CSS- SV/J2 •"/>' Final Environmental Impact Statement o ,^ OF Cq c 3 # Apalachicola River and Bay Estuarine Sanctuary Proposed Estuarine Sanctuary Grant Award for Apalachicola River and Bay, Florida U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office of Coastal Zone Management and STATE OF FLORIDA Department of Environmental Regulation Bureau of Coastal Zone Management UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROPOSED ESTUARINE SANCTUARY GRANT AWARD FOR APALACHICOLA BAY AND LOWER APALACHICOLA RIVER, FRANKLIN COUNTY, FLORIDA TO STATE OF FLORIDA Prepared by: Office of Coastal Zone Management National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Department of Commerce 3300 Whitehaven Street, N. W. Washington, D.C. 20235 and Bureau of Coastal Zone Management Florida Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 I I: 1 a- Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2012 with funding from LYRASIS Members and Sloan Foundation http://www.archive.org/details/finalenvironmeOOnati TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SUMMARY i PART I : PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION 1 PART II: ALTERNATIVES (INCLUDING PROPOSED ACTION) 5 A. Preferred Alternative 5 1. Boundaries and Acquisition of Sanctuary Lands 2. Management a. General and Specific Management Requirements b. Administration of the Sanctuary c. Management Committee B . Alternatives Considered . 19 1. Funding 2. Site Selection 3. Boundaries 4. Management 5. Methods of Acquisition and Protection 6. No Action PART III: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 23 A. Impacts on the Environment of the Proposed Action. 23 1. Local Impacts on Franklin County 2. Regional Impacts on the Apalachicola- Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin 3. State and Federal Impacts \ TABLE OF CONTENTS Page (Continued) B. Relationship Between Local Short Term Uses of the Environment and the Maintenance and Enchancement of Long Term Productivity 27 zj C. Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 27 M D. Possible Conflicts Between the P roposed Action and the Objectives of Federal, Regional , State and Local Land Use Plans, Policies, and Controls for the Area Concerned 28 PART IV: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 33 A. General Physiography 33 B . Soils G eology. 33 C . Drainage . 34 D . Biological Characteristics 34 1. Vegetation 2. Fish and Wildlife E . Socioeconomic Characteristics 37 PART V: LIST OF PREPARERS 41 PART VI: LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS RECEIVING COPIES 45 PART VII : APPENDICES 49 SUMMARY BACKGROUND In response to the intense pressures upon and conflicts within the coastal zone of the United States, Congress passed the Coastal Zone Management Act (P.L. 92-583) in 1972, with amendments passed in 1976 (P.L. 94-370). The Act authorized a new Federal program--administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) within the Department of Commerce — to assist and encourage coastal States to develop and implement rational programs for managing their coastal resources. The Act affirms a national interest in the coastal zone's effective management, beneficial use, and development, and it permits the awarding of grants for the purpose of meeting these ends. Section 315 of the Coastal Zone Managment Act established the Estuarine Sanctuary program, which, on a matching basis, provides grants to States to acquire, develop, and operate estuarine areas to be set aside as natural field laboratories. These areas will be used primarily for long term scientific and educational purposes, which, in addition to other benefits, will provide information essential to coastal management decisionmaking. Examples of estuarine sanctuary purposes are: o To gain a thorough understanding of the ecological relationships within the estuarine environment; o To make baseline ecological measurements; o To serve as a natural control in order to monitor changes and assess the impacts of human stresses on the ecosystem; o To provide a vehicle for increasing public knowledge and awareness of the complex nature of estuarine systems, their values and benefits to man and nature, and the problems that confront them; and, o To encourage multiple use of the estuarine sanctuaries to the extent that such usage is compatible with the primary sanctuary purposes: research and education. In order to ensure that the sanctuary program adequately represents regional and ecological differences, the programmatic guidelines establish a biogeographic classification scheme that reflects geographic, hydrographic, and biologic characteristics. The Estuarine Sanctuary Guidelines, which were published in 1974, were modified in 1977 to authorize specifically the granting of acquisition 11 money in three stages: (1) An initial grant for such preliminary pur- poses as surveying and assessing the lands to be acquired, and for developing management procedures and research programs; (2) A second grant for the actual acquisition of the land; and (3) subsequent grants for administration and operation of the sanctuary. In February 1978, the State of Florida submitted to the Office of Coastal Zone Management (0CZM)/N0AA a preacquisition grant application for an estuarine sanctuary to be located in the Apalachicola River/Bay region of Franklin and Gulf Counties. Subsequently, OCZM awarded a preacquisition grant for $50,000 (which was matched by an equivalent amount from the State). In March 1979, the State of Florida submitted an acquisition grant application for $1.8 million — to be matched by $1.95 million in State Environmentally Endangered Lands (EEL) funds--for the acquisition, development, and operation of this estuarine sanctuary, which will be representative of the Louisianian biogeographic region. The State will also have the option of requesting up to $50,000 (also 50 percent matching) for three years of operational funds if the acquisition grant is given. PROPOSED ACTION The grant request to OCZM is for the acquisition of 12,467 acres of land, to be included within the boundaries of a proposed sanctuary consist- ing of approximately 192,758 acres. All other lands, excluding those proposed for purchase, are currently publicly owned and managed. The composition of the entire area within the proposed sanctuary boundary is as follows: Parcel Size (in acres ) Existing State EEL purchase 28,045 Existing State EEL purchase on Little St. George Island 2,193 Existing State Park on St. George Island 1,883 Existing Federal St. Vincent Island National Wildlife Refuge 12,490 Existing State-owned estuarine waters and submerged lands 135,680 PROPOSED ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION 12,467 Total 192,758 iii St. Vincent Island and the State-owned uplands were acquired for a variety of purposes, including recreation, wildlife management, and conservation and protection of environmentally unique and irreplaceable lands. Although management of these lands differs according to the objective of each parcel 's acquisition, these varied, currently existing objectives are compatible and in harmony with the objective of managing the sanctuary over the long term for research and educational purposes within an estuarine system. Inclusion of these lands within the sanc- tuary will not affect their present management practices, and ownership and management decisions will continue to be made by currently involved State and Federal agencies. The establishment of a Sanctuary Management Committee is proposed for the purposes of advising the State's Department of Natural Resources (DNR), which will hold title to the lands proposed for acquisition, in the administration of the sanctuary. The Committee will: o Review applicants for Sanctuary Coordinator and staff positions, and advise DNR prior to final selection; o Review and approve proposals for educational or research use and activities in state owned sanctuary lands and waters; o Review and approve the management plans for the newly purchased lands (12,467 acres), prior to final adoption of these plans by DNR. o Advise appropriate Federal, State, or local government(s) on proposed actions, plans, and projects in, adjacent to, or affecting the sanctuary, such as: A-95 projects, developments of regional impact, dredge and fill requests, waste discharge permits, lease and sale of State-owned lands, rules for the Aquatic Preserves program, and local government zoning plans and proposed zoning changes on adjacent lands. o Enhance communication and cooperation among all interests involved in the sanctuary. The proposed Sanctuary Management Committee voting membership will be comprised of the following groups, organizations, or their representatives: The Franklin County Commission, the Apalachicola Bay resource users, research and educational institutions, and the State's Department of Environmental Regulation (DER), Game and Freshwater Fish Commission, and Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The Management Committee also has a non-voting membership which Includes representation from: the State's Department of Com- munity Affairs, Division of Local Resource Management (Apalachicola River Com- mittee), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Army Corps IV of Engineers; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and the Northwest Florida Water Management District. Recognizing the interstate nature of the Apalachicola River /Bay system, the States of Alabama and Georgia will have access and input to the Committee through the DER. ALTERNATIVES The major boundary options included the following: 1. Reducing the land mass by excluding St. Vincent Island National Wildlife Refuge and/or all State-owned lands on St. George and Little St. George Island. 2. Expanding the sanctuary boundaries to include additional water areas (Lake Wimico, Jackson River, and water areas north of the proposed boundaries). 3. Expanding the lands included within the sanctuary specifically to include Tate's Hell Swamp and all private uplands on St. George Island. The State of Florida, OCZM, and other reviewers felt that the barrier islands were an integral part of the island/bay/river estuarine ecosystem, which, if kept as a unit, would present increased research and educational opportunities. For this reason, it was felt that these islands should be included within the sanctuary boundaries. The additional water areas were recommended by the Apalachicola River/Bay Symposium panelists for inclusion within the sanctuary boundaries. These areas were not included because the State does not own the adjacent lands, so that the quality of these waters would not be under scientific control and the long term impacts on research and education would be unknown. Within the sanctuary as proposed, all State-owned uplands and waters are contiguous. Ownership of Tates Hell Swamp and the privately owned portions of St. George Island would be desirable from an ecological standpoint. However, funds are not available for additional purchases and OCZM felt that existing State and local regulatory authorities are adequate for these lands. The only major alternative management structure considered was to have a single agency manager: DNR. Although this would be a less complex structure than the proposed one, its adoption would cause the loss of a coordinated management approach to the Apalachicola River and Bay estuarine system. Under the management structure proposed, DNR shall still maintain major responsibilities within the system, due to its continued management of existing and future State-owned lands within the sanctuary borders, its role as chairman of the Sanctuary Management Committee, and as the employer of sanctuary staff. ISSUES A substantial amount of support has been expressed for an estuarine sanctuary within the Apalachicola River/Bay system. This support has come from all sectors, including Federal, State, local, and private. The major concern that has been expressed is the proposed project's effect upon navigation and commercial waterborne transportation on the Apalachicola River and Bay systemr? During the preparation of this FEIS, the authors were cognizant of this important concern and attempted to be as explicit as possible regarding the proposed sanctuary's impacts upon navigation, waterborne commerce, and other related uses. There appear to be several misconceptions regarding what an estuarine sanctuary actually is or is not. An estuarine sanctuary is established through matching grants to the requesting State. The individual State owns and manages, with State regulations, all land that is purchased. No "OCZM" laws are attached to sanctuary designation. Similarly, estuarine sanctuary status cannot change or alter the Congressionally authorized navigation projects within the sanctuary boundaries, which specifically includes the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee- Flint (A-C-F) waterway authorization of a 9'x 100' channel, 95% of the time. Any proposed navigation project must still go through the existing local, State, and Federal regulatory process. However, sanctuary status does imply that one of the major objectives for the area, within the sanctuary boundaries, will be the long term preservation of the natural ecosystem for baseline research and educational purposes. Another concern expressed was for the possible restrictions on naviga- tion especially for transportation to the States of Alabama and Georgia. Legally, such restrictions are not possible, according to such laws as the Interstate Commerce Act, the Ports and Waterways Safety Act, Clean Water Act of 1977, and others, including the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) itself. The CZMA states that "Nothing in this title shall be construed--to diminish either Federal or state jurisdiction, responsibility, or rights in the field of planning, development, or control of water resources, submerged lands or navigable waters; nor to displace, supersede, limit, or modify any inter- state compact or the jurisdiction or responsibility of any legally established joint or common agency of two or more states or of two or more states and the Federal Government; nor to limit the authority of Congress to authorize and fund such projects" (CZMA, 5307(e)(1)). This proposal specifically allows navigation, including the maintenance dredging of existing channels, subject to existing State and Federal permit reviews. In particular, this includes the A-C-F waterway and maintenance dredging to 9' x 100 '. An additional potential impact on the State of Florida is the prohibition against the incorporation of new public works projects, requiring dredging and filling, into the official Florida resource development water program, VI that is annually presented to Congress. This prohibition shall terminate upon completion of a long term disposal plan approximately one year from sanctuary establishment. This prohibition does not apply to the Corps of Engineers or other Federal agencies. Furthermore, land use practices outside the sanctuary boundaries shall continue under existing State rules and regulations. There shall be no additional rules and regulations affecting land use practices outside the sanctuary boundaries resulting from sanctuary designation. PART I: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION In response to the intense pressures upon the vitally important coastal zone of the United States, Congress passed the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), which was signed into law on October 27, 1972, (P.L. 92-583), and amended in 1976. The CZMA authorized a Federal grant-in-aid and assistance program to be administered by the Secretary of Commerce, who in turn delegated this responsibility to the Office of Coastal Zone Management (OCZM) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The CZMA affirms a national interest in the effective protection and development of the Nation's coastal zone, and provides assistance and encouragement to coastal States (including those bordering the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Great Lakes) and U.S. territories to develop and implement State programs for managing their coastal zones. The Act established a variety of grant-in-aid programs to such States for the purposes of: o developing coastal zone management programs (Sec. 305); o implementing and administering management programs that receive Federal approval (Sec. 306); o avoiding or minimizing adverse environmental, social, and economic impacts resulting from coastal energy activities (Sec. 308); o coordinating, studying, planning, and implementing interstate coastal management activities and programs (Sec. 309); o conducting research, study, and training programs to support both scientifically and technically the State coastal management programs (Sec. 310); and o acquiring estuarine sanctuaries, and land to provide for shorefront access and island preservation (Sec. 315). The estuarine sanctuary program authorized by Section 315 of the CZMA establishes a program to provide matching grants to States to acquire, develop, and operate natural estuarine areas as sanctuaries so that i_scientists and students may be provided the opportunity to examine the ecological relationships within the areas over a period of time. Section 315 provides a maximum of $2,000,000 of Federal funds, to be matched by the equivalent amount from the State, for each sanctuary. Guidelines for implementation of the estuarine sanctuary program were published in final form on June 4, 1974 [15 CFR part 921, Federal Register 39 (105): 19922-19927] and amended on September 9, 1977 [15 CFR Part 921, Federal Register 42 (175): 45522-45523] (Appendix I). Sanctuaries established under this program have the dual purpose of (1) providing relatively undisturbed areas so that a representative series of natural coastal ecological systems will always remain available for eco- logical research and education; and (2) ensuring the availability of natural areas for use as a control against which impacts of man's activities in other areas can be assessed. These sanctuaries are to be used primarily for long term scientific and educational purposes, especially to provide information essential to coastal zone management decisionmaking. Such research purposes may include: o Gaining a thorough understanding of the natural ecological re- lationships within the variety of estuarine environments of the United States; o Making baseline ecological measurements; o Serving as a natural control against which changes in other estuaries can be measured, and facilitating evaluation of the impacts of human activities on estuarine ecosystems; and o Providing a vehicle for increasing public knowledge and awareness of the complex nature of estuarine systems, their values and benefits to man and nature, and problems with which estuaries are confronted. While the primary purpose of estuarine sanctuaries is scientific and educational, multiple use of estuarine sanctuaries will be encouraged to the extent such usage is compatible with the primary sanctuary purpose. Such uses may generally include such activities as low intensity recreation, fishing, hunting, and wildlife observation. The CZMA and the sanctuary guidelines envision that the estuarine sanc- tuary program ultimately will fully represent the variety of regional and ecological differences among estuaries. The regulations indicate that "the purpose of the estuarine sanctuary program. . .shall be accomplished by the establishment of a series of estuarine sanctuaries which will be designated so that at least one representative of each estuarine ecosystem will endure into the future for scientific and educational purposes" (15 CFR 921.3(a)). As administered by OCZM, the estuarine sanctuary program defined 11 different biogeographic provinces or classifications based on geographic, hydrographic, and biologic characteristics. Subcategories of this basic system will be utilized as appropriate to distinguish major regions or subclasses of each province. OCZM anticipates that a minimum of 21 sanctuaries will be necessary to provide adequate representation of the Nation's estuarine ecological systems. Between 1974 and the present, OCZM has awarded grants to establish five estuarine sanctuaries. These include: Sanctuary South Slough Coos Bay, Oregon Duplin River/ Sapelo Island, Georgia Waimanu Valley, Island of Hawaii, Hawaii Rookery Bay, Collier County, Florida Old Woman Creek, Erie Co., Ohio Biogeographic Classification Columbian Carolinian Insular West Indian Great Lakes The proposed action currently under consideration by OCZM is the formal grant application by the State of Florida for an estuarine sanctuary consisting of approximately 192,758 acres of lands and waters in the lower Apalachicola River delta and bay system. The application requests $1,800,000 from N0AA, to be matched by $1,950,000 from the State's Environ- mentally Endangered Lands (EEL) Fund, for the purchase of approximately 12,467 acres of uplands. The proposed sanctuary would be representative of the Louisianian Biogeographic Classification, further completing the series of nationwide representative estuarine systems established as provided for in Section 315 of the CZMA (biographic regions are defined in the Estuarine Sanctuary Guidelines, which are included in Appendix I). This proposal follows several years of interest in and concern about the Apalachicola River/Bay system by State and local officials, Federal agencies, universities, environmentally oriented organizations, and concerned individuals. As a result of this concern, in 1978, Florida sub- mitted an application to OCZM for a preliminary acquisition grant for the Apalachicola River/Bay system. In May 1978, OCZM awarded Florida a $50,000 preliminary acquisition grant, which enabled the State to (1) complete a preliminary appraisal of the lands proposed to be acquired; (2) convene a conference of scientists and technicians to identify research and management needs in the estuary; and (3) develop a specific management program for the proposed sanctuary. On October 17-19, 1978, a symposium and workshop was held in Tallahassee, Florida, to examine the proposed National Estuarine Sanctuary within the Apalachicola River/Bay system. Their report, "Summary of Workshops and Recommendations for Boundaries and Environmental Management of a Proposed Estuarine Sanctuary" is reproduced as Appendix 2. PART II: ALTERNATIVES (INCLUDING PROPOSED ACTION) A. Preferred Alternative Florida has submitted an application for a grant in the amount of $1,800,000 from OCZM, to be matched by an equivalent (or greater amount) of State funds, for the acquisition and establishment of an estuarine sanctuary in the Lower Apalachicola River delta area and Apalachicola Bay. The grant would enable Florida to acquire and operate an estuarine sanctuary that approximates a natural ecologic unit: the tidal, estuarine lower Apalachicola ecosystem. The proposed sanctuary would include approxi- mately 135,680 acres of State-owned submerged lands (water area), and about 57,000 acres of publicly owned (State and Federal) tidelands and uplands, of which approximately 12,467 acres would be acquired as a result of this grant. The lands to be acquired will be purchased through the EEL program. Acquisition will be through negotiation with individual landowners, since, by law, condemnation is not permitted for EEL purchases. The proposed sanctuary will be managed by the Florida Department of Natural Resources in conjunction with a sanctuary management committee. Upon establishment of the sanctuary, the State has the option of applying for matching operational funds for a maximum period of three fiscal years. See Figures 1-4 for the location of the project area and the components of the proposed sanctuary. Because of the variety of existing State and local government authorities in, or affected by, the Apalachicola River and Bay, Florida proposes to avoid creating new authorities, and to use existing authorities to provide for the administration and management of the sanctuary. The sanctuary will, however, provide a unique opportunity to better coordinate the variety of agencies and authorities— thereby providing a clear focus for the management. The essential components of the management plan proposed by Florida for the sanctuary include: creation of sanctuary management objectives and policies; acquisition and management of sanctuary lands; day-to-day administration of the sanctuary program; and coordination and cooperation with the variety of local, State, and Federal interests affected by the sanctuary. FIGURE 1 N » to so to Mite* qENERAl loCATiON ApAlAChiColA,fliNT ANO chATTAhoOC^EE RIVER bASilN Apalaehleola Bay FIGURE 2 frc»i« to Mitat ApAUchiColA RJVER bASiN UN floRidA County Ums Afotochicoto RnrtrBotin fWf #f Mexico 8 FIGURE 3 Proposed Sanctuary Boundaries ApAUdiicoU hay Publicly ovoied lands Lands proposed for acquisition «u MEXICO !»*■■» .*• *^ *** ^^ ^T PROPOSED APALACHICOLA BAY ESTUARInE SAncTuAry (land areas) tracts purchased by the state as ENVIRONMENTALLY ENDANGERED LANDS STATE OWNED LANDS AND WATERS BELOW M.H.W. TO BE INCLUDED IN SANCTUARY AREA PROPOSED FOR PURCHASE AS PART OF ESTUARINE SANCTUARY vnz® 10 1. Boundaries and Acquisition of Sanctuary Lands The proposed estuarine sanctuary approximates a natural ecological unit and is composed of several components, including publicly owned wetlands, estuarine waters, existing publicly owned uplands, and additional uplands proposed for acquisition. The following table summarizes the areas proposed for the sanctuary boundaries. Acres Size in Acres Existing State EEL purchases along river 28,045 Existing State EEL parcel on Little St. George Island 2,193 Existing State Park on St. George Island 1,883 Existing Federal St. Vincent Island National Wildlife Refuge 12,490 Proposed upland acquisitions 12,467 Subtotal Uplands: 57,078 State-Owned estuarine waters and submerged lands 135,680 192,758 Acres The major components within the boundaries of the proposed estuarine sanctuary are the estuarine waters and submerged lands (135,680 acres), uplands that are currently owned by public agencies (44,611 acres), and the additional uplands proposed for acquisition (12,467 acres). All upland areas included within the sanctuary would thus be publicly owned lands, either State or Federal. For the purposes of the sanctuary boundary, the lower Apalachicola River shall be defined as that portion from Apalachicola Bay, north to mile 21, which is the approximate extent of tidal influence. The sanctuary size, including lands and waters, would be approximately 192,758 acres. The proposed acquisition includes the following ownerships: Name Acres 1. Harlan Franklin 285 2. St. Joe Paper Co. 1051 3. Buckeye Cellulose Corp. 100 4. Jay Sholer 1203 5. U.S. Home Corp 1550 6. Southwest Forestry Paper Co. 413 7. Marion Chason 63 8. Willedine Yauchn 63 11 9. Emmie C. Adams 60 10. Mildred C. Odum 56 11. Ann C. McDaniel 106 12. St. Regis Paper Co. 800 13. Elberta Crate and Box Co. 1900 14. Hamilton Foreman 740 15. St. Joe Land and Development Co. 3800 16. Ray Mabrey 50 17. Elizabeth Atkinson 57 18. Undetermined 170 Total: 12,467 The estuarine sanctuary grant itself will be for the purchase of the additional 12,467 acres of upland. The lands will be acquired by the Florida Department of National Resources as part of the EEL program at an approximate cost of $3.75 million, consisting of a grant of $1.8 million from 0CZM that will be matched by $1.95 million in EEL funds. After acquisition, DNR will prepare, or contract with another agency such as the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission to prepare, a management plan for the newly acquired sanctuary lands . Prior to its adoption, the plan will be reviewed and approved by the Sanctuary Management Committee. A management plan has been completed for the existing 28,045 acres of EEL lands by the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission. (The completed management plan can be obtained by contacting this agency.) Acquisition will be performed in accordance with Federal Guidelines for real estate acquisition. This process includes independent real estate appraisals, and the offer of Fair Market Value. Since there will be no condemnation, all transactions will be negotiated sales. 2. Management The State and Federally owned uplands were acquired for a number of different purposes, including recreation, wildlife management, and conservation and protection of environmentally unique and irreplaceable lands. Although management of these lands differs according to the ob- jective of acquisition, the present management objectives are compatible with the objectives of managing the sanctuary for its long term use for research and education within an estuarine system. Therefore, inclusion of these lands within the sanctuary boundaries will not affect the present management practices, and the existing State and Federally owned parcels will continue to be managed according to existing management concepts and plans. Ownership and management decision authority will be retained by the agencies now exercising those responsibilities. Changes in management plans and development projects on these lands will be reviewed by the Sanctuary Management Committee (discussed later), which may provide advisory comments on the plans and activities, but will have no regulatory authority over these lands. 12 The management and operations of the sanctuary will not be superimposed upon St. Vincent Wildlife Refuge, and the refuge will be managed as a part of the National Wildlife System. The end result will be important contri- butions, by the refuge, to the objectives of the estuarine sanctuary, but the refuge will not administratively be included. The specific management policies developed for the newly acquired uplands and wetlands (not the water body itself) will be based on the primary objective of managing the lands to maintain their ecoystem, in order to ensure the long term protection of natural processes and resources for research and education. Uses that would alter the nature of the ecosystem will not be allowed on this or the newly acquired lands; dredge and fill (except maintenance dredging, as described below), mineral extraction (except for slant drilling from outside the boundaries of the parcel), waste discharge or disposal, silviculture, and agriculture are examples of activities that would not be allowed on these lands. Fishing, hunting, nonintensive recreation, education, and research would be allowed as prescribed under conditions established pursuant to EEL purchase, existing State laws, and a management concept approved by the Sanctuary Management Committee. Thus, the newly acquired sanctuary lands will be managed according to policies and rules of Chapter 259, F.S. (Appendix 5), governing EEL lands. With this parcel, however, unlike the case with existing parcels within the sanctuary, the Sanctuary Management Committee will have a formal role in actually approving the management concept before it is adopted. About two-thirds of the water area of the sanctuary has already been designated as an aquatic preserve under Chapter 258, F.S. (Appendix 4). However, rules for the aquatic preserve have not yet been developed. Hence, the Sanctuary Management Committee will review these rules, which will be developed by DNR, and will play a formal role in their development and adoption. No new or special management regulations will be applied in the water areas of the sanctuary as a result of sanctuary designation, except as stated subsequently under "prohibited activities," The combination of lands and waters within the sanctuary boundary represents the major components of a viable ecosystem. However, some uses or activities beyond the boundary of the sanctuary could significantly affect the ecology of the sanctuary. Of particular importance are: (1) activities in the bay and lower river floodplain; and (2) upstream impacts on water quality or discharge (from Lake Wimico, as well as the Upper Apalachicola River). Existing local and State authorities appear fully adequate to address any potential problems resulting from uses of these waters or adjacent lands. Because of the support that they have provided to this proposal, OCZM anticipates that these jurisdictions will administer their programs or responsibilities in a manner that will not jeopardize the integrity of the sanctuary. Designation of the sanctuary would not, therefore, result in the need for new or additional regulations in these areas. 13 In this manner, it will be possible to maintain the sanctuary and achieve its objectives while continuing to use the Apalachicola River and Bay as a multiple-use resource. By underscoring the objective of maintaining the natural resources and processes of the bay, natural resource protection will be placed in the same context and level of importance as other uses of the river, including its uses for power generation, recreation, drinking water supply, and navigation. a. General and Specific Management Requirements Three major requirements have been identified in order to maintain the sanctuary ecosystem: 1. The maintenance of sufficient quantities of water inflow from the Apalachicola Tri -River system, from Lake Wimico, and from overland drainage, delivered at appropriate seasonal and annual schedules, to maintain the natural ecological system. Significant alterations of flow patterns, including alterations to the natural variability of river flows, should be avoided. The authorities of Chapter 373, F.S. will will be used to help insure that the estuarine productivity, processes, and living resources in the Apalachicola River/Bay are maintained. 2. The maintenance of water quality by the prevention of significant degradation of sanctuary waters. Existing authorities under Chapter 403 F.S., and the newly adopted Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code, which designates Apalachicola Bay as an Outstanding Florida Water, are adequate to maintain water quality. Special attention will have to be paid, however, to problems of non-point discharge and the installation, operation, and practice of drainage pumps for agricultural and silvi- cultural purposes. 3. The prevention of physical alteration, through dredging, filling, or any other similar activity, that would significantly alter hydrographic patterns, ecological productivity, or surface area of the bay. Again, existing authorities under Chapters 253 (Appendix 3) and 403 F.S., are adequate to provide the necessary protection. The regulatory authorities of the State under Chapter 373, F.S., and other Florida Statutes will be exercised, to the extent allowed by Florida law, to insure that activities within the boundaries of Florida do not impair such estuarine productivity, processes, or living resources. However, the paramount power of the Federal Government to control navigable waters, and the associated authority of the Corps of Engineers and the Federal Power Commission to control the operation of dams on the Tri- River system is expressly recognized. Neither the State nor its agencies will attempt to utilize State regulatory powers to displace Federal control of those facilities. The sanctuary, then, will be managed with existing State policies and laws, especially those in Chapters 373, 403, and 253 F.S. and Florida Administrative Code Chapters 17-3 and 17-4. In addition, policies and practices relating to Environmentally Endangered Lands (Chapter 259, F.S.) will be relied upon to provide specific management procedures for indivi- dual parcels within the sanctuary. (Note: All referenced Florida statutes 14 (F.S.) and Florida Administrative Codes (F.A.C.) that are not included in the Appendix to this document may be found in the Appendix to the Florida Coastal Management Program, March 1978). Within the context of the existing statutes, the following specific policies apply to the general management of the sanctuary: Allowed Uses ° Sport and commercial fishing and shellfish harvest, subject to existing fishing regulations. ° Hunting, subject to game rules and EEL regulations. ° Non-intensive recreation (intensive recreation on State Park lands). ° Education as approved by the Sanctuary Committee. Research as approved by the Sanctuary Committee. o o Navigation, including maintenance dredging of existing channels and limited dredging for creation of boat launching facilities in the State park, subject to existing State permit reviews. Maintenance dredging of existing channels includes dredging by the Corps of Engineers to Congressional ly authorized depths and dimensions. No new State regu- latory requirements shall be imposed upon such maintenance dredging because of achievement of status as an estuarine sanctuary, and State regulatory permit reviews shall continue to be applied in a manner consistent with applicable Federal law. (Channels, for the purpose of this EIS, are defined as waterways that would require dredging in order to maintain their dimensions, or new waterways created by dredging). Continuation of existing permits and spoil disposal practices, until a comprehensive spoil disposal plan is developed for the bay. ° Continuation of the existing shellfish rehabilitation program. Prohibited Activities ° Incorporation of new public works projects, which include the ex- pansion of existing or creation of new channels, that require dredging or additional filling within the official Florida water resource development program, which is annually presented and recommended to Congress pursuant to Chapter 373, F.S. The tempor- ary exclusion of such projects affecting the bay shall terminate upon adoption of a long term disposal plan expected to be completed within approximately one year of the establishment of the estuarine sanctuary. The omission of such dredging and filling public works projects from the official Florida program does not preclude the submission or recommendation of such public works by other persons or public agencies to the Congress, nor Congressional authorization of such projects. Upon completion of the spoil disposal plan, all o 15 projects must also examine the hydrographic impacts and provide assurance that the project will not lead to significant degradation of water quality and biological productivity, which is currently required under Florida law. (Note: This prohibition shall not be applied to the pending East Point Breakwater/ Channel Project, and Apalachicola Seafood Industrial Park, which will be judged accord- ing to existing local, State, and Federal regulations). Oil drilling, except for slant drilling from outside the sanctuary boundaries. Significant alteration of water flow patterns, including circulation patterns within the bay. In order to augment these policies, the following research priorities have been established: determination of minimum rates and delivery sched- ules for freshwater inflows; definition of significant degradation as applied to water quality and dredge and fill activities; development of a a spoil disposal plan and acceptable procedures for spoil disposal (e.g. relating dredging and spoil disposal to biological cycles); development of a hydrographic model of the bay and lower river area; and identification of restoration priorities, including means to restore shellfish productivity and water quality (fresh/salt water balance) reduced as a result of Sikes Cut, while maintaining navigational access. (See the Conservation Founda- tion's report in the Appendix for complete recommendations regarding research). b. Administration of the Sanctuary As the major landowner and manager for the lands and waters of the sanctuary, the Florida Department of Natural Resources will be respon- sible for the day-t^-day administration of the estuarine sanctuary. To assist in this task, DNR will, at a minimum, hire a full -time Sanctuary Coordinator, to be located in the Apalachicola area. The duties of the Sanctuary Coordinator, who will be trained as a resource manager/planner, will include: 1. Administration of the sanctuary, including preparing required State and Federal grant applications, proposals, budgets, and reports and maintain- ing necessary records. 2. Serving as staff to the Sanctuary Management Committee. 3. Representing the Sanctuary Management Committee in public meetings. 4. Advising and coordinating units of government on particular issues, questions, or projects, and their impacts on or relationship to the sanctuary, at their request. 5. Coordinating all special studies and research activities within or related to the sanctuary, and interpreting and applying research results to produce benefits of a general nature. 16 6. Developing an oversight of the educational program for the sanctuary. 7. Coordinating and taking appropriate action on all projects or activi- ties that might affect the sanctuary. The Sanctuary Coordinator will be hired by and held accountable to the Department of Natural Resources. c. Management Committee In order to provide for effective coordination and cooperation among all interests involved in the sanctuary program, a Sanctuary Management Comrni ttee (SMC) will be established (Figure 5). Membership on the committee will include the Chairman of the Franklin County Commission, or represent- ative; a representative of local Apalachicola Bay resource users, selected by the Franklin County Commission; a representative from research and educa- tional institutions, selected by the Franklin County Commission; and one representative each of the State's Department of Environmental Regulation, Department of Natural Resources, and the Game and Freshwater Fish Commis- sion. These six individuals will form the voting members of the committee. In addition to the voting members, the State Department of Community Affairs, Division of Local Resource Management (Apalachicola River Committee); the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; the U.S. Army Corps of Engi- neers; the U.S, Fish and Wildlife Service; and the Northwest Florida Water Management District will each designate an advisory non-voting representative. In addition, three subcommittees will be formed as discussed below. Other subcommittees may be formed as determined by the Sanctuary Management Committee. The Subcommittee on Resource Users will represent local area resource users; it will be made up of one representative each of the commercial fishing industry, the seafood dealers, the oystermen, sport fishing interests, forestry landowners, the Sportsman's Club, and navigation interests. This subcommittee will be selected by the Franklin County Commission, and will be represented on the Management Committee by one voting member. The Subcommittee on Research and Education will include representatives of the Florida Sea Grant Program; Florida State University; University of Florida; Florida Agriculture and Mining University; the Florida Department of Education; Florida Department of State, Division of Archives and History; Franklin County Board of Education; and a local or State environmental organization. These representatives will be selected by the respective agencies and institutions themselves. They will be represented on the committee by the research scientist selected by the Franklin County Commission. The Department of Community Affairs will coordinate the input of the Subcom- mittee on Resources Management and Planning, which will consist of representatives from a variety of agencies with planning and management responsibilities, including the U.S. Forest Service, Florida Division of Forestry, and the Apalachee Regional Planning Council. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will provide input 17 o o C_3 >- (3 cc I— I <*. o o _l a. OO «/> cs r— c: <-> L. Z Q O — o z — ce z < 33 1 v-> i»- <•> — ; UJ i- a ^ :» i-« -J uj — i/> a X »— z 3 < -J •— * 3 uj o z -J UJ <-> — • CC — ce » 3 * > — O «£ — O u-» ^^ ce wO =» uj >- i- r u v-i O uj z -I— < u (X < Z <£ uj Z < a o £ <— £ O SE u_ O <_> < — i-za < UJ H- 1— <_> ul — UJ 3» o ce ce uj O uj 1— U. U-> Z 13 c 2 2 2 ■3 a a z u z < < Z O 3 UJ O -1 ce z — — u> uj z z uZ3 I < O O _J o 3 : 1/1 u ce x zoo _i «* => z t— u z '_ ar O C uj uj uj ce i— o t- — © < — . » ce z z a. =3 UJ — ZOO I- «t — z ce o — i — «/*» GO OS X I o >- o UUJH ce i- z >- - u. Z UJ < O < O H- z o >- — uo a uj :> z « — z UO z is ce <-> O c i/j O u. O <_) © — — ce o J<3 x o 5 Z CO UJ uj C3 I— z < >■ ^ — < - O uj — ce — s» ce ui ce — «: z r: UJ < < ulQt U >- O c z 18 through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which in- the Office of Coastal Zone Management, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the Office of Sea Grant. Finally, reflecting the multi-State nature of both the Apalachicola River/Bay system and the estuarine sanctuary, Alabama and Georgia will each be asked to designate one representative. Their input will be coordinated through the representative from the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. The Sanctuary Management Committee will serve in a variety of both advi sory and substantive roles, which i ncl ude : 1. To review and advise DNR on administration of the sanctuary. In this role, the Committee will: a. review the sanctuary coordinator and staff job specifications and qualifications prior to approval. b. review applications for sanctuary coordinator and staff posi- tions and advise DNR prior to final selection. 2. To review and approve proposals for educational or research use activities in State-owned sanctuary lands and waters. 3. To review and approve the management plans for the newly purchased lands (12,467 acres) prior to their final adoption. 4. To advise the appropriate State agency or local government on proposed actions, plans, and projects in, adjacent to, or affecting the sanctuary. These include A-95 projects, developments of regional impact, dredge and fill requests, waste discharge permits, the lease and sale of State-owned lands, rules for the Aquatic Preserves Program, and local government zoning plans and proposed zoning changes on adjacent lands. 5. To initiate, coordinate, and recommend special projects, including: a. development of a long term spoil disposal plan for the Lower Apalachicola River and Bay. b. identification of the need for, and the initiation of, projects to restore the sanctuary ecosystem where alterations have adversely affected the bay. c. identification of cultural projects that will go towards increas- ing knowledge about the history and pre-hi story of this area. 6. To enhance communication and cooperation among all interests involved in the sanctuary. 19 The Sanctuary Management Committee will meet at least bi-monthly during the first year following the award of the sanctuary grant; there- after, the committee itself shall determine the frequency of its meetings. B. Alternatives Considered In response to the Florida proposal, OCZM has identified and considered a variety of alternatives regarding its options, as well as those of the State, with respect to action on the proposed sanctuary. Many of these alternatives also relate to choices addressed by the State in the develop- ment of its proposal. Alternatives with respect to sites, boundaries, and management structure were addressed, and are discussed further below: 1 . Funding Florida has already spent about $22,000,000 on the acquisition of EEL parcels and the State Park in the proposed sanctuary area, representing a substantial commitment for the Apalachicola resource. Demands upon the State's EEL fund exceed its present capabilities. Although the State is adding additional State funds to the proposed sanctuary purchase, it could not, by itself, purchase all of the area proposed for acquisition. Although the sanctuary proposal has received extensive State and Federal review as it developed, no other agency has expressed the ability to provide funding for acquisition. Moreover, even if other State or Federal funds were available, such funding would not meet the explicit needs and objectives of the estuarine sanctuary program. Because the estuarine sanctuary program is basically one of Federal response to State initiatives, the alternatives for Federal action are limited. OCZM could accept the application as presented or request modi- fication, but award a grant in either case; or it could refuse to accept the application and decline the grant. OCZM has worked with the State of Florida since it first indicated interest in the estuarine sanctuary program, and OCZM's input has caused some modification of the proposal . Delay of the grant would permit other States within the Louisianian classification to develop estuarine sanctuary proposals for submission to N0AA. However, the States are not in direct competition for designation of a single sanctuary, and the award of a grant does not preclude other grants in the same region if an appropriate subcategory is identified. Unless the application lacked merit, the outright refusal to award a grant would serve no purpose. Indeed, in view of the widely acknowledged need for estuarine preservation (for example, the National Estuary Study, 1970, and Ketchum, 1972), such action would be contrary to the public interest. 2. Site Selection In developing an estuarine sanctuary proposal, and in OCZM's initial 20 review, a variety of sites were considered for potential sanctuary designation. Because the sanctuaries are to be State-owned and managed, OCZM cannot, on its own initiative, propose or designate an area as a sanctuary. OCZM is dependent upon the State's identifying potential sanctuary sites and formally applying for funding. The State of Florida, initiated internally a broad solicitation of nominations for potential sanctuaries, and submitted these to a broad review process. The Apalachicola site was a virtually unanimous selection for a sanctuary representing the Louisianian biogeographic region. A descrip- tion of this region is found in the Estuarine Sanctuary guidelines, located within the Appendix. Following the Apalachicola selection, in early Spring 1978, Florida, as required by OCZM regulations, circulated a draft sanctuary proposal to each State within the Louisianian biogeographical region (Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas), as well as to Georgia. Although responses were limited, the result was virtually unanimous support for the proposal, including strong support by a variety of State, Federal, and local government agencies and interests. No other State proposed an alternative location, or objected to the Apalachicola River /Bay proposal. Following the October 1978 Apalachicola Estuarine Sanctuary Symposium, the Tri -Rivers Waterway Development Association submitted a report that suggested potential sites from Cedar Key to Apalachee Bay. OCZM and Florida reviewed this proposal and found that there were no research institutions that expressed an interest in the areas, and no Federal, State, or local support for the other areas was exhibited. Additionally, in its report on the Apalachicola Estuarine Sanctuary Symposium, the Conservation Foundation concluded that the "Apalachicola ecosystem is the best choice for a Louisianian province representative for the National Estuarine Sanctuary system." 3. Boundaries Several alternatives were considered by Florida and OCZM regarding the boundaries of the proposed sanctuary. Although they differed in specifics, the basic concepts included: a. Using the entire bay as the sanctuary, but reducing the land masses (specifically by deleting St. Vincent Island National Wildlife Refuge and/or all State-owned lands on St. George and Little George Islands); b. Expanding the currently proposed sanctuary to include additional water areas (specifically Lake Wimico, Jackson River, and water areas above the proposed area); and c. Expanding the lands included within the sanctuary (specifically to include Tate's Hell Swamp and all private uplands on St. George Island). Deletion of some of the publicly owned barrier island parcels would not have any adverse environmental impact, as these lands would still be 21 publicly owned, and the sanctuary proposal does not propose to alter their management practices. However, the State, the Apalachicola Sym- posium panelists, and OCZM felt that the State and Federal barrier island parcels were an integral part of the estuarine ecosystem and would present expanded opportunities for research and educational activities within the sanctuary. Benefits would also be realized through coordination of a major part of the Apalachicola River/Bay system itself. The inclusion of additional water areas (i.e. Lake Wimico and Jackson River) in the sanctuary would not be expected to provide greatly increased environmental benefits to the sanctuary. Also, both water bodies are basically fresh water, which is not as critical for boundary purposes as estuarine waters. However, the areas, if unregulated, could adversely affect the sanctuary, and the inclusion of the waters might serve to underscore their relationship to the proposed estuarine sanctuary. Finally, activities on some privately owned uplands and wetland areas, especially Tate's Hell Swamp and St. George Island, do appear to have the potential for significant adverse impacts in the estuary. Of particular importance are the effects of forestry and drainage practices in Tate's Hell Swamp, and the effect of runoff, septic tank leachate, and commercial development on St. George Island. Acquisition of these areas would have some environmental benefit. However, additional funds have not been appropriated for these lands and the commercial values of forestry in Tate's Hell Swamp and the residential uses of St. George Island do provide economic benefits to Franklin County. The Apalachicola Symposium panelists recommended research studies addressing these two areas and their effects on the system. 4. Management One alternative considered was to have the Florida Department of Natural Resources, as landowner, serve as sole administrator for the sanctuary. In this role, DNR would directly administer, or by contract administer through another State agency, all proposed sanctuary lands as any normal purchase made under the Environmentally Endangered Lands Program, and also exercise its responsibilities under the State Aquatic Preserves program to develop specific management policies and practices for the water areas of the sanctuary. While this would not likely result in different environmental benefits or impacts, administration of the sanctuary from DNR's standpoint might be easier. Also, this approach would basically preclude the inclusion of St. Vincent Island Federal Wildlife Refuge within the sanctuary. The management committee that is proposed may administratively prove to be a more awkward organization than management by a sole agency. However, this awkwardness should be offset by the fact that the proposed structure will provide a coordinative mechanism for the array of Federal, 22 State, regional, and local interests that have a concern with the management of the system. This mechanism also assures that local interests will have a major role in regard to the management of the bay. The composition of the committee represents a balanced group in which all major interests are represented. Several additions have been made as a result of comments received on the DEIS. 5. Alternate Methods of Acquisition and Protection Florida, during the development of its application, examined a variety of possible funding sources and alternative methods of protection. These possible sources included: Federal Acquisition Pittman-Robertson Fund Dingell -Johnson Act Migratory Bird Conservation Fund Land and Water Conservation Fund Estuarine Sanctuary Program State Acquisition Environmentally Endangered Lands Fund (EEL) Florida annually receives funds from the Pittman-Robertson Fund and the Dingell -Johnson Act. However, these funds are used for wildlife habitat restoration and fish habitat restoration respectively. These funds generally are used for manipulative management programs, which would not be entirely compatible with sanctuary objectives. Similar considerations apply to the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, as the objectives are somewhat different. The Land and Water Conservation Funds are generally appropriated for projects that provide more recreational uses of the land than is envisioned within the sanctuary. The State's matching funds will come from a funding source that is specifically geared to purchase environmentally endangered lands, which is a parallel purpose of the estuarine sanctuaries program. It should also be noted that Congress, during the passage of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, intended the sanctuaries program not to duplicate existing Federal acquisition programs. *s 23 PART III: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION Awarding of the land acquisiton grant by OCZM would enable the State of Florida to purchase additional EEL lands, which, combined with the other pro- tected lands already owned by the State, would establish a National Estuarine Sanctuary representative of the Louisianian Biogeographic Region. The proposed action would have a variety of environmental and economic impacts. Creation of this estuarine sanctuary would initiate a long term learning process for research and education regarding estuarine systems and dynamics. It would allow coastal zone decisionmakers and members of the public to become more cognizant of how best to utilize the natural resources or protect their important benefits for long term usage. This would apply not only for this, but for other Louisianian Type estuaries as well. Such use will have little, if any, detrimental effect upon the environment, and will be of vital importance to the development of rational coastal zone management programs at the local, State, and regional levels. It is anticipated that this would be a positive envi- ronmental impact. Establishment of the sanctuary would also help to assure the permanent protection and management of a productive, relatively undisturbed estuarine area. By protecting the marshes and wetlands, the water quality would also be maintained. The proposed sanctuary acquisition would preclude develop- ment on approximately 12,467 acres of wetlands and uplands, thereby avoiding a potential flood hazard to man and property that would occur if the lands were developed, as well as preventing the irreversible damage to the environ- ment that would be caused by the loss of wildlife, vegetation, fish, and other marine life. Sanctuary designation does not preclude human activities within the sanctuary boundaries, but it would prevent those that cause significant degradation of the system, either by outright destruction or by overuse. The scientific research conducted in the sanctuary will assist in this control and will provide for the enhancement of the economic and environmental resources of this and other estuaries. A complete analysis of the socioeconomic impacts of the proposed sanctuary is contained in Appendix 6. The following is a brief synopsis of the conclusions regarding the anticipated net impacts associated with the designation of a National Estuarine Sanctuary in the Apalachicola Bay/River area. 1 . Local Impacts on Franklin County The area in which the proposed sanctuary will be located is currently rural in character and economically dependent upon the commercial fishing industry. The sanctuary will have the long term non-quantitative benefit of protecting and enhancing the local community's desired objective of retaining its natural resource base. 24 \ Land acquisition for the proposed sanctuary will have several effects, the net impact of which is anticipated to be positive. Although there will be a loss of approximately $ 9,000 in tax revenues each year due to removal of approximately 12,467 acres of land from the tax base, this shortrun loss is expected to be completely offset by a longrun rise in adjacent property values and tax revenues partially attributable to the operation of the sanctuary. In addition, approximately $326,000 in new money will be injected into the county's economy as a result of land pur- chased from local owners. No permanent residents will be displaced by the purchase of the 12,467 acres of land. One property includes a seasonal dwelling and the owner is currently unwilling to sell. Alternatives to sale could include an easement, or life estate on this particular property. In the long run, the impacts of purchasing this land are minimal, since the lands are generally unsuitable for development and there is a low growth potential for the area. In terms of renewable and non-renewable resources, the net impact of the sanctuary is expected to be beneficial. The economic benefits associated with the maintenance of valuable fishing and wildlife re- sources are expected to far outweigh the relatively minor negative impacts resulting from preclusion of future timber harvesting, mining and mineral activities within the sanctuary boundary. The net impact on tourism is anticipated to be significantly beneficial. The tourism potential of the area is currently considered an underutilized resource due to lack of facilities and lack of public awareness. The estuarine sanctuary is expected to stimulate tourism in four principal ways: increased awareness of the Apalachicola Bay region; long term protection of the area's principal tourist attraction (the natural environment); creation of a new tourist destination (the sanctuary's educational center); and the possible creation of an his- toric district in the City of Apalachicola in conjunction with sanct- uary designation. The increased tourist activity associated with the proposed sanctuary will, in turn, stimulate an increased supply of facilities and services to meet that demand. The sanctuary will have a slight positive impact on employment in the county. The sanctuary itself will provide a small, though long term stimulus to local employment. In the long run, the existence of the sanctuary is expected to ensure continued employment in the commercial fishing industry, have a positive impact on employment in the service industry (tourism, research, and education), and have a negligible impact on forestry -related employment. Activities associated with the sanctuary will have a positive impact on the local economy. The annual operating budget will pro- vide a small, but long term, stimulus to the local economy. In addition, the sanctuary is expected to stimulate additional State and Federal funding for research activities in the area, and its existence will protect and enhance the value of numerous past publicly funded research projects over time. The proposed educational facility will provide non-quantifiable educational benefits to the public, and its visitors will exert a positive impact on local economic activity. 25 2. Regional Impacts on the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin Because the proposed National Estuarine Sanctuary lies at the mouth of a vast river system, it has the potential to affect activities upstream. These possible impacts were evaluated in terms of the basic objectives now governing the management of the river system: navigation, hydropower, water supply, water-based recreation, flood control, and maintenance of the ecological resources of the river system and bay. The following is a summary on each of these objectives. Although the sanctuary may preclude shortrun alteration of navi- avigation channels until certain studies are completed and plans developed, it is not anticipated to have any long term negative impacts on navigation projects. Rather, the sanctuary is expected to focus its research efforts in areas that will resolve existing conflicts and provide decisionmakers with objective criteria by which to evaluate the implications of future navigation projects. Consequently, the long term impacts on navigation are anticipated to be beneficial. Major concern has been expressed about maintenance dredging of the A-C-F waterway to its authorized dimensions, 9' x 100'. The State of Florida is not opposed to maintenance dredging, but has always been con- cerned about proper spoil disposal. To alleviate the recurring problems regarding maintenance dredging, Florida has taken the following major actions: (1) The State of Florida has met with the Corps of Engineers (COE) and a memorandum of understanding is being prepared to establish a procedure for processing COE dredge and fill permits. (2) The Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) has issued a permit for desnagging and is processing an application for maintenance dredging. (3) The following clarification has been added to the Section on navigation in the FEIS under " Allowed Uses" : Maintenance dredging of existing channels includes dredging by the Corps of Engineers to Congressional ly ordered depths and dimensions. No new State regulatory requirements shall be imposed upon such maintenance" dredging because of achievement of status as an estuarine sanctuary, and State regulatory permit reviews shall continue to be applied in a manner consistent with appli cable Federal law. (4) New language has been added concerning prohibited activities to clarify the one year exclusion on public works. The wording, under the heading "Prohibited Activities," is as follows: 26 incorporation of new public works projects that require dredging or additional filling within the official Florida water resource development program, which is^annually presented and recommended to Congre pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statues. The temporary exclusion of such projects affecting the bay shall terminate upon adoption of a long term disposal plan expected to be completed within one year of the establishment of the estuarine sanctuary. The omission of such dredging and filling public works projects from the official Florida program does not preclude the submission or recommendation of such public works by other persons or public agencies to the Congress, nor Congressional authorization!)?" such projects' ] ' (5) The State of Florida has also agreed to take priority action on pending COE maintenance dredging applications. The proposed sanctuary will have no impact on existing river flow and discharge patterns relating to generation of hydropower. There- fore, the designation is not expected to have any negative impact on the provision of hydropower on the A-C-F system. Indeed, the existence of the sanctuary may have the beneficial effect of providing additional scientific data regarding present flow and discharge patterns, which will be useful in predicting long term goals. A potential conflict exists between future water supply needs of upstream users and the maintenance of an adequate water supply for com- peting downstream users. Since the proposed sanctuary is designed to maintain the integrity of the natural ecosystem at the mouth of the river system, the emphasis on maintaining adequate minimum flow rates may serve to heighten this conflict in the short run. In the long run, however, this negative impact may be partially or wholly offset by the results of sanctuary research, which should facilitate rational decisionmaking regarding consumptive use of the river's water supply, and thus assist upstream users to plan effectively for its future needs. It is again emphasized that Florida standards cannot apply to adjacent States and that currently Florida is required by law to determine minimum flow requirements for the Apalachicola River. The proposed sanctuary will have no impact on recreational uses in existing upstream impoundments. Also, the creation of the sanct- uary will open up new opportunities for "natural" resource recrea- tional uses. In the absence of the estuarine sanctuary, the alterna- tive of a unique, natural environment-oriented recreational area may be irretrievably lost. Consequently, the impact of the sanctuary on recreation is positive. The sanctuary will have no impact on flood control projects on the river system, it is in compliance with Executive Order 11988 (Flood- plain Management), and it is compatible with the management objective of maintaining the ecological resources of the river system and bay. 27 3. State and Federal Impacts Acquisition and management of the national estuarine sanctuary will have relatively minor shortrun fiscal impacts on the Federal Government and the State of Florida. In addition, the State will be responsible for funding the long term operation of the sanctuary. These expendi- tures are expected to be offset by two nonquantifiable benefits: (1) improved scientific and technical knowledge to be applied toward manage- ment practices concerning estuarine resources here and in other areas and (2) improved intergovernmental coordination in the bay and river system as a whole. The sanctuary would also protect wetlands and be in complete harmony with Executive order 11990, the Protection of wetlands. B. Relationship Between Local Short Term Uses of the Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long Term Productivity While designation of the proposed estuarine sanctuary will restrict local short term uses of the environment, it will also provide long term assurance that natural resources and benefits of the area will be available for future use and enjoyment. Without sanctuary designation, intense short term uses and gains, such as provided by silviculture, might be realized. However, such uses would most likely result in long term restrictions on use and benefit because of degradation of environmental factors. Without some additional control, the traditional conflicts between estuarine users — commercial, industrial, and wildlife — could be expected to increase in intensity. Research information derived from the estuarine sanctuary over the long term will assist in the coastal zone management decisionmaking process, and the public education program will provide a basis for the wise use of the estuarine resources. These results, which will apply to areas other than Apalachicola, will help avoid conflicts and mitigate adverse impacts caused by man's activities in the coastal zone. Thus, the sanctuary research would result in long term benefits. The proposed sanctuary will protect this natural estuarine system, thus directly contributing to the long term maintenance of this environ- ment and its economic benefits. In addition, the estuary will serve as a refuge for part of the living resources of the Louisianian province requiring this type of habitat for survival. Furthermore, since most economic activity in the county is a direct product of the natural envi- ronment, the sanctuary will ensure the maintenance and enhancement of long term economic as well as ecological productivity. C. Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitments of Resources Within the proposed sanctuary, there are no resources that will be irreversibly or irretrievably lost, and there appear to be no major, unavoidable, adverse environmental effects from its establishment, since 28 the area's resources will be protected. However, as the intent of this action is to provide permanent protection of the estuary and adjacent lands, in practice, silviculture and mining will be removed from direct utilization in the lands proposed for acquisition (only). D. Possible Conflicts Between the Proposed Action and the Objectives of Federal, Regional, State, and Local Land Use Plans, Policies, and Controls for the Area Concerned The City of Apalachicola and Franklin County are the localities most affected by this proposal. They have publicly expressed a position supporting the sanctuary designation. On August 1, 1978, the Board of County Commissioners of Franklin County passed a resolution supporting the proposal to designate Apalachicola Bay as a National Estuarine Sanctuary. On January 31, 1978, the Board of City Commissioners of Apalachicola adopted a resolution stating that all levels of government should assist in the prevention of the destruction or deterioration of the lower Apalachicola River and Bay System. This resolution was also adopted by the Franklin County Board of Commissioners on February 7, 1978. Also, both groups requested the U.S. Department of Commerce to approve a preliminary acquisition grant for a proposed Louisianian National Estuarine Sanctuary for this area. These three resolutions are located in Appendix VII. On a regional level, the Apalachicola Resource Management and Planning Program (ARMPP) has been established. This program is a cooperative interagency effort set up to resolve land use planning and resource management problems that could adversely affect Apalachicola River and Bay. Involved in this effort are the six Florida counties adjacent to the River (Franklin, Gulf, Calhoun, Liberty, Gadsden, and Jackson), the Apalachee Regional Planning Council, the Northwest Florida Water Management District, and a number of concerned State and Federal agencies. One objective of the program is to assert the State's interest in protecting the Apalachicola River and Bay System (Florida Division of State Planning, 1977). In response to this objective and the establishment of the ARMPP, the Board of County Commissioners in each of the six river basin counties passed a resolution opposing any structural modifications to the Apalach- icola River that would jeopardize fishing in Apalachicola Bay. The State of Florida on April 28, 1978, transmitted its official policies for the Apalachicola River Basin to the Corps of Engineers. The proposed sanctuary uses are consistent with the State's policies. The State's role in organizing the ARMPP and the purchase of 28,000 acres of land indicates intense interest in the rational use of the Apalachicola River/Bay System. On June 26, 1979 the Governor and Cabinent of Florida passed a resolution supporting the designation of Apalachicola River Basin 'as a National Estuarine Sanctuary (See Appendix XII). 29 The Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Fl int River System is currently being managed by the Corps of Engineers for the following objectives: (1) navi- gation; (2) hydropower; (3) water supply; (4) water based recreation; and (5) flood control. In regard to these activities, the Corps of Engineers sent a letter to the State of Florida requesting that adequate provisions be made for the continuation of Federal activities in the Apalachicola River if a decision is made to establish a National Estuarine Sanctuary in Apalachicola Bay. The States of Alabama and Georgia have also asked OCZM to consider the impacts of the sanctuary upon the above objectives in relation to their respective States. In response to these concerns, the proposed management structure for the Apalachicola Estuarine Sanctuary specifically allows navigation, including maintenance dredging of existing and authorized channels, subject to existing State and Federal permit reviews. In reviewing the economic tradeoffs of establishing a sanctuary (see Appendix VI), an analysis was performed of the impacts upon the Corps projects of designating a sanctuary in the river system. In general, this analysis concluded that: 1. A conflict in satisfying all management objectives for the river currently exists in low water periods. 2. The sanctuary designation further emphasizes Florida's position that the maintenance of the ecological resources of Apalachicola Bay is its prime management concern for the river system. 3. The sanctuary will not have a negative impact upon waterborne navigation, and, in fact, will benefit navigation by being a catalyst towards the preparation of a spoil disposal plan for Apalachicola Bay, by providing more knowledge towards the functioning of the river and bay system, and by establishing a management committee to assist in resolving conflicting use problems. 4. The sanctuary designation would have no significant negative impacts upon the other management objectives of the Corps. Concerns have also been expressed by the States of Alabama and Georgia, the Tri -Rivers Waterway Development Association, and others that the proposed sanctuary would prohibit the currently proposed structural modifications to the Apalachicola River intended to provide a 9 x 100 foot channel in the Apalachicola River 95 percent of the time. In regard to these concerns, it should be understood that the establishment of an estuarine sanctuary itself cannot prevent the continued operation, maintenance, or enhancement of a Congressional ly authorized project. All estuarine sanctuaries are owned and managed by the individual coastal States, under existing or future State law, not Federal law relating to the OCZM Estuarine Sanctuary Program. 30 The question of structural modification to the Apalachicola River is not a recent phenomenon and has been argued for the past 10 years. For example, Apalachicola River and Bay Resolution No. 73-12, dated March 20, 1973, and adopted April 16, 1974, by the Florida Depart- ment of Pollution Control, publicly stated the essential importance of the Apalachicola system both locally and statewide. It continued by resolving "that any proposed dam, water control structure, or development project that may affect sensitive and vital areas of the Apalachicola River and Bay should be subject to careful study and that until irrefut- able evidence is provided that the said project will not adversely affect the River or Bay, no dams, water control structures, or other such devices should be constructed in the Apalachicola River." Similar resolutions have been passed by the Governor and cabinet and the six counties adjacent to the river. A copy of these resolutions may be found in Appendix VIII. It is important to understand that the State position on structural modifications to the Apalachicola River was made prior to the conception of the proposed sanctuary and that it is not intended that the proposed sanctuary designation be used either to encourage or discourage such projects. Obviously, there has been a long standing controversy over structural modification of the Apalachicola River. These issues must still be resolved according to Federal, State, and local policies. Concern has also been raised at public hearings, and through cor- respondence, regarding the sanctuary's impact on navigation. Legally, the estuarine sanctuary cannot interfere with navigation under laws such as the Interstate Commerce Act, Ports and Waterways Safety Act, Clean Water Act, and others. The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) itself clearly states, "Nothing in this title shall be construed — to diminish either Federal or State jurisdic- tion, responsibility, or rights in the field of planning, development, or control of water resources, submerged lands, or navigable waters; nor to displace, supersede, limit, or modify any interstate compact or the jurisdic- tion or the responsibility of any legally established joint or common agency of two or more States or of two or more States and the Federal Government; nor to limit the authority of Congress to authorize and fund projects" (CZMA, Section 307(e)(1)). In addition, Section 404 (t) of the Clean Water Act of 1977 clearly states, "This Section shall not be construed as affecting or impairing the authority of the Secretary (of the Army) to maintain navigation." During the preparation of this FEIS it has been repeatedly emphasized that the proposed estuarine sanctuary is a small part of a large watershed that includes three States (Florida, Alabama, and Georgia) and comprises three major rivers— the Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, and Flint. There currently exist competing, and oftentimes conflicting, objectives for the use of this system. Resolution of these conflicting objectives is outside the scope of the estuarine sanctuary. Resolution will require joint efforts on the part of all. 0CZM will support any agreements between the three States affecting the estuarine sanctuary, as long as the area is not significantly altered for research or education purposes. 31 The Florida Department of Transportation currently has plans to replace the John Gorrie Bridge across the Apalachicola River. The DOT Act of 1966 declared it to be "national policy that special effort should be made to preserve the natural beauty of the countryside and public park and recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites." Since Apalachicola Bay has been designated an aquatic preserve and transportation project, it would presumably fall under the intent of the DOT Act. The Act also requires the Secretary of Transportation to cooperate and consult with States in developing transportation plans that include measures to maintain or enhance the natural beauty of the lands traversed. A mechanism exists for State agency input into plans for the John Gorrie Bridge replacement that will assure maintenance of the natural beauty and resources of lands and waters within the estuarine sanctuary. Therefore, OCZM will support the alternative for replacement of the bridge, that is acceptable to the appropriate Florida agencies. Estuarine sanctuary status will not cause any negative impact, including costly time delays, on the replacement of the existing bridge. In summary, the proposed sanctuary is consistent with the current policies and objectives of Federal, State, and regional governments, and local land-use plans, policies, and controls for the area concerned. A major problem that has caused delay in terms of dredging and maintenance projects is the concern over spoil disposal. The completion of a spoil disposal plan is the highest research priority for the proposed sanctuary, and its completion will be of benefit to maintenance dredging for waterborne transportation. 33 PART IV: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The Apalachicola River Basin is a biologically rich and distinctive system. This basin contains the greatest variation in physical land contours within the State of Florida. Its topography includes numerous caves, deeply entrenched ravines containing relict and endemic plants and animals, steep heads, extensive flatwoods, and a well balanced and extremely productive estuarine system of lagoons and flats. The area is predominantly rural, and the primary land uses are agriculture and forestry. The proposed sanctuary will consist of approximately 135,680 acres of estuarine waters and submerged lands, and about 57,000 acres of publicly owned lands and wetlands which surround or are adjacent to the estuarine water body. Of the 57,000 acres of land, approximately 12,467 acres are proposed for acquisition with matching (50 percent) funds by 0CZM and the State of Florida. A. General Physiography The Apalachicola River and Bay system is characterized by a series of rivers, bays, bayous, and tidal creeks that are separated from the Gulf of Mexico by a chain of barrier islands, including St. George Island, Little St. George Island, Dog Island, and St. Vincent Island. The system's major topographic featues are Apalachicola River, East Bay, Round Bay, St. Marks and Little St. Marks Rivers, Apalachicola Bay, the barrier islands, and a number of small creeks and bayous. The Apalachicola River is 105 miles long (Li vingston et al., 1974-75), and it is the largest water volume carrier in the State of Floricfa (DSP- BLWM, 1977). Pine flatwoods, hardwood hammocks, swamps, and marshes comprise the river system. The wetlands include rivers, streams, swamps, shallow freshwater and brackish marshes, and various forms of emergent and submerged vegetation that contribute to an exceptionally productive ecosystem (Livingston et a]_., 1974-75). Apalachicola Bay itself is a shallow coastal estuary bounded by a series of barrier islands, and averages nine feet in depth at mean low water. The bay is connected to open portions of the Gulf of Mexico via Indian Pass, West Pass, East Pass, the St. George Sound, and Sikes Cut, an artificial inlet. B. Soils-Geology The major soil associations in the proposed sanctuary are the Leon- Chipley Plummer association (nearly level sandy soils that are moderately to poorly drained), the alluvial land association (nearly level soils that are poorly and very poorly drained), the Plummer-Rutledge Association (nearly level, poorly drained to wery poorly drained soils that are 34 sandy throughout), salt water marsh, and coastal beaches and dunes. All of these soils associations have severe limitations for commercial and residential development and sanitary facilities. The Apalachicola River floodplain consists of Halocene sediments lying directly on Miocene strata, due to the erosion of Pliocene and Pleistocene sediments during low sea level and strong river flow. The barrier islands and spits were formed about 5,000 years ago on top of the remains of islands and dunes from early Pleistocene, interglacial , and high sea level times (Clewell, 1976). The only mineable materials of potential economic importance in the sanctuary are road fill, foundation fill, and peat (Schmidt, 1979). Although the area is believed to have some potential for oil, to date no oil has been found in the ten test wells drilled in the region (Applegate, 1979). There currently are no active oil leases within the proposed sanctuary boundaries. C. Drainage The Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Fl int River system drains about 19,200 square miles in the States of Alabama, Florida, and Georgia. About 76 percent of the River basin is in Georgia, 14 percent in Alabama and 10 percent in Florida (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1978). The Apalachicola River is formed by the confluence of the Flint and Chatta- hoochee Rivers at Lake Seminole, an impounded reservoir. The major sources of freshwater inflow to Apalachicola Bay are the Apalachicola River and the Chipola River. Recorded discharge rates in the Apalachicola River range from lows of about 9300 cubic feet per second (cfs) to highs of about 200,000 cfs (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1978) with an average flow of about 23,500 cfs. The influences of the Apalachicola River have been detected as far as 160 miles into the Gulf of Mexico (Livingston, et aU , 1974-1975). The biological productivity of Apalachicola Bay has been linked to the pulsed flooding from the river. Oysters, for instance, would be subject to predation without regular pulses of fresh water (Livingston, 1978). D. Biological Characteristics 1 . Vegetation The river system is characterized by various dominant forms of vegetation. The dry, sandy uplands contain pines, herbs, and oaks; the bluffs or shoal river formations have magnolia, beech, oak, maple, and holly; in the floodplain areas can be seen black willow, cottonwood, sycamore, river birch, tupelo, sweetgum, ash, and oaks; the gulf coastal lowlands have pine, palmetto, blackgum, sweet bay, shrubs, and flowers; in the coastal plains there are oak, pine, and shrubs; and finally cord grass, needlerush, saw grass, and cattails can be seen in the marshes, 35 though only the last three are in the proposed sanctuary. At least 116 species of plants have been found in the immediate vicinity of the Apalachicola River, of which 17 are endangered, 28 threatened, and 30 are rare. Nine species are endemic locally and 27 are endemic to the general Apalachicola region (Clewell, 1977). Of these plants only Lei tneri a f 1 ori di ana , the common corkwood, lies within the sanctuary. However, little botanical work has been done in the area, and it is possible that additional species may exist. The proposed purchase area is not considered to be a likely habitat for rare, endangered, or threatened species (Clewell, 1979). The Apalachicola Bay system includes numerous submerged and emergent vegetation types. Submerged vegetation is relatively restricted but includes sea grass, turtle grass, Manatee grass, and Cuban shoalweed, while the emergent vegetation is characterized by smooth and marsh hay cordgrass, black needlerush, saltgrass, and glasswort. Appendix 9 provides a list of the major vegetation types for each ecological region within the system. 2. Fish and Wildlife a. Fish Of the 116 fish species (see Appendix 10) identified within the system, three are endemic to the river system while a fourth originated in the system. The Apalachicola system provides spawning areas for anadromous fish. It supports an abundant striped bass population and contains such fish as the Atlantic sturgeon, the Alabama shad, skipjack herring, and the Atlantic needlefish. The hog choker lives in the river but migrates to the sea to breed. Striped mullet and gulf flounder swim upriver from the marine areas in the bay. Sports fishing in the river is supported by sunfish, striped bass, white bass, catfish, and sturgeon. Commercial species include channel and white catfish and bullheads (Yerger, 1976). The major economic activity conducted within the proposed sanctuary is commercial fishing. A combination of beneficial physical and biological circumstances allows Apalachicola Bay to be one of the most productive fishery areas in the country. The bay supports major fisheries for oyster, shrimp, crab, and finfish; it is also the major breeding grounds for blue crab for the eastern Gulf of Mexico. 36 Table 1 summarizes the marine landings from Franklin County for species that are estuarine dependent. Table 1 Marine Landings of Estuarine Dependent Fish in Franklin County, 1975, 1976. 1975 1976 Pounds %* Value %* Pounds %* Value %* Food Fish (total) 1,241,315 (1.5) $207,240 (0.9) 1,058,348 (1.3) $221,605 (0.8) Black Mullet 984,205 (3.8) 154,304 (4.1) 744,675 (4.0) 132,136 (4.3) Spot Sea Trout 73,847 (2.7) 28,513 (2.5) 100,655 (3.6) 43,396 (3.3 Non-Food Fish (total) 5,610 (0.0) 411 (0.0) 45,595 (0.3) 3,289 (0.4) Shrimp 1 (totaV ^ 3,700,000 (12.0) 1,350,000(8.0) 4,254,884 (14.6) 1,893,590 (11.0) Blue Crabs 1,658,981(9.8) 224,488(10.1) 1,742,161 (10.8) 300,215 (11.1) Oysters 2,032,612 (91.8) 1,107,017(87.9) 2,503,441 (92.2) 1,591,128 (89.5) Shrimp (total ) . 4,264,056 (13.3) 4,082,899 (12.6) 3,702,656 (12.1) 4,802,972 (11.1) Grand Total 9,210,981(5.7) 5,640,550 (716)9,061,483 (5.8) 6,921,456 (7.9) *A11 percentages are relative to the total Florida catch. Sources: Florida Department of Natural Resources (1975, 1976 a), Percy Thompson (1979). 37 It should be understood that fish landings fluctuate and the years listed in Table 1 were not peak oyster years. Unofficially, the 1977 oyster catch is estimated to be over 5,000,000 pounds (Snell, 1979). Since the output multiplier for commercial fisheries in the region is estimated to be about 2.0 (Bell, 1979), commercial fishing contributes well over $10 million annually to Franklin County's economy. The proposed sanctuary area is also used extensively for marine recreational fishing, although sportfishing in Apalachicola Bay and the lower River is currently considered to be an underutilized resource. The three fishing lodges in Apalachicola are patronized by an estimated average of 1125 fishermen per month (Northwest Florida Planning and Advisory Council, 1976). A recent study estimated that the average marine recreational fisherman, utilizing charter facilities, spends about $40 to $75 per day (North, 1976). Using the low value, marine recreational fishing from just the three facilities contributes over one-half million dollars annually to Franklin County's economy. This does not include additional incomes brought in by marine recreational fishermen not using the lodges. b. Wildlife The highest species density of amphibians and reptiles in North America, north of Mexico, occurs in the upper Apalachicola River Basin (Appendix 10). Rare species include the mole snake and various types of salamanders (Means, 1976). The floodplain forest is one of the most important bird habitats in the Southeast. Florida's rare or endangered birds such as the southern bald eagle, osprey, and peregrine falcon, also dwell within the river/bay system (Stevenson, 1976). Important mammals in the area include the black bear, roundtailed muskrat, white-tailed deer, and the gray squirrel (Means, 1976). Marine mammals and populations of sea turtles also frequent the area. Although significant hunting occurs in the sanctuary region, no data exists estimating the number of hunter-days. Deer, squirrel, hog, bear, and duck are all hunted in the lower river. E. Socioeconomic Characteristics Table II indicates selected socioeconomic characteristics for Franklin County, where the proposed lands for acquisition lie. 38 Table II Selected Socioeconomic Characteristics of Franklin County 1965* 1970* 1975* 1977* * Per Capita Personal Income $1004 $1626 $2750 $3061*** Unemployment Rate 5.4% 2.4% 12.1% 14.0% Population 6,750 7,065 7,856 8,128 ♦Florida Department of Commerce Data ♦♦University of Florida Data ***Data for 1976, 1977 Data Unavailable Franklin County's economy is centered about the fishing industry. Approximately 60 percent of the employment is directly associated with fishing. State and local governments provide another 14 percent of the employment. Over 85 percent of the land in the county is in commercial forestry and is a major economic factor. However, forestry provides little employment to the residents of the county, and the forestry resources within the sanctuary boundaries are not being actively harvested. The future development of the sanctuary region is expected to focus around the natural environment. The economic development of Franklin County probably will center around commercial fishing and allied industries, tourism and recreational fishing and boating, and light industry that is compatible with the environment of the county. Residential development in the county is expected to occur in the City of Apalachicola, its outskirts, and St. George Island (Meyer, 1979). The area is being increasingly used for recreation and second-home development by residents of Tallahassee, the State's Capitol. 39 The State of Florida had contributed a significant amount of money into the sanctuary region. The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) spends about $40,000 to $50,000 per year establishing artificial oyster reefs in the bay, and is sponsoring a $300,000 project to develop and bring into Apalachicola an oyster fattening plant. Within DNR's operating budget is $250,000 for Division of Marine Resources activities in the bay, and $400,000 for Marine Patrol activities. The budget of the Division of Recreation and Parks for the State park on St. George Island will be over $200,000 in 1979. Also, the Marine Research Laboratory in St. Petersburg spends about $1.5 million per year on fisheries research that would have application to Apalachicola Bay (Joyce (1979), Thomas (1978)). In addition, another $270,0000 in scientific research through the Sea Grant Program will be spent on Apalachicola River and Bay in 1979 (Livingston, 1979). It is uncertain what portion of these monies will actually be expended in Franklin County. However, since researchers can essentially be considered tourists in regard to economic activity necessary to accommodate them, and the estimated multiplier for tourist activity in Florida is about 3.0-4.0, the input of these research dollars probably will have a significant contribution to the County's economy. The proposed, estuarine sanctuary has two inland waterways; the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW) and the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (A-C-F) Navigation project. Approximately 2,000,000 tons of commerce are barged over these waterways each year. Major commodities moved include gasoline fuel, oil, crude petroleum, sand/gravel, and fertilizer. It is recognized that the use of waterborne transportation results in valuable energy savings over alternate forms of transportation, and that Georgia, Alabama and, to a lesser degree, Florida, have a substantial investment in the usage of waterborne transportation within the Tri -River system. 41 PART V: LIST OF PREPARERS Mr. James W. MacFarland - U.S. Department of Commerce Mr. MacFarland received his B.A. and M.A. in Economics and has previously prepared land acquisition strategies, purchased land, acted as a consultant, and analyzed the socioeconomic impacts of land preservation for major land conservation organizations. He is the author of several articles and studies on natural resource protection and is a former college lecturer in economics. Currently he is the Estuarine Sanctuary Program Coordinator for the Office of Coastal Zone Management within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. His present position includes direct project responsibility for five existing estuarine sanctuaries, and the establishment of future estuarine sanctuaries. Primary responsibility in the preparation of this DEIS included overall direction, organization, and preparation of the report for publication. In addition, he prepared all sections not specifically discussed below. Mr. Richard Weinstein - U.S. Department of Commerce Mr. Weinstein currently is a writer/editor for OCZM/NOAA. He has a B.S. in zoology, but at the present time he is completing the require- ments for an M.A. in English by writing a novel that will serve as his Master's Thesis. He is a published author of fiction and has written and edited several major studies prepared by OCZM. Mr. Weinstein edited this DEIS. Mr. Frank Christhilf - U.S. Department of Commerce Mr. Christhilf holds both the B.E. and M.L.A. degrees and has an extensive background in administration, particularly in the area of public policy. His background includes working as a professional engineer, as well as surveyor, and eight years experience as a member of a standing committee of the Arlington County Planning Commission, Arlington, Virginia. In addition, he has recently been involved in full-time graduate study in marine affairs with emphasis on environmental law, economics, national marine policy, and public administration. Currently, he is working with the Estuarine Sanctuary Program in OCZM/NOAA. His primary responsibilities included coordinating recent changes in this FEIS and putting together the Response to Comments Section of the Appendix. 42 Dr. Ted LaRoe - Florida Department of Environmental Regulation Dr. LaRoe received his Ph.D. in Marine Sciences (biological oceanography) and is currently Chief, Bureau of Coastal Zone Management. Previously, he was Chief Scientist and Coastal Ecologist for the Federal Office of Coastal Zone Management. In this capacity, he authored the South Slough, Oregon, Estuarine Sanctuary EIS, the June 4, 1974, Rules and Regulations for Estuarine Sanctuaries, and the Oregon Coastal Zone Management Program. In addition, he completed the comprehensive plan for the Rookery Bay Sanctuary prior to its becoming a national estuarine sanctuary. His primary responsibilities in the preparation of the DEIS were the sections on Purpose of and Need for Action, and Alternatives including Proposed Action. Mr. Steven Leitman - Florida Department of Environmental Regulation Mr. Leitman holds a B.A. degree in Mathematics and an M.S. P. in Regional Environmental Planning. Related work experience includes staff responsi- bilities in the organization of the Apalachicola Committee within the Florida Division of State Planning, and preparation of economic impact analyses of various coastal zone/water resource related projects over the last three years. In addition, he assisted in the development of the agriculture, water, and utility elements of the Florida State Comprehensive Plan. At the present time, he is employed by the Florida Bureau of Water Management analyzing the economic aspects of Federal water projects. Mr. Leitman coauthored the Environmental Consequences Section and the Economic Impact Assessment (Appendix 6), in addition to assisting in the preparation of the Affected Environment Section. Mr. Eric Nuzie - Florida Department of Environmental Regulation Mr. Nuzie received his B.A. in Social Studies. He has been employed by DER for the past six years, primarily within the enforcement section. In this capacity, he specialized in solid waste, domestic waste, air pollu- tion, and industrial waste, but has worked in all other phases of the State Environmental Regulation program. Recently, he transferred to the Bureau of Coastal Zone Management with primary responsibility for develop- ment of the Apalachicola estuarine sanctuary proposal. Mr. Nuzie was primarily responsible for the preparation of the Affected Environment Section. 43 Elisabeth S. Roy - Florida Department of Environmental Regulation Elizabeth Roy holds a B.A. in History and a Master's in Public Administration with emphasis on public finance and urban economics. She is currently employed as an Economic Planner in the Department's Office of Economic Analysis. She formerly taught microeconomics at Louisiana State University and was a research associate at the Joint Center for Environmental and Urban Problems at Florida Atlantic University. Ms. Roy co-authored the Environmental Consequences Section and the Economic Impact Assessment (Appendix 6). The following individuals were coordinators for the Apalachicola Symposium held in October 1978. They analyzed and summarized the recommendations which appear in Appendix 2. Mr. John Clark - The Conservation Foundation Mr. Clark is currently a Senior Associate and staff ecologist for the Conservation Foundation. He holds advanced degrees in marine ecology and ichthyology. He was formerly with the Woods Hole Fishery Laboratory, and the Sandy Hook Marine Laboratory in New Jersey. Mr. Clark currently serves as the Executive Secretary to the National Wetlands Technical Council and is the author of Coastal Ecosystem Management , a nationally recognized text concerned with Coastal Zone Management principles. Mr. John Banta - The Conservation Foundation Mr. Banta is a Senior Associate at the Conservation Foundation, specializing in coastal resources law. In addition to his J.D. degree, he also has a B.A. in mathematics. In his present capacity, he is the coauthor of The Physical Management of the Coastal Floodplain and has also analyzed States' interactions in the coastal zone decisionmaking process. Prior work experience included the examination of Critical Area Designations within the State of Florida. 45 FEDERAL AGENCIES Department of the Air Force Department of Commerce Department of Housing and Urban Development Department of the Interior Department of Transportation Environmental Protection Agency CONGRESS Honorable Richard (Dick) Stone, United States Senate (Florida) Honorable Tom Bevill, William L. Dickenson, Bill Nichols, Jack Brinkley, Dawson Mathis, United States House of Representatives (Georgia and Alabama) Honorable Don Fuqua, United States House of Representatives (Florida, 2nd District) STATE AGENCIES Alabama State of Alabama, Governor's Office - Honorable Fob James, Governor State of Alabama, Legal Advisor to Governor James - Mike Waters State of Alabama, Attorney General's Office - George Hardesty Alabama - Walter Stevenson, State Planning Division Southeast Alabama Regional Planning and Development Commission, Dothan, Alabama - W.T. Cathell Alabama State Docks Department, Mobile, Alabama - Gerry P. Robinson, W.H. Blade, Jr. Houston County Commission, Dothan, Alabama - Charles Whidden Florida State of Florida, Governor's Office - Statement of Governor Bob Graham, read by Ken Woodburn State of Florida, Governor's Office - Ken Woodburn Florida Secretary of State, Tallahassee, Florida - L. Ross Morrell Florida Department of Commerce, Tallahassee, Florida - William Stanley Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee, Florida - H.E. Wallace Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, Florida - Ray G. L'Amoreaux Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Tallahassee, Florida - Harold Hoffman Florida Division of State Planning, Tallahassee, Florida - R.6. Whittle, Jr. 46 Georgia State of Georgia, Executive Assistant to Governor Busbee - Tom Perdue Georgia Ports Authority, Savannah, Georgia - George J. Nichols Chattahoochee River Basin Development Commission, Atlanta, Georgia - Burton J. Bell Southwest Georgia Planning and Development Commission, Camilla, Georgia - Bob Thomas Atlanta Regional Commission, Atlanta, Georgia - Paul B. Kelman LOCAL AGENCIES City of Phenix City, Alabama - George E.H. Chard Franklin County Board of Commissioners, Apalachicola, Florida - Robert Howell Gulf County Commissioners, Wewahitchka, Florida - Douglas C. Birmingham Apalachee Regional Planning Council (ARPC) Blountstown, Florida - Ed Leuchs Jackson County Commissioners - Thomas Tyus Jackson County Port Authority, Sneads, Florida - Homer B. Hirt Town of Sneads, Florida - J. P. McDaniel Bainbridge and Decatur Counties, Georgia - Winston Brock City of Bainbridge, Georgia - B.K. Reynolds City of Blakely, Georgia - G.H. Dunaway City of Camilla, Georgia - Lewis B. Campbell Columbus, Georgia, Mayor's Office - Harry C. Jackson Board of Commissioners, Decatur County - J. Clifford Dallas Decatur County Farm Bureau, Bainbridge, Georgia - Bernard Rentz Board of Commissioners, Dougherty County, Georgia - Gil Barrett Commissioners of Early County, Georgia - E.C. Scarborough The Decatur-Bainbridge Industrial Development Authority, Georgia, John E. Prorenci NATIONAL INTEREST GROUPS Barrier Islands Coalition, Washington, D.C. - Dinesh Sharma Natural Resources Defense Council Inc., Washington, D.C. - Peter S. Holmes Sierra Club, Gulf Coast Regional Conservation Committee, Baton Rouge, Louisiana - Doris Falkenheimer Sierra Club, Chattahoochee Chapter, Atlanta, Georgia - Sally Sierer Sierra Club, Cahaba Group, Alabaster, Alabama - Ernest McMeans Sierra Club, Chattahoochee Chapter, Wiregrass Group, Dothan, Alabama - Darryl Wiley STATE INTEREST GROUPS Tri -Rivers Waterway Development Association, Dothan, Alabama - Addie Summers Florida Federation of Garden Clubs, Inc., Winter Park, Florida - Dursie Ekman 47 Florida Audubon Society, Maitland, Florida - Archie Carr III The Apalachicola Committee, Tallahassee, Florida - Ed Conklin Atlanta Audubon Society, Atlanta, Georgia - Elmer Butler Florida Defenders of the Environment, Gainesville, Florida - Marjorie H. Carr Georgia Clean Water Coalition, Atlanta, Georgia - Jo Jones The Georgia Conservancy, Savannah, Georgia - Hans Neuhauser Southeastern Wildlife Services, Inc., Athens, Georgia - Billy Hillestad LOCAL INTEREST GROUPS Live Oak Garden Club, Suwanee County, Florida - Ileen C. Moore, Marilyn B. Fowler Albany Chamber of Commerce, Albany, Georgia - Steve Bailey Bainbridge and Decatur County Chamber of Commerce, Blakely, Georgia - D. Smith Pel ham Chamber of Commerce, Pel ham, Georgia - Eddie Bowen Columbus Chamber of Commerce, Columbus, Georgia - Joe Ragland Blakely - Early County Chamber of Commerce, Blakely, Georgia - Wayne R. Foster INDIVIDUALS Dr. Robert Livingston, Tallahassee, Florida Samuel T. Adams, Apalachicola, Florida Charles R. McCoy, Blountstown, Georgia Dr. C.H. Oppenheimer, Consultant, Port Aransas, Texas George Atkins, WKDY Radio Station, Blountstown, Florida George Kirvin, Apalachicola, Florida A.M. Chason McDaniell, Property Owner, Gainesville, Florida W.W. Glenn, Marianna, Florida CO. Beall, Eufaula, Alabama Charles Fryling, Jr., Baton Rouge, Louisiana Sven 0. Lovegren, Decatur, Georgia Lyle A. Taylor, Huntsville, Alabama Ms. Deborah Gail Watson, Birmingham, Alabama Patricia E. Bardorf, Birmingham, Alabama Tom Cull en, Middletown, Virginia Gary Davis, Birmingham, Alabama Joe and Dottie McCain, Birmingham, Alabama PRIVATE INDUSTRY Continental Carbon Company, Phenix City, Alabama - J.D. Rodriguez Elberta Crate and Box Company, Bainbridge, Georgia - D.R. Simmons Mississippi Chemical Corporation, Yazoo, Mississippi - James A. Pierce 48 Craft Company, Mahrt, Alabama - CO. Beall Brent Towing Company, Inc., Greenville, Mississippi - Michael M. Measells The Buckeye Cellulose Corporation, Perry, Florida - Walter L. Beers Childress Company, Foley, Alabama - Bruce Childress Continental Carbon Company, Houston, Texas - N.R. Higgins Great Southern Paper Company, Cedar Springs, Georgia - James W. Stewart Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation, Washington, D.C. - T.K. Singer Cook and Henderson, Washington, D.C. - John C. Kirtland John T. Brown Law Firm, Washington, D.C. - Stephen E. Roaa> St. Joe Paper Company, Port St. Joe, Florida - Hugh W. White, Jr. UNIVERSITIES Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida - Wayne H. Smith, Hans Riekerk Division of Engineering Research, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana - John M. Hill 49 PART VII: APPENDICES I. Estuarine Santuary Guidelines (June 4, 1974 and September 9, 1977). II. Apalachicola Symposium and Workshop: Summary of Workshops and Recommendations for Boundaries and Environmental Management of a Proposed Estuarine Sanctuary. III. Florida Statute, Chapter 258; Land Conservation Act of 1972. IV. Florida Statute, Chapter 259; State Parks and Preserves. V. Florida Statute, Chapter 253; Land Acquisition Trust Fund. VI. Economic Impact Assessment for the Designation of Apalachicola Bay National Estuarine Sanctuary. VII. Local and Regional Resolutions Supporting Establishment of an Estuarine Sanctuary. VIII. Governor and Cabinet Resolutions Regarding Structured Modi- fication to the Apalachicola River. IX. Major Types of Vegetation Within the Apalachicola River/Bay System. X. Fish and Wildlife Resources of the Lower Apalachicola River and Bay. Legal status of endangered and potentially endangered species in Florida. XI. Florida Statute, Chapter 267; Archives and History Act. XII. Florida Cabinet Resolution of June 26, 1979, Supporting Designation of the Apalachicola River Basin as a National Estuarine Sanctuary. XIII. Summarized Comments on the DEIS and Responses by OCZM to these comments. APPENDIX I TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 1974 WASHINGTON, D.C. Volume 39 ■ Numbtr 108 PART IV •"2% '^8-<9l* No. 10a— pt. rv- DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Ettuarinc Sanctuary Guidelines 19922 RULES AND REGULATIONS Title 15— Commerce and Foreign Trade CHAPTER IX— NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, DE- PARTMENT OF COMMERCE PART 921— ESTURAINE SANCTUARY GUIDELINES The National Oceanic and Atmos- pheric Administration (NOAA) on Marc h 7, 1974, proposed guidelines (15 CFR Part 921) pursuant to section 312 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (Pub. L. 92-583, 86 Stat. 1280), hereinafter referred to as the "Act," for the purpose of establishing the policy and procedures for the nomination, se- lection and management of estuarlne sanctuaries. Written comments were to be sub- mitted to the Office of Coastal Environ- ment (now the Office of Coastal Zone Management), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, before April 8, 1974, and consideration has been given those comments The Act recognizes that the coastal zone is rich in a variety of natural com- mercial, recreational. Industrial and esthetic resources of immediate and po- tential value to the present and future well-being of the nation. States are en- couraged to develop and Implement management programs to achieve wise use of the resources of the coastal zone, and the Act authorizes Federal grants to the States for these purposes (sections 305 and 306) . In addition, under section 312 of the Act. the Secretary of Commerce is authorized to make available to a coastal State grants of up to 50 per centum of the cost of acquisition, development and operation of estuarlne sanctuaries. The guidelines contained in this part are for grants under section 312 . In general, section 312 provides that grants may be awarded to States on a matching basis to acquire, develop and operate natural areas as estuarlne sanc- tuaries in order that scientists and stu- dents may be provided the opportunity to examine over a period of time ecologi- cal relationships within the area. The purpose of these guidelines is to establish the rules and regulations for implemen- tation of this program. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Is publishing herewith the final regulations describing the pro- cedures for applications to receive grants for estuarlne sanctuaries under section 312 of the Act. The final regulations and criteria were revised from the proposed guidelines based on the comments re- ceived. A total of fifty (50) States, agen- cies, organizations and individuals sub- mitted responses to the proposed sec- tion- 312 guidelines published In the Fedebal Register on March 7, 1974. Of those responses received, eight (8) of- fered no comment or were wholly favor- able as to the nature and content of the guidelines as originally proposed. Forty- two (42) commentators submitted sug- gestions concerning the proposed section 312 guidelines. The following summary analyzes key comments received on various sections of the proposed regulations and presents the rationale for the responses made. Secflon 921.2 Definitions. Three com- ments requested that the term "estuary" be defined. Although the term is defined ra the Act and also in the regulations dealing with Coastal Zone Management Program Development Grants (Part 920 of this chapter) published November 29, 1973, It has been added to these regula- tions and broadened slightly to include marine lagoons with restricted fresh- water Input such as might occur along the south Texas coast. Two other comments requested that the "primary purpose" referred to in 9 921.2(b) be clearly defined. Although elaborated upon In I 921.3(a), for the purpose of clarity this change has been made. Section 921.3 Objectives and Imple- mentation. Several comments suggested thai the estuarlne sanctuary program objectives were too narrowly defined and specifically that they should be broad- ened to Include the acquisition and pres- ervation of unique or endangered estu- aries for wildlife or ecological reasons. Although the Act (section 302) declares It the nation's policy to preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, to restore or enhance coastal resources, this Is per- ceived to be achievable through State actions pursuant to sections 305 and 305. While It Is recognized that the creation of an estuarlne sanctuary may In fact serve to preserve or protect an area or biological community, the legislative his- tory of section 312 clearly Indicates the estuarlne sanctuary program was not in- tended to duplicate existing broad pur- pose Federal preservation programs, such as might be accommodated by use of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act. instead, both In the Act as well as Its legislative history, the objective is de- fined as preserving representative estu- arlne areas for long-term research and educational uses. Three other comments suggested the objectives of the program should be en- larged to Include the restoration of en- vironmentally degraded areas. This, too, Is perceived to be a State requirement separate from section 312. In addition, adequate authority for restoring de- graded water areas now exists (for ex- ample. Pub. L. 92-500 In addition to sections 302, 305 and 306 of the Act). No significant additional benefit would appear to result from declaring an area an estuarlne sanctuary for the purposes of restoration. A few comments indicated that the examples of sanctuary use were too heav- ily weighted toward scientific uses to the exclusion of educational uses. Public education concerning the value and ben- efits of, and the nature of conflict within the coastal zone, will be essential to the success of a coastal zone management program. The section has been changed to reflect an appropriate concern for educational use. Some commentators suggested changes In or additions to the specific examples of sanctuary uses and purposes. These examples were taken from the Senate and House Committee Reports and are considered sufficient to reflect the kinds of uses Intended within an estuarine sanctuary. Several comments were received per- taining -to I 921.3(c) Involving the re- strictions against overemphasis of de- structive or manipulative research. Ten comments indicated that the section was too weak and would not provide sufficient long-term protection for the sanctuary ecosystem. Several commentators spe- cifically recommended deleting the words "would not normally be permitted" and inserting in their place "will not be per- mitted." In contrast, three respondents Indicated that the potential use of estu- arine sanctuaries for manipulative or destructive research was too restricted, and that these uses should be generally permitted If not encouraged. The legislative history of section 312 clearly Indicates that the Intent of the estuarlne sanctuary program should be to preserve representative estuarine areas so that they may provide long- term (virtually permanent) scientific and educational use. The uses perceived are compatible with what has been de- fined as "research natural areas." In an era of rapidly degrading estuarine environments, the estuarlne sanctuary program will ensure that a representa- tive series of natural areas will be avail- able for scientific or educational uses dependent on that natural character, for example, for baseline studies, for use in understanding the functioning of natural ecological systems, for controls against which the impacts of development in Other areas might be compared, and as interpretive centers for educational pur- poses. Any use, research or otherwise, which would destroy or detract from the natural system, would be Inappropriate under this program. In general, the necessity of or benefit from permitting manipulative or de- structive research within an estuarine sanctuary Is unclear. While there Is a legitimate need for such kinds of re- search, ample opportunity for manipu- lative or destructive research to assess directly man's impact or stresses on the estuarine environment exists now with- out the need for creation or use of an estuarine sanctuary for this purpose. In contrast, a clear need exists for natural areas to serve as controls for manipula- tive research or research on altered systems. The section on manipulative research has been changed to reflect the concern for continued maintenance of the area as a natural system. However, the modi- fier "normally" has been retained be- cause, witihin these limits, it is not felt necessary to preclude all such uses; the occasion may rarely arise when because of a thoroughly demonstrated direct ben- efit, such research may be permitted. Several comments suggested that the program should include degraded estua- rine systems, rather than be limited to areas which are "relatively undisturbed by human activities." Such areas would permit research efforts designed to re- store an estuarlne area. As Indicated FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 3«», NO. 108 — TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 1 The term "multiple use" as used In this section shall mean the simulta- neous utilization of an area or resource for a variety of compatible purposes or to provide more than one benefit. The term Implies the long-term, continued uses of such resources in such a fashion that other uses will not Interfere with, diminish or prevent the primary purpose, which Is the long-term protection of the area for scientific and educational use. §921.3 Objectives sad implementation of thai (a) General. The purpose of the es- tuarlne sanctuaries program Is to create natural field laboratories in which to gather data and make studies of the natural and human processes occurring within the estuaries of the coastal zone. This shall be accomplished by the estab- lishment of a series of estuarlne sanc- tuaries which will be designated so that at least one representative of each type of estuarlne ecosystem will endure Into the future for scientific and educational purposes. The primary use of estuarlne sanctuaries shall be for research and educational purposes, especially to pro- vide some of the information essential to coastal zone management decision-mak- ing. Specific examples of such purposes and uses Include but are not limited to: (1) To gain a thorough understanding of the ecological relationships within the estuarlne environment. (2) To make baseline ecological meas- urements. (3) To monitor significant or vital changes In the estuarlne environment. (4) To assess the effects of man's stresses on the ecosystem and to forecast and mitigate possible deterioration from human activities. (5) To provide a vehicle for increasing public knowledge and awareness of the complex nature of estuarlne systems, their values and benefits to man and na- ture, and the problems which confront them. (b) The emphasis within the program will be on the designation as estuarlne sanctuaries of areas which will serve as natural field laboratories for studies and investigations over an extended period. The area chosen as an estuarlne sanc- tuary shall, to the extent feasible, in- clude water and land masses constituting a natural ecological unit. (c) In order that the estuarlne sanc- tuary will be available for future studies, research involving the destruction of any portion of an estuarlne sanctuary which would permanently alter the nature of the ecosystem shall not normally be FfOftAL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 108 — TUESDAY JUNE 4, 1974 tUlES AMD tEfiULATIONS 19925 permitted. In the unusual circumstances where perrnitted.- manipulative field re- search shaQ be carefully controlled. No experiment which Involves manipulative research shall be Initiated until the ter- mination date ie specified and erldenoe given that the environment will be re- turned to its condition which existed prior to the experiment. (d) It Is anticipated that moat of the areas selected at sanctuaries will be rel- atively undisturbed by human activities at the time of acquisition. Therefore, most of the areas selected will be areas with a minimum of development, indus- try or habitation. (e) If sufficient permanence and con- trol by the State can be assured, the acquisition of a sanctuary may Involve less than the acquisition of a fee simple Interest Such Interest may be. for ex- ample, the acquisition of a conserva- tion easement, "development rights", or other partial Interest sufficient to assure the protection of the natural system. Leasing, which would not assure perma- nent protection of the system, would not be an acceptable alternative. S 921.4 Blogeographie classification. (a) II Is Intended that estuarine sanc- tuaries should not be chosen at random, but should reflect regional differentia- tion and a variety of ecosystems so as to cover all significant variations. To ensure adequate representation of all es- tuarine types reflecting regional differ- entiation and a variety of ecosystems; selections will be made by the Secretary from the following blogeographlc class- ifications: 1. Arcadia*. Northeast Atlantic coast •rath to Cape Cod. glaciated shoreline ■ab- ject to winter Icing; weU developed algal flora; boreal biota. a. Virginian. Middle Atlantic coast from Cape Cod to Cape Hatteraa; lowland streams, coastal marsbec and muddy bottoms: char- acteristics transitional between 1 and S; biota primarily temperate with some boreal r ep r esentatives. 3. Carolinian. South Atlantic coast, from Cape Hatteraa to Cape Kennedy: extensive marshes and swamps; waters turbid and productive: biota temperate with seasonal tropical elements. 4. Wast Indian. South Florida coast from Cape Kennedy to Cedar Key: and Caribbean Islands; shoreland low-lying limestone; calcareous sands, marls and coral reefs; coastal marshes and mangroves; tropical biota. 5. Louisianian. Northern Oulf of Mexico, from Cedar Key to Mexico; characteristics of S, with components of 4; strongly Influ- enced by terrigenous factors: biota primarily temperate. 8. OaUfornian. South Pacific coast from Mexico to Cape Mendocino; shoreland influ- enced by coastal mountains; rocky coast* with reduced fresh-water runoff; general abse nc e of marshee and swamps; biota temperate. 7. Columbian. North Pacific coast from Cape Mendocino to Canada; mountalneous shoreland; rooky coasts; extensive algal com- munities; biota primarily temperate with some boreal. 8. Fiords. South coast Alaska and Aleu- tians; precipitous mountains; deep estuaries, soma with glaciers; shoreline heavily in- dented and subject to winter lolng; biota boreal to sub-Arctic 8. Subarctic. West and north coasts of Alaska: Ice stressed coasts; biota Arctic and sub- Arctic. 10. Intular Larger Islands, sometimes with precipitous mountains: considerable wave action; frequently wte* endemic special: larger Island groups primarily with tropical biota. 11. Qraat Lake: Great Lakes of North America; bluff-dune or rooky, glaciated shoreline; limited wetlands; freshwater only; biota a mixture of boreal and temperate species with anadromous species and some marine Invaders. (b) Various sub-categories will be de- veloped and utilized as appropriate. § 921.5 Multiple use. (a) While the primary purpose of es- tuarine sanctuaries Is to provide long- term protection for natural areas so that they may be used for scientific and edu- cational purposes, multiple use of estu- arine sanctuaries will be encouraged to the extent that such use is compatible with this primary sanctuary purpose. The capacity of a given sanctuary to ac- commodate additional uses, and the kinds and intensity of such use, will be determined on a case by case basis. While It is anticipated that compatible uses ' may generally include activities such as low intensity recreation, fishing, hunt- ing, and wildlife observation, it Is rec- ognized that the exclusive use of an area for scientific or educational purposes may provide the optimum benefit to coastal zone management and resource use and may on occasion be necessary. (b) There shall be no effort to balance or optimize uses of an estuarine sanctu- ary on economic or other bases. All addi- tional uses of the sanctuary are clearly secondary to the primary purpose and uses, which are long-term maintenance of the ecosystem for scientific and educa- tional uses. Non-compatible uses, includ- ing those uses which would cause sig- nificant short or long-term ecological change or would otherwise detract from or restrict the use of the sanctuary as a natural field laboratory, will be pro- hibited. S 921.6 Relationship to other provisions of the act and to marine sanctuaries. (a) The estuarine sanctuary program must Interact with the overall coastal zone management program in two ways: (1) the Intended research use of the sanctuary should provide relevant data and conclusions of assistance to coastal zone management decision- making, and (2) when developed, the State's coastal zone management program must recog- nize and be designed to protect the estu- arine sanctuary; appropriate land and water use regulations and planning con- siderations must apply to adjacent lands. Although estuarine sanctuaries should be Incorporated into the State coastal zone management program, their desig- nation need not await the development and approval of the management pro- gram where operation of the estuarine sanctuary would aid In the development of a program. (b> The estuarine sanctuaries program will be conducted In dose cooperation with the marine sanctuaries program (Title m of the Marine Protection. Re- search Act of 1872. Pub. L. 02-632, which Is also administered by the Office of Coastal Zone Management, NOAA), which recognises thai certain areas of the ocean waters, as far seaward as the outer edge of the Continental Shelf, or other coastal waters where the tide ebbs and flows, or of the Qreat Lakes and their connecting waters, need to be pre- served or restored for their conservation. recreational, ecologic or esthetic values. It is anticipated that the Secretary on occasion may establish marine sanctu- aries to complement the designation by States of estuarine sanctuaries, where this may be mutually beneficial. Subpart B— Application for Grants S 921.10 General. Section 312 authorizes Federal grants to coastal States so that the States may establish sanctuaries according to regu- lations promulgated by the Secretary. Coastal States may file applications for grants with the Director, Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. U.S. De- partment of Commerce, Rockvllle, Mary- land 20852. That agency which has been certified to the Office of Coastal Zone Management as the entity responsible for administration of the State coastal zone management program may either submit an application directly, or must endorse and approve applications sub- mitted by other agencies within the State. § 921.11 Application for initial acquisi- tion, development and operation grants. (a) Grants may be awarded on a matching basis to cover the costs of acquisition, development and operation of estuarine sanctuaries. States may use donations of land or money to satisfy all or part of the matching cost require- ments. (b) In general, lands acquired pur- suant to this section, including State owned lands but not State owned sub- merged lands or bay bottoms, that occur within the proposed sanctuary boundary are legitimate costs and their fair market value may be Included as match. How- ever, the value of lands donated to or by the State for Inclusion In the sanctuary may only be used to match other costs of land acquisition. In the event that lands already exist in a protected status, their value cannot be used as match for sanctuary development and operation grants, which will require their own matching funds. (c) Development and operation costs may Include the administrative expenses necessary to monitor the sanctuary, to ensure its continued viability and to pro- tect the Integrity of the ecosystem. Re- search will not normally be funded by Section 312 grants. It is anticipated that other sources of Federal. State and FfOHAi MOISTU, VOL 39. NO. 10S-— TUISOAY, JUNI 4, 1*74 19926 KULES AND IEOUIATIONS private funds will be available for re- search In estuarlne sanctuaries. (d) Initial applications should contain the following Information: (1) Description of the proposed sanc- tuary Include location, boundaries, uise and cost of acquisition, operation and de- velopment. A map should be Included, as well as an aerial photograph, if available. (2) Classification of the proposed sanctuary according to the blogeographlc scheme set forth In I 921.4. (3) Description of the major physical, geographic and biological characteristics and resources of the proposed sanctuary. (4) Identification of ownership pat- terns; proportion of land already In the public domain. (5) Description of Intended research uses, potential research organizations or agencies and benefits to the overall coastal zone management program. (6) Demonstration of necessary au- thority to acquire or control and manage the sanctuary. (7) Description of proposed manage- ment techniques, including the manage- ment agency, principles and proposed budget including both State and Federal shares. (8) Description of existing and poten- tial uses of and conflicts within the area If It were not declared an estuarlne sanc- tuary; potential use, use restrictions and conflicts if the sanctuary is established. (1) Assessment of the environmental and socio-economic Impacts of declaring the area an estuarlne sanctuary, includ- ing the economic Impact of such a desig- nation on the surrounding community and its tax base. (9) Description of planned or antici- pated land and water use and controls for contiguous lands surrounding the proposed sanctuary (Including if appro- priate an analysis of the desirability of creating a marine sanctuary in adjacent areas). (10) List of protected sites, either within the estuarlne sanctuaries program or within other Federal, State or private programs, which are located In the same regional or blogeographlc classification. (1) It is essential that the opportunity be provided for public involvement and Input in the development of the sanctu- ary proposal and application. Where the application Is controversial or where controversial Issues are addressed, the State should provide adequate means to ensure that all Interested parties have the opportunity to present their views. This may be in the form of an adequately advertised public hearing. (11) During the development of an estuarlne sanctuary application, all land- owners within the proposed boundaries should be Informed in writing of the pro- posed grant application. (Ill) The application should Indicate the manner in which the State solicited the views of all Interested parties prior to the actual submission of the appli- cation. (e) In order to develop a truly repre- sentative scheme of estuarlne sanctu- aries, the States should attempt to coor- dinate their activities. This will help to minimize the possibility of similar estu- arlne types being proposed for designa- tion in the same region. The application should indicate the extent to which neighboring States were consulted. if) Discussion, Including cost and feasibility, of alternative methods for acquisition, control and protection of the area to provide similar uses. Use of the Marine Sanctuary authority and funds from the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act should be specifically ad- dressed. § 921.12 Application for subsequent de- velopment and operation grants. (a) Although the initial grant appli- cation for creation of an estuarlne sanc- tuary should Include initial development and operation costs, subsequent appli- cations may be submitted following ac- quisition and establishment of an estua- rlne sanctuary for additional develop- ment and operation funds. As Indicated in i 921.11, these costs may include ad- ministrative costs necessary to monitor* the sanctuary and to protect the Integ- rity of the ecosystem. Extensive manage- ment programs, capital expenses, or re- search will not normally be funded by section 312 grants. (b) After the creation of an estuarlne sanctuary established under this pro- ■ gram, applications for such development and operation grants should Include at least the following information: (1) Identification of the boundary. (2) Specifications of the management program, including managing agency and techniques. (3) Detailed budget. (4) Discussion of recent and projected use of the sanctuary. (5) Perceived threats to the integrity of the sanctuary. § 921.13 Federally owned lands. (a) Where Federally owned lands are a part of or adjacent to the area pro- posed for designation as an estuarlne sanctuary, or where the control of land and water uses on such lands is neces- sary to protect the natural system within the sanctuary, the State should contact the Federal agency maintaining control of the land to request cooperation in pro- viding coordinated management policies. Such lands and State request, and the Federal agency response, should be Iden- tified and conveyed to the Office of Coastal Zone Management. (b) Where such proposed use or con- trol of Federally owned lands would not conflict with the Federal use of then- lands, such cooperation and coordination is encouraged to the maximum extent feasible. (c) Section 312 grants may not be awarded to Federal agencies for creation of estuarlne sanctuaries In Federally owned lands; however, a similar status may be provided on a voluntary basis for Federally owned lands under the provi- sions of the Federal Committee on Eco- logical Preserves program. Subpart C— Selection Criteria S 921.20 Criteria for selection. Applications for grants to establish estuarlne sanctuaries will be reviewed and judged on criteria Including: (a) Benefit to the coastal zone man- agement program. Applications should demonstrate the benefit of the proposal to the development or operations of the overall coastal zone management pro- gram. Including how well the proposal fits into the national program of repre- sentative estuarlne types; the national or regional benefits; and the usefulness in research. (b) The ecological characteristics of the ecosystem, including Its biological productivity, diversity and representa- tiveness. Extent of alteration of the natural system, its ability to remain a viable and healthy system In view of the present and possible development of ex- ternal stresses. (c) Size and choice of boundaries. To the extent feasible, estuarlne sanctuaries should approximate a natural ecological unit. The minimal acceptable size will vary greatly and will depend on the na- ture of the ecosystem. (d) Cost. Although the Act limits the Federal share of the cost for each sanc- tuary to $2,000,000, It is anticipated that in practice the average grant will be sub- stantially less than this. (e) Enhancement of non-competitive uses. (f) Proximity and access to existing research facilities. < g) Availability of suitable alternative sites already protected which might be capable of providing the same use or benefit. Unnecessary duplication of ex- isting activities under other programs should be avoided. However, estuarlne sanctuaries might be established adja- cent to existing preserved lands where mutual enhancement or benefit of each might occur. (h) Conflict with existing or potential competing uses. (1) Compatibility with existing or pro- posed land and water use In contiguous areas. If the initial review demonstrates the feasibility of the application, an environ- mental impact statement will be pre- pared by the Office of Coastal Zone Man- agement in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and implementing CEQ guidelines. § 921.21 Public participation. Public participation will be an essen- tial factor in the selection of estuarlne sanctuaries. In addition to the participa- tion during the application development process (8 921.11(e)), public participa- tion will be ensured at the Federal level by the NEPA process and by public hear- ings where desirable subsequent to NEPA. Such public hearings shall be held by the Office of Coastal Zone Management In the area to be affected by the proposed sanctuary no sooner than 30 days after It Issues a draft environmental Impact -£D«Al IfGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 10« — TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 1974 RULES AND REGULATIONS 19927 statement on the sanctuary proposal. It will be the responsibility of the Office of Coastal Zone Management, with the as- sistance of the applicant State, to issue adequate public notice of its intention to hold a public hearing. Such public no- tice shall be distributed widely, espe- cially in the area of the proposed sanc- tuary; affected property owners and those agencies, organizations or individ- uals with an identified interest in the area or estuarlne sanctuary program shall be notified of the public hearing. The public notice shall contain the name, address and phone number of the appropriate Federal and State officials to contact for additional information about the proposal. Subpart 0— Operation § 921.30 General. Management of estuarlne sanctuaries' shall be the responsibility of the appli- cant State or its agent. However, the research uses and management program must be in conformance with these guidelines and regulations, and others implemented by the provisions of indi- vidual grants. It is suggested that prior to the grant award, representatives of the proposed sanctuary management team and the Office of Coastal Zone Man- agement meet to discuss management policy and standards. It Is anticipated that the grant provisions will vary with Individual circumstances and will be mutually agreed to by the applicant and the granting agency. As a minimum, the grant document for each sanctuary shall: (a) Define the Intended research pur- poses of the estuarlne sanctuary. (b) Define permitted, compatible, re- stricted and prohibited uses of the sanc- tuary. (c) Include a provision for monitoring the uses of the sanctuary, to ensure com- pliance with the intended uses. (d) Ensure ready access to land use of the sanctuary by scientists, students and the general public as desirable and permissible for coordinated research and education uses, as well as for other com- patible purposes. (e) Ensure public availability and rea- sonable distribution of research results for timely use in the development of coastal zone management programs. (f) Provide a basis for annual review of the status of the sanctuary, its value to the coastal zone program. (g) Specify how the integrity of the system which the sanctuary represents will be maintained. (h) Provide adequate authority and intent to enforce management policy and use restrictions. § 921.31 Change* in the sanctuary boundary, management policy or research program* . (a) The approved sanctuary boundar- ies; management policy, including per- missible and prohibited uses; and re- search program may only be changed after public notice and the opportunity of public review and participation such as outlined in J 921.21. (b) Individuals or organizations which are concerned about possible improper use or restriction of use of estuarine sanctuaries may petition the State man- agement agency and the Office of Coastal Zone Management directly for review of the management program. § 921.32 Program review. It is anticipated that reports will be required from the applicant State on a regular basis, no more frequently than annually, on the status of each estuarine sanctuary. The estuarine sanctuary program will be regularly reviewed to ensure that the objectives of the program are being met and that the program it- self is scientifically sound. The key to the success of the estuarine sanctuaries program is to assure that the results of the studies and research conducted in these sanctuaries are available in a timely fashion so that the States can develop and administer land and water use programs for the coastal zone. Ac- cordingly, all information and reports. Including annual reports, relating to estuarine sanctuaries shall be part of the public record and available at all times for inspection by the public [FB Doc.74-12775 Piled 5-31-74:9:57 am] ftOMAl MOISTU, VOL. 3«, NO. 101 — TUISDAY, JUN1 4, 1*74 FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1977 PART IV DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ESTUARINE SANCTUARY Guidelines 45522 PROPOSED RULfcb DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [ 15 CFR Part 9£1 ] ESTUARINE SANCTUARY GUIDELINES Policies and Procedures for Selection Acquisition and Management AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmos- pheric Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: This proposed rule will allow the National Oceanic and Atmos- pheric Administration to make a pre- liminary acquisition grant to a State to undertake a fair market value appraisal, and to develop a uniform relocation act plan, a detailed management plan and a research framework for a proposed estu- arine sanctuary, developed pursuant to Section 315 of the Coastal Zone Manage- ment Act of 1972, as amended. DATE: Comments must be received on or before October 1, 1977. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CON- TACT: Robert R. Kifer, Physical Scientist, Policy and Programs Development Of- fice, Office of Coastal Zone Manage- ment, 3300 Whitehaven Parkway, Page One Building, Washington, D.C. 20235 (202-634-4241). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 4, 1974, The National Oce- anic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) published 15 CFR Part 921 en- titled, "Estuarine Sanctuary Guidelines" pursuant to then section 312 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, for the purpose of establish- ing policy and procedures for the selec- tion, acquisition, and management of estuarine sanctuaries. Under new subsection 315(1) of the Act, the Secretary of Commerce is au- thorized to make available to coastal States grants of up to 50 per centum of the cost of acquisition, development, and operation of estuarine sanctuaries. In general, subsection 315(1) provides that grants may be awarded to States on a matching basis to acquire, develop, and operate natural areas as estuarine sanc- tuaries in order that scientists and stu- dents may be provided the opportunity to examine over a period of time ecologi- cal relationships within the area. The purpose of these guidelines is to imple- ment this program. As a result of two years of program implementation, the regulations are pro- posed to be modified to specifically au- thorize the granting of acquisition money to States in two stages : (i) An initial grant for such prelimi- nary purposes, as surveying and assess- ing the land to be acquired, and the de- velopment of management procedures and research programs; and (ii) A second grant for the actual ac- quisition of the land. The Federal share of the sum of the two grants shall not exceed 50 percent of the acquisition costs involved. Any State receiving an initial grant shall be obligated to repay it if, due to any fault of the State, the sanctu- ary is not established. As a result of this new grant procedure, much more information relating to costs, values, management procedures, and re- search programs will be available at the time of the publication of a draft en- vironmental impact statement. Proposals made public to date in the form of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) have been criticized for lack of specificity in these areas. By making a small pre- 'liminary acquisition grant to a State, the estuarine sanctuary proposal can be more fully developed and the public can become more aware of the costs and the exact nature of the long-term manage- ment. In response to State questions about estuarine sanctuary research, the pro- posed regulations provide that such re- search can be funded if it can be shown to be related to program administration. NOAA has reviewed these proposed regulations pursuant to the National En- vironmental Policy Act of 1969 and has determined that promulgation of these regulations will have no significant im- pact on the environment. Compliance with Executive Order 11821. The economic and inflationary impact of these proposed regulations has been evaluated in accordance with OMB Circular A-107 and it has been deter- mined that no major inflationary im- pact will result. Dated: August 26, 1977. T. P. Gleiter, Assistant Administrator for Administration. It is proposed to amend 15 CFR Part 921 as follows: (1) By revising the table of contents and authority citation to read as follows : Subpart A — General Sec. 921.1 Policy and objectives. 921.2 Definitions. 921.3 Objectives and implementation of the program. 921.4 Biogeographic classification. 921.5 Multiple use. 921.6 Relationship to other provisions of the Act and to marine sanctuaries. Subpart B — Application for Grants 921.10 General. 921.11 Application for preliminary acquisi- tion grants. 921.12 Application for land acquisition grants. 921.13 Application for operational grants. 921.14 Federally-owned lands. Subpart C — Selection Criteria 921.20 Criteria for selection. 921.21 Public participation. Subpart D — Operation 921.30 General. 921.31 Changes in the sanctuary boundary, management policy, or research program. 921.32 Program review. Authority: Sec. 315(1) , Coastal Zone Man- agement Act of 1972, as amended (90 Stat. 1030, (16 U.S.C. 1461) Pub. L. 94-370). (2) By revising Subpart B — Applica- tion for Grants — as follows: Subpart B — Application for Grants § 921.10 General. Section 315 authorizes Federal grants to coastal States so that the States may establish sanctuaries according to regu- lations promulgated by the Secretary. Coastal States may file applications for grants with the Associate Administrator for Coastal Zone Management (OCZM) , Office of Coastal Zone Management, Page 1, 3300 Whitehaven Parkway NW, Wash- ington, D.C. 20235. That agency which has been certified to the Office of Coastal Zone Management as the entity respon- sible for administration of the State coastal zone management program may either submit an application directly, or must endorse and approve applications submitted by other agencies within the State. § 921.11 Application for preliminary acquisition grants. (a) A grant may be awarded on a matching basis to cover costs necessary to preliminary actual acquisition of land. As match to the Federal grant, a State may use money, the cost of necessary services, the value of foregone revenue, and/or the value of land either already in its possession or acquired by the State specifically for use in the sanctuary. If the land to be used as match already is in the State's possession and is in a pro- tected status, the State may use such land as match only to the extent of any revenue from the land foregone by the State in order to include it in the sanc- tuary. Application for a preliminary ac- quisition grant shall be made on form SF 424 application for Federal assistance (non-construction programs) . (b) A preliminary acquisition grant may be made for the defrayal of the cost of : (1) An appraisal of the land, or of the value of any foregone use of the land, to be used in the sanctuary; (2) The development of a Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act plan; (3) The development of a sanctuary management plan; (4) The development of a research and educational program; and/or, (5) Such other activity of a prelimi- nary nature as may be approved in writ- ing by OCZM. Any grant made pursuant to this subsection shall be refunded by the State to whatever extent it has spent in relation to land not acquired for .the sanctuary, and if OCZM requests such refund. (c) The application should contain : (1) Evidence that the State has con- ducted a scientific evaluation of its estu- aries and selected one of those most rep- resentative. (2) Description of the proposed sanctuary including location, proposed boundaries, and size. A map(s) should be included, as well as an aerial photo- graph if available. FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 42, NO. 175— FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1977 PROPOSED RULES 45523 (3) Classification of the proposed sanctuary according to the biogeo- graphic scheme set forth In'$>92i;4. ' (4) Description of the major physical, geographic, biological characteristics and resources of the proposed sanctuary. i"V (5) Demonstration of the necessary authority to acquire or control and mah 7 age the sanctuary. (6) Description of existing and poten- tial uses of, and conflicts within, the area if it were not declared an estuarine sanctuary; and potential use restriction and conflicts if the sanctuary is estab- lished. (7) List of protected sites, either with- in the estuarine sanctuaries program or within other Federal, State, or private programs, which are located in the same region or biogeographic classification. (8) The manner in which the State solicited the views of interested parties. (9) In addition to the standard A-95 review procedures, the grant application should be sent to the State Historic Pres- ervation Office for comment to insure • compliance with section 106 of the Na- tional Preservation Act of 1966. (d) In order to develop a truly repre- sentative scheme of estuarine sanctu- aries, the States should coordinate their activities. This will help to minimize the possibility of rimilar estuarine types be- ing proposed in the same region. The extent to which neighboring States were consulted should be indicated. § 921.12 Application for land acquisi- tion grants. i (a) Acquisition grants will be made to acquire land and facilities for estuarine sanctuaries that have been thoroughly described in a preliminary acquisition grant application, or where equivalent information is available. Application for an acquisition grant shall be made on SF 424 application for Federal assist- ance (construction program). In general, lands acquired pursuant to this subsection are legitimate costs and their fair market value, developed ac- cording to Federal appraisal standards, may be included as match. The value of lands donated to the State and cash do- nations may also be used as match. If the State already owns land which is to be used in the sanctuary, the value of any use of the land foregone by the State in order to include such land in the sanctuary, capitalized over the next 20 years, may be used by the State as match. The value of lands purchased by a State within the boundaries of pro- posed sanctuaries while an application for a preliminary acquisition grant or land acquisition grant is being consid- ered may also be used as match. (b) An acquisition application should contain the following information: (1) Description of any changes in pro- posed sanctuary from that presented in the preliminary acquisition grant appli- cation. If such an application has not been made, then, information equivalent to that required in such a grant applica- tion should be provided. (2) Identification of ownership pat- terns, proportions of land already in the public domain; fair market value ap- praisal and Uniform Relocation Act plan. (3) 'Description of research pr^ogf arris," potential and committed research or- ganizations or agencies, and benefits to the* ^overall coastal zone management program. , £ (4) Description of proposed manage- ment techniques, including the manage- ment agency and proposed budget — in- cluding both State and Federal shares. (5) Description of planned or antici- pated land and water use and controls for contiguous lands" surrounding the proposed sanctuary (including,, if appro- priate, an analysis of the desirability of creating a marine sanctuary in adjacent areas) . (6) Assessment of the environmental, and socio-economic impacts of declaring the area an estuarine sanctuary, includ- ing the economic impact on the sur- rounding community and its tax base. (7) Discussion, including cost and feasibility of alternative methods for ac- quisition and protection of the area. § 921.13 Application for operation grants. (a) Although an acquisition grant ap- plication for creation of an estuarine sanctuary should include initial opera- tion costs, subsequent applications may be submitted following acquisition and establishment of an estuarine sanctuary for additional operational funds. As in- dicated in § 921.11, these costs may in- clude administrative costs necessary to monitor the sanctuary and to protect the integrity of the ecosystem. Extensive management programs, capital expenses, or research will not normally be funded by section 315 grants'. (b) After the creation of an estuarine sanctuary established under this pro- gram, applications (Form SF 424) for Federal assistance (non-construction program), for such operational grants should include at least the following in- formation: (1) Identification of the boundary (map) . (2) Specifications of the research and management programs, including man- aging agency and techniques. (3) Detailed budget. (4) Discussion of recent and projected use of the sanctuary. (5) Perceived threats to the integrity of the sanctuary. § 921.14 Federally-owned lands. (a) Where Federally-owned lands are a part of or adjacent to the area proposed for designation as an estuarine sanc- tuary, or where the control of land and water uses on such lands is necessary to protect the natural system within the sanctuary, the State should contact the Federal agency maintaining control of the land to request cooperation in provid- ing coordinated management policies. Such lands and State request, and the Federal agency response, should be iden- tified and conveyed to the Office of Coastal Zone Management- < • . . „... (b) Where such proposed use or con- trol of Federally -owned lands would not conflict with the Federal use of their lands, such cooperation and coordination is encouraged to the maximum extent feasible. (c) Section 315 grants may not be awarded to Federally -owtaed lands; how- ever, a similar status may be provided on a voluntary basis for Federally-owned lands under the provisions of the Federal Committee on Ecological Perserves program. § 921.20 [Amended] (4) Subpart C — Selection Criteria — is amended by changing the first sentence in §921.20 to read: "Applications for preliminary acquisition Or land acquisi- tion grants to establish estuarine sanc- tuaries will be reviewed and judged on criteria including:" (5) Section 921.21 is revised, as fol- lows: §921.21 Public participation. (a) Public participation in the selec- tion of an estuarine sanctuary is re- quired.' In the selection process, the se- lecting entity (see §921.10) shall seek the views of possibly affected landown- ers, local governments, and Federal agencies, and shall seek the views of pos- sibly interested other parties and orga- nizations. The latter would include, but need not be limited to, private citizens and business, social, and environmental organizations in the area of the site be- ing considered for selection. This solici- tation of views may be accomplished by whatever means the selecting entity deems appropriate, but shall include at least one public hearing in the area. No- tice of such hearing shall include infor- mation as to the time, place, and subject matter, and shall be published in the principal area media. The hearing shall be held no sooner than 15 days follow- ing the publication' of notice. (b) The Office of Coastal Zone Man- agement (OCZM) shall prepare draft and final environmental impact state- ments pertaining to the site finally se- lected for the estuarine'isanctuary fol- lowing public participation in the selec- tion of that site; and shall distribute these as appropriate. OCZM may hold a public hearing in the area of such site at which both the draft environmental im- ■ pact statement (DEIS) and the merits of the site selection may be addressed by those in attendance. OCZM shall hold such a hearing if : (1) In its view, the DEIS is controversial, or (2) if there ap- pears to be. a need for further informing the public with regard to either the DEIS or one. or more aspects of the site se- lected, or (3) if such a hearing is re- quested m writing (to either the select- ing entity or (CZM) by an affected or in- terested party, or <4) for other good cause. If held, such hearing shall be held no sooner than SO days following the is- suance of the DEIS and no sooner than 15 days after appropriated notice of such hearing has been given Jn the area by OCZM witb the assistance of the select- ing entity. *-, ... AFBif*eWr&19& FU«*lM-77;8:46 am] FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 42, NO. 175 — FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1977 APPENDIX II REVIEW DRAFT APALACHICOLA SYMPOSIUM AND WORKSHOPS Summary of Workshop and Recommendations for Boundaries, Resource Maintenance, and Research Needs for a Proposed Estuarine Sanctuary A Report to: The Florida Department of Environmental Regulation The Office of Coastal Management, U.S. Department of Commerce The Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of Interior By: The Conservation Foundation Washington, D.C. January 31, 1979 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION I - INTRODUCTION 1 II - WORKSHOP METHODOLOGY 4 III - CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6 Boundaries 6 • Resource Maintenance 10 Research Program 20 IV - PANEL REPORTS 23 Boundaries 26 Resource Maintenance 33 Research Recommendations 48 V - CONTRIBUTIONS FROM INTERESTED OBSERVERS 64 VI - ATTENDEES 71 i : ' i SECTION I - INTRODUCTION This is a report of a Symposium and Workshops conducted by the Conservation Foundation in Tallahassee, Florida, October 17-19, 1978. The workshops examined a proposal by the Bureau of Coastal Zone Management of the State of Florida that an area around Apalachicola Bay be designated a National Estuarine Sanctuary (see Figure 1), providing funds for state acquisition of land and a structure for a research and educational program in this area. The Symposium and Workshops brought together scientists who have conducted research in the area proposed for designation and other nationally recognized experts to: --consider the ecological boundaries of the area proposed for sanctuary designation; --seek consensus on the needs for resource maintenance in keeping with sanctuary status in view of the present ecological condition of the system and past impacts; --seek a short term and long term research agenda. The contribution of such a group of scientists was timely. This area includes large land areas currently managed under the Florida Environmentally Endangered Lands program. Much of the water area is designated as a state Aquatic Preserve. Sanctuary designation provides an opportunity for some additional land acquisition to protect the valuable estuary, and an opportunity to continue and expand a research program providing valuable lessons for the state and local fisheries and natural resource management. The sanctuary, owned and operated by the State would also provide an opportunity to coordinate interests in fisheries, ecological research, navigation and economic development with sound scientific information. The federal Office of Coastal Zone Management (U.S. Department of Commerce) provides grants, on a matching basis, to states to enable them to acquire, develop and operate "National Estuarine Sanctuaries," or natural areas for research and educational purposes. Only 18 to 22 will be created nationwide. Once established the states operate these areas to study "the natural and human processes occurring within the estuaries of the coastal zone." The proposed Apalachicola research area would not interfere with the "multiple" uses--fishing, navigation, recreation--that the area is now subject to unless they significantly degrade the Bay's natural resources. Because the multiple use of this area is essential to state and local support for the proposed research area, a meeting of the scientists most likely to conduct research in the area t along with nationally recognized experts on ecosystem function was an important prerequisite to finalizing the sanctuary proposal. Along with preliminary land evaluation for acquisition, and dis- cussions of potential management structures, these scientists had a key con- tribution to make to the formulation of this sanctuary proposal. The scientists were asked to evaluate ecological boundaries, ecosystem condition, resource Figure One FLORfDA -, 09 1 t 5 4WLCJ FEDERALLY OWNED LANDS [\W\\ STATE OWNED E. E. LANDS ttfttfl LANDS PROPOSED FOR PURCHASE WATER AREAS PROPOSED TO BE INCLUDED IN SANCTUARY The total land area of the proposed sanctuary is about 44,000 acres . . .water areas include Apalachicola Bay, St. George and St. Vincent sounds maintenance, and a research agenda to provide guidance to the state and local interests as a more formal proposal was developed. The materials that follow describe the methodology used for the Symposium and Workshops, The Conservation Foundation's Conclusions and Recommendations, detailed recommendations from the scientific workshops, contributions from interested observers, and a list of attendees, all of whom requested that they be included in future discussions and deliberations regarding this proposal. These materials are necessarily preliminary. They are written from the perspective of a scientist concerned with the definition and conservation of an economically valuable and productive ecosystem. We hope that, together with the technical contributions of the land acquisition and management agencies, and management recommendations from the state and local governments involved, they will provide the raw material for a well informed evaluation of a formal proposal for Sanctuary designation. II - WORKSHOP METHODOLOGY The Foundation has developed a method of fusing broadly based scientific knowledge with resource management initiatives that is particularly suited for considering the Apalachicola Bay ecosystem as an estuarine sanctuary. This "Coordinate Planning System" utilizes a process for reaching an informed scien- tific consensus on the resource management needs of an ecosystem and the con- sequences of failure to meet those needs. The consensus does not produce a set of regulatory requirements to which public policy must somehow adapt itself; rather, it provides scientifically based standards of ecosystem tolerances--a series of measuring sticks—for policy makers to use in weighing and balancing levels and types of resource use and resource impact. For the Apalachicola, the Foundation invited nationally recognized experts on living resources, critical habitats, system dynamics, physical processes, and socio-economic concerns. Each of these panel chairmen oversaw a workshop session which consisted of the scientists that the Foundation had been able to identify as active in research on the Apalachicola River and Bay in these panel areas. The resulting panels varied in size from five to ten members. In addition, other individuals from the interested public attending the general sessions also made valuable contributions to the workshops. But the pri- mary purpose of the workshop sessions was to assemble experienced individuals and nationally recognized experts for a critical dialog focusing on the Sanc- tuary proposal. The workshop process included five structured phases: 1) preparation, 2) indoctrination, 3) interaction, 4) summarization, and 5) review. A brief explanation of each phase is provided in the following overview. Preparation of the participants for the Symposium and Workshop was accomplished through a telephone introduction followed by correspondence setting forth the purposes and terms of the event. Background papers on the Apalachicola ecosystem were also transmitted. Workshop participants were chosen largely because of their knowledge of the ecosystem although a few were chosen because of their expertise in the general subjects to be discussed. To guarantee the maximum in objectivity, the six panel chairmen were chosen on the basis of their not having been significantly involved with the area previously. Indoctrination of the workshop participants occurred during a one half day general Symposium session that immediately preceded the workshops (the morning of October 17). This session was attended by local state and Federal officials, special interest representatives, and citizens as well as the scientists and other technical experts who would participate in the workshops. Purposes and goals for the workshops were elaborated and the work process explained. The mission of the participants was outlined and their responsibility narrowed to technical matters. Interaction occurred in six separate concurrent panel sessions that lasted for 1-1/2 days each (the afternoon of October 17 and a full day on October 18). Each panel was comprised of a core group of participants who were accountable for the conclusions and a number of observers who assisted the panels as needed. The discussions were conducted in typical academic fashion by the chairmen using no formal decision process but rather depending upon the building of general consensus. A taped record was maintained by the reporter for each panel. Summarization began on the second day of the workshops with an incremental reporting schedule for each of the three major outputs: 1) boundaries of the Sanctuary, 2) resource maintenance requirements, and 3) future research needs. Integration of the panels was maintained by informal cross-panel interaction during the sessions and by a final meeting of panel chairman to jointly consider major conclusions and recommendations and to resolve any important differences. Verbal reports were given to a final session of the Symposium (morning of October 19) by the general chairman and each of the panel chairman. Review by the participants of the panel outputs and the integrated conclusions and recommendations was provided as follows: first, by review of the written panel draft reports produced by the workshops; second, by the verbal reviews at the final Symposium session; and third, by circulating copies of the draft com- prehensive report following the workshops. SECTION III - CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This section presents the summary of conclusions and recommendations prepared by the Conservation Foundation for the Symposium sponsors—the Bureau of Coastal Zone Management of the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, the Office of Coastal Zone Management of the U.S. Department of Commerce, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. It is based principally upon the Panel Reports and the discussions at the Plenary Sessions (a verbatim transcript is on file) but also has relied to a degree on the detailed panel discussions (a taped transcript is on file). Where the Conservation Foundation has rendered its own opinions or judgments these are noted as such in the text. The Conservation Foundation and the Symposium participants were charged with the following major tasks by the sponsors: (1) Recommend boundaries for the proposed Apalachicola National Estuarine Sanctuary; (2) Identify management needs for resource maintenance; and (3) Suggest important short and long-term research needs associated with the Sanctuary program. A review of the results of each task is given in the following pages. The complete panel summary reports on each task are given in Section IV. In general, the Lower River and Bay ecosystems are believed to be in good health, and management should be aimed primarily at maintaining the resources at present levels. This means that the present mix of uses of the Bay should not be augmented with new uses that are potentially damaging or that would compromise the health of the sanctuary or its natural resource base. This management can be achieved for the most part, with present authorities, and no new regulations would be needed. While some restoration activity is most desirable, it is the opinion of the Conservation Foundation that: The basic theme for the sanctuary should be maintaining the ecologic status quo in the face of any new develop - ment pressures. BOUNDARIES Selection of the boundaries for the Apalachicola National Estuarine Sanctuary must incorporate a great variety of technical and general considerations. The task assigned to the Symposium was to consider and recommend boundaries which would to the best extent possible encompass a complete functional ecosystem. Yet the scientific participants were at the same time constrained to include practical limitations in their deliberations such as the present extent of public ownership in the area under consideration. In considering the subject of boundaries the Symposium participants had available the state recommendation, as contained in the preliminary application to the federal Office of Coastal Zone Management along with some written comments from agencies. From this starting point the six panels considered any modifications that might be advisable and other alternative locations. Interactions between the panels occurred during the course of the Workshops. In addition, a special review and coordination session of panel chairmen was held after the panel sessions were adjourned. Consensus was achieved on all boundary matters except that one panel maintained an independent opinion on the eastward boundary of the Sanctuary. Certain requirements for national estuarine sanctuaries affect boundary selection. For example, an estuarine sanctuary "...shall, to the extent feasible, include water and land masses constituting a natural ecological unit." For another, "Estuarine sanctuaries might be established adjacent to existing preserved lands where mutual enhancement or benefit of each might occur." The panels con- sidered these requirements as well as the stated educational and research purposes of the sanctuary program before making their recommendations. It is the opinion of the Conservation Foundation that: The proposed sanctuary must embrace a complete ecosystem to accomplish its purpose . The Sanctuary proposed by the state was to be representative of the "Louisianian" ecological province. In the opinion of the Conservation Foundation, the Apalachicola site is clearly representative of this province and to our knowledge Florida is the only state to propose a "Louisianian" sanctuary. No other options were suggested by the panels as equal to the Apalachicola ecosystem. One suggestion brought to our attention after the close of the Symposium (see Section V) was seriously considered but judged not to be of sufficient merit to reinstitute the Symposium for review. This proposal was for designation of an open water area lying along the coast from Cedar Key to Apalachee Bay. This proposed alternative area is fed by several small rivers and the Suwanee River which originates in Georgia's Okeefenokee Swamp. While this area has significant value, and fresh and salt water mixing with characteristics of an estuary, it is more properly a series of wery small estuaries, and not a single ecosystem of major importance, and therefore, does not qualify. Nor does it have the extensive, coherent body of research data upon which to base an educational or research program. It would seem to have merit as a Marine Sanctuary, however, which is authorized under another federal program. In conclusion, it is the opinion of the Conservation Foundation that: The Apalachicola ecosystem is the best choice for a Louisianan province representative of the National Estuarine Sanctuary system . Accordingly, the remainder of this section is focused on detailing the boundaries for this ecosystem that would be most appropriate for an estuarine sanctuary. To embrace the essential influences on the sanctuary ecosystem it is apparent that the sources of its water supply must be addressed in the for- mulation of boundaries. The panels were unanimous that the Apalachicola River was a primary influence. It was also evident that water exchange with the Gulf of Mexico was a primary influence. Therefore, these two water sources must be accounted for in considering sanctuary boundaries. There was general agreement that the primary sanctuary boundaries should be drawn around the tidal part of the Bay, but that the water sources should be considered for a secondary management arrangement as areas of limited management concern. In con- sideration of these factors the Conservation Foundation recommends that: The State should designate the public lands and water areas , already largely devoted to public ownership and conservation management, as the sanctuary ; and a second tier of lands and waters as an area of management concern because of potential impacts on the sanctuary, defined in terms of the floodplain and wetlands systems of_the Apalachicola (for land) and i n terms of the Apalachicola River's water supply or flow (for water) .* The first tier of lands would constitute the sanctuary for active manage- ment and research purposes. However, the second tier of lands and waters must be identified as an area of limited management concern because certain activities and alterations in this tier can significantly influence the sanctuary, and research and education in the sanctuary can provide valuable information to the public and private owners in the second tier. For instance, significant changes in the volume and periodicity of river flow could have a adverse effect on the productivity of marine resources in the Bay. The proposed sanctuary lands and waters would constitute a "natural ecological unit", an ecosystem. As originally proposed by the state the sanctuary did not fully satisfy this principle. Specific additions recommended to embrace all major elements of the ecosystem include: 1) The public waters and wetlands transition zone of the Lake Wimi co- Jackson River complex and its associated wetlands (as detailed in Section IV). 2) The Apalachicola River and its associated wetlands to the limit of tidal influence, approximately twenty miles north of the Bay. 3) All publicly owned lands lying adjacent to the Sanctuary.* With these additions, the sanctuary would include all ecosystem components essential to an active ecosystems research and management agenda. The panels were particularly emphatic about the essential need to include Lake Wimico/Jackson River because: 1) it is an integral and exceptionally valuable part of the ecosystem providing key nursery habitat for fishes and crustaceans, and 2) a research program that concentrates on the circulation patterns of this Bay ecosystem and their relationships to marine productivity and navigation activities would omit key data if this area were not included. The second tier of land and water should be reflected in the management concept for the sanctuary utilizing whatever management tools the state and local governments responsible for these areas find appropriate. The sanctuary managers would have only limited interest in these areas; for the most part, they should be expected to provide technical assistance for setting and evaluating standards and criteria used by other decision-makers. As an independent research- oriented voice with some local ties, the sanctuary is expected to be both *This would not change any part of the federal Management Status of St. Vincent National Wildlife Refuge, an area excluded by law from the coastal zone, as defined in the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. critic and aid in different decisions and on their own behalf to review development proposals in light of effects on the sanctuary. These areas would include: 1. The water flowing into Apalachicola Bay from Lake Seminole and the Flint-Chatahoochee River systems. 2. All non-public areas of the floodlands of the Apalachicola River, (floodable areas above the wetlands boundary). 3. Tate's Hell Swamp and other wetlands drainages of concern, such as Indian Swamp. 4. The non-public areas of the barrier islands that enclose the sanctuary on the south. The sanctuary is influenced strongly by the fresh water inflow from tributaries, principally the Apalachicola River, and by oceanic influences, or the entry of ocean water into the Bay. Land runoff--the quantity and rate of flow of water from the floodplains of the Apalachicola--is equally important to the integrity of this ecosystem. Runoff into Lake Wimico from its adjacent lands and thence into the bay is of concern, because relatively little is known about its relationships to the Bay beyond evidence that the two are closely linked. A suggestion by one panel to include an additional area above the proposed Environmentally Endangered Lands (EEL) purchase north of East Bay was not supported by any other panel. This area presently has a lower priority than proposed purchases but should be studied for possible future inclusion when funds become available for purchase of additions to the sanctuary. A suggestion by one panel that the sanctuary be extended eastward to the eastern end of Dog Island was not supported by the other panels because water circulation data show a moderately weak water transport connection between the proposed additional area and the rest of the Sanctuary. Suggestions made by some panels to include in the sanctuary the entire barrier islands enclosing it to the south were made before the concept of a two-tier sanctuary was agreed upon later in the workshop. In this approach the sanctuary core does not include the whole of the islands, but only the public lands and waters. The non-public parts of the islands are, however, included in a second tier as areas of special management concern. Inlets would be included in the core sanctuary up to the normal high water mark or other boundary of public jurisdiction. A third "second-tier" concern that must be addressed is the watershed and water flows of the Flint and Chatahootchee Rivers into Lake Seminole and over the Jim Woodruff Dam. Coordinating mechanisms will have to be arranged to ensure that the sanctuary is not degraded by inappropriate rates of flow or levels of water quality during seasonal high and low flow periods. 10 RESOURCE MAINTENANCE If the sanctuary is to serve its educational and research purposes, its natural resource base must be maintained (at current levels or at higher levels if such a goal is possible through restoration programs)^ Certainly, the agencies responsible for the Apalachicola ecosystem have afforded increasing protection for its resources over recent years and thus conserved it in a state that makes it ideally suited for a National Estuarine Sanctuary. Yet, the point appears to have been reached where both the additional acquisitions possible for an approved sanctuary and the coordinative framework necessary for the management structure are needed to continue this level into the future. New pressures are being brought to bear on the system and its future can be made more secure by a coordinated program of resource maintenance. Background As things stand today, the natural resources of the Apalachicola ecosystem are in good shape and well suited for its proposed role as a sanctuary. It has been altered, certainly, but the panel discussions failed to reveal any other coastal ecosystem of this size along the Gulfshore that is in better shape. The existing deep commitment to the conservation of the Apalachicola system means that in a wery real sense the Apalachicola ecosystem is already approaching sanctuary status care. Particularly from the ecologist°s viewpoint, the ecosystem is receiving the special attention that enables its resources to flourish and to maintain the ecosystem and its biotic units at high levels. The participating scientists recognized a need to maintain a high level of habitat quality to support oysters, shrimp, blue crab, and other marine resources. The operating presumption of scientists stucjying bay resources is that the more natural the system is, the more productive it will be. It is our conclusion that there is an extraordinary opportunity for the state to obtain further recognition of this fact and to move the Apalachicola proposal forward through the National Estuarine Sanctuary program. A National Estuarine Sanctuary in Apalachicola Bay could be in many respects a new type of venture in natural resource management by addressing the coordinated management of a whole ecosystem and incorporating the interest and initiative of local governments as well as the traditional state agencies and multi -state groups that become involved in these sorts of efforts. The State°s initiative with a sanctuary program of research and education would complement the conservation agenda already set for lands proposed for sanctuary status through the State of Florida°s Environmentally Endangered Lands (EEL) program, and for the estuarine and marine resources managed by the state. In this respect, the sanctuary proposal augments and supplements with federal funds a program that alreac(y represents a multi -mi 11 ion dollar 11 commitment by the State. It would also enhance an extremely valuable fishery resource, benefiting the local economy, and through the research program, other areas of the state as well. The items on the agenda addressed by the workshops are important and need public attention whether or not the formal sanctuary designation and the federal financial assistance to the state are obtained. The state's management needs for its EEL lands, its aquatic preserves program, and related fisheries, forestry, and water quality programs will continue undiminished. This Estuarine sanctuary proposal must be distinguished from the federal Marine sanctuary program which is an aquatic "wilderness" program with no land acquisition, managed directly by the federal government. Though the two programs both refer to sanctuaries, the Estuarine sanctuary is a state management program for research and education. It is the Conservation Foundation's belief that: The Apalachicola Sanctuary proposal advanced by the State illustrates the attractiveness of a formula for federal "aTd for land acquisition that depends on the state to formulate the management concept and the research program that will sustain it. The Conservation Foundation developed the Apalachicola Symposium and Workshops to isolate questions of management structure for separate attention by the state. Nonetheless, in the opening plenary session, the scientists were introduced to many of the conservation management interests in state and local government. We assume a structure will evolve that will include those needed to make our recommendations for the sanctuary work. If one state agency has responsibility for purchasing land, that agency has an important role. If local governments set standards for new subdivisions on barrier islands, they also have an important role. We did not expect the sanctuary to change any management institutions rights and prerogatives except on terms of voluntary participation. The Symposium's general sessions included ample evidence that relationships among state agencies and between state and local governments are complex in Florida. But the support and initiative generated by the exist ng ad hoc interagency committee convened by the Division of State Planning sn~ow that these problems can be overcome. The suggestion of the Symposium workshop session on socio-economic needs and impacts that "the Governor and Cabinet appoint an ad hoc committee for the purpose of developing recommendations for a specific management structure for the estuarine sanctuary which recognizes the unique social, economic, and environmental attributes of the River and Bay system" is the only comment regarding management structure to come from the Symposium. 12 In the summary that follows only the major components of a resource maintenance program are presented. Details are reported in panel summaries and are not repeated here. It should be noted that the following summary focuses on needs for maintaining the condition of the ecosystem and its resources rather than the administrative mechanisms for doing so, or on the socio-economic impacts. 13 The Sanctuary The areas and resources proposed for inclusion within the sanctuary core are virtually all within the public domain (see Boundary section). Therefore, their conservation should involve primarily the coordination and improvement of existing agency programs. Some additional vigilance over sources of pollution originating outside the boundaries of the sanctuary core would also be desirable. In the opinion of The Conservation Foundation: The sanctuary management authority should be empowered to issue guidelines for sanctuary management and given authority to review development actions within the sanctuary for conform- ance to the guidelines. The panels considered many of the activities that could interfere with resource maintenance in the sanctuary and abort its educational and scientific purposes. These are summarized below and presented in some detail in Section IV of this report. Dredging and spoil disposal was a subject of considerable panel discussion. Basically, the scientists recognized that spoil is going to be created in the Bay and it must be put some place. They suggested that creative use be made of the spoil; for example, island refuge for birds, spoil breakwaters, or other engineered structures. Often problems created by navigation or fishing boat operations can be solved by the creative use of spoil through building breakwaters or creating other engineered structures. But caution was urged in designing and constructing such structures to avoid pollution or interference with circulation of water in the Bay. Because water circulation is considered a prime factor in resource maintenance, projects that significantly change circulation should be considered potentially deleterious and be given scrutiny by the sanctuary management authority. Of particular concern are channel deepening, constructing berms, or inlet alteration. All such projects should be included in the guidelines reviewed by the sanctuary management authority. TV The Area of Special Management Concern The panels reached a strong opinion on the subject of fresh water supply. They were virtually unanimous in their agreement that the Apalachicola River (along with some other sources of fresh water) held the key to the maintenance of the resources of the proposed Sanctuary through control of salinity, nutrients, circulation, and other primary determinants of seafood productivity. Many panelists would agree to limiting the size of the sanctuary only if an enforcable means could be identified to ensure the quantity, quality, and normal rates of flow of fresh water to the proposed sanctuary. It is the opinion of the Conservation Foundation that: Significant man-induced changes in watershed drainage and river flow into the sanctuary must be included on both the research and management agenda of any proposed sanctuary authority . While the Panels did not recommend an administrative mechanism for accomplishing this need for water inflow control because they were charged with technical matters, there was discussion of the subject. It seems clear that a system of monitoring certain types of activities in the watersheds and the river channels and making recommendations to relevant existing authorities would satisfy most concerns. Therefore, it is the opinion of the Conservation Foundation that: A mechanism should be established for review of major projects in the second tier, the watersheds and river channels of the Apalachicola. This area includes the non public lands of the barrrier islands, floodplains, and critical drainage-connected swamplands, the river ways that drain into Apalachicola Bay and the watershed lands immediately adjacent to the Sanctuary and to these riverways (see Section Boundaries subsection for details). Details on the fresh water supply issue are given in the Panel reports in Section IV. These views are summarized below. River Flow and Channel Condition The fresh water inflow from the tributaries, principally the Apalachicola River, is a driving force for the ecosystem. The state must recognize the important influence of these flows that enter the core area of the sanctuary and how significantly they control the ecosystem within the core of the sanctuary. This was summarized for the Symposium by Dr. Robert Livingston as follows: 15 "The dominant characteristic of this system is that it is a pulsed system. We have observed mean river flows and the range of flows over a period of more than four years. The tri-river system drains a piedmont area, with a different pattern of rainfall than in Florida. "The river floods in the winter time. And this flood is not only seasonally periodic--it has a six- to eight-year period. This is \/ery important. The Bay salinities are significantly affected by the changes in river flow. The river dominates the salinity structure of the Bay, and the salinity structure in turn dominates the structure of all of the natural communities in the system and the productivity of the system. "We have also reviewed 50 years of river flow data, rainfall data from Columbus, Georgia to Apalachicola, Florida. We modeled it, using time series analysis. Every six to eight years there is a major peak in this river flow. When we looked at rainfall patterns in Florida, they showed a similar 6-8 year periodicity, but different from the river flow patterns because the Georgia rainfall pattern dominates the river flow. The rainfall in Apalachicola and the Florida Panhandle dominates how much actual overland flow there is. "Because the rain falls heaviest in the summer in Florida, there is a two-barrel productivity cycle, when the nutrients come into the bay system once during the winter floods and then again during overflow periods in the summer. The natural communities follow a series of changes over these six to eight-year periods. The productivity of the system is determined by these flows and temperature, salinity, and various other water quality parameters. "The food base depends on detritus and phytoplankton productivity, Both sediment and organic matter move through the system not only on a seasonal cycle but also on an annual cycle. "The biological system actually is a disequilibrium system, a pulse system that depends on pulses in both water quality and productivity for its life. The organisms in the system are adapted to the pulsing. Oyster production, shrimp production, and blue crab production correlate with river fluctuations. It is therefore necessary to maintain the flow oscillations to perpetuate the system." In summary, The Conservation Foundation recognizes that: It is necessary to retain the natural hydroperiod delivery schedules and flow rates into the Bay so that natural cycles are not diminished . 16 The winding natural bed of the river is apparently optimal for maintaining the resources of the sanctuary. Additionally, it is optimal for maintain- ing the resources of the riverway because of the habitats provided. The Conservation Foundation concludes that: The Apalachicola River, particularly, should not be engineered into an artificial system . It would not fit with the sanctuary's purpose and would considerably reduce its resource benefits. But the legitimate needs for transportation can be met in the context of the needs for the Sanctuary if navigation improvement work is done thoughtfully. Ecological scientists working with engineers can develop creative projects to provide all needed transportation on the river without making it into an artificial waterway. Water Quality . A review of Section IV will show that water quality is considered to be a primary matter for concern by the sanctuary authority. While it is recognized that the state has effective control programs, par- ticular vigilance is needed. Maintaining the proper oxygen level is a key; temperature, salinity, and turbidity are also important. The suitability of water for the resources of the sanctuary is also important--!' t must be free of serious influences from toxic chemicals such as heavy metals or organic poisons. Serious problems can be expected from poorly managed sewage- pathogens, organic material that affects oxygen, and chemical residuals from chlorination. Industrial pollution must be closely controlled, particularly if the area becomes more heavily industrialized than it is now. The Sanctuary authority should be involved in developing guidelines and reviewing permits for potential polluting activities like acid drainage from forestry, agricultural drainage, dredge spoil disposal, sewage discharges. Riverine Wetlands and Flood! and . The maintenance of resources in the sanctuary requires the conservation of wetlands and floodlands along the riverways that discharge into it. Every effort should be made, on behalf of the sanctuary, to influence activities upstream toward maintaining these riparian resources in a natural condition. Wetlands protection is already appreciated and in force in the area but restoration of wetlands should be spurred. However, floodlands conservation needs improvement to control forest cutting, berming, draining, and so forth and to ensure that the organic product upon which the ecosystem depends—particularly the leaf litter supply — continues coming down to drive the basic food web of the bay. Therefore, there has to be very special concern given to the wetlands and flood plains. These could be accomplished by encouraging review of all major contemplated upriver projects by the Sanctuary authority. Wetlands within the Sanctuary core were discussed by the panels; it was agreed that wetlands should be maintained as close to their present condition as possible—a straight preservation goal. This position can be summarized by saying that if wetlands must be used for some purpose, 17 the work should be done in such a way that: The basic function should not be altered . Opportunities to restore the ecosystem where it is significantly altered should also be part of the sanctuary program. Where alterations such as diking and pumping for drainage, agricultural purposes and so forth have had a negative effect, corrective efforts should be planned and implemented to restore them to their natural state. Watersheds . Another factor of concern to the Sanctuary is land runoff--the quantity, quality, and rate of flow of water coming off the land into the river and into the sanctuary off the streets of towns, farm fields, and forests. The sanctuary should not be jeopardized by some change in the watershed that, for instance, introduces a lot of natural col i form into the system which could result in closure of the oyster beds which has happened in many other bays around the country. Organic, toxic, and patho- genic pollution from septic tank wastes is another strong concern. Connected Drainage Areas . The Panels recommended and The Conservation Foundation agrees that: Areas such as large swamps that lie outside the sanctuary core but discharge large amounts of water into the sanctuary should" be addressed in the management and research program. Of particular concern is the Tate's Hell Swamp Area because when it is disturbed during forest cutting it may discharge acid water in large quantities (during the runoff season) into East Bay and down into the Apalachicola Bay system. This discharge has a strong negative influence on the productivity of the Bay. Attention must be given to this problem and some way of addressing it should be arranged. No new regulatory initiatives are required; this could be done by requiring the Sanctuary management authority to review sufficient activities in the major feeder swamps of the Sanctuary core area. This means serious attention must be given to any sources of contamination through flow of water from the land into the sanctuary. Not only from the landside areas but also from the barrier islands (as discussed in the following statements.). These matters can be resolved by providing a system of review by the Sanctuary authority of major alterations of the watersheds in the area of special management concern along the riverway, around the Bay, and on the islands. The Barrier Islands . The barrier islands that enclose Appalachicola Bay are a part of, and unity with the estuarine system and should be included in the Sanctuary program. Many panelists simply believed that the islands should be included in the core of the Sanctuary, out to the low water line in the Gulf. But if that cannot be accommodated, at least they should be identified 18 as areas of special concern to the sanctuary. It was agreed in discussions of the islands that they form an essential and integral part of the sanctuary ecosystem because of the way they are situated in terms of biota, water exchange, physical structure, wetlands transition areas, and so forth. It was particularly emphasized that wastewater originating on the islands could contaminate the waters of the sanctuary to the extent that the oyster industry would be closed down as it has in so many parts of Florida. This was perceived as an immediate threat, not a vague threat. The only solution to the problem is some purview over private development of the islands through a system of review of subdivision AM instruction permits. Therefore, it is the opinion of the Conservation foundation that: The private lands of the barrier islanffi ,j$M.ftM^1ng the sanctuary core should be considered gfifeg^.^f of special concern . Inlets . In addition to the upstream area of wari!lih4lhfcnt concern, the sanctuary authority should have purview over alterations Of the inlets through or between the islands. Maintaining the stfctufc quo is believed to be acceptable but it is believed that cuts in th6 islands should not be greatly enlarged nor should new channels be cut thrdtitjh. Altering the inlets may adversely alter the exchange with the Gulf Bay by altering the basic circulation of the bay changing the salinity, and introducing predators into the system. The Conservation Foundation recognizes that: The entry of massive amounts of oceanic water into this estuarine system can completely change its function and endanger the oysters and the balance of life in the system . SUMMARY In summary, The Conservation Foundation recommends that the following be given special attention by the state and local governments in framing the cooperative resource maintenance program for the proposed Apalachicola National Estuarine Sanctuary to preserve its present high value for research and education: 1) Appropriate control over dredging and spoil disposal to prevent impacts adverse to the sanctuary ecosystem and to gain any potential benefits from judicious placement of spoil. 2) Appropriate control over inlet dredging or new structures to prevent adverse impacts on the sanctuary ecosystem through alterations of circulation, salinity, or predator ingress. 3) Appropriate control over domestic waste to prevent the increase of human pathogen into the sanctuary ecosystem. 4) Appropriate controls of liquid waste effluent to prevent an increase in toxic, organic, or nutrient pollutants within the sanctuary ecosystem. 5) Appropriate controls of alterations in the watershed of the sanctuary ecosystem to prevent an increase in non-point source pollutants from 19 residential, agricultural, or forest cutting activities. 6) Vigilant protection of the wetlands of the sanctuary ecosystem and the Apalachicola River. 7) Identification of past damage to the sanctuary ecosystem and appropriate programs of restoration. 8) A system of review by theSanctuary management authority of major projects in the Apalachicola River and watershed and feeder swamps to ensure that sanctuary needs are duly considered. 9) A program of continuous monitoring of development activities throughout the basin and impacts on physical, chemical, and biological functions of the ecosystem. / 20 RESEARCH PROGRAM The major research recommendations for the proposed sanctuary are covered in the six panel reports in Part IV. The Panels were not charged with prioritizing these recommendations because to do so which would have taken more time for discussion than was available. Nor did it seem advisable at this point to recommend a rigid schedule of research topics for the sanctuary to address. The U.S. Geological Survey is undertaking a research program on the fresh water section of the Apalachicola River. Therefore, any research concerning the area of special management concern, Tier Two, in conjunction with the sanctuary should be coordinated with the U.S.G.S. to avoid overlap and to achieve the best program synchronization and data compatibility. The U.S.G.S. preliminary program includes flow rates, wetlands delineation, pesticides, dredging, spoil disposal, nutrients, oxygen, sediments, plankton, and effects of barge traffic. In the sanctuary "Core Area", Tier I, a considerable amount of research has been done and further work must be closely related to the existing data base. It is recommended that augmenting and improving the existing program should have high priority. Continuous field data have been collected since 1972 on the interaction of various physico-chemical factors and leading biological components. The original research initiatives were related to the impact of pesticides and upland forestry operations on the Apalachicola estuary. These studies are now completed and have been expanded into a comprehensive analysis of the spatial and temporal variability of system functions, population and community response to habitat gradients (temperature, salinity, pH, dissolved oxygen, pollutants, etc), sources and direction of energy flow, trophic interrelationships, and the influence of feeding habits of key populations on community structure. There have been associated efforts to develop an integrated computer system for analysis of extensive multi-disciplinary data sets. In addition to various key physico-chemical functions, the field monitoring data include detritus-associated organisms, benthic macrophytes (sea-grass and algae), benthic infauna, and benthic epi fauna (fishes and invertebrates). Cooperative research with other investigators in the primary study areas include analysis of microbiota, phytoplankton, and zooplankton. Associated laboratory studies have included plant and animal bioassays, behavioral studies, and the development of microcosms (detritus- mi crobiota-macrobiota). Such laboratory efforts are directed at specific questions related to findings in the field program. It is the opinion of the Conservation Foundation that: The research agenda for the Sanctuary should be recognized as meeting two clear and urgent needs: 1) research for immediate use in designing the program for the Sanctuary and 2) research to be incorporated into long term program of the sanctuary for providing a better understanding of Louisiana Province estuarine systems and their management needs. The latter of these was emphasized in the panel discussions. 21 The long term research recommendations of the panels are not readily summarized and integrated because they arose from a complex dialog and cannot easily be removed from their context. The reader is referred to the actual panel reports in Section IV for the details. The following ecological research needs highlighted the discussions: 1. Conduct ecological studies embracing the full range of river flows to relate major land use activities and water area projects to changes in biotic resources. 2. Conduct specific research projects to provide a basis for improved quantitative prediction of the abundance of species of fish, reptiles, and birds. 3. Collect sufficient data and develop methodology for systems analysis including: study of ecosystem elements, coupling of elements, and response of system to natural cycles and human perturbations. 4. Develop a computerized methodology for analyzing and predicting the hydrologic patterns of the ecosystem including: precipitation, ground and surface water flows, withdrawals, river flow, and transport of substances. 5. Accelerate research on the sources and cycling of nutrients in the ecosystem and the factors that provide high productivity. 6. Give high priority to identifying baseline conditions in the ecosystem. 7. Emphasize the following aspects of water quality research: the significance of suspended and deposited sediments; upstream and localized sources of toxicants, coliform bacteria, and exotic chemicals; and the impacts of septic tanks, dredging, and forestry activities. 8. Conduct comprehensive research on circulation of the bay and riverine system including such parameters as: waves, sediments, salinity, nutrients, detritus, mixing, stratification, transport, and effects of structures. 9. Assess fluctuations in freshwater inflow from Apalachicola River, Jackson Creek, Tate°s Sv/amp, and New River using long-term time-series data on flows, and interaction with productivity, and establish the role of short- term (annual) and long-term (cyclic 6-8 year) fluctuations in water flows on the nutrient, detritus, sediment influx and productivity of the system. 10. Assess the following geologic aspects: erosion rates within the sound, longshore sediment transport in the Gulf; and threshold values for significant bed load delivery of sediment through the river channel. 11. Identify the role of floodplain and wetland vegetation on the nutrient cycling (detritus may be generated and even absorbed in the floodplain vegetation). In addition to ecological research, a number of socio-economic research needs were highlighted: 1. A study of economic alternatives for waterborne transportation of 22 commodities on the Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, and Flint Rivers. 2. Design methods (including but not limited to structural design, location and spacing) for land development with the Apalachicola River floodplain which will minimize adverse impacts on the Sanctuary. 3. Conduct archeological and historical surveys of the Sanctuary and surrounding areas. 4. Examine ways of enhancing the quality and marketability of fishery products from the Bay Area, the feasibility of large scale revital ization of old oyster beds, and enhanced production and marketing techniques and programs. 5. Conduct specific sociological investigations within and adjacent to the Sanctuary for use in the management decision-making process. 6. Evaluate current recreational uses of the Apalachicola River and Bay and the potential for additional recreational uses that would enhance the value of the resource system. aj oo o i<- oj >> <♦- v- o > *J — +->••- ■>- oj ■— c >— +-> c .,- "o cj -o e — u — S— OJ c » r 5 5 Si •" 01 J- (D C C X C =LCO .£> •r- IO i- "c S- U. S U. .^ o -o • 0) • OOt- • (Q * u. » O => 3 => C r- - c u. - <• l. 0) 4-' +J — ji > (U TO L> TJ 3 "O l/l I— VI -r- L. i- e u o> 3 O O > (_> . — r- = — =3 « ID V 4-> O QJ > > •.- C f !_ LU C O OJ TO _ E to i- 2 E E « 3 ■.- O = S- 4_> (^) 4_, i/i x: i/i ■- s- u u C l/> C => Ol Z3 0J oj LU Q CO 3 LO ■*-> V) 4_> ro L iq (O -P 0)4J i- TO •(- TO O C h- "D t & *■ OJ S_ 4_> ■m a. >, a; r- -= l^ oj ■.- o v> s_ o •— ai co > > QJ X! •- c^ 0) OJ S ■*-' " ■= = ■= .= — — 0j 01 03 TJ ,.r- O > L. - o >♦- L. •P- ■!- _ oj ra c 1_ — u. -r- "o r— c t. x: •— It. _ oj « cj i- U. 4-> j^ c * w u L. t_; cox: c p— o c; >S oj = Nl OJ w ir QJ U r— — TO 4-> oi -r i— ■o I— •■- •r- O ••- •i- O i— c -o c u_ c O e -o fT5 01 3 OJ U Irt vi O en TO >> o S- -3 in a. s- c ■■s. o 3 QJ C3 O u i— £ I- f- OJ 4-> >> CD ■D i— 1- r- i- •=. I— o — •-« oj n (O ■>- f- +J O) i— l/> <0 a; S g. 3 OJ o oi in ai or C I 3 c 4-> o ro u C -O 4) => -i- E *J i- -t-> c a> o i- a> 4Jr- m E 4-> qj u i/} H- o c cr >, C *-> Q.' o> o x: 4-> u c — 5 TO vi C O 1- I— 4-1 x: ■ o -c • CD 01 ci ^-- to •!- c u E c — x r- VI O CI 4J (. O O 4-> C 0) CL IB f- ••-5 Fx: a* a) < — vi I TO c : o -a E to c .— 3 « o ■— : oi x: 3 4-> i >— vi o c i o- S ■» i E *J u TO 3 X: •■- ■ X U U 4- ai •»- -i- TO o — >> a? e "o a; E TO t. TO en E E ai oi l. o •f- S. O O Ol i— c TO O 01 c en rv •r- i — O 1> S- ' — 1 0J£ +J+J QJ O VI V) £ >»■■- 4-1 >> V» X TO © ai co u o 01 "D •»- x> ■•- p- •— sz a ai to »— v» 4-1 4-> en "D C TO ■— I VI I. t. u -o >> c; TO 4-» u a> oi v> o S x o cn+j o o n on- l o u ai o c ai • vi vi o> oi 4-> "© r— 13 O >>tO (U C Q. v> TO x: 01 fc •i-ffi u 4-> E ••- 4-> TO JZ E V) CO TO 4-> 14- O VI «— o u >> *j — o *j 01 I— TO L> TO TO m- +J «r- I— ^~ I 4-1 "O » TO -O : TO 01 W- p- o> 3 f— 4J Ol TO > TO ^ E 01 3 3 S- 4J C 01 Q. TO SZ Ol o ai o v» -i- SZ 4-> Ol 4-> 4-> t- TO 0) 4-> I— -O -r- 3 *•§£*! 01 4-> -i- en ci U o 1"° _r-' .— T3 Ol C O TO . TO *C O TO >> ■D i— C i. TO 3 3 X> C XT C TO O E I- i— Xi V) Ol TO 3 I 4J i- VI J 4-> TO 01 +J VI *4- ( •r- * C Ol I Ol SZ 01 •— O O >> I E 3 TO E 01 Oi] CI ^-*_ en s_ c ' i- 4J t- TO i >, o; vi to s. to in E 0) I CO I- oi >>4-> 3 -M U ■— I U C VI TO TO 01 >,T3 en O vi C L. I LH O ■<- 'TO V- O Ol i- >l«l 0I£ TO •— f— TO .C Ol o o VI U 1- - — 01 +-i o 1_ VI Q. I- -.- E 41 4J T3 -^ ' •^ C C U Ol TO 01 TO Ol VI .o je o ♦J x: • oi vi VI -e o i~ oi «4J S >■ c E p- I c — oi » VI 4-1 VI E £§.!-.£ 01 C TO 4-1 4-1 -^ S to i- -o x: cnj__ VI C +J 3 4-1 4-> ••- 4-> U 3 "D 4-1 O TO a.-.- o c q. C > Ol TO E •r- O 4-J VI .,- I- o k. CL l_ 01 oj oi o.j= vi 4- - 4-11. TO 4-1 O 01 S 3 +J C — C c c Ol •>- 2 T3 1- 6 01 >> TO <-. ' SZ D. •>- TJ i^ >> ■D C Ol •» ••- TO E i- M- ai o Ol Ol VI "O 01 VI £Z 4-1 I— -O Ol 4-1 TO 3 TO to c o .n vi oi I • XI f 4-> M- TO -D - >, c o 4-1 x: vi I TO 01 E O TO "O -O • xi x: oi->- oixix: Cp— *-> 4-1 "C 3 i 01 3 Ol VI TO i x: i^ crx: >*- >» t- 4-1 ■«- L- V) 01 Ol-D > C T- VI TO OC 3 o o c s- u o 3 r- (J E-O 41 ■r- r— X: 3 3 -w O oi s x: -J— S TO CL VI ^ S- TO TO 3 4J E 4-1 1- l- C 2 O ;.& TO ££ m- XI TO 01 — DOC TO 4-1 4-1 c c •— o »4- -^ O 01 t- X c CV 41 o •r ID U TO O C i- U TO 4i U Ol 01 0) TO O XI E i— TO 3 <*- S- x: i- oi oi -a ■•- ■r- O VI 1- C o >, o ■u <— u •^ to -a x: E oi o o -d 4J c TO o .^ •— 5 i V) U- i — -f- <— VI > »— 4J - 3 Ol i— Ol i— TO .i- 4-1 O TO TO 'i- 01 <— "CI U VI »— 4-1 X) 3 •— S 4-1 ^ r— 4-J -r- C 4_, ••- ■— 3 S "6 i— t- i— ■a -i- i— QJ QJ t— f— a> n> en •o -i- £ 5 x? i- ■— i/> £ •" SZ XJ +J *J C (J ID .i- O L. ■U •— *-> its in i~ S- QJ a> a> s- oj — i- — •■- X 3 T c O L. IB X; 3 •— V> C t- IO "D at t— i. i— a. i- l»- i— O) •r- I/) -.- ■d (U OJ E -r- O a> •>- 4J tn X» ID ■ x •■- ai x: i- c k i/> c c oj -i- f- en ■•- +j .*- • en id 4_> x> tn >> a; x — oj X C 3 ID 3C i-i-OUl <»- ID u in o ai o> in o X X> — .V 0) X "o c *j o i— c i- ■o r- ro O o I— <*- U f- J-> c ID 0J L. x x: -o C 4-' O i- o x: 1- U £ .,_ l/l -,- x: oj X u m r— ID 0> Cl f S- tn w) id r flJO'p io in 01 >>5 x> L 0J l/lr- 15 Q.« 3 3 in id O ■u Jir . U m tn en C 3 X> C ■DO 0) 4J •!- in E Q. c c O i- OJ * QJ s- L. E "3 £ X» •»-> Qj Q. 0> 1- l-H H- C ID • ID ■— •■- I— 1 l_ ID 03 Hi- C».i-£» 4-> m •«- OJ u en tn Q O O) •!- 4-> ■—ID 0) ID I- «D *f- O. 3 — S- cC O O -4-> •I- (J 3 "4- JZ E ID O * Li C V) c > H- OI ID O ' ■D O O. O ID X) a> L. C L. ■0 T3 >>•■- C C >— •i- ID ■— VI L u u gj c «— 01 X (D 0J C Q. U H- Llt-T- 4-> o x: in 3 4-> ID O 3 •- to O O TO •- _sx: E in >, E O E +J id •■- xi x: 0) X) c (J L- ID 3 3 •)-> x O m 3 > L. C >t- . O -»- 01 O *D o - +J > V V SIU Hi- OU-i- en i/i o > £ > O CD OI L.IDCCQJC0J Q.XI mo E L. E «> t> ■— £1T3 QJ . — QJ {A £ 0) X) t- cn i ••-1- ID IC'rOLvaCOl C (J •!-■-• ■* *- ■*-> o re x: oi r—v L. > 4-- -U 3 L- 0) ■— c ai i/i q X> x> >> >f- — O X O O .— U I*- (D X "I- +J X 3 C *-> s. ••-> o, o at xi e C XI ID •!- 0) E *J 3 —~ 1- m c u o X ID C • u f- in o c qj v ij e i. •r- •<-> <0 OJ <*- id id oj r— en i- X r- cm XI XI >»- id E O X i- i- — >, *' ■*- r- +J L. Q. L. ID E OTJ «) 0J 3>> U Xi 0J •o c > 3 *J Sin i- ID L- 0) ■•-> *-• L. 3 — ■DC ■D C ID 0J XJ CO 0J QJ L. in •*- 3 r- 0J U 4-J ' — U X 4-> TO I/It- 4-> (0 id c in •■- x: 1- UJ •»- i- OJ 4-> O E •»■ o-x: O 0J , 3 0J «C en i_ tn i id L. X > u c : >, id •"-• id oj «- I Xt L. i— 4-> • 0J i OJ in E in > X CL TO .!_• i • +J 3 X) •<- ' <«- Q- O t- 3 <<- E 4-> O 0J o ■— X s- 0) *J M- U OJ . QJ 014J C O I- U r— >*- O E o O 0J >> zV QJ VI L C C TO TO L. in XJ XI Q. c i O l|- X) ID >> E m t— O •f- ID »— LVtH- o. e !_ ■r- QJ OJ X) ■— O' X m IDUID 4-> QJ in o j. 1- 0J a. Ie 0J OJ x: +j i t> W) 1/1 m < 4-> C 0J 0J i~ ■ C 4-> id tn E 0J C 4-> l— H- 0) .,- i— & £ O p— -f- — >> f s ■— O -r- *J .*-> U i— 3 •r-l a. = Si ai c *_> »— a. j_i .1- *» ■•- 01 •— .,- TJ ■D — C fa w— g ° F-» - 0) V */) +J •»- £ ■& O t— — r— — O i & ■1- C W •!- C t— i— — s •— >> — JS. -C ••- o T3 -t- >— =J •<- 3 J-> -i- = a. >— — — U QJ C 4-> to ■a s Qj QJ TO If. +J — C irt .*-» ' — •i- .f- 10 4-> .r- 3 +J 0) T- , 1 E 0--M •mo- c oj O N c « •*- — n? n- 4J Hi C O O 4-> QJ T3 > QJ 3§ 3 -C O — OJ .,- •i- TJ O C -f- 3 I- E .— ♦J -u 01 c -3 U 0) •r- QJ TO JD TO TD 3 U L. TO 4-» o t- T3 t_ l/l O CI CJ TO U E O 0J CJ 01 J3 ■O QJ 01 O >i .e L. to C ■" i_ O 4-J .c c (J O 0/ tn c OJ JC ■c o -C .o QJ c ■a 3 4-> a' 0J t "T X o - f XI ■a c a 4J £ I 4- — *J 3 = c- o ■c .O a o OJ i— C£ e _z: C TO "C "C O 1— o •t- o B OJ C i. C ■3 .3 "3 U 3 u t. aj 0l >-, TO >> > re C D- C <: <; 0) C t; O" E +J -3 I— .p- TO — T- * T3 ,— t|_ p— O •>- _ o ai -p- en *j 0) T5 XI s O TO .* X -C 'I- 01 en o *-> +JlOi] . c * J a> > 1/1 01 +-> "O •M E TO I- to -c ai -m 3 C-.*j c lO 4-J o •p- CO 01 c X — >> u o a> Ol TJ I/I X VI c TO I 01 Ol C_ TD *J to 1- l- TO in C O ■c ai 4-> E TO TO C X c 4-> • z. > to vi C 1- E i_ TO 01 -p- XJ • TO Q. CC c QJ X O C X *j TJ O +J a> a; 4-J O) 01 ■o c >4- u . to ■f-> It) Ol TO O X> L. E c *— ' J* L. TO 01 I. en oi CJ -r- -p- 4-J C — L. -p- -p- TO O . — . £ u >- C o> to c o <♦- +J CO — CO O •r- 01 c o — t- -o 3 u a> ai » 3 N o > 4-> Xl CT TO >r- o> to e o ■— 01 O "D •i- ai — +-> E i— Ol J. XI TO o 3 "D D.ID TO O ai 4-> t- 2 l. a» to a, ■D +J o TO TO T3 TO CO L. a> s- -i- -a O- C to c a> s- ai a. Ol — "O Q. 01 TO TO C TO ■r- O C +-> 3 -f-> CO t_ X cut C 0.-M +■> O Q. 3 TO H- TO C-J TO O S SL O E r- -r- r- S i. •r- U t. 3 -a ai to O T3 TO P— P— ■w TO TO » — U S- i- •■- 1- TO 3 X o ■^ L. u Q. a> 14- O if. ■P o> u a> •>- c 01 TO 01 T3 > Oi DC o TO I- TO XI i— (. TO 01 OJ I- *J f- O C l+- H- OI 3 ■D = XI g-c L. Oi CO CJ at . > 1- TO *-> -D c to ai E TO E £ (. o ai X O Oi *-> U i_ ■U TO Cj Ci- ai a. o >> Oi E i. to CO X T- Q. 01 j-> co >. if- u = c TO TO TO 01 TO CQ CO Q. oi ai 1 t= U XI <_l 01 Hi X fc. TO Q. ■*-> TO 01 CO <4- CO 3 X L 10 TO u X Ol 4-> Oi CO > 0) -i- 01 4-> •r- -D i. T3 o r— TO O 0> t. XI ■k> i. > Cl to E C71X O) XI *J TO T3 x: a. r- i- r-l *J >, <— o to ^ ■r- u +j =: OJ f- i +J -r- Ol •— — o O -p- <»- ■C i— *J — - §■ •i- p— a. ■p- Ol -p- ■p- p— Ol Ol 4J -p- ■o ■— •— oi gr p— p— Q. 01 .= t- -o O *»- r— - "S i *, g. *J *» -o , ■s: "c •*; * F— r— *rt 'r- I. -f- i— OJ i- ■O i— >— *J •!- 13 •O l— f— V O 4- I- u m ._ -c I- S OJ T3 0) U 01 •■- -O p— I- 01 Ol "D i-5 O ■w O c u c •r- at • > o »— 4J dj w) v* I- -O *C *i to OJ C'Xi U in to e i- £ i. •— .o 3 ■4-> 1- 0) •I- 1. PS o ^ on c c •— T3 *J E i— -a a> J-> -i- Q. til cn O. ITS ■o c «t- H- O TO — ai <4- V) a; ai o t- •- •,- on. 4-> O L. 4-' •5 § c & • E 0) #— oj QJ 0. x: o £ 4-> .c «- ■t- -o <-> t- 0J to ■its t- T3 ■— +-• *» •!- dl •i = 8 t— •— tt) *- g E — *-> i— ■— 01 c ■- o C 4-> -~ t- t- 4J T) * £ C +J .— p- J2 ..- •U ■— O t- > O 1- r— U -i- 1- cr ^- +j i— 4J «D -i- •r- C >•- o — +J -I- s_ "O in •O »— <♦- •O 1- 4J *o ^* I— o •■- «— * O 0> •f- "D t- in r- O 4-> .,- .,_ 0) U ^- 1- 0) u. § -JE -- -O T5 •M C O *J T* c tn x 5 1 . O) 4J C C 10 k — -CO) g ^ i ID *J *— — LU OI ■O t- »- T- ;= Si ^ in ^ 1 p— *J O .- u o o> O £ C J= 01 it) U 3 *J 01 »— *J 4-> «»- (O <— O i- o f- -r ♦J -- 01 O *J u — 3 i- *j i- 3: — I 8 +j •,- O. •r- C IS * "I N- O -U c = 01 2 to 01 3 t- a> a> o -O *-> c i/i >> 5 1 c 1 > 10 a. i- i- 01 •*- •i- •— ra £ * a> o 8* i. H- 4-> 01 UJ <-> O 1- >— •r- ••- O U ■_ >— +J OJ H- VI .X (. 0) l/l X a. i- c >t- o E u a> w i. £ 2 a; to e to >> c 1 E c 4-> 41 OJ a X 4-> ** >J OJ U 4-» «— •*-) a. -d 1— U CH i- m a. u oi to .— -C i— 0) 3 •!- -.- TO TO U 1- O - x x: 4-> 4-> 01 ■•- r- v> 01 x c -O 4-> -r- c TO c^ . — C 3 V) -r- V- t— Cn O) 01 C VI C <0 3 C £ OI Q OI t 4-> O = oi «-» ■i- a. >— >— en 0) .— 4-> ^ XI XI o ■*- to •.- ■•- 4.- CO 4-J .2 B- £ _ & 3 01 . = ■s 3 * ,— •— oi 4-> ,- f- 4j en .p- m a> 0) •— -I- •F- XI 4-> C •F- TO OO O ai o u ai c ■ cc ■F- Ol : c r 'r n c L. (o at > XI 3 FO 1/1 > f- u. wf- ai • = eior to E J- 3 to oj {/l Cn QJ TO 4-> f«- E C 4-1 J- TO Ol -r- CO C O O- o C TJ >,-f- Q.«C 4-> •r c vi vi a S- 3 TO O 0) m TO O 4-> .£> £ ai 3 i- C U 4-> c/> 4-i L. qj 1_ .f- c oo 3 E 0J E >t- o uj «n qj > o o o. 01 Qj j-j 4-> TO TO 4-> TO I- O 4-> Ol C <_> C S- to >> OJ OJ E 4-> E •— C 01 Ol TO l_' O -F- TOO TO U C C f- 3 en to : +J X o E ■ o -F- u c W 0) "o 'TO L- C l_ TO 3 en QJ XI c > o UJ 3 I— (J J= XJ Ol 4-> r— 4-> U J= 3 C C h C O U U r uir-o ° _ c - ?■>■ to o. cn4-> to o •i- o — c s ° o r— in ■— -F- E U ai ^ L- to xi oi x> oi to o .c c u •f- > 4J J2 TO TO 3 -F- tn x: i— o ci+j uj cn<: >->.c C S- C 2 CO to cn «f- TO O J- 1 +J 3 XI S- i. O. 01 *J m Ol 01 o ai 4-i o*j4ju a. O TO C U TO TO E C XI TO TO C 2 t- o o o cl-<- u E t= xi .i»- g 0) -F- t. F- O +j o -c o to c uf V Of in Ol F- XI S- -F- ■t-J TO i — U GJ 4-> 01 U 3 TO *f- 4-> 4-» QJ 01 TO L C«l LI.L 01 UJ O 3 01 wx o **- jc o o O 4J C_ J= XI 014J c C -F- TO 3 4-> C ■— C TO (j 01 ■— C 4-> O- •f- XI XI TO f— 01 C 3 •f- 1 TO 4-1 u o u TO f- Ol C «4— • 4-* TO TO I O") L 9J V) O •f- TO O »4-> 01 TO •f- COLLI •f- J. O TO S. O -F-F- TO O. (/I TO m f- o. c > < ■f- a. . _ > i XI TO O U L L.0J Ol 4-> Q. j= •r- J- K C F- O = -F- -o -c a; 3 i- cr. o in Q..O cl to >F- o S. O 4J Ol TO 01 c m 4j c Ol c 4J -F- oi 01 cLur TO Ol X 4-> 4J J= 01 _ i. m X! O -F- 01 c Q. 1 *- JC TO •^ ai * J E j= o a> 4J r- 4-> 4-> O X> >, E • 0) m TO O O Ol >> Ol TO 4-1 TO C3 3 CO Ol I— I— Q. U. . ■f- f- Ol 4-) f- O 3 -F- O 4-J Ol TO C S- X- -C 01 Ol E i- a) 01 Ol s- > j= & 1_ -F- 4-> TO TO 4-> C JD U C TO Ol t- E Ol 4-> j: o c f- Ol 4-> 4-^ S^, C 4J 4J !- O O TO 1- C 3 O. TO 4-> in o Oi Ol TO •r IE > 4-1 TO 4J >, Ol u in o TO S- Ol CL c c E Z c 3 TO Ol J= 3 E 4-1 QJ Oi m en m oi to o c J= 01 TO 4-> JS E C TO O C -^ XI TO 4-1 4J LO = £- Ol C O XI O !_ C U O. TO f- — 4-- Ol C U f— c O Cn TO 4-> 4^ o o O CL c 4- t- E o o >1 CL Q."- U m TO L. •D -U C o ai O) TO C C TO c L. TO TO U 3 U u L- TO m -F- o' Ol TO c *■ s 3 t- c O o O a. en to o CD 4-) cn 4-> C QJ F— F— C f- en TO L. en 4-> 3 4-' C 4_- Ol • f- Ol U C C J-£ Ll 3*J — Jd XI QJ -F- -F- «— .F- Oi 01 4J 1- .- 0) 4-> — 01 p— -r- •t- Ol 4J 4-> 0) •— ■,- ■.- en TO Q i— TD Z 1 «.- O i — U 3 — .o — o 4J nj Er TO C O 1/1 4J Q) = >, 0) u> t- TO 4_> OJ U 3 m ^ -.- L. >, <1) 4J — a <•> x: o *j wt- a « «i o s >, o a> o cu a> x: to c c m o xi x: a> C O J- C CL 4-> CU O 0> to x: -c x: z x> I— 4-> to *j >, to -u x: = -r- c 4-> t- c en ai If o c 4-> — CO Oli. wT) o O t- - CO U O C TO at a. o "o i_ •- « J) TO en E C ■C C TO ■•- I— u 4-> to ai <*- E *j > o o ^, oj tu TO 4-) . C2 to -o "o HI H CUTJ L TO O 4-J 4-J 3 l/l C u i- l/l o -^ to -^ O rj: E -C £. en l/l 4-» >, to -5 •" ui en 1- .— s- >, c ^ m QJ O 'D •-- 3 C_ 1- .C ? "C 4J< S£ t 1. u en a; to c -o "c .,- 4j en O «— 4-1 ■— p— 4-> 01 ■O 4-> V o E 3 r— 0) — . = .,_ fD £ ° •.-<•- I- U | •l- O! -I- — "0 1- •t- 2 >, +J •— O a> i- -i- r— 1- «J 4-> = 5 -O (D sz a= a. ■D -1 — 01 S -*.' o 10 i— c I/) o o- 4-> c (D cn I— T- O « •; | & 5 •.-.»-» CI •I- CL 4-> Q. ■— >— Q. e? s •— o •— S c *- 4-) i_ J H ft - = 5 §■ ^_ O 1- u ■— U r— 4-> * 2 •p- ai •— 4-> 1- 13 C EC .*- i— in O f- C 4-> < ^3 < O 1 i— aj f— -r- IB •— £ -2. i— ■— CO *j ■— OJ I M- •<- i_ a; f— i- ai O 4-> 4-> 0) -i- r- O o Q. O 4-> 1 Ol — o> c >»- +-> L/1 c -o >. o a El- ■»-•>- 4J O) 4-> Q. : i— .c = •— -i- c r— to ■r- »D m »— w 4-> > > 4-> ci c f— O •— •p- 14- k 4-> -,- OJ I«i f- > £ t ■<- t— O S-. I ,— fU TO u T3 (J c c S- Q. 9> CT> o > trt u 10 ■c >> OJ c OJ i~ «5 .* w 1*- o o t/> Cl Q. 0) V) u t_ c TO (_> (/> CM-.— .— 1 Si trt •!- '»- +J -r; ,— •,- O ■— •■- ••- •f- •!- l/l *J E t- i— 41 4-> Q. ■.- ..- O. i— i- JS 14- ■— •r- -C - = - i- *J 15 E •*■ E — M- 5? 4-> .,- jj CT f- -O 4-> t- 1/1 ■«- *J i- c O) •i- r- j: F— O 4-1 ■g *j •£ .— .«- O 4J I- *4- — 4-> i. <-> o =3 r— Q. 4-' CL •— -O • = 0) ■— TJ t- 4-> £ § i— -7- CO — O) 4J •r- .,- I •r- O LL. t & C T- •!- •— O T- •.- .,- o F- T- OJ 0) 4-> 3 3 *» 4-J •— 1— o. I- -r- *J o =: .=: •1- r- "C 1— ,_ n. .»- +j ■c o- 3 4-1 *J +J 1— T3 t- o to j-> 4-> C = 01 -O > — C 4-> C -*-J £ & j_j 4j QJ ,_ 0) i- JE *— */> 4-> r— <_> CT ,— C T- I— U -r- -i- (D -»- f- •r- Q. £ O I— •!- •<- tj = r— en 4-> L. 4J i— ^ r— x: Mz 01 •— JC 3 4-> o ■— -r- cn > & ■c <- OJ u o > "C o L. o c (. "D o Q_ 0j ru £ O 4-> o u 3 3 -a t- t: O OJ OJ -O L. c 01 E --> "1 o •D t) 0> "O "D 6 c c r— *r* ig — .— C ,_ _ jo i- C 1- i- ■a »- i— *J 0) ■•-> ■F- CO) C 4J O l- ■— o 3 OJ c-> 01 u flj .- O JT 1/) c ■O 4-> I. 3 '!/> o u E 3 t- L. ■a 1_ > o o c •a (D c O <4- -u e O C Cn o O oj a; o c u S- r: c 0) t- c 4-> O (. TO 4-1 ro C > JS o ■c L. •— o i- ■a i- ■o o J= >> u a. C >r- 4-> »— o 0J Q. Ol cn- — s- *> cj s_ C ai-i- fa T3 J= OJ t- OJ fcg -C O jj OJ O (D +J E CJ » s- -c L. t/l to Cn <-> JC t/> wo 3 -C 2 4-> ej o o o 18 10 - ul 03 £ O L. < S- U-l 4J ■a cj cn — o SI C ■,- 4- I I— ■8 - M- Cn 4-i 0J 4-1 -J — ' 3 4-> 4- OJ ■O r— •— 3 +J c U I— O Q. i— -o ■t- £ U •>- I— "O QJ ID ID 3 > 3 1— qj cr i_ O "D QJ C i_ > •i- -C OJ -i- t— •»- ID I— ID i— ID f— i— E «f" U O r- r~ QJ -C — -o m 3 0) : c o -o i ■— c O Ol i- c c "O »— id C l_> ■— id >, Q. m o 4-> *J O 3 C •— c •.- — i_ 0) — 1 u»- ■>-> c .e — O 4-> »— I— : oj ±j qj > -c in id c . I- 1_ 1_ <-> •- i *j -t-> > o o c = i- j= •- -o o in OS f— ID ID >, 4-> O 3 1- U '— 4_J X fD OJ U 3 OJ 3 r— C X r- .,_ Oj *-> •.- n c E ID r— 0' qj o 4-> CO "C 01 1_ QJ ID • > o c o a> ID 3 +J O- 1- >> u £-— +J 3 ■r- -i- "D >, > C E *->.- O 1_ -i- *-> u oj > u I 4-> X) C *J O O 1- L. 3 L 01 O "O CO -= P in 1- OJ .* D-.C s- •D +-> O CO 2 ID C Ol - — ■ ID C OJ . E -i- -C i- >,*J *-> S- qj QJ QJ •»- f 4-' m 3 4-> 4-> ID S- XI 3 SO.' ID in > "CI L. in -o i— o QJ - ID 3 in >, O -3 in ID OJ SZ OJ •a; cd jd m uo OJ <_> flj 4J T2 in c C i— ID f- -i- 3 J3 I— O 3 >-' C C 3 O m m O i- 01 QJ L +J l.-^ QIC i— flj I- Q-"D 4-> OJ O. C *J 4-1 3 ID ID S 01 — t fi) 'D-i- 3 4-> H- U 3 ID t- 0J O S 3 o. 1- in in cnxJ in c 0J id QJ id 5 i/i e *j oi m qj oj x < 4-' -3 *.' o en E ■o oj tn qj 4-> 4-> ID C ■r- 01 o > t — •i- .C 4-1 4-> ID O . C ID U OJ •i- ,— -,- X) O > ID a C'i- j: x: •>- 4J 4-> u l — « ID ID m E u in tj 01 -I- oi 4-> in 4-» in in QJ -^ w >,-C k. 01 -r- •— •^ 0J 4-> «■ ti i£ — E 3 o C I— •r- +* .C U 01 •f- «/) •■- o -C -i- X U •r- C71 •>- IO f- IO ■■- > ■o >> ■o ai C-? B u IO f— IO a O) §>£ >> 4>l IO •■- <»- u 1/1 t- 1/) a> u •O ■a ai 3 a> i- "O c c ••- o <_> o> ia .o -a in 3 i/i Oi w >» Q. i- XI 01 IO X « j +J I. E U OI 3 O '-> i-D; o >> = •4-> 10 •*- I/) •p- Ol 91 o> c s. ■r- «£ i/> IO i4_ o> en O > >> = C t- t- >, ^ 1lj< +J 3 CO r — -M E •— io o " in Q. t. r— IO IO >— C ■•-> 01 ••- c C > i— Ol i- Ol Q. E .C X> i- C •5 S.42 £ •I- 1- XI 4J "O 4-> C C XI f- O Ol i— XJ c B c u £ io Ol 0) i- "S 3 ••- i— 0) -^ O JC o •i- +J Ol l/> *■> +J £ £ i 4- 0) Q> •— U C>> O IO IO 0) ■■-> c ClX* IO io it E ■M •— o ° >1 ■r- trt --- H r- <0 p. t. i- * i- I— 0) •— +J r— f— m ■o •>- ■t- 4. 1- O O I— •U S- U S. -i- ■— * ? +J ,— 0) O -r- 4-> O i— >— •■- o •»- .e -i-> .— £ 1 O •— +J >— *J 0) <-> t: >— •i- i- tt) 4-* t- i — jc •— i- p- -D .— ■- a ? <0 <4- 4-> > ■— 1- +j O t— O *» •»- +J 01 t- -c •r- -f- -o r— *j cn •■- o •>- 8 §j ^ • c *j 0) > i- IB -^ > O — — 5 8 1 t— en 0) p c .£> * 2 c £ S £> O iS •£■ M- -O cn a* *-t- 5 I & s I ~ n *J -r- 3 o c o >> o .e i- JJ o .c i~ *» o 3 n- < => ^j o k. >> O £ TO ■M i lO i- O ••- & B ■r- O *> U DO 5 -1 t 5 ~ T. ?•> •i- 0) i— •» ■— *J 3 U -r- _ — 3 P & (O .p. r— L. p- 4j C >f» ,_. ■•- (U +J (U -r- «j B & C —, UJ .^ (O > — = — OJ ?" E — I— c IO .,- .,- >— O -i- c; j-j r- r— C) U i— to o »— > U i— v- 0. ■_ . = u. (1) I— .,- O 4-> iJ i> +J r- r— i— -o 2 O c C *— -r- •i- tu - •— o i— -r- O x: c i — to i — 03 4-1 "O ■•— -t- ■r- O — *J •— (.' 01 •— r— ■.- •— Q. S= -f- c c c c c -fa £ b at fa b Z TO TO r-l O r 3 fa: b P4 rr .ri C •z p; t: ^ e El 09 to c io a r» ■o IS < fa! u t •0 b a E It K 10 n b 10 E E c o fal IS >. c fa c n fai rH 3 b 3 2 u. c H 3 fa. IE s- fa. H Ifl £ »J ~i ■ -i J O ■" c £ >. rH -h -h a re r-l S> to b u if. > fa 15 u tr to: b b > > c |'S b -i -fa" C re io 3 u a u £ O < rH b r-. £10 O fa! b tr b £ — I re fl £ « [u 3 TO En CP 4J O O X p (0 c c £ ■O c 10 o CT> 5 gj V> •-4 01 c TO a u b o H b to Ul h Li a» TO 3 c 10 fa. ■x. — O 10 en o £ 10 b 10 c TO a H x D £ E l£ iJ 10 c r> 10 E CD to o o c "0 b TO o >. K in H E O s O ^: g IS 10 9 10 TO u rs E- o a m H en U IB f- b 3 w - rt fa c ig to c ** TO IT TO £ •o O c -0 to a O U T) fa fa b O fa. b c > b. 3 Eu iZ a. . X I fi 0) to b c u fa b u TO c to o TO a TO 3 CO b 2 ~H O 10 H TO O c, H £ TJ •o U b o C •H fal O s o rH > io ,? TO TO U3 i Blri C Uri Oil a o b h i H 4J c o M b Cfa -H O *H TO b 3 VO 10 X O & N H fa. O -w 8S 01 U D F- ,-h -w U JJ -H ■c •1 E r^ . 3 cc £ >^ > a <2 >< a fal r^ O H CI V fal c W W re a c 10 ca £ —I < CO to in X u 3 D £ TO c TO s tJ> -o c £ b u. TO M b CD b 3 -H TO E b £ U £ TO 4J U in 6 E £ 6 -O TO TO TO £ | X L. t- E 9 a U. 3 Cfa - £ U U b _, ^ TO 2 Q TO C T3 ai E O -rt C ■H TO > to M £ 1- TJ CO TO O O -H Z u ^ <-.• ■n fai c b. i- E in TO ~* fN TO IN >Q <8X VH ji — i u u ^ U. U U O tO 4J 10 O 4J 0) (A » i> C SO <-t H JJ *H au-cuo h «m fa C 4-» in CQ c 3 w J IC c m 10 X C TO b £ »H 10 fe u s ■u 3 £ a 3 O £ •u TO a TO u ►5 01 TO b 1' b m b Z fal fa] r-j H £ b in ■H H •C 3 d H O ON 5 « 3 c & o I 2 t 3 CI c -* ^ O c < U u 12 L- >-i bi *l a c c > uj •u £ u E 01 *i 01 I b V 10 u 01 C7> c O *J CO b 10 fal O ■c u > 5 O TO £ u TO £E b < TO X 10 < O u 10 u TO J^ faj O Bi Li a o C b b TO n £ u: TO E- s c e 10 1 B] IN TO E- E 3 E b llri t ■ -1 .X TO b fa r-l W b CD -I 8* Ik 35- C rl (- -H ■u TO CL TO EC "O b a b — £ U is ,H •h >-^ O m b 2 a> p c -> e * 01 TO -H TO C o > w m en c to £ o b E b ft "O U — C Kb CUM < -J b . o < b U -I UJ — c fa: i. fa i • fal rg tt to ^ < O w JJ •H b 10 J >. « x in b • to linS —t 10 . fa- TO J tl! fa. O -I w TO fa in o £ • 10 a H • rH C 10 * b. S t- C TO -H Z Z fa. i tn z z SSSf-5 6 S 3 tu £ > re u re ^ i/; re L| >. t: u u o o „ c c ,T5 jj CI .^ j: Li CI Ui J IS c o £ > c u o H B CI u*v E jj O c CO E c -H o o tr> 3 a o g c 3 r~ 03 £ c. Q CN —I E "-l O . 03 — ' lj Si ••" r-i o ja • o 0. z H v: ir\ -h C 3 -J i. O D MB s B 5! U O —i E > O -H 13 -« r*> 13 >-3 O m E- i-i O -i ~i U M = >- -H -J -r-l IJ ftH0«('ri • c n c re < c m 3 c c re 01 JJ cr c o w c -H h. o -h jj e o o Li -d a E rx o -h ►j re c u c o o •o o u c E- H X -H h o o h -n lu iJ c o > c w " vO -H in > m - EC 01 JJ U Li ci O »4-l 10 LI > JJ O -< > 0.OH XI tJ k^ 10 CO Q , HI c • 3 O o • > —I — I u u o Oi H O 03 U U3 h. U U'rt H 01 £ h, ~l -H > i~l .H IX 01 rt -h io r- > > 3 10 O M CO r-H > -I E CO JJ "3 «-< -H re • fC i— I 10 10 •-a 3 z m u u ci o a jj ci ci i-i io JJ 10 CQ 10 10 O O- >u C rt C C JJ O CI -H S 10 M Li CI u S ci -h n U >« S 13 CO X O -I O H 10 iB t* a js >. • Li 13 Li JJ CI C O -I Ll C tJ -* O -H 10 O CI > vS IS S O In P in H rt C H - H a 3 H -I >, h. u. C ii 0) SI ^ b. ■3 b. v. u 01 J c c •u re X jj O •u JJ c 3 ■3 •H cO O U >. IS ic CI Q X JJ C ai r £ B ,s Li u BP 01 O (A JZ 2 O u re ro J= I u rr <3 u 01 X ro E IS o .0 JJ r4 IJ Ol u C ■h ^r c a IX re a 13 >, w u <0 ►3 It O 1 CM c u CI c u -H E r-J Li ■0 JJ JJ O 13 IS u > o < 10 in X > o [fl m >j a 3 n 1 1) IN a a o re II hi " u. H l£ b < U Q LI H 6 3 fn E- S U a) CO tn io c c jj Li c i-4 n i-4 c 3 JJ u a c vo en uj a -h a •O 3 T CQ JT -Hjjixjr ioolio-h B > -H ^ « SLioO-J OCSr^iO "3 5HU u ijBltrt J UO b.iM h >2 £ IB "D -h u; b. L. c u O M IS hi n > s O B s Bl b CI (3 u CI e a ■0 > •C o c U) X ^ Li f3 Lfi > £ (A ■9 re o c c U ■0 C b. IB •o hi r jf >. U] Vi u> LO e Li L. IS J^ ■0 x c Li V. o u c CO u c O c ,0 C o re rS c re IN re ■TJ b. o f- l-i 3 a- 1-5 — Bl n n hi t- H O U' Q -i-i -H JJ C J -J S -i S O -i -C JJ o o -J 3 >£ J= XI U C b. ILI -J S 01 -I o tin; -j = re Cl Li > Li ti: "T C 2 C -< EL/OU — .QJ-M-W OC-C C-13CMI3 X >-3 0> 1/1 XbitOVOU T> 3 ~* c AJ c f u Is) c li a to B .^ c- c 01 tc CJ m c gg c Ifi a «- X 10 O 5- 01 TT c e re j< 13 6 u Li • c c 01 O £ U3 cS IS E- g (J 0- JZ K > tx. .3 O C >- -J o fT — i 5; c u H iJ mH c ei fc. c p w c 13 c tt- o 1 c £ en E v. E V- >. E u a E o 01 >, ID c c C c V. i- & x- e tr> BS w £ c > o a > c C oi C5 c io > X a > C 01 c 2 .n 14 it a o CI to o c o > c j: <3 3 o O > r~ -H ID c 6 > o 10 >. -H c c (0 « 10 o c \D 13 o a 3 m o ts o a > 01 b u fN H > D o: fN E- s 3 u u o oi c o o 2 * c £ OJ o < ui s x c x c I/, -0 u •a h c ■D e >4 -4 ig H ■0 3 c ■*4 u. -C ■ 01 en s 0) t*4 oi ra io » 3 r £ 10 a -h a »4 13 c 43 ai io 3 ►5 01 H < u In a E- K CI o- C c t; u) U4 > O Q Bl c Or O < 4J O 10 >, 44 u o -I C • -LI —I £ 01 3 O 10 o • o <-h fri ii3 Bin .-t o 01 -H in > CI i- c £H* « O 44 D o* in (0 (0 CI It 13 J H O -i E £ r-l a b o « in j xo<^ X i-i O G -4 • 10 0* 10 13 ID l>4 10 O 4J a c o; x u Xt 4-1 > 10 X t b li l< X t CrIH io o; to u D u JJ 3 10 10 C X, T 01 < -H 01 C rf 10 ~4 fll 14 O -M C H CJ 4j 4- 4J O 01 « o oi 01 o: 4) u ij 0J U 4J 4J 10 0) 3 Ul O H S CnIH H u u a in -n Z oi -i rH 4J -I £ 10 01 O 13 J-I 10 o 4J 01 vo H 10 cs fc. a u: X u 0) 01 a c |-j £ to E 01 E ■H »H 10 t) u to It vc -h c s m -H r^ m H 5 2 m u f O O H O « ■rt U X CC 1h ^ C -H -I •0 D IfH U. Ss U -4 •H Ui O -rt 01 01 -i 44 h T) £ S N JJ » ■ c o io g - o u 6 oi C 10 -H oi l£ 01 4-1 O 01 H >.Ulrt X 01 01 ■H 4-1 I H < j: lu 10 XT -r- 4 1 C IB C 10 it n > U -H t) J= t- 14 to to 01 b. Al -H . (B 01 01 O • CI Cf n ii 4J h *J > iH 4J fl "C • c o a h w -i a -4 01 01 »l H } ( * U. O (4 iSlSS Cw 3 3 -4 3 t-4 H • * « W 1*4 k »H 4^ 4 2 5 cup 44 C -I U ■c o ~4 fN 0l C E 4J 4J 10 O ■D 4J 3 JO O C 3 X Z. 10 £ 44 44 10 44 O O It 4. a 4J □ io it >. o U IT U C 13 > -4 Ul -4 C C — CI j: a. v. c c to u. U 4.' O io c in O zn 0. C iO -r4 -H 01 t3 14 44 --4 O « — I — I J -H f-4 44 * o ■H 10 .3 01 " 2 01 IB O "8 O •-, r4 -I > C -I ^H ~l 1*1 10 < Q m Eh ? un u O OI o s> h 3 IV < iB> O -P >•< a c ^H », o> H 5 .„, B ,_, tu T3 JJ u L, jj li. w -0 a jj j* a. CL jj Oi 0/ w c W 1M 01 •H Q a> a D C re 01 n CI •H u Ij 3) u 1 C re 2 1 JJ a 0) c m CO 3 re c 3 (3 re T C CD s IB re "0 IB — 1 rg (N G j: i* •C 3 E- B. U) 4-> <0 a re c cr IB E M £ c o > »H ^ - JJ o IB o JJ c 1 1 re (J w ■H IB O IB -C r- k- IB U i. *r — i o v IB Uj 10 ^ t~ N It ll 6 T IB IB c ^ o o £ 3 JJ — i t. iJ — rl -< b. H c -u - 1o£ U »- i- •-! u h ei e re ~ e IB X E O it C IB c u js IB u c *j rsj X IB u; to JZ d X & cr k, IB IB t_ a (B -* U C-. O jj c ■3 IN u; m c > re *t c c IB c c IB v£> IB £ •H V/l IB O — u H U c Ci a. E" c B IN Vi t- a C i""* C« O jj J O u £.3 = 3 --i O 0) Uj U IB U 10 Q U. I" H ° l-l a e S fe g c & 3 i I §1 2 5-b S3 fi s « * » « i ■ ■o=2 2,2.2 = ^=8 ,• a-c^Sdi X t-H Q 2: U_i Q. a. s a X Z U < fc < < X O a. u h < H frl 1 s § : i £0 |°2|lSlll Sfjf 2-gS §? SI*' 3<.2f S3 as 5S S3" „-« o»a.-g^ s •33-£.-§- 3 35-S3£X5£2 - = g?':£ ■5 § o~-|™ ? -g-"*r &*£«9 g-Sjfc-M 1-g.l ; "i5 j„-«3je &s I3.2.2 -j 8 J! » 9 wii* ajilli a|=*i «Q -I < S to (2 05 03 co Q 3 cTi < d5: !"1 "1 "1 1 "•? ""!""! "1 "I "1 **" « Nf5«c3?j J « U C fc. •; 3-g v £ C 4,0 > =i2i_* SeSsoSS -offl-cS |3.c2 5P-C c S-H 3-C S « 3 C - »^ O t S hiiO- ■ = i'SSis-Se fS«2£§8 fill HI! ttflftt!]! ii|i s jiii iinij . .»«■«■- 8f- s g _j| «*£ 5 J? £•£ = «■■ • a I Sinai's » i"«i i •■5 1 Hi ! if 11 « E c « -£»" w 3 9-c 94-n *~ » c c 8 S 5Ex .£ "=.2.3 o at- 2 c £;= Bc«>o «> « 5-SJ ii«> 9rl c 5-ISll^"E 111 .IjB.-5 , g'&*6|t c a.c g$"*ltcoJ c l 5 M-gJis nil ii til a 5 a a -■5 g. = .£i*o ■o.E g «M 3 c 3 _-e ■ -s S « « S * ? •• " 9-5 « « » 3 S'Ig*g.rf£gt?£«« o'EisijjjsfriCij »! c -c 3 5 * '£ a as || If "3 52-33 §3?£§S • 5 c 3 j, „• 1 a s £ * 3 " Mills r-; Is i* *u a r .. ® 9 11. »£ ~*^a,=j; § Hi ai&i ? 5 3 -5 <5 t J Jo. s 8 11 h s;s§ e. hi in 2 me gc 9 a ? „ a~ 3 • 3-2E *.£-= <-^.«. ■"! « JS o c u 2 ° SS £ ■ S £35-3 h?i -illilo'si Son J(3« ^ "^£ J I" c a 2 ■ )«ij >— X 3.2 ^05— »t«c«>» , a * 3 ■a - 0-3 5^ glStlj 3 6 Jf c^S p 23 -S "3 8. 3X3 c 2g,o5.e'* SSSI * S.C •= «S = -2^J S l«! ex't * 8 s i5 9-3 3 .Sj3 S a 5 — >. fe ■>i-E*3 3 !i«j!f f Jill HI b i- * ef c .2-s 2 J! o * c.2t> j: i]"il*J]j |1|4 lltl Jits! III i i a" s * 9 ilifjfgl jlja III HI I "*j oil! •2 <= - ■= S i S.I a? | sr 9tK lt»S 7.»3B l^loiJfll- 8 S-«s^ Hi, lift! jf*f fill Hi f ill!* • ■SS 8.3- 11 a- 8 g|oo«>|f fceSs-f e-*^ IHlsflftBi iiiiiiiiin I -3 it I l-H "3 2 g ■u:Hl|liij l*M*Mi* l^l^iiifi ifrlijeJlS - 5 2 m " S& - a a. ».c - "3 «.■£— "5 "tT-c-ct; -,' «3 ex e Tjf IKlRlll 8<- 8 > !SxE kI l|l|4ij| i\ mmm m il ! !*i !ilj Msl I K = ti a*- = .;ii^ijjiHiij i -IjirirHpSp t!;i»ttsM^JL all's a* .3 "8 J£ 111 | $ g-s iiil- EJjIm J*il nil ill 11H Hillli I til' |l?llll 1i|[: frills ill 4fli * 1* J l" llfl I I* i If-sM 5S ? £■= 3* I- 2 « j3 g g ffl.a oj }. ai.2 g>.2.£ 33".g « of ills B cj — .3 ni ij.j 1 ill ilRI 111 I 21«fl Mil ^^ 1 llllllMlsiiljil 3 6 a r" 1 8.9^ ss « c|f 5 iiiliifl I J Jill 2p||p||||Pi3 pica f IllMZfslI X o a. < ifii! io&'Pugi s *fii 1 MM till HisifS IhUhJ-'it 111 - - £ S - E 5j< iiftu'j I 111 if?2? S||gs|l iilliP D tills* £ 1» e s-e E, s- i. iiliillOl i> c «-o » 3 n £ 3.2 85 C 3-n TS S — „JS > *' * J a u 8 . £3-3 c >>" o.r:^ Z-sE.ZZl.SSY as-i'ijcl.kl Miiisiii. s srsi!i sun? 411*° illidllll 5 JSii' is HI 81 fllillll .9 * !5 • $ - ■£ *P -C 10 *? V 8 J * 3 -g S 2 l"i 111 !f4gl|J O 8 « S: S 1S]5|S| "".0.2-0 w - - 3-T C * O >> 3 - - *5li s JiCS c >..i -o -o =• c "S g- v 2.«S * *" ESe.S Illijlillll! ^3illS-|Jg ii|ll1|!||s?| ei <0 t^ C*» 1^; C*3 CD MO^CD CO f5 C3 S 8 SSS SS3 ec ,.-£ a (u-2 t c - '"•S s'S-'Zil " I » t * » > w J^S * « 3-5 - - a - — * -■»" *- "oj — — ■- - ^..c « e > -S-o 3-e g ■ 5 rfo S c * Illll!f!l^|| iiS5k!2.2 32j(-§3| ■ it . .2 x — 2 a Z * o %v ,.jz „^, ~ *.Mi|3iM*uf2i ^> 5 « HI - •- m ..o n *T !? — ,.S4?' i £ =3 2 33 °-o g"^j3 S«8"|±£ 3 C C. Ct - JS 3.2 8-d a S& -5*5-3 a « C-£ - *1 fs. o ■ £>— '3 j- g— c » J '■■o S .2J,S£ s 35 * .2 "° 3 T c 3.2-° » c •= a _ a.— 3 t s |lPIJlllll!«1M^ «- I ".2-5.2 ■ *3e-° t-_™3-joa* J i "?ca rS-2 =!lIif!il!|ll]IPi1Ijlip|1!l|i! ej5 c s9o— S - — a e « ?>-2 a> ™ ?>™T34*>o_o E -? B £ c 2 E^3 fi £> T 5S2i : Sfei'gEj|s§s,§i-a-§ J«^~ > > — ° a > ™ * a*~-°-go a = fi £ =' < >*£ m£t> »> —.2 - •) 3 § £ 5"° ' ""igsill-rflwGji '"SO -So ° *"= ►.12 = 3 0, QwS — z a. -o a. « 3 3 "- ° »£.<*t3 of g J a J Si "8832 CO 0J_ .r = S E S-3 M c J £ .2 g — x b fciio b-B « -5 . a B ^ E S " ^ [«. - B O _J c JSf-f- sjs * e£^ cfj ■gsef tf s, gl*ia.= I Is E *-a > a* £ 2 u o. "S.c~| TJ4lC-o t -3 -,- t is -— B °- «.' e S. o o a °-e S alS- ™ * J S 8 b 2 C C „ J; u— 1- .!-cB>«0 & |fe2Si-"i-S" -^ ° E3.S t<3 c-5,0 e *§°x-5 |aigf§|g-ig iSli- 2 — 2b "U B^ cS« : >>£ — x 9 x 3 « $ x ■ - -a >-° *^ .5 = c.5 = x £r= « J O O C J ^S 41 "13 - 3 -<-.2f e 55-S-3 2 " o ° o, c ^.a, 41 _ B * - C e c 3EOC§--X^ |2_- 2 " ois e"2 i M-cSi i|iJI|i*jJl IS 31 HI gS II !?ili;s|£^sf- illlilSliPI I £- : ' " c 21 3. Z! H 50 1 5! b! C tj „-T5 3o««-2oS.C-> lljj!isin2ii»! l||i|32|S|||5S||. • E « *J=- JM-&2 8 .5 a » 3 5 6 « X ; ffl C « _ e»3 ■? > a >. S,J«i. c C 1 _ c O> " g $ - a o^ a — 3 II- S ^ **c?Jx 1 1 _ S.S'3 Q >>Q«-C * > g £ Q^ 3 3 Si" " an 31? ^ JO CO 2-n J V gJoog.|| ■ » -s 2 5 c 9-^«r x 51 x s Tx--o 3 co- c .2 a-- ^ S x a •- '— 5 S JS -S w . " Si -I fie 3 -II * S 2^ a - . ? 3 S X - ° = - Ill |-*i-o 2= 3 lsilP|-I1|ilJs! J i]l 1|| IJiilililiJfliJjJiiiM i*1| SKilfl tj*!t]i1 uo_»« 33 ca u a ^••^•::-«?i « 3- 2 ?H 3 £ S 8-o i: ? "i ? ? ==;1 3g J a 8 a •= ai'fi-Sli f|;I| i l.illl|li t2"=x<| s S s 3332?xj. S-- = !§st Sissy's s f Eli Isi|§l ||tl|i;r||lllfj ISI^HI '■512 »^^°s''f^<-So g a sa-2 «•**«£ 01 CO 01 Sop c 5 = fi >-■■& ■oj: « ■g«5 J8i.2 • £ a.g ■ •> Q - j; C-o si » t> a} 5. £*£f £|iSf f is •£ 3 «('s^''5- c >- ~ J=, S •- >>3kX o-.b = O o;^. c a Z i~ c "'•s'VJ'E -la. u * E« e cog o^c S-&E £ «;X X H>.E §" .Sip •"_£ to k c *«■£ c o gg=r s -«- o £ 1 "Ek c y|5|;f|4||.|Io Sit i.^ b r * ° c -£ ttio«t ".fe* o.s| ■ - • -2 * S 6t „ •= -o - C 5 C ffl > » C ~ X n ^S — t*- — i .Si &£ d E 1 St ()E o E .S£f g c t ° = £ l]I*3*:J* - x- JC gS«i2 0- S t--r gs»fff§ g i C a £ e-s c S = .E^ •**■ .2 be ! sl- gl!,o-2 "•£ FfiE-HiiS's 3 a -rSsJS s-s § « 3 «= o a. 1 C 1- ■ >TS >> o c E-"S B i- 2 a Ex S3 a- 5 >>c E ^ ? «* *'8 ! 3i i «! 4 a S A fe if i e; a"5 * JJ8 8' °1 °j s=*Jil o.s aa-S • .-O • 4 « co lS--a- a f|-g aJS &e.S.i * is c 5" " a & s °'S= i-2a C(*- W T3 «S ■ **W v 7; as 5 ^ k. "£ ifI!!lit;ii*NJ s £ 1 b.« 1? * 2 s i caiS.2 - j. a *"~ iS- c">""'^e'9 J ' E 8 - B at V ISs-llSasSUsisSalssa I! 13 " t C 3 8 8 Hlllllj] i-cMl3^CoX? a. o a o S-SS$g „•§■«■„ a Ea'-siiS ;! III*N4!21-p2lir!r ESxooS >.<_-2.5Po c 8 =■= lit 31 si-si "i^t §?i* i BJ»s£f/ !«e£§*-§b guf-Ti a u -cj:i-oc: l. - t s Sl^§ x*-.^ f I = ° *■■* - S of- o sill a llill «■. « > S a> w °5f 5-8 8 8SS t" T a = ci^o u &fe £■&'■§ > a - T> 2 >.|-3j:s J ■o a a- >£ 14* HI ft* O 4» *" cMbse KcS." = 3 I 2 5« S8 " c s -"sa J! «— E x -c J a >. o 5 : 3 $ S.-0 " 3 8 3 »I >«•- 2 « j> ■ * * -^ a "o oi C 5 K £ «£»»'? a a^ 5-o ■e ^ a .3 s "s|*ll* B 3 |C I ? « a = o S i a - c *> aj 9 -= B Sll|isi s |ffr 5 lliH^iilN iiie e >f >>S 3 - M T3 r 3 "5 2 -O ■ >> = -^ ■ E S Isllffe-Ip-CB'-- ffl_* t ^c; = 5?>.r'Eci S3 -» 6 &■ ■- ■£ — " = „ JrS c = f * I -5 — 5- c -o c c "»£o. ft I |Iii!|i"!l ill. lli'iii - - .3 ? p °i ex o L c -5 at J l "»5c;ic!£ J g.fLllsisf *-■§!£ i E i_ I ° fc <0«— g fe-^- ! C o o a-° i, c -r, js _ ■£ :.c «, IF "= !;:= J= " c «< £ * - , . B f»£g £~ 42 |?«|g-g-ji| c£ o£- o * c-S - T 15 »— * «B » u 5 — iS c c 21- 8- - S o o Sc3 eui t to g i,TS£ ^oe, „x-3 £.o i = . ■~ pcj B o c^-g = §"§ 2 £- N ° c « s: S 2= » g | £ g. O .5 -J 1 5 »J= 9-E -j= 3 * i C I 1*1 i a cs sje-sj "a «■§ & fc ° s 3sx JS t2 - ! " Q_ i £•-§ g BC E eU _ »> != S — c jp = £ *2« I H a a <* "S -9 ' to c CL - £ ' w h 3 $ a e ! S>E" > 00 4 .„ c c-o a o» c = 5 * o »5 = iH 3 f-gjB-J-l-sJ lKviJMJ £- > u-oSccm>uEc9 sJllissriliiJ h 8e OHO II * a i! - 1 i" 9--S f ■" * .1 J .a ji=« J 6*5 J ■ iilllliiilii , kf-NI fill bill S-S c g "xg "So ~ -zif _T2!z - © " JUfi,^ T 1 ■5 3 5 b &'" cx-e 2,-; e C S c 3 tJ'Si- £ " c — £ $ *I13?li*lfi iz .1 II iil^ig§ 8 i-s ill Hi II 21 11 i! •i iillllllf^il! ii|!Mb' | jlUi - o 9 I t t «.i-i_C 11 - b 3 3K 1^1 e^'tf^ fill P* lf->JllJ|fiJjllifi g li £ ~ a J E | > s | S.,f- J E c u t. o « &> •SunSc e ill I 11*111111 5 >- o eu « Sx o iSjih-**?* 51fcx _ ■ lilfi © u ; 3 eg .-o lasl Jz| liililb'l 1 iltf*S|ssS • C s £ E *.5 « is--2i s §x« : 81^ :8 ill ii c S t | _,= £ > c e " • c c ° S c § Sell ti 1 <= B ° fe .,x S Stf itS 3 O 3 '-_ 3 ■ E.l^j Fill 111 X oj 4>= C .! ^ & Ei= If ■Slits Jsl ils R ^i' Jilll.fi i APPENDIX VI ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE DESIGNATION OF APALACHICOLA NATIONAL ESTUARINE SANCTUARY The following economic analysis evaluates the costs and benefits that can be expected with the creation of Apalachicola Bay/River Estuarine Sanctuary, and it attempts to assess the net changes resulting from the proposed sanctuary designation. The purpose of this analysis is to estimate the opportunity costs associated with preserving this area in its natural state, which includes examining the anticipated effects on industrial and commercial activity, employment, and tax revenues. There are many difficulties inherent in any attempt to accurately measure the economic impacts of the proposed sanctuary. Precise analysis is complicated by the fact that an estuarine sanctuary can be viewed as: "... a store of public values due to the ecological, cultural, recreational, aesthetic, historic, and economic services provided by the preserve.... Thus an estuarine sanctuary is more valuable to future generations than to current generations." J/ Consequently, the long term positive impacts of an estuarine sanctuary devoted to long term research and education are far more difficult to estimate than the shortrun positive and negative impacts. The following analysis will address impacts on the local, regional, and State/Federal levels, with emphasis on the immediate environment (Franklin County). Due to the interdependent nature of the economic impacts to be assessed, the numerical values derived are not strictly comparable and cannot be totalled for direct comparison. LOCAL IMPACTS The proposed sanctuary lies primarily in Franklin County, Florida, with a very small portion in Gulf County. Of the total acreage for the proposed sanctuary (192,758 acres), 180,291 acres are already in public ownership (State and Federal) and these are subject to management objectives compatible with sanctuary designation. The remaining 12,467 acres proposed for acquisition lie entirely in Franklin County. Consequently, the following discussion of local impacts focusses entirely on Franklin County and assumes the sanctuary designation will have little or no impact on Gulf County. Page 2 Socioeconomic Characteristics of Franklin County Franklin County and the surrounding region have experienced a relatively slow population growth (61st in the State), low per capita personal income ($3,061 or 67th in the State), and a high unemployment rate (14 percent in comparison with 8.2 percent statewide). The county's economy is extremely dependent upon the commercial fishing industry, which accounts for approximately 60 percent of total employment. Seafood processing and manufacturing, another source of employment, represents 7 percent of the work force. State and local governments are the second largest source of employment, and comprise another 14 percent of the county's work force. Although nearly 85 percent of the county's land is devoted to commercial forestry, that industry accounts for a \rery small portion of the total employment in Franklin County. Future development of the bay region is expected to focus on its natural attributes, with emphasis on commercial fishing and its allied industries of tourism and recreational fishing and boating. Also, there may be some light industry compatible with the rural nature of the county. Future residential development is expected to occur in the vicinity of the City of Apalachicola and on St. George Island, a rapidly growing second-home community for residents of nearby Tallahassee. 2/ It is important to note that the local community acknowledges the following: that it is dependent upon the natural ecosystem, that the proposed Apalachicola Estuarine Sanctuary is extremely compatible with the existing socioeconomic/environmental characteristics of the area, and that the sanctuary will serve to protect and enhance the com- munity's desire to retain its symbiotic relationship with the natural environment. Although this community awareness is subjective and non- quantifiable, it must be considered a significant positive benefit that has occurred, and would further occur from sanctuary designation. Impacts Resulting From Land Acquisition A total of 12,467 acres of land in Franklin County will be acquired for the proposed sanctuary under the Environmentally Endangered Lands (EEL) Program. The appraised value of the proposed purchase ranges from $3.47 million to $3.77 million, approximately half of which will be provided by the State and half by the Federal government. 3/ Three principal impacts willl be associated with this land acquisition the impact on local property tax revenues, impacts associated with injection of acquisition money into the local economy, and impacts resulting from preclusion of existing and future residential, commercial, and industrial development. Each of these impacts will be addressed separately. Page 3 Tax Revenues Although the appraised value of the sanctuary land acquisition ranges from $3.47 to $3.77 million, the land is currently assessed for agricultural use and taxed accordingly. It is estimated that the proposed purchase land generated approximately $9,000 in property taxes during fiscal 1977. 4/ This represents 0.596 percent of the total county taxes levied during that same year ($1,511,000). 5/ Consequently, the loss of tax revenue associated with the proposed lancT acquisition will have a relatively minor negative impact on the fiscal resources of Frankl in County. Research regarding property values and tax revenues has indicated that there is a positive correlation between the quality of the environment and the value of some residential property. 6/ Property values are partially affected by the demand for land and the degree of this demand is a subjective determination based upon a person's perceived value of property over time. In other words, degradation of the environment can cause property values to decline or to rise more slowly than might otherwise be expected. Likewise, the protection or enchancement of an area's natural environmental assets can result in an increase in the value of adjacent property. It is anticipated that the relatively small loss of tax revenues in Franklin County (noted above) could be completely offset by an increase in property values (and taxes) on St. George Island that will be partially attributable to the estuarine sanctuary. This island is being developed primarily as a second-home community for residents of nearby Tallahassee and other North Florida/South Georgia communities. Since this development is recreation and natural environment oriented, the value of the property is positively correlated with the quality of the surrounding environment. The guarantee of long term preservation and enhancement of that environment is anticipated to exert a positive impact on land values on St. George Island. The current assessed value of all platted lots on St. George Island is approximately $11 million. Once development is completed (approximately 1994), however, the assessed value of property on St. George Island is estimated to exceed $18 million. 7/ At the current county mi 11 age rate (17.418 mills), this property wilT generate about $313,500 annually in tax revenues. Assuming the existence of the estuarine sanctuary resulted in an additional three percent increase in property values assessed at fair market price, the additional tax revenues generated would completely offset the tax loss associated with the EEL purchase. Since it is anticipated that the sanctuary will stimulate increased property values in excess of three percent, the designation has the potential for a positive net impact on local tax revenues. In summary, there will be a relatively small negative impact on county tax revenues in the short run (approximately $9,000/year). In the long run, however, it is anticipated that this loss will be more than offset by a rise in adjacent land values (and property taxes) partially Page 4 attributable to the existence of the sanctuary. The net longrun impact on local tax revenues, therefore, is expected to be positive. Injection of Acquisition Money Into the County Economy A total of 12,467 acres of Franklin County land will be acquired with approximately $3.5 million in State and Federal monies. Of this total, however, only one parcel (1203 acres) valued at $326,700 is in the apparent ownership of a resident of that county. The remainder of the land is owned by Florida and Georgia corporations and residents. Therefore, it appears that only about 9.3 percent of the acquisition monies will flow directly into the county. It is important to recognize, however, that this money represents an injection of new funds (State and Federal) as opposed to a redistribution of money within the county, and can be expected through a multiplier effect to provide a stimulus to local economic activity. Therefore, the sanctuary land acquisition is expected to have a small positive impact on the local economy. Preclusion of Existing and Future Development The proposed purchase involves essentially undeveloped land composed primarily of marsh (approximately 80 percent) and some upland covered in timber (approximately 20 percent). Although timber has been harvested in the past, no logging operations are currently underway. Consequently, the sanctuary land acquisition will not interrupt any current commercial activity. There is only one parcel of land on which structures now exist. These structures include some storage facilities, a family residence, and a mobile home. Since the residences are used as a recreational fish camp, the proposed purchase will not displace any existing permanent residents. In the long run, the sanctuary designation will effectively preclude further development on the acquired land. In order to assess the net impacts associated with precluding development, it is necessary to determine what type of development (if any) might have occurred in the absence of the estuarine sanctuary. Such a determination is highly conjectural, but some indications exist that allow a reasonably accurate projection. The vast majority of the land in question is marsh (80 percent) and, therefore, unsuitable for intensive development (residential, commercial, or industrial). Indeed, current State regulatory practices make it highly unlikely that even low-density development will be permitted in this area. In addition, the fact that only one residence currently exists on the land attests to the absence of residential, commercial, or industrial demand for the land, which is zoned for agricultural use and lacks the public facilities necessary to support such development. Page 5 These are observable factors which appear to forestall future development on the land in question. Studies and projections regarding future growth and development in the Apalachicola Bay area tend to reinforce these observations by forecasting "limited opportunity for growth,... a trend toward out-migration from the County,... and community services and facilities [that] are... inadequate to foster viable economic develop- ment." 8/ Collectively, these factors seem to indicate that the area will retain its rural character and experience a low rate of growth and development. Hence, the opportunity cost of developing this land would be quite low due to the previously mentioned constraints. Summary It appears that the shortrun impact of land acquisition is negligible. No permanent residents will be displaced, and no current commercial or industrial activities will be affected. In the long run, land generally unsuitable for development, combined with a low growth potential for the area, should serve to minimize the opportunity costs associated with precluding 12,467 acres of county land from future development. Impact on Renewable and Non-renewable Resources The economy of Franklin County is- vitally dependent upon its renewable resources (fishing and forestry), while non-renewable resources play a far less important role. The following analysis will focus on the net impacts of the sanctuary designation on fishing (commercial, recreational and subsistence), forestry, and mining, each of which will be discussed separately. Fishing Franklin County's economy is almost totally dependent upon commercial fishing, the principal economic activity now occurring in the Apalachicola Bay region. Commercial fishing accounts for approximately 60 percent of the county's total employment and seafood processing and packaging plants employed another 7 percent of the 1974 labor force; Apalachicola Bay supplied approximately 90 percent of the oysters consumed in the State; and total marine landings in Franklin County were valued at nearly $7 million, ex. vessel, in 1976. The output multiplier for commercial fisheries is estimated to be approximately 2.0. 9/ Consequently, it is estimated that commercial fishing contributes in excess of $14 million annually to Franklin County's economy. In addition to commercial fishing, recreational fishing is a principal attraction for tourists coming to the region. Although the proposed sanctuary is already used extensively for recreational fishing, sportfisjvinc[ in the bay and lower river is generally considered an underutilized resource. At the present time, there are three fishing lodges in Apalachicola, patronized by an average of 1125 fishermen per month. 10/ One study using percents estimates that a recreational fisherman utilizing charter facilities spends an average of $40 to $75 per day. 11/ Using the lower of these Page 6 two values and assuming a stay of only one day duration for each fisherman, it is conservatively estimated that recreational fishermen from these three facilities alone contribute in excess of one-half million dollars annually to Franklin County's economy. Although figures indicating the total number of recreational fishermen using the bay are not available, their positive impact on the local economy is substantial. Landings of estuarine dependent fish in the lower river and bay area are of great worth to State and national markets, but they also have intrinsic though non-quantitiable food value for local residents. There is no specific documentation regarding the value of estuarine dependent species landed and consumed by individuals within Franklin County, but the area's waters are believed to provide a significant portion of the basic food requirements of the native population. The acquisition, management, and research conducted within the estuarine sanctuary will have the beneficial longrun impact of ensuring the pro- ductivity of the estuarine waters, maintaining the vitality of Franklin County's fishing-dependent economy, and assuring a continued supply of estuarine dependent species for statewide/national export and local consumption. Forestry Forestry is a major land use in Franklin County, with over 80 percent of the county's total land area devoted to commercial forestry (290,000 acres). Of the 12,467 acres of land to be acquired for the proposed sanctuary, however, less than 20 percent (2,500 acres) is timberland. This represents a long term loss of approximately 0.862 percent of the total commercial forestry acreage in the county. The principal species of timber found within sanctuary boundary are Long Leaf Pine and Slash Pine. The ability to harvest these resources is relatively good. Hardwood timber predominates in lower areas, and logging conditions for these species are fair to poor. Forestry resources within the boundaries of the proposed sanctuary are not currently being harvested. Since the land in question is not being harvested at this time, pre- servation status will have no shortrun impacts on the local economy. In the absence of complete information regarding the value of the timber lying within the sanctuary boundary, it is difficult to estimate the possible long term loss of income resulting from its preservation. Given that the acreage represents a relatively small portion of the Page 7 county's total forestry acreage (0.862 percent), however, the opportunity costs associated with preservation of this timber are anticipated to be relatively low. In addition, any loss that might be attributable to preservation of these stands of timber will be partially offset by the non-quantifiable beneficial impact of maintaining a natural buffer between the bay and upland activities, thereby minimizing non-point source pollution to the adjacent waters. Mining The known non-renewable resources lying within the sanctuary boundary are road fill, foundation fill, and peat. In addition, there are potential deposits of heavy minerals and oil. ]2J The sanctuary designation will preclude further mining for fill and peat. Since these are yery minor activities, however, the negative impacts are anticipated to be negligible. Ten exploratory oil wells have been sunk in the region, but no oil has been discovered. 13/ Thus,. it appears highly improbable that large-scale oil drilling will occur in the area. In the unlikely event that oil is discovered in the future, however, slant drilling will be permitted from outside the sanctuary boundary to recover oil lying beneath sanctuary lands. Although all areas will not be accessible by means of this drilling technique, the possible negative impacts are considered to be relatively minor. 14/ Summary Long term preservation of approximately 12,500 acres of land in Franklin County will preclude timber harvesting and mining. Since these are relatively minor activities in the area, the opportunity costs associated with preclusion of these activities should be more than offset by the beneficial impacts on fishery resources, which are the mainstay of the county's economy. Impact on Tourism At the present time, tourism in the Apalachicola Bay area is considered an underutilized resource. JN5/ The probable causes for the tourist industry failing to reach its full potential are twofold: lack of facilities (motels, sportfishing fleets, etc.) and lack of publicity. The toll facility data for the bridge to St. George Island can give some indications of the number of visitations to the area. Page 8 Monthly Toll Facility Data for Bridge to St. George Island 1977 1978 January February March April May June July August September October November December TOTAL Source: Florida Department of Transportation. 8,786 11,108 10,836 12,328 17,276 22,602 24,998 30,534 22,774 26,138 23,696 26,936 28,274 30,584 19,402 24,332 17,712 23,782 18,326 20,388 15,958 19,352 12,004 14,716 220,042 262,800 Page 9 It is anticipated that recreational demands on the area will increase significantly over the next decade, and the State is currently planning to develop facilities at St. George Island State Park in order to accommodate this additional demand. J_6/ The estuarine sanctuary is expected to stimulate tourism into the area in four principal ways: promotion of increased awareness of the Apalachicola Bay region; long term protection of the area's principal tourist attraction (the natural environment); creation of a new tourist destination (the educational/visitor center located within the sanctuary boundary); and possible creation of an historic district in the City of Apalachicola in conjunction with the sanctuary designation. V7J The increased tourist activity associated with the proposed sanctuary will, in turn, stimulate an increased supply of facilities and services to meet that demand. Although specific documentation is not available, the existence of estuarine sanctuaries in other parts of the Nation has been observed to have a positive impact on recreational and tourist usage. 18/ Given an estimated tourist multiplier ranging from 3.0 to 4.0, the increased tourist activity resulting from the sanctuary is expected to contribute substantially to the county's economy. Impact on Employment The proposed sanctuary itself will provide a small long term stimulus to local employment (see following section). In the long run, the sanctuary is expected to ensure continued employment in the commercial fishing industry, have a positive impact on employment in the service sector (tourism, research, and education), and have a negligible impact on forestry-related employment. Impacts Associated with Sanctuary Activities The major objective for the proposed sanctuary is the preservation of the natural ecosystem for baseline research and educational purposes. In order to accomplish this objective, the sanctuary will establish a permanent office employing a management task force, conduct ongoing research, and develop an educational program and facilities. These three activities have associated economic impacts, each of which is discussed below. It should be noted that some of these activities impact directly on Franklin County while others affect the surrounding region as well. Management Task Force Expenditures The initial sanctuary management task force will probably consist of two employees: a manager and possibly a part-time secretary. The combined salaries of these employees should range from $20,000 to $25,000. Another $75,000 will be expended for operations and main- tenance costs. Since the money to fund sanctuary operations will be provided by State and Federal governments, this represents an injection of about Page 10 $100,000 in new money into the county's economy each year. Given an output multiplier of about 3.0, this operating budget is expected to generate about $300,000 yearly in economic activity in Franklin County. 19/ Research A number of research projects and activities are currently underway in the sanctuary region, most of which are funded by State agencies. Some of these include: - establishing artificial oyster reefs in Apalachicola Bay (Department of Natural Resources, $40,000-$50,000/year). - developing an oyster fattening plant (DNR, $300,000 total). - marine patrol activities (DNR, $400,000/year). - St. George Island State Park (DNR, Division of Recreation and Parks, $200,000 in 1979). - fisheries research applicable to Apalachicola Bay (Marine Research Lab, $1.5 million/year). 20/ - scientific research on Apalachicola River and Bay (U.S. Sea Grant Program, $270,000 in 1979). Z\J - long range effects of intensive forest management on water resour- ces of the bay area (U.S. Forest Service and Florida Center for Environmental and Natural Resources Program, Univ. of Florida). Although the exact amount of research money flowing directly into the county is unknown, these projects are estimated to make substantial direct and indirect contributions to the local economy. The establishment of Apalachicola Bay as an estuarine sanctuary is expcted to stimulate an additional amount of research grant money flowing into the area. Among the studies proposed during the initial stages are baseline studies to quantify current conditions and studies to determine the effects of varying inflows on estuarine productivity and shoaling. The cost of conducting these and other studies is not known at this time. However, a recent stucjy has determined that educational services have an output multiplier of about 3.0. 22/ Since educational and research are comparable activities, each $20,000 grant for sanctuary research has the potential to generate $60,000 in economic activity in Franklin County. It is highly probable that research grants associated with sanctuary activities will be in excess of this figure. Consequently, expenditures associated with sanctuary research are expected to have a significantly positive impact on the local economy. Page 11 In addition, certain non-quantifiable benefits will accrue as a result of the sanctuary designation. Numerous studies of the Apalachicola ecosystem have been conducted over the past decade, representing a sizeable investment of public funds. The creation of the estuarine sanctuary will maintain the estuarine ecosystem in its natural state, thereby protecting the investment in, and enhancing the value of, these research projects over time. Education One of the principal activities for the proposed sanctuary is the development and implementation of an educational program. During the second year of operation, a nature center will be constructed at an estimated cost of $200,000. This center is expected to provide non- quantifiable educational benefits to local and regional elementary and secondary schools, universities (FSU and UWF), the local public at large, and tourists. In addition to these non-quantifiable benefits, sanctuary visitors and tourists engage in somewhat similar activities. Consequently, visitors to the nature center will have a direct positive impact on the local economy. Although the magnitude of this impact is impossible to predict, the estimated multiplier for tourist activity in Florida ranges from 3.0 to 4.0. This means that every dollar spent by these visitors can be expected to generate $3 to $4 in local economic activity. REGIONAL IMPACTS ON THE APALACHICOLA-CHATTAHOOCHEE-FLINT RIVER BASIN Apalachicola Bay lies at the mouth of the Apalachicola River. With the exception of the Mississippi, this river system is the longest and largest river system in the Southeastern United States, and is formed by the convergence of the Chattahoochee River of eastern Alabama and the Flint River of western Georgia at the Florida border. Although the Florida portion of the river remains in a relatively natural state, the system as a whole is managed for the following objectives: navigation, hydro-power, water supply, water-based recreation, flood control, and maintenance of the ecological resources of the river system and bay. During periods of low flow, these six management objectives concurrently come into conflict with one another. Since the proposed sanctuary will place additional emphasis on one of these objectives (maintenance of the ecological resources of the river and the bay), the proposed designation has the potential to exacerbate the existing conflict. The following analysis will address the relationship between the management objective of the proposed sanctuary and each of the objectives that now govern the management of the river system as a whole. Page 12 Impact on Federal Navigation Projects The proposed estuarine sanctuary is crossed by two inland waterways: Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW) and the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee- Flint Navigation Project (A-C-F). The latter is authorized to provide a 9 foot by 100 foot channel, 95 percent of the time. This authorization applies to the entire Apalachicola River, the Chattahoochee River as far north as Columbus, Georgia, and the Flint River as far north as Bainbridge, Georgia. Approximately one million tons of cargo/year are shipped on the A-C-F, consisting primarily of sand, gravel, petroleum products, and fertilizer products. Since 1971, the authorized 9 foot channel depth has been maintained only 80 percent of the time. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers maintains that the amount of cargo transported on the A-C-F is stunted due to the "unreliable nature of the channel." Consequently, the Corps has proposed structural modification of the Apalachicola River by means of a dam or open-river regulation. The purpose of these proposals is to provide the authorized 9 foot channel depth, 95 percent of the time, in an effort to increase the tonnage transported. In 1974, Florida adopted a resolution in opposition to the proposed structural modifications. 23/ It is important to note that the Cabinet's action on this issue occurred prior to and independent of the proposed estuarine sanctuary. In addition, Florida has existing statutory authority to prevent construction of the proposed dam in its waters regardless of the proposed sanctuary. 24/ The proposed management program for the sanctuary specifically states that "the sanctuary designation will not prohibit or preclude any activity now occurring on the River." In addition, the list of allowed uses cites two specific activities having a direct impact on navigation: maintenance dredging of existing channels and a continuation of existing permits and spoil disposal practices until a comprehensive spoil disposal plan is developed. Expansion of existing channels or creation of new channels is prohibited only until certain studies are completed and plans developed; specifically this refers to a long term spoil disposal plan, and is applicable to Florida only. The studies cited above as prerequisite to channel alteration are listed as research priorities for the sanctuary, and should be completed within one year after land acquisition commences. Therefore, any negative impacts associated with the proposed sanctuary are anticipated to be short run. Once the necessary studies are completed, the estuarine sanctuary is not expected to have any long term negative impacts on Florida navigation projects. In addition, the sanctuary is expected to have the beneficial impact of resolving a long term dispute between State environmental agencies and the Corps of Engineers regarding spoil disposal. This dispute has centered around locations for spoil disposal sites and differences of Page 13 opinion regarding the impacts of certain disposal practices. These conflicts have resulted in past delays and problems associated with main- tenance of existing navigation channels. It is anticipated that the sanctuary designation will serve as a catalyst to develop a long term spoil disposal plan, and thereby have the beneficial impact of alleviating this existing controversy. In summary, the sanctuary is not anticipated to have any long term negative impacts on navigation projects. Rather, the sanctuary is expected to focus its research efforts in areas that will resolve existing conflicts and provide decisionmakers with objective criteria by which to evaluate the implications of future navigation projects. Consequently, the long term impacts on navigation are anticipated to be beneficial. Impact on Hydropower on the A-C-F At the present time, there are 16 hydropower dams on the A-C-F system, five of which are operated by the U.S. Corps of Engineers and the remainder by the Federal Power Commission. 25/ The principal concern regarding these projects centers around any possible alterations to river flow which might affect the ability of these facilities to generate power. The proposed sanctuary will have no impact on river flow and discharge patterns. Consequently, it is not expected to have any negative impact on the provision of hydropower on the A-C-F system. Indeed, the existence of the sanctuary may have the beneficial impact of providing research results regarding present flow and discharge patterns that should be maintained on a long term basis. Impact on Water Supply The Chattahoochee River (including the Sydney Lanier Impoundment) is the source of 90 percent of the metropolitan Atlanta's water supply. During the next twenty years, the population of that region is expected to increase by 1.5 million people, and its water consumption is expected to more than double, exceeding 500 million gal lions per day (mgd) by the year 2000. 26/ Given the existing downstream water demands for other needs (navigation, hydropower, and recreation), it is unlikely that Atlanta will be able to withdraw water from the Chattahoochee River in the magnitudes necessary to meet its projected demand. In the absence of a sanctuary, therefore, a potential conflict exists between Atlanta's future water supply needs and the navigational, hydropower, and recreational uses of the river system as a whole. As a result, it is highly probable that metropolitan Atlanta will have to seek alternate supplies of water and/or institute water conservation measures as recommended by the Corps of Engineers. It appears that a conflict already exists between Atlanta's future water supply needs and maintenance of an adequate water supply for competing downstream river users. The proposed sanctuary's purpose is Page 14 to maintain the integrity of the natural ecosystem for research and edu- cational use at the mouth of the river system, and the emphasis on maintaining adequate minimum flow rates may heighten this conflict in the short run. In the long run, however, the negative impact may be partially or wholly offset by the results of sanctuary research, which should facilitate rational decisionmaking regarding consumptive use of river's water supply. Impact on Recreational Uses of the A-C-F System Two types of recreation now take place on the A-C-F river system: impoundment-oriented and natural environment-oriented. Four major recreational impoundments currently exist: Lake Seminole, Lake George, West Point Lake, and Lake Sydney Lanier. These impoundments provide recreation opportunities for residents of Atlanta, South Georgia, and North Florida. The proposed sanctuary will have no impact on these upstream impoundments. In the absence of the estuarine sanctuary, the alternative of a major natural environment-oriented recreational area may be irretrievably lost. Consequently, the net impact of the sanctuary is anticipated to be positive because it will act to preserve the existing diversity of both impoundment- and natural -oriented recreation alternatives for future generations of users. Impact on Flood Control The proposed sanctuary will have no impact on flood control projects on the river system. Impact on Maintaining the Ecological Resources of the River System and Bay The proposed sanctuary is completely compatible with the objective of maintaining the ecological resources of the river system and bay. Although this is not currently a formal management objective for the Corps of Engineers, it has been Florida's predominant objective for the past decade and is a concern of other agencies, e.g. the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as well. The proposed sanctuary will place new emphasis on this objective, thereby serving to promote its realization. In addition, the sanctuary will have the beneficial impact of improving the store of scientific knowledge and technical expertise necessary to achieve this objective. STATE AND FEDERAL IMPACTS The proposed national estuarine sanctuary will have a shortrun fiscal impact on both the Federal Government and the State of Florida, each of which will assume half of the total cost of land acquisition for the project (a total of approximately $3.6 million). During the Page 15 first three years of operation, the State will request $50,000 annually in funding from the Office of Coastal Zone Management for administrative expenses. This will be matched by the values of EEL lands acquired in anticipation of the sanctuary, or appropriation from the Florida legis- lature. Commencing in the fourth year, the State will assume the full financial responsibility for long term management of the sanctuary. These Federal and State fiscal expenditures are expected to result in two principal categories of non-quantifiable benefits: improved scientific and technical knowledge regarding optimum management practices for estuarine resources, and improved intergovernmental coordination in the bay and the river system as a whole. The Estuarine Sanctuary Management Committee will promote research efforts that will ensure proper use of basic estuarine resources, promote the development and implementation of optimum resource manage- ment practices, and assure the longrun productivity of the Apalachicola Bay area. This, in turn, will ensure the continued export of seafood to meet growing statewide and national demands. In addition, the knowledge gained from the Apalachicola Bay Sanctuary can subsequently be applied to the management of other similar estuarine areas, specifically in the Louisianian Region and nationwide. The environmental quality goals of other Federal or State agencies could be assisted by sanctuary designation. For example, the statewide 208 water quality planning efforts will be benefited directly by the acquisition of 12,467 acres of land. Planning for 208, or other planning efforts, outside the sanctuary boundary will continue according to Federal and State law and will not be affected by estuarine sanctuary status. Improved intergovernmental coordination is also expected to occur as a result of the proposed sanctuary, its manager, and the managment committee. Federal, State, regional, and local agencies are now involved in various management activities in the region. Federal agencies involved in the development of the lower Apalachicola River include: U.S. Geological Survey, Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Coastal Zone Management, Corps of Engineers, National Marine Fisheries Service, and the Economic Development Administration. Also participating in these activities are several State agencies, including: Game and Freshwater Fish Commission, Department of Natural Resources, Department of Environmental Regulation, Division of State Planning, Department of Commerce, Division of Archives, History and Records Management, Department of Community Affairs and Department of Transportation. On a regional level, both the Northwest Florida Water Management District and the Apalachee Regional Planning Council are also involved in bay-related activities, as are the local entities (county and municipal). Improved coordination among all these agencies and their numerous respective activities should result in more effective management of the entire river system and reduced potential for conflict in the future. Page 16 As part of the sanctuary management program, interstate coordination efforts will be initiated with the States of Georgia and Alabama. This effort is expected to result in the positive impact of resolution of existing competing uses within the entire Apalachicola-Chattahoochee- Flint River Basin System. It should also produce more effective long term planning for multiple use of the entire river system, reduce the potential for future conflict, and promote a more rational process by which to make future decisions regarding optimal use of this valuable system. Page 17 FOOTNOTES 1.. J.M. Friedman, "The Growth of Economic Values in Preservation: An Estuarine Case Study," Coastal Zone Management Journal , Vol.3, No. 2 (Crane, Russack & Company, Inc., 1977), p. 171. 2. J. Meyer, Apalachicola City Planner, personal communication on January 29, 1979. 3. C.L. Neff, Senior Appraiser for the Bureau of Land Acquisition and Development, Florida Department of Natural Resources, letter to Douglas Strickland, Chief of the Bureau of Land Acquisition and Development, Department of Natural Resources, January 10, 1979. 4. Two separate appraisals of the proposed land acquisition were made. The amount of tax revenue currently generated by the land was estimated from those appraisals. Since some of the parcels will be partially acquired, it was not possible to calculate the precise amount of tax generated by the portion to be acquired. Consequently, $9,000 is a rough approximation of the tax revenues currently derived from the land to be acquired. 5. Florida Statistical Abstract (The University Presses of Florida, 1976), p. 572. 6. D. Hagman and D. Misczynski, Windfall for Wipeouts: Land Value Capture and Compensation , 1978. 7. S. Donahoe, Realtor for St. George Island Estates, personal communication, February 2, 1979, and personal communication with the Franklin County Property Tax Appraisers Office, January 30 and February 2, 1979. 8. Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, Bureau of Coastal Zone Management, Florida Regional Coastal Zone Economic Analysis : Region 2, NorthwesF Florida , p. 83. 9. F. Bell, Department of Economics, Florida State University, personal communication, February 15, 1979. 10. Northwest Florida Planning and Advisory Council (NWFPAC), Apalachicola, Florida, Economic Development Plan , June, 1976. 11. R.M. North, "Economic Values for Marine Recreational Fisheries," Marine Recreational Fisheries (Sport Fishing Institute), 1976. 12. W. Schmidt, Bureau of Geology, Florida Department of Natural Resources, personal communication, January 31, 1979. Page 18 13. A. Applegate, Bureau of Geology, Florida Department of Natural Resources, personal communication, January 31, 1979. 14. C. Jensen, Florida Petroleum Council , personal communication. 15. NWFPAC, op.cit. 16. J. Ross, Division of Recreation and Parks, Department of Natural Resources, personal communication, February 8, 1979. 17. Meyer, op . cit . 18. J. MacFarland, Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, personal communication, January 28, 1979. 19. N.P. Sharma and M.C. Conner, "Economic Relationships Among Business Sectors: Eastern Shore, Virginia," 1975. 20. E. Joyce, Florida Department of Natural Resources (FDNR), personal communication, February 1, 1979; and C. Thomas, FDNR, comments before the Apalachicola Symposium and Workshop, October 17, 1978. 21. R.J. Livingston, Department of Biological Science, Florida State University, comments before the Apalachicola Symposium and Workshop, October 17, 1978. 22. Sharma and Conner, op . cit . 23. Resolution adopted by the Florida Cabinet, May 7, 1974. 24. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District, Apalachicola , Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers (Operation and Maintenance) . Alabama, Florida, and Georgia, Final EIS, April 1976. 25. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah District, Metropolitan Atlanta Area Water Resources Study: Summary Report, September, wm: — 26. Corps, op . cit . REFERENCES 1. Personal Communication, Al Applegate, Florida Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Geology, January 31, 1979. 2. Personal Communication, Watler Burdin, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District, December 21, 1978. 3. Louis E. Clark, Appraisal Report of 19 Parcels of Land at East Bay, Franklin County, for DNR, November 30, 1978. 4. Personal Communication, Dr. Andre Clewell, January 27, 1979. 5. Florida Department of Commerce, Division of Economic Development Franklin County Economic Data , April 1977. 6. Florida Department of Natural Resources, Outdoor Recreation in Florida : 1976 7. Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, Bureau of Coastal Zone Management, Florida Regional Coastal Zone Economic Analysis: Region 2 Northwest Florida , July 1977. 8. Florida Department of Natural Resources, Summary of Florida Commercial Marine Landings , 1975, 1976. 9. Personal Communication with Franklin County Property Tax Appraisers Office, January 30, 1979, February 2, 1979. 10. Donald Hagman and Dean Misczynski, Windfall for Wipeouts: Land Value Capture and Compensation 1978. 11. Florida Division of Forestry, Update '76: Florida's Timber Resources May 1977. 12. Florida Division of Forestry, Estimated County Income from Forest Products - 1976, February 1978. 13. Personal Communication, Ed Joyce, Florida Department of Natural Resources, February 1, 1979. 14. Bostick H. Ketchum, Editor, The Water's Edge: Critical Problems of the Coastal Zone , 1972. 15. Robert J. Livingston (1), Richard L. Iverson (2), Robert H. Estabrook (3), Vernon E. Keys (4), and John Taylor, Jr. (5), Major Features of the Apalachicoja Bay System: Physiography , Biota, and Resource Management , 1974-75. 16. Phillip Pickins, Appraisal of 12,500 + Acres Near Apalachicola (Lower ApalachicoTa River and Bay System ), October 25, 1978. 17. Personal Communication, James Ross, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Recreation and Parks, February 8, 1979. 18. Dr. D. Bruce Means, "Aspects of the Significance to Terrestrial Vertebrates of the Apalachicola River Drainage Basin, Florida" in Proceedings of the conference on the Apalachicola Drainage System edited by Dr. Robert J. Livingston, April 1976. 19. Personal Communication, Mr. John Meyer, Apalachicola City Planner, January 29, 1979. 20. Ronald M. North, "Economic Values for Marine Recreational Fisheries" Marine Recreational Fisheries , Sport Fishing Institute, 1976. 21. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District, Apalachicola , Chattachoochee and Flint Rivers (Operation and Maintenance) Alabama, Florida and Georgia , Final EIS, April 1976. 22. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District, Coordination Report on Navigational Improvements for the Apalachicola River Below Jim Woodruff Dam, Florida , October 1978. 23. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah District, Metropolitan Atlanta Area Water Resources Study: Summary Report , Sept. 1978. 24. Dr. Harry M. Stevenson, "A Comparison of the Apalachicola River Autfauna Above and Below Jim Woodruff Dam" in Proceedings of the Conference on the Apalachicola Drainage System edited by Dr. Robert V. Livingston, April 1976. 25. Charles Thomas, Florida Department of Natural Resources, comments before the Apalachicola Symposium and Workshop, October 17, 1978. 26. Personal Comments, Percy Thompson, National Marine Fisheries Service, February 8, 1979. 27. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District, Coordination "Report on Navigational Improvements for the Apalachicola River Below Jim Woodruff Dam", Florida, October 1978. 28. United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, National Estuary Study , 1970. 29. University of Florida, Bureau of Economic and Business Research, Florida Statistical Abstract, 1978. 30. Dr. Ralph W. Yerger, "Fishes of the Apalachicola River" in Proceedings of the Conference on the Apalachicola Drainage System , edited by Dr. Robert V. Livingston, April 1976. 31. Personal Communication, Fred Bell, Florida State University, Economic Department, February 15, 1977. 32. Personal Communication, Ernie Snell, National Marine Fisheries Services, February 14, 1979. 33. Personal Communication, Walter Schmidt, Florida Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Geology, January 31, 1979. 34. Personal Communication, Dr. Robert J. Livingston, Florida State University, January 31, 1979. 35. Dr. Robert V. Livingston, Comments before the Apalachicola Symposium and Workshop, October 17, 1978. 36. Letter from Cecil L. Neff, Jr., Senior Appraiser, Bureau of Land Acquisition and Development, Florida Department of Natural Resources to Douglass Strickland, Chief, Bureau of Land Acquisition and Develop- ment, Department of Natural Resources on appraisals for EEL purchase for the Lower Apalachicola River, January 10, 1979. 37. Personal Communication, Shaun Donahoe, realtor for St. George Island Estates, February 2, 1979. 38. Florida Department of Transportation, Toll Facility Data, 1977 and 1978. 39. Northwest Florida Planning and Advisory Council, Apalachicola , Florida Economic Development Plan , June 1976. 40. Personel Communications, Jim MacFarland, Office of Coastal Zone Management, January 28, 1979. 41. Personal Communication, Walt Schmidt, Florida DNR, Bureau of Geology, January 31, 1979. 42. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District, Maintenance Dredging of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway from Pearl River, Louisiana - Mississippi to Apalachee Bay, Florida , Final EIS. 43. David Dornbusch and Company Benefit from Water Pollution Abatement : Property Values , 1975. 44. Personal Communication, Elizabeth Finn, Florida Division of Tourism, February 15, 1979. 45. N. P. Sharma, and M.C. Conner, Economic Relationships Among Business Sectors, Eastern Shore, Virginia 1975. APPENDIX VII • r * RESOLUTION BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FRANKLIN COUNTY * ^ SUPPORT OF ESTUARINE SANCTUARY PROPOSED FOR APALACHICOLA WW - • r ■ ■ ■■ The Board of County Commissioners of Franklin County, assembled in regular session on the first day of August, 1978, a quorum of the members of the said Board being present and acting in its official capacity; and upon proper presentation, motion and vote, the Commission decided the following: WHEREAS, the continued well-being of the Apalachicola Bay and River System is essential to commercial fin and shell fishing in the Cbunty, and despoliation of the system would be of great environmental and economic loss; WHEREAS, the County has passed resolutions stating opposition to construction of any dam on the Apalachicola River, in support of economic development; and of desire to cooperate with other Basin Counties in comprehensive planning as it addresses the River; and WHEREAS, the proposed designation of Apalachicola Bay as a National Estuarine Sanctuary would maintain environmental integrity while protecting commercial fishing interests; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Board of County Commissioners of Franklin County commends and supports the proposal to designate Apalachicola Bay a National Estuarine Sanctuary; and that the Board of County Commis- sioners of Franklin County support the proposal by the Apalachce Regional Planning Council to work with the Bureau of Coastal Zone Management and Florida State University in the organization of ^workshops and public meetings on the sanctuary proposal, and coordination of technical assistance to Franklin County for coastal management planning responsibilities. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED in regular session by the Board of r untyj ^Commissioners of Franklin County, this first day of August, 1975. VM. '?..i *■' BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF JFT y'* "•%. FRANKLIN COUNTY, FLORIDA. •J * ) i»i Vt "T r • Chairman % \ ATTEST : > ? — * *% ..•' ..•< ^Robert L. Howell, Clerk APPENDIX VII (Cont'd.) AESOLUTrriM U.EKK ^^^UBSUchicoU "•food ft.™.,!""" "* preser "«o>i of this .„„. •"' suftTl"' W,tMn tMs «V and th X • ^ C °™ r «" ~*«««9 said grant f™, the T 1 "* " A »'«Mcol. ,. "" *» ° f JWU.D-. 1978 ATTEST Mil FSB c APPENDIX VII (Cont'd.) RESOLUTION BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FRANKLIN COUNTY WHEREAS, the Apalachicola Bay System requires special attention for the harvesting of oysters, shrimp, fish, and other seafood^, and WHEREAS, this system requires the complete cooperation of county government, state government, and federal government to preserve the purity of this Bay, and WHEREAS, without the preservation of this system, the commercial seafood harvesting within this county and the entire state of Florida will suffer a devastating effect, and WHEREAS, it is the desire of this Board to seek assistance from all levels of government to prevent the destruction or deterioration of this estuarine sanctuary. for the lower Apalachicola River and Bay System, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the U. S. Department of Commerce to approve a preliminary acquisition grant for a Louisianian national estuarine sanctuary for the lower Apalachicola River and Bay System pursuant to Section 315 of the amended Federal Coastal Zone Management Act. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Board requests the Department of Environmental Regulation to support Franklin County in requesting said grant from the U. S. Department of Commerce. ADOPTED in open session this 7th day of February, 1978. ATTEST: Rbbert L. Howell, Clerk FE9 10 )W coastal ;om ?-V« :: * IG I . RESOLUTION APPENDIX VII (Cont'd. ) s* ,/ The Board of County Odrmiss loners of c /J/.r,c„. County Planning Commission to join with the other five planning commissions, to work together, to meet together and to stick together, so that we can form a united front to determine our own destinies and to protect our beautiful Apalachicola River and the lands which surround her, for our livelihoods and enjoyment, and for the benefit of generations yet unborn. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED in regular session by* the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS <* ££l£lZZZ COUNTY, FLORIDA, this ffifj ^Y of M-W^y , 1977. Ti* ^ / COMMISSIONERS OF OH™* COUNTY, FLORIDA ATTEST: Clerk of Circuit Court and Kx-oL'ficio Clerk to the lVx\rd of County Comni suioncrs APPENDIX VII (Cont'd.) BEFORE THE STATE OF FLORIDA POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD APALACHICOLA RIVER AND BAY RESOLUTION NO. 73-12 March 20, 1973 WHEREAS: The Apalachicola River, its drainage basin located within Jackson, Gadsden, Calhoun, Liberty, Gulf, and Franklin Counties Florida, and the Apalachicola Bay constitute valuable and productive natural and ecological resources of the State of Florida which can be seriously and adversely effected by uncontrolled development; WHEREAS: The Ap«. -.achicola Bay is an extremely productive Bay producing valuable commercial fisheries with oysters, shrimp, claws, crabs, and finfish among the more important catches; WHEREAS: This productivity of Apalachicola Bay is dependent on the environmental integrity of the surrounding up- lands and the Apalachicola River and its drainage system for survival; WHEREAS: A number of endangered species of flora and fauna exist in the Apalachicola drainage basin; WHEREAS: The wetlands, swamps, sloughs, and marshes within the Apalachicola drainage basin, and the marshes, estuaries, and barrier islands adjacent to the Apalachicola Bay are vital to the continued environmental integrity of the Bay; WHEREAS: At present there are many development activ- ities within the Apalachicola drainage basin which if left unreg- ulated could seriously, irreparably, and adversely affect the environmental integrity of the area; environmental and natural resources of regional and statewide importance ; and WHEREAS, there are many environmentally unique and irreplaceable lands which are valued ecological resources of the State and which cannot be developed or altered if the ecological system of the area is to be protected. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Florida Pollution Control Board recommends and strongly advocates: TEAT any proposed dam, wate* control structure, or development project that may effect sensitive and vital areas of the Apalachicola River should be subject to very careful study by the Department of Pollution Control Staff in order to ensure that the unique resources of the Apalachicola River and Bay are fully protected. .TEAT, until irrefutable and conclusive scientific evidence is provided showing that said project will not adversely affect the River or the Bay, no dams, water control structure or other such devices should be constructed in the Apalachicola River. THAT this Resolution be forwarded to all appropriate governmental officials; THAT this Resolution shall be effective upon adoption. ADOPTED this /£ — day of April, 1974. POR^IBE-SQARD: DAVID H. LEVIN, Chairman State of Florida Pollution Control Board APPENDIX VIII »? r 5 L V T 7 K WHTPXAS, t!:e Apalachicola Rivcfi is an irpontant iirtf- ural resource oi Florida, and WHEREAS, the Apalachicola River empties into the. pi4.it inc , clai tiro watehi, c^ tlie Apalachicola Say, and WHEREAS, the Apalachicola Bay Is the, world* s ilnest oystcn. bedding area, and WHEREAS, the announced ('. S. Army, Coup* oi Engineer pKojett which proposes damming the Apalachicola River will produce great stress on the ecology oi the area, and WHEREAS, the resulting commercialization oi the Apalachicola Rive*. will tndangc.fi the wate.fi quality oi the Apalachicola River and Bay, and WHEREAS, the degradation oi this outstanding natural resource I* an act that cannot be condoned, and WHEREAS, the Department oi Administration, Division oi Planning, has recommended against this project as being economically unjustlilable and environmentally dangerous to the State oi Florida. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVEV, that the Goven.non. and Cabinet o( the State o£ Florida do not believe that this project could pnovide justiciable economic benefits to Florida in companison to the monetany cost. ." BE IT FURTHER RESOLVEV, that the Govennon.\and Cabinet do hereby adopt the nepo-nt, submitted on Vay 6, 1974, by the Vepantment o{ Admini St nation as the o{\£iciat. position o£ the State o& Floxida against the dammina c({ the. Apatachieola Riven.. .. , ".■.■;■ .."—— - -*-'-.* ;•_, '-■■' ;U ],.' BE IT FURTHER RESOLVEV, that this Resolution be tians- ■ •' ... • ■> •'•.■ .•.■.'•.-■•*•" .• - • » mitted to the U.S. An.my, Conps 0$ Enaineens as the ob&iciat posi.ti.on oi the Govennon. and Cabinet opposing this ^pnoject. :V IN TESTWONV tHHERECF, the Govcrno* and Cabinet o& ; • tt>,* Strttt* fl£ Vtn* *! 1 ^ U fi\'r /• r tenn t o *>nh s oh i hrrf tfmJfr h^m n\iA : Jllk&l&£2 l $i*d& Oh \dmlki*tk££\cn\a* itlie. jo fUcial■ •;■' : -'j~*. ••■-<- -_.•'-_'?■ l - : *-, < \ BF XT FURTHER RFS0LVEP/ ifm* */u'4 Pe*<»£utcprt fcc M-M*„„ m/.S Sj/U ifie/L 0£ AQ ruLCuUTzuti z »/ "Zovmis sloven of Education ~L APPENDIX IX MAJOR TYPES OF VEGETATION WITHIN THE APALACHICOLA RIVER/BAY SYSTEM APALACHICOLA BAY Submerged Vegetation Halophila engelmannii Thalassia testudina - Syringodium filiforme Diplanthera wrightii • Emergent Vegetation (Turtle Grass) - (Manatee Grass) (Cuban Shoalweed) Juncus roemerianus - (Black needlerush) Spartina Alterniflora - (Smooth cordgrass) Distichlis spicata ~ (Seashore saltgrass) Salicornia perennis - (Glasswort) Spartina pateus - (Marsh hay cordgrass) Spartina spp - (Cordgrass) Dry, Sandy Upland * Floodplain Longleaf pine Scrub oaks Turkey oak Wiregrass Bluffs Southern Magnolia Beech White Oak Souther Sugar Maple American Holly Dogwood Souther Red Oak Mockernut Hickory River Swamp Cut -grass Saw- grass Cat-tail Bulrushes Rushes * Major areas of the Sanctuary Black Willow Cottonwood Sycamore Birch Ogechee-tupelo Alder Swamp -Che st nut oak Spruce pine Silver bells Sweetgum Bald- cypress Water tupelo Ash Water hickory * Gulf Coastal Lowlands Longleaf pine Saw palmetto Wiregrass Runner oak Gallberry Blackgum Titi Grass -sedge Savannahs (bogs) St. John's Wort Orchids Pitcher Plants Wild flowers APPENDIX X Fish and Wildlife Resources of The Lower Apalachicola River and Bay FISH Southern brook lamprey Atlantic sturgeon Spotted gar Longnose gar Bowfin American eel Alabama shad Skipjack herring Gizzard shad Threadfin shad Redfin pickerel Chain pickerel Carp Silver jaw minnow Chub Golden shiner Blue stripe shiner Ironcolor shiner ZTusky shiner Pugnose minnow Redeye chub Sailfin shiner Longnose shiner Tail light shiner Coastal shiner Flagfin shiner Weed shiner Blacktail shiner Bluenose shiner Bandfin shiner Creek chub Quill back Orangespotted sunfish Bluegill Dollar sunfish Redear sunfish Spotted sunfish Shoal bass Spotted bass Largemouth V - > Iohthyomyzon gagei Acipenser oxyrhynchus Lepisosteus oculatus Lepisosteus osseus Ami oalva Angirilla rostrata Alosa alabamae Alosa chrysochloris Dorosoma cepedianum Dorosoma petenense Esox americanus Esox niger Cyprinus carpio Ericymba buccata Hybopsis winchelli Notemigonus orysoleuoas Notropis atrapioulus Notropis ohalybaeus Notropis ovmmingseae Notropis emilias Notropis harperi Notropis hypse lop terns No tropis longiros tris Notropis maculatus Notropis petersoni Notropis signipinnis No trop is texan us Notropis venus tus Notropis welaka Notropis zonistius Semotilus atromaaulatus Carpiodes cyprinus Lepomis humilis Lepomis macro chirus Lepomis marginatus Lepomis micro tophus Lepomis punctatus Micropterus sp, Micropterus punctulatus Micropterus salmoides FISH (Continued) Creek chubs ucker Lake chubsucker Spotted sucker Gray fin redhorse snail bullhead White catefish Yellow bullhead Brown bullhead Channel catfish Spotted bullhead Black mad torn Tadpole madtom Speckled madtom Pirate perch Atlantic needlefish Golden topminnow Banded topminnow Starhead topminnow Pygmy killifish Blue fin killifish Mosquitofish Least Killifish Brook silver side White bass Striped bass Flier Pygmy sun fish Bluespotted sunfish Banded sunfish Redbreast sunfish Green sunfish Warmouth sunfish Gulf darter Yellow perch Blackbanded darter S auger Mountain mullet Striped mullet Southern flounder Hogchoker Black crappie Brown darter Swamp darter Goldstripe darter Erimyzon oblongus Erimyzon suoetta Minytrema melanops Moxostoma sp. Iotalurus brunneus Iotalurus oatus Iotalurus natalis Iotalurus nebulous Iotalurus punotatus Iotalurus serraoanthus Nerodia cycloplon Nerodia erythrogaster Nerodia fasciatus Aphredoderus sayanus Strongylura marina Fundulus ohrysotus Fundulus oingulatus Fundulus notti Leptoluoania ommata Luoania goodei Gambusia af finis Heterandria formosa Labidssthes siooulus Morone ohrysops Morone saxatilis Centrarohus maoropterus Unknown Enneaoanthus gloriosus Enneaoanthus obesus Lepomis auritus Lepomis oyanellus Lepomis gulosus Etheostoma swavmi Feroa flavescens Peroina nigrofasoiata Stizostedion oanadense Agonostomus montioola Striped mullet Parali oh thys le thos tigma Trine otes maculatus Fomoxis nigromaoulatus Etheostoma etibini Etheostoma fusi forme Etheostoma parvipinne Source: Yerger (1977) WILDLIFE BIRDS Shallow-tailed Kite Mississippi Kite Red- Shouldered Hawk Pileated Woodpecker Hairy Woodpecker Acadian Flycatcher Red-eyed Vireo Prothonotary Warbler Swinson's Warbler Northern Parula Ye How- throated Warbler Hooded Warbler Plid-billed Grebe Anhinga Great Blue Heron *Bachman's Warbler Turkey Purple Gallinule Common Gallinule Killdeer American Woodcock Mourning Dove Ground Dove Carolina Parakeet Yellow-billed Cuckoo Barn Owl Great Horned Owl Chuck-will' s — widow Common Nighthawk Chimney Swift Ruby-throated Hummingbird Barred Owl Green Heron Little Blue Heron Cattle Egret Common Egret Snowy Egret Louisiana Heron Wood Duck Turkey Vulture Black Vulture Cooper' s Hawk Red tailed Hawk Broad-winged Hawk Kite Elanoides florfioatus Ictinia misisippiensis Buteo Lineatus Dryooopus pileatus Dendrooopos villosus Empidonax vires oens Vireo olivaceus Protonotaria eitrea Limnothlypis swainsonii Parula americana Dendroioa dominioa Wilsonia citrina Podilymbus podiceps Anhinga Ardea herodias Unknown Meleagris gallopavo Porphyrula martiniea Gallinula chloropus Charadrius vooiferus Philohela minor Zenaida macroura Colunbina passerina Conuropsis oarolinensis Coooyzus americanus Tyto alba Bilbo virginianus Caprimulgus oarolinensis Chordeilus minor Chaetura pelagioa Arohiloohus colubris Strix varia Butorides virescens Florida oaerulea Bubulous ibis Casmerodius alba Leuoophoyx thula Hydranassa tricolor Aix sponsa Carthartes aura Coragyps atratus Aooipiter oooperii Buteo Jamaicensis Buteo platypterus BIRDS (Continued) *Bald eagle **Osprey American Kestrel Northern Bobwhite White-breasted Nuthatch Brown-head Nuthatch Carolina Wren Northern Mockingbird Brown Thrasher Wood Thrush Eastern Bluebird Blue-gray Gnatchatcher Loggerhead Shrike European Starling Yellow-throated Vireo White-eyed Vireo Pine Warbler Prairie Warbler Louisiana Waterthrush Kentucky Warbler Belted Kingfisher Common Flicker Red-bellied Woodpecker Red-headed Woodpecker Downy Woodpecker *Red-cockaded Woodpecker *Ivory-billed Woodpecker Eastern Kingbird Great Crested Flycatcher Eastern Wood Pewee Rough-Winged Swallow Barn Shallow Blue Jay Common Crow Fish Crow Carolina Chickadee Tufted Titmouse Common Yellowthroat Yellow-breasted Chat House Sparrow Eastern Meadowlark Red-winged Blackbird Orchard Oriole Common Grackle Brown-headed Cowbird ♦Louisiana Water Thrush Summer Tanager Cardinal Ealiaeetus leucocephalus Pandion haliaetus Faloo sparverius Colinus virginianus Sitta carolinensis Sitta pusilla Thryothorus ludovicianus Minus polyglottos Toxostoma rufum Hylocichla mustelina Sialia sialis Volioptila caerula Lanius ludovicianus Sturnus vulgaris Vireo flavifrons Vireo grseus Dendroica pinus Dendroica discolor Seiurus motacilla Oporonis formosus Megacerlye alcyon Colaptes auratus Cen turns carolinus Melanerpes erythrocephalus Dendrocopos pubescens Dendrocopos borealis Campephilus principalis Tyrannus tyrannus Myiarchus crinitus Contopus virens Stelgidopteryx ruficollis Hirundo rustica Cyanocitta cristata Corvus brachyrhynchos Corvus ossifragus Varus carolinensis Varus bi color Geo thy ly pis trichas Icteria virens Vasser domes ticus Stumella magna Agelaius phoeniceus Icterus spurius Quiscalus quiscula Molothrus ater Seiurus motacilla Viranga rubra Cardinalis cardinalis BIRDS (Continued) Blue Grosbeak Indi go-Bun ting Rufous-Sided Towhee Bachman's Sparrow Field Sparrow Chipping Sparrow *Short- tailed Hawk Guiraca oaerulea Passerina ayanea Piplio erythrophthalmus, Aimophila aestivalis Spizella pusilla Spizella passerina Unknown AMPHIBIANS SALAMANDERS Dwarf Siren Lesser Siren Greater Siren Gulf Coast Waterdog Two- toed Amphiuma *Qne-toed Amphiuma Spotted Newt *Flatwoods Salamander Marbled Salamander Mole Salamander Tiger Salamander Southern Dusky Salamander Two- lined Salamander Long-tailed Salamander Dwarf Salamander ♦Georgia Blind Salamander *Four toed Salamander Mud Salamander Red Salamander Pseudobranohus striatus Siren intermedia Siren laoertina Neoturus beyeri Amphiuma means Amphiyma pholeter Notophthalmus viridescens Amby stoma oingulatum Arrby stoma opaoum Amby stoma talpoideum Amby stoma tigriunum Desmognathus aurioulatus Euryoea bislineata Euryoea longioauda Manoulus quadridigitatus Eaideotriton wallaoei Hemidaotylium soutatum Pseudotriton montanus Pseudotriton ruber FROGS Eastern Spade foot Oak Toad Southern Toad Cricket Frog Tree Frogs Spring Peeper Little Grass Frog Chorus Frog ** Gopher Frog Bullfrog Soaphiopus holbrooki Bufo quercicus Bufq terrestris A&fcLs Unknown Hyla cruoifer Limnaeodus ocularis Unknown Rana areolata Rana catesbeiana FROGS (Continued) Bronze Frog Pig Frog River Frog Leopard Frog Narrow-Mouthed Toad Rana clamitans Rana grylio Rana heckscheri Rana pipiens Gas trophy rne oarolinensis REPTILES ^American Alligator Snapping Turtle Eastern Mud Turtle Loggerhead Musk Turtle Stinkpot Chicken Turtle **Gopher Tortoise *Map Turtle **Suwanee Cooter Red-bellied Turtle Diamond Terrapin Box Tufctle Diamondback Terrapin Florida Softshell Green Anole Lizzard Fence Swift Lizzard Six- lined Race runner Coal Skink Red-tailed Skink Five- lined Skink Broad-Headed Skink Ground Skink Glass Lizard Pygmy Rattlesnake Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnake Yellow-bellied Turtle Scarlet Snake Black Racer Ringneck Snake **Indigo Snake Corn Snake Rat Snake Mud Snake Rainbow Snake Hognose Snake *Mole Snake Alligator mississippiensis Chelydra serpentina Kinosternon subrubrum Sternotherus minor Sternotherus odoratus Deiroehelys retioularia Gopherus polyphemus Graptemys barbouri Chrysemy concinna suwanniensis Chrysemys nelsoni Malaolemys terrapin Terrapene Carolina Unknown Trionyx ferox Anolis oarolinensis Sceloporus undulatus Cnemidophrus sexlineatus Ewneces anthracinus Eumeces egregius Eumeoes fasoiatus Ewneoes latieeps Soinoella laterale Unknown Sistrurus miliarius Cro talus adamanteus Chrysemys soripta Cemophora ooccinea Colvber constrictor Diadophis punctatus Drymarchon corais Elaphe guttata Elaphe obsoleta Farancia abacura Paranoia erytrogramma Unknown Lampropeltis calligaster REPTILES (Continued) *Kingsnake Coachwip Green Water Snake Red-bellied Water Snake Banded Water Snake Rough Green Snake Pine Snake Glossy Water Snake Queen Snake Ye How- lipped Snake Black Swamp Snake Brown Snake Red-bellied Snake Crowned Snake Ribbon Snake Garter Snake Earth Snake Coral Snake ♦Copperhead Cottonmouth Lampropeltis getulns Masticophis flagellum Matrix cyoloipion Matrix ery thro g aster Matrix fasciatvis Opheodrys aestivus Pituophis melanoleuoas Regina rigida Regina septerrroittata Rhadinea flavilata Seminatrix pygaea Storeria dekayi Storeria occipitomaculata Tantilla ooronata Thamnophis sauritus Thamnophis sirtalis Virginia striatula Miemrus fulvius Agkis tro don con to rtrix Agkistrodon piscivorus MAMMALS Opossum Shrew Eastern Mole *Myotis Eastern Pipistrelle *Big Brown Bat *Hoary Bat *Red Bat Indiana Bat Seminole Bat Northern Yellow Bat Evening Bat *Big-eared Bat Brazilian Freetailed Bat Nine-banded Armadillo Eastern Cottontail Marsh Rabbit Gray Squirrel Fox Squirrel Southern Flying Squirrel Southeastern Pocket Gopher American Beaver Woodland Vole Didelphis virginiana Unknown Scalopus aquaticus Unknown Pipistrellus subflavus Eptesicus fuscus Lasiurus oinereus Lasiurus borealis Unknown Lasiurus seminolus Lasiurus intermedius Byotioeius humeralis Plecotus rafinesquii Tadarida brasiliensis Dasypus novemoinctus Sylvilagus floridanus Sylvilagus palustris Soiurus oarolinensis Saiurus niger Glauoomys volans Geomys pinetus Castor canadensis Microtus pinetorum MAMMALS (Continued) ** Round- tailed Musk rat Eastern Woodrat Hispid Cotton Rat Eastern Harvest Mouse Marsh Rice Rat Oldfield Mouse Cotton Mouse Golden Mouse House Mouse Black Rat Norway Rat Gray Fox Red Fox *Black Bear Raccoon River Otter Striped Skunk Eastern Spotted Skunk *Mink Long-tailed Weasel Bobcat *Mountain Lion Feral Pig White-tailed Deer *Southeastern Weasel ♦Southeastern Shrew Neo fiber alleni Neotoma floridana Sigmodon hispidus Reithrodontomy humulis Ovyzomys palustris Peromyscus polionotus Peromyscus gossypinus Ochrotomys nuttalli Mus mus cuius Rattus rattus Rattus norvegicus Urocyon cinereoargenteus Vulpes vulpes Urus amevioanus Pvocyon lotov Lutra canadensis Mephitis mephitis Spilogale putorius Mus tela viscn Mus tela fvenata Lynx vufus Felis concolov Sus scrofa Odocoileus -oivginianus Mus tela fvenata olivacea Sovex longivostvis longirostris ^Signifies rare or endangered species **Signifies threatened species Source: Manns (1977) LegaJ Status of Endangered and Potentially Endangered Species in Florida 1 August 1979 Spe cies GFWFC 2 Legal Status USFWS 3 CITES Fis hes Shortnose sturgeon ( Acipen ser brev irostnun) Atlantic sturgeon ( Acipenser oxyrh ynchus) Key silverside (Me nidia conchorum ) River redhorse (M oxos toma carinatuni) Alligator gar (L episosteus spa tula ) Bluestripe shiner ( Notropis cal li taeni a) Lake Eustis Pup fish (C yprinodon variegatus hubbs i^ ) Saltmarsh topniinnow (F undulu s jenkinsi ) Rivulus (Ri vulus mar moratus ) Okaloosa darter (Etheo stoma ok aloosae ) Harlequin darter (Etheos toma hi strio) Southern tessellated darter (Et heostonia olms tedi macuJ ati ceps) Crystal darter -(Ammo c rypt a as prel la ) Key blenny (S tarksi a starcki ) Shoal bass ( Micropterus undescribed species) Suwannee bass (Micropt erus notius ) Amphi b ians arid Rept i Pine Barrens treef Florida gopher fro American crocodile American alligator mississippiensi Leatherback turtle Atlantic green tur Atlantic hawksbill im br ic ata imbi :i Atlantic ridley tu Atlantic loggerhea ca ret ta) les rog ( Hyla a ndersonii ) g ( Rana areol ata) (Crocody lus acutus ) (A lliga tor (Dermochelys co riac ea) tie ( Che loni a mydajs mydas) turtle (E::etmochelys . cala) rtie (Lepidochelys kejngjL) d turtle (Caretta caretta Key mud turtle (Kinos ternon bauri bauri) Barbour's map turt Suwannee cooler (C suwanuie n s 3 s ) Gopher turtle (Gup Florida k<_*y mole s e gregius ) I e ( Gra p t.emys bar hour i ) hr yse mys roncinna di erus p o I yphemus) kink (Euineces_ cgreg i us E E 1 SSC II E SSC SSC T UR SSC SSC SSC E E SSC SSC > T UR SSC SSC SSC E E SSC E E I SSC T II E E I E E I E E I E E I T T I T UR SSC SSC UR SSC II SSC Legal Status _Sue c i^s GFWTC 2 USFWS^ CITES 4 Blue- tailed mole skirik (Eum ece s egregius lividus ) T Sand skink (Neoseps rey nol dsi ) T Atlantic salt marsh water snake ( Nerodia fasciata taeniata ) E T Short-tailed snake ( Sti 1 osoma extenuat um) T UR Big Pine Key ringneck snake (Diadophis 'punctalus a cricus ) T Red rat snake ( Elap he guttata guttata )-- lower Keys population only SSC Florida brown snake ( Store ria dekayi v icta )-- lower Keys population only T Miami black-headed snake ( Tanti 11a oolitica ) T UR Eastern indigo snake ( Drymarchon corais coupe ri ) T T Florida ribbon snake ( Thamnophis s auritu s sackeni )--lower Keys population only T Birds Eastern brown pelican ( Pelecanus occidental is Caroli ne n s is ) T E Wood stork ( Myc teria a mericana ) E Golden eagle ( Aquila chrysaetos ) II Bald eagle ( Haliaeetus l eucocephalus ) T EI Osprey (Pf_ndiori hal i aetus ) II Everglade kite ( Rostrha mus sociabil is plumbeus ) E E Marsh hawk (Circus c yaneu s) II Southeastern kestrel ( Falco sparverius paulus) T II Eastern kestrel ( Falco sparverius sparverius ) II Pigeon hawk ( Falco columbarius ) II Peregrine falcon (F alco peregrinus ) E E I Audubon's caracara ( Caracara cheriway auduboni ) T Burrowing owl ( Athene cunicularia ) SSC Cuban snowy plover ( Charadrius a lexan d rinus te nui rostris ) E Florida sandhill crane (Gnus canadensis praten s is) T II American oystercatcher (H aema t opus palliatus )SSC Little blue heron (Florida caer ulea ) SSC Snowy egret (Egretta thula ) SSC Reddish egret (Dichromanassa ru fesc ens) SSC Louisiana heron ( Hydrau a ssa ti i col or) SSC Legal Status Species GFWFC 2 USFWS 3 CITES Roseate spoonbill (Aj aia aja ja ) SSC Limpkin (Aramus gua r auna ) SSC Roseate tern ( Stern a d ougal 1 ii ) T Least tern ( Ster na a l bif rons ) T Whi te-crowned pigeon ( Col umba leuco cephala ) T Ivory-billed woodpecker (Ca mpephilus princip al is) E E Red-cockaded woodpecker ( Picoides borealis ) T E Florida scrub jay ( Aphelocoma coerul escen s coerul esce ns ) T Marian's marsh wren ( Cistothorus p alustris roarianae ) SSC Worthington ' s marsh wren ( Cistothorus palustri s g riseus ) SSC Cuban yellow warbler ( Dendroi c a petechia gundl achi) SSC Bachman's warbler (Vc rmivora ba chmanii ) E E Kirtland's warbler ( Dendroica ki rtlandii ) E E Dusky seaside sparrow (Aramospi za maritima n igriscens ) E E Cape Sable seaside sparrow (Ammo spiza m arit ima mirabilis ) E E Scott's seaside sparrow ( Ammospiza mari tima penins ulae) SSC Wakulla seaside sparrow ( Ammospiza mari tima junicola) SSC Florida grasshopper sparrow ( Ammodramus savanna rum f loridanus ) E Mammals Gray bat QMy ot is grisescen s) E E Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) E E Eastern chipmunk ( Tamia s striatus ) SSC Mangrove rox squirrel ( Sciurus niger avicenni a ) T Sherman's fox squirrel ( Sciurus niger shern iani ) SSC Goff's pocket gopher (Geomys pi net is gof f i) E Silver rice rat (Oryzomys ar gentatus ) E Pallid beach mouse (P£ro m y_scus polionotus d eco loratus ) F. Choctawha tehee beach mouse (P er omyscus pol i or i plus a_l lo p he y s ) T Perdido Bay beach mouse (Peromyseus poli ono t us L rissy 1] e^sis) T Legal Status Species GFVFC 2 USFWS 3 CITES 4 Florida mouse (Peromysc us lloridanu s) T Key Largo cotton mouse ( Peromyscus gossypinus al l apa ticola) E Chadwick Beach cotton mouse ( Peromyscus gossyp i nus restr ictus) SSC Lower keys cotton rat ( Sigmodon hispi dus exspu tus) T Key Largo wood rat ( Neotom a f loridana small i ) E Florida black bear ( Ursus americanus ;.■"■ f lo r idanus )- -except in Baker and Columbia counties and Apalachicola National Forest T Key Vaca raccoon ( Procyon 1 o t o r a uspicatus ) T Everglades mink ( Mustel a vison eve r glade ns is )T River otter ( Lutra canadensis ) UR II Florida panther ( Felis concolor coryi ) E E I Bobcat (Lynx rufus) UR II Caribbean manatee ( Tri chechus manatus latirostri s) E E I Key deer ( Odocoileu s virgi nianus clavium ) T E Blue whale ( Balaenoptera musculus ) E E I Finback whale ( Balaenoptera physalus ) E E II Sei whale ( Bal a enoptera boreal is ) E E II Humpback whale ( Megapter a novaeangl iae ) E E I Sperm whale ( Physeter catodon ) E E Invertebrates Stock Island tree snail ( Orthalicus rese s) T T Florida tree snail (Lig uus fasciat us) UR Bahamas swallowtail butterfly ( Papi lio andraemon b onhote i ) T T Schaus swallowtail butterfly ( Papilio at i st o demu s pon c eanus ) T T Atala butterfly ( Ewnaeus ata_l_a f lorida ) UR Oklawaha sponge (D°_rsil^ia palmeri ) UR Kissiiuiiiee sponge (Eph ydat ia subtilis ) UR Palm Springs cave crayfish ( Procambarus acheront i s) UR Florida cave scud (Cra ngon yx gran dimanus ) UR Squirrel Chimney cave shrimp ( Palaereonetes cununing i ) UR Plants Chapman's rhododendron ( Rho dendron chapmanii ) E Legal Status Speci es GFWFC' USFWS 3 CITES Orchids (all species) Cycads (all species) Euphorbias (all succulent species) Li gnum-vitae (Guia cum sanct um) Cacti (all species) lu. E=Endangered; T=Threatened; UR=Under Review (for possible listing); I^included in Appendix I; ll=included in Appendix II. 'Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. APPENDIX XI a. 266.113 1978 SUPPLEMENT TO FLORIDA STATUTES 1977 a. 267.031 section prior to that date.] 266.114 Treasurer; receipts and disburse- ment of funds.-(Rcpealed by s. 4, ch. 78-323, effec- tive October 1, 1981, except for the possible effect of laws affecting this section prior to that date.] 266.1 15 Powers of the board of trustces.-{Re- pealed by s. 4, ch. 78-323, effective October 1, 1981, except for the possible effect of laws affecting this section prior to that date.] PART IV HISTORIC KEY WEST PRESERVATION BOARD OF TRUSTEES 266.201 Historic Key West Preservation Board of Trustees. 266.202 Definitions. 266.203 Membership; terms; compensation; bond. 266.204 Organization; records. 266.205 Treasurer; finances. 266.206 Powers of the board. 266.201 Historic Key West Preservation Board of Trustees.-fRepealed by s. 4, ch. 78-323, effective October 1, 1981, except for the possible ef- fect of laws affecting this section prior to that date.] 266.202 Definitions.-fRepealed by s. 4, ch. 78- 323, effective October 1, 1981, except tor the possible effect of laws affecting this section prior to that date.] 266.203 Membership; terms; compensation; bond.-fRepealed by s. 4, ch. 78-323, effective October 1, 1981, except for the possible effect of laws affect- ing this section prior to that date.] 266.204 Organization; records.-{Repealed by s. "4, ch. 78-323, effective October 1, 1981, except for the possible effect of laws affecting this section prior to that date.] 266.205 Treasurer; finances.-[Repealed by s. 4, ch. 78-323, effective October 1, 1981, except for the possible effect of laws affecting this section prior to that date.] 266.206 Powers of the board:-[RepeaIed by s. 4, ch. 78-323, effective October 1, 1981, except for the possible effect of laws affecting this section prior to that date.] PARTV HISTORIC BOCA RATON PRESERVATION BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 266 301 Historic Boca Raton Preservation Board of Commissioners. effect of laws affecting this section prior to that date.] PART VI HISTORIC TAMPA-HI LLSBOROUGH COUNTY PRESERVATION BOARD OF TRUSTEES 266.401 Historic Tampa-Hillsborough County Preservation Board of Trustees. 266.401 Historic Tampa-Hillsborough Coun- ty Preservation Board of Trustees.-[Repealcd by s. 4, ch. 78-323, effective October 1, 1981, except for the possible effect of laws affecting this section prior to that date.] 2C6.301 Historic Boca Raton Preservation Board of Commi»>i>ioners.[Repcalcd by s. 4, ch. 78- 323, effective October 1, 1981. except for ihe possible CHAPTER 267 FLORIDA ARCHIVES AND HISTORY ACT 267.031 Division of Archives, History, and Records Management 267.0615 Historic Preservation Project Review Council; creation; members; member- ship; powers and duties. 267.0616 Submission of proposals for state histori- cal preservation boards of trustees re- quired; procedure. 267.0617 Historic Preservation Trust Fund. 267.031 Division of Archives, History, and Records Management.— (1) The Division of Archives, History, and Records Management shall be organized into as many bureaus as deemed necessary by the division for the proper discharge of its duties and responsibil- ities under this chapter, provided, however, that in addition to the office of the director, there shall be at least four bureaus to be named as follows: (a) Archives and records management. (b) Historic sites and properties, (c) ' Historical museums. (d) Publications. *(2Xa) The Secretary of State is hereby authorized to appoint advisory councils to provide professional and technical assistance to the division. The councils shall consist of not less than five nor more than nine members, and such appointments shall consist of persons who arc qualified by training and experi- ence and possessed of proven interest in the specific area of responsibility and endeavor involved. (b) The chairman of each of said councils shall be elected by a majority of the members of the council and shall serve for 2 years. If a vacancy occurs in the office of chairman before the expiration of his term, a chairman shall be elected by a majority of the members of the council to serve the unexpired term of such vacated office. (c) It shall be the duty of any of the advisory councils appointed hereunder to provide profession- al and technical assistance to the division as to all matters pertaining to the duties and responsibilities 265 «. 267.031 107SSirPI.KMK.NTTO FLORIDA STATUTES 1977 <». 2G7.0til5 of the division in the administration of the provi- sions of this chapter. Members of the councils shall serve without pay, but shall be ent it led to reimburse- ment for their necessary travel expenses incurred in carrying out their ofTicial duties, as provided by s. 112.061. (3) The division may employ a director of the di- vision and shall establish his qualifications. The di- rector shall act as the agent of the division in coordi- nating, directing, and administering the activities and responsibilities of the division. The director may also serve as the chief of any of the bureaus herein created. The division may employ other employees as deemed necessary for the performance of its du- ties under this chapter. (4) The division shall adopt such rules and regu- lations deemed necessary to carry out its duties and responsibilities under this chapter, which rules shall be binding on all agencies and persons affected thereby. The willful violation of any of the rules and regulations adopted by the division shall constitute a misdemeanor. (5) The division may make and enter into all con- tracts and agreements with other agencies, organi- zations, associations, corporations and individuals, or federal agencies as it may determine are neces- sary, expedient, or incidental to the performance of its duties or the execution of its powers under this chapter. (6) The division may accept gifts, grants, be- quests, loans, and endowments for purposes not in- consistent with its responsibilities under this chap- ter. (7) All law enforcement agencies and offices are hereby authorized and directed to assist the division in carrying out its duties under this chapter. HIriOTT.— «, 3, ch. S7-50; u. 10. 25. 27. 35. ch. €9-106; a. 73, eh. 71-377; a. X. eh. 73-280: a. 4. eh. 78J23. •Not*.— Repealed by a. 4. ch. 78-323. «fT*rti*e October L. 1981. ticept for tha potaible effect of law* affecting this tubaectioo prior to that data. '267.0615 Historic Preservation Project Re- view Council; creation; members; membership; powers and duties. — (1) There is hereby created within the Division of Archives, History, and Records Management the Historic Preservation Project Review Council. The council shall consist of the State Historic Preserva- tion Officer, designated pursuant to Pub. L. No. 89- 655, and six additional members to be appointed by the Governor not later than 60 days after July 1, 1978. Initial appointments shall be for terms as fol- lows: One for 2 years; two for 3 years; and three for 4 years. Thereafter, members shall be appointed for 4-year terms, except for appointments for unexpired terms, in which event the appointment shall be for the unexpired term only. Members may be reap- pointed. Council members shall be qualified through the demonstration of special interest, experience, or education in historic preservation. At least three members shall possess professional educational cre- dentials representing one or more of the following disciplines: Archaeology, architecture, architectural history, history, or urban planning. A chairman shall be elected by the council's members. The direc- tor of the Division of Archives, History, and Records Management of the Department of State, or his des- ignee, shall serve without voting rights as secretary of the council; and it shall be his responsibility to provide staffassistancf to the council. All action tak- en by the council shall be by majority vote. • (2) It shall be the responsibility of the council to evaluate all proposals for capital outlay involving projects requiring financial assistance from the state, relating to the preservation, restoration, re- construction, or acquisition of any historical site; and, in making such evaluation, it shall apply, as a minimum standard, the following criteria: (a) Benefit to the public. (b) Historical significance. (c) Site development plan. (d) Economics. (e) Maintenance. (0 Need. (g) Compatibility with the statewide historic preservation plan. The council shall prepare a report and make recom- mendations reflecting such evaluation. The report and recommendations of the council shall be filed with the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the chairmen of the ap- f»ropriations committees of both houses of the Legis- ature, the Secretary of State, and the division. No capital outlay projects shall be eligible for state fi- nancial assistance until the council's report and rec- ommendations have been filed with the Division of Archives, History, and Records Management and have received the affirmative recommendation of the Secretary of State. (3) The council shall develop and recommend to the Division of Archives; History, and Records Man- agement appropriate rules and regulations relating to the performance of the duties and responsibilities of the council as provided in this act. Upon the adop- tion of said rules and regulations by the Department of State, the same shall govern the activities of the council. Said rules and regulations shall include, but not be limited to, rules and regulations relating to the following: (a) The preparation and submission of proposals relating to historic preservation, restoration, recon- struction, or acquisition and their evaluation by the council. (b) Contributions by federal, state, or local gov- ernments and private sources, except that no more than 50 percent of the nonfederal funds for any one capital outlay project shall be funded from state sources. In determining levels of nonstate funding for purposes of this chapter, "funds" may be con- strued to include the fair market value of real prop- erty donated from any source to any bona fide histor- ic preservation board of trustees established under chapter 266. (c) The preparation and submission of proposals relating to the creation of historic preservation boards of trustees and their evaluation by the coun- cil. (4) It shall further be the responsibility of the council to monitor and evaluate all proposals for state historic preservation boards of trustees created after July 1, 1976; and, in making such evaluation, the council shall apply, as a minimum standard, the following criteria: 266 w. 2C.7.CG15 1978 Kl'1'IM.F.MKNTTO F! .OKI DA STATUTES 1977 n. 272.12 (a) Geographic Jurisdiction. — The proposal shall specify geographic boundaries for the jurisdiction of the proposed board. The boundaries shall include at least one Historic Preservation District designated as such on the National Register of Historic Places. (b) Membership. — The proposal shall specify that no less than one-third of the membership of the board shall possess professional educational creden- tials representing one or more of the following disci* plines: History, architecture, architectural history, urban planning, or archaeology. (c) Architectural review, board. — The proposal shall provide evidence in the form of an ordinance or resolution that the local governing body shall empa- nel and empower an architectural review board as defined by the statutes covering state historic pres- ervation boards of trustees previously created under chapter 266. (d) Responsibilities and duties; surijy, inventory, and preliminary preservation plan, — The proposal shall specify that it shall be the responsibility and duty of the proposed board to perform, as a mini- mum, the following tasks: 1. To locate and identify through research all historic districts, sites, buildings, structures, and ob- jects of historical significance, as determined by evaluative criteria of the division, that are contained in the geographic jurisdiction of the board. Within 2 years of the first operational funding of the board, it shall be the duty of the board to have completed a professionally conducted intensive survey and in- ventory of all historic, architectural, and archaeo- logical sites contained in the geographic jurisdiction of the board. Said survey and inventory shall not be considered complete until it is reviewed and ap- proved by the division. 2. To develop a preliminary historic preservation plan for the area contained in the geographic juris- diction of the board. Within 6 months of the approval of the survey and inventory by the division, the board shall develop a preliminary historic preserva- tion plan to be submitted to the division for review and approval. (e) Economics. — The proposal shall provide evi- dence in the form of an ordinance or resolution that the local governing body shall participate in the op- . erational funding of the proposed board. The propos- al shall specify the annual operating budget of the board and how it shall be funded. (1) Additional criteria.— 1. Benefit to the public 2. Need. 3. Compatibility with the comprehensive state- wide historic preservation plan as provided for in s. 267.061(2Xb). HUtoi-y — • U ch. 73-279; • . 1. rh 76-93; t. 4. cb 78-323. t. 1. ch 79-357. 'NoU.- Rep*t M by ». 4. eh. 71-323. effective October 1. 1931, except for th« poufble effect of law* afTe-ctiof thit aectioa prior to that data. 267.0616 Submission of proposals for state historical preservation boards of trustees re- quired; procedure- CD Any person seeking the creation of a state historic preservation board of trustees shall submit the proposal to the division for review by the Histor- ic Preservation Project Review Council as provided in s. 267.0615X4). (2) The council shall submit each proposal it re- ceives, together with a report and recommendation by the council regarding such proposal, to the* Presi- dent of the Senate, the Speaker oft he House of Rep- resentatives, the chairmen of the appropriations committees of both houses of the Legislature, the Secretary of State, and the division. HUlery. --a. 2, eh 7S-93. • 2. ch 78-347. 267.0617 Historic Preservation Trust Fund.— (1) There is hereby created within the Division of Archives, History, and Records Management of the Department of Slate the Historic Preservation Trust Fund, which shall consist of moneys appropriated by the .Legislature, moneys deposited pursuant to t, '550.037(2), and moneys contributed to the fund from any other source. The fund shall be adminis- tered by the Department of State through the Divi- sion of Archives, History, and Records Management for the purpose of financing grants in furtherance of the purposes of this section. (2) The division is authorized to conduct and car- ry out a program of grants-in-aid for historic preser- vation projects that meet the criteria of a. 267.0615(2) and (4) to any department or agency of the state; any unit of county, municipal, or other local government; or any nonprofit corporation or organization meeting the requirements of chapter 617. All moneys received from any source as appro- priations, deposits, or contributions to this program shall be paid and credited to the Historic Preserva- tion Trust Fund. HUtory.— a. 3. ch. 78JS7. 'Not*.— Swtioo 4" of H B 1371 (ch. 78-347), which created «. 550 037. >m amended (*c« 1978 Ho*.: w Journal p. 844). A* a result of the ameodrr.ent, th« correct reference i» a. i50 03 2KW. CHAPTER 272 CAPITOL CENTER 272.12 Florida Capitol Center Planning District. 272.128 Florida Historic Capitol Preservation Act 272.18 Governor's Mansion Advisory CounciL 272.12 Florida Capitol Center Planning Dis- trict— (1) There is hereby created the Florida Capitol Center Planning District, which may be referred to in this chapter as "Capitol Center" or "district" The district shall extend to and include all lands within the following boundaries of the City of Tallahassee: Commence at the Northwest corner of lot 293 of the Old Plan of the City of Tallahassee as recorded in the office of the clerk of the circuit court, Leon County, Florida; thence East along the South right-of-way line of West College Avenue and East College Ave- nue and the East prolongation of East College Ave- nue to its intersection with the Westerly right-of- way line of the Seaboard Coastline Railroad; thence Southerly and Westerly along said Seaboard Coast- line Railroad right-of-way line to a point of intersec- tion with the South prolongation of the East right-of- way line of South Boulevard Street; thence North 267 JIM SMITH Attorney General State of Florida APPENDIX XII DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THE CAPITOL TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32304 June 29, 1979 Mr. James MacFarland, Director Sanctuary Programs Office Office of Coastal Zone Management 3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20235 Dear Mr. MacFarland: The Florida Cabinet passed a resolution on June 26, 1979 supporting the designation of the Apalachicola River Basin as a National Estuarine Sanctuary. Enclosed is a copy of this resolution for your information. Sincerely, bmcereiy, JirrJ Smith Attorney General JS/lnh tffofe ty ^4 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, tht Vtpaitmtnt oi Enu^/to«men* Comptroller l&L&d£ Bill Gunter Treasurer st {&222&2A Totfte. Conner Commissioned, of Agriculture RalptV V. Turlington I Commissioner. 04 Education APPENDIX XIII Responses to Comments Received on the Apalachicola River and Bay Estuarine Sanctuary Draft Environmental Impact Statement This section summarizes the written and verbal comments received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and provides OCZM's response to these comments. Generally, responses are made in one or more of the following ways: (1) Expansion, clarification, or revision of the DEIS (2) General responses to comments raised by several reviewers, and/or (3) Specific responses to the individual comments made by each reviewer. OCZM will publish all comments In a compendium and distribute it to persons who commented on the DEIS, or anyone else upon request. Comments received after July 5, 1979, are not addressed but may be Included in the compendium of comments. The following are some of the most common issues raised by reviewers: General Comments and Responses A. Concern over the impacts of sanctuary status upon river navigation. Many reviewers expressed concern about how Florida's existing permit authority may be used to regulate external influences upon the sanctuary. It is feared the State will limit maintenance dredging in or upriver from the sanctuary, thereby severely affecting upriver navigation interests. With respect to the question of maintenance dredging, the State of Florida's concern has always been to find proper spoil disposal sites. A spoil disposal plan pertaining to dredging the bay will be completed within one year of sanctuary establishment. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers began applying for dredge and fill permits for the first time at the beginning of 1979 as a result of the Implementation of the Clean Water Act of 1977. Since this 1s a new Act, procedures had to be established between the Corps and the State of Florida to ensure that the Intent of this law 1s fulfilled. To respond to concerns raised by DEIS commentors and to resolve the outstanding procedural questions about maintenance dredging, the State of Florida has taken the following actions: (1) The State of Florida met with the Corps of Engineers on July 5, 1979, and a memorandum of understanding 1s being prepared to estab- lish a procedure for processing COE dredge and fill requests. (2) The Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) has Issued a permit for desnagglng on the Apalachicola River and is processing an appli- cation for maintenance dredging of the river. 11 (3) The following clarification has been added to the Section on navigation in the EIS under " Allowed Uses :" "Maintenance dredging of existing channels includes dredging by the Corps of Engineers to Congressionally ordered depths and dimensions. No new ■' State regulatory requirements shall be imposed upon such maintenance dredging because of achievement of status as an estuarine sanctuary, and State regulatory permit reviews shall continue to be applied in a manner consistent with applicable Federal law." (4) New language has been added concerning prohibited activities to clarify the one year exclusion on public works. The wording, under the heading " Prohibited Activities ," is as follows: ". . . incorporation of new public works projects that require dredging or addi- tional filling within the official Florida water resource development program, which is annually presented and recommended to Congress pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes. The temporary exclusion of such projects affecting the bay shall terminate upon adoption of a long term disposal plan expected to be completed within one year of the establishment of the estuarine sanctuary. The omission of such dredging and filling public works projects from the official Florida program does not preclude the submission or recommendation of such public works by other persons or public agencies to the Congress, nor Congressional authorization of such projects." (5) The State of Florida has also agreed to take priority action on pending COE maintenance dredging applications. B. Florida restrictions on Federal authority over interstate navigation. Concern was raised over Florida's authority to regulate certain activities (e.g. minimum water flow) outside the established sanctuary boundary that could conflict with the rights of the Federal government in navigable waters. To distinguish between State and Federal authority, the following language has been added to the "General and Specific Management Requirements." "The regulatory authorities of the State under Chapter 373, F.S., and other Florida Statutes will be exercised, to the extent allowed by Florida law, to ensure that activities within the boundaries of Florida do not impair such estuarine productivity, processes, or living resources. However, the paramount power of the Federal government to control navigable waters, and the associated authority of the Corps of Engineers and the Federal Power Commission to control the operation of dams on the Tri -River system, is expressly recognized. Neither the State or its agencies will attempt to utilize State regulatory powers to displace Federal control of those facilities." In addition, the State of Florida cannot set minimum flow standards, or any other standards, for the States of Alabama and Georgia. OCZM/NOAA also is precluded from such activities by the Coastal Zone Management Act, as stated in this FEIS. Stronger language from Section 404(t) of the Clean 111 Water Act of 1977 has been added. OCZM will not Interfere with any agree- ments the Governors of Alabama, Georgia, and Florida may wish to enter Into regarding the usage of the A-C-F System, assuming there 1s no significant alteration of the sanctuary for educational and research use. OCZM encourages joint examination of the entire A-C-F watershed. C. Georgia and Alabama must be represented on the Sanctuary Management CommitteeT The primary responsibilities of the Sanctuary Management Committee concern research and education within the sanctuary. This Management Committee has certain specific powers that are enumerated 1n the FEIS-- most of which are advisory. While 1t 1s fully recognized that Georgia and Alabama have considerable interest in the multiple uses of the A-C-F waterway, Florida feels that this Interest goes well beyond the scope of the Sanctuary Management Committee. It should be emphasized that the Sanctuary Management Committee does not have as one of its functions, nor does it have the statutory authority, to resolve navigation issues. Georgia and Alabama always have the option of giving their input directly to Florida agencies, or the Governor, 1f their concerns are not not adequately addressed by the Sanctuary Mangement Committee. D. The EIS must include the economic impacts of the sanctuary upon Georgia and Alabama. Many letters referred to the economic value of goods shipped on the Apalachicola and other rivers and the value of these waterways to upstream industries 1n Alabama and Georgia. We fully realize that the Tri -River system is an important transportation resource for Alabama, Georgia, and Florida commerce. New language was added to the EIS text, as mentioned above, to make it clear that Florida has no intention of Interfering with the maintenance dredging of the A-C-F waterway to its authorized depth. The proposed sanctuary is not Intended to interfere with waterborne navigation, hence no environmental or economic impact upon Georgia or Alabama 1s anticipated. Other than this general concern over navigation and transportation, no specific examples of economic impact caused by creation of an estuarine sanctuary were presented during the comment period. E. Inclusion of additional areas within the sanctuary boundaries (e.g. all barrier islands, Tate's Hell Swamp, Jackson River, Lake Wlmico) and/or control over their uses. The factors weighing against the acquisition of additional land were funding limitations and the consideration of achieving a maximum return 1n the control of valuable estuarine lands. It was felt that, although Important, the developed portions of St. George Island and Dog Island would require more monies than were available. Tate's Hell Swamp also would have been an important addition to the estuarine sanctuary had 1v funds been available. The Lake Wimico - Jackson River area is an important part of the Apalachicola drainage system. It was excluded, however, because 1t 1s basically a freshwater system, rather than an estuary, and there 1s no public ownership of the adjacent lands, as exists in the proposed sanctuary. In addition, the ecological integrity of the area 1s currently under the protection of existing State laws. Including additional areas within the sanctuary by controlling their uses was not considered due to the possibility of inverse condemnation. The proposed sanctuary boundaries will consist only of land owned by public agencies (i.e. Florida's Department of Natural Resources and, on St. Vincent Island, The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) adjacent to the Apalachicola River or Bay. F. Hold sanctuary designation in abeyance pending further study of alternate sites for establishing a representative LouisianiarT Estuarine Sanctuary. Some local governments have Issued nearly Identical resolutions requesting that the U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Office of Coastal Zone Management (OCZM) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers hold 1n abeyance any des- ignation of an estuarine sanctuary within the Apalachicola Bay /River area until such time as the State of Florida and NOAA/OCZM have done further study of alternate areas for the establishment of a typical Louisianian estuary. The selection of the Apalachicola area was a thorough process that Included very extensive study of alternate areas. The States of Alabama and Georgia were informed of the sanctuary proposal a year and a half ago, at the time the application was submitted to OCZM. A symposium of leading scientists has supported Florida's conclusion that the Aplachicola was the best site 1n the State for establishment of an esturlne sanctuary of the Louisianian region. No other states have proposed alternate sites for a sanctuary in this region. Summary of Speci fic Comment s a nd Responses Department of the Air Force, HQ AFESC, Atlanta, Georgia (Charles A. Smith, 5/30/79) ! C_ - Proposed sanctuary would not adversely affect existing Air Force operations. R - Comment accepted. U .S . En vi ronment a 1 Protect i o n Age ncy , AT ant a, G eorgi a (John E7 Hagan, III, 6/21/79) — £ - Finds the DEIS generally adequate and a rating of LO-2 was assigned, i.e. we have no significant environmental objections, but some additional information is requested. £ - Comment accepted. C_ - Would like to see a decision on the role of the 208 statewide program relative to the drainage within the watershed included in the FEIS. £ - Discussion of the 208 program was included in the FEIS. £ - An appraisal within the FEIS of the potential losses through storm damage to St. George Island development versus additional tax revenues from development of the island is necessary to gain an overall perspective of the true cost/benefit ratio of the project. £ - The DEIS made certain assumptions regarding an increase in land values on St. George Island that might be attributed to purchase of 12,467 acres of land, which could offset some of the property tax loss from this purchase. These were only assumptions to show a possible positive effect on land values. We do not feel that any negative impact will occur to the development on St. George Island from creation of the sanctuary. Although it is true that economic losses from storm damages would probably occur, the sanctuary proposal is not applicable to this situation. Code C ■ Comment received and summarized R ■ Response by OCZM FEIS * Final Environmental Impact Statement DEIS ■ Draft Environmental Impact Statement U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, D .C. (Tructy McFall, 6/7/79) C_ - Our review team indicates that the Apalachicola River and Bay DEIS proposal is consistent with HUD 701 and other program requirements Insofar as they are relevant to associated land use and other plans and to the impact of Federal programs supported by HUD. £ - Comment accepted. C_ - HUD recognizes the significance and importance of this sanctuary area, and supports efforts to establish it as a wildlife and aquatic enclave. R - Comment accepted. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Atlanta, Georgia (Charles N. Straub, 5/1 8/79) £ - The relationship of the sanctuary to pertinent Presidential Executive Orders, e.g. E.O. 11988, Floodplain Management and E,0. 11990, Protection of Wetlands, should be discussed in the FEIS. R^ - The establishment of an estuarlne sanctuary is in harmony with Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management and Executive Order 11980, Protection of Wetlands. The acquisition of approximately 12,467 acres of land will not only protect the wetlands within this parcel, but preclude any development 1n this area, of which a substantial portion 1s within the 100 year floodplain. This comment has been added to the FEIS. £ - The Impact of upstream pollutants, e.g. Insecticides and effluents, and the regulatory controls that will protect the quality of water, should be discussed In the FEIS. R - Little 1s currently known about the Impacts from upstream pollutants. This 1s one of the areas of research recommended by the Workshop and Symposium participants (See Appendix 2 - Research Program and Recommen dations of Panel 4 - Water Quality and Watersheds). The responsibil- ity for the protection of water quality 1n Florida rests with the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) and Its authorities are cited 1n the FEIS. Federal water laws such as the Clean Water Act would at a minimum protect water quality uprlver of the sanctuary. £ - Protection of the sanctuary from the placement of spoil and increased sedimentation from maintenance dredging needs further amplification in the FEIS. R^ - See General Response A. The basic protection for the sanctuary from spoil disposal and sedimentation will be the completion of the spoil disposal plan for the bay. Another high priority research item Is a circulation stuoV of the bay that will help determine spoil disposal sites and optimum seasonal times for dredging activity. It must be recognized that maintenance dredging will occur within the sanctuary. However, the spoil disposal plan will establish the environmentally preferable method and also save public dollars by eliminating one of the biggest delay factors for Corps dredging permits --proper disposal sites. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. (Hon. Cecil A. Andrus, No Date) C_ - Migratory bird management on refuges can Involve manipulative habitat management, which appears to conflict with estuarine sanctuary ob- jectives. To avoid any misunderstanding regarding the Inclusion of St. Vincent Island within the sanctuary, 1t Is recommended that the FEIS contain assurances that management actions and operations of the sanctuary cannot be superimposed upon the St. Vincent National Wildlife Refuge. The end result will be that the refuge will make an Important contribution to the objectives of the estuarine sanctuary but will not administratively be part of It. R^ - Comment accepted, changes made 1n the FEIS. C_ - Several properties are within or adjacent to the proposed sanctuary boundaries that are on the National Register of Historic Places. Recommend the FEIS Include discussion of the historic, archeologlcal, and other cultural resources and the potential for impacts to these resources resulting Trom sanctuary status. The Florida State Historic Preservation Office should be consulted to aid in this effort. £ - OCZM supports and encourages research on the historic, archeological , and other cultural resources within the sanctuary boundaries. Since the lands within the boundaries have all been acquired for preservation/ recreation purposes, any historic, archeological, or cultural resources will be preserved, not developed; hence, no adverse impact from sanctuary status is anticipated. The Florida Historic Preservation Officer has been added to the Subcommittee on Research and Education. £ - Does the management plan for sanctuary lands include all sanctuary lands or only those newly acquired? £ - Only those newly acquired are included £ - Add words: "but will have no regulatory authority over these lands" to the section dealing with functions of the management committee. £ - New language was added to FEIS. C_ - Noted omission of many estuarine and marine fishes from the list in Appendix X. R^ - Some changes were made in response to more accurate data provided by the Florida Department of Game and Freshwater Fish. The list is not intended to be all-inclusive, however. Any additional data the Department of Interior has will be respectfully submitted to the Sanctuary Management Committee. £ - What are the mechanics of estuarine sanctuary management and what rules or statutes specifically apply to the estuarine sanctuary? R^ - The sanctuary will basically be managed by the agency having primary responsibility. For example, the EEL lands will be managed by Florida's DNR in accordance with State rules for EEL lands. The DNR and DER will have major responsibilities within the water areas, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will manage St. Vincent's Island in accordance with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regulations. The major statutes that will specifically apply to the sanctuary are discussed in the EIS. C_ - How much jurisdiction will the management committee be able to exert? In what manner will the Sanctuary Management Committee exert influence on other agency management practices? £ - The Management Committee's role and jurisdiction is well defined under the "Management Committee" section. Important considerations are that its role is to provide for effective coordination and cooperation among all interests that will be involved with the estuarine sanctuary. This includes advising DNR on sanctuary adminis- tration, and advising the appropriate State agency or local government on proposed actions, plans, and projects in, adjacent to, or affecting the sanctuary after proper review. The Management Committee has no legal mechanism to exert influence on any State or Federal agencies. Its function is to be an advisor to foster cooperation and coordination among the sanctuary resource users. It should be noted that the Management Committee does not have advisory powers over the U.S. Fish and Wild- life Service activities on St. Vincent Island and will not perform any functions not listed in the FEIS. C_ - We question the manner in which the Management Committee would attempt to monitor and/or guide changes within the upstream Apalachicola River Basin that may affect the estuarine ecosystem. £ - The Management Committee's function is not to monitor or guide changes } within the upstream system. This function belongs to those State agencies having the appropriate legal authority over any proposed changes. The Management Committee may only advise the appropriate State agency or local governemnt on "proposed actions, plans, and projects in, adjacent to, or affecting the sanctuary." £ - We have a general concern over the sanctuary management concept, and suggest that U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service be a full, non-voting member of the committee. A "majority" vote structure should be implemented (suggest Florida Division of State Planning), and the committee appears to be biased toward Franklin County. Suggest the Subcommittee on Research and Education select its representative rather than Franklin County. R_ - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has been added as a full, non-voting member of the Management Committee. The State of Florida examined the above alternative and decided that a six member voting committee was preferable and that Franklin County should appoint the two sub- committee members. There are other major changes to this management committee that are included in the FEIS. £ - The Subcommittee on Resources Management and Planning should include EPA, NMFS, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. R_ - Comment accepted. The Corps has been added as a full, non-voting member of the Subcommittee. EPA will have input through OCZM, and NMFS as a subagency of NOAA. National Marine F isheries Services (NOAA), Washington, (Terry L. Leitzell, 6/5/79) D.C. C_ - NMFS approves the great weight given the management of fisheries resources and the use of the Sanctuary Management Committee to catalyze a long term dredge disposal plan. Marine mammal and sea turtle populations that frequent the area should be mentioned specifically 1n the FEIS. R^ - Comments accepted. This has been Included 1n the FEIS. Z_ - Federal regulations still apply: e.g. DOA permits under the Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 10, and Clean Water Act, Section 404 (b), are still required for structures or dredging and filling. R^ - Comment accepted. Sanctuary establishment will not diminish Federal agency authority under Section 10, Rivers and Harbors Act, and Section 404(b) of the Clean Water Act. This fact is specifically stated in the FEIS. U.S* Department of Transportation, Atlanta, Georgia (Thomas H. Lewis, 6/21/79) £- No mention is made of highway transportation across the proposed sanc- tuary and the effect on existing and future transportation facilities, particularly proposals to replace the existing US 98 East Bay Causeway and the Gorrie Bridge. Recommend that the estuarine sanctuary proposal reserve a corridor for transportation purposes that will accommodate the future replacement of the existing crossing structure. R- This comment is similar to that made by Ray G. L'Amoreaux of the State of Florida Department of Transportation. Please refer to the response to that letter. Hon. Richard (Dick) Ston e, Un ited States Senate (Florida) (6/15/79) C_ - Strongly supports the establishment of the proposed sanctuary because it is a >fery productive natural resource base for people throughout the Apalachicola Valley and because it protects the area while not precluding multiple uses beneficial to citizens of Florida, Georgia, and Alabama. Urges NOAA to promptly approve funding for sanctuary designation. R_ - Comment accepted. Hon. Tom Bevill, Hon. Wm. L. Dickenson, Hon. Bill Nichols, Hon. Jack Brinkley , Hon. Dawson Mathis, United States House of Representatives (Georgia and Alabama ) (6/4/79) : C_ - Object to the approval of funds for the establishment of the sanctuary at this time. Have serious questions regarding the effect of sanctuary establishment upon navigation and water flow on the A-C-F system. Have no objections to sanctuary if Governors of Alabama, Florida, and Georgia meet and reach agreement on a long-range plan to guarantee a navigable nine-foot channel. Florida's political leaders are urged to recognize the need for multiple uses on the A-C-F system. R^ - See General Response A. Establishment of the sanctuary will not adversely affect navigation on the Apalachicola, Flint, and Chattahoo- chee rivers. Governors Busbee, James, and Graham are scheduled to meet on 7/31/79 to discuss the effect of the sanctuary on long-range plans for the Tri -Rivers waterway. The State of Florida has also consistently recognized the interstate nature of the A-C-F waterway and its Congressional ly authorized multiple uses. State of Alabama, Governor's Off i ce (Hon. Fob James, Governor, 7/2/79) £ - Requests that further consideration to establish the sanctuary be withdrawn because of Irreconcilable differences between multiple- use of the A-C-F system and the goals of the sanctuary program. R^ - OCZM recognizes 1n the FEIS that the strategic location and size of the proposed sanctuary could potentially affect upriver uses, especially In the States of Alabama and Georgia. OCZM has also recognized the Importance of the multiple-uses of the ACF system. Because of this recognition and the considerable concerns expressed over impacts to upriver users, OCZM has taken a close look at the sanctuary designation, its goals and objectives, methods of control, potential Impacts to navigation, etc., and has come to the conclusion that the differences are not Irreconcilable. Every effort 1s being undertaken to assure Alabama and Georgia that their Interests 1n the Tri -River system will be recognized while, at the same time, efforts are made to maintain the integrity of the estuarine ecosystem. OCZM believes that 1t would be premature to stop further Federal action at this time, especially prior to meeting NEPA requirements. We are bound by law and executive orders to react 1n an expeditious and reasonable fashion to State requests. The power to withdraw the application rests with the State of Florida. OCZM, however, 1s still 1n a position to reject the State request If a determination Is made that there would be unacceptable environmental Impacts, or other reasons. £ - Throughout the development of this proposal, the State of Florida and OCZM have systematically excluded the upstream States from meaningful participation. R^ - We are unaware of any concerted effort to exclude Alabama and Georgia from participation. Representatives from the States of Alabama and Georgia expressed their views during the October 17-19, 1978, Symposium and Workshop (See statements by Mr. Gordon Harris and Walter Stevenson under Section V Contributions) 1n which the Interstate nature of the river and Its multiple uses were described. Additional efforts have been made to hold a Tr1 -State Governors' meeting, which 1s now scheduled for 7/31/79, concerning the sanctuary designation. There are naturally some limitations as to what may be perceived as meaningful participation. It 1s the State of Florida that has proposed the sanctuary. It 1s Its lands that will be purchased, Its waters that that will receive the spoil disposal, and Its regulations of lands and water uses within the sanctu- ary that are the major focus of concern. OCZM believes that reasonable efforts have been made to accommodate the existing multiple uses and needs of upriver States and several revisions to the EIS point this out. £ - The proposed sanctuary, if established, would have an extremely detrimental effect to upstream use of the ACF River System because of controls that may be placed on water flow. £ - See General Response A. Any water flow requirements apply only to Florida. The EIS is very specific that Georgia, Alabama, or Federal water projects will not be prohibited because of sanctuary designation alone. The quotations taken from the Federal regulations apply only to uses within the sanctuary and have no force, and effect outside the sanctuary. The regulation emphasis is on "uses of the sanctuary." £ - The proposed sanctuary does not recognize a pre-existing commitment by the Federal Government through Congressional authorization to provide a navigation channel on the A-C-F system. £ - See General Response B. £ - The DEIS failed to adequately consider the economic and energy impact of the proposed sanctuary to Alabama, Georgia, and Florida. R - See General Response D. £ - Designation of the sanctuary would impose another burden on the already difficult permitting process and would potentially subordinate many navigational projects and priorities to the primary sanctuary purposes of research and education. R^ - In the DEIS, OCZM stated that the estuarine sanctuary could become a catalyst to resolve outstanding issues on the A-C-F waterway that were not directly related to the proposed sanctuary. This has indeed happened — The Corps of Engineers and the State of Florida have made tentative agreements for maintenance dredging procedures on the Apalachicola River, and the Governors of the three States will meet on July 31, 1979, to discuss outstanding issues in the ACF waterway system. OCZM still feels that, with a sanctuary management committee composed of the major Florida interests relating to the Apalachicola River, problems can be resolved more expeditiously than they are under present methods. In any event, there are no "OCZM laws" that will add any layers of regulation: only existing State law. Navigation has been recognized by the State of Florida as a legitimate multiple-use of the river, including the portion within the estuarine sanctuary. No multiple use of the Apalachicola River is intended to be sub- ordinated to another. Within the estuarine sanctuary boundaries (only) research and education are the highest priority, but obviously many other uses can also occur and are indeed encouraged by OCZM's regulations. It is crucial to note that the estuarine sanctuary Itself fits within the State of Florida's priorities for the Apalachicola River/Bay (see Appendix). This is a critical test for any project proposed within the State of Florida. £ - The estuarine sanctuary proposal should not be accepted until a plan is agreed upon for dredge spoil disposal and permitting. £ - The spoil disposal plan only applies to projects proposed by Florida, not Federal agencies, and hence will not affect Alabama. See General Responses A and B. £ - Alabama's and Georgia's representation through the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation is not meaningful and is unacceptable. R - See General Response D. C_ - A clear definition of "natural environment" is lacking in the choice of the Apalachicola River and Bay as a site for a sanctuary. The site and system is greatly influenced by man (dams, waterways, sewage, etc.). Since the guidelines require that it be maintained as a natural environment, it should be decided what constitutes a natural system. R. - It is true that the proposed sanctuary is greatly influenced by man. There are no large estuaries in the U.S. that are not. Recognition of this fact is evident in the estuarine sanctuary guidelines, which has as a research priority to "assess the effects of man's stresses on the ecosystem and to forecast and mitigate possible deterioration from human activities." Generally speaking, a natural environment is one created by nature, rather than man. The portions of the Apalachicola River and Bay within the proposed boundaries is such a system. The river follows a natural waterway course and floods periodically, providing habitat for an extremely diverse flora and fauna population. The river has very few signs of pollution, and yields a substantial seafood harvest, all indicators of a relatively "natural environment." It is extremely difficult to define when a natural system deteriorates into a man-made one. Obviously, there are a relatively broad range of possibilities. OCZM feels that as long as researchers and educators can continue to use the estuarine sanctuary as a natural area to examine the ecological relationships within the area over a period of time, it is a "natural environment." State of Alabama, Attorney General's Office (George Hardesty, 6/7/79) C_ - The interstate waterway provides economic and employment opportunities to the three State area. Specifically, the River and Harbor Act of 1945 listed four purposes for development of the A-C-F waterway: navigation, flood control, hydropower, and recreation. Concerned about the lack of upstream users' input into preparation of the DEIS. £ - See General Responses A and D. C_ - There are no existing estuarine sanctuaries that include an interstate waterway and therefore no model upon which to base expectations for the Apalachicola Sanctuary. Related is the fact that the estuarine sanctuary guidelines are ambiguous, inconsistent, and lacking in flexibility to balance the needs of ecological study without handicapping upstream interests. R_ - It is correct that there are no existing sanctuaries that include an inter- state waterway. However, the Estuarine Sanctuary Guidelines reflect the "real world" situation that all States are different and each sanctuary will be established and operated in accordance with individual State laws. OCZM does not agree with statement that there is no flexibility in the guidelines and DEIS for consideration of upstream interests. As stated in General Responses A, B, and elsewhere, upstream users' concerns are taken into consideration and the Management Committee will coordinate with Alabama and Georgia in those areas of mutual concern. £ - No evidence is offered to establish any pressing need for sanctuary status, nor is the ecosystem in a "crisis stage." It would therefore be in the best interests of the entire three State region to postpone the grant award until upstream questions are resolved. R^ - The estuarine sanctuary program is not intended to react to immediate desires, or needs, to purchase and protect estuarine type areas. As indicated in the FEIS, Apalachicola was first discussed as an estuarine sanctuary in 1971, underwent a State selection process to determine that it was the best candidate site, then early in 1978 a pre-acquisition grant was awarded for further investigation to gather information that was used in the DEIS. Intensive study has been ongoing for approximately one and one-half years. The States of Alabama and Georgia were made aware of the proposal at the beginning of this intensive planning effort. Some of the questions regarding competing upstream and downstream uses may take years to resolve. The FEIS reflects this fact, and indicates the estuarine sanctuary will not hinder the resolution of these differences. As was stated in the DEIS, these competing use problems exist now and will continue into the future. If an estuarine sanctuary is established, the discussions surrounding its implementation may help to resolve some of the other questions concerning usage of the A-C-F system by all three States. State of Alabama, Legal Advisor to Governor James (Mike Waters, 6/7/79) C_ - Alabama is not opposed to an estuarine sanctuary, but concerned about ramifications on interstate commerce, recreation, water supply, hydro-electric generation, and lack of participation of Alabama and Georgia in development of the DEIS. £ - See General Responses A and B. In early 1978, Alabama and Georgia were sent copies of Florida's proposal for an estuarine sanctuary grant, and OCZM has accommodated all specific requests for a meeting or information regarding the proposal. C - Recreational sites, including lakes and rivers, could be adversely affected by the sanctuary, as could the public's water supply, because of the minimum water flow standards in Florida. R_ - See General Response B. £ - No representatives from Alabama or Georgia are included on the Management Committee. Requests that no decision be made on the sanctuary proposal until the Governors of the three States meet to examine possible alternatives. £ - See General Response C. OCZM has agreed to take appropriate action 1n the FEIS with regard to any outcome of the Governors meeting on July 31, 1979, which significantly affects the sanctuary proposal. State of Alabama, Office of State Planning and Federal Programs, Montgomery, Alabama (Walter Stevenson, State Planning Division, no date) £ - Correct the DEIS text as follows: (1) Appendix II p. 63 section II titled "contributions" - Statements by Walter Stevenson, Mr. Jakubsen, and Tri -Rivers were provided on the "first " (not third) day. (2) Water Stevenson's statement in 12th line should read "...we in the state of Alabama be involved." Also in 13th line change the word "regulation" to "recognition" to read "no recognition on the part of local interests. . .". R^ - Comment accepted and changes are incorporated in FEIS. Alabama State Docks Department, Mobile, Alabama (Gerry P. Robinson, 6/7/79) (W. H. Blade, Jr., 6/7/79) £ - River terminals in which the State Docks Department has invested several million dollars require maintenance of river channels, and this maintenance, in addition, is in the national interest. The proposed sanctuary is not in the national interest because proposed restrict- ions will interfere with rights of citizens of Alabama, Georgia, and Florida. As such, the DEIS unfairly discriminates against citizens outside of the State of Florida. The sanctuary should be reevaluated and the interests of adjoining States and the Nation should be consid- ered. R^ - See General Responses A and B. The proposed sanctuary will impose no restrictions upon maintenance of river channels at Congressional ly authorized depths and dimensions. It should be noted that establishing National Estuarine Sanctuaries is in the national interest, as stated in the Coastal Zone Management Act. £ - The State Parks Department objects to the proposed management committee. R^ - See General Response C. The proposed management committee composition was carefully chosen with the sanctuary goals of research and education in mind. Certain changes were made and are in the FEIS. £ - The DEIS does not adequately discuss economic impacts. R^ - See General Response D. Because it will not affect navigation on the A-C-F system, the only economic impacts of sanctuary establishment are upon the immediate area of the proposed sanctuary. These impacts are discussed extensively in the Environmental Consequences Section and in Appendix VI. £ - The sanctuary would interfere with the authority and activity of other Federal agencies, and the EIS duplicates other studies. £ - We disagree with this statement (See General Response A). The EIS 1s not a study but a proposed course of action that has undergone public scrutiny during the DEIS process. £ - The sanctuary will retard, impede, and interfere with the rights of citizens of Alabama and Georgia and with the economic development and current use of the Tri -River waterway. R^ - There is no intention of discrimination against Alabama or Georgia. The proposal is to purchase Florida land and combine it with existing publicly owned land, Including the Federal St. Vincent Wildlife Refuge. The proposal reflects Florida's and Congress's interest in protecting relatively natural estuarine systems for education and research. Florida has not proposed changing any of the uses of the river now enjoyed by Alabama and Georgia. The economic impacts are summarized in the FEIS and more fully detailed in Appendix 6. There have been few specific criticisms of this analysis by any commentors. It has been stated earlier that the sanctuary will have no impact on navigation on the Apalachicola Bay or River. Southeast Alabama Regional Planning and Development Commission, Dothan, Alabama (William T. Cathell, 6/5/79) £ - All statements regarding policy 1n the FEIS should be clear and without need for Interpretation. £ - Comment accepted. New language was added to the FEIS to accomplish this objective. £ - Action on the application should be delayed pending Issuance of a joint policy statement from Governors Graham, Busbee, and James. £ - The three Governors are scheduled to meet on 7/31/79 to attempt to resolve any conflicts, and any actions taken pertinent to the estuarlne sanctuary are reflected In the FEIS. £ - The Corps of Engineers (COE) must have the right to maintain a 9' by 100' channel. Also the COE should have only one agency 1n Florida at the State Cabinet level to contact for coordi- nation of dredging and snagging operations. R - See General Responses A and B. A single agency contact 1s not possible under Florida law; however, the DER Informally acts as the point of contact and coordinates all actions. The Corps of Engineers will be a non-voting member of the Management Committee, which should expedite proposals. £ - Access to shipping lanes of the inland waterway system 1s essential. Having a permanent channel will not impair operation of the sanctuary. R - Comment accepted. See General Response A. Houston County Commission, Dothan, Alabama (Charles Whidden, 6/6/79) £ - Supports incorporation into EIS of a statement giving the Corps the right to maintain a 9' by 100* channel in the sanctuary. £ - Comment accepted. See General Response A. £ - Urges both withholding of funds until further study of the impact on navigation, and that the Corps have only one agency in Florida to contact for coordination of dredging operations. £ - As indicated earlier, the Assistant Administrator for OCZM will make a decision after public review of the FEIS. A single agency contact is not possible under Florida law. City of Phenix City, Alabama George E. H. Chard, Jane Gullet and Gene Oswalt, 5/5/79 & 5/6/79) £ - Urges OCZM to delay approval until problems relating to maintaining the nine foot channel can be resolved. R - See General Response A. Honorable Don Fuqua, U.S. House of Repres entatives (Florida, 2nd District) (John Clark, 6/7/7$} £ - Supports the proposal so long as there are no restrictions on the commercial fishing industry. R^ - Comment accepted. State of Florida, Governor's Office (Statement of Governor Bob Graham, read by Ken Woodburn, 6/7/79) - Florida strongly supports the proposed sanctuary, as the River and Bay comprise one of the most productive biological systems in the Nation. A resource of national importance, the river benefits Alabama, Georgia, and Florida. However, Florida is concerned about the river and bay's future, along with that of the area's economy and the controversies over development and protection of this great resource. To help guide growth and accommodate the various interest groups who depend on the river for their diverse pursuits, we recommend creation of the proposed estuarine sanctuary as a focus for better scientific understanding and management. The sanctuary will allow continued use of marine resources and should enable increased multiple- use consistent with protecting long term benefits; such as development of a long term spoil disposal plan. Florida is committed to regional uses of the Apalachicola River. The Governor will meet soon with the Governors of Georgia and Alabama to discuss multiple-use and the future of the river. R^ - Comments accepted. State of Florida, Governor's Office (Ken Woodburn, b////yj C - The Bay is fed and nourished by a great river whose mixture of fresh- " water nutrients and life from the Gulf of Mexico results in the greatest single area of seafood production concentrated in the State of Florida. Sanctuary establishment will ensure continuation of this most important seafood industry. Also, benefits will be increased since Florida already has many investments in this area. With these investments, not only with this proposal, Florida has demonstrated its commitment to and concern for this bay. £ - Comments accepted. Florida Secretary of State, Tallahassee, Florida (L. fcoss Morren, 5/18/7$) C^ - The Division of Archives, History, and Records Management supports the estuarlne sanctuary proposal because of the protection afforded for the Irreplaceable cultural resources of the area, and the possibilities for archeological research. Suggests management of cultural resources be added as a function of the Management Committee and requests representation on the Subcommittee on Research and Education. The Florida Archives and History Act, Chapter 267 F.S., should be added to the Appendix. R^ - OCZM accepts all comments and appropriate changes have been made 1n the FEIS. The Division of Archives, History, and Records Management will have a representative on the Subcommittee on Research and Education. Florida Department of Commerce, Tallahassee, Florida (William Stanley, 6/7/79) £ - We are concerned with the relationship between the proposed sanctuary and a proposed facility for Apalachicola now being studied by the Florida Department of Commerce. We understand that the DER supports a clause in the FEIS that would "grandfather in" the proposed facility. We support this "grandfather" agreement and request clarification from the DER. £ - We assume this refers to the proposed Apalachicola Seafood Industrial Park (ASIP). The proposed ASIP has been exempted from the prohibition regarding expansion of existing channels or creation of new navigation channels until certain impacts are addressed. The language has been added to the FEIS. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee, Florida. (H. t. Wallace, 6/8/79) C_ - We feel that the osprey nesting area concentrated between Lake Wicomico and the Apalachicola Bay, where we have also sighted a bald eagle's nest (one of perhaps a dozen in northwest Florida), should be included in the National Estuarine Sanctuary. Eagles are on the Federal endangered species list; ospreys and eagles are also listed as threatened species in Florida. Most of the nesting area land is owned by the St. Joe Paper Company, which has a favorable attitide toward wildlife and conservation. R^ - See General Response E. We agree with the comment that this valuable nesting area should be protected if at all possible. However, the funds available for the acquisition of lands surrounding the estuarine sanctuary will not be sufficient to include this area within the sanctuary boundary. The possibility of using Endangered Species Act, Section 6 funds for this purpose might be explored by appropriate parties. £ - The management section of the EIS, beginning on p.ll, states that "existing State and Federally owned parcels will continue to be managed according to existing concepts and plans." However, no listing of the plans is given nor are the management plans included. Management plans such as the GFWFC fish and wildlife plan for the Lower Apalachicola EEL tract as well as other existing plans for timber and archeological resources should be included in the FEIS. R - The GFWFC plan for the lower Apalachicola EEL tract (28,045 acres) has been newly referenced in the FEIS, and it was also indicated that copies of this plan were available from the GFWFC. OCZM has referenced any plans if brought to its attention by the appropriate agencies. These plans are important from a management perspective but are not essential in a decision document such as an Impact Statement. This is why these plans were not included within the EIS. £ - Under the "Possible Conflicts" section of the EIS, p. 28 carries the statement: "the Proposed Management Program for the Apalachicola Estuarine Sanctuary specifically allows navigation ..." The FEIS should clarify what is meant by "Proposed Management Program." £ - The intent here was to make a statement of fact regarding Federal rights within navigable waters of the United States. The word "program" has been changed in the FEIS to "structure" to read "proposed management structure." £ - There are several errors in Part IV (Affected Environment) with respect to fish and wildlife resources. Catadromous fishes do not spawn in the Apalachicola River, but, by definition, spawn at sea. Of the three catradomous fish mentioned on page 33, only the hogchoker may spawn in the "Apalachicola system" as this species may spawn in estuaries. R. - Comment accepted. The FEIS was changed to correct this error. £ - On page 35 under the heading "Wildlife," the DEIS indicates that, "although significant hunting occurs in the sanctuary region, no data exists estimating the number of hunter days." This is incorrect. Pertinent data concerning this were included in our Conceptual Fish and Wildlife Management Plan for the Lower Apalachicola EEL Tract. These data should be included in the final EIS. R^ - The FEIS was changed to reflect data availability; however, the data is not included in the FEIS. The interested reader is referred to the above named document, which is available from the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. £ - We support the establishment of the Apalachicola River and Bay Estuarine Sanctuary. This designation should produce many long term benefits to fish and wildlife resources by protecting the unique environmental amenities of the sanctuary itself, as well as by enhancing the chances of permanent protection of the upper reaches of the river and associated floodplain habitat. R. - Comments accepted. C_ - Several comments were made regarding the accuracy of certain scientific information in Appendix X. £ - Several changes were made and an updated endangered species list has been incorporated into the Appendix. All of the changes could not be made because of incomplete information provided. However, it is suggested that an up-to-date species list be prepared as part of the research agenda for the estuarine sanctuary. Florida Department of Transportation. Tallahassee, Florida (Ray G. L'Amoreaux, 6/5/79 and 7/12/79) C - Requests assurances that establishment of this sanctuary will retain and preserve Gulf Intracoastal Waterway and Apalachicola River navigation according to Congressional authorization and present and future traffic demands. R^ - See General Response A. Just as the sanctuary cannot and will not affect river navigation, it also cannot and will not affect transportation along the Gulf Intracoastal Waterways. C_ - This Department currently has plans to replace the John Gorrie Bridge across the Apalachicola River. As now planned, the new structure would utilize the existing causeway but would parallel the old bridge about 300 feet to the south. It will be a high-level bridge to accommodate navigation and will require increasing the height of the causeway on the approaches. The DEIS noted that "no new Federal laws come with the sanctuary designation." While this may be true, there are additional regulations that come with the designation. What is commonly referred to as "Section 4-F" of 49 USC 1653 (F), the DOT Act of 1966, PL 89-670, would become a controlling Federal condition that does not currently apply. Satisfying the requirements of "Section 4-F" can be quite complex and time consuming and could create costly delays in making essential emergency repairs to this causeway and bridge. This is an important consideration in an area that is vulnerable to hurricanes. The Florida Department of Transportation fully supports the establishment of the estuarine sanctuary, but would like to request that our transportation rights of way be exempted from the sanctuary designation to eliminate any future "Section 4-F" complications. We feel that this exemption would in no way adversely affect the proposed sanctuary. R - Section "4-f" of 49 USC 1653, DOT Act of 1966, P.L. 89-670, "Maintenance and enhancement of natural beauty of land traversed by transportation lines" states: "After August 23, 1968, the Secretary (DOT) shall not approve any program or project which requires the use of any publicly owned land from a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, State, or local significance as determined by the Federal, State, or local officials having jurisdiction thereof... unless 1) there 1s no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land, and 2) such program Includes all possible planning to minimize harm to such park, recreational area, wildlife, and waterfowl refuge..." The Intent of this provision 1s to ensure that various levels of government that have set aside places of natural beauty for pre- servation and recreation are consulted by the U.S. Department of Transportation In planning any projects that have Impacts on such areas. The John Gorrle causeway and bridge are located in an area already designated by the State of Florida as an Aquatic Preserve (Florida Aquatic Preserve Act of 1975). Florida's statutes and regulations will control the procedures required for making emergency repairs to the bridge or replacing it. Having the area designated as an National Estuarlne Sanctuary will not add any complications or time consuming delays to the bridge or causeway project. The Sanctuary Management Committee would not become Involved unless the project seriously impaired the sanctuary's use for research and education. OCZM is not in a position to grant the request for an exemption pertaining to transportation rights of way. Northwest Florida Water Management District, Havana, Florida (J. William McCartney, 6/14/79) £ - Since the proposed sanctuary is within the bounds of the Northwest Florida Water Management District and especially since portions of Ch. 373, F.S., apply directly to the management of surface waters and hence to management strategies as proposed for the sanctuary, the District should be designated as a voting member of the Sanctuary Management Committee. £ - The Management Committee structure was arranged, under the direction of the Governor's office, to bring together the parties most involved with the sanctuary's goals of research and education. However, it is recognized that the Northwest Florida Water Management District is of great importance to the sanctuary, and its status has been changed to a non-voting member of the Management Committee. C - The Subcommittee on Resources Management and Planning (DEIS, Part II, 2c, page 1, paragraph 5), as mentioned, is not adequately discussed. R - The core members of the subcommittee are mentioned in the FEIS. Additions and/or deletions may be expected to occur as the Sub- committee evolves. C - A description of the hydrology and hydraulics for the river and bay systems should be included in Part IV, p. 31. Any changes in these systems should be documented even though they may be minor. R - Hydrology and hydraulics have not been included since they are not critical for a decision establishing a sanctuary. These two areas have been given high research priority for the Management Committee. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Tallahassee, Florida (Harold Hoffman, 6/12/79) £ - Agrees with the sanctuary concept but sees problems with the near exclusion of forestry professionals from sanctuary involvement. Forestry is an integral part of the livelihood of many landowners in the area. Excluding forestry concerns alienates forestry interests and sets up adversary relationships. R^ - That forestry is a major land use in Franklin County is acknowledged. This fact is reflected in the inclusion of Forestry interests on the Subcommittee of Area Resource Users. Forestry interests are welcome as a part of the estuarine sanctuary and an adversary relationship does not seem possible. £ - Forestry scientists from the University of Florida's Center for Environmental and Natural Resources Program and the U.S. Forest Service are carrying out research in the area to assess the long range effects of intensive forest management on the water resources of the area. No mention of this research was made in the DEIS. This seems to offer further fuel to fire an adversary relationship. R^ - Appropriate language has been added to the FEIS to include a reference to this research. £ - In the DEIS, silviculture is identified as a use of the land that would ". . destroy or alter the ecosystem." We do not agree that sivi culture practices, in general, are guilty of this. (Ref. p. 12, paragraph 1). R^ - We agree. Language in the FEIS has been changed. £ - In our opinion, the School of Forest Resources and Conservation (IMPAC Program) and the Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Center for Environmental and Natural Resources Programs at the University of Florida should be included by name on the Sanctuary Management Committee. £ - The FEIS was changed to show that the University of Florida has been added to the Subcommittee on Research and Education. How the various schools and programs within the University are represented is up to the University administration. £ - Concerning the make-up of the Sanctuary Management Committee, in addition to a "representative of local Apalachicola Bay resource users, selected by the Franklin County Commission," there should also be a representative of the local land resource users, since we are talking about a land resource management committee. £ - An estuary concerns both the land and the sea. We and the State of Florida feel it is best to let Franklin County decide who is to represent its citizens. £ - The DEIS states, "The economic benefits associated with the maintenance of valuable fishing and wildlife resources are expected to far outweigh the relatively minor negative impacts resulting from preclusion of future timber harvesting. • ." First, we do not see that timber harvesting would preclude "maintenance of valuable fishing and wildlife resources. Furthermore, we do not think that the draftee of this statement has an adequate understanding of the economic benefits lost by precluding timber harvest. We would ask that a thorough analysis of economic losses be done prior to making such statements. (Ref. p. 24, paragraph 2). R_ - It was never considered that timber harvesting precludes the mainte- nance of fishing and wildlife resources. This benefit is merely a side effect of preserving the area for research and educational purposes. The statement you have quoted was intended to balance the benefits against the losses of sanctuary establishment and we do consider the restriction on forestry potential to be a loss. However, the land proposed for purchase is marginal timber, not currently being forested, so the loss is minimal. £ - The Estuarine Sanctuary Guidelines, under section 921.5, say that, "While the primary purpose of estuarine sanctuaries is to provide long term protection for natural areas so that they may be used for scientific and educational purposes, multiple-use of estuarine sanctuaries will be encouraged to the extent that such use is compatible with this primary sanctuary purpose." We would certainly agree that site conversion by means of drainage and intensive site preparation and tree planting would not be compatible with the sanctuary management objectives, but a less intensive silvicultural practice such as selection cutting might well be. Further, under "Subpart C - Selection Criteria" for grants to establish estuarine sanctuaries (p. 19926, Section 921.20), it was noted that one of the aspects examined in awarding grants is the amount of "Conflict with existing or potential competing uses." We would suggest that one method of reducing conflict over future potential use of the land for management of renewable natural resources would be to include some provision now for making as many uses of this land compatible as is possible. (That is, allow timber harvesting within guidelines established by the Sanctuary Management Committee). R^ - It is currently our opinion that even non-intensive sivil culture practices like selection cutting would be disruptive to the sensi- tive scientific experiments expected to occur within the proposed sanctuary. Actually, since the land is being purchased to preserve the area in its natural state, there is no need to harvest any timber. There are still millions of acres of land available for timber harvest within the Apalachicola watershed. £ - In the section of the DEIS that reported the proceedings of the Conservation Foundation Workshop, several research needs were high- lighted (p. 21). Several of these needs, specifically items 3, 5, 7, and 11 are being addressed in research being conducted by the Intensive Management Practices Assessment Center at the University of Florida School of Forest Resources and Conservation. Yet there has been no attempt to include this research, or the scientists doing it, in the proposal for the Estuarine Sanctuary. We feel they should be included. R^ - Comment accepted. The University of Florida is to be on the Sub- committee on Research and Education. We are confident that the University will alert the Sanctuary Management Committee of all nearby ongoing non-manipulative research that can be benefited by the sanctuary or that can be of benefit. Presumably, such research will include that which you have mentioned. £ - We feel that Appendix VI is both adequate and fair as an assessment of the socioeconomic impact of the establishment of the sanctuary. The section on Forestry lacks a table that would show the value of the harvest of timber in Franklin County. We do feel that if the draftees of this proposal insist on precluding timber harvest operations in any form in the sanctuary, a full analysis of the opportunity costs referred to in this section would be in order. R^ - As mentioned in Appendix VI, the opportunity costs are anticipated to be relatively low and will be partially offset by other benefits. In addition, the land will be purchased at fair market value, reflecting the present value of the timber to the economy. Franklin County Board of Commissioners, Apalachicola, Florida (Robert Howell, 6/7/79) £ - The Apalachicola Sanctuary proposal is entirely within Franklin County. The Board of Commissioners is not opposed to transportation on the Tri- River system nor the proper use of the Apalachicola. R^ - Comment accepted. £- Franklin County has spent in excess of $1,000,000 for scientific study of the river system and is dedicated to conservation, protection, and continuation of the seafood industry, recreation, transportation, and the esthetic beauty of the Apalachicola River. R_ - Comment accepted. £- Dr. Robert J. Livingston requested Mr. Howell to read his comments into the record. R^ - Responses to these comments are contained elsewhere in the FEIS. Florida Division of State Planning, Tallahassee, Florida (R.6. Whittle Jr., 6/29/79) £ - The sanctuary will provide an excellent mechanism for managing the important State resource. £ - Comment accepted. £ - The Management Committee should include a local land resource user representative, and the University of Florida should be included on the subcommittee on Research and Education. The Florida Water Management District is required to manage surface waters within the northwest Florida area and therefore should be a voting member of the Management Committee. The Florida Department of State should be a part of the Management Committee and should be represented on the Subcommittee on Research and Education. Further dialogue between the responsible agencies and the Florida Department of Agriculture is necessary. R^ - Comment accepted. Most of the changes have been incorporated into the FEIS. The University of Florida and the Florida Department of State will be represented on the subcommittee on Research and Education and the Florida Water Management District will have a non-voting representative on the Management Committee. Appropriate communication with the Florida Department of Agriculture is encouraged. £- Navigation must be preserved and reasonable improvements to highways and bridges within the sanctuary must be allowable. R_ - See General Response A. Such projects are not prohibited if they will have no significant impacts upon research and education within the sanctuary. C_ - There should be a memorandum of understanding between the Florida DNR and the Sanctuary Management Committee (SMC) establishing roles. (Reference p. 12, paragraph 2). The role of the Sanctuary coordinator also must be clarified. Is the Manager accountable to both the Management Committee and the DNR? R. - Comment accepted. We agree that when the sanctuary has been approved by OCZM and the Management Committee has been formed, discussions be- tween DNR and the SMC regarding their respective roles, responsibilities, and relationships will be necessary, and a memorandum of understanding would be in order at that time. The Sanctuary Coordinator will obvi- ously have to work closely with the SMC as the advisory committee, but will ultimately be accountable to the DNR as his/her employer. £ - In the DEIS, silviculture is identified as a use of the land that would ". . .destroy or alter the nature of the ecosystem." Silvi- culture practices in general are not guilty of this. £ - Comment accepted. Language in the FEIS is changed. £ - The School of Forest Resources and Conservation and the Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Center for Environmental and Natural Resources Programs at the University of Florida should be included by name on the Subcommittee on Research and Education. £ - The University of Florida has been added to the Subcommittee on Research and Education. The University has the privilege of appointing its representatives. £ - Page 24, paragraph 2. Timber harvesting does not necessarily preclude "maintenance of valuable fishing and wildlife resources." The draftee of the EIS does not understand the economic benefits lost by precluding timber harvesting. F[ - See earlier response to Mr. Harold Hoffman. £ - One method of reducing conflict over future land use would be to include some provision now for making as many uses of this land as compatible as possible. R^ - Multiple uses are encouraged as long as they do not interfere with sanctuary goals of research and education. The appropriate agencies, with the advice of the Management Committee, will determine the mul- tiple uses that are compatible. £ - Research done by the Intensive Management Practices Assessment Center at the University of Florida School of Forest Resources and Conservation should be considered. R^ - Comment accepted. The results at this research project will be made available. To further the sanctuary research and education goals, the Sanctuary Coordinator will be encouraged to establish close working relationships with all nearby research and educational institutions on an ongoing basis. Apalachee Regional Planning Council (ARPC), Blountstown, Florida (Ed Leuchs, S////9) C - The ARPC concurs with the proposed use of Federal funds matched with ~" Florida funds for the land purchase of the sanctuary. ARPC concurs with the findings of the DEIS, and particularly concurs that the DEIS is in ;, agreement with the overall Economic Development Plan adopted by the Apalachee Regional Planning Council in October 1978. ARPC agrees with the partnership between Franklin County and State of Florida for management of the resource. The Executive Board of the ARPC passed a resolution by each of the counties in the Apalachicola River Basin opposing any dam on the Apalachicola River and concurring with Governor Graham's position on the River. (Submitted with testimony) R - Comment accepted. Gulf County Commissioners, Wewahitchka, Florida (Douglas C. Birmingham, 6/7/79) £ - The Commission supports creation of the estuarine sanctuary and opposes damming and further dredging of the Apalachicola River. £ - Comment accepted; however, see General Response A. Jackson County Port Authority, Sneads, Florida (Homer B. Hirt, Jr., 6/7/75) £ - The Port Authority does not think the sanctuary is necessary or desirable, and requests deferral of the proposed sanctuary until navigation and spoil disposal can be studied. Barge movement through the port is essential for fuel, agriculture, and fertilizer cargo, which is a major base of Jackson County economy. £ - See General Response A. Adoption of a long term disposal plan is expected to be completed within approximately one year of the establishment of the estuarine sanctuary. We are aware that movement of goods is a major economic factor for Jackson County. £ - The proposal does not provide safeguards to ensure navigation improvements approved by Congress. R - See General Response B. £ - Port Authority requests representation in further planning meetings. £ - The Jackson County Port Authority is represented by the Resource Users Subcommittee for the proposed Management Committee. Jackson County Commission, S neads, Florida (Thomas Tyus, 6/7/7$) C_ - Reflected on the early settlement of the Apalachicola River; sees an indication that some people want to go back in that direction, but does not think it is necessary. We can have both recreational use of the river and share it for other uses. The Governors of the three States should be able to decide on the long range use of the river before the funds are dispersed for the sanctuary. £ - The Governors will hold a joint meeting on July 31, 1979, on the uses of the river bay and any potential conflicts caused by the sanctuary. OCZM does not believe, however, that all issues must be resolved prior to approving the sanctuary. Town of Sneads, Sneads, Florida (J. P. McDaniel and Adell DeHont, 6/4/79) £ - Request further consideration of sanctuary designation be deferred until definite plans are established for providing a year-round navl gatlon channel, Including designation of spoil disposal sites, 1n the areas to be covered by the proposed sanctuary. R^ - See General Response A. State of Georgia, Executive Secretary to Governor Busbee (Tom Perdue, 8/7/79) £ - Georgia's policy relative to Estuarlne Sanctuaries 1s supportive, but also recognizes the need for balance among competing demands on natural resources. The major unresolved concern 1s navigation and Its economic Impact upon Georgia, especially since the economics of waterway transportation 1s used as an Inducement to relocating Industries. Navigation has been held up because needed snagging and dredging operations haven't been done. R^ - See General Response A. A statement regarding the Impact on waterway transportation has been added to the FEIS, and a desnagglng permit has been Issued by the State of Florida. £ - Dredging and snagging alone will not provide a reliable 9' x 100' channel, and the Corps has studied alternatives. Concern also expressed over the vagueness of Section 307(e)(1) of the Coastal Zone Management Act and the potential conflict with language 1n Section 921.5 of the Estuarlne Sanc- tuary Guidelines. Stronger language from Section 404(t) of the Clean Water Act of 1977 1s suggested. R^ - The question and conflict over structural alterations to the Apalachicola will remain open. The State of Florida has certain policies regarding such alterations, and these policies are reproduced within the Appendix. Estuarine sanctuary status will neither preclude the Corps's proceeding with Its plan- ning alternative for the river, nor Florida's continuing to establish policy for the river. More Importantly, OCZM has agreed that it will not oppose any agreement the Governors of the three States make except 1n the unusual cir- cumstance where the sanctuary could not be used for research or education. The stronger language of Section 404(t) of the Clean Water Act has been added to the FEIS. £ - Requests postponing the sanctuary grant until a comprehensive navigation plan Including spoil disposal 1s developed and accepted by the three Governors. R^ - It has been stated that the sanctuary will not interfere with such a plan approved by the Governors. However, from a practical point of view it will be impossible to draw up a navigation plan without a comprehensive plan for all competing uses--including recreation, drinking water, hydro- electric generation, and water quality and quantity. The spoil disposal plan will be developed within one year. See General Responses A and B. Atlanta Regional Commission, Atlanta, Georgia (Paul B. Kelman, 6/15/79) C_ - Because of the interrelated nature of the problems and resources of the A-C-F River basin, the State of Georgia should have a representative on the Management Committee. A representative of the Georgia DNR would probably be appropriate. F[ - See General Responses A and C. The State of Georgia will have input directly to the Management Committee through the voting member representing the Florida DER. £ - In the DEIS, Appendix 6 discusses the impact of the proposal on the water supply in the A-C-F River system. Only metropolitan Atlanta's water supply is discussed including a statement that says, "it is unlikely that Atlanta will be able to withdraw water from the Chattahoochee River in the magnitudes necessary to meet its projected demands." In our opinion, The Atlanta Region can meet its water supply needs beyond the year 2000 with proper management. It is presumptuous of OCZM and the Florida Bureau CZM to suggest otherwise. R_ - The source of this evaluation of Atlanta's potential water supply need and the availability of water from the Chattahoochee River is the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah District, Metropolitan Atlanta Area Water Resources Study: Summary Report , September, 1978. Georgia Ports Authority. Savanna, Georgia (George J.Nichols, 6/6/79) £ - The true impacts of the sanctuary on commerce within the river basin of the Chattachoochee, Flint, and Apalachicola Rivers have not been assessed by OCZM. R_ - See General Responses A & D. Sanctuary establishment will have no impact upon interstate commerce, and cannot, by law, as stated in the FEIS. £ - The sanctuary will compound regulatory problems associated with dredging required for channel maintenance by the Army Corps of Engineers. R^ - See General Response A. £ - A much more thorough analysis by the Department of Commerce of the primary and secondary effects of the sanctuary should be undertaken prior to furnishing funds for sanctuary establishment. R_ - See General Response D. We feel that the Environmental Consequences Section and Appendix VI adequately cover all sanctuary impacts. £ - The statements that there will be no negative impact on waterborne navigation are not supported by good evidence. R^ - See General Responses A, B, & D. Specific impacts were not brought to our attention, hence we feel the FEIS describes accurately any impacts. £- Alternatives to the sanctuary proposal, elsewhere in Florida or in other States, would have less impact on commercial navigation. £ - This may be true but the EIS recognizes that the sanctuary is located on an interstate navigable body of water and that the rights of navi- gation are preserved. There should be no adverse economic impact on navigation at the currently authorized levels of maintenance. £ - Ecological restoration could be interpreted as meaning restoration of traditional disposal areas used to maintain the navigation channel. R_ - The spoil disposal plan to be completed within one year should determine the best use of spoil disposal areas. £ - Corps of Engineers studies show that some channel improvements would actually help some fish and benthic organisms. R^ - Comments accepted. Chattahoochee River Basin Development Commission . Atlanta, Georqia (Burton J. Bell, 5/30/7$) ' ' *— £ - Sanctuary should have no effect on the 9' X 100' channel from from Columbus, GA, to the Chattahoochee because it is already guaranteed. R - This is a true statement and is verified in General Response B. £ - Sanctuary research on Atlanta's water needs is unnecessary and the navigation lock chamber in Blountstown would have no effect upon the Apalachicola. £ - There is a difference of opinion on both of these subjects between the various users of the Tri -River system. In any event, the research done in Florida cannot force Georgia into any particular course of action; it can only be used as baseline research to assist decisionmakers when planning for multiple uses within the Tri-River system. The consideration of a low navi- gation lock chamber by the Corps is not specifically precluded by establishment of an estuarine sanctuary— nor is any other alternative-- as outlined in General Response B. £ - A 20 mile segment should not dictate uses of the entire river. R_ - We basically agree with this statement. Careful consideration went into the DEIS to distinguish the estuarine sanctuary from other issues. Language changes have been made in the FEIS, and discussed in General Responses A & B, in order to clarify the relationship of the estuarine sanctuary to other present activities/uses of the A-C-F river system. Southwest Georgia Planning and Development Commission, Camilla, G eorgia (Bob Thomas, 6?7/79) £ - The composition of the Management Committee discriminates against Alabama and Georgia by denying representation. R - See General Response C. £ - The DEIS ignores biogeographic studies that indicate better examples of estuaries within the Louisianian region. The "do nothing" alternative received no attention at all. R^ - See Appendix II. A well known national panel of estuarine scientists stated that: "The Apalachicola ecosystem is the best choice for a Louisianian province representative of the National Estuarine Sanctuary System." Other sites were rejected as not being comparable to the Apalachicola proposals. The "do nothing" alternative was explored, but unless the application submitted lacked merit, a refusal to award the grant serves no useful purpose. The sanctuary proposal is a function of various States submitting applications. No other States in the Louisianian biogeographic region have suggested alternatives. £ - "Channels" and "Existing Channels" are not defined in the EIS: "Existing Channels" should be replaced with words "assuming the 9' x 100' channel is maintained." Concern also exists over limitations of transportation and other uses through Florida relative to the minimum flow requirements for the sanctuary. A study of adequate flow for the sanctuary should precede any final decision on a grant. R^ - Definitions and new language have been added to FEIS. There will be no limitation of transportation on the Apalachicola due to minimum flow standards. The setting of minimum flow standards 1s already required by Florida Law - Chapter 373, F.S. General Response B indicates that Florida standards apply to Florida only. £ - What will the impact be 1f the Apalachicola naturally changes its course? R^ - If the Apalachicola River naturally changes Its course, the authority of the Corps of Engineers to maintain the river at the 9' X 100' level still exists. It would still be a navigable river. The State of Florida has recognized the appropriate Federal rights in General Responses A and B. The proposal to construct no new channels until a spoil disposal plan is complete does not change the fact that there are currently two authorized waterway systems that will continue to operate and that this constraint applies to Florida only. The spoil disposal plan will be complete within one year and 1s designed to make maintenance dredging cost efficient, limit any delays that could occur because spoil disposal was not adequately addressed by the Corps of Engineers, and define the least environmentally damaging alternative disposal sites for the entire system. C - Sanctuary creation should be withheld until the three States enter into a compact. Levels of utilization should be determined and assurances given regarding river navigation. R^ - Assurances have been given regarding river navigation in General Responses A and B. As previously stated, and evidenced by the Tr1 -State Governors' meeting set for July 31, 1979, the sanctuary Itself will not preclude negotiations and agreements among the three States to resolve any use conflicts that may arise within the A-C-F system. Albany Chamber of Commerce, Albany, Georgia (Steve Bailey, 6/7/79) C_ - There 1s no need for the State of Florida to purchase 12,467 acres of land for the sanctuary, since the current managing agencies of this alreacty publicly owned land would continue to represent the State, and the existing land uses would not change. R^ - There is a misunderstanding over the sanctuary boundary and the land proposed for purchase. As can be seen in the FEIS, 3,800 of the 12,467 acres are owned by St. Joe Land and Development Company, 1,900 are owned by Elberta Crate and Box Company, 1,550 by U.S. Home Corporation, etc. None of the land proposed for purchase is publicly owned. £ - Alabama and Georgia do not have adequate representation on the management committee for this proposed sanctuary. These States currently have one such representative who is required to work through an agency of Florida, the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. R^ - See General Response C. £ - It 1s strongly urged that sanctuary designation be withheld until the three States affected by the use of the river for navigation have entered agreement and have defined the acceptable levels of utilization pf the river and the extent to which the assurance of the availability of the river for navigation is agreed upon. This concern is not adequately dealt with in the DEIS. R^ - See General Response A. £ - In the DEIS section on navigation, there are no definitions of "channels" or "existing channels." Thus, 1n order to insure a future for water- borne transportation on the river, these references should be deleted and words that will assure a 100 foot wide, 9 foot deep channel throughout the entire length of the river should be used. R^ - Comment accepted. Appropriate language has been added to the FEIS. £ - The FEIS should contain a provision saying that sanctuary designation will not Interfere with or prevent the State of Florida and the Army Corps of Engineers from developing a long term spoil disposal plan for this area. R - Comment accepted. See General Responses A and B. £ - Although there are DEIS references (e.g., p. 12) to water flow levels, the complete environmental stucjy should include whether or not adequate flow can be achieved to assure a typical, naturally viable environment. The FEIS should establish the full interaction between the proposed sanctuary and present uses of the river. If these uses are not compatible, then the sanctuary should not be designated. R - It is Impossible to be certain now whether a typical, naturally viable waterflow can be achieved. This will be one of the priorities of the proposed Management Committee after sanctuary establishment. The setting of minimum flow standards 1s required by existing Florida Law. These standards will apply for the Apalachicola River, Including the portion within the proposed sanctuary boundaries. See General Response B. £ - Although there are DEIS references (e.g. p. 13) to Florida Statute authority over the river, there are no statements with regard to upstream authority. This should be clarified. R^ - See General Response B. £ - On page 14 of the DEIS, the proposed prohibited activities discuss the creation of new navigation channels. Does this mean that 1f the river naturally alters Its channel, the State of Florida will use this as a reason for prohibiting the dredging for clearance of a 100' wide, 9' deep navigation channel? This should be clarified. £ - Should the river naturally alter its course, the status of the Cong- ressional ly authorized 100' wide, 9* deep channel will remain the same, I.e. maintenance dredging will continue. £ - The functions of the Sanctuary Management Committee (DEIS, p. 18) are not detailed clearly enough to delineate who 1s to have responsibility for restoration projects and how such projects affect the Bay. This should be clarified. £ - Any restoration projects will be the responsibility of the appropriate Florida agency. The Sanctuary Management Committee will advise on the Impacts of such projects before their undertaking. £ - No real work has been done to show what Impact the proposal will have on local areas, such as counties affected by and benefiting from the river. £ - Florida and OCZM feels that the Environmental Consequences Section and Appendix VI adequately explain the impacts on local areas. See General Response D. £ - The recommendation on page 29 of the DEIS that the three State Governors form a body for resolving problems arising from use of the river should be made a requirement before approval of the sanctuary. R^ - Comment accepted. The three Governors are scheduled to meet on July 31, 1979, and 1t 1s up to their discretion as to which solutions may be employed to any problems which may exist 1n the Tri -River System. £ - The statements 1n the DEIS, p. 10 that the sanctuary 1s consistent with the policies and plans of all affected levels of government and that completion of a spoil disposal plan 1s the highest research priority are not true. Georgia and Alabama have River policies conflicting with Florida, and no provision for a spoil disposal plan 1s made, as pointed out In our earlier comment. R^ - See General Response A. If policies are different than those outlined 1n the DEIS, we were not so advised. Bainbridge and Decatur Counties, Georgia (Winston Brock, 6/7/79) City of Bainbridge, Georgia (B. K. Reynolds, 6/6/79) Bainbridge and Decatur County Chamber of Commerce, Blakely, Georgia (J. David Wansley, 5/30/59) City of Blakely, Blakely, Georgia (G. H. Dunaway, 6/5/79) Blakely-Early County Chamber of Commerce, Blakely, Georgia (Wayne R. Foster, 5/30/79) Board of Commissioners, Decatur County, Georgia (J. Clifford Dallas, 6/5/79) Decatur County Farm Bureau, Bainbridge, Georgia (Bernard Rentz, 6/6/79) Decatur County-Bainbridge Industrial Development Authority, Bainbridge , Georgia (John E. Provenci, 6/4//9) Board of Commissioners, Dougherty County, Georgia (Gil Barrett, 6/4/79) Commissioners of Early 'County, Georgia (E. C. Scarborough, 6/7/79) Pel ham Chamber of Commerce, Pel ham, Georgia (J. Donohue Tennyson, 6/6/79) £ - Presented four resolutions requesting OCZM and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to hold in abeyance any designation of an estuarlne sanctuary until further studies of both alternate areas and the availability of transportation, and until adequate Input 1s given by the States of Georgia and Alabama and their local governments and development groups. £ - See General Responses A and F. City of Camilla, Georgia (Lewis B. Campbell, 6/11/79) £ - Resolution stating the economic importance of all modes of transportation to the area. The continuing problems with navigation on the Tri-River system will be further complicated by the proposed estuarine sanctuary. The State of Florida has not investigated all of the alternatives to designation of this specific estuarine area. Also, Georgia and Alabama have had little opportunity for input. Requests delay of designation until further study of alternative sites is done, assurances of availability of transportation on the Tri-River system are given, and processes and procedures have been developed to allow adequate input from Alabama and Georgia. R^ - See General Responses A & D for comments regarding navigation, especially maintenance dredging, in relation to Alabama and Georgia. As indicated previously, Florida went through an extensive process over several years to propose Apalachicola as an estuarine sanctuary. In October 1978, a workshop composed of nationally recognized scientists reaffirmed Apalachicola as the best possible site within the Louisianian biogeo- graphic region. Alabama and Georgia were notified approximately one and one-half years in advance of the proposed sanctuary. OCZM feels that all alternative areas have been adequately examined and accepts Apalachicola as the proposed site. Additionally, no other State within this region has seriously proposed a competing alternative site to OCZM. See General Response C regarding Alabama and Georgia's input into the Sanctuary Management Committee. Mayor's Office, Columbus, Georgia (Harry C. Jackson, 6/6/79) C - Has no objection to the proposed estuarine sanctuary as long as it 1s clearly assured that it will in no way impair navi- gation on the waterway. £ - Comment accepted. OCZM believes that the sanctuary would not Impact upriver navigation Interests. See General Response A. Sierra Club, Gulf Coast Regional Conservation Committee, Baton Rouge, Louisiana (Doris Falkenheiner, 6/11/79) ~~ £ - Whereas the Apalachicola Bay is such a productive resource and the delta, floodplains, and wetlands are essential to the continued economic viability of the Apalachicola Valley community, and whereas the designation of a sanctuary will not halt river navigation, resolved that the GCRCC of the Sierra Club vigorously reaffirms its support of the National Estuarine Sanctuary, which will provide a balanced and equitable resource management program. £ - Resolution accepted. Sierra Club, Chattahoochee Chapter, At lanta, Georgia (Sally Sierer, 6/15/7$) £- Establishment of the sanctuary will assist environmentally sound develop- ment and create a better basis for decisionmaking concerning long term protection of the Apalachicola. Requests Governor Busbee's endorsement of the proposal. R^ - Comment accepted. Sierra Club, Cahaba Group, Alabaster, Alabama (Ernest McMeans, 6/16/79) £ - Supports Florida's application for a sanctuary grant and opposes any new channel on the Chattahoochee until a long term spoil disposal plan can be completed. £ - Comment accepted. The sanctuary designation, however, has no impact on the channelization of the Chattahoochee River. Sierra Club, Chattahoochee Chapter, Wiregrass Gr oup, Dothan, Alabama (Darryl Wiley, 6/14/7$) £ - Strongly supports the principle of having an Apalachicola Estuarine Sanctuary to provide good recreation as well as sport and commercial fishing for the Tri -State area. R_ - Comment accepted. Bar rier Islands Coalition, Washington, D.C. (Dinesh Sharma, 5/16/7S) C - Strongly supports the sanctuary since it will provide a rare opportunity ~" for scientific studies of an unaltered ecosystem, which will develop base- line data, provide habitats, and protect a unique natural heritage. £ - Comment accepted, C - Recommends inclusion of all barrier islands and Lake Wimico/Jackson River " floodplains. Declare Tate's Hell Swamp, Indian Swamp, and the Barrier Islands as areas of special concern. R - See General Response E. The areas mentioned above are unique and deserve special attention. However, they are not within the boundaries of the sanctuary and the "sanctuary" cannot control their uses. This is the proper function of local and State planning agencies under State and local law. C - Requests OCZM monitor the sanctuary and the management framework. R - OCZM is an ex-officio member of the Management Committee and will assist in establishing the sanctuary in a positive manner. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., Washington, D.C. (Peter S. Holmes, 7/5/79) £ - States that the $1.8 million grant represents a sound investment of public funds to protect a highly productive and valuable estuarine system. This grant also furthers the intent of the President's Executive Orders on Wetlands and Floodplain Management (#11990 and #11988). £ - Comment accepted. £ - Notes the weaknesses in Florida's proposed management plan, namely having too many agencies involved rather than having the Florida Department of Natural Resources act as the sole State management agency. The FEIS must thoroughly examine alternative management schemes to ensure that the sanctuary will maintain those values for which it is being designated. £ - Any management scheme for an estuarine sanctuary will of necessity involve many elements and will therefore be complex. The Florida DNR will manage the sanctuary through a full-time Sanctuary Coordinator who will be employed by DNR. However, to preserve the interest and enthusiasm of all of the local entities affected by the use of the sanctuary, a Management Committee with advisory powers is a useful and valuable arm of management. £ - Control of the severe septic leachate problem around Apalachicola Bay is not addressed adequately in the, DEIS. NOAA should provide a minimum of i $150,000 to help Florida manage this sanctuary, j £ - The State of Florida is aware of the septic leachate problem. One obvious research project connected with sanctuary designation is to discover how bad the leachate pollution problem is and how much it will cost to overcome it. Florida may apply to N0AA/0CZM for an operations grant whenever it is appropriate. £ - The sanctuary boundaries should encompass Dog Island because it provides a nearly pristine wildlife habitat, and acts as a protective storm buffer for the bay. Development of Dog Island would adversely affect surrounding water quality. Acquiring Dog Island now while it is undeveloped should be given high priority. R^ - See General Response E. Were more funds available for acquisition, Dog Island would be given high priority. As funding is limited, it is not possible to go ahead with this recommendation. £ - The FEIS should elaborate on how the natural rhythmic fluctuations and flow patterns of the estuary's freshwater inputs will be maintained. Florida, with NOAA's assistance, must seek out strong agreements with Alabama and Georgia to ensure a free flowing river system. R^ - Given the size and interstate nature of the watershed vs. the size of sanctuary, it is impossible to ensure a free flowing river system. The river system is currently regulated to some degree for transportation, power, and other purposes. It is not felt that the approval of the sanc- tuary should be contingent upon a Tri -State agreement to prevent any future consideration of water control projects. Florida has the authority to oppose such structures within the State but not outside the State. Alabama and Georgia have strongly emphasized their concerns that their future v/ater resource development options not be taken away by the sanctuary. Florida recognizes that agreements are necessary with Alabama and Georgia to ensure Apalachicola water quality and quantity. Sierra Club, Gulf Coast Regional Conservation Committee, Baton Rouge, Louisiana (Doris Falkenheiner, 6/11/79) £ - Whereas the Apalachicola Bay is such a productive resource and the delta, floodplains, and wetlands are essential to the continued economic viability of the Apalachicola Valley community, and whereas the designation of a sanctuary will not halt river navigation, resolved that the GCRCC of the Sierra Club vigorously reaffirms its support of the National Estuarine Sanctuary, which will provide a balanced and equitable resource management program. R - Resolution accepted. The Apalachico la Committee, Tallahassee, Florida (Mr. Ed Conklin, 6/29/79) C^ - This committee, a policymaking advisory body composed of local, regional, and State agency representatives, passed without dissent the following resolution on June 27, 1979 (summarized): Acknowledges that the primary purpose of the National Estuarine Sanc- tuary Program is to provide for long term protection for natural areas, and that multiple uses, when compatible with maintenance of the ecosystems for scientific and educational purposes, are encouraged; that the management plan provides for local participation and representation in policymaking; and that hunting, timber, commercial, sport fishing, and existing barge transportation interests are protected in the management plan. The committee states that the continued well-being of the Apalachicola Bay and River System is essential to the commercial seafood industry and other waterborne traffic, including fishing boats. The committee supports the proposal to designate the lower Apalachicola River and Bay as a National Estuarine Sanctuary. R. - Resolution accepted. Florida Audubon Society, Mai t land, Florida (Archie Carr III, 6/21/79) C_ - Apalachicola Bay contributes to the productivity of the Gulf of Mexico and the Apalachicola River. Preserving the complex ecosystem intact is of incomparable value to all concerned. Without sanctuary status, these values will be lost. £ - Comment accepted. C_ - The inclusion of Tate's Hell Swamp in the sanctuary is strongly endorsed. R - See General Response E. Florida Defenders of the Environment, Gainesville, Florida (Marjorie H. Carr, 6/12/79) C_ - Strongly supports the effort to create the sanctuary because 1) there are obvious benefits from protecting the natural environment, including economic benefits, and 2) creation of the sanctuary will not interfere with other current uses of the river and bay, including navigation. R^ - Comment accepted. C_ - Recommends that Tate's Hell Swamp and privately owned portions of St. George Island be added to the sanctuary or regulated to prevent adverse impact on the estuarine system. £ - See General Response E. Florida Federation of Garden Clubs, Inc., Winter Park, Florida (Mrs. Dursie Ekman, 6/13/79) C_- Board of Directors passed resolution endorsing Florida's application j for a matching grant from the Federal Government to purchase additional lands and establish a sanctuary for protection of Apalachlcola Bay and River. R - Comment accepted. Live Oak Garden Club, Suwannee County, Florida (Ileen C. Moore, Marilyn B. Fowler, 6/18/79) £ - Requests that the estuarine sanctuary be extended to the Apalachicola River. R - A portion of the river, approximately 21 miles, bordered by publicly owned lands, already owned or to be acquired, will be within the sanctuary boundary. Atlanta Audubon Society, Atlanta, Georgia (Elmer Butler, 6/15/79) £ - Urges acquisition of land for the sanctuary to preserve the nutrients for oysters (90% of Florida production), shrimp, blue crabs, and various finfish. R - Comment accepted. Columbus Chamber of Commerce, Columbus, Georgia (Joe Ragland, 6/7/79) ' £ - Columbus Chamber of Commerce takes no position concerning the estuarine sanctuary so long as its establishment does not impinge in any way upon the navigibility of the A-C-F waterway. R_ - See General Responses A & B. C_ - The navigation channel on the waterway seems to be worsening. £ - Sanctuary status should have a positive impact upon the channel because of the dredge spoil disposal plan that will be completed in a years time. £ - The Columbus Chamber of Commerce advocates the resolution of outstanding problems associated with maintenance of mandated navigation standards before progressing further with the sanctuary. R - Comment accepted. See General Comment A. Georgia Clean Water Coalition, Atlanta, Georgia (Jo Jones, 6/14/79) C_ - The estuary is part of the food chain and is irreplaceable. Applauds Florida for its foresight in requesting sanctuary status. Deplores spoil disposal in the wetlands and cites other wetlands that are now covered up, leaving no choice but to haul the spoils elsewhere at $6-10/cubic yard, which is less cost in the long run than ruining the wetlands. £ - Comment accepted. The Georgia Conservancy, Savannah, Georgia (Hans Neuhauser, 6/18/79) Z_ - Notes that the present Tri -River controversy goes back to 1874 when the Congress authorized a channel to Columbus on the Chattahoochee and to Bainbridge on the Flint. The river traffic to Columbus and Bainbridge never developed as planned; yet the Federal government continues to subsidize transportation. In considering competing values, the mainten- ance of the food chain and viability of fin fish and shellfish production is primary; hence the need for the sanctuary. £ - OCZM is not in a position to say that river transportation has not developed to the level originally envisioned. The comment, otherwise, is accepted. Southeastern Wildlife Services, Inc., Athens, Georgia (Billy Hillestad, 5/Z1//9) C_ - Served as the Workshop Panel Chairman of the Aquatic and Terrestrial Life Panel (see Section IV, p. 23 of Appendix), and has no further comments on what is contained in the Panel's report. £ - Mr. Hillestad's work at the Apalachicola Symposium is very much appreciated and his comment is accepted. Samuel T. Adams. Apalachic ola, F lorida" (5/29/79) C_ - Freezing Apalachicola Bay in its present state may perpetuate past environmental errors (e.g. Bob Sikes cut, spoil islands). Recommends spoil disposal plan before sanctuary establishment. £ - The Sanctuary will not be "frozen" in its present state but can evolve within the proposed sanctuary management structure under Florida Law. The proposed spoil disposal plan should help to alleviate the problem of past environmentally inappropriate disposal sites. OCZM does not feel any useful positive purpose would be served by delaying estuarine sanctuary establishment until a spoil disposal plan is completed. Steps are already being taken by Florida to develop a spoil disposal plan. George Atkins, WKDY, Radio Station. Blo untstown. Florida (6/7/79) ■ £ - Has seen attempts of upstream groups to destroy the river system using the Corps of Engineers, and says it is unthinkable that the people of Florida have no control over the Apalachicola. Notes the threat of a possible spill of hazardous substances from barges. R_ - A priority of the Management Committee will be to develop a hazardous substance spill plan. Patricia E. Bardorf, Birmingham. Alabama (6/21/7$) a I £ - The Apalachicola Bay area is one of the few coastal zones still left in its natural state. Strongly urges designation of the sanctuary. £ - Comment accepted. CO. Beall, Eufaula, Alabama (7/6/79) £- Limits or alterations on normal flow patterns on the A-C-F system would prohibit other uses, such as water supply for cities, flood control, and power generation. These present uses should not be restricted. R_- Establishment of the sanctuary does not alter the current uses of the rivers nor restrict flow patterns. See General Responses A and B. £- Having Alabama's and Georgia's input to the Management Committee accessible only through the Florida DER is too restrictive. R- See General Response C. C- Prohibition of the expansion of new channels would mean an immediate hardship on river navigation. R- See General Response A and B. Restriction on channel expansion is limited to the State of Florida for approximately one year only. £- Reference in the DEIS to continuation of existing permits and spoil disposal practices needs to be clarified. R- The continuation of existing permits basically states that Florida will not hold in abeyance the issuance of maintenance dredging permits and existing spoil disposal practices while a spoil disposal plan is being prepared. See General Responses A and B. £- Under Regional Impacts in the DEIS, a statement is made that designation of the sanctuary could "exacerbate" the present conflicts regarding multiple use of the Tri -River system. This cannot be justified and the grant should be postponed. £- The current conflicts have existed in the past and will continue into the future regardless of whether an estuarine sanctuary is established. We expect that the sanctuary will act as a catalyst to help resolve differences. This has already occurred, as seen by the meeting of the Governors of Alabama, Georgia, and Florida on July 31, 1979. We feel that any differences or conflicts can be solved with the establishment of the estuarine sanctuary, and there is no cause to delay the grant for this particular reason. Joe and Dottie McCain, Birmingham, Alabama C_ - Sanctuary is needed to help protect the bay area from agricultural runoff and drainage, but supports continuing research, fisheries, recreation, and navigation in the sanctuary. R - Comment accepted. Gary Dav is, Birmingham, Alabama (6/17/75) £- Supports the grant for acquisition. Opposes further channelization of the Chattahoochee. R^ - Comment accepted. Sanctuary, however, will not impose restrictions on the Chattahoochee River. Tom Cullen, Middle town, Virginia (6/17/79) — C_ - Supports purchase of lands for sanctuary and opposes further channelization of Chattahoochee. R^ - Comment accepted. Sanctuary will not impose restrictions on the Chattahoochee River. Charles Frvling, Jr. .Baton Rouge, Louisiana (7/15/79) C_- Supports the designation of Apalahicola Bay as a National Estuarine Sanctuary because this will help preserve the long term productivity of this important area. R- Comment accepted. Sven 0. Lovegren, Decatur, Georgia (6/19/79) £- Urges OCZM to award a grant to Florida for acquisition of land to make a National Estuarine Sanctuary. Based on visits to the area, sees the value at the bay and river for seafood, recreation, water supply, and reasonable navigational usage. Expansion of channels will damage the potential habitat for fish and shellfish. R- Comment accepted. W. W. Glen n, Marianna, Florida (6/7/7$) £ - Jackson County needs the proposed estuarine sanctuary as an experimental station to learn about the estuary. Only a few special interests are against the proposal and the river cannot be used only for transportation. £ - Comment accepted. Dr. Robert Livingston, Ta llahassee. Florida (6/1/7$) ^ l £ - Apalachicola system /is among the most productive in the country and the public should act to support this proposal. R_ - Comment accepted. Charles R. McCoy, Blountstown, Florida (6/4/79) £- Requests Alabama and Georgia input on Management Committee. Also, other jurisdictions such as Apalachicola, Wakulla County, and Gulf County should be represented. The committee should not have an even number of members. Somewhat related is the potential of the Management Committee to influence land use outside of the sanctuary guidelines. R_ - See General Response C. The committee has only advisory capacity over activities outside the sanctuary that may themselves affect the sanctuary. The tier system suggested at the Apalachicola Symposium was not incorporated by Florida into the sanctuary proposal, and has been dropped. £ - How can slant drilling occur if the State owns fee simple title to the land? Slant drilling should have to await a long term plan similar to spoil disposal. R_ - Slant drilling could occur if the State itself leased the mineral rights to an oil company. Since the possibility of oil in this area is very remote, a plan does not seem to be warranted at this time. However, if this situation changed, Federal and State law is sufficient to warrant an environmental assessment of energy development in the Apalachi- cola Bay Region. £ - The University of Florida's interest in wetlands warrants its inclusion on the the Research and Education Subcommittee. R^ - Comment accepted. This change is included in the FEIS. George Kir vin, Apalachicola, Florida (6/777$) C - Through proper care of the Bay, the seafood Industry can expand to millions of dollars worth of seafood, employ hundreds of workers, and feed thousands of people. Channelization of the river and building of the Jim Woodruff Dam upset the mixture of salt and fresh water in the Bay, bringing in seafood predators that destroyed 50% of the commercial oyster beds. If another dam is built on the Apalachicola River, we can kill the Bay. R^ - Sanctuary establishment carries with 1t no laws or regulations that can affect the building of another dam. However, 1t is hoped that data obtained from research conducted in the sanctuary will enable decisions concerning such projects to be made more intelligently. A.M. Chason McDaniell, Gainesville, Florida (6/7/79) C_ - We are not interested 1n selling our land. Our homestead is 1n its natural state. The family keeps it 1n Its natural state as a "sanctuary." R^ - "Selling" (i.e. fee simple acquisition) 1s merely one alternative in the negotiation process. Other options Include life estates, easements, etc. We are confident that something can be worked out that will be acceptable to both negotiating parties, since Florida does not have condemnation authority for EEL purchases. C - Objected to the order of the speakers at the public hearing. R - The order was essentially the order of arrival with the exception of various dignitaries and elected officials. Ly1e . A .! Ta y 1or * Huntsville, Alabama (6/12/79) ' C- Urges Governor James's support for the establishment of a National Estuanne Sanctuary as proposed by Florida and praises the kind of thinking that went into the proposal. R- Comment accepted. Dr. C.H. Oppenheimer, Consultant, P or t Aransas, Texas (6/7/79 and 6/15/7d) £ - The DEIS does an inadequate job of documenting the need for an estuarine sanctuary, including site selection. £ - OCZM feels the DEIS and FEIS fully documents the need for the estuarine sanctuary, and the site selected. £ - Questions concept of the term "natural environment," whether the Apalachicola estuary is natural, and whether it would be better to study man's use of the system. R^ - OCZM believes the sanctuary is predominately a natural environmental even though it is not unaltered by man's influences. Man's uses and impact upon the system will be studied in the future as part of the sanctuary research program. £ - The DEIS did not address or provide for a balanced river basin program, since the downstream system comprises only 10 per cent of the river basin system. R_ - It is not the function of the estuarine sanctuary proposal to address these issues if no impacts are caused by the sanctuary. £ - The Corps of Engineers' management of the system would be frustrated by the proposed control. The question of impact on private uplands was not addressed in detail. No mention was made of the regional energy balance. £ - See General Response B. The sanctuary does not affect uplands, nor factors involved in any regional energy balance. £ - Past alterations of the system have not decreased the fisheries output of the system. Management, not preservation, is essential to maintain the continued fisheries output and ecological balance. £ - We are not sure of the effects of past alterations; however, it remains a wery productive fisheries resource. The purpose of the Sanctuary is preservation for research and education. Maintenance of the fisheries resource is but one additional benefit of the sanctuary designation. £ - Dr. Oppenheimer also made a substantial number of marginal comments in the DEIS and it would be too lengthy to repeat them here. £ - Many comments were responded to above. Several were accepted and incorporated into the FEIS and others were rejected or were unclear 1n their meaning. £ - OCZM should not approve the proposed sanctuary until the above items are addressed and total basin planning is made integral with the proposed sanctuary. R^ - Integral basin planning, 1f desired by Alabama, Georgia, and Florida, can still be accomplished if an estuarine sanctuary is established. Ms. Deborah Gail Watson, Birmingham, Alabama (7/2/75) C- Supports having Apalachicola River and Bay designated as a National "" Estuarine Sanctuary and opposes channelization of the Apalachicola. R- Comment accepted. However, the examination of alternatives to reach " the 9' x 100' channel 95 % of the time is still a prerogative of the Corps of Engineers. Alabama Kraft Company, Mahrt, Alabama (CO. Beall, 6/18/79) C - Further study is needed to determine the sanctuary's impact on present use of the river system. Grants should be witheld until firm agreements are reached among the Governors of Alabama, Georgia, and Florida. R - See General Response A. Brent Towing Company Inc., Greenville, Mississippi (Michael M. Measells 6/18/79) £- States that the establishment of an estuarine sanctuary at Apalachicola Bay would, in effect, close the A-C-F river system to barge traffic. Cites damage and danger to towboats given the chronic condition of the river's having too low water depth for adequate bottom clearance, plus the existence of boulders and snags. R^ - See General Responses A and B. The FEIS makes it clear that existing channels can be dredged. The problems upriver that adversely affect barges are not going to be made worse by designating the lower river and bay as a sanctuary. The Buckeye Cellulose Corporation, Perry, Florida (Walter L. Beers, Jr. 6/1S//D) C - Conditionally supports the establishment of the sanctuary but expresses "~ dissatisfaction with the confusing way the DEIS was written, edited, and assembled. Notes that "sanctuary" is a misnomer for an area with such a variety of uses. Expresses concern both over the possibility that boundaries could be extended to acquire more privately owned areas, and over the lack of adequate description of the economic contribution of forestry. £ - Comment accepted. New language and additional editing have been used in the FEIS to overcome some of the problems of the DEIS. "Sanctuary" is the term used in the legislation (Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, 16 USC 1451 et seq .) and we admit that it is confusing. The boundaries are definite at this particular time and any future land acquisition will be done by Florida without OCZM funds. OCZM's maximum legal limit is $2,000,000, which will be reached after operation grants are given. A discussion of forestry is included in Appendix VI. £ - Recommends that the Management Committee be appointed by the Governor of Florida to assure objectivity, and that membership be expanded to include more Florida agencies, e.g. Department of Environmental Regulation, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry, Game and Freshwater Fish Commission, and the State University system. Also recommend adding members from the Sea Grant and Marine Advisory Program, Florida Forestry Association, the U.S. Corps of Engineers, and a key legislator to represent the people. A number of other groups, including the U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Soil Conser- vation Service, and the States of Alabama and Georgia are recommended for membership on the subcommittees. R_ - We disagree that a management committee appointed by the Governor would be more objective per se. Having several agencies select representatives presents a reasonable way, we feel, to get broad representation. Some of the agencies mentioned (DER, DNR, and GFWFC) do select members for the Management Committee. Other agencies, including Florida universities, Sea Grant, the U.S. Corps of Engineers, USFWS, USFS, as well as the States of Alabama and Georgia will have representation on the sub- committees. It is necessary, however, to keep the size of the Management Committee itself limited so that it can make decisions efficiently and effectively. Childress Company, Foley. Alabama (Bruce Childress, 6/7/79) £ - Notes that the DEIS presents socioeconomic characteristics only from the viewpoint of Franklin County and omits the economic impact assessment of the region surrounding the sanctuary and particularly of competing uses of the river system and bay, e.g. navigation. Barge transportation is the safest and most efficent form of bulk transportation in the region, in economic and energy terms; yet, the economic impact of the sanctuary on barge transportation and other uses is left out of the DEIS. £ - OCZM believes that this subject was adequately described in Appendix VI. As shown in General Responses A and B, OCZM's assessment is that barge transportation will not be adversely affected. £ - There is no voting position on the Management Committee given to industry, barge transportation, or commercial developers. Having only one repre- sentative for "Navigational Interests" is completely inadequate. £ - The Management Committee will primarily be discussing subjects and advising the Florida Department of Natural Resources in areas that pertain to the research and educational programs within the sanctuary. When problems arise that affect users of the waters and lands within the sanctuary or vice-versa, it is logical to assume that the Management Committee, through its Resource Users Subcommittee, will consult and coordinate with any and all parties who are affected. £ - The Management Committee is unfairly balanced in favor of Franklin County Commissioners, who can appoint three of the six voting members. The lack of Alabama and Georgia representation means that the Management Committee has no control over effects of situations outside the sanctuary boundaries, which leaves wery uncertain one of the criteria in the Federal Guidelines; i.e. "Compatibility with existing or proposed land and water use in contiguous areas. " £ - It should not be assumed that the two persons selected by Franklin County to represent the local resource users and the research and educational institutions, respectively, would always agree or vote with the representa- tive of the Frank in County Commissioners. The issue of having Alabama and Georgia's views represented is important. The meeting of the Governors of the three States on July 31, 1979, will, it is hoped, begin a process whereby the common use of the Tri -River System, including the Apalachicola, by all three States can be resolved by agreements that will be larger in scope than the sanctuary. Also, see General Response C. Continental Carbon Company, Houston, Texas (N.R. Higgins, 6/15/79) £ - In view of the Management Committee's role to ". . .review and advise the appropriate State agency or local government on proposed actions, plans, or projects in, adjacent to, or affecting the sanctuary," including dredging and filling, it is imperative that both Alabama and Georgia have an active role in decisions on matters that are so vital to their interests. Therefore, the Management Committee should be expanded to include a voting member from each State, to be appointed by their respective Governors. R^ - See General Response C. The issue of Alabama and Georgia working closely with Florida in decisions regarding the multiple uses of the Apalachicola River and Bay is recognized. The scheduled meeting of the Governors of all three States on July 31, 1979, should begin a process whereby the common use of the Tri -River System by all three States can be resolved mutual agreement. The management mechanism for the sanctuary would seem to be too small a forum for decisions affecting the Tri -River system. £ - The concept of an estuarine sanctuary at the mouth of a major navigable river invites conflict and controversy and is in direct opposition to the long-standing authority of the Corps of Engineers to maintain a navigable waterway. £ - See General Response A. Continental Carbon Company, Phenix City, Alabama (J. D. Rodriguez, 6/7/79) C_ - Dredging must be allowed to keep rivers navigable for transportation of raw material by barge or ship In order to keep their $5 million plant 1n operation. Concerned that the sanctuary will have an adverse effect. R - See General Response A. Cook and Henderson, Washington, D.C. (John C. Kirtland, 6/19/79) £ - Represents Tri-River Development Association. Private investment in Tri -River facilities that are directly dependent on waterborne transportation exceeds $1 billion. Federal sanctuary guidelines (15 CFR 921.5) subordinate all economic activities to research and educational activities, i.e. "all additional uses of the sanctuary are clearly secondary..." The DEIS gives the impression that all existing uses will be continued but the CZM Act (16 USC §1451) and Federal sanctuary guidelines (15 CFR 921.5 ) control multiple use. The FEIS should clearly state that expansion of commercial fishing interests (and others) must be subordinated to research and education. £ - We do not agree with the inference that the commercial fishing interests (and others) will be adversely affected by the sanctuary. To the contrary, the commercial fishermen support the establishment of the sanctuary as a means of protecting and preserving the bay ecologically and increasing the yield of finfish and shellfish over time. £ - Adequate protection of the Federal (U.S. COE) interest in navigation in the Apalachicola Basin must be included in the FEIS, specifically the 25 miles of Gulf Intracoastal Waterway that includes a channel 9 feet deep and 125 feet wide, and other channels requiring constant dredging. Otherwise, navigation will be subordinated to sanctuary research and educational purposes. R^ - New language has been added to the FEIS explicitly stating the primacy of the Federal Government to control navigible waters. See General Response B. C_ - OCZM should defer awarding a grant until the affected States reach an agreement on unresolved navigation issues and adopt a long range plan. £ - See General Response A. The meeting of the Governors of Alabama, Georgia, and Florida on July 31, 1979, should initiate a process whereby the common use of the A-C-F river system by various interests in all three States can be resolved and a plan developed. This can occur just as well after the sanctuary is established, as described in the FEIS. Elberta Crate and Box Company, Bainbridge, Georgia (D. ft. Simmons, Jr. 5/7/79) £ - Section 26, Township 7, South Range 8 is owned by Elberta Crate and Box Company and is not publicly owned as indicated in the DEIS. R. - This is correct. There are also other inholdings within the area shown in the FEIS as owned by the State. Any privately owned property will be purchased with EEL funds on a negotiated basis. Private holdings are accurately reflected on page 9 of the FEIS. Florida Waterways Association, Inc., Palatka, Florida (Raymond B. Bunton, 6/7/79) £ - The sanctuary will perpetuate the current below average income level of area residents. £ - OCZM does not agree with this assessment. The possible economic benefits have been described in the EIS. Unless specific information is provided we feel that the sanctuary will be an economic benefit to area residents. £ - Since navigation interests are not represented on the Management Committee, navigation will not be improved by having the sanctuary, and may be adversely affected. £ - The purpose of the sanctuary is not to improve navigation; however, waterborne transportation will remain as one of the uses within portions of the sanctuary. Navigational interests will be represented by the "local resource users" subcommittee and the Corps of Engineers. £ - Navigation and water transportation requirements are not given adequate treatment in the DEIS considering their economic impact. We do not support the construction of the Blountsville Dam but we encourage other measures that would improve the water depth for a higher percentage of the time. R^ - See General Response A. Consideration of other methods of improving water depth is not precluded by sanctuary establishment. Great Southern Paper Company, Cedar Springs, Georgi a (James W, Stewart, 6/13/7$) £ - The availability of economical, dependable, barge transportation is essential for transportation of fuel and other bulk commodities on the A-C-F waterway. The maintenance of a dependable 9-foot channel should be guaranteed before a sanctuary is designated. Also, the use of the Tri-River system for water supply, power generation, and recreation must be preserved. R - See General Responses A and B. The preservation and enhancement of water quality and quantity are also priority uses for the Apalachicola River/Bay system. Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation, Washington, D.C. (T.K. Singer, 6/19/79) £ - Repairs to our barges have just completed costing more than $1 million because the Apalachicola River channel has not been maintained. Savings of $150,000 per year could be realized if water transportation could be expanded. Locating the sanctuary at the mouth of a major navi gable river involves policy questions. A Tri-River navigation plan is essential before a sanctuary grant is approved. R^ - See General Responses A and B. The policy issues involved are on the " agenda of a meeting of the Governors of Alabama, Georgia, and Florida, scheduled for July 31, 1979. Jon T. Brown Law Firm, Washington, D.C . (Stephen E. Roady, 7/5/79) C- Expresses support for the proposed estuarine sanctuary grant. Preserving this area for purposes of baseline research and education will prove beneficial both environmentally and economically. R- Comment accepted. Mississippi Chemical Corporation, Yazoo City, Mississippi (James A. Pierce, 5/10/79) £ - The Tri-River System has been plagued by low water. Maintenance dredging 1s a necessity for low cost barge transportation. £ - Comment accepted. See General Response A. St. Joe Paper Company, Port S t. Joe, Flori da (Hugh W White, Jr., 6/7/79) £ - Some of the proposed land Includes good pine tlmberland and our future operations depend on this and other timberlands. We are not willing to sell that part of our land within the designated boundaries 1n Township 8 South, Range 6 East. R^ - Position accepted. However, there are many alternatives available 1n addition to outright sale. It 1s hoped a mutually satisfactory arrange- ment can be worked out 1f the sanctuary 1s established. (Note: Under Florida law, condemnation Is legally not an alternative). Tri-Rivers Waterway Development Association, Dothan, Alabama (Ms. Addie Summers, 6/7/79) C_ - Accommodations must be made for all users of the river system and bay, including representatives from Georgia and Alabama. The Franklin County Board of Commissioners is overrepresented on the Management Committee. R^ - See General Response D. Franklin County has only one vote on the Committee although they have the responsibility for appointing two other members. This does not mean that these appointees will vote the same as Franklin County representatives. Franklin County is the most affected area in terms of sanctuary impact. Not only is the 12,467 acres of land proposed for acquisition in Franklin County, the county's economy depends upon the health of the bay and river. C^ - The sanctuary subordinates the welfare of a large system to a small area and ignores environmental, economic, and energy factors. R^ - We disagree with this statement. Goals for the sanctuary do not preclude benefits accruing to the larger system (i.e., navi- gation, recreation, hydroelectric power, etc.) as stated 1n the FEIS. The Impacts of the sanctuary on barge transportation were not discussed, since barge traffic will continue as it has in the past. C - Florida statutes will be invoked to delay or prevent any uses that are not compatible, thus precluding legitimate multiple use and flexibility regarding navigation, etc. R^ - See General Responses A and B. C^ - The DEIS skirts the issue of point source pollution of the bay from sewage treatment plants. R^ - There 1s no attempt to skirt any water quality Issue on the proposed National Estuarine Sanctuary. The Apalachicola 1s one of the cleanest rivers of Its size 1n the United States (per Dr. Robert Livingston's remarks to the Apalachicola Symposium participants, October 1978). Point source pollution is being addressed by the DER and 1s one of the many topics to be researched in the future (see Appendix II). C_ - The Corps of Engineers should not be Inhibited by any State from discharging its Federal responsibility. The record of Florida's State environmental agencies on "cooperation" and "coordination" with Alabama and Georgia is discouraging. The DEIS reliance on cooperation 1s not well founded. R^ - The State of Florida has taken positive steps towards resolving resolving differences with Alabama, Georgia, and the COE. See General Responses A and B. Also, the Governors of the three States will meet on 7/31/79 to discuss the sanctuary and related issues. The sanctuary has been the catalyst for these Initial steps, which provides good evidence that improvement can continue Into the future. C OCZM should disapprove Florida's application. R - This decision is left to the Assistant Administrator for Coastal Zone ~ Management after the FEIS is submitted to EPA and the public, and the merits of the grant application are weighed. Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Univ. of Florida, Gainesville, Florida (Wayne H. Smith, 6/15/79) (Comments are on the on symposium/workshops held on the proposed sanctuary by the Conservation Foundation in Tallahassee, Florida, 10/17-19/78). £ - Workshop presentations were not unanimously accepted by the scientific community and did not include enough useful information for partici- pants to reach conclusions. Florida Division of Forestry, researchers from the State universities, researchers and resource managers from both public agencies and private industry, or non-State institutions with experience in the subject area should have been included in the "indoctrination" portion of the symposium. In addition, the University of Florida was not given the opportunity to review the panel's report. £-, The symposium (see Appendix II) is not our present concern here but the comments are appreciated. A copy of your concerns has been sent to the Conservation Foundation and the Florida State Department of Environmental Regulation. £ - There were oversights in the distribution of the Impact Statement. R^ - Although OCZM attempts to be as comprehensive as possible with its EIS distribution, some oversights are inevitable. For this reason, copies are sent to libraries and various offices in the involved area so that copies will be available to the concerned public. We regret any inconvenience our oversights may have created. £ - The DEIS is vague, ambiguous, and poorly written and edited. R^ - New language has been added to the FEIS in hopes of correcting such deficiencies. C_ - The following would improve the credibility of the document: 1) Define "sanctuary" fully and state all implications. 2) Identify and quantify support for the sanctuary to dispel the appearance that advocates have a vested interest. 3) Define "baseline" in scientific terms and specific measurement parameters needed. 4) Describe the sanctuary in legal survey terms. "Sanctuary" is used in several different contexts. 5) Define selection criteria for candidate sites, rationale used for choice, and parties involved in the process. R^ - OCZM feels that all of the above points or definitions have been adequately explained in the FEIS, or the Appendices, and the docu- ment adequately describes the proposals. £ - The alternative of purchasing all bay/river sanctuary perimeter lands— especially St. George Island— should be considered. R_ - See General Response E. £ - The qualifications of the Sanctuary Coordinator need to be in sufficient detail to assure adequate backgound in (a) ecology, (b) physical science, (c) quantitative management science, and (d) experience in applying these disciplines to natural resources management. R_ - After sanctuary establishment, Florida's DNR will select a person as Sanctuary Coordinator to handle the responsibilities outlined in the FEIS. We are confident they will hire the most qualified person available using criteria similar to that suggested. £ - The Management Committee should be comprised of resource management professionals and scientists and be advised by technical and lay person advisory committees. Members should be appointed by the Governor and include one or more representatives from (a) Department of Environmental Regulation, (b) Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, (c) Department of Natural Resources (Committee Chairperson), (d) Division of Forestry, (e) State University System - Resource Management Academician, and (f ) State University System - Sea Grant and Marine Advisory Program. The Lay-advisory Committee should include non-State agency persons to represent all interests affected in the Apalachicola Basin: o County Commissioners - Franklin, Gulf, Jackson, Calhoun, Gadsen, Leon, and Wakulla, o Commercial interests - fishing industry, seafood dealers, forest landowners, navigation organizations, agricultural landowners, sports clubs, campers and other recreationists, conservation groups, and soil and water conservation districts. The Technical Advisory Committee should include: Northwest Florida Water Management District, Apalachee Regional Planning Council, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Corps of Engineers, U.S. Geological Survey, Cooperative Extension Service, and representatives of Georgia and Alabama. R - The Management Committee is intended to represent local and State interests. It is concerned primarily with sanctuary management and the sanctuary goals of research and education. As such, it is limited both in size and in scope. However, it is advised by subcommittees. The structures of both it and they have been changed in the FEIS and include most of the organization suggested, but are organized somewhat differently. £ - Franklin County cannot adequately represent the State University system. - N R - It was never intended to. It merely selects someone to represent educa- ~~ tional and scientific interests. C_ - The University of Florida should be given the opportunity to review the Tri -Rivers Waterway Report. £ - This comment is outside the scope of the FEIS. C - The Environmental Consequences Section gives little attention to scientific and professional papers that have stood the test of peer review and validation. £ - The FEIS is not a professional scientific journal. It is intended to analyze the environmental impacts in as clear, concise, and accurate a manner as possible, and it clearly meets the requirements of the NEPA regulations. Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida (Hans Riekerk, 6/18/79) C- Notes that the consolidation of water and land areas into an estuarine sanctuary for purposes of research, education, and conservation is a laudable effort. However, does not subscribe to the presumption that "the more natural an ecosystem is, the more productive it will be" (Ref. Appendix II, p. 10). The functioning of the estuarine ecosystem depends upon continuous ex- changes of detritus and salts with fresh and sea water fluxes that include catastrophic events. R- We see no discrepancy between maintaining as natural an ecosystem as possible and the potentiality of hurricane floods, tidal waves, etc. having an influence on productivity since these also are natural events. The goal of the sanctuary is to keep man made influences to a minimum where these will adversely affect the ecosystem. £- There appears to be a definitive bias toward utilization of the water-related resources and inhibition of land resources uses such as silviculture, based on an erroneous notion that silviculture is limited to the logging and re- generation activities of the first year, while in reality silviculture includes tending, disease, pest, fire, and administration management practices throughout the long rotation. The bias is most apparent in disacussions on economic impacts on Franklin County, perhaps because silvi- culture here is not labor intensive in contrast to the fisheries industry. £- The prohibition on silviculture applies only to the lands proposed for acquisition. The restriction is for maintaining this land only as a relatively non-altered part of the estuarine ecosystem. There is not intended to be any bias towards utilization of any part of the system. It is true that approximately 60 percent of Franklin County's economy is dependent on the fishing industry and the utilization of this resource, within Federal and State game laws, will not harm the ecosystem. C- Considering the importance of proper forestland management upstream from the proposed sanctuary, it appears logical to include representatives of the University of Florida in the Subcommittee on Research and Education R- Comment accepted. The FEIS shows that the University of Florida is included as a member of t/he subcommittee on Research and Education. It is recognized that Forestry and forest research will be immensely valu- able to the estuarine sanctuary, and such research is encouraged. Division of Engineering Research, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana (John M. Hill, 5/21/79) C- Approves and highly encourages the preservation of the estuary as a sanctuary for future generations. Submitted two Landsat generated photographs depicting water quality problems in the Apalachicola Bay and forestry activities surrounding the bay system. Rj- Comment accepted and pictures appreciated. St. Joe Paper Company, Port St. Joe, Florida (Hugh W. White, Jr., b////9) C - Some of the proposed land Includes good pine timberland and our future ** operations depend on this and other timberlands. We are not willing to sell that part of our land within the designated boundaries in Township 8 South, Range 6 East. R - Position accepted. However, there are many alternatives available in addition to outright sale. It is hoped a mutually satisfactory arrange- ment can be worked out 1f the sanctuary is established. (Note: Under Florida law, condemnation is legally not an alternative). o U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1979 .298-470/6385 PENN STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES ADDDD7D' LfDEbfl