Final management plan, North Inlet/Winyah Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve

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

North Inlet/Winyah Bay
National Estuarine Research Reserve

Final Management Plan
October 1992

Z/1

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

U,S. Department of Commerce state Of South C4rolhla S.C. Comw Coundl
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Belle W. Baruch Institute Ashley Corporate Cenwr
National Ocean Service University of South Carolim 4130 Faber Placp- Suite 300
a Coastal Resource Management Columbia. SC 29209 Charleston. S.C. 29405
QH serves Divimon
91.75
S6
F56
1992 or

Inj CCUML

UNITED STATES

DEPARTNaN7 OF CO.',@@,RCE

FINAL MANAGEMENT PLAN,

NORTH INLET/WINYAH BAY
NATIONAL ESTUARINE RESEARCH RESERVE/

OCTOBER 1992

Prepared by:
U.S. Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
National Ocean Service
1825 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20235

State of South Carolina
Belle W. Baruch Institute
University of South Carolina
Columbia, S.C. 29208

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER PAGE

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

II. INTRODUCTION

A. Purpose and Scope of Plan

B. Background

1. National Estuarine Research Reserve
System (NERRS) 1

2. North Inlet/Winyah Bay National
Estuarine Research Reserve 6

III. MANAGEMENT BACKGROUND 8

A. Regional Setting 8

B. Location and Access 8

C. Environment of the North InI et/
Winyah Bay Estuaries 11

1. General Description 11

2. Hydrology 11

a. North Inlet Estuary 11

b. Winyah Bay Estuary 12

3. Geology 13

4. Climate 14

5. Living Resources 14

a. Ecological Setting 15

b. Biotic Setting 15

C. Biological Components 16

D. socioeconomic Features 23

Cultural and Historical Resources 23

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER PAGE

E. Traditional Reserve Uses 23

1. Research and Education 23

2. Recreation 24

3. Residential 24

4. Industrial and Port-Related 25

IV. The management Plan 26

A. Boundaries and Land Acquisition Plan 26

1. General Context for Management .26

2. Assessment of Boundaries 26

a. Key Land and Water Areas (Core) 27

b. Buffer Zone 28

3. Acquisition of Land 28

B. Resource Protection Plan 29

1. Rationale and Goals 29

2. General Policy Areas 30

3. Management of the Reserve Through
the S.C. Coastal Zone Management Program 31

a. Management of the Critical Areas 31

b. management of the Upland Areas
(Non-Critical Area) 32

C. Enforcement 34

4. On-Site-Management of the Reserve
Through the Belle W. Baruch Institute
for marine Biology and Coastal Research 37

5. Management Policies 38

a. Traditional Uses 38

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTE PAGE
IV. (1) Recreation 39

(a) Hunting 39

(b) Fishing 39

(d) Residential 39

(e) Habitat Restoration 39

(f) Visitor Use/Public Access 40

(g) Cultural and,Historical 41

(h) Industrial and Port-Related 41

(i) Research and Education 42

(j) Present Land Use 43

(k) Litter 43

(1) Construction 43

(m) Future Land and
Resource Use 44

(n) Manipulative Research 44

6. General Permits and Licenses 44

a. Existing Permits and Licenses 44

b. Reserve Research Permits 45

7. Surv eillance and Enforcement 45

8. Public Education and Information 45

C. Administrative Plan 45

1. Administrative Framework for the Reserve 47

2. Reserve Staffing 48

a. Reserve Manager 48

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTE PAGE

IV.

b. Research/Resource Coordinator 50

C. Education Coordinator 51

3. Advisory Committee Roles and
Responsibilities 52

a. Research and Monitoring
Subcommittee 54

.b. Education Subcommittee 54

4. Volunteer Programs 55

.5. Relationship with Existing
Administrative Programs 56

a. other Agencies/organizations 56

b. SC Wildlife and Marine Resources
Department, Division of Marine
Resources (SCWMR) 57

C. SC Department of Health and
Environmental Control (SCDEC) 57

d. Belle W. Baruch Forest
Science Institute of Clemson
University 57

e. others 57

6. Five-Year Activities Plan 58

D. Facilities Development Plan 58

Goal of the North Inlet/Winyah Bay Facility
Development Program 60

1. Facilities 6'0

2. Location of Reserve Visitor Center/
Headquarters 61

3. Staffing Requirements 61

4. Facility Requirements 61

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CRAPTER PAGE

IV.

5. Trails and Observation Platforms 62

E. Research and Monitoring Plan 62

1. General Context for Management 62

a. Goals 64

b. objectives 64

2. Research and Monitoring Priorities 65

a. North Inlet/Winyah Bay Research
Priorities 65

(1) Initial Short-Term Research
Priorities 66,

(2) Longer Term Research Priorities 67

b. NERRS National Research Priorities 68

C. monitoring Program Priorities 69

(1) Phase I - Environmental
Characterization 69

.(2) Phase II Site Profile 69

(3) Phase III Procedures and
@Requirements 69

(4) Phase IV - Implementation 69

3. North Inlet/Winyah Bay NERR Policies and
Procedures for Research 71

a. General Policies 71

b. Procedures for NOAA-Funded Research 72

C. Recruitment of Researchers 73

d. Data Management 73

e. Information Management 75

f. Research/Monitoring Coordination 76

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER PAGE

IV.

F. Education and Interpretation Plan 76

1. Goals and objectives 77

2. Assessment and Priorities 77

3 General Context for Management 82

4. General Policies 82

5. Interpretive Themes and Messages 83

6. Printed and Audiovisual Materials 83

7. Exhibits, Signs and Promotional Materials 87

8. Program Activities and Services 87

9. Public Access and Recreation 89

10. Coordination of Education Efforts 90

a. Coordination with Existing Programs 90

b. Coordination with NERRS 90

C. Coordination with Other Agencies 90

G. Public Access Policy 90

1. Policy 90

2. Current and Proposed Land Use Policy 91

3. Current and Proposed Wetland/Navigable
Water Use Policy 91

V. List'of Preparers 92

VI. References 94

VII. APPENDICES

A. Tripartite Agreement

B. Memoranda of Understanding

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTE PAGE

VII APPENDICES

C. National Estuarine Research Reserve
Program Regulations

D. Biogeographic Classification and Typology

E. Species List

F. Ecosystem Types

G. Governor C. Campbell's Nomination Letter

H. NOAA Approval of Nomination

I., Public Education Program -
Summary of 1990 Activities

J. Long-Term Ecological Research Publications

K. Letter from South Carolina Attorney General
Concerning Protective Control

L. Organizations Endorsing the North Inlet/
Winyah Bay Project

M. South Carolina Coastal Council Resolution
Concerning Public Access to Waters of
North Inlet and Winyah Bay

N. Consistency Certification by South Carolina
Coastal Council

LIST OF FIGURES

Ficture Page

1. Designated and Proposed National Estuarine
Research Reserves 4

2. NI-WB Location Map 10

3. NI/WB NERR Management Structure 46

4. Belle W. Baruch Foundation Management Areas App. A

5. System Model of North Inlet App. F-3-

6. Dynamics of N and C Exchange App. F-3

7. Carbon Budget of NI Estuary App. F-4

LIST OF TABLES

Table PAGE

1. Summary of SCCC "Networking" Activities 33

2. Activities Regulated Through Direct and/or
Consistency Certification by South Carolina
Coastal Council 3-5
3. state Agency Permits Subject to Coastal Zone
Consistency Review by South Carolina
Coastal Council 36

4. Five-Year Staffing Plan for NI/WB NERR 59

5. Assessment Matrix 78

6. Education Priorities 80

7. 'Timetable - Implementation of NI/WB Education
Program Activities 81

8. Themes and,Messages for Reserve Interpretation 85

ACRONYMS

BI Belle W. Baruch Institute for Marine Biology and
coastal Research

DMP Draft Management Plan

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

FMP Final Management Plan

LTER Long-Term Ecological Research

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

NERRS National Estuarine Research Reserve System

NI/WB
NERR North Inlet/Winyah Bay National Estuarine Research
Reserve

NOAA National oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

OCRM of fice of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (NOAA)

ORW outstanding Resource Waters

SCDHEC South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental
Control

SCDWMR South Carolina Department of Wildlife and Marine
Resources

SFH shellfish Harvesting Waters

SRD Sanctuaries and Reserves Division (NOAA)

USC The University of South Carolina

UNITEO STATES OEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NATIONAL. OCEAN SERVICE
OFFICE OF OCEAN AND COASTAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
D.C, 20235

DESIGNATION OF THE NORTH INLET/WINYAH BAY
NATIONAL ESTUARINE RESEARCH RESERVE

Consistent with the provisions of Section 315 of the Coastal Zone
Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1461, the State of South Carolina has
met the following conditions to establish the North Inlet/Winyah
Bay National-Estuarine Research Reserve.

1) North Inlet/Winyah Bay regions are representative
ecosystems that are suitable for long-term research and
contribute to the biogeographical and topological balance of the
National Estuarine Research Reserve System.

2) South Carolina state la ws provide long-term protection
for Reserve resources to ensure a stable environment for
research.

3) Designation of North Inlet/Winyah Bay as a Reserve will
serve to enhance public awareness and understanding of estuarine
areas and provide suitable opportunities for public education and
interpretation.

4) The State of South Carolina has complied with the
requirements of the regulations relating to designation of a
National Estuarine Research Reserve.

Accordingly, I hereby designate the areas of North Inlet and
Winyah Bay as a National Estuarine Research Reserve, the
boundaries of which are specified in the Final Management Plan.

@@'udy Coxe
Director
office of Ocean and Coastal
Resource Management

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Section 315 of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 established
the National Estuarine Research Reserve System (originally called the National
Estuarine Sanctuary Program) as a Federal/state cooperative venture. Federal
matching funds are available to coastal states to develop and manage a national
system of estuarine research reserves which are representative of various regions and
estuarine types in the United States.. In addition, annual Federal matching funds for
research and education projects are available. The goal of the program is to protect
areas of representative estuaries, including valuable wetland habitat, for use as natural
field laboratories. National Estuarine Research Reserves (NERRS) are established to:
(1) provide opportunities for long-term estuarine research and monitoring; (2) provide
opportunities for estuarine education and interpretation; (3) provide a basis for more
informed coastal management decisions; and (4) promote public awareness,
understanding and appreciation of estuarine ecosystems and their relationships to the
environment as a whole.

The National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS) has established a
classification scheme that reflects differences in regional biogeography and estuarine
typology to ensure that establish@d sites are representative and that a variety of
ecosystem types are included. The biogeographic classification scheme and estuarine
typology system are shown in Appendix D. The North Inlet/Winyah Bay NERR (NI/WB
NERR) is in the Northern Carolinas section of the Carolinian Biogeographic
Classification Scheme.

The North Inlet[Winyah Bay NERR was proposed by the Belle W. Baruch
Institute for Marine Biology and Coastal Research, The University of South Carolina
(USC), a State agency, in cooperation with the South Carolina Coastal Council
(SCCC), the state's lead agency in coastal zone management. In 1990 the Governor
of South Carolina nominated the site to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) and it was approved.

The NlfWB NERR encompasses a core area of approximately 9,000 acres of
tidally flushed wetland, riparian habitats, and a limited amount of upland habitats (the
Marsh Islands and lands associated with the laboratory complex, the Kimbel Living
Center and the Clambank Landing area). With the exception of the State-controlled
navigable waters, the remaining Reserve property is owned by the Belle W. Baruch
Foundation which was established in perpetuity to preserve and conserve the
environmental qualities of its propgrty as well as to preserve its historical and cultural
value. The Baruch Institute, USC, through a long-term agreement with the Foundation
signed by the SC Attorney General, manages that portion of its lands which was a
part of the Reserve. The Foundation has given its approval for its lands, described

in this Management Plan, to be included in the Reserve. This area is in Georgetown
County, immediately east of Winyah Bay near Georgetown, SC, and south of the
Debordieu Colony property located on the Waccamaw Neck peninsula.

This area was selected after an exhaustive selection process and a series of
public meetings. It includes an undisturbed estuary (North Inlet) and an estuary which
has been influenced by human activities (Winyah Bay). The Belle W. Baruch Institute
for Marine Biology and Coastal Research, The University of South Carolina, as stated
in a Memorandum of Understanding with the South Carolina Coastal Council and
NOAA, is the lead agency.

The purpose of the NI/WB NERR is to establish and manage the areas within the
boundaries as natural field laboratories and to develop a coordinated program of
research and education for the reserve. Comparative ecosystem studies involving an
undisturbed system and a human-influenced estuary will provide valuable scientific
insights into the ecological processes controlling estuaries. Under'the preferred
alternative, the SC Coastal Council designated the Baruch Institute of the University
of South Carolina to be the lead agency operating the Reserve in cooperation with the
Belle W. Baruch Foundation, neighboring landowners, private citizens, state and
Federal agencies, and advisory committees.

Reserve staff will initially include a Reserve Manager, Research/Resource
Coordinator, Education Coordinator, and Secretary/Data Processor. The Reserve
Manager will be the principal administrator of the Reserve and will be responsible for
ensuring that the policies contained in the Reserve Management Plan are followed.
This person will be employed and supervised by the Director of the Baruch Institute,
USC. The Research/Resource Coordinator will develop and implement a resource
assessment program, including long-term monitoring and research activities. The
Education Coordinator will develop and coordinate education program activities that
are consistent with the goals and objectives of the Reserve and the NERRS Network.
The Secretary/Data Processor will assist the program staff by providing secretarial
service and also assisting with data processing.

Research and education programs will gather and make available information
necessary to improve understanding, appreciation, and management of the reserve
site and national research and management issues. The NIMS Reserve activities will
augment, not replace, activities of other government agencies and the site owners.
Traditional uses of the sites will continue and current site access policies will be
enforced to protect the integrity*of the Reserve. Facilities will be developed as
necessary to aid in research and education.

The Management Plan provides information about the North Inlet/Winyah Say
National Estuarine Research Reserve and the programs and activities planned for the
Reserve in the next few years. The Final Environmental Impact Statement, prepared

in May 1992, further established the boundary for the Reserve and outlined the
general framework for the Management Plan. The present document finalizes the
Aeserve boundary and details the research and education activities and programs that
will guide the management of the Reserve.

The Management Plan will be reviewed and updated periodically to ensure that
it is meeting the overall goals and objectives of the Reserve and achieving effective
management through the experience gained by on-going operations,

Valuable natural resources. will be protected for long-term research, and
education by designation of the Reserve. Natural resources affected by the proposed
action include a diverse, highly productive estuarine system (North Inlet) made up of
wetlands and open water. The comparison of responses of an undisturbed estuary
(North Inlet) with those responses of an estuarine system influenced by human
activities (Winyah Bay) will provide useful data on resource utilization, protection, and
restoration. In addition to the natural resources, the Reserve is endowed with nearby
cultural reservoirs, including important historical and archaeological sites located on
adjacent highlands.

Traditional public uses of the Reserve will not be, altered. These uses include
boating, fishing, observation of wildlife, swimming, and recreational harvesting of
oysters and clams as permitted by state laws. Traditional uses of Winyah Bay
permitted by state and Federal agencies will continue, including those associated with
existing shipping channels.

The environmental conseqkiences of the proposed action are strongly positive,
the primary impact will be long-term protection of the natural resources. No resources
will be irreversibly or irretrievably lost. On the contrary, these precious resources will
be provided with long-term proteqtion and will serve both now and in the future as
sites for important estuarine research and education.

The Management Plan is in accordance with all relevant state, local and Federal
*regulations and is consistent with the objectives of Federal, state, regional, and local
land use plans, policies, and controls for the areas concerned.

INTRODUCTION

A. Purgose and Scope of Plan

The State of South Carolina established the North Inlet/Winyah Bay National
Estuarine Research Reserve (NERR) to provide representative natural areas for long-
term research, monitoring, and education. The mission of the North Inlet/Winyah Bay
NERR is to improve coastal resource management by increasing scientific
understanding of estuarine systems and to provide useful information for decision
makers and the public. This Management Plan will guide the activities carried out for
the Reserve program and ensure that they are consistent with this primary mission.

This Management Plan has been developed according to National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) regulations 15 CFR Part 921 (January 1, 1992)
(Appendix C) using information derived from research and public input. It is
consistent with the Congressional intent of the National Estuarine Research Reserve
System (NERRS), the NOAA-State of South Carolina Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) concerning the North Inlet/Winyah Bay NERR, and provisions of the South
Carolina Coastal Zone Management Program.

The purpose of this Management Plan is to inform parties about the Reserve
and provide a framework for activities that will be conducted. Though it is long-term
in scope, the Management Plan will be reviewed by NOAA every two years and
revised every five years. Public comments will be received prior to changes in the,
Management Plan. Public notice of meetings dealing with changes in the Management
Plan will be published in the local newspapers at least two weeks prior to these
meetings.

B. Background

1 . Notional Estuarine Research Resorve System (NERRI

In response to intense pressures on'the coastal resources of the United States,
Congress enacted the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). The Act was signed
into law in 1972, and amended in 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1980, 1986, and 1990.
The CZMA authorized a Federal grant-in-aid and assistance program to be
administered by the Secretary of Commerce, who in turn delegated this responsibility
to the NOAA's Assistant Administrator for Ocean Services and Coastal Zone
Management.

The Act and its amendments affirm a national interest in the effective
protection and careful development of the coastal zone by providing financial and
technical assistance to U.S. coastal states and territories to voluntarily develop and

implement coastal zone management programs. The Act established a variety of
grant-in-aid programs to coastal states for the purposes of:

0 Developing coastal zone management programs. (Sec. 305)
0 Implementing and administering coastal management programs
that -receive Federal approval. (Sec. 306)

0 Conducting technical assistance and management oriented
research to support the development and implementation of state
coastal management programs. (Sec. 309); and

0 Establishing the National Estuarine Research Reserve System.
Funds are available to assist in the site selection, acquisition,
development, and operation of reserves, and to support
educational or interpretive activities and research and monitoring
programs. (Sec. 315)
Recognizing the need to @ddress threats to the country's important and
sensitive estuarine areas, Congress established the National Estuarine Sanctuary
Program as Section 315 of the CZMA. (See Appendix C) The reauthorization of the
CZMA in 1986 included an amendment changing the name of the program to the
National Estuarine Research Reserve System, reflecting a stronger emphasis on
research. What were formerly "sanctuaries" are now called "research reserves." The
goal of the program is to create a system of reserves that represents distinct estuarine
ecosystems found nationally and to manage these areas for long-term research and
education. Although the program is national in scope, individual states are responsible
for implementing and administering their own programs.

The CZMA was reauthorized in 1990. Regulations revised the process for
designation of research reserves. Greater emphasis is placed on the use of reserves
to address national estuaripe research and'management issues, and to make maximum
use of the System for research purposes through coordination with NOAA and other
Federal and state agencies which are sponsoring estuarine research. Other activities
were emphasized: (a) providing financial assistance to states to enhance public
awareness and understanding of estuarine areas; (b), providing new guidance for
delineating reserve boundaries and new procedures for arriving at the most effective
and least costly approach to acq@isition of land; and (c) clarifying the amount of
financial assistance authorized for each national estuarine research reserve and criteria
for withdrawing the designation of a reserve.

Coordination of the National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS) is
provided by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration INOAA), specifically
the Sanctuaries and Reserves Division (SRD). In this Final Management Plan (FMP),

the coordinating entity will be referred to simply as NOAA, with the understanding
that SRD is actually the responsible division within NOAA.

NERRS Regulations appear at 15 CFR Part 921. This Management Plan is
consistent with these regulations. According to the regulations after designation
NOAA will conduct periodic performance evaluations of a reserve at least every three
years. Evaluations may be conducted more frequently as determined necessary by
NOAA. These evaluations are required by Sections 312 and 315 of the Coastal Zone
Management Act (CZMA) and will follow the evaluations procedures described in
Section 312. Evaluations may' assess all aspects of reserve operation and
management, or they may focus on selected issues, Evaluations may also examine
whether a reserve.i,s in compliance with NERR designation regulations, and particularly
whether the operations and management of the reserve are consistent with and
further the mission and goals of the NERRS.

Federal officials will conduct the performance evaluations. When necessary,
NOAA may request Federal and non-Federal experts to participate in the evaluations.
Performance evaluations will be conducted in accordance with procedural and public
participation provisions of CZMA regulations.

If performance evaluations reveal that the operation and management of the
reserve is deficient or the research is inconsistent with the Reserve Guidelines, the
eligibility of the reserve for Federal financial assistance may be suspended until the
situation is remedied. If major deficiencies are not remedied within a reasonable
amount of time, NOAA may initiate a process to withdraw designation of the reserve.

To ensure that the National Estuarine Research System includes sites that
adequately represent regional and ecological differences, the NERRS regulations
establish a biogeographical classification scheme that reflects regional differences in
biogeography and an estuarine typology system which includes a variety of ecosystem
types. (See Appendix C for a description of the biogeographic regions of the United
States). Upon completion, the NERRS will contain representation of the 27
biogeographic regions of the Nation's coastal zone. The North Inlet/Winyah Bay
National Estuarine Research Reserve (NI/WB NERR) lies in the Northern Carolinas sub-
region of the Carolinian biogeographic region.

At the present time, twenty reserve sites have been designated across the
country (Figure 1). Designated sites are:

The National Estuarine Research
Reserve System -n
(D

0
Padde Say. WA
SL Lawrence
Rive Basin, NY
Old Woman
Creek. OH
South Slough. OR Wells, ME -U
Great Bay NH 0
Waquoit tl@y. MA 0
a ansen Bay. R1 (A
(D
San Francisco Its Hudson iver. NY a
Mulfica Piver. NJ z
Say. CA lawwo
Chesapeake Bay. MD 0
Elkhofn Slough. CA Chesapeake Say. VA n
M
4% North Carolina
Tijuana River. CA North inlet Se
ACE Basin, SC
Sapelo Island, GA :0
40 Designated Sites
0 Developing Sites East Coast. FL
Weeks Say. AL
0 waimanu valley. HI Apalachicola Say. FL
Rookery Bay, FL
*Jobas Say. PR :2
Lw-W

ftesearch Rese_rvg Biogeographic Classification

Wells Acadian
York County, Maine

Great Bay Acadian
Great Bay, New Hampshire

Waquoit Bay Virginian
Mashpee and Falmouth, Massachusetts

Narragansett Bay Virginian
Newport County, Rhode Island

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

Chesapeake Bay, Maryland Virginian
(3 components) Anne Arundel,
Harford, Prince Georges, and
Somerset Counties

Chesapeake Bay, Virginia, Virginian
(4 components) York, Gloucester,
James City, and King William Counties

North Carolina (4 components) Virginian/Carolinian
Brunswick, Carteret, Currituck
and New Hanover Counties

Sapelo Island -Carolinian
McIntosh County, Georgia

Rookery Bay West Indian
Collier County, Florida

Jobos Bay West Indian
Guayama, Puerto Rico

Apalachicola River/Bay Louisianan
Franklin County, Florida

Weeks Bay Louisianan
Baldwin County, Alabama

Tijuana River Californian
San Diego County, California

Elkhorn Slough Californian
Monterey County, California

South Slough Columbian
Coos Bay, Oregon

Padilla Bay Columbian
Skagit County, Washington

Old Woman Creek Great Lakes
Erie County, Ohio

Waimanu Valley Insular
Island of Hawaii, Hawaii

Ashepoo-Combahee-Edisto (ACE) Basin
Colleton County, South Carolina Carolinian

In addition, California-San Francisco Bay (San Francisco Bay), New York-St.
Lawrence River Basin (Acadian), Delaware. (Virginian), and East Coast Florida
(Carolinian) have proposed sites to be included as National Estuarine Research
Reserves and are in the process of producing environmental impact statements and
manag ement plans.

2. North Inlet/Winyah Bay Natignal Estuarine Research Reserme

Much of South Carolina's coa stal zone is experiencing rapid population growth
with attendant demands for residential, commercial and industrial development. In
spite of the State's strong and effective coastal zone management program, these
changes cannot be made without some adverse effects on our natural environment.

South Carolina's participation in the NERRS Program is based upon the
recognition that the state contains a vast wealth of estuarine area that is affected
through many diverse uses of the coastal zone.

Due to the. immense complexity of relationships between the state's living
marine and estuarine resources and their environment, sustained study of these
resources is critical to our understanding of them and of the impact of human

activities on their future health and well-being. Unfortunately, there are fewer and
fewer undisturbed or unpolluted areas that remain for scientific study and public
education.

The North Inlet/Winyah Bay ecosystems, locate d near Georgetown, SC, have
been recognized at the state and national level as sites of particular interest for
comparative ecological studies. The North Inlet estuary, an ecosystem which is
relatively unperturbed by humans, has been the site of intensive study for 20 years.
The 'Institute of Ecology and the National Science Foundation have given this area a
rating of 98% for site quality and the SC Department of Health and Environmental
Control designated North Inlet as an Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), an area
possessing unique ecological qualities. In addition, North Inlet is part of the
Carol in ia n-South Atlantic Biosphere Reserve, a part of the United States Man and the
Biosphere Program (US MAB). Since 1980, this site has served as the only estuarine
site in a network of 18 sites supported by the National Science Foundation's Long-
Term Ecological Research Program. In contrast, the nearby Winyah Bay is an estuary
which has been subjected to the influence of human activities. It is the connection
to the sea of one of the largest watersheds on the east coast south of Chesapeake
Bay.

This Reserve is viewed as am excellent site to pr ovide a long-term database for
valuable management of coastal resources. Early in the site selection process, other
areas (Santee Bay and Port Royal Sound) were considered as possible NERR sites but
were eliminated. The Site Selection Committee felt that the comparative study of an
undisturbed and a disturbed estuary would provide a unique potential for research and
education and would augment the variety of estuarine systems currently part of the
NERR System. The South Carolina Attorney General's Office has affirmed that the
State has adequate protective control over the Reserve's resources (see Appendix K).
This position is based on the existence of a long-term agreement between the
University of South Carolina and the Belle W. Baruch'Foundation (Appendix A) to
manage the uplands and salt marsh portions of the Reserve which are owned by the
Foundation. The Foundation has approved the NI/WB NERR project. In addition, state
laws provide protection for salt marshes and other lands located in the critical coastal
zone area (see Section IV B-Resource Protection Plan for detailed description of laws
and their enforcement). The site, which is an excellent example of undeveloped
estuary (North Inlet) being located next to a highly developed estuary (Winyah Bay),
allows comparative estuarine studies on how natural and disturbed estuarine
ecosystems functions and the NERRS was viewed as a compatible tool to provide
long-term management and opportunities for comparative research and education
programs.

At its meeting of July 21, 1989, the SCCC, on recommendation of the site
selection committee, approved the North Inlet/Winyah Bay site for nomination to
NERRS. Upon this decision, Council staff, in conjunction with staff from the Belle W.

Baruch Institute, began preparation of the nomination package for submittal to NOAA
under signature of Governor Carroll Campbell. On January 24, 1990, Governor
Campbell nominated North Inlet/Winyah Bay as a Reserve (Appendix G). NOAA
approved the site nomination on March 27, 1990 (Appendix H). In October 1991, a
Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Draft Management Plan was published and a
public hearing was held in November 1991 to solicit comments. Comments were
incorporated in the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Draft Management Plan,
published in May 1992.

III. MANAGEMENT. 13ACKGROUND

A. flegionall Setting

.The NI/WB NERR is the southernmost estuarine system in the Northern
Carolinas section of the Carolinian Biogeographic Classification Scheme. It is unique
in a local, regional, and national context. It consists of parts of two estuarine
systems, an undisturbed estuary (North Inlet) and portions of an estuary which has
been influenced by human activities (Winyah Bay). The North Inlet Estuary represents
a discrete, high salinity estuarine system that Js surrounded almost entirely (90%) by
highlands owned by the Belle W. Baruch Foundation. The wetland portion of the
estuary is managed by the Baruch Institute, University of South Carolina, a state
agency, and the State of South Carolina. The remaining highlands that are part of the
Debordieu Colony, an exclusive residential development, and North Island, owned by
by the State of South Carolina, managed by the Yawkey Wildlife Center, SC Wildlife
and Marine Resources Department, and supported by the Yawkey Foundation, do not
border on the core region of the reserve. Winyah Bay is one of the major estuarine
ecosystems in the southeastern United States. The entire Winyah Bay watershed is
approximately 18,000 square miles. Only the Mud Bay region of Winyah Bay, which
interconnects with North Inlet estuary, is included as part of the reserve.

B. Location and Access

The North Inlet/Winyah Bay site, consisting of a core area and a buffer zone,
is located in Georgetown County, SC (Figure 2). The North Inlet Estuary portion of
the Reserve is a semi-enclosed body of water surrounded by terrestrial areas
(Waccamaw Neck, North Island, and Debidue Island), with a major aquatic connection
to the Atlantic Ocean and minor connections to Winyah Bay. Other areas in the
Reserve include portions of the wetlands bordering Winyah Bay on the southern side
of Waccamaw Neck, including the 1000-Acre Rice Field, and the Marsh Islands,
Malady Bush Island, Pu mpkinseed. Island, and Ranger Islands.

Access to the Reserve by land is from highway US 17 about 1 mile north of
Georgetown. Immediately off the highway is the Nature Center of the Baruch
Foundation and the USC Kimbel Living Center. An electric gate near the Nature

Center limits entrance to the main part of the Hobcaw Barony without authorization,
Research investigators and official visitors utilizing the Reserve facilities will be
permitted entrance. The research facilities are located approximately 2 miles from the
entrance gate. Hobcaw Barony is approximately 30 miles south of Myrtle Beach and
50 miles north of Charleston. Major airlines service both cities.

Figure 2. NI-WB Site

79* 15' 79'10'

Gtorletorn

A
'7,
2 Debidue
V
Island

Robcaw
Ba rony
0 C 33*2
North
Inlet

m
G

Mud
5 North
Bay
.D"W-N 4 Island N I
flayah
Bay K'

Atlantic
Ocean

Sciale I : 27095

33 .4.

Fig. 2. Map of proposed North Inlet/Winyah Bay NERRS and surrounding area. Marshlamds are shaded. Waterways, lands,
and sites referenced in the text are designated as follows:

1 Debidue Crook A Hobcaw entrance, Bellefield Nature F Frazier Point
2 Bass Hole Bay Center, and Kirricel Living and G Ranger Island
Learning Center
3 Cooks Crook 8 Field Laboratory complex H i,ooo Acre Rice Field
4 Jones Crook C Clambank Landing Marsh Islands

C. Environmenj of the North Inlet/Winyah Bay Estuaries

1 . General Description

The Reserve has sev eral unique aspects. Most of the undisturbed marsh and
adjacent uplands are owned by the Belle W. Baruch Foundation and the State of South
Carolina, which have established these lands in perpetuity for conservation and
research. In 1980, the North Inlet Estuary was selected as the marine-estuarine site
in the National Science Foundation's nationwide Long-Term Ecological Research
program. The portion of North Inlet to be designated as a National Estuarine Research
Reserve covers a 3,200 hectare area, with the majority classified as Outstanding
Resource Waters (ORW) by the South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control (SCDHEC). This special category is for tidal salt waters which
constitute an outstanding recreational or ecological resource and will 'be maintained
and protected in its natural condition. The remainder of the areas of North Inlet
Estuary is classified Shellfish Harvesting Waters (SFH) by SCDHEC, while the waters
directly adjacent to Mud Bay are classified as SB, (no harvesting of clams, oysters,
or mussels for human consumption) the same classification as Winyah Bay.

2. Hydrology

a. North Inlet Estuar

The circulation pattern of North Inlet is tidally dominated. The circulation
structure resembles a Pritchards (1955) type D vertically homogeneous estuary,
although in several creeks a lateral net circulation exists similar to the type C estuary.
The maximum springtide range is 2.5 m and the neaptide range about 1.0 m, the
maximum tidal current is 1.7 m/sec with the net currents being as great as 26
cm/sec. There is limited exchange of water between Winyah Bay and North Inlet; the
greatest exchange of water occurs between North Inlet Estuary and the Atlantic
Ocean through North Inlet. In the mouth of the inlet, salinity varies from 30 to 35
ppt; however, after severe rainstorms the salinity may temporarily drop to 20 ppt.
Generally, salinities in all waterways are lowest in winter and spring. Water
temperatures range from 30 to 30T. Detailed analyses of many aspects of the
physical oceanography of North Inlet have been published by Dr. B. Kjerfve and his
students (see Appendix J for a partial listing of selected papers).

A long-term data base (approximately 11 years) exists which includes
continuous recordings of precipitation, wind speed, barometric pressure, solar
radiation, water and air temperatures, conductivity, and salinity. A daily water sample
is taken from two or more locations and is analyzed for dissolved organic matter, N,
P, C, chlorophyll, and particulate N, P, C, POP NH4, and N03/NO2. Dr. E. Blood and
her associates have published various studies regarding nutrient dynamics in the area
(see bibliography of. Long-Term Ecological Research publications Appendix J).

There are four distinct watersheds on the adjacent upland area; two drain
west into Winyah Bay, one south into Mud Bay (Winyah Bay) and one east into the
North Inlet Estuary. Extensive studies on hydrology have been undertaken by Dr. T.
Williams and his associates from the Baruch Forest Science Institute of Clemson
University. The natural drainage patterns of about 60% of the upland area have been
interrupted by manmade ditches and dikes that date back to the rice culture days. All
watersheds drain into intertidal areas and therefore are influenced to a certain degree
by tidal fluctuations.

b. Winyah Say EstyAry

Winyah Bay is one of the major estuarine ecosystems in the southeastern
United States. It is a class B type estuary according to Pritchard's classification
(1955). The axis of Winyah Bay is roughly oriented in a north west-southeast
direction. The estuary is narrowest near its confluence with the ocean 0.5 km) and
widest in the center (7 km). At the upper end of the bay where the major rivers
(Black, Pee' Dee, and Waccamaw rivers) converge, the width is about 2 km.
Prominent features of Winyah Bay include: long rock jetties which project more than
a mile into the ocean from North and South islands, several large islands within the
bay, and a large shallow mid-section known as Mud Bay. Winyah Bay has a mean
depth of only 15 ft (4.2 m) and manybectares of open waterways are less than 6 ft
(2 m) in depth. A ship channel which is maintained at 27 ft (8.2 m) runs along the
axis of the bay from the end of the jetties to Georgetown Harbor. Details of the
bathymetry of Winyah Bay are available from Coast and Geodetic Survey navigation
map No. 787 and several U.S. Army Corps of Engineers documents (e.g., Trawle,
1978).

The entire Winyah Bay watershed is approximately 18,000 square miles.
Four major rivers drain into the system. More than 16,000 sq miles of this drainage
area is associated with the Pee Dee-Yadkin river system which originates in the Blue
Ridge Mountains area of North Carolina. Water from this area flows across the
Piedmont region of both North and South Carolina, over the coastal plain of eastern
South Carolina, and into Winyah Bay through the Pee Dee River. The Waccamaw
River also receives water from the Pee Dee as the poorly defined, shallow, wide,
swampy waterways merge upstream of the US Highway 17 bridges. The Black and
Sampit rivers drain much smaller watersheds. Other characteristics of these
watersheds are given by the Conservation Foundation (1980).

According to Johnson (1972), the freshwater input to Winyah Bay
Estuary ranges from 2,000 to about 1,000,000 cubic feet per second (cfs), and mean
runoff is approximately 15,000 cfs. Superimposed on this unidirectional freshwater
flow toward the ocean is the regular semidiurnal tidal pattern. Mean tidal amplitude
is on the order of 1.4 m at the ocean end of Winyah Bay and 1 m at the Sampit River
(1.6 m and 1.2 m on spring tides, respectively; Trawle, 1969). A salt wedge effect

occurs as heavier salt water moves up-estuary along the bottom with a flooding tide,
even though the overlying fresh water may be flowing toward the ocean. During
periods of low freshwater inflow, flooding tides move salt water more than 15 miles
upstream of the US Highway 17 bridges, but underaverage riverflow, the penetration
is usually within a mile of the bridges. Differences between surface and bottom
salinities during these periods may be more than 20 ppt. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers' measurements (Trawle, 1978) indicate that while surface water salinities
are usually 29-32 ppt near the oc@an entrance during most flow conditions, surface
salinities in Georgetown Harbor range from about 0 to 10 ppt. Salinity patterns in the
mixing zone between these ends of the system are highly variable as a result of
changing freshwater inflow, tidal amplitude, wind conditions, and bottom topography.
Further information on the hydrography of Winyah Bay is available in Trawle (11969),
Johnson (11 970),'and Bloomer (11973).

Almost the entire shore of Winyah Bay is vegetated by marshes.
Approximately 31,867 acres (112,747 hectares) of marsh are associated with this
estua'ry. More than 77% of these marshes are regularly flushed through tidal action;
the remaining 13% are impounded (Tiner, 1977). Some 80% of the marshes are
vegetated by freshwater plants while most of the other 20% are inhabited by the
brackish water grass Spartina cynosuroides and black rush, Juncus roemerianus. Of
the 17 estuarine systems in South Carolina, Winyah Bay is most important in terms
of freshwater marshes. In fact, about 35% of the state's freshwater marsh lands
occur there (Tiner, 1977). Relatively small stands of salt marsh cordgrass (Spartina
alterniflora) occur near the entrance of Winyah Bay, and a na rrow band occurs
adjacent to major waterways upstream to the middle bay.

Water quality in Win@ah Bay is directly influenced by inputs from the
extensive Winyah Bay watershed (18,000 square miles) and from the Georgetown
area. Georgetown is one of the most extensively developed areas of the Sea Island
Coastal Region (Mathews et al., 1980). Winyah Bay has been classified as SB,
meaning that its waters are not suitable for harvesting of clams, oysters, or mussels
for market purposes or human consumption (South Carolina Department of
Health and Environmental Control 1977; South Carolina Pollution Control Authority,
.1972). Shellfishing in Winyah Bay has been restricted since 1964 (U.S. Department
of Commerce, 1979). It is not the intent, objective nor desire of the NI[WB, NERR to
restrict the shipping activities of the port of Georgetown. Rather, the traditional and
future port activities (i.e., commercial shipping and dredging of channels) in Winyah
Bay are expected to be the major focus of comparative research projects with North
Inlet.

3. Geology

North Inlet waters drain a very large marsh located between Debidue and
North islands andthe mainland. The mainland consists of Pleistocene Storm Beach

Terrain with ridges oriented in a nOrtheasterly-southwesterly direction. These ridges
intersect the Atlantic Ocean at the north end of Debidue Beach. These surficial
mainland features are underlain by a complex sequence of older coastal plain
sediments, a sequence which is poorly understood in the immediate area. at the
present time.

Debidue Beach and North Island represent part of a Holocene Barrier
0
Beach System. This system has migrated southward in recent times, with principal
evidence here being the major spit along the northern entrance to Winyah Bay, and
smaller spit migration land forms along the northern border of North Inlet.

North Inlet drains numerous tidal creeks, and two of these extend back
through the marsh to lie in close proximity to the Pleistocene mainland. The creeks
are very shallow in depth, never exceeding 30 ft below mean sea level, and commonly
showing floors which are occupied by sand bars. The marsh areas are underlain by
silts and clays which extend an unknown depth below the surface.

Relief is generally flat; the western third of the peninsula has the most
relief with bluffs adjacent to Winyah Bay as high as 15 m. Geologically, Winyah Bay
represents a drowned river basin and receives water from an extensive drainage basin
(see previous description).

4. Climate

The climate is temperate or subtropical with air and water temperatures
ranging from - 1 30C to + 41 IC and 3'C to 300C , respectively. Winter temperatures
are highly variable but generally mifd. Ice occasionally forms on high marsh pools, but
snow is a rare event. Rainfall is about 45 inches (1114 cm) per year. Daytime
temperatures are usually above 200C from May through November.

5. Living Re�ources

The Reserve includes a range of habitats r anging from salinity-dominated
freshwater wetlands to ocean-dominated salt marshes; In addition, a series of
habitats extending from the open ocean across a barrier island and an extensive salt
marsh to the uplands are included. Island habitats which are used as bird nesting
sites, as well as a portion of barrier island, are to be part of the reserve.

Since 1969, numer ous studies have been conducted on the ecology of
the North Inlet system; however, fewer studies exist for the Winyah Bay portion of
the proposed estuarine reserve. To date, there are 951 publications representing
marine and coastal studies completed by Baruch Associates (see Appendix J); many
deal exclusively with the North Inlet-Winyah Bay system. Extensive faunal species lists
and distribution information has been developed (see Zingmark, 1978; Fox and

Ruppert, 1985; Ogburn et al., 1988) and much of the phytoplankton, macroalgae,
marsh plants, zooplankton, and meiofauna has been identified (see papers in Appendix
E and Zingmark, 1978). The area includes many commercial and recreational species
of fish and shellfish. A variety ofresident and migratory birds inhabit this estuarine
.system (see Bildstein publications in Appendix J). A detailed characterization of the
existing literature on the physical, chemical, and biological conditions of Winyah Bay
and North Inlet Estuary is available (Blood and Vernberg, 1992).

a. Ecological Setting

All major temperate coastal habitats are represented within the Reserve.
The North Inlet high salinity marsh-estuary has a semidiurnal tide with maximum
amplitude of 2.2 m, a temperature range of 41C to 320C, and salinities which are
usually greater than 28 p'pt in the major waterways. Wetland habitats include
exposed and sheltered sandy beaches; intertidal mudflats and. oyster beds submerged
algae beds; sand, shell, and mud benthic habitats; rock jetties; and rookery islands.
More than 1,200 ha of brackish and freshwater marshes, which were formerly
cultivated ricefields, bo rder Winyah Bay.

b. Biotic SettinQ

Estuarine and salt marsh habitats are dominated by Soartina, Juncus, and
Salicornia,. Over 160 species of maproinvertebrates have been identified, including the
typical fiddler crabs, blue crabs, oysters, ribbed mussels, mud flat snails, hermit crabs,
and polychaetes. About 120 species of fish and 130 species of algae are found in the
diverse waters of the region. The open dunes have at least 24 species of higher
plants, including sea oats, Sl2artina Qatens, Panicum, and Iva.

The upland and freshwater biotic components consists of longleaf pines,
turkey oak and live oak understories, sweetgum, loblolly pine, laurel oak, red maple,
waxmyrtle, fetterbush, dwarf palmetto, bald cypress, water tupelo, red maple,
sweetbay and red bay, live oak, eastern red cedar, yaupon, sea oats, american beach
grass, wax myrtle, alligator weed, sedges, false nettle, and water pennywort.

All of the above communities are inhabited by relatively abundant
populations of white-tailed deer, feral hogs, raccoons, squirrels, foxes, alligators,
wood and white ibis, osprey, bobcats, songbirds, and red-cockaded woodpecker,
waterfowl, and shore birds.

C. Biological Comgonents

Macrophyte

North Inlet

The entire North Inlet Estuary has approximately 52 kM2 of salt marsh of which
49.1 (86%) was classified as low marsh and the remainin 'g 2.9 kM2 (13%) is high
marsh. Low marsh areas were dominated by Spartina alterniflora while the high
marsh community contained a mix of species including Spartina alterniflora (smooth
cord grass), J uncus roemeria n us (black need lerush), Borrichia f rutescens (Sea oxy-eye),
Distichlis sr)icata (Salt grass), Sr)artina patens (marsh-hay cordgrass), Fimbristyglis
spadicea salt marsh fimbristylis, Salicornia spp. (glassworts), Iva frutescen (marsh
elder), and others (not identified in publication). Most, but not all of the North Inlet
system, is included in the Reserve.

Winyah Bay

The entire Winyah Bay system has an extremely diverse plant community
arising from the broad range of salinities which occurs in the estuary. Freshwater
marshes comprised 90.6 kM2 (81 %), brackish marshes 19.7 kM2 (18%), and salt
marshes less than 1 % (0.8 km 2) of the total 127.3 kM2 marsh habitat in Winyah Bay.
Marshes affected by tides 0 11. 1 kM2 ) are 87% of the marsh area. Not all of Winyah
Bay is part of the Reserve.

Low marsh is dominated by Sgsirtina alterniflora (smooth cordgrass), with
Juncus roemerianus (black needlerush), Borrichia frutescens (sea ox-eye), Distichlis
s 12 icata (salt g ra ss), Spa rti na oatens (mars h- hay cord grass), Fi mbristypl-ig owadilm-ce (salt
marsh fimbristylis), Salicornia spp. (glassworts), Iva frutescens (marsh elder), and
Limonium spp. (sea lavender) in the high marsh.

The brackish marsh species include giant cordgrass, Juncus roemerianu (black
needlerush), Scirpus robustus (salt marsh bulrush), Scirpu americanus (common
three-square), Scirl2us validus (soft-stem bulrush), Typha latifolia (broadleaf cattail),
Typha gluca (blue cattail), Pontedaria cordata (pickerel-weed), Sagittaria sp.
(arrowhead), Hymenocallis crassifolia (spider-lily), Spartina (salt
reedgrass), Phrggmites communis (reed), and Peltandra virainica (arrow-arum).

In low salinity brackish marshes, Spartina cynosuroide (salt reedgrass) occurs.
Giant cutgrass (Zizaniopsis miliacea) is a common plant in fresh-water marshes along
with Pontedaria cordata (p ickere I- weed), Cladium iamaigense (sawgrass), Iml2atiens
cal2ensis (jewel-weed), Sium suav (water parnsnip, and Polyfonum spp. (smart
weeds).

No biomass, productivity, or areal extent of individual species have been
documented for Winyah Bay marsh vegetation.

Phytoplankton

No_rthlnlet

Phytoplankton have been sampled at a number of locations in North Inlet
Estuary and 229 species have been identified. The phytoplankton community was
composed of 201 diatoms, 23 dinoflagellates.' 1 silicoflagellate, 3 naked flagellates,
and 1 cyanophyte. Neritic species were more prevalent than oceanic species.
Freshwater forms were negligible. Freshwater forms were negligible.

Standing crop estimates from cell counts have been made for stages of the tide,
seasonally, and during different years.

In addition, annual phytoplankton production has been found to vary from
178 g C/M2/yr to 409 g C/M2/yr. *Annual phytoplankton production varied spatially
with lowest production at Clambank and increasing southward to Winyah Bay or
eastward to the plume outside North Inlet. Exchanges with Winyah Bay and the
coastal ocean indicated a net phytoplankton import to North Inlet from these sources.
Total phytoplankton production generally followed the annual temperature cycle
ranging from a low in November to high in August. Similar seasonal patterns were
observed in Winyah Bay.

Winyah BU

Only two studies on phytoplankton biomass have been conducted in Winyah
Bay. In general, higher chlorophyll a concentrations were detected in surface waters.
River sources for chlorophyll a dominated in the summer and oceanic sources
dominated in thd winter. Spatial differences were observed in Winyah Bay.
Chlorophyll a declined with increasing salinity indicating a river source for
phytoplankton within Winyah Bay.

Benthic Microalgae

Studies on benthic microalgae are limited. No studies were conducted on
microalgae in Winyah Bay. In North Inlet Estuary only production estimates were
available. No explicit studies were conducted on community composition in North
Inlet Estuary. Benthic microalgae production during 1973-1975 was 2.5 times greater
than phytoplankton production for that same period. Mean annual abundance of
benthic diatom cells at a mud site located in Bread and Butter Creek was 21.0 x 10"
(�7.6 x 10'8) diatoms/10 CM2 and 5.39 x 10e (�2.44 x 10") diatoms/10 cm2 at a
sand site in Debidue Creek. Bimodal seasonal abundance at the mud site peaked in

February-March and July-August. Diatom abundance at the sand site had one peak
in July-August.

Benthic Macroalgae

Studies on benthic macroalgae were conducted only in North Inlet Estuary.
Benthic macroalgae have been studied in several locations in North Inlet. Fourteen
species were identified, with five species dominating the community. Benthic
macroaigae dominated during the winter months and were a significant source of
energy and carbon during that period. For the major species the average ash-free dry
weight/ml was 2.59 (0.5 - 7.08 g afd W/M2 ) and had an average caloric content of
2.78 K cal/g afdw.

The spatial and temporal macroalgae distribution in North Inlet has been
evaluated: 54 species of maccoalgae belonging to Chlorophyta (18 species).
Phaeophyta (8 species), and Rhodophyta (28 species), were identified. North Inlet
was not an important boundary for the distribution of species on the East Coast
because none of the species were either at their northern or southern limit. The
greatest number of species occurred within North Inlet and declined toward Winyah
Bay. Both species composition and production varied with substratum type. Species
numbers were greatest during the winter with peak reproductive activity occurring in
the spring. Eighty-four percent of the macroalgal production occurred between
December and April, with one third of the production occurring in March.

Benthic Infauna

Winyah Bay

Benthic infauna were highly diverse in Winyah Bay. Twelve stations were
sampled in Winyah Bay and 16,281 infaunal individuals representing 154 taxa were
found. Polychaetes represented 35% of the species. Amphipods (20 species),
pelecypods (16 species), decapods (13 species), gastropods (7 species), isopods (7
species), and echinoderms (5 species) together with polychaetes accounted for 85%
of the total taxa. Pelecypods numerically dominated and also accounted for a much
greater fraction (71 %) of the total individuals sampled. Polychaetes were in the
next most abundant (8%), followed by amphipods (5%) and gastropods (1 %). All
remaining infauna accounted for less than 10% of the individuals.

Species diversity varied considerably throughout Winyah Bay with the highest
diversity occurring at the most seaward sand stations. The lowest diversity occurred
at the southern entrance to Winyah Bay adjacent to South Island due to the
dominance of one species. Mid-bay stations had fairly high diversity due to even
distribution of individuals among the euryhaline marine and estuarine endemic species.
No seasonal data were a vailable for benthic infauna within Winyah Bay. With a given

sampling area, diversity, number of species, and species richness were generally
greatest during the summer. Differences among species and sites were observed in
this pattern. As an example, of the three most abundant species only one exhibited
significant seasonal differences.

North Inlet

Published benthic studies were primarily focused on the meiofauna rather than
the macrofauna component sampled in Winyah Bay. Detailed information is available
on physiology of specific meiofauna, reproductive periodicity, life history patterns.
secondary production, spatial heterogeneity, and the influence of physical factors
(e.g., water current) on meiofauna distribution and resuspension.

Macrofaunal invertebrates sampled seasonally on an intertidal sandbar were
dominated (70% of total number of individuals) by two species of haustoriid
amphipods (Acanthohaustorius millsi and Pseudohaustorius caroliniensis Of the 56
species, ten species accounted for 95% of the total number of individuals. These
species included deposit-feeding polychaete worms, omnivore amphipods, gastropod,
and a suspension-feeding bivalve. Seasonal changes were controlled by the
population dynamics of these dominant species.

Meiofaunal community structure varied little with habitat within North Inlet.
Meiofauna were dominated by nematodes, copepods, and polychaetes which
composed greater than 90% of the fauna at most sites. Nematodes were the most
dominant organisms, comprising greater than 70% of the abundance. Copepods were
the second most abundant meiofaunal component. Of the two cyclopid and 19
harpaticoid species, eight comprise 97% of the fauna. Distinct seasonal abundance
peaks occurred from the later summer to late fall.

Epibenthic Fauna

Winyah Bay

The number of epibenthic species sampled by Hinde It gl. (198 1) in Winyah Bay
was relatively low; only 83 epifaunal or partly epifaunal macro invertebrate species
were found for the 12 sites. Cnidarians and arthropods accounted for the largest
number of species (21 each), followed by mollusks (15) and bryozoans (12). The
species collected were not unique to Winyah Bay and were common to abundant in
other estuaries in South Carolina. Although estuarine epifaunal invertebrates were
strongly influenced by substratum and hydrography, several species were fairly
ubiquitous in Winyah Bay.

Allen gj 11. (1982, 1984), using an epibenthic sled, collected more than 200
species' from 14 sites sampled in Winyah Bay. Organisms considered benthic

(mollusks, polychaetes, bryozoans, other invertebrates) and soft-bodied invertebrates
(chaetognaths, medusae, ctenopho res) often dominated the collections but were not
enumerated in this study. At most stations densities were generally 10 organ iSMS/M3
to 100 organisms/rt,3 The Pee Dee River had the highest average density (31 /M3)
primarily due to the occurrence of high densities of amphipods during the summer and
fail. Lowest densities (5 /M3) occurred in the remaining river stations and upper bay
where salinity fluctuations were the greatest. Middle bay stations generally had the
highest densities; lower bay stations had intermediate densities. Fifteen species of
decapod shrimp larvae were collected including the penaeids, stomatopods,
sergestids, sicyonids, palaemonids, and alpheids. Shrimp larvae average 1 /M3, with
higher densities in the upper bay and river stations. At least seven species of
anomuran and 14 species of brachyuran crabs were collected. The lower bay station
had the highest density of crabs at 1.3/M3 . All other stations had densities of 0.3/M3
or less. Fish larvae and eggs representing over 50 species were identified. The
densities of fish larvae were greater in the mud bay and lower bay area (1-2.5 /M3.
Densities at No Man's Friend and South Jones creeks were higher than most Winyah
Bay stations. All other stations in Winyah Bay had much lower densities. Fish larvae
were most abundant in May (2.7/M3), lower densities occurred in March (1.3/M3) , an'd
less than 0.2 /M3 was observed during other months. The highest density was
sampled in May at Mud Bay (1 6.m')., River densities were usually less than 1 /M3 and
no larval fishes were collected in January. Highest numbers, in general, occurred in
the middle bay in the spring.

Planktonic Communities

North Inlet

Zooplankton have been sampled at various locations in North Inlet. Mean total
zooplankton density was 9,257/M3 and the total standing crop was 16,178 yg dry
Wt/M3. Differences in both total zooplankton numbers and biomass varied
concurrently among stations. Copepods, including larval states, were a dominant
category, comprising 64-69% of total zooplankton 'numbers and biomass.
Comparisons of major species of copepods and their reproductive periodicities
suggested that North Inlet Estuary 4auna were most closely allied with Florida waters.
South Carolina may represent a transition zone between No rth-Te mpe rate, Mid-
.,@tlantic, and tropical waters of Florida and the Caribbean. The most common
meroplankton were barnacle nauplii (Cirripedia), with other important groups including
bivalves, gastropods, and polychaete larvae. Crab and shrimp zoea were distinctly
seasonal in abundance. Major peaks in zoo plankton. density occurred in summer with
maximum numbers of individuals and biomass.

Only two studies have been conducted on zooplankton in Winyah Bay (Allen et
gi., 1982, 1984). Upper bay stations were characterized by low and variable salinities
(o,o - 19.0'/oo) while lower stations were characterized by higher salinities (2.0 -
35,2 0/oo). Zooplankton abundance in Winyah Bay averaged 10,831 /M3 . Total
zooplankton densities were generally lower in the riverine stations with annual means
ranging from approximately 6, OOO/M3 to 9,000/M3. With the exception of the
Esterville Plantation site, zooplankton densities in Winyah Bay were generally between
1 0,000/M3 to 13 'OOO/M3 . The most oceanic station had the highest average density
of zooplankton. The zooplankton community in Winyah Bay was dominated by
relatively few copepods and meroplanktonic species, Stations generally and similar
dominant species during a given month. Copepods comprised at least 50% of the
total zooplankton throughout the year. Total copepods ranged from 53% (,Sampit
River) to. 95% (Pumpkinseed) to t6tal zooplankton.

Five copepod species (A. tonsa, P - crassirostris, P. coronatus, E. acutif rons, and
0. colcary ) were year-round residents and accounted for 86% of the copepod catch.
Acartia tonsa dominated the Winyah Bay system, accounting for 60% of all
zooplankton collected and 73% of all copepod species. Larval stages of barnacles
were themost abundant meroplankton category. Crab zoeae and polychaete laravae
were common at all stations. In contrast, bivalve larvae were rare at the riverine and
mid bay stations.

Nektonic Communities

North Inlet

North Inlet Estuary has a diverse fish fauna with over 100 species identified.
Fish populations have been sampled in a number of habitats in North Inlet* Estuary
since 1969. Total species collected ranged from 16 in a short-term study to 96 in a
multiyear survey. Overall dominant species included: Anchoa mitchilli (bay anchovy),
Menidia menidia (Atlantic silverside), Brgvoortia tyrannus (Atlantic menhaden),
Fundulus majalis (striped killifish), teiostomus x6nthurus (spot), Fundulus heteroclitus
(striped killifish), Alosa aestivalis (blueback herring), Anchoa hepsetus (striped
anchovy), Dorosoma l2etenense (threadfin shad), Mugil ceghalu (striped mullet), and
Mugil curema (white mullet). More than 95% of species sampled were represented
by larval and juvenile life stages, with 29% of the species reproducing in the estuary.
Six fish species (spot, mullet, Myrophis punctatus (speckled worm eel), Lagodon
rhomboides (pinfish), Paralichthys spp. (flounders), and Micropogonias undulatus
(Atlantic croaker)) comprised 99.3% of the larval fish captured. Species richness or
diversity indices correlated with the temperature cycle and both species richness and
diversity were higher during the summer months and lower during the winter months.
The influx of warm-water species (e.g., spot, white mullet, silver perch, and

anchovies) and emigration with decreasing temperature were distinctive features of
the annual cycle. Lack of correlation between numbers of individuals and temperature
resulted from the clumped distribution of schooling fishes, such as spot mummichogs,
and Atlantic silverside, and seasonal variability in catch efficiency.

Blue crabs were a significant component of the overall nekton, rankings sixth
in overall abundance. Crab abundance was highly variable with the lowest numbers
generally occurring during the winter and highest during the summer. Both brown and
white shrimp arrived as postlarvae during the spring (brown) and early summer (white)
and migrated to the ocean from September to December. Late spawned shrimp
overwintered in the estuary but the majority migrated to deeper coastal areas. Pink
shrimp were the least common p;naeids in North Inlet Estuary, but occurred year-
round as juveniles and adults. Pink shrimp were most abundant in the spring while
brown and white shrimp were most abundant during the summer months.

Winyah Bay

Fish fauna in Winyah Bay Estuary were diverse with up to 75 species collected.
Relatively few species (< 10) generally dominated more than 95% of the catch.' Only
one study has assessed the spatial distribution of fishes in Winyah Bay. In general,
stations with the highest and most variable salinities had the highest number of
individuals and species, while stations with the lowest and most stable salinities had
the lowest numbers of species and individuals. The number of species was greatest
in the lower bay channel and mid bay in the western channel. The lower bay stations
included many stenohaline and euryhaline species such as Atlantic croaker,
hogchoaker, and the weakfish. Although these species occurred throughout the bay,
they were most numerous at the lower bay stations.

Species richness and abundance were lower during the winter and highest
during the fall. Numbers of fish species positively correlated with bottom temperature
and salinity and negatively correlaied with oxygen and depth. Numbers of individual
fish were positively correlated with bottom temperature and salinity and negatively
correlated with oxygen.

Most of the numerically dominant species were seasonal inhabitants with
restricted distribution. Biomass and population densities were highest at stations in
the lower bay channel and mid bay near Pumpkinseed Island during the fall and mid
bay western channel during the summer. The total catches of fishes, density, and
biomass were lower during the winter period. Winter catches were dominated by
Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus) and Atlantic croaker or white catfish. In the
spring, numbers of individuals and species increased, but stenohaline marine species
were not very abundant and were patchy in their distribution. Catches were
dominated by Atlantic croaker and hogchoaker. With the influx of transient euryhaline

species (such as Atlantic croaker and weakfish) during the spring to late summer, the
diversity and abundance increased, peaking during the fall months.

Although decapod crustaceans were not as abundant (by weight or numbers)
as fishes, significant populations exist in Winyah Bay. Penaeid shrimp (Penaeus
setiferus, P. duorarum, P. aztecus, and Trackypenaeus constrictus) were numerically
dominant, comprising 50% to 53% of the decapod catch; Penaeus setiferus along
comprised - 42%. Portunidae was the most diverse family (eight species) and ranked
second by numbers and first by weight. Portunidae comprised 85% of the decapod
biomass with blue crabs contributing approximately 74% of the total decapod catch
biomass. Blue crabs were found tl@roughout the Winyah Bay system during the entire
year with catches greatest from September to December.

D. Socioeconomic Feature

Cultural and Historical Resources

Hobcaw Barony has a rich history. There is strong evidence indicating
that an early Spanish settlement was located on the Barony in 1526. For various
reasons, the Spanish left in 1527. By the 1 7th century English influence had spread
from Virginia, and in 1718 King George 11 granted the Hobcaw Barony to Lord
Carteret. This area became well-known for rice culture and the general region of
Georgetown County was one of the richest areas in the colonies.. On the Barony is
located remnants of a colonial fort and cemetery, remains of three slave villages, and
old cemeteries. Artifacts of early Indian settlements are found throughout the area.
The King's Highway, which was the coastal road from Wilmington, NC, to Charleston,
SC, crosses the property; George Washington used this road in 1791. In more recent
time, Mr. Bernard Baruch, famous financier and advisor to presidents, purchased land
in 1905 and 1907 which comprises the present 17,500 acres tract known as the
Hobcaw Barony. During Mr. Baruch's ownership, many famous world leaders visited
the Barony, including President Ro6sevelt and Sir Winston Churchill. Ownership of the
Barony wastransferred to Belle Baruch, Mr. Baruch's daughter, and when she died
in 1964, the property was included as part of the newly established Belle W. Baruch
Foundation.

E. Traditional Reserve Uses

1 . Research and Education

The North Inlet Estuary/Winyah Bay site serves as a research and instructional
facility for the Belle W. Baruch Institute for Marine Biology and Coastal Research of
The University of South Carolina. It functions as a national and international site for
estuarine and coastal research and education.

Since 1969, a comprehensive research program ranging from studies of
molecules to ecological landscapes has evolved. The research approach has
developed from quantifying various physical, chemical, and biological components and
interactions between these components, to incorporating exchange of substances
across ecosystem boundaries and exchanges between different subsystems. Initial
research efforts emphasized wetland and estuarine processes, but studies have
expanded to encompass an entire coastal landscape, from ocean to diverse upland and
freshwater habitats. There is also a continuing emphasis on molecular and organismic
studies.

Undergradu ate, graduate, qnd post-graduate instruction has been given at
Hobcaw Barony. In 1980, the Baruch Institute, USC, established a Continuing
Education Program at its field site in Georgetown to serve area residents and visitors.
This program has included short courses for children and adults, public lectures and
.forums, and marine science workshops and courses for teachers. Additional public
education activities are conducted at the site through the Bellefield Nature Center, a
part of the Belle W. Baruch Foundation. The Nature Center is open to visitors 6 days
a week and contains aquaria; exhibits featuring coastal life, ecology and research
conducted on-site; and audiovisual programs that are shown daily. In addition, the
Nature Center also conducts field studies of salt marsh, forest, and freshwater
habitats on the property and brings nature programs to local schools.

Although significant progress has been made in developing broad-based
monitoring, research, and education programs, a distinct need exists to improve and
expand the program to educate more people about the cultural, economic, and
ecological values of our coastal area and to develop a more comprehensive scientific
basis to deal with the ever-increasing environmental pressure resulting from continuing
growth in the coastal zone.

2. Recreallon

Until the Foundation was established and universities started research and
educational programs on Hobcaw, the Barony was exclusively for the private use of
the Baruch family.

Traditional public uses of the site will not be altered. The tidal waters are open
under state and Federal jurisdiction and used by the public for boating, fishing, wildlife
observation, swimming and recreational harvesting of oysters and clams. Traditional
uses of Winyah Bay permitted by state and Federal agencies will continue, including
existing shipping channels.

Hobcaw Barony is a designated wildlife refuge, hence, no hunting or trapping
is allowed on the upland portions of the property. However, seasonal hunting on the
marshlands for waterfowl and rails in the tidal waterways of the, Reserve is a legal

activity, regulated by State laws, and will not be altered. This activity does not take
place in areas of the Reserve that will conflict with other traditional activities such as
fishing and swimming.

3. Residential

At present, Hobcaw House is operated as a historical house - museum;
however, Bellefield House is the residence of Miss Ella Severin, a trustee of the
Foundation. There are five other residences on the property used by resident
,research, security, and forestry personnel. Dormitory facilities for approximately 80
persons are available for visiting spientists and students.

4. Industrial and Port Related

No industrial activities occur or are allowed on Hobcaw Barony, although
designated dredge spoil sites have existed elsewhere on B.W. Baruch Foundation
uplands bordering Winyah Bay since 1968; these sites are not part of the Reserve.
It is not the intent, objective nor desire of the NI/WB NERRS to interfere with the use
of these spoil sites by the South Carolina State Ports Authority. The shipping lanes
adjacent to the southwestern border of the Winyah Bay portion of the Reserve are
used extensively for activities related to industries located in Georgetown, as well as
import/export activities centered at the Port of Georgetown. Industries located in
Georgetown which are dependent upon the continued use of the Port include
Georgetown Steel, International Paper, Santee Cement and AKZO Salt, all of which
are important to the local and regional economy. In addition, future potential long-
term Port users and transit-type cargoes under long-term contracts may consist of
lumber, ore, scrap metals and general cargo which have been handled in the past. In
order to maintain the shipping channel at the authorized depth, the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers must dredge the channel on a regularly scheduled basis. The creation
of the Reserve will not alter the current or future use of any of these areas designated
for dredged spoils.

The Reserve Management Plan does not call for a change from existing or
traditional uses of the areas of the Reserve. It is not the intent, goal nor desire of the
Reserve to restrict shipping and dredging activities of the Port of Georgetown which
P Irovide a major portion of Georgetown's industrial-based economy. The NI/WB NERR
is unique in the U.S. in that no other NERR is located in such close proximity to
Federally maintained shipping channels. One of the objectives of the Reserve is to
study the relationship between natural ecosystems and these shipping/industrial
activities in order to establish an information base for the wise management and
coexistence of both in the future. Hence the establishment of the Reserve would not
limit the maintenance of existing shipping channels.

IV. THE MANAGEMENT PLAN

This Final Management Plan establishes goals, program and facility needs as 6
well as administrative, framework policies and timetables to meet the goals. The Plan
is flexible and allows for review and revision for improving the Program. The overall
philosophy of this Management Plan is to guide the development of a coordinated
program of research, education, and resource protection within the North Inlet/Winyah
Bay Reserve for balancing two key variables: setting of attainable goals and objectives
and enhancing resource protection of the estuarine environment.

A. Boundaries and Land Acouisition Plan

1 . General Context for Managemen

According to the Coastal Zone Reauthorization Act of 1985, as amended,
the protection and management of resources are not meant to be ends in themselves
but rather are intended to support the research mission. Within this context, it should
be stressed that resource protection cannot be viewed as an independent program
area. All aspects of reserve management will contribute to the resource protection
effort. However, the most effective mechanisms for long-term protection or control
is the State control of the key land and water areas of the Reserve property either
through fee simple ownership or conservation easements.

The North Inlet system offers outstanding examples of coastal wetland
habitats that have been subjected to a minimum of human disturbances. In contrast,
the neighboring Winyah Bay has been subjected to various industrial, residential,
commercial, shipping, and dredging activities in addition. to receiving drainage waters
from vast regions of North and South Carolina. Together these two estuaries present
an excellent opportunity to compare and contrast ecosystem responses of an
undisturbed estuary with those of a disturbed system. Differences in the salinity
regimes and associated flora and fauna between the North Inlet Estuary and sections
of Winyah Bay also provide opportunities to conduct comparative research regarding
ecosystem structure and fisheries habitat utilization.

2. Assessment of Boundarie

Boundaries for the North Inlet/Winyah Bay Reserve must include "an
adequate portion of the land and water areas of the natural system to approximate an
ecological unit and to ensure effective conservation" 0 5 CFR 921.11 (c)(3)). These
areas must be discrete enough to be effectively managed, but large enough to make
long-term research possible. To help focus management efforts, site boundaries
encompass two zones; key land and water areas (core areas) and buffer zones.

NOAA's Guidelines for Establishina PrODOsed Boundaries for National Estuarin
Reserves define core areas as areas which contain "critical estuarine ecological units
for research purposes, encompassing a full range of significant physical, chemical and
biological factors contributing to the diversity of fauna, flora and natural processes
occurring within the estuary." The core area is "so vital to the functioning of the
estuarine ecosystem that it must be under state control sufficient to ensure the long
term viability of the reserve for research on natural estuarine processes. (These areas]
should encompass resources that are representative of the total ecosystem which, if
compromised, could endanger the research objectives of the reserve." A buffer zone
is defined as an "area adjacent to or surrounding the core and on which the integrity
of the core depends. This area protects the core and provides additional protection
for estuarine dependent species." It may include an area for research and education
facilities.

a. Key Land and Water Areas (Core)

Site surveys have been conducted to establish proposed boundaries for
the NI/WI3 site. The original boundary lines as described in the nomination document
have been changed based on recommendations made by: advisory committee, NOAA,
site property owners, and public comments. Management and acquisition strategies,
including an MOU with the SC Coastal Council (Appendix B) and Tripartite Agreement
with the Baruch Foundation (Appendix A), establish adequate state control to provide
long-term protection for reserve resources within these boundaries. The state
Attorney General's office has affirmed that the State has adequate control over the
key land and water areas - state laws provide protection for salt marshes and other
lands located in the critical coastal zone area (see Section IV B-Resource Protection
Plan for detailed description of laws and their enforcement) . The Attorney General's
position is further based on the existence of a long-term agreement between the
University of South Carolina and the Belle W. Baruch Foundation (Appendix A) to
manage the uplands and salt marsh portions of the Reserve which are owned by the
Foundation. No expenditure of Federal and state funds will be required for acquisition.
No condemnation procedures will be used.

The North Inlet/Winyah Bay Reserve boundaries are indicated on Figure
2. The northern boundary of the North Inlet Estuary portion of the Reserve begins in
the northwest at the upper edge of the marsh abutting the uplands of the property of
the Belle W. Baruch Foundation immediately west of the confluence of Bass Hole Bay
and Debidue Creek. From this point the northern boundary is Debidue Creek east to
where Cooks Creek enters Debidue Creek, then the boundary line extends east to
Debidue Island. The eastern border extends southward along Debidue Island to North
Inlet, then continues down Jones Creek to Haulover Creek where the boundary line
follows Haulover Creek to Mud Bay. The boundary line then extends southward and
east of the marsh land into Mud Bay past Pumpkinseed Island to a point 150 yards
north of the existing shipping channel.

The southern boundary extends westward from this point, paralleling a
line which crosses the southern end of the island complex of Malady Bush
Island-Marsh Islands and Ranger Island at the mean low water mark, a line north of
the existing shipping channel. West of Ranger Island the boundary line continues
north to Frazier Point

The landward boundary on the North Inlet segment of the reserve is the
uppermost reaches of existing Sgartina alterniflora and includes. the highlands
surrounding the Baruch Institute, USC, laboratory complex and the Clambank Landing
portions of Goat Island. The landward boundary on the Mud Bay segment of Winyah
Bay is the dominant wetlands vegetation. In addition the uplands associated with the
Kimbel Living Center and managed by the Baruch Institute are part of the reserve. It
is estimated that the core area occupies approximately 9,000 acres.

b. Buffer Zone

The buffer zone between the core area of wetlands and the upland
forested ecosystem is that ecotone region of transitional vegetation (approximately
50 m wide, approximately 80 acres) between the dominant marsh grasses and the
forest vegetation. Portions of Debidue Island, marshlands immediately adjacent to the
northern boundary line, the waters of the Atlantic Ocean adjacent to the mouth of
North Inlet, North Island (part of the Yawkey Wildlife Center, SC Wildlife and Marine
Resources Department and owned by the State of South Carolina) which is south of
North Inlet and east of south Jones Creek, and the waters of Winyah Bay north of the
ship channel form the outer boundary of the buffer zone. These waters are subject
to state and Federal environmental protection laws and regulations. Aquatic areas
within the Reserve can be reached by boat via tidal waters which are part of the
public domain.

3. Acguisition of Land

No acquisition of land is being proposed at present. However, if
additional parcels are identified such as the Nature Center, or the rice fields along
Winyah Bay, it would be possible to adjust the Reserve's priorities to consider adding
to the Reserve as required by NOAA regulations and the Baruch Foundation approval
for the expansion. Through a long-term, agreement with the Baruch Foundation, the
Baruch Institute manages the portion of the Foundation's lands to be included in the
Reserve and the State owns the remaining areas of the Reserve. The Trustees of the
Baruch Foundation have approved the Institute's participation in the NERRS program
by letter vote after presentation of the Draft Management Plan at their December 7,
1990, meeting. This approval is in accordance with the Tripartite Agreement
(Appendix A). In allowing the Institute to participate in this program, the Foundation

understands the long-term commitment to the NERRS program which is consistent
with the Foundation goal of establishing its marshlands in perpetuity for marine
studies.

B. Resource Protection Plan

1. Rationale and Goals

The health, productivity, and integrity of the estuarine reserve resources
must be protected in order to provide a stable environment for research and education
programs which are used to address coastal management issues. The goals of
resource protection are to protect the natural status of the ecosystem(s) of the
Reserve.

Specific goals are:

0 Identifying priority resources, gathering baseline information on them,
and establishing them as indicators of change.

0 Developing facilities and equipment as necessary to aid in research.

0 Seeking agreements with research organizations to facilitate and
augment research projects.

0 Assisting in the collections of important baseline data to use in
monitoring differences over time and for making comparisons with other
areas.

0 Preserving estuarine ecosystems for continuous future use as natural
field laboratories where information essential to coastal management
decisions can be gathered and disseminated.

0 Ensuring a stable environment for research through long-term protection
of estuarine areas, including open water and transitional area wetlands.

0 Protecting natural, pristine estuarine sites for education and
interpretation programs.

0 Protecting the habitats -of estuarine wildlife as an integral part of the
natural system.

0 Controlling access to Hobcaw Barony in accordance with the Tripartite
Agreement between the USC Institute, Clemson University and the
Foundation.

0 Preventing degradation of the Reserve by outside activities.

0 Coordinating activities with the Baruch Foundation, local, state and
Federal authorities.

2. General Policy Areas

Resource protection will rely on the tripartite agreement between the
Foundation, USC, and Clemson University as well as a number of existing Federal,
state and local laws and regulations, enforced by regulatory agencies and Reserve and
Baruch Foundation staff. It is also the responsibility of reserve staff to be
knowledgeable of and involved wi th land use issues in the vicinity of the Reserve.

The NERRS regulations allow for multiple uses of reserves to the degree
compatible with each reserve's management plan and consistent with the mission and
goals of the NERRS. Traditional existing activities in the NI/W8 NERRS will continue
at levels currently permitted under local and state laws (see Section III E for details
on uses). It -is not the intent, objective nor desire of the NI/WB NERRS to restrict in
any manner the legal traditional uses of public waterways that are currently under
state and Federal jurisdiction and included in the Reserve. The Baruch Foundation will
continue to regulate activities on its private property which is also included in the
Reserve.

Specific objectives are to:

0 Coordinate with existing surveillance and enforcement activities
provided by the Belle W. Baruch Foundation, state and Federal agencies,
and establish a mechanism to increase resource protection, when
necessary;

0 Provide for adequate public participation as a means to promote
compatible uses of the Reserve and awareness of the need to protect
sensitive resources; and

0 Rehabilitate Reserve habitats where necessary to restore natural
bio-diversity and prevent further degradation of resources.

Resea rch is one of the primary goals of the Reserve, and it is given highest
priority in the Management Plan. Sometimes the success of a research project
depends on the study site remaining undisturbed. To prevent trampling or other
unnatural physical disturbances, the researcher may request that signs requesting
avoidance of the study area be posted. The requast would be made to the Reserve
Manager and reviewed by the Advisory Committee. Typically, study plots are small
and located in infrequently visited or remote areas so that public travel or access

patterns would not be disturbed. An information program will be initiated to inform
the public about the importance of the research sites.

. 3. Management of the NERR Site Through the South Carolina Coastal
Management Program

The purposes of Act 123 of the 1977 South Carolina General Assembly
were to "establish the South Carolina Coastal Council and provide for its powers and
duties for the protection and improvement of coastal tidelands and wetlands under a
coastal zone management plan; provide for enforcement of policies of the Council and
penalties for violations; and authorize legal proceedings for the determination of
tideland properties." Act 123, better known as the South Carolina Coastal
Management Act, was implemented in accordance with the Federal Coastal Zone
Management Act as amended (P.L. 92-583, 94-370) and a subsequent coastal zone
management program was developed and approved by the U.S. Secretary of
Commerce in 1979 which met the requirements of 15 CFR part 923 (Federal Register,
-March 1, 1978). The South Carolina Attorney General's office has affirmed that
the State has adequate protective control over the NI/WB NERR (see Appendix K and
page 7 for details).

The Council will serve as the fiscal agent in acquiring funds from NOAA
and will provide increased surveillance and enforcement to ensure compliance with the
Coastal Zone Management Act and the Reserve Management Plan. The Council will
also serve on the Reserve's Advisory Committee and provide input into identifying
coastal research needs.

a. Manaaement of the Critical Area@

The South Carolina Coastal Management Act defines the critical area as
bll coastal water's, tidelands, beaches, and primary ocean front sand dunes within the
coastal zone of the State. A permit is required for any activity which impacts a
critical area; in order to receive a permit the activity must be evaluated in accordance
with a strict set of policies and regulations. In summary the policies for w, etland areas
prohibit the permanent alteration of productive. salt, brackish, or freshwater wetlands
unless there is an overriding public interest, no feasible alternatives, and all
environmental impacts are minimized. Regulated activities include not only major
activities, such as dredging or filling, but also activities such as pipelines, powerlines,
docks, piers, intake structures and many others. Tables 1, 2, and 3 provide a listing
of all activities which are governed by specific coastal zone management policies.

With the exception of the high ground portion of the few scattered
islands located in Winyah Bay proper, the entire core area of the North Inlet/Winyah
Bay NERR site is classified as critical area. Any activity which occurs in the core area

of the Reserve will be regulated by permit through the South Carolina Coastal Zone
Management Program.

b. Management of Ugland Areas (Non-critical area)

Both the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act and the South Carolina
Coastal Management Act require consistency of all direct and regulated State and
Federal activities which occur in the designated coastal zone of South Carolina. In
South Carolina the coastal zone includes the entirety of all eight coastal counties
which border the Atlantic Ocean. Therefore, any activity which requires a state or
Federal permit must undergo a coastal zone management consistency determination
by the South Carolina Coastal Council before the permit can be issued by the issuing
State or Federal agency (Table 2). The policies utilized to make a consistency
determination are similar to those required for critical areas.

Federal regulations (15 CFR 930) establish a review procedure with
Federal agencies. The Council has a memorandum of agreement with all regulatory
state agencies that establishes a consistency determination review procedure. State
permits which are reviewed for coastal zone management consistency are included
in Table 3 along with the responsible agency.

SCCC has implemented its full authority in the South Carolina coastal
zone through a system of "netwgrking" activities, whereby cooperation has been
developed between SCCC and other state agencies. Seventeen (117) state agencies
exercise some authority over: (1) the use of coastal resources, (2) specific areas in the
coastal zone, or (3) activities in the coastal zone (Table 1). This authority is granted
by the statutes of South Carolina, most of them enacted prior to the Coastal
Management Act.

Table 1 Summary of "Networking" Activities

AGE:CIES,WITH PERMITTING
OR LA MAGEMENT
AUTH()RNI MYNGOOlt"ACT IV ITIES
WITH A DIRECT AND SIGMIF-
[CANT 114PACT ACTIVITY

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

TRANSPORTATION

Parts x
Roads & Highways- x - I x x
Airports x x 11

Rail"" x -

Perking Facilities x

COASTAL-1kUISTUES

Agriculture x X

Forestry X X

Mineral Extraction x x

Manufacturing x X It

Fish & Seafood Processing x x

Aguscuiture x x x

C" 2C IAL DEWLWMENT x X x

RECIREATICK Z T CLIR ISM

Parks

Tourist Attracticris x X

MRINE RELATED FACILITIES

Marinas x x x

But r !M! X x x
Docks and pier* X x x X

WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES 14AN X

Artificial reefs X x x

Impoundments x x x

DREDGING x x

Dredge Motorist Disposal x x

Lwiderwattr Satv&4j& x

PUBLIC SERVICES & FACILITIES

Sews" trestft"t x x x x

Solid mast* disposoL x x

PWic/Quesi-pbtic buildings X x x X

Dos I Reservoirs x X X

Water suppty x x

ERMICK CONTROL x I x X x X

ENERGY ACTIVITIES x I x x x x X

In addition to meeting normal rules and regulations, activities associated
with the above permits which result in a land disturbance (i.e., subdivisions, malls,
gas stations, etc.) must submit specific plans to address policies and approved
guidelines of the Coastal Zone Management Program. These plans must conform to
coastal zone policies before any permits can be issued. These plans include:

Stormwater management plan
Wetland management plan
Dock master plan (if adjacent to coastal waters)

In reference tothe North Inlet/Winyah Bay Reserve, the entire site falls
within the coastal zone of South Carolina; therefore, any activity which requires one
of the referenced permits must be consistent, with the coastal zone management
program and the specific policies 9f the NERRS.

C. Enforcgment

Under the South Carolina Coastal Management Act, the South Carolina
Coastal Council has responsibility for the protection of coastal tidelands and wetlands.
To fulfill its enforcement responsibilities, the Council may impose penalties and may
take legal proceedings, as necessary. These responsibilities cover all coastal waters,
tidelands, beaches, and primary ocean front sand dunes within the state's coastal
zone. Nevertheless, the Reserve Manager has first line of enforcement responsibility
for ensuring that all- activities conducted within the Reserve conform with NERRS
guidelines and the Foundation's rules for resource protection. The Reserve Manager
will contact the SCCC, as necessary, and will be a full partner in the review of any
permit affecting the Reserve resources.

The South Carolina Coastal Council has an enfotcement section of
specially trained field biologists to ensure enforcement of the coastal zone
management program. Weekly aerial flights and daily routine patrolling by motor
vehicle represent the first level of enforcement. The Coastal Council is also in alliance
with the S.C. Department of Wil,dlife and Marine Resources whose conservation
officers patrol the waters and land of the coast on a daily basis. Noted violations are
reported to Coastal Council enforcement staff who conduct a field inspection; State
conservation officers are available for backup if needed. The Council also has a
Memorandum of Agreement with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to assist in
enforcement in freshwater wetland projects requiring coastal zone management
consistency certification. Fines for violations of the Coastal Zone Management Act
are up to $1,000 per day.

314

Enforcement of activities requiring coastal zone consistency certification
can generally take place through the agency issuing the permit. The majority of
.activities require a final Coastal Council sign-off prior to permit issuance; for example,
a Coastal Council staff engineer conducts a site inspection to ensure the stormwater
system is constructed according to the approved design before the applicant can
operate his/her water or wastewater system. This provides a strong incentive to
comply with the coastal zone management program.

Additionally, the Coastal Council has an active Beach and Creek Watch
program to provide a forum for citizen awareness and violation reporting.

Table 2

Activities Regulated Through Direct Permit
and/or Consistency Certification by
The S.C. Coastal Council
(reference SCCZMP, pp. 111-1 - 111-74)

Residential Development Ports
Roads and highways Airports
Railways Parking facilities
Agriculture activities Forestry activities
Mineral extraction Manufacturing
Fish and seafood processing Aquaculture
Commercial development Parks
Commercial recreational Marinas
Boat ramps Docks and piers
Wildlife and fishery Artificial reefs
management activities Impoundments
Dredging Dredge material disposal
Underwater salvage Sewage treatment
Solid waste disposal Public/quasi-public bldgs.
Dams and reservoirs Water supply facilities
Erosion control activities Energy and related facilities
Construction in critical
areas or wetlands

Table 3

State Agency Permits Subject to
Coastal Zone Consistency Review by
The S.C. Coastal Council
(reference SCCZMP, p. V-5)

1 S.C. Aeronautics Commission Certificates of approval for
airports and other air
traffic facilities.

2. S.C. Budget and Control Board Permits for activities below
the ordinary high water mark which are
within the coastal zone
but out of the critical area.

3. S.C. Department of Health and Permits for construction of
Environmental Control wastewater treatment facilities
or septic tanks of 1500 gallons
per day.

National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES)
permits.

Section 401 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act
certification.

Permits for air emissions.

Water supply permits.

Landfill permits.

Oil and gas facilities
registration certificates.

Underground storage tank
permits.

4. S.C. Land Resources Conservation Mining operations permits.
Commission
Sediment control permits
(pending implementation).

5. S.C. Public Service Commission Certificates for major
utility facilities.

6. S.C. Water Resources Commission Oil and gas facilities
permits.

Groundwater capacity use
area permits.

Interbasin transfer permits.

4. On-Site Management of the Reserve Through the Belle W. Baruch
Institute for Marine Biology and Coastal Relearch

The Belle W. Baruch Institute for Marine Biology and Coastal Research,
University of South Carolina (a state agency), is the on-site management agency for
the North Inlet/Winyah Bay Reserve. The Memorandum of Understanding (Appendix
B) between SCCC and the Baruch Institute, University of South Carolina, confirms the
cooperative nature of the arrangement for on-site management of the Reserve.

The Institute interacts closely with the Belle W. Baruch Foundation in that
the Institute has a long-term contract with the Foundation which was approved by the
SC Attorney General to manage marine lands belonging to the Foundation. In addition
the Foundation has approved the Institute to participate in the NERRS program. The
Institute was established in 1969 through the joint action of the Baruch Foundation
and the University of South Carolina-Columbia. Estuarine research was initiated in
1969 and a year-round program with a resident staff started in 1972 when the first
field laboratory was built. Since 1969 the Institute has administered over $13 million
in grants, contracts, and awards involving multidisciplinary research and education.
The Institute is a research branch of the University of South Carolina-Columbia and
the Director reports to the Dean of the College of Science and Mathematics. The
institute is funded by state appropriated funds as well as funds from Federal and
private sources. The Institute will administer funds provided to the South Carolina
Coastal Council by NOAA and from other state sources. Every attempt will be made
to obtain additional funds from private sources to enable the Reserve to be as
self-suf ficient as possible. The personnel associated with the Reserve will be
employees of USC. Because the objectives of existing programs are very similar to
those of the NERRS program, no major changes in the existing management strategy
are planned except for the important addition of Reserve personnel as described

elsewhere in this Management Plan. No new state or Federal regulations are being
proposed because existing Federal, state, and Foundation regulations already protect
the Reserve.

5. Mal3agement Policies

Portions of the Reserve, which are owned by the Baruch Foundation and
managed by the Institute, are designated as a wildlife refuge. The Reserve is
maintained as a wildlife refuge and a natural field laboratory for research and
education/interpretation. The Reserve core area is managed according to specific
policies designed to protect the habitat integrity of the site while allowing for
continuation of traditional compatible uses. Management of formally protected
conservation areas within the buffer zone, such as other areas of Hobcaw Barony, are
under the protection of the Baruch Foundation and managed by the Baruch Institute
in accordance with the Agreement between the Institute, the Foundation and Clemson
University.

8. Traditional Uses

The North Inlet/Winyah Bay ar ea has traditionally been used for boating,
fishing, wildlife observation, swimming and recreational harvesting of oysters and
clams as permitted by state laws. Seasonal hunting for waterfowl and rails in the
tidal waters of the Reserve is a legdl activity. Protection of natural habitats and water
quality may actually enhance traditional uses by enhancing natural diversity and
productivity of Reserve resources. Designation will ensure that the area will be
available and protected for future use and enjoyment. Traditional uses of Winyah Bay
permitted by state and Federal agencies will continue, including existing shipping
channels. Designation of the Reserve does nol change the existing laws and
regulations concerning these or any other traditional uses of the North Inlet/Winyah
Bay. Nor is it within the authority of the Reserve to establish special regulations. It
is not the intent or desire of the NI/WB NERR to create special regulations that would
limit traditional use in the Reserve or limit public access- to the waterways of the
Reserve.

Public recreational activities are not allowed on the upland areas of the
Hobcaw Barony. Since Hobcaw Barony is a designated wildlife refuge, no hunting or
trapping is allowed on the upland portions of the property. However, the tidal waters
are open under state and Federal jurisdiction and used by the public for boating,
fishing, swimming and recreational harvesting of oysters and clams. However,
seasonal hunting on the marshlands for waterfowl and rails in the tidal waterways of
the Reserve is a legal activity, regulated by State laws, and will not be altered. This
activity does not take place in afeas of the Reserve that will conflict with other
traditional activities such as fishing and swimming.

(1) Recreation

(a) H-unting

Hunting in the marshes is allowed in the Reserve subject to
state and Federal jurisdiction and no change in existing practices will occur.

(b) Fis hin

Recreational fishing in tidal waters is currently permitted
under state regulation. It is not the intent, objective, nor the desire of the NI/WB
NERR to change existing policies. Both recreational and commercial fishing activities
are subject to the laws of South Carolina and regulations enforced by the SC Wildlife
and Marine Resources Department.

Shellfishing in the Reserve is governed by state rules and
regulations which exclude commercial harvesting in North Inlet's tidal waters. State
recreational harvesting regulations apply throughout this area. It is not the intent,
objective nor the desire of the Reserve to change existing policies.

(d) Residential

At present, Hobcaw House is operated as a historical house
museum; however, Bellefield House is the residence of Miss Ella Severin, a trustee
of the Foundation. There are five other residences on the property used by resident
research, security, and forestry personnel. Dormitory facilities for approximately 80
persons are available for visiting scientists and students.

(e) Habitat Restoration

NERRS regulations recognize that many estuarine areas have
undergone ecological change as a result of human activities. Although restoration of
degraded areas is not a primary purpose of NERRS, some restorative activities may
be permitted in research reserves as specified in their management plan. Generally,
restoration for single-species resource management or enhancement is not
permissible; restoration must be community or ecosystem oriented.

The areas included within the boundaries of the Reserve are,
in a high state of ecological quality, therefore no plans have been developed to
undertake habitat restoration. Results of research conducted within the Reserve on

relatively pristine areas will be applied to other (disturbed) sites in order to develop a
scientific basis for habitat restoration.

(f) Visitor Use/Public Acces

Traditional public access policies that pertain to the Belle W.
Baruch Foundation's property (Hobcaw Barony) included in the Reserve will be
maintained. Currently, public access to the upland portions of the property is
restricted. Authorized individuals, including researchers and students, involved in
approved projects utilizing the resources of the Reserve can ente r through an
electrically controlled gate near U.S. 17. Visits by student groups, participants in
workshops and symposia, and other special groups can be arranged through formal
programs associated with The University of South Carolina or the Belle W. Baruch
Foundation. Tours of the Reserve will be coordinated with the Nature Center of the
Belle W. Baruch Foundation. The general public can visit the Bellefield Nature Center
at the US Highway 17 entrance to Hobcaw Barony (approximately 1 mile north of
Georgetown and 8 miles south of.Pawleys Island).

Public access to the Reserve will follow existing policies in
that the public has access to the North Inlet and Winyah Bay portions of the Reserve
by boat, including power boats. According to State and Federal laws no tidal waters
can be restricted to public access. The South Carolina Coastal Council reaffirmed this
policy on public access in the Reserve in a Resolution passed on December 13, 1991
(Appendix M). Research plots, which will be studied for a finite period of time, will
be marked with signs requesting that they not be disturbed by the public.

Access by water to the wetland areas of the Reserve via
tidal waters under the jurisdiction of state and Federal agencies, however, is
permissible by boat including power boats. Members of the public are able to carry
out traditional recreational activities in the tidal waters and marshes, but must adhere
to state laws. Thus, traditional uses such as hunting on the marshes, fishing and
shellfishing will not be infringed upon by theestablishment of NI/WB NERR and people
are free to access these areas by water. Traditional public use will be encouraged to
the extent that is consistent with Reserve goals and objectives.

No s ign'iticant increase in the use of the Hobcaw Barony and
the proposed Reserve is expected over the usage during 1990 when the education
programs of the Foundation and the Baruch Institute served about 35,000 people,
including more than 2,900 school children from around the state who participated in
field studies of salt marsh, pond and forest ecosystems. Approximately 200 teachers
from various school systems participated in workshops presented by staff members.
The carrying capacity for visitor use will be determined and any environmental effects
of additional visitors will be carefully monitored. Only increases in visitor use which
have no effects or only minimal effects on the environment will be permitted.

(g) Cultural and Historical

Hobcaw Barony has a rich history. Cultural resources such
as historical and archaeological sites and artifacts will be protected and enhanced.
These resources will also be made more available to t'he public through education
programs. Designation of the Reserve will have a significant positive impact on
cultural resources.

There is strong evidence indicating that an early Spanish
settlementwas located on the Barony in 1526. For various reasons, the Spanish left
in, 1527. By the 1 7th century English influence had spread from Virginia, and in 1718
King George 11 granted the Hobcaw Barony to Lord Carteret. This area became
well-known for rice culture and the general region of Georgetown County was one of
the richest areas in the colonies. On the Barony is located remnants of a colonial fort
and cemetery, remains of three slave villages, and old cemeteries. Artifacts of early
Indian settlements are found throughout the area. The King's Highway, which was
the coastal road from Wilmington, NC, to Charleston, SC, crosses the property;
George Washington used this road in 1791. In more recent time, Mr. Bernard Baruch,
famous financier and advisor to presidents, purchased land in 1905 and 1907 which
comprises the present -1 7,500-acre tract known as the Hobcaw Barony. During Mr.
Baruch's ownership, many famous world leaders visited the Barony, including
President Roosevelt and Sir Winston Churchill. Ownership of the Barony was
transferred to Belle Baruch, Mr. Baruch's daughter, and when she died in 1964, the
property was included as part of the newly established Belle W. Baruch Foundation.

(h) Industrial and Port-Relpted

No industrial activities occur or are allowed on Hobcaw
Barony, although designated dredge spoil sites have existed elsewhere on B.W.
Baruch Foundation uplands bordering Winyah Bay since 1968; these sites are not part
of the Reserve. It is not the intent, objective nor desire of the NI/WI3 NERRS to
interfere with the use of these spoil sites by the South Carolina State Ports Authority.
The shipping lanes adjacent to the southwestern border of the Winyah Bay portion of
the Reserve are used extensively for activities related to industries located in
Georgetown, as well as import/export activities centered at the Port of Georgetown.
Industries located in Georgetown which are dependent upon the continued use of the
Port include Georgetown Steel, International Paper, Santee Cement and AKZO Salt,
all of which are important to the local and regional economy. In addition, future
potential long-term Port users and transit-type cargoes under long-term contracts may
consist of lumber, ore, scrap metals and general cargo which have been handled in the
past. In order to maintain the shipping channel at the authorized depth, the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers must dredge the channel on a regularly scheduled basis.
The creation of the Reserve will not alter the current or future use of any of these
areas designated for dredged spoils. The Reserve Management Plan does not call for

a change from existing or traditional uses of the areas of the Reserve. it is not the
intent, goal nor desire of the Reserve to restrict shipping and dredging activities of the
Port of Georgetown which provide a major portion of Georgetown's ind ustrial- based
economy. The NI/WB NERR is unique in the U.S. in that no other NERR is located in
such close proximity to Federally maintained shipping channels. One of the objectives
of the Reserve is to study the relationship between natural ecosystems and these
shipping/industrial activities, in order to establish an information base for the wise
management and coexistence of both in the future. Hence the establishment of the
Reserve would not limit the maintenance of existing shipping channels.

(I) Research and Education

The North Inlet/Winyah Bay Reserve se rves as a research
and instructional facility for the Belle W. Baruch Institute for Marine Biology and
Coastal Research of The University of South Carolina. It functions as a national and
international site for estuarine and coastal research and education.

Since 1969, a comprehensive research program ranging
from studies of molecules to ecological landscapes has evolved. The research
approach has developed from quantifying various physical, chemical, and biological
components and interactions between these components, to incorporating exchange
of substances across ecosystem boundaries and exchanges between different
subsystems. Initial research efforts emphasized wetland and estuarine processes, but
studies have expanded to encompass an entire coastal landscape, from ocean to
diverse upland and freshwater habitats. There is also a continuing emphasis on
molecular and organismic studies.

Undergraduate, graduate, and post-graduate instruction has
been given at Hobcaw Barony. In 1980, the Baruch Institute, USC, established a
Continuing Education Program at its field site in Georgetown to serve area residents
and visitors. This program has included short courses for children and adults, public
lectures and forums, and marine science workshops and courses for teachers.
Additional public education activities are conducted at the site through the Bellefield
Nature Center, a part of the Belle W. Baruch Foundation. The Nature Center is open
to visitors 6 days a week and contains aquaria; exhibits featuring coastal life, ecology
and research conducted on-site; and audiovisual programs that are shown daily. In
addition, the Nature Center also conducts field studies of salt marsh, forest, and
freshwater habitats on the property and brings nature programs to local schools.

.42

comprehensive scientific basis to deal with the ever-increasing environmental pressure
resulting from continuing growth in the coastal zone.

(j) Present Lgnd Use

The present land uses have been described in the previous
section on existing uses. The area included in the Reserve is primarily used for
research and education, but the tidal waters are used by the public for recreational
purposes as provided by state and Federal law.

(k)

Litter barrels will be provided at the Nature Center that is
also the primary point of land access to the site. Periodic litter patrol and dumping of
recep@acle contents will be accomplished by reserve staff and volunteers. Since
visitors will arrive in small controlled group situations, a major problem.with litter
should not occur. In addition, land access to the site is strictly regulated by gates and
fencing installed by the Baruch Foundation.

(1) Construction

Research facilities are available and the Institute is in the
process of constructing a new research laboratory to replace the two laboratories
destroyed by Hurricane Hugo. At the entrance to the Hobcaw Barony is the Nature
Center which is owned and operated by the Belle W. Baruch Foundation and functions
as a visitor center. In addition to a reception and display area, a separate classroom
building is used for instructional purposes. The adjacent USC Kimbel Living Center,
consisting of housing accommodations for 80 persons and a meeting center, is
available for workshops, seminars, and visiting groups and researchers. Other facilities
contribute to the overall experience of visitors to the site. Examples of these include
interpretive exhibits, printed educational materials, a collection of flora and fauna, and
a boardwalk.

If NI/WB NERR builds or renovates a structure, development
activities will take place on a very small area of land in the least sensitive zone of the
reserve.' A feasibility study will be conducted to take into account soil suitability,
geology, vegetative community development, wildlife use, presence of rare,
threatened and endangered species, and historical land use patterns. Land cover and
land use categories will be mapped and defined according to suitable uses. The
environmental impact of any construction and improvements will be fully assessed as
part of a site design plan. Building will be constructed to conform with Federal

(i.e., FEMA) and state regulations. Any necessary permits and agency and Foundation
approval will be obtained and applicable state and local guidelines will be followed to
avoid environmental damage. Overall, impacts from construction and improvements
will be negligible.

W Future Land and Resource U�e

No change in land and resource use is proposed as a result
of the creation of the NI/WB NERR, except to strengthen and expand research and
teaching facilities and programs to meet future demands. Existing uses of the land
and resources by the public will be continued in the Hobcaw Barony, as provided by
Baruch Foundation regulations and State law, and in the tid"al waters, as provided by
State and Federal laws. Traditional uses include sail and power boating, recreational
fishing and gathering of shellfish, hunting in marshes, etc., that currently exist as
provided for by the above regulations and laws.

W Manioulative Research

Although no manipulative research projects are planned, it
is possible that small scale manipulative studies, limited in nature and to the minimum
extent necessary to accomplish the stated research objectives, could be approved but
only after a thorough review of the project by the Institute, the SCCC, and NOAA,
and after all necessary permits are obtained. Manipulative research activities with a
signifi'cant or long-term impact on reserve resources require prior approval of the
SCCC a nd NOAA.

Habitat manipulation for resource management purposes is
not permitted within reserves, except as allowed for restoration activities consistent
-with NOAA regulations. An exception may be allowed to this prohibition if NOAA
determines that specific manipulative activity is necessary for the protection of public
health or the preservation of other sensitive resources which have been listed or are
eligible for protection under relevant Federal or state *authority (e.g., threatened/
endangered species or significant historical or cultural resources).

6. General Permits @nd Licenses

a. Existing Permits and Licenses

Existing requirements for local, state, and Federal permits and licenses
will be observed and normal application procedures will be followed.

b. Reserve.Research Permits

Scientific permit requests are carefully reviewed through the system now
in place in the Institute. The Institute has a permit from the SCWMRD to collect
biological samples in the NI/WB region. If new research projects are not covered by
this permit, the investigator will have to obtain a special permit from the appropriate
governmental agency such as USFWS, and NOAA. Appropriate enforcement
personnel will be notified prior to conducting research. Approved permits must. be in
possession of permittee at all times.

7. Surveillance and Enforcement

The Reserve Manager works cooperatively with SCCC and the Baruch
Foundation and SCWMR in surveillance and enforcement activities. The Coastal
Environmental Enforcement District (District Nine and District Four) are responsible for
enforcing boating laws, enforcement of the Federal Marine Mammal Protection and
Endangered Species acts, enforcement of upland game and fish laws, search and
rescue mission, etc. within the Reserve area.. USFWS special agents also patrol the
area for routine law enforcement activities related to Federal statutes such as the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and the Endangered Species Act. Law enforcement on
private lands would remain the responsibility of the Baruch Foundation.

8. Public Education and Infgrmation

The North Inlet/Winyah Bay Reserve education program will design
brochures, signs, and other instructional materials, as necessary, to communicate
information about controlled and allowable activities in the Reserve. Signs to identify
the Reserve as part of the National Estuarine Research Reserve System will be posted
in strategic locations. Reserve staff and volunteers will play an important role through
personal contact and information exchange in developing a positive and preventive
approach to resource protection.

C. Administr ative Plan

The following administrative plan for the Reserve recognizes the need for
cooperation and coordination to achieve effective management. The administrative
plan for the Reserve will ensure that the functions required to implement this Plan -
research and education activities, and resource protection, are coordinated with the
appropriate agencies, organization�, groups and individuals presently active within the
area. Figure 3 outlines the management structure for the Reserve.

SC Coastal Council NOAA
Stale CZMA Poficy Coordinattion 0 a 0 a Ooordination. Grards. PerfoFmance
NOAA Cooperative Agreements a Evaluations, National Policy and Direction
0

0
0 A
0 -n

0
V CD

Baruch Institute Administration z
Director ol the Institute ::c-
Co

A
:3
co
0) (0
CD
NVWI3 NERR Advisory Committee 3
(D
Prowwwmic Issues J V
Cn
A Site Management Staff C
0
-b- Site Manager
Edixation Coordinator
Resource/Research Coordinator
Education Rewwch and Secretary/Data Processor
Subcommittee Monitoring Subcommittee

Wriarment responsi@
Policy direction 0 0 0 0
Advisory

1 Administrative F-rarnework for the Reserve

Although the South Carolina Coastal Council is the designated State agency to
administer programs and receive fiscal awards under the Federal Coastal Zone
Management Act, the Council chooses not to be involved in direct land acquisition and
management. Therefore, the Council has designated the Belle W. Baruch Institute for
Marine Biology and Coastal Research, a state agency and an arm of the University of
South Carolina, as the management agency for the NI/WB Reserve. Under contract
with the Council and in cooperation with NOAA, the Institute will be responsible for
development and implementation of the Management Plan and day-to-day operation
of the Reserve. The Council will serve as the fiscal agent in acquiring funds from
NOAA and will provide increased surveillance and enforcement to ensure compliance
with the Coastal Zone Management Act and the NI[WB NERR Management Plan - The
Council will also serve on the Reserve's advisory committee and provide input into
identifying coastal research needs.

The Baruch Institute of the University of South Carolina (USC) is uniquely
qualified to manage the North Inlet/Winyah Bay Reserve. The Institute is well known
for its studies on long-term ecological research. For the past twelve years the
National Science Foundation has funded the Baruch Institute program as part of the
LTER network of national sites. In addition, a well-established educational program
exists. A continuing education program associated with both the Belle W. Baruch
Foundation's.Nature Center and USC involved approximately 3 5,000 persons in 1990,
and the Marine Science Program (13S, MS, Ph.D) is ranked fourth in the country.

The Belle W. Baruch Foundation was established in 1964 "for the purposes of
teaching and/or research in forestry, marine biology, and the care and propagation of
wildlife and flora and fauna in South Carolina, in connection with colleges and/or
universities in the State of South Carolina". A Tripartite Agreement between the
Foundation, the University of South Carolina, and Clemson University, which was
approved by the South Carolina Attorney General in 1975 established a formal long-
term agreement for management of the Hobcaw Barony and states that its purpose
and programs are to preserve and qonserve the ecological and environmental qualities
of its property and to preserve its historical value (see Appendix A for a copy of this
agreement).

The Baruch Institute of the University of South Carolina is responsible for the
marsh-marine portion on the Hobcaw Barony and it is these lands which form part of
the Reserve.

In keeping with the spirit of the Tripartite Agreeme nt both universities and
the Foundation have made long-term commitments to the existing programs. For

example, the University of South Carolina has expended $3.2 million for a dormitory-
meeting center/laboratory complexand is funding an extensive teaching and long-term
research program that is heavily dependent on the availability of Hobcaw Barony.

2. Reserve Staffing
i
An adequate staff is essential, to meeting the research, education, and other
objective s of the NI/WB NERR. Staffing requirements described in the administration
section will be fulfilled according to the proposed five year staffing plan, as outlined
in Table 4. Much of this may depend on the availability of Federal funding and
approval for hiring personnel. However, the state is committed to providing support
personnel contingent upon appropriation (i.e., Reserve manager, Education Coordinator
and Research/Resource Coordinator). All staff members will be employees of USC,
and will be hired according to established university/state policies. The Reserve
Manager will report directly to the Director of the Institute; the 'Research/Resource
Coordinator and Education Coordinator will report directly to the Reserve Manager.

a. Reserve Manage

The Reserve Manager will be the principal administrator of the Reserve and will
be responsible for ensuring that the NERRS policies and regulations contained in the
Management Plan are followed. This individual, who will be employed and supervised
by the Baruch Institute, USC, will report directly to the Institute Director. To meet
Reserve user needs, assure Reserve resource protection, and to secure long-term
operation funding, the Reserve Manager will:

0 Oversee the development and implementation of resource management,
research and monitoring, and education programs for the Reserve.

0 manage the Reserve's program on a day-to-day basis.

0 represent the Reserve program and its policies in public hearings and
meetings where appropriate.

0 act as liaison with local, state, and Federal agencies and other interested
groups to improve cooperation and coordination in implementing the
North Inlet/Winyah Bay Management Plan.

0 coordinate the NI/WB Reserve programs with SC Coastal Council on all
activities affecting the Reserve and maintain day-to-day liaison with
NOAAISRD staff, as needed.

0 coordinate with NOAA staff on program management, cooperative
agreement, award preparation for operation and management,
education, monitoring, research, etc. funding from Federal sources
to SCCC-

0 develop resource protection guidelines and policies for the Reserve as
new issues arise, and present them to the Advisory Committee.

0 direct and coordin ate with NOAA any changes in the Management Plan.

0 act as staff support to the Reserve's Advisory Committee.

0 serve as principal contact for the North Inlet/Winyah Bay NERR program,
represent the program in public relation and media contacts, and make
presentations to local officials, environmental organizations, and others.

0 monitor day-to-day operations of the Reserve program and progress of
research and education plans.

0 oversee any changes in Reserve boundaries with advice and consent of
Baruch Institute Director.

0 assume responsibilities for other staff positions until filled.

0 oversee other staff members when hired.

o prepare required reports (e.g., quarterly, semi-annual and annual reports
for NOAA and other funding sources).

0 supervise Reserve staff.

0 coordinate Reserve research activities (visiting and collaborating
scientists) with existing research programs and facilities.

Depending on funding availability, the approach to other staffing needs will be
to provide financial support for expansion of certain existing programs within the
Institute. The. Institute, and its Field Laboratory are already involved in estuarine
education and research (i.e., tours, field trips, seminars, workshops, and teacher
training). Reserve funding will be used to support and build on this experience and
expertise rather than to duplicate any of these efforts. In addition to the Reserve
Manager, two key administrative members arethe Research Resource Coordinatorand
the Education Coordinator.

b. Research/Resource Coordinator

A Research /Resource Coordinator will be hired to implement and coordinate the
research and monitoring program component of this Management Plan. Specific
responsibilities include to:

0 coordinate with the Reserve Manager in the development and
implementation of the Reserve research plan.

0 provide staff support for the research and monitoring advisory
subcommittee.

0 assist the Reserve Manager and participating agencies in preparing and
updating an annual list of priorities for research and monitoring at the
Reserve.

0 coordinate the review of priorities for research and monitoring by the
Research and Monitoring Advisory Subcommittee.

0 issue requests for proposals for North Inlet/Winyah Bay NERR-funded
research and monitoring projects and initiate a peer review process for
proposals received. Assist NOAA in the review of NOAA-funded
proposals, as needed.

0 evaluate the results of the peer review process for North Inlet/Winyah
Bay NERR-funded research and make recommendations to the Reserve
Manager and Research and Monitoring Advisory Subcommittee.

0 serve as liaison with the scientific community, promote data utilization,
and act as primary contact for scientists performing research within the
Reserve.
0 coordinate research aptivities within'the Reserve and communicate with
other NERR sites and the ACE Basin NERR education and volunteer
programs.

0 actively promote use of North Inlet/Winyah Bay Reserve as a site for
conducting research and monitoring activities.

0 conduct research and monitoring activities.

0 pursue additional (outside) funding sources for research and monitoring
in the Reserve.

0 assist in the training. of volunteers, research assistants, and interns;
monitor/evaluate their performance.

0 recommend locations for research and monitoring stations within the
Reserve and provide technical advice, logistical support and assistance
to scientists in conducting research and monitoring activities, as
available.

0 develop additional research guidelines and policy statements as new
issues arise and present them to Research and Monitoring Advisory
Subcommittee for appropriate actions.

o visit the Reserve on a regular basis and keep field journal and
photographic records of ongoing research activities.

C. Education Coordinator

The Education Coordinator is responsible for implementing and
coordinating the education program component of this Management Plan. Specific
responsibilities are to:

0 develop and coordinate education program activities that are consistent
with the goals and objectives of the Reserve and NERRS.

0 evaluate the effectiveness of the education program and modify
activities accordingly.

0 monitor and adjust education program activities as necessary to assure
that they do not negatively impact the research and management goals
of the Reserve.

0 coordinate reserve education activities with education program activities
of the Bellefield Nature Center, operated by the Belle W. Baruch
Foundation.

0 conduct periodic needs assessments to determine new areas for program
development.

0 assist in the establishment of and serve as a liaison to the Education
Advisory Subcommittee.

0 assist in the establishment and coordination of a Volunteer Program.

0 assist in the development of grant proposals to support the continuation
and expansion of the education program.

0 coordinate activities with NOAA (SRD) national education program
coordinator.

The Research/Resource Coordinator and Education Coordinator report directly to the
Reserve Manager.

In addition to these three positions a Secretary-Data Processor will be hired to
handle the various secretarial tasks associated with the Reserve, and assist the
existing data management program with those topics relating to the Reserve's
activities. The Secretary-Data Processor will be responsible to the Reserve Manager.
As the program develops, the'need for additional personnel will be evident. It is
anticipated that a Research Technician(s) will be needed to assist in field studies and
monitoring of living resources and*of phys ica I/che mica I /geolog ica I factors.

3. Advisory Committee Roles and Resl2onsibilltie

An Advisory Committee will be established which will have one member
selected (except as noted) from the following agencies and local interest groups:

0 the Belle W. Baruch Foundation

0 the marine scientific community (2)

0 the education community (2)

0 management of harbor-related industries (2)
to be selected from local industries such as Georgetown Steel,
International paper, Santee Cement, AKZO Salt, 3V. Chemicals, Santee
Cooper Winyah Generating Station, and American Cyanamid Co.

0 labor from harbor-related industries (2)

0 representative of the Georgetown Sportfishing Association

0 Georgetown County Chamber of Commerce

0 South Carolina State Ports Authority

0 an environmental interest group

0 the League of Women Voters

0 a Debordieu Colony land owner

0 the Yawkey Wildlife Center, SC Wildlife and Marine Resources
Department

0 the Waccamaw Regional Planning Office

0 the Belle W. Baruch Forestry Institute, Clemson University

0 the Georgetown County Council

0 the Georgetown City Council

0 representative of SC Sea Grant Consortium

0 representative from SC Waterfowl Association

0 general public (2)

0 any others deemed appropriate by the Nominating Committee

In addition, a representative of the SC Coastal Council, NOAA (SRD), and the
Dean of the College of Science and Mathematics, USC, will serve as ex-officio,
non-voting members. The Director of the Baruch Institute, USC, will serve as
chairperson and will vote in case of ties.

The activities of the Advisory Committee will include:

0 Advising the Reserve Manager on matters of policy relating to planning
and operation of the Reserve;

0 Assisting in seeking qupport for the research and educationa I programs
and other financial matters;

0 Assisting in the preparation of any periodic summary or annual reports
on the operations of the Reserve;

0 Representing the interests of the users of the Reserve, its neighbors, and
the users of information and educational materials generated by the
Reserve; and

a Reviewing, monitoring, and advising on specific program activities to be
conducted in the Reserve to ensure that they are consistent with the
goals and objectives set forth in the Management Plan.

The Advisory Committee will have regular meetings at least twice a year which
will be open to the public and will be announced through the local media at least two
weeks in advance. The Reserve Manager and appropriate Institute personnel will
serve as staff to the Committee. Special meetings may be called by the chairperson
and/or upon the request of five committee members. The committee members will
receive four weeks written notice of regula r meetings and two weeks written notice
of special meetings.

A Nominating Committee, consisting of the Reserve Manager, Education
Coordinator, Chairman of the Georgetown County Council, President of the Debidue
Property Owners Association, Executive Director of the Georgetown Chamber of
Commerce, Superintendent of The Georgetown County School System, President of
the Georgetown Sportfishing Association, and Director of USC Field Laboratory, will
submit a list of potential Advisory Committee members to the Chairperson of the SC
Coastal Council for action. Appointments to the Advisory Committee will be for one
year with a limit of three successive reappointments, Upon the advice of the Advisory
Committee, the Chairperson will appoint additional subcommittees. Initially a
.mmittee and Education Subcommittee will be
Research and Monitoring Subco
established.

a. Research and Monitoring Subcommittee

The Research and Monitoring Subcommittee will consist of appropriate Advisory
Committee members and other technical representatives from the scientific and
academic communities. The Subcommittee will advise the full Committee on research
and monitoring activities within the reserve and will be responsible for the following:

0 Reviewing and approving priorities for research and monitoring projects;

0 Reviewing research and monitoring proposals and interim and final
research and monitoring reports;

0 Monitoring and advising on local issues and new opportunities for
cooperative research and monitoring; and

0 Evaluating overall progress toward achieving research and monitoring
priorities and adjustin
.g long-term direction accordingly.

b. Education Subcommittee

The Education Advisory Subcommittee will be composed of appropriate
Advisory Committee members and representatives from area institutions of education,

state agencies involved with education, and others. This subcommittee will be
responsible for the following:

0 Review and approval of the list of annual priorities for education and
interpretation activities for the Reserve;

0 Review of education proposals and design proposals for all education and
interpretive facilities, displays, media curriculum, training programs, etc.,
and monitor progress of specific activities to ensure that they are
consistent with the goals of the Reserve Program and this Management
Plan; and

0 Evaluation of progress toward achieving priorities for education and
interpretation and adjustment of long-term priorities accordingly.

4. Volunteer Program

A Volunteer Program will be developed to provide opportunities for interested
members of the public to interact more closely with both the education and research
activities of the Reserve. A properly organized volunteer program will be an asset to
the North Inlet/Winyah Bay Reserve, a valuable experience for the volunteer and an
opportunity for direct community involvement. The most obvious benefit would be
an increase in manpower for the Reserve at minimal cost. Volunteers supplement paid
staff and often permit expansion of services that would not otherwise be possible.
A volunteer program can also effec4ively transfer information on the value of estuaries
to the general public and elected officials. Properly trained volunteers carry their
knowledge and enthusiasm to a portion of the general public that the scientist or
Education Coordinator cannot reach.

The Education Volunteer Program will be coordinated with the Bellefield Nature
Center administration and supervised by the Reserve Education Coordinator. The
Research Volunteer Program will also be administered by the Research/Resource
Coordinator and will be consistent with policies of the Baruch Foundation. A limited
number of volunteers (to be approved by the Baruch Foundation) will be involved in
the program. Education program volunteers will be particularly useful in greeting
visitors and answering questions at the Nature Center and Kimbel Center, thus
allowing NI[WB NERR staff members to conduct more programs in the field.

The duties of the Education and Research Volunteer coordinators include:
preparation and planning, recruitment and placement, orientation, training and
supervision, record keeping, recognition and program evaluation. The coordinators
will report directly to the Reserve Manager and will be located at the Reserve
headquarters.

Prior to initiating any volunteer program, those responsible for establishing the
program should have a thorough knowledge of the Reserve's needs and priorities in
order to define objectives for volunteer services and volunteer opportunities and
requirements. Administrative support should be obtained and Reserve staff should be
involved in generating ideas and identifying appropriate volunteer tasks.

Suitable program assignments should be identified for volunteers and specific
job descriptions should, be prepared. Job descriptions should be written to include:
job responsibilities, necessary qualifications, amount of time required per week or
month, name and phone number of supervisor and training time requirements.
Orientation is the responsibility of the Volunteer Coordinators and will include:

0 Information about the Reserve and its structure;

0 Information on the general purpose, objectives, and philosophy of the
Reserve;

0 A clear explanation of the volunteer's commitment to the Reserve,
her/his supervisor, etc.;

0 Information as to how the specific program assignment relates to the
overall function of the Reserve; and

0 An orientation manual covering the North Inlet/Winyah Bay Reserve
Volunteer programs should be prepared and issued to volunteers.

The Volunteer Program needs care and periodic examination. Program
objectives, training materials, methods, and accomplishments should be critically
examined. Most importantly, the staff should frequently evaluate its goals, the goals
for the Volunteer program and its methods for attaining these goals.
5. RelationshII2 with Existing Administrative Program

a. Other Agencies/Organization

Although the Institute will manage the Reserve, interactions with state
regulatory agencies (i.e., SC Wildlife and Marine Resources Department and the SC
Department of Health and Environmental Control) will be. maintained to ensure
protection of the Reserve. In addition to interactions with state regulatory agencies,
the Baruch Institute, USC, has an agreement with the Belle W. Baruch Foundation to
manage the marsh-marine portions of Hobcaw Barony included in the Reserve under
the terms of a Tripartite Agreement which exists between the Belle W. Baruch
Foundation, The University of South Carolina, and Clemson University. This agreement
describes the role of the two universities in managing the lands associated with the

Hobcaw Barony. None of the lands managed by Clemson University are included in
the Reserve. The trustees of the Foundation have established most of the terrestrial
habitats adjoining the western border of North Inlet and much of the land bordering
the Mud Bay section of the Reserve as an area for systems ecology research.

b. Sc ildlife and Marine Resources Degartment. Division o
Marine Resources (SCWMRI

The Division of Marine Resources is responsible for the conservation and orderly
development of the state's marine resources through planning, research, management,
and public education. The Division also has the primary responsibilities for
management and development of commercial and recreational fisheries in the coastal
area, including the regulation and control of commercial fishing seasons (areas and
equipment), management of public shellfish grounds, and records of fisheries
statistics. The Division is also active in environmental and ecological concerns,
especially those which impact coastal fisheries habitats.

C. SC DeUrtment of Health and Environmental Control
(SCDEC)

The goal of the SCDHEC Shellfish Sanitation Program in South Carolina is to
ensure that shellfish and the areas from which they are harvested meet the health and
environmental quality standards provided by Federal and state regulations, laws, and
guidelines. Additionally, the Department promotes and encourages coastal quality
management programs consistent with protected uses established through the state
water classifications and standards program.

d. Belle W. Baruch Institute Forest Science Institute of Clemson
Universi1y

The Belle W. Baruch Forest Science Institute was establ ished to implement an
agreement between the Belle W. Baruch Foundation and Clemson University to
accomplish the objectives of The Belle W. Baruch Foundation and of Clemson
University relative to education and research in forestry and closely related sciences.
Although Clemson has no management jurisdiction over the Reserve, it is responsible
for maintenance of Hobcaw Barony except for the USC Field Laboratory. The Reserve
will interact with Clemson in matters of mutual interest, as is the current practice.

e. Others

Over the course of time, the Reserve Management will interact with other local,
state, Federal, and private organizations in respect to management activities.

6. Five-Year Activities Plan

Implementation of the major program development activities, including hiring
of staff and initiation of programs for research, monitoring, education, and volunteer
activities will begin following Reserve designation and will be phased-in over a five-
year period according to a prescribed schedule of activities shown in Table 4.

Table 4 Five Year Activities Plan for
North Inlet[Winyah Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve

Program Year Program Needs* Major Program Development Activities

0 . DEIS/DMP completed
(Predesignation) DMP Advisory Committee
Some coordination of research projects
Some coordination of education projects
Receive comments on DEIS/OMP; then
work to complete DEIS/DMP and FMP

1 Reserve Manager (1) Appoint Advisory Committee
Clerical worker (.25) Increase coordination of education program with
Education Coordinator (.7) Nature Center
Research Coordinator (1) Increase coordination of research/monitoring
programs with ongoing research
Initiate monitoring and baseline inventory programs
Integrate data management system with LTER
data management system
Develop brochures
Staff participation in research and education
workshops
Initiate intersite cooperative programs
Planning for second year

2 Reserve Manager (1) Continue coordination of site education programs
Clerical worker (1) as they develop
Education Coordinator (1) Increase coordination of
Research Coordinator (1) researsh/monitoring/baseline
Research Specialist (1) inventory with ongoing non-NOAA programs
Develop yew round monitoriing/baseline inventory
studies
Expand research program
Increase research and education workshops
Conduct evaluation of facilities
Planning for third yew

3 Fully Staffed Continuation of research, education, monitoring,
Reserve Manager (1) and baseline inventory activities
Clerical worker (1) Planning for fourth yew
Education Coordinator (1)
Research Coordinator (1)
Research Specialists (1)
Education Specialist (5)
Education Volunteer Coordinator (.25)
Research Volunteer Coordinantor (.25)

4 Fully Staffed Continuation of established Programs
Planning for fft you

5 Fully Staffed Continuation of established programs
Program review by external committee
Planning for sixth year

D. Facilities Develooment Plan

Funding is provided by NOAA and matched by the state for the construction or
renovation of a visitor center, research facility, education center, or other
improvements associated with research, -education, and access to reserve sites.
Facilities and improvements must be located within the boundaries of the designated
research reserve. Major construction projects (i.e., buildings) require the preparation
of architectural and engineering plans and state approval of capital outlay proposals.
Funding for planning and developing architectural and engineering plans for buildings
may come from initial acquisition and development grants which are awarded after
approval of the DEIS/DMP (i.e., in the predesignation phase). Funds for constructing
buildings come from acquisition and development grants which are awarded after
approval of the final management plan. Minor construction activities that aid in
implementing portions of the management plan (such as nature trails, boardwalks,
boat ramps) do not require architectural or engineering plans. Funding for planning
and constructing nature trails, boardwalks, boat ramps, and other minor improvements
can be awarded under initial acquisition and development grants as well as under later
acquisition and cooperative agreements.

Goal of the North Inlet/Winyah Bay Facility Development Program

The goal of the NI/WB NERR Facility Development program is to provide the
necessary facilities for research and educational activities. Although research and
educational facilities are presently available, the Reserve will seek funds to provide
new facilities as they are needed to update and/or expand to meet new demands.
These facilities should not interfere with the natural appearance of the site.

1 . Facilities

Research facilities in the Reserve are temporarily housed in trailers but the
Institute is in the process of constructing a new 16,000 sq ft research laboratory to
replace the two laboratories destroyed by Hurricane Hugo. These facilities will be
constructed to conform with Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA) regulations.
FEMA is providing partial funding for these buildings.

This facility will have space for administrative offices, the computer center,
teaching and continuing education rooms, chemical laboratories, 13 laboratories for
visiting and resident scientists, seminar/library room, balance room, museum, and
common equipment room. At the entrance to the Hobcaw Barony and adjacent to
the NI/WB Reserve is the Nature Center, which is owned and operated by the Belle
W. Baruch Foundation and functions as a visitor center. In addition to a reception and
display area, a separate classroom building is used for instructional purposes. The
adjacent USC Kimbel Living Center, that is part of the Reserve, consists of housing
accommodations for 80 persons and a meeting center. It will also be used for

Reserve exhibits and displays, workshops, seminars, and for visiting groups and
researchers.

2. Location of Reserve Visitor Center/Headquarters

The NERRS regulations require that final selection of a site for facilities such as
the Visitor Center appear in the Management Plan. During the preparation of this Plan,
a number of locations were considered as alternatives for the center. However,
serious discussions have been confined to the Kimbel Center.

The Visitor Center for the NI/WB NERR will be located in the Kimbel Center,
located at the entr ance to the Hobcaw Barony. Activities at the Visitor Center will be
closely coordinated with the personnel of the Baruch Foundation located in the nearby
Bellefield Nature Center.

The headquarters of the NI/WB NERR will be located in offices in the new
laboratory located on the edge of North Inlet. This facility will serve to centralize
Reserve activities with those of the NI/WB project involving all participants (i.e., USC
personnel, visiting scientists and students, visitors, representatives of various
agencies, and the Baruch Foundation). The continuing education office will be located
in the new laboratory.

3. Staffing Reguirgments

Initially four positions will be required to begin the basic programs'at the
Reserve: Reserve Manager, Research/Resource Coordinator, Education Coordinator,
and Secretary/Data Processor. The duties and responsibilities of the first three
positions were described earlier in the Management Plan. The Secretary/Data
Processor, who will be responsible to the Reserve Manager, will handle the various
secretarial tasks associated with the program and assist the existing data management
program with those topics relating to the Reserve's activities. As the program
develops, the need for additional personnel will be evident. It is anticipated that as
the program develops and funding becomes available a Research Technician(s) will be
added to assist in field studies and monitoring of living resources and of
physical/chemical/ geological factors. Additionally, an Education Specialist will be
needed to further coordinate and implement the Reserve's education program;
Volunteer Coordinators will be necessary to develop and implement the Reserve's
Education and Research Volunteer programs.

4. Facility Reguirements

Other facilities contribute to the overall experience of visitors to the site.
Examples of these include interpre6e exhibits, a collection of flora and fauna, and a
boardwalk.

In the future as the program expands, the need for additional facilities will be
assessed. Construction or expansion of facilities within the Reserve will be conducted
only upon approval of NOAA, the Belle W. Baruch Foundation, the University of South
Carolina and with any necessary -Federal and State permits or agency approvals.
If additional parcels are identified to be included within the boundaries of the Reserve,
such as the Nature Center and/or the rice fields along Winyah Bay, this would be done
in accordance with NOAA regulations and with the approval of the Baruch Foundation.
Through a long-term agreement with the Baruch Foundation, the Baruch Institute
manages the portion of the Foundation's lands to be included in the Reserve and the
State owns the remaining areas of the Reserve.

5. Trails and Observation Platforms

Interpretive trails are already in existence on Hobcaw Barony and under the
management of the Nature Center. In addition, a boardwalk over a section of the
marsh exists within the Reserve. From the boardwalk can be observed various marsh
organisms and vegetation. Some of these will allow access for the physically
handicapped, At several locations, wildlife observation platforms and/or blinds will
be installed.

The main function of these facilities will be to:

0 Maintain pedestrian access within the Reserve to minimize impact of
visitor use on sensitive resource areas;

0 Reduce conflict among various Reserve users, such as interpretation,
research and traditional activities;

0 Contribute to the education/interpretation plan as outlined in the
Management Plan

E. Research and Monitorin_q Plan

1 . General Context for Managemen

The research and monitoring program will rely on the results of scientific
research to achieve an understanding of the entire estuarine system and its
watershed. The goal of the Research and Monitoring Plan is to utilize the Reserve for
long-term studies to gain a better scientific understanding of natural and human
processes occurring within the estuaries and to develop information for the use of
coastal decision-making agencies. National and state agencies responsible for
management and protection of coastal environments and resources are aware of the
potential for increasing human-induced stress in our coastal ecosystems. Some
programs have been initiated or proposed to address aspects of the enormous and
complex problems associated with intense coastal development. For example, EPA has

a program involving the Great Lakes and certain large estuarine systems, and recently
initiated the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program. in addition, NOAA
has started a Coastal Ocean Program. However, a recent study of marine coastal
environmental protection by the National Research Council emphasized that a close
link must exist between monitoring (constant measuring of environmental parameters)
and research programs (determination of processes, mechanisms, predictive models,
etc.) in order to produce information which is essential for interpreting monitoring
results by environmental regulatory agencies. The NI/WB Reserve will help fill this
void.

Despite past efforts, little attention has been specifically directed to long-term
ecosystem-level studies dealing with southern coastal aquatic systems and the
interaction between Uplands and these aquatic systems. A significant data gap exists
in understanding the interactive relationship of the stress created in these ecosystems
by the growing human activity in the coastal regions of the southeastern U.S. In the
southern region of the United States there are few large estuarine systems -- most of
the estuaries and freshwater systems are relatively small and are surrounded by
extensive wetlands. For example, there are over 320 small, high salinity creeks,
inlets, and estuaries between Cape Fear, NC, and Cape Canaveral, FL. Nearly half
occur in South Carolina. Approximately 500,000 acres of wetlands are found in the
coastal region of South Carolina, and the southeastern sector of the United States has
a large percentage of the nation's coastal wetlands. Much of the present
development of coastal areas is occurring and is predicted to continue to occur.on
highlands adjacent to these estuarine and freshwater systems. There is a need for a
holistic, ecological, landscape-level approach involving the integrative analysis of the
status and stress levels of southeastern coastal ecosystems. Coordination of research
projects oriented toward this approach is of paramount importance in order both to
understand the influences of human activities and inputs on diverse coastal systems
of the southeast and to develop the ability to anticipate or predict potential problems
associated with these activities and inputs.

To adequately study complex coastal systems impacted by society requires a
level of integration and organization not traditionally found in universities, which tend.
to be-organized according to traditional disciplines. Because of the nature of research
funding, most projects usually involve one or a few investigators working on one facet
of a broader question. Traditionally, formal institutional mechanisms do not exist
which allow integration of studies and a continuity of research themes. Frequently,
valuable data from single- investigator-oriented research is lost because of the lack of
a long-term data management system. The Baruch Institute, USC, has more than 20
years of experience with multidisciplinary, multi-investigator research projects. It has
developed the facility and administrative structure to conduct research at this level.
The research/monitoring program Xvill not duplicate past or present research projects.
Research on southeastern ecosystems will be more cost-efficient and scientifically

effective with the proposed NI/WB NERR, as opposed to individual research projects.
The NI/WB NERR Research and Monitoring Plan has the following goals and
objectives:

a. Goal

0 provide a rapid and efficient means of disseminating new knowledge
related to coastal ecosystems (by means of public presentations,
publications, information transfer to Reserve education programs etc.),

0 respond in setting rese arch priorities to accommodate either external
individual grants or in-house research programs,

0 provide a collaborative environment which would foster multidisciplinary
as well as multi-institutional projects,
0

0 provide an additional level of quality assurance at all stages of research
performance,

0 channel scientific information (through technical reports, presentations,
etc.) to NOAA, other Federal and state agencies, environmental groups,
the public, and the press so that research findings can be utilized in a
practical manner, and

0 have a long-term, holistic perspective and focus on fundamental
problems facing southeastern US coastal ecosystems.

Knowledge of how ecosystem processes function on a long-term basis in an
unperturbed system is important in assessing the impact of human activities.
Long-term comparative studies are essential to delineate between interannual variation
in.system responses due to natural variability (i.e., a prolonged cold spell or a drought)
and variation resulting from human perturbation. These important scientific data are
extremely limited and their scarcity has hampered regulatory/management agencies
in assessing environmental impacts. North Inlet Estuary is an ideal site to use as a
standard against which to comparle other coastal systems: (1) it is relatively free of
human-influenced disturbances, (2) it has been studied for 22 years, the last 12 years
as part of the NSF program on Long-Term Ecological Research, (3) an extensive data
base exists to study ecosystem processes, and (4) the Baruch Institute Field
Laboratory and resident staff are located there.

b. Obiective

0 establish and manage the areas of the Reserve for long-term use as
natural field laboratories by state, local and private organizations, while

maintaining traditional us es of the Reserve by individuals and various
groups;

0 conduct both state-of-the-art and basic environmental research which
Will provide both significant information to the public, scientific, and
regulatory communities and a data base for use in long-term and
interdisciplinary studies;

0 enhance the scientific understanding of southeastern estuarine
ecosystem processes and functions which can then be used for planning
and stand ard-settin g by res erve managers and coastal decision-makers;

0 provide education and experience to young scientists considering
environmental careers by utilizing volunteers to achieve research goals.

These objectives will be met by the Reserve staff promoting:

0 long-term baseline studies to characterize flora and fauna within the
Reserve and to gain an understanding of the ecological interrelationships
between organisms and their environments;
r-

0 a better understanding of tributary water quality conditions, particularly
spatial and temporal dynamics, requirements for growth and survival of
living resources, and contribution and effects of point and non-point
source pollution;

0 a better understanding of physical processes operating within the
estuary, such as tidal influence, circulation dynamics, freshwater inflow,
stratification patterns, and sediment dynamics;

0 the Reserve as a site for estuarine research by providing essential
services and facilities;

0 studies that make effective use of past research and address data gaps
in the Reserve's information base; and

0 the effective use and communication of research results.

2. Research and Monitoring Priorities

a. North Inlet/Winyah Bay NERR Research Priorities

Establishment of the Nl/WB NERR will create a long-term opportunity for
temporal and spatial sampling in wetlands, upland, and open water estuarine habitats,

as well as a greater opportunity for the development and use of new observational
and analytical techniques in protected estuarine subsystems. Nl/WB NERR sponsored
research will be directed toward: (1) water management, (2) soil management, (3)
nutrients and other chemical inputs, (4) coupling of primary and secondary
productivity and 5) estuarine fishery habitat requirements. General research priorities
include:

0 ascertaining which ecological resources are at risk and what level of
human-induced stress exists in two southeastern coastal ecosystems,
and developing accurate and sensitive bio-markers of pollutant exposure;

0 determining the condition of two southeast coastal ecosystems, and
how they change (i.e., developing baseline characteristics that define a
healthy, low stressed coastal ecosystem for comparisons with more
polluted, highly stressed coastal ecosystems as regards organismal
physiology, end point indicators, population and ecosystem structure,
and determining the classes and specific types of anthropogenic
,activities and inputs which characterize and lead to unhealthy, stressed
coastal ecosystems); and

0 formulating specific computer models for predicting the effects of
long-term, indirect and direct exposures to pollutants and other human
activities in two southeastern coastal ecosystems (i.e., the coordination
of exposure and effects studies under both laboratory and field
conditions, using cornerstone species, to characterize real effects of
pollutants at the ecosystem level, and determining how accurately end
point indicators, bio-markers, and physiological measurements in
cornerstone species can be extrapolated to meaningful effects at the
ecosystem level).

(1) Initial Short-Term Research Prioritiel

0 analysis of living resource data sets;

0 stock assessments;

0 evaluation and analysis of monitoring capabilities, oyster
production and diseases;

0 salinity and circulation patterns;

0 nutrient levels in marsh areas versus nutrient levels in open
water;

0 land use patterns; and sublethal responses to toxin.

Research priorities include providing support facilities to conduct research,
including advanced analytical chemical equipment (particularly for identification of
organic and metallo-organic compounds); remote sensing; and automated data
analysis technologies. Sometimes the success of a research project depends on the
study site remaining undisturbed. To prevent trampling or other unnatural physical
disturbances, the researcher may request that signs requesting avoidance of the study
area be posted. The request would be made to the Reserve Manager and reviewed
by the Advisory Committee. Typically, study plots are small and located in
infrequently visited or remote areas so that public travel or access patterns would not
be affected. (2) Longer Term Research Priorities

0 improved understanding of structure and function of coastal habitats
(i.e., emergent saline marshes, tidal freshwater habitats, non-vegetated
wetlands, benthic habitats, oyster reefs);

0 impacts of modification of coastal and contiguous habitats; water
column processes (i.e., plankton communities, inorganic nutrient cycling,
replenishment and sforage, micro-circulation, and interactions among
main stem and adjacent water bodies);

0 toxins;

0 genetic variability and structure of organisms within NlIWB NERR;

0 watershed processes (i.e., transport, fate and processing of dissolved
and particulate material);

0 effects of land-use activities;

0 ground water contribution, including spatial and temporal input and
outflows; chemical characteristics, extent and magnitude of pesticide,
nutrient, and other pollutant contamination;

0 impact on sediment-water column pollution interactions;

0 methods to reduce ground water pollution;
0 impacts of population' growth development;

0 temporal and spatial variability in the use of marsh tidal creek
ecosystems as nursery areas;

0 wetland formation and production relative to sea-level rise;
archaeological studies;

0 loss of wetlands habitat and mitigation approaches;

0 buffering effect of wetlands on sediment and heavy metal/toxic chemical
loads; basic marsh processes such as accretion and erosion;

0 effects of human water activities on shorelines;

0 buffering effects of wetlands on flooding and erosion;

0 wetland production relative to sea-level rise; and

0 plant community succession

Although no manipulative research projects are planned, it is possible that
small-scale manipulative studies, limited in nature and to the minimum extent
necessary to accomplish the stated research objectives, could be approved but only
after a thorough review of the project by the Institute, the SCCC, and NOAA, and
after all necessary permits are obtained. Manipulative research activities with a
significant or long-term impact on Reserve resources require prior approval of the
SCCC and NOAA.

Habitat manipulation for resource management purposes is not permitted within
reserves, except as allowed for restoration activities consistent with NOAA
regulations. An exception may be allowed to this prohibition if NOAA determines that
specific manipulative activity is necessary for the protection of public health or the
preservation of other sensitive resources which have been listed or are eligible for
protection under relevant Federal or state authority (e.g., threatened/endangered
species or significant historical or cultural resources).

b. NERRS National Research Priorities

In addition to research activities described above, program-wide research
priorities have been developed for the NERR System for Fiscal Years 1993-2002.
Research at the NI/WB NERR will be planned and proposals submitted which will be
part of these priorities. These research priorities are:

FY 1993, 1994 Non-point source pollution (non-focused or non-identifiable
sources of pollution inputs and alterations within
watersheds).

FY 1995, 1996 Habitat restoration (restoration of coastal habitats that have
been altered by anthropogenic activities and/or inputs).

FY 1997, 1998 Alterations in habitat utilization by coastal biota (exotic
species, commercial species, non-commercial species).

FY 1999, 2000 Alterations in water circulation, transportation and quality
(tidal exchange, freshwater diversion, hydrological budgets,
ground water intrusion, biotic species transportation).

FY 2001, 2002 Anthropogenic inputs and activities (focused and
identifiable - i.e., dredge spoils, HAZMAT, recreational
uses, commercial uses).

C. Monitoring Program Priorities

,The NI/WB NERR monitoring program will consist of a three-phase approach as
follows:

(1) Phase I

Environmental Characterization, which involves literature review
and/or field research to acquire all available information on
hydrology, geology, water chemistry, water quality, biological
resources, and the problems and issues confronting the reserve
environment;

(2) Phase 11

Site Profile, which involves a synthesis of information gathered to
provide an overall picture of the reserve in terms of its resources,
issues, management constraints, and research needs;

(3) Phase III

Procedures and Requirements, which involves identifying
parameters to be measured, procedures to be used (criteria for
measurements, quality control, and standard procedures where
they already exist), sampling strategy for selected parameters
(spatial and temporal intervals), storage and retrieval of data
(reporting, formatting, and analytical requirements) manpower
requirements, logistics, and cost; and

(4) Phase IV

Implementation which involves pilot projects and, upon successful
evaluation, full-scale monitoring of selected parameters.

The NI/WB NERR phased monitoring program will be integrated with the South
Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SC DHEC) and South

Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources (SCWMR) monitoring program for water
quality, living marine resources, toxic chemicals, and other parameters. It will also be
integrated with other monitoring programs conducted by Federal agencies including
NOAA and EPA.

At present monitoring of numerous environmental parameters are routinely done
with funds provided by the National Science foundation and NOAA. The parameters
measured include: continuous recording of precipitation, wind speed, barometric
pressure, solar radiation, and water temperature and conductivity; daily water sample
taken and analyzed for nutrients and chlorophyll; monthly measurement of Spartina
production; and biweekly measurement of zooplankton, mobile epibenthos,
meiobenthos, macrobenthos and water column macro-organisms. The NI/WI3 NERR
monitoring program would augment this existing activity and if the NSF and NOAA
funding is discontinued, the Reserve effort would take over the entire sampling
program consistent with the availability of funds.

Specific means for incorporating program elements into existing and new
monitoring programs will be developed. The Reserve Manager will work to incorporate
the following elements into all monitoring programs:

0 hypothesis testing

0 relationship to management issues

0 quality assurance/quality control

0 means of determining program effectiveness

0 periodic review

0 data management and analysis

0 publication of data

The North Inlet/Winyah Bay* NERR will submit an annual report to NOAA as
required by NERRS Regulations at 15 CFR 921.40. The report will include a
description of overall program successes and accomplishments, references to the
Reserve Management Plan, And, as appropriate, the work plan for the coming year.
The first report will coverthe 12-month period following receiptof operations funding,
and will be submitted within three. months after the end of that period. In addition,
North Inlet/Winyah Bay NERR shall arrange for the periodic NOAA evaluation visits and
public meetings as required and described in NERR regulations at 15 CFR 921.40.

I North Inlet/Winyah Bay NERR Policiu and Procedmires for Research

a. General Policies

Research opportunities at NI/WB NERR are available to qualified scientists and
students affiliated with a college, university or school; non-profit, non-academic
research institutions (e.g., research laboratory, independent museum, professional
society); profit organizations; or state, local or Federal government agencies.

Research opportunities will be available to all applicants without regard to
manner of funding. Support may come through South Carolina state agencies, the
NOAA Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM), NOAA Sea Grant,
the Environmental Protection Agency, NSF, and other sources. Researchers may
apply to do research at any time; however, scientists seeking financial support from
NOAA/OCRM must follow NOAA's research and monitoring guidelines.

All research proposals will be evaluated by the Research/Resource Coordinator
and Reserve Manager for consistency with NI/WB NERRS goals, and by the Baruch
Foundation and the USC to ensure that the proposed research will not interfere with
other research at the Reserve. No proposed research at the Reserve will be approved
unless it is consistent with the Tripartite Agreement discussed earlier. Projects would
be selected based on their importance to coastal zone management issues,
scientific/educational merit, and technical approach. Other project selection criteria.
include: the environmental consequences of the project; immediacy of need; and the
proposed project's relationship to other available information and studies.

Activities permitted in the core area are limited to research activities which do
not manipulate habitats except in rare instances where small-scale manipulative
studies, with limited scope and clearly stated research objectives, may be approved
after thorough review by the Institute, the SCCC and NOAA. Manipulative research
activities may be permitted in the buffer zone of the Reserve as long as they address
identified research or management needs. Any research activities which, in the
estimation of the State and NOAA, may result in impacts on Reserve resources or
habitats, require prior approval of the State and private property owners.

To assist new researchers at the reserve, inforryiation packets will be available
from the Reserve Manager. These packets will contain background information
pertaining to the Reserve and an area map designating Reserve boundaries. New
researchers will also be given a tour of the Reserve area to gain familiarity with the
research surroundings and general, location.

Research, monitoring and education projects will receive first priority within the
Reserve boundaries. Traditional uses of public areas will continue as currently
regulated under Federal, state, or local authority. The Reserve Manager is responsible
for carefully balancing uses of the reserve to ensure that the objectives of the reserve

program are protected and sustained. The power of the Reserve Manager needed to
meet other specified management responsibilities will not in any way be diminished
by the NI/WB NERR research and monitoring plan.

The NI/WB NERR Research/Resource Coordinator and the Reserve Manager are
responsible for coordinating all research and monitoring activities for the Reserve. To
facilitate this, NOAA Will maintain close contact with these individuals who will keep
NOAA informed of the progress of NOAA-funded researchers. The NI/WB NERR
Reserve Manager will maintain regular communication with the researchers. He/she
will aid in coordinating research activities in the Reserve and, when possible, will aid
in fulfilling the needs of the researchers.

Jo achieve the NERRS goals of (1) "making available information necessary for
improved understanding and management of estuarine areas" and (2) "enhancing
public awareness and understanding of the estuarine environment", NOAA-funded
research will be available to the general public and researchers will be requested to
provide a presentation on their research findings at regularly scheduled meetings.

The NI/WB NERR requests that 'researchers provide the Reserve Manager with
quarterly progress reports, a final report, and an abstract and one copy of any
publications resulting from any research at the Reserve, The final report will include
an abstract, a literature review, methods, analyses, results, and conclusions. It will
include a summary of the gathered data and a list of the analyses completed. In
addition to a final report, the researcher will keep the Reserve Manager updated on the
progress of the project by means of quarterly written progress reports. These
presentations will help to achieve the Reserve's goal of providing information
necessary for improved understanding and management of estuarine systems to
coastal decision-makers and the public. Records, data, reports, publications, and
other relevant materials will be kept at the NI/WB NERR. Research information will
also be forwarded to NOAA, which will act as a central clearinghouse and the center
of the information network of the flational Estuarine Research Reserve System.

b. Procedures for NOAA-Funded Research

Proposals requesting funds from NOAA will be evaluated using established
NERRS guidelines. In order to qualify for NOAA funding, NI/WB Reserve research
proposals must address one or more of the NERRS National Research Priorities and
fulfill the requirement of the appropriate Request for Proposal. NOAA funds are
awarded on a competitive basis and proposals will be competing with other research
proposals in reserves throughout the National Estuarine Research Reserve System.

Funding for national research priorities in the Reserve is available through NOAA
on a competitive basis to qualified researchers and must be matched equally by the
recipient according to current NERRS regulations. An annual announcement of
research opportunities, reflecting priority needs and levels of funding, will be

distributed. This announcement will include: (a) specific statements about the types
of research that will be funded including the national research priorities set by NOAA;
(b) clear and specific guidelines for preparation; (c) clear statements on procedures
and criteria used in proposal review; (d) level of funding; and (e) a schedule of the
proposed process. The distribution list will include local, state, and regional entities
covering all eligible potential applicants. Also, a research prospectus will be provided
to potential researchers, including basic information on reserve resources, unusual
features, support facilities and a listing of research reports from the NI1WB NERR.

The NI/WB Reserve will work closely with NOAA staff to develop and assess
National Research Priorities. NOAA will also be involved with the Reserve through
research funding and proposal evaluation. The Reserve Manager will communicate
with other reserve managers and will work with NOAA and other reserve managers
to establish a national information exchange network.

C. Recruitment of Researchers

Recruitment of researchers is important to build the NI[WB NERR data base and
to establish the sites as long-term natural field laboratories. Recruitment of
researchers with an established interest and capability will be one of the functions of
the Research/Resource Coordinator. Recruitment strategies will include:

o coordination through scientific/technical advisory committees;

0 participation of NI/WI3 NERRS staff in research symposia, conferences
and workshops;

0 intern programs for graduate students or upper division college students;
and

0 annual announcements of research opportunities in scientific association
newsletters, meetings and through NOAA's Sanctuaries and Reserves
Division.

d. Data Managernen

Data from the NI/WB NERR will contribute to the nat ional network
long-term study to monitor the status and trends of estuarine ecosystems. Data from
the National Estuarine Research Reserve System makes a substantial contribution to
the understanding of long-term ecological effects on estuaries and is useful in
predictive trend analysis of ecological stresses. The coordinated research network
aids greatly in understanding the theoretical and practical aspects of conservation and
coastal resources management. The Baruch Institute has developed the Baruch Data

Management System (BDMS) as an integral component of all research projects
involving North Inlet and Winyah Bay. The NI/WB Reserve Research and Monitoring
Program will be incorporated into the BDMS.

North Inlet has pioneered efforts within the Long-Term Ecological Research
(LTER) Network funded by the National Science Foundation to develop efficient
techniques for design, management, and analysis of long-term ecological data sets
(Michener ti al., 1985; Michener, 1986; Edwards & Coull, 1987; Michener g al.,
1987; Michener & Haddad, in press). These efforts have led to collaborative research
projects with the U.S. Soil ConseNation Service, National Marine Fisheries Service,
U.S. Geological Survey, and the Environmental Protection Agency. Hundreds of
database requests have been satisfied, providing data for undergraduate and graduate
research projects, intra- and intersite collaborative research, and state (S.C. Water
Resources Commission, S.C. Land Resources Commission, S.C. Coastal Council) and
Federal agencies (NOAA/National Weather Service, U.S. Geological Survey, and
NASA). North Inlet is one of four LTER sites serving as a testing and development
facility for Khoros software (an ecological data analysis package developed at the
University of New Mexico).

The BDMS is staffed by two technical specialists; S. Chapal manages the
biological data sets and serves as System Administrator; D. Taylor has primary
responsibility for the physical and chemical data sets and maintains the meteorological
stations. Data archival and security, documentation, QA/QC, data entry facilitation,
commubication, maintenance, training, and consulting are key elements of the BDMS.

Data entry activities include development of full screen entry programs,
hardware (including routine maintenance and testing) and software support for
automated data acquisition systems, and supervision of data entry personnel. QA/QC
includes activities routinely associated with data entry. Numerous QA/QC checks are
built into the data entry programs and automated data acquisition software.
Procedures identify equipment malfunctions and flag incorrect field type (e.g.,
alphabetic value other than 'F'or'M' for sex), etc. Additional QA/QC programs which
employ checksum, graphical and statistical techniques for identification of potential
outliers have been developed for all core LTER data sets.

Optimal data archival and security procedures are followed throughout the
process from data collection to analysis. All field and laboratory data sheets are
photocopied and the originals are stored in flame-proof cabinets. Raw data are
routinely backed up onto floppy disks. The entire database is archived on optical
storage devices at the coast and at the Columbia LTER office. Database security
includes redundant weekly backup, password protection, and user account and data

access administration by BIDIVIS personnel. The fact that no data were lost as a result
of Hurricane Hugo attests to the success of our archival and security protocols.

The BDMS supports two levels of documentation. Level 1 documentation is
accessible via internet, BITNET, or hard copy and contains general information (title,
investigators, abstract, keywords, etc.) about the project or experiment which
generated a particular data set. Level 11 documentation, also available in electronic or
hard copy versions, contains the detailed information necessary for secondary users
to access and utilize the data, and fully understand the conditions under which the
data set was generated. Any individual or institution may access data sharing; all
data are considered non-proprietary two years after incorporation into the BDMS. A
database usage log is maintained to track usage of LTER data sets, Historically, the
meteorological data has been the most frequently accessed; up to 68 database
requests in a single.year.

As a result of the Technological Supplements, significant progress has been
made in enhancing BDMS capabilities. Installation of SUN workstations, optical disk
storage systems, and networking capabilities at both the field laboratory and the main
campus serve to enhance compatibility with other LTER sites, facilitate local archival
and data access, and promote intra- and intersite communication and data sharing.

e. Information Managemen

Information gathered in NI/WB NERR research and monitoring and the
management implications of this information will be made available to decision-makers
and the public in understandable forms (i.e., in laymen's language - not scientific
jargon) through public forums, etc.

Both NOAA and NI/WB NERR will:

0 encourage the dissemination of research results. Methods will include
journal articles in the peer-reviewed literature.

0 presentations at professional societies; and

0 special symposia arranged by NOAA or reserves, often in association
with other meetings such as the biennial meetings of the Estuarine
Research Federation or Coastal Zone Managers.

Additional avenues of information exchange will include:

0 distribution of a summary of research at the Reserve, workshops,
conferences and teach-ins at the Reserve;

0 a NI/WB-NERR brochure, distributed with an annual call for proposals at
appropriate conferences and,other events; press releases to local media

0 articles in journals of local organizations;

0 direct mailings to state and local decision-makers; and

0 regular contact with representatives of other state and Federal agencies,
local government agencies, and planning boards.

f. Research/Monitoring Coordination

The Research/Resource Coordinator will not only provide leadership in
coordinating ongoing research at the Reserve but will interact with the Baruch
Institute's research efforts funded by various sources. Coordination is fundamental
to avoid duplication of efforts and to provide a basis for the development of
integrative research/monitoring initiatives. The Research/Resource Coordinator will
meet regularly with the Reserve subcommittee on Research and Monitoring, NOAA
personnel, and Baruch Institute researchers. She/he will be in contact with other NERR
sites in order to stimulate comparative research involving more than one site. At
present, many investigators and graduate students from various institutions and
agencies are involved in research in the North Inlet/Winyah Bay region. Effort will be
made by the Coordinator to interact with these investigators. Interaction activities will
take place through formal local meetings, at NERRA meetings, at regional and national
meetings, and by personal communication via electronic mail, telephone, or letters.

F. Education and Interpretatiol3 Plan

Education/interpretation will serve as the integrator for all functions of the
NI/WB NERR. As the general public becomes more aware of how an estuarine system
functions and why it is such an important natural resource, the more likely they are
to support the reserve and other estuarine protection programs. A well-planned
education/interpretation program will create a constituency for the Reserve and bring
about positive attitudes and values in the user community.

The program will focus on the values of the NI/WB estuaries and their wise use.
The Reserve is an ideal setting for interpreting estuarine food webs, general biological
principals and coastal processes.. Opportunities exist for focusing on the national
significance of the NI/WB site. It is also an appropriate place to learn about Federal
and state endangered and threatened species. Overall, the program content will be
broad-based, dealing with general concepts and specific issues related to reserve
management.

raoals and Objectives

One of the primary goals of the NI/WB NERR is to enhance public awareness,
understanding, and wise use of estuarine resources in the North Inlet and Winyah Bay
estuaries. Specific objectives are to:

0 promote knowledge of the Research Reserve, its resources, and its
programs as well as knowledge of broader coastal issues and concerns
related to estuarine management and protection;

0 collaborate with other, organizations to provide educational and
interpretive services at this site;

0 disseminate information gained from research on the Reserve to public
audiences, including government officials, planners, and other
decision-makers.

0 provide opportunities for teacher training, student projects, internships,
and assistantships where enrolles work jointly with scientists, gain field
experience, and learn about the importance of research results;

0 enhance interest in and commitment to South Carolina estuaries and
their tributaries through volunteer programs and personal contact with
reserve resources;

0 provide for traditional uses of Reserve sites as provided by state and
Federal law.

0 broaden public support for the Reserve by continuing on-going programs
suited to visitors of diverse interests, ages, and backgrounds.

2. Assessment and Priorities

After evaluation of education programs already in place listed in Appendix I and
in the assessment matrix (Table 5), the priorities listed in Table 6 were identified.
Although our existing education programs are broadly based, limitations of staff and
resources have hindered the realization of our potential. Depending on future funding,
we plan on implementing these priority activities. A timetable for implementation of
the priorities is outlined in Table 7.

Table 5. ASSESSMENT MATRIX

PEOPLE IN THE
RESERVE

EDUCATION LIVING RESOURCES ESTUARINE
INTERESTS PROCESS 9 USC
PEP2
Students, Elementary LISC USC Sea Grant'
through High School Sea Grant' Sea Grant'
Teachers PEP' PEP2 * Baruch
Non-School Youth Minority PrograM3 Minority Program3 Foundation5
and Leaders
Special Needs Audubon Baruch Foundation

Adult Students Baruch NSFO
Foundation'

USERINTERESTS NSF11
* LISC
Local Citizens PEP2
Other SC Residents USC USC
Historical PEP2 PEP2 * Baruch
Conservation Friends of Institute' Friends of Institute7 Foundation'
Recreationi Baruch Foundation Baruch Foundation5

REGULATORY/LAND
USEINTERESTS State of SC
Realtors * USC 9 UISC Coastal Program9
Developers PEP2 PEP2
Town & Local Friends of Institute
Officials
State & Federal * NOAA9 * NSF6
Agencies

TRADITIONAL USER
GROUPS USC
Boaters LISC NOAA11 PEP2
-Sportsmen PEp2
Recreational
Fishermen
Tourists

The format of the matrix is modified from James Dobbin Associates' work on Channel Island National
Marine Sanctuary Management Plan. The category 1@@ Resources includes the flora and fauna found in the
Reserve; Estuarine Process details the physical and ecological processes of the estuary, (i.e., hydrology, soils
and energy flow in the estuary); and Peogle in = Reserve includes prehistoric cultures, recent history, and
human use of the Reserve today.

78@

TABLE 5. ASSESSMENT MATRIX (Contd)

ASSESSMENT MATRIX FOOTNOTES

'Funds from SC Sea Grant Consortium supported development of K-1 2 programs for teachers.
2USC,S Public Education Program in conjunction with the Belle W. Baruch Foundation served 35,000 people in
1990.

3Funds granted to USC from the Moore Foundation supported programs in marine science for minority
students.

4The Audubon Society has an annual bird count on the Hobcaw Barony.

5The Baruch Foundation sponsored a continuing education program which in conjunction with USC attracted
35,000 people in 1990.

'The National Science Foundation supported a program in marine science for minority students.

7Friends of the Institute supported programs geared to user interests.

INOAA support program on impact of urbanization on coastal systems including importance to regulatory
proceSs.

9SC Coastal Council sponsors programs on issues related to coastal management.

Table 6. EDUCATION PRIORITIES

PRIORITIES AUDIENCE METHOD OF
IMPLEMENTATION

Establish information General public/education Continue to improve
clearinghouse/resources file interests/government agencies interagency communication
at visitor/education site and information
exchange through Reserve's
advisory committee

Develop a variety of General public especially Work in cooperation with
promotional materials landowners, fishermen, information personnel in SC
including: developers, local officials Coastal Council, SC Sea
brochures Grant Consortium, USC, etc.
regular news releases
in local papers
a Reserve newsletter
interpretive posters
slide presentations

Encdu rage and expand Nonschool youth leaders, USC Develop MOA's where
current programs (students, docents, appropriate
researchers), private (i.e., Sea Grant)
organizations, government
agencies

Develop a series of evening Users of estuary, local/state Reserve staff with assistance
programs and/or day-long officials, realtors and of SC Coastal Council, USC
conferences for the public on developers, and other SC Center for Environmental
topics relating to coastal residents Policy and representatives of
issues advisory committee to "host"
series

Develop educational programs, Teachers and High School Reserve staff in coopleration
designed primarily for Students with NSF, Department of
teachers' training, which take Education, other
participants out to various groups/organizations;
sites; implement *researcher or other appropriate
-in-the-schools' program in researchers to help
area high schools, as follow- develop a series of
up, invite qualified students to presentations
assist researcher

Provide a historical overview of General Public/No Specific Cooperation of USC Institute
the region's development, Audience of Archaeology
especially the interaction of
people and resources

Table 7. IMPLEMENTATION OF NI/WB EDUCATION PROGRAMS/ACTIVITIES

EDUCATION OUTREACH ON-SITE

First Year Provide general public Develop interpretative signs
with material Conduct field trips
Expand exhibits
Research and information
collection on history of
region
Begin interpreting Reserve
environment
Develop brochures

Second Year Develop living resource Expand short course
inventory of Reserve area offerings
Print material on history Implement teacher training
of region Develop curriculum materials
for teachers
Expand public lecture series
Third Yaw Develop series of video
tapes Coordinate programs for
Displays of history of region youth groups
Set up guidelines for Expand teacher training
researcher-in-the-school program
program

Fourth Year
Implement reseafcher-in-the-
school program
On-going Involve docents irvresearch
Provide speakers and printed
material to local residents
Incorporate Reserve
information into hunter
and aquatic classes
Publish a newsletter at
regular intervals

I General Context for Management

The NI/WB Reserve includes both the marsh/marine part of the 17,500-acre
Wildlife refuge (Hobcaw Barony), which was set aside in perpetuity by the late Belle
W. Baruch for the purposes of research,and education, and the public waterways of
North Inlet Estuary and Mud Bay. Establishment of the Reserve on this site is
consistent with Belle Baruch's Will and provides a unique opportunity for exchange
of information between scientists and public audiences. A delicate balance must be
struck to maintain the special research integrity of the site while providing
opportunities for people to see and learn from the research program. Extreme care
will be taken to develop an education program that is sensitive to and protects the
significant research value of the Reserve. A number of policies and areas for
education program development are outlined which should complement the research
and management goals of the Reserve.

4. General Policies

Several policies will guide the development of the education program:

0 Only educational activities which will have no negative impacts on the
Reserve environment and its research projects will be implemented.
Activities will be discontinued or changed if, after review by the site
management team, the Advisory Committee and the Belle W. Baruch
Foundation Trustees, they are found to conflict with this policy.

0 Much of the content for the programs will be based on the findings from
research at the North Inlet-Winyah Bay Reserve and other NERR sites.
Findings will be shared with general audiences and specific target groups
such as teachers, K-1 2 students, policy-makers, and community leaders.

0 Reserve educational activities will be coordinated with and complement
the Public Education Program of the Belle W. Baruch Foundation,
admin,istered through the Bellefield Nature Center. The Nature Center
currently sponsors a diverse programthat focuses on several ecosystems
in the coastal plain of South Carolina. The Reserve's educational
program will expand offerings in subjects pertaining to estuaries and
coastal zone management.

0 The Reserve's education program will also be coordinated with. other
local and state organizations that are involved with coastal education
programs.

5. Interpretive e es and Messa"e

Our understanding of estuaries changes as new information is added to the
relatively young field of estuarine research. Consequently, themes and messages for
program content need to be flexible and sensitive to new discoveries about estuaries.
Fortunately, North Inlet Estuary has been studied fairly intensively over the past
decade, providing a foundation for supporting some initial themes and messages that
will be incorporated into the education program:

0 Estuaries are complex ecosystems that are intricately linked to
neighboring landward and seaward ecosystems.

0 Complex interactions, involving nutrient cycling, water movements, and
energy flows through food webs contribute to the dynamic functioning
of estuaries.

0 Estuaries serve important functions as nurseries for fish and shellfish, as
feeding and nesting areas for birds, and as buffers from storms.

0 People are members of the estuarine ecosystem and also affect its
functioning through interactions with the system.

0 The North Inlet-Winyah Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve serves
an important role as a site for research, management, and education
about estuaries.

Specific examples that relate to these themes will be incorporated into program
activities and materials. In addition, Table 8 visually depicts themes and messages
for interpretive displays which are consistent with those emphasized at other NERRS.

6. Printed and AudiQvisual Materials

Brochures, special publications, and a regular newsletter are planned to promote
knowledge of the Reserve, its resources, and its program, and to disseminate
information gained from research to public audiences. A general brochure about the
Reserve, its goals, and opportunities available for researchers and the public, will be
one of the first materials developed. It will be consistent with the "common look" site
brochure developed by NOAA, SF3D. The Baruch Institute currently publishes the
newsletter, "TIDINGS," which is distributed to members of Friends of the Baruch
Institute. Research, education and management activities of the Reserve program will
be featured in this established newsletter. In addition to the mailings to members,
copies of the newsletter will be disseminated to interested people upon request,

including visitors to the Bellefield Nature Center. Special publications on selected
topics will be developed as needs are identified. Effort will be made to print these
publications on recycled paper.

Table 8. Themes and Messages for Reserve Interpretation.

Orientation

What is the Reserve? How to Get There What to Do There Method of
Communication
Definition What are the major What can I expect
It is different access points? to see? Brochures
from or similar to Where can I park? What can' I do? Maps
a park; A Where are the Whdt are the best Press Releases
preserve? trailheads? places Newsletters
How big is it? and times?
What does in What can I.not do?
include? What other
What are its information
boundaries? is available?
Uniqueness of the
North Inlet

Living Resources

Veaetation Invertebrates and Birds and Mammals Method of
Fishes Communication

Salt marsh Species associated Waterfowl and On-site exhibits,
vegetation and with various shorebird tours
upland habitats identif ication Multi-media
communities/mud Intertidal Protected species presentations
ffats/ intertidal invertebrates Species life history Fact sheets
areas identification and special Appreciated field
How do Salt marsh insects adaptations of salt guides
communities here Estuarine fish marsh species
differ from
other salt marshes
Examples of
species adaptation
to estuarine
environment
(tolerances, etc.)

Estuarine Process

Hydroloov The $oil Environment Eneray Methoo of
Cgmmunication

What are the What are the Basic food webs Maps (i.e. relief)
water- different soil Unique aspects of Research abstracts
sheds environments? primary Computer
How does the flow Soil salinities productivity simulation
regime vary Sedimentation (detritus-algae) Curriculum
seasonally? Changes in energy materials
Annually 7 f low
Saltwater and
freshwater balance
Watershed
changes and
system 85
response

People in the Reserve

Prehistgric Cultures Recent History Human Use of the Method of
Reserve TodIt Communicatign
What evidence is
there of past Early history and The value of Lecture series
cultures depending nearby settlements multiple Curriculum
on reserve Changing land compatible materials
resources uses use (possibilitiesi Rotating exhibits
Were there in the past threats of change)
different centuries Agriculture today
cultures in the Agricultural Estuarine Research
area? Did these development in the Birding in the
change with time? estuary Reserve
Historical floods Canoeing, fishing,
and drought hunting, boating
Resources study,
photography
History of wise
use

Management of the System

The National Coordinated What Visitors Can Method of
Estuarine Researgh Management Do to Help Communication
Reserve System

Who administers Who owns the Participating in Brochures
the program? Reserve? visitor surveys and Guided Tours
What are the other What do the monitoring projects Newsle 'tters
estuarine research various public Providing Volunteer Group
reserves in the agencies do? comments on
South Atlantic? What is being done exhibits and tours
In the US? now to better Following
Why do we have manage the regulations
reserves) Reserve Letting others
Who is the (i.e. resource know about the
Reserve protection)? Reserve
Manager? What kind of Brochures
research is taking
place in the
estuary?
Why is land being
acquired?
How is everything
coordinated?

Instructional materials for teachers are also planned to complement teacher
training activities and field study programs for school classes. The Bellefield Nature
Center currently provides information to teachers participating in its field study and
outreach programs. These materials provide background information on the subjects,
pre- and post-visit activities, and lists of resource materials. Additional instructional
materials will be developed for the Nature Center and the Kimbel Center to increase
the learning experiences of teachers and students who participate in new programs
developed for the Reserve.

In addition to printed materials, audiovisual presentations will be created for use
at the Nature Center, the Kimbel Center, and in outreach programs. A video program
about the Reserve and its activities would be very beneficial in expanding public
awareness and understanding of estuaries and the value of research at the reserve
site. The program would be shown on a regular schedule to visitors of the Centers
and would also be available on a loan basis to interested schools, civic groups, or
other organizations. Slide presentations are another medium that will be developed
to further people's understanding of estuaries. The slide shows would be available
to staff members who will make presentations at meetings of interested groups.

7. Exhibils. Signs and Promotional Materials

The Bellefield Nature Center currently houses a variety of exhibits pertaining to
the history and ecology of the wildlife refuge, Hobcaw Barony, and the research
activities of the Baruch Institute of Clemson University and the University of South
Carolina. Additional interpretive displays that relate specifically to estuaries and the
goals and programs of the Reserve.will be developed at the Nature Center and Kimbel
Center. A portable exhibit about the Reserve is also planned which can be taken to
professional meetings and festivals to help promote the site to a wide spectrum of
people.

The Reserve will also be promoted through distribution of the general, brochure
described in the printed materials section. In addition, NI[WB NERR signs identifying
the Reserve and the appropriate supporting agencies will help draw public attention
to the special designation of the site. A sign will be constructed and placed near the
highway entrance to the property and other smaller. signs are planned to help identify
the Reserve from the water.

8. Program Activities and Services

Many of the education program goals will be achieved through program
activities and services provided to general audiences and specific target groups. The
Reserve's education program will build on and expand upon successful activities and
services already in place through the Belle W. Baruch Foundation's Bellefield Nature

Center and the University of South Carolina's Continuing Education Program (see
Appendix I for summary of 1990 activities). In addition, there will be a maximum
effort made for interaction with education programs at other NERR sites.

The Baruch Foundation currently provides a very popular field study program
for school groups. Thousands of students each year participate in the program and
learn about one or more of the coastal ecosystems on the property. Salt marshes are
one of the systems covered in the field study program. As funds become available
to increase staff for the field study program, more salt marsh studies can be
scheduled.

A wider selection of short courses dealing with estuaries will also be offered for
members of the public and educators. Some of the topics for future short courses
include, but are not limited to, coastal birds; fishes; life in the pluff mud; oysters and
clams, shrimps, crabs and other crusty creatures; coastal photography; historical uses
of estuaries; and coastal management. Teachers may elect to take the courses to
receive credit-towards re-certification.

Special college-credit workshops and courses for teachers are also planned to
provide teachers with information and field and classroom experiences pertaining to
estuaries and coastal zone management. These programs will be designed to provide
teachers with the information and skills needed to lead their students in studies of salt
marshes anywhere in the state without the help of an outside resource person.

Public lectures and forums that address topics and issues of current public
interest and concern will also be continued and expanded at the Reserve site. These
programs will be designed to provide factual information on various aspects of the
issues so that people can make informed decisions.

Guided tours of the property are presently conducted on a weekly basis for
interested members of the public and tours of the Reserve will be incorporated.
Information about the research and educational activities of the Reserve will also be
built-into this tour led by Nature Center employees. This information will be easy to
insert since the tour includes stops along marsh areas to be designated in the Reserve.

The education program, in addition to field studies, tours, short courses,
teacher workshops and public forgms conducted on-site, will encompass outreach
efforts into surrounding communities. The successful school "Outreach Program" of
the Belief ield Nature Center brings hands-on nature experiences into local classrooms.
This program will be expanded to include more offerings pertaining to estuaries.
Teacher information packets will be developed to enhance these programs. Reserve
scientists and other staff members will also present programs at meetings of area

organizations upon request. In addition, efforts will be made to assist outside tour
guides in the area with up-to-date information about the Reserve and the area's rich
coastal resources that they can incorporate into their guided programs.

The Nature Center does not currently have a volunteer program. Volunteer
programs will be developed to provide opportunities for interested members of the
public to interact more closely with both the education and research activities of the
Reserve. The education volunteer program will be coordinated with the Nature Center
administration and supervised by the Reserve Education Coordinator. The research
volunteer program will also be administered by the Research/ Resource Coordinator
and will be consistent with policies of the Baruch Foundation. A limited number of
volunteers (to be approved by the Baruch Foundation) will be involved in the program.
Education program volunteers will be particularly useful in greeting visitors and
answering questions at the Nature Center and Kimbel Center, thus allowing Reserve
staff members to conduct more programs in the field.

A student internship program will also be implemented, as funds become
available, in order to complement the education program. Student interns would
become involved in and assist with on-going education programs as well as the
development of printed educational materials and exhibits.

9. Public Access and Recreation

Traditional public access policies and recreational activities that pertain to the
Belle W. Baruch Foundation's property (Hobcaw Barony) included in the Reserve will
be maintained. Currently, public access to the upland portions of the property is
restricted. Authorized individuals, including researchers and students, involved in
approved projects utilizing the resources of the Reserve can enter through an
electrically controlled gate near U.S. 17. Visits by student groups, participants in
workshops and symposia, and other special groups can be arranged through formal
programs associated with The University of South Carolina or the Belle W. Baruch
Foundation. Tours of the site will be coordinated with the Nature Center of the Belle
W. Baruch Foundation. The general public can visit the Bellefield Nature Center at the
US Highway 17 entrance to Hobcaw Barony (approximately 1 mile north of
Georgetown and 8 miles south of Pawleys Island).

.89

establishment of NI/WB NERR and people are free to access these areas by water (see
section 11 A and III B for description of traditional uses). Traditional public use will be
encouraged to the extent that is consistent with Reserve goals and objectives.

10. Coordination of Education Efforts

a. Coordination with Existing Program

The Education Coordinator will interact with education. programs existing
in the public and private school systems, Coastal Zone Education Center, S.C.
Aquarium, etc. The Reserve will work with these groups and organizations in a
supporting role. Within the Reserve, the results of research will be incorporated in the
education program and potential research questions raised by the public will be
transmitted to the Research/Resource Coordinator.

A special effort will be made to coordinate educational activities with the
ACE NERR located south of Charleston, South Carolina.

b. Coordination with NERRS.

Newsletters, special events and other news at the NIfWI3 NERR will be
distributed to other NERR staff throughout the U.S. Information will be provided on
a regular basis to NOAA. The Reserve Manager and/or Education Coordinator will
communicate directly and frequently with NOAA and attend NERR Manager meetings
and the annual NERRA conference.

C. Coordination with Other Agencie3

Efforts will also be made to coordinate with other agencies, groups and
programs on educational projects. Examples of these groups include other state
agencies, Sea Grant, USFWS, NOAA/NMFS, Georgetown County Chamber of
Commerce, S.C. Marine Education Association, etc.

G. Public Access Policy

1. Policy

Public access to the Reserve will follow existing practices in that the
public has access to the North Inlet and Winyah Bay portions of the Reserve by boat,
including power boats. According to Federal and State laws, no tidal waters can be
restricted to public access. Currently, -public access to the uplands portions of the
property, including areas included in the Reserve boundaries is restricted.

2. Current and Progosed Land Us e Policy

Traditional public access policies that pertain to the Belle W. Baruch
Foundation's pro ,perty (Hobcaw Barony) included in the Reserve will be maintained,
Currently, public access to the upland portions of the property is restricted.
Authorized individuals, including researchers and students, involved in approved
projects utilizing the resources of the Reserve can enter through an electrically
controlled gate near U.S. 17. Visits by student groups, participants in workshops and
symposia, and other special groups can be arranged through formal programs
associated with The University of South Carolina or the Belle W. Baruch Foundation.
Tours of the site will be coordinated with the Nature Center of the Belle W. Baruch
Foundation. The general public can visit the Bellefield Nature Center at the US
Highway 17 entrance to Hobcaw Barony (approximately 1 mile north of Georgetown
and 8 miles south of Pawleys Isla;d).

I Current and- Proposed Wetland/Namigable Water Use Policy

Public access to the Reserve will follow existing policies in that the
public has access to the North Inlet and Winyah Bay portions of the Reserve by boat,
including power boats. According to State and Federal laws no tidal waters can be
restricted to public access. The South Carolina Coastal Council reaffirmed this policy
on public access in the Reserve in a Resolution passed on December 13, 1991
(Appendix M). Research plots, which will be studied for a finite period of time, will
be marked with signs requesting that they not be disturbed by the public.

Access by water to the wetland areas of the Reserve via tidal
waters under the jurisdiction of state and Federal agencies is permissible by boat
including power boats. Members of the public are able to carry out traditional
recreational activities in the tidal waters and marshes, but must adhere to state laws.
Thus, traditional uses such as hunting on the marshes, fishing and shellfishing will not
be infringed upon by the establishment of NI/WB NERR and people are free to access
these areas by water. Traditional public use will be encouraged to the extent that is
consistent with Reserve goals and objectives.

V. LIST OF PREPARERS

State of South Carolina
Baruch Institute, USC

Dr. Dennis M. Allen, Assistant Director
Belle W. Baruch Institute for Marine Biology and Coastal Research
Baruch Marine Field Laboratory, University of South Carolina
P.O. Box 1630
Georgetown, SC 29442

Mrs. Wendy Allen, Continuing Education Director
Beilefield Nature Center
Rt. 5, Box 1003
Georgetown., SC 29440

Dr. Michael P. Crosby, Research Assistant Professor
Belle W. Baruch Institute for Marine Biology and Coastal Research
Baruch Marine Field Laboraiory, University of South Carolina
P.O. Box 1630
Georgetown, SC 29442

Dr. F. John Vernberg, Director
Belle W. Baruch Institute for Marine Biology and Coastal Research
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208

SC Coastal Council

Mr. Steve Snyder
SC Coastal Council
4130 Faber Place, Suite 300
Charleston, SC 29405

NOAA

Mrs. Dolores Washington
Program Specialist
Sanctuaries and Reserves Division
National Ocean Service
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
NOAA
Washington, D.C. 20235

Acknowledgments: We would thank J. Blakely, K. Caulfield, P. Kenny, A. Miller, and
M. Sawyer for their assistance with the preparation of this management plan.
Members of the NI/WB NERR Advisory Committee were actively involved in the
planning and development of this document.

VI. SELECTED REFERENCES

Allen, D.M., S.E. Stancyk,, and W.K. Michener, eds. 1982. Ecology of Winyah'Bay,
SC and Potential Impacts of Energy Development. Baruch Institute Special
Publication No. 82-1. 275 pp.

Allen, D.M., WX Michener, and S.E. Stancyk, eds. 1984. Pollution Ecology of
Winyah Bay, SC: Characterization of the Estuary and Potential Impacts of
Petroleum. Baruch Institute Special Publication No. 84-1. 271 pp,

Blood, L. and F.J. Vernberg. (1992). Characterization of the physical, chemical, and
biological conditions and trends in Winyah Bay and North Inlet Estuaries:
1970-1985. In: Characterization of the physical, chemical, and biological
conditions and trends of three South Carolina estuaries. SC Sea Grant
Consortium.

Bloomer, D.R. 1973. A hydrographic investigation of Winyah Bay, South Carolina
and the adjacent waters. Masters Thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology. 57
PP.

Conservation Foundation, The. 1980. A reconnaissance of the structure and
dynamics of the Winyah Bay ecosystem. pp. 1-36, j12: The Conservation
Foundation. Winyah Bay Reconnaissance Study (Technical Supplement).
Washington, D.C.

Fox, R.S. and E.E. Ruppert. 1985. Shallow-water Marine Benthic Macroi nverte b rates
of South Carolina. Belle W. Baruch Library in Marine Science, Number 14.
University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, SC. 329 pp.

Johnson, F.A. 1970. A reconnaissance of the Winyah Bay estuarine zone, South
Carolina. S.C. Water Resources Commission. Report No. 4. 36 pp.

Johnson, F.A. 1972. A reconnaissance of the Winyah By estuarine zone, South
Carolina. S.C. Water Resources Commission. Report No. 4. 36 pp.

Mathews, T.D., F.W. Stapor, Jr., C.R. Richter, J.V. Miglarese, M.D. McKenzie, L.A.
Barclay, E.B. Joseph, and M.D. McKenzie (eds). 1980. Ecological
characterization of the Sea Island coastal region of South Carolina and Georgia.
Vol. 1: Physical features of the characterization area. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Office of Biol. Serv., Washington, D.C. FWS/OBS-79/40. 212 pp.

Ogburn, M.V., D.M. Allen, and WX Michener. 1988. Fishes, shrimps, and crabs of
the North Inlet Estuary, SC: A four-year seine and trawl 'survey. Baruch
Institute Technical Report. No. 88-1. 299 pp. University of South Carolina,
Columbia.

Pritchard, D.W. 1955. Estuarine circulation patterns. Proc. Am. Soc. Civ. Eng.
81(717):1-11.

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control. 1977. Water
classification standards system for the state of South Carolina.

South Carolina Pollution Control Authority. 1972. Stream classifications for the state
of South Carolina, Columbia, SC. 24 pp.

Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1977. An inventory of South Carolina's coastal marshes. S.C. Mar.
Res. Cent. Tech. Rep. No. 23. 33 pp.

Trawle, J.J. 1978. Georgetown Harbor, South Carolina; Report 1, hydraulic, salinity,
and shoaling verification; hydraulic model investigation. U.S. Army Engineer
District, Charleston, S.C. Miscellaneous paper H-78-6, Report I of a series.

U.S. Department Commerce. 1979. Final environmental impact statement proposed
coastal management program for the State of South Carolina.

Zingmark, R.G. ed. 1978. An Annotated Checklist of the Biota of the Coastal Zone
of South Carolina. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, SC. 364 pp.

For more information see Publications of the Belle W Baruch Institute for Marine
Biology and Coastal Research 1969 - 1989 which contains citations of 750 papers
published by Baruch Institute personnel.

9.5

APPENDIX A

Tripartite Agreement

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
AGREEMENT
COUNTY OF

THIS AGREEMENT made this 22 day of February_
1975, among THE BELLE W. BARUCH FOUNDATION (the "Foundation").

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY. and the UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

WITNESSETH:

WHEREAS, the FOUNDATION owns over 16, 000 acres of maritime

properties In Georgetown County, South Carolina, and Is a charitable organiza-

tion declared exempt from Federal income taxation by an Internal Revenue

Service ruling dated December 24, 1964. and an operating foundation by an

Internal Revenue Service ruling dated January 17. 1973.

WHEREAS, the FOUNDATION was created pursuant to the last will

and testament of Belle W. Baruch, (which will was duly admitted to probate by

the Surrogate's Court of the County of New York, State of Now York), the

pertinent provisions Of said will, (a copy of which is annexed hereto) stating as

follows:

**"To invest and reinvest the trust property, and, in perpetuity,
to collect the income therefrom, and. after paying to the Trustees
such conrumissions for the administration of the Trust -is are
allowable under the laws of the State of South Carolina. and such
other expenses of the administration of the Trust, and other proper
legitimate expenses, to use said net income for the purposes of
teaching and/or research In forestry, marine biology. and the care
and propagation of wildlife and flora and fauna in South Carolina.
in connection with colleges and/or universities in the State of
South Carolina. The college or colleges, or universities in South
Carolina. and-the teaching and research for the charitable us*$
and purposes above set forth in this Article shall be selected
from time to time by the Trustees. or a majority of those serving
at any time-:' The Trustees. in addition to all other powers given
under this Will. are authorized to pay, all or part of the expenses
of teaching and/or research in connection with any college or
colleges and/or universities in South Carolina selected by the
Trustees, which will, as a part of its research or educational
program, assist in the carrying out of the educational and
charitable Uses and purposes of this Trust***

I definitely wish the house at Hobeaw to be used as a laboratory
for the teachin and /or research in forestry and/or marine life in
connection with a college or university in the State of South Carolina.

I specifically empower my said Trustees to keep, maintain and
improve any lands or building that may be a part of the corpus
of the Trust and to make such additiosn and permanent improve-
ments to the property as will increase its productivity and its useful-
ness for the charitable purposes on this Foundation Trust.
and A-1

WHEREAS. an agreement was entered into between the FOUNDATION and

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY on November 14. 1963, designed to implement a program

developed by the FOUNDATION in conjunction with the UNIVERSITY and pursuant

to which CLEMSON UNIVERSITY has furnished professional advice to the FOUNDA-
TION with respect to the scientific management of forested lands, beach areas, and

aquatic environments, and the operation and management thereof in their us* as a

research and teaching facility-, assembled data with respect to ties* and vegetation.

and the succession and interaction of plant and wildlife po___ations; made studios

of sail types. insects and diseases; developed and implemented programs of research

on forestry; and conducted biological investigations of the FOUNDATION'S property;

and

WHEREAS, an agreement was entered into an March 22, 1972. between

the FOUNDATION and the UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA, designed to implement

a program developed by the FOUNDATION in conjunction with the UNIVERSITY and

pursuant to which the UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA has furnished professional

advice to the FOUNDATION with respect to the preservation of marsh and estuarine

areas -and the operation and management thereof to their use as a research facility;

made studies on the functioning of high salinity marshes; developed programs of

research in marine biology; and erected a laboratory for the conduct of such

research on the FOUNDATION'S property; and

WHEREAS, the FOUNDATION has reviewed with CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

and the UNIVERSITY Or SOUTH CAROLINA the desirability of a long-range joint

program directed towards the coordination of activities and procedures of the

UNIVERSITIES and FOUNDATION in inter-related spheres of Interest and pursuit

with a view to &&saying the preservation and conservation of the ecological and
environmental qualities of the FOUNDATION'S property and the preservation of its

hist: cal value as a whole; and

WHEREAS. In recognition of the Identity of the Interests of the FOUNDA-

TION and the UNIVERSITIES as state universities in the preservation and conserva-
tion in perpatuity for the benefit of the State of South Carolina and the public of the
valuable resources of the FOUNDATION'S property. the FOUNDATION has concon-

trated and is desirous of continuing to concentrate its available funds towards
A-2

this objective Ind special research and teaching projects in forestry, marine

biology and the care and propagation of wildlife and flora and fauma in the State

of South Carolina it conducts an its property; and

WHEREAS, in recognition of the value to the public of the coordination
of the activities of the FOUNDATION, and the UNIVERSITIES. and their coontinuance,
the FOUNDATION, has determined that it's purposes would be furthered by the opera-
tion, management, and use of its property as provided for in this agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual agreements con-

tained herein, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows:

1. Use of Property

Subject to the terms and conditions of this agreement, the FOUNDATION

shall from time to time with the aid and consultation of CLEMSON UNIVERSITY and

the UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA, delimeate by zones depicted on appropriate

maps the specific areas within the FOUNDATION'S properly which the UNIVERSITIES

can manage and use in conjunction with the FOUNDATION. DeLineation of these

areas may be changed or modified in accordance with Article 19 of this agreement

and in such manner as shall seem to the FOUNDATION most appropropriate for the

achievement of its goals, but such delineation shall be made only after the UNI-

VERSITIES have each had opportunity to relate to the FOUNDATION both the status

of their research activities and the nature of and extent of any increases or decreases

they may wish to seek in the scope of their activities or responsibilities. or which

may be necessitated by change of circumstances.

Subject to the terms and conditions of this agreement, and for the

purpose of conducting-a joint project with-the FOUNDATION, the FOUNDATION shall

permit CLEMSON UNIVERSITY to use and occupy in conjunction with the FOUNDATION,

the areas within the portion of the FOUNDATION'S property herein described as the

FOREST -MARINE AREA at the locations marked in green an the map of the FOUNDA-

TION'S property attached hereto as Exhibit "A. The FOUNDATION. subject to the

terms and conditions of this agreement, shall further permit CLEMSON UNIVERSITY.

to use and occupy the building on the FOREST-MARINE AREA provided for its

resident director. and the building provided on such area for its resident forester,

A- 3

and other buildings on Such area as the FOUNDATION may designate, and to use

the equipment, furniture, and other personal Property of the F0UNDA-

TION located therein or used in connection therewith provided, however, that the

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA in accordance with use plans developed by
CLEMSON UNIVERSITY in coordination with the UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA
and the FOUNDATION, shall have the right to conduct meetings, discussions, so-%-

inars, exhibitions, and other such activities at Hobcaw House, and for such purposes
also to use the equipment, furniture, furnishings and other personal property of the

FOUNDATION located therein or used In connection therewith in such manner as

shall not interfere with the effective use and maintenance thereof by CLEMSON UNI-

VERSITY. CLEMSON UNIVERSITY shall have *-'%a responsibility for initiating

the consultations necessary for development of a coordinated plan for the use of

Hobcaw House, and the UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA and the FOUNDATION

shall be responsible for making timely responses to the initiatives of CLEMSON

UNIVERSITY in this regard; and CLEMSON UNIVERSITY shall have the discretion

to receive schedule conflicts In such manner as in, s judgment shall seem most

reasonable in effecting the purposes of this agreement but in each Instance shall

coordinate its decision with the FOUNDATION.

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY. subject to the terms and conditions of this

agreement shall with the FOUNDATION use the FOREST-MARINE AREA. and shall

use and occupy the said buildings -provided for its resident director and its resident

forester, shall use and occupy Hobcaw House and other buuildings designated by the

FOUNDATION in accordance with the terms stated above and shall use the said

equipment. furniture, furnishings and other personal property of the FOUNDATION

located therein or Used in connection therewith, and shall use and OCCUPY the

portion of the boat building In MARSH-MARINE AREA now in we and occupied by

It. in accordance with the terms stated below, exclusively for the purposes
enumerated in this agreement. such use and/or occupancy to be conducted in a
manner serving and in furtherance of the FOUNDATION'S purposes &Ad Programs
to preserve and conserve the ecological and environmental qualities of Its property
(of which the FOREST-MARINE AREA forms a part) and the preservation of its

historical value.

A-4

Subject to the terms and conditions of this agreement, the FOUNDATION
shall permit the UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA to use and occupy, in conjunc-
tion with the FOUNDATION. the areas within the portion of the FOUNDATION'S

property herein described as the MARSH-MARINE AREA at the locations marked

in blue on the map of the FOUNDATION'S property attached hereto as Exhibit "A."
The UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA, in conjunction with the FOUNDATION,
shall also have the use of and shall occupy the marine biology laboratory building
and other buildings as the FOUNDATION may designate an the MARSH-MARINE AREA

and shall also use Lad occupy the beat building an the MARSH-MARINE AREA.

provided, however, that CLEMSON UNIVERSITY shall continue to have the use and

occupancy of the portion of said beat building an the MARSH-MARINE AREA which is

now in use Lad occupied by it. &Ad provided further that such use Lad occupancy Of
the boat house by CLEMSON' UNIVERSITY shall not interfere with the effective use

hereof by the UNIVERSITY 0F SOUTH CAROLINA. The UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH

CAROLINA, subject to the terms and conditions of this agreement, shall. with the

FOUNDATION, use the MARSH-MARINE AREA. Lad shall use and occupy the marine

biology laboratory building situated an such area and other buildings as the FOUNDA-

TION may designate and shall lase and occupy the boat building thereon (other than

the portion of such boat building now in use and occupied by CLEMSON UNIVERSITY1

exclusively for purposes enumerated in this agreement. such use and/or occupancy

to be conducted in a manner serving and in furtherance of the FOUNDATION'S purpose
and programs to preserve and conserve the ecological and environmental qualities

of its property (of which the MARSH-MARINE AREA forms a part) and the preserva-

tion of its historical imporance.

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY shall have, in conjunction with the FOUNDATION,
the custody and use of maintenance and safety equipment of the FOUNDATION located

an or within the FOREST-MARINE AREA or used in connection with maintenance Of

roads, buildings and equipment. CLEMSON UNIVERSITY shall also *have. In conjunc-
tion with the FOUNDATION, the use of boat landing$. docks, piers. bests and other
transportation equipment and maintenance and safety equipment of the FOUNDATION
located on or within the MARSH-MARINE AREA in connection with the performance

A-5

by it Of its obligations under this agreement in respect to roads and land areas

within the MARSH-MARINE AREA'.`

The UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA shall, in conjunction with the

FOUNDATION, have the use of boat landings, docks, piers, boats and other transpor-

tation and safety equipment of the FOUNDATION located on or within the MARSH.

-MARINE AREA in connection with the performance by it of its obligations =der

this agreement in respect to areas within the MARSH-MARINE AREA; provided,

however, that CLEMSON UNIVERSITY. in accordance with use plans developed by

the UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA. in coordination with CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

and the FOUNDATI0N. shall have the right to use the boat landings, docks, piers,

boats and other transportation equipment of the FOUNDATION located on the MARSH-

MARINE AREA in such manner and at such times as shall not interfere with the

effective use thereof by the UNIVERSITY or souTH CAROLINA. The UNIVERSITY

0F SOUTH CAROLINA shall have the responsibility for initiating the consultations

accessary for development of a coordinated plan for the use of those facilities and

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY and the FOUNDATION shall be responsible for making timely

responses to the initiatives of the UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA in this

regard, and the UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA shall have the discretion to

resolve schedule conflicts in such manner as in its judgment shall seem most

reasonable in effecting the purposes -of this agreement but in each instance shall

coordinate its decision with the FOUNDATION.

Access roads and water routes to and within the FOREST-MARINE ARE A

and the MARSH-MARINE AREA and parking sites within such areas (except parking

sites for buildings in use or occupied by the resident director and resident forester

of CLEMSON UNIVERSITY and for the marine biology laboratory building in use

and occupied by the UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA). shall be used in common

by the UNIVERSITIES and the FOUNDATION; provided. however. that CLEMSON

UNIVERSITY, in consultation with the UNIVERSITY Or SOUTH CAROLINA and the

FOUNDATION. shall have the authority to regulate traffic so as to ensure the effi-

cient maintenance of facilities and a minimum of traffic conflicts for efficient and

safe use of the properties. and the UNIVERSITY 0F SOUTH CAROLINA shall

have comparable authority and responsibility with respect to water routes-

A-6

The FOUNDATION may from time to time grant easements and other

rights to others over the FOREST -MARINE AREA and/or MARSH-MARINE AREA

and may make such additional uses of the FOREST-MARINE AREA and MARSH-

MARINE AREA as in each case shall not interfere with the effective use of the

same by the UNIVERSITIES for the purposes enumerated In this agreement. Any

such use of FOREST-MARINE AREA and/or MARSH-MARINE AREA by the FOUNDA-

TION shall be subject to safety regulations prepared by the UNIVERSITIES and

approved by the FOUNDATION as provided in Article 2 of this agreement.

The boundaries of the FOREST-MARINE AREA Lad the MARSH-MARINE

AREA, determined by the FOUNDATION in consultation with the UNIVERSITIES,

shall at all times encompass not less than the entire acreage of the FOUNDATION'S

property. Any contiguous property hereafter acquired by the FOUNDATION shall.

if the FOUNDATION in its sale discretion so determines. be added to either area

and shall be subject to the terms and conditions of this agreement. (It is recognized

that a portion of the FOUNDATION'S property is subject to the legal Life tenancy

granted to Miss Ella A. Severin by the -will of Bell* W. Baruch, and that no pro-

visions of this agreement shall in any wise affect such legal life tenancy.

2. Safety Regulations

Each UNIVERSITY shall prepare and submit for approval by the FOUNDA-

TION comprehensive safety regulations appertaining to its area(s) of responsibility.

These shall include, without being limited to, fire rules and precautions, emergency

warning systems. communication procedures. admission restrictions, permits and

identification badges. Regulations on road use.. speed limits. traffic control and

their enforcement. shall be the responsibility solely of CLEMSON UNIVERSITY.

Enforcement of safety regulations with respect to the use of water routes shall be
the responsibility solely of the UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA.

3. Protection of Property

it is recognized by the parties to this agreement that the primary value
of the FOUNDATION'S property is the availability of the diverse environmental
and ecological characteristics of the FOREST-MARINE and MARSH-MARINE AREAS,
with their wildlife populations. for the purposes of teaching and research.

A- 7

Therefore. it is essential that these physical qualities be conserved and preserved

in such a manner as to offer the widest rang* of benefits from.use of the property

for teaching and/or research in forestry and marine biology, and the care and

propagation of wildlife and flora and fauna in perpetuity. In the event any activity

shall be engaged in on the FOREST-MARINE AREA and/or MARSH-MARINE AREA

that adversely affects the teaching and research values of the FOUNDATION'S

property, the UNIVERSITIES shall take such steps as are necessary to cause the

cessation of such activity or to compel its discontinuance and to prevent its

recurrence.

UNIVERSITIES shall attempt to secure assistance and services available

from law enforcement officials of the state, local and federal governments for the

protection of the FOUNDATION'S property.

UNIVERSITIES shall cooperate with the FOUNDATION. upon its request.

in attempting to have Its properties declared a sanctuary both state and federal.

and otherwise affording to FOUNDATION'S property the protection provided by

conservation and similar laws.

4. Operations and Activities

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY, in accordance with Its past practice, shall

continue to provide professional advice to the FOUNDATION with respect to the

scientific management of the FOREST-MARINE AREA, and the operation thereof in

its use as a research facility, and, in accordance with programs and policies

heretofore and hereafter initiated and/or approved by the FOUNDATION, shall

continue, In conjunction with the FOUNDATION, to conduct research and provide

teaching in forestry and the care and propagation of wildlife. flors and fauna Within

the FOREST -MARINE AREA, as depicted aft the map attached hereto as Exhibit "A."

and to develop and implement management concepts and procedures within the

FOREST-MARINE AREA.

The UNIVERSITY Or SOUTH CAROLINA. In accordance with its

past practice, shall continue to provide professional advice to the FOUNDATION
with respect to the preservation of the MARSH-MARINE AREA and the operation

thereof in Its use as a research facility. and In accordance with programs and

A-8

policies heretofore and hereafter initiated and/or approved by FOUNDATION,

shaLL continue, in conjunction with the FOUNDATION,to conduct research and provide

teaching in marine biology and the care and propagation of wildlife, flora and fauna

within the MARSH-MARINE AREA as depicted on the map attached hereto as

Exhibit "A, and to develop and implement management concepts and procedures

within the MARSH-MARINE AREA.

All. activities conducted by the UNIVERSITIES on the FOUNDATION'S

property and all decisions of the UNIVERSITIES which involve the conservation,

preservation or use of the FOUNDATION'S property must be approved by the

FOUNDATION in advance.

After consultation with and the approval of the FOUNDATION, each.

of CLEMSON UNIVERSITY and the UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA shall:

(1) Conduct special seminars, lectures and symposia within

its field of interest for scientists and advanced students.

(ii) Engage in teaching and research programs determined
to be of value in carrying out the purposes of this agreement.

(iii) Each of CLEMSON UNIVERSITY and the UNIVERSITY

OF SOUTH CAROLINA shall provide the FOUNDATION. with progress

and completion reports on approved proposals; prepare timely technical,

administrative, and financial reports on its activities for the FOUNDA-

TION and. application of funds received from the FOUNDATION not less

frequently than annually; furnish the FOUNDATION copies of project

outlines, completed reports. and articles and other material appearing

In scientific jourcals and other publications with respect to the progress

and results of research and other activities -supported through this

agreement.

All activities of the UNIVERSITIES listed above. including all research.

teaching, etc. shall be for the purpose of preserving and conserving the ecological

and educational qualities of the FOREST-MARINE and MARSH-MARINE AREAS

for teaching and research in forestry and the care and propagation of wildlife,

flora and fauna within the FOREST-MARINE AREA and in marine biology and the care

and propagation Of Wildlife, flora and fauna within the MARSH-MARINE AREA.

A-9

5. Disbursement of Income - Contribution of Funds

After reviewing the proposals for research projects, teaching and other

activities made by the UNIVERSITIES to the FOUNDATION. and after allocating to the

UNIVERSITIES funds required for maintenance and upkeep of the FOUNDATION'S
property, the FOUNDATION shall determine which portion of its income for the year

will be used to support such research, teaching and other activities of the two uni-

VERSITIES and will notify the UNIVERSITIES as to the funds available to them.

The FOUNDATION shall make no distribution of income for teaching or

research purposes during the term of this agreement which are independent of the

teaching and research programs of the UNIVERSITIES conducted in conjunction with

the FOUNDATION.

6. Maintenance, Repairs and Taxes

Except as otherwise provided herein, CLEMSON UNIVERSITY shall keep

and maintain in good order Lad repair and in safe condition all buildings, roads. vehicle

entries, drives and parking areas, boat landings, docks, piers, boats and other trans-

portation equipment and maintenance equipment of the FOUNDATION. The costs of

maintaining aforementioned buildings, roads, capital improvements; costs of mainte-

nance, repair. and replacement of service vehicles used jointly by all parties or for

general maintenance of the property; and costs of taxes, shall be paid by the FOUNDA-

TION. CLEMSON UNIVERSITY. in consultation with the UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH

CAROLINA and the FOUNDATION, shall prepare and submit to the FOUNDATION prior

to the beginning of each fiscal year a budget estimate of the costs for the forthcoming

year for the expenditures defined in this Article.

rho UNIVERSITY Or SOUTH CAROLINA shall, except as otherwise re-

quired by this Article of CLEMSON UNIVERSITy, keep and maintain the Interior &roes

of the marine biology laboratory building In use and occupied by it In the MARSH-

MARINE AREA. and the Fixtures and appurtenances thereto. and any equipment or

other personal property of the FOUNDATION located therein or used In connection
therewith In good order and repair and In safe and clean condition and shall further
keep and maintain in good order and safe condition. Ire* from obstruction. the entry.

drive. and parking areas at the building.

7. Alterations and Improvements
Recognizing that future building and expansion may be necessary to
carry out effectively the purposes of the UNIVERSITIES and the FOUNDATION.
neither UNIVERSITY shall make any alterations, installations. additions at
A-10

improvements on. in or to FOREST-MARINE AREA and MARSH-MARINE AREA,

including any buildings, structures or improvements now or hereafter erected

thereon, and the fixtures and apportenances thereto. without the FOUNDATION'S

prior written consent, nor shall either UNIVERSITY demolish any part thereof

or remove any equipment, furniture, furnishings or other personal property of

ON
the FOUNDATION, Without the FOUNDATION's prior written consent.

All buildings, structures and improvements now or hereafter arected

on FOREST -MARINE AREA and MARSH-MARINE AREA, and the and the fixtures and

appurtenances thereto, shall be part of the realty and freehold, and shall not be

removed by either UNIVERSITY, without the prior writen consent of the FOUNDATION

(The movable scientific, research. office and other equipment and the movable

furniture and furnishings of each UNIVERSITY, however, shall remain its property

at all times and may be removed prior to or at the expiration of the term hereof.

Any damage to the FOUNDATION'S property in the course of such removal by either

UNIVERSITY of its movable property shall be repaired by the UNIVERSITY con-

cerned at its sole expense and cost. Maintenance, repair. transportation and safety

equipment purchased by or through either UNIVERSITY with funds provided by the

FOUNDATION and at the FOUNDATION'S specific request or with its approval. shall

be deemed property of the FOUNDATION)

Neither UNIVERSITY shall have any power to do any act or make any

contract which may create or bind the FOUNDATION for any lion, mortgage or

other encumbrance upon FOREST -MARINE AREA and/or MARSH-MARINE AREA.

or upon any part thereof or upon the estate of FOUNDATION therein.

3. Utilities and Services

,Each UNIVERSITY shall pay or cause to be paid an charges for utilities

and services (including but without being limited to heat. electric current or power,

pump and well. septic tank, telephone and refuse removal). furnished to the
occupants of any building, structure or improvement exclusively occupied by It. and

the FOUNDATION shall not supply or be responsible or liable for any such utilities

or services.

A-11

9. Laws: and orders

The UNIVERSITIES, and each of them, shall promptly observe and

comply with all present or future laws ordinances, orders. rules, requirements,

and regulations of each and every governmental and lawful authority having

Jurisdiction over all or any part of FOREST-MARINE AREA and/or MARSH-MARINE

AREA, and of the Fire Department, Board of Fire Underwrigers and/or similar

body exercising functions over the same, and of all Insurance companies writing

policies covering the same or any part 'hereof.

10. Fire

In Case Of fire and damage caused thereby to any building, structure

or improvement the FOUNDATION (except as herein otherwise provided) shall

repair the same, or the part thereof damaged, with reasonable diligence. Due

allowance shall be made, however, for any delay which may be caused in. connection

with the adjustment of fire insurance or by reason of governmental regulations,

accordents or other causes beyond the FOUNDATION'S control. If the damage or

destruction shall affect the whole of FOREST-MARINE AREA and/or MARSH-MARINE

AREA or shall in the sole judgement of the UNIVERSITY concerned be deemed so

extensive that the UNIVERSITY, concerned cannot reasonably continue the conduct

of its activities thereon, then this agreement and the term hereof shall cease and

terminate as to such UNIVERSITY upon the date of such damage or destruction; if.

however, Only a part of FOREST-MARINE AREA and/or MARSH-MARINE AREA shall

be so damaged or destroyed as to be rendered unusable, and the part not so affected

shall be sufficient to permit the UNIVERSITY concerned reasonably to continue

the conduct of Its activities, or it any building or improvement shall be to damaged

or destroyed that the FOUNDATION shall decide not to repair or shall decide to

demolish the same, thou in either such event, such UNIVERSITY May elect to
terminate this agreement by giving FOUNDATION notice of such Intention. In which

case this agreement shall terminate as to such UNIVERSITY upon the expiration

of the time fixed in such notice. or if the UNIVERSITY concerned shall not elect

A- 12

-13 -

to so terminate this agreement, this agreement shall continue in full force and

effect as to the part of the area concerned remaining usable by such UNIVERSITY.

11. Condemnation or Taking

if during the term of this agreement, the whole of FOREST-MARINE

AREA and/or MARSH-MARINE AREA Shall be taken for any public or quasi-public
use -der any statute, by right of eminent domain or if a part. thereof shall. be

so taken and the part not so taken is insufficent, in the sole judgement of the

UNIVERSITY concerned, for the reasonable continuance of its activities thereon,

then in such event this agreement and the term hereof shall Cease and terminate

as to such UNIVERSITY on the date when possession 'by eminent domain shall be

taken. If only part of FOREST-MARINE AREA and/or MARSH-MARINE AREA

shall 'be SO taken and the Part not so taken shall be sufficient for the reasonable

continuance of activities thereon by the UNIVERSITY concerned, then such

UNIVERSITY may nevertheless elect to terminate this agreement by giving the

FOUNDATION notice Of such intention, in which case this agreement shall terminate

as to such UNIVERSITY upon the expiration of the time fixed in such notice; or if

the UNIVERSITY concerned shall not elect. to so terminate this agreement, this

agreement shall continue in full force and effect as to such. UNIVERSITY and as to the

part of FOREST-MARINE AREA and/or MARSH-MARINE AREA without affecting

such UNIVERSITY'S obligations and privileges under this agreement.

In no event shall the UNIVERSITIES or either of them have any claim

against the FOUNDATION by reason of any taking by eminent domain as aforesaid

of FOREST-MARINE AREA and/or MARSH-MARINE AREA Or any part thereof, nor

shall the UNIVERSITIES or either of them have any claim to the amount Of any
portion thereof that may be awarded as damages or paid as a result of such taking;
provided, however, that each UNIVERSITY shall be entitled to receive any Part
of such damages which is reasonably attributable to the interruption of research or
teaching projects in existence, or for which start-up costs have been incurred. Subject
to this proviso. each UNIVERSITY hereby assigns to the FOUNDATION any and all other
rights or interests of such UNIVERSITY in and to any and all amounts awarded or

paid by reason or as a result of such taking.

A- 13

14 -

12. Termination

(a) This agreement may be terminated by mutual agreement among

the parties hereto, or as to either UNIVERSITY. by agreement between such

UNIVERSITY and the FOUNDATION.

(b)In the event of any failure by the FOUNDATION to perform Any of

its obligations under this agreement which failure shall continue uncorrected for a

period of twenty (20) days after notice thereof and which shall not be caused. directly

or indirectly, by governmental regulations, accidents or causes beyond the

TION'S control either UNIVERSITY may elect to terminate this agreement by giving

the FOUNDATION notice of such intention, and upon the expiration of the time fixed

in such notice, this agreement shall cease and terminate as to such UNIVERSITY
(c) THe FOUNDATION may upon five (5) days notice to the UNIVERSITY

concerned terminate this agreement and the term hereof as to such UNIVERSITY

upon or at any time after the happening of one or more of the following events;

Failure by such UNIVERSITY to perform any of its
obligations under Article I hereof, under Article 3
hereof, under Article 4 hereof, under Article 5 hereof,
under Article 6 hereof, under article 8 hereof. under
Article 9 hereof, and under classes (a) and (b) of
Article 16 hereof, which failure and its effects shall
continue uncorrected for a period of twenty (20) days
after the FOUNDATION shall have given such UNI-
VERSITY notice thereof: provided that if such failure
and its effects cannot with due diligence be corrected
within twenty (ZO) days after such notice and if such
UNIVERSITY shall promptly commence and shall
thereafter diligently proceed to take all action reasonably
required to correct the same, then such period shall be
extended to forty (40) days.'

(d) In case of the termination of this agreement as to only one UNI-

VERSITY, the rights and obligations of such UNIVERSITY under this agreement.

(in respect to the use or occupancy of property, the payment of funds and otherwise)
shall became those of the other UNIVERSITY if accepted by the other UNIVERSITY.

(e) Upon the effective date of the termination of this agreement.
whether by the FOUNDATION and/or the UNIVERSITIES or either of them. or by

reason of extensive damage or destruction by fire. or upon the expiration of the
term of this agreement. the UNIVERSITY concerned shall have the right to terminate
long-term research projects in a reasonable period of time but shall immediately
cease all short-term research and terminate its occupancy of FOREST-MARINE AREA

and/or MARSH-MARINE AREA and of every building, structure, and improvement

A- 14

thereon, and its use of equipment, furniture,furnishings, and other personal

property of the FOUNDATION, and shall at its sole expense and cost, promptly

remove from the FOREST-MARINE AREA and/or MARSH-MARINE AREA all

movable equipment and furniture and furnishings put in by it at its sole expense and

cost and repair any and all damage done to the FOREST-MARINE AREA and/or

MARSH-MARINE AREA by reason of such removal; however, the UNIVERSITY

concerned shall retain the right to re-enter the property solely fOr the purposes

of completing the orderly termination of long-ter research projects, providing

it notifies the FOUNDATION, prior to entry and specifies. the length of time and area

in which it will be conducting necessary tasks. Also, the. UNIVERSITY concerned

shall have the right to publish all data collected at the time of termination and

any additional data collected in the process of orderly terminating long-term

research.

13. Consultation

The UNIVERSITIES shall consult with the FOUNDATION with respect

to the use of FOREST -MARINE AREA and MARSH-MARINE AREA. and shall

keep the FOUNDATION advised of their respective activities thereon and such

matters as may reasonably be expected to affect the interests of the FOUNDATION.

Either of the UNIVERSITIES shall have the right to release general information

to the public concerning their research and educational programs on FOUNDATION

property to scientific and lay -publications and to advertise for legitimate purposes
so long as such information does not contain opinions or statements concerning the

policy or the operations of the FOUNDATION or contain information which would

in any way impair or threaten to impair the value of the FOUNDATION'S properties,

or which would in any way jeopardize or threaten to jeopardize the FOUNDATION'S

status as an operating 'foundation described in Section 4942 or as an organization

exempt from Federal Income Taxation under section 501(c) (3) of the internal

Revenue Code of 1954. or any succu_sur to said section. Any release of material

A- 15

either printed, written, or Oral by the UNIVERSITIES which contains information

that relates to the polocies of the FOUNDATION or might. be detrimental to the

FOUNDATION as described within this Article must have written approval by the

FOUNDATION before such information can be released. If either UNIVERSITY fails

to adhere to the policy of advertising and publicity described in this Article, the

FOUNDATION, at its discretion, may terminate the agreement with the UNIVERSITY

concerned according to Article 12 hereof.

14. General Restrictions

The UNIVERSITIES and each of them shall not use FOREST-MARINE

AREA and/or MARSH-MARINE AREA for any purpose, or permit any condition

or activity thereof: (a) which has not been authorized by this agreement in accordante
with its terms and approved by the FOUNDATION (b) which is prohibited under

any applicable law, ordinance, order, rule, or requirement or regulation of any

governmental or lawful authority having jurisdiction over. or similar body exercising

functions over the FOUNDATION or UNIVERSITIES, (c) which is detrimental to the

interests of the the FOUNDATION (d) which interferes or conflicts with any purpose

of the FOUNDATION, or (a) which interferes with the value of the FOUNDATION'S

property as a whole. The existence of detriment referred to in (c) of this Article

and the existence of interference or conflict to in (d) and (a) of this

Article shall be determined solely by the FOUNDATION.

Moreover.

(i) No part of the property-or any use thereof or
of any funds received or payable wider this agreement
shall Inure or be payable to any private shareholder
or individual or otherwise to or for any purpose which is
not an exempt purpose within the meaning of Section SOL
(c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. as now in
fares or hereafter amended, Lad which is further not
exclusively 4within the scope of the exempt purposes. of
the FOUNDATION as an organization described in said
section.
(ii) No part of the property or the use thereof or
any funds. materials or services contributed by the
FOUNDATION. under this agreement shall be used
directly or indirectly for the carrying on of propaganda
or Otherwise attempting to influence legislation Or to
influence the outcome of any specific public election, or for
any partisan political activity or to further the election Or
defeat of any candidate for public or political party office.

A- 16

-17 -

or otherwise for the participation in or intervention (including
publishing or distributing of statements) in any political
campaign an behalf of any candidate for public office.

(iii) No person in the United States shall. an the ground
of race. creed. sex, color, or national origin. be excluded
from participation in, be denied any benefits of. or be subject
to discrimination in the performance of this agreement.

(iv) There shall be no religious worship, instruction or
proselytization as part of or in connection with the performance
of this agreement.

15. No Assignment'

Neither UNIVERSITY shall assign. mortgage or encumber any interest

herein granted without the prior written consent of the FOUNDATION in each

instance.

16. Governing Law

This agreement shall be governed by and construed In accordance

with the laws of the State of South Carolina which are applicable to the FOUNDATION'S

rec property situated In such state. It is understood. however. that the Trustees

of the FOUNDATION are subject to the jurisdiction of the Surrogate's Court of

the County of New York, and that this agreement is subject to approval by such

Court should the Trustees of the FOUNDATION determine at any time that such

approval should be obtained.

17. Term of Agreement

The term hereof shall commence an February 22 1975 and

shall continue for a period of twenty-five (25) years and end on February 22
2000
V9 unless sooner terminated as provided in this agreement.

13. Rulings and Determinations

If any party hereto shall determine at any time to seek a ruling or

other determination by the internal Revenue Service or by any court, governmental

or lawful authority with respect to the effect of this agreement or of the perform-

ance of any obligation imposed by this agreement upon the tax liability or tax

exempt status of such party. notice of such intention shall be given to each other
party hereto and each such other party at its solo expense and cost. shall cooperate

with and shall assist the party seeking such ruling or determination, such cooperation

and _________ to include. without limitation, assistance in the preperation of any

statement, description or portion thereof which sahll be deemed necessary by the

A-1 7

-18-

party seeking such ruling or determination and which shall deal with the activities of each other party hereto or any other matter of which each such party shall have special knowledge.

19. Changes in Agreement

This agreement contains the entire agreement between the parties
hereto with respect to the subject matter hereof. Accordingly, the prior agreements between the FOUNDATION and CLEMSON UNIVERSITY, and the FOUNDATION and the UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA of November 14, 1968 and March 22, 1972, respectively, will terminate and cease to be in effect and be replaced by this agreement as of the effective date hereof. Neither this agreement nor any provision hereof may be changed, amended, mofidifed, waived, discharged or terminated except by an instrument in writing signed by the parties hereto.

If as a result of any tax ruling, determination, or advice issued to
or obtained by the FOUNDATION, from the Internal Revenue Service or any judicial determination obtained by the FOUNDATION, this agreement or any provision hereof shall in the opinion of counsel for the FOUNDATION require modification in order to conform to such ruling or determination, the parties hereto agree to enter into and execute such modifications for such purpose. In the event that counsel for both UNIVERSITIES shall disagree with counsel for the FOUNDATION as to the need for, or the terms of, or the extent of any modification of the agreement, the parties shall submit the matter to the Attorney General of South Carolina for his opinion, which opinion shall be binding upon the parties.

20. (a) No delay or omission by any party heeto to exercise any
right or power accruing upon any noncompliance or default by any other party with respect to any of the terms hereof shall impair any such right or power or be construed to be a waiver thereof. No waiver by any party hereto of any of the covenants and agreements hereof to be performed by any other party shall be construed to be a waiver of a succeeding default or breach thereof or of any other covenants or agreements herein contained.

(b) No termination of this agreement shall discharge, release
or in any way affect any liability or obligation of any party hereto which shall have

A-18

-19-

accrued or which may accrue, in whole or in part, by reason of any such termination or of any matter which shall have occurred prior to such termination.

(c) This agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit of the
parties hereto and their respective successors and, except as otherwise provided herein, their assigns.

(d) Headings or captions are for purposes of convenience in
references only and shall not limit, describe or otherwise affect any of the terms hereof.

(e) Addresses:

THE BELLE W. BARUCH FOUNDATION
Bellefield Plantation
Georgetown, South Carolina 29440

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY
Clemson, South Caroina 29631

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Columbia, South Caroina 29208

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this agreement has been duly executed as of
the day and year first above mentioned in the State of South Carolina.

THE BELLE W. BARUCH FOUNDATION

/s/ Ella A. Severin
Trustee

Trustee

/s/ H.M. Arthur
Trustee

/s/ Leonard T. Scully
Trustee

/s/ E. Craig Well, Sr.
Trustee

Trustee

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

By: /s/ Robert C. Edwards
President

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA

By: /s/ William H. Patterson
President

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA

By: /s/ Daniel R. McLeod

A-19

Memorandum of Understanding
between
The Belle W. Baruch Foundation
Clemson Universtiy
The University of South Carolina

The Trustees of the Belle W. Baruch Foundation, the President of
Clemson University, and the President of the University of South Carolina have on February 22, 1975 signed an Agreement establishing a tripartite working relationship among the two Universities and the Foundation toward joint efforts in teaching and research in Forestry, Marine Biology, and the care and propagation of wildlife, flora and fauna of South Carolina.

When the agreement was signed, certain operational procedures
were left to be arranged under a separate Memorandum of Understanding. Therefore, it is understood and agreed that:

Receipts from FOREST-MARINE AREA

The proceeds from harvesting operations within the FOREST-MARINE
AREA shall be allocated by the FOUNDATION to CLEMSON UNIVERSITY to be
used for scientific management of the FOREST-MARINE AREA.

Receipts from the MARSH-MARINE AREA

The proceeds of harvesting operations in the MARSH-MARINE AREA
shall be allocated by the FOUNDATION to the UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CARO-
LINA to be used for specific management of the MARSH-MARINE AREA.

Notification and Request for State Funding

On July first of each year, the FOUNDATION will notify each UNI-
VERSITY of the amount of funds it estimates will be distributed from its net income to each UNIVERSITY for the fiscal year beginning on the following July first. This will enable each UNIVERSITY to include in its normal budgetary submission to the General Assembly a request for such additional funds as are considered necessary for carrying out its programs. The FOUNDATION wil be notified by the UNIVERSITIES of the amount of state support granted by the legislature as soon as the General Appropriation Bill passes each year.

Thousand-Acre Marsh

In the area known as a Thousand-Acre Marsh, neither UNVIERSITY shall
inititate projects within the marsh directly affecting the marsh or adjacent forest areas without prior written concurrence of the other UNIVERSITY.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Understanding has been duly executed
as of the 18th day of July, 1975.

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY
By:
President

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA
By:
President

THE BELLE W. BARUCH FOUNDATION
By:

A-20

The Belle W. Baruch Foundation

!@4

-Af

etc&"

'46

polio 4,4!,

off W
so"
Iftft

N14141

Fa,ess-Marin* 3,

Marsh Morin#
&now

IN
on on no

Figure 5. Property of Belle W. Baruch Foundation. The Marsh-Marine
Area is managed by the Baruch Institutev USC and is part
of the NI/WB NERR.- The-Forest-Marine Area is managed by
Clemson Unive@sityt-

A-21
The Belle W. I

APPENDIX B

Memoranda of Understanding

APPENDIX B

Memorandum of Understanding
Between
The State of South Carolina
and
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Concerning the
Establishment and Administration
of the North Inlet-Winyah Bay
National Estuarine Research Reserve

WHEREAS/ the State of South Carolina has determined that the waters and related
coastal habitats of North Inlet and a portion of Winyah Say provide unique opportunities to
study natural and human processes occurring within estuarine ecosystems; and

WHEREAS, it is the finding of the State of South Carolina that the resources of North
Inlet and portions of Winyah Bay and the values they represent to the citizens of South
Carolina and the United States will benefit from the management of North Irdet/Winyah Bay
as part of the National Estuarine Research Reserve System; and

WHEREAS., the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S.
Department of Commerce has concurred with that finding and pursuant to its authority
under Section 315 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, (CZMA), 16
U.S.C. 1461 and in accordance with implementing regulations at 15 CFR 921.30, may
designate North Inlet/Winyah Bay as a National Estuarine Research Reserve System in South
Carolina; and

WHEREAS, the South Carolina Coastal Council (Council) is the Governor's designee
under Section 315 of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act and the recipient state entity
in matters concerning all programs and finarwial awards authorized under the CZMA and
the implementing regulations, and is responsible for ensuring compliance with the rules and
regulations of such law in South Carolina as authorized in the South Carolina Coastal'Zone
Management Program (Section 48-39-50 (B), Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1976, as
amended); and

WHEREAS, the Belle W. Baruch Institute for Marine Biology and Coastal Research,
University of South Carolina (Institute) is the agency designated by the South Carolina
Coastal Council in the North Wet/Winyah Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve System
Management Plan (Management Plan) as being responsible for managing the North
Inlet/Winyah Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve System in South Carolina and
acknowledges the need and requirement for continuing State-Federal cooperation in the long-
term management of the site in a manner consistent with the purposes sought through its
designation.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein it is
agreed by and between the State of South Carolina and NOAA, effective on the date of the
designation of North Inlet and portion of Winyah Bay as the North Inlet/Winyah Bay
National Estuarine Research Reserve as follows:

B-1

ARTICLE 1: STATE-FEDERAL ROLES IN RESERVE MANAGEMENT

A. The Council, serving as the grants award office for the State of South Carolina under
Section 315 of the CZMA, and responsible for compliance with the rules and
regulations of the South Carolina Coastal Zone Management Program, shall:-

1. In cooperation with the Institute, apply for such funds authorized under
Section 315 of the C22v1A for acquisition, development, operation and
management, research, monitoring, and education in accordance with the
Management Plan and annual work plan. The funds received by the Council
for these purposes, with the exception of acquisition, shall be contracted to the
Ir-Lstitute for Management Plan implementation with the exception of an
amount not to exceed ten (10) percent of basic operating funds to be retained
by the Coundl for administrative and enforcement costs as documented in'the
annual work plan. Land acquisition in the event of boundary expansion, will
be handled by the Council with no'administrative costs and all lands and
properties will be deeded directly to the Institute, University of,South
Carolina.

2. Ensure the Management Plan and annual work plan are consis tent with the
South Carolina Coastal Zone Management Program
3. Provide increased surveillance and monitoring to ensure @rotection of the
Reserve and enforcement of* the rules and regulations of fhe South Carolina
Coastal Zone Management Program.

B. The Institute, serving as the managing agency for the Council to implement the
Management Plan, shall be the principal contact with. NOAA for the State of South
Carolina in all matters concerning the Reserve, with the exception of fiscal awards,
and will serve to ensure that the Reserve is managed in a manner consistent with the
goals of the National Estuarine Research Reserve System and the management
objectives of the Management Plan. The InstitutVs responsibilities for the
Management Plan implementation will Include the following;

1. Effect and maintain a process for coordinating and facilitating the roles and
responsibilities of all local, state, and federal agencies involved in the
management of the Reserve, including but not Urnited to:
a. Enforcement programs regulating water quality, fish and wildlife
habitat protection, sport and commercial fisheries, and non-
consumptive recreational activities,
b. The on-site@administration of facilities, programs, and tasks related to.
Reserve management;
C. Activities and program conducted pursuant to the State's Federally-
approved coastal zone management program; and

B-2

d. Research and educational agenda developed and implemented in
accordance with corresponding elements of the Management Plan;

e. Subject to appropriation, provide support for three positions (including
the Reserve Manager, Research/ Resource Coordinator and Education
Coordinator) within five years.

f. Seek State and other funding for operations, management, and
development of the Reserve, and for acquisition in the event of
boundry expansion; and

9. Seek State and other funding for research, monitoring, and education
programs at the Reserve.

2. In cooperation with the Council, prepare and submit to NOAA for approval an
operational strategy which in coordination with the Management Plan
describes how the State of South Carolina intends to meet its long-term
commitment to the management of the Reserve. The strategy, at a minimum,
will describe the following:

a. Specific mediation procedures and resolution mechanisms, developed
jointly with the Sanctuaries and Reserves Division (SRD) of NOAA, for
reaching mutually acceptable solutions for correcting or avoiding
conflicts requiring action under the CZMA and regulation;

b. The procedures developed in accordance with SRD guidelines and
proposed by the State as a means for prescribing contingency responses
to emergency conditions that exceed routine Management Plan
implementation; and
C. The Management PlaWs continuing functioning as a vehicle for cam
fing
out the mission of the national program, i.e., W how the State intends
to coordinate Reserve management with its coastal resource
management decision-making process; 40 the anticipated work
program, priorities, and sources of funding for ensuring the continued
maintenance of the Reserve, and (iii) the means relied upon by the State
to assure NOAA that real property acquired with Federal Funds for the
purposes of the Reserve will continue to be used in a manner consistent
with 15 CFR 921;
3. Serve as principal.. negotiator on issues involving proposed boundary changes
and/or amendments to the Management Plan;
4. Submit periodic reports and an annual report .as required to the Council and
NOAA on the Reserve describing the program and fiscal performance in
Management Plan implementation in accordance with 15 CFR 921.40(e), and a
detailed work program for the following year of operations, including budget
projections and research efforts;

B-3

5. Respond to NOAA's requests for information and to requests to evaluate
findings made pursuant to Section 312 of the CZN4A; and
6. In the event that it should become necessary, based on findings of deficiency,
serve as the point-of-contact in conjunction with the Council for the State of
South Carolina in actions involving the possible withdrawal of Reserve
designation, as provided at 15 CFR 921.41 and 15 CFR 921.42.

C. The Sanctuaries and Reserves Division (SRD), Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource
Management (OCRM), wW serve to administer the provisions of Section 315 of the
CZMA to ensure that the Reserve is managed in accordance with the goals of the
National Estuarine Research Reserve System and the Management Plan. In carrying
out its responsibilities, SRD will:

1. Subject to appropriation, provide financial assistance to the Council, consistent
with 15 CFR 921 for acquisition, development, management and operation of
the Reserve;

2. Subject to appropriation, provide financial assistance to the state on a
competitive basis for research, monitoring and education programs at the
Reserve;

3. Serve as the point-of-contact for NOAA in discussions regarding applications
for any financial assistance received by the State under Section 315 of the
CZMA, including any and all performance standards, compliance schedules, or
Special Award Conditions deemed appropriate by NOAA to ensure the timely
and proper execution of the proposed work prograrn;

4. Participate in periodic evaluations scheduled by OCRM in accordance with
Section 312 of the CZMA to measure the States performance in Management
Plan implementation and its compliance with the terms and conditions
pre' % -ibed in financial assistance awards granted by NOAA for the purposes
of t. 1, Reserve and advise appropriate OCRM staff of e)dsting or emerging
Lssues which might affect the State's coastal zone management program; and

S. Establish an information exchange network cataloging all available research
data and educational material developed on each site included within the
National Estuarine Research Reserve System

ARTICLE 11: REAL PROPERTY ACOUIRED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE RESERVE

The State of South Carolina agrees to the conditions set forth at 15 CFR
921-21(e) which specify the legal documentation requirements concerning
-the use and disposition of real property acquired for Reserve purposes-
with Federal funds under Section 315 of the CZMA.

ARTICLE- M.- PROGRAM EVALUATION

A. OCRM will schedule periodic evaluations of the State's and Institute's
performance in meeting the conditions of such awards, progress in

B-4

implementing the Management Plan, and meeting the provisions of this MOU. Where
findings of deficiency occur, NOAA may initiate action in accordance with the
designation withdrawal procedures established at 15 CFR 921.41 and 921.42.

B. OCRM will continue to evaluate, pursuant to Section 312 of the CZMA and the
corresponding provisions of 15 CFR 921, the Institute's and the Council's performance
in implementing the Management Plan and developing strategy committing the State
and the Institute in the long-term management of the North Inlet/Winyah Bay
Reserve. Where findings of deficiency occur, NOAA may initiate action in accordance
with designation withdrawal procedures established at 15 CFR 921-42.

IN W1TNESS, THEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Memorandum to be executed.

Trudy Coxe H. Wayne Beam, PhD
Director Executive Director
Office of Ocean and Coastal South Carolina Coastal Council
Resource Management
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
U.S. Department of Commerce

Date Date

Bill Harrigan (1/ William
Acting Chief Chairman
Sanctuaries and Reserves Division South Carolina Coastal Council
Office of Ocean and Coastal
Resource Management
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
U.S. Department of Commerce
-@-l cz@
Date Date

B-5

Ardis M. Savory
Associate Vice Provost
Office of Sponsored
Programs and Research
University of South Carolina

Date

F. jc6n Vernber& PhD
Director
Baruch Institute
University of South Carolina
It

Dat
A/
Jo4k Palms, PhT'j
Witness President
University of South Carolina
Date Date

APPENDIX C

National Estuarine Research Reserve Program Regulations

Monday
4uly 23, 1390

Ran 11

Popartment of
Cbmmerce

-wW Atmospheric'
44adwal Oceanic
AftWistration

15 CFR.Pwt 921
jNat=W Utuafte eserveftesearch
Reauku"M hftdm
ffide

,IF

29940 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 141 / Monday, July 23, 1990/ Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration

15 CFR Part 921

(Docket No. 70874-0133)

National Estuarine Reserve Research
System Program Regulations

AGENCY: Office of Ocean and Coastal
Resource Management (OCRM),
National Ocean Service (NCS), National
Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), Department of
Commerce.

ACTION: Interim final rule.

SUMMARY: The regulations revise
existing rules for national estuarine
reserves in accordance with the Coastal
Zone Management Reauthorization Act
of 1985 (title IV, subtitle D. Pub. L. 99-
272) and recommendations contained in
the U.S. Department of Commerce.
Office of Inspector General Report No.
F0726-5-010. "Opportunities to
Strengthen the Administration of the
Estuarine Sanctuary Program." Effective
with the signing of Public Law 99-272 on
April 7, 1966, the name of the Estuarine
Sanctuary Program changed to the
National Estuarine Reserve Research
System Program: estuarine sanctuary
sites are now referred to as national
estuarine research reserves. These
regulations revise the process for
designation of research reserves.
Greater emphasis is placed on the use of
reserves to address national estuarine
research and management issues, and to
make maximum use of the System for
research purposes through coordination
with NOAA and other Federal and state
agencies which are sponsoring estuarine
research. Additional emphasis is also
given to providing financial assistance
to states to enhance public awareness
and understanding of estuarine areas by
providing opportunities for public
education and interpretation. The
regulations provide new guidance for
delineating reserve boundaries and new
procedures for arriving at the most
effective and least costly approach to
acquisition of land. Clarifications in the
total amount of financial assistance
authorized for each national estuarine
reserve, and criteria for withdrawing the
designation of a reserve, have als o been
added.

DATES: Effective Date: These interim
final regulations are effective JUly 23,
1990.

Comments: Comments are invited and
will be considered if submitted on or
before September 21, 1990.

ADDRESSES: Mr. Joseph A. Uravitch,
Chief: Marine and Estuarine
Management Division: Office of Ocean
and Coastal Resource Management.
NOS/NOAA: 1825 Connecticut Avenue
NW Suite 714, Washington, DC 20235,
(202) 673-5126.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Joseph A. Uravitch, (202) 673-5126.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Authority
This notice of interim final rulemaking
is issued under the authority of section
315(a) of the Coastal Zone Management
Act of 1972 as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1461
(the Act). The National Estuarine
Reserve Research System has been
operating under regulations published
JUne 27, 1984 (49 FR 26310).

II. General Background

On October 28, 1968 (53 FR 43816)
NOAA published proposed regulations
for continued implementation of the
National Estuarine Reserve Research
System (NERRS) Program pursuant to
section 315 of the Act, 16 U.S.C. 1461.
Written comments were accepted until
December 30, 1988. These comments
have been considered in preparing these
final reglations. A summary of the
significant changes to the proposed
regulations is presented below.

These interim final regulations
establish the Program's mission and
goals and revise procedures for
selecting, designating and operating
national estuarine research reserves.

III. Changing the Name and Emphasis of
the Program

The 1965 Coastal Zone Management
Act and its amendments established the
National Estuarine Reserve Research
System (System). The System consists of
(1) each estuarine sanctuary designated
prior to April 7, 1966 which is the date of
enactment of the Coastal Zone
Management Reauthorization Act of
1965, and (2) each estuarine area
designed after the Act. The term
estuarine sanctuary no longer appears in
regulations; the term research reserve or
reserve appears in its place.

The Mission Statement for the System
is much the same as for the National
Estuarine Sanctuary Program which
existed prior to the 1965 amendements.
However, the goals for the National
Estuarine Reserve Research System
stress the use of reserve sites for
promotion and coordination of estuarine
research on a national level as the
highest priority and reason for
establishing the System. The protection
and management of estuarine areas and
resources are clearly intended to

support the research mission not as
ends in themselves. Consultation by the
Secretary with other Federal and state
agencies to promote use of one or more
reserves within the System by such
agencies when conducting estuarine
research is also a clearly defined goal of
the System. The regulations also
emphasize the use of a reserve's natural
resources and ecology to enchance public
awareness and understanding of
estuarine areas, and to provide suitable
opportunities for public education and
interpretation. This education goal has
been elevated to become one of the
essential criteria for designation of a
reserve.

IV. Revision of the Procedures for
Selecting, Designating and Operating
National Estuarine Research Reserves

(A) Revision of Designation Criteria.
The Coastal Zone Management
Reauthorization Act of 1965 established,
for the first time, statutory criteria for
designating an area as a national
estuarine research reserve. An area may
be designated by the Secretary of
Commerce as a national estuarine
reserach reserve if:

(1) the Governor of the coastal state in
which the area is located nominates the area
for that designation; and

(2) the Secretary finds that:

(A) the area is a representative estuarine
acosystem that is suitable for long-term
reserach and contributes to the
biogeographical and typological balance of
the System:

(B) the law of the coastal State provides
long-term protection for reserve resources to
ensure a stable environment for research;

(C) designation of the area as a reserve will
serve to enhance public awareness and
understanding of estuarine areas, and
provide suitable opportunities for public
education and interpretation; and

(D) the coastal State in which the area is
located has complied with the requirements
of any regulations issued by the Secretary to
implement this section.

Some of these criteria for designation
are either new or substantially more
specific than those contained in the
former regulations. For example, under
these regulations the Governor of a
coastal state must nominate an
estuarine area for designation, and
findings are required that the law of the
coastal state provides long-term
protection for reserve resources to
ensure a stable environment for
research and that designation of the
are will serve to enhance public
awareness and understanding of
estuarine areas. The criteria in the
existing regulations have been revised
accordingly.

Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 141 / Monday, July 23, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 29941

(B) Revision of Site Criteria and
Procedures. The criteria for selecting an
estuarine area for designation as as
national estuarine research reserve have
been expanded to provide guidance for
determining boundaries for the proposed
site. The Office of Inspector General
Report No. F-728-5-010 criticized the
lack of specific guidelines for setting
limits on boundaries around estuarine
sanctuaries to ensure that only land
essential to the mission of the program
be included inside the sanctuary.
References in the existing regulations to
ensure that the boundaries encompass
an adequate portion of the key land and
water areas of the natural system to
approximate an ecological unit are too
vague, particularly since terms are not
defined. The proposed regulations
define key land and water areas as a
"core area" within the reserve which is
so vital to the functioning of the
estuarine ecosystem that it must be
under a level of control sufficient to
ensure the long-term vitality of the
reserve for research on natural
processes. The determination of key
land and water areas must be based on
scientific knowledge of the area. The
concept of a "buffer" zone to protect the
core area and provide additional
protection for estuarine-dependent
species has also been defined in the
regulations. The buffer zone may include
an area necessary for facilities required
for research and interpretation, and
additionally, to accomodate a shift of
the core area as a result of biological,
ecological or geomorphological change
which reasonably could be expected to
occur. States will be required to use
scientific criteria to justify the
boundaries selected for a proposed site.

The information requirements for
NOAA approval of a proposed site
under existing regulations were
confusing and now have been clarified.

NOAA has recognized the need to
conduct studies to develop a basic
description of the physical, chemical,
and biological characteristics of the site.
As a result, states may now be eligible
for Federal funding of these studies after
NOAA approval of a proposed site.

(C) Management Plan Development.
Once NOAA approves the proposed site
and decides to proceed with
designation, the state must develop a
draft management plan. The contents of
the plan, including the memorandum of
understanding (MOU) between NOAA
and the state, are specified in the
regulations. The acquisition portion of
the plan has been greatly expanded to
implement recommendations in the
Office of Inspector General Report No.
F-725-5-010. It is propsed that states

be required to justify the use of fee
simple acquisition methods and make
greater use of non-fee simple methods to
conserve expenditure of funds. For each
parcel, both in the core area and the
buffer zone, states must determine with
approproate justification (1) the
minimum level of control(s) required, (2)
the level of existing state control, and (3)
the level of additional state control(s)
required; states must also examine all
reasonable alternatives for attaining the
additional level of control required,
perform a cost analysis of each, and
rank, in order of coat, the alternative
methods of acquisition which were
considered. The cost-effectiveness
assessment must also compare short-
term and long-term costs. The state shall
give priority consideration to the least
costly method(s) of attaining the
minimum level of long-term control
required, which is sufficient to meet the
statutory requirement that "the law of
the coastal state provides long-term
protection for reserve resources to
ensure a stable environment for
research. See 16 U.S.C. Section 1481(b)(2)(B).

(D) Financial Assistance Awards for
Site Selection and Post Site Selection.

The first of five types of awards under
the National Estuarine Reserve
Research System is for site selection
and post-site selection, which includes
preparation of a draft management plan
(including MOU) and the collection of
information necessary for preparation of
the environmental impact statement.
The maximum total Federal share of
these awards has been raised to
$100,000 as described in Section 921.29. Of thi
amount, up to $35,000 may be used to
conduct the site selection process as
described in Section 921.21. After NOAA's
approval of a proposed site and decision
to proceed with the designation process,
the state may expend (1) up to $40,000 of
this amound to develop the draft
management plan and collect
information for preparation of the
environmental impact statement; and (2)
up to the remainder of available funds to
conduct studies to develop a basic
description of the physical, chemical,
and biological characteristics of the site.

(E) Financial Assistance Awards for
Acquisition, Development, and Initial
Management. The regulations divide
eligibility for financial assistance
awards for acquisition and development
into two phases. In the initial phase,
states are working to meet the criteria
required for formal research reserve
designation, i.e., establishing adequate
state control over key land and water
areas in accordance with the draft
management plan and preparing a final
management plan. In this predesignation

phase, funds are available for acquiring
interest in land, which is the primary
purpose of this award, and for minor
construction (e.g., nature trails and boat
ramps), preparation of architectural and
engineering plans and specifications,
development of the final management
plan, and hiring a reserve manager and
other staff as necessary to implement
the NOAA approved draft management
plan.

The length of time for this initial
phase of acquisition an development
may be up to three years. After the site
receives Federal designation as a
national estuarine research reserve, the
state may request additional financial
assistance to acquire additional
property interests (e.g., for the buffer
zone), for construction of research and
interpretive facilties, and for restorative
activities in accordance with the
approved final management plan.

The Coastal Zone Management
Reauthorization Act of 1965 specifies
that the amount of financial assistance
provided with respect to the acquisition
of land and waters, or interests therein,
for any one national estuarine research
reserve may not exceed an amount
equal to $0 per centum of the costs of
the lands, waters, and interests therein
or $4,000,000, whichever amount is less.

The amount of Federal financial
assistance provided under the
regulations for development costs
directly associated with major facility
construction (i.e., other than land
acquisition) for any one national
estuarine research, reserve must not
exceed $0 per centum of the costs of
such construction or $1,500,000,
whichever amount is less.

(F) Financial Assistance Awards for
Operation and Management. The
amount of Federal financial assistance
available to a state to manage the
reserve and operate programs consistent
with the mission and goals of the
National Estuarine Reserve Research
System has been raised from $50,000 to
$70,000 for each twelve month period.
Up to ten per cent of the total award
(Federal and state) each year may be
used for construction-type activities.

(G) Financial Assistance for
Research. The Coastal Zone
Management Reauthorization Act of
1965 specifically affects the conduct of
the System's research program by
establishing the requirement for
developing Estuarine Research
Guidelines for the conduct of research
within the system and specifying what
these guidelines shall include. The
legislation also requires the Secretary of
Commerce to require that NOAA, in
conducting or supporting estuarine

29942 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 141 / Monday, July 23, 1990 / Rules and Regulations

research, give priority consideration to
research that uses reserves in the
System, and that NOAA consult with
other Federal and state agencies to
promote use of one or more reserves by
such agencies when conducting
estuarine research.

The research guidelines, which are
referred to in the regulations, but are not
part of them, state that NOAA will
provide research grants only for
proposals which address research
questions and coastal management
issues that have highest national priority
as determined by NOAA in
consultation with prominent members of
the estuarine research community.

One significant addition to the
regulations is that research awards are
available on a competitive basis to any
coastal state or qualified public or
private person, thus making it possible
for public or public persons,
organizations or institutions to compete
with coastal states and coastal state
universities for NOAA research funding
to work in research reserves.

(H) Financial Assistance for
Monitoring. The Coastal Zone
Management Reauthorization Act of
1965 authorizes the award of grants for
the purposes of conducting research and
monitoring. While objectives in
estuarine research and estuarine
monitoring are mutually supportive,
monitoring is generally designed to
provide information over longer time
frames and in a different spatial context.
Consequently a separate subpart
addressing specifically the development
and implementation of monitoring
projects has been included in the
regulations.

(I) Financial Assistance Awards for
Interpretation and Education. The
Coastal Zone Management
Reauthorization Act of 1965 authorizes
the award of grants for the purposes of
conducting educational and interpretive
activities. To stimulate the development
of innovative or creative interpretive
and educational projects and materials
which will enhance public awareness
and understanding of estuarine areas,
the regulations provide for funds to be
available on a competitive basis to any
coastal State entity. These funds are
provided in addition to any other funds
available to a coastal state under these
regulations.

Categories of potential educational
and interpretive projects include:

(1) Design, development and
distribution/placement of interpretive or
educatinal media (i.e., the development
of tangible items such as exhibits/
displays, publications, posters, signs,
audio-visuals, computer software, and
maps, which have an educational or

interpretive purpose, and techniques for
making available or locating information
concerning reserve resources, activities, or issues);

(2) Development and presentation of
curricula, workshops, lectures, seminars,
and other structured programs or
presentations for on-site facility or field
use:

(3) Extension/outreach programs; or

(4) Creative and innovative methods
and technologies for implementing
interpretive or educational projects.

Interpretive and educational projects
may be oriented to one or more research
reserves or the entire System. Those
projects which would benefit more than
one research reserve, and if practical,
the entire National Estuarine Reserve
Research System, shall receive priority
consideration for funding.

V. Summary of Significant Comments on
the Proposed Regulations and NOAA's
Responses

NOAA received comments from 16
sources. Reviewers included Federal
and state agencies, academic
institutions, and the National Estuarine
Research Reserve Association. The
comments of the National Estuarine
Research Reserve Association (NERRA)
are a summary of comments submitted
to NERRA by most of the managers of
the existing and proposed national
estuarine research reserves. All
comments received are on file at the
Marine and Estuarine Management
Division, Office of Ocean and Coastal
Resource Management and are
available at that office for review upon
request. Each of the major issues raised
by the reviewers has been summarized
and NOAA's responses are provided
under the relevant subheading in this
section.

General:

Three reviewers recommended that
more emphasis be placed on developing
an information network among research
reserves and between research reserves
and research and educational group
and institutions. Two of these reviewers
noted the absence in the proposed
regulations of a paragraph which had
addressed this subject in the existing
regulations (49 FR 26502, June 27, 1964).
The deleted paragraph concerned the
development and Federal administration
of a research and education information
exchange network for the System.

Response: NOAA agrees. The section
referring to information exchange
between NOAA and the Reserves has
been reinstated in Section 921.1(h).

Specific:

Section 921.1-Mission, Goals and
General Provisions

Proposed Section 921.1(c)-One reviewer
suggested the deletion of the first
sentence of this provision which states,
"National estuarine research reserves
shall be open to the public." This
reviewer noted that in multiple
component reserves some components
may not be appropriate for general
public access; either because of the
purpose or emphasis of management at
that site (e.g., research) or due to the
limited interest which the managing
entity has int he component (e.g., a
conservation easement which does not
provide for unlimited public access).
This reviewer expressed concern that
state denial of general public access at
such components of a reserve could be
challenged on the basis of this provision.

Response: Consistent with the goal of
the National Estuarine Reserve
Research System to "enhance public
awareness and understanding of the
estuarine environment and provide
suitable opportunities for public
education and interpretation," public
access should be allowed to the greatest
extent possible permitted under State
and Federal law within national
estuarine research reserves. However,
the statement, "National estuarine
research reserves shall be open to the
public", does not require that all
components of a multi-component
reserve or the entire area within the
boundaries of a single component
reserve be open to the general public
unconditionally. The last sentence of
Section 921.1(c) reads, "Consistent with
resource protection and research
objectives, public access may be
restricted to certain areas within a
research reserve." Where unconditional
public access is not consistent with
resource protection and research
objectives as stated in the approved
management plan (e.g., public access
would interfere with reserve research or
is likely to diminish the value of reserve
resources for future research) it must be
limited accordingly. Just as certain areas
are identified in reserve management
plans as being more or less sensitive to
public access impacts in single
component reserves, the same is true of
components in multi-component
reserves. Frequently in management
plans for multi-component reserves one
or more components will be identified
as those for which the relative
management emphasis will be public
education and interpretation. Similarly,
other components are identified as those

Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 141 / Monday, July 23, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 29943

which emphasize research and resource
protection.

Proposed Section 921.1(d) and Section 921.1(e)-
Seven reviewers commented on these
provisions. These comments ranged
from one sentence requesting
clarification to approximately six pages
of comments dedicated to these
provisions alone. These comments also
ranged form expressing concern or
objection regarding the proposed
limitations on habitat manipulations to
suggesting a more restrictive approach.

One reviewer expressed strong
support for an outright prohibition on
habitat manipulation, whether for
management or research, except for
restoration activities where such
restoration can avoid long-term adverse
impacts. Another reviewer commented
extensively on this provision; expressing
strong objections to a prohibition on
habitat manipulation activities for
management purposes. This reviewer
stated that the "preservation" of a
habitat requires active management
involving habitat maniupulation.

One reviewer requested clarification
of the difference between restoration
activities and habitat manipulation for
research or management purposes. One
reviewer suggested criteria for assessing
the degree of "manipulation" a proposed
research project may involve. One
reviewer requested clarification of the
intent of this provision and how it may
apply to: (1) actions necessary to protect
public health (2) protection of existing
species; and (3) allowances for
restorative activities for historical
preservation. One reviewer stated that
whatever type of habitat manipulation
determiend allowable by NOAA, day-
to-day site management decisions are
best made by the professional staff of
each reserve.

One reviewer requested clarification
of the intent of this provision and of the
differences between habitat
manipulation for research, habitat
manipulation for management, and
habitat maniuplation for restoration...
This same reviewer stressed the primary
importance of the geological and ...
representative integrity of a reserve.

Response: The mission of the National
Estuarine Reserve Research System, as
stated in Section 921.1(a), "Is the
establishment and management, through
Federal-state cooperation, of a national
system of estuarine research reserves
representative of the various regions
and estuarine types in the United
States" (emphasis added). The first
Secretarial finding required for
designation of an estuarine area as a
national estuarine reserve under section
315(b)(2)(A) of the Act, 16 U.S.C.
1461(b)(2)(A), is that "the area is a

representative estuarine ecosystem that
is suitable for long-term reserach and
contributes to the biogeographical and
typological balance of the System"
(emphasis added).

The primary intent of Section 921.1(d) and
Section 921.1(e) is to restrict and allow
activities involving habitat maniuplation
to the degree necessary to ensure that
reserves are, and continue to be,
representative estuarine ecosystems. It
is this mission, and requirement of the
statute, that the System goals of
Section 921.1(b) are meant to support. This
mission, and requirement of the statute,
is the foundation upon which the System
is built, the primary basis on which
estuarine areas are selected and
designated as reserves, and the
underlying principle with which all other
aspects of reserve development and
operation must be consistent. As one
reviewer stated, in no case should the
ecological or representative integrity of
a reserve be comprised.

Habitat maniuplation activities
conducted for a purpose other than (1)
restoring the representative integrity of
a reserve or (2) estuarine research, are
not consistent with this requirement of
the statute or the mission of the System.
A reasonable limitation on the nature
and extent of habitat manipulation
activities conducted as a part of
estuarine research is necessary to
ensure that the representative integrity
of a reserve is protected. Likewise,
reasonable exceptions to these
limitations on habitat manipulation
activities are appropriate for reasons of
public health and the protection of other
sensitive resources (e.g., endangered/
threatened wildlife and significant
historical and cultural resources). If
habitat manipulation is determined to be
necessary in such a case, then such
activities should be limited so as not to
significantly impact the representative
and ecological integrity of the reserve.

Contrary to the assertion of one
reviewer, the intent of designating and
managing a research reserve is not to
"preserve" that particular habitat in a
stasis condition. Estuarine ecosystems
are naturally dynamic habitats which
we have yet to fully understand.
NOAA's intent in designating estuarine
areas as national estuarine research
reserves is to protect the representative
character of each individual reserve and
thereby establish a national system of
estuarine areas representative of the
biogeographic regions and estuarine
types of the United States. These
representative estuarine research
reserves then provide opportunities for
long-term research, education, and
interpretation.

Generally, it is NOAA's belief that
given the less-than-perfect state of
knowledge regarding both the
functioning of estuarine ecosystems and
the effects of natural and anthropogenic
change that manipulation should be
carefully limited within estuarine
research reserves. Outside the context
of a carefully planned, and peer
reviewed, research or restoration
activity. NOAA believes that habitat
manipulation for management purposes
involves a significant risk to the
representative integrity and character of
a national estuarine research reserve.
As a result, the phrase in the proposed
regulations "habitat maniuplation for
resource management purposes" is
intended to mean habitat management
for the promotion of a particular species
or habitat, or for some purpose other
than research involving or restoration of
a representative "natural" estuarine
ecosystem.

NOAA acknowledges that much
research involves some degree of
manipulation of the resource(s) and
habitat(s) which are the subject of
study. In this regard, reserves are not
intended to be "control" habitats only,
and some degree of habitat
maniuplation is recognized as an
essential aspect of much important
estuarine research. However, research
activities conducted within a reserve
should not involve maniuplative
activities that, because of their nature or
extent, would significantly impair the
"natural" representative value (i.e.,
representative character) of the reserve.

NOAA also acknowledges that
restoration efforts may involve
extensive habitat manipulation
activities. Many estuarine areas have
undergone some ecological change as a
result of human activities (e.g.,
hydrological changes, intentional/
unintentional species composition
changes-introduced and exotic species,
etc.). In those areas designated as
natioanl estuarine research reserves,
such changes may have diminished the
representative character and integrity of
the site. Where restoration of such
degraded areas is determined necessary
within this context, such activities must
be carefully planned. Much research is
necessary to determine the "natural"
representative state of an estuarine area
(i.e., an estuarine ecosystem minimally
affected by human activity or influence).
Frequently, such restoration activities
provide excellent opportunities for
management oriented research.

In response to reviewers requests for
clarification and consistent with the
response provided above. Section 921.1(d) and

29944 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No 141 / Monday, July 23, 1990 / Rules and Regulations

Section 921.1(e) have been revised
appropriately.

Proposed Section 921.1(f)-(1) One reviewer
recommended that a formula be
established that would "pre-determine
the minimum level (percentage) of funds
that would be set aside within the total
(System) budget for specific categories
(Research, Education, Monitoring,
Operation/Management, Acquisition,
and Development)". In addition, this
same reviewer recommended that the
allocation of acquisition/development
funds should be made on the basis of
greatest need measured against
predetermined criteria.

Response: NOAA acknowledges that
under certain conditions establishment
of predetermined percentages for
allocating funds amony programmatic
categories could provide greater
predictability in the distribution of
Federal funds among reserves. However,
the advantages of such an approach
depend on a predictability in both the
level of annual appropriations as well as
major acquisition and development
needs for the Reserve system. The
uncertainities in appropriation levels and
acquisition needs are sufficient enough
to make an allocation formula among
the six major funding categories
(research, education, monitoring,
predesignation, acquisition/
development, operations) unfeasible.

NOAA attaches primary importance
to long term support for the operational
needs at each reserve as described in
Section 921.32 of these regulations, and to
fulfilling the research, education and
monitoring objectives of the program,
unlimited eligibility for these for the
awards.

(2) Four reviewers expressed concern
or objection to limiting the funding
eligibility of any one reserve under any
type of award, particularly operation/
management awards. These reviewer's
comments ranged from general concern
to recommending that all funding caps
be removed from all types of awards.
These reviewers also stated their
general concern regarding a perceived
lack of long term Federal financial
commitment to the System.

Response: Annual appropriations are
limited, not unlimited. Funding eligibility
limits for each reserve have been
established in regulations only where
determined appropriate and necessary
for the establishment and on-going
support of the mission and goals of the
System. These regulations establish
annual eligibility limits for operations
($70,000 per year, per reserve) and
program-life limits for site acquisition
($4 million per reserve). Funding
eligibility limits have not been
established for research, monitoring,

and educationa grant funds. See subparts
F.G. H. Site acquisition limits are
statutory. [16 U.S.C. 1461(e)(3)(A)]

Funding limits ensure that some
funding is available for those types of
awards which support most directly the
mission and goals of the System (i.e.,
generally, after designation of a reserve,
the competitive awards). As
importantly, funding limits are
necessary to ensure that available funds
are awarded in a relatively fair and
porportional manner among national
estuarine research reserves. In the
absence of such limits, one or a few
research reserves could receive the bulk
of available funds at the expense of all
other reserves. These limits prevent
such a substantially disproportionate
distribution of limited funding.

At present, some of the existing research
research reserves in the System are
approaching the eligibility limits for
acquisition and facility development
awards, while most have received less
than 50 per cent, and a number less than
23 per cent, of the eligiblity limits of
these type of awards-a difference
between these categories of
approximately one to three million
dollars. These differencees are justifiable
on the basis of relative need, reserve
size, property values, construction costs,
etc. A greater difference in relative
allocation of funds between reserves
would favor disproportionally some
reserves and, as a result, be detrimental
to the System as a whole.

Eligibility limits are established for
the purposes noted above and not to
unreasonably restrict a research reserve
from access to available Federal funds.
On the basis of NOAA's experience in
administering Federal financial
assistance for the System and because
of comments from many research
reserves, the eligibility limit for
operation/management awards was
raised to a maximum of $70,000 per site
per year. In response to comments on
the proposed regulations, the eligibility
limit for major facility construction has
been raised 50 per cent in these final
regulations (see response under
proposed Section 921.31 below).

Proposed Section 921.1(g)-One reviewer
disagreed with the requirement that land
already in a protected status can be
included within a reserve only if the
managing entity commits to long-germ
non-manipulative management.

Response: NOAA believes this
requirement is necessary consistent
with the mission and goals of the
System. Essentially this same subject is
discussed in the response to comments
on proposed Section 921.1(d) and Section 921.1(e). In
order to clarify the intent of this
provision, NOAA has revised this

sentence to include a reference to the
revised Section 921.1(d) and Section 921.1(e).

Section 921.2-Definitions

Proposed Section 921.2(b)-It was noted that
the Secretary of Commerce recently
delegated authority for matters relating
to National Estuarine Research Reserves
to the Under Secretary for Oceans and
Atmosphere.

Response: NOAA agrees with the
recommended modification and has
changed references from the Assistant
Administrator to the Under Secretary
throughout.

Proposed Section 921.2(d)-One reviewer
recommended a modification to the
second sentence of the definition of
estuary to include the term measurably
diluted with freshwater rather than
minimally diluted.

Response: NOAA agrees with the
recommenfded modification the
recommended term "minimal" should be
the term "measurable". The definition
has been changed accordingly.

Proposed Section 921.2(e)-Five reviewers
stated that some confusion has resulted
in the reversed order of the terms
research and reserve in the name of the
System, National Estuarine Reserve
Research System, and the name of each
individual reserve, national estuarine
research reserve.

Response: NOAA acknowledges that
some confusion has arisen as a result of
this difference. However, this is
statutory langauge which only can be
changed by amending the Act.

Section 921.4-Relationship to Other
Provisions of the Coastal Zone
Management Act.

It was noted that the existing program
regulations describe this section as
"Relationship to other provisions of the
Coastal Zone Management Act and to
the National Marine Sanctuary
Program". Text describing the
relationship between the Reserve and
Sanctuary Programs was omitted. New
marine sanctuaries and estuarine
research reserves are being designated
in close geographic proximity to one
another and therefore improved
coordiantion between the two programs
is warranted.

Response: NOAA agrees. The revision
of the Section heading and text should
be adopted and strengthened. The
omission of this information from the
proposed regulations was an oversight.
The Section heading and text have been
revised appropriately.

Section 921.10-General

Proposed Section 921.10(a)-Five reviewers
objected to two or more states which

Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 141 / Monday, July 23, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 29345

share a biogeographic region being
limited to the development of a single
reserve, even if it was a multicomponent
reserve with components in each
respective state (e.g., Maryland and
Virginia in the Chesapeake Bay
subregion of the Virginia biogeographic
region). These reviewers specifically
objected to the eligibility limit on land
acquisition funding (see Section 921.10(b) and
Section 921.20) as it applies to any individual
reserve, single or multiple compoonent.

Response: NOAA agrees. Some of the
System's biogeographic subregions are
represented by more than one reserve in
more than one state. As a result, in the
case of a biogeographic region (see
Appendix 1) shared by two or more
states, each such state should be eligible
for Federal financial assistance to
establish a national estuarine research
reserve within their respective portion
of the shared biogeographic region.
Section 921.10(a) has been amended to
reflect this revision. Because of this
revision, the phrase which begins "In
the case of multicomponent natiional
estuarine ***" in Section 921.10(a). Section 921.31,
and Section 921.32(c) is no longer necessary
and has been deleted.

Proposed Section 921.10(b)-Two reviewers
commented that NOAA should consider
a higher eligibility limit or relative
greater funding for awards to multi-
component reserves than to single
component reserves.

Response: NOAA disagrees. Funding
for the System is limited. A State elects
to establish a multi-component reserve
or expand a single component reserve
with full knowledge of the identical
eligiblity limits on any individual
reserve, whether single or multiple
component. Establishing separate
funding eligibility limits for, or
disproportionally funding,
multicomponent reserves would be
likely to have a significant adverse
impact on single-component reserves
and, as a result, the System as a whole.
Further, acquisition and development
funds are limited by the Act.

Section 921.11-Site Selection

Proposed Section 921.11(c)(2)-One reviewer
recommended that the last sentence be
revised to ultimate reference to "a
natural system."

Response: NOAA agrees that a minor
revision is necessary to clarify the intent
of this sentence. The sentence has been
revised in a manner consistent with
corresponding clarifying omissions to
Section 921.1(d) and Section 921.1(e).

Proposed Section 221.11(c)(3)-These
reviewers commented on the concept of
"core" and "buffer" areas or zones. Two
of these reviewers recommended
deleting this concept of a buffer zone.

The remaining reviewer recommended
extensive revisions to the subsection to
provide guidance on where habitat
manipulation would be allowed.

Response: After careful reivew of this
subsection, NOAA does not believe that
the buffer zone concept should be
deleted or that substantive revisions are
appropriate. The basic approach
presented is sound. A critical concept
and distinction between the two areas
which may have been overlooked is that
keyland and water areas ("core") and a
buffer zone will likely require
significantly different levels of control
[see Section 921.13(a)(7)]. In addition to the
basic principles established in the
regulations, NOAA has developed more
detailed boundary guidance which is
available to states attempting to conduct
the difficult process of boundary
delineation of a proposed site.

Proposed Section 921.11(c)(5)-One reviewer
recommended amending this site
selection principle to include "the
support of ongoing or planned
management activities in nearby
estuaries, including those in the
National Estuary Program."

Resposne: NOAA considers
Section 921.11(c)(5) to encompass this concern
in that the State is required to
demonstrate how the proposed site is
consistent with existing and potential
land and water uses. Both the
designation by NOAA of a reserve
under the Act and management plans
developed through the National Estuary
Program of the U.S. EPA are submitted
to the State for a determination of
consistency udner section 902(c)(1) of
the Coastal Zone Management Act of
1972 as amended. NOAA views this
mechanism as an effective means for
ensuring that measures support and
advance the relevant and
estuarine management objectives
including those of the National Estuary
Program. Therefore, Section 921.11(c)(b) has
been amended to make more specific
our intent that the site support estuarine
management objectives.

Section 921.12-Post Site Selection

Proposed Section 921-12(a)-Two reviewers
recommended a separate type of award
for monitoring that would provide long-
term support for these activities.

Response: NOAA agrees. A new
subpart G-Monitoring has been added
to the regulations (subparts G and H of
the proposed regulations being
relettered as subparts H and I,
respectively; and the section numbers
being renumbered accordingly). Initial
funding for basic characterization of the
physical, geological, chemical, and
biological characteristics of the site will
continue to be provided under Section 921.13-

Post site selection. In addition, however,
under the new subpart G, NOAA may
provide fianncial assistance on a
competitive basis for each phrase of a
monitoring program. These grant awards
will be separate from those provided for
estuarine research under subpart F.

Section 921.13-Management Plan and
Environmental Impact Statement
Development

Proposed Section 921.13(a)(7)-Three
reviewers provided comment on the
acquisition plan guidance of this
subsection. Two reviewers requested
additional guidance on what constitutes
"adequate state control" and
commented that the requirement to
assess the cost effectiveness of control
alternatives is excessively burdensome.
The remaining reviewer stated that
having four million dollars in funds
available for land acquisition is not
consistent with the requirement to
conduct an assessment of the cost
effectiveness of acquisition alternatives.

Response: What constitutes
"adequate State control" is dependent
on site-specific circumstances and
requirements. The most efficient use of
available acquisition funds can only be
ensured through the identification of
reasonable control, or acquisition
alternatives and an assessment of their
relative cost and effectiveness. This
does not necessarily mean that the least
costly option in dollars is the alternative
that must be selected. It does mean,
however, that all reasonable control
alternatives should be thoroughly
examined and their relative costs
identified. The development of an
acquisition plan is an allowable cost
(Federal or matching share). Four
million dollars is not "available", but is
the eligibility limit for land acquisition
funds for any one reserve. Regardless of
the amount of funding available for
land acquisition, a thorough assessment
of acquisition alternatives and their cost
effectiveness is necessary to ensure
responsible and efficient use of Federal
grant funds. At a minimum the degree of
state control must provide adequate
long term protection to insure for
reserve resources a stable environment
for research.

Proposed Section 921.13(a)(11)-One
reviewer stated that NOAA's
responsibility to make a consistency
determination should be made clear
early in the regulations.

Response: NOAA agrees. A reference
to Section 921.30(b) has been added to the
subsection to clarify NOAA's
consistency determination
responsibilities early in preparation of
the management plan.

29946 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 141 / Monday, July 23, 1990 / Rules and Regulations

Section 921.20-General

Proposed Section 921.20-Two reviewers
requested a clarifying revision to the
last sentence of this subsection; the
addition of the phrase "to a coastal
state."

Response: NOAA agrees and the
section has been revised accordingly.

Section 921.21(e)-Initial Acquisition
and Development Awards

Two reviewers provided comment on
this section. The first reviewer
requested clarificaiton that the provision
regarding de-designation of a site
applies only to properties acquired with
Federal funds. The second reviewer
stated that the provision to compensate
the Federal government for its share of
the acquisition cost in the event of de-
designation, may be contrary to overall
coastal protectoin objectives because
the state may have to sell the property
to development interests in order to fully
compensate the Federal Interest.

Response: Regarding the first
comment, NOAA does not believe
additional clarification is necessary.
This subsection states specifically tha
these provisions apply to "any real
property acquired in whole or part with
Federal funds ***." The second
commenter acknowledges correctly that
these requirements are designed to
accomplish the goals of the National
Estuarine Research Reserve System and
that this provision helps ensure that
reserves maintain the standards comments
established for the system and, if they
do not, that a percentage of the fair
market value is available to other
reserves. It should also be noted that
these provisions are not new and have
been in place since the inception of the
Reserve program through grant
directives contained in OMB Circular A-
102. The provisions in the Reserve
regulations are taken directly from the
A-102 Circular and apply to all real
property acquired in whole or part with
Federal funds. It should also be noted
that there are other alternative aside
from sale of the property. In the event of
de-designation the state may retain title
or transfer title toe the Federal
government. In these instances it is
likely that the resources of the reserve
could continue to be protected. While
none of these alternatives are
inexpensive they do, as noted by the
commenter, help ensure that the site
continues to be managed and
maintained in conformance with
research reserve goals and objectives.

Section 921.30-Designation of National
Estuarien Research Reserves

Proposed Section 921.30(c)-Two reviewers
provided comments on the designation
criteria listed in this subsection. One
reviewer recommended a change in
(a)(4) at variance with the Act. The
other reviewer recommended an
addition to the designation findings to
include a requirement that, in the case
of a State which contains, in whole or
part, a national estuary program
convened pursuant to section 320 of the
Clean Water Act, suitable consideration
has been given to integration of research
and public education programs of the
estuarine research reserve and the
national estuary program. It has also
been noted that the final management
plan as the governing document for
subsequent operations and management
of the reserve should contain the signed
designation findings. Subpart (a) of this
section should also be revised to show
that the Under Secretary is responsible
for designation of reserves in
accordance with the delegation of that
authority from the Secretary of
Commerce.

Response: The terms for designation
of a National Estuarine Research
Reserve are set forth in the statue.
NOAA agrees that research and
education programs should be
integrated between the Environmental
Protection Agency's National Estuary
Program and NOAA's National
Estuarine Reserve Research System.
This effort has already been initiated
through a memorandum of
understanding between the programs at
the National level and is being pursued
at the local level, where appropriate.
Therefore, NOAA believes it does not
require restatement in the program
regulations. However, NOAA agrees
that the management plan should
contain the findings of designation and
the regulations should show that the
Under Secretary is responsible for
designation. The regulations have been
revised accordingly.

Section 921.31-Supplemental
Acquisition and Development Awards

Proposed Section 921.31-Four reviewers
expressed concerns that the eligibility
limit of $1,000,000 in Federal financial
assistance for facility construction may
not be adequate to meet anticipated
long term needs and should be
increased or eliminated.

Response: NOAA agrees. The
eligiblity limit for facility construction
has been increased 50 percent to
$1,500,000.

Section 921.32-Operation and
Management: Implementation of the
Management Plan

Proposed Section 921.32(a-d)-Seven
reviewers objected to the eligibilty lim
on operations and management awards
They noted that the statute contains no
provision for withdrawal of Federal
support for continued operation of the
reserves. The termination of Federal
support for the individual sites is viewe
as a lack of Federal commitment to the
long-term maintenance of a
representative system of estuarine
research and education sites.

Response: The Reserve Program was
designed and continues to be a State-
Federal partnership. The key to this
partnership is the requirement that
NOAA share with the State reserve
program the financial needs associated
with site designation, land acquisition,
research, education and operations.

As discussed previously, appropriate
eligibility limits ensure that funding is
available for competitive research
education and monitoring awards. If, as
some reviewers suggested, NOAA
removed the annual monetary ceiling for
operations and other awards, an
inequitable and disproportionate
distribution of the limited funds for the
program could result. Annual
operational eligibility limits in addition
to ensuring the availability of funds for
competitive projects provide a stability
and even distribution among designated
and developing reserves. Consequently
NOAA is retaining the eligibility limit o
$70,000 for operations and management
per site per year.

NOAA concurs with the reviewers'
assertion that the statute does not direc
the Federal Government to abandon its
support and financial commitment to
reserve operations at the conclusion of a
prescribed period of time or when an
arbitrary cumulative funding ceilign for
Federal support of operations has been
met. By imposing a fixed duration for
Federal support of Reserve operations
NOAA may undermine its ability to
participate effectively with the Reserve
system to address coastal and estuarine
management issues of national
significance. The previously proposed
three year support per position allocated
through a $420,000 operations ceiling
also established a complex and
burdensome administrative process
which is further complicated when
allocated among Reserves which have
already received operations support,
and the newly designated sites which
have yet to receive such support. To
simplify, streamline and improve
NOAA's effectiveness in support of

Federal Register / VOl. 55. No. 141 / Monday, July 23, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 29347

Reserve operations, the three year
restriction and other references to
cessation of Federal support for
operations and management at the
reserves have been removed throughout
the regulations.

Section 921.33-Boundary Changes.
Amendments to the Management Plan,
and Addition of Multiple-site
components

Proposed Section 921.33(c)-One reviewer
recommended deletion or substantial
modification of this subsection to
recognize the State's right and ability to
appropriately plan and legislate its legal
charge-the research reserve. In
summary, this reviewer objected to
NOAA's approval authority/
requirement for activities discussed in
this subsection. The reviewer suggested
that it should be sufficient if the State
provides NOAA an opportunity for
review and comment on proposed
changes.

Response: NOAA disagrees. NOAA is
responsible for Federal oversight of the
System and each designated research
reserve. As long as a State wishes for a
reserve to remain a part of the System
and to retain Federal designation,
NOAA will continue to require Federal
approval of chagnes in that research
reserve's boundaries and management.

General

Proposed Section 921.40, Section 921.41, and
Section 921.42-Several reviewers
recommended clarification of the
criteria to be used curing performance
evaluations. Performance criteria should
clearly state what constitutes adequate
or inadequate performance. One
commenter provided a list of items
suggested for inclusion in an evaluation.
Three reviewers made suggestions on
the composition of the evaluation team
recommending non-Federal and private
individual participation while another
commenter suggested the regulations
indicate criteria for choosing the
members of the evaluation team. Finally
a recommendation was offered that the
evaluation stress integration of the
Reserve program with other state
coastal/research programs and that the
regulations provide for other dispute
resolution mechanisms short of
litigation.

Response: The periodic evaluation of
a national estuarine research reserve is
central to NOAA's ability to ensure that
reserve operation and management is
being conducted in a manner fully
consistent with program goals and
objectives as defined in section 315 of
the Act, 16 U.S.C. 1461, and its
implementing regulations. The criteria
for an evaluation corresponds directly

with the program goals as specified in
Section 921.1 of these regulations. The five
goals described in this section are
nearly identical to the criteria proposed
by one commenter. The commenter
added cost effectiveness in using
Federal funds as an additional criteria
which, while not directly stated as a
program goal in the regulations is
implicit in any evaluation of efficient
management of the total reserve
program.

It is not feasible to establish a
checklist for any evaluation to
predetermine what constitutes adequate
versus inadequate performance. Each
reserve has very unique administrative
structures, environmental resources, and
corresopnding management needs.
NOAA views the evaluation process to
be a highly collaborative effort with the
State such that the evaluation can be
used to focus on particular and specific
problem areas. It is not appropriate to
attempt to construct a test for
inadequate or adequate performance
which could reasonably anticipate the
substantial variety of issues that are
addressed in the evaluation process.
NOAA would be justifiably criticized for
applying an artificial measures against
unique and site-specific circumstances.

NOAA agrees with the comments
made regarding participation of other
officials in the evaluation process. Such
oficials provide recommendations to
NOAA on specific issues in the
evaluation. To ensure that Reserve
personnel are directly involved in
selection of the evaluaiton team,
Section 921.40(c) has been revised to indicate
that NOAA will consult with and
request recommendations from the
Reserve on the appropriate non-NOAA
participants prior to the evaluation.

The recommendation that the
evaluation examine coordination
between the Reserve program and other
coastal research efforts is fully
consistent with NOAA objectives for the
evaluation process and is currently
considered under Reserve program
criteria to "promote Federal, State,
public and private use of one or more
reserves within the System when such
entitles conduct estuarine research."
NOAA, however, does not agree with the
comment that other dispute resolution
mechanisms should be devised short of
litigation in the event of an unfavorable
evaluation that may lead to withdrawal
of designation. The provisions contained
in both Section 921.41 and Section 921.42 provide a
lengthy and elaborate process for
addressing major differences between
the NOAA and the Reserve relative to
suspension of financial assistance or
withdrawal of designation. This process
is expressly designed to avoid litigation

on these issues. Therefore, NOAA does
not agree that additional mechanisms
for dispute resolution are warranted.

Proposed Section 921.40(e)-Two reviewers
recommended a ninety day requirement
for State submittal of an annual report
instead of sixty days.

Response: NOAA agrees. Section
921.40(e) has been revised accordingly.
NOAA also notes that this section
indicates that indadequate annual reports
will trigger a full scale performance
evaluation. This provision is no longer
needed since Section 921.32 has been changed
to provide long term eligiblity for
operations support. Evaluations
consequently will be conducted
generally at least every 3 years. The
statement has therefore been deleted.

Section 921.30-General

Proposed Section 921.30(a)-Four reviewers
commented on this subsection. Three
reviewers recommended that research
funded under this subpart be allowed in
an area larger than the boundaries of
the research reserve. One of three
reviewers also recommended that the
managing entity of the reserve approve
all research prior to NOAA funding. One
reviewer expressed concern that funding
eligibility is tied to NOAA approval of a
final management plan.

Response: NOAA agrees that greater
flexibility should be provided for the
area in which federally funded research
under this subject may be conducted.
The regulations have been revised to
allow research activity in the immediate
watershed of the reserve while still
requiring the majority of funded
activities to be conducted within the
boundaries. NOAA also agrees that the
managing entity of the reserve should
directly indicate approval or
disapproval of proposed research
project. Currently each reserve is
requested to review and assign priority
to research projects proposed for the
reserve. If a reserve does not approve of
a particular project that information
should be expressed directly to NOAA.

NOAA agrees that its review and
approval of state submitted final
management plans should be as
expeditious as possible. However,
consistent with NOAA's responsibility
to ensure that reserve management is
conducted in accordance with the
mission and goals of the System, the
need for an approved final management
plan to qualify for NOAA funded
research remains.

Section 921.31-Estuarine Research
Guidelines

Proposed Section 921.31-Five reviewers
recommended that NOAA provide, at

29948 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 141 / Monday, July 23, 1990 / Rules and Regulations

minimum, a more detailed and specific
description of the Estuarine Research
Guidelines in the regulations. One
reviewer objected to NOAA's role in
establishing the research priorities for
funding under this subpart.

Response: NOAA disagrees. Section
315 of the Act requires NOAA to
develop guidelines, not regulations, for
the conduct of research within the
System. A basic description of these
guidelines is provided in both the Act
and the regulations. Including the
guidelines themselves, or a more
detailed and specific description of
these guidelines, in the regulations
would severely limit flexibillity in their
implementation. NOAA publishes the
guidelines annually in the Federal
Register and intends to continue to
improve these guidelines within the
relatively comprehensive standards of
the Act. NOAA develops general
research priorities on an annual basis in
consultation with the estuarine research
and resource management community.
The agency foresees no advantage to
including more specificity or detail than
necessary in the Program regulations.
The financial support provided under
this subpart for Research is
administered by NOAA. As a result,
NOAA, in consultatiion with prominent
members of the estuarine research
community, will continue to determine
research priorities for this funding.

Subpart G-Interpretation and
Education

Section 921.60-General

Proposed Section 921.60(a)-Two reviewers
objected to the requirement that
interpretive and education projects be
conducted within the research reserve.

Response: NOAA did not intend to
limit funding under this Subpart to
activities conducted entirely within the
boundaries of a research reserve, and
has revised the statement to clarify the
intent.

Proposed Section 921.60(b)-One reviewer
suggested NOAA require that all
applications for interpretation and
education awards be approved by the
state.

Response: NOAA agrees that
applications under this subpart should
have the support of the state managing
entity. The regulations have been
revised accordingly.

Section 921.71-Allowable Costs

Proposed Section 921.71(e)(2)-Two
reviewers objected to a one year time
limit prior to pre-acquisition being
imposed on the allowability for state
match of state lands already in a fully-
protected status. The commenters noted

that properties included within NERR
boundaries, particularly the core area,
will be subject to restricted usex, and
these uses wil be subject to NOAA
approval (e.g., research construction,
education). Since these priorities add
real value to the NERR System, but have
diminished use for other purposes, they
should be allowable as state match.
These reviewers therefore
recommended elimination of a one-year
time limit.

Response: This provision has been
adopted in the past to ensure that lands
included within the Reserve system are
acquired consistent with the purposes
and objectives of the Reserve system
and, as required by section 315(e)(3)(A)
of the Act, to assure that the state has
matched the amount of financial
assistance provided by the Federal
Government for the acquisition of land
for a reserve. However, NOAA agrees
that the imposition of a one-year time
limit may not be the most effective or
appropriate method to achieve this
purpose. We have therefore eliminated
this provision from the regulations and
instead allow inclusion of land and
submerged lands already in the states'
possession as state match irrespective
of the date obtained by the state.
However, calculation of the amount
eligible as match for existing state
owned lands will be made by an
independent appraiser who will
consider the value for match purposes of
these lands by calculating the value of
benefits foregone by the state, in the use
of the land, as a result of new
restrictions that may be imposed by
Reserve designation.

Proposed Section 921.71(e)(4)-One
reviewer recommended elimination or
simplification of the matching share
criteria for research awards.

Response: The matching share
requirement cannot be eliminated
because it is required by statute.
However, the matching share criteria
has been simplified to be consistent
with the provisions to section 921.50(a) of
subpart F.

VI. Other Actions Associated With the
Rulemaking

(A) Classification Under Executive
Order 12291. NOAA has concluded that
these regulations are not major because
they will not result in:

(1) An annual effect on the economy
of $100 million or more:

(2) A major increase in costs or prices
for consumers; individual industries;
Federal, state, or local government
agencies; or geographic regions; or

(3) Significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment,
productivity, innovation or the ability of

United States based enterprises to
copete with foreign based enterprises
in domestic or export markets.

These rules amend existing
procedures for identifying, designating,
and managing national estuarine
research reserves in accordance with
the Coastal Zone Management
Reauthorization Act of 1985. They will
not result in any direct economic or
environmental effects nor will they lead
to any major indirect economic or
environmental impacts.

(B) Regulatory Flexibility Act
Analysis. A Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis is not required for this
rulemaking. The regulations set forth
procedures for identifying and
designating national estuarine research
reserves, and managing sites once
designated. These rules do not directly
affect "small government jurisdictions"
as defined by Public Law 96-354, the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, and the rules
will have no effect on small businesses.

(C) Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980.
This rule contains collection of
information requirements subject to
Public Law 96-511, the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA), which have
already been approved by the Office of
Management and Budget (approval
number 0648-0121). Public reporting
burden for the collections of information
contained in this rule is estimated to
average 2012 hours per response for
management plans and related
documentaiton, 1.25 hours for
performance reports, and 15 hours for
annual reports and work plans. These
estimates include the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data
sources, gathering and maintaining the
data needed, and completing and
reviewing the collection of information.
Send comments regarding this burden
estimate or any other aspect of these
collections of information, including
suggestions for reducing this burden, to
Richard Roberts, Room 1235,
Department of Commerce, Washington,
DC 20230, and to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget,
Washington, DC 20503. ATTN: Desk
Officer for NOAA.

(D) Executive Order 12612. These
interim final rules do not contain
policies which have sufficient
Federalism implications to warrant
preparation of a Federalism Assessment
pursuant to Executive Order 12612.
However, the provisions of the rules
setting forth what a state must do or
agree to do in order to qualify for the
various types of Federal financial
assistance available under the rules
have been reviewed to ensure that the

Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 141 / Monday, July 23, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 22948

rules grant the states the maximum
administrative discretion possible in the
administration of the National Estuarine
Reserve Research System policies
embodied in the qualification
requirements. In formulating those
policies, the NOAA worked with
affected states to develop their own
policies with respect to the use of
National Estuarine Research Reserves.
To the maximum extent possible
consistent with the NOAA's
responsiblity to ensure that the
objectives of the National Estuarine
Reserve Research System provisions of
the Coastal Zone Management Act are
obtained, the rules refrain from
establishing uniform national standards.
Extensive consultations with state
officials and organizations have been
held regarding the financial assistance
qualifications imposed. Details
regarding awards of financial assistance
have been discussed above under the
heading "REVISION OF THE
PROCEDURES FOR SELECTING,
DESIGNATING AND OPERATING
NATIONAL ESTUARINE RESEARCH
RESERVES" and are not repeated here.
Likewise comments from the states
regarding qualifications and responses
and changes to the regulations regarding
same were set forth under the heading
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT
COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED
REGULATIONS AND NOAA'S
RESPONSES. It should be noted that
some of the states commented in
opposition to conditions or language
required by law or by Office of
Management and Budget Circular A-102.
NOAA does not have the discretion to
change such language or conditions.

(E) National Environmental Policy
Act. NOAA has concluded that
publication of these interim final rules
does not constitute a major Federal
action significantly affecting the quality
of the human environment. Therefore,
an environment impact statement is
not required.

(F) Administrative Procedure Act.
These interim final regulations are
effective July 23, 1990. To the extent that
these regulations relate to grants and
cooperative agreements the more
requirements of the Administration.
Procedure Act 5-U.S.C. 553 do not apply.
To the extent that any substantive
provision does not involve grants or
cooperative agreements, no useful
purpose would be served by delaying
the effective date for 90 days. No rights
of the participants in this Federal
program will be adversely affected by
immediate implementation. To the
contrary state recipients of financial
assistance through this program have

submitted program applications that
anticipate immediate implementation of
these regulations. Public comments on
these interim final regulations are
invited and will be considered if
submitted on or before September 21,
1990.

List of Subjects is 15 CFR Part 921

Administrative practice and
procedure. Coastal zone, Environmental
impact statements. Grant programs-
Natural resources. Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements. Research.

(Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog
Number 11.420. National Estuarine Reserve
Research System)

Dated: July 10, 1900.

Virginia K. Tipple,
Assistant Administrator for Ocean Services
and Coastal Zone Management.

For the reason set forth in the
preamble, 15 CFR part 921 is revised to
read as follows:

PART 921-NATIONAL ESTUARINE
RESERVE RESEARCH SYSTEM
REGULATIONS

Sec.

Subpart A-General

921.1 Mission, goals and general provisions.
921.2 Definitions.
921.3 National Estuarine Reserve Research
System biogeographic classification
scheme and estuarine typologies.
921.4 Relationship to other provisions of the
Coastal Zone Management Act.

Subpart B-Site Selection, Post Site Selection
and Management Plan Development

921.10 General.
921.11 Site Selection.
921.12 Post site selection.
921.13 Management plan and environmental
impact statement development.

Subpart C-Acquisition, Development and
Preparation of the Final Management Plan

921.20 General.
921.21 Initial acquisition and development
awards.

Subpart D-Reserve Designation and
Subsequent Operation

921.30 Designation of National Estuarine
Research Reserves.
921.31 Supplemental acquisition and
development awards.
921.32 Opeation and management;
Implementation of the management plan.
921.33 Boundary changes, amendements to
the management plan, and addition of
multiple-site components.

Subpart E-Performance Evaluation and
Withdrawal of Designation

921.40 Evaluation of system performance.
921.41 Suspension of eligiblity for financial
assistance.
921.42 Withdrawal of designation.

Sec.

Subpart F-Research

921.50 General.
921.51 Estuarine research guidelines.
921.52 Promotion and coordination of
estuarine research.

Subpart G-Monitoring

921.60 General.

Subpart H-Interpretation and Education

921.70 General.
921.71 Categories of potential interpretive
and educational projects; evaluation
criteria.

Subpart I-General Financial Assistance
Provisions

921.80 Application information.
921.81 Allowable costs.
921.82 Amendments to financial assistance
awards.

Appendix I to Part 921-Biogeographic
Classification Scheme

Appendix II to Part 921-Typology of
National Estuarine Research Reserves

Authority: Sec. 375, Public Law 92-683, as
amended; as State. 1280 (16 U.S.C. 1461),

Subpart A-General

Section 921.1 Mission, goals and general
provisions.

(a) The misison of the National
Estuarine Reserve Research System is
the establishment and management,
through Federal-State cooperation, of a
national system of estuarine research
reserves respresentative of the various
regions and estuarine types in the
United States. Estuarine research
reserves are established to provide
opportunities for long-term research,
education, and interpretation.

(h) The goals of the program for
carrying out this mission are to:

(1) Ensure a stable environment for
research through long-term protection of
estuarine research resources;

(2) Address coastal management
issues identified as significant through
coordinated estuarine research within
the System;

(3) Enhance public awareness and
understanding of the estuarine
environment and provide suitable
opportunities for public education and
interpretation;

(4) Promote Federal, state, public and
private use of one or more reserve
within the System when such entities
conduct estuarine research; and

(5) Conduct and coordinate estuarine
research within the System, gathering
and making available information
necessary for improved understanding
and management of estuarine areas.

29950 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 141 / Monday, July 23, 1990 / Rules and Regulations

the extent permitted under State and
Federal law. Multiple uses are allowed
to the degree compatible with the
research reserve's overall purpose as
provided in the management plan (see
Section 921.13) and consistent with paragraphs
(a) and (b) of this section. Use levels are
set by the individual state and analyzed
in the management plan. The research
reserve management plan shall describe
the uses and establish priorities among
these uses. The plan shall identify uses
requiring a state permit, as well as areas
where uses are encouraged or
prohibited. Consistent with resource
protection and research objectives,
public access may be restricted to
certain areas within a research reserve.

(d) Habitat manipulation for research
purposes is allowed consistent with the
following limitations. Manipulative
research activities must be specified in
the management plan, be consistent
with the mission and goals of the
program (see paragraphs (a) and (b) of
this section) and the goals and
objectives of the affected research
reserve, and be limited in nature and
extent to the minimum manipulative
activity necessary to accomplish the
stated research objective. Manipulative
research activities with a significant or
long-term impact on reserve resources
require the prior approval of the state
and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Manipulative research activities which
can reasonably be expected to have a
significant adverse impact on the
estuarine resources and habitat of a
reserve, such that the activities
themselves or their resulting short-and
long-term consequences compromise the
representative character and integrity of
a reserve, are not allowed. Habitat
manipulation for resource management
purposes is not permitted within
national estuarine research reserves,
except as allowed for restoration
activities consistent with paragraph (e)
of this section. NOAA may allow an
exception to this prohibition if
manipulative activity is necessary for
the protection of public health or the
preservation of other sensitive resources
which have been listed or are eligible
for protection under relevant Federal or
state authority (e.g., threatened/
endangered species or significant
historical or cultural resources). If
habitat manipultion is determined to be
necessary for the protection of public
health or the preservation of sensitive
resources, then these activities shall be
specified in the Reserve Management
Plan and limited to the reasonable
alternative which has the least adverse
and shortest term impact on the

representative and ecological integrity
of the reserve.

(e) Under the Act an area may be
designated as an estuarine reserve only
if the area is a representative estuarine
ecosystem that is suitable for long-term
research. Many estuarine areas have
undergone some ecological change as a
result of human activities (e.g.,
hydrological changes, intentional/
unintentional species composition
changes-introduced and exotic
species). In those areas proposed or
designated as national estuarine
research reserves, such changes may
have diminished the representative
character and integrity of the site.
Although restoration of degraded areas
is not a primary purpose of the System,
such activities may be permitted to
improve the representative character
and integrity of a reserve. Restoration
activities must be carefully planned and
approved by NOAA through the Reserve
Management Plan. Historical research
may be necessary to determine the
"natural" representative state of an
estuarine area (i.e., an estuarine
ecosystem minimally affected by human
activity or influence). Frequently,
restoration of a degraded estuarine area
will provide an excellent opportunity for
management oriented research.

(f) NOAA may provide financial
assistance to coastal states, not to
exceed 50 percent of all actual costs or
$4 million whichever amount is less, to
assist in the acquisition of land and
waters, or interests therein. NOAA may
provide financial assistance to coastal
states not to exceed 50 percent of all
actual costs for the management and
operation of, and the conduct of
educational or interpretive activities
concerning, national estuarine research
reserves (see subpart I of this part).
NOAA may provide financial assistance
to any coatsal state or public or private
person, not to exceed 50 percent of all
actual costs, to support research and
monitoring within a national estuarine
research reserve. Five types of awards
are available under the National
Estuarine Reserve Research System
Program. The predesignation awards are
for site selection, draft management
plan preparation and conduct of basic
characterization studies. Acquisition
and development awards are intended
primarily for acquisition of interests in
land and construction. The operation
and management award provides funds
to assist in implementing the research,
educational, and administrative
programs detailed in the research
reserve management plan and is
reflective of the joint State-Federal
partnership in the preservation and

protection of estuarine resources. The
research and monitoring awards provide
funds to conduct estuarine research and
monitoring within the System. The
educational and interpretive award
provides funds to conduct estuarine
educational and interpretive activities
within the System.

(g) Lands alaready in protected status
managed by other Federal agencies,
state or local governments, or private
organizations can be included within
national estuarine research reserves
only if the managing entity commits to
long-term non-manipulative
management consistent with paragraphs
(d) and (e) of this section in the reserve
management plan. Federal lands already
in protected status cannot comprise the
key land and water areas of a research
reserve [see Section 921.11(c)(3)].

(h) To assist the states in carrying out
the Program's goals in an effective
manner, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
will coordinate a research and
education information exchange
throughout the national estuarine
research reserve system. As part of this
role, NOAA will ensure that informatiion
and ideas from one reserve are made
available to others in the system. The
network will enable reserves to
exchange information an research data
with each other, with universities
engaged in estuarine research, and with
Federal and state agencies. NOAA's
objective is a system-wide program of
research and monitoring capable of
addressing the management issues that
affect long-term productivity of our
Nation's estuaries.

Section 921.2 Definitions.

(a) Act means the Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1972, as amended.
16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq-Section 315 of the
Act, 16 U.S.C. 1401, establishes the
National Estuarine Reserve Research
System.

(b) Under Secretary means the Under
Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere,
U.S. Department of Commerce, or
designee.

(c) Coastal state means a state of the
United States, in or bordering on, the
Atlantic, Pacific, or Arctic Ocean; the
Gulf of Mexico, Long Island Sound, or
one or more of the Great Lakes. For the
pruposes of these regulations the term
also includes Puerto Rico, the Virgin
Islands, Guam, the Commonwealth of
the Northern Marianas Islands, the
Trust Territories of the Pacific Islands,
and American Samoa (see 16 U.S.C.
1453(4)).

(d) Estuary means that part of a river
or stream or other body of water having

Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 141 / Monday, July 23, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 29951

unimpaired connection with the open
sea, where the sea water is measurably
diluted with fresh water derived from
land drainage. The term also includes
estuary-type areas with measurable
freshwater influence and having
unimpaired connections with the open
sea, and estuary-type area of the Great
Lakes and their connecting waters. See
16 U.S.C. 1453(7)).

(e) National Estuarine Research
Reserve means that an area that is a
representative estuarine ecosystem
suitable for long-term research, which
may include all or the key land and
water portion of an estuary, and
adjacent transitional areas and uplands
constituting to the extent feasible a
natural unit, and which is set aside as a
natural field laboratory to provide long-
term opportunities for research,
education, and interpretation on the
ecological relationships within the area
(see 16 U.S.C. 1453(8)) and meets the
requirements of 16 U.S.C. 1461(b). This
includes those areas designated as
national estuarine sanctuaries under
section 315 of the Act prior to the date of
the enactment of the Coastal Zone
Management Reauthorization Act of
1985 and each area subsequently
designated as a national estuarine
research reserve.

Section 921.3 National Estuarine Reserve
Research System biogeographic
classifications scheme and estuarine
typologies.

(a) National estuarine research
reserves are chosen to reflect regional
differences and to include a variety of
ecosystem types. A biogeograpic
classification scheme based on regional
variations in the nation's coastal zone
has been developed. The biogeographic
classification scheme is used to ensure
that the National Estuarine Reserve
Research System includes at least one
site from each region. The estuarine
typology system is utilized to ensure
that sites in the System reflect the wide
rarnge of estuarine types within the
United States.

(b) The biogeographic classification
scheme, presented in Appendix I to this
part, contains 27 regions. Figure 2
graphically depicts the biogeographic
regions of the United States.

Section 921.4 Relationship to other provisions of
the Coastal Zone Management Act.

(a) The National Estuarine Reserve
Research System is intended to provide
information to state agencies and other
entities involved in addressing coastal
management issues. Any coastal state,
including those that do not have

approved coastal zone management
programs under section 306 of the Act, is
eligible for an award under the National
Estuarine Reserve Research System (see
Section 921.2(c)).

(b) For purposes of consistency
review by states with a federally
approved coastal zone management
program, the designation of a national
estuarine research reserve is deemed to
be a Federal activity, which, if directly
affecting the state's coastal zone, must
be undertaken in a manner consistent to
the maximum extent practicable with
the approved state coastal zone program
as provided by section 1456(c)(1) of the
Act, and implementing regulations at 15
CFR part 930, subpart C. In accordance
with section 1456(c)(1) of the Act and the
applicable regulations NOAA will be
responsible for certifying that
designation of the reserve is consistent
with the State approved coastal zone
management program. The State must
concur with or object to the certification.
It is recommended that the lead State
agency for reserve designation consult
at the earliest practicable time, with the
appropriate State officials concerning
the consistency of the proposed national
estuarine research reserve.

(c) The National Estuarine Research
Reserve Program will be administered in
close coordination with the National
Marine Sanctuary Program (Title III of
the Marine Protection Research and
Sanctuaries Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C.
1431-1445), also administered by NOAA.
Title III authorizes the Secretary of
Commerce to designate discrete areas of
the marine environment as marine
sanctuaries to protect or restore such
areas for their conservation,
recreational, ecological, historical,
research, educationsl or esthetic values.
National marine sanctuaries and
estuarine research reserves, may not
overlap, though they may be adjacent.

Subpart B-Site Selection, Post Site
Selection and Management Plan
Development

Section 921.10 General.

(a) A state may apply for Federal
financial assistance for the purpose of
site selection, preparation of documents
specified in Section 921.13 (draft management
plan and environmental impact
statement (EIS)) and the conduct of
research necessary to complete basic
characterization studies. The total
Federal share of this group of
predesignation awards may not exceed
$100,000 of which up to $25,000 may be
used for site selection as described in
Section 921.11. Federal financial assistance for
preacquisition activities under Section 921.11
and Section 921.12 is subject to the total $4

million for which each reserve is eligible
for land acquisition. In the case of a
biogeographic region ( see Appendix I to
this part) shared by two or more states,
each state is eligible for Federal
financial assistance to establish a
national estuarine research reserve
within their respective portion of the
shared biogeographic region. Financial
assistance application procedures are
specified in subpart I of this part.

(b) In developing a research reserve
program, a state may choose to develop
a multiple-site research reserve
reflecting a diversity of habitats in a
single biogeographic region. A multiple-
site research reserve also allows the
state to develope complementary
research and educational programs
within the individual components of its
multi-site research reserve. Multiple-site
research reserves are treated as one
reserve in terms of financial assistance
and development of an overall
management framework and plan. Each
individual site of a proposed multiple-
site research reserve shall be evaluated
both separately under Section 921.11(c) and
collectively as part of the site selection
process. A state may propose to
establish a multiple-site research
reserve at the time of the initial site
selection, or at any point in the
development or operation of the
estuarine research reserve, even after
Federal funding for the single site
research reserve has expired. If the state
decides to develop a multiple-site
national estuarine research reserve after
the initial acquisition and development
award is made for a single site, the
proposal is subject to the requirements
set forth in Section 921.33(b). However, a state
may not propose to add one or more
sites to an already designated research
reserve if the operation and
management of such research reserve
has been found deficient and
uncorrected or the reseach conducted is
not consistent with the Estuarine
Research Guidelines in accordance with
the provisions of subparts E and F of
this part. In addition, Federal funds
acquistion of a multiple-site research
reserve remains limited to $4,000,000
(see Section 921.20). The funding for operation
of a multiple-site research reserve is
limited to $70,000 per year (see
Section 921.32(c)) and preacquisition funds are
limited to $100,000 per reserve.

Section 921.11 Site selection.

(a) A state may use up to $25,000 in
Federal funds to establish and
implement a site selection process
which is approved by NOAA.

(b) In addition to the requirements set
forth in subpart I of this part, a request

29952 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 141 / Monday, July 23, 1990 / Rules and Regulations

for Federal funds for site selection must
containe the following programmatic
information:

(1) A description of the proposed site
selection process and how it will be
implemented in conformance with the
biogeographic classification scheme and
typology (Section 921.3);

(2) An identification of the site
selection agency and the potential
management agency; and

(3) A description of how public
participation will be incorporated into
the process (see Section 921.11(d)).

(a) As part of the site selection
process, the state and NOAA shall
evaluate and select the final site(s).
NOAA has final authority in approving
such sites. Site selection shall be guided
by the following principles:

(1) The site's contribution to the
biogeographical and typological balance
of the National Estuarine Reserve
Research System. NOAA will give
priority consideration to proposals to
establish reserves in biogeographic
regions or subregions that are not
represented in the system (see the
biogeographic classification scheme and
typology set forth in Section 921.3 and
appendices I and II to this part);

(2) The site's ecological
characteristics, including its biological
productivity, diversity of flora and
fauna, and capacity to attract a broad
range of research and educational
interests. The proposed site must be a
representative estuarine ecosystem and
should, to the maximum extent possible,
be an estuarine ecosystem minimally
affected by the human activity or influence
(see Section 921.1(e));

(3) Assurance that the site's
boundaries encompass an adequate
portion of the key land and water areas
of the natural system to approximate an
ecological unit and to ensure effective
conservation. Boundary size will vary
greatly depending on the nature of the
ecosystem. Research reserve boundaries
must encompass the area within which
adequate control has or will be
established by the managing entity over
human activities occurring within the
reserve. Generally, reserve boundaries
will encompass two areas: key land and
water areas (or "core area") and a
buffer zone. Key land and water areas
and a buffer zone will likely require
significantly different levels of control
(see Section 921.13(a)(7)). The term "key land
and water areas" refers to that core area
within the reserve that is so vital to the
functioning of the estuarine ecosystem
that it must be under a level of control
sufficient ot ensure the long-term
viability of the reserve for research on
natural proceses. Key land and water
areas, which comprise the core area, are

those ecological units of a natural
estuarine system which preserve, for
research purposes, a full range of
significant physical, chemical and
biological factors contributing to the
diversity of fauna, flora and natural
processes occurring within the estuary.
The determination of which land and
water areas are "key" to a particular
reserve must be based on specific
scientific knowledge of the area. A basic
principle to follow when deciding upon
key land and water areas is that they
should encompass resources
representative of the total ecosystem,
and which if compromised could
endanger the research objectives of the
reserve. The term "buffer zone" refers to
an area adjacent to or surrounding key
land and water areas and essential to
their integrity. Buffer zones protect the
core area and provide additional
protection for estuarine-dependent
species, including those that are rare or
endangered. When determined
approproate by the state and approved
by NOAA, the buffer zone may also
include an area necessary for facilities
required for reserach and interpretation.
Additionally, buffer zones should be
established sufficient to accommodate a
shift of the core area as a result of
biological, ecological or
geomorphological change which
reasonably could be expected to occur.
National estuarine research reserves
may include existing Federal or state
lands already in a protected status
where mutual benefit can be enhanced.
However, NOAA will not approve a site
for potential national estuarine research
reserve status that is dependent
primarily upon the inclusion of currently
protected Federal lands in order to meet
the requirements for research reserve
status (such as key land and water
areas). Such lands generally will be
included within a research reserve to
serve as a buffer or for other ancillary
purposes;

(4) The site's suitability for long-term
estuarine research, including ecological
factors and proximity to existing
research facilities and educational
institutions;

(5) The site's compatibility with
existing and potential land and water
uses to contignous areas as well as
approved coastal and estuarine
management plans; and

(6) The site's importance to education
and interpretive efforts, consistent with
the need for continued protection of the
natural system.

(d) Early in the site selection process
the state must seek the views of affected
landowners, local governments, other
state and Federal agencies and other
parties who are interested in the

being considered for selection as a
potential natioal estuarine research
reserve. After the local government(s)
and affected landowner(s) have been
contacted, at least one public meeting
shall be held in the area of the proposed
site. Notice of such a meeting, including
the time, place, and relevant subject
matter, shall be announced by the state
through the area's principal news media
at least 15 days prior to the date of the
meeting and by NOAA in the Federal
Register.

(e) A state request for NOAA
approval of a proposed site (or sites in
the case of a multi-site reserve) must
contain a description of the proposed
site in relationship to each of the site
selection principles (Section 921.11(c)) and the
following information:

(1) An analysis of the proposed site
based on the biogeographical scheme/
typology discussed in Section 921.3 and set
forth in appendices I and II to this part;

(2) A description of the proposed site
and its major resources, including
location, proposed boundaries, and
adjacent land uses. Maps, including
aerial photographs, are requried;

(3) A description of the public
participation process used by the state
to solicit the views of interested parties,
a summary of comments, and if
interstate issues are involved,
documentation that the Governor(s) of
the other affected state(s) has been
contacted. Copies of all correspondence,
including contact letters to all affected
landowners must be appended;

(4) A list of all sites considered and a
brief statement of the basis for not
selecting the non-preferred sites; and

(5) A nomination of the proposed
site(s) for designation as a National
Estuarine Research Reserve by the
Governor of the coastal state in which
the area is located.

Section 921.12 Post site selection.

(a) At the time of the state's request
for NOAA approval of a proposed site,
the state may submit a request for up to
$40,000 fo the total $100,000 allowed for
predesignation funds to develop the
draft management plan and for the
collection of the information necessary
for preparation of the environmental
impact statement. At this time, the state
may also submit a request for the
remainder of the predesignation funds
for research necessary to complete a
basic characterization of the physical,
chemical and biological characteristics
of the site approved by NOAA. The
state's request for these post site
selection funds must be accompanied by
the information specified in subpart I of
this part and, for draft management plan

Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 141 / Monday, July 23, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 29953

development and environmental impact
statement information collection, the
following programmatic information:

(1) A draft management plan outline
(see Section 921.13(a) below); and

(2) An outline of a draft memorandum
of understanding (MOU) between the
state and NOAA detailing the Federal-
state role in research reserve
management during the initial period of
Federal funding and expressing the
state's long-term commitment to operate
and manage the national estuarine
research reserve.

(b) The state is eligible to use the
funds referenced in Section 921.12(a) after the
proposed site is approved by NOAA
under the terms of Section 921.11.

Section 921.13 Management plan and
environmental impact statement
development.

(a) After NOAA approves the state's
proposed site, the state may request to
use additional predesignation funds for
draft management plan development
and the collection of information
necessary for the preparation by NOAA
of the environmental impact statement.
The State shall develop a draft
management plan, including an MOU.
The plan will set out in detail:

(1) Research reserve goals and
objectives, management issues, and
strategies or actions for meeting the
goals and objectives;

(2) An administrative section
including staff roles in administration,
research, education/interpretation, and
surveillance and enforcement;

(3) A research plan, including a
monitoring design;

(4) An education/interpretive plan;

(5) A plan for public access to the
research reserve;

(6) A construction plan, including a
proposed construction schedule, general
descriptions of proposed developments
and preliminary drawings, if
appropriate. Information should be
provided for proposed minor
construction projects in sufficient detail
to allow these projects to begin in the
initial phase of acquisition and
development. If a visitor center,
research center, or any other facilities
are proposed for construction or
renovation at the site, or restorative
activities which require significant
construction are planned, a detailed
construction plan including preliminary
cost estimates and architectural
drawings must be prepared as a part of
the final management plan; and

(7) An acquisition plan identifying the
ecologically key land and water areas of
the research reserve, ranking these
areas according to their relative
importance, and including a strategy for

establishing adequate long-term state
control over these areas sufficient to
provide protection for reserve resources
to ensure a stable environment for
research. This plan must include an
identification of ownership within the
proposed research reserve boundaries,
including and already in the public
domain: the method(s) of acquisition
which the state proposes to use-
acquisition (including less-than-fee
simple options) to establish adequate
ong-term state control: an estimate of
the fair market value of any property
interest-which is proposed for
acquisition: a schedule estimating the
time required to complete the process of
establishing adequate state control of
the proposed research reserve: and a
discussion of any anticipated problems. In selecting a preferred method(s) for
establishing adequate state control over
areas within the proposed boundaries of
the reserve. the state shall perform the
following steps for each parcel
determined to be part of the key land
and water areas (control over which is
necessary to protect the integrity of the
reserve for research purposes), and for
those parcels required for research and
interpretive support facilities or buffer
purposes:

(i) Determine, with appropriate
justification. the minimum level of
control(s) required (e.g., management
agreement regulation, less-than-fee
conservation easement), fee simple
property acquisition, or a combination
of these approaches;

(ii) Identify the level of existing state
control(s);

(iii) Identify the level of additional
state control(s), if any, necessary to
meet the minimum requirements
identified in (a)(7)(i); of this section;

(iv) Examine all reasonable
alternatives for attaining the level of
control identified in (a)(7)(iii) of this
section, and perform a cost analysis of
each; and

(v) Rank, in order of costs, the methods
(including acquisition) identified in
paragraph (a)(7)(iv) of this section.
An assessment of the relative cost-
effectiveness of control alternatives
shall include a reasonable estimate of
both short-term costs (e.g., acquisition of
property interests, regulatory program
development including associated
enforcement costs, negotiation,
adjudication, etc.) and long-term costs
(e.g., monitoring, enforcement,
adjudication, management and
coordination). In selecting a preferred
method(s) for establishing adequate
state control over each parcel examined
under the process described above, the

state shall give priority consideration to
the least costly method(s) of attaining
the minimum level of long-term control
required. Generally, with the possible
exception of buffer areas required for
support facilities, the level of control(s)
required for buffer areas will be
considerably less than that required for
key land and water areas. This
acquisition plan, after receiving the
approval of NOAA, shall serve as a
guide for negotiations with landowners.
A final boundary for the reserve shall be
delineated as a part of the final
management plan;

(8) A resource protection plan
detailing applicable authories,
including allowable uses, uses requiring
a permit and permit requirements, any
restrictions on use of the research
reserve, and a strategy for research
reserve surveillance and enforcement of
such use restrictions, including
appropriate government enforcement
agencies;

(9) If applicable, a restoration plan
describing those portions of the site that
may require habitat modification to
restore natural conditons;

(10) A proposed memorandum of
understanding (MOU) between the state
and NOAA regarding the Federal-state
relationship during the establishment
and development of the national
estuarine research reserve, and
expressing a long-term commitment by
the state to maintain and manage the
research reserve in accordance with
section 315 of the Act 16 U.S.C. 1461,
and applicable regulations. In
conjunction with the MOU and where
possible under state law, the state will
consider taking appropriate
administrative or legislative action to
ensure the long-term protection and
operation of the national estuarine
research reserve. The MOU shall be
signed prior to research reserve
designation. If other MOUs are
necessary (such as with a Federal
agency or another state agency), drafts
of such MOUs also must be included in
the plan; and

(11) If the state has a federally
approved coastal zone management
program, documentataion that the
proposed national estuarine research
reserve is consistent to the maximum
extent practicable with that program.
See Section 921.4(b) and Section 921.30(b).

(b) Regarding the preparation of an
environmental impact statement(EIS)
under the National Environmental Policy
Act on a national estuarine research
reserve proposal, the state shall provide
all necessary information to NOAA
concerning the socioeconomic and
environmental impacts associated with

29954 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 141 / Monday, July 23, 1990 / Rules and Regulations

implementing the draft management
plan and feasible alternatives to the
plan. Based on this information, NOAA
will prepare the draft EIS.

(c) Early in the development of the
draft management plan and the draft
EIS, the state shall hold a meeting in the
area or areas most affected to solicit
public and government comments on the
significant issues related to the
proposed action. NOAA will publish a
notice of the meeting in the Federal
Register 15 days prior to the meeting.
The state shall be responsible for
publishing a similar notice in the local
media.

(d) NOAA will publish a Federal
Register notice of intent to prepare a
draft EIS. After the draft EIS is prepared
and filed with the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), a Notice of
Availability of the DEIS will appear in
the Federal Register. Not less than 30
days after publication of the notice,
NOAA will hold at least one public
hearing in the area or areas most
affected by the proposed national
estuarine research reserve. The hearing
will be held no sooner than 15 days after
appropriate notice of the meeting has
been given in the principal news media
and in the Federal Register by NOAA
and the state, respectively. After a 45-
day comment period, a final EIS will be
prepared by NOAA.

Subpart C-Acquisition, Development,
and Preparation of the Final
Management Plan

Section 921.20 General.

The acquisition and development
period is separated into two major
phases. After NOAA approval of the
site, draft management plan and draft
MOU, and completion of the final EIS, a
state is eligible for an initial acquisition
and development award(s). In this initial
phase, the state should work to meet the
criteria required for formal research
reserve designation; e.g., establishing
adequate state control over the key land
and water areas as specified in the draft
management plan and preparing the
final management plan. These
requirements are specified in Section 921.30.
Minor construction in accordance with
the draft management plan may also be
conducted during this initial phase. The
initial acquisition and development
phase is expected to last no longer than
three years. If necessary, a longer time
period may be negotiated between the
state and NOAA. After reserach reserve
designation, a state is eligible for a
supplemental acquisition and
development award(s) in accordance
with Section 921.31. In this post-designation
acquisition and development phase,

funds may be used in accordance with
the final management plan to construct
research and educational facilities,
complete any remaining land
acquisition, and for restorative activities
identified in the final management plan.
In any case, the amount of Federal
financial assistance provided to a
coastal state with respect to the
acquisition of lands and waters, or
interests therein, for any one national
estuarine research reserve may not
exceed an amount equal to 50 percent of
the costs of the lands, waters, and
interests therein or $4,000,000,
whichever amount is less. The amount
of Federal assistance for development
and construction activities is $1,500,000.

Section 921.21 Initial acquisition and
development awards.

(a) Assistance is provided to aid the
recipient in:

(1) Acquiring a fee simple or less-
than-fee simple real property interest in
land and water areas to be included in
the research reserve boundaries (see
Section 921.13(a)(7); Section 921.30(d));

(2) Minor construction, as provided in
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section;

(3) Preparing the final management
plan; and

(4) Up to the point of research reserve
designation, initial management costs,
e.g., for implementing the NOAA
approved draft management plan,
preparing the final management plan,
hiring a reserve manager and other staff
as necessary and for other management-
related activities. Application
procedures are specified in subpart I of
this part.

(b) The expenditures of Federal and
state funds on major construction
activities is not allowed during the
initial acquisition and development
phase. The preparation of architectural
and engineering plans, including
specifications, for any proposed
construction, or for proposed restorative
activities, is permitted. In addition,
minor construction activities, consistent
with paragraph (c) of this section also
are allowed. The NOAA-approved draft
management plan must, however,
include a construction plan and a public
access plan before any award funds can
be spent on construction activities.

(c) Only minor construction activities
that aid in implementing portions of the
management plan (such as boat ramps
and nature trails) are permitted during
the initial acquisition and development
phase. No more than five (5) percent of
the initial acquisition and development
award may be expanded on such
facilities. NOAA must make a specific
determination, based on the final EIS,

that the construction activity will not be
detrimental to the environment.

(d) Except as specifically provided in
paragraphs (a) through (c) of this
section, construction projects, to be
funded in whole or in part under an
acquisition and development award(s),
may not be initiated until the research
reserve receives formal designation (see
Section 921.30). This requirement has been
adopted to ensure that substantial
progress in establishing adequate state
control over key land and waters areas
has been made and that a final
management plan is completed before
major sums are spent on construction.
Once substantial progress in
establishing adequate state control/
acquisition has been made, as defined
by the state in the management plan,
other activities guided by the final
management plan may begin with
NOAA's approval.

(e) For any real property acquired in
whole or part with Federal funds for the
research reserve the state shall execute
suitable title documents to include
substantially the following provisions,
or otherwise append the following
provisions in a manner acceptable under
applicable state law to the official land
record(s):

(1) Title to the property conveyed by
this deed shall vest in the [recipient of
the award granted pursuant to section
315 of the Act, 16 U.S.C. 1481 or other
NOAA approved state agency] subject
to the condition that the designation of
the [name of National Estuarine
Reserve] is not withdrawn and the
property remains part of the federally
designated [name of National Estuarine
Research Reserve].

(2) In the event that the property is no
longer included as part of the research
reserve, or if the designation of the
research reserve of which it is part is
withdrawn, then NOAA or its successor
agency, after full and reasonable
consultation with the State, may
exercise the following rights regarding
the disposition of the property:

(i) The recipient may retain title after
paying the Federal Government an
amount computed by applying the
Federal percentage of participation in
the cost of the original project to the
current fair market value of the
property;

(ii) If the recipient does not elect to
retain title, the Federal Government may
either direct the recipient to sell the
property and pay the Federal
Government an amount computed by
applying the Federal percentage of
participation in the cost of the original
project to the proceeds from the sale
(after deducting actual and reasonable

Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 141 / Monday, July 23, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 2995

selling and repair or renovation
expenses, if any, from the sale
proceeds), or direct the recipient to
transfer title to the Federal Government.
If directed to transfer title to the Federal
Government, the recipient shall be
entitled to compensation computed by
applying the recipient's percentage of
participation in the cost of the original
project to the current fair market value
of the property.

(iii) Fair market value of the property
must be determined by an independent
appraiser and certified by a responsible
official of the state, as provided by
Department of Commerce Regulations in
15 CFR aprt 24, and Uniform Relocation
Assistance and Real Property
Acquisition for Federal and Federally
assisted programs in 15 CFR part 11.

(f) Upon instruction by NOAA,
provisions analogous to those of
Section 921.21(e) shall be included in the
documentation underlying less-than-fee-
simple interests acquired in whole or
part with Federal funds.

(g) Federal funds or non-Federal
matching share funds shall not be spent
to acquire a real property interest in
which the State will own the land
concurrently with another entity unless
the property interest has been identified
as a part of an acquisition strategy
pursuant to Section 921.13(7) which has been
approved by NOAA prior to the
effective date of these regulations.

(h) Prior to submitting the final
management plan to NOAA for review
and approval, the state shall hold a
public meeting to receive comment on
the plan in the area affected by the
estuarine research reserve. NOAA will
publish a notice of the meeting in the
Federal Register. The state shall be
responsible for having a similar notice
published in the local media.

Subpart D-Reserve Designation and
Subsequent Operation

Section 921.30 Designation of National Estuarine
Research Reserves.

(a) The Under Secretary may
designate an area as a national
estuarine research reserve pursuant to
section 315 of the Act, if based on
written findings the state has met the
following requirements:

(1) The Governor of the coastal state
in which the area is located has
nominated the area for designation as a
national estuarine research reserve;

(2) The area is a representative
estuarine ecosystem that is suitable for
long-term research and contributes to
the biogeographical and typological
balance of the System;

(3) Key land and water areas of the
proposed research reserve, as identified

in the management plan, are under
adequate state control sufficient to
provide long-term protection for reserve
resources and to ensure a stable
environment for research:

(4) Designation of the area as a
reserve will serve to enhance public
awarenness and understanding of
estuarine areas, and provide suitable
opportunities for public education and
interpretation;

(5) A final management plan has been
approved by NOAA and contains the
signed copy of the designation findings;

(6) An MOU has been signed between
the state and NOAA ensuring a long-
term commitment by the state to the
effective operation and implementation
of the national estuarine research
reserve; and

(7) The coastal state in which the area
is located has complied with the
requirements of these regulations.

(b) NOAA will determine whether the
designation of a national estuarine
research reserve in a state with a
federally approved coastal zone
management program directly affects
the coastal zone. If the designation is
found to directly affect the coastal zone,
NOAA will make a consistency
determination pursuant to section
307(c)(1) of the Act, 16 U.S.C. 1456, and
15 CFR part 930, subpart C. See
Section 921.4(b). The results of this
consistency determination will be
published in the Federal Register when a
notice of designation is published. See
Section 921.30(c).

(c) NOAA will cause a notice of
designation of a national estuarine
research reserve to be placed in the
Federal Register. The state shall be
responsible for having a similar notice
published in the local media.

(d) The term "state control" in
Section 921.30(a)(3) does not necessarily
require that key land and water areas be
owned by the state in fee simple.
Acquisition of less-than-fee-simple
interests (e.g., conservation easements)
and utilization of existing State
regulatory measures are encouraged
where the state can demonstrate that
these interests and measures assure
adequate long-term State control
consistent with the purposes of the
research reserve (see also Section 921.13(a)(7);
Section 921.21(g)). Should the state later elect
to purchase an interest in such lands
using NOAA funds, adequate
justification as to the need for such
acquisition must be provided to NOAA.

Section 921.31 Supplemental acquisition and
development awards.

After national estuarine research
reserve designation, and as specified in
the approved management plan, the

state may request a supplemental
acquisition and/or development
award(s) for acquiring additional
property interests identified in the
management plan as necessary to
enhance long-term protection of the area
for research and education, for facility
construction, for restorative activities
identified in the approved management
plan, and for administrative purposes.
The amount of Federal financial
assistance provided for supplemental
development costs directly associated
with facility construction other than
land acquisition (i.e., major construction
activities) for any one national estuarine
research reserve may not exceed
$1,500,000 and must be matched by the
state on a 50/50 basis. Supplemental
acquisition awards for the acquisition
lands or waters, or interest therein, for
any one National Estuarine Reserve may
not exceed an amount equal to 50 per
centum of the cost of the lands, waters
and interest therein or $4,000,000
whichever amount is less. In the case of
a biogeographic region (see Appendix
to this part) shared by two or more
states, each state is eligible for Federal
financial assistance to establish a
national estuarine research reserve
within their respective portion of the
shared biogeographic region.
Application procedures are specified in
subpart I of this part. Land acquisition
must follow the procedures specified
Section 921.13(a)(7); Section 921.21(e) and (f) and
Section 921.81.

Section 921.32 Operation and management:
Implementation of the management plan.

(a) After the national estuarine
research reserve is formally designated
the state is eligible to receive Federal
funds fto assist the state in the operation
and management of the research
reserve. The purpose of this Federally
funded operation and management
phase is to implement the approved fund
management plan and to take the
necessary steps to ensure the continuous
effective operation of the research
reserve.

(b) State operation and management
of national estuarine research reserve
shall be consistent with the mission, a
shall further the goals, of the National
Estuarine Research System (
Section 921.1).

(c) Federal funds of up to $70,000 per
year, to be matched by the state on a
50/50 basis, are available for the
operation and management of the
national estuarine research reserve,
including the establishment and
operation of a basic environmental
monitoring program. In the case of a
biogeographic region (see appendix I

29958 Federal Register / Vol 55. No. 141 / Monday, July 23, 1990 / Rules and Regulations

this part) shared by two ro more states,
each state is eligible for Federal
financial assistance to establish a
national estuarine research reserve
within their respective portion of the
shared biogeographic region (see
Section 921.10).

(d) Operation and management funds
are subject to the following limitations:

(1) No more than $70,000 in Federal
funds may be expended in a twelve
month award period (i.e., Federal funds
for operation and management may not
be expended at a rate greater than
$70,000 per year);

(2) No more than ten percent of the
total amount (state and Federal shares)
of each operation and management
award may be used for construction-
type activities (i.e., $14,000 maximum
per year).

Section 921.23 Boundary changes, amendments
to the management plan, and addition of
multiple-site components.

(a) Changes in research reserve
boundaries and major changes to the
final management plan, including state
laws or regulations promulgated
specifically for the research reserve,
may be made only after written
approval by NOAA. If determined to be
necessary, NOAA may require public
notice, including notice to the Federal
Register and and opportunity for public
comment. Changes in the boundaries of
the research reserve involving the
acquisition of properties not listed in the
management plan or final EIS require
public notice and the opportunity for
comment; in certain cases, an
environmental assessment and possibly,
an environmental impact statement,
may be required. Where public notice is
required, NOAA will place a notice in
the Federal Register of any proposed
changes in research reserve boundaries
or proposed major changes to the final
management plan. The state shall be
responsible for publishing an equivalent
notice in the local media. See also
requirements of Section 921.4(b) and
Section 921.13(a)(11).

(b) As discussed in Section 921.10(b), a state
may choose to develop a multiple-site
national estuarine research reserve after
the initial acquisition an development
award for a single site has been made.
Public notice of the proposed addition
will be placed by NOAA in the Federal
Register. The state shall be responsible
for publishing an equivalent notice in
the local media. An opportunity for
comment, in addition to the preparation
of either an environmental assessment
or environmental impact statement on
the proposal, will also be required. An
environemntal impact statement, if
required, shall be prepared in

accordance with section 921.13 and
shall include an administrative
framework for the multiple-site research
reserve and a description of the
complementary research and
educational programs within the
research reserve. If NOAA determines,
based on the scope of the project and
the issues associated with the additional
site, that an environmental assessment
is sufficient to establish a multiple-site
research reserve, then the state shall
develop a revised management plan
which, concerning the additional
component, incorporates each of the
elements described in Section 921.13(a). The
revised management plan shall address
goals and objectives for all components
of the multi-site research reserve and
the additional component's relationship
to the original site(s).

Subpart E-Performance Evaluation
and Withdrawal of Designation

Section 921.40 Evaluation of system
performance.

(a) Following designation of a national
estuarine research reserve pursuant to
Section 921.30, periodic performance
evaluations shall be conducted
concerning the operation and
management of each national estuarine
research reserve, including the research
and monitoring being conducted within
the reserve and education and
interpretive activities. Evaluations may
assess performance in all aspects of
research reserve operation and
management or may be limited in scope,
focusing on selected issues of
importance. Performance evaluations in
assessing research reserve operation
and management may also examine
whether a resarch reserve is in
compliance with the requirements of
these regulations, particularly whether:

(1) The operation and management of
the research reserve is consistent with
and furthers the mission and goals of the
National Estuarine Reserve Research
System (see Section 921.1); and

(2) A basis continues to exist to
support any one or more of the findings
made under Section 921.30(a).

(b) Generally, performance will be
evaluated at least every three years.
More frequent evaluations may be
scheduled as determined to be
necessary by NOAA.

(c) Performance evaluations will be
conducted by Federal officials. When
determined to be necessary, Federal and
non-Federal experts in natural resources
management, estuarine research,
interpretation or other aspects of
national estuarine research reserve
operation and management may be
requested by NOAA to participate in

peformance evaluations. If other
experts are to be included in the
evaluation, NOAA will first ask the
state to recommend appropriate
individuals to serve in that capacity.

(d) Performance evaluations will be
conducted in accordance with the
procedural and public participation
provisions of the CZMA regulations on
review of performance at 15 CFR part
928 (i.e., Section 928.3(b) and Section 928.4).

(e) To ensure effective Federal
oversight of each research reserve
within the National Estuarine Reserve
Research System the state is required to
submit an annual report on operation
and management of the research reserve
during the immediately preceding state
fiscal year. This annual report must be
submitted within a ninety day period
following the end of the state fiscal year.
The report shall detail program
successes and accomplishments,
referencing the research reserve
management plan and, as appropriate,
the work plan for the previous year. A
work plan, detailing the projects and
activites to be undertaken over the
coming year to meet the goals and
objectives of the research reserve as
described in the management plan and
the state's role in ongoing research
reserve programs, shall also be included.

Section 921.41 Suspension of eligibility for
financial assistance.

(a) If a performance evaluation under
Section 921.40 reveals that the operation and
management of the reserach reserve is
deficient, or that the research being
conducted within the reserve is not
consistent with the Estuarine Research
Guidelines referenced in subpart F of
this part, the eligibility of the research
reserve for Federal financial assistance
as described in these regulations may be
suspended until the deficiency or
inconsistency is remedied.

(b) NOAA will provide the state with
a written notice of the deficiency or
inconsistency. This notice will explain
the finding, asess the Federal role in
contributing to the problem, propose a
solution or solutions, provide a schedule
by which the state should remedy the
deficiency or inconsistency, and state
whether the state's eligibility for Federal
financial assistance has been suspended
in whole or part. In this notice the state
shall also be advised that it may
commennt on this finding and meet with
NOAA officials to discuss the results of
the performance evaluation and seek to
remedy the deficiency or inconsistency.

(c) Eligibility of a research reserve for
financial assistance under these
regulations shall be restored upon
written notice by NOAA to the state

Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 141 / Monday, July 12, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 29957

that the deficiency or inconsistency has
been remedied.

(d) If, after a reasonable time, a state
does not remecy a deficiency in the
operation and management of a national
estuarine research reserve which has
been identified pursuant to a
performance evaluation under
Section 921.40(a), such outstanding deficiency
shall be considered a basis for
withdrawal of designation (see Section 921.42).

Section 921.42 Withdrawal of designation.

(a) Designation of an estuarine area
as a national estuarine research reserve
may be withdrawn if a performance
evaluation conducted pursuant to
Section 921.40 reveals that:

(1) The basis for any one or more of
the findings made under Section 921.30(a) in
designating the research reserve no
longer exists:

(2) A substantial portion of the
research conducted within the research
reserve, over a period of years, has not
been consistent with the Estuarine
Research Guidelines referenced in
subpart F of this part; or

(3) A state, after a reasonable time,
has not remedied a deficiency in the
operation and management of a
research reserve identified pursuant to
an earlier performance evaluation
conducted under Section 921.40.

(b) If a basis is found under
Section 921.42(a) for withdrawal of
designation, NOAA will provide the
state with a written notice of this
finding. This notice will explain the
basis for the finding, propose a solution
or solutions and provide a schedule by
which the state should correct the
deficiency. In this notice, the state shall
also be advised that it may comment on
the finding and meet with NOAA
officials to discuss the finding and seek
to correct the deficiency.

(c) If, within a reasonable period of
time, the deficiency is not corrected in a
manner acceptable to NOAA, a notice
of intent to withdraw designation, with
an opportunity for comment, will be
placed in the Federal Register.

(d) The state shall be provided the
opportunity for an informal hearing
before the Under Secretary to consider
NOAA's finding of deficiency and intent
to withdraw designation, as well as the
state's comments on and response to
NOAA's written notice pursuant to
Section 921.42(b) and Federal Register notice
pursuant to Section 921.42(c).

(e) Within 30 days after the informal
hearing, the Under Secretary shall issue
a written decision regarding the
designation status of the national
estuarine research reserve. If a decision
is made to withdraw research reserve
designation, the procedures specified in

Section 921.21(e) regarding the disposition of
real property acquired in whole or part
with Federal funds shall be followed.

(f) NOAA may not withdraw
designation of a national estuarine
research reserve if the performance
evaluation reveals that the defeciencies
in management of the site are a result of
inadequate Federal financial support.

Subpart F-Research

Section 921.50 General.

(a) To stimulate high quality research
within designated national estuarine
research reserves, NOAA may provide
financial support for research which is
consistent with the Estuarine Research
Guidelines referenced in Section 921.51.
Research awards may be awarded
under this subpart to only those
designated research reserves with
approved final management plans with
the following exception: NOAA may
award research awards under this
subpart to reserves without final
management plans that have been
designated prior to the effective date of
these regulations: in the absence of an
approved final management plan,
however these reserves will be eligible
for research awards during only the first
two years after the effective date of
these regulations. Although this research
may be conducted within the immediate
watershed of the research reserve, the
majority of research activities of any
single research project funded under this
subpart must be conducted within
reserve boundaries. Research funds are
primarily used to support management-
related research that will enchance
scientific understanding of the research
reserve ecosystem, provide information
needed by reserve managers and coastal
management decision-makers, and
improve public awareness and
understanding of estuarine ecosystems
and estuarine management issues.
Research projects may be oriented to
specific research reserves; however,
research projects that would benefit
more than one research reserve in the
National Estuarine Reserve Research
System are encouraged.

(b) Federal research funds under this
subpart are not intended as a source of
continuous funding for a particular
project over time. Research funds may
be used to support start-up costs for
long-term projects if an applicant can
identify an alternative source of long-
term research support.

(c) Research funds are available on a
competitive basis to any coastal state or
qualified public or private person. A
notice of available funds will be
published in the Federal Register.
Research funds are provided in addition

to any other funds available to a coastal
state under the Act. Federal research
funds provided under this subpart must
be matched equally by the recipient,
consistent with Section 921.81(e)(4)
("allowable costs").

Section 921.51 Estuarine research guidelines

(a) Research within the National
Estuarine Reserve Research System
shall be conducted in a manner
consistent with Estuarine Research
Guidelines developed by NOAA.

(b) A summary of the Estuarine
Research Guidelines is published in the
Federal Register as a part of the notice
of available funds discussed in
Section 921.50(c).

(c) The Estuarine Research Guidelines
are reviewed annually by NOAA. This
review will include an opportunity for
comment by the estuarine research
community.

Section 921.52 Promotion and coordination of
estuarine research.

(a) NOAA will promote and
coordinate the use of the National
Estuarine Reserve Research System for
research purposes.

(b) NOAA will, in conducting or
supporting estuarine research other than
that authorized under section 315 of the
Act, give priority consideration to
research that uses the National
Estuarine Reserve Research System.

(c) NOAA will consult with other
Federal and state agencies to promote
use of one or more reserach reserves
within the National Estuarine Reserve
Research System when such agencies
conduct estuarine research.

Subpart G-Monitoring

Section 921.60 General

(a) To provide a systematic basis for
developing a high quality estuarine
resource an ecosystem information
base for national estuarine research
reserves and, as a result, for the System.
NOAA may provide financial support
for monitoring programs. Monitoring
funds are used to support three major
phases of a monitoring program: studies
necessary for comprehensive site
description/characterization,
development of a site profile, and
implementation of a monitoring
program.

(b) Monitoring funds are available on
a competitive basis to the state agency
responsible for reserve management or
qualified public or private person or
entity designated by the Reserve.
However, if the applicant is other than
the managing entity of a reserve
research (coastal state), that applicant
must submit as a part of the application

29958 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 141 / Monday, July 23, 1990 / Rules and Regulations

a letter from the reserve manager
indicating formal support of the
application by the managing entity of
the reserve. Monitoring awards will be
made on the basis of a five-year
performance period; and with initial
funding for a twelve (12) month period;
and with annual supplemental funding
contingent on performance and
appropriations under the Act.
Monitoring funds are provided in
addition to any other funds available to
a coastal state under the Act. Federal
monitoring funds must be matched
equally by the recipient, consistent with
Section 921.81(e)(4) ("allowable costs").

(c) Monitoring projects funded under
this Subpart must focus on the resources
within the boundaries of the research
reserve and muut be consistent with the
applicable sections of the Estuarine
Research Guidelines referenced in
Section 921.51. Portions of the project may
occur within the immediate watershed
of the Reserve beyond the site
boundaries. However, the monitoring
proposal must demonstrate why this is
necessary for the success of the project.

Subpart H-Interpretation and
Education

Section 921.70 General.

(a) To stimulate the development of
innovative or creative interpretive and
educational projects and materials to
enhance public awareness and
understanding of estuarine areas,
NOAA may fund interpretive and
educational activities. Interpretive and
educational awards may be awarded
under this subpart to only those
designated research reserves with
approved final management plans with
the following exception: NOAA may
award research awards under this
subpart to reserves without final
management plans that have been
designated prior to the effective date of
these regulations; in the absence of an
approved final management plan,
however these reserves will be eligible
for research awards during only the first
two years after the effective date of
these regulations.

(b) Educational and interpretive funds
are available on a competitive basis to
any coastal state entity. However, if the
applicant is other than the managing
entity of a research reserve, that
applicant must submit as a part of the
application a letter from the reserve
manager indicating formal support of the
application by the managing entity of
the reserve. These funds are provided in
addition to any other funds available to
a coastal state under the Act. Federal
interpretation and educational funds
must be matched equally by the

recipient, consistent with Section 921.81(e)(4)
("allowable costs").

Section 921.71 Categories of potential
interpretive and educational projects;
evaluation criteria.

(a) Proposals for interpretive or
educational projects will be considered
under the following categories:

(1) Design, development and
distribution/placement of interpretive or
educational media (i.e., the development
of tangible items, such as exhibits/
displays, publications, posters, signs,
audio/visuals, computer software and
maps which have an educational or
interpretive purpose; and techniques for
making available or locating information
concerning research reserve resources,
activities, or issues);

(2) Development and presentation of
curricula, workshops, lectures, seminars,
and other structured programs or
presentations for facility of field use:

(3) Extension/outreach programs; or

(4) Creative and innovative methods
and technologies for implementing
interpretive or educational projects.

(b) Interpretive and educational
projects may be oriented to one or more
research reserves or to the entire
system. Those projects which would
directly benefit more than one research
reserve, and, if practicable, the entire
National Estuarine Reserve Research
System, shall receive priority
consideration for funding.

(c) Proposals for interpretive and
educational projects in national
estuarine research reserves will be
evaluated in accordance with criteria
listed below:

(1) Educational or interpretive merits;

(2) Relevance or importance to reserve
management or coastal decisionmaking;

(3) Educational quality (e.g.,
soundness of approach, experience
related to methodologies);

(4) Importance to the National
Estuarine Reserve Research System;

(5) Budget and Institutional
Capabilies (e.g., reasonableness of
budget, sufficiency of logistical support);
and

(6) In addition, in the case of long-
term projects, the ability of the state or
the grant recipient to support the project
beyond this initial funding.

Subpart I-General Financial
Assistance Provisions

Section 921.80 Application Information.

(a) Only a coastal state may apply for
Federal financial assistance awards for
preacquisition, acquisition and
development, operation and
management, and education and
interpretation. Any coastal state or

public or private person may apply for
Federal financial assistance awards for
estuarine research or monitoring. The
announcement of opportunities to
conduct research in the reserve system
appears on an annual basis in the
Federal Register. If a state is
participating in the national Coastal
Zone Management Program, the
applicant for an award under section
315 of the Act shall notify the state
coastal management agency regarding
the application.

(b) An original and two copies of the
formal application must be submitted at
least 120 working days prior to the
proposed beginning of the project to the
following address: Office of Ocean and
Coastal Resource Management,
National Ocean Service, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Universal Building
South, 1825 Connecticut Avenue, NW,
Suite 714, Washington, DC 20235. The
Application for Federal Assistance
Standard FOrm 424 (Non-construction
Program) constitutes the formal
application for site selection, post-site
selection, operation and management,
research, and education and interpretive
awards. The Application for Federal
Financial Assistance Standard Form 424
(Construction Program) constitutes the
formal application for land acquisition
and development awards. The
application must be accompanied by the
information required in subpart B
(predesignation) of this part, subpart C
of this part and Section 921.31 (acquisition and
development), and Section 921.32 (operation
and management) as applicable.
Applications for development awards
for construction projects, or restorative
activities involving construction, must
include a preliminary engineering report.
All applications must contain back up
data for budget estimates (Federal and
non-Federal shares), and evidence that
the application complies with the
Executive Order 12372,
"Intergovernmental Review of Federal
Programs." In addition, applications for
acquisition and development awards
must contain:

(1) State Historic Preservation Office
comments;

(2) Written approval from NOAA of
the draft management plan for initial
acquisition and development award(s);
and

(3) A preliminary engineering report
for construction projects, or restorative
activities involving construction.

Section 921.81 Allowable costs.

(a) Allowable costs will be
determined in accordance with
applicable OMB Circulars and guidance

Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 141 / Monday, July 23, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 29959

for Federal financial assistance, the
financial assistance agreement, these
regulations, and other Department of
Commerce and NOAA directives. The
term "costs" applies to both the Federal
and non-Federal shares.

(b) Costs claimed as charges to the
award must be reasonable, beneficial
and necessary for the proper and
efficient administration of the financial
assistance award and must be incurred
during the award period.

(c) Costs must not be allocable to or
included as a cost of any other
Federally-financed program in either the
current or a prior award period.

(d) General guidelines for the non-
Federal share are contained in
Department of Commerce Regulations at
15 CFR part 24 and OMB Circular A-110.
Copies of Circular A-110 can be
obtained from the Marine and Estuarine
Management Division; 1825 Connecticut
Avenue, NW., Suite 714; Washington,
DC 20235. The following may be used in
satisfying the matching requirement:

(1) Site Selection and Post Site
Selection Awards. Cash and in-kind
contributions (value of goods and
services directly benefiting and
specifically identifiable to this part of
the project) are allowable. Land may not
be used as match.

(2) Acquisition and Development
Awards, Cash and in-kind contributions
are allowable. In general, the fair market
value of lands to be included within the
research reserve boundaries and
acquired pursuant to the Act, with other
than Federal funds, may be used as
match. However, the fair market value
of real property allowable as match is
limited to the fair market value of a real
property interest equivalent to, or
required to attain, the level of control
over such land(s) identified by the state
and approved by the Federal
Government as that necessary for the
protection and management of the
national estuarine research reserve.
Appraisals must be performed according
to Federal appraisal standards as
detailed in Department of Commerce
regulations at 15 CFR part 24 and the
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Property Acquisition for Federal and
Federally Assisted Programs in 15 CFR
part 11. The fair market value of
privately donated land, at the time of
donation, as established by an
independent appraiser and certified by a
responsible official of the state
(pursuant to 15 CFR part 24), may also
be used as match. Land, including
submerged lands already in the state's
possession, may be used as match to
establish a national estuarine research
reserve. The value of match for these
state lands will be calculated by

determining the value of the benefits
foregone by the state, in the use of the
land, as a result of new restrictions that
may be imposed by Reserve designation.
The appraisal of the benefits foregone
must be made by an independent
appraiser in accordance with Federal
appraisal standards pursuant to 15 CFR
part 24 and 15 CFR part 11. A state may
initially use as match land valued at
greater than the Federal share of the
acquisition and development award.
The value in excess of the amount
required as match for the initial award
may be used to match subsequent
supplemental acquisition and
development awards for the national
estuarine research reserve (see also
Section 921.20). Costs related to land
acquisition, such as appraisals, legal
fees and surveys, may also be used as
match.

(3) Operation and Management
Awards. Generally, cash and in kind
contributions (directly benefiting and
specifically identifiable to operations
and management), except land, are
allowable.

(4) Research, Monitoring, Education
and Interpretive Awards. Cash and in-
kind contributions (directly benefiting
and specifically identifiable to the scope
of work), except land, are allowable.

Section 921.82 Amendements to financial
assistance awards.

Actions requiring an amendement to
the financial assistance award, such as
a request for additional Federal funds,
revisions of the approved project budget
or original scope of work, or extension
of the performance period must be
submitted to NOAA on Standard Form
424 and approved in writing.

Appendix I to Part 921-Biogeographic
Classification Scheme

Acadian

1. Northern Gulf of Maine (Easgport to the
Sheepscot River).

2. Southern Gulf of Maine (Sheepscot River
to Cape Cod).

Virginian

3. Southern New England (Cape Cod to
Sandy Hook).

4. Middle Atlantic (Sandy Hook to Cape
Hatteras).

5. Chesapeake Bay.

Carolinian

6. Northern Carolinas (Cape Hatteras to
Santee River).

7. South Atlantic (Santee River to St. John's
River).

8. East Florida (St. John's River to Cape
Canaveral).

West Indian

9. Caribbean (Cape Canaveral to Ft.
Jefferson and south).

10. West Florida (Ft. Jefferson to Cedar
Key).

Louisianian

11. Panhandle Coast (Cedar Key to Mobile
Bay).

12. Mississippi Delta (Mobile Bay to
Galveston).

13. Western Gulf (Galveston to Mexican
border).

Californian

14. Southern California (Mexican Border to
Point Concepcion).

15. Central California (Point Concepcion to
Cape Mendocino).

16. San Francisco Bay.

Columbian

17. Middle Pacific (Cape Mendocino to the
Columbia River).

18. Washington Coast (Columbia River to
Vancouver Island).

19. Puget Sound.

Great Lakes

20. Western Lakes (Superior, Michigan,
Huron).

21. Eastern Lakes (Ontario, Erie).

Fjord

22. Southern Alaska (Prince of Wales
Island to Cook Inlet)

23. Aleutian Islands (Cook Inlet to Bristol
Bay).

Sub-Arctic

24. Northern Alaska (Bristol Bay to
Demarcation Point).

Insular

25. Hawaiian Islands.

26. Western Pacific Island.

27. Eastern Pacific Island.

Appendix II to Part 921-Typology of
National Estuarine Research Reserves

This typology system reflects significant
differences in estuarine characteristics that
are not necessarily related to regional
location. The purpose of this type of
classification is to maximize ecosystem
variety in the selection of national estuarine
research reserves. Priority will be given to
important ecosystem types as yet
unrepresented in the reserve system. It
should be noted that any one site may
represent several ecosystem types or
physical characteristics.

Class I-Ecosystem Types

Group I-Shorelands

A. Maritime Forest-Woodland: This type of
ecosystem consists of single-stemmed species
that have developed under the influence of
salt spray. It can be found on coastal uplands
or recent features, such as barrier islands and
beaches, and may be divided into the
following biomes:

1. Northern Caniferous Forest Biome: This
is an area of predominantly evergreens such
as the sitka spruce (Plcea), grand fir (Abies),
and white cedar (Thuja), with poor
development of the shrub and herb layers,
but high annual productivity and pronounced
seasonal periodicity.

29960 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 141 / Monday, July 23, 1990 / Rules and Regulations

2. Moist Temperate (Mesothermal)
Coniferous Forest Biome: Found along the
west coast of North America from California
to Alaska, this area is dominated by conifers,
has a relatively small seasonal range, high
humidity with rainfall ranging from 30 to 150
inches, and a well-developed understory of
vegetation with an abundance of mosses and
other moisture-tolerant plants.

3. Temperate Deciduous Forest Biome: This
biome is characertized by abundant, evenly
distributed rainfall, moderate temperatures
which exhibit a distinct seasonal pattern,
well-developed soil biota and herb and shrub
layers, and numerous plants which produce
pulpy fruits and nuts. A distant subdivision of
this biome is the pine edaphic forest of the
southeastern coastal plain, in which only a
small portion of the area is occupied by
climax vegetation, although it has large areas
covered by edaphic climax pines.

4. Broad-leaved Evergreen Subtropical
Forest Biomes: The main characteristic of this
biome is high moisture with less pronounced
differences between winter and summer.
Examples are the hammocks of Florida and
the live oak forests of the Gulf and South
Atlantic coasts. Floral dominants include
pines, magnolias, bay, hollies, wild
temarind, strangler fig, gumbo limbo, and
palms.

B. Coast Shrublands: This is a transitional
area between the coastal grasslands and
woodlands and is characterized by woody
species with multiple stems a few centimeters
to several meters above the ground
developing under the influence of salt spray
and occasional sand burial. This includes
thickets, scrub, scrub savanna, heathlands,
and coastal chapperal. There is a great
variety of shrubland vegetation exhibiting
regional specificity:

1. Northern Areas: Characterized by
Hudsonia, various erinaceous species, and
thickets of Myrica, Pranum, and Rose.

2. Southeast Areas: Floral dominanis include
Myrica, Baccharia, and Ilex.

3. Western Areas: Adenostoma,
Arcotyphylos, and Eucalyptus are the
dominant floral species.

C. Coastal Grasslands: This area, which
possesses sand dunes and coastal flats, has
low rainfall (10 to 30 inches per year) and
large amounts of burnus in the soil. Ecological
succession is slow, resulting in the presence
of a number of serial stages of community
development. Dominant vegetation includes
mid-grasses (2 to 4 feet tall), such as
Ammophila, Agropyron, and Calamovilfa, tall
grasses (5 to 8 feet tall), such as Spartina, and
trees such as the willow (Sedix sp.), cherry
(Prunus sp.), and cottonwood (Populus
deltoides). This area is divided into four
regions with the following typical strand
vegetation:

1. Arctic/Borsak Elynaus;

2. Northeast/West Ammophila;

3. Southeast/Gulf: Uniola; and

4. Mid-Atlantic/Gulf: Spartina patena.

D. Coastal Tundra: This ecosystem, which
is found along the Arctic and Boreal coasts of
North America, is characertized by low
temperatures, a short growing season, and
some permafrost, producing a low, treeless
mat community made up of , lichens,

heath, shrubs, grasses, sedges, rushes, and
herbaceous and dwarf woody plants.
Common species include arctic/alpine plants
such as Empatrum nigrom and Betula caps,
the lichens Cetrana and Cladonia, and
herbaceous plants such as Potontilia
trideruata and Rubus chamaemorus. Common
species on the coastal beach ridges of the
high arctic desert include Dryas intergrifolia
and Saxifrage oppositifolis. This area can be
divided into two main subdivisions:

1. Low Tundra: characterized by a thick,
spongy mat of living and undecayed
vegetation, often with water and dotted with
ponds when not frozen; and

2. High Tundra: a bare area except for a
scanty growth of lichens and grasses, with
underlying ice wedges forming raised
polygonal areas.

E. Coastal Cliffs: This ecosystem is an
important nesting site for many sea and shore
birds. It consists of communities of
herbaceaous, graminoid, or low woody plants
(shrubs, heath, etc.) on the top or along rocky
faces exposed to salt spray. There is a
diversity of plant species including mosses,
lichens, liverworts, and "higher" plant
representatives.

Group II-Transition Areas

A. Coastal Marshes: These are wetland
areas dominated by grasss (Poscea), sedges
(Cyperacase), rushes (Juncacase), cattails
(Typhacase), and other graminoid species
and is subject to periodic flooding by either
salt or freshwater. This ecosystem may be
subdivided into: (a) Tidal, which is
periodically flooded by either salt or brackish
water, (b) non-tidal (freshwater); or (c) tidal
freshwater. These are essential habitats for
many important estuarine species of fish and
invertebrates as well as shorebirds and
waterfowl and serves important roles in
shore stabilization, flood control, water
purification, and nutrient transport and
storage.

B. Coastal Swamps: These are wet lowland
areas that support mosses and shrubs
together with large trees such as cypress or
gum.

C. Coastal Mangroves: This ecosystem
experiences regular flooding on either a daily,
monthly, or seasonal basis, has low wave
action, and is dominated by a variety of salt-
tolerant tres, such as the red mangrove
(Rhizophore mangie), black mangrove
(Avicannie nitide), and the white mangrove
(Laguncularia racemosa). It is also an
important habitat for large popluations of
fish, ivnertebrates, and birds. This type of
ecosystem can be found from central Florida
to extreme south Texas to the islands of the
Western Pacific.

D. Intertidal Beaches: This ecosystem has
a distinct biota of microscopic animals,
bacteria, and unicellular algae along with
microscopic crustaceana, mollusks, and
worms with a detritus-based nutrient cycle.
This area also includes the driftline
communities found at high tide levels on the
beach. The dominant organisms in this
ecosystem include crustaceana such as the
mole crab (Emerita), amphipoda
(Gammaridae), ghost crabs (Ocypode), and
bivalve mollusca such as the coquina (Donax)
and surf clams (Spisula and Mectra).

E. Intertidal Mud and Sand Flats: These
areas are composed of unconsolidated, high
organic content sediments that function as a
short-term storage area for nutrients and
organic cartona. Macrophytes are nearly
absent in this ecosystem, although it may be
heavily colonized by benthic diatoms,
dinoflageliates, filamentous blue-green and
green algae, and chemosynthetic purple
sulfur bacteria. This system may support a
considerable popluation of gastropoda,
bivalves, and polychaetes, and may serve as
a feeding area for a variety of fish and
wading birds. In sand, the dominant fauna
include the wedge shell Donax, the scallop
Pecten, tellin sheila Tellina, the heart urchin
Echinocardium, the lug worm Arenicola, sand
dollar Dendraster, and the sea pansy Remilla.
In mud, faunal dominants adapted to low
oxygen levels include the terebellid
Amphitrita, the boring clam Playdon, the
deep sea scallop Placopectan, the quahog
Mercenaria, the echiurid worm Urechis, the
mud snail Nassarius, and the sea cucumber
Thyone.

F. Intertidal ALgal Beds: These are hard
substrates along the marine edge that are
dominated by macroscopic algae, usually
thalloid, but also or unicellular
growth form. This also includes the rocky
coast tidepools that fall within the intertidal
zone. Dominant fauna of these areas are
barnacles, mussels, periwinkles, ,
and chitons. Three regions are apparent;

1. Northern Latitude Rocky Shores: It is
this region that the community structure is
best developed. The dominant algai species
include Chondrus at the low tide level. Fucus
and Ascophylhum at the mid-tidal level, and
Laminaria and other algae just
beyond the interidal, although they can be
exposed at extremely low tides or found in
very deep tidepools.

2. Southern Latitudes: The communities in
this region are reduced in comparison to
those of the northern latitudes and possesses
algae consisting mostly of single-celled or
filamentous green, blue-green, and red algae
and small thalloid brown algae.

3. Tropical and Subtropical Latitudes: The
intertidal in this region is very and
contains numerous calcareous algae such as
Porolithon and Litkethamalon, as well as
green algae with calcareous particles such as
Halimeda, and numerous other green, red,
and brown algae.

Group III-Submerged Bottoms

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

Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 141 / Monday, July 23, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 29961

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

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

Class II-Physical Characteristics

Group I-Geologic

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. Lagoon: Lagoons are confined coastal
bodies of water with restricted inlets to the

sea and without significant freshwater
inflow. Water circulation is limited, resulting
in a poorly flushed, relatively stagnant body
of water. Sedimentation is rapid with a great
potential for basin shoaling. Shores are often
gently sloping and marshy.

7. Perched Coastal Wetlands: Unique to
Pacific Islands, this wetland type, found
above sea level in volcano crater remants,
forms as a result of poor drainage
characertistics of the crater rather than from
sedimentation. Floral assemblages exhibit
distinct zonation while the faunal
constituents may include freshwater,
brackish, and/or marine species. Example:
Aunu'u Island, American Samoa.

8. Anchialine Systems: These small coastal
exposures of brackish water form in lava
depressions or elevated fossil reefs, have
only a subsurface connection to the ocean,
but show tidal fluctuations. Differing from
true estuaries in having no surface continuity
with streams or ocean, this system is
characterized by a distinct biotic community
dominated by benthic algae such as
Rhizoclonium, the mineral encrusting
Schizothrix, and the vascular plant Ruppia
maritima. Characteristic fauna, which exhibit
a high degree of endemicity, include the
mollusks Theodoxus neglectus and T.
cariosus, the small red shrimp Metabetaeus
lobena and Halocaridina rubra, and the fish
ELeotria sandwicensis and Kuhlia
sandvicensus. Although found throughout the
world, the high islands of the Pacific are the
only areas within the U.S. where this sytem
can be found.

B. Basin Structure: Estuary Basins may
result from the drowning of a river valley
(coastal plains estuary). The drowning of a
glacial valley (fjord), the occurrence of an
offshore barrier (bar-bounded estuary), some
tectonic process (tectonic estuary), or
volcanic activity (volcanic estuary).

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

2. Fjord: Estuaries that form in elongated,
steep headlands that alternate with deep U-
shaped valleys resulting from glacial scouring
are called fjords. They generally possess
rocky floors or very thin veneers of sediment,
with deposition generally being restricted to
the head where the main river enters.
Compared to total fjord volume, river
discharge is small. But many fjords have
restricted tidal ranges at their mouths, due to
sills, or upreaching sections of the bottom
which limit free movement of water, often
making river flow large with respect to the
tidal prism. The deepest protions are in the
upstream reaches, where maximum depths
can range from 800 m to 1220 m, while sill
depths usually range from 40 m to 150 m.

3. Bar-bounded Estuary: These result from
the development of an offshore barrier, such
as a beach strand, a line of barrier islands,
reef formations, a line of moraine debris, or
the subsiding remnants of a deltaic lobe. The
basin is often partially exposed at low tide
and is enclosed by a chain of offshore bars or

barrier island, broken at intervals by inlets.
These bars may be either deposited offshore
or may be coastal dunes that have become
isolated by recent sea level rises.

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

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

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

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

2. Restricted: Restrictions of estuaries can
exist in amy forms: bars, barrier islands,
spits, sills, and more. Restricted inlets result
in decreased circulation, more pronounced
longitudinal and vertical salinity gradients,
and more rapid sedimentation. However, if
the estuary mouth is restricted by
depositional features or land closures, the
incoming tide may be held back until it
suddenly breaks forth into the basin as a
tidal wave, or bore. Such currents exert
profound effects on the nature of the
substrate, turbidity, and biota of the estuary.

3. Permanent: Permanent inlets are usually
opposite the mouths of major rivers and
permit river water to flow into the sea.
Sedimentation and deposition are minimal.

4. Temporary (Intermittent): Temporary
inlets are formed by storms and frequently
shift position, depending on tidal flow, the
depth of the sea and sound waters, the
frequency of storms, and the amount of
littaral transport.

D. Bottom Composition: The bottom
composition of estuaries attests to the
vigorous, rapid, and complex sedimentation
processes characteristic of most coastal
regions with low relief. Sediments are
derived through the hydrologic processes of
erosion, transport, and deposition carried on
by the sea and the stream.

1. Sand: Near estuary mouths, where the
predominating forces of the sea build spits or
other depositional features, the shores and
substrates of the estuary are sandy. The
bottom sediments in this area are usually
coarse, with a graduation toward finer
particles in the head of the estuary. In the
head region and other zones of reduced flow
fine silty sands are deposited. Sand
deposition occurs only in wider or deeper
regions where velocity is reduced.

29962 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 141 / Monday, July 23, 1990 / Rules and Regulations

2. Mud: at the base level of a stream near
its mouth, the bottom is typically composed
of loose muds, silt, and organic detritus as a
result of erosion and transport from the upper
stream reaches and organic decomposition,
just inside the estuary entrance, the bottom
contains considerable quantities of sand and
mud, which support a rich fauna. Mud flats,
commonly built up in estuarine basins, are
composed of loose, coarse, and fine mud and
sand, often dividing the original channel.

3. Rock: Rocks usually occur in areas
where the stream runs rapidly over a steep
gradient with its coarse materials being
derived from the higher elevations where the
stream slope is greater. The larger fragments
are usually found in shallow areas near the
stream mouth.

4. Oyster shell: Throughout a major portion
of the world, the oyster reef is one of the
most significant features of estuaries, usually
being found near the mouth of the estuary in
a zone of oderate wave action, salt content,
and turbidity. It is often a major factor in
modifying estuarine current systems and
sedimentation, and may occur as an
elongated island or peninsula oriented across
the main current, or may develop parallel to
the direction of the current.

Group II-Hydrographic

A. Circulation: Circulation patterns are the
result of the combined influences of
freshwater flow, tidal action, wind and
oceanic forces, and serve many functions:
nutrient transport, plankton dispersal,
ecosystem flushing, salinity control, water
mixing, and more.

1. Stratified: This is typical of estuaries
with a strong freshwater influx and is
commonly found in bays formed from
"drowned" river valleys, fjords, and other
deep basins. There is a net movement of
freshwater outward at the top layer and
saltwater at the bottom layer, resulting in a
net outward transport of surface organisms
and net inward transport of bottom
organisms.

2. Non-stratified: Estuaries of this type are
found where water movement is sluggish and
flushing rate is low, although there may be
sufficient circulation to provide the basis for
a high carrying capacity. This is common to
shallow embayments and bays lacking a
good supply of freshwater from land
drainage.

3. Lagoonal: An estuary of this type is
characterized by low rates of water
movement resulting from a lack of significant

freshwater influx and a lack of strong tidal
exchange because of the typically narrow
inlet connecting the lagoon to the sea.
Circulation, whose major driving force is
wind, is the major limiting factor in biological
productivity within lagoons.

B. Tides: This is the most important
ecological factor in an estuary, as it affects
water exchange and its vertical range
determines the extent of tidal flats which
may be exposed and submerged with each
tidal cycle. Tidal action against the volume of
river water discharged into an estuary results
in a complex system whose properties vary
according to estuary structure as well as the
magnitude of river flow and tidal range. Tides
are usually described in terms of their cycle
and their relative heights. In the United
States, tide height is reckoned on the basis of
average low tide, which is referred to as
datum. The tides, although complex, falls into
three main categories:

1. Diurnal: This refers to a daily change in
water level that can be observed along the
shoreline. There is one high tide and one low
tide per day.

2. Semidiurnal: This refers to a twice daily
rise and fall in water that can be observed
along the shoreline.

3. Wind/Storm Tides: This refers to
fluctations in water elevation to wind and
storm events, where influence of lunar tides
is less.

C. Freshwater: According to nearly all the
definitions advanced, it is inherent that all
estuaries need freshwater, which is drained
from the land and measurably dilutes
sea water to create a brackish condition.
Freshwater enters an estuary as runoff from
the land either from a surface and/or
subsurface source.

1. Surface water: This is water flowing over
the ground in the form of streams. Local
variation in runoff is dependent upon the
nature of the soil (porosity and ),
degree of surface slope, vegetational type and
development, local climatic conditions, and
volume and intensity of precipitation.

2. Subsurface water: This refers to the
precipitation that has been absorbed by the
soil and stored below the surface. The
distribution of subsurface water depends on
local climate, topography, and the porosity
and of the underlying soils and
rocks. There are two main subtypes of
surface water:

a. Vadose water: This is water in the soil
above the water table. Its volume with

respect to the soil, is subject to considerable
fluctuation.

b. Groundwater: This is water contained in
the rocks below the water table, is usually of
more uniform volume than vadose water, and
generally follows the topographic relief of the
land, being high below hills and sloping into
valleys.

Group III-Chemical

A. Salinity: This reflects a complex mixture
of salts, the most abundant being sodium
chloride, and is a very critical factor in the
distribution and maintenance of many
estuarine organisms. Based on salinity, there
are two basic estuarine types and eight
different salinity zones (expressed in parts
per thousand-ppt).

1. Positive estuary: This is an estuary in
which the freshwater influx is sufficient to
maintain mixing, resulting in a pattern of
increasing salinity toward the estuary mouth.
It is characterized by low oxygen
concentration in the deeper waters and
considerable organic content in bottom
sediments.

2. Negative estuary: This is found in
particularly arid regions, where estuary
evaporation may exceed freshwater inflow,
resulting in increased salinity in the upper
part of the basin, especially if the estuary
mouth is restricted so that tidal flow is
inhibited. These are typically very salty
(hyperhaltner), moderately oxygenated at
depth, and possess bottom sediments that are
poor in organic content.

3. Salinity zones (expressed in ppt):

a. Hyperhaline-greater than 40 ppt.

b. Kuhaline-40 ppt to 30 ppt.

c. Mixohaline: 30 ppt to 0.5 ppt.

(1) Mixosubaline-greater than 30 ppt but
less than the adjacent sea.

(2) Polyhaline-30 ppt to 18 ppt.

(3) Mesohaline-18 ppt to .5 ppt.

(4) Olgobeline-5 ppt to 0.5 ppt.

d. Li : Less than 0.5 ppt.

B. ph Region: This is indicative of the
mineral richness of and fall
into three categories:

1. Acid: Waters with a pH of less than 5.5.

2. Circu tral: A condition where the pH
ranges from 5.5 to 7.4.

3. Alkaline: Waters with a pH greater than
7.4.

[FR Doc. 90-16611 Filed 7-20-68, 6:48 am]

BILLING CODE

APPENDIX D

Biogeographic Classification and Typology

Appendix D

Biogeographic Classification and Typology

Biciaeographic Classification

Carolinian Region
6. Northern Carolinas

Typology

Class I - Ecosystem Types

Group I - Shorelands
A. Maritime Forest-Woodland
3. Temperate Deciduous Forest Biome
B. Coast Shrublands
2. Southeast Areas
C. Coastal Grasslands
3. Southeast/Gulf

Groups 11
A. Coastal Marshes
D. Intertidal Beaches
E. Intertidal Mud and Sand Flats
F. Intertidal Algal Beds

Group III
A. Subtidal Hardbottoms
B. Subtidal Softbottoms
C. Subtidal Plants

Class 11

Group I - Geologic
A. Basin
2. Sheltered Coast
3. Bay
S. Tidal River
B. Basin Structure

D-1

1. Coastal plains estuary
3. Bar-bounded estuary

C. Inlet Type
2. Restricted
3. Permanent
D. Bottom Composition
1. Sand
2. Mud
.4. Oyster shell

Group 11 - Hydrographic
A. Circulation
2. Non-stratified
B. Tides
2. Semidiurnal
C. Freshwater
1. Surface water
2. Subsurface water

Group III
A. Salinity
1. Positive Estuary
3. Salinity Zones
c. Mixohaline
(1) Mixoeuhaline
(2) Polyhaline
B. pH Regime
2. Circumneutral

D-2

APPENDIX E

Species List

A
ppendix E

Species List

Over the past 25 years, extensive work on the systematics of the biota of the
NI/WB NERR has been carried out, resulting in a number of papers published in various
scientific journal. In addition, lists and description of the biota are to be found in the
books listed below. Because of the extensive number of species found in this site, we
have not listed them here but refer you to these references.

An Annotated Checklist of the Biota of the Coastal Zone of South Carolina by Richard G.
Zingmark. 1978. 364 pp. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia.

Seashore Animals of the Southeast by Edward E. Ruppert and Richard S. Fox. 1988.
429 pp. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia.

Shallow-Water Marine Senthic Macroinvertebrates of South Carolina: Species
Identification, Community Composition and Symbiotic Associations by Richard S. Fox and
Edward E. Ruppert. 1985. 330 pp. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia.

The following is a list of the number of species in the major taxonomic categories.

TAXONOMIC GROUPING NUMBER OF SPECIES

Mammals (including marine) 74
Phytoplankton 832
Benthic Mahne Algae 358
Marine Fungi 14
Vascular Plants 1494
Saltmarsh Vascular Plants 66
Poirifera 26
Cnidaria 123
Ctenophora 5
Rhynchocoela is
Gastrothcha 26
Kinorhynca 5
Nematoda 139
Polychaeta 279
Hirudinea 23
Marine Mollusks 385
Chellicerata 8
Cop'epoda 68
Cirripedia 27

E-1

Amphipoda 152
Isopoda 76
Mysidacea 3
Decapoda 272
Tardigrada 4
Phoronida 6
Bryozoa 42
Entoprata 8
Echinodermata 21
Chaotognatha 12
Hemichordata 2
Chonddchthyes 36
Ostelchthyes 344
Turtles 3
Birds 430

E-2

APPENDIX F

Ecosystems

Appendix F

Ecosystems

Based on the NERRS classification categories, the NI/WB NERR represents a
diverse number of ecosystem types. Over the 22 years that the Baruch Institute has
been functioning, over 875 papers have been published by Baruch Associates and many
of these papers represent studies on some aspect of the NI/WB NERR site. These
studies range from the ecosystem level of organization to molecular studies. A few
examples of ecological models of the Reserve are represented in Figures 7, 8, and 9.
The principal types of ecosystems represented in the Reserve are listed below along with
a brief description.

Coastal Marshes

Wetland areas dominated by grasses (especially S2artina), sedges, rushes,
cattails, and other species. These areas are subjected to semidiumal Odes. This is a
dominant ecosystem on the Reserve. High salinity and low salinity marshes occur. This
is an important habitat for estuarine and marine species. Salt marshes have an extremely
high rate of primary productivity. Carbon produced by Sipartin is highly important in the
trophic dynamics of estuaries and coastal waters.

Intertidal Systems

Various types of intertidal communities are represented in the Reserve, including
beaches, mud and sand flats, algal beds, and attached vegetation. Many species are
restricted to a specific type of intertidal habitat. This is a dynamic area which is subjected
to tidal changes, marked differences in oxygen content, fluctuating thermal regimes, and
predation pressures.
Organisms living in these intertidal systems exhibit a wide range of morphological,
physiological, behavioral, and genetic adaptations.

Submerged Bottoms

A gradient of bottom types ranging from mud to sand to shelly substratum is
represented in the Reserve. Different biotic assemblages are associated wfth each type.
In addition to these substrata, a submerged- vegeqation.ecosys.tem is also present.

F-1

Upland Systems

Coastal grasslands and a limited amount of pine edaphic forest are also included
in the Reserve. A number of small islands are located within the boundary of the
Reserve. One of these islands, Pumpkinseed Island, is one of the best known nesting
sites for coastal birds in the southeast.

F-2

NORTH INLET ESTUARY

Figure 6. The original North Inlet ecosystem model (Summers and
McKellar 1979). This model divides North Inlet into three major
subsystems and is still a valid conceptualization. Future enhancements
will subdivide this system further by focusing on sediment dynamics,
subtidal interactions and plant/animal interactions across subsystems.

Uplands

Figure 7. The dynamics of nitrogen and carbon exchange within the
tidal creeks of North Inlet were simulated with this model by Childers
and McKellar (1987). This model addressed the importance of tidal
exchange. Future modeling wil emphasize internal exchanges such
as, the effects of subtidal remineralization on water column nutrient
concentrations and export to marsh and coastal habitats.

F-3

CARBON BUDGET (gC/M2/yr)

FCREST
STREAMS
NE7 PRIMARY PRODUCTION NET PRIMARY PRCOUCTION
MARSH
MACRO MCAO PHYTO- MACSO-
S
SPAR 77NA AL AE AL PLANKTON ALC-AE
wnnwwwn@ Gl@ %V@ p I
1125 ISO 63 135/
1500 IF67 IF 2.SO/ 540
SPARTINA TIDAL CUTWELLING
MARSH 33 OX CFEEKS 129 -cc
(BURIAL) S2 P=
0-22 328

Goo. 195

Uj
z

RESPIRATION

Figure :8. A carbon budget of the North Inlet estuarine system' Values
on the outer box are area weighted for the entire sarsh-escuscinG sYscOm-
values on che inner boxes are are& weighted for habitat are& (j.e.0 marsh
@PA
2S
3 L3=
43

and Water column).

F-4

APPENDIX G

Nomination Letter

Appendix G.

;5:1 hTtO Df ;@'MIUT (garaliata

Offire of t4g, Outrcr=r
CARROLL A. CAMPBELL, JR. POST orrict Box 11369
COLUMBIA 29,211

January 264, 1990

Mr. John Knauss
Jnder Secretary of Oceans and
Atmosphere
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 5128
14th and Constitution Ave., NW
Washington, D. C. 20230

Dear Secretary Knauss:

On behalf of the State of South Carolina, I am pleased to submit
the attached site nominations and applications for preacquisition
assistance for the North Inlet - Winyah Bay National Estuarine
Reserve Research System (NERRS) and the Ashepoo - Combahee-
Edisto (ACE) Basin National Reserve Research System.

Because these two sites represent different biogeographic
classification categories, the State of South Carolina is
recommending the sites be managed independently. It is-my
understanding the State of South Carolina is eligible for up to
$50,000 in matching funds for each of the two sites based on
proposed changes to your funding regulations.

This effort is the result of a large number of dedicated
individuals and organizations from both the' private and public
sector working together toward common goals. I have personally
visited both the North Inlet -..Winyah Bay site and ACE site and
find them to be of unequaled value due to their pristine quality
and diverse and abundant assemblage of natural habitat. The
sites should make a significant contribution to the National
Estuarine Reserve Research System.

G-1

I louk forward to your favorable review of this application.
with best regards, I am

erely

car am el r.
Governor

CACjr/tad

Attachment
1 bqqerel@y
Ca el Jr.

G-2

APPENDIX H

NOAA Approval of Nomination

Appendix H.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
The Under Secretary for
Oceans and Atmosphere
Washington, D.C. 20230

Mar 27 1990

Honorable Carroll A. Campbell, Jr.
Governor of South Carolina
Columbia, South Carolina 29211

Dear Governor Campbell:

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has
reviewed and approves the proposal to nominate the North Inlet-
Winyah Bay and the Ashepoo-Combahee-Edisto (ACE) Basin for
inclusion in the National Estuarine Reserve System
(NERRS). We commend the South Carolina Coastal Council, South
Carolina wildlife and Marina Resources Department and the
Belle W. Baruch Institute for Marine Biology and Coastal
Resources for developing an excellent nomination report that
responds accurately and substantially to each of the review
criteria established in the National Estuarine Reserve Research
System regulations.

NOAA and South Carolina agree that becaue the two sites
represent different biogeographical classification categories, as
identified in the NERRS regulations (Section 921.3), each site
will be managed independently. Therefore, each site will be
eligible for full Federal funding identified in the regulations.

Included within the site nomination package is an application for
Federal assistance to prepare a draft management plan and draft
environmental impact statement. NOAA's Marine and Estuarine
Management Division is reviewing the application and will work
closely with the South Carolina Coastal Council to ensure that
the review is conducted in an expeditious and through manner.

I look forward to continued progress in the development of the
ACE Basin National Estuarine Research Reserve and the North
Inlet-Winyah Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve.

Sincerely,

John A. Knauss

H-1

THE ADMINISTRATOR

APPENDIX I

Public Education Program - Summary of 1990 Activities

Appendix 1.
Public Education Program
Summary of 1990 Activities

The diverse Public Education Program offered through the Belle W. Baruch Foundation's
Bellefield Nature Center and the Continuing Education Program of the Baruch Institute,
University of South Carolina provides many valuable services to the Georgetown
community and the State of South Carolina.:

1 In 1990, a record number of 35,000 people were served by the education
programs sponsored by the Belle W. Baruch Foundation and the Baruch Institute,
University of South Carolina.

2. The effects of Hurricane Hugo on programs were still observed in 1990. Visitation
to the Bellefield Nature Center and attendance in some programs were down over
1989, primarily as a result of the depressed tourism economy inflicted by the
hurricane. Even so, the Nature Center had 15,445 visitors during 1990 and more
than 100 people visited the Center on peak days dudng the summer months.

3. More than 2,900 school children from around the state participated in field studies
of salt marsh, pond and forest ecosystems conducted on the Baruch Foundation's
property, Hobcaw Barony, in 1990. This figure is the highest recorded since the
Nature Center opened in 1982.

4. More than 2,100 children from Georgetown County schools were served by Nature
Centers 1990 Outreach Program.

5. Outreach activities also extended to local civic organizations. Programs were
presented to over 220 people at their meetings and another 12,000 people were
reached through staff members' participation in community events.

6. The education program has gain ed statewide recognition for its excellence in
teacher education in the area of marine science. During 1990, 46 teachers from
Williamsburg and Georgetown Counties participated in graduate level marine
science courses at Hobcaw, Barony. Another 150 teachers participated in
workshops presented by Nature Center staff members.

Table I

Public Tours of Hobcaw Barony
1990

Date Group Numbers

Thursdays General Tour - Open to the public 611
1-16 Brunswick Bird Club 13
3-6 John Wesley Methodist Church 14
3-13
Charleston Christian Family 9
3-23 McKissick Museum 14
4-17 Sumter Conservation District 8
5-1 Sumter Conservation District 13
5-8 Tilly Swamp Baptist Church 12
5-11 SC Maps Teachers 40
5-22 St. Lukes Lutheran Church 14
8-31 Extra-General Tour 14
9-7 Extra-General Tour 14
9-11 Extra-General Tour 13
9-18 Newcomers Club 14
9-25 Extra-General Tour 13
9-29 Discovery Place 35
10-30 Watercolors Workshop 14
11-6 Watercolors Workshop 14
11-20 Sea Mist Resort

Total 893

I-2

Table 2

Field Studies at the Bellefield Nature Center
1990

Group Progjam

1-8 Manning Nfiddle School Plantadon Heritage 12
2-6 Happy Time Pre-School Exploring The Nature Center 48
2-26 Waccarnaw Elementary - Pawleys Is Plantation Heritage 25
3-1 Socastee Elementary School Exploring A Pond Community 28
3-2 Socastee High School Salt Marsh Ecology 17
3-6 Waccarnaw Elementary - Conway Salt Marsh Ecology .3
3-7 Waccamaw Elementary - Pawleys Is Plantation Heritage 30
3-9 St. Andrews Catholic School Plantation Heritage 24
3-10 Girl Scouts, Myrtle Beach Exploring The Nature Center 20
3-16 MaryviUe Elementary School Plantation Heritage 31
3-16 Headstart Exploring.The Nature Center 67
3-20 Maryville Elementary School Coastal Forest Ecology 29
3-21 Bamberg District #1 Coastal Forest Ecology 16
3-21 Pawleys Island Montessori Exploring The Nature Center 10
3-22 Andrews Primary Exploring A Pond Community 24
3-23 Myrtle Beach High School Coastal Forest Ecology I I
3-28 Waccamaw Elementary - Pawleys Is Plantation Heritage 30
3-27 McDonald Elementary School Life In a Forest 26
3-30 Andrews Academy Exploring A Pond Community 32
3-30 Ferrurn CoUege Careers in Outdoors Ed. 29
3-30 Cub Scouts, Pack 346, Gtwn. Exploring T-he Nature Center 12
4-10 Charleston Day School Exploring A Pond Community 25
4-11 Waccarnaw Academy Coastal Fomst Ecology 13
4-12 Charleston Day School Life In A Forest 30
4-13 Heritage Friend3Wp Life In A Forest 10
29
4-17 Waccamaw. Elementary - Pawleys Is. Exploring A Pond Community
13
4-18 Andrews Academy Life In A Forest
4-19 Kensington Mementary School Exploring A Pond Community 29
4-19 Flomnce School District #3 Exploring The Nature Center 24

1-3

4-20 Waccarnaw Elementary - Conway Exploring A Pond Community 28
4-24 Archibald Rutledge Academy Exploring A Pond Community 19
4-25 Waccamaw Elementary - Pawleys Is. Exploring A Pond Community 30
4-26 Waccamaw Elementary Pawleys Is. Exploring A Pond Community 30
4-27 Greenwood Elementary Exploring Tle Nature Center 62
4.27 Andrews Academy Coastal Forest Ecology 19
5-1 Deep Creek Elementary Sch. Exploring Ile Nature Center 55
5-2 Fleming INEddle School Exploring A Pond Community 55
5-3 Andrews Primary Exploring A Pond Community 24
5-3 Saluda Elementary Exploring The Nature Cent er 25
5-8 Sullivan's Island Elementary Exploring A Pond Community 27
5-9 Kensington Elementary Exploring A Pond Corz=unity 26
5-1 1 McDonald Elementary Exploring .7"he Nature Center 23
5-15 -Myrtle Beach Primary Exploring A Pond Community 23
5-16 Heathwood Hall Plantation Archeology 64
5-17 MaryviUe Elementary Exploring A Pond Community 25
5-21 Kingstree Jr. High School Exploring The Nature Center 35
5-22 Conway ?vfiddle School Coastal Forest Ecology 21
5-25 Kingstree Jr. High School Exploring The Nature Center 40
5-25 St.Andrews Catholic School Coastal Forest Ecology 18
5-28 St. James- Santee Elementary School Exploring The Nature Center 40
5-30 Conway Christian School Pond Community/Forest Ecol 35
6-5 Adventure Camp (GC Rec. Dept) Exploring A Pond Community 27
615- Lou The Loggerhead Club Beach Creatures, Reptiles 107
8/21 (Waccamaw House Camp) Alive.. & Backbone
6-20 Clemson Univ. Graduate School Belle's Legacy & BNC 14
6-21 USC Coastal Carolina Jr. Scholars Belle's Legacy & BNC 39
6-25 Chapin Memorial Library Exploring A Pond Community 33
6-29 Bright Beginnizigs Day Care Exploring 11e Nature Center 18
6-29 I.Q. Bahai Institute Exploring The Narare Canter 16
7-31 Marion County Elementary Teachers Exploring A Pond Constnunity 19
8-1- US C - Coastal Carolina Env. Ed. Class Salt Mush Ecology 13
8-1.1 L.G. Bahai Institute Exploring The Nature Center 23
9-26 Waccamaw Elementary - Pawleys Is. Exploring The Nature Center 40
9.26 Waccamaw Elementary - Pawleys Is. Exploring Tin Nature Center 30
9.27 Waccamw Elementary - Pawleys Is. Salt Marsh Discovery 25

1-4

9-29 Parents For the Academ. Gifted Rocky Intertidal Zone 37
10-3 Mc Donald Elementary School Exploring A Pond Community 25
10-4 Andrews Primary Exploring A Pond Community 23
1.0-5 Archibald Rutledge, Academy Plantation Archeology 17
10-9 Archibald Rutledge Academy Plantation Archeology 26
10-10 Maryville Elementary Plantation Archeology 24
10-11 West Conway Middle School Salt Marsh Ecology 22
10- 16 Byrnes Academy Exploring The Nature Center 10
10-16 Happy Times School Exploring The Nature Center 51
10-17 Kingstree Jr. High Salt Marsh Discovery 25
10-23 Waccamaw Elementary - Pawleys Is. Life In A Forest 26
10-24 Charleston Day School Exploring A Pond Community 27
10;-25 Forestbrook Elementary Plantation Heritage 25
10-30 Myrtle Beach High School Salt Marsh Ecology 32
10-31 Leesville High School Salt Marsh Ecology 12
11-1 Waccamaw Elementary - Pawleys Is. Exploring A Pond Community 24
11-2 Southside Middle School Plantation Archeology 15
11-6 Chabad Academy Life In A Forest 30
11-7 Waccamaw Elementary - Conway Plantation Heritage 27
11-7 Byrnes Academy Plantation Heritage 15
11-8 Browns Ferry Elementary ExploringThe Nature Center 65
11-8 C.E. Murray Plantation Archeology 8
11-9 Andrews Academy Salt Marsh Ecology 21
11-9 Archibald Rutledge Academy Salt Marsh Ecology 18
11-13 Lake City Elementary Salt Marsh Ecology 31
1.1-15 Pawleys Island Montessori Salt Marsh Discovery 8
11-16 Jonakin Mddle School Coastal Forest Ecology 28
11-20 Beck Middle School Plantation Archeology 14
11-21 Maryville Elementary School Plantation Archeology 27
11-27 Lake City Elementary Salt Marsh Ecology 31
11-28 SL Andrews Salt Marsh Discovery 18
11-28 Lake City Elementary Exploring The Nature Center 21
25
11-29 Wacc:%m2w Elementary - Pawleys Is. Life In A Fomst
11-29 Lake City Elementary Exploring Ile Nature Center 18
12-4 Woodland Park School Life In A Forest 28
11-5 Waccarnaw Elementary - Conway Exploring A Pond Community 30

1-5

11-5 woodland Park School Life In A Forest 28
12-6 Rosemary Elementary Exploring The Nature Center 61
12-7 Archibald Rutledge Academy Coastal Forest Ecology 24
12-7 Woodland Park School Life In A Forest 25
12-12 Williamsburg Academy Exploring A Pond Community 35
12-14 Myrtle Beach High School Salt Marsh Ecology

Total 2937

1-6

Table 3

Special Programs At The Bellefield Nature Center
1990

Date Program Number

1/28-2/2 Ecology and History of the SC Lowcountry 29
2-13 Bluebird Houses 8
4-25 Springtime In The Salt Marsh 14
4-28 Hidden Heroes of the Salt Marsh 21
5-16 Gyotaku 25
5-20 Hidden Heroes of the Salt Marsh 20
5-30 Beach Night Life 25
6-19 Nature Walk In The Hobcaw Forest 3
6-20 Reptiles Alive 51
6-26 Nature Walk In The Hobcaw Forest 2
6-27 Beach Creatures 53
6-28 Beach Night Life 25
7-3 Summertime In The Salt Marsh 10
7-5 Pond Life 8
7-11 Whose Got The Backbone? 14
7-17 Nature Walk In The Hobcaw Forest 5
7-18 Reptiles Alive 13
7-23 Hobcaw Open House 93
7-24 Nature Walk In The Hobcaw Forest 10
7-25 Beach Creatures 6
7-30 Beach Night Life 17
8-1 Whose Got The Backbone? 12
8-7 Nature Walk In The Hobcaw Forest 2
8-8 Reptiles Alive 12
8-15 Beach Creatures 18
9-19 Autumn In the Salt Marsh 8
9-27 Beach Night Life 24
10-3 Coastal Birding 14
10-24 Hobcaw's Woods After Hugo 10
11-13 Winter Birds
13

Total 565

I-7

Table 4

Short Courses

1990

Co urse Title No of Parric'

Southem Traditions 21
Life in andAround. an Oyster Reef 6
Rice Along the River Georgetown's Plantation Heritage 37
Migration and Ecology of Songbirds 21
Coastal Ecology Classes for Children (5 sessions) 64
African Lffluences on Southern Culture I I
Loggerhead Sea Turtles 23
History and Architecture of Downtown Georgetown 7
Light Tackle Fishing in Coastal Watefs 14
Managing the Coast for the 90's and Beyond 6
Shelling Along South Carolina Shores

Total 237

1-8

Table 5

Activities and Number of Participants
1988, 1989, and 1990

Activity

Visitors To Bellefield Nature Center 16,636 17,324 15,445
Field Studies 2,457 2,619 2,937
Public Tours 1,027 775 893
Outreach Program 1,353 2,258 2,121
Special Programs 665 650 565
Speaking Engagements 225 361 223
Events - Festivals 10,000 5,500 li'000
Public Lectures, Seminars, Forums 89 250 115,
Short Courses 269 262 237
Teacher Education 46 la

Totals 32,859 30,045 34,732

1-9

APPENDIX J

Publications

Appendix J

Publications

Since 1969 891 scientific. papers and books have been published by Associates
of the Baruch Institute. A complete list of publications is available upon demand.
Included below is a partial listing of selective publications resulting from the National
Science Foundation funded Long-Term Ecological Reserch project.

J_ 1

LTER PUBLICATIONS PUBLISHED OR IN PRESS

(Updated 7/19/91)

Abs. Allen, D.M. and D.L. Barker. 1985. Spatial and temporal distributions of grass shrimp larvae
(Palaemoneles spp.) in a high salinity estuary. A_m. jo_ol. 25(4): 63A (abstract)

803. Allen, D.M. and D.L. Barker. 1990. Interannual variability in larval fish recruitment to estuarine
epibenthic habitats. Mar. Ecol. Proa. Ser. 63: 113-125. 1.

Abs. Allen, D.M., E.R. Blood, and F.J. Vemberg. 1985. Long-Term Ecological Research at the North
Inlet Estuadne-Marsh Ecosystem, South Carolina: Program description and trend analysis.
Estuaries 8(2B):33A

810. Archambault, J.A. and R.J. Feller. in press. Diel variations in gut fullness of juvenile spot,
Leiostomus xanthurus (Pisces). Estuaries

Th. Asmus, M. 1991. Ecological modeling of the North Inlet marsh-estuarine system, South Carolina:
Models -of year-to-year variability. Ph.D. Dissertation. Marine Science Program, University of
South Carolina.
. " 1
723. Asmus, M. and H.N. McKellar, Jr. 1989. Network analysis of the North Inlet sad marsh
ecosystem. Chapter 9. In: Network Analysis in Marine Ecology. Methods and Applications. F.
Wulff, J.G. Field, and K.qMann (eds.). Coastal and Estuarine Studies. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

496. Bildstein,K.L. 1983. Age-related differences in the floclking and foraging behavior of white ibises
in a South Carolina sad marsh. Colonial Waterbirds 6: 45-63.

549. Bildstein, K.L. 1984. Age-related differences in the foraging behavior of white ibises and the
question of deferred maturity. Colonial Waterbirds 7: 146-148.

690. Bildstein, K.L. 1987. Energetic consequences of sexual dimorphism in white ibises. Auk 104:
771-775.

806. Bildstein, K.L. 1990. Status, conservation, And management of the scarlet ibis, Eudodmus
aber, in the Caroni Swamp, Trinidad, West Indies. liol. Conservation SC 61-78.

853. Bildstein, K.L., G.T. Bancroft. T.J. Dugan, D.H. Gordon, R.M. Erwin, E. Nol, LX Payne, and S.E.
Senner. In press. Approaches to the conservation of coastal wetlands in the western
hemisphere. Wilson Bull.

82S. Bildstein, K.L., E.R. Blood, and P. Frederick. In press. The relative importance of biotic and
ablotic vectors in nutrient transport in a South Carolina, USA, estuarine ecosystem. Estuaries

782. Bildstein, K.L. and I.L. BrIsbin, Jr. 1990. Lands for long-term research In conservation biology.
Conservation Biol. 4(3): 301-308.

573. Bildstein, K.L. and M.W. Collopy. 1985. Escorting flight and agonistic interactio ns in wintering
northern harriers. Condor 87: 398-401.

883. Bildstein, K.L., P.C. Frederick, and M.G. Spaulding. In press. Feeding patterns and aggressive
behavior in juvenile and adult American flamingos (Phoenicooterus ruber ruber). Condor

J-2

710. Bildstein, K.L., S.G. McDowell, and I.L. Brisbin. 1989. Consequences of sexual dimorphism in
sand fiddler. crabs: Differential vulnerability to avian predation. Animal Behav. 37: 1,33-1,39,

580. BI(dstein, K.L., W. Post, P. Frederick, and J.W. Johnston. 1990. Freshwater wetlands and the
breeding ecology of white ibises in coastal South Carolina: A lesson for scarlet ibis conservation,
p. 57-63. In: Proc. First Intl. Workshop on the Conservation of Scarlet Ibises. P.C. Frederick,
L.G. Morales, A.L. Spans, and C.S. Luthin (eds.). ICBP, NY.

790. Bildstein, K.L., W. Post, J. Johnson, and P. Frederick. 1990. Freshwater wetlands, rainfall, and
the breeding ecology of white ibises in coastal South Carolina. Wilson Bull. 102: 84-98.

888. Blood, E.R., P. Anderson, P.A. Smith, K.A. Ginsberg, and C. Nybro. In press. The effects of
Hurricane Hugo on coastal soil processes. Biotropica

579. Blood, E.R., W.T. Swank, and T. Williams. 1989. Precipitation, throughfall, and stemflow
chemistry in a coastal loblolly pine stand, p. 61-78. In Freshwater Wetlands and Wildlife, Conf.-
8603101, DOE, Symposium Series #61, R.R. Sharitl-and J.W. Gibbons (eds.), USDOE Office of
Science and Technology Information, Oak Ridge, TN.

773. Blood, E.R., R. Van Dolah, K. Davis, H. McKellar, T. Siccherman, and C. Connelly. 1989.
Charleston Harbor water quality, p. 25-35. In: Charleston Harbor: Issues, Resources, Status, and
Managment. NOAA Estuary-of-the-Month Seminar Series No. 16. US Dept. of Commerce,
NOAA Estuarine Programs Office, Washington, D.C.

847. Blood, E.R. and F.J. Vernberg. In press. Characterization of the physical, chemical, and
biological conditions and trends in Winyah Bay and North Inlet Estuaries: 1970-1985. Ln
Characterization of the Physical, Chemical, and Biological Condifions and Trends in Three South
Carolina Estuaries. SC Sea Grant Consortium, NOAA.

Abs. Blood, E.R. and T. Williams. 1988. Land-water interfaces: The effect of saft water intrusion on
blackwater stream chemistry. Aull. Ecol. loc. Am. (supple.) 69(2): 75.

Th. Bollinger, M.S. 1983. RacHum in a salt marsh - tidal inlet system. M.S. Thesis. Department of
Geological Sciences, Urgversity of South Carolina.

Th. Bollinger, M.S. 1986. Radium isotopes in salt marshes and estuarine environments. Ph.D.
Dissertation. Department of Geological Sciences, University of South Carolina.

TH. Borrero, F. 1991. Environmental correlates of intraspecific variation in physiological performarroe,
energy balance, and allocation among populations of t *he marine mussel Geukensla dernissa
across the interfidal zone. Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Biology , University of South
Carolina.

769, Boumans, R.and F.H. Sklar. 1990. A polygon-based spatial (PBS) model for simulating
landscape change. Landscape 1col. 4(2/3): 83-97.
Th. Bradley, P. 1991. The influence of oxygen, salinity, and sulfide concentration on the kinetics of
NH,- uptake in Spartina afterniflora. The physical characteristics of salt marsh sediments:
Ecological implications. Ph.D. Dissertation. Marine Science Program, University of South
Carolina.
842. Bradley, P.M. and J.T. Morris. In press. The influence of salinity on the kinetics of NH.. uptake
in Sc)artina afterniflora Oecolooia

J-3

Th. Childers, 0. 1985. Development and analysis of a simulation model of saftmarsh water column
dynamics, M.S. Thesis. Marine Science Program, University of South Carolina.
Abs. Childers, 0. and H.N. McKellar, Jr. 1985. Nutrient variability and subsystem interactions in a
southeastern saltmarsh. Estuaries 8(2B): 117A (abstract).
613. Childers, D. and H.N. McKellar, Jr. 1987. A simulation of salt marsh water column dynamics.
Ecol. Model. 36: 211-238.

616. Chrzanowski, T.H., J. Spurrier, R. Dame, and R. Zingmark. 1986. Processing of rnicrobial
biomass by an intertidal reef community. Mar. Lcol. Prog. aer. 30: 181-189.
585. Chrzanowski, T.H. and R. Zingmark. 1986. Passive filtering of rnicrobial biomass by Sjoartina
alterniflora. Estuarine Coastal Shelf Sci. 22: 545-557

736. Chrzanowski, T.H. and R.G. Zingmark. 1989. Bacterial abundance, biomass, and secondary
production along a forest to ocean landscape gradient. J. Exp. Mar. LIM. fcol. 125(3): 253-
266.

Abs. Chrzanowski, T.H., R.G. Zingmark, and J. Spurrier. 1985. Dynamics of microbial populations in
saltmarsh transport studies. Proc. 85th Annual Meeting Am. Soc. Microbiol. p. 233.
715. Clements,- L.A., K.T. Fielman, and S.E. Stancyk. 1988. Regeneration by an amphiurld brittlestar
exposed to different concentrations of dissolved organic material. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 122:
47-61.

668. Collopy, M.W. and K.L. Bildstein. 1987. Foraging behavior of northern harriers %vintering in
southeastern salt and fresh water marshes. Auk 104: 11-16.

802. Costanza, R., F.H. Sklar. and M.L. White. 1990. Modeling coastal landscape dynamics.
BioScience 40(2): 91-107.

526. Coull, B.C. 1985. The use of long-term biological data to generate testable hypotheses.
Estuaries 8(2A): 84-92.

575. Coull, B.C. 1985. Long-term variabi fity of estuarine meiobenthos. An 11 -year study. Mar. Ecol.
f roq. Ser. 24: 205-218.

596. Coull, B.C. 1986. A now species of Pseudobradya and the rediscovery and correction of
Quinquelaoohonte capillata (Wilson) (Copepoda: Harpacticoida). Trans. Am. Microsc. Soc.
105: 121-129.

618. Coull, B.C. 1986. Long-term variability of meiobenthos: Value, synopsis, hypothesis generation,
and predictive modelling. Hydrobiologia 142: 271-279.

700. Coull, B.C. 1988. Ecology of the marine meiofauna, p. 18-38. In: Introduction to the Study of
Meiofauna. R.P. Higgins and H. Theil (eds.). Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

797. Coull, B.C. 1990. Are members of meiotauna food for higher trophic levels - Revisited. I=t
Am. Micros. Soc. 109(3): 233-246.

576. Coull, B.C. and B. Dudley. 1985. Dynamics of meiobenthic copepod populations: A long-term
study (1973-1983). hLar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 24: 219-229.

J-4

Th. Coutinho, R. 1987. Ecology of macroalgae in North Inlet Estuary, SC. Ph.D. Dissertation. Department of Biology, University of South Carolina.

Abs. Coutinho, R. 1984. Diel variations in photosynthetic responses to light by seaweeds. J. Phycology 20 (suppe): 8.

Abs. Coutinho, R. 1986. The effects of interactins of light and nitrogen on growth and photosynthesis vs. irradiance (P-I) curves of Ulva curvata. J. Phycology (supple.)

704. Coutinho, R. and Y. Yoneshigue. 1988. Diurnal variation in photosynthesis vs. irradiance curves from 'sun' and 'shade' plants of Pterocladia capillaca (Gmelin) Bornet et Thuret (Gelidlaciaceae, Rhodophyta) from Cabo Frio, Rio de Janerio, Brazil. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 118:217-228.

Abs. Coutinho, R. and R. Zingmark. 1984. Taxonomy, distribution, and seasonality of the macroalgae of North Inlet, SC. J. Phycology 20 (suple.): 55.

Abs. Coutinho, R. and R. Zingmark. 1986. Modelling primary production of macroalgae in estuaries. J. Phycology (supple.)

663. Coutinho, R. and R. Zingmark. 1987. Diurnal photosynthetic responses to light by macroalgae. J. Phycology 23: 336-343.

Abs. Coutinho, R. and R. Zingmark. 1987. Ecology of macroalgae in North Inlet, SC. J. Phycology 23 (supple.): 5.

793. Crosby, M.P. 1988. Using bioenergetics of intertidal oyster populations as a measurement of anthropogenic perturbations to shellfish growing waters. J. Shellfish Res. 7: 199-200.

730. Darne, R. 1989. The importance of Spartina alterniflora to Atlantic Coast estuaries. Rev. Aquat. Sci. 1(4): 639-660.

639. Darne, R., T. Chrzanowski, K. Bildstein, B. Kjerfve, H. McKellar, D. Nelson, J. Spurrier, S. Stancyk, H. Stevenson, F.J. Vernberg, and R. Zingmark. 1986. The outwelling hypothesis in North Inlet, South Carolina. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 33: 217-229.

840. Darne, R.F., N. Dankers, T. Prins, H. Jongsma, and A. Small. In press. The influence of Mussel beds on nutrient cycling in two Dutch estuaries. Estuaries

615. Darne, R.F. and P. Kenny. 1986. The variability of Spartina alterniflora primary production in the euhaline in North Inlet Estuary. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 37: 70-80.

855. Darne, R., J. Spurrier, T. Williams, B. Kjerfive, R. Zingmark, T. Wolaver, T. Chrzanowski, H.N. Mckellar, and F.J. Vernberg. 1991. Annual material processing by a salt marsh-estuarine basin in South Carolina, USA. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 72: 153-166.

Abs. Darne, R.F., R. Zingmark, D. McCollum, and T. Wolaver. 1984. Nitrogen uptake and release by oyster reefs: A possible cause of heterotrophic control of autotrophs. Umnol. Oceanogr. 29 (supple.): 73.

720. Dankers, N., R.F. Darne, and K. Kersting. 1989. Oxygen consumption of mussel beds in the Dutch Wadden SEa. Scienta Marina 53: 473-476.

800. De Santo, T.L., S.G. McDowell, and K.L. Bildstein. 1990. Plumage and behavioral development of nestling white ibises. Wilson Bull. 102: 226-238.

J-5

839. Dobson, W.E. and S.E. Stancyk. In press. Morphology and chronology of early disc regeneration in the brittlestar Microphiopholis gracillima (Stimpson) (Echinodermata: Ophiuroidea). Zoomorphology

830. Dobson, W.E., S.E. Stancyk, L.A. Clements, and R.M. Showman. 1991. Nutrient translocation during early disc regneration in the brittlestar Microphiopholis gracillima (Stimpson) (Echinodermata: Ophiuroidea). Biol. Bull. 180: 167-184.

676. Edwards, D. and B.C. Coull. 1987. Autoregressive trend analysis: An example using long-term ecological data. Oikos 50: 95-102.

705. Edwards, D. and J.J. Berry. 1987. The efficienty of simulation-based multiple comparisons. Biometrics 43: 913-928.

Abs. Edwards, D.G., R.J. Feller, W.K. Michener, and S.E. Stancyk. 1988. A multidimensional exploration of zooplankton and macrobenthos temporal dynamics in a coastal estuary. Bull. Ecol. Soc. Am. (supple.) 69(2): 126.

Th. Eiser, W.C. 1984. Sheet flow as a component of total water flux in an estuarine marsh. M.S. Thesis. Marine Science Program, University of South Carolina.

612. Eiser, William C., and B. Kjerfve. 1986. Marsh topography and hypsometer characteristics of South Carolina salt marsh basin. Estuarine Coastal Shelf Sci. 23(5): 595-605.

755. Ellis, M.J. and B.C. Coull. 1989. Fish predation on meiobenthos: Field experiments using juvenile spot (Pisces). J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 130: 19-32.

Th. Ember, L. 1985. Sources of sedimentary organic matter in Spartina-dominated salt marshes. M.S. Thesis, Marine Science Program, University of South Carolina, Columbia.

Th. Eskin, R.A. 1985. Poplulation dynamics and ecology of the meiobenthic nematodes of North Inlet, South Carolina. Ph.D. Dissertation. Department of Biology, University of South Carolina.

687. Eskin, R.A. and B.C. Coull. 1987. Seasonal and three-year variability of meiobenthis nematodes at two estuarine sites. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 41: 295-303.

624. Feller, R.J. 1986. Immunological detection of Mercenaria mercenaria in a predator and preparation of size-class specific antibodies. The Veliger 28(4): 341-347.

763. Feller, R.J. In press. Dietary analysis of Penaeid shrimp: The immunoassay approach. Front. Shrimp. Res. W.J. Dougherty (ed.). Elsevier.

854. Feller, R.J. In press. Potential applications of immunoassays in studies of flatfish recruitment. Neth. J. Sea Res.

796. Feller, R.J., B.C. Coull, and B.T. Hentschel. 1990. Meiobenthic copepods: Tracers of where juvenile Leiostomus xanthurus (Pisces) feed? Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 47: 1913-1919.

659. Feller, R.J. and R.B. Ferguson. 1988. Quantifying stomach contents using immunoassays: A critique, p. 295-303. In: Immunochemical Approaches to Estuarine, Coastal and Oceanographic Questions. C.M. Yentsch, F.C. Mague, and P.K. Horan (eds.). Springer-Verlag Coastal Lecture Note Series.

J-6

789. Feller, R.J., BT. Hentschel, and R. Ferguson, 1990. Immunoelectrophoretic assay Of mixed
species meals: An example using Penaeid shrimp, p. 588-596. Proc. 24th European Manne
Biology Syposium. M. Barnes (ed.), Aberdeen University Press.
701 Feller, R.J. and R.M. Warwick. 1988. Energetics. Chapter 13. p. 181-196. In: Introduction to
the Study of Meiofauna. R.P. Higgins and H. Theil (eds.). Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington, D.C.

Abs. Fielman, K.T. and E.R. Blood. 1988. Land-Water interfaces: The effect of syzygy on soil ion
balance. Bull. Ecol. Soc. Am. (supple.) 69(2): 132.
852. Fielman, K.T., S.E. Stancyk, W.E. Dobson, and L.A.J. Clements. In press. The effects of arm
and disc loss on regneration by Microphiopholis gracillim (Echinodermata: Ophiuroidea) in
nutdent-free seawater. Mar. Biol.

Th. Flavier, A. 1991. Macroalgal colonization of hard, ibstrates at North Inlet. M.S. Thesis.
Department of Biology, University of South Carou

5178. Fox, R.S. and E.E. Ruppert. 1985. Shallow-water Madne 6qBenthic Macroinvertebrate s of South
Carolina: Species Identification, Community Composition, Symbiotic Associabons. Belle W.
Baruch Ubrary in Marine Science, No. 14. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia.

841. Frix, M.S., M.E. Hostetler, and K.L. Bildstein. In press. Intra- and interspecis differences in the
responses of sand (Uca ougilator and mud (Uca pugnax fiddler crabs to simulated avian
predation. J. Crust. Biol.

767. Gardner, L.R. 1990. Simulation of the digenesis of carbon, sulfur, and dissolved oxygen in saft
marsh sediments. Ecol. Monoar. 60: 91 -111.

779. Gardner, L.R. 1990. Simulation of the diagensis of carbon, sulfur and dissolved oxygen in saft
marsh sediments. Ecol. Monor. (microfiche) See ESA Supplementary Publication Service
document #8903. 61 p.

884. Gardner, L.R. 1990. The role of rock weathering in the bliogeochemical cycling of phosphorus.
Bioceochemistry 11: 97-110.

522. Gardner, L.R. and C. Gorman. 1984. The summertime net transport of dissolved oxygen, saft,
and heat in a saft marsh basin, North Inlet, SC. Estuarine Coastal Shelf Science 19: 331-339.

646. Gardner, L.R. and 1. Lerche. 1987. Simulation of.suffate dependent sulfate reduction using
Monod kinetics. Math. Geol. 19: 29-239.

77S. Gardner, L.R. and 1. Lerche. 1990. Simulation of sulfur digenesis in anoxic marine sedments
using Rickard kinetics for FeS and FeS2 formation. Computer GeOsci 16: 441-460.

817. Gardner, L.R., W0X Michener, E.R. Blood, T.M. Williams, D,J. Upscomb, and W.H. Jefferson.
1991. Ecological impact of Hurricane Hugo - Safinization of a coastal forest. Journal of Coastal
Research 8: 301-317.

829. Gardner, L.R.. W.K. Michener, B. Kjerfve, and D.A. Kadnshak. 1991. The geomorphic off effects of
Hurricane Hugo on an undeveloped coastal landscape at North Inlet, SC. 68q1. Coastal Res. 8:
181-186.

J-7

582. Gardner, L.A., P. Sharma, and W. Moore. 1987. A regeneration model for the effect of fiddler
crab burrowing on 210 Pb profiles in saft marsh sediments, J. Environ. Radioactivity 5: 25-36.

7S9. Gardner, L.A., L. Thombs, 0. Edwards, and D. Nelson. 1989. rime series analyses of
suspended sediment concentrations at North Inlet, South Carolina. Estuaries 12(4): 211-221

728. Gardner, L.R., T,S. Wolaver, and M. Mitchell. 1988. Spatial variations in the sulfur chemistry of
saft marsh sediments -at North Inlet, SC. J, Mar. Res. 46: 815-836.

707. Gawlik, D.E., M.E. Hostetler, and K. Bildstein. 1988. Napthalene mothballs do not dater
mammalian predators at red-winged blackbird nests. J. Field Ornithol. 59(2): 189-191.

835. Haddad, K.D. and W.K. Michener. In press. Design and implementation of acoastal resource
Geographic Information System: Administrative considerations. In: Proceedings, Coastal Zone
'91. Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management/ASCE. O.T. Magoon et al. (eds.).

795. Hentschel, B.T. and R.J. Feller. 1990. Ouantitative immunoassay of the proventricular contents
of white shrimp (Penaeus setiferous Linnaeus): A laboratory study. 1. gx . ar. Biol. _1. 139:
2 X__ Eco
85-99.

Th. Hunter, J. 1985. Dietary analysis of commercially important juvenile shrimp (Penaeus aztecus
[Ives), and fl. setiferus [L.1) in saltmarsh tidal creeks. M.S. Thesis, Department of Biology,
University of South Carolina, Columbia.

652. Hunter, J. and R. Feller. 1987. Immunological dietary analysis of two penaeld shrimp species
from a South Carolina tidal creek. J. Ix
- .2. hLar. Biol. Eool. 107: 61-70.

843. Hwang, Y.H. and J.T. Morris. In press. Evidence for hygrometric pressurization in the internal
gas space of Soartina afterniflora Plant Physiol

Th. Jefferson, W.H., 111. 1990. Factors affecting abundance of mero- and holoplankton in a
southeastern estuary. M.S. Thesis, University of South Carolina, Columbia. SC.

889. Jefferson, W.H., Ill., W.K. Michener, D.A. Karinshak, W. Anderson, and D.E. Porter. In press.
Developing GIS data layers for estuarine resource management. Proc., GIS/LIS Annual
Conference and Exposition, Atlanta, GA.

754. Johnston, J.W. and K Bildstein. 1990. Dietary saft marsh as a physiological constraint in white
ibises breeding in an estuary. Physiol Zool. 63: 190-207.
807. Johnson, W.S., D.M. Allen, M.V. Ogbum, and S.E. Stancyk.,1990. Short-term predation
responses of adult bay anchovies, Anchoa mitchilli, to estuarine zooplankton availability. Mar.
Ecol. Proa jer. 64: 55-68.
Abs. Kenny, P.D., W.K. Michener, and O.M. Allen. 1988. Factors affecting settlement of the American
oyster (Crassostrea virdnica in a high salinity southeastern estuary. .4. !Latl. Shellfish Assoc.
822. Kenny, P.D., W.K. Michener, and D.M. Allen. 1990. Spatial and temporal patterns of oyster
settlement in a high salinity estuary. 1. Shellfish Res, 9: 329-339.
427. Kjerfve, B. 1982. Calibration of estuarine current crosses. Estuarine Coastal Sheff _J_d- 16:
553-559.

J-8

587. Kierive, B. 1984 Hydrographic considerations in estuarine outwelling studies: An example and
definitions. p. 37-47. In: Productivity of the Mangrove Ecosystem: Management Implications.
Ong Jin Eong and Gong Wooi-Khoon (eds.). UNESCO/UNOP and Universiti Sains Malaysia.

570. Kjedve, B. 1986. Circulation and salt balance in a well-mixed estuary. p. 22-29. -In: Physics of
Shallow Estuaries and Bays. Springer-Verlag.

319. Kjerfve, B. and H.N. McKellar, Jr. 1980. Time series measurement of esluarine.material fluxes.
p. 341-3S7. In: Estuarine Perspectives. V.S. Kennedy (ed.). Academic, Press, NY.

433. Kjerfve, B., J.A. Proehl, F.B. Schwing, H.E. Seim, and M, Marozas. 1982. Temporal and spatial
considerations in measuring estuarine water fluxes, p. 37.51. In: Estuarine Comparisons. V.S.
Kennedy (ed.). Academic Press, NY.

532. Kjerfve, B. and H.E. Seim. 1984. Construction of net isopleths in cross sections of tidal
estuaries. J. Mar. Res. 42: S03-508.

337. Kjertve, 4qB., L.H. Stevenson, J.A. Proehl, T. Chrzanowski, and W.M. Kitchens. 1981. Estimation
of material fluxes in an estuarine crost-section: A critical analysis of spatial measurement
density and errors. Limnol. Ocean 26: 325-335.

654. Kjerfve, B. and T.G. Wolaver. 1988. Sampling optimization for studies of tidal transport in
estuaries. Am. Fish. Soc. Sym. 3: 26-33.

885. Kratz, T.K., B.J. Benson, E.R. Blood, G. Cunningham, and R.A. Dahlgre n. In press. The
influence of landscape position on temporal variability in four North American ecosystems. Am.
Midlands Naturalist

879. Leibowitz, S., F.H. Sklar, and R. Costanza. 1990. Perspectives on Louisiana wetland loss
modelling, p. 729-754. In Freshwater Wetlands and Wildlife. R.R. Sharitz and J.W. Gibbons
(eds.). US Dept. of Energy, Office of Health and Environmental Research. CONF-86031 01.

747. U, Y., J. Morft and D. Yoch. 1990. Chronic low-level hydrocarbon pollution stimulates plant
growth and microbial activity In salt marsh microcosms. ADM. gal. 27: 1579-171.

669. Ma dnelli, R.L. and B.C. Coull. 1987. Structural complexity and juvenile fish predation on
meiobenthos: An experimiental approach. A. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 108: 67-82.
Th. Martin, J.A. 1990. Chernoreception by white shrimp, Penaeus setiferus A laboratory and field
study of thier response to bait. M.S. Thesis, Univ. of South Carolina. Columbia, SC. 86 p.
Th. McDaniel-Firth, E. 1988. A four-year study of above and below ground decomposition of
Spartina afterniflora M.S. Thesis. Marine Science Program. University of South Carolina.
886. McKellar, H.N., Jr., E.R. Blood, T. Sicheman, K. Connelly, and J. Hussey. 1990. Organic carbon
and nutrient dynamics, p. 47-99. Physical and Ecological Characterization of the CHareskon
Harbor Estuarine System. R.F. van Dolah, P.H. Werot, and E.L. Wenner (oft.). Final Report to
South Carolina Coastal Council.
Abs. McKellar, H.N., Jr., T. Jordan, D. Whigham, arid D. Correll. A model of production,
mortality, and decomposition in a brackish water cattail marsh. Proc, Eastern Simulation Cont.
(abstract)

J-9

875. McKellar, H.N., Jr. and W.D. Marshall. 198s, Aquatic producfivity and tidal nutrient exchanges in
coastal wetland impoundments in South Carolina, P. 85-102. In Proc., 4th Coastal Marsh and
Estuarine Management. C.F. Bryan, P.J. Swank, and R.H. Chabreck (eds.). LSU press, Baton
Rouge,LA.

643. McLaughlin, R.A. and W.K. Michener. 1985. RS1: Stats, graphs, and data manipulation.
Science Sottware Quarterly 2(2): 54-61.

692. Medeiros, C. and B. Kjerfve. 1988. Tidal characteristics of the Strait of Magellan. Cont. Shelf
Res. 8(8): 947-960.

591. Michener, W.K. (ed.). 1986. Research Data Management in the Ecological Sciences. Belle W.
Baruch Library in Marine Science, No. 16. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, SC.
597. Michener, W.K. 1986. Data management and long-term ecological research. p. 1-8. &
Research Data Management in the Ecological Sciences. Belle W. Baruch Ubrary in Marine
Science, No. 16. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, SC.

Th. Michener, W.K. 1990. Crassostrea virginica settlement and recruitment dynamics in the intertld al
zone. Ph.D. dissertation. Marine Science Program, University of South Carolina.

778. Michener, W., D. Allen, E. Blood, T. Hiltz, B. Kjerfve, and F. Sklar. 1990. Climatic variability and
n Climate Variability and
saft marsh ecosystem response: Relationship to scale, p. 27-33. L
Ecosystem Response. Proc., Long-Term Ecological Research Workshop. D. Greenland and
L.W. Swift. Jr. (eds.). USDA Forest Service General Tech. Rep. SE-66. Asheville, NC.

748. Michener, W.K., D. Cowen, and W.L. Shirley. 1989. Geographic Information systems for coastal
research. In: Proc., Coastal Zone '89 Conference. Sixth Symposium on Coastal and Ocean
ManagemenVASCE. O.T. Magoon, H. Converse, D. Miner, L.T. Tobin, and D. Clark (eds.). Vol. 5:
4791-4805.

611. Michener, W.K., R.J. Feller, and D. Edwards. 1987. Development, management, and analysis of
a long-term ecological research information base: Example for matins macrobenthos. p.
173-188. In: New Approaches to Monitoring Aquatic Ecosystems. American Society for Testing
and Materials, Philadelphia.

890. Michener, W.K. & K. Haddad. In press. Data administration. In: Proc., Symposium on Data
Management for Inland and Coastal Field Stations. G.H. Lauff, J.J. Alberts, and J.B. Gorentz.
(eds.). W.K. Kellog Blol4cal Station, Michigan State University.

836. Michener, W.K., W.H. Jefferson, D.A. Kadnshak, and C. Gilbert. In press. Incorporallong Global
Positioning System technology Into coastal mapping and research. In: Proceedlings, Coastal
Zone '91. Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management/ASCE. O.T. Magoon st al. (eds.).

874. Michener, W.K. and P.D. Kenny. In press. Spatial and temporal patterns of Crassostres
virginica (Gmelin) recruitment: Relationship to scale and Substratum. LO-O1.

Abs. Michener, W.K., P.O. Kenny, and D.M. Allen. 1988., Factors Atfwdng settlement of the
American oyster (Crassostrea vir-ainica in North Inlet, SC. �ILN. ggol. .4m. &m.. (supple.) 69(2):
232.

724. Michener, W.K. and B. Kjeffve. 1987. North Inlet, SC. p. 56-60. IN: The Climate of the Long-
Term Ecological Research Sites. David Greenland (ed.). Occasional Paper No. 44. Institute of
Arctic and Alpine Research, Unlv. of Colorado, Boulder, CO.

J-10

887 Michener W.K., B. Kierive, L.R. Gardner, E Blood, M. Cablk, WH. Jefferson, D.A. Karinshak,
and D.F. Spoon. In press. GIS assessment of large-scale ecological disturbances(Hurricane
Hugo, 1989). Proceedings, GIS/LIS Annual Conference and Exposition. Atlanta, GA.

577. Michener, W.K., R.A. McLaughlin, and M.F, Marozas. 1985. Development of a data
management system for long-term ecological research. Proc., SAS Users Group Intemational.
p. 468-471.

821. Michener, W.K., A.B. Miller, and R. Nottrott. (eds.) 1990. Long-Term Ecological Research
Network Core Data Set Catalog. Belle W. Baruch Institute, University of South Carolina.
Columbia. 340 p.

756. Miller, A.B., W.K. Michener, A. Barnard, and F.J. Vemberg. 1989. Publications of the Belle W.
Baruch Institute for Marine Biology and Coastal Research 1969-1989. Research Bibliography.
Baruch Institute Technical Report 89-02. Columbia, SC.

718. Morris, J.T 1988. Pathways and controls of the carbon cycle in saft marshes. p. 497-510. In:
The Ecology and Management of Wetlands. Vol. 1. Ecology of Wetlands. D.D. Hook et al. (ids.).
Croorn Helm, London.

733. Morris, J. 1989. Modelling light distribution within the canopy of the marsh grass Sgartina
alterniflora as a function of canopy biomass and solar angle. Agric. Forest Meteorol 46: 349-
361.

844. Morris, J.T. In press. Effects of riltro gen loading on wetland ecosystems with particular
reference to atmospheric deposition. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst.

834. Morris, J.T. and E. Haskin. 1990. A 5-year record of aerial primary production and stand
characteristics of Spartina afterniflorg Ecology 71(6): 2209-2217.

823. Morris, J.T., B. Kjerfve, and J.M. Dean. 1990. Dependence of estuarine productivity on
anomalies in mean sea level. Umnol Oceanoar 35(4): 926-930.

809. Myers, P.E. 1990. Space versus other Urniting resources for a coloriall tunicate, Botrylicides
leachij (Savigny), on fouling plates. J. Exp. Mar. Biol Ecol. 141: 47-52.

Abs. Nelson, D. 1982. Suspended particulate transport. North Inlet, South Carolina. Geol.
(abstract) 14:76.

Abs. Nelson, D. 1983 - Suspended sedment transport, North Inlet, South Carolina.
(abstract) 15:103.
Abs. Nelson, 0. 1983. Resuspension and redistribution of sediments, North Inlet, South Carolina.
Estuaries 6: 316.

826. Nehring, S., P. Jenson, and S. Lorenzen. 1990. Tube-dwelling nematodes: Tube construction
and possible ecological effects on sediment-water interfaces. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 64: 123-128.

764, Ogburn, V., D.M. Allen, and W.K. Michener. 1988. Fishes, shrimps, and crabs of the North Inlet
Estuary, SC: Results of a four-year LTER seine and trawl survey. Baruch Technical Report
88-01.
750. Omes, W.H. and D.I. Kaplan. 1989. Long-term macronutrient status of tall and short forms Of
Spartina anerniffora in North Inlet Estuary, South Carolina, USA. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 55: 63-72.

J-11

709. Palmer, M.A. 1988. Epibenthic predators and marine meiofauna: Separating predation,
disturbance, and hydrodynamic effects. Ecology 69: 1251-1260.

328. Palmer, M.A., B. Kjerfve, and F.B. Schwing. 1980. Tidal analysis and prediction in a South
Carolina estuary. Contrib. Mar. Sci. 23: 17-23,

731. Quick, P. and T.L. De Santo. 1989. Flight speeds and energy requirements for white ibises
(Eudocimus albus) flying to foraging sites. Auk 106: 141-144.

876. Pearlstine, L., H.N. McKellar, Jr., and W. Kitchens. 1985. Modelling the Impacts of a river
diversion on bottorriland forest communities in the Santee River floodplain, SC. -Ecol. Modell. 29:
283-302.

610. Petit, D.R. and K.L. Bildstein. 1986. Development of formation flying in juvenile white ibises
(Eudocimus albus). Auk 103: 244-246.

675. Petit, D.R. and K.L. Bildstoln. 1987. The effect of group size and location within the group on
the foraging behavior of white ibises. Condor 89: 602-609.

877, Pickett, J., HA Mckellar, Jr., and J. Kelley. 1989. Community composition, leaf mortality, and
net primary production in a tidal freshwater marsh in South Carolina. Ln Freshwater Wetlands
and Wildlife. R.R. Sharitz (qed.). Dept. of Energy Symp. Ser. No.. 61, USDOE Office of Scl. Tech.
Inf., Oak Ridge, TN.

873. Pinckney, J. and R.G. Zingmark. In press. Eff ads of tidal stage and sun angles on intertIclal
benthic microalgal pmductivity. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

Th. Piyatiratitivorkul, S. 1988. The life history and bioenergetic relations in the grass shrimp,
Palaemonetes pugio Holthuris. Ph.D. Dissertation. Department of Biology, University of South
Carolina.

Th. Powell, W.E. 1985. Groundwater flow patterns beneath a forest - high marsh transact at North
Inlet, South Carolina. M.S. Thesis. Department of Geological Sciences, Urtiversity of South
Carolina.

881. Ring, S. and F.H. Sklar. 1989. Simulating the long-term Impacts of coastal development and
landscape changes on the ecology of the Waccamaw River, SC, p. 3681-3587. In Proc., Coastal
Zone '89 Conference, Sth Symp. on Coastal and Ocean Management. O.T. Magoon ot al. (eds.).
Vol. S.

838. Scholz, D.S., L.A. Matthews, and R.J. Feller. In press. Detecting selective d1gestion of
meiobenthic prey by juvenile spot Leiostomus xanthunis (Pisces) using immunoassays. Mar.
ecol. Prog. Ser.

309. Schwing, F.B. and B. Kjertve. 1980. Longitudinal characterization of a tidal marsh crook
separating two hydrographically distinct estuaries. Estuaries 3(4): 236-241.

464. Schwing, F.B., B Kjertve, and J.E. Sneed. 1983. Nearshore coastal currents on the South
Carolina continental shelf. J. Geophys Res. 88: 4719-4729.

500. Schwing, F.B., B. Kjerfve, and J.E. Sneed. 1983. Sea Level oscillations in a sat marsh lagoon
system. Anales del Instituto do Ciencias del Mar I Limnologia 10(1): 231-236.

J- 12

837. Service, S.K. and R.J. Feller. in press. Long-term trends of subtidal macrobenthos in North
Inlet, South Carolina. Hydrobiologia

581. Sharma, P.. L.R. Gardner, W.S. Moore, and M.S. Bollinger. 1987. Sedimentation and
bioturbation in a salt marsh as revealed by Pb-210, Cs-137, and Be-7 studies. Umnol.
oceano(3r. 32(2): 313-326.

870. Shepherd, P. T. Crockett, T, De Santo, and K.L. Bildstein. In press. The impact of Hurricane
Hugo on the breeding ecology of wading birds at Pumpkinseed Island, Hobcaw Barony, SC.
Colonial Waterbirds

783. Sklar, F.H. and R. Constanza. 1991. The development of dynamic spatial models for landscape
ecology: A review and prognosis, p. 239-288. In Cluantitative methods in Landscape Modeling.
M.G. Turner and R.H. Gardner. (eds.). Springer-Verlag, NY.

882. Sklar, F.H., R. Costanza. D.L. Childers, E.B. DeBellevue, M.S. Jacobsen, T. Maxwell, an dM.L.
White. In press. Developments in regional scale simulation and analysis: Case studies fmm
coastal wetland ecosystems. In: Proc., International Geograph. Union. R.S. Singh (ed.)
880. Sklar, F.H., R. Costanza, and J.W. Day, Jr. 1990. Model conceptualization, p.62"68. In
Wetlands and Shallow Continental WAter Bodies, Vol. 1. B.S. Patten et al. (eds.). SPS
Academic Publishing, The Hague.

Abs. Sklar, F.H. and S. Ring. 1988. Ecosystem modeling using graphic-orlented programming; An
introduction to STELLA and the CLESS model. Ecological Society of America (supple.) 69(2):
298.

878. Sklar, F.H., M.L. White, and R. Costanza. In press. The Coastal Ecological Landscape Spatial
Simulation(CELSS) model: User's guide and results for the Atchafalaya/Terrebone study area.
NWRC open file report. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.

647. Smith, L.D. and B.C. Coull. 1987. Juvenile spot (Pisces) and grass shrimp predation on
meiobenthos In muddy and sandy substrata. J. Exo. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 105: 123-136.

703. Spurrier, J.D. and B. Kjerfve. 1988. Estimating th e net flux of nutrients between a saft marsh
and a tidal creek. Estuaries 11(1): 10-14.

595. Stancyk, S.E. and R.J. Feller. 1986. Transport of non-decapod larvae in estuaries: An
overview. Bull. Mar. Sci. 39(2): 257-268.

385. Summers, J.K. and H.N. McKellar, Jr. 1981. The role of physical forcing functions in an
.estuarine model of carbon exchange with the sea. ISEM Journal 3: 71-101.

686. Swift, L.W. Jr., and E.R. Blood. 1987. Drought impact research at two LTER sites. Proc.,
Southeastern Drought Symp. SC State Climatology Office Publ. G-30.

725. Turner, M.G., R. Costanza. and F.H. Sklar. 1989. Methods to evaluate the performance of
spatial simulation models. gcol. M2gg 48: 1-18.
623. Uncles, R.J. and B. Kjerfve. 1986. Transverse structure of residual flow in North Inlet, South.
Carolina. Estuaries 9: 39-42.

634. Vemberg, F.J. 1988. The function of a pristine estuarine ecosystem. p. 15-24. In: The Ecology
and Management of Wetlands, Vol. 1. Ecology of Wetlands. D. Hook et al. (eds7i- Croom Helm.

J-13

788. Vernberg, F.J., R.G. Zngmark, R.F. Dame, S.E. Stancyk, B.C. Coull, R.J. Feller, D.M. Allen, K.L.
Bildstein, E.R. Blood, L.R. Gardner, T. Williams, F.H. Sklar, H.N. MCkellar, Jr., D. Childers, and
W.K. Michener. 1989. Long-term ecological research on the North Inlet forest-wetlands-mahne
landscape, Georgetown, SC, p. 53-76. In: Barrier Island/Saft Marsh Estuahes of the southeast
Atlantic Ocean: issues, Resources, Status and management. NOAA Estu ary-of -the- Month
Seminar Series. No. 12.

708. Watwood, M.E., J. Fitzgerald, W.T. Sw ank, and E.R. Blood. 1988. Factors involved in potential
sulfur accumulation in water and soil from a coastal pine forest. Biogeochen-dsta 6: 3-19.
713. Webster, J., E. Blood, K. Cummings, M. Gurtz, and R.E. Sparks. 1985. Long-term research in
stream ecology. Bull. Eco. Soc. Am. 66: 346-353.

Th. Whiting, G.J. 1985. Nitrogen cycling in saft marshes: Tidal and gaseous exchanges. Ph.D.
Dissertation. Department of Biology, University of South Carolina.
564. Whiting, G.J., H.N. McKellar, Jr., B. Kjerfve, and J.D. Spurrier. 1985. Sampling and
computational design of nutrient flux from a southeastern US saltmarsh. Estuarine Coastal Shelf
Sci. 21(3): 273-286.

637. Whiting, G.J., H.N. McKellar, Jr., B. Kjerfve, and J.D. Spurrier. 1987. Nitrogen exchange
between a southeastern U.S. saft marsh ecosystem and the coastal ocean. Mar. Biol. 95: 173-
182.

738. Whiting, G.J., H.N. McKellar, Jr., J. D. Spurrier, and T.G. Wolaver. 1989. Nitrogen exchange
between a portion of vegetated saft marsh and the adjoining creek. Limnol. Oceanoor. 34(2):
463-473.

766. Wilbur, A.E. and T.J. Hilbish. 1989. Physiological energetics of the ribbed mussel, Guekensia
demissa (Dillwyn), in response to increased temperature. J. Exo. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 131: 161-170.

588. Wolaver, T., S. Hutchinson, and M. Marozas. 1986. Dissolved and parliculate organic carbon in
the North Inlet Estuary - What controls their concentrations. Estuaries 9: 31-38.

497. Wolaver, T., W. Johnson, and M. Marozas. 1984. Nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations
within North Inlet, South Carolina - Speculation as to sources and sinks. Estuarine Coastal Shelf
.qci. 19(2): 243-255.

583. Wolaver, T., G. Whiting, B. Kjertve, J. Spurrier, H. McKellar, Jr., R. Dame, T. Chrzanowskl, R.
Zingmark, and T. Williams. 1985. The flume design - A methodology for evaluating material
fluxes between a vegetated saft marsh and the adjacent tidal creek. J. ExD. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 91:
281-291.

655. Wolfe, D.A., and B. Kjerfve. 1986. Estuarine Variability: An overview. p. 3-17. In: Estuarine
Variability. D.A. Woffe (ed.)., Academic Press, NY.

Th. Young, B.L. 1989. Settlement, early mortality, and growth of sessile marine invertebrates.
Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Biology, University of South Carolina.

784. Young, B.L. In press. Spartina acid zones: Preferred settlement sites of barnacles. J.
Mar. Biol. Ecol.

J- 14

660. Zagursky, G. and R.J. Feller. 1988. Application of immunoblotting dietary analysis, p. 117-129
In: Immunochemical Approaches to Estuarine, Coastal and Oceanographic Questions. C.M.
Tentsch, F.C. Mague, and P.K. Horan' (eds.). Springer-Verlag Coastal Lecture Note Series.

697. Zimmerman, K.M., S.E. Stancyk, and L.A. Clements, 1988. Substrate sele ction by the burrowing
brittlestar, Microphiopholis gracillima, Mar. Behav. Physiol. 13'. 239-255.

Abs. Zingmark, R. and G. Satcher. 1984. Long-term patterns of phytoplankton standing crop and
productivity in a saft marsh estuarine system. J. Phycology 20 (supple.): 58.
645. Zinnel, C.A. and M. Marozas. 1986. Evolution of scientific data entry techniques. p. 61-72. In:
Research Data Management in the Ecological Sciences. Belle W. Baruch Library in Manne
Science, No. 16. W.K. Michener (ed.). University of South Carolina Pres s, Columbia.

J-15

APPENDIX K

Letter from South Carolina Attorney General
Concerning Protective Control

September 10, 1991

SOUTH Mr. Ole Varmer
General Counsel
CAWLI A Secretary of Commerce
COA L 14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W.
COUNCIL Room 5851
Washington, DC 20230

Ashley Comorato Comer RE: S.C. N. - Inlet NERR
4130 Fabor Place
Suite 300
Chafieston, S.C. 294M Dear Mr. Varmer:,
(am) 7"-un
FAA 7"-5"7
Thank you for your memorandum of August 26, 1991,
William W. Jones. Jr. stating the needs of the NOAA in the above referenced
ChalrMA17
matter.
H. Wayne Sam. P11.0.
Executrve Directoir
On behalf of the Attorney General's office for
the State of South Carolina, I address each of the
remaining points of contention:

1. The State of South Carolina has adequate
management authority over the areas proposed for
the NERR site.

As shown on the attached Exhibit A, the South
Carolina Coastal Council, the state agency
responsible for overseeing the project, has full
authority over the NERR site. (See Section
48-39-10, et seq., Code of Laws for the State of
South Carolinat 1976, as amended.) As it relates
to the critical area "environment,* there is no
question that the state has a legal right of
access to those areas for purposes of managing
the site and enforcing conditions associated with
the federal grant. in terms of access by the
state and general public to areas owned by the
state, there is a general legal presumption that
the state owns all lands below mean high water.
This ensures access to the tidelands and marshes
which predominate the NERR site. Fast lands hold
by the Baruch Foundation would require permission
for ingress and egress. However, the fast lands
and highland portions of the site owned by the
Baruch Foundation are legally accessible by the
state for research and management -pursuant to an
casement. Attached Exhibit a is an agreement
entered into between Belle W. Baruch Foundation
and the University of South Carolina on March 22,
1972. By way of this agreement, the university
N
STA

K-1

has the use of such land as may be requi&-ed to
construct a research facility thereon, and the
right-of-way and easement for ingress and egress
thereto. Additionally, the University has use of
such land so long as the lands are being used for
research and other educational purposes. It is
my opinion, based upon this agreement and upon
the Attorney General's letter of November 13,
1987, Exhibit C provided to you by Dr. Vernberg,
that the state has sufficient access to the site
to ensure research and management envisioned by
the NERRproject.

2. The University of South Carolina and Baruch
Institute are state entities. (See atta-ied
Exhibit D.)

Pursuant to state law, the S. C. Coastal Cou; --il
employs attorneys for the purpose of enforcement of
the provisions of the Coastal Zone Management Act.
However, these attorneys are controlled by the State
Attorney General's office. On behalf-of the Attorney
General's office, I am authorized to convey to you
that the State of South Carolina will provide the
necessary legal service to ensure proper management
and enforcement of the NERR management plan. Any
such legal service will be primarily provided by
South Carolina Coastal Council legal staff with
support from the Attorney General's office.

With regard to other questions posed to Mr.
Snyder, it appears to me that these matters were
adequately dealt with in the August 14, 1991, letter
from Dr. Vernberg. Please contac: my office should
this letter be insufficient for your purposes.

Sincerely,

C. C. Harness, III
General Counsel

0898A(87)
cc: Dr. H. Wayne Beam
Mr. Christopher L. Brooks
Ms. Nancy. B. Tecklenburgv Esquire
Mr. Steve Snyder
or. John Vernberg

K-2

APPENDIX L

Organizations Endorsing the North InletiWinyah Bay Project

ORC2ANIZATIONS ENDORSING THE NORTH INLET/WINYAH BAY PROJECT

National Science Foundation

NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center

U.S. Departm ent of Interior

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council

S.C. Wildlife and Marine Resources Department, Nongame and Heritage
Trust Section

S.C. Water Resources Commission

S.C. Marine Educators Association

S.C. Sea Grant Consortium

Sierra Club, South Carolina Chapter

S.C. Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology

S.C. Environmental Law Project

S.C. Aquarium

S.C. Coastal Conservation League

Nature Conservancy of South Carolina

International Center for Public Health Research, USC, McClellanville, SC

Georgetown County League of Women Voters

College of Charleston, Marine Biology Graduate Program

Friends of the Coast

DeBordieu Property.Owners Association, Inc.

*,141 Of C0
-0

?4res ol

IV I @1@ @l
3 6668 14101 3021