d

S?T.3¥:^/

^: OF^

o

5

*^TE$0»»'

/

Draft Environmental Impact Stateme

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

DRAFT

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

s

£
"8

<3

D'

Digitized by the Internet Archive

in 2012 with funding from

LYRASIS Members and Sloan Foundation

http://www.archive.org/details/proposedestuarOOnati

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

SUMMARY i

PART I: PURPOSE OF AND MEED 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
Requi rements

b. Administration of the Sanctuary

c. Management Committee

B . Alternatives Considered 18

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 26

C. Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitments

of Resources 26

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 27

PART IV: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 31

A . General Physiography 31

B. Soils Geology 31

C . Drainage 32

D. Biological Characteristics 33

1. Vegetation

2. Fish and Wildlife

E. Socioeconomic Characteristics 35

PART V: LIST OF PREPARERS 39

PART VI: LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS

RECEIVING COPIES 43

PART VII: APPENDICES 61

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 pro gram- -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 purposes 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 programatic 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 specifically authorize the granting of acquisition

ii

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 $1.8
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 also has the option of requesting up to $50,000 (also 50 percent
matching) for three years of operational funds.

PROPOSED ACTION

The grant request to OCZM is for the acquisition of approximately
12,000 acres of land, to be included within the boundaries of a proposed
sanctuary consisting of approximately 190,000 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

Ill

The inclusion of the St. Vincent Island National Wildlife Refuge is
contingent upon the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's acceptance of the
estuarine sanctuary boundaries and the management structure as it relates
to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 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 appear to be 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 sanctuary 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 and advise on any changes in management plans and development
projects on existing publicly owned lands;

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 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 Review and advise the appropriate Federal, State, or local
government (s) on proposed actions, plans, and projects in,
adjacent to, or affecting the sanctuary. Such projects, actions,
and plans include 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; and,

o Enhance communication and cooperation among all interests involved
in the sanctuary.

The proposed Sanctuary Management Committee will be comprised of the
following groups, organizations, or their representatives: The Franklin
County Commission, the Apalachicola Bay resource users, research and educational
institutions, the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER), the Game

IV

and Fresh Water Fish Commission, and the Department of Natural Resources.
The Federal Office of Coastal Zone Management and the Division of State
Planning will be non-voting members. Recognizing the interstate nature
of the Apalachicola River/Bay system, the States of Alabama and Georgia
will have access to and input upon the Committee through the DER.

ALTERNATIVES

The major boundary considerations 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 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 it was 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

There has been a substantial amount of support expressed for an estuarine
sanctuary within the Apalachicola River/Ray 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 system. During the preparation of this DEIS, the authors
were cognizant of this valid concern and attempted to be as explicit as
possible regarding the proposed sanctuary's impacts upon navigation and
waterborne commerce.

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 requesting States. The individual States
own and manage all land that is purchased. There are no new Federal laws
that come with sanctuary designation.

Similarly, estuarine sanctuary status cannot change or alter the
congressionally authorized navigation projects within the sanctuary
boundaries. 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 navigation,
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, 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 juris-
diction, 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 juris-
diction 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, §307(e)(l)). Additionally, this proposal specifi-
cally allows navigation, including the maintenance dredging of existing
channels, subject to existing State and Federal permit reviews.

A potential impact is the prohibition against expanding existing channels,
or the creation of new channels, until a long term disposal plan has been
completed. Spoil disposal has long been a source of contention between

VI

Florida environmental agencies and the Corps of Engineers. It is anticipated
that the creation of the estuarine sanctuary, and the formation of the
Sanctuary Management Committee, will be a catalyst towards the creation of a
long term disposal plan to alleviate the problem.

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 scientifically
and technically support 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
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 LI 5 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. It is anticipated 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 Biogeographic Classification

South Slough Columbian

Coos Bay, Oregon

Duplin River/ Carolinian

Sapelo Island, Georgia

Waimanu Valley, Insular

Island of Hawaii, Hawaii

Rookery Bay, West Indian

Collier County, Florida

Old Woman Creek, Great Lakes

Erie Co. , Ohio

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 190,000 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 $1,800,000 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.

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, hov/ever, 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

J^\

N

» to 30

E BS

qENERAl loCATJON

ApAlAchiColA,fliNT

ANd chATTA^OOChEE

RIVER bASiN

Apalachicola Bay

FIGURE 2

f ■ 1 ! T

ScoJ* la MUM

CHATTAHOOCHEE ' 9 ft-*

ApAUchicoU RiVER
bAsiN iN flomdA

County Line*
Apotochicoto Kr*mBo%9\

mat #f M*>ic0

"8
FTQJRE 3

Proposed Sanctuary Boundaries

ApAUdiicolA

Publicly ovoied lands

Lands proposed for acquisition

«u

«£X>eO

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

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. The sanctuary size, including lands and waters,
would be approximately 190,000 acres. The proposed acquisition includes
the following ownerships:

Name Acres

1. Harlan Franklin 285

2. St. Joe Paper Co. 1051

3. Buckeye Celvose 100

4. Jay Sholer 1203

5. U.S. Home Corp 1550

6. International paper Co. 413

7. Marion Chason 63

8. Wi lledine Vauchn 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 $3.6 million, consisting of a grant of $1.8 million
from 0CZM that will be equally matched by 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
sanctuary lands . Prior to its adoption and approval, the concept will
be reviewed by the Sanctuary Management Committee.

Recently (February 1978), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was
requested to consider the inclusion of St. Vincent's Island National
Wildlife Refuge within the Sanctuary boundaries. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service will determine whether or not it wishes this refuge to be included,
following its review of this DEIS.

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 objective
of acquisition, the present management objectives appear to be 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.

12

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 ecological
integrity, in order to ensure the long term protection of natural processes
and resources for research and education. Uses which would destroy or
alter the nature of the ecosystem will not be allowed on this new parcel ;
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, sil vaculture, 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 wil 1 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 on page 13 to follow.

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, it is anticipated 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.

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

13

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, must be avoided. The authorities of Chapter 373, F.S are adequate
to ensure that the estuarine productivity, processes, and living resources
in the Apalachicola River/Bay are maintained.

2. The maintenance of water ouality 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 wil 1 have to be
paid, however, to problems of non-point discharge and the installation,
operation, and practice of drainage pumps for agricultural and silva-
cultural purposes.

3. The prevention of physical alteration, through dredging and filling,
which would significantly alter hydrographic patterns, ecological product-
ivity, 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 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
individual parcels within the sanctuary. (Note: All referenced Florida
Statutes (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

14

Hunting, subject to game rules and EEL regulations

Nonintensive recreation (intensive recreation on State Park lands)

Education as approved by the Sanctuary Committee

Research as approved by the Sanctuary Committee

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.

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

Expansion of existing channels or creation of new navigation channels
until :

1. The hydrographic impacts of the project are studied; and

2. It can be assured that the project will not lead to significant
degradation of water quality and biological productivity.

(Note: This prohibition shall not be applied to the pending East
Point Breakwater and Channel Project, which will be judged according
to existing local, State, and Federal regulations).

New public works, and projects that require dredging and filling
until a long term disposal plan is completed.

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
schedules for freshwater inflows; definition of significant degradation
as applied to water quality and dredge and fill activities; development
of 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)

15

reduced as a result of Sikes Cut, while maintaining navigational access.
(See the Conservation Foundation'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 responsi-
ble for the day-to-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, auestions, 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;

6. Developing an oversight of the educational program for the sanctuary;
and

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
Committee will be established (Figure 5). Membership on the committee will
include the Chairman of the Franklin County Commission or his representative;
representative of local Apalachicola Bay resource users, selected by the
Franklin County Commission; a representative from research and educational
institutions, selected by the Franklin County Commission; and one repre-
sentative each of the State Coastal Management Agency (DER), the Department

16

r

i -j .-ii

. m m « «

Ci t»M O t <C '-

FIGURE 5

U3
U
H
H

&
C

u

H

y

w
<

<

H

<

CO

3

o
u

M

u

<

P-,
<

a

w

CO

o

o-
o
Pi

PL.

41

e

K

*«£

• «u

t6S

* JCO

to

JO

xe «C
Wfc» e~< >.

•3C-H.K *-^C

•>• 0 C C U
•»* DC 9 «

•vo c h eo

• * 5

Id • ►*-*

O X 06

ft g

(H

■

«4

u tc

•O •

w c

i!

c w

• «

mo

Uk

.

•c

u u L_

c

• ■ r^

gi

U9 j

• T3 1

WJ

Mb.

Mss

&

E

.(

w •

o
C

c«m 5

jc-c ■

m s

kau

•9 c

— ft

> 4J

c c

2 >-

17

of Natural Resources, and the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission.
These six individuals will form the voting members of the committee

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, Florida
Agriculture and Mining University, the Florida Department of Education,
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.

In addition to the voting members, the Federal Office of Coastal
Zone Management and the Florida Division of State Planning will each
designate an advisory nonvoting representative. The Division of State
Planning will coordinate the input of the Subcommittee on Resources
Management and Planning, which will consist of representatives from
a variety of agencies with planning and management responsibilities,
including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, Florida
Division of Forestry, Apalachee Regional Planning Council, and the Northwest
Florida Water Management District.

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 each. 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
advisory and substantive roles, which include:

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; and

18

b. Review applicants for sanctuary coordinator and staff positions
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 review and 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 approve special projects, including:

a. The development of a long term spoil disposal plan for the Lower
Apalachicola River and Bay; and

b. The identification of the need for, and the initiation of, projects
to restore the sanctuary ecosystem where alterations have adversely

affected the bay.

6. To enhance communication and cooperation among all interests
involved in the sanctuary.

The Sanctuary Management Committee will meet at least bimonthly
during the first year following the award of the sanctuary grant; thereafter,
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

19

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 NOAA. 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
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.

Within Florida, the State initiated 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 province.

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,

20

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 which
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
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.

21

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 fresh
water, which is not as critical for boundary purposes as estuarine waters.
However, it is recognized that 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 it is felt that
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 coordi native mechanism for the array of Federal,
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. Substitution of the committee members was explored,
but the present composition was considered optimum.

22

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

Dingel 1 -Johnson Act

Migratory Bird Conservation Fund

Land and Water Conservation Fund

Estuarine Sanctuary Program

State Acquisition

Environmentally Endangered Lands Fund

Florida annually receives funds from the Pittman-Robertson Fund and
the Dingel 1-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.

23

PART III: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

Approval of this proposal by OCZM would enable the State of Florida to
purchase additional EEL lands, which, combined with the other protected 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 of a productive, relatively undisturbed estuarine area. By
protecting the marshes and wetlands, the water quality would also be
protected. The proposed sanctuary acquisition would preclude development
on almost 12,500 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 environment
that would be caused by the loss of wildlife, vegetation, fish, and
other marine life. Sanctuary designation does not preclude all human
activities within the sanctuary boundaries, but it would prevent those
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 Apalachicola Bay.

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 symbiotic relationship with the natural environment.

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 $11,000 in tax revenues each year
due to removal of nearly 12,500 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
purchased from local owners. Mo permanent residents will be displaced
by the purchase of the 12,500 acres of land. In the long run, the impacts
of purchasing this land are minimal , since the lands are generally un-
suitable 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 fores try- 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
navigation 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.

The proposed sanctuary will have no impact on existing river
flow and discharge patterns. Therefore, 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 assurance that present flow and dis-
charge patterns will be maintained on a long term basis.

An incipient conflict already exists between Atlanta's future water
supply needs and the maintenance of an adequate water supply for competing
downstream river 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 exacerbate 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 the City of Atlanta to plan effectively for its future
needs.

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, and is completely compatible with the management
objective of maintaining the ecological resources of the river system
and bay.

26

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.

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 sil vaculture, 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 wildl ife--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 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
the area's resources will be protected, not destroyed or removed. However,
as the intent of this action is to provide permanent protection of the

27

estuary and adjacent lands, in practice, sil vaculture 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 7.

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.

28

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 Program
for the Apalachicola Estuarine Sanctuary specifically allows navigation,
including maintenance dredging of existing channels, subject to existing
State and Federal permit reviews. In reviewing the economic tradeoffs
of establishing a sanctuary (see Appendix 6), 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 both by being a catalyst
towards the preparation of a spoil disposal plan for Apalachicola Bay

and by providing more knowledge towards the functioning of the river
and bay system.

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 Tri -Rivers Waterway Develop-
ment Authority, the Georgia Ports Authority, 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.

29

It should also be noted that 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 Department 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 irrefutable 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 8. 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, and others.
The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) itself clearly states, "Nothing
in this title shall be construed--to diminish either Federal or State
jurisdiction, responsibility, or rights in the field of planning, develop-
ment, or control of water resources, submerged lands, or navigable waters;
nor to displace, supersede, limit, or modify any interstate compact or
the jurisdiction 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)).

It has become apparent during the preparation of this DEIS 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. Although it is somewhat distinct from the purposes
of this DEIS, it is recommended that the Governor of the State of Florida
initiate, with the Governors of Alabama and Georgia, a mechanism (e.g.
interstate commission, governors' task force, etc.) for studying and re-
solving competing objectives for the Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, and Flint
River System.

30

In summary, the proposed sanctuary is consistent with the current
policies and objectives of Federal, State, regional governments, and local
land-use plans, policies, and controls for the area concerned. The major
problem that has caused delay in terms of dredging and maintenance pro-
jects 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 navigation.

31

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
12,000 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 Ray, Round Bay, St.
Marks and Little St. Marks Rivers, Apalachicola Ray, the barrier islands,
and a number of small creeks and bayous.

The Apalachicola River is 105 miles long (Livingston jet al . , 1974-75),
and it is the largest water volume carrier in the State of FloruJa (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 aK , 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 very poorly drained soils that are

32

sandy throughout), salt water narsh, 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-Flint 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 Ray 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, £t ^1_. , 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 reqular pulses of fresh water (Livingston,
1978).

33

D. Biological Characterietics

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,
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 oridi 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 Droposed purchase area
is not considered to be a likely habitat for rare, endangered, or
threatened species (Clewell, 197°).

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 shoal weed,
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 and catadromous 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 American eel,
hog choker, and mountain mullet live in the river but migrate 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).

34

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.

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)

Shel lfish excluding

Shrimp (total) 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).

35

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).

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.

36

Table II

Sel ected 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 .

37

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 DMR'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.

39

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.

Dr. Edward T. 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.

40

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.

The following individuals were coordinators for the Apalachicola
Symposium held in October 1978. They analyzed and summarized the recom-
mendation which appears in Appendix 2 of this DEIS.

Elisabeth S. Roy - Florida Department of Environmental Regulation

Elisabeth Roy holds a P. 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 coauthored the Environmental Consequences Section and the
Economic Impact Assessment (Appendix 6).

41

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 Mew 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.

43

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

Federal Agencies

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

U.S. Department of Agriculture

U.S. Department of Commerce

U.S. Department of Defense

U.S. Department of Energy

U.S. Department of Health, Education & Welfare

U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Department of Justice

U.S. Department of Labor

U.S. Department of Transportation

U.S. Coast Guard

Environmental Protection Agency

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

General Services Administration

Marine Mammal Commission

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

National Interest Groups

A.M. E.R.I. C.A.N.

AFL-CIO

American Association of Port Authorities

American Bar Association

American Bureau of Shipping

American Farm Bureau Federation

American Fisheries Society

American Forest Institute

American Gas Association

American Hotel and Motel Association

American Industrial Development Council

American Institute of Architects

American Institute of Merchant Shipping

American Institute of Planners

American Littoral Society

American Mining Congress

American Oceanic Organization

American Petroleum Institute

American Shore and Beach Preservation Association

American Society of Civil Engineers

American Society of Landscape Architects, Inc.

American Society of Planning Officials

American Water Resources Association

American Waterways Operators

Amoco Production Company

Ashland Oi 1, Inc.

Associated General Contractors of America

Association of Oil Pipe Lines

44

Atlantic Richfield Company

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission

Atomic Industrial Forum

Barrier Islands Coalition

Boating Industry Association

Center for Law and Social Policy

Center for Natural Areas

Center for Urban Affairs

Center for Urban & Regional Resources

Chamber of Commerce of the United States

Chevron U.S.A. , Inc.

Cities Service Company

City Service Oil Company

Coastal States Organization

Conservation Foundation

Continental Oil Company

Council of State Governments

Council of State Planning Agencies

The Cousteau Society

Earth Metabolic Design Laboratories, Inc.

Edison Electric Institute

El Paso Natural Gas Co.

Environmental Policy Center

Environmental Defense Fund, Inc.

Environmental Law Institute

EXXON Company, U.S.A.

Friends of the Earth

Getty Oil Company

Great Lakes Basin Commission

Gulf Energy and Minerals, U.S.

Gulf Oi 1 Company

Gulf Refining Company

Gulf South Atlantic Fisheries Development Foundation

Independent Petroleum Association of America

Industrial Union of Marine & Shipbuilding Workers of America

Institute for the Human Environment

Institute for Marine Studies

Interstate Natural Gas Association of America

Izaak Walton League

Lake Michigan Federation

League of Conservation Voters

League of Women Voters Education Fund

Marathon Oil Company

Marine Technology Society

Mobil Oil Corporation

Mobil Exploration & Producing, Inc.

Murphy Oi 1 Company

National Academy of Engineering

National Association of Conservation Districts

National Association of Counties

National Association of Dredging Contractors

National Association of Electric Companies

45

National Association of Engine & Boat Manufacturers

National Association of Home Builders

National Association of Realtors

National Association of Regional Councils

National Association of State Boating Law Administrators

National Association of State Park Directors

National Audubon Society

National Boating Federation

National Canners Association

National Coalition for Marine Conservation, Inc.

National Commission on Marine Policy

National Conference of State Legislatures

National Environmental Development Association

National Farmers Union

National Federation of Fishermen

National Fisheries Institute

National Forest Products Association

National Governors Association

National League of Cities

National Ocean Industries Association

National Parks and Conservation Association

National Petroleum Council

National Petroleum Refiners Association

National Realty Committee

National Recreation and Park Association

National Research Council

National Science Foundation

National Science Teachers Association

National Shrimp Congress

National Soceity of Professional Engineers

National Wildlife Federation

National Waterways Conference

Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America

Natural Resources Defense Council

The Nature Conservancy

Nautilus Press

New England River Basin Commission

North Atlantic Ports Association

Outboard Marine Corporation

Resources for the Future

Rice University Center for Community Design and Development

Shell Oil Company

Shellfish Institute of North America

Shipbuilders Council of America

Sierra Club

Skel ly Oil Company

Society of Industrial Realtors

Society of Real Estate Appraisers

Soil Conservation Society of America

Southern California Gas Company

Sport Fishing Institute

Standard Oil Company of Ohio

46

Sun Company, Inc.

Tenneco Oil Company

Texaco, Inc.

Texas A & M University

United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America

Union Oil Company of California

Urban Research and Development Association, Inc.

U.S. Conference of Mayors

U.S. Power Squadrons

Virginia Marine Resources Commission

Water Pollution Control Federation

Water Transport Association

Western Oil and Gas Association

Wildlife Management Institute

The Wildl ife Society

World Dredging Association

Governors

Honorable Robert Graham
Tallahassee, Florida

Honorable Forrest D. (Fob) James, Jr.
Mobile, Alabama

Honorable George Busbee
Atlanta, Georgia

U.S. Congress

Honorable Lawton M. Chiles, Jr.
Washington, D.C.

Honorable Richard G. Stone
Washington, D.C.

Honorable Earl Hutto
Washington, D.C.

Honorable Don Fuqua
Washington, D.C.

Honorable Howell T. Heflin
Washington, D.C.

Honorable Donald Stewart
Washington, D.C.

Honorable William Louis Dickinson
Washington, D.C.

47

Honorable William Nichols
Washington, D.C.

Honorable Herman E. Talmadge
Washington, D.C.

Honorable Sam Nunn
Washington, D.C.

Florida State Legislature

Honorable Dempsey J. Barron
Senator, District 3, Florida

Honorable W.D. Childers
Senator, District 28, Florida

Honorable Pat Thomas
Senator, District 4, Florida

Honorable Kenneth H. MacKay, Jr.
Senator, District 6, Florida

Honorable Bolley (Bo) Johnson
Representative, District 4, Florida

Honorable Clyde H. Hagler
Representative, District 3, Florida

Honorable Gene Hodges
Representative, District 14, Florida

Honorable Ron Johnson
Representative, District 8, Florida

Honorable Ken Boles
Representative, District 5, Florida

Honorable Sam Mitchell
Representative, District 7, Florida

Honorable Herbert F. Morgan
Representative, District 12, Florida

Honorable Tom Patterson
Representative, District 2, Florida

Honorable Leonard J. Hall
Representative, District 9, Florida

48

Honorable Grover C. Robinson, III
Representative, District 1, Florida

Honorable James Harold Thompson
Representative, District 10, Florida

Honorable Don C. Price
Representative, District 11, Florida

Honorable James G. Ward
Representative, District 6, Florida

Other Organizations, or Individuals

J. Clark

Conservation Foundation

Sharon Davis

The Nature Conservancy, Florida

Dottie Sample, President

Save Our Bays (Tampa), Florida

Tommy Anderson, Chairman
Florida Conservation Council

William K. Howell, Jr., Chairman
Sierra Club, Florida

John C. Jones, Executive Director
Florida Wildlife Federation

Environmental Information Center of the
Florida Conservation Foundation, Inc.

Florida Association of Soil and Water
Conservation District Supervisors

Hal Scott, President
Florida Audubon Society

Majorie H. Carr, President

Florida Defenders of the Environment, Inc.

Jack Bartle, President

Izaak Walton League of America, Inc., Florida

Frederick W. Harden

The Nature Conservancy, Florida

49

Stan Tait, Executive Director

Florida Shore and Beach Preservation Association

Sanibel /Captive Conservation Foundation
Sanibel, Florida

Joe Roach

Manasota 88, Florida

Ellen Winchester
Sierra Club, Florida

Florida Conservation International
Winter Park, Florida

Shirley Taylor
Sierra Club, Florida

Bill Stratton

Fresh Water Fishermen's Association, Florida

Organized Fishermen of Florida

Thomas Fulford, Executive Director, Florida

Robert P. Jonesm, Executive Director
Southeastern Fisheries Association, Inc., Florida

William B. Hannum, Jr.

President, Sea Farm, Inc., Florida

Bob Crum, President

Florida Bass Chapter Federation, Florida

Bream Fishermen's Association
Pensacola, Florida

C. Lowery

Bream Fishermen's Association, Alabama

D.W. Bennett, Executive Director
American Littoral Society, New Jersey

Dr. John DeGrove, Director

Joint Center for Environmental and Urban Problems, Florida

50

Dr. Dave Young

Harbor Branch Foundation, Florida

Walker P. Buel, President

National Environmental Foundation, Inc.,

Washington, D.C.

Mrs. Eleanor Weinstock, President

League of Women Voters of Florida, Florida

Milton D. Jones, President
Historical Society of Florida

Florida Water Users Association
Kissimmee, Florida

President

Citizens' Committee of 100, Florida

Walt Reid

Recreation Association of Florida

Nicholas S. Dunten, Director

Boat Owners Association of the United States, Virginia

Tri-County Sportsman's Club, Florida

National Camper Hiker Association, Florida

J.H. Trescot, Jr., President
Gulf Specimen Company, Florida

Dr. David K. Caldwell

Marine Research & Laboratory Facility

Marineland of Florida, Florida

Dr. Harris B. Stewart, Jr., Director

Atlantic Oceanographic & Meteorological Laboratories

Department of Commerce, NOAA, Florida

Mr. Wi lliam Luidall

National Marine Fisheries Service, Florida

Dr. Thomas Duke, Director

EPA Pesticides Laboratory, Florida

Joe Blanchard

Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Florida

Dr. Robert Smith

State University System Institute of
Oceanography, Florida

51

Dr. William Morgan

Water Resources Research Center, Florida

Dr. Perry W. Gilbert, Executive Director
Mote Marine Laboratory, Florida

Dr. Howard T. Odum
Environmental Engineering
University of Florida, Florida

■
Dr. Sam Snedeker
Aquatic Sciences
University of Florida, Florida

Mr. John Hall, Area Supervisor
Environmental Assessment Division
National Marine Fisheries Service, Florida

Dr. Robert Harriss

Edward Ball Marine Laboratory

Florida State

Dr. "Skip" Livingston
Department of Biological Science
Florida State University

Dr. C.L. Coultas
Florida A & M University

Dr. Joe Edmisten
University of West Florida

Dr. Pieter S. Dubbelday
Florida Institute of Technology

Dr. Jim Latham
Geography Department
Florida Atlantic University

Dr. M. Provost

Vero Beach Entomological Research Center, Florida

The Trust for Public Land
Tallahassee, Florida

Dr. E.H. Mann, Director

Sea Grant Institutional Program

University of Miami, Florida

Dr. Edward A. Fernald, Director

Florida Resources & Environmental Analysis Center

Florida State University

52

Dan Krummel, Executive Director

West Florida Regional Planning Council, Florida

Ed Leuchs, Executive Director
Apalachee Regional Planning Council

Honorable Cecil Varnes, Chairman
Franklin County Commission, Florida

Honorable Everette Owens, Jr., Chairman
Gulf County Commission, Florida

Jack Merriam, Staff Director
House Natural Resources Committee
Florida House of Representatives, Florida

Bill Preston, Staff Director
Senate Natural Resources Committee
Florida Senate, Florida

General Mylntyre

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Georgia

Regional Director
FEA, Georgia

Jack E. Ravan, Regional Administrator
EPA, Georgia

Special Assistant to Secretary of the Interior
Southeastern Field Office, Georgia

Regional Director, Department of Commerce
Economic Development Administration, Georgia

Director, Department of Agriculture

Regional Office of Intergovernmental Affairs, Georgia

Jack Abstein

Department of Environmental Regulation, Florida

Don Albright

Office of the Attorney General, Florida

Doug Alderson
Sierra Club, Florida

Dale Allen

Sierra Club, Florida

James Barkuloo

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Florida

53

John V. Bass

U.S. Forest Service, Florida

W.M. Beck, Jr.

Florida A & M University, Florida

Norman G. Benson

National Coastal Ecosystem Team

Fish & Wildlife Service, Mississippi

David H. Bickner

Department of Environmental Regulation, Florida

Charlie L. Blalock

Corps of Engineers, Mobile District

U.S. Army Engineer District, Alabama

John R. Botzum

Nautilus Press Inc., Washington, D.C.

H. High Boyter, Jr.

Florida Division of Forestry, Florida

Michael Brim

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Florida

Walter W. Burdin

Mobile District, Corps of Engineers, Alabama

Archie Carr III

Florida Audubon Society, Florida

Jim Cason

NW Florida Water Management District, Florida

Ralph R. Clark

Department of Natural Resources

Bureau of Beaches & Shores, Florida

Robert L. Clay

Northwest Florida Water Management, Dist., Florida

Andre F. Ciewell

FSU & Conservation Consultants, Inc., Florida

Paul A. Coley

Department of Education, Florida

Quentin Collins
Sierra Club, Florida

54

Ed Conk 1 in

Bureau of Land & Water Management
DSP, Florida

Clyde S. Conover

U.S. Geological Survey, Florida

Suzanne T. Cooper

Game & Fresh Water Fish Commission, Florida

Carroll Cordes

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Mississippi

Phyllis Corwer

Department of Environmental Regulation

Bureau of Coastal Zone Planning, Florida

David J. Cox

Florida Game & Fresh Water Fish Comm. , Florida

Edward J. Crateau

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Florida

Harry Dai 1

Department of Environmental Regulation, Florida

Rezneat M. Darnell

Texas A & M University, Texas

Neal E. Eichholz

Florida Game & Fresh Water Fish Comm., Florida

W. H. Ellis (Map)

Florida Department of Transportation

Leonard Elzie

Florida Department of Commerce

Bureau of Economic Analysis

Gary L. Evink

Florida Department of Transportation

Robin L. Fletcher

Trust for Public Land, Florida

Paul L. Fore

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

National Coastal Ecosystem Team, Mississippi

Charles R. Futch

Florida Department of Natural Resources

55

Steve Graham

University of Florida/Civil Engineering

Rima Greenberg

Florida Secretary of State, Cabinet Affairs, Florida

John Greis

Florida Division of Forestry

Jerry C. Groves

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Florida

Donald J. Hankla

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Florida

Brad Hartman

Florida Game & Fish, Florida

Dr. John M. Hill
Louisiana State University
Division of Engineering Research

Hilburn 0. Hillestad

Southeastern Wildlife Service, Inc., Georgia

Homer Hirt, Jr.

Jackson Co. Port Authority, Florida

Helen Hood

Florida Defenders of the Environment

Rosalyn Holzer

Senate Commission on Natural Resources, Florida

Duncan Hosford

Clerk of the Circuit Court, Florida

Bob Howell

FSU Biology

Florida State University

Robert L. Howell
Franklin County, Florida

Curry Hutchinson

Division of State Planning, Florida

G.A. Irwin

U.S. Geological Survey, Florida

William Jakubsen

Georgia Port Authority, Georgia

56

Anne Jones

Colorado State University

Engineering Research Center, Colorado

Walter 0. Kolb

DOA-Division of State Planning, Florida

Wilfred Kucera

Fisheries, USF&WS, Florida

Jon Kusler

Environmental Law Institute, Washington, D.C.

G. Fred Lee

Colorado State University

Engineering Research Center, Colorado

Jeff Lincer

County of Sarasota

Board of County Commissioners, Florida

Bruce W. Li urn

U.S. Geological Survey, Georgia

William P. Lueck

Private Individual, Florida

James A. McCann
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
National Fishery Research Lab
Gainesville University of Florida

Charles R. McCoy

Apalachee Regional Planning Council, Florida

Harry McGinnis

Department of Environmental Regulation

Federal Water Programs, Florida

Ben McPherson

U.S. Geological Survey, Florida

Pam McVety

Department of Environmental Regulation, Florida

Ellison Madden

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Louisiana

Henry Ma lee

Corps of Engineers, Alabama

57

William B. Mann IV

U.S. Geological Survey, Florida

Dr. Harold C. Mattraw, Jr.
U.S. Geological Survey, Florida

James W. May

Division of State Planning, Florida

D. Bruce Means

Tall Timbers Research Station, Florida

A.J. Mehta

Department of Coastal & Oceanographic Engineering

University of Florida

Winston Menze'l

Florida State University, Florida

Walter Milon

University of Florida

Department of Food & Resources Economic, Florida

Pledger A. Moon

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Florida

Roger L. Morris
University of West Florida
Biology Department

A. W. Morrison, Jr.

Florida Department HRS, Florida

Susan J. Morrison

Florida State University

Department of Biological Science, Florida

Dr. Gerald A. Moshiri
University of West Florida
Biology Department, Florida

Gary L. Nelson

National Marine Fisheries Service, Florida

Alice Nolan

Division of State Planning, Florida

Floyd A. Nudi

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, New Mexico

Michael J. Oesterling

Florida Marine Advisory Program, Florida

58

Carl H. Oppenheimer
Corpus Christi, Texas

John Outland

Department of Environmental Regulation, Florida

J.W. Pearce

Department of Natural Resources, Florida

Marcia Penman

Northwest Florida Water Management District, Florida

Daniel T. Penton

Department of Natural Resources, Florida

William J. Piatt

Tall Timbers Research Station, Florida

David Powell

Associated Press, Florida

Ann M. Redmmond

N.W. Florida Water Management District, Florida

James S. Richardson

Southeastern Wildlife Services, Inc., Georgia

Charles Rockwood
Florida State University
Department of Economics

Elaine Runkle

Bureau of State Lands

Florida Department of Natural Resources, Florida

John W. Rushing

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

South Atlantic Division, Georgia

Jack C. Rosenau

U.S. Geological Survey (WARD), Florida

Thomas Savage

Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, Florida

John Scarry

Florida Department of State, Florida

Abe Schestopol Consultant, Florida

Charles Segelqvist

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Eastern Energy & Land Use Team, West Virginia

59

Dinesh C. Sharma

Environmental Consultant, Florida

D. Max Sheppard
COE Department
University of Florida

Hanley Smith

Corps of Engineers, Mississippi

Sarah Smith

Division of Recreation & Parks, Florida

Vicki M. Smith

U.S. Senator Richard Stone, Florida

Wayne H. Smith

University of Florida

Center for Environmental & Natural Resources, Florida

Ricky Stats

Leisure Properties, Florida

Walter Stevenson
Governor's Office, Alabama

Lloyd Stith

Fish & Wildlife Service, Florida

John R. Stocks

Leisure Properties Ltd., Florida

Linda C. Sumarlidason

Department of State Lands, Florida

Addie Summers

Tri -Rivers Waterway Development Association

Alabama

Shirley Taylor
Sierra Club, Florida

W.F. Tanner

Florida State University

Department of Geology, Florida

Charles C. Thomas

Department of Natural Resources, Florida

C. Richard Til lis

Office of Environmental Education

Department of Education, Florida

60

Gloria van Treese

U.S. Senator Richard Stone, Florida

Noel 0. Warner

Division of Recreation & Parks, Florida

C.H. Wharton

Georgia State University, Georgia

David C. White

Florida State University, Florida

Estus Whitfield

Division of State Planning, Florida

W. K. Whitfield, Jr.

Florida Department of Natural Resources

Richard Wieckowicz

Department of Environmental, Florida

Herbert L. Windom

Skidaway Institute of Oceanography, Georgia

Douglas R. Winfoed

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, South Carolina

Lowel 1 Evjen

GA Office of Planning and Budget

Carol Shaskan

Special Assistant to the Governor (FL)

Louisiana Coastal Resources Program

Mississippi Marine Resources Council

Texas Coastal Management Program

Alabama Coastal Area Board

Georgia Coastal Resources Program

Olovia Adair

Mobile District Corps of Engineers

Mr. Steve Graham
University of Florida

Dennis Lathem

WSFA

Montgomery, Alabama

Alabama Office of State Planning and Federal Programs

61

PART VII: APPENDICES

1. Estuarine Santuary Guidelines (June 4, 1974 and September 9, 1977)

2. Apalachicola Symposium and Workshop: Summary of Workshops and
Recommendations for Boundaries and Environmental Management of a
Proposed Estuarine Sanctuary.

3. Florida Statute, Chapter 258; Land Conservation Act of 1972

4. Florida Statute, Chapter 259; State Parks and Preserves.

5. Florida Statute," Chapter 253; Land Acquisition Trust Fund.

6. Economic Impact Assessment for the Designation of Apalachicola
Bay National Estuarine Sanctuary.

7. Local and Regional Resolutions Supporting Establishment of an
Estuarine Sanctuary.

8. Governor and Cabinet Resolutions Regarding Structered Modi-
fication to the Apalachicola River.

9. Major Types of Vegetation Within the Apalachicola River/Bay
System.

10. Fish and Wildlife Resources of the Lower Apalachicola River
and Bay.

^o^T'o<v

u

m

APPENDIX I

TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 1974
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Volume 39 ■ Numbtr 108

PART IV

'^6-l9l6

is&8!£§Si

DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE

National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration

Etiuarinc Sanctuary Guidelines

No. 108— Pt. TV 1

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 313 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 bean
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 xone,
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 (SO) States, agen-
cies, organizations and Individuals sub-
mitted responses to the proposed sec-
tion- 312 guidelines published In the
Federal 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.

Section 921.2 Definitions. Three com-
ments requested that the term "estuary"
be defined. Although the term is defined
la 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
S 921.2(b) be clearly denned. Although
elaborated upon in {921.3(a), for the
purpose of clarity this change has been
made.

Section 921.3 Objectives and Imple-
mentation. Several comments suggested
that 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
Lend 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 estuarlne
sanctuary.

Several comments were received per-
taining -to 1 921.3(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-
arlne 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 estuarlne
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 estuarlne
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
estuarlne 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, witaun 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, 1974

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 it 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 (J 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
deaned. Explanatory language has been
added to that section.

Section 921.4 Zoogeographic Classifica-
tion. Because the classification scheme
utilized plants as well as animals, two
commentators suggested that soogeo-
graphic be changed to biogeographlc.
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 differentia-
tion and a variety of ecosystems. The hto-
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 biogeographlc classlfleattoa
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 biogeographlc 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 biogeo-
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 clearly protected.
In contrast; two cemmentators felt that
the definition might prove too restrictive
and should be broadened. Several com-
mentators suggested that exampj— 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 dearly 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 921.8 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
be 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 in.
Pub. L. 92-532). The guidelines have
been changed to reflect that both pro-
grams will be administered by the same
office.

SUBPART B — APPLXCATXOH 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 sourae and nature of acceptable
matching funds should be explicitly
identified.

OMB Circular Ac-102 generally defines
and H— tttflea legitimate "match" for
Federal 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 dlfwiifrlng the necessity
of adequate funding with appropriate
agencies

One comment suggested that the term
"legal description'' at 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. 1 921.20.

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 (| 921.20(h) ). It is In-
tended that this criterion will only be
considered when choosing between two
or more sanctuary applications within
the same htogeographlc category which
are of otherwise equal merit.

One comment drew attention to an
apparent typographic error in 1 921.11
(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
S 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 § 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 (S 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 I 921.12 be more clearly
expressed. Appropriate changes have
been made.

FEDERAL REGISTER. VOL. 39. NO. 108 — TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 1974

19924

RULES AND REGULATIONS

One comment was made that a pro-
vision should be Included to use «>^a*«Tig
Federally owned land for the purpose of
the estuarine sanctuary program. A sec-
tion has been added for that purpose.

Section 921.20 Criteria tor 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 estuarine
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
m that it might prevent selecting an
estuarine sanctuary in an area adjacent
to existing preserved lands where the
conjunction might be mutually benefi-
cial The language of 9 921.20(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 (§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
§ 920.11(1). a new section has been added
to address this issue.

Subpart D — Operation

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 5 921.30(g) , This was
incorporated into the guidelines.

Two commentators expressed concern
for enioi cement capabilities and activi-
ties to ensure protection of the estuarine
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
estuarine sanctuary grants under section
312 of the Act, as modified and set forth
below.

Effective date: June 3, 1974.

Dated: May 31, 1974.

Robert M. White,
Administrator.

Subpart A— General

BOCa

931.1 Policy and objectives.
Ml J Definition*.

921.3 Objective* and implementation at

the program.

931.4 Blogeographlc claaslncrtlon.
931 Z Multiple ua*.

931.6 Relationship to other provision* at
the Act and to marine sanctuaries.

Subpart B — Application for Grant*

921.10 General.

931.11 Application for initial acquisition.

development and operation grants.

931.13 Application for subsequent develop-
ment and operation grants.

921.13 Federally owned lands.

Subpart C — Selection Criteria
921.20 Criteria for selection.

92 1 .3 1 Public participation.

Subpart 0 — Operation
931.30 General.
921 31 Changes in the sanctuary boundary,

management policy or research

program.

931.32 Program review.

Authority: Sec. 312 of the Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1973 (Pub. L. 92-683, 86
Stat. 1280).

Subpart A— -General

§ 921.1 Policy and Objectives.

The estuarine sanctuaries program win
provide grants to States on a matching
basis to acquire, develop and operate
natural areas as estuarine 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 Definition*.

(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 "estuarine 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-
impared 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 Objective* and implementation
of the program.

(a) General. The purpose of the es-
tuarine 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 estuarine sanc-
tuaries which will be designated so that
at least one representative of each type
of estuarine ecosystem will endure into
the future for scientific and educational
purposes. The primary use of estuarine
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
estuarine environment.

(2) To make baseline ecological meas-
urements.

(3) To monitor significant or vital
changes in the estuarine 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 estuarine 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 estuarine
sanctuaries of areas which will serve as
natural field laboratories for studies and
investigations over an extended period.
The area chosen as an estuarine sanc-
tuary shall, to the extent feasible, in-
clude water and land masses constituting
a natural ecological unit.

(c) In order that the estuarine sanc-
tuary will be available for future studies,
research involving the destruction of any
portion of an estuarine sanctuary which
would permanently alter the nature of
the ecosystem shall not normally be

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 108 — TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 1974

lUtS AM8 ftEGULATtOMS

19925

permitted. In the unusual circumstances
where permitted.. manipulative Held re-
search shall be carefully controlled. No
experiment which lnYoivea manipulative
research shall be Initiated until the ter-
mination date la specified and evidence
given that the environment will be re-
turned to its condition which existed
prior to the experiment.

(d) It la anticipated that most of the
areas selected as 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.
T leasing, which would not assure perma-
nent protection of the system, would not
be an acceptable alternative.

§ 921.4 Biogeograpbic classification.

(a) It Is Intended that estuarlne 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-
tuarlne types reflecting regional differ-
entiation and a variety of ecosystems,
selections will be made by the Secretary
from the following biogeographic class-
ifications:

1. Arcadia*. Northeast Atlantic coast
■oath to Cap* Cod. glaciated shoreline sub-
ject to winter Icing; well developed algal
flora; boreal biota.

a. Virginian. Middle Atlantic coast from
Cape Cod to Cape Hatteras; lowland stream*.
coastal marshes and muddy bottoms; char-
acteristics transitional between 1 and 3;
biota primarily temperate with some boreal
representatives.

3. Carolinian. South Atlantic coast, from
Cape Hatteras to Cap* Kennedy: extensive
marshes and swamps; waters turbid and
productive; biota temperate with seasonal
tropical elements.

4. Watt 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. Louiaionion. Northern Gulf of Mexico,
from Cedar Key to Mexico; characteristics
of 3, with components of 4; strongly influ-
enced by terrigenous factors; biota primarily
temperate.

S. Colifornian. South Pacific coast from
Mexico to Cape Mendocino; shoreland influ-
enced by coastal mmmtein^ rocky coasts
with reduced fresh-water runoff; general
absence of marshes 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. fiord*. South coast Alaska and Aleu-
tians; precipitous mountains; deep estuaries,
some with glaciers; shoreline heavily to-

dented and subject to winter louse biota
boreal to sub-Arctic

8. Subarotia. West and north coasts of
Alaska; ice stressed coasts; biota Arctic and
sub- Arctic.

10. Insular. Larger Islands, sometimes with
precipitous mountains; considerable wave
action; frequently wis* endemic species;
larger Island groups primarily with tropical
biota.

11. Great Lake: Great Lakes of North
America; bluff-dune or rocky, 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.

8 921.5 Multiple use.

(a) While the primary purpose of es-
tuarlne 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-
arlne sanctuaries will be encouraged to
the extent that such use la 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 estuarlne sanctu-
ary on economic or other basea 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 estuarlne 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-
arlne sanctuary: appropriate land and
water use regulations and planning con-
siderations must apply to adjacent lands.
Although estuarlne 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 estuarlne
sanctuary would aid In the development
of a program.

(b> The estuarlne sanctuaries program
will be conducted In close cooperation
with the marine sanctuaries program
(Title m of the Marine Protection. lie-
search Act of 1972. Pub. L. 92-632, which
Is also administered by the Office of
Coastal Zone Management, NOAA),
which recognises that 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 Great Lakes and
their connecting waters, need to be pre-
served or restored for their conservation,
recreational, ecologlc or esthetic values.
It Is anticipated that the Secretary on
occasion may establish marine sanctu-
aries to complement the designation by
States of estuarlne sanctuaries, where
this may be mutually beneficial.

Subpart B— Application for Grants

§ 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. TJJ3. De-
partment of Commerce. Rockville, 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 estuarlne 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

FEDEIA1 tEGISTEt, VOL 39, NO. 108— TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 1974

19926

RULES AND REGULATIONS

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, slae
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.

(i) 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 biogeographic 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.

(f) 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 estuarine
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 their
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 estuarine 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

§ 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.

(i) 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 estuarine
sanctuaries. In addition to the participa-
tion during the application development
process (S 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

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. IDS — 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 Changes 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 § 921.21.

(b) Individuals or organizations which
are concerned about possible improper
use or restriction of use of estuarlne
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 estuarlne
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 estuarlne 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

[PR Doc.74-12775 Piled 5-31-74:9:57 unj

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 1 OS— TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 1974

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

Figure One

The total land area of the proposed sanctuary is about 44,000 acres
. . .water areas include Apalachicola Bay, St. George and St. Vincent sounds

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--f ishing, navigation, recreation--that the area is now subject to unless
they significantly degrade the Bay's natural resources.

Because the multiple use of this area is essential to state and local
support for the proposed research area, a meeting of the scientists most likely
to conduct research in the area, 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

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 very 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 Wimico-
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 coordi native 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 very 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 studying 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 already 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 aid
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 existng ad
hoc interagency committee convened by the Division of State Planning sFow
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.

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.

T4
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 very 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 Apalachicol a, 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 Apalachicol a 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—it 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 Floodland. 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 wery 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
lands ide 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 and construction permits.
Therefore, it is the opinion of the Conservation Foundation that:

The private lands of the barrier islands surrounding
the sanctuary core should be considered areas of
of special concern.

Inlets. In addition to the upstream area of management concern, the
sanctuary authority should have purview over alterations of the inlets
through or between the islands. Maintaining the status quo is believed
to be acceptable but it is believed that cuts in the islands should not
be greatly enlarged nor should new channels be cut through. 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 the Sanctuary 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 epifauna (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-
microbiota-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 Swamp, 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.

> O > 3 >>

S- «i- S- .*-» +J

QJ 4-J QJ TO 'I-

gj co o *+- aj :

-— E — 0J

•a o--d

C X c
to LU to

■O D"0 W

O TO r—

• QJ •

t/1 +J U~l I

■ TO • I

:z> :s =>

H E CO 3 S to

00 C£ O

t_ i— to

qj >> o qj oj qj

0)0*0 C »— -r-

-O r- JT -r- I- .C

QJ C t-» TO TO U

: O < .—

"C i_ TO 1-

TO TO — QJ

n .c to e

C O TO

LU O (•"> S

o

C^

S- "C

to

^_>

QJ

O -r-

u

O

.— 1_

QJ

>1

Ll. O

>

TO

£Z

■a

C

r;

o

ZD

o

s.

4-

<_>

o

>> o

a

•■- >)

TO

o

VI -4->

t. -.-

(/)

X>

c

QJ (/l

u

TO

> 1_

o

TO

E

■r- QJ

-c

TO I- TO •!-

C 3h^

■•— C t^) -C w

>i QJ C
TO +-> C
2W<

(.- VI CJ

C >— TO -.-

■ r- _ QJ j;

cz o o c;

-c -C

■r- •— l C

-t-> -C

+J >> V-

■r- ■— l <D

■+-- U

-C

u_

£

VI

i_

O

Urn

QJ

a.

W

TO

>>

QJ

t-

2

>> >>

+->

U

Q>

jz

L.

1-

(/>

o

3

TO

QJ

in

1/1

s-

O

s

S_

s-

a>

I/)

Ll.

QJ

>

aj

yi

>

■c

Of

CJ

T3

<

c

C

c:

_i

QJ

U_

TO

3

aj

C

c

•o

QJ

OJ

°£

1-

c

E

u

<:

TO

TO

TO

TO

O

TO

OJ

to

-o

4-

E

TO

O

TO

-a

TO

en

s_

CD

■c

c

o

i-

•*-

■ --

r-

a>

• TO C L. r— I

^ *D r- O L

>. (/) (J
* C CJ JZ

i- LJ TO £ r—

_= ^ QJ

-^ TO r—

E > TO O »— TO

■r- TO S- • ••- -F- JC

^C C c; S; 3 U

qj — r-

r- p— L.

0J >>
i— l-
>s TO

O =J

u c

s- -C

fD Gv

p— o

i-

3 i-

O C

o p—

— i+- O

.^ -r- U

+-> •.- C

■— c

>— c

.— QJ

-r- O >~

i_ * -I-

-Ci

QJ

ea

ra

>

c

O

-C

TO

10

o

T3

T3

C

^

<r

TO

c

i— o ■*-

TO QJ
I- E

Qj O J- QJ

-t-> .— TO e

TO Li_ C .*J

-UJ 0J fc.

CO 4- O TO

•c >,-o o

3 - C C

i; C U io

to >— ^: c

.C TO f +J

U2DW

■O 4-> 3

0) j: • ■—

r—

.

E

>.

c

4_>

C

i —

1/1

3

Di

J-

3

QJ

TO

c

O

c

to

E

QJ

x:

13

■c

>1

o

0J

QJ

c

c:

O

CT)

>

3

w

QJ

QJ

to

L.

QJ

TO

o

XT

-C

to

cu

O

■t

4-J

-O

(/)

x:

ai

C

TO

L.

h-

e:

0)

OJ

o

Cj

TO

sz

>>

c

4->

fO

4J

TO

S

C

>

2

c

X

(0

C

L.

c

a'

l>

OJ

TO

=3

XJ

cr

■o

Q.

>

o

Q.

+-»

QJ

SZ

QJ

jC

QJ

o

u

C

c

<+-

TO

O

3

CL

to

X

4->

x:

£

u

~

QJ

*J

L.

TO

—

XT

•F"

r- to O

c >= u u <■*-

t- «j s

to . — in

.,_ 4-J X i- •

in XJ CTi

•r- C 10

aj c

QJ E S

cn E E
^ O

O u QJ

CJ s-

ai o qj •.-

x» **- 1— r- x:

in X

O QJ

QJ X>
in TO

- ■— i C "D O

St

XJ >> 0.

i ai v> o

I o >>oo
in TO

i f— CO QJ

S- M- -

TO .—

C QJ

TO SZ

C/-> 4_> .

C i- (U X +J ■-- £

QJ +J X * TO XJ

C TO QJ t_ •— Qj

TO t— 4-1 QJ TO >

Cu QJ O > CL.— -

l c ai< o

X> ^ (/)
QJ

■i- o

4_>

h-

TO QJ

i/)

W QJ

■r- U >-,

' J >>

TO

4->

QJ C

.C C 1-

>, QJ TO

3

■a t-

C

•r- C

l_» I- QJ

— 1 _o

C L.

1

u c

TO Q. in

r— XJ

£

3 TO

QJ (J

.— 1-

TO 3 QJ

u

QJ

O S2

QJ •

Cj.

TO TO 3

1- WX

TO

o

L.

CT C

in i_

CL C

OJ 4->

I/}

CT) OJ

C O

QJ

< *

C QJ

>»

TO -r-

QJ +j

O 4J

QJ i— O

o

>>

>»+J

- 4->

C TO

cue

C0.i— +J

TO

l_

i- TO

SZ ■«- TO

CTi

C2

>i

OJ in

TO S-

L.

QJ TO 4->

-C

TO

in E

aj

TO in

•r- U

cr i_ cr

in

"C

el-

J- CJ

>%4->

C -2 C

QJ

c

13 4-1

■c;<u&

TO 4->

i-

TO

l-

TO TO

QJ

SZ >> s-

H-

av

>>

-D

QJ X!

>

TO -a£ ■<-

u i_ o

cr

O in

c •_

C

-C TO

in Qj CL

!—

CJ

U

X

O —

in to

cr

— I in

■ — >, CD QJ .

TO ^. m c >> TO

>— «— to x:

+J -r- 4_> <J

O ^ TO in TO C -M

TO TO

L

4-> *■-

j__>

QJ

!_

QJ 4~>

-C

c^x

TO

1- W

"D

QJ <J

t/1

c

ZJ

+-> O

4-) TO

4->

in o_

O

TO r-

n

"D

4-J

u

t/1

(_) TO

Q-

u

c

"D -^

•r- CL

c

>

QJ

TO

c

TO

^ <c

O

TO OJ

CL

L

O

L.

CJ

3 OJ

k

Cl

S-

QJ

O TO

L

"D x:

QJ

a-x:

a-

TO

■*->

-C *

>>

TO

4-J

O

>, QJ .

2

zo

4->

c

S- QJ

OJ

SZ u

x:

a.

TO >

JC

c

c

E —

r-

SZ

QJ

3

"D

QJ

CJ 3:

t.

O

Cj

>!

XJ

in E

=j in

TO

t.

CL QJ

TO QJ

L

CD

E -C

■o

U >r-

QJ

QJ

u

c;

QJ 4->

L,

SZ

c

5

X! 1-

QJ

4-'

1/) <4-

C

TO

>

o

w

F— 3

E

o

2 I

(/>

C^

o

X

in *

"C >,

s_

QJ O

QJ

QJ

v\

■D

C QJ

QJ

c o

x:

O ^

QJ

QJ

TO

3

CLt—

L_

CTiH-

+J

O

L

O

If"

x:

TO

c

O

Xj

X5

M-

TO

S- >i

c

O

x;

t/>

QJ TO

C

E QJ

TO

■c

M- J2

QJ -r-

Cj

SZ

c

iJ -c

3

TO

= QJ

in TO

u

cr^

>v s-

TO

c

l/l

TO +J

O

ia cr

>

4-J

E

■r-

E E _* -^ -r- O

O ^r Qj Qj »— CJ

m- to x: sz S E

J+J 4-J O SZ

TO »— o

aj qj w_ i*_ <r_

i- XJ O O QJ S-

TO 3 x: c

r— in c 4-J QJ

1- C C -i- V) o

TO

■a 3 ,

QJ O
i— i— SZ
TO XI

QJ J-> ■>- •<-

i_ -^ in XJ

CL S- OJ 3

4-> »— TD -l-

E X) QJ

•«- r— x:

S 3 4->

O

TO 4^ ■<-

4-> TO t.

>— o

TO X3

QJ Qj
C 3 r-
TO O XI
E ' — TO

O >, O

4-> >— U

■^ TO X

x: E oj
i- x

O O X

I— x _~I

>, 4-J 3

■— GJ SZ

r— QJ r—

TO LiJ t-

qj x: _i

+-> 3 X

i- cr c

4-> o ^ x:

Qj -M »—

x; •>- +J

QJ — -.-

4-J lz;

p— U i—

C p- en

f— 4-J

C -T- -|_>

S -S"

01 i— r-

4-> »- 01

^j .1-

f jj o

r— to

5 — jj

•«- E f—

£ -

>— •— 3

<D

^E^

u

Cn O) TO

O CD

£

C -4-> -C

cn

TO

O v> +J

>> TO

4-> QJ

J- >>

s- c

i- jc

4J W"D

ft) -.-

3 -M

V) OJ

3 TO

QJ X

+-» L-

4-

wr c

o x

H- L. 01 (/> '

fD CD i- -M

x: -c x u vi

V) 3

TO O

V) CTi

xj cr

0j 4-J -r~

a. c c
— OS

O -M

U O) L- 1)

■i- x> a> jd.

c t- v> c c

^ or

V> o qj qj m o

TO f— TO o o

XT Qj — 3 •<-> fD

J- S- O VI

W ro OJ O

Dl*- > Wr-

O -i- *u <C

•— cn fc. a>

1- TO (. VI

TO <L> ro 3

TO

OJ

o >, w

■M I- >>

fD V>

cu 3

i— ■*-> QJ

•<- v> 4-
vi o
at -o

"O (U (P

vi u
>> o c

«— C "3
J= o c
cn u at

•r- Q.4J

a> s
at x: v>

v. O
E w U
O ID 01

(/) ro CU

E U

aj X> ■■-

C C »— TO 3

i to E

l/l r—

I Xi 0J

1 4- -r- V)

] o t/> i-

vi a>

n «/> O >

; qj clX

■ -r- *D

■ (J 4-»
QJ O L.

ac cu

5 —

to x:

OJ -— —

X .(-> TO .—

OJ «— >> OJ

£1 S- fO>-4J

L. v> _
QJ -r- 1-

fD ' — TO

Q.3-- L

CC U O -M

•i- U 3

QJ 4-> -r- C

i- i- .C
-.- fD O 4-
4_> Q. fD O

C •—

QJ X fD QJ
C CL U

+J C to
fl)T3 o nj

■O i 2 —

C E O -M

*D TO t— "i-

QJ 4- L.

-D L- U L)

o -m a>

o « > u

4_ a. o ■«-

**- " E -M

O QJ O •-'

aj qj

I. "O

O 3

4- r— jz aj
cu u nii/i

1- C 3 CJ
QJ -^ O-C
.C !--»->

h- QJ _C

. XI XJ
XJ r— CJ >>

ai 3--^

> Or--r

QJ */l L. cn

V) +j O)

QJ E C ^

i- T3 O C

ClO U •■-

£VJ2'p

O 1- X:
*j X) ^

C/1

c +->

fD *~3

3 HI W

4-> O ^- fD

vi ■*-> a.

QJ X3 >»

4- — O S

O O r-

QJ i—

f— «C -f-
ID QJ

X) fD O l_ QJ

s- o »- ai

4- i— 4- O E

OJ ^

O -O TO

Q. c S

+J >i U ^— X 3 Vjt.

i- m 3 u -^-» c Cl

X i- QJ O O VI O

O V) 4_> U

S- 4J r-

•r- .^ q; 4-> O •— <

>j fD •— ' +J QJ

fD QJ 4- CZ in X

J^ S- «— fD 3 fD

*J - QJ f- C B

QJ V) E V) +J <u

-C 3. <D +J < Cfl QJ

+J 3 X> -r- w -i i.O

I- V) X) *— ■ I
3 'i- <U Vi i
O > X

V> E — C i
QJ 1- fD j

>>*-> a> p- a

U VI "C XI
fD >, O V

E V) i— O ■!

-i- fD •—

L 0J -r- 4- 1

CL C L

■t- at at !

QJ i- 4-> .C -i

.e re « j-> i

t- E E *-^H

U i— — o

-o a t- c t-

Q. O fD u

1- <D 3 3 •*->

QJ -.-
4-* 3

QJ 1- ■
U <U -

C X3

u +-* a>
i £ j- >

O QJ

(D .

QJ

^ cn

) I- c

: fD m

■ 3 1-

J +-> fc-

■ U "t)

L C •

I IC >i VI

) to L QJ

> fD tn

■ a x i/i

■ jc c c
*-> o u

> u o
: c a> i..
><r- w a

*j vi l.

V. VI

QJ

N 1- •

•f- QJ

*— »JZ1 O 1.

10 U fD C 0! S»

Q. fD ' — ' cn cn fD

r~ O TO 3

<D fD QJ U C +J
X. CL L. QJ TO V)

(— <c to a: E at

6 u

I B

QJ O

<D •«- i—

•r- C r- 4_> +J

f- 6 T-

O) r— 4J

CL 4_> *i-

I— o.

O i—

O !— "+-

t— fO

r- 3 «—

^* m

T— tO

•— i— O

i— »o

•— 4-> CO

>J rr *>

-— 3

-g?

-M «— X3

tn r— +J

tit

<— r— U

4-1 +J Vl

C i— t—

rr. 2 •—

■M H- Ci.

+j in »—

•— u

0) i- i—

I— "O

4-> 4-> S-

.n- r- QJ »—

CL "— -—

i I

•r- fD -I—

•— t c

C +J

*— </>

■I- P— v -C

P— u

+J r— *0

•f- — 0)

CU L.
E
O- O

■si

-

<U

t/i

E

ID

<u

to

■o

o>

c

L

<U

a

_l

o

r_

JZ

*o

+J

s-

+■>

+->

to

to

01

OJ

*J

s-

(0

o»

3

i—

4 '-

#— c

+J ■»-

-Q 4->

•i- O 4-

i- «. s

i«- m i-

i— (j i—

i- o

a> i— s

o >,

•I- s» tv

^ r— +->

4-> 4-> =C

ai a>

. Oj in c a>

i -o +j .c

C "O 4->

i <u aj •—

: "O E = M-

■ ro x> c o

E C -c

3 W ID

^ */> O 4->

I +-> Q. t- O

t 3 E QJ —

. O -r- > .O

i»— .— en QJ

o i—
•.- o c
j-» o o

CJ u

©1 Z3 *

c s.

■i- a> w

IDT3 r

I- TO +J

CD CJ

■M QJ

'sit!

T3 "O

r- O

J- C

=> -C >,

QJ C

>> > t)

C •.- =?

c s

r- 4->

to c
- o

C to ■—

£ re

_ G>

C o ■*-

4-1 ^ <V

CL (11

O n-

re 3 f—

— T- <U

f— o ••-

>

a>

c

-C

+->

>

■*->

■6

o

*J

QJ

aj

+J CT>

0)

*o

e

M- .

u >

<-o

O -*->

re at

re

0

.O

i.

E

e

_*:

s-

re

OJ

U

lO QJ

.c

U

<u

L

L-

-C

QJ

■M trt

u c

re

4J

o

C QJ

re o» x>

i/t

o

QJ

re i»

a> .^

re

u

QJ

"0

C CL

js re

a*

re

■D

i-

-C

c

4-

a-

o

O

E 4->

■d

-M

re

ai

re re

c a>

XI

-O

to

re i»

c

re

>>-c

c re

o

-C

u

L

«o

u

o a>

c

s

s-

U i-

a» to

c

o

*+-

+->

to

aj

<D

»D

•— c

o

o

OJ

5

OJ

o

c o

4->

U.

■o

3

LO

•- >1

3

u

re

OJ

x re

re

re

OJ

QJ

U

u

O CD

* 3

rsi

u

>

4->

-Q

■*-»

en to

OJ

(/)

>>

i-

■a

OJ

c u

QJ

o -o

re

QJ

c

— JC

•>- c

+->

E

CD

JC

re

CT i-

-O

re

£

3

t

■c a.

<T3

re

O

re

>>

■M C

a>

4->

i»

s

3

-D

C *r-

u a>

a.

CI

O

4-

3

at

"D 4->

o

re

re

■c

u

to

u

QJ

i/i

O i/>

i- •>-

■o

ex

e

to

c

_c

CL.r-

at 1-

<U

CL

O

u

re

OJ

X

■d a.

a>

re

re

c

re

re

+->

y

>> OJ

■t- o

c

4-»

3

</)

c

a>

to 1_

-C

C "D

c

re

CD

re

> +j

C CL4->

■+->

CL

L.

>

i- re

O Q.

3

re

w-

re

<c

O

-o

3 -C

c_j re

CJ

$

s:

o

E

u.

re

O0 4^

4-> -O —

01 -o
1- <D

E U

1/1 u

-i- iu

e

>o E

-c o

to ru 4-)

o a; p— -r- -»->

*j *- <SI

OJ .^

OJ +j

•i- "D

£.

■D O

f— (^

o a>

— 1-

XI

-t--' s-

> CL

to E

to a>

o

+J o

OJ JZ

t_ o

m t_

i— u

at

»— u

re -i-

u .c

re j

01

OJ

w o

-a •— i—

i— -f- Q.

•— o »—

r— TO

OJ -^ r—

r- O

o *J ■—

4>J VI

f— Q. <D

^> 4J -O

•»- QJ -r-

& ti *J

I— i_

■•- 3 .,-

~ §■

r- •(- U

O •«- i—

j- -—

13 -M •—

> -M -M

.— 4J T3 4->

r- +J *0

*-* QJ 4-

XJ r- —

•*■* 4J 01

< — <U ^~

TJ r— 4->

CO t— -t-J

O i—

o -o

+J TO

•— •*-> a;

a* -^

TOT) -r-

*o

i- OJ

c

a> -a

re

fK

s_

1" c

*D

•!-> O

>i

u

fc-

fO

a>

CD

tv aj

■M

C -O

to

■M

O

2

1- -o

(0

■o

•O "=

•W O

u

C

O J=

<:

o

OL c/1

•*- D.4J

O) o c

CT L. TO
W +j «t
5? ° ^

-Q 4- T3 ^_

C C .—

— o

en

r 0J

c d

OJ

"D to

e

O S-

*J

QJ

+-> OJ

O o

E

c .c

•— 4J

QJ

0) </>

H- w

U

3

u

to

o--o

a1 a;

It]

OJ c

-C J=

4-

c

l/l TO

C .C

TO t/) QJ

s- c

CT>

•r^

u

-.- en

C Qj J=

QJ TO

C

s

D) 3

-.- *C -M

c

> t/-)

o

I+-.

c P

E

TO

C

TO t-

•<- -a a>

jCl

S- GJ

L.

"O

.C -C

•— C S-

c

C —

QJ

o

O

(J *->

llj to m

o

•— ' +■>

U

4-

Z-

■r- "O 4->
t. QJ TO
QJ > +^

O. QJ

+■> fC

-i- "O •—

JS. L.

4-) r- —

B- 4-

at t— ■—

+J 4-> T3

I— •*• Wl

»— o ..-

r- -Q —

(/> «F- "IF"

4- 1

r- c

r— -f- 01

4->

+-> ■+->

■M t-

_Q ■-- —

rH 4-> C

fO > — p —

OJ 4J p-

"DM-'—

5 St

» J3 p-

(TJ ■— •*->

to gy

5 «

p— m

r- 4J Q

C .— •—

.-. 01 •>-

M- C +J

F- <D r—

00 -t->

+J i— 3

C .*-> •*->

i— O H-

£Z fo

•f- r— m

'C b

O —

i— CL

5. ">

O 01 >,

O •- >—

■M E r-

o —

(J 0>

3 t/> «+-
I— 3 O

O ^
*— 0> O
«£-
U w

•f- u o

■— o» 3
u > *o
>,..- o
o o; i-

Q.

OJ <v

-C .— <U

•*-> o x:
a +->

t: f— at
•t- ftj i —

c o

•r- U

ro a>

<U -r- ,—

i— o

•r- u

-I- CL i —

5? «i

I- 4-> i—

X! r- C

U 4-> 4-> 2

— JC 4-*

QJ r— »i-

O — i—

U

i/l o

u

l/J

o at at

t/>

a> a>

QJ

E

E

C

+■> +J O "O

J o —

U

to Clx; Cl

W

TO

O

O

o

c to at

c x: o

L-

TO -,- o

+J

at

t-

a> u

L

0J

C+J-O U N

o*j a

3

■o

x. a* ■*-> a

C

X>

a>

CD o

c

C

(A 4-)

E *s> c at -r-

E

O

c

XI to Cl

QJ

to »— *

u

a> 3

x: to x: c

x: T3

(/J

TO

— "C E to

4->

c

L.

cn

i-

QJ

C f—

wi cn 4-> cn

cn^ c

QJ

VI

o

at

3 •

C

to

■r- o

— c to o o

C -r- TO

&.

E— O-

e

u

O t-

3

5

•— »/)

f— "r- E L)

1- j

■o

O 3 U TO

CO

E

o at

tn

QJ

QJ

xi t- to ""o at

"D V)

QJ

CO OJ

C

c

c x:

to

C

"D OJ

TO O XJ C l_

3 -K- C

rsi

or u l

O

L)

o

0» +->

b,

UJ

•f- >

+J XI TO TO

r- C TO

L>

>>

(J to i_ TO

u

TO

QJ

3 ■»-

wr-- at

u at —

QJ TO

>>4-> '

1/)

Cn+j

lu cn<c s^xi

c*j a

Cn

TO

>> a»

0)

u

to

QJ

TO

f- t/>

O

c:

at to >,£

JO

to

3

c<

o x:

"O >

at x: a. at

TO

x: cc at -t->

3

3

O

u

c o

• C -M CL u

* to TO

o

4-> X

-o

in

4->

o-j=

■*->

TO C

>> 1- 3 c

VI c u

o

QJ 4J 4-

a>

o

o

tO TO

j=

4J

c

U C Jt CO to

at o o

JE

■a

M- X. O

3

e

a.

QJ

c

u

QJ

trt >r-

TOO 4->

■<- u »—

>>

o

at

O 4-» 4->

o

o

E J-

3

to

QJ

3 "O 1- 1>

-M

L.

1_

TO CO

-cr

CO

CTi

QJ TO

■I-'

E

CL QJ

+j tn at a> o

f- -o "O

TO

TO

L.

j_> n- x: -o

(A

c

+■>

t-

TO

QJ 4->

U 4-> *j +j Q.
E U TO TO E^

-— at c

3

O

S- O+J 0)

o

a>

1/1 C

o

CL

o

U TO

ui'

■c

•M

TO &'

i/>

CX

B

•D

>»*•-

a.<

•w

C "O

TO TO C S -i-

u

c:

c

CL tO +J C

0J

e

10 (/I

D-

o o

l/) Q.'r

TO r— Ot

E

TO

QJ

>^

0J c

■o

L.

3

ro

o

QJ

IS>

U E

M- — *->

TO

>

U

■pi- at at

c

TO

o

4_, XI

x:

QJ

E

ai -^ %~ f— o

TO TO

CO

u

E

TO

c i- 4-> x:

13

3

f»

C

u

4->

i/i

■M O

x: o to

4-> 4->

3

to at x 4-t

S_

Hfc

C

c U

+-> QJ O 4-J V)

L Oi i/)

a>

L.

4->

■px at

to

(A

3

E

o

g id

> u c: 4^

O XI

c

O

u

l- m "O

4-*

c

LU

tO

OJ >

O

o

CL

**- to a? u
o x: at E to

CL -O

+->

■o

c

o ■*- at c

u

cn-p-

c

w-i

a>

cl-d at

L.

1/)

QJ

TO

e-"5,D

m

at

QJ

TO i-

o

QJ

cn o

XI C Q.

to xj o E

3 r- >

TO

>,

CO

CL

JZ

XT

e

u

c

L.

TO 4J

tO 3 O

3

x:

a?

•r- QJ E

"O

-*->

*J

to >> at

g

C

a>^ -d i- t-

o i-

+-^

>

OJ

x c a

e

E 4->

!■§.

to 3 •— i-

U x: CL

to

L.

c

+JH +; D

(Q

to

E

c

QJ

aj

TO

3 O 3 > p—

•p- w au

c

3

m to

u

TO

O

>> 3

N

cn

U

3

U O C to

F— TO

TO

to

L-

o *D >,

o

-C

t_

L7 O

o

>> o

cn x: at «r-

-O •

TO

u

TO

E • ot.to

C

+■)

4-

TO u

C

c

V c

C >> W 4->

3 C -O

QJ

3

TO U O

TO

3

cn

1

TO 01

— L? - c

o_ o c

O

XJ

4->

at at c u

"O

■o

c

+J X

o

QJ

13

+j> to »— u a>

•^ TO

u

m

x: t. to at

CX

C

o

o

<_t •»-

u

cn

4_> a>

O 3 TO -^ +J

»+J

c

•o

LU

4-> to x;

TO

o

c w

0J

■a

TO

U i—

-r*t W E O

at to to

JZ

en

c >,

+J

4->

TO

u

E

t-

C X)

i— U O O Cl

to +J c

u

3

QJ

at >» aj to

c

at

to

m

m a>

TO

3

TO -r-

\+- C CL C

-r- l_ O

TO

V)

O

x:

+-> "3 C3

1

+j

V_

JC

■D

O

m X

C TO O O "D

t. O -r-

x:

3 co at

to

QJ

o

QJ ■*->

4->

U

a>

O GO t» u C

TO CL tO

TO

v>

4-.' xi at

CL-M

T3

to -C

3

E

E

H- *—

(j d. at to

Q-

c

c

-.- to x:

o

C

t— c

O

QJ

QJ

o *»-

at

to C >

<C

vt

+J i— O 4->

=3

JZ

E

>, C *o ■*-> to

*d TO O

TO

QJ

x:

to O to

0J

■o

c

XT

to

XT -D

i/i

4-> C

f— i- -r- TO C

OJ L L,

QJ

U

C O i— 4_

>

QJ

QJ

VI

E

QJ

c ■•-

— t. x: x: o

at 4-j clx:

c

fc.

O •»— TO O

QJ

X>

tfi

tO

TO

a» to

TO TO -M 4-> *f-

e

o

3

2

u x:

tS

O

•o

-L->

■M

E E

-i-3 4_)

at +j

(J

O

U "C E

i-

■o

QJ

o

C

X)

>>

x: at

+j +j> at at to

u c c

cn

to

"O

to TO p— O

u

D.

i-

C Cn

1

TO

i.

C

m t.

C (fl U L f„

^fei

c

TO

QJ

OJ

at »— 3 •>-

Q.

3

QJ

o c

■*->

TO

3

at lu o 3 at

QJ

t_

>

•r- TO O 4-J

E

TO

O "O

U h-

c

LO

3

t

— T3

+j 4- ui "a

xx at

i_

L.

t- cx: u

O

X

oj c

t

QJ

4J

XI i—

o c at c .,-

3 1- cn

o

TO

QJ

QJ

at <c to at

c

-C

to

to

c

Qj

u

o

TO 3

O. TO L. at in

CL at TO

at

to

to

-C 4->

O

■M

C

-D TO

QJ

c

CL

4-> O

at c

<«-> c

»♦-

aj

QJ

QJ

tn at -o o

u

o

c •—

o

x:

TO

Cl

^ x:

O 4- -C C C

tO TO TO

X.

x:

i-

•i- x: c l.

UJ

2

*— '

u

to a.

cn

+-1

in

O

lu in

-4-> C t— 4-J O

< 3 E

TO

t—

1—

CL

LL. *-> TO CL

i

OJ

X

o
u

TO

E

8,

*o

4-J

u

o

(J

TD

m

c

QJ

TO

u

to

+-J

TO

>>

QJ

TO

t-

4-

XJ

QJ

0J

at

L.

> x:

L.

TO

■u

X

u

c

at

QJ

4J

x:

O

c

■*->

u

o

CL

4-

+->

o

at

TO

x:

n

■4-1

3

o

U

QJ

L.

■U *D

U

"D

>

C

o

"O

O

L.

c

u

CL

TO

U

>>

Cn

QJ

c

cnx:

o

X

o

at

E

u

QJ

3

QJ

TO

x:

QJ

U

■M

JE

QJ

■M X)

b.

o

C

to

4-

a

TO

L.

4J

3

•LJ

c:

■L->

at

TO

£

o

c

^- TO

to

,_?

+j E tn

2

•r- at E

o at

TO

> 4-» TO

c x:

•P- V) I.

4-> >» cn

c

U *o o

QJ H-

TO

TO U

S o

+J

0) Q.

to

c c.

4- >>

X)

TO *<~ *->

3

E t- c

to

to

3 to at

>»^

at

x: = E

4-> a>

C 4->

O

u

at tn cn

o u

c

>>

m at to

3

u

o c

>>*o

o

x; at to

1- o

■c

■o

-PJ= E

TO U

c

3 O-

x:

*o

C TO

u

o 5 —

u at

t/>

o >

c x:

x:

QJ

g«^

TO ■*->

2

to

m

in

TO +-> O

c

to

QJ

L. U L.

at o

C

U

en TO +j>

x:
-t-> >»

o

o

O CL C

i- E o

+j

CL

cv- u

C *r-

TO

1- >

k

■C) •*-> c

QJ

TO

C C TO

tO 4->

4-J

L.

TO TO (J

c u

3

(J

O TO

TO

4->

m -I- qj

TO

C M- X

+J> +->

S-.

C

(O «p-

TO TO

O

«— C 4->

t. -c

QJ

o. cn TO

4-> C

to at

iS> E

•— •!- t-

•r- -O r—

f— •— C

v- 2

u a>

^ -r- *J cr «ji

at at m

E > at

QJ TO ■•—

cnx: 4_>

TO .p-

c >> >

TO TO -f-

E E u

3 U

u ••- at

o ^ x:

U. 2 4->

1 *

-m 4-> <— x:

=: 8 Z

4-> O

■— v. «

f— U 4->

4- TO

r— TO

O r-

■— tO

OJ ^- «r-

■f- <U 4->

-M Q-1 ■ —

CO

•f—

■D

c

X>

3

CO

to

O

p— u

s-

-C

i- Qj

X>

l/l

O 4->

Cl (t;

X)

« 5

e

QJ

TO

» QJ

"D

cn.—

cn

3

C .O

c

r- fO

to

en en

x:

•»- <u

QJ r— ^»

p— CO <4_

z &

•— X>
C QJ TO i—
O i— O 3

•— .o

•f- o

E QJ QJ

+*> to

E x:

>>

QJ CO ■!-

TO c

O co

TO

■M QJ (J

4-> 1>

c

£

t/1 ^ T-

L.

o at

>, QJ 4-> ^~

o x:

U CO

CJ

(/Y-c o

CL u

a o

4-»

4-) Ck CL

Cl

TO

co O

C f X> £.

>> o aj

TO J

C =5

TO +J >>4-»

L.

ro Cl

2 «M TO
C >,— 4->

* CO

QJ p— »— CO

I- r-

X> -r-

CO

4-> I- M-

o at

QJ XI

TO

TO TO -Q "D

4-> C

3 +J

O

r: •— TO QJ

2 c

C

(J

3 cn >

» <o

•«~ t.

u

f— u *- o

JE

4-> O

QJ

ItJ -f- > t-

c u

C M-

4->

C 4-> m Cl

o

O

C

O t. C Cl

U CO

••- TO TO

3 «

4^ CL QJ

C

QJ (J

QJ

TO _C -C

</> o -o a>

£Z*Dh+J

-D •<-

•»->

4->

C i-

C 4J

T3 O

Qj TO S

qj m

i— i-

.C •

D. CT

=j a.

TO

4-J >j TO 4->

QJ —

o

SZ

T) >X ID

•P

**- O O) OJ

TO

CO r—

O C l_ 4J

to C

-O

a*

C O to

a

* ra

C <J QJ -i-

I- 0J

C -i~>

O QJ O to

TO -C

O Cl

c

H- C

4->

-.- Qj

cn

4_> CO "C O

4-> U

O

I- - CO

to u_

U U

u

O C TO

cc o

3 TO

QJ

CL O "O

*C

L

■.- ro OJ

Q> QJ

o >^

TO cn g c

-c U

I- 1—

XJ

C ro -•-

4-> C

a.,—

OJ S- J3 TO

to

fO

3

i- TO 4->

*4- C

CO 4-'

O

TO QJ .— C

o ai

<D C

jr

i:«r -^

4-J

II

CO

t. 4-J (O

>> =

QJ M- E

c

4-» -i-

OJ C

> o o

o

•i- ro

-E O

c:

•r- 4-> QJ

— z:

CO w.

1

L. to JD

Cn

TO

+j QJ

OJ

4-»

■4- >

QJ

TO C 4-> *C

s-

c

cn

^~ TO ro •—

> >> qj qj

TO

O 4-> +J n

to

to

C

U L. to O

U t3

TO "D

•a

TO

•»- O .C

x:

4-> C

QJ

E

XL CL cn to

+->

E QJ

-i- ra

C

O E C

o x:

O

>^

(O •*— •"— to

cn

C -M

-.- Qj

t-

f— L. >->

c:

o

O —

QJ

TO

ro QJ O TO

o c

TO XI

3

< TO .c t

X5

QJ .,-

M- -r-

QJ

s.

■C

CO

"D

(J

Dt QJ

TO

QJ 4->

*C ro

C

-a XJ ..- 4->

Cn

C CJ

OJ

TO

C C QJ TO

OJ

1— s

TO «*-

J3

to

TO TO C S

i_

— *J E

i- +> ja

■-- QJ p—

r— U

r— <J

4J T- ,— C

3 i— <D —

*- — >>

"E 4-> c

.2 s i

— -o 1_

Ol -i- -r-

QJ <_> 1)

^ £ I

»— w

4- **- -C

■f- < —

^ tJ

r- C

& 5

+-> X> 4-1

re »— <D

P— 3 ■©

fU •*- <—

■— -*3

4-» O- *—

4_> t— to

i— C

,— O —

p— CO

■P- — oj

Q. i— 4-1

0y •<- +J

CJ p—

r— C

r— O

O r—

3 r- t~

r— IS}

<— CD

•,- ^— t/>

O w <+- to

QJ 3
1- <J

•ec cn < to

HD TO

E E

3 •*-> QJ

+J *o

TO *—

.— .— cc

r— TO

- &

*— It) «]

o x: T3

<*- C

I— TO

QJ TO ^~

r— <o

4- -r- O

C ,— 4J

f— (J

QJ 4- QJ O

° i

BJg

CT)<—

QJ 4->

C M-

■+->

Lrt 4-

C TJ

>> o

•2 1

-O E

•4-J

3 QJ

u «

l/> •*->

C IS}

in

3 -O

•*- >>

4- OJ

O (/>

-O

o

*o

cn u

OJ l/)

C OJ

f— v>

.,- TO

TO t-

Q. TO

4-> CTj

3 -M

QJ

o o

■o .

O •*->

cn

OJ •

QJ QJ

-C QJ

-C J=

1

t- +J

•— j: 3

O 4-J

O QJ

C

.— -o

QJ QJ

QJ -.-

O D- -D I-

C- -=

l/i 4-J JZ

r—

fa

na

u

"O

o

c

c

s_

QJ

o>

en

<G

1

L.

o

c

>

IA

u

T!

■c

>>

CL

c

OJ

U

•*

[fl

^

O

o

in

a.

01

<o

1/1

u

L.

tr

U

t/>

•^ *_> c

M»- t- 4-J

a *>- «-»

-c E

o J!

gt 5

•t- -.- OJ

■r- O r-

4J r- E

-t-> i_

fc. 4-> 4->

•r- -i- VI

4_> =3 ^

OJ l/> Q.

S UJ o

a.

.— c

4-) <r

♦. i-

I— T~ O

.O 4- ■—

>— W

rO -t- +J

O +J ■<-

•r- -f~ C

•— C

fO r— i—

EI 4->

f— -r- O

•i- a> +j

QJ .— <—

fO 4-> -—

4_, .— i ■©

._ a»

E */>

fD

4-> OJ

■r- J=

i- 4->

GJ H-

•I- 4-> C

«— tO

•+-> o

+J -r- •<-

f— m +J

F— ■!- CO

+-> 0> •!"

r- r— CL

•a +■» •—

■^ O 4->

<: -r- r-

t i

L. t— »—

r- QJ +J

4-J </l

i— (Q

1 O.

4- +J i-

i— aj -—

+-> T"

<4- O +J

r- "D I—

I/) +-> I —

+J > I—

i~ +J •*->

r— +J OJ

■r- CL -4->

4-> »+- TJ

■r- *r- Q.

C <— •!-

r— l/l

C -.- r-

J-> >

QJ 4_> 4-

OJ -,- <—

r— +j CT . —

O '— 4->

4-> r- O

i — HO

*J S 1-

5 U t-

(/> i— -r—

r— m

_c cu 3

»— c

fO -r- -i-

D_ 3 ■.-

•r- 3 O

«— CT

— Qj ->-•

-C -4-J CT1

r— m

r— <U *_>

"C +j -i-

I- 5- E C

■i- E "O

.— C 4- •>-

re

V)

Q)

•a

-c

£

c

c

C

T)

4-

r

QJ

QJ

-c

■c

J-' w

a> .— <—

— 4->

•r- -r- J-

_Q l/V f—

■D .— r—

■*-> Qj 4-)

r— <— -O

i- — ■■

TO •—

c a*

(/1 <u

O +-> .—

IS

L. to

en-.-

■D

QJ QJ

_Q i- (/) i—

I- -D
4- <U C

r— C
A3 TO Li

>r o

u ■>-
"o u
.— i- a.
o ai

JE > (/)
to ■<— Qj

CJ LiJ
TO

TO -r- £|

a

CD u

ro

TO C W

> _C -r-
LU -*-> T3

ID ro

t- -c .
io ao si

O +J —

r- +J O

'— -o •—

4-> T3 -M

2 «

-= U

H- O f-

■g £

t— TO

O. j_) r-

■O r— .—

i— XJ -l->

c -— •■-

f— •— "C

<— -r- "D .—

XT TO

*— C

CO «t- +J

U r— -4-J

t/> ^— s

3 r- U 4-»

■i- +J O

•— r- Qj

E
QJ

CO CO

•> C >,

QJ -r-

OJ

O CO O V)

>>

C J- XT

<4-

C X.

..- 3 -r-

>>■»«»

O O h-

C

r-4J +J Q)

TO >,

(_) ■<" TO X:

•p- C

Cn

>1

•— A3

>, i- 3 +J

F— 3

C 4J CD

CL E

O *■> 4J

«J E

■o

•— - <D U H_

3 E

-M U O

m

O to

c

"O 3 O

cr o

4-> =

L.

O =3

c

t= p— '

u

3 J-

CD

-o en

a> — - QJ

.— >
o en

J- c c

"0 »— TO

c o —

TO >s CL

U -D

to O

4_> -M O

3 c <—
a. a; m-

C ■*-
- L Cl

+J +J "C

to

U TO C
3 QJ >

o cn gj

LO Qj

> "O
X: T? TO

cn >
oj 4_>

C E 3

"D QJ cr

C OJ ■*-> QJ
id -c co

4-J >^ U

*— - CO -t-

— C E

TO O Qj TO

3 x: c

C 00 +j >>

(0 C 4_

• — >— O on

O C 3 *-

x: — "o o

co O 3

»— to to >,

0 3 L.
J_ .*-> X TO

<J 3 -t~>

01 3f- C
-C <— K- QJ

+-> c>_ c E

1/1 L 4^ Q. -t_>

•— to c s

i — QJ Qj O co

4-) CO "C QJ

t_ <— x: c

TO O CO 33

QJ -r-

.— E *- Qj

o o .— JZ

L. ^— +->

O X2 4->

o>- co TO

U C O QJ

TO 3 -M
D. t- >> O

E — -+J 3

.,- •.- "O

>, > C

E -t-> -^ O

l„ ■-- 4-> (J

QJ > (J

+j — 3 cn

I -1_> "O 3

+j u o ■>-

-i- 3 U QJ
O "D Q.JD

XI O

CO '- QJ _V

CLJ= i-
"O -M O

C -D 2

TO C cn *— • ■

TO c QJ •

E -r- x: co

i_ >,*j *-> u

QJ ■*-> U QJ

4-> •<- QJ C JC

I t— »^_ O +j

cr> to c>_ c o

C 3 TO 3

O cr TJ

^- >»T3 C

i_ t— r— TO

QJ Q> QJ -r-

x: ■*-" CO 3 4->

+-> TO 1_ XI C

5 <J TO

co > *o L.

co co "3 ' — C3

QJ - TO 3

CO >) O TO

CO TO QJ XT GJ

< CD X3 CO CI

TO >, C

O 4) C *"

■— t. 3 QJ

M- L. O Xi

QJ O

CO C C r-

TO -t- -i- 3

XI .— O

a _- x-

-x: c co

>,4-> TO

■M i- CO

•f- 4-» CJ_ QJ

I .— C QJ O

U ■•" E '»-

TO 4->

co "O TO +->

OJ 3 3

O O XI

3 — - C C

O 3 O

co co O •»—

QJ OJ t- -M

S--r OIC

>— QJ
I- Q.T3 +J

QJ O. C 4_>

■^ 3 TO TO
TO co

2 QJ >—
t- U TO

"C QJ TO .i-

3 4-J ^- (J
3 TO 1- QJ
O S 3 3.

I- CO CO

cnxt

C QJ 4-
QJ TO XT O

x: +->

«M * TO

QJ C QJ

CO u QJ L-

CO c CJ TO

QJ to 2

co co -t->

QJ f— co

>r- QJ

QJ O *D

O
C Qj

ODE
"C QJ

CO QJ +J

QJ J- co
co -o >>
3 CO

"D co QJ

c j- x:

TO QJ +-J

O 4-> TO

U 3 CO 4~>

TO >i- QJ TO

Q.-3 -^ W

= 3 -M ■■-

■t- »— -r- X>

(J > TO

ai c--r

co E <j

co cj aj ..-

QJ 4_) CO 4_)

CO CO QJ •<—

< W4J U

+J I- -t-

^- M- -O

.-- Qj +j -^

Q. u
C C
to -i-

ra f—

>> —

■•— *r—

Cn

ro

, —

c

It)

T3

TO

c;

*o <u

T7

CL

o

CJ "O

t»

«=E

4-' 3

TO

U t—

cn

OJ

15

=J U

CJ

x:

0)

"D C

L.

+j

L.

E

U

OJ

O

in

M-

O

U ra

<U

cfl

O

s-

trt

E

^

cj ra

■o

TO

(/>

t/)

.c *o

13

t_

QJ

TO

cn

c

OJ

■o +->

W

O

3

o

<->

i— c

t-

I-

3 ra

>i

O.

3

O 4->

«o

o

jC rr

TJ

c

T3

V)

w 3

C

o

■c

cu

</)

■rr

to

**■

<D

i-

c_

cr

cn

ra

4_)

u

H-

•r-

QJ

r— *4-

jr w •

L.

cn

o

c

U.

TO O

o </l

OJ

TO

"O

i~

U

JZ

S- * QJ

-C

-t-1

C

Cl

o

4-> CJ

n)£ C

10

TO

E

OJ

c

C D

CJ O •—

TO

"4-

cu

cn

O

QJ

OJ <—

l/> TO <—

Cn

OJ

O

>

>» c

c

c

+-> ra

flJ O Q.

c

J-

e

c

Cn

s-

o >

t_ W t-

cC

>>

TO

u

c

c

a. u

U

4-J

TO

OJ

u

CJ

4-> CL 1/1

c

>>

E

cj jt

c m *-

ID

ra

ra

o

«4-

CJ

CJ

JC 4->

QJ X)

-C

cc

u

c

C

o

JS

E >>

c

XI

TO

o

L.

CJ

a. t- •—

0)

0)

cnoo

Cn

ra

*o u

O <U (C

-C

1/1

O

tn

C

E

c c

•— C 4-J

«4-

03

OJ

o

ra ra

OJ •«- C

o

OJ

O

sz

U

XJ

■a

-C

> i— Cj

E

*4-

<D

c

:=

c

>> c

cj c. E

V)

□

O

T3

3

ra

o

ra cj

-o -.- c:

>>

u

cu

o

o

*#-

CO

u o

TO

*-

JZ

t/>

4->

■*->

c

ro

CJ </) i-

2

c

OJ

o

ra

~o —

Cn-i- —

t/)

u

+J

cn

3

C 3

ra "o >

OJ

cj

c

TO

TO O

1- 1 c

c

U

c

CJ

CJ

L.

u

ra

X

3 -r- CJ

3

u

cn

3

3

>

!_

O +J

E

■c

E

u

<o

TO

o

•a

CJ

CJ 4J

o .-- *o

n^

O

ra

CJ

■•"3

C

U

o

> TO

c 2 c

X

J-

X

CLX3

TO

c

L.

c

■r- J=

LJ £ fO

U-.

CL

UJ

CO

ID

E

UJ

a.

«c

D£ 4-J

IT> 4-J

-•- 3

.— fa

O +J 4-»

■4-J •»- ^

t~ t/) >r-

■— f- ia

4J U •*-

+-> .m 2

■»— en

>> — ' **

Z §

■m *~ oj

00 •«- ■»-

o <— —

•r- o-i

CD -- 4J

'i— tn

13-i-r-

— T3 —

81 *>• +J

= — -M

QJ i— -r-

•f- >

8 i

(D t-H

•«- uo

•C V) +J

5? &

& t

° >>

C7> 4_> p—

O — _

W 4-1 ■!-

'•- L.

■r- ai x:

■r- fD

t_

E

a>

o

01

E

CI-

o

u

U

u

TS

£

rt3

£

01

<:

l/>

<:

+->

13 >— U

Q. 4-> -M tf-

— -M -D

n- — 5

>, 4-> r-

C_ 3

«l- +J -I- QJ

00 •!-

fO -r-

O •<- -.-

3 in

«-> 3 *r-

fD T-

•p- u

<D i— -^

C •■- -—

-E O I—

Z i

« -g s

■c ><- o

•f- «TJ r—

»— C =5

o

c <—

T3 CU E

l/l *r-

f— yl

£2

;,

k.

..

g

c

;>

Ll

re

c

c

3

4

J- Cj

■r o

c

C

<— u:

£

c

C K

<

e

o

~

r?

cr

w

u

o

u

o

C <t

re

(3 w

w

X

'■—

r-l

re

f3

> —

K o u o -t

Uh

jj

c

0

c

7,

c

re

<

c

fc

.3

c

c

*r

(N

(3

-—

w

t-,

— E 0

T r^ c x

IS Ik E = H

*.'

£

>

3

o

C,

■H

^.

c

u

iS

fc.

c

U

U

0

c

11

O

X

re

w

h.

c

JJ

M

o

XI

3

c

H

3

W

• -H Bj 4J [fl

<~t -H C <3

E- re o <"^ H

X, u < ~ o

Q C CD «0

i

r-l X

CI

c

Efl

tr

c

u

0

c

re

h

IT

(J -<

c

w

X

C

W

u

i

t"

re

-i

re

c

u

ra

C

—i re

a

X

c

re

E

E->

4J

re

OJ ^

a.

re

0

c -

H

rj

o

O

C

0

Cj c

CM

*

o

2

re

o> w

o

re

t>

0

l£

g

Ei

0>

H

Id

u

CN

3

•0

•H

^

w

it

U

o

§

0

c

4J

H

S,

c

(C

fa.

0

3

re

u

x

0

c

u

JZ

■0

QT

c

V

V,

-H

U o *: o

-h >, to m ^
re r-t • cn re

f V Z> cl H

z to re

red rH

N E O ~l

3 ro cn re

tn u o t-

C. 3 in •

U S 2 2

~h c

jg

+J c

n

re -h

~l c

fc,

o

3 C

o

u

o> re

o

h

o

C r-4

a

(N

>

c &.

m

re

(1

. V

^ c

3

(A

c e tj

ro

4J c re

c> re

J=

TJ

O

: N 0

e t

n

•H

U-i

c a.

o

bl

E -l

'O M

u

0

D

z c o

-I 0

b

01

re

0 -' c

>

a-

a

— ■

»*j 0 c

C -I

3 a
■ re

4J a' o

4 « ox

C fa. r- S

U k! < >.

. x

CI

.H

1-3 fS.

u

9

TJ U.

►3

a

u

E

re •

CN

re

3 U)

c

T3 •

ifJ

re

Ui D

H

a.

re tu 3
B D ft

CC -SO

cn H 2 c

vd j: =: u -c ^

X 3 J1 K

O fH -I

*i o re
fa, O E-i

H V-

z o a. u

ai —

SE

nj <

Ci "C u o

u 0 O

< [14 a

(0

-LJ

U

re

K

re

re

•D

a>

•a

0)

(£

*o

3

r

•0

-H

K

'D

Ui

(t

E

j->

in

S

re

0

ku

£

0

rr

C

a:

0

§

a

T

re

&

[b

4J

b.

X

^

0

u.

u

IB

X

k<

u

3

re

4J

re

0

X

2

0

re

O

*J

&

10

0

V

a

re

a

&l

u

hi

c

(8

2

0)

U

u.

Z

4-1

a

u.

m

c

f

Ul

c

oj

j->

£

0

c

[£

tb

U-l

0

3

w

J

V.

c

>

tc

JZ

re

K

0

0

c

re

0)

(A

(8

0

c

3

j=

J

s

0

Z

c

u

re

JC

at

re

c

re

c

b.

a

4J

jj

c

o

4->

rs

-H

£

1/1

re

a

u

<N

in

(N

ft

<N

re

re

&

3

e

re

0

0

CM

\C

u

•^

Z

t— 1

H

cc

C/v

D

CD

f*i

Lr»

cs

2

r- .

U t H Cl if, fa.

U- U O 4J

<c l. a a,

— •>-> •-» c

c.

fa]

u

a>

CT'

c

o

Ly

3

«

K

o

re

V.

0

L'

T

U

>

0

s

X>

u

re

<

c

0

re

*=.

re

s:

re

<

u

t_

Jf

jj

c

CP

u

o

c

lfc4

OJ

CJ

re

£

re

a

X

re

1

^

(S

t-

c

t-

H

w

fS.

&

r^

*-t

>

Eu

0

<

„

0

2

-G

Qi

U)

C

r

o

JC

a

re

K

ki

U

re

JC

re

m

<

re

re

k

c

re

tft

GJ

v.

c

c

CO

£

If.

3

c

re

c

Q

L0

in

H

■0

-

-< o »

jj ro cr

> b. CD £

^ 3 Q. H

> 0

ID — (

re

0 >

(/■.

*c

U w

h

u. c

c

u

w

>

0

c

0

re &>

e

X

u

K

s

0

C

w --^

CJ

0)

re -h

r

c

EC

O "O

o

&

(J -<

<

c

w

•x.

ti

-, s

re

f-

re

"0

x

c

C (4

cn c re c

k, 4J v. j-1 E-

C re -< r IT,
Z Z L. Z Z

4J

re

PS

re

c

•a

a

a

c

E

u

a

0

0

c

k

c

b.

o

>

w

c

R

a>

E£

k.

<v<

&

V)

re

3

K

C

H

C

re

> CO — -"

c •-• e

t»cox
c fa: cn re

■s I

i-i < CD QJ

f0 —i T.

u cn o Xi
U D U £

0

,—

0

>.

y

c

0

C

o

0

>

0

o

U

o

i/i

4->

E

CO

re

CO

D

TO

c

2

i>

CO

£

Ch

Cj

j--

5,

n

a

T

U

c?

C

n

o

c

X,

t;

U

O

c

n

C

T

tH

(C

J_

>

X

■0

L."

V.

c

c

o

"i

>

CJ

u

■2

0

Q

o

c

CT

U

kl

k

u

o

Ih

c

<3

s

(N

C

c

0

C

c

IB

»-}

U-(

XJ

C

£

-u

<

e

l:

c

3

K

to

fc.

<P

X

k

3j

c

C

o

L.

r3

E

c

E

c

j:

(2

V,

O

s

c

£-■

C

(?

3

c

0

CI

o

c

c

C

IA

S

o

CJ

>«

01

•H

R

O

O

■H

m

t:

L|

in

E

O

o

£

o

d

K

m

m

<0

£

>

g

vC

(3

r3

u"t

0

0

M

(B

o

CN

r*

"O

o

m

2

K

9

H

w

~

o

&

£•

2

9

m

H

■^

9

r-

w

2:

*-3

Q

rH Bri H

c -

c

>- "H

-J r-

K >

CI c

H • .-, f5 ft

Q t> d H

< O PI D C

c H -

Ci 4J cr C

%e

6 8 a

.p c rc it li-

re c u c o o

-C -H h 0 0
O U -«-i tw aj

£ C > C CO -H

= 0 1j
CJ £S -H
£ 1-.

3

O

£

c

C

u

£•

O

jj

Id

n

o

10

•■H

w

rt

■0

to

0

i*j

t!

K

0

•J

0

r- <

(0

D

0

JZ

jG

3

re

o

<Z

O

C

>

o

c

c

e

C-

C

re

JJ

s

(0

IN

3

i-

IA

(N

P

a' o • o t
i^ l; a c in

x 3 ^ o

a. w c m

r-* -H TJ W

C >H Ci ffi C

^ 0 0 rH

U ^ rH

rH rH CC OJ

< -h ^ r» > >

E w -y

rr

mH

-H

<r • tz

(0

c

m z> z

CJ

o

C3

ai o A jj

C C~ "- C rH

-rH

LC fP

u

u

C

u

o

•H

o

u

n-.

s

re

01

2

0 -1

0

a

f3

t-

c

^

>■

• ^

a

t-

JJ t'

c

o

u

c u

o

—i

C

c a

g

vS

re

a t-

M

H

o in
>■ -u O

C ~n pH

1- re
c -v
> ~*

-I C 0 -1 - -•

>-

re

re

&'

o>

0)

0

c

W

to

CI

0

en

3

0

u

re

re

0

-

a

a,

i-

re

X

=}

0

c

CO

CM

re

a

u

rH

t-

H

r ^: J-1

o

•c

c

c

<-

kJ

re

0

c

Cl.

>,

t,

0

JJ

to

0)

c

E

CO

re

o

H

JZ

4J

u

0

u

CO

u

^J

B

3

c

£

X

c

CJ

Ji

c

>.

to

c

re

re

Vj

>

<\-

u

t.

<

u

D

-H E rH

H O 0 X

i-D (C -H en fN c

& O U l-\ O-H^HrHK

o a > ■

oj u t-3 re

13 Dn f.

w

re

o

O —

jj

E -H

IH

-C ^

0

X

>

c

rH r. .

,- < o

0 -'

r, rH

c

0

re

c

0 z -u

re c n

30»

se

■H VC

u

n

U;

eC

o a u

2

U- rH

r^ > a

ct o o c o

rH £ (N C ^

If' C ID C P.

O C 3 r*> <t!

j) u t: c h

(0 rH in

T5 3 T 03 JZ

U ro -H (0

■T O !h O rH

3 i-. 0 O rH

££§

--< -o •«•
re -i o
i- c m

c

c

T

rH

(B

T!

_H

u.

c

_i

.^

—

c

,_,

0

c

K

h.

ti

c

c

c-

3

t

b.

O

Jt-

ie

re

lZ

4J

'•J

n

>

2

0

c

2

0

Q

iH

w

Cr

Cr>

0

u

CJ

o

o

01

C

c

■D

4J

c

l-

>

T3

O

I-

(3

\->

X

*»

tj

IC

E

c

to

b-t

C

|M

0

t

c

re

H

o

E

(t

--

c

z:

0

rj>

0,

c

0

c

CI.

(C

X

51

2:

•H

4J

C

B

c

d

c

u

V

U)

U

>

•^

tn

>

u

2:

«

c

c

1

IS

m

u

c

£

c

•C

c

re

5

■X

T

u

■c

c

lb

«J

0

*a

u-

IT

0

-C

0

u

c.

u

(C

•H

(9

>.

LC

LO

w

w

w

(C

en

en

C

3

-C

c

c

Ih

k.

tfl

^

•D

w.

0

A

4J

o

&

-C

C

u

CC

C

U

c

w

u

C

o

>

\C

£

c

0

&

o

f!3

a

O

(D

tN

<D

u

a

o

o

n

Ifa

o

t>

^

3

IX

t^

9

O

^

in

IT

c

H

c

Q

CL

S

U".

<

3 HTJ

&, r- -h

oj O C — <

X) w C b-

Ua>w£ «| —

-D CJ Ct w

0 Q JZ rH

-c c c w

C 2 t' -H 4-'

EOOCi --,03'M-^

x ^» a. w

— I* V) \D O

U- -H O t-H

o

u;

O

—

1- X

•.

rg

C 0

CI

■n-

C

a

0

ra

c

M

4J

E

u

U •

0)

c

g

c

t O

w

1

t9

I

Z oi

-H
m

<Z i— c —

> tt. 2- C

; j: n _c

OUHt.

0 -<

»

XL

~ i-i

£

:_,

._

K

•

s

>J

k.

»

•H

o

E

>,

h

C-

o

c

Q

M '"I

u

a

0

CJ

(=

C

a

tc

"1

>

>^ tz

c

e

Jj

v.

>.

U

*r

CJ

£

tr>

ir.

c

a

to

(w X

s!

c

•H

>

X

VI

!m

y- »-

>

c c

«

tC

r3

0

c

>

CO

c

0

0

c

u a

K

>.

&

0

c

10

JL\

Li

CD

c

u

C 3

CJ

e

til

K

£

0

C

ei

>.

0

£

>

a «

fl

3

X

o

>

r»*

X

JJ

c»

-H <£i

c

b o

0

U

>

0

o

L0

EN

n

>.

Cl

o

tr

>

C f*>

(0

0 ■

Q

u

o

X

ra

c

c

c

c

s

3 m

c

£

c c

>

«

Q

U

rj

tr>

>

=

w

IN

E-

s

D

u

-o

o

K

(J

3.

a

3

A, h O iJ

a u c c

as. ►; J o. a

C -H O

c i: .p —

o

4J

o

GJ

rj

^

c —<

£

3

vi>

<r

c

a -i

ra

C

C

^

0 IS

►5

cfl

H

<

U

r»

a £-.

J J-» )M

r* J 4J i;

t-. G; s-i ■-(

A3 l-i O CN >— I

— i 3 «h o a

fcj O b rv E*

M-i > CJi t0

£ a O -h CJ cr

3 H K ^

t*.

u

C

D

4J

C>

w

tJ>

r^

c

Ci

(3

os

0

c

c

X

0}

£

>.

o

K

E

4-J

m

0

1

V.

<

0

10

CI

s

<

>*

4J

U

o

0

JZ

E-

M

c

G

re

4J

U

c

.*

JJ

W

3

o

U

U)

vf»

0

0

o

4J

9

ra

T

D

w

m

en

<

fj

—

W

rn

H

CUJ B -

O - ^

B < -T E

JS o

G r-l

r-j t,

H K fc.

AJ JJ £ C

£ 4-1 > ro

i c n rd

o

rrj

u

0

c

T)

i£

a-

>

u

cr

>!

3

O

>*

c

M

k

en

d

a

ki

c

c

OS

£

u

t.

r^ . r: ^ n;
U O K = =

4-> r re re

CJ < ~i

■U Ui

in gj 10 o

O C -I

a o
o o

(X rH

re K rt

£ Ik c2 m

r; u t. u a

^ C C !C

i

fC

CR

m

CJ

3

tn

0

CJ

£

C

fl

t*

E

X

c

4J

x:

nj

CC

ft

O

(B

H

O

3

Cm

IN

I

c

TO

Q,

C

C

(N

H

^3

C

H

b h Quih

Cl 3
E C
*J — I

rrj G; C C

~h -r 3 ^

> V. \C ^H

C 3 lA rH r*

C • rN I ro
< 2 m C t-

Oj

o

0

o

c

f)

>.

c

(N

u

tr.

w

u

tc

a-

•D

>

0

c

C

3

CT>

-^ o u-

C (0 -H c
Cv 4J CD 0

tr, u XJ rl
C O Z* -i

3 u. o t-

— I -H tt -C

u. >- ^ — .

— ±> r ^

ii

= ^1 3 --<

o

.--

~

b<

0

3

C

£

>

it

<

>.

<

CJ

tc

U

•H

z,

CJ

b.

ID

O*1

E

T

fl

o

to

c

y£

X

u

3

H

Ch

2r 5

O C-h o

t'. w CD t'. r-l

§

a.

o

m

u

O

&

n

0

CJ

y.

«

c

c

(A

m

0

1/

IT

^

TO

£

u

2

AJ

r

X

to

U

■n

<9

CM

a

IT.

ri

n

o

as

— 1

£-

w

U.

Q

r%

H

ri JJ O O

c c c ra

^ jj «

C

&

H

«

__i

c

C

I

u.

3

0

w

ffi

w

u

t;

3

0

>i

c

dU

c

CJ

£

o

XI

<D

0

c

?

U

^

c

&

0

c

Q

«

CJ

0

E

OJ

tc

u

>,

c

u

tw

c

C

>

(3

c

in

10

m

L9

z

n

u

<

Cj

l/l

H C O) O J3

E" b 3 ci <

u ra

.^

Ih

lu

_

N

Uj

.,-,

a:

^H

a>

T)

■H

Cv

M

►5

0

JJ

u

u

O

"O

Ij

E

jj

a

0

j=

JJ

B>

0

o

0

ai

0

0

3

0

TJ

jj

•0

ID

c

~H

01

— i

3

c

tj

4->

c-

in

3

JJ

-H

iu

v

JJ

u

b,

0

jj

o

u.

3

■H

r~

u

c

0

0>

00

■o

a

jj

J*

D.

Oj

JJ

JJ

m

0

•H

3

[-

01

■H

»-t

aj

a

to

0

C

to

2

10

to

o

s

r-

U-.

IH

m

-^

D

4

0

O

0

to

0>

c

rn

e:

L8

rsi

JJ

o

3

41

IU

jj

a

Ui

IJ

0

^H

1

c

U

to

4J

c

to

3

1

JJ

G

■ ~ 1

co

J

Cl

-C

0

§

C

m

to

3

10

10

3

it

(0

>.

X

ji

to

X

jj

0

*7

C

ro

£

io

0

it

■o

c

0

r-i

a

JJ

10

£

IC

a

■-J

0

to

M

0

J3

■0

1-

T

3

(-

a.

ki

s

c

c

fc.

ffi

O

a

CO

JJ

(t

m

IT

(3

CT

in

0

c

-J

3

g

v.

J3

I-

o

o

JJ

TJ

TO

fn

!-i

4J

>

0

>-l

rH

X

0

CM

u

0

a.

o

—I

■-I

6

>

3

to

d

OJ

n

-.H

0

TO

ra

O

re

—J

g

<£.

IS

O

.*

<0

&

5

u

Q

a

(J

t-

s

u.

rj

H

K

fcu

r^

a

10

a

to

-J

e.

*C JJ J kj

-J — i o o

H IB Q) C H

>j lj Im jj h

ID 3 JJ (0

0 0

ID

3

■ a

n

<9

jj

a

a tN

v.

(1) o

3

ID

JDNBh

O JJ r-J

■H C JJ

E- 0- 5

>. J3 0 0)

15 3 JJ O

H -H -H c

>■ -I ID

I O S £

j= -h

10 CO

M It C> C

a' jj ■»; o

^- — i bt o a »h

"3

CJ

IC

E

u

kl

CO

C

O

0

■c

-J

J-.

l_

b.

r-l

•^1

H t 9 ^

— Cl -^

■i

3-'

4J

O

■B

4J

c

a

c

XI

£

0

10

u

'—

3

3

to

<0

It

R

3

CO

10

0

CO

>

«

c

C

0

ra

E

O

It

CJ

ft

SI

o

c

IN

J=

IS

10

CD

JI

§

cn

(3

u

1-

•H

(0

-H

a.

(0

.*

u

^

o

Cii

0

f*»

-4

!-.

W

0

CO

m

f>J

»-(

c

p

O

K

'—

C

c

lt

\jp

(0

Q

u

(N

H

u

o

Cj

a.

E-i

o

3

fN

w

E-

4J O "D

ID CI U -H

(J W r-l rH
C> U-* r- Pbi

c o w It <u

C U JZ (T)

O > CO 'T H

Q] > W 4J

C 4J
C f3
JJ jJ

i-2 3

jj "o -H z m

o

,H

■ u o

(0

■H U

^^

T

I 0 T

0

> G

O — 1

10

10

• c ^r

i>

(0 i-H

-1 10

1*1

t-

U O 1

Q

a u.

m fn

i"? 2 "3 > = c
£ c w-e .2 2 —

■jl 11 §i!|<i sii-lii!1:! § &111 «ii
I1|i|,sl'1fe"atll|i|pj-siils«

1 «J « IS
>|f Sg,

•3*3.2 "^

e-c

it a

r^l

111!

c

® s

ilsallil'Si

; , | S'l^. ilea'" £°"ll*=~

Ili!l!!iili2!lili|lifl||l

lei as

a»l

If S

311 ill1*

3-3$ 8j's
a.fc3»«- i -

is -e

Willi I

a!

a «i 5 jJcJ ^2 o..2 c

-■32 « 2 « 3 c e s *?

. 3 g « "

» 3 J a J 1 "

2 u 3 -3 a>-e— o
* =(5 8 i* «"o

a >,.Sl S..a -•=

. : ! Illllll

i g 1 «■§ i"g-

ilS2|ssi|||l-£2 l^lsass
•l^llPlslililS! »Sy :

5" s a II 111 11 §1

3 -s-SS «.

S - I. n .. ■*

^- 3~3=-2acS-3S

1 MH |Ji||i Mill

J S.-'S «.| g-2f 5 £

lUi^Riiijiirij

>f HJuJfiWIiiiS

5i:gS.sa5sa-sg3c«g«2
aS%-S3^-slSsc«£a|^

ss "-sfc. a S «- .« a'sJ! a «,

2 5^ a J 2 2 >-

£-3 -g£2 3£2

■si.. |.a-.s|*.sa

ci.r 3-g 4iJ" c m a
0.3E- c S_s " o _ 2 2>g"

!iiifiifli^".rt

l-jJl^ul-ajUSt

IteilHlsillNl

isii!ijt«iif|si

c e S-S c

8 i? = -o Si I 41 i'

^s5-S£ic£6tI-S
5>93'S30fi9E-3Sa

Ifllj-olll

laz-sliisii

fi:'a5j!liiig

ft c c j3 =„ c |-c g
19.SJj-='« "-O.2.8.

"> ■- _ M C [f

.2 ° > air jjc = £
— C - 8 Q.

a * c E '

c a * Be-" „■- 1!

iov«

ill III

IS

£

;= c a o "^ 3 .3 5 o._

- ■"■"■'IIBliB

8,*

! o!

e «

"S.«2?&«

ssiis^^gc

5 00

;£

:M-f sis

if-

ill IJiflifiJIJ-t

. « "C * 8 >

.a

op-5 i.g.H'S S

1 l«?l*€i

!Klf!i!iIllli|I|| JS1
Hit g s -I^I^I-i hi 4i ml

3 § £ S i'l *» I ° 3 o •:■* 1 3= ""-S 1-E *

a, *J cb w <? ^ "5
« P— t. 11 *> c-J

i Is |S!

a 5 a ci

■SfS^il^^tEi^Sc SsletJ PI Et8gi

|l!sl|Ii1s^l
Tjli3J"ij]I

SI «"3 -----82 = ?:- *

n.

i§l-8

Pi;

>

X

u

X

u
a
a,

a
z
<
x

as
<
a.
u

<
x

lfil"2JMH

o —

"2 » S

2 *

o- 9 ■ 2^

s e s w •—

- a J t s .

1_ (U J ffl J 0) L I ,

c S ,*.£■.£ * £x
>.E >xi-- | £_,

c i£ «T.2 _f- x
2P-5 -* 3 b -c..?5
i- * > J w m S t* t

<""g E S.Sx'6 I | S

gx3|f2E|Jl

< «D g,8-5.c'S»<£ _.

iSsi'iii'ssssii

i4!rSlBH..SB.3Sifw

ill?

x 3 a Sj

o ; l. «

S.CO 3 S

r2S §1-1152
oSS'S.S E £■£ JTs

M f |

5S£i ■ > -= S 3 $

■s2Jy5sJ33B.sE

etc

O C 09 X

bfi o oj .fa
"2 <-»-£ *> '

u — **J= I
0> 9 l.

6 s b-3

9 * « a
4.2 * >

Slx-g

■ .2 ^^

— 75^

5c >~2!

< a i- -j

- ao.-

^EJ

£■ — c

c * ■ ;

= = •"•10

01 > — CB C

^ t,ts" 5c*

rS ~ * - 3 £ *

* x 3 © fi

j3<-5

-q = 3-'

r^^s.^£

- "- O „ -«C *- 0) 0)

illl|iil!=irpiii!i|l!||

Or »3p « £ c S«^.. u ffl.

j= o> * y Srf.2 y— -SSoe'w.Stt

3 O O 4> * " - ~ m -*>-»»-

* X J= .£

llllilsillll

0 c -E (m <—
0 * - p O

«c- c S c
•2 . 0 ^ j:
£»■- •

— = — S o

>.s a. Sx

3 g j S *

1 s a*|

- °w ££
^■s^S °

« J „,J 5
-C.C M1" B

IE

=3jg

■ • a
Si1
St>S
ig|

•fil-s

- C _ . ,
* CD >

-■g 4 flea's j; c

a^8P -oScS^- i'-c fee c

g S.00.^ I 8.S5-E «j oob =■£ s

— * « e^3 * —3- flJ-C C> 23»

58

.-«;

1-33.H-J

£00

S.S"

|T=Jj.£«-E|i-rlsT|||
■5cX-j.2l«--£fe£gJ=gf-^

i S" s

II

J- C H 4> ^-o w ^

5 § $ 0.2.C.2 ix 5 So ";2~i£ S.?c c a .

-»Sin=2ccNjEu .
£x _• 3 -o " ™ " " «> S?~ ■

IW

, . . . , w, O M

1 a*! *<§*& .sSE-al^-6a^-.ss~£5§Z-^ls.s-^r^lSa-iJl^lllS-s.s-

«i£|.so l|.si

5 "8 §S

13 3 Voi- " 3

S(3cSS ScS

?£ all-si

■s&l.SjaSsI**

s a svsp-c 8 . 3 S..S >. g

o-« a * £.2

£<_ o

2 S ■ -

»-s Is

4> C -rj • Q. .
3P.5 la E'o u ■

tit

13 E

IF

i5l°Isij1

£ J§ *

lit =5.1:3 gas

I Jci3s|S<f

,»2>« J c

iilllilWlJi 21131 lllill^tJfl

a S p a j. ao-2 oj= a.«x? Sjo' :C£2,L- «c?K.2«

?1!

Si c 3

§g»;2

i'lcja

« o — 7--2f

S'S St"*

> a -2» > £
2 1 £2 S
9-.S 2 a 3

=<- =|.sa s

* Q."o

fl-8

jjS 3

U 1> —

si-00

^ c o

°sa :

3 3 -<2

o.a

.184

M

3

°«2 -

o _» 8 v

•_ t. -J c e c
j ° ° "2 « m-2

5c«l

c * a ^-c £ w £ « ifflou^.S -

B >. ■■ u
O 3 «

J « -
iZ o

— 8. a

°*'= fill's !]h§ ;

£ 2

e £

° IS °

£ 3—2

a=ig^si§jsi

"S5>.-Sȣ

a aia — ■= — C 5 8,5 -ts «,^ ~ » ~ = §1= ^ - j= ££

QfiC4>awiN « i a. a S a_n I.:c!s *.o .5 c So.

S >2

4 S

£ £

£ E

til-sis!

£<fSi.3<3£

pbq
ffi ji cri ai ■?) cji ji
c ia «h m ia iq ic
55 cJ ?5 <n 55 e$ n

3 u a) * -5

i£jJifiJJ*jii&*ii;'.Jj

Mi £•.*£= sis* I-

lllHii

- « 5 •>
■o.E a ■
.- o " .

xS

* s

— . S ji o

ua«L . ntf 5'5 .uifflOJ

UliHIiHlliiiiii'ifii

C«Si.Cmu§3 5

"5 « » ■ ?«.■■§-. £

3.2-

3.5 s^^'Sl S^l = a e>

a
z

b.

SI

O

3!
U

il

_ i 3 3.-21-1 Si;

0 i-O ««=■£—>,

IIsSSe

_ 5 SU

° = 5 cj

4J w _. _ •

5 8?-S;

aitai
i + lll

C qj C _ — j

« a 5 « « c 5

life -J1-!

I-J-IJ811

o-w a ■ 9 g

- E =£ . * »x
• -c.2-c $ e.E ao

5J.ag3 S3 »> fc |

■3 w ^ -o a. o » u ~^

o E

; *

£ 2 g.-S-l-J S-i*-'! =•= -5-gx „ fcj a<»_-S

•?55S*

fe'S Si

s l"n^isliill.s|jlii.ii.inli

im

:t>;c

* Ml

8 il J

_- «i «o -9 ■* ..

£11*11

iCOC, *J£ JB at 3*- £ • « 3 - T* «■ 2 "5 S '

•_ 2 E I * »

° ■ "O P **

5P 0) m " "D M

liifi'-I-i!

^u-r-3"ao —
"», '"si

--III

< lljll

« .C i^ 4j «*

s Hill

gg«J-3.
« £ g 7. 5

!aE

i-f?'

!£r 3£«t:J*-
!S J-Si! aSZ

!- El

S^I

6\

c~ r- r-

« iro w

»0 iO »C

Sz

w -1 o ■£ ^j.

1 <o.c-2< 3 U^J

■ ■? - k e ©" ° °
i5 E ° "g? JE

; - >; c -o "■ => 5!

' a 2 E 2< ,0 -

Is!xffl4

. c | ■ *^ 82

' O P . O > £ a.

, £^ »<= £ a.%

! 5 « c 4) &H <j

!E£ «Sa£S

V E 3 - o

Brtlf

;kj

•jiCD C *

;J

i o a o

i

■=•2 *££■"■**

JlilMil

~- u >_ - « ■- ©

»« * C~T5 i =
aj > (B • T 01 u

1 " >.! 3 — * 9-

£- S C II - " >*S

i: « J o >>--g s =^

i-aCui|-2Ti

C g*^ 3 fitaSs'S i 3

^i^'s^^ s a- -

ej «s_ £ »g «-=
« a-g «f-2 E

l|l|2^ ill*

ilgili m

9^^--_2 o3-c

"I » II3 c s "E *

?iji"?S 'St"!

ij^infjlil

J - l- a 3 C -- dj = ij c

H

a
is

w

S!

>

X!

H

*N PH C»

ooc

S «*S CO

las

f Ifl m — eg C^ Oi C4 CM CM nnnSw eS S rt ^ IOH

j CO CD CO CO CO CO

las a 3S s

P3 CO CO

- £
II

?9

SI

— 4)

a >

■£ £

8.2 a o e°«9c»

ti-i 8 ..a 1 1 §5 g

-5 «i 1=11- 1=3

?5jSaiS-2^3S'S

.5 •Sr^Ea.g'=;sa|§-3«2aa.«-o-si^s

i-lll-sJ

!IM 11

- S £-c a o.u ;i I*

P||t|]liill

3 • 3 ' « !; 73 8
O-SWw^- 2J "9 * > C 4> a

w c\j.^ ---i ( ™ & v -^ ,-. ■;:■ « « J — E E *. -

_ 4) wS'l ? o «- c-o a'u £_ * c-o P c - a

S liS al si^l II? U SI s s I-a I

1 1 nifJi! • 1 §2'^ "I a- IW

•'3liJ.2Sa^3il^T=g-St3j

,oi-2|ois~~-2-3 = a-*..-2£.a.-0ij_-T'

a
z

c

e-
a>

3
OS
S-
Z
O
jj

35
a

Q

<
z

= «,. ci 2 ° a
fa »:«J g.1

E'-oiScTiS.

» s«3j3«

siss-gjlf

§l»fi|
■sal's a-s gi

gaf 5f=8-Ss

O y O « -,jc 4i C :

-l|£|£'-a0j

eSa aM- a * a.
a u . >. a a .£ _ <

-O c <b 2 r w aj1-

i 2 a^ 3^ o-f 3^ a a

J) — «J5 t J

5 5 • t ■£
." c'B-gj; g

to 03 > £ ~

9Ȥx|Sx

■g §<-->•=- s

to „- 5 £0-5;

ux a"2-

■u3««

« 2

u^ a

= »>,

93

3-o _
PC» J

si||
I § l|

llillllllii

J— oi - ...

S» XQ.P 6 „

*313*-*1

ssg§-Ea'-i

= 3-- 15 3."

s:1f2tf|

o I a 2 a 8,5

Ifillii

iisji!-

J 3 cf— 1) c
a 3 — -o ^^ 2
»- £ 1 a o 3

33 y U «3 O **

3

I1

a

z
<

3 a'

IB CO

■gs.

of
E *

si™*.** a i.s-i

M o C

Si 2

5 a *■>

8.2

E ,

3_a

11
Si

J a

= 5x^ jisJicfs;

- *x «x 2

jx

£1

o E

- cjf- 0 »

O j3 ~ C

c a-n_£-; 5,1 100-= s

^ = .11*8**1

"-gSs.Jla"-

x J £ S c oxi ° e"5
Jt- 8 »•- -._ »>.}f

" - O 9 C-,

£ r

= 3

A, C £

^3 ill

x 3i"s-2r=

a. o c x <u c -2

hcgfu .
!?fli.?li

»<= %£S 2S<_ a,

Z u aZ c l_ s axi

a-;-; y s- —

"5 E
1 S * u .

LP 8.1

! S.cb.1'

hi

0) 3 »

— a. a - o a; —

4J « C 5. »- « _

* J:— aerlE =■£
as -55f2 * * »

" i f3o
E.S.2 *Ei

11 PtJ

if Ut

= x EO-.2

1USJI1

o -jj t»0 a"
■gllrilix

Tl"! «<X = _

S-o j- E" £~

a n|s"S I

_ g a gx 0J5
£8.-3"S:»£-

W 03 O

Hi'3

© >v*o J: S

-CD C O. (

1 1 .If3?

aj as o fi

ps-g "i c fc-es-s * !eia«i||

c^ e-B* e .6 Hill- °1= "- °i-
8-2 8 3 8-S^aJSxsS. -SS.-SS U

SI¥»S *<•:= c-p >° S e = S si's

C a

<3

ills

E ^ = 3

= •5=1
gSgg

■s = §-s

o o > *

x i; -S

CO 0/ J,

e.| "°

"J £ 4>

•Sir I

=3-? .1

■£'= £
S& I

2 >, e

_3 -u I >.

OC? :

r« s 3
^^ 5-s

•5 = L

3 »« 0

8-p.Ej;

iilllls!=s

ill

Is £

"5<ii E
.£ = —

£ l a)

i2x "

* 2c-

_3IZ

= ot -

S S
i; «

Sjjj

il

It

E °
It

II

o

o^
•n eg

S . ■ * e q- t^: c o
1 E-5 iis I

t'-oi- o „

£ 5 -■?£-= s. -■=

2^ * i~

c 5 <u - »

• c.i»
x: o ; c

». s E c

I-i§

S££xS

i u t» t s,r:-3-o.i t-o
£x c ot< 3 =_ o c

>3o3q.>1CUk*--

S.a=»P.-S Ec

c .

*£5

o c

'■slis^s's'bi

— - H S. I

O W _

ou ot:
- rr =

2?*X~Xcgi-,

fc i- o-i_i:'-c: oj
S.Sl.S° . c.s ■ H

e6j« fc.il i £

c ur- 3 »*3-n^ o
■ 4jp ■ 3 * '

"« JE »o ca £"EC

I t|-C O

tm ■ »- S

J°x6
1^3 5
JS'I 9 2

ace

Sal

«|°.«f||&§|.s'a

O c £
.9 E

5■9•2sl,!??;

g._-S-Sc2s0^2;S

= »= o^

2-c c£ Jx S S £ £ _

£ « - ■> at! -9 x .2 $ S

x t; o-- _-o =x ^ J
2 c " = .£ lo-jJiE

- c>2« ^>-g £ "-g

3 -„?■£-

°2^uo 2offl*m'Scc

!!.£acuS °Jt>-SSo

9fe"°x izj'ls-1

1— c u S s c

'o .3 a — ^ 3 J a

Sb-§1 E 2 5 Ex-o

E^cls<°

os- 3-i g 5.3

g.S< o-r 22

~= =^X CO.?

c.

Zi
Chi

3'

ii

Hi
l!

ai
Z!
<i
-ji

■3 = 2 >>.= ^ 3 4.SSS -■ i^.'S8JS-2.3Sjii

»•§ ij._ » g 8 »* -•- 5 g.|

c x > r

»*„£S55gcago2-aS
r o » ; 3 ,5 . i!^"i<xc

$3

E-§2 -S-Is'"f Ss
'sis lilf lj| .

O 2 »> ff C ,, K-- (L <° «

i.» c

■s *

= 5 w -u ^3 *>

-■e-^ S«s s—"- t .

~ _ ._ u

■' = - S J5 - = 3 *> m a ^ g oca m -o g ffl £ => (2

^ ^ to a 5 t

S-o ES2S 3 gl - c =~

u - V ai .0}

i f o S 2 s S-s* tj:

Si "3 2 «s3 § "

« C ffl k. Bi

i = ■ o»1 "a

S c -a fl

jS «J»££ 3 I g s

_ » - ? » M »- O ° •

lij-lllcc-f

w 0)

• = y -a

> 3 $ 5

5o°'£~u-atJ3SS
^"5 o- „^ i; 3 = ? ai §f

=^c

;■= 1 S.23o u

.0 o

i3 = 3.MC

30 b£ 1

>!l]fjJHH:i

-i ** - 1. — i> *« c ;•; -1 41 a _ 3 ^ e

s flu iu <o"a Sir "i flJ-O'u w.^'a ** —'S a* -^3 tj j2 <u

h^^ =

3 >>Mg =-o -

J 0

l||1.sS|,s

5 c >>3 ID'S a I ° S-o »-o-3.S 2 *S-o S Sjb l

s sl= SjT 2 2-8 si 2 3 «| still t :■§

5 S 2PS >.5 e---

wijg

l|8Iil&1^iS|lglllf|§|,3||

1 ilHMfJlJSfl^f-h;!!?!!

■°f3H .

- 32-0

ate

-5 s

5^ _ «

* e «

3

8

<

a
z

s 3 5 «

•£!'»•
*t I- >.(~

JIM

■a o-o-c
a c -o *^

e=«3

B a, fl.i
<o c i- a
x.2<2 .

■22 a

■ £ &s ,-Tf-i's*

SSsSTsTS

•c At «r c ** .. -.

mi 4!«m«j sir1

etliisHl §ji£4}jt

5^5©

8?-SSS|.fJ5 villi's

3 o c £ —

-a c

.= hot; _ x . c a. «

£>S«-tjEt

jj CO ,j, cr> _C — C

c S a ■ w s? .3 "5
£.2 «x 3 =

5.5

tof"

ill! J

jxjS-i.-joc _

sf-?S°*J-3iS9.f^8fj8

> c

JJilllSUliMjiJ

S* fill* g6p£|.«f Jig II.2

«SJX.£8I -S IfeffSsJ 1811 JB"

o aj * * .

J*"fl*iil2a*«iU

? 2 ^ *« v^

5 "8

a >,

*3S"8S.£3

<5 S-t. 3« o<n ~ £

© CM

33'

32 9 •

o aa ■ ji ■ g » J

2 3{l Bfi.Sca^c--

3 '8*1 SIH^^II

3$ ?ao S2o S^I-o-S- *
BS-Sl-g S~-^» »* i*

-a » 8 «H£ = "-a - 32

i "2
— Z -

"5 s

ij ' SM — ' i 5* "Si i i * 1 4tli i 3 * I?
I > =3 5 "a J"5-S 3 oj jS: 2;.2S
s 3 = a o a .«"« ::'>5!

= i s-o 3 = = ^
= -o » = . i - a

i!i!**-t=

C 3. r -spa

'. -5 ■_ - a 3 « a

If 8 Sill*

»-o- = - — J5_

* 3.§«^J2|a

■S J 3t- = C^> lX

- <3 3 o *j _

2Ci|c3PS03
2siJ =-9 "22

3 3 a 3 j ^

_S a 3 flS a .0 w J5 -a o 3

is.
Is

go'
E

II

s

E"°
— *-o

-=. p

§> 8

xjufl

hlti

? i

.2-8 in-5 ei'=
3 «l * ijx 01

Eg'S-pJ'SS,

-to'

ej-g g, s *
«-2gS=l1

« «.S >c ** *
S § c £-§ o |

L ** t fc. a> ©

4i aj — a: > u

s

II

o is

#"8

a e

g |!l iilfli

Hijtfip

o..s
£ '
5 a

if £ NjbJ hit

«x 5 a ■
■= x ** x „ 3 oj — ■= ^ ™

" 2 o = S?^"' g >>
a E o a «- -x-o.2 c

«- - x-o.2

"3. -o - — e -

'X 5 C 03 01 i_ — tj o

^ c IS ■ > S-o s-S

- Q 0- cy <JS ,u cd 5 d

Isfc-sjalf »*

» x h =
5 .a £ <2 5 S

<-•£-=■ * s = ■

O * 5 "O ** 03 *

c 2 5 | « € S

5 1 8 s - |

p E I c,o

C Si Ei J;

u .£ E " E "S x

C "F 8 0) OJ o '^j
>, T~ _ B « ?

"a 5 > 8 o o>-2

S= i'3 u-2 ii

frill i I i •!}«««

SSlSljKjIljB

I!

,-SfS £2 p7-

Sv E a JE a 3

llKljl

S Sl^.£5^|
a ? •5oE"-.35

X be o

o-o.

■1 •— O— O 0>"O._ « 3 « C >
*"-\"~ e»~ . r in 3 0->. n

III ■p«x = l««

3-Sl5§ i.s? ill s

-f=S-o'

3 .

•0 di J= S3 3 g

c s J <0 4> _■

S ■ > P i- S

Q. > ** L. ^ 3

— ° C i- c •

illli1^

j S 5 v

"P "O ■- oj o *' z P"i §■-

^^i^E1^ "111

— 05

? O. » !

°5"° &^
Sj°'i- £

. a: eo i>

Sc-.-g

x o 1 „

.2*ȣ
1"S|<£

iKiJ

C B = -

■ox S?-c

> O-g 3 -

i!-g- "^

CD 3 ■= O „
.ii «i g 0) O

■ x S-S c

£ - C * =

clSo-«
*- c ■? * ^
flj "S > p oj t

= 31= i «j

m C CO Oy^

a, g^-51;
S e.S o,

x— B u

Sk. Oy tf r
-o « —

.os-s 5

o a>

| 5^

1 13.1
« « * ='

E 3 ?

o • 5

^1J

o> c g.g ■= K -J

, . cbX — -nC0Q.t- u C a b b >t r v

raStlol-S Ji.1 I <=x * a| -g

|l 8 3 « r U k "3* >i 2 k

IS

tit

S-S£

;ixs=x

■ .S »>3

iloc.

" «3 P

l^-o

* 3 C S

>>£ -

3 J

■DO?

JSt _

c 2 "*o

s - ., ?.= §S

ii§ «2£=?SS E gtiii^x 3

T-Sc"hJ'!-,''ri«ai:6 °:
^-pgg«.*=P,>. = .Dr-=cE'Spa,t

I fc « 3 »

!|SL2g

'•o £ 2 —

iilU'g-

O (V

55
c«S.

■"■12

^8 = ^2 p

0) Oy

I ■

II5

0y M

*x^l

ix*;§

fe * E- i.

03 flj r- XI 03 OV "P

^ 1 P A

' e o os-Ts "x •> E c'C H 5.x- >-x — -c „ >r
: So S • S i.2 • 8 Si •• x "S >>.£," p £ I

- six !

r ■* 00 c

t — >> c "•:
: = ?x.E '
2£E>,£J

§ g.E§ oy-

S.?« 1 "Is

xE-Exi?

■= C m m r . -■

ill-lJi

5 k- |x
*j * i» i_

* U— Oy

■ C a -C be
"1*5 a,

-OS tpx
0*3 o B —

= x-S

px c be

« JS.E

Cv oy <i x

5 gT =

— * p .

O O 03 bC

p c£.S

6.!jE
S S£ E =

O-S-bt * J

O k- Ov 05 C

£i"£'>,««i|x|'oE

f*ils'soiilII1

,-DX--^~~ S

ggo^^xE

n-iisfi^iiiii

2 S-jjJj »£§•«! Ill1 i;j;

c . c^ — <_, .5.2 6 Bci

|sif-§l£*§£ii°

8c«i gx -fee— C3X

— Si — s —

0) m

El

1 h

?Ss-SsJ

•Bb. — in C CT- 0j {_■

«°-2ol|p5i

gi&

95x

■5 p-

a e

— S ^ "y > -p r5

f-.fcl B'si"-s

EL r V O- m ™ -

£l;s|Ji|

* c 5 a> « — w

8= Si-
ll E=L

S j5. « oi C

~x£x*pa

ii»&-gis

. 3 .a "3 03 a O '

x sw

&p

3 0v

S E s S a

Ma

03 E

■ S E

■ *x5 [5^° S j»St

J5 B.ilfl-

I:f~ii3w*ji

- gx .x ; eo>

gx-oj^-jp >,4

2cSl^-^I ■■;

oip J £^ = •* 03 £

-SiSt.2.E.a^o

s->2 >,»e :«_-*
III5!*!5! fe-t"^

ti E- Bx oi 3 p 03C

&c *

■si.

if- -2

i-03 § <a a<= s

2S_ e a\£|J
x —-o c— «■*:

2 a3 §&■?§■§

s « ■ a 2 I j . s

ilia-*

&a?

a c © 5

£853

£j 11 "° -5

-e js .c « j at

2 *^ *3 C8 Ol,--

3 >•* t

to s L.e E

o:i

«2JS

J W ,0 3 h 0)

« *— "° = ^ <-. w

rj O CO -3J —3 <— . a- —

5 f^ig-S a J 1

s-ox-£a_2x 1

- _ </j — ■- T ."B ac
JEa^xm-oS -.

: a a, J '3 -a & S g <

«3

■S 5 o - 9 5 .

II U|i

O an £ g B ffli
.S e a- c S 3 '

— o a $ .2 fa :
1- „. C S a. w .

:|ej g^Ij

o « ■ ™ _ :

?i3l

1.2.2 3-

3 ° 3 ? *3 ?rx a x^

- - ° o * >* _2 ^ « a a
as S - o = Ji 8

^

;3?i

_ a a a «-

el«5 . .
as c J"

§?s

31.

3 * £

- a E

;f lii

5J.2i.f-

>J2 a* "^Sj:,
i ax a jf 5 M .- .a .

■5 x 3 3 s-crsx ~
a_ S -g " a 3 = J '
a a - 1 _■ t.M * ^ »

— fa S »o a c

I «= e "S S = 2

»1 :

Eu

i^ = 1

— i = *■*

s-ff

_-«;33l3CSa»i'>clri;_-ai.

• m

^ Si!1*' t. 9 "-J si S S C §^= = a - £

a >,*

S2»SSig_i„-

a« a

OX a " g i

§ 5 ** - « i
■Jn - ;

C m to T) c !
0 S <N « ■- *

." 3 u -i -Q c -C

0 D 3 ° i a JC
_a,a5f3je~

. -a . 3 £ _ ■=

* S. C g S

8"? I

SS«>SSa-0aJ,->i,/1a£a)i;-=5

"IsiiSfisiJIiiJiM

■3 ^ .5 J ; c eg £ s J2;
/ico_c — wao3 ;

Q
Z
B
(fa

t-
cn

=1

OS
E-
Z
O

§ 3Si|

"ii'll

_•■ — J W J

M r> Q. i_ -

■ef's'li^ilfa3

S-s"S$xS

bo 09 F [I

g| Jf ■

*■ m co *5 so

* 4i _ 41

J2 > = -3 jC
j qj e — -0

"a b c"§. J
S » o ff S

£ s * 1 a

a S ° J=

X— a Q.3 J „_£

v c > ^ >sc: o c a

ei'S'ifan
.9 b-o »t£f ex

a c «S - 2

^ ft) .

-. ; ill Mj la * h! $%u

uH = S „T33 J S ° ao^a I.B 5>Jf

-S acj ° J «-b
a Irn^-S^ a
S c ^x x w a

: oj c.

fa, ^j w -— ■ c

is c5 £ S '= * S '

eg c 3 o c

10 to 9 *S • ■*

™ S V 4) M.- —

lKucao3*jc

_«,E- a oT
I a c £ a

•" ■ E'~ ^ C V w ■

;'.ii Slilii ifafcj Sis $--,•
ill sslsi-sS's-s5! 3»P-2.

u

T3 Q fa & I

»=1 J'io a £ fagS

-= c

o e

01 "°<2 -

r a — T3 "
- ■ . . ao5ofa<_ oe-

> ^ 3 x"8 ? ■
S So*1 >i

E.s etz-

>TXB»='*,MB"ft,':-r

a- >. fa V. ? § 5 -0 3 -S o

« « «£fi»t- ° a _ £ _

-a e a a ■* u

._ o £ a

a a ^o a, a a t_ »
acao„->a™.^2

- O £ g g cy o

:t»5?

tJ
If]

» ?-fe"S o 3 5

i3|S-'fa-2|.ss|l:
73_^j»Ct2£i'"s:s

Sfa|»l|5a£a-gcfi

aS £_! ^S 3 f
xZtS^oa" is

L.^ ft A t L _ «

a^a33"-^05^?
3 « ^ -S "3 = 5 s =
«o>S £ E "«fa3
q_co a c ^ 03 -ftj g u
aS o £ ~ >■ JS ° "'
« x>acaTn^o
-a-toxair^Rg

•3 a «o,Tx »;:;

o s
a «

Ji-a

■5 a'

'■Eg

■_**£! I i

5 . ct-o ■ 0.3 ■
-ac-aaca.

»"g a^ S5-J
* si>_^-m a at

sJai'o_Is

£ I-Siai l|°s^5

sliffa-jy s&iss1

■SJs|? = -i5£&.al.E
i2-rfaC-S=faS3B*

c x w a
c -, i_ o

B«jS 3^ Eia t 3^ B

§§^-«a-gE8 5-S|

:ojd5

: n a

■O a c co a 5

i||a

3

a

x£ *2 a ■ - a

3-d W c "i

.5 ESa'i^Bi.iiajssc

E— i^uC*jatteat:a„£
J £ c E giS a =^£ 8 E =

J I .axn^aSrU.c-a-.ac

fa a T- d >>S- -j

a ,. £ £ £ S c B^ifaS ^j 'Z

b f T ~ Scaia!=c':>':;

«Sfl> fa i^ fcs a£t=j; =

„»xl 5 E af afcr r.^I ■;
!g Xt- J =--£ * £ ; a-o%x *

Si-ga'="sr£i£.-sl-£2'

e— b— Sa—cic,.— a
ai;5'P-a£cl5i:tE-Dft.
"xfa.rcr— Jr; a 3 fa -r

■e. -S = ^ S 5

S fa m 5 '-."C o

** a a x "c Ta 3

- s S a 8 E

■= &5-

II:

a £

= 3y °-« b §
a w, a >, p a x
a . 7 x t _ -
I !-o a 0-0

= 5t> S a

= fa J

B a

SB?

liilllipi

■o .2

Bx

Xfa^tfasSi — "I a— i';,'"CSl"aax'aa =

S3|a2|g«|I 3|*-g25||ftSS|ll

3Sx>- »°«Ji 2S«jg<=D'-fa..S<sa?a

Sl^£s£3a|| a§|aa,- Scxf£| I

. .' 3 a 1

:t-o

I?

33fa,faBSia

ii_ e e sf » >

f~-= "DX_

fa.'e|l'|l=g'S:2|;|

■Bg«fS«sfe = gs
C -S £ 5 X .55- -

5- 2 °~ £x e-o = £

cj I aiBix-BcJS-=.
» I B x a x a o c fa -=,— *-

n"£a~r3-^S:. = =

liiiiieZ-iixlBr

II

'■'S'S'S

I S-5 S fell ff-l i-S

c cts *; *j © >> ffl ■ ot

e« e y_ i J b l-a-s-gfl s.| a- ^= 1 1

g ?■,.£ o -.= £ Zs -| <= * -o S -o b S..O X * I "S R

■£ «£ "-.2; t -■- -

c °- « "j-s £ 1 5s s f-g 111 111 o

* "TS mo v-= £,<2 ° =

-if Mil

|:

i S * 3 -T7 - = - i s" * >- » S "5 w £ " -<S ~
a " — E S 3 s -8 J g s ~ ■§ •§ .-S "g g b S —.o I

= ■££ e S-S g Sfi g-j

* i i

kN*3** Ml &J

j c '>, » a St £

'■ V ■- *' r
> E.5 SJ'F I? Et c j.|

^ u k. ^

: s o E

jr. ■

="S;

x E c v ■ o vr> u-D

lllil

1 "^ § >i

- E £ lie {'J l^ i J

€ etc ico '
gf g£-p >.£lci a,? c c

to w c*- 3-C-f .-

ewe - I 9 * £ £ g

= <£o!>^: °8S«cl £•=

.|S-f|| 8= || §-

_— 3 - >%«• — We"*4'© —

I. cef-ofsl p o".

S B S S.E ao

S=-s£|xag= = SwluE
*-9I|-sg_-BJBS^a-.sE

C-S-Hijiiiifsf »|g

.Jl55-SicS.i-«2l5*S*E

? 11211111 i^i

-= c I = £ " m;s-S c- a

«£ 3; S 8uS_ J = c *

ft 2> w o

3 « C 3 c <5
■Jill

.S-o

ni-o
a<_ *
"s °-£

«.2"S

SiliJI I

1 S r S -9 , *■

•■C.2-C a*

llfllS l

S. -£ 91 3 -9 9 3. a „ - = -c 3 3 .3

■S c
, u a a g.3 2 E<_ a 5 3

l-iEiniszis!

ii:js|&l|-Msj9

JSallfl'Sx^ll

-■- w :s -c c a
u ■" -*"a>"-o J 3 o o

3 SS^a-S-- =

„ ■ 3 a. s ■•> 3 —

lls.Pla
.9 3.3 uj<2 g

■e«=-tt| >,
J e * £

5 «.5- S.2-f

3 .a E*o i

ifJs|

I -ill

2 "2-2*8

- g 8 s S

g i 2-

23.2

c a

Su^ c « 41 c c

sl§il|ss-.r.-.

Q
Z

fa.

H
09

K
H
Z

o

X

»

o

<
o
z
<
-1

«aS5S«-o£? -53.1 1
c x ® ■

«•£

53

So

c.o

S.g'fi-.g^f'o-

•ilI*J£JlI»J=

j= 2 s & — « a
8^1 *<-

" 5 -3 *^ « 8 ■ 8 • .£ * g

■slsllilif |3||

-■£ c t; -C =:

- S £l -

S\1.S §S

#c«Ei"J!

■£ = fc » B c

* til* sP*

Sumo- t-o «

J-£ «>.£• S'E S " «S

3&3-2£ = *«R.

2 §l=e sere?!
|.i|i?li-s;!

s< • •- ?Jsf]
2 3jc c^-s > JJ

J~«o«c:Eo.

if 1

■111

Mil

fall

« E^ 5
I 2

8

K-

-; c.a A<o
_> g o S g c

■*■£

iijiil-s

•r ».£

2 il > |

lit1

-° = H »«s>«s

■ « 2 S

!*! 18

.Is* e

2=ls|

=i'",<~'=e.0.c!:.s»e«"u
,^-pJB %S °-£ ffl » | 1 = !e *II

ss

!!^-Ri!f WW5:sii

2£ ■<*>&; «j

1| ii1^
1 1 1 s a 5

|il§£

af 3*1 J-

— beoje-o — Os
an a) ,— 13 ^ — y

S = — o ;_ e E o i- ■„
u » j, c oq.^ CS<-
¥£5Ss,8=jf

1 = >-3 » ■?

;i . g s i •

if illxl

pi Ah

225g|

r ili-i6ii'1 i ■ II I - «*i i - 1 *r. i-

APPENDIX 6

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." 1/

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.

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 yery
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.

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 land 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) will 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 millage rate
(17.418 mills), this property will 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

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.

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 (see Table 1). 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, sportfishing 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. ]_0/ 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

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 12,500 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.

Table 2 contains data regarding the value oBhfHi0R&_|_A2dry harvest
in Franklin County and the income derived from total forest products
for 1975 and 1976. These figures indicate that forest products make
a significant contribution to the county's economy.

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

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. 12/

The sanctuary designation will preclude further mining for fill
and peat. Since these are very 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. 15/ 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.

TABLE 3

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

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. ]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. 17/ 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 wel 1.

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

$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). 21/

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 study 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.

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
APALACHIC0LA-CHATTAH00CHEE-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.

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 channel depth of 9 feet, 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
project. 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.

The studies cited above as prerequisite to channel alteration are
listed as research priorities for the sanctuary, and should be completed
within two years 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 Federal 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

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 additional
assurance that present flow and discharge patterns will 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 (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. 27/

It appears that an incipient 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 is designed

to maintain the integrity of the natural ecosystem at the mouth of the
river system, and the emphasis on maintaining adequate minimum flow rates
may serve to exacerbate 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 decision-
making regarding consumptive use of the 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 existing
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
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. 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 will promote research efforts that will
ensure proper use of basic estuarine resources, promote the development
and implementation of optimum resource management 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 Estuarine Sanctuary can subsequently be applied to the
management of other similar estuarine areas specifically in the Louisianian
Region and nationwide in general.

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.

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 effective use of the 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 resource.

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,
1978), 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, Northwest 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.

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 )T
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,
T9W.

26. Corps, op.cit.

APPENDIX VII _

RESOLUTION

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FRANKLIN COUNTY

SUPPORT OF ESTUARINE SANCTUARY PROPOSED FOR APALACHICOLA I.AV

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 Lay and
River System is essential to commercial fin and shell fishing in the
C6unty, 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 unty

Commissioners of Franklin County, this first day of August, 197S.

y*J ^X ." BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF

«*r v"" "v. FRANKLIN COUNTY, FLORIDA.

-J k\ for y\ y v: cF5T^

irman

ATTEST: / ,

ert L. Howell, Clerk

APPENDIX VII (Cont'd.)

RESOLUTION

BOARD OF CITY COMMISSIONERS

City of Apalachicola

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 city
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 city 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
Apalacnicola 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 the City of Apalachicola in
requesting said grant from the U. S. Department of Commerce.

ADOPTED in open session this 31st day of January, 1978.

ATTEST:

Dorothy Rojstad, 'City Clerk

Fc3 G

, . ■ n»:N'*iG
i;,i. CI fc Ji.: • R.1JUU'

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 31S 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.

Cecil Varnes ,

Chairman

D

ATTEST:

Robert L. Howell, Clerk

W^ — ^4i;

FEB 10 #1f

6L -<£*!-• C'
COASTAL MM ?-\v-:'NB

RESOLUTION

PENDIX VII (Cont'd. )

The Board of County Carnnissi.or.ers of fM'c aj County, assembled in regular

session on tl« Jf//t day of

->V-?L(,

1977, a quorum of the manbers of tlje said

Board being present and acting in' its official capacity; and upon proper presentation,
motion and vote, the Carmission decided the following:

WHEREAS, the six counties which form the Apalachicola River Basin: Calhoun,
Franklin, Gadsden, Gulf, Jackson, and Liberty Counties, share cenmon 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 unencutrbered 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

-<V County, Florida hereby

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:

1. That the Board of County Coitmissioners of ^, ?£,'»>
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 farming and fishing way of life, and with our clean
and healthy environment.

3. That the Board of County Ccnmissioners of

£4tL

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~*t 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 surrourvd 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 COM-HSSIONERS
°P £*l£lZZZ COUNTY, FLORIDA, this _hj±_ day of O^Mv , 1977.

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF

&£&*

COUNTY, FLORIDA

Clerk of Circuit Court
and Kx-oL't'icio Clerk to
the Board of County

Comnh.si oners

, County Attorney

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 Apalachicola 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

KHEREAS, 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, water 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 ft> — day of April, 1974.

FORJEEE-BQARD:

Jsczh

DAVID H. LEVIN, Chairman
State of Florida Pollution
Control Board

-2-

APPENDIX VIII

urSOLUTlOH

WHEPJAS, t!;c Apalachicola Riven is an irpel taut nat-
ural resource oi Florida, and

WHEREAS, the Apalachicola River empties into the
pristine , c£n.si tv:o waters, c$ the Apalachicola Bay, and

WHEREAS, the Apalachicola Bay is the. world's iinest
otjsten bedding area , and

WHEREAS, the announced I'. S. Army, Coup* oi Engineer*
project which proposes damming the Apalachicola River will
plodu.cz great stress on the ecology oi the area, and

WHEREAS, the resulting commercialization oi the
Apalachicola Rivet v:ill endanger the water quality ci the
Apalachicola River and Bay, and

WHEREAS, the degradation oi this outstanding natural
Ke6oun.ce is an act that cannot be condoned, and

WHEREAS, the Department oi Administration, Division
oi Planning , has recommended against this project as being
economically unjustiiiable and environmentally dangerous
to the State oi Florida.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVEV, that the Governor
and Cabinet o£ the State o$ Florida do not believe that
this project could provide justiciable economic benefits to
Florida in comparison to the monetary cost.

BE IT FURTHER PESOLVUV, that the Governor and Cabinet
do hereby adopt the report, submitted on fay 6, 1974, by
the Department o{ Administration at the ot£icial position e£
the State o& Florida against the dammina cl[ the Apalachicola
River.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVEV, that this Resolution be trans-
mitted to the U.S. Army, Corps o$ Engineers as zne o66iciat
position o^ the Gox'cmor and Cabinet opposing this ^project.

IN TESTUWHY WHEREOF, the. Govenno* and Cabinet oi
thfi^tnfo o / F f n * ' '••» /mi'** ~hei crnt tn Mih \oh !ho d. - tluLJJt ***,*< a.u_tL

I\ MTI'i

^-J.

tie. State. o$ Tlo\ldQ.xxAQCLi*tt tke ifamminn o^ the, Kpalatklcola

BT IT F'dRTHER RFS01VEP, *fia* *U4 Pe/(>£af^cn fcc tfian*-'
mitte.d to the U.S. Aim//, Conpi oi FiuKneei* <u the oUiclat
poi>< ti.cn of the Or wind and Cabinet opposing this pioject.

7K TFSTJV0.VV' (''//FRFCF, the Govpiiipi a«rf Ca^'nc* otf
the State 0$ Florida have heieuntc itibsciibcd thciK narrci and
have cau&ed tic official t>cat of the laid State of flonida
to be htnc.untc a&lixcd, in the City of Tollahat>6ee, TtoKida,
on th.ih~J-rL datj of Vr| M ^-> A.t>S974.

h»MA4|i

V

APPENDIX IX

MAJOR TYPES OF VEGETATION WITHIN THE
APALACHICOLA RIVER/BAY SYSTEM

APALACHICOLA BAY

Submerged Vegetation

Halophila engelmannii
Thalassia testudina - (Turtle Grass)
Syringodium filiforme - (Manatee Grass)
Diplanthera wrightii - (Cuban Shoalweed)

Emergent Vegetation

Juncus roemerianus - (Black needlerush)
Spartina Alterni flora - (Smooth cordgrass)
Distichlis spicata ~ (Seashore saltgrass)
Salicornia perennis - (Glasswort)
Spartina pateus - (Marsh hay cordgrass)
Spartina spp - (Cordgrass)

Dry, Sandy Upland

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

Floodplain

Black Willow

Cottonwood

Sycamore

Birch

Ogechee-tupelo

Alder

Swamp -Chestnut 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

St. John's Wort

Orchids

Pitcher Plants

Wild flowers

(bogs)

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

ITusky shiner

Pugnose minnow

Redeye chub

Sailfin shiner

Longnose shiner

Taillight 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

Lar gem outh \ . . '< }& >

Ichthyomyzon gagei
Acipenser oxyrhynohus
Lepisosteus oculatus
Lepisosteus osseus
Ami calva
Anguilla rostrata
Alosa alabamae
Alosa chrysochloris
Dorosoma cepedianum
Dorosoma petenense
Esox americanus
Esox niger
Cy primes carpio
Ericymba buooata
Hybopsis winehelli
Notemigonus crysoleucas
Notropis atrapiculus
Notropis dhalybaeus
Notropis cwnmingseae
Notropis emiliae
Notropis harperi
Notropis hyps etop terns
Notropis longirostris
Notropis maoulatus
Notropis petersoni
Notropis signipinnis
Notropis texanus
No tropis ven us tus
Notropis welaka
Notropis zonistius
Semotilus atromaoulatus
Carpio des oyprinus
Lepomis humitis
Lepomis macro ohirus
Lepomis marginatus
Lepomis micro tophus
Lepomis punctatus
Micropterus sp.
Micropterus punctutatus
Micropterus salmoides

FISH (Continued)

Creek chubs ucker
Lake chubsucker
Spotted sucker
Grayfin redhorse
snail bullhead
White catefish
Yellow bullhead
Brown bullhead
Channel catfish
Spotted bullhead
Black mad torn
Tadpole madtcm
Speckled madtcm
Pirate perch
Atlantic needlefish
Golden topminnow
Banded topminnow
Starhead topminnow
Pygmy ki Hi fish
Bluefin 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 suaetta
Minytrema melanops
Moxostoma sp,
Ictalurus brunneus
Ictalurus catus
Ictalurus natalis
Ictalurus nebulous
Ictalurus punctatus
Ictalurus serracanthus
Noturus funebris
Noturus gyrinus
Noturus leptacanthus
Aphredodsrus sayanus
Strongylura marina
Fundulus chrysotus
Fundulus cingulatus
Fundulus notti
Leptolucania ommata
Lucania goodei
Gambusia af finis
Eeterandria formosa
Labidesth.es sicculus
Morone chrysops
Morone saxatilis
Centrarchus macropterus
Unknown

Enneaeanthus gloriosus
Enneacanthus obesus
Lepomis auritus
Lepomis cyanellus
Lepomis gulosus
E the o stoma swaini
Perca flavescens
Percina nigro fas data
Stizostedion canadense
Agonostomus monticola
Striped mullet
Paralichthys lethostigma
Trine ctes maculatus
Porno xis nigromaculatus
Etheostoma edwini
Etheostoma fusi forme
Etheostoma parvipinne

Source: Yerger (1977)

WILDLIFE

BIRDS

Shallow-tailed Kite
Mississippi Kite
Red-Shouldered Hawk
Pile ate d Woodpecker
Hairy Woodpecker
Acadian Flycatcher
Red-eyed Vireo
Prothonotary Warbler
Swinson's Warbler
Northern Parula
Ye How- throated Warbler
Hooded Warbler
Pl^d-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-will1 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 florfieatus
Iotinia misisippiensis
Buteo LineatvB
Dryooopus pileatus
Dendroaopos villosus
Empidonax vires aens
Vireo olivaeeus
Pro tonot aria aitrea
Limnothlypis swainsonii
Parula americana
Dendroioa dominica
Wilsonia oitrina
Podilymbus podieeps
Anhinga
Ardea herodias

Unknown

Meleagris gallopavo

Porphyrula martini ea

Gallinula ehloropus

Charadrius voaiferus

Philohela minor

Zenaida maeroura

Columbina passerina

Conuropsis earolinensis

Coccyzus amerioanus

Tyto alba

Bubo virginianus

Caprimulgus earolinensis

Chordeilus minor

Chaetura pelagiea

Arehiloehus oolubris

Strix varia

Butorides vires eens

Florida oaerulea

Bubuleus ibis

Casmerodius alba

Leucophoyx thula

Hydranassa tricolor

Aix sponsa

Carthartes aura

Coragyps atratus

Aocipiter eooperii

Buteo Jamaieensis

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

Ye How- 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
Mimus polyglottos
Toxostoma rufum
Hylocichla mustelina
Sidlia sidlis
Polioptila caerula
Lanius ludovicianus
Sturnus vulgaris
Vireo flavifrons
Vireo grseus
Dendroioa pinus
Dendroioa discolor
Seiurus motacilla
Oporonis formosus
Megaoerlye alcyon
Colaptes auratus
Centurus oarolinus
Melanerpes erythrocephalus
Dendrooopos pubescens
Dendrooopos borealis
Campephilus principalis
Tyr annus tyr annus
Myiarchus orinitus
Contopus virens
Stelgidopteryx rufioollis
Hi run do rustioa
Cyanooitta oristata
Corvus braohyrhynahos
Corvus ossifragus
Varus oarolinensis
Varus bioolor
Geo thy lypis tri chas
Ioteria virens
Passer domesticus
Stumella magna
Agelaius phoeniceus
Icterus spurius
Quiscalus quiscula
Molothrus ater
Seiurus motacilla
Piranga rubra
Cardinalis cardinalis

BIRDS (Continued)

Blue Grosbeak
Indi go- Bun ting
Rufous-Sided Towhee
Bachman's Sparrow
Field Sparrow
Chipping Sparrow
*Short- tailed Hawk

Guiraoa aaerulea

Passerina ayanea

Pip lio ery throph tha Imus ,

Aimophila aestivalis

Spizella pusilla

Spiz&lla passerina

Unknown

AMPHIBIANS

SALAMANDERS

Dwarf Siren

Lesser Siren

Greater Siren

Gulf Coast Waterdog

Two- toed Amphiuma
*One-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

Pseudobranahus striatus
Siren intermedia
Siren laeertina
Neaturus beyeri
Amphiuma means
Amphiuma pholeter
Notophthalmus viridesoens
Amby stoma oingulatum
Amby stoma opaoum
Amby stoma talpoideum
Amby stoma tigriunum
Desmognathus aurioulatus
Euryoea bislineata
Euryoea longicauda
Manoulus quadridigitatus
Haideotriton wallaoei
Eemidaotylium soutatum
Pseudotriton mon tonus
Pseudotriton ruber

FROGS

Eastern Spade foot
Oak Toad
Southern Toad
Cricket Frog
Tree Frogs
Spring Peeper
Little Grass Frog
Chorus Frog
** Gopher Frog
Bullfrog

Seaphiopus holbrooki

Bufo queroious

Bufq terrestris

AS'Hs

Unknown

Hyla orueifer

Limnaeodus ocularis

Unknown

Rana aveolata

Rana oatesbeiana

FROGS (Continued)

Bronze Frog
Pig Frog
River Frog
Leopard Frog
Narrow- Mouthed Toad

Rana el ami tans
Rana grylio
Rana heckscheri
Rana pipiens
Gastrophyme eai>olinensis

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 Tuirtle

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

Kinostemon subrubrum

Stemotherus minor

Sternotherus odoratus

Deiroehelys reticularia

Gopherus polyphemus

Graptemys barbouri

Chrysemy concinna suwanniensis

Chrysemys nelsoni

Malaclemys terrapin

Terrapene Carolina

Unknown

Trionyx ferox

Anolis carolinensis

Soeloporus undulatus

Cnemidbphrus sexlineatus

Eumeces anthracinus

Evmeces egregius

Eumeces fasciatus

Eumeces latieeps

Soineella laterale

Unknown

Sistrurus miliarius

Cro talus adamanteus

Chrysemys saripta

Cemophora coccinea

Coluber constrictor

Diadophis punctatus

Drymarchon corais

Elaphe guttata

Elaphe obsoleta

Farancia abacura

Ear and a erytro gramma

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 getulus
Mastioophis flagellum
Natrix cyolopion
Natrix ery thro gas ter
Natrix fasoiatus
Opheodrys aestivus
Pituophis melanoleuoas
Re gin a rigida
Regina septemvittata
Rhadinea flavilata
Seminatrix pygaea
Storeria dekayi
Storeria ocoipitomaoulata
Tantilla ooronata
Thamnophis sauritus
Thamnophis sirtalis
Virginia striatula
Micmrus fulvius
Agkistrodon oontortrix
Agki-strodon 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

Soalopus aquations
Unknown

Pipistrellus subflavus
Eptesious fuscus
Lasiurus oinereus
Lasiurus boreaVis
Unknown

Lasiurus seminotus
Lasiurus intermedius
Nyotioeius humeralis
Pleootus rafinesquii
Tadarida brasiliensis
Dasypus novemeinetus
Sylvilagus floridanus
Sylvilagus palustris
Soiurus oarolinensis
Soiurus niger
Glauoomys volans
Geomys pinetus
Castor canadensis
Miorotus 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 atleni

Neotoma floridana

Sigmodon hispidus

Reithrodontomy humulis

Oryzomys palustris

Per omy sous polionotus

Peromysous gossypinus

Oohrotomys nuttalli

Mus mus cuius

Rattus rattus

Rattus norvegious

Uroayon oinereoargenteus

Vulpes vulpes

Urus amevioanus

Pro ay on to tor

Lutra canadensis

Mephitis mephitis

Spilogale putorius

Mus tela vison

Mus tela frenata

Lynx rufus

Felis ooncolor

Sus scrofa

Odoooileus virginianus

Mustela frenata olivaoea

Sorex longirostris longirostris

^Signifies rare or endangered species
**Signifies threatened species

Source: Manns (1977)

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.

lijBgr