ii Estuarine Sanctuary Program Guidelines (15 CFR 921), first published by NOAA in 1974, and amended in 1977, authorize three kinds of 50 percent matching grants: (1) an optional, planning grant for preliminary tasks such as selecting and estimating the cost of the lands to be acquired, choosing boundaries, and developing management, research, and education objectives for the sanctuary; (2) an acquisition grant to acquire real property within the sanctuary boundary and develop facilities for research and education; and (3) operational grants for managing the established sanctuary research and educational programs over a period of five years. PROPOSED ACTION The State of Maine has applied for an acquisition grant of $586,369 from NOAA, which will be matched by an equivalent amount of State, local or private funds or donations, to acquire approximately 600 acres of coastal uplands, wetlands, and island property for the estuarine sanctuary site at Machias Bay. Approximately 48,880 acres of wetlands and water covered areas already owned by the State will also be included in the sanctuary at Machiasport. The actual amount of the NOAA grant is contingent upon the availablity of funds when the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) requirements are completed. A portion of this grant ($46,000) would be used to prepare proposals for the purchase of land in the Marsh River and Drakes Island-Laudholm areas for second and third estuarine sanctuary sites. The Marsh River and Drakes Island-Laudholm proposals will be covered in depth by separate environmental assessments at a later time. In establishing the estuarine sanctuary, Maine would not exercise its power of eminent domain (condemnation) to acquire any land. Acquisition would occur only through negotiation with voluntary sellers and would be performed in accordance with Federal regulations for real estate acquisition, including an independent appraisal, and the offer of fair market value. The sanctuary sites would provide an accessible "field laboratory" for students, educators and researchers to examine and study the flora and fauna of relatively undisturbed estuarine environments. Low intensity recreation would also be a focus of sanctuary activity as it is compatible with the research and educational purposes. Examples of recreational use include fishing, hunting, and wildlife observation. These uses exist in the areas now and are compatible with the sanctuary. Educational and research activities would include observing and monitoring flora and fauna within the sanctuary and assessing the effects of various uses. Commercial fishing also would continue in the proposed sanctuary sites. Shell and finfish resources within the sanctuary would be subject to the existing management practices used elsewhere on the coast. Currently, monitoring of water and clam flats is done regularly by State officials, and this would continue. Publicly-owned submerged lands within this area would continue to be owned and managed by the State of Maine. SANCTUARY MANAGEMENT The areas that would comprise the Maine Estuarine Sanctuary would be acquired, owned, and managed through coordinated efforts at the State and local levels. Conservation organizations would also be involved in these efforts. The Towns of Machiasport, Newcastle, and Wells would manage the Machias Bay, Marsh River and Drakes Island-Laudholm sites, respectively. The State of Maine, however, would retain the right to reclaim the land should the towns fail to carry out their management responsibilities. The Bureau of Parks and Recreation (BPR) within the Department of Conservation would monitor management of all of the sites for the State. A State agency staff person would be assigned responsibility for coordinating among all three sanctuary sites. The State Planning Office (SPO) would be the State agency accountable to NOAA/OCZM. Establishment of the estuarine sanctuary does not involve creating any new Federal or State laws or regulations for the area. Instead, existing State and local regulations, laws, and policies that regulate fishing, shell fishing, hunting, boating, and current and future land and water uses in the areas would be used to manage the sanctuary. BPR would coordinate with other appropriate agencies and the Sanctuary Advisory Committee (see below) concerning the management of resources within the sanctuary. Because the sanctuary would serve a variety of interests, a cooperative management approach would be used to administer the sites. Each Town would employ, at a minimum, a part-time sanctuary manager who is trained as a natural resource manager/planner. Each of the three sites would have a Sanctuary Advisory Committee (SAC) composed of representative private landowners, research institutions and educators, State agencies, regional planning commissions (where appropriate), conservation organizations, commercial fishermen or user groups, and the towns. The SAC would perform the following functions: r o advise BPR and the sanctuary manager on the management of the review applications from applicants for any jobs that may result from establishing the sanctuary and recommend candidates prior to final selection; o initiate and approve proposals for educational or research activities on sanctuary lands and waters and promote research and educational uses of the sanctuary; advise the appropriate Federal, State or local government(s) on proposed actions, plans and projects, including: A-95 projects, dredge and fill requests, waste discharge permits, lease and sale of State-owned lands, local governments zoning plans and zoning ordinances, and proposed changes to those land use plans and zoning ordinances; encourage communication and cooperation among all interests involved in the sanctuary; and participate in the research and education programs on a voluntary basis, as time and opportunity permit. iv RESEARCH AND EDUCATION The proposed Maine Coast Estuarine Sanctuary would be used primarily for research and educational purposes. Major research opportunities would generally fall into three categories: (1) analysis and interpretation of the upland, intertidal, and subtidal components of the site areas; (2) monitoring and survey programs; (3) research to analyze the impact of various pollutants and pollution levels on estuarine life. Research projects would be conducted primarily by local and area colleges and universities, Maine laboratories, and State and Federal agencies. The proposed sanctuary areas are well-suited for educational programs because they are capable of supporting such activities without significant harm and because of their close proximity to educational centers in Maine. Universities, colleges, secondary and primary school students would have the opportunity to use the sanctuary for educational purposes. The general public, through programs such as the Audubon Society's education field trips, would also have the opportunity to participate in fieldoriented Maine natural history educational programs. Specific educational programs would include: (1) instruction in estuarine natural history; (2) interpretive nature trails; (3) guided field trips for secondary students; and (4) extension programs that reach out to adults and other students in the region. The Sanctuary Advisory Committee would recommend both research and educational objectives for the sanctuary to the sanctuary manager. Research projects would emphasize finding solutions to pressing coastal resource issues in Maine. ALTERNATIVES 1. Alternative Sites The Coastal Natural Areas Selection Committee considered a number of alternatives before recommending the three proposed sites to SPO. One alternative seriously considered by the committee was to limit the proposed sanctuary to one site. This alternative was rejected as being inadequate to represent the diversity of the Maine coast. The decision to recommend the three proposed areas reflects both the ecological diversity of the Maine coast and the strong local support for having the sanctuary program at each of these sites. Maine's proposal to have one estuarine sanctuary composed of several individual sites along an ocean coast is a new approach to preserving estuarine systems for research and education. NOAA/OCZM is pleased to support this idea based upon the variety of ecosystems represented and the high level of local support engendered by the nomination process. The boundaries for any estuarine sanctuary are established through a process of negotiation and the balancing of many factors, including: (1) the need to preserve an area large enough to include an ecological unit, yet small enough to be managed with available resources; (2) the availability and cooperation of willing sellers owning property that can be acquired or preserved through fee simple or less than fee simple techniques; and (3) the availability of financial resources. The good will and support of the local community is another important factor. At each of the proposed sites--Machias Bay, Marsh River, and the Drakes Island-Landholm area--various alternative boundaries were considered using the criteria referred to above. One constraint was the State's decision to choose boundaries at each site that would include water and upland areas within a single town only. Coordination between contiguous towns presented potentially time-consuming negotiations. The boundaries proposed by Maine for each site are the minimum to establish the sanctuary. If at a future time, additional acquisition funds become available and if owners of property adjacent to the sanctuary are willing to sell or donate their property easements, consideration could be given to expanding the sanctuary boundaries at any of the sites. However, further public involvement would be required if such additions were considered. Alternative management schemes were also examined. Single agency management options were considered but these could not, in: the final assessment, fulfill the wide range of interests involved with the sanctuary. Another approach considered was management by conservation, organizations. However, all of the alternatives were rejected in favor of a State/local plan whereby individual sanctuary sites are managed by the Towns where they are located, with State oversight-- an idea strongly supported by local constituents. 4. No Action The alternative of taking no action on the proposed Maine Coast Estuarine Sanctuary was rejected. Without an estuarine sanctuary in Maine, there would be no sanctuary representative of the Arcadian biogeographic region. This would prevent Maine and the Nation from receiving the benefits derived from the information and public awareness that would result from establishing and operating an estuarine sanctuary in Maine. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES The most direct environmental consequences of the proposed action would be the protection of significant fish and wildlife resources, including endangered species, and ensuring the long-term use of the estuary and its resources for scientific, educational and other compatible The research and education programs would further increase the knowledge and understanding of estuarine systems in Maine and thus provide information for enhanced coastal resource decisionmaking. Positive impacts would include: preserving essential wetlands as habitat for fish and wildlife, including endangered species; maintaining and enhancing breeding areas of fish species that are important economically to commercial fishing and nesting habitats important to bird species; maintaining air and water quality by limiting industrial and housing development on areas to be acquired; expanding public usage through increased access; and providing scientific research and educational activities, which could bring economic benefits to the region. Acquisition of approximately 600 acres of land at Machiasport, 1,200 acres at Newcastle and 250 acres at Wells, including the shore front, would result in potential loss of tax revenue to the respective towns. However, consideration is being given to ways to mitigate this loss with payments in lieu of taxes. |