovelor (Spatula clypeata) WR 4
Canvasback (Athya valisineria) WR 4
Scaup sp. (Aythya sp.) WR I

Common Goldeneye (Glauciouetta clangula
americana) WR 4
Bufflehead (Glaucionetta albeola) WR 4
Oldsquaw (Clangula hyemalis WR 1
Surf Scoter (Melanitta perspicillata) WR 1
Black Scoter (Oidemia higra americana) WR I

311

Common Scientific Status Primary
Name Name Habitat

White-winged Scoter (1.4elanitta fusca deylandi VII, I
Ruddy Duck (Erismatura jamaicensis
rubida) WR 4
Hooded Merganser (Lophodytes cucullatus) WR 4
Red-br. Merganser (Mergus serrator) WR 4

Turkey Vulture (Cathartes aura) PR 0
Sharp-sh. Hawk (Accipter striatus velox) T 6
Cooper's Hawk (Accipter cooperii) T 6
Red-tailed Hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) PR 6
Northern Harrier (Circus Cyansus hudsonicus) WR 3

Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) SR 4
Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus) T I
Pigeon Hawk (Falco columbarius) T I
American Kestrel (Falco sparverius) WR 6
Clapper Rail (Rallus longirostris) PR 3

King Rail (Rallus eleganus WR 3
Sora (Porzana carolina) T 3
Virginia Rail (Rallus limicola) T 3
American Coot (Fulica americana) T 4
American Oystercatcher (Haematopus palliatus) PR 1

Wilson's Plover (Charadrius wilsonia) SR 1
Semipalmated Plover (Charadrius hiaticula
semipalmatus) T I
Piping Plover (Choradrius-taelodus) T I
Black-bellied Plover (Squatarola squatarola) WR
Ruddy Turnstone (Arenaria interpres
morinella) WR

Long-billed Curlew (Numenius americanus) T I
Whimbrel (Numenius phoeopus) T 3
Spotted Sandpiper (Actitis macularia) T 3
Willet (Catoptrophorus semipalmatus) PR I
Greater Yellowlegs (Totanus melanoleucus) T

Lesser Yellowlegs (Totanus flavipes) T
Red knot (Calidris canutus rufus') T I
Least Sandpiper (Erolia minutilla) WR 5
Dunlin (Erolia alpina WR 1
Purple Sandpiper. (Erolia maritima) WR 5

Short-billed Dowitcher (Limnodromus griseus) WR 3.
Semipalmated Sandpiper (Ereunetes pusillus) T I
Western Sandpiper (Ereunetes mauril) T I
Marbled Godwit (Limosa fedoa) WR 3
Sanderling (Crocethia alba) WR I

Great Black-backed Gull (Larus marinus) WR i
Herring Gull (Larus orgentatus) WR I
Ring-billed Gull (Larus delawarensis) WR I
Laughing Gull (Larus atricilla) SR 1

312

Common Scient-ific st-;-t-,Is Primary
Name Name Habitat

Bonapart's Gull (Larus philadelphia) T 4

Gull-billed Tern (Larus delawarensis) SR I
Forster's Tern (Sterna forsteri) WR I
Common Tern (Sterna hirundo) TF,
Least Tern (Sterna albifrons) SR
Royal Tern (Thalasseus maximus) PR 1

Sandwich Tern (Thalasseus sandvicensis) SR i
Caspian Tern (Hydrogrogyne caspia) TAIR I
Black Tern (Chlidozias nigra
surinamensis) T I
Black Skimmer (Ryncho2s niger) PR 1
Dovekie (Plautus alle) T 1

Common Murre (Uria aalge) T I
Mourning Dove (Zenaidura macroura) PR 6
Ground Dove (Columbigallina passerina) PR 2
Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) SR 6
Common Nighthawk (Chordeiles minor) SR 6

Chimney Swift (Chaetura pelagica) SR 0
Ruby-th. Hummingbird (Archilochus colubris) SR 6
Belted Kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon) W`R 4

Common Flicker (Colaptes auratus) PR 6
Eastern Kingbird (Tyrannus tyrannus) SR 6
Horned Lark (Eremaphila alpestiis) T 2.
Tree Swallow (Iridopro*cne bicolor) WR -
Rough-winged Swallow (Stelgidoptervx ru,ficollis) T 7

Bank Swallow (Riparia riparia) T 7
Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica) SR 7
Purple Martin (Progne subis) SR 7
Fish Crow (Corvus opsifragus) PR U
Blue Jay (Cyanocitta-cristata) T ' 6

House Wren (Troglodytes aedon) WIR 6
Carolina Wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus"' PR 6
Marsh Wren (Telmatodytes palustris) SR 3
Sedge Wren (Cistothorns platensis) WR 3
Mockingbird (Mimum 2olyglottos) PR 6

Catbird (Dumetella carolinensis) WR 6
Brown Thrasher (Toxostoma. rufum) PR 6
American Robin (Turdus migratorius) WR 6
Hermit Thrust (Hylociela gutta faxoni) T 6
Ruby-crowned kinglet (Regulus calendula) WR 6

Blue-gray Gnatcatcher (Polioptila caerulea) SR 6
Cedar Waxwing (Bombycilla cedrorum) T 6
Water Pipit (Anthus spinaletta rubescens) T 2
Starling (Sturnus vulgaris) InR 6
White-eyed Vireo (Vireo ariscus) PR

313

Zommon Scientific Status Primary
Name Name Habitat

Red-eyed Vireo (Vireo olivaceus) TR 6
Black-and-White Warbler QA_niotilta varia) T 6
Orange-crowued Warbler (VermiVora celata) WR 6

Parula Warbler (Parula american a) SP, 6
Yellow Warbler (Dendro-A.ca petechia) T 6
Magnolia Warbler (Dendroica magnolia) T Cape
May Warbler (Dendroica tigrina) T 6
Black-throated Blue
Warbler (Dendroica caerulescens) T 6

Yellow-rumped Warbler (Dendroica cororata) WR 6
Blackburnian Warbler (Dendroica fusca) T 6
Chestnut-sided Warbler (Dendroica pensylvanica) T 6
Pine Warbler (Dendroica pinus) SR 6
Prairie Warbler (Dendroica discolor) SR 6

Palm Warbler (Dendroica palmarum) T, 2
Bay-breasted Warbler (Dendroica cast-anea) T 6
Blackpoll Warbler (Dendroica striata) T 6
Ovenbird (Selurus aurocapillus) T 6
Northern Waterthrush CS-eiurus noveboracensis) T 6

Yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas) PR 6
American Redstart (Setophaga ruticilla) T 6
Eastern Meadowlark (Sturnella magna) PR 2
Orchard Oriole (Icterus spurius) SR 6
Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus) T 2

Red-winged Blackbird (Agelaius phaeniceus) PR 3
Boat-tailed Grackle (Cassidix mexicanus) PR U
Common Grackle (Quiscalus versicolor) PR 6
Brown-headed Cowbird (Molothrus ater) WR 2
Northern Cardinal (Richmondena cardinalis) PR 6

American Goldfinch (Spius tristis) T 2
Pine Siskin (Spinus pinus) T 2
Blue Grosbeak (Guiraca caerulea) T 6
Indigo Bunting (Passerina cyanea) SR 6
Painted Bunting (Passerina ciris) SR 6

Rufous-sided Towhee (Pipilio erythrophthalamus) PR 6
Savannah (Ipswich)
Sparrow (Passerculus prince2s
sandwichensis) WR 2
Sharp-tailed Sparrow (Ammospiza candacuta) WR 3
Seaside Sparrow (Ammospiza maritima) Pp,
Field Sparrow (Spizella pusilla) WR 6

White-throated Sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis) WR 6
Svamp Sparrow (Melospiza georgiana) WR 6
Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia) WR 6
Snow Bunting (Plectrophenax nivalis) T 2

314

Common Scientific Status Primary
Name Name Habitat

YJ14M A L S

Virginia Opossum (Didelphus) PR 6
Short-tailed Shrew (Blarina brevicauda) PR 6
Least Shrew ('Cryptotis parva) PR 6
Eastern Mole (Scalopus aquaticus) PR 2
Red Bat CLasiurus borealis) SR 3

Seminole Bat (Lasiurus seminolus) SR 3
Eastern Cottontail. (Sylvilagus floridanus) PR 2
Marsh Rabbit (Sylvilagus palustris) PR 6
Marsh Rice Rat (Oryzomys palustris) PR 3
Cotton Mouse (Teromyscus gossypinus) PR 2

Hispid Cotton Rat (Sigmodon hispidus) PR 6
House Mouse (Mus musculus) PR 2
Gray Fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus) PR 2
Mink (Mustela vison) PR 4
River Otter (Lutra candensis) PR 4

REPTILES

Diamondbacked Terrapin (Malacl2Ms terrapin) PR 4
Atlantic Loggerhead
Turtle (Caretta caretta) SR I
Green Anole (Anolis Carolinensis) PR 6
Six-lined Racerunner (Enemidophorus sexlineatus) PR 2
Eastern Glass Lizard (Ophisaurus ventralis) PR 2

Black Racer (Coluber constrictor) PR 2
Coachwhip (R@sticophis flagellum) PR 2
Rough Green Snake (Opheadrys aestivus) PR 6
Corn Snake (Elaphe ettata) PR 6
Yellow Rat Snake (Elaphe obsoleta) PR 6

AMPHIBIANS

Southern Toad (Bufo terrestris) PR 6
Green treefrog (Hyla cinerea) PR 6
Squirrel Treefrog (Hyla squirella) PR 6

Source: Dr. James R. Parnell. 1984. UNC-W.

Status: Refers to the time of year that the species usually is
present. There may be exceptions.

PR-Permanent Resident
SR-Summer Resident
WR--Winter Resident
T-Transient

31.5

Common Scientific Status Primary
Name Name Habitat

Primary Habitat: Refers to the habitat in which most individuals were
found. Smaller numbers may occur in other habitats.

1--Beach, sand flats and inshore ocean (viewed from beach)
L-Dunes and grassy upland areas usually dominated by Sea Oats
3--Salt marshes, both regularly and irregularly flooded
4--Tidal creeks, bays and the adjacent Atlantic Intracoastal
Waterway
5--Rock jetty, at the north end of Masonboro Island
6--Maritime thickets and forests of Masonboro Island and the
adjacent dredged material islands
7--Birds usuall-,7 seen overhead and not directly associated
with a particular habitat
U--So ubiquitos that a determination of a primary habitat was
not possible

Animal Names--Only common names,have been used. They are
taken from the following publications, all of which
provide scientific names.

Birds: AOU. 1983. Checklist of North American Birds. sixth ed.
American Ornithologists Union, Baltimore, Md.

Mammals: Smith, ER, JB Funderburg, Jr. and TL Quay. 1960. A
Checklist of North Carolina Mammals. North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission, Raleigh.

Reptiles and Amphibians: Depoe, CE, JB Funderburg, Jr. and TL
Quay. 1961. The Reptiles and Amphibians of North
Carolina. The Jour. Elisha Mitchell Sci. Society
77:125-136.

316

North Carofina
/Vi
i V Resources Commission

Archdale Building, 512 N. Salisbur@, Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 2761 1, 919-733-3391

June 20, 1984

Mr. John Taggert
Esturine Sanctuary Coordinator
Office of Coastal Management
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611

Dear John:

On June 16 and 17, members of the Masonboro Society, Cape Fear Chapter of
the Sierra Club, UNC-W graduate students and I conducted a survey of Masonboro
Island for Loggerhead Sea Turtle nests and colonial testing waterbirds.

We found a total of 5 turtle nests in the 6 mile central section of beach
front. This indicates that Mason Boro is a more important nesting beach than
previously thought. If one were to assume that the nests we saw represented
all of the nests laid during the previous week (wind and rain will quickly
remove all traces of a nest) and that there are 7 weeks of nesting, a
conservative estimate would be 35 nests for the 1984 season. This translates
to more than 4,550 eggs.

The fact that there is no development of any kind on the island makes it
especially attractive for turtle nesting and successful fledging of the turtles
to the ocean. Many of the beaches in North Carolina have house and street lights
near by.. Adult turtles will avoid lights but a more serious problem is that the
hatchling turtles will orient towards these lights instead of making their way to
the sea.

In addition to the turtles we found three tern colonies. Two of the colonies
contained 40-50 pairs of Least Terns and are located on the beach in the central
portion of the island. The largest-and most significant colony is on the northern
end. This colony contains approximately 40 pairs of Common Terns, 150 pairs of
Least Terns and 75 pairs of Black Skimmers. Wilson's Plovers were found nesting
in association with these colonies as well.

All of these species are currently listed as "Special Concern" in North
Carolina. Data gathered by Dr. James Parnell, UNC-W, from 1975 to the present
indicate that Common Terns, Least Terns and Black Skimmers have all been
declining in the State. This northern colony on Masonhoro has special significance
because it is one of the few large colonies in the southern half of the State using.

J. Robe" Gordon, Laurinburg W. Vernon Bevill, Raleigh M. Woodrow Price. 01oucester
Chairman Executive Director Vice-Chairman

Richard W Adams. M.D., Statesville Joe Carpenter. Jr., Favetteville Dan Robinson, Cuilowhee
David L. Allsbrook, Scotland Neck Polie Q. Cloningm Jr., Dallas Donald Allen Thompson. Mount Gilead
Cv W. Brame, Jr., North Wilkesboro Dr. John C. Hamrick. Jr., Shelbv lerrv W. Wright, _iarvisburiz
Eddie C. BridRes. Greensboro Henrv (Buck) Kitchin. Rockineham
317

?an -2

a natural beach for nesting. In recent years there has been a decline in'the
total number of colonial bird colonies in North Carolina and a shift from
natural sites to dredge soil islands.

I feel that the acquisition of Masonboro Island as a sanctuary for
marine "Life is extremely important. The Nongame and Endangered Wildlife
Program enthusiastically endorses your efforts.

",,--@Sincerely,

linda J. Welton
dangered Species Project Leader

MJW/am.

cc: W. Vernory Bevill
Hal Atkinson

FISHES

Common Name Scientific Nage

@Smooth dogfish Mustelus canis-
Southern stingtay Dasyatis americana
Atlantic stingray Dasyatis sabina.
Ladyfish Elops, saurus
Conger eel Conger oceanicus

Blueback herring Alosa aestivalis
Hickory shad X-losa ;;@diocris
American shad Xlosa sapidissima
Atlantic menhaden Brevoortia tyrannus
Atlantic thread herring Opisthonema, oglinum

Striped anchovy Anchoa hepsetus
Bay anchovy Anchoa 31-t-c-h-1-11i
Inshore lizardfish Synodus, foetens
Oyster toadfish Opsanus tau
Skilletfish Gobiesox strumosus

Carolina hake Urozhzcis earlli
Crested cusk-eel Ophidion weTs-hi"-
Halfbeak Hyporhamphus unifusciatus
Atlantic needlefish Strongylura marina
Sheepshead Cyprinodon variegZtus

Mummichog Fundulus 1@eteroclftus
Striped killifish Fundulus majalis
Rough silverside Hembras martinica
Atlantic silverside ge-ni"d-i"a- -m-e-n'17=a
Chain pipefish Syngnathus louisianae

Snook Centropomus undecimalis
Rock sea bass Centroprist s philadelFhica
Black sea bass Centropristis striata
Sand perch Diplectrum formosum
Gag Mycteroperca micr;-lepis

Bluefish Pomatomus saltatrix
Cobia Rachycentron canadum,
Yellow jack Caranx bartholomael
Blue runner Caranx crysos
Crevalle jack Caranx hippos

Scad Decapter-us' s
Lookdown Selene vomer
Greater amberjack 3eriM @dumerili
Florida pompano Trachinotus carolinus
Permit Trachinotus falcatus-

Mutton snapper Lutianus analis
Gray snapper Lutianus griseus
Lane snapper Lut1panus synagris
Spotfin mojarra Eucinostomus argenteus
Silver jenny Eucinostomus gula

Tomtate Haemulon. aurolineatum
Pigfish Urthopristis chrysopt .era
Sheepshead Archosargus probatocephalus
Whitebone porgy Calamus leucosteus
Spottail pinfish 31-p-lodus holbrooki

Pinfish Lagodon rhomboides
Scup �tenotomus chrysops
Silver perch Bairdiella chrysura
Spotted seatrout Cynoscinn nebulosus
Weak fish -Moscion rega-lis

Cubbyu. Equetus umbrosus
Spot Leiostomus xanthurus
Southern kingfish Menticirrh-us americanus
Northern kingfish Menticirrus saxatilis
Atlantic croaker Micropogonlas undulatus

Black drum Po ias cromis
Red drum Sciaenops ocellata
Bermuda chub Kyphosus sectatrix
Atlantic spadefish Zh-a-e-F-od"Irpterus faber
Spotfin butterflyfish Chaetodon,ocellatus

Banded butterflyfish Chaetodon striatus
Sergeant major Abudefduf saxati-li"s
Dusky damselfish Pomac6utrus fuscus
Cocoa damselfish Pomacentrus -v-a-r"T-aTiliS
Slippery dick Halichoer7s bivittatus.

Tautog Tautoga onitis
Striped mullet Mugil cephalus
White mullet TV-911-1- Zurema
Great barracuda SRhyraena barracuda
Striped blenny Chasmodes bosguianus

Crested blenny Hypleurochilu minatus
Feather blenny Rypsoblennius hentzi
Seaweed blenny Parablennius marmoreus
Fat sleeper Dormitato;7-maculatus
Lyre goby Evorthodus

Sharptail goby Gobionellus hastatus
Naked goby Gobiosoma, bosci
Doctorfish Acanthurus chirurgus
King mackerel Scomberomorus cavalla
Spanish mackerel Scomberomorus maculatus'

Harvestfish Peprilus alepidotus
Butterfish Te-p-r-i-lus triacanthzTs
Spotted scorpionfish Scorpaena plumieri
Northern searobin 'Prionotus -c-a-ro-I'Mnus
Striped searobin Prionotus evolans

320

Leopard searobin Prionotus scitulus
Bighead searobin Prionotus tribulus
Bay whiff Citharichthys spilopterus
Fringed flounder Etropus crossoM '
Gulf flounder Paralichthys al7igutta

Summ r flounder Paralichthys dentatus
Southern flounder Paralichthys leth)stigma
Windowpane Scophthalmus aquosus
Hogchocker Trinectes maculatus
Blackcheek tonguefish Symp urus plagiusa

Planehead filefish Monacanthus hispidus
Northern puffer Sphoeroides maculatus
Striped burrfish Chilomycterus schoepfi

Source: Mr. Richard Carpenter and Mr. Fred Rohde, 1984., N.C. Division of
Marine Fisheries, Wrightsville Beach, N. C. and Dr. David Lindquist, Depart-
ment of Biological Sciences, University of North Carolina, Wilmington, North
Carolina.

APPENDIX 8

Macroinvertebrates of the
M,asonboro Island Area

0 3 r> ,@l
OW1043

Appendix 1. Macroinvertebrates oJ" the 1111asonboro Island Area

Phylum Porifera Ado C 11 u-b i f a- --a
3orin- s-:)onge Cliona ce'lata
Pu=le sponge Hal -'clc--qa Dermollis
Sun sponge Hymeniacidon helioDhila
Leucetta floridana
Garl;-ic snonge Lissodendor isodictya',J-s
Red beard sponge Microciona Drolifera
Vase sponges Scy-oh sp.

Phylum Cnidaria.
Class Hydrozoa
Cammanularia int-ejzra
Eudendri,i,m ramosum
Sn'ail fur Hydractini echinata
Lovenella gracilis
Obel-ia bicus-Didata
Obelia dichotoma
.Pennaria tiarell
Sertularia sp.
Tubularia

Class Sc"hozo
Moon jelly Aurelia aurita
Mushroom cap Rhoi)ilema verr-illi
Cabbage head or cannon ball Stomblophus.- .meleaRri-s
Class Anthozo
Aiptasi eruptaurantia
Aiptasi pallida
Northern coral Astrangia astreiformis
Bunodo-soma cavernat-a
Calliactis tricolor
Ceriantheo-psi americanus
Diadumene leucolena
Haloclava producta
Sea whi7o Leptogorgi virgulata
Pa;Cg-Qthus raoiformis
Eyed coral Oculin arbuscula
Unidentified burrowing anemone
Phylum Ctenovhora
Beroe's comb jelly. @5e-oe
Leidy's comb Jelly Nllnemio-osis leiddyi,
..Sea gooseberry Pleurobrac'[email protected]=
Phylum 7emer@ea or Rhvr-chocoe1a
milky ribbon worm Ce"ebrat-,ilu lacteu,
7,i n-u acci ali
-T i c rnr e

325

Phylum Entonracta.
Loxosomelia s-o.

Phylum Brvozoa

Spiral bryozoa Amathia convoluta
Dirty bryozoa Anzuinella palmat
,@@eeping bryo--oa Bowerbankia gracilis
Bugul avicul=a@
Bugui neritina
Lacy Crusts Membran tenui
Red crusts Sn@ii7npo-ella cornuta
Zcobotr-7on verticillatum

Phylum Phoronida

Phoronis architecta

Phylum Brachiopoda
Glottidia audebarti

Phylum Annelida,
Mass Polychaeta

Americonu-phi maEn
Ornate worm Amphitrite ornata
Anaistrosylli bassi
Ancistrosyllis commensalis
Ancistrosyllis jonesi
Opal worm Arabella iricolor
Lug worm Arenicola cristatua
Aricidea. fragili
Armandia agili
Bamboo worm AxiotheMa mucosa
Brania clavata
Ceratonere-is irritab-ilis
Parchment tube worm Chaetonterus varioDedatus
cirr-iforMla grand,[.s
Ice cream cone worm Cisteni_de,s_ gouldii
Bamboo worm Clymenella. torcuata
Dasybranchus lumbricoides
Plume worm DioDatra cumrea
Thread worms Drilonereis snE.
-E-"Ueone het-eroroda
E'u,n i c e--ubra
Exogon 7as-oar
Givcer americana
Glycer d-ib--anc'---':-;.-,:-@.
Glycer robus-Ua
littorea
HaDloscolonlos
Harmothoe aculea-.@,
Hydroides dian-@',aus
Le-oidamerria c.--mimilensa! iz
Le,oidas-ulqenia
Leniidonotus sublevis
Legi dcno= va=iabilfz
7,edusa

326

Class Polvchaeta
Lumbrinereis impatiens
Lvs-illa aTo-a
Magelona: spp
Malmgrenia lunulata
Mar-ohys sanguinea
Melinna maculata
Masochaetopterus taZlori
Ne-ohtv Dicta
Nereiphylla fragilis
Nereis pelagica
Nereis succinea
Notomastus lobat-a
OnuDhis m-icroceDhala
Onuphis nebulosa
Orbinia drnata
Owenia fusiformis
Parahesion luteol
Phyllodoce araneae
Podarke obscura
Polycirrus eximius
polydora ligna
Polyodontes lupina
Pseudeurythoe ambigu
Sabella crassicornis
Sabella micropthalma
Sabellaria vulgari
Scolepolepi souamata
Scoloplos fragili
Scoloplo rubra
Sebaco elongatus
SDiochaetoDterus
SpioDhanes bomby
Sthenelais boa

Phylum Echiura
T,@ialassema mellita
Thalassema hartmani

PhyllIM Sipuncula
SiDunculus nudus

Phylum Mollusca
Class Poly-placophora
Atiazi-tic --,'nae-lo'cleura

Class GastroDcda
Greedy dove she!-! a-nacafs ivar
Sea hare
-ysi.a
Ragged sea ha-re -3ursat-e Ila
Channeled whel"c 3usvcon canal--:!,-- 1-
Knobbed whelk 3usvcor. carica
Lightning wheLk T3ucsvco,.n con,!:rar-4u-:;
Florida cer-it.h C a r:@ tl-@ i. -,- f:, 1. or
Spiny sl-ioDer s.n.ell, -o -i du a P-cu-.'[email protected]

Crei)idu-,a 'o an
-m@endrodo-ris

327

Phylum ArthroDoda
Class Cirri-oedia
ZaLa-nus amnhitrite
3alanu eburneus
Bala-gu galeatus
Chthamalus frao-ilis
Chelonib-]* Datula
Octolasmis mulleri

Class Malacostraca
Big clawed snapping shrimp AlDhaeus heterochelis
Green snapping shrimp Al'ohae-
us normanni
Speckled crab Araneus criFrarlus
Cal a@-sa major
Callianassa atiantica
Blue crab Callinectes saDidus
LaIlLnectes H7-77-is-
Cancer borealis
Clibanarius vittatus
Cyathur bur!5=i@
Dissodactylus mellit-ae
Mole crab Enerita talDoida
='wuceramus praelongus
Hip ol-Tte Pleuracantha
Hij)polyte zo-steric-o-Ea--
LeptalDheus forceDs
Spider crab Libinia emarainata
Libinia dubia
Megalobrachium soriatum
Stone crab Menippe mercenaria
NeoDontonides beaufortensis
Lady crab Ovalipe gcellatug
Ovalij2e gua UlDensis
Pagu-rus annuliDes
agurus longicarmus
Flat clawed hermit crab agurus polli,caris
Palaeomonetes DuSio
Palaeomonetes vulgari
PanoDeus herbstil
Pella--mutica
Penaeus aztecus
7e-naeus Tu-orarum
-'air Penaeus setiferus
y crab Pilumnus say-i
FI-En -Ixa - c 7.Ta-e -6 o -o t, aaz-- a
Pinni---a cr-4s+.a-!.a
Pinnixa 1,.-Lnz.-
....ixa savan

Oyster crao P inno there s oszre1---
Pol,ronvx 71i--@rocrle@i=as
Por--ellana saLana
Porcej-.Ia.,ia
Mantis shr-imp Sjuilla-emnu-sa
-5- --- en.
zeu.ma caro.7-
Fiddler crab -,:ca- -JUZ-4 -1 azcr
Mud lobster --bia affin--s

328.

Class Meros-!.-'oma-"ta
horseahoe crab Limulus polyphemus
Class Pycnogonida
AnoDlodactylu lentus
4
Tanystylum arb.cullare

Phylum Echinadermata
Class Asteroidea

Asterias forbesi
Linckia sD.
Class 0-phiuroidea
-Micropholis.gracillima
MicroDholis atra
OphioDhragmus wurdemar-i
Ophiothrix angulata
Class Echinoidea
Purple sea urchin Arbacia punctulata
White urchin Lytechinus variegatus
Sand dollar Meiiita ouinguie -perforata
Heart urchin Moira atroDos
Class Holothuroidea

Le-ptosyna-ota tenuis
Hairy cucumber, Sclerodactvla briareus
Thyonella sp.

Phylum Hemichordata
Acorn worm Balanoglossus auranticus
Saccoglossus kowalewskii

Phylum Chordata
Sub-Phylum Urochordata
A-pl-idium constellatum
Aplidium 'oeiiucidum
Es-c-ldia interru-ota
Dider.,nu,-n:-Tu'+,arIum
Dista-oiia ber-nudensis
-cteinasc.idia turbina---a
:,-@ud-istoma he-Dat--"CIUM
I'*'IIoLzula ianliattens-is
-ohora v! r4,-4 4,z
Pero
svm-plegm S-00
St@rei -oliicat-a
-"ri didemr-u- s-c.

Sub-Dh
.v 1 um -'emhalachorda-r-a
amphioxus B r a n c IJo so m a

32N

Thick lipped oyster d-rill Eupleura.caudata
Banded tulip Fasciolaria hunteria
Salt marsh periwinkle Littorina irrorata
MelamDus bidentatus
Miti=ea !Tra-ta
Mud snail Ifa-ssarius obsoletus
Nassarius vibe
Natica pusilla
Neosimni a uniDlicata
Odostomia impressa
Horse conch Pleuro-=ooc,-g 5liantea
PoJ-)rce-ra blimm].
Polini
Moon snail s !!@Iic@ata
Common auger Terebra,dislocata
Pyster drill Uros7l-pinx cinerea

Class Bivalvia
Bay scallop AeouiDecten irradians
An@MFa brasi-riana
Jingle shell Anomia slm-Dlex
Itrina rigida
Ttrina ser a
Scorched mussel aaacFlaontes exustus
Cross barred venus Q.Lone cancellata
Common oyster crassosirea 71rRinica
Angel wing CyrtoIL-ileura costata
Grqat heart cockle Dinocardium robustum
Cross hatched lucine Divaricella uadri variabilis
Disk clam :2 @inia discus
Entovalva spp.. Erisis directus
Lepto sp.
Swimming clam Lima nellucida
Date clam Lithophaga bisulcata
Sunray venus, Macrocallista nimbosa
Hard clam Mercenaria mercenaria
Ribbed mussel Geuken-s-"I-a demissa
Montacuta percompressa
RvselIa spe
Paramya subovata,
Pearl wing oyster Fteria co.Lym-bus
Veiled awnina- clam S-o Temva--ve- =um
Green razor 0 7-0 =e,
cla,m .1 virid-is
Surf clam S-Dism Ula solidissima
Stou"11- razor clam Tazel s p1ebius
TellLn--a 'alternata
China cockle Trachycardiur.

Class Scamho-n-ada

Ajentai-ium sz.
Class CenhaloDoda
Brief squid Lolliguncula [email protected]

SOURCE: Dr. Anne McCrary. 1984. Department of Biology, UNC-W. Wilmington, N.C.

330

3 6 00 006181