Proposed grant award to the state of New Jersey for the Mullica River Estuarine Sanctuary United States Department of Commerce draft environmental impact statement

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

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

1.1 d,, Mullica River

Estuarine Sanctuary

'tEs Ot V
Proposed Estuarine Sanctuary Grant Award
for Mullica River, Atlantic, Burlington,
and Ocean Counties, New Jersey

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
QH National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
541.5 Office of Coastal Zone Management
.E8 and
P76
1981 State of New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection
Division of Coastal Resources

3T~i ~~!1?";4~8~"MEOW, I 711110110

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

P ROPO SED

GRANT AWARD TO THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

FOR THE

MULL ICA RIVER ESTUARINE SANCTUARY

MAY 1981

Prepared by:
U.S. Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Admi ni strat ion
Office of Coastal Zone Management
3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20235

and

State of New Jersey
Department of Environmental
Protection
Division of Coastal Resources
CN 401
Trenton, New Jersey 08625

DESIGNATION: Draft Environmental Impact Statement

TITLE: Proposed Estuarine Sanctuary Grant Award to the State
of New Jersey for a Mullica River Estuarine Sanctuary

ABSTRACT: The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
has applied for a grant from the Office of Coastal Zone
Management to establish an estuarine sanctuary in the
Mullica River system in Atlantic, Burlington, and Ocean
Counties.

The proposed sanctuary, which will be established
through a two-phase land acquisition program, will preserve,
protect and place under State management approximately
17,748 acres of the Mullica River drainage basin including
saline freshwater and brackish wetlands, and forested
uplands, all of which are currently privately owned.
These areas, which include a broad diversity of salinity
and physical systems, will be used for research, education
and recreation purposes.

Approval of the grant application will permit the establish-
ment of an estuarine sanctuary representing the Virginian
biogeographic region. The proposed sanctuary will be used
primarily for research and educational purposes, especially
to provide information useful for coastal zone management
decisionmaking. Multiple use of the sanctuary will be
encouraged to the extent that the uses are compatible with
the primary sanctuary purpose of long-term protection of
the area for scientific research and educational use.

Research within the proposed sanctuary will provide baseline
data useful for assessing the impacts of human activities
within the Mullica River area and the Virginian biogeographic
region.

APPLICANT: New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

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

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

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

SUMMARY i

PART I: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION 1

PART II: ALTERNATIVES 5

A. Preferred Alternative 5

1. Site Boundaries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2. Proposed Management of Estuarine Sanctuary. . . . 8
a. General Management Principles. . . . . . . . 11
b. Research and Education Program. . . . . . . .14

B. Alternatives Considered 16

1. Site Selection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2. Boundaries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3. Acquisition and Funding. . . . . . . . . . . . 28
4. Alternative Management Plans ..........35
5. No Action Alternative. . . . . . . . . . . . . .35

PART III: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 37

A. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action 37

1. Local Impacts on Burlington, Ocean and
Atlantic Counties. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..37
2. Regional Impacts on the Mullica River
Drainage Basin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
3. State and Federal Impacts. . . . . . . . . ...39
4. Natural Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . ..39
a. Fish, Wildlife, and Vegetative Habitat. . 39
b. Air Quality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..39
c. Water Quality ...............39
d. Mineral Reserves and Archaeological
Sites. . .40
e. Agricultural Lands ............40
5. Human Environment... . . . . .........40
a. Residential/Industrial/Commercial. . . ..40
b. Public Use ................40
c. Scientific and Educational Use/Economic
Factors . . . . ...... .... .. 41
d. Municipal Property Tax Loss .......41
e. Mitigation of Municipal Property Tax
Losses... . . . . . . . . . . . ....43

SECTION PAGE

B. Unavoidable Adverse Environmental or Socio- 43
economic Effects

C. Relationship Between Local Short Term Uses of the 43
Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of
Long Term Productivity

D. Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitments of 45
Resources

E. Possible Conflicts Between the Proposed Action 45
and the Objectives of Federal Regulations, State,
and Local Land Use Plans, Policies, and Control
for the Area Concerned

1. State Programs and Enabling Legislation. ......46

a. New Jersey Wetlands Act of 1970. ........46
b. Coastal Area Facility Review Act 1973 . . . . . . .46
C. Waterfront Development Law .. .......... 46
d. Tidelands Management. .... . . . . . .....46
e. New Jersey Pinelands Protection Act of 1979 . . . .47
f. DEP Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife. .. ...49
g. DEP Division of Parks and Forestry .. . . . . . . 49
h. Green Acres and Recreation Program .. . . . . . . 50
i. DEP Division of Water Resources .. . . ......50
j. Department of Community Affairs . . . . . . . . . 51

PART IV: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 53

A. General Physiography. .................53

B. Geology . . ........... . . . . . . . . . . . 53

C. Hydrology . . ............... . . . . . . 56

D. Biological Resources ..... . . . .... . . . . . . 58

1. Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

3. Endangered Species. ........... . . . . . 61

E. Human Activities. ............. . . . . . 65

PART V: LIST OF PREPARERS 67

PART VI: LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS RECEIVING 71
COPIES
77
PART VII: APPENDICES

SUMMARY

BACKGROUND

In response to the intense pressures upon and conflicts within the
coastal zone of the United States, Congress enacted the Coastal Zone
10 Management Act (CZMA) of 1972 (PL 92-583), with amendments enacted by
the U.S. Congress in 1976 and 1980. The Act authorized a new Federal
program--administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) within the Department of Commerce--to assist and encourage States
to develop and implement comprehensive management programs for the resources
of the coastal zone. The CZMA affirms a national interest in the coastal
zone's effective management, beneficial use, and development, and it
permits the awarding of grants for the purpose of meeting these ends.

Section 315 of the CZMA established the Estuarine Sanctuary Program,
which, on a matching basis, provides grants to States to acquire, develop,
and operate estuarine areas to be set aside as natural field laboratories.
These areas will be used primarily for long term scientific and educational
purposes, which, in addition to other multiple-use benefits, will provide
information essential to coastal management decisionmaking. Examples of
estuarine sanctuary purposes are:
o To gain a thorough understanding of ecological relationships
within the estuarine environment;

o To make baseline ecological measurements;

o To serve as a natural control in order to monitor changes
and assess the impacts of human stresses on the ecosystem;
o To provide a vehicle for increasing public knowledge and
awareness of the complex nature of estuarine systems, their
values and benefits to humans and nature, and the problems that
confront them; and

o 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.

In order to ensure that the sanctuary program adequately represents
regional and ecological differences, the programmatic guidelines establish
a biogeographical classification scheme that reflects geographic, hydrographic,
and biological characteristics.

The estuarine sanctuary guidelines, which were published in 1974,
were amended in 1977 to specifically authorize the granting of 50 percent
matching grants in three stages: (1) an initial planning grant for such
preliminary purposes as surveying and assessing the lands to be acquired,
and for developing management procedures and research programs; (2) a
second grant for the actual acquisition of the land,; and (3) subsequent
grants for administration and operation of the established sanctuary.

i i

In January 1981, the State of New Jersey, through the Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP), submitted to the Office of Coastal Zone
Management (OCZM) a preliminary acquisition grant application for funding
assistance to establish an estuarine sanctuary in the Mullica River area
of Burlington, Atlantic, and Ocean Counties. Subsequently, NOAA awarded a
preliminary acquisition grant for $50,000 (matched by the State), which is
being used for preliminary boundary determnination, estimation of real
estate costs and municipal property tax loss impact, development of a
management plan, and research and education programs.

PROPOSED ACTION

The State of New Jersey proposes to request a $1,149,440 grant from
OCZM to be matched by $1,149,440 in State funds, for State acquisition
(OCZM has no acquisition or condemnation authority) of approximately 6,884
acres of wetlands and uplands along the Mullica and Wading Rivers, New Jersey.
This request represents the first phase of a two-phase program of land
acquisition for which the State will request funding assistance from NOAA/OCZM.
Phasing of the project will require that the State comply with established
NOAA/OCZM regulations for submission of grant applications and National
Environmental Policy Act requirements for environmental impact statements
for each phase of the estuarine sanctuary project. The land will be acquired
and managed by the New Jersey DEP with assistance from its Divisions of
Fish, Game and Wildlife; and Parks, Forestry, and Green Acres, and a Sanctuary
Advisory Committee. A background study, Estuarine Sanctuaries for New Jersey's
Coastal Zone: A Report and Preliminary Recommendations* (May 1980), of
the proposed sanctuary area has been prepared by DEP's Division of Coastal
Resources is available from the Coastal Information Center, CN 401, Trenton,
N.J., 08625.

Multiple use of the sanctuary is encouraged as long as it is compatible
with National Estuarine Sanctuary Program objectives. Multiple sanctuary
uses mean the simultaneous utilization of an area or resource for a variety
of compatible purposes or to provide-more than one benefit. Sanctuary uses
may include low-intensity recreation, hunting, fishing, and wildlife
observation.

Examples of non-compatible uses of the sanctuary include, but are not
limited to: diking, dredging or manipulative research with long-term negative
impacts. Uses that will be allowed, but monitored for potential impact
are consumptive uses of the environment, such as the collection of flora
and fauna for public use and benefit.

Adjacent land and water usage will have impacts upon the proposed
sanctuary. However, these activities are currently monitored by existing
Federal, State, and local authorities, which will continue to do so. The
estuarine sanctuary will not affect land or water use planning within
Burlington, Atlantic or Ocean Counties outside the boundaries of the proposed
sanctuary. In addition, there will be no 'Resource Protection Zone (RPZ)
established around the proposed estuarine sanctuary sneach proposed
acquisition area is fringed by forested uplands which serve as buffers.

*by Richard A. Kantor
New Jersey DEP

ii i

Since existing State statutes and regulations appear fully adequate to
address any potential problems resulting from uses within the sanctuary
and in adjacent waters and lands, designation of the sanctuary will not
result in the need for new or additional environmental regulations or
creation of a new State agency, or a new division within existing agencies.

The sanctuary is to be used for research and education, which implies
a multidisciplinary approach to management. It will be managed by DEP with
the advice of an Estuarine Sanctuary Advisory Committee and Research
and Education Subcommittees. The Advisory Committee membership, which
will be appointed by the Commissioner of the New Jersey DEP, will include,
but not be limited to, the following: representatives of the State of New
Jersey, colleges and universities, government agencies with responsibilities
in or near the Sanctuary area, and environmental or civic groups or individuals
with relevant expertise.

NOAA/OCZM will participate actively with DEP and the Advisory Committee,
in its role as an ex officio member of the Committee. The Assistant Commis-
sioner for Natural Resources of DEP, or a representative of the Assistant
Commissioner, will be Chairman of the Advisory Committee.

ALTERNATIVES

Alternative management structures were considered. Management by a
single State agency would make administration less complex and would be
appropriate for the diverse types of wetlands and forested lands to be
administered. Complex management committee schemes or the creation of
new agencies were rejected in favor of management by DEP, which includes
two Divisions with long histories of experience in management of public
wetlands and forested lands, and a Sanctuary Advisory Committee.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

The most direct environmental consequence of the proposed action will
be the long term preservation of the area and its resources in their natural
state for scientific and educational uses. The sanctuary will enable increased
research and education to take place which will enhance the knowledge and
understanding of estuarine systems in New Jersey and, therefore, will provide
information for improved coastal zone resource decisionmaking.

Positive environmental impacts will include:

o preservation of essential wetland habitats that have national
significance and are in limited supply;

o fish and wildlife habitat preservation, including the maintenance
and enhancement of fish breeding species that are important
economically to commercial fishing;
o improved air quality from the limiting of urbanization
within the sanctuary boundaries;

iv
o water quality improvement from the limiting of urbanization;
oincreased public usage through the conversion of private land
increased but controlled access; and,
Oadditional scientific, research, and educational opportunities
for students, educators, and scientists, which will also bring
economic benefits to the region.
In the first phase of this proposal , negative impacts would include
removal of approximately $1,959,500 from the local tax bases and an annual
loss of approximately $61,656 in municipal property taxes. In total,
approximately $5,097,000 could be removed from the municipal tax bases and
approximately $163,000 could be lost from municipal property taxes when
the second phase of this proposal is completed.

This will be mitigated by compensatory payments by the State, gradually
decreasing over a thirteen year period, as mandated by the New Jersey
Green Acres and Recreation Opportunities Bond Act of 1974 (N.J.S.A. 13:8A-1
et seq.).

PART I: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION

In response to the intense pressures to preserve, protect, develop,
and where possible, to restore or enhance coastal resources in the vitally
important coastal zone of the United States, Congress passed the Coastal
Zone Management Act (CZMA), which was signed into law on October 27, 1972
(P.L. 92-583), and amended in 1976 and 1980. The CZMA authorized a
Federal grant-in-aid and assistance program to be administered by the
Secretary of Commerce, who in turn delegated this responsibility to the
Office of Coastal Zone Management (OCZM) of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

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

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

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

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

o coordinating, studying, planning, and implementing interstate
coastal management activities and programs (Sec. 309);

o conducting research, study, and training programs to
scientifically and technically support State coastal manage-
ment programs (Sec. 310); and,

o acquiring estuarine sanctuaries and island preservation (Sec.315).

The estuarine sanctuary program authorized by Section 315 of the
CZMA establishes a program to provide grants to States, on a matching
basis, for the acquisition, development, and operation/management of
natural estuarine areas as sanctuaries so that scientists and students
may be provided the opportunity to examine, over a period of time, the
ecological relationships within the area. Section 315 provides a maximum
of $3,000,000 in Federal funds, to be matched by an equivalent amount by
the State, to acquire and manage lands for each sanctuary. Guidelines
for implementation of the estuarine sanctuary program were published in
final form on June 4, 1974, (15 CFR Part 921, Federal Register 39 [105]:
19922-19927) and amended on September 9, 1977 (15 CFR Part 921, Federal
Register 42 [175]: 45522-45523).

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

Such purposes may include:

o gaining a thorough understanding of the natural ecological
relationships within the variety of estuarine environments
of the United States;
o making baseline ecological measurements;

o serving as a natural control against which changes in other
similar estuaries can be measured, and facilitating evalua-
tion of the impacts of human activities on estuarine ecosystems;
O providing a vehicle for increasing public knowledge and
awareness of the complex nature of estuarine systems, and
their values and benefits to man and nature; and,
o encouraging multiple use of the estuarine sanctuaries to
the extent that such usage is compatible with the primary
sanctuary purposes of research and education.

While the primary purpose of estuarine sanctuaries is scientific and
educational, multiple use of estuarine sanctuaries will be encouraged to
the extent it is compatible with the primary sanctuary purpose. These
uses may generally include such activities as low intensity recreation,
fishing, hunting, and wildlife observation.

The CZMA and the sanctuary guidelines express the intent that ulti-
mately the estuarine sanctuary program will fully represent the variety
of regional and ecological differences among estuaries. The regulations
indicate that "the purpose of the estuarine program... shall be accomplished
by establishing a series of estuarine sanctuaries nationwide which will
be designated so that at least one representative of each estuarine
ecosystem will endure into the future for scientific and educational
purposes" (15 CFR 921.3[a]). As administered by OCZM, the estuarine
sanctuary program defines 11 different biogeographic provinces or classi-
fications, based on geographic, hydrographic, and biologic characteristics.
Subcategories of this basic system will be used as appropriate to distinguish
major subclasses of each biogeographic province. The total number of
sanctuaries that will be needed to provide minimal representation for
the nation's estuarine ecosystems is currently under study.

Between 1974 and the present, OCZM has awarded grants to establish
nine estuarine sanctuaries. These are:

Sanctuary Biogeographic Classification

South Slough
Coos Bay, Oregon Columbian

Duplin River
Sapelo Island, Georgia Carol inian

Waimanu Valley
Island of Hawaii, Hawaii Insular

Rookery Bay
Collier Co., Florida West Indian

Old Woman Creek
Erie Co., Ohio Great Lakes

Apalachicola River and Bay
Franklin Co., Florida Louisianian

Elkhorn Slough
Monterey County, California Californian

Padilla Bay
Skagit Co., Washington Col umbi an

Narragansett Bay
Newport Co., Rhode Island Virginian

Mullica River has long been a focal point of research and educa-
tional interests and in recent years its future has been the object of
considerable research attention. Responding to these interests, the New
Jersey DEP nominated Mullica River as an estuarine sanctuary site and
applied to OCZM for pre-~acquisition funding, which was granted in March
1981.

The proposed Mullica River Sanctuary will be representative of a
major estuarine sanctuary within the Virginian Biogeographic Classification,
subcategory and the second estuarine sanctuary within this region. This
addition further completing the National Estuarine Sanctuary System as provided
for in Section 315 of the CZMA.

PART II: ALTERNATIVES

A. Preferred Alternative

OCZM has implemented a process whereby a land acquisition grant can
be made in two steps. The first is a preliminary acquisition grant for such
purposes as real estate appraisals, the development of management procedures,
and research/educational programs. OCZM awarded such a grant for Mullica
River in March 1981. The second step is the grant request for Federal funding
for the actual acquisition of land, the proposed action for which this DEIS
is prepared.

The State of New Jersey is proposing to submit a land acquisition
grant application for $2,298,800, $1,149,400 from OCZM, to be matched by
$1,149,400 in State funds and/or resources, to establish an estuarine
sanctuary on the Mullica River Basin in Burlington, Atlantic and Ocean
Counties. The grant will enable New Jersey to acquire approximately 6,88-4
acres, all of which is now privately owned, as a first phase of a two
phase land acquisition program to establish the proposed estuarine sanctuary.

The second phase of the acquisition of 10,864 acres in Atlantic and
Burlington Counties, will be proposed in the following Federal fiscal
year, FY 1982. The land will be acquired and managed by DEP.

The approval of future funding requests is conditioned upon the
successful completion of the Estuarine Sanctuary Procedural Guideline
requirements by the State, the National Environmental Policy Act
requirements, and the availability of NOAA/OCZM funds.

Upon award of the acquisition grant, the State has the option of
applying for matching operational funds ($50,000 per year for up to five
years).

1. Site Boundaries

Figure I indicates the general location of the proposed project and
Figure 2 delineates the proposed sanctuary boundaries. The sites included
in the proposal are described below.

a. Swan Bay

The Swan Bay area is the State's top priority acquisition site, and
is estimated to cost $500,000. This 2,065 acre area is being purchased by
the State, with funds provided by the U.S. Department of-the Interior through
Land and Water Conservation Funds (LWCF) and by DEP's Division of Parks,
Forestry, and Green Acres through State Green Acre Funds. This action
will add to the existing 1,078 acres of the Swan Bay State Fish and Wildlife
Management Area which is presently administered by the DEP's Division of
Fish, Game, and Wildlife, forming a contiguous area of 3,143 acres. In
the unlikely event that Federal LWCF funds are not available, OCZM funds
will-be requested to implement the proposed purchase (see Figure 5).

- 1 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ND&MIs -24HarisSI

) r ~~~~~~~~ ~Speedwe,

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~wttn
Ni,,;>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~rve
4,,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ P4ce
I Iw~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Stafodj

L~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~drR

~~~~~~~~~~~Peliinr Acqisiio

GalloceantyGatSuyAe

F. stelivill 4. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Norh

7"I,

SWAN S A ARE

U ~ ~WD N RIE AREA-~

MULC IE ARA--

BASS RIVER AREA~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

*1 ~~~~~~~~~~~_Isert)

/~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~iue

The authority to administer State Fish and Wildlife Management Areas
is found in N.J.S.A. 23:1-1 et seq.; implementing regulations are found
in N.J.A.C. 7:25-2.1 et seq. Appendix 3 is a copy of the adopted Rules
and Regulations of general uses of State Fish and Wildlife Management
areas under N.J.A.C. 7:25- 2.1 et seq.

b. Wading River

The proposed land acquisition through the National Estuarine Sanctuary
Program *of the east side of the Wading River in Bass River Township is
proposed for administration by DEP through the Sanctuary Advisory Committee
and the Divisions of Parks, Forestry and Green Acres, State Park Service. Figure
2 identifies the Wading River site location and its physical relationship to
Swan Bay, the other Phase I acquisition area to be acquired. Figure 6 identifies
the Wading River area proposed boundaries.

c. The Mullica River Area

This proposed land acquisition through the National Estuarine Sanctuary
Program, on the south side of the Mullica River in Galloway and Mullica
Township and Port Republic and Egg Harbor City, is proposed for administra-
tion by DEP through the Sanctuary Advisory Committee and the Divisions of Fish,
Game and Wildlife, and Parks Forestry and Green Acres. See Figure 2 for the
location of the Mullica River area and Figure 7 for the specific boundary of
this Phase 11 acquisition area.

d. Bass River Area

This proposed land acquisition through the National Estuarine
Sanctuary Program is for lands adjacent to the Bass River in Bass River
Township and Little Egg Township in Ocean County. This site's location
within the proposed sanctuary area is given in Figure 2. The specific
Bass River Area boundary is given in Figure 8. This is a phase II area
acqui sit ion.

2. Proposed Management of the Estuarine Sanctuary

A study regarding the proposed estuarine sanctuary: Estuarine Sanctuaries
For New Jersey's Coastal Zone: A Report and Preliminary Recommendation, May 1980,
was prepared by the State of New Jersey during the first and second year of
State implementation of their coastal zone management program. Information
from this document has been incorporated extensively into the DEIS and within
this document shall be referred to as "Kantor (1980)."

Multiple use of an estuarine sanctuary may be permitted as long as
it does not interfere with the primary purposes of providing long term
protection for natural areas so they may be used for scientific and
educational purposes. While it is anticipated that compatible uses may
generally include activities such as low intensity recreation, fishing,
hunting etc., it is recognized that the exclusive use of an area for scientific
or educational purposes may provide the optimum benefit to coastal zone
management and resource use and on occasion be necessary.

Some of the popular recreational activities in the river include, but
are not limited to: shellfishing, hunting, trapping, boating, birdwatching,
photography, etc. At the present time, these activities are limited
because of poor and unreliable access, most of which is through private
lands. These uses would be encouraged by increasing the number of access
areas available to the general public.

The advantages and disadvantages associated with the provision of
public access will be considered, particularly the potential impacts
upon the fish, vegetative and wildlife resources and private property
owners. Legal constraints will need to be explored, and associated
problems such as vehicle parking, access control methods and enforcement,
and other administrative factors will be evaluated. The provision of
access shall not interfere with adjacent property owners' rights, or
affect usage of their property.

I10

FIGURE 3

OBJECTIVES OF THE MULLICA RIVER ESTUARINE SANCTUARY PROGRAM

Goal: To Provide A Natural Laboratory For The Study
Of Estuarine Ecological Relationships

Protect, Maintain, Enhance And Restore
The Overall Quality Of The Estuarine
Ecosystem In Perpetuity

B C

Preserve And Maintain Sanctuary Preserve The Integrity Of The
For Ecological And Cultural/ Existing Estuarine Habitat
Historical Research That Will Through Enhancement and
Provide Educational Knowledge Restoration, Maintain Optimum
To The General Public, And Populations of Migratory Birds
Assist Local Decision Makers And Indigenous Flora And Fauna,
In Dealing With Coastal With Special Protection Provided
Devel opment. For Rare And Endangered Plant
And Animal Species.

I1I

Examples of incompatible uses in the estuarine sanctuary are residential
or commercial development; mineral extraction; timber harvesting; off-road
vehicle use; diking, dredging, drainage, or otherwise altering the natural
system, or causing disturbances within it (e.g. loud noise or littering).
Manipulative research involving the long term degradation or alteration
of the natural resource will also be prohibited. Short term manipulative
research consistent with the research/education intent of the sanctuary
may be allowed, but only under strict controls and with written approval
of the Sanctuary Advisory Committee and DEP.

Examples of activities that will be monitored and controlled include,
but are not limited to, consumptive uses of the environment, such as the
collection of flora and fauna, and access as described above.

The potential exists through the goals of research and education in
the Estuarine Sanctuary Guidelines for restoring natural ecosystem functions
to certain parts of the sanctuary that may have been altered by past activities.
Restoration may require positive actions in some cases; in other situations,
removal of existing threats or conflicts may accomplish the same end. Any
change in the existing system, including areas previously modified, will
only be done after scientific evaluation of the consequences to the system
over the long term.

a) General Management Principles

The Estuarine Sanctuary Program is not a new State or Federal regula-
tory program. The principal objective will be to protect and utilize the
proposed estuarine sanctuary as a natural field laboratory for long term
scientific and educational purposes, which, in addition to other multiple use
benefits, will provide information and data essential to coastal management
decision-making. The proposed management system for the estuarine sanctuary
will be administrated by the New Jersey DEP consistent with existing Federal
and State statutes and Estuarine Sanctuary Program purposes.

The management responsibility, which is vested in DEP for the proposed
sanctuary, similar to all other public lands managed by DEP, will be assigned
to the NJDEP Assistant Commissioner for Natural Resources, who will consider
management recommendations by the Estuarine Sanctuary Advisory Committee.
Members will be appointed by the Commissioner of DEP. The committee will
meet on a quarterly basis or as determined by the committee staff.

The role of the Advisory Committee will be to:

1. Review and act upon recommendations made by the Research and Education
Subcommittee in the development, and implementation of a sanctuary
management plan and the research and education programs.

2. Assist and work with the DEP and the on-site sanctuary manager
in the day-to-day management of the sanctuary.

3. Develop and implement a program of sanctuary public relations with
the general public.

1 2

4. Review and advise the Assistant Commissioner of DEP on proposed
future revisions of the management plan and research and education
programs.

5. Foster scientific research and education programs within the
sanctuary.

6. Foster ecological understanding and appreciation of the Mullica
River Drainage Basin resources and their proper management.

Sanctuary management objectives will be:

o To gain a thorough understanding of ecological relationships within
the estuarine environment;
o To make baseline ecological measurements;

o To serve as a natural control area in order to monitor changes and
assess the impacts of human stresses on the ecosystem;
o To provide a vehicle for increasing public knowledge and awareness
of the complex nature of estuarine systems and of their values and
benefits to humans and nature, and the problems that confront
them; and
o 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.
A full-time on-site manager will be employed by, and responsible to DEP,
and will be housed in the appropriate existing DEP field office adjacent
to the acquisition area, or in a new on-site facility.
The duties of the Sanctuary Manager who will have the qualifications
of a resource manager will include, but not be limited to:
o Serving as staff to the Sanctuary Advisory Committee;

� Administering the sanctuary, assisting in the preparation required to
develop State and Federal grant applications, proposals, budgets,
and reports and maintaining necessary records;
o Representing the Sanctuary Advisory Committee in public meetings;

o Upon request, advising and coordinating units of government on
particular issues, questions, or projects, and their impacts on or
relationship to the sanctuary;
O Coordinating all special studies and research activities within or
related to the sanctuary, and interpreting and applying research results
to produce benefits of a general nature;

1 3
o Implementing the research and educational programs for the sanctuary;

o Reviewing all proposed activities within the
sanctuary for consistency with the management objectives;
and,
oCoordinating all projects and taking appropriate
action on activities that might affect the sanctuary.

Uses that are compatible with the intent of establishing the estuarine
sanctuary will be allowed and regulated under existing local, State and
Federal statutes. Uses that would alter or destroy the value of the
ecosystem will not be allowed within the sanctuary.

Acceptable and Prohibited Uses Within The Sanctuary:

Acceptable Uses:
o Sport and commercial fin fish and shellfish harvesting

o Hunting and trapping

o Boating and navigation (motor, sail or hand powered)
o Swimming and skin diving

oNature study, wildlife observation and photography

oMaintenance dredging in existing navigation channels

Prohibited Uses:
O Wetlands filling to create uplands

o Wetlands or uplands dredging to create new navigation channels

o Dumping or disposal of dredging spoils

O Alteration of water circulation patterns

o Any activity that could lead to significant degradation of water

quality or biological productivity

o Solid, liquid, or hazardous substance waste disposal of any type

o Upland, wetland, or subaqueous sand or gravel extraction

o Surface water outfalls or intakes

�Timber harvesting and vegetation clearing

b) Research and Education Program

The principal objective of the research program for the Estuarine
Sanctuary will be to provide scientific information to State and Federal
decisionmakers on estuarine ecology and physical environment necessary
for the proper management of coastal marine and estuarine resources. The
second objective will be to direct research toward the estuary as an
ecological whole. Coordination of research projects is most desirable
and is proposed to be implemented by DEP with the assistance of a
Research sub-committee and the Sanctuary Advisory Committee.

Procedures for conducting research within the proposed sanctuary
will be based upon a modification of the procedural policies adopted
under the Natural Areas System Act (N.J.S.A. 13:1B-15.1) as N.J.A.C.
7:2-11.6. These adopted procedures, revised to be appropriate for the
estuarine sanctuary, follow:

Sanctuary Management Procedures for Conducting Research

(A) Persons permitted to enter into or upon [a natural area] the Mullica
River Estuarine Sanctuary* for the purpose of conducting research shall be
limited to individuals who in the opinion of the Department of Environmental
Protection, and the Estuarine Sanctuary Advisory Committee, are qualified to
carry through such scientific purposes and/or whose research will not cause
detrimental effects to the biotic types found in the area.

(B) A written proposal for research within the estuarine sanctuary (a natural area)
shall be submitted to the Department for approval. The proposal shall contain the
following:

1. topic of project and species concerned,
2. methods and procedures for carrying out the project,
3. location of research site(s),
4. duration of project,
5. frequency of visitation, and
6. number of persons involved.

(C) The permittee shall coordinate his/her project with the Sanctuary Advisory
Committee and Manager, and no less than once a year shall report in writing on the
status of the research to the Department.
4
(D) Upon completion of a project a copy of the research results shall be submitted
to the Advisory Committee and Department and made available to the general public.

* Brackets note deletions from and underlines note additions to the rules
adopted for Natural Areas at N.J.A.C. 7:2-11.6

1 5

Coordinated and Projected Topics of Research

In order to promote coordination of scientific research within the
proposed sanctuary and to foster better communication and coordination of
estuarine research in other sites within the State, and in other
coastal States, an Estuarine Sanctuary Research Subcommittee is proposed.
The role of the Research Subcommittee will be to advise the Sanctuary
Advisory Committee and DEP as to the desirability and potential environmental
effects of proposed research projects. The Subcommittee is expected to
meet at least quarterly each year, to review current projects, proposed
research projects, and discuss environmental management informational
needs.

The Estuarine Sanctuary Research Subcommittee will assist the Advisory
Committee and DEP to insure that the sanctuary is not only protected
through it's acquisition program and policies, but that it also creates a
natural field laboratory which will be used to gather data and make
studies of the natural and human processes occurring within estuaries of the
coastal zone.

The subcommittee will be an advocate for research in the sanctuary.
In addition, since the Estuarine Sanctuary Program does not provide
direct funding for specific research projects, it is anticipated that
support by the Research Subcommittee and Sanctuary Advisory Committee will
lead to support from the public and the-private sectors.

Creating an understanding of the coastal estuarine system of the Mullica
River as an intergrated whole will be the prime objective of the proposed research
program. Of particular significance to research within the proposed sanctuary
are the following topics:

a) oyster seed bed ecology, production and conservation

b) migratory waterfowl ecology

c) water quality - maintenance of high quality Pine
Barrens Cedar upland surface water

- groundwater/surface water quality and quantity
and its effects on the salinity regime of

the estuary

- maintenance of hard clam transplant (relay)
planting areas

d) fin and shellfish nursery habitat with particular emphasis on
white perch and blue claw crab

1 6

e) vegetative productivity

- estuari-ne/coastal marine detrital based food chains

- comparative ecology of saline, brackish
and freshwater tidal coastal wetlands
communities

f) Estuarine nutrient cycling in low (pristine) nutrient system

- Natural estuarine planktonic cycles
in an unpolluted system
The principal objective of the education program will be to offer
environmental learning experience to students and instructors at grammar,
secondary, undergraduate and graduate levels in a public area having
resources that will be protected for this specific use. To ass ist the
development of a sanctuary education program, an Education Subcommittee
will be established. The Subcommittee will assist the development of an
education program and implementation through coordination with the
Sanctuary Advisory Committee and DEP.

A low keyed approach with limited activities-is proposed and appropriate
within the sensitive vegetative resources of the wetlands. It is proposed
that priority use of the sanctuary by educators, and student groups be
reserved for those interested in resources found in lower salinity
estuarine communities. More specifically, educational use should be partic-
ularly concentrated in brackish wetlands communities, tidal freshwater
wetlands communities, nontidal freshwater bog and forested wetlands
communities, and the wetlands/lowland forest fringe ecotones.

The rationale for limiting uses to these specific habitat rests on
the trampling effects quickly apparent on marsh surfaces where pedestrian
traffic occurs. Foot paths compact underlying unconsolidated soils,
frequently forming standing water depressions while killing standing stems.

However, this does not preclude the development of environmental
learning, "hands on" etc. educational programs which will involve the natural
resources of the sanctuary.

Development of lower estuarine ecology education programs which could
include the development of raised wooden walkways over the marsh surface,
guided tours etc. are possible schemes to also enhance the sanctuary"s educa-
tional opportunities.

B. Alternatives Considered

1. Site Selection

New Jersey has approximately 260,000 acres of tidal marshes, including
coastal saline, brackish, and freshwater tidal marshes, and in addition,
395,000 acres of estuarine waters within the State. This is a total of
655,000 acres of estuarine habitat throughout the State.

1 7

Unfortunately, many estuaries and their watersheds (drainage basins)
have been adversely affected by human activities such as: wetlands filling
and dredging for international maritime ports, waterfront housing, and
marinas; bottom sediments contaminated from heavy metals and pesticides;
deforestation of watersheds for urban, suburban, and agricultural land
uses. The Federal Estuarine Sanctuary Guidelines (1974) states, "...areas
selected as sanctuaries will be relatively undisturbed by human activities
at the time of acquisition. Therefore, most of the areas selected will
be areas with a minimum of development, industry, or habitation." (Section
921.3(5)(d)) Figures 3 and 4 depict distribution of developed lands and
municipal population densities in New Jersey.

There are a number of alternative estuarine areas in New Jersey which
meet this criterion. NOAA/OCZM and DEP have concluded that the Mullica
River estuary is the most desirable choice for National Estuarine Sanctuary
designation, because it has the following characteristics:

1. Extensive upland watershed protection in the form of public
open space land holdings in three state forests (Wharton,
Bass River, Green Banks) and multi-layered state regulatory
programs in private lands.

2. Watershed constitutes the heart of the New Jersey Pinelands,
an ecosystem recognized by the State and Federal governments
as an environmental treasure.

3. Comparatively pristine nature of upland watershed.

4. Comparatively pristine nature of wetlands, with the singular
exception of one very large but concentrated lagoon residential
devel opment.

5. Occurrence of nationally or state listed endangered wildlife
species and plants proposed for official listings.

6. High productivity of the system supporting a rich diversity
and high population of fish, shellfish, and wildlife.

7. Extensive adjacent wetlands protection in the form of national
wildlife refuge (Brigantine) and three state fish and wildlife
management areas (Great Bay, Swan Bay, Port Republic).

Futhermore, the Federal Guidelines also states, "The area chosen as
an estuarine sanctuary shall to the extent possible, include water and
land masses constituting a natural ecological unit." The Mullica River
drainage basin (569 square miles) is entirely within one state and is of
moderate size and clearly represents the heart of the New Jersey Pinelands
ecosystem (ecological unit).

DEVELOPED z-... N

LANDS 1972

/ .%I �
*23
r r.

- .., 5
- a4
I-
7'
* .* n.- - -
a - .prSV

'asK ''�,

� -
'-I I - - 4.-.
#5. 4
1 ' "
;'' V.

*r.. -

rr -c

* - 44

- '.$ .-
S
*
St

ph 'd' / k

I \

Figure 3
[I K/- STATE OF NEW JERSEY

AS
,4( \eYC%
'S

1 9

N.'J. MUNICIPAL POPULATON DENSITIES 1976

.S.

0~~~~~~~ TO 50..

50~~ TO 20

20 0 TO0500

1,000 TO 5,000

5,OOO AND OVER

Calculations Made From 1976 Provisional
POPUlation Estimates New Jersey Dept. of
Labor and Industry, bffice of Demography
and Economic Analysis.

In 1978 Governor Brendan Byrne of New Jersey declared the New Jersey
Pinelands an irreplaceable environmental resource and by Executive Order
71 implemented a building moratorium. This was followed by enactment
of the New Jersey Pinelands Protection Law (NJSA 13.28A-1 et seq. as
amended). The adopted New Jersey Pinelands Comprehensive MatrPlan,
November 1980, speaks repeatedly of the many biological, ecological, and
physical environmental treasures of the New Jersey ecosystem, with the
Mullica River its very heart.

The 1978 Rutgers University study A Plan for a Pinelands National
Preserve states, "the Pinelands of New Jersey represents a truly unique and
relatively undeveloped land resource within the most populous section of
the U.S." The authors also note that the low degree of development con-
tributes to the high water quality. The study identified the following
Habitat Specific and Ecologically Critical Areas in the proposed sanctuary
site:
o Wading River, upstream to the vicinity of Chips Folly campground,
which contains the only tidal population of southern wild rice
in New Jersey (perhaps in all of northeastern North America).
O The west bank of the Mullica River in and around Weekstown, which
supports an excellent swamp forest vegetation.
o Hog Island in the upper Mullica River, which represents a unique
transitional zone between salt water and freshwater tidal marsh
vegetation.
A 1976 independent study by a Rutgers University student* used the 11
Federal criteria for estuarine sanctuaries to rank 12 distinct New Jersey
estuarine systems meeting the broad "relatively undisturbed" criterion.
The study concluded that the Mullica River estuary is the most suitable area
in the state for national estuarine sanctuary designation. The finding
was based upon comparative rankings of each potential site.

Name and location of all estuarine areas analyzed:

Estuarine Areas Location

Mullica River/Great Bay - Burlington, Atlantic
and Ocean Counties
Backs/Cedar Creeks - Cumberland County
Nantuxent Creek - Cumberland County
Hope Creek - Salem County
Mad Horse/Stowe Creeks - Salem and Cumberland Counties
Dennis/West Creeks - Cape May and Cumberland Counties
Maurice River - Cumberland County
Diving Creek - Cumberland County
Orandaken/Fishing Creeks - Cumberland County
Cohansey River and Cove - Cumberland County
Great Egg Harbor/Tuckahoe River - Cape May and Atlantic Counties

*Thomas P. Smith, Ph.D., Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey

Smith lists the following advantages of the Mullica River system:

I a. comparatively little alteration

b. upland watershed protected and wetlands protection in
substantial public open space lands
2 a. excellent water quality

b. suitable for potential estuarine sanctuary designation

3 a. highest vegetative diversity of all areas studied

b. transitional habitats present

4 a. greatest migratory waterfowl populations in the state

b. occurrence of endangered species

c. numerous colonial nesting waterbirds

5. abundant fin and shellfish resources

6. adjacent to existing research laboratories

7. previously researched

8. previous public investments in lands

9. due to little development, designation would not conflict
with (low) existing uses

10. little socioeconomic impact predicted

State and National programs which have previously identified all or portions
of this drainage basin as environmentally or ecologically valuable include the
following:

1. The New Jersey Coastal Management Program has designated the
portion of the watershed as a Limited Growth Area.

2. National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 identified the New Jersey
Pine Barrens as being environmentally and ecologically of national
significance and authorized federal funding of master planning for
New Jersey Pinelands Conservation and public acquisition of additional
l and s.

3. The Smithsonian Institute of Washington, D.C. Center for Natural Areas,
Survey of Natural Areas of the Atlantic Coastal Plain (1974) (prepared
for the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service) listed
11 specific sites and areas within the Mullica River drainage basin
as potential national "Natural Landmarks." They are:

Area/Site/Name Priority Rating
(I highest, 4 =lowest)

Great Bay 2
North Brigantine Island 3
The Pine Barrens I
Atlantic Goose Pond Bogs I
Batsto Natural Area and Forge Pond 4
Hampton Furnace -4
Martha Furnace 2
Quaker Bridge 2
Pine Plains (Dwarf or Pigmy Forests) I
Wading River I
Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge 1

4. New Jersey Green Acres and Recreation Program has (a) designated four
areas as Natural Areas under the State National Areas System Act
of 1976, and (b) proposed for designation the Lower Atsion branch
of the Mullica River as a Wild and Scenic River under the State
statute.

5. The New Jersey Realty Improvement Sewerage and Facilities Act of 1978
designated the entire Mullica watershed as a Critical Area, due to the
vast pure groundwater resources within the Cohansey Aquifer.

2. Boundaries

Boundaries and Proposed Acquisition Areas, as defined by the Estuarine
Sanctuary Guidelines, "may include any part or all of an estuary, adjoining
transitional areas, and adjacent upland, constituting to the extent
feasible a natural unit."

Two areas, Swan Bay and the Wading River, are proposed for acquisition
in Phase I and the remaining two areas, Mullica River and Bass River, in
Phase II of the acquisition process. These are listed in order of priority
bel ow.

Under optimum conditions, the entire Mullica River drainage basin
(watershed) would be acquired as the natural unit under the National
Estuarine Sanctuary Program. (Due to the cost of acquisition this approach
is not feasible). The Mullica River drainage basin, though, can be
managed as a natural unit, and it is ecologically representative of the

unique New Jersey Pinelands. It can also realistically be purchased and
maintained using available Federal and State matching funds.

Of the three major intrastate river systems with over 500 square
miles of drainage basin, the Mullica has the most (120,000 acres, or
33 percent of the total land area) land already protected within public
ownership. This provides significant upstream protection from potentially
damaging future land developments, and therefore identifies it as a
desirable area for a National Estuarine Sanctuary.

The following criteria were used in the selection of sanctuary boundaries
for the Mullica River system:

1) Research area should include as much diversity as possible in
habitat type (flora and fauna communities) which interact with
the estuarine zone. The inclusion of many habitat types allows
for research and education activities totally within the sanctuary
without the necessity to travel elsewhere, or obtain permission
of landowners to conduct research and educational activities on
their land. Also, diversity provides for contact with all
representative trophic levels within the integrated estuarine
ecosystem.

2) Research area should be a contiguous area of virtually undisturbed
lands and waters, and boundaries should be contiguous to existing
State forests and fish and wildlife management areas where possible
for administrative (cooperative management) and enforcement purposes.

3) Research area should include an upland forested buffer adjacent
to wetlands. Edge habitat, or "ecotone", frequently has greater
species diversity and use by wildlife. There is also an important
protective function realized by including a forested buffer adjacent
to sensitive wetlands. Forested buffers widths from wetlands should
be at least 500 feet.

4) Research area should include as much surface and groundwater
drainage sources, and/or source type areas as economically feasible.
These type areas include non-estuarine types such as freshwater
marshes, bogs, and swamp type forest, e.g., Atlantic white-cedar,
pitch pine lowlands, and mixed hardwoods. Water sources of the
* ~~~estuarine zone should be represented in order to afford protection
of a representatively complete natural aquatic ecosystem.

5) Area should be accessible by land and water.

6) Home sites, farmlands (cranberry production bogs), and other
developed (improved) lands should be excluded from acquisition area.

z~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Figure 5
Phase I Acquisition

Swan Bay Area

Mapped ediedd y published by the Gelog.cal Suey
Revised cooper..on with New York Depatment of Transportaton * 4' ROAD CLOSSFICATrON
0omtroI AT USGS USOAGS. 0U .SE-Ne'000,oo.TeodecSurv "A h. Io54~ Lg~ ~ dEE e5
*ad Ce ' Sew Topk cooarolE,~e a' AT I~~acAppoAAAtI~m, S ,O.
Char2 1 51S 1S 27 . T 5]2 OS, O5. T 545A.AA CONT OOAR~ INTARVAL IA FEETIcesaeAw 3tSRot <>StApT
-p.-i

Tooa~ oTooorOy~poStaoraetrI,c.ehsfomo.IoaAIoTT �ETTCLEoA,^.OuASOU.,S ,N ��T -O^ToAAAAAA~ ~OooW^A

S.,e~.yUow a T aphaeA AaUa ToA pA.PATroA USO&GS C~arw 28 e1 54AT 0S ,*,. TRI*O~~,T~*. ^
AO~OnCPT poectAT SAT7 orTh AT'POpAnpo laCOu oo A0~~ ~do bawed AT P eOLDAC AASGPIAING TAOOGRPHI AFA N ~8L I VAoL OT REETA
]1 .1e Unv.1 a T-ases .erca1 o "Idbkzn 1 hw nbu

ES ica -AVe =T-O ea Bay EAsT-riAe Sanctuary PrPop.sa

COASTAL ZONE BOONDARY
PINELANDS PRESERVATION AA
- - - PROPOSED ACQUISITION AREAS UNDER ESTUARINE SANCTUARC PROGRAM
SWAN BAY - HOG ISLAND ACQUISTESON

Figure6

Phase I Acquisition f/%I

Wading River Area

Ooooooooolodoodpooloood N. ho C S00 O
Oo oo o 00 o 4 oo
COSA Z O N EBOUDAR

SWAR MY ~ - HO ILNDACUSTO

00000 00 000 i it o -v 000 0,,202550 00

0000 0 40 00 oooooooo000-oogoo0000 0000 000000000 0000000000000000000 000,0

0000 eitd n ooooo U rooeo O00.oo Oo'oOO Go ooeooo 00000

Rerlled n ioaoeratlon nlh Ner Ynrl Dc~rtOcoolOfooOO00or-Oo-ooo Byooaioo~ Sa1oooo�opo

COATA lOS BOUNDARY
rnd '�llal lirx ro~~~i B..rd a' ~~I(P NILONIS OISUOTATOSO ART
Ch~~~~~~~~�lr~~~~~~ ~ -51 - URSOST ACQISIIO ANO 00000 00000 SANCUAR 200100

S~~~~~~*rl*J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - SOAR8'~n BAT� 00m 000 ISLAN ACCGSIISTIOS0iBIi

r~~~~~~~~~~~

."~~~~~p
--~~~~~~3

Figure 7

Phase II Acquisition

Mullica River Area

Mapped. edded CAblefled by flle Oeolo Ca, Su-ey
EFEC,sed Cn ACACper~oln cl Ne~o CCrk Debartment of TSCCCCfatCCCC'L O~ WSA~TO
CCOC CC. USGS USCbCSCSCe. ACCE OCCCD C.dt SCCCCr. "; C'RAT LEC ' " -C " l

11 'Ll, 14 11 s~~a I 114 11, I "..~I I',' Il~rt
..~C~E~T~_EC CC......
CECCCSCC CSC CS1r1)7111 4SC C 5A5 I54 CCC CC CONCOUC INCECCD, CC FEET ta Ru - oe a. yl

Ilno~o~ia~nl Illen 1954 �nn IlIli.. Bi- - GI- By E--I.. 8-- y F-Po ...rInu.l~ I i.
COASTAL ZONE BOUNDARYmla ~om~ll~~ Irom VSCIGS Cmrtl CCCECC C[E CEC
eCCCCC.CC~~~~~~~~~aC~~aCCCCCECCCCCCIIUO CE.CCCCCC.CCCUC C*iNLPriu~rr IINDP1
S.,CCCCCCCC~~~aCCCCCC~~aCCCCCDOICCCJSCDOSFO CCICC CCS CC SA -ELCII CCYIWSUNIND 0
CCCinr 1 Arrlo CUED, CCCIACCC, CCCr ,CCCn e CC,l CaC aalCC CCCCEC 'CCd CECCEC CCC. CeCnr 0CC.u snapl rs orunr trnrlrn

FECCiOea Diver -DreaD Day ECEDACiDD SaDDOUary FrepesaD

- COADYRIC APSE BOUNDARY

PINLEAIND PRESERDVAYON AREA
- - - PROPDSED ACQUISITIOR AREAS UNDER ESTUARINE SANCRTARY PROGRAM

sum SWAN BAY - BOO ISLAND ACQUISITON

Figure
Z11
Phase II Acquisitio

Bas River ?e

CO~~~~~~nS B~~~~~~~~~~OCAST ZONE0 SCB 0,5 0dB O U N i~yDol .ARY

R~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~SAN BAY OG In nnnlhSLIB SAND~S ACUSISO
E,~nEACSICIOOEOOIUCBSBFCO28 2) o
BASn~A~O I d~ S~C AFnS 40, I.O0-IAIWO 605 A

OsoE~ica E~er-Eret Ray ESo~arino aRBBAAAA Proposa
~rOY; t

Phs RORNY O ILN A CQEEsitEON

3. Acquisition and Funding

a. Acquisition

An alternative to the fee simple purchase of lands for the sanctuary
is purchase in less than fee simple. Estuarine Sanctuary Program objectives
may be achieved by obtaining "conservation," "restriction," or "development
rights" easements, including provisions for research access, educational
access, and public recreational access. The New Jersey Conservation Restric-
tion and Historic Preservation Restriction Act of 1980 empowers the New
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection to purchase an interest in
lands less than fee simple absolute, in order to retain "land or water
areas predominantly in their natural, scenic, or open wooded condition,
or for conservation of soil or wildlife, or for outdoor recreation or
park use, or as a suitable habitat for fish or wildlife... ". Less than
fee simple acquisition, such as easements, are preferred if they are
cost effective and provide appropriate protection of the resource.

Easements are a one-time purchase; with no subsequent annual payments.
If the property were sold, the easement would encumber the land,
unless the grantee (purchaser of the easement) unilaterally chose to
sell the easement back to the property owner. Purchase of conservation
easements would relieve the State of 100 percent of the municipal tax
burden, but the State will still be required to pay taxes, on the 13
year declining scale required for those rights purchased.

A property appraisal , title search, and property survey would
be necessary for either an easement or fee simple purchase prior to
closing.

A sample easement document appears in Appendix 6.

Preferred Acquisition Areas - In Priority Order:

1) Swan Bay and Hog Island - Shown in Figure 5 is the proposed
boundary of the Swan Bay and Hog Island Phase I Acquisition Area. The
acquisition of 2,065 acres is intended to join the existing 1,078 acres
of Swan Bay State Fish and Wildlife Management Area into one contiguous
land holding. The acquisition procedure requires using U.S. Department
of Interior, Land and Water Conservation Funding in support of New Jersey
Pinelands Acquisition and has federal Grant approval (34-00329). A full
list of forest and wetlands communities are listed in Table 1.

Municipality Number of Lots Ownership of Record

Sporting
Individuals Corporate Municipal Clubs

Washington
Township 51 33*--

*Multiple-.lot ownership

2) Wading River Area - Shown in Figure 6 is the proposed boundary
.of the Phase I Acquisition Area. The proposed area is 4,819 acres, including
367 acres called Merrygold Estates; 3,705 acres are forested lands and
1,114 acres are coastal wetlands. These totals exclude the two active,
farmed cranberry bogs of 88 acres, and other outlined private dwellings
in holdings. Within this site fifteen wetlands communities and five
pine barrens type forests are represented. The full list of forest and
wetlands communities are listed in Table 1.

The municipal tax maps and ownership records of Bass River Township
were reviewed in order to obtain the approximate number of lots and
individual , corporate, municipal , or sporting club owners of record
within the proposed acquisition boundary (see below). The entire proposed
acquisition area is within Bass River Township.

Municipality Number of lots Ownership of Record

Individuals Corporate Municipal Sporting
Clubs

Bass River Twp. 214 167 33 10 4

3) Mullica River Area - Figure 7 shows the proposed boundary of
the Mullica River Phase II Acquisition Area. The proposed area is 5,392
acres in total. Of this approximately 3,821 acres are forested and
1,571 acres are coastal wetlands.

Within this site eighteen coastal wetlands species communities, with
many mixed species stands, are found, and the five characteristic Pinelands
forest types are also represented. The full list of forest and wetlands
species for the site are listed in Table 1.

The municipal tax maps and ownership records of Galloway and Mullica
Townships and the Cities of Egg Harbor and Port Republic were reviewed in
order to obtain the approximate number of lots in individual, corporate,
municipal, or sporting club ownership of record within the proposed
acquisition boundary:

Vegetative Diversity of Estuarine Sanctuary Acquisition Areas
East Side West Side So. Shoreline East Side
Wading River (Swan Bay) Mullica River Bass River

Forest types

Pine/Oak M VS M

Oak/Pine VS S VS

Hardwood L -L M

White Cedar S -L VS

Pitch Pine
lowlands L L M

Wetlands Communities

A - Spartina alternifora (high vigor)
(Salt marsh cord grass) X S VS L

B - Spartina alterniflora (low vigor)
(Salt marsh cord grass) S S VS X

C - Spartina patens
(Salt meadow grass) L X M X

D - Distichlis spicata
(Spike grass) S L S X

E - Iva frutescens
(Hightide bush) VS M

F - Juncus gerardi
(Black grass) VS VS

Fresh/Brackish Wetlands

1 Typha angustifolia
(Cattail) S X X VS

TABLE 1

2 Zizania aquatica
(Wild rice) VS VS VS

3 Nuphar advena
(Yellow water lily)

4 Peltandra virginica
(Arrow arum) S S M

5 Phragmites communis
(Common reed) S L M VS

6 Leersia oryzoides
(Cut grass)

7 Pontedaria cordata
(Pickerel weed) VS VS VS

8 Polygonum punctatum
(Water smartweed) S

9 Hibiscus palustris
(Marsh mallow) VS VS VS

10 Bare ground - - -

11 Echinochloa walteri
(Water miller)

12 Spartina cynosuroides
(Salt reed grass) M X X S

13 Scirpus americanus
(American three square) S VS VS

14 Panicum virgatum
(Switch grass) VS S

15 Scirpus olneyi
(Olney's bulrush) L X X L

16 Bidens laevis
(Bur marigold)

17 Carex spp.
(S-edge) F S VS

18 Acorus dalamus
(Sweetflag) VS VS VS

19 Impatiens biflora
(Jewelweed, Touch-me-not) -

20 Polygonum arifolium
(Tearthumb) -

21 Eleocharis spp
(Spike-rush) - VS

22 Juncus spp.
(Rush) S

23 Rosa spp.
(Rose) VS

VS = Very small
vs~ = Very small The listing of species and wetland types comes from N.J.
~~~S = SmallDepartment of Environmental Protection Wetlands Maps (1971).
~S = Small ~Wetlands species occurrence were estimated from totals derived
~L =~Large ~by counting the number of times each specie appeared listed
within the alternative acquisition sites. From these totals a
scale (based on area size comparisions visually estimated) was
X = Extensive devised in order to rank the vegetative diversity within, and
in relation to, each of the acquisition areas.
M = Moderate
Forest type occurrences were estimated in a similar manner
with the size classification being a comparison of forest sizes,
between each proposed acquisition area, in relation to each of
the other acquisition areas. The information on forest types is
based on McCormick and Jones (1973). The Pine Barrens Vegetation
Geography and New Jersey Pinelands Commission Vegetation Maps
(1980).

Sporting
Muni ci pal ity No. of lots Individuals Corporate Municipal Clubs

City of Port 21 17 4 --

Galloway Twp. 207 148 33 26-

City of Egg 1700****
Harbor

Mullica Twp. 28 27 1 --
* There are 1,700 separate tax items (lots) listed for lands of City of
Egg Harbor within the proposed Acquisition Area. Due to the large number
these were not categorized by ownership.

Also, the City of Egg Harbor has assigned tax sale certificates for many
properties within the municipality to the State of New Jersey, at no cost,
due to nonpayment of property taxes by owners. This was done on a large
scale, and covers virtually all properties within the proposed acquisition
area. The State of New Jersey presently has a partial interest in those
properti es.

4) Bass River Area - Shown in Figure 8 is the proposed boundary of
the 5,472 acre Phase II Acquisition Area. Approximately 1,782 acres are
forested uplands and 3,690 acres are coastal wetlands. Within this area are
found ten coastal wetlands species communities, with many mixed-species associations,
and four forest types characteristic of New Jersey Pinelands. The full list of
forest and wetlands species for the area is in Table 1.

The municipal tax maps and ownership records of Bass River and Little
Egg Harbor Townships were reviewed in order to obtain the approximate number
of lots in individual, corporate, municipal, or sporting club ownership of
record within the proposed acquisition boundary:

Municipality No. of lots Individual_ Corporate Municipal Sporting Clubs

Bass River Twp. 194 161 27 6

Little Egg
Harbor Twp. 11 2 8 1

Estimated costs for fee simple acquisition of the four areas proposed:

Estimated
Area Size/Acres Cost Acquisition

Swan Bay 2,065 $ 490,000 Phase I
Wading River 4,819 1,808,879 Phase I
Mullica River 5,392 2,327,020 Phase II
Bass River 5,472 1,082,948 Phase II

Totals 17,748 $5,708,847

b. Funding Resources

The following alternative acquisition funding sources have been considered.
At the present time, none of these sources could provide the necessary funding for
acquisition of the proposed sanctuary areas except in the Swan Bay area
as noted below.

- The National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 authorized $23 million
for acquisition of critical lands within the New Jersey Pinelands National
Ecological Reserve. Of that total, $11.2 million has been appropriated and
$8.9 allocated by the U.S. Department of the Interior for acquisitions.
$8.9 million has been obligated to other acquisition projects. This
funding program is on a 75 percent Federal and 25 percent State matching
basis and is not limited to estuarine lands.

- The National Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578)
is currently being utilized in the purchase of the Swan Bay Area. The
50 percent Federal matching funds have been authorized, but not yet awarded;
however, no other funds are scheduled in the near term as an alternate
acquisition funding source for the proposed estuarine sanctuary.

- The Pittman-Robertson Act (P.L. 75-415) provides dedicated Federal
funds derived through excise tax on hunting equipment sales and based on
the number of hunting licenses purchased in each state. This 50 percent
Federal wildlife lands acquisition program has been used in the purchase
of the State Great Bay Fish and Wildlife Management Area. The present
New Jersey allocation is obligated and is not of sufficient magnitude
to implement the proposed estuarine sanctuary program.

- The Dingell-Johnson Act (P.L. 81-681) provides dedicated Federal
funding derived from excise tax on fishing tackle and is based on the
sale of fishing licenses. This funding program is used for the acquisition
of habitats important to fishery resources, and has been used in the
purchase of the Great Bay Fish and Wildlife Management Area. This is
an ongoing program which could be used to assist in the purchase of
estuarine lands, but the present limited New Jersey allocation is
obligated to fishery management programs.

- The National Endangered Species Act (P.L. 93-205) has been used
in New Jersey for the purchase of the Highbee Beach-Pond Creek area
in Cape May County. At present, no Federal funding is scheduled for
areas within the proposed sanctuary boundaries.

- A non-public agency alternative acquisition funding source would
be the direct purchasing of lands followed by donation, by environmental
organizations, charitable organizations, or the property owners. If
these lands were donated to the State, they could serve as part of the
necessary 50 percent State matching share. Although interest has been
expressed by some environmental conservation organizations, no purchase
actions to date have solidified.

4. Alternative Management Plans

A management alternative considered, but rejected, was for the State
to acquire the proposed estuarine sanctuary area through National Estuarine
Sanctuary Program funding and then separate out forested areas and wetlands for
administration under existing State programs without the appointment of a
Sanctuary Advisory Committee or Sanctuary manager. Forest lands would be added
to existing State forests managed by DEP's Division of Parks, Forestry
and Green Acres under the provisions of N.J.S.A 13:8-20 et seq., acquisition
of forested areas. Wetlands would be managed as a State-Ti--F-and Wildlife
Management Area by DEP's Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife under authority
of N.J.S.A. 23:1-1 et seq., which identifies administration of State Fish and
Wildlife Management Tr-6as.

This proposed management structure would offer protection to the
affected areas similar to that intended by the National Estuarine Sanctuary
Program; however, the Congressional intent for research and education in
estuarine sanctuaries would not be explicit. Baseline measurement of
the estuarine ecology by scientists and students over a period of time
is not a specific goal of this management option. In addition, this
option does not provide for a Sanctuary Advisory Committee and the resulting
public involvement, would not include provisions for a Sanctuary Manager,
and in general does not recognize the estuarine sanctuary as an estuarine
system to be used for research and education purposes--a requirement of
the National Estuarine Sanctuaries Program regulations.

5. No Action Alternative

Under this alternative, lands adjacent to the Mullica River would not be
acquired as an estuarine sanctaury. This alternative would leave the future
of the Mullica River Area to be determined by private land owners, municipal
planning programs and zoning ordinances,. DEP and the New Jersey Pinelands
Commission acting within existing legislation.

DEP administers the following laws which will directly affect land use
in the proposed sanctuary area:

The Wetlands Act of 1970 (N.J.S.A. 13:9A et seq.)
Coastal Area Facility Review Act (CAFRA) of 1973 (N.J.S.A. 13:19-1 et seq.)
Waterfront Development Law of 1914 (N.J.S.A. 12:5-3)

The substantive guidelines for the above laws are articulated in the
Coastal Resource and Development Policies (N.J.A.C. 7:7E as amended).
Under the laws and the Coastal Policies for these laws, DEP will allow
virtually no development in delineated wetlands, and no major development
elsewhere in the sanctuary area. Housing developments of 2 units or less,
and County Mosquito Commission activities,are not regulated under CAFRA, and
timber harvesting and wetland agriculture are not regulated under The Wetlands
Act, however, and therefore are not regulated by DEP.

The New Jersey Pinelands Protection Act of 1979 (N.J.S.A. 13:18A-1 et
seq.) delineates a Pinelands Protection Area in which the Wading River, Swan
Bay and Mullica River lie. The adopted Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan
would generally prohibit development within 300 feet of coastal and
freshwater wetlands. The Bass River area is not covered by this act.
While Mosquito Commission activities are regulated under this law, timber
harvesting is not.

Although, the present State and Federal regulatory structure
on wetlands is quite comprehensive and oriented toward ecological conservation.
The State regulatory laws could change. Even if the enabling Coastal and
Pinelands legislation were never repealed or amended, development upland of
the wetlands not regulated by the State could adversely impact the sanctuary area.

Also, State regulatory programs cannot mandate public access to the area
for educational, research, and/or recreational purposes since the lands
are privately owned. While researchers have noted very good cooperation
with current landowners for research uses, certain owners have quite
explicitly been opposed to public recreational uses on their properties.
Long-term research projects could be stopped by a change in property
ownership or attitude of the same owner.

The only fail-safe mechanism to assure the permanent protection of
this area, and its use for public research and education program is through
direct public ownership and management.

PART III: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

Approval of this proposal by NOAA/OCZM would enable the State of
New Jersey to purchase estuarine lands and wetlands and a sufficient upland
buffer area in perpetuity to establish a National Estuarine Sanctuary
representative of the Virginian Biogeographic Region. Combined with the
other protected lands owned by the State, this proposed designation
would have a variety of environmental and economic impacts.

Creation of the estuarine sanctuary will support a long-term learning
process for research and education regarding estuarine systems and dynamics,
which could he applied to other Virginian type estuaries as well. The
sanctuary would permanently protect natural resources and assure public
access for long-term public usage.

This will be a positive environmental impact. Such use will have
little, if any, detrimental effects upon the environment, and will be of
vital importance to the progressive development and implementation of
rational coastal zone management to the local, regional and State levels.

Establishment of the sanctuary will also help to assure permanent
protection and public access to a very productive, relatively undisturbed
estuarine area. Land acquisition will enhance preservation of water
quality as well as marshes, wetlands, and a portion of the adjacent
upl ands.

The proposed sanctuary will permanently prevent irreversible damage
to the environment that could cause the loss of wildlife, vegetation,
fish, and other marine life.

Sanctuary designation does not preclude all human activities within
the sanctuary boundaries, but it would prevent those uses that cause
significant degradation of the system, either through incremental or
large scale destruction. The scientific research and educational
benefits realized through use of the sanctuary will assist in this
control and will provide for the enhancement of the economic and environ-
mental resources of this and other State estuaries.

1. Local Impacts on Atlantic, Burlington, and Ocean Counties

The proposed sanctuary will be located in a sparsely developed area.
The sanctuary will realize the long term non-quantitative benefit by
protecting and enhancing a desired objective; retention of the natural
environment. Land acquisition for the proposed sanctuary will have
several identifiable long-range effects, the net public impact which is
assumed to be positive.

There will, however, be a loss of property tax revenues each year
due to removal of taxable land from the municipalities' tax rolls.
This loss is estimated to be low because of the high percentage of undeveloped
lands, and the loss will be partially compensated by revenues which may be
attributable partially to the operation of the sanctuary.

In addition, new money will be injected into each county's economy as
a result of land purchases from present owners residing in the county where
purchases are made. No permanent residents will be displaced by the
purchase of sanctuary land. In the long run the overall negative impact
of purchasing sanctuary land will be minimal, since a majority of the
lands are generally unsuitable for residential development or commercial
use.

Municipal Property Tax Loss (Part III A.2.d.) estimates the impact of
the proposed action on each municipality.

The net impact of the proposed sanctuary on renewable and non-renewable
resources, is expected to be positive and beneficial to county residents
and the general public. The economic benefits associated with the enhancement
and maintenance of valuable fish, shellfish and wildlife resources are
expected to far outweigh the negative impacts resulting from the loss of
diversion of water rights, and prohibition on future timber harvesting
and sand and gravel extraction within the sanctuary boundary.

The sanctuary will provide a very small, though long term, stimulus to
local employment. The existence of the sanctuary is expected to provide
continued employment through its management and maintenance personnel
requirements. In addition, the local service industry is projected to
increase slightly once the sanctuary is established, operating, and
publicized locally, regionally, and Statewide.

Activities associated with the sanctuary will have a positive impact
on the local economy. The research and education facilities already
within the region include DEP's Nacote Creek Research Station, Brigantine
National Wildlife Refuge, Rutgers University Marine Field Station, Little Egg
Harbor, Stockton State College, and numerous public primary and secondary
schools. These will continue to provide educational opportunities and
benefits to professionals, students, the interested public, and future
generations. Research and educational projects will provide a small but
long term stimulus to the local economy. Additional State, Federal, and
private sector funding for research activities could be available'once
this area is permanently set aside for its stated purposes.

2. Regional Impacts on the Mullica River Drainage Basin

The proposed sanctuary will place additional estuarine lands within
the public domain, thus protecting downstream coastal marine resources
which require these types of lands and waters as critical breeding,
nursery feeding, and wintering areas. Protection of primary vegetative
productivity areas which are the basis of estuarine and marine food
chains will preserve the natural resource base of fin and shell fisheries.

3. State and Federal Impacts

Acquisition and management of the sanctuary will have a relatively
minor short-term impact on the Federal government. The State of Mew
Jersey., however, will need to allocate Green Acres funds, which are
authorized and available for acquisition of real property for public
use purposes. In addition, the State will be responsible for funding
the long-term operation of the sanctuary alone when 50 percent Federal
operation/management grants expire after the first 5 years. These
expenditures are expected to be offset by two nonquantifiable benefits:
(1) improved scientific and technical knowledge to be applied toward
producing workable management practices concerning the protection and
utilization of estuarine resources here and in other estuarine and coastal
zone areas throughout the State; and (2) coordination with the Pinelands
National Reserve, under Federal Legislation, and New Jersey Pinelands
Area, under State legislation, to establish a unique estuarine sanctuary.

4. Natural Environment

a. Fish, Wildlife, and Vegetative Habitat

Fin fish, shellfish, wildlife, and vegetation depend upon a
biological system that provides feeding, nesting, and nursery areas for
many species, both migratory and resident.

The sanctuary will have a positive impact by preserving the highest
quality ecosystems remaining in the New Jersey coastal zone. Potential
and negative impacts on the sanctuary natural resources, caused by
increased visitor use, will be controlled by careful management.

b. Air Quality

The proposed sanctuary area currently has relatively good air quality.
The establishment of an estuarine sanctuary will have a positive impact
by excluding development in the proposed sanctuary, although the area
proposed for the sanctuary contains little land that could be developed,
even under present regulations. There would not be a negative impact
from the proposed sanctuary upon air quality standards outside the proposed
boundaries.

c. Water Quality

The estuarine sanctuary will have a positive impact upon water
quality since pollution will not occur on lands acquired for the proposed
sanctuary. The sanctuary will also assist local and State agencies with
developing water quality data collecting programs needed for effective
deci sionmaki ng.

d. Mineral Reserves/Archaeological Sites

Protection of the area will mean that mineral reserves in the area
will not be fully utilized. Currently, however, the known resources of
commercial quantity sand and gravel within the proposed sanctuary are not
actively mined. Historic Indian "middens" and other historical sites
will not be subject to development pressures and will be protected for
future study.

e. Agricultural Lands

Establishment of an estuarine sanctuary will not result in the loss
of any agricultural lands. Small agricultural lands adjacent to the
sanctuary will provide a functional buffer from human activities and
disturbances. However, the proposed sanctuary will not impose any land
use or water quality requirements upon agricultural uses outside the
proposed sanctuary boundaries.

5. Human Environment

a. Residential/Industrial /Commercial

The owners of land within the proposed boundaries will be affected
by the acquisition of their property. All acquisition will be performed
in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-646), which guarantees fair
negotiations with property owners, including compensation for relocation
expenses if residences or businesses are acquired. NOAA and the State
are cognizant of the fact that certain property owners may have "roots"
and be in accord with the environment of their land. All reasonable
attempts will be made by the State to ensure that acquisition is as
nondisruptive as possible to the property owner. Wherever possible,
easement purchase, lease back program, life estate, etc. will be used to
control sanctuary land and water areas for sanctuary purposes.

b. Public Use

Currently, public use of the system consists of fin and shellfishing,
photography, boating, biological studies, nature study/birdwatching,
clamming, and waterfowl hunting. These uses are compatible with the
estuarine sanctuary and, with the exception of hunting, can be expected
to increase in the future, thus providing positive public benefits.
Hunting is not precluded by estuarine sanctuary designation, though it
could be controlled in certain areas, such as those that contain nesting
or loafing areas for rare or endangered species, or in ongoing research
sites.

The sanctuary would also have a positive impact upon public use
activities by providing needed public lands and managed access sites for
usage, thereby reducing trespassing on private property.

c. Scientific and Educational Use/Economic Factors

The additional access sites and public lands will also have positive
impacts upon the educational and scientific uses of the area. At the
present time, the State University and one State marine laboratory use
the area for educational and research work. Usage will modestly increase
as a result of the publicly owned and managed estuarine sanctuary.

An unquantified economic factor attributable to the area is the
value of research and education to the local economy. For example, the
additional students who would attend the colleges and universities, should
an estuarine sanctuary be designated, will require lodging and general
support facilities from regional merchants. If a multiplier effect of
3.0 is estimated (O'Connor and Sharna, 1976) for the value of educational
services, the impact is substantial. For example, if 20 additional students
attend Rutgers Marine Field Station and spend $5,000/year each, this
would mean an additional $300,000 spent within the regional economy.

The same type of analysis would also apply to the operation and
management of the estuarine sanctuary. The State has the option of
applying for $50,000 per year for a five-year period from OCZM/NOAA,
matched by $50,000 each year from the State, to be used for operation and
management of the estuarine sanctuary. This yearly management budget of
$100,000, through the multiplier effect, can be estimated to provide up
to $300,000 in additional income into the local economy.

d. Municipal Property Tax Loss

Establishment of the sanctuary will create a negative impact on
municipal property tax base because of State acquisition of lands. An
estimated or actual municipal tax impact appears, as noted, for each
municipality in this section (See Table 2).

The boundaries of the proposed acquisition areas boundaries appearing
in Figures 5, 6, 7, and 8 were planimetered on USGS 7.5' Topographic
Quandrangle Sheets, at a scale of 1:24,000, twice, and the average was
taken. These means were multiplied by the standard conversion factor of
91.83 to yield acreage. Each municipality land area was divided into
wetlands and forested land following USGS colored boundaries. Indentations
of tidal creeks, intramarsh "potholes," mosquito ditches, and other
intramarsh surface water features were not planimetered.

It has been the experience of DEP that the saline coastal wetlands
contain approximately 20 percent salt marsh cordgrass Spartina alterniflora
(Type A) tall form (or high vigor) which is generally a characteristic
indication of twice daily tidal flooding. Lands now or formerly flowed
by the mean high tide are tidelands (riparian) and are owned by the State
of New Jersey and held in the public trust. Therefore, all planimeter
acreages of all wetlands types were multiplied by a factor of .20 and
that fraction subtracted from the total planimetered wetlands acreage
measurement. This was done to provide a reasonable estimate of privately
owned wetlands in the absence of adopted claims maps delineating the
extent of State-owned tidelands. NJ DEP is in the process of delineating
the State-owned riparian lands.

TABLE 2
MUNICIPAL TAX LOSS

Wading
Swan Bay River Mullica River Bass River
City of
Washington Bass River Port Galloway City of Muilica Bass River Little Egg
Township Township Republic Township Egg Harbor Township Township Harbor Twp.

Acres of Proposed 2,065 4,819 3,821 Total 5,472 Total
Acquisition Area
Total Municipal 68,480 50,560 5,210 59,072 7,168 34,560 50,560 31,065
Land Area in Acres
Acres of Proposed 2,065 4,819 389 2,266 1,924 813 3,671 1,801
Acquisition Area
Within Municipality
%-age of Proposed 3.2% 9.5% 7.5% 3.8% 26.8% 2.4% 7.3% 5.8%
Acquisition Area to
Total Municipal Area
Area Includes:
Wetlands (AC) 1,900 1,114 185 841 545 -- 2,095 1,595
Assessed Value * $55,655 * $90,920 $270,363 $104,622 $55,391
Forested Lands (AC) 165 3,705 204 1,425 1,379 813 1,576 206
Assessed Value * $1,651,022 * $868,053 $840,031 * $702,297 $110,232
Total Assessed Value $252,807 $1,706,677 $59,600 $958,973 $1,110,395 $92,600 $806,963 $165,624
of Lands in Proposed
Acquisition Areas
1980 Municipal Tax $35.90 $32.00 $43.30 $31.70 $29.30 $37.70 $32.00 $41.00
Rate per $1,000
Assessed Value
Potential Property Tax $7,042 $54,612 $2,555 $30,399 $32,534 $3,491 $25,822 $6,790
Loss to Municipality

* Due to limited number of lots within the proposed boundaries, Total
Assessed Value of lands within the proposed acquisition area in the
municipality was not calculated. Rather, listed assessed values appearing
in the Real Estate Atlas of Atlantic County, Thirteenth Edition (1980) by
Real Estate Data, Inc. were totaled directly. Since improved lands are
located outside the proposed sanctuary boundaries, all improved lands
listed were omitted from this total.

e. Mitigation of Municipal Property Tax Losses

The New Jersey Green Acres and Recreation Opportunities Bond Act of
1974 (N.J.S.A. 13:8A-1 et seq.) provides the State of New Jersey shall
pay annually to each municipality property taxes for a period of 13 years
following such acquisition on a declining scale as listed below:

Percentage of Taxes
Year Paid By State

1 100
2 92
3 84
4 76
5 68
6 60
7 52
8 44
9 36
10 28
11 20
12 12
13 4
14 0

In conclusion, the proposed action will result in the loss of local
property tax income to the affected municipality(ies), however, this
effect will not be immediate, due to the above referenced act which will
provide a thirteen-year period for adjustment to this loss of revenues.

B. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTALOR SOCIOECONOMIC EFFECTS

There are no unavoidable adverse environmental effects from the proposed
sanctuary designation.

Unavoidable socioeconomic effects would include the potential loss to
municipalities of tax revenues (up to $61,656 under Phase I and an additional
maximum loss of $101,346 under Phase II) through public acquisition and
lost opportunities for agricultural, residential, or commercial development.

C. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT
AND THE MAINTENAI�E AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG TERM-PODUCTITTY

While designation of the proposed estuarine sanctuary will restrict
local short term uses of the environment, it will also provide long term
assurance that natural resources and benefits of the area will be avail-
able for future use and enjoyment. Without this additional control, the
conflicts between estuarine users could be expected to increase in intensity
if implementation or enforcement of current State Coastal Management and
Pineland Management laws, programs, and policies are inadequately
funded or monitored to accomplish proper environmental conservation.

Establishment of this proposed sanctuary would also preserve habitat
for those species officially classified by the Department of the Interior
and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration as endangered,
i.e., Bald Eagle (Halia Betus Leucocephalus), Peregrine Falcon (Falco
Peregrinus). For complete lists of State-~designated endangered species,
refer to Appendix 4.

Establishment of an estuarine sanctuary at this location will
provide additional protection and coordination with adjacent wildlife
refuges, State forests, municipal protected lands, and the public open
space of Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge, Penn State Forest, Wharton
State Forest, Bass River State Forest, and Absecon, Great Bay, Port
Republic, and Swan Bay Fish and Wildlife Management Areas.

The proposed estuarine sanctuary and the other public lands would
be an assurance of permanent conservation and preservation of the estuary
and could enhance values and benefits associated with the open space.

Research information derived from the estuarine sanctuary over
the long term will provide a basis for public education and use of
estuarine resources; knowledge which can be applied to establishing and
managing sanctuary areas other than the Mullica River estuary.

A positive economic impact of sanctuary designation is the potential
for coordinated long-tern systematic research activities. Potentially
beneficial or desirable economic impacts include the long term economic
impact of preserving aesthetic and scientific values of the Mul lica
River drainage basin and Federal matching funds for management of the
estuarine sanctuary.

In addition, the local research and education facilities including
DEP's Nacote Creek Research Station, Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge,
Rutgers University Marine Field Station, Stockton State College, Center
for Environmental Studies and Atlantic County College would be encouraged
to apply for various field research grants or public education grants,
which could increase research and educational use of the area.

The proposed sanctuary will increase the public control of this natural
estuarine system, thus directly contributing to the long term maintenance
of this environment and its economic benefits. In addition, the estuary
will serve as a refuge for part of the living resources of the Virginia~n
province requiring this type of habitat for survival. (See Part IV,
Affected Environment.)

Furthermore, since a significant portion of economic activities in
these counties is a direct product of the estuarine environment (e.g.,
fishing and shellfishing, recreational and commercial, boating, sailing,
marinas and boat sales and services, and waterfront housing services)
the sanctuary will help ensure the maintenance and enhancement of long
term economic benefits, as well as ecological productivity.

It is important to point out that some of the potentially negative
impacts are mutually exclusive. For example, mineral extraction and
commercial clamming could not occur at the same time, for one use would
preclude the other as effectively as sanctuary designation would. For
this reason, the negative impacts are not additive. In contrast, the
positive impacts are compatible and not mutually exclusive, and would all
accrue if the sanctuary were designated.

D. IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES
Sanctuary designation is intended to irreversibly commit estuarine
resources in the sanctuary to the purposes of preservation and scientific
study. The biological resources would be available for alternative
use by such activities as commercial fishing, shellfishing, or silvaculture
if these do not interfere with sanctuary goals. Similarly, development
of other non-biological resources which would interfere with sanctuary
goals, such as the mining of mineral deposits, would be prohibited and
any such resources can be considered irreversibly committed.

E. POSSIBLE CONFLICTS BETWEEN THE PROPOSED ACTION AND THE OBJECTIVES
OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS, STATE AND LOCAL LAND USE PLANS, POLICIES,
AND CONTROL FOR THE AREA CONCERNED.

There are a number of State and Federal Environmental management programs
which incorporate a portion of the Mullica River drainage basin's privately
owned lands. All of the regulations and/or policies identified herein are
consistent with the proposed establishment and committed use of the Mullica
River Sanctuary.

The Coastal Area Facility Review Act (CAFRA), the Wetlands Act and the
Waterfront Development Permit Law are the main regulatory tools for implemen-~
tation of the now Federally-approved New Jersey Coastal Management Program
(NJCMP, August 1980) which fully articulates State policies for coastal permit
decisions.

The NJCMP has established a series of Rules on Coastal Resource and
Development Policies (N.J.A.C. 7:7E-1.1) which describe performance standards
to which proposed developments must comply. Location Use and Resource
Policies have been adopted and are used within the coastal permit decisionmaking
process. The NJCMP, DEP has designated the northwestern portion of the
coastal area within Bass River Township (Mullica River's northern shoreline)
as a Limited Growth Area where "...the concern is conservation of the
natural environment. The spread of development must, therefore, he highly
restricted."

In addition, crude oil pipelines are prohibited within the central Pine
Barrens region defined as a "critical area" for sewerage purposes under
N.J.A.C. 7:9-10.1(b). Natural gas pipelines are also discouraged in the area.

1. State Programs and Enabling Legislation

a. New Jersey Wetlands Act of 1970 (N.J.S.A. 13:9A-1 and N.J.A.C.
7:7A-1.1 et seq.)

This law established a regulatory program for uses of coastal wetlands,
defined as "low land subject to tidal action. . . upon which may grow or
is capable of growing some" of the 19 named salt, brackish and freshwater
wetlands plant species. The law is administered by DEP's Division of Coastal
Resources. .

This law resulted in a drastic reduction in the previous rate of wetlands
destruction. Production of 914 wetlands maps delineating State regulated
wetlands and regulated uses include: draining; dredging; excavation of soil,
mud, sand and gravel; dumping; erection of structures; and similar activities.
Activities not covered include commercial production of salt hay or other
agricultural crops, and activities conducted by the counties' Mosquito Control
Commissions and the Tidelands Resource Council (a State decision-making body
for riparian grants, leases and licenses).

Tidal wetlands were formerly being destroyed at an average rate of
1,500 acres per year. Since implementation of this law, an average of
only 55 acres have been lost each year, and only for clearly water-dependent
uses. In 1979 and 1980 development was permitted on less than one acre of
regulated wetl ands.

b. Coastal Area Facility Review Act of 1973 (CAFRA) (N.J.S.A. 13:19-1,
N.J.A.C. 7:7D-2.0 and 2.6(a)(4))

This law established a State planning and regulatory program for major
facilities within a specifically defined coastal area. Facilities are
defined as housing developments of 25 units or greater, most industrial
operations, utilities, public infrastructure, etc. No regulated facility
can be constructed in the coastal area prior to receipt of a CAFRA permit,
with mandatory EIS submission, DEP review, and public hearing.

c. Waterfront Development Law_(_N.J.S.A. 12:5-3, NJAC 7:7.2.1 et seq.)

The Waterfront Development Law authorizes DEP to regulate the construction
or alteration of docks, wharves, piers, bulkheads, bridges, pipelines, cables
or other "similar or dissimilar development" on or adjacent to navigable
waterways and streams throughout the State. In the coastal area defined by
CAFRA which includes the area in and near the proposed sanctuary, the law
applies to development proposed only in water areas.

d. Tidelands Management

In New Jersey, "tide-flowed" or riparian lands are owned by the State of
New Jersey, except where already conveyed. These are lands now or formerly
flowed by the mean high tide, including filled lands. The State owns the

lands as trustee for the public, and must administer their use in the public
interest. The State exercises control over the tidelands in two ways; through
its proprietary role as owner, a-nd through its regulatory role under the
Waterfront Development Law.

The State's ownership interest extends to the mean high water mark, which
is determined on the basis of a theoretical 18.6 year tide.

The State's ownership role is exercised through the Tidelands Resource
Council, which may grant, lease, or license the use of State-owned tidelands
provided such action is in the public interest. Persons seeking to purchase,
lease or otherwise use these lands must first obtain the Council's approval.
A great deal of the State's tidelands were sold (granted) in the nineteenth
and early twentieth centuries, but it is the present practice of the Council
to only issue licenses for use of the land, and not to convey them outright.

The Council, which is composed of twelve citizens appointed by the
Governor with the advice and consent of the New Jersey State Senate, has
broad discretion concerning applications for tidelands conveyances. The
Council may make any decision it believes to be in the public interest.

In keeping with traditional riparian law, the owners of land immediately
upland have the first right to purchase or use tidelands. But before any
person may make use of tidelands, the Council requires that they obtain a
Waterfront Development Permit. Since the permit may only be granted if the
activity is consistent with the Coastal Resource and Development Policies
this requirement ensures that the use of tidelands will conform with those
pol ici es.

e. New Jersey Pinelands Protection Act of 1979 (NJPPA)(P.L. 1979, CH. III;
N.J.S.A. 13:8A-1 et seq.)

The Pinelands Protection Act established a framework for the comprehensive
planning and regulation of development in the approximately 1,000,000
acres of fragile, highly valued pinelands that reach across central and
southern New Jersey.

The proposed estuarine sanctuary is located within this area. The
Act is intended to accomplish the purposes of the National Parks and Recreation
Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-625), which authorized Federal support for Pinelands
protection through planning and land acquisition. The Federal Act directs
the Department of the Interior to provide up to $3 million in planning
assistance if requested by the Governor, and up to $26 million in implementation
funds following submission of an acceptable master plan. This plan was
approved by the U.S. Secretary of Interior in January 1981. Both the
planning process and a moratorium on State permit approvals and financial
assistance were initiated by a Governor's Executive Order (No. 71)
in March, 1979. The Pinelands Protection Act was subsequently passed and
signed into law on June 28, 1979.

The Act establishes the following policy goals for the Pinelands:

1. For the entire pinelands area, to protect, preserve and enhance
the significant values of the resources thereof in a manner which is
consistent with the purposes and provisions of this act and the Federal
Act.

2. For the protection area:

(a) Preserve and maintain the essential character of the existing
pinelands environment, including the plant and animal species indigenous
thereto and the habitat therefore;

(b) Protect and maintain the quality of surface and ground waters;

(d) Discourage piecemeal and scattered development; and

(e) Encourage appropriate patterns of compatible residential,
commercial and industrial development, in or adjacent to areas already
utilized for such purposes, in order to accommodate regional growth influences
in an orderly way while protecting the pinelands environment from the
individual and cumulative adverse impacts thereof.

3. For the preservation area to:

(a) Preserve an extensive and contiguous area of land in its natural
state, thereby insuring the continuation of a pinelands environment which
contains the unique and significant ecological and other resources
representative of the pinelands area;

(b) Promote compatible agricultural, horticultural and recreation
uses, including hunting, fishing and trapping, within the framework of
maintaining a pinelands environment;

(d) Provide a sufficient amount of undeveloped land to accommodate
specific wilderness management practices, such as selective buring, which
are necessary to maintain the special ecology of the preservation area; and

(e) Protect and preserve the quantity and quality of existing surface
and ground waters.

The Act created a 15-member Pinelands Commission in, but independent
of, DEP.

Within one year of the plan's adoption, every county and municipality
located in whole or in part in the Protection Area must submit to the
Commission a master plan and/or zoning ordinance which complies with the
adopted policies. Also following adoption, state regulatory and capital
spending decisions in the area must comply with the policies (established).

The Pinelands National Reserve overlaps with the coastal zone in
portions of Ocean, Burlington, & Atlantic Counties, and in the Mullica
River watershed there is also overlap between the coastal zone and the
Pinelands Area under the jurisdiction of the State Pinelands Act. In this
latter area, coastal permits and approval from the Pinelands Commission are
both required for new development. This area is designated a part of the
Preservation Area by the Pinelands Protection Act and a Limited Growth
Region by the Coastal Resource and Development Policies, indicating a
consistency of the policies. In the area of overlap between the coastal
zone and the National Reserve which is not under the jurisdiction of the
Pinelands Protection Act, the Coastal Management Program is the principal
means of implementing the Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan.

f. DEP Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife

This Division has previously acquired four Fish and Wildlife Management
Areas within the basin's salt marshes, tidal wetlands, and uplands. They are:

I Great Bay (3,789 acres)I
I Swan Bay (1,078 acres)*I
Port Republic ( 755 acres)I
I Absecon Wetlands (1,313 acres)

I*Additional lands in the process of being acquiredI
Iby DEP as part of the Pinelands Commission's CMP.I

The location of these areas and other public lands is depicted in
Figure 1.

g. DEP Division of Parks and Forestry

This Division manages the most extensive public lands holdings within
the Mullica River drainage basin. These include:

IWharton State Forest (99,671.8 acres) I
IPenn State Forest ( 3,266.0 acres) I
IBass River State Forest ( 9,100.1 acres) I

h. Green Acres and Recreation Program (N.J.S.A. 13:lB-15.12(a) et seq.)

Natural areas designated under the Natural Areas Systems Act of 1976
are State lands defined as "an area of land or water which has retained
its natural character, although not necessarily completely undisturbed or
having rare or vanishing species of plant and animal life or similar features
of interest which are worthy of preservation for the use of present and
future residents of the State." Areas designated to date within the Mullica
River drainage basin include:

Batsto (350 acres)*
Oswego River (Martha's Bog) (200 acres)*
Absegami Trail (100 acres)*
North Brigantine Island
Natural Area (678 acres)t

*Portions of existing State Forests
tSeparate State lands acquisition.

The Green Acres program determines where and how State funds should be
spent for open space acquisition, development, and maintenance. DEP's
Office of Pinelands Acquisition, coordinates all acquisition under the
Pinelands protection programs.

Green Acres also administers the Wild and Scenic Rivers System under
the New Jersey Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1977 (N.J.S.A. 13:8-45 et seq.).
The Lower Atison Branch of the Mullica River has been proposed for inclusion
in this system.

The State Heritage Program, administered by Green Acres, has selected the
Mullica River drainage basin to conduct a review of cultural resources.

i. DEP Division of Water Resources

This Division has authority for planning and regulating water supplies,,
quality and treatment, and floodplain use, throughout the State.

The Division administers the New Jersey Realty Improvement Sewerage and
Facilities Act (N.J.S.A. 58:11-44 et seq.). The law requires that no building
permits be issued within the Mullica River drainage basin, along with other
additional Pinelands watersheds, as shown in Figure 6, which have been
designated as Critical Areas defined in N.J.A.C. 7:9-10.1(b).

j., Department of Community Affairs

The State Development Guide Plan (Revised Draft of February 1980) has
proposed that limited lands outside the New Jersey Pinelands Protection or
Preservation Area (classified Conservation Areas) within the Mullica River
watershed be "Limited Growth Areas." For these lands, "...it is neither
desirable nor feasible to prohibit development... New growth ... would
require major public investments in services and facilities ... Accordingly,
Limited Growth Areas should be left to grow at their own moderate pace...
areas which do not now appear to be necessary to accommodate projected popula-
tion increases may become critically important resources for the New Jerseyans
of the 21st Century." Conservation areas are "areas of State-~wide significance.
They are too large or too expensive to be acquired and managed by local or
county governments, yet they contain resources and recreational opportunities
which should be enjoyed by present and future generations."

PART IV: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

The New Jersey Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan (New Jersey
Pinelands Commission, November 1980) was extensively used in writing the
following section, and much of the text is adapted from that source and
Kantor 1980.

A. General Physiography

The proposed sanctuary site is located in the Mullica River estuary,
New Jersey's largest and least developed coastal estuarine system. The
site includes parts of Atlantic, Burlington and Ocean Counties and is
within the Mullica River Drainage Basin, which forms the heart of the
million-acre New Jersey Pinelands, the Nation's first National Reserve.
The proposed sanctuary site includes nearly pristine tidal marshes and
forested uplands. The area supports diverse marine, estuarine, and
terrestrial biological communities, including endangered species.

Three factors contribute to the essential character of the Mullica
River. First, there are the physical features of the landscape, including
relief, soils, and hydrology. Second, there are living organisms, the
plants and animals the Mullica area supports. And third, there are
ecosystem processes, the dynamic interrelationships among and between
the living organisms and their particular habitat elements which have
evolved over thousands of years.

Outside influences, both natural and human-caused, may alter these
factors. In this section of the EIS, the significant natural and man-'
made influences that determine the nature of the Mullica River area are
identified.

B. Geology

The processes of deposition, sea level change, erosion and land
uplift in the past have had a significant influence on today's Mullica
River landscape and ecosystem.

The Mullica River is located in the Atlantic Coastal Plain geologic
formation, created over the last 170-200 million years by depositional
and erosional processes. The Atlantic Coastal Plain is characterized by
gently rolling terrain, with sandy, droughty soils and no rock outcrops,
steep slopes, or mountain peaks. In general, it is comprised of a
wedge-'shaped series of unconsolidated layers of sands, clays and marls on
a gently southeastward dipping bedrock (80 to 100 feet per mile) which
is 1,300 to 6,000 feet below the surface. These layers extend seaward
into the submerged Continental Shelf.

The lowest geological beds originate from continental deposits
(Lower Cretaceous Age). These are overlain by deposits of both continental
and marine origin (Upper Cretaceous Age) dating from 65-136 million
years before present (MYBP). Specific formations within this group are,
oldest to youngest, the Hornerstown Sand, Vincentown and Manasquan
Formations, Kirkwood Formation, Cohansey Sand, and Beacon Hill Gravel.

Overlying the Tertiary deposits are those which were laid down
during the Pleistocene (Wisconsin) glaciation (1.8 MYBP) and the Holocene
period (0.01 MYBP). The Cape May Formation deposited during this time
extends from sea level to 30 to 50 feet above sea level and is considered
to be of marine origin. The Holocene, alluvial and eolian in origin,
appear to be a redeposition of the older deposits.

The Kirkwood Formation, the Cohansey Sand and the Quaternary Deposits
are the most important geologic formations of the Mullica River drainage
basin, and are described below.

Kirkwood Formation

The Kirkwood Formation is overlain by the Cohansey Sand. The irregular
surface of the Kirkwood ranges from over 100 feet above sea level in its
outcrop area to over 300 feet below sea level along the eastern edge of
the Cape May Peninsula. The formation is between 50 and 100 feet thick
in its outcrop and thickens to over 800 feet in the Atlantic City area.

The Kirkwood has variable lithology both along its outcrop and downdip.
The outcrop consists of a lower component that is a very fine, dark,
micaceous sand with a pebbly glauconitic basal layer two to four feet
thick, and an upper component of silt and clay.

Under the coast in Cape May County, five distinct members have been
recognized in the Kirkwood. These are, oldest to youngest: a tough,
brown basal clay; the lower aquifer, a grey, medium-to-coarse sand
(Atlantic City 800-foot sand); a blue, silty diatomaceous clay; the
upper aquifer, a medium-to-coarse sand (Rio Grande Zone); and a blue
diatomaceous clay.

The lithology of the formation along the downdip appears to remain
fairly consistent, with the sand component generally varying between 50
and 100 feet.

Cohansey Sand

The 2,350 square mile Cohansey overlies the Kirkwood Formation, southeast
of the Kirkwood outcrop. The occurrence of outliers within the Kirkwood
outcrop indicates that the Cohansey was more extensive at one time.
It either outcrops at the surface or is overlain by a veneer of Pleistocene
deposits, thin except in Cape May County and along the eastern coast,
where these deposits may have a thickness of 200 feet. The combined
thickness of the Cohansey and overlying Pleistocene deposits ranges from
less than 20 feet to more than 200 feet.

The 'Cohansey Sand typically consists of fine to coarse grained
quartzose sand with lenses of gravel that are usually one foot thick
or less. In most areas, overall clay content is less than 20 percent.
Lenses of white, yellow, red and light grey clay occur generally in
the upper part of the formation and may be as much as 25 feet thick.
The sand is predominantly yellow (limonite staining), but shades of
white, red, brown, and grey also occur. Parallel bedding and cross-
stratification are present in the sand.

Quaternary Deposits

These deposits form a discontinuous veneer lying above the Cohansey
throughout much of the Pinelands. They are, from oldest to youngest,
the Bridgeton, Pennsauken and Cape May Formations.

The Bridgeton and Pennsauken deposits are generally derived from
erosion and redisposition of the Cohansey Sand and Beacon Hill Gravel.
They cap the tops and mantle the upper slopes of most of the pronounced
hillIs and narrow ridges, and can be as much as 20 feet thick.

The Cape May Formation in Cape May County contains four lithologic
components deposited in three environments - estuarine, marine and deltaic.
Elsewhere, the thickness of this formation is 85 feet near Batsto, 112 feet
at Sweetwater, and 229 feet at Atlantic City.

The most important hydrologic function of the Cape May deposits is
their ability to absorb precipitation and transmit water to underlying
aquifers. Because hydraulic continuity with the underlying Cohansey is
excellent, they can be considered a part of the Cohansey Sand -Upper
Kirkwood aquifer system, although this has been debated.

The particular characteristics of the Pinelands geology -low relief
with sandy, droughty soil, underlain with a number of water-bearing sand
layers alternating with confining clay layers -~ give rise to a unique
and fragile surface and groundwater system. In essence, precipitation
is rapidly absorbed by the droughty sand, percolates through the soil to
the relatively shallow water table, and in turn supports the region's
stream flow as groundwater seepage. The following section discusses
the hydrogeologic characteristics of the strata underlying the Pinelands,
the existing groundwater quality, and sources of degradation.

C. Hydrology

The most important abiotic element of the Pinelands ecosystem is water.
Water is stored in the extensive sand aquifers below the surface. This
ground water supports 89 percent of the flow in the Pinelands. streams,
discharging primarily through the swamps and marshes. It is replenished
solely by precipitation, 44 percent of which percolates through the sandy
soil surface.

Although highly permeable, the uppermost soil tends to be chemically
inert with a low adsorbtive capacity. It is therefore incapable of
filtering out wastes. In addition, the waters are susceptible to various
forms of pollution because they are weakly buffered against chemical
change. Groundwater contamination in the Pinelands is a significant
threat.

The proposed sanctuary site is within the Mullica River Drainage Basin,
which includes seven sub-basins.

Streams in the proposed sanctuary area have a characteristic and
typical composition which is as important to the maintenance of the
ecosystem as are the water flows and the groundwater levels. The
typical, high-quality Pinelands stream is slow-moving, brown but clear,
has a sandy substrate, and is overhung by dense vegetation. The water
is soft and the pH is low. It generally has a high level of dissolved
humic matter, especially in the summer months, and may have fluctuating
oxygen levels due to bog and swamp drainage and organic demands. There
are low levels of nutrients and suspended and dissolved solids, and such
streams can be classified as dystrophic.

Mullica River Drai nagje-Basi-n

The Bass River sub-~basin is relatively undeveloped and contains large
State land holdings. The water quality index value of slightly disturbed
at the East Branch station is probably conservative. The suspended solids
90th-percentile concentration was only 0.5 mg/l higher than the 12.5 mg/l
cutoff point. The slightly elevated solids load could be attributable to
activities at the State recreation area immediately upstream from the
samplin7 station. The headwaters of the East Branch, West Branch, and
Barlett s Branch of Bass River are not within current public land holdings.

The Wading River sub-basin has minimal developed land. However, it
is used extensively for cranberry and blueberry production. Water quality
levels on the West Branch of the Wading River and the East Branch (Oswego
River) are slightly disturbed. The elevated suspended solids and fecal
coliform levels are probably due to localized problems.

It is most important that the water quality of the Wading River and
its tributaries be maintained as high as possible. Tributaries in the
upper watershed which lie outside of State-owned lands are most critical.
These headwater streams include Yellow Dam Branch, Plains Branch, Beaver
Branch, Ives Branch, Pole Branch, Probst Branch, Goose Pond, and sections
of the West Branch around Chatsworth.

Water quality within the Batsto River sub-basin is good to slightly
disturbed. An analysis of the fecal coliform/fecal streptococcus level
shows that the bacterial contamination could be caused by human waste and/or
livestock and poultry waste. The latter category includes wild game. High
total dissolved solids levels in Springers Brook could be due to the
surrounding agricultural practices. High pH and alkalinity concentrations
indicate the use of lime or septic systems contamination.

The Batsto River increases in quality downstream. Good quality is
found at the station at Batsto due to cleansing action as the river passes
through bogs and swamps. The headwaters areas of Springers Brook, Indian
Mills Brook, and the Batsto River are not currently protected. These
areas are particularly vulnerable to development pressure from the Medford
Lakes region. The Batsto River is a major tributary of the Mullica River.

Water quality in the Atsion-Mechesactauxin sub-basin is quite variable.
The most disturbed water quality on the Wildcat Branch is probably due to
the industrial point source, urban development, and surrounding agricul-
tural land. This station provides a good illustration of the fragile
character of headwater areas. The normal low flows of the small streams
are not adequate to assimilate the waste. Water quality at all other
stations is rated either good or slightly disturbed due to elevated
suspended solids loads. These loads could be due to natural conditions.

This sub-basin probably has the greatest potential within the Mullica
River system for being impacted by development. The small, upper streams
which are not within the Wharton tract are very close to the developing
centers of Berlin and Atco.

Because there is only one water quality station at the base of the
Nescochague Creek sub-basin, it is impossible to evaluate any upstream
water quality impact. Water quality at that station in Pleasant Mills
is slightly disturbed due to suspended solids concentrations; probably
caused by natural conditions.

The Nescochague sub-basin is divided by Route 30 running from
Philadelphia through Hammonton. Development pressure is high. Management
of the headwater areas is critical to water quality in the Mullica River.

The Hammonton Creek sub-basin has poor to very poor water quality
because of point sources, urban runoff, and agricultural practices. Based
on the water quality index and pH values, Hammonton Creek has the worst
water quality in the whole Pinelands area. The high nutrient loads can
adversely impact Nescochague Lake, the Mullica River, and finally Great
Bay. The high pH values will alter the acid water-dependent Pinelands
aquatic communities. Improvements of water quality would require controls
on all sources of contamination.

The Mullica River drains a significant portion of the Pinelands
National Reserve. The sub-basin encompassing its lower main stem is
affected by drainage from the upper tributaries and by the tidal influence
of Great Bay. Due to lack of data, the impact of direct drainage to this
section of the Mullica could not be determined.

The Atlantic County portion of the sub-~basin is more threatened than
the Burlington County portion because it has more land area, more develop-
ment and more agricultural land. Within the total Mullica River Basin,
the Lower Mullica is not as vulnerable as the upper watersheds because
its capacity to assimilate pollutants is greater. If the upper reaches
are altered by development and agricultural practices, the entire river
and estuarine system will feel the impacts.

D. Biological Resources

1. Vegetation

Differences in groundwater levels result in two distinct floristic
complexes, the uplands and the lowlands (McCormick, 1979; Robichaud and
Buell, 1973). Lowlands are found on sites where water is near or above
the surface during some part of the year. The upland complex occurs in
the remaining area. The water level of sites occupied by this complex is
seldom nearer to the surface than 2 to 3 feet and may be as deep as 60 to
70 feet (McCormick, 1979). This contrast in moisture conditions between
the upland and lowland sites is probably intensified by the highly
permeable, sandy soils. In the subdued topography of the Atlantic Coastal
Plain, however, the boundaries between these complexes are often not
sharply defined. Subtle differences in topography result in a rich
mosaic of different vegetative types.

Upland Complex Vegetation

The uplands support two major vegetation types or associations,
pine-soak forests and oak-pine forests. Fire plays an important role in
determining the composition of these upland forests. Differences in
resistance to fire damage, shade tolerance, and reproductive strategies
are responsible for the selective action of fire on the different plant
species.

Following a fire, oaks and pines have the ability to resprout from
dormant buds which lie protected beneath the soil surface and from along
their trunks. This ability varies among the oaks and pines. Oaks are
less resistant to both wounding and killing by fire than pitch or shortleaf
pine (Pinus rigida; P. echinata) (Little, 1946; Little and Moore, 1945).
Shrub oaks, blackjack and bear oak (Quercus marilandica, Q. ilicifolia),
are more fire adapted than the tree oaks such as white and black oak
(Q. alba., Q. velutina). They exhibit a greater capacity to sprout and
produce acorns on much younger sprouts following a fire. Pitch pine is
more resistant to fire damage and retains its basal sprouting over a
long period of time than shortleaf pine.

Fire also results in the removal of the thick mat of litter covering
the forest floor. This provides a more suitable seedbed for pines which,
unlike oaks, require mineral soil or a thin layer of litter and minimal
shading for the establishment of seedlings. The overall effect of fire
favors pine over oak. In the absence of fire or other severe disturbances
such as land clearing, pitch pine and shortleaf pine would be replaced by
oaks and other hardwoods. If this occurred, the character and composition
of the forest would be substantially modified.

Pitch pine is the dominant tree of the upland pine-oak forest of the
Pinelands. This species is commonly associated with blackjack oak, black
oak, chestnut oak (Quercus prinus), white oak scarlet oak (Q. coccinea),
and post oak (Q. stellata), as well as southern red oak (Q. falcata) in
the southern portion of the Pinelands. A large part of the regionis
covered with pine-blackjack oak, a vegetation type which characterizes
the selective action of frequent, severe fire (McCormick, 1979). Pine-
post oak and pine-black oak associations also occur in the region but are
scattered and may be limited in size. Common understory include the
shrub-form scrub oak, lowbush blueberry (Vaccinium vacillam) and black
huckleberry (Gaylussacia bacata).

Lowland Complex Vegetation

Lowland forests include: Atlantic white cedar swamps, pitch pine
lowlands, bogs, and inland and coastal marshes. The lowland forests in
the region are composed manly of Atlantic white cedar (Chamaecyparis
thyoides), trident red maple (Acer rubrum), black gum (Nyssa sylvatica),
and pitch pine, Gray birch (Betula populifolia), sassafras (Sassafras
albidum), and sweetbay magnolia (Magnolia virginland) are often present.
Other lowland associations, primarily in the regions periphery, may
contain sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), pin oak (Quercus palustris),
willow oak (Q. phellos), basket oak (Q. michauxii), and water oak (Q.
nigra). Both natural and manmade bogs are found throughout the region.
Many abandoned bogs have been colonized by grasses (Gramineae) and sedges
(Carex spp.) forming inland marshes. Similar freshwater marshes are also
found along Pinelands streams. Extensive tidal marshes are found along
the coastal Pinelands borders.

The cedar swamps are characterized by dense, even-aged stands of
narrow-crowned Atlantic white cedar. While cedar predominates in the
canopy, pitch pine is often present as well. Trident red maple, blackgum,
and sweetbay are also common in the understory. Dangleberry (Gaylussacia
frandosa), highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum), swamp azalea
(Rhododendron viscosum), fetterbush (Leucothoe racemosa), sweet pepperbush
(Clethra alnifolia), and bayberry (Myrica pennsylvania) are likely to
occur in the shrub layer. Hardwoods and shrubs are far more numerous and
can form a dense layer at the edges of stands or under stands that have
been partially cut or are declining. While herbaceous growth is rarely
very dense, there is a wide variety of species present in areas where
there are conopy openings. These commonly include pitcher plant (Sarracenia
purpurea), sundew (Drosera spp.), and chain fern (Woodwardia virginica).
A rich carpet of mosses (Sphagnum spp). covers the ground. Ceder swamps
are found in narrow bands running along many of the smaller stream courses
and in larger configurations in the broader valleys.

Fires rarely begin or spread in the wet and poorly drained cedar
swamps. Unless a fire is driven by a strong wind, or drought conditions
exist, these lowlands usually act as fire breaks. Atlantic white cedars
are extremely susceptible to fire injury because of their thin bark and
flammable foliage, and they do not sprout after stems are killed by fire.
Subsequent reproduction depends on the depth to which the organic soil
has been burned, the nature of the previous stand, and the extent of
browsing by deer. While the combined effect of fire and cutting has

frequently reduced the area in white cedar and favored hardwoods, proper
use of both favors cedar (Little, 1950).

The canopy of hardwood swamps is predominantly trident red maple,
commonly associated with blackgum and sweetbay. Sassafras and grey birch
also-occur frequently.

The pitch pine lowland forest is characterized by a dense canopy
composed of pitch pine. The understory is often dense, supporting maple
and blackgum as well as a variety of lowland shrubs.

Three types of bogs are found in the area; active cranberry bogs,
open bogs, and shrub thickets.

Coastal marshes, dominated by salt marsh cordgrass and salt hay, are
often adjacent to to bands of hardwood swamp. Rushes, spike grass, and
glassworts are often associated with the dominant spartinas.

2. Wildlife

The high productivity of this region extends beyond the terrestrial
boundaries to the estuarine and marsh environments. The organic nutrients
produced within the tidal freshwater and salt marshes and carried by tidal
flushing of the estuaries are essential to the coastal marine food chain.
The trophic levels of estuarine productivity are illustrated by the variety
of estuarine and marine fishes, shellfish and other wildlife which thrive
there. High species diversity usually reflects environmental health.
Sixty one different species of fin fishes have been recorded in the
estuary. Major anadromous fish include striped bass, alewife, and blue-a
back herring which spawn in the basin's tributaries. Eleven spawning
runs have been confirmed. Shellfish resources are extensive, and support
a small commercial oyster fishery as well as recreational and commercial
clammi ng.

The Great Bay region is a major migratory stop and wintering area for
many migratory waterfowl and shorebirds as well as a major raptor (owls,
hawks and falcons) wintering area. During the winter season, the area's
waterfowl population is over 70,000 individuals. The diversity of vegeta-
tive growth permits a wide spectrum of bird species; Brigantine National
Wildlife Refuge recorded 251 species of birds in 1971. Exemplary nesting
species include the State-designated endangered species of osprey, least'
tern, and black skimmer. There are at least 44 distinct water bird
nesting colonies (rookeries) for 15 different species. These include
egrets, ibis, gulls, terns, and skimmers.

The Mullica River estuarine community supports a diverse population of
organisms, ranging from algae through invertebrates to fish and mammals,
and their respective predators. Species lists are available in the
Appendi ces.

3. Endangered Species

PIlants

Numerous plant species in the Mullica River area area listed as
threatened or endangered by the U.S. Department of the Interior. Eight
Pinelands plant species are currently being evaluated for such listing.
Also, a study completed for the New Jersey Pinelands Commission inventoried
71 rare plant species, including ferns, grasses, sedges, and broad-leaved
plants, and assigned each a status of endangered, threatened, or undetermined.
Table 3 gives the status of rare Pinelands plants.

Mammals

No mammal species found in the Mullica River area are currently listed
as endangered or threatened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Two
species formerly found in the area, the black bear and the bobcat, have been
extirpated. The beaver was eliminated through unregulated trapping but
has been reintroduced and is now common in the area.

Birds

Two bird species found in the Mullica River area, the bald eagle
and the peregrine falcon, are Federally listed endangered species. In
addition, a number of bird species are listed on the New Jersey official
list of endangered and threatened species. Table 4 gives the status
of rare bird species in the area.
Coastal marshes in the area serve as sites for ongoing attempts to
reintroduce the peregrine falcon into the New Jersey ecology.

Reptiles and Amphibians

While there are no reptiles or amphibians in the Mullica River area
which are Federally listed as endangered or threatened, nine herptile
species are so listed by New Jersey. Endangered species are the Pine
Barrens treefrog, the timber rattlesnake, the bog turtle, the southern
gray treefrog, and the tiger salamander. Threatened species include
the northern pine snake, the corn snake, the wood turtle, and the mud
sal amander.

The Mullica River watershed is a major stronghold for the timber
rattlesnake. The population of this species in the area has been sharply
reduced by human actions, including collecting, killing, and reduction of
habitat by residential development.

TABLE 3 Threatened and Endangered Plant Speoles of the New Jersey Plne~anda
I L ~~~~~~~~~~~~Habitat
dograchift Pitch Pine Cadar Imardwaoo Water bog, N~on-
Soecten ~~~~tats tAftinity Pine-Oakloakc-Oine lowland iwarnol swirno or marsh forested

Aessahynomene virqinics
Red'mftkweed TS
Asciepisa rublea
Silvery aster T
Aster concolor
Pickering's morning glary T S

Mooe aarres reedgrasa F

Sarrsttr sed~ge T
came b"anattli S
Sickle-leaved golden aster IT -NI
ChryeOpsis 4uct
Screading pogonia SSI j

Srom Crowborry j N
COrMM COnredif
1osecolored tick~sed T11 NI II IfI
Coreop8ie roaea x
Rustifoil i E NIS0
C~rorafoosis elati cs- i
Stitffticktrefoil T * I
Qeewodflumy? ou
Kntespike rush N I NS
Eleachaids equisetol
Reulnous boneet r I00
emantariun rosilys
PIne Batrars gentian S
Gentions autumnalls I *
yellow-frnged orchid E NIS S

Hb"reintegra
Now Jersey rushF
Juncus caesanensis I
Uly.4eaved twaybiade E N/s
Upodrs Illul0lli
Loesul's twayblae F.
Southern twayblade T Nis

Boykin's laoelia s
LabobeiiaoykindiI
Cantly's ldbelia T S j *
Laobesi candyi
Hair/ ludwigia T
Ludwigia hirrefIa
Unear-leaved ludwigia IS a
L~udwigla fineeris I *
Climbing fern E N/S j
Lyqodium Ocilmatum I I II
Co~mm~aaan 5 ult. Status - -,-agraome affinuty S.ra"l
-.acar anda Mudrwooa 3-W&MOS.

6 3

TABLE 3 Threatened and Fadengered Plant Species of thre Now Jermny Flnelands, Continued

I N~~~~~~~~~~~~~-abitat
Geagraphicall Pitch� Pine Cadar lNarawcad~ Water, bag, Non-
Species Statu tAlffinty !PIne-oak Oak-pinlel lowland jawarnol swamp~ or marsh fcrested
Torwsmuiy F S I 9

Yellow asphodei r
NAfrrhejum aeneRoAnuml
Mleating meadt j Nis
Nymphfoides =o~ta I I
Narrow panic gras T S 40
PmnICUM hemfitafmon
Hirat'5 anic grass jPS

American, mistietoe T
PftosdendM17 1`avOicens!
'Mmaryrd miikwcrt S
polygals mariana
Slender rattlesnake fact I a
Prnenathes autumnalei i I
Awned meadow beauty SI0
Rhexia atistosa e
Capitale beakiush S

Rhtynchospo~a inUndatE
Kateskern's beaked rush FS_
Rhynaftsvers knieskernh T1I
Curly grass fer ) I
Sahlzaeeaoustila
Chuifteed IE S II
Schwa/han americana s
Wng'3~ bulrush I N

Swiede mfinor I
Reticulated� nut rush T N/S
Sc/ere fretluladrs
sclerolepis T NIS0

Wand-like golden rod S S
Se/ida go strirea
Uttley ladies tresses T NI
Spiranrhets tuildrosa NS
False aspflcdeiS SI
llatiedia aecoimosa
Hmped biaddetwort T N IS S
Utrlcuieila gtbh"
IWhtwltefowered biadcerwort S

(itriculane OUivaa.

UtrCuI12na resupfflats
yeflew-eyed gruss S
Xyms flexuose
~Status codes T -Threatened (Caia=a and sirgrotwters. I1960) 9 a Currently being evaluated for'ne ;sgrat flaxioflal IiSE
5 Frndazlqerea. IC.aam and Psrcrotflers. ,980) of threaterid and endangered aocacis ~y tme Oecarnment -at
tN Nortnern S a Southern Mfe interior.
2.39

6 4

TABLE 4 -Threatenned and Endangered Bird Species of the Pinelanda and Their Habitats

SPECIES
ea 02 C C -

X 0- I L 0 0 a K0
ENDANGEREO:
Bald eagle'
Hellaeetus Ieucocephalus
Peregrine falcon'I~ *
Faico peregrinhis
Osprey 1 ..'
Pandion haliaetus IIIIIiI
ACcipier' hawkii1~*
Accpiers hoawk III
Least tern
Stomna albiftons

Black skimmer
Rhynchops niger I
THR~EATENED:
Pled-billed grebe* ***
PoWllymus podloeps
Red-shouldered hawk <. I*
WtOO linelusI .
Great blue heronI .II
Arriee herodlas I
MarlinI
Falco calumbarius I
Upartrmi sandpiperaI
Upandmi sandpcaper
Roseate tern II II 1
Steoma douqalllII
Barred owl I I
Strix varia
Short-eared owl .** **
Asia Ilatmmeus
Red-headed woodpecker ** * I
Melanerpes erythr'eaphalusI
Cliff swallow. . *
Petrocheildonjoy:.'honots
Short-billed marsh wren 1I

Bobolink

Savannah~ sparrow II* K
Pessercuiua -.*"'eiheneis II
Ipsw rculu sparr heo w rrce~
Ipawichul sana lcessrrowcI
Grasshopper sparrow II *I
Ammod'ramus savannarum II I
Henalow's sparrowI *1 *
Ammpodrarnus hensalowifdIi I
Vesper scarrowI * I
Poocetus gramrnanus I
Northern manirmot~e
CIrcUS cyanreusI
'Lsted as endangered tby U.S. Department of the Intenor.
All others listed as endangered or threatened by Now .Jersey.

E. Human Activities

The waters and wetlands of the Mullica. River area are presently
utilized mainly for recreational purposes. Local residential and
tourists' expenditures support many seasonal businesses. Recreation
activities include boating, fishing, crabbing, waterfowl hunting, sailing,
birdwatching, and beach combing. Commercial crabbing, clamming, oystering,
fur trapping, marinas, and boat services are also within this area. Notably
absent are maritime commerce, petrochemical, and electric generating
facilities.

The area has potential for energy related development as a result of
the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management Outer Continental
Shelf Lease Sales. One hundred and ninety-two leases have been sold at a
total cost of $1.88 billion. The leasing area ranges from 56 to 100 nautical
miles directly east and southeast of the Mullica River.

To date, three small natural gas and one small crude oil discoveries
have been made. If commercial reserves are located, pipelines will be
proposed to bring the resources to shore, with a potential landing
somewhere along the New Jersey coast. In addition, an offshore floating
nuclear generating plant site at the mouth of Great Bay (Little Egg Inlet)
was proposed and later abandoned. An OCS service base at Rum Point,
Absecon Inlet was proposed in 1977, discouraged by DEP and not pursued
further by the would-be developer.

The Rutgers University Marine Field Station, boardwalks, year-around
and summer housing, amusement parks and hotel-casinos are additional
examples of the diversity of uses in the surrounding region.

Resort-related retail businesses along the coast cater to the
tourists' desires while some uses exploit the very resources which draw
the visitors and summer residents. Growth of human population often
leads to increased public pressure for habitat alterations. Most salt
marshes adjoining Great Bay, for example, have so far been spared from
destructive lagoon housing and dredge and fill operations so common to
the northern estuaries of New Jersey. However, one large lagoon housing
development (Mystic Island) is found on the northern shore wetlands. In
addition, one small lagoon development exists near Green Bank. Insecticide
spraying throughout the State is now regulated by DEP. The drainage
ditches constructed during the Great Depression however remain in certain
wetlands areas. Mosquito control measures, including ditching, drainage,
and pesticide spraying on wetlands, can alter and harm the environment.

The success of the Atlantic City casinos has increased substantially
the interest and pressure for residential housing, commercial and retail
services, and transportation facilities in Atlantic City and the adjoining
mainland municipalities of Atlantic County.

Between the passage of the New Jersey Casino Referendum in November
1977 and April 1981, 52,199 units of residential housing, condominiums,
hotels, motels, and camping sites have been proposed for siting in Atlantic
County.

Towne of Smithville

In.January 1981, DEP issued a CAFRA permit for the first units of
the Towne of Smithville in Galloway township, which, as proposed and
conceptually approved by DEP in September 1980, will ultimately include
6,850 residential units as part of a planned residential development.
These DEP decisions have been appealed by several environmental groups and
are now under review. Public concern has also been expressed about the
Smithville project in terms of its impact upon the proposed Sanctuary.
NOAA/OCZM and New Jersey DEP have determined, however, that since the
Smithville project would be built entirely downstream of the proposed
sanctuary site, direct impacts will not materialize. In addition, while
the Towne of Smithville will substantially increase the population in the
area surrounding the Sanctuary, NOAA/OCZM and New Jersey DEP believe
that since the sanctuary location is well removed from main roads, it
will not suffer detrimental primary or secondary impacts.

The land use plan incorporates 6,850 residential units on 1,124
acres. Planned commercial land uses include the Towne Center and
neighborhood residential and commercial uses totaling about 129 acres.
In addition, another 90 acres near the Garden State Parkway are planned
for office/business uses which could comprise research centers, corporate
or regional headquarters, general office and light manufacturing uses.

The Open Space plan sets aside about 955 acres for low intensity
uses. These include a site for a school, a 200 acre golf course, an
equestrian center, buffers and conservation areas, trails and bike paths,
and recreation and sports uses such as playing fields. The sites designated
for open space encompass areas determined by the consultants to be environ-~
mentally sensitive or, because of their location in relation to other
types of land uses, were chosen for recreational sites.

Since the Smithville area is relatively underdeveloped within its
regional context, a proposal of this magnitude involves the need to supply
either major new or expanded utility infrastructure. The applicant has
stated that sewerage from the entire site will be pumped through five
local pump stations to the existing main Smithville pump station, and
then treated at the Atlantic County Sewerage Authority's City Island
Treatment Plant. Potable water will be drawn from five production wells
near the center of the site, treated, and stored in two tanks. The wells
would tap the Cohansey formation.

There is the potential for a significant increase in runoff resulting
from development of this site. The applicant has stated that its main
objective is to develop the site with a zero increase in runoff after
development. A series of swales and retention and detention basins will
collect runoff for percolation to the groundwater and slow dispersal to
the stream system.

PART V: LIST OF PREPARERS

Mr. Richard A. Kantor - New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

Mr. Kantor is an Environmental Scientist II for the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Coastal Resources,
Bureau of Coastal Planning and Development. He assembled the data
incorporated into the Mullica River Estuarine Sanctuary DEIS and is the
principal State author of the document.

Mr. Kantor's education includes a B.S. degree in Biology (1969) from
Monmoth College in West Long Branch, New Jersey, and a M.S. degree in
Marine Biology (1972) from Long Island University in Greenvale, New Yo rk.
He has a wide variety of experience in biological research, planning,
contract management and teaching. In addition, Mr. Kantor lectures,
and through analysis, writing and supervision provides resource expertise
for developing state coastal regulatory programs. He is the New Jersey
DEP liaison to the U.S. Department of the Interior marine program and the
New Jersey Marine Sciences Consortium in Sandy Hook, New Jersey.

Mr. Lawrence M. Bonino - New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

Mr. Bonino is an intern with the Bureau of Coastal Planning and
Development within the New Jersey DEP, Division of Coastal Resources.
His responsibilities in the preparation of the DEIS included research
and collation of project data and production of graphics for the document.

Mr. Bonino is currently a student at Cook College, Rutgers University.
His internship with the New Jersey DEP includes direct involvement in the
planning, organization and completion of the Mullica River Estuarine
Sanctuary project.

Mr. Milton H. Martin - Office of Costal Zone Management

Mr. Martin is an environmental planner for the Washington State
Department of Ecology, currently on a 1-year leave from the State
to work with the NOAA/OCZM Estuarine Sanctuary Program Office. He is
Project Manager for the Mullica River Estuarine Sanctuary proposal.
Mr. Martin is the principal OCZM author of the DEIS, and was responsible
for overall direction, organization, and preparation of the DEIS for
publ icati on.

Mr. Martin's background is in the field of Administration and
Management in public recreation and parks, where he has held the following
positions since 1959: Director, Parks and Recreation Department, Vancouver,
Washington; Superintendent, Parks and Recreation Department, B~enton County,
Washington; Assistant Director, Washington State Parks and Recreation
Commission; and Assistant Administrator, Washington State Outdoor Recreation
Agency.

He is a lecturer on public parks and recreation administration and
has prepared and conducted workshops, conferences, and various public
programs relating to recreation financing, programs, management techniques,
recreation legislation, etc.

Mr. Martin is the 1980 recipient of the Washington State Environmentalist
of the Year Award for Washington State appointed officials.

Ms. Gloria Thompson - Office of Coastal Zone Management

Ms. Thompson is Program Support Specialist for the Estuarine Sanctuary
Program Office. Her major responsibilities in the preparation of this DEIS
were editing, incorporation of revisions, and final preparation of the
document for publication.

Mr. Richard Kelly - Office of Coastal Zone Management

The Estuarine Sanctuary Program Office wishes to acknowledge the
contribution of Mr. Kelly, from the OCZM/NEPA Office, in the preparation
of this document.

Acknowl edgements

The New Jersey DEP preparers of this document wish to acknowledge
the assistance provided by DEP's Divisions of Fish, Game and Wildlife,
and Parks, Forestry and Green Acres, the New Jersey Pinelands Commission,
and other public and private agencies and individuals noted below.

David N. Kinsey, Director of DEP's Division of Coastal Resources and
John R. Weingart, Chief of that Division's Bureau of Coastal Planning and
Development supervised the State's involvement in the Estuarine Sanctuary
Program. Clerical support from Ms. Carol Claudili and Ms. Celestine Allen
is greatly appreciated.

Additional help was provided by Thomas P. Smith, Ph.D. student at
Rutgers University in 1975, Elizabeth Riley and Grace Syseskey, student
interns from Rutgers University in 1978 and 1979, Cynthia Lotys, a student
intern from Hamilton High School in 1979, and Hardy Pearce, a mid-career
fellow, from Princeton University in 1980.

Russell A. Cookingham and Pete McLain, Director and Deputy Director,
respectively, of DEP's Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife, and
Douglas W. Bridges, Director of DEP's Division of Parks, Forestry and
Green Acres, each helped develop this proposal through discussions and
reviews of draft material.

John Stokes and Robert A Zampella of the New Jersey Pinelands
Commission were also of great assistance.

Special note is made of the invaluable contribution provided by
Howard Wolf, Robert Marshall, and Larry Feigenbaum of DEP's Pinelands
Acquisition Office.

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

Federal Agencies

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Department of Agriculture
Department of Commerce
Department of Defense
- ~~Department of Energy
Department of Health, Education & Welfare
Department of Housing & Urban Development
Department of the Interior
Department of Justice
Department of Labor
Department of Transportation
U.S. Coast Guard
Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
General Services Administration
Marine Mammal Commission
Nuclear Regulatory Commission

National Interest Groups

American Association of Port Authorities
American Bar Association
American Bureau of Shipping
American Fisheries Society
American Gas Association
American Hotel and Motel Association
American Industrial Development Council
American Institute of Architects
American Institute of Merchant Shipping
American Institute of Planners
American Littoral Society
American Mining Congress
American Oceanic Organization
American Petroleum Institute
American Shore and Beach Preservation Association
American Society of Civil Engineers
American Society of Landscape Architects, Inc.
American Society of Planning Officials
American Water Resources Association
American Waterways Operators
Amoco Production Company
Ashland Oil, Inc.
Association of Oil Pipe Lines
Atlantic Coast Shellfish Council
Atlantic Richfield Company
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission
Barrier Islands Coalition
Boating Industry Association

Center for Law and Social Policy
Center for Natural Areas
Center for Urban Affairs
Center for Urban and Regional Resources
Chamber of Commerce of the United States
Chevron U.S.A., Inc.
Cities Service Company
City Service Oil Company
Coastal States Organization
Conservation Foundation
Continental Oil Company
Council of State Governments
Council of State Planning Agencies
The Cousteau Society
Environmental Policy Center
Environmental Defense Fund, Inc.
Environmental Law Institute
EXXON Company, U.S.A.
Friends of the Earth
Getty Oil Company
Gulf Energy and Minerals, U.S.
Gulf Oil Company
Gulf Refining Company
Gulf South Atlantic Fisheries Development
Foundati on
Independent Petroleum Association of America
Industrial Union of Marine & Shipbuilding
Workers of America
Institute for the Human Environment
Institute for Marine Studies
Interstate Natural Gas Association of America
Izaak Walton League
League of Conservation Voters
League of Women Voters Education Fund
Marathon Oil Company
Marine Technology Society
Mobil Oil Corporation
Mobil Exploration & Producing, Inc.
Murphy Oil. Company
National Association of Conservation Districts
National Association of Counties
National Association of Engine & Boat Manufacturers
National Associaton of Realtors
National Association of State Boating Law
Administrators
National Association of State Park Directors
National Audubon Society
National Boating Federation
National Coalition for Marine Conservation, Inc.
National Commission on Marine Policy
National Conference of State Legislatures
National Environmental Development Association

73
Rice University Center for Community Design
and Development
Shell Oil Company
Shellfish Institute of North America
Shipbuilders Council of America
Sierra Club
Skelly Oil Company
Southern California Gas Company
Sport Fishing Institute
Standard Oil Company of Ohio
Sun Company, Inc.
Tenneco Oil Company
Texaco, Inc.
Union Oil Company of California
U.S. Conference of Mayors
Water Pollution Control Federation
Water Transport Association
Western Oil and Gas Association
Wildlife Management Institute
The Wildlife Society
World Dredging Association

Congressi onal

Honorable William W. Bradley
Honorable James J. Florio
Honorable Edwin B. Forsythe
Honorable William J. Hughes
Honorable Harrison A. Williams, Jr.

State Officials and Agencies

Governor Brendan Byrne
Honorable Daniel J. Dalton
Honorable John Paul Doyle
Honorable Hazel S. Gluck
Honorable William L. Gromley
Honorable Lee B. Laskin
* ~~~~Honorable Joseph A. Maressa
Honorable Michael J. Matthews
Honorable Steven P. Perskie
Honorable Dennis L. Riley
Honorable John R. Rocco
Honorable John F. Russo
Honorable Thomas J. Shusted

Delaware & Raritan Canal Commission
Delaware River Port Authority
Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission
Department of Agriculture
Department of Community Affairs
Department of Energy

Department of Health
Department of Labor and Industry
Department of the Public Advocate
Department of State
Department of Treasury
Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission
Mid-Atlantic Regional Fishery Management Council
New Jersey Marine Fisheries Council
Pinelands Commission
Regional Planning Association
South Jersey Resource Conservation and Development Council

Local and Regional Government

Affected Municipalities (Mayors, Planning Boards, and Environmental
Commissions) in Atlantic, Burlington, Camden, and Ocean Counties
within the Mullica River Drainage Basin.

Atlantic County: Egg Harbor City, Galloway, Hammenten, Mullica, and
Port Republic

Burlington County: Bass River, Sharnong, Tabernacle, Washington, and
Woodl and

Camden County: Berlin, Chesilhurst, Waterford, and Winslow

Ocean County: Lacey, Little Egg Harbor, Stafford, and Union

Affected Counties (Executives, Freeholder Directors, Planning and
Environmental Agencies).
Atlantic County
Burlington County
Camden County
Ocean County

State and Local Interest Groups

Environmental Groups

American Littoral Society
Association of New Jersey Environmental Commissions
Atlantic Audubon Society
Atlantic County Citizens Council on Environment
Citizens Association to Protect the Environment
Coalition of Bergen and Hudson
Concerned Citizens for Clean Water
Conservation Society of Long Beach Island
Cumberland Conservation League
League for Conservation Legislation
Millstone Watershed Association
New Jersey Audubon Society

Individuals

Carol Barrett
Stan Cramer
Karen Doherty
Oliver Edstrom
Larry Ermillio
Wayne Farren
Joe Forsyth
Warren E. Fox
Bob Jones
Tom Lloyd Associates
Peter Plage
Irvin Reigner
Albert Ricciardi
Ron Rulou
Jeff Shear
Tom Smith
Horace Somes, Sr.

PART VII: APPENDICES

1. Estuarine Sanctuary Guidelines

2. Title 7 - Department of Environmental Protection
Subtitle B. Division of Parks and Forestry

3. Title 7 - Department of Environmental Protection
Subtitle E. Division of Fish, Game and Shelifisheries

4. Endangered, Threatened, Peripheral, Declining, Undetermined,
and Extirpated Wildlife Species in New Jersey - Official List

S. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants - Native to the
United States

6. Sample Land Acquisition Easement Agreement

APPENDIX I

Estuarine Sanctuary-Guidelines, 1974 and 1977
0

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:
Administration gant shall be obligtedto repay t i Subpart B-Application for Grants
due to any fault of the State, the sanctu-
[ 15 CFR Part'921 ] ary is not established. � 921.10 General.
ESTUARINE SANCTUARY GUIDELINES As a result of this new greant 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.
AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmos- time of the publication of a draft en- Coastal States may file applications for
AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atment of vironmental impact statement. Proposals grants with the Associate Administrator
pherc Administration, Department of made public to date in the form of an for Coastal Zone Management (OCZM),
Commerce. Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Office of Coastal Zone Management, Page
ACTION: Proposed rule. have been criticized for lack of specificity 1, 3300 Whitehaven Parkway, NW, Wash-
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-
ment Act of 1972, as amended. search can be funded if It can be shown 921.11 Application for primina
ment Act of 1972, as amended. to be related to program administration. acquisition grants.
DATE: Comments must be received on or NOAA has reviewed these proposed (a) A grant may be awarded on a
before October 1, 1977. regulations pursuant to the National En- matching basis to cover costs necessary
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CON- vironmental Policy Act of 1969 and has to preliminary actual acquisition of land.
TACT: determined that promulgation of these As match to the Federal grant, a State
regulations will have no significant im- may use money, the cost of necessary
Robert R. Kffer, 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-
SIPPLEMENTARY 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: August 26, 1977. revenue from the land foregone by the
(NOAA) published 15 CFa Part 921 en- State in order to include it in the sanc-
ttled, "Estuarine Sanctuary Guidelines" T. P. GLErITE, tuary. Application for a preliminary ac-
pursuant to then section 312 of the Assistant Administrator quisition grant shall be made on form
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, for Administration. SF 424 application for Federal assistance
as amended, for the purpose of establish- It is proposed to amend 15 CPR Part (non-construction programs).
ing policy and procedures for the selec- 921 as follows: (b) A preliminary acquisition grant
tion, acquisition, and management of (1) By revising the table of contents may be made for the defrayal of the
estuarine sanctuaries. and authority citation to read as follows: cost of:
Under new subsection 315(1) of the Subpart A--General (1) An appraisal of the land, or of the
Act, the Secretary of Commerce is au- Sec. value of any foregone use of the land,
thorized to make available to coastal 921.1 Policy and objectives. to be used in the sanctuary;
States grants of up to 50 per centum of 9212 Definitions.
the cost of acquisition, development, and 921.3 Objectives and I(plementation of (2) The development of a Uniform
operation of estuarine sanctuaries. In the program. Relocation Assistance and Real Property
general, subsection 315(1) provides that 921.4 Biogeographic classificaton. Acquisition Policies Act plan;
grants may be awarded to States on a 921.5 Multiple use. (3) The development of a sanctuary
basis to acquire, develop, and 921.6 Relationship to other provisions of management plan;
operate natural areas as estuarine sanc-tuaries (4) The development of a research and
tuaries in order that scientists and stu- subpart --Applcatlon or Grants educational program; and/or,
dents may be provided the opportunity 921.10 General. (5) Such other activity of a prelimi-
to examine over a period of time ecologi- 921.11 Application for preliminary acquist- nary nature as may be approved in writ-
cal relationships within the area. The tiOn grants. ing by OCZM. Any grant made Pursuant
purpose of these guidelines is to imple- Application for and acquisition to this subsection shall be refunded by
grants.
ment this program. 921.13 Application for operational grants. the State to whatever extent it has spent
As a result of two years of program 921.14 Federally-owned lands. in relation to land not acquired for the
implementation, the regulations are pro- Subpart C-Selection Criteria sanctuary, and if OCZM requests such
posed to be modified to specifically au- 921.20 Criteria for selectf r e und.
thorize the granting of acquisition 921.21 Publc particiapation should contain:
money to States in two stages: (1) Evidence that the State has con-
(1) An initial grant for such prelimi- Subpart G-Operation ducted a scientific evaluation of its estu-
nary purposes, as surveying and assess- 921.30 General.
ng the land to bes, acquiredying and assthe dess- 921.31 Changes in the sanctuary boundary aries and selected one of those most rep-
lng the land to be acquired, and the de- management policy, or research resentative.
velopment of management procedures program. (2) Description of the proposed
and research programs: and 921.32 Program review. sanctuary including location, proposed
(1i) A second grant for the actual ac- AOuEoarrr: 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 (90 stat. be included, as well as an aerial photo-
of the sum of the two grants shall not 1030, (16 UsE.C. 141) Pub. L. 94-370). graph if available.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 42, NO, I175-FRIDAY, SEPTMBER 9, 1977

PROPOSED RULES 45523

(3) Classification of the proposed public domain: fair market value ap- conflict with the Federal use of their
sanctuary according to the biogeo- praisal and Uniform Relocation Act plan. lands, such cooperation and coordination
graphic scheme set forth in � 921.4. (3) Description of research programs, is encouraged to the maximum extent
(4) Description of the major physical, potential and committed research or- feasible.
geographic, biological characteristics and ganizations or agencies, and benefits to (c) Section 315 grants may not be
resources of the proposed sanctuary. the overall coastal zone management awarded to Federally-owned lands; how-
(5) Demonstration of the necessary program. ever, a similar status may be provided on
authority to acquire or control and man- (4) Description of proposed manage- a voluntary basis for Federally-owned
age the sanctuary. ment techniques, including the manage- lands under the provisions of the Federal
(6) Description of existing and poten- ment agency and proposed budget-in- Committee on Ecological Perserves
tial uses of. and conflicts within, the eluding both State and Federal shares. program.
area if it were not declared an estuarine (5) Description of planned or antici- 921.20 [ Amended]
sanctuary; and potential use restriction pated land and water use and controls
and conflicts if the sanctuary is estab- for contiguous lands surrounding the (4) Subpart C-Selection Criteria-is
lished. proposed sanctuary (including, if appro- amended by changing the first sentence
(7) List of protected sites; either with- priate, an analysis of the desirability of in � 921.20 to read: "Applications for
in the estuarine sanctuaries program or creating a marine sanctuary in adjacent preliminary acquisition or land acquisi-
within other Federal, State, or private areas). tion grants to establish estuarine sanc-
programs, which are located in the same (6) Assessment of the environmental, tuaries will be reviewed and judged on
region or biogeographic classification. and socio-economic impacts of declaring criteria including: "
(8) The manner in which the State the area an estuarine sanctuary, includ- (5) Section 921.21 is revised, as fol-
solicited the views of interested parties. ing the economic impact on the sur- lows:
(9) In addition to the standard A-95 rounding community and its tax base.
review procedures. the grant application (7) Discussion, including cost and � 921.21 Public participation.
should be sent to the State Historic Pres- feasibility of alternative methods for ac- (a) Public participation in the selec-
ervation Office for comment to insure quisition and protection of the area. tion of an estuarine sanctuary is re-
compliance with section 106 of the Na- � 921.13 Application for operation quired. In the selection process, the se-
tional Preservation Act of 1966. grants lecting entity (see � 921.10) shall seek
(d) In order to develop a truly repre- the views of possibly affected landown-
sentative scheme of estuarine sanctu- (a) Although an acquisition grant ap- ers, local governments, and Federal
aries, the States should coordinate their plication for creation of an estuarine agencies, and shall seek the views of pos-
activities. This will help to minimize the sanctuary should include initial opera- sibly interested other parties and orga-
possibility of rimilar estuarine types be- tion costs, subsequent applications may nizations. The latter would include, but
ing proposed in the same region. The be submitted following acquisition and need not be limited to, private citizens
extent to which neighboring States were establishment of an estuarine sanctuary and business, social, and environmental
consulted should be indicated. for additional operational funds. As in- organizations in the area of the site be-
921�12Apnfor lan d dicated In � 921.11. these costs may In- ing considered for selection. This solici-
�921.12 Application for land acqusal. clude administrative costs necessary to tation of views may be accomplished by
tion grants. monitor the sanctuary and to protect the whatever means the selecting entity
(a) Acquisition grants will be made to integrity of the ecosystem. Extensive deems appropriate, but shall include at
acquire land and facilities for estuarine management programs, capital expenses, least one public hearing in the area. No-
sanctuaries that have been thoroughly or research will not normally be funded tice of such hearing shall nclude ior-
described in a preliminary acquisition by section 315 grants.
grant application, or where equivalent (b) After the creation of an estuarine maton as to the time, place, and sun ect
information is available. Application for sanctuary established under this pro-
an acquisition grant shall be made on gram, applications (Form SF 424) for principdal area media. The hearing shall
SP 424 application for Federal assist- Federal assistance (non-construction b e he no sooner than 15 days follow-
ance (construction program). program), for such operational grants g publication of notice.
In. general, lands acquired pursuant to should include at least the following in- (b) The Office of Coastal Zone Man-
this subsection are legitimate costs and formation: agement (OCZM) shall prepare draft
their fair market value, developed ac- (1) Identification of the boundary and final environmental impact state-
cording to Federal appraisal standards, (map). ments pertaining to the site finally se-
may be included as match. The value of (2) Specifications of the research and lected for the estuarine sanctuary fol-
lands donated to the State and cash do- management programs, including man- lowing public participation in the selec-
nations may also be used as match. If aging agency and techniques. ton of that site, and shal distribute
the State already owns land which is to (3) Detailed budget. these as appropriate. OCZM may hod a
be used in the sanctuary, the value of (4) Discussion of recent and projected public hearing in the area of such site at
any use of the land foregone by the State use of the sanctuary. w 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
those in attendance. OCZM shall hold
sanctuary, capitalized over the next 20 of tsanctuary. thoe in a y be sallresdb
years, may be used by the State as � 921.14 Federally-owned lands. such a hearing if: (1) In its view, the
match. The value of lands purchased by
a State within the boundaries of pro- (a) Where Federally-owned lands are DEIS is controversial, or (2) if there ap-
posed sanctuaries while an application a part of or adjacent to the area proposed pears to be a need for further informing
for a preliminary acquisition grant or for designation as an estuarine sanc- the public with regard to either the DEIS
land acquisition grant is being consid- tuary, or where the control of land and or one or more aspects of the site se-
ered may also be used as match. water uses on such lands is necessary to lected, or (3) if such a hearing is re-
(b) An acquisition application should protect the natural system within the quested in writing (to either the select-
contain the following information: sanctuary, the State should contact the ing entity or (CZM) by an affected or in-
(I) Description of any changes in pro- Federal agency maintaining control of terested party, or (4) for other good
posed sanctuary from that presented in the land to request cooperation in provid- cause. If held, such hearing shall be held
the preliminary acquisition grant appli- ing coordinated management policies. no sooner than S0 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. OOZ .with the assistance of the select-
(2) Identification of ownership pat- (b) Where such proposed use or con- ing entity.
terns, proportions of land already in the trol of Federally-owned lands would not [(RF ocs.Jw-4mS nud" 08-77;8:45 aml

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

g 9z0.61 Title 15-Commerce and Foreign Trade Chapter IX-National Oceanic, Atmospheric Adm. � 921.3
necessary to the objectives of the grant (v) For each task, indicate the estl- Subpart A--Gonoral 9213 Objectives and Implementation of
project. As used herein the terms mated total coat. Also, Indicate the es- the program.
"cost" and "grant project" pertain to timnated total months of effort, if any.
�9291.1 Policy and Objectives. (a) Oeneral. The puros of the es-
both the Federal grant and the match- allocated to the task from the appll-ol
ing share. The allowability of cost will cant's staff. The estuarine sanctuaries program tuarine sanctuaries program Is to
be determined in accordance with the (2) The sum of all task costs in the will provide grants to States on a create natural field laboratories In
provisions of FMC 74-4: Cost Princl- above paragraph should equal the matching basis to acquire, develop and which to gather data and make studies
pies applicable to Grants and Con- total estimated grant project cost, operate natural areas as estuarine of the natural and human processes
tracts with State and Local Govern- (3) Using two categories, Profession- sanctuaries In order that scientists and ccurri ng within the estuaries of the
coastal zone. This shal be accom-
ments, and with the guidance con- al and Clerical, indicate the total students may be provided the opportu- pcshed by the establishment of a
p!!shed by the establishment of a
tained in section 920 42(b)(3). number of personnel in each category nity to examine over a period of time series of estuarine sanctuaries which
(M) The Form SF-424, Application on the applicant's staff that will be as- the ecological relationships within the will be designated so that at least one
for Federal Assistance (Non-Construc- signed to the grant project. Also indl- area. The purpose of these guidelines representative of each type of estuar-
tion Programs), constitutes the formal cate the number assigned full time is to establish the rules and regula- ine ecosystem will endure into the
application and must be submitted 60 and the number assigned less than full tions for implementation of the pro- future for scientific and educational
days prior to the desired grant begin- time in the two categories. Additional- gram. purposes. The primary use of estuar-
The application must be a- ly, indicate the number of new posi- Ine sanctuaries shall be for research
oning date. T poiao ms tions created In the two categories as a 921.2 Definitions. and educational purposes, especially to
companied by evidence of compliance result of the grant project.
with A-95 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 decl-
the proposed project. The Associate tions dealing with Coastal Zone Man- sion-making. Specific examples of such
Administrator will not accept applica- GUIDELINES agement Program Development purposes and uses include but are not
tion substantially deficient In adher- Grants published November 29, 1973 limited to:
ence to A-95 requirements. Subpart A--O4n*rw (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 n Ing of the ecological relationships
the Form SF-424. the applicant should 921.1 Policy and objectives. the Act, means a research area which within the estuarine environment.
repond to the following requirements: 921.2 DefInitions. may Include any part or all of an estu- (2) To make baseline ecological mea-
(1) Set forth a work program de- 921.3 Objectives and Implementatlon of ary. adjoining transitional areas, and surements.
sc~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ryajibing theactiitionlaeas tb undea-
scribing the activities to be undertak- the program. adjacent uplands, constituting to the (3) To monitor significant or vital
en during the grant period. This work 921.4 Biogeographic classification. changes in the estuarine environment.
921.6 Multiple use. extent feasible a natural unit, set asidese
haultlpleuse. ~~~~~~~~~~~~(4) To assess the effects of man's
program shall Include: 921.6 Relatlonship to other provisions of to provide scientists and students the str esses on the ecosyste m and to fore-
(1) A precise description of each the Act and to marine sanctuaries, opportunity to examine over a period tan ote osse dtfore-
cast and mitigate possible deteriora-
major task to be undertaken to resolve of time the ecological relationships
lion from human activities.
section 306 deficiencies, and a specific Sbpaot -Appica-u for m Gronts within the area. o ro viies
(5) To provide a vehicle for increas-
timetable for remedying these deft- 921.10 General. (b) For the purposes of this section. ig public knowledge and awareness of
921.10 General. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ing public knowledge and awareness of
clencles; 921.11 Application for initial acquisition. "estuary" means that part of a river or the complex nature of estuarine sys-
(11) A precise description of irple- development and operation grants. stream or other body of water having tems. their values and benefits to man
mentatlon activities for approved man- 921.12 Application for subsequent develop- unimpaired connection with the open and nature, and the problems which
agement components, including a dem- ment and operation grants. sea where the seawater is measurably confront them.
onstration that these Implementation 921.13 Federally owned lands. -diluted with freshwater derived from (b) The emphasis within the pro-
funds will not be applied outside the 921.14 Application time schedule and pro- land drainage. The term 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--S5llan Cdteida well as lagoons in more arid 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
(iv) For each task, identify any
"Other eachnties"ask dent id a nyh Subpart D-Operatlln neous utilization of an area or re- extent feasible. include water and land
"Other Entities.' as defined in the Obcr -p�ltosource 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- mngmn oiyo eerhpo
tons of the task, and indicate the est- management policy or research pro- term, continued uses of such resources tuary will be available for future stud-
mated cost of the subcontract for each grm
921.32 Program review. in such a fashion that other uses will
matedlocation.deify the sonytract for- 921e32 Prograchreview. In such a fashion that other uses will ies. research involving the destruction
allocation. Identify. if any. that por- 913Prgareiwnot interfere with, diminish or prevent of any portion of an estuarine sanctu-
tion of the task that will be carried AuaTroTrv: Sec. 312. Pub. L 92-583. as the primary purpose, which is the ary which would permanently alter
out under contract with consultants mne 8 tt 2 ( U 18, h ray ups wi s e
out under contract with consultants amended 86 Stat. 1280 (16 SC 1461). long-term protection of the area for the nature of the ecosystem shall not
and indicate the estimated cost of Souacr: 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-

911.4 3Title -15-Commerce and Foreign Trade Chapter IX-Notlonal Oceanic, Atmospheric Adm. � 921.11

nlpulative field research shall be care- careous smds, marls and coral reefs; coastal zone management and resource use occasion may establish marine sanctu-
fully controlled. No experiment which marshes and mangroves; tropical blota. anid may on occasion be necessary. aries to complement the designation
involves manipulative research shall 5. LouLtsntanL 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.
Is specified and evidence given that of 3. with components of 4; strongly influ- sanctuary on economic or other bases.
is spcifid an evidnce iventhatenced by terrigenous factors'. blots primar-
the enviro nment w i be returned to enced by terrenous actors bota prmar- All additional uses of the sanctuary Subpart B-Application for Grants
Ily temperate.
condition which existed prior to the 6. Californian. South Pacific coast from are clearly secondary to the primary
experiment. Mexico to Cape Mendocino; shoreland influ- purpose and uses, which are long-term � 921.10 General.
(d} It is anticipated that most of the enced by coastal mountains; rocky coasts maintenance of the ecosystem for scl- Section 312 authorizes Federal
areas selected as sanctuaries will be with reduced fresh-water runoff; general ab- entific and educational uses. Non-com- Section 312 authorizes Federal
relatively undisturbed by human actlv- sence of marshes and swamps; blota temper- patible uses, Including those uses grants to coastal States so that the
ities at the time of acquisition. There- ate. which would cause significant short or States may establish sanctuaries a-
cording to regulations promulgated by
fore, most of the areas selected will be 7 Columbia. North Pacific coast from long-term ecological change or would t crding 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
Inutyo aitation. wnof eshoreland; rocky coasts; extensive algal com- use of the sanctuary as a natural field applications for grants with the Direc-
Industry or habitation. munitles; biota primarily temperate with laboratory. will be prohibited. tor. ffieof Coastal Zone Manage-
tor. Office of Coastal Zone Manage-
Indutry r haitaton. unites; lotsprimrilytemprateWith laboator, wilbbeprohbite. metilNtionl Ocanicandtteo.
(e) If sufficient permanence and con- some boreal.tmos-
trol by the State can be assured, the 8. Fiords. South woast Alaska and Aleu- 921.6 Relationship to other provisions of pheric Administration, U.S. Depart-
acquisition of a sanctuary may involve tians; precipitous mountains; deep estuaries, merit of Commerce, Rockville, Mary-
less than the acquisition of a f e e ~~~~~~~~the act and to marine sanctuaries.
less than the acquisition of a fee some with glaciers; shoreline heavily Indent- theand 20852. That agency which hasM
simple interest. Such interest may be, ed and subject to winter icing; blota 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
rgtorohrprilitrssuf-Alaska; Ice stressed coasts; blots Arctic and ways: (1) the intended research use of State coastal zone management pro-
rights", or other partial interest suffi- sub-Arctic.
dent to assure the protection of the 10. landar. Lauer islands. sometimes the sanctuary should provide relevant gram may either submit an applilca-
natural system. Leasing, which would with precipitous mountains; considerable data and conclusions of assistance to tion directly, or must endorse and ap-
artth~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~lo directly, or muutist eonsdorsbeadu-
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- cles; larger Island groups primarily with making, and (2) when developed, the agencies within the State.
able alternative. tropical biots. State's coastal zone management pro-
It. Great Laoes. Great Lakes of North gramin 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 pants
(a) it is Intended that estuarine shoreline; limited wetlands; freshwater only; propriate land and water use regula- (a) Grants may be awarded on a
sanctuaries s ld not behen at blots 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 must apply to adacent lands. Al- quson development and operation
random, but should reflect regional 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
diferenstsoaton ande alsinfct variet feoy-
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-
atlons. 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- owned lands but not State owned sub.
blogeographic 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. Arcadoian. Northeast Atlantic coast and educational purposes, multiple use gram will be conducted In close coop- boundary are legitimate costs and
south to Cape Cod, glaciated shoreline sub-
south to nCape Cod. acted shoreloine sub- of estuarine sanctuaries will be en- ,eration with the marine sanctuaries their fair market value may be includ-
iect to winter icing' well developed sialga
flora, boreal blota. couraged to the extent that such use is program (Title III of the Marine Pro- ed as match. However, the value of
nora; boreal biota.cuae oteetetta uhueL
2. Virginan. 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 1 uses, and the kinds and intensity of ment, NOAA), which recognizes that quisitlon. In the event that lands al-
and 3; blots 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 lude 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; blota temperate with seasonal recreation fishing hunting and wild- or of the Great akes and their con- matching funds.
tropical elements, life observation, it is recognized that necting waters, need to be preserved or (lc) Development and operation costs
4. West Indian. South Forlds coast from thb 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

1 921.12 Title 15--Commerce and Foreign Trade Chapter IX-National Oceanic, Atmospheric Adm. � 921.14
and to protect the integrity of the eco- gram or within other Federal, State or and to protect the integrity of the eco- tions received between January 1 and
system. Research will not normally be private programs, which are located in system. Extensive management pro- June 30 of any year will be considered
funded by Section 312 grants. It is an- the same regional or biogeographic grams, capital expenses, or research together beginning July 1 of that year:
ticipated that other sources of Feder- classification, will not normally be funded by section applications received between July 1
al. State and private funds will be (1) It is essential that the opportuni- 312 grants. and December 31 will be considered to-
available for research in estuarine ty be provided for public involvement �b) After the creation of an estuar- gether beginning January 1 of the fol-
sanctuaries. and input in the development of the ne sanctuary established under this lowing year.
(d) Initial applications should con- sanctuary proposal and application. program, applications for such devel- (b) Al applications received during
tain the following information: Where the application is controversial opment and operation grants should any application period will be subject
(1) Description of the proposed sanc- or where controversial issues are ad- include at least the following informa- to simultaneous review and considera-
tuary include location, boundaries. size dressed, the State should provide ade- tion: tion. At the end of each application
and cost of acquisition, operation and quate means to ensure that all inter- (1) Identification of the boundary. period, a suitable number of applica-
development. A map should be includ- ested parties have the opportunity to (2) Specifications of the manage- tions, based on the level of funding
ed, as well as an aerial photograph, if present their views. This may be in ment program, including managing available, will be selected for further
available. the form of an adequately advertised agency and techniques. review and processing. Unless suffi-
(2) Classification of the proposed public hearing. (3) Detailed budget. ciently distinguished as major subcate-
sanctuary according to the biogeo- 1ii) 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. tuarlne sanctuary application, all land- ed use of the sanctuary. from each biogeographic category will
C3) 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-
terns: proportion of land already in ed the views of all interested parties a) Where federally owned lands are onths from th e end of the applica-
the public domain prior to the actual submission of the a part of or adjacent to the area pro- tion period, that is before the next
(5) Description of intended research application. posed for designation as an estuarine review period begins. Applications
usespotentia research organizations Ce)In ordersanctuary, or where the control of which are not selected for processing
uses, potential research organizations (el In order to develop a truly repre- land and water uses on such lands is may be resubmitted for consideration
or agencies and benefits to the overall sentative scheme of estuarlne sanctu- n e cessary to protect the natural during the next review period.
coastal zone management program. aries, the States should attempt to co- system within the s anc tuary, the State A t eninety (0) days prio r to
C6) emontraion f ncessry u- odinte teiractiitis, Tis ill elp system within the sanctuary, the State Cc) At least ninety (90) days prior to
(6l 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 m aintaining control of the land to re- this section an applicant state must
maintaining control of the land to re- this section, an applicant state must
manage the sanctuary. estuarine types being proposed for quest cooperation In providing coordi- notify in writing the OCZM, appropri-
(7) Description of proposed manage- designation In the same region. The nated management policies. Such ate state and regional A-95 clearing-
ment techniques, including the man- application should indicate the extent lands and State request, and the Fed- houses, and other states within the
agement agency, principles and pro- to which neighboring States were con- eral agency response, should be identi- same biogeographic category (see
posed budget including both State and suited. fled and conveyed to the Office of Table 1) of its intention to file an ap-
Federal shares. Cf) Discussion, including cost and Coastal Zone Management. plication for an estuarlne sanctuary
(8) Description of existing and po- feasibility, of alternative methods for (b) Where such proposed use or con- grant. Such notification should in-
tential uses of and conflicts within the acquisition, control and protection of trol of federally owned lands would elude at least the identification of the
area if it were not declared an estuar- the area to provide similar uses. Use of not conflict with the Federal use of state agency applying for the grant;
ince 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,
(1) 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 estmat-
ing the area an estuarine sanctuary, �921.12 Application for subsequent devel- aw o ea ancies ce- ate os of an iat-
including the economic impact of such opment and operation grants.
Incudigtectand operation grants. ation of estuarine sanctuaries in Fed- ed date for submission of application.
e orally owned lands; however, a similar Copies of the A-95 notifications to the
a designation on the surrounding com- (a) Although the initial grant appli- status may be provided on a voluntary state and regional clearinghouse
munity and its tax base. cation for creation of an estuarine basis for Federally owned lands under would be considered sufficient and de-
(9) Description of planned or antici- sanctuary should Include initial devel- the provisions of the Federal Commit- sirable notification to OCZM and to
pated land and water use and controls opment and operation costs. subse- tee on Ecological Preserves program. the other states.
for contiguous lands surrounding the quent applications may be submitted
proposed sanctuary (including if ap- following acquisition and establish- �921.14 Application time schedule and TABLE 1-LIST OF STATES BY BIOCEOGRAPHIC
propriate an analysis of the desirabil- ment of an estuarine sanctuary for ad- procedure. CLASsIIcATION
ity of creating a marine sanctuary in ditional development and operation (a) Effective January 1, 1975, the 1 Acadian-Maine. New Hampshire, Mas-
adjacent areas). funds. As indicated in � 921.11. these review and selection of estuarine sanc- sachusetts.
(10) List of protected sites, either costs may include administrative costs tuary applications will be conducted 2. Vrinian-Mas sachusetts Rhode
wti h rto monitor the sanctuary tuar y applications will be conducted 2. Virginian-Massachusetts. Rhode
within the estuarine sanctuaries pro- necessary to monitor the sanctuary on a twice yearly basis. All applica- Island. Connecticut. New York. New Jersey.

f b t

� 921.20 Title 15-Commerce and Foreign Trade Chapter IX-National Oceanic, Atmospheric Adm. � 921.32
Delaware. Maryland. Virginia, North Carolil- ed that In practice the average grant tuary program shall be notified of the (h) Provide adequate authority and
np. will be substantially less than this. public hearing. The public notice shall intent to enforce management policy
3. Carolinian-North Carolina. South (e) Enhancement of non-competitive contain the name, address and phone and use restrictions.
CamlIna. Georgia, Plorida,
Caa. Wet dianFlorida, ut uses. number of the appropriate Federal
4. West Indlan--Florlda. Puerto Rico,
Virgin Islands. (f) Proximity and access to existing and State officials to contact for addi- 921.31 Changes in the sanctuary bound-
5. Louislanlan--Florida, Mississippi. Ala- research facilities. tional information about the proposal. ary, management policy or research
bama. (g) Availability of suitable alterna- program.
6. Callfornlan-Calfornls. tive sites already protected which
1. Columbian-California. Oregon. Wash- might be capable of providing the Subpart 0-Operation (a) The approved sanctuary bound-
Inston. aries; management policy, Including
~I~~ng~ton. ~same use or benefit. Unnecessary du- aries; management policy, including
8. Fiord-Alaska. plication of existing activities under �921.30 General. permissible and prohibited uses; and
9. Sub-Arctic-Alaska. other programs should be avoided. Management of estuarine sanctuar- research program may only be
to. Insular-Hawaii. Guam, American However, estuarine sanctuaries might ies shall be the responsibility of the changed after public notice and the
Samoa.
samog. opportunity of public review and par-
11. Great Lakea--Minnesota. Wisconsin, be established adjacent to existing applicant State or its agent However,
Michigan. Illinois, Indiana. Ohio, Pennayl. preserved lands where mutual en- the research uses and management ticipation such as outlined in 92121.
vanla. 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 impr oper use or restriction of use of
upon the finding of extenuating r- competing userants. It is suggested estuarine sanctuaries may petition the
cumrstances relating to applications for tis mpge tged
assistance, waive appropriate aminis (i) Compatibility with existing or that prior to the grant award. repre- State management agency and the
assistance, waive appropriate admlnls- Office of CSt a te mane agmntagemncyad te
traive requirements contained hereIn. proposed land and water use in contig- sentatives of the proposed sanctuary Office of Coastal Zone Management
uous areas. management team and the Office of directly for review of the management
[39 PR 45214. Dec. 31, 19741 If the initial review demonstrates the Coastal Zone Management meet to dis- program.
I~~~~~~~~~Cata Zone Mantag emient dmeetatods- proram
feasibility of the application, an envil- cuss management policy and stand-
Subpart C--Selction Criteria ronmental impact statement will be ards. It is anticipated that the grant 91.32 Promr .
prepared by the Office of Coastal provisions will vary with individual clr- 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
estuarlne 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 tothe coastal zone man- shall: ary program will be regularly reviewed
agement~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r program. Apliaioshuld be2.2 reublartly reviewedall
agement program. Applications should �921.21 Public participation. (a) Define the intended research to ensure that the objectives of the
demonstrate the benefit of the propos- Public participation will be an essen- purposes of the 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- strlcted 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- ticlpation 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- uses. that the States can develop and ad-
(bl The ecological characteristics of quent to NEPA. Such public hearings (d) Ensure ready access to land use minister land and water use programs
the ecosystem, Including its biological shall be held by the Office of Coastal for the coastal zone. Accordingly, all
productivity, diversity and represents- Zone Management in the area to be af f the sanctuary by scientists, stu-
tiveness. Extent of alteration of the fected by the proposed sanctuary no dents and the general public as desir- information and reports, including
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 (el Ensure public availability and spection by the public.
lc) 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-G-enmral
able size will vary greatly and will public notice shall be distributed (fI 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 Sec.
tem. proposed sanctuary; affected property value to the coastal zone program. 922.1 Policy and objectives.
(d) Cost. Although the Act limits the owners and those agencies. organiza- (g) Specify how the integrity of the 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.

APPENDIX 2

TITLE 7

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION

SUBTITLE B. DIVISION OF PARKS AND FORESTRY

NOTE: The complete content of this text was too voluminous
to include in the DEIS. Readers that require specific
sections of this authority are requested to contact:
Mr. Richard Kantor, NJ DEP, Division of Coastal Resources
CN 401, Trenton, New Jersey 08625.

(8878)

CIIAPTER 2

STATE PARK SERVICE

Authority
Unless otherwise expressly noted, all provisions of this chapter were adopted by the
Department of Environmental Protection pursuant to authority delegated at N.J.S.A.
13:8-20 et seq. and were filed and became effective prior to September 30, 1969.

Executive Order 66(1978) Expiration Date
Thllis chapter shall expire on July 13, 1983.

CHAPTER TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUBCHAPTER 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS
7:2-1.1 Short title
7:2-1.2 Scope
7:2-1.3 Construction
7:2-1.4 Practice where rules do not govern
7:2-1.5 (Reserved)

SUBCHAPTER 2. GENERAL USE
7:2-2.1 Purpose
7:2-2.2 Designation of land use
7:2-2.3 Limitation of park use
7:2-2.4 Posting
7:2-2.5 Commercial use
7:2-2.6 Alcoholic beverages
7:2-2.7 Dumping/littering
7:2-2.8 Furred animals and pets
7:2-2.9 Exemption of seeing eye and hunting dogs
7:2-2.10 Damage to public property
7:2-2.11 Conduct
7:2-2.12 Fires
7: 2-2.13 Charges
7:2-2.14 Speed limits
7:2-2.15 Parking
7:2-2.16 Military use
7:2-2.17 Metal detectors
7:2-2.18 Target practice

SUBCHAPTER 3. MOTORIZED VEHICLES
7:2-3.1 Identification and license
7:2-3.2 Unauthorized motorized vehicles
7:2-3.3 Conformance to State laws
7:2-3.4 Restrictions
7:2-3.5 Snowmobiles
7:2-3.6 (Reserved)

2-1
(45359) Supp. 1-18-79

SUBCI I.XPI't R 4. 1ILUJNTIN(G, IISIIING AND TRAPPING
7:-24.1 Restrictions

SUBCHAPTER 5. OCEAN PARKS
7:2-5.1 Trespassing
7:2-5.2 Entry by boat
7:2-5.3 Fires
7:2-5.4 Camping
7:2-5.5 Surf boarding

SUBCHAPTER 6. SCUBA AND SKIN DIVING
7:2-6.1 Restrictions

SUBCHAPTER 7. OVERNIGHT FACILITIES
7:2-7.1 Definition
7:2-7.2 (Reserved)
7:2-7.3 (Reserved)
7:2-7.4 Maxinmlum occupancy
7:2-7.5 Group camping
7:2-7.6 Vehicle limit
7:2-7.7 Visitors
7:2-7.8 Wilderness campsites
7:2-7.9 Assignment
7:2-7.10 Occupation of site
7:2-7.11 Re-registration
7:2-7.12 Additional stay
7:2-7.13 Reservations
7:2-7.14 Cancellations and refunds

SUBCHAPTER 8. BOATING
7:2-8.1 Launching
7:2-8.2 Motorboats prohibitions
7:2-8.3 Motorboats permitted
7:2-8.4 Sailboats
7:2-8.5 Use of ramps
7:2-8.6 Bathing areas
7:2-8.7 Swimming from boats
7:2-8.8 Round Valley and Spruce Run boating restrictions
7:2-8.9 Boat storage
7:2-8.10 Ice boating
7:2-8.11 Towing behind boats

SUBCHAPTER 9. GROUP USE
7:2-9.1 Reservation requirements
7:2-9.2 Failure to make reservation
7:2-9.3 Adult supervision
7:2-9.4 Responsible person
7:2-9.5 Roster
7:2-9.6 Buses

2-2
(45360) Supp. 1-18-79

SU CI11APTER 10. BATIHING
7:2-10.1 Supervised bathing
7:2-10.2 Camper beaches

SUBCHAPTER 11. NATURAL AREAS AND TIE NATURAL AREAS
SYSTEM
7:2-11.1 Scope
7:2-11.2 Definitions
7:2-11.3 Standards for evaluating lands and waters for inclusion into the System
7:2-11.4 Land classification of natural areas
7:2-11.5 Management of natural areas
7:2-11.6 Procedures for application and conducting research
7:2-11.7 Limitation of natural area use
7:2-11.8 Designation of natural areas land use
7:2-11.9 Hunting and fishing
7:2-11.10 Overnight facilities
7:2-11.11 Hiking
7:2-11.12 Furred animals and pets
7:2-11.13 Swimming
7:2-11.14 Rowboating and canoeing
7:2-11.15 Posting
7:2-11.16 Easement and other nonconforming uses
7:2-11.17 Damage to public property
7:2-11.18 Dumping
7:2-11.19 Construction
7:2-11.20 Enforcement of rules and regulations
7:2-11.21 Registry of Natural Areas
7:2-11.22 Designated natural areas

SUBCHAPTER 12. EQUESTRIAN USE
7:2-12.1 Designated areas

SUBCHAPTER 13. STATE MARINAS
7:2-13.1 Scope
7:2-13.2 Berthing
7:2-13.3 Marina regulations

SUBCHAPTER 14. (RESERVED)

SUBCHAPTER 15. (RESERVED)

SUBCHAPTER 16. ISLAND BEACH STATE PARK
7:2-16.1 Scope
7:2-16.2 Beach buggy permits
7:2-16.3 Permit to fish
7:2-16.4 Speed limit
7:2-16.5 Park hours
7:2-16.6 Permit revocation

2-3
(45361) Supp. 1-18-79

APPENDIX 3

TITLE 7
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION

SUBTITLE E. DIVISION OF FISH, GAME AND
SI IELLFISH ERIES

(9235)

C1tAPTFR 25

DIVISION OF FISIH, GAME AND SIIELLFISIFRIES

Authority
Unless otherwise expressly noted, all provisions of this chapter were adopted by the
Department of Elviro:miental Protection pursuant to authority delceated at N.J.S.A.
13: 1B-30 et seq., N.J.S.A. 23:1-1 et seq., and N.J.S.A. 23:4-28, and were filed and became
effective before September 1, 1969.

CHAPTER TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUBCHAPTER 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS
7:25-1.1 Scope
7:25-1.2 Construction
7:25-1.3 Practice where rules do not govern
7:25-1.4 Definitions
7:25-1.5 Fee schedule
7:25-1.6 Shellfish license revocation schedule

SUBCHAPTER 2. USE OF ALL LAND AND WATER AREAS
UNDER THE CONTROL OF TIIE DIVISION
OF FISH, GAME AND SIIELLFISHERIES
7:25-2.1 Cutting or damaging vegetation
7:25-2.2 All motor vehicles
7:25-2.3 Drug and marijuana
7:25-2.4 Alcoholic beverages
7:25-2.5 Restricted areas and hours
7:25-2.6 Division fish hatcheries
7:25-2.7 Outboard motors
7:25-2.8 Horseback riding
7:25-2.9 Swimming
7:25-2.10 Camping
7:25-2.11 Picnicking
7:25-2.12 Target practice
7:25-2.13 Daily use permit
7:25-2.14 Field trial activities
7:25-2.15 Rental of clubhouses
7:25-2.16 Revocation
7:25-2.17 Securing permits
7:25-2.18 (Reserved)
7:25-2.19 Restricted access to Lake Musconetcong

SUBCHAPTER 3. USE OF MECHANICAL NOISEMAKING DEVICES
7:25-3.1 Procedure for securing permit
7:25-3.2 Devices
7:25-3.3 Standards on distance
7:25-3.4 Hours of operation
7:25-3.5 Revocation

25-1
(52585) Supp. 1-17-80

SUBCHAPTER 4. NONGAME AND EXOTIC WILDLIFE
7:25-4.1 Definitions
7:25-4.2 Permit required
7:25-4.3 Exotic species and nongame species
7:25-4.4 Exempted species
7:25-4.5 Additional species
7:25-4.6 Categories of permits, expiration, fees, sales receipts required,
records and reports required
7:25-4.7 General possession criteria
7:25-4.8 Potentially dangerous species
7:254.9 Criteria for possession of potentially dangerous species
7:25-4.10 Endangered species prohibited
7:25-4.11 Miscellaneous provisions
7:25-4.12 Notice of denial of permit, procedure, review, time limitation,
hearing

SUBCHAPTER 5. GAME CODE

SUBCHAPTER 6. FISH CODE

SUBCHAPTER 7. CONDEMNATION OF CERTAIN SHELLFISH BEDS
7:25-7.1 (Reserved)
7:25-7.2 Oyster seed beds
7:25-7.3 Conservation order; effective March 28, 1973
7:25-7.4 (Reserved)
7:25-7.5 (Reserved)
7:25-7.6 (Reserved)
7:25-7.7 (Reserved)
7:25-7.8 (Reserved)
7:25-7.9 (Reserved)
7:25-7.10 (Reserved)
7:25-7.11 Mussels
7:25-7.12 (Reserved)
7:25-7.13 Crab dredging

SUBCHAPTER 8. CLAM DREDGING
7:25-8.1 Clam dredging

SUBCHAPTER 9. RESOLUTIONS OF COUNCIL
7:25-9.1 Taking of hard clams
7:25-9.2 (Reserved)
7:25-9.3 (Reserved)
7:25-9.4 Designation of scallop season
7:25-9.5 (Reserved)
7:25-9.6 (Reserved)

SUBCHAPTER 10. RESOLUTIONS OF THE MAURICE RIVER COVE
SHELLFISHERIES COUNCIL
7:25-10.1 Resolutions dated September 19, 1973; deck screens and sieves

25-2
(52586) Supp. 1-17-80

7:25-1.2

SUBCHAPTER 11. ENDANGERED SPECIES
7:25-11.1 List of endangered species
7:25-11.2 Requirements for possession of wildlife species
7:25-11.3 Protection of animal and welfare of public
7:25-11.4 Violations

SUBCHAPTER 12 SEA CLAMS
7:25-12.1 Preservation of sea clams resource in New Jersey
7:25-12.2 Temporary sea clam opening: Ocean County
7:25-12.3 Sea clam area closing
7:25-12.4 (Reserved)
7:25-12.5 (Reserved)

SUBCHAPTER 13. LEASED TIDAL GROUNDS
7:25-13.1 Marking of leased tidal grounds; Delaware River and Bay

SUBCHAPTER 14. CRAB POTS; DELAWARE BAY
7:25-14.1 Scope
7:25-14.2 Crab pots defined
7:25-14.3 Use of crab pots
7:25-14.4 Hours for fishing
7:25-14.5 Commercial licenses; effective January 1, 1978
7:25-14.6 Noncommercial licenses; effective January 1, 1978
7:25-14.7 Placement and marking of pots
7:25-14.8 Filing of reports
7:25-14.9 Penalties

SUBCHAPTER 15. CLAM RELAY PROGRAM
7:25-15.1 Relay of hard clams

SUBCHAPTER 16. DEFINING FISHING LINES
7:25-16.1 Defining lines upstream of which license is required to fish
with handline, rod and line or long bow and arrow

SUBCHAPTER 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS

7:25-1.1 Scope
Unless otherwise provided, the following shall constitute supplements to
the statutes governing fish and game laws.

7:25-1.2 Construction
These rules shall be liberally construed to permit the department, the
Division of Fish, Game and Shellfisheries and its various agencies to discharge its
statutory functions.

25-3
(52587) Supp. 1-17-80

APPENDIX 4

ENDANGERED, THREATENED, PERIPHERAL, DECLINING, UNDETERMINED AND EXTIRPATED

WILDLIFE SPECIES IN NEW JERSEY

- Official List -

STATE OF NEW JERSEY

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

DIVISION OF FISH, GAME AND SHELLFISHERIES

Prepared by:

Endangered and Nongame Species Project

ussell A. Cookingham
Director

March 29, 1979

Nomenclature References

FISH

American Fisheries Society 1960. "A List of Common
and Scientific Names of Fishes from the United States
and Canada." 2nd Edition Baltimore. Waverly Press, Inc.

REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS

Conant, Roger 1975. "A Field Guide to Reptiles and
Amphibians of Eastern and Central North America."
2nd Edition Boston: Houghton Miflin Company

BI RDS

American Ornithologists' Union 1957. Checklist of
North American Birds. 5th Edition Baltimore:
American Ornithologists' Union

MAMMALS

Hall, E. Raymond, and Keith R. Kelson 1959. "The
Mammals of North America." 2 Volumes.
New York: Ronald Press

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Appreciation is hereby expressed to the following for their freely offered
expert advice and suggestions:

FISH

Kenneth Able - Associate Professor of Biology, Rutgers University, New Brunswick

Paul E. Hamer - Principal Biologist, Bureau of Fisheries Management,
Division of Fish, Game and Shellfisheries

Robert Hastings - Associate Professor of Biology, Rutgers University, Camden

John F. McClain - Assistant Biologist, Bureau of Fisheries Management,
Division of Fish, Game and Shellfisheries

Walter S. Murawski - Principle Fisheries Biologist, Bureau of Fisheries Management
Division of Fish, Game and Shellfisheries

John B. Pearce - Chief, Division of Environmental Assessment, National Marine
Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Center, Sandy Hook
Laboratory

A. Bruce Pyle - Chief, Bureau of Fisheries Management,
Division of Fish, Game and Shellfisheries

AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES

Irving H. Black - Superintendent of Science Department, Newark Museum

Roger Conant - Adjunct Professor of Biology, University of New Mexico

Kenneth Gosner - Curator of Zoology, Newark Museum

Joseph M. Pylka - Auditory Research Lab, Princeton University

Richard Ryan - Director, Turtle Back Zoo, West Orange, New Jersey

Raymond J. Stein - Curator of Science, New Jersey State Museum

Robert T. Zappalorti - Executive Director, Herpetological Associates,
Staten Island, New York

J. Kevin Bowler - Curator of Reptiles, Philadelphia Zoological Gardens

-2-

BIRDS

Irving H. Black - Newark Museum

Ernest A. Choate - Ornithologist, Cape May

A. Morton Cooper - Dover Township Environmental Commission

Frank B. Gill - Director of Systematics and Evolutionary Biology
Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences

Richard Kane - Director, Scherman Sanctuary, New Jersey Audubon Society

Charles F. Leck - Assistant Professor, Department of Zoology,
Rutgers University

Richard Ryan - Director, Turtle Back Zoo, West Orange, New Jersey

MAMMALS

Julia Chase - Professor of Biology, Barnard College

John J. McManus - Assistant Professor of Biology, Fairleigh Dickenson
University

Robert Schoelkopf - Director, Marine Mammal Stranding Center, Atlantic City

Raymond J. Stein - Curator of Science, New Jersey State Museum

Frederick A. Ulmer, Jr. - (Retired) Curator of Mammals, Philadelphia
Zoological Gardens

Steven Viola - Assistant Curator of Mammals, Philadelphia Zoological Gardens

GENERAL

James E. Applegate - Assistant Professor of Wildlife Biology,
Rutgers University

Robert E. Eriksen - Assistant Wildlife Biologist, Bureau of Wildlife Management,
Division of Fish, Game and Shellfisheries

George P. Howard - Chief, Bureau of Wildlife Management, Division of Fish,
Game and Shellfisheries

Ichthyological Associates - Marine ecological studies

Robert C. Lund - Principal Biologist, Research Supervisor, Bureau of Wildife
Management, Division of Fish, Game and Shellfisheries

Jack McCormick and Associates, Inc. - Ecological Conservation Association

Joseph Penkala - Assistant Wildlife Biologist, Project Leader, Upland Game,
Bureau of Wildlife Management, Division of Fish, Game and
Shellfisheries

-3-

DEFINITIONS

ENDANGERED - An endangered species is one whose prospects for
survival within the state are in immediate danger
due to one or many factors - a loss of or change
in habitat, over exploitation, predation, competi-
tion, disease. An endangered species requires
immediate assistance or extinction will probably
follow.

THREATENED - May become endangered if conditions surrounding
the species begin to or continue to deteriorate.

PERIPHERAL - A species whose occurence in New ~Jersey is at the
extreme edge of its present natural range.

UNDETERMINED - A species about which there is not enough informa-
tion available to determine the status.

DECLINING - A species which has exhibited a continued decline in
population numbers over the years.

EXTIRPATED - A species that formerly occurred in New ~Jersey, but
is not now known to exist within the state.

SPECIAL CASE - Species not known to nest regularly in New Jersey (marine
reptiles) but that do occur off our shores - some occurring
with regularity close to our shores-or in our bays (marine
reptiles and mammals).

-4-

ENDANGERED SPECIES IN NEW JERSEY

FISH

Shortnose Sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum

AMPHIBIANS

Tremblay's Salamander Ambystoma tremblayi
Blue-spotted Salamander Ambystoma laterale
Eastern Tiger Salamander Ambystoma tigrinum
Pine Barrens Treefrog Hyla andersoni
Southern Gray Treefrog Hyla chrysoscelis

REPTILES

Bog Turtle Clemmys muhlenbergi
Timber Rattlesnake Crotalus horridus horridus

BIRDS

b Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus
b Osprey Pandion haliaetus
b Cooper's Hawk Accipter cooperii
b Least Tern Sterna albifrons
b Black Skimmer Rynchops niger

MAMMALS

Indiana Bat Myotis sodalis

SPECIAL CASE

MARINE REPTILES

Atlantic Hawksbill Eretmochelys imbricata
Atlantic Loggerhead Caretta caretta
Atlantic Ridley Lepidochelys kempi
Atlantic Leatherback Dermochelys coriacea

MARINE MAMMALS

Sperm Whale Physeter macrocephalus
Blue Whale Balaenoptera musculus
Fin Whale Balaenoptera physalus
Sei Whale Balaenoptera borealis
Humpback Whale Megaptera novaeanqliae
Atlantic Right Whale Eubalaena glacialis

b = breeds in New Jersey

-5-

THREATENED SPECIES IN NEW JERSEY

FISH

Atlantic Sturgeon Acipenser oxyrhynchus
American Shad Alosa sapidissima
Brook Trout (native) Salvelinus fontinalis
Atlantic Tomcod Microqadus tomcod

AMPHIBIANS

Long-tailed Salamander Eurycea longicauda
Eastern Mud Salamander Pseudotriton montanus

REPTILES

Wood Turtle Clemmys insculpta
Corn Snake Elaphe guttata
Northern Pine Snake Pituophis melanoleucus melanoleucus

BIRDS

b Pied-billed Grebe Podilymbus podiceps
b Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias
b Red-shouldered Hawk Buteo lineatus
b Marsh Hawk Circus cyaneusl
Merlin Falco columbarius
b Upland Sandpiper (Plover) Bartramia lonqicauda
b Roseate Tern Sterna douqallii
b Barred Owl Strix varia
b Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus1
b Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus
b Cliff Swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota'
Short-billed Marsh Wren Cistothorus platensis
b Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus1
b Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis1
b Ipswich Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis princeps
b Grasshopper Sparrow Ammodramus savannaruml
b Vesper Sparrow Pooecetes gramineusl

SPECIAL CASE

MARINE REPTILES

Atlantic Green Turtle Chelonia mydas

b = breeds in New Jersey
1 $tatus desitnation appgicable to
breeoing popula ion onty

-6-

PERIPHERAL SPECIES IN NEW JERSEY

FISH

White Shark Carcharodon carcharias
Smooth Hammerhead Sphyrna zygaena
Thorny Skate Raja radiata
Spotted Eagle Ray Aetobatus narinara
Ladyfish Elops saurus
Tarpon Megalops atlantica
Snakefish Trachinocephalus myops
Haddock Melanogrammus aeglefinus
White Hake Urophycis tenuis
Halfbeak Hyporhamphus unifasciatus
Houndfish Tylosurus crocodilus
Bluespotted Cornetfish Fistularia tabacaria
Longspine Snipefish Macrorhamphosus scolopax
Gag Mycteroperca microlepis
Snowy Grouper Epinephelus niveatus
Warsaw Grouper Epinephelus nigritus
Glasseye Snapper Priacanthus cruentatus
Bigeye Priacanthus arenatus
Short Bigeye Pristigenys alta
Cobia Rachycentron canadum
Bluerunner Caranx crysos
Crevalle Jack Caranx hippos
Horse-eye Jack Caranx latus
Round Scad Decapterus punctatus
Leatherjacket Oligoplites saurus
Bigeye Scad Selar crumenophthalmus
Lookdown Selene vomer
Greater Amberjack Seriola dumerili
Banded Rudderfish Seriola zonata
Florida Pompano Trachinotus carolinus
Permit Trachinotus falcatus
Palometa Trachinotus glaucus
Rough Scad Trachurus lathami
Atlantic Moonfish Vomer setapinnis
Dolphin Coryphaena hippurus
Spotfin Mojarra Eucinostomus argenteus
Gray Snapper Lutjanus griseus
Spottail Pinfish Diplodus holbrooki
Pinfish Lagodon rhomboides
Spotted Seatrout Cynoscion nebulosus
Banded Drum Larimus fasciatus
Atlantic Croaker Micropogon undulatus
Red Drum Sciaenops ocellata
Red Goatfish Mullus auratus

-7-

PERIPHERAL SPECIES IN NEW JERSEY

FISH

Spotted Goatfish Psuedupeneus maculatus
Atlantic Spadefish Chaetodipterus faber
Foureye Butterflyfish Chaetodon capistratus
Spotfin Butterflyfish Chaetodon ocellatus
Banded Butterflyfish Chaetodon striatus
Sergeant Major Abudefduf saxatilus
Atlantic Threadfin Polydactylus octonemus
Rock Gunnel Pholis qunnellus
Snake Blenny Lumpenus lumpretaeformis
Fat Sleeper Dormitator maculatus
Atlantic Cutlassfish Trichiurus lepturus
Frigate Mackerel Auxis thazard
King Mackeral Scomberomorus cavalla
Spanish Mackerel Scomberomorus maculatus
Barbfish Scorpaena brasiliensis
Spotted Scorpionfish Scorpaena plumieri
Scorpionfish Scorpaena isthmensis
Flounder Bothus robinsi
Flying Gurnard Dactylopterus volitans
Orange Filefish Aluterus schoepfi
Gray Triggerfish Balistes capriscus
Planehead Filefish Monacanthus hispidus
Trunkfish Lactophrys triqonus
Smooth Trunkfish Lactophrys triqueter
Scrawled Cowfish Lactophrys quadricornis
Smooth Puffer Lagocephalus laeviqatus
Web Burrfish Chilomycterus antillarum
Striped Burrfish Chilomycterus schoepfi

BIRDS

Migratory birds are not listed, as many appear both spring and fall in New Jersey.

MAMMALS

Porcupine Erethizon dorsatum

SPECIAL CASE

MARINE MAMMALS

Harp Seal Pagophilus groenlandicus
Hooded Seal Cystophora cristata
Gray Seal Halichoerus grypus
Beluga Whale Delphinapterus leucas

-8-

DECLINING SPECIES IN NEW JERSEY

FISH

Northern Kingfish Menticirrhus saxatilis
Northern Puffer Sphaeroides maculatus

AMPHIBIANS

Marbled Salamander Ambystoma opacum
Spotted Salamander Ambystoma maculatum
Four-toed Salamander Hemidactylium scutatum
Northern Spring Salamander Gyrinophilus porphyriticus porphyriticu!
Northern Red Salamander Pseudotriton ruber ruber
Eastern Spadefoot Toad Scaphiopus holbrooki holbrocki

REPTILES

Eastern Hognose Snake Heterodon platyrhinos

BIRDS

Red-necked Grebe Podiceps grisegena
b Yellow-crowned Night Heron Nyctanassa violacea
b American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus
b Least Bittern Ixobrychus exilis
Baird's Sandpiper Calidris bairdii
Marbled Godwit Limosa fedoa
Hudsonian Godwit Limosa haemastica
b Common Tern Sterna hirundo
Razorbill Alca torda
Dovekie Alle alle
b Whip-poor-will Caprimulgus vociferous
b Least Flycatcher Empidonax minimusl
b Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris1
b Purple Martin Progne subis
b White-eyed Vireo Vireo griseus
b Warbling Vireo Vireo gilvus
b Yellow-breasted Chat Icteria virens
b Hooded Warbler Wilsonia citrina
b Eastern Meadowlark Sturnella magnai

b = Breeds in New Jersey
1 Status designation applicable to
breeding population only.

-9-

UNDETERMINED SPECIES IN NEW JERSEY

FISH

Shortfin Mako Isurus oxyrinchus
Bull Shark Carcharhinus leucas
Tiger Shark Galeocerdo cuvieri
Clearnose Skate Raja eglanteria
Roughtail Stingray Dasyatis centroura
Atlantic Stingray Dasyatis sabina
Bluntnose Stingray Dasyatis sayi
Spiny Butterfly Ray Gymnura altavela
Smooth Butterfly Ray Gymnura micrura
Bullnose Ray Myliobatis freminvillei
Round Herring Etrumeus teres
Atlantic Thread Herring Opisthonema oglinum
Silver Anchovy Anchoviella eurystole
Rainbow Smelt Osmerus mordax
Bridle Shiner Notropis bifrenatus
Ironcolor Shiner Notropis chalybaeus
Bluntnose Minnow Pimephales notatus
Fourbeard Rockling Enchelyopus cimbrius
Atlantic Cod Gadus morhua
Ocean Pout Macrozoarces americanus
Spotfin Killifish Fundulus luciae
Rough Silverside Membras martinica
Threespine Stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus
Ninespine Stickleback Pungitius punqitius
Shield Darter Percina peltata
Atlantic Pomfret Brama brama
Striped Blenny Chasmodes bosquianus
Crested Blenny Hypleurochilus geminatus
Feather Blenny Hypsoblennius hentzi
Darter Goby Gobionellus boleosoma
Highfin Goby Gobionellus oceanicus
Seaboard Goby Gobiosoma qinsburgi
Sharksucker Echeneis naucrates
Whitefin Sharksucker Echeneis nuecratoides
Little Tuna Euthynnus alletteratus
Chub Mackeral Scomber colias
Harvestfish Peprilus alepidotus
Sea Raven Hemitripterus americanus
Grubby Myoxocephalus aeneus
Bay Whiff Citharichthys spilopterus
Fourspot Flounder Paralichthys oblongus
Yellowtail Flounder Limanda ferruginea

AMPHIBIANS

Jefferson Salamander Ambystoma jeffersonianum
Silvery Salamander Ambystoma platineum
Mountain Dusky Salamander Desmognathus ochrophaeus
Upland Chorus Frog Psuedacris triseriata feriarum
Carpenter Frog Rana virgatipes
Northern Cricket Frog Acris crepitans crepitans

-10-

REPTILES

Spotted Turtle Clemmys guttata
Map Turtle Graptemys geographica
Red-bellied Turtle Chrysemys rubriventris
Midland Painted Turtle Chrysemys picta marginata
Five-lined Skink Eumeces fasciatus
Ground Skink Leiolopisma laterale
Queen Snake Natrix septemvittata
Eastern Smooth Earth Snake Virqinia valeriae
Northern Black Racer Coluber constrictor constrictor
Eastern Smooth Green Snake Opheodrys vernalis vernalis
Black Rat Snake Elaphe obsoleta obsoleta
Eastern King Snake Lampropeltis getulus getulus
Northern Scarlet Snake Cemophora coccinea copei
Northern Copperhead Agkistrodon contortrix mokasen
Eastern Worm Snake Carphophis amoenus amoenus

BIRDS

b Black Duck Anas rubripes
b Ruddy Duck Oxyura jamaicensis
b Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipter gentilis'
b King Rail Rallus elegans
Yellow Rail Coturnicops noveboracensis
b Black Rail Laterallus jamaicensis
b American Coot Fulica americanaI
b Piping Plover Charadrius melodus
b Common Snipe Capella qallinagol
b Long-eared Owl Asio otus
b Eastern Bluebird Sialia sialis
Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus

MAMMALS

Water Shrew Sorex palustris
Smokey Shrew Sorex fumeus
Long-tailed Shrew Sorex dispar
Least Shrew Cryptotis parva
Hairy-tailed Mole Parascalops breweri
Star-nosed Mole Condylura cristata
Keen i,!ntis Myotis keenii
Small-footed Myotis Myotis sublatus
Silver-haired Bat Lasionycteris noctivaqans
Eastern Pipistrel Pipistrellus subflavus
Hoary Bat Lasiurus cinereus

b = Breeds in New Jersey
1 Status designation applicable to
breeding population only

-11-

MAMMALS (continued)

UNDETERMINED SPECIES IN NEW JERSEY

Southern Flying Squirrel Glaucomys volans
Marsh Rice Rat Oryzomys palustris
Deer Mouse Peromyscus manidulatus
Eastern Wood Rat Neotoma floridana
Southern Bog Lemming Synaptomys cooperi
Meadow Jumping Mouse Zapus hudsonius
Woodland Jumping Mouse Napaeozapus insiqnis
Bobcat Lynx rufus

MARINE MAMMALS

Dense Beaked Whale. Mesoplodon densirostris
Gulfstream Beaked Whale Mesoplodon gervaisi
Antillean Beaked Whale Mesoplodon europaeus
True's Beaked Whale Mesoplodon mirus
Cuvier's Beaked Whale Ziphius cavirostris
Pygmy Sperm Whale Kogia breviceps
Dwarf Sperm Whale Kogia simus
Cuvier Dolphin Stenella frontalis
Spotted Dolphin Stenella plagiodon
Striped Dolphin Stenella coeruleoalba
Common Dolphin Delphinus delphis
Atlantic White-side Dolphin Lagenorhynchus acutus
Atlantic Killer Whale Orcinus orca
Risso's Dolphin Grampus griseus
Long-finned Pilot Whale (Blackfish) Globicephala melaena
Short-finned Pilot Whale Globicephala macrorhyncus
Atlantic Harbor Porpoise Phocoena phocoena
Minke Whale Balaenoptera acutorostrata

-12-

EXTIRPATED SPECIES IN NEW JERSEY

FISH

Longnose Gar Lepisosteus osseus

BIRDS

b Wilson's Plover Charadrius wilsonia1
Eskimo Curlew Numenius borealis
b Northern Parula Parula americanaI

MARINE MAMMALS

Gray Whale Eschrichtius robustus

MAMMALS

Gray Wolf Canis lupus
Mountain Lion Felis concolor
Snowshoe Hare Lepus americanus

b = Breeds in New Jersey

Status designation applicable to
breeding population only

5/2/79
hb
-13-

Endangered
and
Threatened
Wildlife
and
Plants
Native to the
United States

�t A~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-~

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATE* STATUS** GROUP

Coqui, golden Eleutherodactylus jasperi Puerto Rico T Amphibian
Salamander, desert slender Batrachoseps aridus CA E Amphibian
Salamander, Red Hills Phaeognathus hubrichti AL T Amphibian
Salamander, San Marcos Eurycea nana TX T Amphibian
Salamander, Santa Ctuz long-toed Ambystoma macrodactylum croceum CA E Amphibian
Salamander, Texas blind Typhlomolge rathbuni TX E Amphibian
Toad, Houston Bufo houstonensis TX E Amphibian
Treefrog, pine barrens Hyla andersonii FL E Amphibian
Akepa, Hawaii (honeycreeper) Loxops coccinea coccinea HI E Bird
Akepa, Maui (honeycreeper) Loxops coccinea ochracea HI E Bird
Akialoa, Kuai (honeycreeper) Hemignathus procerus HI E Bird
Akipolaau (honeycreeper) Hemignathus wilsoni HI E Bird
Blackbird, yellow-shouldered Agelaius xanthomus Puerto Rico E Bird
Bobwhite, masked (quail) Colinus virginianus ridgwayi' AZ E Bird
Condor, California Gymnogyps californianus CA,OR E Bird
Coot, Hawaiian Fulica americana alai HI E Bird
Crane, Mississippi sandhill Grus canadensis pulla MS E Bird
Crane, whooping Grus americana Great Plains and Rocky Mt. E
gtates E Bird
Creeper, Hawaiian Loxops maculata mana HI E Bird
Creeper, Molokai (=Kakawahie) Loxops maculata flammea HI E Bird
Creeper, Oahu (=alauwahio) Loxops maculata maculata HI E Bird
Crow, Hawaiian (=alala) Corvus tropicus HI E Bird
Curlew, Eskimo Numenius borealis AKtand snnor t E Bird
Dove, Palau ground Gallicolumba canifrons Palau Is. E Bird
Duck, Hawaiian (=koloa) Anas wyvilliana HI E Bird
Duck, Laysan Anas laysanensis HI E Bird
Eagle. bald Haliaeetus leucocephalus 48 contermn8 s. R4tted
except wa ,~,m wr ,H R
Eagle, bald Haliaeetus leucocephalus WA,OR,Mh,WI,MI T Bird
Falcon. American peregrine Falco peregrinus anatum All States E Bird
Falcon, Arctic peregrine Falco peregrinus tundrius All States except HI E Bird
Finch, Laysan (honeycreeper) Telespyza (=Psittirostra) cantans HI E Bird
Finch, Nihoa (honeycreeper) Telespyza (=Psittirostra) ultima HI E Bird
Flycatcher, Palau fantail Rhipidura lepida Palau Is. E Bird
Flycatcher, Tinian monarch Monarcha takatsukasae Marianas Is. E Bird
Gallinule, Hawaiian Gallinula chloropus sandvicensis HI E Bird
Goose, Aleutian Cananda Branta canadensis leucopareia AK,CA,OR,WA E Bird
Goose, Hawaiian (=Nene) Branta sandvicensis HI E Bird
Hawk, Hawaiian (=io) Buteo solitarius HI E Bird
Honeycreeper, crested (=akohekohe) Palmeria dolei HI E Bird
Kite, Everglade (snail kite) Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus FL E Bird

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATE* STATUS** GROUP

Mallard, Marianas Anas oustaleti Guam, Marianas Is. E Bird
Megapode, La Perouse's Megapodius laperouse Palau Is., Marianas Is. E Bird
Millerbird, Nihoa (willow warbler) Acrocephalus familiaris kingi HI E Bird
Nukupuu (honeycreeper) Hemignathus lucidus HI E Bird
Oo, Kauai (=Oo Aa) (honeyeater) Moho braccatus HI E Bird
Ou, (honeycreeper) Psittirostra psittacea HI E Bird
Owl, Palau Otus podargina Palau Is. E Bird
Palila (honeycreeper) Psittirostra bailleui HI E Bird
Parrot, Puerto Rican Amazona vittata Puerto Rico E Bird
Parrotbill, Maui (honeycreeper) Pseudonestor xanthophrys HI E Bird
Pelican, brown Pelecanus occidentalis Carolinas to TX, CA E Bird
Petrel, Hawaiian dark-rumped Pterodroma phaeopygia sandwichensis HI E Bird
Pigeon, Puerto Rican plain Columba inornata wetmorei Puerto Rico E Bird
Poo-uli Melamprosops phaeosoma HI E Bird
Prairie chicken, Attwater's greater Tympanuchus cupido attwateri TX E Bird
Rail, California clapper Rallus longirostris obsoletus CA E Bird
Rail, light-footed clapper Rallus longirostris levipes CA E Bird
Rail, Yuma clapper Rallus longirostris yumanensis AZ,CA E Bird
Shearwater, Newell's Manx Puffinus puffinus newelli HI T Bird
Shrike, San Clemente loggerhead Lanius ludovicianus mearnsi CA E Bird
Sparrow, Cape Sable seaside Ammospiza maritima mirabilis FL E Bird
Sparrow, dusky seaside Ammospiza maritima nigrescens FL E Bird
Sparrow, San Clemente sage Amphispiza belli clementeae CA T Bird
Sparrow, Santa Barbara song Melospiza melodia graminea CA E Bird
Starling, Ponape mountain Aplonis pelzelni Caroline Is. E Bird
Stilt, Hawaiian Himantopus himantopus knudseni HI E Bird
Tern, California least Sterna albifrons browni CA E Bird
Thrush, large Kauai Phaeornis obscurus myadestina HI E Bird
Thrush, Molokai (=olomau) Phaeornis obscurus rutha HI E Bird
Thrush, small Kauai (=puaiohi) Phaeornis palmeri HI E Bird
Warbler (wood), Bachman's Vermivora bachmanii Southeastern U.S. E Bird
Warbler (wood), Kirtland's Dendrocia kirtlandii MI E Bird
Warbler, (willow), reed Acrocephalus luscinia Marianas Is. E Bird
Whip-poor-will, Puerto Rican Caprimulgus noctitherus Puerto Rico E Bird
White-eye, Ponape great Rukia longirostra (=sanfordi) Caroline Is. E Bird
Woodpecker, ivory-billed Campephilus principalis Soithcentral and South-
dastern U.S E Bird
Woodpecker, red-cockaded Picoides (=Dendrocopos) borealis Southcentral and South-
eastern .S. E Bird
Pearly mussel, Alabama lamp Lampsilis virescens AL,TN E Clam
Pearly mussel, Appalachian
monKeyrace Quadrula sparsa TN,VA E Clam
Pearly mussel, birdwing Conradilla caelata TN,VA E Clam

4 4 ft

COMMON NiAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATE* STATUS** GROUP

Pearly mussel, Cumberland bean Villosa (=Micromya) trabalis KY E Clam
Pe hyaclmselCmeln Quadrula intermedia AL,TN,VA E Clam
Pearly mussel, Curtis' F I=Dvsomia) florentina M Ca
Pearly mussel, dromedary Dromus dromas TN,VA E Clam
Pearly mussel, green-blossom R.iblSS -~an amial torulosa TAECa
Pearly mussel, Higgin's eye Lampsilis higginsi IL,IA,MN,MO,NE,WI E Clam
Pearly mussel, orange-footed Plethobasis cooperianus AL,IN,IA,KY,OH,PA,TN E Clam
Pearly mussel, pale lilliput Toxolasma (-Carunculina) cylindrella AL,M0,TN,WV E Clam
Pearly mussel, pink mucket Lampsilis orbiculata AL,IL,IN,KY,MO,OH,PA,TN,WV E Clam
Pearly mussel, Sampson's Epioblasma (-Dysnomia) sampsoni IL,IN E Clam
Pearly mussel, tubercled-blossom Ri ff (-Dysnomia) torulosa . IL,KY,TN,WV E Clam
Pearly mussel, turgid-blossom Epioblasma (-Dysnomia) turgidula AL,AR,M0,TN E Clam
Pearly mussel, white cat's eye EA am(-Dysnomia) sulcata IN,MI,OH E Clam
Pearly mussel, white wartyback Plethobasis circatricosus AL,TN E Clam
Pearly mussel, yellow-blossom 11jjyjgff4~j=ysnomia). florentina. ANECa
Pigtoe, fine-rayed Fusconaia cuneolus AL,TN,VA E Clam
Pigtoe, rough Pleurobema plenum KYTN,VA E Clam
Pigtoe, shiny Fusconaia edgariana AL,TN,VA E Clam
Pocketbook, fat Potam~.lus (=Proptera) capax AR,IN,MO,OH E Clam
Riffle shell, tan Epiob~asma walkeri KY,TN,VA E Clam
Isopod, Socorro Thermosphaeroma thermophilus. NM E Crustacean
Bonytail, Pahrantagat Gila robusta Jordani NV E Fish
Cavefish, Alabama Speoplatyrhinus poulsoni AL T Fish
Chub, bonytail Gila elegans AZ,CA,C0,NV,UT,WY E Fish
Chub, Borax Lake Gila boraxobius OR E Fish
Chub, humpback Gila cypha AZ,C0,UT,WY E Fish
Chub, Mohave Gila mohavensis CA E Fish
Chub, slender Hybopsis cahni TN,VA T Fish
Chub, spotf in Hybopsis monacha AL,GA,NC,TN,VA T Fish
Cisco, longjaw, Coregonus alpenae Lakes Michigan,Huron,Erie E Fish
Cui-ui Chasmistes culus NV E Fish
Dace, Kendall Warm Springs Rhncty osculus thermalis WY E Fish
Dace, Moapa Moapa coriacea NV E Fish
Darter, bayou Etheostoma rubrum Hs T Fish
Darter, fountain Etheostoma fonticola TX E Fish
Darter, leopard Percina, Pantherina. AR,OK T Fish
Darter, Maryland Etheostoma sellare MD E Fish
Darter, Okaloosa Etheostoma okalposae FL E Fish
Darter, slackwater Etheostoma boschungi AL,TN T Fish
Darter, snail Percina tanasi TN E Fish

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATE* STATUJS** GROUP

Darter, watercress Etheostoma nuchale AL E Fish
Gainbusia, Big Bend Gainbusia gaigei TX E Fish
Gambusia, Clear Creek Gambusia. heterochir TX E Fish
Gambusia, Goodenough Gambusia. amistadensis TX E Fish
Gambusia, Pecos Gambusia nobilis NM,TX E Fish
Gambusia, San Marcos Gambusia. georgei TX E Fish
Killifish, Pahrump Empetrichthys latos NV E Fish
Madtom, Scioto Noturus trautmani OR E Fish
Madtom, yellowf in Noturus flavipinnis GA, TN, VA T Fish
Pike, blue Stizostedion vitreum glaucum Lakes Erie, Ontario E Fish
Pupfish, Comanche Springs Cyprinodon elegans TX E Fish
Pupfish, Devil's Role Cyprinodon diabolis NV E Fish
Pupfish, Leon Springs Cyprinodon bovinus TX E Fish
Pupfish, Owens River Cyprinodon radiosus CA E Fish
Pupfish, Tecopa Cyprinodon nevadensis calidae CA E Fish
Pupf jab, Warm Springs Cyprinodon nevadensis pectoralis NV E Fish
Squawfish, Colorado River Ptychocheilus lucius AZ,CA,COINM,NV,UT,WY E Fish
Stickleback, unarmored threespine Gasterosteus aculeatus williamsoni CA E Fish
Sturgeon, shortnose Acipenser brevirostrum Atlantic coast of U.S E Fish
Topminnow, Gila Poeciliopsis occidentalis AZ,NH E Fish
Trout, Arizona Salmo apache AZ T Fish
Trout, Gila Sa-lmo gilae NM E Fish
Trout, greenback cutthroat S-almo clarki stomias co T Fish
Trout, Lahontan cutthroat Salmo clarki henshawi CA,NV T Fish
Trout, Little Kern golden Salmo aguabonita whitei CA T Fish
Trout, Paiute cutthroat S-almo clarki seleniris CA T Fish
Woundf in Plagopterus argentissimus AZ,NV,UT E Fish
Beetle, Delta green ground Elaphrus viridis CA T Insect
Beetle, valley elderberry longhorn Desmocerus californicus dimorphus CA T Insect
Butterfly, Bahama swallowtail Papilio andraemon bonhotei FL T Insect
Butterfly, El Segundo blue Ele~~f ~i1mand)CAEIsc
Butterfly, Lange's metalmark Apodemia. mormo langei. CA E Insect
Butterfly, Lotis blue Lycaeides argyrognomon lotis CA E Insect
Butterfly, mission blue Icaricia icarioides missionensis CA E Insect
Butterfly, Oregon silverspot Speyeria zerene hippolyta OR,WA T Insect
Butterfly, Palos Verdes blue GlomeA Eh Insectu
Butterfly, San Bruno elfin Callophrys mogsii bayensis CA E Insect
Butterfly, Schaus swallowtail Papilio ariatodemus ponceanus FL T Insect
Butterfly, Smith's blue F.12hikt~gs (-Shtil mi aeolden)
enp____ ______ CA B Insect
Moth, Kern primrose sphinx Euproserpinus euterpe CA T Insect

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATE* STATUS** GROUP

Bat, gray Myotis grisescens Ceetral and Southeastern E Mammal
Bat, Hawaiian hoary Lasiurus cinereus semotus HI E Mammal
Bat, Indiana Myotis sodalis East and Midwestern U.S. E Mammal
Bat, Ozark big-eared Flecotus townsendii ingens MO,OK,AR E Mammal
Bat, Virginia big-eared Plecotus townsendii virginianus KY,WV,VA,IN,IL,OH E Mammal
Bear, brown or Rrizzly Ursus arctos horribilis 48 conterminous States T Mammal
Cougar, eastern Felis concolor cougar Eastern U.S. E Mammal
Deer, Columbian white-tailed Odocoileus virginianus leucurus OR,WA E Mammal
Deer, key Odocoileus virginianus clavium FL E Mammal
Dugong Dugong dugon U.S. Trust Territories E Mammal
Ferret, black-footed Mustela nigripes Western U.S. E Mammal
Fox, San Joaquin kit Vulpes macrotis mutica CA E Mammal
Jaguarundi Felis yagouaroundi cacomitli TX E Mammal
Jaguarundi Fellis yagouaroundi tolteca AZ E Mammal
Manatee, West Indian (Florida) Trichechus manatus Southeastern U.S. E Mammal
Mouse, salt marsh harvest Reithrodontomys raviventris CA E Mammal
Otter, southern sea Enhydra lutris nereis WA south to Mexico T Mammal
Panther, Florida Felis concolor coryi LA aad FR east to SC
- F-an E Mammal
Prairie Dog, Utah Cynomys parvidens UT E Mammal
Pronghorn, Sonoran Antilocapra americana sonoriensis AZ E Mammal
Rat, Morro Bay kangaroo Dipodomys heermanni morroensis CA E Mammal
Seal, Carribbean monk Monachus tropicalis Gulf of Mexico E Mammal
Seal, Hawaiian monk Monachus schauinslandi HI E Mammal
Squirrel, Delmarva Peninsula fox Sciurus niger cinereus MD,VA,DE E Mammal
Whale, blue Balaenoptera musculus Oceanic E Mammal
Whale, bowhead Balaena mysticetus Oceanic E Mammal
Whale, finback Balaenoptera physalus Oceanic E Mammal
Whale, gray Eschrichtius gibbosus Oceanic E Mammal
Whale, humpback Megaptera novaeangliae Oceanic E Mammal
Whale, right Eubalaena spp. Oceanic E Mammal
Whale, Sei Balaenoptera borealis Oceanic E Mammal
Whale, sperm Physeter catodon Oceanic E Mammal
Wolf, gray Canis lupus 480colntereAnoua States, E
Wolf, gray Canis lupus MN T Mammal
Wolf, red Canis rufus Southeast U.S. west to TX E Mammal
Alligator, American Alligator mississippiensis Soy hsrqCIU J. exceptile
Alligator, American Alligator mississippiensis FL,GA,LA,SC,TX T Reptile
Alligator, American Alligator mississippiensis 12 parishes in LA T(s/a) Reptile
Anoleg Culebra giant Anolis roosevelti Puerto Rico: Culebra Is. E Reptile
Boa, Mona Epicrates monensis monensis Puerto Rico T Reptile

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATE* STATUS"* GROUP

Boa, Puerto Rican Epcae inornatus Puerto Rico E Reptile
Boa, Virgin Islands tree Epicrates monensis granti U.S. Virgin Is. E Reptile
Crocodile, American Crocodylus acutus FL E Reptile
Iguana, Mona ground Cyclura steinegeri Puerto Rico: Mona Is. T Reptile
Lizard, blunt-nosed leopard Crotaphytus silus CA E Reptile
toacelaVlefrne Uma inornata CA T Reptile
Lizard, island night Klauberina riversiana CA T Reptile
Lizard, St. Croix ground Ameiva polps U.S. Virgin Is. E Reptile
Rattlesnake, New Mexican ridgenosed Crotalus willardi obscurus NH T Reptile
Snake, Atlantic salt marsh Nerodia faaciata taeniata FL T Reptile
Snake, eastern indigo Drymarchon corals couperi AL,FL,GA,MS,SC T Reptile
Snake, San Francisco garter Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenla. CA E Reptile
Tortoise, Desert (Beaver Dam Slope) Gopherus agassizii UT T Reptile
Turtle, green sea Chelonia pydja a rV~elrt seasTRetl
Turtle, green sea Chelonia mydas FL E Reptile
Turtle, hawksbill sea (-carey) Eretmochelys imbricata Tropic seas E Reptile
Turtle, Kemp's Ridley sea Lepidochelys kempii Tropic and temperate seas E Reptile
Turtle, leatherback sea Dermochelys coriacea Tro aemseiate. and ERetl
Turtle, loggerhead sea Caretta caretta Tropic and temperate seas T Reptile
Turtle, Olive (Pacific) Ridley sea Lepidochelys olivacea Tropic and temperate seas T Reptile
Turtle, Plymouth red-bellied Chr-maemy-s (-Pseudemys) rubriventris MA E Reptile
Snail, Chittenango ovate amber Succinea chittenangoensis NY T Snail
Snail, flat-spired three-toothed Triodopais platysavoides WV T Snail
Snail, Iowa Pleistocene Discus macclintocki IA E Snail
Snail, noonday Hesodon clarki nantahala NC T Snail
Snail, painted snake coiled forest Anguispira picta TN T Snail
Snail, Stock Island Orthalicus reses FL T Snail
Snail, Virginia fringed mountain Polygyriscus virginianus VA E Snail

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME FAMILY NAME STATE* STATUS** GROUP

Bunched arrowhead Fagittaia fasciculata Alismataceae NC,SC E Plant
Tennessee purple conef lower Echinacea tennesseensis Asteraceae TN E Plant
--- ~~~~~Lipochaeta-venosa Asteraceae Hi E Plant
Truckee barberry Berberis so'nnei Berberidaceae CA E Plant
Virginia round-leaf-birch Betula uber Betulaceae VA E Plant
McDonald's rock-cress Arabis mcdonaldiana Brassicaceae CA,OR E Plant
Contra Costa wallflower Erysimumi capitatum var. angustatum Brassicaceae CA E Plant
Tobusch fishhook cactus Ancistrocactus tobuschii Cactaceae TX E Plant
Nellie cory cactus Coryphantha minima Cactaceae TX E Plant
Bunched cory cactus Coryphantha ramillosa Cactaceae TX T Plant
Lee pincushion cactus Coryphantha sneedli var. leel Cactaceae NM T Plant
Sneed pincushion cactus Coryphantha sneedii var. sneedii Cactaceae TX,NM E Plant
Nichol's Turk's head cactus Echinocactus horizonthalonius var. nicholii Cactaceae AZ E Plant
Pu c uspndhdeo Echinocereus engelmannif var. purpureus; Cactaceae U IT E Plant
Kuenzler hedgehog cactus Echinocereus kuenzleri Cactaceae NM E Plant
Lloyd's hedgehog cactus Echinocereus lloydii Cactaceae TX E Plant
Black lace cactus Echinocereus reichenbachii var. albertii Cactaceae TX E Plant
Spineless hedgehog cactus Echinocereus triglochidiatus var. inermis Cactaceae CO,UT E Plant
Arizona hedgehog cactus Echinocereus triglochidiatus var. arizonicus Cactaceae AZ E Plant
Davis' green pitaya Echinocereus viridifldrus var. davisli Cactaceae TX E Plant
Lloyd's Mariposa cactus Neolloydia mariposensis Cactaceae TX T Plant
Brady pincushion cactus Pediocactus bradyi Cactaceae AZ E Plant
Knowlton cactus Pediocactus knowltonii Cactaceae NM E Plant
Peebles Navajo cactus Pediocactus peeblesianus var. peeblesianus Cactaceae AZ E Plant
Silver pincushion cactus Pediocactus sileri Cactaceae AZ,UT E Plant
Uintg Basin hookless sirccu luu
cacaus ____________ _______ Cactaceae CO,UT T Plant
Mesa Verde cactus Sclerocactus mesae-verdae Cactaceae CO,NM T Plant
Wright fishhook cactus Sclerocactus wrightfae Cactaceae UT E Plant

Rven'srever IsadDudleva traskiae Crassulaceae CA E Plant
Rvnsmanzanita Arctostaphylos hookeri ssp. ravenii Ericaceae CA E Plant
Chapman rhododendron Rhod..dendron chapmanti Ericacer,- FL E Plant
Rydberg milk-vetch Astragalus perianus Fabaces- UT T Plant
Osgood Mountains milk-vetch Astragalus, yoder-williamsii Fabaceae ID,NV E Plant
Hairy rattleweed Baptisia arachnifera Fabaceae GA E Plant
San Clemente broom Lotus scoparius ssp.'traskiae Fabaceae CA E Plant
Hawaiian wild broad-bean Vicia menziesii Fabaceae Hi E Plant
clay phacelia Phacelia argillacea Hydrophyllaceae UT E Plant
--- ~~~~~Haplostachys haplostachya var. angustifolia Lamiaceae Hi E Plant
San Diego mesa mint Pogogyne abramsii .Lamiaceae CA E Plant
--- ~~~~~Stenogyne angu~stifolia var. angustifolia Lamiaceae Hi E Plant

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME FAMILY NAME STATE* STATUS** GROUP

Harper's beauty ilarperocallis f lava Liliaceae FL E Plant
Persistent trillium Trillium persistens Liliaceae GA,SC E Plant
Cooke's kokia Kokia cookei Malvaceae Hi E Plant
sa ~ma~ Isan Malacothamnus clementinus Malvaceae CA E Plant
MacFarlane's four-o'clock Mirabilis macfarlanei Nyctaginaceae ID,OR E Plant
Eureka evening-primrose Oenothera avita ssp. eurekensis Onagraceae CA E Plant
primroDunseveig Oenothera deltoides ssp. howellii Onagraceae CA E Plant
Dwarf bear-poppy Arctomecon humilis Papaveraceae UT E Plant
Solano (--Crampton's Orcutt) mcoaaPaeeC ln
grass Orcuttla muc__ taP___eA__Pan
Eureka Dune grass Swallenia alexandrae Poaceae CA E Plant
Texas wild-rice Zizania texana Poaceae TX E Plant
Northern wild monkshood Aconitum, noveboracense Ranunculaceae IA,4Y,On, T Plant

San Clemente Is. larkspur Delphinium kinkiense Ranunculaceae CA E Plant
Robbins' cinquef oil Potentilla robbinsiana Rosaceae NUl E Plant
Green pitcher plant Sarracenia oreophila Sarraceniaceae AL,GA E Plant
San C rugnt s.Ida Castilleja grisea Scrophulariaceae CA E Plant
Salt marsh bird's beak Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. mnaritimus Scrophulariaceae CA E Plant
Furbish lousewort Ped~icularis furbishiae Scrophulariaceae ME E Plant

*Some of the species are found in other countries; this list includies only species native to the united States
and its territories.

*E E Endangered; T = Threatened; T (s/a) = Threatened by similarity of appearance.

This is current as of October 1, 1980. For information on additions to this list contact:. Office of Endangered

Species, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Department of the interior, Washington, D.C. 20240 (703/235-1975).

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATE* STATUS** GROUP

Mallard, Marianas Anas oustaleti Ga, Mari-nas Is. E Bird
Megapode, La Perouse's Megapodius laperouse Palau Is. Marianas Is. E Bird
Millerbird, Nihoa (willow warbler) Acrocephalus familiaris kingi Hi E Bird
Nukupuu (honeycreeper) Hemignathus lucidus Hi E Bird
Oo, Kauai (=Oo Aa) (honeyeater) Moho braccatuB Hi E Bird
Ou, (honeyereeper) Psittirostra psittacea Hi E Bird
Owl, Palau Otus podargina Palau Is. E Bird
Palila (honeycreeper) Psittirostra bailleui Hi E Bird
Parrot, Puerto Rican Ainazona vittata Puerto Rico E Bird
Parrotbill, Maui (honeycreeper) Paeudonestor xanthophrys Hi E Bird
Pelican, brown Pelecanus occidentalis Carolinas to TX, CA E Bird
Petrel, Hawaiian dark-rumped Pterodroma phaeopygia sandwichensis Hi E Bird
Pigeon, Puerto Rican plain Columba inornata wetmorei Puerto Rico E Bird
Poo-u Ii Melamprosops phaeosoma Hi E Bird
Prairie chicken, Attwater' s greater Tympanuchus cupido attwateri TX E Bird
Rail, California clapper Rallus longirostris obsoletus CA E Bird
Rail, light-footed clapper Rallus longirostris levipes CA E Bird
Rail, Yuma clapper Rallus longirostris yumanensis AZ,CA E Bird
Shearwater, Newell's Manx Puff inus puffinus newelli HI T Bird
Shrike, San Clemente loggerhead Lanius-ludovicianus mearnsi CA E Bird
Sparrow, Cape Sable seaside Ammspza maritima mdrabilis FL E Bird
Sparrow, dusky seaside Ammospiza maritima nigrescens FL E Bird
Sparrow, San Clemente sage Ainphispiza belli clementeae CA T Bird
Sparrow, Santa Barbara song Melospiza melodia graminea CA E Bird
Starling, Ponape mountain Aplonis pelzelni Caroline Is. E Bird
Stilt, Hawaiian Himantop'us himantopus knudseni Hi E Bird
Tern, California least Sterna albifrons browni CA E Bird
Thrush, large Kauai Phaeornis obecurus myadestina Hi E Bird
Thrush, Molokai (=olomau) Phaeornis obscurus rutha Hi E Bird
Thrush, small Kauai (=puaiohi-) Phaeornis palmeri Hi E Bird
Warbler (wood), Bachman's Vermivo~ra bachmanii Southeastern U.S. E Bird
Warbler (wood), Kirtland's Dendrocia kirtlandii Ml E Bird
Warbler, (willow), reed Acrocephalus luscinia Marianas Is. E Bird
Whip-poor-will, Puerto Rican Caprimulgus noctitherus Puerto Rico E Bird
White-eye, Ponape great Rukia logrsr (=sanfordi) Caroline Is. E Bird
Woodpecker, ivory-billed Campephilus principalis Southc entroll~and South- E Br
eas tern ..Br
Woodpecker, red-cockaded Picoides (=Dendrocopos) borealis South enrejand South- EBr
Pearly mussel, Alabama lamp Lampsilis virescens AL,TN E Clam
PermonKeyvace AplcinQuadrula spraTN,VA E Clam
Pearly mussel, birdwing Conradilia caelata TNVA E Clam

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
As the Nation's principal conservation
agency, the Department of the Interior has
responsibility for most of our nationally .' A" ' .
owned public lands and natural resources. .
This includes fostering the wisest use of 'A-;
our land and water resources, protecting **i
our fish and wildlife, preserving the envi- ; : i ,.:
ronmental and cultural values of our na- ".:
tional parks and historical places, and
providing for the enjoyment of life through
outdoor recreation. The Department as- a,:' .. em
sesses our energy and mineral resources - , a wur
and works to assure that their develop-
ment is in the/best interests of all our - i
people. The Department also has a major
responsibility for American Indian reserva-
tion communitiesrand for people who live
in island territories under U.S. administra-
tion. *

APPENDIX 6

THIS AGREEMENT, made the day of 1977

BETWEEN

hereinafter referred to as GRANTORS,

AND THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, with its
principal office in the Labor and
Industry Building, Trenton, New Jersey

hereinafter referred to as GRANTEE,

WHEREAS, GRANTORS are the owners of certain lands here-

inafter described located in the Township of

County of Somerset, State of New Jersey, and which lands are lo-

cated within a project known as the Millstone River Project, No.

23, which project is being undertaken by the GRANTEE.

WHEREAS, GRANTEE desires to acquire a recreational ease-

ment in, over and through lands owned by GRANTORS for the purpose

and to the extent hereinafter more particularly described;

NOW THIEREFORE, in consideration of the sum of

the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, GRANTORS, for them-

selves, their heirs, executors, administrators, successors and

assigns, do hereby grant, bargain, sell, transfer and convey, to

GRANTEE, its successors and assigns, a perpetual casement, in,

over and through the lands hereinafter described for the following

uses anld I) urpl)oses:

a. R(;ANTIIi is g rani ted vellicl C accss over tile within

described lands for the purposes of operating and maintaining the

lands of the Delaware and Raritan Canal, lands within the Mill-

stone Rliver Project area and the lands involved in this easement.

b. GRANTEE is granted the right to construct recrea-

tional trails over the lands herein described for hiking, eques-

trian use, bicycling or nature studies and to clear trees and

stabilize surfaces for use by the public for recreational purposes.

GRANTEE is further granted the right to install trail markers or

other appropriate signs as deemed necessary by GRANTEE to inform

or direct the public in the use of the lands involved in this

easement or other recreational State lands in the area.

c. GRANTEE is granted the right to construct bridges,

catwalks or other structures to provide continuous trails across

wet or swampy areas of the lands involved in this easement.

d. GRANTIEI covenants and agrees not to construct build-

ings or other major structures on the lands involved in this ease-

ment without the express approval, in writing, by the GRANTORS.

The lands and premises comprising this Easement are

more particularly described as follows:

All that certain tract of land, situate, lying and

being in the Township of , County of Somerset,

and State of New Jersey, more particularly bounded and described

as follows:

The 'R;IAN'I'I! aglees tlhat tlci'e slall be Ino li abilit)y

U)pon the GRIANTOR arising out ol the use o.1 the within land and

prcemiscs by the (;iRANTEE', its employces, agents, licensees, coi,-

tractors., or invitecs, and the GRANTEEI', agrees to indemnify and

save harmlcss the GRANTOR from any liability and from all costs

and expense of every kind to which the GRANTOR may be put by

reason of any injury or claim of injury to persons or property

resulting or arising from the use by the GRANTEE, its employees,

agents, licensees, contractors or invitees of the land and

premises herein described.

This easement and all of the terms, covenants, provi-

sions and conditions contained herein shall run with the land and

shall be binding on the GRANTORS, their heirs, executors, admin-

istrators, successors and assigns.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their

hands and seals the date and year first above written.

(L.S.)

WITNESS:

4 Approved as to form:

William F. Ilyland
s Attorney General

By:

Deputy Attorney General

STAT1i 01 O Nl l .NiJ1ERSE'Y
SS:
COUNTY 01 )

BE IT IllEMEMBERED, that on this day of

in the year of' Our lord One Thousand Nine H1undred and Seventy-

seven, before me, the dubscriber,

personally appeared

who, I am satisfied, the mentioned in the within

Instrument, and thereupon acknowledged that signed,

sealed and delivered the same as act and deed, for the

uses and purposes therein expressed, and that the full and actual

consideration paid or to be paid for the transfer of title to

realty evidenced by the within deed, as such considecration is

defined in Chapter 49, Laws of 1968, Sec. 1 (c) is $

Do 1Not Scan

RenreD-Insert Do Not Scan
Document Here

Document ID: -,/X ?, ma)

Page #: ,