Final environmental impact statement, proposed estuarine sanctuary grant award to the State of Rhode Island for a Narragansett Bay estuarine sanctuary, Newport County, Rhode Island proposed estuarine sanctuary grant award for a Narragansett Bay estuarine sanctuary in the State of Rhode Island

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

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

NARRAGANSETT BAY

ESTUARINE SANCTUARY

Proposed Estuarine Sanctuary Grant Award for a
Narragansett Bay Estuarine Sanctuary in the
State of Rhode Island

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Office of Coastal Zone Management and
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
TD
194.56 Department of Environmental Management
R4 N37
1980

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT,

PROPOSED
2:7
ESTUARINE SANCTUARY GRANT AWARD

TO THE

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND

FOR

A NARRAGANSETT BAY ESTUARINE SANCTUARY)
NEWPORT COUNTY, RHODE ISLA@/

Prepared by:

U.S. Department of Commerce
Office of Coastal Zone Management
National Oceanic & Atmospheric
Administration
330O.Whitehaven Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20235

and

State of Rhode Island
Department of Environmental
Management
83 Park Street
Providence, Rhode Island 02903

August 1980

DESIGNATION: FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

TITLE: PROPOSED ESTUARINE SANCTUARY GRANT AWARD TO THE STATE OF
RHODE ISLAND FOR A NARRAGANSETT BAY ESTUARINE SANCTUARY,
NEWPORT, RHODE ISLAND

ABSTRACT: The State of Rhode Island has submitted an application for
a grant award from the Office of Coastal Zone-Management
to establish an estuarine sanctuary in Narragansett Bay,
Rhode Island. The proposed sanctuary would consist of Hope
Island, Patience Island, and the northern end of Prudence
Island, and their surrounding waters for a total of 2,629 acres
of land and water.

Approval of this grant application would permit the
establishment of an estuarine sanctuary representing the
Virginian biogeographic region. The proposed sanctuary would
be used primarily for research and educational purposes,
especially to provide information useful for coastal zone
management decisionmaking. Recreational uses would be
allowed to the extent that they are compatible with the
proposed sanctuary's research and education programs.

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

APPLICANT: Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management

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

CONTACT: Mr. Frank D. Christhilf
Estuarine Sanctuary Project Manager
Office of Coastal Zone Management
3300 Whitehaven Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20235 202/653-7301
J14

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

SUMMARY ................................... .... *i

PART I: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION ..... o...................... -.1

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

A. Preferred Alternative ..... o_ ..................... 5

1. Boundaries and Acquisition of Sanctuary Lands

2. Management

a. General and Specific Management Requirements
b. Public and Private Access
c. Administration of the Sanctuary
d. Education and Research Programs in the
Sanctuary

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

1. Funding
2. Site Selection
3. Boundaries
4. No Action

PART III: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES.- ......................... o ... 21

A. Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action... .... 21

1. General Impacts
2. Local Impacts
3. State and Federal Impacts

B. Unavoidable Adverse Environmental and Socioeconomic
Impacts ..................................... o_ ........ 24

C. Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of
the Environment and the Maintenance and
Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity .................. o24

SECTION PAGE

D. Irreversible.or Irretrievable Commitments of
Resources .............................................. 24

E. P6ssible Conflicts Between the Proposed Action and
the Objectives of Federal, Regional, State, and
Local Land Use Plans, Policies, and Controls for
the Area Concerned ..................................... 24

PART IV: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ....................................... 27

A. Natural Environment ............................... *... *27

1. Narragansett Bay

a. Geology
b. Hydrology and Climate
c. Biology

2. The Island Sites

a. Northern Prudence Island
b. Patience Island
c. Hope Island

B. Human Uses of Narragansett Bay ........................ 34

1. History

2. Socioeconomic Characteristics

a. Rhode Island
b. Portsmouth

3. Current Uses of Narragansett Bay

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

4. Water Quality

5. Land Use

PART V: LIST OF PREPARERS ....................... *...... ............ *41

PART VI: LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS
RECEIVING COPIES ............................................ 43

PART VII: APPENDICES ................................................. 45

SUMMARY

BACKGROUND

Section 315 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (P.L. 927583)
established the Estuarine Sanctuary Program, which provides grants on a
matching-basis to States to acquire, develop, and operate estuarine areas
to be set aside.as natural field laboratories.. These areas are to be used
primarily for long-term scientific and educational programs that will provide
information essential to coastal management decisionmaking. -

Uses of estuarine sanctuaries are intended to serve objectives such as
the fol 1 owi ng:

To gain a more thorough understanding of ecological relation-
ships within the estuarine environment;

To make baseline ecological measurements;

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

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

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

To ensure that the Estuarine Sanctuary Program includes sites .that
adequately represent regional and ecological differences, the program regu-
lations established a biogeographical classification scheme that reflects
geographic, hydrographic, and biological characteristics. Eleven (11)
biogeographic categories are defined in the program regulations. Subcate-
gories of this basic system will be developed and utilized as appropriate to
distinguish different subclasses of each category. It is anticipated that
at least 22 sanctuaries will be needed to provide adequate representation
of the various estuarine ecosystems occurring-within the United States.

The Estuarine Sanctuary Program regulations, first published in 1974,
were amended in 1977 to authorize three kinds of 50% matching grants:
(1) an optional initial grant for such preliminary purposes as surveying,
appraising, and assessing the lands to be acquired, and for developing
management, research, and education plans; (2) grants for acquisition of the

real property within the sanctuary boundaries; and (5) operational grants for
administration of the established sanctuary.

Rhode Island's Department of Environmental Management (DEM), on behalf
of the State, submitted a grant application to the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA's) Office of Coastal Zone Management
(OCZM) in January, 1980 to gather information directed toward establishment
of an estuarine sanctuary consisting of Hope and Patience Islands, the
northern end of Prudence Island, and their adjacent waters in Narragansett
Bay, Rhode Islancf. The proposed sanctuary would be the first to represent
a portion of the Virginian biogeographic region. The three island sites
are among the largest remaining undisturbed areas in the Bay, and would
be accessible to large numbers of people for research and educational
purposes.

NOAA awarded a preacquisition grant of $10,654, matched by an equivalent
amount from th@ State, on March 10, 1980. This grant, which was increased to
$21,148 in July 1980, enabled DEM to proceed with development of a formal
grant application which, if approved, would provide funds for the acquisition
of I ands for the sanctuary. Should the proposed sanctuary be established,
Rhode Island would be eligible for $50,000 annual grants (also matched)
for sanctuary management and operations.

PROPOSED ACTION

The grant request to NOAA for $436,000, matched by the State, would be
used for the fee simple acquisition of 203 acres of uplands and wetlands on
Patience Island from The Nature Conservancy, its present owner, and improve-
ments at docks on Prudence and Patience Islands. The State already owns
fee simple title to Hope Island and the northern end of Prudence Island,
the other land areas proposed for inclusion within this estuarine sanctuary.
The composition of real property within the proposed sanctuary is as
follows:

Identification Size in Acres

Patience (207 acres):
The Nature Conservancy ................. 203
Other private ownership ................ 4

North Prudence (737 acres):
State-owned... ......................
703
Private ownership .... o ................. 34

Hope Island (94 acres):
-_ State-owned... ..... o ................... 94

Adjoining State-Owned
Waters to 18' Isobath. ......... o......... 00.0 1,591

Total Land and Water Within Sanctuary: 2,629 acres

Rhode Island would not exercise its power of eminent domain (condemnation)
to acquire Patience Island, but would instead negotiate a 'Voluntary sale. The
State would be willing to consider acquiring fee simple title or conservation
easements to the privately owned lands on Patience or central and,northern
Prudence Islands, but only on a willing-seller basis.

MANAGEMENT

The proposed sanctuary would be managed by Rhode Island' s Department
of Environmental Management (DEM), the major landowner and manager for t'h'e
lands and waters of Rhode Island. To assist in this task, DEM would, at
a minimum, hire a full-time sanctuary manager, to be located- on Prudence
Island. Management policies proposed by DEM for the sanctuary would ensure
its preservation and use in a manner consistent with the-purposes-and
regulations of the Estuarine Sanctuary Program. The establishment of a
Sanctuary Advisory Committee (SAC) is proposed to advise DEM in its
administration of the proposed sanctuary. The SAC will be comprised of
the following groups, organizations, or their representatives: the Town
of Portsmouth, Rhode Island's C.oastal Resources Management Council, I '
research and educational institutions,:residents of Prudence Island,
Narragansett Bay resour 'ce users, conservation groups, Rhode Island Historical
Preservation Commission, Department of Environmental Management,
National Oceanic and'Atmospheric Administration and-the U.'S. Coast.,Guard.

RESEARCH

The proposed sanctuary would provide excellent sites for estuarine
research in Narragansett Bay. Research opportunities within the proposed
sanctuary would generally fall into three categories: (1)"re�earch, analysis,
and interpretation of the upland, intertidal, and benthic components of the
Narragansett Bay estuary; (2) continuation of ongoing sampling and, monitoring
programs within the Bay; and (3) research on the'impacts of poll;utan.ts on
estuarine organisms. Prudence and Patience Islands lie near,the transit.ion
zone between the comparatively polluted waters of the Upper Bay and the
cleaner waters of the rest of the Bay, so that -research and monitoring in
and around the proposed sanctuary could provide valuable baseline information
against which the impacts of human activ,ities on estuarine hab'itat and
dynamics throughout the Bay could be compared,

EDUCATION

The proposed sanctuary is well sited for educational programs.
'Centrally located in Narragansett Bay, the sanctuary islands are within
easy ferry reach of Rhode IslanWs population centers. An estimated
600,000 people live within 10 miles of the three islands.

-iv-

Pat-ience and northern Prudence Islands contain a variety of estuarine
habitats within a small*area, while their flora and fauna can tolerate
properly supervised educational uses without incurring significant environ-
mental damage. Educational activities will be encouraged through an
extensive interpretative program, including printed materials, guided
and self-guided tours, and resident naturalists.

Hope Island, in contrast, is not suitable for intensive educational
programs, because it conta-ins one of the largest wading bird rookeries in
the Northeast. The nesting species -- including several kinds of egret,
heron, and ibis -- are sensitive to.disruption from human activities,
particularly during the March 15-July 31 nesting season. For this reason,
access to Hope Island for uses other than ornithological research will be
restricted during this period.

RECREATION

The primary. purpose of.the National Estuarine Sanctuary Program is
to provide long-term protection for representative, undisturbed estuarine
areas, so that they may be used for scientific and educational activities.
The program regulations, though, encourage multiple use of sanctuaries to
the extent that such other uses are compatible with the primary sanctuary
purpose. The capacity of each sanctuary to accommodate multiple uses, and the
permissible kinds and levels of such uses, are determined separately for each
sanctuary, and may vary considerably according to the customary and
historic uses of the sanctuary area. Low-intensity recreational activities
-- such as fishing, shellfishing, hunting, boating, hiking, wildlife Ohoto-
graphy, etc.-- are generally considered compatible uses of sanctuary lands
and.waters.

Current uses of the proposed sanctuary lands and waters include
hunting of deer., small game, and ducks; commercial and recreational
shellfishing; and recreational fishing and boating. These uses would be
permitted to continue as long as they remain at levels that do not threaten
the integrity of the proposed sanctuary, or jeopardize use of the sanctuary
for resesarch or educational purposes. DEM will monitor activities within
the sanctuary, and might in the future restrict, prohibit, or otherwise
control uses, or levels of use, as needed to protect the sanctuary's
natural resources, and research and education programs.

PART I: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION

In@response to intense pressures on .the c oastal resources of the
United States, Congress enacted the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA),
which was signed into law on October 27, 1972, and amended.in.1976... This
Act,6uthorized a Federal grant-i.n-aid and assistan' 'ce p'rogram to be adminis-
tered by the Secretary of Commerce, who in turn delegated this responsibility
to the Office of Coastal Zone Management (PCZM) in the National Oceanic
and'Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

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

developing coastal zone management programs (� 305)`2

implementing and administering coastal m6nagement programs*that
receive Federal approval (� 306);

avoiding or minimizing adverse environmental, social, and economic
impacts resulting from coastal energy activities (� 308);

coordinating, studying, pla,nning, and,implementi'. ng interstate
coastaf-management activities and programs (� 309);.

conducting research, study, and tra 'i'ning programs to prov.ide scien-
'tific and technical support to State coastal z.one..ma.nagement programs
310); and:

acquiring land to establish estuarine sanctuaries, 'or to provide
for shorefront access or island preservation

Section 315 of the Act'authorizes an Estuarine Sanctuary Program to
provide matchi-hg grants to States to acquire*,,d,ev.e.lop, anid@ooe rate -
natural estuarine areas as sanctuaries, so that scientists and students may
be provided the opportunity to examine the ecological relationships within
the areas over time. Section 315 provides a,max imum'of $2 mill-ion in
Federal.funds, to be matched by an equivalent amou 'nt from the State, to
acqu'ire lands for each sanctuary. Regulations for implemebtation of the
Estuarine Sanctuary Program were published in final form on'June 4., 1974

E15 CFR Part 921, Federal Reqister 39 (108): 19922-19927], and amended on
September 9, 1977 T15-CFR Part 92-1, Federal Register 42 (175): 45522-455231
(Appendix 1).

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

Research purposes may include:

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

Making baseline ecological measurements;

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

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

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

The Estuarine Sanctuary regulations envision that the Estuarine
Sanctuary Program will ultimately represent the full variety of regional
and ecological differences among the estuaries of the United States. The
regulations state that "the purpose of the estuarine sanctuary program ...
shall be accomplished by the establishment of a series of estuarine sanc-
tuaries which will be designated so that at least one representative of each
estuarine ecosystem will endure into the future for scientific and educational
purposes" [15 CFR 921.3(a)]. As administered by OCZM, the Estuarine Sanc-
tuary Program defined 11 different biogeographic regions based on geographic,
hydrographic, and biological characteristics. Subcategories of this basic
system will be established as appropriate to distinguish different subclasses
of each biogeographic region. It is anticipated that at least 22 sanctuaries

will be needed to provide minimal representation for the Nation's estuarine
ecosystems.

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

Sanctuary, -Biogeographic. Classffication

South Slough Columbian
Coos Bay, Oregon

Duplin River, Caroli,nian
Sapelo Island, Georgia,

Waimanu Valley Insular.,
Island of Hawaii, Hawaii

Rookery Bay West Indian
Collier County, -Flori-da.

Old Wom -an Creek- Great Lakes.
Erie County, Ohio

.Apalachicola River/Bay Louisiani.an
Franklin County.,_Florida

Elkho,rn Slough Cal ifo r n 1 an
Monterey County, California
The:proposed action under consideration by OC *ZM is a grant appl.ication
from the State of Rhode *I-sland to acquire:land for an es.t.uarine sanctuary.
consisting of approximately 2,629 acres of land and water.in Narragansett.Bay.
The application requests $436,000 from NOAA, to be matched by'an equivalent
amount of-State funds and privately donated lands-, for,the purchase of
203 acres of land-on Patience Island and to,improve docks on northern
Prudence.an&Patience Islands.

.The Narragansett Bay Estuarine Sanctuary, if _establ.i.@hed, would be
the first i-n the Virginian bioge@ographi.c region. Thi-s'reg,ion'extends
over 1,000 miles of Atlantic coastline'from Cape Co.d to Cape'Haitteras',
featuring lowland streams, coastal marshes and muddy bottoms with primarily
temperate,biota,and some boreal representatives.. The proposed sanctuary
in Narragansett Bay would be representative-of the Northeast subre'gion,
centered around Long.Island Sound.

The estuarine sanctuary proposal fits into a larger interest in Rhode
Island among universities, citizen and conservation groups, and State and
local officials to establish a Bay Islands Park utilizing the many islands
in the Bay. A proposal, "The Bay Islands Park: A Marine Recreation Plan
for the State of Rhode Island," was prepared for an Advisory Committee on
Island Parks by the Coastal Resources Center, in association with the
Departments of Natural Resources and Community Affairs, the Statewide
Planning Program, and the University of Rhode Island. The preparation of
of this proposal was financed through a Planning Grant issued by the
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, U.S. Department of the Interior under
applicable provisions of The Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965
(P.L. 88-578) and by State funds. Rhode Island's goals in establishing
this Park are (1) to protect some of the State's last remaining undeveloped
island areas in Narragansett Bay, and (2) to provide opportunities for
the public to enjoy and study these sites.

Until the Navy begqn cutting back its operations in 1973, only
limited land resources for the park were available, and little had been
or could be done to translate the proposal into a reality. Since then,
however, much has been accomplished, and the concept of the Bay Islands
Park has been developed and refined. The northern end of Prudence Island
was acquired by The Nature Conservancy and later was purchased by the
State, with matching funds from the Department of the Interior, to be
used as a wildlife management area. As the U. S. Navy gave up its use of
other island areas, these were made available to the State for use in the
Bay Islands Park System. Thus Hope Island, after it was abandoned by the
Navy, became a large rookery for certain species of heron and ibis.
Patience Island had several different owners who saw the potential for
development, but the potential was never realized. To preserve the
island in its natural state, The Nature Conservancy purchased Patience
Island in 1980 and agreed to sell the island to Rhode Island for use as.
an estuarine sanctuary.

Thus, these three islands--Patience, Hope, and the northern end of
Prudence Island--were selected out of the Bay Is-lands Park system to be
set aside as a'National Estuarine.Sanctuary because they are essentially
undisturbed .(or returning to their natural state as is the case with
Hope), and because they were ideally suited for research and educational
programs to study the effect of the bay-processes on-the island ecosystem
within it.*

On March 10, 1980, NOAA awarded a 50% matching grant of $10,654
(later increased to $21,148) which enabled the State to complete an
environmental assessment of the islands, and to prepare management,
research, and education plans for the sanctuary.

PART-II,ALTERNATIVES(INCLUDING PROPOSED ACTION)

A. Preferred Alternative

The State of Rhode Island has submitted an application for a grant of
$436,000, to be matched by an equivalent amount of State funds and privately
donated lands, for the acquisition of lands to e stablish an estuarine
sanctuary in Narragansett Bay encompassing Hope and,Patience Islands, the
northern end of Prudence Island, and their surrounding waters (See Fig. 1),
and to improve docking facilities on these islands. The proposed sanctuary
would include 1,038 acres of land (of which 797 acres are now publicly
owned), and 1,591 acres of adjoining waters (all owned by the State),
and would be managed by Rhode Island's Department of Environmental
Management.

1. Boundaries and Acquisition of Sanctuary Lands

The bou nda ri es of an estuarine san ctuary "may include any part or all of
an estuary, adjoining transitional areas, and adjacent uplands, constituting
to the extent feasible a "natural unit" (15 CFR 921.2).The proposed sanctuary
lies within Narragansett Bay, an estuary:111,360 acres in size with a water-
shed covering 1,183,360 acres in Rhode Island,Massachusetts, and Connecticut.
Since it is not possible to acquire the entire Narragansett Bay estuary and its
watershed, Rhode Island has selected three islands in the Bay and their
surrounding waters, which approximate a natural ecological unit (see Fig. 2).

improvement of docks on North Prudence and Patience Islands. The State
already owns fee simple title to Hope Island and the northern end of
Prudence Island, the other land areas proposed for inclusion within this
estuarine sanctuary. The composition of real property within the proposed
sanctuary is as follows:

Identification Size in Acre

Patience (207 acres)
--The Nature Conservancy ............. 203
-- Other private ownership .... .............. 4

-- Nort h Prudence (737 acres)
-- State-owned ...... ......... ... 703
-- Private ownershipp ...... ....... 34

---Hope Island (94 acres)
-- State-owned ............ ............ 94

Adjoining State-owned waters to 18' isobath ..... 1,591

Total Land and Water Within the Sanctuary ....... . 2,629 acres

'FIGURE I REGIONAL SETTING7
PROVIDENCE NARR'AGANSETT BAY

NORTH
Proposed Esturine Sanctuary

%%%

WARWICK %% FALL RIVER

BRISTOL %%
%

0
L
R@

Patience'
Island
,qA oo

Prudence Island
Hope
QUONSETT/ Island
DAVISVILLE %
>

Cx
TIVERTON

CL 0
CD.
PORTSMOUTH

4) -9 MIE.
VT. N.H.
Conanicut Island CL

N.Y.
Aquidneck Island
MASS. 4@-
NORTH KINGSTON

CONN.

NEWPORT

Narragansett Boy

0 1 2 3 4
C, 0.0 Miles-
R h a d e1 .0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
kilometers

012

9,R

X SA

PL ----
----- A_-A

t At

A@o

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

Acquisition would be performed in accordance with Federal regulations
for real estate acquisition, including an independent appraisal and the
offer of Fair Market Value. Acquisition would be through negotiation
only, and Rhode Island would not use its power of eminant domain
(condemnation). Some lands within and adjacent to the proposed sanctuary
would remain in private hands. Jhe State would be willing to obtain fee
simple title or conservation easements to some or all of these lands,
depending on future funding, but only through willing-seller negotiations.

2. Management

The State is acquiring,islands or parcels on islands in Narragansett
Bay for a number of different purposes, including recreation, wildlife
management, and conservation and protection of environmentally unique and
irreplaceable lands. Although management of the various islands within
the Bay Islands Park system differs according to the objective of
acquisition, the present management objectives are compatible with the
objectives of managing the sanctuary for its long-term use for research
and education within an estuarine system.

Although these islands--Hope, Patience, and northern Prudence--are
considered within the Bay Islands Park, they will be considered as a
separate entity in terms of their use as a National Estuarine Sanctuary.
The specific management policies for the uplands and wetlands (not the
water body itself) will be based on the primary objective of managing the
lands to maintain their ecosystem, in order to assure the long-term
protection of natural processes and resources for research and education.
Uses that would alter the nature of the ecosystem will not be allowed on
these lands.

Ownership and management decision authority will be retained by the
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (DEM) using existing
State laws and policies to regulate fishing, shellfishing, hunting,
boating, and other current uses of the land and water areas within the
sanctuary boundaries. Changes in management policies.and regulations
that affect the sanctuary will be reviewed by the Sanctuary Advisory
Committee (discussed later), which may provide advisory comments on
policies and program, but will have no regulatory authority over these
lands and waters.

a. General and Specific Management Requirements

DEM would monitor all activities within the sanctuary. If any use
or level of use threatens the sanctuary, DEM would take appropriate steps
to eliminate the potential conflict. In addition, OEM intends to prohibit
some activities altogether. Bringing pets and radios or other electronic
devices into the sanctuary are examples of prohibited activities.

Narragansett Bay in general, and the Patience and Prudence Island
areas in particular, are heavily used for recreational fishing., boat.ing,
and shellfishing during the summer months. Recreational boating within*
the proposed boundaries of the sanctuary is so popular that the waters
of Potter Cove, on the eastern side of.northern Prudence Island, are
classified as SB waters during the summer.months.. Rhode Island's water
quality classifications are, in descending.order, SA, SB,.and.SC (,See
Appendi'x IIIj.

Establishment of this proposed sanctuary could attract recreational
boaters to the sanctuary waters in even larger numbers. Should recreational
boating in Potter Cove or anywhere else within the boundaries of the proposed
sanctuary be found to cause, or threaten to cause, significant-adverse
environmental impacts on the sanct.uary resources,,.DEM would restrict,
prohibit, or otherwise control recreational boat.ing Within the sanctuary.
to whatever extent is necessaryto protect water quality.within the sanctuary.

R-ecr'eation.al and commercial shellfishing is another popular use of the
waters around Patience and Prudence Islands. Dredgin� for shellfish within
or near the waters of the proposed sanctuary is already prohibited by Rhode
Island law.. Individuals must use ton'g.s or rakes, with.a commercial
limit of .12 bushels perday, and a recreat@ional Timit of 0.5 bushels per
day. In Narragansett Bay, there are 300 full-time and 1,600 part-time
shellfishers, who in 1978 harvested 2 million pounds of quahogs valued
at $4.3 million. Approximately 200 shellfishers work within the area of
the sanctuary. Continued shellfishing within the sanctuary waters, if
continued at the present level, should not, interfere with the research
and edu,cation.programs.

Recreational hunting takes place on all three islands. On Patience and
northern Prudence Islands, there is a bow-hunting season for deer from Novem-
ber I to January 31. Thirty deer were taken on nbrthern Prudence during the
past season.. Patience and Prudence also have'a.small'game season in February,
and rabbits are hunted on Hope Island from October,.thro.ugh January.. Duck
hunting takes place in November on Patience, Prudence,'and the waters between
the two islands. Duck hunting is restricted, to with-in 1.0 feet above mean
high water level.

Hunting will be allowed to continue if it is compatible with the
primary'sanctuary purposes. For deer, hunting is actually desirable to
prevent overpopulation and its as,sociated mallnutrilion, disease, and
habitat degradation from excessive foraging5. Habitat manipulation to
"improve" sites for game species, however, is Iincompatible with the
purposes of the sanctuary. Proposals for such actions would have to be
approved by the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, in
consultation with OCZM. It is anticipated that potential co,nflicts can
be identified and resolved by DEM before any actions take place that
would,reduce.the sanctuar 's value for research and.education..
Y,

Northern Prudence Island

Existing uses on and around Prudence Island that would continue-are
hunting, commercial and recreational shellfishing, and recreational fishing
and boating. New activities-that would be introduced as part of the park and
sanctuary programs would be interpretative activities, nature trails and
research programs. Any recreational activity that harms the natural
environment or interferes with research activities will be restricted or
prohibited.

Patience Island

Patience Island contains a variety of habitats (e.g. salt marsh,
upland forest, and open fields), and would make an excellent outdoor
environmental education center. Groups and individuals may be permitted
to camp overnight under careful supervision by DEM personnel to allow
them the chance to study the island's ecology over a more extended period
of time than would be possible during day trips. Only minimal facilities
would be needed to accommodate such activity. Patience Island would
also be available for scientific research. Camping would be restricted
or prohibited if DEM determines that it inhibits research or degrades
the environment.

*Hope Island

Hope Island has become one of the most important rookeries for-wading,
birds in the Northeast, and would be managed under stricter controls than any
of the other sanctuary sites. Guided interpretative tours may be offered
during the late summer and early fall if they do not interfere with
research-activities or damage the environment. The island would be
closed to visitors--except for qualified scientists with the approval
of DEM--during the nesting season, which runs from March 15 through July 31.
No camping would be permitted on Hope Island.

b. Public and Private Access

The proposed sanctuary is located on islands with no bridge connection
to the mainland. DEM can thus control access to the sanctuary through
control of boat access to the islands, directly with respect to the ferry
system serving the island sites, and indirectly with respect to privately
owned boats wishing to moor or beach on the sanctuary islands.

Public Access

The public transportation system will be designed to take advantage
of the ferry system that serves the southern end of Prudence Island. -The
only service which is now scheduled is the Block Island Ferry, which will
stop twice a day at South Prudence on its round trip from Providence to
Newport to Block Island.

Transportation to the sanctuary sites would be developed only after
a careful study of the ecosystems on the three islands and an assessment
of the number of people who can be accommodated on the-islands without
damaging the natural processes that exist there., Vi-sitors-to-the sanctuary
would be taken there by boat'as the'primary .means of access. Beeause,of
the objections of Prudence Island residents, the proposal to use:a bus to
connect north and south Prudence has been dropped. A small van (8-10
people) would be available on the south end of Prudence to take small
groups of peopile on an ad hoc basis to north-Prudence,.bUt this:woulld be
restricted to an "as needed" basis.

Public transportation to Patience and Hope Isl-ands would-be,provi'ded
by boat on a demand basis and not by a regularly scheduled ferry.

Private Access

Narragansett Bay supports heavy recreational boati n"g use during summer'
months, and some of the proposed sanctuary areas--especially Potter Cove-
on northern Prudence Island, and the waters between Patience and Prudence
Islands--are customary mooring sites where boats'anchor to spend several
hours. When northern Prudence'and Patience Islands.were in private--ownership,
small numbers of people beached their boats and hiked or camped on the islands.
With these islands,in public ownership, it is safe to assume that larger
numbers of people may want to beach their-boats,-or have docking,facilities
provided so that they can more easily come ashore. Rhode Isl-and's.policy.
with regard to private boats in the proposed sanctuary would be as follows:

the docks at Patience and northern Prudence Islands would be.repaired
so that small craft can dock, but only to let passengers off; docking for more
than'ten minutes would not be permitted;

Small@boats may be beached on Patience and northern Prudence'Islands
where not prohibited. DEM may restrict or prohibit boats from certain areas
such as the salt marshes on northern Prudence (because of their fra.?llity), or
the beach on Patience (because of potential conflicts with,swimmers. ;.and

DEM will monitor private boat use@withi-n the-sanctuary waters, and
if it is determined-that private boat activities are damaging the sanctuary
resources, or interfo .ring with other uses, such a's swimming, DEM may restrict
boating activity by limiting boat use', moorin .g* or'beaching to:certain areas,
and prohibiting,it in other areas.

c. -Administration of the Sanctuary

The Rhode Island Department'of Environmental Management@(DEM)j the
State's natural resource management agency, would manage the proposed
sanctuary. Specifically, the 'Assistant Director for Operations would
have general oversight and responsibility for the sanctuary and its programs.

To assist in this task, DEM will, at a minimum, hire a full-time
Sanctuary Manager,'to be located on Prudence Island. The duties of the
Sanctuary Manager, wfio will be trained as a natural resource manager/planner,
will include:

1) Administration of the sanctuary, including preparing required
State and Federal grant applications, proposals, budget, and reports, and
maintaining necessary records.

2) Working with the staff of the Sanctuary Advisory Committee.

3) Representing the Sanctuary Advisory Committee in public meetings.

4) Advising and coordinating with units of government, both within
DEM and other agencies, on particular issues, questions, and projects
that impact on the sanctuary, at their request.

5) Seeking and coordinating special studies and research activities
within or related to the sanctuary, and interpreting and applying research
results to produce benefits to the Rhode Island coastal management program.

6) Developing and giving general oversight to an-educational program
for the sanctuary. -

The Sanctuary Manager will be hired by and held accountable to the
DEM Assistant Director for Operations.

Other person,nel will be employed and trained within the appropriate
divisions of DEM to assist in the administration of the sanctuary,
including giving interpretative tours and enforcing restrictions on
prohibited activities within the sanctuary.

Sanctuary Advisory Committee

To achieve effective coordination and cooperation among the public and
private groups participating in the sanctuary program, a Sanctuary Advisory
Committee (SAC) would be created to assist and advise DEM and the Sanctuary
Manager. -The SAC would include representatives of the scientific research
and educational communities, DEM, the Coastal Resources Management Council,
the State Historic Preservation Commission, the Town of Portsmouth,
Prudence Island residents, private user groups such as the Rhode Island
Boating Council, commercial shellfishermen or others, conservation organi-
zations and Federal agencies, including NOAA and the U. S. Coast Guard.

SAC functions would include:

Advising DEM and the Sanctuary Manager on sanctuary administration.
In this role, the SAC would assist DEM in developing guidelines for
sanctuary management, as well as job qualifications for the sanctuary
manager.
Reviewing proposals for research or educational activities w'ithi"n
sanctuary lands and waters, and making appropriate recommendations to DEM.

Recommending special studies for artheologicali'cultural, or other
purposes.

Providing for communication and cooperation among all sanctuary users.

The final composition of the Sanctury Advisory Committee and any
appropriate subcommittees, will be determined before the -acquisition grant
would be awarded.

d. Education and Research Programs in the SanctOarj

.-Education

The proposed sanctuary sites are well suited for educational programs
not only because Patience and Prudence Islands are capable of-supporting such
activities without significant harm, but also because of the- 'proximity of
Rhode Island's population centers to the sanctuary islands. Downtown Provi-
dence is only 12 miles from the northern end of Prudence Island. The center
of Warwick (Rhode Island's second-largest city) is 5 miles fr@_om Patience
Island. More than 600,000 people live within 10 miles of the sanctuary islands,
offering a unique opportunity to provide sanctuary education programs for the
public. With only a short ferry and bus ride, urban residents, school children,
and families can enter an area with no development, clean water" pristine
salt marshes, and unusual wildlife including a large deer herd and one of the
Northeast's largest wading bird rookeries. The north end of Prudence Island
in particular provides the opportunity to visi-t a number of different
habitat types within a small area.

The proposed sanctuary,would emphasize creation of an extensiveAnter-
pretative program, including printed materials, guided and'self,-guided tours,
resident naturalists, and guided boat trips. Both group and individual
activities would be provided. (The completed education.plan, can be
obtained by contacting DEM.)

Re-search

-The Patience and Prudence Island areas offer a unique opportunity
for research into the dynamics of the Narragansett Bay est'U:ary'. Several
factors influence the research potential of the proposed sanctuary sites:

-- The City of Providence and the rivers entering the Bay at Providence
contribute significant pollution to the Bay.
-- At present, the dividing line between SA and SB waters lies
north of Prudence Island. The waters around Prudence Island--particularly
in and around Potter Cove- -expe ri ence changing pollution levels depending
on weather and season.

-- The Prudence Island area is a major shellfish area, and extensive
commercial and recreational quahogging takes place in its surrounding waters.
An experimental, private oyster "farm" has been started on central Prudence
Island. Lobstering takes place around Hope Island.

-- The University of Rhode Island has conducted extensive research in the
area on pollution levels and their impacts on shellfish, and is constructing
a computer model, of the Upper Bay.

-- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has funded several studies of
water quality and marine life in the Upper Bay.

Major research opportunities in this proposed sanctuary would generally
fall in three categories: (1) research, analysis, and interpretation of the
upland, intertidal, and benthic components of the Narragansett Bay estuary,
(2) continuation of existing monitoring and sampling programs (described
below), and (3) research to analyze the impact of various pollutants and
pollution levels on estuarine life.

Existing Monitoring

I.. Biannual finfish trawl survey: DEM's Division of Fish and Wildlife
sets up random stations throughout the Bay twice each year to take fish counts,
and to measure characteristics such as length, weight, and sex.

2. Lobster catch data collection: The Division of.Fish and Wildlife
collects information on the number of lobs-ters caught, the number of traps
used, the number of hours spent trawling, and when and where the lobsters are
caught, on a monthly basis. Very few lobsters are caught within the waters of
the proposed sanctuary, since most of the sanctuary lies beyond the northern
extent of lobster summer migration up the Bay.

3. Quahog sampling: Quahogs are currently taken and sampled for heavy
metals and coliform count twice each month by the Health Department.

4. Paralytic shellfish poisoning sampling: Blue mussels and soft-shell
clams from stations at the mouth of the Bay are sampled twice a month and
tested by the Health Department for paralytic poisoning, a seasonal phenomenon
associated with the occurrence of "red tides". If dangerous levels are found
at themouth of the Bay, tests are then made at stations progressively farther
up the Bay to determine the extent of the poisoning.

5. Coliform testing: The Division of Fish and Wildlife tests Upper
Bay-water samples 35-40 times per year, for total and fecal -coliform bacteria,
primarily to help determine whether the conditional.area,of the Upper Bay
should be closed to shellfishing (see Fig. 7).

@New Research.

All of the land areas withinthe proposed,,.sanc 'tuary,are essentially
undisturbed, and almost all of the waterareas are,classified SA,year-round.
Thus, establishment of this proposed sanctuary would-ensure the preservation
of these lands, and, to a lesser extent, their surrounding waters, for future
terrestrial, intertidal, and benthic research on a,variety of estuarine
topics. There are, however, several potential sources of pollution outside
the proposed boundaries of the sanct,uary--including-sewage and heavy metals
from the urban areas around the Bay, and tankers and tank barges Which pass
within 1.5 miles of the eastern si-de of Prudence Island--that could
jeopardize sanctuary waters in the future.

Because the proposed sanctuary lies near the transition zone between the
polluted waters of the Upper Bay and the relatively clean waters of the rest of
the Bay, research and.monitoring in and arou,nd the-.sanctuary could provide
valuable baseline information against.which the impacts 'of.human activities
throughout the Narragansett-Bay estuary;could@be-assessed. -Such research and
monitoring could have broad -applicability to,sim.ilar estuaries elsewhere in
the Virginian biogeograph-ic region, such as-Chesapeake Bayi, (The completed
research plan can be obtained by contacting DEM.@)

B. Alternatives Considered..

1. Fundi ng

Rhode Island considered several sources of State and Federal funding
for the creation of a preserve includi.ng H.ope and Patience-Islands and the
north end of Prudence Isl,and. The State purchased the-nort-h-end of Prudence
Island in 1978@ using Land and Water Conservation Fund...monie-s matched from
the State's Recreation Area Development Fund- - Land and Water Conservation
Fund,monies were also considered for purchase.of Patience Island-@

State revenues from hunting-and fishing licenses would be used for
the State share of the cost of purchasing Patience Island.
Z
Estuarine Sanctuary Program funds were selected for three reasons:

Land and Water GonservatimFund- monies are.not.available this fiscal
year, and may not be available next fiscal year;

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

The Estuarine Sanctuary Program would attract national attention
to the area, and thus .enhance the research, education, and recreation
opportunities in the Bay.

Within Rhode Island, hunting and fishing license receipts were selected
as a match for the proposed sanctuary grant rather than Recreation Area
Development Fund monies, because of the high wildlife values of tile islands,
and also because Recreation-Area Development Fund monies are committed to
development projects elsewhere in the State.

2. Site Selection

In developing an estuarine sanctuary proposal, and in OCZM's initial
review, a variety of sites 'were considered for potential sanctuary
designation. Because the sanctuaries are to be State-owned and managed,
OCZM cannot, on its own initiative, propose or designate an area as a
sanctuary. OCZM is dependent upon the State's identifying potential
sanctuary sites and formally applying for funding.

There are no National Estuarine Sanctuaries along the entire Atlantic
coast north of Georgia, none representing any of the sub-regions of the
Virginian region, extending from Cape Cod to Cape Hatteras, and none in
the Arcadian region9 stretching from Cape Cod to Canada. In 1978/1979,
two States in the Northeast sub-region'of the Virginian Region,, Rhode
Island and New York, initiated internally a process of identifying areas
within their States to propose for an estuarine sanctuary. In New York,
the Peconic/Flanders Bays area at the eastern end of Long Island was
finally selected in January 1980. However, because of internal problenis
that developed early in the year, the project was dropped by New York and
their proposal was withdrawn in April 1980.

Rhode Island's proposal of the Narragansett Bay Estuarine Sanctuary,
if approved,, would provide the first and only estuarine sanctuary so far
in the Virginian region. For this reason, it will be especially beneficial
to research institutions, universities, and coastal agencies in Rhode
Island, as well as Federal environmental agencies such as the Environmental
Protection Agency, National Marine Fisheries Service,, and the Office of
Coastal Zone Management.

Site Selection with Rhode Island

Selection of the Prudence/Patience/Hope area as an Estuarine Sanctuary
candidate was the result of a lengthy site selection process in Rhode Island.

The northern end of Prudence Island and Patience Island were designated
as part of the proposed Bay Islands Park system after extensive public
discussion, i-ncluding public hearings and input from a special citizens'
committee. The process included adoption of the Patience/Prudence
acquisitions as part of the State's Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation

Plan (SCORP), an element of the State Guide.Plan. Inclusion.of the,Bay
IsTands Park proposal in the State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation
Plan was approved by the State Planning Council after public hearings'.
The SCORP envisions Patience and the north end of,Prudence Islands.as
conservation and wildlife management sites with,low-i1ntensity',public
use. Official State policy thus designates these two site .s as areas to
be set aside for conservation and wildlife management purposes, although
-estua:rine sanctuary designation was not specifically consider .ed when.Rhode
Island's SCORP was adopted.

When OCZM's Sanctuary Programs Office informed the Cha;irman of RhoOe
Island's Coastal Resources Management Coun-cil (CRMC)' that funds might'be'
available for an estuarine sanctuary in the Northeast States, the,-,Coastal
Resources Center at the University of Rhode Is'l.and'((RC),Jn cooperation
with DEM, initiated a review of possible sites.

At first, CRC believed that one of Rhode Island's coastal ponds or'
tidal rivers might,be the most appropriate estuarine sanctuarycandidate
in t@he,State.. All such areas were identified and evaluated., FoUr,of
the most promising sites were then reviewed by CRC and-DEM staff, includi-ng
biologists, from the Division of Fish and Wildlife.. Allthough all four
sites offered u'niq-ue benefits to research an d education, and one
potentially was available to be protected "en toto," each of the four
sites (listed bel.ow) was.found to have,,signific.ant.drawba.cks.
1) Quicksand Pond in Little Compton: this is the most pristine site,
and an outstanding example of a coastal pond with a natural, breachway.
Most, of the shore of the pond is undeveloped. However,. there.were' strong
local objections, the purchase price would be very high,. research possibilities
are limited because of the site's distance from i'nstitutions, andeven I
without sanctuary status the site is likely to remain in its comparatively
undeveloped state as a result of.the pattern of landholdings surrounding
it.

2). Palmer River: this' estuary was considered a good.cahdida'te, except
that 850% of it's watershed, including the mo 'st undeveloped porti on,,''lies in
Massachusetts, thereby complicating the initiation and successful execution
of the project. Moreover, parts of the estuary are he.avily,developed.

3) Pettaquamscutt River: this tidal river in the Towns of Narragansett
and North Kingstown has many interesting features, inc1uding unusual upper
basins, and is.surrounded by large undeveloped tracts of land. However,
the.character of much of the river is such that research her@e'@would have
limited ap.pl i c ab i 1 i ty to ot he r area s , a nd t he ce.nt r al . . port i o n of . t lie ri ve,rway
is'heavily developed wi.th small. s *ummer c'ottages,on both shore .s,, making control
or acquisition of the area difficult or impossible.

4) Potter-'s Cove: this is a cove off Point Judith i n South Kingstown
(entirely separat'e from the Potter Cove occurring on northern Prudence Island)
with potential as shellfish habitat, and with an upper cove that.is almost
fresh water. Howev er, much of the shoreline is intensely developed, and,the
remainder is in small ownerships, so that acquisition would be difficult.

After further analysis by representatives of CRC, OEM, OCZM, and the
Coastal Resources Management Council, the Prudence/Patience/Hope sites emerged
as potential candidates. Meetings were held to pursue the concept, which drew
the support of the Governor. Thereafter, the northern end of Prudence Island,
Patience Island,. and Hope Island were nominated, for tile following reasons:

1-' The'sites are essentially undisturbed, and contain a wide range of
terrestrial and estuarine flora and fauna. The salt marshes on Prudence
and Patience Islands are some of,the most extensive and pristine wetlands
remaining in Rhode Island.

2. Located just south of the present shellfish closure line for the
Bay, the area has the potential for significant research into Bay dynamics and
pollut ion problems. Such research could easily be tied into ongoing research
and monitoring elsewhere in the Bay, and could have broad applicability else-
where in the Northeast.

3. The islands are located in the center of Rhode Island's populated
areas, thus offering numerous opportunities for educational activities.

4. No present or planned uses in the sanctuary area are in conflict
with the purposes of the Estuarine Sanctuary Program. Fishing, shellfishing,
and hunting are generally compatible uses, and establishment of an estuarine
sanctuary here would help to preserve the living resources of the area.

Public infoniation meetings on the idea of a sanctuary were held in
Providence and Portsmouth in March 1980. A public hearing on the proposed
estuarine sanctuary on northern Prudence, Patience, and Hope Islands was
held on June 25, 1980. Comments at the hearing and in subsequent letters
were overwhelmingly'in favor of tile proposal.

3. Boundaries

a. Water Boundaries

The proposed sanctuary lies within the Narragansett Bay estuary, and
includes isla nds in the middle of the Bay together with their surrounding
waters. Since the entire estuary cannot be included within the sanctuary,
any water boundaries will be of*necessity less than all-inclusive.

The proposed water boundary is the 18' isobath. This line was chosen
for several reasons:

-- it is a relatively easy water boundary to identify. Nautical charts
indicate waters less than 18' feet deep in wtiite, areas deeper than 18' in
blue. Four permanent buoys lie on the 18' isobath around the sanctuary.

the 18' isobath includes Potter Cove, Cog.geshall.Cove, and the
waters between Prudence and.Patience Islands.. Si.nce these areas are popular
recreational boating sites in the summer-,^'inclusion of these water'areas
within the sanctuary is desirable'so that 'r6str.ictf6hs* can,.be'' ji@.pose,d Jf
necessary.

.b. Land Boundaries

Two alternative land boundary, configurations consi.dered by,Rhdde Island
were the inclusi.on of southern and central Prudence Island, and..the exclusion
of Hope Island.

1Y
outhern'and Central, Prudence Jsland

The southern.,end of,Prudence.Isl.and consists of,624 acres, all,,.oWned'"..
by the State. Rhode Island considered including some or all of the southern
end of Prudence Island within the proposed sanctuary,'but chose not to"f6r'
two reasons: (1) the site was extensively developed by the Navy, its former
owner', far more than the other island sites, and to such an extent that it
does not meet the 'essentially undisturbed' criterion, and (2) southern
Prudence will be the main center for the Bay Islands Park system, and will
support facilities and activities incompatible with the primary purpose
of the sanctuary.

Central Prudence Island consists of 2,129 acres, all privately owned.
Much of the eastern shore in this central portion has extensive residential
development, and the central Prudence lands are held by about 400 separate
owners. For these reasons, Rhode Island chose not to pursue the inclusion
of central Prudence Island within the proposed sanctuary. If individual
owners approach the State and offer to sell fee simple ti,tle or conservation
easements, Rhode Island would be willing to consider such acquisitions.
These would be undertaken only on an owner-initiated, voluntary basis.

2) Hope Island

Rhode Island originally did not include Hope,Island in the sanctuary
because of its distance from Patience and Prudence. However, DEM decided
to add Hope Island because of the additional protection sanctuary status
might provide, particularly for the extremely important wading bird
rookery on the island.

4. No Action

Under this alternative, Patience would not be acquired, and Patience,
northern Prudence, and Hope Islands would not be designated.as an estuarine
sanctuary. Northern Prudence and Hope Islands would still be part of the Bay
Islands Park system and, as such, would still be protected. However,
sanctuary designation and the provision of management funds would help
establish a better management structure, strengthen the educational and
interpretative programs offered to the public, encourage additional scientific
research in the Bay, and provide national recognition for the area.

Patience Island'was recently.purchased by The Nature Conservancy
(TNC) with th,e expectation that Rhode Island would purchase it from them
for inclusion in the proposed'estuarine sanctuary.' If the sanctuary is
not established, and the State does not receive funds to purchase
Patience Island, TNC could retain ownership and manage it for research
and education purposes, or explore other forms of public ownership,
through such agencies as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or sell it
to a private party. TNC ownership would restrict State or Federal funds
for operations, and coul A result in limited access or educational' programs
due to"lac*k of funds.

Without an estuarine sanctuary in the Narragansett Bay, as this
proposal recommends, there would be no'estuarine sanctuary in the Virginian
biogeographic region and none to represent the Northeast sub-region, thus
qlosing off the benefits derived frow information generated from a
sanctuary in this area.

PART III: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

A. Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action

I . General Impacts

The overall impact of establishing Rhode Island's proposed estuarine
sanctuary would be environmentally beneficial. The proposed'sanctuary
would require minimal development or physical alteration of the existing
natural environment. It would not significantly affect current uses or
activities in or near the proposed sanctuary area.

The most direct environmental benefit of this action woul dbe the
long-term preservation of three isl'ands and their resources for
scientific, educational, and recreational purposes. As a base for
research and education, the sanctuary should increase our understanding
of estuarine ecosystems, and provide an important link to the Rhode
Island coastal zone management program. The proposed sanctuary, which
has been chosen as a representative est'uary of the northeast sub-region
of the-Virginian biogeographic region, also would'provide basic knowledge
necessary for a more complete understanding of estuarine proces Ises,in
protected shores along the Northeastern Atlanttc coast.

The proposed educational program would increase public knowledge and
awareness of estuarine ecosystems, their benefits, and their sensitivities,
and would therefore contribute to increased public understanding of and
support for coastal zone management activities within Rhode Island.-

Potential adverse environmental impacts locally resulting from the
establishment of this proposed estuarine sanctuary are those associated
with the increased number of persons expected to visit the-islands for
scientific, educational, and recreational purposes. These minimal adverse
impacts would potentially include soil compaction, local habitat degradation
for fish and wildlife uses, destruction of habitat from construction and
trail maintenance activities, disturbance of sensitive nesting bird species,
and the human community on central Prudence, litter,'water pollution
from recreational boats anchored or opera-ting near the islands, etc.
These impacts would probably occur regardless of the 'estuarine sanctuary,
assuming Patience Island would be in public or Nature Conservancy ownership.

On a broader scale, the removal o ,f Patience Island from priv4te
ownership will result in loss of taxab"le property to the Town of Portsmouth.
Also, other areas that were considered as- potential sites-for an estuarine
sanctuary will not be eligible for acquisition funds..

2. Local Impacts

a. Natural Environment

1) Fish and Wildlife Habitat

A variety of fish and wildlife species--both resident and migratory--
use the proposed sanctuary lands and waters for food, shelter, nesting, and
nursery areas. Establishment of this sanctuary would ensure long-term
protection of the three island ecosysteins, thereby preserving valuable fish
and wildlife habitat.

Increased visitor use of the sanctuary for educational and recreational
purposes, though, could adversely affect the sanctuary's value as fish and
wildlife habitat. Hiking, boating, and other recreational activities
could be expected to result in greater noise, litter, soil compaction,
water pollution, and other forms of habitat degradation. To keel) such
adverse impacts within tolerable levels, Rhode Island intends to control
the location and levels of human activities within the proposed sanctuary.
Hope Island, for example, whose wading bird rookery is the most sensitive
and vulnerable area within the sanctuary, will be closed to all visitors
during the March 15-July 31 nesting -season. Moreover, certain areas on
Patience and northern Prudence Islands could receive special protection
-to maintain habitat for deer and other wildlife, as well as places where
research could be conducted undisturbed.

2) Soils and Vegetation

Adverse impacts on soils within the proposed sanctuary can be minimized
if proper precautions are taken. Trail construction and improveiaent would
be undertaken only on suitable, well-drained soils that can tolerate
increased compaction. Boardwalks may be constructed over some wetland
areas, which would allow a visitor to experience the wetland., while
minimizing detrimental effects.

Vegetation would not be significantly affected by establishment of the
sanctuary. Maintenance and, where necessary, rerouting of existing trails
would reduce the impact on vegetation. New trails would be laid out to avoid
fragile vegetative areas altogether.

3) Water Quality

Establishment of this sanctuary would relieve the potential impact of
water pollution that might otherwise occur due to onshore development
within the proposed sanctuary. On the other hand, increased recreational
boating within sanctuary waters may lead to increased pollution from
sewage, motor oils, and litter. The waters of Potter Cove on the eastern
side of North.Prudence Island are already classified as SB during
summer months as a precautionary measure because of heavy recreational
boating usage. Rhode Island will use existing laws and regulations as
needed to restrict, or otherwise control recreational boating to protect
the sanctuary land and water environment.

b. Human Environment

1) Residents of.Prudence and Patience Islands

There are about 50 year-round residents on-central Prudence Island,
and about 1,000 during'the 'summer. None of these residents would be
displaced as a result of this proposed action. Rhode Island's Department
of Environmental Management is working with.the island residents to
minimize the adver'se,impacts of the 'sanctuary.upon.them. This-would be
achieved primarily by 'Providing public access to'the sanctuary primarily
by small boats that.would have DEM staff immediately available to supervise
and guide groups and instruct all visitors not to disturb priv'ate property
on the islands. Visitors would be discouraged from using the Prudence
Island Ferry by providing no transportation from Milddle Prudence Island
to the sanctuary.

2) Town of, Portsmouth.

Acquisition of 203 acres on.Patiente.Island would result in the loss
of potential tax revenue to *the.Town of P'ortsmouth,which.in 1978 amounted.
to $3,728. This economic loss would probably be more.'than offset by the
new jobs and commercial actlvities.,@ssoOated with the, ferry landing in
Portsmouth to serve the Bay Islands,Park system and't4e'estu'arilne sanctuary.

Other impacts on the Town of Portsmouth woUl.d be a severe strain on the
services provided to residents on Prudence, i 'ncluding'police anid,fire
protection, water supply, waste disposal,, a,nd other.un ,foreseen services such.,
as emergency health care and removal from the islands.' DEM and the'Town of
Portsmouth will have a formal understanding of how those services will be
provided and by whom before t,he acquisition grant,is awarded.,

3. State and Federal.Impacts
Establishment of the sanctuary would preserve for Rhode Islanders a'nd
others from southeastern New England a natural area to enjoy and use for
recreational and educational purposes. This would be par@icularly beneficial
for the residents of the urban areas around,Na"rragansett-Bay@'

Acquisition and management.,of,t,he proposed sanctuary would have
relatively minor short-term financial impacts on the-Federal government and
the State of Rhode Island. The State will be responsible for funding the
long-term operation of the sanctuary.. These expenditures are expected to be
offset by the acquisition of improved'scientific@and technical knowledge,
which could be applied to the management @o'f @estuar.ine resources here and
elsewhere. The sanctuary would also protect wetlands, in accordance with
Executive Order 11990,.the Protection of_Wet.lands, and the State Coastal
Resources Management.Plan.

B. Unavoidable Adverse Environmental or Socioeconomic Effects

There are no unavoidable adverse environmental effects associated with
this proposed action. Unavoidable adverse economic effects would include
the loss of tax revenue (approximately $3,728) to the Town of Portsmouth
through the public acquisition of Patience Island. However, some or all of
this lost tax revenue would be offset by new spending in the Town of Ports-
mouth by sanctuary visitors and management personnel. In addition, establish-
ment of this proposed sanctuary could result in minor disruptions to the
residents of central Prudence Island from the van carrying visitors to
the sanctuary site on northern Prudence Island. Efforts would be made to
minimize such disruptions.'

C. Relationship Between Loca 1, Short-Term Uses of the Environment,
anU-the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity

The purpose of the proposed action is to preserve Hope, Patience,
and northern Prudence Islands in perpetuity for research and educational
purposes, and to guarantee long-term productivity, to the-benefit of
numerous fish and wildlife species. Regulated harvest of natural resources
would be permitted to continue, but no short-term or exploitative uses
would be permitted to take place at the expense of long-term productivity
or public utilization. Moreover, the commercial shellfishery is a product
of the natural environment, so that establishment of this proposed
sanctuary--by precluding development that might otherwise take place on
these sites--should also contribute to the maintenance of long-term
economic productivity within Narragansett Bay.

Research conducted within the sanctuary, and the increased public
awareness of coastal and estuarine processes resulting from educational use
of the sanctuary, should enhance Rhode Island's ability to resolve conflicts,
mitigate adverse impacts, and otherwise maintain the long-term productivity
of its coastal resources as prescribed in Rhode Island's Coastal Resources
Management Plan.-

D. Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitments of Resources

Within the proposed sanctuary, there are no resources that would be
irreversibly or irretrievably lost, since the intent of this proposed action
is to protect, enhance, and manage these resources.

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

No conflicts are anticipated between this proposed action and the
objectives of Federal, regional, State, or local land use plans, policies,
and controls for the area concerned.

1 . Federal and Regional Plans

The New England River Basins Commission prepared in 1975 a Southeastern
New Eng1and (SENE), Study, a 'level B' water and relafed1anid-:resources
study,under the.provisions of the-Federal Water R6soutces Planni" ng.,Actr of,
1965. -. The-main purpose of the !SE*NE @st.udy Was to rdc&6@nd"p-ubl'ic@'and private
ange
actiorts that wou*ld secure for the people of the,.reg.ion' e fufl' ri of,
beneffts-resulting from'.balance'd :use and conservation of: , the@region's water
and related land resources. The SENE study recommended that Rhode Island
give "highest priority" to establishment of the Bay Islands Park system,
including Prudence, Patience, and Hope Islands.

Federal assistance is being considered for a major facility at
Quonset/Davisville for refurbishing and constructing heavy equipment for
rigs for OCS oil and gas exploration in the Baltimore Canyon. Quonset is
directly west of the sanctuary and heavy ships will pass within a mile of
Hope Island. However, no sanctuary regulations will interfere with the
passage of ships on either side of the islands or with the maintenance of
navigation buoys or enforcement by the U. S. Coast Guard. Estuarine
sanctuary management policies only apply to land and water within the
sanctuary boundaries and they will not conflict with current and future
uses of the Quonsett/Davisville site as an onshore OCS support site.

2. State Plans

Three State plans apply to Patience Island, Hope Island, and the
northern end of Prudence Island. They are the Bay Islands Park system,
the Rhode Island State Guide Plan, and the Rhode Island Coastal Resources
Management Plan.

The purposes, policies, and objectives of the proposed estuarine
sanctuary would be entirely consistent with the purposes of the Bay
Islands Park system.

The Rhode Island State Guide Plan directs State policies and actions.
Two relevant elements of the Guide Plan are: the State land use policies
and plan, and the State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP).
The 1990 Land Use Plan calls for the use of the sanctuary for conservation
and recreation purposes. Section 09-01-02 of the SCORP calls for the
creation of a Bay Islands Park system as a high priority. This recommen-
dation includes conservation use of the three island sites.

Rhode Island's Coastal Resources Management Plan, which has been
adopted by the State's Coastal Resources Management Council, and approved
by NOAA's Office of Coastal Zone Management, guides and regulates uses
and activities in the coastal zone. Section 470 calls for the establishment
of a Bay Islands Park system, including the three islands proposed to be
included within the estuarine sanctuary, as well as protection of wetlands.

3. Local Plans

A comprehensive--plan for the Town.of Portsmouth is currently bei-ng
prepared by the Town Planning Board of Portsmouth with the assistance of
the Rhode Island Department of Community Affairs. A draft of the plan calls:
for conservation and.recreation.al use of Patience Island and the northern
end of Prudence Island. The Town.has not-yet formally adopted the plan.

PART IV: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

A. Natural Environment

1. Narragansett Bay.

Narragansett Bay extends twenty-five miles north from Rhode Island
Sound. Providence, the State's largest city, Iies at its head.- The Bay
is as much as twelve miles wide, and is divided-by Conanic-ut and Aqui"dneck
Islands into three main channels. The proposed estuarine sanctuary
includes all, or part of three@islands--Prudence, Pat'ience,' and-Hope, situated
in the geographiccenter of the Bay lZmiles south of Providence-@-and,their
surrounding waters. Approxiinate coordinates are 41*.33'30" No@th,'71'2237",
East.,

a. Geol,ogy.

During much of the last"IceAge-, Narragansett'Baywas an upland:valley
with rivers flowi.ng toward a sea whose shore lay off what is now@Block@'Isla*nd.
As the,glaciers moved southward, they covered'the land with-ice as much as'a
mile thick, scouring and scraping the'land to create the gentle contours
characteristic of the Rhode Island landscape. As the glaciers retreated, they
deposited vast quantities of boulders, sand, and sediments in the Bay area.

The Bay islands are artifact's of this:glacial action'. The rocky crags
and headlands of Hope Island were laid bare by 'glacial scouring. The' land
masses of Prudence and.Patience Islands were -deposited as moraines by the -
retreating glaciers. These islands are composed primarily of glacial t'ill-'-
a poorly sorted mixture of boulders, pebbles,'.gravel, sand,.an'd clay.-
The till varies-donsiderably in thickness,''and frequently contains layers of
clay hardpan that form nearly impermeable barriers:to water,penetration. -
Much rainfall is consequently'lost to surface runoff, with little retained'
as ground water. Freshwater reserves are therefore limited on the islandsi
and residential wells frequently run dry during the summer months. Water
supply problems are compounded by a scarcity of surface impoundments, such as
ponds or wetlands. Little runoff is captured to percolate into the soil; most
is lost to the Bay.

Topsoils on the Bay islands are rarely more than three feet deep,. and
vary considerably in composition. They have been formed by the.weathering of
glacial deposits, and by accumulation of organic matter from a:yeg6tative
cover of mixed hardwood and,cohiferous forest. Except over scattered-bedrock
outcrops, bearing'strengtht are general,ly pobr'*to fair,'- while stability
ranges from poor to reasonable. (Reference - "The Bay Islands Pa'rk:@ A
Marine Recreation Plan for the State of Rhode-Isl'and.,).

b. Hydrology and Climate
Narra ansett Bay is a partially mixed estua F covering km.2
(174 miles ), with a drainage basin of 4,790 km. (1,849 miles in Rhode
Island and Massachusetts. The Bay consists of a series of drowned river
valleys, and contdins 387 km. (240 miles) of shoreline. Average depth is
7.5 m. (24.6 ft.) in the West Passage and 15.2 m. (49.9 ft.) in the East
Passage. The.Bay sediments are primarily silts or clays in the Upper Bay,
and fine sands toward the mouth.

The flow of fresh wa ter into the Bay varies seasonally, with an
3
average input of 36 m. second. Rainfall amounts'to about one meter/year,
and river discharge usually peaks in March and April. The small freshwater
input and large tidal volume result in a well-inixed water column and small
salinity gradients through the Bay. Salinities range from about 22 parts
per thousand (ppt) in the Providence River to 32 ppt at the mouth of the Bay.

, Tides are semi-diurnal, and vary in height from 1.1 m. (3.6 ft.) at the
Bay mouth to 1.4 m.,(4.6 ft.) in the Upper Bay. The favorable cross section/
length ratio of the Narragansett basin ensures reasonably good flushing rates
in the Bay. Water temperatures range from 0.5' C to 24' C. During extreme
conditions, the temperature of surface waters in the Bay can vary by as much
as-10* C.

.The climate of Narragansett Bay is influenced by these air masses:
continental polar air from the subarctic, maritime tropical air from the
Uulf of Mexico and maritime air from the Atlantic Ocean. Continental
polar and,maritime tropical airs exert the strongest influence because air
flow is generally from the west. Mean air temperatures range between a
July high of 68' to 71' F and a February low of 27' to 32' F. It has
been estimated that Narragansett Bay lowers the summer mean maximum
temperature in Providence by as much as 40 F, and exerts a similar
moderating influence in the winter.

C. Biology

Narragansett Bay is a phytoplankton@-based ecosystem whose waters teem
with coastal and marine life. Salt marshes provide abundant food and shelter
for the adults and young of many species of finfish and shellfish.

Major finfish species in the Bay include bluefish, striped bass, winter
flounder, and tautog. In 1976,.there were estimated to be about 1.8 million
pounds of striped bass and about 0.6 mill-ion pounds of bluefish in the Bay.
No estimates have been made for winter flounder or tautog. The Upper Bay and
Mount Hope Bay are also important spawning areas for menhaden, whose population
in the Bay exhibits marked cyclical variations.

The Bay bottom supports mussels, lobsters, and crabs, but by far the
most important shellfish is the quahog, or hard-shell clam. Quahogs are
abundant throughout the Bay, but the heaviest concentrations occur in
the West Passage, Greenwich Bay, the Upper Bay, and the edges of the
Providence River. Quahogs spawn from mid-June to mid-August, and feed
on phytoplankton filtered from the water. Quahog biomass in the Bay is
estimated at 37 million pounds.

Narragansett Bay is situated on the Atlantic Flyway for migrating
birds, so that its native bird population is swelled each spring and
fall by migratory species--including three kinds of hawks, warblers, and
others--travelling between winter and summer habitat. Waterfowl congregate
in coastal marshes around the Bay, where they winter or rest and feed
before continuing south. The annual bird migrations are paralleled by
annual migrations of the monarch butterfly.

2. The Island Sites

a. Northern Prudence Island

The terrain of northern Prudence Island has a low profile, with
slopes of 3-15 percent and a maximum elevation of 70 feet (Fig. 3). The
soils are gravelly, sandy, and silty loams. Isolated hummocks and a
long north-south ridge of unconsolidated glacial material are among the
island's notable land features, as well as extensive salt marshes.
Aside from the marshes, the remaining shoreline consists of pebble beach,
with a small sand beach on the western shore near Pine Hill Point.

Several hundred acres of pristine salt marsh occur in Sheep Pen Cove,
Potter Cove, and Coggeshall Cove. These amrshes serve as spawning areas
for large popluations of finfish and shellfish. Quahogs and menhaden
are taken commercially offshore, with the annual value of the quahog
catch estimated at $2 million. The area also supports recreational
quahogging and sport fisheries for bluefish, striped bass, sea trout,
and tautog.

The salt marshes provide nesting habitat for clapper rail, seaside
sparrow, and sharp-tailed sparrow, species limited to this habitat type.
In addition, non-resident and migratory bird species--including snowy
egret, great egret, black-crowned night heron, little blue heron, least
tern, and various waterfowl species-feed in the marshes.

Northern Prudence uplands are covered with dense shrub growth of
bayberry, highbush blueberry, and shadbush interspersed with red cedar,
red maple, sapling oaks, and pitchpine. Deciduous forest, primarily
mixed oak, is slowly replacing the shrub in some areas. These vegetated
areas support large populations of small game species, including ring-necked
pheasant, cottontail rabbit, grey squirrel, and red fox, as well a portion
of the densest population of white-tailed deer in New England. The deer
herd on the entire island is estimated at 400 animals.

MURE 3
PRUDENCE ISLAND

NORTH

........ Patience Island
4.1 ......
.... ...... ........
............. ...
...........
Cogge@h 11 Ca@ve

............
Sheep Pen Cov
.... .... ...
V .........
...... 41"
Potter Cove
...........

...... .....
Blount's pyster farm
-farm

. .......... ......
JL 4

......... .

Homestead

LEGEND

18ft. Depth Mark
Sandy Beaches 4@
e
y oint
ind
Wetlands f resh 4 Prudence Park

AL
Wetlands salt

Heritage Foundation Tract
Proposed Sanctuary water
Proposed Sanctuary land
Private Holdings w/Sanctuary
Bay Islands Park Site
0 1/2 1

miles

0 1 2

kilometers

b. Patience Island

Patience Island, 207 acres in size, lies to the west of northern
Prudence (Fig. 4). At their closest point, the two islands are 90O.feet
apart. Patience has gentle topographic contours with a maximum elevation
of'50 feet. The shoreline is primarily pebble beach, with a small sand
beach and adjacent salt marsh on the eastern side of the island. This
sal-t inarsh contains the seablite (@!@aLa maritima)--a plant species
found only in salt marshes-which has been found in only three other
Rhode Island locations.

The soils on Patience Isl ail 'd are silty loarnis with good drainage.
Upland vegetation includes dense concentrations of tall shrubs interspersed
with red cedar in the overstory. Dominant shrubs include baybe*v,@ry,
highbush blueberry, shadbush, poison ivy, and European bittersweet.
Deciduous forest is gradually replacing the shrub habitat th some -parts.
of the island.

The uplands support populations of red fox, cottontail'rab bit, a nd-
ring-necked pheasant. 'Cove areas along tile coastline'are us.ed extensively
as feeding areas by migrant dild wintering waterfowl species. @o.mmon,:
loon and horned grebe occur frequently, as do greater scaup, ca,nvasback,
great..,comorarit, black duck, and scoters.

c. Hope Island

Hope Island, 92 acres in size, is located 3 miles south of Patience
'Island and 1.5 miles west of Prudencp Island (Fig. 5). Rhode Island
-,arquired Hope Island in 1975 when it was abandoned as surplus property
by t he Navy, which had used it as an ammunition depot during World War
J I. The. bunkers, perifiieter road, and telephone poles o.n the island are
remnants of this use.

Hope's topography is very irregular, with numerous low hills, ledges,
and rock outcrops. Maximum elevation is 60 feet., The shoreline is
generally steep and rocky. Two small freshwater-wetlands exist in
depressions in tile north central and south central portions of the island.

Vegetation on Hope Islirid consists of grasses, sedges and low slrlru.@s
of bayberry, rose, and poison ivy. The center of the island cogtairis
tall shrubs arid sapling trees, including red cedar, staghorn sumac,
shadbush, and black cherry. The dense ve3etation on dope Island is
utilized by small game species, especially cottontail ralobit. The island
is also valuable as a stopover point for iflgrating birds, including many
kinds of warblers, vireos, and sparrows.

FIGURE 4
PATIENCE ISLAND

NORTH

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

LEGEND

18 ft. Depth Mark ........ .

Sandy Beaches
Wetlands - salt 0 800 1600
feet
Proposed Sanctuary water
0 250 500
Private Holdings w/Sanctuary ffffffffm
meters

FIGURE 5
HOPE ]SLAND','.

LEGEND

18 ft. Depth Mark., .............. ..

Wetlands f resh

Concrete Bunkers

Wading Bird Rookery
Proposed Sanctuary -water

NORTH

0 400 800

feet'

o- 100 250

meters

The most fitiportant feature of Hope Island is the large rookery of
wading birds, one of the most significant nesting areas for wading bi"rds
on the East@Coast. There are currently an estimated 1,000 pairs, includi-ng
black-crowned night heron (382 pairs), little blue heron (43 pairs),
great egret pairs) snowy egret (318 pairs), cattle egret (120 pairs),
and glossy ibis (140 @airs)- Herring gulls and great black-backed gulls
also nest on Hope Island, and common terns nest on exposed rocks offshore.

Ospreys, which are not now found on Hope Island, are starting to
reestablish themselves in the estuaries and coastal areas of southern New
England. In the future, ospreys Imay establish nesting sites on Hope Island.
To encourage thi-s, Rhode Island may leave standing some of the telephone
poles installed on Hope Island by the Navy.

Wintering harbor seals occasionally-use the exposed offshore rocks as
haulout and resting sites. Soft-shell clains, lobster, bluefisih, striped
bass, flounder, sea trout', and tautog are.abundant in the waters and
bottoms around Hope Island,.

B. Human Uses of_Na@2 @sett_@@

1. History

Narragansi@!tt Say has long provided the central theme around which
much of the history andculture of Rhode Isla'nd is woven. 1ong before
its first western visitor, Giovanni de Verrazzano, anchored his ships in
Newport Harbor during the early spring of 1524,1native Americans lived,
i
huntel
, and fished along its shores. Throughout the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries, as Roger Williams' colony of dissidents grew and
prospered, the Bay remained a lifeline of commerce, com!-nunication, and
transportation. All the.,early settlements huddled along its shores. The
colony's political and cultural life revolved around the port towns of
Newport and Providence.

The imajority of the Bay islands were purchased From native Americans
at a very early point in the state's history. -Major purchases of Hope,
FoX, Oyer, and Prudence Islands by Roger Williams, Governor John Winthrop
of Massachusetts, and Governor Caleb Carr of Rhode Island were negotiated
with Chief Canonicus of the Narragansetr. trllbe. Prude.nce, Patience, and
Hope Islands were named by Roger Williams.

Most of the islands were cleared and 'farned well, into the nineteenth
and even early twentieth centuries. Connanicut, Aquidheck, and Prudence
Islands supported thriving agricultural communities. Archaeol o(j-i'cal,ly
significant traces still rernain.

The middle of Prudence Island became a summer colony for the wealthy
of Providence and Bristol in the late 1800's. Early.in this century, a
summer col ony of more !iiodest hoiiies developed al 6ng '.its eastern shore.
Although proposals have been made to develop Patfonce Island, a combination

of factors--its poor access, poor soils, and lack of 'water--has kept
it undeveloped except for the two summer homes it now has. The northern
end of Prude 'nce Island has remained undeveloped for the.same reasons,
but. Also because the land has been owned by a succession of people who
wished to'maintai .n it in its es'sentially.undisturbed state. Hope 'Island
is unsuitable for reside.ntial development.

2. Socioeconomic Characteristics

Although the smaller islands of Narragansett Bay have.r*Omained un-
developed, the shoreline has sustained intensive development, which began
with the older cities and has since expanded outward. Industry and trade
clustered around the Bay and its tributaries following the growth of popu-
lation in these area,s and the concurrent growth of pools.of skilled labor.
Abbut @'00,0 '00 people currently live in Rhode Island.and Massachusetts.
communities bordering the Bay (554,000 in Rhode Island, and 146,000 in
Ma,ssachu'set"ts.).. In Rhode Island, these towns and cities comprise about
60 percent of the entire State population. All of these. communi'ties are
located within 15.rnile� of the pr*oposed'sanctuary. The two,largest
cities-'Providence, R.I., and Fall River, Mass---are both located.12 miles
from the island sites.

a. Rhode Island

Narragansett'Bay's strategic location and excellent harbors led to
its early use as a base for U.S. Navy operations. The Navy was formerly
the largest single employer in Rhode I.sland, and produced the highest
level of dollar output directly attributable to the Bay. Following the
-closure of major Navy bases in the Bay during 1974-77,,Rhode I -sland's
population fel'l from.950,000 in 1970 to 935,000 in 197.8. Total State
popula.tio.n is no .w stable, but considerable growth is occurring i n some
parts of the State as people continue to ciove out of the older cities.
Since World War :II, cities.such as Ce.ntral Falls, Newport, Providence,
Pawtucket', and Woonsocket 'have lost population,. while towns,such as
Coventry, Cumberland, East Greenwich, Middletown, Narragansett, North
Kingstown, Portsmouth, Smithfield,.'and South Ki:ngston have'gained in
population and new development.

Percapita income in Rhode Island has been growing more slowly than
in the Nation as a whole. In 1975,,Rhode Island's per capita income
($5,709),:.'was 97.4 percent of the nationwide per-capit.a income ($5,861),
placing Rhode Is,la'nd twenty-sixth among the fifty States.

Unemployment in,Rhode Island reached.a peak,of 11.1 percent in 1975.,
due to*the closing of the Naval bases'and the nationwide recession of
1974-75. Though Rhode Island's unemployment rate remains higher than
the national average, the gap is narrowing. In 1978, Rhode Island's
unemployment rate stood at 6.7 percent, compared.with a national average
of 6.0 percent.

b. Portsmouth

The proposed estuarine sanctuary is located within the Town of
Portsmouth. The town economy, heavily dependent on a nearby Naval base,
suffered severely when the base closed in 1974. Since then, Portsmouth
has diversified its economic base. While the total number of jobs in
Portsmouth remained almost unchanged from 1970 to 1975, it increased by
25'percent between 1975 and 1977. Major employers include firms devoted
to electronics, boat building, wire manufacturing, and regional distribution
of lumber products.

3. Current Uses of Narragansett Bay

The lands around Narragansett Bay are used for intensive residential,
industrial, and commercial development, including the urban areas of
Warwick, Providence, Bristol, Fall River, and Tiverton. The former Navy
base at Quonset/Davisville (3 miles west of northern Prudence and Patience
Islands, and 1.5 miles from Hope Island) is being redeveloped as a major
industrial area. It houses the maih support base for outer continental
shelf oil and gas exploration in the Mid and North Atlantic areas. The
existing airport at Quonset/Davisville is being expanded, and its flight
path passes directly over Hope Island.

Narragansett Bay itself supports extensive commercial shipping, sport
and commercial fishing, and recreational boating.

a. Commercial Shipping

Passages between the islands of Narragansett Bay are sufficiently d eep
to permit the navigation of large ships. Channel dredging'is necessary
only at the mouth of the Providence and Taunton Rivers. Major ports in
Narragansett Bay are Providence and East Providence at the head of the
Bay, and Fall River and Tiverton in Mount Hope Bay. The value of the
imports passing through the Bay in 1975 was more than $1 billion, with
petroleum products the major import. The pri,ncipal shipping channel to
these four ports passes 1.5 miles to the east of North Prudence Island.

b. Commercial and Sport Fishing

The Bay supports a rich sport fishery. The main sportfish catches
are striped bass, bluefish, winter flounder, and tautog.* With the
exception of two commercial menhaden seining vessels, there is no commercial
finfishing in the vicinity of the proposed sanctuary. Limited commercial
trawling takes place in the Bay to the south of the proposed sanctuary
(See Fig. 6).

FIGURE 6
NARRAGANSETT BAY FISHERY
NORTH SHELLFISHERY RESTRICTIONS
Prohibited Commercial Finfish Trawling
Permitted Shellfish Dredging
D. E M. Finfish Monitoring Area

'M
%
. . . . . . . . . .

p.pp
%

%
ti

MASS

00.

%
'A

0 2 3 4 5

miles
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8j
kilometers

By far the most important commerci al f i shery 'i ntile Bay is for
quahogs, or hard-shell clams. The Upper bay contains some of the most
productive quahog beds in the Bay. Total catch in 1978 was 2 million
pounds, valued at $4.3 million. There are currently 300 full-time and
1,600 part-time quahoggers working the Bay. This fishery has been affected
by water quality problems in the Upper Bay, which have resulted in permanent
or conditional closure of significant portions of the potential shellfishing
area.

c. Recreational Boating

There are about 28,000 recreational boats registered in Rhode Island
in 1980, many of which are used in the Bay, as well as numerous boats from
adjoining states. There are 50 private and 49 public boating facilities in
Narragansett Bay or its tributaries. Recreational boating use is heavy in
all parts of 'the Bay, while Newport, at the mouth of the Bay, is a center
for international boating events such as the America's Cup races and the
Newport-BerTnuda race.

4. Water Quality

Water quality in most of Narragansett Bay is excellent, with 92 percent
of the Bay classified as SA (highest) or SB (second highest). The,main
exception is the Upper Bay, whose waters are polluted by inadequately
treated sewage from Providence, and coiibined sewer overflows.fro.,n Providence,
Pawtucket, and Central Falls during storms. Waters from the Providence
River south to Gaspee Point are classified as SC, while the waters south
from there to a line drawn connecting Rocky Point and Rumstick Point are
classified as SB. North of this line, the Bay is permanently closed to
shellfishing; south of this line to a line connecting 'Aarwick Point,
Providence Point on the northern tip of Prudence Island and Popasquash
Point, the waters are conditionally open for shellfishing, except that
this conditional area is closed whenever rainfall of more than 0.5 inches
occurs during any 24-hour period (See Fig. 7).

Thus, the proposed estuarine sanctuary is just south of the transitional
water quality zone in Narragansett Bay. The waters to the @east, west, and
south are classified SA (except Potter Cove on northern Prudence, which is
classified SB during the summer because of pollution from the recreational
boats anchoring there), while those to the north are classified SB.

5. Land Use

Of Prudence Island's 3,490 acres, about 1,327 acres on the northern
and southern ends of the island are owned by the State, while,the remaining
2,163 acres are in private ownership. Within the 737 acres on northern
Prudence Island proposed for inclusion in.the estuarine sanctuary,
there are two privately owned parcels, amounting to 34 acres. Several
hundred private homes are located along the eastern shore of central

FIG*URE 7
NARRAGANSETT BAY
SHELLFISH CLOSURE. AREAS
NORTH
Permanently Closed Areas-

d Areas
Conditionally Close

%
. . ...... ....

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

0
(I @@*? 2 3 4 5
miles
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

kilometers

Prudence, while the interior of the island is generally divided into
larger parcels of 100-300 acres. One 300-acre parcel is owned by the
Heritage Foundation of Rhode Island, and protected for use and enjoyment
by tile general public. Hunting is not permitted on the Heritage Foundation
land. Prudence has a year-round population of about 50, while the summer
population is about 1,000. Many people have winterized their summer
homes, and now use them on weekends throughout the year, or rent them to
hunters during the hunting season.

All of Patience Island, except for 2 houses and 4 surrounding acres,
is proposed to be purchased for inclusion in the estuarine sanctuary. The
two private owners will continue to use their homes primarily in the summer
and during the hunting seasons.

All of Hope Island is owned by tile State, and the entire island is
proposed to be included in the estuarine- sanctuary.

PART V: LIST OF.PREPARERS

Franklin D. Christhilf - U. S. Department of Commerce

Mr. Christhilf holds both the B.E. and M.L.A. degrees and has an
extensive background in administration, particularly in the area of public
policy. His background includes working as a professional engineer, as
well as surveyor, and eight years experience as a member of a standing
committee of the Arlington County Planning Commission, Arlington, Virginia.

Primary responsibility in the preparation of this FEIS included
overall direction, organization, and preparation of the report for
publication. Mr. Christhilf had assistance f@om Mr. James W. MacFarland,
Estuarine Sanctuary Program Manager, Ms. Gloria D. Thompson, Program Support
Assistant, Ms. Christina Terpak and Mr. Gerard Milne, Summer Interns, all
with the Estuarine Sanctuary Program Office, in preparing responses to
comments received on the DEIS.

Trevor Q. O'Neill - U.S. Department of Commerce

Mr. O'Neill has a B.A. in Earth Sciences and was an environmental
analyst with the Estuarine Sanctuary Program 6ffice. Mr. O'Neill has worked
on coastal energy and planning projects for the New England River Basins
Commission, the Governor's Office of Planning and Research in California,
the Resources Agency of California, and the California Coastal Commission.
In 1975, Mr. O'Neill prepared Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements
for tile Sapelo Island Estuarine Sanctuary in Georgia.

Mr. O'Neill prepared the Affected Environment section and other parts
of this document on the basis of materials provided by the State of Rhode
Island, with the assistance of James W. MacFarland, Frank D. Christhilf,
Richard S. Weinstein and Gloria D. Thompson of the Estuarine Sanctuary Program
Office..

Judith S. Benedict - Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management

Ms. Benedict has a B.A. in History and a Masters degree in City
Planning. She is a planner with the Rhode Island Department of Ehviron-
mental Management, and is currently preparing the management plan for
the Bay Islands Park. Ms. Benedict has worked as a planner for the City
of Ithaca, New'York, and the Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service
in Washington, D.C., and on coastal management issues for the national
office of the League of Women Voters in Washington, D. C.

Ms. Benedict prepared most of tile material for this document, with
the assistance of Mr. Robert L. Bendick, Assistant Director for Admini-
stration, Mr. Victor A. Bell, Environmental Planner, and Mr. Donald
Leighton, Landscape Architect, of Rhode Island's Department of Environmental
Management; Mr. Richard Enser of tile Rhode Island Heritage Program,
Mr. Stephen Olsen of the University of Rhode Island's Coastal Resources
Center, and Mr. Prentiss Stout of t'he URI Sea Grant Marine Advisory Service.

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

Federal Agencies

Department of Army, Corps of Engineers
Department of Commerce
NOAA/Environmental Data and Information Service
NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service
Department of Energy
Department of Housing & Urban Development
Department of the Interior
Department of Transportation
U.S. Coast Guard
Environmental Protection Agency, Region I
General Services Administration

Congressional

Honorable E. P. Beard
Honorable John H. Chafee
Honorable F. J. St. Germain
Honorable Claiborne Pell
Honorable Gardner Seveney

State Agencies

Portsmouth Town Council
Prudence Improvement Association
Prudence Island Police Department
Prudence Park Homeowners Association
State of Rhode Island & Providence Plantations, Department of Administration,
Statewide Planning Program
State of Rhode Island & Providence Plantations, Departmen@ of Environmental
Management--Assistant Director for Operations, Division of Boating Safety,
Division of Coastal Resources, Division of Enforcement, Division of Fish,
and Wildlife, Division of Parks and Recreation, Division of Pl.anni.ng
and Development, Fish and Wildlife, and Water Qual'ity
State of Rhode Island & Providence Plantations, Executive Chambers
State of Rhode Island & Providence Plantations, Historical Preservation
Commission
Town of Abington, Massachusetts
Town of Portsmouth - Solicitor

Industrial Groups

Atlantic Richfield Company

State Interest Groups

Audubon Society of Rhode Island
Coalition of Coastal Communities
Conservation Law Foundation
Rhode Island Lobsterman Association
Rhode Island's Fisherman's Association
Rhode Island Shellfisherman's Association, Inc.
Save The Bay, Inc.

Residents

John Antaya Stephen B. Leslie
Charlotte and Daniel Barrett Dorothy Little
Beverley and Rick Bowen Judith Little
Robert Curry Jennifer Lowe
Donald D. Deignan Kenneth Lowe
Margaret and Louis DelPapa T. W. Lyons, Jr.
Judith DiPrete Marjorie Nuttall
Leonard DiPrete Eric and Charlotte Olson
Mary Drew Grafton and Audrey Rice
Marcy Dunbar Linda Rice
Barbara Ellsworth David and Mary Sargent
Sumner Ellsworth Woody Sargent
Farnham Family Captain and Mrs. Manuel Sausa
Cecilia and Daniel Finn Andrew Scott
Mrs. Archie Friswell Albert and Lillian Sims
Jean and Don Friswell James T. Starke
Sandy Fyfe Frederick and Margaret Stevenson
Mark Goldberg Sandy Stevenson
Wallace E. Guertin Grace Scott
Marie Hawkes D. David Walker
Margaret and Robert Heile Constance William
Paul Hoxsie Dudley A. Williams
Albert Huftalen George Williams
Richard E. Jenness Carol K. Willin
Geraldine and Martin Johnson Barbara and Charles Worcester
Ruth E. Just Cynthia M. Worcester
Jannett C. Korchinsky John Zompa
Mary and Douglas Lawrence

Newspapers

Newport Daily News (David Corr)
Providence Journal (Katherine Gregg)
The Fall River Herald News (Curt Brown)

PART VII: APPENDICES

I. Estuarine Sanctuary Program Guidelines

II. Bay Island Park System

III. Rhode Island Water Quality Standards

IV. Educational Programs for the Proposed Estuarine Sanctuary
V. Responses to Comments Received on the Narragansett Bay Draft
Environmental Impact Statement

I
2

APPENDIX I

Estuarine Sanctuary Guidelines, 1974 and 1977

-- It

920.61
Title 15-Commerce and ForeignTrade Chapter IX-m-No0onal Oceanic, Atmospheric. Adm. � 921.3
necessary to the objectives of the grant (v) For each task, indicate the esti- Subpart A-Goneral � 921.3 Objectives and Implementation of
project.* As 'used herein the terms mated.total cost. Also, indicate the es- the program.
"cost" and "grant project" pertain to timated total month&of effort, if any. � 921.1 Policy and Objectives. (a) General.
both the Federal grant and the match- allocated to -the task from the appli- e safic The purpose of the es-
ing share. The, allowability of cost will cant's staff. The estuarine sanctuaries program tuarin tuaries program is to
be determined in accordance with the (2) The sum of all task costs in the will provide grants to States on a create natural field laboratories in
provisions of FMC 74-4: Cost Princl- above paragraph should equal the which to gather data andmake studies
matching basis to acquire, develop and of the natural and human processes
pies applicable to Grants and Con. total estimated grant project cost; operate natural areas as estuarine
tracts with State- and Local Govern- (3) Using two categories, Profession- sanctuaries in order that scientists and occurring within the estuaries'of the
ments, and with the guidance con- al and Clerical, indicate the total students may be provided the opportu- coastal.. zone.. This shall be accom-
tairled in section 920 42(b)(3). number of personnel in each category nity to examine over a period of time plished by the establishment of a
on the applicant's staff that will be as series of estuarine sanctuaries which
(f) .@ The Form SP-424, Application the ecological relationships within the will be designated so that at least one
for Federal Assistance (Non-Construc- signed to the grant project. Also indi- area. The purpose of these guidelines representative of each'type of estuar-
tion Programs), constitutes the formal cate the number assigned full time is to establish the rules and regula- ine ecosystem will endure into the
application and must be submitted 60 and the number assigned less than full tions for implementation of the pro- future for scientific and educational
days prior to the desired grant begin- time in the two categories. Additional- gram. purposes. The primary use of estuar-
ning date. The application must be ac- ly, indicate the number of new posi-
tions created in the two categories as a � 921.2 Definitions. ine sanctuaries shall be for research
compani6d by evidence of compliance result of the grant project. and educational purposes, especially to
with A-9@ requirements including the (a) In addition to the definitions provide some of the information essen-
resolution - of any problems raised by found in the Act and in the regula- tial to coastal zone management d6cl-
the propos .ed project. The Associate PART 921-ESTUARINE SANCTUARY tions dealing with Coastal Zone Man- sion-making. Specific examples of such
Administrator will not accept applica- GUIDELINES agement Program Development purposes and uses include but are not
tion substantially deficient, in adher- Subpart A-*enoral Grants published Novem. 'ber 29, 1973 limited to:
enbe to A-96 requirements. (Part 920 of this chapter) the term (1) To gain a. thorough understand-
(g) In Part IV, Program Narrative of Sec. "estuarine sanctuary" as defined in ing of the ecological relationships
the Form SP-424, the'applicant should 921.1 Policy and objectives. the Act, means a research area which within theestuatine environment.
repond to the following requirements: 921.2 Definitions. may include -any part or .all of an .estu- (2) To make baseline ecological mea-
(11.) Set forth a work program de. 921.3 Objectives and implementation of ary, adjoining transitional areas, and surements.
scribing the activities to,be undertak- the program. (3) To hioni6r..significant or vital
en durin 'the grant period. This work 21.4 Biogeographic classification. adjacent uplands, constituting to the changes In' the estuarine environment.
, 9 extent feasible a natural
9 Multiple use. unit, set aside
programshall include: to provide scientists and students the (4) To assess the effects of man's
921.6 Relationship to other provisions of stresses on"the ecosystem and t6 fore-
(I) A precise description of each the Act and to marine sanctuaries. opportunity to examine over a period
major task to .be undertaken.to resolve of time the . ecological relationships cast. and mitigate possible deteriora-
section 306 deficiencies. and a specific. Subpart 11-@-Appllcatlon for Grants within the area. tion from human activities.
timetable for remedying these defi- - (5) To provide a vehicle for Increas-:
921.10 General. (b) For the purposes of this section, Ing public knowledge and awareness of
clencies; 921.11 Application for initial acquisition, "estuary" means that part of a, river or the complex nature of estuarine sys-
Qi) A precise description of iniple- development and operation grants. strearn or other body of water having tems, their values and benefits to man
mentation. activities for approved man- 921.12 Application for subsequent develop- unimpaired connection with the open and nature, and the problems which
agement components, including a dem-, ment and operation grants. sea where the seawater is measurably confront them.
onstration that these implementation 921.13 Federally owned lands. diluted with freshwater derived from (b) The emphasis within the pro-
funds will not 66 applied outside the 921.14 Application time schedule and pro- land drainage. The term includes estu- gram will be on the designation as es.
approved coastal management bound- cedure. . , ary- -type areas of the Great Lakes as tuarine sanctuaries of areas which will
aries; Subpart C-Selection Criteria well as lagoons in more and coastal re- serve as natural field laboratories for
(III) A precise description of any gions. studies and investigations over 'an ex-
other tasks necessary for and allow- 921.20 Criteria for selection. (c) The term "multiple use" as used tended period. The area chosen as an
able under subsection 305(d); , 921.21 Public participation. in this section shall mean the simulta- estuarine sanctuary shall, to the
Ov) For each task. identify any Subpart D-Opera .tion neous utilization of an area or re- extent feasible, include water and land
"Other Entities," as defined in the source for a variety of compatible pur- masses constituting a, natural ecologi-
"Manual," that will be allocated re- 921.30 General. poses or to provide more than one cal unit.
sponsibility for carrying out all or por- .921.31 Changes in the sanctuary boundary, benefit. The term implies the long- (c) In order that the estuarine sanc-
tions of the task, and indicate the esti- management 'policy or -research pro- tuary will be available for future stud-
Ch gram. term, continued uses of such resources
mated cost of the subcontract for ea 921.32 Program review.' in such a fashion that other -uses will ies. research involving the destruction
allocation. Identify, if any, that por- not interfere with, diminish or prevent of any portion of an estuarine @anctu-
tion of the task that will be,carried AUTHORITY: Sec. 312, Pub. L 92-583, as the primary purpose, which is the ary -which would permanently after
out under contract with consultants amended; 86 Stat. 1280 (16 USC 1461). long-term protection of the area for the nature of the ecosystem shall not
and indicate the estimated cost of SOURCE: 39 FR 19924, June 4, 1974, unless scientific and educational use. normally be permitted. In the unusual
such contract(s); and otherwise noted. circumstances where permitted. ma-

� 921.4 Title 15-Commerce and Foreign Trade Chapter IX-National Oceanic, Atmospheric Adm. � 921.11

nipulative field research shall be care- careous sands, maris and coral reefs; coastal zone management and resource use occasion may establish marine sanctu-
fully controlled. No experiment which marshes and mangroves', tropical biota. aad may on occasion be necessary. aries to complement the designation
involves manipulative research shall 5. Louisianian. Northern Gulf of Mexico, (b) There shall be no effort to bal- by States of estuarine sanctuaries,
be initiated until the termination date from Cedar Key to Mexico; characteristics ance or optimize uses of an estuarine where this may be mutually beneficial.
of 3, with components of 4; strongly influ- sanctuary on economic or other bases.
is specified and evidence given that enced by terrigenous factors; biota primar- All additional uses of the sanctuary Subpart B-Application for Grants
the envirorunent will be returned to Its ily temperate.
c-rndition which existed prior to the 6. Californian. South Pacific coast from are clearly secondary to the primary
experiment. Mexico to Cape Mendocino; shoreland Innu- purpose and uses, which are long-term � 921.10 General.
(d) It is anticipated that most of the enced by coastal mountains; rocky coasts maintenance of the ecosystem for sci- Section 312 authorizes Federal
areas selected as sanctuaries will be with reduced fresh-water runoff; general ab- entific and educational uses. Non-com- grants to coastal States so that the
relatively undisturbed by human activ- sence of marshes and swamps; blots, temper- patible uses, including those uses
ities at the time of acquisition. There- ate. which would cause significant short or States may establish sanctuaries ac-
fore. most of the areas selected will be - 7. Columbian. North Pacific coast from long-term ecological change or would cording to regulations promulgated by
areas with a minimum of development, Cape Mendocino to Canada: mountainous otherwise detract from or restrict the the Secretary. Coastal States may file
Industry or habitation. shoreland; rocky coasts; extensive algal com- use of the sanctuary as a natural field applications for grants with the Direc-
munities. biota primarily temperate with tor, Office of Coastal Zone Manage-
(e) If sufficient permanence and con- some boreal. laboratory, will be prohibited. ment, National Oceanic and Atmos-
trol by the State can be assured, the 8. Fiords. South 7oast Alaska and Aleu- pheric Administration, U.S. Depart-
acquisition of a sanctuary may involve tians; precipitous mountains; deep estuaries, � 921.6 Relationship to other provision, of
less than the acquisition of a fee some with glaciers; shoreline heavily indent- the act and to marine sanctuaries. ment of Commerce, Rockville. Mary-
land 20852. That agency which has
simple Interest. Such interest may be. ed and subject to winter Icing; blots, boreal (a) The estuarine sanctuary program been certified to the Office of Coastal
for example, the acquisition of a con- to sub-Arctic. must interact with the overall coastal Zone Management as the entity re-
servation easement, "development 9. Subarctic. West and north coasts of zone management program in two sponsible for administration of the
Alaska; ice stressed coasts; blota Arctic and ways: (1) the intended research use of State coastal zone management pro-
rights", or other partial interest suffi- sub-Arctic.
cient to assure the protection of the 10. Insular. Larger islands, sometimes the sanctuary should provide relevant gram may either submit an applica-
natural system. Leasing, which would with precipitous mountains; considerable data and conclusions of assistance to tion directly, or must endorse and ap-
not assure permanent protection of wave action; frequently with endemic spe- coastal zone management decision- prove applications submitted by other
the system, would not be an accept- cies; larger island groups primarily with making, and (2) when developed, the agencies within the State.
able alternative. tropical biota. State's coastal zone management pro-
11. Great Lakes. Great Lakes of North gram must recognize and be designed � 921.11 Application for initial acquisition,
� 921.4 Biogeographic classification. America; bluff-dune or rocky, glaciated to protect the estuarine sanctuary; ap- development and operation grants.
(a) It is intended that estuarine shoreline; limited wetlands; freshwater only; propriate land and water use regula- (a) Grants may be awarded on a
biota a mixture of boreal and temperate tions and planning considerations matching basis to cover the costs of ac-
sanctuaries should not be. chosen at species with anadromous species and some
random.. but should reflect regional marine invaders. must apply to adJacent lands. Al- quisition, development and operation
differentiation and a variety of ecosys- though estuarine sanctuaries should of estuarine sanctuaries. States may
tems so as to cover all significant vari- (b) Various sub-categories will be de- be incorporated into the State coastal use donations of land or money to sat-
ations. To ensure adequate representa- veloped and utilized as appropriate. zone management program, their des- isfy all or part of the matching cost re-
tion of all estuarine types reflecting ignation need not await the develop- quirements.
regional differentiation and a variety � 921.5 Multiple use. ment and approval of the management (b) In general, lands acquired pursu.
of ecosystems, selections will be made (a) While the primary purpose of es- program where operation of the es- ant to this section, including State
by the Secretary from the following tuarine sanctuaries is to provide long- tuarine sanctuary would aid in the de- owried iands but not State owned sub-
biogeographic classifications: term protection for natural areas so velopment of a program. merged lands or bay bottoms, that
that they may be used for scientific (b) The estuarine sanctuaries pro- occur within the proposed sanctuary
1. Arcadian. Northeast Atlantic coast and educational purposes, multiple use gram will be conducted in close cooP- boundary are legitimate costs and
south to Cape Cod, glaciated shoreline sub-
ject to winter icing; well developed algal of estuarine sanctuaries will be en- cration with the marine sanctuaries their fair market value may be includ-
flora; boreal biota. couraged to the extent that such use is program (Title III of the Marine Pro- ed as match. However. the value of
2. Virginian. Middle Atlantic coast from compatible with this primary sanctu- tection, Research Act of 1972, Pub. L. lands donated to or by the State for
Cape Cod to Cape Hatteras; lowland ary purpose. The capacity of a given 92-532, which is also administered by inclusion in the sanctuary may only be
streams. coastal marshes and muddy bot- sanctuary to accommodate additional the Office of Coastal Zone Manage- used to match other costs of land ac-
toms; characteristics transitional between I uses, and the kinds and intensity of ment, NOAA), which recognizes that quisition. In the event that lands al-
and 3; biota primarily temperate with some such use. will be determined on a case certain areas of the ocean waters, as ready exist in a protected status, their
boreal representatives. by case basis. While it is anticipated far seaward as the outer edge of the value cannot be used as match for
3. Carolinian. South Atlantic coast, from that compatible uses may generally in- Continental Shelf, or other coastal sanctuary development and operation
Cape Hatteras to Cape Kennedy; extensive clude activities such as low intensity waters where the tide ebbs and flows, grants, which will require their own
marshes and swamps; waters turbid and pro-
ductive; biota temperate with seasonal recreation, fishing, hunting, and wild- or of the Great Lakes and their con- matching funds.
tropical elements. life observation, it is recognized that necting waters, need to be preserved or (c) Development and operation costs
4. West Indian. South Florida coast from the exclusive use of an area for scien- restored for their conservation. recre- may include the administrative ex-
Cape Kennedy to Cedar Key: and Caribbean tific or educational purposes may pro- ational, ecologic or esthetic values. It penses necessary to minitor the sanc-
islands; shoreland low-lying limestone; cal- vide the optimum benefit to coastal is anticipated that the Secretary on tuary, to ensure its continued viability

� 921.12 Title 115-Commerce and Foreign Trade
Chapter IX7-Hational Oc.0anic, Atmospheric Adm. � 921.14
and to protect the integrity of the eco- gram or within other Federal. State or and to protect Ithe integrity of the eco- tions received between January 1 and
system. Research will not normally be private programs, which are located in system. Extensive management pro- June 30 of any year will be considered
funded by Section 312 grants. It is an- the same regional or biogeographic grams, capital expenses, or research together beginning July 1 of that year:
ticipated that other sources of Feder- classification. will not normally be funded by section applications received between July I
al, State and private funds will be (i) It is essential that the opportuni- 312 grants. and December 31 will be considered to-
available for research in estuarine ty be provided for public involvement (b) After the creation of an estuar- gether beginning January I of the fol-
sanctuaries. and input in the development of the ine sanctuary established under this lowing year.
(d) Initial appi *ications should con- sanctuary proposal and application. program, applications for such devel- (b) All applications received during
tain the following information: Where the application is controversial opment and operation grants should any application period will be subject
(D.Description of the proposed sanc- or where controversial issues are ad- include at least the following informa- to simultaneous review and considera-
tuary. include location, boundaries, size dressed, the State should provide ade- tion: tion. At the end of each application
and cost of acquisition, operation and quate means to ensure that all inter- (1) identification of the boundary. period, a suitable number of applica-
development. A map should be includ- ested parties have the opportunity to (2) Specifications of the manage- tions, based on the level of funding
ed, as well as an aerial photograph, if present their views. This may be in ment program, including managing available, will be selected for further
available. the form of an adequately advertised agency and techniques. review and processing. Unless suffi-
(2) Classification of the proposed public hearing. (3) Detailed budget. ciently distinguished as major subcate-
sanctuary according to the biogeo- 0i) During the development of an es- (4) Discussion of recent and project- gories, no more than one application
graphic scheme set forth in � 921.4. tuarine sanctuary application, all land- ed use of the sanctuary. from each biogeographic category will
(3) Description of the major physi- owners within the proposed bound- (5) Perceived threats to the integrity be selected for final processing during
cal, geographic and biological charac- aries should be informed in writing of of the sanctuary. each review period. Normally, the ap-
teristics and resources of the proposed the proposed grant application. plications selected will be processed
sanctuary. (iii) The application should indicate � 921.13 Federally owned lands. and the grants awarded within 6
(4) Identification of ownership Pat- the manner in which the State solicit- (a) Where federally owned lands are months from the end of the applica-
terns; proportion of land already in ed the views of all interested parties a part of or adjacent to the area pro- tion period, that is before the next
the public domain. prior to the actual submission of the
posed for designation as an estuarine review period begins. Applications
(5) Description of intended research application.
sanctuary, or where the control of which are not selected for processing
uses, potential research organizations (e) In order to develop a truly repre- land and water uses on such lands is may be resubmitted for consideration
or agencies and benefits to the overall sentative scheme of estuarine sanctu- necessary to protect the natural during the next review period.
coastal zone management program. aries, the States should attempt to co- system within the sanctuary, the State (c) At least ninety (90) days prior to
(6) Demonstration of necessary au- ordinate their activities. This will help should contact the Federal agency submission of an application under
thority to acquire or control and to minimize the possibility of similar maintaining control of the land to re- this section, an applicant state must
manage the sanctuary. estuarine types being proposed for quest cooperation in providing coordi- notify in writing the OCZM, appropri-
(7) Description of proposed manage. designation in the same region. The nated management policies. Such ate state and regional A-95 clearing-
ment techniques, including the man- application should indicate the extent lands and State request, and the Fed- houses. and other states within the
agement agency, principles and pro- to which neighboring States were con- eral agency response, should be identi- same biogeographic category (see
posed budget including both State and suited. fied and conveyed to the Office of Table 1) of its intention to file an ap-
Federal shares. M Discussion, including cost and Coastal Zone Management. plication for an estuarine sanctuary
(8) Description of existing and po- feasibility, of alternative methods for (b) Where such proposed use or con- grant. Such notification should in-
tential uses of and conflicts within the acquisition, control and protection of trol of federally owned lands would clude at least the identification of the
area if it were not declared an estuar- the area to provide similar uses. Use of not conflict with the Federal use of state agency -applying for the grant;
ine sanctuary; potential use, use re- the marine sanctuary authority and their lands, such cooperation and co- the geographic location of the pro-
strictions and conflicts if the sanctu. funds from the Land and Water Con- ordination is encouraged to the maxi- posed sanctuary and its boundaries;
ary is established. servation Fund Act should be specifi- mum extent feasible. proposed objectives of the sanctuary,
0) Assessment of the environmental cally addressed. (c) Section 312 grants may not be including intended research uses; esti-
and socio-economic impacts of declar- awarded to federal agencies for cre- mated cost of sanctuary; and estimat-
ing the area an estuarine sanctuary, �921.12 Application for subsequent delvel-
opment and operation grants. ation of estuarine sanctuaries in Fed- ed date for submission of application.
including the economic impact of such erally owned lands; however. a similar Copies of the A-95 notifications to the
a designation on the surrounding com- (a) Although the initial grant appli- status may be provided on a voluntary state and regional clearinghouse
munity and its tax base. cation for creation of an estuarine i basis for Federally owned lands under would be considered sufficient and de-
(9) Description of planned or antici- sanctuary should include initial devel- the provisions of the Federal Commit- sirable notification to OCZM and to
pated land and water use and controls opment and operation costs. subse- tee on Ecological Preserves program. the other states.
for contiguous lands surrounding the quent applications may be submitted
proposed sanctuary (including if ap- following acquisition and establish- � 921.14 Application time schedule and TABLE I-LiST OF STATES By BiorEOGRAPHIC
propriate an analysis of the desirabil- ment of an estuarine sanctuary for ad- procedure. CLASSIFICATION
ity of creating a marine sanctuary in ditional development and operation (a) Effective January 1, 1975, the 1. Acadian-Maine, New Hampshire. Mas-
adjacent areas). funds. As indicated in �921.11, these review and selection of estuarine sanc- sachusetts.
(10) List of protected sites, either costs may include administrative costs tuary applications will be conducted 2. Virginian-Massaebusetts. Rhode
within the estuarine sanctuaries pro- necessary to monitor the sanctuary on a twice yearly basis. All applica- Island. Connecticut. New York. New Jersey,

� 921.20 Title 115-Commerce and Foreign Trade 1i Chapter IX-National Oceanic, Atmospheric Adm. � 921.32
i
Delaware, Maryland. Virginia. North Caroll- ed that in practice the average grant tuary program shall be notified of the (h) Provide adequate authority and
np. will be substantially leas than this. public hearing. The public notice shall intent to enforce management policy
3. Carolinian-North Carolina, South (e) Enhancement of non-competitive contain the name, address and phone and use restrictions.
Carolina. Georgia. Florida. uses. number of the appropriate Federal
4. West Indian-Florida. Puerto Rico,
Virgin Islands. (f) Proximity and access to existing and State officials to contact for addt- 1921.31 Changes In the sanctuary bound-
5. Louisianian-Florida, Mississippi, Ala- research facilities. tional information about the proposal. ary, management policy or research
barna. (g) Availability of suitable altema- program.
6. Californian-Callfornia. tive sites already protected which
7. Columblan-Callfornia. Oregon. Wash- Subpart D-Operation (a) The approved sanctuary bound-
might be capable of providing the aries; management policy, Including
Ington. same use or benefit. Unnecessary du-
8. Plord-Alaska. plication of existing activities under � 921.30 General. permissible and prohibited uses; and
9. Sub-Aretic-Alaska. other programs should be avoided. Management of estuarine sanctuar- research program may only be
10. insular-Hawaii, Guam, American However, estuarine sanctuaries might ies shall be the responsibility of the changed after public notice and the
Samoa. Wisconsin, be established adjacent to existing applicant State or its agent. However, opportunity of public review and par-
11. Great Lakes-Minnesota, ticipation such as outlined in 1921.21.
Michigan. Illinois, Indiana. Ohio, Pennayl- preserved lands where mutual en- the research uses and management
vania. New York. hancement or benefit of each might program must be In conformance with (b) Individuals or organizations
occur. these guidelines and regulations. and which are concerned about possible
(d) The Director of OCZM may, (h) Conflict with existing or poten- others Implemented by the provisions improper use or restriction of use of
upon the finding of extenuating cir- tial competing uses. of individual grants. It is suggested estuarine sanctuaries may petition the
cumstances relating to applications for (I) Compatibility with existing or that prior to the grant award, repre- State management agency and the
assistance. waive appropriate adminis- proposed land and water use in contig- sentatives of the proposed sanctuary Office of Coastal Zone Management
trative requirements contained herein. uous areas. management team and the Office of directly for review of the management
(39 FIR 45214. Dec. 31,1974) If the Initial review demonstrates the 1 Coastal Zone Management meet to dis- Program-
feasibility of the application. an envi- cuss management policy and stand-
Subpart C-Selft-tion Criteria ronmental impact statement will be ards. It is anticipated that the grant � 921.32 Program review.
prepared by the Office of Coastal provisions will vary with Individual cir- It is anticipated that reports will be
921.20 Criteria for selection. Zone Management in accordance with cumstances and will be mutually required from the applicant State on a
Applications for grants to establish the National Environmental Policy agreed to by the applicant and the regular basis, no more frequently than
estuarine sanctuaries will be reviewed Act of 1969 and implementing CEQ granting agency. As a minimum, the annually, on the status of each estuar-
and judged on criteria including: guidelines. grant document for each sanctuary ine sanctuary. The estuarine sanctu-
(a) Benefit to the coastal zone man- shall: ary program will be regularly reviewed
agement program. Applications should � 921.21 Public participation. I (a) Define the intended research to ensure that the objectives of the
demonstrate the benefit of the propos- Public participation will be an essen- purposes of the estuarine sanctuary. program are being met and that the
al to the development or operations of tial factor in the selection of estuarine (b) Define permitted. compatible, re- program itself is scientifically sound.
the overall coastal zone management sanctuaries. In addition to the partici- stricted and prohibited uses of the The key to the success of the estuar-
program. including how well the pro- pation during the application develop- sanctuary. ine sanctuaries program is to assure
posal fits Into the national program of ment process (�921.11(e)), public par-
(c) Include a provision for monitor. that the results of the studies and re-
representative estuarine types: the na- ticipation will be ensured at the Feder- ing the uses of - the sanctuary, to search conducted in these sanctuaries
tional or regional benefits; and the al level by the NEPA process and by ensure compliance with the intended are available in a timely fashion so
usefulness in research. public hearings where desirable subse-
(b) The ecological characteristics of quent to NEPA. Such public hearings uses. that the States can develop and ad-
the ecosystem, including its biological shall be held by the Office of Coastal (d) Ensure ready access to land use minister land and water use programs
of the sanctuary by scientists, stu- for the coastal zone. Accordingly, all
productivity, diversity and representa- Zone Management in the area to be af- dents and the general public as desir- information and reports. including
tiveness. Extent of alteration of the fected by the proposed sanctuary no
natural system, its ability to remain a sooner than 30 days after it issues a able and permissible for coordinated annual reports, relating to estuarine
viable and healthy system in view of draft environmental impact statement research and education uses, as well as sanctuaries shall be part of the public
the present and possible development on the sanctuary proposal. It will be for other compatible purposes. record and available at all times for in-
of external stresses. the responsibility of the Office of (e) Ensure public availability and spection by the public.
(c) Size and choice of boundaries. To Coastal Zone Management, with the reasonable distribution of research re-
the extent feasible, estuarine sanctu- assistance of the applicant State, to suits for timely use in the develop- PART 922-MARINE SANCTUARIES
aries should approximate a natural issue adequate public notice of its in- ment of coastal zone management pro-
ecological unit. The minimal accept- tention to hold a public hearing. Such grams. Subpart A-General
able size will vary greatly and will public notice shall be distributed (f) Provide a basis for annual review
depend on the nature of the ecosys- widely, especially in the area of the of the status of the sanctuary, its See.
tem. proposed sanctuary'. affected property value to the coastal zone program. 922.1 Policy and objectives.
(d) Cost. Although the Act limits the owners and those agencies, organiza- (g) Specify how the integrity of the 922.2 Programmatic objectives.
Federal share of the cost for each tions or individuals with.an identified system which the sanctuary repre-
sanctuary to $2,000,000, it is anticipat- interest in the area or estuarine sane- sents will be maintained.

45522 PROPOSED RULES

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE., exceed 50 percent of the acquisition costs (2) By revising Subpart B-Applica-
involved. Any . State receiving an initial tion for Grants-as follows:
National Oceanic and Atmospheric grant shall be@ obligated i@ to repay it if,
Administration Subpart B-Application for Grants
I . due to any f ault,of the State, the sanctu
25 CFR Part 921 ary is not established. 921-10 General.
ESTUARINE SANCTUARY GUIDELINES As a result of this new grant procedure, Section 315 authorizes Federal grants
much more information relating to costs, to coastal States so that the States may
Policies and Procedures for Selection values, management procedures, and re- establish sanctuaries according to regu-
Acquisition and Management search programs will be available at ' the lations promulgated by the Secretary.
time of the publication of a draft en- Coastal States may file applications for
AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmos- vironmental impact statement. Proposals grants with the Associate Administrator
pheric Administration, Department of
Commerce. made public to date in the form of an for Coastal Zone Management (OCZM),
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Office of Coastal Zone Management, Page
ACTION: Proposed rule. have been criticized for lack of specificity 1, 3300 Whitehaven Parkway NW, Wash-
SUMMARY:. . This proposed rule. will in these areas. By making a small pre- ington, D.C. 20235. That agency which
allow the National Oceanic and Atmos- liminary acquisition grant to a State, has been certified to the Office of Coastal
pheric Administration to make a pre- the estuarine sanctuary proposal can be Zone Management as the entity respon-
liminary acquisition grant to a State to more fully developed and the public can sible for administration of the State
undertake a fair market value appraisal, become more aware of the costs and the coastal zone management program may
and to develop a uniform relocation act exact nature of the long-term manage- either submit an application directly, or
plan, a detailed management plan and a ment. must endorse and approve applications
research framework for a proposed estu- In response to State questions about submitted by other agencies within the
arine sanctuary, developed pursuant to estuarine sanctuary research, the pro- State.
Section 315 of the Coastal Zone Manage- posed regulations provide that such re- � 921.11 Application for preliminary
ment Act of 1972, as amended. search can be funded if it can be shown
I I to be related to Program administration. acquisition grants.
DATE: Comments must.be received on or NOAA has reviewed these proposed (a) A grant may be awarded on a
before October 1, 1977. regulations pursuant to the National En- matching basis to cover costs necessai-j
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CON- vironmental Policy Act of 1969 and has to preliminary actual acquisition of land.
TACT: determined thaV promulgation of these As match to the Federal grant, a State.
regulations will have no significant im- may use money, the cost of necessary
Robert R. Kifer, Physical Scientist, pact on the environment. services, the value of foregone revenue,
Policy and Programs Development Of - Compliance with Executive Order and/or the value of land either already
fice, Office of Coastal Zone Manage- 11821. The economic and inflationary in its possession or acquired by the State
ment, 3300 Whitehaven Parkway, Page impact of these proposed regulations has specifically for use in the sanctuary. If
One Building, Washington, D.C. 20235 been evaluated in accordance with OMB the land to be used as match already is
(202-634-4241). Circular A-107 and it has been deter- in the State's possession and is in a pro-
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: mined that no major inflationary im- tected status, the State may use such
On June 4, 1974, The National Oce- pact will result. land as match only to the extent of any
anic and Atmospheric Administration Dated-'August26,1977. revenue from the land foregone by the
(NOAA) published 15 CPR Part 921 en- State in order to include it in the sanc-
titled, "Estuarine Sanctuary Guidelines" T. P. GLEITER, tuary. Application for a preliminary ac-
Pursuant to then section 312 of the Assistant Administrator quisition grant shall be made on form
Coastal,Zone Management Act of 1972, for Administration. SP 424 application for Federal assistance
as amended, for the purpose of establish@ It is proposed-to amend 15 CFR Part (11011-construction programs).
ing policy and procedures for the selec- 921 as follows:. (b) A preliminary acquisition grant
tion, acquisition, and management of (1) By revising the table of contents may be made for the defrayal of the
estuarine sanctuaries. and authority citation to read as follows: cost of:
Under new subsection 315(l) of the
Subpart A-General (1) An appraisaJ of the land, or of the
Act, the Secretary of Commerce is au- Sec. value of any foregone use of the land,
thorized to make available to, coastal 921.1 Policy and objectives. to be used in the sanctuary;
States,grants of up to 50 per centurn of 921.2 Definitions.
the cost of acquisition, development, and 921.3 Objectives and implementation of (2) The development of a Uniform
operation of estuarine sanctuaries. - In the program., Relocation Assistance and Real Property
general, subsection 316(l) provides that 921.4 Biogeographic classification. Acquisition Policies Act plan;
91rants may be awarded to States,on a 921.5 Multiple use. (3) The development of a sanctuary
921:6 Relationship to other provisions of management plan;
matching basis to acquire, develop, and the Act and to marine sanctuaries.
operate natural areas,as estuarine sanc- (4) The development of a research and
tuaries in order that scientists and stu- Subpart B-Application for Grants educational program; and/or,
dents may be provided the opportunity 921.10 General. (5) Such other activity of a pr@limi-
to examine over a period oftime ecologi- 921.11 Application for preliminary acquisi- nary nature as may be approved in writ-
cal. relationships within . the area. -The tion grants.
Purpose of these guidelines is to ' 921,12 Ap Ip.lication for land acquisition mg by OCZM. Any grant made Pursuant
imple7 grants, to this subsection shall be refunded by
ment this program. grants. the State to whatever extent it has spent
921.13 Application,for operational
As a result - of. two years of program 921.14 Federally-ow@ned lands. in relation to land not acquired for the
implementation, the regulations are pro- 1 1. S ubpart C-Selection Criteria sanctuary, and if OCZM requests such
posed to be modified to specifically au-, 921.20 Criteria for selection. ref und.
thorize the . granting of - acquisition 921.21 Public participation. (c) The application should contain:
money to States in two stages: ; I @ (1) Evidence that the State has con-
W An. initial grant for such prelimi- Subpart D--Operation. ducted a scientific evaluation of it:; estu-
nary purposes,.as surveying and assess- 921.30 General. aries and selected one of those most rep-
921.31 Changed'in the sanctuary boundary,
ing the land to be acquired,-and the de@- management policy, or reseexch resentative.
velopment of management 'procedures program- (2) Description of the proposed
and research programs; and - 921.32 Program review. sanctuary including location, Proposed
(h) A second grant for'the,actual a6-* AuTHoRiTy: Sec. 315 (1), Coastal Zone Man- boundaries, and size. A maP(s) should
quisition of the land. The Federal share@ agement Act of 1972,'as amended (go stat. be included, as well as an aerial photo-
of the sum of the -,two grants shall.: not 1030, (16 U.S.C.-,1461) Pub. L. 94-370). graph if available.

FEDERAL REGISTER,.VOL,42i, NO.: 17,5-_-RIDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1977

PROPOSED RULES 45523

(3) Classification of the proposod public domain; fair market value ap- conflict with the Federal use of their
sanctuary according to the biogeo- praisal and Uniform Relocation Act plan. lands, such cooperation and coordination
graphic scheme set forth in � 921.4. (3) Description of research programs, is encouraged to the maximum extent
(4) Description of the major physical, potential and committed research or- feasible.
geographic, biological characteristics and ganizations or agencies, and benefits to (c) Section 315 grants may not be
resources of the proposed sanctuary. the overall coastal zone management awarded to Federally-owned lands: how-
(5) Demonstration of the necessary pro.-ram. ever, a similar status may be provided on
authority to acquire or control and man- (4) Description of proposed manage- a voluntary basis for Federally-owned
age the sanctuary. ment techniques, including the manage- lands under the provisions of the Federal
(6) Description of existing and poten- ment agency and proposed budget-in- Committee on Ecological Perserves
tial uses of. and conflicts within, the eluding both State and Federal shares. program.
area if it were not declared an estuarine '5) Description of planned or antici- � 921.20 [Amended]
sanctuary: and potential use rertriction i)ated land and water use and controls
and conflicts if the sanctuary is estab- for contiguous lands surrounding the (4) Subpart C-Selection C,.ite.-ia-is
lished. proposed sanctuary (including, if appro- amended by changing the first sentence
(7) List of protected sites, either with- priate, an analysis of the desirability of in � 921.20 to read: "Applications for
in the estuarine sanctuaries program or creating a marine sanctuary in adjacent preliminary acquisition or land acquisi-
within other Federal, State, or private areas). tion grants to establish estuarine sanc-
programs, which are located in the same (6) Assessment of the environmental, tuaries will be reviewed and judged on
region or biogeographic class i,.-.z cation. and socio-economic impacts of declaring criteria including: "
(8) The manner in which the State the area an estuarine sanctuary, includ- (5) Section 921.21 is revised, as fol-
solicited the views of interested parties. ing the economic impact on the sur- lows:
(9) In addition to the standard A-95 rounding community and its tax base.
review procedure!-,,. the grant application (7) Discussion, including cost and � 921.21 Public participation.
should be sent to the Statel-li@;L,)-ic Pres- feasibility of alternative methods for ac- (a) Public participation in the selec-
ervation Office for comment to insure quisition and protection of the area. tion of an estuarine sanctuary is re-
compliance with section 106 of the Na- � 921.13 Application for operalion quired. In the selection process, the se-
tional Preservation Act of 1066. grants. lecting entity (see � 921.10) shall seek
(d) In order to develop a truly repre- the views of possibly affected landown-
sentative scherne of estuarine sanctu- (a) Although an acquisition grant ap- ers, local governments, and Federal
aries, the States should coordinate their plication for creation of an estuarine agencies, and shall seek the views of pos-
activitie.s. This will help to minimize the sanctuary should include initial opera- sibly interested other parties and orga-
possibility oc -imilar estuarine tvpes be- tion costs, subsequent applications may nizations. The latter would include, but
ing propo:@ci in the same region. The be submitted following acquisition and need not be limited to, private citizens
extent to which neighboring States were establishment of an estuarine sanctuary and business, social, and environmentaJ
consulted should be indicated. for additional operational funds. As in- organizations in the area of the site be-
921.12 Application for land ac( dicated in 1,; 921.11, these costs may in- ing considered for selection. This solici-
tion grants. clude administrative costs necessary to tation of views may bc acccrnpii shed by
monitor the sanctuary and to protect the whatcv@@r means the selecting entity
(a) Acquisition grants, will hc made '@o integrity of the ecosystem. Extensive deems appropriate, but shall include at
acquire land and facilities for estuarine management programs, capital expenses, I.-ast one public hearing in the area. No-
sanctuaries that have been thoroughly or research will not normally be funded ,
described in a preliminary acquisition by section 315 grants. Lice of such hearing shall include infor-
grant application, or where equivalent (b) After the creation of an estuarine mation as to the time, _place, and subject
matter, and shall be published in the
information is available. Application for sanctuary established under this pro- principal area media. The hearing shall
an acquisition grant shall be made on gram, applications (Form SF 424) for be held no sooner than 15 days follow-
SIR 424 application for Federal assist- Federal assistance (non -construction ing the publication of notice.
ance (construction program). program), for such operational grants (b) The Office of Coastal Zone Man-
In general, lands acquired pursuant to should include at least the following in- agement (OCZM) shall prepare draft
this subsection are legitimate costs and formation: and final environmental impact state-
their fair market value, developed ac- (1) Identification of the boundary ments pertaining to the site finally se-
cording to Federal appraisal standards, (map). lected for the estuarine sanctuary fol-
may be included as match. The value of 12) Specifications of the research and lowing public participation in the selec-
lands donated to the State and cash do- management programs, including man- tion of that site, and shall distribute
nations may also be used as match. If aging agency and techniques. these as appropriate. OCZM may hold a
the State already owns land which is to (3) Detailed budget.
be used in the sanctuary, the value of (4) Discussion of recent and projected public hearing in t1he area of such site at
any use of the land foregone by the State use of the sanctuary. which both the draft environmental im-
in order to include such land in the (5) Perceived threats to the integrity pact statement (DEIS) and the merits-
sanctuary, capitalized over the next 20 of the sanctuary. of the site selection may be addressed by
those in attendance. OCZM shall hold
years, may be used by the State as � 921.14 Federally-owned lands. such a hearing if: (1) In its view, the
match. The value of lands purchased by
a. State within the boundaries of pro- (a) Where Federally-owned lands are DEIS is controversial. or (2) if there ap-
posed sanctuaries while an application a part of or adjacent to the area proposed pears to be a need for further informina
for a preliminary acquisition grant or for designation as an estuarine sanc- the public with regard to either the DEI�
land acquisition grant is being consid- tuary, or where the control of land and or one or more aspects of the site se-
ered may also be used as match. water uses on such lands is necessary to lected, or (3) if such a hearing is re-
(b) An acquisition application should protect the natural system within the quested in writing (to either the select-
contain the following information: sanctuary, the State should contact the ing entity or (CZM) by an affected or in-
(1) Description of any changes in pro- Federal agency maintaining control of terested party, or (4) for other good
posed sanctuary from that presented in the land to request cooperation in provid- cause. If held, such hearing shall be held
the preliminary acquisition grant appli- ing coordinated management policies. no sooner than 30 days following the is-
cation. If such an application has not Such lands and State request, and the suance of the DEIS and no sooner than
been made, then, information equivalent Federal agency response, should be iden- 15 days after appropriate notice of such
to that required in such a grant applica- tified and conveyed to the Office of hearing has been given in the area by
tion should be provided. Coastal Zone Management. OCZM with the assistance of the select-
(2) Identification of ownership pat- (b) Where such proposed use or con- ing entity.
terns, proportions of land already in the. trol of Pederally-owned lands would not . [FR Doc.77-26123 1P11ed 94-77;8:45 am]

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

APPENDIX II

Bay Island Park System

Although t.he idea of.a Bay Islands-Park has been discussed for more than
a decade, the Park received its f -irst,offici.al,.recognition with.the appearance@
in 1976 of The.Bay Islands Park: A.Marine Recreation.Plan for the State,of
Rhode Island, prepared by the University of Rhode Island's Coastal Resourpe's
Center and the Department of Environmental Management. This. report created
a conceptual;framework for the.Park's development, and recommended that the
State acquire several key parcels. Since then, Rhode Island has.acquired
624 acres on southern Prudence Island and 186 acres at Beavertail from the
U.S. Department of the Interior's Heritage Conservation and,Recreation Service,
has.purchased or received through,donation more than 700 acres on northern
Prudence Island, and hopes to purchase Patience Island later in 1980.

By the fal.1 of 1980, then, Rhode Island will own 2,185 acres on six
islands in Narragansett Bay. The sites, their acreage, and,their current..
status-are listed in the following,chart:-

Site Island Location , Acreage Current Status

Southern Prudence Prudence Island Park Planning

Northern Prudence Prudence Island 728 Park-Planning;
Management Area

Patience Patience Isla.nd 207 To Be Acquired

Hope Hope Island 94 Park; Management
Area

Fort Adams Aquidneck Island 132 Master Plan Complete;
Development Underway;
Completion Date 1985

Brenton Point Aquidneck Island 53 State Park

Fort Wetherill Conanicut Island 51 State Park

Beavertail Conanicut Island 186 Master Plan Complete;
Development Underway;
Completion Date 1985

Dutch Dutch Island 110 Park Planning;
Management Area

These nine sites vary considerably in both natural character and the
cultural legacy reflecting past human use of each island. Development of the
Park will emphasize and enhance that variety, so that within the Park people
can experience a wide range of recreational and cultural opportunities: historic
fortifications at Fort Adams, open ocean coastline at Brenton Point, Fort
Wetherill and Beavertail, or the solitude and wildlife of northern Prudence,
Patience, and [lope Islands.

Four of-the sites -- Fort Adams, Fort Wetherill, Brenton Point, and
Beavertail -- can be reached by car, and are already completed parks or under
development. 'Public transportation will be provided to the other five sites,
which can only be reached by boat. Current plans call for a ferry system that
will link southern Prudence to Providence, Newport, North Kingstown, and
Portsmouth. Transportation to Patience and Hope Islands will be provided from
southern Prudence, and Dutch Island will be accessible from Jamestown (Fort
Getty).

The chart on the following page indicates the activities proposed for
each site. Solid black circles indicate activities which will be permitted
at each site. Partially filled circles indicate activities for which decisions
are pending. The absence of a circle signifies that the activity will not be
permitted at that site. Southern Prudence, as the center for the Park and
the proposed estuarine sanctuary, is expected to have the greatest number of
visitors and the broadest range of activities. Northern Prudence, Patience,
and Hope Islands, which would constitute the proposed estuarine sanctuary,
will have fewer visitors, and the major activities will be interpretative
education programs.

ul
trj:U 0 LO "I w (n In cl) U)
0 1 @ i@ 0
LA La f- 4(A tam IOU ILA A' :C k 14
6. 1,. ti
M 1'. m M Mrf ID cl
ft 1@ CA " a rt rr 4. 't
ri I"L W :1 j 0 10 H 0 lb M
IL- IIIM U) tTI
IA In 0 rl 11 ki P.
ti et m w 0 tj 0 11. ki I-. @L X) uq tj il- rf
k.. 1) M cl El C) @r 1-h (a0 C: lwj 4 Qq 0
0 ti M li I,. rt UQ
uq (A rf Ill
(A P. t rt rt tj Iq
0 u to tl I.'. H.
w 0 0 uci

H.
ri
H.
(D
U

900
00 0 00 00-1
00 0 0 0 0 0 00

APPENDIX III

Rhode Island Water Quality Standards

Rhode Island Water Quality Standards Sea Water

Criterion Class SA/SAm Class SB Class SC

1 Di ssol ved oxygen Not less than 6.0 Not less than 5.0 Not less than 5mg/l during
mg/l at any time. mg1l at any time. at least 16,hours of any
24-hour period for less
than.4 mg/l at any.time.
2. Sludge deposits- None allowable None allowable None,expept t .hat. amount
solid refuse- that may result from the
floating solids- discharge.. from a waste
oils-grease-scum treatment, facility pro-
viding'appropriate
treatment.

3. Color and None in such concen- None in suc h concen- None in such,concen-
turbidity trations that 'woul d trati'o6� that would tration's that would
impair any usages i.mpair any usages impair any usages
specifically assigned specifically assigned specifically assigned
to this Class., to this Class. to this Class.

4. Coliform bacteria Not to exceed a median Not to exceed a median None in such concen-
per 100 ml MPN of 70 and not more value of 700 and not trations that would
than 10% of the samples more than 2300 in more impair any usages
shall ordinarily exceed than 10% of the samples. specifically assigned
an MPN of 230 for a 5-tube to this Class.
decimal dilution or 330
for a 3-tube decimal
dilution.

5. Fecal coliform A median of 15 per 100 ml A median value of, 50 per
bacieria/100 ml in*not more than 10% of 100 ml an*d'not more than
the samples exceeding 500 per 100 ml in 10%
50 per 100 ml.* of the samples collected.*

*Guide, pending further research.

Rhode Island Water Quality Standards Sea Water

Criterion Class SA/SAm Class SB Class SC

6. Taste and odor None allowabl'e None in such concen- None in such concen-
trations that would trations that would
impair any usages impair any usages
specifically assigned specifically assigned
to this Class and none to this Class and none
that would cause taste that would cause taste
and odor in edible fish and odor in edible
or shellfish. fish or shellfish.

7. pH 6.8 - 8.5 6.8 - 8.5 6.5 - 8.5

8. Temperature
increase: None except where the increase will not exceed the recommended limit on the most
sensitive receiving water use -and in no case exceed 83 degrees F or in any case raise
the normal temperature more than 1.5 degrees F, 15 June through September and not
more than 4 degrees F from October through 15 June. All measurements shall be made
at the boundary of such mixing zones as is found to be reasonable by the Director.

9. Chemical None in concentrations None in concentrations None in concentrations
constituents or combinations which of combinations which or combinations which
would be harmful to would be harmful to would be harmful to
human, animal or aquatic human, animal or aquatic human, animalor aquatic
life or which would make life or which would make life or which would make
the waters unsafe or the waters unsafe or the waters unsafe or
unsuitable for fish unsuitable for fish or unsuitable for fish or
or shellfish or their shellfish or their prop- shellfish or their prop-
propagation, impair agation, or impair the agation, or impair the
the palatability of water for any other usage water for any other usage
same, or impair the waters assigned to this Class. assigned to this Class.
for any other uses.

APPENDIX IV

Educational Programs for the Proposed Estuarine Sanctuary

Educational Programs for the Proposed Estuarine Sanctuary
(Prepared by the State of.Rhode Island)

Rhode Island students have a strong marine awareness.,-accomplished through
''the efforts of individual teachers, assisted-by the Marine Education'Specialist
at the University bf,Rhode',Isla*nd'1s.M6rihe Advisory Service.. Almost every'
schooll.in Rhode' Island hasI had'at least one .lecture-sppnsored b Iy the Rhode
Is1and,Coast a-1 Resources,Management Council and mahaged`by@ the'Mariine Advisory
Service. buring various'work@shops and field days, many Rhode Island teachers
have,been instructed on methods of incorporat,ing the marine world into their
teaching. A genuine interest'-is present, and in view of the. rowing number of
;- 9 g
inquiries from the Rhode Island educational communi,ty, We anticipate a
continuing strong interest, in the marine world.
Establishment of the proposed sanctuary,woUl'd. sig,n4lcantly increase
public understa;nding of estuarine processes and t-he"Vital influence of Narra-
ganseti Bay on the Ocean State's residents.. In the total view of'education,
few sites exist where the@users can have actual field experiences. Field
as classroom work,
trips can be as valuable butare often foregone.due to a
lack of suitable sites,,as-well as teacher c on.cerns about taking students on
Jield trips. Some sites within the proposed estuarine sa-nctuary and Bay
Islands Ra-rk@system are admirably suited to field2trips.
Historically, school field'trips for younger - stud'ents'have had 1*ittle
standing within the educational process, so that as-budgets-become strained
these a@re among the first "extras" to be deleted'from'thecturriculum. Further
deletions result from rising fuel costs and bus expenses.- However,-the proposed
estuarine sanctuary and Bay Island Park system can reverse this situation.
Almost 60% of the State's 178,000 school-age children live within 15 miles of
Providence. The proposed access to some of the island sites by ferry could cut
travel costs significantly.

Uses of selected sites in the sanctuary and Park system would include
traditional and innovative study programs. Traditional programs would include
beach field trips, marsh studies, and intertidal biology. With marine studies
already in place in Rhode Island schools, there is little doubt that the Park
and sanctuary sites would be used. Innovative programs would include total
immersion programs permitting students to spend longer periods of time on-site
in study programs that would complement existing school programs. Other
programs could include two-week summer programs offered at various island sites.
Given the multi-disciplinary nature of marine studies, few traditional courses
taught in today's school system are entirely without applicability to marine
studies.

I Narragansett Bay's marine environment has, and will continue to play, an
important role in Rhode Island's historical perspective. The advent of the
proposed sanctuary and Park system can add a new and exciting role to the
Ocean State's educational goals. By using these sites, Rhode Island students
can gain a better understanding of the role of water in the functioning of
the State.

Year-round programs should be considered. Schools are traditionally
closed during t'he warmer months. The climate of Rhode Island, though, does
allow extension of a school study season well into December, and the season
could be,resumed in the middle of March. School'oriented 'sites could accomo-
date students from September until mid-December, and from mid-March until
June. Summer programs should also be considered.

There are case studies in trhe Northeast to support such year-round
educational programs. The joint effort between the Greater Providence YMCA
and the University of Rhode Island's MaHne Advisory Service, called SEASCOPE,
is such a program. Starting in March 1980 at the YMCA's Camp Fuller on Point
Judith Pond,,this program will introduce Rhode Isla'nd students to the world
of salt water. Project Oceanology at Avery Point in Groton, Connecticut also
runs continuous marine programs throughout the year. Massachusetts, Maine and
New Hampshire have similar programs.

With regard to curriculum development and availability, there is a vast
array of materials. The Marine Awareness' Center at the Bay Campus of the
University of Rhode Island houses the largest collection of marine study
materials in the United States.

If Rhode Island is truly to be the Ocean State, its students must learn
and understand as much as they can about the marine environment. The proposed
Estuarine Sanctuary and Bay Islands Park system can play a vital role in this
important educational process.

APPENDIX V

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE NARRAGANSETT BAY
ESTUARINE SANCTUARY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

APPENDIX V

Responses to Comments Received on the Narragansett Bay
Estua.rine Sanctuary Draft.Environmental Impact Statement

This section summarizes'the. written and verbal-comments re .ceiVed on
the Draft Environmental. Impact Statement (DEIS) and provides OCZM's
response to these comments.. Generally, responses are made in one or more
of the following ways:
(1) Expansion, clarif'ication, or revision of the DEIS,

(2) General responsesto.comments raised by several reviewers, and

(3) Specific responses to -the i,ndivi.dual comments made,by each
reviewer.

All written comments received'on the.DEIS will be published as a'
compendium and mailed to all.persons Who commented on the DEIS, or a.nyone
else upon request.

The following are some of tile most common issues raised',by,reviewers:

GENERAL COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

A. Concern over impact of the Bay Islands Park on the Estuarine Sanctuary.

The letters and public hearing comments from residents on Prudence
Island consistently support 'ed tile es-,tablishment of an estuarine sanctuary
(many wanted it to.include the southern-end of Prudence) and almost
unanimously opposed the heavy use of the southern end of Prudence' as a
recreational park and the connection of theestuarine sanctuary to the
Bay Islands Park system. It is feared that'thousands of.people will come
to the southern end of the island and interfere with the privacy and
safety of both.the full-time.and.part-time 'residents on central Prudence
Island, especially if they travel in large numbers through the 1sland to.
the northern end.

Concern also was expressed by some of the residents as'well a s
Federal and State agencies that the relationship of the est 'uarine sanctuary
to the Bay Islands Park system wouldcreate a perception that the sanctua"ry
was primarily for recreation and that heavy use as a recreation area
would degrade the enviro 'nment and interfer'e-with research in the sanctuary..
In other words,,t.he purposes of -the sanctuary are considered incompatible
with the overall phil.osophy of the Bay Islands Park..
With respect to the use of the southern end of Prudence Islan@, as a
park site, this area is en,tirelly outside of the sanctuary boundaries and,,,
therefore, is beyond t,he sco-pe of th.is.environmental impact statement.
Any comments o,r concerns regarding the southern end of Pr *udence Island
should be sent,directly tol.the'Assist@nt Director for Administration in'
the Department, of Envir.onmental M .anagemerit (DEM),. This also applies to -@suth
activities as fires, camping, transpo'rtAtion, and island services'. (See
B, C, and D below.)

On the basis of the comments regarding maintaining the integrity of
the estuarine.sanctuary ecosystem, DEM has agreed:

(1) to do an extensive inventory of the natural and cultural resources
on the islands before deciding how many persons will be given public
access to the islands and for what purposes they will be allowed to
visit. This inventory will be undertaken as soon as possible after
estuarine sanctuary establishment.

(2) to establish the'estuarine sanctuary as an entity in itself,
meaning that it will be given special management attention as a
research and educational area with permitted recreational activities
being monitored carefully to minimize any impact on the natural environment.
To help insure this special management attention, the Sanctuary Manager
will have direct access to the DEM Assistant Director for Operations.
The State, within fiscal and management constraints, will make every
possible effort to hire an estuarine sanctuary manager whose sole respon-
sibility will be the estuarine sanctuary. This management arrangement,
together with the local representative on the Sanctuary Advisory Committee
should go a long way towards being responsive to the concerns expressed
in the above comments.

B. DEM's proposal to install bus service between the southern and
northern ends of Prudence Island.

Most of the residents on Prudence Island opposed DEM's proposal to
establish a bus service to take visitors to the northern end of Prudence
Island on a regular schedule. Reasons cited for opposing this idea
included public use of private property ("driftways" are considered by
some Island residents as "private"), noise and pollution from an otherwise
clean and quiet residential community, fear of non-island residents
invading private lots and doing damage, and degradation of the environment
generally.

Concern was raised also about the whole subject of transporting many
people to the island each day via bay ferry boats and the possibility
that the island would be inundated with people.

Because of the concern of Prudence Island residents, the proposal
to use a bus service to transport people from the south to the north end
of Prudence has been dropped. The main transportation to northern Prudence,
whether from the southern end of Prudence or from other ferry embarkation
points in the Bay, will be by boats. Furthermore, no transportation
will be given to people arriving on the Prudence Island Ferry, which
docks at Middle Prudence Island, to either the north or south end of
Prudence. A small van (8-10 people) would be available on the south end
of Prudence to take small groups occasionally (on an ad hoc, not a regular
schedule basis) to northern Prudence, but this type of transportation
would be restricted to an "as needed" basis. I'n using the van, DEM will
assure that no private rights or property are violated.

For the concerns regarding the impact of bringing thousands of people
to the southern end of Prudence, see General Response A above. It should
also be noted that a much smaller-number of people Will be allowed access
to the sanctuary sites than will be accommodated at Southern Prudence.

C. Concern over allowing camping, open fires, and a hostel on Prudence
Ts' Fa_n c7

the overwhelming majority of Prudence Island residents were opposed
to campfires and camping on Prudence Island, and many also expressed
opposition to having a hostel on South Prudence.

The concern about camping and fires was primarily related to the
very real danger that unattended fires could spread, especially i-n a high
wind, and destroy life and property. The other major concern was over
trespassers.. Obviously, this is of concern to people who live on the
island. Because of this valid concern the idea of having a few primitive
campsites on North Prudence was dropped. No camping will be provided or
allowed on North Prudence. Campi-ng that has been done traditionally at
Potter Cove will be restricted or prohibited. After a study and thorough
evaluation of the impact on the environment, grou .p camping for educational
purposes, with continuous DEM approval and supervision may be allowed on
Patience Island on a limited basis.

The concern about camping, fires, and a hostel on the southern end of
Prudence Island must be addressed to the Assistant Director for Administration
in DEM who has responsibility for planning the Bay'Islands Park. (See
General Response A above.)

D. Responsibility for,Public Services to Sanctuary Visitors

The Town of Portsmouth and some of the residents of Portsmouth
expressed concern over-the added demand for services that the influx of
people to the sanctuary and the park will require. Specifically mentioned
was the possibility of need for medical and other emergency services for
those using the sanctuary, additional fire and police protection (these
services are extremely limited on the island), adequacy of water supply
and water disposal.

Because of the restrictions that will now be imposed on the number of
persons who travel to North Prudence (by boat and van) and the prohibition
of1fires and camping within the sanctuary on North Prudence, it is not
likely that the sanctuary per se will place much of an additional strain,
on the services for which the Town of Portsmouth is responsible. However,
there still will be some added cost for services,,'and DEM is able and willing
to help. For example, if someone has to be taken off the island in an
-emergency, Whether visitor or resident, DEM has vessels that can be used
for this purpose*. It will be necessary for DEM and the Town of Portsmouth
to reach a formal agreement on how additional services required by the
sanctuary will be handled. This understanding will be made formally
before the acquisition grant is awarded.

With regard to the services required on the southern end of Prudence
Island, this also will have to be determined by DEM and the Town of
Portsmouth. However, this area is outside of the sanctuary boundaries
and beyond the scope of this FEIS. (See General Response @ above.)

Summary of Specific Comments and Responsi@@.

FEDERAL AGENCIES

Department of the_@rmX,__@ew England Division, C!j@ of_@aqjnter@.
Joseph L. Ignazio, Chief, Planning Division, (7/2/80)

Comment - Unclear as to sanctuary restrictions that may be i,,;iposed upon
maintenance dredging of the Providence and Taunton River channels.

Response - Dredging activity in the Providence and Taunton River is
outside the jurisdiction of the estuarine sanctuary. This inforination
has been added in the FEIS.

Comment - The application of the policies in the Rhode Island Coastal
Resources Management Plan to the proposed action should be discussed
in more detail on page 28.

Response Comment accepted and more discussion is provided in the FEIS.

Comment Field personnel should supervise research and education in
the proposed sanctuary in the interest of preservation of species and
their habitat.

Response - Supervision of research and education activities within the
sanctuary will be provided by DEM.

Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
National Marine Fisheries Service
Terry L. Leitzell, AssistaiTt -Administrator, (7/21/80)

Comment - Establishment of an estuarine sanctuary in this area would have
a positive effect on minimizing adverse fii1pacts to resources of concern to
NMFS: i.e., fisheries and associated habitats.

Response Comment accepted.

Comment The DEIS'provides for a NOAA representative on the Sanctuary
Advisory Committee (SAC). Our regional office has agreed to commit staff
resources for NMFS representation on the SAC, but is concerned about
adequately representing OCZM-

Response - NMFS and OCZM headquarters staff have agreed to work out an
arrangement so that both NMFS and OCZM interests are adequately represented.

Department of.Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
Environmental Data and Information Service
Richard M.. Morse, (6/19/80)

Comment - Dynamic description of the 5ay system for assessment purposes
are somewhat lacking. There is no discussion of currents, circulation,
flushing rates or wave characteristics.'

Response - We believe that the description of the Bay system for FEIS
purposes is sufficient. A more detailed description will be included in
the research plan.

Department of Energy
R. D. Langenkamp, Deputy A 'ssistant Secretary for Resource Development
and Operations, Resource Applications (7/25/80)

Comment - The DEIS is inadequate in discussing relationships between the
proposed sanctuary and existing and possible future uses of the former
Navy Base at Quonset/Davisville. DEIS does not analyze the potential
environmental impacts from such expanded onshore support operations.
Specifically, the final impact analysis should indicate that the sanctuary
management policies apply only to the sanctuary area and will not conflict
with current and future use 'of the Quonset/Davisville site as an onshore
OCS support site. DOE cannot support designation of the sanctuary until
they can review a specific analysis of the relationships between the.
proposal and support site operations.

Reseonse - It isdifficult to examine the relationships between a proposed
action, the Narragansett Bay Estuarine Sanctuary, and an unknown proposal
such as facility expansion at Quonset/Davisvil.le in the event commercial
oil and gas resources are discovered.- We are aware of the potential for
expansion, since OCZM itself.has funded, through the Coastal Energy Impact
Fund, studies relating to the impact of such development in Narragansett
Bay. Since the estuarine sanctuary will be managed under existing State
law, it is felt the sanctuary itself will not have any adverse impact on
the Quonset/Davisville. site, or to future expansion at the site. However,
it should be ''made clear that the sanctuary is managed according to State
law and affected by certain Federal laws (i.'e., Endangered Species Act,
Clean Water Act). Any impacts arising from an expansion in the
Quonset/Davisville area will be measured against such laws, not the
estuarine sanctuary.

The following statemeInt. has been added to the FEIS, "Estuarine sanctuary
management policies only apply ta land and water within the sanctuary
boundaries and they wil-1 not conflict with current and future uses of
the Quonset/Davisville site as an onshore OCS support site." Again, it
is important to recognize that there are no "Federal laws" that.come
into being within an estuarine sanctuary--it is Stateowned and managed
under State law. Therefore, if there are concerns over impacts created
by the expansion of the Quonset/Davisville site, they will be by State
agencies (including the Department of Environmental Management) using
existing statutes, or other Federal agencies using their statutes.

The Planning and Development Division within DEM is.working closely with the
Rhode Island Department of Economic Development on all proposed activities
at the Quonset/Davisville site. DEM is part of the review process,
which was established by a formal Memorandum of Understanding to review
all aspects of expansion at Quonsett/Davisville. DEM has indicated that
it is difficult to envision any problems arising from estuarine sanctuary
establishment relating to any of the proposals for the Quonset/Davisville
area.

Department of Housing and Urban Development
Trudy McFall, Acting Director, Office oT-Planning and Program Coordination,
(6/12/80)

Comment HUD concurs in the proposed sanctuary plan.

Response Comment accepted.

Deeartment of the Interior
James H. RathlesE-erger, Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary
(7/15/80)

Comment - We have reviewed the draft environmental impact statement for
the proposed Narragansett Bay Estuarine Sanctuary (NBES), and we commend
NOAA's efforts to develop policies to provide effective management of an
estuarine sanctuary incorporating disjunct habitats and land masses.

Response Comment accepted.

Comment References to actual regulations and/or guidelines are rather
vague, and it is unclear whether they should be statutory or advisory.
The FEIS should discuss any regulations drafted or adopted for the Bay
Islands Park system, and they should be referenced or included in the
Appendix.

Response - Comment accepted. See General Response A. The FEIS discusses
the effects of the Bay Islands Park regulations which are referenced in the
Appendix.

Comment - The FEIS should have a discussion of handling NBES violations,
assessing fines monitoring visitor traffic to Hope and Patience Islands
to prevent congestion and overuse (no staff will be on duty on these
islands), and possible user conflicts and visitor safety (e.g., is hunting
explicitly prohibited in hiking areas)?

Response - See General Responses B and C. The FEIS discusses enforcement
of violations, user conflicts, and safety.

Comment - Does the described ferry system exist and is it consistent with
the State's Coastal Resources Management Plan? The FEIS should also
discuss whether schedules will be adjusted to avoid congestion at the
disembarking point at S.outh Prudence.
Response The ferry system is not in conflict with the State's Coastal
Resources Management Plan. Schedules are discussed in the FEIS.

Comment - Since the park/sanctuary is located along scheduled ferry routes
and may be a stopover as well as a final destination point, the FEIS
should discuss the need for adequate parking areas,- road development and
traffic control.

Response - Automobiles will not be allowed on.the island, except those
owned__Fy residents. Therefore, parking areas and traffic control are not
required.

Comment - Existing docks at the sanctuary islands were noted on map
figures in the DEIS, but were not-discussed in the-text. As proposed,
access to the islands would occur via the ferries and would thus necessitate
docking facilities capable of handling large-boats. Are the existing
structures adequate? Also, will the,proposed route and docking procedures
avoid areas considered critical? For example, we question the location
of the dock area on Patience since it is apparently adjacent to the
saltwater marsh containing one of the only three sites in Rhode Island
where the seablite (Sauda maritima) occurs.(DEIS, p. 32).

Response - Existing docking facilities are not adequate and will be
improved before they are used to bring visitors to the islands. The dock
on Patience will be used only for small boats and people will be guided.
by a pathway away from the saltmarsh mentioned in your comment.

Comment - Th e emphasis the proposal places on hunting seems somewhat
irregular since the area is to be set aside essentially for research and
public appreciation for portions of the estuary and its related ecosystems.
Department of Commerce regulations allow for hunting, fishing.and non-
consumptive activities as long as these activities are -secondary to the
research and educational objectives for which the sanctuary would be established.

Response - Hunting has existed on the islands for a long time and is very
controlled. For example, on North Prudence, deer hunting is by bow and
arrow only, plus one week for paraplegics to hunt with firearms. The
number of deer killed on North Prudence during the 1979-80 hunting season
was 30. With no hunting, the deer herd would overpopulate and ruin the.
flora on the island.

Comment - Due to the geologic structure of the islands, island freshwater
suppli'e-s are especially limited in summer, a period when peak visitation
is anticipated. Since visitors must be provided with drinking water and
hygiene facilities, water needs will increase. The FEIS should discuss
how much additional capacity will be necessary and how it will be supplied.

Response - Comment accepted. See General Response D.

Comment - The premise that monitoring activities and research in NBES
would provide baseline data for other areas is commendable. However,
insufficient discussion is provided about mitigation for events occurring
in surrounding areas, such as tanker traffic in the channel east of NBES
or the industrial area to the west of NBES. These should be detailed in
the FEIS.

Response - Comment accepted. Tanker traffic effects are mentioned in the
FEIS and will be monitored by DEM.

Comment - According to the Estuarine Sanctuary Guidelines in Appendix I,
-the applicant should list protected sites in the same regional or
biogeographic subregion (Subpart B921.11(d)). This list and a map
depicting the boundaries of Virginian biogeographic classification should
be included in the FEIS to allow some type of comparative analysis of the
importance of the Narragansett Bay Estuarine Sanctuary.

Response - Comment accepted. This list is available from DEM upon request.
Its inclusion in the FEIS was not felt to be relevant by this office.

Comment - The DEIS does not show how the proposed sanctuary is "truly
representative" of the type of region being considered to "minimize the
possibility of.similar estuarine types being proposed for designation in
the same region" (Subpart B921.11(e)). The Virginian classification
encompasses all or portions of nine states and the potential for the
identification of other representative areas would thus appear highly
likely. Clarification of the selection and designation process in the
FEIS, or appended, would add helpful decisionmaking information about the
Estuarine Sanctuary Program.

Response - The discussion of the Virginian classification and the selection
process both nationally and within tfie Sta e has been expanded in the
FEIS.

Comment - It appears that the proposed Sanctuary Advisory Committee (SAC)
may be too unwieldy (15 or more people). We recommend consideration
of the use of a set of contact persons from interested,groups, etc., as
an alternative.

Response - Comment accepted. An expanded discussion of the Sanctuary
7Uvisory Committee appears in the FEIS.

De2artment of Transportation, U.S. Coast Gu -ard
Commander S.L. Richmond, GZM Ufficer, First Coast Guard District,
Boston, Massachusetts, (7/3/80)

Comment - The Coast Guard presently maintains a system of aids to navigation
including some within the proposed sanctuary. The Coast Guard must
continue to perform maintenance on existing aids to navigation and may

from time to time in' the future find it necessary to establish additional.
aids or disestablish some of the present aids. The toast Guard relationship
to the sanctuary in this area'should be addressed.

Response - We do,not'foresee any problems with the Coast Guard's aids to
navi5-a-Firon within the proposed sanctuary. Whatever understandings
currently exist between the Coast Guard and the State of Rhode Island
regarding navigation aids will continue-without change within the sanctuary.

Comment - Requests that we review specifics outlined in Appendix I of
their letter, Coast Guard District One OPLAN No. l-FY which specifies
duties and authorities-of the Coast Guard and .advise ihem of any conflicts
envisioned with the maintenance of these duties and responsibilities
within the proposed sanctuary.

Response - OCZM has reviewed the specifics outlined in Appendix 1. We do
not envision any conflicts with the CG's duties and responsibilities within
the proposed sanctuary.

Comment - The main commercial ship navigat,ion channels to Providence and
_G_a_v"1`sv_Tlle, Rhode Island, come within 1 1/4 miles of the proposed sanctuary.
If any possible conflicts between the needs of the sanctuary and the use
of these commercial*channels is envisioned, it should be addressed.

Response - We do not foresee any conflicts between the needs of the
sanctuary and the use of these commercial channels, which is stated
in the FEIS.

Comment - The Coast Guard should7be represented on the Sanctuary Advisory
Committee.

Response Comment accepted.

Environmental Protection Agency, Region I
Wallace E. Stickney, P.E., Director, Environmental and Economic Impact Office,
Boston, Massachusetts, (7/10/80)

Comment Rates DEIS as Lack of Objections, Insufficient Information, LO-2.

Response Comment accepted. The information base has been substantial'ly
enlarged in the FEIS.

Comment The ability of the Narragansett Bay sanctuary to represent a
nati'on--al control against which changes in other estuaries can be measured,
and to aid in evaluating the impacts of human activities on the estuarine
systems is questionable, especially in light of the extensive multiple-
use and public recreation benefits which are anticipated.

Response - We believe the Narragansett Bay sanctuary offers a controlled
area with ample opportunity to conduct research that will provide
information against which other areas in the bay can be measured when
human activities have caused degradation of the estuary. Multiple use
will be controlled whenever it interferes with this research activity.

Comment - The proposed sanctuary is in a heavily impacted estuary, subject
to industrial and domestic wastes, commercial and recreational vessel
traffic, and periodic spills of hazardous and harmful chemicals. EPA
believes the proposed land acquisitions are inadequate to preclude
continuation of these impacts, and the sanctuary will continue to be
subject to these effects. Alternative estuaries which can be acquired in
toto, water, shorelines, and watershed should be evaluated even if they
are much smaller than Narragansett Bay.

Response - We agree that Narragansett Bay is a heavily used estuary,
subject to the impacts described in the comments. Yet, the area encompassed
by the sanctuary has been amazingly spared from these impacts. Preserving
these islands as a sanctuary will assist in National, State, and local
efforts to protect them from degradation and provide a control point
in the middle of all of the bay to begin looking at some of the
problems that were mentioned. The amount of land acquisition is limited
by the financial resources (Federal and State) and the availability of
willing sellers. The discussion on alternative sites within the State
has been expanded in the FEIS.

Comment - A comparison to other alternative estuarine sanctuaries within
t
'Fe
@iogeographic classification region should be contained in the FEIS.
Concerned whether the proposed sanctuary is the best representative of
the Virginian biogeographic classification. DEIS lacks comparison to
Virginian estuaries in other eight states within this classification.

Response - The process of selecting a representative site for a National
Estuarine Sanctuary is complicated. Within'a biogeographic region as
extensive as the Virginian region, extending over 1,000 miles of coastline
with a wide diversity of estuaries significantly different from each
other, there is no one estuary that "best" represents the region. We use
a system of subcategories and look for estuaries that can represent at
least a portion of the region. The selection of a site also depends
upon State participation, which in turn requires States to contribute 50%
of the Federal grant as a match. This is an additional factor in the
site selection process. Other estuarine sanctuary sites will be established
within the Virginian region.

Comment - EIS should address various.subcategories of the Virginian
biogeographic classification. EIS should also explain which subcategory(ies)
the proposed sanctuary represent(s), and again compare this example to
other estuaries within the biogeographic region.

Response - A description of which subcategory the Narragansett Bay Estuarine
Sanctuary represents has been included in the FEIS. The others are: outer
-banks type estuaries and freshwater dominated estuaries like the Chesapeake Bay.

Comment - If any representatives of the Virginian biogeographic classification
have been submitted in the past, or during the same six-month application
period, these alternative estuarine sanctuaries should be mentioned.

Response - Rhode Island was the first State to propose a site for an
estuarine sanctuary within the Virginian biogeographic region. The only
other site proposed for the Virginian region was the Peconic/Flanders Bay
area of New York. This proposal was withdrawn by.New York in April 1980..
This is mentioned in the FEIS.

Comment -'FEIS shouldevaluate types and levels of permitted recreational.
7c-tirvirTies (determined separately for each site) based.on an assessment
of its ability to support such uses without undue environmental damage or
degradation.

Response - Comment accepted. Information on the levels of recreational
activities permitted has been expanded in the FEIS.

Comment - The HIS should outline the intended research uses,to assure
that proper restrictions and prohibitions are established to protect and
maintain the estuarine ecosystem. A listing of potential research
organizations or agencies, and benefits to the, overall CZM program would
add support to the need for a Narragansett Bay Estuari'ne Sanctuary.

Response Comment accepted. The initial research program, as envisioned
by DEM, has been added i-n the FEIS, which includes the benefits to the
overall CZM program. A refined research progr-am will be developed after
sanctuary establishment.

Comment - The HIS should evaluate the effect on the future environment of
the proposed sanctuary without the implementation of.the proposed action.

Response - Comment accepted. The "No Action" alternative has been added
in the FEIS.

General Services Administration
James G. Whitlo-c-k,--,@'ss-istant.Commissioner, Office of Space Mabagement,
(7/3/80)

Comment Neither the Public Buildings Service nor -the Federal Property Resources
'!Te-rvice of GSA have any substantive comments to make regarding this pr.oposal.

Response - Comment accepted.

STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

Portsmouth Town Council
Carol Zinno, President, Portsmouth, Rhode Island (6/18/80)
(Letter to W. Edward Wood, Director, DEM)

Comment In general , favors the proposed estuarine sanctuary for the
northern end of Prudence Island.

Response Comment accepted.

Comment Opposed to overnight camping and potential fire hazards on
South Prudence and opposed to bussing of people from the southern end to
the northern end of Prudence Island.

Response See General Responses A, B, C, and D.

Comment Concerned with the possibility of need for medical and other
emergency services for those using the sanctuary. Portsmouth cannot be
expected to provide additional services to the island.

Response - Comment accepted. DEM would be responsible for providing
these services.

Comment - No means of insuring that overnight campers would be limited to
the use of "park" grounds only; concerned about threat to private property
from trespassers and rodents.

Response - The DEM field personnel will be responsible for those*persons
using the sanctuary. No camping will be permitted on the north end of
Prudence. Visitors will be informed and boundaries posted to avoid all
private property on the island.

Comment - Bus service from the southern end to the northern end of the
island is unacceptable.

Response - See General Response B.

Comment - Hostel on the southern end of Prudence Island is incomprehensible
and unacceptable.

Response - See General Response A.

Portsmouth Town Council
Carol Zinno, President, Portsmouth, Rhode Island, (7/3/80)

Comment - Given the.small number of permanent residents on Prudence Island,
it is difficult for the town of Portsmouth to justify additional Town
services upon the island. Accordingly, the Bay Islands Park System

must be self-sufficient in fire policy protection and must include
adequate safeguards that existing Town services located upon the island
will not be overutilized.

Response Comment accepted; see General Response D.

Prudence Improvement Association
William Bacon, Jr.., PresidePt., Prudence,Island, Rhode.Island (7/10/8.0)

Comment - Prudence Improvement Association is strongly opposed to overnight-
camping on southern Prudence Island, bussing of people to northern Prudence
Island, and the establishment of a "hostel." ItAs requested that DEM
delete the proposed overnight camping,.bussing, and ".hostel" from any
plans for the Prudence Island portion of the Bay Islands Park System now
being considered.

Response - See.General@Responses A and

Prudence Park Homeowner's Association
Robert Parady, President, Prudence,, Rhode.Island, (6/30/80)

Comment - A multiple use should not interfere with, diminish, or prevent.
the primary purpose of the estuarine sanctuary, which is the long-term
protection of the area for scientific and educational use. The DEM's
plan to transport visitors by van to the north end of the island and
by boat to other sanctu *ary sites is clearly contrary to the primary
purpose of the sanctuaries program. It is a "multiple use" which
would be environmentally dainaging to the areas of the island now in
their natural state. Additionally, this broad recreational.use of
the proposed sanctuary will interfere with the ecosystem and diminish
the "field laboratory" concept of the program.

Response - See General.Responses A and B.

Comment - The Association supports the. establishment of the estuarine
sanctuary'provided: 1) the sanctuary is used only for research and to
provide educational benefits; 2) Public access is limited to existing
modes of publir transportation; 3) Public use is,strictly confined to
maintain the area 0 a natural state for scientific and educational use;
4) DEM provides adequate fire and public safety protection; 5) Overnight
camping is prohibited; and 6) Substantial improvements are made in
DEM's proposed management of the sanctuary area.,

Unless these conditions are met, the Association opposes the present
proposal offered by DEM.

Response - See General Responses A, B, C, and D.

State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Executive Chambers
Bruce Vild, Assistant OCS Coordinator, (6/20/80)

Comment - Possible interference with OCS support activities should be
addressed more fully to prevent confusion and misunderstanding. A
statement should be included that no impacts upon OCS operations are
anticipated from sanctuary designation, or if impacts may occur, an
explanation should be made as to what they are and how they might be
mitigated.

Response - The estuarine sanctuary should not have any impacts on OCS
support activities at the Quonset/Davisville base. Such a statement
appears in the FEIS.

State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Historical Preservation
CommissioF
Eric Hertfelder, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer, (6/18/80)

Comment - Project strongly supported for its potential to conserve both
natural and cultural resources.

.Response Comment accepted.

Comment The DEIS fail@ to address the impact of the sanctuary upon
arcFa-eological resources. We recommend the following changes/additions:

1. The statement on human uses of Narragansett Bay (p. 34) should
begin with prehistoric populations, not with colonial settlement, and
should assess the potential for significant archaeological sites being
present in the sanctuary area.

2. The potential adverse effect of the sanctuary upon archaeological
sites (many of the impacts described on p. 23 are destructive to
archaeological sites) should be assessed and measures to avoid or mitigate
the adverse impacts should be devised.

3. It is possible that multiple uses of the sanctuary will adversely
affect archaeological resources unless the research projects, hunting,
fishing, etc., are carefully monitored under guidelines established to
protect archaeological resources. For this reason, we recommend that the
State Historic Preservation Office review and comment on all proposals
for use, and sit on the Sanctuary Advisory Committee.

4. In the list of organizations consulted, the Rhode Island Historical
Preservation Commission should be listed as a State agency.

Response

1. Information on-prehistoric population has been added to.the
FEIS.

2. Archaeological studies on the nor 'thern end of Prudence, sponsored
by DEM, have already begun and will continue to assess the value of
potential archaeological sites so as to avoid adverse or irreversible
impacts.

3. All-uses of the sanctuary will be monitored,,within the means of
DEM, to protect significant archaeological resources. The State.Historic
Preservation Office will be represented on the Sanctuary' Advisory Committee.

4. Comment accepted; change ha-s been made in the FEIS..

State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Department-of
Administration', Statewide Planning Program
Daniel W. Varin, Chief, Statewide Planning, (6/3/@O)

Comment Strongly supports the designation of North Prudence, Hope and
Patience Islands and surrounding waters as an estuarine sanctuary.

Response - Comment accepted.

Comment Further study needed for proposed bus shuttle service between
the north and south ends of Prudence Island.

Response - See General Response B.

State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantationsi Department of Natural
Resources, Division of Fish and Wildlife
James E. Myers, Senior Wildlife Biologist,

Comment - Very limited access to Hope Island should be considered.
Scheduled and advertised boat travel will greatly increase tile number of
visitors to the island during the nesting.and non-nesting.season.
Scheduled boat travel to Patience Island would create similar problems of
disturbance to the habitat.

Response - There will be no access to Hope Island during the nesting
season and there will be limited access during the rest of the year.

Comment - Hunting not only "appears essential" (page 12) but is essential
to the maintenance of optimal habitat. Tile islands have no natural
population controls except disease and starvation.

Response - Comment accepted.

Comment - General research was proposed, but no studies, projects,
inventories, or suggested studies were incorporated into the plan, except
for the policy statement allowing Fish and Wildlife to continue ongoing
programs.

Response - One of the highest priorities of the sanctuary manager, and
The Sanctuary Advisory Committee will be the development of a research
plan.

Comment - Within the funding proposal, scientific study is stressed, but
no indication of funding level is noted. Even small amounts of funding
for shellfish, bird, and mammal surveys would provide valuable baseline
information to the scientific community.

Response - We concur with'the need for funding for such studies that you
have recommended. Unfortunately, estuarine sanctuary funds cannot be
used for funding specific research projects. The State is expected to
pursue funding for research through such programs as Sea Grant, National
Science Foundation, Environmental Protection Agency, NOAA/OCZM �306 funds,
etc. The Estuarine Sanctuary Program Office will assist the State as
much as possible to secure these needed funds.

Comment - Trained staff and presently-owned equipment from various
div"v-isions and sections within DEM could utilize any additional funding
to complete baseline surveys and not delegated to a park naturalist as
an aside to his primary task of interpretive tours and protection.

Response - Comment accepted. The sanctuary manager's job will not include
doing specific research, but rather to assist qualified researchers in
their endeavors.

Comment - The primary goals of the sanctuary program can be achieved by a
slow expansion of use, combined with necessary research planning and
management. It is my opinion that the education mandate of the Act is
being unduly and incorrectly stressed in the present plan for this fragile
island system.

Response - The State is aware that an estuarine sanctuary is different
from a state park and all usages must be approached in a cautious manner.
Research and education must occur within estuarine sanctuaries. However,
it is the State's prerogative concerning the emphasis it places on each
activity.

State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Department of Transportation
Joseph F. Arruda, Chief Planning Division, (7/3/80)

Comment - No procedures stated in the document for minimization of
impact that the public would have on the sanctuary (potential impacts,
p. 24).

Response - DEM will have personnel in the sanctuary to enforce restrictions
imposed upon the public.

Comment - Pages 6 and 10 of the DEIS have statements that seem to con-
tradict each other regarding field officers that already exist or
that will be hired and trained to enforce restrictions.

Response - Comment accepted and change made to read: "DEM has or
wil hire and train" field personnel.

Town of Abington, Massachusetts
Wilbur G. Hollis, Town Executive Secretary, Abington, Massachusetts,
(7/1/80)

Comment - Opposed to activities that adversely impact the quality of
life presently enjoyed at the island. Adamantly opposed to any proposal
to transport persons into or through the sections where private residences
are situated.

Response - See General Response B.

Comment - No objection to the use of the area on a limited basis for
such activities as nature walks, research and the like. Agreeable
to swimming and picnic area at the South and if those using the facilities
did not encroach on privacy and if their numbers are restricted.

Response - Comment accepted; however, the estuarine sanctuary is totally
separate from the park in the south end of the island. See General
Response A.

STATE INTEREST GROUPS

The Conservation Law Foundation of Rhode Island
John Jewett, (7/17/0)

Comment DEM should make a special effort to explain what visitors to
tFe -northern end of Prudence Island wi.11 and will not find in the way of
facilities and'surroundings. Hopefully OEM is considering a thorough
informational approach including graphic displays, printed materials,
etc.

Response - DEM is planning a.thordugh educational program, located on the
south end of Prudence, with displays and printed materials that will
explain what visitors will find in the.way of facilities and environmental
surroundings on the north end.

Comment - Asks whether a system has been developed to regulate the number
of visitors who will walk along roads or shoreline of Prudence Island
from the south to the north.

Response - There is no way legally to prevent visitors from walking along
the road or shoreline on publicly-owned or controlled property. The
information center on the south end will inform visitors to avoid all
private property on the i.sland..

Comment - Page 12 of the DEIS states that 300 full-time and 1,600 part-
T-17-m-eshellfishers use Narragansett Bay. How many.of these fish around
the islands and how will the sanctuary proposal affect them? 'Would the
boundaries of the sanctuary be.amenable to change to accommodate some of
these needs, once established?

Response - We do not anticipate that the sanctuary proposal will adversely
affect the current level of shellfishing. The boundary out to the 18
foot isobath was selected by DEM to protect the sanctuary area for research
purposes. If DEM decides to change the boundaries later on, hearings
will be held with opportunity for public participation. The number of
full-time and part-time shellfishers who normally fish within the proposed
sanctuary area will be studied as part of the research program.

INDUSTRIAL GROUPS

Atlantic Richfield Companx
Dr. D. W. Chamberlain, Senior Science Advisor, Environmental Sciences,
Los Angeles, California (7/10/80)

Comment - pp 12-13 - Past recreational activities which.will be allowed
to continue, such as fishing, deer hunting, small game and duck hunting,
are not entirely consistent with the stated desire in the proposal to
provide long-term protection for representative, undisturbed estuarine
arc-as.

Response - As you point out, the Estuarine Sanctuary Guidelines encourage
compatible use of the natural@resources available, It, is t,he_poljcy of
the Federal government to encourage States to allow those uses in a
sanctuary that have existed*prior to sanctuary designation provided such
uses do not degrade the natural habitat and environment within the
sanctuary or interfere with basic research. The effects of hunting, and
sport and commercial fishing will be studied and monitored over time to
determine if these public uses significantly alter the natural system
within the sanctuary.

Comment - Suggests that representative undisturbed control areas be se.t
aside and protected by the strict exclusion of impacting activities.
Consideration should be given to reserving Hope Island, allowing no hunting,
fishing, shellfish collection, or other impacting activity, excep-t-for
occasional investigations by qualified scientists because it is one of
the largest wading-bird rookeries in the northeast.

Response - Hope Island will be managed under strict controls. Current
use of the island for small game hunting from October-December will be
permitted to continue. Guided interpretative tours limited to very small
groups will be offered during late summer and early fall. Tile island is
closed to visitors--except qualified scientists with approval by DEM--
during the April 15-July 31 nesting season.

Comment - Consideration should be given to setting aside representative
parcels of the variety of-habitats on Patience Island that are not found
on Hope Island by posting, fencing off, or otherwise restricting public
access to provide control sites to compare use impacts on similar island
environments, provide a source of nursery stock for replenishing undisturbed
habitats, and be of educational use for comparing natural and disturbed
areas.

Response - Comment accepted. In the research program for the sanctuary,
the idea of setting aside certain areas and habitats for research scientists
to use for contrcl sites will be implemented.

Comment - Suggests changing the title of DEIS to "Narragansett Bay
Estuarine Sanctuary and Environmental Management Area."

Response - Since the Estuarine Sanctuary Program is specifically authorized
and titled by statute, adding "Environmental Management Area" to the title
would be confusing and inappropriate.

Comment - Suggests strengthening Part I of the DEIS by adding a description
of Fo-wthe proposed area agrees with the Arcadian or Virginian biogeographic
classifications and reflects regional differentiation as required in
Section 921.4 of the Estuarine Sanctuary Guidelines.

Response - Comment accepted. A brief description has been added to
FEIS.

RESIDENTS

John Antaya, Attleboro, Massachusetts
(6/30/80)

Comment - Opposed to opening the north and south ends of Prudence Island
to commercial traffic.

Response - See General Response B.

Charlotte R. and Daniel Barrett, Prudence Island, RI
(6/29/80)

Comment - Would prefer maximum protection for our environment, close
restrictions on use by people, sanctuary status for the north and
south ends of Prudence Island, primary research and study programs,
no camping or campsites at all, restricted passage through private
property and no bussing or public vans at all.

Response - See General Responses A, B, and C.

Beverly and Rick Bowen, Prudence Island, Rhode Island
(6/28/80)

Comment - Favor the establishment of the Estuarine Sanctuary for research
and study programs, as long as sanctuary standards are enforced.

Response - Comment accepted.

Comment - Object to the formation of the park with its associated
influx of people and busses. The roads and fire and police departments
are inadequate to handle the normal summer crowd, let alone additional
visitors to the park. Strongly oppose camping and campfires.

Response - See General Responses A, B, C, and D.

Donald D. Deignan, Prudence Island, Rhode Island
(6/30/80)

Comment - Insists that no public busses or vans be permitted passage
through private property. Article V of the U.S. Constitution supports
this. Legal problems relating to personal and property liability, as
well as damage to contiguous environmental resources strengthen this
restriction.

Response - See General Response B.

Comment - Use of the sanctuary should be limited to research. Campsites
should not be permitted. Use of the sanctuary by tile public should
be closely monitored by appropriate personnel.

Response - Comment accepted; see General Response C.

Margaret and Louis DelPapa, Pawtucket, Rhode Island
(no date)

Comment - Questions the adequacy of the proposed staff of the Bay Islands
Park to maintain the area, supervise visi-tors, and enforce the law.
Feels thka area should be patrolled constantly and maintained daily.

Response - Iinformati@on regarding supervision of visitors, patrolling the
area, and enforcing the law has been added to the FEI,S-

Comment - Conterned that if camping is per"itted on South Prudence,
campers will also camp out on North Prudence if there is no room at the
south end or if their permits expire.

2esporlst - See General Response C.

Comment - Cautions that people who visit the park at the south end
and are then transported to the sanctuary at North Prudence will treat
the sanctuary as a recreational park, rather than an area designed
for quiet nature study.

Response - It will be explained in advance to all visitors to the
sanctuary that the guided tours are strictly for educational purposes
and will be carefully controlled.

Comment - The sanctuary should be kept as a place where people come
with a purpose- nature study or guided tours. These people will
respect the area and not abuse it.

Response - Comment accepted.

Judith DiPrete, Prudence Island, Rhode Island
(6/29/8UT--

Comment - Believes that the proposed Bay Islands Park and the Estuarine
Sanctuary are incompatible. The park will attract recreationists
rather than conservationists. Increased activity of recreational
boaters will lead to pollution of-the south end as 111as already happened
at Potters Cove in North Prudence. It is unlikely that -the state will
be able to adequately fund the proposed park for proper and necessary
management.

Response - See General Response A.

Comment - Supports the.use of the Estuarine.Sanctuary for research
and study programs with maximum environmental protection ofthe.island.
Opposes overnight camping, the hostel, and tra.nsporting people between
South and North Prudence. The south end of Prudence should be.-subject
to Estuarine Sanctuary standards with tighter control on people use
of the area.

Response See General Responses A, B, and C..

Leonard R. DiPrete - Duncan B. Campbell Co, Providence, Rhode Island,
7 /-3-/8-07-
Comment - Would like to see the former Navy land o n'the southern
part of Providence Island maintained in its natural state. I am
against the idea of bussing-campers.

Response - See General Responses A, B, and C.

Mary Drew, Prudence Island, Rhode Island
- (6/30/80)

Comment - Prudence Island is a wonderful, quiet and peaceful place
to live, and should remain that way. There are many other places
that people can go to picnic, camp, etc Keep Prudence Island as a
sanctuary, so those who respect the lan; and it's natural beauty
can enjoy it.

Response - Comment accepted. See General Response C.

Marcy Dunbar, Prudence Island, Rhode Island
(6/29-/8-OT-

Comment - Does not wa.nt a State Park on,Prudence island. If it has
to be, leave it in its natural state.

Response See General Response A.

Comment Prefer maximum protection of the environmment, restrictions
on people use, no camping-, no bussing or public vans.

Response - See General Responses B and C.

Barbara A. Ellsworth, Prudence Island, Rhode Island
(6/28/80)

Comment - How is it that hunting will be all.owed.in a sanctuary,-whereas
Webster's dictionary defines a sanctuary as an area where birds and
animals are sheltered, and may not be hunted or otherwise molested?

Response - DEM has always permitted hunting on the island, and it is
carefully regulated. Hunting is permitted to maintain healthy populations
on the island. The island usually cannot support large populations. See
General Response C.

Comment - Inquires whether anyone has really done an extensive and
intensive study of our wildlife? There is a definite environmental impact
by the publicity generated by this project, having a detrimental effect
on our wildlife.

Response - bEM's Division of Fish and Game has conducted extensive studies
oTTF-ewildlife within the sanctuary and has data available. The wildlife
in the sanctuary will continue to be monitored to determine whether use
of the sanctuary is having a detrimental impact.

Comment - I would ask, rather plea, that further attention and continued
H-udies be applied before approval is granted.

Response - Comment accepted. It is not felt that various scientific studies
are nee7ed prior to sanctuary approval.

The Farnham Family, Prudence Island, Rhode Island
(7/5/80)

Comment - Prefer to leave the south end of Prudence Island in its
naturT state, no parks, no campsites.

Response - See General Responses A and C.

Cecilia S. and Daniel R. Finn, Prudence Island, Rhode Island
(6/29/80)

Comment - Concerned with the plan for a park on the south end of the
E
is ATand with campsites and ferry transportation and transportation
from the north end of the island by means of a van and ferry. Feel
that the south end of Prudence Island should be a sanctuary too.

Response - See General Responses A, B, and C.

Mrs. Archie Friswell, Prudence Island, Rhode Island
(6/29/80)

Comment - Favor maximum environmental protection of Prudence, Hope,
@-ndPatience Islands. Oppose campsites, busses, vans and invasion by
people of, the south or north ends of Prudence Island.
Response - See General Responses A, B, and C.

Jean P. and Don P. Friswell, Prudence Island, Rhode Island
(6/29/80)

Comment - Favor maximum environmental protection of Prudence, Patience,
and Hope Islands.

Response - Comment accepted.

Sandy Fyfe, Pawtucket, Rhode Island
(7/1/80)

Comment - Supports the formation of the Bay Island Park.

Response - Comment accepted.

Comment - Strongly opposes the maximum number of people the State
feels the Park can accomodate. Recommends a maximum of 200 people
at a time.

Response - See General Responses A and B.

Comment - Sanctuary standards should be enforced wherever appropriate.
Opposes camping, the formation of a hostel and plans for transportation
on the island.

Response - See General Responses A and B.

Wallace E. Guertin, Prudence Island, Rhode Island
(7/5/80)

Comment - As a hiker, bird-lover, and gardener, I beg of you to keep
Prudence as close to its natural state as possible for people who
really love nature.

Response - Comment accepted.

Comment - Favors close restriction on people-use, no buses, vans or
trucks over private roads, sanctuary standards enforced for both
north and south ends of Prudence, noc amping or campsites, maximum
protection of the environment, and use of the area primarily for
research.

Response - See General Responses A, B, and C.

Marvret and Robert Heile, Prudence Island, Rhode Island
(7/30/80)

Comment - Favors making the estuarine sanctuary available for research
programs.

.Response Comment accepted.

Comment Recommends limiting the number of people using the sanctuary
to one boatload per day.

.Response - See General Response B.

Comment - Believes that the plans for the park are not compatible
with the uses of the sanctuary. For example, camping and its associated
fire hazard, the hostel, and the proposed bus service seem to conflict
with the sanctuary concept.

Response See General Responses A, B, and C.

Comment Department of Environmental Management has riot adequately
considered the problems of iIncreased usage of the island, such as,
people missing,the boat, emergency medical problems, and increased
need for police and fire protection.

Response - See General Response D.

Richard E. Jenness, Lynn, Massachusetts
(6/30/80)

Comment - Desires for the island are maximum protection of the
environment, limited people, and certai-nly no bussing or public
vans.

Response - See General Response B.

Geraldine and Martin Johnson, Prudence Island, Rhode Island
(no date)

Comment - Support maximum protection of the environment, the use of
the sanctuary primarily for research and study programs, close
restrictions on people-use, enforcement of sanctuary standards for
north and south ends of Prudence,-and restricting@passage through
private property on Prudence to emergency and support vehicles.
Oppose campsites and camping, and buses or public vans,

Response - See General Responses A, B, and C.

Ruth E. Just, Providence, Rhode Island
(6/30/FOT

Comment - Supports the establishm ent ofvan.Estuarine Sanctuary on the
north end of Prudence Island, Patience, and Hope Islands.

Response - Comment accepted.

Comment - Opposes several elements of the-park proposal., including
overnight camping and bussing between@north and south ends of
Prudence Island. Fire is also a hazard due to the increased number
of visitors. Recommends that only day camps with adequate patrols
be permitted in the south end of'Prudence.

Response - See.General Responses A, B, and C.:

Janette C. Korchinsky, Prudence Island, Rhode Island
(7121W)

Comment - Provide maximum protection of.the environment and place
very close restriction on the people who use it.

Response - See General Responses A and C.

Mary B. and Douglas H. Lawrence, Prudence, Rhode Island
(7/1/80)

Comment Proposal for creation of an estuarine sanctuary for-Prudence,
Patience, and Hope Islands is excellent, providing changes and@adjustments
are made in planning, management, and operati,on'as.outlined- in the DEIS.

Response Comment accepted.

Comment The impact of an estuarine sanctuary on middle private.Prudence
seems favorable if minor changes are made.

Response Comment accepted.

Comment The Bay Islands Park at South Prudence is not compatible with
the estuarine sanctuary.

Response See General Response A.

Comment - Opposes camping, the hostel, and public van or hijs access to
N6'r-thPrudence. Sanctuary standards should be enforced at South Prudence,
the maximum number of visitors should be lowered, and park activities
should be restricted to the park area.

Response - See General Responses A, B, and C.

Comment - Page 6, item 2 - ...uses of these islands mwist re3spect and
harmonize with the natural environment. Who decides which uses and
activities are compatible with the environmental capabilities of the
Island?

Response - The Department of Environmental Management (DEM) and the
Sanctuary Advisory Committee, working together, will determine the uses
and activities that are compatible with the island's environmental capa-
bi-lities. Each island will be treated individually.

Comment - Page 8, item b - South Prudence is described as durAble. Not
so! Shuttle bus is proposed through the fragile-private-middle sanctified
Prudence. Not a compatible plan. Who is the DEM Assistant Director for
Operations, and what are the work programs to be submitted to him/her?
What are the lines of decisionmaking and authority? Who determines what
research is to be done? Who determines if research is damaging the
sanctuary? Who decides on the activities compatible with sanctuary
guidelines? To whom does the sanctuary manager report?

Response - DEM will administer all of the programs within the estuarine
sanctuary. Basically, the sanctuary manager will be hired by DEM to !nake
decisions on.use of the sanctuary, but he/she also will be responsible to
the Sanctuary Advisory Committee (SAC). SAC will review all research
proposals before they are sent to DEM and offer guidance and advice to
the sanctuary manager. The divisions within DEM that are responsible for
wildlife and fisheries management, enforcement, and forestry will assist
the sanctuary manager as needed.

Comment How long does this sanctuary status last?

Response The estuarine sanctuary is planned to preserve the area in perpetuity
for research and education.

Comment What prevents the sanctuary from reverting to other uses?

Response The Federal government has invested money for the purpose of
maintaining the estuarine sanctuary in perpetuity. If the sanctuary is
changed to another land use, the Federal government could request its
money back.

Comment - Page 10, item 2 - The Sanctuary Advisory Committee should be
organized now.

Response Comment accepted.

Comment - Page 10, item 3 - Wan t more details on enforcement. How many
field offices, wfiere and when will they be stationed?

Response - Details are covered in the FEIS.

Comment - Page 12, item c - Who in DEM will monitor activit1es? There is
confri-ct on policy'of pets, radios, and other electronic devices between
the sanctuary guidelines and the park gui,delines. How,will they.be
resolved?

Response - Pets, radios, and,other electronic devices will not be allowed
_Wi@thin the sanctuary* Other activities will be close*ly,regulated by the-
sanctuary manager and his/her staff.

Comment - Page 12, paragraph 3 - Where will recreational boating be
relocated if it causes significant adverse impacts.?
Response - If boating in Potter Cove is restricted or, prohibited, boaters
will not be "relocated," they will use other bay areas that are not
restricted.

Comment - Page 13, item I - Any camping is not.compatible with.the
sanctuary. Furthermore, the publication entitled "The Bay Islands Park:
A Marine Recreation Plan for the State of Rhode Island," put out,by the
Coastal Resources Center of the University of Rhode Island in 1976., states
that sewage disposal,is difficult due to the hardpan subsoil.and sewage
contamination of limited and shallow groundwater becomes increasingly
real with continued'development. In addi tionilpge 29 of the DEIS states
that freshwater supplies are limited--another argument against_1camping on
the islands. The,URI report mentioned earlier describes Patience Is-land
and North Prudence as "interdependent, and to acquire Ione for recreational
and conservational purposes without similarly protecting the other makes
little practical.or aesthetic sense." The,proposal for Patience Island
does not suit sanctuary purposes, so no camping should be permitted'here.

Response -,See General Responses C and,1D.

Comment - Supports the sanctuary proposal for Hop@e_ Island...

Response - Comment accepted. However, the proposal also includes Patience
island and the northern end of Prudence Island..

Comment - Page 13, item d - Connections from south to north Prudence and
t
'Fe-
other islands should be by ferry only. Passengers should be met and
escorted by a trained ranger.

Response -,See.General Response B.-.
Comment - Page 17, item b - Sanctuary Advisory Committee should be able
to review proposed research programs in advance.

Response - Comment accepted. Reviewing research proposals is one of the
roles designated for the committee.

Comment - Page 17, item b, part 1 - What happens after three years when
management funds expire?

Response - One-half of the management and operation funds will be provided
7y the Federal government for five years, after which the State will
appropriate all funds to maintain the sanctuary for research and education.

Comment - Page 18 - Not selecting South Prudence as part of the sanctuary
was a mistake.

Response - The Bay Islands Park Plan called for South Prudence to become
the hub for the water accessible elements of the Bay Islands Park.

Comment - Page 19, item 4 - The statement, "Establishment of estuarine
sanctuary would provide financial support which would assist in the start
up of Bay Islands Park," seems to conflict with Guidelines, Section
921.5b, which reads, "There shall be no effort to balance or optimize
uses of an estuarine sanctuary on economic or other bases..."

Response - Funds provided by the Federal government are for the establishment
of the sanctuary, not the park. The statement on page 19 is misleading
and has been omitted in the FEIS. The Guidelines reference is on using
the sanctuary for economic gain and is not relevant to the issue raised
in the comment.

Comment - Page 21, item 2 - states that southern Prudence "will support
facilities and activities incompatible with the primary purposes of the
sanc'tuary." Page 27 reads "the proposed estuarine sanctuary would be
managed as part of the park system. The objectives of these two programs
are compatible and mutually supportive." These statements appear to
conflict. Modifying the South Prudence Park proposal could resolve it.

Response - Comment accepted. Language has been changed in the FEIS.

Comment - Page 21 - The present park plan should be altered to provide
more effective barriers between the park and the rest of Prudence Island.

Response See General Response A.

Comment Page 24 - Construction of boardwalks should be done only after
careful study of the impact on local wildlife.

Response - Comment accepted.
Comment - Page 25 - What are the Rhode Island holding tank laws?

Response - DEM should be contacted for information about State requirements
for holding tanks.

Comment - The fire danger from campers is enormous and not compatible
with sanctuary guidelines.

Response - See General Response C.

Comment - What are the plans to prevent alcohol and drug use in the park?

Response - There will be rangers on the site and enforcement agents
available to control the use of alcohol and drugs within the sanctuary.

Comment - Page 25, item 2 the effect of the park and estuari,ne.s,anct.uary
on the Town of Portsmouth has not been adequately-explored.

Response - See General Response D. The FEIS has been.modified to show in
greater detail what the impact will be.

Comment Not enough copies of the DEIS were distributed to-local residents.
No written public notice of the June 25th public hearing at Portsmouth
was posted on Prudence Island with the name of a contact person, as required
by guidelines.

Response - Adequate notice of the availability of copies was given.
Copies of the DEIS were distributed at the public,hearing. Public notice
of the hearing was published in area newspapers and in the Town Hall at
Portsmouth.

I.omment - DEM has been careless about informing the public of its plans
until they were all made. DEM should make public the survey conducted in
April 1930 among the homeowners and taxpayers o'n the island.-

Response - DEM has tried to communicate with the residents of Prudence
Island and Portsmouth. A public information meeting on the proposed
sanctuary was held in Portsmouth on March 12, 1980, and' some residents
from Prudence attended. Other meetings on the Bay Islands Park Plan have
been held. An interest survey was taken among island residents in April.
The results are available from DEM to those who inquire.

Dorothy W. Little, Prudence Island, Rhode Island
__T7/l/80)

Comment - Favors the maximum protection of the 'north and south ends
of Prudence Island and supports the use of the area for research
programs. Would like both the north and south ends of Prudence Island
included in the sanctuary.

Response Comment accepted. See General Response A.

Comment Opposes campsites and camping due to fire hazard.

Response See General Response C.

Comment - Objects to bussing and the use of public vans.

Response - See General Response B.

Judith W. Little, Prudence Island, Rhode Island
(7/2/80)

Comment - Requests the Estuarine Sanctuary Program be developed cautiously
and only after much deliberation.

Response - Comment accepted.

Comment - Reluctantly accepts the presence of the park, but sees no
reason for bussing between the park a.nd the sanctuary in the north
end.

Response See General Response B.

Comment Concerned that allowing camping in South Prudence will attract
young people who might leave the park area and enter private property
or become intoxicated.

Response - See General Response C.

Jennifer Lowe, Prudence Island, Rhode Island
(6/29V80Y--

Comment - North end of Prudence Island should be left in its natural
state; no camping on the island, bussing and tours should also be
ruled out.

Response - See General Responses A, B, and C.

Kenneth H. Lowe, Prudence Island, Rhode Island
(7/2/FOT-

Comment - Favors the establishment of the Estuarine Sanctuary for
research purposes only.

Response - The program, as established by Federal law, is both for environmental
education.and research.

Comment - Strongly opposes the bussing and ferrying of all visitors,
as well as overnight camping.

Response - See General Responses B and C.

Comment - Page 2 of the DEIS states that o'nie of the research purposes
of the sanctuary is to serve "as a natural control ... that will aid in
evaluation of the impact's of human activities dn e-stuarine &.osystems."
If people are allowed to use the sanctuary, what happens to the re-
liability of the sanctuary as a natural control?

Response - The primary purpose of estuari-ne sanctuaries is to provide
long-terin protection for natural-areas so that-they may be usedfor
scientific and educational purposes. Controlled multiple use, under
close supervision will be encouraged to-the extent that such use is
compatible with the primary sanctuary purpose. The HIS addresses this
issue.

Marjorie Nuttall, Prudence Island, Rhode Island
(7/T/80)

Comment - Concern centers on the impact of daily vis-itors o*n the
already limited water supply on Prudence Island. Questions the
adequacy of the septic system at the abandoned Naval Base to-meet
the needs of the additional visitors-to the i'sland.,

Response - See General Response B.

Comment - Are there-any provisions in the Estuarine,Sanctuary/B-ay
Islands Park proposal which would mandate the di-scointinUanco of the
program if negative effects such as water shortages or disruption
of wildlife habitat result?

Response - It is not anticipated that these problems would occur
such an extent that the Estuarine Sanctuary Prolgram would be.dis-
continued. Close monitoring will detect any disturbances before-
they become disruptive. There are provisions for further regulating use
activities if they are having negative impacts.

Eric and Charlotte Olson. West Barrin ton, Rhode Island

.Comment Supports the use of the sanctuary for research.

Response Comment accepted.'

Comment Opposes campsites and camping and bussi-ng orthe use of-vans.- -
Response See General Responses B"arid C.

Grafton and Audrey Rice, Pru dence Island, Rhode Island
(no date)

Comment - The proposals of the DEM seem to be in direct conflict with
the concept of maintaining an estuarine sanctuary - higher priority
on a park system rather than the basic concept of an estuarine sanctuary.

Response - See General Responses A, B, C, and D.

Linda Rice, Prudence Island, Rhode Island

Comment - Supports creation of the sanctuary for environmental research.

Response - Comment accepted, but will also include environmental education.

Comment - Would like to keep Prudence Island unblemished by commercial
enterprises and tourists attractions. Opposes camping and campsites
on Prudence island due to the litter and disturbances caused by tourists
in residential areas.

Response - The Estuarine Sanctuary would not allow commercial enter-
prises. See General Response C.

David and Mary Sarg nt, Prudence Island, Rhode Island
(6/30/80)

Comment - Supports,the fonnatio.n of the Estuarine Sanctuary.

@@ons@e - Comment accepted.

Comment - Opposes the grandiose plans of the Rhode Island DEM for the
development of parks on the north and south ends of Prudence Island.

Response See General Response A.

Comment Objects to overnight camping and the proposed hostel on the
south end due to the risk of fire. High winds and inadequate fire-
fighting facilities increase the danger of fire.

Response - See General Responses A, C, and D.

Comment - Oppose the conveyance of visitors (by bus or van) from
Southern Prudence to the north end of the island.

Response See General Response,B.

Comment Recommends that Southern Prudence be subject to sanctuary
standards or el.se remain a separate entity-with no 1-tnk to Northern
Prudence, except for emergency vehicles.

Response See General Response A.

Woody Sargent, Prudence Island, Rhode Island
(6/30/80)

Comment No camping or vehicles should'be allowed on the'north end
of Prudence or Patience Islands. Proposed park in'the south end of
Prudence should be used for serious overnight campers only, with no
bussing or public vans used to transport visitors from north to south.

Response - See General Responses A,@B, and C.@

Captain and Mrs. Manuel Sausa, Prudence Island, Rhode Island
(6/30/80:)

Comment Opposes camping or campsites and the use of buses or'vans.

.Response See General Responses B and C.

Comment Believes that the prohibitive cost of ferry service will dis-
courage large families from using the park.

Response - See General Responses A and B. Consideration is being
given to not changing any fare for trips to the sanctuary. Other
fares are planned to be inexpensive.

Albert R. and Lillian B. Sims, Prudence Island, Rhode Island
6 7 _29-/ UT_

Comment - Disturbed by the State of Rhode Island to establi'sh
"park" arrangements at the north and south ends of Prudence par-
ticularly those proposals that would make at'cess to the Island easy'
establish campsites, provide transportation around and/or through t4
Island with possible invasion of private property. Prefer estuarine,
sanctuaries at both ends of Prudence Island'.

R4@ponse'- See General R..esponses A, B,-'and C.-

.36

Comment - State should see to it that shellfish laws are rigidly
enforced.

Response - The Rhode Island Departi-iient of Environmental Management
is responsible for finFishing and shellfish activities and enforce-
ment, and is attempting to do the best job that can be done.

James T. Starke, Prudence Island, Rhode Island
( 6 / 29/

Comment - Favors the establishment of the Estuarine Sanctuary to main-
tain Prudence Island in an undisturbed natural state.

Response Comment accepted.

Comment Adamantly opposes the introduction of camping and tourists
to the island. The police department is already undermanned and
the beaches already littered with debris from campers. Increased
camping would aggravate the situation.

Response - The issue of having adequate staff to patrol the islands
and control people's use of the area is discussed in the FEIS. See
General ;Responses C and D.

Frederick and Margaret Stevenson, Prudence Island, Rhode Island
(6/30/80)

Comment - Supports the proposed estuarine sanctuary.

Response - Comment accepted.

Comment - Recommend limiting th2 numbers of people, hunters, and
hunting areas.

Response - See General Response C.

Comment - Opposes bussing as proposed in the DEIS.

Response - See General Response B.

Comment - Recommend an annual sanctuary newsletter to be distributed
describing ongoing research and knowledge gained at the sanctuary.

Response - Your suggestion of a newsletter for the proposed Narragansett Bay
estuarine sanctury is a good one and will be considered by the Sanctuary
Advisory Committee. A newsletter on all of -the National Estuarine Sanctuaries
is issued several times a year and distributed to all sanctuary managers
which describes research activities at the various estuarine sanctuaries
across the Nation. Copies of this newsletter will be available from
the sanctuary manager.

Grace Scott, Attleboro, Massachusetts
(6/30/80)

Comment - Does not want the formation of the Estuarine Sanctuary to
change the idyllic, rural atmosphere of Prudence Island.

Response - Comment accepted.

Comment - Concerned about camping and the fire hazard of campfires.
Questions whether there will be enough maintenance and patrolling of
the north and south ends of Prudence Island so that public transpor-
tation will not interfere with the peace and tranquility of the area.

Response - See General Responses B and C.

Constance William, Prudence Island, Rhode ISland
(6/30/80)

Comment - Recommends close restrictions on people-use. Opposes overnight
camping of both the southern and northern end of Prudence Island,
opposes the use of busses or public vans.

Response - See General Responses B and C.

Comment - Believes that sanctuary standards should be enforced at
both north and south ends of Prudence Island.

Response - See General Responses A, B, and C.

Dudley A. Williams, Bristol, Rhode Island
(7/7/80)

Comment - Include the southern end of Prudence Island, Dyer Island,
and the waters about and between them in a Marine - Estuarine Sanctuary
Proposal for Narragansett Bay.

Response - The points made in the letter are well taken. The boundaries
of the sanctuary could be expanded at a later time, if the State so
desired. The expansion of the boundaries would involve more admini-
stration procedures including public hearings.

Carol K. Willin, Prudence Island, Rhode Island
(6/30/80)

Comment - Supports the proposed Estuarine Sanctuary as an important
educational and research facility.

Response - Comment accepted.

Comment - Concerned that the proposed management personnel will not
be adequate for the type of public access encouraged by the develop-
inent of tile park on South Prudence. Urges increased enforcement
personnel and close restrictions on all camping.

Response - See General Response C. The HIS discusses the adequacy
- personnel.
of sanctuary management

Comment - The threat of fire is due to the high winds in the area.
Campsites on South Prudence will add to the risk, particularly because
the prevailing winds flow along the axis of the island.

Response - See General Responses A and C.

Comment - Opposes any bus or van service connecting North and South
Prudence, particularly because it would use private roads.

@@ons@e - See General Response B.

Barbara and Charles 14. Worcester, Prudence Island, Rhode Island
(6/29/80)

Comment - Opposes a hostel, campsite, buses, vans, cars, or any other
surface vehicle used to transport anyone from a park to a sanctuary.

Response See General Responses A a'nd B.

Comment No impact study has been made on the central section of the
Island. No thorough mention of sewage, Water pressure, road repair,
personal.injury, invasion of private property, or mid-Island police
protection.

Response - See General Respon'se D.

Cynthia M. Worcester, Prudence Island, Rhode Island
(7/1/80)

Comment - Camping on the south end'of Prudence Island creates a major
fire hazard. Concerned that campers may roam wherever they choose
on the Island.

Response - See General Responses A and C.

Comment - Prudence Island had always been a home for birds and deer,
and would like it to remain that way.

Response - Comment accepted.

John Zompa, Prudence Island, Rhode Island
(7/l/80)

Comment'- Supports enforcement of sanctuary standards-for the-nort4
and south ends of Prudence Island-. 'Opposes camping-and-campsites.

Response - See General Responses A and C.

PUBLIC HEARING

Listed below are comments and responses to persons that made statements
at the public hearing in Portsmouth, Rhode Island, on June 25, 1980.

Audubon Society of Rhode Island
Alfred Hawkes

Comment - The project and the impact statement are excellent.

Response - Comment accepted.

Comment - It is unclear who will supervise the management of the sanctuary
in DEM. There are some questions to be addressed in the FEIS. Who will
monitor and coordinate and fund the educational and research projects?
Who will handle multiple use conflicts?

R-esponse - The DEM Assistant Director for Operations, Frank Geremia,
wilT -have ultimate management responsibility for overseeing the estuarine
sanctuary. He may have the sanctuary manager report directly to him or
to one of his division chiefs. The sanctuary manager will monitor,
coordinate, and seek funds for research and educational projects. He/she
will be advised in these tasks by the Sanctuary Advisory Committee which
will also assist in resolving multiple use conflicts.

Comment - Bus service from the south end of the island is not recommended
because the south end of the island is able to endure intensive use,
whereas the north end must be protected. The people that use the south
end of the island will not be interested in the north end and will be
bored. Access to Patience and North Prudence should be by ferry. Each
ferry should be met by a naturalist who will direct them into a program
that will not give them the freedom to cause trouble.

Response - See General Response B.

Comment - Potter Cove should be limited. It is overcrowded in the summer.
There should be a limited number of moorings and the length should be
restricted. There should be no camping allowed from boats that are
moored.

Response - Comment accepted. As part of the management program for the
sanctuary, the extent to which Potter Cove is used for boating and mooring T
will be evaluated for potential adverse effects. Camping on North Prudence
will be prohibited.

Comment - There should be a limit to how intensively the,areas.used for
educational purposes. Extended educational stays Would eventually have
an impact on the area, because of, the limited water supply, soil compaction
wildlife disruption - spectic and thus, ground water polltion.
u
There will need to be some carefully evised constraints on uses.

Response - Comment accepted. See General,Responses Cand D. Use. of the
sanctuary for educational purposes will be' controll to avoid.adverse,
impacts on water supply, soil compaction, and disruptio-n of wildlife.

Coalition of Coastal Commiunities
David Strauss, Executive Director

Comment -- The purpose of the Coalition is to protect the resources,of
Narragansett Bay and the surrounding communities. The 'surrounding coastal
cities and towns will benefit from-the establishment of the sanctuary.
The Coalition urges that the problems the residents of Portsmouth have
with the estuarine sanctuary proposal be worked out to t.he. satisfaction
of the community, DEM, and NOAA.

Response Comment accepted.

Comment The location of the sanctuary is,important. Scientific research
on marine pollution and the interface where pollut'el waters ineet clean'
waters may provide assistance in solving water pollution problems.

Response - Comment accepted.
Comment - The Coalition recommends a committee be created for t he' planning
and premanagement stages of the Bay Islands Park System and the Sanctuary
Program. This would allow for a more coordinated effort.to meet the
needs of parties and alleviate impacts.

Response - A Sanctuary Advisory Committee will be created to assist DEM
with the planning for and operat.ion:of the estuarie sanctuary.so as to
provide for maximum utilization,Of- the- natural -resources for-research
and education. Coordination bet ween the., anctuary and the Bay Islands
Park System will be handled by the Assistdnt'Director for Operations in
DEM.

Comment The proposed sanctuary should be used in its maximum capacity
as a marine research center.

Response The degree of ,use as a. marine research center. wil.1 depend upon
the sanctuary, manager'-s albility to attrat research funds and scientists'
to the, sanctuary. This. will -be on the -basic functions of the sanctuary.-

Louis E. DelPapa, Prudence Islander

Comment It is important that the sanctuary be established. He agrees
with what Mrs. Coxe said and agrees With the Rhode Island Audubon Society.
Islanders are concerned that there will not be enough staff assigned to
properly mananage the South Prudence, North Prudence and Patience Islands.
Is there going. to be bussing to the north end of the island?

Response - DEM will assign sufficient staff to manage the estuarine
sanctuary. Regarding the south end of Prudence anti bussing to the north
j
end, see General Responses A and B.

Mark Goldbererg, Environmentalist

Comment -Supports the establishment of the sanctuary.

Comment accepted.

Comment Opposes the hostel on the south end of Prudence Island and the
bus service.

Response - See General Responses A and B.

Albert Huftalen

Comment The 18' mark is bad for fishermen.

Response See response to Richard Brochu's comment (Rhode Island
Fisherman's Association). Establishment of the sanctuary will benefit
fishermen by safeguarding the habitat for aquatic life.

Mary Brown Lawrence, Prudence Park Association

Comment - The number of campsites on Prudence Island should be limited.

Response - Comment accepted. There will be no campsites on North Prudence.
See General Response C.

Comment Will there by any effort to balance uses in the sanctuary?

Response The primary uses of the sanctuary will be for research and
education. Other uses will be allowed only if they are compatible with
these primary purposes. 'The Sanctuary Advisory Committee and sanctuary
manager wil.1 decide which uses are compatible.

Comment - Has anyone done an environmental impact assessment on the
effects of the proposal on the middle of Prudence Island?

Response - Your point is well taken. The FEIS has taken this into account.

T. W. Lyons, Jr.

Comment'- -In Appendix II, hunting is not listed as an a cceptable use of
the sanctuary. Is this an honest-oversight or is hunting restricted?

Response - The omission of hunting in the chart in Appendix I I listing
proposed activities in the Bay Islands Park System was an .oversight.
Hunting will be allowed to continue on all three islands as long as it
is compatible with the primary sanctuary purposes.

Portsmouth Town Council
Carol Zinno, President

Comment7- The Town of Portsmouth is genet-ally in favor of@the sanctuary.
It would be nice if,the area could be left as-is. Since'that is-not
possible, they are willing to work with the State in harmony.

Response Comment accepted.

Comment Overnight camping on Prudence Island is not acceptable. Bussing
people to the northern end of the island is unacceptable as is the
establishment-of a "hostel."

Response See General Responses A and B.

Comment It would be difficult for the Portsmouth Volunteer Fire Department
to provide protection on Prudence Island for fire or other emergencies.
The proposed ferry service appears to be inadequate to evacuate people in
an emergency. There appears to be no way for limiting campers to-"park"
grounds. The.one-person Prudence Island Police Department cannot handle
the problem of "wandering" campers. The residents will have to deal with
the dust, hazards, and noise of 16 busses every day which is undue
suffering.

Response - See General Responses B, C,- and D.

Rhode Island Ffsherman's Association
Richard S. Brochu

Comment - The 18' mark restriction is of concern to the fishermen. Potters
Cove and Conimicut Point are good fishing places. If they restrict that,
they will restrict fishing totally in'the bay.

Response - The 18' depth around the islands in the sanctuary was selected
to define the sanctuary boundary, hot to restrict fishingi The1wo-areas
mentioned in the comment are outside the boundary, and not affected by
the sanctuary (assuming Potters Cove was referred to and not Potter Cove
which is within the boundary).

Rhode Island Lobsterman Association
Thomas Hall

Comment - The chart on page 39 is incorrect. The commercial finfishing
trawling area is incorrect. It does not include Pine Hill Bend which is
a traditional finfishing area. The document also states that the south
end of Prudence Island marks the north end of the lobsters' summer
migration up the bay. This is totally untrue. They migrate as far
north as Conimicut Point. They also migrate up into Marco Bay.

Response - The FEIS has been written to provide accurate information on
finfish trawling and lobster migration.

Comment - Shellfishing in the area may be shut off within the 18 foot
boundary at anytime and they are concerned. They would like an agreement
that the lobstering around Hope Island will be allowed to continue. They
want to be assured that they will be allowed to fish the way their
forefathers did.

Response - DEM regulates shellfishing now and will continue to do so, in
the best interests of all of the people in the State. Sanctuary status
will not alter DEM's present responsibility.

Rhode Island Shellfishermen's Association, Inc.
John Moran, Director

Comment - If the sanctuary is established within the 18' area of the
water, would permits for aquaculture in the area be continued?

Response - Existing permits for aquaculture would be continued. New
applications for aquaculture permits will be considered on their merits.

Comment Who has management jurisdiction? What.will be changed?

Response DEM has management jurisdiction. Shellfishing regulations
will not be changed providing the method used will not interfere with
the primary purposes of the sanctuary--education and research.

Comment - Fishermen want to have continued access from the shore to the
18' marker as historically has been the case.

Response This access will not change.
Comment 'He would rather have the State completely run the sanctuary
with no Federal influence or money.

Response - Without Federal matching funds, the State would not be able to
acquire Patience Island. The State, however, owns and manages the
sanctuary with minimal Federal influence.

Save The Bay
Trudy Coxe, Executive Director

Comment - Narragansett Bay is Rhode I.sland's greatest -natural and-economic
resource. One of the Bays best and h,ighest uses is'for recreational and
educational purposes.

Response - Comment accepted..

Comment - Narragansett Bay has never received the national attention or
presti@e which it deserves. The Bay has thelargest collecti.on and
diversity of marine species of any body of water@in the worl.d. Rhode
Island has been short-changed in terms of molney.'for water pollution c.lean-
up. It- is exciting to have the Feder 'al. goverhme nt acknowl.edg,ing the
Bay's ecological importance.

Response - Comment accepted.

Comment - Sanctuary establishment is a solid cornerstone for creating a
park system for Rhode Islanders,. The best ... use of the" 'islan'ds is passive
uses.

Response - The estuarine sanctuary is intended for research and educational
uses; er uses will be passive recreation. The park system will provide
active recreation areas-and serves adifferePt function than,the.sonctuary.

Comment - Portsmouth officials have been interested i-.n.high-.profit
industrialization or commercialization of Prudence Island. Sanctuary
designation will protect Prudence.Island.

Response - Portsmouth officials are supporting the use of Northern Prudence.
Island as a sanctuary.

Commen t - Save The Bay is pleased that DEM has decided to eliminate bus
service connecting the north end of Prudence to the south end.

Response Comment accepted; see General Response B.

Comment - Save The Bay urges NOAA to designate the san 'ctuary as quickly
as pos'@ible and urges the State to take every step to ensure the pristine
nature of these areas.

Response - Comment accepted.

Dudley Williams, Prudence Land Company

Comment Why is this area given a Virginian Biogeographic Classification?

Response The Virginian biogeographic region covers the middle Atlantic
coast, from Cape Cod to Cape Hatteras; lowland streams, coastal marshes,
and muddy bottoms; biota primarly temperate with some boreal representatives.

Comment - Because of the depth of channels left by geologic eras and the
grinding of waves, there is a large amount of ocean water in the Bay.
For that reason, it might make s6-nse to include the south end of Prudence,
and the South and west side of Dyer Island in the sanctuary for comparison
and to have a feeling for the water supporting the sanctuary. Prior to
1920, the State of Rhode Island leased the entire area in the winter for
Long Island oyster fattening and harvesting. The eel grass has disappeared.
We should be able to find out why this has happened.

Response - Comment accepted. Ideally, the research that begins in the
sanctuary waters will be extended over time to take in a larger area of
Narragansett Bay to see what affects the ocean currents have on salinity
gradient, temperature, nutrients, etc. However, it is not practical to
extend the sanctuary boundary to cover the areas you mention in your
comment because the south end of Prudence is proposed as the central site
for the Bay Islands Park and Dyer Island is privately-owned.

Comment - Baseline data should be gathered before huma n uses of the
sanctuary are allowed. It does not make sense to use the sanctuary before
you have an inventory of what is there.

Response - Comment accepted. Baseline data is already being gathered and
samples of biota will be taken and analyzed before the sanctuary is
opened to visitors.

George Williams

Comment Seconded what Mrs. Coxe and Mrs. Lawrence stated.

Response Comment accepted.

I I III III I III III Ill Mill
3 6668 14109 1712 j