CSS- SV/J2 •"/>'

Final Environmental Impact Statement

o

,^OFCq

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 Proposed 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 Geology. 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

<J

u. «t

_) —

o z

< s

s*

< o

a. (_)

<•> <->

— • CC

— ce

» 3

* >

— O

«£ —

O u-»

^^

ce

wO

=»

<s

<

f

CE

a

O

CO

«

<J

<

a-

Z

C

«X

lX

i— o z

«r <_> 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 <J
< a.
_j
•X

<

a

s

w
a

u_

I

3^

DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE.
DIVISION OF
FORESTRY

>o 3 :

1/1 u

ce x

zoo

_i «* =>

<UKZ

t— X UJ

I/) UJ UJ O

O Z <

• <£ —

ce z ce
ox*

ce -u uj uj
-r au

«

< z o

u-> 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
uj u. ce i/>

— i —

«/*» GO OS X

I o >- o

UUJH

ce i- z >-

<Z3I-

uj — o z
i/i o <-i S
uj a. o
ce a. i_j

<

<<HZ

< Z U. £

i = o r
2 o o

sfo5-
h- ce x

ce -«t

<ui o

C >- 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
<<lv

u-> >■ ^ —

< -<oc
O u"> 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)

Shrimp1 (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
March 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<?74

RULES AND REGULATIONS

19923

above, an ample legislative mandate to
restore environmentally degraded areas
already exists: the benefits to be derived
from declaring such areas estuarlne
sanctuaries would be marginal. Indeed.
it would appear that If restoration ef-
forts cannot occur without estuarlne
sanctuary designation, then, given the
limited resources of this program, such
efforts would not be feasible.

A few commentators suggested that
the phrase (| 921 J (e) ) "If sufficient per-
manence and control by the State can
be assured, the acquisition of a sanctu-
ary may Involve less than the acquisition
of a fee simple Interest" be more clearly
defined. Explanatory language has been
added to that section.

Section 921.4 Zoogeoaraphic Classifica-
tion. Because the classification scheme
utilized plants as well as animals, two
commentators suggested that soogeo-
graphlo be changed to blogeographlc,
This change Is reflected In the final
regulations.

One comment suggested that selection
of sanctuaries should depend on the pres-
sures and threats being brought to bear
upon the natural areas Involved even If
this meant selecting several sanctuaries
from one classification and none from
another.

The legislative history of* section 312
clearly shows the Intent to select estu-
arlne sanctuaries on a rational basis
which would reflect regional diff erentia-
tlon and a variety of ecosystems. The bio-
geographlc classification system, which
reflects geographic hydrographle, and
biologic differences, fulfills that Inten-
tion. A scheme which would abandon
that system, or another similar one, and
would not fulfill the requirements of pro-
viding regional differentiation and a
variety of ecosystems, would not be con-
sistent with the Intended purpose of the
Act.

A few comments received suggested
that the blogeographlc classification
scheme be enlarged by the addition of a
new class reflecting an area or State of
special concern or Interest to the re-
spondent. (No two commentators sug-
gested the same area.) It Is felt that
adequate national representation Is pro-
vided by the blogeographlc scheme pro-
posed, and that the changes offered were
In most cases examples of sub-categories
that might be utilized.

One comment suggested a specific
change In the definition of the "Great
Lakes" category. Portions of that sug-
gestion have been incorporated into the
final rules.

Two commentators requested assur-
ance that sub-categories of the blogeo-
graphlc scheme will In fact be utilized.
The final language substitutes "will be
developed and utilized" for "may be de-
veloped and utilized."

Section 921.5 Multiple Use. Several
comments were received pertaining to
the multiple use concept. Three com-
mentators suggested that the multiple
use directive was contrary to or absent
from the Act and should be omitted. Ten
respondents felt the concept should be
more explicitly defined and restricted so

that the primary purpose of the sanc-
tuary would be more dearly protected.
In contrast, two commentators felt that
the definition might prove too restrictive
and should be broadened. Several com-
mentators suggested that examples of
anticipated multiple use might be
appropriate.

While recognizing that It Is not always
possible to accommodate more than a
single use In an environmentally sensi-
tive area. It Is not the Intention to un-
necessarily preclude the uses of sanc-
tuary areas where they are clearly com-
patible with and do not detract from the
long-term protection of the ecosystem
for scientific and educational purposes.
The language of S 921.5 has been changed
accordingly.

Section 921.6 Relationship to Other
Provisions of the Act and to Marine
Sanctuaries. Several comments were re-
ceived which commended and stressed
the need for close coordination between
the development of State coastal zone
management programs, especially and
land and water use controls, and the
estuarlne sanctuary program.

The relationship between the two pro-
grams Is emphasized: estuarlne sanctu-
aries should provide benefit — both short-
term and long-term — to coastal zone
management decision-makers; and State
coastal zone management programs must
provide necessary protection for estu-
arlne sanctuaries. This necessary coordi-
nation Is discussed not only In the estu-
arlne sanctuary regulations, but will also
bo addressed in an appropriate fashion
In guidelines and rules for Coastal Zone
Management Program Approval Criteria
and Administrative Grants.

Three commentators discussed the
need for swift action by both State and
Federal governments to establish and
acquire estuarlne sanctuaries. The Office
of Coastal Zone Management Intends to
pursue the program as swiftly as avail-
able manpower restraints will permit.

A few comments sought reassurance
that the estuarlne sanctuaries program
will In fact be coordinated with the
Marine Sanctuaries Program (Title m.
Pub. L. 92-532). The guidelines have
been changed to reflect that both pro-
grams will be administered by the same
office.

Stjbpakt B — Application fob Grants

Section 921.10 General. One reviewer
Indicated uncertainty about which State
agency may submit applications for
grants under section 312. Although Indi-
vidual States may vary In the choice of
individual agencies to apply for an es-
tuarlne sanctuary, because of the neces-
sity for coordination with the State
coastal zone management program the
entity within the State which is the cer-
tified contact with the Office of Coastal
Zone Management. NOAA. responsible
for the administration of the coastal
zone management program must en-
dorse or approve an estuarlne sanctuary
application.

Appropriate language has been in-
cluded to ensure this coordination.

Section 921.11 Initial Application for
Acquisition, Development and Operation

Grants. Two comments requested that
the souroe and nature of acceptable
matching funds should be explicitly
Identified.

OMB Circular Arl02 generally defines
and «df»t«*— legitimate "match" for
Pederal grant projects. In general, refer-
ence should be made to that document.
However, the section has been expanded
In response to some specific and frequent
questions.

Two comments stressed the need for
Increased availability of research funds
to adequately utilize the potential of es-
tuarlne sanctuaries. While not an ap-
propriate function of the estuarlne sanc-
tuary program, the Office of Coastal Zone
Management Is discussing the necessity
of adequate funding with appropriate
agendas

One comment suggested that the term
"legal description'' of the sanctuary
(I 921.11(a)) Is not appropriate for all
categories of Information requested. The
word "legal" has been omitted.

Three reviewers Indicated that the Act
provides no basis for consideration of
socio-economic Impacts (1921.11(D)
and that this criterion seemed Inappro-
priate to selecting estuarlne sanctuaries.
Apparently these reviewers misunder-
stood the Intention of this requirement.
The Information In this section is neces-
sary for preparation of an environmental
Impact statement which will be prepared
pursuant to NEPA. Although required In
the application, such Information Is not
a part of the selection criteria, which are
addressed in Subpart C. f 921.20.

One similar comment was received
with regard to consideration of existing
and potential uses and conflicts (| 921.-
11(h) ). This Item Is also discussed under
selection criteria (f 9200(h) ) . It la in-
tended that this criterion will only be
considered when choosing between two
or more sanctuary applications within
the same blogeographlc category which
are of otherwise equal merit.

One comment drew attention to an
apparent typographic error In I 921.11
(m) where the term "marine estuaries"
seems out of context This has been cor-
rected.

Two commentators suggested that
public hearings should be required In the
development of an estuarlne sanctuary
application. Although such a hearing is
deemed desirable by the Office of Coastal
Zone Management, It would not always
seem to be necessary. The language In
8 920.11(1) has been changed to reflect
the sincere concern for the adequate In-
volvement of the public, which Is also
addressed under a new 9 920.21.

One respondent suggested that a new
section be added requiring the appli-
cant to discuss alternative methods of
acquisition or control of the area, includ-
ing the designation of a marine sanctu-
ary. In place of establishing an estuarlne
sanctuary. A new section (8 920.11 (n))
has been added for this purpose.

Section 921.12 Subsequent Application
for Development and Operation Grants.
Three commentators expressed concern
that the Intent of 9 921.12 be more dearly
expressed. Appropriate changes have
been made.

FEDEIAl BEGISTEt, VOL 39. NO. 10J — TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 1974

19924

Wfl.ES AND REGULATIONS

One comment wm made that a pro-
vision should be Included to use existing
Federally owned land for the purpose of
the estuarlne sanctuary program. A sec-
tion has been added for that purpose.

Section 921.20 Criteria for Selection.
One comment suggested that the con-
sideration of conflict with existing or po-
tential competing uses should not be in-
cluded as a selection criterion. As dis-
cussed above, this criterion is considered
appropriate.

Another reviewer suggested the addi-
tion of a new criterion, consideration of
"the need to protect a particular estuary
from harmful development." As dis-
cussed earlier, this criterion is not con-
sidered appropriate. Such a basis for
determining selection would lead to a
reactionary, random series of estuarlne
sanctuaries, rather than the rationally
chosen representative series mandated
m the legislative history.

Two reviewers commented that the
limitation on the Federal share ($2,000,-

000 for each sanctuary) was too low and
would severely restrict the usefulness of
the program. However, this limitation
Is provided by the Act.

Another commentator suggested that

1 921.20(g) was unnecessarily restrictive
in that it might prevent selecting an
estuarlne sanctuary in an area adjacent
to existing preserved lands where the
conjunction might be mutually benefi-
cial. The language of 1 921.20(g) does
not preclude' such action, but has been
changed to specifically permit this pos-
sibility.

Two commentators inquired whether
the reference to a "draft" environmental
Impact statement (8 921.20, last para-
graph) Indicated an Intention to avoid
further compliance with NEPA. It Is the
firm Intention of the Office of Coastal
Zone Management to fully comply in all
respects with NEPA- The word "draft"
has been struck.

Three reviewers addressed the prob-
lems of providing adequate public par-
ticipation In the review and selection
process. In addition to the change In
i 920.11 ( 1 ) . a new section has been added
to address this issue.

SUSPAKT D— OfCTATIOH

Section 921.30 General. One commen-
tator suggested that during contract
negotiations, there should be a meeting
between the applicant agency and pro-
posed sanctuary management team, and
representatives of the Office of Coastal
Zone Management. The general pro-
visions have been broadened to provide
for this suggestion.

Two comments were submitted which
urged that some discretion be exercised
In the use and access to the sanctuary
by scientists and students. Two other
comments were received which requested
specific protection for use by the general
public, The guidelines have been changed
to Include these suggestions.

One comment was received suggesting
language to clarify I 921.30(g) , This was
incorporated into the guidelines.

Two commentators expressed concern
for enlevement capabilities and activi-
ties to ensure protection of the estuarlne
sanctuaries. A new section has been
added which addresses this issue.

Finally, one suggestion was received
that a vehicle for change in the manage-
ment policy or research programs should
be provided. A new section has been
added for that purpose.

Accordingly, having considered the
comments received and other relevant
information, the Secretary concludes by
adopting the final regulations describing
the procedure for applications to receive
estuarlne sanctuary grants under section
312 of the Act, as modified and set forth
below.

Effective date: June 3, 1974.

Dated: May 31, 1974.

Robxbt M. Whits,
Administrator.

Subpart A — General
See.

931 4 Policy and objectives.

931.2 Definition*.

931.3 Objectives and implementation at

the program.

931.4 Blogeographic classification.
921 J Multiple uw.

921.6 Belatloaship to other provisions of
the Act and to marine sanctuaries.

Subpart B— Application for Grants

921.10 General.

921.11 Application for initial acquisition,

development and operation grants.

931.12 Application for subsequent develop-

ment and operation grants.

931.13 Federally owned lands.

Subpart C— Selection Criteria
931.20 Criteria for selection.
931.31 Public participation.

Subpart 0 — Operation
93130 General.

921.31 Changes In the sanctuary boundary,

management policy or research
program.

931.32 Program review.

Authobitt: See. 312 of the Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1972 (Pub. L. 93-683, 86
Stat. 1280) .

Subpart A— Genera!

§ 921.1 Policy sad Objectives.

The estuarlne sanctuaries program win
provide grants to States on a matching
basis to acquire, develop and operate
natural areas as estuarlne sanctuaries In
order that scientists and students may be
provided the opportunity to examine over
a period of time the ecological relation-
ships within the area. The purpose of
these guidelines is to establish the rules
and regulations for implementation of
the program.

§ 921.2 Definitions.

(a) In addition to the definitions
found in the Act and in the regulations
dealing with Coastal Zone Management
Program Development Grants published
November 29, 1973 (Part 920 of this
chapter) the term "estuarlne sanctuary"
as defined in the Act, means a research
area which may include any part or all
of an estuary, adjoining transitional
areas, and adjacent uplands, constituting

to the extent feasible a natural unit, set
aside to provide scientists and students
the opportunity to examine over a period
of time the ecological relationships with-
in the area.

(b) For the purposes of this section,
"estuary" means that part of a river or
stream or other body of water having un-
lmpared connection with the open sea
where the sea water is measurably diluted
with freshwater derived from land drain-
age. The term Includes estuary-type
areas of the Great Lakes as well as la-
goons In more arid coastal regions.

(c> 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
representatives.

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
absence 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 mah7
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 areat 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 -,

0 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 in
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 <D

£ t. o> -o

• 0) • OOt-

• (Q * u. » O

=> 3 => C r-

- c u.

- <• l. 0) 4-'

0 +J — ji <c .'-

& •= *- c £ J-

EI E 02 3 3 (O
tO e£ O

OJ >> <jj QJ OJ QJ

01 O Q 3 i — -r-

"O r- jc; -r- L. x:
0) C C> (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_,

<u •.- .,-

> 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

<n ■— O

* •— TO r-
C 3 t- li.
O O

0-' c cc .,-
-o x; >

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

<v -o

c

-*:

4-> 01

3

OJ

U

Irt vi

O

en

TO

>> o

S-

-3

in a.

s-

c

■■s.

o

3

QJ
C3

O

u

i— <u

OJ

o .—

w *—

u

lt>

<U <1>

£

I- f-

OJ 4->

>>

<D —1

ai

t:

s_

-o a>

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

<D

4->

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 <o

O Q.

ic (a aj

o .-
a: .r- •

13 4-> 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—

0 -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

0 » 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

<j > ■•-

■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

<U I— •— ■

•— o ■»-

i— •>- 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> <o +j

S2 =

3 OJ

I— u

C^E

f- in ai *> •>-

4J tn X» ID ■

x •■- ai x: i-

c k i/> c c

0 oj -i- f- en
■•- +j .*- •
en id 4_> x> tn >>

a; x — oj <u

Xi 3 en
r— •»- • f— <o *J
■— t> X <J l_ in

01 ID 4-> 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<i- 4fl L C 3 01

•r- XI 0J X)

X >

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
<l «< L

x: 3

«ju ti o

c x fi

S- QJ +J

o i— w>

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> <J

ID IOr-f
QJ M_ 4-

3 id in

• +l Or- 15

i in *j a.

o> x> >>

>f- — O X
O O .—

U I*- (D
X "I-

+J X <t- X

r- o o u

■a ie 3

a; ■— oj in

x: c «— u ■

4-> 3 C

*-> <D

cvyu

■»- O C i.

3 O

o> 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 >»- <D L.

X) ID O L. 0J

in •!- u L- 4-»

OJ Ui- C (D «3

> 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

<D >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- <J

O i. •!-

•r- C 4J

in 3 i—

r- a; r—

i— a> =

a. >— —

— <r *->

U QJ

C 4->

to

■a s

Qj QJ

TO If.

+J — C

irt .*-» ' —

•i- .f- 10

4-> .r- 3

+J 0) T-

<J s. to c

too c —

<P >, 1 E

0--M

<C .r- tj cj

•— C .C

Oj *d TO 4->

•mo- c oj

O N

c « •*- —

n? n- 4J Hi

C O

O 4->

QJ T3
> QJ

3§

3 <n *j

-

01

c

Z5

<u

T3

QJ

3

S-

TO

CL

_J

CJ

—

-t-J

-r-

t-

4-J

TO

0)

OJ

S-

01

3

1—

•— Q.

S <V I

■si

O 01 i—

TO '<- 4-

4-> -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.

<D

>>

to vi

C 1-

E

i_

TO

01 -p-

XJ

• TO

Q.

CC

c

QJ X

O

<U

TO

X

ai

01

O

O

x

a>

C X

*j

TJ

O +J

a>

a;

4-J O)

01

■o

c

>4-

u .

to

■f-> <f-

o

■!->

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

•— <J •—

r— 01 T"

>— 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

<J — ■—

•■- -D -i-

O — 1-

& ~

•C r— +J

•^ -r- >,

■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 • <u

E Q. C

•*- >> o

»— 4J dj w) v*

<V en r— CJ

_ E 1- <D -*

"O o 3 •»- 1-

C +J 4-> 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

<j *> p—

*J O .-

u o o>

O £ C

J= 01

it) U 3

*J 01 »—

*J 4-> «»-

(O <C E

J= » -^

o

CI 4->

<— O i-

o f- -r

♦J -- 01

O *J

u <o
at ■—

«J >— 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

>>

51

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 <j

E

s

■a

1- 3

<U

■c

c

TO

c

c ai

>1

E

c

4-> 41

OJ

a

<o £

QJ

3 4->

X

4->

**

>J

OJ

U 4-» «— •*-)

a. <j > -d

1— U CH i-

m a.

u oi to

.— -C i— 0)

3 •!-

-.- TO

TO U 1-

O <U TO

oi ■>-

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- <J

en o

TO I—

!_ Cn L. 01

3 » C TO
O S. •■- 3 X

U 0) V) 4-> 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

>

<u

0) -F-

QJ

JD

■6

o

T3

t-

XI Ol

cj

CL

F- S-

a.

3 Ol

E

TO

O XI

O

j= -F-

c

.c

o

4^

e

4-> 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 -0 ?■>■

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->

<J f- -F- 4j m E O

C i -F- TO C

Ol 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 <f~

EL 4-> 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 <L

■D -r- ••-)

C 4^ "O o

aj to •— i.
CDI3a

•c > 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 i~ XI to
3 1. «*J

O TO 0J i— C

x: x: < ■-

</> 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 -

<U p—

«— 4-> =

5 §■

^_ O 1-

u ■—

U r— 4->

* 2

•p- ai •—

4-> 1- 13

C EC

.*- i— in

O

f- C 4->

< ^3 < O 1 <o

i/> 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

i

u

<->

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) <t

+J O 4->

•i- r- j:

F— O 4-1

■g *j •£

.— .«- O

4J I- *4-

— 4->

i. <->

o =3

r— Q.

4-' CL

<U r— ■—

■e 4» oi

l— 4J O

4-> •— -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

<D

L.

■6

OJ

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

<o >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

<D i.

3 ai

JC

>

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
<o — El

a m §

v\ O E
10 JC .f-

Q. 3 V)

c c a.

3 CO JC
OJ U0 T

O — -~

p- f- C

C I— 4->

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

<J .p- t-

■i- 4-> O

r- r~ QJ

-C — -o

m 3 0)

: c o -o

i ■— c <u o

O OJ OJ

•O en

Qj«^ qj

I— >

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 <t-

«— I— o m

u- -o

E >. I-

1_ 1_ <-> <o

qj Q> •- 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

0 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-

<a

ID

o-o

4J

N

•f- 3

ai

*

O. u

<a

a. c

g

4->

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

<_> <a
*->

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—

0 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

<o •— u u

3 .- Ol
O *J
<_> 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 </i *j *j

e ■— = c

i j i i

o "O rj

u -i- *-> *j

0) > i- IB

<U .- -r-

r- -i- 01

i- t

01 f- 1-

O f- V

4-> -^ >

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

£

<o

<o

£

cn

1-

o

,BH

a

c

QJ

-C

-M

Cn

<:

O

.

M-

t:

TO

s

p

c

Q.

o

U

(j

3

c:

O

1

0

f

4->

TO

■M

i

lO

i- O ••-

& B

■r- O *>

U DO

5 -1 t 5

<v ^ +j

oj *J 4->

~ 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- </)

•-■ r— •!- O

-co

.-< n b

ce.cz -
- > 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

0

c

n

fai

rH

3

0

b

3

2

u.

c

H

3

fa.

IE

s-

fa.

H

Ifl

£ »J <o t» c x

fa u to t. £ —

O c to 01 -h c

fa- x re • -H «J 4J

fa. -T J b. C U

XJ 10 O

If. O -> ~i ■ -i J

O ■" c £ >. rH

-h -h a re

r-l

S> to

b

u if.

>

fa 15

u

tr to:

b b

0

> >

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 £

<H — £

O r-l

2 H

b a in ~*

§ in

E

B

fa.

X

b

^H

2

^

a

10

E

,H

c

O

fa.

>

«

[u

0

3

TO

En

CP

4J

O

O

0

X

p

(0

c

c

0

£

■O

c

10

o

0

CT>

5

gj

V>

•-4

01

c

TO

a

u

0

b

o

0

H

b

to

Ul

h

Li

a»

TO

3

0

c

10

fa.

■x.

—

O

10

en

o

£

10

b

10

c

TO

a

H

x

D

0

£

E

l£

0

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

0

b

O

fa.

b

c

>

b.

0

3

Eu

iZ

a.

.

X

I

fi

0)

to

b

0

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

>

0

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

0

tJ> -o

c

£

b

u.

TO

M

b

CD

b

3 -H

TO

E

b

£ U

£

TO

4J

0

U

in

6

E

£

6

-O

0

TO

TO

TO

£

|

X L.

0

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

0

O

O -H

Z

0

u

^

<-.•

■n fai

c

b.

i- 0

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

0

3

w

J

IC

c

m

10

0

X

0

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

I2t

3

CI

c

-*

0

^

O

0

c

<

U

u

0

12

L-

>-i

bi

*l

a

c

c

>

uj

•u

£

0

u

E

01

*i

01

I

b

V

10

u

01

C7>

0

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

0

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 <w h

-H b E 10

Ik

• c X fa.

t: iJ «^

V

c fai o t" u.

re E -~ E

O

fal 3 fa

c »-l

b »

* -< *. o

m »

>-> e *

01 TO -H

TO C

o > w

m en c to £

o b

E b

ft 0 "O

U 0

— 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!

<w E K
b 0 C 0 -

O TO

b io c- io

TO

TO JJ

X O -1 O TO

D £

tO TJ £

E E t

e tn

09 H £

-» < oq V

TO 0

0 .

r . io

H • r-l

. fal t. -H

Eif.

— ■ iJ C E -<

fal b • • -H

O -i

E 0 -H ^

4J H

> 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:

0

Li

CI

Ui

J

IS

c

o

£

>

0

c

u

o

0

H

B

CI

u*v

E

jj

O

c

CO

E

c

-H

o

o

tr>

3

a

o

g

<s>

c

3

r~

03

£

c.

Q

CN

—I E "-l O <ft .-I t/3

>. 03 — '

lj Si ••" r-i

o ja
• o

0. z

H v: ir\ -h

0 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 <h i>

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

0 h -n lu iJ

c o > c w

<J JJ JJ — I o o
i-l IB Oi "J C C
Ci JJ O >" 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 <N Ei

0 X
0

>, HI

c •

3 O

o •

> —I
— I u
u o

Oi H O 03

U U3 h.

U U'rt H 0 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 0 H - H

a 3 H -I >, h.

u.

C

ii

0)

SI

^

b.

■3

b.

v.

u

01

J

c

c

•u

re

0

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

0

O

0

(A

0

<D

C

c

CI

10

re

O

C

03

0

JJ

-J

tn

IT

-3

a.

1)

0

n

c

•M

3

c

n

S

c

c

V,

v£>

JZ

2

O

u

re

ro

J=

I

0

u

rr

<3

u

01

X

ro

E

IS o

.0

0

JJ

r4

0

IJ

Ol

u

0

C

■h ^r

c

a

IX

re

a

13

>,

w

u

<0

►3

It

O1 CM

c

u

CI

c

u

-H

E

r-J

Li

■0

JJ

JJ

O

13

IS

u

>

o

0

<

10

in

0 X

>

o

[fl

m

0

>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 0 JJ
u a

c vo 0 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

0

u;

b.

L.

c

u

O

M

IS

hi

n

>

s

O

B

s

0

Bl

0

b

CI

(3

u

CI

e

a

■0

>

•C

o

c

U)

X

^

Li

<o

B

c

CO

c

u

K

n

E

Li

c

c

rx

jr

r

X

JJ

U

C

CI

10

>

f3

Lfi

>

£

(A

■9

re

o

c

c

U

■0

C

b.

IB

0

•o

hi

0

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

0

li a

to

B

.^ c-

c

01

tc

CJ m

c

gg

c

0

Ifi

a

«- X

10

0 O

5-

01

TT

c

e

re

j<

13

6

u

Li •

c

0

c

01 O

£

U3

cS

IS

E-

g

(J 0-

JZ K > tx.

.3 O C >-

-J

0

o

fT

— i

5;

c

u

0

H

iJ

mH

c

ei

fc.

c

p

w

c

13

c

tt-

o

0

1

c

0

£

en

E

v.

E

V-

0

>.

E

u

a

0

E

o

0

01

>,

ID

c

c

C

c

V.

i-

&

x-

e

tr>

BS

w

£

c

>

o

a

>

c

C

oi

C5

c

io

>

X

a

>

0

C

01

c

2

.n

14

it

a

0

o

CI

to

o

c

o

>

c

j:

<3

3

o

O

>

r~

-H

ID

c

6

0

>

0

o

10

>.

-H

c

c

(0

«

0

10

o

c

\D

13

o

a

0

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

<w

a

10

Vj

E

10

C -H

o

0)

0

•o

0 -H

^4

>

c

I/, -0

0

0

u

•a h

c

■D

e

0

0

>4 -4

ig

0

H

■0 3

c

■*4

0

u.

-C ■

01

en

s

0)

t*4

oi ra io »

3 <w a e to

a

a

to

c

•o

44 X

V

3

to

X

c

U 10

o

o

SI

»4

^

(0 —1

01

E

3

>r

£

10

0

a -h

a

»4

13

0

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 0 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, 0 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

0

10 0) 3 Ul

O H S CnIH H

u u a in -n

0 Z oi -i

rH 4J -I £

10 01 O 13

J-I

10

o

0

4J

01

vo

H

10

cs

fc.

a

u:

X

u

0

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 0 U

0 X CC 1h

^

C -H 0

-I 0

•0

D IfH

U. Ss U -4

•H 0 Ui

O -rt

01 01 -i

44 h T)

£S

N JJ 0 »

■ 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 0 >

U -H

0 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 0 13

> -4 Ul

-4 0 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 0

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,

0

jj

0

li.

w

-0

a

jj

j*

a.

CL

jj

Oi

0/

w

0

c

W

1M

01

•H

Q

a>

a

D

C

re

01

0

n

CI

<JJ

4J

a>

•H

u

Ij

0

3)

u

1

C

re

2

1

JJ

a

0)

c

m

CO

3

re

c

3

(3

re

0

T

C

CD

s

IB

0

re

"0

IB

0

— 1

rg

(N

G

j:

i*

•C

3

E-

B.

U)

4->

<0

a

re

c

cr

IB

E

M

£

c

o

>

0

»H

^

0

<N

0

0

K

o

0

IS

is

o

IT!

H

£

PS

C

K

U

E»

*

u

fN

H

a

U.

fN

a.

— I 4-1 CO 0

: it [b ui

CD -I

o -o

It

r b o o

3W O «
£ -J D. 0

H It V C H

b b 1. J li,

ID 3 4J IT

►! C IM O t-

MH

a

•

>- JJ

0

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 0 IB

c ^ o o

£ 3 JJ

— i t. iJ —

rl -< b.

H c 0 -u -

1o£

U »- i- •-!

u h ei e

re

~

e

0

IB

X

E O

it

C

IB

c

u js

IB

u

c

*j rsj

X

IB

u;

to

JZ

d

X

&

cr

0

k,

IB

IB

t_

a

(B -*

U

C-.

O

jj c

■3

0

IN

0

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-£.-§-335-S3£X5£20- = 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-cS0|3.c2 5P-C c <o -

■B e a S g g g 8 J-™ » s s 5 - ■.-

r^*s <o "S u IS fc. c F * - ■ 3 -

" ■ i>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 S5Ex

.£ "=.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 l5M-gJis

nil ii til

a 5 a a
-■5 g. = .£i*o

■o.E g «M3 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. ȣ

~*^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

c2g,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 ar" 1 8.9^ ss « c|f 5

iiiliifl I J Jill

2p||p||||Pi<P|<
85S^«eiIs|3SSs

13 M5.&4 i 8

III:

litis

m *

5 f£li ^s:ii

llfilfjllj

WhjnK?i :■.;

18 til

^"s

3 at- of- -,-oi

msrnl

s |1||lf I

i iijlff 1
I Jlill 1

tl lilellii

EiJiVflMj11

. — »TJ

■ B JC'S

-s «j 9 e •

"2 c^ ? — -w2

!«•!

"3

lalll M

fi-= s *>3 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» es-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.

ssrsi!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!

ej5cs9o— S - — a e « ?>-2 a> ™ ?>™T34*>o_o E -? B £

c 2 E^3fi

£> T

5S2i:Sfei'gEj|s§s,§i-a-§

J«^~

> > — ° a > ™
* a*~-°-go

a = fi £ ='
< <Scc§*

,.8 ■ 8-

w-.£5 ■2t-oSx « c

bt~ Si £■=*'._ £>>*£ m£t>
»> —.2 - •) 3 § £ 5"° '

""igsill-rflwGji

'"SO -So ° *"=

►.12 = 3 0,

QwS — z a. -o a. « 3

3 "- °

ȣ.<*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<S E
= <=~

is— b

S s':

it
* S

si

SI

ES ai^ g1-1 * ^ a i. o— -3

6.. c8_ffB ^^ B — • — u *-» ** «.
pfc-gC>.c~|0TJ4lC-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 0t<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<a ~ o c S -S'5-95?--

""S S= xc-2E £ *Ofeo

laJfft*!

= b a >, 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!
0
H
50 1

5!

b!

<!

Q
Z

= o o m 2

If-issMiJS-ffJf

■ J> 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 ■? <J

l!lai!l!|i*1iil I

f-p >> a >.

S,J«i.cC1_cO>

" 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

xsTx--o 3 co- c.2 a--
^ S x a •- '— 5 S JS -S w . "

Si -I

fie3

-II *S2^

a - . ? 3 S X - ° =

- Ill |-*i-o 2= 3

lsilP|-I1|ilJs! J i]l 1|| IJiilililiJfliJjJiiiM i*1| SKilfl tj*!t]i1

uo_»« 33caua ^••^•::-«?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 Ss3332?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

a-p.E o c „ o, »£x
£•0 i-c^-2 |x *•£

— l-CUXbteuu-. ,.

~b! 5-So, E §.t|'

~t.SScg"gi. > 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-<t.2-30»>JC
gS«i2 0- S t--r

gs»fff§gi

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-af|-gaJS
&e.S.i *

is c 5" " a &s °'S= i-2a

C(*- WT3 «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'9J' E8- 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'-siiS0;!

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! «— Ex-c J a <s £•-* ?

villi's-

u o V -° a* S

ale es|5 »

!IB1

4* 0) oa 9i TS

$4-^ a?

8 &

a s u c

* «iT|»

5 w.u 8 B

iJij^ji

s c IJ-S5* .s»8£

6 6 « « «- »■:

2

8 "Sit

e e I §■ S * o a'
Bsi*ll*

a, ' o> >. 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 -=

BSll|isis|ffr5
lliH^iilN

iiiee>f >>S3- M

0 T3 r3 "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

"ȣo.

ft I

|Iii!|i"!l ill.

lli'iii

- - .3 ? p °i

ex o

L c -5 at Jl"»5c;ic!£

J g.fLllsisf *-■§!£

i Ei_ I ° fc <0«— g fe-^-

! C o o a-° i, c -r, js _ ■£
:.c «, IF "= !;:= J= " c «< £ *

- , .Bf»£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<fliltsliPili"

■ o-.u "" E bene

igil!|iti.j

sis.

,SiS S E ™-.E

1 III -Ills ?Iiis1 »

llltfellOiIJ

'■III

Jiff-***-*

>,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 JSt2

- ! " Q_ i £•-§ g BC

E eU

_ »> != S

— c<i:£ - *

i. Sj » c > jp

= £ *2« I
H a a <* "S -9 '

to c CL- £ '

w h3 $ a e !

S>E"

> 00 4 .„

c c-o a

o» c = 5 * o »5 = iH 3

f-gjB-J-l-sJ <s|8fS*

ki>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 c3 tJ'Si- £ " c— £ $

*I13?li*lfi iz .1 II iil^ig§8i-s

ill

Hi

II

21
11

i!
•i

iillllllf^il!

ii|!Mb'|jlUi

- o 9 I tt «.i-i_C

11 - b 3

3K 1^1 e^'tf^ fill P*
lf->JllJ|fiJjllifi gli

£ ~ 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'l1

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<nS iVs S-'ES *

£<.*

2 B«N i

E 8.E

fll*l

X «> 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„. <o County, assembled in regular
session on tlic £//t day of vDilA/ * 1977, 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:

it WHEKEAS, the six counties which form the Apalachicola River Basin: Calhoun,

Franklin, Gadsden, Gulf, Jackson, and Liberty Counties, share common problems.
Opportunities, ,and challenges which we should undertake in a united fashion; and

WHEREAS, we recognize that one of these challenges is Chapter 163.3167,
Florida Statutes, which stipulates that if our counties do not pass ordinances
designating county planning agencies and complete our plans by July 1, 1979, then
the State of Florida in Tallahassee will write our plans for. us and take the cost
from our unencumbered revenues and other tax sharing funds; and

WHEREAS, we want to go on record stating that the six counties must join together
In order to assert our local, county control over our destiny:

local, county control — not State and Federal control — < over the development of
our lands in order to protect the property rights, health, safety, and welfare of our
people,

local, county control over the development of our local economies, and

local, county control over the destiny of our Apalachicola River; and

WHEREAS, we do not want to see the Federal government directing the fate of our
river or our lands; and

NOW, THEREFORE, EE IT RESOLVED:

1. That the Board of County Commissioners of CMEia^L G&xfcji Florida hereby
joins with the other five Florida Counties in stating our unequivocal opposition to
the construction of any dam, or any alteration to the flow of the Apalachicola River,

■ unless it is proven conclusively that such a dam would not disrupt the River's
natural cycles, cause permanent flooding of valuable lands, destroy the bountiful
fishing along the river, and jeopardize the Apalachicola Bay oysters and fisheries
which are of great value to this area.

2. That we favor promoting the economic development of our areas, the creation
of new jobs, and the attraction of businesses to cur counties, of the kind and
location compatible with our fanning and fishing way of life, and with our clean
and healthy environment.

3. That the Board of County Commissioners of

CdiL

County, Florida, hereby

resolves to work with the other five counties bordering the Apalachicola River, to work
together, to neet together, to invest our time and resources to assure that we plan
for the futures of each of our counties in the Apalachicola Basin.

4. That we are asking our designated

cmL

i-*> 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 0 L V T 7 0 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<i> 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&£2l$i*d& Oh \dmlki*tk££\cn\a* itlie. jo fUcial<ppsXtion[^\
tbi State of Ttofiida ,%salM^ the ifamminn of tht Kpalachicola

nivtej-.* ; , ''•'•"'>■ •;■' :-'j~*. ••■-<- -_.•'-_'?■ l-: *-,

< \ BF XT FURTHER RFS0LVEP/ ifm* */u'4 Pe*<»£utcprt fcc <Aa«A-'
nut-tea' «tc the Cf .5. Aim*/, CcApi 0$ Fn.qinee** <u */ic oiUic<ca£
pc6.it. icn eft the Coveinc*. and Cabinet opposing this pnoject.

7N TFST]."C.vy PHERFCF, the Gove until and Cabinet of
the State c$ FtcAida have hcieuntc subscribed thciK naves and
have caused tic official seat of the said State of Florida
to be he.ne.untc affixed, In the City of Tallahassee, Florida,

7/

(>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

Species

GFWFC2

Legal Status
USFWS3

CITES

Fishes

Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostnun)
Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus)
Key silverside (Menidia conchorum)
River redhorse (Moxostoma carinatuni)
Alligator gar (Lepisosteus spa tula )
Bluestripe shiner (Notropis cal li taenia)
Lake Eustis Pup fish (Cyprinodon variegatus

hubbs i^ )
Saltmarsh topniinnow (Fundulus jenkinsi)
Rivulus (Ri vulus marmoratus)
Okaloosa darter (Etheostoma okaloosae)
Harlequin darter (Etheostoma hi strio)
Southern tessellated darter (Etheostonia

olmstedi macuJ ati ceps)
Crystal darter -(Ammo crypt a asprel la)
Key blenny (Starksia starcki)
Shoal bass (Micropterus undescribed species)
Suwannee bass (Micropterus notius)

Amphibians arid Rept i
Pine Barrens treef
Florida gopher fro
American crocodile
American alligator

mississippiensi
Leatherback turtle
Atlantic green tur
Atlantic hawksbill

imbr icata imbi :i
Atlantic ridley tu
Atlantic loggerhea

ca ret ta)

les

rog (Hyla andersonii )

g (Rana areolata)

(Crocodylus acutus)

(Alligator

(Dermochelys coriacea)
tie (Cheloni 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

egregius)

I e ( Gra p t.emys bar hour i )
hrysemys 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 GFWTC2 USFWS^ CITES4

Blue- tailed mole skirik (Eumeces egregius

lividus) T

Sand skink (Neoseps reynol dsi) T

Atlantic salt marsh water snake (Nerodia

fasciata taeniata) E T

Short-tailed snake (Sti 1 osoma extenuatum) T UR
Big Pine Key ringneck snake (Diadophis

'punctalus acricus) T

Red rat snake (Elaphe guttata guttata)--

lower Keys population only SSC

Florida brown snake (Store ria dekayi victa)--

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 sauritus

sackeni )--lower Keys population only T

Birds

Eastern brown pelican (Pelecanus occidental is

Caroline n sis ) T E

Wood stork (Mycteria americana) E

Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) II

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) T EI
Osprey (Pf_ndiori hal i aetus) II

Everglade kite (Rostrhamus sociabil is

plumbeus) E E

Marsh hawk (Circus cyaneus) II

Southeastern kestrel (Falco sparverius

paulus) T II

Eastern kestrel (Falco sparverius sparverius) II

Pigeon hawk (Falco columbarius) II

Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) E E I

Audubon's caracara (Caracara cheriway

auduboni) T

Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) SSC

Cuban snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus

te nuirostris ) E

Florida sandhill crane (Gnus canadensis

pratens is) T II

American oystercatcher (Haematopus palliatus)SSC
Little blue heron (Florida caerulea) SSC
Snowy egret (Egretta thula) SSC

Reddish egret (Dichromanassa rufescens) SSC
Louisiana heron (Hydrauassa ti i color) SSC

Legal Status
Species GFWFC2 USFWS3 CITES

Roseate spoonbill (Ajaia aja ja ) SSC

Limpkin (Aramus gua rauna ) SSC

Roseate tern (Sterna dougal 1 ii ) T

Least tern (Sterna a lbif rons) T

Whi te-crowned pigeon (Columba leucocephala) T
Ivory-billed woodpecker (Campephilus

principal is) E E

Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) T E
Florida scrub jay (Aphelocoma coerul escens

coerul escens ) T

Marian's marsh wren (Cistothorus palustris

roarianae ) SSC

Worthington ' s marsh wren (Cistothorus

palustris griseus) SSC

Cuban yellow warbler (Dendroi ca petechia

gundlachi) SSC

Bachman's warbler (Vc rmivora bachmanii) E E
Kirtland's warbler (Dendroica ki rtlandii) E E
Dusky seaside sparrow (Aramospi za maritima

nigriscens) E E

Cape Sable seaside sparrow (Ammospiza

marit ima mirabilis) E E

Scott's seaside sparrow (Ammospiza mari tima

peninsulae) SSC

Wakulla seaside sparrow (Ammospiza maritima

junicola) SSC

Florida grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus

savanna rum f loridanus) E

Mammals

Gray bat QMyot is grisescens) E E

Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) E E

Eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus) SSC

Mangrove rox squirrel (Sciurus niger

avicennia ) T

Sherman's fox squirrel (Sciurus niger

sherniani ) SSC

Goff's pocket gopher (Geomys pi net is gof f i) E
Silver rice rat (Oryzomys argentatus) E
Pallid beach mouse (P£romy_scus polionotus

decoloratus ) F.

Choctawha tehee beach mouse (Per omyscus

pol i or i plus a_l lo p he y s ) T

Perdido Bay beach mouse (Peromyseus

poliono tus L rissy 1] e^sis) T

Legal Status
Species GFVFC2 USFWS3 CITES4

Florida mouse (Peromysc us lloridanus) T
Key Largo cotton mouse (Peromyscus

gossypinus all apaticola) E

Chadwick Beach cotton mouse (Peromyscus

gossypinus restrictus) SSC

Lower keys cotton rat (Sigmodon hispi dus

exsputus) T

Key Largo wood rat (Neotoma f loridana

small i) E

Florida black bear (Ursus americanus ;.■"■

f lor idanus)- -except in Baker and

Columbia counties and Apalachicola

National Forest T

Key Vaca raccoon (Procyon 1 o t o r auspicatus) T
Everglades mink (Mustela 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

latirostris) E E I

Key deer (Odocoileus virgi nianus clavium) T E
Blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus) E E I

Finback whale (Balaenoptera physalus) E E II
Sei whale (Balaenoptera boreal is) E E II

Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangl iae) E E I
Sperm whale (Physeter catodon) E E

Invertebrates

Stock Island tree snail (Orthalicus reses) T T

Florida tree snail (Liguus fasciatus) UR
Bahamas swallowtail butterfly (Papi lio

andraemon bonhote i ) T T
Schaus swallowtail butterfly (Papilio

at i stodemus ponceanus) T T

Atala butterfly (Ewnaeus ata_l_a f lorida) UR

Oklawaha sponge (D°_rsil^ia palmeri) UR

Kissiiuiiiee sponge (Ephydatia subtilis) UR
Palm Springs cave crayfish (Procambarus

acheront i s) UR

Florida cave scud (Crangonyx grandimanus) UR
Squirrel Chimney cave shrimp (Palaereonetes

cununingi ) UR

Plants

Chapman's rhododendron (Rhodendron chapmanii ) E

Legal Status

Speci es

GFWFC'

USFWS3

CITES

Orchids (all species)

Cycads (all species)

Euphorbias (all succulent species)

Li gnum-vitae (Guiacum sanctum)

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<a£
Regu£afion hat itquttttd that tht Fe.dtA.al
Oiiict o & Coattal Zone. Management designate the
Kpatae.hie.ota Bay and Lowel Rive* at a National
Ettuaiint Sanctuaiy; and

WHEREAS, the Vtpaltment oi Enviionmental
Regulation hat itquttttd financial attiitance
iiom the OCZU in acquiring the pioptlty ntctttaly
ioi a tanctuaiy; and

WHEREAS, the Kpalachicota Rivei Satin woutd
appeal to be the mott itpitttntativt example
oi the Louitianian Biogtogiaphic clattiiication
in the United Statu; and

WHEREAS, tht dual purpose oi thit tanctuaiy
mill be to provide ittatively undittuibtd aieat
to that a Xtpitttntatint ttliei oi na.tu.xat coattal
te.otoaie.al tytttmt mitt itmain available ioi
ecological ic&iaich and tducation and tntuJit tht
availability oi na.tu.ial aitat ioi ute at a contiol
againtt which impactt oi man' t aetivititt in othti
aitat can be attttttd; and

WHEREAS, a majoi btntiit oi tht tanctuaiy wilt
be to piovidt a buiiti aita to help piotect tht
Kpalae.hie.ota Bay iiom the impactt oi lu.no ii and
diainagt; and

WHEREAS, tht sanctuaiy will piottet and piomott
the itcitationat tnjoymtnt oi the livtl batin;
and

WHEREAS, an tttuaiint tanctuaiy viitt not impede
01 othtiwitt itttiict navigations on tht Kpalachicota-
Chattahoochtt- flint livtl tytttm; and

WHEREAS, tht Kpalaehicola Bay pioducet mole
than ninety peieent oi floiida' t oytteit and a laige
piopoition oi floiida't othti commticial ttaiood
pioductt and it thtitioit a ttate ittoulct and in
nttd oi piottction; and

WHEREAS, tht piopoted tanctuaiy will entuie
the continued economic viability oi the community
which it plimaiily dependent on the living letoulcet
oi tht bay; and

WHEREAS, tht ettuaiine tanctuaiy wilt help
impttmtnt a tong-ttim spoil ditpotal plan; and

WHEREAS, the National Estuaiine SanctuaJiy
will be a itate.me.nt og national inte.ie.it and
concern 4°"- the long-tetm protection ok the area' s
leSOUKces;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:

1. That the Goveinol and the Cabinet o&
the State 04 floKida do heieby support the
designation 04 the kpalachicola Bay and Louiei
Rive* as a national Estuarine Sanctuary.

2. That copied of, this Resolution be
sent to the floxida Congressional Delegation,
the Executive Board of, the Apalachee Regional
Planning Council, the Chairmen of, the T-ranklin,
Gulf,, Liberty, Calhoun, Gadsden and Jackson
County Boands of, County Commissioners , the Office
of, Coastal lone Management, and the United Statei
Army Corps of, Engineers.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the Governor and Cabinet
of, the State of florXda have hereunto subscribed
their, names and have caused the of,f,icial seal 04
the taid State 04 Florida to be hereunto a^tf-cxed,
in the City 04 Tallahassee, Florida, on this
day 04 June, A. P., 7 979.

£(>*

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 Specific Comments and 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 on Agency, AT ant a, Georgi 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 Fisheries 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) Stone, United 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 Representatives (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)

0 - 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, Sneads, 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, Georgia
(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, Atlanta, 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 Group, 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.

Barrier 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 Apalachicola 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. Apalachicola, Florida"
(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. Blountstown. 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 Davis, 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, Middletown, 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. Glenn, 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, Tallahassee. 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 Kirvin, 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.! Tay1or* 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, Port 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, Georgia
(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 St. Joe, Florida
(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