£5\,'3H"'^2 5 WfimM. ^ PROGRAM DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WASHINGTON STATE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMEN1 PROGRAM Amendment No. 3 Approval of the GRAYS HARBOR ESTUARY MANAGEMEN LEGEND Marutoarnaril Category "— Natural I H I Conaarvancy Natural ICNI Conaarvancy Managad I CM I Rural Agricultural I HA I Rural Low OanaHy I RLI Urban RaaJdantlal I UB I Urban Mlxad IUM I Urban Davatopmant I UD I Unit 44 I Conaarvancy Managad I Managamarrt Unit Numbar- Category Managamartt Unft Boundary Study Araa Boundary Aojjatlc Management UrWt Boundary Spaclal Araa THE STATE OF WASHINGTON Department of Ecology and the Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE ^* T OF ^ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration /NOS Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management ^reso^ DESIGNATION: PROGRAM DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TITLE ABSTRACT APPLICANT: LOCATION: LEAD AGENCY: COOPERATING AGENCIES Washington State Coastal Zone Management Program Amendment No. 3: Approval and Adoption of the Grays Harbor Estuary Management Plan The Grays Harbor Estuary Management Plan (plan) is a long- range, coordinated, comprehensive plan designed to guide future land and water use activities in Grays Harbor. It will be implemented through individual local Shoreline Master Programs under the Washington State Shoreline Management Act, other ordinances, and through various State and Federal regulations and permit actions. Grays Harbor estuary has been previously designated in the State Coastal Zone Manage- ment Program as an "area of particular concern" requiring special management attention. The focus of the plan is to define areas in which future activities and growth would be deemed acceptable while minimizing adverse impacts. Devel- oped by an intergovernmental agency task force, the plan seeks to provide a balance between future development activi- ties and the productive capacity of the estuarine system; minimize confl icts between resource users and regulators by enhancing the predictability of government permit decisions associated with the location of the future developments by taking agency requirements into account ahead of time; allow resource agencies to address cumulative effects of incremen- tal permit proposals; and to provide appropriate mitigation or reduction of adverse development impacts. This PDEIS describes the impacts associated with approval of the plan's recommendations and its implementation. Adverse impacts include potentially allowing the filling of up to an estimated 700 acres of aquatic habitat (or 1.2% of the estua- rine environment) and the committing of specified areas to urban uses with related modification to shoreline features. Beneficial impacts include greater protection and enhancement of large areas of the shoreline and estuarine environment, protection of the regional economic base and the potential for future economic development, improved transportation sys- tems and others associated with orderly land development. Washington State Department of Ecology Olympia, Washington Grays Harbor County, Washington (see map opposite page) U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Marine Fisheries Service Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission* U.9.0W""" 00 " Title Page Continued. CONTACT: Mr. William Bran, Pacific Regional Manager Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management 3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20235 (tele. 202/254-7100) *The Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission has lead agency responsibility under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). This Federal EIS is intended to satisfy the requirements of SEPA. Contributions in the prepara- tion of the EIS from the Regional Planning Commission are gratefully acknowl- edged. NOTE TO REVIEWERS 1. Attachment I - Data Maps Supplement, will be distributed on a one-time basis only. 2. The Program Final Environmental Impact Statement (PFEIS) will be distributed only to parties who comment on this Program Draft Environmental Impact Statement (PDEIS) or who specifically request a copy during the public review period. 3. During 1980, the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) was amended to include the recognition and encouragement of a relatively new type of planning and management tool known as "special area management planning" (SAMP). Real- izing that there are intense conflicts surrounding the utilization and preservation of some coastal resources more than others, Congress declared a national policy to: "encourage the preparation of special area management plans which provide for increased specificity in protecting significant natural resources, reasonable coastal-dependent economic growth, improved protection of life and property in hazardous areas, and improved predicta- bility in governmental decisionmaking;" (§303(3)). GHEMP is one form of a SAMP and ever since the planning process started in 1976, 0CRM has received a number of expressions of interest in the planning and management process because of intense conflicts needing resolution. For those individuals who care to take the time, 0CRM is interested in their comments and opinions on SAMP's in general and/or on the GHEMP process. For instance, commenters might consider: o Does the GHEMP process which involved Federal, State and local government representatives planning in advance and making general decisions on the future use of the resources prior to applications for specific projects represent a useful approach to SAMP consistent with the CZMA directive? o What other innovative planning and management techniques to solve complex resource development/preservation conflicts should 0CRM and the States be developing as types of special area management planning? Your comments will be appreciated, carefully evaluated and will assist us in the future conduct of our activities and assistance to the States. You may submit your comments separately or in conjunction with your comments on this environmental impact statement. TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY A. Background i B. Proposed GHEMP ii C. Areas of Controversy ix D. Issues to be Resolved xiii E. Major Conclusions xiv F. Future Actions xviii Part I. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION A . General 1-1 B. Program EIS 1-1 C. Nature of the Action 1-2 D. Need for the GHEMP 1-6 Part II. ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION A. General B. The Proposed Action , C. No Action , D. Alternative Plan Concepts , 1. Greater development opportunity/less resource protection 2. Less development opportunity/greater resource protection 3. Disperse development , 4. Concentrate development , 5. Locate industrial areas away from estuary , a. Non-estuarine areas , b. Other sites in estuary , c. Other ports , E. Urban Management Unit Designations , F. Means of Implementation , G. Mitigation , Part III. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT A. General Setting , B. Use of Inventory Data in Planning Process C. Physical Environment , D. Biological Environment , E. Socioeconomic Environment , 1-1 1-2 1-14 1-20 1-20 1-22 1-31 1-32 1-34 1-34 1-35 1-37 1-44 1-73 1-77 II-l II-2 II-4 II-9 11-26 Part IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES A. Introducti on IV-1 B. Elements of the Physical Environment IV-1 C. Elements of the Biological Environment IV-7 D. Elements of the Human Environment IV-20 E. Impact Evaluation of Planning Alternatives IV-25 F. Cumulative Impacts IV-36 G. Relationship Between Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity IV-42 H. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts IV-44 I. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources IV-44 J. Relationship to Existing Land Use Plans, Zoning and Regu 1 at i on s IV -46 Part V. MISCELLANEOUS A. List of Preparers V-l B. List of Agencies, Organizations and Individuals Receiving a Copy of the PDEIS V-2 C. Appendix A. GRAYS HARBOR ESTUARY MANAGEMENT PLAN B. Federal Agency Letters of Intent C. Management Unit 12 - Bowerman Basin Impacts D. Various Articles on the GHEMP process E. Excerpts from the Federal Coastal Program Review F. The Citizen's Grays Harbor Estuary Management Plan G. Use and Development of the Urban Waterfront from "Revitalization Potentials on the Grays Harbor Urban Waterfront," GHRPC, Nov. 1981 H. List of Technical Team Members and Individuals Interviewed I. Species List D. Attachment 1 - Data Maps Supplement Map 1. Existing Land Use " 2. Land Ownership " 3. Jurisdiction and Boundaries/Historical " 4. Land and Water Transportation " 5. Major Util ities " 6. Hydrology and Floodplain " 7. Soils and Sediments 8. Vegetation/Wildlife " 9. Fisheries " 10. Natural Resource Use LIST OF TABLES 1. Breakdown of Management Unit Designations 1 1-3 2. Estimated Waterfront in Generalized Conservation & Development Categories 1 1-4 3. Characteristic Species of Major Vegetation Types of Grays Harbor Estuary 1 11-10 4. Organic Carbon Contributions of Various Sources Wi thi n the Estua ry 1 1 1-1 2 5. Estimated Extent of Intertidal Habitats in Grays Harbor 111-14 6. Populations of Incorporated Communities Around Grays Harbor 1 1 1-26 7. Population Projections: 1990 1 1 1-27 8. Timberland Ownership - Public/Private 1 1 1 -27 9. Average Annual Unemployment Grays Harbor/Washington/Nation 1 1 1-28 10. Potential Loss of Aquatic Areas Which Would Be Impacted By Future Projects IV-8 11. Habitat Types Depicted in Figure 25 IV-12 12. Bird Habitats Protected by GHEMP IV-16 13. List of Birds Associated With Freshwater Shrub Swamp or Marsh Habi tats I V-l 7 14. Mammals Found in Six Grays Harbor Habitats I V-l 9 LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS 1. Aerial View of Management Unit 12 xi 2 . Renni e Isl and 11-33 3. Port of Grays Harbor Shipping Terminal 11-42 4. Bayside View of Ocean Shores 11-45 5. Ocean Shores Existing Air Terminal and Proposed New Terminal Site 11-47 6. Management Unit 12 11-49 7. Management Unit 12 11-50 8. Management Units 14, 15 and 43 11-56 9. Management Units 18, 19 and 20 11-60 10. Management Unit 21 11-61 11. Management Unit 25 11-63 12. Management Unit 26 11-66 13. Management Units 33, 34 and 35 11-68 14. Management Unit 38 - Westport Airport 11-70 LIST OF FIGURES 1. Planning Areas-Character, Major Uses, Conflicts, Assets iv, v 2. Standard Uses Matrix vi 3. Permitted Activities Matrix vi 4. Shorefronts in Generalized Conservation or Devel opment Categori es . 1 1-5 5. Consolidated Permitted Activities Matrix 1 1 -7 6. Comparison of Existing Local Shoreline Master Program's and GHEMP 11-18 7. Port Study Regions 11-38 8. April 1978 Draft GHEMP Proposed Alternative for MU 12 11-53 9. Aberdeen Riverfront Marina Park 11-58 10. Schematic of MU 26 Proposed South Shore Fill Site 11-64 1 1 . West port Man' na 1 1 -72 12. Potential Mitigation Sites 11-78 13. Chehalis Drainage Basin 1 1 1-5 14. Salinity Averages Ill -5 15. Nomenclature of Navigation Channel Ill -6 16. Wetland Vegetation of Grays Harbor 111-13 17. Significant Bird Habitats 111-17 18. Life History Stages and Range and Peaks of Chinook, Chum and Coho Salmon in Grays Harbor 1 1 1-18 19. Life History Stages and Range and Peaks of Steelhead, Cutthroat and Sturgeon in Grays Harbor 111-18 20. Life History Stages and Range and Peaks of Shad, Flounder and Shellfish in Grays Harbor 111-19 21. Outmigration Periods for Selected Salmon and Trout 111-19 22. Predators of Corophium salmonis II 1-22 23. Map Depicting Non-Consumptive Resource Use 1 1 1-29 24. Schematic of Grays Harbor Food Web IV-10 25. Land Use Cover Map of MU's 18 & 25 IV-11 26. Identified Sites of Archeological Significance IV-24 27. Summary of Natural, Social and Economic Impacts of PI anni ng Al ternat i ves IV -26 28. No Action Alternative Map IV-27 29. GHEMP Alternative Map IV-28 30. Less Development Alternative Map IV-29 31. Greater Development Alternative Map IV-30 32. Dispersed Development Alternative Map IV-31 33. Concetrate Development Alternative Map IV-32 34. Extent of Intense Urban & Residential Development Map IV-37 35. Planning Areas and MU's Showing Extent of Potential Land and Water Use Activities IV-38 36. Consolidated Permitted Activities Matrix IV-39 37. Major Wetlands Which Will Be Impacted IV-40 SUMMARY A. BACKGROUND On June 1, 1976, the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM) approved the Washington State Coastal Zone Management (WSCZM) Program as complying with the requirements of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). The State of Washington Department of Ecology (DOE) as part of its WCZMP iden- tified the Grays Harbor Estuary as being an "area of particular concern" and in need of further planning and management. 1 In September 1976 the Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission (GHRPC) received funds from the DOE for the development of the Grays Harbor Estuary Management Plan (GHEMP or plan). The governmental responsibility for making decisions about the use of the land and water resources of the Grays Harbor area falls to a wide variety of local, State, and Federal agencies. This array of authority lacking a common information and policy base had led to confusion, uncertainty, and frustration for individuals and organizations seeking to carry out their responsibilities or commenting on an activity in the estuary. 2 In recognition of these conflicts and variety of authorities, the GHRPC formed a special advisory Task Force consisting of representatives from those local, State, and Federal government agencies with authority to decide on land and water uses, including Grays Harbor County; the cities of Aberdeen, Hoquiam, Ocean Shores, Westport and Cosmopolis; the Port of Grays Harbor; Washington State Departments of Ecology, Game, Fisheries and Natural Resources; Environmental Protection Agency; Fish and Wildlife Service; and the National Marine Fisheries Service. The Army Corps of Engineers was not an official member of of the Task Force but did provide technical assistance throughout the planning process. A consultant team was retained to assist in developing the plan. A five-step planning process was initiated including the assembly of a comprehensive resource data base, development of the plan through alternatives analysis and consensus decisionmaking, two separate steps involving the review and revision of draft plans, and finally adoption of the plan by the Estuary Task Force. The Task Force will approve the plan after all comments from the public have been received, evaluated, responded to and final changes made. This action in and of itself has no legal standing since the Task Force is an advisory body. The GHRPC will then submit the GHEMP to participating local governments for consideration of revising their existing local Shoreline Master Programs (SMP's) and implementing ordinances as appropriate. Once approved, the local governments will submit their amendments to the DOE for State approval. Additional public hearings will be held by both the local governments and the DOE in accordance with established rules and regulations. After DOE approval, OCRM will review the GHEMP for incorporation as an amend- ment to the existing WCZMP and make Findings of Approvability if appropriate, at which time Federal consistency under Section 307 of the CZMA will apply to future Federal actions in Grays Harbor. 1. Office of Coastal Zone Management, NOAA, Final Environmental Impact State - ment - State of Washington Coastal Zone Management Program , April 9, 1976. 2. For further background information see Part I, Section D-Need, Appendix D; and GHEMP, p.l, "Why the Plan?" B. GRAYS HARBOR ESTUARY MANAGEMENT PLAN The GHEMP is a management framework to guide future decisions related to the use of the estuary, striking a balance between the human use of the estuary to meet the region's social and economic needs, and the need to conserve and protect the long-term productive capacity of the estuarine ecosystem and its related recreational and natural values. But it does more than attempt to accommodate environmental, biological, commercial, industrial, sport and other demands without sacrificing the viability of any of them. One of its major purposes is its attempt to minimize potential conflicts between development interests and resource protection agencies and provide a measure of predicta- bility to development interests, environmental interests and State and Federal resource agencies. By protecting the natural resource base, minimizing con- flicts between users, and providing some degree of predictability, it is hoped that the plan will serve the total spectrum of the public interest in utilizing and maintaining a valuable ecosystem. The proposed GHEMP is included in appendix A in its entirety. A summary of the proposed plan follows, as a description of the proposed action. 1 . Summary of the GHEMP a. Planning and Management Framework (1). The GHEMP is based on the assumption that adequate guidance to property owners and government decisionmakers can only be provided by agreed upon detailed policies. The plan establishes, therefore, three levels of policies to guide land use and development activity with increasing degrees of specificity. (2). The first policy level is the overall goal to "manage the estuary for the multiple uses which it can provide." Types of uses include port facilities, manufacturing, transportation, food industry, commercial, recreation, residential, agricultural and natural areas. The plan attempts to accommodate each of these diverse uses in a practical and environmentally sound way. (3). The second level broadly categorizes uses of land and water into eight Planning Areas based on a common set of natural and man-related features including land ownership, political jurisdictions, existing uses, areas of existing or possible conflict, and physical boundaries or features. The Planning Areas provide a basis for describing how different areas of the estuary function and how they might function in the future. Each Planning Area is described in terms of its existing character, its major committed uses, its conflicts and assets, and includes planning guidelines for the future use of the area. A summary of the Planning Areas is contained in figure 1. (4). The third level of policy in the plan, the Management Unit (MU), is the most specific level and is designed to give guidance to property owners and government agencies in evaluating project proposals. The plan establishes forty-three MU's classified into the following categories: n ° Natural (N): to preserve and/or restore natural areas, ° Conservancy Natural (CN): to preserve and restore or enhance areas to their natural condition, ° Conservancy Managed (CM): to protect an area for uses that depend on natural systems, Rural Agricultural (RA): to protect existing and potential agricultural lands from urban expansion, Rural Low Intensity (RL): to restrict intensive development along undeveloped banklines and maintain open spaces, ° Urban Residential (UR): to protect areas in which the pre- dominant use is or should be residential, ° Urban Mixed (UM): areas in which there is or should be a mix of compatible urban uses, Urban Development (UD): areas in which predominant uses are or will be industrial and commercial development, and ° Special (SP): areas where non-standard conditions exist either in the unit's boundary definition or where other special cir- cumstances are present. (5). In general, most of the estuary is designated in categories which constitute little change from existing conditions. Most of the water, intertidal and marsh area in the estuary is designated in Natural or Conser- vancy environments and most of the uplands are designated in Rural environments. The Urban environments, allowing more intensive uses, are generally associated with or are in proximity to areas currently containing intensive uses. While focusing the more intensive uses toward existing urban areas, the plan allows for some expansion into adjacent areas. (6). In some cases, MU's have been split to afford additional protection to critical wetland values. A standard use matrix for each category of MU in the plan (see figure 2) identifies the permitted uses (a use or activ- ity that conforms with the plan and may be undertaken subject to applicable permit requirements and policies and standards of the plan), conditional uses (for definition see GHEMP p. 17), and uses subject to special conditions for each classification category. (7). For each MU the plan also identifies activities (dredging, filling, erosion control, water structures, etc.) which may be allowed by permit or otherwise regulated through a permitted activities matrix for each MU. Generally, the term "activities" addresses those actions which modify the physical character of the shoreline, in contrast to the term "uses" which refers to land use practices. Consequently, a given use (heavy industry, shipping, residential, etc.) as regulated by the MU category (e.g. UD), may or may not be permitted to engage in various activities (dredging, filling, erosion control, placing structures in water, etc.) because of the limitations placed on the uses in the activities matrix for that MU (see figure 3 and GHEMP pp. 6-9, HOW TO USE THIS PLAN). m to CO CO < CO 4— » o o o CO CD CO o a? o 6 03 CD 8 S 2 .H S - S = 2° S~S>S g . r e ■|Z C 3 £ O.V to £ 3 (O > o o E S8 ■ i e 8 i co " a) o c a> c R ° £ OJ o *- u on B i. c *- a> (o c i— o lis Q.-C 5 t? o E £ a- ■= £ fil > 0) w a, aj P o -c w co ;= ** a> a^ £ -Q — o co '«> m ° So§2 d a " d 2> ~ ra 3 aSE» Is o s S"- a S " JS j; > > CO y "> C ° ■ 1 » °- 2. TJ 5 11 1 c = c -c •*" CD CO' ° £ E *- lu n q> *- O ♦2 (J) C 2&B !S p -2 ES *-> to cu o 111 °?f CD CO c 3 a> O *-. c o Ss ^ C ^ CO 1 2 o» 1 3 .£ ~ c 3 c O _C0 cj. - •o-B &14 O w Ol CD i • C > i « to aj oj •S «0C cp 5 - O K C CO c CO CO — C -T) C_'« J la £E "D CO i- — ^f w C c IV b. Neither the plan nor agency commitment is intended to circumvent any permit authority, existing regulations, or public interest review; nor does it eliminate any of the criteria that an agency must use in evaluating a specific permit request (see GHEMP, pp 4-5, "Relationship to Local, State and Federal Permit Processes"). Rather, the plan integrates as much as possible the various requirements and responsibilities into the future uses and activi- ties envisioned by the plan. Therefore, it is believed that the plan can answer some of the most difficult questions often asked during permit decisions affecting development projects within shoreline areas. For instance, under the 404(b)(1) Guidelines which must be met before a 404 permit can be issued, the very important issues regarding the practicable alternatives to the discharge of dredged or fill materials on the aquatic ecosystem, water dependency and producing the least adverse impacts can perhaps best be answered through col- laborative (intergovernmental) comprehensive planning of which GHEMP is a product. The fact that these questions can be answered in part or in whole ahead of time for major future projects should alleviate many of the problems encountered in planning for development and in permit processing. The Task Force attempted to do this for several projects which were considered during the planning process. In some cases a great deal of time may be saved in permit processing which may benefit all concerned. 3. Impacts a. It was the purpose of the Task Force to provide a comprehensive plan which would provide long-term environmental benefits as well as economic and social benefits over and above what the existing local SMP's provided. Large areas of the estuarine system are designated to conserve and protect their natural productive capacity, including the majority of the estuary's intertidal and submerged areas not utilized for navigation, a large marsh area upstream of Junction City and Cosmopolis, all of the Elk River Estuary, exist- ing game management areas (Humptulips Delta, Johns River, and Oyehut), and specially designated areas intended to limit designated development areas in the vicinity of south Aberdeen, Ocean Shores Airport, and the Bowerman indus- trial area. Of particular importance is the "fish base" located in ML) 1 4 and the "fish passage" which is important for migratory fish to pass through the urban areas of Aberdeen and Hoquiam. b. A major trade-off provides the potential of up to 500 acres of fill (through phased development) for future port expansion and economic development while providing permanent protection to 1700 acres of aquatic habitat in ML) 12. Ml) 12 has been identified as a significant habitat for migratory shorebirds and peregrine falcons. Filling of the wetlands over the years will have a signifi- cant adverse environmental impact on that habitat but, in the collective judg- ment of the Task Force including the Federal agencies, not an unacceptable one within the context of the entire ecosystem. For a definition of "unacceptable" see GHEMP p. 20. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has made a finding that the proposed fill configuration would not jeopardize the continued existence of the peregrine falcons, and various mitigation and monitoring requirements are intended to increase the certainty that the peregrine falcons' continued exist- ence will not be jeopardized. vm CO CD en se > Z "" -i < ft) z UJ < A3 u 4-» 5 a £ w z E a z z < t < z < s a, £ c IB 5 S D (9 a. ITJ U CM .- C C ai oo 4) m j: c *• ~-2 18 ^ = i 3 O O ffl a 9 — >> - s ♦■• ©.2Pis 1) c _ 3 3 o © o 4) *" ~ so S 00 Sj » C UJ >U o . 03 iv o *» i '" ' v, , '5. .t; »^ * 5 3 C E <■> J ^"° ~ >" ft) oil . (8 o •; CO UJ > o < Q UJ H s cc UJ a s # * • 9 • D 3 • * • • • • • # D > ce o 1 0) o a z c a J3 UJ 1- < 5 J* © Q 0» icoicD|Q z 0|0 saanxonuis HNVS 13NNVH0 • D * Ei^ 2 £ C o |5 Q.— . O O 1? II Z o u c m IB ■= IB T3 ^ © © op ^ o O. 4) « fl ..-? a e a c o ? « If? 2 je © ©"2 © s '5 S £> - > 2 S t © a e a Wt- CO UJ CO a cc < o z < r- co CM O) S- en JK3W30VNTH 2 O E n a D U L D D DO □ □ D □ D a a D h D □ □ D D b DO z 4 a E 3 2 3 • a D □ D # D • • da •ID • •;•;• «• • • •i« 1 • a • •ID • • s 1 t • CC a • D a • •!• a|«|« 00 •!• • a • •in .. -i- . • • D • • • «l < C 3 < cc © J* •• dJa 1 a a an b • • • a a D P • —1 cc • H- •• 1 a •an 1 a n|a • a 9 • • • • • • D • •• ' • • A0NVAU3SN03 2 « DD a nb • • •ID • • • • • D !° • • • • • • z a a a D • • • • • • a a D a • • lvuruvN z a D a n • • • • • • C7J LU CO 3 Q nr PERMITTED USE SEE SPECIFIC MANAGEMENT UNIT GUIDELINES USE CATEGORY G IX. s a JZ S q -0 S d 1 a s 2 3 > UJ £ s T3 C 2P 3 £ C « C a V U9 a V a. i £ U- -D C a c u m UJ T3 c c e LL. c a. n ITJ "U G .a -3 .-a 1 < 3 U 5 1 > tj U 5 V UJ c 3 I £ C ll G E U V s u 1) 5 'J 3 < to c 0) a T3 u. ■a c a Ll! 2 a. 'JL TD C i u c U S c ra z> V a n c 1 u 1 < 00 c !jz iT Z Q- 1Q E | £ c u -0 c 1 a no z n CO V 3 41 a 00 c a. £ n U E ai O QQ U a V u u < 3 a. u JB Jl ?a a. j* CL V a 5 X 10 c c 3 3 m 5 u ■3 C U c -J at X £ rTJ Ui 13 I "3 < 3 Oi a U ■a U n 5 U 3 < > to a. 00 c i u. a "^0 ■i V c ill d 1^ 1^ II (0 U C 1 to 5 13 s .1 1 UJ i DC a 9 a X T3 C -J c o ■O O & 3 s oc DO c > Q <• UI II a < u. 1 O Z H NOUVlUOdSNVUl 1 si j S E UI 3 3 O O NOaV3d03« < i UI 9 (0 UI a UI c 2 3 O s a < 'll 11 < h- CO . VI (8). In addition to the use matrix and the activities matrix, some MU's have special circumstances identified which would require the appli- cation of special conditions. Most major projects and activities (i.e., MU 6 - Ocean Shore Airport, MU 12 - Bowerman industrial development) are identified in the plan through these special conditions. b. Other Provisions of the Plan (1). In addition to the overall policy organization, the plan contains features which provide the ability to anticipate, guide, or meet future conditions. (2). An annual and every fifth year review process is included in the plan. The Task Force evaluates the plan's ability to address circum- stances that have occurred during the previous period using this review process. In establishing this procedure, the Task Force recognized that it could not foresee nor test all possible situations. While the plan represents the best judgment of the Task Force in achieving a balance for the estuary, only time and experience can provide the true test of that judgment. (3). By this review process, amendments to the plan, initiated either as a result of the Task Force review process or through the request of an individual, group, or agencies, are possible. In addition to procedural requirements, the plan establishes three criteria that, if satisfied, could warrant such an amendment. These criteria specify that (a) any amendment must be consistent with the overall goal of the plan and with other applicable general guidelines and policies, (b) the amendment will not cause adverse effects that cannot be mitigated, and (c) that there are adequate facilities or services to support the activity or activities specified in the amendment. (4). At one time, the planning and management framework of the plan was for a 50-year period which corresponded to the commitment to set aside 1700 acres of Port of Grays Harbor owned land in MU 12 for this period of time. Now, however, the commitment is for permanent transfer and therefore, the timeframe is basically for an indefinite period of time. 2. Plan Implementation a. In order for the plan to be a useful management tool, each State and Federal agency will utilize the applicable portions of the plan in imple- menting its policy, permit review criteria, and procedures; and local govern- ments through adoption in local Shoreline Master Programs, comprehensive plans, and zoning designations. Participation by regional or district offices of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service will be acknowl- edged through signed Letters of Intent (L0 I ) in which they will set forth the role the GHEMP will play in their future decisionmaking on activities consistent or inconsistent with the plan as well as the nature and degree of their commit- ment to the plan (see appendix B). vn c. Development is directed toward existing developed areas. Heavy industry focuses around the filled or upland areas of Aberdeen, Hoquiam, and Cosmopolis with exceptions in the Bowerman industrial area, in the southeast corner of Aberdeen, and on the shore of the inner harbor. A limited amount of new fill would be permitted adjacent to the existing industrial areas in Junction City and Cosmopolis. There would be some expansion to the existing boat basins for marine commercial uses. Waterfront commercial uses could locate on the Aberdeen waterfront; intensive residential uses would be permitted only in limited upland areas along the shoreline in Ocean Shores, Westport, Old Aberdeen Waterfront and Central Park, with the rest of the shoreline limit- ed to low intensity agricultural, forest, resource production and residential uses consistent with existing character and use. d. The plan permits uses which are already allowable under the existing local Shoreline Master Programs (e.g., bankline straightening, fill, erosion control, residential development, etc.), but does so in a manner which is generally acceptable to all parties on the Task Force by redesignating MU's and tailoring permissible/conditional uses allowed within those MU's (e.g. activities such as jetties or groins, which are permitted in urban environments under the existing SMA's, are not permitted in all urban MU's under GHEMP). e. The plan will help address the difficult issue of determining cumu- lative impacts of future projects. By knowing the amount and probable location of future development, a better evaluation of the full impact of future devel- opment on the estuary can be made. 4. Alternatives a. This EIS discusses practical alternatives to the proposed action including no action (or status quo), various plan provisions which would provide greater or lesser development, concentrating or dispersing development, alternate port and industrial site locations, alternatives to specific MU designations and alternative methods of implementation. In addition, during the scoping process OCRM received a Citizen's Grays Harbor Estuary Management Plan as an alternative to the proposed plan for consideration; it is included under the "Less Development and Greater Resource Protection" section. b. The alternatives analysis does not extend to considering different permitted activities and standard uses in individual MU's. The matrixes identifying these uses were extensively considered by the Task Force members, and alternatives fully considered but limited or eliminated in part because of the consensus decisionmaking process. The analysis of overall alternative provisions of the plan, such as greater or lesser development, is reflected in general consideration of various use schemes. For purposes of this public review, uses and activities identified by the plan within specific MU's are still open for consideration. Those comments will be evaluated; if a signifi- cant impact not otherwise analyzed is identified, the final PEIS will be ex- panded to consider that alternative. Additionally, the plan cannot address all possible alternatives to individual actions so specific alternatives analyses may be required for specific proposals during permit processing. C. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY The GHEMP was developed to solve problems surrounding land and water uses of the estuary, especially tension between accommodating economic growth which might require fill of wetlands and assuring the long-term preservation of a ix E -S 3 ~ = -o S « o .E S 8 8 s' -0-5.2 2 « • co jo o> is *i w. *~ A3 (E.2 i oj O era * °>~ e e a a> _ro O I a " ^ a> c — -C 3 ra *- -3 'So* £ S c E° E o t > ° ° "H -D O- ™ If o E • - Q) oj c o £ 5 » O) s .2 ro c row.. ■J ra — S ra " ai O 0) ^ c o sz 1 = 3 CO E P t D)« - to Q. I f -D I m .2? ra O *- Q> -g C to > 2 o OJ '+3 o "p o O i_ u QJ O ■|Js I > c to ID O — *~ *-> to s g (D u !2 fl) . t 2 c S Si E £*, CO M 0) ~ ca o g) u __2 to a. E aj a> .c L - as +_. nj flj m .§ £ .2 x oj e s i = o--9 S PI c o> 3 I c ■- tea) — ro £ 0)°" «■£* *-» x o C to = So" trj +-* (0 -Q -D £ 5 c to w u I oJ o) : if*-; ra S-ej 2-o - 01 ra fT 2ro> i'as to a> 3 £ I a K- 2 £ o .2 -2 tn to !1 i» 2 §..£ 5 E ~ a g= £ ra - j> >.E E a 3 o c S Ml S > If H to "O w o « ra o ■£ •*- 2 F o S s c a a si 3 X c ra S o £ 8 ^ S - s ■S O 1- ^ §"5 &° 3 ra o a> ^ c c M ra E O. ra So ^E^ ^ (0 0? E ^r .!£ -C c to a> E E »o a | 0> Q> *i - C > = P ■p n QC s: 3 H X 0) 00 > a> > c 0) c E > O CO f E i & °-s Q. — Q. Q UJ t ra ra 1- 01 J c ra c = c -0 a> •*. T3 01 O C — => Q. K > O Q.J5 ~ •^ (D *- 5 S » E a E -o 8.2 J= i o * ra _£ t;, £ c " -o ra +^ O o o ■o 5 Q. > s « §-| ™ o ° -o Itii CU o c J3 o q. (C ro JS CO ro «.- 3 (0 c S! •M *- CO O fj 2?* Q. CD ra S *• a. ^> ? 2 o ^ a a j; 303I ill- a-8i£ O C Q) ^ ■a £- a» — o ro , ro 3 1 Q. 0"ii QJ S c -£ E "8 .Q c £ £! o || &• a) E QJ O aj . o 3 " a "■g ten T3 O < £ E-c ESI .2 SL< ai g X E s > . o I J to .- |||f fe M- > ^ D C I'D O O T3 C g 0) ra >■£ !S ro ra. i_ a> "5 E £ ra « S £ S ra jf g §■= ■o .E ss c c ra o»E - - = I- : = S*- g' ; 3; o a,- 00 S- o *- •2 .2! c O y "° c to ' ^r To a) a) = 'cgi .a 1 e £ S:t £ 5 w £! g c ?-s 1 I "tr SlI. gjjj tl 10 ^ C « i2 C 5 Si ^- o>' O "O »- •» a a .2 o h- ^ CO « S * ^ C Qj 1 i "»' CO o 2 8 QJ a) ♦J CO S 8, 01 > o ^ a-o _ o> — ro to — u- -9 o ^ (D "O o — ■ = e|? 0) S_ -C ^: 3 ro T3 S 2 c 0) 1- il£ E.JS . S .2 - . 8 ftSi y 2 :£• « * .t: -o •I S Ml its 2 = E 5.E S 2 , 2 a c o J3 0> O ra E o- fll _ o a> 0..E 0) 5- c a|| sis S > «* ■ Sf g-p I 111 ra ■o «> «~ J c g-o lis O ^ 0) o> ra o -£ '^ -c *- c co 8-8 c 8i| S o.E 5 » « is O a) c-E o c .£.£ T5 2 c .ii ra ra £ E |i- E j- o QJ QJ ssl « S3 *C 'ra 2-" ra -o 8 t E £ a-g.o>-o •* Sr S •- 1 5 3 s „ -c ^ c CO e QJ c CO (D CO O c CO OJ u CD CD c "8 CD E "3> c c c <.J CD •D c "U ^ £ o £ E oi s E 0) = S O a) ro 3 "o i: o) i_ f* > -£ o a > O 0) ^ 1 8 2£ fi g 8| .2g a| . ScSSS « ! |S • O) c (J c a 1^.2 8* I S 3 E ° — £ O 01 >- 0) ra OJ -n o fail™ M- O > O a c o 2 i- " ro p Ol 3 C 3 ro c - O-'r; O) X c ™ ■o o S> Q. O) o J- - oj - - ti 0) o t: a ^ c o 0> •*- _p ro o §'■§ o ft) _ "O 0) ra _ -C 0.0^ g 0) c - 3 ro Q..E U, £ o £ o s 3 « > . ra ' oi ! §> il i.E.5 w E .E Q> <0 ■ 2 E g-5 ° O " o> f-cl "D J) CO t 0) O ... Ol C c *0 C "D CT> .2. « CO — ■™ fee E o. g o> S 1 ^ t C " i>g J: ro a i2 <■ .**? CO **" Oi c.E ra c t § O (O o. a ra O O C a) 3 ■D C O) c X 0) 3 OJ c ra F > QJ CD E F ra c 8 c 1 a) O c a O QJ CD CD x: "5 QJ C ca "CD C O cn QJ O c X CD QJ CO CO ■D fc 2 — O) OJ ai 5 CD E c L ro c c ra TJ > ■D ra "ra O QJ (0 ^ 8 TJ OJ F 1 X U C CD CO 3 E O 3 O c QJ Oi fc (0 r- £ a n -C X3 ti CO .tr -C .U O 2- ■*- CD .E c u» O) S E O E T3 S>i « O O $ ra *D £ c &2-H.S- It 0) ^ a> o ■D a -D -o 2 c ra £ " L- 3 9- ra .S g •2 ra^ O JS c & E — c -d 8 "D co — 5 f 2 8, S 1 E ra E t — CD (J 2-5 3 ■o-o S ?T3 ra ♦-• ra K igi 111 - co to .E ' '5 J3 to : I 2 S - E « = 1 I c S |Ogra ;s S & ; a g e ) c 3 — . 0) "D r= : e o g • C 5.0 1 E «? I ° ?< ; o o 1 ro © ra : ♦= c .c " li^ "" +2 .S3 * 18 = a 5. 2 o „ n? j= c a co «T ^* •- ra 2 = c o ro .- o> ra .E V o> 3 O) J p ? IC £ j: o .t .i £ 01 E 2 I 8 £ 5 ° a> ~ 0)0) — T3 >- 0) O) g > o o >T3 = C ro ro 5 > ■Q C 3 O) ted uses >ie Oyhu e Ocean nd home ng, pass areas of ie north d) c mm ude ea, t mes dfis large nds, Si £ imary cc area inci eation ai oped ho nting an r use on rfront la Si •c c ro O) Pr ning Recr deve al hu wate wate ra 0) ■— CO c^ CO CD fi ra'5 2? c ra .2 8 1 I o! 1 .— . > ro ro E 2 i5 = ™ S 2 1 ro g.g ra S3 v m Q. -" C "O to II 1 1 cn ._ »- •- w r- u v r i" ™ 2 ^ o ra 01 'i *■ 2 *- S S -| « E § ji _ x: ra 3 c K S 2 2 era •£ ra .2 ,2, fill S a~ o ■^ ™ — _ c *- 23 •= CO o x: c OJ to C ,tV (0 "O v m I ill o) "D .£ ° ra g ^ ra ,tf O) G ~ Is ? ° ro a) ra « r » 3 § O ■o o £ fi 0) ? s - E o 8 o 0; K ox?, b- QJ 0> £•= i5 CD £J C O ^ QJ Q. to oj ^ — > ■jj CO Q) ip 'p - q3 > CD c S o> 8^ "■'€ « ^ o ■£ 2 o- p. af ■= 3 E H O Q. oE CD > k_ (O O CD H E c E Oj o =- E ■= o> *,.2 g .2 S « h 2 CD 5£t E =* M So.ro g ■g. X ^ 15 o „ E " < E cn (D C *- g 3 ; s *■ o j c c o »» Si S S -g o 3 5. 3 3 0) », o *= c .2 « llfi ■o-sj-s g E .E O 0) li QJ "D w C CO CO 'to CO »- Q) > fll if! to to Q."S 5T o 2 0) 3 3 ro <- c x -o E £ o> iX E ^ S.S5E » r E ra r = ai E c o c ^, £ ra ■£ ±i E ^ a.' S 2 5 S"5 5 a ro ro o» 2 oj a 73 ro " ra £ 8 9 o) = E — a ro o ox E 2 ~° li 3 ™ » w s: ** wi , v_ 3 ro QJ J Q.T3 c a ' Q> .E QJ > !|£ >£ QJ ; ro c 2 1 wi 0) "? 3 ' ra si £ o 1 oj „ a. s c E ra O- q:^ 2 ^_ . r o> °> 8 S; > -° v ra >. o 0) ♦- £■==; 5£ g 2 '5,2 go g E S o = ra — 2 2" c TJ ra a 2 S2 ai £ra 3 I— o) 5: < E c — - c a.g> s xi r e ■ -l<" S o. E !k £ 2 c JrC» O *< C Q, E '5 ^ -rT 15*5:2 -S.a jzii £ Si | i sr-i Ero'2S •§=- c -c X CO co c ro O "ro QJ D C QJ CO CD CD ^ro 0) QJ ra QJ U c 0) c c 1 E -L- D c CO SI 8 QJ Q. (D to 0) QJ — QJ D b C 3 +1 Jfi QJ SI O *~ -C .G C QJ O CO CD x: C 2 3 QJ x: 5 g QJ x: O CD QJ O QJ F c 1U QJ CD D C ro 3 a CO c C 1- X QJ '£ c Eri c TJ CD CD C CD n > CL x: c x: n cn CD D cn c QJ CD u CD X E .C r- O •^ u c c QJ c b c CD ■0 8 CD CD C 0. ■3 <3> p x: <0 fc £ a n CD II O „- ra ° ra f i& Si? = 5 > > > 5 = viable estuarine system. Given the topography of the area surrounding the estuary, any growth of large-scale activities tends to encroach from the shore- line into the water since flat, developable upland is limited. Therefore, almost all proposals for new activities tend to be controversial. 1 . Management Unit 12 - Bowerman Basin a. The major controversy identified by the Task Force and the scoping process focuses on the 2200 acres of intertidal and submerged lands owned by the Port of Grays Harbor (see photo 1). The area is well suited for future large-scale port expansion given its location next to the navigation channel and supporting infrastructure and is considered to be the major site for future industrial development. The area has also been identified as a significant habitat for wintering and migratory shorebirds and the peregrine falcons which prey upon the shorebirds. The area is significant because it provides the birds a certain amount of shelter from approaching storms and is a prodigious feeding area (during seasonal migration in particular). While much of the environment has been modified by previous fills and dredged material disposal, the majority of the environment remains highly productive. The intertidal areas and fringing marshes are important for benthic invertebrates, some fish species and other wildlife as well. b. In initial Task Force discussions, the Port of Grays Harbor pro- posed that all 2200 acres owned by the Port be designated as an Urban environment and be available for fill and development. Based on an early appraisal of the impact of that proposal, such designation was found unacceptable within the context of long-term protection of the estuary. A subsequent proposal would have divided the 2200-acre area into two different environments: a 500-acre Urban Development Special environment (MU 13) and a 1700-acre Conservancy Managed Special environment (MU 12). The 500 acres were located north of the airfield and would be available for fill and development under certain condi- tions regarding future uses. The 1700 acres were located to the west of the airfield and were to be turned over for co-management by a State/Federal or a private conservation organization for a period of 50 years. Further contro- versy ensued over whether the uses which were allowed by the plan in MU 13 were consistent with the 404(b)(1) Guidelines (September 5, 1975 version) and over new discoveries concerning the importance of the Bowerman Basin to migratory shorebirds and peregrine falcons. c. Because the 404(b)(1) Guidelines were in the process of being revised during the 1978-79 period, further changes to the plan were not made until everyone knew what the standards of the Guidelines would be. Shortly thereafter, Section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act was initi- ated by the 0CRM with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concerning the impact of the fill in the Bowerman Basin as proposed in 1978. The F&WS made a deter- mination that the configuration of the 500 acre fill may jeopardize the contin- ued existence of the American peregrine falcon (spp. anatum ) with the potential of a non-jeopardy opinion if protective measures would be implemented. With the suggestions of nonmember conservation groups, the Task Force developed a substitute proposal with conditions and configurations for development and preservation which are included in the April 1982 draft of the plan. Those conditions include permanent transfer of submerged and submersible lands owned by the Port of Grays Harbor to the Washington State Department of Game, reestab- lishment of vegetated salt marshes and woody vegetation, reestablishment of %- >> o +j -Q s. S_ CD fO Q.IC O S-. (/) Q. >> 4- S_ O CD >>H- X S- O Q_ 13 C£ E i- LD 3 o O O a. 1— -Q O ai X aj ^r a. 4-> +j E >i •i — jQ X o ■a &_ CD Cl c Q- 3 ' z < cc Jb. Dock and Warehouse Facilities < cc < Z >- o z < > CC UJ Z o o u RURAL URBAN N Port Terminal Facilities Ship Berthing Barge Berthing Ship Construction and Repair Navigational Aids Heavy Industry Light Industry Water Dependent Industry ' Forest Products Processing Mine ral Extraction and Storage Ferry Terminal Shipping Roads and Railroads □ CN Dp Airports Overhead Utility Corridor FOOD INDUSTRY COMMERCIAL z o < UJ cc o UJ cc Submerged Utility Corridor Commercial Fishing (Incl. Shellfish) Oyster Culture Aquaculture Fish and Food Processing Motel Boat Sales, Construction and Repair Restaurant Marina Other Commercial Public Fishing Areas Water Dependent Hunting Pleasure Boating Camping Public Boat Ramp RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURE NATURAL AREAS Park/Parkway, Other Public Access Floating Homes Dp □x □x CM □ Dp Dp □ RL Dp □ Dp Dp □ Urban/Suburban Rural Low Intensity (Scattered) Rural Agricultural (Farm House) Major Cultivated Crops Passive Agriculture Subsistence/Local Market Farming Tree Farm Estuarine and Marine Sanctuaries Wildlife Refuges Living Resource Production and Habitat P&C □ DP p&c RA UR DP UD □ DP Dp DP DP D □ P D DP □E P&C Dp Dp p#c D PfiC UM Dp DP DP DP CM D v&ttmii »DC P#C Dp Dp D Dp DP Dp Dp Dp DP. D£ Dp DP Dr Dr Dp D D DP p#c D ft a jp__p_ _& Dp Dp D a D _ D Or D a G EXISTING SMP's P = Permitted Use C = Conditional Use X = Not Permitted 11-18 (4). It is the collective judgment of local government repre- sentatives that current SMP's are more permissive to development (notwith- standing Federal permit requirements) over a long-term period than is the GHEMP. Local government representatives also believe that while they have given up some future development options to achieve comprehensive long-range planning which incorporates additional Federal standards and criteria, they will gain predictability on remaining more important development. While previous permit conflicts have been costly to developers because of delays, the record also indicates that most permits have been approved. The long- range picture would not likely change in the absence of the GHEMP. Therefore, the environmental consequences of no action are likely to be both more costly for particular development projects and more environmentally damaging than the proposed action. c. Absent the GHEMP, local governments would make selective modifi- cations to their local SMP's without the benefit of substantial Federal and State agency input provided by the Task Force. This could lead to a lack of balance if those changes are in response to future development pressure. This is to say, no action does not equate with no fill in the long-term future of the estuary. 6. Overall, the no action alternative would put greater pressures on local governments to allow urban expansion into the fish passage areas along the shoreline. Almost all projects which are contemplated by the plan including the projects at Ocean Shores, Westport, and the South Aberdeen industrial area are consistent with the existing local SMP's and local zoning and would be permitted by the local programs irrespective of the GHEMP. The major exception would be the development activities in MU 12. Development in Bowerman Basin would not be consistent as a permitted activity, but nonetheless might be allowed as a conditional use. In the GHEMP, the Standard Use Matrix does con- sider port, manufacturing and transportation facilities as a "permitted" use in the UD MU environment, but all activities in the MU are "special condition" activities and not designated as "permitted." a. Under the no action alternative, 1700 acres wetlands - now Port property - would not be transferred to the Washington State Department of Game for preservation. Development could well take place within and beyond the 500 acres currently proposed in the plan over the next 50 or even 100 years. No mitigation would be guaranteed. The Port could opt to restore diked wetlands as in-kind replacement, but that would not necessarily benefit the shorebird population that uses the basin. While the actual demand in year one may not be great for additional land along the navigational channel, the demand will be great in future years due to a number of variable circumstances including the widening and deepening of the navigation channel and economic recovery. b. Conversely, because of the importance of the Bowerman Basin to the shorebirds and falcons, it is possible Federal laws and regulations would effectively prohibit future fill despite political and development pressure. This assumes that environmental laws and regulations would not be weakened and that the considerable pressures associated with economic development do not prevail . c. This evaluation cannot accurately predict the outcome of the future for the Bowerman Basin under the no action alternative. It would be speculative at best. One thing is clear: there is a substantial likelihood of some portion of MU 12 being filled for development during the next 50 years. 11-19 D. ALTERNATIVE PLAN CONCEPTS 1. Any plan is a composite of actions for each of which there are a number of alternatives. It is not possible, within the scope of this document, to identify and describe at length each of the alternatives for specific pro- posals which were considered during the process. However, it is possible to discuss the general concepts of such alternatives. In the development of the plan, alternatives were discussed at each level of policy development. Alter- native goals were discussed before the proposed GHEMP was selected. Potential, alternative scenarios for each set of planning area guidelines were formulated. Alternative designations then were discussed as each unit was assigned a manage- ment category. Each of these discussions tended to involve the following policy directions in comparison to the policy balance now contained in the plan: o Policy or use commitments which provide greater development oppor- tunity but would result in greater resource loss. o Policy or use commitments which would provide greater protection for the resource by greater restriction of development opportunity. o Policy or use commitments which would address the distribution of activities, such as: a) concentrating development with its potential impacts into fewer but more intensely used areas and b) dispersing development over wider areas but with less intensity. o Policies which would direct the pending urban uses to other areas: a) away from the estuary; b) to other areas in the estuary; c) to other ports. In all, the consensus decisionmaking process served to narrow down the viability of many of the alternatives. 2. The following discussion will consider alternative plan concepts and describe the potential environmental effects that would occur if more propos- als in the plan were made under each of these alternative policy directions. a. Greater Development Opportunity with Greater Environmental Costs (1). The planning process could enable more decisions which would increase the (apparent or desired) opportunity for local governments to enlarge their economic base. While this alternative could provide greater potential economic benefit to the area (by allowing more fill for industrial/ commercial development), it also would significantly increase the potential for substantive modification of the estuarine system and human environment of the shoreline. Each such modification would entail further loss of productive estuarine area. The balance between development opportunity and environmental costs was extensively discussed, debated, and resolved throughout each stage of the planning process. The goal formulation stage considered the following concept: Manage Grays Harbor for intensive industrial use and protect Will apa Bay for resource management purposes . (Note: In 1977, the Corps made a final determination that there would be no more maintenance dredging in Will apa Bay, and that log exporting would ostensibly go to Grays Harbor. See appendix E, p. 2, article on Willapa Bay: An End to Dredging.) 11-20 (2). This concept, if it were selected, would have conditioned later planning decisions to be conducive to permitting more development oppor- tunity than the proposed plan. It also would have resulted in a greater number of provisions in the plan to permit modification of the estuarine system. The present overall goal tries to avoid this extreme position and encourage a balance between economic need and environmental costs. (3). In the consideration of Planning Area Guidelines, the poten- tial of each Planning Area to support greater use for various socioeconomic purposes was considered. In all Planning Areas, the guidelines which were selected tend to constrain the potential development which might otherwise result, in order to conserve and protect important environmental resources. (4). As each planning unit was considered in the process, various specific proposals were also considered which would have resulted in greater adverse impacts on the natural system. While many such proposals were re- jected, some of the more significant ones included: o Retention of Urban designation on all shorelines in Westport, o Larger airport and support facility area at Westport, o Larger airport at Ocean Shores, o Greater residential opportunity along North and South Bays, o Allowance of some industrial development of North Bay, o Use of Unit 12 (1700 acres west of Bowerman Basin owned by the Port of Grays Harbor), o Leaving Bowerman Field where it is and permitting expansion into the adjacent tideland, o Allowing the filling of Units 12 and 14 to the navigation channel line, especially development of the old "fish base," o Having the ability to fill larger areas along the Aberdeen water- front, o Immediate extension of Urban Development further up the Chehalis River, o Allowing intensive development on the channel along the south water- front of Aberdeen, o Permitting greater industrial and commercial use of the area up- stream from Cosmopolis, o Providing a larger Urban Development area near Markham and allowing bankline straightening, and o Providing areas (such as that near Rennie Island) for in-bay dis- posal of dredge material. 11-21 (5). These alternatives for providing greater development oppor- tunity generally are not provided for in the plan because their impact, when combined with the modifications permitted, is expected to produce unacceptable cumulative adverse environmental impacts. As more and more modification is permitted the potential to impair the productive capacity of the system becomes greater. Other, more specific concerns for rejecting these proposals included, but were not limited to: o Discouragement of urban sprawl and haphazard development, o The especially significant concern of protecting the fish passage, o The need to ensure protection of critical or particularly important natural features, and o The need to conserve productive marsh area for marine production. b. Less Development and Greater Resource Protection (1). The process could result in a plan which would permit less development opportunity than the proposed plan. By so reducing the amount of modification to the shoreline and estuarine system, there would be greater assurance that the essential biological function of the system would not be impaired. Particularly significant, less conversion of wetland to upland would thus occur. Such environmental protection, however, would be at the cost of prohibiting future regional economic development which the local gov- ernment representatives on the Task Force believe to be below the "bottom line" of what they think is reasonable or desirable from a long-term per- spective. As in the case of the greater development alternative, decisions of this nature occurred often during the planning process. When the proposed goal for estuarine management was selected, the Task Force also considered the following concept: Manage Grays Harbor for maximum resource protection, by severely limiting filling, and limiting development to existing industrial land . (Note: A distinction must be made between what is zoned in- dustrial but not developed and what is currently industrial land as a matter of fact.) (2). This concept would direct further decisions in the planning process toward greater conservation of the estuary; it also would prevent the planning process from adequately addressing the importance of the system in providing opportunities to meet the perceived long-term economic needs and desires of the area. (3). The planning process also considered instituting Guidelines in each Planning Area which would place greater constraints on the opportunity for more intense use of the estuary. Such Guidelines would produce more cau- tious management decisions in the future and thereby serve to conserve more environmental resources than the present Guidelines. Likewise, such guide- lines might also frustrate the achievement of perceived socioeconomic needs and growth. 11-22 (4). This alternative would allow no wetlands filling in MU's 6 (Ocean Shores), 12 (Bowerman Basin with exception of peninsula), 26 (98 acres of the south shore industrial site, 38 and 39 (Westport Airport and Marina); but would allow the use of vacant or underutilized lands in order to meet the region's socioeconomic needs: This alternative would have fewer natural resource impacts and potentially meet some of the region's economic needs. As discussed below, some of the spatial or other support requirements provided by the exist- ing developed or developable lands may not meet the future demands for maritime industrial needs. (5). As part of the scoping process, OCRM and the Task Force have received an alternative to the GHEMP entitled the (draft) Citizen's Grays Harbor Estuary Management Plan submitted on January 15, 1983 by a number of national, regional and local environmental and conservation organizations. These organizations include: o Natural Resources Defense Council o Friends of the Earth o Washington Environmental Council o Seattle Audubon Chapter o Tahoma Audubon Chapter o Black Hills Audubon Chapter o N.W. Steelheaders - Grays Harbor Chapter o N. Beach and Pacific Co. Environmental Council The draft alternative was submitted because the organizations "do not find that the proposed Estuary Management Plan developed by the Task Force has arrived at an acceptable 'balance' between environmental and developmental objectives." While the entire text is included in appendix F, the major provisions are set forth below. Citizen's Grays Harbor Estuary Management Plan 1 2. Key criteria of the Citizen's Estuary Plan include the following: * Acceptance of the Estuary Management Goal for the Estuary which says that "the Grays Harbor estuary will be managed for multiple uses." * Equally important, however, is the retention of the tests of water dependency and feasible alternatives analysis as the basis for estuary development decisions, and * Increased protection for natural parts of the estuary. 1. Di rect Quotation 11-23 3. Based on these criteria, certain elements in the Task Force plan are rejected: a. Filling 73 acres of tideflats, wetlands and intertidal area north of the Bowerman Airfield in the Unique Wildlife Bowerman Basin ecosystem by the Port of Grays Harbor in M.U. 12. This fill is rejected because its purpose is not water dependent (i.e., airport relocation), it would have an unacceptable adverse impact to the estuary and no inkind replacement habitat mitigation is proposed. b. Filling 164 acres of tideflats, wetlands and intertidal area west of the Bowerman Airfield in the Unique Wildlife Bowerman Basin ecosystem by the Port of Grays Harbor in M.U. 12. This fill is rejected because it would have an unacceptable adverse impact to the estuary and no inkind replacement habitat mitigation is proposed. c. Filling 20 acres or wetlands north-east of the Bowerman Basin ecosystem by the City of Hoquiam in M.U. 14. This fill is rejected because its purpose is not water dependent, it would have an unacceptable adverse impact to the estuary and no inkind replace- ment habitat mitigation is proposed. d. Filling 95 acres of freshwater wetlands as a dredge spoil disposal area by the Port of Grays Harbor in M.U. 26. This fill is rejected because feasible alternatives exist (i.e. open water disposal) and no inkind replacement habitat mitigation is proposed. e. Filling approximately 40 acres of tideflats, wetlands and intertidal area east of Ocean Shores by the City of Ocean Shores for an airport in M.U. 6. This fill is rejected because its purpose is not water dependent; despite the fact that inkind replacement habitat mitigation is proposed. f. Filling of an unspecified amount of acres of wetlands to expand an existing airport by the City of Westport in M.U. 38. This fill is rejected because its purpose is not water dependent and no inkind replacement habitat mitigation is proposed. g. Filling of an unspecified amount of acres of wetlands to expand an existing marina by the City of Westport in M.U. 39. This fill is rejected because of lack of need and no inkind replacement habitat mitigation is proposed. 4. Since one of the key concepts in the Citizen's Estuary Plan is increased protection for natural parts of the estuary the following additional protec- tive features must be included: * Sec. 404 (c) designation under the Clean Water Act for areas unsuit- able for dredge or fill disposal. 11-24 * Recognition of the U.S. F&WS's endangered species determination under Sec. 7 of the Endangered Species Act that filling in 500 acres of the Bowerman Basin would likely jeopardize the endangered Peregrine Falcon and management of the area as an International Shorebird Sanctuary. * The establishment of a mitigation plan in place prior to adoption of an estuary plan. * Commitment to a sediment control study as part of any Dredged Materials Disposal Plan prepared by the Task Force. * Ocean side management units established and adopted as part of any estuary plan for Westport and Ocean Shores. 5. The Citizen's Estuary Plan accepts and utilizes the basic political manage- ment unit divisions and categories which the Task Force has established. How- ever, it reorders the priorities and assumptions under which development, especially by the Port of Grays Harbor, can take place. In particular, a finding is made that the Port of Grays Harbor has current- ly at its disposal : a. a 176-acre dredge spoil disposal site which is undeveloped and for which no inkind replacement habitat mitigation was carried out by the Port in M.U. 26. b. a 45-acre (Kaiser Steel) site, speculatively filled by the Port in 1977, which is still undeveloped and for which no inkind replacement habitat mitigation was carried out in M.U. 15. c. a 72-acre site at the Port's Terminal 2 in M.U. 15. Thus, a total of 293 acres of shoreline area accessible to the navigation channel is available to the Port of Grays Harbor. If the 600 additional acres of potential filling allowed the Port by the Task Force were carried out, nearly a thousand acres of develop- able land would be placed at the disposal of the Port. We reject this approach to Port development. We do not find in the Task Force's plan any requirements that the Port's existing land development listed in 5. a.-c, above, must be utilized first before additional filling is permitted. 6. Therefore, the Citzen's Estuary Plan recommends a three phase plan as follows: a. Phase I - The Port has 293 acres of development potential. These areas must be developed to the satisfaction of the Task Force and a citizen advisory committee to their fullest potential for water dependent purposes. b. Phase II - The next development opportunity with the least environ- mental cost is utilization of the Bowerman Peninsula (approximately 200 acres) with a small amount of filling permitted in the south-west corner to align area with navigation channel. This however, will require the Port to relocate their Airport outside the estuary at one of three sites: 11-25 1 . Central Park 2. Markham 3. Elma as set out in the Bowerman Field Relocation Planning Study, June 1979, Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission. Thus, the Port must make a tradeoff as to whether the economic benefits of utilizing the Bowerman Peninsula for water dependent uses exceed the costs of relocating the airport. c. Phase III - After the completion of Phase I and II to the satis- faction of the Task Force and a citizen advisory committee a further in depth examination would be made to amend the Grays Harbor Estuary Management Plan to accommodate an additional 250 acres of fill someplace in the estuary. (This is the same process as set out for Area 4 in M.U. 12 in the Task Force's draft plan.) Thus, further decisions and additional filling for specific water dependent projects would be dealt with through the plan amendment process. Under the Citizen's Estuary Plan , the Port of Grays Harbor would have 500 acres available to the Port for water dependent development in Phase I and II and the potential for an additional 250 acres in Phase III with minimum impacts to the Grays Harbor estuary. 7. Because the Task Force's plan provides little in the way of additional pro- tections for important natural areas in the estuary the Citizen's Estuary Plan proposes the following: a. The following 11 Management Units are recommended for designation under Sec. 404 (c) of the Clean Water Act as areas prohibited by the Administrator of EPA for use as a disposal area for the discharge of dredged or fill material: M.U.'s 2, 7, 9s*, 19, 20, 29s*, 34s*, 36s*, 27s*, 41 and 42. These M.U.'s are all designated Natural or Conservancy Natural ("*" s means the shoreline part of a split mangement unit). b. The following 4 Management Units are recommended in part for designa- tion under Sec. 404 (c) of the Clean Water Act as areas prohibited by the Administrator of EPA for use as a disposal area for the discharge of dredged or fill material : M.U. 's 12, 14, 18, 26. c. The following Management Unit is also recommended for designation under Sec. 404 (c) of the Clean Water Act as areas prohibited by the Adminstrator of EPA for use as a disposal area for the discharge of dredged or fill material: M.U. '5. This M.U. is designated Urban Residential. d. In addition, 9 Management Units are recommended for the Sec. 404 (c) process of notice and comment without a specific determination made at this time. 11-26 The suitability of the following Management Units would be assessed during this process: M.U. 's 1, 3, 22, 23, 27, 30, 40, and 43. These M.U. 's permit only bankline erosion control fills in the Task Force plan. Thus, a total of 25 M.U.'s or parts of M.U.'s could be protected by such a finding by EPA under Section 404 (c). Sec. 404 (c) designation would of benefit for two reasons: * It would clearly identify areas in which future filling may be con- templated but has not been brought to the attention of the Task Force. Since the 9 M.U.S. listed in 7. d. above, conflict only with the bankline erosion control feature, we would like EPA to examine the tradoffs of foregoing erosion control for protection from filling in these areas. * It would clearly identify areas in which future filling would not be allowed by the Corps of Engineers. Appendix B contains a description of each of the M.U. 's listed above. 8. Recognition of the U.S. F&WS's endangered species determination under Sec. 7 of the Endangered Species Act that filling in 500 acres of the Bowerman Basin would likely jeopardize the endangered Peregrine Falcon. This determina- tion should be incorporated into the final plan. In addition, the Bowerman Basin would be designated and managed as an International Shorebird Sanctuary. See Appendix C. 9. The Task Force with the help of a citizen advisory committee would estab- lish a mitigation plan to require inkind replacement of habitat for any wet- land, intertidal , or tideflat area filled under an adopted plan. This mitiga- tion plan should be in place prior to adoption and incorporated into the final plan. 10. The Task Force would commit to undertaking a sediment control study as part of any Dredged Materials Disposal Plan prepared by the Task Force. A request for such a study was specifically made by then-Governor Dan Evans in 1973. Since that time, the Corps has prepared a literature review, but no in depth study has been carried out to comply with Gov. Evan's request. Control and reduction of sediments in the Chehalis River Basin could significantly reduce the amount of sediment which needs to be dredged, thereby reducing the pressure on wetland, intertidal and tidal flat filling, especially for maintenance dredg- ing. 1 1 . The Citizen's Estuary Plan al so cal 1 s for the Task Force with the hel p of a citizen advisory committee to develop Management Units for ocean side coastal zone in and around the cities of Westport and Ocean Shores. These coastal areas are important and should be addressed within the context of this plan. 12. A Citizen's Advisory Committee would be established by the State Dept. of Ecology to ensure that the public is permitted to participate in the development of any revised plan or plan amendments. (end of quotation) 11-27 (a). Evaluation. The Task Force has been provided copies, but has not convened for full review of Citizen's Estuary Plan . A complete evaluation will be made on the merits of the alternative after all comments have been received during the public review process and incorporated in the PFEIS. (i). The overall impact of the alternative is to provide less development potential while providing greater protection to the wetlands, fish and wildlife resources than the proposed GHEMP. (ii). While accepting the basic tenents of the plan, it rejects all of the major provisions in which compromise solutions to the issues of future growth and protection were formulated on the basis that: o the intended use would not be water dependent (airports), o there is no current or demonstrated need (marina expansion), o there is no in-kind habitat replacement proposed, or o that the impacts are considered to be unacceptable. (iii). The Citizen's Plan : o requires the location or relocation of three airports outside of the estuary area, o would allow no future expansion of the Westport Marina, o would not allow fill for industrial expansion in the Port owned lands in MU 12 (note: It is not clear expansion would be permitted at some future time or not. The Citizeh's Plan states that filling is rejected because of unacceptable adverse impact to the estuary but then may permit fill during Phase III - i.e., after all existing space is utilized to the satisfaction of the Task Force and a citizen's advisory committee.), in the City of Hoquiam's land in MU 14, and in the 98-acre site in MU 26, o invokes §404(c) of the Clean Water Act on all or parts of 25 MU's in order to provide additional protection to natural areas, o requires the incorporation of a previous F&WS determination (13 March 1981) that filling the entire Bowerman Basin (500 acres north of the airfield) is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the peregrine falcon, and that filling westward may do the same, o requires the re-evaluation of permitting bankline erosion control activities in specific MU's, o requires a sediment control study in efforts to minimize the need for maintenance dredging (and pressure for filling aquatic habitat), o calls for maximizing the utilization of existing developable land (Phase I) prior to allowing any further filling (Phase III), 11-28 o establishes in-kind habitat replacement as the only form of accept- able mitigation, and o requires establishment of a citizen advisory committee for the pur- pose of setting up a mitigation plan, planning for ocean side coastal environ- ments of Westport and Ocean Shores, and involvement in the plan amendment process. (b). The Citizen's Estuary Plan alternative is accepted as a viable alternative with three exceptions which will not be considered as viable or necessary to the GHEMP proposal. Those items specifically rejected include: (i). Item 9. The establishment of a Mitigation Plan which must be in place prior to adoption of the GHEMP. It is premature to develop a Mitigation Plan prior to the adoption of the GHEMP. The draft GHEMP is subject to modification and will provide the framework for the Mitigation Plan. Any mitigation required prior to development and adoption of a Mitigation Plan will be considered through the existing permit process. A Mitigation Plan would be incorporated into the GHEMP through the amendment process. The Task Force would develop such a plan within the first or second year after adoption. Additionally, "in kind" replacement of habitat may or may not be a part of the future Mitigation Plan requirements for e\/ery development. As discussed at GHEMP pp. 26-27, a Mitigation Plan would address the three mitigation concepts identified in the plan or whatever exists after the public review process. (ii). Item 10. Undertake a sediment control study as part of any Dredged Material Disposal Plan prepared by the Task Force. Such a study was undertaken in 1974 and is entitled: Grays Harbor Erosion Management Study (by Norman Associates for the GHRPC). The Study is available for review through the GHRPC. Further duplication of effort is considered unnecessary. (iii). Item 11. Develop Mil's for the ocean side coastal zone environments in and around the cities of Westport and Ocean Shores. Without disputing that these areas are important, the emphasis of the GHEMP is the immediate area surrounding the estuary in which the major land and water use conflicts arise and have a direct impact on the estuary. While many different boundary configurations ^re possible, the Citizen's Estuary Plan fails to make a case why the ocean side environments must be a part of the estuary plan. (c). The Citizen's Estuary Plan includes a number of assump- tions and statements whose premises are subject to dispute: (i). Wetlands filling should be permitted only if a project is water dependent and in-kind habitat replacement mitigation is re- quired. While perhaps desirable from a wetlands protection perspective, these standards are more restrictive than existing Federal agency Guidelines and Regulations for filling wetlands. The Corps considers many other factors through the permit process and public interest review in addition to water dependency. 11-29 (ii). That there is a need to incorporate into the final GHEMP the March 13, 1981 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Section 7 consultation letter which states that filling 500 acres directly north of the Bowerman Peninsula as proposed in the earlier draft plan is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the peregrine falcon. The earlier concern was primarily directed at the location of the fill more than the amount of fill. The area north and northeast of the Airfield was considered to be the most significant as shorebird habitat and consequently, the integrity of the falcon's existence. The plan thoroughly considers that determination. On that basis, the plan proposes a new configuration of fill, phasing development to permit monitoring of impacts, mitigation requirements, and the permanent land exchange protecting 427 acres of the 500 acres. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife has since issued a new determination that the current plan is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the endangered peregrin falcon (see appendix C). If Area 2 is filled, the Bowerman Basin will be turned over (through fee title transfer of lands) to the Washington State Department of Game thereby permanently prevent- ing fill of the shorebird habitat which is most critical to the prey species of the peregrine falcon. (iii). That the GHEMP does not have any requirement that the Port's existing filled lands on south shore (176 acres), the Kaiser site (45 acres) and at Terminal 2 (72 acres) must be utilized before additional filling is permitted. With respect specifically to the Port of Grays Harbor lands, the plan does make such specification for filling Area 3 (GHEMP, p. 65, item 2) and Area 4 (GHEMP, p. 67, item 3). Since we are dealing with long term activities, most of the subject lands are likely to be utilized or committed prior to the complete development of Area 2. (iv). That the Airport Relocation Study concluded alternative sites for a regional airport are available in Central Park, Markham and Elma. The "Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations" of the Study (p. 97) state the following: Realistically there is no opportunity to locate a new Basic Transport Airport in the 1,200 square mile study area that would readily serve the population base and be environmentally and economically prudent to develop. There are however, opportunities in the area to locate a General Utility category airport to help relieve the developing opera- tional pressure at Bowerman Field and to better meet the region's aviation demand. (Those sites include Central Park, Markham and Elma, emphasis added). From a systems planning and cost-effective viewpoint, all efforts should be made to make the existing Bowerman Field site as compatible with the Estuary Plan as possible to avoid the relatively high capital outlay for a new airport site. 11-30 c. Distribution of Impact Alternatives (1). In addition to the alternatives dealing with the overall level of activity to be permitted, there are alternatives which would distri- bute this activity in different patterns. The planning process considered these issues mainly in its development of planning area guidelines where gener- ally appropriate levels of development were determined for each area. The result of these guidelines is a relatively concentrated pattern of urban and natural use areas based largely on the existing character of various planning areas. (2). The issue of whether the adverse environmental impact can effectively be reduced by dispersing or concentrating development is frequently discussed in estuarine management situations and is seldom completely resolved. In the Grays Harbor planning process, these allocation decisions were made more on the basis of the existing character of an area and the most practicable way of both protecting important environmental features and meeting socioecon- omic needs, than on the achievement of a philosophical goal to disperse or concentrate development of natural uses. Nevertheless, the planning process addressed such alternatives and considered their implications. (3). Dispersed Development (a). It can be argued that better environmental protection can be achieved by dispersing development over a broad area, thereby avoiding a synergistic effect of development activities. This argument suggests that greater levels of development can be supported with fewer environmental costs by spreading the impacts. This is perhaps more true for water and air quality issues than for wildlife resources. (b). Theoretically, it could be possible to take the level of impact addressed in the plan and distribute it over a wider area. For example, rather than concentrate new water dependent industry in Aberdeen/ Hoquiam, it could be spread more uniformly and less intensively throughout the estuary. While theoretically possible, this alternative poses significant practical problems. Each development project is tied to a particular need or a particular potential opportunity, and in most cases this need would be less adequately addressed in another location. In some situations, dispersion would greatly increase public utility and service costs to serve such areas. This policy could stimulate the spread of urban development along with resultant infill. (c). More significant than these concerns is the relation- ship of this policy to environmental conditions in the Grays Harbor area. Historically, the urban growth of the area has been relatively concentrated in the Aberdeen/Hoquiam and Cosmopolis area, and to a lesser extent in Westport and Ocean Shores. The remaining areas of the estuary are largely undisturbed by development activity. This alternative would change the development pattern and introduce new impacts into natural or nearly natural environments. But the largest limitation to dispersing shoreline development is providing access to the navigation channel for marine commerce development. (d). Areas which might, however, serve as future urban development areas for industrial siting of water dependent/related activities would be MU 3-CM (Damon Point) which is located near the North Channel, MU 27-RL (Steam's Bluff) and MU 10-RL (Point New). 11-31 (i). The Damon Point area would require additional fill and protective structures and destroy significant bird habitat. It would have substantial transportation problems associated with getting wood products or other commodities to a shipping site and be located very near MU 2 which is a Natural area. (ii). With respect to MU 27 near Steam's Bluff on the south shore, it would be conceivable that industrial development could expand, given the fact it has highway and rail access and relatively flat land. This would require opening a portion of the South Channel which has been left unmaintained for many years. Industrial expansion would substantially alter the land use pattern of the area and require sewer and water hookup and possi- bly introduce water quality problems where they now do not exist, which could adversely affect existing oyster culture areas. (iii). The Point New area has a substantial amount of flat land with both highway and rail access. Development would require either a new navigation channel or transportation of goods and services to other existing docks for loading. The site could serve as an industrial park for nonwater dependent uses if filling is not required. This would introduce industrial activities into the North Bay area which is one of the actions the GHEMP has attempted to avoid. (e). In conclusion, dispersing urban development into the more pristine areas of the estuary would have substantial negative ecological and economic consequences. In addition, the concept of dispersion is not consistent with the provisions of the Washington SMA. (4). Concentrated Development (a). In contrast to a policy of dispersion, this policy would concentrate development into few areas and reserve most of the estuary for more natural, less intensive uses. Current local SMP's tend to support this policy even more than the proposed plan. As an example, the SMP's for Aberdeen and Hoquiam would allow greater modification of the waterfront areas. Fishery experts have stated that this level of development could significantly impair the passage of anadromous salmonid fish through this area and as such poses an unacceptable level of impact J Thus, the plan tends to protect this passage by establishing greater limits on the potential intrusion of develop- ment into waterfront areas. (b). As an alternative to filling in MU 12 and the western part of MU 26 (in order to stop the westward expansion of development and concentrate development in the Aberdeen/Hoquiam area), MU 43-CM (Rennie Island) and part of MU 26 (salt water marsh) would allow good access to the navigation channel (see photo 2). However, because there is no access to the island from either the north or south shore, a bridge would have to be built to allow industry to locate there; other modifications would be required as well. The island has been heavily modified by previous dredge material disposal but is a good habitat for a variety of fish and wildlife. The area is perhaps unique in that it will continue to serve as a limited dredge material disposal area but provide a long-term use for wildlife and waterfowl habitat enhancement. 1. See fishery impacts section, page IV-14. 11-32 QJ > 03 !3 cr o re CD O CM +5 JC o Q-E re S- E CD O O £- +J«-i_ O -C • Q_ LU GO cn o o -o 03 CO i— i d) •r- £= QJ 11-33 (c). The alternative of greater concentration also embodies the concept of more efficient utilization of existing space. Waterfront space which has been altered or has access to the navigation channel can be reserved exclusively for water-dependent uses, including run down areas or areas not used to their maximum capacity. While land ownership by marine or private indus- tries would be a problem, port expansion demands may be met for a longer period of time, thereby delaying the need for future fill if the spatial requirements of new industry can be met. In many cases, this would only be feasible if expansion towards the navigation channel is permitted. There are, of course, potential hazards to the fish base and passage as pointed out above. d. Relation of Impact Alternatives to Industrial Development (1). Finally, there is a set of alternatives related to indus- trial development in general, and to the Bowerman Basin area in particular. Local government representatives and the Port of Grays Harbor believe that the Bowerman Basin area can best represent the industrial expansion and diver- sification needs of the region's future and, therefore, embodies the need to provide adequate space for industrial development. Consequently, alternative space for this purpose should be considered. There are two possibilities for such space: areas located away from Grays Harbor and other areas in the estuary. (2). Non-Estuarine Areas. Suitable industria 1 land is a scarce commodity and has several requirements: (a). Spatial Requirements. Modern industrial plants require large areas not only for present use but for future expansion. Planning design criteria generally recommend that areas for industrial parks siting (the preferred method of handling industrial uses) have at least 320 acres. 1 (b). Flat Land. Slopes generally cannot exceed 6 percent. (c). Services. The site must be served or be capable of being served by adequate rail and highway systems, have access to large quanti- ties of water, and be served by waste disposal systems as well as by other util ities. (d). General Location. Within major commuting distance but far enough apart to minimize adverse impacts to residential and commercial areas. (e). Considering these requirements, there are few locations within the region which can supply these needs. Other than sites in and along the estuary, the only other potential sites are areas near the small cities in the Chehalis Valley, although water and sewer services in those cities general- ly would need substantial development to meet industrial needs. Such locations would have several serious disadvantages, including: 1. Industrial Development Handbook, Executive Group of the Industrial Council of the Urban Land Institute, 1975, Wash. D.C., pp. 29-31. 11-34 o They could threaten fish and wildlife habitat found in the valley. o Their location in flood hazard areas, o The conversion of agricultural land, o Their presence would constitute a major alteration of land use patterns in the region, o They would require greater employee commuting, o They could stimulate greater urban sprawl. (f). However, the greatest difficulty with these sites is that they do not relate to the most significant comparative advantage of indus- trial siting in Grays Harbor - its access to a deep water channel. The sites in the valley are removed from this potential. Finally, due to its established infrastructure, the Aberdeen/Hoquiam/Cosmopolis area is generally more able to accommodate new industrial development than would be the smaller cities in the valley which lack most of the services and facilities required by industry. (3). Other Sites in the Estuary (a). If industry is to locate on the estuary, where is the most suitable location? In order to answer this question, several criteria (in addition to those above) should be established: o The industry should have access to deep water; o Industrial access should be economical and minimize upstream movement of vessels; o The sites should be readily serviceable by rail, street, water, sewer, and other utilities; o The sites should be near other public and private services needed for business operation; o The industrial use should minimize conflict with adjacent uses and the land should be generally appropriate for industrial use; and, o Industrial siting should minimize potential adverse environmental impacts. (b). On the basis of the above criteria there are only three viable alternatives for new industrial siting - Bowerman Field, South Shore (MU 26), and the area upstream from Junction City and Cosmopolis. South Shore is a significant distance from the channel. In order to use the channel, the industry must construct conveyance facilities to the channel (as in the case of bulk commodities such as coal or feed grain) or move cargo (such as logs or lumber) to other transshipment sites. The first alternative is con- sidered to be the most practicable. In order to make the South Shore area 11-35 viable as an all-purpose related site, substantial modification of the adjacent salt marsh on the bay side of the railroad would be necessary, and this action could seriously threaten the quality of the fish passage. Use of the City area further up the Chehalis River would require significant modification of the natural area of mixed freshwater marsh, salt marsh, and low forest types. The site also has poor highway access. The GHEMP would permit only a limited amount of industrial development to occur in this area (MU 18). (c). The Bowerman Basin area has the best combination of these criteria including immediate adjacency to the navigation channel and its appropriateness for large-scale industrial siting. To quote from the plan: In establishing its direction for overall management of the estu- ary, the Task Force recognized that economic growth involving conversion of natural habitat to industrial uses would continue at some level in the harbor during the life of this plan. In reviewing the opportunities for that growth to occur around the harbor, the Task Force reviewed the several potential areas in terms of the availability, size and usability of land, transporta- tion access for both rail and highway, proximity to the main navigation channel, availability of utilities, relationship to the existing industrial areas, relationship to other support industries and uses and other factors. While there are several areas around the harbor that could accommodate some industrial growth, the Task Force saw that most provided only limited opportunities. In pursuing a philosophy of concentrating major future development rather than dispersing it throughout the harbor, focusing that growth into the area of Management Unit 12 met more of the criter- ia than any other area. (GHEMP, p. 63) (i). While having adverse impacts to the shorebird habitat, siting (with respect to future filling) is considered not to have an unacceptable impact on the aquatic ecosystem including wetlands. Once again, quoting from the plan: In addition to criteria directly related to the needs of future industrial development, the Task Force considered the amounts of various types of intertidal habitat and their values to fish and wildlife resources. Fish migration habitat was considered a major limiting factor in Grays Harbor because of past development patterns. During the next 50 years, the plan, as drafted, will protect most of the estuarine wetlands from filling except those in this management unit. This is approximately 1.5% of the inter- tidal area of Grays Harbor and 6% of the estuary's low silty marsh. Although there is an adverse impact associated with fill- ing these wetlands, the balance achieved through protection of most of the rest of the estuarine ecosystem from filling reduces the significance of the loss, and is consistent with the overall goal for management of the estuary for multiple uses. (GHEMP, p. 62) The plan then lists the reasons why filling of parts of MU 12 is considered acceptable within the context of the plan and the total estuary. 11-36 (4). Other Ports (a). The alternatives analysis must also consider the capac- ity of other ports in the vicinity of Grays Harbor to handle the needs created by future port demands, with less filling of wetlands or other environmental impacts. Both alternatives to filling and needs for filling for major water- dependent industrial sites can only be realistically evaluated on a long-term comprehensive basis. On that basis, as the projections below indicate, there will be an expanding need for industrial sites, particularly for forest products related facilities. Previous evaluations, cited below, also indicate other ports do not provide viable alternatives for shipping Grays Harbor forest products. (b). Long-term analysis, data and evaluations identified in (c) below, support the conclusion that there will most likely be a valid and legally recognizable "need" for considering future fill for major water- dependent industrial sites in Grays Harbor, even in the absence of currently identifiable site-developers, certainly as to forest products facilities and quite probably as to other development (coal, grain, etc.). Other ports on the Washington coast may or may not be able to provide better alternatives to satisfy those needs. Naturally, complete evaluation of needs must be addressed and confirmed through the regulatory process at the time of permit application. (c). Projected future port/industrial demand. (i). Forecasts on port facility demands for the area are provided by the Washington Public Ports Association. In their "1980 Port Systems Study for the Public Ports of Washington State," Vol. II, Part 3, they state the following with respect to the overall projected needs for the Washing- ton coast region (Grays Harbor specifically) in relation to other port sites (see figure 7 for Port Study Regions). In the Washington coast region, all the shoreline currently owned by the ports will be developed by 1995, and by the year 2000 a deficit of approximately 3,250 linear feet of shoreline and 115 acres is forecast. On the basis of these findings, there appears to be sufficient need for additional shoreline property in the Washington coast region to support an acquisi- sition program. Such an acquisition program would need to be more extensive if facilities for coal or grains are to be devel- oped, (p. 1-2) A potential for Washington ports to handle over 25,000,000 ST [short tons of coal] by the year 2000 has been identified. Hand- ling this quantity of coal would require either three or four berths, depending on locations. The optimum arrangement would appear to be one two-berth terminal in either the lower Columbia or Washington coast region and another in the Puget Sound region The assumed typical coal terminal would consist of two berths, each 1,000 linear feet in length. It would need 100 acres of backup storage and handling area and would have a loop track access, (p. 1-7) 11-37 in c r>. et CJ UJ or m, 2 l/> 11-38 The Port of Grays Harbor, the only major port in the Washington coast region, is forecast to need eight new berths for logs and lumber by the year 2000. These facilities would require 160 acres of backup yard and 6,000 linear feet of berthing. The Port of Grays Harbor does not appear to have sufficient acreage or shoreline to accommodate this forecast, (p. 1-9) The major change along the Washington coast has been the de- cision by the Federal government to discontinue the dredging of Willapa Bay. This has meant a loss of waterborne commerce for the Port of Willapa Harbor, and the logs and forest pro- ducts that originally were shipped are now being transported by train or truck to Grays Harbor and Longview. (p. 3-12) This scenario requires a total of eight new berths, costing $98 million, in the Washington coast region by the year 2000. The facilities require 5,950 linear feet of moorage and 160 acres of land. However, this amount of readily developable waterfront property and linear feet of shoreline is not now available, (p. 8-6) (ii). This report indicates that forecast demand for port space over the next 10-20 years will be greater than the current available space. Since the plan contemplates a much longer time frame than 20 years, it is not unreasonable to assume for planning purposes the need for additional space which the GHEMP envisions prior to there being a "demonstrated need" at the time of plan adoption. (d). Another recent analysis and evaluation was conducted by the Corps on the need and desirability of widening and deepening the present Federal navigation channel in order to accommodate the export demand of existing wood products in the "Interim Feasibility Report and Final Environmental Impact Statement, Grays Harbor, Chehalis and Hoquiam Rivers, Washington Channel Improvements for Navigation," (Appendix C) September 1982. That evaluation is incorporated into this PEIS by reference because of its relevance to the alternatives analysis for existing and future port/industrial expansion needs. While the Corps projected demands for future exports are more conservative for some products (e.g., logs & wood chips) than the "1980 Ports Systems Study," the evaluation pointed out the following with respect to future growth. Forestry Many of the area mills need replacing with modern, more efficient processing facilities, a shift that is expected to accelerate in the future provding adequate sites are available. (p. C-9) Forest Products Exports With respect to the substantial increases in log exports to Japan, Korea and China over the last decade, the report concludes: This favorable trend indicates a significant economic development potential that may have long-term implications on the structure of the forest products industry in the region. (p. C-10) Markets in China and other Pacific Rim Countries have enormous growth potential and are just beginning to develop, (p. C-19) 11-39 Shipping Activities This significant growth in harbor tonnage primarily reflects a strong general uptrend in exports loadings of logs and lumber over the last decade. Future growth of waterborne commerce moving through the port will depend on a variety of factors including world demand, improvements to the navigation channel, adequate industrial land, and diversification of the export base. (p. C-12) Principal Commodities Although new commodities look to be a definite part of the future in Grays Harbor, the commodity types and volumes, as well as vessels used to transport them, are unknown at this time. Accord- ingly, no benefits were claimed for induced commodity movements. The Corps eliminated other existing west coast ports (including Willapa, Olympia, Tacoma, and Longview) and one planned port (Weyerhaeuser 's DuPont facility) from further alternatives consideration after determining the exces- sive overland transportation costs associated with transferring Grays Harbor forest products to these areas (Interim Feasibility Report, p. 17). While al- ternative port sites are eliminated from further consideration for the purpose of port/industrial expansion related to forest products, the siting of non- forest products industries is another matter. The siting of future energy or industrial facilities may still have to consider alternative port locations during the permit or EIS review period in order to avoid the utilization of wetlands on a case-by-case basis. But what the GHEMP has attempted to do is to recognize not only of the needs for the forest, fishery and tourism interests, but also to allow for diversification, something that is seen as vital to the economic survival of the region. (e). Industrial Land Requi rements J The economy of Grays Harbor is heavily dependent on the forest products indus- try. Forest products are followed in importance by tourism and fishing as the basic components of the region's economy. In terms of land area, forest products handling and processing continue to be the biggest users of industrial land. Waterfront sites are needed in order to have access to the deep water navigation channel through which markets are reached. During the past several decades a significant change in the typical wood pro- ducts site has come about. Fifty years ago the Grays Harbor waterfront was dotted with dozens of sawmills and shipping docks. Logs were rafted (floated) from the forests to these sites, to be brought ashore, processed, and loaded aboard relatively small vessels. Land requirements were modest by today's standards, involving only a mill site and a relatively small area to accumulate the next shipment. 1. Stan Lattin, Director of Planning, Port of Grays Harbor (personal communica- tion, 1/24/83). 11-40 Today, forest product industries generally receive logs by trucks. The logs are handled and sorted on upland sites, and diverted into one of several pro- duct streams, i.e., export milling, peeling, or chipping. These operations have simply outgrown the industrial sites of the 1930's and 40's. Further, because many of these older sites have been surrounded by other land use types, site expansion is all but impossible. A somewhat similar thing has happened to marine terminals. Economics have forced shippers into larger vessels. The cost of these ships requires quick loading for fast turn-around and maximum utilization. Cargoes 8-10 times the volume of smaller ships must be accumulated near the terminal to facilitate such quick loading. Further, with ship turn-around time measured in days instead of weeks, cargoes must be amassed for a steady succession of vessels. By way of example, for almost 40 years the Port of Grays Harbor operated four marine terminal berths from an upland base of less than eight acres. Today, the Port operates three marine terminal berths with an upland base of 145 acres (see photo 3 for example of new terminal). Studies^ have shown that future production from forests tributary to Grays Harbor will be significantly higher. Greater forest yield coupled with in- creasing reliance on foreign markets will result in additional demand for large waterfront sites. While it has long been held that diversification of the economic base of Grays Harbor is necessary ("Overall Economic Development Program for Grays Harbor," 1961), the recession of the past several years has all but made diversification essential. Unlike previous economic downturns, the current recession is result- ing in profound changes in the forest product industries. Economic recovery may bring a return to historic production levels, but because of technological and mechanical advances, fewer people are going to be employed. Diversified industry likely to be attracted to Grays Harbor will most probably be linked to one of the region's assets - its deep draft navigation channel, its location on the Pacific Ocean, its proximity to the United States' Pacific Rim trading partners, or its location relative to Alaska. A common denomina- tor for industries able to capitalize on these assets is the need for a water- front location. Various factors combine to shape the relative suitability of an individual site for a particular activity. On Grays Harbor it can be said that sites along the north side of the channel in Aberdeen and Hoquiam have the greatest suitability for water dependent industry. This results from their close proximity to the navigation channel, and in the case of sites downstream from the highway and railroad bridges, unimpeded vessel access and necessary support infrastructure. By way of contrast, sites on the southside of the channel, downstream from the bridges, have severe limitations on cargoes that can be efficiently and economically handled because of the distance to the channel. In general, it appears feasible to handle certain bulk commodities, i.e., coal or grain, on conveyor systems, whereas heavy, large commodities, ie., logs and lumber, would not be practicable. "Forest tributary to the Port of Grays Harbor," Greenacres Consulting Corps., 1977. 11-41 Photograph 3. Port of Grays Harbor Shipping Terminal 11-42 One of Grays Harbor's major industrial waterfront sites (at the mouth of the Hoquiam River), has recently been optioned for sale to the U.S. Borax Corp. for a molybdenum processing site. Ore mined in southeast Alaska will be shipped to the site, and supplies needed at the mine will be accumulated at the site and shipped to Alaska. The project will satisfy a long-standing goal of the present site owner, the Port of Grays Harbor, to attract industry which will diversify the economic base. The only other available publicly owned industrial site is the recently filled 176-acre parcel on the south shore of Grays Harbor. Feasibility studies have been completed to evaluate use of the site for transshipping coal. Because of distance to the channel, (+2000 feet), some type of bulk commodity appears to be the only cargo which can be effectively handled. Also, completion of the Grays Harbor Deeper Draft Project is critical to the economics of utilizing this site. Consideration has been given to converting public terminal number 2 (72 acres) to a diversified bulk commodity transshipment facility. Because of the high cost (estimated $25 million) and lack of a confirmed need, no action has been taken to date. The terminal continues to be used for shipment of wood products, and supplemental -diversified cargoes are being sought. Concerning development of additional publically owned industrial sites, mention must be made of the excessively long lead time needed to prepare a site for occupancy. With the use of dredged material for fill, site preparation time is typically measured in years. Seldom are industrial prospects able to make such a long range commitment to "future" sites. Indeed, it seems apparent that preparation of industrial sites in advance of demonstrated need can have a positive effect on economic development and creation of employment. 11-43 E. URBAN MANAGEMENT UNIT DESIGNATION ALTERNATIVES Urban environment designations have the greatest potential for permitting alterations of the estuarine and adjacent upland environment. A review of the Standard Uses Matrix and the forty-three Permitted Activities Matrices show that port and industrial facilities siting, transportation and commercial uses are found primarily in the UD/UM and UR environments. Therefore, alternatives to Urban environment designations are reviewed in this section. 1. UNIT 4: URBAN MIXED Purpose of Designation : This designation provides an area on North Bay for small boat moorage. Existing Attributes : This unit is the site of an existing boat basin and, therefore, a modified aquatic environment. Planned Use Composition : Water- dependent uses are planned in this unit. The use matrix does permit uses generally related to marina complexes, though such uses themselves may not be water dependent. Since no filling of the marina is permitted, these uses would be restricted generally to upland sites. Management objectives of the unit would rule out those conditional uses which would not reinforce the marina or the recreational opportunities afforded by this area. Planning area guidelines further direct conditional use concerns. Consequently, the plan provides for a water-dependent use (marina) in the water areas and for a mixed, but mutually reinforcing, water-related use composition in the upland. This is the only management unit of this charac- ter on North Bay. Alternatives : The combination of uses described above must either be in the water or be of a distinctly different quality. Use of any other aquatic area on North Bay would involve greater disruption of the aquatic environment than this site. Since there is an existing marina located at this site, no further alternatives need be considered. Once the marina has been developed to its maximum and there is additional demand, the Westport boat basin could serve as a potential alternative site to meet future demand for the residents of Ocean Shores as well as the potential waterfront park and marina in MU 17. 2. UNIT 5: URBAN RESIDENTIAL Purpose : This unit provides a waterfront area for residential use at urban densities. Existing Attributes : This area is already platted, has developed residential lots, and may be considered committed to residential use (see photo 4). Planned Use Composition : The plan recognizes the existing commit- ment "to residential use," but severely limits further waterward intrusion. The plan permits bankline modifications only to the extent necessary to protect existing lots. 11-44 Photograph 4. Bayside view of Ocean Shores looking west. 11-45 Alternatives : This site does not have any access from deeper water to support water-dependent uses. Water-related commercial uses would not be desir- able in terms of the upland planning concerns of the city. Since future resi- dential use would be limited to developed lots, this area is not suitable for a Conservancy designation. It should be noted that the Urban Residential management category is used only twice in the plan (here and in a very limited area in MU 21-Central Park); thus, the opportunity for waterfront residential uses is very limited. 3. UNIT 6: URBAN MIXED/NATURAL Purpose : The primary objective of this management unit is to provide a site for a new airport serving the north beach area of the county while protecting the remaining salt marsh. Existing Attributes : This site is composed of a large transitional salt marsh bounded on the landward side by a line of platted residential lots (see photo 5). Planned Use : An airport is specifically provided for on the watermost portion of the marsh area and the easternmost residential lots. The remainder of marsh, approximately 190 acres, would then be designated "natural" and development rights to it would be transferred to an appropriate state agency. The remaining lots may be developed for residential purposes. Alternatives : Alternative issues and considerations are addressed in the Federal Final Environmental Impact Statement^ on the airport. Additional considerations are addressed in the management unit itself. Additional Considerations : The entire marsh site has a unique owner- ship status. When the Ocean Shores project was originally developed, one of the many commitments made by the developer was that an airport adequate to serve the needs of the community would be built on this site. When the city of Ocean Shores was formed in 1970, no airport was constructed by the developer and a class action suit was brought to have such a facility built. A court ordered (Docket #754-489, King County) that the land be made available to the city for the purpose of building an airport. However, the court also ruled that if such an airport were not constructed, the property would revert to the development company (see page 60 of Ocean Shores Airport FEIS). Mitigation was required as a condition of any filling in the wetlands. 4. UNIT 11: URBAN DEVELOPMENT Purpose : The purpose of this unit designation is to recognize the existing transportation corridor that uses most of the land in the unit. Because of the intensity of use in the area, urban development was considered the appropriate designation. 1 Federal Aviation Administration, Ocean Shores Aiport FEIS, December 1981 11-46 Photograph 5. Ocean Shores Existing Air Terminal and Proposed New Terminal Site. 3 77 .*■<*•> ""I>i » Existing Terminal d Terminal (approx. location) 11-47 Existing Attributes : The unit is almost completely composed of a railroad and highway corridor. Planned Use : Continuation of the area's role as a transportation corridor. Alternatives : Relocation of both the highway and railroad would be practically difficult and highly expensive. Any alternative relocation would be through rugged terrain characterized by sharp, highly unstable slopes. Funds to support highway relocation are not available, and relocation of the rail line would probably not be cost effective. Impacts and alternatives resulting from highway improvements associated with a dangerous curve were evaluated through a Corps of Engineers permit No. 071 -0YB-2-005073. The Standard Use Matrix allows roads and railroad use in Rural Low Intensity and Rural Agriculture MU's as well, so a transportation corridor would not be an inappropriate use. Since the earlier assumption of designating MU 12 (Area 1) for UD use is no longer a valid consideration, this designation could be cat- egorized as RL, thereby being more compatible with the adjacent uses both south and north of the highway/railway. Because of the constraints to any other types of development south of the railroad right-of-way, the impacts associated with the designation of UD or RL are not expected to be significant or different. 5. UNIT 12: (Areas 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6) SPECIAL Purpose : Unit 12 is intended to provide an area of sufficient size through the phased fill of estuarine habitat to allow greater water dependent industrial expansion over a long-term period along the North Navigation Channel, while providing permanent protection to some of the significant fish and wildlife habitats. Existing Attributes : The site (excluding the existing Bowerman Air port - Area 5), is approximately 2200 acres in size. The particular character- istics of this general area have been described in Maintenance Dredging and the Environment of Grays Harbor and in appendix C of this document. Because of its characteristics, the area represents a classic conflict between resource use and protection. Planned Uses : Area 1 - Natural, 1700 acres of intertidal mudflats and fringe marshes will be preserved for the protection of significant shore- bird habitat. The transfer of land through fee title represents in part the commitment of the Port of Grays Harbor to the plan. The proposed transfer of land is an attempt to provide a better balance by avoiding unacceptable adverse impacts to the aquatic ecosystem that would result from future fills in MU 12. If the plan is adopted, the Port would request predesignation of the site as unacceptable for disposal or fill even before title has changed hands to the State Department of Game. Future land and water use would be the equiva- lent of a Natural environment designation and the intertidal area would serve as a fish and wildlife santuary. Habitat enhancement projects may be deemed appropriate in the area (see photographs 6 & 7). II- 48 11-49 Js"7 Photograph 7. Management Unit 12 absent Area 4 designation, 11-50 Area 2 - Urban Development, 164 acres, would be filled for the purpose of allowing a major multi -commodity, bulk loading and off-loading facility. Area 3 - Urban Development, 73 acres, would be filled for the relocation of the Bowerman Airport when all or a majority of the existing airfield area is proposed for water dependent industrial use. The fill will be the minimum amount necessary to accommodate an FAA approved Instrument Landing System (ILS) Commuter Airport. The maximum line of fill is limited to 750 feet to the north. Area 4 - Special, approximately 243 acres, has a designation which denotes that neither the location nor the commitment to fill this area are implied. However, when the need arises, the area depicted on the map (or another area) could be filled for water dependent uses (note: see restric- tions in GHEMP , p. 66). Area 5 - Urban Development, includes the existing Bowerman Airfield. This site is perhaps the most suitable remaining water dependent site for future large scale industrial and port use in the harbor, provided that the necessary piers can be economically and environmentally constructed. However, the site will continue to be utilized as the major airport in the region until such time more demand for the land exists and legal and financial consider- ations can be resolved. Area 6 - Conservancy Managed, consists of the intertidal mudflats south of the Airfield (and Area 2) to the navigation channel. In all cases, access to the channel for water dependent uses is provided by means of "T" docks, with only limited filling permitted. Taking Areas 2, 4 and 5 into considera- tion, MU 12 provides a long-term program for future port/industrial development. The ability to reuse and redevelop the Bowerman Field for port and industrial purposes by permitting the airport landing strip to be located north of the existing one and combined with the provisions of the other industrial areas in the plan, should readily meet the potential economic needs of the region for the forseeable future. Alternative Considerations : This area is owned by the Port of Grays Harbor. Alternatives which have been considered by the Task Force include: o designate the entire area as Urban and allow water-dependent, water- related, and other uses which would benefit the local economy. o fill all 500 acres north of the Bowerman Airfield; and o relocate Bowerman Airport and use the peninsula as an industrial site. o fill tidelands south to the navigation channel. All four major alternatives have been rejected by the Task Force mem- bers as either being environmentally, legally or economically unacceptable. The following factors were considered. a. Designate entire area as Urban. Filling 2200 acres of aquatic area during a short-term or long-term period was rejected based on unacceptable adverse environmental impacts and failure to comply with current Federal and State statutes. 11-51 b. Fill 500 acres north of the Airfield. The November 1978 prelimi- nary draft version of the GHEMP which was circulated to the public proposed a phased fill of the area north of the Airfield (see figure 8)« Again, based upon comments received from the public and review of the proposal for consis- tency with the 404(b)(1) Guidelines and Section 7 (Endangered Species) consul- tation, this alternative was found environmentally unacceptable. c. Relocate Bowerman Airport and use the peninsula for port and in- dustrial expansion. Alternative sites for relocating the Bowerman Airport were considered in Bowerman Field Relocation Planning Study, 1979 by prepared by the firm of CH2M Hi 1 1 . The conclusion of that study was that "there is no oppor- tunity to locate a new Basic Transport airport in the 1,200-square-mile study area that would readily serve the population base and be environmentally and economically prudent to develop." (p. 97). Three sites outside of the estuary were identified which might serve as a General Utility category airport. However the existing use of the site as an airport and legal commitments made by the Port prevent for 20 years its use for purposes other than as an airport. Since Bowerman Field is the regional airport facility, its relocation would also require significant capital investment. By placing a new runway north of the existing runway, costs would be kept to minimum since a new tower and other fixed structures would not have to be built and the airport remains in a position which best serves the region and has the greatest aviational safety features. Relocation of the Airfield was rejected for legal and economic reasons at the time. However, the filling of Area 3 is contingent upon sever- al integral actions: (1). That it be done only to accommodate the relocation of the Bowerman Airfield. (2). That it can only take place if all or a majority of the existing Airfield is proposed for water-dependent industrial use. (3). If Area 2 is filled prior to a permit application in Area 3, an evaluation of filling Area 2 will be conducted as part of the permit review process in order to determine whether environmental conditions have changed sufficiently as a result of Area 2 fill to demonstrate that other alternative airport sites would be less damaging. This condition resulted over the concern for the shorebird/raptor population. As a consequence the possibility of not filling the area for airport relocation is not precluded. d. Filling the tidelands south of the peninsula was considered but rejected as having unacceptable adverse impacts on fishery resources. Alternative Sites : As was previously stated in the alternatives dis- cussion, alternative sites for port and related industrial expansion were considered. Part of the criteria which were used include the availability of infrastructure including rail, road and air service, industrial water supply and sanitary services, and power supply. Additional site specific services including fire and police protection, business services and industrial sup- pliers were also important. Given these factors and the importance of pro- tecting the fish passage, Task Force members feel that port expansion for water dependent uses (including use for some wetlands fill for the airport runway) in this area is justifiable and, with the inclusion of mitigation and enhancement projects and monitoring of impacts, that the current designation of MU 12 as identified in the plan would not be considered an unacceptable adverse environmental impact. For a discussion of impacts, see appendix C. 11-52 FIGURE 8 Previous management alternative to Management Unit 12 (then MU's 12 & 13). April 1978 Draft GHEMP. 11-53 6. UNIT 14: URBAN DEVELOPMENT Purpose : The purpose of this management designation in MU 14 is to recognize the strategic location of this unit between the navigation channel and the prime regional industrial area. However, the uses and activity which would modify the aquatic area in and adjacent to this unit are limited in order to conserve the area's significant biological resources. Existing Attributes : The upland portion of this management unit is a developing industrial area of regional significance and it would serve as a link to the planned industrial area in MU 12. The bankline within this unit is also considered important for fish migration and feeding. Planned Uses : The upland portion of this unit would be designated Urban Development with encouragement for location of water oriented industry (as provided in the special conditions in MU 12). While a diverse range of uses is allowed in the unit's use matrix, the area's value as an industrial location and its existing use commitments will direct the unit toward regional industrial development. Any use of the aquatic area is limited by the Activi- ties Matrix and the special conditions for water dependent structures (with very limited fill for approach) which would provide access to the navigation channel. Also, the special conditions severely limit such activities from destroying migration routes or critical feeding areas. Alternative Considerations : The existing developed character of the upland area of this unit makes its designation as another management category unrealistic. Also, for reasons similar to those discussed in MU 12, this general area is one of the most appropriate areas for industrial uses (MU 14, however, cannot fulfill the role envisioned for Unit 12 as a future indus- trial park due to MU 14 's existing uses). The proximity of MU 14 to the navigation channel and to other developed and planned industrial areas makes it an optimum location for the proposed piers. No other site can serve the general industrial area of Hoquiam as well. An alternative designation to UD would be to make this a split MU with a Conservancy Managed designation to protect the important fishery habitat area. Because the boundary was changed to include the fish base within MU 44, this alternative is no longer necessary. 7. UNIT 15: URBAN DEVELOPMENT Purpose : The purpose of this designation is to recognize the exist- ing development commitment in this area. Existing Attributes : This unit presently has the major concentration of heavy industrial related activities in the region. Activities include the major marine terminals, a pulp and paper mill, a modern computerized saw mill, and gravel load and unloading facilities. 11-54 Planned Uses : The site will be used for heavy industrial purposes with emphasis on water-dependent and related uses. As noted, it is unlikely that non-water related uses would be established in the area due to its present use character and other legal commitments. The other likely possi- bility would be the development of a water-related processing plant by the private terminal owner of the upland portion of this property. The Port owned Kaiser site is currently not being utilized but is considered by the U.S. Borax Corp. for possible option to purchase the site. Filling and/or development of the existing Port slips would be allowed. Alternative Considerations : The existing character of this unit makes an alternative designation impractical. Alteration of the aquatic area would be restricted to either a water-dependent use or a purpose which is directly related to the present water-dependent uses (see photo 8). 8. UNIT 16: URBAN MIXED Purpose : The purpose of this unit designation is to recognize its proximity to the Aberdeen Central Business District and the Chehalis River, two major sources of commercial and industrial activity. Within this unit a unique mix of commercial and industrial uses is encouraged to continue and develop in the future. Public access to the waterfront is to be designed into new and rehabilitated projects when practicable. Existing Attributes : This unit and adjacent areas are in the process of reorientation from a predominantly industrial area to a finer intermix of commercial and industrial uses, an intermix which was originally established in early Aberdeen. Some sites within the unit are badly deteriorated and are in need of rehabilitation or redevelopment. Planned Uses : This unit is designated UM to permit continuation of existing development and encourage future reinvestment in commercial and industrial ventures. Water area modifications are permitted for two reasons-- to allow water dependent uses or to encourage the rehabilitation and the development of uses which would promote the revital ization of this area; uses that would, where appropriate, help provide increased public access to the waterfront. Alternative Considerations : The existing and developing character of this MU makes an alternative designation impractical. The sites within this area are too small for most water-dependent uses. The rail facilities bordering the area limit the potential to expand the sites. These rail facilities also severely constrain the portion of this area between the rail- yard and the Chehalis River. In all cases, the waterward extent of any modification is limited in order to protect the fish migration route (the fish passage). II- 55 Photograph 8. Management Units 14, 15 and 43. 11-56 9. UNIT 17: URBAN MIXED Purpose : This unit designation recognizes the unique potential of this area to provide greater public access to the water area and to permit the continued redevelopment of a previously heavily used industrial area of the shoreline. Existing Attributes : This unit is in the process of transition. Historically, it was a heavy industrial area. As site requirements became greater for industry, the small mills located here were abandoned, creating an unused and visually unattractive area which has persisted for many years. Due to many factors, including site limitations, the redevelopment of this area for industry has become impracticable. However, the area's strategic location in relation to the regional traffic flows has already made it a prime site for commercial development. As a commercial area, the unit also offers greatly improved public access to the waterfront. Planned Uses : The continued development and rehabilitation of the unit from an obsolete and debilitated industrial area into a commercial and public access area is envisioned by the plan. Water area modifications which may be conducted here are directed toward several purposes: o Protecting shore uses, o Providing opportunity to rehabilitate the waterfront, o Increasing public access and opportunity to enjoy the water- front (see figure 9, a proposed site plan for the Aberdeen Riverfront Marina Park), o Allowing limited development of any water dependent use which might be permitted. Alternative Considerations : This unit's strategic location in rela- tion to regional traffic flows makes it the optimum commercial area in the region. As such, it has an opportunity to meet growing regional commercial needs. This potential > coupled with both the site's poor suitability for major new industrial or large water-dependent activity and its former blighted condition, has made its commercially oriented designation appropriate. Given the industrial use and designation of most of the urban waterfront, this unit offers one of the yery few opportunities for the development of public access to the urban waterfront environment. This capability also gives the unit a potential for development in tourism related activities, an important sector of the local economy. Possible alternatives include Urban Development desig- nation and encourage more intensive use of the area for industrial purposes. 11-57 UJ a: ID CD 11-58 10. UNIT 18: URBAN DEVELOPMENT/NATURAL Purpose : The purpose of this unit's designation is to provide the opportunity for heavy industrial use, while protecting significant biological resources of the area. Existing Attributes : The unit is an old, blighted industrial /resi- dential area infused into an area of mixed freshwater and upland environments. The unit also encompasses portions of Elliot Slough. Riparian vegetation along the slough is important for habitat and flood retention. The unit is adjacent to the main body of the Chehalis River and therefore offers access to the navigation channel. Ownership in the unit is predominantly private. Planned Uses : Uses planned for the area are intended to balance the provision of opportunity for industrial development with preservation of Elliot Slough, particularly important freshwater marsh areas, and aquatic vegetation. Consequently, this proposal for use involves the complex division of the unit into "Urban Development" and "Natural" subdesignations (see photo 9). These designations were made upon the basis of detailed biological analysis and specific negotiations with the property owners. Alternative Considerations : Modification of the saltwater aquatic area consists primarily of water-dependent activities (boat houses or access to navigation channel); facilities to protect upland uses; and a very limited amount of bankline straightening (where essential to maintain the function of the proposed upland use), or facilities intrinsically related to the area (outfalls or cable and pipeline crossing). Consequently, these attributes cannot practically be located away from the shoreline and still serve a viable function. Designation of the upland portion of the unit as an urban development area is based in part on its existing character and ownership. Unit 18' s access to the navigation channel offers the potential for ex- pansion of water dependent/related industrial development. Much of the area is considered as potential upland sites for the disposal of dredged material. While no alternative appears to be practical, designating some of the yet undeveloped parcels of land as Conservancy or Natural is possible. 11. UNIT 21: URBAN RESIDENTIAL Purpose : This designation recognizes the existing use and quality of the unit. Existing Attributes : The unit is a small area of residential develop- ment on the upland edge of the expanse of fresh water swamp found in this planning area. The unit was separated from the adjacent "Conservancy" and "Rural" units because of its distinctly different character (see photo 10). Planned Uses : Residential with opportunity for development of compat- ible uses. Aggregate extraction is a permitted use. Alternative Considerations : Since it is impractical to relocate exist- ing uses, and because such relocation would result in little enhancement of the resource, no alternative site option seems realistic. 11-59 Photograph 9. Management Units 18, 19 & 20, 11-60 ■■MB*-* : .«a?»«ffiRM-,#, ! Photograph 10. Management Unit 21. 11-61 12. UNIT 25: URBAN DEVELOPMENT Purpose : The purpose of this designation is to recognize the estab- lished role of this unit and its need for redevelopment of blighted areas. As such, its existence also establishes a transition between its urban uses and the Conservancy units upstream. Existing Character : Similar to Unit 16, this unit has a diverse make- up of urban uses, ranging from a large pulp mill to boat ramps and a small park. It has been the site of several lumber mills which have passed or are approaching the end of their usable lives. Consequently, there are several areas of existing or potential blight in this unit. The unit also encompases the proposed industrial expansion location needed by one of the region's major employers. Planned Uses : This designation envisions a continued and gradual re- de velopmenF~oT~tnT~unTt's Urban Development character. It also provides some room for growth for the existing pulp mill. Alternative Considerations : Since the management decisions for this unit are related to existing uses or the presence of blighted areas, the pur- poses served by the unit cannot be provided elsewhere. The pulp mill operation cannot be feasibly expanded except into the area provided for by the plan (see photo 11 ). 13. UNIT 26: URBAN DEVELOPMENT/CONSERVANCY MANAGED Purpose : The purposes of this split unit are to protect the critical role that its aquatic vegetation serves for fish migration and feeding, and to recognize its role for potential industrial uses. Existing Attributes : The existing area has a complex mix of uses and roles. On the water side of the railroad line is an expanse of marshland (designated as CM) of significant biological importance, particularly for supporting fish migration. Within this area is an old saw mill originally established at its site for access to log rafting. The waste treatment lagoons for the Weyerhauser Pulp Mill are also found here. On the land side of this unit (designated as UD) are established residential uses in the north por- tion, and diked old farming areas (including a junk yard) with a fringe of marsh along the creeks. Some freshwater marsh areas are also associated with the diked areas, which were once used for farming, but now have become marshland due to lack of active use. The Port has also been using one of these former pastures for contained maintenance dredge material disposal and has requested a permit from the Corps of Engineers to allow additional disposal in 98 acres for purposes of maintenance dredge disposal. The Corps is currently reviewing that request through the standard permit process procedures (see figure lQ) and is in the process of preparing an environmental impact statement. Planned Uses : All new development north of the railroad (except for reasonable maintenance of the existing mill) must be water dependent, and would be limited in order to protect the resource role of the aquatic vegeta- tion. Development would be permitted landward of the rail line. It is envi- sioned that after the site is filled, these areas will become industrial sites. 11-62 Photograph 11. Management Unit 25. 11-63 SECTJOKj 'A-A 1 ^ (TVP. BERM 5BCTIOU) ^^' J I 77'(g,UEW£*AH fc^.-^j 3 ^ — CO f>R0P'J>. DRAJMA£rE Ij/ PITCH ^7 X-- r'.irniTh (.5 ^^ERMfcooSTRUCTEO EL* SO* -4 UATis/E AUO IMPORT FILL. . see notb 4-. EL + I&&(i) proposed . o 1 11 ' TO $ (BAUK- LIUE UEWSKAH cree>s. SR «05 R.O.W. PLAN . EXIST. K.R. 3U6C3-RADC. EL ♦ 146 (±)— -^ >/§\ PROPOSED g - 3k » B. U. g -O-W. « IQO Vcr CMP. CULv/EKTS"* X////yy = /g/?0R3S£^ SECTIOKJ 5-5 C^ctiou aTaOutfaluj iflfg »o *o s o ^^ * | 6lhOY3-2'DD(o7/3 MOTES: STO ZjLcrB CA.P^ClT-f * PKOP05& : PKEP&S M ATRIAL p/SP03Ai-_ IS APPRO^ e.5DO.COOcY. >5/r"^ F-tLLroKOlSroSA- A*** 3 DRE-DG-& MATERIAL." IS 4 SILT AKJO SAMOY-SIL-T (iZ OOO CY NAT/t/6 ? /U.OOOcx NEAR.iHOQUlAM/A&EROEEkli WA GRAYS tf8*. COUkiTY, PO&J OF GrRAYS HAR&OK, RO. BO* G>CoO ABE^DEEkJ, WA. ^B^ZO Source: Corps of Engineers FIGURE 10 11-64 This unit is one of the few that poses relatively minor development problems: it can be protected from floods, is within range of urban services, has good highway and rail access, has relatively minor land use conflicts, and is more suitable than any other area which lacks good water access. This is the only other area in Grays Harbor which allows for major, long-term industrial expan- sion where the land is not already committed to industrial uses. The major loss would be to approximately 98 acres of fresh water marshes south of the railroad line (see photo 12). The plan ensures that the riparian vegetation along Charley and Newskah Creeks will be protected in a 50 foot -wide, no- development buffer strip. Alternative Considerations : This unit has significant resource values due to its aquatic vegetation and anadromous fish creeks (Newskah and Charley). The shoreline is currently classified as Urban under the existing SMP so the proposed classification would reduce existing allowable uses. The Task Force did not ignore the potential access to the channel, which would be provided by means of a trestle. Consequently, the plan leaves the potential for water dependent use possible under appropriate control to guard the salt water marshes and creek habitats. Alternatives would be to classify the area as RA/RL or CM throughout, thereby precluding any future industrial development. Alternatively, the salt water marsh area north of the railroad is currently zoned industrial and could serve for future industrial expansion if designated UD. 14. UNIT 28: URBAN DEVELOPMENT/CONSERVANCY MANAGED Purpose : The purpose of this designation is to recognize past and present use of this unit for food processing activities and other urban uses which might be related to these activities, while conserving adjacent aquatic resources. Existing Attributes : This area has a large cranberry processing plant and assorted oyster harvesting activities. Located at the mouth of the Johns River, the unit constitutes the only significant cluster of urban uses and one of the few opportunities for small craft navigation facilities on the entire south shore of the estuary between Aberdeen and Westport. Planned Uses : The planned uses of this unit consist of continuation of the existing cranberry and oyster activities along with construction of limited docks and other navigation facilities to support water dependent activ- ity. Most of the wetland character of the area's aquatic vegetation would be protected. Alternative Considerations : Since the planned development activi- ties are related to the existing character of this site, any alternative area could not serve the same purpose and have fewer impacts. All aquatic activities are limited to water dependency. The opportunity for industrial activities would be limited to this one site for the entire South Bay. II- 65 Photograph 12. Management Unit 26 11-66 15. UNIT 33: URBAN MIXED/CONSERVANCY MANAGED Purpose : The designation recognizes the existence of a transporta- tion corridor crossing the Elk River Estuary at the eastern end of the bridge crossing the Elk River (see photo 13). Existing Character : The unit is a small area consisting of the end of a highway bridge anci an assortment of residential and other urban uses concentrated in Bay City. Planned Uses : Planning for the unit envisions continuation and limited expansion of existing uses and activities. Aquatic modifications are limited to small docks associated with upland residences and those activities associated with the bridge and utility crossing. Alternative Considerations : Since the character of the existing area and any potential growth T~s related to the bridge crossing, and since this bridge is the only feasible crossing point, no other management designa- tion alternative for this unit is possible. 16. UNIT 35: URBAN MIXED/CONSERVANCY MANAGED Purpose : The purpose of this unit is to recognize the area including the western end of the bridge crossing the Elk River Estuary. Existing Attributes : The character of this unit is similar to but less developed than Unit 33. Planned Uses : Same as Unit 33. Alternative Considerations: Same as Unit 33. 17. UNIT 37: URBAN MIXED/CONSERVANCY MANAGED Purpose : This management unit establishes an eastern line of limi- tation for tTie encroachment of urban uses into the shoreline environment. Existing Character : The unit is composed of mixed urban use (primar- ily residential) on its uplands and includes an expanse or transitional marsh. The marsh is used for grazing. Planned Uses : Continued development of the uplands for urban uses as may be appropriate for the needs of the City of Westport, and conservation of the area below the 404 line for its natural resource values. There is considerable marsh in the eastern portion which will be preserved in its natural state. Alternative Considerations : The proximity of this unit to the high- way provides suitable access for residential development. While such urban uses might be relocated to alternative sites, the incorporated nature of this area and the presence of urban services make it suitable for such use without significantly injuring resource values. 11-67 Photograph 13. Management Units 33, 34 & 35. 11-68 18. UNIT 38: URBAN MIXED/CONSERVANCY NATURAL Purpose : This designation recognizes the existing dual role of this unit both in providing Westport's airport and in serving as a marsh area. Existing Attributes : The unit has two uses, as an airport and as a marsh area. Planned Use : The plan permits, but strictly limits, some develop- ment and improvements to the existing airport (runway). It protects the remaining marsh area (except for allowing some possibility for expansion of the Westport Marina). The retention and eventual upgrading of the airport is important to both Westport's role as the major sport fishing port in the region and to efforts to diversify the local and regional economies by expand- ing the use of other recreational opportunities in the Westport area. Alternative Considerations : The present site has been used as an airport for many years and these activities have modified the character of the site (see photo 14). Therefore, the no action alternative would not prevent the present use of the high marsh wetlands for the grassy airport runway. Because of the topography and existing land use patterns of the Westport area, few sites if any are well suited for airport development. Because of the longterm use of this site and location of uses which would conflict with an airport at other sites, continuation of the airport in this location is the most viable alternative. The airport improvements which would be possible under the plan would only be the minimum necessary for a standard small air- craft landing facility. The plan contains specific provisions limiting the extent of the fill that may be permitted to minimize the potential adverse impacts which might result (GHEMP, p. 99). 19. UNIT 39: URBAN MIXED Purpose : This unit provides for the future expansion of the region's major marina. Ks such, it significantly benefits the economic base of the region and provides access to water recreation for thousands of people annually. It is one of the most important water recreation facilities of the entire State. Existing Attributes : Most of the unit consists of the Westport Marina and related activities. It does include a significant marsh area to the south and large undeveloped areas west and upland from the marina. Planned Uses : The area is expected to allow future expansion of the marina with related upland uses and services. A major role of the facility would be to continue to provide and develop public access to the shore and the recreational opportunities of sport fishing as well as providing additional development opportunity in the commercial seafood industry. The Port would contemplate expansion only when sufficient demand for additional port slips justifies the economic costs related to the expansion. 11-69 Photograph 14. Management Unit 38 - Westport Airport 11-70 Alternative Considerations : A marina is a water dependent use. Consequently, no alternative site would be feasible unless such site also was an aquatic area with suitable navigation access. Other limits under present Corps programs restrict alternatives to the present basin or along the main navigation channel (the access to the Ocean Shore Marina is not Federally maintained). Winter storms and heavy seas make this area unsuitable for large vessels. Use of another area would require channel development with related adverse environmental impacts. Combining future marina development with the existing facility allows greater economies of scale and reduces the potential of increasing adverse environmental problems. Such a combination also permits provision of the necessary public services (especially those needed for water quality) in an efficient and effective manner. One expansion of the existing marina has already been completed within the existing basin (see figure H). The plan would contemplate a second marina expansion into the wetlands (approx. 48 acres of submerged, intertidal and marsh wetlands to be dredged and/or filled) south of the existing marina for additional commercial and recreational boating sometime in the future. 11-71 c 'I — t— V) >> >> CO r— S- 3 CD >-3 • • cu u s- 13 o oo CNJ LU CD 11-78 (4). Phase filling to allow for impact evaluation. Implementation Condition #3, Area 3 reads as follows: If Area 2 is filled prior to a permit application to fill in Area 3, an evaluation of the effects of filling in Area 2 will be con- ducted as a part of the permit review process. The primary purpose of that evaluation will be to determine whether environmental conditions have changed sufficiently as a result of Area 2 fill to demonstrate that other alternative airport sites would be less environmentally damaging. (GHEMP, p. 64) c. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; (1). With concurrence of state and Federal resource agencies, recreate lost habitat on the north sides of Areas 2 and 3 for vegetated salt marshes and woody vegetation and perching sites for birds. (2). Department of Game will prepare management plans with the advise from a Bowerman Basin Advisory Council which will include environmental interest groups and citizens. d. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; (1). 1700 acres of habitat will be preserved, especially critical eastern section of the Bowerman Basin used for both feeding and roosting habitat. (2). Preserving other significant shorebird and waterfowl habitat throughout the estuary. (3). Maintaining water quality in Area 1 through containment structures surrounding each fill. e. Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resource or environments. (1). Area 1 land will be acquired through fee title. (2). In-kind habitat replacement is associated with some activi- ties but not all . 5. The plan also discusses the potential for enhancement or the manipula- tion or modification of the system to increase productivity. The plan does not generally endorse specifics but treats this activity as other activities and sets a context and establishes limits within which potential enhancement projects can be evaluated and permitted. Some enhancement concepts are includ- ed in the mitigation measures discussed in the plan amendment procedures. Enhancement activities are specified in the development of the Ocean Shores Airport (marsh restoration) and the Bowerman industrial area (shorebird habitat improvement) . II- 79 6. The plan is generally consistent with the §404(b)(l) Guidelines which state: "...no discharge of dredged or fill material shall be permitted unless appropriate and practicable steps have been taken which will minimize potential adverse impacts of the discharge on the aquatic ecosystem." §230. 10(d). Some of the possible ways to minimize adverse impacts include: (§230.70, 75) a. confining the discharge; (GHEMP, p. 64, Condition 5) b. use previous dredged material disposal sites; (MU 12, Areas 2 & 3) c. avoid changes in water current and circulation patterns; (pre- serving MU 12, Area 1, avoids significant circulation pattern changes) d. avoid sites having unique habitat or other value, including habitat of threatened or endangered species; (partially met in MU 12, but plan as a whole avoids and protects other significant sites utilized by shorebirds and falcons and unique fisheries habitat) e. use planning and construction practices to institute habitat de- velopment and restoration to produce a new or modified environmental state; (if desirable and feasible, such projects are permitted and encouraged by the plan) f. timing discharge to avoid spawning or migration seasons and other biologically critical time periods; (plan states that discharge activities will be consistent with permit requirements) and, g. avoid the destruction of remnant natural sites within areas already affected by development (plan does this for fisheries habitat in urban environ- ment, Area 1 in MU 17 which is the most natural area remaining in the Bowerman Basin) . 7. Overall, the GHEMP has a number of elements which will help minimize future adverse impacts including: a. greater specificity controlling future development; b. specific requirements which prohibit certain actions which would have an unacceptable impact and requirements to minimize impacts associated with other actions to include mitigation, monitoring and enhancement projects; c. potential phaseout of log rafting; d. better utilization of existing urban environments to provide a more attractive environment; e. phase development which will allow monitoring of impacts; and f. limiting airport development to the minimum amount of space required. II- 80 PART III: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT PART III: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT A. General Setting 1. Grays Harbor is one of the Pacific Coast's six major estuary systems. Located on the southern Washington coast, this area lies 110 miles south of the Straits of Juan de Fuca and about 45 miles north of the mouth of the Columbia River (see backside front cover for location map). The 91 square mile estuary is approximately 13 miles at its widest point and narrowing to less than 100 yards in its upper reach nearly 32 miles from the estuary mouth. The three corners of the estuary are defined by the mouth of the Chehalis River flowing into the eastern portion of the harbor; the North Bay, which receives the waters of the Humptulips River; and the South Bay, into which the Elk River and Johns River flow. The Wishkah River is tributary to the Chehalis near the latter' s mouth at the harbor, and a little further west from the Wishkah, the Hoquiam River flows into the estuary. Four major islands of the estuary are Goose and Sand Islands (North Bay); Whitcomb Island (South Bay); and Rennie Island to the east, near the mouth of the Chehalis River. Rennie Island, measuring about 1.5 miles across, is the largest of the four, while the other three are each approximately one-half to three-quarters of a mile in length. 2. Geologically, the estuary is a drowned portion of the Chehalis River Valley, and is continually being filled in with riverborne sediments and ocean- ic materials. The surrounding uplands are composed of unconsolidated Pleisto- cene silt, sand and gravel, which are sedimentary and volcanic rocks of the Tertiary Age that form low relief hills. The predominant physical feature of the estuary is the vast amount of intertidal mud and sandflats. 3. The climate of the area is dominated by the influence of the Pacific Ocean, typically mild, dry summers and mild, wet, cloudy winters. The yearly mean temperature is 50°F, the warmest month being August, with an average temperature of 70°F, while the coldest month, January, averages 34°F. Winter winds, with gusts ranging from 35 to 50 mph, are from the south to southwest. Spring and summer winds are from the west to northwest and are steadier with fewer gusts, with velocities ranging from 15 to 20 mph. 4. Grays Harbor is an area of diverse uses. The harbor lies wholly within Grays Harbor County. The cities of Aberdeen, Hoquiam and Cosmopolis are situated in the estuary's upper reaches, and their economies depend in large part upon Grays Harbor as a medium for fishing, shipping and trading and are heavily industrialized. The cities of Westport and Ocean Shores lie on the south and north entrance to the harbor with their economies being more fishing and recreation oriented. The region is served by rail from the east; highway linkages from the east, south and north; by a 5,000-foot runway airport; and by a -30 feet mean lower low water (MLLW) navigation channel. Population ranges from 18,550 for Aberdeen to 1,570 for Cosmopolis. III-l 6. Use of Inventory Data in the Planning Process 1. The physical, biological, and socioeconomic characteristics of Grays Harbor were summarized by a technical team familiar with the area prior to the development of the first draft of the GHEMP. This information was summarized and displayed using graphics, technical reports and interview-response summar- ies. That information base was used by the Planning Task Force in its initial work to develop the first draft of the plan. 2. The major purposes of the data inventory were to: a. Provide the Task Force with information on which to base decisions b. Provide the general public with a reference base to test the recommendations of the task force. c. Provide a continuing reference source for future planning, development and management decisions. The initial step in the planning process was to conduct a detailed inventory of the physical, biological and socioeconomic resources of Grays Harbor. A special team of experts, each member representing specific technical disci- plines (i.e. economics, forestry, fisheries, etc.) was formed (see appendix H- 1). The function of this team was to assist in the collection and review of the known technical information on Grays Harbor. The team further served to arbitrate apparent information conflicts and to provide the Task Force with a reservoir of diverse technical expertise. 3. The various local and special interest groups, individuals and agen- cies concerned with the planning area were identified. These groups, individ- uals and agencies (see appendix H-2) were then contacted and given a summary paper which outlined the background, process and intent of the planning program. Each group or individual was then interviewed using a standard interview format. The results of these interviews were then summarized to provide a general pro- file of what a cross section of the public felt should be protected, developed or of management concern. The interviews were also used to obtain unwritten historical and other information on the area. Opinions on facts listed on the data maps and reports were also solicited. A total of 68 interview sessions were conducted and the results summarized.^ 4. The purpose of the detailed data collection, verification and inter- view process was to develop an accurate profile of the Grays Harbor estuary. Obtaining this information was necessary before any deliberations or decisions could be made by the Planning Task Force or general public on what the plan should do for Grays Harbor. The data collected were translated graphically into fourteen large scale (1" = 1000') data maps describing the area. A series of technical memoranda, summaries of the interviews, and an annotated bibliography of all known publications on Grays Harbor were prepared for the Grays Harbor Estuary Management Program . The publication described the plan- ning process and how it was to provide and solicit general public ideas and concerns. V. Montagne-Bierly Associates Inc., Grays Harbor Estuary Management Program - Phase I, Summary of Interviews, pp. 136-153. II 1-2 5. The technical team's efforts resulted in the presentation of data maps, public opinion and technical memoranda to the Planning Task Force at its initial workshop. The fourteen data maps were displayed at each workshop and were a continuous reference tool for the Task Force during the development of the first draft of the Estuary Plan. 6. The following sections on the description of the environment are supplemented by the Data Maps (Attachment 1) to this PDEISJ They summarize in graphic form a great deal of data gathered by the technical teams and used by the Task Force in making preliminary decisions. In addition, an expanded discussion of the three major environments (physical, biological and socio- economic) can be found in Grays Harbor Estuary Management Program: Technical Memoranda , pp. 1-110 (available upon request from OCZM). Additional references in which the Grays Harbor Estuary environment is discussed at length include: a. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, Maintenance Dredg- ing and the Environment of Grays Harbor , Washington, Appendices A-N, 1976. b. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, Long-Range Main- tenance Dredging Program - Grays Harbor and Chehalis River Navigation Project Operation and Maintenance , "Final Environmental Impact Statement Supplement No. 2," 1980. c. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, Grays Harbor , Chehalis and Hoquiam Rivers, Washington - Channel Improvements for Navigation. "Interim Feasibility Report and Final Environmental Impact Statement," 1982. d. Sharpe, Grant W., An Interpretive Survey of the Grays Harbor Area , prepared for the Army Corps of Engineers, 1977. 1. The orignial fourteen data maps have been combined into ten maps. Attach, I will not be redistributed with the PFEIS; please save it for future refer- ence. III-3 C. Physical Environment 1. Hydrology (see attach. I, map 6 - Hydrology & Flood Plain) a. Grays Harbor Estuary is fed by a 2,550 square mile drainage basin. Tributary rivers include the Chehalis, Hoquiam, Wishkah, Humptulips, Johns and Elk River basins. Seven sub-river basins, comprising the Chehalis and the Johns Rivers, feed fresh water into the estuary. The Chehalis is the largest basin and constitutes the major fresh water source for Grays Harbor. Providing roughly 80 percent of the fresh water to the estuary, the Chehalis' inflow is a primary reason why Grays Harbor is classified as a positive estuary, in which precipitation and runoff exceed evaporation, and the net surface flow is seaward (see figure 13). Precipitation is high, increasing from about 80 inches (200 cm.) near the estuary to over 220 inches (550 cm.) in the higher reaches of the watershed. b. Because of the winter storms, streams feeding Grays Harbor are characterized by higher winter flows and low summer flows. Mixing of fresh water and salt water in the mid-portion of the estuary (Aberdeen-Hoquiam area) creates environments ranging from low salinity (five parts per thousand) during the winter to higher salinities (20 parts per thousand) during the summer months. The winter salt water wedge or upstream limit of intrusion stops at the Aberdeen-Hoquiam area and the summer upstream limit some 10 to 12 miles further up the Chehalis River (see figure 14). c. The estuary itself is a shallow basin with depths averaging less than 20 feet. In the harbor entrance depths reach a maximum of 80 feet, while the navigational channel is maintained at the -30 feet mean lower low water (MLLW) level by annual dredging of bottom materials and is being con- sidered for widening and deepening to -38 feet MLLW. The surface area varies from about 91 square miles at mean higher high water (MHHW) to about 38 square miles at MLLW, providing 53 square miles (nearly 34,000 acres) of intertidal lands (Corps, Widening & Deepening, 1982). Much of the tidal flat area is about 1 to 2 feet above MLLW and is important in the movement, mixing, and reaeration of harbor waters during tidal ebb and flood J d. Grays Harbor is subject to the North Pacific's diurnal tide system (two high tides and two low tides daily). The upper limit of the tidal influ- ence is Montesano, approximately 32 miles from the harbor entrance. On an annual basis the mean daily tidal range is 10 feet in the Aberdeen-Hoquiam area, e. Tides move slowly up the estuary; high tide occurs 29 minutes later at Aberdeen than at the harbor mouth. Maximum mean velocities in the upper harbor vary from about 3 feet per second (fps) during floodtide to about 4.5 fps during ebbtideJ f. The estuary is often divided into the outer harbor extending east from the Pacific Ocean to about Point New, and the inner harbor extending east from about Point New to Cosmopolis. Also, five physical units of the Grays Harbor estuary are often referred to: III-4 OLYMPIC MOUNTAINS Z < O O < 0. «\^ CHEHALIS DRAINAGE BASIN COLUMBIA R. WASHINGTON OREGON SCALE 20 L i i I 1 20 Ml 1 FIGURE 13 Source: COE M.K. Vincent, 78 Humptulips River Grays Harbor Estuary Management Program ppt Winter jipt Summer Chelialis Hi ver Cosmopolis Average Summer and ns uivcr Winter Salinities FIGURE 14 Source: Herrmann ( 1 9 7 L' ) 1 1 1-5 I I Entrance/ North Bay \ South Bay / /Central Bay/Chehalis River Wetlands When considering Grays Harbor as an aggregate of socioeconomic and physical features, these five physical units may be further expanded to eight major planning units (as designated in the GHEMP). North Bay comprises the largest planning unit with about one-fourth of the total surface area, followed by Central Bay, South Bay, and the Chehalis Wetlands. For purposes of mainten- ance dredging, the Corps further subdivides the navigation channel into eight units as identified in figure 15. 2 FIGURE 15 15 55 45' 12J - 40'W «6* 58 N COSMOP-t ' OLIS KV CHEHALIS,. ' *->V MONTESANO 58' N 45' ijyao'w 50' 1 50' 15' 124* W g. Ground water is not heavily used in the Grays Harbor area. Sand and gravel deposits related to the recent alluvium along the lower Chehalis River could be a source of domestic and industrial water. These sources are high quality and available in relatively large quantities (several thousand gallons/minute). 3 III-6 2. Geology a. On the north, east and south, the harbor is bounded by low hills, composed of Pleistocene silt, sand and gravel, as well as harder sedimentary deposits and volcanic rocks of Tertiary age. The outer harbor is composed of marine sediments, the inner Harbor of eroded sediments from the drainage basin, with a transition zone between these two regions. It is estimated that sedi- ment transport into the estuary by the Chehalis River system is about two million cubic yards per year. The majority of these fluvial sediments enter the estuary in the winter during high flows; the Satsop and Wynoochee subbasins discharge the major portion. Likewise, it is estimated that a similar amount of marine sediments enters the mouth of the estuary on a yearly basis. 3 The majority of the sediment in the central and lower third of the estuary is of marine origin (containing less silt and higher sand content). The North Bay, South Bay and the upper two-thirds of the estuary contain a mixture of marine and river sediments (see attach. 1, map 7, Soils and Sediments). b. Several types of soils predominate in various sections of the estuary. While sandy soils are dominant in the Ocean Shores and Westport areas, peat lined with clayey soils occurs in the section between Cosmopolis and Montesano, and most drainage areas are composed of clayey soils. The area of Aberdeen and Hoquiam is primarily built on fill material. The peat domi- nated soils provide a serious limitation to development. c. Topographically, the Chehalis River Valley formation was influ- enced by debris left by the advance of the Vashon Glacier southward from Puget Sound some 15,000 years ago. Glacial debris can be found east of Grays Harbor and along the banks of the present channel of the Chehalis River, which drained a major portion of the Puget Sound during that glacial period. Thus, Grays Harbor has been formed into a series of small drainage valleys which cut through low but rugged hills with a maximum elevation of 2,400 feet. Level land is scarce and is generally created by the processes of marsh building, estuarine deposition, stream process, or manmade fill. Erosion in the estuary area can be a serious problem, especially during storms and high tides. Jetty structures at the harbor entrance and navigation structures along the main channels must be protected during these periods. The erosion problems of the area are more completely addressed in the Grays Harbor Erosion Management Study. 4 d. The estuary contains numerous shallow channels created by ebbtide flows and river discharges. Historically, there were three main channels run- ning east to west. These were the North, Middle and South Channels. In the past, all three maintained depths of about -17 to -20 MLLW with areas of shoaling. The three still exist, but the North Channel is dredged for navigation purposes and is the major ship channel to Aberdeen and Cosmopolis. The other two have shoaled to shallow depths. 3 III-7 3. Water Quality a. The estuary is a partially mixed system in which tidal flows domi- nate river flows and nearly complete mixing of fresh and salt water occurs. The low fresh water inflow in summer and the large estuary volume create a "giant bathtub" effect in the central portion of the estuary. Pollutants entering this area are not flushed rapidly and contribute to reduced water quality in that reach. The mid-reach of the estuary from Cosmopolis to a line between Point New and Markham has had a history of poor water quality since the earliest recorded water quality measurements were taken. b. The areas in Grays Harbor with substandard water quality are the result of both point and nonpoint sources. The major point sources consist of municipal and industrial discharges which affect dissolved oxygen levels (D.O.), turbidity, color, and bacterial contamination. The wood products industry is considered to be the largest volume contributor of oxygen demanding wastes (historically considered the primary water quality problem in the estuary), particularly from sulfite liquors. Nonpoint source contamination includes surface runoff from both urban development and the general watershed, garbage and wood waste land fills, septic tank leachates, dredging and log storage wastes. c. The overall water quality of Grays Harbor is seriously affected by the estuary's declining capacity to assimilate wastes. Thus, the level of past and present industrial discharges has had a major impact on the quality of the water. Wastes often accumulate as a result of low river inflows and limited flushing which, in concert with heavy sedimentation from the Chehalis River, contribute to low oxygen levels in the water. Though water quality has improved in the last 10 years, additional organic waste discharge above present levels could reverse this trend. 5 d. During 1980 and 1981, the Corps performed comprehensive sediment sampling and elutriate testing for contaminants in Grays Harbor. The results indicated that contaminant concentrations in the sediments increase toward the inner harbor as the sediments become finer. Copper, zinc, PCB's and BHC exceeded existing EPA criteria in some sections of the estuary. Some of the sediments in the Hoquiam and Cow Point reaches could result in contaminant bioaccumulation in tissues of marine organisms if sediments are discharged in open water. Con- sequently, there is need for some confined disposal associated with the pro- posed widening and deeping project. 2 4. Air Quality a. Both localized and general air pollution occur in Grays Harbor. Nonstationary pollution sources include vehicular and marine traffic which emits carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, and unburned hydrocarbons. There is low-level but measurable air pollution from industrial sources in the Aberdeen- Hoquiam-Cosmopoli s complex to the east. Localized air pollution problems can occur as a result of high winds that hold emission plumes close to the ground near the source. Suspended particulates in the outer harbor average 35 micro- grams per cubic meter (ug/m 3 ) while those in the Aberdeen area show an annual mean of 40 ug/m 3 . Both are well below the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (75 ug/m 3 ) and the Washington State Ambient Air Quality Standard (60ug/m 3 ) for high volume suspended particulates. 6 III-8 D. Biological Environment 1 . Habitats a. A diversity of habitats in and around the Grays Harbor Estuary have been described including upland forests, lowland forests, adjacent floodplains (urban and agricultural lands, ponds, lagoons, sloughs and freshwater swamps), coastal dunes, marshlands (fresh and saltwater), intertidal flats (mud and sand), eelgrass flats, subtidal or channel, and the man-made jetty habitat that supports a distinct though small rocky coast marine community. 1»3 Habitat types are made distinctive by virtue of one or more characteristics: substrate type; elevation with respect to tidal influence; and predominant vegetation. 6 Salinity is another important factor in determining the type of habitat which develops at a given site (NMFS, personal communication). b. The abundant wildlife which have been identified in the estuary are in response to this wide diversity of habitats, a moderate climate and relatively low intensity urban and industrial disturbances. There are at least 52 known species of fish, 326 species of birds and over 50 species of mammals that utilize the estuary. See appendix I for species lists with common and scientific nomenclature. c. Several food chain pathways found in Grays Harbor ecosystems have demonstrated the extent and persistence of interdependent relationships through- out the flora and fauna of the estuary. 2 One example might include the eelgrass habitat which is of particular importance in the estuary, as it provides food, shelter, and substrate for an abundance of marine organisms and increases the biological productivity and diversity of the estuary. ° (1). Eelgrass habitat is significant as an ecological link between other estuarine and offshore habitat types. Eelgrass produces an abundant yearly crop of vegetable matter which is exported from the immediate habitat as detritus. This material can be found almost anywhere within the estuary, as well as offshore along the continental shelf and on ocean beaches. It provides organisms in these habitats with a rich source of food during the less productive winter period. 6 (2). A myriad of organisms inhabit eelgrass beds. Benthic fauna include nereid worms, clams, nematodes, and burrowing anemones. The leaves support isopods, amphipods, hydroids, bryzoa, harpacticoids, herring spawn, snails, limpets, protozoa, ciliates, and nudibranchs. Juvenile salmonids, striped sea perch, pipefish, and blennies find food and cover in the beds. The epibenthic area is home to flatfish (sole and flounder), crabs, and moon snails and is an important food item for waterfowl, especially black brant and wid- geon. 6 2. Vegetation (see attach. 1, map 8 - Vegetation) a. Substantial areas of native vegetation remain in and around the Grays Harbor Estuary. Vegetation is important as it provides habitat (nesting and shelter) and food (seeds, detritus or decaying organic matter), stabilizes soils thereby minimizing erosion and siltation, helps to filter toxic sub- stances from surrounding waters and absorb organic and mineral nutrients. 2 b. Table 3 lists the characteristic species of the major vegetation types of the Grays Harbor Estuary. III-9 TABLE 3 Characteristic Species of the Major Vegetation Types of Grays Harbor Estuary Vegetation Type Eelgrass Salt Freshwater Lowland Upland Dune Bed Marsh Marsh Forest Forest Vegetation Common Eelgrass ( Zostera marina ) European Eelgrass ( Zostera noltii ) Pickleweed ( Salicornia virqinica ) Arrow Grass ( Triqlochin maritimum ) Sedge ( Carex lynqbyei ) Tufted Hairgrass ( Deschampsia caespitosa ) Salt Grass ( Distichlis spicata ) Slough Sedge ( Carex obnupta ) Red Canarv Grass (Phalaris arundinaceae) X Cattail (Typha latifolia) X Sitka Spruce (Picea sitchensis ) X X Red Alder (Alnus rubra) X Willow (Salix sp) X Western Hemlock (Tsuqa heterophylli) X Coast Pine (Pinus contorta) ) Beach Grass (Amophila arenaria) ) c. The upland forests are dominated by Sitka spruce and western hem- lock with some western red cedar and Douglas fir. The lowland forests generally occur in riparian environments associated with the floodway of streams or in the tidally-influenced portions of the Chehalis River upstream from Cosmopolis and are dominated by spruce, red alder, willow and crabapple. Ground cover is extremely dense due to an abudance of small tree and tall shrub species. The lowland forests are distinguished from the adjacent upland forests primarily by the abundance of deciduous species in the canopy. These environments are more fully described and delineated in Grays Harbor and Chehalis River Improvements to Navigation Environmental Studies , "Chehalis River Floodplain Land Cover Mapping Between Aberdeen and Montesano, Washington," Corps of Engineers, 1980. 111-10 d. The dune vegetation complex comprises a variety of plant communi- ties such as that found at Whitcomb Island to include American sea rocket, lime grass, dune grass and yellow abronia. These are pioneer species that are able to tolerate the harsh conditions of high salinity and abrasive soil action. Other areas of stabilized dunes are characterized by European beach grass, purple beach pea, beach morning glory and sea rocket. Behind the dunes are deflation plains characterized by moist soils which include sedges, rushes, and in some areas, shrubs or small trees of wax myrtle and willow. Stabilized up- land dunes are invaded by Sitka spruce and shore pine. 3 e. Wetland vegetation types in the estuary area are freshwater marsh, saltwater marsh and eel grass communities. (1). Freshwater marsh habitats are dominant in the Chehalis River and North Bay portions of the estuary. This habitat type is character- ized by slough sedge, cow parsnip, cattails, spike rush, bull rush and reed canary grass. The locations that have been observed are those areas closely adjacent to the estuary at the upper end of tidally influenced creeks and are characterized by standing water for a substantial period of the year and by their accumulation of organic soils. (2). Extensive saltwater marsh areas are located from the cen- tral portion of the estuary below Aberdeen throughout North and South Bays. There are basically two major types of salt marshes in Grays Harbor: high marshes and low marshes due to their intertidal or above mean tide elevation. (a). Low marshes are dominated by succulent salt tolerant species. Pickle weed is characteristic of low marshes. Two major types of low marshes are developed depending upon the type of substrate available. Sandy substrates support marshes dominated by pickle weed and jaumea. Low marshes with silty subtrates are dominated by arrow grass, tufted hairgrass, pickle weed and Lyngby's sedge. These marshes are quite similiar in vegetation composition to the unconfined dredge material disposal sites that are newly colonized in the intertidal area except for greater plant density. (b). High marshes are dominated by grass-like species, particularly tufted hairgrass, rushes, salt grass, bentgrass and sedge. (c). Diking the saltwater marshes by tide-gating eliminates tidal saltwater influence and generally changes the plant species composition. (d). Both fresh and saltwater marsh habitats have been significantly reduced in the Grays Harbor area through diking, filling, dredged material disposal and ditching. Because they are in a transitional zone between nearshore lowlands and the water, they are susceptible to alteration for use as pastureland or urban/industrial development. Today, emergent vegetation habitat comprises only 16 percent of the Grays Harbor intertidal area, repre- senting a loss of approximately one-half of the previously existing wetlands. 6 1 1 1-1 1 (3). Eel grass occurs throughout the estuary below Aberdeen and at tidal elevations between -3 ft MLLW and +6 to +7 feet MLLW. Two species of eel grass occur in Grays Harbor including common eel grass ( Zostera marina ) and European eel grass (Z. noltii ) which occurs in the higher intertidal levels than the former and is most abundant between +5 and +6 MLLW. 3 f. Seaweeds, algae and phytoplankton. Thorn (1981 ),8 noted 23 taxa of macroalgae in Grays Harbor. Among the most abundant and conspicuous are 3 species of green algae ( Enteromorpha clathrata var. crinita , E. linza , E. intestinalis ); a species of brown algae ( Fucus distichus ssp. edentatus ); 2 species of red algae ( Polysiphonia hendryi var. deliquenscens and Porphyra sanjuanensis ); and a complex of tube dwelling and fillamentous diatoms. Macroalgae's distribution is limited by availability of hard, stable substrata (e.g., logs, roots, boulders) for attachment. 2 No emergent vegetation exists in mudflat substrate and the predominant flora are restricted to epibenthic green and blue-green algae, with diatoms dominating the phytoplankton. On the sandflat substrate, no attached vegetation exists and there is yery low epi- benthic algal production. However, Thorn does report dense mats of Vaucheria longicaulis and Rhizoclonium riparium growing in sand. Phytoplankton is the primary producer and organic detritus is generally less available than on the mudflats. While phytoplankton are the least productive plant group in the estuary, they are considered important primary producers which are the supply of food for zooplankton. flora. 2 Table 4 compares primary production of several types of aquatic TABLE 4. ORGANIC CARBON CONTRIBUTIONS (x 10 6 kgC/yr) OF VARIOUS SOURCES WITHIN THE ESTUARY Source Marsh Phanerograms Zostera spp. (eelgrass) Benthic Algae Phytoplankton Total Inner Harbor Outer Harbor Entire Estuary 3.36 12.6 16.0 49.02 76.78 125.8 24.68 46.6 71.3 2.34 6.6 8.9 73.40 142.6 222.0 Source: Thorn, 1981 j. Figure 16 shows the location of the various types of wetlands vegetation. 111-12 s i i * I I "8 "8 o> o> M H I X 6 5 E 5 m ra 1 s s & 1 ■I :s MW 3 I J I f d 111-13 1Y k. Table 5 lists the extent of the acreage of intertidal habitats in Grays Harbor. TABLE 5 ESTIMATED EXTENT OF INTERTIDAL HABITATS IN GRAYS HARBOR Hectares Acres Entire Harbor to Extreme High Water (EHW) Intertidal from MLLW to EHW 22,140 13,600 54,708 33,606 Salt Marshes Low Marshes High Marshes 919 514 2,271 1,270 Sedge Marsh Diked Salt Marsh Total Salt Marsh 81 441 1,955 200 1,090 4,831 Eel grass Beds 4,740 11,712* Tidal Flats Not Vegetated With Vascular Plants 6,905 17,062 Source: Corps of Engineers, Long-Range Maintenance Dredging Project, FEISS, No. 2, 1980 * The extent of eelgrass beds is extremely variable. In 1977, G. H. Miller estimated the eelgrass habitat at 20,810 acres. The differences may be due to seasonal variability and/or sampler subjectivity. ^ 3. Wildlife (see attach. 1, map 8 - Wildlife) a. Birds. A variety of birds characterize Grays Harbor Estuary. The major groups found in the estuary are waterfowl, shorebirds, fish-eating water- birds, gulls and terns, terrestrial birds and raptors. (1). Waterfowl. Dominated by ducks, waterfowl counts in Grays Harbor peak during September, October, and November at approximately 45,000.9 American widgeon, pintail, and mallard are the most abundant duck species. Scaup, canvasback, bufflehead, black brant, scoter, ruddy duck and green-winged teal are also common. Grays Harbor provides an important wintering area for canvasback and black brant. 111-14 (a). Waterfowl concentrate in abundance in the North Bay with large numbers also found in the undeveloped area of South Bay. South Channel is utilized more than the North Channel where there is some concentra- tion around Rennie Island. Another attractive area for waterfowl in the inner harbor is the Bowerman Basin. Several hundred canvasback are frequently seen feeding in this area. Two or three thousand American widgeon, pintail, mallard and green-winged teal ducks are commonly seen feeding or resting in the salt marshes surrounding the basin. (b). Dabbling ducks utilize the Chehalis River and are found in the sloughs and backwater areas that enter the Chehalis River. The tide! and swamp area of the upper Chehalis River may provide important year- round habitat for wood ducks. (2). Shorebirds. The Grays Harbor Estuary provides habitat for a large variety of both migratory and resident or wintering shorebirds. Approx- imately 24 species of shorebirds utilize the estuary as a stopover site, with western sandpiper being by far the most abundant during spring and fall migra- tions and dunlin being the dominant species during the winter months.^ As a result of a recent survey conducted by Dr. Steven G. Herman and John B. Bulger on the distribution and abundance of shorebirds at Grays Harbor during the spring of 1981, they concluded that the estuary is host to more shorebirds than any other estuary along the Pacific Coast south of Alaska and that Grays Harbor is of extraordinary and critical importance to spring-migrating shorebirds on the Pacific Coast. '0 Other shorebirds using Grays Harbor are the least sand- piper, red knot, short-billed dowitcher, sanderling, semipalmated plover, ruddy turnstone, whimbrel , longbilled curlew, marbled godwit, black-bellied plover and the great blue heron. The primary food producing area for these species is intertidal flats with fine grained sand or silt/clay sized particles. The Bowerman Basin has -been identified as a particularly significant site among the many important sites within the estuary and is perhaps of interna- tional significance. A more thorough discussion on the shorebird population can be found in appendix C. (3). Fish-eating Waterbirds, Gulls and Terns. The deeper water areas of the estuary are utilized as feeding sites for sea birds including rhinoceros auklets, common murres, marbled murlets, pigeon guillemots and parasitic jaegars. Other waterbirds seen in the outer estuary and the deeper waters of both the North and South Channels include loons, grebes, shearwaters, petrels and cormorants. These species aggregate according to feeding prefer- ence. Some of the species (redneck grebe) feed in high salinity waters of the outer harbor while others (pied billed grebe and western grebe) feed in fresher water areas of the main channel of the Chehalis River and into the North Chan- nel. Gulls and terns are abundant, and the estuary provides nesting space for unique colonies of mixed associations of gulls and Caspian Tern. The nesting colonies on Whitcomb Island, Sand Island, and Goose Island are very important especially to the Caspian Tern populations. The Whitcomb Island colony is the largest identified Caspian Tern colony on the West Coast. 111-15 (4). Terrestrial Birds. A large variety of terrestrial birds are found within the confines of Grays Harbor Estuary. These species have a direct relationship to the surrounding vegetation and are particularly abundant during the late spring and summer months. Crows, marsh wrens, robins, kingfishers, flickers, sparrows, red-winged blackbirds, American gold finch and band tailed pigeon are a few of the more abundant. (5). Raptors. The estuary is important for raptorial birds which feed over the wetlands and waterways of the estuary. The marsh hawk and short-eared owl are common raptors in salt marsh areas. These birds feed on small mammals and birds that live and feed in the vegetation of the salt marshes. The great-horned owl, red tailed hawk, peregrine falcon, merlin, American kestrel, Cooper's hawk, sharp-shinned hawk and bald eagle are also seen. All of the species except the bald eagle are known to prey upon shore- birds and are most often seen during migration and wintering periods. (6). Figure 17 identifies some of the significant avian habitats within the GHEMP area. b. Mammals. The mammals of Grays Harbor Estuary are primarily associ- ated with the intertidal waters and related wetlands. The most abundant mammal forms are marine mammals that live in the estuary and feed on the fish and shellfish in the bay. The harbor seal occurs in large numbers in the outer estuary and haul-out areas have been identified and mapped. The seal population has been estimated at 500 seals during winter with as many as 1,400 observed during summer. Marine mammals other than harbor seals make only occasional appearances in Grays Harbor. Stellar sea lions, harbor porpoises, and gray whales have been observed inside the estuary. A variety of small mammals (voles and shrews) are found in the salt marshes and furbearers (muskrat, red fox, raccoon, mink, weasels, river otter and beaver) are abundant in the ripar- ian habitat associated with the estuary. Black-tailed deer, Roosevelt elk, and black bear are generally peripheral to the estuary but use the shoreline, higher salt marshes and tidelands for occasional feeding. 3 4. Fish (see attach. 1, map 9 - Fisheries) a. Anadromous fishes. Anadromous fishes in Grays Harbor include spring and fall Chinook salmon (predominantly fall Chinook), coho salmon, chum salmon, steel head trout, searun cutthroat trout, Dolly Varden, shad and sturgeon. (1). Distribution of the species is strongly influenced by bottom type, estuary depth, salinity, season, and food organism availability .2 Map 9 identifies the major tributaries of importance within the study area. All anadromous species use the estuary as a migration route. Since the estuary is a trnsition zone between freshwater and saltwater, this is a zone of physio- logical adjustment important to survival. Some species such as fall Chinook and chum salmon may spend a considerable amount of rearing time in the estuary; food availability is particularly important for these species. Figures 18 through 20 list the various migration times of the species. Figure 21 shows both the outmigration times and relative abundance of four of the species. 111-16 0) (0 ■o r-» LU CD s to (0 c o rH p h* CD bo to n) rH -p fl ■a ^ cd H o 0 fl o E CD o c o o •p 1 -p 1 o Eh co 1 X 10 M M o > cd O X to •d 9 >> •H 0) 8 o 1 * O O CD fl Pi to ■P 3 O rH * o rH P to CD >> 1 H 5 > P H § o H o nJ s p «! CD CO tH X o u 3= •k • s CD % w a o % +> X • CO CD P S O CD rH to ed to to P CD rH O -P ■rl 9 fl) X s p •d • C i CD 0) ri s i 3 i 4) •H H b0 p p •d ccj CD g P rH Xt P «J § nJ fl) s to 1 1 P O § 17 o -P c 1 u o H O to CD ft 3 < CD 6 H 1 nj -p bD P H 1 1 J>J CD H X CD £ M s -P to P O CD fl) X H Jd cd CD S •H rH ft M < K< flj •p rH CD CD P CD CO 5 X w H O s CD H X o CD to o d 03 tf to CD •H p° CD O P e fr X 1 O X 10 fl) X X fl § CD M O P cd S X CO g, c P a) * CD rH c "9 CI) CS P u o p w 1 o o rH jc 3 CD o ed H ft rH CD CD i cd 3 M p to u o o eg > 1 c to o ^1 i 15 t? 1 X to 43 •H X 5 X w ^ d •P w , x > X d O Pi CD o •H p e o o H C-J CD bD c CD y s CD CD CD s d -p -P CD c^ X O ■H -P p rH X ■d fl) Pi p CD m w H -p • ■. cd bD M &. U T) C £ o O to p e CD 5 rH cd CO £ 8 p o O o r-H w rH * fl CD bD & n o & 1 CD d H3 d CD o X w CD bD o p fl ft 1 to c ■8 * © Pi U X ii CD :« P p U bD P rH •H +J -d B B to o IT bO d to rH o c r8 3 o CO o o c O •8 d ■h * CD ft >> c3 H " •H CD P rH to I 1! cl CO fl rH to § 'rT rH X c^ s 95 •H to § C o 55 rH p° Q 'P «. ■H M CD to •ri M CO g, e "^ X CD fO «* T) CI) x rH • •H p P H | | C X p M o 0- O X H to P CD to X • S P o 3 s> W ■K £ t cd CD CD o CD o H O ^z f •a 3 CD * C > fl t nJ P rl o X CD W £ M to b0 d o -P rH CD c CO o d >> d rH & O) •H ft -A ) n3 S- CD O >> i- O -t-> CO •( — in CD > *l — H-> CD CD Q. S- r^- oo r— # , CD a S- Z3 o oo 111-17 SPECIES AHD LIFE HISTORY STAGES RANGE AHD PEAKS OF OCCURRENCE ACTrVTTT chinook salmon: sprdo-ruh adults and jacks 1 UPSTREAM PISH PASSAGE CHINOOK 1ALM0H: 8FRIB3-RUH JUVENILES (TKAKLLHOS) DOWNSTREAM FISH PASSAGE ■■..,. ■■.■: \ canaooK salmon: FALL-RUN ADULTS AID JACKS UPSTREAM n3H PASSAGE ; CHDIOOK SALMON: FALL-RUI JUVENILES (FDCKHLIHOS) DOWNSTREAM PISH PASSAGE AHD ESTUARY REARING ^y^'y^^ CHUM SALMON: ADULTS UPSTREAM PI3H PASSAGE CHIM SALMON: juveniles (nor) D0WHSTK8AM PISH PASSAGE AHD ESTUARY REARED COHO SAIMOH: ADULTS AHD JACKS UPSTREAM PI8H PASSAGE :•:•: COHO SAIXOH: JUVENILES (TEAHLDOS) DOWNSTREAM Plflfl PAS3ACH MOUTH JAI. 7ZB MAR APR. MAI Jim JULT AUG. 3Kpr, OCT. ■or. DK. M H T H Figure 18. life history stages and range and peaks of occurrence of chlnook. chum and coho salmon In Grays Harbor, (Deschamps, 1970). 3P&CKS AHD LITE HISTORY STAGS RANOE AHD PEAK OF OCCURRENCE ACTIVITY STEELHEAD: ADULTS AHD JACKS 1 UPSTREAM FISH PASSAGE STEELHEAD: KELTS DOWNSTREAM FISH PASSAGE (SPAWROUTS) STEELHEAD: JUVENILES DOWNSTREAM FISH PASSAGE CUTTHROAT: ADULTS (SEE TEXT) UPSTREAM FISH PASSAGE DOWNSTREAM FISH PASSAGE AKD ESTUARY REARING CUTTHROAT: KELTS CUTTHROAT: JUVENILES D0WH3TREAM FISH PASSAGE AHD ESTUARY REARING WHITE STURGEON: ADULTS AHD JUVENILES FISH PASSAGE AHD ESTUARY REARING '.■.".V.V. | OREEH STURGEON: ADULTS AHD JUVSHTLBS BSTUAHY REARDC ! M R T H JAR. FEB. MAR. APR KAY JUNE JULY] AUG SEPT OCT. HOV DEC. MONTH Figure! 9. Life history stages and range and peaks of occurrence of steelhead, cutthroat and sturgeon 1n Grays Harbor. 111-18 SPECIES AND LITE HISTORY STAGE RANOE AND PEAK OK OCCURRENCE ACTIVTTT AMERICA*! SHAD: ADULTS 1 UPSTREAM FISH PASSAGE vX-Xj-lv:-' AMERICAN SHAD: YEAHLING JUVENILES AND SUB ADULTS ESTUARY REARTNG VARIABLE AMERICAN SHAD: PRY JUVENILES DOWNSTREAM MIGRATION AND ESTUARY REARING 1 ENGLISH SOLE: JUVENILES ESTUARY REARING ;i 1 STARRY FLOUNDER: ADULTS AND JUVENILES ESTUARY REARING SAND SOLE: ADULTS AND JUVENILES ESTUAKY REARING DUNOENZSS CRAB: JUVENILES ESTUAKY RKARINO ;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;. i:5:;S;:i:i: i 1 80PT8HILL (MUD) CLAM: ADULTS AND JUVENILES ENTIRE LITE CYCLE PRESENT ALL YEAR MONTH JAN. FEB. MAR APR. MAT OCT. DEC MONTH JUNE JULI AUG. JKPT, NOV, F1gure20 Llfe history staties and range and peak of occurrence of shad, flounder and shellfish In Grays Harbor. o 2 < Q Z CO < Chum Salmon MA* MAY JUNE DATE Figure 2 1 . Outmigration periods of chum, chinook and coho salmon, and steelhead trout in Grays Harbor, Washington, March October 1980((from Siminstad 1981). Type II ■ migrates out of Grays Harbor Type III portion of the population that remains within the estuary through October 111-19 (2). The salmon runs require areas sheltered from predators for rearing, resting and feeding during passage, and food produced by the natural aquatic environment. The essential aspects of the aquatic environment consist of three types of areas. (a). Areas below tidal influences; the fish passage and the most essential part of the fish habitat. (b). Intertidal areas; areas between low and high tide. These areas are highly productive of marine organisms, especially the benthic fauna which are the base of the food web. These areas also afford juvenile fish food and shelter at higher tides. (c). Marsh area; these areas are populated by aquatic grasses and related plants and are a source of insect larvae which are food for fishes. While all aquatic/wetland areas are important, some of these areas have been considered particularly significant by resource personnel who participated in the planning process. Areas which are considered particularly important include: (d). The shallow areas on the Hoquiam waterfront where juvenile salmon and other fish have the opportunity to rest and feed during their passage up the Chehalis estuary to spawn. (e). The Hoquiam Fish Base. Of the shallow areas for fish feeding and passage, the old "Hoquiam Fish Base" is considered particularly important. (f). The South Side Marsh. A remaining stretch of marsh on the south side of the Chehalis River provides essential nutrients for this stretch of the estuary and is considered to be needed to maintain the productive base of this part of the ecological system. Shallows near this marsh also give opportunities for fish resting and feeding. (g). The riparian marsh vegetation and related shallow areas on the Chehalis River. Riparian vegetation is defined as plants found adjacent to and dependent on river water for growth and development. As the river narrows through Junction City and Cosmopolis, the shallow areas and the riparian marsh fringe on the east bank become particularly important to support the fish passage. (3). Shad is an introduced species brought from the Atlantic Coast in the late 1800' s. Two species of sturgeon are found in Grays Harbor: the green sturgeon ( Acipenser medirostris ) and the white sturgeon ( A. trans- moutanus ). The white sturgeon is more abundant in the upper estuary and lower Chehalis River and the green sturgeon dominates-in the lower estuary and more marine waters. 111-20 b. Marine and Estuarine Fishes. (1). Flat Fishes. The most abundant flat fishes in Grays Harbor are the starry flounder, juvenile sand sole and English sole and a variety of small flat fishes such as sand dabs. The broad mudflat areas in the lower and mid-portions provide extensive feeding and rearing grounds for the juveniles of commercially important flat fishes, such as the English sole. Flat fishes also feed upon insect larvae produced in marshes adjacent to tideflats. However. English sole and starry flounder are present in all areas of the estuary. 2 Some portion of the population of these two species rear in the estuary. (2). Marine sport fish. "Surf Perches," ling cod, rockfish and green! ing are resident in the lower estuary throughout the year and are associ- ated with marine structures such as rock jetties and pilings. (3). Smelt and Herring. Smelt and herring-like fishes occur in lower Grays Harbor throughout the year. "Anchovies" feed in the lower bay and are an important part of the tuna bait-seine fishery. "Herring" are known to spawn in the lower harbor during the winter and early spring months in areas of rocks, pilings, and aquatic vegetation. 5. Invertebrates a. Shellfish. (1). Oysters. Pacific oysters ( Crassostrea gigas ) are cultivated in outer Grays Harbor, principally near Whitcomb Flats, and in North and South Bays .^ They require a very high level of water quality, feeding primarily on plankton in the water. (2). Clams. Both hard-shell and soft-shell clams occur in Grays Harbor, although gravelly habitat for hard-shelled clams is limited. Hard-shell clams are comprised of cockles, Washington butter clams and little-neck clams. Soft-shelled clams ( Mya arenaris ) are commonly called mud clams. Other small clams found in the bay contribute significantly as food for waterfowl. (3). Crabs. Dungeness crab (Cancer magister ) forms an important part of the commercial shellfish landings in Grays Harbor. The crabs utilize the estuary mainly as a rearing area and are generally found in the channels and sink holes but move on to the tidal flats to feed at high tide. Juvenile crabs feed and rear throughout the bay at all seasons of the year. (4). Shrimp. Ghost shrimp ( Callianassa californiensis ) is a tube-dwelling shrimp that burrows in the sand, is used for bait and causes losses to the oyster industry because they destroy the firmer substrate needed by the oysters. Other shrimp include mud shrimp, Gray shrimp and various species of free-swimming shrimp. b. Benthic Invertebrates. The broad tidal flats produce a great abundance of small bottom dwelling organisms which are not commercially impor- tant but are very significant to estuarine ecology as a basic food source to higher organisms in the food web and are also of scientific and educational value. It is these organisms that provide a basic link between the plant and organic matter transmitted to the bay from the marshes and rivers. 111-21 (1). The three most frequently encountered amphipods in Grays Harbor are Corophium salmonis , Anisogammarus confervicolous , and an Eohaustor- ious species. C. salmonis appears to be the most numerous benthic macro- organism found in the inner harbor and midharbor flats and intertidal areas and is a major prey species for numerous organisms (see figure 22). The role of C. salmonis vis-a-vis shorebirds is more thoroughly described in appendix C. (2). A. confervicolous is important in the high intertidal areas of the inner harbor, and Eohaustorious is the most numerous in the outer harbor. A cumacean, Leptochelia savignyei , appears to be the numerically dominant organism in parts of the outer harbor. Another cumacean, a Diastylis species, is found at Whitcomb Flats and is the most numerous organism in both the North and South Channels. Capitellid polychaete worms (Heteromastus filiformis ) are also present through the harbor as is the annelid worm ( Manayunkia aestuarina ) (from studies conducted by Albright and Bouthillette, 1982).s"ll (3). Regarding intertidal invertebrates, some generalities as stated by Albright and Bouthillette (1982) include: species diversity increased with decreasing elevation, from the inner to the outer harbor; general abundance of invertebrates was highest in summer and lowest in spring; when epifauna are excluded, invertebrate biomass was highest in spring and lowest in summer; annelid worms were the most important group, by number, at e\tery site studied. Generalities including subtidal invertebrates include: diversity increases from east to west; diversity is lowest in spring and highest in autumn; and, total biomass is highest in winter and lowest in summer. FIGURE 2? WMUrn Sandpiper Eogammarua Juv. Salmon Long -billed Dowitcher Starry Flounder Dunlin Shiner Fsrch English Sole Snake Prlcklebeck Three- spine Stickleback Dungeness Crab Crangon Longfin Smelt Nemetean Worms Source: Albright and Armstrong (1982) 111-22 6. Threatened and Endangered Species a. Flora. No threatened or endangered species of plants are known to occur in the Grays Harbor study area. b. Marine Animals. (1). Of the eight marine animals which are found in the eastern North Pacific Ocean at some time in the year, and are listed as endangered, only the gray whale ( Eschrichtius robustus ) has been known to stray into the inner areas of Grays Harbor during northbound or southbound migration periods. 2 (2). All marine mammals are protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-522). Harbor seals ( Phoca vitulina richardi ) are the most common and utilize the outer harbor islands and flats. Other marine mammals known to make at least occasional excursions into the estuary are the Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus ), porpoises and dolphins. 2 c. Avian Fauna. (1). American Peregrine Falcon. The recorded sitings of the American peregrine falcon ( Falco peregrinus anatum ) are sufficiently complete to confirm the presence of the endangered species in the Grays Harbor area (see appendix C). Previous sitings were generally thought to be the Peale's variety (F. p. pealei ) which generally inhabits coastal areas. Areas in which falcons (without respect to subspecies) have been sited include: o Oyehut Wildlife Recreation area, o Point Damon, o North Bay and the Humptulips River Delta, o Point New, o Bowerman Basin (most abundant sitings), o Rennie Island o South Bay and Elk River. In addition, Dr. Steven G. Herman, a noted bird expert who has studied shore- birds and falcons in the Grays Harbor area for an extended period of time, has stated that his observations strongly suggest that arctic peregrines ( F. p. tundrius ) may also migrate in small numbers through Grays Harbor during spring migration of the shorebirds.10 No specific identification has been made to date however. Because anatum has been specifically identified hunting upon the large shorebird populations in the Bowerman Basin which was designated for development, OCRM has conducted Section 7 (Endangered Species Act) consul- tation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see appendix C). (2). Bald Eagle. The norther race of the bald eagle ( Haliaeetus leucocephalus alascanus ) is regularly sited in Grays Harbor. They have been sited preying upon waterfowl and shorebirds but normally feed upon salmon and fish species. 111-23 (3). Brown Pelican. Palecanus occidental is has been sited at the mouth of Grays Harbor. Grays Harbor is near the northern range limit of the brown pelican. (4). Snowy Plover ( Charadrius alexandrius nivosus ). The snowy plover is a candidate species to be added to the Endangered Species List. There are only a few nesting pairs which have been observed on Damon Point. d. Other Species of Concern. (1). Caspian Tern. Whitcomb Island contains the largest identi- fied colony of Caspian Terns on the west coast. (2). Great Blue Heron. (3). Brant. (4). Olumpic Mudminnow. (5). Black Stickleback. (6). Short-tailed Weasel. SOURCES: Sections C & D 1. Vincent, Mary K., Habitat Development Field Investigations, Rennie Island Marsh Development Site Grays Harbor, WA , Corps of Engineers, 1978. 2. Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, Grays Harbor, Chehalis and Hoquiam Rivers, Washington - Channel Improvements for Navigation , "Interim Feasi- bility Report and Final Environmental Impact Statement," 1982. 3. Montaigne-Bierly Associates, Grays Harbor Estuary Management Program , "Phase I Technical Memoranda," 1977. 4. Norman Associates, Grays Harbor Erosion Management Study , prepared for the Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission, 1974. 5. Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, Long-Range Maintenance Dredging Program , FEISS No. 2, 1980. 6. Opdyke, Jeffrey D. , Final Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report , "Grays Harbor, Chehalis and Hoquiam River, Washington," U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sept. 1982. 7. Miller, G.H., Eel grass Distribution, Density, Leaf Length and Standing Stock in Grays Harbor , Seattle District Corps of Engineers, DACW 67-77-M- 1240, 1977. 111-24 8. Thorn, Ronald M., Primary Productivity and Carbon Input to Grays Harbor Estuary, Washington . Prepared tor Seattle n-Utr-irt r^ nf Fnginccrc, bCl . 9. Smith, J.D. and D.R. Mudd, Grays Harbor Maintenance Dreoqmu and the tnvi- ronment Appendix H. Impacts ot Dredging on th e Aviana Fauna in Grays Harbor. Seattle District Corps of Engineers, 1976. 10. Herman, S.G. and J.B. Bulger, The Distribution and Abundanc e of Shorebirds During the 1981 Spri ng Migration at Grays Harbor, Washingto n. Prepared for Seattle District Corps ot Engineers, 1981. " L 11. Albright, R , and P.K. Bouthilette, Benthic Invertebrate Studies in Grays Harbor, Was hington, Prepared for Seattle District Corps ot Engineers, 1982. 111-25 E. Socioeconomic Environment 1. Grays Harbor has a natural resource economy based on harvest, manu- facture and/or export of products derived from natural production. Forestry, commercial fishing, tourism, and agriculture comprise the economic base of the region. Because of seasonal employment characteristics in these economic sectors, the area has chronically high levels of unemployment, significantly higher than State and national averages. 2. The Hoquiam, Aberdeen, and Cosmopolis areas in the upper bay com- prise the major urban and industrial locations in the study area. Timber and timber products processing and shipping facilities are located in this region of the bay. Grays Harbor is a major shipping port for timber products to national and international markets. In 1980, 498.2 million board feet (Scribner Scale) of logs were exported. 1 Grays Harbor is Washington's only Pacific Coast deep water port. In 1982 approximately 2.4 million tons of imports and exports of water borne foreign and domestic commerce occurred in the harbor. 2 The estuary has had an authorized and maintained navigation channel since 1906, and has historically been a major shipping port for forest products. The currently proposed deepening of the 30 foot channel to Cosmopo- lis to a depth of 38 feet will require an initial disposal of approximately 19 million cubic yards of material and an annual maintenance dredging of 2.8 million cubic yards. The proposed new channel will accommodate the larger and deeper draft vessels being used in the international market place. The GHEMP calls for the preparation of a Dredged Material Disposal Plan to be compatible with the approved plan. 3. Westport is the commercial and sport fishing center of the Grays Harbor area, and because of its proximity to the deep draft navigation channel it has potential to expand into deep draft activities. Ocean Shores is a tourism, retirement, and suburban area. 4. Grays Harbor County had a 1980 population of 66,314 (U.S. Bureau of the Census). This is estimated to have declined to 66,100 in April 1982 (Office of Financial Management, State of Washington). The population of Grays Harbor County declined from 1930 to 1940, then rose slowly to the 1980 level with 1980 being the first year to exceed the 1930 population. The county population increased by 11.4% in the 1970's. While the forest industry has fluctuated with national and international markets, the tourism industry has generally expanded. The population of Westport and Ocean Shores went from about 300 in 1930 to 3,908 in 1982. While growth in the urban areas of Aberdeen, Hoquiam, and Cosmopolis increased after World War II, this area has declined in popula- tion by almost 18% from 1930 to 1982. 5. Although less densely populated areas such as Grays Harbor have become increasingly attractive to urbanites seeking homes with more open space, the area's lack of job opportunities has been a major contributor to its lack of population growth. 6. Five incorporated communities are located around Grays Harbor, (see table 6). 111-26 TABLE 6 POPULATIONS BORDERING GRAYS HARBOR: 1982 Grays Harbor County Aberdeen Hoquiam Cosmopolis Westport Ocean Shores 66,100* 18,550 9,490 1,570 1,990 1,918 Source: Washi ngton State Office o1 F Financial Mc magement. *This figure is a total Grays Harbor County population figure and not the unincorporated population which abuts the estuary. The population of the unincorporated areas which borders the estuary is about 4,000, the largest portion being in the Central Park area. Each of the incorporated communities is expected to have a modest growth rate during the next decade (see table 7). TABLE 7 POPULATION PROJECTIONS: 1990 Grays Harbor County Aberdeen Hoquiam Cosmopolis Westport Ocean Shores 72,865 19,520 11,039 2,052 2,485 2,969 Source: Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission. 7. The dominant land use in Grays Harbor is forestry (see attach. 1 , map 1 , Existing Land Use). Over 90 percent of the county is timberland. 3 Agriculture and pasture lands make up approximately three percent of the county's land. 4 The remainder is utilized for industrial, commercial, residential, and recrea- tional uses. 8. Approximately 1,070,000 acres (87.5%) of Grays Harbor County was classified as forest land capable of producing 20 cubic feet per acre per year of industrial wood and available for timber production in 1980. 3 The National Forest comprises 34% of the public timberland (12% of the total timberland) and 78% of the private ownership is controlled by the forest industry (about 50% of the total timberland) (see table 8). Nearly all this land is under some form of management program. In the to the shoreline as on the south shore, percent of the front footage along the Cosmopolis area, using this footage for mill (see Attach. I, Map 2, Land Ownership). TABLE 8 ' 01" estuary area, timber use may extend Timber interests also own about 62 water within the Aberdeen-Hoquiam- sites and for shipping facilities TIMBERLAND OWNERSHIP PUBLIC PRIVATE Ownership Class Thousand Acres Ownership Class Thousand Acres National Forest 131 Forestry Industry* 533 14 Indian 127 Fanner Other Federal 1 Miscellaneous 139 State 76 County and Municipal 50 TOTAL 385 686 Source: Timber Resource Statistics for the Olympic Peninsula . 3 *Major corporate owners include ITT-Rayonier, Weyerhaeuser, Boise-Cascade, Simpson Lumber Company, and Mayr Brothers. 1 11-27 9. Forest products constitute one of the major industries in the State of Washington. This industry produces lumber and wood products, and paper and allied products. The forest products industry has historically been the major source of employment in Grays Harbor County. In 1975, 83% of all manufacturin jobs and over 28% of the total employment were in these employment sectors. In 1981, 83% of all manufacturing jobs and approximately 23% of the total employment were in these sectors. 5 This later figure reflects an increase in total employment caused by the Satsop Nuclear Power Project and its large temporary construction work force in Eastern Grays Harbor County and a general recession in the timber industry. 10. The historical dependence upon the forest industry has also produced fluctuating employment levels with unemployment rates generally exceeding State and national rates. During the first six months of 1982, the unemploy- ment rate in Grays Harbor was 16.4% compared to the State rate of 12.4% (see table 9). 6 Approximately 41% of the total persons receiving unemployment benefits in Grays Harbor County were in the logging, lumber, pulp, and paper sectors. 7 To combat this heavy dependence on these employment sectors, the need for diversification of the economic base of Grays Harbor was identified as early as 1961 and has been a priority goal in every Overall Annual Economic Development Program since that time.8 TABLE 9 AVERAGE ANNUAL UNEMPLOYMENT GRAYS HARI 1972-1982 Percent of Grays Harbor County Percent of State National Labor Number of Percent Labor Force Force YEAR Unemployed Unemployed Unemployed Unemployed 1972 2,370 9.4 9.5 5.6 1973 2,320 8.9 7.9 4.9 1974 2,413 9.3 7.1 5.6 1975 3,156 12.4 9.6 8.5 1976 2,107 8.0 8.6 7.7 1977 2,656 9.6 8.8 7.0 1978 2,310 8.0 6.8 6.0 1979 2,770 8.7 6.8 5.8 1980 3,326 10.3 7.5 7.1 1981 4,709 13.9 9.2 7.6 9/1982 4,520 13.2 11.1 9.7 Source: Washington State Department of Employment Security and U.S. Department of Labor. 11. Commercial fishing is also a major contributor to the area's economy. Grays Harbor supports large populations of fish and wildlife which are the basis for the commercial fishery and a significant proportion of the tourism economic sector. Westport ranked among the top 40 ports in the country in 111-28 poundage and values of commercial fisheries products landed in the United States in 1981. 9 Approximately 16% of the gross tonnage of all commercial boats in Washington were Grays Harbor boats, and about 3.2% of the total State net fishery for 5 species of salmon were landed near Grays Harbor in 1981.9 In 1982, preliminary figures indicate that approximately 52% of Washington's commercial troll salmon fish was caught in the ocean area near Grays Harbor. 10 Other than anadromous fish, landings in Grays Harbor include salmon eggs, shad, and sturgeon totaling about 36,000 lbs. in 1981 .9 Other major marine fish landings include sole, halibut, and cod. The major processing and landing facilities are at Westport. The major oyster processing plants are in South Bay, though oyster rearing occurs in both the South and North Bays. Approxi- mately 73,000 gallons or 11% of the total oysters produced in Washington State were from the Grays Harbor area in 1981 .9 Other shell fish harvested include crab, shrimp, and clams (see Attach. I, Map 10, Natural Resource Use). 12. Tourism, Parks and Recreation. a. Tourism is directly related to the esthetic characteristics of the ocean and to other regional attractions. Ocean marine angler trips (charter boats, salmon fishing) from Grays Harbor accounted for over 50% of the yearly Washington State total in 1982*0 and represent an influx of about $9 million to the local economy in direct revenues. H Waterfowl hunting is concentrated in the North Bay, South Bay and Chehalis River areas, and fishing for salmon and other species in the streams tributary to the estuary represents a signi- ficant portion of the total tourist dollar flow. The estuary is also exten- sively used for non-consumptive wildlife viewing, especially bird watching, due to the excellent opportunity available to observe a wide variety of birds. This viewing has been estimated, by fish and game biologists, to equal the hunting activity (in total man-days) in the bay (see figure 23 for sites). Humptulips River Grays Harbor Estuary Management Program 1 2 3 Montagne-Bierly Associates, Inc. scale (nautical miles) Chehalis River Cosmopolis Non-consumptive Resource Use f§§j|> Areas Used For Wildlife Observations FIGURE 2 3 111-29 b. The major public recreation facilities in the study area itself include the Westport and Ocean Shores Marinas, several public boat ramps, and over 3,000 acres of managed wildlife areas. Significant State parks are found along the ocean beaches where demand for such facilities is considerably higher than in the estuary itself. There are two water oriented lake parks which provide a full range of water recreation near the estuary at Lake Aberdeen (a city park) and Lake Sylvia (a State park). The GHEMP contemplates the development of a waterfront park in Aberdeen. c. The estuary and surroundings have significant aesthetic values which are detailed in An Interpretive Survey of the Grays Harbor Area . 13. Agriculture also contributes to the regional economic base. The two most significant agricultural producers are the cranberry bogs near Grayland and North Bay and dairy farming. The Pacific Northwest's only cranberry process- ing plant is located at Ocosta in the southwest part of the Central Bay area. County land utilized for agriculture totaled approximately 50,000 acres in 19783 Agricultural uses within the estuary study area are limited to about 92 acres of cranberry bogs on the North Bay, approximately 900 acres of farm- land west of Montesano, and about 100 acres of pasture in the Ocosta area. Due to favorable soil conditions, most of the county's farmland extends east and south from Montesano. 14. The future of Grays Harbor will depend upon maintenance of employ- ment levels in these four major industries. Expansion in any one area will be bounded somewhat by serious environmental considerations, but a balance must be sought between economic growth in these four sectors and environmental management and protection of the estuary as an essentially fragile resource. Future land use decisions in the area will inevitably be tied to this need for balance. Both economic improvement and environmental protection can and must be pursued simultaneously as twin land use goals of paramount importance to Grays Harbor. 15. The impacts, use, and development in and adjacent to the estuary are controlled by a complex set of laws and regulations (see Attach. I, Map 3, Jurisdiction and Boundaries). Local jurisdictions regulate land uses through planning and zoning ordinances. The State of Washington Shoreline Management Act, State Environmental Protection Act, and other State laws regulate land use, natural resource management, harvest, and environmental quality. Federal resource protection, management and environmental laws regulate shore! and and waterway alteration. The coordination of these three levels of government control (State, local, and Federal) toward commonly agreed-upon goals is the major objective of the GHEMP. 16. Transportation and Utilities. (See attach. 1, maps 4 & 5) a. Air. The estuary is currently served by three public airports, two of which are located in the study area. Two of the public airports, West- port and Ocean Shores, are inadequate to serve the communities, especially for their tourism role. The Bowerman Airfield serves as the regional airport. 111-30 b. Rail. The area is served by two rail lines which generally abut the shoreline of the estuary for extensive distances, and for large distances in the lesser developed area the lines form artificial barriers between the aquatic and upland environments. Therefore, the rail lines are generally used as the study boundary lines for the plan. c. Road. Traffic circulation through Aberdeen-Hoquiam is currently a problem with minimal separation of industrial, local and through traffic on the congested urban arterial s. Both Ocean Shores and Westport generate high volumes of weekend and summer tourist traffic with a high portion of the traffic consisting of slow moving recreational vehicles and trailers. Port industrial areas generate large volumes of log truck traffic as do the commer- cial centers. d. Utilities. There is sufficient water, sewer and energy capacity to service anticipated future growth in the Aberdeen-Hoquiam-Cosmopolis area. SOURCES: Section E 1. U.S.D.A., Ruderman, Florence K. "Production, Prices, Employment, and Trade in Northwest Forest Industries, Fourth Quarter, 1981." May 1982. 2. Port of Grays Harbor, "Annual Report-1981 ." 3. U.S.D.A., Bassett, P.M. and Oswald, D.D. "Timber Resource Statistics for the Olympia Peninsula, Washington, "Resource Bulletin PNW-43," November 1981. 4. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, "1978 Census of Agricul- ture, Vol . 1 State and County Data, Port 47 Washington," AC78-A-47. 5. Washington State Employment Security Dept., Nonagriculture Wage & Salary Workers, by place of work. 6. Washington State Employment Security Department, Resident Civilian Labor Force and Employment, by Place of Residence. 7. Washington State Employment Security Department, Insured Unemployed by Standard Industrial Sector by Job Service Center. 8. Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission, "Overall Economic Development Program for Grays Harbor County, Washington," Aberdeen, WA, June 1979. 9. Washington Department of Fisheries, "1981 Fisheries Statistical Report," Olympia, WA. 10. Washington State Department of Fisheries, "Washington Ocean Salmon Catch Summaries," 12/19/82, Preliminary. 11. Washington State Research Council, "The Washington State Visitor Industry: Economic Impacts and Data Base Development," May 1982, and Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission, "Grays Harbor Tourism Plan," March 1983 111-31 PART IV: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES PART IV: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES A. INTRODUCTION 1. This part discusses and analyzes impacts expected to occur to the Grays Harbor environment due to plan implementation and impacts associated with alternatives. Even though this is a program EIS which addresses impacts on a generic scale, it also attempts to be specific in some areas where those impacts can reasonably be expected to occur. Further specific impacts (i.e., air and water quality) associated with a specific use or activity can only be analyzed on a case-by-case basis and will have to await review at the point of permit application. Because of the commitment to utilize the plan by the various regulatory and resource agencies, it is important to have an overall understand- ing of the potential impacts which will be associated with the fulfillment of the MU designations, whether or not they occur in reality. 2. There are two assumptions made in this analysis of impacts. First, the impacts are considered within the framework of a comprehensive plan for the estuary in which the concept of a balance was considered to include tradeoff between resource use and protection. Second, GHEMP does more than just modify existing local SMP's as described earlier in this statement (Part I); neverthe- less, land and water use activities are currently taking place which may be similar in nature to those envisioned by the plan because they are consistent and permitted by existing local SMP's. Thus some impacts would be expected to occur to estuarine resources irrespective of plan implementation. Therefore, the major focus of concern deals with MU 12 - the Bowerman Basin - and the impacts associated with future port expansion in an estuarine area which has been identified as significant to migratory shorebirds and peregrine falcons. 3. Perhaps the major caveat which should be remembered is that the "plan is designed to provide guidance to the decisionmaking process, it does not make decisions itself" (GHEMP, p. 6). In short, what one reads or envisions may not be what actually takes place since that will be a function of future requests for development. To the extent that activities are consistent with the plan, this EIS should be useful in the assessment of those activities. B. ELEMENTS OF THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT -• Earth a. Geology, Soils and Topography. If implemented, the plan would allow some alterations of the shoreline and wetlands through fill while limiting fill in other sections especially in existing urban areas. Some areas, notably a section of the Bowerman Basin, would be raised and leveled from existing con- tours. Topography would change at Westport Marina and Airport, Ocean Shores Marina and Airport, and proposed industrial sites at MU's 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 25, and 26. Marine structures and works permitted in the plan may also alter the geomorphic processes of erosion and sedimentation by altering the local hydraulics of the system. From a geologic perspective, these influences are expected to be minor. The plan protects soils which are conducive to agricultural practices in North Bay (MU 8) and the Chehalis River (MU 22). Dredge spoil displaces bottom sediments as new soil for purposes of fill or marsh habitat creation. IV-1 b. Unique Physical Features. The Bowerman Peninsula is a unique man-made physical feature. The western toe of the peninsula would be extended westward under the first phase of development (Area 2) and northward under the second phase of development (Area 3). Minor alterations to Rennie Island (MU 43) will continue through the additions of dredged materials disposal for a short term. 34, 41 , and Few, if any, alterations are permitted to occur in MU's 2, 3, 29, 42. c. Erosion. Erosion and siltation from upland sources are not ad- dressed in the plan. Shoreline erosion mitigation to both man-made and natural features through both physical and natural means can be expected to be minimized through the policy on Bankline Erosion Control. The plan specifically limits areas in which erosion control measures can be taken and only under specific criteria and standards applied in the policy ( GHEMP , p. 24). Some form of bankline erosion control would be permitted in the following MU's: 5 ermitted Conditional I special UD - 11, 14, 15, 18, 26, 28 25 UM - 4, 16, 17, 39 37, 38 6, 33, 35 UR - 21 5 RL - 9, 10, 23, 27 30, 32, 36 RA - 22 31 8 CM - 1, 40 26, 43 3, 24, 28, 33, 35 CN - 30, 38 SP - 12, 19 Each MU was reviewed for it assets, purpose for erosion control and potential adverse impacts. Given the conditions put into the policy, it is believed the environmental consequences of the implementation of the policy for permitted activities will be minima] both individually and cumulatively to the natural environment and is designed mainly to protect public works (e.g., roads and bridges), private property and natural resources. Implementation of the policy in other areas may be deemed potentially significant and activities are there- fore considered as conditional or special uses requiring extra review for impacts (e.g., see MU's 5 and 6 which allow erosion control measures only out to the waterward limit of residential lots). The effect of the plan's imple- mentation will be to reduce shoreline erosion, including the reduction of sus- pended particles and toxic materials from runoff; remove debris and solid waste build-up; and in some cases lead to revegetation of the bankline. Adverse impacts could include the modification of fish and shorebird habitat, although implementation of the policy would ensure minimal adverse effects. Major erosion impacts, however, occur outside the plan area in the upper reaches of estuary is mainly an accreting area, it is not ex- many erosion stabilization projects proposed outside or the entrance of the harbor based upon past exper- (COE, personal communication, 1982). the watershed. Since the pected that there will be of the urban environments ience for permit requests. d. Accretion/Avulsion. Marine structures and works can be expected to create minor modifications to the hyraulic regime through accretion (build- up) or avulsion (wearing away). The major areas which might have such impacts are located in the upper estuary (MU's 15, 16, 17, 18, 25, and 26) and near the mouth of the estuary (MU's 1 and 40). IV-2 2. Ai_r a. Air Quality. Although the plan does not specifically address air quality concerns, effects of two types might be projected if the plan were implemented. (1). Since the plan provides increased areas for industrial uses near Bowerman Field, on South Shore and other areas, such uses could result in increased pollutants both by direct emissions (industrial sites) and by in- creased traffic generation (including boats). The population is expected to grow as a result of economic development envisioned by the plan. Since direct emissions are rigidly controlled by the Olympic Air Pollution Authority, these impacts are not expected to be major or exceed safe levels. The Grays Harbor airshed does not currently have major air quality problems. The nature of any direct or indirect emissions would vary substantially by the specific type of use which would be developed in these areas. Air quality impacts from specific uses (such as those which might locate in MU 12, the Bowerman Basin) will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Since all other areas desig- nated as Urban are committed to such uses already, the plan represents almost no other impact on air quality in these areas. Improved airport facilities can be expected to induce greater utilization at Ocean Shores and Westport, thereby increasing the levels of airplane emissions entering the surrounding estuary. (2). Since the Rural, Conservancy and Natural designations would prohibit intensive use and tend to conserve vegetation, conservation of such areas as envisioned in the plan would tend to be beneficial to air quality and its shorelines. b. Odor. The impact of the plan on odor is largely similar to that of air quality, with actual impacts dependent upon the types of uses which would be developed. 3. Water a. Surface Water Movement. Since the plan permits some modification of aquatic areas, the plan would affect localized water movement. The most apparent way is by the displacement of water or intertidal area with upland wherever filling may be permitted, or by inhibiting tidal flushing. Such areas would be limited to: (1) Moon Island Tideflats and Bowerman Basin (MU 12). This area is flushed daily. Filling would not alter the predominant east-west tidal flow. Filling will provide a more sheltered area from wave attack with potenti- ally less sediment stirring (Dave Schuldt, Seattle Corps of Engineers, personal communication 3/83). (2) Port Slip (MU 15). (3) Westport Basin (MU's 38 & 39). (4) Aberdeen Park (MU 17). (5) Wherever bankline straightening is applied. (6) Wherever bankline erosion control is developed. IV-3 (7) Wherever activities may require some filling or diking. (8) Harbor entrance and navigation channel. These actions when taken either individually or cumulatively should not signifi- cantly alter estuarine circulation nor flushing. Channel improvements which have the greatest potential for altering surface water movements are neither permitted or prohibited by the plan (in MU 44) and are considered through existing procedures. The hydraulic alterations associated with the potential widening and deepening of the navigation channel are discussed in the Channel Improvements FEIS (Corps, 1982). b. Runoff /Absorption. Since the use designations of the plan are largely similar to existing patterns, the effect of the plan on runoff and absorption would be relatively minor. The most significant effects would occur in the utilization of Areas 2, 3 and 5 of MU 12 by various uses, and the infilling of vacant areas within designated Urban areas. Other significant areas would include the South Shore (MU 26) and Cosmopolis (MU 25). Naturally, the plan itself will not create growth but would allow it occur. The specific effect of future uses will depend on the particular design of such developments and would be evaluated during project submissions. c. Floods. While filling would reduce the natural capacity of the estuary to absorb flood waters, the amount of fill which would be permitted by this plan, coupled with the locations and configurations, would produce an imperceptible effect. No development is planned in any area designated as a floodway but some development in the Rural and Urban MU's would be located in the 100-year floodplain. The plan states that the South Aberdeen flood control project, which has been previously evaluated by the Corps of Engineers, is consistent with the plan (GHEMP , p. 80). This would reduce flood hazards in South Aberdeen and Cosmopolis. d. Surface Water Quantity. Implementation of the plan would reduce the tidal prism of the estuary wherever filling would be permitted. Such reduction, however, is limited by the plan to approximately 600 acres of the remaining 54,720-acre water surface at high tide (approximately 1.1 percent). e. Surface Water Quality. While implementation of the plan would tend to conserve water quality by protecting undeveloped areas of the bay from significant encroachment, the specific relationship of the plan to the water quality warrants specific analysis. (1). Impact of actions. (a). Bowerman Industrial Complex. The filling of Area 2 and 3 should have a short term adverse effect during construction on the water quality of the surrounding area of the estuary due to the regulation of disposal methods and the fact that the dredged material disposal would be confined behind dikes. The most adverse impacts would be associated with any dike failure (should that occur) during filling operations. Potential effects are temporary increases in turbidities, nutrient levels, toxic substance levels and decreases in dissolved oxygen and acidity (pH). State and Federal agencies monitor such filling to ensure compliance with water quality standards. Factors that influence the impact of filling are river flow, time of year, type of fill, method of fill, amount of fill and location of fill. Before the project IV-4 is started, all primary and secondary factors will be addressed to reduce the overall impact. Industrial development of these sites would lead to increased sewerage loads, both directly and indirectly. Since no new point discharge is expected, these loads would need to be accommodated in the municipal systems. The Hoquiam System has been reconstructed, and it is anticipated that capacity would be sufficient to accommodate future demands. Of potential concern will be the non-point discharges including storm water runoff which may dis- charge into the Bowerman Basin or into the navigation channel which may event- ually mix with tidal flows into the Basin. The degree of impact will depend on the type of uses to occupy the land and specific measures taken to minimize non-point discharges. (b). Modification of Port Slip. The modification of Port Slip No. 1 includes filling (20 acres) and redevelopment of the area. A tem- porary increase of suspended particles and a decrease in dissolved oxygen in the fish passage could result from the project. The Corps of Engineers has evaluated this proposed use of the site for dredged material disposal in rela- to the proposed channel improvements and determined that impacts of disposing of dredged material (some polluted) behind containments structures would not have significant adverse impacts and mitigation would not be required. (COE, Channel Improvements FEIS, 1982). (c). Marinas. The plan contemplates the future expansion of the Westport and Ocean Shores Marinas and the construction of the Aberdeen Park Marina. Marinas generally degrade water quality because they inhibit complete tidal flushing creating a decrease in dissolved oxygen levels, in- creases in toxic substances (oil based products) and flotsam. MU 4 permits only continued operation of maintenance of the existing outfall and no new outfall. MU 38 would permit marina expansion from MU 39 if better flushing would occur (GHEMP, p. 99). The GHEMP clearly demonstrates a sensitivity to water quality and marina maintenance and expansion. (d). Airports. Airport runways and particulates from air- craft exhaust may increase non-point sources of pollution through runoff into the surrounding aquatic areas. (e). Bankline Straightening. During construction, tempor- ary water quality problems may occur similar to other fill situations (i.e., increase in turbidity levels, reduced light penetration, addition of pollutants, increase in oxygen demand). Bankline straightening is permitted only in MU's 15, 16, and 17 and under special conditions in MU's 12, 18 and 25. This is in the already highly modified environment and in State Class B waters. The actions are limited to 2 acres in size which individually or cumulatively should not significantly impact water quality. Water quality to protect the fish migrations is important in this area. (f). Bankline Erosion. The Bankline Erosion policy is de- signed to reduce erosion and stabilize banklines. Some of the effects of reduced erosion are reduced suspended particles and toxic materials from runoff, and the removal of debris and solid waste build up. The long-term effect is expected to be a minor improvement in water quality (since this is a function of how many individuals or applicants utilize this provision of the plan). (h). Structures. Temporary reduction in water quality will result during construction of structures. Minor fills, use of heavy equipment, and realignment of the shoreline will increase suspended particles, and reduce dissolved oxygen levels. After the construction is complete, water quality will return to near normal conditions. IV-5 (i). Mineral Extraction. No significant water quality problems are expected to take place as a result of aggregate mineral extraction. Exiting operations in MU 22 are monitored by State agencies to ensure suitable water conditions. New mineral extractions will be required to submit plans to State agencies. MU 44 policy states that aggregate extraction is conditionally permitted if water quality standards can be met, there are no adverse impacts on fish habitat or seasonal fish runs, and there are no alternative sources in the general urbanized inner harbor. (2). Management Categories (a). Urban. Urban Management categories (i.e., UD, UM and UR) contribute most of the pollutants entering the estuary. Heavy industry, municipal uses, non-point out-flows and ground seepage are major ways pollution enters the estuary (in addition to siltation). Plans have been implemented by local municipalities to meet water quality standards set by the Federal and State governments to improve the water conditions. Municipalities and private corporattions have made significant improvements to reduce point source efflu- ents entering the estuary. The Cities of Hoquiam, Aberdeen and Cosmopolis have completed development of separated sewage and storm drainage systems. Westport has developed a new sewer plant with an adequate capacity to handle future growth and additional fish processing plants. Ocean Shores is planning to expand its sewer system to reduce sewage outflows. At the present time it is impossible to determine the total effect or when some proposals are going to be implemented, but a general improvement in water quality is expected to occur. The major impact that the estuary plan has on these conditions is to specify limits to urbanization around the harbor. (b). Rural. The designation of rural categories (i.e., RL and RA) is not expected to affect water quality in the estuary. The type of pollutants entering the estuary will be leachates, fertilizers, surface runoff and erosion. The plan does not significantly alter existing conditions or problems but does reduce potential problems by restricting urban encroachments into these areas. (c). Conservancy. Conservancy categories (i.e., CM, CN and N) aid the natural biological water quality cleaning process. The conser- vancy categories are designed to preserve much of the natural habitat, micro- organisms and aquatic vegetation that aid in improving water quality. Further water quality concerns in the estuary and the tributary basin are specifically addressed in the Regional Water Quality Management Plan - Basin 22 , and the actions envisioned in this estuary plan are largely consistent with that plan. This Water Quality Management Plan is the basis of the State's 208 planning in this basin. f. Ground Water Movement and Quality. The affect of the actions and policies envisioned in the plan on ground water movement and quality would be relatively minor. h. Public Water Supplies. The impact of this plan on public water supplies would be to increase their use. The levels of development contem- plated in the plan can be supported by either existing or planned facilities. In the case of industrial and port development aspects of the plan such devel- opment is needed to utilize the existing industrial water system which is underutilized at this time. IV-6 C. ELEMENTS OF THE BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT 1 . General a. Future impacts associated with activities which may be consistent with the plan can be separated into two categories: first, impacts associated with dredged material disposal, filling and placement of structures; and second, land use activities which utilize the fill sites or structures. The major impacts of concern in the GHEMP will be due to the discharge of dredged and fill material in selected sites, behind confined dikes, to be used, when filled, for some form of land use activity (i.e., port, industry, transportation, etc.). b. The potential and actual impacts associated with dredged material disposal on aquatic habitats in Grays Harbor have been studied and discussed at length by previous investigators J The most significant adverse impact includes the direct loss of habitat through covering (or removal) which destroys vegeta- tion, smothers immobile organisms and forces mobile forms to migrate, alters substrate or destroys access to important feeding, nursery and resting areas temporarily (if subsurface disposal) or permanently (if uplands are created) leading to mortality or community disruption. With respect to the fringe areas of confined fill sites, the bulk and composition of the fill material and the location, method and timing of discharge may all influence the degree of impacts on the substrate. Other factors such as changes in normal water conditions (clarity, chemical content, nutrient balance, D.O., pH, temperature, salinity, current patterns, circulation and fluctuation) near the impacted site may also have direct or secondary effects on habitats increasing stress placed on the ecosystem or sub-element of the ecosystem. c. While Grays Harbor has a choice diversity of habitats, some appear to be more critical than others based upon biological productivity and utiliza- tion. It is important to protect the water and vegetative habitats in order to ensure there is no decline in the total diversity of the faunal and vege- tative species which inhabit the estuary or utilize it during migration periods even though there may be a decline in abundance of organisms utilizing parts of the estuary due to partial loss of habitat. d. GHEMP would allow, subject to further permit review when required, a number of projects which will produce local significant adverse environmental impacts. The plan also guarantees positive environmental impacts, which are discussed generally. Vast areas of relatively undeveloped shoreline, estuarine waters and habitat are protected from development either through MU designa- tions, conditions placed upon activities (including mitigation and enhancement requirements) within those MU's, and transfer of potentially developable and environmentally sensitive land and water areas to the public domain. All users of the estuary will benefit from an approved plan which provides substantially better guidance for development by incorporating many requirements of Federal, State and local governments. 1. A complete listing of pertinent references is available through the Seattle District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. IV-7 2. Vegetation and Habitats The impact of the plan on flora resources of the estuary is similar several other relationships: a significant impact will occur in a. in nature to areas designated for urban uses and on shorelines where modifications are planned or permitted; this is balanced by a conservation and protection of resources in areas designated for lower intensity uses. b. Table 10 summarizes the potential loss of aquatic areas which would be impacted by future projects. These are also the areas in which fish and wildlife resources will be impacted, with some impacts extending beyond the impacted vegetation zone (i.e., the fringe or edge zone). TABLE 10 Project Habitat Affected Approx. Acres Filled* Bowerman Complex (MU 12) Tidal Mudflats up to Eel grass beds up to Low silty marsh** 350 100 30 Hoquiam Fill (MU 14-Area 7) Low silty marsh 20 Ocean Shores Airport (MU 4) Freshwater marsh High immature marsh 10 30 Westport Marina (MU 39) Low sandy marsh 48 Westport Airport (MU 38) High mature marsh 15-18 Aberdeen Marina (MU 17) Intertidal Sedge marsh 1.3 1 Port Slip #1 (MU 15) Intertidal /Subtidal 20 South Shore Site (MU 26) Freshwater marsh 98 * These are estimates. Final determinations must be made at the time of permit submission by the applicants. ** The low silty marsh north of the Bowerman Peninsula would be reestablished, and additional marsh would be established along the north side of Area 2. This would be at the expense of some intertidal mudflat habitat. So there may be a net increase in low silty marsh in MU 12. IV-8 c. Site specific impact analyses related to the Ocean Shores Airport and Port Slip #1 have been previously reviewed through the NEPA process.! The impacts associated with the Aberdeen Marina (Morrison Riverfront Park) have recently been reviewed under the SEPA process. 2 The Seattle District of the COE is in the process of preparing a site specific DEIS on the South Shore Site to be used as a maintenance dredging material disposal site by the Port of Grays Harbor. The types of vegetation located at the various sites in table 10 have been previously described (see Smith, Mudd & Messmer, 1976, Maintenance Dredging and Environment of Grays Harbor, Appendix F: Vegetation). d. Adverse impacts associated with the loss of this vegetation and habitat include the reduction of primary productivity, food supply, rearing and resting areas; decrease in the capacity to reduce erosion, sedimentation and absorption of pollutants; and impact nutrient cycles (e.g., the sulfur or carbon cycles). (1). Loss of eel grass beds and salt marsh represents the greatest loss in organic production. The loss of salt marsh vegetation may be offset somewhat by the establishment or reestablishment of salt marsh habitat in the estuary (through enhancement or in-kind mitigation). Some of the more pro- ductive marsh areas in Grays Harbor are former dredge disposal sites. These areas revegetate naturally and point to the probability of successful marsh establishment. (COE, 1980, Long-Range Maintenance Dredging Program FEISS No. 2) The wetlands surrounding the estuary, however, do not provide the greatest amount of carbon which is used by the neritic and epibenthic zooplankton. Grays Harbor receives high inputs (ca 900 x 10^ kg C/yr) of both particulate and dissolved organic carbon through the six major rivers and small tributaries which enter it (R. Thorn, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Unpublished). The most important sources of the Grays Harbor epibenthic and neritic zooplankton production are allochthonous (from outside the estuary) detrital material (or carbon sources) eelgrass and epiphytic algae (Simenstad and Eggers, 1981). (2). Vegetation associated with tidal mudflats include primarily algal mats, diatoms and organic detritus (decaying vegetation) which are im- portant to benthic invertebrates and subsequently the rest of the food web. (3). The relationship between vegetation and estuarine productivi- ty can perhaps best be illustrated by the schematic diagram shown below in figure 24. e. In addition to the acreage shown in table 10, the GHEMP allows modification of several hundred acres of privately owned lowland forest and freshwater marshes in MU's 18 and 25 under appropriate permits. This same de- velopment is allowed currently under the no action alternative. Figure 25 and table 11 show the vegetation types in MU's 18 and 25 which would be affected by urban use. Attachment 1, map 8, shows the extent of lowland (freshwater swamps) forests and freshwater marshes in the Chehalis River study area which includes MU's 18 and 25. The GHEMP would protect the majority (acreage unknown) T~. Ocean Shores Airport T"s discussed in FAA, Ocean Shores Airport, FEIS: Port Slip #1 is discussed in COE, Channel Improvements FEIS, 1982. 2. City of Aberdeen, Morrison Riverfront Park, FEIS, 1983. 3. Nelson, W.H., S. Kalinowski & L. Lynam, 1980, Chehalis River Floodplain Land Cover Mapping Between Aberdeen and Montesano, Washington, prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. IV-9 IV-10 o 00 CT> ta o CO i— a> CD O S- o CO IV-11 TABLE 11 Habitat Types in Figure 1. Urban 11 Residential 111 Nonwooded Residential 112 High Density Residential 12 Commercial/Service/Industrial 14 Transportation/Utilities 143 Highway 144 Railroad 146 Bridge 15 Harbor/Port 1531 Log Storage Yard 18 Open Lands 183 Refuse Station 19 Recreational 193 Urban Wooded 3. Nonforested, Vegetated Uplands 332 Riparian Grass 4. Forested Uplands 43 Mixed Forest 431 Regeneration Mixed 434 Second Growth Mixed 46 Forested Riparian 4622 Immature Broadleaf 4632 Immature Mixed 5. Water 51 Rivers/Streams 511 Estuarine 57 Blind Channels 571 Freshwater Blind Channel 6. Aquatic Lands 61 Aquatic Land - Forested 612 Freshwater Swamp 6121 Shrub Swamp 6121/147 Shrub Swamp/Powerline 61223 Second Growth Conifer Swamp 61231 Regeneration Broadleaf Swamp 61232 Immature Broadleaf Swamp 61233 Mature Broadleaf Swamp 61241 Regeneration Mixed Swamp 61242 Pole Stage Mixed Swamp 61243 Second Growth Mixed Swamp 61244 Mature Mixed Swamp 62 Aquatic Lands - Vegetated Nonforested 626 Freshwater Marsh IV-12 of these types of habitat from major development in MU's 19, 20 and 24. The potential impact areas (freshwater swamps and freshwater marshes) which are outlined in figure 22 are adjacent to existing industrial land uses near Junction City and Cosmopolis. (1). Excluding urban and agricultural habitats, the Chehalis River management area is predominantly forested swamp (4822 acres ).3 These lands are either covered by water or strongly influenced by adjacent waters. Urban development in MU's 18 and 19 would constitute the loss of approximately 300 acres. (2). The Chehalis River Basin also contains approximately 244 acres of freshwater marshes. 1 MU's 18 and 25 contain approximately half of the freshwater marshes in the basin. Herbacious vegetation is dominant. Common types include sedges, grasses, rushes, cattails, reed canary grass, and bull- rushes. One of the most valuable functions of the marshes is their ability to moderate extreme highs and lows in streamflows. Overall, there are approximate- ly 500 acres of freshwater marsh habitat remaining within the boundaries of the 6HEMP. With full implementation of the plan (as well as under the no action alternative), approximately 2/5ths of that particular habitat could be altered or destroyed having potentially significant adverse impacts to flora and fauna species utilizing that habitat. f. Estuarine Policies and Activities. (1). Bankline Straightening will alter or destroy natural vegeta- tion and animal communities in areas where permitted. The major areas where the policy applies are along the Hoquiam-Aberdeen waterfront (i.e., MU's 15, 16, 17 and under special conditions in MU's 12, 18 and 25). This type of vegetation varies from low silty marsh types to fresh water marsh types. Total impact t)f each application of this policy cannot exceed 2 acres. In most areas where this policy might be applied, existing vegetation has already been significantly affected by man's activities. Natural processes may re- establish vegetation on the face of the fill after construction activities, depending on the materials used for the fill. The policy states (GHEMP, p. 25) that two or more fills permitted under the policy. may not occur at the same or a portion of the same site and that use of vegetation for bankline stabilization is required where technically applicable. These and other limitations apply in addition to normal requirements for a Section 404 permit. Impacts associated with implementation of this policy for may be significant locally but were considered acceptable on an estuary-wide basis given the resource protection provisions of the plan. (2). Bankline Erosion policy is more stringent than existing policy and will therefore produce less adverse impacts. The intent of the policy is not to destroy existing vegetation which normally acts to buffer wave attack and erosion processes. In addition, the policy encourages the use of vegetation for providing bankline stability. The individual and cumulative impacts associated with implementation are not expected to be significant. The Task Force considered the Grays Harbor environment in determining where the activity is permitted vs. conditionally permitted. "H Nelson, W. H. et. al., 1980, op. cit. 2. C0E, Long-Range Maintenance Dredging Program, FEIS, 1980. IV-13 (3). Structures. As new or redeveloped structures are completed, some modification of flora will take place. Structures such as piers, docks and wharfs will reduce light that supports vegetation. In delineating the structur- al activities which might have adverse effects on the environment, the Task Force was careful in their choice of which activities should be considered permitted in the various MU's vs. those which need to be conditioned and sub- ject to further review for impact assessment. (4). Channel. New channel access and channel realignment have the most significant potential of impacting vegetation, particularly eel grass beds. Dredging activities to maintain channels generally have little impact on the algae, eel grass, and marsh communities in Grays Harbor. 2 The greatest potential impacts would occur in MU's 4 and 39. g. Agricultural Crops. The plan would have no adverse impacts on agricultural crops including subsistence and local market farming activities, tree farming and cultivated crops which are allowed in the Rural and some Conservancy MU's. h. The overall assessment on the plan's impacts to the vegetation of Grays Harbor is that the changes and refinements made in the MU designations, designation of permitted activities and conditions placed upon different types of activities within specific areas will provide greater environmental pro- tection over the long term to the vegetation and habitat types identified than the no action alternative. 3. Fauna! Resources a. The impact of the plan on faunal resources of the estuary is closely correlated with the impact of the plan on flora resources and habitat types. Out of necessity, the plan is intended to address those activities which are destructive (e.g., discharges of dredged or fill materials within containment structures) of existing habitats. Some activities will be less destructive than others. In areas where development is permitted or where shoreline and aquatic areas may be modified, the local impact on fauna may be significant. There may continue to be some loss of habitat and decreases in the quantity of individual organisms utilizing the estuary. The net loss to certain species in particular (e.g., those which favor marsh vs. intertidal habitat) may be minimized by mitigation measures but some loss to other species is often associated with implementation of such mitigation. b. Benthic Invertebrate Communities. Recent studies in Grays Harbor have focused on the impact of dredging operations on infauna (Albright and Bouthillette, 1982), epibenthos (Albright and Bouthil lette, 1982 & Cordell and Simenstad, 1981, Simenstad and Eggers, 1981, Armstrong et al . , 1981) and Dungeness crab (Armstrong et al . , 1981). Food habitat studies have shown the importance of benthic invertebrates such as Corophium sp. and Anisogammarus sp., polychaete worms and others to fish and shorebirds. Any projects or activities which impact littoral or sublittoral habitat will smother diverse communities of benthic invertebrates with recolonization likely at the fringes depending on tidal elevation and substrate. The major project contemplated in this estuary is the development of MU 12 (Area 2 and Area 4). Since land would be raised IV-14 above the high water line and utilized for industrial purposes, a permanent loss of substrate and habitat would result. The major species of concern in this section of the estuary is the amphipod Corophium sal mom's which serves as a major prey for shorebirds and fish. A more lengthy discussion on this topic is presented in appendix C. Implementation of the plan in the rest of the estuary should not produce significant adverse impacts to the various forms of benthic and epibenthic invertebrates in the estuary. c. Fish. Plan adoption would have several impacts on fishery re- sources. The plan will provide greater protection of the fish passage and fish base as has been previously discussed. While some impacts would continue to occur in the urban fish passage area as a result of permitted/conditional activities, the plan restricts the extent of encroachment into the passage area. On a long-term basis, this would prove beneficial to the migratory fishes which make passage up or down the Chehalis River, especially if water quality continues to improve as it has during the last decade. (1). Recent studies assessing the impacts of dredging and disposal operations were conducted by Charles A. Simenstad and Douglas M. Eggers for the Corps of Engineers.^ The impacts associated with the proposed channel widening and deepening have been discussed in the recent FEIS on that subject. 2 Habitat degradation is divided into the major categories of decreased water quality and loss of feeding and rearing habitat. The Corps concluded that filling Slip No. 1 would not constitute significant impact to fisheries habitat and is not considered sufficient to warrant habitat mitigation. Bankline straightening and bankline erosion would produce minor impacts to small segments of littoral and sublittoral habitat. Direct removal of shallow sublittoral habitat might have a long term effect on epibenthic feeding juvenile salmonids. According to Simenstad and Eggers, it would appear that maximum concentration of organisms such as harpacticoid copepods occur with +/- 1.0 meter of the MLLW tide level, although important prey taxa may occur in abundance at higher tidal heights. Thus, removal of shallow sand and mudflat habitat higher than -1.0 meter tide level, would effectively remove that area from production of salmonid prey organisms. Simenstad and Eggers believe this could have the greatest impact on juvenile chum and small chinook salmon in Grays Harbor which tend to utilize epibenthic organisms to a greater extent than other salmonids and English sole may be more adversely impacted than the salmon. 3 Further, the plan provides riparian habitat protection along streams and sloughs used by the migratory fish where future projects and activities are anticipated. (2). Other potential impacts include fishery habitat removal and degradation in MU 12 (Area 2). This area has been previously impacted. However, implementation of the Area 1 provisions in MU 12 should provide long-term protection to Moon Island Tideflats, west of the Bowerman Basin, a known major nursery habitat for English sole.^ d. Avian Fauna. There are many areas in and around the estuary which are important to shorebirds, waterfowl and terrestrial birds. The plan protects the majority of bird habitats as shown in table 12. However, there are two potentially sigificant impacts which can be anticipated. The potential impact on birds in MU 12 is discussed in appendix C. The other habitat most likely to be impacted is the freshwater marshes scattered around the estuary and in the Chehalis River Basin. Table 13 lists the birds which are commonly associated with freshwater swamps and marsh habitats. Like marine plant communities, IV-15 TABLE 12 Area Birds Present Management Unit Designation Water Portion Landside (1) Bowerman Basin (2) Point New (3) North Bay and Humptulips River (4) Point Damon (5) Oyehut Wildlife Recreation Area dunlin (largest concentration) western sandpiper other shorebirds marsh hawk peregrine falcon (feeding ova) short -eared owl black brant ruddy turnstone peregrine falcon (feeding ova) marsh hawk (feeding ova) raptors shorebirds Bald Eagle peregrine falcon (feeding ova) marsh hawk (feeding ova) waterfowl (largest concentration) snowy plover (nesting area) shorebird nesting area raptor habitat peregrine falcon (feeding area) snowy owl (feeding area) shorebird resting area raptor habitat peregrine falcon (feeding area) marsh hawk (feeding area) snowy owl (feeding range) 12-N (Area 1) 44-CM 44-CM 44-CM 44-CM 11-UD 12-UD (Areas 2-7] 10-RL 7-CM 8-RA 9-RL/N 3-CM bordered closely by 2-N 4-UM 2-N (6) Grass Island and West- port 7) South Bay and Elk Ri ver (8) Redmans Slough at Ocosta (9) Goose Island (10) Sand Island (11) Whitcomb Island (12) Outer-Harbor Seabird Feeding Area shorebird resting area raptor habitat shorebird resting area waterfowl feeding area short-eared owl (feeding area) marsh hawk (feeding area) spring migratory shorebirds (heavy concentration) shorebird (resting area) marsh hawk (feeding area) western gull (largest colony on outer coast of Oregon and Washington) shorebird (resting area) waterfowl (resting area) western gull colony (800 pair) Caspian tern colony (700 pair) shorebird (resting area) waterfowl (resting area) Caspian tern colony (1200 pair] shorebird and waterfowl rest- ing area common murres rhinocerous auklets 44-CM 44-CM 44-CM 14-CM special 41-N 42-CN 44-CM 37-UM/CN 38-UM/CN 39-UM 34-CM/N 35-UM 30- • RL 31- -RA 32- ■RL 14- •CM spec :ial 41-N 42-CN IV-16 freshwater marshes are naturally fertile systems. A large number of birds and wildlife species utilize the marshes. Some live almost exclusively in marshes, while other are dependent on marshes to varying degrees. 1 While substantial impacts would occur to freshwater marshes, the plan protects the remaining habitat. Any future amendments to the plan should carefully weigh the impor- tance of the remaining freshwater marshes to the total ecosystem diversity of Grays Harbor. table 13 Birds Commonly Associated With Freshwater Shrub Swamp or Marsh Habitats pied-billed grebe ( Podilymbus podi ceps ) great blue heron (Ardea herodias) green heron ( Butorides vires cens ) green-winged teal (Anas carolinensi s) wood duck (Aix sportsa ) ring-necked duck ( Aythya collaris ) hooded merganser ( Lophodytes cucull at us ) sharp-shinned hawk ( Accipiter striatus ) Cooper's hawk ( Acci piter cooperii ) Virginia rail (Rail us limicola) sora ( P or z an a Carolina) rufous hummingbird (Selas phorus rufus) downy woodpecker ( Dendrocopos pubes cens ) willow flycatcher ( Empidonax~traillii ) tree swallow ( iri doprocne bicolor) rough-winged swallow ( Stelgi dopter yx ruficollis ) barn swallow (Hirundo rustica) Steller's jay ( Cyanocitta stelleri) common crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos ) black-capped chickadee ( Par us at ri capil lus ) common bushtit ( Ps al tripar us minimus) Bewick' s wren ( Thr yomanes bewickii ) long-billed marsh wren ( Telmatodytes pal ustris ) robin (Turdus migr at ori us ) Swainson's thrush ( Hylocichl a ustulatus) ruby-crowned kinglet (Regulus calendula) cedar waxwing ( Bombyc ilia cedrorun) Hutton's vireo (Vireo huttoni) warbling vireo (Vireo gilvus) yellow warbler (Dendroi ca petechia ) yell ow-r unped warbler (Dendroica coronata ) MacGil 1 ivray ' s warbler ( Oporornis tolmiei) yellowthroat ( Geothyl pis trichas) red-winged blackbird ( Agelaius phoeniceus ) brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater ) black-headed grosbeak (Pheucti cus melanocephalus ) Lincoln's sparrow (Melospiza lincolnii) song sparrow ( Melos pi za melodia) Source: Nelson, W.H., Kalinowski, S., & L. Lynam, Chehalis River Floodplain Land Cover Happing Between Aberdeen and "ontesan Washington, prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, January 1980 IV-17 In addition, construction and use of the Ocean Shores Airport will not destmv thfM^ ant ,f h0 : eblr ^ habitat d1rect1 *> but m W Provide P additTonal stress ?o land^Sf an W d hl o C verfl^t 2 s. ^ " ,t ' Pn S6Ct1 ° n ° f N ° rth Ba * due to "SJfS e. Mammals. Table 14 identifies the mammals which may be imDacted hv various future activities permitted by the plan. The table shows that rioari an areas-wooded swamp habitat have the greatest diversity of species. Host of this habitat is protected in the plan from extensive use and alterations Host mamma s are highly mobile and utilize a diversity of habitats The smaUer mammals (moles, voles and shrews) may be most adversely Impacted due to oss of habitat which in turn can affect the abundance of other predators. (ltr ^td^^v^a S i P o«n e ?- B T ° h th th ? National Har1ne "Series Service Utr. dtd. July 14, 1980 from Thomas E. Kruse, Acting Regional (Northwestl ntt °/J\ Dr - K° be ^ R ' Kifer ' 0CRM > and the u - s - Fish « Wildlife Servici N Fhlpr d -nrp M C f m h ber "' ? 8 l'J B r " Joseph R ' Blum ' Area Onager to Char es N. Ehler, OCRH) have provided OCRH with assessments which conclude that imo e- TrlT°\° f the GHE ^ P , is not 11ke1 * t0 Jeopardize any known endangered or threatened species. Earlier drafts of GHEHP led to formal Section 7 consulta- tion based on concern over the potential impacts to the American peregrine I «M» (an J °^ er D pere9r1ne subspecies). The GHEHP was modified to project chl majority of the Bowerman Basin considered as significant shorebird habitat which provides the migratory falcons with an abundant prey base. Should a f r m on1toHn a a f ill be H mad \ b * Jhe FSWS based upon new' information derived from monitoring fill and construction activities in HU 12, the F&WS may recom- mend reinitiation of formal Section 7 consultation. Rein ti ati on of Section 7 consultation is the responsibility of the action agency. For more information on Section 7 consultation see appendix C. inrormation IV-18 TABLE 14. Mamma1s Found in Six Grays Harbor Habitats. 1975 Species Habitats ^_ f— in .£ ■o JO 0) a. i- JO m to +> I/I 01 (/> s_ B Ol •o ■o « i. J* s_ +-> u. s: Q £ C 00 x z: .0 i- lO sz 3 01 ■u +J •«- "O (/» oo ■!-> r— |W J- 0) Ol c 10 «J nj T3 s_ 00 oo Q. O •r- O 02 ^ IX. Opossum (Didelephis marsupialis) X X Masked shrew (Sorex Cinereus) X Dusky shrew (Sorex obscurus) X Vagrant shrew (Sorex vagrans) X X X X Trowbridge shrew (Sorex Trowbridgii) X X Water shrew (Sorex palustris) X X X Marsh shrew (Sorex bendirii x Shrew-mole (Neurotrichus gibbsii) i X Townsend mole (Scapanus Townsendii) 1 X X X X Coast mole (Sea panus orarius) Snowshoe hare ( Lepus americanus) Mountain Beaver (Aplodontia rufa) Townsend chipmunk (Eutamias townsendii) X Douglas squirrel (Chickaree) (Tamiasciurus douglasii) Northern flying squirrel X (Glaucomys sabrinus) X Mazama pocket gopher (Thomomys mazama) X X Beaver (Castor canadensis) X X Deer Mouse. (Peromscus maniculatus) X X X Bushy-tailed woodrat (Neotoma cinerea) X Capper red-backed mouse (Clethrionomys gapperi) : ! X Townsend vole (Microtus townsendii ) X X X X Oregon vole (Microtus oregoni ) X X X Longtail vole (Microtus longlcaudus) X X X Muskrat (Ondatra zibethica) X X X X Pacific jumping mouse (Zapus X X trinotatus) X X Porcupine (Erethizon dorsatum) X Nutria (Myocastor coypus) X X Harbor porpoise (Phocaena vomerina) X Killer whale (Orcinus orea X Gray whale (Eschrichtius glaucus) X Red fox (Vulpes fulva) Coyote (Canis latrans) X X X X X X X X Black bear (Ursus americanus) X X X X Raccoon (Procyon lotor) X X X X X Mink (Mustela vison) X X X X Longtail weasel (Mustela frenata) X X X X Shor'tail weasel (Mustela erminea) Striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis) X X X Spotted skunk (Spilogale putorius) X X X River oiler (Lutra canadensis) X X X Mountain lion (Felix concolor) X X X Bobcat (Lynx rufus X X X Steller sea lion (Eumeto- piasjubata) X Harbor seal (Phoca vitulina richardi) X X Roosevelt elk (Cervus canadensis roosevelti) X X X X Blacktail deer (Odocoileus hemionus col umbi anus) — — — — » ' X X X X X 'rtj to ■o e: a> a. a. c o oo & fc. CD c 0) s § s- •I— > c LU +-> (O CT> E c CD T3 +-> C $- oo S- a> c (O LU Q. Q O C OO O Q. +-> S_ cn o c o oo co e O e: s- o >> ^v e>3 a OCU O ■r- 4--I- +-> ^v i/ u CO CO cc *^>£r— S- +J S--t-> >> •i— CU ^v E E c c CU e:+-> C£5-4-> CO cu co +-> p— s- >v^ cu c C to 3 Z5 a c_ Oi- e: +-> +J N •r— CO o ^v C'i- CO -r- a; CO CO fO -r •i-e: uI3 •r-E O CO 2r- E> Q.E (O 3 ^v cu s- fO s. CU C S- -E cus- oo 00 +- a> i— to ■r™ > 4-> CU «/ o- a UQ. CUQ. UE CO to J3 > S- >> S_ CU %. CO o \ tnq: <=c 3 h- 1 No Action 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 44 GHEMP 1 Less Devel opment * I 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 30 [l 1 2 2 2 2 5 6 6 4 2 2 35 1 Greater Development I 6 6 6 6 6 6 1 1 1 1 6 6 52 1 Disperse Development I 5 3 1 5 5 5 4 1 5 4 5 1 1 44 1 Concentrate Develop. |3 5 5 1 1 1 6 J 4 5 6 5 5 > 42 Potenti al Ai Iver se Impacts 1 = Least 2 = SI ig ht 3 = Mode rate 4 = Substantial 5 = Heavy 6 ■ = Most: * Includes the Citizen's Estuary Management Plan NOTE The numbers assigned represent a measure of the degree of potential adverse impacts to the resources identified. The resource categories indicate some of the more significant factors which have been considered by the Task Force members and take into account both the natural environment and the social and economic environment. All actions which include fill and shoreline development will have some degree of impact so zero (0) was not used. Adverse impacts are considered in both a positive and negative amount of shoreline alterations permitted least adverse natural resource impacts, but adverse impacts to the long-term economy of are necessarily subjective to a degree and in addition to considering the amount of shoreline and wetlands altered along with their subsequent impacts, reflect a philosophy of the planning alternatives. While it may be argued that one factor is more important than another and therefore should be weighted to reflect that importance, all factors are given equal consideration for purposes of this assessment. sense. That is to say, the least by an alternative will have the can potentially have the greatest the region. The numbers assigned IV-2 6 IV-2 7 ill S V fit* * 1 \ p^*^ -*-T i tv \S[[ i vJA^ a ! 1 \WA J J 1 / \(1 >S5viV AD i vfc !l o L, K ^ w O CZ P. N V 3 3 O o IV-28 IV-2 9 IV- 30 IV-31 IV-3 2 4. Evaluation a. Shoreline Alterations. The largest amount of shoreline alterations is associated with greater development and dispersed development. If an effort is made to utilize flat land for industrial /commercial purposes, requiring few wetlands alterations, development would have to move away from the central urbanized areas but still have access to transportation (rail, highway and air cargo). Because the development would be removed from the navigation channel, it would likely have to be water related uses (rather than water- dependent) unless new navigation channels were developed and maintained such as the South Channel. Less development has the fewest potential alterations. The no action alternative is considered to be more permissive than GHEMP and there would be greater fill towards the navigation channel, which is also likely under the concentration alternative. b. Wetlands. Wetlands alterations are similar to the above impacts associated with shoreline alterations with the exception of dispersed develop- ment and concentrated development. Dispersed development would require con- siderable shoreline alterations, but many development sites would be located on uplands beyond the line of aquatic vegetation. Concentrating development would be more costly to intertidal wetlands. c. Fisheries. Three alternatives (no action, greater and concen- trating development) would most adversely impact the fish passage. The least impacts would be associated with dispersing development away from the inner harbor and major fishery habitats. GHEMP protects the fish passage but could have adverse impacts on some English sole nursery habitat in MU 12. Less development would protect more acreage of wetlands but under Phase III (250-acre fill) might permit development in MU 12 along the navigation channel which could also affect fishery habitat. d. Avian Fauna. Greater development would clearly have the most significant adverse impacts with concentrating development in the inner harbor having the least. GHEMP would have moderate impacts with less development having slight to moderate impacts during Phase III development. No action and dispersed development would have moderate to heavy impacts. e. Other Fauna. Oniy two alternatives (greater and dispersed devel- opment) have the potential for significantly affecting other wildlife resources because of their encroachment into relatively undisturbed areas. f. Open Space and Aesthetics. Concentrating development would theo- retically retain the most open space and have the greatest aesthetic appeal to larger parts of the estuary. Less development includes development of 250 acres along the navigation channel which would have some adverse impacts to the aesthetic appeal of the Bowerman Basin. Similar adverse impacts would occur under GHEMP, with greater impacts in Bowerman, Westport and Ocean Shores. The most significant impacts would be associated with shifting development into the rural areas of the harbor and include all 2200 acres of the MU 12 under greater development. IV-33 g. Recreation and Cultural Opportunities. Greater development pro- vides the most opportunity to increase recreational and cultural activities in and along the estuary. Larger waterfront parks, marinas, recreational support facilities (motels, restaurants, mobile home parks), viewing shipping and milling activities, etc., could be provided in greater abundance even though aesthetic appeal and faunal distribution would be diminished. Both less devel- opment and concentrating development would have more adverse (social /economic) impacts, as they would basically not allow any further expansion of marinas into existing wetlands and limit developments in the Westport and Ocean Shores areas, which have the largest concentrations of visitor use. h. Economic Growth and Employment. The greater development alterna- tive can clearly provide the most opportunity for growth in and around the estuary. This alternative puts fewer constraints on development if the need can be demonstrated. Conversely, the less development alternative permitting only 250 acres of new development in the aquatic area and any further attempts to expand existing facilities would have the most adverse impacts on economic development opportunity. i. Transportation Systems. The less development alternative would have the most adverse (socio/economic) impacts on proposed or future transpor- tation systems including marinas, airports and on improvements to highways, bridges and railroads. GHEMP has slightly fewer adverse impacts than the no action alternative because it accommodates the Bowerman Airfield relocation at least cost, which the no action alternative might not be able to do. j. Urban Waterfront Revital ization. Less development would have the most adverse impacts, as it rejects the use of the shoreline for non-water dependent activities. Likewise, concentrating development requires the reser- vation of the shoreline space for water-dependent industrial purposes related to the navigation channel and the region's economy, thereby making waterfront revitalization more difficult. GHEMP policies and plan provisions specifically take urban waterfront revitalization into account by allowing new industrial development along the navigation channel and revitalization in the older urban areas. k. Air and Water Quality. Impacts to air and water resources are similiar for the development alternatives. Dispersing development would most likely have fewer air and water quality impacts because of dilution and dispersal factors, although infrastructure costs would be higher. This assumes that any activity or use will meet State air and water quality standards. Greater development and concentrating development more would place the most stress on the estuary air and water resources. 5. Conclusions. a. The total scores have no particular meaning in and of themselves other than to provide a ranking; however, they can perhaps collectively repre- sent a meaningful evaluation for purposes of a broader level of decisionmaking. There are twelve resource areas. When the total scores are added up and divided by twelve, the overall effects of the various plan alternatives range from slight to substantial. The mean scores include: IV-34 ALTERNATIVE MEAN SCORE OVERALL IMPACT o GHEMP 2.5 Slight o Less Development 2.9 Slight o Concentrate Development 3.5 Moderate o No Action 3.6 Moderate o Disperse Development 3.6 Moderate o Greater Development 4.3 Substantial Taken from an estuary-wide, long-term/multiple use planning and management framework, this assessment might very well demonstrate the overall impact between the options of choice. This does not imply that any one individual action will not have a major and significant impact on the human environment. b. In a simplified way, the conclusions of the matrix demonstrate: (>). GHEMP, based on joint collaborative planning and including compromises between economic development and environmental protection, has the least overall adverse impact. It is neither the best solution to protect the estuarine environment, nor is it the best for economic development potential. It does, however, strike a balance which gives it the lowest overall adverse impact score. (2). Less development clearly provides the least adverse impacts to the natural resources of the estuary but has the greatest adverse impacts to the future economy of the region by limiting growth potential. It neverthe- less ranks a close second. If the Task Force makes a determination that the less development alternative (specifically the Citizens Management Plan alter- native) can satisfy the future social and economic needs of the region after comments are received from the public (and therefore confirms the viability of the alternative), then the less development alternative would be the preferred alternative. (3). The third best alternative is to concentrate development, (a similar concept is embodied in the GHEMP), but this would require greater industrial utilization of the urban waterfront along the navigation channel. This would impact the migratory fishery resources and still may not provide enough space for the requirements of new industrial users. (4). The fourth best alternative would be to take no action. The existing local SMP's are rather broad and more permissive than GHEMP. Over time, it is possible and likely that development interests will obtain permits on a case-by-case basis under existing and amended local SMP's. (5). Dispersing development would require substantial shoreline alterations into rural areas but not necessarily require wetlands alterations unless a navigation channel were to be developed and maintained. Industry (light/heavy) or commercial developments locating along the shoreline would be less dependent on water access but would have flat land and relatively good transportation services available. (6). The greater development alternative is almost the opposite image of the less development alternative, having the most adverse impacts on natural resources yet providing the greatest opportunity to all types of devel- opment proposals. IV-35 F. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS One of the major purposes behind the development of the GHEMP is to prepare a comprehensive plan which can be used as a baseline by all jurisdictions in determining the cumulative effects of incremental fill and development proposals in the estuary. This section provides a general overview of the combined effect the various uses will have on the environment. 1. Figure 3 4 shows the total extent of shoreline development (including uplands within the study area) and wetlands alterations under GHEMP. This includes both existing uses and proposed allowable future uses. Approximately one-third of the shoreline (32.5 percent) is currently devoted or will be to "development" type environments and two-thirds (67.5 percent) will be preserved type environments. Ninety-nine percent of the bay waters in "conservancy" will be designated in Conservancy or Natural environments, 2. Figure 3 5 shows a comprehensive picture of the Management Unit desig- nations. This, together with the Standard Use Matrix and the Permitted Activites Matrix, present the best picture of what the potential developments in the estu- ary will be. 3. The Permitted Activities Matrix (figure 36) shows the types of activi- ties which will be permitted, conditionally permitted, or which will require special conditions to meet special environmental concerns if they are to be allowed. Special project fills, which will have the greatest potential for adverse cumulative impacts, may occur as a special condition activity in MU's 6 (Westport Airport); 12 (Bowerman Industrial Complex and Airport relocation); 14 (Hoquiam industrial expansion - 20 acres - and "T" dock filling); 15 (fills for navigation structures); 18 (fills for navigation structures); 24 (fills associated with road construction); 25 (road, flood control project and other urban activities); 26 (industrial structures and urban development); 38 (West- port Airport); 39 (Westport Marina) and 44 (water-dependent uses). 4. Figure 37 shows the types of the wetlands which would be impacted by the major development projects if all sites are developed under the plan. Impacted wetlands would include: Estuary's Wetland Type Approx. Acres Filled Total Acres Percent of Total Freshwater marsh 110 250* 44.0 Low silty marsh 50 1,620 3.0 Low sandy marsh 48 650 7.4 High immature man ;h 30 240 12.5 High mature marsh 15-18 1,030 1.7 Sedge marsh Unknown 152 Diked salt marsh Unknown 1,090 Eel grass beds 100 11,000+ 1.0 Tideflats 350 28,160 1.2 Wooded swamp Unknown 940 Does not include freshwater marshes along the Chehalis River. IV-36 en LlJ C e Q. O > -a ro •i — ■a •r— 00 a> s- -o c _Q S_ ^ O) 00 E 0) -t-> c c +■> X UJ IV-37 CO •i — > 4-> o ro OJ to =3 S- cu ■•-> -a e c uj a; i — i u_ en o -c co to -t-> +■> c 0) E OJ C7> c fO -o c CO fd cu s- i \m\ j 1 | j ia : Co z 1 | i i , i i i 1 , ■ , i 2 <-> 1 j 1 i 1 1 ! j z « i : : o 2 1° a 1 °! 1 ; : cr- ; " ra < 3 O O o o • o © * e o o ° z ■ ■ t # "T" u ro x ■ * a x ■ (_) m i 1 ■ a X ■ ■ r-> ec ■ a X 1 I m ■ * * (_» t-> =• 1 ■ o o ■ c i a a • Z (-> 1 I ■ B f n « „ <_> ro x => < 5 O e ■ c :■ a ■ N __, , # 4 "^™ a m «t ■ ft a z „ m « t , ... U c-> Q£ C ) o a c > a a B a z W a a X ... (_) • * kJ * Co o s c J o a a i b a a a a a ■ ^ _, ■ ce X o « * © o < i a CO o 5 * o c > O ( s © * D in a < (M 3 ^ X , - CM U £' 1 ■ © ■ 1 i a a o a co «* 1 I ■ o ■ 1 % o — | ■ m I l o o co O a: ■ . . ' c* X ■ • I a a n —* U z m Sc > O o a c a • o a i^ x c © o c o o a 3 VC X c 5 © o © < a a o o a lO o c © a c ■> a o o • *■ 3 ... o * . a o a — * s Co Q. * # „ ^ *+ \r> _ a o -* s © o cc z . * J « « o i i * o CE CO rx a o • • - X ,' z ■ * X =1 a * • • U1 ot a • * • • ■» X => 9 o * i 1 o o a a ■ o e c a o X w • ^ z a - 5 1 © □ © © o |o|-|*| zr> o V) n o o A Q. u — - e o ill IS s fv u r £ I : C*> !. j ■• en © 0) c c c ^ sg 1— |^8 o i i n o r 01 2 o . > fc 'Z < si " u ifl o Si uu VI o< H" Q s £ S* »-, irt a =L 0> 01 ■o 0) ^ O 01 0) < " C cr J *v 1) JC c c c i $ 3 4-»E c s S a s a £ EI CD JO p|s»p 9 CD " co s o lj saonionaxs | xnvb 13NNVHD i! -i-j to vO +J CO UJ -o cc cu Z3 -l-> C3 +J i — i •^ U_ ^ O) Q. -o O) -4-i (O "O •r™ r^ o t/1 c o o IV-39 3 i j i o r W CO O D OC Z < GO Piers, Docks, Wharves * Piling & Mooring Dolphins * Bridges • Causeways Outfalls □ Cable/Pipeline Crossing □ Boathouses • Breakwater Diking □ Bulkheading □ Groins Jetty Special Project FHIs Bankline Straightening Bank line Erosion Control • -I LU Z z < z o New Access Channel Channel/Berth Maint Channel Realignment PERMITTED ACTIVITY CONDITIONAL ACTIVITY SPECIAL CONDITIONS • □ # STANDARD USES See Standard Use Table MANAGEMENT UNIT 10 PLANNING AREA V Management Category RL - Rural Low Intensity Boundary Description Western (North) Boundary - Management Unit 9. Eastern Boundary - the eastern line of Section 12 (T17N, R11W) or the western boundary of port ownership. Study Area Boundary - Burlington Northern rail line and line of non-aquatic vegetation along Grass Creek. Management Objective No significant development activity is envisioned in any portion of this management unit except as consistent with guidelines of Standard Uses and Permitted Activities. Special Conditions 1. Continued maintenance of existing railroad) rights-of-way and facilities is permitted. 2. The installation of piers, docks, wharves, piling and mooring dolphins is allowable pro- vided that no new navigation channel is required. 3. Piers, docks, wharves, piling and mooring dolphins will be allowed associated with small private residential uses and provided that it does not interefere with the manage- ment of Department of Game property at the mouth of the Humptulip River. 58 MANAGEMENT UNIT 11 PLANNING AREA ID Management Category UD - Urban Development Boundary Description Western Boundary - Management Unit 10 Eastern Boundary - Hoquiam City boundary. Study Area Boundary - Railroad tracks. Waterward Boundary - line of non-aquatic vegeta- tion (Section 404) or northern line of Port of Grays Harbor ownership, whichever extends fur- thest south. Management Objectives This management objective is principally a trans- portation corridor containing both the Ocean Shores Highway and the Burlington Northern rail line. Continued use of the management unit for this purpose is considered appropriate. Special Conditions 1. This management unit is immediately adja- cent to Management Unit 12. Continued maintenance of the railroad line and high- way is permitted. 2. Highway improvements at the "Grays Harbor City curve" are permitted subject to the terms and conditions defined in Corps of Engineers permit No. 071-OYB-2-005073. PERMITTED ACTIVITIES MANAGEMENT CATEGORY UD CO u s o D K CO z < CO Piers, Docks, Wharves Piling & Mooring Dolphins Bridges Causeways Outfalls Cable/Pipeline Crossing Boathouses Breakwater Diking □ Bulkheading Groins Jetty Special Project FHIs Bankline Straightening Bank line Erosion Control • -1 III z z < z o New Access Channel Channel/Berth Mamt Channel Realignment PERMITTED ACTIVITY CONDITIONAL ACTIVITY SPECIAL CONDITIONS • □ STANDARD USES See Standard Use Table 59 PERMITTED ACTIVITIES MANAGEMENT CATEGORY SP U K O 3 B F CO z < CD Piers, Docks, Wharves * Piling & Mooring Dolphins * Bridges Causeways Outfalls # Cable/Pipeline Crossing Boathouses Breakwater Diking * Bulkheading * Groins Jetty Special Project Fills * Bankline Straightening * Bankline Erosion Control * -1 w z z < o New Access Channel * Channel/Berth Maint * Channel Realignment * PERMITTED ACTIVITY CONDITIONAL ACTIVITY SPECIAL CONDITIONS • □ * STANDARD USES See Standard Use Table MANAGEMENT UNIT 12 PLANNING AREA IH MANAGEMENT CATEGORY: Special BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION; See Attached Exhi- bit MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES This Management Unit represents a unique area, combining both valuable habitat to be protected for fish and wildlife and future sites for the principal industrial expansion in the harbor. Part of the Management Unit (approximately 1,700 acres) provides valuable habitat for fish and wildlife which will be managed as a natural area for the protection and enhancement of fish and wildlife resources, while other parts of the Man- agement Unit (approximately 500 acres) will be managed to provide major new areas for industrial development within the Grays Harbor region. Fil- ling of some intertidal areas and wetlands will be necessary to provide these new areas for indus- trial development. The above objectives are mutually dependent in that the fill and development of some areas is balanced with the protection of other areas to assure multiple use of the estuary consistent with the Estuary Management Goal. The key to the management philosophy and balance for this Man- agement Unit is that protective guarantees are established through incremental and proportional fee title transfer of tidelands and wetlands in Area 1 with fill and development in Areas 2 and 3, thereby avoiding unacceptable adverse impacts to the ecosystem. While this same management philosophy generally applies to Area *f, evaluation of impacts, alternatives and need for fill in this area have not been made in this plan and must therefore be performed in connection with speci- fic development proposals (see additional discus- sion of Area k in this Management Unit). As always, fill for development is subject to the normal permitting process, although the permit- ting process itself will be improved through the advance evaluations and decisions made in this plan. 60 Special Conditions Six sub-areas are included in this Management Unit (see attached exhibit) Area I - Natural Area 2 - Phase I Fill - Urban Development Area 3 - Airport Fill - Urban Development Area 4 - Special Designation Area 5 - Existing Airport - Urban Development Area 6 - Waterfront Area - Conservancy Managed AREA I - NATURAL AREA Description Area I is an area of extensive tideflats, wetlands and intertidal land and contains significant shorebird habitat. The area includes all of the land owned in fee by the Port of Grays Harbor below the Section 404 line of non-aquatic vegetation, except those lands included within Areas 2, 3, 4 and 6. An additional area commonly known as "the fan" (see Management Unit 12 exhibit for further description) is also included within Area I. The final determination of Section 404 jurisdiction will be made by the Corps of Engineers as a part of the permit process. Area I includes approximately 1,700 acres and is bounded on the west by the eastern line of Section 12 (TI7N, Rl IW) and on the south by the northern edge of the authorized federal navigation channel and Areas 2, 3, 4 and 6. Implementation Conditions The following conditions have been developed in conjunction with conditions for Areas 2, 3, 4 and 6 and are tied, therefore, to their implementation. 1. Any filling that may be allowed within Management Unit 12 will carry with it the condition that lands within Area I will be preserved as natural areas through the transfer of fee title. As Areas 2, 3, 4 and 7 (see Management Unit 14 for Area 7) are filled for industrial development, fee title will be transferred for a portion of Area I on the basis of 3.4 acres transferred for each acre filled.* The transfer will permanently establish a balance that is essential to avoid unacceptable adverse impacts to the aquatic ecosystem, including wetlands (within the meaning of Section 404 guidelines) might otherwise result from future fills in Area I. Transfer of title will be done in accordance with Condition 3 to. follow. 2. Upon evaluation of the Final Environmental Impact Statement on this plan by the E.P.A. and the Corps of Engineers, the Port of Grays Harbor, under the provisions of 40CFR, Part 230.80, Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or *This proportion is derived from the approximate acreage figures noted previously, which have been determined in the plan to be an acceptable balance between natural and development areas in the Bowerman Basin, i.e., 1,700 acres: 500 acres = 3.4:1. 61 Fill Material , will formally apply to the Environmental Protection Agency and the Corps of Engineers to designate Area 1, exclusive of Areas 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 (in Management Unit 14) as lands where the placement of dredged or fill materials is prohibited. 3. Fee title transfer of lands within Area 1 will be accomplished in accordance with the following terms and conditions: Recipient : Fee title will be transferred by the Port of Grays Harbor to the Washington State Department of Game. A Bowerman Basin Advisory Council will be formed consisting of representatives of state and federal resource agencies, Grays Harbor County, the Port of Grays Harbor, interested formally organized environ- mental groups, and at least two citizens at large to be appointed by the Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission. As the Department of Game prepares management plans or is faced with specific management decisions on lands within Area 1 transferred to its responsibility, it will seek the review, advice and counsel of the Advisory Council. At a minimum, the Department of Game will call at least one meeting of the Advisory Council each year to review the status of transferred lands and other relevant issues. Purpose : The purpose of the transfer is to preserve Area 1 as a natural area. However, federal or state resource agencies may undertake research on experi- mental habitat protection and enhancement programs in the area, provided that those actions do not interfere with allowable uses and activities of adjacent Management Units; are consistent with applicable local, state and federal policies and regulations; and are reviewed by the Bowerman Basin Advisory Council and the Department of Game. Conveying Title : As a permit is issued for fill of a portion of the Management Unit (including Area 7, Management Unit 14), a 3.4:1 proportional amount of Area 1 will be transferred in fee. No fill may commence until the proportionate transfer of title has occurred. The general sequence of title conveyance will be from East to West across the Bowerman Basin beginning along the northern edge of Area 1 (see Management Unit 12 Exhibit for the actual conveyance sequence). This specification is designed to act as a guideline for transfer rather than as an absolute requirement. However, as an additional guideline, parcels transferred should generally be four-sided with one dimension no greater than three times the other. Final Parcel Conveyance : At such time as the final fill action allowed in Management Unit 12 (and Area 7 in Management Unit 14) is permitted, the remaining parts of Area 1 will be transferred. It is recognized that this final transfer may not strictly satsify the 3.4:1 proportional rule due to the fact that acreage figures for Area 1 (1,700) and Areas 2, 3, 4 and 7 (500) are only approximate. AREA 2 - PHASE I FILL SITE - URBAN DEVELOPMENT Description Area 2 includes approximately 164 acres as measured to the toe of the dike for any fill within the area. The dimensions of this area are illustrated on the Management Unit 12 62 exhibit and represent an area as measured to the top of the dike of any fill within the area. These dimensions and the other conditions attached to this area, are established to provide for the development of a major multi-commodity, bulk loading and off-loading facility. The facility is envisioned with a rail loop transportation system and sufficient on-site storage for handling several types of bulk commodities simultaneously. Implementation Conditions The following conditions have been developed in conjunction with conditions for Area 1 and are tied, therefore, to their implementation. 1. As a permit is issued for fill in Area 2 for industrial development, fee title will be transferred of a portion of Area 1 on the basis of 3.4 acres transferred for each acre filled. The transfer will permanently establish a balance that is essential to avoid unacceptable adverse impacts to the aquatic ecosystem, including wetlands (within the meaning of Section 404 guidelines) that might otherwise result from additional future fills in Area 1. Transfer of title will be done in accordance with Condition 3 of the Implementation Conditions for Area 1. 2. Grays Harbor is one of the major estuaries on the west coast. The Harbor contains a total of 54,720 acres to the extreme high water line with 33,600 acres of intertidal land. It contains 5,420 acres of saltmarsh and 28,160 acres of tideflats. Between 1940 and 1975, 3,850 acres of intertidal wetlands have been impacted with the placement of dredged materials, including portions of the area within Management Unit 12. In the early portion of that period, the rate of fill was as much as 50 acres per year. More recently, that rate has slowed to 10-15 acres per year or less. In establishing its direction for overall management of the estuary, the Task Force recognized that economic growth involving conversion of natural habitat to indus- trial uses would continue at some level in the harbor during the life of this plan. In reviewing the opportunities for that growth to occur around the harbor, the Task Force reviewed the several potential areas in terms of the availability, size and usability of land, transportation access for both rail and highway, proximity to the main navigation channel, availability of utilities, relationship to the existing industrial areas, relationship to other support industries and uses and other factors. While there are several areas around the harbor that could accommodate some industrial growth, the Task Force saw that most provided only limited opportunities. In pursuing a philosophy of concentrating major future development rather than dispersing it throughout the harbor, focusing that growth into the area of Manage- ment Unit 12 met more of the criteria than any other area. In addition to criteria directly related to the needs of future industrial development, the Task Force considered the amounts of various types of intertidal habitat and their values to fish and wildlife resources. Fish migration habitat was considered a major limiting factor in Grays Harbor because of past developmental patterns. During the next 50 years, the plan, as drafted, will protect most of the estuarian wetlands from filling except those in this management unit. This is approximately 1.5% of the intertidal area of Grays Harbor and 6% of the estuary's low silty marsh. Although there is an adverse impact associated with filling these wetlands, the balance achieved through protection of most of the rest of the estuarian ecosystem from filling reduces the significance of the loss, and is consistent with the overall goal for management of the estuary for multiple uses. 63 3. Filling that occurs in Area 2 will be subject to approval through the Section 404 permit process. However, in the context of the total Management Unit and the total Estuary Management Plan, such filling is not considered to have an unaccept- able impact on the aquatic ecosystem, including wetlands. This determination is made in consideration of: a. Implementation Condition 2, above b. The Management Objective for this Management Unit, c. The implementation of allowable fill through the application of normal local, state and federal policies and regulations, d. The implementation of the policies and standards of this plan, e. The full implementation of the conditions of this Management Unit including the fee title transfer of approximately 1,700 acres of intertidal and wetland area, f . The guarantees and protective measures afforded to the resources of the total harbor by this plan, g. The consideration, in the preparation of this plan, of the long term need of the Grays Harbor community to seek out and accommodate major new industrial diversification and expansion, h. The consideration, in the preparation of this plan, of alternative areas and ways to accommodate new water dependent industry and the general lack of areas as uniquely suited as this Management Unit and i. Implementation Condition 5, below. 4. Upon evaluation of the Final Environmental Impact Statement on this plan by the E.P.A. and the Corps of Engineers, the Port of Grays Harbor, under the provisions of 40CFR, Part 230.80, Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material , will formally apply to the E.P.A. and the Corps of Engineers to pre- designate Area 2 as an area for the discharge of dredged or fill material for water dependent industrial development subject to permit approval. 5. As filling occurs, it will be done in accordance with disposal practices approved through the permit process, including the use of containment structures surrounding each fill to preclude the unnecessary dispersal of fill material to the adjacent aquatic area. With the full review and concurrence of state and federal resource agencies, plans for the placement of fill in Area 2 will consider the selective placement of additional fills and/or non-standard design of fill dikes to recreate lost habitat on the northern edge of this area. A particular emphasis will be placed on recreating the vegetated salt marshes and woody vegetation that is similar to the vegetation on the north side of Moon Island. Additionally, piles that must be removed to accommodate the fill will be replaced in the area north of the fill site to re-establish perching sites for birds. Although the plan views this area as a fill site, rather than a dredged materials disposal site, the use of dredged material for fill meeting these special conditions is appropriate. 6. The specific size and shape of the northern portion of Area 2 (within the general dimensions illustrated on the Management Unit 12 exhibit) is determined by the engineering requirements for a railroad loop track including required maintenance roads and drainage facilities. 64 AREA 3 - AIRPORT FILL - URBAN DEVELOPMENT Description Area 3 is approximately 73 acres as measured to the toe of the dike required for a fill in this area. Implementation Conditions The following special conditions have been developed in conjunction with the conditions of Area 1 and are tied, therefore, to their implementation. 1. As a permit is issued for fill in Area 3 for the relocation of the Bowerman Airfield, fee title will be transferred of a portion of Area 1 on the basis of 3.4 acres transferred for each acre filled. The transfer will permanently establish a balance that is essential to avoid unacceptable adverse impacts to the aquatic ecosystem, including wetlands (within the meaning of Section 404 guidelines) that would result from future fills in Area 1. Transfer of title will be done in accordance with Condition 3 of the Implementation Conditions for Area 1. 2. Filling of Area 3 will be allowed for the relocation and expansion of the airport in order to accommodate an FAA-approved ILS Commuter Airport. However, the maximum line of fill shall be 750 feet to the north, and the fill shall be the minimum amount necessary to accommodate the ILS airport. Fill of Area 3 can only occur to accommodate the relocation of Bowerman Airfield and only when all or a majority of the existing Airfield area (Area 5) is proposed for a water dependent industrial use. 3. If Area 2 is filled prior to a permit application to fill in Area 3, an evaluation of the effects of filling in Area 2 will be conducted as a part of the permit review process. The primary purpose of that evaluation will be to determine whether environmental conditions have changed sufficiently as a result of the Area 2 fill to demonstrate that other alternative airport sites would be less environmentally damaging. 4. Filling in this area will be subject to approval through the Section 404 permit process. However, in the context of the total Management Unit and the total Estuary Management Plan, such filling is not considered to have an unacceptable adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, including the wetlands. This determi- nation is made in consideration of: a. Implementation Condition 2, above b. The Management Objective for this Management Unit, c. The implementation of allowable fill through the application of normal local, State and Federal policies and regulations, d. The implementation of the policies and standards of this plan, e. The full implementation of the conditions of this Management Unit including the fee title transfer of approximately 1,700 acres of intertidal and wetland area, f . The guarantees and protective measures afforded to the resources of the total harbor by this plan, 65 g. The consideration, in the preparation of this plan, of the long term need of the Grays Harbor community to seek out and accommodate major new industrial diversification and expansion, h. The consideration, in the preparation of this plan, of alternative areas and ways to accommodate new water dependent industry and the general lack of areas as uniquely suited as Area 3, and i. Implementation Condition 5, below. 5. As filling occurs, it will be done in accordance with disposal practices approved through the permit process, including the use of containment structures surrounding each fill to preclude the unnecessary dispersal of fill material to the adjacent aquatic area. However, with the full review and concurrence of state and federal resource agencies, plans for the placement and fill in Area 3 will consider the selective placement of additional fills and/or non-standard design of fill dikes to recreate lost habitat on the northern edge of this area. A particular emphasis will be placed on recreating the vegetated salt marshes and woody vegetation on the north side of Moon Island. Additionally, piles that must be removed to accommo- date the fill will be replaced in the area north of the fill site to re-establish perching sites for birds. Although the plan views this area as a fill site, rather than a dredged materials disposal site, the use of dredged material for fill meeting these special conditions is appropriate. AREA 4 - SPECIAL DESIGNATION Description Area 4, as identified on the Management Unit 12 exhibit, is not intended to denote an exact location nor an absolute commitment to a future fill within that specific area. Nonetheless, for purposes of describing the conditions under which future filling might occur, the following sections are included as a part of this Management Unit. Area 4 includes approximately 243 acres. The actual acreage of this area will be defined at the time of permit considerations. However, in concept, the acreage of this area is the remainder of the sums of the acreage (to the toe of the dike) of Areas 2, 3 and 7 (in Management Unit 14) subtracted from 500 acres. Implementation Conditions The following conditions have been developed in conjunction with conditions for Area 1 and are tied, therefore, to their implementation. 1. As a permit is issued for fill in Area 4 for the development of water dependent industrial uses, fee title will be transferred of a portion of Area 1 on the basis of 3.4 acres transferred for each acre filled. The transfer will permanently establish a balance that is essential to avoid unacceptable adverse impacts to the aquatic ecosystem, including wetlands (within the meaning of Section 404 guidelines) that might result from additional future fills in Area 1. Transfer of title will be done in accordance with Condition 3 of the Implementation Conditions for Area 1. 2. Area 4 is a conceptual designation for future fills (Phase II fill) which are intended to provide a total of 500 acres of potential fill for industrial development within Management Unit 12 and Area 7 of Management Unit 14. The designation of Area 4 66 for fill does not represent a commitment that the area will actually be filled. A decision on the actual location of future fill will be made at the time of future development. This decision will be made in accordance with these conditions and will be guided by the principles of: a. locating necessary fills in areas where there will not be an unacceptable adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, including wetlands, and b. meeting industrial development needs within the region. 3. Area 4 fills can only occur if Area 2 is fully developed and utilized. In addition, uses that may be proposed as a part of the Area 4 permit application must demonstrate that there are no other less environmentally damaging practicable locations for the use including the existing Bowerman Airfield area (Area 5). 4. Area 4 fills will be subject to approval through the Section 404 permit process. Unlike Areas 2, 3, 6 and 7 (in Management Unit 14) no prior Section 404 or Section 7 (Endangered Species Act) evaluations have been considered for this area within this plan on whether filling would have an unacceptable adverse impact. Consequently, proposals for Area 4 fill must demonstrate acceptable levels of impact on the ecosystem, the need for the proposed project which would be located on the fill, and alternative locations. As noted above, the actual location of an Area 4 fill which meets these requirements will depend on assessments at the time of proposal. 5. It is recognized that an Area 4 fill proposal may be submitted which meets needs and alternative requirements but cannot be located within this Management Unit due to unacceptable adverse impacts on the ecosystem. In such a case, it is expected that the Estuary Management Plan may be amended to accommodate necessary fill proposals (up to the total 500 acre limit) in other areas of the estuary and that the general area identified for the Area 4 fill will be redesignated as a natural area. AREA 5 - EXISTING AIRFIELD - URBAN DEVELOPMENT Description Area 5, as identified in the Management Unit 12 exhibit is intended to describe the existing Bowerman Airfield area including all that land above the Section 404 Line of Non-Aquatic Vegetation, extending east to the Hoquiam City Limits line. In the area generally known as "the fan", the northern boundary of Area 5 is described by an east- west line, parallel to and 750 feet north of a line formed by the northern edge of the existing buildings on the Bowerman airfield. It is envisioned that this area will continue to be used for the existing airfield. At such time as the airfield is relocated, either to Area 3 or to another location, Area 5 will be used for water dependent industrial uses. Implementation Conditions The following special conditions have been developed in part with the conditions of Area 3. 1. Continuation of the existing use of this area is allowed subject to local land use regulations and other applicable local, state and federal requirements. 67 2. With the relocation of the airfield, either through its location in Area 3 or through its location elsewhere, the reuse of this area will be for water dependent industrial purposes. 3. If the airfield is relocated to an area other than Area 3, the subsequent reuse of Area 5 will be for uses whose dependency on the aquatic area can be accommodated through Area 6 only. No aquatic connections will be allowed into Area I from Area 5. 4. The relocation of the Airfield into Area 3 is intended to include only the runways with the fixed base facilities remaining in their present location. Reuse of Area 5 for water dependent industries will be in those areas vacated by the runways and other relocated facilities. AREA 6 - WATERFRONT AREA - CONSERVANCY MANAGED Description This is the southern-most portion of the management unit extending from the Section 404 Line of Non-Aquatic Vegetation along the existing airfield out to the northern edge of the federal navigation channel. The area extends from the Hoquiam City Limits at the boundary between Management Units 12 and 14, westerly to the western-most extent of a potential fill in Area 4. The western boundary of Area 6 is not fixed at this time but is rather variable depending fill decisions made within Area 2 and 4. Implementation Conditions I. The southern shoreline of the existing Bowerman Airfield is an area of significant natural resources, particularly as it relates to the migration and feeding of fish and shellfish. At the same time, with the use of Areas 2 and 5, and potentially Area 4, for water dependent industrial development, access to the water and the navigation channel is of prime importance. Any development will be done with great care and under the following guidelines: a. A very limited number of "T" docks will be allowed within this area. The principal concern with these structures is the number of tressle connections to the shore rather than the length of dock structure at the navigation channel. b. Very limited filling is allowable at the approach to the "T" dock for the purposes of establishing a safe and efficient connection to the shore and, to reduce the high costs of such structures. Under no circumstances will such fills extend to that portion of the structure adjacent to the channel nor will it substantially interfere with the migration of fish and shellfish, or their rearing and feeding areas. 68 2. With the relocation of the airfield, either through its location in Area 3 or through its location elsewhere, the reuse of this area will be for water dependent industrial purposes. 3. If the airfield is relocated to an area other than Area 3, the subsequent reuse of Area 5 will be for uses whose dependency on the aquatic area can be accommodated through Area 6 only. No aquatic connections will be allowed into Area I from Area 5. 4. The relocation of the Airfield into Area 3 is intended to include only the runways with the fixed base facilities remaining in their present location. Reuse of Area 5 for water dependent industries will be in those areas vacated by the runways and other relocated facilities. AREA 6 - WATERFRONT AREA - CONSERVANCY MANAGED Description This is the southern-most portion of the management unit extending from the Section 404 Line of Non-Aquatic Vegetation along the existing airfield out to the northern edge of the federal navigation channel. The area extends from the Hoquiam City Limits at the boundary between Management Units 12 and 14, westerly to the western-most extent of a potential fill in Area 4. The western boundary of Area 6 is not fixed at this time but is rather variable depending fill decisions made within Area 2 and 4. Implementation Conditions I. The southern shoreline of the existing Bowerman Airfield is an area of significant natural resources, particularly as it relates to the migration and feeding of fish and shellfish. At the same time, with the use of Areas 2 and 5, and potentially Area 4, for water dependent industrial development, access to the water and the navigation channel is of prime importance. Any development will be done with great care and under the following guidelines: a. A very limited number of "T" docks will be allowed within this area. The principal concern with these structures is the number of tressle connections to the shore rather than the length of dock structure at the navigation channel. b. Very limited filling is allowable at the approach to the "T" dock for the purposes of establishing a safe and efficient connection to the shore and, to reduce the high costs of such structures. Under no circumstances will such fills extend to that portion of the structure adjacent to the channel nor will it substantially interfere with the migration of fish and shellfish, or their rearing and feeding areas. 68 69 MANAGEMENT UNIT 13 NOT USED MANAGEMENT UNIT 14 PLANNING AREA HI PERMITTED ACTIVITIES MANAGEMENT CATEGORY UD CO LLi AC o D cc (0 Piers, Docks, Wharves ♦ Piling & Mooring Dolphins ♦ Bridges Causeways Outfalls □ Cable/Pipeline Crossing Boathouses □ Breakwater z < CO Diking □ Bulkheading □ Groins Jetty Special Project Fills * Bankline Straightening Bankline Erosion Control • -J z z < z o New Access Channel D Channel/Berth Maint □ Channel Realignment □ PERMITTED ACTIVITY CONDITIONAL ACTIVITY SPECIAL CONDITIONS • □ * STANDARD USES See Standard Use Table Management Category UD - Urban Development Boundary Description Western Boundary - Management Unit 12, City of Hoquiam Boundary Eastern/Study Boundary - Adams St., Burlington Northern Railroad out to line of Ordinary High Water. Management Objectives The uplands portion of this management unit will be one of the prime areas for continued heavy industrial expansion with an emphasis to water related and dependent uses. The bankline within this management unit is considered an important fish and shellfish migrating and feeding area. Any development within the bankline will be done with utmost care. Special Conditions The following special conditions will apply within this management unit: 1. A very limited number of "T" docks will be allowed within this Management Unit. The principal concern with these structures is the number of trestle connections to the shore rather than the length of the dock structure at the navigation channel. 2. Very limited filling is allowable on the ap- proach to the "T" dock for the purposes of establishing a safe and efficient connection to the shore and, to reduce the high costs of such structures. Under no circumstances will such fill extend to the channel portion of the structure nor will it substantially interfere with the migration of fish and shellfish or their rearing and feeding areas. 70 AREA 7 - HOQUIAM FILL (See Management Unit 12 Exhibit) Area 7 includes approximately 20 acres of land below the line of non-aquatic vegetation. This area, and much of the adjacent land is owned by the City of Hoquiam. Implementation Conditions The following special conditions have been developed in conjunction with the conditions of Area 1, Management Unit 12 and are tied, therefore, to their implementation. 1. When a permit is issued for fill in Area 7 for industrial development, fee title will be transferred for a portion of Area 1, Management Unit 12, on the basis of 3 .4 acres transferred for each acre filled. The transfer will permanently establish a balance that is essential to avoid unacceptable adverse impacts to the aquatic ecosystem, including wetlands (within the meaning of Section 404 guidelines) that might result from future fills in Area 1, Management Unit 12. Transfer of the title will be done in accordance with Condition 3 of the Implementation Conditions for Area 1, Management Unit 12. 2. Filling in this area will be subject to approval through the Section 404 permit process. However, in the context of the total Management Unit and the total Estuary Management Plan, such filling is not considered to have an acceptable adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, including wetlands. In addition, the geographic location of this area, particularly its great distance from the authorized federal navigation channel, will be taken into account in permit determinations related to water dependency. 3. As filling occurs, it will be done in accordance with disposal practices approved through the permit process, including the use of containment structures surrounding each fill to preclude the unnecessary dispersal of fill material to the adjacent aquatic area. Although the plan views this area as a fill site, rather than a dredged materials disposal site, the use of dredged material for fill meeting these special conditions is appropriate. 71 MANAGEMENT UNIT 15 PLANNING AREA HI Management Category UD - Urban Development Boundary Description Western Boundary - Management Unit 14 Eastern Boundary - The extension of Michigan Street to the shoreline Study Area Boundary - Burlington Northern Rail- road line out to the line of Ordinary High Water Management Objectives This area will serve as one of the principal areas for heavy industrial expansion for the Grays Harbor region. The emphasis on use will be for water related and dependent uses and redevelop- ment of already developed lands. Special Conditions 1. Filling and/or development of the existing Port slips will be allowed subject to applicable local, state and federal regulations. Such filling however, is not considered to be an unacceptable adverse impact in the context of the total Estuary Management Plan. 2. Any other filling that may occur in this management unit also must meet applicable local, state and federal regulations. By so doing, it is not the intent of this plan to preclude the property owners from submitting proposals that might include the filling of areas adjacent to this management unit. However, in such circumstances, any proposal must demonstrate that the immediately adjacent uplands are (or will be) fully developed with water dependent uses; there are no practicable means of developing without such fill; and, a mitigation project (see Mitigation section) must be developed and approved by state and federal resource agencies in advance of permit approval, and an implementation schedule for the mitigation project committed to and initiated at the time of permit issuance. PERMITTED ACTIVITIES MANAGEMENT CATEGORY UD CO U O 1 Z < CD Piers, Docks, Wharves • Piling & Mooring Dolphins • Bridges • Causeways Outfalls □ Cable/Pipeline Crossing • Boathouses □ Breakwater Diking □ Bulkheading □ Groins Jetty Special Project Fills * Bankline Straightening • BankHne Erosion Control • -J LU Z z < z o New Access Channel □ Channel/Berth Maint ♦ Channel Realignment □ PERMITTED ACTIVITY CONDITIONAL ACTIVITY SPECIAL CONDITIONS • □ II STANDARD USES See Standard Use Table Navigation channel approach structures will be permitted. Limited filling will be per- mitted with the structure approach. The primary purpose of this filling is to cut the high costs of such a structure. State and Federal fish and wildlife agencies will review the proposed fill to ensure that there is a minimum intrusion on the fish and shellfish migration route. A public boat ramp is believed appropriate within this management unit. 72 PERMITTED ACTIVITIES MANAGEMENT CATEGORY UM ifi LU AC ? O D a, Piers, Docks, Wharves • Piling & Mooring Dolphins • Bridges # Causeways Outfalls • Cable/Pipeline Crossing • Boathouses □ Breakwater z < CD Diking □ Bulkheading □ Groins Jetty Special Project FHIs Bankline Straightening • Bankline Erosion Control • -J W z z o New Access Channel □ Channel/Berth Maint p Channel Realignment □ PERMITTED ACTIVITY CONDITIONAL ACTIVITY SPECIAL CONDITIONS □ MANAGEMENT UNIT 16 PLANNING AREA II/HI Management Category UM - Urban Mixed Boundary Description Western Boundary - The extension of Michigan Street to the shoreline. Eastern Boundary - Wishkah Railroad Bridge. Study Area Boundary - Burlington Northern Rail- road Line out to the line of Ordinary High Water. Management Objectives This Management Unit encompasses the area commonly known as the "Old Aberdeen Waterfront". Along with other areas in the har- bor, this portion of the waterfront was the center of the historic industrial and commercial develop- ment in the harbor. Changing economic condi- tions have shifted the center of economic activity to other areas of the harbor, leaving this area in need of a major redevelopment effort. The management objectives for this unit recognize this need and are designed to support it with a range of use and activity options that allow flexibility in the siting and design, and can serve as a catalyst for the redevelopment effort. STANDARD USES See Standard Uee Table 73 MANAGEMENT UNIT 17 PLANNING AREA H Management Category UM - Urban Mixed Boundary Description Western Boundary - Wishkah River Railroad Bridge. Eastern Boundary - western edge of oil storage facility. Study Area Boundary - Burlington Northern Rail- road line out to the line of Ordinary High Water. Management Objectives This area represents one of the few opportunities to "see the river" from the uplands. At the same time, it has limited opportunity for major devel- opment. The management unit will be used primarily for a mix of private and public uses that maximize the opportunities for water related enjoyment. Special Conditions In addition to Standard Uses and Permitted Activities, the following special conditions will also apply: 1. A public park is proposed by the City of Aberdeen for passive and active waterfront recreation. Limited filling is allowable through the Bankline Straightening Policy. Some additional filling may be appropriate for this use, based on the normal 404 permit process and a review of detailed plans by state and federal agencies. PERMITTED ACTIVITIES MANAGEMENT CATEGORY UM CO LU £ O B Piers, Docks, Wharves • Piling & Mooring Dolphins • Bridges • Causeways Outfalls • Cable/Pipeline Crossing • Boathouses □ Breakwater □ Z < tn Diking □ Bulkheading □ Groins □ Jetty Special Project Fills Bankline Straightening • Bankline Erosion Control • iij z z < z o New Access Channel a Channel/Berth Maint a Channel Realignment a PERMITTED ACTIVITY CONDITIONAL ACTIVITY SPECIAL CONDITIONS • D # STANDARD USES See Standard Use Table 74 PERMITTED ACTIVITIES MANAGEMENT CATEGORY UD N CO III o I Piers, Docks, Wharves • Piling & Mooring Dolphins • Bridges • Causeways Outfalls □ Cable/Pipeline Crossing • Boathouses D Breakwater Z < CD Diking □ Bulkheading □ Groins Jetty Special Project FHIs * * Bankline Straightening * Bankline Erosion Control • -I III Z z < z o New Access Channel □ Channel/Berth Maint D Channel Realignment □ PERMITTED ACTIVITY CONDITIONAL ACTIVITY SPECIAL CONDITIONS • □ J* STANDARD USES See Standard Use Table MANAGEMENT UNIT 18 PLANNING AREA U Management Category UD - Urban Development/Natural Boundary Description Western Boundary - Management Unit 17 Eastern Boundary - See Special Conditions below. Study Area Boundary - Burlington Northern Rail- road out to the line of Ordinary High Water. Management Objectives It is envisioned that this will be a heavy industrial area on the north side of the Chehalis River. Special Conditions In addition to Standard Uses and Permitted Activities, the following special conditions will also apply: 1. No filling will be permitted along Elliott Slough below the line of non-aquatic vegeta- tion (Section 404) or to within 100 feet of the line of Ordinary High Water. 2. Structures will be permitted to approach the navigation channel. Very limited filling is allowable at the approach to these struc- tures for the purposes of establishing a safe and efficient connection to the shore, and to reduce the high costs of such structures. Under no circumstances will such fills extend to the channel portion of the struc- ture nor will it substantially interefere with fish feeding areas or migration routes. 3. Bankline straightening may be appropriate in very limited circumstances within this management unit. The primary criteria for the application of bankline straightening will be to minimize effects on fish feeding and migration and to ensure that bankline straightening is essential to maintaining the function of the proposed use. 4. The accompanying figure is an enlarged ver- sion of the boundary between Management Units 18 and 19 as well as the special split that occurs within Management Unit 18. In addition to the designated management categories, the following conditions will also 75 apply: a. A 100 foot, no fill/no development buf- fer will be maintained along Elliott Slough and along both sides of the slough (designated Slough A) that inter- sects with Elliott Slough in the north- eastern portion of the management unit. b. A 50 foot, no fill/no development buf- fer will be maintained on both sides of the slough (designated Slough B) in the southern portion of the management unit, where that slough is north of the existing access road. c. The existing access road in the area designated as Natural, can be main- tained and up-graded to permit access to the Urban Development areas to the east. d. The southernmost boundary between Management Units 18 and 19 is a line 50 feet west and parallel to Slough B, from its intersection with the existing access road to its intersection with Chehalis River. iPowarHn* Weyerhaeuser Mill 5. Other fills above the bankline within the Urban Development portion of the Manage- ment Unit may be allowable consistent with applicable state and federal regulations. 76 PERMITTED ACTIVITIES MANAGEMENT CATEGORY CM CO m K o E Piers, Docks, Wharves Piling & Mooring Dolphins □ Bridges Causeways Outfalls * Cable/Pipeline Crossing □ Boathouses Breakwater z < CD Diking Bulkheading Groins Jetty Special Project Fills Bankline Straightening Banklme Erosion Control -J U z z < z o New Access Channel □ Channel/Berth Malnt □ Channel Realignment □ PERMITTED ACTIVITY CONDITIONAL ACTIVITY SPECIAL CONDITIONS • □ • STANDARD USES See Standard Use Table MANAGEMENT UNIT 19 PLANNING AREA I Management Category CM - Conservancy Managed Special* Boundary Description Western Boundary - Management Unit 18 (also see map on previous page). Eastern Boundary - a line approximately at the narrowest point between Chehalis River and the Burlington Northern Railroad line. Study Area Boundary - Burlington Northern Rail- road line out to the line of Ordinary High Water. Management Objectives This management unit is between the more intensely developed areas of Junction City and the more natural areas upriver. The long-term utilization of this area has not been determined by the estuary planning task force. In the short term, the area will remain in its present, some- what undisturbed natural condition. Activities that hinder its natural characteristics, particu- larly its function as a natural water storage area, will not be permitted during this interim period. Special Conditions In addition to Standard Uses and Permitted Activities, the following special conditions will also apply: 1.* This management unit will automatically be reviewed by the estuary planning task force in their five year plan review. The purpose of this review will be to establish a final management classification for the manage- ment unit. 2. Any specific project proposals within this management unit will be reviewed by the estuary planning task force during their Annual Review. 3. A potential wastewater treatment plant will be permitted as a conditional use subject to local permit approval as well as review and consensus by the members of the Estuary Planning Task Force. 77 MANAGEMENT UNIT 20 PLANNING AREA I Management Category CM - Conservancy Managed Boundary Description Western Boundary - Management Unit 19 Eastern Boundary - the eastern extension of Mox Chuck Slough to Chehalis River Study Area Boundary - Burlington Northern Rail- road line out to the line of Ordinary High Water. Management Objectives This area will remain relatively undisturbed from its present natural condition. Continued use of the area for wildlife observation and hunting will be permitted. Activities that hinder its natural characteristics, particularly its function as a natural water storage area, will not be permitted. Special Conditions In addition to Standard Uses and Permitted Activities, the following conditions will apply: 1. A potential wastewater treatment plant will be permitted as a conditional use subject to local approval as well as to review and consensus by the members of the estuary planning task force. 2. Extraction of aggregate resources in areas outside the river is permitted. PERMITTED ACTIVITIES MANAGEMENT CATEGORY CM (0 111 CC O D E Piers, Docks, Wharves Piling & Mooring Dolphins □ Bridges Causeways Outfalls * Cable/Pipeline Crossing □ Boathouses Breakwater z < m Diking Bulkheading Groins Jetty Special Project Fills Bankline Straightening Bankline Erosion Control ■j u z z < o New Access Channel Channel/Berth Makit * Channel Realignment PERMITTED ACTIVITY CONDITIONAL ACTIVITY SPECIAL CONDITIONS • □ « STANDARD USES See Standard Use Table 78 PERMITTED ACTIVITIES MANAGEMENT CATEGORY UR to Hi o D AC z < CD Piers, Docks, Wharves □ Piling & Mooring Dolphins □ Bridges Causeways Outfalls □ Cable/Pipeline Crossing □ Boathouses • Breakwater Diking Bulkheading Groins Jetty Special Project Fills Bankline Straightening Bank line Erosion Control • -1 111 z z < o New Access Channel Channel/Berth Maint * Channel Realignment PERMITTED ACTIVITY CONDITIONAL ACTIVITY SPECIAL CONDITIONS • □ M MANAGEMENT UNIT 21 PLANNING AREA I Management Category UR - Urban Residential Boundary Description Western Boundary - Management Unit 20 Eastern Boundary - west side of Higgins Slough. Study Area Boundary - Burlington Northern Rail- road line out to the line of Ordinary High Water. Management Objectives This is one of the few places in the river segment of Chehalis River where urban/suburban develop- ment is in close proximity to the river. Limited urban development will be permitted within this area. Additionally, this area can provide some limited opportunities for public access to the river. However, development of public access will be done to maintain compatibility with the natural characteristics of the management unit and adjacent areas. Special Conditions 1. Extraction of aggregate resources in areas outside the river is permitted. STANDARD USES See Standard Use Table 79 MANAGEMENT UNIT 22 PLANNING AREA I Management Category RA - Rural Agriculture Boundary Description Western Boundary - Management Unit 21 Eastern Boundary - west bankline of Wynoochee River. Study Area Boundary - Burlington Northern Rail- road line out to the line of Ordinary High Water. Management Objectives This area will continue to serve as one of the few agricultural areas within the study limits of the management plan. Additionally, the area will serve as one of the region's major extraction source of aggregate. However, activities associ- ated with agriculture and aggregate extraction will be done to maintain compatibility with the natural characteristics of the area. Special Conditions In addition to Standard Uses and Permitted Activities, the following special conditions will also apply: 1. Extraction of aggregate resources in areas outside the river is permitted. 2. Maintenance of existing dikes will be allowed. 3. New dikes may be appropriate to protect agricultural land provided they meet appli- cable State and Federal regulations and do not encroach into wetlands. PERMITTED ACTIVITIES MANAGEMENT CATEGORY RA^ (0 111 tt ? O i Piers, Docks, Wharves □ Piling & Mooring Dolphins □ Bridges • Causeways □ Outfalls Cable/Pipeline Crossing □ Boathouses Breakwater z < GO Diking * Bulkheading Groins Jetty Special Project Fills Bankline Straightening Bankline Erosion Control • _l UJ z z < z o New Access Channel Channel/Berth Maint * Channel Realignment PERMITTED ACTIVITY CONDITIONAL ACTIVITY SPECIAL CONDITIONS • □ STANDARD USES See Standard Use Table 80 PERMITTED ACTIVITIES PERMITTED ACTIVITY CONDITIONAL ACTIVITY SPECIAL CONDITIONS MANAGEMENT CATEGORY RL CO m ? o AC Piers, Docks, Wharves □ Piling & Mooring Dolphins □ Bridges • Causeways Outfalls □ Cable/Pipeline Crossing □ Boathouses D Breakwater z < 00 Diking □ Bulkheading Groins Jetty Special Project Fills Bankline Straightening Banklfaie Erosion Control • -J m z z < o New Access Channel Channel/Berth Maint D Channel Realignment □ MANAGEMENT UNIT 23 PLANNING AREA I Management Category RL - Rural Low Intensity Boundary Description Eastern Boundary - Confluence of Chehalis and Wynoochee Rivers. Western Boundary - A point where the highway and Union Pacific Railroad line leave the parallel alignment of Chehalis River. Study Area Boundary - Union Pacific Railroad line out to the line of Ordinary High Water. Management Objectives This management unit presently contains a scat- tering of single residences on mixed land parcels. Continuation and some expansion of these uses is seen as appropriate within the guidelines of Stan- dard Uses and Permitted Activities. However, any development activities will be done to main- tain compatibility with the natural characteristics of the management unit and adjacent areas. Special Conditions 1. Extraction of aggregate resources in areas outside the river is permitted. STANDARD USES See Standard Use Table 81 MANAGEMENT UNIT 2fr PLANNING AREA I Management Category CM - Conservancy Managed Boundary Description Eastern Boundary - Management Unit 23 Western Boundary - a line at the eastern edge of the Weyerhaueser property in Section 24 (T17N, R9W). Study Area Boundary - The Union Pacific Railroad line out to the line of Ordinary High Water. Management Objectives This management unit is similar in character and future use intent to Management Unit 20. Its relatively undisturbed, natural character will remain, with continued use for wildlife observa- tion and hunting encouraged. Activities that hinder its natural characteristics, particularly its function as a natural water storage area, will not be permitted. Special Conditions In addition to Standard Uses and Permitted Activities, the following conditions will apply: 1. Continued maintenance and/or redevelop- ment of the South Bank Road and railbed will be permitted. 2. Reconstruction of the South Bank Road or construction of a new highway in the same approximate corridor alignment will be per- mitted. Specific plans for such a facility will be reviewed by the Estuary Planning Task Force. 3. Limited filling and erosion control measures will be permitted only as required for the reconstruction of the South Bank Road. 4. Extraction of aggregate resources in areas outside the river is permitted. PERMITTED ACTIVITIES MANAGEMENT CATEGORY CM (0 111 a o K £ Piers, Docks, Wharves Piling & Mooring Dolphins • Bridges * Causeways * Outfalls Cable/Pipeline Crossing □ Boathouses Breakwater z < CO Diking Bulkheading * Groins Jetty Special Project FHIs * Bankline Straightening Bankline Erosion Control * -J UJ z z < z o New Access Channel Channel/Berth Maint * Channel Realignment PERMITTED ACTIVITY CONDITIONAL ACTIVITY SPECIAL CONDITIONS • □ ft STANDARD USES See Standard Use Table 82 PERMITTED ACTIVITIES MANAGEMENT CATEGORY UD (0 U o D AC z < Piers, Docks, Wharves • Piling & Mooring Dolphins • Bridges • Causeways * Outfalls * Cable/Pipeline Crossing * Boathouses □ Breakwater Diking □ Bulkheading □ Groins Jetty Special Project Fills * Bank line Straightening * BankHne Erosion Control * u z z < z o New Access Channel □ Channel/Berth Maint □ Channel Realignment D PERMITTED ACTIVITY CONDITIONAL ACTIVITY SPECIAL CONDITIONS • □ * STANDARD USES See Standard Use Table MANAGEMENT UNIT 25 PLANNING AREA I/n Management Category UD - Urban Development Boundary Description Eastern Boundary - Management Unit 2k. Western Boundary - east side of Chehalis River Bridge. Study Area Boundary - Union Pacific Railroad line, Burlington Northern Railroad line and the connection of the two spurs off of the Burlington Northern Railroad at the northern bend of Chehalis River out to the line of Ordinary High Water. Management Objectives This is an area of heavy industrial development. Existing uses will continue with an emphasis on redevelopment of old facilities and reutilization of existing sites. Some new expanded develop- ment is envisioned in the eastern portion of the management unit although it will be done in a way that recognizes the need for a transition to the more natural areas immediately upriver. Special Conditions In addition to Standard Uses and Permitted Acti- vities, the following conditions will apply: 1. Maintenance of existing public boat ramps is permitted. 2. Fills in the eastern undeveloped areas of an upland character are permitted. Other fills within this management unit may be allowed provided they can meet applicable state and federal regulations. Specifically, bankline straightening may occur from the extension of "E" Street, up-river to the existing dis- charge channel with a priority for such fills in the area immediately adjacent to the pulp mill. 3. Construction of the South Aberdeen flood control project is consistent with the objec- tives of this management unit. it. Cable and pipeline crossings, outfalls, 83 bankline straightening, and bankline erosion con- trol are permitted in that portion of Management Unit 25 within Planning Area II, and conditional in that portion of the management unit within Plan- ning Area I. 5. Reconstruction of the South Bank Road or con- struction of a new highway in the same approxi- mate corridor alignment will be permitted. Specific plans for such a facility will be reviewed by the Estuary Planning Task Force. 84 PERMITTED ACTIVITIES MANAGEMENT CATEGORY UD CM (0 HI S g o E Z < ffi Piers, Docks, Wharves • * Piling & Mooring Dolphins * * Bridges • • Causeways • Outfalls • • Cable/Pipeline Crossing • • Boathouses Breakwater Diking • Bulkheading Groins Jetty Special Project FHte * Bankline Straightening Bankline Erosion Control □ □ -1 u z z < z o New Access Channel Channel/Berth Maint Channel Realignment PERMITTED ACTIVITY CONDITIONAL ACTIVITY SPECIAL CONDITIONS • □ ^^^^™ ST) UMDARDUSES %*l£ x ™ ndard Use MANAGEMENT UNIT 26 PLANNING AREA II/IV Management Category UD/CM - Urban Development/Conservancy Man- aged Boundary Description Eastern Boundary - Management Unit 25 Western Boundary - the east bank of Chapin Creek. Split Unit Boundary - the Burlington Northern Railroad line. Study Area Boundary - the Burlington Northern Railroad line westerly to the line between Sec- tions 16 and 17, T17N, R9W, thence southerly to the Westport Highway, following the highway west to the western management unit boundary. Management Objectives This is a particularly critical management unit in that it represents one of the future new industrial areas and yet contains critical vegetation to upriver fish migration and feeding. Additionally, two upland creeks with significant adjacent habi- tat traverse the area. Preservation of both features is the key to future use of this area. Special Conditions In addition to Standard Uses and Permitted Acti- vities, the following conditions also apply: 1. On the landward side of the railroad line, heavy industrial development will be per- mitted consistent with the standard uses for the Urban Development classification. In the development of those areas, the riparian vegetation along Charley and Newskah Creek will be preserved (see also Conditions 6 and 7 below). 2. On the water side of the railroad line, limited development of inwater structures will be permitted in direct support of devel- opment within the Urban Development area. 3. Also within the Conservancy Managed area, on the water side of the railroad line, the existing treatment ponds and the Saginaw Mill site will be permitted to continue as will maintenance of the bankline of the treatment ponds and railroad line. 85 4. While development activity will be per- mitted throughout this management unit, the overriding interest is in the preservation of the existing salt marsh areas. Modifica- tion of those areas will only be possible as necessary to build structures or maintain banklines as specified in the preceding con- ditions. 5. Construction of the South Aberdeen flood control project is consistent with the objec- tives of this management unit. 6. A 50 foot, no fill/no development buffer (including roads) will be maintained along both sides of main stems of Charley and Newskah Creeks. 7. It is recognized that fills will be required in this management unit to accomplish its Urban Development objectives. It is also recognized that there are areas within this management unit that are, by definition, wetlands. Therefore fills, occurring in these latter areas that are done to meet the development objectives of this management unit must also meet the tests of applicable state and federal regulations. 86 MANAGEMENT UNIT 27 PLANNING AREA IV Management Category RL - Rural Low Intensity Boundary Description Eastern Boundary - Management Unit 26. Western Boundary - state property boundary on the southern line of Section 36 (T17N, R11W). Study Area Boundary - Burlington Northern Rail- road line. Management Objectives Scattered residences exist throughout this general area although few, if any, exist on the water side of the railroad line. Continued development of this general character is considered appropriate in this management unit. PERMITTED ACTIVITIES MANAGEMENT CATEGORY RL CO in S o E z < CD Piers, Docks, Wharves Piling & Mooring Dolphins □ Bridges Causeways Outfalls □ Cable/Pipeline Crossing Boathouses Breakwater Diking Bulkheading Groins Jetty Special Project Fills Bankline Straightening Bankline Erosion Control • -1 U z z < z o New Access Channel Channel/Berth Maint Channel Realignment PERMITTED ACTIVITY CONDITIONAL ACTIVITY SPECIAL CONDITIONS • □ « STANDARD USES See Standard Use Table 87 PERMITTED ACTIVITIES MANAGEMENT CATEGORY UD CM Uj O (0 Piers, Docks, Wharves • * Piling & Mooring Dolphins • * Bridges □ * Causeways Outfalls □ □ Cable/Pipeline Crossing D * Boathouses □ Breakwater z < GO Diking Bulkheading □ Groins Jetty Special Project FHIs Bankline Straightening BankHne Erosion Control □ * -1 UJ z z < o New Access Channel D Channel/Berth Maint □ Channel Realignment □ PERMITTED ACTIVITY CONDITIONAL ACTIVITY SPECIAL CONDITIONS • □ * STANDARD USES See Standard Use Table MANAGEMENT UNIT 28 PLANNING AREA IV Management Category UD/CM - Urban Development/Conservancy Man- aged Boundary Description Eastern (North) Boundary - Management Unit 27 Western (South/East) Boundary - Westport High- way to a line just east of the west line of Section 1 (T16N, R11W) to the intersection of the small slough with Johns River, approximately 800 feet east of the Westport Highway Bridge. Split Unit Boundary - line of non-aquatic vegeta- tion. Study Area Boundary - the Burlington Northern Railroad line and the northern quarter section line of Section 1 (T16N, R11W), the northern boundary line of the Johns River Wildlife Recreation Area. Management Objectives This is one of the few industrial areas outside of the greater Aberdeen/Hoquiam area. The existing agricultural processing facility is seen as impor- tant to the continued viability of the region's cranberry crops. Continuation of that activity and other necessary supporting facilities is appro- priate as are the present oyster plants. This is also an area of significant wetlands and thereby creates a potential for conflict. While the man- agement philosophy expressed by the definition of Conservancy Managed appropriately fits this area, the permitted conditional uses of CM do not automatically fit the unique circumstances in this management unit and the adjacent uplands. Special Conditions In addition to the Standard Uses and Permitted Activities, the following special conditions will also apply: 1. Maintenance of existing oyster docks and facilities is considered appropriate. 2. Development of a limited number of new docks and piers in direct support of adja- cent, upland water dependent uses is 88 considered appropriate. Under such circumstances, special design and con- struction measures may be required to minimize destruction or modification of the wetlands. 3. A utility corridor for cable and pipe- line crossing is permitted adjacent and parallel to the highway bridge. 4. Maintenance of the highway bridge and transportation corridor is allowed. 89 PERMITTED ACTIVITIES MANAGEMENT CATEGORY CM N CO HI K O D I z < CD Piers, Docks, Wharves Piling & Mooring Dolphins Bridges * * Causeways Outfalls Cable/Pipeline Crossing Boathouses Breakwater Diking □ Bulkheading Groins Jetty Special Project Filis Bankline Straightening Banklbie Erosion Control -J U z z < z o New Access Channel Channel/Berth Maint Channel Realignment PERMITTED ACTIVITY CONDITIONAL ACTIVITY SPECIAL CONDITIONS • □ « STANDARD USES See Standard Use Table MANAGEMENT UNIT 29 PLANNING AREA IV Management Category CM/N - Conservancy Managed/Natural Boundary Description Northern Boundary - Management Unit 28 Southern Boundary - the extension of Johns River Road Split Unit Boundary - line of non-aquatic vegeta- tion (Section 404) Study Area Boundary - a line 200 feet landward from the line of non-aquatic vegetation or the boundary line of the Johns River Game Range, whichever is greater, including all of the water area to be western boundary of Management Unit 28. Management Objective The Johns River area is considered one of the prime natural areas in the estuary. This manage- ment unit will continue to support that designa- tion and ensure that an adequate buffer exists to minimize any potential negative effects of activi- ties on adjacent lands. Some portions of this management unit have been diked and provide the definition for that area to be managed under a Conservancy designation. Special Conditions In addition to Standard Uses and Permitted Acti- vities, the following special conditions will also apply: 1. Maintenance of the existing public boat ramp is permitted. 2. Maintenance of the bridge and transporta- tion corridor is permitted. 90 MANAGEMENT UNIT 30 PLANNING AREA IV Management Category RL/CN - Rural Low Intensity/Conservancy Natural Boundary Description Eastern Boundary - Management Unit 29. Western Boundary - east side of the intersection of Redman Slough with the estuary. Split Unit Boundary - line of non-aquatic vegeta- tion. Study Area Boundary - the old railroad grade. Management Objectives This management unit will continue to serve as a low intensity rural area with scattered homes and generally sparse development. In addition, sig- nificant wetland areas exist within this manage- ment unit and will be preserved. Special Conditions In addition to Standard Uses and Permitted Acti- vities, the following special conditions will also apply: 1. A limited number of small private docks will be permitted in conjunction with upland residences. 2. Maintenance of existing boathouses is per- mitted. 3. A utility corridor for cable and pipeline crossing is permitted adjacent and parallel to the highway bridge. k. Maintenance of the highway bridge and transportation corridor is allowed. PERMITTED ACTIVITIES MANAGEMENT CATEGORY RL CN Hi Ul AC O 1 Piers, Docks, Wharves • * Piling & Mooring Dolphins Bridges • * Causeways Outfalls □ □ Cable/Pipeline Crossing • ale Boathouses □ * Breakwater * Z < £Q Diking □ Bulkheading □ Groins Jetty Special Project Fills BankHne Straightening BankHne Erosion Control □ * mi u z z < z o New Access Channel Channel/Berth Main! Channel Realignment PERMITTED ACTIVITY CONDITIONAL ACTIVITY SPECIAL CONDITIONS • □ * STANDARD USES See Standard Use Table 91 PERMITTED ACTIVITIES MANAGEMENT CATEGORY RA U o E Piers, Docks, Wharves Piling & Mooring Dolphins □ Bridges Causeways Outfalls Cable/Pipeline Crossing Boathouses Breakwater z < CD Diking * Bulkheading Groins Jetty Special Project Fills Bankline Straightening Banklirte Erosion Control □ -1 111 Z z < o New Access Channel Channel/Berth Maint Channel Realignment PERMITTED ACTIVITY CONDITIONAL ACTIVITY SPECIAL CONDITIONS • □ * MANAGEMENT UNIT 31 PLANNING AREA IV/VII Mangement Category RA - Rural Agriculture Boundary Description Eastern Boundary - Management Unit 30 Western (South) Boundary - the straight line extension of the east-west segment of the Westport Highway in Section 9 (T17N, R11W). Study Area Boundary - shoreline management boundary. Management Objectives This management unit will continue to serve as an agricultural area with scattered farm homes. Special Conditions In addition to Standard Uses and Permitted Acti- vities, the following special conditions will also apply: 1. Maintenance of existing dikes is permitted. STANDARD USES See Standard Use Table 92 MANAGEMENT UNIT 32 PLANNING AREA VII Management Category RL - Rural Low Intensity Boundary Description Northern Boundary - Management Unit 31 Southern Boundary - southern line of Section 16 (T16N, R11W). Study Area Boundary - Westport Highway. Management Objectives This area will continue to be used for scattered residences on mixed land parcels with a generally low intensity use character throughout. Special Conditions In addition to Standard Uses and Permitted Acti- vities, the following special conditions will also apply: 1. Maintenance of existing dikes is permitted. 2. A limited number of small private docks will be allowed in conjunction with upland resi- dences. PERMITTED ACTIVITIES MANAGEMENT CATEGORY RL (0 m a e I Z < CO Piers, Docks, Wharves * Piling & Mooring Dolphins * Bridges Causeways Outfalls Cable/Pipeline Crossing Boathouses Breakwater Diking * Bulkheading Groins Jetty Special Project FHIs Bankline Straightening Bankline Erosion Control D -1 u z z < o New Access Channel Channel/Berth Maint Channel Realignment PERMITTED ACTIVITY CONDITIONAL ACTIVITY SPECIAL CONDITIONS • □ ' & STANDARD USES See Standard Use Table 93 PERMITTED ACTIVITIES MANAGEMENT CATEGORY UM CM UJ AC o £ Piers, Docks, Wharves • * Piling & Mooring Dolphins • * Bridges • * Causeways Outfalls □ □ Cable/Pipeline Crossing • * Boathouses □ * Breakwater z < CD Diking □ Bulkheading □ Groins Jetty Special Project FHIs Bankline Straightening Bankline Erosion Control * ♦ -J UJ z z < X o New Access Channel Channel/Berth Mabit Channel Realignment PERMITTED ACTIVITY CONDITIONAL ACTIVITY SPECIAL CONDITIONS • D STANDARD USES See Standard Use Table MANAGEMENT UNIT 33 PLANNING AREA VTI Management Category UM/CM - Urban Mixed/Conservancy Managed Boundary Description Northern Boundary - Management Unit 32 Eastern Boundary - a line approximately 500 feet east of a local service road intersection with the shoreline at Beardslee Slough. Split Unit Boundary - line of non-aquatic vegeta- tion. Study Area Boundary - Westport Highway and a line approximately 250 feet north of local service road on the east side of the highway. Management Objectives This small management unit ecompasses the unin- corporated community of Bay City. By reason of its relationship to the Elk River Bridge and Westport Highway, it represents a good location for local highway service uses. The designation of this management unit as Urban Mixed will permit these activities to continue and will allow some limited expansion. It is not anticipated that the full range of Standard Uses permitted in Urban Mixed will be appropriate in this area. Special Conditions In addition to Standard Uses and Permitted Acti- vities, the following special conditions will also apply: 1. Small, private boat docks associated with upland residences are permitted. 2. A utility corridor for cable and pipeline crossing is permitted adjacent and parallel to the highway bridge. 3. Maintenance of the highway bridge and transportation corridor is allowed. 94 MANAGEMENT UNIT 3fr PLANNING AREA VII Management Category CM/N - Conservancy Managed/Natural Boundary Description Eastern Boundary - Management Unit 33 Western Boundary - Westport Highway. Split Unit Boundary - line of non-aquatic vegeta- tion and all water area to the Westport Highway Bridge* (5). Management Objectives This is one of the significant natural areas in the estuary. The Elk River tideflats and water area contain some of the most significant wildlife populations and habitat. Classification of this as a natural area will not preclude its use for wild- life observation and hunting but will ensure that the natural characteristics are preserved. The management concept also establishes a buffer area around the natural designation to ensure maximum compatibility with adjacent uses. Special Conditions In addition to Standard Uses and Permitted Acti- vities, the following special conditions also apply: 1. While the intent of this management desig- nation is to keep the area in a natural condition as it presently exists, continuation and limited expansion of certain existing uses and activities such as oyster culture is considered appropriate. 2. Stake and bottom oyster culture are per- mitted methods. 3. Limited raft oyster culture is considered appropriate. k. Maintenance of existing boat ramps is per- mitted. 5. The Natural boundary extends to the bridge except as relates to the permitted uses and activities associated with Management Units 33 and 35. PERMITTED ACTIVITIES MANAGEMENT CATEGORY CM N U K O 1 Piers, Docks, Wharves □ Piling & Mooring Dolphins □ Bridges □ Causeways Outfalls Cable/Pipeline Crossing Boathouses Breakwater * Z < Diking a Bulkheading Groins Jetty Special Project FHis Bankline Straightening Bankline Erosion Control -1 UJ z z < z o New Access Channel Channel/Berth Maint Channel Realignment PERMITTED ACTIVITY CONDITIONAL ACTIVITY SPECIAL CONDITIONS • a 4 STANDARD USES See Standard Use Table 6. Those activities permitted in Management Units 35 and 33 that require intrusion into this management unit are permitted pro- vided they are done in a way that is consis- tent with the natural character and manage- ment objectives of this management unit and through the conditional use process. 95 PERMITTED ACTIVITIES MANAGEMENT CATEGORY UM CM 0) 111 O D Piers, Docks, Wharves □ □ Piling & Mooring Dolphins • D Bridges • * Causeways Outfalls D □ Cable/Pipeline Crossing • * Boathouses □ * Breakwater □ Z < Diking □ Bulkheading Groins Jetty Special Project Fills BankHne Straightening BankHne Erosion Control * * -j u z z < X o New Access Channel Channel/Berth Maint Channel Realignment PERMITTED ACTIVITY CONDITIONAL ACTIVITY SPECIAL CONDITIONS • □ • STANDARD USES See Standard Use Table MANAGEMENT UNIT 35 PLANNING AREA VTI Management Category UM/CM - Urban Mixed/Conservancy Managed Boundary Description Western Boundary - a line located 200 feet west of the intersection of the local service road and the Westport Highway, drawn generally north- south across the point of land at the west end of the Elk River Bridge. Split Unit Boundary - line of non-aquatic vegeta- tion. Management Objectives This management unit is similar in character and future use intent to Management Unit 33. It is designed as a small area of mixed urban uses taking advantage of its unique location at the highway and the bridge. It is not expected that this area will take on the intensity or full charac- ter of the Bay City side of the bridge. Several areas of significant wetlands exist within this management unit and will be preserved. Special Conditions In addition to Standard Uses and Permitted Acti- vities, the following special conditions will also apply: 1. A utility corridor for cable and pipeline crossing is permitted adjacent and parallel to the highway bridge. 2. Maintenance of the bridge and transporta- tion corridor is permitted. 3. Maintenance of boathouses and skid ways is permitted. k. Rip-rap of existing bankline to protect per- mitted uses is considered appropriate. 96 MANAGEMENT UNIT 36 PLANNING AREA VII Management Category RL/CM - Rural Low Managed Boundary Description Intensity/Conservancy Southern Boundary - Management Units 3^ and 35 Northern Boundary - Westerport city limits, gen- erally defined by the half section line in Section 18(T16N, R11W). Split Unit Boundary - line of non-aquatic vegeta- tion (Section 404). Study Area Boundary - a line 200 feet landward from the line of non-aquatic vegetation (Section 404). Management Objectives This is somewhat of a transition management unit between the more natural areas to the south and the urban areas of Westport. The management philosophy of this unit preserves the shoreline area in a relatively undisturbed condition. The landward portion of the unit is intended to remain a low intensity use area. PERMITTED ACTIVITIES MANAGEMENT CATEGORY RL CM ill o i z < CO Piers, Docks, Wharves Piling & Mooring Dolphins □ Bridges Causeways Outfalls □ □ Cable/Pipeline Crossing Boathouses Breakwater Diking □ Bulkheading Groins Jetty Special Project Fills Bankline Straightening Bankline Erosion Control D -J u z z < z o New Access Channel Channel/Berth Maint Channel Realignment PERMITTED ACTIVITY CONDITIONAL ACTIVITY SPECIAL CONDITIONS • □ • STANDARD USES See Standard Use Table 97 PERMITTED ACTIVITIES MANAGEMENT CATEGORY UM CM (ft IU O D E Piers, Docks, Wharves Piling & Mooring Dolphins Bridges Causeways □ Outfalls □ □ Cable/Pipeline Crossing Boathouses Breakwater z < CO Diking □ Bulkheading Groins Jetty Special Project FHIs Bankline Straightening Bankline Erosion Control □ _J 111 z z < o New Access Channel Channel/Berth Maint Channel Realignment PERMITTED ACTIVITY CONDITIONAL ACTIVITY SPECIAL CONDITIONS • □ ft MANAGEMENT UNIT 37 PLANNING AREA Vffl Management Category UM/CM - Urban Mixed/Conservancy Managed Boundary Description Southern Boundary - Management Unit 36 Northern Boundary - Pacific Avenue. Split Unit Boundary - the line of non-aquatic vegetation (Section 404). Study Area Boundary - a line approximately 200 feet landward of the line of non-aquatic vegeta- tion. Management Objectives This management unit is intended to establish an eastern line of limitation for the expanding urban areas of Westport. There is considerable salt marsh in the eastern portion of the management unit and will be preserved in its natural condi- tions. STANDARD USES See Standard Use Table 98 MANAGEMENT UNIT 38 PLANNING AREA Vffl Management Category UM/CN - Urban Mixed/Conservancy Natural Boundary Description Southern Boundary - Management Unit 37 Northern Boundary - the line between the City of Westport Airport property and the lands owned by the Port of Grays Harbor. This line is further defined by a drainage ditch between the two properties. Split Unit Boundary - the line of non-aquatic vegetation (Section 404). Study Area Boundary - a line 200 feet landward of the line of non-aquatic vegetation. Management Objectives This management unit contains considerable salt marsh areas as well as the existing Westport Airport. Both uses are important to the local area and the regional economy and both will be preserved. Special Conditions In addition to Standard Uses and Permitted Acti- vities, the following conditions also apply: 1. Filling to raise the existing Westport air- field is allowed in this management unit. The specific area of that fill is described by the drainage ditch on the east to a line perpendicular to the ditch that intersects the northeast corner of Lot 4, Block 6, in the plat of Chehalis, Section 7, T16N, R11W, to the south of the present airfield. Any filling must comply with appropriate per- mitting processes, including the Section 404 permit process. However, based upon cur- rent information, the raising of the airfield would not have an unacceptable adverse impact on the ecosystem, including wet- lands. 2. Regarding the marina expansion project pro- posed in Management Unit 39, one of the important considerations in evaluating final design options will be the ability to obtain adequate flushing within the marina to maintain water quality conditions necessary to protect aquatic resources. It is possible that considering design options which would achieve better flushing characteristics, very PERMITTED ACTIVITIES MANAGEMENT CATEGORY UM CN (0 UJ S i Piers, Docks, Wharves Piling & Mooring Dolphins □ Bridges Causeways Outfalls □ □ Cable/Pipeline Crossing Boathouses Breakwater Z < m Diking □ * Bulkheading Groins Jetty Special Project Fills * * Bankline Straightening Bankline Erosion Control □ * -i UJ z z < z o New Access Channel Channel/Berth Maint Channel Realignment PERMITTED ACTIVITY CONDITIONAL ACTIVITY SPECIAL CONDITIONS • □ m STANDARD USES See Standard Use Table 99 limited encroachment into Management Unit 38 might be considered. However, encroachment into Management Unit 38 will not be permitted if another alternative to protecting water quality for fisheries resources, such as artificial aeration or basin redesign, is feasible. Any suspected water quality problems must be clearly demonstrated through physical hydrolic modelling, mathematical modelling, or other appropriate methods. This determination will be made by EPA, Corps of Engineers and state and federal resources agency per- sonnel at the time marina design options and alternative methods for maintaining water quality are evaluated. Mitigation would be required for any loss of wetlands within Management Unit 38. 100 MANAGEMENT UNIT 39 PLANNING AREA VIII Management Category UM - Urban Mixed Boundary Description Southern Boundary - Management Unit 38 Western Boundary - a point where the old railroad grade intersects with the shoreline of the western side of Point Chehalis. Study Area Boundary - State Highway and Jetty Haul Road. Eastern Boundary - the waterward boundary includes all of the water area of the existing marina and protective breakwater. Management Objectives This is the most intensely developed man- agement unit in this portion of the estuary. It is designed to accommodate the major commercial and sport fishing requirements of the Westport area. Intensive use of the shoreline and backup areas is envisioned for both private and public activities. Special Conditions In addition to Standard Uses and Permitted Activities, the following conditions will also apply: 1. The new marina is permitted in the southeastern portion of the manage- ment unit. 2. The project is envisioned to involve a plan generally consistent with the size identified in Alternative 2, the Public Brochure released by the Corps of Engineers entitled, Alternatives and Their Pros and Cons, Small-Boat Basin, Grays Harbor, Washington, Area A - Westport, Draft #3, September, 1973. While such a project must meet applicable local, state and federal regulations, it is not considered an unacceptable adverse impact in the context of the total Estuary Manage- ment Plan. Filling as may be required by the Westport Marina Expansion Plan is PERMITTED ACTIVITIES MANAGEMENT CATEGORY UM CO Ul K o CO Piers, Docks, Wharves • Piling & Mooring Dolphins • Bridges Causeways Outfalls • Cable/Pipeline Crossing Boathouses • Breakwater • z < to Diking □ Bulkheading * Groins • Jetty • Special Project Fills * Bankline Straightening Bankline Erosion Control • -I u z z < z o New Access Channel • Channel/Berth Maint • Channel Realignment • PERMITTED ACTIVITY CONDITIONAL ACTIVITY SPECIAL CONDITIONS • □ « STANDARD USES See Standard Use Table 101 permitted including necessary reconstruction of existing docks, breakwater, or other existing facilities to permit optimum use of the existing marina. 4. Design options that are developed and evaluated as a part of the marina expansion permit may be constrained by factors in Management Unit 38. Prior to any final evaluations, the conditions and management objective of that Management Unit should be reviewed for compliance. 102 MANAGEMENT UNIT ftO PLANNING AREA Vffl Management Category CM - Conservancy Managed Boundary Description Eastern Boundary - Management Unit 39 Western Boundary - the western terminus of the south jetty ruins. Study Area Boundary - the Jetty Haul Road. Management Objectives This management unit is similar to Management Unit 1 and is intended for exclusive public recrea- tional uses. PERMITTED ACTIVITIES MANAGEMENT CATEGORY CM (0 HI cc e o i Piers, Docks, Wharves □ Piling & Mooring Dolphins Bridges Causeways Outfalls Cable/Pipeline Crossing Boathouses Breakwater z < CO Diking Bulkheading Groins • Jetty • Special Project Fills BankHne Straightening BankHne Erosion Control • -4 III z z < o New Access Channel Channel/Berth Maint Channel Realignment PERMITTED ACTIVITY CONDITIONAL ACTIVITY SPECIAL CONDITIONS • □ STANDARD USES See Standard Use Table 103 PERMITTED ACTIVITIES MANAGEMENT CATEGORY N CO ui AC o z < CO Piers, Docks, Wharves Piling & Mooring Dolphins Bridges Causeways Outfalls Cable/Pipeline Crossing Boathouses Breakwater Diking Bulkheading Groins Jetty Special Project FHIs Bankline Straightening Bankline Erosion Control -1 y z z < z o New Access Channel Channel/Berth Maint Channel Realignment PERMITTED ACTIVITY CONDITIONAL ACTIVITY SPECIAL CONDITIONS • □ M MANAGEMENT UNIT frl PLANNING AREA V Management Category N - Natural Boundary Description The general zone around Goose and Sand Islands, specifically the Department of Natural Resources' Scientific Preserves plus an area equal to an additional Yi mile around the islands. Management Objectives This area is intended as a natural area exclusively for wildlife habitat enhancement and preserva- tion. Special Conditions In addition to Standard Uses and Permitted Acti- vities, the following special conditions apply: 1. Bed type oyster culture is permitted. 2. Commercial fishing is permitted. STANDARD USES See Standard Use Table 104 MANAGEMENT UNIT »2 PLANNING AREA IV Management Category CN - Conservancy Natural Boundary Description The general zone known as Whitcomb Flats. Management Objectives This area is designed to remain undisturbed. The area contains some valuable oyster beds, however, which will continue to be viewed as an important resource for protection and harvesting. Special Conditions In addition to Standard Uses and Permitted Acti- vities, the following special conditions will also apply: 1. While this management unit is to remain predominantly undisturbed, continued use of the area for oyster culture and commercial fishing is permitted. PERMITTED ACTIVITIES MANAGEMENT CATEGORY CN (0 LU CC O 1 Z < OQ Piers, Docks, Wharves Piling & Mooring Dolphins Bridges Causeways Outfalls Cable/Pipeline Crossing Boathouses Breakwater Diking Bulk heading Groins Jetty Special Project FHIs BankHne Straightening Banklme Erosion Control -I yj z z < z o New Access Channel Channel/Berth Maint Channel Realignment PERMITTED ACTIVITY CONDITIONAL ACTIVITY SPECIAL CONDITIONS • □ ' * STANDARD USES See Standard Use Table 105 PERMITTED ACTIVITIES MANAGEMENT CATEGORY CM HI o CO Piers, Docks, Wharves □ Piling & Mooring Dolphins • Bridges Causeways Outfalls □ Cable/Pipeline Crossing • Boathouses Breakwater * z < CD Diking □ Bulkheading Groins Jetty Special Project FHIs Bankline Straightening Bankline Erosion Control □ •J LU Z z < o New Access Channel Channel/Berth Maint Channel Realignment PERMITTED ACTIVITY CONDITIONAL ACTIVITY SPECIAL CONDITIONS • □ * STANDARD USES See Standard Use Table MANAGEMENT UNIT »3 PLANNING AREA HI Management Category CM - Conservancy Managed Boundary Description The Rennie Island area including the dredge spoils island to the west out to the line of Ordinary High Water. Management Objectives This area has served as a dredge materials dispo- sal area and as a waste treatment pond for many years. While dredge spoiling will continue in the area for some time, the long term use will be for wildlife and water fowl habitat enhancement and development. There may be opportunity to use dredged mater- ials in this area to develop marsh habitat through experimental management programs. Special Conditions In addition to Standard Uses and Permitted Acti- vities, the following conditions will also apply: 1. In the area currently used for waste treat- ment ponds, inlet pipes and outfall struc- tures may continue to be used in support of requirements of state and federal waste discharge permits. 2. The disposal of dredged materials will be permitted to continue in those areas pre- sently authorized. 3. Experimental resource utilization and habi- tat development programs such as those currently available through the Corps of Engineers may be pursued subject to design and review by state and federal resource agencies. 106 MANAGEMENT UNIT frfr PLANNING AREA Management Category CM - Conservancy Managed All the water and tideland area waterward of the Ordinary High Water Line not included in other designated management units (see Special Condi- tions below also). Management Objectives This special management unit includes all the remaining area within the study area of the estuary management plan not covered by other management units. It is essentially all the water area and is intended to be managed for multiple uses within an overriding "conservancy" designa- tion. The conservancy designation is designed to protect areas for purposes that directly use or depend on natural systems. Activities which occur in the estuary should therefore be compa- tible with those natural systems in order to main- tain the carrying capacity and biological producti- vity of the bay. Because those systems are easily upset by man-made disturbances, special condi- tions are imposed to ensure that activities are carried out in a manner which does not reduce or degrade these estuarine resources. Special Conditions 1, Activities in Unit 44 should be compatible with the natural system. For example, areas of significant fish and wildlife habitat should be managed to ensure continued bio- logical productivity. Where consistent with resource capabilities, high-intensity water- dependent recreation, dredging, and other water-dependent uses are to be provided for. Thus, those uses that depend on the water area (e.g., shipping and fishing) and the activities that support those uses (main- tenance dredging, navigation aids, etc.) are generally considered appropriate to the Management Unit. While the definition of Conservancy Managed is appropriate to this management unit, the set of Standard Uses normally assigned to this category are not. Therefore, a special column is added to the Standard Use Table on Page 109 for Management Unit 44. PERMITTED ACTIVITIES MANAGEMENT CATEGORY CM CO Hi cc p I Piers, Docks, Wharves * Piling & Mooring Dolphins □ Bridges Causeways Outfalls * Cable/Pipeline Crossing * Boathouses * Breakwater * z < CO Diking Bulkheading Groins * Jetty * Special Project Fills ♦ Bankline Straightening BankHne Erosion Control -1 til z z < z o New Access Channel ♦ Channel/Berth Maint • Channel Realignment * PERMITTED ACTIVITY CONDITIONAL ACTIVITY SPECIAL CONDITIONS • □ ' * STANDARD USES See Standard Use Table 107 APPENDIX A STANDARD USE MATRIX 2. All new allowable or expanded on-site existing uses occurring within Management Unit 44, that by their nature are independent from direct upland support (except by authorized federal navigation projects) and that require a construction permit, are considered conditional uses by this plan. 3. Uses permitted in shoreline management units that are water dependent/related and/or require some form of access into Management Unit 44 as a direct support for that shoreline use are permitted in Management Unit 44 only to the extent necessary to provide that access and/or only to the extent covered in other Special Conditions. 4. Experimental resource utilization and habitat development programs such as those currently available through the Corps of Engineers may be pursued provided that such programs would not interfere with uses and activities allowed in adjacent management units. Any such programs will be subject to review and approval by state and federal resource agencies. 5. Extraction of aggregate resources in Chehalis River above Cosmopolis is permitted under the following conditions: a. The extraction of aggregate as a part of channel and berth maintenance is allowable. b. Extraction of aggregate within the river but not as a part of channel maintenance may be allowed providing that: 1) there are no alternative sources of aggregate within the general Montesano, Aberdeen, Hoquiam, or Cosmopolis area; 2) water quality standards can be met; 3) there will be no adverse impacts on fish habitat or seasonal fish runs. 8. Realignment or improvement of the authorized federal navigation channel is neither permitted nor prohibited by this plan. Instead, such activities will be considered through existing procedures. 108 STANDARD USES PERMITTED USE Q SEE SPECIFIC MANAGEMENT UNIT GUIDELINES USE CATEGORY PORT FACILITIES MANUFACTURING AND OTHER Dock and Warehouse Facilities Port Terminal Facilities Ship Berthing Barge Berthing Ship Construction and Repair Navigational Aids Heavy Industry Light Industry Water Dependent Industry Mineral Extraction and Storage < oc o a. z < oc _fc. FOOD INDUSTRY Forest Products Processing Ferry Terminal Shipping Roads and Railroads Airports Overhead Utility Corridor Submerged Utility Corridor Commercial Fishing (Inch Shellfish) Oyster Culture Aquaculture Fish and Food Processing COMMERCIAL Z o < UJ OC o 111 oc Motel Boat Sales, Construction and Repair Restaurant Marina Other Commercial Public Fishing Areas Water Dependent Hunting RESIDENTIAL Pleasure Boating Camping Public Boat Ramp Park/Parkway, Other Public Access Floating Homes Urban/Suburban Rural Low Intensity (Scattered) Rural Agricultural (Farm House) Major Cultivated Crops AGRICULTURE NATURAL AREAS Passive Agriculture Subsistence/Local Market Farming Tree Farm Estuarine and Marine Sanctuaries Wildlife Refuges Living Resource Production and Habitat 109 APPENDIX B AREAS USED FOR LOG RAFTING 11 en w - 1 cr O DQ DC < I DC 2 Q LU § CO CO £ 55 o cr < no APPENDIX C GRAYS HARBOR ESTUARY MANAGEMENT PLAN PLANNING AREAS AND MANAGEMENT UNITS N D ory Nl ncy Natural (CN) ncy Managed (CM ) ricultural ( RA I v Density I RL I »sidential I UR ) xed I UM ) tvelopment I UD I Conservancy Managed I ent Unit Number -Category ent Unit Boundary »a Boundary lanagement Unit Boundary Area i 5000 Scale in Feet 5 000 15.000 Grays Harbor Estuary Management Program 2 < O m 6 ( y«hul io-rl\\ >^\ >t* UM/J. / 5"l\R f OCEAN \" SHORES 4-UM 2-i N R T BAY V \!41t:n:;::;: ; * Grays Harbor fl-OlH.ati. HlOQUIAM 14-UD ABERDEEN 1 — i i6-ui\ " ib-uui ■ "A® J 18-UD/N ■flK -,# "*»»iinniiM»"" ,,, *'1E G R A Y S ,# i >* HA R BO R 5-UD* 26UD/CM -"coSMOPOLIS WK Central Park ,20-CM^ 21-UR / . ....iillllllKH^IIIHIllllllllllllllllltll lllllinM' m V ^X .*..*»• am* ■- «V- ^ 40 -CM IV #' 24 -CM / // // // o 38-UM/' ^^^ X> UOO SIXTH AVENUE " ^SS^T £ SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 C7.l'\ ysay 1382 NOV 29 AH ID 1 ATTN OF: M/S 423 ..,.,, p-.-nj ri.-»iu i\ ^*-! signed by jcscpli R. (tarn Joseph R. Blum Assistant Regional Director - Environment cc: ES Olympia B-3 f7M JA h$jm-s wo -2 MAIL r.GGi'1 Mr. Donald Moos, Director Washington Department of Ecology Mailstop PV-11 Olympia, Washington 98504 . UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oeaanlc and Atmospheric Administration NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE Office of the Regional Director 7600 Sand Point Way, NE BIN C15700, Seattle, WA 98115 F/NWR5:JVW Dear Mr. Moos: I have enclosed an unsigned draft letter describing how the National Marine Fisheries Service intends to use the Grays Harbor Estuary Management Plan (GHEMP). When the GHEMP is final, after the full review process, the enclosed letter would be signed and reference the appropriate final plan date. Some plan changes may be made as a result of the forthcoming public (and agency) plan and Environmental Impact Statement review process. If major changes are proposed, the Task Force should be reconvened to consider them. The Washington Department of Ecology has played a key role in facilitating the completion of'the GHEMP. This planning effort constitutes a remarkable example of coordination and cooperation between local, State and Federal agencies. We look forward to working with your agency to ensure successful plan implementation. Sincerely yours, Original Signed by H. A. Larkins H.A. Larkins Regional Director Attachment B-4 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmoaphorio Administration NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE Northwest Region 7600 Sand Point Way N.E. Seattle, Washington 98115 F/NWR5-.JVW DRAFT Mr. Donald Moos, Director Washington Department of Ecology Mailstop PV-11 Olympia, Washington 98504 Re: Grays Harbor Estuary Management Plan (date) Dear Mr. Moos: The Grays Harbor Estuary Management Plan (GHEMP) is a landmark document developed with the participation and consensus of the various local, State and Federal agencies responsible for development, resource conservation, and preservation. By bringing together all of these entities, their respective authorities and standards were to a very great extent reconciled with each other. As a result the plan provides increased predictability for the community and the agencies regarding development and natural resources protection. The GHEMP provides a blueprint for economic growth balanced with provisions for the protection of the natural features of the bay area. As you are aware, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is charged with the protection, development and enhancement of marine, estuarine, and anadromous fishes and the habitat on which they depend. The NMFS participated in the GHEMP Interagency Task Force in a coordination role as provided by Section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act. We expect that the GHEMP will expedite our review of Corps of Engineers Section 10 and 404 permit applications (provided for in the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act) for the Grays Harbor area. We believe that an acceptable level of fishery habitat protection has been incorporated into the GHEMP on an estuary-wide basis and in some cases on a site-specific basis. We therefore intend to use the GHEMP in preparing permit comments for the Corps of Engineers. As noted in the GHEMP (page 5), the plan does not bypass the Corps permitting process, nor any of the Section 404(b)(1) criteria used in commenting on a permit. Yet through the direct involvement of the permitting and reviewing agencies in the planning process, development has been designated for these areas where Federal permits are most likely to be issued. Conversely, certain kinds of development have been excluded from those areas where Federal permits are most, likely to be denied. Without specific project and design details it was of course not always possible to do complete advance permit evaluations tor development, in given locations (management units). Full satisfaction of the Section 404 Guidelines must logically be demonstrated through the permit application at the time a project is proposed. Yet the permit criteria in the Section 404 guidelines have been evaluated in a broad sense as one basis for designating a given management unit's "category" (e.g. natural, conservancy managed, urban development, etc.). B-5 There are four major classes of activities addressed by the GHEMP, each with different consequences for Federal permit decisions. The "permitted activities" tables for each management unit depict all four classes. The tables list "permitted" activities authorized under the plan which are most likely to meet Federal permit criteria. The tables also list activities "conditionally permitted" by the plan which will likely meet Federal permit criteria only if special care is taken to avoid negative environmental impacts through specific project/site conditions. These specific conditions will be developed in pre-permit or permit consultation with the appropriate resource agencies, including NMFS. Some other activities are identified in the "permitted activities" tables as "special condition" uses. These activities are authorized under the plan only if they incorporate the "special conditions" listed in the plan which were designed to reflect unique characteristics and needs of each management unit. The special conditions in the plan were developed with reference to Federal permit criteria whenever practicable; e.g., in some management units, the special conditions reflect an evaluation of acceptable (or unacceptable) impact on the aquatic ecosystem. Finally, activities not authorized by the plan (depicted by blanks in the "permitted activities" and "standard uses" tables) will generally result in a negative permit recommendation. To the extent that Federal permit criteria have been addressed in the GHEMP, this agency will follow the guidance in the plan, including the management objectives for each unit, in commenting on Corps of Engineer's permits. The consensus decision-making process of the Task Force evolved through numerous compromises and resulted in a careful balance between development and resource protection. Our reliance upon the GHEMP in permit review is predicated on maintaining this balance. As a result, plan amendments which could alter this balance should be carefully reviewed by the Task Force so that continued use of the GHEMP is possible. We genuinely hope and expect that the GHEMP will facilitate growth and development in appropriate areas of Grays Harbor while ensuring long-term protection for the productivity, fish, and wildlife of the estuary. Sincerely, H.A. Larkins Regional Director DRAFT cc: Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management B-6 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY SEATTLE DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS P.O. BOX C-3755 SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98124 ^*P SOP-NP Donald Moos, Director w .fiing ton State Department of Ecology Mail stop PV-li Oiyrapia, WA 98504 Dear Mr. Moos: This letter responds to Mr. Don Peterson's proposed draft of a Memorandum Oi Understanding for Implementation of Grays Harbor Estuary Management Plan. Rather than modify the draft Memorandum to our satisfaction, I submit the iv/1 lowing as our intentions: a. The Seattle District supports incorporation of the Plan into the Scar. Coastal Zone Management Plan. d. Although the Seattle District cannot agree to use certain port tons oi t lie; Plan as the sole basis of findings and documentation for our actions, the Pian will be a part of our evaluation process. .-■ u c. As required by law, permits for work in navigable water., ana a adjacent wetlands will be denied, where within 6 months, the Statf declare^ that a proposal is inconsistent with the Washington Coastal Zone Manage. ..ie.ii Plan and this determination is not overridden by the Secretary of Conunerct . a. The Seattle District is willing to participate in the amending of th Plan if requested by the State. Incorporation of the Plan into the State Coastal Zone Management Plan will culminate many years of effort by a number of public agencies and private individuals. Providing predictability for future uses of this estuary ii u s r>een our ultimate goal and the Seattle District has been and continues to be- strong supporter of this concept. As this Plan represents the spirit or cooperation that exists amongst us, we look forward to its implementation. Sincerely, NORMAN C. KINTZ Colonel, Corps of Engineers District Engineer B-7 APPENDIX C MANAGEMENT UNIT 12 - IMPACTS ON BOWERMAN BASIN APPENDIX C MANAGEMENT UNIT 12 - BOWERMAN BASIN & ENVIRONS Special Impact Analysis A. GENERAL 1. Management Unit (MU) 12 consists of the Bowerman Airfield peninsula, approximately 2200 acres of Port of Grays Harbor owned marsh and tidelands and some subtidal lands, and tidelands extending from the south of the peninsula to the navigation channel (see photo C-l). The area is further divided into areas commonly referred to as Moon Island, Minimoon Island (or formerly dredge disposal site E), the Bowerman Basin and the Moon Island Tideflats to the west of the Basin (see photo C-2). For management purposes, the unit has been divided by area designators (Area's 1 through 6 in MU 12, and Area 7 in MU 14) in the plan (see figure C-l). 2. It is this MU (particularly that area known as the Bowerman Basin) more than any other which has become the focus of both controversy and concern during the development of the GHEMP and the NEPA scoping process. This area has been identified as being essential to the future economic needs of the region to provide suitable land for water dependent industrial development and also clearly identified as an essential site for shorebirds and peregrine falcons. Therefore, this section of the PDEIS will take a closer look at the environment, the proposed actions which the plan contemplates and the potential consequences of those actions to the natural environment should they occur (i.e., the consequences to the socio/economic environment are discussed in Part IV). This section has been included as an appendix only because of its length and focus on a particular subject and is not intended to diminish its importance from the rest of the EIS. 3. It is not possible to fully or accurately describe all the impacts at this time for a diversity of reasons including: lack of knowledge of timing of the proposed actions, new information which may come to light from monitoring activities and the uncertainty associated with predicting impacts on dynamic bird populations. Nevertheless, some conclusions can be drawn at this time prior to any action taking place. This information (as well as any new informa- tion) will be presented, reviewed and added to through the existing permit process prior to any approval to discharge dredged or fill materials into the aquatic lands of MU 12. B. DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT 1 . Physical a. Bowerman Basin, a section of the estuary, is located on the north- ern shore of the inner harbor approximately 8 miles east of the mouth of the harbor. The basin is bordered on the north by Highway 109, on the south by the Bowerman Airfield peninsula, and on the east by Paulson Road connecting the peninsula to Highway 109. Prior to the construction of the road, the Basin extended farther eastward. The remaining wetlands west of the road are owned by the City of Hoquiam and designated as Area 7 in MU 14. The west end of the Basin opens into the inner harbor portion of the estuary. The western boundary C-l C-2 Photograph C-2. Management Unit 12 C-3 NOISSIWl/MOD ONINNVld 1VNOID3U U09UVH SAVUO NVnd JLN3W39VNVW AUVfUS3 a09dVH SAVUO NISVS NVI/\IU3MOa ZV UNfl 1N3I/\I30VNVIAI IAIVH ff A3S1IM HlbON o en C-4 of the Basin is hard to set for purposes of shorebird use but is normally defined by a man-made, nonfunctional trestle line extending from the western portion of the peninsula northward. The boundary therefore, includes approxi- mately 500 acres of aquatic lands. Bowerman Airfield was developed by the Navy during World War II by placing dredged material disposal within the confines of a bulkhead. It was originally connected to the mainland by a trestle and was known as Moon Island. During the 1940's dredge material disposal was placed in the area east of the field connecting it to the mainland, to form an east-west trending peninsula. Uncontained dredged material disposal at the eastern side of the Basin continued in a westerly direction until 1972. Since 1972, dredged material disposal placed in the area has been confined behind dikes (Lattin, pers. comm. 1980). Thus the area has been substantially modified over the years through diking, dredged material disposal, filling and sundry land uses. It has been estimated that as much as 1600 acres of aquatic habitat have been used for dredged material disposal since 1940 in areas west of the Hoquiam River to Minimoon Island (Herman 1978). The area to the west of the Airfield has been completely modified through the discharge of dredged material disposal over a long term. Disposal in this area has been halted since 1976. The impacts of these former discharge activities have been described in significant detail in a Corps of Engineers publication entitled "Maintenance Dredging and the Environment of Grays Harbor - Appendices A-N." b. Unconfined disposal has covered the basin with a layer of predomi- nately fine grained material dredged from the inner harbor channel (Corps, App. F 1976). Figures C-2 and C-3 show the different types of sediments and grain sizes for the estuary and MU 12. These show that MU 12 consists mainly of intertidal mudflats (as opposed to sandflats). The sediment character of the Bowerman Basin consists mostly of silty clay fringed by silty sand. Sediment type and grain size is important to the types of benthic invertebrates which inhabit the estuary, and consequently important to the shorebirds. c. The elevation of the Basin has been raised as a result of the discharge of unconfined dredged material disposal (Corps, App. F, 1976). Tidal channels created by water draining off the flats at low tide can be seen draining water from east to west and near Mini -Moon Island from south to north- west indicating a predominant drainage pattern. Protected from major wave attack by the peninsula, the tides have carried the materials back and forth to provide a gradual sloping which appears to be advantageous to the shorebirds because it provides a longer period of time in which to feed on the mudflats (Herman 1978). Figure C-4 shows a topographical map of the estuary. Tideflats between an elevation of +5 feet above mean sea level to +9 feet are shown in black, thereby providing a comparison of tideflats which may be available for the lastest and earliest feeding periods for the shorebirds. Bowerman Basin is not necessarily unique in having extensive mudflats for late feeding but it does appear to be the latest part of the estuary to be inundated at high tide, consequently providing the longest feeding period (1-2 hours) (Herman 1978). 2. Vegetation a. The basin includes 450 acres of intertidal area fringed on the north, east, and south by 90 acres of salt marsh, grass lands, and scattered trees. The west end of the peninsula is vegetated by bentgrass ( Agrostis alba ), American dunegrass ( Elymus mollis ), tufted hairgrass ( Deschampsia cespitosa ), C-5 CM O UJ CJ3 I? — e (/) at uj . a. uj W m *"*?• lfl$tltlll«ll«l m*i W£\ J-v 5* L. c SO - UJ H pX C-7 i o UJ on sedges (Carex sp.), American searocket ( Cakile edentula ), beach pea ( Lathyrus japonicus ), deervetch ( Lotus corniculatus ) , and brass buttons ( Cotula cornonopi- folia ). East and northeast of the Airport the tideflats are bordered by scattered stunted red alders ( Alnus rubra ) and willows ( Salix sp.). In the southeast portion of the basin the elevation is slightly higher and a fairly diverse assemblage is found, including black willow ( Salix lasiandra ) , Scouler's willow ( S. scouleriana ), red alder, the sedges ( C. lyngbyei ) and""~[ C. obnupta ), and the grasses red top ( A. alba ), Pacific silverweed ( Potentilla pacifica ), water parsley ( Oenanthe sarmentosa ), cattail ( Typha lati folia ), brass buttons, and seashore saltgrass ( Distich! is spicata ). These species are also found on the high elevations of the north border of the basin. Pickleweed ( Salicornia yirginica ), saltmarsh sandspurry ( Spergularia marina ), and seaside arrow-grass ( TriglocTvin maritimum ) are the most abundant pioneer species. Other species found in higher elevations there include the grass Agrostis alba , western dock ( Rumex occidental is ), orache ( Atriplex patula ), sedge ( C. lyngbyei , meadow bar- ley ( Hordeum bracfiyantherum ), and red canary grass ( Phalaris arundinacea ) ( He rman 1978). b. The salt marsh along the eastern border of the Basin forms a horse- shoe shaped projection into the tideflats (sometimes referred to as the "fan" - see photo C-3). Seaside dock ( Rumex maritimus ), weeping alkali grass ( Puccinella distans ), American bulrush ( Scirpus americanus ) are species found in areas influenced by freshwater. An algal community of Vancheria sp. and Oscillatoria sp. is found on the tidal substrate not covered by vascular halophytes (Corps App. H, 1976). Shorebirds forage on the saltmarsh plants S. marina and T. maritimum when high tides prevent them from feeding on the tideflats. Much of the marsh habitat in the eastern part of the Basin has been established over the last 8-10 years since dredge disposal operations ceased. c. The lowest tideflat portion of the Basin is sparsely vegetated with eel grass (predominately Zostera marina ) which is an important part of the diet of waterfowl. Denser beds of eel grass can be found west of the Basin in the Moon Island Tideflats. d. Although the saltmarsh and grass areas are important as wildlife habitat, they cover only one fifth of the area of the Basin; four fifths being occupied by intertidal mudflats. The remaining 1700 acres of Ml) 12 is also predominantly intertidal with some subtidal habitat near the western limits. These non-vegetated intertidal areas are highly productive areas. The ability of mudflats to drain slowly is a contributing factor to their high productivity since it leaves them exposed to environmental extremes for a shorter period of time than are areas which drain quickly. The direct contact between the sedi- ments, water, atmosphere and biota in non- vegetated wetlands facilitates nutrient cycling and storage (the sediments act as both a nutrient source and sink, regulating the productivity and keeping it at a constant level). The shallow depths of intertidal areas expose them to relatively large amounts of light the year round and favor respiration of the algae and phytoplankton, and the regeneration of nutrients by the formation of algal mats (Theberge, et.al. 1978). (1). Exposed mudflats support a large macrobenthic population. The benthic organisms found in these finer grained sediments tend to be small, thin shelled, and are usually confined to the upper five centimeters of the sediment (the oxidized layer). The density of invertebrates on mudflats is C-9 Photograph C-3. Bowerman Peninsula and the "Fan. C-10 extremely high, and in the high intertidal is greater than at comparable elevations on any other substrate. This density is of tremendous importance to vertebrates, especially shorebirds, which feed on these invertebrates. High intertidal areas are exposed a large percentage of the time by low tides, greatly increasing the amount of time available for shorebirds to feed in comparison to mid- and lower intertidal zones. This is especially critical during winter when mean tidal levels are often increased by storms and high freshwater runoff. During these periods, the availability of feeding area is a critical factor for shorebirds. The birds become heavily dependent on these high elevation mudflats since they offer the greatest food resources. Mudflats are, therefore, extremely important in supporting shorebirds and shorebird predators such as falcons, especially during winter (Albright, et.al. 1980) Figure C-5 shows how various shorebirds may be distributed on mudflats based on vertical feeding ranges. Other substrates such as sand flats, coble and rock are also utilized by different types of shorebirds in the estuary (Herman & Bulger 1981). (2). The Bowerman Basin contains approximately 450 acres of intertidal mudflats of the approximately 34,000 acres of intertidal lands remaining in the estuary. 3. Fauna a. Benthic Invertebrates. Several studies have been conducted on the abundance, distribution and importance of the benthic invertebrates in Grays Harbor. The studies have shown that the crustacean amphipod, Corophium sp. and Anisogrammarus confervicolus are two of the most abundant and important species to serve as a prey base for numerous other organisms. There are several different species of Corophium including C. salmonis and C. spinicorne which are known to be abundant in Grays Harbor. C. salmonis is a dominant member of the mudflat community and C. spinicorne is abundant in the Chehalis River section near Cosmopolis. C. salmonis is extremely important to shorebirds in portions of Grays Harbor and C. spinicorne appears to be important to the fishery resources along the fish passage [Albright & Armstrong 1982). The major focus for MU 12 therefore is turned to C. salmonis . (1). C. salmonis distribution and abundance appears to be deter- mined largely by sediment type and beach slope. Silty-sand or silt-clay sub- strates present on broad, gently sloping tideflats appear to support the highest densities (see figures C-2 and C-3). Salinity does not appear to be as impor- tant a factor in controlling C. salmonis distribution and abundance as sediment type. Elevation is also an important factor in determining distribution and abundance (Albright & Armstrong 1982). This does not necessarily mean that the Bowerman Basin has the highest abundance of Corophium sp. in the estuary. Samples however, may be naturally depressed due to heavy shorebird predation. There are other sites which have been identified as having higher densities and which are not utilized to the same extent as the Bowerman Basin. Table C-l for example, shows that the mid-harbor tideflats have prodigious densities (32 - 56,000/sq. meter) of Corophium in muddy sand sediments but existing literature doesn't identify the flats as being important to shorebirds. Table C-l also shows that the eastern end of Bowerman Basin at the higher elevations does not appear to support large densities of C. salmonis (3,300 - 5,800/sq. meter) above the 2.1 meter (approximately +7 feet) elevation above MLLW. C-l 1 FIGURE C-5 FCePlfJS DISTRIBUTION ON MUPFLATS ANP NEWSHORE WATERS BY SELECTED SHORE BIRDS. VERTICAL PEEPING RANGE ABOVE ANP I AT SURFACE BETWCEU WATER I OF BEACH SURFACE AND SEACH SUBSTRATE AT VARYIN6 DEPTHS WlTWlM SUBSTRATE (SOME MAV ALCO FEED OJ SURFACE) ***rrett su«r*ca m>ch svrhace Shorebirds are able to probe below the surface to varying depths according to bill length (the numbers indicate both length of bill and depth to which they can probe in inches). They also have varying leg lengths, and are able to wade in shallow water, as illustrated by the Greater YeTlowlegs which feeds in tidalpools and shallow nearshore waters. Phalaropes generally feed while resting on the water's surface, while Plovers feed on organisms on the surface of beach substrates. Source: Albright, Rick, et. al . , Coastal Zone Atlas of Washington, Land Cover/Land Use Narratives, Vol. II, Washington Department of Ecology, June 1980 C-12 TABLE C-l Table 13: Densities of C. salmonis in Grays Harbor, Washington. Data for all locations exeept Sites M and MC taken from Albright and Rammer, 1976. Mean * Max. go. Location Date Elevation Ho. per ■ per wr Sediment Mid-harbor flats 3-75 .9-1.2 m 36,700 50,000 Muddy sand Mid-harbor flats 8-75 .9-1.2 m 32,300 56,000 Muddy sand W. of Moon Island 10-74, 4-75, 7-75 1.8 m 4,900 6,800 Muddy sand W. of Moon Island 10-74, 5-75, 7-75 1.8 m 7,700 14,600 Fine sand W. of Moon Island 10-74, 4-75, 7-75 1.6 m 3,300 7,600 Fine sand W. of Moon Island 10-74, 4-75, 7-75 2.1 m 3,700 6,200 Fine sand W. of Moon Island 12-74, 5-75, 7-75 1.6 m 17,000 32,800 Mud W. of Moon Island 12-74, 5-75, 7-75 2.2 m 3,000 5,900 Fine sand E. end of Bowerman Basin 11-74, 7-75 -v2.1 m 3,300 5,800 Mud Mouth of 0'leary Creek 9-74 tl.8m 35,900 35,900 Mud Mouth of Grass Creek 9-74, 10-74. 11-74 ^2.2 m 200 300 Muddy sand South Channel w. of Charlie Creek 11-74 ^1.8 ■ 57,900 57,900 Nud Site M 3-80 to 9-80 .6m 6,600 18,300 Mud 1.8m 11,400 49.700 Mud Site MC 3-80 to 9-80 1.8 m 13,300 42,400 Mud Source: Albright and Armstrong, 1982 C-13 (2). Both abundance and diversity are important to shorebirds feeding in different substrates. Most shorebirds eat a variety of food and are opportunistic feeders. One study of the eating habits of dunlin in Grays Harbor identified from esophagi analysis the following types of food sources: 28.1% were annelid worms, 0.9% nematode worms, 37.3% arthropods, and 33.6% salt marsh plants. The amphipods Corophium and Anisogammarus confervicolous comprised 31.7% of the total (Corps, App. J, 1976). Other studies have shown higher concentrations of amphidpods or polychaete worms depending on location and substrate, and insects and seeds after high tide. Dunlin and western sandpipers are capable of eating different species of invertebrates in different estuaries as well. For instance, in the Copper-Bering River Deltas system in Alaska, dunlins feed primarily on bivalve molluscs, particularly Macoma balthica , while western sandpipers have a very diverse diet including molluscs, amphipods, and insect larvae (Senner 1977). A distinct Corophi urn- dunlin relationship in the inner harbor and Bowerman Basin, however has been previously documented. The highest densities of Corophium ssp. occur during the summer months after eggs have hatched (Albright, 1982), but as previously mentioned (p. 11-22) inter- tidal invertebrate biomass is highest in the spring and lowest in summer. b. Avian Fauna (1). Species Utilization. During the 1981 spring migration period (April-May) at Grays Harbor, Dr. Steven G. Herman and John B. Bulger conducted one of the most complete and intensive studies on the distribution and abundance of shorebirds in Grays Harbor to date (Herman & Bulger 1981). The study documents the large number of shorebirds which utilize the estuary and that shorebird utilization was significantly higher than had been previously reported by other investigators. Table C-2 identifies the numbers of each species of shorebirds counted at eleven census sites around the harbor. Western sandpipers are by far the most numerous species of shorebirds present in the harbor during spring migration. Dunlin are the second most numerous species followed by dowitchers spp. Figure C-6 shows the timing and magnitude of the shorebird migration with peak numbers occuring between April 17 through April 28, 1981. The figure shows that the total number of shorebirds on April 23, 1981 amounted to nearly 1,000,000 birds. Table C-3 shows the average number of shorebird species recorded and indicates that Wakina Flat in the North Bay had the largest mean number of species (diversity) per day followed closely by the Bowerman Basin and Bottle Beach in South Bay. Wakina Flat was the most important site for black-bellied plovers, whimbrels and marbled godwits based on the mean numbers of birds during the migration period; Bowerman Basin for semi-palmated plovers, dunlins and western sandpipers; Point New for ruddy turnstones; Bottle Beach for red knots; Kurtz Slough and Bowerman Basin for dowitchers; and, Chenois Creek and Wakina Flat for greater yell owl egs. On the basis of the data, they conclude that Bowerman Basin supported 40% of the total shorebird numbers during the peak of migration, North Bay supported 30%, South Bay 25% and the Inner Harbor 5%. The results of the survey indicates that: (a). Grays Harbor Estuary is host to more shorebirds than any other estuary along the Pacific Coast south of Alaska; (b). Grays Harbor is of extraordinary and critical impor- tance to spring-migrating shorebirds on the Pacific Coast; C-14 CM (_> CD -O — — r\j ,1 CO CTi 1_ cu en Z3 DO o3 C E i_ OJ cu u S- O — _. o — — . c — mm t% J — — 6 — — v — Vt mt O — u *_» — >- J i C-15 CO Uj -J 2 _o o X 5 . H « S 5 X-2 o gration at Gray etants extrapol o K) the shorebird Dashed line 1981) in O r- w" CM d magnitude n, spring 198 rm«n & Bulge -J o "**» c o « <*: 03 &x c» c — 0. Timin Washi (Frorr - o j I I — i — i — j — I — i — i — » — I — I — i — i — i — | — I — I — I — i — J — r O O O O O O <0 C O O O f- & * iO t i j i I | r - o o OOO'I* Sayi93±JOHS JO U391AIDN FIGURE C-6 C-16 TABLE C-3 Average number of shorebird species recorded each day at each census site during the period 25 April - 14 May. X number of Site species per day Range Area Wakina Flat 11.5 8-14 North Bay Bowerman Basin 9.8 8-13 Bowerman Basin Bottle Beach 9.8 9-11 South Bay Bay City 9.0 7-10 South Bay Point New 8.8 8-12 South Bay N. Wakina 8.8 8-11 North Bay Chenois Creek S.2 6-10 North Bay Westport Fiat 7.9 6-10 South Bay Kurtz Slough 7.2 5-10 North Bay O'Leary Creek 5.1 4-7 Inner Harbor Newskah Creek 3.8 2-7 Inner Harbor Source: Herman and Bulger, 1981 C-17 (c). All intertidal areas in the estuary, as well as many of the other wetlands and some upland sites, are important to migrants; (d). The Bowerman Basin supported the largest numbers of shorebirds on every census day and is the most important site to migrating shorebirds in Grays Harbor for the following reasons: o Bowerman Basin is the last area to cover on the incoming tide and the first to uncover, thereby providing the longest feeding time with food being abundant; (see photo C-4) o It is one of the largest expanses of high mud in the harbor, and it is somewhat protected from wave action and other effects of weather; o It offers a mosaic of habitats, including roosting areas of several kinds and good cover; (see photo C-5) o The previous filling of areas to the east may have increased the density of birds using the Basin, (see photo C-6) (2). Bowerman Basin is most significant as an area utilized extensively by foraging birds. Although several species forage in this inter- tidal area, its importance lies in the large number or densities of birds rather than the diversity of birds that utilize it (Paulson 1980). Shorebirds, waterfowl and terrestrial birds are all present in the Basin. Table C-5 con- tains a list of birds sighted in the Bowerman Basin by Dr. Dennis R. Paulson, Affiliate Curator of Birds at the Burke-Museum in Seattle, Washington. Both Dr. Paulson and Dr. Herman have identified the Bowerman Basin as the most significant bird habitat site within MU 12 as well as studies conducted by the Washington State Department of Game for the Corps of Engineers. This includes the easterly portion of Area 1 and Area 3. Area 2 is also used for feeding and roosting and Area 4 (Mini-Moon Island) is used primarily for roosting. Area 2 is not as significant a site as the Bowerman Basin. Figure C-7 shows the differences in densities of the areas west of the peninsula (Site E) and north of the peninsula (Site E-l). (3). Dunlin ( Calidris alpina ) (a). The tideflats in Bowerman Basin are one of the largest wintering grounds for the shorebird dunlin on the west coast. Dunlin concen- trations reached 3,500 birds per 100 acres in 1975, and 10,000 to 50,000 indi- viduals regularly use the area (Corps, App. H, 1976) Dunlin use Grays Harbor from October to April and then migrate to Alaskan breeding grounds. Dr. Dennis R. Paulson identified 3 migratory peaks of shorebirds by conducting weekly censuses of the area during the fall of 1979. The first is late June/ early July with the returning of adult western sandpipers, short-billed dowitch- ers and whimbrels; the second in mid-August to early September with the peaking of juveniles of these and other species; and the third at the end of October as large numbers of dunlin arrive (Paulson, per. comm., 1983). Dunlin utilize many areas of the harbor. During the spring migration, highest concentrations of dunlin for a short duration of time were found in South Bay (April 25 & 27 19,000 and 16,000 respectively) and the largest mean population was distributed in North Bay (North Bay 4,100, South Bay 3,500 and Bowerman Basin 3,400) (Herman & Bulger 1981). The dunlin is a migrant and quite common and locally abundant winter resident in many other parts of Washington. "A Baseline Survey of Significant Marine Birds in Washington State," identifies other major and C-18 Jpjw-,, Xn *"*■: «&. 4F ' -4. Photograph C-4. Bowerman Basin: Birds Roosting. Source: S.G. Herman 1980 C-19 ¥ mP : -> --a^ Photograph C-5. Bowerman Basin: Birds Feeding & Roosting. Source: Herman 1980 C-20 A*i». 1 .v.4 ■ -;-Jg <, / "' ^ \X" v s -ws, - ■ ' -* * fcl * * " <■ »; ,"^*^" „ - * A ■ •* - « %T: w-> s • jL, sf ~ - > V , ' V •■;?>?: -*.->- -, : - 4 1 ..->-^ ■* ^ y > ** ^-*,,.-< 2500 U ss CO -O 01 o c O -H .H XI 6 M o CU CJ D- cn 2000 w c «— o 0) -w> ■•) Ol c c CD 4-> jc l/l yi TO Ol c — re in ■o o 0) Q. •w O cr> m 1- e n- c Q. a. o re o- Ol § s LU Ol E o c S. X 4-> 41 X- CD in c ^i s. o re IO 4*1 • 1/1 41 H- — oi re o to re jc — ■ c oieo oi u — s_ o cn in — s. x- in 3 o Ol — ■a — • u — in ■»«■■ 0/ re o m en 41 >> 3= oi c oi E > c a; c •■♦"" 5 CD m >> a -w O.T3 to oS T? 4J a< O TO e re at >— re C IS VI g *-> E ai < O1J0 o — > aj • 0) O J- JO u 01 JC — .—.TO Oi re — to 4-* go to o to jc — en s ea u TO jo to c — 00 — c to s oi — — * «00 re c o.*-> • l/l a in to vo TO S- Kl — >i at ai t- oi di re >> u o>4-> >■ o c 3s l- JC c o> u (. L. re ai re o 4> c £ O tl S. ^ 4J — 4-> 0.4J T3 >> 0) o o o e c m c £0.0. co *» I- re re o 0) J= !_ >,-- J= s o — *j J9 in 6 .rem ai re m f- 1- n s. u u u ■>- oi a) ai ai ■a o js i. a. u u E a. in re a. 3 o. a. c re *j U re <1) O « O J= 1-) C *-• 4-> S >»0 re O in > u re — 3 ■*-> >, u 4->*o c u JC U O 01 01 a. re t. *-> > Q. X O _ 01 B Ol Ol (J O.J-; ret. 0) —» ■*-> j= c 00 oi u re r» o> ai 3 >»« u «■- «— Ol 41 4J -r- I. > »« O W L If) *-> O 41 3 l>- 4->-^l/l 00 in u e-o oi oi a; re Ol Q.JT ll a*i vi4> — I u_ s 4) T3 K- i. Q. 41 O 01 H- X 4-> *j O Oi m "O in ■#• o ,- ai 41 ■— O oi o j3 j= oi c re i- o: titi »— *->»— U. 01 <— m 3 Oj< re i- o — i. x x c-— oi ai o •o >>■»- 41 ai -a i— *> je • Ll. OIJ9 3 *J "O 3 re jo •— eucc-- «"- .c •<- o t. u s 4j *j m j-> 3 c re m-o a) c o Ol i- 01 JB 41 U > •>- re oi -C o 41 O * i- JO JJ «p- 41 J= CD£U • oi s. *-> e Ere wo o. o. c re (j o o j= •— •—oi -w ffl 01 -^"O > 01 B Ol j-> in O Ol ■o o re •>- c cj.e<- 41 — U >•— • Q. Ol — •— Ol O 01 4J — k U re x o oi ai c x- J= Q. L« UW 41 C U 01 4-> 41 41 «- J= >— I J= O J-> re m 3 re 41 41 o - *•> E ■» —■ z a. ai c rvi 41 J= oi re T- (_) O *J > •— 0.0 c ■— o M- U C 4J re U 41 m c — o. E a. l. e o •— m o oi c jr S JO 01 O in L, TO U 4-> re u oi » in JS o) Oi >> JO t_ c in 4t - •<->u. t. •O"— • O E -o •w re x m E •f— re in o o> ai oi a. i. a. c u re re ■— a. CLE Ol > 01 ■<- J= c _ o *-> — •» re c c c — O S_ Q. «- 41 O <- ■>- 3 O T3 Ol o c «- 41 in 41 Ol in 41 41 in i s- u ■— — m j-> m c 41 41 re o u u *» u "•- c re •— •— > ai j= co re u j-> =fcJ Ol U- 41 w» •— CO »- 41 01 X L. • c in 41 3IC-"- in i_ jz "O C >> Oi4J 41 i- U 41 3 res. « c 4130)11- o c a.f— *j ere jo c c "^ ai re o re j= — o u u •*-> — 3 a oi 41 o h- > J= 3 >, o re *> re -a 41 ai *•> §c o. Oi o r— -O 01 a. 3 •*-> E u i •- a. c o ■a c ■jj re oi oi o ■»- •— 4-> jj c cj jo u o — re -o re — «— c re K— 4-> v- o oi in •— m re *J O ' K~ c c o — • Ol O. m o o re a. i_ an o J= *-*J tv 01 •— > it- re 41 o c ■a o */ — £ C *-> •»- 3 re o u i- o re re re in t— - c ■(-> o in *J • re oi 3s O c *> o •»- c J= 3 o in o *#- re o «- 3 t- s- (J c o re s. jo B. HI L JT re u«i J= 3 4J o in in 3-, •«. re o oi b i j= o : 41 •*-> J c c - O C — i O J= in *j i — to — : 41 X i S_ 4J o re 3-, | jo o ■— i I- o •— i re ■— o : Z J= I in X < in f- : >i in re TO 41 i re o 3 JO •M L. Ifl ra 41 ~ CU in J= >^ *J 3 0> Ed U — 00 CA 4191 a re ■a _ •*■> *• it « Is S 5*10 » ~S cm re •< io- cm a. s 08 a Q en CJ « as 5 •o Ol 41 41 E X ' 41 JZT3 4J Ol ' — re oi » ret. jo *-> c l. 3>>*-i re oi — f re *j vi o. J. 4-1 U r- •<- 41 • OCCT131/1CO-C JZ re 41 U S. 41 4J in3C.— 4I4IC — O- oi *j > s_ o E ~14J l7l Q. U C71J re c s. oi I. o c c !_ 41 u o re c S_ CL c k— re re a ai re o 4) o -i- •»- u <_1 - •— •— *j o c i<: CL C •(- O E CL — O 4J O E re oi s_ uvetic a i. O O i- «« re -^ — jz t. Cu CL4-) u- in re lu 4) re i*- re 4i Z B Z O 3 a o • 00 co oi in oi ••- > J= O ai t. re 3 41 □■TO S- 01 i. 3 LOO Ol c u — o — 4J > - c— E Ol CO 3 CO Ol TO r— C in oi 4J •— Oli— re co re to o 4J Ol CM 41 M- •— •— re c 4J i- 3 «E oi in •— in » 3 -r- re en >i rr— u O CNJ U 41 u re m • in 3s 3 JO •— .,•*- 41 I— ■<-> 3 JZ re in in TO 4J Ol in in O 4J a. i. o o CO u- cn o>— ' > 3s ' Ol t- to rs 01 4J TO Ol Ol 41 Ol > X — 41 re 4-> m /o k— re to E t-- 4i •- i- in 8 I •— 4) re TO c u oi oi re — +j — :c > — s. 3s a. 01 01 J- Q. > CO Ol 3 re > m O 41 O <4- u in ■to f- oi re c — (_ x re to ■— c c — -.-•- o o 41 3 U •<- Ol i— 4J re-o - oi re s. c <*- 41 <— c CO <- en oi • in in TO jo i. 4J rem C 41 O — U|T0 Ol U. JO i/> •— 4-> u to re u x u- re c r— u oi o x re re o Id uu I t- in c 4J 1- O Oi— U S- -<>i •— re re •— •> re 4J 4- TO •— O — ere •— 4J 3 oi re i. cm C 41 £ 11 C •»- . — .TO O 3 O s_ E 4i s. cr u cn oL. re 4i 4i 4J^ z m i_ s. re oi jo 3 oi c Is- c 3 o CL re| re o in > — n- 41 eo !_ C !_ 41 Ol— OC*"t. E" oi jr re re 3 jo L-«E-'»LO Ol re L.l/1 Lih>Q CL C C 01 01 o o x c jk in to H. — O OLMtl O4-.cc04JOin!_ 1- O Ol X — LL. 41 TO — TO C I Ol ono 4-» e t- o o " Torererejcu* - m 4) E in O c •— s-w »reT0 — -- XOO-— 3CJ0E o t*- i*- ai" 4J 1 in O — 41 C TO S. 41 I JO C 4J — 41 4l<-4li-CCOX4-> CL 41 4J re 41 O U x x ■— x Q to — re 4) in c-+) s_ in 3s re o C l_ O Ol 3sJO ■<- O re jo > re » u <— l. — t- to c oi 3I04JIC94IOJC4I o X re — jj ►- i_ — 4J c •— Ol 41 4J in — •— O. c X !_ Ssr- CL— • rererein3jC4ioi CLL-3CtninO>E (SCO re oi re JO U 41 3 •— CS 4-> TO TO •— S. — — ccreoin-Oit- Xrereit-xocjo O - J= 41 O U JT C H- C in — c l/i 41 c 01 • GL O TO =3>^ — re 4J 41 41 K- — •— JC l*- TO 4J. S> TO fO < H- TO s. o c Ol 41 • O— »<— 4J s» E O c O. re 4> Ol TO E JC 44 i- Ol u re oi s. >ijc re re s_ u c 4i 4i — re in > ce 3Z 4) O u u tn to oi re c to i. x re U —I — cm jo o re u- 3 jc «t- 4J re in u oi ■ — oi re t. C 4J 3 •— — C CO — CO — Ol tl 4) CS 41 JC !» 41 4-> JO 0) S. O 0.014. OO— X s l/>» : O v> o oaio i — u (t- i io o 1 *>— •— O (A I U LO C IO00 o I V .1- CO 4J a> s- P JC >i o O) o VICIA ■o io • •o c .e *- "O (O o 3— 4J 3E •— ia — io 01 i — +i o> a> i S e O J3 <0 "C as o a: —«io ■— ia ^» <*> aoinv oo •— — o ro C >> CM'O IDA tO C E V) CL4-» 4-> 01 3 10 i. a> « O © 3 i_ a *j "O o > e (A i- 41 0) OI >i o "O a> 4J 3 "I- 4J O. ft) c 4J u u cr U 1~ in 4-J m 41 i— C 3 OI — .ft) e w 0) (A 3 IO "O l/» •— Q. c io j; ■© 4-> L. •o • ia *— O JS ft) ft) o o 10 L. IA O J= 3 ft) IA (A o ai io "o s_ -a Ol 3£J- a. i- 4i U4J^ E 6)44 U 41 IO u ai i. -o c. a. c J= 4J 0) 1- O.J= H- O ■o f- 10 io i. oi • 4) JC IO 10 X *> C JC ■4- *4 4-1 • (J e ft) ft) 3 L. • U i. ■w ai • (J 3 <*- • 4-> IO 4) 41 jc >— s- •— X *J 4-1 (A C "-IO o o (A IO t. j-i «n lm « ig ai a ft) 3 4-> ft) V) 4-» •*• £ — IO m 4J-0 4) 41 4-1 3 U ft) o 1 1- •*-> e o 4J 4J IO 0) 0) (J .U U o c ft) ««- C4J io -o M- (A "• O 1 o >X£Cfl« (A U'- i- 3 3 4-> >> 1- 4J 3 4) 3 I- 3 ■f- > o o>—- ft) 4-> 4-> ft) U S. C 4) £ 4-> 4-> 10 t- i- X (J »- (A u»- O) © 01 JC u ccs- on 35 X io c C •© 4) IO 3 4J 10 0) ft) C (t- 4) u c O io O- l/i *— Of s. > ft) X O n-r- (A «- u a. 4J 4-> L. •" m ai>i 41 X c (A — TS c-o i- «orm >>c c a. o ■O (J 3 io 0>+> i 10 — - u e "- c U 0) •<- 4-> L. 4-1 •— ft) IO o c ft) -o o IA ■o i— *j oi *< "a > a. S. i/> c c 10 o i- ■o-o C£ C aLuoi o io — (a 3 a. a. (a — c e • 3 O X (A o> W o> *j li- 0) >— C i— OI O" w» ft) « IO > ■o IO (A O OI— ft) 4-1 i_ . 5 ai jj io j: 01 O) O. U) M OI 4-1 4J «^ «^» *— c B C J3 C 4J 0) 3 >>4J £ O"— ft) *» > ft) r~ —• "O (A i— 4-1 4-» CL ft) IOi— O i- o (A IA Wl.t'W US > ft) ^3 "O — C (0 v> p- IO •F- — ^ C *> (A 3 io a a. o. <4- T3 OI — E "" ft) ft)"0 (. 4J «— 3 •»- IO 4-3 4-> 4J o «/> in ifc. O 411*- — •© £: e it- 3 UUt.li- 4J 4J V T3 ia c SRO u •© ft) U i- 1— IO ©4-> (t- "O l/> IA i— ft) c *» 4) ft) 6 « ■»" 10 m 4-> si a.'— >> 4) — oi -C io m IO T3 (A (A 4-1 o c 4-1 tf> o a i- k. > £ 4J H- ft) ia e in >, oi jc 10 ■o m OIC« -£•0 omi •t- ft) • O ft) "O JC c U IO &■»- 3 f u i. 4J (A u (A 14- u a. — E IA 3 JC in 4J > C 3 0) icr 4J 4-1 o a. O U • 10 3 O 3 v. E i. 4-1 ct*«*-» +4 i_ io l<0 > O 4J ft) U m It- O C ft) 4J — >"o O 0) U U >» ftt 1. f 0) 0) £41111 O. O k. u (A 4J C It- >>4J — ■o o it- a c a) ft) 4J CX (Ah- 4J X O u >, — 10 IO 4) 4) P— IO ft) (. o o. a> c 41 C 4) S. 4J (- IX IA « wi-c C (t- JC l*. 3 O 4J 01 IO 3 «- J= e e j* IO •• IO •— a. U ••» 4J — c *» ft) ft) 4J U IA <*- 4J 3 41 ft) IO 8- C »■ 4-> (A o (A (A >> u- »— IO 0) Ol 4 U I 4J -a l. s. IO O © 4-> u « 3 -o u e 3 "o oi O ia -a ftl ■a > 3 e u- (A 3 U 3 oi E — — JO O ft) ■0 C *J o c g^^r o >»o OI i— 41 4-i B ft) s •— •" JC JO IA "— ft) IO ft) u IO ft) >» u — U (. 10 4-> S o it- io «— 4J cue .jc -a ai JS 1 » 4-> 1- ■iJ O IO IA ft) c e ■a u o. e i u t- 4J C 4J ft) *J 0) (J C 3 (A — ■ 3 — j: •" « in o O ft) c o ■hi O ft) 0) IA IO C IA >> a. — a> ia ft) 4-1 4J O "" c 4-> i- o u a. oi -a oi oi — io 3 l— c •»- 4) > e o 4) E » OJ O) (A U ■o o .e» (A (A o*o 1- — 0.4J- a«< as <<-» c IO 41 ft, ft) c — — 4) io if- 6 io i- U ft) 41 IA U "O c io o "o 4-> 4J ft) u- 4-1 4-> E E o B *j 41 ja m c ia ia e ■O 01 ioi— o e c ai 0! o 4J ja s o i c S > IO X O <0 3 ft) 441 E ft) o io io ft) C 3 5. ft) ft) L. IA U JS >— J3 saiit. S- 4J U E 0) IO >|S W£ © L. io O O 4J ft) ft) Oft) *fl a> u 10 — m 4J 1- 4J"D 1— in S_ 4) > 4-1 Q. »JZ > «n *D i. io Ss m u jc *o *> O) "O S- C 4) o JZ JZ o >>>! OI ft) IO e o u en ff ui (. e ft) ■a C O 3 > E 4-> 4-» O) I— D— U 41 IA >— ft) c 5 "■» IO ft) ft) ft) ((- ft) 3 &--S IO 4-1 H- 4) k •— o>e 3 ■>- o a> o>jc c o ■O 4J OI 10 o-o O (A 1" J= ■o 10 C— 4J c Q. >, IO 4-> > u 4) — r- c 4J C OI« 3 — 4-> c B>— c «n c t- z u u >> 3 JZ — o (A IO . -o -o O O) C 4-> C 41 IO o UIO ft) C K- *» •o 4J d- X-»- 4-> — -a — OI c ^ <*- u c — (A IO «" 1 <9 C ft) O U IO c .° .§ — 4) t. >-D f • c •— 4) 4JI JC ai x 4^ o a. 4-> IO IA (A O o LU O.C ft) o o ■© u >. ft) IO U 41 U IA f ai <«- a) u io h-coioiu IO ft) i- 9«JU u 35 o-x > i. o c IO IO -C *- C «*. JC (t- IO 4-> C.0 o.— a. 4) a O io o o a.*- i» 41 X y- a. »- ot— ou«- 53' Figure 1. The Grays Harbor Estuary, Grays Harbor, MA Figure 3 Conceptual Alternative Plan of Development in Units 12 and 13. Presented by OCZM *> ^ ■:>* N£t D ■-«#* <*>& t. "9 ■AND I. is. CO in "O — k. Ol Ol Ol OJ3- Ol Ol •— 01 k, o k, o |Wtl O C — 3"CI s_ in jc *j k. E l/l Ol S Ol C £ j= *> ai k. u m 3 01 44 io E Ol 01 — in *» 01 •- Ol Ol — ■W Ol *> CL 0! O. IO p— 0) O k. c p— o m p— c JC IO o IO in — "0 cn > TJ CO. k, >> k. k. n- in oi jc 13 m p— u s oieio-o— ciosio u 01 VI -w Ol Ol • C • U- -a cn o Ol k. 4J 01 *J 10 ia it- in oi *■ ai c •o io oi jc m E s- £ 1. w OJ'O'D je k, Ck C3 in o in Ol CX4J"0 O «£■!- ai o in 3 J3 IO IO 4-1 e -44 3 oi — v. rO 44 01 01 C Ol O) ■w u 2: -o oi k. i- O — O JC *> > 01 Ol JC — m m c •— • >>•*- e 3 C — IO L HI C 01 £ e o oi x IO LU 44 C OIWTJ C •*- C »->.*> -J- k. k. *• 44 JZ — m — -o in ^ "j- — in 01- — o 0) — oo — io e e x V) x c IO — in X c io c 3 01 o «* k. *> Ol Ol o oi *j E a. oia • o a/ o •<- o io in C E — ©O Ol i— — io-o oi io in 3 - — • *J *4 as"o-*4 c oi— o.m — IO 10 O 6*1-1. 44 CM © 01 01 — O i— +J Ol CUI- IO *J *> o X Ol *> c O *J > IO IOTD o LU C m IO > 44 • 3SC E c in 2 10 *J k. • k, O O X k. k. E JC oi z io .o-- io Die 44 44 "O 10 e -co cn x — IO Ol -o 01 c «*■«<«■ IO <|ppl IO c — o 01-44 k 01 O lOQ.CL44k.C- — k, O) oi >>J3 0) cm cn io it- -o ■O E cor •• oi £ io IO 01 c c in c o. X k. > » 10 3 — c oir- U k. E — e — oi m c m "a c *j vourr E k, OJ 01 IO — ■ o O O Ol Ol 01 O >>r 44 C OI44 JC 3 a.t— «- C 3 5. m io cm oi — io in e — k. C *J *l 01 io e jc o > f oi 0) k. m<4- ■o jccoCivimu— mm o — IO o c k. X — >•*- Ol a c n- io oi k. *J S.*> o*>jcjcol in UOI «U L UH-- L 44 I. in > - — — OI>— •»-•»- pM oi m Q) — Q. O-— » ^-. in oi o in k, u *■ 4J O. « C 4» — 30— 44CXIO c a. • c« S- — Ol IO -O 4J«u c m o o. i/i aii jc — a. a. ai k. C C it- — O Ol E a> m «o Ol IO > *> E oi — • * c Ol C Ol p— C p— Ol c — -o in *■> Ol •• k. *J lt- >» — k. o — - io jc io u £ 44 IO •• •o O > c o >> o o p— m 4J a. O *"3 kl 91 Ol "O C 44 ■a o > ja n 3 T3 Oli— *J - D«50lk.>>^CO • Ol O (_1 O k, J3 — *» TS— — JC Ol 01 JC c CB in o c U O IO U-— oia E oi — *• 01 O Il*i*i- IO Ol cm "O — c am — -- Ol X 01 1 'O JC 44 JC — 44 IO • - kl e u jc *> it- ai U03 JC i*_ 44 m — cn m 10 C O "O c oi oi — ai i/i l. *j o cn *> m — x c — m — n O Ol 4p* m O •*- o — -o — k io V iOL. in c f 3E 4< > 9 k 1 ra o u- — 3 k, *J 01 IO c CO «- e k, — 3 44 C J3 m >, Op— — 01 — • k. u O Oi cn o Ol o O Ol 01 *J IO — 3 =3 k, k, C C Ol 10 •o o o 0IE44OP— ino.io<*- J= 3 44 — » 3 i*- tfi ct3 io it- m J3 — p— «*- 01 k> JZ i— 4J O- o a. io o > k. C O.T3 X m ■o 35 c a. oi c •(J Ol (J CM 4-> C t- — C 4J l/l kCO — Ol *J IO ^O •O IO ««*- U Uf pO O 01 IO — O 01 O k. O O Ol— ■O- ai IO IO io £ i|_ io -a c 01 IO — io "o oi — ai c Ol •*- 01 — k, >— CM aiEk.ai— xcia • Ol •»■) • C J3 0>p>— •OEUQ'DZ <.«- oi oi in ai c in k. 01 E Ol O ■*- H- 13 5"o — o k. oi 01 Q.— •— -a mo m a. > 44 44 — *o c > o en k, k. "O wp— c Ol 3 k, k. 01 o o oi jz !§ ai •*- -j ai -— m oi io ^— •— io — k. — >.3 io cm p— a> k. VI O OJ •o^f in— a. j-i *> JC -- VI — Ol Ol m coimmu44i.— 44 i— cn clll. u • IO Ol Ol IO 4J a. >, K-tJO *• urn- -oaijcocsjc — m c o vi io — ■ m — p* a. ^- c - p— 4J k. •— U IO — •— k, O k. ■e o in io oi — in 4J I— Ol c 3 io mxmu—ain-it- o cn io >, io k. k. o .a oi n- k. c *> 10 Ol —3D. 4J > — 3 O k. •4- U =3 U 0— T3 IO IO •*— Ol O 01 44 c in > 44 — o O 10 io Ol k. O tfl — IO m jz •— k. Ol J= *• *> oi x io c o O O m &p— 44 kl CIT5 £ «- 44 s- — m cljz< a. > o O 4J *> — 4J 01 c in *■ C 01 •— — Ol in k. k. k. Q o io ■*- OI-— lOO i— .c Ol C 13 CO oi u- inc — *i aim ts oi vi *> °o o ■o p— jc io oi - — o.m'O o v n e in c o Ol Ol u in E C *> Ol u X E O C J3 *> Q. 01 X IO • C e oi jc io o E m m 3 — C C 3 3 C 01 > <: x m oi ja in 4J oi — k. 01 O IO IO 01 4J kl — E c: iop— c C VI — O. IO PO- r ■- 44 — 01— o 44 o > c m O C CO O 01 JC U k. E Q-"0 o -o *j io 4J gi Ol - oioiom'O u k — 10 44 o c k. e m >> ai io ro m Q. 01 O B E Ol — JC Ol o E 44 IO Ol IO Ol oico— c-oco >> m > c *J IO >»p— -o p— p— 3 o in p— IO k. •♦- "O — *J oi "O >> m k, < 35 k, k. J3 --- Ol C IO c- o. u oi ai oi c E « oi i a. O I_ Ol Ol — -a jz o IO > — js •— io m « Oik » k. 44 O > IO IO p^cl — X o s_ k. -w c « |0I ai 3 it- +» io a. o -o Ol o oi — oi E c ink, io o O Ol (3 IO O Ol — Q-«-> a. m *i — oi ai •— m u ■o O "O 01 C Ol Ol Ol It- 01 e 01J3T3 k, on- o O in i— oik — X E = ^ c ■o 01 in 3 c x *> oi i— k. o X 01 k. JC Ol Ok. a. Ol E 01 — JC i-j a,— io 3 *J O It- — *J 3 £ p— in 01 — c io oi in m k. o 4-> e c IO 01 o ai JC Z k, X 44 m 1— io k. VI C 44 — l/l CO O K Ul tl 10 01 01 Oi E "CI in *> > m — . 3 It- 3JO e T3 — J3 KUN OO « 01 E 01 >«- -a ai io IO 10 O O Ol «- «- in 4J cn.o ai oi io c -o IO jc *> m c cn.— on- oj — O It- CO k k. •4- o c — a: C k, 44 E <♦- ♦> k. s- o o k. o io "O j- j-> oi 01 IO *J u m c — io *j 4J— Ul > X — O 3 3 • 01 10 o 3 C o k. a. u in o o. c oi >»— io p— in E >> o io io c io oi io oi o • J3 C 44 cn ens JC • Sp< ■— C— » s_ i "O o O. io in in n- o — k 15 3-J3- C llti JC O. -*l « > C4l -O c ■O 3 Ol IO kl •— — NWO oi — oi «a- cwoa jj oi O k. E "O E o- o io o — •w k, oj a. c z u oi a. jc p— io i*. u- o oi > Oi Oi — •— J3 01 Ol JC c Oi m Ol JC 440.CLC OOlk. ec Ol > IO— • C — O 01 Ol O © io o Ol «— io *•> k, m — <— -- IO X io oi E oi « m C3 m — k. m e E o » c oi >— Ol 1- IO ■I-) x j: *j i-~ k. io IO k, -bl CU ■— in *j oi > *J *J -ojca.ee ID IO i— p— p O Ol — U "O >>— 44 44 — 44 k. X s- 0) in +J c «"0 ■o c in 4J o or C Q. U ♦j ai- *iooo3:ccMm p— 44 > Ol J3 > p— s- "O C 3 O 3 > 0) -o — i— o m V • IO i— IO +J 01 Ol ID k, JC 3 -N U m O. — u P*D IO IO 01 k U Ol O — 44 Ol OIC >i i/l lo pO •— k. o • E >, i. u Ol *> O C 01 o c E •E4400-— ■ooic xi — — EM- "O k. IO.O -3 "O 3 CM X •O kCOn^l S_ *-> Q. JJ m u 01 U X — > — JC 4J m 4J *4 • IO OO - 13IOCIOOOIP— 3 o JC <*- C 1 O 3 ■O 01 C O m 3 en >— o oi — io in 10 JZ e it- ei io oi 4J — — >, u-o c it oi- ce 44 — k. >>■*- U c ■— j: "a "□ nj •— *j Ol O o — » a>or Ol c •M O O Ol 01 "O 4J 3 Ol — c c o a. kl C LO OIB-OI C U 9IU IO *j o>— > in k. a. *j i-i — e +j — 3 O T3 -O mo — E =3 =J e io 44 ai oi — a.— — Ol Ol > k> 0) k> J3 oi k. e >■ — . oi k. 01 in 01 - — o -o- *j ■o ■o — — k, IO k, 4J k, 01 o — -O 44 3 01 44 CL— m k. JC O. O O JC Ol k. ^ o x i- cn k. i- J= •— ^ •» C k. o u in. — . © o c C C in in o O JC — 01 C it- cn X OICO— OJCOI3JCIO o h- in Ollt- 44 10 3 (— c o'o-aii.H'oi-NS o.-«r io ■»- cm c c •o p— 01 10 IO •+- CJ 4-1 4J a.— o io t— j3C3ioiaX4J>>mXCO as *— • x io OJ VI i — o o en 4-> VI aiuu c vi a> VI ■»- c 3 4-1 C C fa. J3 o c c ■O 4-1 « Ol -Q Ol u — O 3 .55 VI **— O 01 — &. 10 (A 4J en en i. Ol • TO 1- 4-1 01 o> cnx *J vi *j cue — > 4-1 VI Mi" C C m u oi to a. c giu u VI 4-1 C 4J IO IO re c oi X i- 10 01 01 TO — — — 4-> o> x coo Ol io 01 Ol S- u — 01 oi oi oi — en — c c u — vi vi VI U 4J 01 10 IO — n- — a. > ad U S. •u X c (» vi oi s=. 13 44+J in x u vi U- en u — ai oi 3 re re c x — t/1 4-> Ol x: -wo — c en >u mi. c n= — re oi oi re X O 4-1 VI (J fa. c s- x en vi x c *J 01 *> O C 3 O — — • enx 3 — o c oi en vi — vi oi i. uo c- re •o Ol 0) TO Ol — (O — Xi O— (J O vi •— 01 o o X *J vi vi e u c en . x — Toocnocrex re S e > C tl£ k IO VI JJ on- — •— CO I. ■«- c oi 'o o u- re ^•i*. • re^» suaivioixreE •*- .3 Ol Ol O — +» JJ VI t. Ol 4-> «*J IO u en oi o Ol — I_ (j o u o<— >j«c en VI 01 c — s. s. ua> x x — x vi U O d «. U4J L«- Ol •— Q. "- *J C 4J -- L. 3 OI/1N o. oi re oi re *— . oi to OJ »>i> c a. c o VI W C ID *J Vl^ 1 o — x vi "o o •a oi co en Ol VI *J Q.X >| x — c Ol Z « C VIT) Ol E O 0) — 0) Q. Ol C C Ol ■•- > re — jz *< 2 91 > U U£CD c t. *j s- a. to io -a 3 c "- X vi oi ro cn**- re o •<" > c 5, vi t. re — >> 1 -r- en 'o — • o — E c * VI It- (O O « fa. Ol ■— C u — TO fa. y> Oi io o en •o a> x — — CM OIL. re oi o c 3 i» re +j w u -- re u s. 01 Ol c c u 3 C L. -O • Ol Ol "O oi u -o Ol VI *» i. VI O L. re <-.lo i. Ol *>-fOC« cr io "o ai at i- u to c vi-— 3 -a %. «£ > O O-— X » VI VI •s: o-to o *> « Ol 4-1 Q. 4) 3 U VI Ol M 0) c M JJ c o O Ol C O Ol c re C 3 -O 01 w— • re 3 X XI 01 u fa. — L. i— <0 — — -u xi o. O— ' Ol io 4J — a. s- 4-i re ai Q O — 10 TO e 4>> 0.— 01 -u «n a L. u t. U t. *J *o c c *1 L VI C0 4J CO. Q. X Ol TO s. Ol t. TO Ol • vi<*- a C *— o o io c L. 0) 4-J *J C"0 C 4J VT •*- E vi 0) X E c — j- re 3; oi VI 3 co re »— oi -w XI 3 Ol X — l/> *-> vi E VI u o. > >>•»- C Ol Ol i. x en c VI — — >> — . ai *> is vt u re — U IO o i/> e o>S x e C i. X c o re — vi o >, . 0) en vi <— X »-£ >0 Ol Ol "O IO o VI >, i_ a> c o u s- ojo o o.— t. en Ol a. vi s- *» re u a. ••- T3 3 U *J o c X 0) >> "O VI v> VI IO <— VI rexreuoitO c *vi t..^^- 4-1 VI >. oi — fa. o x oi c •s 0) <*-•>- E *» •— c oi fc. > 01 • <4- x *> e — -o •, U-IU Ol O.X o. u"i re « oiMuia a— < oi x vi ai c Ol fa. C Ol Ol x: u i. a. v> o-r- xi C C IO 01 i— iJ O Ol — «— ■»- VI in oi o> it- «5 re^-— to *j s- re in O IO VI "F* VI ie o JZ 01 1 3 e t. oi io 1 N X -" vi c ^ o E en vi x c <* en re x u 1 ■a >>to o» •• •a on— 0> Cv*J o^- 4_> o Ol XI > *J on- ai u O re i- 14- TO • re 6 c re 3 fa. o> e •— *i xx a o) gi U4J e ai*j£«j x oi tO — V£> VI — c — o to — a. x ECO en i_ ■a •>- ai vi cnaJ X x ai io •»- > c .13 — . *4 e — re 4*N vi re L. — X — C IM H- 1*^ e u. O « 0) — m c en T9 O C 3 W 4-> O O O 01 enjj c >««£ — » O X ■*- 4-j 3 en u oi oiuxrere— oio « to en X to — u C 10 o •V" VI X *J 4-1 f— vi vi re re — — x 4-> en n- i— x — c — £ >>*j .w — i*. e U I— ■B c — U O.X i— -u x; E *» x oi L. en u t. 0» CO — — 4-1 Ol >> *>*< coire c — ►— vi co re fa. i— O «'■»■ oi ai o aj 01 X 3 C i. o «; >»C7\ 3 — c ■o oi -o vi u *■ l tie **i ccn VI 0> c«ic»-'- HJ *J (J o Oi «J I5 4J- Ol O i- o o.*» — t, re 3 01 X TO — O xoit-cEo o — >i fa- (J ox: »*- «o *— 3 i. C D. lO-^ L. • — re 3 c 4-> JS 3*1 ■o c ■o Ol Ol «*J 4J *J X 3 1- i- C C X en t. 3T Oi VI L Ol Ol l/l*Ji- a: 'o o *> oito cr <-> o. c • c oi 4* ai oiviaienxxcre — COlEOl>— oi- — «3 Ol -o Ol • •o o ac en O 1/1 o^ o t. VI • TO o X >. c oowma i— c 1 £ en >, io L. io « e o c — I- 3CC0 Ol x en c re *j — -- — i- >>i- cnto i— re l/l jCC o« ax v s oi E io oi X •*- Ol Ol VI — t- re oi en jc Q. o c re u t- re 4-i oi to A ***- i. £C 11 » l/l *J Ol IO vi c E vi C *> E 10 4-> Ol i. O. i. c > >>*» oi <4- -o vi ■— u — re o cnoi— o. oi E re E • re vi o o c E CXIO.CO.IO VI VI O t- 10 IO > C >» IO l*. c L. X X 4J Old. u > s. vo oi re 1. U CO » 3 C 01 i-j3 O 3 3 *J 1 Ol IO io c oi i. u 01 vi < re c — O Ol Q.4J o u re u u re cn»-»f^ o> e O — TO u o l/> *>— w x: o S- 01 c x o en vi co i- X — »^ u. re Ol VI -^ VI oicE— oiji— uoii*.< vi- 01 O ■" re O — 0) ■a •»- o E OXI Ol — 6*1 x vi U C X T3 ox to E 0) » X E — Ol TO l^ re — ■ ev re 4-1 vi vi E oi — o — id © to *j x L. L. > T3 (J Ol «— -r- O *J C X *» Ol i. X c x 4-i o x re X I4-4J VI u o — •— OTO 01 ae *j u IO I— l_ Q.AJ Ol o c e IO L en oi i— 01 CwO- VI > c •*- 3xi e e f- •»- Ol (0 i*. "o io co (0 14- XI Ol u- > re — E O OI«C < — 4J TO oi re 3 <4- a. 5 3 » E > en Ol X Ol *J X Vl>— » O 4J i-»— VI re — en t_ s. x to re o 3 ■w oi a, O 01 O O Q L tf) VI x s- x o — >>OlX c|*-oz 4J X *J • « O 1 re — o to CO. It. v> u • x: > IO c 01 o •— re TO *-> o i- 4-1 IO 01 c oi oi L. 5 O Q. VI E c — x »i- en c s- c re ai VI 4» 14- o — 4JUT0 J-TOUTO TO s. < 01 i_ 4-> in oi x o xi x: 3 O — oi E io i. *j ■>-> 55 x oi O «- i. O i- r— Ol re O — X u VI Ol C i. x o i-«OOOIT5l*-CO>C C C 01 fa- 0> VI f- >— TO ■*■> •»- *j *J *j en io en i n- 4-> x re G) C — Ol O.W os.ct.oi re x re O re x vi re Ol Ol X X Ol O *j •» as IO IO 4J o. * en oi tr vi oi i- r- BIO VI ■o — x *^ t- — —> ai 4-i vi E o Q) t. 3: o> io d-> IO VI c C o E o *J E o c i. c s- oi 1- Ol C <4- — Ol 3 t. re o re Eloi oiu c cnaix ■*-> c os ai oi x — io oi ■»- *J *r- «s- i. t- IO Ol 00 W Ol VI O Ol r- X — L. X X en - x E *» E six c oi o c *■> *-> re L. > u o.x 3 £ 11*1*1 U Ol— 3 4_i Lw re — o — o.-^ 1 fa. 3 a) ai 1- Ol IO 3 Q 01 XI -M <^ 01 «- l/l IO -- o cr oi vi *> Ol U — TO TO O oirel to — ■— i. oi E x c- o c o re o.to Ol*J i. V: x 4- O O > TO E a. io i- O x: C C X C X io i4- s_ io 14- a oi x re re e c !- oi re c c x — Ol a VI i— o c to *- re re re 4J *4 Ol U It- VI' — — E fa- (V Figure 4. Conceptual Alternative Plan of Development in Units 12 and 13. Presented by OCZM .. r.T •• c 'h° v A MO I. i - < o 00 en ss ai <*- oi jo o Eg en o ^8 44 TJ W TJ m 3 41 gSE L m _ 01- JC o u 01 44 l — m e « £ £ — IJO Ol— JS»-»— c LI * 3 — TJ T! X (J C V re 01 £ • aui- c«« ■«- l C — TJ C 3 C 01 — tj a) jc in > U «5 ■— 01 ■•»*» l e L o a SctiE > L f «« « L — JC X a. o • in eo • L L visiie t. L 6" »■«: JO I C — 01 CO L in TJ Cn O S», L — JC 10 — M LA C to ai re n- l, e ©COL, «!■ jo ti e (ox O in — <*■ TJ 44 L • — J0 A — L i- 00 o. L *» en < 44 C — mo) at ->- e« < om« « « » L £k«e I— CLX — in E 41 at 5 to £ l, 5 — lS o> TO L • o in u TJ OI V, L JO O JC Ss 44 OI o e ss o ai 01 4-> c — — w 3 are- in — at — cr — jc tj C tit- >i«l U C 3 w Ss 3 — m O re 44 «f*l tl 3*J — m L 01 « U ID L > k «£ in in- OI X UO k£^«l«l tl L«? « OCflhSUr O O — C OI IO Ltl in iiil e tlw u a«T ai c e ceo run c *> §«•"" « Og in 44 IO CL C tl in in 3 jo — »-» <•« i»- in i- u O L 41 — » 10 O 3 O w- 41 — 01 44 V Ji- 00 0l"O«0LO*JO»- CL. eo c 3 oieo >— re tj 3 cm OITI 9lC « e TJ Tl — c c i— re *■> or» io — io c •m re E — O l"» • 01 ** 5s «0 44 in cC;coti»>ii. na — •f- bi « «i Eoir L re T> — me I.4J E »•"■*!« « c "a 44 cj " « to* C 3 L IO in 41 L — OI 00 41 TJ 01 44 ai 44 fM re H- _ ■*- X JJjceumjCL- — JCO U"O^»0IC*JiC0l0l*->0IC'— o 3 N 01 L O £ 3 — £ >in£w— oin--*Ck4i 44 44 u u , c Ss— tl «m JC H- re O. 3 — 3 i — — oi — s- p-rnj o tig jc E : — re > jj jc io tu >>a i c "o l, 3 o> o *j ee x — re tj 3—3 C3— 44 — — e«0— Le Dwnicv'tics — o > oi re — l some jj re o r «*"• oi • jooi3en a c c -o 3scl re — TJ c jc jc o — W V 3" LZ O — 44 44 in X o tj in re lu tj oi sstj *■> a CO) C 3 X — CLJO C 44 in l*. CO • OKOOwutim aieoo §o O in— *JC 01 O. 01 E c 44 O 4) 1 VI 0JT9 X <0 C • »C C"->1) SB-fl tl S • oi-wtrioiL, — r>j-o >ci-C r-inC"— .com>— i» <— • oi ie > oi m ti ti za aix L. O O t_03*.'0-»-Cin"OUO o a. l. *j m •^•oi4->«--^ai eo *-> OI • X C C L, C *J L. «S u> CO L. iLa,f«IO «- • sz i- «*> «e * tiz^A l*i ti «*> • A N- L JU C 3 3UC O Or-XCSOXOIl/1-O.aQ.OOI IM tlf 00U3 C U4-> jz «. c ti • — • cr in (o • in >— •- l, oitl nw*) nv C COO L "O oocenoiccoi foisii c *J - 10- 41 3 X« tlfl" C- jj in L. «J O wj=oi Oi — »£ tl L > L. in o> o .ffl»-*J13*l *> E 4I*> L. L, E *-> L, II IO L L tl L O >00lSco<*>f-O.C.COOlL,0I.C Ziiuio«oo«iw«jiLzaiia IO OI o • V in E 44 44 — 00 (0 L, — (J in JC tl C L. in c • 44 — m o» o JC 3s— in *j o m u 01 4-> C 4J X O 01 "O oiin — 4J— ec— m 44 jo en oi • Oiczwm L, — ■a j= XL, kO J « IO O CwlO >< r>. > l, ■D IO oi in Q. e E JC 4-> OlO- io l, — io x l. io *o en ai o L, U »• WTJ 3 L. W 9 C 03 JO Cv— "O OI44 44 JC C Ol E tl — — JO •w IS C • X 01 OI 10 o — CLJO CCL,lOUOmjC 44 ._— u in o«— . oi c L. 01 X O in on. . io 3— o y m CH "O > <4- JC • Ckjr — oi to C IO O 3 C 3 IO . iii kT) ai*^ m 41 Vli- L IO O 4J u n 4J T3 ai O0I O in - » oo.— ■O IO C JO Id >t OI 01 — o ■o — ■ » E c m oi L- 8 IO L> •—CO 44 44 — ■ L. L, 1191 L 4-> L> L, O 01 IO IO IO — L, O 3 OI >4-> 10 01 VI4I — (S IO IO in L> £ 00 •0 f— L, JC H-"0 OCJ0JC>>C JC io w*w ^ oi — <— 04->en en X <0 U- "D 4-> 01 C 44 It. 44 IO 01 OI44 L. C CO. 3 A — C E — L.-0 01 3 — o c oo m CO 01 01 "O — IO O. OI IO i/l "O in L. «0J o — CJ0COT3XCB m — 3 a "o io jc a. ai L, >» O <*>— C 4J — io=j— ocjcai"o L, 4J— H- 4-> C L. oe-u, L, 01 m C O 44 OI • IO .3Z O 01 4J o o IO 3 l, oi ai emo il— io^— 3 in oi m >— 44 4-» — "O 4J C Ey io in to c jc jc tl C OU-OICIOO — <*- u cur u . •sn-'omenioit- 01 O 3 J3 X — — • L,3smO.C 01 — T30I O 0) 01 — — L. 01 U 4J in JO CM 01 — « OOIEOIL.JOCL, ti — — jc en IO p > — "O L, m 01 — X — •— l, m io — - io io OI H- 44 C T3EHUCI- • o -o m 4-> O L, . 44 44 01 OI m in it- — — ■>- Cjr— oism4i £_ 3 io m oo io • m3inXJ=mm>%ens(jo • E4i 41 41 14- IO O — o. JC 4J EC 44JO I0044IOOIOC - JC ro— E J= in jo C4I-L-- 49 — O) 03 OI CLC0 i- OI 44 oi io E >>4J — • O in T3 L. OI — c O L, in — L> » L,' 44 j* m jo »— J3J U « tl c L. -413 CLIO<*-4JOI<4-L.IO JC W 2— 44 01 — 3T3C. i+> IO T3 o c l. a. as "D irt jc o oi jc 4j o EC>i«k VU.C s — c J= 3 O Q. — • 3—44 > CA44 L, O 3 io ore OI io tl in «M IO m "3 O.SZ JJ in C E*0 O.OIC30L, 044 E • E L. JC 01 LU 4J IO 44 — X — O 3= in L. tl L VI 01 ' «M 4-> 01 • m OI t-kz tioEise *4i04i «i oi 4— o 44 en oi — > «F" JC «J in "o L, O tfl JC— i. CO x m n- c •O GL3 IO JC O OI CT.4J JK 4J L, OI JC 4» I*. 01 m JC OI O 01 o o CLJO CL 44 44 U "O in c m X e 4J • -o x o~o m jc o jc CO L. IO ti4> oti a C JO L, O CO 3 O CL OI L, 44 •L.44SSC — m >> 3 44 OI U •»-»— L — =} L. m OI JO O C E 00 x m io m 44 io — tl OI JO u. — jo oi e n o< 01 OI 4J —3 OIIO E ^3 01 44 O — JC C L. 44 JO US o. OI 4-1 **— >4J O •— «- jo e *o m 44 c 44 3 IO — "O IO O >> 0.-D IM <0 » L. 3 e — X 0) O.00 01 IO "O jeeen 4i oik u ti >» 44-^ ^ — - io in io D. Ch 3 —-O 44 L. — CM U 3 — L. oi oi X un en in — L, 3 — 14- m *j •— cr en4J c 0IJC — JC 10 U > Q O 44 OI— U ' E JC JC O 3 IO C 4I4I«4I4I k 4-> O Co— C 01 44 44 — . "O en — >04i C IO JC — JC 01 JC44 • mi. o<— oi <*- JE U 4J L C 01 0) mo — - m O CL44 C JC >t44 IO L. 10 OI O 01 •3 4-> •»- >> IO J= — - m m 14. m io =3 Oil- IO JC OI > fl*. 3 *» e vix E m L. , m i. m — 44 l. 4-> cm- l, v-o m O U CL 3 m 44 JC >m— 3 m 0) >i oi io T3 io "o m —• ■ in ^ o io io « L4> O — T3-OT3JC— > E0I44C U44J0OI 01 C 3 3 JO IO OI TO 3 L. C CM o wo 4* ai e IO 0I4JU tl --— i c e 4J to IO Id X e e jc co JC 3 10 "O ■»- — — T> > m i L. io io — in JC 4-> m io 01 4-> c 0144 I-CJS4HH- oi cm L. mo tl OI — OI C 4-> en — ■ ESOio 3 m m io io m oi c— o> L. m jc JC > L, C 01 C >> — • « O 01 CXC— 0IJCOJ3 O m io o in 4-> 01 O 3 L. ai L. — ■ 4J ai — en i/i in *o •»- O — 44 JC 44 CL — - m i— to L, J3-0 OI X 01 X c L, 00 IO O — 44 •— — • C JC 44 O C — C O OI 0IT3m 44 44 O — - 44 OI L. JC -w J= o OI oi en CO o. oi c— m E"0 re L. OI IO <4- J-> I) 4J JC X JC — IO C X — OO 30-^H- L. c — UVQZCOiOiO « Ol C — — C JC IO JO X O O JO O in 1— 1— — ' E io OI 14. E X3 re m io 4J 00 m m c v> en en 5S 01 01 TJ 01 Ol c 44 — 41 L <-o L, > — C — 44 — Ol 44 44 3 44 — — ■ — • 44 — 44 C — 4— Ol C 49 44 — CO JO 3S m — m 01 44 JC 41 re o — 44 oi o re 44 cnen • oi c 44 J3 4J IOH. O— 6— "I— 0--L. is ■»- TJ c m C m jc E 01 m L •4- 41 41 O OTJOI Ol -OI3- 0141 OITJO m o OIO- k O OI'D E 3i« 044X0013 '- OI44 CL OIL JC 44 —Em CL«CCQ. JC c CC 344 o: c-'om m OJCJ^UOO ■0 X 01 • 44 U0IJC44COm— — C— CLL— 10 E o O m re — tj tj m oi i- re coiT»i*-m^-oa44— -loioijcre . 5S IO 3X44 01 44 XL "SOL OIL 01 L. U 44 Ol 41 re 44 TJ 41 IO— C L — 'Ol ID c 44 m l>tj — co rsreai s en o> > l. c 44 IO 4— m in mi en re •— cu-jcErereaioicooiE 01 <*- • e •O L emX— OJTJfOEX CTJ0imoi3O 9E 49 -- 4-> L. L. L. c L->— « O 4J L. E 44UC3 — in o re 41 — moo 4i * <— re re tjjooi OTJ L O 3 01 — Ol LC OI'COILOXLI— m H- m ti e oi u 44 m 1 c re 41 <014.4914.4- >ioina!JCOLi44iQ c — M-E— 44inL.enmmcx«-re X C — JC LJ< 4144- m jo e — 4- tj • «— re 0.44 x re tl o x 4— einoi— ti k o c C • 10 44 44 01 O CL 49 IO 01 10 44 3 IO L C JC >>00 CJO L — c u oi jc re re 3 oi jc — oi >i*i — TJ «— » Cl X re m X n- EJcmEoi— E444— enio no m en— 44 EJCU44C49JO »J3 4— a. C JC IO C 01 TJ 01 01 SIC >in3 — — — «4— 44 • c — 01 L, 44 Ol — X « UOOEEtl 3 — I0 4IK O U tl — — 01 >i JC JC in— — — 0! re E X re ec — OEX 3inc—xeo— — C0044C- Ol 01 L. X O Tl 3 m 3UTJTJIO Ol 1A — 344 m O 41 in 4) t- 44 14. TJ 14- — l a.44xe — 4-emL44jc — en re ore 01 44c ►—— kioTJSJcouens L. JO TJ TJ > L L L Ol O 44 k tl m 43E0049LOI04444- lt- CL L. a* it-oi eo om ti e k 44 m 01 JC »^ re — 4— — "O 3 L TI c m 01 «3<*k X£ 41 ti a — 0144m E C141 tiii 3 -4- m» re 44 44 44 41 — m 01 in 44 41 Ol «L4«4— mTJL— in-oeeoim 44 tl ■o m oi • l. cnen jc tj »— tj — • E 10 10 c — IO TJ ■0LL4-4I ijocrereaiTJre044C 10 JC JC E — — -NTJ tl 003- jC4444S44ioE 3 m m T> jc 41 3 L L jc c • 4» m aire Lmo — 44 44E001 — re re jc h- o o 3 3s C 44 c — CO « O Ol 10 LOmccO'— en Tim e 41 01 l. 44 n- . enre n-r c >>ti- — x— re I4-T5-- I*. CL IO 44 IOC »— ' U 43 « TJ Ol L C 01 o ti cuo cere re 44 — tj 44 3»>ireaio re c-- O0IJC440l443EL.44mTJ •— — l e 01 3 JC c — 4— 49 OI44CCJCI*-- 44 ro re > TJ —4 U tl- • T> tO JC — L 44 X -JO O Ol jo l re — E— L— cl em3L OOI44 TJOXCt044— oenti— CLO 341 44 10 m m L jo IO 44 CL,44«>— L.L.I0 io u — re c — m TJ 01 10 Ol c o-3.ojcc>>cl re re jo e — U 9 JO U 3 CL X 41 X 03 01 44 LOCO — E 44 L L Ol L X C O §3 5S44 OOIL4443I4. • E OI44 • L — U 01 CL L C JO tl L Tl OlXOlm— 01 JO 3— ' inioo- L 3 — 44 Lm — Ol —- 5SLC4-IOreL- l re IO o j3k tiu jso<-j: io xjc l tj m«—— jo oi L 44 m 14. L cr 34iaiiy>jcccMmreai- 4— tix a.«- Q. 01 x U 01 001434401 44 L O 44 re LL LL.LJC 3 m is 10 ai <4- 01 44 3 JC 44 — 4— 44 TJ X IM 10 L in ti m JC 44I4.L OLTJL 4H-OX >MU JITJ 491— U 10 10 O — m C 44 3 LI •— *—* — 3 10 m Tl u- Ol m ©44 m ajcecLeooicL — cljo oi 44 x O CL L 4- JO ■0 1 0144 . — m e ai — er 3^01 oj=5s 44 301— iojocooi «-- |4i- E u 3 11k L — 44 • >> u a. 3 3 en m . to — -S g L)IOL43m>443C >>— Ol IO JC IO 44 43 44 Tl TJ 44 re 41 — l 44 « jc l 44 44 41 l e io c eiin > ti e 10 n re *-> ioia"ocjoio>im m e c a. L — 414J ti k ti 41 e 10 3 4i4i(9 re en >>o O JC 440IC 104-OX— CXOILEC — J* re c e re 44 re 01 O44JCICI0JCJCC3XC > -ojo — 44 — L — 3»,JC —i/i — — NO— 49LLLOLO u 4441 4444 44 — 44in— 14-44- 01 C 44 OIOIO) re l. m — i«- en k in U4i to u o m 44 01 m tl 49 3L5s CL mai4JOre E4i>>4Jino>— CO. mmoi — 1— TJ C C 3 L I*. CT O re OITJ 3T 41 TJ 41 C re TJ3X4IJC 44 C L 41 0. re in tj re 3 — — c m — jc 44 re re c 01 — m 01 o 4) oo c l ui m ai — ■>aioieootn4J C 49 OIL* JC CL tl C OILOITj44lDl4-l4-reuTI C JO LC O"0X0l>0ILLOlere— C3- >CLmL44i4- > mcai4— 4— 10 oi m 01 e<4.OJ=4-Xt0JCLJCOIOITJ— k4I X E m 01 0101 O TJ — 3 3 C — 44 >> C— Ol 3s CL—> 01 m 01 l 44 re o— '44 ai440imaiLcoi m X — 4— en in oELJC LOJCme— OXCJ0OTJI4-0I JO 44 3 44 TJ L 44 m LC- aiOin44TJC o-S O IO « L0 4HD 8- 1— 44 eo 01 — TJ — L IO — 4>m tl OTJ TJCJ0C4IO544— UCO X— EreL— r>. L JO C tl- 44 X lOOLkHU 01 44 41 — — 3 en n- 01 re re 410 tl k e»44 m E E tl m QTJXCTie--0— CLOOC4JTire3 — •o 01 > L aiEL re oi re c — re c x o *j tl CL JO in — t- ' 3 lb U4I C k > tl tl — C TJ — 41 re re jc 001 tj-o in tiv L 3 1- C 44 JC JC 01 440iujC3»>cinai- lo s- en en jo 41 c WIL44UOI3 • — ti ti c 910 41 vi oireoi m io 44 CL LOI44IOOI4— 44ioo) TJ O— in in — «*. oiotjoi — jjuc— eo>%xmiacC440ioimXCLL.mi— l. m CL-O OIL a k C3JCL . C > E 3 — Ol L LU-3re3 re en 44 41 jo — ioxlljo 3 3S 01 — L c re ex o 44caiTixoicreo o C44 3 5s 44 JC O E — 01 J3 X — — L — m S£ O 44 — <4- TJ LI 44 01 4— — I/I S e L OICLOO »>>CL en ^jo L 3 JC TJ u 01 O •!— 440IO3>mEOin01>— >OL-— l»- •»- Tl TJE440ICMOJC in 41 C L 41 C Ol 4- O 44 44 C 4- L k»4l C 3 >ZU- 4-3C OIJ3 re JO JO 01 TJ ce <4- C <•- CE ro— S44TJLL— tlkCONO 3 14- m 01 re 01 reccoore coalesce i-oku 3 3 ox - re — ■ *o *cn looetitisnio u-ei tin- re <*- l. •4- JC O01 — (/> JC «— TJ C C — • 3>> IOC4- 44 m 44 aim L 44 r— EJOreTJCLmm 341-- m en CL O 44 C— 3in o -TJ- 3*> » 41 til- re L. L. 3s m Ol 01 Tl IO C •— C L Ol — E re — — m c >i 01 o 4-> cr in 44 m e aire jc S jc jc X — 01 m044 — 3 C X 3 OIH- •< 01 3 — X ~ 3 — Ol — TJ 3>i 10 c • — - io tl oi re 0144 oioi443mcn 4444m 44 JO - CktlO OIVI IO OZ lfl£ O m^^jc CL O 01 44 m J* LIT! C 44 E — L 44ull cmaiaiC44— — m ssoire o CL ■—COIL 44— «TJ 44 41 44 JCI4-L— 01 U 01 IO — L tl u •— • «- en ••<-■ 41 jo L 01 m c oik- re m a. 0I<4- O in 4-> s jcErem OCOL— m ee. Ol o L. re 44 3 m L Vf— v> 01 U L 49 I/I — OI30I L JC o> > L, IO 49CL0ITJ— O44TJIO44XJ030I TJC m n- 0. O u 41 41 --41 k Sj: 01443 — 440IL »— C— U 49 L E 49 O E44TJ0I3 — — J— L X — *o m cl 01 0101 > 01 m m 4— l ai oiti L, JC u 0144 oaai— oijc— OI4— JCO 10 ecu tm. c k nc 01 000 L^—jcreb-ojcrereresecLC o 1— IO IO«U4lE4l^k4lJlLlLVI4l re -JE 49 44 m JO O— E X O.CUE E lOOintJCCDh JO CL<4- Tl o — 0. re — m 01 41 SI 01 U >iOig 41 m Ok. m tj OJ c ui 4i d moi oi +* ^-u>u m 3 m 4) c f) T3 1) — > > — oiL.41 10m j-> e l 1 ^ Li--<- C O k. O. CO O m c 41 E oi •—■ — — 41 m k. 0) 3 1- 3-, *> £ 4> x £13 I e cno>iniB*->oia>> JZ -w >, k. — ««- -oai — m >» *->o.ai >>« l- c-ci/iowu-'— u-t,s- — — — id- mk-mk. *» J-> O T3 JS O JO O i» • Lb Ow L. m >> O) • 41— » is o o ■»• i> CIS T3< C 4J£ k OJ- 3 it- 0. 41 k. k. 41 VI k. — — k. — O *J O OJZ4J 0.>>C"0— 3 d*-> — >> O "" C Ol— III UwlO > k U kCCO O m k. is C O l/l "0 JZ O 3>- fljQ C *»C ^-•'-Ct. - OCinC-W'— *Jf 41 Ifl O 3 k. 4J — IS IO 41OI 11 •B — S — jz 3 c *> 3->oi u ai >> = t. •t- JJ m O 0) O'O »3 4)«- o>— O k J. -C — 1SQ.0— m4i"ox a.— u C is m m ai c OH"- ■*■ > JO O" £i —coi'O ■o u NTj<-f- « en*j £: — I O ■<-> E 41 £) Q *— ■o o.u-« 10 m 41 is O 4) ib -o *» o k. *> oj k, 3: ai e — > 41 CD O C E Ol — I- — IB *> O re in e — ib 41 is in oi"D->-n--»-*Jja m o m >■>»— m *j >> s. t, is « ^- — >> 3-ilci m c +■> — JS re«o»-i»3fl o«J"»>iLr •uo>> — It- U1IS IS O C O. *J *J CO T3 en oi — a. JS C JS >> «J 4I£ «-i- O 4IH- O f 4li- QQ.mO.H-j3 ■OX m E k. k. 41 m — 3 — io »ts u e co oi *> is O.cntnoix'os. ■— •3i-'-E f C O U — C OUtJk L 1- JJ >. E O 0) — i- IS— T3 — •»- t- e oj-13 oi c u en en u « aii-"04-> - o -■OHIU4I 3CC*>Cinc— ■!-»£— C 19 41 ISU-— X4IQ. U llf m e£) u © <-> jo u. <— ceo cno k-VIJ-iOca.4IO.4IT3 — — IB v v o o> a.— «o *i k.4ICiSC03N3T3C3T334l X 01 k. VI 3 J* l/l 3-i- *» 1M4I"B£ Or-- CO>L.C 41 Ol m 01 — U O 4^> ~ +J jx — - m — -■— * < m XT m O O — O .O VI •• *> 1. "J l— L. 41 E*" - C"--- Cv»- "O O. O U — >, 41 41 3 csf a>£ o re cm oi — 41 (0-O4I --«4l«l.CWl.4lOCH« UXJJJ30 k. — C— k. JZ c ifli/)jj o'-i-*"-^ k. M L 1. ««. J EX OHO OI 4l££-£ C iO*i-£ • jj X H- t- CL 1 *> «s — — — • o I0»03'00 V II DO) Q.H- m ■— O IT) — £ JJJ33in> — in w *l m *• f- t> *> u »<— t. T) £: u >. m coiu c 3-,— k. is c o >,— oiw^ces c**4i-i->"-o >>3c VI IS at OI*J J-> IS — m 3 — CJItJ *i *» — oi is e — — u — o » >> JZ C — CX— k. X 1- c c e o is e •*- — e js — o «*- g<*- E4>— W4IJ3: en >e ^~ *j »— s «*j- « « — ca.it- k 3 41 1 AC- I.O»>< E — j.4J<0J-*JirtC4i'^OOm"Oi.> 3 m JJ 41 *J E do ai ii o.*> > oi en aE «j:£ w- c « "3 o c ^ • OUCCt tfl<-<-4*J»— IS k.^"CJ-> — JZ 41 o*-a i «j u — 41 c — !OlOOCinT3C—©l.3E3iaOUOI o CJ3 C « k >ill— O — m *j •— oi — ai o k. tj io *> jam o>5'^i*-*'^ii^'— L0 4i*»*»tnm Jo, en l. u-l-EX m <*- o 3 ae a a >. — 4I4I- T30CD— XX— JO C T3 en ai >i «»<— oijz m 3 c *> — k. 3 X Ol C JSO J->IB O T3 C > — 4IC*>k."0*>iSk.E <— C m m O L. C 3"> L. O. 4) *J O T3 JX e ISO U S£ u e « ai « « >•■ 41 k. re © — 43^-3141 4)4COO'-4J4)CLO J3 O^i-a ISJZ CkS-£ ink. IB fl L k OI>"E • CL— oi en- 3 e — jo ai E t- t. •— injcxc—io—in O.OI3 U£ a J-> mT3 O IS C OJ->IS30I k. m aw is aij- on«e>oe c « cwm — ■ 0IOEl0vlk.iB.O-OC c^l v > e i/i7<-k u u «*- fl >E— eo — o — x: — 4i — oije *j o» J3T3JJ— ISO. 3» — JS 4> — T3 i- k. — « o •o** — *><-> jz v. oi e-^ IS 01— IS IB 3-. 41 4J 41 T3 k. m E *»VI*>k.e3k.©k.J0C41 B.4I L*>- ■ Oltl 4IW U ai4->OI£:OIL.4l4-> JCOE >i— jo H O •— m t— c u O."— 3 >itn t^*»x>4)in-»- is -— en*— • is r— *>j 0. is *j J-> CO C » "3 c J3 vi au) ff Ol • *j 3 c X •»" * S "O t3£t an>u- *>ini. - o en— — 41 c — — — c IS CL, — — IS 3-j CL CL k. in 3>v in WO 41 O Q."— O TO O 4>03C>>e4IO O CO. C — IS k. X J3J H- >l — — ■ c »— E 3 E 0)to- o >|it fttl a ccnia>a-o>«-oo.u E X m ■>-> — m 41 — x 3 41 isoox 3 IB IB w OT 0) cj jo — in E i. *o-£ k 0- jz m jz c 0. E *•> x o — *> 41 > —■ore >oi *> — t.— ocn4-»>io- m4-*^-*0 4i*oc) o*i «c « ae l a «3t — I04I <*- 3 U E <0 — E O -W >*--0£:4)X:X'0 4>- IB 41 W-- Siwo ml) O 0> J-> k. j= 0000-0 X tt- s- >>*> C *> 3 — o *> c k. JZ 41 W*- Ol- — 41 C c — o *> .a eo> tree—' Xu £ uu«- tiavke- 413m O k. j-> m 0. c mise k. ,* O CO IS m >-i-*i O >i>-*"-J3 — lim C Ol 4» "O 41 i|-£— ul— 4)£ 31-1O 3 k. O *■> 3 it- en 0) in re CO ct-oi a. <— sz. *J U1£] IS *U IS S -— C l*- — *J *J u. C "O X k. T3 — «£ 3 fl£N •• 41 u e ♦"• « *• m- w 041 41 u is 4iw IS k U 11— £ U 4I*J— mo IS IB O « u eootti en oj *j m oi en U£C- •— W3"034l— m"OOL>J3 *J 11 oik a*>4ie uo is 14- IS n» E — h-4i4i*>cjz «- oi— Cn*J SB 4i-oi» kO--f-T; — S»> OlOCON*JCC*JX3UOCl. 4I4IOJ3 jz m 0. g x- co — 3 c m O 3} i_ *» i*_ vi — air a c 3 «£ 10 E 01 k. T3 — m 41—41 it — *> 41 e o *> 41 ^ oi — T3 S- 4I"0- 3— OC O O. 41 — m > JC *> m is k. jz c 01 41 a.— C IB JZ 4IC*> — TSErejS — ■ m tj ts 41 *■» 01 — ^o-^muoi >i3 41— 1- c jj *j 01 j_> — . 01 k. m 01 — — m j-> 01 * C k. *» © JS — 0) 3 Cv*> mi.->-e^--- — ci/13 <— *> too) CC3JZ— J-> C k. 41 X k. Q£ ve X w « « oi *» £ uz 3Q.JJIO— WOJOJE- — — >H-— U 01 — 11 «£*> t IS O H 11 k >|OIE >1 e e •-» o> — k. • *- <*- it- C m 3UK-K-eh-U4->J= OC3 • t. u ■w k. — O-jz k. m c 41 — *^> OOIO 41 k. E O k. C V OO «J a — ISK 4> 41 "C C 41 Ol Ol X C 3 C -— *■> 4JOIBIS k. — k. k. cto u w a n. a o "O c — (- C3S>>4I JCC JZ 41 > O — -O O.JO 01 « |u. on s . 410 -m c k. 11 » • m 41 IB IS at . oi © re re o oi — • i_ re Luotin tl£cu -X - ^ *»o3fc.<— -»-m*i a. — JO b -O »J3 0> 0) *■» u> Q.*» 4J — 41 1- •*- *» U JZ — ■ — JJ E • IS—jCvCW *j — - c en*— 41 1/1 k 1/1 41 — 3 O oi i ou mr c a. u "OL.«*- ai en as >L.m u*» i. o * ai*! ai« c JZ IB C 4>i-»^i-J3 >*J 41 1IJZ O — OlOi flo> om *j«^t.-^ iwo ji e ai- o » o xi o e oa e u o ini.«ni.«£in 3HT3-U CH UU-*HI££ «C U<4-> X33>JZ— mS-,4) JS- J-> OmeOC4IXT3E — 4» ■— *J C t,"0— IS 3 t. 4) J3 C V.4J O "O 41 u k. k. e-c£jc«4 | a*-i.«-c|c£»n. 3 Ommj3iSOIOk.OC34l H- — IB s 3Z s « — o.jc in — <-J-S*iUttw£JOIJ»-S«4Ji-0'0 f- 41 — IB 3: — O O.X is C J3 O J3 O. Mvtlf fm ai 41 •— a. k. jz c T3 IS Xcn c IS c m 4) — M- > — c 41 — k. U to 01 Ol *j a. >> m m — CTl 01 — r*. 5 c ■s en 3 — •O IS c c j-> c • IS k. IB . 01 k. c m *"3 IS 4J 41 - c O k. — 41 4> -3 *J m E— » JZ 3-,m >. *J 41 JO JZ Oi s- *J 4J m iS ai 01 IS JJ JZ c u- IB J-> JS m 4> 4J 41 JS M IS m -tJ m 4J 01 3 JO 41 IS O O T3 JS C 41 C VI k. a. ai *j >>T3 JZ u c 4-> (O Ol IS k. JZ c 3 0. !_ M- E 41 Ol 01 CO u- k. JS 01 Oi CC f m •*-• *^- O -i-J o-) . — K— O • a. 3". 41 m m m — C >l C 3 *J m •O T3 1— IB- k. X O X T3 o- IS • 41 VI O O E m IS E *> 01 0—3 41 01 m ■0 *> 0. a. 3 m • c E k. C JS — *> — m k. in 41 O 3 ■f" c ur • mo k.«— . 01 01 01 01 it- C k. c k.»- • *J Ol JS JZ JZ 41 m O. >>-— m O 3-i X O JO 01 C O 4) m *J a. 0. a. C k. 41 JS m is *j c •O C IS O 4) JS -O *>— — •»- 41 41 O • JS c § E O IB IS — *J T3— k. 41 — CO k. c mo *> 01 JS • *■> m 01 O a 10 E *• — E T3 41 k 11 u •© IB C k. T3 — k. T3 *J Ol IS 4-1 — • O UJS— X s O c *> k. k. 1 C C c clc -0 a. c C k. > C JS *J 4-> 41 *-> m — 010*1 01 is *) — 0) IS OJ — IS c IS TJ — JO k. IB r— C C X O C *J JZ O IB l«- — 41 *> 41 O T3 41—41 01 — T3 IB 41 41 it- O JO 41 U a T3 a. 41 m-*.£'0 is k. m c in K— O. C 41 O O O 03 T3 41 C JZ k. T3 m m C in > 01 IS m m 41 k. c IS Ol k. k. k. O k. IS *> JZ 0. O — m IS *> 41 E T3 41 T3 41 > 41 JZ a 41 41 m c k. c a.*> 0.0 X IS m -— — — m 41 k. k. 41 > m m JZ CL O. u k. 41 — c — *> 41 JS c 41 T3 *> 41 > •a u c k. k. 0. — *j 4JT3 X O JZ 4) X C JS — JO T3 — m isoiounr-j-i+Jvic *> B Q.T3 m PJ •0 E c c — k.— ' » ib js t— m 41 is m 3 E •*-> in .— vf— — c — E"o -o 41 Ol C k> 1- it- k. ISUIUI — ■ m 41 41 31 — k. 3 C 41 Ol IB IB O E is *> «t- 41 O JS IS *J X coro IS m IB T3 m m — *> 4) is vi js • *> JZ • 41 01 41 m 1— c IS t- *> — ■ *> k. k. IS k. X m — I/IS IS k • l*- T3 3 C - O JO O 3-.i- C «♦- IS *> 41 3-> O Ol JS C 41 l/l Of VI O 41 JS 01 O— 3>, O. *>-o r> 41 m s- jo jo k. X O -w Ol *J 01 CT3 cm — *j m m m ■— c — Ol JO IS k. X 41 m O E C OIT3 — 41 m . — — *» m— 41 — 41—0 k. 3 T3 IS O JS m Oi- c Oi IS X IS CM k. JS k. 3-.— k. — mo • m — l/l OIOII — *> --^ is m k. X — ■*J -w X — Cut— •O IS IS k. 41 O— CM IB *• c — — O 10 it- c 5 <*- k. m c js 1/1 O.T3 3 O m 41 41 •— JZ c 3s- c m is r- JS lt- m >>*j o- 3 CLkE Ol IS *> IB 3-i T3 01 41 m 01 m J-> — c • •0 in 01 is*/ *> •— m a. is *> C — c T3 T3 — JS c m— c — k. m r*i k. m 41 •— m t- ib m E k. is IS c 41 JS m cu is m S3 41 -0 41 41 c 0— c .c — 1 O O CD JZ k. 41 IB Ol k. — 41 c -ox O C 4-> *J — X IB 4I.X *> JS *> k. *> m n Ol— m c is l_ 41 cv. 01 O.— IS IS k. *• E m *> — c c T3 Ol T3 41 E c •*J IS T3 SZ O — — JS X k. 01 m 41 ex. — k. is — m 3 k. Q. JZ JS f- LU 3 JS +J JO 4) 41 JZ X IS *> mi> *> £ 01 VI w *> X *■» l/l C 41 41 X T3 3-i O.— • 41 L VILhUI m is *> 41 *> IS c Cv- IB =3 E JS Ofl 41 — EI*'*' 41 Ol O X JZ 1*- is k. — *> 3 T3 C E X T3 is CO X is c — T3 CT3 — 3 -i 1 " Q- in c is VI 01 41 T3 JJ £ > l(—— • m JZ 3 JO IS C — C 3E — JS — C JS *> C — T3 IS OIJZ IS >l ■S C JZ 41 3 41 IS LU 41 • O *J Ol 101- C w — CL 41 — -O 01 41 — k. JZ JO JZ 3 a — m jz E X MNI k. 3 C X — T3 — ■0 — . 41 *> k. JS— 41 *j m T3 TJ Cf LOOZ4I E « O»-0l k. C *> »T H- *> — IS JS JS l*- m — c k. O 4) JS X *J £"J in*. 3 IS C — c JS X *> ** oR^jc k. c X c*> LOS in m 3 O JO "o *> 1*- r»» 41 41 *> u — O 1- 41 1— C £1 E-u 01 1 — + *> Q. 01 m jQ > 1- in c C 4J 01 >, CO CO. IS 3 ** IS 01 k. T3 JO X — X E >> — 3 >>3 m js 1— T3 *> — >» m IS OIJZ is m X 01 m k. c ib JO T3 e JZ O.JZ 41 T3 TO c c is m O O IS 11 01 010 — 41 01 *J — IB l/l •— N 1— L. 41 1— 41 *> X X 0.4J 3 t- X c is g jo IM OIT3 JS T3 — 41 4) C 3 *> — m c E *> ««i — c m ■0 IS — C C 01 Q. O VI JO in — O X *> is JZ 41 3 O 01 41— O 4J 3 O JJ C 1- 3 c E a. m it- jz 41 IB k. JZ IB 41 • > C 3 a. E -v 4-> JZ CLLO c m *J IB O T3 JO is — *» m 41 c m — 01 *> JZ m 41 — JO *j E 1 is T3 — — <£ T3 JZ c c — O *> *> c *> c k. m S •— k. m ai iSO*> CO O > ai 1*. B, OJ O O E E— is *> m c »— O IS 41 a. 01 -0 O m m — 41 »— • O O m c — m — k. 1*- 41 CO JZ 01 a. x s- *J O JO *J r-. Ol k. • t- IB — *> 3 E m X 4i T3 O — > J-> JZ 3 — 41 • 3 jj r-. k. a. 01 c SO IS *> 41 IS — c *» m in jo 41*10 m m II o> •— T3 k. TO 41 > *> >, • 41 41 IS *> C H- m is - T3 in is . — Ol O. 1— l*. «J3 m 01 Ol VI 0) jo m .c c 1- X — O c E 4i >l O Ol 01 e Ok. T3 JZ X — ' O k. IS > *> k. — "O c *> — 41 3 — 41 U k N »— m 41 js JZ J3 *J C Ol 41 41 <*J L. *> — c 01 c -o > k. m *> C •W 01- -— 1/1*1 *J 0) 3 IB — m 41 *J — ai IS 3 — IB 41 — m *i 41 01 01 IS — x X k. k. IS e *J O JS 41 - — C 3 in a. 0- *» 1- *> ib ai m > k. N k. 01 O is IS 41 41 3 41 k. J3 C JO JS JO— m J=| 4IT3iSCi*-iSJZ4l •— — ■ Ol co e E 3-. m T3 f— Ol IB — Ol *J IS X O m k. c 1- — > H- E k. 01 — 41 41 E — 41 01 k. •»- > - m k. c — a. 41 ■*- 3 T3 m T3 41 — . 3 > — k. JZ <4- 3 k££ 0 41 JO > sr 01 k. IS LU 0) T3 10 *> X JZ O is CD c *> •»- k. O O O T3 T-I •0 JO 41 en 41 *> c e k. k. m IS k. •s Q. O ai 01 X C CL*> m *> 3 O c *> m 01 k. k. ■s 3-.T3 a. CL O CL ■s C (*• L. IS 11 01 IS 41 (3 JZ JZ H- ■a m 1— *> JO 0) 01 m Ol IS JZ *> k. c *> *» 01 +j H- k. C L, 01 m 01 T3 c ■s VI 01 41 JZ T3 a. 4-> k. k. *> C T3 c 41 a, 3 c 01 OJ a. X O JZ § ■s Ol CL *• 01 m jz VI k. c 41 *> *> Oi c T3 in k. 3 T3 41 k. CT 3 > k. Q. O m Ol O 41 sr O IS u k. •vi LU JZ c a. c X 11 ■0 CO JZ *l 11 *» IS) m c ai 41 O JZ in c X +j *» ■s 01 k. *> 3 0. IS 1*- X 01 O •E > 3 OJ m LU k. *• c k. 41 X 01 c c k. CD in E *> 01 e c JZ >t- *j a. *> IS O u IS s- *J •*- 3 IS ■0 c ai >> *j e a) > IS IS E 41 T3 ■U c 4JJ 41 T3 01 m C >1 ** O it- Ol k. t O JO E *l *> 3 VI O in 3-, . 3 JZT3 OJ *> 4J CLT3 *> O C 41 m E C 3 •S 3 H- — IS O O in k. JO JZ 1- IS 3-, ai k. *> Q. *> > 41 JZ O Q. ■s k. 1— H- -X IS X VI IS CL 00 en ai — > CO IO — c fc. JS 41 o 4J L. — (D IO 1/1 01 XI in — 3 o fc. 01 ifc- •w O io E 4) w <— i_ < — 3 o • JS co m — — . -o IO — m at ■o u en a> u !. ■o — ^- IO in <*> fc. !_ 1/1 ■o i— "O j0 m-o s. — — c >> •- O >. 3 Q. Ol ai m 01 Ol in XI C O 4-> J3 »1 >0 *-> ai ID L V x-o ro c en— a> — » t- m u O O O o c js to «- 4J > I_ J3 O.CJ O.JT O ■— 3 a. uu O — — Ol o O W i_ E 91 HI Si c fc. fc. 4J JS en JS <*- > *j <_ a. ■o -o U co m in O o O.JS Ol — o — 3 o c jo ru 4-> C ■O X js «- -o ■o aoe IO <— in f o c O *j 3 */i a> o — o m x — IO r— i- XI 4J fc. fc. fc. "O *-> — 01 J-> 0) *J X u O. 3 j= — in >» io *o io • U IO I— IO *J c Vl*l*l Ol t, e u ai im 5 IO t- i— t- in o fc. e « o oi fc. — it- I— 3 Ol io J2 o — *■ c — o c • •^ in 'O fc. Ifc. — in c t- >>— enjo c c <-. c 3 IO cn io >, 41 i/>«- o N i. c m j-> in ■— -o *> cn U J0 *> u Ol Ol O 3 in — "- 3 « « 41 IO i. jo in XI in 3 <4- c •— 'O 0» l_ 01 -C O S- • IO C in 3 J3 I- JS *» <— — js fc. IO in CON cvt— t/1 IO 3 4J 0) en o IO *J — o. !{- L. ■^1 i IO 4J J= 1— — o u C HI o c -o *j 3 *j ai IO JS C 3 •o — m in J3 Ol c Q. c m i- enj: <♦. — o fc. 0) in m ai Q. IO o U2Z X C -M u 3 eni- io 0) i- V tinea O 41 XI *» o ■o enai o.j-> u c L. 1*. e — o JS S- 3 O 3 SI c > o — — ai l. o — — >, in 01*1*1 O m Ol ■— > IO Q. 3 LT3 *) O o. m u oT-o -o 01 i" i*- O j« j= i— O) > 4J U CSJ ai JO 01 o ai o oi c o«— fc. fc. 4J 1 e c o o o 1- 1*. *> ■o io c 41 cm 4J io •O -r- x — J3 tfl IO J-» IO On— mjs a. L. •** io X -tJ lOi— L. S , . ■ >1 ai ai m io cn "O in o b 01 L. U JO <*- c O 01 i- 01 c -w u in 0< 1- L*J Ol U i. V. o. c io i— J3 Ol 0> — L. KW 01 e *» ai "o o o c fc. en oi aio.EE O I— i *J 0) o m a. «=s gj co u S JO a m 3 3 ai j-> 01 *> a o -o •— "O !_ 01 o •o -o o > u tlObf <4- J= C 0) c IO • U JS • c c J= 0) Ol 3 O «J O o v> igu'igx UJU* 1 U. i- io in "o co L. *J — X 01 i- JS <*- O ■o u *j o *-> «— Ol o C i— U. JS C >. 01 o ■w •— i. E "*- ai 3 oi S t. IO > cn oi • O io JS 3 L. m u c ■*> er— 01 01 10 01 01 •>- i_ 3Z cn i. JS u c *j Ol 41 01 •»- •u Q.JS C s_ O Ol (/> 4J o 01 «C IN t»4 -O ■O 01 i- m •■» 41 Li- H Oi «- *J 3 IO C 1— 4J m m 4-i O > to j-> U- O I- u o c io 01 i» i- o oi -a en > jj •*- u c c u IO 4-> 1— (O u ■*- E ■o to t. au- c di O in LU 01 1/1 01 i— JS C Jtf 41 JS 01 4-> O IO JS 4-1 JS U 4J 4J *J JS *-> Ol O 4J — 1*. f- JS 4J IO •— ox« in 4-> i— ^-» c U C 3 ■— o o « tin- -SSo »~.JJ m IO IO in i-*i Ol — »*J L. r^ ^~ io C 41 >> 3 3 l_ O JO 4J m •^ m eni- — • 4j — i. L. 4-> c u c 4J 01 • O <-> o 3 i/i m c* io CM O C 41 Q. *1 O i- O ■*- ID m in >l U U O > C Ol t. n 01 01 i- O i- S- CLJS 01 0) i— u io • in 4-j m m *J C o oi s- c u ai m 4i in 3 o at cn o io js io o o Ifl «*■ U*£U 00 ■o n 1 41 — C cn Ol oi ai C T3 41 4I* 1 IO > *l N • X 4-> Ol m io o E c — — ■> O c 4-1 IO JO •O in — 41 JS fc. 4J oi ■o in e ii c O U*n- « 41 41 XI CJ 4J 4J Ol r*> IO in U 41 s: jrf e o N 1IC tl 1- 3 — c io a. 4J f— fc. in — O O fc. X JS i— 01 IO — i- e cn 41 U iO 41 C 41 e «*> 41 in 4^ ar 3 in i_ o O 4-> 3 4-> 1. O. O U O 3 UM *> 4J — o "o 0) u m ill IO — — It- « CN C o — tn to. c co JS ■a o. O 41 O C fli- U m 41— 3 -O O Ol E JS c •4- 01 (-> ■O >>JS 41 IO u X 3 JS 41 O. 41 01 «— 01 c »n *> o l ti >>ac Q. iO 3 t— SO o — -o o E««C 41 41 14- L o *j in •«-> m ai *i js O. m to O — io i- O.U. i— u — • O JS JS m IO 3 E — C 41 JS JS O iO L. IO JS js in *» *> U C ■o jo — 3 X in — U •o 0) 01 U fc. X) 41 o— » a u*ifci E 41 41 VI O 3 4J 1- "O T- oi O C "O 01 io o. O 4) 01 •— • c 3 >— O. C X XI JS C XI *J JS — o. *J m K U- C C 4-> >l ■O IO C JS u — — > c 01— » 10 "O — Ol IO o E — cj io to »c C 4-> e tu >»-o c oi o io ro io — 4J E IO 4J — >,— o Ol o > -o 4J O -O CO IO 41 JO IO XI 41 41 O e clou ■o — Ol — c in io— C 41 — — IO fc. — X m o re •— oi ■O 41 IO C O 4J C loaiaiojswu-Q, 4-1 i— 4J — 41 C O to U ■fc. 3 LL. 3 •— 41 4-> ■o •r- C3 41 *■» 10 0) m 41 i— i— ■0 js <— 4J u E m 4J IO 1 — in L. fc. — fc. o er oi jj <— — m ai c c *ve « 41 3 3 U > — -o 41 X JO 4) — O c cn X U. io 01 JO Ol O o c > in oi u_ io JSi- i--0 i- •— 4-> C IO iO m U 41 -O IO C *> L. X 0) 01 — O 03 01 4-1 — U. 01 SS IO IO— X 01 4-> «- Ol 41 ■— — C i- O C 4J Q.4-> 3 -O C 41 Q.*> JS ■o > — C ■o •— 41 JO XI E 01 XI c O in 41*1 Ol- L O o u — ■ Ol O O. Ol 4-> C IO ■a c IO JS iO Jtf — 41 k. — in io ai C 01 o in js m c eo io ai c i- 41 o 4-i in o t- "O oi oi e ■O E io u 4-> c m in js oi Si to E js i- u in Q.1- 4J 41 O *• 4J 0.4-> c m io io oi js O a. cue 41 O iO 4J X •*> fc- *> - o o !_ U O*"- O. O — 41 41 C -o *i *> 41 41 ■O 41 k. *i JS O in 1— js o • — • ai CvJ > 41 U *JO a. • *j io •— IO fc. ence o 4J c "O JS X Ol in 4-1 4J 10 *m.ta « «x x*i i— f_ U D.O — 4l^» 0.1- a. *l Ol i- « till. >, 1 4J COX 41 41 41 • fc. o— ' • C 41 O io ^ ?! i- 00 in JS in » x <*- US *> JS *> o -o k. oca o Q. O E U JS CM O — 4) CCO >ivo > 4) Ol C 41 *> 41 • u — 41 — eo 4-13 *i f— C 4J XI 4J — XI i. JS ■— o > i— 4i i- m JS m io ■»- L. io 4-1 4J 4-> ■4- "O m in c • c on- c JS 01 4i 4-> a — o> o • en c in oi 4i E oi Ok 41 JO — n- io 4IJS o ■o u "O e o 41 C — <4- 4-1 4I4IIOTJ— 41 O < i- JS to «i— *» M Ol i- O O %. *o X 4J 41 c — 4J 4) JS O — JS X— C 1 C in 4-> C «» IO a i- o.—- — •»- 01 — — U O k£4J 11 3 *> IO 41 <0 T3 4J C 4-i m io X — ai « in 41 t- CM ■*- C "O i/l o *> > 3 u « 4i cn4J — i-> ■t- O O — 4J 41 — -o c ro fc. — — O IO XI 4-1 o • JS L, 4- JO 41 l_ O 41 O Ol m o. in o 01 o k. m c fc. oi io n- o co in — E — c a.^ 4J m i. oi 41 IQ 3 > -O IO X O Q. 01 to Ol L. JS "O ■o CL—i 41 14- fc. O — 4J o c c — m 4i O — • cn i— 41 c 4-> o. in i- >» o to > m o.4-> 4i — c — — in c O 4J 41 E c • JO — «— o *> js s. re m •—■ou — > o o Ol Ol C Q. 41 - ^i moo 4J — 4i L.COCCJOJSQ. U 1- oi 4J e i_ •0 Ol V IO i— c T>4-iOl3t.X4l5> c o o jo S:l sen t. u s 3 — £ O 41 4J O o u U-SOI nticou o 4) IO 4-> O O — iO 4-> LU — o — •^ 1 o»— io 41 Ol u in o mo k- JO Q. O C > 41 41 4-1 4. C JS • u in k. c in u 4-> — u 4J ar oi -o — 0-"0 Ol CJlOH-aLOl- 041 !_ in <*. S3 o t- js >> m 4i io *• 4-> <— 41 41 J_ — >, c 41 — 01 c in > *> m IO O 03 O L. 3 C > IO ai z u *1 IO— 4-> U IO > Ol Ol — 4I4J 4IJO — k. IO — C 01 3 io to in 41 C 41 ao 41 -CO l. 4-> a. £•— — «4J — 4J •— — E X O XI O X! IO JS IO *J C C — JS 41 XI c 41 c ■*- 4-> IO C IO •:-i io— io— > in ai x -o k. Ol JS C >> *■ ST O io o 4-1 oi m js in to JS Ol O 41 ■O 41 JS O JS in 4i IO ■O IO 4J — — a 01 TO "O i/l 41 fc. -O C E — 4J JS 4JT5 >i t— E JS js u *> in — • 4-> 41 C c C O io 4» in •> ■o X 41 41 C E iO 41 41 C fc. in i- I— XI 41 IO I— d*i*i 4-> C O — 4J 01 t- LU 4J 4-> C U C -O C O JS k. iO in E 3 *• JO — xi oi c —i — cn im i. 1— Ol c 41 JO JS tl 01 u s- X 01 C k. IO O • 41 IO 03 *■ 41 Sec — X 41 41 C O U3 IO • IO 41 I*. C -0>_»4J 3 i- oi cn 4J 01 Ol >> 41 U E *> •*- cn io U <0 41 4-1 4-> 304JJS • — O O. It- 4-> C E O O C l_ 3 a. tu m js "O -a *> c io c ■a i* c <*- c 41 i-3 E — C O00X4->OLL.<— O c c io m •*-OinjS4Jintoi- IO < 4J3J-— iOXIk.41 01 o — o — fc. fc. 41 01 JS 41 — X IO fc. f- 41 •O £ in 41 c a. c 4.) m c 41 j- io io c cn £ t- IO — 01 41 — XI E VI C X 4J C Q. JS U 01 u — in o i- C •*- *0 O.CM 4-1 o O. Q. O IO O 41 ■a 4i *• en— *• OIJS CL»— O. — Si IO O. m 4-> i- L. i/l C Q. Ol o X O 41 c 4J O O 4J k. i— ■o c c — IO C 4J E 3 O enjs c *■ 4i E •— oi 41 ■*• O in 41 O J- •— O 4J i- Ol 41 ■o oi *> "O a. a. m c — > *J 41 E 41 •*- — — 1*. E C4JeroJSi.fc.JS t- c c 1-* o« S_ (O -o o 41 JS 4J -o JS in ■O 41 X C JS Ol ^- ^- Ol *> 41 *> *i 41 C l/l 41 O H- 41 <*. C 014-1 3 4J IO k. U 4J k. — 4J S JO 41 o — 4i m > — X c X in <*- L, cn in »— •»- JS u > o c c c t- c m ai oi c o JS ■o — JO 41 — • C C O K- cn m i- C IO X +J 41 i— IO iot.ro Q- gj a) 41 l*. Q. 4) 1*. 6 — *> 41 m E >i — 41 4-> Ol 3 — ST Ol XI — -inooieoLU • ^£ 41 -o in io u 4i -cocmj'D C 3 • (j — •4- O IVI XI > U. XI 4-1 O 41 41 C U S- M- 00 — > C C Ifc- IS ■o "O JO iO k. 41 41 4J — o 4-> e o 1*. <_> i —41 — — X JS 14- 41 — 41 i- 4i a. cn*o o en l. c i- s QJ C C IO O k. ■— — • n- in m io x O 3 4-> 3 41 E *• 4-i *> i*. "a m ce Q.JO JO i— cn— E ivi 41 IO 4i c — m o. > m e IO JO 01 41 O iO in . — — o 41- 3— IO 4J •— 3 O 41 — CJ Hi m 4-1 EOT34IJSE— Ol iOUIC>4J — 4J> o 01 41 fc. i— tO 41 t. 4J JO JO IO — — — u — 4-1 cu- 4-1 41 to. 41 L. C •o a. 41 • « >i J3 co oi 4-> x en io 4-i ll in 3 — - 4J JO 41 O ma C >, 4J — — . K- 41 ro IO IS L C H) C IO • O JS • >!— — O o cn«- 4-> O 01 o 4i t- ai ai — ro O t. c cn i o c >)— 4i c 1— 4J 4J "O X Mi3< tg *» ae C *J U-£U J- io js E — — o. o — — k. U 41 JS k. IO •*- Ol OJ 4J ra 3 *• H3 n- *J in *i c: 01 C JO 4J 41 "O "O ■*- > 41 C fc. -o IO 4> IO 41 iO — 4J 41 4-1 s. C "O ■*- 41 C JS 41 iO ■*- io I*, c »^JS c 01 JS JS O.— ■ OIH.D.I- o 41 10 41 -O •■- *J 3-30 O-O iOI^*>S5 ce *— *1 O 10 IO O O IO cr. C s. TO > r^ CO t. «: *- O c e O 1 L. -r- Ol • 14- **- co r». o -o .. o c »— c o c *J 4J Ol VI vc >t- ID c c x: •w TO O o c in iO ID u. u «— e S UN C CJ *^- >>+J o "O 0) i-> Ol •• ^ ID CO Id CO •v- *j cn cn *-> C — co C XI CM c t-; VI E in cn to £ o c cr >x: ■o ^ > o *J ID l/l l/l J3 C 3 3 ID k cn •o x: en 4-> CO — > 'W • ID «■ o > ^J 2 CJ • k Ol c *J o ID • c o cr, vi C L. ig t** +J — c LU u x: o ■<- ■•- *» O— ' en o ^ O •*" u. 5>"- x u.~ u. vi c L, c. -»-h— o c <*- > 44 X — I— 01 4-> O ID • VI -lj TO +■» ID o. a. LT> ID Q. •*- 0) o rt3 ^ o c £ *f- U C IV CO > r^ x <*- E * o ai en ■#- O o Ol u ■!->< CM 01 - co «3 x CO «£ (/) CD TO c c x: u S ID •— \— VI 44 2 4-» drf 3 *j • o i— «i •M c J< >i£ ai (/^ 4-) TO en 01 *-> > o o CO (J CO 1/1 c f**-. -C U u o x: ai X O Zl/I en o> l/l LU oi -w — 44 CO o c u. (J F=^ r- 0) (-J < 44 "O c cri ■!-> w >*--a <— o Ol c c 3E c ID 3 •— 3 r— <»- ID O 3 CO en U i- o e (j LU o • c a 4-1 VI • C XI o • CJ CC u a. o 44 XI b *■> CO • cm C VI o ♦-> -*-» o. LU C en VI C (/) Li_ >» c m k 44 3 o c-^- 3 OJ • u~- O O 3 CO o OJ LU to 3 •»- m co Q. i- x o iH a: c t- u a. 1 xi -— w) c £ M- VI lOt— r— ID 44 vi o co oj ID C ID s- o lci -a T3 <*-•— 1 n- ige &t Q* U vi 2=-- re o c 01 4-> U M u C >— cn r- l- TO ■M TO 0) k O o ■D Ol =r ID 01 •• 3 P» 01 3 Ol c U c cn 01 ■•- i vi VI <: c c • XI CO CO C 0.4-> TO ^ TO C a. • x cn CO • -o • k 3 «* — ID CTi 01 - — CO — O VI X 3E to T3 x r«. cn Ol LO 0) x: C 01 r~ i- VI S. CSI s- a. oi */> • in 1 r-» — «■ a, • «n o en o\ o c. en • en 3 0J 0) a> c * CL C Li. ID en xi i ID a: * i'/» t> ^- x: 0) 01 *■> en o CO c c cua o o. "O u — ai ID S- t/1 *— *4- "4- 3 o X l/> • Cr. c o c • <*- U o n_ ai TO TO • • «te CD 44 o o ID XI •«£ -o u Q£ O 3 4-> T3 ■*-» -M c s as: Z e ■(-» co c • fi3 CO «*J QC t- ID ^ N CUi cd £- TO QJ - 1" u s 0144 en 01 • Z en 01 -o c OZ is en — o 0J O E * u u i. ia ts en co o S. 1- >— t, . bj cn (_> w> U Ol k k LUC 0) • u» 2Z • >-0 c enco c l/l o * oi 44 u. > > CO ♦- rtS **- a> -Q c cue Q. xi en o 10 k (A Ol • x: oi • l--o O T3 O to U o O 01 o o> c — — O • L. Q£ a> 3 > 3 Oi — -o > _l CO c B l/l TO V) L- 1. co o 01 E 00 44 c Ul C CS CO <-> O 1 XI u. =c a. i- C Ol c S O 3 CO 1/1 1/1 ID 3 k —5 a. vi k ro Ol V) t- U ai cu •*- cr vi — C 44 'O •D e in 44 e 3 C O — i- »• •3 X C 44 Ol ■D E v) o — Ol CO Ol C k t- oi > "O cn 3 3 CO ID . 01 ^ . » x: e vi c oi ai oi cr k — 44 x: i»--- c Ol VI O, k oi in O M U o x; i- -j u c c co £L "— 0. O 44 0«— O CO — T3 aouc i- in x c e 44 -- C X L. 4-> x: — "o c oi t- ID < — . O X — X o c o O. 44 — ID C C O 44 ID o *> ■— * "3 Q. ■a C 01 VI 01 ID i— k 1 3 u in k — o 4- CIO s: xi — «- 3 cn»- oi e — > Ol n3 o— ' <0 oi ao ID — a. 3 c c «- k Qv X 3 o o c a. co xi ID cn--- x: c r^ <*- ■o Ol X 01 C Ol O 3 1-9 U 01 cn x — jz •r- 44 44 VI CO C 44 e en— 3 u 01 l/l >l C 0) Q. U. 4J ■— CO k 44 VI X k 01 k n- . C V> O O >— o c <*- u vi o - o ID ID c 44 3 k 01 CO C VI O'^-'— «-!»-•»- XI i. O 3 — — — ■o — X V- 44 c O 44 44 E O ID > W c x: 44 *-» io oi o cn X44 VI CO ID O 3 O VI <— Ol-O -O — — .M 01 C Vl^- o 44 — •— oi oi ai O C C en/— x u < cn E • — oi > ID k —• 01 CO •— X 3 — 44 O u 01 44 c J¥t CO CO C C *J Ol o CO O 01 <0 C 3K- Q. ID CO 44 c in 01 X O c fi) T3 ID k cu-aoaiiDcxi k It- x— - o c o k k X c X in > i3 E O • i- «l>- U£ U "D t/N-i-1- Ol VI 3 O Q. V) CO U in ai X C U Q. 3 •— X O •— 01 C 44 44 44 £ 10 44 It- o — 3 O ID c ai k C O 10 ID O ID r— ID O X o x: "a id c c 44 ID X CO O 44 p 3 C E 01 e 01 vi •— « 3 cn u <4- c > 44 — 44 c > o ai e c 44 k , *-> c o en-^ e C — <0 k O 44 k 01 3 IO com O 44 k IO ■B X v>i-aiai— c>oi K- — X Ol CO Q.r- O, O — 44 0144 Ol «w u ew lw o ec — » v> co — n- O ID • 44 k Ol >• O W 1 - c C k C. I> —• ID 44 3"-i o "o o c x: E vi Ol44 C "• C 01 cn c C IO X — 01 Ol C O O t- U l»- VI c Co— - O 44 CO >> v> k C o c •— X c O 01 10 el c — O.U. cn oi f c o >,44 CM U XL. V> O IO 01 — — E X vi 44 •0 ID "• > 44 « C o. co to x: m — D« CJ 44 CO 01 it->— o 0IX 44 — VI CO ID -- en — u e a. a.— •-- cn O ■a u- 44 ID tO C V) VI Ol l/l 44 "O ID IO U C X ■<- k o o — X — -o c 11- 44 m en 0. c c CO >D O. C 01 01 44 CJ. O O 44 -o 01 u k 44 — — e 01 ■O — k in — O ID E VI 1— O l» U XI e o vi — k x oi o. c c ■o CO X ID -O 44 -a 3 O IO .IO O £ 51 ID i 3 VI u- > 01 Ol -C 3 "O k E i-> ID O O Q. i~ c E ID 01 >i*0 k "Mi O c •— oosia >i •— k x: 44 <— cr-<- o 0) O 3 . O 3 10*14- IO > «- 3 i. C CO ax o o — » 44 I— O 44 CO E >l C 44 C O 44 -o 3 c •— "O o 3- o-a E*i^v "O vi IO Ol CO en 4J •e Ol c C «t ID k 44 — ID C Ol >> U a O 44 44 r- Ol 4»X > 44 co id c <*- CO c X X IO O — 10 l/l 44 ID >-, ID VI 01 — IO O 3 1- •— 01 ID 1-> M- <—• k IO 44 44 — «n 3 X LU Ol VI k C E >> ID 44 44 Q.44 44 C O 44 3 C-O 44 O k VI 44 Ol E k > ID SZ 01 CO — • — ■ IB ID o C c x — l/l ID k 3 in T3 c > "a oi JS c oi gj ■o -- c u-o 3 a. c * C 14- O CO k , — u Ol Ol 14- XI (j o (J cn id id co E Ol C CO 3 C X U 44 IO C •a — 10 c C k 0. a. 44 k ID k CO 3 — 01 MB fSJ T- . O IO "~ o C 44 44 E cn io O CO C O ID co • u co - er*o > — — g, X vi CO T3 CO E C VI Ol "O u IO ID 10 k •t- — u. — O X Ol X OL XI C 01 3 CO X Ol X "O O VI 44 -0 L, 3 44 ZE. Ol - 44 O O 44 .44 C 44 c ex 44 Ol ID v e k VI c — in k k 01 ai >> >«- — X 44 C Cv CO •— a. ■o aii- 3 o cn C E ID CO a. o — E 44 10 3 Ol — 3 * 4DO — O • XI oi< a 1- 44 E CO k — t— O OI44 k J£ C C - U CO 1— l_ O 01 c i C <— CO o id 14- vi enx: o Ol X "-»-" O 44 j* oi 5 it- >— 44 c TO 01 — a. •O 3 u O •— CO 4-> XI X k C<— Ol X u a. o. 01 id CO k 01 £ 01 Tl O VI CO cc t. ID i. . J. vi >> oi o oi c en O 44 ID s CO CC LU 44 c — 44 X "O O 44 O Ol 0144 ID 01 Oi" > t- c 44 01 4J 5 — a. Q. 3T ■D LU H- VI 44 •uj — jd x encc ex >>>E44440IU — It- k m (J VI 01 ID CO •"• lt- CO U 3 !_ CO "^01 OfD44CnOl44EV1 k — s k io ^ en o k O IO vi vi E 4-) k CO O Ol — k c > id ai k Q.X • 01 01 X "O Ol O J3 xrzccx:iao.>i >■ IO Ol >t- Ol It- k ID it-*—* VI s ■0 x VI 44 C X k 44 44 O VI 0^4"D O «3 L. c x -o o co x Ol CM 01 3 01 44 it- CO 44 a. 01 c >. ce l/l O C Q.— L. ID 3 k 44 oi "- ac s- 44 x X X 4-> O. k X — r >l C4430IC0 E VI 01 " « c Ol Q.—.-0 co VI 44 X X 4-1 4-> 3 C X ID CO 44 c rsl ID Ol ID (D > 44 -a — C ID Ol IO 3 44 44 44 — 44 ■O ■0 01 c oux:>— £ k tie 3 c •— ex o ■— x >> eo»— '44 C O 01 01 B to •4J i— !» fa«- E X => 3 o<-> Ul t- *J 4-> Ul +J ■u-~ >> C > +■> fa to fa i. e IO C IO IO u 5 4J o> >i3E IO ■w i- 01 01 o. X 3 > to oi XX C <-> • ■M e ■o 0) a *J> O B >» Ul C •4- CO o <0 o u> x fa o o Ul 3 ai io fa 3 • 4JO 1141 01 UJ Ul •»-> D.O o IO Ul mo J3 a. s C IO c c C4-> U 01 01 fa O ■»"•»• IO 01 u 10 oc en cnx: c X a. n> 3C en c c ui Ul O Ul i/ii- fa<4- V. 01 C i" ui io 0) < c o-»- ui > ■cj en -a <•- io c o fa io IO f— u •o 01 O fa fai- • <•- as a. s- 00 ft) 01 fa X) fa -a ui "a am. O r-» ^ 01 i— «x ■o a. c 4-> IO O en a M J= O 01 fa 3 fa fa U i— o >»** 00 <*- u o 01 en c fa<4- — E IO 0) c o o • ID C5 O IO ai u >>u a. en <*. 4-> <«- VI o u IO *> fa o <»-*- c 1— C OT3 IO «•- O. C < «- 1^ o io O 01 fa 3 O E — fa •o X 2 u 0I~- fa fa ■— ■ IO • 01 CM >i-^ Ul UX a) XI 4-> Zina ■a *J ■0 • IO C O) XI o> c 3 fa 3 3E (o fa E u. ai = ^ •w a; • CCVJ *-> o ax M.S to •. fa v u»*-> faj O<"o fax USE 1^ c o *o c 4J • 1 o l/> 2 O fa oi S • S a>t- fa a. 13 m to a. IO •- «s i c o c -o E en c fa a. _ 3E "3- •^«- c»r o • fa *3Z =u= 0) OL -in oi fa ■o 4-> •O O fa Ul-P i— 0) o X: 01 "O i. 01 c ■O XI O X *> IO u 0I1.Z !—•*-> 01 ai —J o 3 fa XI i- o xi io « <£ N O c +■» XI +J Z IO fa -o IO ex C 3 C J= >, c < o> X IO c fa < E ai m ai • 2 u_ ■> *-> o O ul ee ui q. c 0) ul «*- co-o a> o> oo x • >> ui a. o o "o en c fa c en ui o io >,<: <_> r** io • 4-> r— IO a. i— 10 fa 10 ^»*j IO ■*-> u aim +j 2 ■o CS fa >. en e +-> IO • u en >» 0) C (S • en i— OI ■— 01 — 1 c c • c c 01 IO c *■> o E 0) oo 01 m CCi- o s: as v> ■— <*- u s o • s- • *> E • c o ■- O • o • s_ > O IO ai <=> t: _l IO fa u Ul fa fa «s 36 3«K fa *J o • C +■> 4-> UJ a> 2 • O • a> (/i u T 3 C Ul T > > O -<4- e a o • 01 ec a 3 •»- VI i e -o >> 41 — 44 .- re o oi — E a ewe *— i E — JZ i ti ■8 tn u 2 ai — o in ai 4i VI U 4J t. 41 VI VI c c — 41 > CTi4J »*•> ■*-> s_ 4-1 >» o re 3 vi tl 1-1 L 4J Ol o 01 — OIOOIWVI*- 01 re >, re i*. im 4-> re l*M 4-> c 41 re tl u E O >*"■ C t" >i«£ 0) 01 t- c — VI X o 01 c — VI "O JZ > 4i re t tlfOMWO'-UOll. 1 E X- > 3j(tSi---T3 JZ<4- 01 L. C 01 4-1 a, "O -1 a> t- o vi s. ^-£ « oil c tt) o re s — -o 01 >> VI 4-1 o vi cn o c re o e: CL 01 — — . JZ in C — O ci o !_ «S •»- S 4J c vi S. 41 01 01 u — e L. s- re X JZ re v. 1. re i- O C a> 4-1 O O 01 3 3 vi re 0- tl L. L. ^ it- o 41 cn a.— jz 3 a co 3 oi— ai e o CO H> C Ol 3 4JI O U Q. 01 re ti 44 c o. 44 s-.— vi o 3 c jo ai re Ol c • 41 TJ13X4J C Cl t- -a TT li- — OICO « 41 U. -UJ ■"■ ■o E * O c mo L CO m i- ClIL 01 re 41—01 X o cn x k, re ai jz -o c 4-1 o 3 oi — re "o oi 3 O 01 >i —J JZ — JZ — — i • a) • »— n- u *-> ci re J- •• — 4J JZ re — VI O 4-1 c — o •o 3^ Cl © « j3i»ii-i- T3 4J 5,m l an O.U- a> — U 41 J. 01 41 41 E re x c "O s_ re s- re k. — T3 ai — v> CL— VI O JZ U > 41 tl O tl Ol 01 o re re c j_> — » a, 41 Ol— Cl 01 "D "O o — 3 O JZ 41 JZ U 4' — VI C 4-> 01 — 1 — re CC 01 44 C O k. CO C C k. ■o ti i.w 3 Ja 01 "C T3 re i. u 41 n cn VI 44 o o jz k. -o ci — o re o 01 c — • 01 i. t. O. 4J ■D E Ol 01 — Ol b E c — -o U O Cl V ltl£ -CJ 0) Cl JZ O "- t/> !_ tl o vi re l. C * 3 VI 01 Q.4J re o e oi ^ L^ WW U 11 «- - § «33 01 — JZ o •— — Ol re — c re t- o 41 4' i- U — 44 ^ « « O- C HJ< • — k. 4J Ol LL. 3 — VI VI >>T3 JZ VI &S-°c c c JZ '_ 3 — o3u s->— ai re > C T3 L. — i. Ere >> o < TZ re oi — re — oi ci >> ti to vi jz O i-C tl VI re c re re jz 3 l. (J — C vi o 01 •t- JZ 4-1 0) k 01 v. «"0 VI — <-W2£ «£ 4-> 01 O 3 4-> — LL. c o — — a. u 41 44 — ai e 3 — in re cl k. — re VI *-» C L. 4-> O O re a. 01 U 4J • SC re t- O 01 c k. — o c oi — — o o 3 a*: "o e m j= 41 U 4J 41 VI JZ tJ 41 > £ C jz c re u Ul S O 44 c >,— 3 s» oj: «a. a ai O 3 3 U Ol 41 JZ 41 UJ o *4 Ol o E o 3 u tfc> — JO. 01 4J Ol k. 4-> 3 E >. C si- re oi o oi -o s> ai it- re k. jo i- o O O re U- JZ t— re JZ — v. JZ 4-> 41 L. L. i. a. • tl. u o. a. 01 O VI tl to c 4J 4J C O t- re JZ o en v) S- t»-£Cf - U«-«-«J EZ L. »— o C 01 JZ — (. re — i*. re "O JZ 4J c 01 01 41 oiai w o >ot- (ii'du aiu 41 <*- "• ■o — k. VI 4J «— *4-i • c o. x ti acr 41 * "O l> t. — JZ 44 cl X — 14- ""Z- re in re >— o - tl 01 — I I— O 0ICOCO4JT3 eo v> en >i > VI jz eo O 41 VI CL — O > 1- — — Ol CU >l ■o en J= 4-> 00 Ol OV 01 re o L. — c t- Ol c — u- *■* *i= VI u - «£i- U L. O c S 41 C 41 re x c oi k. — — re ••-■ oieo re TJ E U U -h . O O. O- — ■ o o C Q.H- 4-> CS o re > L. JZ >, tl Ol T3 Q. • — ^ OIC X *t- 01 4-1 O —' e — -o a en •>- o v> tl 4-» o E 41 44 re 44 oi c cs i. * o- i o vi c — e 1. LW .-O tl O 4-1 C >1 L. 01 o o O.OI — lt- jz a. u ■Q c i. o — II 3 U COU fl*- i m WTJU. «!■" 3 vi vi — re re u 4i vi V. o— > • X o 4J E re 31 O "O X o.— • *jf- o «; «ioi "£ o tip Q. O O-'O - 4J N vi re VI 3 o. O _ C 01 3 it- 2 TZ u 0) O 44 *0 k. X C— n CJ< w- W HI 41 4) CO c jz «. re— 3 — re — o o e It- VI O c 44 JZ H- K. 41 ti ot v£ j-i re — — i- a 3 W tl Li-C4i « o B.) CO re 44 o TS o o vi 01 CO re re VI O -4 44 o. e o re *j « re »3 -© oi oi tl E en o>— u «^ Ol v> «J __ — c — re e c — 3 jx oi cm *j ai w> •• o j=j I = — ■o O •— — 4J tl 01 JZ o — >> re re *j VI 44 "O cn VI VI 3 44 ai oi it- i/t ai • re — •J v> eS e 4J 3 E 3 4-i T3 JZ ox— »t- — j* oi re — 41 — 41 VI VI 41 ■D- O in 3- CJD tl O »*i EJ3 o tl L C ■o o -o c o * > o o— c — — «- 44 JZ — O l/l O re — 01 k. O — 13 — lt- 2 E JZ 4J re l. i— -o ec •» » ^■4 JZ i. *-> 01 — a. -o 44 VI Ol • — E-WUOICi— coo Ol 01 • • VI — a. re c eo VI ti oia z u- 41 re 3— v 41 JW tl t fl II L< OU E 41 tl T) c uib« I. cn t. 4J V) O 01 JZ tl o ■a JZ 44 Oi O CSI J2 ai i_ jr o <— a ai • E > _ O 4J 'ore oi <-h 41 o - Cl.u'O JZ « C '"JC re 41 E 3 — JZ re E 4i 4i c vi JZ 41 01 41 C 4-> re 41 — JZ « C > a, c e c tu • ocu ti k. re 41 £ Ol t. 44 oi re 01 X Of- k. O 1. « O"-*! dims a. C 01 4-> — — 1» c O — — o U > T3 >> O 4J L. M- S 4i -a «t i- tiib'Dr — oi — re c VI 41 1. en cn 3 o ts. t. o- oi cn cn o L. 14- — oi cn 01 — k. JZ Oil— »3 k. k. re ai oi c vi— 5, Ol C V) C 01 XI 01 p o re — u jz eo z 0IZ s» c o vi e •• JZ «J 31- tl« — O CD 01 JZ 4-> Villi tl— " — o c 4! VI 44 O U • 01 i- — -o jz oi «■— jz s. c O i- re 4d — X t. oi >->4J en c c 3Z OI13 O vi re L. 41 re 44 E 4i cn u in u 44 — e — ci » • o o jcres o C 3 o.— -^ O 4) oio c c — >i-o — o cn ai c C ■t. • O e ai "O • anu^v c £ — 4J-D — c — E jc re re jz — Ol o. jz -o !_ o 41 It. It- t.' t. 01 Ct 01 C C E E k. C 44 k. 4-» o • a. c c L. — ■s CL 41TJT3 4J re vi to 41 « z E — <0^- Q. 4JWNO*"OW*»'-fl"4l o X ■Tl O 41 u. o re >, 41 o tl C VI c c re oi x — — ci ai k. zs — ai jz 01 . .. o L. E O E vi s- 4=» vi vi ti i- o re jz jz 01 JZ — CTJ 101 44 O 44 Ct 41 VI 5 JZ c — 41 u. 41 — — Ol u 44 44 — — 41 VI .0 "D 1_ V, vi CO E k. > — Ofc.Oi.4V v> > > 01 "O — L. VI c — w am a • o e o e 3 oi re re oijz o re — • a.— >» 41 4-> ti jz c re 3 re c «£. j 3 o 3 jua oo-u. — ^(9X VI4JTJI «-(»_» VI JZ > "O" — U 4J 3 <4- O X — •-4 esi ft w S mm e s "E C5 Ed as Eli 41 o • U 44 — . ^- 44 i S — "o 1 It- - C o S, £ i- « Q cu ■a B « <=t v. t- -o O 4J c re cn oi — c i. O 3 1 01 44 COtl £ j«r in 41 Olf-44— - C t- VITZ VI o — • re oi o C t/l — E 4J4JVI30Q1— Cfll — 3 JZ o C k. TO 1 > 41 44 re UJ vi Cl— re — - e c o 44 c re jz 44 01 41 — 01— CO. o o — X 01 — ■O k. L_ 41 41 i— tl t, OZ U >>C 01 ct *o 44 q. m re 4) Ct V. - o uu-- o a — » o c C VI 3 t» c Oi Ol Ol 3 U C JZ Z44i — -co i-» re re — k. — e 41 k. JZ c 1 3— L.V1Cj4Cire44 o 44 — x oi re k. cr E 44 — 01 o ti A— t-t-re^z «3- re cl m ai jz jz C IM — >it-rcjrT3< 414-1 oi 1 JZ C 44 CU n- TO TO TO u_ — Cl 1— 41 T3 i— L. U. I— — CD- 01 ■O O -0 — O L. V) WO tl 3 tl i re ci oi oi ci C c k. 44 4->o>i - ev in oi — I C — 3 C O re a> —• re — it- re • > re c e co • — re c o CJ as re Cl 3 >> t e ti oi o re i s>, en«t- — 4J 3 VI Ol TO O O E 4- — en o t-4-»t. cj-o co ci — • 44 re oi 41 re c Ol 41 Q.C0 44 E re c 1 C k. 01 C JZ — JZ TO — >— o; cn "c oi ai 3 — Ul —4 01 O C O 44 44 -0 01 re s. — ai c jz 4-> vi re Ol — O VI 41 ro ^JZ 1 m — 4-» re 01 E 01 "tt. TO 41 k. T3 3 k. 44 —4 O t— JZ — «-» •— JZ c — U JZ «_* jz oi ai oi 44 vi c 44 Ol to cm > vi u- re Cl O 44 k. 44 01 JZ T3 01 Ol 3 oi re o oi i O Ct 01 Cl — re JZ 01 - o c J3 O C IM C — 44 E 01 u.1 44 VI E JZ >>— — 3 X- 1^ — O C T3 — o re Ol VI Cl zr re jz - 4) 44 44 44 t. in q.44 o ai -o ci re c 3 c k. CD 01 44 oi > c re o 44 C O 4- 4J k. »-» — Cl 3 k. Cl O C 3 44 01 jz vi o c 4i vi re o jz O 41 ci 01 — Z O O C t- 44 01 — — rere— clvi4ivi C c VI JZ c > CJ Ol Ol O 3 44 io — *!— o — — re S_ ai -J C — t. -o^~ E o. co o- Cl ci ct c ai re 013 O t. re c oi oi «r i- oi ai oi it* o o-o t-to Ol 01 E O 01 01 c 44 ct re — CO JZ Cl Cl • V 11 1 L E — i ■ k. O 81 O > 41 >l3 — 0.44 41 01 — — — 01 re T3 TO TO m ai c 44 -- ci u. re — rel in 3 44 ml O 44 Ct ci E --xi U 4-> C JZ — c — 01 1 X U-|3 o — re E c • re 01 VI 44 re e Ol — k. CM H-' • — >- 4J 41 1 jzc— aicm-zc VI re — E L. O E -z co m o k. c 4l| k. 44 re c 01 Cl "O VI t_ o — 4) - in I >i c "O re TO 41 44 vi — OC4-I c — O 01 44 44 cn h— re co re m o e: • 3 44 re — ct ci k. re TO Ol TO > — o re TO 3 X ■ k. 44 Cl 3 C inn T3 — - JZ X 1— 41 Ol O 01 VI — - Ol c C — 4 CO U — 44 O U CO aire444iairejzk. C k. 41 JZ v. — TO T3jz"«te rere 44 3U"> 3 > H- 44 JZ 01 O TO _ k. X — T3 IT c o»— ' » O-lt- VI Ol o. in — TZ T3 — - k.4-)T3 k ■O 3 O k. LO re — — E 3 c m re 01 41 41 ai JZ ai Ol 4J C o 01 1*1 jz c a, — tl c JZ x o E c — •— Ol — -o 3 re c c m Cl ■S m re « o C CM .C T3 CB ■0 3 c c — re Cl c 01 41 • t. o 44 o O m — in ti— c m re 01 c — — k. k. 41 3 «*- a. n- — c 41 c rvi cm — — 44 rz jz k. oi re E to x re ci 41 01 oijz "a rere — 41 01 u. co re co -4 ci oi 3 C C 44 Ol 4-> 01 VI 11- k. 01 14- — JZ U E cn 44— oi k. oi rz — C O O — k. 44 3 Ct > Ct Ul L. vi re • -4 — VI k. 01 C k. corecicireoiaivi C O Ol 3 v> 4-> o to 3 c ai oi a — re io en — Ct im — - TO ■D 01 E C 41 • o 41 vi L. • . m re m Cl -H ct— » 01 •— — — Cl 41 4i > 41 — JZ Z VI VI TO Q 01 DOi c— m orooi 1-4 jz re *o "o O VI re k. k. 44 01 VI o CM OS. tl C U II VI »•— 44 3 41 s- • C JZ 01 VI CC « CJ JZ tl ci k. re — - k. c co co re 44 4-» k. re — 41 • re k. O 01 14- 01 c LU JZk. wo until o r-v —4ccaio.oio.vi a. c 3 Ct m 44 k. O — u- ■o u- o 44 41 I — c "O — Lw| cn CLOl •— 01 IM 41 Ol O 3 c m E 01 41 i- o e o 44 jz re oi re u ■»— ' c in r cue- cicdivi 44 VI > C Ct vi re TO cn t- m O E E 41 re ai ci •— jz "0 c re*-^c c Ol — u — 01 01 JZ 01 01 c 3T — 44k.41CE.C-3k. t tu t 00 re TO c 44 Ol Ol k. (-1 u o u O cn o >? o c C reorereocTSo — 41 01 TO JZ JZ 3 JZ L. in o it- re — ■ u ti in rr 44 Ct 01 *— VI £ Cl 44 44 44 • M- M- VI re — C 44 oi — — 44 01 44 01 3 re m c k. c vi re t- t- u- TO Ol -14-t. to rejz re VIJZ u CJZ< 41JZI4- — TO — 01 re 01 sr o O 3 o 1— O O Z 4-1 44 n- re 44 =C O 44 -— - •— 5 44 5 TO Ct 3 CO 14- m jz 44 n- 10 73 01 x 1 Ol •u 3 C — 1 >> 10 1— C u 1 — 01 — o L 11 U *J in c • "D — k x oi en c 4-j in ai cn Ltfl 3 44 XX OTJ U m oi — ■ oi — in c oi >— IO 3 k c — m •»— X in X in c 3 er to row VI u 3 o> *jx in X *j io io x u E m O.— E ai x m , 0) — _ c io C • 4-> io oo o m k ex o «■ O "5 o x *j 73 •<- u <*- u ** o t. e x 73 k T3 C — *J in 2 lk. o ° = i- « — C\J — r- io a> C 3 x e •— o m u io o k O C O — C X 41 «- o E 73 lk- Ol f— « e k — en— xi oi— — ->. o — oi e Ol lOUUO-w—O C • IO 44 O k 01 44 IO k o «■» c x «- •n o i— — 4J *j •<. ■ X - •— 0) .*> C k >— — 3 H- in 4-4 m cn io 73 X Ol 01 s c 3 CIO Ol >■ O «i 44 — x •*- Ol m O — — -a IO •— •— J3 W 10 Ol C «*- 1— a. u 3-1 14J o 41 X C g 73 44 lk. >»X — k 10 4J XI 0) — +* S Ol ■o * b — 00 • k>— kOH-mc — X C c — O *o to to i_ c m X k k T3 in o •»- c <*- o o o 10 — to m • 4-> O 41 k> E cz 44 OI 44 k 0> >— n> Ol L. O +J— m*o*J Ol CT3 •*. -w c o *- ai c IO k k X u CX C It u V) 1. fifi i. -w m 3 Q. kXOIOlmT3 x c k io O 4J 4J — -c k Ol Ol — o TJX- "- X >i o a> j-> • D1LU L Ck*OiO^OOIkX C i- +■> o o — e 14- 4-> o t- ->» m m i 44 44 to IO J to E c E - 4J 73 4J "i" * x 01 >-< > ■o x *» cn e x k u oj U O IO u c k Q. Ol 4J IO 41 >> O J- C «U 73 CO 44 u *J 4J 01 aimtn— oaioo IO 73 •— «o io 4J 41 E Ol o (O X c 44 X 0< O 44 1. 3 < >> <0 "O X 4^ in o x eo x 0) Ol C H- C *J >> Q. X >. 4J 41 41 IO — U C C 73 3 t»_ «rj- m Z3 T3 XX •" u «i»- an- m k m x — oi O k 41 in c X 3 k X 73 • ai t- coo IO • O * 4-> 3 15 IUT3 ICC*- , 4-* m E •*» E k 41 X o i/> H- cr io ai -u >>*» E k c u — •— a. m IO O 73 WX P <*- k «J Ifc. •— o 1 cn— cn io k 3 a. > 4-> 73 — >» k O 41 o « c E B O in o • *J C — Ol 3 c cn*j io u o c c •0 41 k73 OJ«i- O 0) ui e cti m m o enx ai o e >> — 73LUCE04JUO IO — k 4^ in 14. O if o x V) ai 01 *> "O c x e c— o*>czoa> *■> C O — 73 IO 01 4-> o. o c e — 01 3 • 01 — O 73 E « > e u— *J o o *> •— i- — • k e io u k i X k •— o O k ■O rt 44 73 > m « c«n — «i « — u o uoocktn-t^a. *j Wo-' • Cvr— 4J m 10 X in • oi aj — ai a. c o> ft* k E — io 73 — u •"- w — a. e IO C k c m — c CL in C m lk. — ai ai 4J 4J X t->— "O *»•— 01 3^ CL u O O •— •*- m Ol 4-> .*-> 01 — 73 k o Oil o "— o •*- — X © in OLD HI* (IS ■OfO IO 1" CL*»»-"- u 73 O IO k — C k IO cm*. 3 u i— Ol — k k • U •Q *J L. Ol L. io u c r—\r- xi*. m *> u «t Ol Ol 73 O •— io o 4J 4-* 3 •— Q-4-> Q. U 44 ECU *!•—£•-■ CO. 10 in E io — 3 3 *J *J 3 C in 73 73 01 4J Ol 4J X e k l/l 73 m ■o o > J30-£ oi -o *j rs 1— +J oi a. en u u cn o oi "O k 0i t- u m — 4J to O IO m " o >< m 4-1 cn oi cn ■-S E£E Q.44 E i- en «1-*l S_ . 01 01 C T3 X C O. 73 — — 3 — m Q.X X m 41 - Oi m io l- ai oi m -o c *» k »— Ol jj m 4J oi io k in — in k > k OO k — — *j — — c — « ai u oi x: > io in — o oi a. — = X Ltictiusmn a. in 0) k X Oi — >> Ol u IO 3 X cn n- 3 oi i- x <■*! H « 01 UX«5EOIU.*JU io t— jj 5 k n o. c . > cn in io 4-1 Ol 73 in 373 73 C O > VE9IV >C»1. v> a. T3 £ oi — I- u X — 41 H- 01 O IO k c a. oi c 4-» 41 73 — W X 0) W m e i- 3 u <•- 0) *o o in o — Oi > O m t— tfl m ki 01 UI 4J 73 C k •»- fl T3 fl tfl fl *fc- oi n 4JW« x i— u- o k 3 e • a>>— k E k XI— ox m in — X 4J Ol Ol C C > in 4-> k a- -o a. OI O X OI £ C « o +J 3 S 01 oi e k x oi 41 u in O >»x IO 4-> 41 Ol Ol — 73 O «. L E « O i. W) O ■O en U. *J e-W3kiQk0IX 4J • io 41 — 1 C C IO -h> k w in in io k cn ai 5 x — 01 OI o - en oi ai n- oi — IO •»- Ol io c *■> 01 C •*- k 01 O E c •*- O. Ol 3 ■o X M- — U D tiwuw > S- *J >i c in > O en in X in 1.4JQI- •— O 3 Ol u c o o 1 4-1 O X — - k — h- c to 73 o k • c •w 3 t- O E "O a. u 3s"— • x — 4J O in 4J k >»C 01 Ol 01 OIT3 — X •— o io 3 m k e Oi ■— Ol — in 10 IO — 4-> 4-> IO IO c oi x ■o e !_ o in *— >> Ol io k IO .* IO 73 4J <4- 4-> 4-> o C X X 3 4-> e 01 4-4 O en — 73 73 — 4IOT3 ai n s. ♦• •>- OH. L m •»- O TS >» io jj l»- ■«. k o 1- 3 c 3 4-1 e 01 X c «■» « e*"- •— O OI 4J m ■— oi OiM-tnexkOim m oi — c 4-> X X 3 o • in Ol 4J X c in — m to e ro k *j Xi r^ oi u « lib — IO 3 «> .-o o ux o x •— e ^^T3 IO m o c 4J c m 01 X k u o *— cr O 01 4J -■- ) IO m 4-i m ■a x ai Ol Oi u > 31 k — 44 k — a. ai ■o c L. C r— 10 in tA ui c — ■ 04-» — k k c X •— X oi en c 4-> k X m k IO •— O x— v ai coo O O -w "O O — i- "O IO 3 cn oi o >k. k c o 73 io O «4- ai X C X oi > xt -4J 01—44 u 3 ai 3W c o a> oi CO. k 3 C •— <*- 4J oi a> ** oi m Q.— U 0) X in X X Q m — 01 k o u O "O J. C *J £ S > IO 4J 3 *J O — c 4-4 4=1 4J •*> i oi 44 73 73 -o; 73 44 •a x> •— u t. — IO oi s- »— kH--o w — — ai k Ol X X o 5", 01 k C m o m 41 g 01 x U — c com 3 oi x u- en ai in o. ■>-> <*- c oi o. m o ■>- C 4-> O 0) >*> K- i c X O X u g 3V«. « 3 O O "O !_ *> o e m — • en 1- IO 0! c «j m in -UJIOO- IOOI 4J^» 3 E 3 o o O 44 — 73 — W k 44 ai e u u OLf« io *j u- en**. 01 k ai u cru a.4J 73 oi ai 73 73 c t l c* tiumvu «*. 4J O — o x x E«-—OIC*JkOl <^0inXO3 O 01 C X a. C o ««■«{{«« o c — o — Q. (0 io e oi ►— t— O Q m — o.>- io I— u •»— 2 S IV 41.—. 41 O X 3 4J — Ol 44 kCO k X ai*k. 41 73 c in X a. k m x — 01 c-cj u 73 io io PI c O U O 1 41 41 X E «- 73 Si— 4-4 in Ol 73 X X •— * to IO C73 k 41 k-4 C 73 k 73 41 X — 4J — CL. 41 — cn c O 44 . 4) ■— 1 01 Oi c cn 41 in x oi »4 to C O. C X 3 to to in 3T c m • 01 4J >> k73 to k c 73 k «T k IO Ol 4J — 4-> X JC •— t— to to X 4J m > k io u ui o — — • 4-4 •— i X 73 Ol o -t- C 3 01 VD < 41 k io u • 4-4 3 to E 41 4-J 01 — X— > CO IO C k 1 < o O to cn m »-4-—. x in o X k ifc- k Ol m X •— k t— X 4-4 lk. O 4J 41 t— • E 73 to 73 73 -E — — IO 4J— IO O O IO k k Ol ■O 41 to Ol 3 X CL 41 IO — to k — • 01 — 3 to m u. X 44 m _— XX £ Ol O k IO — 4-4 C O 4-4 u O 44— 73 x in c in 73 E • ik. Ol — C 3 41 E io o o k x OX O — IO 4J X ■k. U 1 O > X OCX Ol i*. > 01 C O k X — 01 73 o k C— O k k 01 0) O cn— 01 4J X l/l O Ol CL IO Ol X to k O) O c — C to C — X o k Ol O X k 3 73 in X 73 in C 4J k — 4J u w- t>0 k O 44 CL4J C — IO to a. O 41 to to •*- X » k O O 41 C 4-> — O io 3 — C 73 t\J CL io 10 O l»— 41 k X Ol C to 73t-l • to X 01 O C — in 44 k S 0) to *i-o --~ ID X X C C — m O - k to Ol to • 73 . C C k E O 44 — — 44 X CM I-. i-4 01 O K- in — Ol in — k C 01 U Ol • kX — C m 41 C to • O in — to Ok C 44 tk- U CL X k •— Ol in a. o x ai >-, C 4-i Ol — 4-4 in — X — C to 41 C Ol c k CO— IO H- 41 4J Ol — 73 Ol u c — 4J k 1 to c in CL— m c • e — 73 — 73 3 44 O 01 Ol CL44 Ol O k > C • — Ol k Ol IO O cn Ol — oi to 73 in 41 > io O .£ — IO — — 3 CO 44 X ai m k 3 H- © IO 73 E 4J O 73 — 44 «*J7) > a. E -e oi — O. m — >o c x E - E mm Ol Ol 41 tn oi 4-4 it. 41 Oki O- o c — — O 3 in C 41 <+- X 44 o in t»— tn E Lk e • O «3- m ;. k 0) 4-4 01 4-4 IO X — IO CLH- O— 1 IO CL k — o m — -x O C IO 01 — — O O 4J o. 41 IU 3 X CLX o — Ol 4J CO E O Ol to 10 73 44 Ol en 4) 73 x — C «* X 4J k 4-4 I— E 4-4 k 01 > > 4J k — 01 cn k Eu * X tn c 44 X C tn 44 X 3 to k 4-> to 41 3 a. >> c 13 3 oi a. k lk. 01 CL ID > —4 Ol-H k — e o x oi io 73 m 44 — 44 C 44 — e O o in O k •k. 44 4-4 4-4 O 73 k 73 O X co O cn — —44 k — C 01 — to oi -J X C Ol • 41 X 01 to 4-4 Ol 73 in C in Ol — ■ X o> o cn n- o tn — — 3 m to x — — E >*- c io k 3 4J-— » k to k E Q. in >, to aj c 4J to tn o a> x 4-> >» •O C CO .— 1— — to to X 4-4 — — tk- CL O — m-ncs e Ol E Ol k E to — 44 m 4J 3 1— k k 3 O CO X IO >»73 k k lk. 73 O X OX 73 X 3 4-1 c CD E Ol (T to c — 41 IO 41 •-3 O X «\4 — mkoictncik-o 3 — 4-4 tn o 4) £ X m c 141 — 3 i— o Ol 73 X C X IO 44 3 x *-i o — « x C O «k- O © IO X k E Ol k — m in X s*i « a, 3 4-4 4J > C 3 ai u > • c *4 44 41 k tO 73 X OS 73 k O > to X — >,4J n- ■ — ■ to S 4J cn m k IO m > IO 41 — in X U IO. — .1/1 E c k — S: cr. X c to Ifc. — 01 Q.44 «"£ io o — c LU IO 0) • >»4> — O— 3 Ol e 4J — ■£ • — k to to to 1 — * 44 01 X IO 73 k O k n- o X X 4-> m k m E 41 4-4 3 it- xx Ol X k — k 4-4 73 73 m * C9 4-4 C 41 01 4-> C9 4-> to 41 4-4 to C 4) k u o. u — c Ol k C — k -44 X cn 3 C >> O x m 01 — 73 to 44 • X 4J 73 en XX k 3 O 4-> o 41 O— 44 — X U- — O 3 £ O 73 in 44 — — c Oi >> — 44 C « 73 u- a. o io — c 01 «- 4-> 4-4 o 4-4 u m E 4- to en c k 44 4) O'-'H- ee c >> to s: k ■o — k io cn io c O 3 4J X 4J — X o it- in >> ik. o o — k 73 CL O io to c to m tn k to 01 C 41 io X 4-4 ez -k> lk. 41 — — U 3 ■k- 4i oi in c 44 — k ••> Ol X encs u 44 cn— - — — m oi X <*- m m to o 41 4J o c io O O- O 44 m — — 44 •— .4-4 CD 44 44 O c C C — O in •— >ix cn o to n- c 01 u to 41 41 U >> 41 ai in c c u in 4-4 4-4 3 to oi oi to u 44 ai in Ol 44 73 in tn 44 x k — — k X a. oi CL O — ■•) P ■k. k oTTi 01 —j o k Ol IO 4-4 k C M- C C 3 Ol Ol C 4-4 4-4 k O 73 — m c 3 3 to 44 ik. — c in k 73 Ol k — cc a. o 41 4) CO — C 44 — IO X C C to > Ol Ol in 0>73 k — IO — 73 O oi m oss 3 Ol X X to Q. oi a. Ex O Ol k C IO CL44 3 01 Ol Ol k E — — O C — 41 X X 01 M- ik- -U44 Ol E U C 3 — Q >> C IO O X O — IO o 41 4-t — oi x to ■o 3 k O E X tn Ol k 73 4' 41 Lk 44 0. Cn73 73 to 44 tn 44 k o e*- c cn 4J cn 4J 3 — 73 O 73 CL4J 4> k 73 enx: •^ ■_ — t— Ol 73 c U in 5 O X o • 44 E 3 — H- 73 CO C CO 44 X — IO 44 — 4-4 O k k U. 73 •M c • 3 o ■O Ol C C Ol 01 O — Ol o in cn c io m -H C 4-4 U. 1144 k k © oi u c 4) c in to r*. lk. Ol — E73 a. io io 41 — > C — -4 to 3E — — • k 3 O O in © 4-4 to oi 4J 41 k 41 ro O o X c 41 O E Ol O k U- — Ol 44 to — — 44 >> E C U in c C LO 44 . — Oi E o 4-4 — IO 4-4 O 3 m x in 44 — O — 73 l/l — to k o. c c — Ik- X to to X O OPvki c in k > 4-4 4-4 a. to O X 73 4J Ol 73 X o a. 44 oi — o CO — E Ol 73 44 41 — Si CLCO c k o — 4J 3 m 41 •4- O in — Ol 3 73 E Ol X i— — X 73 3 k 4J C 3 X m — oj oi ai 4-4 X k IO o Ol X o — 01 >i 41 Ol it. Ol 3 in 44 — 73 73 E io in 44 in 01 O* Ol — to C 44 k 01 4-4 E 44 oi 44 c '/i a. m U k XX 4-1 k O X c o IO 44 O cn E cn 41 41 C k to 44 oi C O X m in Ol to Ol 73 to >» IO a. C 4-4 > U 01 •— to O e in c > — 3 — C k X X O m 1 o > to 01 Ol O Ol t->X 0) Ol m -b. k u S m oi u >i 3 X CL C — o O cn u > oi u o co — 44 X 4-4 E tn — — X O JC 4-4 k 01 o to — LU k enc •— 4J 73 4-4 4-> O > — Z — O 4) E to -k- to to 44 k — 41 H- 41 k oi o to. — ■— E en x to to 41 £ — ■O C C 01 U u 41 44 k O 73 Ol >> O 01 Ll — k 73 41 X k — > 41 CLX O 73 3 — X E O CD 01 k Ol o u k O k Ol X Ol 01 k IO to O 0>0 •— X O «- o C — O CL 44 41 X 4-» O C —1 E 4^ 3 •— >> 01 X C IO 3 U C 3 44 kl 44 c cn IO © 44 >,44 CL73 C to — k C 73 44 Ol C 3 _l 3 m o Ol 4-4 4-4 O CL 4-4 to cr X o 41 C 73 01 iO — c csj m 44 in c k CL Ol Ol £ik>,C£0 O X o c oi u to IO Ol — Ol C 01 k X 41 C X — X IO f O — ■ *k- — to u— m IO CLX 73 lk. 44 1— O 3 ——id E < X t- U-, — x oi o c x an— c CL 1— E IO 44 O.I— 2W EU oo in o — LU to L- — O IO O b » ol • 4-1 • jo oi • !_ b I S- — » B3 in r-* C b 43 OJ O 0l 01 jr 1 Oi m 01 Si 4J c in IO o e« b 4-1 en > C r— 01004-"— en N Ol 01 >! — ox o 3 IO 3 O £ C C k. 00 1- IO k a 0- cxr u oir- >o m k. ro 44 44 — 44 C OJ k. S o jc 1*- 4->iac k. < 43 a> IO 00 — IA C fl W C4J O u in O k.— "O k. in i/i o 4-i o IO U 1- 0— — C E C JC 10 41 cn IM ID — »> — b 43 O <0 J*l c 3 E k. Ol 15 43 t_> — Q. muioj3X— oifc-oi 43 o_ s_ — q.— jr k. x io en r uvii- *j CD 0<— X E «r r— — 01 u mo O m •— m E O 43 44 io oi > c 4-1 U 43 • C IO 01 IO»— 0.»— 3 4J 01 — 4J 3 — ai o m — in *o X c — C O-D 01 C i- C "O «•- 01 4J (M — m w moo » >o c k. ••— 10 c m 41 w jr a) 3 — oo cn b 44 Ol C k. •<- X io oi u ^» X Ol "O (0 4J — O O. X — 43 3 *j c c nice Ul OI IO IO 4J k. iO O >r oi b i oi r ib k. k. tj en u .e m b io ►— c en oi Ol 4-"-^ l/l GO oi oi — i- ^ io — » k. 01 01 •— ■<- 10 41 c 3 •<- 0— l»- bC44oi — 4444103 s. — -w C C ~l > X— k. c 10 v. «: c cn c -c 441 41 k. 1- E 43 O •">■ Ul Ej5 vi CO "0 13 >> E 3 o-co 41 e O O io cn 3 I— OIOI —C04J>»k. k. IO 0. 01 01 js i. o — ai e s • b i O X cn 4= io CO 3 Ol 43 IO k. k. -0 — 1- r— IO U O 4) k. 43 4J oi3E4Jb — '"ocoi cn io io "O k. = — 4J E >,^-- er k. io i- Ol 01 IO 4-1 a 41— « 41 43 cn cn o n gim E io — t/i 4-i IO *0 jT ^- o_ Ol oi >> o.*ci 10 • IO It. Ol > 4-1 •— k. 43 43 m 4-1 £? C V) C • S- e N fl VI J <3J 4J cox >» io S k. 4J 43 CO. un»4-> ». 41 k o>- v^w 3 c: on OI 44 O 3 >> oi — >— 01 .= 1^1 O •*- 1*. 10 uo O-Ht-k. —014J--- • c •*- 43 f0 *> io ai o re x o — < *J k. in k E«-0 43 m m 43'— 43 O 13 Ol J3 X — m 00. C »- ui*> >>*•£ o »i •^ k. 3 OI i/> io E i— k. c C V) k. iuv k 4j ai »— < 43 O C O 3 <-> io — eo — *J C OI o > 01 3 Ol io C 10 01 E O - x c — 5 ••- -o I0LO43 -^mU43C ■0 X TJ mil >> a 3 •»- > 00 OI •— 4-1 X JT 1- X k.434-13 ««• • C 01 tl CO t CB>- c t. VI 1 4= O 4J 4J 4-1 k. VI 10 aio oi"-i»-4J>— • mo 4-> C >. 44 o C 3 41 b — 41 l/l ultt in ai >, ai 4-i in 10-^3 — 4-1 ma>c k. a. 01 01 01 — u m "tr c iO Cl S O 44 44 IO b TJ "O 4-> i- j3 c — >>•*- > 43 43 O ss k. — *4 03 c 43 C -O 4-> 10 k. tj o ci e o 41 tj 41 k. C l_— > 3 Ol ox iO O k, >>■-- 0) IO fO VI 43 • Ol Ol 4-1 O 1- k. 0. >> 10 a> ul o- o — c c J •- 3 «rt J m£ « k. Ol Ol k. k. k. mom o>4-> — 43 M *•> O E — a. 00 ■e> *j oi c u U 01 in kw s O -OO C 10 •— 4J u- a. — 01 44 x >> «jc *oio«ic 0i k. io cn 01 k. — IO 3 u 43 0. m 43 E O k. 10 —■ u 1- «- « k 4J O X <*- O k. k. b 01 -Q 41 m o ci 3 it- en— k Olkrt E •— o— T3 43 O H- C O — 00 41 41 10 01 — ■^j >> b 4= b 3 O C VI o u. n3 43 O 3 4J O O IO C "O ■*- O — ■ 10 m m ■*• O cnit. x 43 4-1 ^ OH 0)(O in U Q)*f Q JZ CTv k. to 01 4-> O CO- 01 3 -o 10 eg c Ol L0 3J3 a. oj j= -a *j cd V) C OI OI k- Ol l/l l/l Ol ■•"- Ol IO - 43 4J cr c m 03 4-> 1- 3 — O 5->01 (O u 1. — 44 44 43 i- .e in Oj O VI in k >keiOk 0.43 IO 3 in 10 • CL • IO TJ CO C >>"0 *J — jz 3 • oi ai OX ■"■ 10 0J 10 O *4 c E 44 4-1 -C X«— TJ TJ 44 — — — IO k. 01 IO y n- c "o k. ai < m 41 — m c 441 > m CO io — b O b *J k. ■<- 01 >lk IO«Ji- fO Ol Ol 4-1 — Ol O — U I0U.T3 o» *J >>4J T3 c m lt; — >>er> v> b "a a. o c C 3 X 3 4J 4-> Ol 1*- Ol c 4-1 >> 01 43 — »4-i—io-a*4c> u — c s_ • — ■ c cl+j oo u o cn k. •— io k. Ol in C u k. Ji « u II 41 ku 4= 3 41 O 41 k. 03 Qj<3 t. •>- acoi-eo >. ox — 10 "O • « 01 c >>— U- k aC UI44 44 *- en 1— Ol 10 44 > 43 — 43 O O 41 10 — 10 U 41? 41 O. K- C c oi *-• ai-w o x> io — o~ c j: ooj ^' k.X C IO 4-1 Ol <0 k. 00 *J 1— "O J3 -O 441 X 43 C > 41 41 S- k * OIM" -43 — *d«^oi C •a o j3 c 43 10*0 41 k « 01 x 01 4-> 1— m (i cn 41 4-1 <: a. — oi 44 — oi s. t. — i Ol X -*J « 4J in 3 k. 4-> >> Ol 43 — 00 01 C 4J IO O 43 c c x c EC3Xn>c«- IO O IO k. • 4-> 00 Out- «P- C4->JQ>|3 ot E k. 01 k. 0) k. in 43 43 4-1 X 41 43 C-4J 0) m "O X ■0 k. a. Cl — >>OICkOkO .c ^~ a. 4J1- tl OI*J u >> k. mi- •<- k. 41 C 41 Ol 41 C0 4-I 44 tj — — o> «*- jc enje « 1' «!»■ a. iO-»- 3 X Q. •O 43 k. 01 ^ oo-uinj 3 43 IO C ai 01 10 tj io c — EC jjoii k. c >>« (O k. 4-> -C O U Ol Ol O T3 k. O 43 41 4-> 10 IO 00 n- k. 43 k. OJ e j_ « u — m s- oj O — IO~-» UJ 43'— H" k. 43 J3 C t- CO UNN k XiO • 4-1 m 01 s 3 * oi io 0144 b <*- oi c C I— k. 01 k in e TJ ou m flfl 00 10 41 ">» 41 "O 41 r fl- k. a. 4-> — CECC300.0 «U «J «-C 01 t- C 43 -e o-uuoi e • m *■• 10 01 O 4-1 E *0 ■»• — O Cl u in f- IO O O cn— »»- •<- in E« u u Ol . 2: a> cn k. c. a. omoo J= O Ol S 0) 4J O r>- 3 in OIJ3 43 43 3 k. 43 m 3 «S 0.1- > io E 3 o_ ucoi m 41 n ai o 4-> U -kl 3 01 l/l fl'-OI'O 41 C 4J 4-1 k. >> «t 4J -o O X m f* a. E 4J • 441 Ol — X • JC TJ *>• 44 J3 u- >— JS 3 «H t- -r- -r- 03 IO H- CO- >l 4-1 41 IO 441 E 4-1 C TJ L0 b b in tix o>— » x i ■a 4-1 x c x E ■0 t. UO- • CO O -" 04J ,tj 43 — — , k. -C U en i/i u •— 3 10 x 4-> i»— » O VI IO c 0>— 41 k «4J 41 igwu 4-1 O 44m43b44lt-b ai "O c 4-1 in 00 41 cn — 3 -kJ in — o ai>- OI OI ■£. •— E "D k. m enevj 43 >i 01 C enaivi — 4JCCI-0O 1- m o». c E -O -0 o en cnj3 en cl io tj a. x > od k Ol 3 IO -h in < l k. OJ C 43 O 00 C IO Ek. J3 4) T3 K. S Ol E c c a> c v> jc • o D, O O — VI Ol C 10 £ E 01 E k. 10 01 »- 4-> •— e 1- m k. 0-4J cn c 01 S 5 k. on — — b — IO in I 41 — io — et*j "o m <. 01 CD 4-> IO •— ai x io f 41 C 41 u JlkkOkJi^OEk ■— o — k. C k. k. -D k. 01 "O 35 > 01 4-1 01 -OOHJ 01 X 4> k-« 41 C 41 "O X) -C 3 O.J3 S kJIC-UI hD « U^ *h o*J a *J O *-> k. "• a. o c a. J3 C » 10 C 43 IO s_ t-C43XCk.*40j3 O k. X 43 k. c UJ "" ■*- «- io ~— t- IO 3S 43 •»" 4J O, •a: U. IO 4-1 411- I5-0 4J >s- V 0J *) IO (_) « 10 — -- TJ 41 bTJ — TJ >> J3 E 41 b b 01 01 X OJ 01 44 O C — 41 44 2 O O c •*- 0^1- 1 u b • e — 43 > 3 O 3 it- TJ m 4-1 ai O S. C Q. 2 c c b 3 VI 13 b 41 41 O — TJ b 3 41 >■ 41 3 tU 41 — m 3 — 41 10 E Ol cn b m m 43 0) ai m 44 J3 R3 43 43 43 Ol •— *4 >, 00 01 00 43 — > X b c <*- 01 IO •a E 43 3 k. 44 b m J3 a. b — b E — 10 41 O 44 C 43 43 b m <<- 43 43 O 10 4= 44 10 >,eo Ol u- n- 01 43 44 TJ 3 41 IO — k. 41 03 m 01 41 44 C 44 m 41 10 44 O X 44 C 10 C 44 43 C b .0 '_ 3 k 01 m i- 44 O cn — O b 43 C b c — 41 10 m O C 3 X c — 01 k. 44 c X E IO —4 Ol e 0. m TJ b 41 41 — "0 TJ 43 01 e 43 41 m O 43 > — — 10 • C 4= O) m > 44 43 b 41 TJ m 10 OI44 TJ c — JC 44 44 3 cn TJ b UJ 13 44 — ~ >> iO 41 4J I- 3 C — 44 01 10 C 3 C 44 VI a. C O 3 IO b 41 JC IM —1 -V X k. k. >» — • H- IO Ol £§ — • O 3 3 C Ol— Ol 4- — J3 — m 00 u ao 41 43 03 n- 44 m O 1 43 O 44 43 E JC JC 43 44 b — m en (9 m 44 a. 41 • 4- 41 C •0 b m <*- 1- — m m 41 44 44 41 O 41 — 41 — • >> c •0 x k. m IO O JC 3 it- O TJ 01 b 44 b C in b > 44 — m 441 ■a 41 41 -0 • 3 c E k. 01 44 C 44 cn O c m 44 44 10 O. O IO 10 10 X O C — 3 C TJ 3 k. 0. b m — c c b 10 b u m 1— — b JC — at 41 O CD 3 41 — — •o 41 41 44 — 41 b — Ol TJ 44 IO m TJ b m — - 43 cn c 43 b — ■ b 01 c TJ — TJ >|44 44 TJ b C IO J3 2 00 C O TJ OJ b IO C IO — b cn 4-> -a 10 41 10 4) 03 44 IO 43 41 41 44 C 10 Ol m <0 •— 1 it- 3 — ia — 41 3 ■a ai • b b 43 01 u 41 O IO 43 E 43 TJ 41 41 b K- b > O 43 m at n. O >> 44 b m •• VI «— > O 10 It- 41 3 C 43 - b 01 b — 41 u E m c k. k. 01 C C E >>43 13 3 4) c m 44 —0 44 cnj3 b m 10 h- m > 01 43 m 3 c • c 43 01 k. 10 41 11 VI X 1 k. 01 X' TJ O C 44 IO 10 m O 44 01 41 c — Cn +1 4J CL •O O) 43 >» IO 03 b 44 10 C b — b 0. c >, 01 — IO b b c O — — r^ — C K-£*i in v< — m IO Cv TJ O 44 • b 43 E 44 IO 44 O X O O — cj 44 io cn 44 -O :>■. 01 > 44 3 =», 01 m 43 43 10 >» 01 C — 43 E 44 — 10 it- 1— 1 10 01 X m 41 • 10 > — Ol 41 >— Ol m Ol 10 TJ m c b m m IO 44 b b b > • ~Q oo k. b — J3 — b 41 CTJ VI b 41 k 01 c Ol cn O <*- ■O JC b IO 41 44 41 cn 01 k. c ■0 > m c 01 O m 44 JC O O 44 — b C 43 3 m Ol TJ C 44 m u 44 M X c c — — 41 — c 13 44 — 10 k. E c 43 C IO 44 O O TJ 44 44 10 TJ — ■> JC 10 3 c — 01 — b E m m 10 01 — 3 14- ai k. cn m io m u- b 10 TJ 43 > TJ — O u E 41 — — O b TJ 43 IO J3 m m m 43 c O 44 c TJ O «— 44 — >> C ai TJ 41 41 — 3 m O — c cn— cn om 10 03 01 x <*- -— Is- O) 41 O IO 43 1— 00 a. b 41 TJ 44 m TJ m C 44 01 O 01 at c 44 b — 41 >> V) 01 44 O TJ b TJ 4) 43 — 3 — in 1*- 01 — O 3 43 U b — e c 10 VI 03 — IO — f— 13 m b — m C s_ 1*- Ol 01 IO m Q.44 43 01 3 m c b 01 O O 43 U b 44 CO — ia C b TJ cn 01 c — k. > k. E * 3 1- 43 b C 44 b 41 43 — 10 IO Co — 44 JC — 10 41 C >— 1 TJ Oi X 44 3 44 3 44 01 m 01 10 O IO 01 TJ 44 it- 44 (A 44 — 1*- Oi 3 C 44 10 43 IO C > O E C 44 1— —3 x 41 k. 03 — 41 43 Ol VI <<_ 01 10 ,3— TJ TJ E 43 It- >iE >»io <0 CD c Ol IO 3 01 13 43 m cn m 44 «- 44 IM O O b | 43 10 41 C O «- 00 TJ 10 3 m 41 43 4-* 3 O E 41 44 01 44 c IO 13 10 41 — > 43 IO O m b 10 Ol OJ CO c TJ m— ■ C -O — S io 43 44 01 10 V*.1- 41 m TJ Ol ■"" . ** b C b IO <4- 44 CO 44 C b b — m— - — 44 3 fsl m 1— b b c 2 — O >. O 44 44 m 41 m C — «»-— fl c ■0 J3 m 43 — • 00 «- 4) 3 10 a. 10 44 C ai So — « m » m c C 43 — c Ol b Q. IO J3 O 0_ O >o 4-1 C 03 44 l<_ TJ •— TO 10 — 44 3 b J3 oiti-m oo O 44 TJ U E cn io 44 ai t>»- c — c 3 O. cn 44 O O 44 b 3 -o 01 E U E 3 41 — O b TJ TJ — 4_) Ife 2 O 10 "O _ 44 E — TJ c X r— ID >>J3 TJ 0.43 44 — cn— b u b — 44 O C C 10 c — 01 m 10 3 m k. U 41 3 IO E — b 1 — ■ tj — m 10 10 c X OJ O 41 — 43 IO IO 14- 01 >> a ink ti E ■o TJ C b • 44 •fj b ai — io m VI b b c m c Oj- it- — O 2 TJ Q.3 3 k. VI 0— 41 10 1- m VI CO 43 10 -— Oi 01 VI 3 > X 0) 3 44 ia b n- O 3 TJ TJ Ol O- 13 -0 ■— 0.44 03 b O b > TJ Ol 44 IO 44 43 44 m 44 — b 01 3 b CO TJ 44 43 43 b O c 01 e b 41 10 E — 41 b C 10 b Q. O — 43 IO c 41 m — J-> 10 — >» m 44 C TJ 41 C C • 44 O — •^ k. m E 5 «— 43 10 X CD' — ■ O 44 or 1— C 43 >» m TJ TJ 44 — 1*- c 10 41 C •- O . Ol C3 vi a. c 3 ai 41 43 >> X 41 cn > ^ b k. m 01 O 3 M 0. O S 10 j3 ai VI o — b m cvx m a> J* 3 jc m 44 — 01 44 c 44 01 b TJ m m 43 10 b b b — O 1 J3 JC b m 41 c m IO O 44 O Ol VI U 43 44 O Ol >«43 J3 10 E OJ — JC 3t — 43 44 TJ c — cn 10 b CL 44 TJ 43 b C Ol IO — 01 01 44 b 3 OJ 44 — 14- C 10 10 — m «• in IO r^ 00 < TJ u_ 43 X Cl O IS CTJ T * O IO JC X X — >i C T3 IO >> — O • >> Ol — k X 1 Ol O — k. *J k en io re in Ol *J O. I c — CO 41 C i lie = x - >> C C Ol O .C — CM i-i re >>r«. > oi 44 44 i- 44 O OI— — o) >*— 4-ijjvi •— i TS4lC0U-U^ 01 S VI k re "O U- >> VI k C — VI *j in E vi — at -^k-oi-^ n- m «■ ex— *>> xo — •— -o 4ix:en C'o-cx: uoi*o c O E 111 O • <— ku -Q O. C — k in vimih 4i aiN^f e v k 41 o x at e 44 c w j > flu ur am. 4i~ c i. * •«io«e- orvio « 41 41 Q. o x = o i- in COB* aoi 5 -vi io c oif-< re k. a. 3 XI 4-> «— re 4) 41 c «-> 4-> c in ti 01 a>*J x „j -•- t. •— a> •<-! t. «e<-«i l v fl > U llw^4J Ul Ul L 0) ^3£N 9l4>m« 3UCUU 3 k k co er— 44 — vi ai. ^ c 4i mw — — ■ xiaio-k. c j-» oi«n oi*o s •— - a> COO Cl<~ a> — J3 H- 3 *j o >o io«^» EramXioomiQ re k kCOOC tl in 41 o h«a<- ck k o.— > m x C4I41— 4it. — "O o VI 3 x o> av u w vi a a<- e «•-■— io x: x *» oi Cv 0£ B. est ore — £ — O WU. 0*J>>4I re 3 k • E ai m w£ ti O vi O).^ _ i»-x:vi o> "a — c c Ol UlflOCLL VI m£« c > — c c-o — o o. ai x •- ai o>-<- LUC4JC-' — -o*j — 4IX: c £ W tl VI a 3£ CO IIMO i-TS 4> « k4<£K VIE C 3C — in> *j >> xoikin^moi- re — flUVIuallJCHVUtt"- 49 CLO U (J k. 13 41 k H M 10 E. E»- < o. e <— aicu 3 ai 5 oi «• k >w ew umucg — vi — ■o o> C — — ■— C > jz *- O S k. vi io o 4i re k. vi 41 x ccf— ooi »• (Op VI4J O 0>»k — — S n. E "3 41 O > k ■w IO E4I-^4I4IQ,4I*J re J(«-r 6 ■o aio'oo oix:vio> i. • x: k. c oi oixt *j -o oi uk o x: k. i o ai C — 01 41 K 4J x: o o «k«i. in m e e T3 x: •^ Oi*J 4> 41 or = 41 "O 4-» *^- 41 jQ *» 6 6 13 Ol o — 01 in k. 01 c xjc > o> — — ■ocox:*j OV££ K- 41 U- in — » • ^ 3:, -> <- *> Eoiuvakti o>ojee:"Ok..4Je — — o+< "O — 11 *J 4J •— O 01 *J O Ol — 4IO'— re XIV! >> VI oi >> -«^-»u^ x L.E— aiaiau— 34>co>'i->Ex:c>> m<— in in £o5i«- k-'O-w C XI k. O— 0IU"O— O— k. c u m a? « k i/i x ti v Vf «j vi 01 3 "O C — O — VI k O VD 3 «£0H i — oi -w o x ucu w-oj: tiOkn-u kk a a 4i n re "■ U VI «£ 3-«0)»- L in 44 44 w- ><— oi o a. k. E "o <-> <-> 1I3>|U1IU.«0 — X) CO *J K- 4) - SI 3<- w WQ « O HIT C — n. it- ac oi>>-4jw o <4- VI VI >.*» oiu C C 41 O C «- uo ec vi x «- — en ■O 4)^ in- oix:x) o o — xi a. coi-^-oi— o uwh 3 41 »-» xi, J*0| vi c c o ai — -^x — i-i >i vi — ox n- 44 — «^— v. ♦» E 44 Oi in— 04->c io oiox: *»— VI4I4-14I>— £— Ck. 41 — 01 >)4>— — — SU VI VI C "O-^^ X O- 41 fc. L. 44 O VI VI •— C VI 00>>>V> 01 T34I'— •— *>xm» s ink. vw x core—- oxi Ol 4-1 re > L. 41 VI c o <_> re — 44 — S VI Q. Q.X © X T> k oi vi vi«j e- — 6 — oi x C VI^X fl C VI 41 •!©- § — *i «- OICiJOITJ E S. C < 3 O 3 XT S ■O 41 k an ig is c o>"0 o >*•*• 4) ai — fc. X e vi — w ■ re — >> e ac— m — <4 J3 — *>— eiloflUk IA£ o • Ol "o •o C v> Xl *J Ol > t— Ol VI 41 Ol — IO — SO 3 Ol u — — X 0) k O "O o «£ 10 mc*» O.E— >i*> «.— o.i->-i-> O Q. *j o-x ai tj >»u. e — s: « c Of- 3 >> — >s « *J 10 > — 10 C4lk.-b>OU(9*«-EU 01 > Ol 3 >X«J k 3= X k •u • V 11 U « VI k 3 «- k. IO »i- >Ok.cctnek.<4->u l*» 41 v— >i e — c •— vi «j • x o> x IO M£vUW«Uklk3«iaO 4i xi a,— o-^ o in 3 • 4i • o > in — 44 Q k — N13*> 1.4JT3 WO«4IKVI« — c ■o io *Jo— oxs-^-os x: a. c ■ *> - C 1 41 > C" «J — *» C •— XI UV 0O«l£ n UVICtlIIE>IILC-VIVl)U •OOI 3 Tl jl VI VI k O 41 CO x:*j •0<0T>3 — — »-*je:oi034i— u»- Ui u coioivi35o)aio>o"ov>*j k. o c oi u o k. — — o *•> > a> k. u- re j-> 41 f -k>XO>lX004l o to OI Q. 0) O in 0«- 3 «l£ ai « >- ki-*li- O N S VI «££ 01 VI in C X Ck OI h- k 41 I 41 01k. -T3UV XJ«— 41 »C-l-> x: — 01 — 0) 3 oi ee >> c k. 3 ai — OCEk.k.vi- o O.O.OI k. — — k. k. — ** OI4J X *j — 44 44 c 44 u • H- "O — o u > — *>—» ox:o— oiocEt. > 41 0>*J "O Ol 41 O — 41 « — k. > u o VI kum«-c— *j c x: x: o a. CinOIN4liOk.OX>4IC>— t. k — 4" X OO0IO3 • >ULOJ5 *> —' O O *» "O. f*illlO>i XC-o-k.-iOfc.Ejk.— O "O 44 v > J vi 6 j*i o««- B « f3 u — «— uk.o>EO — k. — OO T3 41 3 o. Q. 5 a. c 01 VI c k. e re u. *j c — xi H-I04IIO C — «- fc. Ck Ol O CO.VI1- 41 3 .a I^E 3 vi «k vi — e — — in ai Sue oi *• c-»-o oi c e oi elt-fc-uOOVI- —i 44 O — 44 <-> 1 4ltlk« 3£ O "Q O "4- > *J ^UOK 4) 41 k. 1041 fc. c 3 01 k£i< Cn4lf*l C O Q. Q. o ce — > o • — • « 3 — t/i OI U — C k. o Ol *■» k. 41 E C O — I COU4I £ 3 « 0*1 C >|SW0E 4-1 4-1 — on- o*» re x — co oi x — — aio- IO >>— EOOCO oc> io — C u x: oi cj •»- -^ — *j o re c t. <*. •<-*J3ca>E«uooi«o u- ^3 fi vi^nuo 0*"- a.— c o o C V> 44 >> VI V> 3 — •> TS U fc. X ai O «TE- 41 f»— 'PriW k 41 VI k. vi a k.«r-m^-4Jinvi*j u OVIC-TI3 "O w VI e oi o. u c m u. *j c •— e looiuo re ere «j< w iq > u i »! C\4 jj-_- Of — — 01 ■!- 41 41 E S O T3 o re k. — 3 4Jin — 11 *j C — LCSUCDLIIV — «.•— c k. «s "O •XESsk.k.— 04>>vi em cu • o. oi io 4l41C4IUX:-w-O*Ji0 — x> x: o 3 oi oi n- n ai 4ir ^'D'H o > k It- 41 11 — O — in CfcOl c **— -4liOX4l*Ji— 3ZO Q.»- XI k. O-WCQ. Q. — "O aa u«-x^ 4i EC n- — c >. 414J1-— •■MQ. « L Uf u X it- i— O 41 CL*J 01 L. u- C4"»k££C£lIC««H >>X k. recoi- L.ox:caix<«--u — o tu )— O VI ^ Of k-~^J3 <-> IO 3x:ia- intnE — — iboxibo OO k >OU*l«k (IOo fc. c 10 O 4-1 41 C 01 — * i fc. VI <4_ u Q, >lO o 10 Q. c 41 3 01 fc. 41 C Ol VI , jK O. > O c X 41 ■O >»-o 4J e 01 fc. fc. re 3 u re "o 41 re C 4-1 ■0 41 fc. i c c in CJ 4-1 O L. C X u a. O 41 01 u e in fc. »x Ck c 4-< re O >»4I 41 O 4-1 fc. JZ *i re i 4» re XT 41 Ol 41 x: C 4J fc. 0.4^-0 3 VI L. 01 fc. T3 VI u 3 «* OIT3 in kk u 41 IO 10 41 fc. 4J «. 41 c in It. O. Ol IO X c 41 X 01 41 x: 4-1 fc. 4J IO Q.4-1 4J L. in 4-i > 11 fc. 31 § X) 3 en c 4rf c VI 4» 13 re >, s -a re c 3 41 L. >|lO O 41 41 O 01 x: x: •0*4 fc. re c m 41 re X re O c e O re VI in 01 k. E L. L. 10 L. OI0I T3 41 01 xi x: re Xi k. X L. E 01 1 41 3 3 S~ XI CO a. c in 0, 11 01 •0 10 in « x: § E re X 41 VI 4-1 X XI c 41 O X) fc. X i re Ol • *~ 4-1 X fc. CM 01 10 c 01 O *• r— 41 10 > >i in — — o ee — 0. re in k. •- — 4! 00 VI 41 IO a. 41 s. in cnu. 01 "O 41 11 « fc. x: — ID 4-1 3 o X 4J > J* — x: > 11-0 Ol in c C 10 — 01 — 4-1 fc. VI in O ■—• O E O C fc. 11 O X) o "2 ^* C »> re re »-^4J L. U >i 41 — — > If 4J in in o «x i X 4J 5S fc. 1- ^-v c — 1 u .x O VI Ol "O VI c to X 11 re a 01 in O XI c in in ^1 VI 10 O 10 01 41 XI O i > 4^ OI4-1 re ■0 c x: in 41 "O *• O. 41 41 rj 4J O U 41 X c VI — L. 3 re re m vi u- "o » ai0 etJ « ex o — — e 3 e x it- — — * vi EO — <7i ai 1 jz — 4-1 "O ' 3 X IO k£«u : 4-» 41 O ■>• re in ■o O fc. 41 U O 01 — e "O 41 10 O re 41 01 **— « 41 — — O L. — c out- re 41 *J L. 11 fc. 41 L. o 0. re c o o in — . ■o ci 3 e re • X — in X 4-> re u 41 x 41 1 re oiu- 1— c 41 : -4 X O CO 4J X — >» ■O— 1 41 4J 1 11 e j ik 41 01 fc. CL >>-o u. — «^ 41 3s** e S fc. E O o re o ■<- 01 3 fcttX 4-1 n- re in rm e 01 >■> 3 41 re ax t. X o 4J 01 re Ck > >■ — in 41 re ec 4-i x E 41 — o F— VI 41 — Ol •o • 3 fc. — O in u — o. c > 10 — • 10 Ol X 41 d re in x 4-1 01 10 — TS I— 10 ■O 01 e fc. «< — *> in • re • o fctt f 01 VI — . > — fc. 41 X fc. vi 41 41 L. C U 10 Ol 4» «- — ■ — ■ re fc. o 01 o o II 10 ktltl s— 41 re re x -o re k. E *J 41 ■o a. — fc. — 01 X o « tican£ fc. re c X in 41 X — — VI . 4J *j k. *j n- 01 re . 4) Slfc. 01 o en re —1 01 e m >,— 10 UNO) a. — fc. w— < IO 4-1 S3. II U fc. VI L. kk 4J 11- >>*0 U kO VI VI U.CU re u X. 11 — 01 C x a.it- re 4J 3 H- — 01 Ck C >i 3 — k 41 re in e Sl'O k o — c 41 o. o > 01 a. o "o u 3 01 re c VI VI IO §c?^ e — • o — e — 4J o c w — — 4J Ck fc. 3 o o X X — C — k k VI X T3 4J 41 4J II C — k 41 -O 41 Ol E 3 4-1 X 4J 4J 10 in k in u ere — re 0. oi"0 41 c c no — — X k C O 4-1 o o 4J e 4-1 4-> — 41 en c E ■o c o HL 01— E o f £ — O VI f— 41 41 10 re > 0.3 — 41 x wo 41 41- x e -o 41 4-> — e k re re 1 o c — re re 4-) vi o C Ol u -* k e 3= vi c — 011- — _ 4 OIHIO u- -a i_ — >, k re — ■ o k re — k 4-1 a Q.X 41 E 044 in 01 01 01 — k 10 - in k E • C O 01 lOT3< — O 4-> x k k »s O — I I I— I 01 fcl — o 01 — k — c > n c 10 x — — x re 1 1) 4-1 x 1 m k in u in 4-1 1 O 01 1 k 44 Ck— ■ 1 vi< Ol E in re — • vi x II in in 4J 01 3 X re 10 4J 4> E - *- CDi-f 1 — in 10 ' 3 VI- 1 O O VI o e u (j 3 3 TJ k X 4-1 : vip w 1 — O c 1 4J O O I — .0 k 14-1 I CO CM "O e 1 it. in re : o re 1— • vi 01 >»>!— C k c — re re k 4J 3 E 4i in 4J 4J o in in it- o uj re re k O k U 41 a. i VI ■o k 1 e 41 j re 014 4j n- -a o 3 c x o n > >>-* k K» a eo o — 1 k en x — 1 co — in — 4-> ■o k e 3 c 01 — 3 Ol >i o— 01 — k 3 k 4-1 re co re c 41 in T3 in 3 3 c re o- o re 41 41 k k k 41 c re u- E 2 3 £ 01 in e k c "o 1) — k 4-1 3Z "a — Ow 0X 41 41 "O n- k 41 01 O k VI O X re s 44 in k o>— 41 — k — ' v> VI . — c O e 1000 1 C 41 01 — » re k m re — ^ O vlk fl x-^ g, c n- — — -w — 1 E O O *0 k — CO X en k •-4 o in x 41 k k *j 41 re — in x in — 10 m ens<: >> c re — • k too 41 CO 41 cn ■ •Ok oi*> vi 41 re k • 41 VI - Ck k 41 41 k cnx o c E E— 3 k e c 41 k x 41 — wu « k C 4-1 3 O O VI — 00 VI- 4J"0 — — m 3 "o H- O" mo en 41 e 01 re m — c 01 41 O — k x 01 k re 4J c 01 O 41 4-1 ,4-l H. C Ol re x e 41 ST 01— x 3 O 4J o er. • k c x c x o 4J Otl — — U- X 44 k — 10 41 "O — 4J 41 C '44 01 — 41 10 Ck X E — . t— 1 re i o — U 41 O C 41 k — — Ck Ck re m it- o x k x 3—41 m 41 e — x — — ■ ■O 44 k — ai 01 x 44 u- 41 m o k m — 41 m — VI 40 e u 3 3 e — cl m 41 > o E kaoo 3 44 e mo 01 C m E 41 — k re X k 01 44 01 X c 44 E re C 3 — 44 — CO. X — 44 01 10 *J C X — re 01 44 l 44 x — : C 44 u "O k 01 — c in T3 it- 10 < men- j 41 re 3 c 4 m m in 1- n — e c 44 i O — re eo 44 4 — — T5 — 1 v> re 41 3 > 10 n- c m : co —ci 41 re o 1 c c 44 o 1 re— c E k — — ( k 01 re re j 41 01 E E 4 X k k o 41 41 o 4 CO Q.X U- < u- jr jd v> 4-1 o E — u TO 3 s_ Ol > W" c c z to o f- It- o <0 44 — —I — 44 > u u « « u IO S_ ■a io (O •>- IO <_) Ol a. 3 S_ «_»oo en — TO 4-1 c • n tic C 01 — Ol > jo o — 14- en C 44 3 TO s- u IO VI • TO — to Ol «*• 44 to U T) O 01 3 s-> O C — 43 J3 Ol <4- 3 S- 44 c «t- 4-1 IO T0 — 44 TO VJ — s- c — O TO 44 TO ooo IO U — ex >. c 01 — . 0) c/i TO en It. ■a io io c on o IO i— 1 ■O S. 44 u • in ••» cms. Ol IO o> to — 44 o 44 44 IO • u_ io a. (- •— a. — c 44 E Ol Ol IO s_ woin o o • TO VI e «3- It- O. © 01 L. — J. O Ol co cd ai X Ol • 0£ en to co > Ol 10 -H o> c Ol — C VI 44 4J i- — 43 cc o 3 — «t- to en 4-> Ol 10 • c s. en ■a to l. >>cu X- Ol 01 S- O Ol o o via 1- L, VI M- IO J3 Ol i- v> O • V) L. c > • O 0> CTv *-> u. o >>— e Q-^ (fl^. u -4£ u ex o ■M a.© Ol ai 3 o — •— i. O CLJC >- •4-> u en O C O 1 V) 44 ■o oi oi 3UU «s to S. V) C£ to g I c c en io c e >>oo o IO — J- c ■ Sen s: u. o U S- 1 o*— o ■x ecr* CO io 01 3 T> c in en c u. • 43 >- IO . 3 f— 1 44 •— oo o a o 00 TO to > • < IO en c c «. u_ jo ex *■ 3 T3 U 44 IO E ^_ ^» Ol !- e oi io c oi 4-j 43 10 «. • <3- C io je C oi oo u 3 c OCVJ (O IO OO VI 3 = IO a £ O E io S • a. tn u-j •o >> 4-1 en . VI a L LO ■0 «- CIO c 4J H- • C i- Ol 01 z O i- ro L. IO Ol O CL IO > Ol C 4-1 j= en -o <-> >5 — CCO ID «5 Ol VI o . «£> > Ol ■»• 4-1 > CL U IO 1 a. JC *J io en en IO C 3E IO ■»-> Q. Ol c c L ■O 1 (-> io «o <_ ai • Ol 43 LU i- CL ■D »-H O O 4J 43 4-> 43 C LOO J3 Z n- 4-" Vf VI 3 3 O 1 i- E •o ■a o io 4-J j=s .a f» Ol 3 • C • L. C C 3 C a kvs O.I— (J O VIO O 10 VI io 3 .— o • vi 01 Q. L. O VI ■DIO Q.(_> OO 4-i — "a en en i_ oi GL Ol C < ■a oi -o Ol c C O 73 44 IO VI o C J= • > 3 4= •>" t- (J c L. O >) IO VI IO Ol 4-> VI en en 3 Oi e e«% VI — 4J 4-> VI "- "O -a >i 4-1 o s. +J r~ ■0 •"O*' e — oi C 43 s- 1- i. Ol 01 c *-> u 1. L. o U- O 3 •O -O < E JD ra c 3u n Ol CO o — a. £ CL ■O o O « L .*-» • 4-> C it- Oi • IO c t- +* VI X- C vi io rs O UW»-N 01 44 I. c c Ol o o 4-1 M C • L. 1—1 _J IO *» o o * "- 4-> io r> 01 cm 44 o v» — O •0 en 3 c • c ex H- IO •*- AJ Ol ■*-> 01 VI o o IO 01 O c "ei io vi j= — ee 01 — • Q.44 • JC N L. S- 4-* 01 U O CO = c c 1. ■o- VI c oi en oi ■o c u --0010 ■a JZ t- 01 u- o SS Ol - IO 4-1 3 1- i- S c O U J£ S. L. L. s: en 1 u Ol 3 •o ai c T 40 en en C > >- C 9I> 10 1- • r^ Ol U OO • c c O 1- — 4J 3 nv ".JCX =«= L. 3 IO ft ■»» UJ — CCT3 E io o en el in O 1— u. c 00 u ■w C •<- i. O — 1 •— IO K 4J -C 10 00 o en clv- IO J. IO i— 43 C 3 — O V) C =3 v> •— 1 VI o i- Ol Ol Ol IO •W IO u en en u U 4-1 > • • • e L. Ol VI • Ol ■—I V) i- Hi- O. L. ■D S. I. 01 4-1 J= s. 01 a. • oo a. S s. <*- Ol . -O O O CL c 1— 01 cn LOl 1. Lu — > 3 3 43 42 Q. E J- J- it- en u • 01 IO 10 10 01 •— 01 rt£Q. 00 VI • 3Z X X en • Of co 3^ >» 00 « OIM C O • en r-v t-4 en CO J-> E en • r-4 =«fc IO VI VI 4^ cn 00 01 **=* i_ H£ 91 Ol •0 >>>>o PH cn U IO C9U44UJ • -ci 0O •o um •— C 3 • jr ai • VI C r» e «t- •*• u- io "a =3 • *J CO VI •— • 10 T- O O • 3 c L. en cn C IO Ol c 43 O e VI 44 L. VI L > ■a 0) 10 Ol s X ^ —1 3 3 Ol VI 1 c ■fM Ol C 44 44 c Ol ■»- JO S- 44) • TO Ol 1 en 10 IO c -c e 43 VI 01 Ol VI O VI C X Ol C — 4C vi E O int4 O? f 01 1-" VI ■O e ■— "O Ol 11 44 C IO 44 43 O VI 44 44 4-> — u 01 ■0 c ai — e C 43 e jz •— CL O Ol V) U 01 c O 44 10 43lt- 4J~ — -o — IO 10 10 IO 44 1— 3 TO U C 4= "O 01 01 TO Ol Ol r— It- IO u 44 O C IO ■— 3 Ol — o>— E — — >t- OI>— — '- JZ Ol E vi 43 >.-6 — ■O C 44 O 4-> S- 44 h- t— S- 01 E 10 — e 3 3 44 VI — — 14- C >i u a it- vi 1/1 en 44 IO 4= IO TO 44 Ol IO ex x vi «c 44 Ol 4-1 VI 3 44 O O ex .e 10 1 c c Ol L. VI VI Ol Ol 01 C E im 01 io e > e vi t- C O CL 3 4-> t. u 11 OIO»- 0) c cn X E"0 s- c c . O Ol 10 Ol VI — 3 01 • — eno jz J2 — — VI L. — VI ex vi E O S vi vi CL IO — s- X <*- VI ^ E43 01 •— >4J en ■a Ol t- IO 10 to en e 44 > u- S- S- JC »— 01 — — 44 — s- en4-> U "O VI e E +4 VI «- 01 — 01 en— — ->-|4-l — (. ■o 01 01 •0 VI C 44 1— 3 l. e X s- 01 44 IO Q. 14- 44 J. E Ol O) C L. 44 0) Ol — Ol T3 44 S. 44 >l O •> O OJ" Ol —J O VI 43 u a. j: « Oi- E > 01 S- C 10 10 T3 O VI CL Ol Ol O 43 CL S- C CL O 01 c 01 10 en 01 t- 01 vi 44 s: 43 c Ol 43 Ol 3 — -O Ol C O VI 3 L. 44 VI O. O S. 44 O —I M uo- S- 4-> 3 Ol -3 44 -O u c 4-* U Ol T3 3 TO VI — C Q. O — • — > a. ■O 01 Ol 3 4-> L. ■0 > 01 ai to — O 3 44 O Ol C LU 44 0) O 44 IO l/l VI tsl >> CL VI — 10 <— 10 — — J- E *— VI t- 10 — Ol 44 X s_ — u e to E — vi s. a. c s_ u 10 c •— VI 44 44 3 e p-T3 4i 44 t. 44 JC l-O C1I4) Ol TO 3 — 10— 44 VI 44 VI CL Ol 10 •— — — u 10 vi en 44 S- — a. 10 — > 01 — 3 s. •a 44 — vi e 01 VI 44 E-O 3 0) — — 10 it- — 01 c — 3 a, — 01 — 44 O VI 44 CO O) It- O 4-> 10 01 44 3 43 c e 4-> er j. io 43 4= • 43 CL O E L. n- X 43 44 Ol C U VI IO 5 cn O 44 VI «— .C IO ■0 — 01 IO ■O — U VI 43 at u 44 — 1— U J= Ol ex 3 — >> - 1- ro « 3fO e — ■0 O 01 — ■0 — • 44 i. Ol TO VI 10 0. ai 4» E U 44 ai cc c e v> en c — 10 44 01 — 43 44 01 cn<4_ to io — O 4= c c c C 4-> Z L. Ol VI VI — 3 01 10 e 01 vi 01 it- 43 u 14- VI JZ 01 c — 3 JZ 44 O IO O >* Lu • — cn— — — c 01 -l-i 43 -E — O S_ IO g 43 L. u T3 0) 44 U — O U VI OS. — 44 oz c: TO c CL JC TO — c 44 — It- JZ E 44 Ol O vi 10 44 1— CL io 44 e u- 01 to l. oi en 10 44 1 O O CO— • E 44 Ol u O) 10 10 44 en 5 — C 44 Ol u 3 O VI O 44 Ol C 01 (J C JC E 10 44 s- c — 44 S. TO 44 c — ~— l/l 0J ■» e • X— O L. 10 01 -«- 0. 01 t- IO 44 10 U 43 c uj c 44 jz E IO <*- > L. IO 3 3 O 10 10 TO 01 TO c • s. HI OO <7- *?r5 2: s- •a cn«t- — .e VI i\~ ~~! VI 01 — IO LU 01 01 — 44 < E O C 44 — 00 *- C9 C 10 01 e 44 •— LU e «4i >iu u cn-»- VI CLJO •^ O VI S • X it- in e 44 u c -co iyl a. P-' U 4-> O VI — — CLO 3 — 43 10.— •— E 3 — (O Ol O g-J 01 — en 44 c 01 C o> 01 x Ol O Ol — 43 O (j u- 4-> IO — >>T0 L. J- Ol C — ■a 10 ex 00 v_ c Ol O Ol — 01 O. U 4C O 44 — VI O • VI ai •^ VI 3 io a.43 Oi E Ol E 44 44 vi 01 jo f jz a VI Ol O — 01 4C 4-» 44 C — VI VI 01 >, E v> 01 %- O IO VI T3 JZ 44 43 •0 — e — 10 — s_ 40 01 IO C 10 01 CL IO in 01 JO s_ c 4J eno L. C C 44 >> Ol S- 10 O — VI TO 1— O JC L. 10 43 3 IO 44 en 3 4-> e > TO a L— 10 CM S- Ol 43 O — — ai am 4-> E s- IO 43 E IO e - 01 10 43 — VI JZ O VI !_ 43 C 44 44 TO 44 3 OO > 3 44 C — CO O e 1 ai t- 4-1 la c > 01 10 en 01 1- 44 VI VI Ol 44 — Ol Ol 44 — c U4Jf- C TO 3 Ol • 44 vi > a.— e IO VI 3 — 14-" — X VI U- O O E it- O CO VI LO OT3 4J C 10 01 vi "O O 10 — Ol e — 3 10 IO O X >> Ol O X <- — en— — 01 c — t- VI C CL 44 L. 01 44 4O I. Ol vi a. 01 c a> Ol > VI i/> > • IO Ol JC — s- JO JC u — c E JO TO > 01 E 43 44 — VI 31- Jioiu s- Ol E 44 vi 14- 01 44 44 C > TO IO VI 10 > u Ol — VI e -ci vi 44 IO i. IO VI L. 44 C <4- enjc •>- vi X — 01 Ol— JC 01 >>— L. 44 01 Ol 43 CL IO — • 10 10 E Ol Ol _OJi- — Ol L. TO i. C E VI C 44 44 01 O 44 X it- 4-> L> 3 U TO — — > L. 44 44 c Ol -— 01 vi cn =ST0 - LC O — c > O 43 L. > 01 10 V) L. VI i-Ti- U TO — > — It- TO 3 S- Ol S- X O VI U IO IO VI u- >> O • <— Ol 01 10 s- Ol C 44 VI O 44 10 43 Ol — — IO JO Ol C O 10 44 01 01 it- l/l c L. = VI i— 43 Ol U 4= CL3 14- 1- 10 14- U- JC 1— JO IO VI E IO TO VI 01 O — VI JC s. J. Ol IO 44 44 C TO VI VI S- • It- 01 4-J 3 IO »"^ IO 3 O .— 01 X"0) — O l VI Ol 44 44 C VI E c >— ci- •1- 01 44 O IO CL— 1- IO C in 01 — — S. Ol JC — 01 !— 4- 4-> AY GRAYS i N Hf\RBOR to Hoquiam — \? Schematic of fill areas in M.U. 12. Cross-hatch represents areas subject to fillino -in Phase I Development. c. This uncertainty led to the plan's provisions for phased filling and the need to conduct a monitoring program prior to making any decision on Area 3. Phase I filling (Area 2) could take up to 10 years or longer to fill and airport relocation is a long-term (i.e., possibly 15 years or more away) proposal. Likewise, the potential impacts associated with Area 4 fill would have to be evaluated in the future based upon future circumstances and impacts associated with Area 2 and Area 3 fills. On March 3, 1983, OCRM staff met with Drs. J. P. Myers, (Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia), S.E. Senner (Hawk Mountain Sanctuary Association) and M.A. Howe (U.S.F&WS) to discuss the GHEMP proposal and to solicit information on the possible impacts of GHEMP implementation to the large populations of shorebirds during migration and the winter months. Concern was expressed about the effects of any additional filling in the Bowerman Basin. However, if a decision was made to fill Area 2, a monitoring program should be in place before any filling was begun. The following procedures were recommended to be used as baseline and for possible follow-up studies. (1). Census. Conduct censuses of shorebirds in Bowerman Basin and surrounding portions of Grays Harbor at regular intervals throughout the year, with effort intensified during the period of migration (especially spring). Census methodology must be consistent and replicable, but actual methods could be determined at a later time. (2). Color-Marking. An intensive color-marking study should be initiated in order to determine both normal patterns of movement of individuals within the estuary and rates of turnover of birds during migration. These studies will help answer the question of site fidelity of individuals and permit more accurate estimates of total numbers of birds using the area during migra- tion. (3). Body Condition. Changes in Bowerman Basin may affect shore- bird food supply or intensify competition between individuals. This may result in deteriorating body condition or attenuated rates of pre-migratory fat depo- sition. Birds trapped for marking should be weighed and examined for molt or other indicators of health. (4). Invertebrates. The invertebrate prey population should be systematically sampled throughout the year, not only to determine distribution and numeric abundance, but also to determine size distributions and caloric content. This should be done in both natural and reclaimed areas. (5). Use of Reclaimed Areas. Shorebird use of reclaimed areas after the development has been initiated should be carefully monitored. They stressed the importance that the work be started as soon as possible if the plan is approved, so that baseline patterns and natural levels of variability can be established. This would allow for a more quantitative assessment of impact. 2. OCRM Assessment a. OCRM concurs in the assessment of impacts made by the F&WS for American peregrine falcon habitat protection in MU 12 based on their December 11, 1981 opinion. That assessment is based on the protection and enhancement C-46 provisions to the falcon's habitat and prey base, the shorebirds. OCRM offers these additional thoughts on potential impacts to shorebirds. There is a likelihood for some adverse impacts to occur which will be associated with the discharge of dredged or fill material in MU 12 and subsequently with land use activities permitted under the plan. Those impacts could be significant or non-significant depending on a number of variables (i.e., there is uncertainty as to the degree of severity of impact on the populations of shorebirds). Adverse impacts could result from a direct loss of some of the bird habitat and possibly due to added stress (i.e., in addition to being hunted by predatory hawks and falcons, adverse weather conditions, normal competition for food and space) placed on the shorebirds through noise, light and perhaps water quality. (1). The worst case scenario would result if all shorebird utili- zation of the Bowerman Basin were to cease as a result of land use activities in Areas 2, 3 and 7, even though a majority of the now existing prime feeding and roosting habitat will be preserved and/or reestablished under mitigation and enhancement. The most severe impacts should they occur would be to winter- ing populations of dunlins and migrant populations of western sandpipers which tend to favor the area in large numbers. Impacts might occur as a result of some unacceptable level of stress to the birds in which they avoid the area, not as a result of direct mortality from construction because of the birds mobility to avoid such impacts. The impacts may be short-term or long-term. Mortality among shorebirds can be attributed to a number of factors including inclement weather conditions on the breeding grounds or during the winter months, lack of food, pesticides, diseases, predation, and not having enough body fat when the birds arrive at the breeding grounds which may lead to lower reproductive success (Senner, personal communication). The latter would affect future population growth rather than result in direct mortality. (a). Figure C- 9 shows four hypothetical time-related impact response patterns to organisms disturbed by construction in wetland ecosystems. Since GHEMP contemplates phased filling and activities occuring over a long- term period (10-15 years), pattern C (Delayed Response), may best represent potential impacts under a worst case scenario in which the birds are inhibited from further utilization of the remaining habitat. Naturally, the response pattern is highly simplified since it represents a view of a stable population base which in essence does not exist. If bird response is less severe and the birds continue to use the Bowerman Basin but to a lesser extent because the total carrying capacity has been diminished, then pattern D (Substitution), line (a) is the best representation of potential impacts. (b). Table C-7 shows generalized biological response pat- terns to increased levels of environmental stress to individuals, populations, species or communities. Increased stress will tend to force greater competi- tion of the best remaining resources and force the more sensitive or less tolerant individual birds to utilize less desirable habitat thereby creating certain behavioral and physiological debilitating effects such as reducing resistence to disease, predation or causing mortality during cold winters. The chief concern regarding destruction of habitat is whether the habitat is unique and whether the wildlife using it can be absorbed into alternate habitat. In light of the fact that Grays Harbor is the northern-most large protected bay on the Pacific coast south of Alaska, an action undertaken which would reduce the capacity of Grays Harbor to offer a resting and feeding place for migrating or overwintering birds would be considered a negative effect. While no absolute C-47 A. ORIGINAL LEVEL / / / INHIBITION RECOVERY NO EFFECT OR CHRONIC EFFECT B. STIMULATION CHRONIC EFFECT C LAG TIME INHIBITION D. / •* o * b i SUBSTITUTION CHRONIC MODIFICATION CONSTRUCTION PERIOD TIME »»- Figure (S9» Time-related patterns of wetland ecosystem response to construction disturbance. A. Elimination followed by complete (a) or partial (b) recovery. B. Stimulation followed by depression. C. Delayed response. D. Substi- tution response. Source: Darnell 1976 (EPA-600/3-76-045) C-48 o C " > u •h a oo co eo s •H 01 o c C o. a 01 U) 3 1) .-^ S OS O o o -J 1—1 o 71 03 XI 0) 01 ^H > o u CO C JJ 01 ti c > c -H —\ c £ 1— 1 0) U 1-| 03 <4-l 3 J) o tj to c 71 01 01 H i-l 71 11 U > U c 01 C o ' H Ui jj tj A3 01 • C en c ■H 03 S c a O <0 i-l -M 00 ft Li XI 10 o nj c 33 Li r-1 01 CO 4-1 O U i-l C S3 00 M 0. o D f-< 4-1 SI o JJ CO H 1) CJ 01 u •w .-i CO Ul O JJ -t c O 01 !0 •H U -o X> 11 c IM 11 TJ u-> u 0] 03 03 u u O 01 11 -rJ C > tj o u ■H 3 O jj tj B •H II u a c O 03 01 u n n u u •< •H 0) X U U U —i a. XI (0 CO U 01 o > 1-1 1-1 4-1 i-t O 10 7] TJ c II 3 01 -C XI E a a a CO 3 CO CJ tI Tl C -I 01 U —I en u x •m 3 01 Li 01 E oi ui XI ai it a 3 C 11 it a c CO 10 Hi en U CO Xi -H i-l JJ U i-l 01 TJ t« C U i-l jj O >> O. OO 0) r-t U C II -I 01 «H tI 01 W > O "O u ^ i-l 60 U C 01 JJ I-t CO 01 > TJ TJ C Li - 3 O CO CJ 71 4 u c e 3 oi O O TJ C •H K ^ » w u > oo 03 U — I 4J 3 a a. n O u-i cfl u C 01 CO U C ui o O iH X " I 0) -H > en -I c a. ui EO.cn E H CJ CO wi 3 tj o tj 01 Tl CJ SS > 3 JJ Tl -a t* tj OH B OS "H -H I C it o -o II CO O iH ■rt O 4-1 U 01 C 41 • n i-i en 00 O — I e co 01 3 g U -o O O -H V) M- > I i C l ^H u c OI l «-> 1) 71 a v4-i c 01 11 I-l O CJ 01 C CO •o B • en O >. c u 4-1 -H en •a co 71 u u-i U 01 u 01 0) iH iH i-t co c i-l X J= CO o x; i-i CJ 3 en u CO V 0) a. co e a. 71 4-1 E en C 01 en .-4 c o Bl H 01 (0 u 01 • ;►> u > T3 en 01 ■d B 1-1 71 iH 01 I-i en u o "4-1 11 4-1 4-1 O co CO Ui 1-1 i-4 ■H co w a) x: U-i c O en C -H u 00 4) c •H U CJ 3 1-1 ■H a 01 S 01 c at 01 en 1 sa en ih a i-i z l 4-1 • ar oi 01 4-1 > cfl ■H C 4-1 1-1 1-4 E co -^ c ^ 01 U en en u C en O O -^ s: *-> ey en • i > o ?^ » rl H 4J i-l 4-1 iH 3 i-l 0) 71 cl en cj )-■ c c u CL 01 II > 10 JC Tl w -O C 00 « CO C 71 CJ |4 rl Hrl 01 0) CO 4-1 i-l O 3 01 OHTJ C (J Tl tl CO > 00 4-1 C i-l II) O 13 00 O -H c c 3E 4J -H iH I co 4J CO en 3 O -o S -H > V4-I -H O T3 C C Tl o Tl 01 4-1 > CO -4 c <-> Tl -1 E en Tl c i-i oi uj en l CO CJ E 01 U CO > 01 01 -H XI S i-i o o ■H C 4-1 CO s-, u CO i-l CO CJ I-l 3 S 3 0) a. -a > Ob CI i-i a, o oe -a i i u •a C cj CO c 01 CJ I-i •H 0) tH vw O I- XI 01 CO 4J 4-1 C eu i-i a t4 0) co E i-i o o C/3 i-l I 11 o. E o 01 4-1 4J U CO o oi -a u„ CJ 0) C I-i •>% 03 a. i-i JJ -H CO TJ 'J Tl C CO en eg ex 01 ej • 3 >> ■a u 0) Tl ai —i I 1) Tl CJ CO 3 CO ■O I- 01 CO ex a ea a CJ o Tl TJ 4J 1) CJ CJ 3 3 T3 ■O O 01 U OH Cl. I 0) ■o O •z. II •o c 3 • "O -4 CO CO o 3 tI TJ ■h en > en Tl U Li I I TJ et) eu U Lt co a. a. TJ o c 4-1 CS TlHH tl CO XI 3 -H TJ 1J 0) 01 a. CJ en 3 TJ c U a. en 4) i-l CJ TJ CO TJ C iJ 3 C 3 - ■ t) CO CO C 0) o 41 TJ 4J rl 3 C Tl 4-1 XI co co co CO 41 )-l 00 c o t| . U TJ cj u 3 H TJ i-t CO 1- 4J O. I-i 01 3 Oi CJ I iJ c <4-< O i-i O co a. o> E l-i o CO 01 . Tl TJ cj a) II 4-1 a. co en c 01 B Tl co CJ TJ 41 S a. 3 CO XI CO i-i a t) >n 71 Tl I-i IJ o --< t t CO TJ O -H H Cv. O x> CO 1-1 u a 71 CO a c o 01 iH x; u 4-1 CQ Cfl :h 3 ■-I TJ C Tl o > I 3 a. • CL 01 > ' 4-1 T| c > CO I- U 3 01 CO TJ , C TJ ^ eu eg cj a 3 TJ -4 4> 01 Li > 41 U t-I XI C " O O •H C 1-1 CO 3^ i— I CO 3 a W 01 H CL O CO e s O I- a. o u X • 41 TJ CJ c C CO 11 HO > <•> CI -rl -H CO > > 01 CO I tj a) c 3 HI o* D 00 c O CJ cu 3 H TJ XI O i-l u en a. co u o OS CL I >* ?■ 01 Li U > 01 in LO o I c OJ u a) s- jj 13 o H CO C-4 9 prediction on the numbers of birds which may be adversely impacted can be made with any degree of assurance, the following findings of Goss-Custard (1979) which are based upon research conducted in England estuaries on the effect of habitat loss on the numbers of overwintering shorebirds suggest that filling of Area's 2 and 3 may lead to a decrease in the numbers of shorebirds, but only to the extent that there is a food shortage which is already contributing to winter mortality. Goss-Custard found that: Shorebirds are not spread out evenly over intertidal flats. Some are used more than others and may be considered as preferred feeding grounds for possibly a number of reasons (i.e., close to roosting site, high densities of prey organisms). If a large part of the feeding habitat is lost, some birds may go to other sites which may be non-preferred sites or if they stay will increase the density and the competition for a smaller prey base. Observations imply that there is a limit to the number of birds that can exploit any preferred feeding areas that remain after a development has taken place and indicate that more feeding would be done, presumably by subdominant individuals, in the less suitable areas. A reduction in feeding area might result in birds leaving the estuary altogether. However, an increase in density levels might occur in preferred areas because a clear ceiling density is not reached, and an increase in competition for space might force birds to tolerate higher densities. An increase in bird densities may not affect survival unless birds already have difficulty in obtaining food requirements at some time between August and May. The abundance of available food for some shorebirds may decline during the winter suggesting that food may be relatively difficult to collect at that time of the year. The decline may be due to loss of body weight, less accessible (buried deeper in the mud), etc. Younger individuals being less experienced and subdominant to adults may be the ones most likely to be forced into the less profit- able feeding areas and may be the ones most at risk. Goss-Custards studies indicate that the most critical time for shorebirds may be during the winter months during times of prolonged inclement weather if and when a food shortage exists. (Goss-Custard's work does not address the effects of habitat loss on migrants, only overwintering birds.) There is no current evidence to support the prospect that a worst case scenario will occur in the future based upon the previous actions taken in and around the Basin. Many hundreds of acres have been filled to the east of the Basin and while the birds have been denied those acres from further utilization, they continue to use the Basin in large numbers. Likewise, the fact that large numbers of birds continue to use the Basin in numbers is no evidence against the possibility of the worst case scenario occuring. What may be occuring here is a situation in which incremental losses are tolerated up to a certain threshold. Without knowing historic use levels, it is hard to say whether present use represents a healthy situation. (2). In addition to habitat loss, a second negative impact asso- ciated with filling and dredged material disposal is potential degradation of water quality. A confined disposal site for material dredged from the water, and by overflow of the dredged material over the confining dike. Overflow of the dredged material may occur as a result of dike failure which C-50 seldom happens in the Seattle District of the Corps of Engineers. When dike failures occur, a slurry of dredged material, turbid water, and possible harmful pollutants enters the surrounding environment. If the slurry enters a water body, several ecological impacts may occur: o the material could spread out in a fan covering benthic materials or interfere with filter-feeding organisms; or o toxic pollutants could enter the surrounding ecosystem and be taken up through the food chain. Likewise, seepage through the dike may release soluble pollutants. The dredged material to be disposed in Area 2 would most kikely be form the navigation chan- nel as part of the widening and deepening project or by maintenance dredge dis- posal until the area is filed. The navigation channel does contain pollutants and has recently been analyzed by the Corps of Engineers for the proposed widening and deepening project. The majority of the polluted sediments would be disposed of in Port Slip #1. However, if polluted material were disposed in Area 2 (164) acres), it is unlikely that a water quality problem will exist even if there is a dike failure given the dilutiion factor relating to the area in which the disposal would be confined (Seattle Corps of Engineers, personal communication, 1983). (3). There is also a possibility in which there will be no significant adverse impacts. Some of the reasons which may account for this include: (a). Area 2 would be filled first allowing the birds time to adjust to the modified' environment. Area 2, while not an insignificant shorebird feeding and roosting site is apparently of lesser significance than other sites in MU 12. There is evidence of the ability of shorebirds to adjust to new environments and utilize new feeding grounds (Fry 1981). (b). The peninsula would be extended creating additional protection from wave action and severe storms. (c). Additional roosting habitat would be created along the west and north borders of Area 2 providing a greater mosaic of habitat (including marsh habitat), albeit at the expense of some intertidal feeding habitat. (d). The land use activities in Area 2 may not prove to be severe enough to place stress on the birds. There will be buffer vegetation provided which will shelter the birds from intense human activities most of which would occur near the navigation channel and loading docks. Train move- ment around the perimiter may not be especially adverse as train activities are or have been common on both sides of the estuary for many years. However, the intensity of train movement and noise will depend on many factors which cannot be fully evaluated at this time. Likewise, if after Area 2 has been filled and a determination of non-significant impact is made with respect to impacts on shorebirds and falcons and Area 3 is filled, the land use will con- sist only of relocation of the airport runway north of the existing field. C-51 The existing Bowerman Airfield has apparently not adversely impacted the shore- birds for approximately 40 years. The birds are known to use the airfield for roosting. While birds take to flight now and then upon approaching aircraft, they have continuously utilized the Basin over these many years. (4). The severity of adverse impacts cannot be quantitatively or even qualitatively identified at this time as was pointed out in the F&WS opinion. This is the reason there is a need to monitor activities and make further assessments in the future during the various phases of activities. There are a number of reasons an accurate assessment of the full impacts assoc- iated with MU 12 implementation cannot be made. (a). Bird populations are highly variable from day to day, month to month, season to season and year to year and estimating impacts related to a single variable (e.g., Area 2 fill) versus population fluctuations is extremely difficult if not impossible, particularly for migratory birds. Assessment may require many years of monitoring prior to being able to make an estimate of impacts, especially since so much of the important habitat is being protected. Figure C-10 shows the only long-term data which exists re- garding bird counts made during the annual Audubon Christmas Bird count for Grays Harbor. These yearly counts were made around the middle of December over the last 10 years by approximately 40 individuals who covered the whole estuary and adjacent uplands. Wintering populations of dunlin varied from 7,965 in 1972 to 95,000 in 1976. During two years (1977, 1979) there were drops in the population of 55,000 birds. As far as is known, no evaluation has been undertaken of this wide fluction of populations of dunlins in Grays Harbor. Leadbetter Point, in Willapa Bay is shown by comparison. It shows a steadier population level. However, Leadbetter Point is only one part of Willapa Bay. During the winter of 1974 when the Audubon count for Leadbetter Point was approximately 4,000 birds, the U.S. F&WS made a count of 50,000 dunlins for the entire estuary. That same year the count for Grays Harbor was 40,000 dunlin. In 1980, the Audubon bird count was 28,000 dunlin and Dr. Steven G. Herman estimated 40,000 dunlin present in the harbor (Herman and Bulger 1981). All this points out the extreme variability of bird populations due perhaps to census taking, timing, environmental conditions, breeding success, and other factors which may or may not be related to habitat destruction. There- fore, counts which may differ by several thousands on a monthly or yearly basis because of many different potential reasons make impact assessment even more difficult. (b). Length of feeding time. Herman and Bulger (1981) and Anderson (1980) point out that one of the reasons the Bowerman Basin is im- portant is because it provides the shorebirds with a longer feeding time (1-2 hours) as the tide ebbs and flows. There is a question if the one to two hours is of major significance to the shorebirds and their survival or preparation for flight up to Alaska. Future studies would have to be conducted to determine if the birds which utilize Bowerman Basin have greater increases in body weight during their winter stay or for the short stopover time they stay during migration as a result of this extra feeding time. Fifty to sixty percent of the shorebirds which utilize the estuary apparently do not have or take advantage of this extra feeding time. To date, there is no indication that they do not survive the trip to Alaska or are any better or worse off than the birds using Bowerman Basin; or that there is a greater mortality rate during "harsh" winters for birds which utilize the other feeding and roosting C-5 2 FIGURE C-10. DUNLIN WINTER POPULATION COUNTS GRAYS HARBOR and LEADBETTER PT., WILLAPA BAY 100,000 I 90,000 Grays 1 terbor 80,000 70,000 60,000 . i 50,000 (U.S. F&WS, 1975) 40,000 1 (Herman 1981) 30,000 20,000 10,000 j r l eadbet ter Pt. ^N I 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 SOURCE: AMERICAN BIRDS, Audubon Chrismas Bird Counts. C-53 sites. If this extra feeding time does provide some advantage to the birds, then Area 2 fill is the least environmentally damaging alternative in MU 12 (other than no fill) since it does not provide the birds with the extra feeding time like the Basin does. Likewise, Area 3 fill would cause greater adverse impacts. (c). Related to the length of feeding time is the still unanswered question of the difficulty of the migratory flight from Grays Harbor to Alaska. Some bird experts believe that the approximately 1,000 mile (1,600 kilometer) flight from Grays Harbor to Alaska during spring migration is extremely demanding and requires the birds to replenish fat reserves in order to make the arduous flight. Hence, the importance of the Grays Harbor estuary as the last major stopover south of Alaska. This assumes that the two to five day stopover time is sufficient to replenish fat reserves and that there would be a gain in weight during this time. This is one of the items which should receive further study in the coming years. It also assumes that the birds do not make additional stopovers in other locations to feed and rest. Senner (1981) reports that the estimated flight range capabilities for western sandpipers in the Copper-Bearing River Deltas system is about half the mean estimated range of dunlins 600 + 77 km (R = 177 - 1081 km) compared to 1260+89 km (R = 744 - 1791 km). These are distances that could not propel the birds Washington to Alaska on a non-stop flight. These figures are based upon body weight and fat reserves and the flight ranges are scientifically estimated. At the same time, Senner and Martinez (1982) have also found that the potential flight ranges of migrant western sandpipers in spring have been found in excess of 2,000 km which is enough to allow the birds to make the non-stop flight. So there is a great deal of variability in the capabilities of the birds which makes it difficult to come to any definitive conclusions. Based upon his work in Alaska, Senner hypothesized that dunlins tended to migrate by extended, non-stop flights, while western sandpipers tended to stop more frequently (i.e., a series of relatively short "hops") between the Copper-Bering River Delta systems and the western Alaskan breeding grounds (a distance of 600-700 miles (1,000 km). Senner, et. al., (1981) points out that there is no direct basis for evaluating the extent to which either species makes non-stop flights from Washington and southern British Columbia to Alaska without conducting extensive survey work along the intervening coast. Another point of view is provided by Kaiser (1981). In concluding from obser- vations and studies on the western sandpiper conducted in the Fraser River Delta of British Columbia, Kaiser states that "although the migrations cover long distances and adhere to a specific schedule, neither the northward nor the southward movements seemed to be particularly rigorous" and "because the birds forego a large build-up of weight which might be associated with an arduous overwater flight, they may undertake a more gradual migration using the many small estuaries and beaches that dot the British Columbia coast. I have observed western and other Calidris sandpipers on the sandy beaches of Mclntyre Bay on the Queen Charlotte Islands and on the gravel bars in Big Bay just west of Prince Rupert during both spring and fall migration. Neither area contains any typical mudflat communities but they are used by thousands of shorebirds in the absence of more preferred habitats." Thus, it may be, for western sandpipers at least, that Grays Harbor is not the last stopover for at least some portion of the population prior to arriving at the Copper-Bering River Delta system. Senner (1979) found that the mean body C-5 4 weights of western sandpiers did not change during the feeding and resting period in the Delta system prior to flying to other intermediary stops before arriving at the breeding grounds. Senner concludes that the fact that their mean body weights do not change across the C-BDR system does not diminish the value of the system as a habitat in which individual birds can replenish fat reserves needed for migration and reproduction. (d). There are several unanswered questions with respect to the carrying capacity of the Grays Harbor estuary. Given the variability of the bird populations and also the different densities and utilization rates of the various sites within the estuary, it is difficult to predict what the carrying capacity of a feeding area may be. If birds are forced because of competition (spatial or feeding) to other sites, there is no knowledge that other sites within the harbor like Wakina Flats, etc., are less desirable or do not have the capacity during any particular point in time to feed additional birds. During the 1981 spring migration, Bowerman Basin use varied from a number of 400,000 on April 23 to 6,700 on May 13 and Bottle Beach from 130,000 on April 25 to 900 on May 13. Populations fluctuated daily and birds moved from one area to another. Herman and Bulger (1981) reported movement of shorebirds as a temporal shift in migration from the South Bay to the North Bay area before and after April 27 and believed the shift was indicative of a migrational shift as the shorebirds moved in the direction of their northern nesting grounds. This would be opposed to a belief that the carrying capacity of South Bay had diminished to such an extent that it could no longer support vast numbers of birds, although such a possibility can not be ruled out. With respect to dunlins and western sandpipers use of the estuary, there is no clear cut indica- tion that other areas in the harbor are less productive or are not capable of supporting larger populations if some of the birds are displaced, with the possible exception of the inner harbor area. It may never be known to what extent the birds are concentrating on less "optimal" tideflats and roosting sites than previously and whether or not this has resulted in a decrease in the population of the species. The historical loss of 3,800 acres of tideflats is likely to have had some negative effects on the shorebird populations over time, although all tideflats may not have historically been used to the same degree as the Bowerman Basin. It is not possible to estimate the mortality factor related to the loss of this habitat over the many years because empirical data and studies are lacking. Herman and Bulger (1981) state that there is no way now to estimate the long term impact of the intertidal habitat destruction that has taken place in the Grays Harbor estuary historically. Also, there are no records of major winter kills of dunlins in Grays Harbor which can be related to a lack of adequate food. The weather is relatively mild and the estuary doesn't ice over and deny the birds important tideflat feeding grounds. (5). Opinions of shorebird experts. (a). 0CRM has received directly or has been provided copies of a number of letters from shorebird experts who have stated their opinion of the importance of the Bowerman Basin to species of wintering and migratory shorebirds, especially dunlins and western sandpipers. The list of individuals include: C-5 5 o Dennis R. Paulson o Steven G. Herman o Stanley E. Senner o Edward H. Miller* o Raymond McNeil* o Gary Page* o Joseph R. Jehl , Jr.* o J. P. Myers* o Frank A. Pitelka* o Brian A. Harrington* o Jack Davis Burke Museum, University of Washington Professor, Evergreen State College Hawk Mountain Sanctuary Association Vertebrate Zoology Division, British Columbia Museum University of Montreal, Center for Ecological Research Point Reyes Bird Observatory Hubbs-Sea World Research Institute The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia Professor, University of California, Berkely Manomet Bird Observatory Black Hills Audubon Society * These individuals wrote letters of concern to Dr. Dennis R. Paulson and were provided to OCRM through Mr. David Ortman, Friends of the Earth. Their view- points are appreciated and their comments on the PDEIS are encouraged. With Dr. Paulson's permission, copies of their letters are included for the record as an addendum to attachment C. (b). Summarizi to any fill and industrial development Grays Harbor as a whole, but especiall stopover location for migratory shorebi the environmental health of Grays Harbor importance. They believe that any fil activities will have immediate as well both wintering populations and spring a reduced shorebi rd populations because uctive success because they believe: are opposed believe that a "critical" ng their concerns, they in the Bowerman Basin and y the Bowerman Basin is rds along the Pacific Flyway and that is therefore a matter of international 1 and subsequent industrial land use as long-term detrimental effects for nd fall migrants. The result will be of mortalities or diminished reprod- o there is a lack of alternative feeding and resting sites; o many species return to the same sites each year (site fidelity) and if the habitat is no longer useable, they are incapable of finding new sites and will therefore be unable to replenish fat resources in order to make the "exhausting" flight to Alaska stopover grounds on their way to the breeding grounds; o the impacts of displacement of the Bowerman Basin will affect the shorebi rd populations throughout the entire estuarine system (i.e., have a domino affect). C-5 6 (c). OCRM concurs in the assessment of significance of the Bowerman Basin as being an important habitat for many varieties of birds. It's significance lies mainly in the fact that the Basin apparently provides conditions conducive to providing the birds with preferred feeding and roosting habitat and that the birds utilize the area in large, concentrated numbers. Part of the factors which make the basin a preferred habitat may include physical features which have in part been created through previous dredged disposal and fill activities. It has not been shown to date that there are unique biological features (e.g., the highest density or diversity of prey species like Corophium or other benthic invertebrates) in relation to other parts of the estuary which provide the most food for the least feeding effort per unit of time. This information can most likely be confirmed with subsequent, focused studies. With the GHEMP, the majority of the Bowerman Basin will be preserved in perpetuity for the shorebirds. It is not clear that alternative feeding sites to Area 2 do not exist within the estuary and would not be used by the shorebirds. Implementation of the provisions of MU 12 does have the potential of increasing roosting habitat. Further studies need to be conducted to determine how much the birds increase in body weight (increase fat reserves) during the short stay in Grays Harbor during migration and if the fat reserves are a limiting factor in the birds ability to make a 1,000 mile non-stop flight to Alaska. Future research and observations will provide better answers to these and other questions. 3. Conclusions a. Mitigation and enhancement measures built into the GHEMP and the F&WS opinion include protecting a majority of the existing prime habitat for the shorebirds which favor the Bowerman Basin. At least 400 acres (out of 500) of the Bowerman Basin will be permanently protected with no future threat of filling activities. Some negative impacts should be expected whenever feeding habitat is lost. Area 3 fill would likely produce the most signifi- cant impacts as that area serves most as a late feeding and prime roosting site. It is OCRM's opinion that the impacts will not lead to either heavy mortality factors among the shorebird populations that utilize Area's 2 and 3 or the rest of the estuary based upon the loss of habitat. There is a potential for Bowerman Basin to be utilized even more intensively in the future and that peak migrations may show even greater concentrations of birds until a carrying capacity (during a particularly prolific year) is reached which may differ from year to year. There are several indications and studies which show that the shorebirds are able to adjust to new conditions and surroundings. There have been no reports (historical of recent) which have confirmed major incidences of mortality of shorebirds in Grays Harbor or in the Copper-Bering River Delta systems which may be the next stopover point in the birds migratory route to the western Alaskan breeding grounds. What we are dealing with is uncertainty. In the face of uncertainty and based solely upon the interests of the bird population, caution suggests that there be no additional filling in or near the Bowerman Basin. However, based upon the philosophy which the Task Force has initiated in which they attempted to balance the economic development interests with the preservation interests, the current plan shows a clear attempt by the Task Force at being prudent managers of the resources and seek- ing a balance and management strategy in MU 12 which attempts to provide some foresight into a difficult management decision. Additional assessments will be required in the future to provide further information on which to base final decisions on particular permit applications. C-5 7 ADDENDUM TO APPENDIX C: LETTERS FROM SHOREBIRD EXPERTS IN RESPONSE TO DECEMBER 22, 1982 LETTER WRITTEN BY DR. DENNIS R. PAULSON C-58 THOMAS BURKE MEMORIAL WASHINGTON STATE MUSEUM UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98195 22 December 1982 We are in danger of losing one of the most important shorebird habitats on the Pacific coast, and I would like to ask your help in saving it. Grays Harbor, Washington, furnishes habitat for migrating shorebirds of many species. Of particular importance is Bowerman Basin, a shallow basin of several hundred acres adjacent to Hoquiam. Spring migrant shorebirds use this protected mini-estuary as a staging ground, peaking in the last week of April when hundreds of thousands of birds are present simultaneously (one estimate of 400,000). The basin furnishes low-tide feeding and roosting, high-tide roosting and the most ex- posed flats available for feeding just before and just after high tides. Bowerman Basin is extremely important at that time, and, in addition, it supports flocks of tens of thousands of shorebirds through fall migration. Western Sandpipers, Dunlins and Short-billed Dowitchers are the abundant species, the Dunlin also wintering in the tens of thousands (almost 100,000 in one peak year). Developers and planners in the Grays Harbor Estuary Planning Task Force are trying their utmost to clear the way for the filling of Bowerman Basin or parts thereof for marine-related industries, because it is shallow and convenient to Hoquiam. Local environmentalists and biologists, including Steven G. Herman and myself, have apparently halted the original plan to fill the entire basin, primarily because Peregrine Falcons use the area. Recent modifications of the plan include the filling of as much as one-third of the basin, and the proposed fill sites encompass some of the most valuable feeding and roosting area now used by the birds. No matter how we have tried, we have not entirely convinced all interested parties of the value of this site, certainly the biggest concentration of shorebirds on the west coast south of the Copper River delta. This has been documented -by Herman and John Bulger in a report to the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers in September 1981. We think that with a bit more professional input our statements about these matters will gain more credibility. Could you possibly write a letter to me about the international importance of Grays Harbor and, ^specially, Bowerman Basin? This of course would be based on your professional expertise as a shorebird biologist, and a sentence or two making that expertise clear would be a valuable part of the letter. I hope you will find time in what I know is a busy schedule to write at least a brief letter. David Ortman, of Friends of the Earth in Seattle, has been the most active environmentalist in this process, and he will probably follow up on this by phoning you after the first of the year, as there is a sense of urgency. The Task Force is attempting to wind up its deliberations, and an E.I.S. is being written at this time that could include your comments. My phone number is 206-543-4486 if you have any questions that I might answer; David's is 206-633-1661. Thank you very much for anything you can contribute. Sincerely yours, Dennis R. Paulson Arfincr f!iim1-nT- nf 7nn1nou HUBBS-SGA WORLD RESEARCH SM STITUTG wmaammmmtmammaBmammmMmm 1700 South Shores Road Mission Bay, San Diego Calrfomia 92JOB (714) S23-2693 4 January 1983 Dr. Dennis R. Paulson Burke Memorial Washington State Museum University of Washington Seattle, WA 98185 Dear Dennis: Thank you for alerting me to the status of the Bowerman 'Basin. That is not good news. As you know, I have been studying shorebirds and their migrations for over 25 years and have published rather extensively about this group of birds. Accordingly, I feel qualified to at least make some general comments on your situation, even though I have no direct knowledge of the area. We have known for a long time that many species of shorebirds make very long non-stop migrations; some cover only a few hundred miles at a flight, but others may. fly as much as 3,000 miles nonstop. Such flights, of course, are very taxing energetically, and many birds arrive at their destination totally exhausted, with their fat reserves fully depleted, and are unable to proceed farther without a rest stop of 10-14 days. We have also been able to establish that many species return each year to the same traditional staging areas. If, for some reason, these areas disappear, or if ecological conditions change such that the area can no longer support the numbers of birds that rely on them, the consequences could be serious. Indeed, entire populations of species could be affected, perhaps even to the extent that they would require (or demand) special protected status (i.e., endangered, threatened) from governmental agencies. These staging areas, then, are really "critical habitat" for many species, and they should not be tampered with unless one is absolutely sure that alternate sites are available. All of the information available to me indicates that the Bowerman Basin is. an extremely important staging area for many species of shorebirds, both in spring and fall. Furthermore, I know of no alternate sites that can take its place, should it become degraded or changed. A non-profit research organization All of the species that stage at Bowerraan Basin are long-distance migrants, which move from Alaska to Central or South America. Many breed in the Canadian arctic. Thus, we are dealing with an area that has international importance. Harmful actions in Washington can imperil the resources that belong, equally, to other nations. The Migratory Bird Treaty protects these animals from being killed directly. Should it not be extended to prevent the indirect death as a result of destruction of the habitat on which they rely. I urge you to continue your efforts to sensitize local authorities to the value of this area, and I would further urge you to bring this matter to the attention of the National Audubon Society or other environmental groups, so that all the relevant information can be fully discussed and evaluated prior to the making of an irreversible decision. Sincerely yours, 'Joseph R. Je Assistant Director JRJ/eg Province Of Ministry Of British Columbia British Columbia Provincial Secretary Provincial Museum . — . o. Parliament Buildings and Government Services victoria PROV.NC.AL SECRETARY Brjtjsh Co|umbja V8V 1X4 5 January 1983 Dr. D. R. Paulson Burke Museum University of Washington Seattle WA 98195 U.S.A. Dear Dennis : I remain horrified at the prospect of Bowerman Basin being reduced in extent by filling, for "development." The basin is truly extraordinary in its value to shorebirds passing north to breeding grounds in Alaska, the Yukon, and northern British Columbia, at the very least. It is also enormous- ly important to certain species during winter and in fall migration. The simple statistics of use of the area by species and numbers attest to its significance, but conceal a very complex web of cause and effect. For example, there is simply nowhere else for the vast majority of the shorebirds to go; they can not just shift to another location, partly because none exists, and partly because they are highly conservative animals. Available evidence from South America, Europe, Africa and both coasts of North America indicates that shorebirds are strongly site- faithful from year to year, both to their wintering areas and to their migration stopover points. Further, the evolutionary "choice" of the Bowerman Basin (and other parts of Grays Harbor) as *a stopover point in spring (for example) was based on its rich- ness and its proximity to the nesting grounds: it is crucial for these birds to "fuel up" before making their flight north to breed, as is well known from studies on energetics and fat deposition. Finally, evidence being com- piled over the past decade points to wintering areas and migration stopover areas as the most important parts "of shorebirds 1 life cycle, as far as their population regulation is concerned. We can get away with far greater distur- bance on their breeding areas than we can elsewhere, without materially im- pairing the health of shorebird populations. As you know, my shorebird research over the past nine years has covered breeding areas from Nova Scotia to the north coast of Alaska. In the past few years, I have been working in Alaska, the Yukon, and northern British Columbia. It is no exaggeration to predict that significantly large areas there would become impoverished to nearly depleted of certain shorebird species if an act as major as the filling of Bowerman Basin were committed, and this is particularly true of species with modest to low nesting densities, like Short-billed Dowitchers. I strongly oppose such action on both scientific and environmental grounds. Edward H. Miller Curator Vertebrate Zoology Division EHM:nk 4 -.-*»sj> W < ^ \ -.,..1 . ■•& *■» ■*_ _7 - POINTS REYES BIRD ^JOB SERVITOR Y 4#0*-Shoreline Highway, Stinsctfffiea^tJaiiforiSia S4V1& N .^_ Telephone (415) 868-12*1^-* _ ^ • January 11, 1983 Dear Dr. Paulson, Your letter describing the threat to the habitat of hundreds of thousands of migratory shorebirds in the Bowerman Basin concerns rae. Over the eleven years I have studied shorebird use of California wetlands I have discovered few areas that hold the large concentrations you describe. In fact in a recent conversation I had with Dr. Marshall Howe concerning the identity of locations with at least 20,000 shorebirds during migration, we only identified a handful of sites in California. A site that holds 100,000 is truly unusual! One wonders what these birds will do if they lose their habitat. What other feeding sites have been identified to absorb the refugees? Will this cause population declines that will show up as decresed numbers at California wintering sites? If the site is a staging area for long non-sfcop flights, say to breeding areas in Alaska, the problem may be even more serious. Your efforts to oppose this particular development project are definitely worthwhile. I hope the decision-makers in Washington will agree to value this resource and you succeed in substantially scaling down the project. FOUNDED IN 1812 RESEARCH • MUSEUM • EDUCATlOl PHILADELPHIA 18 January 1983 Dr. Dennis Paulson Burke Museum DB-10 University of Washington Seattle, Washington 98195 Dear Dr. Paulson: Without doubt or exaggeration, Grays Harbor plays a crucial and irreplaceable role in the migration of hundreds of thousands of shorebirds on the Pacific Coast of the United States. If this area is altered substantially, we risk threatening a substantial and significant portion of the West Coast populations of many dif- ferent bird species, species that nov; are common, populations that extend from the arctic to South America. This is because of the critical geographic location of Grays Harbor along the Pacific Coast and the habitat it affords migrating birds. The environmental health of Grays Harbor is thus a matter of international concern. Any reductions in the extent of intertidal habitat must be avoided, and alteration in the natural condition of Bowerman Basin would be especially damaging to inter- national populations. As a professional biologist who has worked on the population biology of migrating and wintering shorebirds along the Pacific Coast for the last 10 years, as a current board member of the International Council for Bird Preservation — Panamerican section, as Chairman of the Wader Study Group Steering Committee for North America, and as a member of the Neotropical Migrant Bird Advisory Council for the World Wildlife Fund-US, I am greatly distressed that Grays Harbor is now threatened by plans to fill Bowerman Basin. In my professional estimation this has significant potential for doing irreparable harm to the health of the Pacific Coast shorebird migration system. Shorebirds such as Dur.lin Calidris alpina , Western Sandpiper Calidris mauri , Short-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus griseus , Black-bellied Plover Pluvialis squat- arola , and Semipalmated Plover Charadrius semipalmatus depend utterly on the resources they gather at staging areas during migration in order to complete their annual cycle. They fly into these sites in vast numbers, replenish their energy stores, then resume migration. Grays Harbor is one such site, and it is one of the most important along the Pacific Coast of the US. Work by Herman and Bulger in their report to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers clearly documents this fact. Traditionally Grays Harbor has been used by hundreds of thousand of shore- birds a j they head northward to the breeding ground, and surveys indicate it is so important because of the extremely limited supply of suitable estuarine areas in the Pacific northwest. Thus the consequences of reducing a patch of intertidal habitat in Bowerman Basin extends far beyond the local area. It will materially affect the ability of hundreds of thousands of shorebirds to reach their breeding ground in breeding condition. We cannot risk the possible consequences of that effect. THE ACADEMY OF NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA • 1 9TH & THE PARKWAY. LOCAN CIRCLE • PHILADELPHIA PA 1 9 1 03 There will be local consequences also. Based on my research in the central coast of California, in an estuary system not unlike Grays Harbor — but much smaller — we know that wintering populations (as opposed to migratory) depend upon a mosaic of habitats in order to survive through the winter. What happens in one part of that mosaic, for example, in Bowerman Basin, will affect shorebird populations throughout the entire estuarine system, in this example the Grays Harbor area. This is especially the case for key habitats within the estuary systems that are especially rich. in food resources. As shown by Herman and Bulger's work, this is clearly the case for Bowerman Basin. Over the last 100 years, intertidal habitats for shorebird populations along the Pacific Coast have been devastated by development. Over much of the region less than 30% of the original area remains suitable for shorebird use. Based on a large body of research on the ways that shorebirds feed, particularly by John Goss-Custard and his colleagues in Britain, we know that the habitat removal has long-lasting detrimental effects on the size of wintering shorebird populations. We cannot afford to lose another major wintering area, much less one of such singular importance as Bowerman Basin. Since w*ly yours, J. P. My* Assistant Curator Ornithology JPM:krg UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY BERKELEY • DAVIS • IRVINE • LOS ANGELES • RIVERSIDE • SAN DIEGO • SAN FRANCISCO Reply to: MUSEUM OF VERTEBRATE ZOOLOGY 2593 LIFE SCIENCES BUILDING BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94720 20 January 1983 Dr. Dennis R. Paulson Thomas Burke Memorial Washington State Museum University of Washington Seattle, WA 98195 Dear Dr. Paulson: I am dismayed to learn of the possibility that critical intertidal habitat at Grays Harbor now used by massive numbers of migrating shore- birds may be filled and developed commercially. This locality is already known to be a major staging area for northward-bound shorebirds, and it is also very important for southward migration and as a wintering area. These statements apply to Grays Harbor as a whole, but especially to Bowerraan Basin. The numbers of birds recorded there indicate that Grays Harbor may well be one of the truly critical stopover locations for shorebirds along the entire Pacific Coast, from Alaska to South America. This lifts concerns for the area from the local level to the international level. At least half of the various shorebirds concerned, I would estimate, are moving between high latitude breeding grounds (in Alaska and northwestern Canada, even eastern Siberia) and wintering grounds (at varying distances south, as far as the Chilean coast and the southern half of Argentina). Because of this international significance, I trust the problems at Grays Harbor are getting the active attention of federal agencies such as the Fish & Wildlife Service and private agencies such as the World Widlife Fund . Why is a certain stopover location used massively by migrating shorebirds termed "critical"? These are places where migrants stop after long and exhausting flights and where they take 5-10 days to recoup and regain weight by feeding and depositing fat. The general facts and concerns for migrating shorebirds along the Pacific Coast expressed here are backed by papers in "Shorebirds in Marine Environments" (Studies in Avian Biology No. 2), published in 1979 and edited by me. In addition, since 1975 we have had a program of intensive research on wintering and migrating populations of shorebirds at Bodega Bay in central California, sponsored by the National Science Foundation. We have concentrated on one species, the Sanderling, banding and color-marking hundreds of them to get solid data on local movements and in particular on the question of discreteness of local populations relative to suitable stopover and wintering sites along the coast. These data strongly indicate that the individuals of a given sub-population use and re-use year after year a given area, such as the Bodega Bay beach/ lagoon system. The migration of a given sub-population is adapted to the geographic placement of specific and dependable sites, and has been so adjusted over eons of time. Any disturbance or elimination of habitat serving as critical stopover and staging sites thus echoes in the shore- bird life of the entire Pacific Coast from the Arctic to southern South America. It is only with recent, locally intensive banding and color-marking of shorebird populations that we are beginning to realize some of the implications of cutting back yet more on remaining maritime habitat so important to migrating birds, not just shorebirds but many other kinds as well. I have no doubt at all, personally, that were there studies based on large numbers of banded birds moving through or otherwise using Grays Harbor, they would support all I have said about its importance, Here I refer not to the already available results of intensive census work documenting the high numbers of shorebirds moving through and/or wintering at Grays Harbor, but to the evidence expected from banding as to the impor- tance of Grays Harbor as a link in migrating systems involving many areas to the south and north. I most strongly urge you and your colleagues in western Washington * to continue your campaign in behalf of the protection of critical intertidal habitat in Bowerman Basin and the rest of Grays Harbor. Sincerely yq^irs , Wank A. Pitelka Professor of Zoology P:l w cr*m Universite de Montreal Centre de recherches ecologiques de Montreal 11 February, 1983 Dr. D. R. Paulson Thomas Burke Memorial Washington State Museum University of Washington Seattle, 'Washington 98195 U.S.A. Dear Dr. Paulson: Sorry to come so late in reply to your letter dated 22 December 1982. Taking into account the species of shorebirds and the numbers of individuals observed in the area of Grays Harbor, especially in the Eowerman Basin, as a staging ground, a feeding, a roosting and a wintering site, the Bowerman Basin is a strategic area comparable to the best similar areas of other regions (Atlantic coast of North and South America). As far as I can see by the literature, it supports the highest concentrations of shorebirds on the Pacific coast during spring migrations. Since a few months, I am documenting and evaluating the habitat losses for shorebirds along the northern coast of South America. The good staging areas for spring migrant as well as fall migrant shore- birds are dangerously decreasing in some regions. Good staging areas are particularly important in the U.S.A. and southern Canada because, as we can see by fat deposit studies, such areas provide the shorebirds with the necessary food requirements for depositing the energy reserves neces- saty for the flight to the breeding areas in Arctic regions, and facing inclement conditions on the breeding grounds before or at the beginning of the nesting activities. I really have difficulties in understanding why, in 1983 and in the U.S.A., it can't be possible to developpers and planners to find places for marine-related industries outside good wildlife habitats. Consequently, I strongly support all efforts to save the Greys Harbor and Bowerman Basin shorebirds habitats. Very sincerely, Raymond McNeil 5858. chemin de la Cote-des-Neiges, bureau 400. CP. 6128. succursale A. Montreal. Quebec. H3C 3J7. teleDhone. 343-6190 APPENDIX D VARIOUS ARTICLES ON THE GHEMP PROCESS "The lasting benefits that society derives from [wetlands] often far exceed the immediate advantage their owners might get from draining or filling them. Their destruction shifts economic and environmental costs to other citizens — often in other states — who have had no voice in the decision to alter them." — The President's Message to the Congress, May 23, 1977 COMPROMISE AT GRAYS HARBOR DANIEL JACK CHASAN Brown mud slopes up gradually from the salt water's edge. Above the brown, the slope is coated by a growth of mossy green. Beyond that, an expanse of tall yellowish grass ripples in the wind. Not far from this patch of marsh, on the northern shore of Grays Harbor, stand the pipes and stacks and rusting metal buildings of a huge pulp mill. Logs float in booms along the shoreline, lie in great heaps on the land. Lift trucks pile them on the aging freighter Seizan Maru for shipment to Japan. The foul smell of pulp mill effluent rises from settling ponds. Nearby, the port-and- logging cities of Aberdeen and Hoquiam crowd down to the water's edge. In the distance, a great cloud of smoke rises from a slash burn in the eastward hills. At first glance, it seems inevitable that sooner or later, the port facilities and Reprinted with permission from the author, From PACIFIC SEARCH, February 1978 D-l industry will spread out over the marsh Dredges will deposit their spoils along the shore. Bulldozers will flatten out the fill. Pavement will be laid, buildings erected, and an otherwise-worthless patch of land brought into the local economic system. Not long ago, that transformation probably would have been inevitable. It is not inevitable now, largely because there are people in government agencies who do not consider the land worthless and will fight tooth and nail to prevent the wholesale filling in of this or any other estuary. In Grays Harbor, they've been fighting for some time. Estuaries — enclosed arms of the sea in which salt water meets and mixes with fresh — are valued by biologists for the great quantity and diversity of life that feeds in the shallow waters and adjacent marsh. Phrases like "web of life" are often used to describe the complex ecosystems that flourish among the eelgrass and pickleweed and bulrushes and sedge, and the biological productivity of such areas is often compared favorably with the productivity of land given over to human agriculture. That field of yellow-green grass rippling in the wind produces more living matter per acre than anything human beings grow except a field of sugar cane. It dies down completely every year, decomposes, and ultimately nourishes everything in the food chain, from the brown diatoms and green algae on the mud to salmon, steelhead, and occasional whales in the water, and the ducks, herons, and other waterfowl in the air. Grays Harbor, which covers some 55,000 acres on the Washington eeast, is connected' to the Pacific by a narrow channel that separates the spits of land on which stand the resort towns of Westport and Ocean Shores. Fresh water flows into it from the Chehalis, Hoquiam, and Humptulips rivers. It supports more than 50 species of fish, including salmon and steelhead spawned in the rivers, large populations of oysters, clams, and crabs, and 325 species of birds, one-third of all the species found in Washington State. A Western estuary the size of Grays Harbor "is such a rare thing," Nancy Thomas, president of the Washington Environmental Council, has remarked. "If you look down the Pacific coast from Washington, after Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay you have to go down to Coos Bay and San Francisco before you find another major estuary of this size. You don't mess around with it until you know what the impact will be." Actually, people have been messing around with Grays Harbor since the beginning of this century. Aberdeen, Hoquiam, and the Chehalis River towns of Cosmopolis and Montesano have been exporting wood products ever since then, and the shipping channel has been dredged repeatedly. Spoils from the dredging have been deposited in marshy areas, and portions of the shoreline have become the February 1978 habitat not of wildlife but of human commerce and industry. "Between 1940 and 1975, dredgings were dumped on about 3.850 acres of intertidal areas," game biologist David Mudd has written in Washington Wildlife. "We don't know how much eelgrass and salt marsh was lost, but 1950 aerial photos show eelgrass and salt marshes where upland areas no"\v ^\h>r.'" The filling of Grays Harbor according to the dictates of economics and convenience Biologists value estuaries/or the profusion of wildlife they support. But portions of the Grays Harbor shoreline now support commerce and industry, not wildlife. did not stop with the passage in the 1970s of the federal Water Pollution Control and Coastal Zone Management Acts, the resurrection of the federal Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, or the passage of the state Shorelines Management Act, but its progress became much less swift and sure. Federal and state agencies that were committed more to the preservation of the natural environment than to industrial progress gained both the power and the willingness to hold up permit applications indefinitely, and they began to use that power. Boise Cascade had an application for waterfront filling held up for two years Finally, the company announced that if its application wasn't approved within two weeks, it would abandon its expansion plans. The Port of Grays Harbor and the nearby municipalities, conscious of the area's high unemployment and its limited attractiveness to industries not dependent on logs, were eager to have Boise Cascade go ahead. Pressure was applied, and the permit was granted— with the understanding, however, that Boise Cascade's would be the last major permit granted before all interested parties had developed an overall plan for the estuary. Things didn't work out that way. It wasn't long, in fact, before a much more ambitious and much more intrusive filling project was on the drawing boards: the Kaiser Steel Company wanted to fill 45 acres,, including 39 acres of wetlands, to create a site for the "assembly of offshore drilling platforms. The Port was delighted. The Grays Harbor area depends heavily on the forest products industry, with its wild swings in employment. Here was a chance to get an entirely new kind of industry. The "resource agencies" (those state and WILLAPA BAY: An End to Dredging Willapa Bay, which occupies most of coastal Washington between Grays Harbor and the Columbia River, is the last relatively unspoiled large estuary in the United States. It is not currently threatened by development; but only a few years ago, it was the place where the major environmental battle over Northwestern estuaries was happening. For many years, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had kept a channel for deep-draft vessels dredged through the mouth and northern body of the Bay, between the Pacific and the port of Raymond. As at Grays Harbor, the channel tended to silt up, and the only way to keep the port in business was to dredge. Spoils from the dredging were deposited on marshland. The channel was cleared routinely, with little or no controversy, until the early 1970s, when the Corps put together a feasibility study and a draft environmental impact statement for continued dredging. A number of environmental groups protested vehemently, and the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, sitting in Washington, D.C., refused to authorize the additional studies that would be needed if the dredging were to go ahead. The project was stalled but not forgotten, and it became increasingly controversial. Environmentalists argued that, as a large and valuable estuary, Willapa Bay should be allowed to exist in its natural state. Advocates of dredging argued that no dredging meant no more deep-draft vessels at Raymond, which meant no more jobs loading logs or lumber on the Raymond docks. In 1975, the Corps issued another, more carefully drafted impact statement, which included a rigorous cost-benefit analysis. According to the Corps' calculations, the economic benefits of dredging promised to be only 56% of the cost. By that time, Weyerhaeuser, whose logs were the ones being shipped through Willapa Bay, had evidently decided on its own that using the port of Raymond wasn't especially profitable. Weyerhaeuser and the Corps both reasoned that it would be cheaper to truck the logs to Grays Harbor, a short drive up Route 101, and load them on ships there. The Corps decided not to dredge for deep- draft vessets tffter Ty77. That decision implied at least three things: Willapa Bay itself would not be used or developed as a conduit for ocean shipping; Raymond would be consigned to eventual oblivion as a port; and the pressure to maintain and expand the Port of Grays Harbor would increase. D.J.C. D-2 GRAYS HARBOR federal units responsible for protecting natural resources) opposed the fill. But local officials wanted it very badly, and besides, the manufacture of drilling platforms seemed to further the national policy of developing domestic energy resources. A lot of political pressure was brought to bear. Finally, Senator Henry Jackson's office got into the act. The Kaiser project should go ahead, Jackson's representative said, but the practice of fighting over every permit application that came down the pike had to stop; after the Kaiser permit was approved, all the contending parties had better work out a plan for the estuary. (The filling was done right away; but at this writing, ironically, a poor market for drilling platforms has kept Kaiser from building anything on the fill.) This time, something happened. At the enH of 1975, the Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission set up an Estuary Planning Task Force, which included representatives from the Port of Grays Harbor, all the nearby municipalities, and the eight state and federal agencies that had some form of jurisdiction in the estuary. The first step was hiring the Salem, Oregon consulting firm of Montagne-Bierly Associates to coordinate the planning process. (In the early 1970s, as an Oregon state official, Roland Montagne had presided over the creation of a successful management plan for the lower Willamette Valley.) Montagne's first move was to assemble a technical committee to compile the necessary information. Then, in February, 1977. trie Estuary Planning Task Force began to work out a plan. The Task Force was a wildly disparate group, united only, by a common dissatisfaction with the way things were going and a common apprehensiveness about the future. The Port and Without an overall plan, every development proposal meant a new battle. municipalities did not like the delays and uncertainty of the permit process; the resource agencies did not like the piecemeal nibbling away at the estuary. Without an overall plan to which all parties agreed, there was little chance that the situation would improve from either point of view. To begin with, the factions were poles apart. The Port, which wanted to preserve Grays Harbor's position as the only deep- water port on the Washington coast and realized that a lot of space was one of its chief assets, wanted freedom to develop all of the 2200 acres it owned along the harbor's northern shore. The municipalities, which favored development, were jealous of their local jurisdiction and resented any meddling by outside agencies. And the meddlers, the 10 people from the resource agencies, were determined to stick to their guns and approve filling only on a case-by-casc basis. They felt that any loss of wildlife habitat in the estuary was significant. "The first thing they say," one biologist observed, "not just in Grays Harbor but all over, is 'how much development does it take to have an impact? It's as if I said to you, 'O.K., I'm going to start chopping off your fingers one by one. How many do I have to chop off before you become unfunctional?" The resource people and outside observers from the environmental movement would have been happy to see dredging and filling in Grays Harbor stop completely. Liz Greenhagen, a vocal Ocean Shores resident who has followed the planning process from the beginning — she refers to herself as the "token environmentalist" in the cast of characters — says that has never been realistic. "You can come down from someplace else," she says, "and say, 'wouldn't it be nice to save a whole estuary,' but you can't really do that. Living here you can't just beanti-dredging, because our economy depends on it." You can, however, try to "show the port and great planning authority that the estuary is good for something besides dredging and filling." When the various interested parties sat down together, approaches to planning differed sharply. Local officials were more interested in specific development projects — a Thunderbird Motel turned out to be a big one — less interested in the generalities of planning, and much less at home with the maps and charts and technical data with which the plan was being forged. Resource people, partly because of their backgrounds, focused more intensely on technical details, realizing the need, for example, to figure out exactly what marshland is, and to determine where it begins and ends. Whatever the reasons, it became clear that the participants weren't all on the same wave length. Late in the planning process, after hours of heated argument over developing the part of the northern shore (on which the Kaiser fill already jutted into the water like a huge, rip- rapped parking lot), one local mayor consulted a map and concluded that the area was, and was scheduled to remain, all but totally natural. This group, as edgily self-conscious as a convention of lions and lambs, was supposed to come lip with a detailed plan for the whole Grays Harbor estuary. Observers have compared their proceedings to difficult labor-management negotiations. Certainly, the more intense sessions fit that description. At first the 'consultants (Montagne and Gordon Davis of the firm of Wilsey and Ham, who actually ran the meetings) steered the group away from the touchier subjects And within the sessions, there was some pressure to avoid conflict by simply abandoning certain areas to development The resource people resisted. Why not just keep Willapa Bay largely unspoiled and develop Grays Harbor intensively? Because Grays Harbor was valuable in and of itself, and habitat lost there would not be replaced Why not preserve the south shore of the Harbor, which now, except for pilings and log booms, presents a largely unbroken line of marsh and alders, and develop the north 9 Because the north side is more productive, and again, habitat lost is habitat lost. Why not forget about the largely developed area around the eastern end of the Harbor, most of which was already zoned commercial and industrial, and preserve portions closer to the ocean? Because with a higher percentage of fresh water and with finer sediment, the eastern end was more productive. And so on. The touchiest area of all was the one behind the airport, Bowerman Field, on the northern side of the main channel. When this area came onto the agenda, the meeting lasted far into the night and resumed the next morning. One side would caucus, then come in and present a proposal. The other side would then caucus, and come back with a counter-proposal. The area "is the subject of quite a battle between the Port of Grays Harbor and environmentalists," The Aberdeen World reported. "The Port wants to fill the land — three square miles of it if possible — with dredge material and lease it to heavy industry, while representatives of state and federal agencies have indicated that they would like the expanse of grassy marshland preserved.... When [Hank] Soike [general manager of the Port] indicated the Port's wishes by sweeping his hand across an aerial photograph of the area. ...a couple of the resource agency representatives gasped indignantly. ...[Stan] Lattin [planning director of the Port] then directed the group's attention to a large map, where the Port's version of an adequate industrial site was blocked out in purple.... " 'No way would we allow filling of that entire purple area,' said Ron Lee of the Environmental Protection Agency. 'It's just too expansive.' " That's more fill than I think we'd look at nationwide in five years,' [Chuck] Walters [of the National Marine Fisheries Service] added. 'This kind of a chunk is like giving you several gold mines. I just can't see it.' "Soike then offered to cut the Port's proposal by two-thirds, but when the resource representatives received no assurance that the Bowerman Field site is the only major filling planned, the task force stalemated.... "Said Walters: *1 just spent a week testifying against a sixth-of-an-acre fill, and now I have a 500-acre fill proposal. I don't D-3 know how that's going to go over....' " Eventually, the two sides worked out a compromise: the Port would limit its expansion plans to 500 acres over the next 50 years. The resource agencies would resign themselves to the development of those 500 acres. Both sides had made significant philosophical concessions. The Port was The compromise could set a national precedent for settling wetland disputes. renouncing for 50 years the right to do as it pleased with land it owned. The resource agencies were renouncing the right to protect the development of 500 acres of the most preciously productive habitat on earth. For people used to haggling over sixths of an acre, the idea was staggering. "The Fish and Wildlife Service basically got the short end of the compromise," suggests Dale Jones, Northwest representative of Friends of the Earth. "The Fish and Wildlife Service tries— the people who worked on this should get a pay raise — but politically, they just don't have the muscle to cope." Another observer suggests, though, that "the resource agencies have been viewed as kind of poor boys, and they like that image, but don't kid yourself — they pull a lot of power out of Washington, D.C. I don't think they got the short end of the stick in Grays Harbor. I think they got a pretty good compromise." Certainly, the municipal officials— who must live with their constituents, as well as the plan — felt that they had given up a great deal, too. In fact, a good many of the people involved probably felt like those described by the wise old attorney who noted that in a "good settlement" both sides always go away from the table "a little sick to their stomachs." By now, the whole estuary has been divided into planning areas, and detailed specifications agreed on for the amounts and kinds of development that can take place in each of them. All the participants have approved the plan. Now, if it is to be more than an abstract declaration of intent, it must be incorporated into local zoning codes. A lot of people far from Grays Harbor are watching closely to see just exactly what it does become. Because Washington was the first state to gain federal approval for its Coastal Zone Management Act, the planning done in Grays Harbor with Coastal Zone Management money is viewed as a possible precedent. "We think this has national significance," says Hank Soike, manager of the Port of Grays Harbor, and Montagne says the plan marks "the first time something like this has been done on this grand a scale." And because — with President Carter's ^executive order of May 1977 — saving wetlands has become a national policy, ports all over the country are more than casually Pacific Search ■interested in how conflicts between wetlands and port development are worked out. The Northwest offers a couple of interesting examples in addition to Grays Harbor. In the port of Everett, Washington, a conflict between preservation and development is being worked out through mediation. In Oregon, a state law now says that before any part of an estuary can be developed, the development must be formally judged to be in the public interest. If it is judged in the Oublic interest, then any loss of estuary nabitat must somehow be "mitigated." At Coos Bay, when the airport expanded out /into the estuary, the loss of habitat was mitigated by returning an equal portion of the bay, enclosed behind old dikes^ to its natural state. Ultimately, the people who have grown concerned about the Grays Harbor estuary believe that the essential job is not planning, but education: the public must be taught the value of estuaries in general. An understanding of the processes that go on there is crucial, because no one is going to make an effort to save marshes or eelgrass beds for themselves. "One of the problems we have with estuaries," says Dale Jones, "especially the Washington estuaries, is that they don't have the beauty of a Mount Rainier." Bob Bowker, a Fish and Wildlife Service biologist who served on the Estuary Planning Task Force, suggests that people must learn "to tie the habitat to the critters" — that is, to realize that the profusion of fish and animals that they value can't exist without the marsh and grassy water that they don't value. In the Grays Harbor area, commercial fishing, sport fishing, and tourism all depend on the salmon and steelhead that pass through and spend varying lengths of time in the estuary. If you ask a state Game Department biologist why one should even try to save areas near the huge Rayonier pulp mill, for example, he may reply that all the anadromous fish that spawn up the Chehalis and its tributaries must pass by that point. The mouth of the Chehalis is already heavily developed. Steelhead planted upriver by the state return at a rate of .5%. Farther west, in the largely undeveloped Humptulips, the rate of return is 5%. So far, there has been no outpouring of sentiment in favor of saving the estuary for the fish. But Stan Lattin suggests that the planning process has educated many of the participants and various other local civic leaders, if not the public at large, to the fact that the issue is not simply one of saving worthless mudflats. By now, he says, when those people look at the estuary, "they know that something's going on there." That alone, he believes, is enough to justify the time and effort spent on planning. Greenhagen almost agrees. "I'm interested in reaching more people," she says. "It's bigger than just Grays Harbor." D-4 Compromise plan on estuary may satisfy both sides By SANDY NELSON World Staff Writer The Grays Harbor Estuary Management ' Task Force modi- fied Us original plan Tuesday, offering a new proposal that could ease the five-year stalemate be- tween concerned conservationists and those who say waterfront development is vital. The task force learned during public testimony Monday that its proposal to fill Bowerman Basin — the 500-acre mudflat between Highway 109 and Hoquiam's Bow- erman Field — may threaten the existence of the endangered pere- grine falcon. On Tuesday, the panel — com- posed of representatives from 16 state and federal agencies and local municipalities — threw out its original agenda, rehashed the problem and bounced back .with a compromise plan that could pre- serve the estuarine habitat for, migratory birds while giving in- dustry a place to grow. If approved, the new design would extend' Moon Island — also known as the Bowerman Field peninsula — westward with fill material in an effort to preserve the mudflats to the north. "WE'VE SEEN some positive changes in the direction the task force has taken," said David Ort- mann, Northwest representative of the Friends of the Earth and one of the most outspoken critics of the original plan. "We're much more hopeful that our plans will be addressed in the near future, and it looks like there's a possibil- ity of resolving the conservation- development stalemate that has developed." Pat Dugan, director of the Grays Harbor 'Regional Planning Commission, which initiated the task force five years ago, said he was optimistic despite the fact that the new twist represents "an- other significant delay (in the planning process)." "I'm still firmly committed to what we're doing," he said. "The process takes a long time, but I think it works. We've got signifi- cant practical problems in reach- ing compromises, but I'm still optimistic." IN THE original draft plan, the Port of Grays Harbor offered conservation easements on its 1,- 700 acres of wetlands, west of Moon Island if it could fill the Bowerman Basin for Industrial development. That plan has met opposition since its Inception. Environmen- talists, and fishermen fear that any filling of the mudflats would endanger the ecological balance for fish, birds, crabs and other creatures that live there. And Monday, the task force heard scientific testimony that Grays Harbor — and specifically, the Bowerman Basin — seems to be a crucial staging area for migrating shorebirds and may be critical to the survival of. the peregrine fal- con. Planners formed a mini-task force Tuesday to investigate the feasibility of (he new design and to determine what the environ- mental impacts of a westward extension would be. The mini-task force is composed of representatives from the City of Hoquiam, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Port of Grays Harbor, the Army Corps of Engineers and fish and bird spe- cialists. A representative from the Of- fice of Coastal Zone Management said the new plan will be assessed along with the original plan, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologist Rich Howard said he could render a biologic opinion on both plans by Feb. 25. HOWARD HAD testified Mon- day that Grays Harbor, while an important wintering ground for the endangered falcon, was not a critical habitat, and he said the original plan to fill Bowerman Basin would not jeopardize the bird. He conceded, however, that fur- ther study was needed before he could conclude that the Bower- man Basin was not crucial to the falcon's survival. D-5 Source: DAILY WORLD Aberdeen, WA 12/10/80 Joe Blum, area manager for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, said Tuesday that Howard's testi- mony had been a "rough" opin- ion, and that the final opinion would be ready by Feb. 25. "If it's a jeopardy opinion, we'll work with the task force and the Office of Coastal Zone Manage- ment to see if planning can go on in a way that won't impact the species," Blum said. He assured the task force that the federal agency would not compromise its biologic knowledge and principles in its evaluation of the plan. GORDON DAVIS, consultant to the task force, guided the group through the exhaustive discus- sions Tuesday morning that led to the new plan. John Clark, a representative of the Conservation Foundation in Washington, D.C., initially sug- gested that the. basin habitat could be duplicated west of Moon Island "since Bowerman Basin is a man-made creation in the first place." "I accept the evidence present- ed yesterday showing that shore- birds use the basin and that it's a most valuable habitat," Clark said, "but I don't accept that it's the only important staging area for birds in this area. "It would appear feasible to use fill material to extend the basin to the west (of Moon Island) and replicate that habitat." Research should precede such a move, Clark said, adding that it would involve the loss of 500 acres of open. water in the Harbor — two percent of the available space. "If it (the basin) is a major staging area for shore- birds, people in the community have a responsibility to establish a sanctuary in Bowerman Basin," Clark said. CHUCK WALTERS of the Na- tional Marine Fisheries Service in Washington, D.C., warned that a westward reconstruction of the basin may bring other unforseen impacts, but he favored consider- ing alternatives that could lessen the environmental impact so de- velopment can proceed. The task force decided to pro- ceed with the proposal to extend the airfield peninsula, rather than attempting to reconstruct the bas- in. It will meet again March 3 and 4 at an undetermined site to consider the new plan and to work out other changes in the draft document. Source: The Coastal Society, BULLETIN, Vol.3, No. 2, March 1979 Planning for Predictability in Grays Harbor Grant Dehart, Federal Office of Coastal Zone Management Editor's Note: Representatives of the Port of Grays Har- bor and Friends of the Earth will review this article and provide their views on events in Grays Harbor, includ- ing the planning process and the plan in the June issue of the Bulletin. Over the past three years, the Grays Harbor estuary in Washington State has been the focus of an innova- tive planning process which has recently gained broad- er national attention from coastal managers, environ- mentalists, port interests and Federal agencies. This increased attention is due to the potential for such a process to become a prototype for resolving conflicts between economic development and environmental protection needs in specific geographic areas of the coastal zone. The process may offer a solution to some common criticisms of completed state CZM programs, e.g. the lack of specificity, the need for more long term protec- tion of specific resource areas, uncertainty for permit applications and conflicts among government policies. With the Grays Harbor example in mind, the Federal Office of Coastal Zone Management has introduced the concept of "special area management." Whether the Grays Harbor process and estuary plan becomes a prototype for this "special area management" concept or not will probably depend upon what government officials and influential interest groups think about: • directly involving State and Federal agencies in the development of local and regional plans for wet- lands and shoreland areas. • committing Federal and State agencies to plan- ning decisions in advance, to narrow their discretion on individual permits, thus increasing the predictabil- ity of the permit process, • trading off a specific amount of tidal wetlands to economic development for the long-term preservation of the vast majority of remaining wetlands in the estuary. • mediating environmental disputes among govern- ment agencies, while keeping citizens in an observer or advisory role. The Grays Harbor estuary is one of the largest on the Pacific Coast, with an area of about 62,500 acres of tidal marsh and partially developed shoreline. The es- tuary supports more than 50 species of fish. It is also the location of six - towns that depend upon the shore- line for their economic survival, particularly from ports, timber processing, fishing and recreational boating. Grays Harbor is the only port with deep water access on the coast of Washington (outside of Puget Sound), and is of major significance to the economy of the region and the State. The 12 mile navigation chan- nel through the estuary requires annual maintenance dredging. The stage was set for the present planning process when State and Federal offices refused to support fur- ther applications for dredge and Jill^ projects until an overall plan for the estuary was agreed upon. This ac- tion was prompted by a long and bitter controversy over a 45 acre fill by Kaiser Steel Company, and was generally supported by the major parties to the dispute, since they realized that the impasse that existed was detrimental to all of their interests. A Grays Harbor Estuary Planning Task Force was estab- lished with representatives from the county, the muni- cipalities around the estuary, the Port of Grays Harbor, four State and four Federal agencies with legal juris- diction in the Harbor, and the Regional Planning Coun- cil. After the Washington Coastal Zone Management plan was approved, Federal CZM funds provided for a planning study and consultants were hired to act as technical advisers, planners, and mediators. The Grays Harbor process appears to have four major goals, including: • consensus on a specific 50 year plan for the estu- ary, among all public agencies with legal jurisdiction over its use, ,• "predictability" that activities permitted in the plan will have the general concurrence of all agencies involved in finalizing permit decisions, • "balance" between competing needs for economic development, and protection of natural functions and areas of the estuary, and • management of cumulative impacts from incre- mental dredge and fill decisions. For more than two years, since September 1976, the Task Force and its consultants have worked to develop a. plan that will be acceptable to all parties with legal responsibility for its implementation. They have also attempted to involve interest groups and the public in the plan' development, but have not been successful in gaining full support of environmental interest groups that are concerned both with the extent of their in- volvement and the substantive policies being pro- posed. The major compromises that were reached in the draft plan include: • The Port of Grays Harbor agreed to abandon its plan for the development of 2200 acres of submerged lands along the harbor's northern shore, for assurances that it could develop 500 acres between the Bowerman Air Field and the shoreline in Hoquiam over the next 50 years. This amount was split in half, so that only 250 acres would be allowed until the need for the addi- tional fill is demonstrated and the detailed plans for the first segment are subjected to special review by affected agencies. Mo decision was made on the use of this area after 50 years. • The remainder of the Port's 2200 acres is to be transferred to a designated state resource agency for 50 years, to be managed for resource purposes. • Further major filling of the submerged lands was limited to bankline straightening or bankline erosion control in the least naturally productive portions of the harbor. D-6 • Long-term policies for relocation of non-water de- pendent uses along the harbor, such as an airport, was approved subject to the location of a suitable alterna- tive site. The Task Force is now reviewing a revised draft of the plan. At the same time, environmental interest groups seem to be organizing opposition to the plan; the port is seeking support for the plan from Congres- sional and headquarters Federal officials; EPA is con- sidering revisions to Section 404(bXl) of the Clean Water Act that could affect major proposals in the plan, and the Office of Coastal Zone Management to- gether with participating Federal agencies, is prepar- ing a Joint Draft Environmental Statement in anticipa- tion of formal amendment to Washington's CZM pro- gram. With some of the most controversial issues yet to be resolved, some agencies have begun to question whether such a process actually saves time. Others maintain that the controversial issues would be raised in the permit process in any case, and they should be dealt with in advance through the plan and NEPA pro- cess. The procedural issues include: • The adequacy of citizen and interest group in- volvement in the plan formulation. • The extent to which agencies are committed to major decisions (as a result of the consensus process) in advance of open consideration of alternatives under NEPA. • How the formal review, EIS and approval process can be coordinated with so many layers of government decisions involved, (e.g. local plan amendments, state Shoreline Management Act approvals. Federal agency approvals, and amendment to the Washington CZM program). • How much discretion over subsequent permit applications is being surrendered by Federal and State agencies that approve the plan ... for the sake of pre- dictability. • Whether the 404(bXl) guidelines, requiring con- sideration of alternative disposal sites can be met through such a planning process without full review of alternatives for each permit application. • Whether an approved long-range plan will prevent further unplanned losses of wetlands due to political intervention. • Whether making the plan legally or formally bind- ing on participating agencies will inhibit their coopera- tion in future planning efforts. Several substantive issues of significance beyond Grays Harbor are also likely to be raised about the pro- posed plan, including: • Whether a proposed 250 acre fill for Port develop- ment can be authorized in advance of a permit applica- tion specifying the use; or at all, given the President's executive order on wetlands, • whether non-water dependent uses that are ancil- lary to primary port functions should be sufficient jus- tification for filling wetlands, • whether long-term preservation of existing wet- lands is a sufficient trade-off for filling, without an acre-for-acre replacement with new wetlands to miti- gate the loss, • the adequacy of environmental data available to the Task Force, upon which consensus decisions were based, and • the adequacy of an estuary planning boundary that does not include the entire watershed. (The Grays Har- bor planning boundary was limited to the Section 404, and Shoreline Management areas). During the remainder of the planning and review process each of these issues and many others will be debated at all levels of government, before a final plan is approved. Hopefully, this article and those that follow will help keep the debate on a constructive track. Throughout the country environmental programs are under attack for being inflationary, unpredictable and inequitable. At the same time, national polls of environmental values, and state referenda on coastal and land use programs show sustained public support for the basic goals of these programs. The challenge for coastal zone management is how to improve the implementation of management policies before pro- grams are dismantled, or the permit processes are cir- cumvented by political intervention on a large scale. Grays Harbor, prior to this planning process, repre- sented only one example where ad-hoc, agency-by- agency review of development proposals can lead to highly-charged conflict situations in which govern- ment, interest groups and the environment end up losers. Similar cases can be found throughout the coastal zone at any time. The Grays Harbor planning process represents a positive attempt to improve this situation, but the con- troversy is not over. Government agencies will worry about the potential loss of nearly unlimited discretion over individual projects; environmental interests may challenge the resolution of disputes that are less-than- perfect in terms of protection, and development inter- ests may balk if some of the concessions to economic development are reconsidered or if predictability is not maximized. There are other prototypes for "special area man- agement," such as The San Francisco Bay Plan, The Plans for Yaquina Bay and the Lower Willamette River in Oregon, and the Joint Processing of Permits in the Corp's Norfolk, Va. District, and other solutions to the permitting maze, besides the Grays Harbor process. But there are a lot of positive aspects about this pro- cess that should not be discarded prematurely in the rush to protect parochial interests. Coastal News D " 7 MARCH 1979 JULY 1979 Source: The Coastal Society BULLETIN Vol.4, No. 4, July 1979 Coastal News Planning for Predictability in Gray 's Harbor: Part II Editor's Mote: In the March, 1979 Bulletin, we pub- lished an article by Grant Dehart describing the goals and process of planning for predictability in Gray's Harbor. Some of the principals involved have different views on these planning activities. The articles below were prepared by representatives of two groups that have been actively involved in Gray's Harbor. The Case for Planning Pat Dugan Executive Director Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission A previous article in this journal (March 1979) dis- cussed a planning process now taking place relating to the future management of the Grays Harbor Estuary on the Pacific Coast of Washington State. That article addressed many of the specific issues which confront that process and by so doing illustrates the complexity that arises in such an effort. It is not the intent of this responding article to debate those issues in the limited forum provided here. Such a debate, which involves many issues unique to the Grays Harbor system, would have little practical benefit to the readers. Far more important to the management of coastal areas throughout the nation is a need to accent and clarify the very fundamental reason to undertake this type of planning effort. When the process began, it was as- sumed that "planning" was a commonly held concept among all the various regulatory agencies ancfinterest groups involved in the management of coastal areas. Our experience has suggested that this may not always be the case. The purpose of this article, then, is to pre- sent our case for "planning" an estuary. That purpose must first be accepted before any resolution to the many issues confronting estuarine protection and development can be addressed. The first concept that must be clarified in such a dis- cussion is what planning is understood to be. For the purposes here it is intended to mean, as an end prod- uct, the allocation of space for various uses and activi- ties (including preservation) within an area. Since the desirability of allocating space to a particular use or activity in a given subarea will inherently depend on how the use or activity is undertaken, planning also in- volved developing policies and conditions relating to particular subareas or particular uses and activities. This concept of planning involves a policy commit- ment to allow the uses and activities specified in the plan if the appropriate conditions are met (and hence the concept of "predictability" addressed in the earlier article). "Planning" here is not intended to be, as it often is in discussions relating to resource manage- ment, a euphemism for regulating. The Grays Harbor process grew out of a long history of frustration among various state, federal, and local agencies regarding the existing permit system for managing the estuary and its basic deficiencies. The current system of managing estuarine environments usually consists of case by case decision making, utilizing uncoordinated regulations and other manage- ment programs by various agencies which exercise authority in matters affecting the resource. Since these regulations and programs are frequently developed independent of each other (especially between various levels of government), this situation creates a strong potential for these public agencies to pursue goals and objectives which may or may not be related to one another and which have high potential for conflict between them. It also creates uncertainty regarding the outcome of any project proposal in the estuary area and continues the lengthy permit processes now needed to resolve issues arising out of inconsistent programs of various agencies. Thus, the lack of a coor- dinated public policy among the many state, federal, and local agencies causes confusion, and frustrates both people seeking permission for various actions and those who are attempting to regulate those activi- ties for the public good. One of the major drawbacks of the current system is that its ultimate, or cumulative, impact on the environ- mental quality or ecological productivity cannot be anticipated. This problem is caused by several factors. First, the current system is oriented toward a case by case review of individual projects as they come up. Consequently, the ultimate impact will depend on which projects are proposed and when, and how effec- tively each may be advanced and presented in the regulatory and political processes. Second, the exist- ing policy framework under which the individual pro- jects are judged in each agency tend to be general and subject to a wide range of interpretations. Third, the specific standards or criteria for development may vary from agency to agency depending on their basic sense of purpose. For example, a fishery agency would develop standards directed toward the fishery, a game agency may develop criteria primarily directed toward avian fauna, a city may base its standards on a priority need to remove urban blight, and a port may develop its program on a need to create jobs. These purposes may conflict on any given permit issue in a way which makes the outcome uncertain. The problem of predicting the ultimate effect of individual permit decisions under current manage- ment systems poses a serious and potentially long range adverse environmental problem. An estuary is a complex and potentially fragile system. Any one pro- ject by itself, if carefully designed and cited, may be acceptable but many such projects may pose a serious threat to the overall system. Also, an acceptable pro- ject in present conditions may become unacceptable due to the way the resource may be impacted by future projects. These problems of how a particular project may relate to future projects and future environmental conditions is often referred to as the cumulative effect. Because the case by case approach cannot anticipate D-8 JGLY 1979 these future problems or conditions, it cannot evaluate cumulative effects of permit decisions. An additional problem in the existing system is its ability to consider alternatives. While the present sys- tem attempts to address concerns regarding the "best" or most suitable alternative for a particular use or activity, it does this very inefficiently. Since the cur- rent system responds to specific proposals, it only comes into effect after a proposal is developed, a site selected, ownership questions resolved, and some in- vestments made. These commitments limit the ability to enforce a meaningful alternative analysis. Further- more, due to potential differences between the various management programs of each reviewing agency and the manner in which the programs are administered, a prospective developer has little guidance as to where his efforts might best be directed. Since the ability to evaluate and influence alternatives is limited, greater environmental damage might occur due to the "best" or "least damaging" site for a particular project not being selected and an "acceptable" but less appro- priate or desirable site approved. This problem can be- come very serious when combined with the cumulative effect of many projects. While the present system poses these problems for ensuring adequate protection of the natural resources, it also creates potential problems for being able to meet the socioeconomic needs of the affected com- munity. Just as case by case decision making makes it im- possible to evaluate cumulative environmental im- pacts, case by case decisions also prevent evaluation of the cumulative effects of permit decisions on econo- mic conditions and needs. While one project denial may not be critical to the economy the cumulative effects of permit denials may be very damaging. The present system provides no means by which future needs can be evaluated with the permit under con- sideration. The present system is also unlikely to be able to achieve the most optimum balance between environ- mental and economic needs. Since the case by case re- view system cannot effectively direct development proposals to the area of least environmental impact, the cumulative effect of individual permit decisions could result in a lower level of economic opportunity for a given level of environmental losses than if it were possible to direct development proposals in advance to the site most capable of accommodating the use. By not optimizing the ratio of economic opportunity to environmental costs, the resulting balance would be lower than that which could be achieved. In other words, the present system has no way of knowing whether it is allocating efficiently whatever level of development the system may be ecologically capable of accepting. In Grays Harbor the present system led to many long and drawn out permit battles between local develop- ment interests and state and federal resource agencies. In these battles both sides were frustrated. Developers were frustrated by not knowing what was expected from agencies charged with managing the system. Agencies were frustrated by a feeling that issues were being decided on factors which did not adequately address resource needs. Virtually every permit ques- tion ended up in the "political trenches," as the local vernacular puts it. In the middle of one of these bitter controversies in 1975, Senator Henry M. Jackson (Washington) urged the various agencies charged with either regulating or developing the estuary to get together and resolve their differences in a planning process. A process was established under the auspices of the Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission (an association of local governments similar to a Council of Govern- ments in many states). Since the process was to re- solve differences between established management programs, the Planning Commission formed a task force of the various state, federal, and local agencies involved to conduct this program. The process then set out to develop an alternative approach to managing an estuary. This approach would consider, in a long range and comprehensive manner, what is needed to protect the natural productive capacity of the system, and what would be needed for the system to perform its economic functions, along with many other roles the estuary plays. This approach, then, would result in a "plan" which addresses the many competing demands on the estuary in the form of policies and use designa- tions. While it was understood that such a plan could not replace the existing permit authorities, it was ex- pected that it would guide decision making under those authorities in much the same way that city com- prehensive plans guide zoning decisions. By address- ing long term issues, needs and impacts, this approach could correct the deficiencies in the present system. Once it is decided to undertake such planning, it is then necessary to identify the overall objective of such planning. The Grays Harbor process addressed this question as one of its earliest policy issues. It was de- cided that the goal of the task force was to manage the system for multiple use. This rather innocuous sound- ing goal is one of the most significant decisions in the process, since it recognizes that there is a range of legitimate uses that should be accommodated and bal- anced, and that management cannot only be directed toward special purposes. It was at this juncture that the process departs from the existing system of each agency developing and administering a management program directed at its own special purpose. This recognition drastically compounds the prob- lems associated with the planning process. As Richard Babcock observed in "Babcock's Law," "any benefi- cient public policy if pursued vigorously will inevitably conflict with an equally beneficient public policy." 1 The decision to recognize multiple use in an estuarine system inherently recognizes the existence of more than one legitimate public policy which will be pur- sued vigorously by various interests, and, hence, by Babcock's Law, conflict. If the Grays Harbor process has demonstrated anything; it is that Babcock is right. Planning for special purposes is relatively easy. One can protect an ecological system with a high degree of certainty (but not complete) by drawing a line around D-9 JULY 1979 the system and prohibiting any further modification within that area. Similarly, very effective economic development plans can be readily formulated if one is not constrained by limits on estuarine modification. It is when both of these objectives are pursued vigor- ously that planning becomes difficult. In the previous article Grant Dehart said, "The chal- lenge for coastal zone management is how to improve the implementation of management policies before programs are dismantled or the permit processes are circumvented by political intervention on a large scale." Only through effective, balanced planning can this challenge be met. Whether such planning will be successful will depend upon whether each agency charged with management or development of coastal areas will be able to overcome a natural ingrained reluctance to balance the narrow purpose of that agency with other public purposes and needs. As long as any agency seeks to retain its unilateral discretion in such matters, continued conflict is inevitable. The Grays Harbor process represents a potential prototype process for such a balance to be achieved. It is time to move the question of balance from political rhetoric to actual public policy. 'Richard Babcock "Regulating Land Development: Some Thought on the Role of Government," Land Use: Tough Choices in Today's World, Special Publication No. 22, Soil Conservation Society of America, Ankeny,.lowa, 1977, page 35. Grays Harbor and Coastal Zone Management — What Went Wrong? David E. Ortman Conservation Representative Northwest Friends of the Earth Whether or not the Grays Harbor estuary planning effort in the State of Washington will become a "proto- type" for resolving conflicts between economic devel- opment and environmental protection needs in coastal zone areas will depend a great deal on the Office of Coastal Zone Management (OCZM) itself. Much of the controversy outlined by Grant Dehart in the March issue of the Bulletin is self-generated and a result of OCZM's own ineptness. Friends of the Earth has fol- lowed events in Grays Harbor for almost a decade. We are pleased to respond to the issue raised by OCZM. Directly involving state and federal agencies in the development of local and regional plans for wetlands and shoreland areas is a commendable goal. Efforts should be made, however, to insure that all major interests are involved. For example, the Federal Avia- tion Administration was not part of the Grays Harbor Estuary Task Force even though there are three air- ports in the planning area. Committing federal and state agencies to planning decisions in advance is not an acceptable goal without strong guidelines and application of the Clean Air Act and Federal Water Pollution Control Act requirements. The draft Grays Harbor estuary plan was developed without taking into consideration these already exist- ing constraints. Much like a builder constructing a home without referring to the building codes, the exist- ing plan is clearly in violation of the FWPCA require- ments and the President's Wetlands Order. The purpose of the Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Act is (a) to presewe, protect, develop and where pos- sible to restore or enhance the resources of the nations coastal zone. From 1940 to 1975 nearly 4,000 acres of intertidal land in Grays Harbor, one of the few major estuaries on the entire West Coast, had been utilized for disposal of dredged material. Trading off additional amounts of tidal wetlands to economic development for the long-term preservation of the remaining wet- lands in the estuary is acceptable only under the fol- lowing conditions, neither of which are met by the draft plan. The first is the level of protection. If nothing else, CZM planning has illustrated the lack of mechan- isms, tools and programs available to protect critical wetland areas. No sanctuaries or wildlife refuges or non-dumping areas are proposed. The only "protec- tion" offered other parts of the harbor (besides Man- agement Unit 13) is zoning which is reviewable every five years. The second condition is an adequate test of what constitutes economic development. After a breach of faith on a major wetland permit in Grays Har- bor in 1976, when the G.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued a 404 permit for a 45 acre fill which destroyed 13% of the harbor's existing sedge marsh, the conser- vation community in Washington felt that CZM plan- ning would be a positive effort. The permit was issued, not jointly to Kaiser Steel (who proposed building off- shore oil-drilling rigs) and the Port as the Corps EIS stated, but to the Port alone, despite the fact that no need for such rigs was ever shown. This has resulted in an abandoned site (Kaiser released their option on the site this spring) devoid of biological productivity. No longer should Ports be able to claim "economic devel- opment" with contracts in hand before a permit is given. The Wynoochee Dam on the Wynoochee River near Grays Harbor above Aberdeen, Washington, provides a perfect example. This project was built in the sixties to provide an industrial water supply with the expectation that industrial customers would arrive to use the water and more importantly to pay for it. But the industry never arrived and the citizens of Aberdeen, the local sponsors, were faced with a million dollars a year re- payment before the Representative from the district obtained a 10 year moratorium until 1983. First the government provides speculative water, then we are asked to provide speculative land. A Port Systems Study for Grays Harbor shows that much of its exports are in wood products and that much of this export capacity even with expansion lies unutilized. Where is the need for additional wetland fills? Mediating environmental disputes among govern- ment agencies, while keeping citizens in an observer role is contrary to the policies of the Coastal Zone Man- agement Act which calls for participation by the public in developing CZM programs. The Federal Office of Coastal Zone Management, the State Department of Ecology and the Estuary Task Force have deliberately D-10 JULY 1979 worked to exclude public participation. This policy is also being used in CZM planning in Minnesota, where citizens have gone on record protesting being locked out of the decision making. Commenting on the major compromises listed, the agreement apparently reached for Management Area 13, the conditions placed on filling 500 acres of the Bowerman Basin for non-specific, non-water depen- dent uses are inadequate and clearly in violation of the 404(bXl) guidelines. The Bowerman Basin, as one of the most biologically productive areas in the inner har- bor and a critical area for shorebirds and waterfowl, has been proposed to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service for acquisition under their Unique Wildlife Ecosystem program. This report was unavailable at the time the draft estuary plan was released. To destroy an area of known biological importance for unknown non-water dependent development, flies in the face of every major wetland and wildlife protection policy this na- tion has developed. The area the Port wishes to fill is an area currently designated Conservancy under the Grays Harbor Shoreline Master Program (developed under the State Shorelines Management Act). Transfer to a state agency of the remaining Port area is controversial and can be criticized on a number of grounds. Lance D. Wood and John R. Hill, both from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, in the Coastal Zone Management Journal, point out that ". . . any 'trade' of public control of some lands in return for a permit to dredge or fill in other wetlands must be conducted very carefully, since some wetland areas are much more valuable to the public than others are . . . the real value of a devel- oper's 'committing wetlands to the public' can be ques- tioned. If a developer buys legal title to wetlands and transfers title to a state or local government, or to a conservation organization like the Nature Conservancy, the transfer of title in itself would not necessarily safeguard the wetlands for long . . . state or local government that receives title to 'mitigation wet- lands' might later develop those wetlands." 1 Bankline straightening or bankline erosion control should not be permitted outside designated develop- ment areas. This type of conditional use, which per- meates the plan, is simply one more instance of wet- land alteration allowed in the estuary for unspecific purposes. We note that at least in the draft plan, the relocation of Bowerman Airport, which borders the navigation channel, is a definite feature of the plan. OCZM and the Task Force appear to be backing out of this commit- ment. We continue to believe that relocation of Bower- man Airport, a Port owned and operated operation which lost the Port nearly $45,000 last year, would pro- vide them with adequate land for water-dependent uses. If the airport is not relocated, then that to us is an indication that the Port feels safer with a losing proposition than with risking their best location in the hopes of attracting water dependent users. The procedural issues are again indicative of the un- imaginative approach OCZM has taken to the planning process. There is no question that citizen and interest group involvement in the plan formulation was and re- mains inadequate. There has been no attempt made by the Estuary Task Force to keep in contact with citizen groups. Citizens who did attend Task Force meet- ings were specifically told their input was not wel- come. Citizen involvement is so basic to the success of CZM planning that unless immediate changes are seen in OCZM's attitude, legal challenges could tie up such plans for years. For OCZM to suggest that NEPA can be circumvented by agreement of federal, state and local agencies to decision making without the NEPA process will again subject OCZM to long and costly liti- gation. OCZM has made a mountain out of a molehill by their refusal to integrate MEPA, the FWPCA and CZMA. An EIS should have accompanied the draft plan for the "special management area." Designations could have been made between areas for development and areas for protection, based on the FWPCA and specifi- cally the 404(bXl) guidelines. Then when a specific proposal comes up, a site specific EIS would be written to examine the environmental impacts and the alterna- tives available. This process assures some degree of predictability, while at the same time making clear that designation of an area as Urban or Urban Develop- ment does not mean a blank check to fill for any use that comes along. The latter is a principle clearly stated in the existing Grays Harbor Shoreline Master Program. Therefore, no discretion would be surrendered by federal or state agencies over subsequent permit appli- cations, rather a process is set up that allows a clearer understanding of what the federal and state require- ments are, which must first be met, and in what areas the permitted uses might be assigned. The substitution by OCZM of Estuary Planning for full review of alternatives for each permit application under the 404(bXl) guidelines is bad policy and con- trary to Sec. 307(f) of the CZM Act which expressly states that the FWPCA requirements "shall be the water pollution control . . . requirements applicable to such program." OCZM's continued attempts to under- mine the FWPCA is the single largest obstacle to resolu- tion of a Grays Harbor Plan. It is clear that the 404 guidelines are not met by the current Plan. Rather than pressuring EPA to rewrite the guidelines to suit OCZM, OCZM should adopt the above model and give EPA every cooperation to strengthen the 404(bXl) guide- lines to assure that our nation's wetlands do not suffer further from unwise dredge and fill activities. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and in our view rightly so, has refused to "formally adopt" the plan and has maintained that they will continue to carry out all their legal obligations of permit review. This is most important since the Corps regulations outline in detail the evaluation process on a site specific basis that must be carried out before a 404 permit is issued. These regulations state that the evaluation of every ap- plication must consider "the probable impact of each proposal in relation to the cumulative effect created by other existing and anticipated structure or work in the general area . . . the particular wetland site for which D-ll an application is made will be evaluated with the rec- ognition that it is part of a complete and interrelated wetland area." The Corps must also consult with other federal and state agencies to "assess the cumulative effect of activities in such areas." Furthermore, the Corps can condition permits to mitigate damage done, a feature excluded from the draft plan. If the Port of Grays Harbor can succeed in obtaining 500 acres of wetlands for non-water dependent uses, what will coas- tal zone planning bring us in Louisiana, New Jersey or Alaska? It is our belief that a long range plan, with the proper constraints would tend to prevent further unplanned losses of wetlands due to political intervention. The current plan does not meet this test. Non-water depen- dent uses are not sufficient justification for filling wet- lands. The city of Aberdeen recently pushed through a wetland permit for a restaurant, motel and parking lot. In the face of such ill-conceived planning for wetland uses, it is impossible to believe that further wetland losses for true water dependent uses would not take place. The proposed immediate filling of 250 acres for Port development cannot be authorized in advance of a permit application specifying the use and we will oppose such a policy in this and any subsequent CZM plan. The adequacy of environmental data is not an issue. The question at hand is whether that data was ade- quately used in the decision making. There is ample evidence that it was not, especially as it concerns the Bowerman Basin. A more fundamental issue here is whether or not resource agencies, without citizen help and support, can adequately protect the public inter- est. Finally, the limitation of the estuary planning boun- dary is a critical shortcoming. Without inclusion of the entire watershed, the estuary as an ecosystem cannot be considered. CZM planning can succeed, but only if OCZM exhibits an interest in the purposes of the CZM Act to preserve the land and water resources of the coastal zone in administrating its program. We cannot afford to sacrifice existing wetland policy to specula- tive port development in the name of CZM planning. ■Vol. 4, No. 4, 1978. D-12 THE SEARCH FOR PREDICTABILITY - Planning and Conflict Resolution In Gray Harbor, Washington, Chapter 3: "Impetus For Task Force Formation," Washington Sea Grant Technical Report WSG 80-5, October 1980. 3 IMPETUS FOR TASK FORGE FORMATION A number of factors provided the impetus for the development of an estuary-wide management plan in Grays Harbor. First of all, the geographic, socioeconomic, and governmental characteristics of Grays Harbor made it a prime candidate for successful regional planning. Secondly, Grays Harbor already had a tradition of interagency planning before the Task Force was formed. Thirdly, the navigation channel maintenance project and the potential channel improvement project result in dredged materials that could be used as free fill material to create usable development land in wetland and intertidal areas. The Port of Grays Harbor, in particular, wanted a plan that would specify sites to receive dredged material. Finally, the existing estuary management framework was inadequate and a groat deal of frustration was engendered by attempts to manage development and conservation in the estuary using the existing procedures. Several key disputes erupted as a result of this inadequacy and served as catalysts to plan development. The following discussion examines in more detail these four factors which gave impetus to the planning effort. Regional Homogeneity Conducive to Planning The geographic, socioeconomic, and governmental characteristics of Grays Harbor predispose it to successful regional planning. Although there are numberous cities and towns with special interests, there is considerable homogeneity in the region, which distinguishes it from a number of other areas facing similar management problems. The entire estuary lies within a single' county; there is only one port district, and its jurisdiction is countywide; and the regional economy is predominantly dependent on a single resource- -timber. As stated in chapter 2, about 90 percent of the land in the county is committed to timber -related industries. Also, the Port of Grays Harbor uses its shipping facilities almost exclusively for the export of timber- related products. This homogeneity should simplify comprehensive regional planning. Fewer actors are involved, and there is no competition among different port authorities or multiple county governments, as is the case in many other estuarine regions. For example, San Franscisco Bay and Puget Sound contain numerous cities, counties, and port authorities, and support a highly diverse set of uses. Estuary planning in these areas would be significantly more complex than in Grays Harbor. Interagency Planning Tradition Regional interagency planning activities are not new to Grays Harbor. Regional planning has been conducted under the auspices of the Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission (GHRPC) and the Army Corps of Engineers (COE) . Because of the frequent use of inter- agency planning in the last two decades, a tradition had developed which was followed when a new set of problems arose in the estuary in 1974 and 1975. The GHRPC was formed in 1960 as a result of the Washington State Planning Enabling Act (RCW 36.80). The Commission is funded from state and federal sources and functions as a clearinghouse for social, economic, and environmental information. The GHRPC uses this infor- mation to facilitate a regional approach to water supply, solid- waste management, transportation, comprehensive zoning, and economic development in general. Although the GHRPC has no official authority D-13 to make development decisions, it has demonstrated its ability to influence county and municipal policies and decision making through data organization and directed studies. In the early 1960s, Grays Harbor County became the first county in the state to formulate a countywide comprehensive zoning plan. The GHRPC played a primary role in establishing this plan and provided support for municipally generated zoning ordinances. Also beginning in the 1960s, the GHRPC initiated a series of Overall Economic Development Program publications as an element of regional comprehensive planning. The fifth edition was completed in June 1979 (GHRPC, 1979). Supported by federal redevelopment funds, each edition functions as a review of current regional economic conditions and focuses on the formulation of particular development goals intended to further economic diversification, resource development, and environmental improvement. An economic development committee, with regional membership, guides the creation of economic development goals and objectives. In the early 1970s, the GHRPC took the initiative to develop the first county-wide Shoreline Master Program (SMP) in the state. The SMP was developed with the cooperation of local governments in the region, who subsequently used the county's plan as a model in the development of city SMP's. The COE has been a primary influence in the development of Grays Harbor, and was an early advocate of interagency environmental planning for the estuary. Beginning in the late 1960s and increasing in intensity in the early 1970s, uncertainty over the environmental effects of maintenance dredging and the disposal of dredged material in Grays Harbor developed among public groups and resource management agencies. The first overture for interagency collaboration" in the COEi's long-range maintenance dredging planning program came in 1968. In addition to the COE as project sponsor, participating agencies were: the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service fUSFWS"); Bureau of Commercial Fisheries (predecessor of the National Marine Fisheries Service); Federal Water Pollution Control Administration (predecessor of the Environmental Protection Agency) ; Washington State Departments of Fisheries, Game, and Natural Resources; and the Washington Water Pollution Control Commission (predecessor of the Department of Ecology) The product of this mutual planning effort was an agreement stipulating the scheduling of dredging in the upper harbor to avoid seasonal low river flow conditions when dredging would cause water quality degradation. In 1972, with the strong support of the state, the COE gathered a similar cast of participants to plan the conduct of maintenance dredging in the estuary. The federal agencies reached an agreement but, in recognition of recent federal and state legislation increasing the role of state and local governments in shoreline planning and developments, they decided to include these entities in the lonu- range planning program. In June 1975, a conference of federal, state, and local representatives revealed significant questions and different points of view about the development requirements of the Grays Harbor region and the future health of estuarine resources. Pending resolution of these differences, the federal agency agreement was accepted as an interim program by state and local entities. A technical study was instituted to produce an adequate environmental data base for effective long-range planning. When the technical study was completed early in 1977, the COE asked federal and state resource management agencies, the Port of Crays Harbor, and the GHRPC to participate in formulating an D-H estuary-wide, aquatic-area dredging plan. As explicitly stated at the outset, planning was to be within the framework of existing federal, state, and local policies, laws, and regulations. Particular emphasis was placed on integrating guidelines controlling dredge and fill activities with state and local shoreline-use laws and programs (Weinmann § Malek, 1978) . Although a long-range plan has not yet been published or submitted for general public review, the program proposes a flexible system for mutual decision making among regulatory, management, and development entities. Thus, the (PP. played an important role in establishing interagency collaboration as a workable planning format in Grays Harbor. Opportunity to Specify Fill Sites In 1971, the Washington State Shoreline Management Act (SJ^IA) required local governments to create Shoreline Master Programs (see appendix). In the Grays Harbor County SMP, 2,100 acres (840 ha) of Port-owned tidelands and wetlands are specifically designated as conservancy areas. This designation would prevent these wetlands from being filled and thus preclude industrial and commercial development. Why this program, which severely limits development, was approved by the state without Port objection cannot be fully answered. The program may have been approved because (1) it was the first local program in the state scheduled to receive approval by the Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE) , and thus a certain degree of inexperience prevailed; and (2) the conservancy designation was, under certain conditions, allowed to accommodate some kinds of development. It may be that Port officials did not strenuously object to the restrictive plan because they u-crc confident that, with Congressional approval of the improved navigation channel, conditional approval of filling and developing the tidelands could be obtained. The Port is responsible for providing disposal sites to receive volumes of dredged material resulting from maintenance of the present channel project. Based on its comprehensive plan (see p. 10), the Port could present a well -substantiated case for creating industrial and commercial development sites. Such development would provide the local economy with a needed boost, and thus the local and state political pressures would seemingly be directed to grant conditional approval for filling the tidelands. The combination of the Port's responsibility for providing dredged material sites, the annual availability of dredged material, the scarcity of usable flat land surrounding the estuary, and the fact that the Port owns a great deal of potentially usable tideland served as strong stimuli for active Port support for development of an estuary-wide comprehensive plan. Such a plan could predesignate sites to receive fill for creation of industrial sites, and the Port could be assured that filling of. at least some of its tideland holdings would be allowed. Inadequacy of Existing Management Framework As shown above, Grays Harbor has had an extensive planning and management framework for some years. A detailed discussion of the existing local and state coastal management programs, state environ- mental legislation and regulatory agencies, and federal environmental legislation and implementing agencies is provided in the appendix. This complex web of decision-making authorities, with overlapping project review responsibilities and sometimes conflicting review standards, created an atmosphere of confusion and frustration in DHL 5 Grays Harbor prior to the initiation of the Grays Harbor Estuary Management Program and was a primary impetus for the formation of the Task Force. Resource management and protection agencies, such as the state and federal agencies responsible for fish and game, play a primary role in review of development proposals. These agencies exercise permit review powers over development proposals to ensure the long-term environmental health of the estuary. Although these agencies often articulated contrasting perspectives and cited differing legislative mandates, they were in general agreement that (1) ecological and resource values must be preserved and protected for the future; (2) the amount of development the estuary could absorb while retaining its environmental viability is unknown, but limited; and (3) case-by-case permit review results in un- certainty over the cumulative effect of development and risks piece- meal disruption of estuarine resource properties. Technically, it is difficult for resource management personnel to document the ecological importance of the loss of a particular expanse of salt marsh at a particular point in time. Yet; their knowledge of estuarine ecology and their observations of changes over time in the estuary led them to conclude that incremental shoreline development activities were leading to significant adverse environ- mental effects in Grays Harbor. Economic interests in the estuary want timely and predictable responses from government agencies to project proposals. Aquatic and wetland areas owned by development interests are valuable industrial and commercial property. Without the addition of fill or elevation of aquatic margins to upland grades, tideland owners may not obtain the full commerical value of their property. Whenever resource agencies impose limitations on the use of private land, and these limitations are unaccompanied by specific, technical criteria and are supported only as a protection of valuable natural resources, frustrated opposition ensues. Resource agencies maintain that the benefits from preservation and conservation are in the long-term public interest. In contrast, development interests maintain that the cost is not borne by the public when aquatic areas and tide- lands cannot be developed. In effect, advocates of economic develop- ment agree that adhering to agency restrictions leaves them with an uncertain future, property with decreased commercial value, and violated personal property rights. Local governments in Grays Harbor, although not always directly involved as project sponsors, began to feel that state and federal decision-making policies were interfering with their efforts to diversify and stabilize the regional economy. They considered the legislative concepts and administrative frameworks required by state and federal law to be time consuming and cumbersome. Private interests and local governments felt that their efforts as advocates of regional benefit through the use of estuarine resources were being subjected to highly generalized, and often arbitrary, decision criteria for the benefit of state and national interests at the expense of the residents of Grays Harbor. Given these conflicting interests, disputes over the regional benefits to be gained from industrial development versus the potential environmental disturbance resulting from physical development activities were inevitable. The disputes were intense and resulted in a great deal of tension between development and conservation interests, and among public management agencies with regulatory responsibilities. The cities and the Port were the prime D-16 local actors concerned with the development projects. State agencies involved in the disputes were the Washington Departments of Ecology, Fisheries, Game, and Natural Resources (WDOE, WDF, WDG, and WDNR), and the federal agencies involved were the COE, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) , the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) . Several key disputes are presented here to illustrate the conflict and the frustrating process of project review. Key Disputes in Grays Harbor Three key disputes between development interests and resource management and protection agencies in Grays Harbor were sufficient to catalyze demands for comprehensive environmental planning in the estuary. The first example demonstrates local and state coordination difficulties, while the latter two instances illustrate the inter- action of development interests with all levels of government with decision-making authority in Grays Harbor. Thtuiderbird Motel proposal The City of Aberdeen submitted a draft SMP to the Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE) in June 1974. WDOE had not evaluated or approved Aberdeen's SMP when the city received and approved a substantial development permit application for construction of a Thunderbird motel, restaurant, and marina complex along 1,200 feet (372 m) of shoreline near the confluence of the Chehalis and Wishkah Rivers in the eastern reaches of Grays Harbor (see fig. 2). Aberdeen determined that the project proposal, situated on a vacant site formerly occupied by a wood-products *** i'i'y.1* ' •'«*V>j *£?;"'■ HUMPTULIPS RIVER UPSTREAM CONTINUATION OF CHEHAUS RIVER Figure 2 Sites of key permit-issue disputes D-17 facility and owned by the Port of Grays Harbor, was a reasonable and appropriate use and that project plans would generally enhance the area and benefit the public. Ihe site was designated as "urban" in Aberdeen's draft SMP and adjoined an upland area zoned "commercial," which permitted commercial and light industrial activities. In accordance with the SMA, the approved substantial development permit was forwarded to WDOE for review. WDOE did not concur with local approval, noting that the proposal was not in consonance with sections of Aberdeen's draft SMP dealing with restoration, public access, and development policies relating to water dependency. Further, WDOE determined that, in compliance with the provisions of the State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) , an environmental impact statement must accompany the proposal. Neither Aberdeen nor the project sponsor had prepared an EIS or the alternative, a statement of negative impact. After WDOE rejected the proposal, development sponsors appealed to the judgement of the Shoreline Hearings Board (SHB #162, 1978). The state board concluded that the appellants did not comply with the SEPA guidelines and that this alone mandated WDOE's remand of the matter for reevaluation. The board made additional comments, noting that (1) although the project generally incorporated the provisions of the SMA regarding substantial development permits, the proposal did not closely follow the development policies stated in Aberdeen's - draft SMP; and (2) the draft SMP did not appear to parallel state policies relating to navigation, commerce, and protection of estuarine resources, especially regarding landfills. As a result, the project sponsor abandoned the proposal, while Aberdeen voiced irritation that a potential commercial venture and use of privately held land and shoreline had been discouraged by the state. The City of Aberdeen was particularly frustrated because they believed the project had conformed with the draft SMP. A shoreline permit was eventually obtained, although no EIS was prepared. The COE issued the permit over strenuous objections by the environmental community that the use was not water dependent, and that the COE and the permittee refused to mitigate the activity by removing the structure upland to avoid bulkhead filling. The Aberdeen SMP was finally approved in June 1975 after amendments concerning landfills had been incorporated by the city. WDOE approval was accompanied by comment that the SMP did not squarely address complex issues relating to landfills and the expected uses of filled areas. WDOE referred to the proposed long-range dredging effects study sponsored by the COE as providing future clarification of this issue. Boise Cascade Corporation sawmill proposal In October 1973, the Boise Cascade Corporation submitted a substantial development permit proposal to the city of Aberdeen. Boise Cascade proposed placing 1,348 feet (414 m) of bulkhead along the northern margin of the Chehalis River opposite the Aberdeen Reach of the main navigation channel (see fig. 2) , and filling the bulkhead with wood-waste materials to provide level terrain for log storage and sorting. Local authorities approved the project proposal. In November, however, WDOE appealed the proposal through its substantial - development review capacity because of potential water-quality impacts from wood-waste leachate. The appeal was based on guidelines restricting placement of wood-waste fill in shoreline areas. The permit was eventually granted by the state in late 1975, after it was D-18 agreed that dredged material from the COE channel maintenance project would be used for the bulkhead fill in place of wood waste. Obtaining a federal permit decision for the Boise Cascade project proved more difficult, and brought the need for comprehensive planning in the estuary to the attention of the state's two senators. In 1973, EPA had not codified criteria implementing section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Consequently, EPA centered its opposition to the project on water-quality criteria alone. The EPA was concerned about the long-term effects of wood leachates entering the estuary. However, after the proposed fill material was changed to dredged material, EPA retracted its objections. NMFS conditionally approved the project based on policies for protection of aquatic resources and water-quality guidelines. The remaining federal agency, USFWS, opposed the project due to expected adverse effects on fish and wildlife. USFWS noted specific impacts on (1) juvenile anadromous fish migrating through the proposed project area; (2) juvenile salmonid food supply that would be significantly altered by the fill; (3) shorebird and waterfowl use of the adjacent affected area for feeding and resting; (4) other specific impacts related to the use of wood waste for fill material; and (5) former deposition of wood waste in wetlands and tidelands in the Aberdeen area. Moreover, the USFWS response addressed the need for comprehensive estuarine planning, stating that they: . . .urged development of a comprehensive land use plan for this area to identify spoil sites and water oriented industrial needs. Until such a coordinated plan has been developed to establish a requirement for additional waterfront log storage area, we cannot accept the losses that such projects engender for fish and wildlife resources. K'e thus recommend denial of this permit (USFWS, 1974). In a letter to the project sponsor, USFWS indicated similar concerns. The agency emphasized that "piecemeal and indiscriminate filling and construction" is chronic in the Grays Harbor region, and reiterated the desire for a comprehensive plan: ". . .we do, and will continue to, recommend that all such projects be denied pending development of a comprehensive plan, or at least until solid progress on a jointly developed plan is evidenced" (USFWS, 1974). Even after the nature of the fill material was changed from wood waste to dredged material, the site was designated for the water-related requirements of a sawmill, and the other involved agencies approved the proposal, USFWS continued to oppose the project. The City of Aberdeen charged the Department of the Interior and USFWS with placing "a moratorium on development in the City of Aberdeen without consulting the government of Aberdeen and without providing the people of Aberdeen a chance to be heard." Aberdeen considered such action to be "an abuse of governmental power." The response went on to state, "Your objections, without good reason, have had a damaging effect on the economy of Aberdeen when we have 12 percent unemployment" (City of Aberdeen, 1975). Copies of the letter were also sent U. S. Senators H. M. Jackson and W. G. Magnuson. The USFWS provided detailed responses to inquiries from both senators. They informed Senator Jackson that they had previously communicated their position on tideland filling to the GHRPC, and that USFWS "was not unalterably opposed to the project, but recommended denial of permits for fill projects until such time as a proper comprehensive plan is offered." The agency also took D 19 exception to Aberdeen's charges regarding a moratorium on development: This is inaccurate. If our position may be termed a moratorium, it is a short-term moratorium on certain kinds of develop- ments, such as tideland fill for all of Grays Harbor. This is done for the purpose of reaching a jointly determined plan that will accommodate our shared interests in the future management of the estuary (USFWS, 1975 a). The response to Senator Magnuson was similar, but also stated: There is definite need for some kind of balancing action in this area. We realize port areas are primarily industrial zones; but to condone the continued piecemeal filling of valuable littoral areas for nonwater-dependent facilities and the resultant loss of fish and wildlife habitat without guarantee that the more valuable tidal and wetland areas will be preserved. . .is shortsighted and inconsistent (USFWS, 1975 b). On 4 September 1975, the USFWS, Boise Cascade Corporation, the Port of Grays Harbor, and the GHRPC met in Aberdeen in an attempt to resolve the permit conflict. Boise Cascade indicated serious reservations about continuing the proposed project. On 18 September 1975, USFWS released its objection to the issuance of a COE section 10 permit: In the belief that good faith has been shown with respect to prompt action on a memorandum of understanding for joint development of a mutually acceptable comprehensive plan and with the full expectation that the City of Aberdeen and other local governments adjoining Grays Harbor will cooperate to the end that such a plan is developed in conjunction with federal navigation projects, it is our intention to withdraw our objections to issuance of the Boise Cascade Corporation permit (USFWS, 1975). The agency stated, however, that it would object to any future filling activity involving wetland areas where a federal permit was required unless USFWS and appropriate local governments signed a memorandum of understanding relating to development of a comprehensive plan. The permit was finally issued after significant political intervention and a delay of nearly two years. Kaiser Steel Corporation industrial facility proposal Perhaps the most pivotal dispute over estuarine resource use in recent years began with a permit application published by the COE on 31 March, 1975. An area at the mouth of the Hoquiam River (see fig. 2) had been obtained by the Port of Grays Harbor in 1963 as an industrial development district and was zoned "industrial" in the City of Hoquiam' s comprehensive land-use plan. Hoquiam's SMP classified the site as "urban development." Therefore, local interests considered industrial use of the plot appropriate. The 44.5 acre (18 ha) site included approximately 25 acres (10 ha) of sedge-marsh habitat and 13.8 acres (5.6 ha) of tidelands (the remaining 5.5 acres [2.2 ha] was of upland grade) , thus requiring the issuance of a combined federal permit to satisy section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and section 404 of the Clean Water Act. An impervious dike, enclosing 3,355 feet (1,023 m) of shoreline, was included in the project proposal, with a total of 456,000 cubic yards (351,000 m 3 ) of fill material required to raise the grade of the entire site above the 100-year flood plain. D-20 The Port of Grays Harbor, as project sponsor, stated that the fill was for log and lumber sorting and storage yards. Federal agencies responded as required by law. However, there was considerably more weight to certain review statements than in the past, particularly those of EPA. That agency had recently published proposed guidelines for implementation of section 404 (b) of the CWA. The guidelines emphasized project alternatives, and EPA stated that destruction of tidelands and associated wetlands warranted a critical evaluation of all reasonable alternatives to the fill of estuarine margins. EPA also expressed concerns about potential water-quality impacts of the proposed project; the fill material was to come from a submerged borrow site, thus increasing the likelihood of adverse affects on aquatic systems. EPA therefore recommended that the permit be denied. The USFWS responded in depth to the Port's proposal, relating a list of project -linked impacts and the absence of comprehensive estuary planning necessary to avoid regional cumulative environmental disruption. The response reiterated the now-familiar position of USFWS: Past piecemeal development along the channel has decimated fish and wildlife habitat and drastically limited public access and fish and wildlife related uses. This is essentially the last remaining area that has the potential for becoming a waterfront park, providing public access to the waterfront, or being dedicated as open space. We believe the failure to consider this location for such uses is shortsighted and does not constitute waterfront planning in a comprehensive and coordinated manner (USFWS, 1975 c). USFWS also stated that the. use planned for the fill area was inappropriate because it was non-water dependent, and that alter- native log storage sites existed elsewhere. USFWS requested that the permit be denied, and further stated that: ... we have not abandoned our original objectives that there be coordinated and comprehensive site specific planning for the Grays Harbor estuary, its shorelines and wise waterfront utilization. We remain available. . .(USFWS, 1975 c) . NMFS objected to the permit, concurring with EPA that adverse water- quality impacts would significantly affect aquatic resources. After all federal agencies recorded opposition to the proposed log storage and sorting project, events took an unexpected turn. On 24 June 1975, the EPA received a letter from Senator Jackson stating, * v j have learned that the land in question, for which a permit must be obtained from the Corps of Engineers, is intended to be used by a firm which constructs equipment designed to increase energy production in this country" (Jackson, 1975). Apparently the Port had confidential development plans for the site. Specifically, the Port had been privately negotiating with Kaiser Steel Corporation for an energy- related industrial facility. On 17 July 1975, EPA and USFWS personnel met with Port of Grays Harbor officials and were informed that on 22 July 1975, a lease option for the site would be signed with Kaiser Steel Corporation. This firm, it was revealed, would manufacture and assemble off-shore drilling platforms for exploration and exploitation of oil and natural gas deposits on the continental shelf of North America. On 17 September 1975, the Port made appropriate revisions to the SMA. permit application reflecting the proposed Kaiser Steel facility and identifying Kaiser as a project co-sponsor. The use change from log sorting and storage to the fabrication of off-shore drilling D-21 equipment also necessitated a revised COE permit application and thus reevaluation by all agencies. In September 1975, EPA's proposed interim final section 404 guide- lines were promulgated, and construction of the Kaiser Steel facility appeared to meet the agency's criteria. The Port and Kaiser Steel, however, had not yet finalized a lease agreement. As previously noted, many of EPA's original water-quality concerns with this project were due to the source of the proposed fill material. To overcome this objection to the project, the Port, Kaiser Steel, and the COE initiated discussions to coordinate the spring 1976 maintenance dredging schedule with the filling of the Kaiser Steel and Boise Cascade sites so that dredged material could be used for fill. EPA recognized the adverse water-quality impacts caused by filling the wetland area, but noted that impacts would be minimized if dredged material were used. As the project would aid energy production and was considered to be in the national interest, and since it appeared to conform to their criteria for dredging and filling, EPA responded on 14 October 1975: If this agency withholds permit approval pending an actual Port of Grays Harbor and Kaiser Steel Corporation use agreement, the time needed for filling the site for this use may expire. The Port and the Aberdeen-Hoquiam area may lose this needed industry and employment. We will not, for this reason, hold up the issuance of the permit for the agreement (EPA, 1975) . As noted earlier, Kaiser Steel had merely committed to a lease option on the property. Concurrently, the availability of off-shore oil leases in the Gulf of Alaska became uncertain due to conflicts surrounding secondary impacts of oil development on coastal communities in Southeast Alaska. Furthermore, additional delay of the Kaiser Steel project seemed unavoidable since the COE had determined that a federal EIS would be required. EPA foresaw these potential problems and surmised that Kaiser Steel would probably never use the site. Therefore, EPA conditioned its response, citing 404 implementation guidelines, to require future dedication of the site for water- dependent use regardless of the ultimate occupant. In an eleventh-hour effort to salvage the fill proposal and to retain Kaiser Steel as a lessee for its site, the Port of Grays Harbor formulated Resolution No. 1673 on 9 December 1975, (Port of G. H., 1975; USACOE, 1976 b § c) . This resolution officially ". . .dedicates and pledges the use of this industrial site by water-dependent activities only, and be it further resolved, the Port of Grays Harbor pledges its continued cooperation in developing a comprehensive plan for the Grays Harbor estuary. . ." With the signing of this resolution, the remaining federal agencies conceded to the issuance of the COE permit. The filled area west of the mouth of the Hoquiam River is vacant at present, since Kaiser Steel and the Port did not complete the final lease agreements. Development of off-shore oil resources in Alaska has not proceeded as rapidly as initially expected. Commercially developable oil reserves have not been discovered on the leased tracts. Off-shore oil and gas drilling equipment probably will be fabricated and assembled elsewhere. The vacant site remains controversial, however. The area is stabilized fastland and is available for use. Resource agencies hold that, if there is a pressing need for industrial development sites, as local interests and the Port assert, the site would be occupied at this time. D-22 Decision-Making Problems at the Local Level The three key disputes discussed above reflect general decision- making problems. One of these general problems centers on uncertainties in implementation of the SMA at the local level. Since the inception of the SMA in 1972, WDOE has reviewed all substantial shoreline development applications in the estuary (see appendix) . WDOE records for the years 1972 to 1975 indicate that an overwhelming majority of project proposals were situated in the inner harbor area, thus requiring initial review by Grays Harbor County and the cities of Aberdeen and Hoquiam. Although the county SMP was first approved by the state in June 1974, WDOE reevaluated the program in September of that year. The state determined that the county SMP allowed "indiscriminate use of fill for all types of activities" and, as a result, was inconsistent with SMA implementation guidelines (WDOE, 1974). WDOE requested that Grays Harbor County amend and rewrite portions of the program such that "regulations for landfills and bulkheads. . . favor shoreline-dependent uses." The county SMP was not officially approved until July 1978 after specific WDOE suggestions had been incorporated. The Aberdeen SMP was finalized in June 1975, but, as noted above, it contained fundamental inconsistencies with state water -dependency policy guidelines. Hoquiam' s SMP was accepted by WDOE in April 1976. Thus, estuarine resource-use disputes, preceding the agreement to enter into collaborative planning, had generally occurred in the absence of officially approved SMP's. A formalized coastal zone decision framework, as mandated by the state SMA and the federal CZMA, was not in place in Grays Harbor from 1972 to 1975, the period in which the three disputes discussed above created a common impetus for collaborative planning. During this three-year period, approximately fifty- five substantial development permits were administered by Aberdeen, Hoquiam, and the County. All of these were followed by state review. Of this total, only six projects were remanded by WDOE for reevaluation by local government. Five of the permit applications returned to local administrators for additional analysis were appealed to the Shorelines Hearing Board, including the three disputes described above. Although local SMP's were not functioning as formal devices for implementation of shoreline management in the estuary, only: a small portion of project proposals were appealed to the Shorelines Hearing Board. State criticism of local permits decisions centered on fill proposals, water-dependency criteria, and state environmental policy. As the local SMP's were installed, conflict in Grays Harbor was not being ameliorated. Furthermore, those involved in the use and permitting conflicts apparently did not expect the situation to improve with the forthcoming federal approval of the -state Coastal Zone Management Program (CZMP) in June 1976. Decision-Making Problems at the State and Federal Levels At the state level, four agencies -- WDOE, WDF, WDG, and WDNR -- are important participants in estuarine resource-use determinations in Grays Harbor. Each has authority over aspects of shoreline and aquatic resource regulation and management, but their individual approaches differ. These four agencies also have differing sources of decision- making authority (see appendix) . Authority for water-quality control has been delegated by the federal government to the WDOE under section 402 of the CWA. Both WDF and WDG are responsible for management of living aquatic resources, but have no specifically mandated authority D-23 to protect estuarine shoreline or aquatic-area habitat, except in issuing a Hydraulics Project Plan Approval. However, both WDF and WDG have expanded their role in affecting the use of wetland and aquatic resources because they can influence the federal permit process (to be discussed below) . WDNR, as a manager of state lands in the public interest, has established policies and guidelines for the management of state-owned aquatic areas. WDNR use policies address navigation and commerce; public use; food, mineral, and chemical production; uses of aquatic areas by abutting land owners; and revenue production. Differing sources of decision-making responsibility and diverse approaches to management of specific estuarine resources make for potentially fragmented review of project proposals by state agencies. For example, WDOE may respond to a particular proposal by noting water quality concerns. WDF, with primary interests in the direct use of aquatic areas by fish and shellfish, might agree with WDOE, especially if no irreversible loss to benthic or intertidal habitat is foreseen. WDG views development on estuarine margins in a different manner. If the proposed project would affect estuarine wetlands or marsh areas, WDG might resist project approval owing to its more broadly based objectives, which include habitat maintenance. WDNR's position might support approval or denial, depending on the proposed project's proximity to established harbor lines or state owned tidelands or the perceived need for upland access. Thus, agencies responding to different aspects of a proposal, with potentially contrasting criteria and objectives, may not only confuse the project sponsor, but generate concern among the agencies themselves over the state's overall ability to manage estuarine resources for the long- term public benefit and protection of the estuary's viability. The federal resource agencies have perspectives similar to those* of state agencies with authority over the same resources. USFWS > like WDG, has a primary interest in wildlife and its habitat; NMFS, like WDF, has a primary interest in fish and shellfish; and EPA, like WDOE, is primarily concerned with water quality in the estuary. Also like the state agencies, the federal agencies' fundamental concern is for the adverse environmental effects of filling estuarine tidelands and wetlands. At the federal level, the COE, EPA, USFWS, and NMFS share responsibility for review of proposed estuarine development projects. While the COE actually issues section 10 and section 404 permits, in the latter case they must apply criteria developed by EPA, and specific COE decisions can be vetoed by EPA. Moreover, the authority of both these federal entities is subject to review and evaluation by other federal and state resource agencies, stemming from the broad requirements for decision making set forth in the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) . Thus, USFWS, NMFS, and concerned state resource agencies provide comment and can influence section 10/404 determinations In theory, this multiagency review should result in a comprehensive analysis and decision, since COE expertise lies chiefly in section 10 matters, USFWS and NMFS have extensive experience in management of specific aquatic resources and wetland habitats, and EPA concentrates on water quality. However, fragmented decision making may also result. Another potential problem area in federal agency decision making concerns the alternatives analysis required under NEPA, CWA, and FWCA. In particular, analysis of alternatives to wetland fill is central to the joint EPA/COE guidelines to implement section 404 of the CWA. Alternatives must be determined for each proposed shoreline or aquatic-area project, with analysis and evaluation dependent upon D-24 the specific nature of the proposed activity as it relates to wetland resources. The various federal agencies may differ in their evaluation of the proposed alternatives. Thus, although the proposed joint 404 guidelines establish agency responsibilities for review of the specific environmental effects expected from development proposals, the agencies could still differ among themselves on the preferred outcome. Given all these difficulties in coordinating local, state, and federal decision making, case-specific disputes similar to those over the Thunderbird Motel, Boise-Cascade, and Kaiser Steel proposals were expected to continue and increase in frequency. All interests and actors were dissatisfied. Dredging and filling activities were likely to be continuous and the decision -making system offered little relief to developers or resource agencies. By the mid- 1970' s, all parties were, therefore, ready to participate in a Grays Harbor Estuary Management Program. D-25 APPENDIX E EXCERPTS FROM THE FEDERAL COASTAL PROGRAM REVIEW* * Source: Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Department of Commerce 244 III. PROBLEMS OF THE EXISTING REGULATORY SYSTEM This section of the chapter discusses the evolution of the Federal and state environmental regulatory process during the last two decades, the typical types of conflicts generated by multi-agency review of development proposals, and the kinds of generic problems created by such revi e.v A. Recent Evolution of the Regulatory Process An important result of increased environmental awareness and concern during the 1960s was a flurry of legislative activity at both state and national levels, and judicial challenges that changed the way in which some existing laws were administered. Congress passed a number of laws that set standards and procedures for meeting national air and water quality requirements, and gave new authority to Federal agencies to implement them. Other Federal assistance programs were designed to encourage states to develop their own regulatory programs; states were encouraged to pass laws involving state agencies in regulating development in wetlands, beaches, and other sensitive natural areas that had histori- cally been managed by local governments. In addition, laws were passed to assure full consideration of environmental values and fish and wildlife resources in Federal decisionmaking processes. Most of these new state and Federal laws and court decisions expanded the rights of citizens and interest groups to influence and participate in the regulatory process. While these changes dramatically increased protection for valuable coastal resources, the systems for managing coastal development also became pluralistic, complex and costly. Development that once had been controlled primarily by local government through local planning and zoning permits, or not controlled at all, is now influenced by numerous Federal, state and local agencies, each with their own permits or separate revi ew requirements. Developers and citizens are now faced with, not only the planning and zoning controls of local government, but also numerous single purpose performance standard programs, each requiring several reviews and permits. For example, routine dredging applications in San Francisco Bay typically require the review of five state agencies and four Federal agencies, in addition to the agencies of the local jurisdiction involved. According to local officials, over 700 permits were needed for construction and operation of the S0HI0 oil port and transshipment facility in the Port of Long Beach. The company spent nearly $60 million on the development of this project prior to the with- drawal of its applications in 1979. In spite of this complexity, the large majority of coastal develop- ment projects are approved. Many permits are conditioned to meet the requirements of state, local and Federal laws, but these conditions are seldom so onerous that projects cannot be completed. The conditions can involve added costs that must be balanced against public benefits of improved project design. For example, during the 4 years that the E-l 245 California Coastal Commission approved permits for all coastal development under Proposition 20, 97 percent of more than 25,000 development proposals were approved. Ouring the last 2 1/2 years of administering the Massachu- setts Wetlands Protection Act, the state's Division of Wetlands reports that less than 10 percent of wetlands orders by local conservation commissions were appealed. At the national level, the Corps of Engineers reports that in Fiscal Year 1979 less than 1 percent of all permit applications were referred to its Washington headquarters for resolution of conflicts. Of the 16,000 permits or letters of permission processed by the Corps in that year, 72 percent were approved with no problems, and most of the remainder were handled at the district level. Although these statistics do not reflect the costs incurred by those who withdraw applications prior to completion of the regulatory process due to delay, unacceptable conditions, or general frustration with the uncertainty of the outcome; the proportion of permit applications that raise significant problems of interagency conflict or coordination is very small, in comparison to those that are approved with no conflicts. The small percentage of permit actions that involve denials, appeals or conflict are typically larger projects which have a greater potential for significant impacts on natural resources or economic development. Conflicts over these projects can take large amounts of time and money for environmental analysis, litigation, administrative appeals, dispute resolution and other results of conflict and delay. However, it is recognized that in some cases conflicts between agencies with different mandates serve to identify and protect the overall public interest, and these expenditures are worthwhile. B. Conflicts Generated by Multi -Agency Review The pluralistic system of regulatory review that has developed over the last two decades has, however, contributed to protracted disputes in some instances and has led to the need for increased coordination among Federal, state and local agencies. A typical conflict situation may involve a developer, port authority, or public works agency that reaches agreement with one or more local governments on a proposed project, only to have the project denied after lengthy and costly proceedings by a state or Federal agency. In some cases both local and state approvals may be granted, but a Federal permitting agency may deny the project on the basis of its own requirements, other Federal agency comments or those from citizens or interest groups. Such conflicts can occur within a single level of government. For example, local development projects which are proposed in order to carry out plans supported or approved by one Federal agency may subse- quently be denied by another Federal regulatory agency. A state or local government may have invested considerable time and money in pre- paring a comprehensive land use plan, airport or highway plan, or economic development plan with Federal funding agency assistance and concurrence -- only to have projects needed to implement the plan blocked by a Federal regulatory agency that did not participate in such plans. State or E-2 246 Federal resource agencies may also disagree among themselves on how projects should be developed. Several classic examples of such conflicts were cited by an agency official providing comments for this Review: "A water quality agency, in its review of a permit for a shoreline development, required that it be constructed on fill that would seal off leachate from an old woodwaste disposal area. A wildlife agency refused to approve the permit because the fill would remove some wet- land and required that the project be constructed on a structure. Either way was acceptable to the developer, but the two agencies did not agree. The proposal, caught in this delay, lost financing and fell through. In other situations, agencies responsible for waterfowl tend to support marsh creation projects while agencies managing fish will resist any modification in aquatic areas. This conflict often frustrates mitigation proposals (since mitigation proposals often benefit one species at the expense of another) and enhancement proposals. Controversies over mitigation or enhancement proposals can be as great as development proposals. This conflict between 'environmental protection' agencies is often very confusing to local officials and is perhaps their greatest frustration in dealing with agencies." Conflicts such as these can delay or prevent needed economic develop- ment or energy projects, lead to loss of valuable coastal resources, or cause excessive costs to both private investors and the public. The Port of Baltimore, for example, maintains that its dredge disposal costs have increased 400 percent over the last 4 years because of delays in obtaining necessary Federal and state permits largely due to intergovern- mental conflict and environmental litigation over spoil disposal on two nearby islands. Too often, such conflicts emerge from the process after specific sites have been selected, land acquired, local permits obtained, and large amounts of money invested in engineering drawings, site investi- gations and environmental analyses. These kinds of conflicts are often resolved in a way that leads to frustration with government. The uncertainty of the outcome and difficul- ties of the regulatory process has a chilling effect on some citizens' willingness to engage in it at all. In other cases, developers and local proponents may try to overturn negative Federal agency decisions on a project by political intercession rather than seek a more appropriate location or produce a design that would meet the agencies' requirements. In Grays Harbor, Washington, for example, 39 acres of valuable tidelands were lost when state and Congressional legislators intervened in a con- flict between the local Port Authority and state and Federal resource agencies over the filling of land for an oil platform construction facili- ty. Four years later, the filled area remains vacant and unused. In Monterey, California, the famous Cannery Row was excised from the State Coastal Commission's jurisdiction by the state legislature when efforts to resolve conflicts between development and preservation interests broke down. Such political intercession may foreclose opportunities for citizens, interest groups or property owners to influence the outcome of E-3 247 regulatory decisions, or, at the least, cause them to perceive that they have not had an equitable chance to do so. The perception that narrow special interests are often the beneficiaries of such intercession damages the credibility of the entire regulatory process. C. Generic Problems The existing regulatory system is largely reactive. It fails to an- ticipate potential conflicts and provide mechanisms for avoiding them, or to provide for a clear and unified framework of public policy to guide the balancing of public costs and benefits of individual agency decisions. As a result, the following generic types of problems continue, underlying many of the conflict situations described above: 1. Inconsistent government policies Inconsistent government policies can lead to unnecessary conflicts when development proposals are reviewed. For example, if local govern- ment plans designate wetland areas for housing or other nonwater related uses on zoning maps, property owners and prospective developers may be falsely encouraged to propose development that is likely to be denied, since it may be the policy of a state coastal zone management program or Federal agencies to discourage such uses of wetlands. In Marco Island, Florida, for example, the Deltona Corporation received local zoning and state approvals for the proposed development of thousands of dwellings in wetland areas, only to have its proposals denied by Federal regulatory agencies. The Corporation incurred substantial losses' in the lengthy battle over these plans. Approval of a project proposal at the state or local level without adequate review of Federal requirements often puts additional pressure on Federal regulatory agencies to approve projects, especially those considered to serve the local or state public interest. For example, in states with approved coastal management programs, developers often misin- terpret the Federal consistency provisions of the Coastal Zone Management Act as requiring Federal agencies to accommodate local or state desires to allow development that is allowed by the approved state program. The problems created by this lack of understanding of the limits of Federal consistency were described by one Federal agency representative partici- pating in this review as follows: "On several occasions I have been present while developers, with local planners at their side, argue that since their development is consistent with the local Shoreline Master Plan, (the National Marine Fisheries Service) and (the Fish and Wildlife Service) must consent to (Corps of Engineers) permits. When they discover (the Coastal Zone Management Act) does not provide an automatic path through the permitting process, there is a sense of betrayal. They believe they had followed the proper procedures, and are surprised to discover that FWS guidelines can prohibit something approved in E-4 248 their local program. Thus, it is frequently impossible for a developer acting in good faith to discuss a project with his local government and thereby get a complete picture of the regulatory hurdles he faces." 2. Uncertainty in the permit process As a result of the "performance standard" approach to environmental regulation, most Federal permitting programs lack sufficiently specific policies to guide applicants. Federal regulations tend to mandate consid- eration of broad areas of concern, or require documentation of certain findings, but provide only very general statements of substantive policy that could guide specific planning decisions. Agencies rely only upon case-by-case review of development proposals, based on data collection and analysis of the specific proposed site and the detailed characteris- tics of the proposal. Even the broad planning considerations involved in projects, such as suitability and need at the proposed location, or consideration of alternative sites, typically are addressed only when an application for a permit is submitted. Agency regulations typically set forth processes for making decisions that require consideration of alternatives, environmental impacts, or docu- mentation of the need for development proposals. However, they do not pro- vide specific substantive direction to administrators or the public on what documentation is sufficient, or even clear definitions of such matters as water dependency, mitigation requirements, or cumulative impacts. For example, Corps of Engineers' regulatory criteria, to be considered in the review of permits for dredging and spoil disposal, include factors such as "the relative extent of the public and private need for the proposed struc- ture or work" and "the extent and performance of the beneficial and/or detri- mental effects which the proposed structure or work may have on the public and private uses to which the area is suited." Because these criteria provide little substantive guidance, the Corps and other Federal agencies must devel- op more specific guidance tailored to specific projects or areas. For example, an association of property owners, with holdings adjacent to Belvedere Lagoon in California, attempted for more than two years to secure permits for dredging the Lagoon, permits that consultants said were necessary to preserve the Lagoon for fishing, swimming, boating and related recrea- tional activities and to avoid future fish kills, mudflats, algae blooms and stagnation. After this delay, the Corps and EPA developed new technical criteria to determine whether the project would cause significant environ- mental impacts. Based on new tests using these more specific criteria, the Corps determined that the project complied with the general criteria. Even in areas where national policies have been developed, they tend to be so general that administrators have almost unlimited discretion to interpret their meaning in the case of each permit application or plan. For example, Corps regulations provide that in determining whether a proposed alteration of wetlands is necessary, consideration must be given to whether or not the proposed activity for which the alteration is to be made is depen- dent on location in, or in close proximity to the aquatic environment. Because the concept of water dependency is not fully defined, each District E-5 249 Engineer must interpret the criteria on their own, and this judgment may differ from that of other Corps officials and Federal and state agencies. In contrast to the general procedural criteria of the Corps' regula- tions, EPA's revisions to regulations for Section 404(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act include significantly greater guidance with respect to determina- tions to be made in regional offices regarding discharge of dredged and fill materials in U.S. waters. For each area of concern, such as salinity or mud flats, EPA's proposed guidelines describe environmental character- istics and values, actions that might result in the loss of those values, guidelines for minimizing impacts, and other special considerations. These guidelines recognize that individual judgment must be exercised in each case, and do not prescribe quantified standards or thresholds by which every project or plan is to be judged; they do, however, provide an important measure of substantive guidance to field personnel regarding the standards by which such judgments are to be made. By law these two sets of regulations go together to control the discharge of dredged or fill materials under Section 404 permits issued by the COE. Although the more general system allows permitting agencies to main- tain maximum flexibility to consider all relevant factors and interests before making decisions, the uncertainty inherent in this approach can work against the interest of both applicants and conservation advocates. The risk of investments 1n development proposals is greatly affected by the predictability and timing of government regulatory decisions. Inves- tors want to know what the policies and requirements are," where these apply geographically, how the agencies will make their decisions, and when they will receive answers. Uncertainty leads to greater costs for applicants in developing their proposals. Conservationists and other citizens also want to know what the agency's policies and requirements for development are, how these will affect valuable resources, and what parts of an area are to be protected from development over the long-term future. Property' owners want to know how their neighborhoods are likely to change in the future so that their investments and quality of life are protected. In addition, the uncertainties of the regulatory system have broader costs. As indicated above, they may lead to political intercession in specific decisions that undermines the public perception of the legitimacy of the governmental process. They also lead to intense frustrations with the process. As one commentor noted, "applicants are not mind readers." This reaction was articulated differently by another reviewer of this study, who claimed that applicants are forced to respond to repeated vague requests for project information or for the redesign of their projects until the personal expectations of the reviewer are met, causing considerable uncertainty, delay and added expense. Finally, these uncertainties can also lead to inequities in the treatment of similar problems. For example, in a December 1977 study of the Corps of Engineers' regulatory program, the General Accounting Office reported that the Corps' "guidance for evaluating permit applica- tions can be improved," and indicated that the Corps' headquarters should provide better guidelines and criteria to districts for evaluating permits E-6 250 involving wetlands. GAO pointed out that of the five Corps districts it evaluated, each considered wetlands protection an objective of the Clean Water Act, Section 404 Program, but employed different methods to achieve that objective, and had quite different records of approvals and denials for similar actions involving wetlands. The report concluded that, "Differences in the application of wetlands protection measures caused unequal treatment of applicants desiring to perform work in wetlands areas. " 3 . Failure to address cumul a tive impacts The cumulative impacts of multiple permit decisions often cannot be assessed adequately through the review of single applications. The long-term consequences of development in a given area are difficult to control through a case-by-case review of each project application. Protection of the natural functions of an ecosystem requires assessment of long-term cumulative impacts of many projects, not just those for which applications have been submitted. Balancing economic development and environmental concerns often requires that ecosystems be dealt with in their entirety. For example, at the time a project is proposed, the natural inter- action of various parts of an estuary, bay or watershed cannot be ade- quately considered when permitting agencies deal with only one appli- cation. In 1979, the Port of Coos Bay, Oregon, applied to local, state and Federal agencies for two permits — one for a dock in the Bay's North Spit and another for a trawler basin associated with the dock. Both projects were part of the Port's long.-range plan for industrializing an estuarine shoreline. Both also involved alteration of wetlands, a matter of considerable concern to the agencies involved because Coos Bay had lost .85 percent of its wetlands to fill since 1892. As a result of public and agency concerns about the impacts of the proposals, the Port withdrew its application for the trawler basin. This action left the agencies reviewing the application for the dock with an expectation of potential secondary or cumulative impacts of the dock proposal, but with no legal means to address those impacts, given the limitations of the dock appli- cation before them. The dock was ultimately approved with no mention of the broader implications of the project in the Corps' permit. The 1977 GAO report on the Corps of Engineers' permitting program noted that, although the Corps' regulations require consideration of cumulative impacts, neither the regulations nor management directives specifically provide means for identifying and evaluating cumulative effects. This report indicated that an in-house Corps study in 1976 identified the evaluation of cumulative impacts of proposed works as a major district problem, due to the lack of methods or data to perform cumulative impact assessments. The Corps has recently responded to this need by requesting proposals from contractors to study the cumulative impact problem and to develop technical methods for cumulative impact assessment of permit activity. E-7 251 4. The costs of case-by-case permit review Case-by-case review of permit applications can involve excessive costs to applicants and the public. In many areas where development involves shoreline alteration, a number of state and Federal agencies review the same project proposals, and are concerned with the same or similar effects of these proposals on natural resources. Typically, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service and Environmental Protection Agency, as well as state fishery, wildlife, public lands, and water quality agencies, all review the applications for projects involving the discharge of dredged or fill material or wetland alteration. Each of these agencies may request or collect its own data, conduct a separate environmental analysis, and reach its own decision. In some cases, each of these agencies may collect and analyze data repeatedly for each permit application in the same area. Applicants for development in such areas may be required to submit information that has already been acquired by the agencies from previous applicants. Re- dundant, uncoordinated, and unpredictable agency data collection, analy- ses, and review procedures increase public taxes. Those who invest in property and development also bear added costs in the form of interest on borrowing, property taxes or option fees, professional fees and admin- istrative expenses. For example, before the Baltimore and Norfolk Districts of the Corps of Engineers revised their procedures for reviewing permit applica- tions for dredging and fill in wetlands, the site of almost every proposed project was visited separately by the Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service in these Districts as part of the appli- cation review. In the case of a proposed Corps harbor maintenance dredg- ing project to serve a seafood processing plant on Maryland's Eastern Shore, the owner of the plant and the adjacent, property where the dredged materials were to be disposed claimed that nearly 200 various government officials visited the site during the 6 years before the project was approved in 1979 (with conditions that minimized its environmental damage). A June 1980 GAO report on processing Corps permits for dredging projects indicated that overlapping roles and duplication of efforts were still contributing to permit delays. In the Corps' Districts it reviewed, both FWS and NMFS were receiving all public notices regarding dredging applica- tions and often performing field reviews on the same project. Encouraging progress has been made by the COE in reducing this problem by development of interagency agreements and joint Federal -state review procedures, des- cribed in Section IV-A. There are often substantial costs to natural resources associated with case-by-case review of completed project applications. Controversy or delay resulting from a wildlife agency objection to a project applica- tion, in which substantial investments may have been committed, often leads to political intercession on behalf of the applicant and loss of an environmental resource. No complete estimate exists of the costs associated with redundancy, delays and conflicts resulting from a regulatory system that relies E-8 252 primarily on case-by-case permit review. Howeyer, some of the comments received during this review suggest that the costs are substantial. These include the following: - A port official noted that "A rule of thumb in the [port] industry is that delay alone [in regulatory proceedings] increases total project costs by 1 percent per month." - The same official also noted that "There are also substantial environmental costs caused by delay. Millions of gallons of sewage have been dumped [into rivers and bays] during delays in getting agreement between agencies for waste water treatment system im- provements." - A conservation group indicated that "The Corps of Engineers spends $30 to $40 million per year on environmental impact studies, and millions more in litigation over their decisions. Tremendous cost savings could be realized by a new approach to these decisions. ii . • . - A city official noted that "We spent between $130,000 and $150,000 producing a regional plan [to address regulatory conflicts] for the Baltimore Metropolitan Coastal Area. [By comparison,] the environ- mental assessment for one permit in this area cost $1.2 million. [For another example,] Bethlehem Steel Company claims that delays in obtaining permits cost an additional $500,000 to $1 million on recent construction projects in the area. I do not think you would have trouble attracting funds [for improving -the regulatory system] from industry." 5. Misuse of case-by-case permit procedures It is often alleged that there is a misuse of case-by-case permit procedures by those who wish to impede economic development, or by others who wish to circumvent sound requirements for environmental protection. Those proposing projects frequently claim that permit review proce- dures provide too many opportunities for opponents of economic growth or new development to veto projects. They claim that information is withheld during the planning of projects, when it could be used to improve the project design; and then used against the project when the opponents' voices are most effective in the regulatory process, -- such as before administrators or commissions that are most responsive to environmental concerns. Project proponents often claim that since projects typi- cally require several stages of approval through different agencies, they can be stopped by opponents by gaining cumulative concessions from agencies for conditions on projects by finding the "weak link" in 'the chain of regulatory decisions, by challenging projects in the court when opponents fail to get what they want in administrative procedures, or by so slowing the process with minor objections that the project becomes uneconomic. For example, late in the multi-year battle overTellico Dam in Tennessee, environmental groups allegedly sought and found an endan- gered species — the snail darter — after failing to stop the project on E-9 253 other grounds in the administrative proceedings. This led to Congression- al intercession in the form of changes to the Endangered Species Act. On the other side, citizens and environmental groups often claim that some public agencies view the public welfare too narrowly by reviewing projects in a manner that reflects only interests in business, economic development, taxes, or jobs and that environmental concerns are too often ignored. They claim that when legitimate environmental concerns or requirements are used to condition or deny development proposals, appli- cants often label the "bureaucratic permit process" as an arbitrary abuse of public authority, a taking of private property without compensa- tion, or otherwise try to avoid complying with the law. They frequently allege that some development interests purposely avoid addressing environ- mental concerns through political intercession on projects or legislative challenges to legal requirements. Many coastal management laws have been challenged repeatedly in state legislatures on the basis of "horror stories" of delay or increased costs caused by regulatory procedures. For example, when Brown and Root withdrew a proposal in 1978 for an OCS platform fabrication facility near Astoria, Oregon, local officials and the press blamed state and Federal environmental permit procedures, particularly state mitigation requirements for wetland alterations. Later information revealed that while the agencies were working toward approval of the facility with conditions to safeguard the environment, the firm withdrew its proposal because the market was not favorable for its products in Alaska lease sale areas and antitrust actions had been commenced against its parent company. Environmental and other public interest groups point out that propo- nents of projects are typically well-financed and have adequate legal representation for their private interests, while public groups have only limited (often volunteer) resources to participate in regulatory proceedings. This, they claim, accounts for those few situations when such groups avoid commenting in lower level (sometimes hostile) proceed- ings, in favor of commenting in later proceedings where they have the most influence. Citizen groups also claim that some developers purpose- ly "wear down the opposition" by scheduling, then canceling, public hearings on proposals or making repeated minor revisions to proposals, and selecting an opportune time for processing applications when the initial controversy has subsided. However, small developers or private landowners often have less resources and expertise to use in this process than such "public" groups, and complain about the undue regulatory burden imposed by what they see as unrealistic zealots. To some extent these generic types of problems of the existing regulatory systems are found wherever development is managed by govern- ment agencies with overlapping legal jurisdictions over the same projects or resources. However, they become intensified in the nation's coastal zone, which contains many limited geographic areas where unique and valuable natural functions that serve fish and wildlife resources compete with economic functions such as port and urban development. Any project involving work in the coastal waters of the United States will automati- cally be subject to review by at least four Federal agencies, typically E-VO 254 under five separate statutes. Many of the most sensitive areas in the coastal zone are enclosed ecosystems such as bays and estuaries, where development impacts are likely to spill over the boundaries of several local jurisdictions. Because the resources at stake are likely to be of more than usual significance, state agencies are also likely to have some control over proposed projects. Finally, these regulatory prob- lems tend to become exaggerated in such areas when repeated conflicts cause normal avenues of communication and cooperation to become closed. E-ll APPENDIX F THE CITIZEN'S GRAYS HARBOR ESTUARY MANAGEMENT PLAN Citizens' Grays Harbor Estuary Management Plan Submitted to THE Grays Harbor Estuary Management Task Force and. THE Federal Office of Coastal Resources Management 15 January 1983 I P 01 4-1 01 C 3 CO •h cr 5s •H co X E P coo CD 0) Uh cox O X JJ C 4J CO C P i-i i-i O 4-1 0-. 0) X 3tH 01 oi x -fH JJ CO Uj u b ^ CO 1H JO fH< <4-l H 01 C 01 X CO JJ •H B to JJ p 5s 01 CO «H 3 O o o u CO 01 CA 41 01 C PX-H o jj at CO CO Uh CO ci o f^ CCM x: co i-i 604J E CUK • •h O UD iH C S • i-l OS IH CO (O fcu 4) C p OJih • CO UH CO -H |4 ■HtH O CO -OX) •OH hi 1H fH CO 4-1 S X x i-HT) 3 C CO O •H 3 CO X 0) 5s co o 0) CO IH CO O 3 CL - 4-1 M/--B a J C 4) CO co fH OJ-H 00 JJX 4-1 CO 4-1 C •H O O O O-H 01 <-H J-> JJ cq 4i eg 3 p 4J 60 CO O >H U U CS 44 41 p CLih -0 O E B CLfH ■O M JJ 41 -H 41 CO JJ CO CO JJ o p fH 41 .01X1 v-1 41 > CO 4) .-ox; U in CD w JJ CO 41 C VI4JH III CXi E fH OJ CO 41 HT5 4J U IH C CL CO UH 41 01 I— I au a ovum *H O (0 o ex c c ih 41 U) 3 5s •O CT CD C ih u co c u 9 10 <4H ■ono C£ CO JJ JJ rH Ih JJ C O OJfH Oh 3 "O 4) •tHX CO 41 JJ U-H CO UH >s i-H Ih XI 41 < E 4> C JJ CD to B 5s O 41 c > CO XI c ■ CO X 41 5-» CO P o co a. o UH |h O 41 3 63 O 41 4i CQ P C U 4J fH CO X CO JJ CD •o- CO VO UH f-H O BCNI CO <-H eo-u E C 10 P • •H 01 41 S •H 3 3 • fH OS •h an b a> c M 1CH • CQ Uh X) ft p I-H i-H O COX* Xi XlfH p CO •ox tH CO i-H JJ •H QJ B Uhi-H 41 •n B CO CO 41 •H4JU CD C CL O E'H JJ HH JJ CD C 01 60 CO -H CO Ih JJ HH flj iH > E 01 T) CO CD JJ O CO CL 41 JJ p i-H -H ■ 3XX O *3" 0- co co X CQ i-H JJX CO CL 41 ■ JJ 01 JJ CwSw CJ C Chh . O 0) •H S 0) to e co x a c 01 XfH B 3 3 y C« hh CO to co 3 CJ Cl-H rH E 01 CO CL JJ 41 CD X 01 41 3ih 41 tJ 3 CT 3X > •H 0* 0J CO X Ih c O JJX B O » X U ih gi-oji CO fl)<4H i-(i-4 4IX O 01 3 E Ih JJ Ih 0" 1 " 1 O 5s 3 O a c jj co c cu w CL CO 0)1-4 U CL O 01 CO hi c 3X c ClH CO Jd o CM X 60 01 ClH •H< bH c • CO u B 4) 3 O CO CJ ihx -< C OtH »t0 X IH JJ JJ UH C 5s 41 |h 5s 0)X CO • Xih C 3X x oi jj oi B H CL co co 41 41 41 O jj X CL CD 01 O 5s P X P CO 41 JJ CL 60\O 41 X CNI > CJ -H Ih ■ JJ X 3 CO • e COS M 01 CO C JJ C0 IH I— I CO CO M x o oi CX i-H CO Ih X i-H CO iH JJ X CO 41 CO 3 CO 01 5sUH Ih CO 0) hi 41 JJ tj CO CO 3 3 Uh to X O CJ 10 41 41 JJX Ih p UH OX CU 41 Uh jj 01 U X 4> (0 JJT 01 01 Ih 5s IH OX CO to C0 IH us 01 ©\ Ih i-H CO i-H 60 -H CH-" JJ X CO f-H JJ JJ •H CD IH -e -HX CL X CO -m oi x CD CL ih 41 Ih Oi CO X O C CbiH M j^ 3 CbC IH CO JJ jj co •HX 41 eg JJ1H |h - >* CO JJ JJ iH CO O f-H UH 01 41 X X JJ •fH JJ >1 X UH O co 41 CO IH 41 OvO 41 MX CD JJ • CJ W • 3 OX CO S fO CO 41 e • ouh co O <0 S 41 O >0 ihx JJ n fH 41 CL 4) Uh JJ JJ Oi JJ O P O JJ CO to O 0> IH fH E JJ Clh-i Cl ih to U 0) CO c XUHHIO O 0) CO X «H cl co e ih a. oi co CO P i-H a wh .. 60 O i-l JJ iH C f-H Uh Uh C E th CO 41 f-H X CO CO X JJ f-H ih 4>iH C CO ih 4J U X 41 4J tuOh CL1H 01 X Oi X • JJ CO X CO oi e x ih e M CO 41 JJ x oi jj e C CJ CO 41 to o 3 e Ul X c CO O O CL CO JJ 4) CO U 41 CJ3 co Uh Uh O CiH 30 O B a> cox jj X 4) >. •HX O hi 41 O cl a. CO hi ClH 3 CO C 60 CO c O 00 e ih UH |h CO ih •h E 41 JJ CO CD O JJ CL-H hiX 3 to CbX CO JJ JJ C ih 4) B 41 41 CO O 3 CO CO fH CJ CL 41 41 X hi XX 41 c JJ IH U -X 41 «H P O c CO IH X c -H O CO f-H OCX C 41 •H f-H e fH CO (JHX c • • COCO Uh CLC1 01 • => o ■ JJS uh e 41 CO X • ih ex x oi oi H CL50 4) O X CL o U IH CO CO 3-H c • CO =3 fH • X 4J S C 41 CO 3 C •H X • UH 41 X O JJ 41 41 " e o a o co O 41 Cu u JJ (J CO CO .UH C C JJ O O 3-h ~1 O C_> 0) JJ E to to CO 0) 3 60 X CO ih X JJ CJ JJ 4) Q> ih •H >,x E Uh X •H X JJ CJ CO 41 CO 41 C JJ JJ Clih CJ ih CD U 41 X C CO i-l CO 3 E 0)X U C 60 JJ to C CO c ■H IH 0) Uh JJ E O CO fH 0) •H fH O 60X ih CO c aiujH •h Cl tH e co 0) fH CO -H p fH X lux HX C C • CO -H 6CCL j^ x e •» -5 o o JJ c c u O X 1 o M JJ 3 X IH <0 3 < e O E 4-1 X O H - X 41 H fH co CO - to e X 4> 41 fH tH 4) > ■CO CO fH 4J JJ CD fH a 3 o IH UH ' o P c >» CO 4J 41 c r-4 X o u UH 3 O CO CO u 01 01 CO JJ Uh CO 4) Oh c fH 41 p 0J E OJ o (0 N P CD CD E 41 41 X 41 O 5K B > O X Uh c fH o CO P to c >* CL > X Uh p O fH iH JJ o JJ o X CO o P CL 4) ; 4J CO •H 4J CO it u •H 4) O p CO < X 01 tH 3 4J CD iH Uh CO z u X X * IH 3 o 41 CO JJ ecu o CO < X JJ UH 41 e > 4J C c c X O CO 41 P 4) H _! c JJ o CO co e (0 fH CO CD 3 U 0) JJ 01 X CO o. CO Uh o o fH Id u fH rH fH O) 4J JJ 41 co JJ 01 Cl Ph X Oh CO O JJ p p tH 4J p X r- tH p CJ O fH * 01 X c c o CD C CD 4-1 Z CO X 01 IH M JJ. CD CO JJ JJ fH 41 X 01 0) CL IU JJ > Uh CL c c c CO e B p X 01 E C £ c CD •H UH CU o 01 fH 01 41 B 41 co jj »h Cl fH fH UJ V fH JJ o 01 E fH N fH E fH CO DOS X O co ts E X CO X 41 JJ »1H 41 X fH to COHH p CO < C JJ c fH 4J 60 CD 4J co 00 CO Oh C CO •H CD 01 3 4J z o p CO CO Z IH e CO 4-1 CD CO »s CO > JJ e < p JJ 0) p c c U o e CL 0) >1 S to - 41 CJ to 01 z: fH IH JJ 41 IH to CU fH co OJ > P P p UH X c E > E fH X s X OI JJ S CJ fH CD ss e> 41 CU > c X CO 41 e jj X to CJ JJ 3 p >X 5s p fH cr 01 3 U, o >, JJ N >. CO CJ 4J CO 41 01 C P o 0) < CO C fH p Uh •H p 01 CO 3X 3 CD co UH z» fH co 01 JJ CD o X c CO B 1-1 w JJ JJ O 3 e (- CO < tH X to 3 01 to 3 CO X co : X 5sJJ c •H CO o Ph JJ p JJ ^N fH 60 JJ o • U (0 CJ CO o CD UJ o X 41 CO CJ fH P CO JJ CO jj 41 - e oj •H JJ fH tH JJ X X U s--- CO o u CO fH e 41 10 (0 JJ OJ JJ P ct X c c fH CJ CO 01 XX 3 ex p CJ OJ o X c 01 co CO p X 41 X X JJ N JJ JJ CO B o 01 U CQ c 01 E C O c •> X 0) 41 c •fH 41 JJ 41 Uh JJ or CO a 01 01 O X CO 04 JJ co > OI JJ UH CO fH P CL o » < Cl 61 o y P > O •H E fH O 5sCl O 0J CO p CO 3Z fH < CO p CO •-* •H 41 Cl P CL O CO •H CLX -H CL fH CO c o p X X 4J CO O P o 0J CO JJ E CD P CO c c CO (u o v^ CO 3 P co fH O fH •h p CO X 0J > o IH s Uh to » c CO Cl 01 41 EX 3 41 X 01 JJ < •fH . JX >. •~\ p CJ CO > X CO O E 5s JJ CO •H <£ 60 X > co JJ co CO 41 41 4) CO Oi JJ JJ IH tH CO OJ CO P O 01 01 p CO C P *— ' JJ X X X X CLX p tH SX 01 y p JJ to H 0) O » CJ O X 01 C X 41 X C CO 0J P 41 fH P P B Sn H OI JJ 41 o 5S JJX 4J CO «J CD CO X c CO to 3 o O CJ X O X p OJ eg H CO 60 CO 3 4J o 10 to «3- £ CO c JJ •iH > US 60 CQ C CO P P CO 41 f-H c o CD O >% B B tH fH o o u Oi u ■H Oh X X X 41 CM •H r-i Cl F-l O -o X c to c P CD uh AJ - o 01 X TO 1/j o c 1-1 X AJ o I 3 OJ CJ CO AJ -l-l AJ U-4 IH An in AJ O I—l E 1 'rH CJ 0) o 3 • rH i-H tO x X CO 01 CD X X 0) QJ >> Oi J-i CO i-i CD 01 AJ cui AJ ■IJ c AJ CD X rH CD 3 C AJ •H c c CO ■r* TO c Oi AJ 9 X) Ul o CD a. c 3 in •*H TO 0) •r* 3 E 3 I-i «.H CJ r-H to OJ B a. Q- r-l E AJ AJ AJ o TO OJ s CO rH >» •r* Oi c r— 1 CO Q. TO >^ 01 E AJ to ww CD i-h X p 1-1 •1-4 T3 CO 01 AJ 3 TO C TO c 0) o An o U-i c i— < OJ t-l o oo u •*H CJ 60 CO 0' i — i ^ -D OJ Oi 01 AJ c pa rH •H o u AJ C 0> X Oi c 01 r-H E > X AJ 3 rH rH rH CNI to M ■H c 4-1 > CD AJ CO B 01 AJ •rH CO AJ Oi TO TO 0' O <— i Oi CO C o X) s 01 M X E H r— 1 03 On i—l - AJ D C •iH o o o g CO O AJ m O to (D ■,-i 1-1 CD CD l-l •iH 0) VAJ AJ o a AJ O c An 0) UH 3 4J ^-< AJ M o u a, a. U-l CD AJ •H co X O 'Hi A-< .a. AJ •iH X u o o Ah E .'J i-l 0) O c X) c cc Oi >* 3 X OJ AJ An 0) to X u On to OJ -o CO 1) a M ex AJ c AJ c U 0) c o *r-l 0) CO o - E TO l-l M o O c *H M O H •ih AJ AJ »|H rrt OJ o. 0- CJ i-H to AJ 01 •fl s CU, rH c u a. aj CJ o 01 TO OJ •iH c E AJ CJ CO 0' Oi 01 u 1-1 l-l u >% > > OJ a. TO ^N 0) - Ih —I i.1 CO i> X o 0> o l-l CO OJ X X o N to AJ X AJ o x o u X CJ AI- > <4-< CO CJN XI CO c H -M 01 to AJ An X. to a TO Oi 0) 3 CS! 0' 0) rH u 01 O co rH SI X o -is x X A." 0! c a > •H u 3 01 On h ■jj An ^H t-l CO CO to X 0) OJ 01 AJ CO 1 l-l Uh CO o >ll 3 Cl CD -o AJ W CD N X X 3 X •H 0> o > 3 o C- H c U] X AJ •p-l o AJ 3 X <0 to 3 TO TO LJ - CO CO AJ u AJ to o 3 er AJ 01 0) CJ 0) r-1 •t-l to 3 AJ 3 •fH 0) X •rH CM O OJ 0' 0) l-l "0 CO X kM B O LJ E u AJ 01 to An AJ An .H o u c -rH AJ Ot' OJ i-i CO c AJ >• to CJ CD O CD X C X3 N t-l (5h CO CO 3 to rH 0) rH co .—1 u. r-i AJ c »i-i 01 •i-i o CD OJ o <3J X rH OJ 0) i-J •l-l AJ N AJ •AJ >D 01 X u X CJ AJ AJ •H aj to c CD .* oj aj CO •^H *M X S-i c O H CO 3 •iH o> c C to .— i CJ •D —I ^H CJ> 10 H TO CO IW rH E c CO CM TO o CO X Oi c X iH «0 1 TO •H •iH •-t - X ■H H cu n"1 •rH 0) AJ 4) 1 01 OJ rH AJ X XI B 01 Ah 11 * cj aj Cu OJ I4H 3 X c to CJ CD t— I c o c 0) An o * U B -D X ^H AJ - OJ i-H X o AJ E Cu AJ TO 01 co ,— 1 x AJ OJ »5 o .l-l ,-Q * D. OJ H (A, c OJ c a •H X 3 i n >rt ft) > c l-J IP to OJ to o 0) E CJ o CM n-> AJ Sr, 0! o AJ S-i 01 CO JK AJ CO IH •^^ Ah X r- CO o X XI o a, CO O to X CO o X •H CO Cu o to cu •iH vo 4J uj i-l Oi e Oi 0) X TO H c l-H •H •H 03 > >-■ o u 0) X AJ u CU. ■H AJ OJ 3 00 AJ X '33 OJ o o S AJ » AJ CD o. ro AJ OJ BO X CO c TO H 'J - C X On to o- CU 'p-1 X C X 0" AJ C •H 64J to u OJ AJ > E H 01 01 AJ i-l CO •H rH IH 3 01 0) •h OJ TO o i-< IJ AJ i-H co c rH > X X !4H X u X X X OJ X O U-l 3 OJ 01 •rH « H AJ M AJ CO aj AJ co a i^D iJ O- IH e-H IX IW e u o c 1 to r>S iH >» TO rH OJ 10 AJ C 3 01 CJ tO AJ 01 CJ Ol rH i-H to AJ TO X O • ES Oh X •n < B <■> U AJ ■rH X TO >> oc X • AJ O X> E TO u -o to AJ •rH TO 1 IH OJXS > X U <-H OJ OlrHXI tO rH CO E TO u An E AJ rH CJ Ah >< OJ 01 CO O. oj 3 B CO a Cu>. x to X X 01 o 3th l-H-rt C CO u X! AJ CO to ih TO X E CJ Cu E HJ*H 3 m 3 to o O 3 XI c to tO AI 0' •rH to Uh CO UH 3 AJ 3 rH S CL X OJ B U COX M X X 01 OJ o •H AJ AJ to AJ CJ 0) OJ Cu C O-n 01 X O AJ 3 X CO rSP 3 u CO c C-H IJ LO -rt ox c >> p QJ Cu AJ «. AJ X AJ rH O O 01 •H a xi 01 00 i-H 0) TO x to X co to u rH 3 Cu CO to QJ OJ CO c O iHX > X CO ai OJ rH rH C OICQrU O £X AJ OJ •H QJ N ih Ah OJ Ph x to •H'O (1 c X X UrH to u x (0 IH h3 IH AH QJ E 3X AJ S IH 01 AJ •rl X OJ B OJ CO c Cu X rH o X Cu 0) CO CO IH N AJ 0) U-i C DC TO C o t-l tO Ih IH 00 Ah O X 01 AJ l-H IH •H UH to X QJ B S *— I rH o c AJ O AJ QJ O rH AJ AJ E 3X to AJ O 3 AJ l-l CO Ah rH CO AJ - Ih tO (0 UH 3 A.' 0) 01 01 ^ 01 U OJ U ^ B o CO X) 0) 60 C TO E AJ rH 01 TO An > u AJ to E 0) Cu U 00 IH • B 3 OJ O 00 to E Oh C X) CJ 01 TO TO OJ CO to AJ CO OJ OJ CO W O U i-i ih rH O CO to C AJ Xi rH X l-H CJ COrH tO 01 Ah 01 XI 60 3 CO OJ AJ AJ Cu CJ l-H AJ r-t TO X IH Cu AJ 10 to • OJ 3 X CO IH CT3 u3 OJ Oi to •H to •H Oh c X COrHVD - r> AJ a 3 3 0) kiX OJ B E >. AJ CO C CO TO - CJ OJ 0) o atN OJ QJ E AJ I-i 4JX X In |H C O 3 >» AJ IH •IH -* X rH a. oj AJTJ O c ^-i TO e-o AJ OJ OJ CO to OJ Cu M Cu CD 4) X TO TO <0 (0 Ih ■ •rt B IH -rH CD OJ o CO U-i |H AJ 3 B oo AJ CD QJ E > 3 AJ E CO •n E> tO 3 AJ U WH •H U . o uh OJ B Uh aj iH IH E 3 CJ O 0) O XX • to to 3 AJ O 3> O OOrH O to X Q 01 AJ CJ •rH 3 Ih C to Cu 6S /-".rH 00 AJ AJ Ol 03 UH r-» B 01 01 E to CD to o 0) CD IH CO rH -n i-H i-H -rt a (0 > B 01 to to E AJ oo (0 QJ OJ IH X X CJ •H •HJi C OH A' 01 B IH bO 01 X • OJX to E E l-H 00 C > c BO XI O E-rt 01 AJ -rt CJ AJ •H rH AJ CJ AJ C 01 to to to to >% TO IH 3 - C Cu-rt •- aj co E c An CJ to X Oi O 01 CO E E E rH X An IH 00 CO AJ CO o o OJ OJ to UH co to ..to ° X MO •S to B OIO •" 0) XUh O P to 10 a. X to O XI AJ O U CO AJ u IW AJ XI <-• to O AJ 01 E AJ 01 C X c •rH QJ B O M i-i V o •H •H AJ UH >, IH X o H OO Oh 01 AJ >- c An *-v 3 rH E AJ tO oi o ah E CO TO U-i AJ XX COX H 01 o (X U 10 OXU-I „, U X O C£ X TO 3 •f-l AJ X CO OJ O QJ •rt O X ^. •rH vx C ih B S tO CO -rH QJ •H AJ 3 rH Cu CO U«X to iH to AJ 1-* -tt 3 4J 3 E -H AJ AJ E X Ol CO Ih AJ AJ X E to >% XX *J StfX X 01 CJ TO O IH IH -rj OJ to Cu AJ QJ o to • CO E TO 3 Sn r l-H 3 "-" 3 X OI C <• 10 E E UX OJ HtJM ECU w 01 JJ CO to An AJ 01 >- AJ AJ AJ to co o oo to 4J X g X o 09 0) E to CO An CO C jj ux 01 - E O *H • Q> O ih 6 Cu OJ to g QJ Uh QJ (0 Ih - 01 OJ CO CJ rH 01 (J o Mr- 01 U-H l-l AJ CJ M U AJ IH O Uh X O Ih u to O 00 oo 3 An to Uh AJ Or-. B o Cu •H 01 to OJ to rH 01 O H O O Q ^ O X c to CO X U-l CJ An • 3 tOO\ 01 X) 10 OS B rH 1-1 AJ CO X CO OJ E CO E o IH 3 vex o 1 t-4 O 0) •o •o IH HH AJ 4c * >. to * OJ N to X CO AJ U r~ b in CO c 01 TO * o * E"-' >>c IH E r- AJ c E AJ IH rH COX «* CrH o 111 UH M rH OJ o ro Cu to AJ QJ to An CO CO 01 fl C to u oj aj ai E »r^ 01 o 0) •rH l-H o OJ O Cu to tO X "rt to OJ 01 OJ C AJ AJ TO ~* 0) U uh X X u o to U *H Oh X 01 An AJ An CJ l-l •H O OJX IH 00 Cu O AJ to o o o AJ E • Cu A. • P c o c 3 O < -O AJ rH TO 0) X AJ (A. Ih 01 X rH Ih O CO O to rH O x ox Oh E co ce rH l-l o H •|H t-l o 09 CO O •IH M AJ X An to QJ > to QJ CO IH Ol -*: ■ X Em Cu H Cu X s X 3 AJ IH 1— 1 F-2 -o c 01 CO ej co TO >-. X 14-1 r-4 I-l c < •l-t •H Id CD 4-1 CO - o ■H CO I-l en tj o 3 OC X CO •i-l I-H I-l CO CU X CO 01 UH c C 01 l-i CO M £ ro 01 bJ o CO U Id 4J •M 3 i-i 3 < CI c CU x X) CO CU X3 c C i-l 4J co co CU - 60 I-l 4-1 UH 01 f-t rH Ud 1) CO 01 0) ao CO c to B CO 01 C U X * "H co O 00 CD tj 00 XI Id c CO c en ca CO ai co ca U-l XI X I-l CO B 01 o 4-1 01 •4-1 00 •3- 0) CO o l-i 01 CO 01 i-l 01 s O XI 4J a 1-1 o X3 en xi 4J o p •«-( £ O i-i to CJ TH c o c o 01 IH *~\ 4J X) 4-1 AJ X) XI 4J > CO i-i B I-l u -rH c u CO 4-1 CO 01 •H x> 4_J o 4-1 a 01 o XI * rH b 'w' I-l U-l TH U-l U U-l 4-1 c c P M 4-1 x 4-1 CO CO -3" 4-1 c O 4-1 o TO B co f— 1 o. o c c 4J CO U-l ON 4-1 o CO 3 CO c a- CO Cu CO 01 M CM 0) c «* tH 01 ^v •H CU 00 4J 0) c E rH E UH 4-1 I-l H CU C 60 4J CJ c 00 c o co •td Cu CD o CO 0) - CD CO i IH u C ^-^ 1-1 M CO 01 CO 1 r-i 00 •r4 oo O P 0) cj B CO 01 > CO #*v c M CM CO 3 00 CU X) X a o XI .c X! 01 '4-1 1 o I-l c u •H CO • 4J CO c/> < o 01 •a- < CJ 00 c o ca Ud CD CD Nh* E JC - • co c CO vO 00 CO a CO - 3 £ . XI 4.1 • CO 0) 4J X. u o W i— i 01 XI £ < x rH >> -C ON en b. 4J h oo o 4-1 01 CO CO CO 60 X 4-J 00 1-4 •o 4-1 2 01 c o co c at x On 0) > c c - c CU - o d* OJ c i-i c/i l>» 4-1 X I-l •M o XI I-l 0) U-l -CM o H c Xl CO CM rH c -o CO IH r*> 01 tH o c 4-1 cn c 0) XI CO 00 CO O Id CO XJ I-l en CM CO pa CO 3 4-1 en CO 01 a. CO 4-1 Id CO TH XI i-l co TH X) V s 14-1 CO 01 I-l TH co CO o CO JZ r>. o 0) X CO X a co CO Uj co co 4J * >s OJ -H Ud IH 01 X 4-1 » Id 4-1 o X >» M o CO OJ 01 - o X 4-1 X) 01 Id H to o X) rH Cu c 4-1 c •H 3 X O tH 4-1 o >% co OJ as CO 3 4J 4J UH 0) X3 > S u X rH OJ w X C X) tu o CO S in 4-1 Cu rH M H Id CO 4-1 CD CO XI o 3 O X r-l 1-4 00 c 01 rH CO CJ 4J 2 UH X > to I— 1 c o X 3 60 rH c E CD CO 00 P rH X ■ • TH •fd 4J CO c CU OJ c 00 3 CO •H c 4J CO c CO CU C TH 01 N 01 O IH c o 3 to CO en CU c CO X IH 4-1 to •td X 4J OJ TH Id 4-1 > CO 4-1 CD IH 3 c CO CD 4-1 X •4T rH X CO CO l-t X •H rH B o> CJ X •rt XI c 4-1 rH 4-1 bJ Cu to CU B o Cu o Cu y rH CD co •IH CO OJ O 4-1 rH 3 rH c CU UH X - OJ CO C 01 c U c CU Ud CD O Cu Td IH 4-1 eo p CO TH >N 0) o to CD Id O 3 < rH TH C CJ X P Id TH 60 CD E X) 4-1 OJ co 3 OJ CO Cu to CO -c 4-J c u UH c c C c u Id c CM ft! 3 4J CO TH Ud OJ o o (0 O 01 CD o o 4-1 H o c P 4J CJ c UH 3 •H Td E rH UH TH rH 4-1 © •H o CO UH -o c O o co 4J 0) 4-1 OJ a. 4-1 CD TH ul CD 41 o rH CD CU cq 4J 0) CJ CO 60 OJ 4-1 TH OJ u 4-1 ai rH XI to rH Id c CO E 3 X3 X> OJ c © P CU Oh Cu ID 0) o a o TH c O o XJ 01 > OJ Ll-I O c Id X CJ E tu s to to CO OJ X to E CM X o XI rH 4J 4J CO X. 4-J ^-s X) X 4J X Cu P rH CD 01 y n£ X rH OJ c o rH CO 4-1 01 c CO 60 X CO 0) >% rH CO C CD XJ P XI rH CO X CD TH o c 4-1 01 CO id TH to rH 01 I-l OJ c tu •H 0) IH X H X CD Ud co rH CD 3 XJ 3 > o so >, M 60 d¥ N XI 4-1 4-1 3 to a c O c o OJ •td. >. Id Id c 0) CD •H 01 OJ Cu 4J UH o 3 B 3 *o 4-1 CO CO to CO OS E rH 01 Id X OJ CO o to 4J Td TH p 3 Cu E TH CJ 0) 4J XI Id to Ud to to P 4J XJ o 4J id Id 4-1 4-1 M 4J 1 CO 01 to TH 4-1 • O c X) to rH B a> o to 3 CU Ud Uh c M 01 CJ Id CJ o co X OJ to OJ ai CD CO 3 -D 3 < o Id O Id o x» 0) 01 co p XI X MX! O Id E Uh CO X u Id XJ 1~» OJ CO c c JJ 01 4-1 U. TO CO CD O 01 1 c Id M CD a. 00 o CJ X 01 CO x: c id E B 4-1 to o 01 to • Id p o Cu o 4J CU CO rH OJ Id CO 3 1— 1 TH X X O OJ CU OJ Cu p CO 0) p 4J oz dC to o 4-1 *-* 4-1 4J u-l B CJ X Oh >■. •v o CU 4J Sn CU IH 4-1 rH o Id to CM co Id 4J 4-1 CO Ud to •v • CO UH c to 3 >» to o Id c 4J p p 4-1 TH rHCM c Id 01 CU OJ OJ Ud Ud to rH ►h 3 OJ c o OJ rH u CO IH O X c XI to CO u CO 01 Ud XJ OJ 4-1 co to 4J 4-1 OJ c CO •IH CO o c X d^ c E Ud to TH Cu 3 4-1 - ^ X 01 X 4-1 o 4J CO - 01 XI o 3 4J E O 3 On CO a Cu CO cu 0) TH to to a. c c •H o r~ 3 CJ CU co 0) X 4-1 CO H 3 OJ 01 4J p 0) 4J ON X •H XI 4-1 4J 4-J TH TH X X) E P o 4-1 E M 4-1 rH H B m CJ cu 4J X) OJ H CO o Ud o 3 o CU o Id o X •H X X) CO X p Cu a E a. CO OJ c cu a. 4-1 B c co •H 4-1 OJ c 4-J TH u c o 4J Id B 01 X 4J co 01 p OJ c •H CO 3 CJ CO TH o E c E-i c CD rH X o X H < -to n 0> 3 to 4-1 CJ CO co >m* TH 3 Cu 4-1 Cu 4-1 E F-3 C o •i-l i-l - CO ~-l or X CO •— 0) X j-j u (D 1- ■rH CO >. P i-> E p p ••- P o 3 11 to CL co a- aj •■— p •i- 01 c X o > x P • H E- CJ c RJ O aj X •1-1 C C C -D 0) c CO CO C N CO i-l i— i CO .rH i-H AJ Cl AJ Q. 01 c •H 3 -D o CJ C OJ ■I-t >. i-l i-l CO *i- c D- Cl aj co O O U- (0 x x o oo P o CO CO CL AJ Uh c o 1-1 ■H CO 4-1 0> E u x CO u P CO i-l 01 o o> •rH x •1-1 x X X c p aj 03 fH CO x 3 CL X r-l x 01 j-j X Uh 01 u «H CO O l-H CO 3 aj 1—1 i-l to u •H CL c 01 0) c U- CO u 0) c l-H P x> E CO •I-l CL o 01 a> bu i-H o p 01 r-H 3 O 3 CO CO X CO .* 1—1 c co CL 4-1 x •H to 01 CO r-H 14-1 H 01 p .-1 3 01 U- O OJ 1) •u X 0) x X X AJ c x co i-l H •5-4 •rH •T— | .* AJ c CO o aj o C p i-< c ON u lH o Cl I- 1 c 01 CO CO (J OJ AJ r-H CO c 4-J aj X c CL 3 •r-l 3 > c J-l 01 C/3 X o OJ 3 E r-H >-. rj X O oi' - •-4 CO x - 4-J E c OC X a 3 3 X CO •IH c OJ o i-i Cl 0) 4J c o •r-l 03 a co r— •l-l =1-1 T-4 0) 3 i-H CO Cj^ > 3 X X i-H CO CO p-l 0) 0] 4J Oi TH o p >* iJ p 14- 0L X C --I c 03 C 03 o *r4 01 CL 0) o >N AJ •i-i 1-1 3 p E E 3 X CO JX CO co 0] 3 O •iH X 0) •-H CO C i-i O XI 0) p UH i-J p p CO CO 0) P 01 p 0) o > P O to X i-H Oi 4J u_ U
  • -. 4J CO x CO i-i 14H r-H X c s iJ c •iH 4J o •U - •iH -01 CO CO r-l 3 c X) AJ *o 01 Q O c CO 0) o 01 3 CO o u 00 XI OC i-l oC cr p "D •H •H X) c c X 0) o X OJ 4J UH OJ to •H CL CO 0) IH OJ X) p g >> 01 U- p 0) en Oi CO 3 AJ c r-H O o X CO Xi O 03 c nj 3 (J-, AJ X !-H O X) •iH c o i-> 03 o 0) 01 3 p J* >. (0 CO p c 01 " AJ ra CO X Cl X 4J °tH c X c OJ Cl CO P c 03 c IH CJ H 0) O >> o CO X co CO p m X> U X) u CD u i-H E o co 01 CO 3 •H AJ Si. X E 0) i-i P X OJ p >N i-l X 05 u ^ AJ 03 > UH co 3 >. 1-1 X 0) ■H AJ c CO i-> X i-H A 4-1 3 Oi c o >N H so CO 0) CL V 01 r-H -o X UH p CO t-i cj a CO 4-1 B bJ o o CL 01 >: 01 0) CJ AJ u X c o c o u- Cl 3 u O O r-H ^ r-H P to 01 03 0) CO AJ X CO > 03 AJ r- 01 XI to X c O c 0) CO •iH X o X i-l 4J c 01 AJ •rH 03 ■-H p 0) OJ 3 o 01 0) X UH AJ c H X AJ o OJ 03 IH N CO r-H £ 03 r-H £ i-H 03 0) CO o CO 01 p CJ CJ AJ P X CO o X o Ss co X CO CO P o cr> i-H o u 0) CO CO c X •H OJ CO c > XJ 4' X CO T3 -TH CJ r-H r-H to CO O 3 CL, o c C X> X >- OJ to c CO p N 0) CO to •H CJ XI 3 AJ O AJ c AJ •fH P CO 03 CJ p O w o CL AJ 03 UH AJ c - CO CO CO UH 03 01 AJ c O AJ 13 p 0) iH o N CL C UH CL *|H l-H =1 o B c i-l OJ •iH CO -rH X AJ CO i-H o c OJ 01 CL QJ OJ -iH P OJ X E AJ CO 03 X AJ 0) *TH •»H H oC CJ CO X X to CO AJ AJ c Oi OJ i-H •rH CD X p UH r-4 3 2 4J 1 AJ X) 1 CD c CO CJ OJ c E 11 c AJ •rH OC p 03 AJ o 01 B c X OJ >-, OC O CO >H a ■r^ p •r-J OJ i-H 3 AJ c • c P Cl) • OJ U AJ OJ P r-H OJ i-H N 3 O i-H '-r-l *!-* -3HH a. o M AJ 3 C C CJ P OJ AJ i-H •rH O CQ CO r-l p 3 3 X -tch «j 3 OJ 03 OJ fH X X c 3 S «o QJ AJ AJ 60S r-H 6 4J AJ C - X IM P CO 01 o X X i-H X 3 3 J* CO O 3 fH CO X •H CO OJr-H P UH OCT< C X P Uh 60 => CO AJ Cl c AJ AJ AJ X 01 HH X o P to 1) Cl C 01 co O o CO IH 0) 01 Uh i-H 3 O o Uh xx ux X U rS •1- X 0) fH . c 3 03 X CJ X OP CJ CJ i-l •i-i AJ c p CO 03 Hi-I /— - AJ fH C AJ 0) AJ o •r-l UH 0) OJ co o OJ 0> O (J •iH X 01 X uh X o X Cl AJ ?~. c •!- AJ 01 03 P S— ' Uh 3 OJ 01 AJ < 3 AJ (0 CJ r-4 •rH AJ c X 03 • AJ 03 -,r-H CJ 01 01 CO c OJ l-H r- 1 CO •fH r-H UH AJ P CO D r-H P X OJ CO CL 3 CO AJ 3 - to o u 1) COX CJ CXI C CO AJ XI Cfl O •|H X o O O OJ X P O i-H O Uh c 3 X 11 CJ 03 3 -3- u to t-0 >%4J O 3 fH >»>-. o 0) X) H c OC CJ AJ X uh 3 bu AJ O co u-x 01 c CO ra X X CO P p i-H fHX CJ 3 O fH c co p 'r^ l-H c ■rH AJ AJ O OJ co 0) 3 AJ Ji fH P AJ XI o • 01 CO Cl CD X ■H Cl c c Cl X) o CX) CO i-H 0) 0) CO e oj fH 00 oo CO C E c AJ c CO c 3 OJ 11 CO Uh 3 CO OJ 3 AJ % c CQ o i-H OJ CO =1 »!— 1 r-H P 3 XI AJ H C 00 0) xi o Cl «« CO CJ CO X a. r^ .x Cl O c fH CO O - C p fH i-H fH [« XI c i-H C c a, 01 AJ CM C < o r-H Q) CJ OJ fH CO i-H P c CO CO fH CO < X c CO 11 03 Oh *rH >. CLX P O &s to o u E -A. UH CO OJ -Xi O •» w AJ r-H E 4J - 3 00 OJ i-H CO Cfl u X) 01 E E CO P CO p 01 OJ AJ p CO P OJ 41 OJ OJ 01 OJ 4) OJ 11 oi >>0 r-1 >> c CO AJ Uh > CO O 1) cox XI 3 X 3 c X AJ Cfl c OC r-l&H X OC OJ C O O OJ Uh X OJ AJ O TH AJ CO o CO - c S •H 1-1 O X Uh AJ i-H AJ CO 01 CQ P c c N OJi OC 03 O CJ C to UH CJ O X Uh oo 00 AJ CO CM 01 m c 0) O i-H O c c co AJ o 41 u AJ il- >-. CO X. AJ CO CNl T5 TJ OJ fH - O •!H XI C X p c ea p C *-iH S- XI r-H X AJ X P CO H"D fH Uh r-. AJ 01 IH 0) ra -1- OC CO E Uh c *^ 3 C • 4JUH OC 3i-H ra O Oi XJ 3 B c P 0) O -rH O O x cur- c uh c O 3 AJ Uh XI AJ p - U X UH ^-^ 3 co AJ o o •1- 3 O c c u O •v 41 OJ CJ 01 3 r-H Q.AJ r-H AJ X C AJ O 03 CO to o AJ CO fH XI r-t AJ CJ fH Cfl co p CO ra •-H CO 01 AJ •* i-i oo era •1— I-H 00 AJ OJ 01 p TJ Cfl X i-H OJ _ o X C QJ TJ O P >4H c 03 •rH p p 00 O i-H O CJ 4-1 CJ •fc fH X 1) fH AJ * TH c 4) CJ c Cl 3 XI CJ UH o s 3 tj i-H AJ AJ CO E i-H X 00 X) CO ra P o p -r-l p CO 01 ai CO i-H 01 O OJ o i-H fH o c XI O 3 •IH u— u a. S co C -H O fH P X p •iH XI CJ 3 © c CJ X •r-i X » >-, O UH AJ i— 1 OJ AJ tu Uh c u 01 O 01 c C OJ u AJ 01 CO X CO OJ > B. C U-l fH •H p OJ fH 3 CO CL O o OJ CO o CL UH X X XI OJ CL X fH c X OJ ra X 03 o AJ H 0) p < 10 00 AJ fH AJ X 03 Cfl F-4 •H xi 4J CD CD CO UH CO - 1—1 > >> o O c CD M CO D- CD c CD m CD r-l o IS u CJ l-l ft. •rH c CO iH a. 4J o _ >, «4-l 4-1 CD CJ CO c CD P UH o CD X c CD 2 XJ CD o 4-1 E CD C N r— 1 CD X r-l CD 4-1 CD X CO 1-4 C •rH Ml CD 4J •rH O t-H •iH 4J CD C UH c CD a XI c CD O 3 4J O CD o S O E jj 4-1 U. •rH •••N I-i CJ 01 uh 4.) >% o CD S CD CD 01 CD M N-^ 4J r-l c U > X M CD a CD o T3 •iH 4J CD 3 xi CD U u 4-1 13 ,u c Xi c •H co CD XI •rH CO co o CD > •lH B C CO U r-H E x: 4-1 M CO c X M CO c 4-N •"-l rH t-l C 01 4-1 CD o i-i X CJ •r. o O 4J CD a o ^-^ c o Xi u l-l 4-1 rH U XI « 3 c u •H w CD •f. CD M u l-l r*N o 3 CO > o E O o CO CD CJ O 3= c r-l 01 JS 4_1 o J3 C U. <4-l X s-^ CJ LO CD i-i 3 CD — 1 .* 4-1 to i-i CO 1—1 >, Q. T3 ft. CO c >» B CO CD O M CD UH E 3 co CD CO CN CD 4J U O CD l-l Xj O CD O U H E l-l O Uh c CJ 4-1 CD CJ r-l c CD o U1 4J 01 CD U D. .1-1 £13 * CD 41 60 60 r-H o Q E I •r. 03 CL c X) c 0) -rH .— 1 -O E E CD 4-1 (HI < B UH x; 03 o CD CD •rH C UH co <; O **-. CO •H C_) JZ Xi C "D cm c CD CD ad ►> oi ux i-i 4J 1-1 x: CJ C_> 3 o CD CD c s I-i u. CJ CJ 00 •H -rH CD CJ CD c c c XI |H "H 4-J C CO X> CJ -T-l In - 3 > C "O *r-i ft. CD C c c D (* 00 CO CD rH CO 1—1 3 o 03 c 'r-l CO 4J QO .o o o CD < CD •H S ft. CD CD o o O u C u E 0) i SS U 4J CD rH > C3 CJ 1-. > COS C 33 E T) < C rH •rH • to In u 3 C 1—1 CJ CD o 01 - 03 CD < CD 3 3 CO i— 1 > t-l c CO CO O c •i-i CD E CJ 4-1 • CD 01 C ft. x; - CD - U < X •r* ^ m CD o 3 3 CO o JJ r-l CO 60 CD i-l 4J CD U 01 r-l CD CD - X CO Q < C = r-l 4-> 4-1 4> 4J C CD mx; E rH rH CO CD >-. CD rH CJ .—1 r-l CD CD CD CD o 4J CO CO ed co 3 CD 1-4 |Ju a. •H 4J CD XI U CD 4J JJ 4J C B B r— 1 Ji &•-« X •H CD U bJ 1— 1 O B 3 — i x; 4J B • U U BQ 4-1 N 4-1 .U 1-4 o o l-l u E >- CJ r— 1 4J N i-i u c 4-1 c CD co co CD 3 CD CD CO •r-l CD CD o ja CJ CD CO CO 3 co co ■ 0)Q X CO Q to •r-H u 1-4 CD iJ 03 CD ex CD CD CO • xin • CD J CD CD J CO CO CJ 1— 1 ™ i n c c 03 O X o X u 01 4-1 UH CD CO Z Co 3 CO z< Z CO CO CO HH BQ O ft. 01 CO U M CD 03 > ft. JC 1-1 CO CO O 1-4 CO c < H o X X cj x> CO u .-i CM PI CO -c CJ ^H rM CO •H > CO CD •H rH CD CO rH rH X) I-i H XI XI 3 CO CO a. r»>. 01 4J B X > CO CD CD 4J CD 4J Uh o CO V O 4J CO XI 4J CO 4J X) CO XI x; B CD 4-1 rH 4-J CD 4J E 3 E 4J CD O CD a. •H E 3 1-4 o E CD 3 i— i XI 00 CD CO CD 3 CO CD B > co E 4J •H CD CO J-i XJ ID £ - 11 o •rt CO E 4J CD CO l-l E X. B CD u O >, 4J CO CJ o to rH l-l 4-1 E ft. 3 UH >. rH *rH O CO IH O > CO IH o CJ CD M CD XI CO w u CO to CC. •iH CD 4J 3 CD > •4-1 a. B 4J rH X X! o •H CD CO CO 4-1 < CJ E u 4J •H XI CO B 4J 4J E . CO •H a. IH CD CO O B CD CO E E CJ 3 CD a a. CO CD CD N N UH •H •rH CD o E IH O > ■U 4J 4J CO 4-1 CD •1H CO rH •H 01 |H O 4J X) a CJ u CO CD "IH IH < 4J u CD UH o CD 4-1 o Xi UH UH JZ •rH H o 4J E c CD CN IH CO XI > rH >, CD rH m E •H Xi O. a. rH CO 4J F-5 c x X o c CO ac ■H CO •H c o JJ c c Uh E MH c —H U-4 CJ T4 o at O 60 u o u O 0) CO CO c OC C CO CO rH CO to 6 JJ CO •H C 4J •rH tH Oi CO i-l 3 00 0) CJ 0) P •iH CJ tH 0C M U CJ o* O C 0) Pi 0) P CO i-l 0( CO TH CO 3 01 CO 4J th X Uh CO 0) CD Uh 0> E i-i UH JJ jj .— i Uh P P Uh tH OJ CO Uh CO CO CO i— I 0) 1— 1 t>0 CO CU C 00 c 0) fH 4J 01 Un i-< CO - •|H OJ - CO C > o 3 0) C 0) E In QJ 0J In 4J 01 CO OJ p CO O OO CO CO 0C >. O C CO 01 a to 0) CO P •rH CO C tH CO tH i-| 0J P p u X X 'rH CU P Oi > u CO CO CO o 01 0C 0) > CO CO 01 X CO CO 01 0) > CO "2 r-l co CO x 0) CO >> CO -D CO CO IH tH X CO g CO CO Id O. p P CO a. fH OJ a CO TH p 0) o 0) Uh •u X CJ o QJ X 0) ai X X JJ 01 X CO CO 01 i-l P i-> JJ i— 1 M CO CO CO r- 1 CO rH 3 u r-l rH QJ CO X •Hi fH X •rH CO •H X Uh CD 1 3 4J CO i-l X E Uh Uh Ul 0) CO iJ UH fH CJ t— i CO g CO in o J-l 4) •rH o. CO iJ rH 4J a. AJ tH u o CL p C u X c 0) c CO CO 01 c 0) 3 p 01 J 0J CO JJ 3 c CJ 0) co IH 3 CJ CD B iJ UH CJ 15 u 4-1 x o CJ <4H J i-i CJ U i-l p CO CJ o CO c c jj •«H CO •H < M IH r^ CO tH O C TJ CO a CO X (0 o C i-l c H KH O 01 co c o U 0) c H p 3 OJ TH 3 ■a o a- s tH 3 a. CO X 3 < CO CO c E -c r-H w B E 3 E CO u z X OJ C C •rH Bh fH 5 i-l C •rH CO 3 C ^^ CJ X TH 0) 00 o CO 3 Cfl CJ CO CO CO CO JJ CO Q c JJ U-l CO u c E C 01 CO U J-J CO CO •rH c 0) •> a CO CO 0) Q co •O CO fH 01 o c 01 »-l CO rH > ^ u CO > U fH c XJ > < CO 01 u -D 5 CO co IH o CO CO CO CO o CO > o c co CO z c CJ o r-l p X 0' < fH cy CO X 0) < fH O -r-l 3 X 0) rl E 0> TH u 3 X SS •O CO tH z tH u p B 01 P 3 fH i-> •a CO < CO •M -a a £ CO a. •o C X CO o 3 l-H CO i-H •IH s 0) > CO rH OJ c HH r-^ > X i-4 - -D Cl E 3 Uh IH o ■B 3 >> IH 4J 3 co 3 >, o 01 IP oo C co O !n co IH O o tH tw co fH Uh B o p z p E c CO » 3 XI O a. •rH 3 01 o ft> 3 0J < Da •H co X c Z CO JJ X SS CO •» O u X > 1-1 - fH .0) 00 a < •hH i-i u o£ CO < fH CO CO 60 CD oi 0J !-H CO X X X c > X •rH c c fH > X Oi rH O c fH u X CO 0) a) 4-1 P •rt CO Oi H 3 'rH Uh oi H M CO iJ •rl Uh w H "O P TH 3 f-H -D u • - Uh rH u CO r-l z •rl <4-l c i-i hH 01 CO CO <~i 4J co u CO t-H 4J o 4J X f-1 TH CD •iH X z c 01 ■o TH C z c 60 fH fH fH C u c c l— 1 fH b o o IH CB U. CD o o c b- CO o >% CO 0) - x X o •IH CD rH i-i CJ fH TH T3 co c 4J * fH > X 0) c 0) 4J n IH 4J f C 01 o P CO J-l CD 60 CO c 3 oil CT* gl 60 60 o a. 01 co u fH oi: o C3N Q 0) c fH c U-l rH fH c u c Oh CM •HI 01 CO J-l c CL CM fH X •1-1 - r- 1 C IH r-l p fH fH fH E tH Uh • - fH fH E P x X CO •n i-l iJ CJ X 13 JJ u X CO X) X fH i-l CJ X 0) GO fH Un Uh D CD Uh H o U- CO -3 Q 3 p Uh CO 4-J OJ fH rH c X _n co JJ 4J fH C 3 01 CO B c OJ 3 OC CO CO c CO CO rH £ c CO o fH 0) fH P X J-l 0) J-l CO JJ c CO Uh 00 a o fH (0 rH c OJ rH X fH f- Un jj r*"» a. CJ P N— ' o p CO CO 3 X JJ a. CO E B E o CO 01 CJ CJ c E r-l X co OJ fH CO 0J JJ p o E Oh CO CO <-l CO CU CJ CO CO E CJ fH 0J CO X JJ p E JJ H X 3 Uh 1— 1 E o 0) 3 o CO CO CO p CJ 3 OJ OJ OJ B > P JJ 01 X CO CO CJ 3 E X CO rH CO >* p Uh X p co E CO rH 0) X fH QJ 3 X CJ fH o CO OJ JJ 3 fH 01 c P Uh X •tH 01 00 H p a. c X -J co o TH E 2 3 p rH CO JJ a r-l _n c co •H CU H o CU 01 PH Uh < fH E c fH z JJ M CO O rH a rH 60 f-4 oi X CNI fH CO JJ E rH p P OJ fH fH fH J-l u 3 J-l X X 3 •p 09 J-J CD E E c Oi co JJ o fH E s Ch- E CO CJ Uh O - CO X rH OJ fH 0J co X UH X p 3 p E 3 r-l UH 3 O JJ CJ o JJ CO CO E - CO JJ CO E fH 00 00 •p CJ 01 E E X OJ p CO CO fH •rH E UH CO fH CU JJ JJ 3 Uh CJ CO CO OJ r-* CO p 0J 0) E CO 0> 3 M > co OJ E p o p CO CO CO X CO E p fH OJ p X fH 0J JJ CO p •rH > CO X r-* E X 0> X ej 01 CO •rl ■0 p JJ p fH CO CJ Uh o CJ E 0J 0) UH fH X p 0) r-4 p o CJ 01 CO 01 p X CO X p a. X a o 4J E CU CO E o JJ Oh CO JJ CO CJ 01 CJ CO CJ 0> CO X TH CJ Uh p 0J f-l E CO fH CO CJ 3 CO CO E r-l X E O 0J 3 X CJ 01 UH E p 1— 1 3 P O CD E fH JJ rH 01 HH CO 3 E Uh JJ JJ CO CO C CO CD fH 0> - a E 3 0) X > >» w P H CD P o E rH * o X 0> < C CD 60 01 X z X X c p 0) X CO £ OJ p JJ fH P „ Uh •H i-H 3 fH UH On CO 60 X O >H >•, 0> E i-H 3 X o 01 > p fH fH E z X CO P 3 60 CO < H OJ X CO E > JZ a 01 X fH CD pi fH p c i-H X UJ X UH CO rH 01 C/) E JJ X fH X z O •H X E • Uh o •|H 3 E CO X E X u JJ CO CO O CO o o 60 fH fH 61 •H r- fH P E Uh 4J E UH p JJ 0J •p l-H fH •rl l-H jj CJ CO JJ X rH X X I-H ■H co 3 CO 01 01 E E 01 c 01 er >> 01 X O fH X =1 O CO O UH CO o Ul CO - oi r-l X CO 3 P r-l 3 CJ JJ E - CD •H 00 E E CO • r< CO 0) JJ fH CJ CO p 01 CO 3 p 0) O p CO X co 0) p p TH CO X ■p CJ 01 X fH p JJ UH o fH X UH V CO O 0J CL X p V) E 01 co -J 4J 1 CJ CO 01 rH -3 p CJ 3 H CO E O < X 01 Uh z u 3 P i-H 01 >H JJ Uh JJ H E E co rH c« fH 3 to E Z fH i-H g CD X 60 E z X fH •tH rH 0) JJ P p CO rs o rS 01 o > P j 0) CO X 0) X -j H X CO Oh X fH UH -3 E JJ Oi O TH X fH 3 E * JJ CD CO o o CT- fH fH P P JJ 01 4J u CO JJ •rH co 3 CO E 01 > 3 Ch- C0 o c 01 B 0) 00 CO c CD E o- co co Un o o X CU X * F-6 Id en C c o i-i •r- 01 o JJ X X jj X CD 1— I U) 4-1 4-1 4-1 'rH cj c - r)P 4-1 JJ JJ CJ en 01 CO CD CO cn CJ CO o c a> co •iH 01 Uj en 0) •— 1 CD > •H ■rH c Ud 01 X Id X Ud o eg UH TH c l-l CO tut l-l CD CD 4-1 CD X IH c UH l-J o Ud - 01 CO 4J c c 3 o CD Q. •Id c 01 c en CO » o 01 co O •H 4J o c •H CD c 4J 3 4-1 •Id en en 4-1 01 l-> CO y •tH en o to •rH 4-1 i-i CD CD •rH CD O > l-l X l-i •H H CD c •rH 01 en PC? X IJ •i~i Id o 0) 01 4J IW X 3 X > o X CD eo o> c -a- > > CO CD 4J c X O l-H CO > E ca o l-l X 01 X 4-1 o CO U CO X X £ -* 0) CO l-l •iH C c o M c CO m o 4-1 TO ej 4-1 o 0> CD X 3 CO •rH c 0) 0) E rH rH c •U CD en 01 3 o M rH l-i X 01 CO -o 3 CO o rH eg Uh •*H a XI o c CO 60 l-l CO z 4-1 X •rH CO 4-1 CO X w CO 01 CO 3 4-1 M CO •o T* 01 U Q. CO IW 1— 1 4-> id X l-l n JZ a CO < X CO co CO 01 o CO Q. 4-J i-H CO co 01 z en E c CJ CD 3 01 4-1 •ft i-H u 01 h£ i-i l-H o C 4-1 sy ej •H 2 .-1 0) 1-4 CJ 14-1 jg CO CO jj en CO o c 0) ej C CO x •rH CO TH E l-l •H 4-J c N CD co g *o l-i 4J 3 c l-l >- 01 l-H iH 3 E CD c o c 3 3 X o 4-J c a. l-H 4-1 01 3 u CO 4-J IW CD 1— 1 SB i-l 01 co c C CO IJ l-l CO o 01 C •fH < CO 00 IH CO M CO CO C CO 60 c u CO 3 > en en CD Q. CO •H c 01 CO (Xi 01 IH X 01 C 01 c XI XI CD - u •4-1 X X 01 > CD a CO CD CO JJ 0) 1-1 01 > ss to o JJ 4J > CO 60 > cu c 43 CO x CO u z l-l X 01 en CO M 3 Id 4J X 01 o en Ud c 0) CD X 3 X to £ 3 l-l Xi o CO o •H en X X 4-J i-H cn 4J 41 « X en ^- 0) 01 i-H 4-1 a. X X CU M 01 i-l 4-1 c i-< •i-i Q M (0 » U 3 :>n c l-H x O iH CO •H o 3 U-l UJ CO 4-1 CD a. o en ■-H en CO 3 4-1 tw x 3 c •r-l o X M C 3 IH l-H CD ■-H O c 3 4-1 3 M l-H 01 CO •rH 0) CO -> en 3 - «0 3 01 TH 01 _c 60 CL l-H Xi 60 cn CJ IH •H 4-J 01 X 4-1 X 60 x l-i c te) •rH •iH 01 00 CO m >> 4J c c c 01 z CO X < J 01 o l-H i-H CD s H •rH CD X *r^ cn •H 0) c E o i-l pa Q. «9 •H i-H M CJ u 4J 1-4 CO JZ r-4 > o 01 i-l X 0- O 3 •^ CO 35 01 Cu i-H CD CO CO t* 60 XI •H en => a i-H B ln H c a. X tH M X c JJ CO 0) u- TH o (V O x >» < o CO CJ c U-, CO o CO en c x U-l * •l-l s> TH CO l-i SB •iH •rH 3 0) tH l-H 01 CO p l-l (0 JJ 01 4J M 01 4J - UH o 01 u JJ 0) l-l E 3 6fl i-H •>. a x CJ CO 60 X i-H a CO *rH 1-4 60 «4H fH CO l-l 3 4-1 C 01 m •H c 01 E c CD •J •rH XI 4-1 CD e •iH l-l 01 en JJ (0 •H X U 3 to IH •H M c c IH l-H "D Id CO en °H •H X en 4-1 u 4-J X IW 4-1 CJ CO 01 0) X X rH o 0) l-l X c IH CD 01 0) l-H c •iH en r-l •fH l-H c l-H TH 0) CD M a. c c c 01 JZ x CO IH c c 0) CO o •H TH IH 3: M •H a en 3 u, o S a 4-1 4-1 en li- o =) a t-l to E fin 3 60 C H CO cn •rH o i-H CO u c Id X 0) cn X •rH JJ CO Ud 01 CJ co CO B Uh CO id *t~* E 4J 4-1 3 u 6 Ud id cn Id •rH C iH 0) 01 TH 3 u O u CD CD CD eg TH 3 Uh 4J u O a TH TH Ud JJ to Id o 01 CJ 01 CD CO 4-1 rH O B 01 B CO cn X e 01 l-l cn CD 01 p CO UH CD CD i-H CO O a CD 01 c •H (0 i-H U Id Id o > C CO CJ X l-H Id TH w Id b eg U HH CD CO CO ••-I IH o 01 TH JJ TH 0) JJ o CO O. 01 3 > CO X eg 01 CJ Id Ud 3 > eg < X rQ X X 0) en CO E CO CO TH Ud X 01 z en cn CO 01 4-1 CO CO p *^* •IH X o c CO CO P | •id •id W X 01 CO JZ Uh CO O c Id 60 CD CJ X Ud u 4J UH |h 01 4-1 r-H 01 TH at In 01 01 JJ l-H o eg l-H 01 l-H CO 01 X 4-1 CO X CO rH M >H i-H X UH X Uh Ud 01 CO UH 4-1 CD TH X o UH 01 c o 0) 01 eo •rH O X TH •rH 3 4-1 en 01 CO X z o X co X X 4-J l-H CO X l-H 3 -« X JJ E < ca 01 •iH 4-1 a. X rJ u CD X X o m JJ a CO > Id c c co 0) l-H J 01 X 4-1 i-H eo B E 0) BCj CD X o o » u HH 4J E 4J TH 0) CO jj - CJ 01 u JJ c IH u 4-J u 3 3 ej CO TH 3 id 01 CO JJ CJ Uh t/J CJ CO 4-1 Xi at •H CO H CO E co cn X 3 •M CO th z co CJ 01 4J c E E X < In X E X jj JJ B E B rH o id X 3 H ct) 3 O 3 B Z CO CO O E i-H CO V 3 O 3 X u co cn XI 01 3 •rH eg -^. X iH U CO CO l-H Uh X TH i-H ^^ X TH o X 4J 4J E a CJ Uh Id Uh O JJ JJ JJ E •rH >H CJ Uh u HH 01 C •IH CO >» (d co 60 3 01 E '^ co 3 H CL CO JZ 01 X u o i-l i-H •|H E 4-J X 01 c 01 X H JJ i-H c u E E 01 0) < B eg TH CO *M E o E E 0) m CO E CO ri o 01 O > X z eg TH CO 4-1 B JJ O 0> O > >» z CD TH 01 u c 60 CJ CO CO «£ B 4J 0) B CO 60 CJ eg Id u C JJ 4J o eg X •iH 2 TH E Id 3 X In CO X 01 H •rH B CO CO e rH Uh B ■eg eg X 01 01 E JJ B iH X Z E CO SS •iH eg CO X >■ o u X > TH CO CO eg X ca l-H O JJ o • E IH i-H X u X co CD •H Id TH CO JJ S w i-H TH X ca CO rS 3 3 E z 0) X X o 3 0. JJ TH 3 3 Uh » CD X » 01 IH 4-1 4-1 o eg < Id 3 4J Uh 4-J E X jj JJ O o Id 3 60 rJ CO •rH eg 3 > a. co CO d* O eg TH CO 3 - -J a CO c CO 3 l-l E co cxi « CO TH l-H o X i-H B CO IH 4J Oh 60 X u at co i-l CD X u Cu 60 X _J CD co X IH CO co - B 01 10 X eg Ij B jj X CO - B 0) 2 JZ CO 01 0) X IH X z H O 4-J CO 3 01 TH E X TH X H O •H > ca 01 i-H o 4J IH X E eg ca 01 i-H => JJ UH •H 01 •H X i-l X a X ■-H SS H 3 TH X iH X Oh 0- X X rJ HH CO E E eg CO l-d CO X Id TH CO B B r-l 4J 4-J 3 rM •rH O O X B 01 jj E 4J 3 Uh TH O O CO co 4-1 Uh * •H •iH O > CO E O JJ Uh * TH TH •iH c c c co i-H CO 4-J 4J 01 •rH TH 01 01 TH B CO i-H CO JJ JJ u X IH •iH •H U) r-H ~3- a UH 4-J 4-1 Id E JJ •|H TH 60 i-H SO o. TH IH o X B 01 CO IH X •H eg CO 3 0) ca X E 01 er\ TH X 01 n co - E •IH X Id X i-H 0) l-H CO 60 l-H - E TH X IH X G CO 01 3 X CO 4J CJ eg X u 01 CO CO 3 0> 3 X cn JJ CJ eg E 0) 01 B E iH cn rH CJ Id 01 E a. B E TH CO O X W •IH B •H B E CD E 'M 01 Id eg o TH E TH E B CD B u H eg r-H CO Uh o 5 Q l— l 3 Id CO a. E a. l-H CO U. O 3 Q HH F-7 2 W X Cu o J u > u Q 2 < eei c o> 3 V c —1 (Li x 0> X> >-i O X C 0) 6 id 00 CD C TO E x XI O X •H 3 3 O C -u 0) fl to •J CD (0 C CO 00 fl CO CO OJ 01 l-i X> CO <-v 60 CJ C •tf 3 O O «3- fl fl O CJ u-i 01 CO CD B O 0) -u 00 C >v O 00 f O 4J u u W CU 4J c o •H l-l m a. CO CQ -4 CO c c co O 6 f P 4J 0J fl 3 XJ O XI 03 CO 0) l-l Q."D Ol u u ••* X CO 0) 01 U) l-i o CD X CO CO •rt 4J JC c H <0 o CO -H 01 c i-i oo ih CO CO CO XJ CO Cl Ol o CJ 6J c 3 C CO CO 0) l-l 0i CO > CO 0) X <4-l fl XJ if I-H XJ 3 f-t o —> 3 3 m 4-i < u < IS oo o X < 2 w s a. o J w > Q 2 < CQ Cti 3 c 3 co a, B o o c 01 x 3 CO 4J l-l X oO 3 o o a. E 60 o o fl X c X 3 o c X> O c fi CO 4J ■CJ < ft x 60 3 o X 60 3 o 60 c o xj 01 o V 01 to 01 XJ c 3 x> 01 c 50 Ol -D 01 Xl 3 o X xj c xj c co r-< s < U-l 0) X ac 3 o c (0 X 60 3 o fl CO f I < rH fl CO (fa X oo 3 o 4-1 4-1 CO -rt XJ CO •01 60 01 > c DO 01 CO u Ol > x> co X CO 4-1 a. CD CJ o co c 3 c C3 41 > CO X xj c co 2 < > OS CO o u H w £ 0- o ►J w > u o 2 < CL 3 CL 3 CO 4-1 O O 01 3 W 60 4-1 o oi < > 2 !>, < |H iH 2 CO i-H OJ X CD X CJ fl 4J X ■D XJ 60 B xj CD 01 XJ c co c o XJ co c CD E 111 00 CO c CO E 0) 1H 4-1 C XJ i-i 0) X g - fi co o > 4-1 c fl fl CO 0) CO 4J r-1 CO c CO CO c CD TO fi O o l-i 4-1 in ■H to 4J u fl CO a. i-l CS! IcW c CO fl 4J !-J u 4J TO o> OX X U S3 l-i Ol co p CO CO G-! r— l QJ t- 01 ft O c X c CO fix XI (^ r— i 14-1 U-l 1-1 4J 00 TO CO CO c o • U-l to to fl CD 0) X) TO 4J Ol CD 4J «J CO X) CO l-i IJ CO l-l a. 4J fl i-H cc c 01 CO CO • 0) i-l CO 4J <0 cx CO CD c X CO XJ 4J liX CD U 3 0. fl CO 3 co c 60 CO CO CO 01 )_J (1) AJ t, li. hi 4J CO to *"N C fl 4J l-l rj *i — ) W c., Ol 4-1 *1H E X) CJ •H Xfi co O TO W a X > c 3 l-l l-l ■w 3 HX fX p B •o 01 CO 01 •H <■ O CO X CD U3 tc S . O CO E c 3 X o i-l X H CO co U 01 3 o 01 <■ i— l 4J f 1 a> c c QJ 4J CD 60 CQ l-l o tox) c 4J QJ a fl fl CO CO o u* 01 l-i • co !>, ft) N CO i X c CO 01 X o i-l fl to CJ 1— I 4_> *r-t OJ CO CO i-l U-l to CD CD ox OJ fl 0) CO i-l > to QJ 4J £ c CO 1-1 CO X CO 0) l-l U-l 4-1 "-W CD a o fi fl o 4-1 M CJfl TO r-H c_> X •H ro CD CD •f-l M X) 4J - O O co c B •rH CO r— | CJ X 4J 01 fl X O OX 00 L-i QJ *o *o C CJ 4J co 4-1 •p-l CD CJ 4-1 r~ co P"> -H X D ^ r-H rH 3 en CO c co s u 3 • r~ co o j«j aj 3 O X) c U-l oo E c to c fl 4J M CO c 3 3 c CD 3 O fl 01 CO o 5 fi 6 c >.X) D- c i4-4 ^ X to r-i 3 4J to 1-3 fl 0) Om JJ c c 01 i-H cr U < 4-1 c 01 N CD u PO c 01 M CO o XI •rH TH o CJ TO 4J i-l f— < CO c 01 fl U-l c D. OJ r-i CO C 1 0) c CO u J o 4-1 CD ■u ^^ 3 B c 4-1 O- E 00 r~( 1 N to > c u l-l •rH o O fi o •tf" *4H >S TO fl ^-^ O HI CJ l-i 0) X CJ QJ 3 r-l O X l-l •tf X fl fl D. CJ o o> *U c CA H c H <0 CJ o •o 4-1 CO CO u U P c T4 CO to < H 01 -o CO vr 01 c (fa r-l o a. eg -c C/3 2 CD fl fl 0) OO CO o TO (fa a. a Jf) < CO C X 3 •a XJ 1-1 fl CD c CO CN CL U-l >- CD CO o o 01 4-1 c JX CO OJ p-l s CO O 6C 3 3 CO CD p CO CO 1-1 •rH CO i f< 1 4J i/> ^ CD < 2 fl CO CO XJ 1-1 c u 4-1 TO c c < *D c < CD CO 00 "O CO -J X l-l 60 fl H fi oo e»i oi w CD c u o > X > c 01 fi l-l U-l < H CD 0) X) o co < .Q 3 c OS t- fl X o o fl 4-1 l-l XJ 01 < CJ < 01 •H 4J LO CO .-I oo U-l c_> c 01 co X W CD U l-i T3 r— 1 o r— < CJ CO c fl X c i-i u fl (fa 4J Di M oc a. 0) i-H QJ 2 C fl •l-l to fl ■o CO (fa c xc < < 01 s 3 •r-t iu O o to f. fl 3 CD co 10 o U-l X) l-l c CO M o 4J |A« Uh u 4-1 4-1 c U-l i— i O i-l c o a. 4J o 01 u o U-l •H 4J 2 CO c QJ CN Cm o oi fi i-l 01 co CM •a co 01 U-l 4-J id . ti QJ •J- ■H CJ c CD o E i-i i-H •H CD 00 co 3 CO M •-* X U-l G X) l-l M c O x w t-l 4J O CO T3 CO O 4J CJ CO <0 1— 1 4J QJ QJ *u QJ fl CO CD C CD o 01 fl to X) fl 4-1 l_i 4-> c > c CD l-i -r-l c X 01 X c 01 C c 1-1 01 4J o QJ •H •o n Q CO U. o H M 4-1 =3 Q CO 01 3 CO < CO •D Uh CO F-8 w 1 CU T3 cu CD 60 co CU cj 0J CD X o P C X IH p O CD 4-1 3 Q. CU 1- E 4-1 p a CO c CO 10 > fH CO fH •. fH ~o x r- o- CD P X - c JJ XI X CO 4J 01 3 S3 CC a CU .3 c t>o 3 •H X 4J C c s c r-l H cj CO i-H CO fH W >» CD > ID X p .0) X 4J 1-1 •V 3 01 4-1 c fH CU 0) (H XI CO CD *lH co X u 01 01 fH fH fH E 0) s (0 JJ 01 a. X CO X 4J cu p X> a. JJ 0) CJ u CO co o •rH 3 X Oh 01 CO c CO C 4-1 CJ CO CO XI >s A3 c CU fH 3 z CD 1— 1 4J cu x Uh O JJ O x o < CU 01 3 4J CJ CO 4J C CD 0) M to > 60 Ed P a) x: 4-1 o X CO 1-1 XI CO fH fH CO c to -o HH X f — * cc o z C o CO 4-1 3 0J x CO 4J i-H o CO 01 3 o 3 o CU 6 CO a r-4 01 M O CO X> *H p >> CO >H ^ 4-1 "U CO c X CD H 4-1 H CD >H tu fH a Ed < z CO 4-1 •fH D [d CJ CD UH O w o 3 4-1 OS 3 4-1 c l=H to z In O t-4 to z 0) P CD r-H to 3 4J co |H 01 X 4-1 01 X 4J c < o < C H CD u B w z C 0) 3 4J 2 CD 0) z 2 fH O Oh => cj 4J u o H z M fH P H z l-l c fH u H z co u IH 4-1 CO 3 4J CO fH E OJ E 01 60 TO S- P CO JM C a S 3 01 X s i-l 41 l-l «4H fH 01 c 3 >H u z < > OS Id to z o o CO • pH CJ z < > cs w to CD X H u z < > o B CD O o < fH c < O ►J -J JJ o c < o -J P o X to •J C CO 4J c 4J c 01 c o 4-1 X H C CD £ c OS U to c M 3 o 2 3 c < OS 3 c 2 c -J 1 c o E 01 60 fH XI c e •© fH 4-» 00 c z o o o 4J SB O u o fH 4-1 CO CU P OS o fH 4-1 BS o fH 4J Oh o •H JJ 3 OS o fH 4J 4-1 fH CO c CD o o 3 O i— 1 f-4 4J Q. M U en 4J a fH P CJ i-i CD C CN CN 4-1 a P O CT) CN 4-1 a fH P CJ IH CU CN JJ G P u o 4-1 fH M u c 3 4J E 4-1 fH rH CO M 3 o 4J a M i-h UH fH CO ■H CO o fH CO fH CO > fH CO fH to c r-l 4J •H CO e 3 cu Q c B> 4) a fH 4J c 3 ai Q c -3 (U OS c 3 0) O c a 01 E a. (0 CO c B 3 0) a C 01 c fH r-4 B x fH CU •rH CU 4-1 XI 0) P X fH CD 01 X o Uh JJ IJ o X C JJ 4-1 4-1 X O fH co 4J 4-1 oo fH o CO 3 p 0) X u f-4 X p r-l E iV JJ X o 4J O co CO >H o CO CU 4-1 01 u UH JJ c c CD 01 X UH fH CO X fH CD a> c CD 01 XJ o 4J fH JJ > CU Uh XJ CO UH 01 4-1 X! E U IH CO E fH P Uh OJ o 01 M B CD CO M a, Oi CU 00 E JJ 03 01 X) JJ 3 o CO o p x> E o o E 3 SN 4-1 a 01 01 UH !0 CO fH fH 3 t-H 01 0J O JJ 01 E M > UH 0) co CO •o XJ CD CO E X fH XI fH 01 CO fH X) p r-l 01 3 01 o XI p B JJ i-H 01 X i-H 01 CO CO p o 00 p •i-i OJ O fH •H CU >> IH XI XJ co X CO a, JJ > o 3 X 4J i-H CJ X) 1-4 E B O 3 p i-t CO JJ O jj P X! XI 0J CO fH u r-l fH 01 CO a. o i-H 3 0> 4) CD p jj JJ CO CO X 3 3 c CO r-4 CO o JJ 4J c •fH t-H CO o § CO fH r-H fH o B CJ 0) OJ 0) 3 •v 3 J£ 3 X) o CO XJ CD 4J c fH 41 f-H p E co c CJ CO B CJ E 01 JJ X co B CO fH 3 01 CO 01 JJ CD XJ 01 41 XI O CD o 0) t— 1 u CU B In CJ t-4 x> 0) X E p JJ CO CJ X JJ U z fH >. < CO 3 •H X JJ CO a, a jj H 01 CD r-l u o CO i-H O CO OJ •H XI 3 a. X) 01 CO p CD 3 01 JJ o CO 01 CJ E E c X) X I-H CU CU fH os o 4J 4J X u B> co p CO CD CO CO CO JJ CO P E E CO co 4J CU CD o fH CO 3 CU CO CO r-4 XJ c JJ at B 4-1 >, u UH co & JJ r-4 XI 01 UH l-H 3 E u •H co XI 01 I-H fH p CD a, JJ i-H 4J XJ 3 • OJ fH JJ 3 01 i-H •H B E o E fH 3 3 3 o C CO E JJ X N IH CO O JJ CO UH co E O X E X CD CD CU o CO CO fH CO OS fH 01 I-H — ■ 3 X fH CO OI oo E fH 04 c X 4-1 B t-l < i-H CU CO P - 0) P CD X u 60 CJ B CJ o O Oh fH CJ JJ 4J co > CD E Uh JJ In o IH 01 Id UH p E XI E XI B co eg O CJ B CU UH JJ CU -J o 01 E O B O X 0J S 4J CU 0) 0) X UH E X UH P < b. E CO CJ CO •H UH CO CO IH u 01 01 4-1 01 0) JJ O o I-H 0) i-H JJ XJ fH 00 CO u UH 3 IH s H J* 00 01 X JJ CJ r-H r-4 E 01 OJ co CO fH 4-1 O 01 01 UH P XJ z CO CO CO CJ 01 fH 3 XI fH CJ XI 1 •H i-H 01 z CO 00 o o 0) w CO B 3 fH 3 x> o r-4 3 o CD 1/1 XI X IH CD 4-> 00 o H CO X CO 3 fH O p E o ja i-H E CU B /~N CO XJ I-H E JJ 3 l-H fH 3 f-H a. 0) fH cm O > CO u P 01 to CU B I-H p 0£ l-H 00 CU 0) 3 E 4-1 XJ s s^ JJ p Id X CO 41 co < 3 C XI o ^-s E x: M fH oo CD «* CO XJ OS H fH XJ CU H-> •H E UH CJ fH 4-1 CJ XI i-H E oo o fH X B p f-H CD •w ' XJ c t-4 •H CU E «* iZ UH z jj 41 co » E - x: CD fH i-H i-H •H fH o < E a, >V © •fH - X O fH IH CO (h M X 3 E 03 o E 41 E P -3- b-, >% JJ «tf UH co -^ CO 3 co O o X) 01 os fH fH XJ co CO P f— 1 CO CU 03 4-1 i-H 01 < OO 3 4J 3 CU . - CJ 3 3 fH ail a. l-H CO p a OO p co JJ CJ oil X >s CJ fH CJ 01 In B CU 0) o 01 co in •H E 41 fH CO 01 E CO f-H 0) UH fH z CU fH X CJ UH p X X P fH JJ 01 to fH fH r-4 to fH 4J X X3 4-1 CJ CU JJ CJ 4-1 O CO CD CO X) UH CD ■CJ u XI CO E CD 01 Xl CO fH co 3 3 •fH 01 CU C E 41 OJ CD B fH fH UH E X E >» fH E 0) O X X X •fH E fH X a. a. CD «4H lK O 3 H 3 X X) 3 o X CO H JJ JJ [fa O [fa JJ CO F-9 0) -o TD c X w a ■z. uj Cu £*, < a. o o u o> a 10 -D 4) o oo c CD C w 0) x CD 3 C IJ -H 01 4-1 X C B O ai u co > •h o 0) Z X 01 X 4-1 X O /-s 4-1 -H tO 01 X- N 4J SS-H CO N) T3 X -U l-i Ci-H O o cai fH 4-1 'r4 •!— ) C I* ~4 CO O D-=) 01 4-1 O >-' 4-1 c >> r-< C 0) i-< (0 i-l to 01 o to 01 J* i- CO M fH ocaa o.f-4 o h c n n CO CO •-< — S JK • • 0) CU 4J n 32 C 3 O W 01 OBIE U to u-i to • O Ol 01 X (0 • 4J 4J tD 01 C CO fH 0> *W E OO 4-i Q. CO H O UCA ; i-i u i-H 01 CO > D. - 01 >» "O COCN 01 c B u Q. E CD O to X 10 4-1 09 01 0> > to U-i to 01 01 U) O 01 O T3 CO X wl 0) > UH u Hi b >CO C£U •|H 4-1 I— I 4J • CO 10 C to C "H O-rt • 1-ivO X X 01 01 T) 4-i • 4J >, 01 CH PT)«1 - O CO to 01 CO 0) -. 3 3 .Or-! ,h«; cc x co *■ co -h - co U-I 4J —> 4-1 01 <-4 4-1 C p -« 0) CO ^-n O O to C X tD CJ >« > •H 4-1- 0> CO t-< 2 oi u 60 01 ts) X Oi C 01 M C_> 4-1 X O l-i 3 O H « 0) CO ^-^ 01 4-1 CL. C N CO •H C "H • £ 01 1H -C C H X 4-1 MOO 4J O "D CO U U-i C 01 Q.t-1 C U-i C 4-1 O TO —4 co c oi u-i O 0l«-> u 01 0> 01 ~* U 41 111 U CU C S l-i O ih -rt oi: achu 4-1 00 C 01 CH 01 01 •rt tOi-l M-H X l-H -H 01 CJ 01 CL 3 Q. CD il c N o •H o X) f-l u CO CO u- D. 4) 0) c •i—i ■1-H p >, 00 CO 0) E M 0) c o. o •f-t 0) 4-1 X B 4-1 01 CO 4-1 X <0 4-1 •<-! X C 01 o •rt-D C 01 •^ 3 ac 0-~ 4-> Ol c x o 0) Ol X a. o 3 14- C -o o Oi •i-l N 4-1 •1-1 co 1-1 c o 00 X 4-1 CO 3 01 CO -o >» ^— V •-I u JJ >— ' c 01 u u CO CO 1 T3 0> o c to 1 D CO o aj i-H X O 01 4-1 < 1-4 iH 2 l-l CO £ 01 o 01 •1-1 1*4 O c a > c •o CO o 0> 01 IH z oi M f < 01 > 01 f H Bt! X f-l •M w H CO o 1/5 c a. z. o CO o C CJ u O 01 •i-i 01 00 4-1 X •D CO a 01 «tf •H •v u V4 l-l •o 4J u 3 •IH to o u c 01 X o 3 a Ol U-i F-10 QJ QJ •♦-»«-» i— Ql U. -C «) QiOf- C 3 CD QJ O.Q- O C QJ O > 0) i SJ c CJ E u CI Q. o» Q Cfl « •o "E ft uo UJ ao co • _ Ma CjTJ J - >»T0 i- O o *r "o qj 01 *■> © >>■ o to qj c m to o U.*«-aiL«r-OC3 O I L "M en o_ u 0) • ■4-»f— ue fl eo 4lr- < a> am ai u *-> >» i E l > a.*— ** !-• en e 3 3 ■»- a 3 o. i o o o en ai *-» oj »— •*- o >• £ Oil) JZ TO > +■» 01 •*- ♦J TO »»-> c to — L. «-> w A ft * JO «-> c L >>*> Ql -r- •»- rO 4-» CO CL 3C 1- +■» L »— •«- 01 • occnsmcojzai jz msu-'-aiaie-r-io ooi*j > l o eo Q. L -r- cn«-> CO t/) 3C C <0 C cn L "fc *-> TO a> ■o *J > QJ qj •a i_ '•TO 1*- er _ c 01 ai «-» O L 01 l »— 01 O) Ol-f cx| c 3 O 3 •— CO •— m U- •*- w. CLCn CO l/t > «-»«-> C r— Ol 01 TO to O QJ r— W <-> > • • r— •»- IO *T0 CJ r— _ if) o >»»— •*- m jz to ai l _ c at */> c 1- *— • Q 4J gj IO , ~*" a * COr- """r^ m O «-> CL I_ o o • i_ a. a> aai l L 3 Q) 4-> JZ • — L 00 01 »*- OA *J o>— — L m 01 *— L 1- E a> ai -c en Q. cm U CO »*J LT! OM l •#- 0J CM 0) c EJ <0 V- ZO 5 u ii ai «j •■- *j u C in • • c tfc. « (D O cc c 1- ClC <*- O HI E ei <— ••-> .0 O era en O (_) c cue ce I. O U *r- o 1- oc cu-^Es-cn <0 01 (. 01 Of u *mc*o L C tji" in u ^-^ o> f- - •0*JC-OCJQ.JZ«->*JjCm cmn>-OE t— co*->3 (OOi to u 3T3 mo EO-Ulf- r cr «i o «j "■ • m E « c 1/1 Ol 4-» 4-* «/> +-> > — cn-»- t- ■r L tfl m »D CO *D ^O U. QJUfl*J01c*>0)**.wu*J 0301 »- <— ia e ** f • 00O-T3U3 Zaim.— C/>OAOtU3m • 3»*-IO • •— «-OOCP-i>, err- u => >. O CS1 1_ CU cu c u n 1/1 *ui )*3-U'^0 >>3.£)' — 1 ^- :CM*^ 4->0il-4-*3m|r- > « ^ ra m m 3 (O ai (C i. !- 1- ■— E *-» 3 LU m ai 01 op 01 a.2 « cjc c O C C > *r- u IO o o to C -UJ JC IO •— i~ 1- E m >"3 »-» — era QJ i_ *r- en D 0J« L. coaieej: o •r-V.OICO O 4-» U JZ 1- C I- 01 u 01 u cn-»- o c »-><«- £ t— c o> jz a 10 o .0 «t ur— mE*-»muo ai *o Li/) L.11.0 1 O. C C Ol QJ OOXC.XIA'Ol. "*-•»- O O I_ *J QJ c co o m uTJ •^ O Dl Jv-U IQ 01 "o *- T3 c 1 en 01 CH^ 4-» C *i- O O *r— D nl nj iojz ur- w E m o c E SOO^-3CJ5gi_ O **-*♦- ID IO E (71 C C U • Ol 3 O jm^-aiccn-UL Ol C O (O -r- Q. XJ+JUOJmEt— u c u •*- enr- i_ "O ^- .c nioi*- 3oit— uu ■W •<- C nJX-^uj 1, ai c u •— o. * 9— U >>Q. Ol u o. d CI 3 > m 01 O **- lj m •*- 01 to 1— c e •^00 S u — 01 o J= c •*- m -r- c ^- u -r- u. en Ol r- • 1. a 10 Ol c . o_ o QJ l<_ -r- J= <4- "O •U U "O < l»- T) o c 01 • >— e£ >, r- rei *- "o ^- o >— m 01 01 ' o> 01 «~ OI"VI > cc s: 4-> IA Of QJ C V 01 L Ol 1 jZi C *J ■— HI i_ in to OIL0I UCI/I]« 01 «o c aoi*j io at u *o 1» » IO K S»-XO-0>— <0 J_ -J 01 m c «— *j ~- c m u m >i ).£t 0>> O OJ u to ^ > to • u t_ •— TO r— Uf LT) C 41 O to Ol 3 3 »>— CL— • r- 1- cm to to to m 3 _c 01 01 !■• I- O.U3CmmcnE^- CD cr « 01 ioo en u ai Ol JZ -C u OJ3i-u U QJ +J <-> -O TO •— 1_ .— J3 01 i. *«-CCIO0JI*-OI*-O O. Ol n- } «>oii- j ouoa — * c 4J 10 c J= -H u E b M CO 01 S u 01 CO T3 |-H r^ C J-x O ». •i* O 4J >3- u 1 01 u. 10 1 3 C M 1H 01 4-1 J3 C E O 01 o CO > •H O «l 2 J= tl£ 4J X CJ<-s ■U fH CO 01 J=- N «-> ss:* CO fJTO £ -U h •U^O CO nw q. CrH O O C QJ C1-1 •rt CT3 O s ■u 01 C ON >-v E QJ O CM Q.E QJ COX to cH CO U a, 0) 41 4-J U s-^ > CO UJ CO 01 J= 0) CO O 0J u J-l ■ TO CO JO •rH 4J > OJ c aii-i U 0J M N >co CJ= 01 •H •H cy. 0) i-l IO TO i-H 4J 1— 1 4J P CO • OJ en c CO CO U-l C » O •H a ■ UNO X J3 u OJ 4) TO iJ 01 c ■ 4J >> 01 *->i-i Ci-4 PT3 CO n u O 10 <0 OJ CO Q) QO QJ CO •H QJ 3 a CO TO c TO a 11 U x 0) CO 00 /-V c CO u- TO 01 0£ c CO co u a. X s 01 <■ 1— 1 J= t-H Q IM 4J ^ 2 O (d u » U >» 01 t-t CU a TO 00 P-. c (0> < 3 tH fHCOlr-ICOJSCO'rt » a ol COiH CO 0l4J£ O •« 4J- OJ CO CJ AJ i-ictocnij £ gju co OC0C0«iH000ltsJjz0>C **-i ' rt E OIMU4JJCOC0O JOp ■ -Uo5 fn-rt-rt QJ Cl, 4-1 0J CO w Q) 4J JZ OJ M S£ C O.C N Buy 3OU0> ^HC-rt-S C OBISt -Hi; C uu D O »£u LOO uu «-l C04JOTOa3CJ«4- O. «tH OH L'H QIC 41 -crx 1— l x c/> Q. • «-> CO 3 «— C X X 4-1 i- — en 1- c c *- 0. 1/1 D>gi enconoufo vi u VI O "O C O 0» t- OJ E O. ■a a> i- c Dr- >«- u» u »U*^- •»- C •.- It- (_ 1— l»- Q. E t- c ■«- 2 C it- c a.t- Q. x; •>- 10 •#-.«- OtJi- <— CO X U >,«r- xcret-con-o XI vi vi oj c x ro .£. 4-iX)*ocn c "o X) x * <— c oif ac^ 01 OJ VI E Xi ai in B LTJ U 0. CO «rn> » mt- 341 xvi ■f- O t- XI 4-1 V» xi ai ai _j co E s: co O k-ri c 91 oii-i- E a. E ««>ai *D U OJ O. O CU t- 3 VI 4-1 re t. co - X 3 VI O LU E O L.XXIO VIOJ 01 IO VI •*-•#- "oai'»-t-joorei_x: t— to in x: oj en u > xi c s» x *-" uai4-> ->-xvicvini.i_uu 01 31- — a. re 4J re >» XI v. c L. 01 c OJII-UU C ca>4-> fjQ u m- £■- oiauiai 4J c tt- >J V) 14. E c vi ant •<- f lO 1— «B «/l T- i- h- t- x: it- X 01 X SI UCI£ E v-E"OOCS_xvi cn«- i_ i_ E a. vi oj 4-> c Elx u a u F ■»- ai re "0 CO X *J VI 4-> CO 3Jn30l*->«00.3CL VI C CO 4J CO OJ •»- ai u CO -r- 1- H- VI ro > o) ai <— urea. c 01 O*- C Q.X1 X C > w- re V- c CO) 4-> 01 «jox;c-r-o-^coQ.3aio »ox; O. l/l ••■■ VI O "^ x 4-> -— . QJ t u u *» ■0 4-> t VI a> ai x vi m en ovo c *> <-» OJ 4J 10 X3 4-1 VI 4J Ult-f HI am- t- cn ^- 0) co = >>o C X 4-» O X C OJ u ai 01 4-> OJ •*- x: •>- e oico co a> go oj vi v re x or 4-s •<- v> i+- re 4-* vi re re 1/1 t_ oj * 1- • *r- j: O f— u en i/i ^- *j -o ••- at *■» •*-• co ■*> •«-> re t— ai a> re 3 vi XI L. DIU U OI u 10 «j •— 1/1 « an 3 «»■ «»•» eui>u O. OJ X> VI 3 <— OJ VI O ■- re «J O It- M 3 E"0<— 0(Ot-CCSJ«t-O«-«-3*J>> iNi •*- #0 i- re u C (A •nU. L 01 U CD •»- ■Or- » O 1- O OJ => 0->-U4J"DCU 4->t-aix: 3 re oj oj O - ««— O ft- 3 l/l •#— mo 1 en *j c "a a.*j • — ' 1- 4J x at a> C 'O X 4-> t4-l E <-■ •t- 3T E -3 4-1 re u to co >> re *j t— v- O oj c 1- co vi •— ■ ajajreo.niL.4-*> oi L. 4-> c an 4-1 C rvi u a O in 1 XI £ (J 3 CXlUU O.KO Ere u oi£ 01 a 1- u X m E ai ai CD 3 ra CO O 4J e x c 1- ecojojecoojo anc u ou >i- 0.0 •^ « 0. i_ c • T) X CO vi u **- y tviajOJ a£ re u oj O O O X 1— C tt. O VI a» Q. re X C ft- ft- X 4JVI-^-4->4->Cre>4->04-> ct- t— oj 4-j re "0 *j re c x 3 re U CIU C CO CO re oj x c co vi c oj re oj •n'D it- u c ft- 1- in »— «— co oj c re oj c 3 - C in to «o "a co "- E 2: 4JV1 UVICC K '-^ *-> x c OJ 4J VI O OJ VI 4-» •»- O XI 4-10 -re CVJ if. O CD CO *-> CO CO LU re » aj"-rei.co>>coaj ore •ao«-*-C"^i/io OJ to 4J t >, CO i_ x: c ■— OJ x a. E 3 UN OIJI 3 C£Ct 4J U VI t- 4-1 a en>, u u CO c ai E co f Oi-BJ£*J t- o"o C">^re Vl>— •«-recri4-* ai >> aj ai «r 01 3 re > r— » 0. en re re > c •4- 01 CJ t- C 3 XI *~ XI VI t- w— oj ai 1— o.«4- •<- l/l X 3 4-> u L. « C VI i- (umnoccwi-oj aitJi- 4-> •<- t. U Q. E O 4-> 01 01 to vi re en_j t- EX C O J- 4-> aBI tNltUUrvl. l. > q ) 01 01 •»- re c > L. 1- re u ai X ai *-> 1-11 ai oovo-^o*^ 4-«aj'»o i/it. c n- x 0. a> c c •<- 0. ai u CL 4-1 t- u OJ to CO c ♦J 1— t— ♦-> t— M. 111 mo cn 4->t-vi aict- ai-<-x:t-ai O in c u c X >, Q.1- • • co » xt m x: e UJ3« OUOtJ C CD OJ CJ •— E x O *J re ret— >> a. a. oj ft- t- • re i_ •— cu *> 3 t- 3 O/Z-r C VOI MO! « 01 D.X re vi 1— c x 4-> re xi VI • c x re c c JE O gi aenco cnt-cait— xiOjvix- u-aJ4->vi4-> VI VI It- t- 4-1 c t- U t— OJ+iIf O *-> *- >i c co c 03ret-j e oi*j we u OJOJ v O 01 > re >•- *> "• E ai 1— O "^ V1Q.L. O = OJ "O <»- X vi t 4-> s E e CL O. vi 4-> O VI XI O l_ re > 4-> O.XI 0>> O tH-OOOJ-<-l- O.0JO 4-1 vi c oj oj t— ojoj O O in >> ai 0. CO CO «- XI 4J 01 O XI tt- 'DU C£r- N > am- K+J reooorexit— -a OJ a t- v- re 4-1 3 •o ai c re 01 r— 13 £ c 01 «4->ajvi'<-u4-ioaivi'x> 4J •<- C OJ 0. 3 "«-» 3 oj t- re c n ui 3 *J e a> •<-4->>,u >re"oajvi t-o ret— t— > oj oj 4-> E l. 1 en t_ O X C3 3 4J L. «t CnXl O ■<- > f - lf c c ■>- re lt- ^~XI CJl IO 1- TO *-> ro ojoj ^ oj a. cloi 01 c -p- U XI c a. ai O c •»- in 0. ■D OD X r— en U£ E'F OL HZ o£o: vo •— CO OJ X 4-> • c X 4-* O XT x: 3 CO S- XI XX) c c •f-.r-3»— OJXLLJ0J4-> 4-> P— It- OJ t- »cvia>revi4-ire re 1— 4J ai O in t-i ai ii CO •<- C XI 3 01 >j-"o c"04-»:n , t-> >— uiDoji 3 IO 1- •■- £ VI C CO t- xi •<- «- en <— -CO IO C 0.4-1 0. !_ c *-> 3: c CO crev-o t- l/l U£13 4J ID OJ OJ > w- re t- ai x i cn+j ai •— 1— 4J 01 c U v. *j re ■O J- 10 i— >» OJ CO 10 01 U c 1. n a 01 ti OJOJ O t-UOJ 34-ICUXI XI l/l ro >, E «— XI O r- re 4-> 1. CO CO ro >> <_l C7I4-I >> •OTJ XIEXX T3-0 >>^ OJ rei- tc u o»- "JTJ 4-1 CO 1- c >> ■«- X c o> «J I- ro oj reaj 0J4->4J> ) ajai"Ot— 4-1X • 4-l30JQJ—re"-lt-C re c c 4J 1- o»— 1- c CO V c 01 V. CL CJ 3 OJ "O O C 0.>— 4-1 It- 4-1 It- O OJ T- 3 re re t— 3 1- JO <*- a. ai ro o> in 3 4-ireajreo CH-0J-'- 3rex •— ere x c re 3 vi O u 4-> x x: cr •<- «0J£"- 1" OJ X •!- k. 3 re x<— uxft-cajxi tt- re ai m ~- x c co c X O 0) 1- *a •r- S: Cr— 4JC4->t— "D4J4JVI4-I3 Ol.4->f- 4JO-^l- a re •0 3s in 01 4-> •— *J Q.-U "O O uj*orecn >»-i- creviTJOJ 3 re 01 •*- 3 XI re xi oj xi 0. J- >. ai O C C VI c *Jici-«icafl«i«icooi'roir noit- >r c c «i w O c c L. ft- e: t- c oj £0.0. Biff « •0 CO 1— . - < '>- U L Tl L 4J 3c >,ore4->o-»-t-re 1— re re Ck. co ret— re xi F-12 01 JC i— *j \n m ia ■o •»- fc. O Ct— 3X3 E 0)T3"0 +j oi Qi c ai a) c o o> x «a x c « i- i- o » «> c E »— « as • >» O. E C 4-1 4-1 XI A3 1- L. CO 0» >l.O O i- A3 4J k. IA > • CO. • ia fc. »— oi to «s ai -» • c jo C > O Ol u IO i- fc. t- >» 3 t— OI O.U. u Q. — ' e • oi > 01 4-t C IA > 4-1 £ ■»• *» u t- +j ■o *> i- OI IA 01 10 C (A c C C 3 => C OI i- Olt— o *> i- «0 4-» u c >> IA > C ■»- o OI 0) OI » — XI £•- X f— c oi n o O i» «r» OiUf a.f to 3 l/l C 4-1 •— tj_ to ai io id oi o»sj- o «a 01 > »•— » c r- O t— Ol i|" Of" t— 4-t fc. * L. OI ■D C 3 O 3 > k. 01 T-i- £«f — •— XI JC <*- C I O 3 4-> f fc. >>H- fc> C U Ol 4-> x- «J oi oi > k. oi k. -a raoor on. h- IA Oil*- ** «3 3 id OI fc. 10 i- *J IA 1- 01 OI • c .c fc. a. => *J o IE IO LU 4-> ia X c i- O O CO O E 4-1 CM O UEOI OI C OI t— •o o > jo U O IO X z o. OI IO o C 01 Ol t— fc. JC Ol L «f> O OI V- K» C XI OI OI JO 4-> 4-1 OI OJ3 ' fc. E OI Q. OI > x> c if c t— ••- « TO > c 1 1- l/> I c o. OI k. i -o o i- u *^ ■o a. 4-> *— !_ 0J o X V- *-> 4-> 4-J 01 c Q. OI 0) i/l k. E 0) OI k- 2 OI o i-4-> OI C LU ■— 4-> OI •• OI OI f- 4-> OI 4-» IO IO ori- oi SZ 4-> > O) 0) JZ 4-> 1- k. k. 4-1 k. 4-> Q) OI c j: E 4-» o> 4-> a. eo a. •r- |/| m c •— "2 e . nc i» f— IO l/l OI IO E 1- 10 OI k. OI ■a 4-i io e i- qj c cm k. OI OI IO f- Ol 4-> ■ OI k. ■O CIA • IO OI •— *> u a l t u i-ooio ui 0..0 k. u k. O XIU) o k. C M >> 4J IO >>•— C E « OI O k. k. 4J U OI CO io X E 4-1 OV- •>- UI CD O X o E 1- 4J k. k. a. ■o o a. C 4J c IO IO l/l 01 01 O 4-> % j: 4J l/l 4J c oi "O »- 01 c >> k. io js -o n- io -o c O £ Ol io I— Ol 01 ID 4-1 •— o J-1 oi ID Ol k. CL > O o«v •— £ Ol Ol J3 > c oi io ro •Oi-i- 4-> Ol VA f- c in c~- <: rs c Ol •— oi a. a c oi u •^ aiTDrak 4-1 O Ol 4-> «A •>- IO O •»- 1-3 C k. •— Ol O O 1- .O i- u km ai a •o x k. O. 0"~— ■ ia i oi •»- r»> «or >» ' "O IA : I oi ••'O o i k. > >> c o Ol i- 4-> IO 01 jc»— ex. a. > c o >> o o •— oi ou o ■o l/l « — 01 c io n 10 J3 H3 ^~ « >»«»- ■B 01 l/l u 0/ 3 *J 4-1 O 4J > IO 10 X k. k. E jc o O) c D.VO X o o o 0) 4) k. IA 4-> JC JC a. 4J a. Ol io ro 4-1 lt- >» o o IA k. JD 4-> O. IA .|- .»- X Ol c n> *o O-Z t3 •— 4-1 O LU C IA r— cr IO » o i coo >,s: £CO LN WOVHU I— 3 O •— I 4-1 Ol Ol C Q. IA 1- •■- Ol k. ui c c .a k. 4-» Ol 4-1 C O JT 4-i It- Ol UIO-1 4->OOi4-ii/IOOli-k. OIO IA O C O.T3 O OJ JC O o k. oi oi 4-> IA O. U JC O Ol i- f- C JC c -o Ol O Ol O. IA . IO 0J •— JC TD 13 4J Ol i- Ol k. C > JC O Xi- t— C O TO IO IA IA 4-1 Ol OL- k O io o r*. k. io • ■o •— o IA LCI ■O 3 CM c o IO 1- 4-> > IA — . Ol fc. ro k. i- •-O.II- I 4J IO 01 Ol Ol I IA 4-1 OIJ3. I I k. o io X) I i o a. c oi >>•• •I- o 1- u IO 3 IA IO o. i— oi IO U 4-1 k. E -o E o 4-1 01 IO •— •»- J3 O IO o u I— IO 4-1 k. IA 1- IA . iA CO IO •— k. X « k. IA 3 Ol O U k. O. Ol IA 01 «— oi o. : ♦J i-> 1 »i- O «3- 4J JCi-jC«T C UO U IA^— I— TJh CM C5 0«T «0i- > «J IO i- 3 4J or T3 IO IO 01 C IA k. Ol O CO JC CL4-> 4-> • O I— 4-> k. io o i- D. 4-> Ol JC CO C 4A 4-1 JC 1- 4-« T- 4-* Ol (J x IO IO k. E O.*o S E oi L-T5 1-4J ID •o >iOc-- 01 I— IA O Oi •— k. o C IO CO IA 4-1 > IA « C "O IO CO IO IA E >1 1- C Ol 4-1 O I— i-' Ol k. J3 > k. •<- IO 1- 01 > 4-1 4-> j= c a, u 4-1 Ol Ol IO u 4^ IA U Ol IO IA ID JC J= Ol C 4-> 4J •— 3 XI o o c CM C C 10 O XI IA I— C IA Q.4-1 C I— O Q. (O O Ol io XI O > i_ c a. xi Ol 4J io o oi EUOL.L, 1- O k. Ol _ j: i- ia •— oi oi S O Irti— XI o> jc xi o . l/l IO Ol •— l/l 4-1 I > 1- 3 O k. It- 4J4JO)X'OCOO can- o < XI CO Q.»— •— O C J3 4-1 C Ol f . C3 I I L>_ o aula oi xi >iui k< Ol k. JC O 4-1 e c i- • ^ • O IO 10 C « jc a. i— 4-i C 01 4J u •— E c io •— 4-1 IO Ol IO t- k. a oik • a. o xi co oi it- oi Ok. a. •a oi o a. c Ol oi E j= a. 4-> o C 4-> XI JC C Ol IA Ol IA IA 13 l/l 1- xi j= a. c c io k.JC3 r— tM O ••—•-••— *X C CM I o ■ i— JC 4J IA 4-1 4J 01 Ol XI 4-1 3 *j.^.^ >, r- oi i- c c o o. ■-E33C 4-1 k. Oi O •i- Ol c n- c 4-> 0.1- O « l o rs o X) ■— i- : Ol I XI jc I i- CD Ol X : it- 4J i- k. IO "O I 4-1 Ol XI Ol > C J=> o i xi oi c a. It UOI O oi E k. i uo in o I i- i/l ■ cum i C O IA (O I IO IA X I r— XI A3 I O-i— 4-> oi i— c I •— JC IO CO io o E : c ia i- a. I i- oi oi o i oi c o •— I 1- i- i— Ol k. 4-1 O > n o co i- ai CO -Q XI ■ oi E ) jc sr k if-^ ON O 1- <_» L>- •— o 1 • -o c : xi 3 co io CO Q.JC •— } JC 4J o. . I O. 1- : E • E 4-i i o ro 3 « o «— xi c C k. Ol 4-1 10 •— O IA>— C 1- C IO 3 IO JC IA E at oi «i- k. k. IA C Ol IO C C X O Ol o c oi i- o-m IO > 4J •— 1- IO Ol c Q.4-1 k. C 1- IO 3 -i- 4-1 C OI4-1 JC IA k. •*- IA IA k. Ol It- 1- k. •i- 4J C X IO It- f— O Ol E ■O U oi co xi JC Ol Ol JC c 4-1 JC •— 4-1 «0 4-1 -O IA •»- Ol IA IO It- IA C 4-1 O IA O 10 >l O — — r— IA Q. IO H- Ol C k. O O Oil— Ol 1- X C IO > l-l 4-1 1- XI Ol IO r— T- IA O 4-» •— 4J •I- l/l 1- IA I CO I •O 4-> CO CO I 1- XI 4-> . 01 C Xi •— ■JO CS « 10 IO i- Ol o O OIXI C Ol 3 Ol c i- O- IA XI o IA IA 3 1- IO «T r— 4-1 CD XI O fc. c xi c o C IO C 1- o. 10 IO EC IA k. k. OI*)i- o oi ••- ri-i X 4-1 IA F* "J o n oi E m u k. 3 3 • Ol 4-1 Ol Ol£ JC • o •<- i- rM 4-1 X) IOL.L.U Ol Q. C O Ol k. E O • C 01 i- O X) >,i- 4-1 Ol JO > •— 4-1 4-1 X> IO IO o u i- xi oi c C IO U OI»— 3 X Oli- XI Ol XI •— Ol c I— Q.I— 1- 3 CO 4-1 O-i- IA O JC CO 3 JC IO X 4-> »1IA X CO e k. IO Ol O 01 t— C 3 Ol i- Ol c . to Ol IA F ro O JC OI4» i- 3 IO XI IA t— O. C A3 JC XI 4-1 k. ID • O IA C LO 14- IA t— O JO Ol Ol O O IO k- IA O JC 3 Ol IA l/l o IA 01 Oi Xl«l »XI*»-C Ol IO XI k. XI <— Ol 3 JC X — o. k. oi u 4-t i- E CTI4J fc. Ol 10 o JC 30CUOCXICJCI— OIXIOI • Ol U JO C Q. C i- JC IA 4-1 CO 1- Q.JC It- O XI •f A3 IO fc. Ol • 01 u O LO *o XI *D U 4-*OOlt— jc to to J *-> C JC l>- 4-1 4-> •> U C Ol Ol 3 fc. • fc. k. L. k. -Est— DtiEJJi- 4-1 oi to E Ol C X O O i- Ol • O 3 If *4-l A3 Ol Ol « Ol • 1— k. IE •— IA1- 1- JC t— k. t— X 4-1 JC 1- IA 4-1 IA C i— IO O o IA IO k. 4-1 IA £ E IA— ' Ol t— IO IO E c >>it- k. 4-> Ol «o ai «o 01 3 4-1 Ol l/l 4-1 1- JC •!- IO l/l 4-1 XI 01 Ol 4-1 3 U Ol 3- JO O 3«l | ffli- O XI i- *-• c 1- o 4-1 4-1 IO oi oi u k. k. o C Ol IA If C 4-1 ID X) COUO COCr OOi»— Ol L- Ulf O 1 O > JC JC C IO Ol IA Ot— i- 3 3 4-1 >t •l- 4-1 3 Ol 3 i- 3 O oi m to i- c o jo « xi i- > O Oli- Ol 4-1 4-1 Ol k. k. C 01 JC 4-1 4-1 •— ID fc. k. If IO i— C Ol fc- 4-> «J 4J t. io 1/1 O IA C 4-1 k. T •1- w— 4-1 A3 Ol fO > X Ut— lAt— fc. 1— Ol O CO JC o til- UH-£ k ID S-, IA CO E c c k. o io 2 X "o c C XI Ol A3 3 4-1 IO Ol Ol C If Ol (J c Ol ID Of tl 11 r— ID C 1 O IO O. IA I— Ol k. > Ol X OtI— lAlt- U Q.4-1 4-1 L. f IA If JC jo>» i-4->oioi4->jcaic 1- 1— k. IO • tl U tl 3 Ol 3 i- E C 4-iCTlS-.iACk.aiC0 ■O 1 4-> Ol 1- 4J Ol •— 00)ECI04JC OIIO Olk.LOCCOi-k.IOC0>, E IA O. O C Ol u Ol • 4-1 k. C V- X C i/l i- XI C XI i- 4-t o jc co >i c C Q. O •o u 3 to CO O— » 0) kl C U ia Oil •»- 4-1 k- 1 IO oi u to JC Ol 1- E A3 4-i C XI E x io X i- 4-1 A3 #9 Ol » i- io io to XI 01 JC IA Ol Ol i— E O 4-1 4-1 r— Ol to O c Ol XI O IA XI r- 4J Co 4-1 XI > Q. Q. IA C C io o •— • • k. io x> C JC c Ol k. to 4-> Ck.4-1 to Ok U tl o io i- IA 3 Q, Q IA l— C i- c • 3 O X IA OIJC>»OiaOCi-OiiaXI oi E co 4-i it- oi •— c ■— 01 cr i- oi io io > XI A3 IA O Oli- CO 4-1 k. 4-» i— a. o 4-i io otic c k. • 35 Ol 4-1 IO JC 01 Ol Q. IA IM 11 *l *1 "- f 1- C c C JO C 4-1 Ol Ol Ol O. IA to o 3 >|4t JC O 1— Ol 4-1 > Ol •— 1- XI IA t— 4-14-1 an IO I— O i- k. 4-1 4-1 k. Ol > Ol JO XI •— C IO k. 3 •!- C t— to •t- •— JO c 4-1 IA 4>IUIOCi-004-10IJCOI4-> 3 io to a. u i- n- -O 01 f Ol i- E •— Ol 01 XI fc. 4-1 A3 f 3 1- A3 cEi-Xl i»-iooi4JO-»- •»- 3 4-1 4-1 O l/l IA H- O Ol if i- XI JC c If 3 O O k. If • 1- 1- XI 4-» E JO k. IA 4-1 4-* Ol XI IA c o IO o k> Xi oi o •>- K- io O 4-1 ■1- i- o If XI JC IA X 3 t— C >|i- It- to O IA IA G— * CO C 4-1 10 IA 4-1 JC Qt— >1 Ol 'f- Ol J= A3 IA ID XI IA l/l 4-1 o c 4-> ot— «oiU4-)oioua. Ol Ol E »T 4-1 l/l o to k. k. > JC 4-i If Ol t— IA C IA >i CO JC A3 O.UUUi-U<0lA> tAOl XI IA Ol JC 4-> k. X) ■o O t— l. • IO Ol 1- JC X) Ol IA ro OlOO.Ct-k.301104-1 XI •<- Ol • O Ol XI JO c O A3 Qi- 3 JC k- k. 4-» IA O IA If fc. Q i- E IA XI JO O-i- Ol Ol 4-t JC k. IA 3 JC IA 4-1 > C 3 Ol A3 JC 4-1 4-1 o a. ok- t««- 3 O 3 fc. E fc. 4-1 k. to f On tl A9i-Ol OI4-1 4-1 k. IO IA > O 4-1 Oi k. IA ■r- . If O C Ol 4-1 i-iXI o Ol o X IO »IO Ol > IA Q. C k. >| Ol k. JC Ol 01 JC 4-1 IA COLO IA 4-1 C If >>4-l 1- O JC 4-1 k. E LO 1-XI Xll- 4-1 H- O k. IA E io o it- io c aj Ol 4-1 a. ia r— 4-i X O k. >, 1- to A3 Ol 01 •—10 Ol t— IOO • CO 4-1 C 4-1 C k. fc. o Q. Ol C CO C tl L 4-1 k. Kl IA A3 IA JC C if t— oijcjooii— jctoiacioia JC l|- 3 O 4-1 O Ol IO 3 •<- JC c cji a » t— IO t— 3 4_1 CO 01 4-1 U IA E «- 4-1 ID IO IO 3 Ol 01 IO fc. c >|- 4-1 IA o JZ 4-1 <0 XI k. 4-1 O 4-1 IA l/l >) l»- t— to Ol Ol t— U E 4-1 XI k. k. A3 o o 4-1 U A3 X XI U i/i- oixoiiAcaioii-t— ia C 3 XI Ol O ia XI Ol »>3CL. Q. C IA 3 O 3 oi E i- i- JO o CO C 4-1 k.4-ll-lAX't-OIOl IO C 4-1 O c CO C 1- o >> O Oi i— Oi 4-1 c co E •— t— JC JO LA IA 1- IO IA XI C C i-> t— Ol A3 Ol u IO CO E •— — fc. >l fc. •>— U k. IO 1- 4-1 O O If A3 1- 4-1 4J k>>> Ol— •» O XI C Ol n- O.JC JC X) Ol JC | IO 4-1 -l- 4-1 U ID IA Ol C C ID U O. C XI k. 1- 1-IAi-IOk.lAIOUOI Ol_J O 4-> C 4-> Ol •— 4-1 Ol U C 3 IA i- 3 i- JC •<- • IA u o oi c o Ol XI k. O Ol JC 4-ii- 4-1 O Ol Ol A3 u ■<- o cr CO t— 4-1 kl 4-1 t— XI Ol IO • U XI A3 lA •• H- 1- C C3 It- k. to IA IA C O i- It. C c 3 Ol Co oi u oi fc. O l/l Ol IA IO C IA >» Q. . »- Ol IA O 4J 1- O.CO • 4-i t Ol Ol 4-1 4-1 O 1- C 4-1 •<- O fc. Q.coxioioii-ias •— c i- oi > c xi oi i" C XI Ol Ol-— • Ol IO IA IA B « ai k C to Q.— >• 01 DIM U XI O JC i— o o IA OI>LOl-Olk.U~)tOO! CO IA oi xi k. oi jc ia R3 3 O t— IA JC U CO 4-> A3 3 fc. » CO A3 IA JO k. 1- IA 3 1/lfN IA a- JC Ol IA IA Ol Ol 01 OJ IA 4-1 3 XI O XI 4-1 4-1 Olk.CC CO 4-1 IA OXI fc. i- Q.4-1 k. 3 4-1 Ol IA 3 Ol CO >33U IO 4-1 a. 3 4-1 C IO Oi Ol Ol c f ..- Ol A3 If E IO L. k. CO Ol IA U XI Ol •OUt— XI k. i— LO JC-OO C IO O XI IA < > 4-> 4-1 CO lt- 4-i4-iEEOE4-iai JO IA C IA IA C •a co it- o to CC3 tit-r-Uk. ID i— O C C Ol Ol o 4-i jo E o l c C e O i- > A3 X O A3 3 01 4-1 Ol XI IO CO Ol k. "O- O o. E oi o « io Ol C 3 CL Ol Ol k. IA U JO i- i— JO oatiL. fc. 4-1 i£ BOi— Cr— Ol i- O •» Ol c U E Ol • O k. A3 O O 4-1 Ol Ol O Ol A3 XI CO fc. A3 1- •— a jo n- •—- ^ • xi oi IO IO >> 3 IA JC IA 4-1 1- 4-1 XI •— IA i_ co > 4-i a. «jc > IA XI fc. A3 >, 1— 1— IA IO Ol IO JC IA U JC XI 4-1 Ol XI k. C 01 o JC JC O >-i >> Ol Ol ID CO fc. oi E a • 14-OIOOIIAOI!AJCIAE4-1 Ol. IA k. C Ol 3 XI C O 3 > E 4-1 4-1 Oil— I— fc. Ol IA i— Ol c o Ol -0-XI>i-k.Ol 31 1- IO Ol Ol CO It- i— 01 3 Q. CO IO 4-1 If CO fc. t— Ol C 3 •r- O 4-> cxioii-toj-rok.po c>> 4-1 Ol OIJC c o IO 4-1 E •— XI Ol A3 O XI O IA 1- JC XI A3 C 1- 4-1 c U i- Ct-url- » ocmxi iojo c a. >i u 01 i- t— c 4-1 C OIS 3 I— 4-t c OI»r- C IA C fc. Ol oi to k. IO IO c E CO -E k- ci >» 3 JC •«- o IA IO • XI XI O Ol C 4-1 C Ol A3 O JO Ol C Ol O — IO XI e LU O CO C 1- +-• i— X) 4-1 It- X 1- 4-1 1-XI I— Ol C t— If u c 1- IA A3 •— *»-3 O oaioi4-> - ' o o •— o oi X LO 4-1 CO E tl- A3 c O E o ■Ol ia •— XI i- i- o Ol i- XI i- i— Ol a. io CK •— Ol Ol C C»"~LO •— IA 0.4J 4J o CS C CO o u k. O • • o CO a. i- fc. io i- x IA C 3 X QJC E XI X f 1- IO »r— 01 3 to ID 4-1 1- X C IO 3 O C IA 4-1 C 4-1 IE i— Ol t. > XI JC • c r- Ol 4-> JC xi oi 4J iAr».ro l. aico c Ol X 4-1 O Q.4-1 ID IA IA O o LUQCC0OOXIO>i oi io O Ol U IA k. Ck.OIUOCiOiO JC i— C If JC If IO 4-1 o to xi jo o cqi— «— o nun o E r— C O JO Oi U C JO Qi— Q. CO a. CD A3 O O Q.«f A3 01 X »- Q, •i- Or— O fcu i- F-13 FKUIt I CRAVS HAR9DR EStUAJtY MANAGEMENT PLAN L'EEEND MANAGEMENT UNITS AH ?6 - UNIT NO. CM • MANAGEMENT CATEGORY N - NATURAL CN • CONSERVANCY NATURAL CM • CONSERVANCY MANAGED RA • RURAL AGRICULTURAL RL • RURAL ICW DENSITY UR • URBAN RESIDENTIAL UM - URBAN MIICD UD - URBAN DEVELOPMENT CM/N - SPLIT UNIT PLANNING AREAS — . // Figure 3. Conceptual Alternative-Plan of Development in Units 12 and 13. Presented by OCZM |A o >» ia in C 3 oo ■Z . f m en in J3 a +» c C 1. c in o c Ol c in •>- c TS *-> » Ol .O 01 CI "*" O 3 ia • • in •ft- o ai •,- i. io in 4-i oi cn i- ft. OI ftT3 "- «-> •— a> ai en.c 4-1 IA 4-> Oi E ••->4Jinint- c c cn i. at *o o. c oj *-> l. •»- m *-> C 4J ID IO IO C 01 XI U 10 01 01 T3 >ft-ft— •ft- p aix c in o oi io oi ia «j 01 «- 1. .ft- Ol oi oi oi ft— oi"- c c u •— in in VI LP At <0 0 J3 L) t. *-• * C U IA 01 L. *D 4-> 4-1 in £ L VIlL OIU1- 01 01 3 ID ID C jz •*- «•- i/i +j at a a> •<- m • JS ~- ai *J o c c c m f oil 3oi uaic*o •« u ai 3Ti k a j= "o-a»- c cn • u m i_ c If -ft- IO 01 01 ID £Of IA OIAO^T 4-> o u e k£ nu^i c *j 01 4-> O C 3 o CAJ3 3 U C 01 OIIA -ft- IA0I J-U^rC-ft-ft— (0 T3 01 01 *D ftl 1 *- fl'- jr o->- u o m ft— 0JO o X 4-» IA IA c t. c oi *xi •ft-'oooiociaxa at- c > c IDft-,3 U 01 IA OIJ3 ID E «f- « ai a> o^^^ u> u ai +J »«-> C 4-1 f ft. 3 oun CLOiaai io «— » > 4->04-'OlA--Ca.C O m 4-> c ia *t in ft— O •»- XI m *o o ■to oi oo cn ai ia 4-> o.zc >> x »- c cn aeiocmTjojEo 0) t- ai a. Ol c c 01 •»■ IO c a.4-> ai 01 t- XI lAcnoift— x;xiioai «o o u •*- Of E -^ E c E ID -O 3 C •<- •>- o 1- IA o g = *- o io o C O 1- >» ioft— x: 4J30i>uin3ceQ>cu ft— 4-> L- O.T3 01 in X m 01 IO Ol ■ft- l_l IO "- Xi 4JC in u io "- >» i >ft-oi XV >. C >> 01 ££tl lDft-tl O Ol o »- • o»— ecu ai O •— C O «r- U i_ ££C 4-» U 3 JZ i- a> re cix«nifioo« — -ciL. in oi io O cn ■a oi X w o* m Ol u ■OOJOC3L.ID4-1 O i- -ft- « o L. 01 01 c c O 3 c l_ -o . 01 01 -o 01 v. •o 01 IA 4J l_ in O C ID »— > 1.(9 L Ol *j •»- •<- o c ai cr » O Cv»— XI • in in «C O.T3 O O. 0>3U HI UN tl C NW C O O 01 l- <£ IOJ3T1 ID •»- c o Ol C ID C 3 "a 01 I- »— - ID 3 4-1 «£ OJ 4-> ££ - L- ft— «0 •^»-<-*'j: a. o^-» 01 lO 4-> "ft- a. u 4-> id ai o o *ft- ■D "O C *-> o--<- o> 4-» in .a U i. u u S- *-> T3 B C 4-> L. ia CD ti co. a xi oi T=> t- • 01 L. TD Ol • VtV afl "O f m io in cn • id ti 01 in ID U 01 Ol -ft- 01 C 1- IA IO Q."0 ft. <— 01 *o -0IHOC£ If L. 1 -ft- -C C O 4-1 4-1 e « iijij: U 01 •ft- 4-» in E Xi O 01 OTJ • ID C 10 ID 4J C -— m io o 01 X oo^ioa>*JOOfoc E U 01 4-> 4» C "O c 4-> Vfr- E HI 0I£ E C ft- l- ID X 01 m 3 CO ID ft- 01 4-1 j: 3 ur •<- v- o. oi 3 » Of- «n It- 10 X 01 01 o i- e IA on— 3 IO k. 4J 3 00 4J a. ■ft- 4-1 OT -O t-' ft. L. lA ft. I/I D.*-> l/l 4-> ME in o O. > >>•»- O 4-> e 01 01 i- Xi cn cm i— r- >> ft-%oi <-> c a. 3 X C C u x; c O ID ft— IA O >. • 01 Ol f jz > is cn 01 T> IO o in >» am kf « u a^Ti a o *-> o c J3 01 >. "O in in ia io ft— in D£ < UIIU C >m ft. -ft- ft— 4-1 in >> Ol ■«- U Oil 4J o- •O Ol <*- f- E 4-> ft— c 01 •ft- L. > 01 = If 3C 4-1 E ft- 'O •. Ll-|l- 01 CLXl Q. io ■ «nwui«a« c oi ai o.i*- m o ai 3 i- ft— o c 3 3 j<—»if ft. ID C ** LL,|m<— ' OI£ U0I C Ol k. C 0) O) -c u u o, m Of Ji C C 10 Ol 4-> U Ol IA m 01 01 If «t iDft^i- TO 4-1 1- ID l/l ft— O «3 in -ft- IA l» o ru i => C U 01 •0 IO O JZ ft— 00 ft- c >>NZ «-^ mc .M O E 1 ft— TO STT3 Ol •• T3 0» •— »— ai a.4-> o •— «-» O 0J.O > 4J Ot— cn u o IDf If OI«l£C 01 ft— u L.ft— • o 4J c ai u o caiinoi ■»•*"• > *j jz jz XI x: oj C3-»-«0 m-ft-Cl-OTO-ft-Q. 3CE00 OIL »— m T3 3 TO i- ai in cn«-> x JZ 01 IO -ft- > e IO f • 4-> c •— c X io io x: ^^ O XI «f 4-i3cnuaioift.XiDiDfOio «"o cn t- X "O -ft- ci c 4-> ft— in in io — c »— C >,*»*»»— It- C I- ft— ■o C -ft- U Q.JT JZ Ol i- Ol k. 1. ai oo f ft— 4-> Ol >> 4.) 4J c ai io c«-»— mooia k. »— O OJ •"-■•- 01 01 O OI oi ft— *j jr E «-» X 3 C U o oi >>cr. 3 "" c 'DVOIALiftL Oltl dm ccn m IICOICt'- *J*J(j u 01 * *«»■ 01 O-ft- O Q.4J ft— 1. IO 3 aix:T3-ft-oxaiucE3 o>— >> «- uoj= (». a (a«j ia ai 3 J3 I. •— O r am- l£i E c • OO. ID ft, > (— 3 L. C CLlD-ft-L. .~- ID3 C «i£ 3 *■> «3 c ■o Ol 01 »*-> «-• ■M f 3 U •ft- C C XI Ol l. 3Eoi m l oi oi «tn-5; r s O 4-» D>T3 CT O Q. C • c in c l. ai c 4-> It- *0 n> X O O t- ftlt- OJ ai ti oi oi iii oi enre Xi c id ft— •»-» m id u£ c t> E oi» ou-ft->> u o x- 3 a> ai ■»- 4-» ID 01 H 01 • ■o O 3C cn U IA IO ft— O 1- C O O *> It- a.«- c 1 £ Ol >| IS L ID IO c ■o e • ft- J- SZ 00 01 XI OIC lOrl'ft'l-i- L. >>•»- OIC9 ft— ID m j: c o n fl£ HJ oi • m <-> at « c *^ E •»- in e Em ooc c HI E ID 01 f 1- Ol 01 IA 1. IO 01 cn j£ Q. OCIOL. L DHOIO OtHft UJ< IO *■» ai ft- a. t- C > >>4J 01 If -o IA ft— o •»- « o oioi" aoi e d E ftiam £= c jz aca< M in O 4- IO IO > c >1 IO If C L££tl 01b L > U IO 01 IO u U C O » 3 C 0) t- Xl o 3 3 *J 1 OJ IO io c ai i. u Ol IA CC IO C ft- O 01 0.4-> U ft. ID U L. ID ov — -r-» r— 01 c O «»- TJ ci O m*>«-»i_ sz O (.01 c JZ o Ol IA O X •'-—' 1- IO oim-ft- m oi c E«- oijcft- loiii-< f II Uf IIO«* U « *r- UEO£ tl ia in £ 01 ft— o ■Oi/Sioft- £ ti un a Xi ai «-»— «uot34j.cl.i_>T3 L> O *-» -C in ai »— •ft- O 4-> CXtl 01 L. JZ c *<: 4-> O >0 ft— L- Q.4J CT O C c ftS u Ol 01 1— oi c«- » u-ft-if4-imi_o»— ft— on«i> C •ft- If 3 XI E E .ft- f 01 <0 Ift. -O ID CO IO lt- XI 01 •f io C 3C ♦^ > cn 01.G oi *-> XI IA • O 4-> IA ID ft- OIL L.X "O IDU34-I01 a: O ai ai o id v. m m io k. C • l_ N C lo ai (- Ol o in in IA • 01 x:uxo-i->i0ix; ceh-O^ioi— u ■a c a. <•- ia l. » j= •«- •»- > <0 c 0IOft«tl£tl • « O 1 "O *j u •»- *-> id 0) C 01 O) !- X O Q. m E C f xi io •<- cn cue IO Ol IA *J If O i-tl L'O LU LO -O u < ai i_ 4-> ia oi .c o xi x: 3 O — oi E io t- O i~ S- U 1- ai id o f- xi u m oicux:c>ft.iooai°oifcaiccc oj k.CAIA"fft— T34-l-ft- 4-> *J ft— *J *J Ol f Ol 4-* cn io cn E X ID OJ C ~- 01 CL4T OL.CL.0J ioxiidoid Xl in • OJ 4-1 IA £ f O 01 u X oi -«- <-> •»- it- u-ft- id oim •i- 01 m o ai «- X i- I- J= X Ol eXE4-lE:3-CCa!OC4-i4-ilOft. o k. 0.4-» in »- ci C o «- JZ JZ o t- £ a>iu cl jn 3 x: 01 f) fi o 01ft— 3 4J 4-1 D ft- O i- Q.1- ft. 3 ft) 01 l_01»33001X>4-i 4-> oi n- *-> a> to ai in IO ft— o o* Oi m 4-1 01 L. i— 'DM O Ol io 'Oft-ft- L 01 E Oltl aiaccxix:cocoiD clco t^ •>- m l. o. r»-oo>TiEa«i'- 1- OCO<0 U< «l£ } o r c c^cr 10 lt- U 10 If o OJ JZ io 10 c c ft, o l/l =0 »--ft- -ft- h- «J *J 3 O CS It- o ■~-' Uf 3 X-ft-i- e> CL If ID ID <0 4-1 ID 4-1 01 u if m*-"— E k. •••;: 0, Figure 4. ConCeptua'T' Alternative Plan of Development In Units 12 and 13. Presented by OCZM » *&** .-• o v / •*•' *' ^0 I. / ,•• -n-lilO*™ CM *»»Mi rV !*••** • •••;. •.:..•• ..::•••• F-15 oo « oi es OT© n o TJ O 4J TO •«• jC l/l 3 o oz u L- E ci £ Ol c o JZ u f- in lS Ol JZ— 1- U J= "- 73 JZ 0) 4-> X u c l c •— to 3 C 0) to 0! jz > ci >> 4> ■«- l/l 10 u *- jz o. • VI • U u VI O Ol TO JO J3 CUE i- IO 3 jo a: c 01 U VI to o >, u jz « i- MLd O 01 U •4- 1. 01 o c o <4- i- jz c in ±£ o vi i- to <-> u • ce. 3 i-*-» JO JO i— 4-> i- eo u U 4-> Ol 01 <-> c I— X! vi at Ol . CI o wi— Q. IO •*• VI t— Ol I V £ "O IO C TO i- U CO CL4J 01 E>»3 Ol E OlOITI 01 VI <-> •— TO vi jo c cm- >iui u i- TO E O 10 4-> 01 i- 4J 01 L«I0I«'«IIIIL>LII£ a V U u O I- JZ i- 4-> §U Ol O C i- >4- 3 CJ TO O O IO u TO VI OJ «- u o<— oi c c ego 01 £ 4-> i- i- t/1 O E C U 01 O l/l » 3A i-.— » •»- vi u o>«— » jz *■•• i/i a ai Eatr h*D X U ■*• E X i- t— 4-> TO Q. 3 TO E <— 01 00 01 TO 0) • Z L OVI 4-> JZ C O C i- (J TO — 01 C 4-> IO Ol ^-•O J 3 NO) U i/icOIvtEvh-ci vi ^^ o. « <0 U C >»i— O) — to > 4-> jz to C4JI/1CT0U3OIO4J IO i- 3 i- 3 C 3 t- 4-1 EEtoto4-ivtci-i/ic3 l_ co O) i- U 3 O at , o£«4"- ii » jo X u *» jz c c to >>e- a o 40i-4->oi3i-us: 00 t/i ci x u*o ifl rtju'a TO 01 C0> C 3 X •— cut- •oao OMUti 1-1-0 o ci to— j: JO O O *■» O 01 *-» l«OC i i u ci O i_ co 4J 4-> oi o a. u 4-> a •— c jz *j ai • x c c isv-P vi 0.0 u to zo Eo o to ooivie U out— ©4-•>>ucl_ cl >> »o -co »c o «jo cnj i- i. x uj — ^-»-0 Of— XC3 3T U O CO 0) *> 00 O •— o • j= <*- c ai «-» •«- i-»>o ai ♦-> >— o v- i- • «- 4JVI < oocoiaiccoi *-> «- v)L.*J O ♦»« ^-»Ct-OlN-OII_>OI «o>vij=aii_>>jr j= •— JfOOO.<0'»-*J'0*J 01 IO L. L. E <-> U. CJ=ai>ea>ocuo- > >-o •<- *j o.3C a. u « c 3«— >» 3 « 3 4-> >— VI I (fl Iflf- I W 01 L IOTJ i O O "- C c ai <-> o »' C\J J3 "O I— I — * *»fc C 3 L. ID VI 01 t- *-> 01 VI JZ a> »-> o «j N«m- 1- •<- c •— u j= =o f- j: JZ <«- IO O. 3 i- 3 *J ODZ . JZ E c c zc •— io "a i-i- c to i- u i— o > VI C 4-1 io ai 3 oi io ai i- •□ c JZ JC VI 4-1 o ' o >> c z 1*1 n oi I k. u . 4-> 13 C • i/l O*— > I U 4-> O O : i- io oo "4- jz 4-> en 4-» vi #— i ai a> i JZ VI Ol c 4J L. k. O I fO 10 VI "O O) i— >— CO. 3 ' IO O. Ol IO ore. : i. 4->— < > 01 4-> 4-> 1- "O 4-> IO IO VI X »JZ IO a> o i— t. ai u io o > ■o E io o •i- k. JZ i- 4-> ai >»- jz m — >>4-> «— o jo l. a 3 T3 a. ■a u. c at io 0) VI ■o tn k. 01 o 1- o vi u oi ■ 4-1 ai k. ■ VI o. •i- vi "O X Oi Ol C k. IO ai mi- •»- •o > n- . k. io o • O 4J Ol Ol JZ •— c VI "O «—*•#- Ol L. •4- 4-> C U O O io 3 ■i--0 c •— • OI3PI fl Oi- E JZ VI T3 4-> IO i vi E : ai c k. vi I X O oi o ••- I 3 C CO J3 I O •<- > VfOV 4 com L 01 IO 01 lJZ c— Ol T3 I 4-> TO 01 •O i- 1-4->«— C Ci— Vl4-» o 1- IO •O Ol4-> 4-> JZ cck.ioijovijz JO Ol 01 >i r~ > u otjoi ai Ol E 01 ■— i- . 3 1- _ o 4J 0.1- jz k. VI Q.-0 4-> 3 IO O 3 C 3 IO 4/1 CC 4J VI IO I— C CO 4J . IO i— l_ JZ £ «H-Tj4i U E •— u-O l/l k » Ol O i- >> O CTi- C 4J Ol 3 C JO ..- IO >t-i-iOj«:i— 3 VI 01 VI >^» Li- JZ "^ C IO 4-> 4J t- IO : t- io E a> i- U >> VI o. c JO CM OJ i— Ok. I IO l/l 00 IO 4J E . 4-> 4-> CO OJ I -o X Ol c VI C O IO Jir- 01 C IO U 3 01 •— OJ k. JO VI 10 •*- >l c >o OJ CO l/l C JO to >> 1- c rv io OJ Ol k. 4-> IO Ol VI 4J *— CD C O Ol i- 3 I ■a •— VI 3 VI X OJ t- OJ 1- C 4-> i- H- 1- i- C O k. VI 4-> JO IO H- «— u OJ CO 01 C O O I >t- 00 > VI i CL ID «!- 4-> OJ V- JZ O 4J O. 4J 1- •O 4J VI JZ l/l VI 4-1 IO O a> a. • k. k. 10 .5£ 4J VI C E TO am E i Ol to I TO i- -O k. I— O IO 1- 01 4-> ' X io oj E 1- k. . > OJ ai a 4-> JO C 3 01 VI k 41 Ol 3 k. •o JO O, • : •— oi > *- JZ TO 4-1 J 3 u 4-> E vi OI>— Ol i ceo t . i- oi io I T> i— IO 10 O 4-» 14- i- VI "O U VI JZ > Ol O 4J 01 «l « k k Ol k jz jz o oj k. 4-» 4-1 <»- ZC IO O i Ol JZ I a. o. i Ol4-l Jk£ 4-1 VI C l/l 1- 4-> O 4J IO C 1-r- 1_|- S) c io o«S ZO CL Ol >> Q.T3 Kl >l k. 3 C 1- i— IO VI 10 I— k. 3 ■" U«J«J LP i— l/l IO O 3 3 01 JZ JO U 4-> k. C i- S-, IO i- 4-> C VI ZC I— L ID CI C IO i- VI 3 CHi- k. >,T3 O 10 IO "O 3 1- C C C4H9 19 ro i- VI JZ •— Ol C 4-> L. C OJ O 3 k. OJ k. jo -o Ol X o> k. JZ 4-> JZ IO It- 4-> OJ 4-> ZC O O JO O 4J tt- OJ VI Oi > Ol4-> OJ C 3 Xi- o O 4-> VI IO O IO I— XI X C XI 3 O O c E to •i- 3 4-. O •— <4~ VI U IO O oi io xi 3 i- X) cr oi4-> c OXI CL 01 OJ i EXi c JZ IO X) OJ C k. io io 5S Ol •o c CO i- 4J JZ VI 4J O u o O k. z 01 •4- C i o O >|C 4-1 VI 4J C 4-> ■ JZ 10 l_> > OJ 4-> OJ J* VI JO IO 1- e c >, 3 IO 4-> E VI k. I-OU IO O. 3 CX JO c o •I— VI •— Ol 01 C U 4J 3 IO •»• xi vi >l 01 01 X JZ JZ o 4J on Ol k. o • E l/l t/l Ol 01 •<- JZ U *> 01 r 0.tt- i/l o VI O I— 4-> 4-> Ol 4J •<- C IO JC i- JZ Ol UN 3 to XI Oi • •4- C i— XI VI «4_ l/l IO 4-> C Ol •r- . O C 4-> 1- 01 • 3 VI 4-> JZ VI O CL4-> C ZO Oil— IO E c 4-1 i- o ID l_ 4-> O 4J VI IO OJ 4-» Ol I i- c >, — X c O Ol JZ X Ol •— u oo OJ Ol JZ i— E 3 XI IO oj o oi en vi i/i xi io o i— co aoi IO C X •!- E io oi U. C 01 4J I— 4J ■— <— C u . >, 3 VI 01 XI XI JZ I- *-> XI i- C JO 4-> 10 IO 01 JZ 4-> JZ 4-> JZ 4J oi ai >|0J I— > jo ai VI »— VI OJ O JO Q. o XI l/l oj rvj C I— o 1- VI c o IO to 10 E 3 VI k. oi io ' l/l 1- 4-> IO XI l/l ' 3 3 . 01 4-> <-> > VI I k. VI Ol k in, l/l 10 o i— tD o — vi E XI r- i- C . IO VI IO - co VI Ol >» Ol 4-> 1- 1- Ol i— 01 ro 1- *J •4- JO 4-1 « t/l O Ol IO i— k. JZ C C C 3 4-> u O VI <0 i- XI XI l/l k. U4> oi oi io IO i— l/l t/l io M Ol 3E •O i- 4-> U L. 1. C •4- VI VI O IO Ol — C 1- t»- E'- 4J oi o k •— e C U OJ JZ « » 3 1- 4J _ E J= i_ 4-> Ol 1- X VI Ol Ol k. X O XI OJ 1- OJ JZ OJ OJ k. XI JZ XI VI JZ c 01 4J C R 1- a. u io • <4- 4- OJ IO VI Ol • k. •B'«'X ' JZ 4-1 4J OJ « X XI *j 4J E O oj •4- XI »- t»_ O. ai o oi c k. o XI 4-1 >» IO 01 •— 3 M O 01 JZ 4J Ol I— r~ C U 4-» IO > u 3 a. x oj C JO 01 <- XI O JO U 41 VI U CI O Ol io 4-> JZ 4J N- k. O O 4-> VI « JZ C 4J 3 01 •— U 4J E O 3 01 C IO C Ol VI > O JZ 4J 0) C IO 1- 4-> 1- f_ 1- >IJZ *-> Ol Ol 01 •a xi sit- jo L. 4-> 4-1 c k. ai a. io C « Clk • JZ ai > Ck t/i k. 4-> E VI 01 01 01 3 «_ X •— •— Ol VI O OJ O IO IO U TO O XI ZC i- E io u XI Ol 4J OH— i- 01 C <4- JO 44 t|_ • Ol JZ C VI t- 4-> O Ol OJ O TO 01 I— 4-> k. i- i- L. V- 3 IO 3 4-> — 14. TO u 4-1 •»- VI JO 1- *t IO . •4-1- to to e •*- C H- c E 3 3 O X • IO 1- ' VI 4-* Ol VI k. >! l/l 01 Ol TO VI O 4-> •!- 3 C i- a. oi to oi vi « Q.1- C OIL 01 O k. 10 4J 3 VI u io OJ k. I— JZ k. DI*J O IO H «J «j » W4J E • Ol 01 u — » i 4J 3 4->i— : io 4J i- co I u IO 4-1 OIOI I TO E 3 JC>— : CI- TO IO i- IO c TO 01 • <->C»-£ I— IO O 4J 00 OJ 01 VI l/l C ZC •— 01 k. o I— Ol >» c io jo >jo E E 01 VI 3 O TO t- 4-> C k. OJ 01 •— 3 4-1 IO XI 3 JZ o o I C XI Ol VI 01 : ««* ioi- •— HOI £T3i- . in. TO'OI o o : o\ c u oi o o I— IO 10 JZ *4- O JZ J* k. o •4- VI 1- CO 4-» Eioioaiaicoai k. E 4-> k. zo •— >, vi — 4-> TO C VI •I- OJ Ol o k. OI4J O. OO K 11 i-> Ol CI JZ « IO c VI t/l VI L. VI Ol 01 JZ O 4-> u o 3 VI TO E oi v- OTO t> o oj ai c oj u C k. JX 01 4-1 I— •j oi u an n X io tn X it- VI >r - Ol 3 k. C k. 3 — TO IO TO i- E 3 t— •— IO VI O <_> 3 k- 1— o JO TO ' X TO C Ol TO I— o o oi i— •— ui >/i #— j: oi X . io o jz o Oj ti- > u u Ol 01 O 01 k. 4-> 4-> 4-> IO Ol I— TO ■ 3 IO k. VI E 01 « 3< « 4-» * C> I IO 4-> i- TO k. IO IO I 01 4-> k. I ZC 01 VI I— 01 I— JZ IO X JZ *J k. O 4J I k. 4J t4_ O ; O oi c k. I JO Ol 4-» VI X Ol x JZ O 01 3 4J C i- C O • TO 01 k. «! ni 3 jz O 4J3 • JO 03 JZ i- k. !_ L. i- m. 01 c 4J tn i- r~ 3 or CD VT i/l vi >i TO 1- 3 3 E k. JZ k. O 1- t— 4-1 CO i. JO C 01 4- OJ CO •4- • 3 »— O VI CTT3 ■ •— 01 OJ C • CO >i X VI 10 I Ol 4J 01 JO i— i- VI 3 C Ilk. VI O I CM O JZ VI N'T4lT3 k. • Ol IO O C OJ > I— E JO IO TO :— * c I OJ t4- •<£ : vi jz o vi — »T0 4J ai L. l/l •— l/l • O 4-» TO IO 4-1 • o e k E » ■ 01 JZ •— Ol <— : k. 4-> jo i4- u. k. I— IO o c (_> JO 3 — U TO IO k. ZC >l OJ •— a. l/l •!- *»•-£■ IO IO TO k. E c CD ii— io k. VI c a. •i- c or u vi c oi C 1- 4J o JZ vi U U Ol »— 4-> X •0 ID 4J IO VI v> c •<- -5 4-1 k. •o O •- JO jo ai 4-> zc — E 4-> 1- k. k. kO k. 01 TO 4 " >l I Ol TO Ol C C 4J •i- 10 X t- Ol Ol Ol 01 C k. k. i- 01 Ol 3 VI a. vi vi k. oi 01 3 •— jz a. 4J JZ ai ci X JO 3 o E JZ O VI 4-4 IO 4J O C k. Ol JO VI Ol OJ k. k. a. o E k. 4J Ol IO VI X C Ol o r~ •-- o-> to ai io u 01 k. zc i- k. 3 01 t- 4-> VI JZ 3 VI >-i t— CI IO IO U CL u O CD . TO 1 ill) ID C O C C 10 4-> O CI O VI 4J ' I— i— TO C •O IO C OJ • •4- If. IO O " I— IO 01 >i Q.i-1 C JO O TO t •I- L. IO k. VI U OI4J VI Ol •!- C TO • k. 3 i- C . Ol VI IO a. c vi i— 3 >| ai >l o. 10 k. JO k. 3 f— O 4-> TO 3 14- VI C •<- O OJ JO .- 4— 01 c •— x Ol i- o Ol4-> ZC OJ 01 • k. k. I— a a ci JZ c to VI c oi IO c c JZ IO 1- CI IO 01 o i— •— JO •r- t_ 01 01 JZ TO 01 I. •— VI Ol Ol i— VI C ■i- OJ •>- TO .X U TO C U Ol O' BIS tl c niv a 4J TO 01 3 1- O « CJZ4J 014- C L _XI04->I/1JOO ■<-<-! •— E X O 01 x- u k. IO Ol 4-* l/l •i- Ol VI i- >l 4-> E VI c TO 01 i- 01 k. • 4-1 O 01 >|iO 3 X t. > TO 10 k. C VI 3 01 i- Ol 4-> VI I C VI JO C i- 01 O IO 4-> E J= OJ OJ Ol JZ JZ VI i- 4-" 4J 3 VI o *- Oi- c 4-> I. 01 Ol 4-1 VI CI VI 4-1 IO TO IO 01 O 01 —J c E k. tO o I— 14- • •— IO Ol 4J i— i- JO k. «41 O c • a. E OJ >T4-> O 3 U VI k CO Ol •4- 01 4-> 3 . tn c TO I 01 4-> oi oj o io TO E i- v ai 4-1 4-1 JZ c CI 4-> OJ 01 IO 3 U v- cr 01 O 01 C JO k. ai c ti_ ai o i_ JO 4J 3 4-1 ' 4-> VI 01 l/l o ■ > k oi E IO IO JZ JZ 01 4J OJ Q. u VI O.T3 Ol C io C X 3 U OJ O »• I— k. U VI - IO OJ 10 c «4- JZ O 4J C •!- 01 O 4J c ••>- CI U I- L. OJ CI '*- t4- Ol Ol > 01 *4- o 01 OJ i— 1- 4-« k. u i i— to vi a. OJ o o o o o- zc cj E E « jz E' Ol 3 • i- E O l/l i- 4J X •n io to n E c IO 14- IO I o c -^ 1- E 4J i— c i- a. «- -- io o c oj k. 3 Ol 01 > k. C TO 01 i/l 01 3 > C OJ 1- O X CI ' - CU JZ o <-> • ■a a.4-1 zc o c o. •O E 01 CM O > VI 3 •<- •— I— •!— • VI io E X 00 1- : — i— c in 1> *J io E co E oi k C t— CI IO O CO i— i JZ i- Ol IO IO C. O IO 4J 4-1 •— t*- Oil— i- 01 E X 4-> 01 . VI TO JO c 3 < : ro>— j: c >. oi •4-1— 4-1 IO IO > O Ei- k. -^ TO O X C CD 4J >, C l_ IO IO ait/ijz c cm vi io oii-i— JC 4J1-1— 4-1 TO X N 10 4-1 3 O i- •—•••- 3 4 o f vi e oi •— o U IO VI > 4-1 3 C >V- l OITO 3T Ol I C k. LiJ VI o to zc oi : «— x CD jz TO 01 C IO ai 1- > > 01 L U I TO TO C . : c to c i- IO 01 to I TO •— TO : >, c v> oi i I to Ol •— i 4-» CO I- c I 4-1 C OJ > JZ O E 4-> Ol O 3 : o >Z o I O to o l/l JZ t_ TO I o I 4J t/l C I IO OT4J Ol C VI OJ n ••<- oj jo I l/l 4-» X VI TO C C 01 TO IO O 4-> to E ■a k. vt CI C Ol 01 1- 1- ZC 1- TO ^- CI C J- c •i- o on ai JO c •<- 4 l_ >f- U IO IO U 1- ai x O.I4-. L. VT 01 IO VI TO >l01 Ol to JZ 10 JZ k. 4J 4J 4-> CD to C TO ■4- 4-> •!- IO VI TO 3 oi oi c o 01 C IO 1- TO-t- k. Ol k C Ol i— 01 O VI X4J1- _ O C 4-1 TO 01 VI *» c 3 O Oi- 011— 4 III 3 k f ao u o jo 01 CL U k. IO aoii t/l •4- 01 VT o jz >> 4J IO 01 c i— Xli- X 01 JZ O VI 4J C 3 1- JK X VI 3 JZ X> X •4- Ol . > vi e o •r- I— 3 C TO 01 C J* C : j* x k. to k. Ol TO Ol i- l/l i C > E 3 : to o o ■O C X O 4-> — >l 4-1 to Ol 01 jz E jz jz 014J3VIOI 4J+4VT Ol JO VI 1- f Oik C 4-> k. 1- VT O k. 1- JO 01 TO k. 4J to C t— OJ C 4-> 1- •t- VI VI C OTI4- o c o OJ Ol 01 > k. 1- JZ to ' to l/l 4-1 JZ 01 4-1 3 1- 4-> O 1- VI •— k. 01 IO IO 3 C cm- to o >>01 10 ro vi o. l_ 1- VI CD O 01 TO cue 1- Ol to F-16 01 lt- C£ — in 01 «-o ai c "O Ol 4-1 > — 1_ 01 3 k. >> *-> . i- •)_ X) 0) I— in >» IX) O IA • LH- OP . oi *o 4-> • oi-~iooo— fc. L. Ol l/l k. — — k. — O : O WD£ OBI- ID XI ■ x: 3 c *-> >»o"» o ai >> 3 k. I U 01 c o>— <- >£ tro i x> «-> o <- j-> ai u a: 10 c E oi — k. — ia > i »x> i_ c 19 oi +■» j o « cl — a > — <-> O « — O X) VI «- 4-* k. CO i «-• oi j= o « cvi oi — o> l/l Cl 4-1 O — — 4-> — X) k. Ck I 4-» <« i- — — o i 3 >» »— IA 0^ UI«J •— • — Ol C *J IO C Cl Hr- OIIO Cr-i- 0J<- OrtJ owe"*--"- c x: — ci it- i Q. O OI OI CL4-> > 01 OI LE Vl££«li-C » « o c it o i *■ oit-oi c — OIF- OlO LTJ O*" I >,l«i- OI.C VI 3 C 4-1 f • — 0>C4-><-X>4->/0k.£ i 410 j«- ti u a o — I k. LBX-C • a.— oi oi- 3 c — xi ai E i > cdhtk giuuiT ig : oi — "o I. k. — io i«WUC31.0LJ3CIU io — — X> a> x: i-> >>— xi »x> c xt vi cl vi io oi . — — « >>a a. s. in >> : a E«Jor- e>i*a«« I O — x: OIU^i- Ul E : o — +> o> > i"o a i ai £ »■ 01 4) £ d « *> >> a«< «£in o. c t. t4-> C 4-1 3 — O 4-1 i«-»xi coi k. « c — • in •— ** *j o >»•»- *j •»» XI «-» > 3i- « C 4-> > Ol V) IO IO : X) X k. X> — «£3 «£N i c o oi oi oi oi 4-> vi oi oi ■'•-it.oniwcj: i- oi>— I k. 4-> <4- VI — 0I£ ID C - 4-> 0) C OW 0I£ OI — X) / C 4J — X) E IOX: — in X) X) oiiq c k. 4-i o x: — ai 3 ill > «i« « a 4-> xrais: :c — Ol — k. • h- t- > a> o oi l E o i. c to Q.O *j ♦-> io <*- X) ai c OJ — O. 0) >t <0 L- t- vi >, ai ci at 41 C «•- — 1- 4-1 4-> o o x: 4J a. >, c C 4J c •.- 4-1 VI O OI cnTD * C OIX) 1- C 0IT) Ol c • o «"+J fll Ol X) •>- It- — 4-1 XI VI XT C 4-1 O <*- in 3 o x: •— >— i_ ai e 4-1 <— C 10 "O 01 VI i- U VI •^ * IO • O 3 T3 O 4-1 •— O 4-" t. >!f— 01 O'"- C C 3 c io ce E xi O •*- VI |OIL » E "•" CD O IO 4-> ■o OOII.W1- • OI OI x: ifli— vi •—CO • 4-1 3 C *-^ 10 VI 4-1 *o OI o o.<— c oi io «o *o •*- o a. o c U •— m l> "- oi v- x: O) OI — r— Uf-OOI4-i>T3 IO 3 i- i- IO 01 OI VI c OI ai *o c u oi io x: N C O 1- OI O C 4J i- IO 4-< t. x: c x- oi4-i a E oi •f- OI l/l OI o C O IM 4J C C U OI T3 •»- 3 •■- O ai o 4-i ai •— •— <-l Q.4-1 «f C i— <— 3 CL4-> IO 1- IO H.CW 3 O l >i OI L. 4J O OI IO OI XI C OI ••-•«- 4-1 O x; "i- X) "O 10 4J "O l_ E *o vi u x: o> OI 3 «T)— U C VI OI C 1. -o ••- IO 3 L. c •<- c x: £ ID 01 •t'l-Xl-"- X4-IUO. l/l c >— I- >> o (_> 4-1 C OI I— 1- r- •<- 1- c oiaivii04-ii0foio>> •i- cx:vio» O "- C C UTJ C VIC4-II— 4-I-—OIVI io 3 ai •»- ov»- o u u x: •— ■o U K4 T3 -^ "— "r- IO OI4-IXT *0 t-OIVIIOVICXOI 4-1 l/l >>•— VI 4J >1 U U 0«£"|-«>>1.£ «OIO>> «*-o 4Jair-oQ.vi a.<+- xi •— • 3 U <— E "O 01 OI UIO 01 LOP'D C4-ICVIC"-4-lE'r-ClOOl •r£--Ol-UClOilB*i+l coit-c oi oi i/i ai *^u •f- h— Q.*^ "O Q. CI L-VIXIIO maivii.cviL.oioc'04-i E* oi> m coiu C+J Ol+l-rO >>3C Olio O.T- oi «x)T>-^->» x: oi > c — * 4-i i— 4JVICOl-»-OOvi-ot-m>— VI •#- r— 4-1 •«- 4-1 4) OI O 01 IQ LOI L« UU 1- UV CC 0&-3E3IOOU01 O I4.4J-O OI "O •— l/> 014-14-1 l/l l/l in «•- o 3 a c 10 in l C >t UCXI0VI34-I 01 Oi— 4J0JQ.O £ Oi-r- a 1-IO-«-VI CLOI3UJ3IO 4-1 C > O C CVICIOt-VI •r-o'T-xt^-oi'— ai x: 4-1 ai 4-1 •!- 4-» 4-1 r l 01 c-^- 0IW O OIPUX0ILJI4J CL -i- 3 >. W X) 01 in -i- . E -a -a xi >coioo IO U "O U I/IO1O1— Xt-^" Q.-»- O 4-1 E X VI 4-1 U 001 « O1O1OI I03OI •p lfl+lr-T3 w^ C UllH IO a l«-30 £lO-f-E04-l •i-iDOII/If-OIOI^DOI VIOIC UUV-OIIOOIUCr— OI3VIO OI "i-£t i/ii- fl)£ 3T)Oi- q."o 10 u 4-1 10 aOf- x: 4-1 tn *— 4-1 c 01 01 l m ai4J io I03-030IF-V1-OQ.>X> 4-» I- Or-I— 4-I1--0— >>«— 4-> S 3 O O C s. OIOIOXI3 c O cl ai -i- in > x: 4-> m •i-VIOOl >XIOI-'-t— VIC •r- CVI3 F-4_> "OOIO T3££'-'r-T)ll-»-U Ol-r-O Ct-UU£ OC3 .i-O 10 -<-ia| — 01 01 t) c 01 ai 01 x:c x:oi>o-i--o cwx: U 'X-^ 4-I03L.F— v- in*j -»-4-i £• "O-i-jCLCm V- 10 L. v- L, C U OI3COIOI -»-4-IOIr-OT- oiu-ooxrc u-f-4-ioixix:ioc u 4-» — OIXIC I- 4-> o*ooi u am»- l mi- c E cx:i/ii»-3 «£ 101 i-3 »*>'i- otj VI 3 CL O 10 o u vi o 01 c L. CL CO C 01 E OI «a-—T- — •1- -o -^ vi L. in i_ 4-1 C L O OI OI"— . (J T3«tC01X>4-0!»— 3 OI w IS > L U L (CD 4-1 •»- IO IO 01 Ol OI •^ W OIT3I CL^-U E 01 XI O — »r- 4-1 10 vi o 01 10 •—•<->> >>lo m c 1/1 10 4-1 10 10 c vi E l u oai uit •I- C O O 4J U l_ X OI CL O OI 4-1 4JOCCL0IO.0|-O<— I0CO3N3T3 C3 4-1 ^£ 1 — VI •»- •— ' «£ VI •f- m r~ >, oi XI O I- v- c •— u *04-»>»O4-*-r-Xl • X: |J£ 3 III Q 01- >>■*- u ran 1/1 — OI4-I 4-1 IO r— CO O 3 1- C •— C 3: r— u. X 1- IO IO 1- C CLV- U>i3VI4-»IO 04J 01 o tr>iw Ei- 10 *> 1— 10 L- C*J C 4Jk->>OI-r-OT- "-■O OOl— X XtX) X 01 c xi o 4-1 , -r- IO IO >> 01 U tlt> L <»- 41 Li-IOL C 01 Ol-r- IO i— 4-1 CL IO 4-i 01 c- 1-1- c C«" IOL J£L. >,.r- 1-X30I IOOOX 1- o crx: uix c Dl£ 4-1 C III 4J C oiviaiooi*-vi3X u x: o o o cr o OI l/l 4/ Olr- r— 01 C CL C VI IO C U JKt O *■> 3 l»- O Ollc « U IO IO *f- C I*- 01 »— £uoi«i«- mo t-i04->aicu"0io OH- CO «- 3 C VI E OI I_ T3 O •— VI t-x:c 0101 en- o 0!4->«- » OI L W 0)r- x: 1- 4-1 c u 01 x *• t OOOIOIL >> U CI *- Q.X C VI C 3C-»-4-l 4-IOIOIO Urn O "O IO * CI 4-1 C C. OI * » VI oi-#- 01 m u 01 m 01 • c v ra OI£ L > OI-'-^^-^-Xl > 4-> OI 01 > x: >— vi >> 01 xi-<- OviC0C0IX"O E — XIIOOIOC.OC 3 01 IO 3 1— (J ClX 10 C XI -, 4-> CIT3 OI 10 M- CL OI O VI L. JO C > OI 4J x: CL4J 4-1 3 L. 4-> >-, VI C X) 3H 301 «-• X 1*- O o 01 c c ^e 4-> CL OI 4J X C O O CO SO CI 3 4-> 4-1 «J 10 O <*- ■a Ol o> c 10 JZ l/l jj c. 01 E •2? 01 c k 01 » Ol c f- VI VI l/l — C Si C 3 01 01 4-1 M 'DO ■— IO r— k. X x X) cr £ vi k. N IO • Ol VI O O E l/l ,— in O >i X — X) 01 C O 0) 01 10 — 10 a. k. L. Oln VI •— w aaa CL0l£u«tJC X) c Ol X) > ST c- — OI VI 01 Ol • x: c E E IO 10 — 4-» X) — k. Ol 1— CO k. c VI O 4-» 0) Ol k- IO UJ O 0) a« e • x: • 4-1 u 1/1 01 10 10 u E 4-1 — E X) O) L Ol U X) IO C k. X) — - k, X) T) OtJr-I JC — U «)»- 4-1 Ol IO ••- 4J — O O k. JZ — X ^3 O C 4-1 k. u 1 c c c a. c xi a. c CI 10 C3 C 4-1 cl k. x: co C k. > c x: 4J 4J cj Ol 4-> VI Ol O 4-1 Ol IO*l-r 01 IO CVJ — IO C IO c- k. — ■0 IO X Ol ■O— XI k. IO •— C C X c 4-1 x: CI IO It- — 0) — 4-> Ol OX) O O X) — X) 1- X) C r- Ol r— Ol Ol -■0 10 01 om. ojj 01 u X) 0. Ol in — 4-1 XI X) IO k> l/l Cl c - XI 01 01 Ol 4-1 C n u C VI <0 4-1 I4- O.COICIUO0O *o ai C JZ C. X) VI l/l C VI > 01 a in Ol E X) Ol X) C k. k. O VI CI IO l/l-F OH* VI Ol k. C 10 01 k. k. k. u 10 4-1 x: CL O 1- VI <0 4-> k. 10 CL— O 0) ••- > r- Ol > Ol c 10 01 01 m c c c CL4-I CL O X IO VI — — — V) Ol k. OIX C O CL4-I VI C 1- 01 u vi «£ cvagi-i-v 01 k. 0) — c — 4-1 01 x: c 0) X> 4J 0) > — 4-> 3 O O c k. O C9 T3 k. C k. k. O. f 4-> u 01 "o x ox: 01 =3 C JZ — X) • raxF ««j 4-» VI 0) k k. 01 Ol » "O 1- VI <0 Ol OIAN4J4J VI C >i S O.X) VI CM u ^—> 10 >>x> a. O. CI 4-1 CL >, • IO l/l 3 £ 4-* in • •— vi— — C •— E T> "O X) E c c — Ol O) C k. CL IO C c- 1/1 1/1 f— Ok f- «*- k. lOUIl/lr- VI 01 013 — k. 3 C Ol 01 10 10 £ io 4-1 »— Ol O U 10 O 0) 01 10 Oi f- r» x: IO l/l fflt) l/l VI -«- 4-1 01 10 in jz • 4-i x: 01 to x: x: c. X c «o e» ci - E 1— Ol Ol 0) VI — c IO it- 4-1 — 4J k. k. 10 k. x in •— X) VI I-- 4-1 f- 3 r— t mo E •Ok. • n- -o -o — _J • — 3 C « O XI >>- C c- 10 4-1 01 >i 01 x> Ol Ol VI 01 ■0 > CL 4-1 xi rs 01 VI l- X) XI k. C • X O 4-1 01 4J 01 c *o c l/l — 4-1 VI VI l/l— C — OIX) IO u X Ol 4J 4J •— • — IO k « • O 1/1 E C OIT3 — 01 VI • — — 4-1 m — 01 — 01 — k. 3 X) 10 x: 01 *■» >— u — I/I • VI — VI 01 Ol SC — 4J — C k. Ol VI 01 C Cl «n«-> ^^ IO VI •#- 0-X , ^4J4-IOX'-O.I— IO/OIO k. 0) Cl^~ CJ IO 4-* c — — O -0 •>- — c IO in 01 f n «£m- c c >»- k. vi c x: vi 0.-0 3 VI Ol Ol — JZ c >>— C VI IO 01 x: X) •<- cl 4J i_ f*l(l • r» «t x: it- — m 3>»4-i cr ci 3 O. k. E Ol 10 4J io >, x> k. 4J C X) C 0) c k. t— Oi 01 u in 01 vi ci 4-11-c • -O in ai A) 4-1 4-1 •— VI CL IO 4-1 C CL— 3 c 01 01 a. 3 0l«£ 1— c "O-o-i-xic in- ci- k mm L vi Ol r— 1/1 1- IO 1/1 CI O £ k. IO IO X ox: £ ■o»- Ol «-'■'• «i C Oi£ HI QN U3 l/l in jz vi k, c 4-i in E «-« TO Ol-T- VI C IO c 01 CL 01 O CL— IO IO k. 4-< E VI 4-1 — O C C Ol 4-1 4-1 01 c ■a 10 •0 ai "o • ai£c4-iio-02:ci — — x: X 1- Ol HI OlOi- — k. 10 — in — X) vi k. — 3 X) £>!»>» 3 k. o-x: x: •>- -F- U3 x: 4-1 xi 01 01 jz 3: IO 4-1 in O) 4-1 — — 01 • k. cr 3 4-> 01 XI 3£OIVIVI4->X4->VICOIOI3:'0 >t CL— » 01 k l/l k h- UJ l/l IO ♦J 01 4-> 10 c > k. a. 1/1 01 1— £ tl k CL- — -H3E£lSOI •- E X*i 4J 01 01 r OXH- «) t f 4-13 O OIZ u« k. u 4-1 4-1 in 10 ■0 c E X xj 10 co 10 r- t, •—IO C k. ex: q.4-1 1 h-*> 1 VI O X 10 c — X) L*ju x: c 01 Ol C "O •■- 3 oi vi Q- vi c 4-» E c s: — x: 10 VI Ol Ol x: 3x> acx oi X) — c x: 4-> c — xi 10 oix: io 3>» — to x: 4J 01 <»- ai — ci t- x: xi f— 4-1 — IM VI x: vi x: 30. — vi x: E 3T vcj u 3 c x — -a — X) 1— • 0) 4-1 t- JZ — Ol — c 01 •^ 01 Ol 4J Ol «- 4-1 VI "O -O c 4-1 c co Z 01 E 6- ai 1^1— x: tj t-UCXC4-lk.O-D VI l/l 3 O XI xi 4-1 E 4-1 Ol 1 — + 4-> a. 01 > — VI c CL, IO It- X Ol O O Irt •»- 4-> . CU Ol >> CO CO. «o 3 4-1 IOOI !_ X) X) X VI XI — X E >>— 3 2C > O 3 0) VI f- Ifi+JT- >|3 m£r-T) 4->-i- 3«, vi 10 oix: ci O IO VI X Ol vi l c ra UJ k. 4J C k. Ol Ol 3 XI £OH-'C«J>- Ol C VI OF-k. -C c 4-1 c x: ax 01 x> X) c c O IO VI 3S Ol C C — k. Ol 1- a OO IO Ol -r- Ol OlO f— nj ai *-> — 10 in — IM — k. 01 — 0) O 4-1 OX tO VI O OJ 4J Ol ci ci "o x: XO 0.4-I3S- X C O <0 6 X) IM OIX) £151- Ol Ol C 3 4-1 — in c E 4-1 C — £ C x: ■— c 01 c OlUJCr C « -O •»- .— 6 IO— C C 01 CL O VI X) VI — O X 4-1 IO 1/1 n- Of ao 4-1 10 «a< 01 -- r— £ Ol 3 O Ol Oil- O 4-1 3 O 4-1 C — 3 c E Q. mv-x 01 10 i. x: 10 01 4-1 O ci C3ClE 4-i 4-> XT Q.LO C VI 4-1 IO OX) X) IO — 4-1 VI 0) C VI — 01 ♦-• x: in 4-1 — •t- 3 k. in xi VI Ol •■- XI E 01 Oi u 4-> E 1 > O 4-> O U Ol IO k. k- VI IO r— 1- VI Ol IO O •»-» C "O O > ai it- an ci 4-1 VI c • — a. c a) > — 10 CL1- 1- 4-1 Ol ra Ol OOl^r- 111O w- 0l^»u O 4-1 x: 3 -T-o oi«34J ci r^ k. CL 01 C X) IO IO 4-1 Ol ■o C >,— 4-> n- 10 > VI O i-C 4-ivivixluol4-iOviin Ol 01 1— XI C. X) 0) > 4-1 >> • 0) Ol IO 4-1 C 4- t- OJ k. CL O X) E k. CL-F- mio* -0 mior— 01 CL — it- -X) Ol 01 ai in 01 xivix:ck,x— O E 4J E 4-1 3 Ol O 4-> 3>>T3 cEOi>>ooioicOk, -ox: X -^ O t. IO > 4-» k. — X) C 4J — O) 3 — Ol Ol vi — in >, . x: i— ci 1— c oik.Ni— vioix:— ' x: xi 4J c 01 01 a>4-< k. 4-> — C Ol C X) O > k. VI 4-1 C VI — 3 x: X) Ol 4-> Ol 4-> H- IO Ol IO 4-J Ol-T-T-F- 1/14J1- 4J 01 3 IO — l/l Ol 4-1 — 0) 10 3 -i- ra oi- VI 4-* OJ Ol Ol IO CLX> 4-1 CI c n- 01 in k. x: c x i c c U IM k. VI E C 3 ID 3 it- — ia 3 a. U -r- Moras 01 01 3 01 k£ c £■££••■- VI X) OIX) 10 C ! — — O O vi k. X) <*- 1- E OJ E E >l« UT3>- 11 0— 01 01 E— 01 01 k — > vik. 4-» IO X in k. c — — > c. E k (Ui- ai x: k. <— •1- 10 >, 01 01 Ol CO C — Q. 0) •»- 3 X) in X) 01 .-» > — k. 10 0) k. 4-1 CL— 4-1 > 01 «- L£ OJtTl xzu- 3 u x: x: o<--x:ci<- aj c x: — cl— 10 u O IO 4-1 VI houa 1— 1- c- X •— O co X 10 CI '1- 10 h ov. vi e OI i- 3 OJ I o o»x> oi<— g c •— U C Ollt- "r- 3 O 3 O C XI L « O «JT5 41 O XI 3 C C VI W >><*- cum oi o u- jc "O — ID 01 O *J c *j en i/i io -r- 44 c c *- ♦J .C X If ••- m io c o.*-> u*> m 44 oi"— » E ai 0) x ui oi c flewe U tl V OI X »- x> u *-■ ai u u c E C *- >r- 1. "O 3 <— •»- - XI *-» OI »-■■>- O C U 4-» C Ql u "O 44 "r- -r- 0) O IO l/l c • c *-> E u- <-> >> u 3 l/l o o oi ui u vi s-aioi *-» 01 *j a •— c n c -d - «->> C 3 3EJ3344IOOIXIIOXI 0*0 ■o ioi->oiuxio.u «-• oi E l/l *-> O Q. O OI • C 01 c oi o o *j c <-> >. • ■— .4- u ai ■*-» o ♦-> c o *-> oi E l/l U C OJ «l Ci- N ■o o> tl V cm-O E 1- •— "- 0) "O r— X oi •<- *o r— IO in 1/1 T- Q. 44 44 XI <"■ 3 3 U E a vi • u ai •" *■ ct*j v-OIQl/ISVlOJZ C 1. E OlXJ -r- b u ai a •■ CDTJ VI 01 i (A *■> t— VI •o ai JO 0J4-iOC3E4-> — h- a. OIJCt-0104-iUiOXI u ■O JC *J > «IO t u 0) «*- ^-4* -r- OI *-» *- v> •M o 3 0} 4-< JO C Ul X! >> a O U- C U> OI«>- C 4— XI e ai x O" ou i. oi«n c 01 vi e »— loi- cm r- U >» i- C 3 3 r- 01 •— *- VI44QJOOUIOOI3 - oi -r- 4J ••- .c lcitc «- <*- QJ •r->OI4Jl/lXIXI'r-QJO ai jo ^"■00 01 >>44 vi -r- <»- •— 3 44 3 VI 44 JC l/l JO 44 •»- •— •o «-> o o i. oi o v a •»» i,: 3fccai CD VI «_*Q.«JUV1V>I— -r-iD-O 4-> IO >^- v> oi •o ift OI VI o en at u L. §-• OJ c o »- t3 -r- •<- IO *o •«- Wl o -e VI l(- . 1_ U VI •o »— TIJJ Wtl 1. l» 4J •♦— 5 u u "*" — "" S *•**" ^ ° b 3 D. oi oi vi oi oi QJ -*- .jC *•- o »IT) C C*JJ} >) IO 4-1 OI VI l_ 0) X "O "a l. «ij o ** *a 03 io c ovr- ..- ai ■— • u l/l u o o U JO CvlO q.j: o i— 3 Li_ .C C >> OJ o *o u a. vi u "i- o •*• •<- OI o O VI u *— *-» •— « u e **- o E oi 0) •<-> x: vi j= v- > •»-> i_ a. at oj c v> •— O — 3 o c J3 CM 4J C "O X •^ • o «) jt j= i- t> "o a. o c IO i— vi -i- o c o 3 L. »/» U C 4-* °o 4->3l/IOlO • •<- O VI X "" IO r— CT"v- OJ OJ ft? Oj >> •<-TO*JU I- i- - o<->->- OI 4-1 OI 4J ^~ Oj oj •*- u 3E o> OJ 44 X U Q. 3 C IO «-» JC •!- VI >, IO TJ 10 L£ U c <•- • IO OI U IO r— IO 4-1 C VI 4-1 4-1 OI *-» OJ OJ 0) > i_ ai q.*j c u ai im => IO t- r— L. VI 4-* Q..C C i» ■a ot-Eio-^ooiu-^ <•_ •— 3 OI 10 U OJ irt +-• o OJ U •U JO O ■•- 44 C r— o c • •r- VI "O «C M hrnj *o u i_ i«_ v- vi e ~- >»•<- OljQ CCU *r"0 (L) JQ 3 ioaio><— oi e VI "- ♦» U 1- c QJ •*- *-» 3 * c L. o +J U •<- -)-* "3 Q. OI r- 4-1 E io c •<— *«_J 1/) t/t 4-* o o U Vl^ iOp-iOEi^C 3 <0 O CL OI OI IO O 3 •#— Cft iA u JC Cv >> l/l 4-1 j=*c.iE.= e a> •— to *o VI io*) vi oi-^-oioiau OI •»- CL o o J3 a> L O 0I , DT5'-T3*J OI U JQ 4-i U O) OJ i/> *j **- o o «-> 44 IO 3 VI •— •>- 3 IO VI OI ■a U jO (A O 4-> u IO ■a VI3f*/r-1J 01 L OI JC O L. • •*- TO * *«— AI fO k. •*-ciaoio3uaicai JC w- •.- c w x OJ OJ e a/> O «*-' a. JJ OO »••- CI-~-Q. 4-i en aio c a u u o c TO E OJ o o *j c f a. t. c »/» -c •*- o a* 4) •»-•«- o OJ -o 4-* Of *-» vi c o on=o C i- •P*J*»'r*i 0> > 4-» -f- u c u l/IOI •*- IO O "O OI OI c O 4-1 <*J C 5/S c t, fO *-> •«— *a ■a OI 3J3 UjC<->»— r— JC U IO VI C O M V- iQ QJ > (J V- E > OI t— VI Q 341 OI OI o •O+J"- cl *- O Q.VI c o 4-> *— r- O o C OJ o 8J) o O i— L. 3 JC VI "O — u c Cl trt «r- c «X UJ OJ i/t QJ ut U 3 O • VI OI VI VI It- l_ •a 1 «5*J£^- ■C C «M OJ J5 u •— o u c o» o •»- C TJ 4-» 3 +J QJ oj 4-» o «a jc -i-J l/l o UrCSB"-!**! J3 OI c a. C i/> *^ CT».jC -C O =M *-» u JC 01 o 3 oi->- n li k OI e *- o -^ «*-» QJ O •+-» ♦J c ai m c o o oi *o «->o ■© OI OI CX4-> (J C U «*- •*• •*- -C 4-* *D 01 o C — O J= l_ 3 O 3 JC c > O -*- r- q; u o O 3E 4-» J= lj~ E E ■I- *^>|!/IOI4-I4->OV» O) »-> « aa iA •*-» io i. T3 »J io am l- 01 -O TJ a* **- v- o u *™* cue 3 %. o oi c u E *» Jt JC r- ai > *-» UN •— «0 O *0 QJ '+- IO *J 0)103 CO 01 L CW XI OI o QJ u flJ C O *—*4-» E QJ a. 1- U4->OJCCOOO 0IM4J n E «8 1" X-i-A *» •»- 4-1 •O «D C *^ o v> VI •v- «o ♦* «3 tfl fl ■o & o.<— vi jc a. i_ *j •O X 4-1 «•— u e c OJ OI c*j o'o oi>»io >» OI 01 VI « a>i) ojfv 1- 3 u o .5 >> •O "O fcrt O 1- U OI L LA l»- c o a> •«- 0) u E -3 J-» l«- «-> 3 CW u« «J»- LW OI U 1> i. Q. C trt *a ift o>*^- t- IO -u io-^> o>>jaaioi-*-u 14- 01 C 4-> Oi *o o ■.> (O C C O *-» OJ c c 44 44 t *J •»— u ^-* J- u *-» 3 OJ • o u crjc e> SOlOU O VI 19*/ IQZ Ul O 4-> U. •#- <0 Kf\ *0 4/> o *-»f- 3 tft (/I Cl #0 «SJ O C QJ Cl 4J • o •«- O V- ta tft l/l >J l_> tJ o > C Q) Lt QJ OJ !_ o •»- U Cu-C OJ QJ •r* U « * fcft 4-* IA \A 4-» C O OJ u c U QJ IA OJ »A 3 o ai ct)0 =c o 4-* 4-1 <0 fmm > 4-> M . X 4-1 OJ 44 ^« t/l io u E o c 4-» 10 -O XI VI i- oi jc u 4-» oi *a vi coj c u O 4J •— io 01 01 XI U 4-1 4-1 OI m n i/i i. oi ST .* E O 3 •4- C IO o. 4-» 1— U VI 4— O O U X JC»— 01 10 f- N ftl C U •*- u c en oi u io oi C OI C VI 4-1 oi ui 4-» as 3 VI U O O 4-> 3 4-> U O. U <_> CJ 3 O CM 4-1 4-> *4~ O "O OI Ul VI OI C IO f- •<- If « CN C Or- vi Cv C CO JC i- E «CsO 01 O c — o VI Oli— 3 -O O OI E c E JC C V_ 01 o io S-ijr: oi io u Z 3 jc oj a 01 OI ■— 01 c >> 4-1 O U 01 >|OC Cv IO 3 r- =3> . Or- X) O E 4-1 VI C OJ QJ u- L. u*J iii'nw OI 4-» JC O. VI l/l O »— IO -r- CvU. r— L. '*- 4 o jc JC t/l IO 3 U w- C 01 JC JC O IO 1- M JBJ JC VI 4-1 4-1 Cl c ■D J3 4— 3 X VI 4— O XI OI oi ui u xi QJ U"-» « Utlf 3C OI OI l/l O 3 4-1 1- "O -r- 01 o C T3 QJ IO Cv O 01 OI •— • C 3 > >4- CV C X XI JC C XI ♦J JC ~- O- 4-> l/l X V- C C *J >l IO IO C JC O <— -4- > c oi>-^ io xi •4- OI IO OEr-ullOVI «C c 4-> ar •»- c uj s-,-0 C OI O IO SJ io •— 4-1 E io 4-i .- >,.- o ai o > XI i- 4J O XI co io oi jo io xi oi OI o c c u o oi XI •<- lli- C VI lOr— C OJ •r- .i- « U r- J WOIi- u •o oi io c o 4-> C •oaiaiojciov-cv 4-1 4- QJ -r- OI C O IO Ul It- 3 Ll. 3 r— OI 4-1 ■a •»- to oi 4-> •O OI l/l QJ **- •«- 10 JC 4— 4-1 o E vi 4-1 IO 1 V l/l U U -r- U O C OI 44 r- .r- VI OI C C ■ JC l/l 01 3 3 1- > ■r> -a OI X JO OJ •<- o C OI X Lu IO QJ JO OI O o c > vi oi U. io JC ■»-■»- -o t- 1- 4-1 C IO IO VI U 01 T3 IO C 4-1 u X oi OI i- O CO 01 4-> 4— U. oi re io io •<- x oi 4J •»- O. OI r- r- C >4- O C4J QL4J 3D C U CV4J JC XI > 4- C XI r- OI JO XI E OI XI c O VI oi 4-> oi 4— u o o u r— OI O Cv 01 4-1 C IO » Ci- «r ajy •r- OI U r— VI IO OI C OI O VI £ VI C CO IO OI c u oi U 4-> VI O U XI OI OI c xi E io ui 4-1 C VI vi jc oi >ifl Er •r- O VI 0.*- 4J OI O 4-> 4-> a. 4-i C VI IO 10 Oi JC O Cv c u E — OI O IO 4-1 X "4-> U 4-1 •»- - o o 1- U O 4-» i— a. o f- OI OI c T]*I44 OI OI IO OI U 4-> £ O mh JC o • i- • OI CM > OI U «JQ cv •. 4-> io >— IO u OICC O 4-1 c xi jc X OI VI 4J 4-1 IO 4-1 U- CO OI.VIXI X4-> •— 1- U 0.0^- OI— » Q.-^ a. 4J OI «" •O OI 14- >| 1 4-1 C O X OI 01 OI u o»— • c oi o io Ol •»- 00 I/I JC VI » XV— O 3 4-1 JZ 4-> O "O u O CO O Cv O E u jc CM o -r- oj c no >,ui > oi oi c OJ 4-1 01 • u ■4- 01 •tin 4 u 4-1 C U OI o •r-. CO 4-1 3 4-1 C 4-1 TJ 4-1 t- XI •— LJC>- O > •«- oi *f- vi J3 VI IO •4- U IO 4-1 44 4-1 V- XI l/l VI C • C IO It- C JB OI OI 4-1 u w OI U • OI c VI 01 OI E OI Cv IO Ul XI c o OI C i- lt- 441 QIQIIOXI*r-4-IOlO t- JC t/> •!— 4-» N OI -4- O O u -o 01 J3-4-V- ID OI JC o X 4-1 OI C •>- 4-» OI JC o JC x •— C 1 c vi 4-> c «r 3 <_> c OI OI4J f *4"> V- o O 1— 4-> 01 r-X> C 13 U 4-44— O IO XI 4-1 O >JC L L J3 11 L O OI o OJ VI Cv VI O OI o U VI c u oi io v— o CO VI4- E «r" C ct^-4j«n i. oi OJ IO 3 > -O IO X U Cv OI VI OI U JC XI XI Q.4-4 OI H- U Oi- 4-> O C C i— i l/l OJ O »-» OI ■— 01 c 4-> Q. VI i- >, o l/l > l/l an H-- C r— e r— l/l c O 4-1 OI E C • J3 — 4— O 4-i JC L. re vi •4- -O U •<- > o O OI oic an . - 1 VI 00 4J 4(. QJ UCOCCJOJCCv U — OI ♦* E •- O L L- 11 OI 40 OI T3 IO -4- c *Q 4-> OI 3 U X 01 > COOJ3 fel COIUU •^Oi— t ^l Or- IO U E 3 i- 3T O OI 4J O •OU CTJ 11 o OI « 4-1 O O •»- IO 4-> U. OJ ui vi o vi xi u r— JOJ Q. O C > OI OI 4-1 U C JC • u VI u e t/i u 4J 4— Ul 4-1 E OI XI •r- CvXI en OlOlt-S:Olr-OOI U VI l>- Z3 O U JC >> VI OI IO 4-1 4-» 4— OJ OI u •«- >|C llr- oi c VI > r— 4-> 41 na O 00 O U 3 C > IO OI z u u a^4J U IO > OI 0I<— 01 4-> OJ JD <— U IO i- C 01 3 •o io tn 01 c 01 Cv O 01 x T> i_ 4-i a. E 4— 1— »4J < (4- C 4-1 > •^4-> H- •- E X O XI o XI IO JC IO 4J C C i— JC OI XI C OJ C 14- 4-1 10 C IO 4-1 IO 4— IO v- > VI 01 X XI U OI JZ C >, 4-1 ae O IO O 4-1 OJ VI JC vi a jc oi o oi io ai jc o jc VI OI IO ■O IO 4-1 •r-.4- 3 OI XI XI vi QJ U XI C E 1" 4J JC 4J XI >i K- E JC JC O 4-> VI W 4J ai c c C O IO 4-1 VI • XI X oi oi e E- IO OI OI c U VI i- r- XJ 01 «0 ■— OI 4J 4J 4-1 C O ~- w OI u UJ 4-1 4-1 C l_l C XI C U JC U IO l/l E 34IJJ xi oi c —i r- oi vi t. •— OI c oi .a jc u ai u u X OI c u 10 O - QJ io co 4-1 OI r— o c c r- X OI OI C O 13 IO • IO OJ 14- •<- «J c E O C •0«^4J 3 U OI OI 4-» OI OI >> OI Ul E 4-> c S c U- OI IO Ul IO QJ 4J 4-1 304-IJC 4-r-OCv O C L- 3 Cv OI VI JC XI T3 4J •O <4- C V- C i- HIT E^- c OCO X4-I OU-r— O c c a vi *<- O VI JC 4-1 VI OO u IO «* 4-1 3 U 4— 10 XI u OI ai o i- O i- u U OI QJ jz oi ■<- x io u t- OI <0 3£ oi OJ c a. c 4J vi c 01 U IO IO c oi E u IO 4— oi OI I — o E VI C X 44 C CL JC o a. cv O IO O OI IO OI 4-1 Olr- 4-> OIJC Q.I— Q. •r- >, no VI 4-1 ■>- t- VI C O. 01 U X o 01 c 4J O O 4-> U 1— XI C C •<- io C 4-1 E 3 o OI.C C 44 OI E 1- OI OI It- O VI 01 OUr- O 4J U OI OI XI OJ 4-1 XI Cv Q. OI *- •r- -r- U- E •4- •!- O C4-iccuijcuujc l> C C 1- It- 10 4-> u io "o o OI JC 4-1 •o l/l c •*-» 4-i Oi E JC VI IO Ul X C JC QJ •r- -i- OI 4-1 01 4-1 44 ai •»- «r- C VI OI O •*- OI •«- C OI4-I 3 4-1 IO U Ul 4-1 U N- 4J 3i JO Olr- O -r- OI VI > i— X c X vi «4- U OI VH— «^- JC u > o c c c u c vi oi 01 c o JC XI •— r- JO QJ i— • C C O lt- nm«-c « k 4-1 OI 4— IO fll.3 o. OI OI OI •»- Cv OJ *_ 01 4-1 OJ 3 •*- •—a: oi xi *r- im o aim u o t i OI vi E >i-4- C 3 • O 4— It. OIMO > Lu XJ 44 O QJ OI C t. U 4— •*- H- CO -r- > C C 14- c T3 X) J3 IO U Ol 0) 4-1 •4- O 4-1 C O It- <_> •— W- QJ i—«4- x jc u- oi i- OI •«- 01 Q. 01*0 o oi u c •>- s: Ui c cnu U 4- •»- 41 14- VI VI IO K r— O 3 4-> 3 Ol E444444U-XI l/l a: O.J3I JO O OI •— o»i- E ivl 01 IO OJ C 14- VI Cv > VI c IO J3 OI r— OI O IO VI 4 »r- -r- O OJ •*- 3 •*- IO 4J 4— 3 O OI •<-<_> OJ VI *-• E OXIOIJC E-*-OI O OI oi u «X JC OI JC c f^ JC VI u u ■o •— o c o c t/l «UVI4-IOJCIO 3 OI S vi c > 4-1 T- 4-1 > (-> JC 3 X) 3 l- 01 «0 4J CO «^- «r- «- c E jo 4-> ■-IS V L 4-i -o jn IO 1- •*- •r- u> -4- 4-1 C 4-* r- 4-> 01 Cv OJ •o a. oj - - >. J3 00 OI 4-1 X oi io *-• OI VI 3 • •— 4-1 J3 OI O VI o. c >» 4-H——^ i4- oi ro IO n l e « C IO • O JZ 1- O CM 4 >,r-r- o o DC OI-«- 41 Oil o C 4-> Oi— JC O OI U OJ OI r— m U IO JC £•<-•— •O 3 4-1 3 4- o u Cv r " c o on o c 1— »r- u >,v- OI C vJ OI JC U r— 4-< 4J XJ X 1— cvj jo <: io 4-1 IO -4- OI OI 4-* 4-> VI 4-1 C OI C J3 4-1 01 ■O "O V- > OI C U TO IO 01 IO OI IO •*- 4-1 OI 4-> 1- ctJ*-«cr OI IO 14- IO 14- C ^—JC c ai JC JC Cv— Ol>4- 14- 4— o ai « oi -o — *j 31 "~3 O Cv O io f». 4-1 =3 or r- 4-4 O IO ID O O IO F-18 < r«. cn c >»- L. o «»• i— IO IO t»- O c O l u Ol • H- M- • 01 f^ o -a .. o CL I— c o c 4-1 4-1 OI iA VO <•- A3 c c x 4-1 4S O o c tA IO 10 V- L. i— C H UN C O 1- >>«-> o 73 01 4-> OI .. •o IO COCO Ol 'r- 4-» oi en 4-> C •»- CO c XI CJ c o in E cn io «s o c en IO TO o ■o E • IO ai in O 4-1 3 c 3 c u 3 O ai io a. • tn *o le cn<-> OJ c ■z. >>x: •o -^ •< Ol • O 3 U in je c co ai IO 3 s- H- 3 in *o tn CL •»- tn 0) 0) , o 4-> io tn in XI C 3 3 10 fc. en ■a jz en 4-> CO •—"O • IO « o > •a 3 OI • fc, ai c •*-• O (O IO OI c IO L. ♦J o 4-1 a tn c «4- > c o en tn C i. IO f» *» v- C UJ fc. X O "- IO t- . 01 o • E O-i- Ol o T3 O «r- u. Si'4- x u<— « Lb in c L. L- 1-h- o •«- C f- > 4-1 XI 44- h- OI *J O io l/l ■O O U 4— 4J a> 4-> IO 4J IO CL CL cn IO Cc •4- OI 53 TO O c xc-4- o c io CO > r^ X oi«Z >> ■o Ol o QJ OI o <_> 01 k. *->«t cr> OJ C0 4— «X m CO ID c c X >x: oi in 4-> IO in ■o >> 3 01 L, U 4-><^ • c • O u Nl ID *-> C XI X IO oi c u o o •— < en oi o »- CO o o CO u CO c r«» x: u u •- e o x oi 2 o zm Ol cn tn 3 en •» •4- 4-> CO o B (• u >— o. — Ol .— *J <»- -o O OI c c c ■a 3 3 l— 3 •— W- to O 3 CO en k. 1- o c o o O e o ia l-l *J in c XI • o • Ol o Cl o - *-> XI i_ •»-> CO c tn c in o 4J -^ 4-> CL C en m IO « E o • to c u 'O ON IM O c-o C 4-> C CO >» c en i- f- 4J 3 o e— • 3 OI U O O 3 Ol u Ol io 3 f- to oi a. "- X o •<- • o 1 u CO *- -m. £ tn E -a e k. U *J> XI •a c H- IA IO •o IO 4-> Ol 01 o CO 3: o c 0l «-> u ^ u c cn 4— U IO 4-> IO Ol fc. D C • 5 o to OI ■s IO OI 3 !>. Ol 3 01 c o c cn 0) l in W < c c • XI ccn co C CL4-> ID «i •o c B. • xen CO • • ■a k. 3 «s •<- IO en ai CO •^ o m 3E "Z. io S c« en oi cn fc. o a> X c o> r-~ k. l/l L, CM L. Q.0I tn ■o • in 1 r- E i** •<- «• O. • l/l o en en o 1_ en cn 3 Oi Ol oi c • o- c Lu 10 en xi 1 IO J£ io l/> IO r- x: ai Ol4-> CTv o Ol c c; -^ C Ul CL o a. TO C3 i— ai ro •3 L L. in cr. L. tn r~ Z i- o o u o CO to o 1 c fc. ro a. O OI o O 01 en Ol u • rM oi rM u«o- .3. C i— > a. »— tn CL o 4*— ■0 IO Q o • x: cm co TO fc- o a c •o Ol ■O L. r- CO i— il- •*- 3 o X V) en C O c i»- L. o 14- Ol IO ia *K CO 4J o o IO X) ■t ^ 4- ce O 3 4-1 -O 4-1 4-1 u o co oix: in oi tn C 3 X s: c 4-> .— 01 c • IO co • *J ce L. IO '^ rv CU IO s- IO Ol k) E >> a> • X en OI T3 c OZ m cn i- o Ol o E - (J o>4-> C7I O en o o t. -r- •— u, . <_> cn U UL en k. • fc. fc. IO O OJ • tf) 22 > -o c enco c m O . ai ■u U- IO OI fc- CO to >> > o IO C£ IO Oi >4- IO 14. 01X1 c c fc. c CL X) Cn o IO u i/l OI X a> • c-o OX) O m J. o o ai o • OI C "4- o • u et a> 3 > OJ T > _l Ol c c l/l «o in m Q-o fc. a iii Em c o C CO i/i <_> o XI u. «t C IO Ol Ul Ol IOX u v. OI ■4-1 ID IO u u a> at lA E E in *-> m x> to j=> fc. m c x: i. 14- vl c c 8 OI HI <1J O 3 01 3 c- t4- «i «x to X X C3 O X o ""5 o o c ^- 01 •r- O .#— r_ 4-1 4-1 •4- XI CO 10 40 c 4-> en 4-1 Of 4-1 IA TO m ■4- Ol • k. T3 4— 01 01 c c in c oi*o 4-1 O. C 1- 0» 3 4-1 k. c 3 O in*- coi c s: O 3 01 tn in 01 10 E m O 01 01 OJ C fc. O f- Ol > TO Ol 3 3 CO IO 4 01 «-» • i_> 01 k. JZ 01 in 3 O 4— IA fc, a 01 >> x: c tn c o> oi oi cr k. I-44XH-4- C 01 m Ok ti m IM O o x: >r- 4J k C L V Q.4— CL U 4-> O— ' O CO 1- TO CL 01 c fc. m x c c *)<- c X u *» JZ "4- "O C 01 u 10 «* — » (J X — JZ c Q.44- 4-1 ••- 10 C C O 4-4 IO o 4^ <— >« a TO C Ol tn 01 io •— k. 1 3 tn k. 44" ••- Ol U s xi i- <4- 3 cn^- oi C v > Ol 10 O v-* 10 Ol O. O 40 »4- CL 3 c c •4- fc. CL O O 2 3 o O C CL OIX1 10 011- x: c r*. 14. TO Ol X Ol C 01 3 •l-> fc) 01 en x -4- x; •4. 4-> 4J tn 01 C 4J C OI-4- 3 0) in >> c 01 CL t- ♦»»— 01 k. m 01 4-i c oi 3 m m k. c 4-1 c 4-> 4-1 m fc) X fc. OJ fc. ■»- . c in o o >— •— occ-umoc •4- O — -4- C 10 10 c O 4-> 3 fc. 0) Ol C in O-r- 4— t4.lt.-4- XI U O 3 1- N- -4- to •— x: 44- 4-> c 4-1 4-1 E O 40 > m e oi JB oi OX io c oi t— > tn •0 01 Oi tn x 4-1 k. Oi 44- h- in c u c 4— fc. TO •«. O C£4i«- > 10 01 U Ol X 4-4 in 01 40 3 O in 1— OTTO TO 4— •»- ,M Oi C tn^» 44 4-I- U Ol 01 in io w £ to co L. c c on— x: IA C- 3 3 c c fc) Ok a *0 o *o ai 4—3 • O Ol 0.4J c c O X — IO >, cn E 4 •»- oi > n k. — » 01 oi 4— x: -4- 3 -4- 4-1 O 41- fc) fc) 0) 4-> c j«: ^ Ol Ol C C 4-> Ol o 0IO0I49C3I4-O. 40 oi 4-1 c in ai x u c Ol TO IO u t_ £) I CL.-DOOIIOCXI k. u. x:— c u k. •>- x: c X 1/1 > 01 01 E O 4 ** ^T O i- ai 4— u x: o 40 4-1 l>»-^«^- Ol m 3 0. in 4-> k. 4— 0) u m 0) E TO x c f> . N •— *" U 03i- » O 4— 01 C 4-> 4-4 4-> X 10 4J ii_ 44- 3 IO c O) fc. C O 40 V \ 2 CO 0) 10 O 49 r- IO O xox;tdiocc4-> •a jz 01 u 4-1 E ai fc) c 01 m O 4— 44 ^ •Vfft en 3DIUVC > 4-> •— 4-» C > O Ol C C 4J 4— 1— 3 c fc. t4- JZ O L. -- E *J Cfc >» — - ^r 4*0 4J c O Of- E C >4- IO k. (J 4J k. 01 3 io CO m O "4- 4-1 fc. 10 10 JZ 2r c< c mi-0J0»-4-c>oi «4- •!- X Ol CO CL^ CL U -4- 14. CL Ol Ol 4-4 C714J 01 e*?«r io OI4->UC4->-4-(-4-» O CL ^»UI 0I1-I4. 40 44- . 4-1 k. 0) >. in -4- C C fc. . Jgr^vrs.- k. k. »- 40 4» 3 l-l O TO O C JZ E m 014-1 c 4— c 01 O 01 c 1 C IO X •4-01 01 / c o o k. k. «4- tn C 01— ' O 4-1 Ol >> in u c c 4— O JZ c O Ol 10 3 E fc> / 4CS 0) IO ■4- CLli. Ol OI-4- C O >>4-> CM U JZ k. m 10 4— 01 ■4- 4-> TO 10 •/- > 4-1 4. C C Ol c / vr in oi cc «i"ox aif •r- TO IO Ol 4-> Ol 01V-4— E X m Ol JZ 4-1 44- tn ro 10 •4- Ol 44- / \. yo u CM 4-4 3 M Lf tn JZ 4J k. "4" in Ol M > U C CL-- Q.4— 0|4>- u lO t»- •4- r*. 1— 4-1 IO CO / /^■^•-3«t c in in oi tn 4-1 "o ■OlOUCf-'-k.O 0-4- XI O 4— TO fc) c t<- 4-4 in en cl c c / 01 « ac u 01 4-ICl004->TOOIU fc. 4-1 4— .4- C OJ TO 4— fc. m 4— O IO E m •— k, k. xi 3 49 ti y a- c O tn -4- k. x: 01 CLCCTOOlXlOTO 4-> TO 3 O IO IO fc> x: 1 0>0itn4->t4-i04-*u 40 Ol C > 10 3 m It. > 0) 0) X 3 -o u E •"-» <0 U O CL k. c E io 01 >.-o fc. "- B C 4— to en >» V J 4- u X 4-1 4- cr-<- O 40 4-> 49 01 ui in Ol Ol O 3 c_ O •*. CL TO O C 3 4-4 fc) O 40 c c 4-4 U "» 4— oiccocais-o •4" O O C C 44" ••- >> O 3 10 4-1 — IO > u. 3 k. C Ol clx: ••-> .W 4— O 4-> Ol £ >» c 4-1 c O 4-1 TO 3 C 4— TO O O" O TO e*ii-c.i- to tn IO Ol Ol 44- 01 44- 4-> tV Ol c C «t IO fc. 4-1 "»- 40 c 01 >i u •4- C O 4-1 4-> 4— 01 *J XI > «-> Olio c <»- 01 c JZ X IO O 4— IO 1/1 4-> 49 >) IO IA 01 •<- • 10 3 1- 4— Ol IO 1^ 4#- fc. IO 4-4 4-4 •4- m 3 X Ul 01 in k. c E >i io 4-1 4-1 Q.4-1 4-1 C O 4-> 3 C TO 4-> O k. u l/l 4J 01 E fc. > 49 JE Ol 01 >— x_ 40 IO O C C * "4- in 10 4— i_ 3 tn TO -4- c u. - •O 44- fc. O L. •4- O fM > > TO Ol X C Ol Ol TO 4— C U TO 3 O. O C C >4- O 01 L U OV O *JUOO*4-C4-I|A 4->~-C *• E 4— TO -4- O cm >, Ol -4- Q) Ol *4- XI u cn a 10 01 E Ol C Ol 3 C XI U 4-1 "0 C TO 4,- »0 E C C fc. a. cl J^ 1. 49 fc. Ol 3->- 01 44" 44 -r- 4— O IO 1- 1— 1 O C 4-> «-> E e cn •—••- 0. X tn Ol TO fc> 40 IO IO l- O 44- «4- •4- U. O 1- X Ol X O. XI C Ol 3 01 01 *0 01 E cm x: 01 x: to fc) tA 4-4 U TO L. 3 4-> £ Ol IO T3 4-> •4- k. x; 1- 4-> 4-> • 4J 4— c 4J c c- Ol 01 IV) ^t .0) IA tn Ol c our an- ioia 4— TO 10 4-4 C O O. 4>4 Ol IO O Ol c fc. m c •4- m t.fc.0) 01 >, t4- •4- X 4-> C CL Ol 4— Q. TO Ol 4— CL fc>4- E I- C E 4-4 IO 3 OJ ■•- 3 10 4-> TO CS "- O » XI3001CEIOOI Ol O E Ol fc. ••- 1- cni-> fc. *£ C C . k. 01 1— (. O Ol C IO CL<4- X Ol E O 01 •■" O TO X •- cn c ^Cl- CO 49 t*. in cnx: Ol S 'Oi- O 4J .* Ol O It- 4— 4-1 O c 10 Ol •1- a. io 3 O Ol" Ol 4-4 XI X k. C •— Ol JZ O CX Q. OJ 10 * m fc. 0) s Ol TO fc) m 01 CC k. « U 4 u tn >s 01 O 01 c 01 O 4-> 01 E E fc. Ol 0J CC Ul 4J C -4- *j x; TO O 4-4 O O) OI4-> IO »oi ioxti- >•»- c 4-1 Ol 4-1 O 3 E a. a. X 40 Ul U. m 4-1 4-1 4— XI K OIO.C CX >l>E4!4'aik'r 44. fc. 10 m 01 IO •r- O C9 44- t4- Ol L. 3 k 11 —01 j..r.s uioTocno k. O IO 44- t/t tA E 4-1 L. OJ O 0) 1- fc. c 01 OI04->OIOI4->EUI ■O 4-> 3 k. ai c Ol TO >> IO Ol k. a.jz 4 OJ 01 x: to Ol O XI x:xccx:iocL>t >, giaoit4-oit4.k.ia t*. 4-4. m cu to x 141 4-1 C X 1- 4-1 4-1 o in oi-4-itooio «. E C X TO O Ol JZ Ol CM 01 E 3 Ol 4-1 c_ •4- 0) O 4-1 Q. 0) c >> OC m u C o.r— u io 3 k. 4-> Ol •<- O. C fc, ».^— fc. 4-1 X X JZ 4-1 a. fc. x 44- O a: >> c 4-> 3 01 co g in 01 4— tn c 01 CL—^TO Ol m 4-1 X JZ 4-1 4-1 3 C JC IO 0) 4-1 c M 40 01 10 « > E 4-1 TO -4- C IO Ol ■0 3 4-I 4-1 4^ •4" 4-> TO TO Ol s- oi_x:i— £ k si c 3 C4— ex: or-j: >, Ol ' -4-1 C H- C 44- <-> c_ Xi Q.-4- OJ c w- c 01 Q O 19 4-> Ck4-> O TO ■»- CO 4-1 10 10 X <-> ecu XI 3f^m4i-00»XI IO 44" IO O X 3 3 O IO ID 4-> c Ol 01 fc. E 01 X cc ■0 u ~^ 49 co 4-1 cc 4-> (J •-3 «x F-19 APPENDIX G REVITALIZATION POTENTIALS ON THE GRAYS HARBOR WATERFRONT, "Use and Development on the Urban Waterfront," Chapter 2, Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission, 1982 CHAPTER TWO USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE URBAN WATERFRONT 2.1 INTRODUCTION Any urban waterfront rehabilitation program must be based upon the economic character of its region and the locational requirements of the industries which use the region's waterfront. This chapter will explore those facets of the use and development of the Aberdeen/Hoquiam/Cosmopolis waterfront. As such, it will focus particularly on the lumber and wood products industry which has accounted for the development of both the region and the urban waterfront. Indeed, it was the juxtaposition of the immense timber resources along with the access to low cost transportation afforded by waterfront sites that is responsible for the development of the region. While this locational advantage accounts for the waterfront development and hence its major opportunities for redevelopment, it also is responsible for many of the problems that this study seeks to address. While optimum sites for the lumber and wood products industry are still in waterfront areas, the changing site requirements of that industry has also resulted in dramatic changes in the specific type of sites the industry required. This has led to the abandonment of older mills and develop- ment of new mills in previously undeveloped areas. These changes have left behind the blight which may be found on the waterfront. Since many of these older sites are no longer suitable for lumber and wood manufacturing (assuming, that resource management agencies would not allow substantial expansion of these sites into the adjacent water areas; see sections 1.2 and 3.3), this chapter will also explore the use requirements of other economic activities which may be possible alternatives. 2.2. LUMBER AND WOOD PRODUCTS AND THE WATERFRONT 2.2.1 Location of the Forest Products Industry in Grays Harbor County The forest products industry is and always will be the most significant user of the urban waterfront. A cursory examination of the location of forest products firms in Grays Harbor County readily indicates that most of the industry is concentrated along the shoreline of the estuary. Approximately 70 to 80 percent of the employees engaged in forest products manufacturing are employed near the waterfront in Aberdeen and Hoquiam. This concentration is especially apparent in the pulp and paper sector (all three firms, employing 1,814 people in 1972, are located near the estuary). Approximately 80% of the sawmill employment is located near the Harbor as is over 50% of the plywood and veneer employment. Shake and shingle processing is scattered throughout the county, but several of these plants are also found near the waterfront. This total share of forest products employment represents approximately 20 to 25% of the total non-agricultural private sector employment in the county. Of course all of the employment engaged in exporting forest products is also located directly on the waterfront. A definite relationship has been noted between the size of firm and location. The firms which are larger, with greater capital investment and public facility requirements tend (though not completely) to be located near the bay. Smaller firms on the other hand take a more random distribution. G-l 2.2.2 Importance of the Estuary Sites f.or Industrial Uses The estuary plays a vital role as a transportation facility involved in the exportation of regional products. However, the above data also indicates that a considerable proportion of the forest products manufacturing capacity which may not be related (or is only marginally related) to waterborne trans- portation is also located on the shores of the bay. There appear to be two basic reasons for this occurrence: 1. Available Flat Land . Standards used for industrial locations generally specify that quality industrial sites cannot exceed a slope of more than 6%. Topographical information reveals that most of this land in the county is either adjacent to the estuary or within the floodplains of the river valleys. In the immediate vicinity of Aberdeen and Hoquiam this land is found near the estuary. Consequently, industry in its search for suitable sites naturally tended to utilize estuary locations. 2. Historical . While much of today's forest products industrial pro- duction is not now dependent on water transportation, historically this was not always the case. During the early development of the forest products industry overland transportation systems were quite primitive and not capable of the efficient transport of industrial materials and products. Consequently the forest products industry relied heavily on water transportation to bring logs to the mills and ship the finished products to markets. These two factors still appear to be the major influence over industrial location. The availability of flat land suitable for industrial activity has become, if anything, more restricted with time, as many of the flat areas have filled with other forms of urban uses which also require flat land. Presently almost all of the land with slopes of less than 12% and which is not located on the waterfront in Aberdeen, Hoquiam or Cosmopolis is firmly committed to non- industrial uses. The continued development of industrial uses along the waterfront has generally lead to an almost complete orientation of industrial services to these sites. Such services include: the rail systems, the roads, the indus- trial water supply, the sanitary services, and the electrical distribution system. Only those plants which do not require or depend on a high level of these services can utilize other locations. In order to locate where these services are not provided, large capital investments would be needed to extend the services. Such capital may in many cases find better investment opportunities elsewhere. Also the efficiency of providing services of the necessary magnitude would be impaired if two separate location patterns (one oriented to water dependent uses and another oriented to non-water dependent areas) had to be served. It would also be questionable economically in an area the size of Grays Harbor. Related to the present orientation of services, is the factor of linkages. Industrial activities frequently depend on, or utilize other industrial activ- ities as sources of materials. Location, then, in proximity to other industries, which are either suppliers or users , is another important concern (especially G-2 when bulk volumes are involved). The forest products industry has many such linkages since many different types of products can be derived from logs or various part of logs; examples include: 1. Plywood and sawmills provide chips for pulp and paper manufacturing, 2. Pulp and paper manufacture produce a range of by-products suitable for other activities. 3. Logs vary in suitability for different processes. Access to a variety of processes ensures maximum use. 4. A range of industrial services for equipment manufacture and service are associated with the forest product industry. In these linkages, considerable diseconomies are produced when plants cannot locate near one another, and the greater the distance, the greater the diseconomies. Similarly, materials flows are a concern. When material has a wide variety of potential uses, considerable economies may be provided by flexibility of use. As logs flow into the Grays Harbor area they can be readily diverted to the use that maximizes the greatest market potential at any given time. The present locational pattern provides that they can readily go into export, pulp /paper, lumber, or plywood. This advantage lessens with distance between the possible processors. Perhaps the most significant of all locational factors is the site of the transportation network. Sites where transportation routes come together offer the opportunity to combine materials from many locations into shipment to a few locations. In this area, forest products are brought in by a road and highway network which focuses on Aberdeen /Hoquiam. Aberdeen /Hoquiam serves as a con- venient central place for the collection of logs from most of the Washington coastal ares. Another important aspect of material flows is the need to transfer material from one mode to another. This "break in bulk" offers the opportunity to process material without incurring additional handling expenses. Where more than one mode joins this opportunity exists. In addition, each mode of trans- port has economic advantages and disadvantages in relation to each other. Generally truck transport is more competitive for state and regional markets, rail for national markets, and water for international markets. The flexibility to use the most competitive mode to serve the market that at any one time has the greatest potential, serves as a significant locational advantage. All of these factors provide a set of potentials for the use of estuary sites, and hence a concentration of economic activity there. A forced change from these advantages could significantly reduce these potentials, or at best require much larger capital investments to achieve. Such increased costs reduce this region's competitiveness with other regions, and thereby reduce the potential range of economic activity. While there are decided economic advantages related to the location of industry on the waterfront there are also some disadvantages to locating this G-3 activity elsewhere. These include: 1. The development of necessary public facilities and transportation would stimulate land uses in new areas, contributing to urban sprawl. 2. Such uses would probably require conversion of agricultural land. 3. Almost all potential sites are located in flood plain areas, requiring some sort of modification for protection. 4. All such sites are well outside of incorporated places; this reduces the ability to provide necessary public facilities. 5. Such development will reduce the visual amenities of rural areas and increase the potential for land use conflicts. Whether industry locates on the waterfront or not also depends on the attributes of these sites in comparison to other regions where similar urban areas have developed the infrastructure necessary to support industry. The regional comparative advantages for industrial locations consists of avail- ability of the resource (timber), and access to the waterborne transportation. Since the raw material can be transportated considerable distance once loaded on a truck or rail car, the access to water transport along with the other modes is particularly significant and will probably be the most important siting con- sideration for a processing firm which would locate in the region. Consequently, most industries locating here would be water related, if not water dependent. 2.2.3 Locational Concerns Related to Water Dependent Forest Products Activities In addition to the influences encouraging the location of industrial activity in general, there are specific concerns related to the location of firms engaged in water transportation activities. Many of these are obvious, such as a log export activity which cannot be located anywhere else. However, questions may arise regarding the location of activities which are much less apparent. While the other activity which completely requires a waterfront location (i.e. cannot be located in any other location) is the loading of ships, sub- stantial economies can be realized if the ancilliary activities leading up to the loading also occur near the site where ships will be loaded. In the case of log exports, adequate storage and sorting areas facilitate ship loading by providing flexibility. When storage and sorting facilities are separated from loading areas logistic problems of communications, transport, and timing arise increasing costs. In the case of loading finished products, processing plants near the terminal eliminate the need to load and unload trucks between the plant and the docks. It also permits easier diversion of logs appropriate for export from logs entering the plant. 2.2.4 Changes in Historical Requirements While the economy of the area has and will require extensive use of the urban waterfront for processing and transshipment of lumber and wood products , this industry has changed and will continue to change dramatically in terms of the types of sites it requires for efficient and competitive operation. 6-4 Aberdeen/Hoquiam's heyday of lumbering actually occurred during the 1920' s; with 1929* s harvest being the largest in the County's history. As the harvest boomed so did the development of processing and transshipment facilities to handle that harvest. The location of these facilities originally was dependent on the most practical way of moving logs before the advent of the logging truck, rafting logs down rivers to the area where lumber schooners could access. Mills, docks, and wharfs then located at places where the logs, rafts, and lumber schooners came together. As these activities developed, so did houses for the workers, followed by stores and other commercial services. In Grays Harbor's case the place where the most schooners and logs came together was at the con- fluence of the Chehalis, Wishkah and Hoquiam Rivers, accounting for the develop- ment of the Cities of Aberdeen, Hoquiam, and Cosmopolis. It is interesting to note that the population peak of the County (prior to 1970) occurred in 1930, the census year nearest the peak harvest year of the County (1929). The populations of Aberdeen and Hoquiam still have not surpassed this population peak. Aberdeen and Hoquiam also, at this time, developed a significant ship building industry; building lumber schooners to ship the harvest. While Aberdeen and Hoquiam were the focus of this activity, some type of log handling or transshipment facility occurred at the mouth of almost every stream in the harbor; accounting for the remains of pilings and other structures throughout the estuary. Mills and shipping facilities in those days were very small by today's standards, due to by a variety of factors including small ships and inefficient, labor intensive saws and milling equipment. The site area needed for these facilities was quite small consisting of just enough room to accommodate the mill or dock itself. No land space was required to handle logs since logs were moved, stored, and sorted in the water. Since the 20 's this has all changed. The changes came slowly but surely over the years and were due to a variety of influences. First, much of the easily accessible old growth was exhausted. This coupled by the depression of the 1930' s lead to extensive mill closures. When the industry started coming back after the depression, it was of a different character. Rail transportation became more competitive with water transportation for domestic markets. Mills were larger due to improved and more efficient milling procedures. These mills, however, were still tied to the water since log rafting was still the most efficient way of transporting, storing, and sorting logs. The pattern of mill sites consisted then of a tide water mill receiving logs from the water backed by rail services to move the lumber. A large dock also was often involved to give the mill the flexibil- ity of ocean transport of timber as well. The two pulp mills were developed during this period on a similar pattern. Often the lumber mills were basically expansions of the older and smaller facilities. Since land landward of the rail lines was not needed to serve these mills, the rail line served as a border for industry, with the upland area committed to commercial or residential uses. Consequently, by today's standards these "larger" mills of the harbor developed on relatively constrained sites with little back up area. Perhaps the most significant challenge to this pattern of production resulted from increases in the efficiency of land transportation and handling G-5 of logs, coupled with the advent of water quality standards limiting the use of aquatic areas for log transport, storage, and handling. As road systems developed further and further into forests, log handling equipment in the forests became more capable of rapid loading. The log truck became more competitive with log rafting. Similarly, large log handling vehicles made land sorting and storing more economical. In spite of these advances, water transport and handling is still more efficient and probably would be more heavily used today if it were not for the water quality programs and regulations which are directed at removing logs from the water. While some water handling still occurs, where no practicable alternative exists, this activity is minor compared to the 1950's. At the same time, changes in milling technology resulted in greater economies for land intensive mill sites. Mills became less compact and more spread out. The combination of these influences made it increasingly difficult and expensive to operate mills on the constrained sites that characterized the harbor. The mills needed larger areas for log storage, log sorting, and to accommodate the movement of larger trucks, etc. While these pressures were strong, they took hold gradually. Since mills were built they had a capital investment which would be costly to replace. Thus, many mills continued with the inefficiencies — continuing to struggle for permits for water handling, relying on inefficient off -site log yards for storage and sorting, etc. However, with each cycle of poor market conditions which characterize the industry, fewer and fewer mills survived. To illustrate the problem, in the last five years an oldwaterfront mill closed which occupied approximately 25 acres. During this period, a modern computerized mill employ- ing a similar number of people opened on approximately 80 acres. Similar trends were occurring in marine terminals, perhaps more rapidly since they involved less capital investment. A few large centralized marine terminals now have takeii the place of a wide variety of smaller facilities. These trends are likely to continue. If lumber or wood products facilities are to utilize the waterfront area, they will require larger areas of land. These generally are not present where the older mills were located without expansion of those sites into the water by filling. 2.3 ADDITIONAL POTENTIAL WATERFRONT USES The types of activities which have used the waterfront, other than lumber and forest products, were quite limited. Historically they consist primarily of ship building, commercial fishing and processing, and oil receiving and storage. Also, several other large marine commerce potentials and heavy industrial uses have been suggested for the harbor. More recently commercial activities have been locating in these areas. There should also be increased opportunities for public access and use of the waterfront in the future. The present locations of these uses are illustrated in Section 3.5.3 and the specific potentials for various sites are considered in Chapter Four* This Section will provide a general overview of these activities and their overall relationship to urban waterfront. 6-6 2.3.1 Ship Building and Repair In the past the Grays Harbor area was a major ship building center and boat building and repair activities continue in Hoquiam. While the channel depth and available sites limit the potential of the harbor for large ship building and repair activities, it does continue to have ability to efficiently accommodate smaller boat builders and repair yards. The realization of this potential is primarily dependent on the area's ability to attract these activities. While this use can economically locate here, there are many competing areas — including the Westport area. This use is particularly appro- priate for some of the smaller industrially oriented sites that remain. Because of the extensive use of fiberglass and resins in hull construction and repair, boat construction and repair yards must be carefully sited to prevent odors and fumes from impacting nearby uses. 2.3.2 Commercial Fishing and Seafood Processing Historically, the Aberdeen/Hoquiam/Cosmopolis area has supported a significant level of activity in this industry. The largest facility was located at the old fish base in Hoquiam. While most of these activities have now shifted to Westport and to a much lesser extent Ocean Shores, some nodes of fish and seafood processing remain,. near the mouth of the Wishkah River and along the Hoquiam River. The waterfront on one hand is locationally disadvantaged for this activity in its distance from the harbor's mouth relative to Westport, but on the other hand it has an advantage in being closer to the market for seafood products. Generally, as compared to Westport the disadvantages outweigh the advantages. This is not to say that the current fish processing may not expand and other factors may alter the balance. For example, the competitive balance may change slightly with further development of bottom fishing where access to the market (potentially by air) is particularly, important. As in the case of boat building and repair, the potential for attracting this activity is limited. This industry has a further limitation at present in that it has difficulty in attracting investment due to the problems of the fishing industry. 2.3.3 General Commercial Development Significant investment has occurred recently in a large general commercial shopping center on the waterfront. Development of this center eliminated a major blighted area located on the waterfront, illustrating the potential of such activities to remove blight. The site, however, was apparently selected by its developers due to its "ideal" location for commercial traffic flows, rather than its waterfront location. In fact, potential waterfront amenities were ignored in the center's siting and design. While this has proven to be unfortunate from an urban design standpoint, it does illustrate the lack of appeal the urban waterfront may have for potential investors in commercial development. They will tend to consider waterfront sites for their general locational aspects rather than for their waterfront amenities. Consequently, further commercial development will tend to depend on either changing this perspective, or will be limited to those sites very well situated for commercial development. The situation of the Wishkah Mall may also point to a potential hard choice for waterfront development: "should prospective waterfront developers be required to design for the waterfront amenities even if such requirements may by their potential expense reduce the competitiveness of these sites and thereby potentially maintaining blighted conditions?" In the case of the Wishkah Mall, Aberdeen apparently opted for blight removal as the priority in this trade-off. General commercial development of the waterfront poses another concern. A new regional shopping center is just being completed in South Aberdeen. This G-7 mall has already caused concern in the community over the future of competitive- ness of both the downtown and to a lesser extent the Wishkah Mall, further general commercial development of other waterfront areas may increase this concern by adding even more floor space. Exceptions to this, however, are sites in proximity to downtown which may assist in increasing the downtown's ability to compete with the new mall. The appropriate development of the waterfront amenities through design may further enhance the potential of Aberdeen and Hoquiam's downtowns. As the competition for commercial sales increases, amenities and images will be increasingly important. Commercial developments which carefully and sensitively incorporate waterfront amenities could have a comparative advantage over other commercial areas . Such a development may be able to capture both a significant share of the local market and attract some of the tourists traveling through the urban area. The growth in recreational shopping has been projected by the Urban Land Institute to be the fastest growing commercial sector in the 1980* s. Recreational shoppers are most often attracted by unique and different shopping districts. The Aberdeen/Hoquiam waterfront has the potential to develop such a shopping district. 2.3.4 Tourist Commercial Unlike many areas in other regions , the waterfront has never been able to attract commercial activities associated with the tourism industry. For example, there is only one restaurant on the waterfront, and no motels with a waterfront view. This appears to be related to two -factors: 1. Aberdeen/Hoquiam/Cosmopolis, itself are not tourism centers. Grays Harbor tourism is focused on first the beach areas and second on the mountains. Aberdeen/Hoquiam/Cosmopolis have not been able to compete effectively with these areas. 2. The poor waterfront amenities apparently do not prove appealing to potential investors. However, since other areas have overcome similar difficulties and have even used facilities such as waterfront restaurant /motel complexes to alleviate these problems, the local area has attempted at length to attract this type of investment. The Port of Grays Harbor has even prepared a site to accommodate such a development proposal. The site has not developed due to a combination of factors that include poor money markets and competition with other areas in the market for this type of investment. This site, however, remains a prime location for this type of investment with perhaps the best amenities available. It is expected that development will occur when investment markets improve. The City of Aberdeen is interested in a similar facility for the site of a closed mill near downtown. 2.3.5 Public Access and Recreation Public investment in access or recreation facilities on the waterfront has not occurred to a significant degree. This is apparently due to the interest of the state in the development of the beach areas and a nearby lake, and the local communities' interest in upland areas and another lake. The waterfront generally has been a low priority concern in relation to other recreational needs. Again, this may also be related to the lower quality waterfront amenities. This attitude in the local community is changing, partly due to a G-8 general change in attitude and due to changes in concepts related to what waiter amenities are, and an increase in the public awareness of the habitat these area provide. In the past few would have considered the muddy tide flats that are exposed in these areas as visually appealing. With heightened environmental awareness, their popularity is increasing and access to such areas is now being expected by the public. Areas with views of shipping activities have always been popular. Local interest in wetland areas, seems to be focused on four particular activities: boat launching, fishing, viewing shipping activity, and river access where there are less extensive tide flats. This interest is illustrated by the waterfront parks included in the cities* Comprehensive Parks Plans. The City of Aberdeen's Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Plan (1980) recommends the development of a waterfront park on eleven acres of City property along the Chehalis River. The City of Hoquiam's Comprehensive Park Plan (1980) recommends that the City "acquire 10 to 20 acres along either the Hoquiam, Little Hoquiam, or East Fork of the Hoquiam Rivers" for a waterfront park. The City of Cosmopolis' Comprehensive Plan (1979) and the City Parks Plan now under development recommend that a waterfront park be established at the site of the present boat launch. These parks are intended to satisfy the unmet community needs for waterfront parks identified in each of the plans. The greatest barrier (indeed the only barrier) to such development is the lack of public funds generally. However, some level of public investment will probably be necessary to leverage private interest in commercial development and to meet the recreation needs identified in the cities' Parks Plans. Indeed public access and commercial redevelopment are mutually supportive. 2.3.6 Other Maritime Commerce In addition to forest products related shipping there has been interest in attracting a more diversified commerce. This has been a long established goal along with industrial diversification. The Port's efforts to do this have been against the tide of port economics which generally have been in the direction of centralizing activity in a few large ports. This centralization particularly occurs in terms of general cargo where it is difficult for small ports to compete with the economies of scale, the distribution services, and the transportation systems available in large ports. The best potential for such diversification tends to be in bulk cargos where specialization Is both necessary and can be developed in small ports. Currently, coal appears to be the leading opportunity followed by grains. However, the site requirements for such activities are similar to those discussed for forest products. These activities are not likely to be attracted to the old blighted mill sites because of their small size. Oil in shipment is and has been a traditional activity at Aberdeen and Hoquiam. This has been primarily limited to oil consumed locally and this is unlikely to change since the port cannot accommodate and could not be econom- ically developed to accommodate larger tankers. No new sites are needed to accommodate this activity. 6-9 2.3.7 Other Water Related Industry As noted, industrial diversification has been a long sought goal of the area. However, success has been limited due to a variety of complex reasons described in detail in the region's economic development program. At present two possibilities are apparent. First is the development of offshore well rig assembly yard. A site has been rehabilitated and reserved for this purpose. Its development, however, is held off for two reasons: 1) delays in leasing of Gulf of Alaska oil fields, and, 2) the current excess supply of oil on the west coast. It is believed that this site will ultimately be developed for this activity. Since this site is on an old mill site, it is an example of re- development. When market conditions improve, there is an additional potential that a graving dock could be built at the old Port terminals. Manganese nodule processing is another potential for the region, but the site requirements for this activity do not match those within the study area itself. As a part of extensive interest in pursuing the goal of economic divers- ification, there is interest in attracting to the area some sort of light, diversified, "footloose" industry. Sites for such industry with the necessary infrastructure generally are not plentiful outside of waterfront areas. However, since such industries are not water dependent or water related, state and federal resource agencies may object to the use of waterfront sites. 2.3.8 Residential Uses The most crucial rehabilitation needs are on the Chehalis Riverfront. Local land use policy has generally reserved these areas for industrial, com- mercial, and public uses. While it is not anticipated that this policy would change, suitability of these areas for residential uses is also quite low due to their blighted and industrial character. A very large residential develop- ment would be needed to change this character and make the Chehalis Riverfront suitable for residential development. In addition, state and federal regulatory agencies would strenuously resist residential development proposals. The situation in many areas on the Hoquiam River and on most of the Wishkah River is quite different. In fact, the rehabilitation needs in some of these areas is related to the deterioration of residential structures. In these areas , residential development is appropriate (provided there is no alteration of aquatic areas) and may assist in adding public access. 2.4 CONCLUSION The industry that historically has used the waterfront (lumber and wood products) has very limited potential as a source of reinvestment in the blighted areas of the waterfront. This industry will be better suited to larger areas adjacent to its required public facilities, areas that are not now developed (assuming that environmental regulations will prevent enlargement of older sites, and will allow development of the new sites as envisioned in the estuary plan). Beyond the difficulties associated with siting forest products activities there are no readily apparent alternative uses demanding these sites. Indeed, extensive efforts of property owners and public agencies to attract uses have not been successful. Consequently, unlike situations which may be present in G-10 other vwLterfront areas, the problem confronting rehabilitation is not what use to choose for a site, the problem is how to attract a use for many of these sites given their current physical and regulatory constraints. There are a few water dependent uses that do_ have some potential to be attracted to these blighted sites; notably boat building and repair, seafood handling, and oil well rig assembly. These potentials, however > are very site specific (such as oil well rig assembly) or have insufficient potential to meet most of the rehabilitation needs. Consequently, the remaining potentials are either water related uses or uses that are not water oriented. The most significant of these uses are public access and parks, and commercial activities which may be enhanced by waterfront locations. The most significant barriers to these developments are: 1 . The blighted condition and low aesthetic quality of many sites discourage these activities. 2. Limited investment potential; both public and private. 3. Competition with nearby areas with similar and often greater potential. Blighted conditions are an especially significant barrier in attracting investment in commercial activities since the blight on adjacent properties must also be removed to attract investment. This can only be overcome by either large scale private commercial development or public investment. Since attracting large scale investment will be- particularly difficult, some sort of public action will be necessary to remove this barrier and encourage redevelopment G-ll APPENDIX H LIST OF TECHNICAL TEAM MEMBERS AND INDIVIDUALS INTERVIEWED Appendix H- 1. Composition of the Grays Harbor Estuary Team Member Gene Deschamps Jack Smith Bill Lucas Ron Merila Bob Herman Ron Pine Gerald Pelton or Ken Bowring Al Springer Stan Lattin Rich Hirschberg Patrick L. Dugan Bob Goodwin MANAGEMENT TECHNICAL TEAM Technical Discipline Fishery Biologist Wildlife Biologist Hydraulic Engineer Civil Engineer Water Quality Water Quality Recreation Soils Planner Forester Regional Economics Marine Economics/ Port Development Agency/Group Washington Department of Fisheries Washington Department of Game Corps of Army Engineers City of Aberdeen Weyerhauser Co. Department of Ecology Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation Grays Harbor Conservation District Port of Grays Harbor ITT Rayonier, Inc. Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission Institute of Marine Studies H-l Appendix H - 2. Personal Interviews Conducted During the Grays Harbor Estuary Management Inventory Contact Person Interest Represented Nancy Thomas Audubon Society (Tacoma) David Ortman Friends of the Earth (Seattle) Robert Lentz Poggie Club (Fish and Wildlife Group) Frank J. Youkoff Poggie Club (Fish and Wildlife Group) Carol F. Agee Poggie Club (Fish and Wildlife Group) Bonnie Gilovich Pain Forest Chapter of Audubon Society President Florence Bailey Grays Harbor Bird Club Liz Greenhagen General Environmental Concerns Bill Detrick Bar Pilot - Westport Karl wall in Port of Grays Harbor Property Manager Lois Meyer Ocean Shores Community Club Wes Peterson City of Aberdeen Parks Director Dr. Murray Johnson University of Puget Sound Museum of Natural History Mr. Steve Jeffries University of Puget Sound Professor Emeritus Lew Messmer Grays Harbor Community College Botanist Jim Phipps Grays Harbor Community College ji m smith Grays Harbor Community College Eugene Schermer Grays Harbor Community College H-2 Al Pearson Coast Oyster Company Mike Lent Coast Oyster Company Brady Engvel 1 Commercial Oysterman Wally Hendrickson Gillnetters H.A. Phillips Gillnetters L.A. Lytle Gillnetters Mark Cedergreen Westport Charter Association Frank Synder Charter Boat Fisherman Harold Hardy (Westport City Engineer) Jim Dart Fish Processor Al Lundgren Bay Fish Company Leif Anderson Washington Crab Producers Co. Arnie Sandlen Grays Harbor Chamber of Commerce, President George Douglas Aberdeen Chamber of Commerce, Manager W.F. Pierson Twin Harbor Stevedoring Co., Vice-President & General Manager Bill Marks Ocean Shores Chamber of Commerce, President Ed Bowers Interstate Asphalt Co, Len Nordell Enterprises International (Chief Exec.) Bob Ingram E.C. Miller Lumber Co. H-3 Tom Quigg Rusty Johnson Bob Bracken Phil Roderick Ted Ho land Don Stedman Hank Soike Tom Wagner Lynn Daneker Jack McGuire Phil Bolton Bill McDeavitt Doug Hofl in Bill Wade Dick Smith Gary Yando Rol land Youmans Ken Clay Quigg Bros. - McDonald Weyherhaeuser Co., Vice-President, Publ ic Relations Graystone of Grays Harbor Phil -Rod Company Union Oil Distributor (Commercial Fisherman) Port of Grays Harbor, Manager Ocean Spray, Inc. Manager Grays Harbor County Labor Council Mayor of Hoquiam Mayor of Ocean Shores City Manager Ocean Shores Public Works Director of Oceanshores Mayor of Westport (and Commercial Fisherman) Director of Public Works for Westport Planning Director, Grays Harbor County County Commissioner Transportation Authority (Past Ferry Service Oper.) H-4 Dick Moulton Grays Harbor County Extension Agent Al Boileau Mayor of Cosmopolis Walt Bussard Mayor of Montesano Shelby Warren Hill Rancher, Point New Mr. Prickett Montesano Mr. Clemens Montesano Doug McGoon Department of Natural Resources. Bob Coykendall Department of Natural Resources Bill Stewart Daily World, Assistant Editor H-5 APPENDIX I SPECIES LIST SOURCE: Westhave Cove (Westport Marina) Small Boat Basin Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Statement, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, August 1978 SPECIES LIST The following lists species found in Grays Harbor. 'Hie general characteristics of the habitats nre briefly described in conjunction with the bird and mammal lists for convenience. In addition to notes on habitat, notes on feeding habits, seasonal migrations and abundance are provided for those species. Habitat . Four general categories are used to describe the diverse array of bird and mammal habitats. These four habitats have been coded in the list as follows: RS- Rocky Shore Marine Habitat . These rocky outcrops within the intertidal area are constantly washed by tides and waves. SM- Salt Marsh, Mud Flat and Sand Flat Habitats . Habitat "SM" includes highly productive marsh grasslands, mud flats, and sand flats, all of which are strongly influenced by marine water. FM- Freshwater Marsh and Meadow . This habitat category includes upland meadows and marshlands influenced only by freshwater. Also included in this category is lowland riparian, shrubs, and thickets and borad-leaved woodland. OG- Open Water in Grays Harbor . This category includes open water and the large water surface within Grays Harbor. Feeding Ha bits. A notation of feeding habits is given for each spe- cies based on the type or types of food the animal customarily depends on. There are fundamentally three major classes of food items: 1 - Class 1 foods are the vegetative parts of plants such as leaves, stalks, bark, and twigs. Animals dependent on these food classes are adapted to consuming large quantities of low-energy val- ue foods, which are regularly available. Many class 1 consumers also take class 2 foods when available. 2 - Class 2 foods are the storage parts of plants such as roots, bulbs, tubers, seeds, and fruits. Animals dependent on class 2 food sources are adapted to seeking a food which is irregularly or seasonally abundant and therefore depend upon a variety of plants. Some class 2 consumers also take class 1 and 3 foods. 3 - Class 3 food items include all animal matter such as small birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish, insects, and other high protein food sources. Animals dependent on class 3 food items are adapted for obtaining high energy value foods which are difficult to capture. 1-1 Seasonality . Most birds of Grays Harbor are migrants, spending the spring, fall or winter in the harbor. The seasonal occurrence of the species, including mammals, is abbreviated as follows: R - Resident: this species is present throughout the year. S - Summer visitor with seasonal presence extending into spring and fall. W - Winter visitor with seasonal presence extending into spring and fall. M - Migrant: present only during spring and fall months. F - Present only during fall months. Abundance . The term "abundance" refers to the number of individuals of a particular species in a particular habitat area. The notations used to indicate abundance are shown under the habitat type columns and are abbreviated as follows: C - Common: Present within appropriate habitat in season and may be seen by trained observers on most visits to area in question. U - Uncommon: Present within appropriate habitat in season but usually not seen by trained observers on every visit to area in question. R - Rare: Present only in small numbers in the appropriate habitat in season and seldom seen by trained observers. The following list of bird and mammal species has been prepared on the basis of habitat types and a knowledge of species which frequent such habitats. An extensive list of species was prepared by Dr. Gordon Alcorn of the University of Puget Sound, and presented in "Grays Harbor and Chehalis River Navigation Project, Operation and Maintenance EIS," June 1975. Dr. Alcorn's list was used in con- junction with the Washington Environmental Atlas— to develop the bird list which was reviewed and corrected by members of the State Department of Game and the Rain Forest Chapter of the Audubon Society The lists for benthic invertebrates and fishes were derived from the Dredging Effects Study data. 1/U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District, Seattle, Washington, Washington Environmental Atlas , January 1975. 1-2 BIRDS Common Name Scientific Name u •r-l Xi >> nJ u ■x •r-\ . — 1 00 03 c c •<-* o Habitat Type v <$ RS SM FM OG u. $ GAVIIDAE Common Loon Yellow-billed Loon Arctic Loon Red-throated Loon PODICIPEDIDAE Red-necked Grebe Horned Grebe Eared Grebe Western Grebe Pied-billed Grebe PROCELLARIIDAE Sooty Shearwater PELECANIDAE Brown Pelican PHALACROCORACIDAE Double-crested Cormorant Brant's Cormorant Pelagic Cormorant ARDEIDAE Great Blue Heron Green Heron Great Egret American Bittern ANATIIDAE Whistling Swan Trumpeter Swan Canada Goose Black Brant Emperor Goose White-fronted Goose Mallard Gadwall Pintail Green-winged Teal Blue-winged Teal Cinnamon Teal European Wigeon American Wigeon Northern Shoveler Wood Duck Redhead Gavia immer Gavia adamsii Gavia arctica Gavia stellata Podiceps grisegena Podiceps auritus Podiceps nigricollis Aechmorphorus occidentalis Polilymbus podiceps Puf f inus griseus - Pelecanus occidentalis californicus Phalacrocorax auritus Phalacrocorax penicillatus- Phalacrocorax pelagicus Ardea herodias C Butorides virescens anthonyi Casmerodius albus Botaurus lentiginosus Olor columbianus Olor buccinator Branta canadensis Branta nigricans C Philacte canagica Anser albifrons - Anas platyrhynchos Anas strepera Anas acuta Anas crecca Anas discors Anas cyanoptera - Mareca penelope Mareca americana - Anas clypeata Aix sponsa Avthya americana C c c 3 R R - R 3 W C c c 3 w C c c 3 w C u c 3 w C u c 3 w C c c 3 w C c c 3 w C c u 3 w R - R c u c 3 R c - c 3 R c - c 3 R c - R R u - 3 R U u - 3 S U c - 3 S u u — 1 W u u - 1 w c c c 1 M c - c 1 M R - - 1 W U u - 1 M C c u 1&2 R C c u 1&2 W C c u 1&2 R c c u 1&2 W u u - 1&2 M u u - 1&2 M R R - 1 W C c - 1 R C c - 1 R C c - 1&2 W R R - 1&-2 W 1-3 U ri u re -h r— I n: c •H O BIRDS Common Name Scientific Name Habitat Type cu RS SM Ring-necked Duck Canvasback Greater Scaup Lesser Scaup Common Goldeneye Barrow's Goldeneye Bufflehead Oldsquaw Harlequin Duck White-winged Scoter Surf Scoter Black Scoter Ruddy Duck Hooded Merganser Common Merganser Red-breasted Merganser CATHARTIIDAE Turkey Vulture ACCIPITRIDAE Sharp-shinned Hawk Cooper's Hawk Red-tailed Hawk Rough-legged Hawk Bald Eagle Marsh Hawk PANDIONIDAE Osprey FALSONIDAE Prairie Falcon Peregrine Falcon Merlin American Kestrel TETRAONIDAE Ruffed Grouse PHASIANIDAE California Quail Ring-necked Pheasant GRUIDAE Sandhill Crane Ay thy a collaris - R R - Aythya valisineria - U U - Ay thy a marila - C U - Aythya af finis - C C - Bucephala clangula C C Bucephala islandica - C C - Bucephala albeola - C C Clangula hyemalis - R R - Histrionicus histrionicus U U U Melanitta deglandi - C C - Melanitta perspicillata C C U C Melanitta nigra - U - U Oxyura jamaicensis - U - U Lophodytes cucullatus - C C U Mergus merganser - U C R Mergus serrator U C C Cathartes aura Accipiter striatus Accipiter cooperii Buteo jamaicensis Buteo lagopus sanctijohannis Haliaeetus leucocephalus alascanus Circus cyaneus hudsonius - Pandion haliaetus carolinensis Falco maxicanus Falco peregrinus Falco columbarius Falso sparverius sparverius Bonasa umbellus Lophortyx californicus Phasianus colchicus Grus canadensis U U U - U u c u u - u - c - u - 1&2 1&2 2&3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 1&2 3 3 W W R R W w w w R R R W W W R W u u - 3 R u u - 3 R u c - 3 R R R R R R R - 3 W R R R - 3 w - U U - 3 R - U U - 3 R - R C - 1&2 R _ R C - 1&2 R - U C - 1&2 R u u - 2&3 M 1-4 Common Name BIRDS Scientific Name XI ^ IT) U tC "i-l 00 ra c c >H O Habitat Type "g IS RS SM FM OG £ £ RALLIDAE Virginia Rail Sora American Coot HAEMATOPODIDAE Black Oystercatcher CHARADRIIDAE Semipalmated Plover Snowy Plover Killdeer American Golden Plover Black-bellied Plover SCOLOPACIDAE Ruddy Turnstone Black Turnstone Common Snipe Long-billed Curlew Whimbrel Spotted Sandpiper Wandering Tattler Willet Greater Yellowlegs Lesser Yellowlegs Surfbird Red Knot Rock Sandpiper Sharp-tailed Sandpiper Pectoral Sandpiper Baird's Sandpiper Least Sandpiper Dunlin Semiplated Sandpiper Western Sandpiper Sanderling Short-billed Dowitcher Long-billed Dowitcher Stilt Sandpiper Buff-breasted Sandpiper Marbled Godwit Rallus limicola Porzana Carolina Fulica americana Haematopus bachmani Charadrius semipalmatus Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus Charadrius vocif erus Pluvialis dominica Pluvialis squatarola Arenarius interpres Arenarius melanocephala • Capella gallinago delicata Numenius americanus parvus Numenius phaeopus Actitis macularia Heteroscelus incanus Catoptrophorus semipalmatus Tringa melanoleuca Tringa f lavipes Aphriza virgata Calidris canutus Calidris ptilocnemis Calidris acuminata Calidris melanotos Calidris bairdii Calidris minutilla Calidris alpina Calidris pusilla Calidris mauri Calidris alba Limnodromus griseus Limnodromus scolopaceus Micropalama himantopus Tryngites subruf icollis Liraosa fedoa U U u R C u u C u C c c u u - R - c c u - c - R U U - C - C - c - 2&3 1&3 2&3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 R S R R S S R W w M W R - R R - 3 S - C C - 3 M - c C - 3 M c u - - 3 M _ R R _ 3 M - c C - 3 M - c C - 3 M - - - C 3 W c c - - 3 M u - - u 3 F R - - - 3 F - c c - 3 M - u c - 3 M - c c - 3 W - c u - 3 M - R R - 3 W - C C - 3 F - C U - 3 W - C R - 3 M - c C - 3 M - R R - 3 M - R - - 3 M - R R - 3 M 1-5 t/1 JJ X> x c c BIRDS Habitat Typ Common Name Scientific Name RS SM FM OG 0) QJ PHALAROPODIDAE Red Phalarope Phalaropus fulicarius - R - U 3 M Wilson's Phalarope Steganopus tricolor - U C - 3 M Northern Phalarope Lobipes lobatus - u C c 3 M STERCORARIIDAE Parasitic Jaeger Stercorarius parasiticus - - - c 2&3 M Poraarine Jaeger Stercorarius pomarinus - - - c 2&3 M Long-tailed Jaeger Stercorarius longicaudus - - - R 2&3 M Skua Catharacta skua - - - R 2&3 M LARIDAE Glaucous Gull Larus hyperboreus - R R R 2&3 W Glaucous-winged Gull Larus glaucescens C c U - 2&3 R Western Gull Larus occidentalis c c - C 2&3 R Herring Gull Larus argentatus - c u c 2&3 W Thayer's Gull Larus thayeri - c - c 2&3 w California Gull Larus californicus - c C c 2&3 R Ring-billed Gull •Larus delawarensis - u C u 2&3 R Mew Gull Larus canus - c C c 2&3 M Franklin's Gull Larus pipixcan - R R R 2&3 F Bonaparte's Gull Larus Philadelphia - c C C 2&3 W Herrmann's Gull Larus heermanni - c - C 2&3 W Black-legged Kittiwake Rissa tridactyla - - - C 2&3 W Sabine's Gull Xema sabini - - - U 2&3 M Forster's Tern Sterna forsteri - R u R 2&3 M Common Tern Sterna hirundo - c c - 2&3 M Arctic Tern Sterna paradisaea - R - u 2&3 M Caspian Tern Hydroprogne caspia - C u - 2&3 S ALCIDAE Common Murre Uria aalge c - - c 3 R Pigeon Guillemot Cepphus columba c - - c 3 R Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus - - c c 3 R Xantus' Murrelet Endomychura hypoleuca - - - u 3 F Ancient Murrelet Synthliboramphus antiquus - - - c 3 W Cassin's Auklet Ptychoramphus aleuticus - - - c 3 R Parakeet Auklet Cyclorrhynchus psittacula - - - R 3 W Rhinoceros Auklet Cerorhinca monocerata - - - C 3 R Horned Puffin Fratercula corniculata - - - R 3 R Tufted Puffin Lunda cirrhata - - - C 2 S COLUMBIDAE Band-tailed Pigeon Columba fasciata monilis - - c - 2 S Rock Dove Columba livia - - c - 2 S Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura marginella - - u 1-6 Common Name BIRDS Scientific Name m u ■H .0 >> >, nS U X •H r— 1 00 - nj D X •r-t r-< txO w c C •H O TD '/) 0) n) 0> 0) P^ CO DIDELPHIDAE (ORDER MARSUPIALTA) Didelphis virginiana Sorex cinereus Sorex trowbridge Sorex vagrans Sorex obscurus Sorex palustris Sorex bendirei Neurotrichus gibbsi Scapanus townsendi Virginia opossum SORICIDAE (ORDER INSECTIVORA) Masked shrew Trowbridges shrew Vagrant shrew Dusky shrew Northern water shrew Marsh shrew TALPIDAE Shrew mole Townsend's mole Coast mole VESPERTILIONIDAE (Note: Data on bats in Washington are limited, and exists as to species. Most bats in the state can be and western Washington. Probably most of the more c found in the Grays Harbor area.) LEPORIDAE (ORDER LAGOMORPHA) Snowshoe Hare Lepus americanus APLODONTIDAE (ORDER RODENTIA) Aplondantia SCIURIDAE Townsend's chipmunk Chickaree C - 2+3 R Scapanus orarius (ORDER CHIROPTERA) u - 2+3 R R - 2+3 R C - 2+3 R U - 2+3 R U - 3 R C - 3 R u - 2+3 R u - 2+3 R u - 2+3 R u considerable controversy found in both eastern ommon species would be Aplodontia ruf a Eutamias townsendi Northern flying squirrel GEOMYIDAE Western pocket gopher CASTORIDAE Beaver CRICETIDAE Deer mouse Bushytail woodrat Boreal redback vole Townsend vole Longtail vole Oregon vole Muskrat ZAPODIDAE Pacific jumping mouse ERETHIZONTIDAE Porcupine MYOCASTORIDAE Nutria Tamiasciurus douglasi Glauf omys sabrinus Thomomys mazama Castor canadenisis Peromyscus maniculatus Neotoma cinerea Clethrionomys gapperi Microtus townsendi Microtus longicandus Microtus oregoni Ondatra zibethlca Zapus trinotatus Erethizon dorsutum Myocastor caypus c c - 1 R - c - 1 R — c - 2 R - u - 2 R -- u - 2 R - u - 1+2 R u c - 1+2 R c c - 2+3 R u c - 2 R - c - 1+2 R - c - 1+2 R u u - 1+2 R - c - 1+2 R c c - 1 R u c - 2 R - c - 1 R u u - 1 R 1-10 MAMMALS Common Name Scientific Name Habitat Type . 03 4-1 EC •H rH bO aj c c ■H o -a 01 — o> — -c — u w U u C *-» «U »0 3 TO — — i - 3 X 0) _ ** V U •rt C c > 3 l. o o u L. X o CL **_ u t> x M x M o> in w» C x> 3 TO TO 3 — TO 2 O — — in TO V o to TO ~ l- L. TO TO C a 4) i_ u 5 TO e TO m X TO CL cl, TO c < — — 3 *0 to ■n 4) m c TO m 3 8 X c a f U 4) V TO > c CL >1 o L. CL X -D o a to CL JD ■n u c- l_ ^ CL 3 c o c i m lA E TO >■ TO JD 3 E O E 11 *-i 3 JD *Q X X X *n 3 o O V V to U Cr t_ h. tn TO TO TO TO TO CT u tft Wl t_ L. V ft) TO a) X X u u o a a > > X x _ — Q. — to in L. at to o X c c a> — 1 X. TO to L> *-* m o 3 w CL C t- O TO (j U o * C 3 >-* C 3 CL. TO TO C 3 ai TO TO c to w u TO in o 3 0) 3 L> *■* U TO C c C 3 -O m «l w O a. 0) •o C V i/i o u L. 1 *} •a o I *-> CTi — *J TO — TO JC TO U C — X — E — « c - — a — CTOTOtnCCUCCjC— TOTOOO TO 4, 0) 3 — TOEO— E TO4*4>C*-« vtcac Q. ±1 u-> < o O i . — tA v> 32cn> Ml A3 O g w» « c u L_ n 3- n O o C •0 u- u u x: 2 u c (D c •0 O o a i/i t/i o cr o D fl) <« I C (J <0 (/i *j V 3 c a u o C >b n 3 V _ 1 r a. SI cl a. E 3 c- 3 T3 C 1 E 3 V C u ra u c o »n n (- > ti u o "« m >u L L. n <0 o c Oi w- V l_ « T) E n 3 m a m ? a O TO »n >■ l_ TO X TO CL, E i- TO V TO c C tn o c a> "O U %m c Im TO < < «_) in TO TO TO m TO m c TO TO O TO X 1 a E o L JD "O TO 3 TO TO TO C O O o X O a i- a o TO TO a) E TO E k. TO a. a CL TO L. >i >> 3 u. *"* X X -J a. Q, a o v> w JE II TO — c TO CL V 3 3 J3 C *o 4-» > «n TO C 4) c a> V TO TO CL \- t> >• U TO c CL X o *- »- m o m ■g s U TO O 3 V | l_l C_ < o» «— X — •J *-* O L. C w TO TO a) — o c I J T> «| C o 3 03 C V «) ■D — « JZ 1) a. -I TO U TO TO E TO *n X TO o. X CL TO C < TO tfi Q «n M 3 U TO c o o CL *-» TO «-• . C X CL, TO 3 -* _J -i X 1 o u V m TO CL m O TOl l_ < — 1 « — O * «n „_ _ X TO a. X CL TO < 5 E 3 C V o t- 3 CL TO c 3 in s. TO 3 V X TO X CL 3 TO TO C O o 1-20 >■ •Mi * k. u >■ k. 11 a 01 u o V k. la V u l/l x i- J k. -o V U T> V 01 X 4> VI c X> 0) K C X V VI *D k. V J* X J J< k. V 41 01 CJ -J 1- VI CO CD Ul _J o >- a Ol V "O VI TJ V — 11 vi "o — v II 1 > £•*•<-'« en — x z _ ID t_ N u 41 c o vt ID i 1 X c c- 3 u rtJ CT 3 *0 id| k. *D > o- o| 3 § ml - x VI k. > u tu- V rn a a. m v. D 3 £1 jD _> 3 a: ac Q »/* *D o V F > V n u »c en *■ vn 1/1 D 3 U u 3 3 X> -O f- F (0 *0 o l/> I ■D — El >- 31 X c ml > i_ ol «j 1= at 3 £ C «) o- u 3 u VI ID 1- 3> U > O «J A3 «T5 tn JZ C. U C OJ cj H3 O c ■D e u U CI m aj c -C X X X 1> U V 0) O) 1. It. D c It) n ft) cr *T3 >- 1 11 J D Ma a— 3 u *rt o Q. >- e X X t/l Q 3 c CJ c « <4- X C o c a V I) 0) -i U 1. VI o «*- t/l J3 c V o X o C * C 1. V. 3 >- u- n a ■o | u CT 13 J£ Ol Ol L, i -o o 3 l/l o "3 c n o J o o CO VI — i_» irt _j CO O to ^ LU OC a g •-> 3 vv- C i! o — — S u > C c CJ i_ L_ •/. in i — o >- ■o 4) >~ *o i JD >■ VI- X -C C ik. _J D T) CTi V »J >- D in CT> i/> T) JD -o T3 "O IQ *C 4> O o CJ -o D A3 0> CJ n: 0> t) u »- V Q CJ CC CL _i o in u. «yi O CD cn l_> :* CC c — — ^ «n c fl «o <» o l» u u X l/l n: ■a c 2 fC VI 3- t. o c IA vi X rc o L. u *D u U a> U 2 i >. >- O X X •C C- _ e VI 3 4) n N E C C >■ 3 IZ 3 41 X C E X c >C u o e TJ c 3 c- o 41 c X 3 41 E o U VI O. 41 3 u VI X O C VI VI -o VI 10 >■ 3 3 c- U c 4) X 3 u O 3 VI f0 CL O- a. CC t- > R E 3 3 o U O CJ a a •» x> T3 s E 3 E 3 E E "C3 41 CI o X X a. o C c u ro fl> >■ —i Z X TJ u c >- 3 C5^ f- F 3 3 X U O «j l/l >- >■ o a. o a. — — 11 1 J L i! - 1 > vi O ID — — O •j — — a. " c a. — u vi O o o- «- <0 41 •— Ja o ^ — 0— EO'd'OOEiow— OO ^ov> c 4-* o K V -i I. ■o u V Jt o u m 8 o Vt X X X X 1 CC i CC •D l/l •9 C •o ■D 1 o 11 o E N VI C c VI -X i 11 c VI vi 11 e u ID ID a i- ? V. 1. ti o a Q. >- J VI 3 c V o 6 E E X T> 3 3 3 X u C ID o D l/l 4> k. O 3 Hi k. 3 CT VI a. O "D b X vi ■D X VI O o. 10 o c < < ID ID 11 41 O u 11 ID (D VI 41 X X •D > O u o O ID TJ «D o 41 8 a. a. 1- O 11 >■ >- >■ o X X X X. a. F 3 vi 3 «D 1) > u »D > CJ F b £ _ 3 — — — -C — 2 I o — — T3 <0 a v ° a n i^i i -C U u V Q o — « — - E e v. 5 3 13 c E C m c D 3 L, Vt- o 10 *S c L a £ E n 3 o E Q a -C c c nj (D .c -C a) i_ u u £ D ft) o o u CT L. cr cr c 0) 0J c Q. w i_ L IB en *" 1- K rxi ** 2 * L. 3 © t- — £• — l «*- — l_ I CT> — 3 * C J -O I CL — «-» *J O 4-» £ « — g — — c u _. _ u Wl E X ■D V 3 E c A3 CL i E c C E H E J D */i r *D D 11 m u -C CL K X X D V TJ a l_> o A3 E a. a. T) *9 E u 3 X 3 Lw O E D C d (t Cl E X O L 3 a> H E u C <0 Q. Cl- — i Q- l/> i^ io M X o * ■ a u Cl < < * U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1983 - 409-809 1-22 PENN STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES illinium AaQDDVQ^OnD